For all those interested in the archaeology of South West Britain
-
Matthew Law
- Male
- Yeovil, Somerset, UK
- Share
- Blog Posts (3)
- Discussions
- Events
- Photos (9)
- Photo Albums
- Videos
Matthew Law's Page
Gifts Received
Matthew Law has not received any gifts yet
About Me:
I am an editor of WikiArc - The Wiki Archaeological Information Resourcewhich always welcomes new contributors.
The results of my archaeomalacological analyses are all online in a fully searchable database here
Matthew Law's Photos
Matthew Law's Blog
Survey of UK Professional Field Archaeologists
Posted on December 7, 2008 at 3:22pm —
(Modern) Snails from Henlade, Somerset
Posted on December 6, 2008 at 7:55pm —
Welcome to WestArch!
Welcome to the West Country Archaeologists network. I'm hoping this will turn out to be a useful forum for people to discuss issues of mutual interest to everyone with an interest in the archaeology of the region, and also to make announcements, share information and generally get to know other people with similar interests!
Posted on June 25, 2008 at 4:08pm —
About
Badge
© 2009 Created by Matthew Law on Ning. Create Your Own Social Network
Comment Wall (4 comments)
You need to be a member of West Country Archaeologists to add comments!
Join this social network
I wanted to comment on Geoff’s blog re timber circles and Mike PP’s ideas.
I am sure Mike doesn’t need me to defend his ideas but for what it is worth, I have worked with Mike in the past and closely followed the Stonehenge Riverside Project, his ideas appear to me to be as considered and solid as any other archaeologist I have worked with (there have been quite a few) and far more so than some, I would have thought that the success of the SRP speaks for its self. Not the least of his attributes is he is enthusiastic and good to work with and has respect for others work, and importantly for mine too.
I am working my way though Theoretical Structural Archaeology, enjoying it and agreeing with a lot of the points made particularly on the interpretation or lack of interpretation of many aspects of sites with post holes and other sites in general particularly the preconceptions of excavators and simplistic or wrong explanations (or no explanation) trotted out to the public.
However the part of the proper study of mankind is post holes concerning timber circles particularly Durrington and Woodhenge I think is wrong. There is a good explanation of the changing interpretation of these monuments in Alex Gibson’s Stonehenge and Timber Circles chapter 6 and in Mike Pitt’s Henge World. Maud Cunnington the excavator of Woodhenge and the Sanctuary considered that woodhenge was the prototype for Stonehenge of free standing posts possibly with lintels echoing earlier views on Stonehenge’s “imitation of wooden architecture” and was also not convinced that the Sanctuary was roofed and Grahame Clark concluded that Arminghall was an open air temple . The roofed hypothesis had been proposed for Woodhenge by Cunnington’s nephew and much later by Stuart Piggot in 1940 drawing analogy with Brazilian round houses and Omaha Native American lodges but didn’t think this relevant to all timber circles. True the excavator of Durrington Geof Wainwright in the 60’s did go with the roofed building theory but in the Durrington Walls report Chris Musson although considering roofed building forms for Woodhenge, Durrington south and north and the Sanctuary concludes that “ the best hope for an all- embracing explanation lies in the idea of ritual or symbolic settings of free standing posts”.
In the usual calculations for interpreting the depth/height/diameter and function of the posts at Durrington and Woodhenge the depth of the largest rings of posts appear to be to a greater depth than would be nesseccary for a roofed building, the roof structure adding greater stability to the posts, but their depth is explained if they are interpreted as free standing with that extra need for stability.
Alex Gibson excavated Sarn y brn caled and considered it to be freestanding and linteled this emphasising the circularity of the arrangement.
The Riverside Project has recently produced further information for Durrington which makes the roofed theory unlikely for the S. Circle. There is no evidence of erosion due to the amount of water runoff which would come from such a large roof, the north western side of the circle is definitely incomplete in rows 2A and 2B in the area excavated to see if there was a rear entrance, this unfinished character making a roof unlikely. There is a tantalising possibility that a tree throw which occupies the position of the “missing” posts and contains worked flint possibly deliberately deposited , contained a standing tree incorporated into the circle or that the throw was surrounded by posts.
Then there is my own contribution to the debate for what it is worth (depending on whether you think reconstruction illustration/art influences archaeological thought) this I came up with when drawing a pen and ink illustration for Mike Parker Pearson’s Bronze Age Britain in 1992/93. I drew 4 different reconstructions of the south timber circle at Durrington they were based on the various theories proposed already, however these timber circles fascinated me and I spent many hours reading the Durrington volume and particularly pouring over the plans of the circles. It occurred to me that after the enormous entrance posts lead you into the circle the route to the centre was blocked by the posts 84 and 95 of rows D and C which lead you to the left in a clockwise and sun wise route between these rows. Since the idea of the free standing theory seemed more likely to me, Stonehenge was not roofed so why should timber versions of the same type of structure and if there were lintels as at Stonehenge then if you put lintels on the posts of the processional route this gave an extra sense of direction and force to the route it also fitted with the partial rammed chalk path on that route. Mike was ok with this idea and later showed me an article from I think Current Archaeology on Alex Gibbon’s reconstruction of Sarn y brn caled with lintels and pointing out how they enhanced the circularity of the monument which is certainly the case. So I think I may have been the first to suggest this route through the timbers.
Later in 1993 I did a colour eyelevel reconstruction of the Durrington South circle for the Grimes Graves guide which I suggested to the author as an example of the enormous constructions undertaken with flint and stone axes, this reconstruction has been used over and over again in EH books, guide books, exhibitions, other publications on the Neolithic and to illustrate the discovery of the massive (timber) rings at Stanton Drew in all the quality press in 1996. It also shows the circle with that same route accentuated by the use of lintels, due to the paintings use so many times and in so many types of media I hope this might have planted the idea elsewhere or got people to look again at what now appears to be the current interpretation amongst the experts.
The point is that no one has been suggesting that because the structure was probably not roofed this makes the structure less sophisticated or complex in fact they seem far more so, or that the people that built this and similar massive undertakings were a bit thick because they couldn’t get out of the rain and cold. The uncovering of the possibly hundreds of sophisticated and high status dwellings surrounding the circles at Durrington suggests that they could have open air ritual and a degree of comfort.
Ps it is on the left, see if you can find one!
Or; Timber Circles were large buildings(Woodhenge / durrington etc)
(in fact, any idea that Mike Parker-P** has had is wrong!)