Used Excavators

Posts Tagged ‘Megalithic’

Dear Friends of Science and Archaeology,

Megalithic culture of ancient Kutch.

Very less has been investigated about ancient megalithic culture of Kutch during the pre Harappan and Harappan times. Few known places have been investigated some of them are Goniasar , Juni Rayan, Zura Kotadi, Guntali Desalpar, Meghpar Khander vari wadi, Todio timbo, Sarli Tombo, Juna Kotada near Roha and Dholavira. But very little work has been done on the subject and the places. One of such an outstanding place is Jangania near NALIYA in Abadasa, where graves are specifically shaped according to the shape of body.

Generally it is a belief that there are very few such places but it has wide distributed in ancient time in Kutch, and so also need to put more interest in the subject and also in investigations of such cultures.

During our last geo-archaeological expedition in 2007 we visited few megalithic structures in kutch. Namely famous Dholavira and three new places namely Todio (Timbo), Timbo SARLI and Old Kotada near Roha. If photo below is not seen clearly an attachment picture “Ancient Megalithic Structures.jpg” is added to this email. As we see in composed photograph below DHOLAVIRA has similar circular structures (Bottom Rt Corner). we also discovered similar Megalithic structures underground in megalithic places namely Todio (Timbo) (Bottom Lt Corner), Timbo SARLI (Upper Lt Corner). and Old Kotada near Roha (Upper Rt Corner).

So not only few known places do have such hidden culture but is widely distributed all over kutch during ancient time. we have some explanation of our recorded expedition and also a time table below for the ancient Megalithic structures. so we can compare the timings of those structures to relate with the ancient Civilisations in the Kutch during pre Harappan and Harappan times.

Megalithic Civilisation found in ZURA (KOTADI) of KUTCH – Megalithic SAMADHIs (Graves) of Zura Kotadi and potteries and bones

Zura (Jhura) is situated North West of BHUJ (23:24N – 69:39E) is known place for its Geology and History as it says Zura – (Fall due to seismic activity at Jhura) of the Kutch.

But its Geology is also associated with its archaeology and civilisation in that area. Though not much known of the place but local people are aware of the story of those places but far away from the knowledge of Archaeological importance as the area remained unexplored.

2km South and SE region of the Village is the Place called “KOTADI” as many civilisation names. Area has big elevated area TIMBO having stone wall around but hidden underneath. On exploration many of the Pottery found in the area including toys parts and pottery of two different varieties – Red as usual as also black – as in the area of RAMVAV and LAKHAPAR region civilisation in VAGAD – RAPAR area.

Rivers in this region all flows from South West to North EAST- from slops of the Jhuran Mountain slopes towards the Banni planes where there used to be a lake of the water of the rivers Sarasvati and sindhu waters in the Rann of KUTCH.

About 1 Km East of that KOTADI area is the place of the Mystery graves. I would say rather SAMADHIs as I have explained it before as they are the SAMADHIs is a sitting posture and are kept open on the east side of those as are kept in Samadhi rules as explained by Mahant Shree Kishordasji.

Many of such Samadhi are about some distance from the civilisation area as in the Case of GADHVARI VADI civilisation (Meghpar)- one of samadhi was in KHANDERVARI VADI.

Specimens collected from the region confirms those civilisation and Megalithic Samadhis in the region says those to be 2000 BC.

Similar type of Mystery graves of Mystery Shapes (shapes are given to the body shapes) are also in JANGADIA – ABADASA NALIYA -LAKHPAT way. those are also Megalithic times graves.

I would prefer to say those Megalithic SAMADHIs as that can not be defined as an ordinary graves. I also took an expert opinions from Mahant shree Kishordasji of kabir Mandir BHUJ as he is well known personality of the subjects regarding SAMADHIs. We went together there to identify those, and local observation showed that those places has become an open spaces now as a result of environment and weather. and shows skull bones opened from the top side and not the Limb bones. so Those are defined as Sitting SAMADHIs. and east side of those SAMADHIs kept open as seen shadows towards east in the Evening pictures.

prominent for the region’s prehistoric population. Circular graves dating to c. 3000 BC are dotted . stone piled up a round -shaped chamber the site of the first archaeological excavation when several circular, collective tombs like those were excavated. The excavation of a settlement confirmed the importance of the locale and for this reason the period c. 2500-2000 BC.

They are typical of burial mounds of about 2000 BC where the cremated remains of the community’s elders would have been buried. “Carbon dating should confirm that the burial mound dates to about 2000BC,” This means the Bronze Age graveyard dates back . They have already found a piece of pottery containing the remains of burnt shells. “It is possible that the enclosure could date as far back as 3000 BC,” “But we need to find more pottery that has decoration so we can provide a more accurate date to the site.”

