|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Stone circle etiquette |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
goffik 3926 posts |
Feb 24, 2015, 10:49
|
||
|
GLADMAN wrote: I recall a young girl saying to her - presumably - grandfather at the Tursachan, 'What's so good about a pile of old stones?'.... to which he replied "Because they represent the dawn of civilisation upon Earth". Not bad, eh? He was an old Indian gentleman in a turban. I like that a lot. I shall probably borrow that one. :) G x
|
|||
thesweetcheat 6218 posts |
Feb 24, 2015, 19:12
|
||
Yep, that's a great explanation.
|
|||
|
GLADMAN 950 posts |
Feb 24, 2015, 19:37
|
||
|
goffik wrote: GLADMAN wrote: I recall a young girl saying to her - presumably - grandfather at the Tursachan, 'What's so good about a pile of old stones?'.... to which he replied "Because they represent the dawn of civilisation upon Earth". Not bad, eh? He was an old Indian gentleman in a turban. I like that a lot. I shall probably borrow that one. :) G x Damn. Should've said it was me.
|
|||
|
goffik 3926 posts |
Feb 24, 2015, 19:54
|
||
|
Haha! Well, you passed the wisdom on, so I'll give you the credit. :) G xx
|
|||
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Feb 25, 2015, 10:52
|
||
|
ironstone wrote: I too would balk at the word 'sacred' because apart from the strong probability of rites/rituals at tombs/burial mounds etc we can't realistically say what the circles (certainly the smaller ones with no obvious solar body alignments) were actually used for. Not only that, but I've noticed that when people attach the word "sacred" to something, it generally indicates a sense of ownership, or the beginnings of them telling you what you can and can't do around a "sacred" thing.
|
|||
|
thesweetcheat 6218 posts |
Feb 25, 2015, 12:55
|
||
|
Mustard wrote: ironstone wrote: I too would balk at the word 'sacred' because apart from the strong probability of rites/rituals at tombs/burial mounds etc we can't realistically say what the circles (certainly the smaller ones with no obvious solar body alignments) were actually used for. Not only that, but I've noticed that when people attach the word "sacred" to something, it generally indicates a sense of ownership, or the beginnings of them telling you what you can and can't do around a "sacred" thing. OED def'n clearly links the word "sacred" to god(s) or religion: "adjective Connected with God or a god or dedicated to a religious purpose and so deserving veneration" The "deserving veneration" bit seems to be dependent on the god bit, so a scared site is deserving of veneration purely because it's connected with god. I don't much like that, it sounds like saying we should venerate Paul McCartney because he was a Beatle, rather than because of any intrinsic worth he has as a person or a musician.
|
|||
|
GLADMAN 950 posts |
Feb 25, 2015, 20:48
|
||
|
thesweetcheat wrote: OED def'n clearly links the word "sacred" to god(s) or religion: "adjective Connected with God or a god or dedicated to a religious purpose and so deserving veneration" The "deserving veneration" bit seems to be dependent on the god bit, so a scared site is deserving of veneration purely because it's connected with god. I don't much like that, it sounds like saying we should venerate Paul McCartney because he was a Beatle, rather than because of any intrinsic worth he has as a person or a musician. That's the thing about language. Because it's fundamentally an evolving medium it's open to interpretation subject to context. That's not to say the OED is incorrect, just that words are often co-opted where necessary to serve in situations where technically specific alternatives either do not exist or are not widely known.... eventually broadening their meaning. I certainly think 'sacred' is a case in point and I have no hesitation in using it to imply a devotion to something of intrinsic, inherent value to me. My family's wellfare is sacred to me, free speech is sacred to me...etc. Consider this: I could say "truth, love, understanding, tolerance and kindness are human attributes sacred to me" and my assumption - possibly false - is noone would assign any religious connotation to it whatsoever, no reasonably intelligent, open minded person would readily assume I only held those things to be worthy of veneration because of my belief in a god. Let's say I would be saddened if this was not the case, not least since history has shown religion to be inextricably opposed to such attributes. I think it's fair to say that religions, by definition, demand their adherents renounce a fundamental degree of individuality and subsume themselves within a hive mentality characterised by what might be described as a form of metaphysically inspired quasi-nationalism. We are right, everyone else is wrong and must change. Independent thought is supressed together with all notions of curiosity, the desire to