tjj
|
Edited Jun 05, 2009, 19:36
Re: TMA contributes to archaeological theory...
Jun 05, 2009, 19:34
|
|
nigelswift wrote:
The dehabilitation of Atkinson has been a deliberate process, and traceable over time. Nothing was said for decades - I presume because half the blame was down to EH's predecessors who should have controlled him. Then a few years ago four people in EH let rip in an article in British Archaeology and the poor sod was finally openly demonised, not without reason but late.
Did you know when he'd done at Silbury he left the blokes to fill it and didn't go back to supervise them? Apparently they didn't give a damn how they filled it, and partly didn't, and on cold days they ripped down the timber that had been put to line the walls and made bonfires in there? And no-one checked.
I followed the 2007 Silbury conservation project with great interest I have to say I did not know the above. It makes my skin shiver to think about it, such appalling arrogance on behalf of Atkinson.
Sixties footage of the excavation work was heart breaking to watch and in the context of the above information it has to be said that the conservation workers struggled, not just against the wettest summer in decades, but other tremendous unknown odds. Everyone agrees that EH fell short in many ways but the fact that Silbury still stands, the scar now 'healed' is a credit to the team who undertook the work.
Here's to Silbury on misty, summer mornings.
|
StoneGloves
|
Re: TMA contributes to archaeological theory...
Jun 05, 2009, 21:14
|
|
Yes, I've got stuff under my bed. No notes - or not many. Lots of photographs - but no system of archive. This forum has been the log book. Ha!
|
Littlestone
|
Re: TMA contributes to archaeological theory...
Jun 05, 2009, 21:39
|
|
StoneGloves wrote: Yes, I've got stuff under my bed. No notes - or not many. Lots of photographs - but no system of archive. This forum has been the log book. Ha!
Good for you Mr S, but RA didn't have TMA - he had his (then) archaeological community, to which he was presumably accountable. And, in the wider context, he had a responsibility of care to our cultural assets. Seems to me he failed on both those accounts, and he failed for quite inexplicable reasons.
Oh, sorry, have just realized that something very similar can be applied to a number of our present politicians - ie in the keeping of things under beds as well as not being accountable to their peers (nor to the public ;-)
|
StoneGloves
|
Re: TMA contributes to archaeological theory...
Jun 06, 2009, 21:15
|
|
I had the impression that Atkinson's work informed Hawkins and that Stonehenge Decoded moved archaeology forward in some sense, or other. I don't know enough about Atkinson's work to comment on it, really.
|
GordonP
|
Re: TMA contributes to archaeological theory...
Jun 12, 2009, 17:09
|
Hi Goffick
I used two mauls, hand held, one about 16oz and one about 10lbs. The big one worked like a sledgehammer and the small one like a carpenters hammer. I made sort of a leather sling for each, with the striking surface exposed through an hole in the leather, I was amazed at the kinetic energy that could be produced. Even though I am unskilled with such a tool the accuracy was reasonable, with a few years practise I reckon you could hit a sixpence with either.
I have a book coming out in Sept BTW, will have the details on my website shortly including a sample read, pictures of the North Ferriby boats and details of my experiments in America.
Always good to hear from any of the Stonehengineers
Gordon
|
goffik
|
Re: TMA contributes to archaeological theory...
Jun 13, 2009, 07:50
|
|
GordonP wrote: Always good to hear from any of the Stonehengineers
Likewise! :)
I look forward to seeing the book.
Your methods seem a lot more likely and workable to of than a big frame with a rock on a rope.
It's sort of how I pictured it when I saw the reconstruction of the a-frame experiment. It all just seemed too cumbersome and random.
Individual rock-on-a-rope seems much more sensible to me. And much more portable.
But, I suppose as with all of these things - you'd use the best method for the job, so maybe a combination of all of the above :)
G x
|
AnnaDevon
|
Re: The Secrets of Stonehenge
Jun 15, 2009, 09:34
|
I really enjoyed the Documetary as it helped me to see the bigger picture, Stonehenge related to the Avenue (natural feature?) leading to the River which led to Durrington Walls.
But I was surprised that Woodhenge was not mentioned once, I would have thought there was some connection with that site.
And still very little was found out about the Cursus.
|
nix
|
Re: The Secrets of Stonehenge ??
Jun 22, 2009, 14:26
|
I only just saw this and I found MPP and Co.'s theory an imaginative and plausible one but the reverse logic of saying that because the Durrington settlement was only occupied for 35 years, Stonehenge was built in such that period seemed quite a leap.
And doesn't it undermine the notion that the relationship between the timber / / living / temporary circle of Woodhenge was a long used beginning of a ritual journey ending at stone / dead / eternal circle of Stonehenge if Durrington was only in use for such a short period? Or did I miss something?
If the theory is accurate, does it say something about the relationship of the timber circle of the Sanctuary and the stone circle of Avebury?
|
moss
|
Edited Jun 22, 2009, 17:36
Re: The Secrets of Stonehenge ??
Jun 22, 2009, 17:28
|
|
If the theory is accurate, does it say something about the relationship of the timber circle of the Sanctuary and the stone circle of Avebury?
Could be - it's been suggested that the Sanctuary was a charnel house (perhaps also a slaughterhouse?) and so the link between celebrating the dead with feasting (on freshly slaughtered porkies) and preparing them for their journey into the afterlife (departed kinsfolk that is not the porkies) might be a possibility.
..........Says LS
|
Littlestone
|
Edited Jun 22, 2009, 17:50
Re: The Secrets of Stonehenge ??
Jun 22, 2009, 17:48
|
|
..........Says LS
Chuckle... Wish you'd stop putting my words in your mouth :-)
If you're confused, folks, moss is using my computer, and keeps forgetting to logoff (and I keep forgetting to check that she has logged-off :-)
|
