Tumulus:  OS Grid Reference – TQ 163 703

Archaeology & History

This is one of very few prehistoric tombs that are known about from the London region and — surprise, surprise! — very little is left of the place.  No surprise really.  It appears to have first been explored soon after Queen Victoria came to the throne

“A barrow on the south side of Sandy Lane was excavated in 1854.  It revealed some much disturbed burials, some flint tools and part of a bronze dagger.” (Ching & Howe 1980)

There were in fact the remains of three people found here: one at base level; the other just below the top; and the third body comprised remains that appear to have been buried just beneath the surface.  The tomb was a big thing aswell — being nearly 100 feet across and more than 10 feet high.  Pity there’s little to be seen of it today…

References:

Ching, Paddy & Howe, Ken, Teddington – As it Was, Hendon: Nelson 1980.
Gordon, E.O., Prehistoric London - Its Mounds and Circles, Covenant: London 1946.
Merriman, Nicholas, Prehistoric London, London Museum 1990.
Spence, Lewis, Legendary London, Hale: London 1937.

© Paul Bennett, The Northern Antiquarian

‘Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known’
Carl Sagan In Memoriam

Stone circle and midwinter sunset light

Neolithic farming communities in Scotland between the 56th and 57th parallel dragged massive 50-ton blocks of stone over the snow to form windows on the sky.

Recumbent stone circle at winter solstice

Fire festivals reenacted fire of the dying sun in stone circles

It must have seemed like a miracle at solar standstill when, after disappearing for seventeen hours, the sunlight returned and days began to lengthen once more. Seventeen hours of darkness is a long time if you live in a cave, an earth dugout or a stone mound.

The human subconscious appears to retain partial memory of this primordial condition which animals have, because in northern latitudes midwinter is often celebrated to an irrational degree. It is as if at a cellular level we remember that after galactic stillpoint is reached, the Earth starts to awaken once more and we realize that the Universe is going to keep on turning. What a blessing. What a miracle. What better reason to rejoice?

It is said our biological form is quintessentially-adapted for language: that the Word has created in our brain’s motor centers a highly developed auditory discrimination, with rapid muscular response in tongue, lips and palate; but we were not its makers. It was a gift from Creation which we have evolved to a remarkable sophistry. Fire, on the other hand was Man’s ultimate discovery.

At the forty-fifth parallel of latitude, in the cave vaults of Choukoutien near Beijing, a heavy-browed paleoanthropic form of Man with a cranial capacity as low as 860cc gnawed marrow bones and chipped stone implements. His time lies 500,000 years remote from this and yet in those years of the second Ice Age, this Man, with scarcely two-thirds of our modern cranial capacity, used fire.

Is it any wonder, then, that world mythology is filled with tales of sorcerer-priests who conjure light, the hero-giant stealer of fire from the gods? In discovering fire, were we not amazed at our ability to do as the gods themselves, to create Light?

In that dark cave half a million years ago ‘Peking Man’ created a spark which dispelled the darkness. His was the crucible which contained our entire human future. Have we not ever since – at a cellular level – been searching to return to that same realm of Light?

Round Zodiac of Dendera, from 50BC during Roman rule of Upper Egypt

In Babylonian legend, the redeemer of the world, Celestial Man, is expected to rise from the heart of the (cosmic) Ocean.

Ancient Man looked to the heavens for inspiration. Medieval Man was convinced heaven was right out there among the stars. It is only we, modern homo (so-called) sapiens who forgets to do that kind of communing with the Universe.

On the other hand select niches in our society still seek: within the scientific establishment the search for extra-terrestrial life (SETI) continues apace. Carl Sagan, exobiologist, astronomer and visionary, along with his colleagues at Cornell, created a fashion in the early ’70s for that kind of exploration.

He said:

‘We are starfolk, but we live in the galactic boondocks where the action isn’t’

and took steps, aided by NASA, to communicate with any advanced civilizations out there which might deign to reply. In sending the Pioneer 10’s message plaque of gold-plated aluminum to a star region in the vicinity of Taurus/Orion, they hoped to trigger a response from any listening/receiving civilization.

Pioneer 10 gold-plated plaque continues to travel for 80,000 years

Shortly after launching interstellar spacecraft Pioneer in March 1972, SETI directed efforts to beaming radio telescope transmissions to the stars. The latest of these was sent from Arecibo, Puerto Rico towards the Vega-Altair-Deneb triangle in 1999. By that time radio frequency was a speedier means of transmission than the fuel-propelled Pioneer space vehicle where a destination of even the nearest star (four light years distant) would not be reached for 80,000 years.

Besides they reasoned that if any civilizations were listening in/eavesdropping on us the Arecibo message was joining a century of transmissions from our planet, starting with Marconi’s first wireless communication in 1897.

It is thirteen years since Carl Sagan’s premature death on winter solstice 1996. He would be intrigued to learn of the massing body of evidence in favour of extra-terrestrial communication. The crop circle archive alone is superb. Not only does it communicate in the languages of science he advocated (mathematics, physics, astronomy), but, based on his premise that a more advanced civilization would find a more sophisticated means of communicating with us than we had with them, their graphics succeed in touching us at a cellular and emotional level, as well as pointing us to the stars.

Ancient World religions like the Judaic, Arabic, Egyptian, Babylonian, Greek and Vedic faiths have frequent admonitions to look to the stars, to ‘observe in the east’, to watch the heavens for signs.

Our society is on the cusp of the year 2010. We have a Space Station partially operational; Hubble and SOHO (Solar and Heliospheric Observatory) are in orbit; CERN has just collided atoms at an unprecedented rate in the tunnels below Geneva in Switzerland. We are technically advanced.

What about our spirit?

Neale Donald Walsch says:

Individuals — if their thought (prayer, hope, wish, dream, fear) is amazingly strong — can, in and of themselves, produce such results. Jesus did this regularly. He understood how to manipulate energy and matter, how to rearrange it, how to redistribute it, how to utterly control it. Many Masters have known this. Many know it now.
Neale Donald Walsch Conversations with God

If our heads were not so clouded by traffic jams and mind jams and living in a race for security and success, we might pause for this moment of solstice – the last in a single digit year for a century – and look to the heavens with awe. Two of our neighbours in the solar system, the crescent moon and Jupiter, shine brilliantly together shortly after sunset in the night sky. We have just experienced a multi-colour array of Geminid meteors emanating from the constellation which follows Orion through the night, with our brightest star, Sirius, stella maris, hovering below. It is the season for aurora borealis, which has already peaked over the Canadian Arctic. These are ‘commonplace’ wonders. However, we have also been treated to some unusual cosmic ’signs’.

Spiral of light over Tromsö, Norway on eve of Obama's Nobel Peace Prize acceptance

Great Eye of Sauron in Fomalhaut

‘We ask you once again to keep your eyes on the skies. These are the days when the signs have become talking points, that will awaken people’s awareness, not just to our presence but our methods of contact with you. For many years we have made crop circles as one means of getting your attention. As you will have noticed in more recent times, they have become more sophisticated. The messages they send have been interpreted, and their symbolism correctly understood. They have carried energy with them, and even although everyone has not understood them, it has connected with them sub-consciously.’

If Carl Sagan were still with us, I think he might consider this form of transmission equally valid from an advanced stellar civilization. After all his criteria suggested that those who had survived a post-nuclear age without exterminating either themselves or their habitat would be in a better frame of consciousness to extend the vibration of ascension and assistance to help another up the ladder of evolution.

If you’re listening, Carl. We miss you. Happy Solstice.

Cup-Marked Stone:  OS Grid Reference – SE 13736 40227

Also Known as:

• Baildon carving no.23 (Hedges)

Getting Here

As with many of the other Baildon Moor carvings, get up to Dobrudden caravan park and walk into the grasses immedietaly northeast onto the Dobrudden necropolis plain for 100 yards or so. It’s not far from the track and one of the many bell-pits is very close by.  Look around!

