Two of Barclay's Stonehenge paintings
Reference:
Barclay, 1895. “Stonehenge and its Earth-works”. Nutt, London, 225 pp.
https://archive.org/details/stonehengeandit00barcgoog/page/n64/mode/2up?view=theater
Barclay, 1895. “Stonehenge and its Earth-works”. Nutt, London, 225 pp.
https://archive.org/details/stonehengeandit00barcgoog/page/n64/mode/2up?view=theater
He was advised (somewhat prematurely) by the geologists of the day that the bluestones cannot have come from any British rock outcrops, and so he speculated that they might have come from Brittany, and that they were transported across the Channel by our ancient ancestors. He also suggests in his text that the bluestones must have been deemed as special or valuable -- in order to justify the "prodigious effort" involved in moving them. Barclay was also aware the the chippings and bluestone fragments scattered about across the Stonehenge landscape, and of a link with the abundant round barrows on the chalk downs.
I think the key passages in the text below justifies us in giving the credit -- or the blame --to Barclay for the invention of the human transport hypothesis in 1895. What HHT did 28 years later was to correct the source area to West Wales and to add the petrological detail which permitted him to claim (again somewhat prematurely) that he knew pretty well exactly where the bluestones had come from. In 1858 Ramsey had suggested that Wales was the source for the bluestones. It's worth remembering that neither Barclay nor Thomas believed that the bluestones had been quarried. Both of them realised that the bluestones were simply weathered boulders collected up from what had been a scatter across the landscape.
================
The artist Edgar Barclay was born in 1842 and studied art in Italy and Germany. For several years as a working artist he divided his time between London and Italy, but he returned to England in the 1880s and began painting rural scenes of Wessex, especially of Stonehenge. He exhibited extensively and was known for his skill in handling light and big skies. He was also an accomplished historian, writing and speaking particularly on Stonehenge. He addressed the British Archaeological Association in 1893. He clearly had good contacts, and wrote "Stonehenge and Its Earth-Works” in 1895. He suggested -- because of the weathering crusts on many of the bluestones -- that they were simply collected as boulders rather than being quarried.
p 77
The most arduous operation in connection with the erection of Stonehenge was the transportation of the Blue-stones ; we should, therefore, be forced to believe that although the builders lacked the energy to complete a gap in the Sarsen circle, they nevertheless had the opportunity and energy to fetch and set up the Bluestones. This is a contradiction ; we therefore conclude that stones are missing because the building has suffered from spoliation. Fortunately, ancient records which make mention of Stonehenge inform us how this probably came to pass.
pp 124-126
In conclusion, we take a retrospective glance at the results of our inquiry. To begin, there is the striking fact that Stonehenge consists of stones foreign to the neighbourhood, and belonging to geological formations widely apart ; proof that its construction was a far greater undertaking than the present appearance of the ruin would lead any one to suspect, and of the power of the founders to organize labour on a very considerable scale.
Edgar Barclay (1842-1913)
The artist Edgar Barclay was born in 1842 and studied art in Italy and Germany. For several years as a working artist he divided his time between London and Italy, but he returned to England in the 1880s and began painting rural scenes of Wessex, especially of Stonehenge. He exhibited extensively and was known for his skill in handling light and big skies. He was also an accomplished historian, writing and speaking particularly on Stonehenge. He addressed the British Archaeological Association in 1893. He clearly had good contacts, and wrote "Stonehenge and Its Earth-Works” in 1895. He suggested -- because of the weathering crusts on many of the bluestones -- that they were simply collected as boulders rather than being quarried.
Extracts:
p 6
The inner circle and inner horse-shoe are composed of the foreign "Blue-stones", igneous rocks. The locality from which they were originally taken remains undetermined ; experts, after microscopic examination, have affirmed that in "no part of Great Britain is there any stone to be found of the same description." Of these some differ markedly in their nature from others.
p 6
The inner circle and inner horse-shoe are composed of the foreign "Blue-stones", igneous rocks. The locality from which they were originally taken remains undetermined ; experts, after microscopic examination, have affirmed that in "no part of Great Britain is there any stone to be found of the same description." Of these some differ markedly in their nature from others.
