|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Fields Recordings From The Sea |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
Annexus Quam 926 posts |
Apr 19, 2004, 18:37
|
||
|
Haven’t you often wondered why there is an almost surprising total absence of megalithic sites in the Inner Continent (i.e. south and east of Germany and further south, around the Balkans)? Of course, there is an awful amount of wooden paraphernalia (both material and monumental) which is long gone, but "surprising" because this became the first centre of Neolithic Europe two or three millenia earlier than here. For the casual observer of stones, it may be "amazing" to know that more than 100,000 Neolithic figurines almost certainly representing ancient divinities have been found so far. Even many border-bound archaeologists disguise their own ignorance by using the common phrase 'we will never know what the ancients, blah blah' without even looking beyond the limits of their county parish. Without even bothering to look into the evidence, it is a common thing to call those who are at least re-visiting these paths *the Fringe*. But let’s not forget that even Stukeley is now being reclaimed. http://groups.msn.com/AncientWisdomCulturesPeople/vinca2.msnw http://www.rastko.org.yu/arheologija/vinca/vinca_eng.html http://www.snaga.org.yu/Ilustrovana_istorija_srba/tekst/engleski/01/01-02-neolit.html And the beauty of these human, half-human, phallic or pregnancy representations is worth the effort. Although there is a big lack of sculpture in Megalithic Europe (excepting the areas round the Mediterranean), it is almost certain that with the spread of farming from the Balkans came the spread of religious ideals, in the same way that many of the central European henges precede the Insular ones in 2,000 years or even more. Atlantic Europe was on the fringe of these developments and was slow to adopt (even conservative) in the *main areas* of the West, where I am convinced megalithic monuments were started JUST BEFORE the arrival of farming. I have here long ago raved about the early dating of the cromlechs around Evora, making them the first pre-Neolithic thangs, and with the dates in the British Isles also being pushed further backwards, it's going to make Stonehenge (ca 2,000 BCE) look one day like a relic of the Modern Industrial Age. During the Mesolithic environmental conditions around the Atlantic were exceptionally good in terms of plant-gathering and seafood. The famous Mesolithic shell deposits at Muge (Portugal) or the ones in Denmark coincide with the areas which would start creating monuments very early on, always not too far from the ocean. I mean even the Ur-temples at Carrowmore have their own shell deposits!!! It may have been a casual coincidence for an Irish researcher to find huge amounts of shells in Ireland, but when they look outside their window to find that it was the general trend all over the Atlantic during the centuries preceding the Neolithic then it can only mean that the Land was Overflowing. And that there was no need for farming. At least until someone put far too much salt in the ocean.
|
|||
|
Annexus Quamm 13 posts |
Apr 19, 2004, 18:58
|
||
In other words, the megalithic sites were created by settling communities but settling did not necessarily begin with farming alone.
|
|||
TomBo 1629 posts |
Apr 19, 2004, 20:54
|
||
|
So some stones may not have been raised in celebration of agriculture, of newly-found control over nature, after all. Doesn't this rather undermine one of Mr. Cope's central arguments, in the Modern Antiquarian? Namely, that as monuments celebrating agriculture megaliths symbolise the beginning of the error that is currently destroying the world. I suppose that in as much as they are the first permanent human marks on the land this argument can still be made, but with considerably less force, no? The other question that this begs, for me, is just what it was that inspired the building of megalithic structures. What changed people, giving them monumentality, if it wasn't agriculture?
|
|||
Hob 4033 posts |
Apr 19, 2004, 22:48
|
||
|
Supporting the idea that megalithery pre-dates farming (in the conventinal sense), is the fact that Aboriginal Australians raised megalithic stuctures. They didn't farm the land, unless you count deliberate starting and guiding of bushfires as farming. On the subject of Balkan figurines, Marija Gimbutas' Gods and Godesses of old Europe, shows a lot of Vinca (?) faces, which display serious temporal lobe influences.
