Avebury chapel's future

[jeremyp]

In claiming a connection to ancient sacred sites modern pagans are trying to rekindle the respect for the spirituality of pagan sites. Now, I will be the first to say that there are too many pagans who don't know how to respect sites either and it is a problem recognised within paganism. But I don't think pagans claim a 'special' connection; the sites are for all, but we'd just like it to be remembered that they were sacred to our ancestors, and modern pagans are forging our own sacred relationships with ancient places.

The problem is that we don't know that these places were sacred or if they were, what form the sacredness took.  Perhaps the things that modern pagans and druids do at ancient sites would be considered as desecration by the ancients that built them.  Perhaps the things that the ancients did at these sites would be considered as evil by us now. 

Of course the irony from my point of view I s that I live in East Anglia, where there are no stone circles.

But there was Sea Henge

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seahenge

which shows the stupidity of a few of the modern "druids" in all its glory.

[Owlswing]

1 - Avebury was not built without any of the kind of machinery that was used to build Rome;

How do you know?

2 - Avebury was built without the use, and deaths, of thousands of slaves;

How do you know?

3 - So far as we are aware, from archeological experts and not from religious philistines, Avebury was built as a sacred site, Rome was built as a city to hold a population!

Clearly Avebury is not a city, but the idea that it must have been a sacred site is speculation based on the fact that it has no obvious purpose and, in our experience, large apparently pointless construction projects are always sacred to the people that built them.

5 - If you knew half what you like to think you know and twice what you actually know - you would still be a pretentious religious nit-wit.

So. in your opinion, Hope actually knows a quarter of what he thinks he knows.

5 - If that!

[Owlswing]

In claiming a connection to ancient sacred sites modern pagans are trying to rekindle the respect for the spirituality of pagan sites. Now, I will be the first to say that there are too many pagans who don't know how to respect sites either and it is a problem recognised within paganism. But I don't think pagans claim a 'special' connection; the sites are for all, but we'd just like it to be remembered that they were sacred to our ancestors, and modern pagans are forging our own sacred relationships with ancient places.

The problem is that we don't know that these places were sacred or if they were, what form the sacredness took.  Perhaps the things that modern pagans and druids do at ancient sites would be considered as desecration by the ancients that built them.  Perhaps the things that the ancients did at these sites would be considered as evil by us now. 

Of course the irony from my point of view I s that I live in East Anglia, where there are no stone circles.

But there was Sea Henge

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seahenge

which shows the stupidity of a few of the modern "druids" in all its glory.

The problem is that we don't know that these places were sacred . . .

Who are we? Almost always non-pagans who hate anyything that pre-dates Christianity!   

[Rhiannon]

In claiming a connection to ancient sacred sites modern pagans are trying to rekindle the respect for the spirituality of pagan sites. Now, I will be the first to say that there are too many pagans who don't know how to respect sites either and it is a problem recognised within paganism. But I don't think pagans claim a 'special' connection; the sites are for all, but we'd just like it to be remembered that they were sacred to our ancestors, and modern pagans are forging our own sacred relationships with ancient places.

The problem is that we don't know that these places were sacred or if they were, what form the sacredness took.  Perhaps the things that modern pagans and druids do at ancient sites would be considered as desecration by the ancients that built them.  Perhaps the things that the ancients did at these sites would be considered as evil by us now. 

Of course the irony from my point of view I s that I live in East Anglia, where there are no stone circles.

But there was Sea Henge

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seahenge

which shows the stupidity of a few of the modern "druids" in all its glory.

As Wiki makes clear, Seahenge was a henge. It isn't any more. The timbers have an academic interest in the way that looking at anything prehistoric in a museum has, but out of context they are robbed of much of their meaning. It's as though someone dismantled Ely Cathedral brick by brick and then put various bits together in a museum to 'educate' people about it. I might roll my eyes at the self-appointed 'archdruids' as much as you but it's telling that Holme11 is going to be allowed to go in whatever course nature intends, which is probably what its creators intended - they would have known they were making an impermanent structure. As for me personally, I don't live anywhere near Holme, I never got to visit it and it has no particular significance for me in or out of situ.

