Post by kartadolofonos on Nov 26, 2007 22:18:18 GMT -5
Stonehenge - Lost City of Apollo
picasaweb.google.com/tzeller/Stonehenge?authkey=vmjg-2Q_Ybk
www.eternalidol.com/?p=357
remotecentral.blogspot.com/2007/08/discovery-of-lost-city-of-apollo-at.html
www.eternalidol.com/?p=326
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entasis
Pytheas of Massilia and the Lost City of Apollo - Part 2
Earlier in the week, we looked at the ongoing investigation by archaeologist Dennis Price, who is attempting to prove that the earthwork near Stonehenge known as 'Vespasian's Camp', may in fact be the remnants of a settlement dubbed the 'Lost City of Apollo", and referred to by a Greek mariner, Pytheas of Massilia, in 325 B.C.
In his second post on the subject, Dennis Price begins by addressing the architecture of Stonehenge as a feature that would have had resonance with a Greek mariner, familiar with stone temples to the gods in his own land, and would have felt compelled to remark upon such a structure being in existence so far to the north, in Iron Age Britain - with whose inhabitants it is proposed, there had been a long tradition of contact. Here's an extract from 'Eternal Idol'...
"...his general point of reference for what constituted a temple to one of his gods would have been a stone or marble structure with dressed uprights and lintels, as can be seen from the above photograph of the Parthenon.
There is only one known stone structure in Britain comprised of dressed uprights with interconnecting or interlocking lintels and this is Stonehenge, which was certainly standing when Pytheas arrived here. As for its possible connections with Apollo, I’ve written about this specific subject at great length on this site, as you can find out if you enter a search. In addition to this, Professor Timothy Darville of Bournemouth University recently published a book entitled Stonehenge: The Biography of a Landscape, in which he made a connection between Apollo and Stonehenge, while I understand that a forthcoming episode of the BBC’s Timewatch will be covering what he has to say on this matter."
So we can see right away why Stonehenge becomes a prime candidate for being remarked upon by Pytheas - there is no other structure in Britain from around this time, or indeed from anywhere else in north-western Europe that even comes close to bearing a physical and architectural resemblance to Stonehenge, or indeed, Ancient Greek temple architecture, such as for example, the Parthenon.
And it is the Parthenon, with its unusually advanced design that provides a tentative, but nevertheless startling comparison with the way in which the upright, lintel-bearing stones at Stonehenge have been modified. As we see...
"For example, Julian Richards mentions it on page 58 of his aforementioned book Stonehenge: “Close observation reveals yet more sophistication in the outer sarsen circle, as the edges of the horizontal lintels are smoothed into a gentle curve, a curve which follows the line of the entire circle. Such sophistication, seen also in the gently-tapering upright sarsen pillars, raises Stonehenge far above the simple selection and raising of unhewn stones seen at many other stone circles, many of which should be more correctly referred to as stone rings, within the British Isles.”
That certainly caught my attention - I was previously aware of this design feature being incorporated into the Parthenon - which incidentally would have been decorated with brightly covered paints of many colours, rather than the austere elegance of white marble with which we are more more accustomed today - but I had never been aware that this was built into Stonehenge - fully 2,000 years and more before the modern Parthenon was constructed around 500 B.C.
Of course, that doesn't in itself imply a direct link between the two structures, but it does speak of a much more sophisticated mind-set on the part of the Stonehenge builders than I, for one, had not expected, and I can't think of any other megalithic structure which incorporates the same design principles. This also raises the question of who came up with the idea, over 4,500 years ago, when there was no architectural precedent to follow, and whether they were merely adding this feature from a purely aesthetic perspective, or whether there was a degree of as yet undetected symbolism at work.
This tapering effect is known as 'entasis', and for a quick explanation, I took a look at Wikipedia, wherein the following observations have been made...
"Probably the first use of entasis was in the construction of the Egyptian pyramids, but it can also be observed in Classical period Greek column designs, for example in the Doric-order temples in Segesta, Selinus, Agrigento and Paestum. It was only very rarely used in Hellenistic and Roman period architecture. The temples built during these periods were higher than those of the Greeks, with longer and thinner columns. Noted architects such as the Renaissance master Andrea Palladio also used it in their buildings.
