Stonehenge and Avebury seminar at Devizes – a report
May 27, 2010 - 12:01 am
I think of myself as having an extremely privileged position in being able to run Eternal Idol, and one of many reasons for this is the nature of some of the contributions and contributors. One of these contributors is Alex Down, who has worked for the Stonehenge Riverside Project and who has also very generously taken notes and reported back on meetings concerning Stonehenge before now. Once again, Alex has provided a huge surface for all of us who are interested in the latest developments on Stonehenge, because he recently attended the event named in the title of this post, a seminar of Stonehenge and Avebury held at Devizes last Saturday. As well as attending and reporting back, Alex took copious notes which are freely reproduced here for the benefit of all, so without further ado, I’ll present Alex’s fascinating account of this meeting.
Stonehenge and Avebury seminar at Devizes – a report
A constellation of the archaeological stars of Wessex appeared at the first Stonehenge and Avebury World Heritage Site research seminar. Arranged by Amanda Chadburn of English Heritage, the Prehistoric Society and David Dawson and the Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society (WANHS), fourteen different speakers spent the day telling the audience packed into Devizes Town Hall about the latest ideas and research relating to the World Heritage Site (WHS).
There was, in fact, so much material that I can’t do justice to it all here, so I’ve been selective, including what I think will most interest the EI audience. The tight schedule unfortunately meant that opportunities for questions were very limited.
Amanda Chadburn welcomed us, and introduced the seminar, and explained that the two different sites are actually just one WHS – that was news to me – with the large gap of Salisbury Plain and Pewsey Vale in between. She explained that it’s proposed that an Archaeological Research Group be set up for the whole WHS, and asked for ideas to help frame its terms of reference. I’ve sent mine, and I bet that the readership here has a whole lot more.
Michael Allen’s presentation on “Defining the inherited natural landscape” was interesting because he’s using the natural archaeo-ecology of the site (like land snails, for instance) to map the ancient woodland landscape. John Evans did important work using snails to show that shrubs and trees had encroached on the Stonehenge site after the ditch/bank was built, so there had to be clearance for the construction of the sarsen stone circles. Allen’s work from the car park postholes shows that the Mesolithic landscape was open savannah, or rough grassland, while the preserved soil under the Cursus long barrow would never have supported ancient woodland. But similar long barrows show different condition: Woodhenge was originally scrubland, while Durrington Walls was open woodland.
Allen proposes that the early landscape showed a number of “special” places, with open grassland, but with a mosaic of different vegetation nearby. This ecological diversity would have provided good opportunities for early settlers to have found the resources they needed for survival. The lesson to be learned is that the early landscape was not of uniform tree/vegetation cover, and the diversity would have determined patterns of settlement.
Rob Ixer’s presentation on the geological origins of the bluestones was difficult for a non-specialist to follow, and I was surprised that his current thinking seems to have located all the bluestones in the Preseli/Fishguard area after his recent British Archaeology article, where he points out that the original source [of the rhyolite stones] came not from Pembrokeshire, but from “a far wider and, as yet, unrecognised area or more likely areas – perhaps north Wales (Snowdonia, the Llyn Peninsula and Anglesey), or even beyond.” (Discussion in Eternal Idol article here.)
Martin Barber’s presentation on historical aerial photography in the WHS was visual, so not easy to summarize, but what seemed obvious was that the mass of older aerial photographs contain huge amounts of valuable information that hasn’t yet been fully analyzed and followed up. Many of these photos are in the public domain, so the opportunity for original research is open to all.
David Field’s presentation on “Deciphering the palimpsest” applied the general principle of interpreting archaeological sequences to Stonehenge, which gave him an opportunity to talk about his discovery of the mound in the south of Stonehenge, and the antiquity of the “North barrow” (not actually a barrow) which seems to be the oldest surviving component of the monument, predating the ditch and bank. His discoveries, from a detailed non-invasive landscape survey of the monument by English Heritage, are summarized in “Sun mound, Moon ring” here in EI, and David told me that there will be a more detailed report published by English Heritage shortly.
Stuart Needham talked on “A complex of cemeteries”, relating BA barrow distribution to the earlier monuments. He believes that there is a compelling case for continuing reverence of a “super-sacred” zone around Stonehenge, and of Stonehenge itself; he cites the evidence of the axe carvings and the digging of the Y/Z holes, while the adjacent cemeteries, like Normanton Down, show “barrow intensification”, with selected individuals being chosen for burial in these special zones. He made some interesting points about the Y/Z holes, suggesting that at least one of the holes seems to have held a stone orthostat, while the pattern of the rings seems to have encouraged a spiralling perambulation, with the point of entry being near the henge’s southern entrance.
Needham went on to suggest that, while the sacred use of Stonehenge continued into the BA, the map of sacredness was more distributed into the surrounding landscape. The Normanton Down cemeteries complex straddles the NE/SW solstitial line. Could it be, he wonders, that there are the remains of less substantial structures still to be found on the line? And it’s defined by the two dry valleys extending from Lake, to the south, while there’s similar dry valley access from the river Till to the Coniger and Winterbourne Stoke cemeteries. He believes that archaeologists “need to take river valleys more seriously.”
After lunch, Josh Pollard’s discussion of “Neolithic Avebury” focussed more on what we don’t know, rather than what we do and, as such seemed to be setting a research agenda. Earlier we had seen aerial photographs that showed evidence of structures in Avebury’s western palisades. Josh Pollard wondered whether this was Avebury’s Durrington Walls, and suggested that there is significance in the association with the river, as in the Stonehenge landscape. He used an interesting term in connection with the (almost completely missing) Beckhampton Avenue: “memoryscape.” He suggested that the Avenue was constructed to commemorate the construction and subsequent eradication of the Longstone Enclosure. If so, to me this sounds very much like MPP’s suggestion that the extended Stonehenge Avenue was built to commemorate the construction and removal of Bluestonehenge by the river Avon.
Jim Leary of English Heritage gave an abbreviated version of his WANHS lecture earlier this year, superbly summarized, heh heh, in this EI article. You can read that for the full story, but Jim did add that the mysterious “dancing ground” – an apparent trampling of the original stripped ground surface – can’t be replicated under modern conditions, so he’s inclined to believe that instead it’s a worm-sorted soil horizon. Hmmm … to me, that seems much less likely.
Tim Darvill’s talk on “Beyond Stonehenge” considered the bluestones, unsurprisingly given his recent excavations on the site. But there was little or no mention of healing powers – instead, he gave a very different view of the site to the conventional one that we’re familiar with. He started with the Preseli source sites, where the natural outcroppings are very similar to built monuments, and where there is already a Neolithic culture associated with the source stones. He believes that the bluestones are the first stone structures within the henge, but that they’ve been subject to constant rearrangement through prehistory to Roman times. Some of the remains are no longer found today as orthostats, suggesting that the stones have been constantly recycled into different configurations, and broken up.
