Archaeologica.org

Looking forward to it (and the posts!)

Ideally, if one is going to build a fort it should be near a water source and on the highest ground possible. The water source is obvious and the elevation is a complicating factor for an attacker. Competent military leaders should be able to figure that out.



Of course, Bush would build one in a gully in a desert!

I read a book recently called "Woodhenge," which
dealt with prehistoric British archaeology...(iron age, I think). Apparently Britain is covered by circular-ditch enclosures ..THe author seemed to think that some of these places were ritual meeting places...no one lived there, but the various tribes gathered there for ritual observances. Lots of post holes were found in them. Excavations of the ditches
revealed burials of various objects.
He didn't see them as forts.

THese circular "enclosures" must be typical of
Europe as a whole, not just the strip this thread is dealing with.

Am I missing something? Mayber these central European sites are bigger?

Thanks. I guess we're way off topic talking about the Celts and their forts

i don't think so since fortifications came up. even if that structure is not a fort, it doesn't mean it automatcally qualifies as a temple. even if you look at our modern buildings, how many churches look like other structures and vice versea?

for all we know, it could have been a community gathering place, an astronomy observation point, a theater. creativity in design is not limited to the modern age.

i think we give too little ingenuity credit to ancient man, we just assume that their cognitive powers were very limited yet in viewing the cave drawings we see that artistic ability was present.

this thing may be a temple but i just don't think we can make a blanket statement saying that their religion governed every aspect of their life.

The point is that a circle is the easiest way to enclose the maximum amount of land with the minimum of effort. Any group of people with limited knowledge and technology is always going to go for the easy option.
Stan,
You're right about Britain being covered in round ditch monuments. But Dark Age Scotland (in the time of the Picts) has square ditches around barrows and other monuments. The interrupted square ditch is almost characteristic of the Picts.

Stonehenge does not look like a fort.

It doesn't even have the functional look of a halfway useful corral.

But, the monument suffers from the same problem as the others... scholars do not believe there was any sort of civilization in place at the time it was built with the requisite organizational skills to build it.

BTW, this is the same argument that Egyptologists use against Schoch when he says that the sphinx is much older than the 4th Dynasty. Yet, there it sits with erosion marks on the enclosure wall..............

BTW, some of you may find this interesting.

From the New York State Museum, a reconstruction of Iroquois village life with some useful sketches of their type of village.

http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/IroquoisVilla ... geone.html



Not trying to denigrate the findings from Europe but only to show that there are always alternatives.

Right on about Stonehenge. And it does seem like the subject has evolved a bit into a discussion of ancient circular structures.

With aerial archaeology, and now landsat, more and more of them are being found, along with roads, ancient waterways, and huge agricultural fields in South America.

I think one factor in deciding what a circular structure's intended use is should be whether or not it was occupied 24/7. If people live in it, then it's probably a defensive fortification. If not, it may be a communal structure for religious or astronomical reasons.

You might find this interesting..
http://217.204.41.132/cgi/NGoto/2/144056045?2760
It mentions the square barrows I spoke about, along with other things.

RK Awl-O'Gist wrote:You might find this interesting..
http://217.204.41.132/cgi/NGoto/2/144056045?2760
It mentions the square barrows I spoke about, along with other things.

Hey RK, who the hell are they kidding?

Site busy

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The NewsNow site is currently very busy, and the page you requested is not available.

Please try again later.

If the problem persists, please tell us.

It's working fine now, Bob. That link is from the Council for British Archaeology's newsfeed, and it does occasionally happen.

I had the same problem at 10:14 pm Eastern time.

Happy holiday weekend to all us Yanks here.

I read it a couple of minutes ago, and then went back to get a quote and couldn't get in.
Thanks RK. Seems like every time a road is built over in England they find something archaeological.

Anyway this is a rectangular barrow that enclosed a cemetary. Obviously not a fortification of any kind. The Picts were an interesting people.

I got in, RK. I'm delighted to see that there are enough archaeology fans to actually overload a web site.

I'm delighted to see that there are enough archaeology fans to actually overload a web site

nice link and i am wondering if this circle structure could be a sports stadium of some sort? i realize stands are missing but i do recall that aztec arenas were circulae or oblongish.

i guess i am looking for alternatives to classifying it as a temple