Excellent work Fiona. I will have to have a chat with you at some point about running one of these pages (though my ramblings would be incoherent of course).
I love the way you take an idea and work away at it to see where its leads, well done Fiona. About the ‘furnace’ idea. To me, all your research ends up pointing to an unacceptable scenario on a number of levels, meaning the original idea is untenable upon close inspection. To begin with, the small thing extending from the bottom of the item isn’t big enough, or connected to the opening, so doesn’t look like a furnace outlet. And I agree with your assessment that at this period, furnaces weren’t large enough or hot enough to melt down a pile of enemy weapons.
Then, warriors with spears are found on many CII stones, and of course in texts, so to reinterpret the normal motif of a warrior with a spear as a man bringing a weapon to be melted down would just be confusing to the viewer.
But more importantly, the idea of melting weapons down and pouring them over severed heads is not what happens to heads of dead warriors in a Celtic context. We have lots of information, textual and archaeological, about how the Celts conceived of their weapons and how they treated them after the death of their warrior. Weapons were handed on to the next hero, they were bent or broken and returned to the water, stored in sacred sites as untouchable items, they were honoured as having their own spirit and agency. Again, this is a ritual space on the stone, so we must expect ritual scenes to be understandable by the viewer within their cultural context.
The story about the knife of Columba being ‘skillfully’ melted down after his death and spread over items to provide a blessing is a great find. This was likely just his knife used for everyday tasks like carving food, it’s a relatively small item, the swiss-army knife of its day, and as above, could be melted down in the local hearth, but not for the purpose of destruction or humiliation but to *preserve* its essence – a typical Celtic idea. This story demonstrates that melting down something was *not* considered to destroy its potency. And the ‘skillfull’ meltdown implies this was a very unusual activity, requiring unusual skills.
In the end, there seems nothing to support a ‘furnace’ idea then. Back to ‘broch’ methinks, if it looks like a broch, acts like a broch, smells like a broch …
Thanks Helen as always for your thoughts - and a very good point on the knife being melted to preserve (or transfer) its essence rather than destroy it. That's a much more accurate interpretation.
And absolutely, whatever is represented by the object would have to make sense to a contemporary viewer. The issue (as always) is that we don't know which period we're talking about, who the audience might have been, or what kind of cultural milieu they inhabited. And we don't know if we're dealing with a mythological battle (and if so, from which mythos), a real contemporary battle, a real historical battle, or an idealised battle.
Which is to say: if the object is a broch, a building type not present in this part of Scotland and so perhaps not immediately familiar to the viewer, why was it chosen for this programme?
But of course we know the cultural milieu of the Picts of this period - they are just a slightly different shade of the same. This is one of those handy excuses that is often bandied around as an excuse to ignore the somewhat prickly issue of Celtic culture. We can be better than that can't we?
And I agree we don't know whether its a real or mythical battle being portrayed, but that probably doesn't matter too much, as a real battle is going to be depicted in cultural and mythical terms for it to make sense to its audience anyway.
Brochs only start about 50 miles to the north, that is true, so its probably the one question that hangs over the identification of the object as a broch. But the stone doesn't have to be depicting a battle at the same site. Memorials and such can be put up at the actual site of a battle, but they are often put up in some significant space for the people involved too.
Hmm, I wouldn't like to say I was *certain* of anything very much regarding the cultural milieu of the stone's patrons, creators, or audience, beyond the fact that the patrons are clearly Christian. Different people see different cultural markers in it: Celtic symbolism, Romanitas, Christian allegory, or a mixture of all of them. I see the various arguments, but I don't know nearly enough yet to form my own opinion - I'm only getting to things very, very slowly, via posts like these.
I do agree that the stone doesn't have to be located at a battle site. A stone that's had this much investment put into it is much more likely to have been put up, as you say, at a significant location for the people who invested in it, and my view is that it was probably put up at or very close to the place where they (or their local agents) were based. If only we had any early medieval written references to Forres! I sense that if Sueno's Stone was at Forteviot or Scone, there'd be no problem interpreting it.
Only comment on your core thesis is to bear in mind that scale on carvings of this period wasn’t something the artists really cared about. I think John Borland made this point at the end of Cormac’s PAS lecture. So whatever the shape is it could be something as small as a bell or as big as a broch - or something in between like a furnace!
