=
×

Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
Register
The Modern Antiquarian Forum »
Sacred Landscapes
Log In to post a reply
208 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
Annexus Quam
926 posts

words and power
Jul 30, 2003, 21:39
I will add my views on this interesting thread even though the discussion has gone too far from nigelswift's original question:

Sacred Landscapes is a term used by people like Devereux, based on his assumptions about world cultures and the lines that some monuments create. Whether one (partially or totally) (dis)agrees with the Earth Mysteries group or not, one must accept that ancient monuments were not created at random or placed anywhere. The landscape was instantly 'ritualized' (not made sacred, though). Ancient (wo)man was not innocent - rather trying to ritualize a land which (s)he had settled to farm. Megalithic monuments created a 'ritual' landscape (for lack of a better word) which meant appropriation and belonging, whilst being overlooked by bigger gods - many mountain(s) or specific hills which surrounded many megalithic monuments were left untouched, with no evidence of settlement or religious practices (like the axes, crooks or tablets found inside many antas). Therefore those spaces must have had a 'sacred' (i.e. 'untouched', 'inviolated', 'godly' or 'revered') character.

You may not like the word 'ritual' either, but we are as at odds with it as the Romans were when they wrote of the tribes they encountered. Estrabon for instance was perplexed at people going round a stone in both directions alternatively and performing libations. For the Romans, the natives were performing stupid 'rituals' they didn't understand. A bit like the impression my landlady got when she saw a programme on Australian aborigines the other day. For her, what those uncultured tribes were doing was in-comprehensible gibberish. For the aborigines, it's part of their daily life and gives meaning to their lives. However, both the Romans and we are governed by very strong rituals, though our rituals (sports, TV watching, smoking, films, going out at the same time every Fri night, clubbing etc) are not called 'sacred' or 'rituals', though they may be completely incomprehensible or stupid to someone who is not acquainted with the 'rules of our tribe'.

Regarding the word 'sacred', the opposite to what baza is saying is true of ancient peoples or remaining non-civilized tribes today. They do not (or cannot) make a distinction between sacred or not-sacred. This distinction was made much later on. Which obviously does not imply the superficial implication that everything the ancients did was serious and no-play. The kids hid behind their ancient monuments when they played hide and seek near their villages.

Ultimately, is our own perception of Reality 'real and not sacred' or part of a complex set of sacred rituals? Maybe we are just patronizing others who conspicuously manifest their beliefs by following their absurd rituals. It wouldn't be the first time in history.
In reply to:
Sacred Landscapes (nigelswift)		 Replies:
Re: words and power (morfe)
Topic Outline:
The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index