A little while ago I produced a scripted post entitled 'Easthengers',
it wasn't meant to be entirely entertaining, as with many of my
scripted posts, but a gentle reminder that the past peoples that we
study had in the most cases, like us, had ordinary lives.
Neolithic man wasn't completely preoccupied with building henges,
barrows or any other 'ritual' monument, but spent 99% of their lives
providing a home and food for themselves and their families.
The Roman Army in Britain didn't spend all day, every day, fighting
battles If they were like any army, past and present, they spent most
of their time in barracks carrying out mundane tasks such as washing
their socks, cleaning their armour, cooking, guard duty.and practicing
Thinking about the recent TV programme 'The Celts: Blood, Iron and
Sacrifice' with reference to the 'Battle of Watling Street'. The two
'armies' engaged in that battle were like chalk and cheese. On one
side about 10,000 highly professional, highly motivated, highly
trained and disciplined and very well equipped soldiers against
100,000, ill-experienced ill-disciplined, poorly equipped, with mainly
inappropriate agricultural tools, farm labourers. No wonder Boudica
didn't stand a chance!
Most people in the past lived ordinary lives.
How many archaeologists on this list are confounded by the view that
the general public sees of them, as always digging up golden objects
and other treasures? When in fact most never get the chance to leave
the office, the ever mountain of paperwork and adminstration.
On 10/21/15, John Wood <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> When one looks at the construction of the outer rock circle at
> Rockhenge and how the lintels are jointed to the uprights it ought to
> give us a clue that this is an adaptation from carpentry.
> This should lend itself to us to supposing that the builders had a
> developed skill at woodworking.
> This should then make us think that there was a lot of wooden
> construction going on, which we now have little evidence, but surely
> We only have to look at the skill of the craftsmen who produced the
> ornate and intricate metalwork, that we find in the burials, to give
> us a clue that these were highly skilled people within a range of
> Isn't it time we threw off the image of the naive and simple caveman
> view of the neolithic people and adopt the view of intelligent and
> capable ones instead?
> On 10/21/15, John Wood <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> We have to keep nudging ourselves, as a gentle reminder, that organic
>> material/evidence doesn't usually survive on most archaeological sites
>> and this ought to be the case at Rockhenge as well as any other site.
>> The rocks at Rockhenge are just part of the story!
>> On 10/21/15, Michael <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> On 21/10/2015 09:22, Tony Marsh wrote:
>>>> Hmm, the claim seems a bit far fetched. It's a pity SU1142 and SU1143
>>>> absent from the gov lidar library. The lie of the land is weakly uphill
>>>> from the proposed moat only in a directly westerly direction and lidar
>>>> fails us 200 metres from the henge in that direction. Contours reveal
>>>> evidence of a depression that a stream would have created (anyway,
>>>> have looked for that before). A leet or stream from the north-west or
>>>> the north would have to cross a bit of a valley some 5 metres (at
>>>> lower that the proposed moat so one would expect to see some evidence
>>>> the construction, even today.
>>>> Tony Marsh
>>> I am reminded of the Roman baths in Bearsden. They show all the signs of
>>> being baths, they look like any other Roman bath I've seen, but then I
>>> realised there was one small problem.
>>> The site is located on a promontory with no obvious way to supply
>>> running water and absolutely no indication of any ditch or other feature
>>> through which water would have reached the site. But again, on Barr hill
>>> - there are Roman "baths" and no possibility of a stream on the top of
>>> the hill.
>>> Somehow the Romans managed to make water flow "up hill" and no one seems
>>> to be able to explain how they did this. Indeed, at a place like bar
>>> hill, if the water were carried up the hill in buckets, surely there
>>> must have been some kind of water storage - but if so where? The
>>> mechanics of moving water uphill appear to be missing from the
>>> archaeological record.
>>> ... so .... it seems to me that the druids must have had some magic that
>>> allowed water to flow uphill :)