Importantly, Darvill claims that we should regard Stonehenge “as a Roman temple”. Certainly the bluestone sequence seems to be much longer than conventional chronologies, with the major pit in Darvill’s excavation dating to the 4th century AD. This long sequence of changes, he suggests, is because the “doing” was more important than the result; perhaps in a similar way to Silbury, where the scope of the monument seems to have been extended many times. (Puzzlingly, Darvill suggests this chain of bluestone activities appears to have included breaking them up for stone implements.) He concluded that there are “many reasons why Stonehenge is Stonehenge …” with all sorts of connections and associations. Was Stonehenge at the centre of the different communities through history, or at the edge? Probably both, at different times.
For me, Colin Richards’ talk on “Wrapping up Stonehenge: a dermatological approach” was the most interesting, because it took a more conceptual, symbolic approach. He tries to understand if answering the question “what was it like to be Neolithic?” can help explain Stonehenge’s “peculiar architecture”.
He started with an anthropological viewpoint from Polynesia, where the “chants of Creation” help the people relate to their ancestors. Their use of tools (creation) gives birth to “things” so, conceptually, there is a relationship between genealogy and objects. He quoted MPP on Stonehenge: “… the living will have visited Stonehenge at certain times to meet the ancestors, and to communicate directly with them.” People need a relationship with the supernatural to use its power for sustaining life, and this gives rise to what he called an “economy of vitality”: the procreating power of the deity gives rise to more life that needs to be acknowledged and returned through sacrifice. The approach to the awesome power, normally a taboo, requires a graded approach – that is, a ritual – which activates a contextual relationship between living and supernatural and eventually results in a transaction with the deity.
At this point Richards introduced the concept of “wrapping” which, from its common and practical uses, can imply secrecy (and hence disclosure), protection for something (without or within), enclosure (and hence unification), and containment of something animated (and here he gave the example of a tattoo, which I confess I didn’t fully understand.) Richards, guided by his Polynesian experience, asserts the idea of animation is important, particularly in the context of animism: a belief that natural phenomena such as rocks, trees, or thunder have life or divinity. He wonders if, in Neolithic times, all things were considered living, or animate?
[As an aside, this idea is also very similar to the Australian aboriginals' idea of songlines, whereby their ancestry is defined through connections to different parts of their landscape along routes through their land. The hills, rocks and other features are equated to characteristics of the creator-spirit.]
So how does the idea of wrapping influence our view of Stonehenge? Richards believes that the monument was subject to constant wrapping and re-wrapping through modification and re-cutting of the ditches, containing depositions. And what was actually wrapped? The Altar Stone. There is more wrapping through the medium of the bluestones. We’ve already heard from Tim Darvill that the bluestones were in a constant state of flux – and Richards believes that the Y/Z holes too held bluestones in one incarnation of a wrap (Atkinson found rhyolite in some of the holes.)
He also believe that there was an even wider concept of wrapping that involves the whole landscape. It’s apparent from the remaining stones that there were two main types of stone, rhyolite and dolerite, undressed and dressed. I didn’t collect his argument fully, but the gist of it is that bluestone chips of rhyolite are found all round the Stonehenge landscape, especially at the end of the Cursus. His theory is that Stonehenge was originally “wrapped” in a number of bluestone henges, probably of rhyolite, surrounding dressed dolerite trilithons. Perhaps at some stage the wrapping was consolidated by bringing the wraps from outside to within the henge – we can see the remains of dolerite trilithons, with mortice recesses, within the monument today. And if you’re wondering why I’m so enthusiastic about Richards’ thesis, it’s because I suggested something very similar here earlier, proposing that Coneybury henge, Bluestonehenge and the Fargo henge/hengiform could all have been consolidated into one super-site, around the time when the sarsens arrived. It seems as though Colin Richards sees an even wider collection and consolidation.
Julian Thomas gave a wide-ranging talk on “The Stonehenge Cursus complex” which is difficult to summarize succinctly. In viewing Stonehenge and Durrington Walls as the two ends of a journey, involving the dead and the living respectively, he pointed to the frequent pairing of a long barrow with a long enclosure. The pairing is seen at the Great Cursus (Amesbury 42, the long barrow, sits at the eastern end of the Cursus), the Lesser Cursus, Normanton Down, and so on. This seems again to be a similar conjunction of the living and the dead, where the cursuses, for instance, may formalize a long-established pathway. Radiocarbon dating of antler picks discovered at the bottom of the western terminal ditch, plus other features, all suggest that the Stonehenge Cursus was first constructed around 3500 BC, forming a highly visible feature in the landscape. It then appears that, around 500 years later, there was a social change from a society that saw the dead as part of itself, to one that regarded the dead as being kept at a distance, in a separate zone.
Mike Parker Pearson (MPP) spoke about “Future research priorities.” He’s interested in where the people came from, and envisages more isotope analysis like that which determined the origins of the Amesbury Archer. So the Beaker People Project will sample a proportion of the well-preserved skeletal remains of the Beaker period, aiming to reconstruct individuals’ diet and mobility. He wondered whether Stonehenge was a specific place of pilgrimage, and appeared to answer his own question by saying that there are similar results from other equivalent sites … but I’m afraid that I didn’t capture the details of what I presume are still pilot studies.
He also talked about some post-excavation research for the Stonehenge Riverside Project that he called “Feeding Stonehenge.” This involves analyzing the large quantities of pig and cattle remains from Durrington Walls. I’m not sure how definite these results are, but he said that the animals are raised off the chalk, and are therefore imported, and that all the evidence points to temporary settlement. Interestingly, the evidence from the pigs points to slaughtering at two peak points in the year: midwinter and, less convincingly, midsummer. All of those straws seem to point to a pattern of twice-yearly solstitial use. He plans to look for similar patterns at Avebury, but he suggested that it would not be the same at Avebury, where there are no strong solstitial alignments. However, there do appear to be spring/May Day alignments. And that raises the interesting possibility that perhaps Avebury and Stonehenge were used in a complementary way at different times of the year, by a widespread Wessex people. Just my speculation.
Mike wouldn’t be Mike without leaving us a little surprise. On this occasion, he told us of some recent fieldwork he’d done near the Devil’s Den, a cromlech at the bottom of the long valley running south from Fyfield Down and the Grey Wethers, a valley that must have been a stone chute for the sarsens sliding down the valley sides. MPP said that he and Mike Pitts had spotted large depressions in the valley above the Den, and he suggested that these might have been the resting places of sarsen stones before they made the journey to Stonehenge. So, what would that journey have been? It’s very unlikely that they’d have been dragged up the valley and then down again to Avebury. So the only reasonable suggestion is that they went down Clatford Bottom, the valley continuation to Clatford, and crossed the river Kennet. Crossing the Kennet would require a causeway – and MPP thinks he’s spotted one beside the existing bridge. Exciting, or what? The obvious route then is to take the easy slopes through Lockeridge to Knap Hill, and then down to Marden henge, and the headwaters of the Avon. Perhaps the Marden henge monumentalizes the crossing of the Avon? The Clatford hypothesis should be easy enough to test and, if MPP is right about a heavily-piled Kennet causeway strong enough to carry stones weighing up to 50 tons, there could still be some mud-preserved remains in the river bottom. And that could lead to an RC dating that would date Stonehenge precisely.
