I think you sound like a complete and utter knobhead
Sounds like you've been ripped off with the pipe!
Different planets, are you christian's [i imagine maybe catholic upbringings].
Your'e imagination has already shown to be a bit untrustworthy , maybe a bit of chakra re-alignment might help with future intuitions .
My imagination is pretty good [you should see my artwork] and is very trustworthy i thank you very much, and there you go with all that hippy nonsence again, it must be pretty hard to be aligned with a glass eye.
It depends how you use your imagination , what might be useful in writing stories for children might not helpful in solving a political problem , understanding the behaviour of people in prehistory or the religious beliefs of your contemporaries . I can't talk for Nigel , but using my imagination I imagine you are wrong .In those other examples where you have attempted to imagine something in the real world and mentioned it here you have got it wrong .
I love the way you say this as if you know it's true- anyone can look back though and my opinion is just as valid as yours. You've turned into noris cole from corrie now.
Yo might like to think your opinion might be as valid as anyone else's , but if your opinion is wrong , in this case the continually unaddressed "Stone circles have nothing left in them " it is not .
I have addressed it lots and who the fuck do you think you are , you are openly saying that your opinion is more valid than mine..... go fuck yourself you pompous prick.
Read what was said , your comment c is demonstably wrong and was refuted a long time ago and you have failed to come up with a counter refutation . You master of repartee .
By the people who built them [true stone circles, not cremation cemeteries, which are often later or circles round cairns], i really have said it again and again, people before and after did alsorts and left alsorts at a lot of sites.
You failed to define what you describe as a "true " stone circle or mention any others e.g. Barnatt or Burl use of the term or definition .
Stone circles , not enclosed cremation cemetries , have as has been mentioned many times previously plenty left in them from before the erection of the stones as close as we can judge , contemporaneously with the erection and after the stones were erected . Examples include ,empty pits , pits with various deposits , burials , burials in urns ,
charcoal , pottery , etc , stone circles have been mentioned across the country it simply wrong to suggest "Stone circles have nothing left in them " as was another statement "Archaeologists don't like excavating them [because not a lot is going to be there]" even though there was a change from "nothing " to "not a lot " it is still wrong .
By the builders of the stone circles. The stuff there is left by other people. Down here in cornwall the circles have later cairns in them, i don't need an archeologist to tell me this as i can see it for myself. [but other people would find it helpful- i do myself sometimes].
A definition of a "true " circle ?
If the deposits or in the case of ring cairns at Clava, monuments , are contemporaneous then of course it is the builders of the circles , regardless you never mentioned that in your all encompassing wrong statement . It doesn't really matter the statement "Stone circles have nothing left in them " is simply wrong as is the other comment "Archaeologists don't like excavating them [because not a lot is going to be there]" if you can't see that there is little hope in carrying on anything resembling a rational discussion .
A true stone circle been a circle of stones with nothing in it, any previous posts gone and future cairns not built yet, maybe a few broken beakers from the builders but that's normally it.
. No archaeologist or anyone who knows anything about stone circles would agree that the use of the word "true" in this context bore any relation to the dictionary definition . There was no mention of the word "true" or this Orwellian definition in the original erroneous "Stone circles have nothing left in them " which is still wrong , as is "Archaeologists don't like excavating them [because not a lot is going to be there]" .
Originally it was "nothing " then it became "not a lot " now it is " a few broken beakers " at this rate another few hundred posts (non timber ) and you'll arrive at something like the real situation .
There are countless genuine stone circles where this situation couldn't possibly apply , a post hole minus a post is a very telling feature ,it may be empty but is it is not "nothing" . Cremated bone found pre circle construction is not nothing . A passage grave e.g. Newgrange in the middle of your soon to be built stone circle is unlikely to have gone unnoticed even with a very active imagination .
Just stick to the rock art, you clearly know nothing about TRUE [ i couldn't give a fuck that no archeologist would use the word true, it makes me proud] stone circles.
Once again a failure to understand what was written . There was no suggestion that archaeologists would not use the word true .
"No archaeologist or anyone who knows anything about stone circles would agree that the use of the word "true" in this context bore any relation to the dictionary definition ." Means something quite different .
You stick to your imaginary "true" stone circles that archaeologists and those that know anything about the monuments would not recognise but don't expect to make erroneous misleading comments and not be put right .
I don't care what archaeologists think because in time they are mostly proved wrong, most things we thought 1000 years have been proved wrong, 500 years ago also proved wrong and a lot of the things people [yes like you and me] think nowadays will also be proved wrong, my kids are still taught that c columbus was the first european to discover america, even though the east side [ of america ] is covered in viking runes carved on the rocks, so sometimes they even keep teaching bollocks when they know the truth, the strange thing about our stone monuments is that a rule of thumb [there's always exceptions] is that the places with the biggest stones are the oldest, and would have needed lots of people to build, whereas towards the end of the bronze age people were building places [ some stone circles] that a couple of people could build , i should know as two of us built a stone circle, it was put up that well [with packing stones] that when the people came to pull it down, they couldn't [one guy hurt his foot trying to kick a stone down, it didn't even move] , they then had to bring a big digger in , which still didn't make the job look that easy, this part was shown on telly, showing that two people could build something that could have lasted 1000's of years, so just by looking big chambered cairns like zennor [with huge stones] are normally older than the stone circles with medium sized stones and then the little cairns with little stones last, of course this doesn't always work but you don't need to wait for carbon dating or an archeologist to tell me the age , i'd be dead before they get round to some of the places i would want to know about.
Reply | with quote
|Posted by bladup|
5th August 2012ce
Modern not antiquarian (texlahoma, Aug 01, 2012, 11:49)
- Re: Modern not antiquarian (Littlestone, Aug 01, 2012, 12:15)
- Re: Modern not antiquarian (goffik, Aug 01, 2012, 12:59)
- Re: Modern not antiquarian (Chris Collyer, Aug 01, 2012, 13:18)
- Re: Modern not antiquarian (CARL, Aug 01, 2012, 13:45)
- OT: That's you! OMG! (thesweetcheat, Aug 01, 2012, 21:24)