Megalithic tombs research has a long history, inextricably linked with the development of archaeology itself. In the beginning (2400 b.c.-1200 A.D.) interest in for such interest consisted primarily of superstitious awe and religious inspiration. Beyond this, the curiosity of unknown prehistoric individuals can only be imagined.

However, many terms describing megalithic architecture were first recorded. During the Culture History and subsequent periods the Some felt that the chronology only needed minor adjustments and that new tomb excavations and large catalogs would explain the evolution of the tombs. Surprisingly the advent of C14 dating in the fifties, which revolutionized archaeology in many parts of the world, had little effect on dating tombs, C14 dates began to hint at the real antiquity of the tombs, but ceramic analysis continued to play the major role.

the relative chronology. Difficulties in various regional ceramic typologies were isolated and efforts have been made to overcome incongruencies between the typological method used for ceramics, problems in C14 dating, and theories on megalithic tomb evolution. and related pottery contributed. The origin of megalithic tombs , graves has been a matter of debate for centuries. The Eastern Tomb Origin Theory is currently not persuasive. The western origin is tainted by the diffusionists’ mind-set. It is contradicted by radiocarbon dates and the evolutionary trajectory of French tombs. The Autochthonous Theory is supported by a logical, chronological evolution of tomb types and their spatial distribution

The origin of megalithic tombs is an autochthonous development. This network was held together by a common ideology expressed through the building of monumental burial architecture which, Megalithic tomb construction expanded at different rates , The local and regional tomb types were derived from local traditions, local religious interpretations and customs tied to an interregional ideology.

CHRONOLOGICAL MODEL OF MEGALITHIC CHAMBER EVOLUTION

3600-2990/2860 B.C./2860-2400/2300 b.c. 3550/3500-3100 B.C.

3600-3290 B.C./2860-2610 b.c. [3550/3500-3100 B.C.

3600-3530 B.C./2860-2800 b.c. [3550/3500-3400 B.C.] Primeval-dolmen (urdolmen, normally parallel to long-mound)

3550-3460 B.C./2850-2750 b.c. Transitional dolmen (parallel/perpendicular to long-mound)

3550 B.C./2815 b.c. Top-entrance urdolmen 3530 B.C./2800 b.c. Half-height front-entrance urdolmen and square-dolmen 3500 B.C./2780 b.c. Extended-dolmen with axial capstone

3480-3290 B.C./2760-2610 b.c. [3400-3100 B.C.] Multiple side-stone dolmen (perpendicular to long-mound)

3480 B.C./2760 b.c. Rectilinear and polygonal extended-dolmen 3450 B.C./2740 b.c. Rectilinear and polygonal grand-dolmen

3400-3100/2970 B.C./2700-2490/2400 b.c. [3250-3100 B.C.] Passage-graves

3400-3290 B.C./2700-2610 b.c. Transitional chambers with passage

3400 B.C./2700 b.c. Large polygonal- and rectilinear-dolmen/protopassage-graves with angled/corner entrance and passage

3360-3100/2970 B.C./2650-2490/2400 b.c. [3250-3100 B.C.] Passage-graves*

3360 B.C./2650 b.c. Primeval passage-graves 3290 B.C./2610 b.c. Extended passage-graves 3240 B.C./2570 b.c. Grand passage-graves

3320-3100/2970 B.C./2630-2490/2400 b.c. [3250-3100 B.C.] Complex Chambers

3320 B.C./2630 b.c. Side-chamber passage-graves 3300 B.C./2620 b.c. End-chamber passage-graves 3290 B.C./2610 b.c. Double passage-graves 3260 B.C./2580 b.c. Triple passage-graves 3240 B.C./2570 b.c. Dual-passage chambers 3210 B.C./2560 b.c. Single chamber double passage-graves

3400-2860 B.C./2700-2300 b.c. Gallery-graves

3400 B.C./2700 b.c. Primeval gallery-graves with front- or side entrance 3290 B.C./2610 b.c. Extended gallery-graves with front- or side entrance 3240 B.C./2570 b.c. Grand gallery-graves with front- or side-entrance

From:- YOURS Dr.BHUDIA-Science Group Of INDIA.

http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/venustransit_2004/

President:’Kutch Science Foundation’.

Founder :’Kutch Amateurs Astronomers Club – Bhuj – Kutch’.