More recently, Rolls-Royce cars all made use of it in their radiator grills to give an illusion of greater solidity"
I'm not sure how entasis was employed in the construction of the Egyptian pyramids, as they are so obviously tapered, but for now here's some more detail regarding the purpose of entasis...
"The early Classical builders did not leave an explanation of their reasons for using entasis, and there are several differing opinions as to its purpose. Some descriptions of entasis state simply that the technique was an enhancement applied to the more primitive conical columns to make them appear more substantial. Trevelyan believed that the effect represented strength by imitating the swelling of a strained muscle. This accords well with the etymology of the word, from the Greek meaning 'to strain'. "
Obviously we don't know what word the builders of Stonehenge over two millennia before the times of Classical Greece would have used for entasis, if indeed a word was even in use, or whether it would have had a similar connotation with the flexing of muscles, so along with the question of what prompted this dynamic invention, we'll leave that for another time, when maybe there is more information that can be brought to bear. A final comment from Wikipedia, which also refers once more to the Parthenon...
"Another popular view is that entasis was intended to correct an optical illusion that makes cylindrical columns appear pinched and flat surfaces appear convex. This explanation was given by Hero of Alexandria, for example. [4] However, it does not explain the case of one well-known example, Paestum, where the entasis is so pronounced that it creates an obvious curvature, not an illusion of straightness. Conversely, in the Parthenon, the entasis is so subtle that it has almost no effect on the apparent shape of the columns, so is insufficient to correct any supposed illusion of curvature."
The entasis at Stonehenge must be quite subtle as well, as it's not something generally commented upon, meaning that most people probably don't notice the effect, even when viewing the monument at close range - and up until today, it was something that had escaped my attention, and indeed it would probably never even have occurred to me to even look - you never know what you're going to learn, even when writing about something as visibly familiar as Stonehenge.
But the main gist of Dennis Price's essay deals with why he considers Newgrange and Avebury to be non-runners in the City of Apollo stakes, and once more I'm going to quote at some length, principally because his text his clear and concise enough to need little in the way of further interpretation or explanation from me. First up is Avebury, situated a few miles from Stonehenge, and probably part of the same overall scheme of things. It is like Stonehenge, a stone circle, but very different in many ways, as we see...
"The first of these candidates is Avebury, which is certainly an impressive monument, but to the best of our knowledge, it was never comprised of dressed stone, let alone uprights with interlocking lintels. For this reason alone, it is very hard indeed to see how it would have made Pytheas think of a classical temple such as the ones he was familiar with, while there is no trace of a flourishing Iron Age city fit for kings nearby.
Pytheas also said that this temple (of Apollo), besides being spherical, vaulted or round, was “decorated with many offerings”. The word for “decorated” in the original passage is “kekosmemenon”, which can be translated as “adorned” or “decorated” with no precise further meaning or nuance, while the word for “offering” is similarly vague. It is “anathema”, a word which has no specific nuance, as it was used to describe any sort of religious offering to a god."
The author goes on to explain how although Avebury may have been decorated with offerings, its construction wasn't on the same architectural level as Stonehenge, and wouldn't have borne much resemblance to any kind of temple in contemporary Classical Greece.
Next I want to take a look at his comments regarding Newgrange as another site that could have been the temple referred to by Pytheas, especially as I amongst others, have suggested that it's structure, shape and location on an island may have been what Pytheas was referring to, and the author goes into some considerable detail to explain why he believes Newgrange doesn't meet the requirements to be perceived as a temple recognisable and notable to the mariner.
My primary reasons at the time for considering Newgrange were that it was another site with a stunning appearance, maybe accorded more with a description of being 'spherical', was dedicated to the Sun, and was on an island, which in the case of the City of Apollo, was referred to as being no smaller than Sicily, and I took that to mean that maybe Eire was a better proportional fit than mainland Britain, which is also an island, but considerably larger, and in my opinion, less likely to have been compared in size to Sicily
"To begin with, unfortunately, it seems to me that Newgrange is on completely the wrong island, which would seem to rule it out without the need for any further study. The Roman writer Avienus quoted a Massiliote seaman in the sixth century BC who spoke of “Ireland, two days’ sail from Brittany, alongside the islands of the Albiones”. This matter is admittedly slightly confusing, but let’s go through it and try to make it as clear and as comprehensible as possible.