The same goes for the stone circles - I don't come from somewhere with large stones and I haven't spent time with them to form my own relationship. I'm glad they are there and I think they should be respected by pagans as much as pagan beliefs about them should be respected, but they don't form much of a part of my own personal experience. As for modern and past pagan practices, we can only do what we can and forge our own relationships with the sites now.

[Rhiannon]

I certainly sensed a bit of defensiveness Rhiannon and I can understand that given what you say. Some of the posts on here about pagans are ridiculous indeed. Very sad that you have to think about hiding your books and stuff if your kids friends come over. I sort of wonder though whether the seeming desire to show/claim that modern paganism has this long tradition going back millennia is counter productive. Perhaps going for the modern would distance neopagans from the old associations? Is it really important to neopagans that there should be this association with the old religions? What do you think?

As Matt has said, with a few exceptions most pagans don't claim to have an ancient lineage within our spirituality. We know we are making something new with our different paths.

Again I can't speak for others, but I've always been interested in folk religion, folk magic, call it what you will. As a child I would buy books on folklore wherever we went on holiday. As I got older I started to grow my own herbs and explore hedgerows and woods, and I learned as much about the myths and folklore about them as their natural history and uses. I taught myself to make jams and chutneys, herbal oils and dried produce. And inevitably this made me live very much in tune with the seasons. And getting out and about, I'd find old paths, old places, and feel a connection. It's really hard to explain but this connection to past and places is a part of me. I'm moving and will need to forge a new relationship somewhere and it is unnerving not knowing where or how. I suspect that my bookshelves are typical of many pagans with their mix of natural history, archaeology, folklore, and various titles on herbs and hedgerow; my spirituality owes more to Geoff Hamilton and Richard Mabey than Crowley and Gardner.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I would have thought that it was blindingly obvious, considering the age of the two monuments, that nobody on this Earth will know anything other than what archaeologists have discoveered or worked out or guessed. I have never claimed otherwise.

Sorry Matt, but in an earlier post you referred to the pagan understanding of Avebury, but now you're referring to the rcheological understanding.  Are you saying that they are one and the same, or perhaps that archeologists are, by nature, pagans?   

It must really piss you off that both these constructions predate your religion by several thousand years.

Why should it?  After all, I marvel at the Pyramids (c.2-3K before Christ), at Stonehenge and Avebury (about the same time frame), Gobekli Tepe (which predates Stonehenge by about 6K years), etc. etc.  If we take your argument to its conclusion, you must be pissed off that there are a number of constructions and religions that pre-date your religion by several thousand years.

Once agin Hope posts a load of bollocks!

Quote - you must be pissed off that there are a number of constructions and religions that pre-date your religion by several thousand years. - Unquote

The oldest religious artefact ever found is a statuette of the Goddess (a fertility figure) that is called the Venus of Willendorf - from 23,000 BC!

It is Pagan - it is THE oldest!

Actually I'm quite chuffed about that!

23,000 years before your Johnny-come-lately!

Your paganism seems to be based on everything but Christianity.

Brobat toilet cleaner has no obvious Christian connotation at all. Is it pagan?

I would be interested in your answer because I think the atheists have claimed it for themselves.

[Gordon]

Speaking as a grizzled old atheist who isn't even slightly 'spiritual' in the theistic sense but, nevertheless, can feel a sense of awe and wonder - I think that very old places can engender these feelings, along with a sense of mystery. I've never been to Avebury or Stonehenge but I have been to Orkney several times (and if you haven't been, and if you like archaeology, then it is a must).

I was usually there on work business, and on one occasion had driven up and taken the ferry, as opposed to flying, and on a wet and grey late November day when a meeting had been cancelled I took the opportunity to drive to the Ring of Brodgar - and when I got there I discovered I had this 4/5,000 year old monument to myself and just wandered around touching the stones: it was a memorable experience.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_of_Brodgar

[jeremyp]

As Wiki makes clear, Seahenge was a henge. It isn't any more. The timbers have an academic interest in the way that looking at anything prehistoric in a museum has, but out of context they are robbed of much of their meaning.

