Archive for the 'The Reburial Issue' category
Mike Pitts and “Hillside Henge”.
12:57 am
A few days ago, I wrote a post that was highly critical of the way in which detailed information on Stonehenge is not made readily accessible to the general public, as per the Code of Practise of the IFA, which clearly states:
“The fuller understanding of our past provided by archaeology is part of society’s common heritage and it should be available to everyone. Because of this, and because the historic environment is an irreplaceable resource, archaeologists both corporately and individually have a responsibility to help preserve the historic environment, to use it economically in their work, to conduct their studies in such a way that reliable information may be acquired, and to disseminate the results of their studies.”
The aforementioned post wasn’t the first of its kind, and unless there’s a cultural upheaval on a previously unprecedented scale in the near future, then it certainly won’t be the last. However, I was very surprised and pleased earlier this evening when Aynslie sent in this link to Mike Pitts blog and a detailed essay on “Hillside Henge”.
If you’ve not seen Aynslie’s link or the piece written by Mike Pitts, then I would strongly urge you to read it. It is a casual masterpiece – informed, insightful, even-handed and with some superb graphics and diagrams. To my mind, there should be hundreds if not thousands more like it, available for inspection by anyone and everyone with the remotest interest in Stonehenge at the click of a mouse. I don’t flatter myself that this piece was written in response to my earlier aforementioned post, but I don’t know exactly why it’s appeared now, although having read Hengeworld, the simplest explanation is that Mike Pitts wrote it for the love of it. If a few other archaeologists, archaeological practises and institutions were to follow his admirable lead, then we and the people who built Stonehenge would all profit from it, but I’m certainly not going to hold my breath on IFA Codes of Conduct being followed.
The only point where I’d take mild issue with Mike Pitts is on the subject of the barrows. While I share his interest in these structures, I’m not persuaded by any means that the mortal remains of our ancestors are better off in the hands of archaeologists than they are in the Earth in which they were laid, but that’s another long series of posts for another time.
No one could be more interested than me in the recent developments at Stonehenge. Well, it’s perfectly possible, I suppose, that someone else ‘out there’ might be even more fascinated with the ruins than I am, but I base my blunt statement on the simple fact that I’ve been running Eternal Idol for over 5 years. On that time, over 300 original posts have appeared here, along with something like 3,300 comments and contributions, along with countless links, photos, diagrams, graphics, news reports, accounts of meetings and so on.
Over the weekend, I noted that some comments went up here to the effect that Eternal Idol is the world’s foremost site as far as Stonehenge is concerned, and this may be true. Certainly, I know of no other like it, and if I did, I would of course be more than happy to link to this other site and announce its existence to the Four Winds. From the very start, Eternal Idol, along with its study of Stonehenge, Silbury Hill and our ancestors has been a labour of love, with others choosing to contribute freely and for the benefit of all. All of which set me to thinking…
Last week, there was a flurry of press reports from numerous sources concerning “Hillside Henge”, all of which have been posted here as links. There was great excitement all round, but precious little detail, and what detail there is proved to be somewhat confusing, rather than illuminating. For example, on the BBC link, we learned of a new henge “made of wood and aligned with Stonehenge itself…”
How? By virtue of the fact that you can draw a straight line connecting the two? As for this structure being made of wood, how do we know this? Thankfully, Mike Pitts wrote a sober and informative piece for the BBC, going into what I presume is very interesting detail for the layman, but the mere existence of Mike Pitts’ piece begs the question of why the BBC didn’t include what he had to say in a more informative original announcement?
More amazing still, we learn from the Independent’s Archaeology Correspondent that this new structure was “almost certainly some kind of Neolithic temple” and that it “appears to have been a circle of massive timber obelisks, constructed more than 4,200 years ago.” Where do I begin?
I’m far from convinced that Stonehenge itself was a temple as we understand the word today, and I’ve written about this before. How we know that “Hillside Henge” was “almost certainly some kind of Neolithic temple” is beyond me, while I’m equally baffled as far as the dates are concerned, because as far as I’m aware, we have no way of knowing how precisely how old this structure is.
