|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Trefael » Trefael..more may and maybe's |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Dec 04, 2010, 09:29
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: tjj wrote: tiompan wrote: Sanctuary wrote: tiompan wrote: tjj wrote: Sanctuary wrote: It is an interesting stone isn't it? The other take on it is that the cup marks may represent star constellations. Speculation about 'religious' practices is just that - speculation. However,I think it is fairly safe to say ancient peoples marked the turning of the year (solstices/equinoxes) and studied the constellations - which would have been so very much more visible to the naked eye than in general today. http://www.pasthorizons.com/index.php/archives/11/2010/standing-stone-cup-marks-may-represent-star-constellations The interesting and informative aspect is that the abstract rock art of Britain doesn't appear to represent constellations or the night sky at all . We might expect it to and should really be able to squeeze some sort of "possible" representation out of the the huge number of possibilities but none are convincing . Yes I agree even though it is a tantilising concept. What does bug me though, is if Joe Public comes up with some of these ideas they are sneered at, yet if a 'name' suggests the possibility it is seriously considered it would seem! Or am I wrong there? I think your'e right . It reminds of me of last years foot ,spiral , and fish iirc being found at Forteviot when it was obviously nothing of the kind but still a really interesting example of rock art , by gilding the lily they spoilt it .Now they don't even mention it . In this case they havn't presented any evidence yet . There are so many problems ,Imentioned a few of them elsewhere so please exscuse the copy ."Looking forward to the drawings .It will be a first if it is as promised .My guess is that it is more likely a case of apophenia .Some problems that come to mind from the limited amount of info . Orion has 7 stars Cassio 5 Sirius and the pole star gives a total of 14 from 70 .Do the remainder fit ? If Sirius is there where is Aldebaran , the belt points to both , Procion and Rigel are also prominent around Orion , are they also missing ? At the time of build of Portal tombs the pole star was Thuban which was quite faint , would it really have been viewed as important enough to mark and is there a relationship between magnitude and size of cup (Frankie Howard )? "They mention a section of the sky when Thuban to Orion are pretty much half of the entire horizon . Very interesting Tiompan; I am guessing that you may in touch with people like Professor George Nash because of the rock art connection. He much surely know the same facts as you have stated above - why do you think conjecture such as 'constellation map' and 'ritual way-mark' have been made when they are ultimately misleading to anyone who has on one hand a keen interest, possibly his own students, though on the other a limited knowledge of astronomy (the ritual/religious aspect is anyone's guess). At least I've learnt the meaning of apophenia = the spontaneous perception of connections and meaningfulness of unrelated phenomena. Term was coined by K. Conrad in 1958 (Brugger). The constellation stuff is attributable to nameless "astronomers " TJJ and that is the bigger mistake as it is refutable . If archaeologists accept what they say in relation to the slightly more technical aspect and ignore the obvious i.e. you could find anything among these points/cups plus a history of similar failed attempts then thats their problem .The ritual way marker is just conjecture as you say , you could discuss it forever it's just a matter of opinion but it's not really in the same league as ordered architecture like avenues ,passages and entrances , it is after all a collapsed capstone not a standing stone .In it's original state it would have functioned to a greater extent as an ordering architectural feature . It has to be very difficult for an archaeologist or serious researcher to not reach a 'conclusion' at times. If you have studied a subject for many years and feel you have as gone as far as you can in a belief (because that in the main is what it will only always be) and see no other plausible explanation, then it has to be very tempting to 'reveal all'. Unfortunately for a recognised figure it could end their career, while someone such as myself for instance can say what they like and carry on regardless! And of course the pressure is always there that someone else may come up with the same idea as you and beat you to it if you don't make a stand earlier. It must be one of the most frustrating things ever to study and research endlessly and not reach a conclusion.
