Dear ERLM;
Mar. 7th, 2004 04:37 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
hmpflook what I've done today:
- lived mostly on chocolate (organic, with almonds)
- learned to hate a shop assistant
- written
Stonehenge and its environs have been studied by many antiquarians and archaeologists over the years. Recently the focus has often been placed on the Stonehenge area as an ensemble rather than on single monuments. In particular, the intervisibility of monuments in the area, and especially between Stonehenge and its neighbouring monuments, has become a matter of interest, based on the phenomenological approach to the study of landscapes. This approach holds it that landscapes are socially constructed, i.e. their demarcations and their meanings are determined by the ways people perceive, interpret and use their environment. It follows logically from this that to 'understand' a landscape we first have to look at it, although ultimately there are of course other facets as well to the perception of landscapes than just visibility.
Cleal and Allen in 'Stonehenge in its Landscape' (1995) establish the full viewshed looking out from Stonehenge, which they call the 'visual envelope'. The immediate visual envelope includes mainly the Cursus group, the Old King Barrows and New King Barrows groups, and the Normanton Down barrows. All of these are sited on a slight ridge that constitutes a 'false horizon'. The visual envelope is based on the view out from the Stonehenge. As for the view in, that, according to Cleal and Allen, is best from the east, i.e. from the King Barrow Ridge, but there is also a striking view from the west. Cleal and Allen raise the point that it is crucial to determine whether the monument – Stonehenge – was meant to be viewed from without, or if the surrounding landscape was meant to be viewed from inside the monument. This is important because it may tell us something about the relationship between the monument and its surrounding – the relationship between it and the surrounding barrow cemeteries, as well as the relationship between it and the communities in its vicinity.
Parker Pearson and Ramilisonina in their 199? article 'Stonehenge for the Ancestors' develop the idea that Stonehenge may not have been intended for use by the living at all, but instead may have been dedicated to the dead, i.e. to the ancestors (or, alternatively, the spirit world). According to Parker Pearson and Ramilisonina Stonehenge mirrors Durrington Walls and Woodhenge, two close-by monuments very similar in layout to Stonehenge, but constructed from more perishable material – timber - that were presumably used in rituals by the living. The idea that Stonehenge itself was not used in the same way as Woodhenge and Durrington Walls is based on the observation that Stonehenge has yielded considerably less, and different, archaeological material than the other two monuments. The material found at the sites of the two timber monuments suggests activities like feasting and deposition, whereas there is little evidence for either at Stonehenge. In addition, Stonehenge has yielded considerable amounts of Peterborough Ware, which is mostly associated with burials.
If it is true that Stonehenge itself was 'off limits' for the living, then clearly the view in from the perimeter – from the zone that was still used by the living – would be very important, as it would essentially be the only view people would get to see. (On the other hand, I do not quite see why it should not be important for the dead to have a 'nice view' out, as well, if you go to the trouble of building them a monument that parallels those of the living at all.)
Parker Pearson and Ramilisonina observe that there is an 'unusual visual relationship between Stonehenge and the Early Bronze Age (c.2200-1700 BC) burial mounds in its vicinity' (pp.316-317), namely that of the about 460 barrows in the vicinity of the monument, only about twenty are within its visual envelope. Of those, most – and certainly the most impressive – are located just at the edge of visibility from the monument (Normanton Down, King Barrow Ridge, and Cursus groups). Parker Pearson and Ramilisonina develop from this the theory that the zone around Stonehenge with the highest density of barrows constituted a 'liminal zone' separating the landscapes of the living and the ancestors (p. 318). (Forget Indiana Jones.)
Yes, I admit I'm still some 1300 words short of today's goal. But I'm getting too tired to think. Must say I love Parker Pearson and Ramilisonina and Cleal and Allen for writing their stuff in teams. Makes it so much easier to reach your required word count if you have to write 'Parker Pearson and Ramilisonina' or 'Cleal and Allen' all the time. *g*
Yeah, I know, it's all my fault for getting seduced by, of all things, the evil lure of Harry Potter slash - again. Anyone want to shoot my muses for me?
- lived mostly on chocolate (organic, with almonds)
- learned to hate a shop assistant
- written
Stonehenge and its environs have been studied by many antiquarians and archaeologists over the years. Recently the focus has often been placed on the Stonehenge area as an ensemble rather than on single monuments. In particular, the intervisibility of monuments in the area, and especially between Stonehenge and its neighbouring monuments, has become a matter of interest, based on the phenomenological approach to the study of landscapes. This approach holds it that landscapes are socially constructed, i.e. their demarcations and their meanings are determined by the ways people perceive, interpret and use their environment. It follows logically from this that to 'understand' a landscape we first have to look at it, although ultimately there are of course other facets as well to the perception of landscapes than just visibility.
