|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Modern not antiquarian |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
bladup 1986 posts |
Edited Aug 04, 2012, 13:09
Aug 04, 2012, 12:40
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: bladup wrote: tiompan wrote: bladup wrote: tiompan wrote: bladup wrote: Stonehenge and the recumbents [it's all about the recumbent at them- i've been to enough] are not true stone circles and the recumbents do seem to have had a fire at the start [probably to clear the ground]. It really does seem to be different where you are in the country which suggests different things were going on all over, therefore it was probably very regional as to what went on , i can almost hear the dancing feet down here in cornwall. I think the name recumbent stone circles tells us what type of monument it is . Recumbents also have burials associated with them , as well as ring cairns . Stone circles in the south west had charcoal deposits e.g. at Ferworthy the entire inner space was covered in charcoal, Brisworthy and the Grey Wethers also had charcoal deposits , Boskednan had a cist .Hurlers northern circle was paved with granite ,Duloe had an urn with a cremation . "Swept clean " and don't like excavating them "quotes ? Things that were probably added later, not by the builders! burl, barnett and lots of others [ i'm not spending my night going though 100's of books, sorry they're boxed up] both said as much and both have excavated places. I have already mentioned that later insertions into stone circles were commonplace but in many cases there were aretfacts and activity prior to the erection of the stone circle and noted by Burl and Barnatt . Yes but Probably by different sets of people, the wooden posts at the sanctuary were older than the stone circles which were built long after the posts had rotted away, so therefore some people may have liked to mark ancient wooden structures with circles of stone, as if to mark the spot, maybe to stop it getting lost from view [if the posts had rotted and there was nothing left to see]. Clear examples that refute "“Stone circles have nothing left in them “ . Even clearer examples are the stone circles that encircle earlier monuments e.g. Newgrange , Balnuaran of Clava ring cairn , Clava NE cairn etc . in the latter cases built not that long after the encircled monuments whcih had little chance of getting lost from view . Stone circles have encircled earlier activity/monuments that are much earlier or slightly earlier /contemporaneous and is either hidden from view or very obvious . Yes stone circles often have stuff in them but it's normally from earlier[ or later] people ,Which came first at clava- the tombs or stone circles?
|
|||
|
bladup 1986 posts |
Aug 04, 2012, 12:46
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: bladup wrote: tiompan wrote: bladup wrote: tiompan wrote: bladup wrote: I know boscawen un wasn't mentioned but it's a good example- standing stone with carving of stone axes on [ in relief ] so therefore stone age or neolithic, circle round the standing stone could be the same age or could be later [no later than the early bronze age] but possible cist is later [late bronze age], so yes the standing stone in the middle could have been there first, the postholes found in circles are often earlier than the stone circle [the sanctuary near avebury] , so not always the same people who put the stones up later- it really does suggest sacred sites over a long period and different sets of people. It seems to become a habit down here and other places in the late bronze age to start putting cairns inside [the always kept clear] stone circles, i've read that some of the ringcairns inside the recumbents are radio carbon dated quite a lot later than the stone circles - pretty sure one was loanhead of daviot. The recumbents themselves may even sometimes be older than the circle and what about the chance that there may have been recumbents without any stone circle, i can't remember where it was but at one they looked for the missing stoneholes and couldn't find any, i imagine the plough had destroyed them though. Quite , Boscawen Un wasn't mentioned because it hasn't been excavated (apart from a single trench in the 19th C . ) and hasn't been dated . The axes carvings cannot be dated and their presence does not date the monument to the Neolithic . Timber circles are yet other examples of activity /”plenty left in them “ at various sites pre stone erection although that is not always the case , e.g. Croft Moraig where the timber circle post dated the stone circle and