And on that bombshell, as Clarkson says, I’ll say goodnight. That was the end of the presentations, leaving just enough time for a short Q&A session. In my view, the day was an outstanding success – my only suggestion would be to spread it over a whole weekend to do full justice to that volume of material. It sounds as though there are plans to repeat the seminar next year and, if so, I’d strongly recommend that you try and attend. It’s an almost unique opportunity to hear the world’s experts on Stonehenge and Avebury talking together.
Once again, I’d like to extend my grateful thanks to Alex for his generosity of spirit in compiling this report and for his kind permission to use the photos of the 2009 Bluestonehenge excavation.
More original posts to follow as soon as time allows.
48 Responses to “Stonehenge and Avebury seminar at Devizes – a report”
Alex – You are awesome.
My initial reaction is the Stonehenge is alive and well, and gets to be more and more mysterious the more we learn. Really appreciate this.
Juris
[...] excellent report by Alex Down on the seminar can be found on Eternal Idol Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Lord Kennet diesAvebury is not Dudley!Welcome to [...]
Thanks to Angie, Juris and Dennis for their kind words. It is, of course, a real pleasure to be able to report this sort of information, the very antithesis of a chore. I think the main value of an event like this is that the ideas and information that we hear (while it may be familiar territory for the professionals) is a catalyst for the thinking of the large numbers of people like us who have a deep and lasting interest in the prehistoric landscapes of Wessex and elsewhere.
I think the key word here is landscape, because it was even more apparent from the talks that I heard that the professionals are considering the shape and nature of the landscape itself, together with its ecology and the features that it contained, when building their hypotheses about life and beliefs in prehistory. It also seems apparent that anthropological data from historic and present cultures may be very relevant, as Jim Leary and Colin Richards demonstrated.
All of this shows, as Juris says, that research into Stonehenge is alive and well, with some broad new avenues to explore. Exciting times ahead!
Well, Alex, there’s certainly a huge amount to ponder here, so I suspect that this is what everyone’s doing, while judging from the site statistics, a lot of people around the world are spending a lot of time here.
One immediate problem, given the layout of Eternal Idol, is how & where to discuss the various subjects without being a cross-purposes with each other. As you might imagine, I was particularly intrigued by what Colin Richards had to say about the supernatural, but I’ll raise it another time. I got to know Colin fairly well at Stonehenge and I was always impressed by what he had to say and how he said it, so I might drop him a line and ask if he’d care to contribute.
I was also very struck by Amanda Chadburn’s suggestion of an archaeological research group for this WHS, so I have some helpful and easily-implemented suggestions that I’ll post separately on another occasion. In the meantime, I hope everyone else is enjoying reading Alex’s account as much as I am – if so, then there are certainly a great many very contented people ‘out there’.
I am not convinced by the V (sorry Angie) as the photo for me seems to show a natural (in so much as one end of the V is higher that the other) Of of course it may have been selected as a symbol but that is something we can never know?
My concern with anthropology is that are these tribes developing anything like the astronomical skills of our ancestors?
Alex many thanks for your report – we EI addicts (cold turkey for a few days last week) are indeed lucky you are prepared to supply. I wonder if a camcorder would be allowed?
John,
I think you are wrong to dismiss Angie’s perspective with this. The vulva idea is evidenced elsewhere, specifically Creswell Crags, close to where I live, where they have a similar carving on a cave roof dated to much earlier than this (I have seen this for myself). When you also consider there is evidence of human interactions at this site dating back 40,000 years, then this representation is entirely consistent with much earlier ideas.
http://www.creswell-crags.org.uk/Home.aspx
RR
That’s interesting Red Raven. Do you know if there’s a photo of it anywhere online? (Thanks for your consideration of my theory, btw.)
John, you’re quite entitled to your opinions, but if you followed the links I gave to the earlier photo (Dec 06), you’ll see I also wondered if it represented an antler-pick, which would look quite accurate if tilted slightly.
After reading Alex’s report, it was only fair to consider it as a combination of both, making it even more potent.
I’ve no doubt the SH builders often chose stones for their natural lumps and bumps, which at first glance appeared symbolic, and might have seemed, to them, a ‘gift’ from the ‘Earth Mother’ or ‘Great Goddess’.
I’m sure the ‘spine’ that often shows up on the outer face isn’t completely natural, but the ‘pregnant belly’ seen sideways-on probably is.
Angie – no problem and I apologise for not reading all the link but once I saw the photo my thought (rather than opinion – I don’t form those until I am at least fairly certain about the facts) was it is natural. If so it may have been chosen deliberatley or by chance. That possibility would not exist if it was a carving.
RR – Is the “V” carving referenced on the Cresswell site? Here now is a different problem – what does the V represent? Again a first thought on this is that the “Venus” models were very explicit (as was rock art) so I just wonder if a V is a liitle subtle for the subject matter? What was your first impression?
Angie,
I don’t believe there is an online photo. This is mainly because of the prevailing conditions. To see the carving, the low intensity cave lighting is almost switched off and the carving is highlighted by torchlight and this has to be shone at a specific angle to highlight it. Not the best conditions for photography without special low light capabilities. I can confirm however, the image has a more sharper defined “V” than the image on your photo, which reminds me more of a softly written ” W ” than the sharp V. Also, there is a colony of rare cave spiders at the site, which means disturbance of the cave has to be minimal.
It’s interesting that mainstream science is now increasingly approaching similar conclusions to those of us who have intuitively deduced some of the “facts” surrounding sites such as these. Of course, the fact that these conclusions have been arrived at by completely independent means strengthens those conclusions and I think that dialogue, such as evidenced on sites such as this, can only be a good thing.
RR
John, I’m going to add my weight to Angie’s and Red Raven’s views that the stone was chosen for its natural features. Ever since I visited Carnac, I’ve believed that each stone represents symbolically the spirit of some living thing important to the Neolithic people. While I was quite overwhelmed by the sheer size of the Carnac rows, later at one of the smaller sites nearby I saw stones in many of which I could clearly see the faces and shapes of people or animals. I formed the theory then – and I still think that the idea has some merit – that the stone rows represent “stories in stone”, or a sort of mnemonic for tribal lore. I envisage the stone rows being extended year by year as significant events in the clan’s story are commemorated. The stones could be a way of initiating youngsters into the traditions of their clan, to give them a sense of who they are, and of tribal identity. The stones would also represent a processional way which would be traversed to honour the past and the ancestors, stopping at each stone to acknowledge what it represents. It’s history personified, and a memorial to the past.
I think that almost certainly that some of those ideas are captured in the monuments at Stonehenge and Avebury. Even though the SH stones are shaped, each one has its own natural features, and obviously some of the shaping has been done (or left undone) with some purpose in mind beyond trying to create a simple rectangular block. I’m sure that each stone represent something important to the builders, either an event, a person, or a concept.