Life Member:’kutch Itihaas Parishad’.

kutchscience@yahoo.co.in, kutchscience@hotmail.com,

http://uk.geocities.com/wildlifeofkutch/

http://www.geocities.com/kutchscience

http://profiles.yahoo.com/kutchscience2000

http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/scienceclubofindia

http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/kutchscience

http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/kachchh

http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/bhuj

Do visit our ABOVE Clubs/Groups of Science Groups of India.

At the start of summer 2006 I probably knew as much about Stonehenge as the next man – it’s a collection of big old stones, or megaliths, set in a circle on the gently rolling chalk hills of Salisbury Plain in the English county of Wiltshire …

Having grown-up in England I’d even had the opportunity to visit the area as a schoolboy, although I must say I was more interested in running up and down the slopes of neighboring Avebury than listening to the master droning on about how the site was constructed and by whom. Little had changed almost forty years later, England in the World Cup proving far more exciting than the antics of their Neolithic ancestors. So when my ten-year-old daughter asked why anyone would want to use such big stones to build Stonehenge in the first place my answer was appropriately glib, but it got me thinking. In fact it prompted a very bizarre experiment followed by two years of intense research culminating in a book, The Stonehenge Observatory.

You may be wondering why anyone is still interested in the site, after all, so much has been written about it in the past 100 years there can be nothing left to discover, can there?

If only it was that simple because, try as they might to pigeon-hole the site, Stonehenge poses a rather difficult problem for the archeologists.

It is similar to ancient earthworks in the use of a bank and ditch but the arrangement is unique, for almost every other ancient earthwork has an inner ditch and outer bank. For some reason this is reversed in Stonehenge where an outer bank encloses the remains of a once towering inner bank.

It is also similar to ancient megalithic structures in the use of stone but the quality of workmanship is unique. Lintels set atop two pillars have been secured using knob and socket joints that are more familiar to pre-cast concrete structures today. Possibly the only other ancient site demonstrating this method of dry-jointing stone is the Giza Pyramid where it has been used to secure cornerstones.

Stonehenge sits in a greater megalithic landscape populated by causewayed enclosures, chambered tombs and passage graves, and although individual stones of the size and finish seen at Stonehenge are not unusual to the Neolithic age, thirty pillars, each weighing around 30 tons, accurately placed on sloping ground to support a level and perfect ring of lintels over 30m (100ft) in diameter is extraordinary, and not just for Europe.

Considering the size of the surrounding ditch and number of stones there is surprisingly little evidence of it having been constructed using the tools of the day – antler and bone. For example there are only two radiocarbon samples available to place a date on the erection of seventy-five stones that make up the Sarsen Circle and Trilithons, and they differ by almost 2,000 years.

It is so well-designed that some observers believe it functioned as a solar and lunar calendar at a time when the emerging agrarian societies in Neolithic Britain became aware of the significance of the Sun and Moon in predicting seasons, a view that contrasts with British archeologists who believe it in some way ‘symbolic’ for a culture connecting with dead spirits – anything more would require knowledge well beyond the capabilities of the British Neolithic people and suggest (heavens forbid) a foreign influence. To this end the ‘authorities’ appear willing to do almost anything to keep Stonehenge a truly national monument. 

Almost every attempt to recreate techniques believed to have been used to transport, prepare and erect the stones is done so from the point of reinforcing the Neolithic theory.

It has helped define a phased sequence of construction spanning 1,500 years where erection of the largest stone groups, the Trilithons, at the center of the monument would require the builders to negotiate the Sarsen Circle during their positioning and final erection (it’s worth noting how the recreation of construction techniques is always performed in isolation and with neatly squared-off blocks of pre-cast concrete). A re-evaluation by the Ancient Monuments Laboratory (AML) of radiocarbon datable material recovered during 20th century excavations of the site was clearly aimed at reinforcing these established phases.

It is against this backdrop that I attempted to publish a paper documenting my own theory some six months into my research. Looking back, to be honest, it was a hastily prepared conclusion I felt keen to rubber-stamp as my own and deserved no more attention than it achieved. Undeterred by the lack of official or media response I continued researching the subject of Stonehenge in books, video, and on the Internet. Most authors provide little more information than can be obtained from R. J. C. Atkinson’s book, Stonehenge, published in 1956, and default to the techniques for moving and erecting stones he describes. Even Gerald Hawkins, author of the much maligned Stonehenge Decoded in which he ‘proved’ the builders capable of astronomical calculation far ahead of their time, felt obliged to stick to Atkinson’s sequence of construction and subsequent archeological dating of such. I too may have fallen into this trap had it not been for Google Sketchup. This incredibly powerful yet easy to use software allowed unparalleled access to the site via 3D models I had created using data from a variety of sources and, used in combination with CyberSky astronomical software, I was able to test theoretical alignments as well as add weight to my own theory. However, it was in using the models to provide illustrations for the book that I realized a consequence of the method Atkinson adopted to erect the Sarsen pillars – the orientation of the flat inner face meant they could only have been raised from outside the circle. It was only one of a number of inconsistencies which were to cast doubt upon the established sequence of construction and dates, a doubt that was further corroborated following a thorough examination of the AML study.

