|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Trefael » Trefael..more may and maybe's |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
moss 2897 posts |
Dec 07, 2010, 14:48
|
||
|
George Nash wrote: 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 I have'nt been keeping up with the thread but something similar is being said here is'nt it? in your 'Encoding the Neolithic Landscape' article http://www.archaeology-safaris.co.uk/gn/pdf/Time%20&%20Mind%20paper%2007.08.pdf. I've been to most of the cromlechs here, the stone for GarnWynda must be this one maybe ....... http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/post/32020/parc_hen_stone.html This is going to sound silly, but years ago when I was studying a map of Pembrokeshire, there seemed to be standing stones in a straight row from around St.Clears to St. David's through the landscape..
|
|||
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Dec 07, 2010, 15:25
|
||
|
George Nash wrote: 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 Thank you kindly George I look forward to receiving it. I don't know the site personally just picking up the report as I was browsing. Yes I would like to come along and have a look come next year. Maybe you would be kind enough to keep me in the picture. In defence of tiompan (another George) I would say that I'm sure he never meant to come across as being curt as I have always found him to be very courteous but like myself and of course yourself, he is very focused and takes things seriously and makes no claims unless 100% satisfied he can confirm things. And I'm delighted to hear that you are always prepared to 'have a go' so that the subject matter is kept alive as by doing so it stays so much more interesting and leaves things somewhat open for others to also consider.
|
|||
tiompan 5758 posts |
Dec 07, 2010, 17:50
|
||
|
Sanctuary wrote: George Nash wrote: 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 Thank you kindly George I look forward to receiving it. I don't know the site personally just picking up the report as I was browsing. Yes I would like to come along and have a look come next year. Maybe you would be kind enough to keep me in the picture. In defence of tiompan (another George) I would say that I'm sure he never meant to come across as being curt as I have always found him to be very courteous but like myself and of course yourself, he is very focused and takes things seriously and makes no claims unless 100% satisfied he can confirm things. And I'm delighted to hear that you are always prepared to 'have a go' so that the subject matter is kept alive as by doing so it stays so much more interesting and leaves things somewhat open for others to also consider. Thanks Roy , I hope I kept to the point and was more no more curt than GHN was supercillious in his "banter " ,"probably not aware " ( which was wrong , shown why and uneccessary ) and "right to challenge " (gee thanks , what do you expect and how about some answers then ?) comments . Apart from mentioning to you the fact that the cemetery is the unsighted one , it looks like I'm not getting a reply to any of the problems raised .
|
|||
tjj 3606 posts |
Dec 07, 2010, 18:19
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: Sanctuary wrote: George Nash wrote: 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 Thank you kindly George I look forward to receiving it. I don't know the site personally just picking up the report as I was browsing. Yes I would like to come along and have a look come next year. Maybe you would be kind enough to keep me in the picture. In defence of tiompan (another George) I would say that I'm sure he never meant to come across as being curt as I have always found him to be very courteous but like myself and of course yourself, he is very focused and takes things seriously and makes no claims unless 100% satisfied he can confirm things. And I'm delighted to hear that you are always prepared to 'have a go' so that the subject matter is kept alive as by doing so it stays so much more interesting and leaves things somewhat open for others to also consider. Thanks Roy , I hope I kept to the point and was more no more curt than GHN was supercillious in his "banter " ,"probably not aware " ( which was wrong , shown why and uneccessary ) and "right to challenge " (gee thanks , what do you expect and how about some answers then ?) comments . Apart from mentioning to you the fact that the cemetery is the unsighted one , it looks like I'm not getting a reply to any of the problems raised . This has been a very interesting discussion on every level. Tiompan, you never fail to answer questions in a straight forward, grounded and always courteous manner and its true to say you are both highly respected and much liked on this forum. I did think George N was slightly sarcastic but having two city dwelling sons who used sarcasm to get themselves out of all sorts of scrapes its a verbal skill I quite admire (when its not directed at me of course). I've come across George Nash's work previously via this superb website - which is also on Facebook. http://www.rock-art-in-wales.co.uk/
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Dec 07, 2010, 18:26
|
||
|
tjj wrote: tiompan wrote: Sanctuary wrote: George Nash wrote: 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 Thank you kindly George I look forward to receiving it. I don't know the site personally just picking up the report as I was browsing. Yes I would like to come along and have a look come next year. Maybe you would be kind enough to keep me in the picture. In defence of tiompan (another George) I would say that I'm sure he never meant to come across as being curt as I have always found him to be very courteous but like myself and of course yourself, he is very focused and takes things seriously and makes no claims unless 100% satisfied he can confirm things. And I'm delighted to hear that you are always prepared to 'have a go' so that the subject matter is kept alive as by doing so it stays so much more interesting and leaves things somewhat open for others to also consider. Thanks Roy , I hope I kept to the point and was more no more curt than GHN was supercillious in his "banter " ,"probably not aware " ( which was wrong , shown why and uneccessary ) and "right to challenge " (gee thanks , what do you expect and how about some answers then ?) comments . Apart from mentioning to you the fact that the cemetery is the unsighted one , it looks like I'm not getting a reply to any of the problems raised . This has been a very interesting discussion on every level. Tiompan, you never fail to answer questions in a straight forward, grounded and always courteous manner and its true to say you are both highly respected and much liked on this forum. I did think George N was slightly sarcastic but having two city dwelling sons who used sarcasm to get themselves out of all sorts of scrapes its a verbal skill I quite admire (when its not directed at me of course). I've come across George Nash's work previously via this superb website - which is also on Facebook. http://www.rock-art-in-wales.co.uk/ The first mention ? on this site . http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/forum/?thread=58893&offset=200
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Dec 07, 2010, 19:41
|
||
|
George Nash wrote: 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 I was not sceptical about the cemetery I asked if that was the same one that is on Coflein and is unsighted from the stone . I am however sceptical about “A ritual marker to guide communities through the landscape” for many reasons , some of which have been noted .The concept of “sacred landscape “ is hardly one with strict parameters and of course a limited number of monuments even if unsighted from each other could fit the bill , after all we make the rules . For some ,their patch of earth /country/planet /universe is sacred . If the landscape around the Trefael stone is “sacred “ then anywhere with prehistoric or historic monuments for that matter within a couple of miles of each other is also sacred (we don't know that the capstone would have been considered like other standings stones with markings in the BA ,that's another maybe ).The problem then is how shall we redefine the “sacred landscapes “ of Kilmartin , Stonehenge ,Avebury , Loch of Harray etc . which are clearly of a different category . True , archaeology/anthropology is about people as is literary fiction but it's all too easy to make up stories about monuments and sometimes archaeology comes up with facts that are much more interesting than fiction .
