|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Alton Priors » Circles under churches |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
PeterH 1180 posts |
Aug 19, 2005, 04:44
|
||
|
I go for "dominance" and quote this as justification: "In 601 AD, Pope Gregory instructed missionaries to the English that "the temples of the idols in England should not on any account be destroyed. Augustine should smash the idols, but the temples should be sprinkled with holy water and turned into churches". This tells us that many Saxon churches were built on the sites of pagan temples. Furthermore, in 625 AD, Pope Boniface wrote to King Edwin condemning idol worship - saying "How can such stocks and STONES have power to assist you when they are made from perishable materials by the labour of your own subjects?" It seems that stones were venerated by the pagan Saxons, but that stone worship was specifically rejected by the church and not absorbed into Christianity. But I would say that, wouldn't I as I am also unconvinced that green men and sheelas are pagan survivals. Now if you want real pagan survivals - holy wells seem to fit the bill.
|
|||
FourWinds 10943 posts |
Aug 19, 2005, 07:51
|
||
|
>> ... but that stone worship was specifically rejected by the church and not absorbed into Christianity. should read "but that stone worship was specifically rejected by the <i>Roman</i> church and not absorbed into Christianity." The Irish church, which very nearly became the norm instead of the Roman, did consume stones and the Irish version of Catholicism today still does. Bullaun stones in particular are a big part of Xtian sites. All over Ireland there are stones dedicated to various saints - but usually the big two: Brigit and Patrick. So-called <i>Celtic Christianity</i> actually reached far into Europe and it wasn't until C12 that Rome started to truly dominate. The Pontif may have been against stones as idols, but that only represeented two thirds of the church in C7-C12 Europe. Irish monasteries, practicing the Irish varaiety of Christianity, were spread as far as Austria and even dominated soem regions of France and what is now Germany. Unfortunately, the Roman Catholic propaganda machine has done much to destroy the history and true power of their early rivals, so we can only quote the words of the Roman church from that period, which is a real shame and makes most arguments very unbalanced and unrealistic.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Aug 19, 2005, 08:01
|
||
|
I see Peter's evidence but in the case of the picture you linked to I tend to agree with you, it doesn't look like dominance. I can see how it could be a good idea to smash the stones of a reviled old order and use them as rubble for your own building, but to treat them with such care and make them an architectural feature like that doesn't ring true to me as an act of humiliation. There would always be the danger that the symbolism of dominance would be lost on the local yokels within one generation and they'd see it as reverence. 'Course, some dates for some of these buttresses and insertions would clarify things.
|
|||
|
FourWinds 10943 posts |
Aug 19, 2005, 08:02
|
||
|
Actually, here's a second (but related) thing. In England the Catholics took to having their services in people's houses when they were outlawed. During Penal times in Ireland when Catholicism was illegal the people took their services into the wilds and held them in the open air at what are now called Mass Rocks. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of these all over Ireland. They are basically big boulders with crosses carved in them. I know this is a lot later than you were talking about above, but it does demonstrate that worship at rocks was still part of the Xtian psyche here in Ireland. A few stone circles were used during this period too. When I have time I intend try and take more notice of the mass rocks. Were they in what could be significant ancient locations or were they just rocks chosen for thier remoteness? There's probably a doctorate in that question for someone! Just like holy wells most of the bullaun stones, even the ones not associated with early Xtian sites, are said to cure things.
|
|||
|
PeterH 1180 posts |
Aug 19, 2005, 09:37
|
||
Yes -that's a fair point. I am led to believe that when the early missions came to the Saxon kingdoms they were expecting everyone to be pagan. It came as a shock when they found many Christians among the populations. Of course, Christians hate heresy even more than paganism and so conflict was inevitable. Interesting when you read Bede - he gives no credit whatsoever to "Celtic" Christianity
|
|||
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Aug 19, 2005, 18:43
|
||
|
The pivotal question is, "Is this deliberate placing of stones in the foundations of churches an attempt by the Church to demonstrate <i>dominance</i> over an earlier belief system or an attempt by the Church to incorporate that earlier belief system into Christianity? I remember once reading a book called <b>Not yes, Not No, but Po</b> (or something like that). The thrust of the author's argument being that things didn't have to be either yes or no but could also be both those things, or even something in-between (something which the author called Po :-) Placing 'sacred' stones in church foundations could be seen, from the Church's point of view, as an act of dominance over an earlier belief system (though that would hardly endear the Church to the natives) but it could also be viewed (by those still adhering to aspects of that earlier belief system) as a visible sign that the new religion rested on the foundations of the old one (re: also the Christmas, Easter, Harvests festivals etc etc). Not a new idea but a clever one.