A Massiliote was an inhabitant of Massilia, or present-day Marseilles in the south of France, and it was also the port with which Pytheas of Massilia is identified. If Avienus was quoting a Massiliote seaman from the sixth century BC who knew of Ireland, Britanny and Albion, or Britain, and Pytheas was alive during the fourth century BC, then it shows beyond question that mariners operating from the same port as Pytheas were fully aware of the distinctions between Britain and Ireland at least two centuries before Pytheas set sail."
All of which seems pretty reasonable, and he goes to to give some further detail explaining how it was the land of Hyperborea to which historian Diodorus Siculus was referring when relating the travels of Pytheas - there was also this curious liitle comment from the time...
"The Hyperboreans also have a language, we are informed, which is peculiar to them, and they are most friendly disposed towards the Greeks…”
If those ancient Hyperboreans were noted for having their own language, this might imply that elsewhere across north-western Europe, there was a single language, or set of inter-related languages in place, maybe in the same way that modern day Spanish, Italian and Portuguese are considered Latin-based or Mediterranean languages, whilst something like the Basque language, or Euskera, is completely unrelated to its linguistic neighbours, and is derived from a currently unknown origin. One further point here is that is believed through genetic studies, that the first people to settle Britain at the Holocene boundary, as the glaciers retreated, may have been people travelling up from the modern Basque country, but suggesting whether they brought with them a language that was still in use during the Bronze Age, and by a priestly elite at Stonehenge, might be stretching things a little. But why they should have been especially friendly with the Greeks obviously hints at a tradition of contact, possibly through trade and other cultural links. Back to Newgrange...
"Then there is the matter of first impressions, or of how Pytheas perceived this temple when he first saw it. Newgrange was lost for thousands of years after it was built, then it was rediscovered in 1699 when workmen removing material for road building described it as a cave. It is still known as the “Cave of the Sun” today on account of the light from the rising Winter Solstice sun shining through a specially constructed aperture above the entrance, but you can learn more about this amazing element of Newgrange on Michael’s site...
...Not only do we have a description of what the temple looked like, but we also know something of what went on there, because Pytheas wrote that the inhabitants or priests of the city of Apollo “continually play (on the cithara) in the temple and sing hymns of praise to the god, glorifying his deeds…” Elsewhere, Diodorus Siculus wrote of the Hyperboreans, “Apollo is honoured among them above all other gods; and the inhabitants are looked upon as priests of Apollo, after a manner…and honour him exceedingly.”
There's further detail in between these two quotes, but this last quote is telling...
"Pytheas does not tell us precisely how many priests sang or played the cithara at any one time, but the suggestion is that there were more rather than less, not least because the whole population of the island were viewed as priests, “after a manner”. When you look at the gloomy, restricted confines of the passageway and chamber at Newgrange, it is very difficult to imagine any priest singing hymns to Apollo, a sun god, when they could barely glimpse daylight. The thought of large groups of them playing instruments and singing hymns to the sun from within the murky underground depths is even harder to envisage, if only on practical grounds.
By stark contrast, it is perfectly possible that large groups of priests could have congregated on a regular basis at Stonehenge, as can be seen from the photograph below. If the priests had wanted to gather there at sunrise, then many of them would have been afforded an extremely good view of the sun through the gaps between the uprights, while the view would have become better as the day wore on and as the sun ascended in the sky."
I don't want to repeat Dennis Price's entire essay here, particularly as it should be read in its entirety at his site, for the full import of his ideas to properly come across, and so this is where I'm going to leave it. To my mind, he has clarified several crucial points, and made a much stronger case for Stonehenge as being a place, or temple worthy of mention by Pytheas than either Avebury, Newgrange, or indeed any other sites located in the British Isles at that time, but ultimately that will be for the individual reader to make up his or her mind, so I do recommend heading over to Eternal Idol to read his essay in full.
There are indications that there are more developments to this story that will become apparent, hopefully in the not too distant future, and I hope that what will emerge will be an updated and greatly enhanced view of exactly what Stonehenge and its surrounding landscape, including the nearby site of Durrington Walls, and possibly one or two other sites, might have meant to those who designed and built them.
Although I have briefly touched on Bronze Age Britain in earlier posts, it's becoming apparent that there was a great deal more complexity, integration and connectivity across Britain, and Europe, at that time, and hopefully I'll be able to add more detail and comment as time goes by.