Archaeology & History

A lovely little carving (sad aren’t I…?), first recorded and illustrated in Glossop’s (1888) famous essay on the ancient sites of Baildon Moor.  He described there being 18 cups etched onto this rock — a fact echoed a few decades later in Mr Baildon’s (1913) magnum opus.  The modern surveys thankfully still count 18 cups here.

Mr Baildon's 1913 image

Glossop's 1888 drawing

This is another one of the Baildon Moor carved stones included in Mr Holmes’ (1997) astronomical survey, where he thought the cup-markings here represented stellar maps and other prehistoric astronomical events. A damn good investigative notion, but it sadly aint true.  However, those self-same ‘central design’ curves found at a large proportion of other carvings on and around Baildon Moor are plain here for all to see…

References:

Baildon, W. Paley, Baildon and the Baildons (parts 1-15), St. Catherines Press: Adelphi 1913-26.
Boughey, K.J.S. & Vickerman, E.A., Prehistoric Rock Art of the West Riding, WYAS: Leeds 2003.
Colls, J.N.M., ‘Letter upon some Early Remains Discovered in Yorkshire,’ in Archaeologia, 31, 1846.
Cowling, Eric T., Rombald’s Way, William Walker: Otley 1946.
Cudworth, William, ‘Baildon Moor & its Antiquities,’ in Bradford Antiquary 3, 1900.
Glossop, William, ‘Ancient British Remains on Baildon Moor,’ in Bradford Antiquary No.1, 1888.
Hedges, John (ed.), The Carved Rocks of Rombald’s Moor, WYMCC: Wakefield 1986.
Holmes, Gordon, 2000 BC – A Neolithic Solstice Odyssey, SASRG 1997.

© Paul Bennett, The Northern Antiquarian

Cup-Marked Stone:  OS Grid Reference – SE 13781 40259

Also Known as:

• Baildon Stone 29 (Hedges)

Getting Here

Takes a bitta finding this one, mainly cos it’s only a small stone – but worth the walkabout. It’s on the Low Plain, north of Dobrudden, about 10 yards down the path from the caravan park.

Archaeology & History

W.P. Baildon's 1913 drawing

As with other stones on this roughland plain, it was first recorded and drawn by the local historian W. Paley Baildon (1913), who counted at least 15 cups here, with one complete cup-and-ring.  Some of the cups have very distinct half-rings upon them; whilst others are connected by faint lines (as his drawing clearly shows).  The later surveys of Hedges (1986), and Boughey & Vickerman (2003) counted 17 cups on this stone.  This was another of the carvings which local astronomer Gordon Holmes (1997) thought may have been based on the constellation of Cassiopeia (like the nearby Cassiopeia Stone, found on the same moorland plain).

References:

Baildon, W. Paley, Baildon and the Baildons (parts 1-15), St. Catherines: Adelphi 1913-26.
Boughey, Keith & Vickerman, E.A., Prehistoric Rock Art of the West Riding, WYAS 2003.
Glossop, William, ‘Ancient British Remains on Baildon Moor,’ in Bradford Antiquary, 1888.
Hedges, John (ed.), The Carved Rocks on Rombalds Moor, WYMCC: Wakefield 1986.
Holmes, Gordon T., 2000 BC – A Neolithic Solstice Odyssey, SASRG Press 1997.

© Paul Bennett, The Northern Antiquarian

Cup-Marked Stone:  OS Grid Reference – SE 13787 40274

Also Known as:

• Carving no.33 (Hedges)

Getting Here

Best way to find this is to get up to the Dobrudden caravan site on the edge of Baildon Hill, near the cinder-dump, then follow the same directions as for the Baildon Moor carving no.171.  It’s on the same plain amidst the grasses – but you’re gonna have to zigzag about for a while before you find it!

Archaeology & History

W. Paley Baildon's drawing

A simple plain cup-marked stone which Boughey & Vickerman (2003) reckoned to have 14 of the little babies etched on its surface.  Ninety years earlier, the reliable Mr W.P. Baildon (1913) — who seems to have been the first person to describe this carving — showed there to be 15 cups when he came here.

This was one of the many carved rocks that astronomer Gordon Holmes (1997) looked at in his attempt to give a celestial explanation for the designs.  Not too sure misself…

References:

Boughey, Keith & Vickerman, E.A., Prehistoric Rock Art of the West Riding, WYAS 2003.
Hedges, John (ed.), The Carved Rocks on Rombalds Moor, WYMCC: Wakefield 1986.
Holmes, Gordon T., 2000 BC – A Neolithic Solstice Odyssey, SASRG Press 1997.

© Paul Bennett, The Northern Antiquarian

Cup-and-Ring Stone:  OS Grid Reference – SE 13771 40235

Also Known as:

• Carving no.28 (Hedges)
• Carving no.156 (Boughey & Vickerman)

William Glossop's 1888 drawing

Getting Here

If you wanna find this carving, you’ll find it near several others on the Low Plain, 40 yards east of the footpath north of Dobrudden Farm.  Look around in the tribbly grass!

Archaeology & History

This was first described and illustrated in a short article by William Glossop in the Bradford Antiquary in 1888, and reproduced by W. Paley Baildon (1913) – who drew his own impression of the carving. Tis one of my favourites from this moor. Dunno why – I just like it.

W.P. Baildon's accurate 1913 drawing

Cowling's 1946 drawing

Local astronomer and writer Gordon Holmes (1997) posited the theory that a part of this carving represented the constellation of Cassiopeia — hence its title!  He told of finding the same pattern of cups at four other carvings on the moors and assigned astronomical meanings to them.  He may be right, though I doubt it to be honest.  Having looked and looked at the many carvings here, and many other places, the star-reflection hypothesis doesn’t tend to work (as the heavenly bodies have moved somewhat since the days when the cups were first carved).  Along with this, when I was young I used to think cup-and-rings did have an astronomical basis — only to find, after constant analysis, that the theory didn’t work.

There are perhaps 20 cup-markings here, with various linking-lines and curves between and around the cups.  Perhaps the most accurate of the early drawings was Mr Paley Baildon’s 1913 image, where he highlighted the faint surrounding ring enclosing the 4 or 5 cups near the bottom of the stone.

References:

Boughey, Keith & Vickerman, E.A., Prehistoric Rock Art of the West Riding, WYAS 2003.
Cowling, Eric T., Rombald’s Way, William Walker: Otley 1946.
Glossop, William, “Ancient British Remains on Baildon Moor,” in Bradford Antiquary, 1888.
Hedges, John (ed.), The Carved Rocks on Rombalds Moor, WYMCC: Wakefield 1986.
Holmes, Gordon T., 2000 BC – A Neolithic Odyssey, SASRG Press 1997.

© Paul Bennett, The Northern Antiquarian

But only for holidays!

But, alas, no internet for some time!

Also, I’ve got three long long drafts, and no will power to finish any of them, which is sad.

(On the plus side, I also have an article about variation in neolithic teeth from Catal Hoyuk(1), an article about ziggurat cake(2), and a book about ancient Israeli women’s clothing(3))

I have to think of a way to bake a ziggurat cake before I get home. That would be epic(4).

Also, another book(5) has a chapter on fake Egyptian hieroglyphs. In that they were not really writing, but pretty patterns used for decorative purposes. Sort of like Chinese writing in Japan some 3000 years later.

Awesome!

Well, gotta go. Ciao <3

(1) Sorry, to lazy for diacritics. This is how weak the will power is today.

(2) It’s not actually about ziggurat cake, but about archaeology, but I have to pretend that it’s about ziggurat cake as long as possible, because archaeology is boooooooooooooring.

