[Bosnjak]

The Amesbury Archer: The King of Stonehenge?

An excavation in Wiltshire has recently revealed the grave of a Bronze Age archer, buried with a rich array of precious metal goods and a quiver of arrows. Was this the King of Stonehenge? Andrew Fitzpatrick of Wessex Archaeology takes up the story.

An Early Bronze Age grave
In the spring of 2002 what started as a routine excavation was undertaken in advance of the building of a new school at Amesbury in Wiltshire. By the end of the excavation the richest Bronze Age burial yet found in Britain had been discovered. The Bronze Age man discovered there had been buried not far from the great temple of Stonehenge. He was a man who owned and could work the new and magical metals of gold and copper. And he had come from what is now central Europe, perhaps around the Alps. Was he a king of Stonehenge?

'Early Bronze Age pottery showed that they were over 2,500 years older than the Roman graves.'
On the site of the proposed new school there was a small Roman cemetery but, it seemed, little else. In the far corner of the site, though, there were two features that looked different. Had they been caused by trees being blown over? Or were they something else? They certainly did not look like Roman graves.

Excavation work started on a Friday morning, and the reason for the difference between the Roman graves and the two other features rapidly became clear. The features were indeed graves, but the Early Bronze Age pottery in one of them showed that they were over 2,500 years older than the Roman graves. And the grave with the pottery was unusually large.


The Amesbury Archer

These golden artefacts may have been earrings or hair tresses One of the next finds revealed something unusual - a gold 'earring'. This type of jewellery may be the oldest type of gold object made in Britain. These objects are very rare, and they usually occur in pairs, and as it was the Friday of the May Bank Holiday weekend it was decided that the excavation of the grave should be completed that day. This might involve staying on a little bit late on a Friday afternoon, but not, it was thought, very late.


What no one knew then was that the grave, the burial of the Amesbury Archer as he has come to be known, was to be the most well-furnished Early Bronze Age burial ever seen in Britain. The graves could not be left unprotected, so a 'little bit' late turned into 'very, very' late, as it became clear that this was a very important find.

The excavation showed that there was probably a timber mortuary building in the larger grave. Because of this not all the earth had been put back into the grave at the time of the burial, so it seems likely that a small burial mound or barrow surmounted the grave.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/archaeolog ... e_02.shtml

What stonhenge was, is now cleared. It is a huge watch.


What else would a Swiss built :D

[Oxymoron]

First funny thing you said in a while Bos.

Indeed Stone Henge is a very precise Solar Calendar.

[Bosnjak]

Indeed Stone Henge is a very precise Solar Calendar.

Does this still work?

[guzzipat]

Oxygen Isotope Analysis to measure this record. The Archer's teeth show that as a child he lived in a colder climate than that of Britain today, in central Europe, and perhaps close to the Alps.

The claims made about the "archer" coming from the Alps and being "king of Stonehenge" stretch the available information beyond evidence and into speculation.

According to the reference, the "archer" could have come from anywhere with a colder climate or simply colder winters, which would apply to most places on the mainland, normally 10c lower the Britain. "Possibly the Alps", doesn't mean much.

The claim he was a king is based on nothing more than the number and quality if artefacts found. There is little evidence that societies at that time were hierachical, although the strong evidence of religion and ritual would point to an ermerging "ruling class".

Pretty typical sensationalising of dig results, taking the information and pushing it to an unjustified conclusion to ensure publicity.

Claims of one single reason or use for Stonehenge are probably wrong. It was built over a period of at least 1170 years from 3100bc to 1930bc, before this it was a burial site. It was built in at least 6 distinct phases. It had several rearrangments of stones and changed shape between a circle, oval and horsehoe.
The longevity of construction and the changes point to continued ritual use, but changes in the purpose of those rituals. It is very unlikely that it served the same purpose for the whole time it was used.

[Bosnjak]

@guzzipat

Bone recovered from archaeological sites can be analysed isotopically for information regarding diet and migration. Tooth enamel and soil surrounding or clinging to the remains may also be used in isotopic analysis. To obtain an accurate picture of palaeodiets, it is important to understand processes of diagenesis that may affect the original isotopic signal.Carbon and nitrogen isotope composition are used to reconstruct diet, and oxygen isotopes are used to determine geographic origin. Strontium and lead isotopes in teeth and bone can sometimes be used to reconstruct migration in human populations and cultural affinity[1].

