|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Sacred Landscapes |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Jul 31, 2003, 10:38
|
||
with book-learning?
|
|||
ocifant 1758 posts |
Jul 31, 2003, 10:39
|
||
|
"As far as I know, for instance, no proper compendium of possible pagan festivals has ever been written" Ron Hutton's 'Stations of the Sun' et seq has a pretty good stab, but I'd agree, there's no <i>comprehensive</i> compendium available...
|
|||
|
BrigantesNation 1733 posts |
Jul 31, 2003, 10:53
|
||
|
Yes, but there must have been symbolism - a component structure. The job of a causeway is to provide a link, a causeway lined with stones or totems becomes a symbolic one - the totems representing the ancestors perhaps. For a symbolic causeway to work it must have things to link, the most powerful things will have symbolised power and religion. Could it not be, that the burial mounds were the sybolism of power and the vehicle for the transfer of power? that the ritual involved visiting your dead leader during his transition to god-state and thus having their worldly power passed on to you? After that period of transfer, a procession was required - to show all who was in charge and to have that fact acknoweldged by the religious leaders. I quite like this idea of barrows = power.
|
|||
baza 1308 posts |
Jul 31, 2003, 11:21
|
||
|
>"As far as I know, for instance, no proper compendium of possible pagan >festivals has ever been written" That`s because it would have to be a very big book! There is no religion called paganism. Paganism is a disparate collection of beliefs with the only thing in common being that they are not one of the major religions. I`ve even heard non-religious/spiritual people describing themselves as pagan, which seems fair enough, to me. baz
|
|||
moss 2897 posts |
Jul 31, 2003, 11:25
|
||
|
Replying to that first message, can't cope with the rest.. Talk about putting the cat amongst the pigeons - certainly sparked of a lively debate. Moss
|
|||
TomBo 1629 posts |
Jul 31, 2003, 11:25
|
||
|
I am very much in agreement with AQ and Morfe, in this marvelous thread, when they say that the ancients could/would not make a distinction between the sacred and the non-sacred. I think that this does not just apply to their perception of space alone, though, but also to their perception of time. There is an ineradicable urge in human nature that drives us to mythologise the world around us. The world's myths and legends alone are proof enough of that, and neither are they the end of the proof. But it seems to me that this doesn't end with the sacred land alone - what about the sacred sky? It is in the sky that our mythologising of time takes place. All of our measurements of time are based upon observations of the sky. And more than that, all of our measurements of time are based upon observations of cyclical, circular motions. A wheel turning. Ancient monuments do not define a sacred space, they try to remind us of the sacredness of all space. Similarly, festivals marking the passage of time are there to remind us of the sacredness of all time. I do not believe the ancients had a religion, just a *feeling* for the sacredness of space and time, a feeling that found expression in monuments, ritual acts and mythologies. Its most immediate expression was probably spontaneous singing, dancing, and generally freaking out! This *feeling* only becomes religion when the myths and rites are carved into tablets of stone, usually because somebody wants to control other people. Who can blame people for being mistrustful of the word "sacred" when it brings to their minds the word "religion"? Until we learn to see beyond the narrow definition of the word "sacred" that all these centuries of monotheism and its power-games have ingrained in us we cannot come close to understanding what "sacred" meant to the people of ancient times. Oral traditions have been shown, many times, to be living, growing things, constantly evolving as time wears on and tales & myths are re-told and re-told. In ancient times there was no writing, and in my view that makes religion, as we know it today (with all of its stifling of freedom of thought and expression), impossible. The people of antiquity had no religion, but they were probably far more aware of the sacred than people are today. That's what I think, anyway...
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Jul 31, 2003, 11:38
|
||
|
In your scenario the causeway itself might be regarded as a highly potent symbol of power in itself. What more significant exercise of your power could there be than to decree the very route people must walk (or perhaps mustn’t walk, unless specially authorized) and you can order all this from your grave. I can’t remember whether Machiavelli, in his instruction manual to Princes on how to hang on to power by any foul means they could, discussed post-death tactics, but he should have. I do remember a Trades Unionist discussing his philosophy of effective leadership, which was “If you get ‘em by the balls their hearts and minds will follow shortly…” It’s pretty clear that any leader would have a vested interest in extending his hold over his people to beyond the grave- both to preserve his dynasty and also, in life, to leave no room for dangerous democratic thoughts to take root. Barrows = Power? Why not. Why else have them raised rather than flat?…
|
|||
|
BrigantesNation 1733 posts |
Jul 31, 2003, 11:39
|
||
|
"I do not believe the ancients had a religion, just a *feeling* for the sacredness of space and time, a feeling that found expression in monuments, ritual acts and mythologies." Are you talking about the stoneage peoples? As far as I can see, our spiritual nature has made us ripe for manipulation by organised religion from the minute we were able to congregate regularly in reasonably large numbers. This combined with our natural desire to belong mean that a dictated religion was probably a very early development. If henges or stone circles where built for spirtual reasons, then I would say their builders definately had a fixed religion or common belief.
|
|||
|
BrigantesNation 1733 posts |
Jul 31, 2003, 11:50
|
||
|
I'm not saying the various components of the ritual landscape did not have their own individual features or power etc. just trying to explore how they could have worked together - that's how we get a ritual landscape rather than a set of unrelated structures. I'm starting to build quite a nice picture of this possible scenario. As you can probably tell, I'm building to a description of how Thornborough may have worked, which of course will be fiction, but perhaps might help stimulate the interest of the masses.
|
|||
|
TomBo 1629 posts |
Jul 31, 2003, 11:52
|
||
There's a difference between a "dictated religion" and a "common belief", though, don't you think? I was tring to argue against the existence of the former in stone age times. I think that the latter is probably a more useful term, though. A common belief is something that everyone shares because they all genuinely do feel the same way (there's that word *feel* again!). A dictated religion is a very different matter, encouraging people to ignore their *feelings* and to listen to a middleman instead.
|
| Pages: 21 – [ Previous | 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 13 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
