On 2012-10-15 18:28, jonm wrote:
Hi George

Thanks for putting me onto that pastscape site! (I have seen it before but forgot about it)

I've looked through the first 25 or so barrows on my list and now have brain-ache. The barrows are all in the Eastbourne-Polegate-Lewes triangle.

Looks as if virtually none of them have been investigated: The ones I found by chance this morning when I first looked are all that's been done. I also looked at the Long Man one and found that it has been investigated and did contain some bones (but it's not in my set so it's not relevant to what I'm looking at)

Interesting thing is that the hollows next to the Long Man "top barrow" do not seem to have been looked at: Virtually everything else in the area has been (except for the two weird platforms at the bottom). Seems that all my 'places' are also on EH's list: Some of them weren't on the MP so I assumed that they were unrecorded.

So I'm now about 35% done. Wish me luck with the rest!

Jon

It's a great resource Jon . I ahd a quick look at some of the Bostal Hill examples ,same there few investigated but those that were did produce finds /burials , from Neolithic to Saxon too .

On 2012-10-16 17:37, jonm wrote:
Hi George

I had a look at the Bostal Hill lot: Have to admit that I haven't been to Bostal as yet but have been up to the top of Firle. Is it the Firle ones that you got the reference to cremations from? (there's a long barrow in particular up there that seems to have cremation references)

It's an interesting area up there: When I did Firle, I was looking for what I wanted so didn't spot a few of the mounds that EH have catalogued. The Firle ones also seem distinctly different from typical ones you find elsewhere: On that occasion I didn't plan to do anything special so I took the boys with me and they were knackered after walking up to the Beacon (hence why so we didn't get to do Bostal)

All the best

Jon

[ This message was edited by: jonm on 2012-10-16 17:38 ]

On 2012-10-15 17:26, tiompan wrote:
Lintleman , did you miss or avoid my questions in relation to your previous post ?
Bump .
“You mentioned obvious flaws but only comment on one e.g. ““No obvious utilitarian function “” and then fail to provide an example .
The astronomical advances and understanding of astronomy achieved by prehistoric and early historic peoples I mentioned were done without the need of any structure resembling megalithic monuments , you didn't mention any examples of these either . “

Fwiw some points that you made in the last post . I don't understand why you mention literacy in relation to intelligence , true some believe there is a connection many don't , so what ?

Large structures were built before farming e.g. Gobekli Tepe , they were also built long before the smelting of metal e.g. Catal Hoyuk ,Harappa and all the big British monuments like cursuses , Long Barrows , Causewayed Enclosures , Passage Graves many henges including the biggest Avebury , and the early Stone circles . The visual communication at Chauvet is hardly rudimentary .
Why should the builders of SH leave a message if they didn't want to ,if we don't have the wit to understand it's function or suggest hare brained functions that is hardly the fault of the builders .
No they weren't thick , they didn't need to build stone circles in order to understand what they everyone else managed without going to these extremes , that would be thick .

George

On 2012-10-18 11:30, Lintelman wrote:
Okay George,
I have resisted diving into the citing of examples because it is rarely constructive in my opinion.

You refer to cursuses and causewayed enclosures and long barrows as examples of 'large structures'. Well, I'll accept long barrows as (primarily) valid examples of graves but the rest are ditches of unknown purpose. Incidentally, I have heard David Field refer to research that implied that cursuses may have been boundary delineations at the head of watersheds (thereby possibly having a utilitarian purpose).

To me, the sarsens at SH represent a large structure. And the stones and earthworks at Avebury, and Callanish are also large structures in my book. My understanding is that the two latter edifices were constructed in what we now call the neolithic, and they were most likely erected to provide a means of measuring time against the movement of the heavens (even though the purposes may have been embroiled in supernatural explanations). As to the activities of the people who erected them, do we really think that purely hunter-gathering types were able to organise themselves? In other words, George, what do you mean by 'farming'. Surely the herding of animals is a form of farming? Throwing a few herb seeds around is farming? Are we talking about arable farming, I wonder, which leaves grain behind?

As for metal production and the cases you cite, it is my understanding that the major structures at Harappa and Catal Hoyuk were constructed in the bronze ages in those cultures. But the excavations at Gobekli Tepe would appear to support the idea that the builders at that site did not possess metal (but 'farming' may have been another thing).

