Ritual, according to Radcliffe-Brown, is a ‘rule-governed activity of a symbolic character which draws the attention of its participants to objects of thought and feelings which they hold to be of special significance’. Equally, Durkheim theorized that every society has an elementary form of beliefs. These beliefs were enacted by a certain action; rites. The reason beliefs were so important is because a society would classify every object into two completely exclusive categories that embrace all that exists but reject each other - the sacred and the profane. Ritual is so important to societies because it is action which helps humans understand and act within the presence of the sacred: ‘rites are the rules of conduct which prescribe how a man should compose himself in the presence of these sacred objects’. I think this is why we all have an fascination with prehistoric monuments. They demonstrate a prehistoric human inerest in collective ritual action around physical sites. I agree we do not know more than this, and while we can theorise (in essence make up) ideas around what people did there, I think the main lesson from megalithic sites is to recognise ritual and ritual sites as an enduring human trait.
I worked on an archaeological dig and after questioning why they described seemingly innocuous finds as 'ritual' items I was told that even breakfast is a ritual, so it's used as a catch-all for different things in order to give them some importance. So it seems to me.
@AdamMorganIbbotson Exactly my point. What is it they say? One stone is just a stone, two stones is a wall, three stones is a building and four stones is a palace!🤔😲
I became very distrustful of the word "ritual" when a certain eminent & senior archaeologist who used to appear on TV fairly often used it for _any_ object or site whose purpose was not immediately apparent, and often even when it clearly had a practical but unknown use. That he delivered the word in a tone of voice that said "I am right, and don't you dare contradict me !" made me even more suspicious.
@@AdamMorganIbbotson Just watched it, and I completely agree. I suspect that the "Old Boy's Club" are making a comfortable living from Stonehenge without the "inconvenience" of having to go to the North. ;)
I remember a discussion some time ago when I queried the conjecture by an archaeologist that buriel of the dead indicates an early belief in an afterlife. My thought being that it could simply have been the wish that the remains of a loved one not be eaten by animals.
@michaelbaker6170 If nothing else, it made sense for early humans to hide their dead from predators such as hyenas or wild dogs so they didn't find a corpse and get a taste for human flesh, and it stands to reason that having known them in life they would do that with respect and care. In early societies that practiced excarnation - exposing a body to the elements so that the flesh was stripped from the bones - this was done on raised platforms where they couldn't be reached by potential predators.
from my layman view of archaeology, it does seem awfully like archaeologists observing the ruins of today's society - say, for example, london - would conclude that heathrow covers an absolutely huge area, so must have been an important religious site; the shard is the tallest structure around, reaching far toward the heavens, so was clearly a monument to their god or god(s); westfield could accomodate many thousands of people and shows a huge range of food remains and jewellery type trinkets - clearly a place for ritual feasting and offerings. it's so exasperating watching time team or whatever and any building that's somewhat unusual, large or distinctive is ascribed to religion instead of eating, shopping, travelling, or anything else. I always sit there thinking, why couldn't it have been a neolithic westfield instead of automatically a neolithic st pauls cathedral? explaining that they may be using 'ritual' in a broader sense that encompasses everyday habits of a not necessarily sacred nature reduces my irritation at that theist presumption somewhat, but it seems to me to dilute the meaning of the word to a point of all-encompassing vagueness that it's not terribly useful anymore
I sometimes wonder if my mind will ever stop boggling about the Langdale Axe Factory. What came first there do you think: the demand for ritualistic axes, or did the factory operation create the demand?! I’m intrigued by the “house” at Low Kingate! I have never heard that idea about the site before. I thought it was a burial cairn with a concentric stone circle. There’s an example of a house becoming a ritualistic monument at Avebury, I believe? Great fan of Francis Pryor back in his Time Team days, but I did think he saw rituals behind finds slightly too readily. Great video, Adam. Happy Winter Festival to you.
@@WC21UKProductionsLtd Have you read the 2019 paper ‘After the Axes’? It ties the quarries there to Ireland and the Newgrange culture. Could be a cultural (something) brought over from there - but who knows! I find it especially interesting how many of those axes ended up in East Riding. Why there? Rudston / Duggleby Howe and the Folkton Drums - somehow relate to the Axe Factory and possibly Ireland. Fascinating!
