|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Modern not antiquarian |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
bladup 1986 posts |
Aug 04, 2012, 15:17
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: bladup wrote: Littlestone wrote: Well said that man. This is a subject in which we share such a common interest and such a common passion – gawd knows then why it attracts so much agro. Is it because so much is improvable, so consequently we fill the vacuum with our own pet theories, experiences, likes and dislikes? Then get ratty when those things are challenged? Jeeze... That is better than this place been like some boring academic paper, i really think the idea of this place was against that world as cope wasn't academic , take the truth from that world and add to it with are wonderful imaginations, it all seems to me that it's all got a little too academic, this site has less and less great mystics like paul1970 and the angle people like that come from in his fieldnotes , it would be really really bad if those peolple felt pushed away because of the closed soul world of academics, i feel this may be happening, which is such a shame as even the modern antiquarian could be pulled apart by so called academics, and look what a wonderful book that has been for so many of us. Giving rein to the imagination is fine and as long as nothing is said that is falsifiable there is nothing to say e.g. “prehistoric stone circles were built on energy grids detectable only by the initiated “ might be pompous mystic nonsense but difficult to disprove and best left alone . If a comment is falsifiable e.g. “ the Stonehenge avenue is aligned on the major standstill “ then expect to be put right .Allowing them to propagate in the public domain is unfair to lay readers and muddies the water . Rudeness is in inverse proportion to content and a sure sign that the “ruder “ has little to argue with ,because of that , whilst not welcomed , it can be viewed positively and usually is . The same can be applied to any work whether religious or otherwise . Evidence ibased understanding is not the same as being academic . Is a "closed soul " someone who disagrees with scripture / what you happen to believe . A closed soul is just someone who only uses their mind even though the soul may be saying something else, and sometimes rudeness comes into play not because the "non rude one is right" but because the non rude one has been rude by not reading properly and is acting very condescendingly, like i said the modern antiquarian itself could be pulled apart by so called experts but look how it's helped lots of us - just because something may be wrong in parts DOES NOT make it invalid, so much of what people thought in the past was proven wrong and so will a lot of things the so called experts think now be proven bollocks in the future- this to me is a true fact, everyone should keep an open mind, hinduism was around when the last stonehenge was built and they have lots of mystics and colour, our country may have been colourful like there world , but the colours may never be proven and the ancients world to a lot of people would be a bit grey, just because they can't prove the colour, doesn't mean you can't imagine all the colours.
|
|||
|
bladup 1986 posts |
Aug 04, 2012, 15:31
|
||
|
Sanctuary wrote: bladup wrote: Sanctuary wrote: tiompan wrote: bladup wrote: tiompan wrote: bladup wrote: tiompan wrote: bladup wrote: 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. Quite , Boscawen Un wasn't mentioned because it hasn't been excavated (apart from a single trench in the 19th C . ) and hasn't been dated . The axes carvings cannot be dated and their presence does not date the monument to the Neolithic . Timber circles are yet other examples of activity /”plenty left in them “ at various sites pre stone erection although that is not always the case , e.g. Croft Moraig where the timber circle post dated the stone circle and horseshoe . Neolithic sherds were found at Loanhead of Daviot , one context in the socket of an fallen orthostat, thus showing earlier activity at the site . In the case of recumbents , there are the remains of recumbents with other components maybe two flankers and some orthostats but in all cases they are the remains of a stone circle . There isn't a case of a recumbent that never had any other components . Furthermore at Tomnaverie the siting of the recumbent was the final act . Current thinking is that RSC 's commemorated the sites of cremations .The point is that stone circles throughout the country have evidence of varied earlier activity including artefacts refuting “Stone circles have nothing left in them “ . You think they are doing carvings of NEOLITHIC AXES after the neolithic [you're just been argumentative], they would have done carvings of metel axes later like at stonehenge, and you come across as knowing all there is to know on recumbents so therefore you have a closed mind [yes there is a recumbent where they couldn't find the stoneholes , it must have slipped past