|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Henge corrals? |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
PeterH 1180 posts |
Dec 19, 2005, 17:52
|
||
Thank you Jane. That is very attractive and makes a great deal of sense to me too. That scenario would also allow for different size henges for different sized communities. Perhaps moving from a semi-nomadic lifestyle to a more settled one meant that communities still felt the need to come together for special events. A bit like the Appleby horse fairs?
|
|||
|
PeterH 1180 posts |
Dec 19, 2005, 17:56
|
||
You could have a long wait for "evidence". That doesn't mean we cannot speculate and consider indicators of probability.
|
|||
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Dec 19, 2005, 19:21
|
||
|
Hi fitz. Since my last post most of what I was going to say has now been said by others. Just a couple of points though if I may. You say that, "Surely the common sense approach to stock management is not to spend thousands of man-hours creating huge ditch and bank structures..." I've argued this before but surely the amount of effort one puts into building a structure is dictated by how long one plans to stick around - if it's just for a season then sure, a bunch of brushwood will probably do the trick. But a more settled community is going to look towards a more substantial structure. For example, why continuously build a bridge from perishable materials (that might be quick to construct initially but will only last a year or two) when a stone bridge is going to pay off in the long run (even though the stone bridge will take more man-hours initially it <i>is</i> likely to last for many more years). You say that, "It's very difficult to catch a beast within a circular structure, corners are far more practical." Yep, can't disagree with you there but who said anything about catching a beast within a corral? To my mind a corral is a place where livestock are given shelter (overnight, or perhaps when there is danger) and then herded out to pasture when it's safe to do so. You also say that, "Henges have orientations and relationships with other monuments both natural and man-made. None of this is a quest for spirituality in the 21st century it is based on observation, excavation and common sense." Yep, agree with you there as well but I think I'd insert 'many' - ie, 'Many henges have orientations...' and although I agree with you generally I must disagree with you when you say, "None of this is a quest for spirituality in the 21st century it is based on observation, excavation and common sense." The quest for 'spirituality' in things like stone circles, wells, ley lines, crystals, vanished civilizations, etc etc is a burgeoning quest in the 21st century and a visit to any good bookshop or the internet will confirm that. I do not wish to belittle that quest but I also believe we should not be afraid to say (as others have said here and elsewhere) that some of the things we hold dear as the remains of our 'spiritual' past may actually have been purely utilitarian in function - that does not make them any less interesting nor any less worthy of our attention :-)
|
|||
fitzcoraldo 2709 posts |
Dec 19, 2005, 20:38
|
||
|
"None of this is a quest for spirituality in the 21st century it is based on observation, excavation and common sense." By this I was speaking from a personal viewpoint. Henges are a subject that deeply fascinate me, my point of view is based upon reading accounts of excavations and interpretation of the results of the these investigations. Plus my own personal experience of henges. To be honest I think to tie the archaeological debate in with crystals and leylines muddys the whole issue and your almost marxist rejection of a ritualised society reminds me of Chide and his colleagues who wrote "Ritual was not important in the past and not worth studying in the present". I do not believe that there was a dividing line between the sacred and the profane, Moss has written very eloquantly on this subject within this thread and I agree with everything said. What does trouble me about much of this this whole thread is how factual evidence of non-domestic activities within many henges has on the whole been ignored in favour of speculation which is not supported by the archaeological evidence. cheers fitz
|
|||
|
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Dec 19, 2005, 21:07
|
||
|
>"None of this is a quest for spirituality in the 21st century it is based on observation, excavation and common sense."< But I'm afraid a lot of it <i>is</i> based on spirituality fitz. Go out to Avebury on any day of the week (let alone this week!) and I'll put good money on the majority of people there being on some sort of spiritual quest. Without getting into the numbers game, I just wonder how many people are interested in stone circles from the viewpoint of the 'spiritual' compared to those interested in them from the purely 'archaeological'? I'll take with a smile you're suggestion that I'm tying in the archaeological debate with crystals etc but should like to point out that even a quick scan through some of the threads here on TMA will reveal how quickly the archaeological debate <i>can</i> get muddied by the Crystal Entity :-) As for my 'almost Marxist's' comments... come, come; I have never rejected the ritualized aspect of ancient societies or their structures but merely pointed out (as have others) that some of the structures we have believed to be ritual/ceremonial may actually have been purely utilitarian. There aint nowt wrong with that is there?
