Neolithic landscape

Get your science fix here: research, quackery, activism and all the rest
User avatar
dyqik
After Pie
Posts: 2194
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Neolithic landscape

Post by dyqik » Wed Jun 24, 2020 4:12 pm

murmur wrote:
Tue Jun 23, 2020 10:09 am
individualmember wrote:
Mon Jun 22, 2020 8:38 pm
Isn’t the usual thing to say when the purpose isn’t obvious is it’s ceremonial?

I always think that if Wembley Stadium is uncovered in a few thousand years time it would be labelled as ceremonial. Which it kind of is, in a way.
Back in the old parish, during a some discussion about an archaeological site, I did a spoof post about the un-earthing of St James Park in a few thousand years, describing a religious centre, a priestly caste, various sub-groups, ritual behaviours, hymns, the whole shebang, which seemed to me to make as much sense, based on as much actual evidence, as much archaeological interpretation.
Thing is, that's an accurate description that makes as much sense today as anything invoking some kind of category difference between religion and mass spectator team sports.

User avatar
Sciolus
Fuzzable
Posts: 296
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:42 pm

Re: Neolithic landscape

Post by Sciolus » Wed Jun 24, 2020 7:11 pm

Grumble wrote:
Mon Jun 22, 2020 9:55 am
Every year we find out more and more about this area, it’s quite amazing how much we don’t know. But then again a lot of these developments have come hand in hand with better geo-phys and that has improved enormously in the last 10 years, never mind before that. It’s only fairly recently that the scope of “Stonehenge” has been increased to “the landscape around Stonehenge” as well, or at least that’s my impression.
It's not surprising that "Stonehenge" is extensive, as such. A couple of thousand years ago it would have covered most of England. What's surprising is that such a large area has survived without being obliterated by later activity (yet).

User avatar
Grumble
Catbabel
Posts: 954
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:03 pm

Re: Neolithic landscape

Post by Grumble » Wed Jun 24, 2020 7:16 pm

Sciolus wrote:
Wed Jun 24, 2020 7:11 pm
Grumble wrote:
Mon Jun 22, 2020 9:55 am
Every year we find out more and more about this area, it’s quite amazing how much we don’t know. But then again a lot of these developments have come hand in hand with better geo-phys and that has improved enormously in the last 10 years, never mind before that. It’s only fairly recently that the scope of “Stonehenge” has been increased to “the landscape around Stonehenge” as well, or at least that’s my impression.
It's not surprising that "Stonehenge" is extensive, as such. A couple of thousand years ago it would have covered most of England. What's surprising is that such a large area has survived without being obliterated by later activity (yet).
What do you mean by the bit in bold? I hardly think most of England was a ritual landscape.
I know this is vitriol, no solution, spleen venting, but I feel better having screamed, don’t you?

User avatar
Woodchopper
After Pie
Posts: 1760
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Neolithic landscape

Post by Woodchopper » Wed Jun 24, 2020 10:45 pm

Grumble wrote:
Wed Jun 24, 2020 7:16 pm
Sciolus wrote:
Wed Jun 24, 2020 7:11 pm
Grumble wrote:
Mon Jun 22, 2020 9:55 am
Every year we find out more and more about this area, it’s quite amazing how much we don’t know. But then again a lot of these developments have come hand in hand with better geo-phys and that has improved enormously in the last 10 years, never mind before that. It’s only fairly recently that the scope of “Stonehenge” has been increased to “the landscape around Stonehenge” as well, or at least that’s my impression.
It's not surprising that "Stonehenge" is extensive, as such. A couple of thousand years ago it would have covered most of England. What's surprising is that such a large area has survived without being obliterated by later activity (yet).
What do you mean by the bit in bold? I hardly think most of England was a ritual landscape.
Even now all over the countryside there are 'standing stones', stone circles, rock carvings and other sites that presumably had some ritual significance, and those are presumably the few that survived for thousands of years.

I assume that every settlement would have had some kind of ritual site, probably several. Its also reasonable to assume that prominent features in the landscape had ritual significance, as they do in contemporary animist societies.

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3436
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: nadir of brie

Re: Neolithic landscape

Post by Bird on a Fire » Thu Jun 25, 2020 12:45 am

dyqik wrote:
Wed Jun 24, 2020 4:12 pm
murmur wrote:
Tue Jun 23, 2020 10:09 am
individualmember wrote:
Mon Jun 22, 2020 8:38 pm
Isn’t the usual thing to say when the purpose isn’t obvious is it’s ceremonial?

I always think that if Wembley Stadium is uncovered in a few thousand years time it would be labelled as ceremonial. Which it kind of is, in a way.
Back in the old parish, during a some discussion about an archaeological site, I did a spoof post about the un-earthing of St James Park in a few thousand years, describing a religious centre, a priestly caste, various sub-groups, ritual behaviours, hymns, the whole shebang, which seemed to me to make as much sense, based on as much actual evidence, as much archaeological interpretation.
Thing is, that's an accurate description that makes as much sense today as anything invoking some kind of category difference between religion and mass spectator team sports.
And then there's stuff like the Mayan ballgame https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_Ballgame which was a popular sport where they also did human sacrifices and other religious things. And the Roman games, which were at least ostensibly religious. At the very least modern sports are fulfilling part of a similar social function.
Born at 356.32 ppm CO2 #ShowYourStripes

Post Reply