|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Conclusions...Stone circles, are we learning much? |
This topic is locked
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
tiompan 5758 posts |
Nov 05, 2013, 13:48
|
||
|
Evergreen Dazed wrote: tiompan wrote: [quote="Evergreen Dazed"] 'decomissioning', that was the word I was looking for! I don't know if you know or can access the info, but is the grooved ware restricted to pits at henge sites? It varies but not always pits e.g. Woodhenge :post holes D-F ( not A-C ) also below bank and in ditch . Mt Pleasant :stone hole and ditch Durrington: in pits but also midden and other contexts .Ballynahatty : pits ,Machrie Moor: refuse pit . Balfarg :ditch Sarn -Y Bryn -Caled: pit . Another factor is that the greater the number of posts the more likely GW is to be associated , as opposed to Peterborough ware . Brilliant, thank you. It makes me wonder if complete pots were found in one context more than others, how many were associated with burials, and whether the woodhenge post holes you mentioned (D-F) had any other specific feature absent from A-C. I could go on asking questions for hours, your answers always bring to mind more possibilities, but hardly fair, I should go and search this stuff out myself. Its just finding the time thats the issue! [/quote Sorry , I have mislead you , Burl suggested that post holes A-C , which did have Beaker sherds (although high in the fill and secondary ) were later than D-F which belonged to the GW phase ( found in the ditch and under the bank ) . A , C and E also had transverse arrowheads confirming a possible temporal association with GW , and making the two phase suggestion problematic . The size of the assemblage is nearly always sherds often 1-3 ,and when bigger numbers often representing multiple vesels .At Wyke Down it was possible to partially reconstruct three vessels and the there is a reconstucted vessel (20 sherds ?) from Durrington in Salisbury museum .
|
|||
|
Evergreen Dazed 1881 posts |
Nov 05, 2013, 14:38
|
||
|
Interesting, cheers. Another slight puzzle to me - If its true that GW originated in Orkney, why do you think Unstan Ware doesn't make an appearance in S Britain? I've read there have been some early dates for GW in the south, is the thinking changing on this? GW didnt necessarily supercede UW (did it?), so if GW did originate in the far north, might we not expect to see UW in the south too? Last question on this - I promise!
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Nov 05, 2013, 16:02
|
||
|
Evergreen Dazed wrote: Interesting, cheers. Another slight puzzle to me - If its true that GW originated in Orkney, why do you think Unstan Ware doesn't make an appearance in S Britain? I've read there have been some early dates for GW in the south, is the thinking changing on this? GW didnt necessarily supercede UW (did it?), so if GW did originate in the far north, might we not expect to see UW in the south too? Last question on this - I promise! No problem . Dunno if it's much help though . I can only suggest that Unstan ware was mainly simple bowls and GW more up market and a greater variety of vessel and therefore more likely to travel i.e. Trabant v Audi ? There is also the possibility/wild speculation that Unstan was associated with either a different group of settlers from those associated with GW or the Unstan users were earlier or indigenous and the GW makers , continental settlers who arrived /travelled south and west later . The stratification at Pool suggests Unstan preceded GW but they may well have been in use contemporaneously I don't know of any earlier GW outwith Orkney
|
|||
|
Evergreen Dazed 1881 posts |
Nov 05, 2013, 16:24
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: Evergreen Dazed wrote: Interesting, cheers. Another slight puzzle to me - If its true that GW originated in Orkney, why do you think Unstan Ware doesn't make an appearance in S Britain? I've read there have been some early dates for GW in the south, is the thinking changing on this? GW didnt necessarily supercede UW (did it?), so if GW did originate in the far north, might we not expect to see UW in the south too? Last question on this - I promise! No problem . Dunno if it's much help though . I can only suggest that Unstan ware was mainly simple bowls and GW more up market and a greater variety of vessel and therefore more likely to travel i.e. Trabant v Audi ? There is also the possibility/wild speculation that Unstan was associated with either a different group of settlers from those associated with GW or the Unstan users were earlier or indigenous and the GW makers , continental settlers who arrived /travelled south and west later . The stratification at Pool suggests Unstan preceded GW but they may well have been in use contemporaneously I don't know of any earlier GW outwith Orkney Early dates I was referring to were Hillend & Balfarg, I shouldn't have written 'south', but mainland! But, no, none earlier than Orkney. I was thinking if (big if!) GW originated on the mainland could it explain its distribution further south and also Unstan wares absence. Just speculation anyway but cheers.
