66 replies to this topic

[stonecarver]

Hi Anew,

I would just like to ask you about your statement:

Quote

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

With regard to Atkinsons photography - if you note his accompanying text, special lighting conditions were needed to obtain the photographs.

And again, have you actually seen the carvings at Stonehenge in person?

[Anew]

Nigel, on 8 April 2007, 8:50, said:

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

What I'm trying to decipher is a narrative . Something made them go to the supreme effort ... And fly-agaric consumption, with its 'religious possibilities' fits the narrative better, to my mind, than 'extant' bronze axes of which physical specimen does not turn up for around 700 years . I'm also curious that many of these 'rubbings of 53' seem to have tops somewhere between the flat & crescentic, depending on the angle of view . This could be explained in the narrative if some priests preferred to rub that toadstool domed, while others preferred to rub it table-like ... Which itself may play into the idea of the mushroom as an ideal dolmen, kinds 'full of secrets from the world beyond' ... As you know from experience, I'm am incorrigible about personifying the subject ... Fine cast . If it wasn't an axe, (to my eye), from the start it was made one later on as toadstool stems don't broaden that way . Good to bring stone 4 into it

Nigel, on 8 April 2007, 8:50, said:

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.

A further alternative theory is that the man, or woman, was suffering the effects of a loss at love -- and wished the devil to take the whole idea


Beyond that though, I'm somewhat disappointed there wasn't an immediate reaction, (one way or the other), to the apparent similarity between the Bush Barrow's smaller, (and once ornate), surviving dagger & accompanying axe -- and the prominent central pair of stone 53 . This man could be a pivot in the story --

Quote

This burial was that of an inhumed male and unusual both in that the body lay in an extended position on its back, and that it was placed on the old land surface rather than in a pit grave.

From: Introduction to British Prehistory, (Megaw & Simpson, 0-7185-1122-0, page 209)

Implied to me is he was either a changer of custom, buried according to another; or both

So I'll toss it in again, this time with 63% scaling

 Magenta53_63.jpg   137.03K   8 downloads

[Anew]

stonecarver, on 8 April 2007, 9:27, said:

Hi Anew,

I would just like to ask you about your statement:

Quote

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

"Events can change; this man's beliefs never will" -- Stephen Colbert

If we're talking about all the carvings, and only that axe, I rescind the statement . I take it back . But as you can see, I still consider the idea of axes, actively

[Anew]

Returning to square 1 with a different suggestion, please have a look at, (the enhanced scan of), the nearly vanished 'rubbings' of stone 53 - (which may have been the earliest), and consider that instead of fly-agaric toadstools - they were intended to represent oxen . Please consider next that Stone 53 lies on a line between the missing station stones 92 & 94; and its trilithon taken together is in line between the center and the South Entrance . And the following

Quote

These were not just any old bones.  They were special, old bones: an ox skull, two ox jaws and a bone from a red deer - not an antler, but a tibia, a leg bone.  Both jaws had lost some teeth, suggesting the bones were buried some time after the death of the animals.  But they were in good condition, so had apparently been well looked after.

Radiocarbon dating told of a structure, a ceremony, a ritual - something - that was older even than the oldest part of the Stonehenge monument, for which we today have no further evidence at all.  But the ancient memory of this something was so powerful that bones had been 'curated', as archaeologists say, for more than a generation, perhaps considerably more, before being buried at the bottom of the new circular ditch.  Radiocarbon alone has revived the existence of that memory.  What it told of, for the moment at least, is a complete mystery.

From Hengeworld, by Mike Pitts, page 107; (0-09-927875-8)

Page 106 has a map of where these bones were found . They are clustered around the South Entrance, and all but the Skull fall between 53's trilithon and center . Some radiocarbon-dated finds, (years before present as 2000 based on calibrated BC means), from the chronology in the book's appendix 3 help put this in perspective:

> Curated bone in the ditch of Stonehenge: 5185 bp
> Bayesian estimate for start of ditch filling: 5030 bp
> Bayesian estimate for excavation of ditch: 4975 bp (minor conflict noted)
> Turf beneath the central mound of Silbury Hill: 4625 bp (an ox or aurochs' tooth and tailbone were noted as at the center by Dean Merewether)
> An aurochs tooth above a human burial at Irthlingborough 1: 4610 (my candidate UFO landing-point)
> The large sarsen structures of Stonehenge: 4335 bp
> An aurochs' scapula in the chalk from a mound at Hemp Knoll: 4190
> Cattle teeth above human burial, Irthlingborough 1 again: 4190

