Nigel,
One mans garbage, is another mans wealth.
There was some really usefull information contained within that site, I have removed it, as it obviously caused you stress.
Kevin
0
Henge
Started by shiny, 16-Aug-2006 12:51
32 replies to this topic
#32
stonecarver
-
- Registered
- 278 posts
Megalithomaniac
- Gender:Male
Posted 29 April 2007 - 18:30
Maybe then, these structures were designed as defended sites? if the ditches were intended to hold water.
There's far too much tendency for archaeologists to want everything to be 'ritual' or 'symbolic'. Basically that's a last refuge when we can't figure out what something was for...
There's far too much tendency for archaeologists to want everything to be 'ritual' or 'symbolic'. Basically that's a last refuge when we can't figure out what something was for...
#33 Guest_carla_*
Guest_carla_*
-
- Unregistered / Not Logged In
Posted 29 April 2007 - 19:59
The henge's wern't really designed to a 'plan' as such when you consider the time scales involved and alterations in their making. However, it is not unreasonable to suspect that they were significant places in the landscape, perhaps acquiring deeper significance through memory and return. When people passed through these monuments, they engaged in 'making', in the constant digging and maintenence of sections of ditch, and in the back-filling and in their return and re-cutting.
There is certainly evidence for a great deal of activity within the monuments, much of which does imply ritual. Perhaps some archaeologists are dismissive about ritual activity because it is this that they don't understand, there is also a tendancy for archaeologists to seperate aspects of life which may well have been intertwined.
It is an acceptable hypothesis that water could have acted for defense, and there is more evidence for conflict in the later Neolithic than it is currently fasionable to mention, but equally if some ditches filled with water at certain times, the water may have had an aesthetic quality.
There is certainly evidence for a great deal of activity within the monuments, much of which does imply ritual. Perhaps some archaeologists are dismissive about ritual activity because it is this that they don't understand, there is also a tendancy for archaeologists to seperate aspects of life which may well have been intertwined.
It is an acceptable hypothesis that water could have acted for defense, and there is more evidence for conflict in the later Neolithic than it is currently fasionable to mention, but equally if some ditches filled with water at certain times, the water may have had an aesthetic quality.
Reply to this topic
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
