Brockley Sacred Stone

[el-ahrairah]

"While you were out at The Rollright Stones
I came and set fire to your shed"

i spent an afternoon at the nine ladies once. it was very nice.

 

[boohoo]

No, if there was evidence of them we'd have found it. Standing stones are generally too big to remove, though they are sometimes broken up and used for building, and have at times been knocked over by Christians and the weather.

I once spent a week restoring Nine Ladies stone circle in the Peak District after some idiot pagan twats decided to have a go at 'fixing it'. That consisted of putting stones back up in the wrong place and orientation and moving things so they looked nice but were not where they were intended. They also left their own 'offerings' in holes they had dug for the stones, a load of crappy modern contamination we had to excavate and remove. They were more destructive than drunken vandals.

I would reckon they would have be broken up in a space like London unless they were in a remote area which was difficult to access. Even so the pace of development in the city doesn't really give ancient monuments, buildings, etc a chance.

Avebury, Stonehenge and many other circles, standing stones, burial chambers have all had enthusiastic amateurs rebuild them.

 

[ringo]

I would reckon they would have be broken up in a space like London unless they were in a remote area which was difficult to access. Even so the pace of development in the city doesn't really give ancient monuments, buildings, etc a chance.

I'm not sure what you mean. London didn't exist untils the Romans built here, but their original city only covered what is now the square mile at its largest.

There were some prehistoric settlements around what is now Greater London, such as on sand banks in what is now Borough, and a few further north, but no evidence has been found of standing stones because there weren't any any.

We don't have to vaguely wonder what London looked like in the mists of time, we've excavated large areas of it, we know what was here and have a reasonable idea of how it was used and inhabited. If there was a culture who used megaliths here we would know.

 

[boohoo]

I'm not sure what you mean. London didn't exist untils the Romans built here, but their original city only covered what is now the square mile at its largest.

There were some prehistoric settlements around what is now Greater London, such as on sand banks in what is now Borough, and a few further north, but no evidence has been found of standing stones because there weren't any any.

We don't have to vaguely wonder what London looked like in the mists of time, we've excavated large areas of it, we know what was here and have a reasonable idea of how it was used and inhabited. If there was a culture who used megaliths here we would know.

So basically are you looking for big pits which would have held the stones? Is it really not possible for evidence to be entirely removed?

 

[ringo]

Well no, firstly you can't just go looking for a certain type of archaeology, you have to base interpretation on what is found.

Archaeologists are very skilled at identifying the sockets dug for standing stones. I can't see a proper section on the web but they roughly look like this with a deep hole and packing stones:

In cultures where megaliths are prevalent you always find that some of them still survive in their standing position, I can't think of any where they have been discovered by archaeologists without some pre-knowledge of them being part of the local prehistoric culture and they are never entirely removed without trace. Excavation techniques are extremely advanced and complex, and so many thousands of sites have been dug they just wouldn't have been missed.

You need a civilisation with quite a substantial size and organisation for these structures, often which was around for a long time. Those kind of cultures will leave their mark in many ways including traditions of settlements, art, pottery, trade and often other large scale sites and monuments with causeways, henges and sometimes earthworks.

If you can prove that this one is prehistoric I might believe it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Stone

 

[Sirena]

I once spent a week restoring Nine Ladies stone circle in the Peak District after some idiot pagan twats decided to have a go at 'fixing it'. That consisted of putting stones back up in the wrong place and orientation and moving things so they looked nice but were not where they were intended. They also left their own 'offerings' in holes they had dug for the stones, a load of crappy modern contamination we had to excavate and remove. They were more destructive than drunken vandals.

Just out of interest, what year was this?

 

[ringo]

Just out of interest, what year was this?

I'd reckon about 1995.

 

[belboid]

I'd reckon about 1995.

I thought it was a bit later than that, about the time I moved to Sheff - so late 96/early 97????