your massive intellect] and worst of all you just sound like a fucking archeologist , YOU have said a few times that most recumbents are for cremations - this isn't the case with true stone circles- therefore recumbents are more cremation cemeteries than true stone circles, sometimes you may have stone circles and cremation cemeteries almost side by side - what would be the point of that in your view? i imagine the circle was for some sort of ritual [maybe music involved], to do with the cremations, and because i'm not a archeologist i am allowed to imagine you know, things have to be imagined before they can be proved/ disproved and therefore become reality [which is often proved wrong later anyway], you come across like everything i say has to be proved academically-so because i'm not academic i can't have an opinion, i think this attitude is bollocks and hopefully outdated- my knowledge really comes from my own past live regressions, something you may think is bollocks, but people coming from different angles should really be a good thing, if people let it! Read what I said , “The axes carvings cannot be dated and their presence does not date the monument to the Neolithic .” The only thing that can be said is that obviously the carvings were done after Neolithic , when , we don't know . There is also the possibility that the carvings were done prior to the erection of the monument . I didn't say anything about knowing all there is to know about recumbents ,you were the one who said “it's all about the recumbent at them- i've been to enough “ . Where did I say that recumbents were “for “ cremations , cremations are found at recumbents hardly the same . What is more likely when considering the evidence and what I did say is that current thinking suggests that “ RSC 's commemorated the sites of cremations “ . There is no case where a recumbent is considered to have been without any accompanying orthostats/flankers . Recumbent stone circles as the name suggests and as any archaeologist will tell you are stone circles ,you mention Barnatt and Burl how do the describe them ? and where is the definition of a “ true “ stone circle ? Nothing wrong with using imagination but because I can imagine something doesn't make it true or even likely . I might imagine that stone circles were sites where seers predicted the future by reading the entrails of otters whilst taking vows of abstinence after the ritual slaughter of an enemy , I hope you wouldn't just accept it simply because it was imagined and might be true but you couldn't disprove it whereas the comment “ “Stone circles have nothing left in them “ can actually be shown to be untrue even when confined to the period when the stones were erected and not including any later additions . You should be a politician as well as an archeologist, the entrails of otters joke is probably the closest either of us has come to the truth [only joking], it really is a deeply held belief of mine that stone circles were meant to be kept clear- for whatever went on in them [even if that wasn't for people but the spirits/ancestors] I hope I have disabused you of that belief , through evidence . It wasn't that long ago when archaeologists believed stone circles to be mainly Neolithic monuments , dating evidence is changing that too . Without doubt the erecting of stone circles went on well into the Bronze and may have taken on a different 'belief' during and after that period. Their 'sacredness' which has still to be proven, but even still 'felt' today, would still have been seen as a reason to hitch a ride and deposit the remains of a loved or worthy person within them and nothing to do with the original build which is still unknown. I understand your frustration at having your ideas and beliefs questioned and challenged Bladup but Tiompan is a very knowledgeable member of the forum and just as committed as you are yourself, but there is no need to resort to rudeness. I've done it myself and it gets you nowhere and has the effect of preventing others from putting their points across in the fear of also being labelled as talking bollocks. We are all in this together and together is the only way to move foreward to seek out the answers in a clear and logical way. Much more research is required and it is to be hoped that in the not too distant future many sites will be revisited and up-to-date technology applied to give us the asnwers we seek. Keep up the good work in Cornwall and one day we may run into each other as that's where I live as well :-) You're right of course, tiompan just seemed a little to academic [having to prove everything from a book isn't my way], as for the rudeness it is tongue in cheek and that is lost sometimes i know, i will be provocative on purpose to make a point but always try ending nicely or with a joke, i'm the same to peoples faces, i am a bit cutting but my surname is Blades. Ha...you wait till he sees my interpretation of Trethevy Quoit!! :-) I can't wait, i hope you can back every opinion with a least 3 books and a note from an expert.
