Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
The Modern Antiquarian Forum »
Neolithic women
Log In to post a reply

37 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
5758 posts

Re: Neolithic women
Mar 10, 2017, 18:52
Littlestone wrote:
Littlestone wrote:

As for the Avebury Avenue and the Avebury Henge, perhaps there were just not enough diamond- and pillar-shaped stones lying around (and as far as I’m aware none of the stones at Avebury have been dressed to make them look male or female). That would not stop the architects of the Avenue and the Henge from bestowing 'non-pillar' or 'non-diamond' stones with male or female attributes if they so wished. At Avebury they may have done that by decorating the more ‘neutral’ stones in a certain way, or they may have seen gender-related characteristics on the surface of the stone. Some of the stones may even have represented children, and might not have been seen as warranting stones that were perceived as having more clearly defined gender characteristics.

And just to add to that; perhaps we should start referring to the so-called 'male' and 'female' stones at Avebury, and elsewhere, as the Lingam and the Yoni stones. Those words do, after all, bestow something rather more on the objects than the rather simplistic attributes of male and female. Indeed, the lost Obelisk at Avebury may have represented a lingam; as it might also have done at Rudson, and almost certainly did at Plonéour-Lanvern in Brittany (third photo down).

Lol .

I think ,if pushed , I'll stick with bod and faighean .

Interestingly the irish for ling (the fish ) is bod mor .

Fwiw ,watch out for an “actually it's Rudston “ from those who have a problem with mis-spilling/typos .
Topic Outline:

The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index