Archaeologica.org

The Circus Maximus as it looks today...




and in its time.

Beagle,
Sorry for the mix up, but the Picts weren't in Yorkshire, it was the Parisii. I went off at a bit of a tangent.
Minimalist,
Great to see an archaeology site overloaded.!

Rk - no one is more tangential than myself I think.

And it was said earlier on this thread that these circular structures that we're talking about seem to be a sort of cultural continuity all across Europe. And as you said, I think, the circle is the most effective way to guard the most space with the simplest amount of energy.

Both are true I think. I'm wondering if the culture we're discussing in central Europe would also eventually become the "Beaker people" of the UK.

I'm wondering if the culture we're discussing in central Europe would also eventually become the "Beaker people" of the UK

no, they were the ones who built the bosnian 'pyramid' as a lookout post, to help guard europe from the invading hordes of aliens.

I had to read that a couple of times to make sure you were joking.

I had to read that a couple of times to make sure you were joking

yes i was and i thought a little levity was needed

Well, my thought about the "beaker people" doesn't hold water. I thought the culture was earlier.

http://www.themystica.com/mystica/artic ... eople.html

Also it appears that they migrated from a different part of Europe.

my thought about the "beaker people" doesn't hold water. I thought the culture was earlier.

nice pun. are they the civilization that came up with the laboratory equipment? (beakers)

any more information on that structure and civilization yet?

http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article1205976.ece

This from Archaeologica:

I really like this article for the facts. I think it pretty silly in it's speculations.

Professor Burl's best guess on their purpose is a mixture of propitiation of the crop gods and sexual and alcoholic-psychedelic orgies.

Sounds like Woodstock.

Minimalist wrote: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..............

To archaeologists, civilization means a culture with cities, a class structure, etc. I don't understand your comments about Stonehenge, there was certainly a culture capable of building it at the time it was built.
In fact, hunter-gatherer cultures were capable of buildiing some impressive monuments.

As for Schoch, you seem to be dismissing all the geologists who disagree with him and suggest other mechanisms for the erosion marks. Why?

there was certainly a culture capable of building it at the time it was built.

what were they called ?

In fact, hunter-gatherer cultures were capable of buildiing some impressive monuments.

As for Schoch, you seem to be dismissing all the geologists who disagree with him and suggest other mechanisms for the erosion marks. Why?

Are they? The theory I have always heard is that h/g groups are generally too small for any sort of building project, tend to move which lessens the need for permanent structures and finally do not have the free time after meeting their subsistence needs.

It takes agriculture to provide the work force, the need to mark a specific place and the food surplus. That seems quite rational to me.

The only person I've seen call Schoch a flat out liar was Lehner who crumpled pieces of the sphinx while over his shoulder were the vertical fissures that Schoch was talking about. Lehner should stick to Egyptology.

The only other report I read was a geologist whose name escapes me and while he quibbled about dates he certainly seemed to agree with Schoch's position that the sphinx pre-dated the 4th Dynasty.

It either rained or it didn't. The Egyptology Club, whining to protect their reputations, does not change that basic fact.

Beagle wrote:Well, my thought about the "beaker people" doesn't hold water. I thought the culture was earlier.

http://www.themystica.com/mystica/artic ... eople.html

Also it appears that they migrated from a different part of Europe.

And current thought is that it wasn't a 'people migrating' but ideas and associated artefacts, see for istance:
http://www.le.ac.uk/archaeology/rug/AR2 ... beaker.htm
"It is doubtful that there is one area of origin for the Beaker remains
(Harrison, 1980; 9-15). Early comparisons of the skull types were done
on an unscientific basis. The dichotomy is not as clear cut as many
thought, and on Anglesey people buried with Beakers seem to have been
longheaded (Muir & Welfare, 1983; 101). Other supposed aspects of
"Beaker Culture" have also been not to be exclusive either. If the users
of the Beaker assemblage were not a coherent group, then perhaps there
was no Beaker invasion, but a spread of Beaker ideas though prehistoric
Europe and into Britain via trade contacts which stimulated a native
development of Stone circles."

answer the question buddy

you claim to know all about it

there was certainly a culture capable of building it at the time

what were they called
what race were they ?
Celts ?
Gaels ?
Picts ?