23 replies to this topic

[Anew]

This thread splits off from the Prehistoric Metals in the British Isles thread, also in this forum .. to allow that thread to continue without sparring over a particular detail, (of a very broad subject), while restating my curiosity about these .. (Please refer to the former thread posts 1-18 for background)

To sum up: With the exception of one 'dagger', they look so much like toadstools, (to me), that I can't imagine that was absent from their minds; yet as member Stonecarver has demonstrated, they also strongly resemble a type of axe

In short: more information wanted .. ( Hard-oblique-light photographs of these carvings would be very helpful )

Here's a first, expanded from a previous note:

Quote

On 10 July Atkinson was to photograph the 17th-century graffito (ill. 20) on stone 53.  He waited until the late afternoon, when the sun would shine obliquely across the face of the stone and throw the carving into a sharper contrast of light and shade.  As he looked through the camera viewfinder, with his eye and mind concentrated on inscriptions, he spotted more carvings below, not letters of figures but the shape of a short dagger pecked into the surface of the stone.  Close to it were carvings of four axes, of the characteristic flat Middle Bronze Age type, set with the blades upright.

From Stonehenge Complete by Christopher Chippindale; (0-500-28467-9), page 202 with photos on 203

Please see posts 7-9 of the previous thread for image files of candidate and other axes.

[Pete G]

Archaeoptics scanned the stones and found some new daggers a few years back.
This is a good place to start
Stonehenge Laser Scans
PeteG

[stonecarver]

Hi Anew,

there are some excellent images of the axe carvings captured with laser scanners by Wessex archaeology (better than Any photographs that might be obtained).

You'll note from your quote, that Atkinson described them as axes, and in vitrually Every book on the archaeology of Stonehenge, they are also described as axes. One or two, of the Many books, relate that a few observers have described them as similar to toadstools... 99% of people agree they are more like the type of axe you didn't know anything about...

In Point of Fact, they do not 'resemble' a type of axe, they are veirtually Identical, in form and size.

If you check fly algaric, you'll see that only a percentage actually come anywhere near this shape - many more are ball-shaped with a short stem - and there are no carvings like that.

If you are going to re-state your position about this (me having summarised the debate)... you Might like to answer the questions I put to you in your prior posts - but I don't think you Can answer those questions.

There is no depictive rock-art in the british Isles in this period.

But there are plenty of rock-carvings of axes... the moulds used to cast them in.

Are you going back on what you said earlier????

[Anew]

Pete G, on 28 March 2007, 20:37, said:

Archaeoptics scanned the stones and found some new daggers a few years back.
This is a good place to start
Stonehenge Laser Scans
PeteG

Thanks Pete, I'll have a look at those.

[Anew]

I broke off the previous quote a bit too quickly .. here it continues

Quote

Two days later, the schoolboy son of one of the excavation helpers found another axe, on the outer face of stone 4.  Through the summer, more axes were spotted, at least a dozen more on stone 4, on stone 3 and, again, on stone 53.  In August, a visiting archaeologist, Brian Hope-Taylor, saw a second and smaller dagger on the side of 53, and other carvings were spotted that were too faint or weathered to identify easily.  One, a worn sub-rectangular shape on stone 57, resembled early carvings in Brittany.

The flat axes were undoubtedly prehistoric, a standard Irish type with a broad cutting edge curved in a crescent and a tapering butt which was known in mainland Britain and dated to about 1600-1400 BC.  They were further evidence of the northern aspect of the Wessex aristocracy's trade-routes.

The dagger was more exotic; its appearance -- with a straight-sided tapering blade expanding sideways into 'horns' at the base, short hilt and wide pommel -- could not be matched anywhere in northern Europe.  But there were parallels from Greece, in the rich royal graves of the citadel of Mycenae itself, a dagger from shaft-grave VI and a dagger-carving on a stone over shaft-grave V.

From Stonehenge Complete by Christopher Chippindale, (0-500-28467-9); pages 202-203

Mr. Chippindale then forwards what I see as erroneous speculation, (nothing I've ever been guilty of ;-), that a Mycenaean architect designed Stonehenge and was handsomely buried under Silbury Hill .... That aside, the apparent images of Irish axes and a Mycenaean dagger (s) imply a monument capital of considerable influence during this period .. as the plethora of barrow burials in the area attest

This would also help date the carvings to some time in the Middle Bronze Age, not likely before 1600 bce, the earlier part of the quoted range of these axes, (above); which is coincidentally when the Mycenaean age of Greek history is said to have begun .. Wikipedia on Mycenae .. Turning again to Appendix 3 from Hengeworld by Mike Pitts, (0-09-927875-8), page 341: the "large sarsen structures" of Stonehenge have been dated with 95% confidence to between 2461 & 2205 bce., at the inside more than 600 years earlier .. It also seems to place these carvings well after the bluestone circle & oval, said to date from between 2267 & 1983 bce. (page 342)