@@AdamMorganIbbotson no I haven't! I need to hunt a copy of that down. I can't envisage a time when I'll ever think I've made enough videos about the factory. Your video reminded me about those 1,000 year old axes being buried with the dead. Isn't that amazing to think they held a special status for a period as long as from today, back to the Norman Conquest? The number of axes in the East Riding is exciting and I wasn't aware of it until fairly recently. I'd long known there were a lot in Lincolnshire, so there's an eastern thing going on. Pretty sure it was Pryor who posited that the axes had a ritual significance there - in the lowest and flattest of regions - because they came from a mountain. If he's half right about that and the axe owners understood something of where they came from, it reveals something about their knowledge and worldview that I think most people wouldn't expect.
I’ll ping you a copy! (it’s also discussed in the new edition of my Cumbria book, which I could also ping you, if you want!) We know N. England is neglected on the archaeo front - but East Riding maybe has it worst of all. The amount there that’s rarely mentioned is astronomical. Crop mark city!
@ oh thanks Adam - you’re a star. My email is in the “About” section. Yes, I want to do more on the East Riding next year. Really enjoyed looking at the wider landscape when I made the Arrows video. It looks to have been as important as Avebury/Stonehenge.
When my brother in law died, he asked that his ashes should be buried in the garden, between the graves of his two cats, and accompanied by a stuffed elephant toy he'd had since he was two. I've often wondered what future archaeologists would make of _that._
Unfortunately I cannot access the papers on the "Longsdale axe factory" from here. Wikipedia says that the "factory" produced only rough shapes, which were turned into polished axes elsewhere; yet it was the ultimate source of 27% of all axes found al over Great Britain. Presumably the stone from that location was particularly well suited for that use. Or maybe it was because of a self-sustained fame, like Rolex watches and Vuitton bags today: everybody "knows" that they are symbols of wealth, because everybody knows that they ware.
Unfortunately, from the perspective of religious studies, things like prayer and meditation aren't really rituals. A ritual has to have an "outwardness" about it that to an extent precludes such activities (although accompanying actions such as lighting a candle or burning herbs or incense may come under the ritual umbrella). Wittgenstein opted for simplicity in describing rituals: "we do these things and are satisfied". Personally, I think that's _too_ simple, and would like to bring in Roy Rappaport's observations about the (more or less) invariance of the ritual action and that the action is not invented by the person performing it. It's an incredibly difficult area of study made more so by the fact that the word is used in different ways by different disciplines, and I agree that in archaeology it has sometimes been used as a blunt object to write off problems that should better be answered by "we don't know".
I agree with much of that, but would strongly disagree that prayer and religious meditation are not rituals. Both involve an overt action (conciously thinking, in my opinion, is an overt external action). Especially in an archaeological context, we need a nice neat word to describe such activities.
In the cases of so called ritual places and landscapes I prefer the term ceremonial, as this can still include (collective) rituals as well as other types of formal ceremonies including political meetings and social gatherings and ‘rites de passage’, weddings etc. They could incorporate some religious or ritual aspects, but not necessarily. Happy holidays.
Yes and YES. Usually when they have absolutely 0 clues on the matter, anything is for "ritual" or "tombs" etc etc. They really lack in imagination and this comes from the same school of thinking
😆 Wonderful! I will ritualistically wish you Happy Holidays and a very Merry Christmas....! Um, I am American... I should offer you a Happy Christmas and a fun Boxing Day? 😂 🎄🕯 🎄
I still think it's used in a lazy way to lump everything archeologists don't know into a single category. The criticism about everything being either a tomb or a temple still stands 🤔
Good house analogy. I have heard it posited more than once that long barrows were constructed on the foundations of the original long house of the first settlers in an area or something like that. The House of the Ancestors
As a Quaker Pagan questions like this have become increasingly important for me to consider. Whilst there are some major similarities between Quakerism and Paganism there are also some major differences. I need to figure out how to square those differences in a coherent way.
@@AdamMorganIbbotson No - tautology, possibly because "everyone" is mainly incomers who don't understand the meaning of names, like those who refer to "Ben Nevis Mountain" or think that Stock Gill is the name of the beck that runs through Ambleside.
Ritual is a very vague word.In a group of people at a ritual event each interprets it differently.Without finding out who thinks what we have to rely on definitions. Freud? Isn't he the one who once said that smoking a cigar was not a symbolic act? Maybe he should have said ritual. Erving Goffman, thanks for mentioning him.Framing for me explains a lot. Finally, Merry Christmas😊
Ritual or otherwise these places are more mystery than anything else to me. I keep threatening to visit one of these sites in an attempt to pick up some vibes that might lead to a clue.but I think I'm kidding myself. Perhaps in the spring when the weathers a little better?.