As for the existence of timber “obelisks”, I’m at a loss. To be sure, it’s an exciting new addition to the lexicon of the Stonehenge landscape, but as I understand it, an obelisk is “a tall, narrow, four-sided, tapering monument which ends in a pyramid-like shape at the top.” How can anyone reasonably conjecture the existence of multiple structures like this, which as far as I’m aware are unprecedented in Neolithic features?
There’s a mention of Hillside Henge, Stonehenge and Coneybury being ‘roughly aligned’, but apart from the simple observation that Hillside Henge lies to the northwest of Stonehenge, there is otherwise not the faintest sign of interest in this compass direction. I personally think this is extremely odd, on account of the many features that lie to the northwest of Stonehenge, while it is the direction in which the sun sets on Midsummer’s Day and it also marks the approximate home of the bluestones, regardless of how they ultimately found their way to Stonehenge.
Even more bizarre is the fact that yet another large wooden henge or temple with a curious feature at its centre lies ‘somewhere to the northwest of Stonehenge’, but this latest ‘most exciting discovery in 50 years or so’ has not even been reported! Its existence is well-known in certain archaeological circles and has been for some time, but for a multitude of truly fascinating reasons, no press release has been issued and it’ll probably be quietly forgotten until such time as it suits someone to release news of this latest discovery.
So, it might well be that if you’re reading this, then you have a genuine interest in the landscape of Stonehenge and are following the advice given by Mike Pitts on page 299 of Hengeworld – “Perhaps now, having read this far, you feel like having a go at working it (the mystery of Stonehenge) out for yourself. I recommend you do. There is something quite special about deep contemplation of our ancestors….” However, if you’re a member of the public and you’re having a serious stab at studying Stonehenge, then you might as well forget it because there’s something huge ‘out there’ that you don’t know about and won’t know about, either, so you can’t include it in your calculations. Ah well, you read the new new Henge here first, while you’ve also read about yet another huge and unrecorded prehistoric feature here first, but I’ll write more about this last one in a separate post as soon as I get a chance.
Otherwise, as far as the current “New Henge” or “Hillside Henge” is concerned, I’m mystified by how little detail has gone into the official reports, while it strikes me that the aforementioned contribution by Mike Pitts on the BBC is a welcome addition as far as those with a genuine interest in the monument are concerned. The other reports strike me as simply a means of cashing in on the universal interest in Stonehenge, which further perpetuates my belief that the monument is far more of a ‘cash cow’ than a real site deserving of respect, study and veneration.
You’ll find other links to “Hillside Henge” on this site, sent in by enthusiasts, but they pretty much repeat the information in the original press releases. There’s some confusion about the precise location of Hillside Henge, which may have been intended from the start, but for those many people with a genuine interest in the place, I have to wonder why it’s left to Alex Down to visit the site and take measurements and photographs, to Juris Ozols in Minnesota to produce further contributions and graphics, and for me to write it all up and publish it. While I’m on the subject of contributors, I’m extremely grateful to my friend Lee Smeaton – a metal detectorist of all people, but as good a friend of our heritage as you could wish to meet – for taking the time and trouble to send in the enhanced photos (below), that may throw some further light on Hillside Henge.
Hillside Henge aside for now, why is it that Eternal Idol is regarded by some as the foremost site on Stonehenge, when by rights, there should be other contenders fiercely contesting this title?
I’ve spoken before with admiration about the Stonehenge Riverside Project and this admiration remains. They been excavating in the Stonehenge landscape for years, allowing visitors to watch the excavations and providing open days where anyone is free to question the archaeologists and wander around the sites. The SRP has come up with a host of fascinating discoveries in recent times, but while their website isn’t bad, it’s hardly up to date and brimful with information. Mike Parker Pearson has given talks on Stonehenge and he’s taken part in documentaries, all of which were informative and intriguing, but the blunt fact remains that while the people in charge of the SRP are a mine of experienced information, there’s not a lot of this on the internet, which is to my mind a very great shame.
