Register here - as a registered user you get more features and fewer ads.
Kilpeck is important because it illustrates the problem for historians when positing the existence of 'an earlier church' without physical or, in the case of Kilpeck, stylistic evidence. Everyone with an interest in Early Christian history should be asking why such an obvious error is ignored (or indeed, believed) because for sure historians won't ask any questions.
Kilpeck church is said to be ‘a perfect example of a Norman church’ and ‘famous for its Norman carvings’, particularly its sheela-na-gig, yet Celticists insist ‘Kil’ is ‘cell’ and ‘peck’ is St Pedic or somesuch and architectural historians claim the carvings are Celtic or even Saxon/Viking which is demonstrably untrue. After all, Green Men and other supposedly Celtic features are part of that most un-Celtic phenomenon, Gothic cathedrals.
Something is not right. This message is just to keep things from messing up down the road