|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Hillforts & Barrows |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
tiompan 5758 posts |
Sep 18, 2012, 19:33
|
||
|
Evergreen Dazed wrote: tiompan wrote: Evergreen Dazed wrote: tiompan wrote: Evergreen Dazed wrote: tiompan wrote: harestonesdown wrote: thesweetcheat wrote: tiompan wrote: The important thing might be the presence of the barrow not necessarily what's underneath . Slightly off at a tangent, but any theories about why build a barrow other than for funereal reasons? A cham bered long barrow has lots of possible uses I suppose, a cairn might be a boundary marker (but still quite a lot of effort to go to). But are there examples of earthen barrows (long or round) which are known to have never contained any remains, even cremation? I guess it would have to a very intact barrow, in soil that was not damaging to bone. The mother of them all ? Silbury ? South Street , Beckhampton Raod and Horslips Long Barrows and countless Round barrows didn't have burials .Both quite different , one open the other closed and probabaly different function too . Interesting. Is that no primary or just nothing at all at Beckhampton rd Tiompan? Three possibilities that come to mind when there is no bone found in a barrow , 1)there never was any , 2) it has not survived 3) there was some but it was removed . In the case of Beckhampton road there was no human deposits primary or otherwise .Noteworthy that nearby South Street had no human bone either but there were cattle deposits . Just had a look at the HER. Animal bones incl 3 Ox skulls at Beckhampton rd. Interesting that south st and beckhampton rd had animal remains only (when opened). 'beckhampton roundabout' had no Neolithic burial, only late BA urn with burnt bone. Could lead you to think all 3, when raised, were not intended to take human remains. Although, as you've said, there are other possibilities. If pushed I'd go for 1) for the Avebury examples and lots of later barrows . If the animal bone was 'primary' does that indicate that human bone of the same age would have survived too? (if it was deposited in the first place and had not been removed) Are there circumstances where animal bone would survive but human bone would not? certain soils etc? Dunno , but I imagine that if the animal bone survived then human bone would too and has done in other contexts . The area unlike Wales say has relatively high alkaline soils conducive to preservation .
|
|||
|
Evergreen Dazed 1881 posts |
Sep 18, 2012, 19:52
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: Evergreen Dazed wrote: tiompan wrote: Evergreen Dazed wrote: tiompan wrote: Evergreen Dazed wrote: tiompan wrote: harestonesdown wrote: thesweetcheat wrote: tiompan wrote: The important thing might be the presence of the barrow not necessarily what's underneath . Slightly off at a tangent, but any theories about why build a barrow other than for funereal reasons? A cham bered long barrow has lots of possible uses I suppose, a cairn might be a boundary marker (but still quite a lot of effort to go to). But are there examples of earthen barrows (long or round) which are known to have never contained any remains, even cremation? I guess it would have to a very intact barrow, in soil that was not damaging to bone. The mother of them all ? Silbury ? South Street , Beckhampton Raod and Horslips Long Barrows and countless Round barrows didn't have burials .Both quite different , one open the other closed and probabaly different function too . Interesting. Is that no primary or just nothing at all at Beckhampton rd Tiompan? Three possibilities that come to mind when there is no bone found in a barrow , 1)there never was any , 2) it has not survived 3) there was some but it was removed . In the case of Beckhampton road there was no human deposits primary or otherwise .Noteworthy that nearby South Street had no human bone either but there were cattle deposits . Just had a look at the HER. Animal bones incl 3 Ox skulls at Beckhampton rd. Interesting that south st and beckhampton rd had animal remains only (when opened). 'beckhampton roundabout' had no Neolithic burial, only late BA urn with burnt bone. Could lead you to think all 3, when raised, were not intended to take human remains. Although, as you've said, there are other possibilities. If pushed I'd go for 1) for the Avebury examples and lots of later barrows . If the animal bone was 'primary' does that indicate that human bone of the same age would have survived too? (if it was deposited in the first place and had not been removed) Are there circumstances where animal bone would survive but human bone would not? certain soils etc? Dunno , but I imagine that if the animal bone survived then human bone would too and has done in other contexts . The area unlike Wales say has relatively high alkaline soils conducive to preservation . So that leaves us with removal. Hard to imagine the bones being removed in all examples isnt it. I think I'd go with your guess on that too. I don't think they were ever there.
