12th March 2006, 10:32 PM
Dear Venutius and any of your interested comrades,
What do you mean by your question if I view the ?archaeological remains found on Ladybridge as an extension of the pits ? [and] hearths found ? [at] Nosterfield Area 1??
I think the pits and hearths found in a very wide area around the Henges suggest seasonal ritual/living activity, taking place over thousands of years in a wide area of ?ritual-landscape? around the Henges, in some way connected to the Henges.
When more pits are found (very few have been found so far), it would be an interesting study to see what % of the pits with secure dating evidence were in a position where the people who dug them could have had a direct view of the Henges.
To do this as big an area as possible would have to be protected from the destruction caused by quarries, ploughing and tourism etc and archaeology conducted over years and years (such as what has been occurring at Stonehenge).
To repeat myself
?It seems to me that the area around the Henges does contain valuable archaeology, which should continue to be studied and excavated over the coming years. Therefore, both the quarrying and deep ploughing should be stoped in the area even if it requires legal protection in the form of a new law.? (Posted - 19/11/2005 : 18:11:14) For the record I believe that a large area around the Henges should be the subject of a long-term study (similar to what is happening around Stonehenge) and that should begin ?now? i.e. as soon as possible.
And why should this study include excavation? Because we won?t be able to find anything out without it.
And why ?now?? Because the age-old human activity of altering the landscape will eventually (and in our speeded up world, sooner rather than later) destroy the remaining archaeology.
You might note that I also suggested careful reading of the evidence gathered in recent archaeological reports (what ever the conclusion of any report) could well help the campaign to save the Henges.
Hence I said, ?the protesters need to realise that the present dig at Nosterfield (even if one only judges it from its web page) is a neutral and professional operation, as likely to throw up evidence that can support their cause as it might produce evidence which can be used by the Quarry side.? (Posted - 19/11/2005 : 18:11:14)
I think preventing the ploughing should be a high priority for any campaign because the ploughing will destroy the archaeology quickly without any recording.
We cannot know what the future holds, current insane plans to build more and more roads could well continue and pressure on the land is sure to continue not to mention the coming effects of global warming. You only have to look at Australia to see how sheep and cows have destroyed vast tracts of land.?
Come on explain to me why my position of wanting to save the ritual landscape from quarrying and ploughing is so objectionable to you?
I really am genuinely puzzled.
And while you are about it, please outline clearly and politely your empirical arguments as to why you believe that I believe that ?so long as the developer can show the archaeology is being damaged, then a development should be allowed to go ahead regardless of its importance? and your statement that the archaeology I took part in at Nosterfield was ?shoddy?.
You really shouldn?t throw around such statements without carefully explaining your opinions. If you don?t explain why you think this then you risk being thought of as someone with a tendency to throw around unsupported insulting prejudicial statements.
Having taken part in hundreds of political campaigns over the years, I think its very important for a campaigner to be well informed, honest with the facts, able to give logical replies to alternative views (but as I said above I?m still not sure why you disagree with someone who agrees with you about the quarry) and its very important for them to be polite and refrain from personalised insults.
(Oh and Pixie, if you are still out there, are you going to ?elaborate? [see my last posting]?
Forgive me if I?m wrong but I feel you are behaving just like a politician (I apologise for being so insulting!).
Politicians never answer direct questions when they are threatened by the question and twist the facts (exaggerating, selectively quoting, and ?bending the stick?) to make facts fit their arguments.
I can see how you might think this an acceptable way to behave because in recent years it has been standard practice almost daily by politicians, interviewed by the media.
Now I will tell you why I think this is harmful to the person conducting arguments in this manner.
[Now this is my own personal philosophy, but indulge me].
I believe in the Aboriginal (and quite often mainstream Australian) concept of ?what goes around comes around? or put another way the Indian concept of ?Karma? or to use a Christian quote ?you reap what you sow?.
So if a person (such as a politician) knowingly twists the truth and is insulting to an opponent (for example Blair in his lies about Iraq) at some level the person knows what they are doing, and the resulting knowledge niggles and gnaws at their inner being causing them anger and resentment, which has a danger of leading to long-term psychological and physical harm.
So for the sake of your ?Karma?, your conscience, your sense of right and wrong or depending your outlook on life, perhaps your soul!
[.Note reference to your soul is a joke], come clean and in clear, simple, polite English stop avoiding my perfectly reasonable questions.
Awaiting your reply, with great expectation, yours totally and honestly sincerely,
Arthus.
