=
×

Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
Register
The Modern Antiquarian Forum »
For Ceremonial purposes?
Log In to post a reply
127 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
Littlestone
Littlestone
5386 posts

Pushing the idea a little further...
Aug 23, 2013, 15:23
grufty jim wrote:
Why is a boxing ring rectangular but the Colosseum (and most other Roman arenas) round? There may be a deep cultural reason for the difference in shape, but it may just be happenstance.


More cultural than happenstance perhaps. The sumo wrestling ring (dojo) is also round and, “...even today the sport includes many ritual elements, such as the use of salt purification, from the days when sumo was used in the Shinto religion...” (Wiki).

So what’s the difference between round and rectangular in this, and the wider, context. Like the proverbial round table, there’s no one single space in a dojo that’s any different than anywhere else in it (unlike the boxing ring with its corners) all spaces in a dojo are equal. You can’t box your sumo opponent into a corner because there isn’t one, nor can you take a break in your own corner when the bell rings because the bell doesn’t ring. The different functions that the two spaces (round and rectangular) can, and do, accommodate are interesting, and perhaps deeply embedded in our psyche.

Pushing the idea a little further, I can’t really see that there was a naturally-occurring place in a roundhouse, for example, that was particularly special (special in the sense of commanding more authority) though perhaps the one facing the door was thought more ‘special’ than others due to its better view (not to mention not having a draft on your back ;-) By comparison, a ‘position of authority’ does occur naturally in a rectangular space because of its very shape - ie leaders will take their places at the top of the rectangle (the head of the hall and the top table) where they command the clearest view of everyone and everything within that space.

So, in what way might the (general) roundness of the space within a stone circle engender a socially freer concept than a rectangular space. Personally I don’t think it does because I continue to believe that the majority of stone circles were not ceremonial at all but utilitarian - ie they are circular structures for the protection of both people and livestock - the standing stones forming the supports for walls or fences that have long since disappeared. Having said that, some circles no doubt were ceremonial but the fact that they are also circular suggests that they functioned as places where people met on a more-or-less equal footing.

One facet of this thread that hasn’t really been addressed in any detail is how stone circles might have been delineated. The rope and stake method is the one usually sited but that’s a very simple way of delineating a circle and rules out other ways and other considerations. The circle builders were quite capable of using the method of course (and probably did) but did they always use it. The method is neat and effective but it lacks one very important element - the element of ritual participation by all those who might be using the circle. Surely, when a circle the size of Avebury was being considered, the ritual aspect of marking it out would have been important. Off the top of my head I can think of three or four methods that would produce a reasonable circle - none of which involves a stake and a rope but would non-the-less be fairly effective while, more importantly, involving a greater degree of group participation.
In reply to:
Re: For Ceremonial purposes? (grufty jim)		 Replies:
Re: Pushing the idea a little further... (Evergreen Dazed)
Topic Outline:
The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index