Featured Title:
See Your Book Here |
 |
| Stone Circles, A Modern Builder's Guide |
 |
| Login |
|
Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like your own home page, fewer ads, and your contributions link to your page. |
| Who's Online |
There are currently, 136 guests and 8 members online.
You are a guest. To join in, please register for free by clicking here |
| |
Forum: Stones Forum
Moderated by : Andy B , TimPrevett , coldrum , Klingon , MickM , TheCaptain , bat400 , davidmorgan , Runemage , SolarMegalith , sem
Respond to: Henges
|
| Review your Reply |
mithra
Joined:
27-06-2006
Messages: 562
 OFF-Line
|  New Message Posted!2006-10-30 11:27
On 2006-10-30 10:20, karloff wrote:
''The techniques of archaeological investigation have improved considerably in the last 20 years...''
I quite take that on board thanks but maybe I should be more specific as I was really only relating to any evidence of socket holes for the stones to slot into.
As some stones were still standing in the early 18th century I would have thought that the earlier digs would've had a better chance of finding evidence of such - particularly as they were specifically looking for socket holes.
Today, after such a lapse of time since any once stood, any evidence would've long been filled in by natural soil shift and the action of livestock.
I'm sure that the site would provide us with lots more other information if it was sympathetically investigated today.
I've still not heard from anyone who knows anything about the stone 'causeway' at bottom of hill, below the NW entrance. Would love to know if this is a more resent construction, my Father says it was there over 50 years ago, at least, when he first visited Arbor Low. Mithra.
As a addition: I would've thought that some of the stones at Arbor Low, would by necessity, have needed blocking stones to help them stand upright. The underlying ground contains limestone rocks, therefore it might not have been possible to dig a deep enough socket hole in places, therefore blocking stones would be used as well. (Anyone who has tried to erect fencing posts in rocky earth will understand the problem.) Mithra.
[ This message was edited by: mithra on 2006-10-31 12:36 ]
|
karloff
Joined:
20-10-2006
Messages: 604
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2006-10-30 10:20
Quote:
|
On 2006-10-27 14:27, mithra wrote:
On 2006-10-27 11:09, baz wrote:
''No, because there haven't been any excavations within the henge in the last hundred years, have there?''
Quite, but I fail to see what difference that makes? Highly likely that there was more evidence around a hundred or so years ago than there would be today on this site. Arbor Low was first recorded in 1761 and various excavations have taken place since then....was the one in 1902 the last?
|
|
The techniques of archaeological investigation have improved considerably in the last 20 years and re-investigations of sites excavated 100 years ago almost always produce far more evidence than was observed in the earlier digs, particularly when dealing with prehistoric sites. In effect early excavations were carried out by workmen (not trained archaeologists) on behalf of an antiquarian and it takes a tremendous amount of skill (and experience) to see and record ephemeral prehistoric features.
|
brigantia
Joined:
13-01-2002
Messages: 804
from Yorkshire & Argyll
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2006-10-29 14:01
Hi Stu -
Quote:
|
On 2006-09-28 15:14, stu_tyrer wrote:
Hi,
I'm currently studying Archaeology at A level and for my coursework I am studying Arbor Low henge. I was wondering if anybody had any information on Arbor Low or indeed henges in general that they think may be of use to me.
thanks,
stu
|
|
You need to get hold of John Barnatt's Stone Circles of the Peak (197 , plus Aubrey Burl's Prehistoric Henges (various editions) wouldn't go amiss. Barnatt's Barrows in the Peak District (1996) wouldn't go amiss either. Get these and you won't go far wrong. I'm also pretty sure I've got a HMSO publication somewhere on Arbor Low, from sometime in the 1960s, though I can't for the life of me lay my hands on it at the moment. Most local Derbyshire libraries should have a copy of it.
Good luck! - Paulus
|
mithra
Joined:
27-06-2006
Messages: 562
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2006-10-28 12:10
On 2006-10-28 10:40, MickM wrote:
''The linear earthwork running up to Gib Hill is known....''