|
|||
|
PeterH 1180 posts |
Dec 19, 2005, 21:56
|
||
|
Nowt wrong at all. To listen to some of the ritualists, you wonder how Neolithic people ever found the time or energy to feed, clothe and house themselves and their animals. They apparently spent all of their time stargazing, erecting stones and ceremonial earthworks none of which had any practical use whatsoever. Life just isn't like that. It's the workers that support the priests and aristocracy and if that's Marxist then so be it. Just consider the labour and logistics required to build Silbury Hill for example. Where did the workers live, what did they eat, where was it grown? Where was meat on the hoof kept? Loose or corralled? If corralled - why not within Avebury? If loose then they would need to be brought from afar and regularly moved on to fresh grazing grounds - where are the drove roads? It is foolish to look upon Neolithic society as a ritual obsessed spiritual paradise. The entire economy needs to be understood.
|
|||
|
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Dec 19, 2005, 22:38
|
||
|
>It is foolish to look upon Neolithic society as a ritual obsessed spiritual paradise. The entire economy needs to be understood.< Yes, I agree, and I must say I've been taken aback by the rather blinkered view of some contributors to this thread when they seem to imply that most (all?) circles and henges were ritual and/or ceremonial in concept. We just do not know that to be true (nor, might I add, do we know it to be false :-) but I do get a little uneasy when I hear people claim circles and henges to be totally one thing or the other. It's simplifying it I know but Stonehenge and Callanish suggests to me places that were probably totally ritual and/or ceremonial. Avebury suggests a place of ritual, ceremonial <i>and</i> utilitarian use, while many smaller circles and henges suggest a predominately utilitarian (with perhaps an element also of the ritual/ceremonial). What I find particularly disturbing is the blanket assumption that all circles and henges were for ritual/ceremonial use without conclusive evidence to support that assumption - until that evidence is forthcoming then I would say any reasonable* alternative idea for the use of these structures should be given a fair hearing. * By reasonable I mean anything not connected to the Crystal Entity, energy lines, the seventh dimension or doors into altered states of perception (one does, however, need to keep an open mind in these matters :-)
|
|||
|
fitzcoraldo 2709 posts |
Dec 19, 2005, 22:43
|
||
|
I'll not muddy the waters any further, I shall stick strictly to the archaeological evidence and I shall deliberately avoid the henges of Wessex. Henges are not just stand-alone structures they are part of a revolution that occured in the late fourth millenium BC. Harding describes this revolution as "a tear in history". What happened, the whole world view of the people from Orkney to the south coast of England changed , the long barrows were sealed , the cursuses fell into dis-repair, the linear perspective moved to a circular world view. The evolution of the henge from the enclosure is part of this revolution. The earliest henges on Orkney are contemporary with the earliest henges in the south of England, some thing major was happening in Britain Along with this came radical changes in material culture, burial practices changed, Grooved Ware pottery spread south from Orkney, the nature of feasting changed, cattle fell out of favour as the flesh of choice at the feast became the pig, prestige objects begin to appear in great numbers, carved balls, maceheads, pins polished axes etc all of which indictes a change in society, a change that lasted five hundred years. Find yourself a henge that has been excavated and then have a look at the finds from the excavation, you will find very little material that is associated with the 'domestic' business of the Neolithic. What you will find are deposits that have been deliberately placed in the ground including human remains, special artifacts, wild animal remains. All of this would indicate that the henge was not a place where domestic activities took place. Then take a look at the way some henges were maintained, the ditches may have been deliberately filled-in with clean gravel and then at a later date re-cut, respecting earlier deposits. I could go on and on but I won't. Where does all this lead? It leads me to the conclusion that henges were not places where domestic activities took place. So if the activities that occured within a henge were not domestic, what were they?
|
|||
|
fitzcoraldo 2709 posts |
Dec 19, 2005, 22:51
|
||
Sorry to interrupt this cosy coupling but can one of you point me to one piece of hard archaeological evidence to support your 'Henge Corrals?' theories.
|
|||
|
Ishmael 683 posts |
Dec 19, 2005, 22:57
|
||
|
there isn't any. If anything Henges tended to be kept clean as there are very few finds found within.
|
| Pages: 16 – [ Previous | 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 9 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
