The old ruin -- just a small local aberration of no great significance?
Stonehenge has of course been flagged up for many years as one of the key prehistoric sites in the world, on a par with the pyramids and Carnac and Gobeki Tepe -- hailed for the technical genius of its builders and as a masterpiece of social organization. I have always thought that in its landscape setting it is not that impressive -- on a gentle downland slope and not even visible from a great distance away. It's part of a landscape full of prehistoric features of many ages and types -- and it is often represented as being the centrepiece of that landscape and as the culmination or pinnacle of Neolithic and Bronze Age megalithic building.
But ....... as many have noted, it might well never have been completed, and the idea of the "immaculate Stonehenge" is not just being questioned by people like me, but also by mainstream archaeologists who know Salisbury Plain and its prehistoric features very well indeed. The myth of the miraculous and wondrous Stonehenge is maintained by those who make a business out of it, like English Heritage and certain senior archaeologists, and those who like to think that it has some great scientific or spiritual purpose. Prof MPP even promotes the idea that it is the ultimate symbol of political unification -- and much of his work in recent years has been devoted to trying to prove that hypothesis.
And of course the old ruin has been accorded a vast "artificial significance" because there has been so much digging there. If you think about it for a moment, it is quite possible that other sites which have never been excavated at all may actually be of much greater significance in the development of prehistoric culture,
When I started, the other day, to calculate the amount of work that went into the construction of Foel Drygarn (rather a small fortified site), I was struck immediately by the sheer scale of that operation (14,000 tonnes of stone shifted) as compared with the amount shifted at Stonehenge. There, even if there were 80 sarsen stones and 80 bluestones, the total weight of stone built into the monument was not in excess of 2,000 tonnes. Small fry indeed, and when we look at the scale of some of the larger hillfort sites like Maiden Castle or Oswestry, or even Silbury Hill. (The main reason why it is famous and deemed to be significant is that for the last 100 years or so people have been gobsmacked by the wonderful story of the human transport of the stones from the Vale of Pewsey and North Pembrokeshire. But if we place that myth to one side, what are we left with?)
I reckon that if we look at evidence rather than hype, we can well conclude that Stonehenge was just a small local aberration. Far from attracting people from all over the British Isles, who travelled hundreds of miles bearing with them the stones of their ancestors, it was probably just one of those places that people passed occasionally and where they had a good time if there was a BBQ going on at Durrington Walls. They probably asked the locals, while they were still sober enough to be interested, what was going on down the road. "Oh, that weird collection of stones!" might well have come that reply. "That's just Uncle George's mad fantasy. He just started building it so that he could use up all those stones that were lying around. Now that he's dead, the family'll soon run out of enthusiasm and energy, or forget what it was meant for, and get back to building nice round burial mounds like the rest of us.........."
This is painfull to read, the fog decends yet again, one can only conclude it is done purpose.
ReplyDeleteStonehenge's Anniversary of one hundred years in public ownership is todat, October 26th. Even the BBC Breakfast Weather reports came from there earlier.
ReplyDeleteI, for one, am glad Stonehenge was given to the State back then, in 1918. Who knows, it might have been auctioned off to some Trump - like American otherwise. Close shave, Neil!
I have to agree with Peter quite a lot this time. I reckon Brian is writing just a SHADE provocatively, in an attempt to wind up/provoke all the MPP adherents/amigos! His last paragraph, where Brian speculates on what conversations may or may not have occurred at a Durrington Walls BBQ when frequentd by passers by, has me wondering whether Brian sometimes writes sections of his Blog as though he was down his OWN local hostelry, attracting a crowd of agreeing locals to his point of view!
ReplyDeleteAnd Brian, you really should take an opportunity to have a decent walk in the Greater Stonehenge Landscape next time you're down our way. Then you'd disabuse yourself of your current fondly - held notion that [paragraph 1] "its landscape setting is not that impressive". e.g. walk from Woodhenge/ Durrington Walls to Stonehenge via the Old King Barrows, thence along the King Barrow Ridge before veering off along The Avenue to Comedian Les Dawson's Old Ruin.
ReplyDeleteHa -- what's the point of a blog if it can't be a bit provocative now and then? People generally react in precisely the manner anticipated, which is quite entertaining........
