Re: Why is it that every TV special on Stonehenge mentions Druids?


"Matt Giwer" <jull43@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:48f17d32$0$13044
Estimating is quite simple. One starts with normal walking speed today on
a paved surface. That is about as fast as an adult can walk and it is
about three miles per hour. Walking on any other kind of ground or terrain
is going to be slower. Given those people would have also been living off
of the land there would be breaks for hunting, cooking, making and
striking camp. They are only going to travel during daylight and those
breaks are also daylight hours. The number of hours will be drastically
different around the summer and winter solstices at such latitudes. And
all distances are cut in half as we have to address a round trip.

You are assuming that people only walked during daylight hours. You are also
assuming that walking was the only way to travel. We know, however, that
boats were hugely important and we also know that many of the henge sites
are built very close to rivers. Are you seriously saying that no man or
woman ever used a boat? Are you also suggesting that they could not have
navigated a river after dark?

All together this leaves us with the summer solstice being the only
possible time for a large gathering.

You are quite wrong. The evidence is now telling us that the largest
gatherings at Stonehenge were most probably at midwinter, NOT midsummer.
Indeed, the very architecture of the monument in its final form suggests
that the midwinter sunset was possibly the main alignment of the structure.

I am referring to circles with markers on the circumference giving an
indication of a calendaric use.

Well, that's not what a Henge is. Sounds to me like you are talking about
stone and timber sircles which are indeed common throughout Europe. A henge
is something quite different.

If henge is an old English word for something else, a different name does
not make it unique.

Yes it does! If you insist on using archaeological terms, please try to use
them correctly. A Henge is a built enclosure which normally comprises a
ditch within a stone or earthen bank, (with the exception of Stonehenge
where this arrangement is reversed). There is no requirement for there to be
any form of stone or timber marker around the perimiter and, in fact, most
henges don't have any markers at all. Henges, generally, predate the stone
and timber circles by several centuries.

If people come because of some religious custom, the farther they travel
indicates the geographic extent of this organized > religion.

You are assuming that there was an organised religion. You must learn to
think outside your own terms of reference if you are to begin to understand
how archaeology really works.

"Read the reports" leaves me cold when YOU have read them and tell me what
they say. I am curious how bones can tell the time of year. Animals are
available all year around.

So are you seriously telling me that you are willing to accept MY reading of
the evidence and not make your own judgements based on your own reading?
There is more than one way to read most evidence, (that's why academics in
all fields present arguements and counter-arguments). If I were you I would
cast even more doubt on MY interpretation as I took part in the work that
led to the writing of the report in the first place!! Don't take my word for
it. It is vital that you read the evidence for yourself then make your
judgements based on what you have learned.

However, with regard to the specific point on animals I hope this helps.
Animals are indeed available all through the year, but here is one example
of how we can tell when they died. Cattle, pigs and sheep/goats tend to give
birth at set times of the year (generally spring). If we find lots of bones
from infant or juvenile animals in our assemblage we can see exactly how old
the animals were (through studying the fusion of epipheses or the erruption
of teeth for example) and, therefore, tell exactly when in the year they
were slaughtered. So, it's not the presence of animals, but the AGE of the
animals which tells us what time of year people were gathering.

This is the sort of thing you need to read more about. It is important to
understand how archaeologists study floral and faunal assmeblages so that
you can grasp the ways by which we draw our conclusions.

If they were following migrating herds the path was not up to them but the
herds.

I'm not aware of any herds that would have migrated from the northern Alpine
regions to southern England. I suspect the presence of up to 90 miles of
open sea would have made that difficult. We are not talking about the north
American prairies here. Southern England at the time of Stonehenge was
probably not home to large herds of migratory animals.

Unfortunately we can't yet tell where people died but we CAN tell where
they were born.
They died within two days of where they were buried without refrigeration.