In and around this two things seem to happen . Metal starts to trickle in, and the Aurochs, (apparently, and as a distinct species), dies out in the region . These would have provided charge-potential for a cultural shift, and a temple that may have been begun in reverence of the 'mighty animal', becomes potentially, a trade capital . 'The ghost of the animal' may look out at us in that 'rubbing' . It's not that I'm tossing out the idea they ate fly-agaric . Their many abstract and pattern carvings strongly suggest to me use of hallucinogens . But the 'aurochs possibility' should also be considered - especially as apparent reverence for the 'mighty animal' has left evidence on-site . It may too help explain the Middle Bronze Age styling of 'horned axe', (new term for 'toadstool axe'), a beautiful example of which was provided by Member Stonecarver - to which Richard Bradley may, or may not, have been referring when he said:

Quote

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), page 99; (Italic bold emphasis mine)

Such daggers and axes general, or such daggers and such axes ?

[stonecarver]

Anew, can you confirm (just for the record) whether or not you have never actually been to Stonehenge and seen the axe-carvings in person?

The particular axe design.. was a technological innovation...

Quoting dates from one book (Hengeworld) is pretty pointless, because by necessity Mike Pitts was using particular samples for those dates which are relevant Only for the things he was discussing... NOT for every piece of bronze metalwork! Any single radio-carbon date refers to a particular sample for a particular context. It is a little like a 'snaphot' in time... and, just because a particular object is dated (in one place) to a particular time, does not mean that all of the examples will have been around at exactly the same time.

There is very good evidence that Early Bronze Age implements (including axes) were in circulation a long time before they were deposited. It has been estimated in some instances for hundreds of years. So, any Particular radio-carbon date for one example is Not sufficient to date all of the axes.

These particular axes are found amongst the earliest types... axe typology for the Early Bronze Age is a complex business... but they Do appear alongside some of the earlier broad flat axes.

I'll try and explain the morphological change the axes when through and show some examples:-

 broad_axe.jpg   52.88K   1 downloads  intermediate_type.jpg   267.71K   1 downloads

The axe on the left is a very early Bronze Age type... with a very broad blade... and wide body. The second axe is a later type - the blade is narrower (and hence the body too). The Stonehenge type axe is a development... by making the body narrower, and cutting back the blade, you get a lighter axe (hence less metal required), which still works the same. I have seen just one of these types with a broken blade... and have seen many examples of the broader bladed earlier axes with broken blades.

What Is interesting, is that the Stonehenge type of axe appears on multi-matrix one-piece stone moulds.... along with other earlier types... (such as the ones shown here) but not subsequent types.

If you have a read of The Organisation of Middle Bronze Age Metalworking , Rowlands M. J. you'll see that this type of axe had fallen out of use by the Middle Bronze Age - it was an Early Bronze Age form which has a carefully plotted typology.

[Anew]

The appendix (3) of Hengeworld also gives two estimated dates for Stennes, (4900 & 4710 bp, the ditch & stone setting), and, (if I can mention without bringing bad luck), the Iceman of Otztal (5240 bp) . Doubtless a fuller one could be written, but since Mr. Pitts is a Stonehenge specialist and the book is on that subject, it should be considered professional .

Copper does turn up in burials, (rings and a tanged knife), shortly before on mean, the sarsen settings, and gold not long after . The first mention of bronze is an awl, (a small object), about 200 years later by mean . If they were leaving these valuable items in graves, it is not unreasonable to think that bronze axes or some sizable bronze objects would turn up sooner than they do, (if) .. There is no radiocarbon date for the 'Baron of Bush Barrow', but inferential data has him about 3800 years ago, as opposed to 4335 for the 'main event' . (So I was off in saying 700 years - it's down to about 500) . One can stir into this that there's evidence, (same appendix), of 'timbers cut with metal blades' about 4260 years ago, at Corlea in County Longford of the Irish Midlands . This is only 75 years on mean after the main event, but linking the two is speculation I don't make .

Early axe typologies may be a fascinating subject, full of regional varieties & experimentation, but if you're tacking toward the radical suggestion axes were cast in the sarsens, it should be anchored in dated finds . Here's something that might be applicable : Wikipedia on the Amesbury Archer . This guy was very possibly associated with Stonehenge's 'main event', and buried well, (5 beakers, England's earliest grave-gold); no bronze though, "three tiny copper knives" . The article also has a link to Wessex Archaeology's site .

My opinion as supported by the above: For the main event, metal was about, (a little copper and a very little gold) . The flood was yet to come .

[stonecarver]

So we can assume you have never been to Stonehenge?

