Re: Rocks? | Forum — The Modern Antiquarian

Stonehenge and its Environs 134

Image by RiotGibbon

Rocks?

more_vert

BuckyE Jul 18, 2006 00:31:12

Replying to Rhiannon

Oh, I think it's wonderful. Of course there can be instances of long-lived occupation. The now-infamous Chief Seattle is certainly one, no matter whose version of his famous speech we're enjoying.

But what does having one line of direct descent from a particular ancestor mean? Mr. Targett, the new Cheddar Man could have had fathers from all over the world. And if, for a hundred generations, those fathers successfully imposed their foreign ways of life on the poor mothers, what's the point of ancestry? Has Mr. Targett inherited some inherent stone pushing/Mother Goddess worshipping/bloody cannibal rite enjoying/[fill in the blank with your particular favorite notion of the stone age] gene from Cheddar Man's mother?

I'm obviously not explaining myself well, and don't blame littlestone one bit for seeing a spat. My contention is that the "ancestry" is what you make of it. It may exist for some now unknown portion of the British population. So what? Our little current spat derives from my reply to Nigel and littlestone's idea that living among the ancient productions of one's British "ancestors" is somehow inspirational; more so than visiting those productions as an "outsider," (my quick choice of word) and more so than looking around an outsider's place. Well, it doesn't seem to have been so for Mr. Targett, a proven descendent, does it?

The inspiration found in the past isn't inherent in that past. For one thing, the degree to which anyone--British, American or Inuit--may be living according to some ideas passed down through generations from the stone age is highly debateable.

For another, the degree to which anyone is inspired by the past--whether actually theirs or not--is a function of what they, due to their education, family legends, natural temperment and general cussedness, bring to their experience of the left over bits of that past. And if that experience includes, as it does for many of us here, foreign places, those places have done as much to foster and enrich the home-place experience as the home place itself.

It's not in your genes, it's not in the soil, it's not in the megaliths. It's in your mind. Which doesn't negate the significance of your beliefs, not at all. Inspiration is inspiration. But to think inspiration is somehow inherent in ancestry and homeplace is to deny most of the experiences that can foster it just as if not more effectively.

I hope I'm making sense! Thanks for continuing to listen and for giving me the opportunity to put ideas in order, poor as that may be.

moss Jul 18, 2006 08:52:40

Replying to BuckyE

"It's not in your genes, it's not in the soil, it's not in the megaliths. It's in your mind. Which doesn't negate the significance of your beliefs, not at all. Inspiration is inspiration. But to think inspiration is somehow inherent in ancestry and homeplace is to deny most of the experiences that can foster it just as if not more effectively"

Thats a refreshing view of how we fall into easy ways of seeing the world. But what lies behind people's particular thinking, is also bound up in their education, reading, culture and "sense of place" which is defined by an allegiance to the particular land you were born in. The "mystical" feeling of belonging has no rationality, poetry often expresses itself through death, so that bones, churchyards and megalithic tombs get wrapped up in the metaphor of death, family and belonging. Most people "experience" something from visiting prehistoric stones and ancestry and death is just part of the fleeting thoughts of the unconscious mind... so having worked all that out, you are probably right....

Littlestone Jul 18, 2006 19:02:30

Replying to BuckyE

Has Mr. Targett inherited some inherent stone pushing/Mother Goddess worshipping/bloody cannibal rite...

Blimey, I wasn't aware our ancestors were mother goddess-worshipers and cannibalistic - though they may have been slightly more of the former than of the latter (but not both as that seems a bit of a contradiction :-) What's your source for that reference?

Forgive me, but I can't also help wondering why you keep referring to the builders of megalithic structures in these islands as 'stone pushers'. The term is both inaccurate and, to those who have both a religious and historical respect for such structures, somewhat irritating - even slightly offensive. The stones may have been 'pushed' but they were more likely pulled or, as GordonP has demonstrated, rowed - sometimes over long distances and difficult terrain. I'm sure you'll agree that moving stones of such size and setting them in position was a considerable achievement even by modern engineering standards - an achievement worthy of research and respect rather than an inappropriate label with little or no meaning.

It's not in your genes, it's not in the soil, it's not in the megaliths.

Ahh, but it is. My advice to you (assuming you really are interested in the megalithic structures of these islands) is to come and live here for a year or two - preferably in some little village where our ancestors and their decedents have lived for a couple of thousand years; come and breathe a different air, not as a casual visitor but as a dweller; wake up to different skies and different birdsongs; walk every day along ancient trackways, reach out and really touch the soul of our land - you may be surprised at what you find :-)