Hi Nigel, Thanks for asking the question, as it's prompted me to do a bit more thinking about Thornborough, you may have noticed I've uploaded an interpretation of the Thornborough Henges for the mig to late Bronze Age period. During the work on that, I had to think about a number of the points you raise.

Firstly, is this a sacred landscape at all? I don't know! To me a sacred landscape would need to have a religious significance, as opposed to a ritual one. What I'm getting at here, is the fact that we do not actually know what these monuments were used for, we note their proximity to burial sites and make a leap of faith that says they were part of a sacred environment. But, as in the case of Thornborough, the burials came much later, and for all we know could well be part of a new culture making it's mark on monuments whose purpose had already been forgotten. In many ways, the term sacred landscape is really sympomatic of our modern tendancy to see all of the ancient monuments "lumped" together - the outcome of thousands of years of careful planning. When the reality is probably much more random and non related.

Coming back to Thornborough, we know that a structure that we know of as a cursus was built something like 5000 years ago. These "ritual causeways" are probably the least well understood of ancient monuments. It is possible that originally there were three at Thornborough. The one that has been confirmed ran for at least 1.2 miles in an east west direction and travelled from the River Ure to the location of Thornborough village. If we are to conject a ritual purpose for this structure and we assume that Thornborough village was probably a settlement location at that early time, then perhaps we could see this as the location for rituals intended to expouse mans relationship with the sacred river? However, to my mind, we do not explore the possible alternative purposes for these structures. If we look at our spanding habits today, we spend much more of our wealth on leisure than we do on religion - why not then? Could a cursus have been a racetrack as was originally suggested? One point to note is that this cursus was later destroyed by the building of the central henge to at the time it could haldy have been considered sacred, although that does not mean that any activities carried out on it were not.

So, when we are considering a "sacred" landscape, we must separate our modern interpretation of these monuments as sacred, largely perhaps as part of our own desire to revere out distant ancestors? and also we have to bare in mind that many of the structures that we see as lending a spiritual nature to these monuments actually came along a lot later.

I hae to go now, back later for the trees!

As a non-religious person, I have terrible difficulties with terms such as `sacred landscapes`.

Nothing is sacred, to me.

It seems that if someone with religious beliefs describes something as sacred, then it is!

Well, it isn`t to me.

For instance, the Kaaba in Mecca is probably regarded as the `most` sacred thing on Earth to hundreds of millions of people. Wherever they are, they face it to pray. To me, it`s a stone, probably a meteorite. I just have to accept that other people regard it as sacred, but that doesn`t mean that *I* have to regard it as sacred.

`Sacred` has no meaning, to me.

`Sacred landscapes` is even worse, when used in a prehistoric context. We don`t know if any site was regarded as sacred, a few thousand years ago in Britain. Even if they were thought of as sacred by the prehistoric people living there, I believe that they were mistaken, just as I regard a present-day Christian as being wrong when he/she thinks of their local church as being sacred.

baz

I will add my views on this interesting thread even though the discussion has gone too far from nigelswift's original question:

Sacred Landscapes is a term used by people like Devereux, based on his assumptions about world cultures and the lines that some monuments create. Whether one (partially or totally) (dis)agrees with the Earth Mysteries group or not, one must accept that ancient monuments were not created at random or placed anywhere. The landscape was instantly 'ritualized' (not made sacred, though). Ancient (wo)man was not innocent - rather trying to ritualize a land which (s)he had settled to farm. Megalithic monuments created a 'ritual' landscape (for lack of a better word) which meant appropriation and belonging, whilst being overlooked by bigger gods - many mountain(s) or specific hills which surrounded many megalithic monuments were left untouched, with no evidence of settlement or religious practices (like the axes, crooks or tablets found inside many antas). Therefore those spaces must have had a 'sacred' (i.e. 'untouched', 'inviolated', 'godly' or 'revered') character.

You may not like the word 'ritual' either, but we are as at odds with it as the Romans were when they wrote of the tribes they encountered. Estrabon for instance was perplexed at people going round a stone in both directions alternatively and performing libations. For the Romans, the natives were performing stupid 'rituals' they didn't understand. A bit like the impression my landlady got when she saw a programme on Australian aborigines the other day. For her, what those uncultured tribes were doing was in-comprehensible gibberish. For the aborigines, it's part of their daily life and gives meaning to their lives. However, both the Romans and we are governed by very strong rituals, though our rituals (sports, TV watching, smoking, films, going out at the same time every Fri night, clubbing etc) are not called 'sacred' or 'rituals', though they may be completely incomprehensible or stupid to someone who is not acquainted with the 'rules of our tribe'.

Regarding the word 'sacred', the opposite to what baza is saying is true of ancient peoples or remaining non-civilized tribes today. They do not (or cannot) make a distinction between sacred or not-sacred. This distinction was made much later on. Which obviously does not imply the superficial implication that everything the ancients did was serious and no-play. The kids hid behind their ancient monuments when they played hide and seek near their villages.

Ultimately, is our own perception of Reality 'real and not sacred' or part of a complex set of sacred rituals? Maybe we are just patronizing others who conspicuously manifest their beliefs by following their absurd rituals. It wouldn't be the first time in history.

