Stone corrals

close

Were circles like Meikle Findowie, Cairnholy 1, Castlerigg, Pont-y-Pridd, Sunkenkirk and Torhousekie for purely utilitarian use - perhaps as corrals? Between the standing stones were there once fences or walls? Was Avebury perhaps a site of multiple use - a place to corral livestock, to trade it while ceremonial and religious activities took place?

Do we need to move away a little from seeing stone circles as places for ceremonial/religious gathering and see them in a more utilitarian role (while not denying that some circles were for purely ceremonial use but also that some may have been a combination of both the ceremonial and the utilitarian - and some may have been purely utilitarian?).

>Was Avebury perhaps a site of multiple use - a place to corral livestock, to trade it

Millions of deer swarm down the vale and leap over the bank to fall into a deep ditch with pointy sticks at the bottom.
People hiding behind stones shooting arrows and spears as they tumble over the bank.

Grubs up!

McRudolf burger special, buy one get the second for the same price! Whatcha got to trade?

Seems to me that we can speculate forever and come up with all sorts of quasi religious/astronomical functions by lining any stones we choose to any stars we choose. The only firm facts seem to relate to the entrances which may align to solar and lunar setting/rising or jolly giants like FW's Orion or may just lead down to the river. On the ground, we need to think carefully about the archaeology - are there burials/cremations within the circles, what tools have been found, is there residual dung from a concentration of animals which you would expect from a corral?

The Neolithic seems such a weird place. I can understand the Palaeolithic so much better, but henges, circles, standing stones and above all - cursus and causeway camps!!!! Could be from the Planet Zog, because I just cannot get my head around them at all. The more I study them and listen to theories and speculations - the more my head hurts and the more confused I get.

Is anybody reading JackME's series on stone circles over on the Portal. I'm saying nothing because I can't make head nor tail of them?

Hi, Littlestone,

>Do we need to move away a little from seeing stone circles as places for ceremonial/religious gathering and see them in a more utilitarian role (while not denying that some circles were for purely ceremonial use but also that some may have been a combination of both the ceremonial and the utilitarian - and some may have been purely utilitarian?).<

Hmmm.....well, perhaps. Would it not be feasible that if these places were used routinely, year after year, and visited by people from far and wide (and their cattle) that there would be some sort of evidence for a (for want of a better descriptor) "caravan park" in the immeadiate locale? Some sort of archaeological evidence of temporary habitation or something? Just a thought - I've been sharing a rather nice glass or two of Oyster Bay White, so I might be thinking inside the bottle.....


Peace

Pilgrim

X

Hi Littlestone,

Just out of interest, why did you pick Meikle Findowie as one of your examples? The stones there are very small and to my mind wouldn't have been much use for keeping in livestock.

I don't discount more utilitarian uses, as I think it's very unlikely that all stones and circles were used for the same thing, but I have read before that if a site had been used for holding livestock then there would have been evidence of this in the archaeology.

Cheers
Andy

I think I've read some theories like this before, but buggered if I can think where if it wasn't on here.

Certainly possible for some of them I'd've thought - esp the trading thang - and at least as one use.

love

Moth

It's always struck me that as these sites were built and used over a very long period of time, that the uses must have changed over time - I'm sure there is evidence for this.
You could say that Stonehenge is still in use - as a party destination and as a political football. ;0)

http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/site/3546

Hmmm. Not sure about the corrals idea but the people that built them left very, very few traces of general habitation. Most of what they constructed was temporary, wooden and perhaps mud built houses. The only major surviving indicators are things they wanted to outlive them, perhaps for their idea of eternity. Animal pens? Its not a practical use of scant energy and labour resources to drag massive rocks across the countryside to hold in cattle when wooden stakeposts would have done the job for a fraction of the labour cost.

A task like building a circle requires huge motivation, determination and perseverence. To my mind the only motivations strong enough, even today, to make impractical, labour intensive, lasting and obviously symbolic creations are creative expression, superstitious worship/fear or duress.

Where evidence does show agricultural use of land, like the Ceide Fields from 3,000bce http://www.rootsweb.com/~fianna/history/prehist1.html show the most practical way in which land was used: angular, rectangular and squared fields which are the most efficient use of space (which had to be cleared from forest). The walls are built of smaller stones that a man or two could carry so it was more efficient to build rather than tie up eight or more men moving one large rock to fill a fraction of the space a dry wall could fill.

I think its only right to wonder what uses circles had, but look at stone rows, portal tombs, standing stones, passage tombs; when they went to all that effort and in every case it was not a practical venture, it took a lot of back breaking work and that says to me the motivation was not to create something that was practical when a more practical solution using wood/branches/mud/small stones could use their valuable resources much more efficiently. This mysterious motivation and the psychological picture it paints of what went on in these peoples heads is what fascinates me but I'm very open to the idea they were day to day objects. It just doesn't make sense to me.