However, his critique is aimed at the traditional definition of authenticity as a construct of value defined by archaeological professionals, based on judgements of the quality of material evidence. He encourages heritage practitioners to focus instead on the relationship between people, story and place (Emerick Reference Emerick2014: 216). Keith Emerick has commented that ‘authenticity is an intellectual dead end’ (Emerick Reference Emerick2014: 7) he argues that the ‘sacred cows of conservation’ – antiquity, fabric and authenticity – have outlived their usefulness and need to be rethought as we move towards more democratic heritage practices. How have archaeologists contributed to the construction of myths at medieval sacred sites? In what ways have archaeology and material culture been used to authenticate religious narratives? What are the dominant and alternative myths that operate at sacred heritage sites, and what are the tensions between them? I will begin with some brief definitions of ‘authenticity’ and ‘myth’.Īuthenticity has been thoroughly explored in the heritage literature and remains a core principle for assigning heritage ‘value’. My aim in this concluding chapter is threefold: first, to consider how medieval sacred heritage is used to construct myths connected with nationalist and religious identities second, to review the role of archaeology in authenticating or challenging sacred myths and third, to reflect on medieval sacred landscapes as contested heritage sites which hold multiple meanings to contemporary social groups. It was common for medieval religious use to be just one phase of a longer-lived sacred landscape – certain places attracted a genuine continuity of ritual practice, while others were subject to the later ‘invention’ of sacred tradition, in order to legitimate a religious or political narrative (Shaw Reference Shaw2013b, after Hobsbawm Reference Hobsbawm, Hobsbawm and Ranger1983).
Monasteries were centres of both religious and royal power, often serving as the burial place for saints and kings. Sacred heritage sites are closely connected to nationalist narratives, both in the Middle Ages and today, for example through origin myths, the stories of saints and their martyrdom, military heroes and dynastic battles. Steps, rails and seat only on part of route.This final chapter examines the role of archaeology in authenticating or challenging modern myths connected with medieval sacred sites. Tor is 158m high entrance to Moneybox field wheelchair-friendly but slope rapidly becomes steep. Some on street parking at bottom of tor but very limited.īlue badge holders can park on double yellow lines at Moneybox field entrance at top of Wellhouse Lane. The church was quarried for stone and now only the tower survives. A smaller church was rebuilt on the site in 1323 and lasted until the demise of Glastonbury Abbey in 1539. In 1275 an earthquake levelled this church. The top of the Tor was levelled at some point in the 10th or 11th century to build a large stone church. If you walk to the top of of it today you will find the partial ruins of a church. The hill has a long religious history with evidence of Pagan and early Christian settlement on it.
It has been suggested that the terraces form a kind of maze that guided pilgrims up the sacred hill.
The terracing on the hillside has been dated to Neolithic times, around the same time as when Stonehenge was constructed.
Before modern drainage, the Tor in winter would have towered above the flooded Somerset Levels. The conical shape of Glastonbury Tor is natural. It's not just famous because it can be seen for miles and miles around, but also because it has huge spiritual significance for many people. Glastonbury Tor is one of the most famous landmarks in Somerset, if not the whole of the West Country.
0 kommentar(er)
