|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Ritual Landscapes |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
morfe 2992 posts |
Jul 31, 2003, 21:28
|
||
In appreciation of Nigel's excellent question, what does anyone think typifies or identifies a landscape that was/is a ritual construction? I agree that tree cover plays a major part in this issue, as physical viewpoints and/or astronomy is believed to have played a significant role for the builders of the Avebury complex etc?
|
|||
Moth 5236 posts |
Jul 31, 2003, 21:51
|
||
|
You had to ask didn't you.... Just a quickie - hasn't it also got something to do with the landscape being a 'backdrop' or 'stage' for some kind of (regular and perhaps important) activity? Trouble is, 'ritual' is a word that people could disagree on the meaning of too.... love Moth
|
|||
|
BrigantesNation 1733 posts |
Jul 31, 2003, 23:13
|
||
|
My first suggestion is that cursus building may have taken place at a time when there was a significant covering of trees. Although they are perhaps our largest monuments, they also have the least visual profile. There lack of visual impact suggests to me that they were built at a time when there was little point in making a visual statement - i.e. they were surrounded by trees. So, if I continue with this train of thought, we have an image of a large clearance in the middle of a forest. The only cursus I know well is the one at Thornborough, which runs roughly north eastwards from the River Ure. It's orientation may have something to do with access - perhaps it was started close to the river and carried on for at least a mile or so. at a width of c100m. Another wild leap of faith is my sudden realisation that the modern road that runs parallel to it may well have been created at that time also, and if so, may have continued to Pickhill, via Kirklington. This stretch is littered with possibilities. First of all there are some very interesting carvings at Kirklington Church, as well as an unknown earthwork and a burial mound. At Pickhill the church there has some possible archaic images, as well as a place called Roman Castle and the site of an Abbey. Continuing the line of the cursus goes through a henge, at least two burial mounds, two pit alignments, the site of a possible chapel as well as the other stuff - all in a six mile run. Furthermore, it would connect the Swale and the Ure. So, my wild imagination now sees two river ports - one on the Ure, the other on Swale. Between them a causeway through an area of heavily forrested marshland, in the centre of this causeway the area opens up to a long cursus - a 100 metre wide area that has been raised by a meter or so. Presumably the tree coverage would been cleared back some way beyond the cursus area in order to get earth for the banking of the cursus. So, I am now seeing it as a meeting point - the people of the Ure and the people of the Swale - east meets west in the largest gathering ever known. How many? Well it's a big area, for the sake of aguement lets say a thousand. Some pretty local, others perhaps making this a well timed stopover point in their semi nomadic lifestyle. Why were they meeting? well, we have no evidence, no burials from that period that I know of, but we do have signs of very widespread use of the landscape - field walking has collected a large amount of flint for the period so we know these people were making extensive use of the landscape even then, either temporarily or on a more permenant basis. I have had another thought that perhaps sheds some light on this place. Thornborough Moor is a flat plain, even today water is never far away and in the distant past it would have been quite a swamp for long periods of time. Perhaps what we are seeing here is two peoples sharing a place that they are only just beginning to exploit. Maybe this was the place where the two peoples first met, which presumably had a positive outcome and that afterwards they turned the meeting into a ritual event? That does not explain the Cursus really. Cursus building is a widespread feature in the British landscape. Presumably the people who built the cursus in Dorset did so for the same reasons as the people who built this one. I have already eluded to a possible practical reason for its construction - raising the level of the ground to make it drier. However that does not explain the dorset cursus, which is on chalk and well drained. OK. Lets assume that all Cursus building was for the same reason, that would indicate that we have the deliberate and pre planned building of a monumental structure with no obvious practical purpose. Art or Ritual? Today we would call it art of course, but back then it would have been a political statement I think - "Look what I can do!" "My tribe is so rich and well organised that we can build this huge and completely useless structure"! OK, so I'm still thinking ;o)
|
|||
FourWinds 10943 posts |
Aug 01, 2003, 06:58
|
||
I haven't read all of your post, but I am not sure if cursus' had the least visual profile. The one on the Hill of Tara is still 1.5m high from outside and sunk a further 1.5m below ground - obviously making it 3m+ high when walking along it!
|
|||
|
BrigantesNation 1733 posts |
Aug 01, 2003, 07:23
|
||
So what had less?
|
|||
|
BrigantesNation 1733 posts |
Aug 01, 2003, 09:04
|
||
Perhaps you are right, I'm thinking in terms of a progression - Cursus - hidden by trees, no need for a real landscape impact. This may explain why at a later stage, when the landscape was better cleared of trees the monumental henges came along - seemingly designed for external visual impact. Then in locations where tree coverage was largely gone, the unusual had an opportunity to make a significant impact without needing to be large - stone circles? I'm generalising about timescales I know, but then I'm sure the course of deforesting would not have been uniform. could this be related to the variation in stone circle chronologies and also the lack of them in some areas.
|
|||
|
BrigantesNation 1733 posts |
Aug 01, 2003, 09:58
|
||
|
In a recent book Richard Bradley conjected that henges were internalised structures, whereas stone circles were externalised. What he was saying was that from inside a hange, you can see little of the landscape around, whereas from inside a stone circle the landscape interacts with the stones, allowing them to highlight specific features and perhaps at specific times. This of course makes the assumption that by the time of the building of the stone circles, that the tree line was sufficiently far away from the stones so as to allow this interaction to be realised.
|
|||
TomBo 1629 posts |
Aug 01, 2003, 10:06
|
||
I've heard something similar argued about Henges, perhaps by John North though I can't be sure. It was about how there could have been power games going on in henge building that were not present to as great an extent in stone circles. With a henge the people who are standing outside cannot see what is going on within, was the basic point. I'm not sure how much I agree, mind. I tend to see henges as quite communal, inclusive places - big dancefloors, or something of the sort.
|
|||
|
BrigantesNation 1733 posts |
Aug 01, 2003, 10:13
|
||
Cricket pitches actually! great boundaries, The Thornborough Henges held the first world games, there were five then of course. Also, remarkably similar to a rolloerball rink.
|
|||
|
TomBo 1629 posts |
Aug 01, 2003, 10:24
|
||
That'll be those ritual games again, eh? ;)
|
| Pages: 14 – [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