We don't have to vaguely wonder what London looked like in the mists of time, we've excavated large areas of it, we know what was here and have a reasonable idea of how it was used and inhabited. If there was a culture who used megaliths here we would know.

Is this wholly true? Whilst it basically is, there are vast areas that were built up at times when no one gave a toss about previous societies and the marks they left. The buildings they created would have destroyed much of/all the remains of earlier societies, so we can't actually 'know' about what was there earlier. We can make intelligent guesses, and say that as there are remains extant, it is very unlikely that there were megaliths in what is now London, but we'll never 'know'

 

[fogbat]

I've been to the Nine Ladies. In fact, I had one of my most important spiritual experiences there.

I agree that stones should be just left and not 'corrected' or improved. At Avebury, they have self-appointed 'guardians' of the stones. Non-invasive, non-intrusive local pagan people who go round and clear litter and the various offerings that have been left by well-meaning visitors...

Yeah. I hate it when people worship stones wrong.

 

[ringo]

I thought it was a bit later than that, about the time I moved to Sheff - so late 96/early 97????


Is this wholly true? Whilst it basically is, there are vast areas that were built up at times when no one gave a toss about previous societies and the marks they left. The buildings they created would have destroyed much of/all the remains of earlier societies, so we can't actually 'know' about what was there earlier. We can make intelligent guesses, and say that as there are remains extant, it is very unlikely that there were megaliths in what is now London, but we'll never 'know'

Maybe 1996, but that's when I left Sheffield so that's the latest. Was it widely reported then? Quite a small job, in fact I reckon it was less than a weeks work I don't remember it being in the papers. Do I know you? Or do you know those responsible for the "rebuilding"?

Yes, we do know. If later cultures destroyed earlier ones they always left some mark, and very often a lot more. I've dug many sites in London with over two metres of stratigraphic remains, and it's always possible to identify the story of that place, and be very precise about in what order it happened. It's possible to destroy all evidence now, because very large structures go down several stories and remove everything of the past, but we've had rescue archaeology long enough for nothing major to have been missed since that became common place. In the office of The Museum Of London is a map of London with every excavated area coloured in black. You'd be amazed at how much black there is. They should publish on their website.

The idea that there was a megalith building society in the London area we don't know about is, tbh, laughable. That kind of romanticised, waving your hands in the air and looking all mystic and wondering if there's another Stone Henge beneath your feet is pure fiction. Archaeology is a science and we know a lot more about it than the general public give archaeologists credit for.

 

[belboid]

Maybe 1996, but that's when I left Sheffield so that's the latest. Was it widely reported then? Quite a small job, in fact I reckon it was less than a weeks work I don't remember it being in the papers. Do I know you? Or do you know those responsible for the "rebuilding"? [/quite]
The latter Although I do know more people who used the site who thought they were absolute twats...

[quite]Yes, we do know. If later cultures destroyed earlier ones they always left some mark, and very often a lot more. I've dug many sites in London with over two metres of stratigraphic remains, and it's always possible to identify the story of that place, and be very precise about in what order it happened. It's possible to destroy all evidence now, because very large structures go down several stories and remove everything of the past, but we've had rescue archaeology long enough for nothing major to have been missed since that became common place. In the office of The Museum Of London is a map of London with every excavated area coloured in black. You'd be amazed at how much black there is. They should publish on their website.

Fair does. As an epistemologist I am incredibly mean in my use of 'know', but I'll accept your usage their Sounds like a fun map, I'll try n look it out

 

[ringo]

The latter Although I do know more people who used the site who thought they were absolute twats...

They were, and clearly had no idea of the original position of the stones or the structure of the kerbed perimiter. Not only that but archaeological excavations are expensive, it cost English Heritage thousands of pounds to recify their vandalism.

That map is in the office of what the Museum Of London Archaeology, I don't think the public have access to it. It's probably in their office in Eagle Wharf Road now, but was in Victoria St. back when I worked for them.