 |
| Fig. 1 - Hagar Qim |
 |
| Fig. 2 - Stonehenge |
When the
ice receded from Europe around 9000 BCE (Kleiner, 29), one would
suppose there must have been an eventual shift from hunting and
gathering towards farming and the domestication of animals, which in
turn led to the founding of human settlements (Malone, 15), as early
as 7000 BCE in Southern Europe and 4500 BCE in Northern Europe
(Biagi, 36). Two Neolithic monuments, Hagar Qim and Stonehenge,
serve as testaments to the evolving customs of geotemporally distinct
yet architecturally and cosmologically-related cultures. In this
paper we will seek to examine the similarities and differences
between Hagar Qim and Stonehenge, with respect to materials and
design, theorized uses and significance of the monuments.
Hagar
Qim (Fig.1), found on the Mediterranean island of Malta, is a complex
of Neolithic buildings (one of several in the area), dating back to
around 3200 -2500 BCE (Kleiner, 28). The stones found in the
buildings were cut and arranged in stages from limestone, which is
abundant on Malta (Robb, 177). It has been suggested that Hagar Qim
is the oldest example of dressed stone architecture in the world
(Turnbull, 126). The complex is built using both horizontal courses
and the post-and-lintel
system (Kleiner, 28).
The
curvilinear forms of Hagar Qim are based on a modified trefoil
(three-leaf/lobed) and are unique, perhaps owing to the insularity of
island culture (Turnbull, 127-8). While they may reflect the shape
of nearby rock-cut tombs (Ibid, 133), the rounded walls of these
ancient temples have also been likened by some to the fava bean, a
local staple, which in turn is slang for female genitalia (Biagi,
36).
The
association with a goddess cult is not inconsistent with the
discovery of the Venus of Malta at
Hagar Qim. In the semicircular
recesses, or apses, of Hagar Qim, implements of worship have also
been found, including sacrificial altars, bowls and figurines, which
have led to the designation “temple”, although one might posit a
multifunctionality of uses over time, including the storage and
preparation of foods, among others (Turnbull, 130).
Hagar
Qim, like other megalithic monuments, displays stark evidence of an
advanced scientific culture. First, there is the obvious engineering
feat of quarrying and moving stones weighing up to several tonnes
without sophisticated tools. Arranging these into oval chambers,
with horizontal arches, corbelled vaulting and eventually domed
arches (found in the later temples, e.g. Tarxien) was an
extraordinary feat for its time (Ellul, Malta's Prehistoric
Genius).
Hagar
Qim was also designed with defenses in mind – a massive retaining
wall and the elevated location may have served to protect from
animals and invaders (Childress, 205). A forecourt and façade
reinforce the idea that this was a public place with ceremonial
usage.
The
Hagar Qim complex is a marvel of astronomical knowledge. With the
advent of agriculture in the Neolithic, people's sense of time would
have expanded and awareness of seasonality and cycles become
apparent. In several places of Hagar Qim, celestial alignments
inform the building pattern. Doorways are built to face the major
standstills of the moon, as well as solstices and equinoxes of the
sun (Ellul, Neolithic Temple Alignments).
Of note
is the skill with which the builders provided for amplification of
sound between the chambers. By creating an “acoustic hole” in a
corner of the main chamber, architects ensured that an audience in
the adjacent “Women's Chapel” would be able to participate in
ongoing ceremonies (Ellul, Shape of Temple).
The segregation of audiences is suggested to have been related to
the gore of ritual animal sacrifices, thought to have been unsavory
to some (Ibid).
Turning next to Stonehenge, we will consider again the materials,
design and theorized uses of this Neolithic monument, located several
hundred miles, and possibly centuries away, in Britain. We will
attempt to delineate both what is common and unique to each of the
two sites.
Stonehenge
(Fig. 2) may have begun with a simple circular earthmound (henge) and
ditch before 3000 BCE (Malone, 14). One might suppose this was a
suitable arrangement for penning animals, with the mound and ditch
serving as barriers; a ditch full of water would have been useful for
watering, also, perhaps explaining the later reversal to the ditch
being contained inside the mound. Later refinements were made in
stages between 2500 and 1600 BCE (Ibid).
Evidence
for multiple building stages at Stonehenge can be found in the types
and arrangements of stone used over time.1
It is thought that the volcanic bluestones were the first to have
been moved to the site – these were smaller and stood alone, up to
seven or eight feet and weighing up to four tonnes (Ibid, 23). The
larger sarsen stones, made of hardy sandstone, were moved to the site
later and fitted together into trilithons using mortise-and-tenon
joints (Ibid, 31). The largest sarsen measures approximately 30 feet
in height (8 of which rest in the ground) and weighs 45 tonnes (Ibid,
21).
There
are various theories about how these were moved with the primitive
tools of the time. Some posit the bluestones were quarried in Wales,
over 100 miles away, although this has not been reproducible, while
others suppose glacial tow may have deposited the stones nearer the
henge. Still others invoke antediluvian giants (Ellul,
Introduction).2
What is of note is the belief that
stones had special meaning, even powers:
“...the
different types of stone were not inanimate in
the Neolithic, but part of a broader animistic understanding of the
world”
(Cummings, 33).
The
people
of Stonehenge must have been of full of wonder, although their
beliefs did not oppose but rather informed their lifestyle. They
were keenly aware of the passage of time, of cycles of life and
death. Like the builders of Hagar Qim, the architects of Stonehenge,
being tied to the land through agriculture, were expert at expressing
and anticipating astronomical events, key to seedtime and harvest.
