|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Why are archaeologists apparently so dismissive about the existence of the Avebury faces? |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic View: Flat | Threaded |
|
Nightfolio 5 posts |
May 25, 2022, 00:13
|
||
|
I have been studying many of the monoliths at Avebury for six years now. It is very apparent to me that the carved faces found by Meaden and Pattison (and shown in their respective books) are real. Not only have I been able to photograph many of the faces they describe, I have also managed to discover faces of my own, some of them spectacularly good, with a particularly brilliantly carved horned sharp nosed face hidden in plain view on Cove Stone I. Why then is it that the archaeological community appear so sceptical about the existence of the Avebury carvings??? You can see them once you know where and when to look, is the plain evidence of our senses not enough?? My gallery: http://www.nightfolio.co.uk/avebury_sacred_landscape.html |
|||
Zariadris 286 posts |
Edited May 25, 2022, 12:40
May 25, 2022, 12:39
|
||
|
Thank you for this. An excellent site with well written and compelling text and the photographs are terrific. I will explore with a wide-open mind. Z
|
|||
tjj 3606 posts |
May 31, 2022, 20:07
|
||
|
Nightfolio wrote: I have been studying many of the monoliths at Avebury for six years now. It is very apparent to me that the carved faces found by Meaden and Pattison (and shown in their respective books) are real. Not only have I been able to photograph many of the faces they describe, I have also managed to discover faces of my own, some of them spectacularly good, with a particularly brilliantly carved horned sharp nosed face hidden in plain view on Cove Stone I. Why then is it that the archaeological community appear so sceptical about the existence of the Avebury carvings??? You can see them once you know where and when to look, is the plain evidence of our senses not enough?? My gallery: http://www.nightfolio.co.uk/avebury_sacred_landscape.html Hi, this is a very interesting post, I believe has been discussed on this forum many times in the past. Sadly, as you can see, the lively often heated debates are not what they were. Water under the bridge and all that. Terence Meaden's The Secrets of the Avebury Stones was the first book I ever bought about Avebury. As it happens today I traveled from Swindon to Devizes via Avebury on the 49 bus - have been doing this journey at least once a week for the past decade and never tire of seeing Avebury and Silbury in the changing seasons and light. From the top of a bus you can actually get a really good view of the Avebury landscape, its visitors, its wildlife (red kites) its sheep in the Circle, its cows on the Avenue. Always changing yet always the same. The Stones never change - today in the evening sunshine I looked carefully (albeit fleetingly) because the quality of light changes what you see and yes, you can see faces if that is what you are looking for. Tonight I especially noticed the stone at the start of WK Avenue and in profile, yes I thought I saw a face. You asked why archaeologists don't take this seriously - why would they, its not what they do. What people see in the stones is personal to them isn't it - I believe its called simulacra. Here is another interesting little website which you've probably seen before... http://www.indigogroup.co.uk/avebury/prehistory05.htm
|
|||
|
Nightfolio 5 posts |
Jun 04, 2022, 23:31
|
||
|
Thank you for your messages. "You asked why archaeologists don't take this seriously - why would they, its not what they do. What people see in the stones is personal to them isn't it - I believe its called simulacra" Well, there are certainly simulacral effects produced at Avebury, but there are also many actual sculptures, identifiable as such for example by the presence of toolmarks or repeated themes. And yes, simulacra by their nature as mere neurological artifacts are completely personal, but that wouldn't explain situations where different people see the same faces! An example of tool marks: http://www.nightfolio.co.uk/night_photography_avebury/Avebury_066.html Examples of repeated themes: http://www.nightfolio.co.uk/night_photography_avebury/avebury_diamond_stones.htm http://www.nightfolio.co.uk/night_photography_avebury/avebury_zenith.htm Finally I invite anyone interested to visit the following page, and look carefully at the horned face depicted there. Is anyone seriously going to tell me that that face is a simulacra??? http://www.nightfolio.co.uk/night_photography_avebury/Avebury_026.html best wishes |
|||
|
olly 102 posts |
Aug 23, 2022, 09:10
|
||
| Perhaps archeologists are solely focussed on the academic process. That requires close analysis of finds, not to mention years of university study, field study and hanging out with other academics. So I think there's a general reluctance by the archeological community to acknowledge observations that aren't entrenched in that process. I see a face, looks like it's been carved, but where does it fit in the academic process? Good to see a question like this. (I haven't visited this forum for a while) | |||
|
olly 102 posts |
Aug 23, 2022, 13:21
|
||
| I also had a look at the site (linked to original post) I think it provides great evidence of the faces in the stones being deliberately chosen and or carved. Meaden also suggests that stones were chosen for their anthropomorphism and in some cases tweaked to maximise this. | |||
Howburn Digger 986 posts |
Aug 24, 2022, 22:09
|
||
|
Nightfolio wrote: I invite anyone interested to visit the following page, and look carefully at the horned face depicted there. Is anyone seriously going to tell me that that face is a simulacra??? http://www.nightfolio.co.uk/night_photography_avebury/Avebury_026.html best wishes I do not see any horned face there at all. I love Rock Art and have found a few carvings myself. Beholder and all that. best wishes
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Aug 25, 2022, 07:22
|
||
Yes, if it's in the eye of the beholder, who knows? Obviously if there is evidence of intent that's one thing but if it;s a case of "selected because it had a face" then it remains an interesting speculation. Actually, it's great to think people thousands of years ago saw something really subtle, like us. It's like inter-aeon communication.
|
|||
|
harestonesdown 1067 posts |
Aug 29, 2022, 19:09
|
||
|
You're merely seeing what you want to see. Terrence is a lovely bloke, but quite mad. (Yes i have met him) |
|||
|
olly 102 posts |
Sep 01, 2022, 15:31
|
||
There's varying degrees of plausibility in these outsider theories. John Michell, Julian Cope, Paul Devereaux all have their moments (to name a few). They're not confined to the rigidity of academia but they're good fun. (According to my interpretation of received sense data)
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index |