|
|||
|
TomBo 1629 posts |
Apr 19, 2004, 22:57
|
||
I'm not actually disputing what AQ says, more trying to work out what the implications of it are. The question of what had changed, if not agriculture, really intrigues me. What was it that made monuments necessary <i>then</i>? Perhaps the implication is that before agriculture becomes possible a certain mentality, a certain degree of separation from nature, has to be attained. And conversely, that the practicalities of agriculture become obvious once this state of mind has been reached. I've always been uncomfortable with the idea that hunter gatherers were "too stupid" to work out the mechanics of growing crops/keeping animals. What AQ is saying here points the way to an alternative hypothesis - that agriculture came about as the result of a new kind of consciousness dawning. Why then?, though, is what perplexes me. The idea of the Jungian group mind seems necessary to explain it. Not that I have trouble accepting that - watch any swarm of bees, or those huge clouds of birds circling, circling, at the end of the summer, and its obvious that consciousness can be collective.
|
|||
FourWinds 10943 posts |
Apr 19, 2004, 23:09
|
||
|
I am not sure about 'tombs', but I would say that standing stones probably predate agriculture. Although they have been discussed as being boundary markers and 'site of battle' markers one thing they are very good at (it's a bit of a theme in all explanations) is marking a point with a kind of permanance. "This is a good place to cross this mountain range." "There's good eating around here." "Stig woz 'ere" etc. I would imagine that Mesolithic man needed to mark good (or bad) points in the landscape and would have soon realised that you can't necessarily have relied on 'somewhere near that birch tree'. Carrowmore has very large implications for the way we view these folks. I believe (as do many others) that the builders of these ancient temples were not farmers in the sense we imagine them to be. A Lapp-like herdsman society could have existed or they could have relied simply on hunting and fishing - the middens show that it was a very rich area. Just around the corner in Mayo are the Ceide Fields: a Neolithic field system. The plot thickens! This showed tremendous organisation, with two field strips per house, probably indicating that a primative rotational system was in operation. These date to around 2000BCE - a full 3000 years later than some of Carrowmore. That's a lot of time to develop agriculture in, but it's very unlikely that full-on agriculture was in operation for all that time - so, that would indicate that the builders of Carrowmore probably weren't farmers. I don't believe that the Portal Tomb builders were agriculturalists either. I do think that the Court Tomb (and therefore Clyde Cairn) builders became the first agriculturalists, as indicated at Ceide. Next question from someone will be: Aren't portal tombs 1500 years younger than court tombs? And I would say "yes, interesting isn't it!" :-)
|
|||
|
Hob 4033 posts |
Apr 19, 2004, 23:10
|
||
|
It didn't sound like you were disputing, the opposite if anything. I don't know enough about the evidence of the period in question, but I don't see any reason why megaliths would have to require settlement or farming as a pre-cursor. The idea that some change in the prehistoric mindset would have been needed before megalithic monuments could be contemplated, now that is an idea I like a lot. The manipulation of the physical environment to effect a manipulation of the psychological/magical environment kind of thing. It pre-supposes a shift in perception of the environment. If this shift was to result in organised stoneshifting, I guess it must have been occurring in more than one brain at a time. But as to how such patterns would spread? Wey, I have no idea. Maybe if Sheldrakey morphic resonance is invoked it would provide a leg up for the required leap of faith. It's fascinating stuff though.
|
|||
|
FourWinds 10943 posts |
Apr 19, 2004, 23:12
|
||
|
"... but I don't see any reason why megaliths would have to require settlement or farming as a pre-cursor." One of the initial factors was 'spare time'. When farming you have broader communities and can share the workload. Then occasionally you can all chip in and build a megalithic structure while the women are doing the weeding :-)
|
|||
|
TomBo 1629 posts |
Apr 19, 2004, 23:15
|
||
Of course, the abundant food supply that AQ mentions would provide exactly that spare time. I feel ignorant now, though, because I've no idea when those abundant conditions began and ended. Perhaps it was the onset of this period of abundance which resulted in a shift in people's consciousness? Having time to sit down and think?
|
|||
|
Hob 4033 posts |
Apr 19, 2004, 23:21
|
||
|
How much spare time would it need, I wonder? That would probably depend on the monument. Maybe smaller ones could have been built by a handful of people, groups of hunter-gatherers as you say. Slowly moving stones a bit every time they pass, taking years and tears to complete the building. Adding bits, altering the plans that had been told to them by previous generations.
|
| Pages: 17 – [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
