Eternal Idol

By now, you will have seen the lengthy BBC report on the excavations at Durrington Walls and at Stonehenge, so it might be useful to examine what has been written, while bearing in mind, of course, that it is not an exhaustive account or summary of the work carried out last year.

The first thing that leaps out is the description of the many Neolithic houses on the site as a settlement, although this is later qualified by the observation that certain of our ancestors used the site on a seasonal basis. Happily, we’re told that the primary season in question was winter, while there are additional highly useful details.

We usually think of a settlement as being permanent or temporary, so it is curious to find evidence of a large human habitation that was used on a presumably recurring seasonal basis. The other odd thing is that this settlement was located within the gargantuan enclosing earthworks of Durrington Walls.

We would think that a collection of dwellings would not require a huge surrounding bank to make them into a settlement, as it is perfectly possible to construct human habitations in completely open surroundings. As a settlement is not defined by the existence of a henge or encircling earthwork, it would seem to suggest that there was a desire to construct the circular banks in a specific location first, then the houses or temporary dwellings came afterwards as a secondary consideration.

As such, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the houses within Durrington Walls served a specific purpose other than merely putting a roof over someone’s head and keeping out the worst of the wind. It also seems reasonable to suggest that the people using these habitations were defined by a common purpose or calling, at least for the duration of the time they took up temporary residence within Durrington Walls. So, are there any elements about these people that are worthy of note? Do these indications give us even the faintest clue as to what was taking place at Stonehenge?

Well, it appears that they congregated there in winter, a time of encroaching darkness. Weather conditions such as ice, sleet, snow, rain, hail, freezing wind and thunder in winter would make travel more difficult and more uncomfortable than in the summer, so the journey to Durrington Walls probably entailed a certain degree of adversity. If we voluntarily undergo hardship, it is generally for an ulterior motive or because we believe that there is some worthwhile reward at the end of it.

Stonehenge lies just a mile or so southwest of Durrington Walls and furthermore, it was apparently under construction during the period in question, namely 2,600 to 2,500 BC. As such, it is impossible to avoid a connection between whatever was taking place at Durrington Walls and whatever was occurring at Stonehenge, if only on account of the sheer scale of the earthen monument, the uniqueness of its stone cousin and the monuments’ proximity to each other.

Furthermore, the people at Durrington Walls were inside a monument with an avenue that led to the nearby River Avon, while slightly further downstream, another avenue led from the river to Stonehenge. To return to Durrington Walls, however, the people there indulged in conspicuous consumption of meat, while they also seem to have done so around the time of the Winter Solstice. The midwinter sunrise is marked in surviving features at nearby Woodhenge, while the midwinter sunset is similarly marked in immense features at Stonehenge.

Finally, for now, winter is usually associated with darkness and death, so we have the apparently strange spectacle of our ancestors feasting and partying at the height of this otherwise gloomy season. Not only that, but they slaughtered large numbers of young pigs, while they did this in what would have been a highly inefficient and messy fashion by firing arrows at them. All in all, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the congregations and ceremonies at Durrington Walls were connected in some way with death, so we are left to consider two main options.

Our ancestors were involved with either a direct celebration or worship of death, or else the exact opposite, an affirmation of life in the midst of death. It is of course not impossible that they were engaged in both activities simultaneously, because it is perfectly possible to rejoice at being alive while at the same time communing in some way with the ancestors. People do this all the time today and there’s every likelihood that they’ve done so in some way, shape or form for millennia, but the difference here is that these activities were taking place at Stonehenge. If Stonehenge is and was unique, then logic would seem to suggest that whatever took place there was unique as well.

So, what do the archaeologists make of all this? On page 299 of Hengeworld, Mike Pitts writes about the search for a solution to the mysteries of Stonehenge, saying “You can….plough ahead in complete defiance of whatever evidence there is and imagine whatever takes your fancy. Many non-archaeologists are now doing this, partly, I suspect, in frustration at the professionals’ apparent lack of concern.” With this in mind, it is refreshing to see what Professor Mike Parker-Pearson has to say on the BBC site.

He says that he thinks the settlement inside Durrington Walls was probably not lived in all year round, a fairly specific observation that I would agree with. He says that he believes Stonehenge and Durrington formed a religious complex used for funerary rituals. This is a quantum leap away from the observation we’ve heard elsewhere about Stonehenge and Durrington Walls being “ritual meeting places” and once more, it seems to narrow things down.

