|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » For Ceremonial purposes? |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Aug 15, 2013, 10:19
|
||
|
Just a question to generate discussion. What makes a stone circle or circles ceremonial? Where is the proven evidence for this? I'm taking the week off to attend and take part in The Hurler's...Mapping the Sun project and noticed they are considered as being for ceremonial purposes. http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/daysout/properties/hurlers-stone-circles/ Really looking forward to it as it is on my doorstep..Yay.
|
|||
|
Evergreen Dazed 1881 posts |
Aug 15, 2013, 11:03
|
||
|
Theres no 'proven evidence' in that sense as we have little idea what went on at many prehistoric monuments, particularly, it seems, stone circles, but we attempt to build a picture through interpretation of what is found. A ceremonial, 'ritual' function is often, not always, ascribed because of the nature of the site, what is found at it and the fact that describing a mysterious monument like a stone circle as a place of ceremony or ritual is, to be perfectly honest, the easiest thing to do. If you were being critical you may say its saying something but committing to nothing. That said, a broadly ceremonial/ritual nature might is hinted at by many things like portalled entrances, avenues, astronomical alignments, polished axeheads, human and animal burials, cup marks, scattered quartz, ditches.. the list goes on. It is difficult, I suppose, to ascribe a purely functional reason for some of these things, a good example being the upturned tree stump at Seahenge. Circles may have been meeting places, even trading centres. I doubt it myself, but even if they were I still think there would have been a formal nature to proceedings. Ceremonial/ritual, as a site description, does quite nicely as a catch-all but I wouldn't get too hung up about it.
|
|||
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Edited Aug 15, 2013, 12:48
Aug 15, 2013, 12:46
|
||
|
I love these questions involving speculation Mr S – thanks for yet another one. Dunno if you’re the same, but I quite often find myself having to check out the exact meaning of a word like ‘ceremony’. The OED gives one definition as, “A system of rites; a rite or ceremony; the formalities proper to an occasion.” I like the last bit, “...the formalities proper to an occasion.” so maybe we should take it from there and ask what might the ‘formalities’ be for occasions important to our ancestors. Occasions like birth, death, trials, executions, sacrifices, trading and feasting all spring to mind and we know that some of those things were performed at places where they’d been performed before, and consequently at places that had accrued a degree of sacredness (or at least of specialness). So, to that extent, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say that the primary function of most, but not all, stone circles was ceremonial...
|
|||
jonmor 150 posts |
Aug 16, 2013, 07:38
|
||
|
"Just a question to generate discussion. What makes a stone circle or circles ceremonial? Where is the proven evidence for this?" There is no evidence. If a reasonable assumption is stated often enough, it becomes established as fact.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Aug 16, 2013, 07:54
|
||
|
jonmor wrote: There is no evidence. If a reasonable assumption is stated often enough, it becomes established as fact. That's true of every "fact" in science, there's never definitive proof and calling anything a fact is just scientists' shorthand for "reasonable assumption based on all evidence or none." (Pseudo science on the other hand tends to believe its facts are plain true!)
|
|||
|
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Aug 16, 2013, 08:20
|
||
|
jonmor wrote: "Just a question to generate discussion. What makes a stone circle or circles ceremonial? Where is the proven evidence for this?" There is no evidence. If a reasonable assumption is stated often enough, it becomes established as fact. And there lies the problem, it becoming established as fact when in fact it could be way off the mark and gives Joe Public (who maybe has no particular interest in prehistory just visiting the site on a day out with the family) the wrong impression. He reads in a book or on the net also that the Hurlers are ceremonial circles (confirmed by EH) and passes that on to his kids who themselves pass it on. LS mentioned feasting as part of a ceremonial event and I agree that is most likely, but again, could be open to question on occasion. An example:- Genuine feasting takes place and the remaining bones/carcases tossed into a pit/ditch to be discovered 4,000 years later. It is always seen as feasting and in this case correct. But what of the family who eat meat every day and do the same thing by tossing the bones etc into a pit/ditch. After a year or two those bones add up until reaching feasting proportions but aren't. Now, unless dating has moved on so much that those individual meals can be shown to have been deposited over the course of a year or two instead of on one major occasion, it becomes ceremonial feasting which would be incorrect! Just my thoughts which could be as far off the mark as some others because we simply don't know with certainty. The bottom line is that the claim IMO should be changed to POSSIBLY for ceremonial purposes.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Aug 16, 2013, 08:51
|
||
I don't know, on that basis everything would need to be preceded with POSSIBLY, which seems a bit much. Also, saying stone circles are possibly ceremonial kind of opens the gate to them also being possibly spaceship landing bays, which doesn't do much for informing the public!
|
|||
|
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Aug 16, 2013, 09:00
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: I don't know, on that basis everything would need to be preceded with POSSIBLY, which seems a bit much. Also, saying stone circles are possibly ceremonial kind of opens the gate to them also being possibly spaceship landing bays, which doesn't do much for informing the public! It has to be better than saying they are though Nigel when they may not be. As for those pesky Mekons...well :-(
|
|||
|
Evergreen Dazed 1881 posts |
Aug 16, 2013, 09:01
|
||
|
As I said, I wouldn't get too hung up about it if I were you. Even if you think of something like the World Cup final there is an element of ceremony about it. I really think ceremony and ritual are words used to convey that we don't really know what was going on at these places, but whatever it was there seems to have been a formality attached to it. When you encounter an enigmatic site like Fernworthy, for example, a graduated stone circle with rows leading off toward cairns, I think ceremony/ritual use is a perfectly acceptable description, precisely because it is so vague.
|
|||
|
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Aug 16, 2013, 09:08
|
||
|
Evergreen Dazed wrote: As I said, I wouldn't get too hung up about it if I were you. Even if you think of something like the World Cup final there is an element of ceremony about it. I really think ceremony and ritual are words used to convey that we don't really know what was going on at these places, but whatever it was there seems to have been a formality attached to it. When you encounter an enigmatic site like Fernworthy, for example, a graduated stone circle with rows leading off toward cairns, I think ceremony/ritual use is a perfectly acceptable description, precisely because it is so vague. I'm not hung up on it ED, just opening a point for discussion, but would only ever consider ceremonial as a possibility amongst others myself. The point has been brought up before that proof is everything has it not?
|
| Pages: 13 – [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