|
|||
tiompan 5758 posts |
Dec 04, 2010, 10:43
|
||
|
Sanctuary wrote: tiompan wrote: tjj wrote: tiompan wrote: Sanctuary wrote: tiompan wrote: tjj wrote: Sanctuary wrote: It is an interesting stone isn't it? The other take on it is that the cup marks may represent star constellations. Speculation about 'religious' practices is just that - speculation. However,I think it is fairly safe to say ancient peoples marked the turning of the year (solstices/equinoxes) and studied the constellations - which would have been so very much more visible to the naked eye than in general today. http://www.pasthorizons.com/index.php/archives/11/2010/standing-stone-cup-marks-may-represent-star-constellations The interesting and informative aspect is that the abstract rock art of Britain doesn't appear to represent constellations or the night sky at all . We might expect it to and should really be able to squeeze some sort of "possible" representation out of the the huge number of possibilities but none are convincing . Yes I agree even though it is a tantilising concept. What does bug me though, is if Joe Public comes up with some of these ideas they are sneered at, yet if a 'name' suggests the possibility it is seriously considered it would seem! Or am I wrong there? I think your'e right . It reminds of me of last years foot ,spiral , and fish iirc being found at Forteviot when it was obviously nothing of the kind but still a really interesting example of rock art , by gilding the lily they spoilt it .Now they don't even mention it . In this case they havn't presented any evidence yet . There are so many problems ,Imentioned a few of them elsewhere so please exscuse the copy ."Looking forward to the drawings .It will be a first if it is as promised .My guess is that it is more likely a case of apophenia .Some problems that come to mind from the limited amount of info . Orion has 7 stars Cassio 5 Sirius and the pole star gives a total of 14 from 70 .Do the remainder fit ? If Sirius is there where is Aldebaran , the belt points to both , Procion and Rigel are also prominent around Orion , are they also missing ? At the time of build of Portal tombs the pole star was Thuban which was quite faint , would it really have been viewed as important enough to mark and is there a relationship between magnitude and size of cup (Frankie Howard )? "They mention a section of the sky when Thuban to Orion are pretty much half of the entire horizon . Very interesting Tiompan; I am guessing that you may in touch with people like Professor George Nash because of the rock art connection. He much surely know the same facts as you have stated above - why do you think conjecture such as 'constellation map' and 'ritual way-mark' have been made when they are ultimately misleading to anyone who has on one hand a keen interest, possibly his own students, though on the other a limited knowledge of astronomy (the ritual/religious aspect is anyone's guess). At least I've learnt the meaning of apophenia = the spontaneous perception of connections and meaningfulness of unrelated phenomena. Term was coined by K. Conrad in 1958 (Brugger). The constellation stuff is attributable to nameless "astronomers " TJJ and that is the bigger mistake as it is refutable . If archaeologists accept what they say in relation to the slightly more technical aspect and ignore the obvious i.e. you could find anything among these points/cups plus a history of similar failed attempts then thats their problem .The ritual way marker is just conjecture as you say , you could discuss it forever it's just a matter of opinion but it's not really in the same league as ordered architecture like avenues ,passages and entrances , it is after all a collapsed capstone not a standing stone .In it's original state it would have functioned to a greater extent as an ordering architectural feature . It has to be very difficult for an archaeologist or serious researcher to not reach a 'conclusion' at times. If you have studied a subject for many years and feel you have as gone as far as you can in a belief (because that in the main is what it will only always be) and see no other plausible explanation, then it has to be very tempting to 'reveal all'. Unfortunately for a recognised figure it could end their career, while someone such as myself for instance can say what they like and carry on regardless! And of course the pressure is always there that someone else may come up with the same idea as you and beat you to it if you don't make a stand earlier. It must be one of the most frustrating things ever to study and research endlessly and not reach a conclusion. When a referee or bus driver makes a mistake it might be the end of their careers but not archaeologists . Nobody cares and for the few that do it's all forgotten in a season or two ,by then there is another article/book written and others making coming out with equally unlikely stories .Lets face it if and when the astronomers findings are made public and they are shown to be wishful thinking , although some will still buy it , there will be no press announcements it will quietly disappear , meanwhile there has been a nice bit of publicity . Happens all the time and possibly it's driven by funding as much as anything else .