Re: Psychology and rituals, I feel like there's some overlap between habit and meaning with OCD which assigns meanings to seemingly random actions, often done repetitively. Obviously an OCD brain isn't functioning as it should, but is it just overdoing something humans do normally, that in some instances evolves into something culture-wide? What I mean is, do our brains just come up with these things because they like to connect cause and effect and don't always do it "right" but if it feels right to enough people it can catch on and spread?
Yes, and 'ritual' is the word that's commonly used to describe that penomenon. However, from an archaeological point of view, this is not very helpful. I see that 'ritual' as metaphorical - i.e., 'like a ritual'.
I do wonder how many of these sites, although quite large compared to the Archaeoligical tradition of an individual rude dwelling, are actually the skeletons of large buidings, just as if our bungalow lost it's wooden internal structure and roof and windows, it would leave just the circumferential parts of walls with gaps (where were doors and windows), etc
I loved the shameless plug at the end of the video. But, to the point of do we overuse the word 'ritual'?- I would say this: I live in a medium size state in the US. There are almost 4,000 places or worship in my state. I can WALK to 100 places of worship in 20 minutes or less. Most of these places are built of stone and/or brick. In 2,000 years archaeologists will uncover these ritual centers and they will be correct in calling them that.
I don't wish to ritualise my TH-cam activity by subscribing to a channel! I appreciate this overview of a vexing subject. I can't help feeling that future archaeologists will look back at the millions of toothbrushes scattered over the planet and declare, 'Ah, a ritual landscape!'
Thank you. So, the answer to your question has to be ‘yes’. I always thought it odd that the only buildings and objects that survive millennia are religious or ritualistic. Maybe that stone circle was an Amazon warehouse or a nightclub!
I would take issue with your definition as a bit too narrow. There are enough secular rituals that we can point to today that hinging the definition on a religious entity is too limiting. In an American context, for example, there is ritual surrounding secular holidays like Thanksgiving: family gathering at the dining table, specific foods, etc. We also have quite a lot of rituals surrounding major societal sporting events like the Super Bowl: specific foods, specific clothings. There is good reason why scholars tend to recognize ritual by its societal function rather than its connection to religion: then we would have to define religion, which is impossible. The only thing that all religions have in common that all non-religions don’t have in common is that at some point someone called them a religion. The term “religion” is a changeable discursive construct, very similar to words like “ritual.”
I actually wouldn't call Thanksgiving a ritual. It's more of a celebration. Religion was coined in the 16th century to differentiate between Protestantism and Catholicism, then later explanded to "world religion" following colonialism. It has a pretty strict meaning, like 'ritual', but is often bunkified by post-modernists to mean everything and anything.
interesting, not one definition of ritual uses the word Behavior. Ritual as symptom. Pharmakos Ritual is common through out history. A compulsion based on obsession .... an obsession with "purification through human sacrifice. "
@@AdamMorganIbbotson It's difficult to find a Neolithic megalithic construction that hasn't been labelled as "ritual or funerary". It would be constructive to know what would be disqualifying for that label. Even a lack of evidence means nothing. Is this really a line that mustn't be crossed?
@@andrewdavies8794 There's sites I know of in the North York Moors that are thought to be boundary markers etc (Low Bridestones for instance). But I think most burial monuments aren't necessarily ritual, but instead functional - i.e., holding human remains in place respectfully. This already disqualifies the majority of megalithic monuments across the UK, which tend to date to the Bronze Age, and mark burials. Otherwise, sites like Avebury, Castlerigg, and Stonehenge - are quite clearly ritual; having been designed to hold congregations etc. People don't haul massive stones up mountains and erect them in massive circles for cultural reasons. Especially when artefacts found within them are things like Langdale axes or burned shards of pottery.
@@AdamMorganIbbotson The finds linked to stone circles may well be incidental, as could the burials. Plenty of people have had their ashes scattered in Cardiff Arms park, but it's not a cemetery, well, only for Welsh rugby. Circles could have been boxing rings for all we know. Standing stones could have had any number of functions, but they are classified as "ritual and funerary". The real reasons for them could just as likely have been megalithic science of some sort. Religion is a modern projection for them.
Those mysterious ancients went to great lengths to plan, create, adapt and preserve these sites across the landscape. The heavy menhirs, for example, weren't just casually erected as the tribe had no farming or hunting to do, as their position in relation to each other and in the landscape is often carefully chosen. So them being 'sacred' places for the locals to perform important ceremonies is logical, captain. My favourite ritual since my longhair days is Space Ritual by the mighty Hawkwind, which is riff-laden and rocks, man.
