Hengeworld, by Michael Pitts.
Another book with good information that is slow to get airborne. Purporting to be a book about the Neolithic world in Britain, and the people who built the great henges – not only Stonehenge and Avebury but Durrington Walls, Stanton Drew, the Ring of Brodgar and dozens of others – Hengeworld is actually more about the history of the archaeological digs at these places, and the reasoning that goes into rejecting one theory and accepting another. Good for someone to know, and I’m sure academic archaeologists appreciate the idea that someone is going to care enough about their skill and personal idiosyncrasies to write them down for a popular audience someday. Yet I am…less than fascinated by that aspect. If it were just the reasoning bits, perhaps I’d do better. Or an abbreviated history of the archaeological organisations in England and their connection to the henge digs might have been fine enough.
But it does eventually get airborne. What are the probable dates? Were they built in stages or all at once? Do they have any connection to each other? What is the evidence for and against various uses of the enormous structures? And can you help us get rid of all these druids loitering about? (Just to state: 1.) All the hengeworks precede the druids by many centuries. 2) Modern neopagans are connected to ancient druids or to Stonehenge only in their imaginations. 3.) And that goes for their hooded robes, too.) Pitts gives a nice summary of some of the worse theories of what the megaliths were all about.
If you are a henge-fan, you hardly need me to summarise for you. For those who want a summary between Wikipedia size and book size, the National Geographic discussion of Stonehenge includes a good deal about the nearby sites. If there is some interest in discussion, have at it, and I will share what I know about why certain theories are considered likely and others are rejected. The worshipers-on-mushrooms (or henbane) idea is actually quite possible, BTW.
Just no druids. Not even later on. There is no evidence for the neopagan idea that Ancient Peoples, who understood these Mystical Things, recognised these as Holy Places, and held ceremonies there. That's an entirely modern idea, from people with vague spiritual ideas who want to assemble a religion which isn't too demanding from whatever elements come to hand. Added points for anything that predates Christianity - because that means that it's more...well, it means something important - or anything that can be tortured into being different from Christianity, because that also proves...something. I still grimly recall seeing an offering of flowers left inside at West Kennett Long Barrow, likely as inappropriate an offering as could be imagined. Except, I suppose, it does reflect a desire to honor and remain connected with The Ancestors, which is a fine neolithic tradition. Honoring and remaining connected to Mum and Dad is less spiritual, though.
Most people in history didn't have vague beliefs, but highly specific ones, with very clear ideas about what was, and what wasn't worship.
7 comments:
That whole paragraph after "Just no druids. Not even later on..." That's just sheer genius.
The dilettantes of the numinous are ubiquitous.
Thanks. Looks like I inspired you to reach for the stars on your second paragraph. It might make a great bumper-sticker to attract double-takes.
I am pondering a similar rant about "paleolithic" diets.
Prehistory was no picnic.
Paleolithic dentistry!
Back to my theme of what all religion looks like to someone raised in a stringently modern, materialistic tradition: I'm very drawn to anything that awakens the sense of mystery, meaning, or the supernatural. So while I agree that a vaguely pagan style is more a fad than anything else and is no substitute for worshipping God, I still think it's a step up from cold indifference to the whole idea of deity. I guess it depends whether it's tempting someone down from Christianity or up from nihilism.
T99 - quite true. It was a favorite theme of CS Lewis, that paganism was more receptive to Christianity than post-Christian thought.
I have been thinking, perhaps not very accurately, that modern paganism is but postchristian thought in disguise, an attempt to keep some mysticism while essentially rejecting it all. But that may only apply to some, who wish to retain the husks of religion while abandoning it. Those who are more truly pagan - including whoever left the flowers in the tomb - are perhaps more to be pitied than censured.
Yes, Lewis thought that contemporary pagans in our culture couldn't escape the fact that they were really apostates. Fifty years later, there are so many people raised almost completely innocent of any notion of Christianity that the situation may be different, but still perhaps only a matter of degree.
Thanks very much for discussing this valuable data. I might certainly such as.
Post a Comment