In recent months, I’ve concentrated my attention on Stonehenge and on the nearby Iron Age hill fort named Vespasian’s Camp.
In my view, the two structures precisely fit the description of a notable temple and city, sacred to Apollo, as recounted by the ancient Greek mariner Pytheas of Massilia, after he visited Britain in the middle of the fourth century BC.Judging from the number of visits to this site, as well as the extensive media coverage and the many messages I’ve received, this investigation into the enigma of a remarkable ancient temple has captured the imagination of people the world over.
While this is extremely gratifying, all credit must of course go to Pytheas himself, because if this daring and visionary man had not taken the trouble to record the wonders he observed during that far-distant time when he ventured north beyond the relatively safe waters of the Mediterranean, we would have no tantalising mystery to ponder over and our lives would very much the poorer as a result.All the evidence suggests that Stonehenge was in active use as a temple of Apollo when Pytheas saw the place in 350 BC, which is remarkable when we consider that from the standard archaeological viewpoint, it had fallen into disuse around thirteen centuries beforehand, in or around 1,600 BC.
Be that as it may, it does not follow that Stonehenge had always functioned as a temple, as we can see from the following point made by Professor John North in his book Stonehenge, Neolithic Man and the Cosmos, when discussing the possibility of chariot races having taken place on the Cursus:“It is hard to see what evidence one could ever find in support of these ideas, but when we consider the matter at all we are forced to acknowledge one important truth; from the fact that a monument was laid out with reference to the heavens it does not of necessity follow that it was always used with that reference in mind.
The rituals of foundation are not necessarily the rituals of use.”So, with this in mind, we return to what must surely be the most frequently asked questions about Stonehenge - what was it used for when it was first built? Is there one way in which we can describe an original function of these mesmerising ruins with confidence? Furthermore, would this be a description that the visionary and engineering geniuses who built Stonehenge would agree with, if we were able to have a conversation with them? In my opinion, the answer is yes. One of my favourite observations on Stonehenge was made by another astronomer, Sir Arthur C. Clarke, who once wrote, “Only one thing can be stated with certainty about such structures as Stonehenge: the people who built them were much more intelligent than many who have written books about them.”
I entirely concur with this observation about the intelligence of the builders of Stonehenge, but I believe that it’s possible to state at least one other uncomfortable truth about Stonehenge. The precise use of language is important, especially when it comes to Stonehenge, if only because it seems self-evident that accuracy and the truth go hand in hand. For example, rather than reply on a translation, I consulted others far more knowledgeable than myself on first century Attic Greek when I turned my attention to trying to locate Pytheas of Massilia’s temple and city of Apollo; as a result, what had previously been a somewhat mystifying and ambiguous passage became much clearer, then Stonehenge and Vespasian’s Camp finally loomed up at me out of the mists as I’ve described in detail elsewhere on this site.
Archaeology is plagued by wilful misinterpretation, but I would far prefer to put a positive contribution such as the matter of Inigo Jones’ Lost Altar Stone or the location of Pytheas of Massilia’s temple and city of Apollo into the public domain, rather than merely snipe at the ideas of others. However, there are some well-established theories about Stonehenge that to my mind don’t bear close scrutiny, so I’ll briefly explain why I have my doubts about some of them before continuing. To begin with, Stonehenge wasn’t originally made of stone, because earthen and timber structures preceded the famous stone ruins that we’re all familiar with today. Neither was it a henge, strictly speaking, primarily on account of its internal bank, as Mike Pitts makes clear on pages 26 & 28 of his book Hengeworld.
So, right from the start, it’s clear that some of the fundamental terminology relating to Stonehenge is misleading.Does this matter? Not in this particular instance, perhaps, because the name is a generally accepted one and we don’t know what the builders of Stonehenge called the monument when they first constructed it. We use the name Stonehenge as convenient shorthand to describe something whose true nature is unknown to us, so it seems churlish to argue about something so patently obvious; nonetheless, the blunt fact remains that the original builders would not recognise their masterpiece from our modern description.
by www.thesupernaturalworld.co.uk
In my view, the two structures precisely fit the description of a notable temple and city, sacred to Apollo, as recounted by the ancient Greek mariner Pytheas of Massilia, after he visited Britain in the middle of the fourth century BC.Judging from the number of visits to this site, as well as the extensive media coverage and the many messages I’ve received, this investigation into the enigma of a remarkable ancient temple has captured the imagination of people the world over.