|
|||
|
PeterH 1180 posts |
Aug 19, 2005, 23:26
|
||
|
Yes - the date is a key element. Supposing a new religion was to be forcibly introduced into Britain today. Supposing that the new religion went into every parish church and cast down the altars and used them for building blocks. Supposing that the new alien temple walls deliberately straddled the altars and stood on them and over them. Would that not be dominance of the new over the old? How would today's practising Christians regard that? Sacrilege? Hardly integration and honouring the Christian altars. Christianity was introduced into Britain during the Roman occupation. There are Christian symbols surviving in mosaics and evidence of small churches. We don't really know much about the survival of British Christianity after the Romans left. But there are stones inscribed in Latin - they are memorial stones and crosses surely evolved from way mark stones. In the west, Christianity certainly survived and flourished. When we read of the Papal bull to reconsecrate pagan temples but to destroy stones and wooden idols - what do we envisage? Available building materials varied from region to region. Here in East Anglia the pagan temples would have been constructed of wood - even the earliest churches were wooden. So the only stones were the boulders that the pagans venerated. The wooden temples were turned into wooden churches and the pagan stones either cast aside (my view) or kept as some kind of PR exercise (Littlestone's view). Later and most especially when the Normans arrived, the early wooden churches were replaced with stone ones. The stone being imported from far away to areas where there was no local stone. After all those centuries - is it reasonable to believe that the local boulders were still respected as pagan holy objects or merely seen as useful building blocks? Is it conceivable that later medieval churches continued to honour pagan stones from some remote past - or did they simply use them as foundation stones? Or did they simply toss them aside as being inferior quality until some romantic antiquarian reintroduced them as evidence of Druidic worship etc? My view - most were used for building, but in some cases they were deliberatly placed in inferior positions to show the superior dominance of the new, more powerful religion. The church stood on its cowed and defeated enemy. When was the church ever tolerant? Sure, it took over old festivals and even the names of the days of the week - but to honour pagan idols? Don't think so.
|
|||
Joolio Geordio 1300 posts |
Aug 20, 2005, 00:02
|
||
|
"The church at Edlesborough in Bucks is on a high promontory." I have seen that too its about 10 minutes drive from me. On the subject of Yew Trees and Churches there is a Yew Tree in the garden of the house next to the church in Wing, Bucks (where I got married 3 weeks ago). Wing church claims to be the oldest Saxon church in England - not sure of any megalithic activity there tho - would need to go back and have a look. However I am curious about the church in neighbouring Soulbury which is built on a rise/mound? and there is a stone (not sure if is a standing stone across the road from it - again further investigation required by young Joolio here All the best Joolio
|
|||
|
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Aug 20, 2005, 01:23
|
||
|
Well, you know Peter, I'm coming to the conclusion (as I indicated in my last post) that this is not a clear cut yes or no issue. When you say that, "...the pagan stones (were) either cast aside... or kept as some kind of PR exercise..." you seem to be denying the possibility that both things might be going on at the same time; in fact perhaps we shouldn't even be thinking that there was such a clear divide between subjugation and assimilation; we can almost see a similar phenomenon today when a play is forced to close because of pressure from a certain sector of society. It doesn't mean that that sector is now dominant in society or that freedom of expression has been suppressed, it simply means that there are forces within society acting one upon the other until a certain 'levelling' is achieved. It could equally be said (when you say that stones were cast aside) that the easiest way to have utterly suppressed the Scots would have been to have destroyed the Stone of Scone in front of them. That wasn't done; the Stone of Scone was taken away by Edward I and became a symbol of both subjugation <i>and</i> assimilation in the minds of the English. In the minds of the Scots however it remained a symbol of their identity. What do you think the Scots imagined whenever they caught a glimpse of their Stone of Destiny beneath the Coronation Chair of St Edward? Subjugation? Yes. Assimilation? Perhaps. Their traditions and national identity? Certainly. And what do you think those half-pagan parishioners imagined some one thousand years ago when they saw one of their 'sacred' stones embedded in the foundations of a church? Who knows, though I like to think that they didn't see their old beliefs being completely destroyed before them; to be honest, I doubt if the Church at that time had the strength or the authority to attempt it. You ask, "When was the church ever tolerant?" Not very often I agree (though as I've just said, perhaps more tolerant through lack of authority in its early years than in its latter). But you know, there's a kind of contradiction here. The foundations of Christianity do not rest solely on the teachings of Christ, they also rest on the earlier belief system of Judaism. I'm not saying of course that Christianity in Britain rests on a pagan tradition but it might be unwise to deny the presence of pagan influences - how <i>much</i> influence of course is what makes this whole debate so interesting and I thank you for your interesting and thought-provoking comments :-)
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Aug 20, 2005, 07:54
|
||
|
"in some cases they were deliberatly placed in inferior positions to show the superior dominance of the new, more powerful religion. The church stood on its cowed and defeated enemy" That's very persuasive. In some cases, as a minimum. It's part of human nature. Words don't last, and writing's no good for a largely illiterate population, so what better than to write it in stone, symbolically? It chimes with two of my fantasies. ;) That Silbury III was a huge high-tech statement of domination by invaders, who sought to build their symbol right on top of the low-tech temple of the losers, Silbury II, entombing their deity forever and using the poor sods as slave labour to do it... and that Stonehenge was nicked en masse from Avebury and reworked and re-erected elsewhere, again as an act of exquisite humiliation. Humans can be very unkind.
|
| Pages: 28 – [ Previous | 1 … 15 16 17 18 19 20 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
