Cursuswalker
|
PLEASE THANK SUSSEX ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY
Jul 19, 2007, 10:57
|
If anyone felt able to thank Sussex Archaeological Society for their apology it might be a good thing.
You can do this here (See bottom of page):
http://www.sussexexpress.co.uk/news?articleid=3038817
|
JohnDee007
|
Re: STATEMENT FROM THE SUSSEX ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIE
Jul 19, 2007, 18:05
|
|
Cursuswalker wrote: JohnDee007 wrote:
Because without that 'something', they are nothing. Very sad indeed.
This from someone as positive as you?
So cutting!
Now you are taking things personally. I am sorry, it wasn't meant as a personal attack upon your character directly. I was refering to the types who like wear their labels like uniforms, as a means to massaging their egos.
|
Cursuswalker
|
Re: STATEMENT FROM THE SUSSEX ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIE
Jul 19, 2007, 22:05
|
|
JohnDee007 wrote: Cursuswalker wrote: JohnDee007 wrote:
Because without that 'something', they are nothing. Very sad indeed.
This from someone as positive as you?
So cutting!
Now you are taking things personally. I am sorry, it wasn't meant as a personal attack upon your character directly. I was refering to the types who like wear their labels like uniforms, as a means to massaging their egos.
Aha! A double blind. Very clever...
|
tiompan
|
Re: STATEMENT FROM THE SUSSEX ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIE
Jul 20, 2007, 09:18
|
This comment , from somebody who had actually worked on the excavation , was posted recently on Britarch and may be of interest .
Hi,
Can I correct one thing, the Long Man was not re-cut in the 19th century, as
it was never 'cut' in the first place. Our excavations confirmed that it had
never been a chalk-cut figure, and had been laid out in bricks from its
construction in the 16th century.
During one of its numerous re-linings, this one being at the end of the 19th
century, an experiment was carried out to see if it could be cut into the
chalk. This resulted in a cut at the top of the head (re-located in our
excavation). However, the experiment failed and it was once again laid out
in bricks.
Hope this clarifies the popular misconception that the Long Man is a chalk
cut hill figure. A report on our excavations will be forthcoming in Sussex
Archaeological Collections in due course, and interim reports have appeared
in the SAS newsletter.
Chris Butler
|
Cursuswalker
|
Re: STATEMENT FROM THE SUSSEX ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIE
Jul 20, 2007, 16:52
|
|
tiompan wrote: This comment , from somebody who had actually worked on the excavation , was posted recently on Britarch and may be of interest .
Hi,
Can I correct one thing, the Long Man was not re-cut in the 19th century, as
it was never 'cut' in the first place. Our excavations confirmed that it had
never been a chalk-cut figure, and had been laid out in bricks from its
construction in the 16th century.
During one of its numerous re-linings, this one being at the end of the 19th
century, an experiment was carried out to see if it could be cut into the
chalk. This resulted in a cut at the top of the head (re-located in our
excavation). However, the experiment failed and it was once again laid out
in bricks.
Hope this clarifies the popular misconception that the Long Man is a chalk
cut hill figure. A report on our excavations will be forthcoming in Sussex
Archaeological Collections in due course, and interim reports have appeared
in the SAS newsletter.
Chris Butler
I find it very easy to believe that the current naturalistic figure was never chalk cut.
However, when what is on top of the hill is taken into account there are still questions to be answered about the pre-history of the site.
I find it difficult to believe that in the 16th century people decided to use a previously completely un-used slope to put a figure on, and that they decided to place the figure directly below a huge round barrow, and make it the same length as the largest long barrow in the area, with the top of that long barrow pointing at the top of their brand new figure. This being at a time when the nature of such barrows had not even begun to be understood.
Unless...
...the space was used because of rumours or traces of a previous figure of some kind on that slope.
This would tie in well with medieval attitudes towards giants and the dreamtime-like stories of giants forming the landscape that I think appeared, or were popularised, around that time.
As ever, look at the wider landscape context.
|
tiompan
|
Re: STATEMENT FROM THE SUSSEX ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIE
Jul 20, 2007, 17:15
|
|
Cursuswalker wrote: [quote="tiompan"]
As ever, look at the wider landscape context.
Always useful but multi period use of sites is common e.g. Salisbury plain .
Given the choice between a phenomenological approach and an excavation my dosh would go on the latter.
|
Robert Carr
|
Re: STATEMENT FROM THE SUSSEX ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIE
Jul 20, 2007, 18:20
|
|
tiompan wrote: Given the choice between a phenomenological approach and an excavation my dosh would go on the latter.
Yes of course. Excavation can give incredible insight. One more item perhaps on the to-do list for John Manley, CEO of Sussex Archaeologcal Society. He was Clwyd County Archaeologist in the 1970s/1980s and did some good works up on my patch.
It's also good to hear the views and theories of Cursuswalker, a landscape detective who undoubtedly has both knowledge of and attachment to this area.
|
Cursuswalker
|
Re: STATEMENT FROM THE SUSSEX ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIE
Jul 21, 2007, 13:53
|
|
tiompan wrote: Cursuswalker wrote: [quote="tiompan"]
As ever, look at the wider landscape context.
Always useful but multi period use of sites is common e.g. Salisbury plain .
Given the choice between a phenomenological approach and an excavation my dosh would go on the latter.
I would be fascinated to see further excavation of the site. With a rider that enough should be left unexcavated to be of use for future, as yet undiscovered, techniques to be able to shed light on the site.
|
tiompan
|
Re: STATEMENT FROM THE SUSSEX ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIE
Jul 21, 2007, 14:11
|
|
Cursuswalker wrote:
I would be fascinated to see further excavation of the site. With a rider that enough should be left unexcavated to be of use for future, as yet undiscovered, techniques to be able to shed light on the site.
Anything wrong with the last excavation ? It is almost common practice to take into consideration future generations of archaeos and technology and leave something for them e.g. Stonehenge , lots of it still to be excavated .
|
Cursuswalker
|
Re: STATEMENT FROM THE SUSSEX ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIE
Jul 21, 2007, 17:12
|
|
tiompan wrote: Cursuswalker wrote:
I would be fascinated to see further excavation of the site. With a rider that enough should be left unexcavated to be of use for future, as yet undiscovered, techniques to be able to shed light on the site.
Anything wrong with the last excavation ? It is almost common practice to take into consideration future generations of archaeos and technology and leave something for them e.g. Stonehenge , lots of it still to be excavated .
Only the same that is wrong with any excavation: that it only records information about that part of the site.
Why do you ask?
|