ReplyDeleteSeriously though, the idea of Stonehenge being a folly is a perfectly respectable one, just as well, if not better, supported by the evidence as all the other theories. I did a piece for BBC Radio Wales yesterday on this, so it's only a matter of time before it becomes mainstream.
And seriously though, the landscape setting of Stonehenge is not very impressive to somebody like me who likes to have the odd mountain close at hand. The Stonehenge sight lines are actually quite limited, as shown in that map in the big Ros Cleal book -- and I know many people who, when they see Stonehenge for the first time, say "Is that it? I thought it was supposed to be impressive.....?"
Nah, you're not right to claim people say "is that it....etc". You're talking about people who are either raving Welsh Nationalists (like yourself), or who merely drive past on the revered A303. Even those who walk around the Monument at the distance prescribed by English Heritage won't get the mind - blowing experience of a walk AMONG the stones.
ReplyDeleteIncidentally, it IS indeed a shame there are no mountains in the background vistas - for that, you'll have to blame those Old Guys who threw the whole thing together - perhaps they couldn't get primitive planning permission in Snowdonia or the Lake District?
Chill out a little, Brian, by listening and watching Donovan's "First there is a mountain" (1968, at the height of Flower Power,....... remember?) on YouTube
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kLp9d7HKuA
Those were the days, my friend, as Welsh Nationalist Mary Hopkins sang!
Oh, I'm feeling very chilled today -- beautiful day for a walk on the beach. I remember Mary Hopkins -- everybody in Wales was in love with her, long long ago........
ReplyDeleteShe was on those former "Quarrymen's" Apple Label, and Paul McCartney wrote that song. Very different performance of a Beatles' composition, compared with "With A Little Help From My Friends" as covered by Sheffield's own Joe Cocker,RIP.
ReplyDeleteTee Hee… being provocative? I presume you still are with the folly idea which you did a piece to BBC Radio Wales on, so how many people were listening to that, but you were being ironic with the mainstream comment.
ReplyDeleteSeriously though for someone who likes the odd mountain close by, in Pembrokeshire? The Preseli mountains? Not even particularly good hills, Carn Ingli? try North Wales or the Lake District and for decent hills the Yorkshire Dales.
The sight lines are quite limited…. What do you think you should see from Stonehenge? Krakatoa erupting, the hanging gardens of Babylon, herds of wildebeest oh no that’s a Torquay bedroom window, but it’s shown in the map in the Cleal book that’s conclusive.
Some people (talking on Stonehenge) say “is that it” thought it was supposed to be impressive, and some think it has to do with Druids, Aliens, giant bird perches, landing places in a flooded landscape and Glaciation, some people think there is no connection between Stonehenge, Durrington, West Amesbury etc., but we have to try and educate them, look at the evidence and what it suggests.
Now its Mary Hopkins for god’s sake!
Tony, nice to agree but hope you are not suggesting I am an adherent or amigo I am neither.
Peter, your point being.......???
ReplyDeleteActually, I do rather like the idea of Stonehenge being a folly. The evidence is just as good (or as bad) for that as for any other hypothesis.
Remind us, Brian, in a sentence or two why you think Stonehenge can be referred to as a "folly"? You seem persuaded that you have some eminent academics who also think this.
ReplyDeleteGlad to hear you are neither an adherent nor amigo of the MPP Clan, Peter. But did you do the artwork for this new Belgian exhibition that Chris has recently let us learn about?
For now, it's "Adios Amigo"*, to both Peter & Brian.
* sung, of course, by "Gentleman Jim", Jim Reeves.
Why is it a folly? Let's look at the evidence:
ReplyDelete1. Nobody can agree what it is actually FOR. So it's an enigma -- and the whole point of creating a folly is that it should be enigmatic. Whoever had the cunning plan to build it, it obviously worked.
2. The signs are that it was never finished. All that messing around with stone settings etc. Things that tend not to get finished are generally more frivolous than things that have a very serious intent -- like palaces and cathedrals etc.
3.. I read into the structure that the resources were never there to finish it -- either manpower resources or stone availability -- and that there was no clear design intent.
4. There was nothing like it before or after. That means it was an aberration, or a one-off. That signals folly to me.
5. All societies have their eccentrics and their peacocks who just want to show off. It would be strange if Salisbury Plain had no prehistoric follies on it. Maybe Silbury Hill is another one.......