|
|||
tiompan 5758 posts |
Aug 04, 2012, 15:35
|
||
|
bladup wrote: tiompan wrote: bladup wrote: Littlestone wrote: Well said that man. This is a subject in which we share such a common interest and such a common passion – gawd knows then why it attracts so much agro. Is it because so much is improvable, so consequently we fill the vacuum with our own pet theories, experiences, likes and dislikes? Then get ratty when those things are challenged? Jeeze... That is better than this place been like some boring academic paper, i really think the idea of this place was against that world as cope wasn't academic , take the truth from that world and add to it with are wonderful imaginations, it all seems to me that it's all got a little too academic, this site has less and less great mystics like paul1970 and the angle people like that come from in his fieldnotes , it would be really really bad if those peolple felt pushed away because of the closed soul world of academics, i feel this may be happening, which is such a shame as even the modern antiquarian could be pulled apart by so called academics, and look what a wonderful book that has been for so many of us. Giving rein to the imagination is fine and as long as nothing is said that is falsifiable there is nothing to say e.g. “prehistoric stone circles were built on energy grids detectable only by the initiated “ might be pompous mystic nonsense but difficult to disprove and best left alone . If a comment is falsifiable e.g. “ the Stonehenge avenue is aligned on the major standstill “ then expect to be put right .Allowing them to propagate in the public domain is unfair to lay readers and muddies the water . Rudeness is in inverse proportion to content and a sure sign that the “ruder “ has little to argue with ,because of that , whilst not welcomed , it can be viewed positively and usually is . The same can be applied to any work whether religious or otherwise . Evidence ibased understanding is not the same as being academic . Is a "closed soul " someone who disagrees with scripture / what you happen to believe . A closed soul is just someone who only uses their mind even though the soul may be saying something else, and sometimes rudeness comes into play not because the "non rude one is right" but because the non rude one has been rude by not reading properly and is acting very condescendingly, like i said the modern antiquarian itself could be pulled apart by so called experts but look how it's helped lots of us - just because something may be wrong in parts DOES NOT make it invalid, so much of what people thought in the past was proven wrong and so will a lot of things the so called experts think now be proven bollocks in the future- this to me is a true fact, everyone should keep an open mind, hinduism was around when the last stonehenge was built and they have lots of mystics and colour, our country may have been colourful like there world , but the colours may never be proven and the ancients world to a lot of people would be a bit grey, just because they can't prove the colour, doesn't mean you can't imagine all the colours. Thats the point , get rid of the mistakes . e.g. "Stone circles have nothing left in them " and "Archaeologists don't like excavating them because not a lot is going to be there" . Dyes were limited but the important colours of nature were the same as they are today (even the 1940 's weren't all grey and smoke ) and we are finding colour, not imagining it , i.e. paint in Orkney to go along with the choice of axe heads and stone used in monuments .
|
|||
|
bladup 1986 posts |
Edited Aug 04, 2012, 16:07
Aug 04, 2012, 15:57
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: bladup wrote: tiompan wrote: bladup wrote: Littlestone wrote: Well said that man. This is a subject in which we share such a common interest and such a common passion – gawd knows then why it attracts so much agro. Is it because so much is improvable, so consequently we fill the vacuum with our own pet theories, experiences, likes and dislikes? Then get ratty when those things are challenged? Jeeze... That is better than this place been like some boring academic paper, i really think the idea of this place was against that world as cope wasn't academic , take the truth from that world and add to it with are wonderful imaginations, it all seems to me that it's all got a little too academic, this site has less and less great mystics like paul1970 and the angle people like that come from in his fieldnotes , it would be really really bad if those peolple felt pushed away because of the closed soul world of academics, i feel this may be happening, which is such a shame as even the modern antiquarian could be pulled apart by so called academics, and look what a wonderful book that has been for so many of us. Giving rein to the imagination is fine and as long as nothing is said that is falsifiable there is nothing to say e.g. “prehistoric stone circles were built on energy grids detectable only by the initiated “ might be pompous mystic nonsense but difficult to disprove and best left alone . If a comment is falsifiable e.g. “ the Stonehenge avenue is aligned on the major standstill “ then expect to be put right .Allowing them to propagate in the public domain is unfair to lay readers and muddies the water . Rudeness is in inverse proportion to content and a sure sign that the “ruder “ has little to argue with ,because of that , whilst not welcomed , it can be viewed positively and usually is . The same can be applied to any work whether religious or otherwise . Evidence ibased understanding is not the same as being academic . Is a "closed soul " someone who disagrees with scripture / what you happen to believe . A closed soul is just someone who only uses their mind even though the soul may be saying something else, and sometimes rudeness comes into play not because the "non rude one is right" but because the non rude one has been rude by not reading properly and is acting very condescendingly, like i said the modern antiquarian itself could be pulled apart by so called experts but look how it's helped lots of us - just because something may be wrong in parts DOES NOT make it invalid, so much of what people thought in the past was proven wrong and so will a lot of things the so called experts think now be proven bollocks in the future- this to me is a true fact, everyone should keep an open mind, hinduism was around when the last stonehenge was built and they have lots of mystics and colour, our country may have been colourful like there world , but the colours may never be proven and the ancients world to a lot of people would be a bit grey, just because they can't prove the colour, doesn't mean you can't imagine all the colours. Thats the point , get rid of the mistakes . e.g. "Stone circles have nothing left in them " and "Archaeologists don't like excavating them because not a lot is going to be there" . Dyes were limited but the important colours of nature were the same as they are today (even the 1940 's weren't all grey and smoke ) and we are finding colour, not imagining it , i.e. paint in Orkney to go along with the choice of axe heads and stone used in monuments . NO NO - the point is the so called mistakes are sometimes right [and colour the debate], who decides it's a mistake and what right do they really have, like i said the so called experts are proven wrong time and time again [often with technology], that in itself is clearly enough to take what they say with a pinch of salt, the same as with a layman [who are sometimes proven right].
