|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Modern not antiquarian |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
bladup 1986 posts |
Aug 03, 2012, 18:26
|
||
|
Sanctuary wrote: bladup wrote: tiompan wrote: bladup wrote: Stone circles have nothing left in them [thats why archeologists don't like them] and when they do find stuff it's from a different age [romans liked leaving coins] to when the circle was built, Stone circles have been show to have plenty "left in them " . Often the cirle is the last architectural event after depositions of human/animal remains .An obviious example is Stonehenge where the erection of the stones came long after the creation of a ditch and banked enclosed cremation cemetery . It's pretty obvious many archaeologists actually do like them .Any quotes from any saying they don't ? Stuff from all periods pre and post circle erection are routinely found . Stonehenge is a shit example to use for so many reasons, in it's first phases it was more of a causewayed enclosure [they have lots of things left in them- beakers , animal bones], then like YOU said a cremation cemetery- so was probably never a normal stone circle, which have fuck all left in them from the original builders, people who have excavated them describe them as been almost routinely swept clean- maybe for dancing feet [of which there is some folklore]. I said Archaeologists don't like excavating them [because not a lot is going to be there] not that they don't like them in general. Your bog standard stone circle is practically devoid of anything to make one believe that they were built for any particular reason, be it religious, ceremonial, funery, ritual, feasting or whatever, that is the mystery of them because there is no consistency. I suspect I'm no different to any of you guys but when I visit a circle for the first time I'm stoked up and thinking...'Maybe this will be the one that gives me the answer'...but it never is of course and you leave feeling just as confused as ever, so I can well imagine some archaeo's privately also feeling rather negative about them! Dancing is one argument you can back up a little and therefore maybe music!!
|
|||
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Aug 03, 2012, 18:29
|
||
|
texlahoma wrote: It really was a long and well thought out process, I know there will be those that will believe that using probable ancient techniques might have been more genuine in some way, in fact we even discussed that a whole lot. Still, there was very real planning, passion and belief in doing it and I think it shows. I'm all for enlisting Fred Flintstone to oversee the next one :-)
|
|||
|
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Aug 03, 2012, 18:34
|
||
|
bladup wrote: Sanctuary wrote: bladup wrote: tiompan wrote: bladup wrote: Stone circles have nothing left in them [thats why archeologists don't like them] and when they do find stuff it's from a different age [romans liked leaving coins] to when the circle was built, Stone circles have been show to have plenty "left in them " . Often the cirle is the last architectural event after depositions of human/animal remains .An obviious example is Stonehenge where the erection of the stones came long after the creation of a ditch and banked enclosed cremation cemetery . It's pretty obvious many archaeologists actually do like them .Any quotes from any saying they don't ? Stuff from all periods pre and post circle erection are routinely found . Stonehenge is a shit example to use for so many reasons, in it's first phases it was more of a causewayed enclosure [they have lots of things left in them- beakers , animal bones], then like YOU said a cremation cemetery- so was probably never a normal stone circle, which have fuck all left in them from the original builders, people who have excavated them describe them as been almost routinely swept clean- maybe for dancing feet [of which there is some folklore]. I said Archaeologists don't like excavating them [because not a lot is going to be there] not that they don't like them in general. Your bog standard stone circle is practically devoid of anything to make one believe that they were built for any particular reason, be it religious, ceremonial, funery, ritual, feasting or whatever, that is the mystery of them because there is no consistency. I suspect I'm no different to any of you guys but when I visit a circle for the first time I'm stoked up and thinking...'Maybe this will be the one that gives me the answer'...but it never is of course and you leave feeling just as confused as ever, so I can well imagine some archaeo's privately also feeling rather negative about them! Dancing is one argument you can back up a little and therefore maybe music!! The Rolling Stones? :-)
|
|||
|
bladup 1986 posts |
Aug 03, 2012, 18:59
|
||
|
