I don't know, don't be a pair of doubting Thomas's. If you want to you will get there. If something is worth going for you'll do it. Positive thinking and enthusiasm and a LOVE of archaeology and you'll go ANYWHERE! ENJOY!

For me it is not doubting, it is reality. Especially when financial obligations take priority and it is not easy to hitch a ride to Pompeii from the middle of the Pacific. However, I have not given up on going other places closer to home which call me clearly and insistently!

OK Viola, when are we going? Come on, I need some cheering up!!! I'm still trying to get to York, but that MAY be possible if we can find somewhere to stay on the way up to Scotland this week, and if someone does something about it! (shoulder surfers please note)

Shoulder surfers in my experience are selective blind when looking at the monitor. If it is meant for him to see, you just might have to post it in something which might attract his attention. York would be a natural place to stop and peer at the past!

*sigh* stopping in Sunderland instead. Maybe in August ..... now what archeo is going on there?? must do a search

If you need help or come up empty, I know of some places for you to check..

Please let me know any suggestions. Have arranged a stopover in Pontefract coming home the following week. We shall pass through York and do a reccy prior to a possible longer visit on the way up to scotland in August.

I shall investigate my archy guide books for the area and let you know if I find anything other than the odd castle. That's the place pronounced "pumfret" or something similar?

check this url, Maggie http://www.casandpont.freeserve.co.uk/front.htm

Maps: http://freespace.virgin.net/stuart.lonsdale/ Museum http://www.wakefield.gov.uk/lifestyle/pontmuse.htm Collieries http://www.nce-league.freeserve.co.uk/pontefract_colls.htm Calderdale - the best one on this post, I think: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/north_east_england_history_page/Calderdale.htm

Thanks. I think we will visit Pontefract. The castle and museum sound interesting. I'll post about it in Travel/england etc. when I get back.

Great! Have a splendid time!

when they discuss a dig, these measurements are the ones used: Acres And Hectares An acre is a measurement of area equal to 43,650 square feet or 4,840 square yards. Originally, an acre had to be a fixed-shape rectangle, 660 by 66 feet. But in current usage, it can be any shape as long as it has the same total square footage. Some other countries, such as Ireland and Scotland, have traditionally used somewhat different definitions of the acre. There is also a metric equivalent--the hectare, which is 10,000 square meters, or almost 2.5 acres.

Check out this site for loads on archeology in Mali. http://www.ruf.rice.edu/%7Eanth/arch/mali-interactive/aboutproject/index.html Here's a taste: The archaeological site of Jenn�-jeno is located within a huge, seasonally flooded basin called the Inland Niger Delta, in the West African country of Mali. Every year, after the rains begin further south, where the mighty Niger River has its source, the swollen river rushes downriver (towards the north!). When it enters the flat, Inland Niger Delta basin, the waters spread out and flood all the lowest areas to a depth of 2-3 meters. The floodwaters cover an area about 300 kilometers long by 100 kilometers wide! Needless to say, people who want to live in the Inland Niger Delta year-round have to build their houses on high ground, or create some high ground to live on. Many of the villages are on high mounds that have accumulated over centuries, with the surface getting higher and higher everytime a mud house is abandoned and decays. The mounds become like islands when the floodwaters rise. Sometimes they can be quite big. The modern town of Jenn�, for example, has over 10,000 inhabitants settled on a mound over six meters high. Jenn� will be our home while we are digging at Jenn�-jeno, located three kilometers away across the floodplain. According to tradition, Jenn�-jeno ("ancient Jenn�) is the early site of Jenn�. The town moved to its present location sometime around a thousand years ago, although we aren't sure why the inhabitants moved, finally abandoning Jenn�-jeno totally by 1400 A.D. The fact that Jenn� and Jenn�-jeno are so closely related historically and share many features allows us to look at Jenn� for clues to help us understand how the early Jenn�-jeno people lived. One of the main goals of the project is to do some excavation at Jenn�-jeno to salvage, or rescue, information from several areas of the mound that are cut by huge erosion gullies. Thousands of potsherds, beads, and many other kinds of artifacts are being washed out of the soil and into the gullies every year during the torrential rains in June and July. Along with them goes all possibility for the archaeologist to figure out when and how they were used. Earlier work at Jenn�-jeno by the two American archaeologists on the project, Rod and Susan McIntosh, showed that town life in large, settled communities began over 1500 years ago in this region. At that time, in the late 1970's, people thought that town life in areas south of the Sahara only developed in the last few hundred years. The discovery that Jenn�-jeno had grown very large soon after it was first settled in 250 B.C. came as a big surprise. As the earliest known urban settlement south of the Sahara, Jenne-jeno is one of the very few World Heritage archaeological sites recognized by UNESCO in sub-saharan Africa. Because it is an important site for our understanding of the development of civilization south of the Sahara, its slow destruction by erosion is a matter of grave concern. The World Monuments Fund has provided money to Malian archaeologists to rescue archaeological information in endangered sections of the site, and to fill in the gullies in order to stop further erosion. Malian and American members of the project team are working together toward this important goal.

Mali has been known for years as a very rich country as far as archaeology goes. Thanks for that url and the "taste"

there's also been an awful lot of 'poaching' of artifacts. There's more on that site about that too. There's an 'artifact' market in Bamako. I went past but didn't go anywhere near it!!!

Ancient Cities Reported Found Under Sea Off Egypt ALEXANDRIA, Egypt (Reuters) - Archaeologists on Saturday showed off relics retrieved from the nearly complete ruins of ancient cities they said they had discovered on the seabed off the Egyptian coast. The joint French and Egyptian team said the cities of Menouthif and Herakleion, submerged more than 1,000 years ago, lay in five to 10 meters (15-30 feet) of water about six km (3.75 miles) off the Mediterranean city of Alexandria. ``We are very excited because we are used to finding the remains of a tomb, a church or a mosque, but this time we are finding complete cities cities that were heard about from the classical writings,'' said Gaballah Ali Gaballah, head of Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities. ``Most probably they disappeared because of seismic causes,'' said Franck Goddio, head of the Paris-based European Institute of Marine Archaeology. A rise in the Mediterranean sea level and sudden submersion caused by earthquake, or climate changes, could explain the annihilation of the cities, he said. The cities were legendary in antiquity for their wealth and arts as well as their many temples dedicated to the gods Serapis, Isis and Osiris. An intricately carved 1.5-meter (five-foot) black granite statue of Isis was shown to the media after being raised from the seabed. ``To me she looks 17 years old but in reality she is probably around 1,200 years old,'' Goddio said. Gaballah said researchers were aware of the existence of the ancient cities but could not pinpoint their exact location. ``Thanks to modern technology and the efforts of the Egyptian-French team, we could pinpoint cities that were read about in Greco-Roman literature,'' he told Reuters. Also discovered during two years of undersea exploration were the head of a pharaonic statue of a sphinx, jewelry and gold coins dating from the Byzantine and Islamic eras. The archaeologists said the coins showed the region had not been submerged until the eighth century, although the cities had been founded many hundreds of years earlier. The archaeologists said they had also identified two other submerged cities in the same area, Canopus and Thonis, but had not yet retrieved relics from them.

Maggie, grave robbers have been the bane of Archaeologists since mankind began to learn from their past. I know Britain had passed a Treasure Trove law, but some countries are so poor and their governments are so corrupt that it is almost useless to try. The best way to stop this illegal trade is to do as you did...stay as far away from it as possible. Things purchased better have good and legal provenance sheets with them.