So I hold fast to the notion that analytical knowledge (of the heavens, of medicine, of geometry) has grown in parallel with other categories of human endeavour, and could not have emerged in isolation. Surely analysis is merely the consequence of need - for example, it is unnecessary to understand the principles of leverage, unless you are moving big stuff around, and it is unnecessary to be sure of the seasons unless you are a farmer.

You then may say, okay, true, but why do you need massive stone structures? This is where the literacy thing comes in. I suggest that we are so familiar with a documented world that we cannot imagine how much we depend upon written records. Today, we have the means of defining a position and shape in many ways. What if it is not possible to do that? What if you don't know whether anyone will be alive next year to tell you what this or that azimuth of a star means? What if animals, the weather, competitive tribes, or supernatural entities may move your marker? Imagine the vicious arguments that could arise about the time when you should salt your pork. If you get it wrong, your family will starve. So you put up a pyramid to make damn sure everyone in a land of shifting sand (okay it was grass then) knows where they're at, physically, temporally and intellectually.

Jack

Quote:

On 2012-10-15 17:26, tiompan wrote: Lintleman , did you miss or avoid my questions in relation to your previous post ? Bump . “You mentioned obvious flaws but only comment on one e.g. ““No obvious utilitarian function “” and then fail to provide an example . The astronomical advances and understanding of astronomy achieved by prehistoric and early historic peoples I mentioned were done without the need of any structure resembling megalithic monuments , you didn't mention any examples of these either . “ Fwiw some points that you made in the last post . I don't understand why you mention literacy in relation to intelligence , true some believe there is a connection many don't , so what ? Large structures were built before farming e.g. Gobekli Tepe , they were also built long before the smelting of metal e.g. Catal Hoyuk ,Harappa and all the big British monuments like cursuses , Long Barrows , Causewayed Enclosures , Passage Graves many henges including the biggest Avebury , and the early Stone circles . The visual communication at Chauvet is hardly rudimentary . Why should the builders of SH leave a message if they didn't want to ,if we don't have the wit to understand it's function or suggest hare brained functions that is hardly the fault of the builders . No they weren't thick , they didn't need to build stone circles in order to understand what they everyone else managed without going to these extremes , that would be thick . George

On 2012-10-23 09:31, Lintelman wrote:
George, one of the difficulties I have with citing cases is that arguments can get bogged down in disagreements over detail that is irrelevant to the main argument. In your statements you have made a few claims that don't sit well with information that I've read elsewhere. Now, you may be correct, or the other sources may be correct, I don't know for sure. Certainly the archaeological/antiquarian/historical professions seem particularly vulnerable to conclusion leaping - so who knows what the real 'truth' was behind motivation and purpose (even if those who built these things had a clear idea)? What I would like to do, if I may, is refocus upon what I thought I was in dispute with you about. I got the impression that you were saying that the geometric design of SH was not derived from the need to study the heavens because the job could just as easily been done with a timber structure. Is that correct?

If it was, then I'd like to ask how you can be so sure. I gave an idea in my previous comment that, in the minds of the builders, perhaps the notions of permanence and durability were important. Maybe they also combined the measurement of star movement with notions of status, wonder and a supernatural derivation of rocks. Surely there is nothing here that specifically rules out SH as being a type of observatory?
Jack.

the epistemological benefits of practical experimentation.

On 2012-10-28 18:14, Lintelman wrote:
George,
I'm beginning to enjoy this but it's probably boring other people rigid so I'll try to keep to the point:

1. You've said, 'All the great early advances in our understanding of astronomy that we are aware of from the Babylonians , Aristarchus , Hipparchus , Ptolemy to the Renaissance were achieved by thought , experiment and observation and at no time was there a need for a structure other than to provide shelter and warmth' and I've said something about detecting a scornful disregard for the benefits of experimentation on your part. Well, it all needs reading in context, and I was commenting in terms of structural experimentation on a constructional scale. Therefore my use of the word scornful seems appropriate if you are saying that one branch of knowledge, e.g. that the world is not flat, does not need other branches, e.g. a heavy object in a boat will not necessarily sink it. To me, George, it is nonsensical to make such an assertion because if it were so, then why didn't the Greeks first think up, then solve, Fermat's last theorem? The problem with technical advancement is surely that we don't understand the connections. We don't really know the answer to Meno's paradox.

2. Nah, Hutton only fiddled about with a few rocks, Smith drew the first geological map with dip angles and sections. Now he WAS a geologist.

That's the trouble with citing examples.

All the best,
Jack



2.