My other observation is not related to this but to the fleeing horsemen in the next panel. I hadn’t noticed before but the six horsemen have only one leg between them! Now the figurative carving on Sueno’s Stone isn’t the best and is quite different in many ways to other representations of figures on other Pictish stones. But, that said, carved Pictish horsemen are generally depicted with their legs (usually both) visible below the horses belly. These don’t. Also the heads are sitting almost directly on the horses’ backs with at best a neck and certainly no body. Is this actually some mythic part of the story where the victims heads fled or were sent back whence they came? If they are fleeing living horsemen then they are very poorly executed, even by Sueno’s Stone standards. Admittedly the horsemen in the top panel don’t seem to have legs either (as far as I can make out - damn the weathering!) but they certainly have bodies
Left field idea, I know, but maybe worth considering?
I’m put in mind of the tale of Sigurd and Maelbrigte (he of the tooth) only in the image of a decapitated head being taken away on horseback rather than Skene’s theory that that is the story the stone is telling in its entirety.
Thanks Alastair - good points there, and your thoughts are always very welcome!
Yes, John Borland's comment about scale was a good one. On the other side of the stone things are definitely not to scale, with an enormous cross, two weirdly tall figures and two tiny floating figures. But on the battle side, the scale does seem to be more realistic and consistent, at least in terms of the figures, their weapons, shields, instruments, etc.
Except for the heads escaping on horses! I'd noticed that on John Borland's drawing but hadn't given it any thought yet. The story of Maelbrigte Tooth does come to mind, although his was only a lone head, and the horse also had a rider (i.e. Sigurd). [EDIT: I just re-read it and I see there were in fact lots of horses, heads and riders, doh! So that is very fitting.] Plus Maelbrigte's head was also the main prize, while the prized head here seems to be the one being cut off in the centre, which is perhaps the same one as appears in the 'frame' under the 'bridge'/'canopy'.
As to heads being sent back whence they came, I wonder if there is a myth where a similar thing happens. Pictish/Irish/Norse mythology is not my thing (yet) but I wonder if anyone else has any thoughts on that.
Excellent work Fiona. I will have to have a chat with you at some point about running one of these pages (though my ramblings would be incoherent of course).
I love the way you take an idea and work away at it to see where its leads, well done Fiona. About the ‘furnace’ idea. To me, all your research ends up pointing to an unacceptable scenario on a number of levels, meaning the original idea is untenable upon close inspection. To begin with, the small thing extending from the bottom of the item isn’t big enough, or connected to the opening, so doesn’t look like a furnace outlet. And I agree with your assessment that at this period, furnaces weren’t large enough or hot enough to melt down a pile of enemy weapons.
Then, warriors with spears are found on many CII stones, and of course in texts, so to reinterpret the normal motif of a warrior with a spear as a man bringing a weapon to be melted down would just be confusing to the viewer.
But more importantly, the idea of melting weapons down and pouring them over severed heads is not what happens to heads of dead warriors in a Celtic context. We have lots of information, textual and archaeological, about how the Celts conceived of their weapons and how they treated them after the death of their warrior. Weapons were handed on to the next hero, they were bent or broken and returned to the water, stored in sacred sites as untouchable items, they were honoured as having their own spirit and agency. Again, this is a ritual space on the stone, so we must expect ritual scenes to be understandable by the viewer within their cultural context.
The story about the knife of Columba being ‘skillfully’ melted down after his death and spread over items to provide a blessing is a great find. This was likely just his knife used for everyday tasks like carving food, it’s a relatively small item, the swiss-army knife of its day, and as above, could be melted down in the local hearth, but not for the purpose of destruction or humiliation but to *preserve* its essence – a typical Celtic idea. This story demonstrates that melting down something was *not* considered to destroy its potency. And the ‘skillfull’ meltdown implies this was a very unusual activity, requiring unusual skills.
In the end, there seems nothing to support a ‘furnace’ idea then. Back to ‘broch’ methinks, if it looks like a broch, acts like a broch, smells like a broch …
Thanks Helen as always for your thoughts - and a very good point on the knife being melted to preserve (or transfer) its essence rather than destroy it. That's a much more accurate interpretation.