Following what we are talking about - this appeared in the Sunday Times this morning. Gangs smuggle best of Africa's art to Britain Jon Ungoed-Thomas and Peter Watson TRIBAL crowns, carvings and terracotta statues dating back more than 2,000 years are being plundered from Africa for British collectors, an investigation has revealed. Organised gangs with up to 1,000 workers have dug up dozens of protected sites to satisfy demand in Europe. The Nigerian high commission in London has complained about the quantity of goods without any provenance being openly sold by auction houses and antique dealers. The trade is so well established that artefacts that would have fetched �30,000 a decade ago are now on sale for a tenth of the price. The government is examining ways of cracking down on sales thought to be worth up to �500m a year. Government officials in Africa are so concerned they have effectively banned the export of all treasures. London outlet: Telfer-Smollett says he has no way of knowing if the art he sells is smuggled Michael Telfer-Smollett, a dealer in African art based in Notting Hill, west London, sold The Sunday Times a Yoruba tribal crown for �275, which Nigerian officials say would have been banned from export. The crown, decorated with wading birds, is believed to have been made early last century for the king in the walled city of Abeokuta. "It's an elaborate work and might have been used in ceremonies," Telfer-Smollett said. Dr Patrick Darling, an archeologist who has worked extensively in Africa, said: "It's been smuggled out. It would never have been allowed to leave the country legally." Telfer-Smollett said yesterday: "Most of my African stuff is bought to me by Africans. They come streaming over with bagfuls of stuff. I don't believe the crown was smuggled, but it's impossible to check. It's up to the authorities in Nigeria to check it before it comes out." Artefacts are bought locally for a few pounds and smuggled out via neighbouring countries. Others are excavated or stolen from museums and temples. The looters particularly target Nok terracotta figures, named after the village on the Jos plateau in Nigeria where the sculptures were discovered. These provide the earliest evidence of a sculptural tradition south of the Sahara. Even artefacts in museums are not safe. Curators complain that items are "borrowed" and never returned amid allegations of corruption. The National Museum in Lagos has so few artefacts it displays replicas. "It's a scandal the way in which archeological material is being lost because of systematic pillaging," said John Picton, of the School of Oriental and African Studies. "It's illegally smuggled out of Africa, but there is no law against selling it here." Archeologists are angered at Britain's refusal to sign the Unesco treaty, which aims to prevent the looting of antiquities. The problem is so widespread that the Royal Academy of Arts had to withdraw several pieces from an exhibition of African art because of fears they were smuggled. "They included Nok pieces which could not have been acquired legitimately," said Picton. The Nigerian high commission has also complained to the London auctioneer Bonhams about its tribal art sales, which regularly include items without provenance. In one sale in April 1997, the commission highlighted six lots that it considered suspect, including a Nok terracotta head. Bonhams has assured the commission that it never accepts any material that has been illegally exported. The commission believes that any item without a detailed history should be removed from sale. Nigeria now wants stricter controls in Britain against illegal imports. "This is the history of Nigeria which is being stolen and sold to art collectors in Europe and the United States," said Greyne Anosike, cultural attach� at the commission.

That is truly horrifying. They are stealing and voiding any direct evidence of our past. Items found en situ are about as objective as "history" can be without coloring by the author. Now, that part of it is rendered as just another antiquity with no provenace, no value but what the black market will bear. How tragic!

Stephen, welcome to Geo and most especially to Archaeology. I talked to Maggie and she told me about you. I am so envious of your working on restoring stone circles; would love to hear about the one in Scotland. A recumbent? My "bible" of Stone circles of the British Isles is by Aubrey Burl and what a thesis that was! How I wish I could have carried his stuff around - and just admire the places. After three trips to Britain crawling through fogous in Cornwall and through sheep paddocks to climb Windmill Hill, it is good to have someone here who know of what I am speaking. Aloha! If you need to contact me in Yahoo, I am kilauea83.

Studying artifacts "in situ" is a fairly new development even among archaeologists. At one time the object was to gather as many relics as possible, which were themselves as valuable as possible.

Not in the last too centuries. Before that, it was considered treasure and so much for history. In situ is the best scenario and the devoutly wished-for situation for all artifacts...

But just imagine the knowlege that was lost, in addition to the damage done.

Just a look at the tombs of Egypt is enough to make you cry. In the US, we managed to level the largest mound of the Woodland folk and build St Louis on the site. Obscene. It makes me very angry then proundly sad at the loss. I would almost rather not know.

...and they levelled a large Hillfort outside of London to build Heathrow.....

At least Rome doesn't have a subway. It was decided not try and build one, for archaeological reasons.

Yup - the catacombs beat them to it - fortunatly! However, when they were tunnelling under London for the Undeerground, they found hippo bones and elephant and ancient extinct wonderments there. Who'd have thought!

Come on in - the water's fine! *grin* (and the Pirhan's don't bite)

Hi Marcia, Thanks for the greeting to this completely new experience. I have been meaning to post a message, but my technological capabilities ended with flint tools...I will e-mail you soon....Stephen.

Come on in - the water's fine! *grin* (and the Pirhan's don't bite)

...and so he did... Thank you and Aloha Stephen! We all started out in here much as you are now - and I worked my way up to what you see now. It just takes persistence, a lot of mistakes and some guidance - all of which I am happy to provide *smile*

I feel the sudden urge to float over the conference strewing frangipani (plumeria)and ginger blossoms in his way... Am I happy to have a *real* archaeologist here? You'd better believe it! *Hugs*

A real live archaeologist. I'm now too petrified to post here again. Okay, petrified is the wrong word. Embarassed is more accurate.

Don't do that to me! I NEED you here. I shall never again mention who the new people posting are. Besides, we need to keep his interest here and if I have to dance to do it, we'll all be embarrassed. (Maybe he is kidding...maybe I am kidding...maybe...) Cheryl, Please don't desert me! I NEED your insight!

I'm not leaving. I was just kidding. Actually, it's great to have a real archaelogist. Now we can all be enlightened in our dabbling.

That's what I thought, actually! This man is man of charm and cultivation. He will correct us most kindly and gently

Who is this real live archaeologist? Perhaps I had better keep my incoherant ramblings about the origins of monuments to myself then. We wouldnt want anyone to get the wrong end of the stick would we? A man of charm and cultivation? That doesnt sound like many of the field archaeologists I know. Who is this mystery man Marci?

Oh, not to worry abut him....he is someone who got bored and decided not to enter the commentary. Boring! Unimaginative and totally unresponsive. I think we are well done with him....probably just someone with ill humor and no affection in his heart for anything.......*smile*

Your incoherent rambling are enchanting this reader. Please continue as thoughts enter your mind....*hugs*

Stephen, Dear, anytine you wish to comment on your origin of monuments please do. My mind is travelling back to the places so familiar to my heart and I need to meet you there and for you to tell me what you are thinking.....please?!

...*out of body experience*... wonder if I can summon up one for Wiltshire...

Does anyone know if anymore has been discovered about the Henge monument at Marden? It was reputed to be the biggest yet known.

On one of the trips to England we investigated what was visible, but there is precious little remaining of surface visibility and much of that was in a small wooded area.

There was another of the 'Secrets of Lost Empires' programmes on last night in he UK. I just checked, and they showed in the US earlier this year on PBS. Go and check the following URL for details. there's some really good photos and video footage. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/lostempires/ The programme I saw was about 'Pharaoh's Obelisk' http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/lostempires/obelisk/raises.html The soaring stone monuments known as obelisks were the Egyptian pharaohs' way of capturing a ray of revered sunlight in stone. In this section, follow NOVA's ultimately successful attempts to raise an obelisk of its own. Also, learn where ancient Egypt's obelisks have ended up today, explore other Egyptian monuments using QuickTime VR, and more. this really is worth a look - GO SEE!!!!