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

Was somebody else found with a such rich grave?

[Suska]

"King" has a different connotation here too. Jack of all Trades and scholar too, Shaman, Poet would be closer if you know its old sense as scholar/story teller, but add to that metal worker. He was a magician too if he was king. And he surely fits the bill, "For much of his life he had been disabled as the result of a traumatic injury to his left knee" this was very likely an intentional injury as that was what defined 'kings'. Think of Hephaestus, who walked with a limp. There was a ritual laming. If I understand those rites properly he wasn't attached to a single location, probably he sold trinkets and metal tools. Guy like that living to 40 probably saw a fair sample of all of Europe in his time.

I think its a bit ludicrous the BBC putting the insert quote asking whether they were part of a ruling elite, just like no one had ever studied the matter. The old kings were not part of conventional hierarchies which were almost entirely local and low level. Probably rarely even including pacts with neighbors. Most of what we'd call treaties were just a given. On a side note; such people developed and protected the knowledge of metal working - they were the source and substance of what we call Bronze Age, people took care of them wherever they went and they in turn shared information and entertainment and like I said, trinkets (seen as powerful mojo no doubt.) Likely early on they kept their crafts secret. Eventually the tradition became a lot of things; From Druid Colleges to Bards, from blacksmiths to Clowns. They were specialists, but they were able to be all the specializations at once.

It is very unlikely that it served the same purpose for the whole time it was used.

The structure is what it is, fair enough to say it probably served a lot of purposes, strange to say 'very likely' there isn't much to go on. Unlike the matter of who the Amesbury Archer was we don't seem to have any lore on what Stonehenge was. Some people say it would have made a useful granary. For sure such things were useful and used as far back as the proto civilizations of the fertile crescent. New Age types want it to be spiritual and mysterious, maybe it became that gradually. I don't personally think it was primarily a calender. I also doubt the stones were moved from very far away. I can see it being used as a temple but there's more precedent in the design for it being a granary originally.

[Oxymoron]

more precedent in the design for it being a granary originally.

Elaborate.

[Suska]

Well, I'd heard that. Since it came up I did a bit of reading. There does seem to be a legitimate argument for Granary, but I wouldn't call it a strong argument. Just read the wiki.

The fact that there's so many burials around (several hundred) could indicate Stonehenge was at least a burial zone and possibly a structure among others constituting what is called a Ritual Landscape - kind of a proto-theme park with all the big themes represented. You would travel through it like a tour of life and death. There are plenty of structures nearby to support that idea. The only other lore that seems notable here is that it was said the stones came from Ireland and Merlin used "gears" to do it. Its very interesting in this context because Merlin - Not Arthur - is the sort of King I've been describing. Merlin was a title. It may even be accurate to say that the Amesbury Archer is Merlin. But I mean a Wizard among others as part of a tradition.

It strikes me pretty interesting to consider Jared Diamond's theory in this light. The main limitation on a society toward civilizing (toward 'having cargo') is the amount of work it takes a people to survive. If there's nothing left over there isn't anything to pay a specialist with and it is specialization that allows a society to develop technologically and culturally. But he seems to have overlooked the idea that even in a very impoverished land a specialist could survive by being nomadic, costing everyone a little and no one a lot.

[Bosnjak]

to his left knee" this was very likely an intentional injury as that was what defined 'kings'. Think of Hephaestus, who walked with a limp.

nice methode, the king could not run away if the enemies had conquested the village. :D



At this time were around the Alps an different people, the Celtics?

What is known about them?

[Suska]

nice methode, the king could not run away if the enemies had conquested the village.

As I understand it what is called "king" here is really medicine man, King as a military man would have been called "Lord" defined primarily by having a family and weapons. It wasn't long ago there were still "Lords" in the far reaches of Europe like Norway and Sweden. You can see several good examples in Bergman films, Max von Sydow in the Virgin Spring. He doesn't have a kingdom so much as he's the only stand up sort of guy within a couple days walk. Organized conflict requires a degree of organization that never really took hold in the paleolithic times - probably because of the sparseness of human populations. I'm sure there were skirmishes and tributes but they probably resembled Greek Polis conflicts more than Roman conquest. In other words as long as there was a lot of work to do no one had any interest in a battle. And victory didn't mean the same thing as a raid's victory did. In raids slaves might be taken, but in battles between peer cities it was usually a matter of disagreement or exacting tribute. You didn't own them afterwards. You wouldn't want to.

