I suspect the reaction of many people seeing images of 'pagan rituals' at Stonehenge is to consider us a bunch of twats, in the same way the Gorsedd is viewed by many.

Seeing paganism as something normal people believe, who dress in normal clothes, would go a long way to reversing the common conception. And might stop pulling in those teenagers whose main interest is in the dressing up - oh, and love spells.

As for gatherings of Pagans in normal clothes, I guess they aren't so photogenic.

I did say that intuition is there to guide us where source texts and other evidence fail in recreating the ways of our ancestors (which is just one part of modern Paganism). IMO Heathenry isn't as cut and dried as some Heathens like to make out. There is even discussion in academic circles about what constituted a Blot, or the role of Godi. We all know the heated debates over runes. CR folk have as much evidence, but for different things. Anyway, who made this a competition? I just wanted to point out that the Heathen insistence that they have cornered the market in written evidence isn't always true.

We are so far away from the worldview of our ancestors even the most faithfuly reconstructed faith has to be seen as a new thing because its context is so different, as are the people practicing it. I don't see this as a bad thing.

Do you really want to go back to staking people out in bogs after ritually killing them? I am happy to take my part in 'growing' a new religion, inspired by the old, rooted in this place and time, suitable for a person with twenty first century compassion and knowledge.

I personally don't find many black clad zombie-alike urban Pagans particularly fine examples of a life affirming path (they look like they have spent too long Conquering the Great Indoors) but there is a place for everyone whatever they choose to wear and I try to judge people (when I have to) by their actions. I hope I am alive to see what Paganism has grown into in 50 years. Its a work in progress, like a little puppy or a seedling! Nurture it everyone!

I think theres a time for dressing up if you're into that sort of thing, just like theres a time for having a good old ponce.

What I have (rather vocally) objected to is these idiots who float around like that all over the place "tooled" up and not afraid to show the world and/or getting pissed and making fools of themselves and therefore (by default) the rest of us.

Its only a matter of time I fear before the booze and the tools get someone into serious trouble.

Also IF you are serious about your path and if you are going public with it, you owe it to all of us not to be seen as a mockery by Joe public.

We will never be taken seriously and actually may be looked upon as rather dangerous until certain (and often most vocal) factions learn to act with decorum, and have respect not only for others, but also for themselves.

It is NOT the likes of your Bogstandard pagan or witch going about their business quietly who will be viewed by the masses. It those who put themselves on public display and who "speak" for the rest of us (whether we like it or not) and its THAT, I object to.

I keep thinking that just because our ancestors vaguely dressed like that doesn't mean we have to.

FYI, there is a Flickr Group for the Stonehenge Protest.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/784748@N20/

Oh my Ent, I get really worried when I see/hear people begin to quote the 'normal' word. I hardly regard everyday people [the supposed 'normal']or society as something to aspire to and to be honest if we are to regard normal as 'of the majority' then you can keep it - other than that there is no such thing as 'normal' AAARRRRGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH to start defining what is supposedly 'normal' is no better than being a fascist.

Such comments as the above simply confirm my suspicions that modern paganism is all about being 'normal' and accepted and nothing to do with real spiritual discovery [wherever that may lead] anymore. What one wears outwardly is of little consequence in the scheme of things, what is more important is inner awareness, understanding, compassion, empathy and equinamity. What the 'normal' approve or how the 'normal' perceive things is of little importance and IMHO to be regarded with real caution.

However these discussions (believe me I know all about them, I"m a member of Asatrulore ), are usually discussions about fitting what we know from the evidence about how things were done back then into life now in a way that we won"t be a. betraying the original purpose or losing the sentiment behind it or b. breaking the law. This is the grey area, not how they did it then, we know that....it's just trying to adapt that to how we do things now and the differences of opinion in how one does that.

You were the one who turned round and said about how much more lore for Celtic recon than norse so I believe this started with you

So while we may have the market cornered in written evidence, we still have to argue about the applications in modern life

Once upon a time, I was stood on a campsite. All manner of people started to turn up and generally speaking these people would do one of 3 things....

a. set up their tents
b. decide they dont look pagan enough and strip off and put on clothes made out of curtains a la the van trapp family
c. strip off naked.

I get really worried when people go out of their way to look the part as opposed to looking how they do in real life (be their personal style hippy or metal or whatever)....just normal for them and not some costume.

I find it odd that Sinophyon spends most of his time dissing pagans for acting unusually, then as soon as someone says we should try not to look like fools he starts laughing at us.

Why does dressing like a sane human being mean we cannot also strive for spiritual discovery? Do we have to wear dinner plate sized pentacles and orange bathrobes to be acceptable to Sinophyon? Or coiuld it be that he is applying double standards? If he stands by this:


then surely he accepts people who wish to wear jeans and t-shirt as 'pagan' too.

I would agree that there is an element of social assimalation/bonding that will often happen within any group when it gathers together, whatever its size, that is completely expected and understandable, it is only when it becomes compulsive and factitious that it begins to become unhealthy.

As for wearing robes etc, throughout history it has been a common practice to step away from one usual everyday practices, behaviours etc when focusing on the spiritual, so that one may symbolicaly leave behind those 'concerns' which could 'interfere' with the process of transformation, invocation and evocation. That so many neo-pagans seem to have forgotten this very simple procedure in their desperation to appear 'normal' is suprising.

However there is no dogmatic rule as to what one must wear or do to be effective in ones personal spiritual practice, but a group [or individual] that has collectively chosen to 'step between the worlds' in this way, by symbolicaly employing such practical actions, can and will often create a far more efficatious atmosphere.

Please elaborate - in what way have I done this and where ? What I have often done is 'diss' neo-pagans for being religiously self righteous and desperately seeking acceptance - which far from being unusal is in fact trying very hard to be usual.

This whole thread is about pagans not being self righteous and desperate yet you have decided that peope who request that pagans actually, you know, behave like other people is amusing. The velvet and pentacle brigade are actually a minority but Comfrey pointed out that they are the vocal majority, and you decided to lecture us about the fact that pagans should be able to wear what they want. Yes, they should, and wearing jeans does not make them lesser to the velvet brigade. Yet you concentrate so much on how much you dislike neo-pagans you forget that the silent majority are just trying to get on with it.

As for wearing robes etc, throughout history it has been a common practice to step away from one usual everyday practices, behaviours etc when focusing on the spiritual, so that one may symbolicaly leave behind those 'concerns' which could 'interfere' with the process of transformation, invocation and evocation. That so many neo-pagans seem to have forgotten this very simple procedure in their desperation to appear 'normal' is suprising.

However there is no dogmatic rule as to what one must wear or do to be effective in ones personal spiritual practice, but a group [or individual] that has collectively chosen to 'step between the worlds' in this way, by symbolicaly employing such practical actions, can and will often create a far more efficatious atmosphere. [/color]

[/quote]

I totally agree with Syno' here.

Yep, ditto.

What is normal anyway? "Normal people" are as much a disparate bunch as pagans are. Everyone is different. Only on the surface do most people seem "normal" I think. Pagans are normal people (for the most part) - we just believe things that are not necessarily mainstream.

As for dressing up it's not my thing. I don't feel any need to try and recreate what my 5th century ancestors may have worn. And to be honest I don't believe the ancestors would have "dressed up" beyond perhaps wearing their equivalent to "Sunday best" for group rituals - that's assuming they had a "Sunday best" anyway. I certainly don't believe they would have tried to recreate what their distant ancestors would have worn.

and it certaily wouldn't have been snowy white or ironed or even probably very clean whatever the costume.

And it would probably only have been the ones leading the ceremony that dressed up.

Ah but remember every neo pagan is a priest/ess/elder these days

As many have pointed out, exactly what out 'ancestors' did is open to question, so it is useless to try and interpret their behaviour to suit ones own needs and idiosynchresies.

It is very possible that the 'Sunday Best' phenomena actualy arose out of the above need to leave the everyday behind and dress in something more special for those 'spiritual' moments. That our Neolithic ancestors etc may not have had a seperate 'Sunday Best' is debateable, however many tribal societies today and in our recent past will use body paint, masks, ornaments etc in such situations to atire themselves differently for these important spiritual moments [or even less than spiritual moments] so I dont see why it should be considered so anethema for us to do the same today.

As for trying to look like our ancestors, again that is a six of one and half a dozen of the other' situation. Archaeology has shown that ancient peoples [and even peoples today] took GREAT interest in their ancestors and ancient sites were re-used time and time again, even after the original tribe had died out, left or been replaced by another tribe. So one must ask 'why are some modern neo-pagans so obsessively averse to the use of complementary ancestral practices', as if this rejection in some way proves how much more spiritualy mature they are.

However I would repeat what I have written above, when such 'mimicary' becomes an obsession rather than a thoughtfull and considered practice, then and only then, does it become unhealthy and worthy of criticism.

