|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Bryn Celli Ddu » Chamber pillar a fossil tree trunk? |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
Michael Bott 60 posts |
May 12, 2009, 13:01
|
||
|
Hi folks long time since Rupert or I posted here but it just struck me that many of you will by now have seen our DVD 'Standing with Stones'. But there is one bit of it that hasn't really had a good airing, and maybe it should - that is Rupert's 'discovery' of the fossil tree trunk in the chamber at Bryn Celli Ddu. We really would like to get some feedback on this and see if anyone out there can either confirm our assertion or give an authoritative alternative explanation of the oddity of that free standing pillar. Let me explain what happened: When filming 'Standing with Stones', during our second week away on our Wales/Ireland expedition, we came to Bryn Celli Ddu on Anglesey. As was our routine, we first took ourselves there to do our preliminary recce. I had been there before - for Rupert it was a first time. Those of you familiar with this site will know that it is a large passage grave with a large central burial chamber. In that chamber is unusually, a single monolith - a pillar of stone. We were in the chamber - me quietly thinking about camera angles and Rupert mulling how he could present this wonderful complex site, when he suddenly spoke to me and drew my attention to something so ridiculous and yet once seen so blindingly obvious that we were both genuinly shocked. We were shocked because lord knows how many people have passed through that little chamber and yet what we were suddenly seeing has been completely missed by everybody. We have looked high and low through all the literature, books, websites and blogs that mention this site. Nobody has seen something right in front of their faces that just doesn’t make any sense. We were so taken aback by the implications of what we’d seen that instead writing script to shoot the next day, we decided we needed time to mull over this anomaly and we took off to Ireland instead - planning to film the Bryn Celli Ddu sequence on our return. Here is the clip on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IubRw2ko69U There are also a couple of photos of us with the pillar here: http://standingstones.tv/2008/07/15/shoot-diary-bryn-celli-ddu/ You’ll notice in the clip that Rupert says that “He came here yesterday” which you now know is not true. But it makes the point and is more succinct than “I came here ten days ago and I’ve been on a round trip through Ireland since in order to work out what I’m going to say next” There have not been any experts gone to check the pillar as yet and we’d really like an expert second opinion on our interpretation of this little conundrum. Anybody? Michael
|
|||
|
megadread 1202 posts |
May 12, 2009, 13:21
|
||
|
Weird. ! The only other site i can think of with a "tree" in the centre is Seahenge.
|
|||
goffik 3926 posts |
May 12, 2009, 13:37
|
||
|
Hi Michael As I'm not a geologist or owt, I can't offer any expert advice, but have been thinking about this a fair bit recently... I was trying to dig out a nice photo for the monthly wallpaper over at the Heritage Action website (http://www.heritageaction.org) when I came across our photos of Bryn Celli Ddu - I remembered a discussion on this from last year and lo and behold, some photos of the very stone in my collection! I was unaware of the discussion on my visit, and only discovered it afterwards. Looking at the photos though, and with the benefit of hindsight, I'm absolutely convinced you're right on this one! It looks exactly like a tree trunk. Astonishing, as you say, that nobody's picked up on it previously! Hopefully one of our resident geologists will be able to shed some more "official" light on this, cos it'd be great to know for sure :) G x
|
|||
|
Michael Bott 60 posts |
May 12, 2009, 14:41
|
||
|
Hi goff. I can't tell you how Rupert and I tried to put the idea out of our minds. We spent a long time in the chamber there, shaking our heads. The problem is not so much the possibility of it being a fossil, but the explanation for the 'cut' and 'blow' marks. It is hard to convey in words how compelling the visual evidence is that these marks were made *before* it became rock. I cannot conceive of a tool hard or sharp enough to make marks like this in any kind of rock without shattering it and leaving such sharp, well defined edges. Well, not beyond a diamond edged buzz saw, that is. It's a tough one. We're in the realms of 'forbidden archaeology' here. You can see why Rupert and I really didn't want to have to deal with it.
|
|||
tiompan 5758 posts |
May 12, 2009, 15:28
|
||
I have no expertise in geology but my guess and parsimony suggests that the markings are a result of geology and the stone itself is not petrified but was chosen because of it's appearance .
|
|||
|
dee 1955 posts |
May 12, 2009, 16:14
|
||
Hmmmm....interesting thread, any experts out there? Ive never visited the sight but from photos ive seen and the SWS dvd, it does look like a tree trunk with axe cuts in it.......
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
May 12, 2009, 16:31
|
||
|
Scroll down to bark like rock .I'm not suggesting that this is what is in BCD but merely pointing out that geology provides simulacara . http://firerocks.biz/custom-lava-rocks.html
|
|||
|
Michael Bott 60 posts |
May 12, 2009, 16:54
|
||
|
We,ve absolutely no doubt that the stone was chosen for its appearance - as Rupert says in the film, it would have appeared as magical to whoever placed it there. Interestingly, some of the stones used to build the monument itself are 'wood-like' in appearance, most notably the lintel and stones around the entrance. However, those stones are definitely stone whose geology lends the woody surface texture. Also those stones are slabs - that is - the stone has naturally fissured to reveal the texture. The pillar, on the other hand, is cylindrical. And the texture seems to be a surface texture - not an outward expression of the matrix of the stone. It's one of those things that is hard to discuss without us all being in the chamber together and thrashing it out! Photos or film just does not seem to convey the sheer 'woody' presence of the thing.
|
|||
Pete G 3506 posts |
May 12, 2009, 16:56
|
||
|
Try asking Dr Rob Ixer ([email protected]) He should be able to tell you, PeteG
|
|||
|
Rupert Soskin 234 posts |
May 12, 2009, 18:03
|
||
|
Hi Folks, Whilst I am no expert, I do have some geological training (much of it with the brilliand Dr Alan Timms, geologist for the Natural History Museum before he retired). I also have quite a few samples of petrified wood in my own collection. It's true what Tiompan says, that many organic looking features are found occurring naturally in rocks. The thing with this pillar is that when I looked closely, none of the features fit with my own experience of mineral behaviour. The overall bark effect could simply be a rock type with multi-planar morphology (built up from loads of thin layers) but as I said in the film, the 'bark' looks like it has dragged towards the right of the cuts whereas crystal inclusions usually create clean edges which remain that way even after the inclusion itself has eroded away. Also, the marks lower down the pillar which look like blows have a pulpy edge. Again, individually, the marks could be explained geologically but for the fact that one overlays the other. The essential point for the builders of BCD is that it 'looks' like wood but whether it really is or not it would be great to have it nailed by experts.
|
| Pages: 10 – [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
