6th February 2007, 03:17 PM
âis your objection to "dumping" in a church archaeological or theological - its not an objection more a museâ
It does appear that these committees were there to contemplate number twos-I imagine that there is a potential for a phd (most certainly at an theological oxbridge collage) for the putting of bogs in churches controversy which I feel is rather recent with a bit going on over time âparticularly from prolapsed crones wondering why they were not being catered for or was it part of the thrill
I have had a few weeks to contemplate this very important aspect of my work and be associated with such things (and fortunately I did it without the 2004 document http://www.britarch.ac.uk/adca/documents...eNote1.pdf
or I might have lost the plot by now) I may as well throw my fundamental incredulity of people who have a large imaginary friend in the sky and I âbelieveâ that psychiatrists were invented for them although I dont believe that it is that relevant in light of my archaeological professionalism.
This professionalism canât help feel that we have very important local archaeological environments in which we are tolerating to the detriment of archaeology a bunch of loonies
In the country most of the remaining fundamentals would appear to still want to exist at the Victorian folk fantasy parish level and maintain some of the most ridiculous architectural carbuncles for which no planner would ever give permission (or regs) in this day and age and which gave direct rise to the cult of Walt Disney. That they have a glut of dilapidated buildings which has seriously ruined their reputations and are attempting some last ditched bunkering around cathedrals and have come up with a cunning plan involving bogs (which they never had before as they are used to expecting the people to urinate in their seats-(bring back the days of church ale says I-they who pissed the most go to heaven) to repopulate the landscape.
Now these people are also some of the best pension grabbers that this country has ever known. They have had centuries of tithes and landholdings âglebes- but they are all gone now âit would appearâ (chancel repairs) and recently have found away to access the funds like âheritageâ lottery by doing various penances (like cuddling archaeologists)- nothing wrong with that and appear to have identified the not new problem of putting a long thin linear through a likely skeleton and in a likely cemetery and its likely always has been a dozy -and come up with getting archaeologists involved with nice reiterations of our practises giddy stuff-why
âsociety that cares for the dead demonstrates that it values lifeâ!!.
Now the Romans they put the bodies outside the city wall beyond and in the road side ditch possibly because they were aware of the problems of guaranteeing âfinal restingâ places and the likelihood that long thin linears might one day appear as the salvation of a small traditional culture using heritage management to rescue it
Somewhen culture decided to bring a thing (might have amalgamated several things) now called a church within the core of a thing possibly called village and bury âtheirâ people around-ish it OR did they? Englands pastures green now to have a dribbly bottom at the core of the parish? Why did churchisum in this country not evolve to contemplate long thin linears passing through its all too obviously strategically positioned reminders of death? I am missing something. Its like the church is trying to turn these places into homes. Is it like they are trying to develop these sites for a house market? call it making homes in churches acceptable?
we could go down the route that traditionally bones disturbed by diggings in church yards were simply collected and put back in a hole or charnel pits. Whatâs going to happen to this tradition? Why have archaeologists sought to justify presence in churches through disturbance of human remains rather any other reasons-wont this affect our focus.
Then there is the sitting in the church tower contributing to the campanologists renditions following the preceding nights celebratory vindaloo. This committee defiantly contemplated putting bogs in churches but only the implications for disturbing the dead and seem to have stuck to direct physical remains âthey dont not say anything about the theological implications of anybody flushing excreta in such an environment or having it seep into the ground. Is it that they will be long gone. I imagine in years to come the new TV framed genre of people flushing at weddings and funerals and as for horror films- endless possibilities of things reaching for your nethers
Redundant churches have been turned into homes presumably those without a bog were sold at a poor price- ha thats why I was there
It does appear that these committees were there to contemplate number twos-I imagine that there is a potential for a phd (most certainly at an theological oxbridge collage) for the putting of bogs in churches controversy which I feel is rather recent with a bit going on over time âparticularly from prolapsed crones wondering why they were not being catered for or was it part of the thrill
I have had a few weeks to contemplate this very important aspect of my work and be associated with such things (and fortunately I did it without the 2004 document http://www.britarch.ac.uk/adca/documents...eNote1.pdf
or I might have lost the plot by now) I may as well throw my fundamental incredulity of people who have a large imaginary friend in the sky and I âbelieveâ that psychiatrists were invented for them although I dont believe that it is that relevant in light of my archaeological professionalism.
This professionalism canât help feel that we have very important local archaeological environments in which we are tolerating to the detriment of archaeology a bunch of loonies
In the country most of the remaining fundamentals would appear to still want to exist at the Victorian folk fantasy parish level and maintain some of the most ridiculous architectural carbuncles for which no planner would ever give permission (or regs) in this day and age and which gave direct rise to the cult of Walt Disney. That they have a glut of dilapidated buildings which has seriously ruined their reputations and are attempting some last ditched bunkering around cathedrals and have come up with a cunning plan involving bogs (which they never had before as they are used to expecting the people to urinate in their seats-(bring back the days of church ale says I-they who pissed the most go to heaven) to repopulate the landscape.
Now these people are also some of the best pension grabbers that this country has ever known. They have had centuries of tithes and landholdings âglebes- but they are all gone now âit would appearâ (chancel repairs) and recently have found away to access the funds like âheritageâ lottery by doing various penances (like cuddling archaeologists)- nothing wrong with that and appear to have identified the not new problem of putting a long thin linear through a likely skeleton and in a likely cemetery and its likely always has been a dozy -and come up with getting archaeologists involved with nice reiterations of our practises giddy stuff-why
âsociety that cares for the dead demonstrates that it values lifeâ!!.
Now the Romans they put the bodies outside the city wall beyond and in the road side ditch possibly because they were aware of the problems of guaranteeing âfinal restingâ places and the likelihood that long thin linears might one day appear as the salvation of a small traditional culture using heritage management to rescue it
Somewhen culture decided to bring a thing (might have amalgamated several things) now called a church within the core of a thing possibly called village and bury âtheirâ people around-ish it OR did they? Englands pastures green now to have a dribbly bottom at the core of the parish? Why did churchisum in this country not evolve to contemplate long thin linears passing through its all too obviously strategically positioned reminders of death? I am missing something. Its like the church is trying to turn these places into homes. Is it like they are trying to develop these sites for a house market? call it making homes in churches acceptable?
we could go down the route that traditionally bones disturbed by diggings in church yards were simply collected and put back in a hole or charnel pits. Whatâs going to happen to this tradition? Why have archaeologists sought to justify presence in churches through disturbance of human remains rather any other reasons-wont this affect our focus.
Then there is the sitting in the church tower contributing to the campanologists renditions following the preceding nights celebratory vindaloo. This committee defiantly contemplated putting bogs in churches but only the implications for disturbing the dead and seem to have stuck to direct physical remains âthey dont not say anything about the theological implications of anybody flushing excreta in such an environment or having it seep into the ground. Is it that they will be long gone. I imagine in years to come the new TV framed genre of people flushing at weddings and funerals and as for horror films- endless possibilities of things reaching for your nethers
Redundant churches have been turned into homes presumably those without a bog were sold at a poor price- ha thats why I was there