Head To Head
Log In
Register
The Modern Antiquarian Forum »
Conclusions...Stone circles, are we learning much?
This topic is locked

253 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
Sanctuary
Sanctuary
4670 posts

Re: Conclusions...Stone circles, are we learning much?
Nov 10, 2013, 12:15
tiompan wrote:
Sanctuary wrote:
Any thoughts on why some circles are made up of a random bunch of standing stones of all shapes and sizes, yet others are well matched with regard to both circumference and height? Then you get the not so perfectly round circle compared to the perfect one. Does this mean that the precision of the circumference is of little importance?
Is the diameter of the circle indicative of its 'use', or because many people use it at one time? Down here on Bodmin Moor the large circles are seen as being 'ceremonial', but is there any reason why the smaller ones couldn't have been used for the same purpose whether ceremonial or not?
Why do some have centre stones, others have off-centre stones and 'most' none at all?
Questions, questions....


Part of the problem , touched on by E.D. earlier , is the conflation of many different types of roughly circular stone monuments built from at least the Middle Neolithic to the Late Bronze Age and all termed stone circle .


I can't talk for other circles, but the three that are regarded as the 'oldest' (although very little dating has taken place) on Bodmin moor(Burl) namely Stannon, Lowden and Fernacre circles are all misshapen circles with a mish-mash of various stones in their settings. If so, it 'suggests' that their stones were erected in more of a rough demarcation fashion rather than in a beautifully designed perfect circle with 'worked' stone in its setting. Could it be that the 'smarter' ones are the real ceremonial circles and built in remembrance of the early ones and what went on in them? Just a thought.
Topic Outline:

The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index