|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Stonehenge Solstice: is there a risk? |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Jun 30, 2010, 07:40
|
||
|
Yesterday (29 June) Heritage Action ran an article entitled Stonehenge Solstice: is there a risk? in which they suggested that Stonehenge at the summer solstice gatherings has become, "...a vulnerable site with huge numbers packed in, 43 drugs arrests, [this year] lots of alcohol (Round Table discussions from previous years speak of everyone’s great worries over “unacceptable levels of anti social behaviour” which we presume means drunkenness) and, the biggest problem of all, numbers so large that no-one can realistically claim that everything was or would always remain under full control." Makes some of us think, are English Heritage yet again out of step with heritage? Is it really acceptable to turn such an iconic structure like Stonehenge into a noisy, litter-strewn and potentially dangerous place for even one day? Heritage Action, in its article, goes on to suggest possible alternatives to the present 'arrangements' at solstice time - eg, "...placing “keep off” style signs actually on the fallen stones, stationing the four levels of officials right next to those stones and perhaps considering limiting numbers to a level where control can be better maintained. ...if fifty thousand turned up, that’s what would have to be decided. On the evidence of this latest solstice, twenty thousand is far too many to control in such a place and the fact something pretty bad hasn’t happened is down to pure luck. How that could be done is a puzzle. A system of drawing lots? A ban on ANY alcohol (thereby discouraging the pure party animals)? An entrance fee (except for the proven poor or genuine pagans)? Restricting the numbers actually inside the circle (by lots or by waiting list from amongst those with a genuine spiritual or other interest)?" As a body serving the public, and committed to saving our heritage, perhaps English Heritage would like to comment here (or on the Heritage Journal) with its plans for future solstice gatherings at Stonehenge.
|
|||
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Jun 30, 2010, 08:21
|
||
|
What exactly is the "risk"? Personally, I have more interest in chewing my own balls off than attending a solstice gathering at Stonehenge, but if 20,000 people have a desire to celebrate at the stones, then I'm more than happy for them to do so. I also think that mentioning 40-odd drug arrests is pointlessly inflammatory. What exactly does this have to do with anything? And 40 drug arrests in a crowd of 20,000 revellers is, frankly, insignificant. Especially considering that most of these arrests are likely to be for cannabis. The article makes some good points and an interesting read, but it's clearly a prejudiced piece of writing.
|
|||
ocifant 1758 posts |
Jun 30, 2010, 08:23
|
||
|
Hypothetical question. What if Stonehenge wasn't the focus of the crowd's attention? Suppose it was, ooh I don't know: Framlingham Castle? Hampton Court Palace? Syon House? or even Sutton Hoo? Would the same 'open access' rules and the same numbers be permitted free reign over those sites? Just a thought...
|
|||
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Jun 30, 2010, 08:33
|
||
|
ocifant wrote: Hypothetical question. What if Stonehenge wasn't the focus of the crowd's attention? Suppose it was, ooh I don't know: Framlingham Castle? Hampton Court Palace? Syon House? or even Sutton Hoo? Would the same 'open access' rules and the same numbers be permitted free reign over those sites? Just a thought... Not the best analogy, but in principle, why not?
|
|||
Squid Tempest 8769 posts |
Jun 30, 2010, 08:43
|
||
How would you determine a "genuine spiritual interest"?
|
|||
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Jun 30, 2010, 09:11
|
||
|
Squid Tempest wrote: How would you determine a "genuine spiritual interest"? Why do you need to?
|
|||
|
Squid Tempest 8769 posts |
Jun 30, 2010, 09:20
|
||
|
Mustard wrote: Squid Tempest wrote: How would you determine a "genuine spiritual interest"? Why do you need to? Littlestone wrote: Restricting the numbers actually inside the circle (by lots or by waiting list from amongst those with a genuine spiritual or other interest)?
|
|||
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Jun 30, 2010, 09:27
|
||
|
Ah, I see your point. I agree, it would be impossible. What is a "genuine" pagan? A paid-up member of the Pagan Federation? Or a third generation hedge witch? Or a hammer-carrying Odinist? In fact, should Odinists be allowed access to Stonehenge, considering that the Norse tradition isn't native to these lands? Simplest answer is not to be anal and uptight about it, continue to allow the solstice celebration, and encourage respectful behaviour.
|
|||
tjj 3606 posts |
Edited Jun 30, 2010, 09:47
Jun 30, 2010, 09:45
|
||
|
Mustard wrote: Ah, I see your point. I agree, it would be impossible. What is a "genuine" pagan? A paid-up member of the Pagan Federation? Or a third generation hedge witch? Or a hammer-carrying Odinist? In fact, should Odinists be allowed access to Stonehenge, considering that the Norse tradition isn't native to these lands? Simplest answer is not to be anal and uptight about it, continue to allow the solstice celebration, and encourage respectful behaviour. I agree with the spirit of what you are saying but playing devil's advocate (again) am I correct in thinking there is some sort of waiting list to see the winter solstice sunrise at Newgrange. Slightly different as it would impossible to allow large numbers there. Seeing the winter/summer solstice sunrise at an ancient site which was probably/possibly constructed for the event is indeed a great privilege and one I hope to witness at least once in my life (haven't done so yet).
|
|||
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Jun 30, 2010, 09:55
|
||
|
tjj wrote: Mustard wrote: Ah, I see your point. I agree, it would be impossible. What is a "genuine" pagan? A paid-up member of the Pagan Federation? Or a third generation hedge witch? Or a hammer-carrying Odinist? In fact, should Odinists be allowed access to Stonehenge, considering that the Norse tradition isn't native to these lands? Simplest answer is not to be anal and uptight about it, continue to allow the solstice celebration, and encourage respectful behaviour. I agree with the spirit of what you are saying but playing devil's advocate (again) am I correct in thinking there is some sort of waiting list to see the winter solstice sunrise at Newgrange. Slightly different as it would impossible to allow large numbers there. Seeing the winter/summer solstice sunrise at an ancient site which was probably/possibly constructed for the event is indeed a great privilege and one I hope to witness at least once in my life (haven't done so yet). If there was a genuine conflict of interests regarding access, I wouldn't see any problem with restricting "pagan" solstice celebrations to once every two years to allow others to enjoy it in their own way. Compromise is a beautiful thing. :) I respect the rights of everyone to interact with our ancient sites in ways that are meaningful to them, but no single group has an exclusive hold over such places.
|
| Pages: 11 – [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
