Ballynahow Beg forum 1 room
Image by CianMcLiam
close
more_vert

tiompan wrote:
[quote="Paulus"][quote="CianMcLiam"]One thing about about the existence of an alignment from any monument or RA site to a major astro event , is that the debate is not about whether a particular event took place with the monument on the alignment , this can be demonstrated empirically and the figures are either right or wrong , but whether there was intention on behalf of the engraver /builder to mark the event .
You can't disagree there! On the whole though, such alignments don't seem intentional. We could go along with the thoughts of Alfred Watkins, Alexander Thom, or some of the modern archaeomancers who think deliberate CnR alignments were intended, but I think they're being more hopeful for a generalised explanation with an easier ideological option, than having to relate to the obvious animistic worldview underscoring the psychologies (and thence, reasons) of those who carved these stones: a subject matter, or rather 'avenue of enquiry', which doesn't seem to be in vogue to many on TMA. (but saying that, I aint been reading much of what's gone on here for a while, so things mighta changed...)

Paulus wrote:
tiompan wrote:
[quote="Paulus"][quote="CianMcLiam"]One thing about about the existence of an alignment from any monument or RA site to a major astro event , is that the debate is not about whether a particular event took place with the monument on the alignment , this can be demonstrated empirically and the figures are either right or wrong , but whether there was intention on behalf of the engraver /builder to mark the event .
You can't disagree there! On the whole though, such alignments don't seem intentional. We could go along with the thoughts of Alfred Watkins, Alexander Thom, or some of the modern archaeomancers who think deliberate CnR alignments were intended, but I think they're being more hopeful for a generalised explanation with an easier ideological option, than having to relate to the obvious animistic worldview underscoring the psychologies (and thence, reasons) of those who carved these stones: a subject matter, or rather 'avenue of enquiry', which doesn't seem to be in vogue to many on TMA. (but saying that, I aint been reading much of what's gone on here for a while, so things mighta changed...)
Animism doesn't preclude marking astro events , it might be part of the belief system . I don't think that most open air RA has any archaeoastro connection but if they are there it should be recorded and considered . There are a few monuments that are accepted as having intentional astro alignments and they often have RA in or on them .

Paulus wrote:
On the whole though, such alignments don't seem intentional.


the obvious animistic worldview underscoring the psychologies (and thence, reasons) of those who carved these stones

You can't have it both ways. How can you say that a physically observable alignment does not 'seem intentional' and then talk about something subjective as being 'obvious'?

I've seen you knock people (as have I) for stating that it's 'obvious' that stone circles sit on spiralling energy lines, and yet you have just made an equally far-reaching statement.

Although, there are many theories about prehistoric man having animistic beliefs, there is no proof and it isn't obvious, either. It does seem likely, though, in the same way that some alignments seem likely to be intentional. However, they may only have been intentional because the the sunrise between two hills may have looked pretty, rather than having any religious context. An alignment could still be the reason for a site's location, even if its only significance was aesthetic.

Likewise, a painted/carved figure emerging from a crack in a rock may just have been a Kilroy-type joke - 'Wot? No Mushrooms?' ... art for art's sake ... I can imagine the chap/chappess who carved it leaning back, sniggering to himself and shouting, "Eh lads, look at this!"

We will never know what went on in the minds of these people. We can only speculate, and with all speculative areas there will be different camps. Some theories will be more reasonable than others and some will be more in vogue than others. Sooner or later someone will come up with a new 'reasonable' theory and a lot of people will abandon their previous favourite for it.

To dismiss a few alignments because they stand alone in a wide field and do not fit in with another theory is, in my view, wrong. To me it says that the other theory is not complete, or that two theories are needed. The second theory could be as simple as 'the sunset between those hills looks pretty from here'.

Just as an example - there are a few early churches in Ireland that are not aligned east-west. They align to the sunrise on the patron day of the local saint - Labbamologa in Cork is one such place. The presumption is that the local saint took the place of an older deity celebrated on this date. However, that can't be proved. The church could have been build wrong and the patron day chosen later to explain the error.