Announcement

Collapse

Archeology 201 Guidelines

If Indiana Jones happened to be a member of Tweb, this is where he'd hang out.

Welcome to the Archeology forum. Were you out doing some gardening and dug up a relic from the distant past? would you like to know more about Ancient Egypt? Did you think Memphis was actually a city in Tennessee?

Well, for the answers to those and other burning questions you've found the right digs.

Our forum rules apply here too, if you haven't read them now is the time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Cerne Giant in Dorset dates from Anglo-Saxon times, analysis suggests

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • tabibito
    replied
    rogue06
    "Given your shock and doubt concerning that we've known for centuries who the intended audiences for the Gospels were"

    Can you perchance provide a link to the relevant thread - it might be relevant to upcoming studies.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    Is there some particular reason that you are ignoring that aside from Wiki I also provided sources from Oxford University Press, JSTOR and a few others?
    Is there some particular reason you failed to recognise your own source? I refer to Kelsey Jackson Williams, who is your "sources from Oxford University Press".

    And I found no JSTOR reference.


    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

    He was not a natural philosopher in the definition of a propensity for studying the natural world and the universe. As you seem to favour Wiki here is what it says about antiquarians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiquarian

    An antiquarian or antiquary (from the Latin: antiquarius, meaning pertaining to ancient times) is an aficionado or student of antiquities or things of the past. More specifically, the term is used for those who study history with particular attention to ancient artifacts, archaeological and historic sites, or historic archives and manuscripts.

    And as Kelsey Jackson Williams notes in the introduction to his biography of Aubrey: See page 7

    At the same time that classical antiquaries were defining their subjects of study with ever greater precision, antiquarian techniques were being deployed to reshape understandings of the ancient and medieval history of northern Europe. Scholars as diverse as George Hickes in England, Jean Jacques Chifflet in France, Ole Worm in Denmark, and Olof Rudbeck in Sweden used the tools forged by earlier generations of predominantly classically focused antiquaries to construct interpretations of the histories of non-classical civilizations. These scholars, like their predecessors, engaged with the full range of antiquarian subjects, from manuscripts, at the philological end of the spectrum, through the mixed media of coins and inscriptions, to a variety of artefacts, ruins, and sites at the archaeological end of antiquarian research. While engaged in an ongoing dialogue with antiquaries studying the classical world, these scholars built a more methodologically expansive toolbox in their pursuit of the non-classical past, liberally helping themselves to the practices not only of historians and philologists, but of natural philosophers and physicians. In Aubrey’s lifetime, a scholar could be described as an antiquary as a result of activities as diverse as editing saints’ lives and excavating prehistoric burial mounds, and could explain his findings with theoretical tools drawn from areas as widely separated as geology and comparative religion.

    [My emphasis].

    However, none of that eliminates the fact that you made an assumption about what your own Wiki link stated.
    Is there some particular reason that you are ignoring that aside from Wiki I also provided sources from Oxford University Press, JSTOR and a few others? Perhaps this is this another example of your trick of deliberately trying to misrepresent the evidence presented so you can pretend that you didn't end up with the proverbial egg on your face.

    This is hardly the first time you've tried to pull this.

    I provided, in order, what I found on the front page of the most cursory of checks.

    Further, your quote does not say that he wasn't a natural philosopher but rather indicates that he could also be called an antiquarian. You know, sort of like how Stephen Hawking is a scientist who could be described as a theoretical physicist. This binary black-and-white thinking of yours is exactly what got you in trouble in the discussion about "contradictions" in the Gospel Resurrection accounts and it's doing it again here.

    I just finished (?) a discussion in Natural Science where I delved pretty deeply into various natural philosophers stretching from the Medieval Ages up through the early 19th cent[1] and Aubrey's name popped up from time to time while I looked for secondary confirmation for various points.





    1. it involved how even some of the most religious of them such as a Galileo, Boyle and Newton, still insisted on employing what would much later be called methodological naturalism in their work. they had little time for invoked miracles to explain things.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    Given your shock and doubt concerning that we've known for centuries who the intended audiences for the Gospels were and many similar incidents of expressed ignorance of what should be the basics of a topic you sought to pontificate about... And I'm not the one posing as an actual historian


    And the utter arrogant ignorance rears its head yet again.

