| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Ray
|
|
 |
|
Assuming that two-way cross-ocean sailings aren't new, the Newfoundland lot take with them something that can only have come from their own area - perhaps the red ochre you were talking about if it was different from other varieties. Or perhaps an artefact specific to the region (Newfoundland rock?). They also have something uniquely Siliesian - because it was sent to them in advance.
Upon arrival they show their items to the locals, who as sea-to-overland traders recognise the provenance of both and thus understand that this group has just had a gruelling - ok - easy peasy ride across the Atlantic and are in need of rest and refuelling. Having built them up for the trek ahead they give them something distinctive from their own locality, which will put the next community they meet in the picture. They in turn will give them a trinket and point them in the right direction. And so on till Silesia is reached.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Very ingenious, Ray, but I see one or two snags. Since you might have made landfall anywhere between the Orkneys and Marrakesh, and you might be going anywhere in Europe, would not your system require everybody living ashore between the Orkneys and Marrakesh to
a) know who you are by recognising Newfoundland Rock
b) know the direction of everywhere in Europe.
I'll take your idea to the Megalithic Council but...mmm...I really don't know whether they'll approve.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Does anyone know how long that highway has been beside Stonehenge? I tried googling this but couldn't find anything.
I was trying to find out if the highway is completely new or if it was laid over an existing road.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
There must have been at least one clearly designated 'highway' for such a well-visited site. Tests have been carried out to analyse the strontium levels in cattle teeth found at Stonehenge and the researchers concluded that only one animal was local, the rest had come from areas as far away as Wales and Scotland apparently (this conclusion was reached due to the "unusual geology" of certain locations).
[There are stone circles even in distant Siberia and relatively few roads which suggests that the roads or tracks have been there from prehistoric times].
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DPCrisp
In: Bedfordshire
|
|
|
|
| Does anyone know how long that highway has been beside Stonehenge? I tried googling this but couldn't find anything. I was trying to find out if the highway is completely new or if it was laid over an existing road. |
Wiki says
| The M3, the A303 and the A30 together make up one of the main routes from London to South West England, running from London to Land's End in Cornwall. |
which pretty much guarantees it's an ancient road. Plus, the road is overlooked by umpteen tumuli, long barrows, earthworks, hillforts...
This is the centre of a mystery. It's probable that a map of Roman Roads is in effect a map of ancient British roads. They cover lowland England, but peter out in the upland far west. Conversely, the megaliths and hill forts are densest in the west and peter out in the east.
This is more or less the Celtic-English divide and Stonehenge is pretty much on the border. It is also quite unlike any other megalithic structure. Beaker finds also conform very well to the Celtic-English divide. Stonehenge was last worked on in the Beaker period and there are Beaker burials around. So, do the roads and the Beaker People correspond to England; and is there any way to decide "which side of the line Stonehenge belongs"?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Komorikid
In: Gold Coast, Australia
|
|
|
|
Dan wrote:
| So, do the roads and the Beaker People correspond to England; and is there any way to decide "which side of the line Stonehenge belongs"? |
It's my understanding that the Icknield Way runs from Norfolk to the Salisbury Plain and predates the Beakers. Stonehenge also predates the Beakers. Its origin is Neolithic. Even if the Beakers lived nearby during its latest iteration can we really say they were responsible for its construction at any stages or the roads/tracks leading to it? The fact the Beakers lived at Stonehenge at one point in history doesn't mean they were responsible for any of its construction. Proximity is not proof.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DPCrisp
In: Bedfordshire
|
|
|
|
| The fact the Beakers lived at Stonehenge at one point in history doesn't mean they were responsible for any of its construction. Proximity is not proof. |
Quite so. On the other hand, if we prefer history to be normal, then the all-of-England distribution of Beaker burials suggests a "Beaker regime" rather than a tissue of accidental neighbours. As you say, that only covers the last phase: though that is the phase we can see, with accurately crafted lintels and stuff.
The question about the roads is whether they correlate to England-as-opposed-to-Celtland; or they bolt onto the megalithic system, whatever that is; or they would cover Great Britain if it weren't for the uplands having necessarily different land use/economy... And, yes, I suppose the roads are much earlier and therefore independent of the Beakers... unless it turns out that both arise from the same thing, the English.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Komorikid
In: Gold Coast, Australia
|
|
|
|
Does a linguistic divide necessarily mean a socio/religious divide?
The Celtic/English linguistic divide was present in Ireland and for a long time both were Catholic but even after the Reformation there is still bugger all difference between a Roman Catholic church and a Church of England church.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DPCrisp
In: Bedfordshire
|
|
|
|
| Does a linguistic divide necessarily mean a socio/religious divide? |
No, I don't think there's anything to spot in Belgium to tell you which side you're on. But conversely, the fact that Beakerism took hold thoroughly in England and not in Celtland suggests there was a clear ethnic (and, in this case, linguistic) distinction, even though the putative socio-religious regime was Megalithic/Celtic across the board when Beakerism started turning up.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Komorikid
In: Gold Coast, Australia
|
|
|
|
Dan wrote: | But conversely, the fact that Beakerism took hold thoroughly in England and not in Celtland suggests there was a clear ethnic (and, in this case, linguistic) distinction, even though the putative socio-religious regime was Megalithic/Celtic across the board when Beakerism started turning up |
Well this is just plain twaddle. Beakerism took hold in all of Britain and parts of Ireland. One of the most notable 'Beaker finds' was the Rillaton Cup found in a round barrow within spitting distance of Land's End. So the ethnic distinction you speak of is as clear as mud.
