66 replies to this topic

[Anew]

Quote

I'm going to show you a picture, (Laser Scanning Stonehenge -- New carvings found on stone 53), and I want you to tell me the first thing you think of.

These were picked up, as the link describes, by a recent laser scan of the monument .. They are invisible to the unaided eye under most circumstances, (A laser view of the stone, showing its famous 'dagger'), implying that they were among the earliest, or perhaps the shallowest, of the carvings on this crowded stone .. An illustrated look at the lot of them, from the same source, (Wessex Archaeology / Archaeoptics), reveals a general morphology similar to that of a toadstool .. (to my mind)


The standard interpretation is that these are

Quote

almost certainly crude representations of contemporary Bronze Age metal flanged axeheads.

from: British Archaeology, (no. 73 November 2003) .. The full article is well worth a read.

Of the more curious new find, so obviously reminiscent to me, it is thus said:

Quote

The first carving is 15 by 15.3 cm, with a broad upturned blade, and a form of 'rib' a third of the way down the length. Although further analysis is needed, this shape could represent two axes, one carved over another. The second carving, 10.6 by 8.6 cm, is very faint indeed, but seems to be a normal flanged axe, as we find elsewhere on the stone. The lower left part of this carving appears to have been chipped and further eroded by two small indentations. The illustration shows an interpretation of their shapes.

from: British Archaeology, (no. 73 November 2003) .. italic bold emphasis mine

A different interpretation would be that they represent the specific fly-agaric toadstool, a toxic but also strongly psycotropic variety native to Britain .. (Its effects are unpredictable) .. I suggest these people not only ate the fly-agaric, (perhaps, see link below, after taking steps detoxify it), but considered it 'powerful medicine' to be used on certain occasions .. The stars-in-a-crimson-sky appearance of the agaric may have played into this .. Although it's questionable whether it was, as I had suggested, used in preparation for war:

Quote

The notion that Nordic Vikings used Amanita muscaria to produce their berserker rages was first suggested by the Swedish professor Samuel Ödman in 1784.[56] Ödman based his theories on reports about the use of fly agaric among Siberian shamans. The notion has become widespread since the 19th century, but no contemporary sources mention this use or anything similar in their description of berserkers. Today, it is generally considered an urban legend or at best speculation that cannot be proven. Muscimole is a mild relaxant, and is unlikely to cause violent rage.

From: Wikipedia on the fly agaric

Various other notes to consider:

Quote

One of many other theories suggests that the carvings, and Stonehenge itself, represent sacred or ceremonial mushrooms, reminiscent of a fairy ring.

From: British Archaeology 73, November 2003 Beneath the heading "Axes-or mushrooms?" .. (Italic bold emphasis mine)

Quote

A large conspicuous mushroom, Amanita muscaria is generally common and numerous where it grows, often being found in groups with basidiocarps in all stages of development. Fully grown, the bright red cap is usually around 8-20 cm (3-8 inches) in diameter, though larger specimens have been found.

---

The stem is white, 5-20 cm high (approximately 2-8 inches), with a basal bulb that bears universal veil remnants (more or less distinct rings or ruffs), and has the slightly brittle, fibrous texture typical of many large mushrooms. Between the basal universal veil remnants and gills are remnants of the partial veil (which covers the gills during development) in the form of a white ring (annulus).  It can be quite wide and flaccid in age.

---

Fly agaric fruiting bodies emerge from the soil looking like a white egg, covered in the white warty material of the universal veil. As the fungus grows, the red colour appears through the broken veil, and the cap changes from hemispherical to plate-like and flat in mature specimens.