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Nov 05, 2013, 17:35
|
||
|
Evergreen Dazed wrote: tiompan wrote: Evergreen Dazed wrote: Interesting, cheers. Another slight puzzle to me - If its true that GW originated in Orkney, why do you think Unstan Ware doesn't make an appearance in S Britain? I've read there have been some early dates for GW in the south, is the thinking changing on this? GW didnt necessarily supercede UW (did it?), so if GW did originate in the far north, might we not expect to see UW in the south too? Last question on this - I promise! No problem . Dunno if it's much help though . I can only suggest that Unstan ware was mainly simple bowls and GW more up market and a greater variety of vessel and therefore more likely to travel i.e. Trabant v Audi ? There is also the possibility/wild speculation that Unstan was associated with either a different group of settlers from those associated with GW or the Unstan users were earlier or indigenous and the GW makers , continental settlers who arrived /travelled south and west later . The stratification at Pool suggests Unstan preceded GW but they may well have been in use contemporaneously I don't know of any earlier GW outwith Orkney Early dates I was referring to were Hillend & Balfarg, I shouldn't have written 'south', but mainland! But, no, none earlier than Orkney. I was thinking if (big if!) GW originated on the mainland could it explain its distribution further south and also Unstan wares absence. Just speculation anyway but cheers. Possibly anomalous but one late date of GW in central Scotland at Littleour was 2350- 2030 bc .
|
|||
jonmor 150 posts |
Nov 05, 2013, 19:31
|
||
|
"Phew , back to the decryption , sounds more like "Northand " or "handto " in Neolithic rhyming slang ?" Haha. You must have seen the intro to the latest version of the book (or I missed the reference entirely): A bit different from Stonehenge this one. It is not even vaguely complex. To me it seems very obvious, especially with all the detailed drawings around the perimeter showing what to do. So I find myself wondering if I am imposing some of these development systems (which would lead directly to a "Stonehenge" being built) onto those monuments: It's a bit weird putting these ideas together and then finding that all of them seem to have been constructed. If Stonehenge is engineering brilliance, then that other set is intellectual genius. If they're what I think they might be, then the whole set-up is so profound, simple, logical and obvious that future generations will look back with amazement; not at the interpretation, but at how long we took to work it out. But can it really be that obvious? I'm struggling with this so think I need the people who really know the place to take a look.
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Nov 05, 2013, 19:43
|
||
|
jonmor wrote: "Phew , back to the decryption , sounds more like "Northand " or "handto " in Neolithic rhyming slang ?" Haha. You must have seen the intro to the latest version of the book (or I missed the reference entirely): A bit different from Stonehenge this one. It is not even vaguely complex. To me it seems very obvious, especially with all the detailed drawings around the perimeter showing what to do. So I find myself wondering if I am imposing some of these development systems (which would lead directly to a "Stonehenge" being built) onto those monuments: It's a bit weird putting these ideas together and then finding that all of them seem to have been constructed. If Stonehenge is engineering brilliance, then that other set is intellectual genius. If they're what I think they might be, then the whole set-up is so profound, simple, logical and obvious that future generations will look back with amazement; not at the interpretation, but at how long we took to work it out. But can it really be that obvious? I'm struggling with this so think I need the people who really know the place to take a look. You'll have to spell it out Jon . The engravings have been pored over and no one has noted anything apart from a possible connection with structural components , the astronomical , calendrical and representation are never consistent and easily refuted . As the same motifs are used elsewhere they provide a comparison . If you can show they represent one thing at one monument then checking against another could test the pudding . George Eogan knows it well .
|
|||
|
jonmor 150 posts |
Nov 06, 2013, 09:16
|
||
|
Thanks George. I agree: It needs to be spelt out in a lot of detail. Time consuming process to get it to a state where the intro would be easy to grasp because you have to forget everything that we know and every assumption we take for granted: Start from scratch and go in a different direction. Normally with intros you're expanding on existing knowledge. I've used Eogan and O'Kelly's work to check the initial data (as well as the site check): No inconsistencies so far but it's not like Stonehenge where everything is accessible, so everything could fall apart on entry to the inaccessible bits. The astronomical and calendrical theories seem over-complex to me, but there might be some secondary or dual purpose: There's one complex motif that seems overly developed to my eyes. Will let you know what response I get!
|
|||
|
Evergreen Dazed 1881 posts |
Nov 06, 2013, 10:43
|
||
This sounds intriguing Jon. Any chance of a hint? :)
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Nov 06, 2013, 11:07
|
||
|
jonmor wrote: There's one complex motif that seems overly developed to my eyes. Will let you know what response I get! Jon , the use of “over developed “ seems inappropriate when we don’t know the intent , meaning , if any , or limits , is it not just more ornate or possessing a greater number of different motifs from others ? My guess is K 15 but 13 is arguably even more complex . Can you say who is getting access to the idea to allow a response ?
|
| Pages: 26 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | This topic is locked |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
