|
|
|
||
|
||||
|
||||
 |
|
|
|
|
We are able to say with relative certainty that the earliest building phases of Stonehenge can be traced back around 5000 years, when the climate and topography of the British Isles was radically different to that of today. A few thousand years earlier, retreating ice sheets had revealed a landscape that had been hidden for thousands of years, and it was only in around 7500 BC, that sufficient ice melted to raise the sea level enough to separate Britain from Europe. Yet surprisingly the earliest evidence for any activity in the area relates to a row of post-holes aligned in an East-West direction, which were discovered by excavations in 1966 and 1988, in what is now the Stonehenge car park. Dated by a scientific team put together by English Heritage, the spread of dates for these postholes is truly staggering.1 The dates are statistically arranged into two groups, 8500-7650 cal BC, and 7500-6700 cal BC.2 As to whether this row of posts was the full extent of this early work we are unlikely ever to know, for if something had been erected at Stonehenge in the Mesolithic era around 8,000 to 10,000 years ago, subsequent works would have most likely eradicated all traces. We are therefore left with only an echo of this early work that has blended into the archaic time of glacial retreat. |
||
The earliest provable work lies in the construction of the main ditch, dug in segments sometime between 3020 and 2910 cal BC.3 This construction phase is generally considered to have been a fairly simple affair, comprising the ditch and surrounding banks, together with the 56 Aubrey holes named after their discoverer. 4 Evenly spaced and concentric with the ditch and bank, their builders apparently filled them in almost as soon as they had been dug.5 However the association of the Aubrey holes with this stage of construction has lately proven to be suspect, as their dating is entirely subjective with the latest radiocarbon dating providing a spread of between 3020 and 1520 cal BC. The simplicity of this early stage is also questioned by many who believe that it was at this time, or shortly thereafter, that at the Northeast entrance a pair of stones was erected of which only one remains, that is now rather ominously termed the Slaughter Stone. This same view holds that outside the circular bank of soil, a further large stone made of a type of sandstone called Sarsen and called the Heel Stone, was also erected at this time. From the Flinders Petrie survey of 1877 we know that a circle 360 feet in diameter was first scribed out before another circle was made 18 feet further out. Between these two circles the turf, soil, and chalk was excavated to form a ditch with the removed material forming a henge 20 feet wide and 6 feet high, broken by two causeways, one 35 feet wide in the north east, the other one third its width in the south.6 The simplicity of this earlier phase is given a further knock by the implied presence of a large wooden building, which some archaeologists believe stood at its centre and which may well have been built a few centuries earlier. That it was a significant building appears to be in little doubt. In 1924 Lt. Col. William Hawley uncovered two parallel trenches with regular postholes, which indicated the presence of a roofed passage about 12 feet wide between Aubrey hole 20 and the Sarsen circle, in a South to North alignment.7 He further reported that the ground was `flinty and hard´ from the constant trampling.8 Evidence, in his opinion, that the building had a long and popular ceremonial usage. The suspicion that Stonehenge was a sophisticated construction from its earliest times is given further support by the recent English Heritage dating of the Sarsen circle, which they place between 2850 and 2480 cal BC. The dating cannot be absolute and because much of the Stonehenge stonework appears to have been erected sometime between 2500 BC to 2000 BC most archaeologists ignore the earliest dates for the Sarsen Circle. But nevertheless as this circle is stratigraphically thought to be later than the Q holes and earlier than the Z holes the impression is given of a Stonehenge that was substantially complete at a very early stage. Around 2600 BC archaeological evidence suggests the abandonment of the site with evidence of trees and bushes having rooted and flourished. Indeed Hawley identified the sequence of holes known as F, G, and H, as natural hollows formed by the death or later removal of such trees. Yet at the same time only two miles away, and while Stonehenge decayed, the Neolithic site of Durrington Walls prospered. In wondering why Stonehenge should have been abandoned, the many answers have usually raised more questions than they have answered, but Aubrey Burl's explanation is persuasive. He attributes this desertion to the appearance of a cult connected with grooved pottery.9 This pottery of geometrical patterns and occasional swirling spirals pre-dated the finely made beaker ware that appeared not long afterwards. The appearance of this grooved ware cult has been described as an interlude of perhaps, at most four centuries that was rapidly replaced by the Beaker cult. Changing religious ideology although currently the favoured interpretation of this change has of course no more validity than the earlier view, which saw the Beaker Folk as invaders. Whether they were of Nordic or Mediterranean stock, as the early archaeologists believed, they certainly appear to have been taller than the short autochthonous inhabitants of the region. Analysis of Beaker burials in Scotland has also led archaeologists to the conclusion that Beaker Society was male dominated.10 If this is coupled with the predominance of Beaker pottery across Europe and the rapidity with which the Beaker ware took hold, it is to my mind further evidence to support the view of the Beaker people as invaders. The Avenue leading away from Stonehenge and travelling to the river Avon appears to have been the next phase of construction, but analysis of the datable remains from within the Avenue suggests that construction of its 2.5-mile length took several centuries, (although the datable spread is not very certain).11 At some point shortly afterwards (2440-2100 cal BC) the great Sarsen Trilithons were erected. They consisted of ten upright stones arranged as five freestanding pairs, with a single lintel forming a horseshoe shape, which according to Thom is part of a perfect ellipse.12 This was followed perhaps 50 to 100 years later, by the next stage of construction, which clearly shows the first indication of the use of metal tools, and well after the Beaker people had established themselves. 