Yes I'm aware of that earthwork but do you know anything of the stone 'causeway' type construction I mentioned, which is at the bottom of the hill - below the henge? Mithra.
|
MickM
Joined:
02-01-2005
Messages: 192
from London
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2006-10-28 10:40
Burl also cites the way the stones lie as being consistent with a fallen ring. They have all fallen in the same direction, away from 'the tempestuous winds howling in from the north'.
The linear earthwork running up to Gib Hill is known and was confirmed as part of an otherwise largely inconclusive geophysical survey in 1998.
Geophizz report
[ This message was edited by: MickM on 2006-10-28 10:41 ]
|
mithra
Joined:
27-06-2006
Messages: 562
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2006-10-27 14:27
On 2006-10-27 11:09, baz wrote:
''No, because there haven't been any excavations within the henge in the last hundred years, have there?''
Quite, but I fail to see what difference that makes? Highly likely that there was more evidence around a hundred or so years ago than there would be today on this site. Arbor Low was first recorded in 1761 and various excavations have taken place since then....was the one in 1902 the last?
''The stones at Arbor Low once stood and there is no intelligent argument against that fact, given the evidence.''
Totally agree....if nothing else it's hard to dispute recorded evidence from a local man who remembered some still standing. (And I hardly think that anyone would make that up!) Also there's the evidence of the slightly leaning stone to the WSW and the upright stumps to the North. As I said soil has possibly filled in any evidence of slot holes, blocking stones have been suggested by a number of archaeologists. Mithra.
As a extra, which I've mentioned before, has anyone else noticed the small stone sided 'causeway' type construction which leads from the field by the small car park/notice board area? It appears to match up with the NW entrance of the henge. Was this the original route? The land each side of this does retain water during our wet winters - which would explain the need for this raised platform. As it's about 2ft6ins wide and the surrounding terrain has some interesting raised areas. Perhaps there was a settlement there? Mithra.
[ This message was edited by: mithra on 2006-10-27 15:37 ]
|
Andy B
Joined:
13-02-2001
Messages: 7008
from Surrey, UK
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2006-10-27 13:25
Fine Baz, I'll go with that. The suggestion was that discusion of 'flat' vs 'standing' would make a good essay subject but our friend has probably long gone now 
|
baz
Joined:
16-06-2001
Messages: 67
from West Midlands, UK
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2006-10-27 11:09
Quote:
|
On 2006-10-25 16:17, mithra wrote:
Excavations have not found any sockets into which stones were slotted..... |
|
No, because there haven't been any excavations within the henge in the last hundred years, have there?
I've already said that John Barnatt, senior survey archaeologist for the Peak District National Park, has shown to me that many of the stones were broken off at ground level. I prefer to believe the word of the leading authority on Arbor Low and the evidence of my own eyes.
The stones at Arbor Low once stood and there is no intelligent argument against that fact, given the evidence.
|
rbatham
Joined:
04-04-2006
Messages: 679
from Western Australia
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2006-10-27 03:17
Quote:
|
On 2006-10-25 16:17, mithra wrote:
Excavations have not found any sockets into which stones were slotted. This could be because the sockets have long filled with earth or blocking stones were used (or perhaps a combination of the two, using only shallow sockets.)
|
|
Archaeologists can tell if an excavation has been made by the distubance of the different strata of the soil. I remember an episode of 'Meet the Ancestors' where ancient graves 6ft deep were found simply by wetting the surface. the water soaks in more easily where the excavation was made and the outline shows clearly. Roy
|
mithra
Joined:
27-06-2006
Messages: 562
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2006-10-25 16:17
Think it might've been me that gave information on the stones originally standing upright at Arbor Low - on previous forum on this site.
It's mentioned in a book by the archaeologist Peter Clayton, quote:
''......a local man, William Normanshaw, who told the antiquary the Revd Samuel Pegge that he remembered some of them standing in the early 18th century.''
Excavations have not found any sockets into which stones were slotted. This could be because the sockets have long filled with earth or blocking stones were used (or perhaps a combination of the two, using only shallow sockets.)
Someone mentioned 'different types of limestone used for stones' - this is not strictly true. The limestone used for the stones all came from a nearby source - which is different from that found on site in the rubble of the banks. Mithra.
| |
|
Main News