tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post3381178791185686704..comments2024-03-28T22:13:17.139+00:00Comments on Stonehenge and the Ice Age: Before the Beaker hordes........BRIAN JOHNhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00413447032454568083noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-70048848008267978972018-02-25T16:55:06.654+00:002018-02-25T16:55:06.654+00:00Thank you Brian. It's good to know one's c...Thank you Brian. It's good to know one's cynicism regarding much of Stonehenge 'archaeoastronomy' is shared by at least one other blogger.<br /><br />I know yours is not to be seen as an archaeology site as such, more geomorphology, glacial transport etc (even if its owner occasionally strays into that arena!).<br /><br />But I'm sure mainstream non-astronomy-fixated archaeologists look in from time to time, in which case I'd be interested for an opinion on something I've just come across:<br /><br />Here's a copy-and-paste (my bolding of a certain passage):<br /><br /><br />"Based on their knowledge of the site and period, Willis et al. (2016) conclude that “Stonehenge was used as a cremation cemetery for mostly adult men and women for around five centuries, during and between its first two main stages of construction. In its first stage, many burials were placed within and beside the Aubrey Holes. As these are believed to have contained bluestones, there seems to have been a direct relationship between particular deceased individuals and standing stones. Human remains continued to be buried during and after Stonehenge’s second stage, demonstrating its continuing association with the dead.” Later burials found at Stonehenge are found around the periphery of the site; indicating that <b>the use of the monument changed from a direct association with the recently dead to a more distant understanding of the site as the location for collective ancestors. Instead of it being a burial site, it became a memorial for ancestors, an argument that is consistent with previous interpretations by Parker Pearson (2012)."</b><br /><br />http://spartanideas.msu.edu/2016/04/21/death-comes-to-stonehenge-the-burned-remains/<br /><br />What I'd like to know is how one can tell that a site has become "a memorial for successors", purely it would seem on account of the late addition of grandiose feats of construction - notably the sarsen lintels. To the best of my knowledge there is no corroborating evidence whatsoever, the only markings on the stones being allegedly Bronze Age additions of axeheads and daggers.<br /><br />I shan't mince my words - I think we've been let down by the current crop of so-called "archaeologists" where Stonehenge is concerned, forever insinuating their woolly blue-sky thinking with scarcely a fact to back it up. <br /><br />I could cite a particular example if anyone's interested, notably the failure to say exactly what they mean by "cremated bone". The technology exists to distinguish between cremated bone that has been initially de-fleshed, as shown by the La Varde studies on Guernsey.<br /><br />https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=3KegCgAAQBAJ&lr=&printsec=frontcover&pg=GBS.PA19<br /><br /><br /> But I've yet to see any mention of that technology in connection with Stonehenge. Why not? Why the (deliberate?) vagueness, ambiguity and mealy-mouthed imprecision?<br /><br />Is modern archaeology more concerned with research-grant-friendly image manicure than reality? I strongly suspect that to be the case, which if true makes for a sad reflection on the UK's modern publicity-hungry brand of so-called 'scholarship'.<br /><br />sciencebodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12051016731274875332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-69729351727903228802018-02-25T14:42:13.357+00:002018-02-25T14:42:13.357+00:00Looks like dingoes ate my comment ... againLooks like dingoes ate my comment ... againND Wisemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11925248433335448747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-52988326193357027052018-02-25T08:36:22.184+00:002018-02-25T08:36:22.184+00:00Yes, I like your last comment, Colin. How stupid ...Yes, I like your last comment, Colin. How stupid did a Neolithic farmer have to be if he needed gigantic stone alignments (approximate only -- pointing at solar or lunar "points of significance) to tell him where he was in the cycle of the seasons? There are natural indicators on all sides for anybody with an ounce of intelligence.....BRIAN JOHNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00413447032454568083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-62081112704151682962018-02-24T16:01:11.293+00:002018-02-24T16:01:11.293+00:00Hi Brian,
Stonehenge was old by the time the Beake...Hi Brian,<br />Stonehenge was old by the time the Beakers showed up and the people who built it were in decline. There is evidence which suggests the site had been abandoned. When the Beakers appeared they had no trouble absorbing the indigenous people and set about the rehab of Stonehenge into the monument we see today.<br /><br />My opinion of whether or not Stonehenge was completed acknowledges evidence from both sides of the argument, but it seems to me that an introduction of robust new blood to the cultural landscape leans toward a finished monument.<br /><br />A dying society doesn't shape stone. New people do. They take what they find and incorporate it into a monument with a different meaning and purpose. This may also explain why cremation became obsolete and why the West Amesbury Henge was dismantled.<br /><br />Avebury has no shaped stones. Silbury has none at all. These were constructed by the remnant of the Windmill Hill people. The phased (confusing?) arrangements at Stonehenge indicate a honing of fresh ideas until figuring out the best way to transmit their interpretation. Hence the clean lines of the final four discrete settings.<br /><br />Lots of time and effort. Old people don't do this. Young people do.<br />It was the Beakers.<br /><br />NeilND Wisemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11925248433335448747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-18455276720152581002018-02-23T18:53:32.787+00:002018-02-23T18:53:32.787+00:00" No -- the great majority of their time was ...<br /><i>" No -- the great majority of their time was spent, then as now, on finding food, keeping warm and keeping the weather at bay."</i><br /><br />Precisely. It was that consideration that prompted me to tack a bit on the end of my current posting that has nothing to do with its main topic - the sarsen so-called 'Heel Stone' (ludicrous name if ever there was!). <br /><br /><br />https://sussingstonehenge.wordpress.com/2018/02/19/best-not-to-ask-what-stonehenge-was-really-for-though-that-beaked-sarsen-so-called-heel-stone-may-provide-a-likely-clue/<br /><br /><br /><br />There's an entirely different explanation for north-east openings in 'henge' enclosures (regardless of whether the bank's inside the ditch or vice versa). The bank itself served primarily as a <b>wind-break</b>, so the opening was placed at the point that was best protected from the UK's prevailing south-westerly winds, winter gales especially. Forget those ridiculous 'alignments' with the summer or winter solstices. Neolithic folk did indeed have more important things to worry about than marking the shortest or longest day of the year. They had dormant or budding vegetation all around then to know where they were in the cycle of seasons!<br /><br />Colin Berry, aka sciencebodsciencebodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12051016731274875332noreply@blogger.com