|
 Log in |
Register
|
|
 Head To Head The Modern Antiquarian Saith Maen Forum | Start a topic | Search |
67 messages | Select a forum: |
GLADMAN wrote: My recent visit to Saith Maen confirmed that the giant shake hole a few yards to the north of the site must surely have been part of the original 'vision'. Surely? Just wondering what people have to say about: 1) what criteria need to be met to class an obviously natural feature as a genuine TMA prehistoric ritualistic site? E.g Sacred Hill, rock feature etc. 2) what other examples are there out there, aside from Capel Garmon and Bryn Celli Ddu? I sense a right old can of worms here! I think you must be right about the inclusion of natural features in the "vision" of the site. Rock features seem to feature prominently near a number of stone circles, such as Nine Stones Close/Robin Hood's Stride; Tregeseal/Carn Kenidjack; Nine Maidens/Carn Galva; Brisworthy/Legis Tor, etc ,etc. Add in natural hills like Blakey Topping and its stone circle. It's difficult to imagine that any "sacred" site wasn't situated in complete awareness of its natural surroundings, so I don't know where you draw the line, honestly. To answer your first question is therefore very difficult. Intervisibility with other sites must score highly, but is not by any means essential. I don't know why things like the Cheesewring are necessarily TMA-ish, but it does seem entirely right that they are. Perhaps it's the fact that they were simply "there" when our ancestors were deciding to build their own monuments, which would have been seen as either embellishments to, or impositions upon, nature - I guess. Struggling, sorry! Reply | with quote |  3rd January 2011ce 22:34 In reply to: What criteria for a natural TMA monument? (GLADMAN)2 replies: Re: What criteria for a natural TMA monument? (megadread) Re: What criteria for a natural TMA monument? (Sanctuary) |
Messages in this topic: |