|
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 08, 2010, 17:21
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: 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 . No problem tiompan. I was giving more thought to this speculation situation which arises just about everywhere these days when one discusses ancient sites and the like. There is no doubt that it does keep things 'alive' and does create more discussion in this often frustrating hobby of ours. It is of course only natural for us to speculate because if you study something for long enough it is certainly not unusual for each and every one of us to reach some sort of a personal conclusion although we often can't prove anything and I guess that is the main reason why people are not too willing to post sometimes because of the fear of ridicule. The fact is that somewhere along the way somebody is probably going to be right about this and that and possibly in the most surprising of ways. And I certainly don't think it does any harm for the layman to share his/her views with professional people who, on the whole, I have found to be quite open to suggestion and other theories.
|
|||
tiompan 5758 posts |
Dec 08, 2010, 20:27
|
||
|
Sanctuary wrote: tiompan wrote: 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 . No problem tiompan. I was giving more thought to this speculation situation which arises just about everywhere these days when one discusses ancient sites and the like. There is no doubt that it does keep things 'alive' and does create more discussion in this often frustrating hobby of ours. It is of course only natural for us to speculate because if you study something for long enough it is certainly not unusual for each and every one of us to reach some sort of a personal conclusion although we often can't prove anything and I guess that is the main reason why people are not too willing to post sometimes because of the fear of ridicule. The fact is that somewhere along the way somebody is probably going to be right about this and that and possibly in the most surprising of ways. And I certainly don't think it does any harm for the layman to share his/her views with professional people who, on the whole, I have found to be quite open to suggestion and other theories. Dunno if you were looking for response S but I have a different approach to our lack of understanding about prehistory .For me it's all a multifarious puzzle that no one conclusion could satisfy . Someone or more likely a team effort might clarify a small point in relation to a small part of an insignificant monument e.g. some post holes that had previously been believed to be Neolithic were actually Mesolithic and the evidence was due to malacology , it's not exactly "Stonehenge was a ......" but it is a small victory . Theories , interpretation and specualation are entertaining but I prefer the monumnets themselves and info derived from excavation , that tends to set the bench mark , whilst the other stuff changes with the generations , RC dating means more to me than all the theorising . If you do speculate then it's to be expected that others will comment but if there is something in the idea then they shouldn't fear ridicule , the ensuing discusion might help clarify things for everyone concerned . After what I have said it's clear that "somebody is going to be right about this " is meaningless to me , maybe somebody will be right about one small corner of prehistory in which case brilliant .
|
|||
|
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Dec 08, 2010, 20:38
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: Sanctuary wrote: tiompan wrote: 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 . No problem tiompan. I was giving more thought to this speculation situation which arises just about everywhere these days when one discusses ancient sites and the like. There is no doubt that it does keep things 'alive' and does create more discussion in this often frustrating hobby of ours. It is of course only natural for us to speculate because if you study something for long enough it is certainly not unusual for each and every one of us to reach some sort of a personal conclusion although we often can't prove anything and I guess that is the main reason why people are not too willing to post sometimes because of the fear of ridicule. The fact is that somewhere along the way somebody is probably going to be right about this and that and possibly in the most surprising of ways. And I certainly don't think it does any harm for the layman to share his/her views with professional people who, on the whole, I have found to be quite open to suggestion and other theories. Dunno if you were looking for response S but I have a different approach to our lack of understanding about prehistory .For me it's all a multifarious puzzle that no one conclusion could satisfy . Someone or more likely a team effort might clarify a small point in relation to a small part of an insignificant monument e.g. some post holes that had previously been believed to be Neolithic were actually Mesolithic and the evidence was due to malacology , it's not exactly "Stonehenge was a ......" but it is a small victory . Theories , interpretation and specualation are entertaining but I prefer the monumnets themselves and info derived from excavation , that tends to set the bench mark , whilst the other stuff changes with the generations , RC dating means more to me than all the theorising . If you do speculate then it's to be expected that others will comment but if there is something in the idea then they shouldn't fear ridicule , the ensuing discusion might help clarify things for everyone concerned . After what I have said it's clear that "somebody is going to be right about this " is meaningless to me , maybe somebody will be right about one small corner of prehistory in which case brilliant . I wasn't looking for a response in particular George but yours are always most welcome. I like to stay upbeat about things even though we know that much of what we look at will in all probability never be proven one way or 'tother that's why I don't mind 'sensible' speculation to keep the interest alive.
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Oct 16, 2011, 12:44
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: 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 . Less than a year on and not a word on the previous years headlines and " astronomers "findings . http://www.pasthorizonspr.com/index.php/archives/10/2011/new-discoveries-at-trefael-stone-in-wales
|
|||
|
postman 848 posts |
Oct 16, 2011, 14:45
|
||
I might have had a chance to find the missing stone if not for the young cows patrolling the field, there's always more to find .
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Oct 16, 2011, 16:16
|
||
|
postman wrote: I might have had a chance to find the missing stone if not for the young cows patrolling the field, there's always more to find . The immediate area has quite a few "stones " marked on the 25 inch to the miles 1891 OS map , one with ogham , none on Coflein .
|
|||
|
postman 848 posts |
Oct 16, 2011, 19:33
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: postman wrote: I might have had a chance to find the missing stone if not for the young cows patrolling the field, there's always more to find . The immediate area has quite a few "stones " marked on the 25 inch to the miles 1891 OS map , one with ogham , none on Coflein . Now that's a map series worth having, what secret delights they may hold
|
| Pages: 4 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