(3) Yes, really.

(4) In the ZIGGURAT, DUDE way. I actually can bake. Cook, even.

I’m brilliant.

(5) I can’t forget about it, because it seems that it accounts for about half of the weight of my suitcase =_=

Sacred boundary stone between Church lands

From Headquarters of the Church of Scotland at 121 George Street in Edinburgh, the state religion of the country controls most of the land previously gifted by generous lairds and landowners to the Church, a practice dating from the twelfth century. In recent years church buildings themselves have gone under the hammer, turning from sacred places of worship to private homes with the arbitrary wave of 121’s magisterial wand.

Aberdeenshire is traditionally famed for its Pictish symbol stones, thought to date from at least the 5th century, the earliest found in profusion on fertile farmland of busy agricultural communities. These were often saved from destruction by gunpowder or the plough by deep-seated superstition.

In an oral culture handed down from ancestral times, it didn’t do to harm the stones.

They were, after all, one of few remnants of country (‘pagan’ from Latin paganus, countryman) tradition which predated Christianity; a tradition of which the ancestors spoke. You could ’set your clock by the stones’.

Unlike its neighbour to the south, Northeast Scotland has a strong oral tradition and holds with a belief in respect for one’s forebears, more common in other early matrilineal cultures like the Native American, Maya and Zulu. In that sense, Pictish culture is strong here, regardless of modern influences; remarkable in the last thirty years in particular, with the absorption of Oil Culture.

Part of the Pictish soul, perhaps, is its ability by a people accustomed to infiltration, conquered status and absorption, to hold firm to the land, the original nurturing Mother, and get on with the business of living.

Matrilineal Picts were first absorbed in 843 by patriachal Scots, but Pictish Law held true and became adopted as the legal system of the conquerors. Scots Law to this day is guided by essential elements of its Pictish origins.

Pictish family systems are often likened to the Clan system of the West, but in a Pictish Northeast mindset, it is once again a different concept. Whereas within the Pictish family the female concepts of gratitude, hospitality, respect and negotiation are fostered, as we children claim an unspoken bond with country and ancestors, the Scots clan system is ruled by a Clan Chieftain, usually (but not always) male.

As with assimilation of Pictish Law, the countryman allowed nomenclature, yet persisted in the Old Way of doing things.

Scots in turn were absorbed by the English and, while it may be averred that west-coast or Central Belt Scots ‘hate’ their conquerors, the northeast Pict has no such feeling; it is irrelevant.

A Pictish mindset allows an appearance of conformity, while keeping his/her own counsel.

Pictish stone: Double disc and Z-rod

Northeast parishes of Aberdeenshire, Banffshire and Moray followed the instruction of the Reformed Church to the letter – while at the same time managing to guard handed-down veneration of ancestral sacred places.

Because of this apparent anomaly, around 600 Neolithic recumbent stone circles survive in the northeast triangle, and, though separated by 3500 years, roughly 100 Pictish symbol stones have been preserved for posterity.

Pictish stones are divided into Class I, incised (approximately AD500 onwards); Class II, relief-carved cross-slabs (8thC – 9thC); Class III relief with horsemen, kings, hierarchical designs (9thC -10thC); and Class IV, (8thC transitional) cross-stones with no other ornamentation (illus. top). The earliest Class I and Class II stones are invariably found in association with pre-Christian sacred sites.

Bourtie: on the same site for 800 years

Here, when the pre-Reformation kirk was restored and rebuilt in 1806, not only was the pre-Reform belfry recycled, but the ancient Pictish stone with its incised carvings was built into the top right course of the south kirk wall. While now difficult to view, It bears Pictish Class I symbols of crescent-and-V-rod, double-disc-and-Z-rod and mirror-and-comb. It probably served as the original sacred boundary marker for this early pre-Christian Pictish place; it dates to the fifth century. It will have remained as a sacred boundary marker for 300 years before King Nechtan’s Christianizing campaign in the 8thC introduced cross-carved stones.

Throughout the early years of Christianity in this far-northern corner of the former Pictish kingdom, therefore, sacred sites were in no immediate danger.

In 596 Pope Gregory I sent Augustine to England with the following instruction:

“By no means destroy the temples
of the idols belonging to the British, but only the idols which are found in them; inasmuch as they are well-constructed, it is necessary that they should be converted from the dowership of demons to the true God.”

A century after Augustine, however, more extreme measures were called for: in Theodore’s Penitential, AD690, also related to South Britain:

“idolatry, worship of demons, cult of the dead, worship of nature, Pagan calendar customs and festivals, witchcraft and sorcery, augury and divination and astrology”

were banned. Yet the old ways persisted.

Meanwhile Nechtan created his own elaborate means of consolidating his kingdom and allying himself with Rome. He built stone Peter kirks throughout his land.

Class IV cross-incised stone in south perimeter wall at Bourtie

Megalithic structures such as the Aberdeenshire recumbent stone circles survive in every parish where continuity was perpetuated in Pictish church reform. The Pictish Christian cross or cross-stone invariably appears within sight of a stone circle. Bourtie has two stone circles, one to the west of the kirk; the other to the east.

They too, however, became endangered in the 18th and 19th centuries when farmhouses were being built in stone and work proceeded apace in the landscape to clear stones and boulders in farming improvement. The drystane dykes which were common boundaries of farmland until the 21st century date from this 18thC improvement.

Stone circles invariably survived. In the words of one 18th-century Northeast clergyman:

“superstition spares them though stones are so scarce”

Class I incised Pictish symbols, geometric and animal designs

Five known Class I stones in Aberdeenshire still stand on their original sites:

Ardlair, Kennethmont; Nether Corskie, Dunecht; the Insch Picardy Stone at Whitemyres Farm; Brandsbutt in a housing estate in Inverurie (re-constituted after 19thC dynamite blasting) and the Rhynie Craw Stane.

Moray Class I stones thought to be in situ stand at Congash and Upper Manbeen.

The rest, totalling an unknown figure (32 recorded), abound in museums in the Northeast, in Edinburgh and London or are “lost”.

Class II Stones

Class II relief-carved Pictish cross stone in St.Mary's Monymusk

Local lairds also had their fair share of the spoils. In the rush to comply with post-Reformation instruction to build new churches, often on pagan sites, stones were broken up for building, reused in threshing floors or as millstones, or taken to form a decorative feature at the laird’s house.

Pictish Class II cross slab in Migvie kirkyard, Tarland

The Maiden Stone is the only so-called Class III Pictish stone in Aberdeenshire.

The list of Class IV cross-incised stones dating from Nechtan’s improvement years is as yet incomplete.

The largest in situ is the boundary stone in the illustration (top) which remains in the Afforsk landscape exactly on the parish boundary between church lands of Chapel of Garioch, Inverurie and Monymusk. Its immovable size suggests that it was carved to serve in the original Pictish tradition of marking a sacred precinct, rather than for later use as a portable ‘pillow’.

Recent research suggests that portable crosses – roughly circular stones like pillows carved with a simple cross and pre-dating the eighth century [class II] Pictish cross slabs – were the hallmark of early travelling holy men. If they were sent from Nechtan’s headquarters in the Pictish capital at Forteviot or from his northern fortress at Fyvie, their reach was far indeed.

Several compact Christian amulets of this type surface in Aberdeenshire, temptingly close to early foundations: cross-inscribed stones [with no other ornament] appear at Aboyne, Afforsk, Banchory, Barra, Botriphnie, Bourtie, Clatt, Crathes, Culsalmond, Deer, Dyce, Ellon, Fintray, Inverurie, Kinnernie, Logie-Coldstone, Logie-Elphinstone, Monymusk, Ruthven and Tullich. A saint’s well to baptise converts invariably lies close to such foundations. After they died, their relics – ranging from pillows of stone to crozier and bell – were treasured by the community. Monymusk’s greatest treasure, the Monymusk reliquary, a gold and jewel-encrusted shrine made to house the little finger bone of its patron, is in Edinburgh’s Museum of Scotland.