@PaIaeoCIive1684 Yes, thanks. You can read all about that in the new edition of my book ‘Cumbria’s Prehistoric Monuments’! Of course, will say, if all landscapes are ‘ceremonial’ or ‘ritual’ none are! Many places were evidently more special than others.
Your definition of "ritual" is too complicated, too narrow, and problematic. Are the American Fourth of July fireworks a ritual? What about Burning Man, or the World Soccer Cup? Or throwing coins in the Trevi fountain, or the changing of the guard at Buckingham? If Burning Man and the Soccer Cup are rituals, where is the religion? If they are not (because they lack religious significance, "inner meaning", whatever), then how can you tell whether any prehistoric site or artifact is "ritual"? That would require knowing what was in the head of the people who created it... I prefer the definition "a ritual is an action that is performed for its symbolic value rather than for its actual physical effects". Thus religious ceremonies would be rituals, and so would be putting flowers on tombs of deceased relatives, cutting the ribbon in the dedication of a building, carrying a rabbit's foot, giving a cup or medal to the winner of a competition, clicking beer glasses for a cheer. But Burning Man and the Soccer Cup would *not* be rituals, because they are done for the fun that they provide, not for any symbolic value. This definition still makes it hard to tell whether an ancient site or artifact was "ritual" (was Stonehenge temple, or just a fairgrounds for a Neolithic Burning Man?). But it makes that decision possible, at least in theory: depending on whether one can find evidence of a concrete benefit that people derived from it -- like entertainment, trade, boundary demarcation, calendar fixing -- or evidence for the absence of such benefit.
Too complicated AND too narrow? Also, no soccer and fireworks are NOT rituals. There are other words for them (sport / celebrations). Ritual CAN be used metaphorically in those scenarios, but not in a literal sense. To make it too broad is to kill all meaning to the word.
@@AdamMorganIbbotson Yes, I agree that soccer is not not a "ritual", because it is performed for its effects and not as a symbolic action. But how can one objectively tell the difference between "celebration" and "ritual"? That is why I feel that your definition is too narrow: it requires some sort of religiosity, which is at best a fuzzy concept, at worst an unscientific one because its presence cannot be objectively determined. By your definition, isn't your opening example (people doing things around the great leader house etc) just a "celebration"? What is the evidence that Stonehenge (or any other Neolithic monument) ever had any "ritual" aspect, as opposed to just "celebratory" or utilitarian? And I don't think that my definition is too broad. It does distinguish between the World Soccer Cup (not ritual) and cutting the ribbon at inauguration (ritual) and burying the dead (not ritual) and placing gifts in the tomb (ritual) and choosing a king (not ritual) and crowning him (ritual), etc. And I would say that "folkloric" dances performed by accountants and college students for tourists' consumption are still "ritual", because they are performed for being symbols of the country --even if the performers themselves don't care about them. And kneeling at Mass or setting up a Christmas tree are still rituals even if the person is an Atheist...
@@JorgeStolfi May be true, but all classic definitions of the word specify religion. Removing this from the word, essentially gets rid of a verbage word for religious rites. We use it elsewhere as a metaphore, and that's fine too!
Ritual, according to Radcliffe-Brown, is a ‘rule-governed activity of a symbolic character which draws the attention of its participants to objects of thought and feelings which they hold to be of special significance’.
Equally, Durkheim theorized that every society has an elementary form of beliefs. These beliefs were enacted by a certain action; rites. The reason beliefs were so important is because a society would classify every object into two completely exclusive categories that embrace all that exists but reject each other - the sacred and the profane. Ritual is so important to societies because it is action which helps humans understand and act within the presence of the sacred: ‘rites are the rules of conduct which prescribe how a man should compose himself in the presence of these sacred objects’.
I think this is why we all have an fascination with prehistoric monuments. They demonstrate a prehistoric human inerest in collective ritual action around physical sites. I agree we do not know more than this, and while we can theorise (in essence make up) ideas around what people did there, I think the main lesson from megalithic sites is to recognise ritual and ritual sites as an enduring human trait.
@@jamiebooth135 “inerest” - learn to spell please. 🙏🏻
I worked on an archaeological dig and after questioning why they described seemingly innocuous finds as 'ritual' items I was told that even breakfast is a ritual, so it's used as a catch-all for different things in order to give them some importance. So it seems to me.
Total nonsense that 'breakfast is a ritual'. That's the pretentious sophistry I'm trying to debunk in this video.
