The
Cerne Giant: An Antiquity on Trail by T. Darvill, K. Barker, B. Bender
and R. Huttons.
Oxbow Books. 1999. 172 pages, 19 photographs,
3 maps, 32 text figures/illustrations. ISBN 1-900188-94-5
This particular volume
is the result of a one-day ‘trial’ held on the 23rd of March
1996, in the Cerne Abbas village hall, relating to a fine, ‘upstanding’
character who is to be found residing in the parish of Cerne Abbas,
in the district of West Dorset’. The Cerne Giant is without doubt
one of the most popular chalk figures in Britain, due in part, to his
occasional appearances in advertising campaigns and TV commercials,
but perhaps due largely to a particular physical attribute that has
raised the figure to the status of a national landmark. This volume
examines three conflicting schools of thought relating to the age of
the giant: The figure was prehistoric/Romano British in date, he was
medieval/Post medieval in date, or that he is simply important irrespective
of his age.
The ‘trial’
was organised as a one day public inquiry with Timothy Darvill, Barbara
Bender and Ronald Hutton acting as advocates and introducing their ‘expert
witnesses’ for each case, the audience was then engaged to act
as the jury. The preface of the book gives a brief outline of the historical
references, wide range of opinions relating to the giant, and the trial
of the figure. Part one introduces the Cerne Giant and is presented
in the form of a ‘preliminary briefing’ intended to set
the scene for those new to the debate. This section is divided into
three short chapters, summarising the background, setting, context and
management of the giant. Parts two, three and four are dedicated to
the presentation of the three separate ‘cases’ of the trial.
Part five provides an epilogue to the enquiry in two chapters.
Part one begins with
an introduction by Jeffrey Chartrand, to the location of the giant using
impressive computer generated terrain models and topographical surveys
of the area. Chartrand then provides a brief history of the landscape
from the ice age and brief outlines of the local geological and environmental
information. Timothy Darvill continues with a study of British hill
figures, examining the history of the hill figure through to newly proposed
examples. He then begins an account of the documentary evidence and
how little has been discovered relating to the giant before the date
of 1763. This account also examines how the giant has been subjected
to ‘cosmetic surgery’, having various parts of his anatomy
removed and remodelled and elongated. Darvill suggests that many of
the changes made to the outline of the giant have been made during relatively
recent restoration, a suggestion backed by the early and recent accounts.
He then moves on to discuss how antiquarians from different periods
have interpreted the giant and speculated as to his identity. Here begins
an excellent examination of the Giant’s possible identities and
the changing attitudes to the imposing figure. Darvill’s concludes
that we will never obtain answers relating to the Cerne Giant until
some form of excavation is carried out. This subject is broached several
times throughout the book, highlighting the conflicting attitudes relating
to the figure.
The second chapter
of part one, is presents by William Keithly, Martin Papworth and David
Thackray. This chapter focuses on the historical ownership of the giant,
discussing alterations and how management practices have changed over
the years. This chapter also highlights management strategies implemented
by The National Trust, including advertising campaigns that have contributed
to the upkeep of the giant; most notably those produced by Durex and
Heineken which, as might be expected, exploited the giant’s famous
appendage. This chapter also mentions forthcoming work to be carried
out on the giant to improve our understanding of a construction date.
Part two of this volume
represents the first of the three arguments, ‘The Case for an
Ancient Giant.’ This section is comprised of five papers, by expert
witnesses in support the ancient giant theory. Timothy Darvill provides
a short introduction to part two, under the heading ‘A Prehistoric
Warrior God?’ and begins, quite rightly, by explaining that early
arguments for an ancient giant were groundless and have no place in
modern arguments to that effect. He then introduces a panel of experts
enlisted to fight his corner. Darvill also notes that there is a need
to dispense with the ‘negative evidence’ which suggests
that because there are no historical accounts before the early 17th
century, the giant was not there before that time. This appears to be
the essence of this argument, as all of the witnesses in this section
appear (quite rightly) to make similar statements. At this point Darvill
introduces Paul Newman as his first expert witness.