While Dyce, Fintray, Botriphnie and Aboyne are known to have such relics, like Banchory Ternan’s ‘Ronan bell’, Bourtie has neither well nor saint recorded. Neighboring parish, Bethelny, once linked by minister-on-horseback to Bourtie, now has no church either. Foundations remain in the grass on the farm there, but its saint (Nachlan), its parishioners and its parish have become, like Bourtie, absorbed into Meldrum.

Maintenance and continuity within these ancient places by the Edinburgh behemoth is laudable. There are some discrepancies, however. Alternative episcopal religion slighted at the Reformation in favour of John Knox’s simpler dogma survives in the Scottish Episcopalian Church. It receives no grants for ground or building maintenance by the state; meanwhile the ‘reformed’ religion has full Council back-up in support and maintenance of graveyards. This sadly means that in summer months monstrous mowing machinery slices its way over grass, fallen masonry, private floral tributes, 18th century table stones, unique 16th century grave markers, relentlessly obliterating the past in its efforts to keep the present ‘neat’. Not only is the kirkyard pristine in its ‘neat and tidyness’, but it is losing its antiquities at a great rate to the weighty modern machine.

The Calvinist camp may think enlightenment has been achieved. But for antiquities, it is a Pyrrhic victory.

©Marian Youngblood is the author of Bourtie Kirk: 800 Years, available from Amazon or direct from Cleopas Publishing, Inverurie AB51 0JS
ISBN 0-9526-365-2-2 (1995).

Cup-and-Ring Stone:  OS Grid Reference – SE 10983 43368

Also Known as:

• Carving no.99 (Boughey & Vickerman)

Getting Here

Enclosure Carving, Stanbury Hill

From East Morton village, take the moorland road, east, and up the steep hill.  Where the road levels out there’s a left turn where a trackway leads onto the moor.  Go up here & keep walking till you hit a moorland ‘footpath’ signpost.  Stop here and walk due west (your left) onto the gently sloping rise and into the mass of the Stanbury Hill enclosure system.  Keep walking for 200 yards or so, where the land begins to slope down to the end of the spur; and just 50 yards before it drops down to the stream below you’ll find a cluster of carved rocks like the Lunar Stone, the Teaspoon Rock, Spotted Stone, etc, all scattered about.  Near these, you’ll find this one!

Archaeology & History

Not to be confused with the carving of the same name on the northern side of these moors (near the Green Crag Slack enclosure), this carved rock gets its name specifically from looking like a lay-out plan of some settlement or enclosure.  It’s unlikely that this title or description has anything to do with the carving, but its the impression it gave me when I first saw it!  But then once you look at the carving from another angle it takes on a different impression.

Enclosure Carving from above

First thought to have been found by Stuart Feather in 1978, it is one of many carvings that occur in what seems to be an extensive prehistoric enclosure or settlement.  There’s a complete cup-and-ring near the western end of the rock, with another distinct cup-marking by its side, and what looks to be a natural cup at the top-end of the stone.  But it was the other section of the carving on the central and eastern side which intrigued me: a curious ‘enclosure’ of lines, with a cup-marking in each section.  Cutting between the cup-and-ring and the enclosure lines is a natural long crack or fissure running roughly north-south through the rock.  It seemed to me (though I could be wrong) that a line had been pecked running along this natural crack — although in Boughey & Vickerman’s (2003) drawing they don’t highlight this.  It also seemed that the carved lines from ‘enclosure’ linked up to the pecked line that was carved along the natural fissure in the rock (as illustrated in my crap drawing!).

Shit drawing of CR99

As with the Lunar Stone nearby: it appears that either this stone was carved at different periods; or else for a long period of time much of the stone was exposed to the elements, whilst a section of it remained covered.  For the distinct cup-and-ring on the western-end is more worn, with more eroded evidence of pecking, than the extended lines on the eastern end of the rock.  I need to go back here and get some better images — and certainly do a much better drawing!

References:

Boughey, Keith & Vickerman, E.A., Prehistoric Rock Art of the West Riding, WYAS 2003.
Hedges, John (ed.), The Carved Rocks on Rombalds Moor, WYMCC: Wakefield 1986.

© Paul Bennett, The Northern Antiquarian

Apparently evidence of cannibalism has been found in Germany. Admittedly, it was around 7,000 years ago, but still…fascinating story! I believe the journal article that this news story refers to is the following, though I have not been able to read it yet:

Bruno Boulestin, Andrea Zeeb-Lanz, Christian Jeunesse, Fabian Haack, Rose-Marie Arbogast and Anthony Denaire, “Mass Cannibalism in the Linear Pottery Culture at Herxheim (Palatinate, Germany),” Antiquity 83, no. 322 (2009): 968-82.

image source

In the first three parts of this essay, I discussed the nature of social organization in Paleolithic hunter-gatherer groups and how environmental changes and the increase in group size affected social structure and governance in the Neolithic Age and beyond.    As social groups increased in size, social regulation changed from egalitarian, participatory ”governance,” which kept the power of leaders in check, to situations in which ”leveling down mechanisms” could no longer prevent power from being concentrated in the hands of an elite leader or leaders.

In modern times, as Shultziner points out:

Democratic mass elections are modern forms of a leveling-down mechanism by which unsatisfied rank and file can replace their leaders. Elections also reflect a social mechanism of reaching a consensus similar to the ones in foraging bands. And, elections are an acknowledgment in the importance of legitimacy. Almost all regimes in the world today employ elections or referendums in order to exhibit popular consent to their rule. Authoritarian and non-liberal regimes are no exception. Iran, for instance, is far from being a liberal democracy for ultimate political power is vested with an unelected religious clique; yet, elections are being held in Iran and real competition between parties and ideas exists. Interestingly, 120 out of 192 countries held democratic elections in 2000. This implies that the heritage of ancient egalitarianism is very strong and it shapes social practices and institutions not in liberal democracies alone.

Thus, we may legitimately ask: If egalitarianism has been bred into humankind, then what is the future of “participatory democracy?” What form will it take as the 21st century proceeds at literally breakneck speed to a political destiny only dimly perceived?  The exponential development of technology, with its potential for connecting every member of the human race, is arguably the key factor that will determine the future of governance in a global society.  We may ask with some degree of trepidation:  Will democracy devolve into a “One World Government” run by a small oligarchy?  Or will it evolve into a new synergistic form of governance, quite unlike the old, grammar school type of majority-rule democracy, i.e., a “World Governance” that is not under the control of a few, but operates within a nexus of a multiplicity of interdependent groups or organizations all linked for a common purpose.  To decide between these alternative scenarios, we need first to examine the difference between “government” and “governance.”  Then, perhaps, we can see more clearly in what direction the planetary society appears to be hurtling.

The Difference Between Government and Governance

 I shall use the term, “governance” essentially in the sense described by Elizabeth Meehan in a paper (2003) entitled, “From Government to Governance, Civic Participation and ‘New Politics’: The Context of Potential Opportunities for the Better Representation of Women.”  Meehan, an Irish writer from Belfast,  asks rhetorically, “What is governance?”  and, then, and attempts to answer this question.

The notion is hard to pin down, but it does seem accepted that a number of forces have converged so as to change the nature of what it means to govern: forces such as globalization…Europeanization…pressures on the traditional welfare state, and new political cultures in which traditional methods of delivering the services of the welfare state are no longer regarded as ‘empowering’. It is also accepted that there is a discernible difference between government and governance. This is not to say that governance is displacing government; merely that the two forms of activity coexist [Emphasis added].