How do you know?  Nobody has any idea what Seahenge meant for its builders or how that meaning would be affected by it being preserved for posterity.

It's as though someone dismantled Ely Cathedral brick by brick and then put various bits together in a museum to 'educate' people about it.

Which even many Christians might consider better than an alternative fate that involved it being destroyed by the elements.

I might roll my eyes at the self-appointed 'archdruids' as much as you but it's telling that Holme11 is going to be allowed to go in whatever course nature intends,

Yes it is telling that, what might have been an important piece of archaeology, will instead be destroyed.

which is probably what its creators intended

Is it?  How do you know that?

they would have known they were making an impermanent structure.

which could easily argue that they would have no problem with people taking it away from that spot.

[Shaker]

Again I can't speak for others, but I've always been interested in folk religion, folk magic, call it what you will. As a child I would buy books on folklore wherever we went on holiday. As I got older I started to grow my own herbs and explore hedgerows and woods, and I learned as much about the myths and folklore about them as their natural history and uses. I taught myself to make jams and chutneys, herbal oils and dried produce. And inevitably this made me live very much in tune with the seasons. And getting out and about, I'd find old paths, old places, and feel a connection. It's really hard to explain but this connection to past and places is a part of me. I'm moving and will need to forge a new relationship somewhere and it is unnerving not knowing where or how. I suspect that my bookshelves are typical of many pagans with their mix of natural history, archaeology, folklore, and various titles on herbs and hedgerow; my spirituality owes more to Geoff Hamilton and Richard Mabey than Crowley and Gardner.

Lovely post. This sounds so much like me it's uncanny (not so much the jam and chutney bit, I admit), though growing up in the countryside made it easy. Natural, in fact.

[Owlswing]

I would have thought that it was blindingly obvious, considering the age of the two monuments, that nobody on this Earth will know anything other than what archaeologists have discoveered or worked out or guessed. I have never claimed otherwise.

Sorry Matt, but in an earlier post you referred to the pagan understanding of Avebury, but now you're referring to the rcheological understanding.  Are you saying that they are one and the same, or perhaps that archeologists are, by nature, pagans?   

It must really piss you off that both these constructions predate your religion by several thousand years.

Why should it?  After all, I marvel at the Pyramids (c.2-3K before Christ), at Stonehenge and Avebury (about the same time frame), Gobekli Tepe (which predates Stonehenge by about 6K years), etc. etc.  If we take your argument to its conclusion, you must be pissed off that there are a number of constructions and religions that pre-date your religion by several thousand years.

Once agin Hope posts a load of bollocks!

Quote - you must be pissed off that there are a number of constructions and religions that pre-date your religion by several thousand years. - Unquote

The oldest religious artefact ever found is a statuette of the Goddess (a fertility figure) that is called the Venus of Willendorf - from 23,000 BC!

It is Pagan - it is THE oldest!

Actually I'm quite chuffed about that!

23,000 years before your Johnny-come-lately!

Your paganism seems to be based on everything but Christianity.

Brobat toilet cleaner has no obvious Christian connotation at all. Is it pagan?

I would be interested in your answer because I think the atheists have claimed it for themselves.

Surprise; Surprise; - your line would have some semblence of accuracy if it read "Your paganism seems to be based on everything existing prior to Christianity". 

When you stop taking cheap shots (they do NOT make you look clever) and talking  out of your arse I might answer you! Until then . . .

[Owlswing]

Speaking as a grizzled old atheist who isn't even slightly 'spiritual' in the theistic sense but, nevertheless, can feel a sense of awe and wonder - I think that very old places can engender these feelings, along with a sense of mystery. I've never been to Avebury or Stonehenge but I have been to Orkney several times (and if you haven't been, and if you like archaeology, then it is a must).