|
|||
|
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Dec 08, 2010, 10:26
|
||
|
George Nash wrote: 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 Hi George, Moving sideways a little from this thread and with reference to what the original walesonline article said:- (Quote) Much like medieval churchgoers wouldn’t just storm into a church or make lots of noise, there would have been various protocols to observe. I think this is what we can see from the Neolithic people. You don’t just descend on the site itself, you go through a series of markers. Dr Nash said that explains why we had in Wales, at that time, so many standing stones, especially in the upland areas. We have got evidence of that at the Trafael site, he added. There were a number of stunning stones, which unfortunately over the years have been pulled up by farmers back in the distant past, which can be found on late 19th century mapping. The stones worked as a series of markers within the landscape associated with other monuments within the Nevern Valley, such as Pentre Ifan. They too would have ritual markers within their landscape, guiding their communities to the monument. (end quote) A week or two back the forum was discussing Ley Lines and how things have developed with them since the days of Alfred Watkins and his book The Old Straight Track. Do you see any similarity or connection between the marker stones you mention and Watkins' original theory on Ley Lines? Regards Roy
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Dec 08, 2010, 12:05
|
||
|
At all times in the church anaology there is a very ordered architecture from the lane -lych gate - narrow path – porch - aisle -chancel . This analogy holds up in certain prehistoric monumental settings e.g. stone rows that lead to stone circle /cairn . Avenue , sometimes defined by standing stones , leading to stone circle , cursus connecting earlier burials , The area in front of a passage tomb (defined by the horns of a court cairn -passage – chamber(s) ,Maltese temples with libation holes at thresholds etc In all examples there is a case for the architecture ordering any participants in a possible ritual associated with the monuments this is achieved by structured spaces , all retrievable archaeologically . Can the same be said about a solitary standing stone 2.5 km away from the nearest monument , and do we have any precedents ? two stones would at least almost halve the potential for setting off at oblique angles .The ordering impact must be inversely proportional to the distance from the nearest monument and if it is unsighted the ordering is even less . Processing at some monuments is a reasonable hypothesis but for the single or even stone pair ?
|
|||
|
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Dec 08, 2010, 13:19
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: At all times in the church anaology there is a very ordered architecture from the lane -lych gate - narrow path – porch - aisle -chancel . This analogy holds up in certain prehistoric monumental settings e.g. stone rows that lead to stone circle /cairn . Avenue , sometimes defined by standing stones , leading to stone circle , cursus connecting earlier burials , The area in front of a passage tomb (defined by the horns of a court cairn -passage – chamber(s) ,Maltese temples with libation holes at thresholds etc In all examples there is a case for the architecture ordering any participants in a possible ritual associated with the monuments this is achieved by structured spaces , all retrievable archaeologically . Can the same be said about a solitary standing stone 2.5 km away from the nearest monument , and do we have any precedents ? two stones would at least almost halve the potential for setting off at oblique angles .The ordering impact must be inversely proportional to the distance from the nearest monument and if it is unsighted the ordering is even less . Processing at some monuments is a reasonable hypothesis but for the single or even stone pair ? Hi George (tiompan), You may be mixing up the 'Georges' here as I was asking GN the question regarding the possible ley line connection with the type of marker stone he was referring to. Were you replying to my post or GH's as I'm a little confused (no change there then!!)
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Dec 08, 2010, 16:34
|
||
|
Sanctuary wrote: tiompan wrote: At all times in the church anaology there is a very ordered architecture from the lane -lych gate - narrow path – porch - aisle -chancel . This analogy holds up in certain prehistoric monumental settings e.g. stone rows that lead to stone circle /cairn . Avenue , sometimes defined by standing stones , leading to stone circle , cursus connecting earlier burials , The area in front of a passage tomb (defined by the horns of a court cairn -passage – chamber(s) ,Maltese temples with libation holes at thresholds etc In all examples there is a case for the architecture ordering any participants in a possible ritual associated with the monuments this is achieved by structured spaces , all retrievable archaeologically . Can the same be said about a solitary standing stone 2.5 km away from the nearest monument , and do we have any precedents ? two stones would at least almost halve the potential for setting off at oblique angles .The ordering impact must be inversely proportional to the distance from the nearest monument and if it is unsighted the ordering is even less . Processing at some monuments is a reasonable hypothesis but for the single or even stone pair ? Hi George (tiompan), You may be mixing up the 'Georges' here as I was asking GN the question regarding the possible ley line connection with the type of marker stone he was referring to. Were you replying to my post or GH's as I'm a little confused (no change there then!!) Sorry for the confusion S ,I realised you were asking GN the question that's why I didn't use the quote .Your post made me think that I should add a bit more detail to an earlier short comment .
|
| Pages: 4 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
