Thursday 17 April 2014

Beyond Barrows

A free e-book which extensively examines the subject, and reminds me it isn't all about Wessex.

Beyond Barrows. Current research on the structuration and perception of the prehistoric landscape through monuments
by David Fontijn


  1. "often large barrows of the Bronze Age are usually situated in rows along ridges"

    and the conclusion to this fact is..... mumbo jumbo!

    Beyond Redemption.


  2. What was the conclusion and why was it mumbo jumbo ?

  3. "One general conclusion is the wide choice people had for dealing
    with the remains of the deceased (ibid. 2007b). An important aspect for the present discussion is that there are no indications that any of these burials were ever marked with visible or durable monuments like the barrows we encounter in later periods"

    Academic Mumbo Jumbo Sherlock!

    Answers no questions and states the bleeding obvious.


  4. You are conflating quotes from different papers , written by different authors writing about a different countries and different periods . The original quote is from a paper concerned with the Late Iron Age reuse of Bronze Age monuments in Scandanavia . The other is about mortuary practice in the Lower Rhine from 5500 BC - 2500 BC .
    Apart from these major problems the second quote which is supposed to be a conclusion , when it isn't ,and it also makes perfect sense ,if if understood .Thats six points of failure from that simple commnet . Beyond redemption ? I think you can get even more wrong with less syllables, with a bit of effort .
    PS ,do you really have to continue with the childish name games ?

  5. Two papers one school of thought!

    If more questions than answers makes "perfect sense" to you Sherlock, that's not a surprise, as you're no doubt well qualified in the nonsense of "mumbo jumbo".


  6. Two papers and two authors writing about different monuments in different countries ,different subjects and from different periods .
    You haven’t provide a conclusion from the first paper despite suggesting there was one . You failed to understand the content of the second quote despite it being perfectly simple and straightforward . The conclusion in the second quote was not even related to the subject matter of the first . Take more time with your reading Davis before putting your foot in it , and providing the real mumbo jumbo .


Comments welcome on fresh posts - you just need a Google account to do so.