55 replies to this topic

[beatles]

Maju, on 1 April 2008, 17:36, said:

beatles, on 29 March 2008, 13:40, said:

the granary theory http://www.granaryatstonehenge.org  is a most serious new idea but, that doesn't mean that we can't have some fun with it too.

clyde

Shouldn't we need some evidence or indication that it was used for such a strange purpose? Stones used for milling (basically hand milling in the Neolithic and Chalcolihic ages) always show clear signs of erosion and often have remains of the milled grain that can be analyzed spectroscopically. Besides: there's not one but thousands, as the needs of the people would not be satisfied by just one mill, no matter how large. Also we should know something about the mill stones, a key evidence that is lacking.

I have no doubt that this "theory" ("hypothesis" or "speculation" are more correct terms actually) is wrong. You don't go building up theories upon no evidence whatsoever and against all we know (nothig similar to that imagined in this weird speculation is known at any time).  

maju. thank you

you have not closely read my thesis or the FAQ page of my website..    there were no mill stones, just wooden rollers.  and there is evidence supporting my theory in the design of stonehenge itself.   respectfully i would like to point out that there is not one shred of archaeological evidence that stonehenge was used as a religious site.     this granary is not "against all we know" about stonehenge.   it is in addition to all we know....... i make no contention in my theory that stonehenge was not used for astronomical or religious reasons........  the site is thousands of years old and has been used for many purposes.  lately it has been used for drudic ceremonies ( by lately i mean in the last few hundred years)

and my theory, regardless of what you call it, may be provable by certain soil tests at stonehenge, something no other theory can claim.  what other theory can produce a working model?    

but, you can still have fun with the idea if you like.
respectfully,
clyde

[Maju]

Look: you have posted no evidence but your own interpretation of what the structure is for (what is not evidence but the hypothesis itself). It makes no sense to me, sorry.

There are other (very different) stone circles all around Western Europe and North Africa, most have been interpreted in terms of astronomy or ritual structures (often associated to burials). When you compare with other cultures as well, the most important magnificient structures almost always have a sacred meaning: temples, tombs, statues, monoliths...

... not mills.  

[beatles]

Maju, on 2 April 2008, 9:48, said:

Look: you have posted no evidence but your own interpretation of what the structure is for (what is not evidence but the hypothesis itself). It makes no sense to me, sorry.

There are other (very different) stone circles all around Western Europe and North Africa, most have been interpreted in terms of astronomy or ritual structures (often associated to burials). When you compare with other cultures as well, the most important magnificient structures almost always have a sacred meaning: temples, tombs, statues, monoliths...

... not mills.  

maju
the interlocking complex joints in the sarsen ring at stonehenge can not be explained by the religious use theory.  for my theory they are essential.      the choice of hard sarsen to make this ring has a very definate purpose in my theory....  the absence of fire at stonehenge is understandable in light of it being a mill.   these things, like it or not are evidence of engineering towards the ultimate use of stonehenge.  

by the way i do not discount the religious or ceremonial use of stonehenge at all.......   magnificent ancient structures are often sacred places and just as often the religion of the neolithic people was agriculture  oriented.

sorry
clyde

[Maju]

The complex joints certainly indicate the architectural excellence of the builders but little more. Are you suggesting that they had a several storeys hih wooden building in that structure only to use the lintels for milling, in a time when all milling was done at home by hand?

Why the bluestones then? Why the astronomical perspective? Why the lintels are so high? Wouldn't they have been more practical at ground level?

And sincerely, it makes no sense at all to build all that and not use mill stones (but wooden something). Can't you think critically of your speculation? It just makes no sense whatsoever.

[Pete G]

I notice clyde has choosen not to join the British Archaeology mailing list and put his theory forward to the professionals but prefers instead the amateurs at The Modern Antiquarian.

Perhaps The Megalithic Portal will be the next place for a posting, that's where people go after being bullied off the TMA forum.
I'm sure the people at http://www.badarchaeology.net/ will have something to say about it in due course...
PeteG

[beatles]

Maju, on 2 April 2008, 16:54, said:

The complex joints certainly indicate the architectural excellence of the builders but little more. Are you suggesting that they had a several storeys hih wooden building in that structure only to use the lintels for milling, in a time when all milling was done at home by hand?

Why the bluestones then? Why the astronomical perspective? Why the lintels are so high? Wouldn't they have been more practical at ground level?

And sincerely, it makes no sense at all to build all that and not use mill stones (but wooden something). Can't you think critically of your speculation? It just makes no sense whatsoever.

maju sir

you still have not read my thesis or even the FAQ page of my site or you would have seen that there is an answer there for the height of the sarsen circle.......  it is hard to discuss this if you are unwilling to read the information.
sorry clyde

[beatles]

Pete G, on 2 April 2008, 17:04, said:

I notice clyde has choosen not to join the British Archaeology mailing list and put his theory forward to the professionals but prefers instead the amateurs at The Modern Antiquarian.