    Source: John Aubrey


    John Aubrey FRS (12 March 1626 – 7 June 1697) was an English antiquary, natural philosopher and writer.

    Source

    © Copyright Original Source



    Source: The Antiquary: John Aubrey's Historical Scholarship


    John Aubrey (1626–1697), antiquary, natural philosopher, and virtuoso...

    Source

    © Copyright Original Source



    Archiving the Inventor of the Archive: Scholarship traces the birth of the archive to natural philosophers like John Aubrey

    Source: John Aubrey


    John Aubrey (March 12 1626June 7 1697) was an English biographer, natural philosopher, antiquary and folklorist.

    Source

    © Copyright Original Source



    Source: The Natural History of Wiltshire by John Aubrey


    [*In the ABOUT JOHN AUBREY section:*]

    John Aubrey FRS was an English antiquary, natural philosopher and writer

    Source

    © Copyright Original Source



    Source: John Aubrey Mar 12, 1626 - Jun 7, 1697


    John Aubrey FRS was an English antiquary, natural philosopher and writer

    Source

    © Copyright Original Source



    Does this from the first page of a search for Aubrey natural philosopher suffice to demonstrate your ignorance in this matter or will you regale us with another round of desperate defensive pleading that we all have come to expect from you when you're shown to be wrong oh Ms. faux pas?

    Professional historian my... eye.
    He was not a natural philosopher in the definition of a propensity for studying the natural world and the universe. As you seem to favour Wiki here is what it says about antiquarians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiquarian

    An antiquarian or antiquary (from the Latin: antiquarius, meaning pertaining to ancient times) is an aficionado or student of antiquities or things of the past. More specifically, the term is used for those who study history with particular attention to ancient artifacts, archaeological and historic sites, or historic archives and manuscripts.

    And as Kelsey Jackson Williams notes in the introduction to his biography of Aubrey: See page 7

    At the same time that classical antiquaries were defining their subjects of study with ever greater precision, antiquarian techniques were being deployed to reshape understandings of the ancient and medieval history of northern Europe. Scholars as diverse as George Hickes in England, Jean Jacques Chifflet in France, Ole Worm in Denmark, and Olof Rudbeck in Sweden used the tools forged by earlier generations of predominantly classically focused antiquaries to construct interpretations of the histories of non-classical civilizations. These scholars, like their predecessors, engaged with the full range of antiquarian subjects, from manuscripts, at the philological end of the spectrum, through the mixed media of coins and inscriptions, to a variety of artefacts, ruins, and sites at the archaeological end of antiquarian research. While engaged in an ongoing dialogue with antiquaries studying the classical world, these scholars built a more methodologically expansive toolbox in their pursuit of the non-classical past, liberally helping themselves to the practices not only of historians and philologists, but of natural philosophers and physicians. In Aubrey’s lifetime, a scholar could be described as an antiquary as a result of activities as diverse as editing saints’ lives and excavating prehistoric burial mounds, and could explain his findings with theoretical tools drawn from areas as widely separated as geology and comparative religion.

    [My emphasis].

    However, none of that eliminates the fact that you made an assumption about what your own Wiki link stated.
    Last edited by Hypatia_Alexandria; 05-20-2021, 12:47 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    Given your latest faux pas both on this thread re the Littlington White Horse and your confusion over natural philosophers and antiquarians, along with your categorical statement that there was no evidence for Pontius Pilate "outside of Christian sources" I recommend you look in the mirror..
    Given your shock and doubt concerning that we've known for centuries who the intended audiences for the Gospels were and many similar incidents of expressed ignorance of what should be the basics of a topic you sought to pontificate about... And I'm not the one posing as an actual historian

    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    He was not a natural philosopher although he knew several. He was an antiquarian/antiquary. There is a distinct difference between the two interests and pursuits.
    And the utter arrogant ignorance rears its head yet again.

    Source: John Aubrey


    John Aubrey FRS (12 March 1626 – 7 June 1697) was an English antiquary, natural philosopher and writer.

