=
×

Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
Register
The Modern Antiquarian Forum »
'Sacred' sites
Log In to post a reply
97 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
Sanctuary
Sanctuary
4670 posts

Re: 'Sacred' sites
Mar 08, 2011, 08:50
tiompan wrote:
tjj wrote:
tiompan wrote:
Sanctuary wrote:
tiompan wrote:
Sanctuary wrote:
tiompan wrote:
Sanctuary wrote:
A great many people consider a stone circle as a 'sacred' site, but what exactly makes it sacred? Is it the stones themselves that make it so or what went on supposedly within the circle, or the ground it is built on?
In other words, was it sacred before the stone erecting took place or just another piece of land often in a wonderful landscape...or sometimes not?


The first part of the question seems to be aimed at us ,the punters , and our perception of stone circles .
While the second is how we imagine the perceptions of the builders of stone circles .
Is that what you meant S , Or am I dowsing thw wrong megalith ?


Hi George, I hadn't considered that angle when I posted the topic to be honest but I can see where you're coming from.
I was just asking really if we/us thought it was the ancients that made it a sacred place by erecting a stone circle there or was it always a sacred place in their mindset for whatever reason. I realise we can't answer that with any certainty but thought it a good topic to discuss...which it is proving to be and thank everyone for their contributions. This is what we are about and its good that so many are taking an interest.


So the question is about how we imagine the builders experienced the sites of stone circles rather than our own experiences of stone circles ?


Yes, but it has been expanded on but that is fine by me if it creates discussion.


True , but I don't think the original question has been addressed .


Its a conundrum then, because it is impossible to imagine why neolithic people built stone circles in certain places without imposing our own perceptions on the question. Callanish seems to have been a lunar standstill observatory whereas Stonehenge seems to have been about the winter solstice ... and we've no idea what Avebury was for.


Of course , it's subjective , but possibly less so than how we define "sacred " and that wasn't the question .
Function is equally as thorny ant part of the question either but at least provides more scope for objectivity .
Fwiw I don't believe Callanish was a lunar observatory or any stone circle for that matter .If you want you observe the heavens you don't need big stones to do it . The observing would have atken place prior to the erection of Callanish etc .Astronomy or an alignment upon astronomical events events may have been a component of some sites and in the vast majority of sites , where it is a possibility, imo it was not the primary one .


Yes I agree with that observation (no pun intended) as I feel that a much simpler timber circle would have been perfectly adequate for the task and saved all that hauling of megaliths about and easier to 'adjust' if need be and replace. But I say all of that without really studying the subject to a great degree I have to admit simply because I have never thought it likely.
In reply to:
Re: 'Sacred' sites (tiompan)
Topic Outline:
The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index