Archaeologica.org

Atlanteans?

Bosnians??

First mention of the Picts wasn't until the 3rd century AD. The name "Gaels" was used by the population of Britain-and Celtic Scotland in particular- to denote settlers from Ireland after AD600. The Celts were known to have been in Britain from the early 1st millennium BC, but we don't know exactly when they reached here.
One thing is sure though; whoever built Stonehenge, it wasn't any of the above.

lemurians ?
aliens ?

marduk wrote:

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

what were they called ?

Which Stonehenge? There were no Picts anywhere near Stonehenge, why bring them into it?

who were the picts Doug and what time did they arrive in the british isles and from where ?

Apparently Britain is covered by circular-ditch enclosures

The circular ditch enclosures are generally called henges. There are many across the UK and Europe which date from the Neolithic and the Bronze Age (of which the beaker period is a seperate period between the Neolithic and Bronze age - it refers to a widespread culture - try reading the Beaker Folk by R J Harrison which is one of my textbooks from university).

Iron Age barrows and ditches tend to be squarer than their oval or round predecessors.

A good place to start for Neolithic/Bronze Age culture is 'Understanding the Neolithic' by Julian Thomas and gives a good up to date overview of current thinking..

best,
Mel

Minimalist wrote:

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.

Are you sure Lehner said Schoch was a liar? I haven't heard of anyone calling him a liar over this.

Colin Reader thinks the Sphinx is about 4 centuries older than the accepted dates, he definitely disagrees with Schoch.

Of course it rained. It still rains there heavily at times although my guess is you didn't know that.

Here are some of the articles by geologists who disagree with Schoch
Chowdhury, A.N., A.R. Punuru, and K.L. Gauri, 1990. Weathering of
Limestone Beds at the Great Sphinx; _Environmental Geology and
Water Science_, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 217-225.

Gauri, K.L., A.N. Chowdhury, N.P. Kulshreshtha, and A. R. Punuru,
1990.Geologic Features and Durability of Limestones at the Sphinx;
_Environmental Geology and Water Science_, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp.
57-62.

Gauri, K. L., J.J. Sinai, and J.K. Bandyopadhyay, 1995. Geologic
Weathering and its Implications on the Age of the Sphinx;
_Geoarchaeology_, Vol 10, No. 2, pp. 119-133.

Punuru, A.R., A.N. Chowdhury, N.P. Kulshreshtha, and K.L. Gauri, 1990.
Control of Porosity on Durability of Limestones at the Great
Sphinx,Egypt; _Environmental Geology and Water Science_, Vol. 15,
No. 3, pp. 225-232.

Harrell, J. A., 1994. The Sphinx Controversy: Another Look at the
Geologic Evidence; _KMT_, vol 5., pp. 70-74.

And see the articles on these sites (the 2nd site includes some stuff by Schoch)

http://www.hallofmaat.com/modules.php?name=Topics

http://www.antiquityofman.com/pseudoscience.html

Marduk,
The Romans were the first to make reference to the Picts in the 3rd century AD. They are reckoned to be those Celtic tribes in Scotland which retreated into the Highlands when the Romans first appeared, to avoid subjugation. The Picts retained their identity through Gael, Viking & Anglo-Saxon incursions/settlements until after AD1000, when successive Scottish kings started to exercise sovereignty & weld the country into one unified kingdom.

The Romans were the first to make reference to the Picts in the 3rd century AD. They are reckoned to be those Celtic tribes in Scotland which retreated into the Highlands when the Romans first appeared, to avoid subjugation. The Picts retained their identity through Gael, Viking & Anglo-Saxon incursions/settlements until after AD1000, when successive Scottish kings started to exercise sovereignty & weld the country into one unified kingdom.

The picts are an ancient pre celtic people
they started off in the North of scotland wales and ireland
Life in Britain predates the romans and the celts by quite a margin
the Celts arrived around 2000bce
and the picts were already here
in many cases Celtic gods are in fact of pictish origin

marduk wrote: The picts are an ancient pre celtic people
they started off in the North of scotland wales and ireland
Life in Britain predates the romans and the celts by quite a margin
the Celts arrived around 2000bce
and the picts were already here
in many cases Celtic gods are in fact of pictish origin

No they're not. Go read;
Picts, Gaels & Scots by Sally Foster
The Ancient Celts by Barry Cunliffe
The Celtic World by Miranda Green
and have a look at:
http://www.postroman.info/Bookstore/pictbooks.html
http://www.holyrood.org.uk/picts/
http://www.scottishweb.net/history/pict ... _picts.htm
Of course life in Britain predates the Roman occupation, but it sure as hell wasn't initiated by the Picts, regardless to how many New Age history books you've read. The Picts evolved from the Celts, not the other way round.

The Picts evolved from the Celts, not the other way round.

Laughable

And you know better than the three published historians I just mentioned?! Dream on!
You base that statement on what, exactly?

Oh cool! The limeys are arguing. I always heard that ya'll were very polite people. What happened to you two? (I'm just going around stirring up shit today, don't mind me I'm just picking at ya'll.)

Bloody colonials!!

RK Awl-O'Gist wrote:Bloody colonials!!

Hey this ain't been a colony for over 200 years. We won....remember?