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Aug 04, 2012, 16:06
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: “prehistoric stone circles were built on energy grids detectable only by the initiated “ might be pompous mystic nonsense but difficult to disprove I strongly disagree, but yes, best left alone. ;)
|
|||
|
bladup 1986 posts |
Edited Aug 04, 2012, 16:12
Aug 04, 2012, 16:10
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: tiompan wrote: “prehistoric stone circles were built on energy grids detectable only by the initiated “ might be pompous mystic nonsense but difficult to disprove I strongly disagree, but yes, best left alone. ;) I think he's talking shit- energy grids detectable only by the initiated, WHAT IS HE LIKE? He was talking about cutting up otters earlier to tell the future...... i think he may be a madman!!!!
|
|||
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Aug 04, 2012, 16:18
|
||
|
bladup wrote: Sanctuary wrote: bladup wrote: Sanctuary wrote: tiompan wrote: bladup wrote: tiompan wrote: bladup wrote: tiompan wrote: bladup wrote: 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. Quite , Boscawen Un wasn't mentioned because it hasn't been excavated (apart from a single trench in the 19th C . ) and hasn't been dated . The axes carvings cannot be dated and their presence does not date the monument to the Neolithic . Timber circles are yet other examples of activity /”plenty left in them “ at various sites pre stone erection although that is not always the case , e.g. Croft Moraig where the timber circle post dated the stone circle and horseshoe . Neolithic sherds were found at Loanhead of Daviot , one context in the socket of an fallen orthostat, thus showing earlier activity at the site . In the case of recumbents , there are the remains of recumbents with other components maybe two flankers and some orthostats but in all cases they are the remains of a stone circle . There isn't a case of a recumbent that never had any other components . Furthermore at Tomnaverie the siting of the recumbent was the final act . Current thinking is that RSC 's commemorated the sites of cremations .The point is that stone circles throughout the country have evidence of varied earlier activity including artefacts refuting “Stone circles have nothing left in them “ . You think they are doing carvings of NEOLITHIC AXES after the neolithic [you're just been argumentative], they would have done carvings of metel axes later like at stonehenge, and you come across as knowing all there is to know on recumbents so therefore you have a closed mind [yes there is a recumbent where they couldn't find the stoneholes , it must have slipped past your massive intellect] and worst of all you just sound like a fucking archeologist , YOU have said a few times that most recumbents are for cremations - this isn't the case with true stone circles- therefore recumbents are more cremation cemeteries than true stone circles, sometimes you may have stone circles and cremation cemeteries almost side by side - what would be the point of that in your view? i imagine the circle was for some sort of ritual [maybe music involved], to do with the cremations, and because i'm not a archeologist i am allowed to imagine you know, things have to be imagined before they can be proved/ disproved and therefore become reality [which is often proved wrong later anyway], you come across like everything i say has to be proved academically-so because i'm not academic i can't have an opinion, i think this attitude is bollocks and hopefully outdated- my knowledge really comes from my own past live regressions, something you may think is bollocks, but people coming from different angles should really be a good thing, if people let it! Read what I said , “The axes carvings cannot be dated and their presence does not date the monument to the Neolithic .” The only thing that can be said is that obviously the carvings were done after Neolithic , when , we don't know . There is also the possibility that the carvings were done prior to the erection of the monument . I didn't say anything about knowing all there is to know about recumbents ,you were the one who said “it's all about the recumbent at them- i've been to enough “ . Where did I say that recumbents were “for “ cremations , cremations are found at recumbents hardly the same . What is more likely when considering the evidence and what I did say is that current thinking suggests that “ RSC 's commemorated the sites of cremations “ . There is no case where a recumbent is considered to have been without any accompanying