Stone circle etiquette

close
more_vert
GLADMAN G
GLADMAN Feb 20, 2015 23:45:13
Replying to ironstone

ironstone wrote:
Broadly agree with you; I've no problem at all with people wanting to spend all day at a site if that's the way it works for them. There are some places that demand you spend more than a few minutes where I've been blessedly lucky to have Callanish, Brodgar and Machrie Moor all to myself for as long as I wanted, on each occasion over an hour. Whether you're there for five mins to take snaps or like to take longer (including taking a few photos) you're entitled to the same consideration you would give others and that includes being aware enough not to encroach if you don't have to. That's particularly the case at the smaller sites where I agree that generally speaking the bigger, the more having other people in shot is par for the course.
Strikes me you're the aware sort so I shan't mind if I encounter you on one of my visits......
A point for debate, perhaps? Are prehistoric sites still 'sacred' places - however you might define that? - or are they now irrelevant, of no use in assisting human beings relating to life on this planet? Simply museum pieces from a bygone age?

I happen to experience what could be described as 'spirituality' at these places... a feeling that somehow the world does mean something. Not in a concrete, definable, measurable sense of course, but within that bizarre, (currently) unfathomable world of introspection. Just electrical pulses. But guess the point is this is the medium we've always used, so for me these sites are still relevant, doing their job.

So would I consider moving if some ignorant, loudmouth, gobshite tourist demanded a 'clean' photo for the folks back home? No. For some quiet, considerate person wanting to take something home to rekindle some warm feeling later? Without question, yes.

T thesweetcheat
thesweetcheat Feb 21, 2015 19:39:06
Replying to GLADMAN

GLADMAN wrote:
A point for debate, perhaps? Are prehistoric sites still 'sacred' places - however you might define that? - or are they now irrelevant, of no use in assisting human beings relating to life on this planet? Simply museum pieces from a bygone age?

I happen to experience what could be described as 'spirituality' at these places... a feeling that somehow the world does mean something. Not in a concrete, definable, measurable sense of course, but within that bizarre, (currently) unfathomable world of introspection. Just electrical pulses. But guess the point is this is the medium we've always used, so for me these sites are still relevant, doing their job.

I've experienced some of the most visceral highs and lows at prehistoric sites. Some have made me want to laugh into the wind for pure joy (in fact my recent locating of the cist on the slopes of the Sugarloaf had me doing just that), some take the breath away with their splendour or their landscape setting, some have a very special quiet and hushed beauty, while others have brought buried emotions to the surface in a very unexpected way.

And occasionally sites have brought anger and disappointment, when they've been badly abused by people.

Purely my own opinion, but I wouldn't probably use the word "sacred" to describe these places, as that carries some kind of "higher being"/religious connotations, in my mind anyway. Any religion practiced at them now is essentially made-up Victorian romanticism, no matter what the druids might tell you. But spiritual? For sure. The high, remote places are invariably a salve and a tonic. Just not when there's a coach trip arriving.