A concept – fertility – is perhaps what is captured in that V-mark on stone 16. This would not be the only example in this WHS – at Avebury, there is an even more graphic example in what Terence Meaden describes as “female stone 106 which bears on its inward surface the unmistakable mark of an open vulva with clitoris.“. In conjunction with the massive Obelisk stone (now missing) Meaden believes this stone was fertilized through the rising sun at Beltane, or May Day.
Colin Richards in his presentation said words to the effect that Neolithic people may have considered all things living, or animate. For me, each animated stone contains the spirit of an animal, a person, an event or the animistic symbol of a concept like fertility. So I’m very happy to believe Angie’s interpretation of stone 16′s mark. We shouldn’t stop there – I think we should be looking for the animating principle behind each stone. It won’t be easy but, as Colin Richards said, we have to try to understand ““what was it like to be Neolithic?””
PS Thanks John, I’m glad you found the report interesting. Unfortunately, I’m almost certain that camcorders wouldn’t knowingly be allowed – it’s an Intellectual Property problem, usually.
Alex’s suggestion that each stone represents the spirit of something believed to be a living entity reminds me of the many folktales that claim stones had once been living beings who had been turned to stone for various infractions (such as dancing on the Sabbath). These tales appear to be Christian in origin, as they feature the devil, the Sabbath, etc., but it could be that these tales have their true origins in a much earlier age when people believed that they truly contained (to quote Alex) “the spirit of an animal, a person, an event or the animistic symbol of a concept like fertility.”
Aynslie, I sometimes feel that you and I are telepathic – just a few days ago, I had a fascinating conversation with one of my neighbours about his perception of groups of stones on Dartmoor, but I haven’t been able to write about it yet, sadly. It’s very much along the lines of your insightful observation, but from a different & what I thought was an original and intriguing angle. I’ll write about it when I can, but otherwise, you are one of the sources of the great pleasure I invariably experience when I come to ponder the Matter of the Stones and The Matter of The Ancestors, so thank you for this. Thank you to everyone else who takes the time and trouble to contribute, of course, and I’ll write again when I can.
John,
My initial response was one of surprise that someone actually spotted it in the first place. It is comparatively small and basic. It could be strongly argued that it may not actually be the representation it is claimed to be, however, the archaeologists on site seemed convinced and I’m inclined to agree with them. The fact it is not on the main site may suggest that some are uncomfortable with this assertation being made in public. The role of fertility must have been central to earlier generations, as it is today. Unfortunately, most people today think the supermarkets are the intercessors (priests) in this role as our modern life further disconnects us from our environment.
Alex,
Interesting that Colin Richards used a “wrapping” analogy to describe the dynamic environment around the wider environment of SH. In Brython, we have described a similar analogy when discussing the spiritual make up of Britain. We used the term “layering” acknowledging that the land consists of layers of spirituality layered down through the ages. This implicitly acknowledges the roles of all spiritual paths that have interacted here through the ages, not just one particular viewpoint and it may be visualized as the make up of a sedimentary rock. I can’t help but feel the exposure of such geology would have had a symbolic meaning to them, especially after winter storms when new formations may have appeared.
I was also intrigued by your mention of Carnac. I was there last year and your theory holds much resonance with me. I chose to be there at the summer solstice and I spent much time at the Alignements du Petit – Menec, away from the main allignements. These lesser well known allignements form a crescent, at it’s widest six columns wide, facing south east
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3147/3732264113_df07e00fef.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3538/3670826049_2860b3ea59.jpg
and posses a much different feel, probably because of the encroachment of nature as opposed to the more cultivated environment of the main allignements.
For me, the animistic nature and practices of these earlier generations is a “given” and as such, should always play a part in any and all considerations into the nature of any landscapes displaying early human interactions.
RR
There’s no denying that standing stones have unique and individual characteristics and features–personalities, if you will–whether they’re in a formation or alignment of some sort or solitary.
When you used the phrase “The Matter of The Ancestors”, it occurred to me that perhaps stone circles sometimes functioned as an audience of ancestor spirits. I couldn’t help but think of several men’s groups I know of who hold an audience in just such a way, sitting or standing in a circle around whomever they are giving an audience to for the purpose of working through a personal/group issue, passing judgment or making a decision. I don’t doubt that Neolithic people did the same, maybe including their ancestors and the local spirits (manifested in stone) in the process.
Tradition clearly attributes human characteristics to megaliths and in them the stones behave as if alive. What is to be made of the tradition recorded in the Bord’s ‘ The Secret Country’ ? Daniel Defoe wrote in his Tour Through England and Wales (1774) “a baker carry’d a basket of bread and laid a loaf upon every stone” and yet could not make out the same number twice”. This is one of many traditions recording that the stones in stone circles could not be counted which the Bord’s feel is a memory of food offerings. They also record that as late as the early years of the last century a live Ram was sacrificed at an ancient stone at Holne (Devon) (pp 40).
Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Merlin is clearly in no doubt about Stonehenge “for in these stones there is a mystery” which is as true today as it was then. Water used in washing stones was used to treat the sick for “for not a stone is there that lacketh the virtue of leechcraft”.
Fertility was another power attributed to the stones and there is an obvious phallic symbolism. Tradition above all decreed respect for the stones, which on its own suggests that they were considered far more than inanimate.
Again from the Bord’s book (pp145) ‘such stories indicate a belief that the stones were alive and such a belief may have indeed existed. Evidence to support it comes from the parish register of St Mary’s Church Reading (Berkshire) where a notice dated 26 July 1602 reads ” This child was killed by a blocke which fell upon him; which blocke was founde (sic) by the Corowners (sic) Jury to be guilty of his death”
At Carnac the stones are associated were the spirits of the dead and Otherworld as described in “Celtic Connnections” (James and Bostock). (pp 26). “The names of the alignments – Kerlescan, the house of burning and Kermario, the house of the dead – could well refer to ancient funeral rites ”
Clearly all this suggests the Stones had (and perhaps still have) very real powers over birth, life and death, but does any of that strengthen the case for the V shape at Stonehenge being an intentional representation?
In “Celtic Connections” reference is made to “the Carnac Goddess from Brittany – with an emphasised Vulva symbolising the “Giver of Birth”. The Carnac Goddess dates to 3500 BC”. I have not been able to find any more worthwhile information on this but it does demonstrate that such matters were not all that subtle, which from much earlier the Venus_of_Laussel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_of_Laussel also demonstrates.
I am not denying other possibilities, but for me the message (even allowing for the time difference) is that explicit portrayal is evident and it dismisses the V shape at Stonehenge (and perhaps at Cresswell) as just too subtle. Thus I still feel it is natural with no more to it.
PS: Daniel Defoe was referring to Stonehenge.
Aynslie has an interesting suggestion about the legends of the stones being petrified people; often maidens, for some reason. But perhaps the stories of naughty maidens being turned into stone was put about by the slavemasters to explain a short supply of the genuine article? Probably then, as now, real maidens were a rare commodity. (Joke, poor taste, apologies, etc.) It’s an attractive idea, that the folk memory of the inspirited stones carried down over thousands of years.
