The origins of the British Neolithic Mythos

One of the classic and heroic images that was used to cement the British Neolithic Mythos of bluestone transport to the sacred site now called Stonehenge

I've been thinking a bit more about the content of this ground-breaking paper from Gordon Barclay and Kenneth Brophy:

Gordon J. Barclay & Kenneth Brophy (2020): ‘A veritable chauvinism of prehistory’: nationalist prehistories and the ‘British’ late Neolithic mythos, Archaeological Journal,

DOI: 10.1080/00665983.2020.1769399

First, a definition:  A‘mythos’ is a set of beliefs or assumptions about something, with its supporting narrative.

Quote:

The mythos…. is that monuments in the Stonehenge area …. had a ‘national’, ‘unifying’ role for ‘Britain’ at a time when ‘Britain’ had a ‘unified culture’ and was isolated from continental Europe, and that as part of this process of unification, animals to be consumed in feasting were transported from as far as ‘Scotland’.......... 

That's fine, but it only refers to the latest incarnation of the mythos, arising from the recent studies of teeth and bones and linked to the discoveries at Durrington.  I reality, the mythos is much older, as the authors state:

The promotion of Stonehenge and the monuments associated with it as the location for the origin for British identity, for British character traits, and for British political unity is the explicit revival of the English origin myth of Stonehenge as ‘omphalos [navel] of Britain’ proposed by Geoffrey of Monmouth in the twelfth century (Parker Pearson 2012, 331; Tolstoy 2016).

Yes, but the origins of the "modern mythos" go back to HH Thomas, as we have stated many times on this blog, and as is outlined in my book "The Stonehenge Bluestones."  Thomas invented the human transport story, and for much of the last 100 years archaeologists (and some geologists, who should know better) have been obsessed with how and why Neolithic tribesmen supposedly went to all the trouble of picking up lumps of rock (mostly boulders rather than pillars) and carting them off to the chalklands of Southern England.  Senior archaeologists like Richard Atkinson have developed and promoted the mythos over the years, and in the last couple of decades the Darvill-Wainwright tribe and the Parker Pearson tribe have continued the process, with the narrative becoming more and more colourful with every passing year.  The quarrying component has been added, as has the proto-Stonehenge component, and sites like Carn Meini, Carn Goedog, Craig Rhosyfelin and Waun Mawn have been invested with almost sacred significance -- even though the evidence of Neolithic "Stonehenge-linked" activity at those sites does not withstand scrutiny.

A modern bluestone transport experiment -- again based on the assumption that the bluestone transport narrative was correct

Over and again -- "we know it was done, and why  -- now let's just work out HOW!"

So I would argue that the mythos referred to by Gordon and Kenneth started out like this:

Monuments in the Stonehenge area had a ‘national’, ‘unifying’ role for ‘Britain’ at a time when ‘Britain’ had a ‘unified culture’, and as part of this process of unification,  bluestone monoliths deemed to be “significant” were transported from “Wales.”

Then, when all of the high-tech results started to come in, relating to bones, teeth and isotopes, the mythos was developed into this:

Monuments in the Stonehenge area …. had a ‘national’, ‘unifying’ role for ‘Britain’ at a time when ‘Britain’ had a ‘unified culture’ and was isolated from continental Europe, and that as part of this process of unification, animals to be consumed in feasting were transported from as far as ‘Scotland".

Anyway, there are a few other interesting points from the article, with which I concur.

The continued promotion of Wessex-centred prehistory through the aggrandising ‘national’ role for the Stonehenge area, is not only a problem for those working in the archaeology of Scotland……

p 14

Features of media coverage:

• ● core/periphery issues – the persistence of an interpretative ‘grand narrative’ for late Neolithic Britain, based on interpretations of material relevant only to a limited area;

• ● the over-interpretation of limited evidence to reinforce grand narratives;

• ● subsequent promotion of these overstated interpretations by university media offices keen to demonstrate the ‘reach’, ‘relevance’ and ‘impact’ of externally funded, over- head-bearing research, particularly to funding bodies and mindful of the REF process;

• ● anachronistic and inappropriate references to modern politics, especially Brexit, actively promoted in press releases and interviews;

• ● a scientistic rewriting of thepast poorly related to existing models of the prehistory of Britain.

p 14-15

Interpretative inflation

The interpretative inflation we have already mentioned occurs in distinct stages in this uite of publications and promotions:

*the data and relatively restrained preliminary interpretation in the first part of the original academic paper;

*then, less tentatively, in the later part of the paper (and in the Abstract) more far- reaching interpretation, with less support offered;

*even more ambitious claims in media releases prepared by the universities, incorporating direct quotations from the authors;

*in the media, working from the press releases, to create attention-grabbing headlines and soundbites, further amplified through some interviews with the lead authors; and affected by the media outlet’s own political angle.

p 22

Discussion: prehistoric mythmaking, contemporary politics

We hope that we have demonstrated that the mythos has been developed on a sparse evidential base to reinforce what we would see as an outdated vision of a prehistory based on ‘luminous centres’, indeed a particular ‘luminous centre’ – the Stonehenge environs (Barclay 2001, 16, 2009, 3).

=========================

One final point:  On p 10 the authors refer to “the demonstrable link between central- south England and south-west Wales….” BUT I have to say that the only demonstrable thing is the provenance of most of the Stonehenge bluestones in N Pembs. Nothing else has been demonstrated — no ethnic links, no cultural links. The supposed links are based upon the presumption that the mythos is correct. The research re quarrying, bluestone “sanctity”, bluestone haulage, the existence of proto-Stonehenge etc,  is all assumptive research unsupported by hard evidence.  But the media won't tell you that.