Paleolithic Switzerland was (and is) racially Nordic and Alpine rather than Mediterranean, though the highlands seem to have a sort of holy position life there would have been pretty similar to everything north and north east all the way to Ultima Thule. Tribes aren't nations or cultures by themsleves, its meaningless to talk about anything but races and families during the stoneage. Life was pretty much the same everywhere.

In particulars hell people still can live just like they did, for instance Dick Proenneke did it. styles change but basically its the same. you make a house if youre cold, you make a canoe if you want, you carefully note where the bears are etc.

[Bosnjak]

What is with the Pharaos in Egypt who were Priestkings?

Even in the Stoneage was a trade, probably the Silkroad existed there also.



Look I do not talk about the nations in this time, there were simply no, the humans were rather one of many species in the dshungle not the leading like now.

The definition of Nation was the loyality to the king, like in Medivial times Normal, and over tribes like in Middle-East.

[Suska]

What is with the Pharaos in Egypt who were Priestkings?

Well not only on the Nile but in other places real agricultural complexes had developed and would produce the Mesopotamian empires, the Persians, later on the Macedonians but first of all realize these cities were by our standards really dinky. (a "world" city in the ancient era (~3000bc to 1000bc, the earliest historical period!) being anything in excess of 10,000. Most such cities will be found to be in the range of 10,000 to 100,000 with one or maybe two -often none - exceptionally large cities in the whole world at any given time.) Very small populations surrounded by what was still basically paleolithic peoples. But we were talking about European tribes, which didn't organize like that until the Romans did it (theres an argument for Mycenae I suppose). Even then you just had to leave the empire to find people living rough and among those people there were probably examples of the Priest-King. Like I said, they became the Druids, Blacksmiths and Poets, so a whole bunch of trades and cultures have their beginnings there - basically anything that wasn't strictly survival pragmatism and a whole lot that was. In the Roman and Greek way there was room for trade specialists but the trades all had their own shrines and rituals - so difference between Northern Europe and Southern in this regard is just that in the forests few people did the same work many people did in the south. Its pretty much the same in all the Empires and remains so today, cities themselves are the Priest-Kings. Hollywood & Chevrolet & all the rest really. Its all broken up into atomic bits now, but the lore has it Druids and Poets in their old sense were meant to learn everything there was to learn - that has certain interesting effects.

Whatever else this book may be King Jesus does a good job of suggesting what the rituals were for such a King, even a bit on how they developed into Imperial Royalty. Its controversial because it paints Jesus as a Priest-King as I've been describing, putting Jesus aside the scholarship I've read on the matter agrees with or does not conflict with Graves version of what a Priest King had become by Jesus time and suggests how it had been in earlier times.

I'm really not an expert though. I think I like the idea of knowing something of everything too much to be an expert in anything.

[guzzipat]

Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 4:05 pm@guzzipat


Quote:
Bone recovered from archaeological sites can be analysed isotopically for information regarding diet and migration. Tooth enamel and soil surrounding or clinging to the remains may also be used in isotopic analysis. To obtain an accurate picture of palaeodiets, it is important to understand processes of diagenesis that may affect the original isotopic signal.Carbon and nitrogen isotope composition are used to reconstruct diet, and oxygen isotopes are used to determine geographic origin. Strontium and lead isotopes in teeth and bone can sometimes be used to reconstruct migration in human populations and cultural affinity[1].

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



Was somebody else found with a such rich grave?

The enamel on our teeth stores a chemical record of the environment where we have grown up. It is possible by using Oxygen Isotope Analysis to measure this record. The Archer's teeth show that as a child he lived in a colder climate than that of Britain today, in central Europe, and perhaps close to the Alps.

This is from the actual text of the reference given. As I said "perhaps close to the Alps" means exactly that, perhaps, not certainly or even most likely, just maybe.
A general statement from wilkpedia, an unrelible source in any case, can't be used to dispute the reports of a specific excavation.

