Featured Title:
Stone Circle Greetings Cards |
 |
| John Michell: From Atlantis to Avalon |
 |
| Login |
|
Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like your own home page, fewer ads, and your contributions link to your page. |
| Who's Online |
There are currently, 115 guests and 2 members online.
You are a guest. To join in, please register for free by clicking here |
| |
| Review your Reply |
cropredy
Joined:
01-01-2006
Messages: 5599
from Oxon
 OFF-Line
|  New Message Posted!2010-09-08 16:04
Quote:
|
On 2010-09-08 02:15, cerrig wrote:
Given the amount of man hours spent on the monuments there must have been quite a bit of slack in the system. You can't build monuments and be struggling for survival at the same time.
|
|
What do , or would You have had to struggle for?
I mean the specifics...food, heat????
cropredy
|
cerrig
Joined:
25-09-2009
Messages: 918
from Brecon Beacons
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2010-09-08 02:15
Given the amount of man hours spent on the monuments there must have been quite a bit of slack in the system. You can't build monuments and be struggling for survival at the same time.
|
Runemage
Joined:
15-07-2005
Messages: 2425
from UK
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2010-09-07 16:07
Maybe important to a few, but I reckon for the vast majority of folk it's more like what christianity was for the medieval peasants (forced to go to church once a week). On the whole they would have had much more work to do for survival on a daily basis than worrying about spirituality all the time.
I'm not so sure, how about practises like the Eastern religions where that is incorporated into daily living like Buddhism. Today, Bhutan has Gross National Happiness as it's goal but the populace have what we'd consider a 'peasant' existence.
Rune
|
davidmorgan
Joined:
23-11-2006
Messages: 1620
from The New Forest
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2010-09-07 10:54
Quote:
| On 2010-09-07 04:44, megalith6 wrote:
think belief was very important to these people so while there are utilitarian aspects to monuments the ritual side to them is pretty profound.
|
|
Maybe important to a few, but I reckon for the vast majority of folk it's more like what christianity was for the medieval peasants (forced to go to church once a week). On the whole they would have had much more work to do for survival on a daily basis than worrying about spirituality all the time.
|
megalith6
Joined:
28-10-2001
Messages: 154
from London UK
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2010-09-07 04:44
Quote:
|
Farmers of any period know when is the best time to sow and a huge investment like a cursus is unlikely to have been built for that purpose when much simpler means could have been used if they really needed the astronomical info . Suggesting that Stonehenge was a focus may be true and is better than getting clever with fancy irrefutable ideas but it will not satisfy the curious and that is why I'm still puzzled by it and the rest of them .
George
|
|
think belief was very important to these people so while there are utilitarian aspects to monuments the ritual side to them is pretty profound. Those long barrows ... they are memories in earth and stone of the 'long houses' these peoples' ancestors lived in, moving up from southern Europe, set in motion by the neolithic explosion of agriculture which changed everything; so i guess some of these barrows were just cenotaphs, points in the landscape to dwell upon and reflect on the deep time dimension that was part of these peoples' culture ~ they had no books or writing but long, long memories: i am sure the megalithic monuments were also part of the cultural mnemonic, so important to them; poetry and song probably also backed up lengthy genealogies going back centuries if not millennia ...
[ This message was edited by: megalith6 on 2010-09-07 04:45 ]
|
megalith6
Joined:
28-10-2001
Messages: 154
from London UK
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2010-09-07 04:30
Quote:
|
On 2010-08-10 23:21, chimera wrote:
Hi m6,
"There were very close links between Avebury and SH because the mega megaliths at SH were transported from the Marlborough Downs around Avebury. No-one knows quite how.."
-----------
That makes a close link for the source of some stones of SH. But Sil. seems the opposite idea of SH, a mountain in a moat, when the number of circles at SH keeps on growing but no Sil.-type high place. As Sil. is in a valley, the height does not seem to be the purpose, but the water circle does.
The difference is greater than the difference between Catholic and Presbyterian churches. And Newgrange/ Maes Howe are different again.
|
|
hi
yes
there's something else going on - but i don't think Silbury is an isolate, there was also a ritual hill at Marlborough. Silbury is probably a 'new take' on the theme of the circle, a circle in 3D, i think the level top is of a similar dimension to the Sanctuary
|
cerrig
Joined:
25-09-2009
Messages: 918
from Brecon Beacons
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2010-08-14 21:23
Thanks for that George. As ever you are a gentleman and a scholar. I can see that trying to make sense of intentions is very problematic, especially when reuse over a long period is involved.
I'm mostly interested in the original uses for the places that these monuments were sited at, more than the monuments themselves, as such.
My take on it is that underlying most, if not all, of the ancient monuments, is a geometric pattern of an as yet ( scientifically ) unidentified nature. This pattern/matrix was somehow known to the ancients, and they sited their monuments on it, in a quite precise way.
