![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/243\/2018\/03\/17-291-Bryn-Celli-Ddu.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nIs this a bad thing? If your initial response was disapproval or even shock, you may want to give the question some deeper thought.<\/p>\n
Bryn Celli Ddu<\/h1>\n
This is the ancient site of Bryn Celli Ddu on Anglesey in Wales. The site was first used 6000 years ago. About 5000 years ago, a henge (ditch and bank) was constructed and standing stones were erected. The ditch is still there, though the bank is gone. A thousand years later most of the standing stones were removed and a passage tomb was constructed. And then it was closed and forgotten for millennia.<\/p>\n
Modern exploration began in the early 19th<\/sup> century, with the first formal excavation in 1928. Some reconstruction was done, including installing concrete roof pillars to insure the safety of those who go inside.<\/p>\n Archaeological exploration continues on the site, with members of the Anglesey Druid Order<\/a> \u2013 who frequently hold public high day celebrations at Bryn Celli Ddu \u2013 assisting professional archaeologists on the digs.<\/p>\n This was my second visit to Bryn Celli Ddu. The first was the highlight of my 2014 trip to England, Wales, and Ireland. You can never re-create the specialness of your first experience of a sacred site, but it\u2019s still a powerful place, and being there again \u2013 especially with four friends who had never been there before \u2013 was a wonderful experience.<\/p>\n Animism<\/a> is the philosophical concept that things are not things but persons. This is easy to see with other animals \u2013 many of us intuitively treat our cats and dogs like persons. It\u2019s harder to see with plants, though some of us are able to form relationships with trees and flowers. And it\u2019s harder still with natural features like mountains and rivers, much less a human-built place like Bryn Celli Ddu.<\/p>\n But many of us have feelings for and relationships with cities, houses, and even cars. If we can relate to them as persons, surely we can relate to ancient sites of power and beauty as persons too.<\/p>\n Bryn Celli Ddu is alive. Kristoffer Hughes, head of the Anglesey Druid Order and our gracious host for our weekend on Ynys M\u00f4n, says \u201cshe loves all the attention.\u201d After we entered the henge, Kris asked us to put our hands on one of the stones and say something we noticed about the place. After we all took a turn, he said \u201cnow say hello!\u201d And so we did. I felt welcomed, once again.<\/p>\n I didn\u2019t have the same experience at every site. Other places are alive too, and some of them are none too happy to have humans bothering them.<\/p>\n But Bryn Celli Ddu wants visitors. She wants Pagans coming on pilgrimages. She wants Druids celebrating the Summer Solstice with her (when the sun rises at 4:49 AM). She wants archaeologists uncovering the secrets of the ancient people who lived, worked, and worshipped there.<\/p>\n And none of that can be done if we treat her like a museum piece to be kept behind glass and never disturbed.<\/p>\n Remember the Starhawk chant \u201cshe changes everything she touches, and everything she touches changes\u201d? \u201cShe\u201d can be anyone. When we interact with another person (human or otherwise) we are changed \u2013 and so are they. The changes can be small or large, positive or negative or hard to tell. But we are not the same person we were before the interaction.<\/p>\n All species \u2013 all persons \u2013 modify their environments. Beavers build dams on rivers. Kudzu does a wonderful job of stopping soil erosion\u2026 and also chokes out most native plants, as the Southern United States learned the hard way in the 20th<\/sup> century. The story of removing wolves from Yellowstone National Park and then reintroducing them<\/a> is an excellent case study on the interaction of different species in an environment.<\/p>\n All persons modify their environments. Only humans have bulldozers, explosives, and concrete \u2013 with great power comes great responsibility. But we can\u2019t not<\/em> change our environment, which includes the places we visit.<\/p>\n Which modifications are ethical and proper and which are not?<\/p>\n While it is easy to sense the welcoming spirit of some places and the unwelcoming spirit of others, it is impossible to say with certainty what places want for themselves. That leads skeptics to say \u201cthen land should be property to be used as its human owners see fit.\u201d But it is not hard to understand that like all living beings, places want to continue living and want to exercise their sovereignty and autonomy to live in the ways they want to live.<\/p>\n If modern Druids are wearing a new path into the land, that\u2019s in keeping with the purposes and themes Bryn Celli Ddu has had since it was first constructed. If someone wants to level the mound and build a McDonalds in its place, that\u2019s something very different.<\/p>\n Actual questions are rarely so black and white. When Professor Michael O\u2019Kelly rebuilt Newgrange<\/a> in the 1960s and 70s, he was certain that the white quartz stones found around the mound were used to cover the exterior. But in order to hold them in place, he had to use modern concrete and steel. Professor George Eogan thought they formed a walkway, so when he curated Knowth<\/a> for visitors, that\u2019s how he rebuilt it.<\/p>\n Who\u2019s right? More importantly, what do we mean by \u201cright\u201d? It\u2019s easy to say \u201clike it was originally\u201d but which time? If we were to restore Bryn Celli Ddu to its \u201coriginal\u201d state, would we enlarge the mound? Replace the standing stones? Rebuild the bank? Take the mound out completely? All of a sudden the question of wearing a path into the ground doesn\u2019t seem very important.<\/p>\n Bryn Celli Ddu doesn\u2019t get anywhere close to the traffic that more popular sites get. The impact of visitors is small and slow. In other places, visitors are \u201cloving places to death.\u201d To combat this, Newgrange allows access only on timed tickets, to restrict the impact of visitors. Stonehenge does not allow ordinary visitors to enter the stone circle except on \u201cfree days\u201d like the Summer Solstice. At both sites, parking and reception are at an off-site visitors center, then guests are transported to and from the monument on busses.<\/p>\n You cannot see the Paleolithic cave art of Lascaux and Chauvet<\/a> yourself. The fantastic cave paintings were preserved for tens of thousands of years only because the caves were sealed, protecting them not just from human activity, but also from environmental changes. When humans enter the caves, our mere presence raises humidity and carbon dioxide levels, promoting the growth of lichens and crystals and damaging the artwork. A replica of Lascaux<\/a> was built to allow people to see the artwork in a context very close to the originals, without endangering them further.<\/p>\n If 30,000 year old art is destroyed, it cannot be restored. I tend to think of it as a very fragile living being that is not well suited for change. If a species goes extinct, that is a sad but natural occurrence. If we drive a species to extinction, that\u2019s an act of criminal negligence.<\/p>\n What is good and proper at one place with one level of activity is dangerous and unethical at another place with a different level of activity.<\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\nThe animism of places<\/h1>\n
<\/a><\/p>\nShe changes everything she touches<\/h1>\n
Purposes, themes, and multiple incarnations<\/h1>\n
<\/a><\/p>\nLoving places to death<\/h1>\n
Respectful, reciprocal relationships<\/h1>\n