(Yup i'm back on form - finding all sorts of stuff again) This sounds interesting. No pix though. Found it when I was looking up on your earlier query. There's also a good Bibliography at http://csweb.bournemouth.ac.uk/consci/text_kn/knbiblio.htm _______________________________________________________________________________ From http://csweb.bournemouth.ac.uk/consci/text_kn/knintro.htm Introduction to the Knowlton henge complex -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The group of Late Neolithic henge monuments at Knowlton is generally recognised as one of the five most important enclosure complexes in Wessex at this time (Renfrew 1973; Wainwright 1989). These complexes consist primarily of massive earthwork enclosures up to 480m across, and often associated with other Late Neolithic monuments such as timber circles and monumental mounds. The importance of these complexes is demonstrated by their continued role in the Early Bronze Age when they became the focus for round barrow cemeteries. Nonetheless, despite their obvious significance, their function remains poorly understood. Their role as the effective centres of Wessex have been stressed by several authors (Bradley and Chapman 1986; Wainwright 1989, 147), whilst it has also been noted that they may have acted in the maintenance of relations with other distant communities via the axe trade (Bradley 1984, 54). In terms of the activities which occurred within the henge enclosures, Burgess (1980, 326) argues that the Wessex henges may have held a permanent population of holy men or retainers to a chief. This view is supported by Mackie (1981) who goes a stage further by suggesting that we should compare the large henges of Wessex as being similar to Early Christian monastic sites, combining a ritual role with the domestic life of a resident population. The idea of both a domestic and a ritual role to henge enclosures appears to be supported by the evidence recovered from excavation at Durrington Walls, although the excavators were more cautious in their interpretations (Wainwright and Longworth 1971). The potential for display at henge sites is also a popular theme in the interpretation of their function. This is a corollary of their design which places the bank outside the ditch thereby creating a grandstand effect from which audiences could view activities taking place in the centre (Burgess 1980, 237). If this is the case we could therefore argue that the role of the ditch was to act as a physical barrier between the observers and the observed, allowing a view, but not access. The suitability of henges to this role is amply shown by the Roman conversion of the henge of Maumbury Rings, Dorchester, into an amphitheatre. Nonetheless, we cannot assume that since we can see the value of henges as auditoriums that their builders held similar views. In this respect it should be noted that at Mount Pleasant the site was, for a time, surrounded by a timber palisade, which would have obstructed both visibility and access to the interior from the banks (Wainwright 1979). With such equivocal evidence, perhaps we hould take the view of Darvill (1987, 81-2) that it is likely that henges fulfilled many functions, and indeed changed their role through time. Extensive fieldwork has been carried out at and around four of these henge enclosures: Avebury (Smith 1965; Ucko et al 1991), Stonehenge and Durrington Walls (Wainwright and Longworth 1971; Richards 1990; Cleal et al 1995); Mount Pleasant (Wainwright 1979), and Marden (Wainwright 1971). At Knowlton however, little or no fieldwork has been carried out and, when this latter complex is mentioned in discussions of henge monuments, it is usually considered by analogy with these better known sites. The extent to which these analogies are accurate is unclear, and can only be resolved by considerable fieldwork in this little understood part of Wessex. At first sight the lack of fieldwork at Knowlton is curious since just 500m to the north lies Cranborne Chase, where there has been considerable work in recent years in the examination of Neolithic landscape patterns (see Barrett et al 1991; Tilley 1994). These studies have demonstrated the importance of Cranborne Chase in the Early Neolithic, with the long barrows and the Dorset cursus forming obvious focal points for activity. Nonetheless, it seems equally clear that in the Later Neolithic, the local communities ceased building major monuments in Cranborne Chase and diverted their attention to the construction of the henge complex at Knowlton, just to the south (see area plan). That this geographical shift has been so little studied can be explained by examining the history of research in this part of Dorset. Cranborne Chase is well known as the proving ground for the modern approach to archaeological fieldwork pioneered by General Pitt Rivers in the late 19th century (Barker 1977, 13). His excavations in the area included many famous sites such as Wor Barrow, South Lodge, and the Martin Down enclosure (Pitt Rivers 1898). Unfortunately for the study of British prehistory, the extent of the General's lands ended at the boundaries of Cranborne Chase, and Knowlton lay just outside of this area. The legacy of Pitt-Rivers' fieldwork appears to have acted as a magnet for archaeologists whose new research could refer back to the wealth of evidence he collected. As this level of data for the Neolithic of Cranborne Chase has increased, it seems to have become increasingly difficult to fit the relatively unknown complex at Knowlton into the picture. It is certainly apparent that it will be many years before the quantity of data concerning this latter area compares with that currently available in Cranborne Chase. In order to make some first steps in rectifying this imbalance Bournemouth University has begun a series of free-standing projects at the Knowlton complex aiming to enhance the general level of knowledge in the area. Through this program of targeted research it is hoped to examine all of the major monuments in the immediate area through detailed survey and small excavation projects. This work will provide a framework, both for the interpretation of the role and extent of the Knowlton complex within the Allen valley, and also its relationship to the wider landscape of Cranborne Chase. http://csweb.bournemouth.ac.uk/consci/text_kn/knback.htm Background to the henge complex -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Site location The complex of monuments at Knowlton lies in the parish of Woodlands which is in turn within East Dorset District Council (centred on SU02450994). It is situated c.2 miles south of Cranborne and c.6 miles north of Wimborne, around the junction of the B3078 and Lumber Lane which meet beside the bank of the Southern Circle. The most prominent site in the complex is the Church Henge which still survives as a substantial earthwork, and at which there is limited parking. Complex period/type Knowlton Rings consists of 4 earthworks: the North Circle, Church Circle, Southern Circle, and the 'Old Churchyard'. In addition to these sites, to the east of the Church Circle is the Great Barrow, the largest round barrow in Dorset, and almost certainly directly related to the henges. Within a one mile radius of these earthworks there are also a large number of barrows and ring-ditches with particular foci to the SSW and NE of the henges see site plan. The Central and Southern Circle are generally seen on morphological grounds as being classic henges, while the North Circle was regarded by Harding and Lee (1987) as a 'possible henge'. The status of the 'Old Churchyard' is also uncertain although documentary research suggests that it pre-dates the medieval period. Within the Church Circle is the ruin of Knowlton church which contains architectural features dating from the twelfth to the sixteenth centuries. Detail of the church from southwest A plan of the complex is included in the RCHM volume for East Dorset (RCHM 1975) which shows the four circles, the Great Barrow and the clusters of barrows and ring- ditches to the SSW and NE. Since this survey was completed further study in the area (Grinsell 1982, Papworth 1988) has revealed a number of new ring-ditches. In addition, the dry summer of 1995 has added considerably to our knowledge of sites within the Knowlton area, with two further enclosures being located by aerial photography, as well as confirmation that the outer ditch of the Great Barrow is discontinuous (Green pers. comm.). Aerial view of henge complex Previous work The only published excavation within the area of the Knowlton complex prior to Bournemouth�s work was an examination of a pipe trench which cut a chord through the outer ditch of the Great Barrow revealing a skeleton dated by the excavators to the Anglo-Saxon period (Field 1962). More recently, in 1986 a programme of fieldwalking was carried out by the Allen Valley Fieldwalking Group. This focused on eight fields to the east of the B3078. Although it has not been possible to examine the material personally, interim publication noted a lithic scatter c.800m to the south of the Southern Circle (Hall 1988, 154-5).

Even more ..... Hey I found the Journal British Archeology is freely available online - full articles. The following item is from Issue no 43, April 1999. and follows the discussion we had earlier about barrows and a Time Team excavation. Check it out. http://britac3.britac.ac.uk//cba/ba/ba43/ba43feat.html Bury the dead in a sacred landscape Bronze Age barrows are often found near rivers, lakes and springs. David Field explains why Where did Bronze Age people bury their dead? Where were the favoured locations for their round barrows? For years, there has been an unquestioned assumption within archaeology that over 3,000 years ago people preferred to site barrows on the tops of hills and ridges, or on the `false crests' of prominent hills, as these were places that commanded the widest view. Quite why this incorrect assumption has prevailed may be partly because it offers an enduring image of funeral ceremonies taking place at visually dramatic points in the landscape. Archaeologists have also tended to focus on the relatively few surviving barrows on the chalk downs, while paying less attention to the greater number of flattened barrows in lower locations such as lower hill slopes and river valleys. Recent surveys of the evidence as a whole across large tracts of southern England suggest, in fact, that relatively few barrows were positioned on the highest points in the landscape. Most were rather built on sloping ground, usually on the middle or lower slopes of a hill, where drainage is good. Remarkably large numbers were also sited close to springs, lakes, or rivers, sometimes in the valley floor but often along the upper reaches of the river. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that water and well-drained soils were deliberately sought out for the location of Bronze Age barrow cemeteries. These observations allow us to revise our interpretation of certain aspects of Bronze Age funeral practice. The idea of the existence of `ritual landscapes' in prehistory is now well-established, and from ethnographic records we know that many non-western societies regard the whole landscape as imbued with sacred or mythological significance. It is easy to imagine how features such as caves and springs might be thought to provide a point of contact with the spirit world. Seen in this light, the positioning of barrow cemeteries may suggest a funeral practice in the British Bronze Age as much concerned with the sanctity of the landscape as with status display, leaderveneration and other such traditional interpretations. It has long been thought that surviving barrow cemeteries tend to cluster in certain restricted areas - such as, for example, around Stonehenge and Avebury. This clustering has been said to reflect the location of the summer pastures of a transhumant community, or the presence of settlement nearby, or even the existence of a property or territorial boundary. It has also been argued that earlier monuments attract later ones around them. The assumption has been, however, that these concentrations are genuine. In fact the areas where barrows exist today as earthworks appear to be amongst the few that have escaped episodes of intensive cultivation during the Roman, medieval and later periods. Recent research by the English Royal Commission in North-East Yorkshire indicates that there is greater chance of survival where barrows are located on steeper ground rather than on gentler slopes, and this is likely to be the case for the southern chalk too. Many large clusters may have been lost long ago. Air photography has revealed many such levelled cemeteries and the emphasis has shifted as a result. The concentration of ring ditches on the Isle of Thanet in Kent, for example, compares with extant barrow distribution around Stonehenge. Pioneering work by Peter Woodward and Stephen Green in the Great Ouse valley of Cambridgeshire during the 1970s helped to draw attention to the number of levelled round barrows along river valleys. Here, over 400 ring-ditches, most of them likely to be levelled barrows, occurred in often quite large clusters at intervals along the river terrace. Along the Avon valley, in Wiltshire, air photographs show that a string of levelled barrow cemeteries extend all the way to the river's source, close to the great henge at Marden. A similar pattern can be seen around other rivers, for example the Wylye, Nine Mile River, and the Kennet, all in Wessex, as well as elsewhere. Other water features may also have been important markers. In Hampshire, for example, some barrows tend to focus on lakes and meres. New surveys of surviving barrows in the south-east of England, Salisbury Plain, and the Marlborough Downs have also offered a different perspective. Even among surviving examples, few are found on the highest points in the landscape. Instead barrows are found on middle or lower slopes or around the foot of a hill. Sometimes low ridges in the lee of higher hills were used. Many cemeteries of barrows on the chalk - such as Ladywell Barrows, near Imber on Salisbury Plain, Rockley on the Marlborough Downs, and the Seven Barrows at Lambourne in Berkshire - can in fact be interpreted better as groups located around the heads of valleys or at places where springs formerly emerged. If we accept that barrows may have been placed near rivers and springs for sacred reasons, it remains to ask what those sacred reasons might be. No answer is certain. But it is nonetheless interesting that in China, cemeteries have for centuries been placed in carefully chosen positions in the landscape. Ideally such sites are well-drained - to allow the life-force to `drain away' - being situated on slopes with a water feature or sump at the foot, and sheltered from supposedly evil north winds by a mountain or hill. These factors are considered of such importance that where no natural drainage feature is present a ditch is often dug to provide one. In a sacred landscape, prominent landscape features often develop their own mythology. In this light, it may be no accident that the many barrows along the South Downs escarpment are not mirrored by a similar distribution on the North Downs. The South Downs escarpment faces north, the North Downs face south. The North Downs escarpment therefore receives more light - encouraging different vegetation - and the complementing opposites of light and shade, north and south, could perhaps have had some sacred significance; albeit one whose exact meaning may no longer be recoverable. It also seems that a concept of harmony within the landscape may have played some part in the placing of burial mounds. Barrow cemeteries are rarely geometric, but are often aesthetically pleasing. The final plan often seems to have been deliberately arranged, even though individual barrows may have been constructed over centuries. A number of barrow cemeteries may also have been aligned on celestial features, along a north-east/south-west axis. The barrow cemetery at Winterbourne Stoke crossroads, near Stonehenge, is perhaps the best known example. This is the same alignment incorporated in Stonehenge itself, in a number of other stone circles and also in typical middle Bronze Age co-axial field systems (see BA, November 1997, May 1998). The Bronze Age landscape, therefore, appears to have been arranged according to a cosmological plan that was widely understood and accepted. Now, the latest survey work suggests that the burial mounds of the dead, like the monuments, field systems, and possibly even domestic architecture of the living, were ordered according to a system in which the landscape itself played a defining role. David Field is an archaeologist with the English Royal Commission (RCHME), which merged this month with English Heritage