Analysts of governance focus on a range of new arrangements and practices. These include the fragmentation or sharing of public power amongst different tiers of regulation such as the European Union (EU), state governments and sub-state governments. Secondly, they point to other arrangements encouraging policies to be formulated and implemented away from the centre; the ‘hollowing out’ of the state through the ‘agentization’ of government and the privatization of the provision of utilities and services [citation in original]. Thirdly, analysts note an increasing reliance on partnerships, networks and novel forms of consultation or dialogue that are at the heart of ‘Third Way’ thinking about policy design and delivery.

Governance is usually defined by contrasting it with what is thought of as the traditional pattern of public power in which authority is centralized and exercised hierarchically [or, pyramidally (Editor)]–often called the ‘command and control’ model [Emphasis added].  Here, Prime Ministers dominate other ministers, ministers dominate civil servants, and central government dominates local government [citation in original].

Conversely, analysts of governance [see]…power as dispersed and relational and argue that governance arises from a lack of capacity on the part of governments, acting alone, to effect desired changes. Instead, public power manifests itself through increasingly blurred boundaries between different tiers of government, the public and private, and between the state and civil society….[According to this view] it cannot now be taken for granted that the loci of effective political power are national governments.  Instead, ‘effective power is shared, bartered and struggled over by diverse forces and agencies at national, regional and global levels’. It is being ‘repositioned’ and, to some extent, ‘transformed by the growing importance of other less territorially based power systems’.

Meehan goes on to make a very important point.

…it should be noted that one classical view of civil society is that it is epitomized by self-organizing networks that are independent of government–sometimes even a countervailing force (McLaverty, 2002: 304). Other analysts of civil society see it and the state as interactive, with disputed implications for democracy [Emphasis added].

Thus, according to Meehan, the idea of “governing” changes from…

…acting through vertical chains of command and accountability in a hierarchy of institutions to becom[ing] a facilitator or regulator of what goes on in [society]… in order to try to solve problems [Emphasis added]. Governance means ‘collective problem solving in the public realm’ [citations in original].

In my view, the distinction between “government” and “governance” boils down to the fact that “government” typically is used to refer to a “State,” i.e., a “what.”  In contrast, “governance” refers to a process of social organization and control, i.e., a “how.”  Thus, it should be rather obvious that one can have governance in a social group without the necessity for there being a State (government).  Thus “governance” refers to a general process, whereas “government” refers to the implementation of a specific kind of process by a State.  In this sense, to govern, then, is to organize and control social activities, be they within the jurisdiction of a State or within the purview of a company or other non-governmental organization.

Meehan cites several authors in explicating how the terms “governance” and “government” differ.   To make her points clear in the context of the foregoing definitions which I offered, I shall refer to the specific process of a State as “governing” and the process of non-state organizations as “governance.” 

What, then, characterizes the role of the State in governing?  The State is construed to be the ultimate “Authority” within a geographical region.  Stefan Molyneux defines a government (State) as “a group of individuals within a geographical area who retain the monopolistic, moral and legal right to initiate force.”  Alternatively, what characterizes the role of non-State organizations in governance?  Non-governmental organizations tend more likely than not to be concerned with activation, regulation, or facilitation of social activities.

With regard to dominant mode of functioning, “governing” is characterized by the pursuit of a common, state-defined, ”national interest.”  In contrast, “governance” is concerned with coordinating and harmonizing the varied interests of group members.

What are the primary patterns of interaction under the governing mode and the governance mode?  The former is characterized by a “command and control,” and in most States today, it is based on majority rule.  The latter depends on multilateral negotiations to develop policies.

 Individuality and its Relationship to the Whole

We may justifiably ask: If egalitarianism is wired-in at birth as a result of evolutionary processes operating over millions of years, why then did we as a species develop into societies that so frequently have gone to war and have been governed by strong, dominant leaders who often dictate policy for members of their social or national groups?  I suggest that an answer may lie in the apparent parallelism between the development of the psychological organization of the individual  (individuation) and the development of the social organization of groups of individuals.  In addition to egalitarian tendencies within groups, there appears to be a strong evolutionary push toward individuality that competes with the purposes of social groups.

The human newborn is, ostensibly, without any sense of individuality.  For quite a long time after birth, the infant remains connected with the mother by “a psychological umbilical cord,” immersed in what psychologists call “psychological symbiosis.” Erich Fromm has written brilliantly about the individuation process that occurs as the child eventually begins to sense, as her brain develops, that she is separate from her mother.  This is a world shaking realization, which we see routinely manifested in what has come to be known as the “terrible twos” when the child says, “No” to everything.  She has learned that this little word has enormous power in manipulating her world.  She can get all kinds of interesting reactions from adults around her when she voices her “No.”  

However, as Fromm astutely observes, this burgeoning sense of separateness can also be very terrifying to some children and there is a desire to return to that symbiotic oneness with the mother.  Fromm says there is an urge to “Escape from Freedom,” which is the title of his marvelous and most famous book written in 1941.  The child can pursue a number of avenues or “mechanisms of escape,” including automaton conformity and sado-masochism.  Both of these two mechanisms can lead to the development of a tendency to submit to the dictates of an authoritarian leader. 

However, I would suggest that separateness and individuality are only frightening because Fromm is talking about a child growing up in a society in which the extended family of early humankind has almost disappeared in favor of the modern, nuclear family with all of its inherent social isolation and lack of support. 

It would seem that a child born into an early, egalitarian, hunter-gatherer group of 25 members, or so, probably did not go through such individuation, that is to say, if Julian Jaynes is correct.  Jaynes argues that the capacity for individual self consciousness did not exist at that time.   Individuality was, ostensibly, unnecessary, in fact, it was counterproductive to the group purpose of insuring survival.  Yet, as we observe the development of early humankind, we see an inexorable march toward individuality and all of the resulting conflicts between strong individuals competing for dominance. 

We see the same development in societies as we do in individuals.  The individual starts out submerged in a larger whole, then develops individuality, and if he reconnects with the larger whole in a positive way instead of escaping from his freedom, then individuality becomes integrated as part of the larger whole of society.  Likewise, groups started out with all members participating in the social order with more or less equal access.  Later, with the development of strong leadership in tribes and then nation states, the individual escaped from the freedom of individuality into submission to authority.  Now, in the 21st century, we are seeing a process developing on a global scale which appears to be quite similar to the positive reconnection of the individual with the larger whole of his society.  All over the world, we see groups of people attempting to integrate themselves within a global whole.  Some fear this as a potential return to the autocratic horrors of the past.  Others see an entire new and promising vista.  How we resolve the pessimistic and the optimistic views will be crucial in determining the future.  But, it appears to me that Life is impelling us in the direction of a new cooperativeness and interconnection, not to a development of the mega-authoritarianism of Orwell’s “Big Brother.”  However, the question remains whether the evolution of humankind will get shunted off the main path into an evolutionary cul-de-sac.

There is another perspective to consider which may shed some light on the development of individuality and its exaggerated perversion in the 20th century domination of the masses that occurred on a grander scale than in all of recorded history.  This different slant is to be found in the role of the human need for “recognition” as discussed by Shultziner. 

A Human Need for Recognition?

Shultziner points out that it is import to look beyond exogenous (environmental) factors in order to understand how democratic forms of government came into being.  He calls attention to the endogenous (psychobiological) factors which are involved in the development of democratic governance.

Transitions to democracy, modern and ancient, are not a result of environmental factors alone. A change in environmental conditions would not lead to the replacement of regimes, and leveling-down mechanisms would not lead to more egalitarian social structures, if human beings were not predisposed to react to environments in certain ways.