horseshoe . Neolithic sherds were found at Loanhead of Daviot , one context in the socket of an fallen orthostat, thus showing earlier activity at the site . In the case of recumbents , there are the remains of recumbents with other components maybe two flankers and some orthostats but in all cases they are the remains of a stone circle . There isn't a case of a recumbent that never had any other components . Furthermore at Tomnaverie the siting of the recumbent was the final act . Current thinking is that RSC 's commemorated the sites of cremations .The point is that stone circles throughout the country have evidence of varied earlier activity including artefacts refuting “Stone circles have nothing left in them “ . You think they are doing carvings of NEOLITHIC AXES after the neolithic [you're just been argumentative], they would have done carvings of metel axes later like at stonehenge, and you come across as knowing all there is to know on recumbents so therefore you have a closed mind [yes there is a recumbent where they couldn't find the stoneholes , it must have slipped past your massive intellect] and worst of all you just sound like a fucking archeologist , YOU have said a few times that most recumbents are for cremations - this isn't the case with true stone circles- therefore recumbents are more cremation cemeteries than true stone circles, sometimes you may have stone circles and cremation cemeteries almost side by side - what would be the point of that in your view? i imagine the circle was for some sort of ritual [maybe music involved], to do with the cremations, and because i'm not a archeologist i am allowed to imagine you know, things have to be imagined before they can be proved/ disproved and therefore become reality [which is often proved wrong later anyway], you come across like everything i say has to be proved academically-so because i'm not academic i can't have an opinion, i think this attitude is bollocks and hopefully outdated- my knowledge really comes from my own past live regressions, something you may think is bollocks, but people coming from different angles should really be a good thing, if people let it! Read what I said , “The axes carvings cannot be dated and their presence does not date the monument to the Neolithic .” The only thing that can be said is that obviously the carvings were done after Neolithic , when , we don't know . There is also the possibility that the carvings were done prior to the erection of the monument . I didn't say anything about knowing all there is to know about recumbents ,you were the one who said “it's all about the recumbent at them- i've been to enough “ . Where did I say that recumbents were “for “ cremations , cremations are found at recumbents hardly the same . What is more likely when considering the evidence and what I did say is that current thinking suggests that “ RSC 's commemorated the sites of cremations “ . There is no case where a recumbent is considered to have been without any accompanying orthostats/flankers . Recumbent stone circles as the name suggests and as any archaeologist will tell you are stone circles ,you mention Barnatt and Burl how do the describe them ? and where is the definition of a “ true “ stone circle ? Nothing wrong with using imagination but because I can imagine something doesn't make it true or even likely . I might imagine that stone circles were sites where seers predicted the future by reading the entrails of otters whilst taking vows of abstinence after the ritual slaughter of an enemy , I hope you wouldn't just accept it simply because it was imagined and might be true but you couldn't disprove it whereas the comment “ “Stone circles have nothing left in them “ can actually be shown to be untrue even when confined to the period when the stones were erected and not including any later additions . You should be a politician as well as an archeologist, the entrails of otters joke is probably the closest either of us has come to the truth [only joking], it really is a deeply held belief of mine that stone circles were meant to be kept clear- for whatever went on in them [even if that wasn't for people but the spirits/ancestors] I hope I have disabused you of that belief , through evidence . It wasn't that long ago when archaeologists believed stone circles to be mainly Neolithic monuments , dating evidence is changing that too . It really does seem to be different all round the country, there seems to lots of locally based belief systems going on though the neolithic and bronze ages, i would guess certain beliefs would have been shared though.
