MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Jacobs Crackers? (NEW CONCEPTS)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The Durrington shafts (pits) are situated in a large circle around the inside henge "Durrington Walls.". Your folks seemed to be in a circular, inner, outer ripples way of working.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

If the holes are inside the walls, the walls are circular and made from earth, and the earth came from the holes, then we have an explanation for all observed phenomena:

1. The foreman walks round in a circle
2. At regular intervals he puts a stick in the ground.
3. "Right, team A, half of you start digging earth from where this stick is. The other half: take the earth and start building a wall over there where Frank's standing."
4. "In what direction?"
5. "He'll show you but all of us together are going to build a henge."
6. "Hang about. What if we work hard and Team B doesn't. We'll end up building twice as much wall as they will. Where's the justice in that?"
7. "Do I look as though this is the first henge I've ever built? You keep digging, you keep building, until you've produced a pit five metres deep and ten metres in diameter. Then you knock off. Job done."
8. "What, even if the wall isn't finished?"
9. "Not your problem. You'll have built your share of the wall. If the team next door wanna do it slower, they'll just have to take longer about it. But in the end their pit will be the same size as yours, their section of wall will be the same length as yours and it will abut yours. We've done the math many, many times, don't you worry about that. Same story on the other side. Same story all round the circle. Result: one henge."
10. "They don't call you Mr Megalithic for nothing."
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Wiki wrote:

The primary area of field management, known as the "open field system", was in the lowland areas of England in a broad band from Yorkshire and Lincolnshire diagonally across England to the south, taking in parts of Norfolk and Suffolk, Cambridgeshire, large areas of the Midlands, and most of south central England.


My guess is that this diagonal line is charcoal soils and they were growing wheat, barley. Lots of images of wheat on ancient coins.


Mick wrote:

In other words, wherever there is decent arable land, agriculture is communal using large open fields, crop rotation etc and everyone lives in villages. Wherever it isn't it's either pastoral or small walled (terraced?) fields and everyone lives in hamlets.



These villages were built on the flatter clay soils, connected by communal roads, in my view the villa (made of clay bricks) evolves into the village. Ortho is mixing up Vics, with Villas.


*weik- (1)
Proto-Indo-European root meaning "clan, social unit above the household."

It forms all or part of: antoecian; bailiwick; Brunswick; diocese; ecology; economy; ecumenical; metic; nasty; parish; parochial; vicinage; vicinity; viking; villa; village; villain; villanelle; -ville; villein; Warwickshire; wick (n.2) "dairy farm."


They have mixed up farming with industrial areas, by way of proto imaginary clans.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Not bad but you're still being unnecessarily complicated. Villages are built everywhere except the really naff areas. All over the world, all through history, all through pre-history. They all grow arable crops to some extent. I don't see why charcoal and diagonal lines should come into it.

Every village ever built is connected by road to the next village. All such roads are communal. Every village needs (a) defending and (b) law and order, so there's going to be a big house somewhere in the vicinity. I can see how it grows out of the village, I can't see how the village grows out of the big house. I agree with you about 'they' though. Mixed up is putting it kindly.

PS You forgot to congratulate me on magisterially solving the Durrington Walls enigma.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Always grateful, for when you imput, your rather unique skillset. I havnt actually caught the Road Runner yet.....but that is certainly not your fault.

Maybe I will subcontract you, to produce the flying element in future.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

So you're not impressed. Even if it happens to be true it will never be accepted by archaeologists due to its utilitarian nature. The Ancients were capable of doing all kinds of weird stuff but not the ordinary everyday things.

Well, I do declare!
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Its a !? (interesting), rather than a !! (nailed it), for Wiley. So I started thinking about it.......

Got me thinking about cup and ring marks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cup_and_ring_mark
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

While you do, consider this because it's an AE thing...
Its interesting ... rather than nailed [on]

In the first place my explanation is not interesting. As we know, academics (and people generally where Stonehenge etc is concerned) are only interested in bizarre and/or spectacular and/or precocious and/or mystical behaviour. A henge qualifies on most of these grounds, constructing it does not. That was the general problem we were addressing in Megalithic Empire, and possibly the reason for its relative lack of success.

In the second place, if an explanation accounts for all observed phenomena and does so in a properly Occamite fashion, why is it not the explanation? How can any other explanation equal it, much less surpass it? This is a constant problem bedeviling all pre-history where the final truth is not knowable, nor presumably ever will be known. But it has to factored in all the same.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Thank you. Maybe I overvalue interesting, as for Wiley new paradigms produce interesting ideas, decaying paradigms stale ideas. I suspect I am I am not particularly good at recognising explanations. Must do better.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Jump to:  
Page 7 of 7

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group