12 bar
|
Vitrified Forts
May 23, 2002, 23:57
|
|
Bugger them
|
BrigantesNation
|
Re: Vitrified Forts
May 24, 2002, 00:16
|
|
Whats wrong with em?
|
caergog
|
Re: Vitrified Forts
May 24, 2002, 00:48
|
|
i think they already are!
|
BrigantesNation
|
Re: Vitrified Forts
May 24, 2002, 00:54
|
Hi there!
I'm busy uplaoding some stuff for you. it won't be up for another hour but at http://www.brigantesnation.com you'l find a link to a gazeteer. under craig Phadrig is everything I know about the site and a list of stuff I'd like to find out.
It looks like I've got a dutch megalith's editor for my site! She's the one digging out a burial mound at the moment.
|
12 bar
|
Burnt Mounds
May 24, 2002, 18:23
|
|
I suppose you like those as well.
|
BrigantesNation
|
Re: Burnt Mounds
May 24, 2002, 18:35
|
|
Got a problem?
|
IronMan
|
troll
May 24, 2002, 18:56
|
|
stop. now.
|
12 bar
|
My problem
May 24, 2002, 19:42
|
|
To my mind some ancient monuments are just ancient but not interesting. Vitrification of any kind appals me. Sorry. I'm squeamish that the vitrification may have been the cause of a dreadful anguish some time in the distant past. As I believe that the now and the then are directly plugged into each other, it causes me a problem. Even if you send me to a plain old hillfort, I won't be interested until I see former Neolithic remains within the defences which I can get a handle on because it suggests a gentler way of life than the presence of those foul Iron Age ditches. So vitrification? I shudder.
|
FourWinds
|
Re: My problem
May 24, 2002, 21:03
|
OK. But different things boil different peoples jam so there's no need (and no room on this forum) to slag people without justification.
If you'd have written the above explanation with the 'Bugger Them' line then that's ok. Personally I think the 'Bugger Them' on it's own is Trolling. Please refrain from being a git :-)
I partly agree with you by the way. Some of the possibilities that exist around virification are quite horrific, but I still think the subject is worthy of thought. They are an oddity that seem to defy full and satisfactory explanation - even more so than a lot of older remains, such as the neolithic you mention.
I'm not so sure that the neolithic was all that nice by the way. Granted a lot less seems to point to less warfare. However, the mortality rates were higher, food was just as likely to eat you as you are to eat it (at least in Ireland - remember the coutryside was covered in wolves and bears back then) and disease was rife too.
I know it not warfare as we would know it, but sure weren't too pleasant.
|
BrigantesNation
|
Re: My problem
May 25, 2002, 01:20
|
Hi 12 bar,
Only tihng I can add is that I think I've just discovered a two mile long stone row, which has been largely obliterated by an Iron age dyke. If I wasn't looking for the dyke, I wouldn't have found the row.
I believe that in a large number of cases the neolithic is hidden by the activities of later years, therefore the periods are linked and to ignore one would remove knowledge of the other.
I'm convinced that no-one died in the making of a vitrified fort (other than possible sacrifices), one day I hope to prove it.
On the other hand I possibly understand how you feel. You see I hate the Romans. Before they came into my area Brigantia things were very peaceful - hill forts had been abandoned for several hundred years over the whole of "middle" britain. There are no signs of border disputes in this period, the only trouble makers were down south.
Yet every day I have to look at Roman things in order to find out about what happened before they arrived.
What does turn you on? stones in particular? Don't you like burial mounds?
|
