Alton Priors forum 2 room
Image by juamei
Alton Priors

Circles under churches

close
more_vert
Littlestone L
Littlestone Aug 20, 2005 01:23:48
Replying to PeterH

Well, you know Peter, I'm coming to the conclusion (as I indicated in my last post) that this is not a clear cut yes or no issue.

When you say that, "...the pagan stones (were) either cast aside... or kept as some kind of PR exercise..." you seem to be denying the possibility that both things might be going on at the same time; in fact perhaps we shouldn't even be thinking that there was such a clear divide between subjugation and assimilation; we can almost see a similar phenomenon today when a play is forced to close because of pressure from a certain sector of society. It doesn't mean that that sector is now dominant in society or that freedom of expression has been suppressed, it simply means that there are forces within society acting one upon the other until a certain 'levelling' is achieved.

It could equally be said (when you say that stones were cast aside) that the easiest way to have utterly suppressed the Scots would have been to have destroyed the Stone of Scone in front of them. That wasn't done; the Stone of Scone was taken away by Edward I and became a symbol of both subjugation <i>and</i> assimilation in the minds of the English. In the minds of the Scots however it remained a symbol of their identity. What do you think the Scots imagined whenever they caught a glimpse of their Stone of Destiny beneath the Coronation Chair of St Edward? Subjugation? Yes. Assimilation? Perhaps. Their traditions and national identity? Certainly. And what do you think those half-pagan parishioners imagined some one thousand years ago when they saw one of their 'sacred' stones embedded in the foundations of a church? Who knows, though I like to think that they didn't see their old beliefs being completely destroyed before them; to be honest, I doubt if the Church at that time had the strength or the authority to attempt it.

You ask, "When was the church ever tolerant?" Not very often I agree (though as I've just said, perhaps more tolerant through lack of authority in its early years than in its latter). But you know, there's a kind of contradiction here. The foundations of Christianity do not rest solely on the teachings of Christ, they also rest on the earlier belief system of Judaism. I'm not saying of course that Christianity in Britain rests on a pagan tradition but it might be unwise to deny the presence of pagan influences - how <i>much</i> influence of course is what makes this whole debate so interesting and I thank you for your interesting and thought-provoking comments :-)

P PeterH
PeterH Aug 20, 2005 10:54:30
Replying to Littlestone

Basically we are not too far apart and I would go along with the idea of different circumstances applying in different places. Perhaps the church became more intolerant as it grew more powerful.

Having said that, we do have to look at the dates of the buildings where these stones are now found - albeit there were probably earlier churches on the same site. I find it easier to accept the idea of pagan stones being assimilated into the earliest churches in order to win over the locals. But when churches date from the 12th-16th centuries it seems much more likely that the stones would just be seen as stones.

Puddingstone and sarsens are very hard indeed and difficult to dress (puddingstone is almost impossible). So then it seems much more reasonable to see them used as part of the footings, unless there was residual paganism locally and then they would be "put down" rather than honoured or venerated. The gods of the old are the demons of the new.