|
 Log in |
Register
|
|
 Head To Head The Modern Antiquarian Ure-Swale Plateau Forum | Start a topic | Search |
16 messages | Select a forum: |
| That was my understanding, and was a major reason why I've not been that interested in henges since my preferred subject area is the Iron Age. When I read what Julian had to say on the subject I was highly sceptical of his reasoning for this very reason. However, since getting involved in Thornborough I have increasingly noticed a large number of coincidence with regards to the location of henges and their related works and those of the later peoples. I can't say that I will ever have a categoric statement on it, the proof just won't be there. But lets just say that I am re-evaluating my views and have moved to a stance where absence of evidence doe not disprove them being used. It terms of the Thornborough henges, we can say there is definate proof that IA and Roman people were living in the locality of the henges, there is no proof that they were using the henges, but then, there is no proof that anyone was using the henges other than a very small number of burials which we must assume were related. Virtually all of the history of the henges has been by comparing their structure to similar better known structures and assuming a similar build date. It is my understanding that virtually all of the round barrows were robbed in the 19th century and that very little of what was found remains. So in other words the chronology of the henges as we understand it is the vest guess of the experts. One of those best guesses relates to the pit alignments for example. Current thinking says that most single pit alignments are from a late Bronze Age or early Iron Age date. If that assumption is correct in terms of Thornborough then that evidence alone would tend to suggest a later ritual use of the henges. One of the pit alignments, the one on the Friends of Thornborough website, does appear to show a direct relationship between the henges and the areas used for ritual purposes during the Iron Age and Roman Periods. The pit alignment in question appears to run in a straight line from the entrance of the Northern henge and head directly towards the sacred well at Well. Well was the location for a significant villa site in the Roman period, and it has been argued that the choice of location was directly related to the proximity of the sacred St Micheals Well. It is possible that the bath house at Well, which was fed via the sacred well, served a similar purpose to the baths at Bath, and if the post alignment in question does indeed provide a connection between the henge and the well, then I think it is safe to assume that we have a degree of continuity of custom. I can't say that the religious practices were the same, in fact I'd tend to think that their would be significant and major differences. What I do suggest is that those areas marked out as being religious focal points in the early Bronze Age continued to be identified as significant into the Iron Age and Roman periods, but in these new periods, could well have become associated with different meanings and different structures. Sorry if this is a bit rushed, I am. Reply | with quote | Posted by BrigantesNation 17th August 2003ce 17:22 In reply to: Re: The Roman subjigation of a sacred space (TomBo) |
Messages in this topic: |