tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post4733858723421754557..comments2024-03-28T22:13:17.139+00:00Comments on Stonehenge and the Ice Age: Sarsens and the solution hollow dilemmaBRIAN JOHNhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00413447032454568083noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-91362830725883418492016-12-30T13:05:56.548+00:002016-12-30T13:05:56.548+00:00Hi Chris,
Oops ...
My arithmetic is obviously fla...Hi Chris,<br /><br />Oops ...<br />My arithmetic is obviously flawed. LOL<br />500 years is the baseline for burials, not one per month.<br /><br />1,500 years is almost the entire working life of the monument, and we know interments were over by the time the Sarsens went up. There's about 500 years between the ditch and the stones, so this is where that number comes from. (The figure: '200 or 300 burials' is an extrapolation because only 32 of the 56 Aubreys have been excavated).<br /><br />The monument was almost certainly a moon-governed cemetery when it was established - though it did have a few solar references. (The central Axis being the most obvious). Following this it was abandoned for about a hundred years and it was during this time that the Beaker influence began to flourish.<br />Upon return, they re-fitted the place and reversed the emphasis to solar, switching the purpose from death to life. We see a substantial bloom in the number of Barrows built at this time because they'd become much more popular for the big-wigs, while cremations - though not extinct - weren't used at Stonehenge from that point because it was no longer a cemetery.<br /><br />When the lunar sightline posts were removed (or rotted away) from the entrance and the Heelstone re-situated from the S-97 position, the moon lost its influence and the Aubreys were no longer relevant. Were they forgotten altogether? No idea - but they couldn't have been used as a calendar anymore because all the cross-henge sightlines were interrupted by the stones, while the axis and cardinals had been re-calibrated.<br /> <br />They put up the Trilithons and a little later the Stone Circle, while shifting the Blues around in the interim to accommodate the new symmetry. Dates for the cessation of use at the West Amesbury Henge tend to bolster the thinking on re-establishing its Bluestone oval within the Trilithons, in addition to its now-redundant use as a cremation facility for the big site. (Admittedly, there's some vacancies in this rationale; the much later Avenue being a glaring example.)<br /><br />Anyway, 4- or 500 years for use as a cemetery, and forget about my error of one burial per month.<br /><br />With regard to what the 'Experts' think: None of this is particularly codified, and nothing is Certain - but based on evidence it's the rough scenario used at present until additional information comes along to contradict it. The learning curve is fluid and very little is cast in stone. (pun intended) Though I'm considered to be slightly out-on-a-limb with some ideas, my focus is intent, while the currently established timeline tends to corroborate it.<br /><br />Best,<br />NeilND Wisemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11925248433335448747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-44543945755170856382016-12-30T11:14:43.709+00:002016-12-30T11:14:43.709+00:00Hi Neil,
On your estimation of one "burial&qu...Hi Neil,<br />On your estimation of one "burial" per month the monument was used as a cemetary for some 20 years only (20x12=240). This is a very short period in the very long life of Stonehenge as a monument - my estimate of 1500 years is very rough of course as we do not know with certainty when usage started and stopped in pre-history.<br /><br />I fear the certainty of experts when talking about this reflects a conviction on their part more than any weighting of evidence. Where do you get the one a month figure from by the way? I don't follow these aspects as closely as yourself.chris johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16210890033354730381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-37738392611267102422016-12-29T19:43:42.707+00:002016-12-29T19:43:42.707+00:00Hi Chris,
Just to clarify: 2-300 cremation deposit...Hi Chris,<br />Just to clarify: 2-300 cremation depositions over 500 years - not 1,500.<br />Which, with some dating forgiveness, is about one a month. So it was a pretty busy place before the stones went up.<br />This plus/minus allows that some of the deposits were curated - older than the ditch itself. Apparently it was quite a special cemetery until the Beakers came along and changed everything.<br /><br />Neil ND Wisemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11925248433335448747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-60547250427258705242016-12-29T16:42:54.253+00:002016-12-29T16:42:54.253+00:00Thanks Neil -- so what is the evidence for "t...Thanks Neil -- so what is the evidence for "tooled sockets"? And have all -- or even many -- of the sockets/ pits / solution hollows / periglacial pockets been carefully examined for evidence of tooling or digging? Or is there just a prevailing assumption.....?BRIAN JOHNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00413447032454568083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-80198884587517411822016-12-29T13:42:55.094+00:002016-12-29T13:42:55.094+00:00To the original point:
I think the evidence for to...To the original point:<br />I think the evidence for tooled sockets outweighs the evidence for any natural characteristics in the chalk bed - the excellent papers submitted notwithstanding.<br /><br />Notice that the sockets for the West Trilithon are immutable, meaning they were never adjusted after erection, while there's any number of cuts and re-cuts for the Bluestones. I agree with Tony Johnson on that one, that is: We'll probably never be able to either date and sequence them, or even untangle the mess.<br />But it's clear which ones are man-made and which are not.<br /><br />NeilND Wisemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11925248433335448747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-90242470172593840232016-12-28T13:33:07.694+00:002016-12-28T13:33:07.694+00:00is an issue. For example, I cannot see why the &qu...<i>is an issue. For example, I cannot see why the "evidence" (very selectively presented) has any real bearing on the debate about the PURPOSE of the site...... </i><br /><br />Agreed with you both. The evidence that has been listed is a bit lightweight and selective. <br /><br />The past and purpose of a structure can give a lot of clues on how to reduce costs of modification, so there is a definite economic advantage to having a structured assessment based on limited evidence: The savings can be quite large relative to costs of investigation.