He goes on to say:

It is clear, then, that we must examine human nature (or endogenous factors) to seek a candidate for a psychological adaptive predisposition which can illuminate the generic historical course toward democracy. Democracies did not “just happen” in different places and at different times; something brought them into being. To my understanding, the proximate underlying factor which gives history its generic (sic) course is the psychological predisposition of the pursuit of recognition [Emphasis added].

Is there a human need for recognition that is just as strongly wired-in at birth as the egalitarian tendency that characterizes groups?  If so, then this would seem to be a outgrowth of the tendency toward individuation and a convenient measure of the tendency toward self assertion.  What do social psychological and genetic research have to say on this issue?

Democracy and the Striving for Recognition

To provide a foundation for his theory of the development of democracy, Shultziner links the striving for “recognition” to the social psychological research on self esteem.

Pursuit of positive self-esteem is a psychological motivation to achieve, maintain or defend one’s positive evaluation of oneself, a motivation not to lose a sense of positive self-worth. The motivation to achieve positive self-esteem is crystallized through acts that are meant to attain and maintain recognition from others. This main characteristic of the self-esteem phenomenon can be referred to as a search, a quest, or a pursuit of recognition [Emphasis added]….The level of self-esteem is defined by the contingencies [rewarding events] one subjectively deems as important to one’s life and not by objective criteria [citations in original].  In that sense, contingencies of self-esteem are not constant: they can, and usually do, change or alternate in their importance in the course of one’s life.

Some people’s contingencies [rewarding events]  for positive self-esteem are in individualistic terms such as successes in academic competence, athletics, physical appearance, god’s love, power and self-reliance [citation in original]; others’ self-esteem may depend on political and communitarian aspects such as adhering to community values for reasons of social acceptance, fulfilling and promulgating personal moral convictions, or pursuing public apology for recognition in perceived historical wrongs. People’s contingencies of self-esteem [rewarding events]  may vary but the psychological phenomenon itself is universal [citation in original]. The implications of these characteristics of self-esteem to politics are significant. People may define the way their regime treats them as a contingency[rewarding event]  of self-esteem. People may admire their royalties, kingships or religious sages (as people still do in many parts of the world) and regard their existence as important to their positive self-esteem; or, people may come to perceive certain regimes as despotic and detrimental to their positive self-esteem like they have in the past. Despotic regimes, however, cannot easily convince their populace that they are not despotic. And, once a regime is perceived as despotic (regardless of how enlightened it intends to be) it will be regarded as an obstacle to one’s positive self-esteem or even as an outright humiliation to one’s worth and dignity. This psychological predisposition to regain and defend positive self-esteem will motivate people to limit or dethrone the despotic regime by employing leveling-down mechanisms such as protests, elections or violent revolutions [citation in original].

Regimes around the world, democratic and non-democratic, are aware of the salience of being perceived as recognizing and respecting their citizens, and hence most regimes make an effort to be seen as speaking in the ‘name of the people’, as elected by the people, or at least as not disrespecting the worth and dignity of their populace. Citizens, on the other hand, can be quite sensitive to the way their regime treats them or to the policies their regime implements. Certain policies may be seen as lacking recognition or as misrecognizing people’s worth.

Shultziner proceeds to “present evidence to support the claim that the pursuit of recognition is a universal and central characteristic of human nature” and that “that perceptions of recognition or non-recognition shape politics.”

Self-esteem and pursuit of recognition are the most studied phenomena in social psychology. Although disagreements among contemporary theorists who specialize in the self-esteem phenomenon exist, one agreed fact does seem salient: almost all scholars agree that the pursuit of recognition is a pervasive characteristic of human behavior. Even those who content [sic - contest] the idea that pursuit of positive self-esteem is a psychological need and those who object that the pursuit of recognition is positive and healthy admit that in actual fact people do constantly pursue positive self-esteem in various ways, to various degrees and in healthy and unhealthy ways [citations in original].  Moreover, there is an agreement among social psychologists that positive self-esteem is a useful buffer against anxiety and that it brings about many other psychological benefits to the individual, and that the pursuit of recognition is a concept with useful explanatory power [citations in original].

What is undecided among students of self-esteem, though, is not if people pursue recognition, but rather why people do and whether the pursuit of positive self esteem is a universal human need, and whether it is a healthy pursuit or not [citation in original].

Shultziner goes on to say, regarding the human pursuit of recognition:

The universality of this phenomenon and its unique manifestations in different cultures have already been documented in a number of studies [citations in original].  Peculiarly then, social psychologists debate the theoretical origins of this phenomenon and not whether the pursuit of recognition is empirically a central behavioral characteristic of human beings.

In Part V of this essay, I shall discuss Shultziner’s review of evidence from genetic research and self-esteem and how these data illuminate “the innateness of the pursuit of recognition in an even more decisive way.”  Then, in the final installment (Part VI), I shall sum up the argument for an evolutionary perspective of the development of modern forms of democracy, including representative democracy as institutionalized in the U.S. Constitution.

Stone Circle:  OS Grid Reference – SK 2254 6264

Also Known as:

• Grey Ladies
• Hartle Moor Stone Circle
  

Getting Here

Nine Stones Close circle

From Bakewell take the A6 Matlock road, follow this till just past the signs for Haddon Hall where you take a right (the first major junction) for Youlgreave the B5056.  After about 1km take the first left over the bridge.  You then take the first right turn: a steep lane with restriction signs (don’t worry there’s access for cars but no wide vehicles). Take the first left you come to by the barn and then just follow the road, up through the woodland where the lane narrows then shortly after you’ll see Robin Hood’s Stride to your left.  Park a little way after the field gateway and look across the field to your left.  The stones are visible from the road.

Archaeology & History

This is a fine-looking ring of stones — though perhaps the word ‘ring’ is slightly misleading here, as only four of (apparently) nine originals still remain and they are, by definition, more in a square-shape than a circle!  But it’s a lovely site.  When Geoff brought us here for the first time only last weekend, despite the dark clouds and cold grey day, along with the fact that we’d been sleeping rough the night before and got soaking wet through, there was a subtle feel to this place which my shivering senses still touched.  Only just though…!

Two southernmost stones

Mebbe it was the rising crags of Robin Hood’s Stride to its immediate south?  Or the quietly hidden companionship with other stones and sites in the locale?  I don’t really think so.  There was something a little more about its own genius loci that tingled very slightly on the rise in the field upon which the circle sits.  Some people would, perhaps, acquaint my sense of a subtle genius loci here to the various leys or ley-lines that have been drawn through here by other writers— but it wasn’t that.

When earlier writers came here, they too had various inspirations of differing forms.  John Barnatt’s (1978) early impressions of the place had him signing astronomical events in and around the remaining stones here, despite knowing that the site had been damaged.  In later years he revised his early notions — as most of us do as our perspectives are enriched — but the astronomy is still assumed here.  As Clive Ruggles told:

“Other rings are located where natural features coincide with astronomical events, such as Nine Stone Close in Derbyshire…from which the Moon at the southern major standstill limit, sets behind the gritstone crag of Robin Hood’s Stride to the SSW, between ‘two stubbly piles of boulders jutting up at either end of its flat top.’”

Major Rooke's drawing of the Nine Stones Circle, c.1780

The stones that remain here are quite tall, between 6½ and 8 feet tall.  One of them seems to have originally been taken from a stream or river-bed.  They stand upon the small rise in the field and has diameters of 40 and 45 feet respectively.  Aubrey Burl described there being seven uprights still here in 1847, and the early drawing of the site near the end of the 18th century by Major Hayman Rooke highlights 6 stones around the spot where the circle now stands.  In J.P. Heathcote’s (1947) summary, he wrote that,

“Bateman, in his Vestiges, says an excavation in 1847 yielded some indications of interments in the form of ’several fragments of imperfectly-baked pottery, accompanied by flint both in a natural and calcined state.’  In 1877, Llewellyn Jewitt and Canon Greenwell…turned their attention…to the Nine Stones.  They dug at the foot of the second highest stone and the Canon directed a good deal of digging within the circle, but nothing special turned up. The area in the circle is now quite level, but it is probable that there was, as Bateman says, a tumulus in the centre.”