And absolutely, whatever is represented by the object would have to make sense to a contemporary viewer. The issue (as always) is that we don't know which period we're talking about, who the audience might have been, or what kind of cultural milieu they inhabited. And we don't know if we're dealing with a mythological battle (and if so, from which mythos), a real contemporary battle, a real historical battle, or an idealised battle.
Which is to say: if the object is a broch, a building type not present in this part of Scotland and so perhaps not immediately familiar to the viewer, why was it chosen for this programme?
But of course we know the cultural milieu of the Picts of this period - they are just a slightly different shade of the same. This is one of those handy excuses that is often bandied around as an excuse to ignore the somewhat prickly issue of Celtic culture. We can be better than that can't we?
And I agree we don't know whether its a real or mythical battle being portrayed, but that probably doesn't matter too much, as a real battle is going to be depicted in cultural and mythical terms for it to make sense to its audience anyway.
Brochs only start about 50 miles to the north, that is true, so its probably the one question that hangs over the identification of the object as a broch. But the stone doesn't have to be depicting a battle at the same site. Memorials and such can be put up at the actual site of a battle, but they are often put up in some significant space for the people involved too.
Hmm, I wouldn't like to say I was *certain* of anything very much regarding the cultural milieu of the stone's patrons, creators, or audience, beyond the fact that the patrons are clearly Christian. Different people see different cultural markers in it: Celtic symbolism, Romanitas, Christian allegory, or a mixture of all of them. I see the various arguments, but I don't know nearly enough yet to form my own opinion - I'm only getting to things very, very slowly, via posts like these.
I do agree that the stone doesn't have to be located at a battle site. A stone that's had this much investment put into it is much more likely to have been put up, as you say, at a significant location for the people who invested in it, and my view is that it was probably put up at or very close to the place where they (or their local agents) were based. If only we had any early medieval written references to Forres! I sense that if Sueno's Stone was at Forteviot or Scone, there'd be no problem interpreting it.
Excellent as ever.
Only comment on your core thesis is to bear in mind that scale on carvings of this period wasn’t something the artists really cared about. I think John Borland made this point at the end of Cormac’s PAS lecture. So whatever the shape is it could be something as small as a bell or as big as a broch - or something in between like a furnace!
My other observation is not related to this but to the fleeing horsemen in the next panel. I hadn’t noticed before but the six horsemen have only one leg between them! Now the figurative carving on Sueno’s Stone isn’t the best and is quite different in many ways to other representations of figures on other Pictish stones. But, that said, carved Pictish horsemen are generally depicted with their legs (usually both) visible below the horses belly. These don’t. Also the heads are sitting almost directly on the horses’ backs with at best a neck and certainly no body. Is this actually some mythic part of the story where the victims heads fled or were sent back whence they came? If they are fleeing living horsemen then they are very poorly executed, even by Sueno’s Stone standards. Admittedly the horsemen in the top panel don’t seem to have legs either (as far as I can make out - damn the weathering!) but they certainly have bodies
Left field idea, I know, but maybe worth considering?
I’m put in mind of the tale of Sigurd and Maelbrigte (he of the tooth) only in the image of a decapitated head being taken away on horseback rather than Skene’s theory that that is the story the stone is telling in its entirety.
As usual, feel free to ignore my musings
Thanks Alastair - good points there, and your thoughts are always very welcome!
Yes, John Borland's comment about scale was a good one. On the other side of the stone things are definitely not to scale, with an enormous cross, two weirdly tall figures and two tiny floating figures. But on the battle side, the scale does seem to be more realistic and consistent, at least in terms of the figures, their weapons, shields, instruments, etc.
Except for the heads escaping on horses! I'd noticed that on John Borland's drawing but hadn't given it any thought yet. The story of Maelbrigte Tooth does come to mind, although his was only a lone head, and the horse also had a rider (i.e. Sigurd). [EDIT: I just re-read it and I see there were in fact lots of horses, heads and riders, doh! So that is very fitting.] Plus Maelbrigte's head was also the main prize, while the prized head here seems to be the one being cut off in the centre, which is perhaps the same one as appears in the 'frame' under the 'bridge'/'canopy'.
As to heads being sent back whence they came, I wonder if there is a myth where a similar thing happens. Pictish/Irish/Norse mythology is not my thing (yet) but I wonder if anyone else has any thoughts on that.