One the failings some people have is to expect to find a general rule that governs all sites in all regions. This just ain't gonna happen in my opinion. You certainly cannot say that because one site has a characteristic then it was important at all others. Equally you cannot say that because one site does not have a characteristic it was not important at another site. You certainly can't say that rules for wedge tombs in Antrim apply to wedge tombs in Cork.

Take Christianity for instance. Irish Christianity is very different from French Christianity, which is different from the Spanish variety. Obviously there's one big common theme, but there are local variations. There are not only regional differences but also time based differences. Many Romanesque churches have exhibitionist carvings. New churches don't. Just because more modern churches don't have these can you say that they were not important to some Christians at some point in time? No you can't.

The same applies to ancient monuments. There are a lot of wedge tombs in Ireland and they were certainly built over a large time span. There will never be a universal set of rules that apply to just this one set of monuments let alone every type from every time period. I believe that trying to find this is everyone's failing in this field so far.

This is a double edged sword though. What is needed is a very hard thing to achieve: local assessment of site groups while staying aware of the broader picture.

"Is our modern appreciation of what's a pretty view the same as the Neolithic one? Another thread maybe, but I'd reckon it's a big YES (why wouldn't it be, it's in our nature not our nurture isn't it?)"

Most definately not Nigel. Beauty - or the appreciation of significance - is almost certainly culturally conditioned. That's why people have been able to destroy many things we would have found beautiful.

I think 'view' is a much less convincing factor than (obviously) a strong alignment - or jut plain 'proximity'. I can easily imagine places 'feeling' significant - by long association or for mysterious 'hallucinatory' reasons - or because prominent features being used for direction and gathering take on a palimpsest of meaning.

But views depend on weather (don't we know it), good eyesight (unlikely then) and - often - unfamiliarity. Haven't you noticed that often the natives of very beautiful places don't recognise the view? We can't tell whether 'view' was perceived the way it is now before the development of representational images. (which flatten)

But I think FW is right on this - there will never be one criteria which fits all sites. I think it's reasonable to assume that there must have been some significance to sanctify and focus the effort involved but whether we will ever be able to divine what that was is doubtful.

Well, I hope I didn't throw the thread off with my choice of "view" as an EXAMPLE of a value that would pertain to real estate (sacred or profane.) I merely hoped to illustrate the kind of analysis we'd have to apply to determine ANY hypothetical relationship to the land (view, proximity, orientation, etc. being others.)

I'm sure that at least SOME of any type of monument were built with SOME relationship to the surrounding land in mind. As a matter of fact, I'm dead sure, but have no way to prove it, that ALL these stone monuments were specifically intended to mark the land as a humanly controlled posession: to claim, proclaim and enforce ownership in the face of recalcitrant Nature (and probably, by the Bronze age, neighbors.)

Local traditions would have established different types of significant places, for differing reasons, well before the monuments were conceived, and I have no problem believing the monument builders themselves believed or co-opted earlier beliefs, or, given a probably more stratified society, some still believed and some co-opted. This would have been exactly like what Christians did, siting churches on earlier "significant" places in an attempt to use the that belief to THEIR advantage.

So, that "land claiming" is a "relationship to the landscape" of a very powerful kind, and no doubt there were rites that expressed the beliefs outlined above.

I'm fascinated to hear of your regression analysis, Nigel, and hope I live long enough to see someone apply it to the Neolithic!