|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Stonehenge » New study challenges timeline |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Edited Dec 01, 2012, 14:26
Dec 01, 2012, 14:24
|
||
|
Ancient people probably assembled the massive sandstone horseshoe at Stonehenge more than 4,600 years ago, while the smaller bluestones were imported from Wales later, a new study suggests. The conclusion, detailed in the December issue of the journal Antiquity, challenges earlier timelines that proposed the smaller stones were raised first. "The sequence proposed for the site is really the wrong way around," said study co-author Timothy Darvill, an archaeologist at Bournemouth University in England. "The original idea that it starts small and gets bigger is wrong. It starts big and stays big. The new scheme puts the big stones at the center at the site as the first stage." Rest here.
|
|||
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Dec 01, 2012, 15:50
|
||
|
Littlestone wrote: Ancient people probably assembled the massive sandstone horseshoe at Stonehenge more than 4,600 years ago, while the smaller bluestones were imported from Wales later, a new study suggests. The conclusion, detailed in the December issue of the journal Antiquity, challenges earlier timelines that proposed the smaller stones were raised first. "The sequence proposed for the site is really the wrong way around," said study co-author Timothy Darvill, an archaeologist at Bournemouth University in England. "The original idea that it starts small and gets bigger is wrong. It starts big and stays big. The new scheme puts the big stones at the center at the site as the first stage." Rest here. I don't know what chance the amateur has when the professionals can't make their minds up. The Bluestones will have come from Bognor Regis next :-)
|
|||
tiompan 5758 posts |
Dec 01, 2012, 16:18
|
||
|
Sanctuary wrote: Littlestone wrote: Ancient people probably assembled the massive sandstone horseshoe at Stonehenge more than 4,600 years ago, while the smaller bluestones were imported from Wales later, a new study suggests. The conclusion, detailed in the December issue of the journal Antiquity, challenges earlier timelines that proposed the smaller stones were raised first. "The sequence proposed for the site is really the wrong way around," said study co-author Timothy Darvill, an archaeologist at Bournemouth University in England. "The original idea that it starts small and gets bigger is wrong. It starts big and stays big. The new scheme puts the big stones at the center at the site as the first stage." Rest here. I don't know what chance the amateur has when the professionals can't make their minds up. The Bluestones will have come from Bognor Regis next :-) It's even more complicated /political than that . MPP has suggested that the Aubrey Holes held bluestones and in the paper there is a comment that "Some or all of the Q and R holes might once have held the bluestone pillars formerly standing in the Aubrey holes and moved into the centre of the monument " as the Q and R holes immediately followed the the Sarsen horseshoe right at the start of the megalithic phase in the "not really so new " sequence there is a possibility that the bluestones , if they were in the Aubrey holes , were there prior to the sarsen horseshoe meaning the small stones were primary after all . The alternative would be Sarsen horsehoe followed by bluestones in the Aubrey holes then moved to Q and R holes . There have been press comments that are way wrong in relation to quotes supposedly from Darvill and that are clearly not in the paper ,he certainly doesn't make that comment about staetin big and staying big in the paper .
|
|||
|
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Edited Dec 01, 2012, 16:20
Dec 01, 2012, 16:19
|
||
|
Sanctuary wrote: I don't know what chance the amateur has when the professionals can't make their minds up. The Bluestones will have come from Bognor Regis next :-) Shhh... you and I both know that but let’s keep it to ourselves for the time being :-)
|
|||
|
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Dec 01, 2012, 16:29
|
||
You’d think by now some of these (elementary?) issues would have been sorted. How difficult is it, after all, to determine which stones were where when - well, perhaps not when but certainly where...
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Dec 01, 2012, 17:09
|
||
|
Littlestone wrote: You’d think by now some of these (elementary?) issues would have been sorted. How difficult is it, after all, to determine which stones were where when - well, perhaps not when but certainly where... There has always been the problem , from Hawley onwards , whether the Aubrey holes held posts or stones or nothing .MPP believes they held bluestones as did Hawley who later changed his mind ,the problem is that these beliefs can become reified , maybe in 50 years it will just be accepted with question and little proof . The evidence is some of the sides of the A holes show crushing consistent with a stone removal or maybe a timber post , how can you tell without some actual reamins to guide you ? It's not that long ago that it was realised that a group of pits what were believed to be post holes at Woodhenge had actually held sarsens . It's the same at Bluestonehenge , did the pits hold timbers or bluestones or some other type of stone ? there is nothing to go on except the size of the pits . The excavated areas at Stonehenge are a mess and must be a nightmare to interpret simply because of the huge amount of activity throughout prehistory and historically , a Swiss Cheese as somebody described it , others suggest bomb site. Contemporary archaeos blame earlier ones but want still want to dig their holes which will probably be viewed as vandalism in the future . It keeps us entertained though .
