Julian Cope presents Head Heritage | The Modern Antiquarian Forum

Pilgrim

597 posts

Re: "Sacred" as a prehistoric adjec...

Aug 07, 2005, 23:40

Ah! Always a pleasure when the heavyweights appear! :-P

<i>I think "sacred" isn't just woolly it's also speculative, which is worse.

Were the sites themselves or the references that inspired them considered "sacred" by the people who built them? We don't know.
Are they "sacred" to modern people? No, not by reference to a knowledge of the past, only by modern individual choice.</i>

Spot on, Nigel - hence the improper use of the pigpen thing. But then are we not undertaking an act of worship when we visit these structures?

<i>I think they are areas of "reverence", then and now. This actually puts tombs in the same bracket of old and modern appreciation as stone circles, which is nice. To "revere" you don't need to get involved with complicated speculations about deities and worship, so neolithic people and modern atheists, pagans and Christians can all be on the same wavelength and appreciate them equally as human beings, which again is nice...</i>

Hmmm...reverence....I like your direction, but it's getting a bit itchy there, methinks. Possibly a bit "chronocentric" in favour of the BCE's - we really need something that works in both directions....

7/10

keep trying though! :-)

Pilgrim

X

In reply to:
Re: "Sacred" as a prehistoric adjec... (nigelswift)

The Modern Antiquarian Forum » "Sacred" as a prehistoric adjective...	Log In to post a reply

101 messages	Topic View: Flat \| Threaded