    Source

    © Copyright Original Source



    Source: The Antiquary: John Aubrey's Historical Scholarship


    John Aubrey (1626–1697), antiquary, natural philosopher, and virtuoso...

    Source

    © Copyright Original Source



    Archiving the Inventor of the Archive: Scholarship traces the birth of the archive to natural philosophers like John Aubrey

    Source: John Aubrey


    John Aubrey (March 12 1626June 7 1697) was an English biographer, natural philosopher, antiquary and folklorist.

    Source

    © Copyright Original Source



    Source: The Natural History of Wiltshire by John Aubrey


    [*In the ABOUT JOHN AUBREY section:*]

    John Aubrey FRS was an English antiquary, natural philosopher and writer

    Source

    © Copyright Original Source



    Source: John Aubrey Mar 12, 1626 - Jun 7, 1697


    John Aubrey FRS was an English antiquary, natural philosopher and writer

    Source

    © Copyright Original Source



    Does this from the first page of a search for Aubrey natural philosopher suffice to demonstrate your ignorance in this matter or will you regale us with another round of desperate defensive pleading that we all have come to expect from you when you're shown to be wrong oh Ms. faux pas?

    Professional historian my... eye.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    You're my inspiration for that.
    Given your latest faux pas both on this thread re the Littlington White Horse and your confusion over natural philosophers and antiquarians, along with your categorical statement that there was no evidence for Pontius Pilate "outside of Christian sources" I recommend you look in the mirror..


    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    He would have been considered a "natural philosopher" which was essentially the term used for "scientist" back then
    He was not a natural philosopher although he knew several. He was an antiquarian/antiquary. There is a distinct difference between the two interests and pursuits.

    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    Your point especially given I specifically mentioned that they were geologists?
    Geologists are not antiquarians.

    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    I never said otherwise.
    You wrote that "it being Anglo-Saxon, which is what was first suggested back in the 17th cent".

    That statement is not supported by the text you cited from Wiki.

    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    The citation even makes it crystal clear that these 17th cent references "associated it,
    No it doesn't. The Wiki extract states that this site was first mentioned in the seventeenth century.

    The next sentence in that extract starts with "Early antiquarians associated it, on little evidence, with a Saxon deity". It gives no date for those "Early antiquarians". They may have been from the 1700s or later.

    You therefore made an unfounded assumption when you wrote "it being Anglo-Saxon, which is what was first suggested back in the 17th cent".

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    Once again your failure to check your facts is duly noted.
    You're my inspiration for that.

    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    He was not strictly a scientist in the later understanding of that term, to wit the science of archaeology.
    He would have been considered a "natural philosopher" which was essentially the term used for "scientist" back then. The term "scientist" won't be used for a couple of centuries, until the polymath William Whewell coined the word in the 1830s.

    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    Who were both, of course, geologists and born one hundred years after Aubrey's death.
    Your point especially given I specifically mentioned that they were geologists?

    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    All we know is that Aubrey never mentions it, which of course does not disprove the other seventeenth century references.
    You do have a way of stating the obvious.

    The question is why wouldn't he mention it.

    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    On re-reading your link [Wiki] I suspect you have once again become confused when you wrote " it being Anglo-Saxon, which is what was first suggested back in the 17th cent".

    The text you quoted actually makes no reference that during the seventeenth century there were suggestions to "it being Anglo-Saxon".
    I never said otherwise. The citation even makes it crystal clear that these 17th cent references "associated it, on little evidence, with a Saxon deity" and I even made sure to note that their view "wasn't a universally accepted assessment as you can see."

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    There are so many White Horses in the country that I was undoubtedly thinking of another
    Once again your failure to check your facts is duly noted.

    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    I'm familiar with him but never read anything by him. When it comes to reading the actual works of early scientists
    He was not strictly a scientist in the later understanding of that term, to wit the science of archaeology.

    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    I'm more familiar with the writings of geologists like Lyell and Sedgwick.
    Who were both, of course, geologists and born one hundred years after Aubrey's death.