Newman immediately
focuses on the weapon of the giant (the club of course) as an out-dated
weapon even in the later prehistoric, suggesting that it is therefore
even more unlikely to be of 18th century construction. Newman then proves
himself to be the broad shoulders of the group being the first to tackle
the subject of the famous phallus; he does this by drawing comparisons
with images dating back some 2000 years or more. Timothy Darvill adds
some comments to this chapter, drawing parallels with other hill figures
such as the Uffington white horse. A sense of frustration may be detected
within the text as all records of the giant record cleaning and restoration
rather than possible dates of construction. He moves on to introduce
David Miles. This chapter examines parallels drawn between the Uffington
Horse and the Cerne Giant, using impressive aerial images and plans.
Miles examines the methods used to excavate and date the Uffington Horse
to the Bronze Age/Early Iron Age, stating that the horse was constructed
at a time of changing ideologies, yet has still survived. He then argues
that if the ancient horse could have survived for so long, why should
the Cerne Giant be any different? Miles then examines how the giant
might be associated with other monuments and features in the landscape.
Timothy Darvill provides
a brief summary to this paper, suggesting that there is clear evidence
for the construction of hill figures being an established aspect of
prehistoric life. Darvill then calls his next witness - Rodney Castleden.
Castleden begins with an introduction to iconography and how it might
be used to reveal the identity of the giant. This is well written providing
understandable coverage of what can be a difficult subject to absorb.
He uses modern examples of uniformed individuals to explain how such
images can be applied to past iconography. Castleden describes how the
giant displays a great deal of ‘encoded’ information that
may indicate of his age and cultural origin. The next to be called to
the stand is Bill Putnam who is the first to mention the name of the
Durotriges tribe, the late prehistoric occupants of the area, and his
belief that it was these people who were responsible for constructing
the giant at Cerne Abbas. Putnam returns to the theory of the giant
being a fertility figure or god and places great emphasis on locating
the giant within a pagan profile and Iron Age landscape. Once again
Darvill summarises this section and introduces John Gale who describes
geophysical surveys carried out during 1996. Brief descriptions of the
process and results of both magnetometer and resistivity surveys are
well presented using clear plans and images. Gale provides a background
of surveys carried out on the giant over the past thirty years and reasons
for future ‘none-invasive’ work.
Part three of the
volume is dedicated to the case for a Medieval/Post Medieval giant and
is introduced by case advocate Ronald Hutton. In his introduction, Hutton
acknowledges that the giant is generally accepted as prehistoric, and
that changes to such beliefs can be unpopular. In response to the previous
chapter, Hutton rejects comparisons to the Uffington Horse, as the dating
processes employed there have never been used to provide a date for
the Cerne Giant. Hutton then introduces his first expert witness, Vivian
Vale. Vale provides a short history of the village of Cerne Abbas and
the involvement it has had with the giant over recent centuries. He
examines documentary evidence for land ownership relating to the giant
and involvement of the church in the upkeep and maintenance of the giant.
Hutton calls his first witness Joseph Betty. Betty, like Hutton, suggests
that the giant is likely to have been of mid 17th century construction.
A barrage of evidence follows which delves into local and ecclesiastical
records and even strives to identify a candidate, and his motives for
constructing the figure. Hutton reiterates much of Betty’s argument
and in the process contributes further information relating to the argument.
He then introduces Katherine Barker.
Barker presents an
interesting chapter detailing the folklore of giants and their inclusion
in biblical stories. The folklore tales of the region are indeed fascinating,
but the biblical references are taken further as they are linked to
the local ecclesiastical occupants of the nearby Abbey of Cerne. Speculation
is added to the mix to determine why there are no records of the giant
if he is, as claimed by others, to be prehistoric. It has been suggested
that the Cerne Giant is a depiction of the god Hercules; however, Barker
follows the history of Hercules through the ages and concludes that
he would have been out of place as a pagan image above Cerne Abbas.