Perhaps The Megalithic Portal will be the next place for a posting, that's where people go after being bullied off the TMA forum.
I'm sure the people at http://www.badarchaeology.net/ will have something to say about it in due course...
PeteG

peteg.

i understand that you do not like this theory.  but my web site has only been up for one month and i will get around to offering my theory to the professional archaeologists..............the first place that i sent it for review was to british archaeology magazine some time ago..... check it out.
clyde

[Pete G]

you've already said that and I replied with a link.
If you are serious then BritArch is the place. If you don't post there then you are not as serious as you claim.
Soil tests are being carried out at the current Stonehenge dig and further samples are being sent to English Heritages deep freeze department in Northumbria for testing in the future.
If there is anything in your theory then tests carried out this year will show it.
You cannot hide behind "No tests exist for my theory yet" as a full spectroscopic analysis will be undertaken and any grain residue will be detected.
All results will be published in an EH Interim report in the autumn and on the Timewatch film.

Are you taking bets?
I'll put £100 on your theory being wrong...

[beatles]

Pete G, on 2 April 2008, 18:01, said:

you've already said that and I replied with a link.
If you are serious then BritArch is the place. If you don't post there then you are not as serious as you claim.
Soil tests are being carried out at the current Stonehenge dig and further samples are being sent to English Heritages deep freeze department in Northumbria for testing in the future.
If there is anything in your theory then tests carried out this year will show it.
You cannot hide behind "No tests exist for my theory yet" as a full spectroscopic analysis will be undertaken and any grain residue will be detected.
All results will be published in an EH Interim report in the autumn and on the Timewatch film.

Are you taking bets?
I'll put £100 on your theory being wrong...

peteg

you are absolutely wrong.  go to my site , http://www.granaryatstonehenge.org  check  the "future plans" page and you will see the exact soil tests that would be needed to prove my theory.......   it is much more extensive then the ones being done now.   just detecting grain residue in this current excavation would not prove or disprove my thesis........it would take a comparison  between tests inside and outside the monument  to determine if the grain residue was higher inside stonehenge to prove that grain was worked at stonehenge....the current dig is only inside the monument. there is grain residue in almost all neolithic excavations. ...please stay true to the facts.  my bet is that grain residue will be found in this current dig.

regards
clyde

[Pete G]

No clyde you are wrong.
You wiggle out of every serious question with "Click on my link and read my Thesis."
You have no knowledge of the excavations and tests that have been carried out in recent years around the Stonehenge landscape and this shows in your poorly researched thesis.

When you say "please stay true to the facts." I strongly suggest you first go and research the facts.
There are no academic references on your site at all.
If you presented this to an outside examiner as part of a degree course you would get an F- if you were lucky.
It is wrong to even call it a thesis, it is an idea.

I concluded early on that this is just a wind up and that you and your mate are having a laugh.
I'm sorry you don't understand the British sense of humour and I do understand that Americans can only resolve arguements with the use of a Lawyer a gun or a therapist.

Now post your ideas on BritArch and come and play with the grown ups if you dare.
We have seen silly ideas like this come and go over the years and you are on the way out already.

As the emminent archaeologist Glynn Daniels once wrote "The problem with archaeology is when to stop laughing!"

[Maju]

beatles, on 3 April 2008, 0:51, said:

maju sir

you still have not read my thesis or even the FAQ page of my site or you would have seen that there is an answer there for the height of the sarsen circle.......  it is hard to discuss this if you are unwilling to read the information.
sorry clyde

Sorry, man. Your site is hard to navigate: all I found first was a brief text, a WM player feature (that I instinctively avoid, as my PC's sound doesn't work), an email link and the link to the letter published in BA91, under the somewhat mocking header: "The editor receives much correspondence that has little to do with issues raised by the magazine. Just for once he has selected some of this. As always, letters may have been shortened – mostly much, much shortened".  

Now I found the FAQ but it justifies nothing. We know of all sorts of windmills (apparently only widespread in the middle ages, with very few known in antiquity) built with much less gigantic proportions and without any need to use such stones: wood, smaller stones, mudbrick... that's all neeed except for the key piece lacking in Stonehenge: the millstone.


Above: typical structure of a medieval windmill: the only part made of stones are (obviously) the millstones.

What I like of your FAQ is the following:

Quote

If an engineer with no previous beliefs about the use of Stonehenge was shown the ruins and asked to determine what it had been, he would most likely follow this line of reasoning.   The engineer would realize right away that all perishable parts of the structure had disappeared over the three thousands years since its abandonment...

... and find nowhere where such perishable structure would be attached to!

Anyhow, I said I liked this part because engineers are some times the most naive of human types. I just read elsewhere that they designed the GPS system ignoring the relativity part because they just did not believe in General Relativity - fortunately a handful of them managed to get a "plan B" according to Einstenian physics and that's what is actually working.

As I see it, the stereotypical engineer (and this is kind of campus joke, I admit) would never think that anything could serve a non-practical purpose. In such logic the pyramids surely were solar powered breweries and the Vatican is a gigantic discotteque. The Big Ben cannot be just a clock: it's probably some sort of communications device, just like the Statue of Liberty must be a lighthouse, etc. I wonder what would our archetypical engineer make up of Gehry's architecture?