While this is extremely gratifying, all credit must of course go to Pytheas himself, because if this daring and visionary man had not taken the trouble to record the wonders he observed during that far-distant time when he ventured north beyond the relatively safe waters of the Mediterranean, we would have no tantalising mystery to ponder over and our lives would very much the poorer as a result.All the evidence suggests that Stonehenge was in active use as a temple of Apollo when Pytheas saw the place in 350 BC, which is remarkable when we consider that from the standard archaeological viewpoint, it had fallen into disuse around thirteen centuries beforehand, in or around 1,600 BC.
Be that as it may, it does not follow that Stonehenge had always functioned as a temple, as we can see from the following point made by Professor John North in his book Stonehenge, Neolithic Man and the Cosmos, when discussing the possibility of chariot races having taken place on the Cursus:“It is hard to see what evidence one could ever find in support of these ideas, but when we consider the matter at all we are forced to acknowledge one important truth; from the fact that a monument was laid out with reference to the heavens it does not of necessity follow that it was always used with that reference in mind.
The rituals of foundation are not necessarily the rituals of use.”So, with this in mind, we return to what must surely be the most frequently asked questions about Stonehenge - what was it used for when it was first built? Is there one way in which we can describe an original function of these mesmerising ruins with confidence? Furthermore, would this be a description that the visionary and engineering geniuses who built Stonehenge would agree with, if we were able to have a conversation with them? In my opinion, the answer is yes. One of my favourite observations on Stonehenge was made by another astronomer, Sir Arthur C. Clarke, who once wrote, “Only one thing can be stated with certainty about such structures as Stonehenge: the people who built them were much more intelligent than many who have written books about them.”
I entirely concur with this observation about the intelligence of the builders of Stonehenge, but I believe that it’s possible to state at least one other uncomfortable truth about Stonehenge. The precise use of language is important, especially when it comes to Stonehenge, if only because it seems self-evident that accuracy and the truth go hand in hand. For example, rather than reply on a translation, I consulted others far more knowledgeable than myself on first century Attic Greek when I turned my attention to trying to locate Pytheas of Massilia’s temple and city of Apollo; as a result, what had previously been a somewhat mystifying and ambiguous passage became much clearer, then Stonehenge and Vespasian’s Camp finally loomed up at me out of the mists as I’ve described in detail elsewhere on this site.
Archaeology is plagued by wilful misinterpretation, but I would far prefer to put a positive contribution such as the matter of Inigo Jones’ Lost Altar Stone or the location of Pytheas of Massilia’s temple and city of Apollo into the public domain, rather than merely snipe at the ideas of others. However, there are some well-established theories about Stonehenge that to my mind don’t bear close scrutiny, so I’ll briefly explain why I have my doubts about some of them before continuing. To begin with, Stonehenge wasn’t originally made of stone, because earthen and timber structures preceded the famous stone ruins that we’re all familiar with today. Neither was it a henge, strictly speaking, primarily on account of its internal bank, as Mike Pitts makes clear on pages 26 & 28 of his book Hengeworld.
So, right from the start, it’s clear that some of the fundamental terminology relating to Stonehenge is misleading.Does this matter? Not in this particular instance, perhaps, because the name is a generally accepted one and we don’t know what the builders of Stonehenge called the monument when they first constructed it. We use the name Stonehenge as convenient shorthand to describe something whose true nature is unknown to us, so it seems churlish to argue about something so patently obvious; nonetheless, the blunt fact remains that the original builders would not recognise their masterpiece from our modern description.
by www.thesupernaturalworld.co.uk
0 comments:
Post a Comment