Here in Germany old germanic festivities are usually celebrated with the wearing of local folk costume known as "Trachten". Here is an example from the region of Lake Constance:

Hmmm....I'm not sure. For one thing, I don't think I defined 'normal' in any generic term, as I only applied it to clothes. For another, I was using the word as a shortcut. I could have said "everyday causal clothes or whatever else the individual participants tend to wear on a day-t-day basis in their lives rather than the faux medieval wear so commonly espoused by those who attend such public events" but it seemed easier to use the word 'normal' i.e. normal to the individual and to society. I'm not entirely sure why that such trigger such a violent reaction for you that you ignored the context and picked on one word in an unusually (for me) lengthy post.



Does it? How strange. How can you tell anything about my own spiritual life or views on pagan spirituality as a whole by my comment that it would be nice to see pagans carry out very public rituals in everyday clothing?



From what I've seen of any number of pagan rituals, and by discussion with the participants, it appears that, for many (thankfully not all!) dressing up is more important than spirituality.

Oh, I entirely agree with sentiment, that spirituality is the important thing. But my point is precisely that: that the dressing up does not indicate more spirituality, and so is unimportant.



Doesn't this point cut across the one you made immediately above? If the important thing is the spirituality, then the attire is irrelevant, as you originally said.

As to the symbolic use of attire to signify the crossing between worlds - I'd say there was a great deal of difference between a tribal rite (which is generally hidden away from prying eyes) and one conducted for the benefit of modern media, or, at least, with the expectation that such media may be present.



I have no problem with changing attire for private rites, whether for a few or for many. Neither do I have any problem with wearing casual everyday clothes for them, or no clothes at all. However, that is an entirely different thing to what one might do if the media circus is present, or even many non-pagans who aren't participating. I'm not sure how one can achieve anything meaningful, in spiritual terms, in such circumstances.



You seriously regard a mass public event such as all and sundry turning up at Stonehenge or Avebury at a solstice as "an important spiritual moment"?



No problem. You tell me about a site where there has been such continual use since it was constructed in the Neolithic or Bronze Age, and what the ancestral practices were, and I can make a judgement of my own as to how complementary mine are to those.

As to how spiritually mature I am by comparison to you, I daresay I'm a complete idiot. I've never claimed to be a teacher; my gods still have to hit me with a piece of two by four occasionally to get the message through.

Oh for goodness sake

Oh and the local biker who showed up unexpectedly having learnt of the protest via America???

That'd be an old friend of mine and I'm sure would have been only too aware of the protest. Though I wouldn't like to speak for him.

I don't go to either place, its too far away, they sound too noisy - not the sort of place where I can 'connect' properly. So I use my back garden or when things happen spontaneously its wherever I am at the time. and because I don't do much ritual then its also discreet.

Never saw the need for special clothes or anything else - just doesn't come into it, I see my beliefs and such as a lifestyle choice that has got very little to do with appearance and so on.

fizz

I think this is a bit different though. Its like our Morris dancers and no one minds about them any more than we mind people dressing the part when performing re-enactments or whatever.

It isnt just about the clothes tho is it? Its about the attitude and the sense that you arent "serious" unless you dress in a curtain or similar.

I am quite certain your bog standard person of years gone by wouldnt have dressed like a priest even if they were taking part in ceremony, but these days (as I said before) no one can be a bogstandard (loving nod to my hubby) pagan any more.

Its almost shameful if you cant "be" someone, rather than just being.

No it isn't. Traditional folk costume is a thing of most European Countries, even Scandinavia- but hardly for the sake of "enactments". The Morris dance descended from Andelusia, originally known as the "Moorish Dance". I hardly think the Scottish or Irish would like to compare their traditional attire to that of a Morris dancer.

Sorry, my mistake, but I was just trying to make a point about the need for silly clothes, especially when we really dont have any idea what they looked like. So hardly "traditional attire" methinks

So then it is the responsibility of those who are AGAINST 'ritual' clothing to state under which circumstances they feel it to be unacceptable and in which circumstances they feel it is acceptable. I myself have no problem with 'ritual' clothing at any type of 'spiritual' situation [note the inverted commas], however 'spiritual' one feels it to be, as long as the psychological factors I have already outlined above, satisfy me personaly and the people involved do not wear their robes like a woman may compulsively cover herself in makeup.

Paleo-tribal rites were exactly that, open and public. However in this day and age where only the few practice paganism the 'robe wearing inner circle', have now generaly become the 'tribe' itself, thus certain adjustments need to be made to accomodate this change of circumstance.

