Archaeologists do it in holes: Tales from the stratigraphy

[The Brain]

But the new study shows that the walls, which stood about four feet tall, weren't high enough to contain many animals.

Which method does it use to show that? It's not like modern barriers for cattle are very tall, and my impression is that cattle back then were smaller than today.

[Maladict]

But the new study shows that the walls, which stood about four feet tall, weren't high enough to contain many animals.

Which method does it use to show that? It's not like modern barriers for cattle are very tall, and my impression is that cattle back then were smaller than today.

Smaller animals might jump higher than the bloated specimens we've bred since. A cow could conceivably jump a 4ft wall. Goats, camels and horses certainly could.

[jimmy olsen]

But the new study shows that the walls, which stood about four feet tall, weren't high enough to contain many animals.

Which method does it use to show that? It's not like modern barriers for cattle are very tall, and my impression is that cattle back then were smaller than today.

Horses have definitely gotten a lot bigger, but I thought cattle were smaller than Aurochs?

[Josquius]

Capability has little to do with it. Lots of cattle today are kept in fences they could easily knock down and they know it.
But... why?  If they feel happy and safe where they are they aren't going to put in the effort.

[The Brain]

I don't know if the shrinking from Aurochs was incomplete by 5000 BC. Did they have horses?

Many animal barriers in use today are possible for the animal to jump over. But they only do it if they are sufficiently motivated, and there is also the aspect that they often have learnt that trying to cross the barrier is frowned upon.

Then there's the possibility that they used some kind of organic material "topping" on the stone base. I don't know how likely this would be given the better but probably still fairly dry climate of the time.

I can't shake the feeling that the archaeologists want the structures to be ritualistic, and that for whatever reason even a double function won't do.

[The Brain]

Capability has little to do with it. Lots of cattle today are kept in fences they could easily knock down and they know it.
But... why?  If they feel happy and safe where they are they aren't going to put in the effort.

Exactly.

[jimmy olsen]

 
https://mobile.twitter.com/UrsulaV/status/1392170026778734596

In the first remotely accurate "archaeologist battles ancient horror from Egyptian tomb" scene I have ever read, the mummies just erupted from the crypt and the archaeologist is yelling "Son of a bitch! The provenance of the entire site will be ruined!"

(This is NECROPOLIS, Book 4 of the Widdershins books by Hawk)

[Sheilbh]

This is really surprising

Cerne Giant in Dorset dates from Anglo-Saxon times, analysis suggests
Sand samples examined by National Trust experts indicate hillside chalk figure was created in the 10th century


Local lore has that Cerne Abbey was created in 978AD to convert people away from an Anglo-Saxon god. Photograph: Ben Birchall/PA
Mark Brown Arts correspondent
Wed 12 May 2021 06.00 BST

Over the centuries the huge, naked, club-wielding giant carved into a steep hillside in Dorset has been thought prehistoric, Celtic, Roman or even a 17th century lampoon of Oliver Cromwell.

After 12 months of new, hi-tech sediment analysis, the National Trust has now revealed the probable truth and experts admit they are taken aback. The bizarre, enigmatic Cerne Giant is none of the above, but late Saxon, possibly 10th century.

Martin Papworth, a senior archaeologist at the trust, said he was somewhat "flabbergasted ... He's not prehistoric, he's not Roman, he's sort of Saxon, into the medieval period. I was expecting 17th century."

The geoarchaeologist Mike Allen, who has been researching microscopic snails in the sediment, agreed. "This is not what was expected," he said. "Many archaeologists and historians thought he was prehistoric or post-medieval, but not medieval. Everyone was wrong, and that makes these results even more exciting."

The research has involved studying samples, which show when individual grains of sand in the sediment were last exposed to sunlight. Material from the deepest layer suggest a date range of 700-AD1100.

It was in the middle of that date range, AD978, that Cerne Abbey was founded nearby. Stories talk about the abbey being set up to convert locals away from worshipping an early Anglo-Saxon god called Heil or Heilith, all of which invite the question, is the giant Heilith?

For various reasons Papworth said that theory did not ring true. The whole story of the giant is made more confusing by there being no mention of the giant in surviving abbey documents. "Why would a rich and famous abbey – just a few yards away – commission, or sanction, a naked man carved in chalk on the hillside?"

Documents from the 16th and 17th century also make no reference to the giant, which suggests to Papworth that it was created and then forgotten about, perhaps overgrown with grass until someone noticed the glimmer of an outline.

Gordon Bishop, chair of the Cerne Historical Society, said the conclusions were as intriguing as they were surprising. "What I am personally pleased about is that the results appear to have put an end to the theory that he was created in the 17th century as an insult to Oliver Cromwell. I thought that rather demeaned the giant."

Bishop said it seemed to him likely the giant had a religious, albeit pagan, significance. "There's obviously a lot of research for us to do over the next few years."

More broadly the analysis results shed important light on the phenomenon of chalk hill figures in Britain, said Allen. "Archaeologists have wanted to pigeonhole chalk hill figures into the same period. But carving these figures was not a particular phase – they're all individual figures, with local significance, each telling us something about that place and time."

At 180ft (55 metres) the Cerne Giant is Britain's largest, rudest and as a result best-known chalk hill figure. He is also the most mysterious.

Some have said he is Hercules. The more fanciful suggest he was an actual giant slain by villagers as he slept on the hill after a busy day eating their livestock.

Many people doubt that the phallus is original. "If he does date to the time of the abbey then he is more acceptable with trousers on than without," said Papworth.

