Following our discussion on whether Stonehenge was a folly -- and whether I was serious in suggesting that in a BBC interview -- here is another interesting twist.
There is due to be a conference next February between artists and archaeologists (I think it would be more useful if they were to have one between scientists and archaeologists, but that's another matter......)
Let's go back a bit:
https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2010/09/more-on-stonehenge-folly.html
This is from another post in 2010:
Been engaging in a good debate on the Modern Antiquarian Forum, and thought I might share this post:
I have tried not to enter the discussion on WHAT STONEHENGE WAS FOR, but it's appealing to think of it as a puzzle, or an enigma, or a riddle, or even a folly. Maybe the builders themselves didn't know what it was for -- and there was just a powerful ruling clan who wanted to build something wacky as part of its attempt to establish its power base and to try out building techniques? Maybe they were VERY clever and knew that once it was built or partly built, for thousands of years thereafter people would expend vast amounts of energy and brain power trying to work out what the hell was going on...... and in the process invest the builders with spiritual, mathematical, astronomical and organizational skills that they never actually had. Brilliant!
Well, follies are generally built by eccentric people as a means of self-glorification. They have to have the cash and labour resources to do the job, and some handy land available, but otherwise (apart from the planning system) there's nothing much to prevent them from giving expression to their fantasies. Another feature about follies is that they are often not finished, because cash runs out, or the locals get upset about all this self-aggrandizement, and refuse to cooperate by withdrawing their labour or in other forms of sabotage. Stonehenge fits the bill precisely!
Anyway, some people have problems with the idea that Stonehenge might not have had either a practical or a ritual purpose. There is some quite suggestive evidence to support the idea that Stonehenge was a folly, built by a power-mad cheiftain for self-glorification or else for the purpose of confusing future generations........
1. Nobody can agree what Stonehenge 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 properly designed. 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 economic imperative.
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.
In the context of the advance publicity for this artist/archaeologist symposium, Chris Catling has said
‘I think archaeologists are beginning to understand that the past cannot be interpreted solely in terms of practicalities: we will not fully enter the minds of our ancestors until we appreciate that the artistic impulse is evident in a Neolithic polished axe and an Iron Age hillfort, and that artists have in the past been the innovators, leading humans into new areas of experience’.
He is not exactly saying that "installations" like Stonehenge are not necessarily "functional" or utilitarian, and he is not exactly saying that the old enigmatic ruin might be a folly, but what he does seem to be suggesting is that our prehistoric ancestors had artistic instincts which were strong enough to influence the design of an Iron Age hill fort. If a hill fort, why not a stone circle or a stone row, or even a cromlech?
It's not very much of a leap from there to the suggestion that Stonehenge might itself be an art installation, designed to express something emotional, arising simply from the creative impulse......
We have of course already heard about the theory that Stonehenge was a "sounding box" or a place for giving musical performances -- if banging on big rocks with smaller bits of rock can be counted as music......
And how much distance is there creatively, between a work of art and a folly?
1. Nobody can agree what Stonehenge 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.
ReplyDelete1A: Enigmatic to Us — not to those that built it. There are lots of clues within the design to give us a broad inkling of what it was for.
2. The signs are that it was never properly designed. 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.
2B: The design characterizes elegant simplicity. Only the Bluestones were ‘messed around’ with — and that was over a period of c.500+ years. Not confusion, but maturing or shifting interpretations. Also — once planted, the sarsens were never moved.
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 economic imperative.
3C: There’s still a number of the right-sized material laying around Marlborough, Fyfield and Piggle Dene — seen it myself — and who knows what’s been removed in the last thousand years? A resource- or barter-based economy need only feed and house its workers. The imperative was symbolic and demonstrative — something humans have always done.
4. There was nothing like it before or after. That means it was an aberration, or a one-off. That signals folly to me.
4D: It was supposed to be unique. Plus, two unaccounted-for sarsens out of 75 hardly a folly makes.
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.
5E: The cost in time and man-power would have prevented such wasteful projects. Assigning a 19th or 20th century motivation to those of prehistory is the real folly.
Neil
1. Nobody can agree what Stonehenge is actually FOR.
ReplyDeleteAye, that's the main issue Brian. Without any sort of mainstream agreement on that, we're very unlikely to make any progress on whether or not it contains utilitarian, ritual or folly-like features (or maybe some sort of mixture): The funding won't be there to investigate associated issues (and I imagine there are likely to be many) without some sort of direction.
“And how much distance is there creatively, between a work of art and a folly?”
ReplyDeleteIf I read your logic and connection between art and folly correctly and if you class my reconstructions as art (that’s another debate) but if you do, are you suggesting I am a power-mad chieftain bent on self-glorification and produce reconstructions for the purpose of confusing future generations........
I like the chieftain bit but I think someone else may be slightly confused here or trying to confuse future generations?
Also – “if banging on big rocks with smaller bits of rock can be counted as music…..” it certainly is preferable to the boring tosh around at the moment.
As I've said many times before on this blog! Art it is! Darvill's giant Xylophone hypothesis can be the only rational explanation!
ReplyDelete