Comments on any of this anyone????? One bit that stuck out for me in the above article was 'In a sacred landscape, prominent landscape features often develop their own mythology'. That seems to link in with the item we had earlier in geomyth about Aboriginal 'songlines' in Australia. I haven't come across this in Africa yet but I will ask questions when I am in Mali in October.

In the January/February 2000 issue of Archaeology Magazine new findings at Avebury, one of which is a woodhenge similar to the one near Stonehenge were discussed. Near Stonehenge there are several including Durrington Walls which has quite a large one and a smaller one which will never be fully excavated because a housing estate was built squarely atop most of the entire area. Has anymore informations come out of the study of Avebury's newly rediscovered woodhenge or the Beckhampton / West Kennet Avenues? I have Burl's book on Avebury but it was written before any of these new finds. Would appreciate an update if you have one!

I have read the above postings on ritual and scared landscapes....a lot of the ideas I have researched for my thesis...so as soon as I cut out the technical jargon I will try and post something coherant on the subject...

Aloha Stephen. We await your posting with great anticipation (having read the entire thesis with great pleasure) and encouraging you to take your time as we exercise patience. I am delighted that you are posting here *smile*

oh new blood! haha, welcome stephen. don't mind me, i'm just a little wolfie.

Vampire Wolfie strikes again...*grin*

sorry.....off topic drift again.....*sigh*

(Now where's Buffy when we need her? guess the house male's monopolising her again! - sorry, it's late and I'm goofy!)

*laugh* Oh dear, second childhood or just burgeoning manhood there? He is in good company. There is an entire topic for the program in the TV conference... (Am surprised there is not a Babes conference one as well...I have one there!)

(I don't!)

(yet!)

I think the creator of same is no longer creating. Mine for John was the last one of that sort I did in Screwed...and Male Babes taught me not to do that again..!

From NASA's children's site: For several days following June 16, the Moon will appear nearly full and, of course, there's another full Moon every month. Each one hovers above the horizon for a while as it rises, triggering the 'Moon Illusion.' The illusion simply lasts longer for northern observers near the time of the summer solstice. (Oh to be at any stone circle in the British Isles about now...*sigh*)

It has the same effect on the recumbent stone in the Scottish circles?!

I cut this out to post ages ago - and lost it in the debris. From the Sunday Times April 14 Bespectacled warriors who terrorised ancient Britain The mere sight of their double horned battle helmets was enough to strike fear into the hearts of the Brits. But as archeologists have discovered the Vikings who rampaged across Britain and Europe also wore something a little less daunting on their heads - spectacles! Clear disks uncovered at Viking settlements in Sweden, which were at first thought to be jewellery are in fact sophisticated lenses. German scientists who examined the finds were astounded by the standard reached by ancient opticians who were working between 700 and 1000 AD. the principles they used to make these lenses were not really understood until many centuries later, yet these people managed to employ these principles to create lenses that were perfect for a wide variety of uses. Their cut is practically perfect and the surface is almost perfectly elliptic. The optical quality can be compared with that of modern spectacles. But the archeologists who found the lenses at settlements in Gotland say that they don't prove the Vikings were a y more civilised than previously thought. It is thought that they probably stole the lenses from merchant caravans that travelled across from eastern Europe or the Byzantine Empire. The Vikings were always raiding the Byzantines and once they realised what these lenses could be used for they would have been much prized. The size of the lenses also indicates that some were used to make the first crude telescopes, 500 years earlier than the Dutch opticians thought to have invented them for seafarers. the largest had a radius of 50mm and a thickness of 30mm.

Interesting image, big hulking Vikings wearing glasses. I wonder if they had shades too?

That is amazing. I am wondering how the ground the lenses and how they calibrated them one with the other. Nothing is worse than glasses whose lenses do not match. It makes me seasick-feeling. Despite my favoring gentlemen who wear them, I somehow cannot imagine how it helped their image as fearsome warriors (from whose loins the Hemming lineage arose.) I am wondering why it did not get more press. That is amazing, as I said...

there was a rather fanciful line drawing attached, but my scanne is offline just now, and I wasn't convinced!!! I think the Byzantine point of origin would be an interesting line to follow and see if there is more anywhere on their techniques and use of telescopes.

This from Reuters which is probably old news to some but new to me: Scientists Probe Riddle of Stonehenge Skeleton LONDON (Reuters) - The skeleton of a man executed up to 2,100 years ago at Stonehenge, Britain's greatest prehistoric monument, was shown in public for the first time Friday. The bones, which date from between 100 BC and 1000 AD, were first unearthed in 1923 and stored in London, where they were thought to have been destroyed in the Nazi Blitz in 1941, according to government conservation body, English Heritage. The skeleton was found to have survived by author Mike Pitts during research for a book about the giant stone circle in western England. After using modern forensic techniques, scientists have concluded that the man did not die of natural causes as had been thought but was the victim of an execution. Archaeologist Jacqueline McKinley said the man, who was about 35, died from violent beheading. There is a small nick on the lower jaw and a cut on the fourth neck vertebra, indicating he was beheaded by a sharp sword. "Why he was executed is not known," English Heritage said. "But it is possible that he was singled out for special punishment, as Stonehenge clearly represents a dramatic and important site for the event and the man's burial." Scientists are using carbon-dating techniques to try to find out exactly when the man died. It is only the fourth complete skeleton to have been found at Stonehenge, a World Heritage Site built between 3050 BC and 1600 BC. http://news.excite.com/news/r/000609/09/science-britain-stonehenge-dc/

I think i must hae missed that too. curious!

Bespectacled Vikings. Now there's an image. It has been surmised that a lot of the reason for the bad press the Vikings got was due to the fact that they weren't Christians. At least not in the early stages of their entry onto the world stage. They particularly favored raiding monasteries and church, as the Church was rich. Since monks were virtually the only people who were literate then -- it was they who wrote what survives from that time.