Timothy Taylor published a great article last year (he's a Bronze specialist) and he says that Bronze implements were extant some hundreds of years before they were were incorporated in burials. Axes are not awls or rings. They contain substantially more metal than a typical Early Bronze Age awl (they can be copper or bronze)... ie 20 grams (or evenless) instead of say 200-300. The axe was too valuable to be depositied. The burial goods from British Bronze Age contexts have been very well-documented.

The things we have found so far account for between 1 and 2% of the total extant at the time (quoting Taylor 2006).

So, to clarify - in your opinion Anew, are the carvings now toadstools or aurochs? (a load of 'Old bull', forgive the pun).

[Anew]

stonecarver, on 9 April 2007, 7:25, said:

Timothy Taylor published a great article last year (he's a Bronze specialist) and he says that Bronze implements were extant some hundreds of years before they were were incorporated in burials.

Quote

Timothy Taylor is a lecturer in Archaeology at the University of Bradford, and an author of popular books on anthropology. He has presented his work on television. (The British Archaeological Award winner for "best popular archaeology on television" 1991 was a "Down to Earth" episode on which he appeared.)

Books

    * The Prehistory of Sex: Four Million Years of Human Sexual Culture 1996, Bantam ISBN 0-553-37527-X -- a controversial book actually beginning eight million years in the past.
    * The Buried Soul: How Humans Invented Death 2004, Beacon ISBN 0-8070-4672-8 -- claims evidence for widespread prehistoric vampirism and cannibalism, and that ceremonial burial predates social conceptions of an immortal soul.

Wikipedia on: Timothy Taylor (archaeologist)

'Tremble to hear his name ...'

stonecarver, on 9 April 2007, 7:25, said:

Axes are not awls or rings. They contain substantially more metal than a typical Early Bronze Age awl (they can be copper or bronze)... ie 20 grams (or evenless) instead of say 200-300. The axe was too valuable to be depositied.

That's the point regarding the awl . They were burying metal, (gold and copper), but the first little bit of bronze doesn't appear until about 200 years after Stonehenge's 'main event' . There's little arguing that the Amesbury Archer had a pauper's burial, (in fact, Wessex Archaeology called him "a man who was given the richest burial of the age in Europe.") . If there was bronze about I see every reason to believe it would have been with him ... Here's another contemporaneous find: The Boscombe Bowmen . Seven males, with seven or eight pots, (of a type similar to that found with the Amesbury Archer), were buried with apparent honor . There was no metal with them ... Lastly, 'The Baron of Bush Barrow', as I call him, (thought to be around 1800 BC), had several gold items, a copper dagger - tellingly and laboriously embellished with gold on its now-vanished hilt - another, larger, dagger of bronze and an axehead of 'copper or bronze', (Interestingly) . What this seems to say, to me, is that there was no bronze at the 'main event'; and even after: The Bronze Age, was slow taking off .

stonecarver, on 9 April 2007, 7:25, said:

The burial goods from British Bronze Age contexts have been very well-documented.

Good

stonecarver, on 9 April 2007, 7:25, said:

The things we have found so far account for between 1 and 2% of the total extant at the time (quoting Taylor 2006).

See above

stonecarver, on 9 April 2007, 7:25, said:

So, to clarify - in your opinion Anew, are the carvings now toadstools or aurochs? (a load of 'Old bull', forgive the pun).

One shouldn't be 'set in stone' about interpreting these, (forgive the pun) . Looking at the images themselves, rather than the interpretive drawings, I see a bull of some sort above, and a bull or a toadstool below . I give added weight to the carvings of Stone 53 because of its significant place in the monument; and further to what appear to be its oldest images, (these) . Couple this with their displayed reverence for such bones, (as exhibit: depositions in the ditch itself), and I think the case for the upper one is strong . Note that the scan seems to show the paired arcs of horns - it dips in the center as no axe model I've seen . A place where more evidence, if it survives, might turn up is in the South & North 'Barrows', (those of station stones 92 & 94, respectively, which stone 53 is in line with) . Although it's held, "... they never contained burials"; the south in particular might be a place to look for an overlooked tooth or bone .

Stones 3, 4 & 5, by comparison, face east in a monument with no strong due east orientation, (that I'm aware of) . Nor am I aware of any special finds from the east part of the ditch . Thus I take carvings here as a later, or ancillary, development .

[stonecarver]

Anew,

you appear to be dismissing Timothy Taylor as an archaeologist.