Barker also examines other hill giants, all of which are Post-Medieval
in date. Barker suggests that antiquarian minded people have essentially
‘type cast’ the giant as a prehistoric figure. Summing up,
Hutton concurs with much of Barker’s thinking and adds that the
giant is almost certainly a representation of the god Hercules.
Morgan Evans examines
the accounts of discovery and line of enquiry relating to the giant
in the 18th century. He re-examines the early references to the giant
illustrating the changes to the outline of the giant with a hand drawn
sketch. Hutton provides a short summary to this contribution in which
he suggests that a Pre-Christian date may have been a forgone conclusion,
due to an overlap between archaeology in its infancy and folklore studies.
In his general summary of part three, Hutton acknowledges that the giant
may be prehistoric, but proceeds to outline some of points of evidence
presented in the previous chapters of his argument.
Part four of this
volume ‘The Case for a Living Giant’ introduces the third
school of thought on the Cerne Giant. The section is introduced by Barbara
Bender and incorporates some rather humorous cartoons to illustrate
a different approach, leaving history behind. Bender suggests that the
Giant is still living due to the fact that people still clean him, repair
him, walk him and ask favours of him. She examines briefly why he is
so important to the nation. Rodney Legg is introduced as the first expert
witness for this case, and is involved in the first question and answer
section of the trial. In his answers Legg outlines the methods and occurrences
of cleaning and maintenance on the giant, the possibility of other figures
on the hillside. Tom Williamson continues the theme for a living giant;
he examines how the Giant is essential to the community and landscape
bringing an air of mystery to the town. Williamson examines points from
the previous arguments but states that the age of the giant is of little
importance. Barbara Bender then summarises this statement before introducing
Martin Brown. Brown draws some interesting comparisons between the Long
Man of Wilmington and the Cerne Giant, noting that both are equally
mysterious, have similar folklore attachments and that both lay within
a prehistoric landscape. He suggests that we don’t really want
to know the age of the giant, and should perhaps respect his privacy.
Bender then introduces Hilary Jones. This is another question and answers
section which focuses on the maintenance of the giant and how this may
have developed into a modern ritual. Other rituals and celebrations
associated with the figure are discussed, including the use of the phallus
for modern fertility purposes. The testimony of Sue Clifford engages
the jury with what the figure means to individuals and to local people.
She begins her statement by expressing why the giant is so important
to her personally and to the people of the town. She talks about the
persistence of the giant and how he characterises the town as the ‘Giants
domain’. Bender then introduces three poets, James Turner, Sandra
Tappenden and Jan Farquharson, all of whom have contributed one poem
to the chapter. Interestingly all three make reference to the giant’s
most famous appendage and its uses.
Then comes the verdict
of the jury which was called with a separate count for each case; there
was a clear majority for one case, though I feel it would be unfair
to reveal such information in this review. Two additional, short chapters
were inserted at the end of the volume. The first noting the reactions
and opinions of some of the audience, the second, an account of the
TV coverage and the documentary covering the ‘trial’ debate
on the day.
My impression of this
volume was one of overall readability, it is apparent that all of the
papers included have been prepared for a general audience, rather than
a solely academic market, something of a refreshing change as this publication
will not necessitate the purchase of an archaeological dictionary. To
date this must be considered a comprehensive account of a debate that
has existed for decades and will no doubt continue with a ‘snowball
effect’, due to the publication of such excellent work. Each case
was well summarised by each advocate, all papers were well written and
included useful bibliographies relating to each subject. I feel the
advancement of scholarship in this area will benefit greatly through
this volume as it opens up the subject to such an extensive audience.
Excellent value at only £14.95.
Karl Lee
Department of Archaeology and History
University of Wales College, Newport
Review Submitted: June 2003
The views expressed
in this review are not necessarily those of the Society or the Reviews
Editor.
|