tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post4875077958434352034..comments2024-03-28T00:46:01.084+00:00Comments on Stonehenge and the Ice Age: Those "periglacial" stripes -- solutional rills?BRIAN JOHNhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00413447032454568083noreply@blogger.comBlogger66125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-91665022009085829622013-04-15T11:26:49.311+01:002013-04-15T11:26:49.311+01:00As a follow-up, from what I remember of the progra...As a follow-up, from what I remember of the programme (which in places I had to watch through my fingers), I had the impression that MPP was saying that there were pre-existing geological mounds or ridges beneath the avenue banks, in addition to the stripes. These raised areas were of course the result of the underlying chalk being protected from rainwater dissolution and ploughing, and were there because of the banks, not vice-versa.<br />Regards<br />Dave Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16016995258396799143noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-60926511349596413932013-04-15T10:21:19.721+01:002013-04-15T10:21:19.721+01:00Hi Brian
I haven't searched through the posts ...Hi Brian<br />I haven't searched through the posts (am pressed for time at the moment), but it would be fair to say that I don't consider the stripes to have any bearing at all on any of the archaeology present - they are everywhere, and don't always run directly downslope.<br />Neat polygons don't form on chalk, you tend to get blobby irregular shapes instead. These are usually interpreted as tree-throws or solution hollows by field archaeologists. <br />Regards<br />Dave<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16016995258396799143noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-47978877842000477582013-04-15T09:43:16.141+01:002013-04-15T09:43:16.141+01:00Hi David
Welcome! Good to have your comments. Y...Hi David<br /><br />Welcome! Good to have your comments. You may not have seen the many other posts on this topic -- type in "periglacial stripes" into the search box, and you will probably find 20 or more posts! As I have explained in a number of posts, I am not entirely convinced by the patterned ground thesis, especially where the stripes do not run directly downslope, but are diagonal -- as Charly French suggests.<br /><br />If these stripes are ubiquitous, presumably you have <br />no time at all for the MPP thesis that it was the orientation of 2 stripes that led to Stonehenge being built where it is?<br /><br />Have you seen polygons on Salisbury Plain? If so, info please! BRIAN JOHNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00413447032454568083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-13762954572596387672013-04-15T09:21:30.570+01:002013-04-15T09:21:30.570+01:00Hello gents - if you have any queries about the ge...Hello gents - if you have any queries about the geoarchaeology of the area I'd be happy to help.<br /><br />These features (often referred to by as periglacial stripes) are pretty much ubiquitous on the chalk where there hasn't been sufficient subsequent erosion to remove them. They are technically 'patterned ground', a phenomena caused by the sorting of material by frost-heaving. A link to a useful wiki page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterned_ground. <br /><br />They generally run more-or-less downslope, and are often discontinuous. When the slope is very shallow or flat, 'blobby' shapes can be produced instead of stripes - these features show much better on gravels, where well-defined linear features can be created on the slopes, and neat polygons on the flats. These are not features caused by flowing water.<br /><br />I hope this is useful.<br /><br />Regards<br /><br />David Norcott <br />Senior Geoarchaeologist<br />Wessex Archaeology<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16016995258396799143noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-62283508299764694212013-04-06T00:32:14.291+01:002013-04-06T00:32:14.291+01:00For those of us who never use “ common sense “ “qu...For those of us who never use “ common sense “ “question our assumptions “ or bother with “ the truth “ but do read the literature ,some of the the reason that the ditch is believed to date before the the megalithic erections are 1) The ditch has no bluestone or sarsen fragments in it's primary fill . 2) Antler picks (11) found at ditch bottom produce a combined date of 3000 -2920 BC whilst antler picks (7)from packing around sarsen circle , sarsen trilithons and bluestone circle , produced dates of 2640-2485 BC ,2480-2340 BC etc .<br />3)The centre point of the AH circle and ditch and bank are almost identical and could not have been laid with any certainty if there were obstructions in the centre of the monument 4) A Pig tibia from the secondary fill dated 2450-2150 BC provides a terminus post quem for the secondary infilling of the ditch .<br />5) No bluestone or sarsen fragments in primary filling or secondary filling the first find of any bluestone fragments is when the ditch is filled to near the top of it's cut .geocurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-35649776268542025112013-04-05T20:54:16.437+01:002013-04-05T20:54:16.437+01:00Brian ,as I mentioned I was quoting MPP . The dres... Brian ,as I mentioned I was quoting MPP . The dressed lintels are 1m wide . The undressed stone would presumably be wider . There are two Aubrey Holes with a diameter of of just over 1.6m and one at 1.8 the others are either below a metre or slightly over a metre . Hawley who excavated and saw the compaction in more Aubrey holes than anyone , and was later to change his mind about the presence of any type of stone in the AH 's , noted that “they once held small upright stones “ not even a suggestion of a bluestone never mind a lintel .And as noted earlier there is no evidence of any fragments of sarsen or bluestone from the primary fill of the holes .geocurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-34283859276869711282013-04-05T19:39:58.534+01:002013-04-05T19:39:58.534+01:00Geo et al,
When in a conundrum, try questioning y...Geo et al,<br /><br />When in a conundrum, try questioning your assumptions.<br /><br />What exactly dates the Ditch as built before the megalith erections? Deer antlers buried in the ditch?<br /><br />KostasConstantinos Ragazasnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-26395101775853377312013-04-05T18:48:35.317+01:002013-04-05T18:48:35.317+01:00Geo -- you say: "it seems unlikely that und...Geo -- you say: "it seems unlikely that undressed sarsens would fit into the relatively homogeneous sized pits." Since when were all sarsens too big? Do you suppose that they are all the same size? Sarsens come in all shapes and sizes, like bluestones. Some of them might have fitted into the holes, and some might not.<br /><br />I don't care whether anybody else has ever suggested that some of the holes might have held small sarsens -- maybe some that were later used as lintels. If nobody has ever suggested it before, remember that you saw it here first..... <br />BRIAN JOHNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00413447032454568083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-77527831095494870162013-04-05T16:25:19.537+01:002013-04-05T16:25:19.537+01:00Yes you are correct. Mike Pitts reexcavated AH7.