One final date clouds the issue somewhat: from Corlea, in County Longford, (Ireland), "timbers cut with metal blades" have been dated to 2259 plus or minus 9 years bce. .. This is within the 95% confidence range for the "large sarsen structures"

Of course, all this is in keeping with the axe hypothesis, not on the whole unreasonable .. The toadstool conjecture remains, however, dear to me

[stonecarver]

The chapter cited (Chippendale) in the last post has been taken a little out of context - it is from a discussion of the History of the research at Stonehenge and explains the Thinking at the time of the discovery of the axe and dagger carvings at Stonehenge in context of their date of discovery in 1953 by Atkinson.

The dates linking the site with Mycenae have been disproven as it has more Recently been shown that the Stonehenge sarsen structure predates Mycenae considerably. The old theory was that Mycenae influenced the construction of the trilithons at Stonehenge... but Now we know the trilithons were built before the Lion gate at Mycenae.

The link between the dagger carvings at Stonehenge and Mycenae came about because the only other place (they thought) a trilithon-like structure occured (the archaeologists working in 1953), was at Mycenae. That has since been shown to be erroneous.

Here's a picture of a typical Mycenaen dagger:-

 Pylos_dagger_Mycenaen.jpg   17.39K   8 downloads

Thanks Anew, for pointing out that the axes were a typical Bronze Age type and providing a quote...

On another link you'll see the discussion has centred around the links between Stonehenge and Ireland - the first published account states that the stones were brought from Ireland after a major military campaign there by the English. But that's a whole other debate.

[stonecarver]

Throughout the British Isles during the Bronze Age there are no depictive carvings (as far as I can tell).

All of the rock-art appears to be symbolic in nature, not depictive. Apart from cup-and-ring marks, most of the art was engraved with thin grooves (probably using a flint burin). The lozenge, spiral, triangle and cup-and ring marks were the commonest forms.. though there are many varieties.

Pecking was reserved for cup-and-ring marks... and one piece axe moulds.

Excellent books are:-

British Prehistoric Rock Art by Beckensall ISBN 0-7524-2514-5   (in particular)

Rock Art and the prehsitory of atlantic Europe by Bradley ISBN 0-415-16536-9

The Figured Landscapes of Rock-Art by Chippendale and Nash ISBN 0-521-52424-5

These are all really well illustrated and discuss the way British rock-art was significantly different to that of mainland Europe (where there Was depictive rock-art).

Stan Beckensall is acknowledged as The authority on British prehsitoric rock art. He has published many fine books on rock art of the British Isles and I have most of them. He's also a very nice man. He states emphatically the carvings at Stonehenge are of Early Bronze Age axes (and Richard Bradley, the other eminent expert of rock-art agrees). You can also find their appraisals on pages 127 ands 130 of the first book listed above.

[kevin.b]

Anew,
        I am still sat upon the toadstools with you, no matter how curiouser and curiouser it may seem ( said the caterpillar )
[Administrator note: Link removed because not pertinent to this section and because it leads to webpages depicting illegal activities.]
kevin

[Anew]

Quote

Anew,
        I am still sat upon the toadstools with you, no matter how curiouser and curiouser it may seem ( said the caterpillar )
(Link censored by site Administration)  
kevin

Thanks, Kevin .. I am rather fond of the idea

[kevin.b]

Anew,
If you go to this site and then type wasson in their search box.

[Administrator note: Link removed because not pertinent to this section and because it leads to webpages depicting illegal activities.]
Kevin

[knapp_happy]

Hello,
     I have been following this debate regarding possible interpretations of some enigmatic carvings on the sarsen stones at Stonehenge. First and foremost, I remain convinced that the carvings at Stonehenge do in fact represent axe heads and could very well have been used as a mold prior to having been erected. I certainly do not believe that they represent "magic mushrooms". Not withstanding the facts that the carvings more closely represent early bronze axe heads and date to a contemporaneous  time  period with the initial arrival of metals in Britain, the fact remains that (as Stonecarver stated) depictive artwork is not seen in ancient British stone carvings. Furthermore, the curves and contours, inherent to mushrooms or any other natural life forms are usually depicted in rock carvings as abstract "line based" carvings. Also, the carvings at stone henge are absent of details such as the conjunction between the stalk and the stem, or  nodes along the stem, that  one would expect, if there were an intent to depict an item such as a mushroom. Thus, it seems most reasonable to conclude that the carvings represent early metal axes, and not toad stools.
       In addition, I  find the inclusion of links to drug related and "alternative lifestyle" web sites (in Anew and Kevin B's last posts) to be extremely inapropriate on a forum about archaeology. Many, if not most of us on this forum, probably have absolutely no interest in browsing such web sites and they are of no relevance to any of our discussions. If one has nothing further to say, relating directly to the subject matter of a  given discussion, they should simply suffice to  post nothing at all.
                    Regards,
                     Knapp_Happy

PS: Im an American flintknapper. However, I know enough about British prehistory to realize whenever a given claim  on the subject matter seems appropriate or not.

