JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for BRITARCH Archives


BRITARCH Archives

BRITARCH Archives


BRITARCH@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

BRITARCH Home

BRITARCH Home

BRITARCH  November 2002

BRITARCH November 2002

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Sutton Common

From:

George Chaplin <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

British archaeology discussion list <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 13 Nov 2002 07:45:36 -0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (72 lines)

I don't know about anyone else but given the questions that were left
unanswered after EH decided to use this list to publicise Sutton Common, as
well as inconsistencies between press releases and statements given people
on site, I'd suggest any EH statement about Sutton Common need to be taken
with a pinch of salt. There was a previous excavation which did find metal
objects and it has been suggested that the site was "asset stripped" by
detectorists following the publicity surrounding the first dig.

I find it odd that a site with several phases of building with some
published artifacts becomes a ghost town.

One of the main reasons for the extensive nature of the second dig was the
concern that changed management practices on the site had had a serious
impact on the preservation of the archaeology. Odd that the confirmed
degradation should be interpreted as "ghostly behaviour".



-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Burns [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 12 November 2002 19:51
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Sutton Common


I today read with dismay that yet again professional archaeologists are
lumping anything they cant find a logical answer to as ritual.  Edwin van
d'Noort as assumed that because of no habitation signs save a couple of
smashed skulls and a large entrance way lined with timbers that this has to
be a major ritual site.

His theory is unfounded.  Ok large timber lined entrance ways could
represent
a religious site.  However looking at the other evidence namely teh crushed
skulls would suggest otherwise.  We only have to take Lindow Man and Tollund
Man to see that although sacrifices took place they were in fact carried out
with some reverance.  These crushed skulls could have been caused by any
number of reasons.  Have they considered before running down the 'time team'
route of ritual that these bodies could have been burried there towards the
end of the occupation and sometime after the site died there bodies due to
water erosion were brought to the surface and around this time one of these
great timbers fell crushing the skulls.  Fromt he english heritage piece in
this months magazine I doubt it.

Also contrary to his own statement on this list a few months ago it is again
being described as a ghost town and this statement is attributed to van d'
Noort.

He also seems to have not taken into account the fact that this site is
predominently acidic and therefore the items he refers to in this report
with
regards to showing habitation would have gone completely.  i wonder if they
have any intention of carrying out phosphate testing?

Why is this site which as we all know is of major importance to Britain
never
mind Europe being given so little consideration?

Finally he states that because the site had rectangular buildings which he
quite correctly says didnt really appear until the romans came it as to have
some ritualistic settings.  I would ask why would they build rectangular
buildings for worship yet then live in small roundhouses.  As he considered
these rectangular buildings could have been of a later date or does the
archaeology through sealed contexts prove them to have been much earlier.

What are the list members views on these points as it would be nice to guage
a view from someone far more experienced in pre history than myself.  It
would also be nice to see next years excavations started with an open mind
and not to go on there with the ' I will find and prove ths to be an early
pagan temple attitude'

rob

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JISCMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998


WWW.JISCMAIL.AC.UK

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager