Royal Rants
A paper prepared for the Association of Sacred Landscapes
by Arthur Pendragon
1998
Arthur and Cathbad
Stonehenge
I have been asked to prepare a paper on Sacred Sites.
What exactly a paper consists of I'm not quite sure. Having previously written or spoken but never effectively scripted my self.
Anyway, here goes.
I am sure that most of us have our own ideas on what constitutes a sacred site and how or why it could or can be used, and a rough idea by whom. Well, lets look at that point first, by whom? Who uses sacred sites and for what reason?
For some it is for ritual or ceremonial purposes For others it is more personal or spiritual. For yet others, whilst predominantly spiritual, it is of a more social nature, for gatherings. None of these reasons need be at the cost of or to the exclusion of others. A sacred site should give off an aura of 'inclusive' rather than of 'exclusive' and try to cater for everyone, from the occasional pilgrim to the organised event and the Japanese tourist.
And what of the local drunk? Yes, he or she will be discouraged by the local authority and, likened to the leper of old, will also turn up seeking sanctuary or just as likely, a quiet place where they may be left to their own devices.
Most would wish to discourage him or her, or the rowdy teenagers, mad dogs and yobs. But why? Can a site not be just as sacred to them as the little old lady or the village Witch? Can they not be catered for at a Sacred Site? If the Answer is "No" Then I would say the site is not that sacred. For the sacred space within should be made available to all and especially to those who are made to feel unwelcome elsewhere, for this is the true nature of sacredness.
Bye-laws and authoritarianism, in my view are definitely not the answer to the unwanted or unruly. The mere fact that they are unruly means they are less inclined to follow or obey rules. Rules, I might add, that are often petty. And it should always be remembered that this also is their sacred site.
The answer, or an answer, lies, I believe, in re-education. It should not be a case of "No this", "No that", "Don't this", and "Don't that" but "Yes to this", "Yes to that ", "Do do this" and "Do do that" - and of course the word "Please" should be used to request rather than to order.
"No fires" could, for instance, just as easily in my opinion be replaced with "Please be responsible when lighting fires". "No dogs off their leads" with "Please be responsible for your dogs". Self responsibility and thereby self-policing works in practice far better than rules and regulations and has a starting point in trust rather than distrust.
People often light fires at night simply because they are cold. This has gone on for thousands of years, and as long as it is done with respect and responsibility is not necessarily a bad thing. Alcohol, likewise has been consumed at sacred sites for thousands of years and again is not necessarily a bad thing.
One must feel relaxed and comfortable at a sacred site. Many people will visit their local site simply to get away from their otherwise regimented lives. Some of us may find some of their behavior offensive, but then would they not in turn find some of ours equally offensive?
You can not tell people how to behave, especially when they are at rest or recreation, but you can educate them in how they should not. This, I believe, is the key. Not "Thou shalt" or "Thou shalt not" but Please do" rather than "Please don't".
Negatives such as "Do not" and "No" often bring a negative response. Requests, on the other hand, often reap their own rewards. "Please take your litter home" works far better than "No dropping litter".
Notices and notice boards should be used for positives rather than negatives, to encourage rather than discourage. But what if separate people or groups wish to use the same space at the same time for differing purposes?
Well, then again, I feel I must rely on trust. A simple notice such as "This site is sacred, please share it" would work better than a stream of petty bye-laws devised to take into account every eventuality, which in my opinion they never can and make no allowance for what may organically occur.
In short, I believe, people respond better when requested to do, rather than told not to do.
Most sites will be well used by guardians. These 'guardians' are not appointed, nor should or could they be. They assist in a myriad of ways that is not always clear and they vary in approach and technique. They are not always readily recognised but act where appropriate, often manifesting through the most unlikely candidates. Each peer group will have its leaders and its led and each peer group will likewise have its guardians. These unsung heroes, who take on many guises, have always been here and will always be, long after we have departed from this life.
There will always be people who protect what they believe to be sacred. And it should be remembered that this world is organic, a living, changing thing. Structures come and go and that is how it should be. Sites are always there, they just are.
The land is the land. It is very arrogant of man to believe that by doing this or that he or she can change it in some way. It is worth remembering that we, each generation, may only do what we can before handing it over to the next. It is wholly wrong to wrap our sacred sites in cotton wool and put our artifacts behind glass in museums. It and they were built to be used. It is therefore down to us to see that they are used, not abused. This we can only achieve through re-education rather than by order.
There are those who would say in an ideal world (which this is not) we should leave no mark.
Were that true of previous generations and of our ancestors, it should be remembered that we would have no Avebury or Stonehenge or burial mounds or other such places that we now view as sacred sites. It is for each successive generation to tend the land and look after it for future generations yet to come. This is our sacred trust.
There is some argument, as I have said, as to whether or not we should leave any impact what-so-ever. I for one would rather the revivalist movement of the Druids, for instance, did so - thus achieving something. As for me, I could not see a better testament to 20th century Druids and/or a greater legacy to leave future generations yet to come, than the rebuilding of Stonehenge. A far better monument than the Millennium dome.
King Arthur Pendragon
November 1998