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
Evergreen Dazed
1881 posts

Re: Pushing the idea a little further...
Aug 27, 2013, 12:34
Sanctuary wrote:
Evergreen Dazed wrote:
Littlestone wrote:

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.


Barnatt did some research on this after Thoms claims. He got students to construct a number of circles by eye and then surveyed them for comparison with existing circles. The results indicated that geometric methods were not used in prehistory. I seem to recall reading somewhere that the RSCs were an exception to this, and that they were considered to have been laid out geometrically.


Maybe we should just call them 'Rings of stone' as Burl did thereby removing the idea that they were all actually meant to be truly circular rather than more or less. That would indicate to me that it wasn't the exactness of the circle that was important, but that it was there and 'useable'. Then again!


Aye, rings of stone is somehow more evocative too I think.
Topic Outline:

The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index