I...Yes you are correct. Mike Pitts reexcavated AH7.<br />I forget that not everyone follows the circus so closely as we.<br />MyrisGCU.intwomindsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-78394930640652624662013-04-05T11:50:49.009+01:002013-04-05T11:50:49.009+01:00Brian ,what I have been saying is that the stone m...Brian ,what I have been saying is that the stone monument was built at the site because of the presence of the earlier monument , not because of available stone . Sarsen may have been ubiquitous in the area and they could have chosen anywhere to build the megalithic monument ,they chose the site they did as in so many other similar cases because of the pre-existing monument . geocurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-400835434353691742013-04-05T11:42:17.400+01:002013-04-05T11:42:17.400+01:00Brian,
More importantly , who has claimed the AH...Brian, <br /> More importantly , who has claimed the AH pits held sarsens ?<br />I can't think of anyone .<br /> MPP has noted that there is no evidence of any sarsen dressing /fragments from the primary fills or ditch and it seems unlikely that undressed sarsens would fit into the relatively homogeneous sized pits .geocurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-39719020226579851492013-04-05T11:21:39.288+01:002013-04-05T11:21:39.288+01:00Geo -- this is getting absurd. I didn't say t...Geo -- this is getting absurd. I didn't say that they built the bank and ditch at Stonehenge because there were stones in the area. We don't know why they built the bank and ditch here -- neither do we know why they built banks and ditches elsewhere in some locations rather than in some other locations. All I am saying is that the STONE monument was probably built here because there were plenty of stones around -- and because a particular group of people had the bright idea of doing something interesting with them.BRIAN JOHNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00413447032454568083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-20110568182818861412013-04-05T11:13:56.076+01:002013-04-05T11:13:56.076+01:00Brian , I find your thinking convoluted .
The bu... Brian , I find your thinking convoluted . <br />The builders of Stonehenge created a bank and ditched monument with the addition of burial deposits , the reason for choosing the site is very unlikely to have been based on the availability of stone as they didn't use any in the earliest phase of the monument . .When the megalithic monument began at Stonehenge is was almost certainly due to the presence of the earlier monument .The building of megalithic monuments on the site of earlier sites like enclosed cremation cemeteries , sites with depositions or timber monuments is common . Many stone circles are merely one of a series of monument types built at a site which had earlier consisted of timber monuments , burial deposits or even mesolithic middens .Most major megalithic sites have a history of development over time evolving from one type of monument to another . Not only is the stone availability idea unlikely there is no evidence for bluestones having been at the site prior to the earliest monument . geocurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-18695144195787446032013-04-05T10:46:02.712+01:002013-04-05T10:46:02.712+01:00In the case of AH 7 , primary fill and secondary f... In the case of AH 7 , primary fill and secondary fill might be the weasel words but we know from Hawley's earlier and surely , main excavation , the significance of the bluestone and sarsen finds and they didn't suggets the AH had ever held a bluestone or for that matter a sarsen , can the monograph deny that ? Mike Pitts re-excavated AH 7 .geocurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-91036117034026387132013-04-05T10:44:41.181+01:002013-04-05T10:44:41.181+01:00Geo -- you say: "The use of sarsen in the Au...Geo -- you say: "The use of sarsen in the Aubrey Holes has been discounted because of the size of the holes." By whom? And which sarsens are they talking about? BRIAN JOHNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00413447032454568083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-63112649572737222682013-04-05T10:41:31.622+01:002013-04-05T10:41:31.622+01:00Geo -- I find your reasoning very convoluted. Hen...Geo -- I find your reasoning very convoluted. Henges and earthworks were built all over the place. Mostly they were not developed into something different. Here, at Stonehenge, they also built a stone monument within the earthwork. Why? Because there were lots of stones lying about, and somebody had the brilliant idea of using them. Your argument that they would have used the stones right from the earliest stage of work on the site just does not make sense. As I have said, history is full of resources being available but unused -- until a technology became available for using them, or unless there was a sudden cultural imperative to mimic something done elsewhere, or to initiate and do something quite exceptional. Do you have a problem with that?BRIAN JOHNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00413447032454568083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-33860116138821323882013-04-05T09:32:57.687+01:002013-04-05T09:32:57.687+01:00Jon , until recently MPP and others involved in th...Jon , until recently MPP and others involved in the Riverside project like others before them concluded that the impaction was due to posts . If you read his judgement from