As RR says, we should probably regard the animistic nature and practices of these earlier generations [as] a ‘given’ and as such, should always play a part in any and all considerations into the nature of any landscapes displaying early human interactions. This will probably cause palpitations in certain sections of the archaeological establishment, but the fact that Colin Richards acknowledges this ‘given’ shows that the standard model (to borrow a useful term from physics) of the Wessex landscape appears to extending into different dimensions.
I think the idea of layers, or wrapping, must also extend to the layers of symbolism in the monument. I don’t believe there’s one single explanation of the design of SH; rather, I think that it encapsulates different ideas, symbolically, in a way that pleased the designers. As I believe that the design ultimately represents the cosmos of the Neolithic people, it will integrate, or wrap, all sorts of different concepts – symbolically expressed – that contributed to their beliefs about their universe. And in RR’s Brythonic terms, this would be laying down a very early and significant layer of the spirituality that infuses the land.
With respect John, there is absolutely no way the Creswell carving is natural, even if the interpretation may be open to some limited speculation.
RR
Mention of Carnac has led to me finding out some literature from the region brought on my last visit. And very revealing it has proven to be. In The Carnac Alignements – Neolithic Temples by Jean – Pierre Mohen (Conservateur Generale du Patrimoine) he relays the story of St Cornelius, who became pope in the 3rd century, who “being pursued by pagan soldiers to the seashore, and finding no boat to flee, turned around and changed all the soldiers to stone.” Another version claims the saint hid in an Ox’s ear and to thank the animal, he apparently instituted an Ox cult.
These would appear to be Christianized appropriations of the site. Churches in the Morbihan area show the saint accompanied by his Oxen. However, a capstone of the Gavrinis passage tomb shows two bulls with long lyre shaped horns (circa 4300 BC) and originally decorated a giant menhir at Lochmariaquer. It is stated that the Ox represented the masculine component of rural fertility.
There are many similarities between the WHS and Carnac. In the mid 18th century, it was speculated that the site of the stones was the camp used by Caesar when he campaigned against the Veneti. Later in the 18th century, James Miln conducted excavations at the Kermario allignments and recorded (and apparently kept) fragments of querns, mullers, hammerstones, axes and other polished stones.
In a chamber at the south western end of the alignments, diorite artifacts were discovered.
In The Megaliths of Brittany by Jacques Briard, it is noted that the ends of the alignments often ended with enclosures, often elliptical, which may have represented the “megalithic egg”.
So, the Ox bones found around SH and indeed the recently mentioned Aurochs, may symbolize the masculine aspect of fertility and the (currently) disputed (under the terms of the CDA) feminine engraving would complete the fertility symbolism.
RR
Alex, are you saying the monument is too complicated to understand? Personally I would appreciate it if you could just dumb it down (a lot) for those who have only porcine unenlightenment 
.
More seriously, we are dealing with savages who suddenly had time on their hands thanks to the gift of agriculture. With that, they decided to drag stones all across the country for the sheer bloody hell of it.
John asks … but does any of that strengthen the case for the V shape at Stonehenge being an intentional representation??
It’s Angie’s discovery, and I’m sure she can make out a better case than I can but, for me, there is no contention – as John implies – between the marking being “natural” and being an intentional representation. To have meaning, a representation does not have to be graphically accurate. All it needs is a commonly acknowledged meaning among those who selected the stone for its shape and characteristics. And if the Neolithic builders believed that a marking had symbolic significance, then that mark is immediately significant for all those who look upon it through the eyes of the builders. Or interpret it through the words of the celebrants.
If the builders believed, as Colin Richards suggests, that the very rock is animated with some spirit or principle, then it would seem unnecessary to exaggerate the expression of that principle or spirit. That’s not to say it wasn’t done – just that Neolithic man may not have felt it necessary to spell out – or chisel out – every message, when the message was already clear to all those who needed to know.
John, I think our last posts must have crossed in the Great Waiting Room of cyberspace, so I’m interleaving my responses to your comments. But I’m certainly not saying that the monument is too complicated to understand. I’m not sure what makes you think that – perhaps it was my belief there isn’t one single explanation of the design of SH? Well, yes, I don’t think there is one single simplistic explanation involving astronomy or sacrifice or divination, or whatever. It’s more multi-layered than that, which does make it more complex, but these people were essentially the same as us, with the same intellectual equipment, though they saw the world from a totally different cultural context. So I’d reject your claim (though I’m sure that you meant it in jest) that we are dealing with savages who suddenly had time on their hands thanks to the gift of agriculture. But if you want to read how I believe the monument expresses the cosmology of the builders, I put an outline into the post I wrote entitled Sun mound, Moon ring. If it seems too obscure, please tell me where I’m not clear and I’ll try and improve it.
Obviously, there are a hundred and one things we could discuss as far as Alex’s report is concerned, but I’ve been fascinated by all the responses so far and I’ve been digesting them. I was particularly struck by what Aynslie had to say about Christian traditions of stones being animated, which seems to me to be an echo of far earlier pagan beliefs.
While I remember it, I was speaking to one of my neighbours recently about my interest in these things and he told me a fascinating story about Dartmoor, although I forget which precise. He visits the place regularly for relaxation and he’s broadly familiar with the folklore and with the notion that Dartmoor has many prehistoric remains, but a strange thing happened to him a few years ago that has no supernatural connotations. He was ascending one particular tor in no great hurry, stopping to gaze at the landscape at regular intervals, when he saw what he thought were soldiers or a small group of people moving across the moor. To cut a long story short, he’d seen a group of standing stones, but the conditions at the time made him think, albeit momentarily, that they were people and that they were moving, if slowly.
This interested me greatly because it was a different and entirely legitimate ‘take’ on the notion of the stones being animated, so I immediately wondered about how many other groups of prehistoric stones had been perceived as moving or animated over the centuries.
Otherwise, the notion of the stones at Stonehenge in particular being animated interests me greatly, so the obvious question (for me at least) to ask is this – “Are they animated?”. Now, I’m going to try to forestall a stern essay from Alex on the definition of ‘proof’, but if you can all please bear with me, I want to write a post about precisely this, which ties in with a ‘survey’ I posted on Eternal Idol a few months back, when I asked about the perception people had of the Preseli Mouontains. I also want to write a lengthy comment on the aurochs post, so I’ll do so as soon as I can.
Alex, I’m certain that John was being ironic when he wrote all this, while your posts are models of clarity as far as I’m concerned. The more I think about the Stonehengers, though, the more I’m inclined to think that they were cleverer than us inasmuch as they made greater use of their ‘intellectual equipment’, but more of this anon.
