Featured Title:
Redhead, the new thriller by Ian Cook 'a compulsive read' |
 |
| Inscribed Across the Landscape: The Cursus Monuments of Great Britain |
 |
| 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, 133 guests and 10 members online.
You are a guest. To join in, please register for free by clicking here |
| |
Forum: Stones Forum
Moderated by : Andy B , TimPrevett , coldrum , Klingon , MickM , TheCaptain , bat400 , davidmorgan , Runemage , SolarMegalith , sem
Respond to: Question: is there a relationship between megalithic tombs and circles?
|
| Review your Reply |
Runemage
Joined:
15-07-2005
Messages: 2412
from UK
 OFF-Line
|  New Message Posted!2012-04-01 22:38
Thanks Frogcottage, I've learned why they were peeved, although not why they are still peeved but that's not a discussion for here 
|
Elijah
Joined:
21-03-2012
Messages: 86
from Spain
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2012-04-01 15:07
George wrote
Quote:
| the Stonehenge ( - ) mention was gratuitous |
|
I agree, I need some sleep...
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2646
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2012-04-01 13:32
Quote:
|
On 2012-04-01 13:03, Elijah wrote:
Hello John , That is the problem , why should we accept that assumption without any evidence .
Apart from a few papers the Gibson book is the only one on the subject afaik , agree it is a good read but the once again the Stonehenge , (despite the presence of some post holes there were no cirlces as such ) mention was gratuitous .
George
Hi GeorgeQuote:
| Hello John , my original question was about evidence for the use of altars at these monuments . You may accept that blood sacrifice was the principal function but that is not evidence. |
|
As mentioned above; if we are to accept this assumption then we must accept that the megalithic circles and standing stones of Britain and Ireland had a completely different function that those found in the rest of the world! Quote:
| There were two timber circles built near to Newgrange ,and also two hengiforms but a wooden henge ? |
|
I actually meant to write woodhenge; a term acquired from Alex Gibson's "Stonehenge and timber Circles", a good read.
John
|
|
|
Elijah
Joined:
21-03-2012
Messages: 86
from Spain
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2012-04-01 13:03
Hi Rune
Quote:
| Did you miss the part where I told you the entrance-stone to Newgrange is not flat on the top, so could not be used as an altar? |
|
I take your point. Quote:
| You've missed the point, it's posited that the structures were built where these phenomena had already been seen. |
|
I understand the theory of earth lights, but this is the first I've heard of this unlikely premise; I must be out of touch, can you give me a reference. Quote:
| It is surprising how once you accept any idea then you can say it's the principal function of these sites and their design makes sense. |
|
Are you seriously suggesting that of all the ancient megaliths in the world, those found in Britain and Ireland had a different function? Quote:
| If someone is going to catch large amounts of blood from slaughtered animals, they would need many containers and many people to carry them. Liquid is surprisingly heavy, sloshy and difficult to transport at anything but a slow pace. As far as I'm aware, layers of dried blood haven't shown up in excavations either of circles or of passage mounds etc, so what do you reckon they did with it all, made black pudding in the nearest fulacht fiadh Or used it as fertiliser for their crops? |
|
Given the amount of rain across these Islands over the last few thousand years, I think you'd be hard pressed to find any residue at all. Inside the mound is a different matter, but I know of no tests that have been done... do you? As for the containers - I understand that no pottery has ever been found in any passage grave, but that doesn't rule out the use of animal skins. These have been used for millennia to carry water and the like, I've used them myself in the desert. And let's not forget that the human skull makes a handy little vessel, but I don't think that this was the precise function of those skulls that had special treatment at burial rites. Yes, the ancient practice of blood sacrifice did produce a lot of blood, an obvious implication of the wholesale slaughter that took place across the ancient world at dawn and dusk each day; more so at the summer solstices and equinoxes. Ancient texts tell us that the blood of victims was liberally sprinkled over stone altars, and I believe stone uprights, because it was believed to contain the sacrificial victims spirit! Our ancestors peculiar blood taboos go some way to explaining its wholesale ritual liberation.
Hi Frog
Quote:
| Elijah, back to Newgrange. That large stone at the entrance is not flanked by lots of uprights but is one of many kerb stones which continue all round the base of the mound.
As I suggested in an earlier post it's current prominence is due to the highly contentious reconstruction of a sheer stone faced wall all around the entrance for which there is no hard evidence. |
|
Are you aware of the vertical lines engraved in the entrance stone and curb stone 52 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfPQE2H0KB8&feature=relmfu According to the archaeologist in this film, these lines mark out the solstice alignment; which would suggest that the entrance stone is still in its original position.
