Silbury Hill forum 180 room
Image by thesweetcheat
Silbury Hill

Silbury updates lock

close
more_vert
rammie R
rammie Jul 1, 2007 11:15:21
Replying to Pilgrim

Pilgrim wrote:
...
"I am aware of the deliberate placement of artifacts, but I cannot see that the remains of a pick head - an artefact which has been found countless times in many different excavations - can be seen as a deliberate placement."......

"Pieces of antler pick are the next most prevalent artefact to be recovered from Silbury Hill so far. The example on the left exhibits old breaks and as you can see is remarkably well preserved. Antlers were ideal material for the breaking up of the chalk used to construct the mound,and are often found in association with prehistoric ditch structures."

I cannot see how one statement necessarily follows the other - just because something is prevalent does not mean it cannot be a 'deliberate deposition' does it?

I understand a piece of antler was found in the recent Avebury dig, fascinatingly situated on top of a small post-hole.

S slumpystones
slumpystones Jul 1, 2007 11:19:57
Replying to rammie

There is a huge difference between broken bits that were left where they fell, and deliberately placed items. Pottery falls into the same category - left or discarded?

Silbury was at one time a huge building site, and one would expect to find discarded lumps and broken tips everywhere - to make any parallels between a broken antler tip and a deliberately-placed 21stC item is like comparing George Best's right boot with Wayne Rooney.

P Pilgrim
Pilgrim Jul 1, 2007 11:37:12
Replying to rammie

Hi rammie,

rammie wrote:
I cannot see how one statement necessarily follows the other - just because something is prevalent does not mean it cannot be a 'deliberate deposition' does it?
No. But you must agree that the converse is also true. As the EH report highlights, a lot of these antler pieces have been found here - and at Avebury, and at places like Durrington Walls. It is my understanding that simply having something in a trench doesn't make it a deliberate deposition (unlike this bloody Time Capsule nonsense). It might well be the case that these things shall never be known. Perhaps this is a question for the "Ask the Experts" page?


rammie wrote:
I understand a piece of antler was found in the recent Avebury dig, fascinatingly situated on top of a small post-hole.
Would it be wrong of me to suggest that the reason the piece of antler you mention was made reference to was precisely because it implied a "planned act" - a relationship with a man-made archaeological phenomenon, and as such was considered out of the ordinary? Sadly, I'm no great expert on matters of archaeology (it's all I can do to get dressed in the morning), but this board allows me the freedom to speculate and ponder - and even give me the luxury of deciding for myself what I believe is right or wrong. No such luxury has been forthcoming from English Heritage; they have decided on a Time Capsule, without any reasonable explanation to the people who own the Hill and pay their wages.

Peace

Pilgrim

X