|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Sacred Landscapes |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Jul 30, 2003, 09:05
|
||
|
Can anyone tell me what this term means? I’m prompted to ask because I’ve been looking at an alleged artificial mound, and from it you can see various other ancient sites and monuments. But then, you would, wouldn’t you? So are they related? I can see how the very famous places definitely have sacred landscapes, but it’s a term that’s often used and I was wondering what are the criteria. I can see that alignments and sight lines and numbers and proximity and aesthetics can all prompt the thought, but then I wonder whether what we see now really represents what was there then – what about neighbouring tribes and differing dates and tree cover etc.? Any advice much appreciated. Puzzled, of Stourport.
|
|||
ocifant 1758 posts |
Jul 30, 2003, 09:15
|
||
|
The 'tree cover' issue has always puzzled me too. From reading about some sites/alignments, you'd have to believe they didn't have trees at all in the old days...
|
|||
Kammer 3083 posts |
Jul 30, 2003, 09:36
|
||
|
I would consider a sacred landscape to be an area where the topography is entwined with religious practise. In the context of prehistoric ritual sites in the UK, this is illustrated by the situation of cairns and barrows on hilltops, or scattered along the edge of river gorges. I see this a lot in the area where I live, because it hasn't had the intensive agricultural practices that have destroyed so many sites in lowland areas. Sorry if this sounds a bit <I>Janet and John</I>, but it's an easy question to answer. :-)# On the subject of lines of site, large areas of Britain were de-forested by the Bronze Age, even in upland areas (like the Cambrian mountains where I live). Certainly there was more woodland, but a lot of the damage had already been done. K x
|
|||
|
BrigantesNation 1733 posts |
Jul 30, 2003, 10:37
|
||
|
Hi Nigel, Thanks for asking the question, as it's prompted me to do a bit more thinking about Thornborough, you may have noticed I've uploaded an interpretation of the Thornborough Henges for the mig to late Bronze Age period. During the work on that, I had to think about a number of the points you raise. Firstly, is this a sacred landscape at all? I don't know! To me a sacred landscape would need to have a religious significance, as opposed to a ritual one. What I'm getting at here, is the fact that we do not actually know what these monuments were used for, we note their proximity to burial sites and make a leap of faith that says they were part of a sacred environment. But, as in the case of Thornborough, the burials came much later, and for all we know could well be part of a new culture making it's mark on monuments whose purpose had already been forgotten. In many ways, the term sacred landscape is really sympomatic of our modern tendancy to see all of the ancient monuments "lumped" together - the outcome of thousands of years of careful planning. When the reality is probably much more random and non related. Coming back to Thornborough, we know that a structure that we know of as a cursus was built something like 5000 years ago. These "ritual causeways" are probably the least well understood of ancient monuments. It is possible that originally there were three at Thornborough. The one that has been confirmed ran for at least 1.2 miles in an east west direction and travelled from the River Ure to the location of Thornborough village. If we are to conject a ritual purpose for this structure and we assume that Thornborough village was probably a settlement location at that early time, then perhaps we could see this as the location for rituals intended to expouse mans relationship with the sacred river? However, to my mind, we do not explore the possible alternative purposes for these structures. If we look at our spanding habits today, we spend much more of our wealth on leisure than we do on religion - why not then? Could a cursus have been a racetrack as was originally suggested? One point to note is that this cursus was later destroyed by the building of the central henge to at the time it could haldy have been considered sacred, although that does not mean that any activities carried out on it were not. So, when we are considering a "sacred" landscape, we must separate our modern interpretation of these monuments as sacred, largely perhaps as part of our own desire to revere out distant ancestors? and also we have to bare in mind that many of the structures that we see as lending a spiritual nature to these monuments actually came along a lot later. I hae to go now, back later for the trees!