@AdamMorganIbbotson Exactly my point. What is it they say? One stone is just a stone, two stones is a wall, three stones is a building and four stones is a palace!🤔😲
I became very distrustful of the word "ritual" when a certain eminent & senior archaeologist who used to appear on TV fairly often used it for _any_ object or site whose purpose was not immediately apparent, and often even when it clearly had a practical but unknown use. That he delivered the word in a tone of voice that said "I am right, and don't you dare contradict me !" made me even more suspicious.
@@Kevin-mx1vi See my last video on Stonehenge for my thoughts.
@@AdamMorganIbbotson Just watched it, and I completely agree. I suspect that the "Old Boy's Club" are making a comfortable living from Stonehenge without the "inconvenience" of having to go to the North. ;)
@ It is grim up here….
I remember a discussion some time ago when I queried the conjecture by an archaeologist that buriel of the dead indicates an early belief in an afterlife. My thought being that it could simply have been the wish that the remains of a loved one not be eaten by animals.
@michaelbaker6170 If nothing else, it made sense for early humans to hide their dead from predators such as hyenas or wild dogs so they didn't find a corpse and get a taste for human flesh, and it stands to reason that having known them in life they would do that with respect and care.
In early societies that practiced excarnation - exposing a body to the elements so that the flesh was stripped from the bones - this was done on raised platforms where they couldn't be reached by potential predators.
Great summary! nicely done
Merry Christmas Adam, thank you for introducing me to a new interest this year!
from my layman view of archaeology, it does seem awfully like archaeologists observing the ruins of today's society - say, for example, london - would conclude that heathrow covers an absolutely huge area, so must have been an important religious site; the shard is the tallest structure around, reaching far toward the heavens, so was clearly a monument to their god or god(s); westfield could accomodate many thousands of people and shows a huge range of food remains and jewellery type trinkets - clearly a place for ritual feasting and offerings. it's so exasperating watching time team or whatever and any building that's somewhat unusual, large or distinctive is ascribed to religion instead of eating, shopping, travelling, or anything else. I always sit there thinking, why couldn't it have been a neolithic westfield instead of automatically a neolithic st pauls cathedral? explaining that they may be using 'ritual' in a broader sense that encompasses everyday habits of a not necessarily sacred nature reduces my irritation at that theist presumption somewhat, but it seems to me to dilute the meaning of the word to a point of all-encompassing vagueness that it's not terribly useful anymore
@@stevekeiretsu I agree!
I sometimes wonder if my mind will ever stop boggling about the Langdale Axe Factory. What came first there do you think: the demand for ritualistic axes, or did the factory operation create the demand?!
I’m intrigued by the “house” at Low Kingate! I have never heard that idea about the site before. I thought it was a burial cairn with a concentric stone circle. There’s an example of a house becoming a ritualistic monument at Avebury, I believe?
Great fan of Francis Pryor back in his Time Team days, but I did think he saw rituals behind finds slightly too readily.
Great video, Adam. Happy Winter Festival to you.
@@WC21UKProductionsLtd Have you read the 2019 paper ‘After the Axes’? It ties the quarries there to Ireland and the Newgrange culture. Could be a cultural (something) brought over from there - but who knows!
I find it especially interesting how many of those axes ended up in East Riding. Why there? Rudston / Duggleby Howe and the Folkton Drums - somehow relate to the Axe Factory and possibly Ireland. Fascinating!
@@AdamMorganIbbotson no I haven't! I need to hunt a copy of that down. I can't envisage a time when I'll ever think I've made enough videos about the factory.
Your video reminded me about those 1,000 year old axes being buried with the dead. Isn't that amazing to think they held a special status for a period as long as from today, back to the Norman Conquest?
The number of axes in the East Riding is exciting and I wasn't aware of it until fairly recently. I'd long known there were a lot in Lincolnshire, so there's an eastern thing going on.
Pretty sure it was Pryor who posited that the axes had a ritual significance there - in the lowest and flattest of regions - because they came from a mountain.
If he's half right about that and the axe owners understood something of where they came from, it reveals something about their knowledge and worldview that I think most people wouldn't expect.
I’ll ping you a copy! (it’s also discussed in the new edition of my Cumbria book, which I could also ping you, if you want!)
We know N. England is neglected on the archaeo front - but East Riding maybe has it worst of all. The amount there that’s rarely mentioned is astronomical. Crop mark city!
@ oh thanks Adam - you’re a star. My email is in the “About” section.