The propensity of Beaker sites in the East of Britain is probably due to the fact that the arable land there supported higher density populations than the West, something that hasn't changed since the Bronze Age. In fact when one looks at the Beaker sites all over Europe, the highest densities are in fertile lands.
Beakerism seems to be nothing more than a newer technology adopted by varying social groups and utilised in various means within each group. Some groups show similar patterns of use and others have different or more/less diverse uses.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DPCrisp
In: Bedfordshire
|
|
|
|
| Beakerism took hold in all of Britain and parts of Ireland. One of the most notable 'Beaker finds' was the Rillaton Cup found in a round barrow within spitting distance of Land's End. So the ethnic distinction you speak of is as clear as mud. |
But is this isolated? I can only go by the distribution map (posted or referred to several times) that shows Beakers absent from the extreme west, except for the top and bottom of Wales, Dublin and a cupla points on the far side of Ireland.
| The propensity of Beaker sites in the East of Britain is probable due to the fact that the arable land there supported higher density populations than the West, something that hasn't change since the Bronze Age. In fact when one looks at the Beaker sites all over Europe, the highest densities are in fertile lands. |
Indeed, I didn't check in detail, but got the impression that they cluster around the major cities. But the Celts and the hillforts in Britain show quite the opposite: densest in the west and thinning or non-existent in the east.
| Beakerism seems to be nothing more than a newer technology adopted by varying social groups and utilised in various means within each group. |
Spoken like a true professional. Most unbecoming.
If you looked at an oldish political world map, haphazardness would not be a valid explanation for all the pink blotches all over the place.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Komorikid
In: Gold Coast, Australia
|
|
|
|
Nothing is Isolated Dan
Everything is Connected
And Absence of Evidence is NOT Evidence of Absence.
The predominance of evidence in the East may be due to the fact that that is where all the major 'Digs' are.
There are at least three maps of Beaker Culture on the net including the one you have chosen to use. All show different spreads of Beakerism. The fact that your one does not show attested finds in West Britain and Ireland renders it rather suspect. Your whole posit of equating Celticness with Megalithica is fraught with inconsistencies. Megalithic structures dating from around the same time periods stretch from Japan and China in the east through Central Asia to North Africa in the south, Scandinavia and Russia in the north and America in the West.
There is also NO consistent historic narrative of Exactly Who The Celts Were. Your focus seems to be on a linguistic divide in Britain which is extrapolated into a Pan-European culture. Despite the fact that of all the places where the 'Celtic Cultural Package' has been historically identified, the home of Celticness (West Britain and particularly Ireland) have almost no evidence of it.
Using the interactive map on the Megalithic Portal Hillforts are evenly distributed all over Britain. They extend east way beyond the so called cultural divide and only peter out in Kent and East Anglia. Round Barrows (usually associated with Beakerism) are pretty much evenly distributed all over Britain.
So it's all up to whose map you take as accurate.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Komorikid
In: Gold Coast, Australia
|
|
|
|
In just one grid square reference (Ord. Map TL) centred on Cambridge there is Ambresbury Bank, Arbury Bank, Caesar's Camp, Conger Hill, Danbury Hill, Deacon Hill, Pitchbury Rampart, Ravensburgh Castle, Copley Hill, Ring Hill, Sharpenhoe Clappers, Stonea Camp, The Lodge, Thetford Castle, Wallbury Camp, Wandlebury Hill, Wardy Hill and Wilbury Hill. All Hillforts
In the same grid square there is Black Hill Suffolk, Barway Hill, Blood Hill, Copely Hill, Earl's Hill, Galley Hill, Grimes Graves, Harlow Barrow, Honington Barrow, Knocking Knoll Barrow, Mickle Hill, Mill House Barrow, Mutlow Hill, Pepper Hill, Travellers Hill, West Stow Barrow, White Hill and Wormwood Hill. All Round Barrows.
In the centre of East Anglia there are the same amounts of Hill Forts as Round Barrows And if we look at the grid square immediately south (TV) which stretches from Watford to the south coast, there are 35 Hillforts listed and 45 Round Barrows. Not a great deal of difference. But if we try our luck one square to the west (SZ) we find ourselves in Megalithic Central and here we find 75 Hillforts and 70 Round Barrows. So the distribution is very even and it really does depend on whose references you are using.
I chose to use the excellent reference sites Megalithica and Megalithic Portal which have the most comprehensive listing of catalogued sites. It is vastly more accurate than Wikipedia and all the catalogued sites are listed with a location reference.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Grant
|
|
|
|
Does anyone on this site take seriously the idea that the Druids built the megaliths? Orthodoxy says of course they didn't because they were Iron Age and Stonehenge was earlier, but they appear to have had two characteristics which are interesting:
1 They were clever with astronomy and maths.
2 They incorporated natural features in their places of worship.
These must have applied to the megalith builders as well.
Plus, what were the sacred groves the Druids apparently worshipped in? Perhaps the hundreds of cursuses in Britain were sacred groves?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
I take it as axiomatic that the Druids built the megaliths.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
