Re: A question about archaeolgical sterility of sites with a religious connection.

"Peter Alaca" <p.alaca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:47493dff$0$96822$dbd4d001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:14eik3lhtjipleu1clha0g7nmjm9lmn8dq@xxxxxxxxxx
Quite coincidentally, I've just received this email from Scott Wolter,
which I am publishing with his permission. Scott's discussion with
Mark Holley raises an interesting point about which I would like to
hear from archaeologists with relevant experience.

Begin quote
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I'm forwarding a portion of the text from my new book that is
currently being reviewed. You're welcome to share this with your
pals, just tell them where it came from. I'm sure they'll be glad to
sharpen their spears for another chance to try to skewer me!


There are a couple of additional interesting aspects related to the
[Newport] Tower that came to light in September of 2007. I had an
interesting conversation with a Ph.D. underwater archaeologist from
Traverse City, Michigan, who had worked on standing stone sites on the
Island of Mull, in Western Scotland. Dr. Mark Holley lamented how
after spending years performing excavations at the standing stone
sites, there was nothing to find. The only thing his crew did find
were, "White quartz chips scattered everywhere throughout the site".
He then said, "The reason these sites are devoid of artifacts, is
because the people who built them considered these sites sacred, and
kept them in pristine condition". When our conversation turned to the
Newport Tower, and the likelihood that it served among other things as
a religious altar to the builders, Mark smiled and said, "Well, if
this is a religious site, in all likelihood it will be sterile
archaeologically". Dr. Holley also commented on the fireplace in the
Tower after viewing several photographs that I showed him. He said,
"That is the same fireplace architecture as I've seen in medieval
castles in Scotland".

The archaeological dig performed by researchers Jan and Ron Barstad,
in October of 2006, yielded nothing older than Colonial-aged
artifacts. They are scheduled to perform another dig in October of
2007. In light of Dr. Holley's comments and experience, if they fail
to find artifacts or evidence of a pre-Colonial date, that lack of
evidence may be consistent with a medieval origin after all!

Dr. Holley also said something else to me that I found very prophetic
when we talked about the puzzling attitude of most archaeologists in
North America. He said, "Archaeologist in North America look at the
Atlantic Ocean as this vast, impenetrable barrier. Archaeologists in
Scotland look at the Atlantic as a superhighway."

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
End quote

Is it indeed correct to say "if this is a religious site, in all
likelihood it will be sterile archaeologically"? I would be interested
to hear the comments of practicising archaeologists with relevant
knowledge and experience.


If it was a religious site, how would we know
if the site was sterile?


BTW, Mark W Holley knws a lot about the
Crannoghs of Islay, but I found no indication
he ever was involved archaeological work on
sacred sites or standing stones.


.

Relevant Pages