learn. Everything that makes us human. So to imply that individuals labelling something - e.g a stone circle - 'sacred' (as per the OED definition) leads to concepts of personal ownership is, in my opinion, a fallacy. In my experience religious people do not counter such thoughts, just follow established dictacts. Do as they are told to remain part of the collective. It is so scary outside. It seems to me that only those who have rejected religion in full or part - the agnostics, atheists - are in a position to make such a claim of ownership based upon 'sacredness'. And, by definition, they would not apply the OED definition. I would very much doubt if the decision to erect those appalling, iron-spiked railings around such wondrous monuments as Kit's Coty, Lligwy and The Whispering Knights by The Ministry of Works was taken by people who viewed them as being 'sacred', applying any definition you care to choose - the narrow, or the generally used. Ditto the farmer erecting a multi strand barbed-wire fence. Cold, unassuming practicality. So, assuming your average monotheist isn't in the habit of hanging out within stone circles I would suggest it is those people who, for whatever reason, care about the well being and survival of our prehistoric heritage that should be championed. The people who, whether pagan or aetheist, view them as 'sacred' - of intrinsic value - and worth rather more than something to take a snap of to sell on your website. Guess it's a question of interpretation.
|
|||
|
carol27 747 posts |
Edited Feb 25, 2015, 23:31
Feb 25, 2015, 23:05
|
||
|
It's the bongos I can't bear! Seriously, we walked up the hill at the end of West Kennet Avenue today to watch glorious Silbury come in to view; passing a fine chap who was fiddling with what I thought was a Hawthorn tree but was informed was a Blackthorn tree. I asked what he was doing, only then noticing various ribbons; corn dollies; wicker hearts and even a fizzy drink can on the ground at his feet. I'm very new to the lure of these places (as I'm sure you can all tell), and hadn't seen a bedecked tree before. He told me that some of the ties around the tree could kill it and stunt it's growth, and that the materials used should be loosely looped around the branches so as to blow away easily, and that they should be biodegradable. The feeling I get from Avebury, West Kennet & Silbury is peace, awe and being grounded in a place; like it's the right place to be; like it feeds something inside me! Oh dear I'm not very eloquent. Anyway I'm a newbie & I'm looking forward to experiencing more special places. We tried to visit Waylon Smithy the other day but the car exploded! Will try again tomorrow.
|
|||
|
thesweetcheat 6218 posts |
Feb 25, 2015, 23:24
|
||
|
I don't disagree, well not much :) Language does evolve, it has to in order to provide words for new concepts and ideas. But I do have a bit of an aversion to words that have a specific and accepted meaning being applied to contexts that they weren't meant for. Business language is riddled with hideous examples of words taken from their proper use and misapplied - examples I've come across recently include "ecosystem" (I don't work in a rainforest), "drilling down" (or on an oil rig), "deliver" (or in a pizza shop), "granular" (or a sugar refinery), I'm sure everyone has similar bollocks to put up with. But really this is semantics, I think we both find something about these sites that calls to something inside that isn't easily defined, so if you call that "sacred" so be it. I'm interested though in the point that the Man from the Ministry who put the railings up may not be on the side of the righteous. The decision to put railings up was doubtless not motivated by some kind of inner spiritual force, but nevertheless would presumably still be motivated by a desire to "care about the well being and survival of our prehistoric heritage". The Stonehenge debate in another thread touches on this - what do we mean by preserving wellbeing and survival? Is prevention of damage more or less worthy than allowing the monument to be "used", whatever that might mean to different users? I think this is probably at the heart of a lot of the discussions we have on here (particularly the periodic Silbury ones), because it's probably the most difficult aspect of heritage conservation. Interest and understanding of these places comes from access and time spent, not from peering over barriers or from passing cars, but access brings damage and erosion and also brings conflict between different users who want different things from their experience (which is where this thread came in). It's a tough one.
|
|||
|
thesweetcheat 6218 posts |
Feb 25, 2015, 23:26
|
||
I'd love to think that any universally accepted Code for heritage sites would have a No Bongos rule. But I doubt we'd even get agreement on that :)
|
| Pages: 4 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
