- This topic has 6 voices and 22 replies.
-
Posts
-
Maybe they were fuel depots for the Annunaki. Yeah that's it. If Von Danniken can get away with it, why not us?
Why not? After all, Stonehenge was a football field. ;D
Inquiry after two ring-forts destroyedFunny, but the article skirts around the exact people responsible, but by the end you get the sense that it simply some farmers who wanted the ringforts off their land, maybe so they could use the land for farming. Curiously, we don't heard the names of the people responsible or for their thoughts on the matter.
I think most of the emigration came well after the American Revolution. If I recall correctly, there were about three major waves of Irish immigrants, starting in the 1840s or 1850s. No, I don't think they went to Great Britain for the most part; part of the problem during the potato famine was that there was a choice to go hungry or convert to Protestantism and get fed by the wealthy Protestants. If they did this, it was known as "taking the soup" and had some negative connotation to it. As Britain would have been still quite Protestant during this time I'm not so sure the Irish would have been going there quite as much.BTW, I think the movie "Gangs of New York" was supposed to have taken place in the 1860s, reflecting the troubles of the Irish in adjusting to their new home.
I claim the clan McCann from that period, though it isn't clear whether my ggGrandpa was a farmer or not, being from Belfast. He actually emigrated to Canada.One of the Viking kings built a couple of large circular forts in Scandanavia; not sure there is any relationship, though. It is awfully easy to scribe a circle and it is simpler to build a wall soundly without corners. EDIT - I should qualify that to say "natural stone wall". If using uniform rectangular bricks, corners are simple and very strong.
One of the Viking kings built a couple of large circular forts in Scandanavia; not sure there is any relationship, though. It is awfully easy to scribe a circle and it is simpler to build a wall soundly without corners. EDIT – I should qualify that to say “natural stone wall”. If using uniform rectangular bricks, corners are simple and very strong.
I hadn't thought about that, but I bet you're right about the ease of building a circular structure without corners. I believe the earliest work of monumental architecture that we have with us today is one of the circular towers from the wall around Jericho, dating sometime between 8000-7000 B.C. Later on c. 2500-1600 B.C. we have Stonehenge, another circular structure (though not a wall). So the ease of circular construction, and the likely symbolism of the circle, has had an appeal for people over the millennia.
I have built garden dry stack and mortered stone walls and can tell you from personal experience that corners are a major pain with random shaped natural stone. But my other point is how simple they are to layout (scribe is actually what I said; probably not the best word choice). I could take 40 or so sticks an make a pretty sizable circle with reasonable accuracy. Just drive one in the center and take the same number of paces away from it in various directions and drive in perimeter stakes until the distance between 3 consecutive ones is small enough for you to walk in an arc around them without having to make large corrections. If you have a long rope or twine and no obstructions, it is even easier and more accurate over uneven ground. I sometimes think we read to much into symbolism of common shapes. "Look these paths cross at right angles; they must have been Christians." One of the researchers of the Viking fort I referenced earlier actually suggested that. Anyway, a circle can be sun, moon, a letter, a number or just a shape that is easy to layout...
There's a documentary (I think a BBC production) called CASTLE, where the host goes through the history of forts & castles up to modern day all around Britain. The first episode is definitely worth watching, as he meets with land surveyors and historians to discuss the difficulties in building early fortifications like the ring-forts.As for the circular shape I would presume that it has to do with corners (as mentioned) as well as the symbolism of the circle.
Interesting show. I should add that the circular shape of such structures probably all have one thing in common – rubble masonry (i.e. irregular stones, probably taken locally). With ashlar masonry you would be able to build straight lines and corners much more easily.
I sometimes think we read to much into symbolism of common shapes. "Look these paths cross at right angles; they must have been Christians." One of the researchers of the Viking fort I referenced earlier actually suggested that. Anyway, a circle can be sun, moon, a letter, a number or just a shape that is easy to layout...
I do think it is possible to read too much into symbols, but at the same time I have been amazed at how much people - from ancient up through at least the 18th century and perhaps beyond - would use shapes for their cosmological values. The trickier thing might be to say that since we know civilization X used a certain shape in their religious buildings that meant Y, that that shape meant Y in all buildings that they built. So you'll see octagons used in Christian churches for centuries and centuries because 8 symbolizes rebirth and resurrection, but I'm not sure that an octagon would have that same meaning in some non-religious context.
But with anything but fairly complex symbols or symbols found in the presence of other clues to give them context, it becomes very difficult to be certain of meaning. In the modern world, for example, the cross and the sign of the fish are pretty widely accepted as signs of Christianity. But both symbols were used to denote other things, some religious and some not, in other cultures before the dawn of Christianity.Wait - I've got it - the ring fort is based on the Zen Enso and proves the Japanese conquered Ireland in the 7th Century... ::)
