If Neolithic structures serve some purpose, other than making a mark on the landscape, compare them to large and lavishly decorated church or cathedrals. Were these built out of fear under a tyrannical ecclesiastic dynasty or erected by a united community out of awe for their spiritual, social and economic benefit? Either way cost-to-benefit wise there is no doubt in my mind that they saw it as equally important as other everyday needs.
We don't need to buy expensive artwork or antiques but we do if we can afford to. Applying that idea to the past it is very possible that if people could afford to expend energy building something that everyone related to they would. It doesn't follow that they needed to be forced by a dictator to do so. It needn't be fun either but the results could be so worth that expenditure to a community that it was considered an essential long term project.
> Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 00:33:59 +0000> From: [log in to unmask]> Subject: [BRITARCH] Happy Hippy Prehistory> To: [log in to unmask]> > Isn't it lovely to think of those magical days of British Prehistory when communities through some communal 'hippy happy' congenial ethos decided to construct giant monuments for reasons that we don't now understand?> > Wasn't it so much fun?> > I don't imagine so!> > They were no doubt, in reality, built by forced labour procured by tyrannical dynasties, that we have no historical evidence apart from the obvious evidence from their resulting monuments.> > I can hardly believe that Silbury Hill was ever concieved by a bunch of commune loving happy hippy neolithic types to go ahead and spend fantasic amounts of energy on constructing the thing when everyday needs would have prevailed in preference.> > From my perspective the entire megalithic/massive earthwork landscape of the Neolithic/Bronze Age even to the Iron Age shouts......social enslavement! > > > > >
Win New York holidays with Kellogg’s & Live Search