Timothy Taylor is a very respected archaeologist who in addition to writing some best-sellers has written a host of articles in leading academic journals. Twenty articles or more in Antiquity, more in World Archaeology, more in the Journal of American Archaeology, others in Current Anthroology and a host of other conference papers etc. In point of fact, he was a reader at Cambridge University (the best archaeology department in the world) before moving to the University of Bradford archaeology department. So if you are trying to say this learned gentleman isn't a suitable and experienced archaeologist because a couple of his big-selling books were populist titles...  Today he lectures at the University of Bradford which is a centre of excellence for scientific archaeology.

What do YOU do for a living Anew? Have You studied it for 7 years (PhD) before beginning Your professional career? have you then worked in that career for years? imagine somebody from another occupation (an 'interested amateur' shall we say), then dismissing YOUR ability to do YOUR job?

Timothy Taylor is an erudite and scholarly archaeologist. If he's made money from printing some popular accounts of archaeological subjects - good for him! But to discmiss his purely academic work is really a bit much.

Anew obviously hasn't read any of the literature pertaining to axes and why they Weren't appearing in burials whilst small amounts of metal in the form of awls and rings were. The Weight of the axe meant it was too valuable (in the Early Bronze Age) to be buried as one axe can weigh as much as 60 awls. And, point of fact, even awls were rare, and rings rarer.

I would just like to point out... Anew, that you started this discussion by stating you thought the axe carvings on the Sarsens at Stonehenge represented toadstools. You had not see the type of axe the carvings closely resemble and when you saw the examples and illustrations I posted you changed your tune and thought they were most likely axes, Then you changed your mind after a little while and thought they again represent toadstools. Then you thought they represent a bull.

Can you please clarify this for everyone and tell us exactly what you interpret them as because you're jumping around so much it's impossible to tell what you think they are - or is that because you're not sure?

[Anew]

[Admin note: quote removed by request of a forum user]

I'm curious about the slight left-hand-lean of many of the carvings on stone 53, and the following might be worth checking up on :

The 'bull's head' carving recently discovered by archaeoptics, when printed out, seems to have a centerline slope of a little under 97 degrees, (0 being horizontal and to the right) . This, less the 45 degree slope of the stronger of the natural seams beneath it on the stone, (which may have been trimmed from a larger block to produce this), yields an angle of a little under 52 degrees . The latitude of Stonehenge is a little over 51 degrees north, bringing the two to within 1 degree, (one part in three hundred sixty), of each-other ... Intentional ?

[Anew]

Adjustments and a second thought:

 BlueBull_53_Lined.jpg   84.92K   11 downloads

Original Image Source: Archaeoptics, (modifications mine)

Printing this out and measuring the angles with a larger protractor, I got an angle between the assigned 45 degree line, (which does not quite match this segment of the seam), and that through the prospective 'bulls head', of 52.1 degrees, approximately . This is not so far off as to destroy the above proposal, (imo), but it does tip it toward another possibility . One seventh of a circle is 51.4 degrees, (slightly larger than the temple's latitude)

Having, perhaps, already trimmed the stone to bring a strong natural seam to about 45 degrees, (one eighth of a circle), they may then have measured a further seventh for the purpose of this 'rubbing's' centerline . It is worth noting, in this context, that 8 x 7 = 56; as there were 56 Aubrey holes . One could, speculatively, but not irresponsibly in my opinion, knit this into a proposed set of 'early beliefs', including the sacredness of the 'great animal', and that of the numbers 8 and 7

I note and thank FourWinds, (among others - not to the exclusion of Jimit), for his post to the Poll thread, and notice that the 'toadstool-stool' in his tag picture is concave across the top ... It is my own opinion that such a shape should be considered when looking at the 'bulls head' of stone 53 . But that this 'rubbing' seems enough in line with a demonstrated reverence for the 'great animal', (including on-site), that such remains the strongest possibility

Postscript:
(c. 03:00 Stonehenge time, 11 April 2007,
along with slight revision to existing text)

Bringing in the ideal:

 Bull53_Lines_2b.jpg   77.11K   5 downloads

Original Image Source: Archaeoptics, (modifications mine)

The estimated centerline of the 'bulls head' of stone 53, (from the first figure, red), is compared with an idealized 96.43, (51.43 + 45), degree line, (violet), which would satisfy a requirement for exactness; (2 decimal, rounded) . It is encouraging to see that the two are very close - indeed the violet may serve better

[Diego]

Dear friends,
We simply don't have the time to check the reliability and accordance of every reference posted on this and other threads of our forum. But this is the "alternative" section, so some non conventional views are tolerated. What we don't like are accusations, assumptive behaviour and a general head-to-head confrontation attitude.
Please remember to keep things pleasant - this is an open forum, not an arena.