|
|||
|
George Nash 5 posts |
Dec 06, 2010, 01:05
|
||
|
Dear Team, I like the banter. However, what you are both probably not aware of is that during the excavation of the site, a clear vertical cut was recorded within the cairn that originally formed the mound of the Portal Dolmen. The cut lay close to the upper (buried) face of the former capstone. From this and other bits of evidence it was clear to me that I was dealing with a two-phased monument: first phase as a Portal Dolmen and then, during the Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age, after the burial monument had fallen out of use and had become denuded, the capstone was up-ended and used as a standing stone. Close by to the north on a ridge are three/four BA barrows/cairns. Finds were limited but we did retrieve three pierced slate beads, possible Late Mesolithic in date. We intend to do more work there in 2011 so, alas still lots of 'may bes' - just in case! Take care -GHN
|
|||
tjj 3606 posts |
Dec 06, 2010, 08:32
|
||
|
George Nash wrote: Dear Team, I like the banter. However, what you are both probably not aware of is that during the excavation of the site, a clear vertical cut was recorded within the cairn that originally formed the mound of the Portal Dolmen. The cut lay close to the upper (buried) face of the former capstone. From this and other bits of evidence it was clear to me that I was dealing with a two-phased monument: first phase as a Portal Dolmen and then, during the Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age, after the burial monument had fallen out of use and had become denuded, the capstone was up-ended and used as a standing stone. Close by to the north on a ridge are three/four BA barrows/cairns. Finds were limited but we did retrieve three pierced slate beads, possible Late Mesolithic in date. We intend to do more work there in 2011 so, alas still lots of 'may bes' - just in case! Take care -GHN Oo-er! Hello George Nash, I enjoyed the exchange too (by team I'm guessing you meant Tiompan and Sanctuary as you address team as 'both'). All fascinating stuff, I keep up with a lot of your work via Facebook and other web-sites - thanks for taking the trouble to post here, am sure it will be appreciated by all. best wishes tjj
|
|||
|
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Dec 06, 2010, 09:10
|
||
|
George Nash wrote: Dear Team, I like the banter. However, what you are both probably not aware of is that during the excavation of the site, a clear vertical cut was recorded within the cairn that originally formed the mound of the Portal Dolmen. The cut lay close to the upper (buried) face of the former capstone. From this and other bits of evidence it was clear to me that I was dealing with a two-phased monument: first phase as a Portal Dolmen and then, during the Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age, after the burial monument had fallen out of use and had become denuded, the capstone was up-ended and used as a standing stone. Close by to the north on a ridge are three/four BA barrows/cairns. Finds were limited but we did retrieve three pierced slate beads, possible Late Mesolithic in date. We intend to do more work there in 2011 so, alas still lots of 'may bes' - just in case! Take care -GHN Thank you for that valuable information George. So good to hear it straight from the horses mouth so to speak!
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Dec 06, 2010, 10:05
|
||
|
George Nash wrote: Dear Team, I like the banter. However, what you are both probably not aware of is that during the excavation of the site, a clear vertical cut was recorded within the cairn that originally formed the mound of the Portal Dolmen. The cut lay close to the upper (buried) face of the former capstone. From this and other bits of evidence it was clear to me that I was dealing with a two-phased monument: first phase as a Portal Dolmen and then, during the Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age, after the burial monument had fallen out of use and had become denuded, the capstone was up-ended and used as a standing stone. Close by to the north on a ridge are three/four BA barrows/cairns. Finds were limited but we did retrieve three pierced slate beads, possible Late Mesolithic in date. We intend to do more work there in 2011 so, alas still lots of 'may bes' - just in case! Take care -GHN Hello George , can't talk for anyone but I was certainly aware ,from various sites e.g.” Past Horizons “of the cut and the suggestion the monument was two phased although the evidence for the second phase (standing stone ) seems limited when the physical evidence might suggest simply a collapsed capstone ,there are no packing stones to have kept it upright which may have been expected . The finds were also mentioned including the medieval sherds although the BA barrows were not on anything I had seen .The only barrows noted locally on Coflein is the cemetery at Crugiau Cemmaes 2.5 K to the north east which looks like it would be unsighted from the stone due to the ridge at between the stone and Post -goch . If there are others that are sighted from the stone it would be good to know . The point about the stone being a standing stone or marker and within a “sacred landscape “ is all conjecture and could be discussed for ever and was not the point of the “banter “ which was mainly concerned about the main headline relating to the stone i.e. “may represent star constellations” . It would be good if some of this banter could be addressed ,along with the fact that no other representation of the heavens has been found on a cup marked rock in the UK .“Orion has 7 stars Cassio 5 Sirius and the pole star gives a total of 14 from 70 .Do the remainder fit ? If Sirius is there where is Aldebaran , the belt points to both , Procion and Rigel are also prominent around Orion , are they also missing ? At the time of build of Portal tombs the pole star was Thuban which was quite faint , would it really have been viewed as important enough to mark and is there a relationship between magnitude and size of cup (Frankie Howard )? "They mention a section of the sky when Thuban to Orion are pretty much half of the entire horizon . “
|
|||
|
George Nash 5 posts |
Dec 06, 2010, 15:49
|
||
|
