For Ceremonial purposes?

close
more_vert
Evergreen Dazed E
Evergreen Dazed Aug 16, 2013 10:26:31
Replying to Sanctuary

Sanctuary wrote:
Evergreen Dazed wrote:
As I said, I wouldn't get too hung up about it if I were you. Even if you think of something like the World Cup final there is an element of ceremony about it. I really think ceremony and ritual are words used to convey that we don't really know what was going on at these places, but whatever it was there seems to have been a formality attached to it.
When you encounter an enigmatic site like Fernworthy, for example, a graduated stone circle with rows leading off toward cairns, I think ceremony/ritual use is a perfectly acceptable description, precisely because it is so vague.
I'm not hung up on it ED, just opening a point for discussion, but would only ever consider ceremonial as a possibility amongst others myself. The point has been brought up before that proof is everything has it not?
I think there are strong indications of ceremonial/ritual activity though, I can't really see why this would be questioned?

You often hear archaeologists say a LIKELY ritual function.

If you were an archaeologist, in what other way would you describe the function & use of what you have found at prehistoric sites?

I will admit there is perhaps a feeling that an archaeologist has to come up with 'something' to justify their position and the work they have carried out (in the eyes of the public, anyway), but I think anybody involved in the subject knows it is just a kind of 'best fit' and isn't particularly important.

I'm interested - how would you describe a site like the Avebury circle(s) to the general public? If the answer to that is along the lines of 'We don't know what this was used for', that is essentially what ceremony/ritual is saying anyway. I don't think the general public is being misled by literature saying 'likely ritual function', because, to be honest, there are plenty of pointers toward its use being just that!

S Sanctuary
Sanctuary Aug 16, 2013 11:47:36
Replying to Evergreen Dazed

Evergreen Dazed wrote:
Sanctuary wrote:
Evergreen Dazed wrote:
As I said, I wouldn't get too hung up about it if I were you. Even if you think of something like the World Cup final there is an element of ceremony about it. I really think ceremony and ritual are words used to convey that we don't really know what was going on at these places, but whatever it was there seems to have been a formality attached to it.
When you encounter an enigmatic site like Fernworthy, for example, a graduated stone circle with rows leading off toward cairns, I think ceremony/ritual use is a perfectly acceptable description, precisely because it is so vague.
I'm not hung up on it ED, just opening a point for discussion, but would only ever consider ceremonial as a possibility amongst others myself. The point has been brought up before that proof is everything has it not?
I think there are strong indications of ceremonial/ritual activity though, I can't really see why this would be questioned?

You often hear archaeologists say a LIKELY ritual function.

If you were an archaeologist, in what other way would you describe the function & use of what you have found at prehistoric sites?

I will admit there is perhaps a feeling that an archaeologist has to come up with 'something' to justify their position and the work they have carried out (in the eyes of the public, anyway), but I think anybody involved in the subject knows it is just a kind of 'best fit' and isn't particularly important.

I'm interested - how would you describe a site like the Avebury circle(s) to the general public? If the answer to that is along the lines of 'We don't know what this was used for', that is essentially what ceremony/ritual is saying anyway. I don't think the general public is being misled by literature saying 'likely ritual function', because, to be honest, there are plenty of pointers toward its use being just that!

I have no problem personally with 'a likely ritual function' as that is one perfectly reasonably assumption but not sounding like fact as there could be others. People would understand that I'm sure. And yes, you're right...I think people do expect archaeologist to come up with something quite plausible which to a degree is unfair on them. Improved dating is helping them enormously as is geofizz etc but they have a very difficult time getting it right all the time as we have seen over the years as new evidence presents itself. Still liked to have been one though :-)

J jonmor
jonmor Aug 18, 2013 11:48:35
Replying to Evergreen Dazed

Evergreen Dazed wrote:
I'm interested - how would you describe a site like the Avebury circle(s) to the general public? If the answer to that is along the lines of 'We don't know what this was used for', that is essentially what ceremony/ritual is saying anyway. I don't think the general public is being misled by literature saying 'likely ritual function', because, to be honest, there are plenty of pointers toward its use being just that!
Ceremony describes a specific set of ideas. A church can be used largely for ceremony whereas a school (for example) is not largely ceremonial. By using the word "ceremony", or even "ritual", the writer is imposing their own imagination onto the past.