I was usually there on work business, and on one occasion had driven up and taken the ferry, as opposed to flying, and on a wet and grey late November day when a meeting had been cancelled I took the opportunity to drive to the Ring of Brodgar - and when I got there I discovered I had this 4/5,000 year old monument to myself and just wandered around touching the stones: it was a memorable experience.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_of_Brodgar

Gordon

If I could get my pension to stretch that far, or if I could find A SugarMother I would take you up on your suggest like a shot!

It would be a memorable experience - the fact that the place comes recommended by one such as you guarantees it!

[Owlswing]

As Wiki makes clear, Seahenge was a henge. It isn't any more. The timbers have an academic interest in the way that looking at anything prehistoric in a museum has, but out of context they are robbed of much of their meaning.

How do you know?  Nobody has any idea what Seahenge meant for its builders or how that meaning would be affected by it being preserved for posterity.

It's as though someone dismantled Ely Cathedral brick by brick and then put various bits together in a museum to 'educate' people about it.

Which even many Christians might consider better than an alternative fate that involved it being destroyed by the elements.

I might roll my eyes at the self-appointed 'archdruids' as much as you but it's telling that Holme11 is going to be allowed to go in whatever course nature intends,

Yes it is telling that, what might have been an important piece of archaeology, will instead be destroyed.

which is probably what its creators intended

Is it?  How do you know that?

they would have known they were making an impermanent structure.

which could easily argue that they would have no problem with people taking it away from that spot.

OK - you are trying to turn the atheist "prove it" about various tenets of Christianity against Pagans because Atheists have nothing to prove!

To yo - neither do I - I believe what I believe and your trying to take ther piss worries me not one iota as I have had the piss taken out oif me by the Religion and Ethics No 1 pisstaking expert - The Recondite Revenant - so your pathetic efforts are wothless!

[jeremyp]

OK - you are trying to turn the atheist "prove it" about various tenets of Christianity against Pagans because Atheists have nothing to prove!

Nope.

I'm just pointing out that we really don't know much about these ancient monuments and how the people that built them thought about them.

To yo - neither do I - I believe what I believe and your trying to take there piss

I'm not taking the piss.  I am saying nothing about what modern pagans believe, I am merely pointing out that everything people are saying about these ancient monuments is speculation, nothing more. 

It does disturb me that you are trying to close me down by acting all indignant about some imagined "piss take".  I guess, at bottom all you religionists do have something in common.

[Owlswing]

OK - you are trying to turn the atheist "prove it" about various tenets of Christianity against Pagans because Atheists have nothing to prove!

Nope.

I'm just pointing out that we really don't know much about these ancient monuments and how the people that built them thought about them.

To yo - neither do I - I believe what I believe and your trying to take there piss

I'm not taking the piss.  I am saying nothing about what modern pagans believe, I am merely pointing out that everything people are saying about these ancient monuments is speculation, nothing more. 

It does disturb me that you are trying to close me down by acting all indignant about some imagined "piss take".  I guess, at bottom all you religionists do have something in common.

Read my posts to Maeght - then you will not make any more stupid comments that have already been reresponded to!

You are taking the piss becuase you haven't bothered to do so already!

[jeremyp]

Read my posts to Maeght - then you will not make any more stupid comments that have already been reresponded to!

What about your responses to Maeght?  How are they relevant to my responses to Rhiannon?  How is it wrong for me to explain the truth of the situation just because you have been on the wrong end of ignorant prejudice in the past?

You are taking the piss becuase you haven't bothered to do so already!

Why do I need to read your responses in order to answer a post by Rhiannon.  I think it is you that is taking the piss.

[Owlswing]

JeremyP

As has been stated before, by both Rhiannon and myself, we base our belief that these are sacred sites upon the works and words of archaeologists.

These are men and women of education whose job, vocation, is to investigate and evaluate all the evidence relating to any historical structures still extant or to the areas where there is evidence that they once stood.

These men and women have stated that all the evidence available leads to the conclusion that Stonehenge and Avebury were of sacred significance to Neolithic tribesmen.

