Stones with Character?

Pentre Ifan cromlech in Pembrokeshire.  The stones were all collected from the immediate vicinity -- there are many others still lying around.  Were the stones just the right shape and size, or did they have "meaning"??

Thanks to Chris for drawing attention to this.  I have to admit to not having read the article, but I am tempted to say -- from a reading of the abstract -- that this looks rather like mystical hogwash in that even unworked stones are given "meaning" in that they  "would have helped preserved the visual resemblance of the stones to the outcrops or boulder fields from which they were derived."  Hmmm.  I can understand that when we are looking at rock art we can bring in some ideas about "meaning" and "significance" since somebody has obviously spent a lot of time making patterns with tools, and one is justified in asking "why?" ..... but to suggest that the recycling of old stones is also significant in that this shows an acceptance of the "materiality of the slabs" and maybe some embodiment of "anthropomorphic symbolism" seems to me to be going too far, by quite some distance.  People re-use old stones because, well, why wouldn't they?

At least Prof Scarre seems to accept that stones were usually locally sourced -- which shows that he accepts a degree of utilitarianism and practicality on the part of the megalith builders.  But then to say "the careful selection of megalithic blocks suggests that they incorporated and materialised memories, powers and associations of place" leaves me wanting some evidence.  Prof Scarre is not alone here -- as we have debated at length on this blog, all three of the learned professors (GW, DT and MPP) assume that the bluestones -- in particular -- were invested with magical or sacred properties, either because they were supposed to have healing properties, or because they incorporated the spirits of the ancestors.  (Of course if you are arguing that they were collected from a very distant place and transported over a vast distance you have a find some justification for that mighty enterprise.)  The utilitarian view -- that stones in megalithic monuments were used simply because they were in the right place at the right time, and because  they were a convenient size and shape -- does not get much space in the learned texts, probably because it is too simple.

---------------------------------------

Stones with character : animism, agency and megalithic monuments.

Scarre, Chris (2009) 'Stones with character : animism, agency and megalithic monuments.', in Materialitas: working stone, carving identity. Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 9-18.

Abstract

Recent studies of megalithic monuments have shown how they incorporate blocks, sometimes taken from different locations, which link the monuments to features of their local landscapes. The slabs were often left unworked, or only minimally shaped, which would have helped preserved the visual resemblance of the stones to the outcrops or boulder fields from which they were derived. The careful selection of megalithic blocks suggests that they incorporated and materialised memories, powers and associations of place. The recycling of carved and shaped standing stones in the passage graves of Brittany illustrates another approach to the materiality of the slabs, one which draws upon anthropomorphic symbolism. Some later monuments too have carved motifs, and those motifs may imply they were thought to embody ‘human’ qualities. An ‘animistic’ or ‘anthropomorphic’ reading of these blocks may provide additional insights into the social practices and beliefs which lay behind the construction of megalithic monuments.

Also:

 Scarre, Chris (2009). Megalithic Quarrying: Sourcing, extracting and manipulating the stones. Oxford: Archaeopress.

• Publication type: Books: edited
• ISSN/ISBN: 978 1 4073 0405 2