Before I move on, I should point out (again) another major shortcoming in British archaeology. I’ve spoken to many senior archaeologists over the years who specialise in the study of Stonehenge (and Silbury Hill) and I’ve been fascinated to learn what they have to say in private conversations. However, these men have to be exceedingly careful with their public pronouncements because there’s a great deal of professional envy and resentment ‘out there’, from others who go over their printed words with a fine toothcomb, ready to pounce on any syllable deemed to be unprofessional, speculative or populist. Now, you might think that I’ve done exactly the same thing with what I’ve said about Hillside Henge, but while I was admittedly startled by Prof Gaffney’s announcement that “This (Hillside Henge) is probably the first major ceremonial monument that has been found in the past 50 years or so”, because the recent discovery of Bluestonehenge seems to have slipped his memory, I’m more disappointed by officialdom’s fleeting and inaccurate coverage of this new discovery.
The next contender for the person or organisation who should have the best Stonehenge site on the internet is Wessex Archaeology, not least because they use a stylised trilithon as their company logo in an obvious attempt to cash in on Stonehenge’s global reputation; where do I begin?
Apart from using a stylised Stonehenge trilithon, Wessex Archaeology undertook the Stonehenge A303 Test Pit Project in 2002 and I should know, because I worked on it. Archaeologists employed by Wessex Archaeology discovered the world-famous Amesbury Archer or King of Stonehenge and again, I should know because I was one of the first to see the remains and artefacts close up, while I was also involved in the many broadcasts made about this discovery, as I was one half of the laughably-termed Media and Communications Department.
Archaeologists employed by Wessex Archaeology excavated the Boscombe Bowmen or ‘Builders of Stonehenge’, another discovery I was intimately involved with throughout, while archaeologists employed by Wessex Archaeology have been present at numerous other Stonehenge-related discoveries over the years. Yet another was the laser-scanning of Stonehenge, carried out in 2003 by Wessex Archaeology and Archaeoptics, but I think it’s fair to say that the Stonehenge expertise gathered at Wessex Archaeology is not proportionately represented on their website. One might find this mildy surprising, when one also considers the size of their IT Department, the existence of a Media & Communications Department, their self-proclaimed status as an Educational Charity and the fact that the Chief Executive of Wessex Archaeology, Ms Sue Davies, was recently elected Vice Chairperson of the United Kingdom National Commission for UNESCO.
Stonehenge is of course a UNESCO World Heritage site, situated not only in the United Kingdom, but also a mere stone’s throw away from the majestic offices of Wessex Archaeology. Chief Executives and Heads of Department at Wessex Archaeology are paid far better than I am, they have a lot more free time on their hands than I do, they have better access to Stonehenge, related projects and related experts than I do and they have vastly superior computer technology, yet their website is hardly a cornucopia of information as far as Stonehenge is concerned. And as the icing on the cake, as it were, the staff at Wessex have been banned from accessing Eternal Idol from their workplace, while anyone found attempting to do so faces some pretty unforgiving questioning.
I’ll have far more to say about Wessex Archaeology and Stonehenge as the year progresses, but I will simply leave you to ponder why this institution isn’t aiming to be the first stop for Stonehenge information on the internet. Mystifying though this situation is, it seems positively straightforward in comparison with the current status of English Heritage, as far as Stonehenge is concerned.
If Wessex Archaeology are well-connected and comfortably off in terms of Stonehenge connections, then English Heritage, as the current custodians of the ruins, are faced with what is self-evidently an embarrassment of riches. And yet, when we glance at their website, which most reasonable people might expect to be the last word in instantly accessible and comprehensible information on Stonehenge, we find very little indeed.
When I type “Stonehenge English Heritage” into Google, I get this result for the homepage, and while there are some tabs, which I’ll come to shortly, the rest of the page is dominated by ticket prices and exhortations to spend money in the visitors’ shop, buying membership and so on. The spirit of Mammon is alive and well here, but what happens when we turn to Explore Stonehenge and the Interactive Map?
Now, it may well be that I’ve missed something amidst this veritable treasure-trove of up-to-date information on Stonehenge, as maintained up its custodians, but I’d be grateful to anyone who can point out updates on:
Hillside Henge, “probably the first major ceremonial monument that has been found in the past 50 years or so.”