The looming trilithons, built with post-and-lintel construction like
their Maltese counterparts, formed calendric portals to mark the
passage of time. Circles within circles suggest not only continuous
refinement of uses for the henge but also sophistication of
astronomical knowledge. Standing in the central horseshoe and facing
the heelstone at dawn on a summer's solstice day, one sees the sun
rising (Malone, 29).
While
human bones have not generally been associated with Hagar Qim, this
is not the case with Stonehenge, which, with its profundity of
cremated (Pearson, 37) and skeletal remains, suggests a variety of
cultural practices ranging from burial, to healing3
to sacrifice (Robb, 184). Some theorize Stonehenge to hold
ritualistic value in conjunction with nearby Darrington Hills, with
the former representing the realm of the dead and the latter the
living and newly deceased; a precession symbolizing the journey was
to have taken place along the River Avon and down the Avenue (Pollard
337-8).
Now, if
the Neolithic people of Hagar Qim were associated in some way with
goddess-worship,4
then the question arises, what or whom did the Neolithic builders of
Stonehenge revere? The monument itself suggests an intimate
connection with ancestors, with trilithons representing perhaps the
union of two adults. Bluestones may then represent children, as they
stand alone and are found in greater number, too. Their place
eventually in the centre of the trilithons mirrors the picture of a
small village protecting its most precious resource. Intersected
with this is the clear association with sun and moon – circles
marking their positions throughout the year and perhaps even over
several years. With all of these primitive energies working
together, one might sum with, “...the
architecture of the monument in some way acted as an index of the
supernatural world” (Pollard, 347). Death, life, seasons, all find
expression here.
We
have attempted to present a brief but accurate understanding of two
Neolithic monuments, Hagar Qim, from Malta, and Stonehenge, in the
United Kingdom. The movement of peoples following the last ice age
in Europe ca. 9000 BCE from forests, hills and hunting towards
plains, valleys and agriculture set the scene for a revolution in
architectural design. We have seen how the enormous materials and
the elaborate designs wrought with astronomical meaning speak of
ancient cultures steeped in knowledge which predates the record of
any written language. We have seen that the builders of these
structures expressed, over various stages in the lives of the
monuments, diverse cultural traditions, from the burial of ancestors,
to the herding of animals, to grand ceremonious precessions involving
entire communities with a unified vision.
That
much more could be said about these wonders of an ancient age, with
regards to dimensions, dates, the various phases over centuries, as
well as newer theories based on the latest archeological findings is
clear from the profusion of papers, texts, and other materials
already written. That we, like the builders of Neolithic monuments,
look backwards to find meaning in these histories, speaks to the
commonality of the human condition.
Works Cited
Biaggi, Cristina.
"Myths of the Goddess in Neolithic Island Cultures of Northwest
Europe and the Mediterranean." ReVision 21.3 (1999): 36.
Childress, D. H.
Lost Cities of Atlantis, Ancient Europe & the Mediterranean.
Adventures Unlimited Press, 1996.
Cummings, Vicki.
"What Lies Beneath: Thinking about the Qualities and Essences of
Stone and Wood in the Chambered Tomb Architecture of Neolithic
Britain and Ireland." Journal of Social Archaeology 12.1
(2012): 29-50.
Ellul, J. Malta's
Prediluvian Culture at the Stone Age Temples with Special Reference
to H̳aġar Qim, Gh̳ar Dalam, Cart Ruts,
Il-Misqa, Il-Maqluba & Creation., 1988.
Kleiner, F. S.
Gardner's Art through the Ages: The Western Perspective. Vol.
2. Wadsworth Publishing Company, 2009.
Malone, Caroline,
and Nancy S. Bernard. Stonehenge. Ed. Caroline Malone and
Nancy Stone Bernard. Oxford [England] ;New York : Oxford University
Press, c2002, 2002. . RefWorks Tagged Format.
Parker, Mike, et al.
"Who was Buried at Stonehenge?" Antiquity 83.319
(2009): 23-39.
Pollard, Joshua.
"The Materialization of Religious Structures in the Time of
Stonehenge." Material Religion 5.3 (2009): 332-53.
Robb, John. "Island
Identities: Ritual, Travel and the Creation of Difference in
Neolithic Malta." European Journal of Archaeology 4.2
(2001): 175-202.
Turnbull, David.
"Performance and Narrative, Bodies and Movement in the
Construction of Places and Objects, Spaces and Knowledges."
Theory, Culture &
Society 19.5-6 (2002):
125-43.
1Stages
were also apparent in the building of Hagar Qim – three layers of
different pavement stone can be found.
2While
the more pragmatic theorists have struggled to reproduce the
herculean task of moving a bluestone by boat from Wales to
Wiltshire, others have sought meaning in the paranormal. One theory
suggests extraterrestrial assistance, while others believe giants
walked the earth before the flood, consistent with the ages
considered here.
3Whether
Neolithic monuments were in fact places of healing is somewhat
speculative, with evidence being limited to the presence of deformed
body parts (Childress, 209).
4The
overall shape of the main temple at Hagar Qim mirrors that of the
two sets of seven statuettes found onsite, although there is
ambiguity with respect to the gender-representation as the figures
lack breasts or obvious genitalia (Ellul, Statuettes).
No comments:
Post a Comment