Sites​…but no info

close
more_vert
Mr Hamhead M
Mr Hamhead Sep 29, 2006 07:23:23
Replying to goffik

To be fair to Swastikergirl (or however you spell it!) the few sites she has added fieldnotes to...are very much along the TMA style..nothing offensive..I don't think it has anything to do with Lizards.

Whilewe wait for Goffs thoughts on wells. My view is that most of them are pre-christian and would have been worshiped as places where clean water "appeared" out of the ground. I also think that lots of people who visit stones etc visit wells..but does that mean we fill the site with them?

The difference betwen Swallowhead and St Cleer is plain to see (or would be if there was a picture of St Cleer on the site) St Cleer, like many other wells has been victorianised..it no longer looks old. Inbetween these two examples is St Nunns well in the West Looe valley..a wonderful place where the little well house is built into the side of the hill and the basin inside is covered in lichen and moss. It does have the pin throwing legend..and also is a place where faries abide...it is a magical place.....

...but I still feel we should keep TMA pre R***n and leave the wells to Goff...and to other sites not too far away.

Mr H

S SwastikaGirl
SwastikaGirl Sep 29, 2006 13:28:32
Replying to Mr Hamhead

Goodness me! I do appear to have caused somewhat of a rumpus. Sorry. But if you could only be patient.

My listing of the numerous sacred wells on TMA was due simply to the fact that on the drop-down list of sites to add to this website is the category or site “Sacred Well”. Does this mean only certain people can add such sites to this website, or relative newcomers as well? I ask this, because I was going to add many of the details to the wells last week, but when I came to look at the spots I’d included was bemused to find that all of them had been listed as not valid sites. This actually upset me, as I checked the posts of holy wells from your more regular, male contributors, and found none of them had been invalidated.

Afterwards I wasn’t too surprised by the “disputed antiquity” listing. Wells are predominantly female in nature, while most of the contributors here are male and don’t relate to the nature of healing springs. They predate megaliths in sanctity for very obvious reasons and those which have been sainted, or at least the great majority of such named wells, were previously pagan places. If this needs explaining in further depth, I suggest people do a bit of reading and meditating If holy wells are not welcome on this site it would be a good idea to get rid of the others posted by your other, MALE contribuitors, and delete “Sacred Wells” from the sites eligible for inclusion on TMA.

Alternatively – and I’m not joking – get one of your regular MALE contributors to add the holy wells, and then I’ll add my fieldnotes and folklore. Then I’m sure some of you won’t get as annoyed. It should be of no surprise that many of the modern surveys of holy wells are by female writers, and the male writers in this field tend to be effeminate.

Anyway, aren’t holy wells primers in antiquarianism?

Thanks - SG