A couple of illustrations re Stone 16, which some of you may have seen before: http://www.megalithic.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=a312&file=index&do=showpic&pid=38380
and
http://www.megalithic.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=a312&file=index&do=showpic&pid=54378
and
http://www.megalithic.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=a312&file=index&do=showpic&pid=36069
and
http://www.megalithic.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=a312&file=index&do=showpic&pid=48302
and
http://www.megalithic.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=a312&file=index&do=showpic&pid=36076.
That’ll do for now.
I also wondered whether Stone 15 which paired Stone 16 standing either side of the main axis at SH, was the ‘male’ stone. Did it have masculine symbolism..?
Finally:
Regarding ox burials and rituals:
http://www.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=22450
It is clear in the distant past humans worked out that life involved more than just a physical body and that a spirit survived death. This idea is the key to more or less everything that has happened from that time onward. Man has tried to utilise this idea for the benefit of the living by drawing in on a higher power. The strength of this belief is surely demonstrated by the Celtic conviction of survival after death, such that debts were “payable in the next life”
That may seem pure superstition, but I do not believe that such a strong conviction would have been formed without some form of proof, be it real or imagined (say under shaman trance). In Britain this proof could have been provided through the use of long barrows (not involving stone) and chambered tombs – perhaps even a difference in effect between the two was discovered. This new knowledge was exploited though the creation and use of stone circles; a movement which it seems necessitated the end of the old chambered tombs which were deliberately blocked. (I must see if there is any record of long barrows being made redundant in such an emphatic way, as it does seem that chambered tombs became the fashion)
What was behind this deliberate blocking? Was it to emphasise the power of a new religion or was it to avoid diminishing the enhanced ‘power’ by concentrating it at the new sites? Clearly the sites were of prime importance having been marked out as henges at an earlier date and probably sacred even before then, and for that reason stones were moved great distances (relative to their weight) to the site. But the effort involved also states that the stones were very important in the scheme of things either for longevity, or by fully exploiting the site, or a combination of both.
From this point, an even wider range of possibilities present themselves as to what these circles represented in religious terms and what use they were put to so as to benefit the community. This becomes even more complicated when different disciplines – be they Druid beliefs, dowsing or scientific objectivity (all represented on this site) produce their own interpretations based on the ideas of the interest or speciality
One thing is clear: science flounders in this world , a world of interpretation and the intangible. Once objectivity is lost, then our own belief structures necessarily take over, so all things become possible and can be argued. The process nevertheless involves gathering evidence and interpreting it so that arguments can be formed and conclusions drawn (although proof cannot be presented). There is the problem that of the same evidence may be interpreted in different ways which leads to contrary conclusions. But that is the nature of the subject matter and the proper response is not to say right or wrong but to consider what is said and reach agreement or disagreement be it to a greater or lesser extent. That is the way I view all contributions to this site. It is the way I try to contribute. I want to test ideas and try and not fall into the trap whereby these ideas have to be ‘proved’ and given a substance beyond the evidence when someone else does not agree (particularly when they appear confrontational)
Science has been of enormous help in providing enlightenment through analysis of the tangible and I fully admire the brilliance of the techniques employed. It is tempting to think it can go further, but hard science is restricted by its own terms of reference and its need for experiment and proof. In a way, I believe the development of anthropology vindicates this argument. It assumes that what is learnt about modern tribal behaviour will help explain the past, but this seems a rather desperate move. The great ancient civilisations developed with different beliefs, albeit there was some commonality as to ideas about death and the soul or spirit. There are too many ‘other factors’ at play for such an approach to be entirely convincing.
A lot is known about these early civilizations because it was written down. At some point their belief structure was put into words and the ideas frozen in time. In Britain this did not happen. However, I believe a great civilisation did develop perhaps ahead of the others which we now consider superior because they accord with our modern ways. Yet something inspired the so called “King of Stonehenge” to come to Britain from the Alps. Folk memory legend and lore all hint at something great in this country. It is in tradition that the truth can be found although such sources will never be acceptable as evidence as they have become distorted (not the least by Christianity who decided we are right and you are wrong) over time and because it often contradicts itself.
However, there seems to be a thread which more than hints at a real power in the stones. The source of this may have been the spirits of the ancestors, earth currents, solar and lunar forces or whatever. Perhaps a combination of all of them. But it is also evident tradition does not have these places as solemn monuments for the dead, but functional with real power which also required live human interaction to exploit it.
Tradition also clearly implies that this power was lost – that is one way of looking at the folk tales of soldiers becoming inanimate. It has long puzzled me why Stonehenge lost its significance and that it was a gradual process. Dennis suggested in the “Missing Years of Jesus” that it had become polluted by the spirits but I think that it just lost is power. This loss of power coincided with the use of metal, and the more prevalent its use the greater its detrimental effect on Stonehenge and other stone circles. As a possible explanation did the metal extracted from the ore somehow weaken and then virtually destroy whatever the force was that manifested itself at Stonehenge? This may explain the reorganisation of the stones in an attempt to regain lost power.
Alex, I will reply later as it seems cross purposes is producing a misunderstanding.
Dennis, I recall two historical references to stones actually from one place to another without human intervention. This was in The Secret County and I will dig these out.
It’s interesting that the Carnac “saint” associated with oxen and who instituted an ox cult there should have a name like Cornelius, the root of which is “horn”. Sounds like a horned god whose cult and attributes were Christianized.
My suggestion is that both the Creswell and Stonehenge ‘V’are not as explicit as other ancient female representations or indeed those of a much later date found in churches and called ‘Sheela-na-gig’. To counter argue this with symbolism I believe just adds another “wrap” of uncertainty. (Hopefully using wrap in this context is correct. I am not sure I fully undertsand what ‘wrapping’ actually means – hence my need for some dumbing down).
But symbolism does seem a rather circular approach: it is a symbol; they all knew what the symbol represented so that is what it symobolised? That is self contained and I cannot break into it.
I accept that the ‘V’ at Creswell was carved so this only applies to the Stonehege ‘ V’. If this feature had been carved as opposed to natural then a layer (wrap?) of uncertainty would be removed. That is because we would then not have to concern ourselves with deciding if the stone was indeed chosen for its female representation or this shape was just inherent in the structure of the stone and actually had no meaning? That is all there is to it – it is not contentious in any way.
If looking for a female representation then I would consider the Bord’s suggestion in ‘Earth Rites’ that the trilithons “two upright stones capped by a third to form a classic female receptive symbol” and that the whole site could have symbolised the womb (pp 52).
Too much has been made of this ‘argument’ (and before the wagons circle, that is not knocking in any way Angies idea!) so I hope we can move on.
I do think that Alex’s excellent lecture report actually added more to complexity and less to simplicity. Besides ‘wrapping’ (as mentioned above it may be personal) Ixer, Darvill and Leary seem to deny or ignore earlier work.
Having said that, I have no issues at all with Alex’s ‘ Sun Mound Moon Ring’ essay. I thought it was well argued and interesting. I recall feeling that a circle is naturally divided into two by a diameter or axis, so will always support dualism, but it was not something I felt strongly about.
Since then, I have been exploring the ‘Spoils of Annwn’ and do feel that if there is any symbolism involved, it has more to do with the yearly cycle as portrayed in the stories in the Mabinogion.