When we contemplate religion, we usually think of the worship of gods, ancestors or other supernatural entities, and while this may seem a broad definition, it excludes simple social gatherings, any assemblies connected with political or hierarchical purposes and assemblies connected with the practical matters of farming or hunting. It would also seem to exclude Stonehenge having been built primarily with a view to observing the movement of celestial bodies. Again, it is gratifying to hear of someone who has worked extensively in the area expressing a firm opinion and producing the evidence to back it up, while I would generally agree that the two sites served a religious purpose.

Professor Mike Parker-Pearson further specifies his belief that funerary rituals were at the heart of the activities at Stonehenge and Durrington Walls. While this term encompasses a fairly broad range of possible activities, I would once more agree with him. He goes on to say that he believes that Neolithic people from all over the region came for massive feasts in the midwinter, but while the evidence for this seems on the face of it to be overwhelming, I cannot help thinking there are some important and highly relevant details that have been overlooked and underestimated.

Firstly, as I’ve mentioned before, there is the unique architecture of Stonehenge to consider. Why was it built in such a precise and seemingly baffling fashion? What relevance does this architecture have to funerary rituals? Until we can convincingly explain each and every detail of the structure of the stone monument and further explain the relevance to a particular ritual or ceremony, then it is difficult to whole-heartedly embrace any given notion about the function of Stonehenge. I would also suggest that Professor Atkinson’s bizarre behaviour would have to convincingly fit into this great scheme of things somewhere along the way as well.

However, this is not my primary interest for now, as we are dealing with the discoveries at Durrington Walls. Aside from the quantity of houses, the most significant feature would seem to be the large-scale feasting that took place there at some point in winter, most probably around the Solstice. One of the most significant features of this feasting seems to be the prevalence of pigs, while it seems that many of these creatures were killed or at least attacked with arrows prior to their demise.

The assumption seems to be that the primary purpose of the prehistoric gatherings at Stonehenge was to indulge in feasting, leaving aside for now any consideration of the ceremonies or rituals our ancestors performed when they were not eating. However, our ancestors were capable and practical people, so if they wished to slaughter young pigs on a large scale for the purpose of cooking and eating them, the most straightforward means of achieving this would seem to be to corral the animals, then take them out one by one to be dispatched by clubbing them on the heads with some heavy blunt instrument, then cutting their throats.

However, it appears that many of these animals were attacked with arrows. While we know that a prehistoric longbow could be a formidable weapon, it seems a very strange thing to try to kill a nine month old pig by means of an arrow. Why? To begin with, it is unlikely that one arrow will cause an instant fatal wound, while there’s also the question of visibility. Admittedly, a nine month old pig is a fairly large animal, but we are assuming that these creatures were attacked in broad daylight, not at night by the light of the moon or by firelight.

We’re also assuming that the men with bows and arrows were standing a short distance away from the animals they were pursuing. If they were doing this, it would seem to be far more straightforward to plunge a heavy spear into the creatures to cause a more serious wound in the place where such as thing was required. We must also bear in mind that Durrington Wall contained huge groups of wooden posts and while their purpose remains unknown, their mere existence must add to the potential elusiveness of the pigs.

So, it’s fair to assume that the minority of the wounds inflicted on the young pigs with arrows were immediately fatal, in which case they would certainly have run off before eventually expiring, if that’s what was allowed to happen. I think it’s also reasonable to assume that these creatures were killed either one by one or else in small batches, because otherwise it would be highly dangerous for the humans at Durrington Walls if a large number of people were letting off flint-tipped arrows from different directions at the same time, regardless of whether it took place by day or by night.

Durrington Walls southern entrance

It is hard to imagine that accidental shooting of humans was part of the great scheme of things, while we have a strange discovery from Durrington Walls to consider. If you look on the link to the Stonehenge Riverside Project, you will see a photograph of a human femur that was discovered there on a previous excavation, a femur that was pierced by two flint arrow heads. One of these came from directly in front, while the other was inflicted from slightly to the side and I’m grateful to Professor Parker-Pearson for having sent me details of this femur.

Otherwise, we are left to ponder the likely scenario of young pigs running around with arrow wounds until they collapse from exhaustion. As anyone who is familiar with them can testify, they can manage a fair turn of speed, especially if they are frightened, so if a methodical method of slaughter was taking place, the use of arrows would seem to exclude human butchers immediately despatching the creatures after they’d been hit by flint-tipped shafts.

Does the deliberate wounding, impaired struggles and slow death of a large, sentient creature in a confined space devoted to a religious purpose bring anything relevant to mind? Well, yes. There is a predictable uproar whenever the Druids are mentioned in the context of Stonehenge or of any other Neolithic structure, but nonetheless, it is worth looking at what the writer Diodorus Siculus had to say of Druid rituals:

“When they (the Druids) attempt divination upon important matters, they practise a strange and incredible custom, for they kill a man by a knife-stab in the region above the midriff, and after his fall they foretell the future by the convulsions of his limbs and the pouring of his blood, a form of divination in which they have full confidence, as it is of old tradition.” In his Geographica, the Roman writer Strabo echoes the account of Diodorus: “They (the Druids) used to strike a human being, whom they had devoted to death, in the back with a sabre, then divine from his death-struggle.”

Well, our ancestors may or may not have divined anything from the deaths of these pigs, but there are a few more aspects to consider. Pigs are particularly vocal creatures who make a terrible but understandably loud noise when they know they’re about to die, so when our ancestors fired arrows at them inside Durrington Walls, the screams must have been truly horrendous. Despite the fascination with the supposed acoustic properties of Stonehenge, I’m not aware that anyone has discovered if the noise of distressed, dying pigs would have carried from Durrington Walls to Stonehenge, but I would personally think this is likely. I live a mile or so away from a field full of sows and piglets and their occasional squeals can be clearly heard, especially by night, so we are left to wonder if it was just an accident that this cacophony could be heard at Stonehenge?

We must also ask ourselves if this inefficient means of killing pigs was simply wanton cruelty on the part of our ancestors. Did it form no part whatsoever of the religious and funerary ceremonies suggested by Professor Mike Parker-Pearson? Feasting aside, it seems to be a huge expenditure of time and energy to build Durrington Walls and the enclosed dwellings, then to travel there in the middle of winter simply for the dubious pleasure of hearing animals in torment for a few hours, unless there were something highly meaningful behind the relatively ineffective act of attacking young pigs with arrows and hearing the resultant uproar.

If Stonehenge and Durrington Walls are indeed connected by a common use, as I suspect they were, then it is perhaps relevant to consider that in addition to the structures being linked by avenues and by the Avon, it is also likely that a chilling sound that would carry from one location to the other at specific times. This in turn suggests that our ancestors believed that there was some entity at Stonehenge capable of hearing or acknowledging this signal, or else that there were humans there that they knew could do so. And what, in turn, does this imply?

Regardless of the fairly straightforward inferences we can reasonably draw from this, there is still the issue of attacking pigs with arrows within the confines of Durrington Walls. It strikes me that it is perfectly legitimate to consider that this act, however seemingly inefficient, was a primary and pivotal part of the proceedings. It almost certainly resulted in the pigs dying a slow death, something that may well have been significant when we bear in mind what we know of similar Druid practises. It most definitely resulted in a protracted uproar that would have been audible a long way off, while there’s also every likelihood that keen Neolithic noses would have been able to scent the coppery tang of blood and fear. If we picture this taking place at night by torchlight or firelight, if we further picture the celebrants singing or being engaged in activities related to religious fervour and if, as Professor Parker-Pearson suggests, the area contained the remains of human beings awaiting burial or cremation, then we are contemplating a heady and almost nightmarish scenario, to modern eyes at least.

With all this in mind, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the midwinter feasting was an extremely welcome, inevitable but nonetheless secondary consideration to the precise method of killing the pigs. It is certainly an avenue that we would do well to explore if we have a genuine desire to throw some light on the precise details of whatever ceremonies took place at Stonehenge in prehistory, so it would make perfect sense to look at what we know of prehistoric bowmen in the immediate area and from a similar period.

The BBC feature goes into some depth about the discoveries at Durrington Walls and it quotes Professor Mike Parker-Pearson at some length concerning his views on the implications of these discoveries. Nonetheless, an even-handed approach is taken by quoting Julian Richards on his opinion concerning Stonehenge and Durrington Walls as a religious complex devoted to funerary rituals. He said, “I see Stonehenge more as a living monument, so in terms of broad understanding of the landscape I’m not in total agreement.” If anyone has the faintest idea of what this means, I’ll be very glad to hear it, because I must admit it left me totally baffled, but in the meantime, we can move on to far more promising territory.

Durrington walls center

The BBC site also quotes Dr Andrew Fitzpatrick from Wessex Archaeology, who was not a part of the research team, but who made this helpful contribution: “There haven’t been many excavations near Stonehenge in recent years and the new work will stimulate exciting new theories in coming years. But we shouldn’t forget that Stonehenge became special when people brought the stones from Wales, 250km away. Some of the answers about Stonehenge aren’t just to be found in Durrington, but further afield.”

While I’m a Welshman myself, I can’t help thinking that Stonehenge was special as far back as 4,000 BC when the long barrows in the surrounding area were constructed, leaving a highly conspicuous empty space where Stonehenge is now situated. The archaeologists have difficulty in distinguishing Stonehenge’s early phases from the characteristics of a causewayed enclosure, something else that makes it special, while there is also the matter of the Heel Stone, the lengthy Avenue, the station stones, the proximity of the Cursus and much else besides.

Purely by coincidence, when we look further afield as Dr Fitzpatrick suggests, the first features of note that we encounter are the nearby graves of the Boscombe Bowmen and the Amesbury Archer, both being discoveries in which Dr Fitzpatrick was intimately involved, as even a cursory examination of the Wessex Archaeology website will reveal. For those of you not familiar with these discoveries, the Boscombe Bowmen are also described as the Builders of Stonehenge, although their remains were dated to 2,300 BC, a few centuries later than the people with whom we are currently concerned at Durrington Walls.

The Amesbury Archer was also described as the King of Stonehenge, while he was discovered in 2002 with a companion, or Prince of Stonehenge. If you type in the word “Prince” in the search box on the Wessex Archaeology website, you’ll find a press release with a number of quotes by Dr Fitzpatrick, including this one on the subject of the 2002 discoveries: “They were very rare and the fact that so many valuable objects have been found together in both graves is unique. My talk at the open day will give full details of these finds. We’ve no doubt that the second skeleton is important too and we look forward to seeing if the media will call him the ‘Prince of Stonehenge’.”

As far as I’m aware, Dr Fitzpatrick is the foremost authority on the Amesbury Archer and Boscombe Bowmen. Dr Rachael Seager-Smith, Head of Finds Processing and Deputy Head of the Finds Department at Wessex Archaeology, was intimately involved with the study of the Archer’s remains during their stay at Wessex Archaeology, so it is fair to say that this distinguished archaeologist also knows a very great deal about this “Find of the Century.” Furthermore, Tom Goskar is currently Head of Archaeological Computing at Wessex Archaeology and his personal blog, entitled Past Thinking, clearly demonstrates that he has a great interest in Stonehenge, having been involved with the 2002 Laser Scanning Project and a great deal else besides. Given their distinguished positions at Wessex Archaeology, their intimate familiarity with the discoveries of the Archer and the Bowmen, and the wealth of experience they’ve collectively accrued over the years, there can be no doubt that these three notable individuals are at the very forefront of present-day research into the mysteries of Stonehenge.

As I’ve made clear earlier in this entry, I can’t see that there’s any doubt at all that archery in some form played a pivotal role in the ceremonies at Durrington Walls and at Stonehenge, so it stands to reason that it’s an avenue well worth exploring in detail. My copy of Hengeworld was printed in 2000 and on page 260, Mike Pitts writes that 95% of the pigs discovered in previous excavations at Durrington Walls were killed by arrows, while he devotes something like three pages to the general subject of pigs and he discusses prehistoric archery on a number of occasions throughout his book.

However, the discovery of the Amesbury Archer three years later in 2002 wasn’t accompanied by any reference to this subject, as far as I’m aware, while I was working at Wessex Archaeology at the time. Similarly, the discovery of the Boscombe Bowmen in 2003 did not elicit any public comment that I know of, while the same applies, again as far as I’m aware, to the discovery at Durrington Walls of a human femur pierced by arrows a few years later.

When I discovered not long after the excavation of the grave that the “King of Stonehenge” or Amesbury Archer had been dated to 2,300 BC, I was eagerly looking forward to a connection being made with the skeleton discovered at Stonehenge in 1978, an adult male killed by as many as six arrows whose remains were ALSO dated to 2,300 BC. I must admit I was baffled by this silence, but my bafflement increased when a year later, the Boscombe Bowmen were discovered. They too have been intimately linked to Stonehenge and they too were dated to 2,300 BC, the same time as the dead man in the ditch filled with arrows, but I do not recall ever hearing any mention of a link between them, let alone any connection with the grisly archery that took place at Durrington Walls.

Nonetheless, archaeological publication is notoriously slow, although it has to be said that the latest official report by the Stonehenge Riverside Project will be emerging very shortly. It seems to me that there is an overwhelming case for thoroughly investigating the element of archery in any ceremonies that took place at Durrington Walls and Stonehenge in prehistory, but I’ve done no more than to point out what was in front of us all the time, a poor contribution indeed. If anyone is in a position to throw more light on this fascinating subject, explore it in minute detail and reveal to a waiting world some of the true secrets of Stonehenge, then it is surely the three aforementioned experts from Wessex Archaeology, so I shall conclude for now by saying that I wait with bated breath and a sense of heady anticipation for them to throw me with their acumen.

Words by Dennis Price. Photographs copyright Pete Glastonbury 2006.

See the Link ‘Woodhenge, Durrington Walls, and The Cursus’ for Panoramic views of the excavation sites in 2006

Categories: Stonehenge
7 Comments »