Sanctuary wrote: bladup wrote: Sanctuary wrote: bladup wrote: tiompan wrote: bladup wrote: Stone circles have nothing left in them [thats why archeologists don't like them] and when they do find stuff it's from a different age [romans liked leaving coins] to when the circle was built, Stone circles have been show to have plenty "left in them " . Often the cirle is the last architectural event after depositions of human/animal remains .An obviious example is Stonehenge where the erection of the stones came long after the creation of a ditch and banked enclosed cremation cemetery . It's pretty obvious many archaeologists actually do like them .Any quotes from any saying they don't ? Stuff from all periods pre and post circle erection are routinely found . Stonehenge is a shit example to use for so many reasons, in it's first phases it was more of a causewayed enclosure [they have lots of things left in them- beakers , animal bones], then like YOU said a cremation cemetery- so was probably never a normal stone circle, which have fuck all left in them from the original builders, people who have excavated them describe them as been almost routinely swept clean- maybe for dancing feet [of which there is some folklore]. I said Archaeologists don't like excavating them [because not a lot is going to be there] not that they don't like them in general. Your bog standard stone circle is practically devoid of anything to make one believe that they were built for any particular reason, be it religious, ceremonial, funery, ritual, feasting or whatever, that is the mystery of them because there is no consistency. I suspect I'm no different to any of you guys but when I visit a circle for the first time I'm stoked up and thinking...'Maybe this will be the one that gives me the answer'...but it never is of course and you leave feeling just as confused as ever, so I can well imagine some archaeo's privately also feeling rather negative about them! Dancing is one argument you can back up a little and therefore maybe music!! The Rolling Stones? :-) Supported by queens of the stone age and the stone roses [i personally hope not].
|
|||
tiompan 5758 posts |
Aug 03, 2012, 19:03
|
||
|
bladup wrote: tiompan wrote: bladup wrote: Stone circles have nothing left in them [thats why archeologists don't like them] and when they do find stuff it's from a different age [romans liked leaving coins] to when the circle was built, Stone circles have been show to have plenty "left in them " . Often the circle is the last architectural event after depositions of human/animal remains .An obviious example is Stonehenge where the erection of the stones came long after the creation of a ditch and banked enclosed cremation cemetery . It's pretty obvious many archaeologists actually do like them .Any quotes from any saying they don't ? Stuff from all periods pre and post circle erection are routinely found . Stonehenge is a shit example to use for so many reasons, in it's first phases it was more of a causewayed enclosure [they have lots of things left in them- beakers , animal bones], then like YOU said a cremation cemetery- so was probably never a normal stone circle, which have fuck all left in them from the original builders, people who have excavated them describe them as been almost routinely swept clean- maybe for dancing feet [of which there is some folklore]. I said Archaeologists don't like excavating them [because not a lot is going to be there] not that they don't like them in general. Stonehenge is a good example because it has been excavated , studied , commented upon and we all know it . It clearly has two stone circles a sarsen and a bluestone , the former possibly never actually a completed circle but the latter certainly was , and like many other stone circles post dated previous activity . The early monument has similarities to causewayed enclosures nobody said it didn't but it was an enclosed cremation cemetery prior to the erection of the stones . Other examples of stone circles that have had earlier activity at the site , usually fires or deposits are the recumbent stone circles ,those that have been excavated also show that the stone circle was probably the last activity at the site . Any quotes from archaeologists saying they don't like excavating them , because “ there is not a lot going there “ or were “ they have been routinely swept clean “ ?
|
|||
|
bladup 1986 posts |
Edited Aug 03, 2012, 19:18
Aug 03, 2012, 19:16
|
||
Stonehenge and the recumbents [it's all about the recumbent at them- i've been to enough] are not true stone circles and the recumbents do seem to have had a fire at the start [probably to clear the ground]. It really does seem to be different where you are in the country which suggests different things were going on all over, therefore it was probably very regional as to what went on , i can almost hear the dancing feet down here in cornwall.
