It seems to me that the argument for holy wells being prehistoric sites could equally apply to churches.
They both:
Are Christianised sites
Are usually named after Christian saints
Usually have a stone structure built in Christian times
May have been used previously by non-Christians
There's usually no visible or written evidence of any use prior to Christianity.
Here's one of the churches on here which I don't think belongs:
http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/site/4529
The presence of sarsens in the vicinity indicates to me that the stone wasn't used, if they had of been used then they wouldn't be merely sarsens.
Reply | with quote | Posted by baza 15th October 2004ce 10:52 |
My hero (goffik, Oct 08, 2004, 07:36)- Re: My hero (Mr Hamhead, Oct 08, 2004, 19:59)
- Re: My hero (goffik, Oct 09, 2004, 15:41)
- Re: My hero (baza, Oct 09, 2004, 17:11)
- Re: My hero (FourWinds, Oct 09, 2004, 17:27)
- Re: My hero (moss, Oct 10, 2004, 10:33)
- Re: Not my hero (goffik, Oct 10, 2004, 21:03)
- Re: Not my hero (baza, Oct 12, 2004, 23:06)
- Re: Not my hero (goffik, Oct 13, 2004, 07:51)
- Re: Not my hero (FourWinds, Oct 13, 2004, 07:58)
- Re: Not my hero (Mr Hamhead, Oct 13, 2004, 08:27)
- Re: Not my hero (baza, Oct 15, 2004, 10:52)
- Re: My hero (Hob, Oct 10, 2004, 23:35)
- Re: My hero (goffik, Oct 10, 2004, 19:01)
|
|