If this is correct then it would be the pattern that would initially have been the focus for the builders, and not the astronomy, which would bear out your info. This may have changed over time, or even as the monuments developed and became more sophisticated, they could even have become multifunctional.
This, generally, would seem to me to make more sense than some means of worshipping or burying bodies.
The individual monument types, now that's a challenge. How much is function and how much is fashion?
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2708
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2010-08-14 19:16
Quote:
|
On 2010-07-30 17:11, tiompan wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-07-30 13:15, karloff wrote:
|
|
Hi
I was responding to your Stonehenge question so my monument choice was based on that, but I'm happy to keep going with this so what monuments are particularly puzzling?
[/quote]
I realise that the comment was intended for Cerrig but if I may include a small sample to begin with ;cursus , ,henge , Long Barrrow , rock art site , timber circle , stone circle , ring cairn ,stone row , all of which I find totally puzzling .The land rights , social reproduction , ritual centre , funereal are more reasonable than the irrefutable "is it really worth considering ? energy " approach , bit they are still still glib and superficial .
George
[/quote]
Maybe I should clarify and expand on what I was getting at in the previous post plus a few comments too . I believe that what is most puzzling about many monuments ,for many , is function , particularly when a utilitarian motive is not obvious .The explanation for Causewayed Enclosures is reasonable but they tend not be among the most problematic and source of puzzlement . They are not “the earliest monuments in the early neolithic “ according to relatively recent dating .Hambledon Hill has been dated 3650 BC and Windmill Hill 3600-3300 BC whilst dates from Long Barrows e.g. Ascott 3760 -3695 BC, Hazleton (late 37 th C), Fussels Lodge ,West Kennet 3670-3635 BC
The ancestral bones as justification for territorial rights has been around since Meillassoux pointed out the different types of time experienced byf oragers compared with that experienced by farmers some ethnography from Bloch and Ramilsonina gave it legs , it is feasible but the monuments that provide the best dating sequences show that the bones were deposited within a very short time of build date and closure e.g. West Kennet where there is an 81% probability that primary deposits occurred 3670 BC - 3635 BC , that is not what was expected for the “ancestral “ model .Further problem are , ethnography suggests that ancestors are “worshipped “ /remembered at sites that are distinct from where they were buried and some barrows do not have any human remains deposited .There was a functional explanation for Cursuses but I would disagree with the reasoning ,see below .Cursuses , particularly in Scotland also predate causewayed enclosures . Nether Largie cursus may have been built 3800-3650 and Holywood North 3890 -3650 cal bc . As there are no earlier European counterparts they can be viewed as a British invention . We have relatively accurate azimuths for many , those not provided by Roy Loveday can be calculated and the resulting declinations show no sign of any preference for the usually accepted archaeoastronomical orienations i.e solstices and standstills . The orientations cover the whole spectrum and a significant 26 % (of a sample of 76 ) point to the northern part of the horizon where the sun or moon are not seen . Considering that there are two possible orientations for every monument and they often change course it would be expected that some might fit into the “aligned “category , but as this number is so small it doesn't appear it is a characetristic . They often connect earlier monuments which would suggest that if there was an intentional alignment it would have been the property of the earlier monuments .Farmers of any period know when is the best time to sow and a huge investment like a cursus is unlikely to have been built for that purpose when much simpler means could have been used if they really needed the astronomical info . Suggesting that Stonehenge was a focus may be true and is better than getting clever with fancy irrefutable ideas but it will not satisfy the curious and that is why I'm still puzzled by it and the rest of them .
George
|
chimera
Joined:
09-09-2006
Messages: 1508
from Australia
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2010-08-10 23:21
Hi m6,
"There were very close links between Avebury and SH because the mega megaliths at SH were transported from the Marlborough Downs around Avebury. No-one knows quite how.."
-----------
That makes a close link for the source of some stones of SH. But Sil. seems the opposite idea of SH, a mountain in a moat, when the number of circles at SH keeps on growing but no Sil.-type high place. As Sil. is in a valley, the height does not seem to be the purpose, but the water circle does.
The difference is greater than the difference between Catholic and Presbyterian churches. And Newgrange/ Maes Howe are different again.
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2708
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2010-08-03 22:12
Quote:
|
On 2010-08-03 21:25, sem wrote:
Hi Tiompan and Karloff
At the Brecon Beacon MP Meet, I was giving an amateur's description of Moon Standstills. When I said stones may have been positioned to mark this 18.6yr cycle someone replied it was an unusual period of time, not in keeping with years etc.
A lady (Roz?) then simply said "It's a generation."
Stoneage Sensitivity or just female intuition?
[ This message was edited by: sem on 2010-08-03 21:27 ]
|
|
Hi Sem , I think a generation is quite a loose term with no certain time limit anything between 16-25 years depending on who you ask .
George
| |
|
Main News