Hi GeorgeQuote:
| Hello John , my original question was about evidence for the use of altars at these monuments . You may accept that blood sacrifice was the principal function but that is not evidence. |
|
As mentioned above; if we are to accept this assumption then we must accept that the megalithic circles and standing stones of Britain and Ireland had a completely different function that those found in the rest of the world! Quote:
| There were two timber circles built near to Newgrange ,and also two hengiforms but a wooden henge ? |
|
I actually meant to write woodhenge; a term acquired from Alex Gibson's "Stonehenge and timber Circles", a good read.
John
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2646
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2012-03-31 21:30
Hello John , my original question was about evidence for the use of altars at these monuments . You may accept that blood sacrifice was the principal function but that is not evidence .
There were two timber circles built near to Newgrange ,and also two hengiforms but a wooden henge ?
George
Quote:
|
On 2012-03-31 13:49, Elijah wrote:
Hi Tiompan, Rune, Frog
Frog, when I see a recumbent stone clearly incorporated into a circle or an assembly of uprights, then I think altar. It is surprising how once you accept that blood sacrifice was the principal function of these sites, certain aspects of their design do start to make sense.
Without checking the source of this particular Wikipedia article it is interesting to note the ritual activity that took place at this site, because it appears to shed light on my opening question. There was a very early wooden henge nearby that hosted a considerable amount of sacrificial activity, and seventeen hearths were found at the entrance to the mound, near this nicely engraved stone. Is it a coincidence that the mounds function as a grave is largely disputed?
John
|
|
|
frogcottage42
Joined:
14-02-2010
Messages: 235
from tuosist
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2012-03-31 21:16
Elijah, back to Newgrange. That large stone at the entrance is not flanked by lots of uprights but is one of many kerb stones which continue all round the base of the mound.
As I suggested in an earlier post it's current prominence is due to the highly contentious reconstruction of a sheer stone faced wall all around the entrance for which there is no hard evidence.
It is equally possible that the original mound had a nearly continuous ring of kerbs like the front one with a low rubble retaining wall at the edge of a smooth mound. We are never really going to know now!
It is more useful to look at the less developed/restored examples at Knowth/Dowth etc..which retain more of their original character.
|
frogcottage42
Joined:
14-02-2010
Messages: 235
from tuosist
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2012-03-31 21:07
Penal Times! yeah, to the Irish this is an alternative label for just another hideous abuse by us English but it refers to a period roughly from the beginning of the 17th century when from 1607 Catholics were banned from holding public or political office or serving in the armed forces.
This discrimination escalated by around 1700 to a state where Irish Catholics could not;
* receive education
* to hold public office
* to engage in trade or commerce
* to own a horse of more than £0,5'0" value
* to purchase land
* to lease land
* to vote
* to keep arms for his protection
* to buy land from a protestant
* inherit any thing from a protestant
further he could not;
* be a Guardian to a child
* when dying leave his infant children under Catholic Guardianship
* himself educate his child
* send his child to a catholic teacher
* employ a Catholic teacher to come to his child
* send his child abroad to receive education
but the key point:- * attend Catholic worship
This meant that Priests held services in Latin at open air venues usually having some kind of natural alter, these are known as mass rocks.
There are hundreds here and many still have trails visible showing how heavily trafficked they were back then.
The bulk of these laws were repealed by 1829 in what became known as the Catholic emancipation.
Anyway, big subject see http://www.fenagh.com/history/penal-times/
for a good synopsis.
This period does give rise to some interesting monuments but also the destruction of others, such as the five stone circle at Curraduff which seems to have been destroyed at the behest of the Priest conducting services at the mass rock some 50 yards away.
Quote:
|
On 2012-03-30 22:45, Runemage wrote:
Ha! there's always one 
Nice find, the Irish were always way more tolerant of ancient places and sought to incorporate a lot rather than use the English obliteration technique.
probably in penal times
Please help me out here, as one whose knowledge of history is dodgy and whose knowledge of Irish history is non-existent...
Rune
|
|
|
Runemage
Joined:
15-07-2005
Messages: 2412
from UK
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2012-03-31 18:21
Did you miss the part where I told you the entrance-stone to Newgrange is not flat on the top, so could not be used as an altar?
Rune wrote - Have you investigated the 'earthlights; theory? It does fit many modern witnessed accounts.