From Wikipedia on the fly agaric

As the red cap bursts through the white covering, it may have had association with the concept of rebirth -- which would fit well with the prospect below



Part 2 : I've had a chance, over the last days, to think about Stonehenge from a structural perspective .. Has it been considered that the lintelled ring seems akin to the entrance to so many figurative barrows or dolmens .?  And that this theme is repeated in the rising trilithions within .? It seems different from other circles not only in form but in theme .. As though this was intended to be a 'universal portal' to the afterlife

It is also worth considering, in this context, that the carvings -- whether they be of toadstool or axe, (a combined possibility I do not rule out) -- seem to be principally on the outer faces of stones 3 & 4, where they face essentially due east, and on the inner face of stone 53, roughly parallel to the axis of the monument and facing the altar stone .. Such may well have borne symbolism



For background on this thread people may wish to visit the The Carvings in the Stonehenge Sarsens, and Prehistoric Metals in the British Isles threads on the Megalithic forum of this site.

[shiny]

Anew........Have you seen this.....................

  http://www.stoneheng...ped_compact.mov

[Anew]

shiny, on 6 April 2007, 10:24, said:

Anew........Have you seen this.....................

  http://www.stoneheng...ped_compact.mov

Thanks shiny, that's fantastic .. I watched it over and again, and will go after the high res. next

Animated Stonehenge Laser Scans from Archaeoptics Seems like they're really in the spirit of it

[Anew]

..!?

I got the high-res down .. Note the way the 'dagger' carving is framed between two natural and parallel seams in the rock .. I held a protractor to the screen, admittedly not the best way of doing things, and took a reading for their elevation .. It appears to be in the neighborhood of 50 degrees

360/7 is approximately 51.4, and since that is the latitude of nearby Avebury, a measurement well within their abilities, imo, and Stonehenge is slightly south of this .. .. We could have a rough match -- generous of nature, yes -- but perhaps also alert of them

[shiny]

Then theres this.........................




  http://www.stoneheng...roadband_hi.mov

[Anew]

shiny, on 6 April 2007, 17:15, said:

Then theres this.........................




  http://www.stoneheng...roadband_hi.mov

Wow .. Wow they're having fun

It looks to me like none of these shapes cross over those seams .. One was recorded by Newall as having clipped the upper one, but I differ as it breaks up in that area .. In my view, they appear to have respected them .. I'm not seeing axes on 53, not principally, at any rate, but toadstools .. I'm curious why some of them are more visible than others, would they be more recent, (?), or was part of the effect intended to be subliminal -- now you see it, now you see more

[Anew]

Anew, on 6 April 2007, 16:21, said:

..!?

I got the high-res down .. Note the way the 'dagger' carving is framed between two natural and parallel seams in the rock .. I held a protractor to the screen, admittedly not the best way of doing things, and took a reading for their elevation .. It appears to be in the neighborhood of 50 degrees

360/7 is approximately 51.4, and since that is the latitude of nearby Avebury, a measurement well within their abilities, imo, and Stonehenge is slightly south of this .. .. We could have a rough match -- generous of nature, yes -- but perhaps also alert of them

My bad .. From a printout of their illustration, Archaeoptic's plan of the carvings on Stone 53, the angles seem to be 43 degrees for the upper seam and 45 degrees for the lower .. The second number is of course, an eighth part of a circle ...which may have been meaningful to them ...enough so that they may have trimmed the stone to make that accurate ...perhaps

[stonecarver]

There is no evidence that prehistoric communities in Britain used a system with 360 degrees. They were aware of the cardinal points (north, south, east and west).

As for the fact the axe carvings are not crisp - they have been exposed to the elements for 4000 years... and as anybody who knows anything about the British climate will tell you, the extremes of temperature and high rainfall are particularly adverse for rock-carvings. Frost, rain and heat affect all rock types in the British Isles as demonstrated through the fact that carvings founbd in structures or otherwise protected from the elements are generally much clearer than those which have been exposed to them.

Challenge - name (and quote) a single archaeologist who states on record they think the carvings represent toadstools.

It's mere speculation and disregards all the very substantial archaeological evidence that they represent the very well known type of axe from the Early Bronze Age that Anew didn't even know anything about until he was informed of their existence.