|
|||
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Aug 04, 2012, 12:59
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: bladup wrote: tiompan wrote: bladup wrote: tiompan wrote: bladup wrote: I know boscawen un wasn't mentioned but it's a good example- standing stone with carving of stone axes on [ in relief ] so therefore stone age or neolithic, circle round the standing stone could be the same age or could be later [no later than the early bronze age] but possible cist is later [late bronze age], so yes the standing stone in the middle could have been there first, the postholes found in circles are often earlier than the stone circle [the sanctuary near avebury] , so not always the same people who put the stones up later- it really does suggest sacred sites over a long period and different sets of people. It seems to become a habit down here and other places in the late bronze age to start putting cairns inside [the always kept clear] stone circles, i've read that some of the ringcairns inside the recumbents are radio carbon dated quite a lot later than the stone circles - pretty sure one was loanhead of daviot. The recumbents themselves may even sometimes be older than the circle and what about the chance that there may have been recumbents without any stone circle, i can't remember where it was but at one they looked for the missing stoneholes and couldn't find any, i imagine the plough had destroyed them though. Quite , Boscawen Un wasn't mentioned because it hasn't been excavated (apart from a single trench in the 19th C . ) and hasn't been dated . The axes carvings cannot be dated and their presence does not date the monument to the Neolithic . Timber circles are yet other examples of activity /”plenty left in them “ at various sites pre stone erection although that is not always the case , e.g. Croft Moraig where the timber circle post dated the stone circle and horseshoe . Neolithic sherds were found at Loanhead of Daviot , one context in the socket of an fallen orthostat, thus showing earlier activity at the site . In the case of recumbents , there are the remains of recumbents with other components maybe two flankers and some orthostats but in all cases they are the remains of a stone circle . There isn't a case of a recumbent that never had any other components . Furthermore at Tomnaverie the siting of the recumbent was the final act . Current thinking is that RSC 's commemorated the sites of cremations .The point is that stone circles throughout the country have evidence of varied earlier activity including artefacts refuting “Stone circles have nothing left in them “ . You think they are doing carvings of NEOLITHIC AXES after the neolithic [you're just been argumentative], they would have done carvings of metel axes later like at stonehenge, and you come across as knowing all there is to know on recumbents so therefore you have a closed mind [yes there is a recumbent where they couldn't find the stoneholes , it must have slipped past your massive intellect] and worst of all you just sound like a fucking archeologist , YOU have said a few times that most recumbents are for cremations - this isn't the case with true stone circles- therefore recumbents are more cremation cemeteries than true stone circles, sometimes you may have stone circles and cremation cemeteries almost side by side - what would be the point of that in your view? i imagine the circle was for some sort of ritual [maybe music involved], to do with the cremations, and because i'm not a archeologist i am allowed to imagine you know, things have to be imagined before they can be proved/ disproved and therefore become reality [which is often proved wrong later anyway], you come across like everything i say has to be proved academically-so because i'm not academic i can't have an opinion, i think this attitude is bollocks and hopefully outdated- my knowledge really comes from my own past live regressions, something you may think is bollocks, but people coming from different angles should really be a good thing, if people let it! Read what I said , “The axes carvings cannot be dated and their presence does not date the monument to the Neolithic .” The only thing that can be said is that obviously the carvings were done after Neolithic , when , we don't know . There is also the possibility that the carvings were done prior to the erection of the monument . I didn't say anything about knowing all there is to know about recumbents ,you were the one who said “it's all about the recumbent at them- i've been to enough “ . Where did I say that recumbents were “for “ cremations , cremations are found at recumbents hardly the same . What is more likely when considering the evidence and what I did say is that current thinking suggests that “ RSC 's commemorated the sites of cremations “ . There is no case where a recumbent is considered to have been without any accompanying orthostats/flankers . Recumbent stone circles as the name suggests and as any archaeologist will tell you are stone circles ,you mention Barnatt and Burl how do the describe them ? and where is the definition of a “ true “ stone circle ? Nothing wrong with using imagination but because I can imagine something doesn't make it true or even likely . I might imagine that stone circles were sites where seers predicted the future by reading the entrails of otters whilst taking vows of abstinence after the ritual slaughter of an enemy , I hope you wouldn't just accept it simply because it was imagined and might be true but you couldn't disprove it whereas the comment “ “Stone circles have nothing left in them “ can actually be shown to be untrue even when confined to the period when the stones were erected and not including any later additions . You should be a politician as well as an archeologist, the entrails of otters joke is probably the closest either of us has come to the truth [only joking], it really is a deeply held belief of mine that stone circles were meant to be kept clear- for whatever went on in them [even if that wasn't for people but the spirits/ancestors] I hope I have disabused you of that belief , through evidence . It wasn't that long ago when archaeologists believed