Cognicized, Conceptualized and Cultural Landscapes - Some brief thoughts on new approaches to landscape archaeology. The concept of �ritual landscape� is one which still runs through much of the writing on prehistory. This term is, however, outmoded and outdated for the very reason that it attempts to compartmentalize prehistoric landscapes into the �economic� and the �ritual�, the �sacred� and the �profane�. There is, however, no evidence that such a demarcation existed in the past and we should really be looking at landscapes as a whole and not attempting to categorize them into areas that, although they may make life easier for the archaeologist, had little or no relevance in prehistory. So where are we to start when attempting to understand prehistoric landscapes? As mentioned already the term �ritual landscape� is not one that should be relied on too heavily. Neither should interpretations based on the breaking down of landscapes into the �normal� categories of Neolithic, Bronze Age and Iron Age landscapes be approached uncritically. In the past landscapes, and the monuments contained within the landscape, have been approached mainly in terms of the monuments themselves. So much has been written about sites such as Stonehenge and Avebury in Britain, and comparable monuments in America, such as Cahokia, that it is often easy to forget that the monuments themselves are only a small part of the picture. We must never lose sight of the fact that what we are looking at is a �cultural landscape�, a landscape that is not only a product of human activity and manipulation, but is conceptualized and perceived in the minds of the people interacting with their lived environment. This idea of �cognitive landscapes� is one that may take some time to come to terms with, but the lived landscape is as much a cultural and cosmological construct as a more easily recognizable piece of material culture. The crux of this argument is based around the idea that manipulation of the landscape, and the construction of monuments is not solely related to the kind of economic determinizm suggested by Colin Renfrew (1973). If we look beyond the monuments themselves, at the landscape, the scatters of artefacts around unaltered �natural� places and at anthropological study of significant places in the landscape, it is possible to see that the concepts that up until relatively recently have been associated solely with the construction of the earliest monuments, have their origins much further back in prehistory. If we look at studies of Australian Aboriginal culture (see especially Josephine Flood - The Archaeology of the Dreamtime), and various studies of Native American society, we can see that the ideas more normally associated with the building of monuments within the landscape are much more concerned with developments in human thought patterns and cognitive evolution than in any kind of economic determinizm. If we want to study the development of landscapes over time it is much more important that from now on we look at the landscape as an evolving entity rather than as a series of monumental sites associated with specific periods in prehistory. If we use this approach in conjunction with more recent work on developments in human cognition, then we may have a much better chance of understanding, not just prehistoric landscapes, but of prehistory as a whole.

Stephen, Thank you seem hardly adequate to express my delight with your posting. It is fascinating. Being able to walk the places they walked must be almost a religious experience, for those who have the ability and empathy to feel their presence. One day I shall return and feel that once again.

Woven cloth dates back 27,000 years Clay bearing a textile imprint together with a cast By BBC News Online science editor Dr David Whitehouse Woven clothing was being produced on looms 27,000 years ago, far earlier than had been thought, scientists say. It had been thought that the first farmers developed weaving 5,000 to 10,000 years ago. But Professor Olga Soffer, of the University of Illinois, is about to publish details in the journal Current Anthropology of 90 fragments of clay that have impressions from woven fibres. Professor Soffer revealed some her findings recently when she said that a 25,000-year-old figurine was wearing a woven hat. If confirmed, her work could change our understanding of distant ancestors, the so-called Ice Age hunters of the Upper Palaeolithic Stone Age. More at......http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_790000/790569.stm

Domesticates, Monuments, Death & Society. Some brief thoughts on the adoption of agriculture in Neolithic Europe. One of the great paradoxes and debates surrounding interpretations of Neolithic society in Europe is to what extent did the adoption of agriculture create the hypothesized ideas of social stratification deemed by some necessary for the construction of the earliest monuments. Colin Renfrew (1973) suggested that in order to create the correct social and economic stratification necessary for the construction of the earliest Neolithic monuments, it is necessary to have an agrarian economy in place before hand. At the opposite end of the spectrum Julian Thomas (1999) argues that at the time the earliest monuments were constructed in Britain, the evidence for an economy based almost solely on agriculture is practically non existent. As usual the real truth lies somewhere these two polar opposites, although my own opinion on reassessment of the evidence (evidence which admittedly Renfrew would not have had access to) is that the �truth�, if indeed truth is a concept applicable to prehistory, is probably much closer to the Julian Thomas view than to Renfrew�s. So how are we to solve this problem that has caused so much debate and controversy in the past? Perversely it is not to the biological remains that we should turn first, but to the monuments themselves, but first we must look at ourselves, and at the development of the human mind. Steven Mithen (1996) has pointed out that the cognitive abilities to produce not just functional stone tools, but also items of quite breathtaking beauty, were in place as far back as the Upper Palaeolithic at least. The adoption of agriculture then can not be seen as a quantum leap in human cognition as has sometimes been suggested in Childesque ideas of some form of �Neolithic Revolution�. What we are in fact seeing is a very small part of a long term process, a process that may not necessarily, in its initial stages at least, have been consciously embarked upon at all. This raises another question as to who domesticated what? Did prehistoric communities domesticate plants, or was it the other way round. The major change in the Mesolithic / Neolithic transition was not the beginnings of the use of domesticates per-se but the construction of the first monuments. This has in turn led to deterministic theories about environmental and economic change being responsible for the social change and the social stratification thought necessary for the origins of monumentality. By looking at a couple of case studies it is hoped to show that the transition from a hunter / fisher / gatherer (HFG) based economy, to an economy based on agriculture was a much longer term event that did not really reach an intensive level into well into the Iron Age. The table above shows some of the arguments put forward both for and against continuity and change in the Meso. / Neo. transition. Archaeology, however, obstinately refuses to fall into such neat columns. Let us now examine some of the changes that occurred in the earlier Neolithic to see whether or not we can identify the origins of ideas most usually associated with the Neolithic back into the Mesolithic. In my own research into the origins of monumentality, I have suggested that perhaps the concepts associated with monuments at least can be traced back into the forest environment of the Mesolithic (Appleby, 2000). I have also suggested that perhaps manipulation of woodland in the Neolithic may not, in fact, be purely for economic reasons but that perhaps Neolithic communities were creating a kind of �aesthetic of landscape� associated as much with phenomenology and cosmology as with economy (ibid.). Rather than outlining the main points of that paper again I now propose to look at some of the more general concepts associated with the Neolithic in Britain and Europe, and see how these can be used to fit in with the idea that adoption of an agrarian economy was somehow a determining factor in the construction of earlier Neolithic monuments. The first monuments to appear in the British Neolithic are the long barrows and long cairns associated with ritual disposal of the dead. Writers such as Renfrew (1973) have postulated that perhaps these can be seen as boundary or territorial markers in the landscape. These in some way define the boundaries between different groups of early agriculturalists, and were primarily built by utilizing an agricultural surplus to feed the people building the monuments. This suggests a certain amount of social hierarchy and complexity, with the elite at the top being able to co-opt and coerce their social underlings. Robert Chapman (1981) was also suggested that perhaps the building of early Neolithic burial mounds in some way marks out not only territory, but also creates a sense of �belonging� to a certain place, and therefore to a certain territory by the placing of the ancestors into these mortuary monuments. In this sense the ancestors almost become a separate species, still living in the landscape inside the monuments. These socio-economic views are very much a product of their time, and very processual in origin. Other than the monuments themselves there is no real evidence to back this theory up. The pollen diagrams for this period suggest that at the time the first mortuary monuments were constructed around 90% of the British Isles would have been covered in primary woodland (Bennett, 1989). This immediately discounts certain aspects of the theory on two counts. Firstly, by its very nature primary woodland is not really conjusive to any intensive form of agriculture, other than a shifting garden based agriculture. Also the idea of early mortuary monuments being a kind of �visual boundary� between the territorial claims of different social groups does not really work either because, unless you are Superman and have some sort of highly developed x-ray vision, getting clear lines of sight through areas of primary forest is impossible. Certainly, these monuments would not have been constructed at random, but at places that had significance to the communities that built them. This significance, however, can not really be equated to the adoption of agriculture as the evidence suggests otherwise. What we need to do is look at the symbolism associated with these monuments and try and base our interpretations on this. The symbolism associated with eralier Neolithic is notoriously difficult to interpret and it is not our place here to really try and understand the whole sequence. Very basically what we see in the earlier Neolithic is burials of groups of individuals under long mounds or lang cairns, some of these, such as Waylands Smithy in Berkshire, are built on top of earlier burials. Richard Bradley (1998) has suggested that these long mounds can be seen as symbolic �houses of the dead�, and indeed, at some Linearbandkeramik sites on the edge of the loess in continental Europe, there is evidence that suggests that houses of the dead were constructed directly on top of the foundations of earlier dwelling places. Certainly these ideas have a number of ethnographic parallels where houses of the deceased are destroyed and avoided, as they are still associated with the presence and spirit of the dead person. Perhaps then this is a more feasible explanation, with symbolic aspects of the �house of the dead� being more important than associations with social hierarchies and the rise of the individual. The individual does not really become visible in the archaeology of the Neolithic until much later, with the introduction of single inhumations in the later Neolithic and early Bronze Age. What I am not suggesting here is that in some way domesticates came to be adopted much later than has previously been suggested. Certainly, there is evidence from the earlier Neolithic that domesticated animals had been introduced from continental Europe in the 4th Millenia BCE. My argument is based around the idea that in the earlier Neolithic there was not the wholesale adoption of domesticates as previously theorized. What we see is a rather more gradual adoption of domesticates, and in the intial phases at least, these would have been used alongside collected natural resources. There are many ideas that can be brought into this equation, not only for the building of monuments and the adoption of agriculture, but for the social ideas in place at the time. Gender theory is one approach that needs to be considered. Watson and Kennedy (1998) have forwarded the idea that even if we use the traditional androcentric man the hunter / woman the gatherer roles for prehistory, it is still possible to see that perhaps women�s role in the adoption of agriculture was greater than has previously been realized. Also by looking at the symbolism associated with changes in material culture over time, and by looking at this in its landscape context, inculding studying how landscape usage changed over time, it should be possible ot get a much better idea of the role changing exploitation changed over time. By looking at how concepts of time, space and place developed as societies developed from a HFG economy to an agrarian one, and how this manifested itself in material culture and in developing ideologies and cosmologies, we should hopefully better be able to understand not just the economic and environmental implications of an increased reliance on domesticates, but the social implications too. These are no more than random thoughts, based on my own past research. I have not tried to back much of what I have said up with any in depth studies of excavation reports and recent theoretical developments. These thoughts were mainly pulled in a fairly incoherant form off the top of my head. Hopefull though there are some ideas here that can be used in your paper in conjunction with other evidence. The bibliography below will also hopefully be of some help. Bibliography: Allen, M.J. 1997. Environment and Land Use: The Economic Development of the Communites who built Stonehenge (an Economy to Support the Stones), in Cunliffe, B. & Renfrew, C. Science and Stonehenge: 115-144. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Appleby, S.C. (2000) Beetles, Bones & Standing Stones - An archaeological and anthropological study of the origins of monuments is a wooded landscape. Unpublished BA Dissertation, University of Reading. Barrett, J.C. 1994. Fragments from Antiquity - An Archaeology of Social life in Britain 2900 - 1200 BC. Oxford & Cambridge (MA): Blackwells. Bell, M. & Walker, M.J.C. 1992. Late Quaternary Environmental Change: Physical and Human Perspectives. Harlow: Longman. Bennett, K.D. 1989. A Provisional Map of Forest Types for the British Isles 5000 Years Ago, Journal of Quaternary Science 4: 141-144. Bradley, R. 1984. The Social Foundations of Prehistoric Britain: Themes and Variations in the Archaeology of Power. Harlow & New York: Longman. Bradley, R. 1993. Altering the Earth: The Origins of Monuments in Britain and Continental Europe. Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland Monograph Series No. 8 Bradley, R.J. 1998. The Significance of Monuments. London and New York: Routledge. Bradley, R.J. 2000. An Archaeology of Natural Places. London & New York: Routledge. Caseldine, A.E. 1984. Palaeobotanical Investigations at the Sweet Track, Somerset Levels Papers 10: 65-78. Caseldine, A. 1988. A Wetland Resource: The Evidence for the Environmental Exploitation in the Somerest Levels during the Prehistoric Period, in Murphy, P. & French, C. (eds.), The Exploitation of the Wetlands: 239-265. Oxford: B.A.R. Chapman, R. 1981. The Emergence of Formal Disposal Areas and the �Problem� of Megalithic Tombs in Prehistoric Europe, in Chapman, R., Kinnes, I. & Randsborg, K. (eds.), The Archaeology of Death: 71-81. Cambridge, New York and Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. Cleal, R.M.J., Walker K.E & Montague, R. (eds.). 1995. Stonehenge in it�s Landscape: Twentieth Century Excavations. London: English Heritage Archaeological Report No. 10. Coles, B. 1988. Fossil Insect assemblages from the Somerset Levels: The work of Maureen Girling, in Murphy, P. & French, C. The Exploitation of the Wetlands: 5-20. Oxford: B.A.R. Coles, B. & J. 1995. Enlarging the Past. Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland Monograph No. 11. Coles, B. & J. 1989. People of the Wetlands - Bogs, Bodies and Lake Dwellers. London: Thames & Hudson. Coles, B. & J. 1986. Sweet Track to Glastonbury. London: Thames & Hudson. Coles, J. 1984. The Archaeology of Wetlands. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Conkey, M.W. & Gero, J.M. 1991. Tensions, Pluralities and Engendering Archaeology: An Introduction to Women and Prehistory, in Gero, J.M. & Conkey, M.W. (eds.), Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory: 3-30. Oxford & Malden (MA): Blackwells. Conkey, M.W. & Spector, J. 1984. Archaeology and the Study of Gender, in Hays-Gilpin K. & Whitely, D.S. (eds.), (1998) Reader in Gender Archaeology: 11-45. Oxford & New York: Routledge. Darvill, T. 1987. Prehistoric Britain. London & New York: Routledge. Darvill, T. 1997. Ever Decreasing Circles: The Sacred Geographies of Stonehenge and it�s Landscape, in Cunliffe, B & Renfrew, C. (eds.), Science and Stonehenge: 167-202. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press for The British Academy. Edmonds, M. 1999. Ancestral Geographies of the Neolithic. London & New York: Routledge. Evans, J.G. 1999. Land & Archaeology - Histories of Human Environment in the British Isles. Stroud & Charleston (SC): Tempus. Hirsch, E. 1995. Landscape: Between Place and Space, in Hirsch E. and O�Hanlon, M. (eds.), The Anthropology of Landscape: Perspectives on Place and Space: 1-30. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Mithen, S. 1996. The Prehistory of the Mind. London: Thames & Hudson. Orme, B. 1981. Anthropology for Archaeologists. London: Duckworth. Parker-Pearson, M. 1993. Bronze Age Britain. London: Batsford. Richards, J. 1990. The Stonehenge Environs Project. London: English Heritage. Richards, J. 1991. Stonehenge. London: Batsford / English Heritage. Thomas, J. 1999. Understanding the Neolithic. London & New York: Routledge. Tilley, C. 1994. A Phenomenology of Landscape - Places, Paths and Monuments. Oxford & Providence (RI): Berg. Watson, P.J. & Kennedy, M.C. 1998. The Development of Horticulture in the Eastern Woodlands of North America: Women�s Role, in Hays-Gilpin & Whitely, D.S. (eds.), Reader in Gender Archaeology: 173-190. Oxford & New York: Routledge.

