slumpystones
|
Re: Time Capsules?
Jul 01, 2007, 08:40
|
Antlers were indeed laid down and left as offerings. In fact some of the Stonehenge ones were hundreds of years old, antiques in prehistory, when they were finally laid to rest.
But there was a reason for them to do that, whatever it may have been. There is no real reason for a time capsule inside the hill. Nothing can justify such a daft decision except for some idiot in a suit coming up with an idea that appealed to other idiots in suits.
"Oh Tarquin, another vote-winner in the marginals!!"
|
slumpystones
|
Re: Silbury updates
Jul 01, 2007, 08:44
|
|
scousemaiden wrote: I still stand by my beliefs that the Time Capsule is of no harm to Silbury Hill; it will be put in with love and contain objects placed in there by people filled with excitement, enthusiasm and the desire to give something as a gift or a gesture.
As I said, a decision based on emotions rather than commonsense.
Thanks you for helping me make my point!
As for 'no harm', I still don't see that as a reason to do something. A coke can filled with offerings buried in the top of the hill will also do 'no harm', but that doesn't excuse it as an act of desecration.
|
Pilgrim
|
Re: Time Capsules?
Jul 01, 2007, 08:47
|
|
Robert Carr wrote: Pilgrim wrote:
Hmm.. bits of broken antler and such left in a disparate manner? I thinketh not. Sorry.
I thinketh that the deposition of artefacts (some deliberately broken prior to the act) at prehistoric monuments has been established as fact by archaeologists. But hell - what do they know!
Sorry.
Hi, Robert Carr,
Please; don't patronise me. I am aware of the deliberate placement of artifacts, but I cannot see that the remains of a pick head - an artefact which has been found countless times in many different excavations - can be seen as a deliberate placement.
Peace
Pilgrim
X
|
Pilgrim
|
Re: Time Capsules?
Jul 01, 2007, 08:54
|
Hi, slumpystones,
slumpystones wrote: Antlers were indeed laid down and left as offerings. In fact some of the Stonehenge ones were hundreds of years old, antiques in prehistory, when they were finally laid to rest.
Indeed. But I think the telling phrase is "laid down". To use a pick end as justification for an unnatural insertion of our era's presence into a prehistoric construct is - in my opinion - wrong. I'm going to leave it at that, chum.
Peace
Pilgrim
X
|
Pilgrim
|
Hate?
Jul 01, 2007, 09:01
|
|
scousemaiden wrote:
Don't worry I can feel the hate," how dare she"'s, and" who does she think she is" already....................................and it bothers me not!!!!
Happy and proud to be involved
Scousemaiden xxx
You'll get no hate from me, Scousemaiden. And not from anyone else here, I think. Just because we have contrary opinions, doesn't mean that there is hatred here. Strong words, I think. We're all on this board for a reason; because we feel we belong here.
Peace
Pilgrim
X
|
slumpystones
|
Re: Time Capsules?
Jul 01, 2007, 09:05
|
|
Pilgrim wrote: Hi, slumpystones,
slumpystones wrote: Antlers were indeed laid down and left as offerings. In fact some of the Stonehenge ones were hundreds of years old, antiques in prehistory, when they were finally laid to rest.
Indeed. But I think the telling phrase is "laid down". To use a pick end as justification for an unnatural insertion of our era's presence into a prehistoric construct is - in my opinion - wrong. I'm going to leave it at that, chum.
Peace
Pilgrim
X
I couldn't agree more. There is nothing I have read or heard that justifies putting anything at all into Silbury, other than chalk.
|
nigelswift
|
Re: Silbury updates
Jul 01, 2007, 09:19
|
"Me thinks too many people who feel they should be involved have been overlooked, and as their two penneth isn't wanted, are taking the proverbial hump."
That is rather harsh, as I am sure you will see upon reflection. Since you can't possibly see inside people's heads it might be more appropriate to work on the assumption that they say what they do because they have a sincere belief in what they say.
|
Robert Carr
|
Re: Time Capsules?
Jul 01, 2007, 09:46
|
|
Pilgrim wrote:
I am aware of the deliberate placement of artifacts, but I cannot see that the remains of a pick head - an artefact which has been found countless times in many different excavations - can be seen as a deliberate placement.
I think some people would beg to differ.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=antler+deposition+prehistoric&btnG=Search&meta=
|
Pilgrim
|
(OT) Antlers, and the pieces thereof......
Jul 01, 2007, 10:20
|
|
Robert Carr wrote:
Dear Robert,
I'm not going to get involved in a pointless exchange with you. This board deserves better than that. Like I said - and which you patently failed to acknowledge in your post:
http://www.headheritage.co.uk/headtohead/tma/topic/41033/threaded/522455
"I am aware of the deliberate placement of artifacts, but I cannot see that the remains of a pick head - an artefact which has been found countless times in many different excavations - can be seen as a deliberate placement."
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/upload/pdf/Silbury_Hill_Finds_Update_Week_05.pdf
"Pieces of antler pick are the next most prevalent artefact to be recovered from Silbury Hill so far. The example on the left exhibits old breaks and as you can see is remarkably well preserved. Antlers were ideal material for the breaking up of the chalk used to construct the mound,and are often found in association with prehistoric ditch structures."
Peace
Pilgrim
X
|
Littlestone
|
Ask the Experts
Jul 01, 2007, 10:50
|
Some six weeks in and not a single word on English Heritage's Ask the Experts page.* English Heritage's incompetence speaks for itself.
* http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/server/show/nav.17513
|