Of course the world is now a much smaller place due to technology, thus spiritual practices/rituals performed in more public places will unfortunately attract the attention of those who do not belong to the 'tribe', so one either ignores their presence and the perceptions they may develop, or allows them to dictate how one behaves so hiding away in some wilderness place where one will not be judged by the unwashed. Of course if one is so against any kind of social 'abnormality' then either practice with a group that prefers 'normality' or remain conservatively solitary and practice alone.

I repeat there is no one 'NORMAL' way of doing anything and it is unreasonable of modern pagans to be so obsessive about such things, especialy about being so obsessive about being so acceptable and so 'normal' - and of course being likewise so obsessive about being so 'ancestral' and so 'velvatine'.

An example:

I have a great deal of respect for 'Arthur Pendragon' and the work he has done over the years for environmental and neo-pagan issues, but likewise I find his obsession with constantly dressing like King Arthur [or his perception of King Arthur] somewhat offputting. Granted this eccentricity has gained him some attention, which in his 'work' is usefull and necessary, and granted that attention has not always been positive, but hey ho one cannot be everything to everyone all of the time. However what I do find problematic is his need to constantly dress like a story book character [Ive never seen him out of his costume] as this appears obsessive and unhealthy to me and thus leaves me questioning his true motives, leaving me less inclined to give him the support I might otherwise give him if he appeared more relaxed and moderate about his image.

Silly in your opinion of course !

Er, why? I don't follow your reasoning, if there was any.



Unless it's a private ritual where the attendees all know each other well, how would you know why people attend a given ritual and how spiritual - or otherwise - they are?



Were they? Which rituals do you have in mind, in which culture?



Sorry, you've completely lost me. A tribe is a community inter-related by blood and culture. I don't think an ad hoc group of people who have no connection other than their presence on the day can be called a tribe.



And I can only repeat that a ritual to a tribe was an important spiritual experience and I simply can't see that happening in circumstances where this modern pagan 'tribe' of yours has chosen to conduct it in the glare of publicity and surrounded by non-pagans.

It's not a matter of being judged or not judged by outsiders, but of whether or not one wishes to get in touch with ones gods and ancestors.



You obviously either haven't bothered to read my post or else have misunderstood it, or else do not wish to engage in discourse but would rather have a rant.



Are modern pagans obsessive about such things? I hadn't noticed. Far more of them seem to want to dress up to every occasion possible as though paganism is a mere excuse for wearing clothes they otherwise would feel silly wearing outside certain types of parties.

Of course, did I state otherwise ?

You might want to check your history with that claim

Or better still substanciat it

Then please explain your position regarding robes and ritual a little more cleearly and what it is about my comments above that you find worthy of so much disagreement. Do you completely reject the use of robes?, do you accept their use in certain circumstances?, do you reject the practice of ritual in public places where non pagans may pass by?, do you think that ritual should ONLY be performed in a place where there is no possibility of strangers passing by?. What do you consider to be media glare? - one camera, two cameras, a vido camera or two or three?, and why you think my interpretation of tribe ie a close knit social or political group [Oxford English Dictionary] is likewise worthy of disagreement - of course I accept that the term 'close knit' is open to interpretation by each different individual according to their own psychological needs and processes, but for me in context with the above, any group of people that feel close enough to practice together could be described as 'close knit' socialy and/or politicaly.

All these points may be worth clarifying, since it was specificaly you that I took issue with regarding the use of the word 'normality', as you seemed most specific that modern pagans should act 'normaly' so as not to give the wrong impression to non-pagans.



You are quite right, one should be more specific and considering there is no records to indicate how Neolithic 'tribal' communities in Britian practiced their religion, there is however plenty of evidence from modern 'tribal' groups to suggest that major festivals were practiced publicly and collectively - the Solstice [which this thread is about] for example being a major festival for most modern neo-pagans. Of course if one was to widen the discussion to incude more personal and or family rituals that have little or no relevence to the wider community then of course Im sure you are right they were not, nor were they ever practiced publicly.

There is a lot more truth in that then you'd think. The modern Scotish kilt is Victorian in origin, just about the same period where modern Morris dancers were coming into being. You are aware that many of what we hold as being traditional clothing and practices were just Victorian revivals arn't you?

That's because it's not much more than a skirt. The traditional belted plaid or great kilt is ancient highland dress.

Well bugger me I never knew that, I always thought it came to Scotland from the Irish, along with the bagpipes

And I wouldn't call late 16th Century (and I do mean very late.... almost 17th Century) ancient.

