close
more_vert

Amberlady wrote:
tiompan wrote:
[quote="Branwen"][quote="Littlestone"] It's a epochal problem , druids are historical and the stone circles are prehistoric which doesn't mean to say there was never a onnection but impossible to prove either way .
Maybe not but the 2,500 year gap between the erection of stone circles and the appearance of Druids is something of a hint.
The reply was to the problems inherent in the question " How many circles actually have any real connections to Druid's? " rather than a answer to that question .
The boggy area between archaeology and history/folk- lore produces plenty of discussion not much of which is enlightening . In this case the two sides would need to come to some agreement about the terminology i.e. what is a druid ? the pros would say that surely the description would fit the "architects " the cons "should we expect continuity " ,as you hint at .
Either way nothing conclusive is likely to come of it .

Wise words, as ever, T! :)

G x

tiompan wrote:
The boggy area between archaeology and history/folk- lore produces plenty of discussion not much of which is enlightening . In this case the two sides would need to come to some agreement about the terminology i.e. what is a druid ? the pros would say that surely the description would fit the "architects " the cons "should we expect continuity " ,as you hint at .
Either way nothing conclusive is likely to come of it .
Yes, wise and measured words tiompan. There have been a few topics recently apart from this one ('Pagan christianity'/'Ogham') that have wandered away from the ever increasing precision of archaeology into the realms of the 'oral tradition', folk-lore, and recorded history.

I have much enjoyed the discussions, though I suspect Branwen, the chief initiator of these lively debates, has gone back to her tour-leading which I am sure she does very well. I'll miss her.