(Note: just kidding about "engineers". Hope no one is offended: my dad and my brother are engineers and I know the kind of mentality they may have at times - but I'm also exaggerating in the line of the Beatles' FAQ).

[beatles]

Pete G, on 2 April 2008, 19:32, said:

No clyde you are wrong.
You wiggle out of every serious question with "Click on my link and read my Thesis."
You have no knowledge of the excavations and tests that have been carried out in recent years around the Stonehenge landscape and this shows in your poorly researched thesis.

When you say "please stay true to the facts." I strongly suggest you first go and research the facts.
There are no academic references on your site at all.
If you presented this to an outside examiner as part of a degree course you would get an F- if you were lucky.
It is wrong to even call it a thesis, it is an idea.

I concluded early on that this is just a wind up and that you and your mate are having a laugh.
I'm sorry you don't understand the British sense of humour and I do understand that Americans can only resolve arguements with the use of a Lawyer a gun or a therapist.

Now post your ideas on BritArch and come and play with the grown ups if you dare.
We have seen silly ideas like this come and go over the years and you are on the way out already.

As the emminent archaeologist Glynn Daniels once wrote "The problem with archaeology is when to stop laughing!"

peteg

you say i am wrong  but you did not address the point of doing multiple soil test over a vast area.  you are wrong in saying that this new dig will disprove my theory.      
i am sorry that you find fault with my theory and give me an f on it.  haaaa   what did you score on your archaeological thesis?   or did you even have one.  

it is easy for people who present no original theory of their own to shoot down someone else's.   take all the shots that you like.  this theory is here to stay.    and whatever faults you find will be nothing by comparison to the faults that were originally found with darwins theory, yet it is till around and still debated.

keep up the good fight but please do stick to the facts as presented on my website.     i do not hope to convenience you but i do hope we can continue to discuss it in a CIVIL fashion.   thanks for the F.  i will not be so rude as to grade some of your photos.

peace
clyde, proud owner of an honorary "F"

[beatles]

Maju, on 2 April 2008, 22:30, said:

beatles, on 3 April 2008, 0:51, said:

maju sir

you still have not read my thesis or even the FAQ page of my site or you would have seen that there is an answer there for the height of the sarsen circle.......  it is hard to discuss this if you are unwilling to read the information.
sorry clyde

Sorry, man. Your site is hard to navigate: all I found first was a brief text, a WM player feature (that I instinctively avoid, as my PC's sound doesn't work), an email link and the link to the letter published in BA91, under the somewhat mocking header: "The editor receives much correspondence that has little to do with issues raised by the magazine. Just for once he has selected some of this. As always, letters may have been shortened – mostly much, much shortened".  

Now I found the FAQ but it justifies nothing. We know of all sorts of windmills (apparently only widespread in the middle ages, with very few known in antiquity) built with much less gigantic proportions and without any need to use such stones: wood, smaller stones, mudbrick... that's all neeed except for the key piece lacking in Stonehenge: the millstone.


Above: typical structure of a medieval windmill: the only part made of stones are (obviously) the millstones.

What I like of your FAQ is the following:

Quote

If an engineer with no previous beliefs about the use of Stonehenge was shown the ruins and asked to determine what it had been, he would most likely follow this line of reasoning.   The engineer would realize right away that all perishable parts of the structure had disappeared over the three thousands years since its abandonment...

... and find nowhere where such perishable structure would be attached to!

Anyhow, I said I liked this part because engineers are some times the most naive of human types. I just read elsewhere that they designed the GPS system ignoring the relativity part because they just did not believe in General Relativity - fortunately a handful of them managed to get a "plan B" according to Einstenian physics and that's what is actually working.

As I see it, the stereotypical engineer (and this is kind of campus joke, I admit) would never think that anything could serve a non-practical purpose. In such logic the pyramids surely were solar powered breweries and the Vatican is a gigantic discotteque. The Big Ben cannot be just a clock: it's probably some sort of communications device, just like the Statue of Liberty must be a lighthouse, etc. I wonder what would our archetypical engineer make up of Gehry's architecture?

(Note: just kidding about "engineers". Hope no one is offended: my dad and my brother are engineers and I know the kind of mentality they may have at times - but I'm also exaggerating in the line of the Beatles' FAQ).

maju

you still have not read the thesis or you have missed the point.  there were NO millstones in the granary at stonehege.  none what so ever.   as for the illustration you provided.  it contains all sorts of metal and one stone.  the neolithic people had no metal  but a lot of stone , so is it surprising that they built with stone?      do not compare the granary at stonehenge to a modern or even historic mill.  the two are 3000 years apart in time.

i do appreciate you long responses and the effort that you put into it.   please show this idea to your brother and dad.  they will enjoy it and maybe even get a laugh.  who knows they may even take up the fight and defend it.

peace
clyde

[beatles]

maju

mike pits certainly  did not like my theory.  but, he did take the time to send me a nice letter in which he described the idea as "fantastical".    i loved his fantastical letter and have saved it.  it is a marvel of british snootyness.  mike is such a fantastical guy.

fantasticaly yours,
clyde

[beatles]

perhaps the F i just got from mr. G stands for fantastical.