Archaeologica.org

Significant new paper .
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/05/09/135962
https://www.mpg.de/11953055/beaker-phenomenon?c=2249
Pop view . https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... tudy-shows

Well, now we know why the ancient Brtions replaced the tree trunks in their henges with big stones.
They were drunk.

The channel may have stopped Hitler,
but somehow these beaker folks got ships to cross.
Last week it was dark skinned folks,
this week it may be Spaniards, Frogs, or Krauts.

One has to consider what insights into the British "national character" the late Benny Hill would be making of all of this.
Let's see: the industriousness of the French... or is that the arrogance of the French...
and of course, the warmth of the Vikings...

E.P. Grondine wrote:Well, now we know why the ancient Brtions replaced the tree trunks in their henges with big stones.

It has been explained ,many times ,the vast majority of henges do not have stone or timber circles associated with them .

Tiompan wrote:

E.P. Grondine wrote:Well, now we know why the ancient Brtions replaced the tree trunks in their henges with big stones.

It has been explained ,many times ,the vast majority of henges do not have stone or timber circles associated with them .

"Stone or timber circles" What the hell are you trying to talk about, henges?
Henges are very different than "stone or timber circles'.

[quote="E.P. Grondine"
"Stone or timber circles" What the hell are you trying to talk about, henges?
Henges are very different than "stone or timber circles'.[/quote]

More gobbledygook .

Re-read " It has been explained ,many times ,the vast majority of henges do not have stone or timber circles associated with them ."
Think about it . "the vast majority henges do not have stone or timber circles associated with them" . What does that suggest ?

Tiompan wrote:What does that suggest ?

It suggests to me that you do not know what the hell a henge is,
and are desperately trying to come up with an alternative.

Whether this stupid obstinacy of yours is due to your German genetic loading or whether it is due to your beer consumption is another question.

I don't need to come up with an alternative . It is perfectly clear what a Henge is , you have been shown the proper definition countless times from multiple reliable sources .
Do you need to see the list yet again ?

In contrast you have made up your definition , and admitted as such , in fact you came up two different definitions .

Why didn't you explain the goobledygook ? "Henges are very different than "stone or timber circles'."
If you meant "from stone or timber circles " .Of course they are ,that is what you have been told /shown by example , for the past 8 years .
Here's your "definitions “ Henge = a large stone or wooden post set in astronomical alignment.“ 2)"Either stones or wooden posts set up in a circle, with those elements set up in astronomical alignments. “.

It has been explained ,many times ,the vast majority of henges do not have stone or timber circles associated with them ."
Think about it . "the vast majority henges do not have stone or timber circles associated with them" . What does that suggest ?
Do try to answer the question , or even better refute the comment . If you can . No breath will be held .

Maybe other cultures simply said "Hey! That's a great idea! Beats the hell out of sticking our faces into the lake every time we want a drink" And they copied it.

No patent laws back then.

Minimalist wrote:Maybe other cultures simply said "Hey! That's a great idea! Beats the hell out of sticking our faces into the lake every time we want a drink" And they copied it.

No patent laws back then.

It is us who have assigned the ascription ,mainly because the Beakers associated with the Beaker cultural package were distinct from earlier pottery (other folks' great idea e.g. corded ware , LBK etc ) ,
as was their use in funeral practices coupled with other components of the Beaker package . Even in the 1960's at the height of the acceptance of diffusion and scepticism towards "invasion " the package
was seen as distinct and likely to have come with peoples from the east . The genomic studies have now confirmed this .

tiompan wrote: It is us who have assigned the ascription

I do not have any problem with that ascription, as it makes great sense to me:
the cool intellect of an Italian, combined with the arrogance of a Frenchman.

E.P. Grondine wrote:
I do not have any problem with that ascription, as it makes great sense to me:
the cool intellect of an Italian, combined with the arrogance of a Frenchman.

The original ascription was by a Scot .

Tiompan wrote: The original ascription was by a Scot .

Who undoubtedly knew Englishmen very well.

He undoubtedly knew Swedes very well too and many other nationalities , so what ?

Tiompan wrote:He undoubtedly knew Swedes very well too and many other nationalities , so what ?

Colonel Oblivous strikes again.