People who want to turn "perhaps" into a certainty that the "archer" came from Switzerland are stretching the evidence. It is a possiblity no more.

As far as I know there have been no other graves with that level of grave goods, from the same period. Far richer graves have been found, but much later in date.
That shows that the individual was a wealthy and possibly powerfull person. That doesn't mean that there are no others, just that no others have been found, it could be the richest grave we ever find from that period, that is by no means certain.

How does that translate into a "King of Stonehenge"? It doesn't, it just shows that a high status person was buried there. It is possible he was a local war lord, he certainly would not have been "King of Britain" or anything close to that. There was no such national entity then.

From the available evidence there are conclusions to be drawn.
1. The "archer" came from central Europe and possibly the Alps.
2. He was a rich, possibly powerful individual, almost certainly an important person.

That is all that can be known for certain the rest is speculation. There is no evidence at all for a "King of Stonehenge", just a rich individual, there is no certainty he came from the Alps, just a possiblity. In fact I repeat what I said and still say it was correct;
"The claims made about the "archer" coming from the Alps and being "king of Stonehenge" stretch the available information beyond evidence and into speculation."

This is far from the first report of this find. The earlier reports gave a different possible explanation. It suggested that the "Archer" could have brought from Europe important skills, especially in metal working. That the richness of the grave goods were a reflection of that individuals contribution to the society he adopted.
That too was speculation, but no more fanciful than a "King of stonehenge". There is an increasing tendency for archiologists to make spectacular claims or wild speculations about finds, usually tied into getting more funding.

People always want neat tidy answers, ancient history just isn't like that. The speculation is fun, but mistaking theory for history is dangerous. You only have to look at the ridiculous "Arthur" industry to see where such fake histories lead.

[Suska]

That shows that the individual was a wealthy and possibly powerfull person.

not really. Not on both counts anyways. Gold is nice but you can't make an axe head out of it. The goods found with the Archer aren't primarily monetary but symbolic. Both power and wealth were a different thing in prehistoric times. You can only call gold money if it can be exchanged for something else. I'm sure the Archer might have exchanged his juju items for food or clothing but you don't sell juju - thats why you get buried with it.

[guzzipat]

At this time were around the Alps an different people, the Celtics?

What is known about them?

A hell of a lot;
Earliest known settlement showing features of "Celtic" culture was on the Danube in Hungary, a fairly recent discovery.
Later examples were found in Austria, known as the "Hallstatt Culture", followed by the later and culturally more advanced "La Tene culture" in France. At it's fullest extent around the third century BC, Celtic was the dominant culture in Europe. It stretched from Ireland to the Dardinelles and even had settlements in modern Turkey. It covered all Europe apart from, Scandanavia, N. Germany, Italy and Greece. They were certainly masters of metal working and their artistic metal work is among the best ever seen in the world. They were also road builders, but used wood not stone.
It was the expansion of Rome and the wandering of the German tribes, that virtually destroyed the Celts in mainland Europe. Eventually being forced back into their present area of Ireland, Wales, Scotland, Cornwall and Brittany.

It is important to recognise that we are not talking about a united people, we are talking about a culture. A tribal society that shared a similar language and many cultural forms. That was the reason they were forced out of Europe, they were too loose a federation. The Celts were not a political or military alliance, they were probably picked off piecemeal.
There is a lot of evidence that the Gauls were in fact Celts and the stand of Vercingetorix at Alesia against Julius Ceasar, with the united tribes of Gaul, is claimed by some historians to be the last stand of the Celts in mainland Europe. Personally I am not sure, but it is by no means impossible.

This is just speculation, but I suspect that it was similar to what we see today, but a bit less culturally diverse. If you imagine the current people of the "Celtic fringe" with more than 2000 years less seperate development, they would all be much closer, but would still retain significant local differences. The differences between the Scots and Irish for example would have been far smaller but still of some significance.

Of course, I am biased as both my parents were Irish, but in terms of abstract art, shapes and forms not related to copying human or animal forms, the Celts were the most highly developed people in ancient Europe.

It shows in the nature of Irishmen today, warriors and poets to a man.