|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Hillforts & Barrows |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Sep 21, 2012, 17:00
|
||
Well, the ‘teasing’ bit perhaps. 'Jibing' and 'wilfully provoking others' doesn’t leave much for alternative interpretations.
|
|||
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Sep 24, 2012, 09:19
|
||
|
Littlestone wrote: Well, the ‘teasing’ bit perhaps. 'Jibing' and 'wilfully provoking others' doesn’t leave much for alternative interpretations. Well if that's definitely what's being done. I think historically confusion has arisen when people hide their provocation and jibes behind superficially jocular or otherwise veiled comments. Provocation, we can all agree (hopefully), is unacceptable. The difficulty comes in agreeing when it's actually taking place.
|
|||
|
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Sep 24, 2012, 11:49
|
||
|
Mustard wrote: Littlestone wrote: Well, the ‘teasing’ bit perhaps. 'Jibing' and 'wilfully provoking others' doesn’t leave much for alternative interpretations. Well if that's definitely what's being done. I think historically confusion has arisen when people hide their provocation and jibes behind superficially jocular or otherwise veiled comments. Provocation, we can all agree (hopefully), is unacceptable. The difficulty comes in agreeing when it's actually taking place. Yes, I don’t know the best way around that (agreeing when provocation is taking place) - perhaps to have a dedicated thread entitled Objection where people can air their objections to certain types of forum behaviour might help. I certainly agree with your earlier statement along the lines of everyone interpreting warnings in different ways, and blanket warnings along the lines of ‘you know who you are’ don’t help much either... :-)
|
|||
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Sep 24, 2012, 11:58
|
||
|
Littlestone wrote: Mustard wrote: Littlestone wrote: Well, the ‘teasing’ bit perhaps. 'Jibing' and 'wilfully provoking others' doesn’t leave much for alternative interpretations. Well if that's definitely what's being done. I think historically confusion has arisen when people hide their provocation and jibes behind superficially jocular or otherwise veiled comments. Provocation, we can all agree (hopefully), is unacceptable. The difficulty comes in agreeing when it's actually taking place. Yes, I don’t know the best way around that (agreeing when provocation is taking place) - perhaps to have a dedicated thread entitled Objection where people can air their objections to certain types of forum behaviour might help. I certainly agree with your earlier statement along the lines of everyone interpreting warnings in different ways, and blanket warnings along the lines of ‘you know who you are’ don’t help much either... :-) Well in my honest opinion, it's a lost cause without active and participatory moderation. You need mods who are up-to-date with what's going on, so they can pick out antisocial behaviour when they see it. Context and history are often required for an understanding of why a post is abusive or provocative.
|
|||
|
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Sep 24, 2012, 12:14
|
||
Yes, though my suggestion, being principally contributor based, might work. If one member is being blatantly abusive or unreasonable, other members of the forum could point it out in unambiguous terms (that’s not really happening at present, although it does happen elsewhere).
|
|||
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Sep 24, 2012, 12:23
|
||
|
Littlestone wrote: Yes, though my suggestion, being principally contributor based, might work. If one member is being blatantly abusive or unreasonable, other members of the forum could point it out in unambiguous terms (that’s not really happening at present, although it does happen elsewhere). Ah, but then you run into the lynch mob and clique issues. ;) *shrug* Can't honestly say I'm going to lose much sleep over it. I'm happy visiting stones and being civil to people :)
|
|||
drewbhoy 2559 posts |
Sep 24, 2012, 12:37
|
||
That is excellent as well :-)
|
|||
|
GLADMAN 950 posts |
Sep 24, 2012, 20:07
|
||
|
I've seen many examples now where monuments of both the stone and earthen (round and long) variety have been deliberately incorporated within Iron Age enclosures - Moel Drygarn in Y Preselau is a classic example of the cairn, long barrows upon Hambledon and Cley Hill just a couple of many such sites. In other words far too many for it to represent merely localised superstition 'not to anger the old Gods'. This was a widespread practice. Retaining such monuments seems to have served no practical purpose.... in some cases actually limiting available living space to a noticeable degree. So why do it? For what it's worth I think it has a lot to do with the defences of hill forts having a far more ceremonial aspect than perhaps they are generally given credit fort..... e.g. excessive lines of defence where one or two banks would have catered for any reasonably likely assault..... note how even the incomparable Maiden Castle near Dorchester, the massive Bigbury near Canterbury were no match for basic Roman siege techniques. No, I reckon a good proportion of hill fort design reflected a need for bling, to highlight the owner's prestige. 'Look how many workers I can command to build THIS! Don't mess with me cos I'm the man'. Chester's up near Edinburgh is even immediately overlooked by high ground. Militarily insane, but what a powerful fortress nonetheless. To get to the point, I reckon the incorporation of Bronze Age cairns and round/long barrows within hillforts was an attempt to appropriate the 'claim to the land', the ancestral 'right' inferred by such monuments by warlords founding new societies.... 'hey, we've been here all along.... look at the ancestral tombs.... mess with us at your peril cos we've the backing of the gods'. Let's face it, they must have meant a great deal for constructors of Moel Drygarn, a drystone-walled fort, to pass up the use of three great piles of stone when building their ramparts. No, THOSE are out of bounds.
|
|||
|
Evergreen Dazed 1881 posts |
Sep 24, 2012, 21:03
|
||
Yes, used as a claim to the land but I also believe the 'fear factor', as discussed earlier, would have been important. The 'watchful eye' in the barrow as I think Tiompan put it. Certainly hillforts are defensive structures but they may have been more about deterrent, a warding off, rather than showing a willingness to engage in conflict?
|
|||
|
drewbhoy 2559 posts |
Sep 24, 2012, 21:33
|
||
|
Evergreen Dazed wrote: Yes, used as a claim to the land but I also believe the 'fear factor', as discussed earlier, would have been important. The 'watchful eye' in the barrow as I think Tiompan put it. Certainly hillforts are defensive structures but they may have been more about deterrent, a warding off, rather than showing a willingness to engage in conflict? Could also be a show of power or basically trying to see who are the best builders. Mither Tap being a good example, the highest hillfort for miles (except for Tap Of North) and just down the road The Barmekin near Echt, a 5 ringed defensive circuit before entering the fort. Just a thought.
|
| Pages: 22 – [ Previous | 1 … 17 18 19 20 21 22 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