However, as regards Silbury Hill, there are two or three smaller versions (or in the case of the one at Marden, past tense, destroyed by a rather over - enthusiastic farmer around 200 years ago).
ReplyDeleteOnly thing about Stonehenge, we'll never know whether it had wooden prototypes, all that is possible e.g Durrington, at least insofar as trilithons and lintels. Over to Peter Dunn....
Point 2. Actually quite a lot of churches and cathedrals have had "add - on" features, and some were altered at various stages a la "bluestone shuffles".
At least your 5 - point explanation doesn't sound quite as dismissive as just saying the dear old Monument is a folly, full stop!
On the radio, there is no time for five-point explanations! But take it5 from me -- everything I say is carefully considered......
ReplyDeleteWhat's this about "on the radio there's no time....". I live in England. Are you referring to your recently mentioned - but unspecified - Radio Wales broadcast? And has this also made the Press yet on your side of the Bristol Channel, as you were hoping? Tell me more, tell me more...
ReplyDeleteOh, I wasn't hoping for anything, Tony. Radio Wales rang me up to ask some questions about Stonehenge, on the occasion of the celebrations about it coming into public ownership. One of their chat shows consisting mostly of music. No big deal -- I suppose some people heard it.........
ReplyDeleteThe Illustrations at the new exhibition are not mine, I like the example it shows what the scene may have been like and some people assert they have evidence for It, some say they don’t. I was offered “the gig” as they say, but declined. They may be by Benoit Clarys an excellent reconstruction artist of prehistoric subjects.
ReplyDeletePete G has my sympathies, the idea of having something creative to interpret archaeology for nothing is a bloody stupid idea but part of a lack of respect for creative interpretation.
The point of my provocative last comments were just that, I did think you were joking apparently not, I was.
As Tony says Cathedrals and Cathedral sized Abbey Churches were extended, heightened, bits added and demolished, Salisbury Cathedral was first built a couple of miles away at Old Sarum struck by lightning, rebuilt, extended, demolished and rebuilt in the valley in a different architectural style.
Just because later ages expended more effort doesn’t mean the Neolithic sites aren’t significant it’s not a competition.
The human transport theory and debate is just a small facet of the intricate story of the site and the sites preceding Stonehenge, connected to it and extending into the landscape for miles merging into surrounding archaeological landscapes. Isn’t the fascination of the past because we don’t know everything, the obsession with Stonehenge (It makes money and careers though) is annoying, there are many sites that are as important.
The Sarsen and Bluestone settings of around 2500 BC may be the culmination of the same sort of spectacular architectural structures in Wood that also took enormous effort and skill to construct, not a small local aberration. I have an explanation for putting wooden lintels on these wooden structures in reconstructions.
So 1. It is not a singular thing it is not the stone settings there now, it has many phases earth, timber, stone, not necessarily in that order, not one design but different developments, not one purpose, after all there are 500 years from ditch and bank to the sarsen circle, some of the timber structures at Stonehenge may be earlier they are not dated.
2. What does finished mean? It seems serious intent to inter hundreds of cremations over hundreds of years. Why build a folly over a sacred place, appropriate the site maybe, or enclose a significant place, but just a whim?
3. Again does it matter, lack of man power…. evidence? Lack of stone maybe, there are many settings/ideas which appear to reflect one phase into the next, look at the plans.
4. timber circles, compare plans.
5. Eccentrics and Peacocks, authority figures and religious leaders, it’s a matter of perspective, we have a President Trump after all.
Point taken, Peter and Tony, about sites having many different phases, and maybe purposes changing over time. I'm deadly serious about the possibility of powerful people building things (and maybe employing timber-working techniques in stone) just to impress the neighbours. Call them peacocks or power-crazed dictators or whatever -- they have always existed.
ReplyDeleteOne of Mike Parker Pearson's favourite TV programmes in "Grand Designs". True. I either heard him say so (on a dig) or read it in one of his interviews.
ReplyDeleteIs "Bluestonehenge" his own vicarious Grand Design? i.e. wish - fulfilment.
Enjoyed your last contribution at 09.31 on 5th November, Peter. At last some serious meat on the bone of this "debate" on " The Stonehenge Folly?:Yes or No"!
ReplyDelete