This latter remark is the impression I got of the place.  Tis a really good little site.  All around here are a number of other sites: cup-marked stones, enclosures or settlements, prehistoric trackways, and more.

Folklore

One of the old names of this site was The Grey Ladies.  This came from the well known tale found at other sites across the world, that some ladies were dancing here at some late hour and were turned into stone.  A variation on this theme told how Robin Hood stood on the nearby rock outcrop to the south and pissed over the landscape here, “where seven maidens upon seeing it turned to stone.”  In this case, Robin Hood replaced an older, forgotten account of a giant, who forged the landscape and the sites around Harthill Moor.

Another tale — whose origins and nature are allied to that of the petrification of the Grey Ladies — narrated with considerable sincerity by local people, was that the circle was a place where the little people gathered and where, at certain times of the year, “fairy music and the sight of hundreds of dancing shapes around the stones” would happen.

Said by Rickman and Nown (1977) to be “Derbyshire’s most magical ancient site,” they thought the site was on a ley that linked up with Arbor Lowe, less than 5 miles west, crossing a couple of tumuli on its way.

References:

Barnatt, John, Stone Circles of the Peak, Turnstone: London 1978.
Burl, Aubrey, A Guide to the Stone Circles of Britain, Ireland and Brittany, Yale University Press 1995.
Clarke, David, Ghosts and Legends of the Peak, Jarrold: Norwich 1991.
Heathcote, J. Percy, Birchover – Its Prehistoric and Druidical Remains, Wilfrid Edwards: Chesterfield 1947.
Rickman, Philip & Nown, Graham, Mysterious Derbyshire, Dalesman: Clapham 1977.
Ruggles, Clive, Astronomy in Prehistoric Britain and Ireland, Yale University Press 1999.
Thom, A., Thom, A.S. & Burl, Aubrey, Megalithic Rings, BAR: Oxford 1980.

© Paul Bennett, The Northern Antiquarian

Standing Stone:  OS Grid Reference – SK 225 625

Getting Here

Taking the roughly north-south road betwixt the village of Elton and the town of Youlgrave, rising up to see the great rock outcrop of Robin Hood’s Stride, park-up by the roadside and walk down the path across the fields to the Nine Stone Close stone circle. Once at the circle, look at the wall immediately south of here (looking towards the great Robin Hood’s Stride rock towers) about 100 yards away and you’ll see a large, nicely-worn ’standing stone’ in the walling, with another a few yards to its side.

Archaeology & History

Nine Stones monolith, with stone circle behind

It seems like there’s been quite a lot written of this particular stone — much of it deeming, or speculating, that it once had summat to do with the stone circle of Nine Stones Close (which you can see in the background on one of the photos). The local archaeologist and writer, J. Percy Heathcote (1947) told us that around 1819, a Mr Glover said that this stone and a companion stood next to each other, but Mr Heathcote thought that,

“Judging from its size alone, only one of these is large enough to be compared to the stones in the circle.”

Standing Stone and Robin Hood's Stride in background

Heathcote continued:

“Dr Phillips apparently assumes this stone to be connected with the circle in the same way as the similarly placed King Stone was connected with the Nine Ladies (Stanton Moor).  However, it seems more reasonable to suppose that the stone was brought by a farmer into the wall and not that he built the wall up to the standing stone.”

In more modern times however, John Barnatt (1978) thought that this stone was originally in the circle, but “has been moved across the field to the south to act as a gatepost.”

It’d be hugely improbable that it didn’t have summat to do with the stone circle, but exactly what, we can only speculate.

References:

Barnatt, John, Stone Circles of the Peak, Turnstone: London 1978.
Heathcote, J. Percy, Birchover – Its Prehistoric and Druidical Remains, Wilfrid Edwards: Chesterfield 1947.

© Paul Bennett, The Northern Antiquarian

Cup-Marked Stone:  OS Grid Reference – SK 2254 6284

Getting Here

Taking the roughly north-south road betwixt the village of Elton and the town of Youlgrave, rising up to see the great rock outcrop of Robin Hood’s Stride, park-up by the roadside and walk down the path across the fields to the Nine Stone Close stone circle. Once at the circle, the walling closest to the stones runs along a bit (north), then downhill. Follow it. About 25 yards before hitting more walling that crosses your path, there’s a break in the wall to a field immediately left. Just below this gate opening, in the same wall, a few yards down, look for the stone!

Archaeology & History

Nine Stone Close cup-marking (image © Geoff Watson)

This small carved stone, typical of the size you get in drystone walls all over the country, was discovered for the first time on November 29, 2009, by Geoff Watson, during an ambling foray exploring the megalithic sites in and around the Birchover district.  Not quite sure how his nose picked this little fella out, but once seen (and eyes adjusted!) it was obviously a portable cup-marked stone.  Though what, we first wondered, was it doing in the walling here?

Similar in size and form to the Bent Head cup-marked stone found in drystone walling near Todmorden, West Yorkshire, the proximity of the Nine Stone Close megalithic ring further up the slope from this example illustrated that prehistoric man found this location of some importance; but as the cup-markings — two definites, perhaps a third — had been etched onto a small portable rock, typical of those found in prehistoric tombs, we wondered whether or not a prehistoric grave had once stood close by. Thankfully, a persual of Barry Marsden’s (1977) catalogue later proved fruitful.  For in the adjacent field below where this carved stone sits in its wall, at SK 2255 6286, there’s a scattered mass of loose rocks and smaller stones (akin to the one here with its cup-markings), which Marsden listed as a prehistoric tomb.  It seems probable that this cup-marked ‘portable’ originally came from this much denuded burial spot.

Likelihood is — there’ll be more of ‘em hiding in walling and elsewhere hereby…

NB – Please note – the images we took of the stone aint too good as the sky was grey, cloudy and overcast all day. We await a better visit on a finer day, when conditions allow for better images. As we all know, gerrin’ decent photos of cup-markings and their ilk can be a pain in the arse even on the best of days!

References:

Marsden, Barry, The Burial Mounds of Derbyshire, privately printed: Bingley 1977.

© Paul Bennett, The Northern Antiquarian

The Nature of Paleolithic Egalitarian Groups

In Part II of my essay, “Evolution of Democracy,” I discussed Dr. Doron Shultziner’s evolutionary thesis regarding the development of modern-day “liberal democracy.”  In this part, I shall look at Shultziner’s conceptualization of the way in which Paleolithic, egalitarian hunter-gatherer groups emerged and maintained their structure and functioning over thousands of years and how the mechanisms that developed were bequeathed to the democracies of the 20th and 21st centuries. 

Human societies in the Paleolithic era were quite small.  According to Shultziner…

The number of people in a foraging band did not usually exceed a few dozen. In these small nomad bands the acquaintance with other people was very close due to group size. Christopher Boehm [citation in original] says that these were “societies of equals, with minimal political centralization and no social classes. Everyone participated in group decisions, and outside the family there were no dominators.” Even after several thousand years of sedentary influence, only very few nonegalitarian foraging societies exist [citation in original].  In fact, social mechanisms that maintain the egalitarian structures are so intricate and culturally sophisticated that Boehm argues that these groups created “reversed hierarchies”, meaning, leaders are actually dominated by the rank and file and not vice versa.  The egalitarian structure was, and still is, accomplished by sophisticated social mechanisms that are known as leveling-down mechanisms.

Such “leveling-down mechanisms” are in Shultziner’s words…

…social practices which are aimed at controlling over-assertive individuals from boasting their success and traits (e.g. in hunting) and at containing leaders from exploiting their position….

