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