@ "The Heritage Trust"

close
more_vert
harestonesdown H
harestonesdown Jan 31, 2014 22:47:31
Replying to thesweetcheat

thesweetcheat wrote:
The point you were making is that the ammonite stone wasn't necessarily "chosen" by the builders and you pointed out that lots of modern visitors miss it when they visit. My point was that it is more likely than not that the builders were aware of the fossil when they chose that particular stone to go in that particular monument. Based on the fact that they were people who were used to examining stone for its textures and properties, it's highly unlikely that they didn't notice it.

I wasn't suggesting prehistoric people were better, or superior, but I am suggesting that they were familiar with their chosen materials. Taking out the ancient people v modern people aspect, if I build a house, I'll be aware of the particular bricks I use to build the walls. But when people come to my house, it's not certain that they will notice. So a visting TMA-er not noticing the ammonite stone isn't really either here or there as to whether the stone was chosen by the builders. :)

Again i don't wholly agree. I'll allow that to those who worked with stone it would have stuck out like a sore thumb, but that doesn't mean it stood out to everyone of the time. Your analogy works in the Neolithic too. :)

I'll stress again, we must never hold opinion and assumption as fact.

T thesweetcheat
thesweetcheat Feb 1, 2014 15:32:17
Replying to harestonesdown

harestonesdown wrote:
thesweetcheat wrote:
The point you were making is that the ammonite stone wasn't necessarily "chosen" by the builders and you pointed out that lots of modern visitors miss it when they visit. My point was that it is more likely than not that the builders were aware of the fossil when they chose that particular stone to go in that particular monument. Based on the fact that they were people who were used to examining stone for its textures and properties, it's highly unlikely that they didn't notice it.

I wasn't suggesting prehistoric people were better, or superior, but I am suggesting that they were familiar with their chosen materials. Taking out the ancient people v modern people aspect, if I build a house, I'll be aware of the particular bricks I use to build the walls. But when people come to my house, it's not certain that they will notice. So a visting TMA-er not noticing the ammonite stone isn't really either here or there as to whether the stone was chosen by the builders. :)

Again i don't wholly agree. I'll allow that to those who worked with stone it would have stuck out like a sore thumb, but that doesn't mean it stood out to everyone of the time. Your analogy works in the Neolithic too. :)

I'll stress again, we must never hold opinion and assumption as fact.

But surely the ones who built the monument are the ones we're talking about as doing any "choosing"? I don't see that it matters whether visitors noticed it, only the people who actually put it there. Isn't the point of your thread that stones weren't chosen at all, they just accidentally got picked?

Obviously I agree with your last sentence, but most courts - and most people - would accept that some things can be accepted if they're far more likely than not. Like I said at the start, balance of probability.