orthostats/flankers . Recumbent stone circles as the name suggests and as any archaeologist will tell you are stone circles ,you mention Barnatt and Burl how do the describe them ? and where is the definition of a “ true “ stone circle ? Nothing wrong with using imagination but because I can imagine something doesn't make it true or even likely . I might imagine that stone circles were sites where seers predicted the future by reading the entrails of otters whilst taking vows of abstinence after the ritual slaughter of an enemy , I hope you wouldn't just accept it simply because it was imagined and might be true but you couldn't disprove it whereas the comment “ “Stone circles have nothing left in them “ can actually be shown to be untrue even when confined to the period when the stones were erected and not including any later additions . You should be a politician as well as an archeologist, the entrails of otters joke is probably the closest either of us has come to the truth [only joking], it really is a deeply held belief of mine that stone circles were meant to be kept clear- for whatever went on in them [even if that wasn't for people but the spirits/ancestors] I hope I have disabused you of that belief , through evidence . It wasn't that long ago when archaeologists believed stone circles to be mainly Neolithic monuments , dating evidence is changing that too . Without doubt the erecting of stone circles went on well into the Bronze and may have taken on a different 'belief' during and after that period. Their 'sacredness' which has still to be proven, but even still 'felt' today, would still have been seen as a reason to hitch a ride and deposit the remains of a loved or worthy person within them and nothing to do with the original build which is still unknown. I understand your frustration at having your ideas and beliefs questioned and challenged Bladup but Tiompan is a very knowledgeable member of the forum and just as committed as you are yourself, but there is no need to resort to rudeness. I've done it myself and it gets you nowhere and has the effect of preventing others from putting their points across in the fear of also being labelled as talking bollocks. We are all in this together and together is the only way to move foreward to seek out the answers in a clear and logical way. Much more research is required and it is to be hoped that in the not too distant future many sites will be revisited and up-to-date technology applied to give us the asnwers we seek. Keep up the good work in Cornwall and one day we may run into each other as that's where I live as well :-) You're right of course, tiompan just seemed a little to academic [having to prove everything from a book isn't my way], as for the rudeness it is tongue in cheek and that is lost sometimes i know, i will be provocative on purpose to make a point but always try ending nicely or with a joke, i'm the same to peoples faces, i am a bit cutting but my surname is Blades. Ha...you wait till he sees my interpretation of Trethevy Quoit!! :-) I can't wait, i hope you can back every opinion with a least 3 books and a note from an expert. LOL. No books or other peoples ideas, just my opinion based on what I saw stood before me using all the available clues. Although I already knew it was 'not right' it was my son that gave me the jolt I needed to take it that step further when he said...'If you laid it all out on the ground dad you've never put it back together like that would you'. He was right of course so I did just that in model form. I measured every single stone in detail and made copies to scale in wood. It had already been obvious where certain parts should have been and when reassembled they all fitted perfectly. Even the supposed rear closure stone worked out and took its rightful place, not as a fallen closure stone but one that didn't have to me moved other than being lifted back in position. Trethevy has always had the slope it shows now and why the 'experts' could not see it is beyond me. It is patently obvious that it has partially collapsed in the past and a stone removed and used as a buttress to prevent the front closure stone from leaning further to the east. This in turn was replaced by another that was already there and another used to prevent further collapse. Everything that was part of the first build is still there just out of position in places. The capstone was originally held in place by something special only ever known at Stonehenge but predates it by something like 1,000 years. We are so lucky to have this in Cornwall and I call it our Megalithic Masterpiece. Watch this space.
