thesweetcheat wrote:
harestonesdown wrote:
thesweetcheat wrote:
Balance of probability, the stone at Stoney Littleton was more likely than not chosen because it had a whopping great big ammonite it it. Even if it was "chosen" for this reason, once it had been chosen, it was placed in the structure in such a way as to show the ammonite off, right by the entrance. True that we don't categorically "know" it was deliberately chosen, but seems far more likely than not, doesn't it? You can't exactly fail to notice it and neither could the builders.
As Rhiannon says, far more ridiculous assertions than that get passed off as fact in the wonderful world of megalithic ponderings!
But Alken, many people have visited SL and missed this particular stone. I think there's even a comment in it's section regarding this ? This doesn't rule the possibility out of course, but it doesn't prove it's purpose either.
All true, but loads + loads of "modern" people miss the multiple cupmarked stones at Clava.
My personal opinion, subject to the stone not being a later insertion, or moved (as per ED's question) is that it is far more likely than not to have been chosen by the builders. These were people very very aware of the textures and properties of stone after all, far more than we are. Not people to miss a whopping great big ammonite, no matter how many modern visitors don't spot it :)
With respect i totally disagree again, in regards to them having a greater understanding of stone than modern man. Yes, they had to put far more energy into working it than we do given our technology, but we cut and shape stone to far greater tolerances than they ever did, just look at any marble chip shop counter, and that's at the lower end of the scale, but show me one example where they achieved such finesse ? The pyramids are often cited wrongly, Orkadian monuments similarly.
Could they knap flint in a way that would put our best craftmen to shame, given what they had to work with it's a definite yes, but give me a modern powered saw and i'd make them look like imbeciles in comparison. Just look at some of the knapping slabs available to buy today if you've any doubt !
As for natural features like the ammonite, yes i guess they'd appreciate it more than we would today as they don't have the availability and distribution networks we have to source such pieces, so damn well it was precious, but that's no reason to assume they had a greater understanding of stone, they didn't, it was more a case of greater toil and time consumption, need even, that doesn't equate to skill.
You give me a 10p sized shitty bit of flint and i'll knap an arrowhead that will kill anything just as dead as their pieces could. :)
I've an arrow besides me right now, Wiltshire flint point held in place with pine resin, willow shaft and fletched with a buzzards feather found on Waden Hill, glue is crushed Bluebell bulb, binding is nettle cord. Match that with one of my bows and i could, with practice, match any Neolithic hunter. I respect their use of material, but let's not kid ourselves they were superior in ANY way, they weren't. IMO. ;)