stone circles to be mainly Neolithic monuments , dating evidence is changing that too . Without doubt the erecting of stone circles went on well into the Bronze and may have taken on a different 'belief' during and after that period. Their 'sacredness' which has still to be proven, but even still 'felt' today, would still have been seen as a reason to hitch a ride and deposit the remains of a loved or worthy person within them and nothing to do with the original build which is still unknown. I understand your frustration at having your ideas and beliefs questioned and challenged Bladup but Tiompan is a very knowledgeable member of the forum and just as committed as you are yourself, but there is no need to resort to rudeness. I've done it myself and it gets you nowhere and has the effect of preventing others from putting their points across in the fear of also being labelled as talking bollocks. We are all in this together and together is the only way to move foreward to seek out the answers in a clear and logical way. Much more research is required and it is to be hoped that in the not too distant future many sites will be revisited and up-to-date technology applied to give us the asnwers we seek. Keep up the good work in Cornwall and one day we may run into each other as that's where I live as well :-)
|
|||
|
bladup 1986 posts |
Aug 04, 2012, 13:24
|
||
|
Sanctuary wrote: tiompan wrote: bladup wrote: tiompan wrote: bladup wrote: tiompan wrote: bladup wrote: I know boscawen un wasn't mentioned but it's a good example- standing stone with carving of stone axes on [ in relief ] so therefore stone age or neolithic, circle round the standing stone could be the same age or could be later [no later than the early bronze age] but possible cist is later [late bronze age], so yes the standing stone in the middle could have been there first, the postholes found in circles are often earlier than the stone circle [the sanctuary near avebury] , so not always the same people who put the stones up later- it really does suggest sacred sites over a long period and different sets of people. It seems to become a habit down here and other places in the late bronze age to start putting cairns inside [the always kept clear] stone circles, i've read that some of the ringcairns inside the recumbents are radio carbon dated quite a lot later than the stone circles - pretty sure one was loanhead of daviot. The recumbents themselves may even sometimes be older than the circle and what about the chance that there may have been recumbents without any stone circle, i can't remember where it was but at one they looked for the missing stoneholes and couldn't find any, i imagine the plough had destroyed them though. Quite , Boscawen Un wasn't mentioned because it hasn't been excavated (apart from a single trench in the 19th C . ) and hasn't been dated . The axes carvings cannot be dated and their presence does not date the monument to the Neolithic . Timber circles are yet other examples of activity /”plenty left in them “ at various sites pre stone erection although that is not always the case , e.g. Croft Moraig where the timber circle post dated the stone circle and horseshoe . Neolithic sherds were found at Loanhead of Daviot , one context in the socket of an fallen orthostat, thus showing earlier activity at the site . In the case of recumbents , there are the remains of recumbents with other components maybe two flankers and some orthostats but in all cases they are the remains of a stone circle . There isn't a case of a recumbent that never had any other components . Furthermore at Tomnaverie the siting of the recumbent was the final act . Current thinking is that RSC 's commemorated the sites of cremations .The point is that stone circles throughout the country have evidence of varied earlier activity including artefacts refuting “Stone circles have nothing left in them “ . You think they are doing carvings of NEOLITHIC AXES after the neolithic [you're just been argumentative], they would have done carvings of metel axes later like at stonehenge, and you come across as knowing all there is to know on recumbents so therefore you have a closed mind [yes there is a recumbent where they couldn't find the stoneholes , it must have slipped past your massive intellect] and worst of all you just sound like a fucking archeologist , YOU have said a few times that most recumbents are for cremations - this isn't the case with true stone circles- therefore recumbents are more cremation cemeteries than true stone circles, sometimes you may have stone circles and cremation cemeteries almost side by side - what would be the point of that in your view? i imagine the circle was for some sort of ritual [maybe music involved], to do with the cremations, and because i'm not a archeologist i am allowed to imagine you know, things have to be imagined before they can be proved/ disproved and therefore become reality [which is often proved wrong later anyway], you come across like everything i say has to be proved academically-so because i'm not academic i can't have an opinion, i think this attitude is bollocks and hopefully outdated- my knowledge really comes from my own past live regressions, something you may think is bollocks, but people coming from different angles should really be a good thing, if people let it! Read what I said , “The axes carvings cannot be dated and their presence does not date the monument to the Neolithic .” The only thing that can be said is that obviously the carvings were done after Neolithic , when , we don't know . There is also the possibility that the carvings were done prior to the erection of the monument . I didn't say anything about knowing all there is to know about recumbents ,you were the one who said “it's all about the recumbent at them- i've been to enough “ . Where did I say that recumbents were “for “ cremations , cremations are found at recumbents hardly the same . What is more likely when considering the evidence and what I did say is that current thinking suggests that “ RSC 's commemorated the sites of cremations “ . There is no case where a recumbent is considered to have been without any accompanying orthostats/flankers . Recumbent stone circles as the name suggests and as any archaeologist will tell you are stone circles ,you mention Barnatt and Burl how do the describe them ? and where is the definition of a “ true “ stone circle ? Nothing wrong with using imagination but because I can imagine something doesn't make it true or even likely . I might imagine that stone circles were sites where seers predicted the future by reading the entrails of otters whilst taking vows of abstinence after the ritual slaughter of an enemy , I hope you wouldn't just accept it simply because it was imagined and might be true but you couldn't disprove it whereas the comment “ “Stone circles have nothing left in them “ can actually be shown to be untrue even when confined to the period when the stones were erected and not including any later additions . You should be a politician as well as an archeologist, the entrails of otters joke is probably the closest either of us has come to the truth [only joking], it really is a deeply held belief of mine that stone circles were meant to be kept clear- for whatever went on in them [even if that wasn't for people but the spirits/ancestors] I hope I have disabused you of that belief , through evidence . It wasn't that long ago when archaeologists believed stone circles to be mainly Neolithic monuments , dating evidence is changing that too . Without doubt the erecting of stone circles went on well into the Bronze and may have taken on a different 'belief' during and after that period. Their 'sacredness' which has still to be proven, but even still 'felt' today, would still have been seen as a reason to hitch a ride and deposit the remains of a loved or worthy person within them and nothing to do with the original build which is still unknown. I understand your frustration at having your ideas and beliefs questioned and challenged Bladup but Tiompan is a very knowledgeable member of the forum and just as committed as you are yourself, but there is no need to resort to rudeness. I've done it myself and it gets you nowhere and has the effect of preventing others from putting their points across in the fear of also being labelled as talking bollocks. We are all in this together and together is the only way to move foreward to seek out the answers in a clear and logical way. Much more research is required and it is to be hoped that in the not too distant future many sites will be revisited and up-to-date technology applied to give us the asnwers we seek. Keep up the good work in Cornwall and one day we may run into each other as that's where I live as well :-) You're right of course, tiompan just seemed a little to academic [having to prove everything from a book isn't my way], as for the rudeness it is tongue in cheek and that is lost sometimes i know, i will be provocative on purpose to make a point but always try ending nicely or with a joke, i'm the same to peoples faces, i am a bit cutting but my surname is Blades.
|
|||
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Aug 04, 2012, 13:27
|
||
|
Well said that man. This is a subject in which we share such a common interest and such a common passion – gawd knows then why it attracts so much agro. Is it because so much is improvable, so consequently we fill the vacuum with our own pet theories, experiences, likes and dislikes? Then get ratty when those things are challenged? Jeeze...
|
|||
tiompan 5758 posts |
Aug 04, 2012, 13:50
|
||
|
bladup wrote: tiompan wrote: bladup wrote: tiompan wrote: bladup wrote: tiompan wrote: bladup wrote: Stonehenge and the recumbents [it's all about the recumbent at them- i've been to enough] are not true stone circles and the recumbents do seem to have had a fire at the start [probably to clear the ground]. It really does seem to be different where you are in the country which suggests different things were going on all over, therefore it was probably very regional as to what went on , i can almost hear the dancing feet down here in cornwall. I think the name recumbent stone circles tells us what type of monument it is . Recumbents also have burials associated with them , as well as ring cairns . Stone circles in the south west had charcoal deposits e.g. at Ferworthy the entire inner space was covered in charcoal, Brisworthy and the Grey Wethers also had charcoal deposits , Boskednan had a cist .Hurlers northern circle was paved with granite ,Duloe had an urn with a cremation . "Swept clean " and don't like excavating them "quotes ? Things that were probably added later, not by the builders! burl, barnett and lots of others [ i'm not spending my night going though 100's of books, sorry they're boxed up] both said as much and both have excavated places. I have already mentioned that later insertions into stone circles were commonplace but in many cases there were aretfacts and activity prior to the erection of the stone circle and noted by Burl and Barnatt . Yes but Probably by different sets of people, the wooden posts at the sanctuary were older than the stone circles which were built long after the posts had rotted away, so therefore some people may have liked to mark ancient wooden structures with circles of stone, as if to mark the spot, maybe to stop it getting lost from view [if the posts had rotted and there was nothing left to see]. Clear examples that refute "“Stone circles have nothing left in them “ . Even clearer examples are the stone circles that encircle earlier monuments e.g. Newgrange , Balnuaran of Clava ring cairn , Clava NE cairn etc . in the latter cases built not that long after the encircled monuments whcih had little chance of getting lost from view . Stone circles have encircled earlier activity/monuments that are much earlier or slightly earlier /contemporaneous and is either hidden from view or very obvious . Yes stone circles often have stuff in them but it's normally from earlier[ or later] people ,Which came first at clava- the tombs or stone circles? It was assumed that Clava cairns were the forerunners of RSC 's until excavation and RC dating showed they were Bronze Age The ring cairns etc earlier than the stone circles .The stone circles can be seen as the final act , a closure /decommissioning at some sites .
