A Reductionist Theory

[poliphilo]

So Stonehenge was once "the A & E of Southern England".  

This latest theory is based on the perception that the Preseli blue stones are what it's all about -and Welsh peasants- even into the modern era- regarded the springs around the blue stones as having medicinal powers.

Tenuous, very tenuous.

But even if we concede that the stones were seen as curative, was this their primary quality, or a by-product of their being holy?  In the normal run of events the holiness comes first.  Lourdes, for instance, is what it is because a Divine personage once appeared there.  The Holy heals, but it heals because it's Holy. 

Pilgrims flocked to the shrine of St Thomas Becket from all over Europe: some of them hoped for physical healing- and a very few of them experienced it- but to call Canterbury Cathedral a medieval A & E would be to miss the point, I think.

Comments

[wolfshift.livejournal.com]

I saw that story recently and I thought it was pretty tenuous indeed. The whole notion of determining the "purpose" of Stonehenge, or any other such site, seems a little strange to me, in fact. There's so little evidence, and yet so many interpretations. How much need is there really to go beyond "Stonehenge was a sacred site"? What do such theories add to our knowledge? Ah well. Perhaps I just find the impenetrable mystery of it more fascinating than any potential answer.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

You're right, no great religious building has a single purpose. What's Canterbury Cathedral for? What's St Peter's Rome for? These buildings mean different things to different people- and have all sorts of uses. Even very well-documented religious buildings are, in fact, deeply mysterious.