|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » antiquarianism vs archaeology |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
fitzcoraldo 2709 posts |
Oct 24, 2002, 14:10
|
||
|
Got to get this off me chest. My perception of this place is an antiquarian forum as opposed to an archaeological forum. I see the difference as being this, We are not archaeologists or scientists, we are continuing the long tradition of antiquarianism. We uphold the same traditions as Stukely or Camden. We visit, we observe, we feel, we research and gather folk lore, and then we share our observations and deductions. Dowsing, ley lines and all of the other techniques that are regarded as on the margins of conventional archaeology are valid, although individuals may pour scorn on these methods, the results from these techniques are adding to our total knowlege of a place. there thats my rant over..I'm off to me oil rig now, so I'll see y'all in three weeks. love and life
|
|||
FourWinds 10943 posts |
Oct 24, 2002, 14:23
|
||
|
It's not a fine line between the two is it!? You are right, certainly where I'm concerned anyway. I see my position as a facilitator above 'visitor' to sites. The reason I maintain megalithomania is to bring places to the fore, to put them in a medium and a place where practically everyone can access them. When I have time to take it easy, or when I revisit a site (perhaps when showing people around) I can then sit back and reassess a site from a personal space point of view and spend more time analysing the surroundings and enjoying the vibe. Have a good stint on your rig Ride On!!
|
|||
Spaceship mark 1686 posts |
Oct 24, 2002, 16:03
|
||
|
Well that's the whole thing isn't it. Traditional archaeology was all about digging a whole, surveying and recording what was in it and then filling it in. If anything was prehistoric, interpretation was frowned upon. No account was taken of setting, location, nearby sites etc. The situation is getting better but the malaise is far from cured. You only have to watch 'Time Team', whenever they find something a little odd they say it probably had a 'ritual' use then all have a giggle about how that phrase, of course, means fuck all. And yet it's us, the Modern Antiquarians, who gave the archaeologists a lot of their newer ideas. If someone had said 20 years ago that a psychodelic rock n' roller with a perchant for urban camo would be working closely with some one like Aubrey Burl they would have been laughed at. Archaeology and Antiquarianism need no longer be mutually exclusive. The Archaeologists need us. After all most (of course not all) of the digging's been done. If they want to progress they have to interpret. And we are the Interpreters. New ideas about the functions of sacred sites are creeping into orthodox Archaeology and it's largely thanks to the Copes, the Deverauxs, the Mitchells, the Burls etc of this world who arn't affraid to stick their necks out and say what they believe in. So, as Canned Heat once said, lets work together...
|
|||
|
BrigantesNation 1733 posts |
Oct 24, 2002, 18:18
|
||
I often think that anthropology is another way of saying antiquarian - almost.
|
|||
|
Spaceship mark 1686 posts |
Oct 24, 2002, 19:26
|
||
|
Bring it on! Bring it all on. Crossing disciplines is the way forward. A few years ago I heard about and 80 odd year old retired chiropodist who was interpreting mesolithic footprints on a beach near Southport. Aint but the one way and all that
|
|||
|
Moon Cat 9577 posts |
Oct 24, 2002, 20:38
|
||
|
Well said Fitz. I agree with post. It some times gets a little galling to be told that ones "take" on a place is "wrong" because the archaelogical and scientific evidence dictates what a place, (circle what ever) is, what it was used for and so on. Sure I'm interested in the facts from an historical perspective, and also as a window into the ways of things back then. What does raise my ire a little is to be told that any personal feelings (call it spiritual whatever) I gain from a site either don't make "sense" in relation to the archaeological evidence about the place, and anyway, my experiences are just down to "new age" bollocks and such. That's treading on me as far as I'm concerned. While I might walk into a Cathedral and be impressed by the building and it's history for instance, I wouldn't feel that would give me license to denigrate the fella kneeling at the altar, even if I didn't go for his particular bag! I love to learn about stuff, absolutely and I certainly have here. But my main avenue of interest is how I relate and feel and empathise with a place. It;s a personal thing and I don't like it being devalued cos it's not what it says in the textbooks. Yes the anthropolgy thing is valid too, IMHO. Wonderment comes in many forms with these places!
|
|||
|
FourWinds 10943 posts |
Oct 25, 2002, 09:15
|
||
|
As I have said many times I believe in certian energies. Energies that ancient man could not explain, but we 'probably' can now. Read Michael Dames ... any book ... that's New Age Bollocks. Inventing a totally unreal scenario around objects about which we know nothing. It's nothing more than fiction. Ok some of it might be correct, but when you write so much fantasy something is bound to conincidentally be right. Hence the thing on the end of films ... "The persons portrayed do not represent any real person living or dead ... " etc. Pretend it's all 'mystical' ... that's New Age Bollocks. Accept the scientific reasons that explain a 'phenomemnon' if it truly does so. Either I am scared of gods or I am strong enough not to need them - I don't know. I try to respect the planet as much as possible, but I don't believe in *The* Goddess. I believe that at one time there was probably enough faith to make her exist (just as there is with God) but the Goddess brought into manifestation by today's faith CANNOT be the same Goddess that was invoked in ancient times. The people who bring about the manifestation have different demands of her now. Lifestyles and needs are too diverse and there was no continuation in her worship. She faded and died when the last Old Goddess worshipper died and a new one was created about 50 years ago at the most. I will never belittle anyone's 'magickal' experiences at a site. I have had unexplainable things happen and felt 'odd' things myself, but I will not buy into the 'religion' being promoted by the New Age authors, that constantly contradict themselves, purely to sell books. If I had to choose a godhead, then I'd choose the planet, but it would be an asexual or bi-sexual entity, not a female Goddess that is re-created for the sole purpose of fighting the male Gods that predominate mainstream religion.
|
|||
|
Rhiannon 5290 posts |
Oct 25, 2002, 09:52
|
||
|
If you read Hutton's book 'the pagan religions of the ancient british isles ' he gives an excellent description of how much of the 'goddess/celtic' stuff most people quote as fact was utterly fabricated in the 20th century from a muddle of documents (some of them made up in the past anyway). Also there's that Hobsbawm book 'the invention of tradition' which explains how people reinvent customs to keep their cultures alive
|
|||
BlueGloves 858 posts |
Oct 25, 2002, 10:00
|
||
|
is alive and kicking. Still needs helping across the road though. Everyone admiring a beautiful landscape is worshipping the goddess... this is my twopenceworth.
|
|||
|
FourWinds 10943 posts |
Oct 25, 2002, 10:28
|
||
|
Here's a good point. I agree with you to an extent, however, although I may be worshipping 'something' when I admire the landscape, to me it is NOT the Goddess. It is a huge round (ish) lump of rock hurtling through space and time. It's like Muslims, Jews and Christians effectively worshipping the same desert god, but not being able to agree on its name or history. I am affraid I do not believe in the existance of a single monotheistic female god entity. There possibly was a mother goddess, but if all the 'pseudo-temples' (or proto-temples) that are stone circles are astronomical then surely the heavens and there for Sol (a male life giving god) was more important ... or was it just as important? We will never know and pretending that we do is totally mad. You today might believe in a mother Goddess, and that is fine, just don't pretend that this links you to our ancestors becuase you worship the same being/entity .... because you don't and you never can.
|
| Pages: 6 – [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