Cleal and Allen in 'Stonehenge in its Landscape' (1995) establish the full viewshed looking out from Stonehenge, which they call the 'visual envelope'. The immediate visual envelope includes mainly the Cursus group, the Old King Barrows and New King Barrows groups, and the Normanton Down barrows. All of these are sited on a slight ridge that constitutes a 'false horizon'. The visual envelope is based on the view out from the Stonehenge. As for the view in, that, according to Cleal and Allen, is best from the east, i.e. from the King Barrow Ridge, but there is also a striking view from the west. Cleal and Allen raise the point that it is crucial to determine whether the monument – Stonehenge – was meant to be viewed from without, or if the surrounding landscape was meant to be viewed from inside the monument. This is important because it may tell us something about the relationship between the monument and its surrounding – the relationship between it and the surrounding barrow cemeteries, as well as the relationship between it and the communities in its vicinity.
Parker Pearson and Ramilisonina in their 199? article 'Stonehenge for the Ancestors' develop the idea that Stonehenge may not have been intended for use by the living at all, but instead may have been dedicated to the dead, i.e. to the ancestors (or, alternatively, the spirit world). According to Parker Pearson and Ramilisonina Stonehenge mirrors Durrington Walls and Woodhenge, two close-by monuments very similar in layout to Stonehenge, but constructed from more perishable material – timber - that were presumably used in rituals by the living. The idea that Stonehenge itself was not used in the same way as Woodhenge and Durrington Walls is based on the observation that Stonehenge has yielded considerably less, and different, archaeological material than the other two monuments. The material found at the sites of the two timber monuments suggests activities like feasting and deposition, whereas there is little evidence for either at Stonehenge. In addition, Stonehenge has yielded considerable amounts of Peterborough Ware, which is mostly associated with burials.
If it is true that Stonehenge itself was 'off limits' for the living, then clearly the view in from the perimeter – from the zone that was still used by the living – would be very important, as it would essentially be the only view people would get to see. (On the other hand, I do not quite see why it should not be important for the dead to have a 'nice view' out, as well, if you go to the trouble of building them a monument that parallels those of the living at all.)
Parker Pearson and Ramilisonina observe that there is an 'unusual visual relationship between Stonehenge and the Early Bronze Age (c.2200-1700 BC) burial mounds in its vicinity' (pp.316-317), namely that of the about 460 barrows in the vicinity of the monument, only about twenty are within its visual envelope. Of those, most – and certainly the most impressive – are located just at the edge of visibility from the monument (Normanton Down, King Barrow Ridge, and Cursus groups). Parker Pearson and Ramilisonina develop from this the theory that the zone around Stonehenge with the highest density of barrows constituted a 'liminal zone' separating the landscapes of the living and the ancestors (p. 318). (Forget Indiana Jones.)
Yes, I admit I'm still some 1300 words short of today's goal. But I'm getting too tired to think. Must say I love Parker Pearson and Ramilisonina and Cleal and Allen for writing their stuff in teams. Makes it so much easier to reach your required word count if you have to write 'Parker Pearson and Ramilisonina' or 'Cleal and Allen' all the time. *g*
Yeah, I know, it's all my fault for getting seduced by, of all things, the evil lure of Harry Potter slash - again. Anyone want to shoot my muses for me?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-03-07 02:24 am (UTC)MSB
Hey, btw...
Date: 2004-03-07 03:43 am (UTC)Re: Hey, btw...
Date: 2004-03-07 03:13 pm (UTC)access.log.<week>.gz
access.log.<week>.<day>.gz
access.log.<week>.<day>
1&1 uses a rotating log system that works like this:
The log for the current day is stored uncompressed as
access.log.<week>.<day>
where <week> is the week of the year and <day> is the day of the week (1 to 7). This is a plain textfile that you can open with Wordpad for instance (Notepad won't work well as it can't cope with Unix line-terminators and will display the whole log in a single line).
The log for the previous days of the current week are stored in files
access.log.<week>.<day>.gz
These are compressed with the gzip program. I think WinZip can uncompress them. If not, you'll need gunzip. Once uncompressed these are simple text files as well.
The logs for weeks earlier than the current week are stored as
access.log.<week>.gz
As these contain the complete week, once you have access.log.10.gz for instance you don't need access.log.10.1 or access.log.10.1.gz anymore.
MSB