By the end of 2007 I was reasonably certain my theory provided a credible alternative to any other, including the ‘archillogical’ interpretation of Stonehenge as a Neolithic place of ritual worship. Hawkins had been right about the outlying stones but they could only have been placed following severe erosion of the bank which would have otherwise rendered them useless. Other theories rely on a uniformity of stone and symmetry that is absent in all but the Sarsen lintel ring. Still more totally ignore features for which they have no use or explanation. Stonehenge is too precise an arrangement to be simply a temple and yet too crude in the choice of material to be an astronomical observatory – that is, until you fill it with water at which point the central setting of stones provides a firm base from which to observe a reflection of the Sun, Moon and stars. There could be no other reason for paying such close attention to the form and finish of a lintel ring that would remain out of sight to observers at ground level, and especially so when such little attention had been paid to the pillars supporting it.

Contrary to the many stylized models of Stonehenge the pillars are not of a uniform shape and size (and never were) neither are the gaps between them, yet much is made of their placement in aligning on or obscuring the view of various events. The pillars are purely structural and well suited to the purpose. Another reason to believe the lintels provided a firm base on which to move around is the technique used to secure them in place. It’s not as if 7 tons of rock is likely to slip off two 30 ton pillars set 1m (3ft) into the ground, yet the builders felt it necessary to use three different methods to join them all together. The surrounding hills still provide an ample supply of water in the form of an unconfined aquifer and there is every reason to believe the level of the water table even higher in the past. Features within and around the site provide examples of how that water could be accessed and maintained within the confines of the henge.

At the same time (the end of 2007) I was struggling with the geometry of projection. It was proving impossible to provide a geometrical method to compensate for the orientation of the site around 50° east of north without resorting to trig tables, and I wanted to show how the stars could be plotted mechanically. The orientation of the site towards the longest day of the year, the summer solstice, lends weight to the idea that it was intentionally aligned on the event but the association is tenuous for several reasons, none least of which being the tendency for the event to move left and right according to the Earth’s changing angle of tilt. Following a dialogue with a professor in astronomy I decided to look at the problem from a completely different angle, literally, at which point everything fell into place. Not only was the geometry problem solved, there was also an explanation for the positions of the Trilithons within the Sarsen circle in providing a permanent record of the Moon’s northern and southernmost standstills.

For the first time every feature within the henge could be accounted for in a single, functional unit. However, in closing the door on one mystery I had opened the door to another of even greater magnitude – for my theory to be correct, the history of the Earth has to be wrong.

There is, of course, much more disclosed in my book, The Stonehenge Observatory. It includes a full cross-examination of the AML study, an explanation of the astronomical problems faced by the builders, alternative theories, and a full description of the features. But paper alone never really does justice to the site. Previous authors have reverted to long-winded descriptions of the stones with Ordnance Survey style plans for reference, or wire-frame diagrams of what the site would have looked like. In an attempt to provide the reader with as much access to the site as possible without the need to be there in person (which would require a time-machine to see how it was originally) I have made the 3D models available online at:

http://www.stonehengeobservatory.com

The web site is designed to compliment the book, so don’t expect too much in the way of commentary. The models are, however, very interactive with the option to hide or show features, pan and zoom manually or with the help of a site plan. An eBook version of The Stonehenge Observatory is available for those of you who can’t wait for the printers. There is also an animated reconstruction of the destruction of the site from which it is possible to see the extent of the damage to individual stones. The destruction of Stonehenge is as much a mystery as how it was built. There can be no doubt that Man figured largely in the removal of fallen stones but you need only look to the 20th century restoration of the site to realize how the sheer size and foundations of those left standing poses more of a problem for the scavenger than it ever did for the builder. Large cranes, gantries and cradles were essential to lift megaliths still buried after so many centuries. It is also clear that erosion of the site exposed some foundations sufficiently for the wind to take its toll, but not to such an extent that the entire southwestern sector would be demolished, and though the scale of the damage would suggest a tidal wave or earthquake, the pattern of destruction says otherwise. To this end, what I consider possible in The Stonehenge Observatory can only invite scorn from the academic community to which I do not belong, but the true age of Stonehenge and the event which lead to its destruction together with what can only be described as a red herring of truly astronomic proportions, are corroborated in studies by members of that very community.