Where do I begin...?! Stephen, this is wonderful stuff. Many questions are tumbling around in my head which are vying for answers and attention. I seem to need to be brought up to date with the literature much as the authors do whose books I rely on. Your sharing your expertise with us makes me both delighted and aware of the gaps in my understanding of the most recent findings and interpretations. More when I absorb this posting, and thank you for including the bibliography.

If you can email me the file containing the table I will post it for you. American education standards fall so far below English standards that your BA thesis would probably be worthy of a MSc or higher. I wish you would publish in a journal and get proper credit for your insight and analysis. I am stunned and amazed by your brilliance. ...and, you quoted from "The Hobbit" Thank you!

Thank you Stephen for that erudite theory, I have read about and looked at with much interest, iron age forts on the North Downs and the Harrow Way, a roadway across the top of the downs, and in particular the prominent roadway not far from Boxhill and Mickleham. Also have seen and pondered the many standing stones and barrows in Wales. I certainly found what you had to say most interesting and found it answered some of the queries I have held. Now a question - I have read somewhere and have spoken too about the subject a late lamented friend who was quite knowledgable having travelled to many different places(Roger Price)- about the possibility of a great civilisation before the great flood which took place in the middle east many thousands of years ago. I have been to the end of the great rift valley just outside Eilat in the Negev and witnessed for myself the proof of such a flood which actually happened in ancient times. Our Israeli guide made a great show of pointing out the sea shells and marine debris embedded in the rock. How do you all think on this?

Anne, not trying toaddress the Archaeolgy, but rather the geology... there are sea fossils in the rocky mountains. Mountains are push-up of ancient sea beds. This does not necessarily mean The Flood did not happen but that there are other reasons for the shells atop the mountains in Israel.

There is a theory that the Flood was actually an account of the drastic rise in the level of the Black Sea at the end of the Ice Age.

That epoch was full of such disastrous flooding and land transformation. It was during this time that Britain became islands separate from Europe.

Which is why they are known as continental islands, having once been part of a larger continent, but later seperated from the larger land mass.

Yup *smile*

I fear I did not explain myself properly. The sea shells and other marine detritus was in a line two inches deep more than half way down the valley. It was situated at the King Solomon's Mine (copper I think from memory) It was a strange place - slaves worked there and graffitti from that time was carved into the rock walls on either side of an ancient roadway. A temple of sorts was situated half way up where the slaves worshipped their gods. Well worth a visit.

Fascinating, Anne...Have you pictures or shall I hunt for some?

Stephen, feel free to return to your subject (of which you have much more to say!) or wade in on this...

