You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Solstices’ category.
“People come at the wrong time of year to look in the wrong direction at the marvellous sight of the sun appearing between two stones one of which isn’t there and some get drunk and some get high and hundreds drop litter (and others pick it up to conceal the evidence of mass disrespect) and hundreds stand on prostrate stones, which is illegal, but the authorities do nothing at the time and say nothing afterwards nor about the fact they know the gathering would be more authentic, spectacular, enjoyable, cheaper and respectful if it took place outside the circle. Meanwhile, the millions of stakeholders who don’t go remain perplexed why guardians don’t guard and why exhibitionists are given such license to act in a way that is entirely unconnected with the past! It’s ironic, isn’t it. They’ll roll over and give the solstice attendees what they want but do everything they can to oppose the wishes of the good people of Oswestry!”
Following the recent wide publicity we would like to make our position clear regarding solstice celebrations at Stonehenge:
We have no objections whatsoever to solstice celebrations at Stonehenge subject to the simple proviso that they don’t involve damage or disrespect to the monument by which we mean significant litter, urine, vomit, faeces or deliberate marks on the stones – or any climbing up or standing on them (both of which are not open for debate as they are illegal under the government regulations by which English Heritage is bound).
We feel those obvious parameters should have been imposed many years ago on a zero tolerance basis and we look forward to the speedy publication of measures to achieve them. We trust the reforms will be announced not debated and that they will be judged by results this summer and will be revised thereafter as necessary. To this end we call for the prompt publication of a full damage and disrespect status report for each year from 2000 to 2014 and for each year thereafter.
We suspect that most people will agree and we are heartened by this from the Free Stonehenge Facebook Group: “Just to reassure The Heritage Journal that there are in fact many Druids and Pagans in complete agreement with the Journal’s position and are steadfastly campaigning for something to be done ….” It is surely now time for English Heritage to listen to the majority of people for whom respect for the site is the priority.
(Can one say that about Solstice as well as Christmas? Oh well….)
Scrooge might well get grumpy about English Heritage’s announcement about tomorrow’s event: “The [Winter Solstice at Stonehenge] is traditionally celebrated at the sunrise closest to the time when the sun is stationary”.
Is it? Doesn’t their own latest research indicate Stonehenge was designed to view winter sunsets not sunrises – and from outside the stones not inside?! Yet tomorrow they’ll let thousands into the circle to hoot and holler at the rising sun and won’t let on to them that they think they’re in the wrong place and 16 hours too late!
Shouldn’t EH, not the attendees, specify what the authentic celebration should be? After all, it is they who commissioned the research, it is they who are discomforted by the event and it is they who would save loads of money by not having to stage a massive free shindig inside a world heritage monument in the middle of the night!
UPDATE Mon 22 Dec: Stranger and stranger (x3) ….
From the Western Daily Press this morning:
“Dozens of people turned up to the stones yesterday morning for the sunrise, but were told they had come a day too early” and
“The winter solstice sunrise is the most important moment in the pagan calendar – the moment of rebirth when the days begin to get longer again. It was the moment Stonehenge was aligned for – not the summer solstice sunrise.”
It just couldn’t be better – and is exactly as everyone would like it to be at Stonehenge!
Sadly though it must remain forever an unattainable ideal in Wiltshire – or at least, for so long as there’s an insistence on the “right” of many thousands of people to crowd inside the stone circle in unsustainable numbers thereby creating major Health & Safety and conservation issues.
The minutes of the Stonehenge Round Table meetings rarely disappoint. The latest contain this, under the heading “Special Access”: “A Forum member reported that he had seen a group in the stones during the hours of darkness on 22nd June 2013. He enquired as to who this group were and why they were allowed in the stones at this time. He expressed concerns over their form of worship. ACTION: LB to look into this with NB and report back to member.”
This seems to be about something we mentioned last August: “It is reported that a group that was let into Stonehenge to greet the sunrise a few Sundays back (on Midsummers Day, not at the main solstice gathering) was heard from some distance away loudly chanting “Hail Satan”. If so, should it be welcomed as an excellent manifestation of “inclusivity and multivocality”? Or is it just bonkers? Not the fact the Dark Lord was being greeted (or called to appear? who knows?) but the fact that they were let in for free. Does it mean anything at all gets you in gratis?”