|
|||
baza 1308 posts |
Jul 30, 2003, 19:20
|
||
|
As a non-religious person, I have terrible difficulties with terms such as `sacred landscapes`. Nothing is sacred, to me. It seems that if someone with religious beliefs describes something as sacred, then it is! Well, it isn`t to me. For instance, the Kaaba in Mecca is probably regarded as the `most` sacred thing on Earth to hundreds of millions of people. Wherever they are, they face it to pray. To me, it`s a stone, probably a meteorite. I just have to accept that other people regard it as sacred, but that doesn`t mean that *I* have to regard it as sacred. `Sacred` has no meaning, to me. `Sacred landscapes` is even worse, when used in a prehistoric context. We don`t know if any site was regarded as sacred, a few thousand years ago in Britain. Even if they were thought of as sacred by the prehistoric people living there, I believe that they were mistaken, just as I regard a present-day Christian as being wrong when he/she thinks of their local church as being sacred. baz
|
|||
Shestu 373 posts |
Jul 30, 2003, 19:21
|
||
|
Brigante, Where did you upload this? Is this what I've been waiting for?
|
|||
FourWinds 10943 posts |
Jul 30, 2003, 19:43
|
||
... me?
|
|||
|
baza 1308 posts |
Jul 30, 2003, 19:48
|
||
|
LOL I have noticed that we do seem to have similar views about religion.
|
|||
|
Moon Cat 9577 posts |
Jul 30, 2003, 20:57
|
||
|
I s'pose its problematic being the actual definition of the word 'sacred' is supposed to appertain to a religionof sorts. But being realistic, the word has a far broader and more secular use today. So for myself, I have no real problem with a landscape or 'space' being sacred to anyone. In fact I expect many of us on here have our own sacred spaces here and there, be it where one first communed with the spirits or had yer first shag. Let's face it; Old Trafford is a sacred space to millions of people (not me I might add) and I think that use of the word "sacred", to describe a place say, has far greater meaning used to denote a place of particular resnonance and specialness to a person than its old associations with religion and either deities or saints etc. The dictionary needs an update frankly.
|
|||
morfe 2992 posts |
Jul 30, 2003, 20:58
|
||
|
This is a wonderful discussion. I don't agree that no land is sacred. I don't know much about megaliths, but I can put a stone in the ground. I really truly believe that so much of our interest in megalithia is born just from our desire to step outside. It gives us focal point from which to experience the bigger focal point. I cannot come to terms with the fact that 'nature' is referred to as 'outside' It is inside us, and all around us, but not 'outside'. Something 'sacred' to me, is something useful to me. Reductionist theories are usually disproving hypotheses, therefore inclined towards non-experience other than the umbra nihil, the great nothingness from which learning comes? I view 'sacred' landscapes (traditionally) as just EXAMPLES of a culture. The culture revered the land, it was echoed in the treatment of the land. We are in the death throes of our reverence. Our culture is a use-it-up-and-look-elsewhere culture. Much of our culture (Western Capitalism) has had it's umbilical cord stretched so far from the land via techno-jabber and proxy, that it has forgotten the truth of the great spirit . It has been replaced by the great nothingness of mental laziness, afforded by living out lives of proxy. That is to say, we shop, therefore we are. All land is sacred, unless one is a committed nihilist? Any land 'set aside' or managed for 'spiritual' use, whether burial or worship, or communication with the gods/esses, is land that is USED ), it is land that every bit as important (if not more so) than land set aside for crops. Anyone that has ever personally harvested from the land knows about sacred space. Surely? I'd like to add that a space made sacred to remind us that ALL is sacred, is the most sacred of spaces. I can see how people balk at the word 'spritual' and 'sacred', because for some, there are neither things. And I don't mean that derogatorily. I appreciate someone by their effect, not their belief. And spiritually,/developmentally/intellectually, I cannot say strongly enough how many lessons are to be learned from the natural landscape and its denizens. It hurts and angers so much to see that we are pulling down our global 'school' for salesmen. That's all to too 'rational' for me, so I'll let someone else say what I feel: "I thought the earth remembered me, she took me back so tenderly, arranging her dark skirts, her pockets full of lichens and seeds. I slept as never before, a stone on the river bed, nothing between me and the white fire of the stars but my thoughts, and they floated light as moths among the branches of the perfect trees. All night I heard the small kingdoms breathing around me, the insects, and the birds who do their work in the darkness. All night I rose and fell, as if in water, grappling with a luminous doom. By morning I had vanished at least a dozen times into something better." from Sleeping In The Forest by Mary Oliver
|
| Pages: 21 – [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