|
|||
|
bladup 1986 posts |
Aug 04, 2012, 13:51
|
||
|
Littlestone wrote: Well said that man. This is a subject in which we share such a common interest and such a common passion – gawd knows then why it attracts so much agro. Is it because so much is improvable, so consequently we fill the vacuum with our own pet theories, experiences, likes and dislikes? Then get ratty when those things are challenged? Jeeze... That is better than this place been like some boring academic paper, i really think the idea of this place was against that world as cope wasn't academic , take the truth from that world and add to it with are wonderful imaginations, it all seems to me that it's all got a little too academic, this site has less and less great mystics like paul1970 and the angle people like that come from in his fieldnotes , it would be really really bad if those peolple felt pushed away because of the closed soul world of academics, i feel this may be happening, which is such a shame as even the modern antiquarian could be pulled apart by so called academics, and look what a wonderful book that has been for so many of us.
|
|||
|
bladup 1986 posts |
Edited Aug 04, 2012, 14:04
Aug 04, 2012, 13:57
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: bladup wrote: tiompan wrote: bladup wrote: tiompan wrote: bladup wrote: tiompan wrote: bladup wrote: Stonehenge and the recumbents [it's all about the recumbent at them- i've been to enough] are not true stone circles and the recumbents do seem to have had a fire at the start [probably to clear the ground]. It really does seem to be different where you are in the country which suggests different things were going on all over, therefore it was probably very regional as to what went on , i can almost hear the dancing feet down here in cornwall. I think the name recumbent stone circles tells us what type of monument it is . Recumbents also have burials associated with them , as well as ring cairns . Stone circles in the south west had charcoal deposits e.g. at Ferworthy the entire inner space was covered in charcoal, Brisworthy and the Grey Wethers also had charcoal deposits , Boskednan had a cist .Hurlers northern circle was paved with granite ,Duloe had an urn with a cremation . "Swept clean " and don't like excavating them "quotes ? Things that were probably added later, not by the builders! burl, barnett and lots of others [ i'm not spending my night going though 100's of books, sorry they're boxed up] both said as much and both have excavated places. I have already mentioned that later insertions into stone circles were commonplace but in many cases there were aretfacts and activity prior to the erection of the stone circle and noted by Burl and Barnatt . Yes but Probably by different sets of people, the wooden posts at the sanctuary were older than the stone circles which were built long after the posts had rotted away, so therefore some people may have liked to mark ancient wooden structures with circles of stone, as if to mark the spot, maybe to stop it getting lost from view [if the posts had rotted and there was nothing left to see]. Clear examples that refute "“Stone circles have nothing left in them “ . Even clearer examples are the stone circles that encircle earlier monuments e.g. Newgrange , Balnuaran of Clava ring cairn , Clava NE cairn etc . in the latter cases built not that long after the encircled monuments whcih had little chance of getting lost from view . Stone circles have encircled earlier activity/monuments that are much earlier or slightly earlier /contemporaneous and is either hidden from view or very obvious . Yes stone circles often have stuff in them but it's normally from earlier[ or later] people ,Which came first at clava- the tombs or stone circles? It was assumed that Clava cairns were the forerunners of RSC 's until excavation and RC dating showed they were Bronze Age The ring cairns etc earlier than the stone circles .The stone circles can be seen as the final act , a closure /decommissioning at some sites . Or an overpowering by a differernt people [putting the circle around the cairns could be a different race saying we now control the ancesters so therefore you], maybe history goes in circles as they are rather near the battle of culloden, and the english haven't really heard a peep from the scottish since!!!!