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Aug 04, 2012, 16:32
|
||
|
bladup wrote: tiompan wrote: bladup wrote: tiompan wrote: bladup wrote: Littlestone wrote: Well said that man. This is a subject in which we share such a common interest and such a common passion – gawd knows then why it attracts so much agro. Is it because so much is improvable, so consequently we fill the vacuum with our own pet theories, experiences, likes and dislikes? Then get ratty when those things are challenged? Jeeze... That is better than this place been like some boring academic paper, i really think the idea of this place was against that world as cope wasn't academic , take the truth from that world and add to it with are wonderful imaginations, it all seems to me that it's all got a little too academic, this site has less and less great mystics like paul1970 and the angle people like that come from in his fieldnotes , it would be really really bad if those peolple felt pushed away because of the closed soul world of academics, i feel this may be happening, which is such a shame as even the modern antiquarian could be pulled apart by so called academics, and look what a wonderful book that has been for so many of us. Giving rein to the imagination is fine and as long as nothing is said that is falsifiable there is nothing to say e.g. “prehistoric stone circles were built on energy grids detectable only by the initiated “ might be pompous mystic nonsense but difficult to disprove and best left alone . If a comment is falsifiable e.g. “ the Stonehenge avenue is aligned on the major standstill “ then expect to be put right .Allowing them to propagate in the public domain is unfair to lay readers and muddies the water . Rudeness is in inverse proportion to content and a sure sign that the “ruder “ has little to argue with ,because of that , whilst not welcomed , it can be viewed positively and usually is . The same can be applied to any work whether religious or otherwise . Evidence ibased understanding is not the same as being academic . Is a "closed soul " someone who disagrees with scripture / what you happen to believe . A closed soul is just someone who only uses their mind even though the soul may be saying something else, and sometimes rudeness comes into play not because the "non rude one is right" but because the non rude one has been rude by not reading properly and is acting very condescendingly, like i said the modern antiquarian itself could be pulled apart by so called experts but look how it's helped lots of us - just because something may be wrong in parts DOES NOT make it invalid, so much of what people thought in the past was proven wrong and so will a lot of things the so called experts think now be proven bollocks in the future- this to me is a true fact, everyone should keep an open mind, hinduism was around when the last stonehenge was built and they have lots of mystics and colour, our country may have been colourful like there world , but the colours may never be proven and the ancients world to a lot of people would be a bit grey, just because they can't prove the colour, doesn't mean you can't imagine all the colours. Thats the point , get rid of the mistakes . e.g. "Stone circles have nothing left in them " and "Archaeologists don't like excavating them because not a lot is going to be there" . Dyes were limited but the important colours of nature were the same as they are today (even the 1940 's weren't all grey and smoke ) and we are finding colour, not imagining it , i.e. paint in Orkney to go along with the choice of axe heads and stone used in monuments . NO NO - the point is the so called mistakes are sometimes right [and colour the debate], who decides it's a mistake and what right do they really have, like i said the so called experts are proven wrong time and time again [often with technology], that in itself is clearly enough to take what they say with a pinch of salt, the same as with a layman [who are sometimes proven right]. There are mistakes of interpretation that are superceded by new information which provides a better model than the previous one , e.g. "Stonehenge was built by the Mycenaeans "etc . There are other mistakes that are just simply wrong and due to a misunderstanding of information that was available at the time e.g. “Stone circles have nothing left in them “ . After all these posts do you still stand by that ?
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Aug 04, 2012, 16:35
|
||
|
bladup wrote: nigelswift wrote: tiompan wrote: “prehistoric stone circles were built on energy grids detectable only by the initiated “ might be pompous mystic nonsense but difficult to disprove I strongly disagree, but yes, best left alone. ;) I think he's talking shit- energy grids detectable only by the initiated, WHAT IS HE LIKE? He was talking about cutting up otters earlier to tell the future...... i think he may be a madman!!!! I think you have wilfully misunderstood the earlier referenced posts and simply misunderstood the last one .
|
|||
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Edited Aug 04, 2012, 17:04
Aug 04, 2012, 16:43
|
||
|
...the so called experts are proven wrong time and time again, that in itself is clearly enough to take what they say with a pinch of salt, the same as with a layman. I’m not quite following your logic here – if both what the expert and the layman say should be taken with a pinch of salt why raise the issue in the first place? It doesn’t get us very far does it, as we’ll need to take the pronouncements of both (along with everyone else's presumably) with the same degree of salt intake. Personally, I prefer the views of the expert over those of the layman because the former has (presumably) spent a fair bit of time studying his subject, and being assessed by his peers, whereas the layman might be more of a lone wolf with not much going to support his ideas. That’s not to say that both can’t be completely right or completely wrong, but that the expert at least probably knows more about his subject than the layman. Forget about the archaeologist and consider the master craftsman. Which would you employ, put your trust in and believe – the master carpenter who knows his wood and his tools because he’s spent 20 years plus as an apprentice, then a journeyman and finally a master carpenter or the Johnny-come-lately willow-whittler with plenty of fancy theories but no idea how to sharpen a chisel correctly (we get plenty of those here so maybe that’s why you’ll often hear the concerted sigh of, “Here we go again.” go up). Anyway, apart from all that, once again congrats to the peeps who got this circle up and running – all the baloney about dating it x years hence and the inappropriateness of ‘smelling the stones’ is just that – baloney. If you want to apply that criticism then apply it also to stone hugging, crystal burying, tealight burning, etc, etc etc. So loosen up, anything that helps people appreciate our megalithic heritage, gives them a pleasurable day out and leads them on perhaps to a greater understanding of that heritage (especially when it’s paid for out of the creators’ own pockets) is worthy of a pat on the back.
|
| Pages: 28 – [ Previous | 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 9 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