Yes, I want to do more on the East Riding next year. Really enjoyed looking at the wider landscape when I made the Arrows video. It looks to have been as important as Avebury/Stonehenge.
@@WC21UKProductionsLtd We don’t talk about Stonehenge on this channel. That’s a bar-able offence!
When my brother in law died, he asked that his ashes should be buried in the garden, between the graves of his two cats, and accompanied by a stuffed elephant toy he'd had since he was two. I've often wondered what future archaeologists would make of _that._
"Ritual" seems to be to archaeology as fibromyalgia or ME are to medicine. They are applied when specific evidence of causation is lacking.
Unfortunately I cannot access the papers on the "Longsdale axe factory" from here. Wikipedia says that the "factory" produced only rough shapes, which were turned into polished axes elsewhere; yet it was the ultimate source of 27% of all axes found al over Great Britain.
Presumably the stone from that location was particularly well suited for that use. Or maybe it was because of a self-sustained fame, like Rolex watches and Vuitton bags today: everybody "knows" that they are symbols of wealth, because everybody knows that they ware.
Hey - my new book discusses this in detail! Highly recommend!
Unfortunately, from the perspective of religious studies, things like prayer and meditation aren't really rituals. A ritual has to have an "outwardness" about it that to an extent precludes such activities (although accompanying actions such as lighting a candle or burning herbs or incense may come under the ritual umbrella). Wittgenstein opted for simplicity in describing rituals: "we do these things and are satisfied". Personally, I think that's _too_ simple, and would like to bring in Roy Rappaport's observations about the (more or less) invariance of the ritual action and that the action is not invented by the person performing it. It's an incredibly difficult area of study made more so by the fact that the word is used in different ways by different disciplines, and I agree that in archaeology it has sometimes been used as a blunt object to write off problems that should better be answered by "we don't know".
I agree with much of that, but would strongly disagree that prayer and religious meditation are not rituals. Both involve an overt action (conciously thinking, in my opinion, is an overt external action). Especially in an archaeological context, we need a nice neat word to describe such activities.
In the cases of so called ritual places and landscapes I prefer the term ceremonial, as this can still include (collective) rituals as well as other types of formal ceremonies including political meetings and social gatherings and ‘rites de passage’, weddings etc. They could incorporate some religious or ritual aspects, but not necessarily.
Happy holidays.
@@permabroeelco8155 I also like ceremonial. Ritual is more specific a term
Always enjoy a good ritual!
Thanks for posting, ATB Alistair 👍
Yes and YES. Usually when they have absolutely 0 clues on the matter, anything is for "ritual" or "tombs" etc etc.
They really lack in imagination and this comes from the same school of thinking
Excellent video! I'm going to have to buy your book for Christmas ☺
@@gingerz9 I agree! Thanks for watching :)
Very interesting
I would love to see a video on the Rudston Monolith.
😆 Wonderful! I will ritualistically wish you Happy Holidays and a very Merry Christmas....! Um, I am American... I should offer you a Happy Christmas and a fun Boxing Day? 😂 🎄🕯 🎄
@@annalisette5897 Many thanks! Have a merry Christmas yourself and a joyous new year! 🎅🏻
I still think it's used in a lazy way to lump everything archeologists don't know into a single category. The criticism about everything being either a tomb or a temple still stands 🤔
Good house analogy. I have heard it posited more than once that long barrows were constructed on the foundations of the original long house of the first settlers in an area or something like that. The House of the Ancestors
As a Quaker Pagan questions like this have become increasingly important for me to consider. Whilst there are some major similarities between Quakerism and Paganism there are also some major differences. I need to figure out how to square those differences in a coherent way.
7:09 - not "the Langdale Valley". Just "Langdale" (or Great Langdale to be precise).
Tautology. I've lived there most of my life - everyone just calls it the langdale valley!
@@AdamMorganIbbotson No - tautology, possibly because "everyone" is mainly incomers who don't understand the meaning of names, like those who refer to "Ben Nevis Mountain" or think that Stock Gill is the name of the beck that runs through Ambleside.
@@Nastyswimmer my family’s always been from the Lake District, Hawshead / Windermere. You don’t get more local than me.
Ritual is a very vague word.In a group of people at a ritual event each interprets it differently.Without finding out who thinks what we have to rely on definitions.
Freud? Isn't he the one who once said that smoking a cigar was not a symbolic act? Maybe he should have said ritual.
Erving Goffman, thanks for mentioning him.Framing for me explains a lot.
Finally, Merry Christmas😊
Awesome video! Rainy UK, a? (;
@TheImmortalArt “rainy UK” - like saying “wet water”
@ you should see West Sweden!