|
|||
|
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Aug 04, 2012, 14:15
|
||
|
bladup wrote: Sanctuary wrote: tiompan wrote: bladup wrote: tiompan wrote: bladup wrote: tiompan wrote: bladup wrote: I know boscawen un wasn't mentioned but it's a good example- standing stone with carving of stone axes on [ in relief ] so therefore stone age or neolithic, circle round the standing stone could be the same age or could be later [no later than the early bronze age] but possible cist is later [late bronze age], so yes the standing stone in the middle could have been there first, the postholes found in circles are often earlier than the stone circle [the sanctuary near avebury] , so not always the same people who put the stones up later- it really does suggest sacred sites over a long period and different sets of people. It seems to become a habit down here and other places in the late bronze age to start putting cairns inside [the always kept clear] stone circles, i've read that some of the ringcairns inside the recumbents are radio carbon dated quite a lot later than the stone circles - pretty sure one was loanhead of daviot. The recumbents themselves may even sometimes be older than the circle and what about the chance that there may have been recumbents without any stone circle, i can't remember where it was but at one they looked for the missing stoneholes and couldn't find any, i imagine the plough had destroyed them though. Quite , Boscawen Un wasn't mentioned because it hasn't been excavated (apart from a single trench in the 19th C . ) and hasn't been dated . The axes carvings cannot be dated and their presence does not date the monument to the Neolithic . Timber circles are yet other examples of activity /”plenty left in them “ at various sites pre stone erection although that is not always the case , e.g. Croft Moraig where the timber circle post dated the stone circle and horseshoe . Neolithic sherds were found at Loanhead of Daviot , one context in the socket of an fallen orthostat, thus showing earlier activity at the site . In the case of recumbents , there are the remains of recumbents with other components maybe two flankers and some orthostats but in all cases they are the remains of a stone circle . There isn't a case of a recumbent that never had any other components . Furthermore at Tomnaverie the siting of the recumbent was the final act . Current thinking is that RSC 's commemorated the sites of cremations .The point is that stone circles throughout the country have evidence of varied earlier activity including artefacts refuting “Stone circles have nothing left in them “ . You think they are doing carvings of NEOLITHIC AXES after the neolithic [you're just been argumentative], they would have done carvings of metel axes later like at stonehenge, and you come across as knowing all there is to know on recumbents so therefore you have a closed mind [yes there is a recumbent where they couldn't find the stoneholes , it must have slipped past your massive intellect] and worst of all you just sound like a fucking archeologist , YOU have said a few times that most recumbents are for cremations - this isn't the case with true stone circles- therefore recumbents are more cremation cemeteries than true stone circles, sometimes you may have stone circles and cremation cemeteries almost side by side - what would be the point of that in your view? i imagine the circle was for some sort of ritual [maybe music involved], to do with the cremations, and because i'm not a archeologist i am allowed to imagine you know, things have to be imagined before they can be proved/ disproved and therefore become reality [which is often proved wrong later anyway], you come across like everything i say has to be proved academically-so because i'm not academic i can't have an opinion, i think this attitude is bollocks and hopefully outdated- my knowledge really comes from my own past live regressions, something you may think is bollocks, but people coming from different angles should really be a good thing, if people let it! Read what I said , “The axes carvings cannot be dated and their presence does not date the monument to the Neolithic .” The only thing that can be said is that obviously the carvings were done after Neolithic , when , we don't know . There is also the possibility that the carvings were done prior to the erection of the monument . I didn't say anything about knowing all there is to know about recumbents ,you were the one who said “it's all about the recumbent at them- i've been to enough “ . Where did I say that recumbents were “for “ cremations , cremations are found at recumbents hardly the same . What is more likely when considering the evidence and what I did say is that current thinking suggests that “ RSC 's commemorated the sites of cremations “ . There is no case where a recumbent is considered to have been without any accompanying orthostats/flankers . Recumbent stone circles as the name suggests and as any archaeologist will tell you are stone circles ,you mention Barnatt and Burl how do the describe