the book it is “If we were right that they (Aubrey Holes ) once held bluestones … “ hardly assured , this is later rationalised to “Aubrey Holes with bluestones in them . I suspect that a driving force behind the thinking is that wooden posts in the Aubrey Holes is anathema to the Durrington / Stonehenge binary opposition .geocurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-89589436083945197672013-04-05T09:22:56.021+01:002013-04-05T09:22:56.021+01:00Brian , it doesn't matter what the assemblage ... Brian , it doesn't matter what the assemblage of stone may have consisted of . It doesn't seem a likely reason for choosing the site then not making use of that reason for 500 years .The use of sarsen in the Aubrey Holes has been discounted because of the size of the holes .geocurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-87527677729899880582013-04-05T08:38:53.972+01:002013-04-05T08:38:53.972+01:00Weasel words, as here, are often the most signific...Weasel words, as here, are often the most significant.<br />Mike Pitts was the main AH 7 excavator.<br />Perhaps we should wait to see what the monograph says.<br />Myris.<br />Off topic is often more fun and instructive.GCU.intwomindsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-91240984374460112502013-04-05T08:07:15.277+01:002013-04-05T08:07:15.277+01:00Jon , Hawley had noted the compaction much earlier...<i>Jon , Hawley had noted the compaction much earlier .It could have been due to the presence of posts as nearly everyone until very recently believed . There is no evidence for the Aubrey Holes having held bluestones .</i><br /><br />Brian's right: A bit off topic, but worth a final comment as this is also one of the tags I have in MPP's book (and Brian's input on this would be very welcome)<br /><br />It's true that timber posts could compact the base of a hole. However the effective ground bearing pressure of a timber post say 2 metres high is in the order of one whole magnitude less than an equivalent bluestone (timber is much lighter than soil): The reason this is important is that the <i>increase</i> in overload with timber is only some 50-60% whereas the increase with an equivalent bluestone, it is in the region of 500%<br /><br />50% might result in very light compaction. Timber posts can cause heavy compaction during the construction phase, but the signs of this should be noticeable to an expert.<br /><br />500%, an effective pressure of some 70kPa or so, is significantly less than chalk's bearing capacity. Nevertheless, it should be sufficient to result in heavy compaction combined with local remoulding.<br /><br />In engineering, there are devices we use (I have several variants of this for different materials in the office) that can assess compaction. The type of remoulding and compaction should be easy for an expert to assess. Though none of us have actually seen it, local remoulding would be the tell-tale and I thought it was reasonable to rely on MPP's judgement?Jon Morrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11264966739582178631noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-61677252933436325272013-04-04T21:50:46.752+01:002013-04-04T21:50:46.752+01:00Geo -- see my earlier answer. Nothing to add...Geo -- see my earlier answer. Nothing to add...BRIAN JOHNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00413447032454568083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-69034901649482598702013-04-04T21:40:01.095+01:002013-04-04T21:40:01.095+01:00Brain , you suggested that the reason for choosing...Brain , you suggested that the reason for choosing the site was due to their presence ." I still think that the stone monument was built here (rather than on the site of any other henge or circular earthwork) simply because there were a lot of very convenient stones lying about....."<br /> Why choose that spot because of the handy stones then not use them for half a millenium .Foresight ? "Someday or childrens ,childrens ,children (and son on for 20 generations ) will thank us for saving them the trouble ?geocurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-5682385831323358732013-04-04T21:39:16.726+01:002013-04-04T21:39:16.726+01:00We are getting a bit off topic here, folks.......We are getting a bit off topic here, folks.......BRIAN JOHNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00413447032454568083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-17285809243849676812013-04-04T21:37:20.841+01:002013-04-04T21:37:20.841+01:00Geo -- I have always argued that the "stone a...Geo -- I have always argued that the "stone assemblage" was a mixture of abundant sarsens AND erratics from far away. We don't know that when the stones were first used there was a differentiation between sarsens and bluestones. I suspect there may have been an early grouping of stones according to size. It's quite possible that some of the sarsen lintels, for example, were used earlier as free-standing orthostats -- maybe even in the Aubrey Holes??!!BRIAN JOHNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00413447032454568083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-70830724257525144652013-04-04T21:32:48.957+01:002013-04-04T21:32:48.957+01:00Jon , Hawley had noted the compaction much earlier...Jon , Hawley had noted the compaction much earlier .It could have been due to the presence of posts as nearly everyone until very recently believed . There is no evidence for the Aubrey Holes having held bluestones .geocurnoreply@blogger.com