Leadership is necessary for…internal conflict resolution, for religious and healing roles, and for decision making in times of war and peace. Leveling-down mechanisms, thus, do not reverse the hierarchy between a leader and his group; the mechanisms simply keep the social structure as close to flattened as possible. Leaders are restricted and checked as not to extend their powers beyond what is necessary by the circumstances [citation in original]….

If a leader or a would-be-chief tries to dominate other group members or misuse his leadership role, group members may tell him that he makes them laugh (ridicule tactic), they may walk away, disobey or simply ignore him. Other tactics are to remove, ostracize or expel an over-assertive individual from the group, and, in extreme cases, execution is also an option (different groups exercise different techniques, see [citations in original])….

…Sometimes, leaders might succeed in exploiting their roles and gain more power. In most cases, though, initial intentions of leaders to overstep their authority are quickly identified and prevented by group members, even before an explicit exclamation needs to be made. Boehm [citation in original] posits that many anthropologists probably were unable to observe the tacit conflict between leaders and group members because hunter-gatherers are very skillful in identifying over-ambitious leaders and keeping them checked and restricted.  Identifying these implicit yet meaningful social subtleties are aided by living in a small group whose members can more easily communicate and contain their leaders.

The benefits of individuals who resist and restrain a dominant leader are clear. Individuals are better off sharing some power than not having any power at all. This ancient type of behavior is already manifested in “chimpanzees’ politics” where lower-ranking males form coalitions in order to dethrone a single alpha male, and then share power together [citation in original].  This ability has probably evolved gradually and become more sophisticated. Each group member benefits from good leadership but not from a despotic one. Not each individual, however, is capable of facing a powerful over-assertive leader alone. Hence, the shared interests of group members, to improve their own positions while upholding their autonomy, are completely consistent with the egalitarian outcome: each individual behaves in a way that maximizes one’s position and the outcome is egalitarian nevertheless.

Changes in Egalitarian Forager Groups in the Neolithic Era

Shultziner painstakingly describes how changes resulting from the invention of agriculture correspondingly changed small, forager societies to larger, tribal communities and subsequently to civilizations and empires.

Before the invention of agriculture and the beginning of the Neolithic era, groups were of a limited size. Groups could not have grown too big mainly because resources were usually scarce or insufficient to maintain a big group of foragers, who seasonally consume the resources in their proximity and move on to a new area, and because bigger groups required harder work to sustain (e.g. for food supply) and entailed more conflicts [citations in original].

After the Neolithic era has begun, small egalitarian forager groups settled down and started cultivating plants and animals for subsistence. Boehm defines these societies as tribesmen and says that “they have continued the political approach of hunter-gatherers under radically different ecological circumstances” [citation in original]. Tribesmen persisted with their denial of strong authoritative leadership and prevented it from developing. As a consequence they were “prone to raiding, feuding, and territorial warfare” and they were pushed into forming intertribal coalitions [citation in original]. The transition from a confederation of tribes to chiefdoms and kingdoms was accelerated by the competition between tribes and confederation of tribes, and this eventually gave rise to a strong and powerful central authority. Indeed, some of these chiefdoms and kingdoms eventually became the kernels of the first civilizations [citation in original].

The transition to sedentary life had a tremendous impact on other factors, such as the growing number of group members, and the ability to have an intimate knowledge of, and communicate with, all group members. The transition from the Paleolithic era to the Neolithic era entailed far reaching changes in environmental conditions: social, institutional, technological and cultural. These changes resulted in a reduced capacity to effectively control and contain leaders and over-assertive individuals. The new environmental conditions impaired the effective and subtle communication of small groups, the usefulness of leveling-down mechanisms, and eventually enabled group leaders to enhance their powers over the group [Emphasis added].

Thus, it is clear that environmental changes that brought about the transition from the Paleolithic Era to the Neolithic Era imposed strong pressures on the social organization of hunter-gatherer groups.  However, the important question is:  Did these changes produce evolutionary changes in the human psyche and its longstanding preference for egalitarian social organization?

Persisting Preference for Egalitarian Social Structure

Shultiziner suggests that the ten millenia that have elapsed since the Neolithic era have not transformed “the innate physiological and psychological sets of human beings, which were shaped when human beings lived in small egalitarian societies.”  He argues that this period is “far too short in evolutionary terms to create any substantial changes.”  He cites the work of  Leda Cosmides and John Tooby [citation in original], two pioneers of evolutionary psychology, in support of his argument.

The environment that humans–and, therefore, human minds–evolved in was very different from our modern environment. Our ancestors spent well over 99% of our species’ evolutionary history living in hunter-gatherer societies. That means that our forebearers lived in small, nomadic bands of a few dozen individuals who got all of their food each day by gathering plants or by hunting animals. Each of our ancestors was, in effect, on a camping trip that lasted an entire lifetime, and this way of life endured for most of the last 10 million years.

Generation after generation, for 10 million years, natural selection slowly sculpted the human brain, favoring circuitry that was good at solving the day-to-day problems of our hunter-gatherer ancestors — problems like finding mates, hunting animals, gathering plant foods, negotiating with friends, defending ourselves against aggression, raising children, choosing a good habitat, and so on. Those whose circuits were better designed for solving these problems left more children, and we are descended from them.

Shultziner goes on to say:

It is necessary to understand these historical conditions in order to appreciate transitions to democracy in the 20th century or earlier. Saying that small egalitarian societies were the optimal and natural form of social structure under which human beings evolved does not suggest that it is the only type of social structure human beings can live under. On the other hand, saying that human beings can live under an array of structural environments does not imply that all institutional arrangements are just as good or apt for human beings to live under. The fact that in some circumstances human beings can adapt to living under totalitarian regimes, does not in any way mean that despotic social structures are as good as egalitarian social structures. Human evolution does not abruptly end with the beginning of the Neolithic era. Indeed, we know that in many cases human beings succeeded in maintaining their egalitarian structures into and far beyond the Neolithic period, and leveling-down mechanisms have not disappeared in tribal societies either.

Most probably, egalitarian structures remain more suitable to humans today just as they predominantly have been until 10,000 years ago. The overall historical pattern towards more egalitarian political institutions and practices is consistent with our evolutionary history. The existence of small egalitarian forager societies in many continents is a further reminder of the aptness and persistence of this social structure to human life despite the pressures of modern environments. States and nations were not part of the Paleolithic era; nevertheless, democratic states are far more compatible with ancient egalitarian societies than with despotic or nondemocratic regimes [Emphasis added].

In Part IV of this essay, I shall discuss Shultziner’s creative synthesis of historical, anthropological, and evolutionary evidence/theory with recent research and theory in social and political psychology regarding the “need for recognition” and its relationship to the social psychological literature on self esteem.  This contribution, I believe, will enable us to move toward a more synergistic democracy (Synocracy), which ultimately must recognize two very strong forces in human behavior and the need for their balancing, not only within the individual, but within the social order.  These two forces were called: (1) the Self-Assertive Tendency and (2) the Integrative (Self-Transcending) Tendency by Arthur Koestler, a journalist, who posssessed a monumental, synthesizing intellect, having been a fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford from 1964-1965.  Each of these tendencies is actually a collection of tendencies.  Koestler used these constructs in formulating his theory of the holon.

No man is an island–he is a holon.  A Janus-faced entity who, looking inward, sees himself as a self-contained unique whole, looking outward as a dependent part. His self-assertive tendency is the dynamic manifestation of his unique wholeness, his autonomy and independence as a holon. Its equally universal antagonist, the integrative tendency, expresses his dependence on the larger whole to which he belongs: his “part-ness.”

In a subsequent part of this essay, I shall consider the nature of the holon in political discourse, particularly as it relates to the new “synergistic democracy” or synocracy, which is the theme of this blog.