tjj wrote: dean dean wrote: modern? ancient? fake? folly? real? genuine? a stone circle is a stone circle is a stone circle. a piece of art is a piece of art. it depends in what spirit it was created as to how it can be perceived. people build circles for the veneration of mother nature. i dont care when they're built because it's all about 'feeling' and truth. warmest regards. Dean
Hello Dean Dean, thank you for your good spirited post - I'm tempted to say yes I agree a stone circle is a stone circle - whatever! Lots of examples apart from the one in Wantage (mentioned in my initial post). There is an impressive reconstructed stone circle at Stanton Harcourt in Oxfordshire; another recently constructed one in Dorset commissioned by the owner of Lush. Bladup (Paul Blades) built one in Lincoln but the council dismantled it - I'm sure there are loads more examples.
These cannot be categorised with prehistoric stone circles though can they? No stone circles appear to have been built in Northern Europe after 1,500BC and the oldest existing European stone circle dates back to 4,000BC* - it is their age, mystery and, more often than not, their setting that sets them apart. Modern 'works of art' can only mimic them.
* Cromelque Des Almedres in Portugal
hi tjj. i refer in my initial post to the tyranny of the church and the lack of circle building. it is beyond dispute that circles have continued to be used down the ages. it would appear that no new circles were built between 1500BC and C18 but they were certainly used for the placing of votive offerings evidenced by artifacts from later history that have been emplaced within the monument. i quote you, if i may; ''modern works of art mimic them''. i didnt set about building a stone circle as a work of art nor to mimic anything but as a living breathing spiritual place for contemplation and peace.
regards all. deanx
|