As a non-believer par excellence I would have to disagree totally with the half-hearted and amateur non-believers above who claim there no such thing as sacred, but then I guess my definition differs.
In any case, our notions of sacredness aren't central to what I was wondering about, which concerned the motivations and attitudes of the original builders. Were they building a sacred (i.e. religious) landscape? It seems often to be taken as obvious fact in much that I've read. Or are we putting our own construction on a much more complex bundle of different motivations that happen to now be observable in one particular location? I guess there are too many anomalies (and I really enjoyed your stuff Brigantes) for it to be other than the complicated answer.
I would add two further complications to the bundle:
First, as I've rambled elsewhere, I feel and therefore reckon they felt, that sacredness or significance attaches to lots of points in the landscape, not just to monuments. When we look at the landscape today there's nothing to prove that to us, yet if it's true we must be missing much or even most of the point.
Secondly, invaders. Once you get those the slate is wiped clean and that which was previously sacred is open to desecration or loss of significance. A speculation: is Silbury 3 a high-tech cruel edifice deliberately built upon the deity of a conquered people, Silbury 1, burying it forever and humiliating them? Perhaps they were enslaved and forced to do it themselves. Scary, but an utterly human thing to do! That's just a bit of raving, with only a bit to support it, but there's no strong evidence it's wrong. If it was right then what price Avebury's sacred landscape?

What a rip-snorter of a thread! I've sat back and read with joy and wonder (They both enjoyed it too but Joy's gone home now and Wonder's wandered off or something like that)

So. I must say that I appreciate what Baza said at the start, but I would phrase it somewhat differently.

I cannot supply an answer to the original question, because I personally consider nothing sacred'. As Baza says *everything* has the potential to be sacred to *someone* *somewhere*, but don't expect me to join in.

I can stand back, look at a scene, look at a panorama, and go "WOW! Someone might consider this sacred and I think I can see why! but I'll just enjoy it for what I perceive it to be - bloody lovely"

I'm not going to start revering it. I might cherish it (or is that the same thing in denial? dunno).

I will never try and second guess the 'religious' beliefs of a people of whom we have no idea about. We have some big clues, but it's how we interpret them that shapes our ideas about their lives.

Here's a stupid thought. Ever wondered why so few people are intered in some tombs? Massive structures with just 3 or 4 burials/cremations in them? Perhaps they are the gates to HELL! And that significant hill on the horizon is actually the gateway to hell and the 'tomb' has been placed *there* so that the lost souls of those intered within go stright there!

There's been a lot of talk on this thread about Nature and the ancients.

First, I don't think we will never know the rituals and minds of the ancients. We are getting closer and closer. 50,000 megalithic sites around Europe are giving us more and more clues in the enormous amounts of paraphernalia, building methods and relationship of the tombs to their settlements and the environment. And, as Fourwinds says, places like Ireland, Spain, Portugal, etc still preserve, believe it or not, quite a lot of Neolithic elements in traditions like festivals, dances or pilgrimages. As far as I know, for instance, no proper compendium of possible pagan festivals has ever been written. As more countries like Albania or Romania open up to research, we will get more clues to our own particular beliefs (even though it is NOT the same, why are dolmens the same or why are long dolmens all over Northern Europe the same? - common elements are everywhere). There’s just been a general lack of talk between European archaeologists as well as a lack of global vision of sites in context (until now).

Now, if the Land (or parts of nature like boulders, hills, rivers, etc) wasn't sacred to the ancients, then what was? Are we implying they didn't consider anything sacred? Because *that* was all they had. All of this supposing we ignored years of anthropological research among pre-literate societies, like, say, those who are still tired of calling their land 'sacred' (the Amerindians), those who communicate with the spirits of the dead for counsel via trance (Siberian shamans) or those who are still building megaliths in a Cult of the Dead as we speak (in Madagascar). Were our ancient ancestors, for some unknown reason, different from all other pre-literate societies?

We are surrounded by so much stuff and information nowadays that we feel so secure in our distinction between sacred and 'not sacred'. For a thousand years or more, since part of the land was consecrated and became God's Acre, we have been able to draw a distinction between the sacred space and the not-sacred space. Any of us who had to spend 24 hours a day outside surrounded by Nothing-but-nature and have to survive, would automatically start believing in fairies and trolls. Atheism would turn into passionate fervour. And we would also become illiterate as there is no need for words – everything is already said in the complex mithology of the landscape. We just forgot how to interpret it.

I am very much in agreement with AQ and Morfe, in this marvelous thread, when they say that the ancients could/would not make a distinction between the sacred and the non-sacred. I think that this does not just apply to their perception of space alone, though, but also to their perception of time. There is an ineradicable urge in human nature that drives us to mythologise the world around us. The world's myths and legends alone are proof enough of that, and neither are they the end of the proof. But it seems to me that this doesn't end with the sacred land alone - what about the sacred sky? It is in the sky that our mythologising of time takes place. All of our measurements of time are based upon observations of the sky. And more than that, all of our measurements of time are based upon observations of cyclical, circular motions. A wheel turning. Ancient monuments do not define a sacred space, they try to remind us of the sacredness of all space. Similarly, festivals marking the passage of time are there to remind us of the sacredness of all time.

I do not believe the ancients had a religion, just a *feeling* for the sacredness of space and time, a feeling that found expression in monuments, ritual acts and mythologies. Its most immediate expression was probably spontaneous singing, dancing, and generally freaking out! This *feeling* only becomes religion when the myths and rites are carved into tablets of stone, usually because somebody wants to control other people. Who can blame people for being mistrustful of the word "sacred" when it brings to their minds the word "religion"? Until we learn to see beyond the narrow definition of the word "sacred" that all these centuries of monotheism and its power-games have ingrained in us we cannot come close to understanding what "sacred" meant to the people of ancient times. Oral traditions have been shown, many times, to be living, growing things, constantly evolving as time wears on and tales & myths are re-told and re-told. In ancient times there was no writing, and in my view that makes religion, as we know it today (with all of its stifling of freedom of thought and expression), impossible. The people of antiquity had no religion, but they were probably far more aware of the sacred than people are today.

That's what I think, anyway...

Thank you all for your contributions, which I found very interesting.

Now, could someone answer the question please?

http://haldjas.folklore.ee/folklore/vol14/sacred.htm