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 …
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.
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 …
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
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).