Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
Register
The Modern Antiquarian Forum »
Modern not antiquarian
Log In to post a reply

280 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
bladup
bladup
1986 posts

Edited Aug 04, 2012, 18:17
Re: The finished circle
Aug 04, 2012, 16:51
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 “ .[/quote]

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![/quote]

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 .[/quote]

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][/quote]

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 .[/quote]

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 :-)[/quote]

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.[/quote]

Ha...you wait till he sees my interpretation of Trethevy Quoit!! :-)[/quote]

I can't wait, i hope you can back every opinion with a least 3 books and a note from an expert.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

That is an absolutely amazing story, i couldn't agree more [ about everything ], i really believe everything should be almost the same at zennor , i know they are a little different but i see them as brother and sister because they are so similar, i was up there the other day and was trying in my head to put the stones blasted off for the building the knobhead was trying to build back together, you could fit it all back together nicely as everythings still there [even if some are in bits, they could be put back together, i've seen it tastefully done once or twice] , and the capstone has slipped off to the side, so your something special [ is it a mortise and tenon joint] could be the same at zennor as it probably used the same method [i think the angle may be the same as well ], i found a little flint axe up on the moor quite near last year as well, so i feel it's a place with lots to give. Hey you could make plastic models and instead of airfix they could be called stonefix....
Topic Outline:

The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index