|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Conclusions...Stone circles, are we learning much? |
This topic is locked
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Oct 14, 2013, 11:27
|
||
|
I guess like many on TMA I have been researching stone circles since a very early age but still find myself literally still going around in circles (pun intended). What is it with them that we just can't get to grips with? Okay, so they are a few thousand years old and erected by people who I doubt were much different to what we are still today, but they appear to have been 'everydayish' then based on the huge number still with us plus the many many more that have been lost through one reason or another. Yet, we still know so little about them. We are slowly learning about the people but not it seems anything solid about what the circles were really used for. Plenty of guesses of course, the usual 'ceremonial' or 'ritual' use, but is that really the best we can do? We seem to know more about the dinosaurs millions of years earlier than we do from far more recent times, so, would anyone like to throw some more sensible new ideas about as to what they think the main purpose of stone circles could have been, either large or small? I'll get my coat :-)
|
|||
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Oct 14, 2013, 12:12
|
||
Maybe we should just recognise that (many at least) were multifunctional – ceremonial as well as purely functional (non-ceremonial) ...
|
|||
|
Evergreen Dazed 1881 posts |
Oct 14, 2013, 12:14
|
||
|
It's fun to speculate. Pointless, for so many reasons (as i'm sure you are aware) but it's certainly fun. I would guess most of us here, and the majority of people involved in a professional capacity were drawn in by the mystery of the subject and we should never let ourselves lose that sense of wonder. I enjoy reading both academic texts & some of the more fanciful ideas about these monuments, and I often find that the academic texts, rather than being what some might consider dry, actually fuel that sense of wonder more than the wilder ideas grabbed out of the ether with no real basis. When it comes to this subject, and especially the Neo/BA I feel the truth maybe stranger than fiction. But it is a great pleasure to be able to simply visit these places, 'feel' them and imagine what they were for and what the people who constructed them were like. So - Stone circles. Haven't a bloody clue. Given the difference in size, shape, materials, location and date they may have meant different things to different people. If we say a circle in Cumbria was built around 3000BC, can we say a circle built in Perthsire over a thousand years later was used for the same purpose? A lot of generations in between, surely some shifts in belief? (If belief had anything to do with it, of course) Was the original idea or purpose (if there ever was one) lost or changed or discarded even? What do we pay attention to? The shape of a stone? The colour? Possible alignments? The soil? Considering the full sweep of possibilities makes me feel exhausted on a Monday morning. Friday night with 3 glasses of wine inside me is a far better time. :)
|
|||
jonmor 150 posts |
Oct 22, 2013, 17:39
|
||
|
Difficult isn't it? If we could say with certainty what one (preferably early) set of monuments were for, we might have a much better idea what the rest were for. Unfortunately, the number one candidate (Stonehenge) is almost certainly a unique monument.
|
|||
|
ironstone 62 posts |
Oct 25, 2013, 14:13
|
||
Ahhh, we could be here for hours....my take on the 'purpose' of stone circles, however trite it may appear, is that they were sort of 'community centres' which encompassed a variety of functions from meeting/trading place to the more favoured 'ritual' use. Right from the outset of my interest I've always been a bit guarded about, not to say very much put off, by the more 'hippy-dippy' explanantions based on astronomical alignments, always preferring the notion of particular settings within the landscape over those linked to the solar system/universe. The plain fact that some of them have these alignments shouldn't define their roles whilst equally the fact that the majority don't must indicate more mundane uses than always for particular ceremonies at special times of the year. I agree that the huge spread of time over which they were constructed must have influenced their usage though of course technology/ideas would have evolved much less rapidly in those days than they do now. Much of my enjoyment of them lies in not knowing what they were for or why they were built; they just 'are' and generally for me their sheer antiquity (and survival) is enough to celebrate.
