The Modern Antiquarian. Stone Circles, Ancient Sites, Neolithic Monuments, Ancient Monuments, Prehistoric Sites, Megalithic MysteriesThe Modern Antiquarian

Head To Head   The Modern Antiquarian   Trefael Forum Start a topic | Search
Trefael
Re: Trefael..more may and maybe's
37 messages
Select a forum:
tiompan wrote:
Sanctuary wrote:
tiompan wrote:
Sanctuary wrote:
tiompan wrote:
At all times in the church anaology there is a very ordered architecture from the lane -lych gate - narrow path – porch - aisle -chancel . This analogy holds up in certain prehistoric monumental settings e.g. stone rows that lead to stone circle /cairn . Avenue , sometimes defined by standing stones , leading to stone circle , cursus connecting earlier burials , The area in front of a passage tomb (defined by the horns of a court cairn -passage – chamber(s) ,Maltese temples with libation holes at thresholds etc In all examples there is a case for the architecture ordering any participants in a possible ritual associated with the monuments this is achieved by structured spaces , all retrievable archaeologically . Can the same be said about a solitary standing stone 2.5 km away from the nearest monument , and do we have any precedents ? two stones would at least almost halve the potential for setting off at oblique angles .The ordering impact must be inversely proportional to the distance from the nearest monument and if it is unsighted the ordering is even less .
Processing at some monuments is a reasonable hypothesis but for the single or even stone pair ?


Hi George (tiompan),
You may be mixing up the 'Georges' here as I was asking GN the question regarding the possible ley line connection with the type of marker stone he was referring to. Were you replying to my post or GH's as I'm a little confused (no change there then!!)


Sorry for the confusion S ,I realised you were asking GN the question that's why I didn't use the quote .Your post made me think that I should add a bit more detail to an earlier short comment .


No problem tiompan. I was giving more thought to this speculation situation which arises just about everywhere these days when one discusses ancient sites and the like. There is no doubt that it does keep things 'alive' and does create more discussion in this often frustrating hobby of ours. It is of course only natural for us to speculate because if you study something for long enough it is certainly not unusual for each and every one of us to reach some sort of a personal conclusion although we often can't prove anything and I guess that is the main reason why people are not too willing to post sometimes because of the fear of ridicule.
The fact is that somewhere along the way somebody is probably going to be right about this and that and possibly in the most surprising of ways. And I certainly don't think it does any harm for the layman to share his/her views with professional people who, on the whole, I have found to be quite open to suggestion and other theories.


Dunno if you were looking for response S but I have a different approach to our lack of understanding about prehistory .For me it's all a multifarious puzzle that no one conclusion could satisfy . Someone or more likely a team effort might clarify a small point in relation to a small part of an insignificant monument e.g. some post holes that had previously been believed to be Neolithic were actually Mesolithic and the evidence was due to malacology , it's not exactly "Stonehenge was a ......" but it is a small victory . Theories , interpretation and specualation are entertaining but I prefer the monumnets themselves and info derived from excavation , that tends to set the bench mark , whilst the other stuff changes with the generations , RC dating means more to me than all the theorising . If you do speculate then it's to be expected that others will comment but if there is something in the idea then they shouldn't fear ridicule , the ensuing discusion might help clarify things for everyone concerned . After what I have said it's clear that "somebody is going to be right about this " is meaningless to me , maybe somebody will be right about one small corner of prehistory in which case brilliant .


I wasn't looking for a response in particular George but yours are always most welcome. I like to stay upbeat about things even though we know that much of what we look at will in all probability never be proven one way or 'tother that's why I don't mind 'sensible' speculation to keep the interest alive.


Reply | with quote
Posted by Sanctuary
8th December 2010ce
20:38

Messages in this topic: