Myth making and national trauma

In the recent interview which I did with Jacky Henderson, I referred to the "national context" in which HH Thomas proposed his theory of bluestone transport.  I referred to national trauma and the need to believe in the civilising influence of our ancestors.  Jacky and Coral illustrated the point by inserting a couple of images of women working in munitions factories.  That was fine, but more appropriate images might have been those pasted above, if we are to appreciate what the national mood might have been........

The Great War, the Twilight of Empire and the Supremacy of Man...........

Ten years ago, I posted this:

I have done a number of posts in the past about the socio-political climate that existed in 1920-21 when HH Thomas was formulating his ideas on the Stonehenge bluestones -- and preparing and presenting his lecture to the Society of Antiquaries in which he flagged up the heroic efforts of our Neolithic ancestors.

I have picked up on the fact that there was a great need, in Britain at that time, for reassurance and for a demonstration of the fact that Britain was a place of ancient wisdom and high civilization -- and having to cope with barbarians and the forces of darkness in various parts of the world. The trauma of the Great War was still in everybody's minds. The aspirations of the British Empire were of course never far away either....

Two authors who have found expression for this are David Keys and Stephen Briggs. David Keys, in the article copied above (from The Independent, 22nd April 1990), said: "But then came the Great War, twilight of Empire, and the supremacy of man. Out went natural explanations as to how Stonehenge's monoliths arrived on Salisbury Plain. In came a theory that made prehistoric engineers look, in their own Stone Age sort of way, every bit as capable as the ancient Egyptians............. The idea that the monument was constructed by ignorant savages directed by engineers from some superior civilisation struck a chord with 20th century Britons who lamented the passing of Empire, but cherished what they perceived to be Britain's civilizing role in the world."

Stephen Briggs, in an unpublished paper called "Preseli, Stonehenge and the Welsh Bronze Age", said this: "Because archaeology in the post-War years (ie after 1918) demanded our forebears to have been intrepid and sophisticated, and since it could be demonstrated that a bunch of schoolboys were able to devise a method to move the stones, therefore if it were possible, therefore it was probable........."

... and then this: ".........British prehistory has been anxious to own an important proof of early human prowess, but instead of being satisfied with the achievement represented by the erection of the stones at Stonehenge, we have cast Neolithic and Bronze Age man in our own mould, as a man of extensive geographical knowledge, a man of taste and one who left behind remains from which his political systems and trading routes could easily be traced."

That all feeds in very neatly to my comments about the lack of scrutiny of Thomas's ideas, and also into my post about the romance of the venturesome traders.

This is from another previous post:

A few months ago I spoke to the archaeologist and antiquarian Stephen Briggs about the idea (which I explore in the book) that sometimes an archaeological idea can be used for the promotion of the national interest. We only have to look at the manner in which the pyramids, the Easter Island heads, Angkor Wat, and the Great Wall of China are promoted as national icons or as symbols of great and ancient civilizations. Stonehenge is no different -- as journalist David Keys has pointed out in assorted newspaper articles. Stephen confirmed for me that after the First World War there was a strong emphasis -- during the rebuilding of a battered world -- on the triumph of civilization over the forces of darkness, and on the civilizing influence of the British Empire. Archaeologists and politicians were interested in flagging up the great achievements of our ancestors -- and when HH Thomas came up with his story of the great stone-hauling expeditions this was like manna from heaven! The media loved it, and I actually think that the lack of critical analysis and criticism from other academics was largely down to the fact they they thought any criticism would have been UNPATRIOTIC. There was also, says Stephen, an attempt to show that the Neolithic tribes of Britain were actually cleverer than the Neolithic tribes of Germany -- the defeated enemy. German archaeologists were, at the time, discovering that most of their megalithic monuments were built of stones collected from the immediate vicinity; what better way to show the "superiority" of British Neolithic tribes than to show that they were capable of collecting their stones from vast distances away? So the Stonehenge story was born -- as a way of flagging up to the world that the inhabitants of this small island were incredibly clever, at a time when others were still brutes who were incapable of organizing great civil engineering projects. "Anything you can do, we can do better!" This all sounds too crazy to be true? Indeed -- but you'd better believe it, since it's quite well authenticated.

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

The more I think of it, the more convinced I am that in the years following WW1 people WANTED reassurance and national heroic myths -- and HHT was only too happy to oblige.  And to their eternal discredit, the archaeological and geological establishments went along with the myth-making without ever subjecting HHT's ideas to proper scrutiny.