Bluestonehenge, “one of the most important prehistoric finds in decades.”
Professors Wainwright and Darvill’s 2008 excavation at Stonehenge, the first since 1964 and the subject of a BBC Timewatch special, in conjunction with the Smithsonian Museum. Good Lord – there IS a page on this!
The filming of an episode of Dr Who, one of the most famous, popular and successful sci-fi series of all time, at Stonehenge.
The discovery that Stonehenge was a royal cemetery.
The news that the 56 Aubrey Holes may once have held bluestones.
The removal of the Ancestors from Aubrey Hole 7.
The subsequent Druid picket of Stonehenge.
The Amesbury Archer or The King of Stonehenge.
The Boscombe Bowmen or The Builders of Stonehenge.
I could go on and on and on, but you’d be better of simply scrolling through Eternal Idol to find everything that’s not featured there. Druid links with Stonehenge, Aborigines performing dances at Stonehenge, Pytheas of Massilia, Stonehedge, Stonehump….you name it, it can’t be found.
What of the appearance of The Ancestor at Stonehenge? Perhaps I’m looking in the wrong place, so let’s have a look at the Summer Solstice 2010 tab. Well, that’s odd – no mention of The Ancestor, no pictures, no reference to the extensive media coverage, no mention of this unique cultural event, no mention of the first time a giant’s appeared at Stonehenge since Geoffrey of Monmouth described the monument being built by such creatures…nothing.
This complete absence of competition for Eternal Idol can’t be put down to a lack of funding – Stonehenge receives something like 1,000,000 visitors a year at around six pounds a head, so when you add sales from the shop, parking and God only knows what else into the pot, there should be more than enough to pay for someone to post a few updates every few days. But apparently not.
As you’ll see on the Explore Stonehenge page, there is a list of handsome credits, which I’ll reproduce here “This interactive map was funded by the New Opportunity Fund and created by Oxford ArchDigital in April 2004. The project was led by Isabelle Bedu, the Stonehenge World Heritage Site Coordinator, in collaboration with the English Heritage web team and the Wiltshire County Council project Window On Wiltshire. A huge thank you to Helen Shalders, Kate Turnbull, Fiona Ryan, Graham Sear, Margaret Cook, Vuk Trifkovic, Tom Goskar, Damian Grady, Helena Cave-Penney, Amanda Chadburn and all the others involved in the project.”
Well, Tom Goskar was a former colleague of mine at Wessex Archaeology and I understand that he’s now occupying the dizzy heights of management, but while I’ve long lost touch with him, it looks from the above as if 2004 was the last time he made any serious attempt to put original information about Stonehenge into the public domain, although I’m always prepared to learn otherwise.
As for Amanda Chadburn, she holds some senior position within English Heritage, but you’re welcome to look this lady up for yourselves. I heard her name mentioned recently in Alex Down’s report on the recent Stonehenge and Avebury Seminar at Devizes, in which he wrote:
“Amanda Chadburn welcomed us, and introduced the seminar, and explained that the two different sites are actually just one WHS – that was news to me – with the large gap of Salisbury Plain and Pewsey Vale in between. She explained that it’s proposed that an Archaeological Research Group be set up for the whole WHS, and asked for ideas to help frame its terms of reference. I’ve sent mine, and I bet that the readership here has a whole lot more.”
Well, I’ve had what I flatter myself is a brilliant idea, Amanda – why don’t you, and all those others who currently occupy well-paid and stratospheric positions in the world of Stonehenge archaeology, start pulling your fingers out and start making more than a token effort to show an interest in Stonehenge? If you want suggestions to help frame terms of reference for an Archaeological research Group for the Stonehenge World Heritage site, might it not be big help if all concerned updated their websites more than just the once every few years? The IFA’s rules and regulations aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on, but somewhere among all the dross is a real gem, which is worth reproducing here:
“The fuller understanding of our past provided by archaeology is part of society’s common heritage and it should be available to everyone. Because of this, and because the historic environment is an irreplaceable resource, archaeologists both corporately and individually have a responsibility to help preserve the historic environment, to use it economically in their work, to conduct their studies in such a way that reliable information may be acquired, and to disseminate the results of their studies.”