Arthus
What do you mean by your question if I view the ?archaeological remains found on Ladybridge as an extension of the pits ? [and] hearths found ? [at] Nosterfield Area 1??
I think the pits and hearths found in a very wide area around the Henges suggest seasonal ritual/living activity, taking place over thousands of years in a wide area of ?ritual-landscape? around the Henges, in some way connected to the Henges.
When more pits are found (very few have been found so far), it would be an interesting study to see what % of the pits with secure dating evidence were in a position where the people who dug them could have had a direct view of the Henges.
To do this as big an area as possible would have to be protected from the destruction caused by quarries, ploughing and tourism etc and archaeology conducted over years and years (such as what has been occurring at Stonehenge).
To repeat myself
?It seems to me that the area around the Henges does contain valuable archaeology, which should continue to be studied and excavated over the coming years. Therefore, both the quarrying and deep ploughing should be stoped in the area even if it requires legal protection in the form of a new law.? (Posted - 19/11/2005 : 18:11:14) For the record I believe that a large area around the Henges should be the subject of a long-term study (similar to what is happening around Stonehenge) and that should begin ?now? i.e. as soon as possible.
And why should this study include excavation? Because we won?t be able to find anything out without it.
And why ?now?? Because the age-old human activity of altering the landscape will eventually (and in our speeded up world, sooner rather than later) destroy the remaining archaeology.
You might note that I also suggested careful reading of the evidence gathered in recent archaeological reports (what ever the conclusion of any report) could well help the campaign to save the Henges.
Hence I said, ?the protesters need to realise that the present dig at Nosterfield (even if one only judges it from its web page) is a neutral and professional operation, as likely to throw up evidence that can support their cause as it might produce evidence which can be used by the Quarry side.? (Posted - 19/11/2005 : 18:11:14)
I think preventing the ploughing should be a high priority for any campaign because the ploughing will destroy the archaeology quickly without any recording.
We cannot know what the future holds, current insane plans to build more and more roads could well continue and pressure on the land is sure to continue not to mention the coming effects of global warming. You only have to look at Australia to see how sheep and cows have destroyed vast tracts of land.?
Come on explain to me why my position of wanting to save the ritual landscape from quarrying and ploughing is so objectionable to you?
I really am genuinely puzzled.
And while you are about it, please outline clearly and politely your empirical arguments as to why you believe that I believe that ?so long as the developer can show the archaeology is being damaged, then a development should be allowed to go ahead regardless of its importance? and your statement that the archaeology I took part in at Nosterfield was ?shoddy?.
You really shouldn?t throw around such statements without carefully explaining your opinions. If you don?t explain why you think this then you risk being thought of as someone with a tendency to throw around unsupported insulting prejudicial statements.
Having taken part in hundreds of political campaigns over the years, I think its very important for a campaigner to be well informed, honest with the facts, able to give logical replies to alternative views (but as I said above I?m still not sure why you disagree with someone who agrees with you about the quarry) and its very important for them to be polite and refrain from personalised insults.
(Oh and Pixie, if you are still out there, are you going to ?elaborate? [see my last posting]?
Forgive me if I?m wrong but I feel you are behaving just like a politician (I apologise for being so insulting!).
Politicians never answer direct questions when they are threatened by the question and twist the facts (exaggerating, selectively quoting, and ?bending the stick?) to make facts fit their arguments.
I can see how you might think this an acceptable way to behave because in recent years it has been standard practice almost daily by politicians, interviewed by the media.
Now I will tell you why I think this is harmful to the person conducting arguments in this manner.
[Now this is my own personal philosophy, but indulge me].
I believe in the Aboriginal (and quite often mainstream Australian) concept of ?what goes around comes around? or put another way the Indian concept of ?Karma? or to use a Christian quote ?you reap what you sow?.
So if a person (such as a politician) knowingly twists the truth and is insulting to an opponent (for example Blair in his lies about Iraq) at some level the person knows what they are doing, and the resulting knowledge niggles and gnaws at their inner being causing them anger and resentment, which has a danger of leading to long-term psychological and physical harm.
So for the sake of your ?Karma?, your conscience, your sense of right and wrong or depending your outlook on life, perhaps your soul!
[.Note reference to your soul is a joke], come clean and in clear, simple, polite English stop avoiding my perfectly reasonable questions.Awaiting your reply, with great expectation, yours totally and honestly sincerely,
Arthus.
Arthus