The Sunday News
Cultural Heritage with Phathisa Nyathi
WE have by now covered quite some substantial ground when it comes to identification, explanation and tentative interpretation of same with a view to finally come up with some overarching theme and underlying purpose for the existence of Stonehenge. This is not to say we have covered all there is to cover in terms of structural features. In the main, considerable ground has been covered and there will soon be some shift to the less grandiose aspects, in terms of physical magnitude which, at this tentative stage, seem to complement what has already been unpacked.
Before we move to the second stage, it is important to give some kind of summary so that there is clarity and, out of it, may emerge a clearer, more coherent and sustainable interpretation of the cultural edifice. Stonehenge has been described as a monument to the ancestors, built as a symbol of political unity.
Let us try to recap some themes that we have dealt with to date. Stone has been dealt with as characteristic of solidity which encapsulates its expressions of eternity. Related to solidity was the position of stones in relation to the ground (Mother Earth, who is female). Standing stones have a particular message, more so when naturally they occurred in a similar position as was the case with stone pillars excavated at the Preseli Hills in Wales.
Wood, as ephemeral and transient material, preceded the use of stones. The two though, in terms of position in relation to earth, carry the same symbolism. Trees from which wood is extracted are generally vertical, standing and at the cultural level they are placed in holes in the ground. The one major and definitive difference is perishability, transience and ephemerality and hence the emerging expressions of eternity or lack of same.
Perceptions of Earth have already been alluded to. Earth has been regarded as female and that relates to its relationship to erect or standing structures such as stone and wood. The image of sexuality is invoked and applied at the cultural level. Sexuality on its own carries and fulfils the pervasive Law of Opposites, in this case hard-soft; cylindrical-circular. The example in this case is hole (in earth) and pole or stone inserted into a hole. The Law of Opposites should be apparent.
The emerging picture of ‘cylinder-in-hole’ is one of sexuality, the guarantor of continuity, eternity, perpetuity and endlessness of humanity. Phallic objects have been unearthed on some archaeological sites such as Stonehenge and their placing there is interpreted against this knowledge background.
Circularity as a theme was identified and observed as a universal design, not only in the cosmos but also on earth. Its message, beyond its aesthetic expressions, is one of eternity as it has no beginning and no end. The design has been replicated on the cultural front even beyond architecture. “As above, so below.” What we then see are commonalities between African architecture and Stonehenge, an observation that guides us to see common ideology and worldview in the ancient creators and builders separated by thousands of kilometres and sometimes phenomenal temporal dimensions.
Water was put under the spotlight and what emerged, largely out of its perceived characteristics, was its links and connectivity with spirituality. There was some observed link between shape/form/design of the container and the spiritual message in water contained therein.
Ultimately, cultural intervention with regard to water resulted in the creation of a ditch with relevant design and meaning in line with the theme of eternity and immortality already alluded to above. It seems, ultimately, waters in the ditch links up with water in the nearby River Avon and flows down to the sea, a probable abode of spirits and God. The underworld may very well be the underwater.
Sound was another aspect that was tentatively dealt with. However, it was observed that archaeology has not advanced sufficiently to detect sound from that far back. However, at theoretical level, it was acknowledged that there was some link between sound, music in particular and religion/spirituality. Observed religious and spiritual practices point in that direction.
With the major structures and related themes so far unpacked, we are in a position to pose the question regarding conceptual clarity of terms. Do the words ancestor, spirits and ancestral spirits mean one and the same thing? I will argue that how we understand these terms and their related concepts will inform our understanding of Stonehenge and, indeed, other cultural landscapes from ancient times.
We start with the dissection of the term ancestor. I will not seek dictionary meaning of the term. Rather, I will seek understanding from my own background as it relates to ancestors. Ancestors are historical figures from whom we are descended. This conceptualization, borne of biological reality, seems to be universal. We see some link between us and them in terms of us being their progeny and having inherited genetic characteristics from them. At the cultural level, we have inherited traditions, language, the arts and culture from them-through inter-generational cultural transmission. Here end the universal commonalities.
The link posited above is limited. This is not so with other communities. It would seem, among the ancients, that there were commonalties which have influenced and informed the cultural landscapes as expressions of a community’s world view and ideology. Fundamentally, there are/were communities that posit the Duality of Being where they perceive human beings as comprising material bodies (ephemeral and transient) and the spirits (eternal, enduring and immortal).
In practical terms the spiritual component imparts currency that is missing in the conceptualization of ancestors.
The spirits, acknowledged as having potency and power over things material including humans, are venerated and their places of interaction with the living progeny are imbued with sacredness and divinity. The presence of relatively longer lasting bones (cremated or not cremated) provides the historical (body and spirit existing together) and current links (spirit and progeny) thus translating into worship, veneration and propitiation.
This critical conceptualization has some bearing on how cultural sites are perceived. In fact, in the first rendition of ancestors in historical isolation, within the historical perspective, ritual sites are not part of the conceptual framework. What may be there are monuments devoid of ritual significance. This is no more than material expressions by a materially inclined people who are not spiritual.
The second picture we rendered related to ancestral spirits. There is some important realization that there are other spirits that exist but here we are specifically relating to ancestral spirits — those that in the past inhabited human bodies. It is these that are eternal, enduring and perpetual.
Our understanding and their expressions are structurally/architecturally expressed through the above themes. It is not the same with ancestors who are restricted to the past and do not relate in a cultural and spiritual sense to their progeny. Ancestors lack spiritual and cultural currency. Agnostic communities belong here.
It is my well-considered opinion that Stonehenge had currency at the time of its creation and use. It provided the link, albeit spiritual, ritual and translating to the functional link between the ancestral spirits and their living progeny. It was not a link between ancestors and the living. Sacredness is bestowed on a site or object not by ancestral spirits or gods. It is the living that do so and are at liberty to withdraw sacredness from a particular site or object. Desecration is about that. Spirits do not desecrate, the living do!
The difference between ancestors and ancestral spirits may seem subtle and yet it is fundamental and critical. Interpretation of cultural sites/landscapes will, in the end, rely heavily on the objective and sustainable unpacking of these concept-bearing terms.