Old, yes. Ancient no. Ancient is usually reserved but things far older

Apologies for the double post.

From post #171:




From post #171:


To add to that:
There's a great deal of difference between holding a ritual in a place "where there is no possibility of strangers passing by" and holding one in a place full of strangers, such as Stonehenge or Avebury at a solstice. Are you deliberately setting up straw men?



I consider media glare to be people from the media who are likely to turn up, with camera or cameras, to take pictures in order to get them widely published.

As far as a serious ritual is concerned, one camera with that intent is enough.



You've picked a dictionary definition which is modern usage. However, in the context of your usage in your posts of 'tribal' relating to paleo-pagan, that is not the same meaning. That is why I wished to clarify whether you had changed meaning from one to the other. Thank you for confirming you had.

In its modern usage, the word does not relate to paleo-pagan communities. Hence, there can be no analogy, unless you wish to join the dots by stating that modern pagan communities do not directly relate to paleo-pagan communities, and you accept that, but you would offer a different meaning of what 'tribe' might be in neo-pagan terms.

That's fine. However, if that is your argument then I reject any attempt to say that modern practice relates to paleo-pagan practices. I would argue the analogy is so weak as to be meaningless.



No. What I said was:


Once again I would stress the context in which I used the word which upsets you so much was CLOTHES. What do you think I said about other behaviour?

In any case, I'd stand by one thing: when pagans behave like twats deliberately in front of the media, then I do think it gives a particular idea to non-pagans: the idea that we're all twats. I'd be for pagans in who court media attention, in whatever form, not to give that idea to non-pagans. Do you favour it? Or are you trying to argue these people are all folk who only seek a spiritual experience in the company of their own tribe, and who have been caught completely unawares by the presence, at Stonehenge at the solstice, of other people, including non-pagans and media cameras?



Indeed, but you were comparing modern practices to paleo-pagan ones. To do that, you need to say which paleo-pagan ones.

So are you suggesting that 'real' pagans should not meet at any of the larger well known ancient sites ?

QUOTE(Moonhunter @ Jul 5 2008, 08:58 PM)

I consider media glare to be people from the media who are likely to turn up, with camera or cameras, to take pictures in order to get them widely published...As far as a serious ritual is concerned, one camera with that intent is enough.

So it would seem you are saying that real neo-pagans should only meet on private land or in their own gardens, where the possibility of any intrusion is nil.

QUOTE(Moonhunter @ Jul 5 2008, 08:58 PM)

You've picked a dictionary definition which is modern usage. However, in the context of your usage in your posts of 'tribal' relating to paleo-pagan, that is not the same meaning. That is why I wished to clarify whether you had changed meaning from one to the other. Thank you for confirming you had.

There has been no change on my part, only in your own perception. If you would care to reread my previous posts you will note that I took great care to state paleo when refering to paleo societies and 'tribal' within inverted commas when refering to the modern cocept of tribe, to try and avoid this kind of bickering.

QUOTE(Moonhunter @ Jul 5 2008, 08:58 PM)

In its modern usage, the word does not relate to paleo-pagan communities.  Hence, there can be no analogy, unless you wish to join the dots by stating that modern pagan communities do not directly relate to paleo-pagan communities, and you accept that, but you would offer a different meaning of what 'tribe' might be in neo-pagan terms.

To anyone with any common sense it should be quite obvious that when discussing modern day paganism we are not equating that with paleo-paganism - as I have repeatedly stated no one knows what paleo-pagan religion or community involved. However to avoid any argument I did make it quite plain that this was something I was fully aware of, so to keep pressing this point with me is unnecessary and indicates you either have not read my post carefully or are intent on making arguement to salvage some sort of credibility for oneself.

QUOTE(Moonhunter @ Jul 5 2008, 08:58 PM)

That's fine. However, if that is your argument then I reject any attempt to say that modern practice relates to paleo-pagan practices. I would argue the analogy is so weak as to be meaningless.

I have consistetly stated that we have no way of knowing what Neolithic aka paleo religion practiced - again if you had read my words more carefully you would have noticed this is a consistent thread throughout what i have written.

QUOTE(Moonhunter @ Jul 5 2008, 08:58 PM)

No. What I said was:

I suspect the reaction of many people seeing images of 'pagan rituals' at Stonehenge is to consider us a bunch of twats, in the same way the Gorsedd is viewed by many.

Seeing paganism as something normal people believe, who dress in normal clothes, would go a long way to reversing the common conception.

