As mentioned before on this blog, not everybody loves Stonehenge or approves of the manner in which it has been hijacked for political and quasi-religious purposes. There has been a lot of criticism of the manner in which Stonehenge is promoted as a "British icon" at the expense of other equally, if not more, impressive monuments including Callanish, Skara Brae, Avebury and Silbury Hill.
In the vanguard of the attacks on Stonehenge as "the first great focal point in British history" are the Scottish archaeologists Gordon Barclay and Kenny Brophy. We have discussed their work previously on this blog:
https://gordon-barclay.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Barclay_and_Brophy_2021_Final_-20_12_2021.pdf
....... and have noted the furious and even vicious response from those whose work they directly and indirectly criticised.
https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2021/12/barclay-and-brophy-fight-back.html
https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2021/12/determinism-core-and-periphery.html
https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2021/12/determinism-core-and-periphery.html
https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2019/03/neolithic-feasts-and-far-travelled-pigs.html
https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2020/06/the-politicisation-of-neolithic.html
Last year they wrote this article:
Two archaeologists respond to the portraits of Queen Elizabeth II beamed onto Stonehenge—the latest attempt to appropriate the monument for nationalist messages.
By GORDON BARCLAY AND KENNY BROPHY
20 JUN 2022
https://www.sapiens.org/archaeology/stonehenge-nationalism/
The article was essentially a response to the rather tasteless and degrading projection of eight images of the late Queen onto the sarsens of Stonehenge.
They said: "As archaeologists interested in the way contemporary society manipulates the past, we keep an eye open for all sorts of Stonehenge-related nonsense and consider ourselves quite unshockable. But English Heritage’s decision surprised even us in its blindness to nationalist appropriation of the past, as well as its all-round tackiness." In reality, Stonehenge never was a real English symbol, let alone a British one. Barclay and Brophy also said that the mythos of an ancient pan-British identity (with Stonehenge at its centre, acting as its symbol for branding or marketing purposes) fails to take into account the variability of life in late Neolithic Britain, evident in the diverse regional styles of monuments, buildings, funerary practices, and aspects of the economy.
Now, in a new article, Kenny Brophy launches another attack, following a visit to Stonehenge which left him singularly unimpressed.
https://theurbanprehistorian.wordpress.com/2023/08/29/little-britain/
It's essentially a blog post, and an opinion piece.
THE URBAN PREHISTORIANAUGUST 29, 2023
5 comments:
I concur with Kenny Brophy of course. I'll get back to you with more reasons to not be cheerful on this issue....
Mythologising is just a part of the problem -- other parts include the commercialising and the politicising of Stonehenge, about which our friends Barclay and Brophy are equally concerned......
I am reluctant to delve into the myth - maestro MPP's latest vanity project by actually OPENING his newest magnum opus, Stonehenge: a Brief History (2023). Suffice to say, it is part of a Bloomsbury Academic series which includes:-
Troy: Myth, City, Icon
Ur: the City of the Moon God
Pearson, it is claimed on the back cover blurb " reveals how in some ways trying to explain [Stonehenge's] power of attraction in the present is harder than explaining its purpose in the ancient past".
And, of course, in his 'brief history', MPP does not possess the gumption to mention that there IS a glaciation hypothesis. Oh dear, what would Sir Tony Robinson and Phil Harding say.
I haven't read the book, so I have no idea how reliable it is. But Bloomsbury Press has published summaries and extracts on its web site, so we have a pretty good idea what the contents are.
https://www.bloomsburycollections.com/monograph-detail?docid=b-9781350192263&pdfid=9781350192263.ch-003.pdf&tocid=b-9781350192263-chapter3
I am not sure that "gumption" is the right word. MPP knows all about the glacial transport hypothesis -- his problem is that it is VERY inconvenient, and so he simply chooses to ignore it. What amazes me is that editors simply choose to ignore this blatant breach of academic protocol, and let him get away with it.
There are of course extracts of the book on the Amazon web site:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Stonehenge-Brief-History-Archaeological-Histories/dp/1350192236/ref=asc_df_1350192236/?tag=googshopuk-21&linkCode=df0&hvadid=606619790622&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=17156157649995320347&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9045262&hvtargid=pla-1920949833800&psc=1&th=1&asin=1350192236&revisionId=&format=4&depth=1
So far as we can see, MPP maintains his usual practice of refusing to cite any of the published work done by me and my colleagues Dyfed Elis-Gruffydd and John Downes.
Post a Comment