spencer
|
Edited Feb 02, 2017, 20:14
Re: Wells 'n' shit
Feb 02, 2017, 20:10
|
|
Good point re wells and springs being near known ancient sites... I don't know what radius that should be. Anyone prepared to suggest a distance? Me, I'd apply the same principle of distance to that already used forbsub-sites in other categories, eg. say, Torhouskie Stone Row and Circle. 400m? Or the distance a kid 'back then' could reasonably be expected to lug a full hideful of water? There's still the need to amend the site category from sacred wells to sacred wells and springs/whatever(tap tap click) ps Rhiannon, no, I wasn't getting at you, not that you'd probably even thunk it : )
|
Rhiannon
|
Re: Wells 'n' shit
Feb 02, 2017, 21:16
|
Well, me, I'm all for obviously weird or otherwise arresting natural rock features. After all the landscape was there before the man-made additions. I'm biased I know, I'm sometimes pretty non-plused by stone circles (HERETIC GET HER OUT OF HERE) and I'm much more taken with the feel of the places, what you can see from where, the shape of the land. I like tors and rock basins and rocking stones and freakily shaped mountains. Which is not to say I don't like big longbarrows and suchlike, but I like them better if the landscape's really bleak so they stand out.
hmmm that's not much of a justification is it.
I suppose it's that whole phenomenology thing. Which isn't foolproof at all is it, because I'm doing it as a 21st century person, and surely I look at things a bit differently from someone in the neolithic. But we must have things in common. Where the best view is. Where's a less draughty place to sit.
|
thesweetcheat
|
Re: Wells 'n' shit
Feb 02, 2017, 21:24
|
Oh I agree that they're great. I love a nice rock outcrop, especially one with basins or weird sculpted rocks - I've added some here myself.
But whether they genuinely belong on a website of prehistoric sites is a little more difficult. There will be watercourse fans who would argue that a nice little river source springing from beside a stone circle should be added if we're going all natural features. Actually do we have some lakes?
|
Rhiannon
|
Edited Feb 02, 2017, 21:41
Re: natural places
Feb 02, 2017, 21:38
|
I might be guilty of adding lakes. But only if they had iron age watery offerings in them. or crannogs. honest.
I'd argue that some natural features are totally in the spirit of the original TMA book and JC's (literally modern antiquarianish as opposed to unfringily academically archaeological) theorising about mother hills and sacred landscapes and so on. In fact there's a whole chapter about 'proto neolithic temples'.
(I'm like a dog with a bone. Although I'm not about to shout 'Splitter!' yet.)
|
thesweetcheat
|
Re: natural places
Feb 02, 2017, 21:41
|
|
I am gnawed into submission :)
|
Rhiannon
|
Re: natural places
Feb 02, 2017, 21:45
|
|
yes since controversy elsewhere presently seems to have died down perhaps we should call it quits
|
spencer
|
Edited Feb 02, 2017, 22:56
Re: Wells 'n' shit
Feb 02, 2017, 22:54
|
|
Nice to 'meet' someone with exactly or nearasdammit my archaeo mindset. Hi : ) ps, folks should always remember that natural rock features were natural points of congregation. Have 'found things' near the nearest one to me, Ox Stones. Nice things. Can I get a pic due to tall heather? Can I buggery. Someone give me a match (no, don't really mean it: someone do a controlled burn)
|
moss
|
Edited Feb 03, 2017, 07:23
Re: Change?
Feb 03, 2017, 07:20
|
Well this thread has really taken off, it should have subsets ;), notice Rhiannon mentions 'phenemonology' well this essay by the Urban Prehistorian should spark some thoughts.....
https://theurbanprehistorian.wordpress.com/2017/01/21/selfish-walks/
In the end the 'wholeness' of the landscape is the thing that moves us, stone, water, mountains and of course the weather plays a significant role. The essay argues you can't get back to prehistory, viewing 3017 bc from 2017 ad is just a flight of fancy. What we do is look for clues in the landscape, try to marry them together. I just love the palimpsest of history, a river that has moved progressively over the centuries, an old well with a statue of Mary, barrows that follow the line of an older road. Saxon, Viking, Norman they tumble through the soil to earlier times, to old kingdoms forged out of the roman withdrawal, and did those kingdoms start from the aggressive Iron Age hill top forts. History is fluid, its pattern etched in the landscape.....
The Old Wife's well, has an ambiguity that says interpretation cannot be qualified into exactness, as the 'roman road' that is nearby is seen now as maybe a much earlier linear line on the landscape...
http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/site/6683/old_wifes_well.html
|
tiompan
|
Re: Change?
Feb 03, 2017, 08:06
|
A bit like the recent Orkney piece from Brophy , right on he money , but shooting fish in a barrel .
It's an old story , as the Fleming paper shows , and it's not even phenomenology .
Putting yourself in the shoes of people from two centuries ago is difficult enough , people from this century and from the same culture don't understand each other , to even consider 5000 ya is incredibly arrogant.
Good topic .
|
tiompan
|
Re: Wells 'n' shit
Feb 04, 2017, 12:09
|
|
thesweetcheat wrote:
The number of stone circles built in close proximity to rocky outcrops can't be coincidental, for example.
Couldn't that be explained , and verified , by them being source of the material ?
|