p 77
The most arduous operation in connection with the erection of Stonehenge was the transportation of the Blue-stones ; we should, therefore, be forced to believe that although the builders lacked the energy to complete a gap in the Sarsen circle, they nevertheless had the opportunity and energy to fetch and set up the Bluestones. This is a contradiction ; we therefore conclude that stones are missing because the building has suffered from spoliation. Fortunately, ancient records which make mention of Stonehenge inform us how this probably came to pass.
pp 124-126
In conclusion, we take a retrospective glance at the results of our inquiry. To begin, there is the striking fact that Stonehenge consists of stones foreign to the neighbourhood, and belonging to geological formations widely apart ; proof that its construction was a far greater undertaking than the present appearance of the ruin would lead any one to suspect, and of the power of the founders to organize labour on a very considerable scale.
This is specially shown by the case of the Blue-stones, which, according to the judgment of experts, are foreign to this country, and which, so it has been concluded, from the weathered surfaces of some of their chippings, were, like the larger Sarsens, never quarried, but derived from boulders left on the surface, or, more probably, were brought from some sea-washed shore.
The labour of carrying these stones up from the coast was no mean one, and that they should have been transported across the sea is not merely a conspicuous proof of the resources of the founders, but indicates either that those who controlled the work were themselves moved by a strong sentimental motive, or that they played upon a strong sentimental feeling animating others, otherwise so laborious and unusual a course, and one so uncalled for by any utilitarian purpose, would never have been pursued.
The dictum of petrologists, that the Blue-stones are of foreign origin, is in harmony with the tradition that the stones have been transported hither by sea. The geological formation of Brittany points to that country as their probable source, a probability greatly strengthened by historical considerations. Geoffrey of Monmouth, when giving an account of additions effected by King Aurelius to the monastery at Amesbury, followed a tradition which stated that a stone circle was taken down and utilized for that purpose. We have no reason to believe that Geoffrey had knowledge of Stonehenge, situated a mile distant west of the monastery ; and mystified by another tradition which stated that the stones had been shipped, it appears that he in consequence concluded that the stone circle in question must have been situated in Ireland ; thus he kept to the right direction for their source, whilst considerably exceeding the real distance. It is incredible that Aurelius should have brought his building material from that country; he had not the power, supposing he had the crazy desire to do so ; he had no fleet, and the sea was commanded by piratical Saxons, his deadly enemies. In the introduction of the Irish incident we, therefore, recognize Geoffrey's embellishments ; we here see the old familiar artifice of making an incredible story appear veracious, by the introduction of circumstantial details, thus in the thick of the Irish embroglio he makes his characters orate in the time-honoured classical and biblical manner.
The Altar-stone belongs to a different geological formation to either the Wiltshire Sarsens or the foreign stones, and affords another proof of lavish expenditure of labour ; whilst the shaping of the rocks, and the manner in which the superimposed blocks are securely locked in their places by means of tenon and mortise, evidences the attainment of considerable skill.
Moreover, it is a striking fact that these rocks, collected with prodigal labour from sources so widely apart, should have been set up on a bare and desolate down, the surrounding land for the space of several miles being more thickly studded with barrows than any other district in this country, which produces a strong impression, the correctness of which is fully confirmed by closer scrutiny, that the ruin and the gravemounds are in some way connected. We noted the critical positions of the outlying stones, and that mysterious alignments proceed from the ruin and traverse the barrow-studded plain.
The design has manifestly not been dictated by utilitarian necessities, or by aesthetic sentiment, it shows the temple to have been dedicated to Sun-worship, the stones being so disposed as to form religious symbols ; the meaning of that symbolism we have endeavoured to explain, and in doing so we have followed ideas once current in Gaul.
The unity of the design was proved by the relative proportions of the parts, and that the different parts were raised at the same epoch is further attested, first, by the finding together of pieces of the different sorts of stone used in the construction within a gravemound, and, secondly, by chippings of all the rocks having been found in the concreted substance around the bases of the Bluestones. When thus proving the unity of the design, we proved also that the temple is not of prehistoric antiquity, for we have no reason to believe that the ancient Britons were capable of adjusting their buildings with a knowledge of geometry.
