Stonehenge forum 180 room
Image by photobabe
Stonehenge

New study challenges timeline

close
more_vert
tiompan T
tiompan Dec 3, 2012 13:31:23
Replying to Littlestone

Littlestone wrote:
tiompan wrote:
I've seen this suggested before but other than look at the pics , which are a great resource , why would they bother ? I can't think of any examples where it has been apparent . Although Andrew Cochrane did mention some tma posters attitudes to Newgrange , a few years ago , but the content of the essay was really more po mo , Baudrillard , Benjamin and simulcra .
Think the idea that there was a strong porky-based culture at play in the Neolithic was suggested here before the discoveries at Durrington Walls confirmed it. That some (many?) stone circles were just corrals, and that Silbury, Avebury and Thornborough were originally (and designed to be) a brilliant white. And, most well-know of all, how Silbury plays out its position in the surrounding landscape.

Think we continue to throw ideas (not to mention lizards ;-) into the melting pot that then seem to be picked up by some archeos and investigated by them – more power to us :-)

The corral idea is an old one James Lynch suggests that Irish historians believed “The stone circles of Ireland, and beyond, are cattle crushes or corrals, for want of a better description. “ and I'm sure there are plenty of other vicar/antiquarians had the same belief ,but who of the contemporary pros has championed the idea ?
Burl mentions the whitness of henge at Thornborough before TMA began and probably that of Avebury in the Avebury book .
To suggest that there was a porky based culture would require using the evidence from pros to support that idea , so it's a bit circular .

V VBB
VBB Dec 3, 2012 19:06:51
Replying to tiompan

tiompan wrote:
Littlestone wrote:
tiompan wrote:
I've seen this suggested before but other than look at the pics , which are a great resource , why would they bother ? I can't think of any examples where it has been apparent . Although Andrew Cochrane did mention some tma posters attitudes to Newgrange , a few years ago , but the content of the essay was really more po mo , Baudrillard , Benjamin and simulcra .
Think the idea that there was a strong porky-based culture at play in the Neolithic was suggested here before the discoveries at Durrington Walls confirmed it. That some (many?) stone circles were just corrals, and that Silbury, Avebury and Thornborough were originally (and designed to be) a brilliant white. And, most well-know of all, how Silbury plays out its position in the surrounding landscape.

Think we continue to throw ideas (not to mention lizards ;-) into the melting pot that then seem to be picked up by some archeos and investigated by them – more power to us :-)

The corral idea is an old one James Lynch suggests that Irish historians believed “The stone circles of Ireland, and beyond, are cattle crushes or corrals, for want of a better description. “ and I'm sure there are plenty of other vicar/antiquarians had the same belief ,but who of the contemporary pros has championed the idea ?
Burl mentions the whitness of henge at Thornborough before TMA began and probably that of Avebury in the Avebury book .
To suggest that there was a porky based culture would require using the evidence from pros to support that idea , so it's a bit circular .
The former chair of the Avebury Society Alastair Service made the point in print about Silbury being white almost twenty years before this website existed, Foster made the same point in relation to Avebury in the 1920s, the point was already old even then, made in relation to barrows on Salisbury Plain and near Dorchester in the 19th century.

N nigelswift
nigelswift Dec 4, 2012 07:55:43
Replying to tiompan

May I make a point that in fairness ought to be made even though it will get me no bouquets here to put it mildly?

The reason why most people seem to be saying a sensible forum wouldn't be a good idea (I prefer the term "a forum lacking the content of the Portal's Mysteries forum, which could be replicated here if required") is that an "anything goes" forum is a potent and heady mix from which numerous ideas flow.

Maybe.

And furthermore....
"sometimes archies take up seedlings that sprout from this fertile soil"

Definitely. Probably the stonkingest example of that is Silbaby.

However, isn't it only the "rational" science or evidence based research or discoveries that get acknowledged or taken up, either from here or the Portal?
No doubt archies will now be criticised for being closed minded, and so be it, but I think it's wrong to say the heady mix here generates archaeological progress, only the non-mysteries type contributions do.

By all means a unified forum can be claimed to be more interesting and enjoyable and democratic than a "sensible" one if that's what people think but I don't think it should be said that the weird bits are an asset to archaeology and should be included for that specific reason. They ain't archaeology, that's the problem and in my view they have the opposite effect. It's like the Ancestors were all nature lovers, it's just a story that has grown up without much evidence to support it. ;)