    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    It is hard to guess and nothing but speculation without something more concrete to go on.
    All we know is that Aubrey never mentions it, which of course does not disprove the other seventeenth century references.

    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    The origin and age of the figure are unclear. Though it was often thought of as an ancient construction, the earliest mention of it dates to the late 17th century. Early antiquarians associated it, on little evidence, with a Saxon deity, while other scholars sought to identify it with a Romano-British figure of Hercules or some syncretisation of the two.
    On re-reading your link [Wiki] I suspect you have once again become confused when you wrote " it being Anglo-Saxon, which is what was first suggested back in the 17th cent".

    The text you quoted actually makes no reference that during the seventeenth century there were suggestions to "it being Anglo-Saxon".

    ​​​​​​​

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    I doubt he would have surveyed the Littlington White Horse - according to the English National Trust it was created in the nineteenth century. Are you confusing it with the Uffington White Horse?
    There are so many White Horses in the country that I was undoubtedly thinking of another

    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    Have you read Aubrey? He was, among other things, an Antiquary and folklorist and undertook field studies of ancient sites in both Wiltshire [his natal county] and Surrey. You may be aware of his surveys of both Stonehenge and Avebury.
    I'm familiar with him but never read anything by him. When it comes to reading the actual works of early scientists I'm more familiar with the writings of geologists like Lyell and Sedgwick.

    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    It is likely that the site at Cerne was overgrown but it seems surprising that if other 17th century individuals noted it, their writing never came to the attention of Aubrey.
    It is hard to guess and nothing but speculation without something more concrete to go on.


    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    I think that will all depend on what part of the 17th century did he explore that particular portion of the country since according to that Wiki quote earliest mention of it wasn't until the end of the century.

    Further, did Aubrey mention the similar Wilmington Giant or the Litlington White Horse, or did he not survey that part of southern England?
    I doubt he would have surveyed the Littlington White Horse - according to the English National Trust it was created in the nineteenth century. Are you confusing it with the Uffington White Horse?

    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    Basically the only immediate likely explanation that comes to mind is that it was overgrown -- maybe, even pretty much wilderness when Aubrey went through
    Have you read Aubrey? He was, among other things, an Antiquary and folklorist and undertook field studies of ancient sites in both Wiltshire [his natal county] and Surrey. You may be aware of his surveys of both Stonehenge and Avebury.

    It is likely that the site at Cerne was overgrown but it seems surprising that if other 17th century individuals noted it, their writing never came to the attention of Aubrey.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

    However, that raises the question why Aubrey makes no mention of any other contemporary accounts of this figure. He was personally acquainted with a wide variety of different individuals.
    I think that will all depend on what part of the 17th century did he explore that particular portion of the country since according to that Wiki quote earliest mention of it wasn't until the end of the century.

    Further, did Aubrey mention the similar Wilmington Giant or the Litlington White Horse, or did he not survey that part of southern England?

    Basically the only immediate likely explanation that comes to mind is that it was overgrown -- maybe, even pretty much wilderness when Aubrey went through

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    A century is a long time during which the landscape could have varied considerably. If someone went after a couple of wet years it might not have been noticeable, but if you went after a dry spell, it might be much more apparent.
    However, that raises the question why Aubrey makes no mention of any other contemporary accounts of this figure. He was personally acquainted with a wide variety of different individuals.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    If someone went after a couple of wet years it might not have been noticeable, but if you went after a dry spell, it might be much more apparent.
    Possibly.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

    Highly possible but that then raises questions about those other seventeenth century commentators. What did they see that Aubrey [1626-1697] did not, I wonder?
    A century is a long time during which the landscape could have varied considerably. If someone went after a couple of wet years it might not have been noticeable, but if you went after a dry spell, it might be much more apparent.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    Which appears to support speculation that at various times the figure was covered over by plant growth.
    Highly possible but that then raises questions about those other seventeenth century commentators. What did they see that Aubrey [1626-1697] did not, I wonder?

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 05:38 AM
0 responses
9 views
0 likes
Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
Started by tabibito, 09-07-2023, 02:41 PM
30 responses
134 views
0 likes
Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
Working...
X