The labour of carrying these stones up from the coast was no mean one, and that they should have been transported across the sea is not merely a conspicuous proof of the resources of the founders, but indicates either that those who controlled the work were themselves moved by a strong sentimental motive, or that they played upon a strong sentimental feeling animating others, otherwise so laborious and unusual a course, and one so uncalled for by any utilitarian purpose, would never have been pursued.
The dictum of petrologists, that the Blue-stones are of foreign origin, is in harmony with the tradition that the stones have been transported hither by sea. The geological formation of Brittany points to that country as their probable source, a probability greatly strengthened by historical considerations. Geoffrey of Monmouth, when giving an account of additions effected by King Aurelius to the monastery at Amesbury, followed a tradition which stated that a stone circle was taken down and utilized for that purpose. We have no reason to believe that Geoffrey had knowledge of Stonehenge, situated a mile distant west of the monastery ; and mystified by another tradition which stated that the stones had been shipped, it appears that he in consequence concluded that the stone circle in question must have been situated in Ireland ; thus he kept to the right direction for their source, whilst considerably exceeding the real distance. It is incredible that Aurelius should have brought his building material from that country; he had not the power, supposing he had the crazy desire to do so ; he had no fleet, and the sea was commanded by piratical Saxons, his deadly enemies. In the introduction of the Irish incident we, therefore, recognize Geoffrey's embellishments ; we here see the old familiar artifice of making an incredible story appear veracious, by the introduction of circumstantial details, thus in the thick of the Irish embroglio he makes his characters orate in the time-honoured classical and biblical manner.
The Altar-stone belongs to a different geological formation to either the Wiltshire Sarsens or the foreign stones, and affords another proof of lavish expenditure of labour ; whilst the shaping of the rocks, and the manner in which the superimposed blocks are securely locked in their places by means of tenon and mortise, evidences the attainment of considerable skill.
Moreover, it is a striking fact that these rocks, collected with prodigal labour from sources so widely apart, should have been set up on a bare and desolate down, the surrounding land for the space of several miles being more thickly studded with barrows than any other district in this country, which produces a strong impression, the correctness of which is fully confirmed by closer scrutiny, that the ruin and the gravemounds are in some way connected. We noted the critical positions of the outlying stones, and that mysterious alignments proceed from the ruin and traverse the barrow-studded plain.
The design has manifestly not been dictated by utilitarian necessities, or by aesthetic sentiment, it shows the temple to have been dedicated to Sun-worship, the stones being so disposed as to form religious symbols ; the meaning of that symbolism we have endeavoured to explain, and in doing so we have followed ideas once current in Gaul.
The unity of the design was proved by the relative proportions of the parts, and that the different parts were raised at the same epoch is further attested, first, by the finding together of pieces of the different sorts of stone used in the construction within a gravemound, and, secondly, by chippings of all the rocks having been found in the concreted substance around the bases of the Bluestones. When thus proving the unity of the design, we proved also that the temple is not of prehistoric antiquity, for we have no reason to believe that the ancient Britons were capable of adjusting their buildings with a knowledge of geometry.
4 comments:
I wonder if Edgar is an ancestor of Gordon Barclay? Opening up the search for the name Barclay more generally, I've noticed, casually from memory, at least ONE OTHER current archaeologist whose surname is Barclay. This one, from memory, is associated with the Stonehenge vicinity.
I disagree with what he says in the 3rd paragraph from the end, namely that the area surrounding Stonehenge is " more thickly studded with barrows than any other district in this country". Field archaeologist David Field and his co - author disagree too! Not too far away, in the Wylye valley and upon its slopes were barrows just as thickly distributed. Many disappeared in recent centuries because of frequent ploughing and deliberate destruction by farmers and landlords.Rural travellers have written that this had occurred e.g. William Cobbett.
It seems rather weird to me that Edgar Barclay has assigned the building of Stonehenge to a period after prehistory. Was he living in his own " time bubble"? Surely, throughout the 19th century, the early antiquarians/archaeologists were comfortable in dating the earliest barrows etc to prehistory?
Remember that Barclay was not an archaeologist but a professional artist. In later life he seems to have developed a fascination for Stonehenge -- hence his little book. And yes, he seems to have got his mythology and his history somewhat mixed up -- but he was not unique in that respect......
Post a Comment