Re: Sites near Inverness | Forum — The Modern Antiquarian

bladup wrote:

tiompan wrote:

bladup wrote:

tiompan wrote:

bladup wrote:

tiompan wrote:

bladup wrote:

tjj wrote:

Many thanks for the pointers all, will make notes and do some research before setting off. On this occasion (as a one off) have agreed to fly up to Inverness - flight gets in midday, after picking up hire car will have the afternoon and evening to make our way to the B&B in Ullapool so we probably wouldn't want to venture too far in the opposite direction. Would love to visit Clava Cairns if it is do-able. Roy,do love gardens so maybe a visit to Inverue on the return journey as flight back is late afternoon (is that the same place as Inverewe Garden).

I do sort of regret not arranging to stay on the mainland for a few days after the week on Lewis but have perishing pets to thinks about - will not be replacing them when they wear out.

Clava cairns is very do- able as it's just outside Inverness, so is barely going backwards at all, I'd even put it as important as your destination - The wonderful Callanish, I know it's high praise indeed but it certainly stays in your mind as strongly, It's one of those places that the stones don't look that big in photo's but they're big beauties and the cairns are lovely, that's how i see the place - somewhere that stone circles and chambered cairns sit together in perfect harmony, and this is from someone who doesn't really like to have later cairns built inside stone circles [i'm not a big fan of the one inside Callanish itself, and think that the inside of the circle would have been better and as intended without it, but that's all 4000 years ago], just a couple of Months left now....and i've got a feeling the weathers going to be wonderful for you as well, it's a good idea to have a 10 min drive to the Clava cairns to make sure the hire cars going to be alright on your longer journey across that part of Scotland, and like george say's it's mainly just lovely scenery inbetween inverness and ullapool, and doesn't take to long at all really, especially with those long days up there at that time of year, i'm also very Jealous.

The mid 19990's excavations noyt only revised the dating of the monuments but also showed that the cairns and stone circles at Clava are almost contemporaneous with the stone circles post dating the cairns .

I'd put my money on contemporaneous or the circle stones slightly older than the Cairns, that's how it looks to my eyes on site, the fact they say "almost contemporaneous" shows how close the dates are, and we all know Carbon dating isn't quite as accurate as they thought it was and all other dating techniques leave something to be desired, when it's so close your guess is as good as mine, it's already gone from the cairns been far older to only just older so the next time someone trying to make a name for themselves will say the circle stones were first to make themselves noticed, all these dates we have now will get revised and changed over the years to come as they use better methods, but i agree that's what they say now, it's just one of those places that the dates don't ring true for me, To close to call i'd say.

The RC dating was what showed the cairns were much later than had been believed but the it was the architecture of the cairns with their ramps and platforms that showed that the sequence was cairn- ramp /platform /rays with the stones placed onto that material rather than the material deposited around the stones .

But how do we know the stones weren't moved while those strange spokes were built and then the stones put back, I'm not saying this is true but it could be, the trouble in any archaeological dig, they only go to the bit they're interested in, a good example is the one i've used lots before - in Lincoln they'd only excavate to the roman level hardly ever past it because they'd in there minds they'd be destroying the more important Roman stuff, i wasn't really interested in that and even though they know there's lots of native stuff underneath they're never really interested in it because of their borderline obsession with the bloody Romans, anyway back to the Clava cairns, these people thought nothing of moving big stones, it never rings true about the clava cairns and i don't have that feeling about anywhere else and have no personal reason to doubt it, I just do, what do you think yourself?

The 90's Clava excavations went to the “natural “ . If the stones from the stone circles had been erected earlier then removed and re-erected , there would have been evidence for the original sockets but none were found . Similar sequences of construction have been discovered in the light of excavation from the Tomnaverie, and Cothiemuir Wood it also looks likely elsewhere from the the partial evidence of older excavations e.g. Old Rayne ,Loanhead etc .
I don't know the lincolnshire excavation(s) , do you have the report(s) ?

Oh i didn't think they'd have gone below the cairn material from the stoneholes, I know this means nothing but like i said it's the only place in the country were i've read a sign telling you the order of construction and something in me just doesn't believe it, i have no preference, so it's not me just wanting it to be wrong, so i believe the next "lot" to have a "look" at the place will come to a different conclusion, this happens a lot in archaeology, and this is as you know one of the reasons i sometimes doubt what they say [sometimes they- like everyone else get things wrong from time to time], I also on the other hand do totally know what your saying, but at the end of the day i'd still put my money on contemporary, circle and cairn together living in perfect harmony, and back to tjj's post, it's a lovely place isn't it?
and no i don't have any reports, but over the years there have been lots of digs in the Roman parts of the City [there's native stuff under it] and outside the Roman town at the lawn [the oldest mental home in the world - says everything about Lincoln that does] is the earliest beakers in Lincoln [older flints and Axes though], but they have no interest looking there because if they have any money they'll always go look at the Roman stuff and we have to learn about the older stuff there from finds here and there, like i said borderline roman obsessives, more interested in their culture than are own.

When the understanding is theory based the “next lot to have a look “ might come up with something different from the previous lot , simply by introducing fresh understanding or a new perspective .The rate of change of this type of thinking could be as much as a couple of revolutions per generation . But we now have a different type of knowledge which is basically more secure and not based entirely on theory .
A lot of the thinking about stone circles and similar monuments dates from a period when rc dating was in it's infancy , if available at all ,and few of the monuments had been excavated .Prior to the mid 90's excavation the last word on the Clava cairns had been from Audrey Henshall 40 years earlier . Without RC dating and very limited excavation it looked like the Clava group could be compared with a site like Newgrange , a passage grave with surrounding circle and there was also the possibility that the two types of of cairn might be separated in time . There were suggestions that the stone circles predated the cairns and others that they were later additions . The mid 90's excavations answered those questions ,prior to that it was guess work . We have moved from almost complete ignorance and guesswork to dates and a structural sequence . We now know that that the cairns are much younger than Neolithic as was previously believed .This earlier belief also had a roll on effect of considering RSC 's to be Neolithic too because of the similarities (central ring cairns and mutual exclusion ) .Now that we have good dates and similar sequences from some RSC 's we can see them in a different light , as we have done with other monuments that were previously believed to be younger or older , before dating clarified the problem . Just as we no longer think of Stonehenge as being Mycenaean a similar , later revolution applied to various Scottish monuments including the Clava cairns and not only the Balnuaran examples , Newton of Petty and Raigmore also provided similar dates but despite looking superficially similar they turned out to belong to an different building tradition .
Yes it is pretty special group and spot .