It’s a puzzle why anyone should be raking over very hot coals after all this time. Is someone intending to ask EH to decide that Satan and all his hosts shouldn’t be let in to the stones for free at taxpayers’ expense? That would be an outrage as it would involve discriminating against them on religious grounds. What’s more, Satanists have precisely the same degree of proven connection with Stonehenge and the reason it was built as everyone else who attends the solstice event and indeed as every Round Table attendee, no more and no less. It’s their temple too if they say so. In fact, shouldn’t EH write to Satan and invite him to attend all future Round Table meetings?
Update…. Just noticed, EH’s official line is: “During Managed Open Access for Summer Solstice at Stonehenge, we support all individuals and groups conducting their own forms of ceremony and celebration providing that they are mutually respectful and tolerant of one another.” So all that remains to be decided is whether Satan is mutually respectful and tolerant.
Summer solstice will soon be here and Britain’s taxpayers are braced to pay out another £200,000 to provide “Free” access at Stonehenge, with some of the non-paying beneficiaries calling for it to be extended further to stretch over the whole of Midsummer’s Day. But last Friday in New York they paid homage to the sun in a simpler way …..
The “Manhattanhenge” display was easy to lay on as thousands of people didn’t insist on squeezing into a few highly sensitive square yards to view it. The Yanks have worked out an important truth – the further away from the monument you are the more stunning the spectacle is – see here! As a result, at a stroke, their whole event was rendered sensible as all danger of damage was removed along with all health & safety issues and the need for security staff and special infrastructure. No-one climbed on the buildings, no-one tried to gain attention or upstage the sun and the wider community didn’t have to pay out £200,000 to stage it.
“It was easy!” a spokesperson for the Mayor’s office might have said…. “People looked, and there it was! Why do you guys over-complicate it? I hear you try to run it with thousands of people all bunched up in one spot – and at night (duh!) because a few people claim that’s what their 200x Great Grandparents would have wanted. Yeah, right, like that’s a convincing argument!”
Harmless, simple, elegant and inclusive. It’s a shame that it won’t be going to Stonehenge this year. But next year it will. Surely?
(Incidentally, the Disabled ramblers’ Winter Solstice ramble at Stonehenge has also been called off – due to parking problems. That’s two highly worthy, harmless Stonehenge solstice events cancelled this year.)
Last Monday Amesbury Town Council said they were cancelling the event “due to problems with access to the planned starting point at Stonehenge, predicted traffic problems and rising costs.” Congratulations then to Councillor Fred Westmoreland and the Trustees on behalf of Amesbury Museum, for doggedly facing up to and overcoming a series of objections and obstacles.
The route has had to be changed but as Councillor Westmorland said: “It would be a different route and not involve Stonehenge but it is better than nothing. It would be cheap, cheerful and local. It is short notice but I’m sure that people would want to be part of it and it would be a shame not to have a lantern parade at all.” As big fans of the parade we totally agree. The precise nature of the “problems with access” at Stonehenge is unclear and it’s a real shame the Stones won’t be included this year but so far as we understand it EH are in favour of the parade in principle so the important thing is that there will be a parade, the tradition has been established, and hopefully it will include Stonehenge next year when the new access arrangements have bedded in.
It’s no secret why we are such fans of the parade. We think that public engagement with Stonehenge should involve a much wider spectrum of the public than at present. In addition, we think holding solstice celebrations in what may well be the authentic spot at the authentic time at minimal public cost is far preferable to holding them at the wrong spot at the wrong time at horrendous public cost. The fact that this year the former gathering will be absent and the latter one will be taking place is pretty hard to defend.
The latest “Stonehenge Round Table” meeting has just been held. They’ve been held monthly for many years which is a lot of words and a lot of miles so we were interested to hear it was announced that a new forum for Stonehenge management is going to be set up, evidently so that people can “input their thoughts; ideas, experiences etc.”
The obvious question is: will that be “in addition to” or “instead of” the physical meetings? It’s hard to see how the latter would still serve any purpose – particularly since they have long been subject to complaints about expense, procedural shortcomings and general lack of effectiveness, all of which might be improved by an online facility. Also of course a tiny number of people turn up compared with how many may visit the forum. So it will be interesting to see what happens.
Also, if an online forum is to be launched it would be irrational for there to be facilities for public discussion of solstice celebrations without also allowing discussion of (for instance) the forthcoming admirable Amesbury lantern procession and any other possible gatherings involving completely different sets of stakeholders. A more catholic (with a small c !) approach to planning and designing celebrations or gatherings at Stonehenge might grow out of this simple decision to set up a forum and that could surely only be a very good thing? So again, it will be interesting to see what happens.