Yes, Paul Devereux has done quite a lot of work in this area, but it doesn't fit with the evidence. It is such an sporadic and unpredictable phenomenon that I cannot see ancient people expending the energy they did on building these huge megalithic structures simply on the off-chance that one would appear near them.
You've missed the point, it's posited that the structures were built where these phenomena had already been seen.
Also there are many stone circles with a recumbent that have no mounds or barrows nearby.
It is surprising how once you accept that blood sacrifice was the principal function of these sites, certain aspects of their design do start to make sense.
It is surprising how once you accept any idea then you can say it's the principal function of these sites and their design makes sense. Trouble is, that idea has to be right. So far no-one's managed a one-size fits all explanation although many have tried.
If someone is going to catch large amounts of blood from slaughtered animals, they would need many containers and many people to carry them. Liquid is surprisingly heavy, sloshy and difficult to transport at anything but a slow pace. As far as I'm aware, layers of dried blood haven't shown up in excavations either of circles or of passage mounds etc, so what do you reckon they did with it all, made black pudding in the nearest fulacht fiadh Or used it as fertiliser for their crops?
Rune
|
Elijah
Joined:
21-03-2012
Messages: 86
from Spain
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2012-03-31 13:49
Hi Tiompan, Rune, Frog
Thanks for sticking with this, it is a difficult subject as I know from personal experience. Some people, including my friends, get agitated when the conversation crops up. Understandable of course as I'm questioning the very basis of their faith.
A few points about megalithic altars.
First, I don't think the general population is aware of the full extent of ancient blood sacrifice. We may point to the Aztecs as a very extreme example of this activity, and it was. But we simply don't appreciate the global spread and magnitude of this bizarre practice. Anthropologists naturally concentrate on human sacrifice but this was the exception, the immeasurable mass of victims were animals. Remember that the vital yield of sacrifice was blood, enormously high volumes of the stuff, I won't go into the amount that you can get from a single horse or cow, but its a lot, and the evidence shows that this was conveyed into the darkness of nearby sanctuaries for a reason. What that reason was is unclear, but I believe there is sufficient evidence available to make a reasoned judgement.
Second, because our ancestors didn't have writing, and so didn't record their ritual activity, like the more civilized peoples of the Mediterranean, Near, and Middle East, we lack an appreciation of the past in respect to our ancient ritual activity. The Church of Rome has clearly played an important role here, which is we are left with lots of incoherent festivities and customs. So whilst we celebrate Bon-fire nights in Britain, in the rest of Europe they celebrate Bone-fires nights.
Quote:
| Frog wrote - though I cannot dispute the position of certain recumbents being suitable as an alter I think the stone you refer to at Newgrange owes it's current prominence to the twentieth century reconstruction .We have no way of knowing whether it originally differed significantly from the other kerbstones which are generally typical of these monuments several of which have similar decoration. |
|
There's an early photograph of the entrance taken before 1905 which shows the stone partially buried, which would suggest it was contemporary with the structure. (Sorry Druid, I also find that searches take me to Wikipedia) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newgrange
Frog, when I see a recumbent stone clearly incorporated into a circle or an assembly of uprights, then I think altar. It is surprising how once you accept that blood sacrifice was the principal function of these sites, certain aspects of their design do start to make sense.
Without checking the source of this particular Wikipedia article it is interesting to note the ritual activity that took place at this site, because it appears to shed light on my opening question. There was a very early wooden henge nearby that hosted a considerable amount of sacrificial activity, and seventeen hearths were found at the entrance to the mound, near this nicely engraved stone. Is it a coincidence that the mounds function as a grave is largely disputed?
Quote:
| Rune wrote - Have you investigated the 'earthlights; theory? It does fit many modern witnessed accounts. |
|
Yes, Paul Devereux has done quite a lot of work in this area, but it doesn't fit with the evidence. It is such an sporadic and unpredictable phenomenon that I cannot see ancient people expending the energy they did on building these huge megalithic structures simply on the off-chance that one would appear near them. Having said that, I am seeking a physical explanation here, and this is just one area where I need some expert input. One of my crucial questions would be - what would this phenomena (and one other magnetic phenomenon I do suspect is involved) be like if the planets magnetic field was much stronger; which it was during this period?
John
|
Runemage
Joined:
15-07-2005
Messages: 2412
from UK
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2012-03-30 22:45
Ha! there's always one
Nice find, the Irish were always way more tolerant of ancient places and sought to incorporate a lot rather than use the English obliteration technique.
probably in penal times
Please help me out here, as one whose knowledge of history is dodgy and whose knowledge of Irish history is non-existent...
Rune
| |
|
Main News