What makes you think this? The way things are NOW is not the way things were
THEN! You must again learn to think outside your own terms of reference. You
are asuming that people were buried soon after death, but we know from the
evidence that ancestor cults were probably widespread and people may have
been buried and reburied several times before reaching their final resting
places. We also think it likely that people may have been excarnated and
their remains curated for long periods before being laid to rest. Some
people may not have reached their final burial place for several centuries!

Let me suggest that you read about the long barrows and causewayed
enclosures of Britain so that you can begin to understand how these
practices might have worked. A good place to start is Francis Prior's work
on the enclosure at Etton in Cambridgeshire, or Roger Mercer's interim
reports on Hambledon Hill.

Of it may have been the tallest "skyscraper" of its day and had no
particular significance beyond its size.

Indeed

In the old days visitors to New York always had to go to the top of the
Empire State Building as a thing to do not because it was important to
them. Assuming importance when it could have been no more than a thing to
see when in the area is not reasonable.

Agreed

Just what should I read which does in fact work from the physical evidence
to that conclusion without arguing to a conclusion? And as you have read
them, simply summarize the evidence presented.

Start with Colin Renfrew and Richard Bradley, then try Julian Thomas for a
slightly different interpretation then move on to Joanna Bruck and Alistair
Whittle. After that you could try Timothy Darvill, Roberta Gilchrist, Miles
Russell, Mike Parker Pearson, Malissa Goodman, Robert Chapman, Wendy
Matthews, Paul Bahn, Kevin Greene, Francis Prior, Ian Hodder, Mike Shanks,
Chris Tilley, Matthew Johnson, Chris Scarre, Geoff Wainwright, etc etc etc
etc etc. When you've done with that lot you could then start on the
non-British researchers as you'll find an entirely different set of
interpretations again.

It is simply not possible to summarise the evidence as you propose. There
are interpretations and counter interpretations galore. The thing to do is
examine the evidence for yourself, understand the intellectual processes and
disciplines that need to be applied, then make your own judgements based on
what you have learned. I have been a student of archaeology for over 25
years now and I do not claim to have the answers. I just have opinions based
on my own reserach and reading.


Which gets back to what I said and very like the rest of Europe in known
history. Local construction was an ostentatious display of wealth where
the "largest" had no more significance than bragging rights for those who
built it. Biggest or tallest had no religious significance. The largest
and most elaborate cathedrals of the medieval period did not indicate a
greater religious significance than lesser cathedrals.

I wouldn't disagree with this. In our culture we tend to believe that bigger
is better. There is no certainty that this applied in the past. For example,
last spring I was excavating a "mini-henge" in northern Scotland. It
measured no more than three metres across. I would not presume to say that
this site was any less important than the huge henges of southern England.
However, the fact that the site does not appear to have been visited by huge
numbers of people might be taken to suggest that it may have held a
different status to Stonehenge and Durrington Walls.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Stop It!!
    ... .Let me make this simple for you: Supporting evidence for a hypothesis ... I only care if it's true. ... ..Wisdom et al concluded merely that animals ran away from mountain ... Energy loss is a surrogate for harm, ...
    (sci.bio.ecology)
  • Re: Interesting Mammoth article
    ... moose, caribou and elk, only fear predators they regularly encounter." ... you've said that animals "acquire" a fear of predators and ... especially since I haven't denied that humans are predatory. ... The article doesn't evidence that the animals wouldn't have feared ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Stop It!!
    ... .Let me make this simple for you: Supporting evidence for a hypothesis ... I only care if it's true. ... Wisdom et al concluded merely that animals ran away from mountain ... > They are simply trying to assess the EXTENT of harm. ...
    (sci.bio.ecology)
  • Re: Elton John "married"
    ... >> In the absence of a suitable mate of the opposite gender, ... Theories remain just that until they are given credibility by evidence. ... > two of the males in each generation will ever get to procreate. ... With regard to territorial animals, ...
    (uk.politics.misc)