Evergreen Dazed
|
Re: Conclusions...Stone circles, are we learning much?
Nov 06, 2013, 11:39
|
|
tiompan wrote: 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 ?
From the archaeologists named and the other bits and pieces, got the site, can't wait to hear the theory.
|
jonmor
|
Re: Conclusions...Stone circles, are we learning much?
Nov 06, 2013, 13:21
|
Bloody hell George: K15. How could you possibly guess that?
No idea who at this stage or even if it'll be of interest. Now that the Stonehenge set is more or less done, just offering out the idea like last time, but at a much slower pace: I had more time spare back then, but it still took three years! I have no idea what qualifies as a reasonable evidence set for this purpose so don't know how it'll be seen: I thought Combe Hill was very weak (even considered deleting it because it looked too speculative to me) but it seems to have been picked out by others as strong. K13 is absolutely fine, but a bit messy; almost as if someone wanted to bring everything they thought important into one, but didn't properly plan out how they were going to do that.
|
jonmor
|
Re: Conclusions...Stone circles, are we learning much?
Nov 06, 2013, 13:23
|
|
Same theme as the rest Evergreen: Initially based on fears for survival (especially at this location), but developing into something more complex. The early version of the book (without all the academic references and detailed notes) was freely available for a while: Did you get a copy?
|
Evergreen Dazed
|
Re: Conclusions...Stone circles, are we learning much?
Nov 06, 2013, 13:33
|
|
jonmor wrote: Same theme as the rest Evergreen: Initially based on fears for survival (especially at this location), but developing into something more complex. The early version of the book (without all the academic references and detailed notes) was freely available for a while: Did you get a copy?
I didn't get a copy unfortunately. I have looked at the SH stuff via discussions and links over on the MegPortal, and I have to say I don't yet feel i've fully understood what is being presented. (My fault, not yours!)
|
tiompan
|
Re: Conclusions...Stone circles, are we learning much?
Nov 06, 2013, 14:42
|
[quote="jonmor"]Bloody hell George: K15. How could you possibly guess that?
Dowsing . (gets coat)
I have no idea what qualifies as a reasonable evidence set for this purpose so don't know how it'll be seen:
That's what is of interest ,a clue to what the evidence might be .
K13 is absolutely fine, but a bit messy; almost as if someone wanted to bring everything they thought important into one, but didn't properly plan out how they were going to do that.
That is also of interest , what is the criteria that considers it messy ? , why assume what was important for the engraver(s) ? ,why assume that the engravings are representations of important concepts to the engraver and some might include more concepts than others ? why assume the engraving was pre-planned ?
Sorry lots of Q's , but hoping to get to the basis of it .
|
nigelswift
|
[Off topic]
Nov 06, 2013, 15:10
|
|
tiompan wrote: Dowsing . (gets coat)
Results of a big geofizz exercise at Arbor Low and Gib Hill have just been published. Since that's about the most intensively dowsed area there is it'll be interesting to see if there's any equivalence.
|
tiompan
|
Re: [Off topic]
Nov 06, 2013, 15:22
|
|
nigelswift wrote: tiompan wrote: Dowsing . (gets coat)
Results of a big geofizz exercise at Arbor Low and Gib Hill have just been published. Since that's about the most intensively dowsed area there is it'll be interesting to see if there's any equivalence.
The problem is that dowsers tend to "do it at ancient sites " where you might expect something to be found , same applies to non -dowsers who can just as easily say " I always thought there was something likely to be found there " .
Whatever turns up somebody is bound to say "I told you so" . When a dowser finds a monument , battle site ,burial ,object hidden from view , in an area that has no obvious association then it will be of interest .
|
nigelswift
|
Re: [Off topic]
Nov 06, 2013, 15:30
|
|
tiompan wrote: Whatever turns up somebody is bound to say "I told you so"
No problem with that so long as all the others say "I didn't" so the claim can be seen in context. The monkeys that typed Hamlet might just have got lucky, we have no way of knowing from a single observation.
|
tiompan
|
Re: [Off topic]
Nov 06, 2013, 15:48
|
|
nigelswift wrote: tiompan wrote: Whatever turns up somebody is bound to say "I told you so"
No problem with that so long as all the others say "I didn't" so the claim can be seen in context. The monkeys that typed Hamlet might just have got lucky, we have no way of knowing from a single observation.
If only .
I have yet to hear an "I didnt " , in these circumstances it's always silence .
At least the monkeys didn't have the original under the desk .
|
nigelswift
|
Re: [Off topic]
Nov 06, 2013, 16:30
|
|
tiompan wrote: [quote="nigelswift"][quote="tiompan"]
At least the monkeys didn't have the original under the desk .
Well there's a suspicion they did but when a test was suggested to preclude the possibility they went ape.
|
