|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Church Lawton barrows Cheshire . |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
tiompan 5758 posts |
Nov 17, 2014, 15:32
|
||
|
“Once a Sacred and Secluded Place: Early Bronze Age Monuments at Church Lawton, near Alsager, Cheshire “ from most recent Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society . Interesting paper for those interested in BA funerary practices /monuments and or archaeology in the Cheshire/Staffordshire plain . Brief summary . Report of two round barrows excavated in early 1980’s ,a nearby third was destroyed by the expansion of a garage in the 50’s . Barrow A : unditched , evidence of limited Late Mesolithic use within body of mound and Early Neolithic underneath .No pits or burials .Centre of monument had a turf stack with associated timber and burnt wood producing a date of 2275–1691 cal BC . A small amount of cremated bone found in stack and fragments of cinerary urns from ground surface suggest a link to funerary practices in the other barrow(s) . Mound 22m in diameter ,1m high . It was encircled by nine stones two separate arcs of five and four with different centres and they did not function as a kerb . Barrow B : defined by an irregular ditch . Mound , degraded by ploughing but probably 30-32 m diameter , consists of sand and stabilising turves but not revetments . A central pit 0.5m deep was covered by large piece of burnt wood returning a date of 2027–1621 cal BC .Two urned burials and thirteen with un-urned cremations found . Urned burial provided date 2115-1896 cal BC . At the south and east five scoops and shallow pits had numerous stakes (diameter 20-60mm ) and were infilled with ash and charocoal ,considered as possible pyre draught pits .
|
|||
|
Dave1982 83 posts |
Nov 19, 2014, 11:55
|
||
|
"It was encircled by nine stones two separate arcs of five and four with different centres and they did not function as a kerb" Do either of the arcs align with the sunrises progression? - worth checking out as soon as I have time.
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Nov 19, 2014, 12:35
|
||
|
Dave1982 wrote: "It was encircled by nine stones two separate arcs of five and four with different centres and they did not function as a kerb" Do either of the arcs align with the sunrises progression? - worth checking out as soon as I have time. Worth mentioning that there was no evidence other stones . If the northing on the plan is true north , (not guaranteed ) then from the centre of the monument , one arc occupies 20 -100 degrees and the other 185 -300 degrees . The report does suggest “It is equally possible that the two arcs were positioned in relation to the rising and setting of the sun. “ .But is clear that they hadn’t actually considered the data . Neither arc fits the extreme setting or rising points for the latitiude and horizon , being out by approx 27 , 30 , 45 and 12 degrees in each case with the 20 degree point being 27 north of where the sun is never even seen . Similarly the lunar standstills don’t fit ,again , the 20 is still 17 degrees too far north , a point from the where the moon is never seen .
|
|||
|
Dave1982 83 posts |
Nov 20, 2014, 17:17
|
||
|
Pity. The 20 to 100 degree arc (80 degrees) does approximately cover the sunrise progression arc, so thus encouraged I'll hunt around on the Satellite views to try to find the stones and check the North orientation. If there is anything positive I'll reply on this thread. : ) Thanks for the info. Dave1982
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Nov 20, 2014, 17:48
|
||
|
The boulders have been covered over .The site is approx within 5 m radius of 53 .098454 -2.287696 .The grid ref from the report is only 8 figures . For the latitiude and the horizon , the 20 degree point is approx 27 degrees off the summer solstice rise point as seen from the monument ( 47 degrees ) .The sun never gets any further north than solstice point . The 100 degree point is at least 30 degrees and probably closer to 34 from the winter solstice rise point or six weeks off the event . If you can give mean addy I'll send the paper .
|
|||
|
Dave1982 83 posts |
Nov 22, 2014, 18:05
|
||
|
Yes, I checked and found there is nothing to see on the ground level, and I could not find any diagrams, even in Robina McNeil’s short report. Pity, as this site sounds very like the one at Blakeley Raise, Cleator Moor, Cumberland, England - Latitude 54.512882 Longitude -3.453516 grid reference NY060140. There is most definitely an orientation of the sun rises progression, which can be seen in Section 7, figure 7 in the following - sites.google.com/site/originsofstonehenge/home/appendix-a (if the link does not work just copy it into the address bar) I was going to ask you for a diagram, so I can draw the sun rise progression onto it and rotate it to see if there is any orientation. My address is [email protected]. Many thanks for the info. Dave1982
|
|||
|
postman 848 posts |
Nov 22, 2014, 18:55
|
||
|
There's really not much to see. http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/site/16291/church_lawton.html
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Nov 22, 2014, 19:15
|
||
|
Dave , will send paper which has a plan of the stones and also spreadsheet of the solstice directions from the site . The problem with the plan, as with most archaeo plans , is the northing , which could be any of the three . Accepting that it is true north then the extreme edge of one of the stones is close to the orientation for summer solstice sun rise but all the others are way out . A major problem with line of sight is that the palynology suggets the monuments were in a woodland of Alder Oak and lime with a hazel understorey .
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Nov 22, 2014, 19:21
|
||
Dave , I'm getting a problem with your addy . Outlook Express isn't accepting it as valid ???
|
|||
|
Dave1982 83 posts |
Nov 23, 2014, 17:42
|
||
|
Thanks for the email - on my Google account. I don't know why the Explorer email address did not work - I do get messages on it, but will not give it out in future. Sorry about that. I've taken a copy of the stones layout and will try to match the sun rises to it. It does look like a straight forward burial site, but there may be a dual function. I'll post the results on here.
|
| Pages: 2 – [ 1 2 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