Hi Tiompan, many thanks for your comments. I think you are right to challenge my ideas as I feel archaeologist don’t always have all the answers. But in my defence and using the words of my late mum: Reach for the stars but keep your feet firmly on the ground. Concerning the site morphology, I think you should have been there. A clear vertical cut was located close to the upper edge of the former capstone and was clearly packed using the existing cairn. The counter-argument to the site though is that during the post-medieval period many of these monuments were fair game to landowners looking for building/road stone; monuments had really lost their power. At Tefael, the archaeology could have been near enough destroyed. However, I think cautiously we have encountered in situ remains with slight surface disturbance (hence the discovery of a neck section of the medieval flagon). The geophysical survey undertaken by Tom Wellicome clearly shows a kidney-shaped anomoly and we encountered a section of this during excavation. An interim grey literature report is being written up at the moment by myself and I am more than happy to send this off to you and fellow correspondees (I need your email addresses). Next season’s work should help answer some more questions including those sought by yourself. You take care GHN
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Dec 06, 2010, 16:10
|
||
|
George Nash wrote: Hi Tiompan, many thanks for your comments. I think you are right to challenge my ideas as I feel archaeologist don’t always have all the answers. But in my defence and using the words of my late mum: Reach for the stars but keep your feet firmly on the ground. Concerning the site morphology, I think you should have been there. A clear vertical cut was located close to the upper edge of the former capstone and was clearly packed using the existing cairn. The counter-argument to the site though is that during the post-medieval period many of these monuments were fair game to landowners looking for building/road stone; monuments had really lost their power. At Tefael, the archaeology could have been near enough destroyed. However, I think cautiously we have encountered in situ remains with slight surface disturbance (hence the discovery of a neck section of the medieval flagon). The geophysical survey undertaken by Tom Wellicome clearly shows a kidney-shaped anomoly and we encountered a section of this during excavation. An interim grey literature report is being written up at the moment by myself and I am more than happy to send this off to you and fellow correspondees (I need your email addresses). Next season’s work should help answer some more questions including those sought by yourself. You take care GHN George , I didn't question the morphology , I think I made clear that I accepted it .The main problem was the interpretation of the markings and the challenge would have related to the interpretation of the stone as a "stanfding stone , marker and ralted to the a "sacred landscape ",but as I said that would be virtually irrefutable from both view points and therefore just a discussion , the interpretation of the markings is refutable and is more than a challenge . The site of barrows would be interesting because if they are not the unsighted Crugiau Cemmaes cemetery and they are on the horizon ridge west of Post goch then the astronomers may have missed something more obvious , salient and at least provable i.e. a possible major standstill alignment .The orientation of the monument would also be interesting . Thanks .
|
|||
|
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Dec 06, 2010, 16:11
|
||
|
George Nash wrote: Hi Tiompan, many thanks for your comments. I think you are right to challenge my ideas as I feel archaeologist don’t always have all the answers. But in my defence and using the words of my late mum: Reach for the stars but keep your feet firmly on the ground. Concerning the site morphology, I think you should have been there. A clear vertical cut was located close to the upper edge of the former capstone and was clearly packed using the existing cairn. The counter-argument to the site though is that during the post-medieval period many of these monuments were fair game to landowners looking for building/road stone; monuments had really lost their power. At Tefael, the archaeology could have been near enough destroyed. However, I think cautiously we have encountered in situ remains with slight surface disturbance (hence the discovery of a neck section of the medieval flagon). The geophysical survey undertaken by Tom Wellicome clearly shows a kidney-shaped anomoly and we encountered a section of this during excavation. An interim grey literature report is being written up at the moment by myself and I am more than happy to send this off to you and fellow correspondees (I need your email addresses). Next season’s work should help answer some more questions including those sought by yourself. You take care GHN Well I for one appreciate your honesty George and hope that you feel you can join in much more with our day to day comings and goings. It is very difficult from the 'outside' to sometimes understand what an archaeologist has to go through while we just sit back and comment on what for most of us, if not all, is a passion we would like to be more involved with. We rely heavily on official accounts and are extremely grateful when people such as yourself offer them willingly. I would love a copy of your report if I may and thank you in advance. My email address is: [email protected] Thanks again
|
|||
|
George Nash 5 posts |
Dec 07, 2010, 14:26
|
||
|
Hi Roy, The report should be ready soon and will send you over a PDF copy. Concerning your colleague’s scepticism, a prominent barrow cemetery does stand around 2.5 km to the north but they don't have to be in direct view with Trefael. It could be the case that during the Bronze Age, Trefael and other standing stones (associated with the barrows/cairns) interacted with each other and only the nearest standing stone to the barrow cemetery was intervisible (see Children & Nash 2001 [research in Breconshire]). I will say that your mate Tiompan is a tad curt with his responses. When dealing with archaeology, there are number of approaches one can make. The first and most useful is the report which is usually very flat, banal but informative. However, we are dealing with people but many archaeologists still focus on artefacts. In prehistory, ‘if we don’t have a go’, the subject is dehumanised flat and...guess what...banal. To play safe, I will still use 'maybe'. Like I said earlier, you should have been there. We will be probably excavating/investigating here in June/July 2011 and you are of course welcome to come along and have a look. GHN
|
| Pages: 4 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