them ? and where is the definition of a “ true “ stone circle ? Nothing wrong with using imagination but because I can imagine something doesn't make it true or even likely . I might imagine that stone circles were sites where seers predicted the future by reading the entrails of otters whilst taking vows of abstinence after the ritual slaughter of an enemy , I hope you wouldn't just accept it simply because it was imagined and might be true but you couldn't disprove it whereas the comment “ “Stone circles have nothing left in them “ can actually be shown to be untrue even when confined to the period when the stones were erected and not including any later additions . You should be a politician as well as an archeologist, the entrails of otters joke is probably the closest either of us has come to the truth [only joking], it really is a deeply held belief of mine that stone circles were meant to be kept clear- for whatever went on in them [even if that wasn't for people but the spirits/ancestors] I hope I have disabused you of that belief , through evidence . It wasn't that long ago when archaeologists believed stone circles to be mainly Neolithic monuments , dating evidence is changing that too . Without doubt the erecting of stone circles went on well into the Bronze and may have taken on a different 'belief' during and after that period. Their 'sacredness' which has still to be proven, but even still 'felt' today, would still have been seen as a reason to hitch a ride and deposit the remains of a loved or worthy person within them and nothing to do with the original build which is still unknown. I understand your frustration at having your ideas and beliefs questioned and challenged Bladup but Tiompan is a very knowledgeable member of the forum and just as committed as you are yourself, but there is no need to resort to rudeness. I've done it myself and it gets you nowhere and has the effect of preventing others from putting their points across in the fear of also being labelled as talking bollocks. We are all in this together and together is the only way to move foreward to seek out the answers in a clear and logical way. Much more research is required and it is to be hoped that in the not too distant future many sites will be revisited and up-to-date technology applied to give us the asnwers we seek. Keep up the good work in Cornwall and one day we may run into each other as that's where I live as well :-) You're right of course, tiompan just seemed a little to academic [having to prove everything from a book isn't my way], as for the rudeness it is tongue in cheek and that is lost sometimes i know, i will be provocative on purpose to make a point but always try ending nicely or with a joke, i'm the same to peoples faces, i am a bit cutting but my surname is Blades. Ha...you wait till he sees my interpretation of Trethevy Quoit!! :-)
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Aug 04, 2012, 14:54
|
||
|
bladup wrote: Littlestone wrote: Well said that man. This is a subject in which we share such a common interest and such a common passion – gawd knows then why it attracts so much agro. Is it because so much is improvable, so consequently we fill the vacuum with our own pet theories, experiences, likes and dislikes? Then get ratty when those things are challenged? Jeeze... That is better than this place been like some boring academic paper, i really think the idea of this place was against that world as cope wasn't academic , take the truth from that world and add to it with are wonderful imaginations, it all seems to me that it's all got a little too academic, this site has less and less great mystics like paul1970 and the angle people like that come from in his fieldnotes , it would be really really bad if those peolple felt pushed away because of the closed soul world of academics, i feel this may be happening, which is such a shame as even the modern antiquarian could be pulled apart by so called academics, and look what a wonderful book that has been for so many of us. Giving rein to the imagination is fine and as long as nothing is said that is falsifiable there is nothing to say e.g. “prehistoric stone circles were built on energy grids detectable only by the initiated “ might be pompous mystic nonsense but difficult to disprove and best left alone . If a comment is falsifiable e.g. “ the Stonehenge avenue is aligned on the major standstill “ then expect to be put right .Allowing them to propagate in the public domain is unfair to lay readers and muddies the water . Rudeness is in inverse proportion to content and a sure sign that the “ruder “ has little to argue with ,because of that , whilst not welcomed , it can be viewed positively and usually is . The same can be applied to any work whether religious or otherwise . Evidence ibased understanding is not the same as being academic . Is a "closed soul " someone who disagrees with scripture / what you happen to believe .
|
| Pages: 28 – [ Previous | 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 8 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
