|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Silbury Hill » Silbury updates |
This topic is locked
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
rammie 31 posts |
Jul 01, 2007, 11:15
|
||
|
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."...... "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." I cannot see how one statement necessarily follows the other - just because something is prevalent does not mean it cannot be a 'deliberate deposition' does it? I understand a piece of antler was found in the recent Avebury dig, fascinatingly situated on top of a small post-hole.
|
|||
|
slumpystones 769 posts |
Jul 01, 2007, 11:15
|
||
|
Anyone can create a search phrase and get thousands of response pages. I bet paedophilia gets a good few, but I doubt that you support that too? SOME antlers are deliberately placed, but a small percentage. Don't forget, a lot of antler pieces are small broken-off bits, not whole antlers.
|
|||
|
rammie 31 posts |
Jul 01, 2007, 11:18
|
||
|
...and some prehistoric sites are remarkably clean of any artifacts, they knew how to be 'clean and tidy'. Fun this isn't it, what was the point again?
|
|||
|
slumpystones 769 posts |
Jul 01, 2007, 11:19
|
||
|
There is a huge difference between broken bits that were left where they fell, and deliberately placed items. Pottery falls into the same category - left or discarded? Silbury was at one time a huge building site, and one would expect to find discarded lumps and broken tips everywhere - to make any parallels between a broken antler tip and a deliberately-placed 21stC item is like comparing George Best's right boot with Wayne Rooney.
|
|||
Pilgrim 597 posts |
Jul 01, 2007, 11:37
|
||
|
Hi rammie, rammie wrote: I cannot see how one statement necessarily follows the other - just because something is prevalent does not mean it cannot be a 'deliberate deposition' does it? No. But you must agree that the converse is also true. As the EH report highlights, a lot of these antler pieces have been found here - and at Avebury, and at places like Durrington Walls. It is my understanding that simply having something in a trench doesn't make it a deliberate deposition (unlike this bloody Time Capsule nonsense). It might well be the case that these things shall never be known. Perhaps this is a question for the "Ask the Experts" page? rammie wrote: I understand a piece of antler was found in the recent Avebury dig, fascinatingly situated on top of a small post-hole. Would it be wrong of me to suggest that the reason the piece of antler you mention was made reference to was precisely because it implied a "planned act" - a relationship with a man-made archaeological phenomenon, and as such was considered out of the ordinary? Sadly, I'm no great expert on matters of archaeology (it's all I can do to get dressed in the morning), but this board allows me the freedom to speculate and ponder - and even give me the luxury of deciding for myself what I believe is right or wrong. No such luxury has been forthcoming from English Heritage; they have decided on a Time Capsule, without any reasonable explanation to the people who own the Hill and pay their wages. Peace Pilgrim X
|
|||
|
rammie 31 posts |
Jul 01, 2007, 11:37
|
||
|
slumpystones wrote: ...Silbury was at one time a huge building site, and one would expect to find discarded lumps and broken tips everywhere.... ....ahhh really, thanks for that. So any items left in Silbury don't matter and it is the monument as a whole that is important.
|
|||
|
rammie 31 posts |
Jul 01, 2007, 11:42
|
||
|
I'm fairly sure I'm not in favour of the TC but when I wonder why I discover its just an emotional response, lol! I guess in the scheme of things its not a terribly destructive thing to do. So then I wonder who is history for and why does it matter? Well I wonder these things when not watching the England wickets tumble.... don't mean to be facetious (can't even spell it!), just will be happy for 'Silbury the monument' to be whole again.
|
|||
|
rammie 31 posts |
Jul 01, 2007, 11:47
|
||
|
Pilgrim wrote: ...Would it be wrong of me to suggest that the reason the piece of antler you mention was made reference to was precisely because it implied a "planned act" - a relationship with a man-made archaeological phenomenon, and as such was considered out of the ordinary? .... Peace Pilgrim X Actually it was out of the ordinary as it was the only bit that was found, although the Avebury 'exploration' was only for 2 weeks, in the bottom of a tree throw and was 'possibly' of mesolithic origin!
|
|||
|
Pilgrim 597 posts |
Jul 01, 2007, 11:55
|
||
|
rammie wrote: I'm fairly sure I'm not in favour of the TC but when I wonder why I discover its just an emotional response, lol! I guess in the scheme of things its not a terribly destructive thing to do. So then I wonder who is history for and why does it matter? Agreed. My issue is with precedent, and the fact that these things are never in the ground for ever; for some reason, they get dug up quite soon after. The only way they will stop that, is to bury it deep, I think, and broadcast the fact to all and sundry. It's just a no-brainer, in my opinion I'm afraid. rammie wrote: Well I wonder these things when not watching the England wickets tumble.... Ah. Cricket. It's all America's Cup over here; and that's not going too well (getting beaten by a landlocked country isn't a good feeling, apparently). To make matters worse, The AB's have just been beaten by the Aussies, and a day of mourning is in the offing. rammie wrote: don't mean to be facetious (can't even spell it!), just will be happy for 'Silbury the monument' to be whole again. Oh yes. I'm with you all the way there, rammie. All the way. As long as it doesn't involve overburdening the workers, of course. Peace Pilgrim X
|
|||
|
Robert Carr 84 posts |
Edited Jul 01, 2007, 12:20
Jul 01, 2007, 11:59
|
||
|
Pilgrim wrote: 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." You don't really believe anything that English Heritage tells you... do you? They're just 'incompetent fools'... I thought? Stay on message please.
|
| Pages: 67 – [ Previous | 1 … 32 33 34 35 36 37 | Next ] | This topic is locked |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
