Comments on: Carnac day 4: Locmariaquer and Kerlescan http://www.montcocher.com/2007/11/24/carnac_4/ Tracing mankind's presence in the landscape - from megalthic monuments to today Sat, 17 May 2008 19:20:02 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3 By: steve http://www.montcocher.com/2007/11/24/carnac_4/#comment-8 steve Mon, 26 Nov 2007 09:09:54 +0000 http://www.montcocher.com/2007/11/24/carnac_4/#comment-8 The alignments are not close to the shore, and in neolithic times would have been even further away from it (sea level has risen about 6 metres since then). Another (to me) interesting aspect of the Carnac alignments is that they don't really 'join up'. If you look at them on a map, you will see that: a) most of the lines curve, as opposed to being straight; and b) each set of alignments seems to 'point' in a slightly different direction. These characteristics would cause problems, I believe, for people trying to see them as astronomical instruments of some kind. My own, purely instinctive response to these sites is that their function was ceremonial. There is a sense of ritual that one gets from progressing down the lines of stones from the smallest to the largest. But who knows? One idea is as good as another with these enigmatic monuments. The alignments are not close to the shore, and in neolithic times would have been even further away from it (sea level has risen about 6 metres since then).
Another (to me) interesting aspect of the Carnac alignments is that they don’t really ‘join up’. If you look at them on a map, you will see that: a) most of the lines curve, as opposed to being straight; and b) each set of alignments seems to ‘point’ in a slightly different direction. These characteristics would cause problems, I believe, for people trying to see them as astronomical instruments of some kind.
My own, purely instinctive response to these sites is that their function was ceremonial. There is a sense of ritual that one gets from progressing down the lines of stones from the smallest to the largest. But who knows? One idea is as good as another with these enigmatic monuments.

]]> By: Fern Shoemaker http://www.montcocher.com/2007/11/24/carnac_4/#comment-7 Fern Shoemaker Mon, 26 Nov 2007 04:52:57 +0000 http://www.montcocher.com/2007/11/24/carnac_4/#comment-7 I'm no scientist, but whenever I stumble upon a blog or site that discusses megaliths, I'm instantly entranced. I think it is very much because I can't help but try and come up with something - anything - that moves us all towards solving the mysteries of these stones, their origins, purpose, and (subtly) their effect on us in modern times. SO, that is why I take the risk of suggesting something that is probably totally obvious - as in, everyone else already figured this one out. You mentioned that some have tried to see the rows of stones (descending in size from west to east, and seeming to have meaningful shapes) as hieroglyphs or something. But I imagined myself as one of the people who lived back then (because you evoked that feeling so eloquently). If this location is along the seashore, does this shore run at all north-south? Do the east-west lines of stones lead towards the shore? Wouldn't the settlements be inland, so that anyone approaching the stones for a ceremony or just a walk would see first the smallest stones, then progressively larger ones. Well, no. If they are in any sort of a line, you might see them all at once, or quite a few of them at once, making distinctive (or even meaningful?) shapes in the way they line up? Of course, we could never know because it doesn't take much for the landscape near the sea to shift, causing the stones to lose their alignment and relevance to each other... Well, anyway, to make a short story long, that's my idea. Maybe you could comment on others who have already pursued this idea, and what they concluded? I’m no scientist, but whenever I stumble upon a blog or site that discusses megaliths, I’m instantly entranced. I think it is very much because I can’t help but try and come up with something - anything - that moves us all towards solving the mysteries of these stones, their origins, purpose, and (subtly) their effect on us in modern times.

SO, that is why I take the risk of suggesting something that is probably totally obvious - as in, everyone else already figured this one out. You mentioned that some have tried to see the rows of stones (descending in size from west to east, and seeming to have meaningful shapes) as hieroglyphs or something. But I imagined myself as one of the people who lived back then (because you evoked that feeling so eloquently). If this location is along the seashore, does this shore run at all north-south? Do the east-west lines of stones lead towards the shore? Wouldn’t the settlements be inland, so that anyone approaching the stones for a ceremony or just a walk would see first the smallest stones, then progressively larger ones. Well, no. If they are in any sort of a line, you might see them all at once, or quite a few of them at once, making distinctive (or even meaningful?) shapes in the way they line up?

Of course, we could never know because it doesn’t take much for the landscape near the sea to shift, causing the stones to lose their alignment and relevance to each other…

Well, anyway, to make a short story long, that’s my idea. Maybe you could comment on others who have already pursued this idea, and what they concluded?

]]>