=
×

Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
Register
The Modern Antiquarian Forum »
Stonehenge »
Stone Shifting 3
Log In to post a reply
144 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
nigelswift
8112 posts

Re: Number 3
Sep 05, 2003, 04:26
I was about to post saying OK I’ll go along with the general feeling, but still I do think the issue warrants a bit more of an airing and it would be ideal if we came to some sort of consensus, as best we can. I can feel Gordon saying too much talking, let’s do it! which is why he’s got a great idea and I haven’t. Still, it’s the middle of the night, so I might as well.

I’m not sure whether specific inferences can be drawn from elsewhere about Stonehenge 3a or Silbury 3. Both were one-off, unprecedented, hi-tech and megalomaniac. Suggestive of invaders, perhaps, which tends against your solutions 1 and 2. Which leaves me wondering about… “3. A community was capable of building its own megalithic structure.” For the small stuff, I very much like this and I agree with FW that Gordon’s ideas suddenly shrink “community” down to “family”. In the end, this may be Gordon’s strongest contribution to thinking (which isn’t bad, since it’s 99% of them!)

Silbury obviously doesn’t fit with a local Amish barn arrangement - estimates vary greatly, but 1000 people working seasonally for 30 years is a popular one – so maybe there was a bigger local population than has been thought or maybe your suggestion of direction by a regional priesthood (the Marlborough Mound people?) is right. We really don’t know, but the one “certainty” is that they DID have a big workforce (and I don’t think Gordon’s technology can reduce that much since it’s more applicable to stones than rubble).

So clearly, for whatever reason, Silbury suggests that big workforces for big projects was at least a possibility.

On the other hand, Avebury may argue the opposite. Mr Burl suggests about 30 families. The estimates for man-hours if far less than Silbury so, especially if they used stone-rowing, maybe this is possible. (Why didn’t the Silbury thousand help? Were they invaders? Or was that religious business, that the Marlborough priests directed?)

So, I’d say the evidence for a large workforce at Stonehenge points both ways! I hope you find this helpful.

In truth, of course, we don’t know, although it’s almost universally assumed there was, as you know. My own feeling that there was one is a bit flimsy, I admit, but strongly felt – small megaliths were hauled up, presumably, so when presented with the problem of taller megaliths their immediate reaction would be to haul harder, not build a tower. But then, it IS a one-off monument, using unique design features…

I’d love to solve the “shape of the hole” issue first, and see if there are any clues. If the shape of our holes are different, and we can’t explain why, it will be unfortunate. Also, perhaps we should bear in mind whether any Big Beast of archaeology that can be attracted to the project will have any strong opinions.
In reply to:
Number 3 (FourWinds)		 Replies:
Re: Number 3 (FourWinds)
Re: Number 3 (Steve Gray)
Topic Outline:
The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index