BUT. Whatever the motivation behind a particular monument at a particular time, its positioning still appears likely to have been significant. And that implies an awareness and inspiration created by the landforms around. Even if the significance differed from monument to monument.
Yes, I agree wholeheartedly. With the caveat that we are now down to speaking of the "landforms." Not the "landscape," which to my limited and literal mind also implies the ecology: particular congeries of plants, animals, etc. And therefore kind of leaves out the interconnectedness to all things motif as a primary motivating consideration.
Unless I'm misunderstanding!
No, you're not :-)
The switch was deliberate, as the landforms are largely the same today as they were when the monuments were built, the landscape is anything but.
So if a stone circle is sited near a particularly prominent rock outcrop, or water source, there is at least an even change that this is significant in the placing of the monument. Whereas a monument may have been placed somewhere because there was a grove of trees that had particular "sacred" (for want of a better word) associations, or it was a place that was remembered through folk-memory as somewhere a fine herd of horses had been encountered thousands of years earlier. But we can't ever know those things, because the evidence has gone.
Reply | with quote
|Posted by thesweetcheat|
7th May 2012ce
Sense of Place (moss, Apr 01, 2012, 09:57)
- Re: Sense of Place (tjj, Apr 01, 2012, 19:09)
- Re: Sense of Place (GLADMAN, Apr 01, 2012, 20:00)
- Re: Sense of Place (tjj, Apr 02, 2012, 22:30)
- Re: Sense of Place (ryaner, Apr 20, 2012, 21:48)
- Re: Sense of Place (BuckyE, Apr 21, 2012, 03:39)
- Re: Sense of Place (The Eternal, May 05, 2012, 22:55)
- Re: Sense of Place (Littlestone, May 06, 2012, 10:52)
- Re: Sense of Place/Wildness (Sanctuary, May 07, 2012, 14:15)
- Re: Sense of Place (tjj, May 21, 2012, 12:57)