Around four and a half thousand years ago, our ancestors embarked on an unimaginable labour, dragging vast quantities of stone many miles across rough terrain to a site their ancestors before them had chosen to venerate many millennia before. Using nothing more than mauls and their bare hands, they fashioned these rough stones and erected them into a monument that is regarded as a true Wonder of the World, a now-crumbling set of ruins that draws visitors from around the planet to stare in open-mouthed admiration, awe and bafflement.
However, their descendants – those tasked by society to investigate, record, safeguard and disseminate the information pertaining to this Wonder of the World – simply find it beyond their abilities to create an official and accessible repository of knowledge on the internet worthy of the name, let alone update it in a meaningful fashion; as for a visitors centre – forget it. All this despite enjoying facilities, benefits and a standard of living incomprehensible to those long dead men and women whose remains are now scattered throughout the landscape, in museums and university laboratories.
So, I ask again “How much longer must this utter travesty continue?”
It has never been a problem to write for Eternal Idol, aside from finding the time to do so. Time is something that’s been in extremely short supply recently for a number of reasons, but I’m certainly not complaining. I’m extremely grateful to everyone for all the correspondence I receive, with suggestions, new material, new information, new ideas, photographs, diagrams, offers to investigate localities and so forth; as I’ve mentioned numerous times, I have a backlog of posts to complete and publish, while there are ongoing investigations such as that into the Spoils of Annwn, on a separate static page, but there are others still that keep my attention.
In addition to all this, I’ve been working non-stop on two separate projects and I’ll post something up about these as soon as I can. I’m always mindful of the observation “Men talk of killing time, while time quietly kills them”, so I couldn’t be happier that I have so many things to engage me, but back to the matter of writing. I’m generally satisfied with what I’ve posted here over the years, although I’m painfully aware that some pieces could be a great deal better. Every now and again, however, something comes along that makes me wonder why I bother with the keyboard at all, and one such occasion came about as a result of watching a video sent in by Red Raven, one of Eternal Idol’s many prolific and insightful contributors.
To cut a long and involved story short, the video was made to promote a song called “Roots” by a folk band called Show of Hands. This is turn led me to being contacted by another visitor, Yvonne, who informed me of a play in the West End of London called Jerusalem. She was kind enough to transcribe and send on the text in the programme, and I was so taken aback by what I read that I contacted the author, Paul Kingsnorth.
Paul very kindly allowed me to reproduce his words here, so I would urge you all to visit the various links I’ve supplied for Paul’s site and for the play, while you might also like to see this review in the Guardian, which echoes my thoughts on Paul’s writing. There are many reasons I’ve reproduced Paul’s brilliant essay, one being that I am of course intensely interested in the legends of Jesus visiting Britain, while I’m also fascinated by tales of supernatural creatures emerging from barrows. Paul’s work also reinforces an idea I’ve mentioned here several times before, where I’ve quoted the late Ralph Whitlock, from his wonderful book In Search of Lost Gods:
“Against the backdrop of human settlement in Britain, even the Celts were relative newcomers. As warlike invaders they started to arrive in Britain about the middle of the first millennium BC, but before that the island had an unwritten history of at least two thousand years. The Celts came in no great numbers, imposing themselves as an aristocracy on the older races, and it is unlikely that they initiated a great religious upheaval. Rather, their own beliefs were probably grafted on or merged with those of a much older religion.
