Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2009 11:44:11 GMT -1
Dewpond study at: www.glaucus.org.uk/Dewpond.htmlextra: www.dewponds.com/biblio_spirit_of_the_downs.htmIf there was no clay at the top of the hill, clay would be imported from a nearby clay deposit. The point is that Gorse does not like calcium. Exactly how much calcium it does not like is hard to say. On chalk downs, the usual method to deduce the soil underneath is to spot the vegetation. Gorse usually indicates clayish soil, wind-swept alluvium or greensand. The method of making chalk non-porous is called "clunching". This may have been used in Bryonthic times.
|
|
|
Post by arth_frown on Feb 20, 2009 12:29:45 GMT -1
Dewpond study at: www.glaucus.org.uk/Dewpond.htmlextra: www.dewponds.com/biblio_spirit_of_the_downs.htmIf there was no clay at the top of the hill, clay would be imported from a nearby clay deposit. The point is that Gorse does not like calcium. Exactly how much calcium it does not like is hard to say. On chalk downs, the usual method to deduce the soil underneath is to spot the vegetation. Gorse usually indicates clayish soil, wind-swept alluvium or greensand. The method of making chalk non-porous is called "clunching". This may have been used in Bryonthic times. Yes it is possible to imported clay, but why do this when chalk will do the job? Clay is rather heavy and getting it to the tops of those hills is a mammoth task, wouldn't it be easier to use the chalk and flint you just dug out of the hole? Despite two reliable sources saying that Gorse grows on chalk you are willing to go with the wishfull thinking Bach? The point of presenting us with a theory is for your peers to have a look to see if there is any flaws. This theory has more holes than a swiss cheese. You can either adapt the theory or throw it away as complete bullshite.
|
|
|
Post by littleraven on Feb 20, 2009 14:21:23 GMT -1
I am finding it increasingly diificult to follow the point of this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2009 18:03:20 GMT -1
They are called Sheep Ponds by the farmers.
Nowadays, they tend to be lined with butyl rubber.
|
|
|
Post by Tegernacus on Feb 20, 2009 18:48:37 GMT -1
I am finding it increasingly diificult to follow the point of this. me neither
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2009 0:03:05 GMT -1
It has drifted to medieval sheep farming which is off topic. I will not post again on this matter as it is outside the forum remits.
|
|
|
Post by littleraven on Feb 21, 2009 0:09:50 GMT -1
It has drifted to medieval sheep farming which is off topic. I will not post again on this matter as it is outside the forum remits. It's not outside the remit as long as the relevance is clear. Which it isn't.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2009 18:40:44 GMT -1
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2009 23:17:14 GMT -1
A few years later, there is another entry, even more ominous, this time for AD 793. "Here terrible portents came about over the land of Northumbria, and miserably frightened the people: these were immense flashes of lightening, and fiery dragons were seen flying in the air. A great famine immediately followed these signs; and a little after that in the same year on 8 June the raiding of heathen men miserably devastated God's church in Lindisfarne island by looting and slaughter." Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (Petersborough MS) penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/britannia/anglo-saxon/lindisfarne/lindisfarne.html
|
|
|
Post by littleraven on Mar 3, 2009 7:38:46 GMT -1
What have the Vikings got to do with this, what are you trying to say? You need to explain what it is you are trying to justify with these 'terrible portents'.
Perseus, I have no doubt that you have it clear in your mind, but you will need to help us out a bit.
|
|
|
Post by Tegernacus on Mar 3, 2009 8:10:09 GMT -1
I think he's trying to say that the Saxons were calling Vikings "Heathens", thus the Saxons wouldn't be heathens. Or something.
|
|
|
Post by littleraven on Mar 3, 2009 8:56:58 GMT -1
I think he's trying to say that the Saxons were calling Vikings "Heathens", thus the Saxons wouldn't be heathens. Or something. Okay, I'll go with that. Of course we all know the Anglo-Saxons were 150yrs Christian by this point, so the Vikings raiders were Heathen to the Saxons, as the non-Christian Brits were Pagan to the Romans. Which we already know. I'd still like a point. But I do note from that quote two very significant historical dates relatign to the 8th June - the Vikings sacking Lindisfarne, and my birthday ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2009 8:59:15 GMT -1
The attack on Lindisfarne was unprecedented and horrified those who wrote of it. For Alcuin, who was at the court of Charlemagne and a leader of the Carolingian Renaissance, it was inconceivable that ships could suddenly appear from over the horizon.
"Lo, it is nearly 350 years that we and our fathers have inhabited this most lovely land, and never before has such terror appeared in Britain as we have now suffered from a pagan race, nor was it thought that such an inroad from the sea could be made. Behold, the church of St. Cuthbert spattered with the blood of the priests of God, despoiled of all its ornaments; a place more venerable than all in Britain is given as a prey to pagan peoples."
Alcuin, Letter to Ethelred, King of Northumbria
(Just revelling in the violence of those times)
|
|
|
Post by littleraven on Mar 3, 2009 10:04:22 GMT -1
Yep, he was also unhappy with people's beards IIRC.
What point are you trying to make with that passage? That Alcuin of York called the Vikings 'pagans' as opposed to 'Heathens'?
Have you looked at a copy of the letter pre-translation? What word does it use there?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2009 9:15:10 GMT -1
Yep, he was also unhappy with people's beards IIRC. What point are you trying to make with that passage? That Alcuin of York called the Vikings 'pagans' as opposed to 'Heathens'? Have you looked at a copy of the letter pre-translation? What word does it use there? A good point which had occurred to me. It is difficult to get hold of original documents without going to where they are held, British Museum etc. Every Anglo-Saxon Chronicle translation I have come across has been unsatisfactory, even the transcripts have sometime omitted gaps and joined words together when there is a gap in the original manuscript.
|
|
|
Post by megli on Mar 4, 2009 9:26:28 GMT -1
It's not at all difficult. This is what we have facsimiles and 'dimplomatic' editions for - texts which donn't edit the material, but which simply transcribe it exactly, with gaps and pagination and lines exactly as they are in a particular manuscript.
|
|
|
Post by megli on Mar 4, 2009 9:27:21 GMT -1
But anyway - what is your point in quoting this passage?
|
|
|
Post by megli on Mar 4, 2009 9:36:24 GMT -1
The relevant line of the text, incidentally, is as follows:
Ecce ecclesia Sancti Cuthberti sacerdotum Dei sanguine aspersa, omnibus spoliata ornamentis locus cunctis in Britannia venerabilior paganis gentibus datur ad depraedandum.
The word Alcuin uses is 'paganus'.
|
|
|
Post by littleraven on Mar 4, 2009 15:09:51 GMT -1
The relevant line of the text, incidentally, is as follows: Ecce ecclesia Sancti Cuthberti sacerdotum Dei sanguine aspersa, omnibus spoliata ornamentis locus cunctis in Britannia venerabilior paganis gentibus datur ad depraedandum. The word Alcuin uses is 'paganus'. Strangely because he's writing in Latin? Wow.
|
|