[Anew]

stonecarver, on 7 April 2007, 5:32, said:

There is no evidence that prehistoric communities in Britain used a system with 360 degrees. They were aware of the cardinal points (north, south, east and west).

I venture they were aware of fractions of a circle, one eighth, for example .. To me this is a promising development, though how it fits in remains to be seen

stonecarver, on 7 April 2007, 5:32, said:

As for the fact the axe carvings are not crisp - they have been exposed to the elements for 4000 years... and as anybody who knows anything about the British climate will tell you, the extremes of temperature and high rainfall are particularly adverse for rock-carvings. Frost, rain and heat affect all rock types in the British Isles as demonstrated through the fact that carvings founbd in structures or otherwise protected from the elements are generally much clearer than those which have been exposed to them.

The thing I'm impressed by is that some are crisp while others are not; implying that some may have been older, or cut with different intention than others

stonecarver, on 7 April 2007, 5:32, said:

Challenge - name (and quote) a single archaeologist who states on record they think the carvings represent toadstools.

The challenge is silly .. Mushrooms in temples imply drug use, which is illegal, which can affect a professional's prospects and reputation .. One of the uses of a venue like this, therefore, is as a semi-anonymous place where such ideas can be considered .. "Meeting Stones", if you will .. Nonetheless, the idea is on radar:

Quote

One of many other theories suggests that the carvings, and Stonehenge itself, represent sacred or ceremonial mushrooms, reminiscent of a fairy ring.

From: British Archaeology 73, November 2003 Beneath the heading "Axes-or mushrooms?" .. (Italic bold emphasis mine)

stonecarver, on 7 April 2007, 5:32, said:

It's mere speculation and disregards all the very substantial archaeological evidence that they represent the very well known type of axe from the Early Bronze Age that Anew didn't even know anything about until he was informed of their existence.

Speculation is fine .. I am not in agreement about the disregarding of "very substantial archaeological evidence that they represent the very well known type of axe from the Early Bronze Age" .. as it is my opinion I have yet to see it .. The reader is invited to review the threads: Prehistoric Metals in the British Isles, and The Carvings in the Stonehenge Sarsens in the Megalithic forum of this site to have a feel for the debate so far

I re-enter a couple references:

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.

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; (Italic Bold emphasis mine)

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; (Italic Bold Emphasis mine)

What Member Stonecarver calls an axe from the Early Bronze Age, the first source above describes as Middle Bronze Age, and the second places about 1500 bce

The Member has quoted from the second source and 'heartily' recommends the first:

stonecarver, on 26 March 2007, 20:52, said:

Stonehenge Complete, C. Chippendale ISBN 0-500-28467-9


There are others of course... and it would be pointless listing every relevant text - I have merely suggested a few of the ones that I think are especially good reads (and which I have bought and I heartily recommend).

stonecarver, on 29 March 2007, 18:58, said:

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.

I note that the Member's selection from Mr. Bradley's book, when compared to an expanded quote as I also have a copy, begins in mid-sentence, though this would be invisible to the uninformed reader as the first letter has been made capital .. The dropped initial phrase of the sentence, "The existing stone structure was modified during this final phase", taken with its preceding paragraph, places the carvings in the ambiguous 'final phase' of Stonehenge's construction; between 1600 & 1500 bce

[stonecarver]

Maybe you never went and had a look at the axe carvings? Have you seen them close-up? They are certainly Not crisp - and show the kind of erosion from the elements that is typical for prehistoric monuments.

The digital images and other photographs taken in specific lighting conditions are ok... but if you go look at them anybody can see they are not crisp, you're completely wrong.

The dates you are quoting for the axes are from old sources... crescentic axes are found from the very Earliest bronze age onwards and new discoveries have extended the horizon of dates for this type...