Thus, in our search for the old gods, we may well find traces of those who had commanded the worship of men in the days when Stonehenge was young…”
Most of all, however, I’ve reproduced Paul’s words in the hope that anyone reading this will enjoy them one half as much as I did, so without further ado, here is the work in question:
[This article is taken from the programme of the play JERUSALEM and is followed by the words of William Blake's Jerusalem on a separate page]
OAK, ASH AND THORN
Paul Kingsnorth is the author of Real England, The Battle Against the Bland
Before the Normans arrive in 1066, and began to unravel the English sense of self at the tip of a sword, everyone in the country would have known the story of Wayland the Smith. Travelling storytellers – gleemen or scopmen as they were known – would have trawled his tale from village to town to port, embellishing it in the telling but keeping the basic spine of the story intact. The legend told of how Wayland, or Weland, a blacksmith whose works were the wonder of the world, was enslaved and crippled by a greed-blinded king and forced to work for him alone, and how he enacted his revenge in the most terrible way. The story of Wayland spoke to Old English society of themes at once specific and universal: power misused, leaders blinded by cupidity, ordinary men wronged and out for revenge. If we were searching for a foundation myth for the English people, the story of Wayland would be a strong contender.
Who in England knows the legend of Wayland today? The English, notoriously, have a blind spot when it comes to their myths, the legends of their past and their people, their folk tales and their origins. This is not something that could be said of any of the other peoples of the Biritsh Isles. The Scots and the Irish share Cuchulainn and the legends of Finn, and celebrate any number of ancient and modern folk heroes; the Welsh have the Mabinogion and the re-invented Druids, and lay claim (in rivalry with the Cornish) to Arthur and Merlin. Britain’s ethnic minorities bring stories, folk legends, songs and still-living religions from India, Africa, eastern Europe and elsewhere.
But the English are strangely quiet about their deep past; disconnected, embarrassed. It’s a curious thing, for the country is full of living reminders of its mythical history and prehistory, from the green men on the lintels of old churches to maypoles and even Christmas trees. But the English have nothing to rival the Mabinogion. They have no W.B. Yeats or Dylan Thomas, diverting old myths through new channels. What are the foundation myths of the English. Who are their folk heroes? When they look for a mystical past, why do they turn to the Celts? Where did they come from, who built their landscape? Why are the barrows silent and where have the faeries gone?
It’s not as if the stories aren’t there waiting to be found. The old English tales are as deep, as archetypal, as any other myth cycle. As well as Wayland, the Old English pantheon included one-eyed Woden, also known as Grim, god of the slain, who walked the high downs with his familiars – the raven and the wolf – looking down on the world of men. There was great Thunor with his hammer of fire and his sacred groves, and Frig, Woden’s consort, pagan matriarch and goddess of the green. There were Balder and Ing and others long-forgotten, whose swords and carved idols are still dragged up today from riverbeds and bogs. There were orcs and ents, dwarves and elves, demon hounds and giants in the landscapes and mindscapes of England long before they re-emerged in the pages of Tolkien.
These were the gods and the demons of the Old English; dead but not resurrected, unlike their Celtic forbears or Christian conquerors. But the myths of a nation are about more than gods; they are about the folk legends, the small stories, the culture that grows from season and place. In England this gives us, amongst others, the strange mystery of the green man, his foliate head carved on churches, over centuries, a heathen riposte on a Christian building. Who is he? If we once knew we have forgotten, like we have forgotten Jack in the Green and the origins of Robin Hood; like we have forgotten Hereward the Wake and Eadric the Wild and Jack Cade, like we have forgotten the craft of the village witch and the story of the wind smith, the meaning of the white horses and the ballads of the sea.
Times change and the world moves on. Perhaps the English have forgotten because they wanted to forget. Perhaps English is such a self-confident, forward-looking nation that it doesn’t need to bolster its self-image with half=remembered stories from a dead world. But it doesn’t seem that way to me. Rather the opposite: it seems as if, for some reason, the English are afraid of their myths – intimidated by their stories, maybe even by their past. For whatever political, sociological or historical reason – take your pick, according to your inclinations, from a ragbag of defendants that includes the Norman Conquest, the Reformation, the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, political correctness or the simple process of historical forgetting – we do not seem inclined to dig into the barrows and unearth the old hoards. Maybe we are afraid of seeing our faces in the reflection.
Over a century ago, in Puck of Pook’s Hill, Rudyard Kipling resurrected Puck, the impish faerie that Shakespeare had himself laid down from the collective memory centuries before. In Kipling’s tale, Puck is the last of the faeries, “the oldest Old Thing in England”, summoned accidentally from his barrow by theatrically-minded children. The first tale he tells them is the tale of Wayland the Smith.