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Aug 03, 2012, 19:37
|
||
|
bladup wrote: Stonehenge and the recumbents [it's all about the recumbent at them- i've been to enough] are not true stone circles and the recumbents do seem to have had a fire at the start [probably to clear the ground]. It really does seem to be different where you are in the country which suggests different things were going on all over, therefore it was probably very regional as to what went on , i can almost hear the dancing feet down here in cornwall. I think the name recumbent stone circles tells us what type of monument it is . Recumbents also have burials associated with them , as well as ring cairns . Stone circles in the south west had charcoal deposits e.g. at Ferworthy the entire inner space was covered in charcoal, Brisworthy and the Grey Wethers also had charcoal deposits , Boskednan had a cist .Hurlers northern circle was paved with granite ,Duloe had an urn with a cremation . "Swept clean " and don't like excavating them "quotes ?
|
|||
|
bladup 1986 posts |
Edited Aug 03, 2012, 20:04
Aug 03, 2012, 19:48
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: bladup wrote: Stonehenge and the recumbents [it's all about the recumbent at them- i've been to enough] are not true stone circles and the recumbents do seem to have had a fire at the start [probably to clear the ground]. It really does seem to be different where you are in the country which suggests different things were going on all over, therefore it was probably very regional as to what went on , i can almost hear the dancing feet down here in cornwall. I think the name recumbent stone circles tells us what type of monument it is . Recumbents also have burials associated with them , as well as ring cairns . Stone circles in the south west had charcoal deposits e.g. at Ferworthy the entire inner space was covered in charcoal, Brisworthy and the Grey Wethers also had charcoal deposits , Boskednan had a cist .Hurlers northern circle was paved with granite ,Duloe had an urn with a cremation . "Swept clean " and don't like excavating them "quotes ? Things that were probably added later, not by the builders! burl, barnett and lots of others [ i'm not spending my night going though 100's of books, sorry they're boxed up] both said as much and both have excavated places.
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Aug 03, 2012, 20:06
|
||
|
bladup wrote: tiompan wrote: bladup wrote: Stonehenge and the recumbents [it's all about the recumbent at them- i've been to enough] are not true stone circles and the recumbents do seem to have had a fire at the start [probably to clear the ground]. It really does seem to be different where you are in the country which suggests different things were going on all over, therefore it was probably very regional as to what went on , i can almost hear the dancing feet down here in cornwall. I think the name recumbent stone circles tells us what type of monument it is . Recumbents also have burials associated with them , as well as ring cairns . Stone circles in the south west had charcoal deposits e.g. at Ferworthy the entire inner space was covered in charcoal, Brisworthy and the Grey Wethers also had charcoal deposits , Boskednan had a cist .Hurlers northern circle was paved with granite ,Duloe had an urn with a cremation . "Swept clean " and don't like excavating them "quotes ? Things that were added later, not by the builders! In some cases there have been post stone circle erection deposits ,just as there have been many pre stone circle deposits , we can tell to the best of our present knowledge by , RC dating , context and stratigraphy . In the case of Stonehenge ,recumbents and many other sites where we have that evidence we can be sure that both pre and post stone erection deposits tooks place . in the case of the SW sites mentioned what evidence is there to suggest that the deposits were not deposited by the builders .
|
|||
|
bladup 1986 posts |
Edited Aug 03, 2012, 22:47
Aug 03, 2012, 22:11
|
||
I know boscawen un wasn't mentioned but it's a good example- standing stone with carving of stone axes on [ in relief ] so therefore stone age or neolithic, circle round the standing stone could be the same age or could be later [no later than the early bronze age] but possible cist is later [late bronze age], so yes the standing stone in the middle could have been there first, the postholes found in circles are often earlier than the stone circle [the sanctuary near avebury] , so not always the same people who put the stones up later- it really does suggest sacred sites over a long period and different sets of people. It seems to become a habit down here and other places in the late bronze age to start putting cairns inside [the always kept clear] stone circles, i've read that some of the ringcairns inside the recumbents are radio carbon dated quite a lot later than the stone circles - pretty sure one was loanhead of daviot. The recumbents themselves may even sometimes be older than the circle and what about the chance that there may have been recumbents without any stone circle, i can't remember where it was but at one they looked for the missing stoneholes and couldn't find any, i imagine the plough had destroyed them though.
|
| Pages: 28 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