Now, unless you are far more erudite than all the archaeologists who have reached these conclusions, and it is more than one, which I seriously doubt, as I also seriously doubt that you have ever taken one lesson in archaeology, never mind achieveing a Doctorate in the subject, I suggest that you shut up, go out and attain these qualifications, spend the next twenty or thirty years of your life on your hands and knees going over the sites with a fine tooth comb and PROVE that Stonehenge and Avebury were NOT sacred sites and leave us Pagans in peace to follow our religious beliefs, including the belief that Stonehenge and Avebury, and various other similar sites, are sacred sites and have been sacred sites for between 5,000  and 7,000 years.

Reference my last post addressed to you, I would have to comment that I really must NOT post to this forum on matters Pagan when I should be wrapped in the arms of Hypnos.   

[Hope]

As has been stated before, by both Rhiannon and myself, we base our belief that these are sacred sites upon the works and words of archaeologists.

'Sacred' sites, yes; 'pagan' sites, who knows?  Do archeologists always specify what type of sacredness a site is?

[Owlswing]

As has been stated before, by both Rhiannon and myself, we base our belief that these are sacred sites upon the works and words of archaeologists.

'Sacred' sites, yes; 'pagan' sites, who knows?  Do archeologists always specify what type of sacredness a site is?

I REPEAT - YET AGAIN

These sites were built between 4,000 and 5,000 years ago.

Would you care to tell us just how many religions that were NOT pagan existed between these dates.

Please Hope, do not try to make yourself look, in matters religious, any more stupid than you already do. In matters Pagan it is abundantly clear that what you know is two-thirds of three-fifths of absolutely fuck-all!

 

[Hope]

I REPEAT - YET AGAIN

These sites were built between 4,000 and 5,000 years ago.

Would you care to tell us just how many religions that were NOT pagan existed between these dates.

Perhaps the 2 most obvious are animism and ancestor-worship.  I realise that paganism can include elements of both but they are, to my knowledge - having spoken to anthropologists and other experts in the field, separate to Paganism.  I remember one likening the issue to Judaism and Christianity; there are concepts in the latter that come from the former, but they are two distinct belief systems.

[jeremyp]

JeremyP

As has been stated before, by both Rhiannon and myself, we base our belief that these are sacred sites upon the works and words of archaeologists.

These are men and women of education whose job, vocation, is to investigate and evaluate all the evidence relating to any historical structures still extant or to the areas where there is evidence that they once stood.

These men and women have stated that all the evidence available leads to the conclusion that Stonehenge and Avebury were of sacred significance to Neolithic tribesmen.

No. They have stated that in their opinion these sites were sacred to the people that built them, but they will also tell you they don't know for sure.

I suggest that you shut up, go out and attain these qualifications

Are you a qualified archaeologist?  Why aren't you shutting up if not.

, spend the next twenty or thirty years of your life on your hands and knees going over the sites with a fine tooth comb and PROVE that Stonehenge and Avebury were NOT sacred sites and leave us Pagans in peace to follow our religious beliefs, including the belief that Stonehenge and Avebury, and various other similar sites, are sacred sites and have been sacred sites for between 5,000  and 7,000 years.

I have not said that I don't think these sites were sacred to the people that built them.  You accused me of not reading your posts, but it seems you are guilty of not reading my posts.  At least I wasn't directly replying to you.

You have no idea about the religions of these people, nor does anybody else.  They might have found your re-imagining of their religion to be extremely offensive for all you know.

[Rhiannon]

Hang on, Jeremy. You aren't stating truth. You are stating hypotheses and opinion. You suggest things that the people in the past may or may not have thought - such as them not objecting to Seahenge being moved - but you gave no evidence for this. I can counter that with the archaeological evidence that people in the past left things to be reclaimed by the elements and suggest that they would have expected the same to happen there. Neither of us knows. I can also claim that Holme11 has been left because it has been realised moving the original was bad archaeology - the two rings relate to each other and can no longer be studied in that context. Equally I can argue moving the original has taught us a great deal about the early Bronze Age, but whether it was worth destroying the site as a whole in order to do that is a matter of opinion, not fact.