By the way, I’ve sent you an email
@TheImmortalArt I!haven’t received anything! What address did you use??
what about rituals in Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, which are usually entirely individual-based?
Ritual or otherwise these places are more mystery than anything else to me.
I keep threatening to visit one of these sites in an attempt to pick up some vibes that might lead to a clue.but I think I'm kidding myself.
Perhaps in the spring when the weathers a little better?.
Re: Psychology and rituals, I feel like there's some overlap between habit and meaning with OCD which assigns meanings to seemingly random actions, often done repetitively. Obviously an OCD brain isn't functioning as it should, but is it just overdoing something humans do normally, that in some instances evolves into something culture-wide? What I mean is, do our brains just come up with these things because they like to connect cause and effect and don't always do it "right" but if it feels right to enough people it can catch on and spread?
Yes, and 'ritual' is the word that's commonly used to describe that penomenon. However, from an archaeological point of view, this is not very helpful. I see that 'ritual' as metaphorical - i.e., 'like a ritual'.
I do wonder how many of these sites, although quite large compared to the Archaeoligical tradition of an individual rude dwelling, are actually the skeletons of large buidings, just as if our bungalow lost it's wooden internal structure and roof and windows, it would leave just the circumferential parts of walls with gaps (where were doors and windows), etc
I loved the shameless plug at the end of the video. But, to the point of do we overuse the word 'ritual'?- I would say this: I live in a medium size state in the US. There are almost 4,000 places or worship in my state. I can WALK to 100 places of worship in 20 minutes or less. Most of these places are built of stone and/or brick. In 2,000 years archaeologists will uncover these ritual centers and they will be correct in calling them that.
@@edgarsnake2857 thanks! And absolutely agree with you!
I don't wish to ritualise my TH-cam activity by subscribing to a channel! I appreciate this overview of a vexing subject. I can't help feeling that future archaeologists will look back at the millions of toothbrushes scattered over the planet and declare, 'Ah, a ritual landscape!'
It also annoys me that any gravethat has a lot of rich goods is the grave of a king. Why not a wealthy person
Thank you. So, the answer to your question has to be ‘yes’. I always thought it odd that the only buildings and objects that survive millennia are religious or ritualistic. Maybe that stone circle was an Amazon warehouse or a nightclub!
they stick to a few catch all magic words. temple is one of their favorites, tombs, ritual or ceremonial, pyramid
@@standingbear998 pyramid?? I imagine it’s pretty easy to identify a pyramid mate…
I would take issue with your definition as a bit too narrow. There are enough secular rituals that we can point to today that hinging the definition on a religious entity is too limiting. In an American context, for example, there is ritual surrounding secular holidays like Thanksgiving: family gathering at the dining table, specific foods, etc. We also have quite a lot of rituals surrounding major societal sporting events like the Super Bowl: specific foods, specific clothings. There is good reason why scholars tend to recognize ritual by its societal function rather than its connection to religion: then we would have to define religion, which is impossible. The only thing that all religions have in common that all non-religions don’t have in common is that at some point someone called them a religion. The term “religion” is a changeable discursive construct, very similar to words like “ritual.”
I actually wouldn't call Thanksgiving a ritual. It's more of a celebration.
Religion was coined in the 16th century to differentiate between Protestantism and Catholicism, then later explanded to "world religion" following colonialism. It has a pretty strict meaning, like 'ritual', but is often bunkified by post-modernists to mean everything and anything.
'Ritual' is not overused. Sometimes there are tombs :D
👍
Yes.
I ritually clicked on LIKE
interesting, not one definition of ritual uses the word Behavior. Ritual as symptom. Pharmakos Ritual is common through out history. A compulsion based on obsession .... an obsession with "purification through human sacrifice. "
You have no idea what went on in these places, hence "funerary and ritual", the archaeologists standing joke. Why can't you just say "we don't know"?
I agree. It's called socratic wisdom! Though, it's sometimes obvious when something's religious / funerary...
@@AdamMorganIbbotson It's difficult to find a Neolithic megalithic construction that hasn't been labelled as "ritual or funerary". It would be constructive to know what would be disqualifying for that label. Even a lack of evidence means nothing. Is this really a line that mustn't be crossed?
@@andrewdavies8794 There's sites I know of in the North York Moors that are thought to be boundary markers etc (Low Bridestones for instance).
