Holywell forum 1 room
Image by Mr Hamhead
Holywell

My hero

close
more_vert
baza B
baza Oct 15, 2004 10:52:15
Replying to FourWinds

It seems to me that the argument for holy wells being prehistoric sites could equally apply to churches.

They both:

Are Christianised sites
Are usually named after Christian saints
Usually have a stone structure built in Christian times
May have been used previously by non-Christians
There's usually no visible or written evidence of any use prior to Christianity.

Here's one of the churches on here which I don't think belongs:

http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/site/4529

The presence of sarsens in the vicinity indicates to me that the stone wasn't used, if they had of been used then they wouldn't be merely sarsens.

F FourWinds
FourWinds Oct 15, 2004 11:44:03
Replying to baza

Yes. The same argument could apply to many churches:

http://www.megalithomania.com/show/site/1369

You only have to look a Rudstone, that one with the recumbent stone circle in the graveyard in Scotland the name of which I can never remember, and many others to know that many early churches were placed at previously pagan ritual centres. Kildare cathedral was built around St. Brigit's eternal fire, which had burnt for over 1500 years only to be extinguished by Oliver Cromwell*.

The difference, in my mind, and the reason that most churches do not belong on TMA, is that at most church sites there's nothing left of the pre-Christian temple. This is not the case at holy wells. Obviously, the things that would qualify a well do not automatically apply to every single well.

The association of sacred trees, sacred stones and such things as sacred trout shows that there is good provenence (sp?) for a subset of holy wells to have pagan origins (IMO and usual disclaimers).

*probably not in person :-)