<br /><br />However, there do not seem to be any economic or social benefits to finding out what purpose Neolithic monuments served, so there's perhaps very little incentive to develop the sort of methods used by industry. The other subjects that the website deals with might provide some sort of benefit and this could, possibly, allow the developers to get a format that will work. Jon Morrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11264966739582178631noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-53051027087522907112016-12-28T07:48:59.008+00:002016-12-28T07:48:59.008+00:00The bit about the "many" dead at Stonehe...The bit about the "many" dead at Stonehenge struck me. 200-300 over 1500 years does not strike be a being "many".chris johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16210890033354730381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-37187243331748500632016-12-27T21:09:08.689+00:002016-12-27T21:09:08.689+00:00Yes -- this is an issue. For example, I cannot se...Yes -- this is an issue. For example, I cannot see why the "evidence" (very selectively presented) has any real bearing on the debate about the PURPOSE of the site......BRIAN JOHNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00413447032454568083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-36117419616268692332016-12-27T19:22:32.138+00:002016-12-27T19:22:32.138+00:00Thanks Chris. I'm not sure about that site: It...Thanks Chris. I'm not sure about that site: It's not very transparent who making decisions about what. The evidence section seems to require the manual intervention of a moderator, which strikes me as putting too much burden on the moderator. It has a few other problems with the way it ranks the importance of evidence. So as it stands, I anticipate that the concept will fail. Nevertheless, I've added a few pieces of evidence to see what happens.<br /><br />The star gazers are very secretive. Archaeology is very much a minority interest and there's very little interest from academia in new interpretation (there's no money in it). So being "publicly secretive" about it is very counter-productive. In my opinion, it would be better for them to keep completely silent if they haven't got the time to fully explain whatever it is that they think they have.<br />Jon Morrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11264966739582178631noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-2443558220690917102016-12-24T12:37:15.768+00:002016-12-24T12:37:15.768+00:00Interesting site to browse when I have time - toni...Interesting site to browse when I have time - tonight with a Christmas Eve whisky maybe.<br /><br />My conviction is that monuments built in the megalithic times display an awareness of star movements, not simply solar events. In this respect I like Jon's "New Theory" and it will be interesting to see if it attracts contributions. The star gazers tend to be very secretive - I know a big secret but I am not going to share it with you just yet - you know the type.<br /><br />For Brian's house near Newport you want to google the kings quoit in manorbier/deneb/alignments or some such. A researcher makes a convincing case for the alignment various megalithic/bronze age features with an alignment that runs through Newport Pembs. (Tongue in cheek). The theory is that winter solstice saw deneb setting and rising across the ridgeway. The observation place is the Quoit and the rising and setting occur over the bronze age barrows - or did in the late third century BC. It is a fun read - if you can't find it I'll look up the link or mail you the paper. And, by the way, the Egyptian beliefs were that souls migrated north, hence the interest in the Swan constellation of which Deneb is a part and was certainly used by navigators to point to the North.<br /><br />Happy Christmas all!!chris johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16210890033354730381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-85744208801160341062016-12-23T20:24:31.135+00:002016-12-23T20:24:31.135+00:00Perhaps it might even be seized on by some brain d...Perhaps it might even be seized on by some brain dead undergrad as an original idea of <br /><br />theirs? Lets keep a close eye on the literature! <br /><br />Although what might be most interesting is to run a book on how long the Archaeos who visit <br /><br />this blog can resist the temptation to achieve fame and ever lasting glory by destroying <br /><br />the Stonehenge orthodoxy by publishing a paper claiming the idea as their own. <br /><br />I'll have a fiver on 6 months at evens?Alex Geenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-60709991504264451102016-12-23T20:23:54.498+00:002016-12-23T20:23:54.498+00:00Thought that this looked like an interesting websi...Thought that this looked like an interesting website start-up Richard. <br /><br />I've contributed two evidence referenced features to see what they do with it (there's well over 100 evidentiary items I have logged which largely indicate one particular hypothesis, but would be a lot of work to do all of them).<br /><br />There's a number of criticisms I would have of the site, but it looks like a start-up, so can't be too critical.Jon Morrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11264966739582178631noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-7833930666230304142016-12-22T21:47:28.001+00:002016-12-22T21:47:28.001+00:00Definitely worth a Chapter to itself in your eager...Definitely worth a Chapter to itself in your eagerly - awaited revised edition of your "Bluestone Enigma" book. Perhaps you'll have a sub - title referring to the Sarsens.TonyHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-91840210783339066612016-12-22T17:04:37.379+00:002016-12-22T17:04:37.379+00:00Brian : Well done, glad to see the post up.
Look...Brian : Well done, glad to see the post up. <br /><br />Looking at the top picture with hindsight, its quite incredible that none of the Archeos <br /><br />considered "Why would any one dig holes of that odd shape? <br /><br />I suppose the main problem is that the chalky loam of the involuted layer looks identical to <br /><br />that of backfilled manually disturbed ground?<br /><br />Be interested to see which of the archeos will be quickest to seize on this and produce a paper?<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Alex Geenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-90229355746662263542016-12-22T12:45:32.092+00:002016-12-22T12:45:32.092+00:00That sounds fun Richard. Have put a claim in!That sounds fun Richard. Have put a claim in!Jon Morrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11264966739582178631noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-56175817749615661692016-12-22T05:51:49.919+00:002016-12-22T05:51:49.919+00:00Hi,
I find your posts about Stonehenge very infor...Hi,<br /><br />I find your posts about Stonehenge very informative. Would love your thoughts on this analysis of Stonehenge, which claims that it was most likely built originally for a burial site or sun worship. Thanks!<br /><br />The source: https://www.rootclaim.com/claims/why-was-stonehenge-built-13169Richardnoreply@blogger.com