But I think most burial monuments aren't necessarily ritual, but instead functional - i.e., holding human remains in place respectfully. This already disqualifies the majority of megalithic monuments across the UK, which tend to date to the Bronze Age, and mark burials.
Otherwise, sites like Avebury, Castlerigg, and Stonehenge - are quite clearly ritual; having been designed to hold congregations etc. People don't haul massive stones up mountains and erect them in massive circles for cultural reasons. Especially when artefacts found within them are things like Langdale axes or burned shards of pottery.
@@AdamMorganIbbotson The finds linked to stone circles may well be incidental, as could the burials. Plenty of people have had their ashes scattered in Cardiff Arms park, but it's not a cemetery, well, only for Welsh rugby. Circles could have been boxing rings for all we know. Standing stones could have had any number of functions, but they are classified as "ritual and funerary". The real reasons for them could just as likely have been megalithic science of some sort. Religion is a modern projection for them.
Those mysterious ancients went to great lengths to plan, create, adapt and preserve these sites across the landscape. The heavy menhirs, for example, weren't just casually erected as the tribe had no farming or hunting to do, as their position in relation to each other and in the landscape is often carefully chosen. So them being 'sacred' places for the locals to perform important ceremonies is logical, captain.
My favourite ritual since my longhair days is Space Ritual by the mighty Hawkwind, which is riff-laden and rocks, man.
@PaIaeoCIive1684 Yes, thanks. You can read all about that in the new edition of my book ‘Cumbria’s Prehistoric Monuments’! Of course, will say, if all landscapes are ‘ceremonial’ or ‘ritual’ none are! Many places were evidently more special than others.
Your definition of "ritual" is too complicated, too narrow, and problematic. Are the American Fourth of July fireworks a ritual? What about Burning Man, or the World Soccer Cup? Or throwing coins in the Trevi fountain, or the changing of the guard at Buckingham?
If Burning Man and the Soccer Cup are rituals, where is the religion? If they are not (because they lack religious significance, "inner meaning", whatever), then how can you tell whether any prehistoric site or artifact is "ritual"? That would require knowing what was in the head of the people who created it...
I prefer the definition "a ritual is an action that is performed for its symbolic value rather than for its actual physical effects". Thus religious ceremonies would be rituals, and so would be putting flowers on tombs of deceased relatives, cutting the ribbon in the dedication of a building, carrying a rabbit's foot, giving a cup or medal to the winner of a competition, clicking beer glasses for a cheer. But Burning Man and the Soccer Cup would *not* be rituals, because they are done for the fun that they provide, not for any symbolic value.
This definition still makes it hard to tell whether an ancient site or artifact was "ritual" (was Stonehenge temple, or just a fairgrounds for a Neolithic Burning Man?). But it makes that decision possible, at least in theory: depending on whether one can find evidence of a concrete benefit that people derived from it -- like entertainment, trade, boundary demarcation, calendar fixing -- or evidence for the absence of such benefit.
Too complicated AND too narrow? Also, no soccer and fireworks are NOT rituals. There are other words for them (sport / celebrations). Ritual CAN be used metaphorically in those scenarios, but not in a literal sense. To make it too broad is to kill all meaning to the word.
@@AdamMorganIbbotson Yes, I agree that soccer is not not a "ritual", because it is performed for its effects and not as a symbolic action. But how can one objectively tell the difference between "celebration" and "ritual"?
That is why I feel that your definition is too narrow: it requires some sort of religiosity, which is at best a fuzzy concept, at worst an unscientific one because its presence cannot be objectively determined. By your definition, isn't your opening example (people doing things around the great leader house etc) just a "celebration"? What is the evidence that Stonehenge (or any other Neolithic monument) ever had any "ritual" aspect, as opposed to just "celebratory" or utilitarian?
And I don't think that my definition is too broad. It does distinguish between the World Soccer Cup (not ritual) and cutting the ribbon at inauguration (ritual) and burying the dead (not ritual) and placing gifts in the tomb (ritual) and choosing a king (not ritual) and crowning him (ritual), etc.
And I would say that "folkloric" dances performed by accountants and college students for tourists' consumption are still "ritual", because they are performed for being symbols of the country --even if the performers themselves don't care about them. And kneeling at Mass or setting up a Christmas tree are still rituals even if the person is an Atheist...
@@JorgeStolfi May be true, but all classic definitions of the word specify religion. Removing this from the word, essentially gets rid of a verbage word for religious rites. We use it elsewhere as a metaphore, and that's fine too!
I always take a ritual dump each morning. It amazes me how you are able to impose thinking upon a subject nothing is know about.