Friday 18 July 2014

Water, Water Everywhere

Neolithic Enclosures: A Perspective From North West England 
by David Barrowclough

https://www.academia.edu/7684902/Neolithic_Enclosures_A_Perspective_From_North_West_England

"Less 
well 
understood
 is 
the 
role 
that
 water
 plays
 in
 the
 location
 of
 these 
monument
 complexes.
In
almost
 every
 case
 study...
they 
sit 
alongside 
a 
river 
or 
water‐course
 in
 close proximity
 to 
a 
spring....The 
presence 
of 
water 
seems
 to 
have 
been 
a 
key 
factor 
in 
the 
initial 
selection
 of

locations.....The
 reason
 that 
water 
is 
so 
important 
is 
perhaps
 because 
of 
its 
religious
 significance, 

which 
explains 
why
 prehistoric 
monuments 
were 
built 
adjacent 
to 
springs 
and 
rivers...."

A fascinating discussion document but let me raise a note of scepticism
.

Firstly I am not convinced that it has been shown that enclosure monuments are significantly in closer proximity to water courses and springs than a random site in the same geographic area. Picking random locations on http://www.getamap.ordnancesurveyleisure.co.uk/ gives me "close proximity to water" in the vast majority of cases. This is a wet country. And when Stonehenge, which is out on the waterless plain is used to bolster the argument, then colour me unconvinced.

And secondly it may well be that they are associated with water, it would be odd if they were not. For the mundane and practical reasons of drinking, fishing and transport humans tend to live near water.

I am just not convinced that the specialness of their proximity has been shown or that it has been shown to be for religious rather than practical reasons, especially when the religious or ritual seems to have permeated every aspect of neolithic life.

1 comment:

  1. "when Stonehenge, which is out on the waterless plain is used to bolster the argument, then colour me unconvinced"

    Sorry Tim, when you're wrong - you're just wrong!

    To look at the present landscape and believe it looked anything like this 10,000 years ago (which most recent findings now confirms Stonehenge was first occupied) is just nonsense.

    We now know that the vast Sahara desert we see today which archaeologists once imagined had not changed much in history (was at the same point in time ten thousand years ago) a jungle with Elephants and Giraffes.

    Consequently, to believe that in Britain ten thousand years ago our countryside looked the same is to ignore the scientific facts - get yourself the geology map of the area and look around Stonehenge - you find the so called 'dry river valleys' (clue is in the name river valley!) such as Stonehenge bottom, are covered in silty sand. These are the remains of water deposits.

    If you have the perception to be able to take your mind back ten thousand years then history is obvious and a practical observation (this use of the terms 'religious' and 'ceremonial' to explain the obvious is plain ignorance, in my humble view!), thats why archaeologists now no longer believe that when you find Lion bones in the desert, its not because the lion when on a religious sabbatical and got lost, its because it was once living in his wet and shaded home.

    RJL

    ReplyDelete