I am currently thumbing through the ‘The Celts’ (John Davies) and note (pp28-9) “The Beaker folk were believed to have migrated from the Rhineland and to have brought with them a culture which contained elements originating in central Europe, or perhaps from as far to the east as the Ukraine”. It goes on to say: “Assuming they had their origins in the area north of the Black Sea, that would mean they sprang from a region widely assumed to be the cradle of the Indo European Languages. Thus the Celts could conceivably have carried the Indo European inheritance westwards at much the same time as the Aryans carried it eastwards to India. This would help to explain the apparent similarities between the social organisation law and poetic conventions found in early Ireland and in Vedic India”
Developing this theme from ‘Religion in History’ (Brandon pp 39) “a strong case for thinking that the characteristic dualism of Iranian religion also lay back beyond Zarathustra and originates in the concept of a high god who embodied in himself a duality of attributes – life and death, light and darkness creativity and destruction. Such a conception of deity would not be strange to the Ayran mind, since it finds expression in Hinduism”
That takes me full circle back to the excellent book ‘ The Druids’ by Ward Rutherford who continually draws parallels between the The Druids and the Hindu Brahamin. Ward Rutherford says (pp 171) “Like so much else the phenomena connected with trance states have hardly begun to be investigated. There are, for example, well-attested instances where in this condition the body weight has significantly altered. Under hypnosis, the subject having been told his strength has increased, will lift with ease a weight he could not have so much as moved in a normal state”. He goes on to mention strong evidence for the Druids interesting themselves in trance states; where this road will lead I don’t know, but I am enjoying the journey.
With reference to stones that moved in relatively modern times, as recorded in the Bords ‘The Secret Country’ (pp 144)
“The Wergin Stone Sutton near Hereford was moved 240 paces from its former position some time in 1652 and no one knew how, and it needed nine yoke of oxen to take it back. In the Highlands (Inverness) the Stone of Petti which weighed approximately 8 tons and formerly marked the boundary of Culloden estate and Moray county about 500 yards inland was mysteriously transported 200 yards out to sea during the stormy night of 20 February 1799″
Dare one ask could Stonehenge have reorgansied itself?
John, thanks for your good and thought-provoking posts. I can’t respond as completely now as I’d like – soon, I hope – but I will say this about symbolism: I think that, for a pre-literate culture, symbolism was the only way in which they could record ideas and concepts that were important to them, and hence symbolism itself became a potent means of communication. Symbols don’t necessarily have to be self-evident outside the culture that uses them – think of the Christian cross, which is incredibly heavily freighted with ideas and emotion, but would mean absolutely nothing to a culture that hadn’t encountered Christianity.
I understand your concerns about the limitations of science but, in its broadest sense, science is simply the organization of knowledge in order to make predictions, and this is an absolutely fundamental principle if we’re to develop broadly acceptable understandings of Neolithic monuments. Of course, individuals, by abandoning the accepted framework of data (that is, simply facts, non-interpreted) can produce their own theories which satisfy no one but themselves. I absolutely accept that there are other sources or inputs that should be considered, like anthropology, but ultimately any proposal has to pass through a scientific filter before it can be generally accepted. I’m afraid that means that supernatural influences don’t make it through the filter – I know that is extremely irritating to some contributors here, but is absolutely necessary for wide acceptance.
Last comment, John, about anthropology – you have your concerns about it, but I’m sure (without being able to cite references) that work has been done on working back towards a core set of beliefs about the world that are common across cultures. This sounds to me rather like the reverse-engineering of a PIE language and, if it’s available, should be a powerful tool in interpreting Stonehenge and Avebury. That’s why I proposed to Amanda Chadburn that the A&SH Research Group should be a multi-disciplinary team, including anthropologists as well, at the very least.
I couldn’t agree more with some of what you have said Alex, but I think it is very important that the spiritual context is taken into account and would very much welcome the sharing of knowledge between all communities. Much like is done here on Dennis’s wonderful site.
After all we have all taught each other something here, have we not? Humanity is not as black and white as science. That is science’s problem to deal with. Reality is, that there are things that go bump in the night. Simply because we perceive them.
Jim, you said something that I may have misinterpreted, but the way I read it made a lot of sense to me. You said that we need to “share knowledge between all communities.” Hear, hear! Terrible term, but multi-disciplinary is what I’d love to see: I mentioned Anthropology above, but I’d like to see Linguistics involved, Mythology or Folklore, maybe Comparative Religion … and I’m sure there are others. I’m not sure that it covers your point about spiritual context, but if you mean that we should be listening to the Druid community, then that’s good too.
All I’d ask that these different ideas and viewpoints are integrated within a proper framework, which I’d characterize as a scientific approach (yes, that’s contentious) but simply means that in developing hypotheses about Neolithic life and monuments, they have to fit within the context of the known archaeological data – of which there is a huge amount. That has to form the framework with which the theories have to mesh.
And it can be done. I’ve just got hold of Michael Dames’ latest book on Silbury Hill (published 1st June), and it’s a remarkably wide-ranging review of the place of Silbury within all sorts cultural and spiritual influences. It’s described on the cover as setting out to answer EH’s admission that “we can only hope to understand [Silbury] if we combine our scientific approach with a vision that sees beyond modern-day beliefs.” On my limited reading so far, Dames’ book seems to me triumphantly to accomplish that. And it’s a great read, too!
As far as I am concerned Druidry is one of the most progressively scientific minded of the paths available for people to follow. Not only is there the reverence for nature, the medicine, the educational methods of world renown, astronomy, etc etc. There is also what I believe is a striving for knowledge and truth that is core to the existence of all these attributes.
For example the issue of the Ancestor remains. No matter what our detractors say, we have always said keep a sample, bury the rest. We have always had sealed containers as a compromise too!
Personally I will be impressed if they can determine which holes which remains came from and then disperse them in their original resting places. I mean it’s easy to dig them up, but even BP is required to clean up its mess.
John, I own a number of books by the Bords, and while I remember, you mentioned “Enchanted Britain” by Mark Alexander some time ago. I’m lucky enough to own that book too, as well as many others, but yes, I find the Bords’ books to be fascinating.
I’m not sure where to start, as I’ve been otherwise engaged for a while, but of course I’m interested by the supernatural and I’m also fascinated by the idea of stones being animated and sometimes moving. Well, some big stones are known to move of their own accord, apparently, and these are the famous stones of Death Valley. No one’s ever seen them move and we don’t know how they move by themselves, but move they clearly do, while the mention of ice as a ‘moving agent’ in the above link brings to mind Brian John’s theories about glaciers.
