Head To Head
Log In
Register
The Modern Antiquarian Forum »
Slaggyford Stones »
Slaggyford Stones .
Log In to post a reply

170 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
tiompan
tiompan
5758 posts

Re: Slaggyford Stones .
Sep 10, 2011, 18:42
Littlestone wrote:
The fact that Silbury is man made is incredibly important what it looks like is secondary and we wouldn't consider comparing it with a natural hill or lump . Similarly if someone claims that that a natural lump is another man made hill we should ensure that it really is as they are precious .


I beg to differ Mr t. True, the fact that Silbury is manmade is of immense importance but I disagree that what it looks like is of secondary importance. Indeed, what it looks like may indeed be of primary importance, that is why it was made to look like it is, and it may even have been modelled on, or inspired by, a natural formation. Again, as stated above, I think it’s a mistake to lay too much emphasis on the purely manmade when we can easily list several natural mounds, hills, rocks and mountains which, because of the cultural importance they have been endowed with, are of anthropological if not of purely archaeological importance.


There is no way that Silbury could have looked much different due to soil mechanics . From our perspective no matter how impressive , it's the fact that it was man made that is most important . We can only guess at the builders priorities visual versus collective effort if indeed there were any . I have only been talking about man made rock art as opposed to non rock art and pointed out an example a combination of both which appears to be intentional . Natural features like outcrops ,hilltops , streams were and are imporatnt to people but it's a slightly different subject from the simple case of whether something is a prehistoric artefact or not .
Topic Outline:

The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index