Been there and was revolted when we guess the wrong day for the solstice travesty at Stonehenge and landed right in the middle of it. Tuesday June 20, 3:09 PM BBC News The lure of Stonehenge The public can celebrate summer solstice at Stonehenge on Wednesday for the first time more than a decade. What is the appeal of this ancient stone circle? Perhaps none have expressed the magic and mystery that is Stonehenge quite so, er, eloquently as mock rock gods Spinal Tap. In the imaginatively titled Stonehenge, the band thrash out a tribute to the ring of stones: "Stonehenge, where the demons dwell, where the banshees live and they do live well,Stonehenge, where a man is a man and the children dance to the pipes of pan,Stonehenge, 'tis a magic place where the moon doth rise with a dragon's face." Come the dawn of midsummer on 21 June, members of the public can try to tap into the magic for the first time in 15 years. About 10,000 people - curious tourists, New Age revellers and pagan worshippers - are expected to mark the summer solstice at sunrise, free to wander in and around the stones. English Heritage banned solstice celebrations in 1985, and later threw up a perimeter fence crowned with barbed wire, following a nasty showdown between riot police and revellers. The demonstrators had taken exception to the National Trust injunction against their plans to stage a free festival in and around the World Heritage Site. The resulting clash, in which 700 people were arrested, became known as the Battle of the Beanfield. Trouble also brewed at last year's invitation-only event, when gatecrashers clambered onto the stones. Secrets of the ancients What is it about this 5,000-year-old ring of moss-covered stones with a scenic view of the A303 that exerts such strange pulling power? Perhaps it is the mystery that shrouds the origins of the monument. It remains unclear to this day for what purpose the stones were erected on Salisbury Plain - was Stonehenge intended to be a temple, a burial ground or a calendar? Almost the only common belief among Stonehenge scholars is that the stones are aligned with both the winter and summer solstices. When the midsummer sun rises directly over the heel stone, it marks the turning of the season and the approaching harvest season. At midwinter, the sun rises over a stone on the opposite side of the circle. Haul halted The site is thought to date back to about 3100BC, when it was little more than a ditch and a circle of round holes cut into the chalk. Cremated human bones have been excavated from the site. It was abandoned soon after, and left untouched for more than 1,000 years. Some experts believe bluestones from the Preseli Hills in southwest Wales were heaved 240 miles on sleds and boats to the Wiltshire site in about 2150BC. It is this journey that the ill-fated Millennium Stone project has attempted to recreate. The three-tonne stone is now 17m under water off the Pembrokeshire coast after sinking over the weekend. By 2000BC, sarsen stones were erected, with the largest weighing in at 50 tonnes. Modern calculations show that it would have taken 500 men to pull one stone. Within 150 years, the bluestones were rearranged in the horseshoe and circle seen today. Originally, there were 60 stones in the circle but many have since crumbled. The joint chief of the British Druid Order, Greywolf, explains on the order's website why worshippers beat a path to the ancient site. "Having felt the resonance of the stones responding to the beat of a drum, having heard the voices of our ancestors join in the Awen chant, having seen the priests and priestesses of elder times walk among the stones, I could hardly fail to recognise the power of the place."

This is as good a place as any to post this as any. Happy Summer Solstice, unless of course you're in the southern hemisphere, then Happy Winter Solstice. In Europe the Summer Soltice became associated with the Feast of St. John the Baptist, actually June 23. The association is similar to that of the Winter Solstice with the Feast of Christmas, Dec. 25. Traditionally in rural France St. John's Day was when marriage proposals were made.

I was going to look for something appropriate like the sun rising over the "heel" stone...I just might yet. Thanks for reminding me...

(Yes, Stephen, I know that the only reason the sun rises over the "heel" - or "hele" - stone is because it has fallen out of the upright position at which it originally stood... and that neither name is appropriate for the stone, anyway.)

Millennium project to move bluestone from Wales to Stonehenge A six-month journey to discover how the builders of Stonehenge transported giant Welsh stones from the Welsh mountains is set to get under way. It remains a mystery how the huge blue stones from the Preseli mountains were dragged 200 miles to the ancient ceremonial site. But a group of volunteers from The National Trust and Pembrokeshire College are attempting to finally discover the methods used to move the stones using a rock called the Millennium Stone. They plan to re-enact a possible route of the Stone Age builders using methods they will first rehearse at Withybush Aerodrome, near Haverfordwest. International engineering company Whitby Bird and Partners and economic development body Menter Preseli will oversee the volunteers using 21st century knowledge. Inner circle The puzzle centres on how the builders of Stonehenge created the inner circle of bluestones which originate from north Pembrokeshire. From April the Millennium Stone will be moved over land and water using methods that would have been available in the Stone Age. The modern day volunteers will use ropes, sleds and runners, while the trip across water will be made using replica Stone Age boats that have already been built. The route the stone will take begins in the Preseli Mountains then down to the Cleddau Estuary to the Bristol Channel at Milford Haven. The sea journey will end at Bristol. Marathon trek From there, the stone will travel along the route of the River Avon to Dolemeads and then along the Kennet and Avon Canal before a final overland stage to Stonehenge. It is anticipated the stone will reach the ancient site by September. The �100,000 Millennium Stone project has been funded by the Heritage Lottery Fund as part of the Millennium Festival. Menter Preseli put the idea forward under the European Union Leader II programme and the scheme is linked in with the Celtic Voyage 2000, also taking place in Pembrokeshire.

Millennium project to move bluestone from Wales to Stonehenge continued... The ambitious Millennium project to transport a Pembrokeshire bluestone from the Preseli Hills to Stonehenge has hit further problems. The three-tonne stone is now lying off the Pembrokeshire coast near Dale after sinking over the weekend. It has been abandoned by volunteer rowers because of strong winds. go to http://news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/wales/newsid%5F794000/794299.stm for story and pix

Marcia I am afraid I do not have any photographs but I am sure somewhere in Israel there are some.

I will do a Google search for it. Thanks! I am instructing a new seismologist on logging in......Yay!!!

Of course, as explained in #384 above, the bluestone is now lost underwater after a fraught journey in which volunteers gave up on wearing "authentic" animal skins as it was too cold, insisted on wearing "unauthentic" protective gloves as the stone and rope surfaces were too rough, and then many pulled out through boredom. Meanwhile the real Stonehenge was at last re-opened to the public for the Solstice, and 6,000 turned up to see in the dawn. The Times carries a humorous report on the lunatic fringe.

Thanks, Mark......have to hunt on The Times website to see if they have the article available. I shudder when I think of the trash heap of humanity which showed up the time we misguessed the solstice. Amazing how easy it is to pull out of a difficult project when the "religious" or whatever it was motivation is missing!

2000-06-22 EGYPT: TOMBS CAST FRESH LIGHT ON EGYPT PYRAMID BUILDERS By Reim Bashir GIZA, EGYPT, June 22 (Reuters) - Restoration of tombs at the pyramids of Giza is casting fresh light on the builders of the towering monuments, an Egyptian archaeologist said on Thursday. Zahi Hawass, director of the Giza plateau where the pyramids are located, told Reuters work on tombs of workers and their supervisors, found by Egyptian archaeologists 10 years ago, had revealed two cemeteries designed as mini-replicas of the complex around the pyramids. "This discovery proves that the builders of the pyramids of Giza were Egyptians and that they were not slaves as some archaeologists have claimed," Hawass declared. "They prepared the tombs just like they did for the pyramids complex, with the funerary temple to the east of the pyramids and a causeway leading from it to an offering basin at the foot of the causeway," he said. "They prepared these tombs to last forever just like they would do for the queens and kings. Slaves would not do that." The tombs, located to the south of the Sphinx at the eastern foot of the three great pyramids, were built at the end of the 4th Dynasty in the reign of the pharaoh Khufu (Cheops). The upper-level tombs were built of solid limestone for technicians, craftsmen and artisans, along with their families. The lower-level tombs, made of less durable mudbrick and rock such as granite and basalt left over from pyramid construction, were built for the workmen who moved the huge stone blocks used for the great pyramids 4,600 years ago. Sometimes workers were buried with the supervisors in the upper-level tombs. Archaeologists have found curses inscribed in the tomb of a man named Pety and his wife, warning unwanted visitors that crocodiles would eat them if they entered the tomb. ANCIENT MEDICAL TREATMENT Hawass said that among the skeletons found at the site, 12 had broken arms, with wooden boards placed on them as splints. One was of a man with an amputated leg who lived for 14 years after completion of the pyramid. The skull of a man who survived for two years after that date showed signs of brain surgery. "These discoveries prove to us that medical treatment took place at the time and workers received good care," Hawass said. Workers were five to six feet (1.53 to 1.83 metres) tall and did not live past 35 years of age. Bilharzia, a disease still prevalent in Egypt that is caused by parasitic worms and transmitted from water-snails, was the commonest cause of death. Archaeological evidence showed the workers wore clothes very similar to the traditional garb of Egyptian farm workers. "Men used to dress in galabiyas, or flowing robes, tied around the waist and held sticks in their hands just as peasant workers dress today," Hawass said. He said the cemeteries and settlements indicated that the workforce that constructed the pyramids was smaller than the 100,000 workers estimated by some researchers. "Around 20,000 workers helped build the Giza pyramids based on the size of the settlements we discovered," Hawass argued. Near one causeway, archaeologists found an unfinished double statue of a man and a woman with the man's right foot placed in front of the left, reversing the normal pattern. "In ancient Egyptian times, statues were built with the man's left foot placed in front of the right symbolising him leaving home to go to work, while the woman's two feet were placed side by side symbolising her place in the home. "This discovery shows that this statue was constructed by an unprofessional craftsman and had a flaw, which explains why it was placed in the workers' tombs," Hawass said.