|
|||
|
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Dec 01, 2012, 17:19
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: Littlestone wrote: You’d think by now some of these (elementary?) issues would have been sorted. How difficult is it, after all, to determine which stones were where when - well, perhaps not when but certainly where... There has always been the problem , from Hawley onwards , whether the Aubrey holes held posts or stones or nothing .MPP believes they held bluestones as did Hawley who later changed his mind ,the problem is that these beliefs can become reified , maybe in 50 years it will just be accepted with question and little proof . The evidence is some of the sides of the A holes show crushing consistent with a stone removal or maybe a timber post , how can you tell without some actual reamins to guide you ? It's not that long ago that it was realised that a group of pits what were believed to be post holes at Woodhenge had actually held sarsens . It's the same at Bluestonehenge , did the pits hold timbers or bluestones or some other type of stone ? there is nothing to go on except the size of the pits . The excavated areas at Stonehenge are a mess and must be a nightmare to interpret simply because of the huge amount of activity throughout prehistory and historically , a Swiss Cheese as somebody described it , others suggest bomb site. Contemporary archaeos blame earlier ones but want still want to dig their holes which will probably be viewed as vandalism in the future . It keeps us entertained though . That's why I'd like to see much more concentration on some of our lesser but interesting sites that haven't been disturbed so much. Hush my mouth but I'm getting really p*ssed off hearing about Stonehenge. It's nearly as bad as continually having the David Beckham publicity machine rolling on :-)
|
|||
bladup 1986 posts |
Dec 01, 2012, 17:30
|
||
The professionals aren't about facts anymore [if they ever were!!!], it's all about making a name for yourself and saying things that'll get you in the press, Darvell is clearly saying stuff that's against the grain to make a name for himself not give us facts. Like Tiompan say's it's bollocks to say the sarsens were there before the bluestones if the bluestones stood somewhere else first anyway, you have to know where the stones actually stood to give any sequence at all. I bet we know more than those so called experts, they just dig and dig til there's nothing left, the middle of Stonehenge shows this as well as anywhere, it's been dug that badly that there's nothing left for the future - And a time when people would be able to tell everyone everything about the site, but no, philistines have wrecked the place for there own shitty means and to make names for themselves, [Hawley, Atkinson and Piggott were the same as well], it would be great to end this moan by saying they should leave it to the future but like i said there's not much that between them they haven't already wrecked.
|
|||
|
VBB 558 posts |
Dec 03, 2012, 07:36
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: Sanctuary wrote: I don't know what chance the amateur has when the professionals can't make their minds up. The Bluestones will have come from Bognor Regis next :-) It's even more complicated /political than that . Am not sure anyone here really thinks there would be a consensus amongst professionals in relation to what happened in history. What is of far more concern is the mismatch between what they discuss amongst themselves at conferences and in learned print that the public find inaccessible - and what the public think happened in the past. Being brought closer to the detail of the disagreement in question is highly encouraging in that respect. Having attempted a serious point, I'll have a little lie down...
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Dec 03, 2012, 10:10
|
||
|
VBB wrote: tiompan wrote: Sanctuary wrote: I don't know what chance the amateur has when the professionals can't make their minds up. The Bluestones will have come from Bognor Regis next :-) It's even more complicated /political than that . Am not sure anyone here really thinks there would be a consensus amongst professionals in relation to what happened in history. What is of far more concern is the mismatch between what they discuss amongst themselves at conferences and in learned print that the public find inaccessible - and what the public think happened in the past. Being brought closer to the detail of the disagreement in question is highly encouraging in that respect. Having attempted a serious point, I'll have a little lie down... The problem is exacerbated by journalists failing to understand press releases or detail from phone calls then quoting stuff that was never said or that even contradicts the views of the interviewed .
|
| Pages: 22 – [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
