PeterH
|
Re: Circles under churches
Aug 20, 2005, 10:54
|
Basically we are not too far apart and I would go along with the idea of different circumstances applying in different places. Perhaps the church became more intolerant as it grew more powerful.
Having said that, we do have to look at the dates of the buildings where these stones are now found - albeit there were probably earlier churches on the same site. I find it easier to accept the idea of pagan stones being assimilated into the earliest churches in order to win over the locals. But when churches date from the 12th-16th centuries it seems much more likely that the stones would just be seen as stones.
Puddingstone and sarsens are very hard indeed and difficult to dress (puddingstone is almost impossible). So then it seems much more reasonable to see them used as part of the footings, unless there was residual paganism locally and then they would be "put down" rather than honoured or venerated. The gods of the old are the demons of the new.
|
Littlestone
|
Re: Circles under churches
Aug 20, 2005, 14:25
|
Yes, I think we're in broad agreement; just a couple of points if I may -
Although sarsen is indeed very hard it didn't stop the Avebury wreckers from breaking it up, dressing it and using it as a convenient source of building material for half the houses in Avebury village.
'The gods of the old are the demons of the new' is not always the case; certainly the old gods of the Bon religion in Tibet, and those of Hinduism and Shinto were all to find a venerable place within the Buddhist pantheon. Granted the monotheistic religions were/are not so accommodating but perhaps the older deities, or at least the layers of belief that inspired them, were not completely excluded.
I need to do more research on all this (but after I get back from the pub :-)
|
Littlestone
|
Re: Circles under churches
Aug 20, 2005, 20:39
|
>...and that Stonehenge was nicked en masse from Avebury and reworked and re-erected elsewhere, again as an act of exquisite humiliation.<
Ahh, now I like that fantasy Nigel and I wonder if anyone has considered the diameter of Stonehenge in relation to the diameter of the summit of Silbury ;-)
|
VenerableBottyBurp
|
Re: Circles under churches
Aug 21, 2005, 13:59
|
"I wonder if anyone has considered the diameter of Stonehenge in relation to the diameter of the summit of Silbury"
We've done all that loads of times LS, now its fitting Hadrian's wall in the Silbury Tunnels....
VBB
PS Corse they nicked stones for Stonehenge from Avebury and Manton and Stanley ! All the big-uns had gone by the time they got round to |Stonehenge so they recycled !
|
nigelswift
|
Re: Circles under churches
Aug 21, 2005, 14:14
|
We've done all that loads of times LS,
No, you've done it VBB, and caused me to tell the people of Wiltshire Radioland that Stonehenge would fit on top, whereas Littlestone's question prompted me to check and it seems the Stonehenge sarsen circle is 3 metres too big to fit...
Still, it was an election, so it doesn't matter...
|
VenerableBottyBurp
|
Re: Circles under churches
Aug 21, 2005, 14:55
|
Too big ???
Naw !!!
Tis a bit tight I grant, but it fits.
This remiinds me of a story the woman who used to be in charge of Stonehenge told me. One of the staff was off sick so she had to pop up to Old Sarum and put the A boards away as light fell. An elderly American got out of his car and said he recalled her from his last visit some twenty years before. They were chatting and she in the end had to insist that she continued to put things away or she would never get home. He looked astonished, and said "you mean you pack up every night ?"
"Oh yes said the woman or nower days it would be stolen"
"Amaxzing" said the old man and sloped off.
It was only on returning to her car she recalled that he only could have seen her before at Stonehenge, and he obviously thought that is where he was and she was putting the stones away for the night !
VBB
|
ocifant
|
Re: Circles under churches
Sep 04, 2005, 17:56
|
<i>However I am curious about the church in neighbouring Soulbury which is built on a rise/mound? and there is a stone (not sure if is a standing stone across the road from it</i>
Found the stone across the road today, during a drive around Bucks in the sun.
Bit of an oddity, it lies slap bang in the middle of a side road about 50 yards north of the church, emerging from the tarmac with no markings or warnings of any kind. I've uploaded a picture to the Portal (as Natural Stone or Glacial Erratic in the absence of any evidence to the contrary), under Soulbury. If anyone thinks it's more than that, let me know and I'll upload it here too.
|
Joolio Geordio
|
Re: Circles under churches
Sep 04, 2005, 18:19
|
|
I mite do some investigating as its in the next village over from me
|
ocifant
|
Re: Circles under churches
Sep 05, 2005, 06:55
|
|
Please let me know if you find out anything!
|
m6
|
Re: Circles under churches
Nov 27, 2005, 10:27
|
|
i've been telling NT about those footbridge stones for years, i am always left with the distinct impression that they'd rather not know about them?
|