|
|||
|
Evergreen Dazed 1881 posts |
Nov 04, 2013, 16:48
|
||
|
Something we have learned only relatively recently, and which seems hugely important regarding what we know about stone circles, is the geophysical survey at Stanton Drew. If those pits held posts, they were huge, and there were 9 rings of them! Similarities with Woodhenge & Durrington, but what does it mean? Did the majority of circles start as wooden structures? Have surveys of that type been carried out at any other large circles? Pits were also found in the centre of the NE circle at Stanton Drew, but seem to have been interpreted as possible further stone pits rather than posts.
|
|||
tiompan 5758 posts |
Edited Nov 04, 2013, 17:10
Nov 04, 2013, 17:08
|
||
|
Evergreen Dazed wrote: Something we have learned only relatively recently, and which seems hugely important regarding what we know about stone circles, is the geophysical survey at Stanton Drew. If those pits held posts, they were huge, and there were 9 rings of them! Similarities with Woodhenge & Durrington, but what does it mean? Did the majority of circles start as wooden structures? Have surveys of that type been carried out at any other large circles? Pits were also found in the centre of the NE circle at Stanton Drew, but seem to have been interpreted as possible further stone pits rather than posts. Alex Gibson reckoned that when timber circles are a feature of a developing monument they are usually earlier , not always the case , but a useful heuristic . Other stone circles with earlier TC 's , Sanctuary ,Moncrieffe ,Machrie Moor .Henges seem to have as many TC's as Sc's . Worth mentioning that grooved ware is often associated with TC 's .
|
|||
|
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Nov 04, 2013, 17:26
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: Evergreen Dazed wrote: Something we have learned only relatively recently, and which seems hugely important regarding what we know about stone circles, is the geophysical survey at Stanton Drew. If those pits held posts, they were huge, and there were 9 rings of them! Similarities with Woodhenge & Durrington, but what does it mean? Did the majority of circles start as wooden structures? Have surveys of that type been carried out at any other large circles? Pits were also found in the centre of the NE circle at Stanton Drew, but seem to have been interpreted as possible further stone pits rather than posts. Alex Gibson reckoned that when timber circles are a feature of a developing monument they are usually earlier , not always the case , but a useful heuristic . Other stone circles with earlier TC 's , Sanctuary ,Moncrieffe ,Machrie Moor .Henges seem to have as many TC's as Sc's . Worth mentioning that grooved ware is often associated with TC 's . I always thought that was pretty much a given George. It seems a natural progression doesn't it.
|
|||
|
jonmor 150 posts |
Nov 04, 2013, 17:39
|
||
|
"Alex Gibson reckoned that when timber circles are a feature of a developing monument they are usually earlier , not always the case , but a useful heuristic " Seems entirely reasonable, but timber is easier to work so not sure that it would be much of a heuristic help because it would apply to any solution? On subject of possible solutions, today sent a package to the people who run the other monument set we discussed (at their request): Was in that country last week but didn't get the chance to go over to them. This time round I think I'll only write it up fully if they're interested (but will copy you in if/when done). All the best G Jon
|
|||
|
Evergreen Dazed 1881 posts |
Nov 04, 2013, 17:54
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: Evergreen Dazed wrote: Something we have learned only relatively recently, and which seems hugely important regarding what we know about stone circles, is the geophysical survey at Stanton Drew. If those pits held posts, they were huge, and there were 9 rings of them! Similarities with Woodhenge & Durrington, but what does it mean? Did the majority of circles start as wooden structures? Have surveys of that type been carried out at any other large circles? Pits were also found in the centre of the NE circle at Stanton Drew, but seem to have been interpreted as possible further stone pits rather than posts. Alex Gibson reckoned that when timber circles are a feature of a developing monument they are usually earlier , not always the case , but a useful heuristic . Other stone circles with earlier TC 's , Sanctuary ,Moncrieffe ,Machrie Moor .Henges seem to have as many TC's as Sc's . Worth mentioning that grooved ware is often associated with TC 's . V interesting re grooved ware. I seem to have read over the years, about a number of different sites, stones 'ended' the activity, almost like the final act at the end of a sites life. A 'sealing off' for want of a better expression. Nice and tidy re the obvious wood/life, stone/death thing but i doubt it was ever that simple!
|
| Pages: 26 – [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | This topic is locked |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