Once again I would stress the context in which I used the word which upsets you so much was CLOTHES. What do you think I said about other behaviour?

So in context 'normal' pagans for you are simply those who wear normal clothes? and that you feel is enough to make neo-pagans appear normal to the rest of society.

QUOTE(Moonhunter @ Jul 5 2008, 08:58 PM)

In any case, I'd stand by one thing: when pagans behave like twats deliberately in front of the media

This so called twatish behaviour is your perception and your perception only, which seems to be obviously fueled by your own 'conservative perceptions as to what is supposedly normal.

QUOTE(Moonhunter @ Jul 5 2008, 08:58 PM)

then I do think it gives a particular idea to non-pagans: the idea that we're all twats. I'd be for pagans in who court media attention, in whatever form, not to give that idea to non-pagans.

I have regularly stated that the obsessive need to behave in such a way is to be questioned, but when it is genuinely done thoughtfully and considerately then whoever is around and whatever their perceptions it is of little consequence. However it is true when participating in an open ritual where many of the participants are unknown, any judgement regarding the psychological state of the group is purely arbitrary. However we all have to make these arbitrary judgements at some time or another and we must simply accept our personal feelings at the time and either stay or leave, according to how comfortable we personaly feel.

QUOTE(Moonhunter @ Jul 5 2008, 08:58 PM)

Do you favour it? Or are you trying to argue these people are all folk who only seek a spiritual experience in the company of their own tribe, and who have been caught completely unawares by the presence, at Stonehenge at the solstice, of other people, including non-pagans and media cameras?

Again I ask, are you suggesting that all real pagans avoid the more public Neolithic sites of Britian, to satisfy your need for privacy and avoid being made to appear, in your view, a twat, because 'normal' people will feel robes to be twatish.

QUOTE(Moonhunter @ Jul 5 2008, 08:58 PM)

Indeed, but you were comparing modern practices to paleo-pagan ones. To do that, you need to say which paleo-pagan ones.

Again I repeat, I have never once compared the neo-pagan with the paleo-pagan I have simply stated that a healthy respect for our ancestors, however we peceive them to be, is quite understandable within neo-pagan circles.

That you continue to take issue with me in such an unreasonable way would seem to be based solely on your annoyance at being disagreed with regarding 'normality'.

I have no idea. Your original argument was about the importance of spirituality rather than clothing, which I entirely agree with. All I am saying is that I doubt a group ritual can achieve much spirituality if it takes place in the equivalent of Piccadilly Circus rather than somewhere quieter and more private.

<snipped stuff which was repititious, boring and argumentative>



Losing your temper? Or do you find it difficult to engage in discourse without resorting to personal insults? (I regard implied insults as cowardly, BTW)



I have no need to try to salvage my credibility as part of this discussion. It's already either completely down the pan, long before you showed up, or not, as the case may be.



No - it merely presents an appearance of those viewing through the lens of the media. The substance is already in existence, but is not viewed through the media lens because the lens cannot see below the surface.




Unfortunately, yes: people do judge by appearance. It's a sufficiently common phenomena as to control what we wear to work, depending on our jobs; how we present for interviews; and other assorted behaviour.








I was talking about dressing up at Stonehenge and Avebury at solstice.



Nope.

Well, now that everybody's picked everybody else's nits, everybody ought to be feeling exceedingly clean and happy. Nothing like a bit of mutual grooming, is there?

I am beginning to think it doesn't matter at all about Stonehenge, what the stones feel, what the people feel. I feel a zen moment coming on. Whatever will be, will be. The day will come when all of us will be gone, and the day will also come when all the stones will be gone - just like the stones of ancient castles that were re-used to build houses. And there's nothing any of us can do about it.

You know what I find a really funny idea?

What if in 2000 or so years time (if this earth hasn't been messed up to the point of being uninhabitable), a new breed of neo-Pagans come about and start worshiping at an 'ancient site', built in 1995! They all gather at these ruins, wearing what they feel to be 'period' clothing (the archeaologists managed to get some of the old forms of visual data recording working and so they are also dressing in bed sheets even though no one ever wore that in day to day life). It also turns out that the ancient site they're worshiping at is the ruins of an old asda store.

Sounds kind of silly when one puts it like that doesn't it?

There was a Spike Milligan sketch in his Q series which did this - an archaeologist in 500 years time is walking through what remains of the East End, talking about the Cocka-knees tribe who used to inhabit the place, finds a post box and talks with authority about it being the tribal god and that offerings would be placed through the letter opening to placate him. Very funny.