[kevin.b]

Knapp-happy,
                   Hello, welcome
I think you doth protest TOO loudly, WHY?
Appropriate or not?
Are we not allowed an opinion?
You may be correct, then again you may not be?

Kevin

[stonecarver]

I think the Knapper is right... this is Surely not the place to post links to websites advocating and supporting the illegal use of drugs, anarchy, magick and a host of conspiracy links... or of some idiot taking drugs (on the flimsiest of anthroplogical pretexts).

It's way off topic and there's an Alternative section - this is supposed to be for archaeology - Point of Fact, archaeologists agree the carvings are axes. And the place to post Alternative theories is the Alternative section.

And as for links to alternative lifestyle/drug abuse sites (because that is what taking drugs of this nature does to the human body - Abuses it)... where on earth is the relevance to the subject in hand? Prehistoric rock carvings on megaliths...


Keeping to the topic - show me a quote from an archaeologist who says He/She believes the carvings represent anything other than axes.


I quote Richard Bradley... The Significance of Monuments on the Shaping of Human Experience in Neolithic and Bronze Age Europe (ISBN 0-415-15204-6) :-

"Three of the stones in the setting of sarsen trilithons were decorated with carvings of metalwork.There are at least forty-three carvings of unhafted axeheads and one depiction of a dagger..." pp 99.

[Anew]

I do not rule out the possibility that these carvings represented axes to them .. I am, however, highly skeptical they were ever active molds, or 'moulds'; and keep in mind that circumstances imply, (to me), theirs may have been an hallucinogenic religion, and by extension, 'a drug culture'.

As the carvings cannot be directly dated, it is difficult to say with absolute certainty, (imo), what they represented .. Thus, in the spirit of the moderate who walks into quicksand expecting to sink to his waist, I have been considering the idea that the fly-agaric toadstool's basic shape, (possibly in concert with beliefs about the crescent moon), influenced axe design, so allowing both to have some relevance

Member Stonecarver has entered a quote above which I would like to expand:

Quote

The final phase of Stonehenge was a simpler structure, consisting of two concentric rings of pits enclosing the stone settings erected during the previous phase (see Figure 30; Cleal et al. 1995: ch. 7).  Their dates are between about 1600 and 1500 BC.  These features silted up naturally and cannot have contained uprights, although their profiles are so similar to those of some of the sockets thought to have held bluestones during an earlier phase that it seems quite possible they mark the position of a further extension to the monument that was never completed.  Whatever the correct answer, a number of antlers were placed on the bottoms of these pits before they began to silt up.

The existing stone structure was modified during this final phase, for at least three of the stones in the setting of sarsen trilithons were decorated with carvings of metalwork.  There are at least forty-three carvings of unhafted axeheads and one depiction of a dagger complete with its hilt.  The axes are of a type normally dated to about 1500 BC, and this is compatible with the age of the dagger carving with which they are associated.  It is many years later, however, than the date at which this stone setting is likely to have been erected.  Such axes are unusual in graves and are more often found in votive deposits (Needham 1988), but the solitary dagger recalls the examples found in nearby burials.  Indeed, the unusual association between such daggers and axes is found in the richest of all the burial mounds visible from Stonehenge: the exceptional assemblage from Bush Barrow.

From The Significance of Monuments, by Richard Bradley (0-415-15204-6), pages 98-99

Because of objections raised by Member Stonecarver, (please see post 17), and in light of exchanges with Diego+Paola; this quote is now revised: 30 March 2007
Italic emphasis is now used to highlight, as closely as possible, the member's selection as provided in the previous post (please see 13) .. Underscore emphasis mine

When the quote is read out, the author comes down, (knowingly or otherwise), against the axe-mould proposal .. It is curious to me that these axes are usually found in votive deposits, a spiritual or if you will, 'magical' context.  I would like this considered alongside their apparent resemblance to toadstools.

[Pete G]

I think with the end of the month looming we should consider the very latest carvings at Stonehenge!

PeteG