Thanks for your understanding

Diego

[stonecarver]

Fantastic theories Anew, and Interesting.

Could you though please tell us... what do you Currently think the carvings represent? Toadstools, axes, bulls... or what exactly? because you have changed your opinion so often now we're not sure where you stand exactly.

[Anew]

stonecarver, on 11 April 2007, 20:24, said:

Fantastic theories Anew, and Interesting.

Thank you for your gracious words, here and on the Merrivale Stone Rows thread, which followers of this discussion may want to read, (a note principally made for the future), could it be relevant to this ... I note also your recent "bright sparks" post to the Poll - reckon that'd be me ... human nature not above the laws of physics - such can fly .

stonecarver, on 11 April 2007, 20:24, said:

Could you though please tell us... what do you Currently think the carvings represent? Toadstools, axes, bulls... or what exactly? because you have changed your opinion so often now we're not sure where you stand exactly.

In interpretation, I do move about . I explore possibilities . A satisfying resolution is to build a narrative which best fits available evidence

My current views : Are that the 'bull's head of 53' was likely that, or, a dual-purpose form combining aspects of a bull's head with a sectioned fly-agaric . Here I note that the 'head' is a little more rectangular than I'd expect of a bull's, but the basal bulb is missing should it be a toadstool ... Some of the 'clearer' eastern carvings so resemble axes that they are likely to have been these from the start . This eastern orientation also recalls the Merrivale Rows . But here it's important to consider that however powerful the Bronze Axe faction became - likely as natural pair with the rising-sun crowd - there is the likelihood, (imo), that a 'great-animal' faction was present from the start, with those of the 'possible' toadstool faith leaning towards them

In my opinion the Sarsens went up at the close of, (and in reaction to the close of), the Neolithic; and the height of the Bronze Age saw, (again my opinion), Stonehenge still in use, still more powerful . A combination of new wealth, (also, probably, new poverty), and societal change may have seen an increase in their drug use - perhaps also some millenarianism, bemusing in a prehistoric context - above whatever was the socio/religious norm, (perhaps itself substantial) . Then the decline of the temple provides additional avenue ... The symbol-family we see may be upon this place because it was able to mean different things to people at different times - or - to different people at the same time . ' sign they could agree on

Toss into this the 'Baron of Bush Barrow', as his better weapons seem a reasonable match, in form, to the central pair of 53; and it's interesting to note that two of the station stones, 92 & 94, are gone . For all I know, they were taken by warlocks hoping Lucifer was buried in the 'barrows' they topped . But they might also have gone because they didn't fit someone's idea of the temple's proper orientation . As these frame stone 53 on a basically north-south line, with possible links to the 'mighty animal', it could be that they were removed when that faction was pushed out

Hypothetically speaking

Speaking concretely:

 53SketchOnScanA.gif   275.73K   14 downloads

Original Images: Archaeoptics, (modifications mine)

A fly has appeared in the ointment, in the form of mismatching rotations between Archaeoptics' sketch, (from which I measured an important 45 degree angle), and their scan . This leaves me in the dark as to the angles of all their work, but I will proceed assuming the scans are based on a flat horizontal

The two seams still had the potential to represent an 'avenue' to them, and here it's interesting to note that such avenue led into a shadowed recess on the companion stone - perhaps metaphorical for 'the great beyond' . It also raises the question of whether something was intentionally buried in the ground beside stone 53, (at the head of 'seam avenue') . Obviously, I would hope for bones of an aurochs ...

[stonecarver]

You state that you believe the Sarsens were erected in the Neolithic - but all the evidence points towards them being erected in the Early Bronze Age.

The Beaker pottery confirms this - Beakers are associated with the earliest metalwork in the British Isles.

With regard to the carvings.... quoting from the Classic English Heritage book on Stonehenge by Juilan Richards...

Quote

...subtle carvings of prehistoric axes and a dagger. The axes are of a flat, earlier Bronze Age form..."

pp61

Meanwhile... with regard to the Sarsen and bluestone settings... the evidence points clearly to the fact they were erected during the time that metals were first introduced in Britain... or any time in the early Bronze Age...  There is no evidence for chips of sarsen or bluestone in the earlier phases of Stonehenge (Richards pp68)

Whilst...

Quote

The few available radio-carbon dates suggest a phase of construction between 2000 and 1500BC but do not allow any more precise definition"

Richards, pp68. And this places the sarsens well inside the British Bronze Age.