|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Ritual Landscapes |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
Hob 4033 posts |
Sep 01, 2005, 23:53
|
||
|
Mild synchronicity. I was just looking at photos from when Mrs H, the small H and I were up there a few weeks back, and noticed this: http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/post/39663 which could also show a recumbent figure. -ish. Kind of. Sorta. Mebbe. Not so sure it's a female one though.
|
|||
broen 204 posts |
Sep 02, 2005, 16:33
|
||
|
Apparently there is a place in spain - (which is in JC's Euro Megalithica - which I have forgot the name of) - that is sited next to an (appache???) face in the mountains, I was speaking to someone in maes howe about it a couple of weeks back. He was saying the site was of a very impressive size and the face in the mountain so spookily realistic. It's hard to see how the ancients senses were operating when they first settled into an area. Though after visiting many sites like a stamp collector in a post offfice it "feels" that there does seem to be some corelation between the monuments and both the low and the distant horizon at some of these sites. Castlerigg - obviously - it is surrounded with the nearest hill being a great belly of a thing Orkney and the Brodgar environs - stories of the recumbant figure been passed down through generations calanish - when viewed from the satelite circles calanish seems to make up the ribcage of a woman lying down with the tallest stone being the naval. Also reflected within the long barrows and cairns Belas Knap Hetty peglers tump parc le broes - http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/post/26508 capel garmon Grey cairns of camster The Triple Goddess As we're on the subject of Machrie moor - this site sites nicely in its panaramic surroundings of which there is quite distinctly the virgin, the maid, and the hag all lying within the horizon - maybe - a coincidence? - or a projection? Everything has a masculin and feminin genre and no more is it recognised than in the fibres of the french language - (just over the water and once part of the same land) and even today if we climb a hill we'd say "She" or "Her" when referring to one. --- Ariistotle --- On the Heavens -- 350BC "For, as the Pythagoreans say, the world and all that is in it is determined by the number three, since beginning and middle and end give the number of an 'all', and the number they give is the triad. And so, having taken these three from nature as (so to speak) laws of it, we make further use of the number three in the worship of the Gods. Further, we use the terms in practice in this way. Of two things, or men, we say 'both', but not 'all': three is the first number to which the term 'all' has been appropriated"
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Sep 06, 2005, 07:41
|
||
|
I don't remember if this thread came to any conclusions about what constitutes a ritual landscape, but something has happened at Thornborough that's relevant. Tarmac have made an expansive gesture of offering a chunk of land near to the henges as a "gift to the nation". Initially, this seemed to be conditional upon them getting their hands on Ladybridge, further away, and was effectively a bribe, but they've subsequently had to make it an unconditional offer - someone realised it looked stinky I suppose. In truth, they're giving land that they probably could never have quarried so they're not really losing anything, but the fact remains they're effectively defining what THEY believe is the ritual landscape and what they believe isn't. If only there was a decent official definition or consensus on these matters, places would be better protected. Same applies, for instance, to how close to a scheduled monument you can metal detect. It's defined by a line on a map - that's non too precise and often mighty close.
|
|||
FourWinds 10943 posts |
Sep 06, 2005, 08:00
|
||
|
"Apparently there is a place in spain - (which is in JC's Euro Megalithica - which I have forgot the name of) - that is sited next to an (appache???) face in the mountains, I was speaking to someone in maes howe about it a couple of weeks back." That would be this place ... Antequera http://www.megalithomania.com/show/trip/8
|
|||
Kozmik_Ken 829 posts |
Sep 06, 2005, 08:35
|
||
|
http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/site/7530 Check this out for a physog!
|
|||
fitzcoraldo 2709 posts |
Sep 06, 2005, 19:53
|
||
|
http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/post/30633 This fella always reminds me of an indian or perhaps an mayan
|
|||
|
BuckyE 468 posts |
Oct 08, 2005, 15:38
|
||
|
In a certain sense, ALL constructions that aren't strictly practical define ritual landscapes. The mere fact of marking the ground implies "this bit is significant," and then further implies all the bits outside it must be either less significant (the stuff you can't see for the trees, walls, stones, etc.), or have some significance defined by the marked bit (the Avenues, the views, the celestial events, etc.) As a kind of an aside, I'm coming to think this "marking and dividing" is really the salient point for we moderns. But that would be another thread. So, to determine whether the ancient constructions were trying to say something about a PARTICULAR bit of landscape (a hill, or river, etc.) I'd think you'd have to do some fairly boring statistical analysis along these lines... 1. Identify every landscape feature in the geographical area occupied by a given culture that stands out as visually significant. In other words, that fairly obviously "stands out" from the crowd of somewhat similar features. Certainly not every hilly horizon resembles a recumbent person. Which of them do? Which of them have some other resemblance? OK, make as many lists as needed. 2. Identify all the constructions of that culture. 3. Compare all known constructions to all identified landscape features. Is there some seemingly statistically significant correlation? 4. What are the chances (broadly speaking) that a randomly placed construction might have a seemig correlation? That is, are there particular places (only certain hills, through valley notches) from which the landscape feature is seen, or can you see it from everywhere around? Does the placement of constructions seem statistically to take advantage of placements? When Mr. Cope and friends have done this work and demonstrated some correlations, I'll take notice. Until then, the cursuses, henges, rings, standing stones and barrows were placed where the hallucinating shamans dreamed they should be for reasons we'll probably never know and don't make any difference to our understanding of the things IN GENERAL. OK?
|
|||
|
Rhiannon 5291 posts |
Oct 08, 2005, 16:48
|
||
Perhaps I've not understood what you're saying, but surely if we can say 'people sometimes tried to site their monuments in relation to the landscape around them' then that is an important generalisation? Because it shows that people weren't just concentrating on one spot, they were seeing their surroundings in a more holistic way than that - the spot within the wider environment.
|
|||
|
FourWinds 10943 posts |
Oct 08, 2005, 19:34
|
||
|
Hi BuckyE, welcome to TMA and thanks for digging out some of these great threads and adding some fair comments to them. So often these old threads just disappear and we probably forget a lot of what i said. "When Mr. Cope and friends have done this work and demonstrated some correlations, I'll take notice. Until then, the cursuses, henges, rings, standing stones and barrows were placed where the hallucinating shamans dreamed they should be for reasons we'll probably never know and don't make any difference to our understanding of the things IN GENERAL." I suppose I fall into this group of people so I feel somewhat obliged to answer for all us <i>Significant Hill Heads</i>. This work is being done, but it's a slow process. What work has been done to investigate how "the hallucinating shamans dreamed" where sites should be? How do you statistically prove that theory? Basically you can't do it, so this makes the theory a good one to cling to as a bit of a dream. I'm not saying it couldn't have been that way, just that the other likelyhoods are worth investigating and the folks that cling to other ideas need to be open minded about any findings that come to light. I, for one, will take a lot of convincing that situations like this one: http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/post/40794 are coincidental.
|
|||
|
The Eternal 924 posts |
Oct 09, 2005, 01:57
|
||
|
Taking the hilly option. It's obvious that if you build, for instance, a stone circle in a mountainous environment then you are going to find numerous coincidental alignments with various hill tops. It's a matter of filtering out the obvious from the subtle. The Castlerigg site on TMA shows, in my opinion, more than coincidence, due to the shapes of the tops of the stones in relation to the shapes of the surrounding peaks. If more than a huge coincidence, this surely shows evidence of ritual, otherwise why do it? Cheers, TE.
|
| Pages: 14 – [ Previous | 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 13 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
