Julian Cope presents Head Heritage | The Modern Antiquarian Forum

nigelswift

8112 posts

Re: Well no..

Jul 31, 2003, 09:16

Isn’t that word “processional” a key element in all this? Very few “significant” landscapes could have been built as such, right from scratch, but many contain a number of significant points which were linked together either in reality and/or (more importantly) conceptually. Perhaps the remaining landscape gains significance merely because it cradles all this. I rather like Birmingham, but thinking about it, I suspect I like bits of Birmingham and I like the rest merely because it contains the bits and allows me to access them.

I’ve been on the Beatles tour in Liverpool (their houses and schools and where they met and Penny Lane and Strawberry Fields etc). To an avid fan, isn’t the whole of Liverpool a sacred landscape?

You mention that thirty disparate churches might one day be mis-identified as a single sacred landscape. But the problem is, if they were all the same denomination then to that particular set of people, who might have visited them all, they would indeed have had a collective significance. So by sheer luck the archaeologists of the future would have got it right (except for the fact that they’d probably lump a couple of synagogues into the bundle). I would have thought the Stonehenge area, being so complex and dating over such a long period, is particularly inappropriate to be given the title of sacred landscape as there are so many possibilities. Perhaps the term sacred landscape should be amended to sacred landscapes? Perhaps Michael Dames would have done well to adopt this humbler approach?

In reply to:
Well no.. (BrigantesNation)

Replies:
Ritual landscape overlays (BrigantesNation)

The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Sacred Landscapes	Log In to post a reply

208 messages	Topic View: Flat \| Threaded