|
|||
bladup 1986 posts |
Sep 19, 2012, 11:46
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: bladup wrote: Evergreen Dazed wrote: I did some mushrooms this morning, along with some scrambled egg, bacon, black pudding and fried bread and, sat in the afterglow with a cup of PG Tips, my mind naturally wandered to the subject I know least about - The prehistory of the British Isles. Taking a book down from the shelf (a pointless exercise, I know, and tricky with a distended belly groaning under the weight of danepak) I began to read, for the first time ever, about these things called 'Hillforts'. "Stap me vitals" I grunted in my best sub blandings, I'm sure there's probably material within these pages I could make into a song title. With the excitement of it all I naturally began to beat my chest like king kong (knocking over a bottle of ketchup in the process) and to call upon the energies present within the tropicana I had imbibed to bring me inspiration for another mega song. It didn't happen for me. ----------------------------------- I'll keep this short as poss. I'm interested in the relationship between Hillforts and barrows. Obviously with surving barrows tending to be in higher places and a good number of Hillforts being of the same persuasion, it might seem unsurprising to see the two in close proximity. Ford-Johnston suggested the builders of early Hillforts may have used the 'sacredness' of the barrows as part of the sites defences. At ivinghoe in Beds, along with a few other examples I can think of, there is a huge bowl barrow within the hillfort itself. This seems strange to me. I could undetstand using the barrows outside of a fort as defence, in the sense that Ford-Johnston used the word, but to have something of such 'power' within the living space itself seems at odds with the idea of 'sacredness'. Of course, the function of Hillforts in general is far from clear and Ivinghoe is a very early example, so I wonder what the 'non avoidance', if you like, in this instance could indicate? If the builders of Ivinghoe were airily unconcerned about the ancestor(s) outside their huts front door, you might imagine they would have destroyed the thing. The hillfort is small, the barrow is not. On the other hand, if they felt it sacred, had great respect, as appears to be the case (it's still there!) it is hard to imagine them 'living among it'. Even if it is a totally different scenario, and the people of Ivinghoe hillfort raised the barrow themselves, it is hard to imagine why they chose to put it within the living space when there are others dotted around the hill, outside of the fort. I'd really like to hear any thoughts people might have. Are you still taking the piss out of me? i think you're now been quite sad. maybe you and him will slowly morph into one patronizing being of self righteousness. Talk about self obsessed . If you can't contribute to a thread without bringing yourself into it , fuck off . It was a dig at me!!!, and me self obessed, take a look at yourself, what sort of person are you to tell someone to just fuck off, there are rules on here!!!
|
|||
|
TMA Ed 615 posts |
Sep 19, 2012, 11:49
|
||
|
Tiompan. Honestly, don't. Thank you. TMA Ed.
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Sep 19, 2012, 12:01
|
||
|
TMA Ed wrote: Tiompan. Honestly, don't. Thank you. TMA Ed. Not quite sure what you are suggesting eds . Could you clarify please , privately ,if necessary .
|
|||
|
bladup 1986 posts |
Edited Sep 19, 2012, 12:54
Sep 19, 2012, 12:13
|
||
|
TMA Ed wrote: Tiompan. Honestly, don't. Thank you. TMA Ed. I don't read what he says but got pulled to this [ i then saw why! ], i don't mind things getting heated in arguments, but this feels like just abuse, i don't think that's on!!! it's just hurtful and hateful.
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Sep 19, 2012, 18:36
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: TMA Ed wrote: Tiompan. Honestly, don't. Thank you. TMA Ed. Not quite sure what you are suggesting eds . Could you clarify please , privately ,if necessary . Bump . Maybe got missed .
|
|||
|
harestonesdown 1067 posts |
Sep 20, 2012, 02:05
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: tiompan wrote: TMA Ed wrote: Tiompan. Honestly, don't. Thank you. TMA Ed. Not quite sure what you are suggesting eds . Could you clarify please , privately ,if necessary . Bump . Maybe got missed . I read it as a request to turn the other cheek, If you will. :)
|
|||
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Sep 20, 2012, 13:50
|
||
|
bladup wrote: TMA Ed wrote: Tiompan. Honestly, don't. Thank you. TMA Ed. I don't read what he says but got pulled to this [ i then saw why! ], i don't mind things getting heated in arguments, but this feels like just abuse, i don't think that's on!!! it's just hurtful and hateful. If you’re saying that you feel the Ed is being abusive I think you may have misinterpreted his or her post to tiomapan (a long and greatly respected contributor to this board). I may be wrong but I read the Ed’s post to tiomapan as a plea, rather than as a warning, not to rise to yet another piece of nonsensical bait – a plea which it appears he has wisely decided to heed.
|
|||
|
bladup 1986 posts |
Edited Sep 20, 2012, 15:27
Sep 20, 2012, 14:47
|
||
|
Littlestone wrote: bladup wrote: TMA Ed wrote: Tiompan. Honestly, don't. Thank you. TMA Ed. I don't read what he says but got pulled to this [ i then saw why! ], i don't mind things getting heated in arguments, but this feels like just abuse, i don't think that's on!!! it's just hurtful and hateful. If you’re saying that you feel the Ed is being abusive I think you may have misinterpreted his or her post to tiomapan (a long and greatly respected contributor to this board). I may be wrong but I read the Ed’s post to tiomapan as a plea, rather than as a warning, not to rise to yet another piece of nonsensical bait – a plea which it appears he has wisely decided to heed. No, no if you go up a bit tiompan told me to fuck off for no reason, i wasn't even talking to him, that is just abuse!!! there is no bait from me, i don't read what he say's, i got pulled to this and then saw the abuse and realised why, i think the ed's where telling him not to start because i'm in the right and plain abuse isn't allowed, they was trying to help him not get into trouble, as i wasn't even in an argument with him at the time and will never be because i don't read what he says, try re- reading what was said, do you think it's alright to just tell someone to "fuck off"? [ i wasn't even arguing with him, as we all know they can get quite heated ], if you don't think it's alright it's him you should be telling not me! all the best paul.
|
| Pages: 22 – [ Previous | 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 11 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