[Anew]

Nothing is a waste of time if you use the experience wisely -- Auguste Rodin

stonecarver, on 7 April 2007, 9:55, said:

Maybe you never went and had a look at the axe carvings? Have you seen them close-up? They are certainly Not crisp - and show the kind of erosion from the elements that is typical for prehistoric monuments.

The digital images and other photographs taken in specific lighting conditions are ok... but if you go look at them anybody can see they are not crisp, you're completely wrong.

How do you know crisp to me is the same as crisp to you ? If they can go until 1953 without anyone noticing, yes, I have to admit, they're soggy with the milk of time... However, in relative terms some are quite crisp ...while others are nearly gone

stonecarver, on 7 April 2007, 9:55, said:

The digital images and other photographs taken in specific lighting conditions are ok...

But wait, the other day you said:

stonecarver, on 28 March 2007, 20:38, said:

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

What changed ?


Then you continued:

stonecarver, on 28 March 2007, 20:38, said:

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...

I'm flattered 99% of people knew who I was

stonecarver, on 7 April 2007, 9:55, said:

The dates you are quoting for the axes are from old sources... crescentic axes are found from the very Earliest bronze age onwards and new discoveries have extended the horizon of dates for this type...

The Significance of Monuments came out in 1998 .. Stonehenge Complete, first published in 1983, is now "New and expanded" as of 2004


I'm gonna keep them .. If you have new discoveries to toss up, this might be a time to do so

[stonecarver]

You seem to have forgotten what you said in a post... quoting You:-  After you saw for the first time this type of axe, when I posted pics here just the other day...


Anew: "I have to admit this ax head looks very much like the carvings; making the interpretation reasonable -- even likely."


You said Yourself they look like axes and this was the likely interpretation...

I guess you have never actually Seen the axe carvings at Stonehenge then? You know... Been there and had a look...

And as for their being crisp - you are entirely mistaken. Why do you think they hadn't been noticed previously? why do you think archaeologists bothered to get digital laser scans of them to get good images?

They are very eroded... but as you've never seen them... you maybe wouldn't know... (especially as the photos in books - have been taken under very specific lighting conditions to make them stand out), and I guess that's the Only place you have seen them - in books, or on the web?

Bradley's book is good.... but he's Not an authority on Bronze axes...  and he makes no pretence in the book you mention of detailing the copper-alloy axe typologies of the British Isles.... However...there are some excellent books and academic papers which Do.

That type of axe hails from the Early Bronze Age... was extant at the time of the raising of the Sarsens at Stonehenge and continued in use for a long time...

[Anew]

stonecarver, on 7 April 2007, 16:30, said:

he makes no pretence

And for that he has my thanks


To any: Please contrast these two: The nearly vanished new find of Stone 53, and The three 'crisp' axes of stone no. 3 .. (The link's titles, of course, I wrote in)

What I see is a progression both in time and form, from what is unamibiguously a toadstool, (my opinions), to what is just as plainly an axe -- and, I would hold these two up as illustration of the difference, (to me), between the 'not' and the 'crisp'

I ask the publisher not to mind, as I feel it's useful to the debate to attach some scans from an out-of-print book:

Quote

From the chapter The Early Bronze Age, which the book dates c. 2000-1300 bc

page198.png Axe from a hoard at Migdale, Sutherland
BushBarrow.png Bush Barrow, Wiltshire
Westbury.png Metalwork in the Arreton tradition, from Westbury-on-Trym

From the chapter The Later Bronze Age, which the book dates 1400-500 bc

Moulds.png Moulds: Ballyglisheen, Co. Carlow

From Introduction to British Prehistory, (Megaw & Simpson, 0-7185-1122-0), pages 198, 213, 221 & 248, (caption notes adapted)

Apart from the way the axes of stone 3 are in better condition, (than the new find, and much of, stone 53); what strikes me is the way they progressively, concavely broaden toward the leading edge, something a toadstool's stem will not do .. And that that leading edge is curved .. Together these make them axes to my mind -- of type (s) generally comparable to those scanned above


