close
more_vert

grufty jim wrote:
Sanctuary wrote:
Just a question to generate discussion. What makes a stone circle or circles ceremonial? Where is the proven evidence for this?
I'm taking the week off to attend and take part in The Hurler's...Mapping the Sun project and noticed they are considered as being for ceremonial purposes.
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/daysout/properties/hurlers-stone-circles/
Really looking forward to it as it is on my doorstep..Yay.
I think everyone accepts that short of the invention of a time machine, we'll probably never know for sure what stone circles were for. So discussion and speculation on the subject will never come to any definitive conclusion. Just competing theories that may be more or less likely than one another.

I think the "ceremonial" explanation makes a lot of sense as a theory; i.e. that they are the neolithic equivalent of cathedrals, temples, chapels and so forth. And the reason that makes sense is because our knowledge of other cultures suggest that one of the first things people do when they start building things... once they've progressed beyond tombs... is to construct temples.

But if you are basing your theory on that, then you have to acknowledge that cultures also start to produce other types of structure around the same time. Maybe their temples were all made of wood and we have no evidence of them at all... but their Courts of Justice (or equivalent) just had to be circles of stone for some reason. Courts are also important enough to put a lot of effort into; and depending upon the size of the community, could be of various different sizes.

Theatres / performance spaces are also important enough to put a lot of effort into (just look at some of the Amphitheatres of old). Or maybe stone circles were a competitive sports venue... of a sport whose rules we'll never know. Or perhaps they are globstopples*

As I say; I think most of us accept we'll never really know definitively. Which means we can all hold on to our pet theories, and so long as we accept they are just that - theories - that's a perfectly fine state of affairs I imagine.

On the "what does science have to offer?" debate, I would suggest that whatever additional factual information we do manage to uncover about these ancient monuments is likely to come via scientific investigation. Simply because that which we define as constituting "factual information" can only really be accessed through rational, scientific investigation.

That said, there are plenty of arenas where rational, scientific, purpose-orientated investigation is unhelpful; even counter-productive. But if we want to know more about something built thousands of years ago, then it's really the only useful tool we have.

-----------------
* Globstopple: a word I just made up to denote a building whose purpose has no direct equivalent in our culture.

The erection of stone circle obviously had to have a beginning and I wonder who exactly planted the initial seed and came up with the idea? Were they preceded by timber circles wholesale before being 'upgraded'? I know the Sanctuary stone circle at Avebury began with a timber post circle which then increased in size before the stones arrived, but how many others I wonder. Did the stone uprights form a different function to the timber ones or maybe it didn't matter as long as the structure was circular. And why circular? Is it a vital clue as to what they may have been used for?

Sanctuary wrote:
And why circular? Is it a vital clue as to what they may have been used for?
Lots of them aren't circular at all, which is another reason for my "one size doesn't fit all" view on this topic above.

But it's entirely possible that the shape is vital. It's actually easier to construct a circle (rope) than the variety of shapes laid out, so there is obviously a reason for the shapes chosen, which in at least come cases is likely to be astro-related.

Sanctuary wrote:
The erection of stone circle obviously had to have a beginning and I wonder who exactly planted the initial seed and came up with the idea? Were they preceded by timber circles wholesale before being 'upgraded'? I know the Sanctuary stone circle at Avebury began with a timber post circle which then increased in size before the stones arrived, but how many others I wonder. Did the stone uprights form a different function to the timber ones or maybe it didn't matter as long as the structure was circular. And why circular? Is it a vital clue as to what they may have been used for?
Why is a boxing ring rectangular but the Colosseum (and most other Roman arenas) round? There may be a deep cultural reason for the difference in shape, but it may just be happenstance.

I had a dream once in which a stone circle was being used as a court-room. There was a judge/jury member by each stone with the accused in the centre. When I think back on that dream (and I most certainly don't view it as "received insight" or anything odd), it strikes me as being just as plausible an explanation for the purpose of stone circles as any other I've heard. The point being: it's all theory.

As for "who first came up with the idea"? I suspect that kind of cultural shift; from non-monument builders to monument builders is an organic, systemic shift that can't be ascribed to any single person. Just as I don't think there was one person in history who came up with the bright idea of herding animals, or planting seeds.