You could also try to find some understanding within you as to why Matt gets defensive, given what he went through. In particular you might want to to consider how offensive it is to him for you to liken him to 'all religios' when it was religious intolerance and prejudice that nearly cost him his children and his liberty.

[Rhiannon]

Again I can't speak for others, but I've always been interested in folk religion, folk magic, call it what you will. As a child I would buy books on folklore wherever we went on holiday. As I got older I started to grow my own herbs and explore hedgerows and woods, and I learned as much about the myths and folklore about them as their natural history and uses. I taught myself to make jams and chutneys, herbal oils and dried produce. And inevitably this made me live very much in tune with the seasons. And getting out and about, I'd find old paths, old places, and feel a connection. It's really hard to explain but this connection to past and places is a part of me. I'm moving and will need to forge a new relationship somewhere and it is unnerving not knowing where or how. I suspect that my bookshelves are typical of many pagans with their mix of natural history, archaeology, folklore, and various titles on herbs and hedgerow; my spirituality owes more to Geoff Hamilton and Richard Mabey than Crowley and Gardner.

Lovely post. This sounds so much like me it's uncanny (not so much the jam and chutney bit, I admit), though growing up in the countryside made it easy. Natural, in fact.

 

I didn't grow up in the country and felt a bit fish out of water until I was lucky enough to move. I can remember always wanting to know the names of flowers, trees, birds and insects; I'd ask for books so I could learn, pre-Internet of course.

I prefer chutney making to jam as it's easier, but this is also the time of year for making my (in)famous spiced blackberry brandy. If I can beat the squirrels to them I'm going to plant up some hazelnuts from this garden to take to the next this week.

[Shaker]

I didn't grow up in the country and felt a bit fish out of water until I was lucky enough to move. I can remember always wanting to know the names of flowers, trees, birds and insects; I'd ask for books so I could learn, pre-Internet of course.

I prefer chutney making to jam as it's easier, but this is also the time of year for making my (in)famous spiced blackberry brandy. If I can beat the squirrels to them I'm going to plant up some hazelnuts from this garden to take to the next this week.

I'm having some of that!

[Owlswing]

I REPEAT - YET AGAIN

These sites were built between 4,000 and 5,000 years ago.

Would you care to tell us just how many religions that were NOT pagan existed between these dates.

Perhaps the 2 most obvious are animism and ancestor-worship.  I realise that paganism can include elements of both but they are, to my knowledge - having spoken to anthropologists and other experts in the field, separate to Paganism.  I remember one likening the issue to Judaism and Christianity; there are concepts in the latter that come from the former, but they are two distinct belief systems.

Bloody Hell Hope!

Is there no expert on any field that you don't know or haven't spoken to?

You just will NOT be wrong on or in absolutely anything that you say or think, will you! Your superiority complex is monumental with regard to your knowledge of every conceivable subject under the Sun, the extent of your travels, your circle of expert friends and aquaintrences and your experiences of life and, in your mind, places you exponentially above all normal mortals, and probably, most deities as well.

This seems, in my eyes, that you are saying that you are God or the Pope, the only(?) other people who have claimed or claim total infallibility!

You're not totally infallible! You are not even minimally infallible! Your ignorance is demonstrated time after time and post after post on subject after subject, particularly when you are arguing the total supremacy of your God, his son and your religion - you will say that white is black and vice versa if it fits your argument.

Actually, of course, you could be Christ - you, well your arguments could, as they have been crucified on this forum more often than I can count.

[Owlswing]

I REPEAT - YET AGAIN

These sites were built between 4,000 and 5,000 years ago.

Would you care to tell us just how many religions that were NOT pagan existed between these dates.

Perhaps the 2 most obvious are animism and ancestor-worship.  I realise that paganism can include elements of both but they are, to my knowledge - having spoken to anthropologists and other experts in the field, separate to Paganism.  I remember one likening the issue to Judaism and Christianity; there are concepts in the latter that come from the former, but they are two distinct belief systems.

Both disciplines that are pagan in toto! Thery were never Christian!