Member Stonecarver has also provided image files:
 crescentic_axe_25pct.jpg   22.99K   0 downloads
The first is a beautiful specimen .. But any suggestion these were extant at the time of the Sarsens' raising would be greatly assisted by a reliably & contemporaneously dated find of an axe proper .. (Link to original post)


 trans_XCVIII_1998_299_25pct.jpg   32.63K   0 downloads
The second, credited to: "the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society Transactions, XCVIII 1989 pp299", re-enforces the first .. (Link to original post)


My opinion is that those on Stone 3 are Bronze Age carvings of axes .. But that Stonehenge's epic construction was Neolithic .. Regarding Stone 53 -- again my opinion -- it is worth considering that the toadstool shapes may not have been carved but rubbed, (using another stone), and that this could have been a regular practice of the priest, to rub in a given spot the emblem of the fly-agaric for a given event -- rather like we might set up a Christmas tree .. As the rubbing would have been cumulative, and the tool perhaps not as fine as a bronze chisel, the shapes were less hard edged, less 'crisp'

The 'dagger' I see as bronze age, and some of the attendant toadstools -- particularly the one immediately to its right -- may have been re-cut, (broadened near the top of their stems) changing their meaning .. The dagger & axe combination recalls Bush Barrow, an atypical burial of an apparently powerful individual who might have left this stamp on the monument

Attached Files

•  BushBarrow.png   6.29K   0 downloads
•  Moulds.png   56.64K   0 downloads
•  page198.png   9.23K   0 downloads
•  Westbury.png   39.84K   0 downloads

[Anew]

The dagger & axe combination recalls Bush Barrow


 Magenta53.jpg   134.97K   4 downloads

The base image is enlarged from archaeoptics' scan of stone 53, The drawings are adapted from Introduction to British Prehistory, (Megaw & Simpson, 0-7185-1122-0, page 213) .. Both axe and dagger are reduced from scan by the same, (64%, symmetrical), amount

Megaw & Simpson have this to say about the dagger:

Quote

The smaller dagger, of Gerloff's Armorico-British A type, again had a triangular-shaped blade but was flat in cross-section and was provided with six rivets and a projectiong languette (fig.5.13:1).  Analysis indicated that this smaller dagger was of copper.  In both cases traces of the wood and leather scabbards in which the daggers were contained survived as corroded impressions on the blades.  The most remarkable feature of the copper dagger was the decoration on its pommel which was composed of thousands of tiny lengths of gold wire, no more than 2mm in length, arranged in a chevron pattern.  Similar decoration was applied to the pommel of the dagger from Hammeldon in Devon (Gerloff 1975: pl. 18, 194).  So detailed is th work as to suggest that some form of lens, probably of rock crystal, would be required for the insertion of the gold wire.  The only other copper or bronze object was an axe with tapering butt expanded to a crescentic cutting edge with low flanges, probably cast (fig. 5.13: 3).  Cloth impressions are visible on one face of this tool.

Though the shapes appear to provide an approximate match -- in cross section -- I don't have or haven't looked up size information .... I'm holding my breath

[Nigel]

Whilst I guess most of the images are most probably axes or daggers, its a truism to say that that an individual image in isolation without the evidence of the others is whatever it is, not necessarily what the others are, so there's always the possibility it isn't what they are and was done separately. And how can we ever know for sure when its purely in the eye of the beholder (hence the disagreement here)?
Atkinson took some great picures, without the aid of newfangled lasers...
http://viewfinder.en...imageUID=108940

The "eye of the beholder" problem is well illustrated by this picture he took of later graffiti , which he said was done by an itinerant workman in 1821.
http://viewfinder.en...imageUID=108813
Not sure how he knew or if he was right but English Heritage describe it as being in the shape of a question mark. But is it in fact a sickle? I reckon so.