Asked for his most likely theory on its origins he admitted he was stumped. "I don't know. I don't have one. I can't get my head round it ... you can make up all sorts of stories. I don't know why he is on the hill, I've no idea. I can't work it out. I never would have guessed he would be 10th century."

My mum and dad live not too far away and I'd previously heard that it was 18th century

[Josquius]

I do love tales of pre Christian beliefs hanging on beyond conversion

[Sheilbh]

I do love tales of pre Christian beliefs hanging on beyond conversion

Yeah maybe. Conversion was definitey done by the 10th century in that bit of England so you wonder if this is some local hangover

[jimmy olsen]

Submerged bronze age village found in Switzerland

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/archaeologists-uncover-bronze-age-settlement-switzerland-180977651/?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=socialmedia

[viper37]

This is really surprising

My mum and dad live not too far away and I'd previously heard that it was 18th century

strangely, we never learned about this picture in my catholic high school history class.  strange.

[Sheilbh]

strangely, we never learned about this picture in my catholic high school history class.  strange.

I mean it's pretty niche - I wouldn't expect anyone outside of England and maybe the South-west to know about it. And I do love that apparently the penis might still be new - I love that apparently at some point locals decided to draw a cock pic on their centuries old local monument.

But there are a few chalk hill drawings in that part of England - and I don't think we actually know how old most of them are.

I think the Long Man is unknown too but the best theory was 17th/16th century - but that was at the time when they thought the Cerne giant was from that period too - so who knows.


I used to live near the White Horse in Uffington which is definitely old - I think they think it's about iron or bronze age:


But I assume most of them go through periods of not being preserved, so grass grows over them and you just see faint lines until someone notices and digs up to the clay level again? So, I assume there may be others we don't actually know about or that have been more or less destroyed by pasture or farming.

And people still make them. There are very definite modern ones - one in Weymouth to welcome King George III (he went to Weymouth a lot) - plus chalk hils are used for modern advertisements and protests.

[crazy canuck]

This is really surprising

Cerne Giant in Dorset dates from Anglo-Saxon times, analysis suggests
Sand samples examined by National Trust experts indicate hillside chalk figure was created in the 10th century


Local lore has that Cerne Abbey was created in 978AD to convert people away from an Anglo-Saxon god. Photograph: Ben Birchall/PA
Mark Brown Arts correspondent
Wed 12 May 2021 06.00 BST

Over the centuries the huge, naked, club-wielding giant carved into a steep hillside in Dorset has been thought prehistoric, Celtic, Roman or even a 17th century lampoon of Oliver Cromwell.

After 12 months of new, hi-tech sediment analysis, the National Trust has now revealed the probable truth and experts admit they are taken aback. The bizarre, enigmatic Cerne Giant is none of the above, but late Saxon, possibly 10th century.

Martin Papworth, a senior archaeologist at the trust, said he was somewhat "flabbergasted ... He's not prehistoric, he's not Roman, he's sort of Saxon, into the medieval period. I was expecting 17th century."

The geoarchaeologist Mike Allen, who has been researching microscopic snails in the sediment, agreed. "This is not what was expected," he said. "Many archaeologists and historians thought he was prehistoric or post-medieval, but not medieval. Everyone was wrong, and that makes these results even more exciting."

The research has involved studying samples, which show when individual grains of sand in the sediment were last exposed to sunlight. Material from the deepest layer suggest a date range of 700-AD1100.

It was in the middle of that date range, AD978, that Cerne Abbey was founded nearby. Stories talk about the abbey being set up to convert locals away from worshipping an early Anglo-Saxon god called Heil or Heilith, all of which invite the question, is the giant Heilith?

For various reasons Papworth said that theory did not ring true. The whole story of the giant is made more confusing by there being no mention of the giant in surviving abbey documents. "Why would a rich and famous abbey – just a few yards away – commission, or sanction, a naked man carved in chalk on the hillside?"

Documents from the 16th and 17th century also make no reference to the giant, which suggests to Papworth that it was created and then forgotten about, perhaps overgrown with grass until someone noticed the glimmer of an outline.

Gordon Bishop, chair of the Cerne Historical Society, said the conclusions were as intriguing as they were surprising. "What I am personally pleased about is that the results appear to have put an end to the theory that he was created in the 17th century as an insult to Oliver Cromwell. I thought that rather demeaned the giant."

Bishop said it seemed to him likely the giant had a religious, albeit pagan, significance. "There's obviously a lot of research for us to do over the next few years."

More broadly the analysis results shed important light on the phenomenon of chalk hill figures in Britain, said Allen. "Archaeologists have wanted to pigeonhole chalk hill figures into the same period. But carving these figures was not a particular phase – they're all individual figures, with local significance, each telling us something about that place and time."

At 180ft (55 metres) the Cerne Giant is Britain's largest, rudest and as a result best-known chalk hill figure. He is also the most mysterious.

Some have said he is Hercules. The more fanciful suggest he was an actual giant slain by villagers as he slept on the hill after a busy day eating their livestock.

Many people doubt that the phallus is original. "If he does date to the time of the abbey then he is more acceptable with trousers on than without," said Papworth.

Asked for his most likely theory on its origins he admitted he was stumped. "I don't know. I don't have one. I can't get my head round it ... you can make up all sorts of stories. I don't know why he is on the hill, I've no idea. I can't work it out. I never would have guessed he would be 10th century."

My mum and dad live not too far away and I'd previously heard that it was 18th century

Curious that no one is actually working on the cock.

[Tonitrus]

Insurance won't cover it puts out an eye.