I'm not surprised that the current observation is that the Pyramids weren't consctructed by slaves. In one of my history classes I remember the teacher saying that Egypt was not a slave society, as the later classical cultures of the Greeks and the Romans would be.

This is true. Motivation is important (so is staying alive)... Never did think that sort of construct could have been accomplished with slaves.

Ancient gold treasure found By Ramdutt Tripathi in Lucknow Indian archaeologists say that gold treasure found early this month in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh could be highly significant. The treasure belongs to the Indus Valley civilisation and may be about 5,000 years old. A farmer in the village of Mandi in Muzaffarnagar district found the treasure while levelling his field. Archaeologists are now planning a proper excavation of the site, in the hope of finding more about the lost civilisation of Harappa and Mohenjo-daro. Accidental discovery The treasure was in some containers found buried in the field. It is believed that a part of the treasure was removed by the land owners and other villagers. Later, the authorities managed to recover about 10kg of the jewellery. A joint team of the state's Department of Archaeology (DoA) and the federal Archaeological Survey of India inspected the materials. Precious jewellery DoA Director Rakesh Tewari said the jewellery found from the site comprises mainly beads made of gold, banded agate, onyx and other semi-precious stones. Two copper containers, one circular in shape and the other rectangular, were also found. Mr Tewari says that this material is comparable to the jewellery found from the Harappan phase of Lothal and Mohenjo-daro. There are several sites related to the Indus Valley civilisation in Pakistan and India, but Mr Tewari says this is the first time that such a huge quantity of gold jewellery has been recovered . Archaeological significance This also means that the area of the Indus civilisation is much larger than previously presumed. In his report to the government, Mr Tewari has emphasised that the new site is of great archaeological significance. He has recommended further investigation of the Mandi village site. The report also says that the residents of Mandi village are curious about the gold and may try to dig the site up again. The district administration has deployed the police force to protect the site. http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_797000/797151.stm

In the Guatemalan jungle, a Brigham Young University professor has unearthed one of the most significant pieces of Mayan culture ever discovered -- a rock panel scrawled with hieroglyphics about a coldhearted warrior who ruled a city. "It's easily one of the biggest panels ever found of this sort," said BYU anthropology professor Stephen Houston. "It probably is the champion panel." The professor and other archaeologists discovered the slab April 15 while digging at a Mayan excavation site once called Piedras Negas in the northwest part of Guatemala. The limestone slate is believed to be more than 1,200 years old and was originally placed at the top of a pyramid that was the burial site of the city's ruler, King Itsam K'anahk, who reigned from 639 to 686, more than 800 years before Columbus sailed to America. The dig, which started in 1997, is run and funded in part by BYU, the Guatemalan university Universidad del Valle, and the National Geographic Society. The stone tablet is 7 feet by 5 feet, about a foot thick and weighs so much -- 3,500 pounds -- that it had to be airlifted out by helicopter. It is now on display at the national museum in Guatemala City. The panel was found at the base of one of two pyramids next to the acropolis, the city's palace, and has more than 100 hieroglyphics. The carved writings surround a scene in which horrified captives are brought before the king. "You can see them moaning and screaming, and they're kind of clutching themselves in terror," said Houston, who helped decipher Mayan hieroglyphics at Yale University before moving to BYU in 1994. "In contrast, the king and his two head warriors are shown with an utter lack of emotion." In other words, Houston said, don't mess with those three. Houston described the Mayans of that time as "brutally warlike." After all, they would sacrifice humans by chucking them down the steep 100-foot pyramid stairs. But they were "paradoxical," he said. "You have this brutally warlike people, but you have this exquisite art style. They would be sniffing bouquets of flowers but think nothing of throwing captives down bloody pyramid steps. This is what makes them so alluring and strange." The panel, which most likely was commissioned by the king's son, was sculpted to be a central symbol for the city and the king's burial at the bottom of the pyramid, Houston explained. "This tomb marked by this panel would have been the most striking feature in the royal palace," he said. "It's encapsulating his life as a warrior. He seems to be very proud of the misery he is causing to his enemies." George Stuart, an expert in Mayan culture in North Carolina and former vice president of research and exploration for the National Geographic Society, agrees the find is important. "It's really rare to find them in good shape, and they were lucky this time," he said. "This seems to be one of the biggest ones and one of the more interesting because of the inscription on it. It's nice to find a record of someone's reign." The slab apparently toppled down the pyramid after a warring kingdom called Yaxchian invaded the city sometime in the year 800. While smashing the palace, the enemy must have struck the panel down. "It slid down from the top of the pyramid on what must have been a wild toboggan run to the base," Houston said. "We were fortunate because it had fallen face down. If it had fallen face up, all of the hieroglyphics would have eroded." Houston and staff archaeologist Ernesto Arrendondo discovered the slab buried only 10 to 15 inches below dirt and loose stone. "I stuck my hand in to feel the hieroglyphics, and I knew we had something amazing," Houston said. In three years, Houston and Guatemalan archaeologists have unearthed hundreds of ceramics, jewelry, tools made of bone, and figurines from the site, which is surrounded by rain forest and is a four hour hike and mule ride to the nearest town. And because of the nearly constant rain the rest of the year, they can excavate only from March through May. "Otherwise, it's like digging fudge," Houston said. Last season, there were 25 archaeologists and 85 workers at the site, but they might not have the funding to continue next year. "This site has one of the richest and most beautiful collections of Mayan culture," Houston said. "This panel is the cap of the dig. This is what we had hoped to find. This is why I do this. It's an experience not a lot of people have." http://www.sltrib.com/2000/Jun/06242000/utah/61570.htm

Leonardo's second sitting for Last Supper FROM RICHARD OWEN IN ROME A HITHERTO unknown second version of The Last Supper which Italian art experts believe Leonardo da Vinci painted two years after his masterpiece has come to light in a parish church near Milan. The fresco, to be unveiled today so that international art experts may examine it, includes a self-portrait which suggests that the Renaissance master had a squint. After the fresco was painted in the 15th century in the apse of the Church of San Rocco at Inzago, a small town northeast of Milan, it was partly plastered over. Those sections of the painting which remained visible were later obscured by an "undistinguished" 18th century altarpiece. Father Davide Mazzucchelli, the parish priest, said that he had been struck by the "sheer beauty" of the head of Christ in the fresco after he took over the parish ten years ago. He called in Massimo Peron, a restorer from Varese, who in 1998 began cleaning and repairing the painting, which has been dated to 1499. Experts from the office of the Superintendent of Arts in Milan believe that it is by Leonardo's workshop, with "key contributions", including the heads of Christ and the apostles, by the master himself. Martin Kemp, Professor of the History of Art at Oxford University and a leading authority on Leonardo said that in 1499, the year Milan was invaded by the French, Leonardo was "never in one place for long", and had returned to Florence by the next year. Professor Kemp said he could not give an opinion without seeing the fresco, but it was "plausible" that Leonardo had allowed his workshop to complete the design. In a trick of perspective which suggests a painter of high calibre, the fresco, measuring about 19 square yards, is painted on a curved wall, although the table appears to be a perfect rectangle. The "supper" in the painting includes potatoes, confirming a date after 1493, when potatoes were introduced to Europe from newly discovered America. There are also two-pronged forks, a sophistication known to have been introduced by the court of Duke Ludovico Sforza, the Duke of Milan. Some restorers are convinced an Apostle on the far left of the painting is a self-portrait of Leonardo with long, silver hair and a pronounced squint. "The left eye is looking at Christ but the right one looks straight out at us" Father Mazzucchelli said. "This may finally explain why Leonardo painted the world the way he did". Another clue is that none of the figures has a halo, one of Leonardo's "signatures". Leonardo (1452-1519), who began his career in Florence, entered the service of the Duke of Milan in 1482, deploying his genius not only as a painter and sculptor but also as architect, military and hydraulic engineer, town planner, and organiser of sumptuous court entertainments. In his 18 years in Milan he was thought to have produced only six paintings, including The Last Supper. Last year it was unveiled after a controversial 20-year restoration, with critics noting that restorers had "filled in gaps" and only 20 per cent of the work could be said to be "original". Father Mazzucchelli said experts had used computer imaging and infrared techniques to compare the heads in the Inzago fresco with those in Milan, and had concluded they were "by the same hand". more....http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/tim/2000/06/24/timfnffnf01002.html