This business of animated and/or moving stones also makes me think of the incredible stonehole that Alex recorded and photographed from his time on the Bluestonehenge dig – I can’t find the link to the photo, but it was of a pit where the packing stones were all still in place, even though the stone itself had been removed. Now, I’m not suggesting that it flew out or that it otherwise moved by itself, but it seems to be a mystery and again, it brings to mind the stories of Merlin’s magic, or art by which the stones were transported to Stonehenge from Mount Killaraus. Of course, I’m inclined to believe that this story of Merlin was based on the accomplishments of an earlier ‘worker of magic’ in Neolithic times and this in turn brings to mind Sir Arthur C. Clarke’s dictum about magic, which you can read in this link.
I have some experience of this, a long time ago when I was at school. I can’t remember how this ‘knowledge’ was passed on or how I came to learn about it, but I vividly remember four people putting their hands (in a pile) on the head of someone who was sitting down. I can’t remember how long we did this for or if there was any spoken accompaniment, but when two people put a finger apiece under the sitter’s arms and the other two put one finger apiece under the sitter’s knees, we were able to lift him up with no trouble at all. I’d forgotten about this for decades until the contributions reminded me of it….fascinating.
I can remember my father saying something about people sitting around a table with their [both] hands resting on the edge and fingers splayed, just touching each others’, and eventually the table rose up. I wish now I’d pumped him for more info on that!
When you lift person in a group they tell you to put the arms above their head to cause a rush of blood to your arms. This gives you more strength. Secondly you are distributing the weight between 4 people and deviding that again by 2 for each of your hands. So if someone was 180 pounds that would work out at 22.5 pounds per arm. That is 10kg per hand. That is effectively nothing to an arm that is suffering from a blood rush.
Actually, Dennis, it is known how the Death Valley stones move. I believe it’s been captured on film, as well. Apparently it’s a combination of rain falling on the parched surface of the valley and not soaking into the ground because the ground is so hard and dry it’s like hardened plaster. Add to this high velocity winds and you get stones hydroplaning short distances.
Aynslie, I’m certainly not anything like an expert on these stones, so I don’t doubt that you’re right. However, I’m baffled by the fact that these stones seem to move in radically different directions at the same time, which doesn’t seem to be consistent with wind power. Anyway, it’s the fact that they move at all that interests me, so I’m ransacking my memory (and library) for examples of any other ‘stones that move’.
Have stones similar to say the size of trilithons been moved any significant distance in modern times? I can imagine that frozen ground and or snow would have helped?
Well, by pure coincidence, I suppose, I’ve just received an invitation or request from a production company in London to take part in and pass comment on a novel attempt to move a large stone. I’ll be speaking to the producer on Monday, at a guess, so I’ll let you all know the outcome. It does sound very interesting, that’s for sure.
From what I have seen of the current attempts, it is a case of many men, many methods. What is clear is that Stonehenge involved a strategic thinking and organization which seems beyond the likes of BP.
This is interesting……..
http://mikepitts.wordpress.com/2010/06/10/a-really-new-stage-in-stonehenge-history/
RR
I have been reading about cave art in a fascinating book ‘Prehistoric Heritage’ by Felix R Paturi. There is a clear meassge that cave and rock art developed over time: “Painting and engraving moved away from simple representation and inclined towards symbolism. This development reached its peak around 2000BC. There are many paintings which remind us of the Spanish painter Miro. Symbols dominated every picture. Different symbols were used in different regions for men and women (unfortunately how they differed is not clearly illustrated) for animals, water, rain, dwelling places, fields sun and moon and many other things”
I have so far only skimmed the chapters leading to the section on “The Big Stones” but there seems a lot of relevant material and ideas. One phrase I liked was ” they did not try to produce counter evidence, they simply ignored Altamira on the grounds that what should not exist does not exist”
Greetings from Canada! I am writing to thank Dennis for this wonderful site; and to confess that I have copied/pasted and printed every scrap of commentary concerning Stonehenge.
My interest in Stonehenge began 4-5 years back, as part of my studies of English history. At the time I was primarily interested in the post-Roman Britain. That all changed when I read Mike Pitt’s Hengeworld; which I have since re-read so many times I need a new copy! My bookshelves sag under the weight of books on the subject, not to mention three large binders – working on the fourth. My wife thinks I’ve lost all reason, she does not appreciate the complexity and depth of Stonehenge.
What I have found to be the most interesting aspect of the site is that no matter how much one reads and studies, there seems to be so much more to learn. We are priviledged to live in a time when wonderful new discoveries are taking place.
So, thanks again Dennis, your work is greatly appreciated.
Bob J
Hello Bob,
It’s good to hear from you and it’s always good to read something so appreciative of this site. Ever since Eternal Idol began properly, about six years ago, it has been a labour of love; I’ve never asked anyone to post links and all the information is published here for the benefit of all, while this same principle has been followed by all the many contributors over the years and in recent times.
When I began writing, I knew that I had original material to contribute, but all these years later, even I am surprised at just how much I have in the archives and how much continues to come to light. Much of this would be unknown or unreported were it not for the selfless efforts of the other contributors here, so I’m very grateful to them all and especially to Alex, for all his reports, photographs and insights.
Please feel free to post as & when you see fit, Bob, and I’m sure I’m not the only one who looks forward to hearing from you again.
Cheers Dennis, and thanks for the quick reponse !
Care to comment?
Alex, your generous sharing of all this information is very much appreciated. We are so lucky to have you reporting on these events, which the majority of us are unable to get to.
Btw: You’re either a brilliant shorthand-taker , or have a phenomenal memory!
Well done indeed!
Colin Richards’ comments on the folk of Polynesia… [quote]:
“… an anthropological viewpoint from Polynesia, where the “chants of Creation” help the people relate to their ancestors. Their use of tools (creation) gives birth to “things” so, conceptually, there is a relationship between genealogy and objects. He quoted MPP on Stonehenge: “… the living will have visited Stonehenge at certain times to meet the ancestors, and to communicate directly with them.” People need a relationship with the supernatural to use its power for sustaining life, .. ”
(unquote)
…. immediately reminded me of the ‘V’ mark on Stone 16 at Stonehenge. I’ve long been ‘banging-on’ about the importance of this stone after seeing this ‘vulva’-shaped mark on its inner face.
Even EH featured this in one of their leaflets last year:
http://www.megalithic.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=a312&file=index&do=showpic&pid=57127
As you can see, it also looks rather like an antler-pick, many of which are found in excavations of ditches around the monument.
If Colin Richards and Mike Parker Pearson can see a link between the Neolithic/BA people who built Stonehenge and worshipped there, and the Polynesians who looked upon their tools as ‘birth-giving’ things… what better to carve on the most important stone at Stonehenge (the one at SW of the Sarsen circle, whose outer-face’s ‘spine’ is ‘blessed’ by the dying rays of the setting Winter Solstice sun), than a combination of “birth-giving” ‘vulva’ and “creative” antler-pick?
.. “People need a relationship with the supernatural to use its power for sustain life..”, as I imagine they would on the shortest, darkest day of the year, when sympathetic magic would be at its most necessary to bring new life and new renewal in the months ahead.
The stone, and the area between it and the tallest remaining Trilithon upright, Stone 56, have twice dowsed as the most important features of the circle while visiting on Private Access in 2003 and 2006.