And so the cycle continues. Because though we have forgotten much in England, we don’t have the option of leaving the past behind. No-one ever does. Weirdly, obtusely, at the margins and from the corners of your eyes, the old myths can still be seen. A hundred years on from Kipling, the long barrow on the Ridgeway near White Horse Hill is still known as Wayland’s Smith; the old smith, it is said, will shoe any horse left there overnight if a coin is placed on the stones. The third day of the week is still Woden’s Day, the green men on the cathedral ceilings receive coats of fresh paint, and every May Day, even now, the strange green dance goes on in crevices and byways while most of the nation is driving to the out-of-town retail park.
This is the England of Johnny Byron, a post-modern Puck, a dangerous spirit of the old world and the new, leading the children astray, telling them stories, a story himself. The old gods are still with us, and the myths. Not because we have held onto them, but because they have held onto us. We tried to banish them, like the council tries to banish Johnny from his wood and the developers try to banish the woods themselves. But like Puck, they linger in the barrows long after they were supposed to be gone. “I came into England with Oak, Ash and Thorn” says Puck in Kipling’s tale, “and when Oak, Ash and Thorn are gone I shall go too.” Perhaps when climate change comes to England it will banish the oak and the ash and the thorn, but more likely they will cling on, like Puck and Jonny and Wayland and Grim, like lichen on bark or moss on stone, impossible to shift, so common as to go unnoticed unless we go out and search for them.
Unlock the Gates of Janus
1:58 am
The Reburial Issue is a highly contentious subject and it’s one that’s currently occupying the minds of many people on both sides of the Great Divide. Over the course of 2009, there were a few occasions when I considered writing a lengthy contribution of my own on the subject and publishing it here on Eternal Idol, but I quickly decided that there would be no real point.
Show me more… »
There are a number of aspects of Stonehenge that I find baffling, but one thing that confuses me more and more is the Reburial Issue, specifically the argument concerning the return of the ancestors to Aubrey Hole 7. Top of the World, Ma!
9:45 pm
Over the past three or four months, I’ve had to point out that I’m getting less and less time to write for Eternal Idol, while at the same time, there seems to be more and more to write about. These circumstances can occasionally be trying, when I find myself inundated with various communications and ‘things to do’, but most of the time, it’s simply frustrating because there aren’t enough hours in the day to work on something that gives me such enjoyment.
Show me more… »
Shades of Gray
1:07 am
Earlier today, I had a few hours of enforced idleness, so I grabbed a small handful of books that were lying around in my study. For the first time in many years, I read Thomas Gray’s Elegy in a Country Churchyard and two of these beautiful verses or stanzas put me in mind of the ancestors at Stonehenge who are the centre of the current Reburial Issue. Whatever advances may come in science, I doubt we’ll ever know precisely who these people were or what their individual skills or inclinations may have been – to my mind, this yearning of ours to know more about these people was captured perfectly by Gray’s genius:
Show me more… »
Druids, Reburial & Red Ice Creations
11:43 pm
I hear that Frank Somers, the leading Stonehenge Druid, has recently been interviewed by the Heritage Key site, which recently carried a report on Bluestonehenge by the writer and Egyptologist Charlotte Booth. Perhaps the planned celebrations for my impending 50th birthday are making me aware of my advanced age, but I couldn’t help noticing that Charlotte was born at around the time I was applying to study Egyptology and this was long before Raiders of the Lost Ark came out. Still, she’s made a far better job of her Egyptological studies than I ever did, so I wish her the best of luck.
Show me more… »
Yes, Heaven is thine…
2:40 pm
Earlier today, I was fascinated and very pleased to learn that there are to be not one, but two funeral services for Edgar Allan Poe in Baltimore. As you’ll see, I’ve added the new category of ‘Reburial’ to this site, but do these services for Edgar Allan Poe classify as reburial? Strictly speaking, I suppose the answer must be no, but the spirit of honouring an ancestor and ensuring that he’s properly laid to rest is still there, regardless of the precise issue of what’s happening to his physical remains.
Show me more… »