13 It was at this time that the Welsh Bluestones arrived and were erected into two circles, one inside the other. Not in themselves spectacular they were however special, being Bluestones from the Preseli mountains, over 150 miles away in modern Wales. This by itself forms yet another controversy as archaeological opinion as to how stones came to be brought to Salisbury Plain is as debated as the Beaker arrival. It is suggested for example that at Boles Barrow, a nearby Neolithic long barrow, a Welsh Bluestone had been used centuries before such stones appeared at Stonehenge. Clearly this would seem to indicate that the practice of long distance stone transport was centuries older than Stonehenge. A few years ago, an Open University team carried out a geological survey on Salisbury Plain and its conclusion was that the Bluestones were carried there by the action of Glaciers.14 Such a conclusion is of course easier to swallow than the somewhat perplexing alternative of long distance transport by humanity. However another geologist, Christopher Green, argues that the stone at Boles Barrow came from Stonehenge and is personally convinced through years of research, that Salisbury Plain was never glaciated. 15 And there the argument floundered until 2004 when a group of workmen accidentally found the graves of three men, a teenager and three boys; at Boscombe Down, around five miles from Stonehenge. Carbon dating showed they had died around 4,500 years ago, but chemical analysis of their dental enamel yielded the most uncomfortable surprise, as it showed that they had originated from the Preseli mountain area. A scientific fact that serves to emphasize how archaeological `certainty´ careens from one extreme theory to another and how theories often gather a momentum that achieves a critical mass that is often all too easy to explode with just one simple revelation. But whether long distance Bluestone transport was achieved by Glaciers, or as seems more likely by human action, the puzzle deepens with the fact that this work appears to have abruptly stopped only to be recommenced many years later, when the Bluestones were dismantled, and then arranged differently. Aubrey Burl calls this a process of ceaseless change, yet the radiocarbon evidence could just as easily be interpreted as a syncretic evolution by successive groups of inhabitants. It is this later period that marks one of the most significant eras in the history of Stonehenge, as it was around this time that the four station stones are believed to have been erected. Although only two station stones remain, originally there were four in a rectangle whose longer sides were arranged NW-SE. However in Aubrey Burl's view any incidence of geometry in this arrangement is accidental and results from the peculiarity of the latitude of Stonehenge, which gives summer sunrise and winter moonset at right angles.16 Yet archaeologists would do well to remember their maxim, which would lead to the conclusion that the absence of any evidence of deliberate intent is not evidence for its absence. For as Gerald North points out in Stonehenge, Neolithic Man and the Cosmos, there is strong evidence that the long barrows, which in the main derive from before the time of Stonehenge, were erected with the intention of stellar observation. 17 Such usage would indicate a strong predilection towards astronomy, as well as a long history of practical observation.18 The last constructions at the site are considered to be the Y and Z holes, but dating them proves problematical. The Y series comprises 30 holes, 3 feet deep, roughly 35 feet from the Sarsen stones. The Z holes seem to be 29 in number, 3 feet 5 inches deep, irregularly spaced, although a fallen Sarsen stone blocks off a position where the thirtieth hole would lie. Both sets of pits are roughly square and resemble as Mike Pitts puts it, `bath tubs´.19 Their function is unknown, but they exhibit evidence of a long history, having pieces of bluestone at the bottom, and Iron Age and Roman pottery further up. These were empty pits, not graves or stone holes and which were left to silt up over the millennia. These pits only occur at Stonehenge and archaeologically it is considered they are contemporaneous, yet datable finds suggest the Z holes were dug well before the Y holes. The earliest date for the Z holes is 2030 cal BC, and the latest date for the Y holes is 1520 cal BC. The only thing, which can be said with any certainty, is that the Z holes are of later date than the Sarsen circle as two of the holes cut erection ramps used to position the large stones. Current opinion believes that they were both constructed around 700 years after the Sarsen Circle was erected, and as an enigma are elegantly summarised by Mike Pitts comment: `Are they something that happened long after Stonehenge, that really has little to do with it, or do they hold the key to the final role the stones played before they entered the world of myth and forgetfulness, symbols of a lost and timeless past? ´20 Both sets of holes appear not to be well planned, which is understandable as no marking out rope could have been used from the centre of the circle as the Sarsen ring and Trilithons would have been in the way. According to Burl, as the work progressed the `circles´ of the Y and Z holes became more erratic until almost as they neared the end, they gave up once they realised their error.21 As an explanation this seems to me to be highly suspect and is a textbook example of an enigma in archaeology being resolved by the assumption of stupidity on the part of our distant ancestors. On this website I will suggest an alternate hypothesis, but for now it must be remembered that the probable development of Stonehenge is just that: the most probable. For example the Heel stone and Station Stones are often attributed to various stages by different authorities, but as all dating of Stonehenge is by association there will inevitably be questions as to the sequence of events. However with this final work and perhaps some 1500 years after people had first built there, Stonehenge was complete. It would last for only a few hundred years before the weather, neglect, and stone removal for other use would slowly begin to diminish its majesty. A process that continued sporadically over the millennia, culminating around one hundred and thirty years ago when it was fashionable to rent a hammer at West Amesbury to chip off a Stonehenge souvenir.22 |
||
|
|
1 Cleal, M. J., Walker, K. E., & Montague, R., Stonehenge in its Landscape: Twentieth Century excavations, English .Heritage, Archaeological Report 10, English Heritage, 1995, London. p 7, Table 1. 2 The only artifacts recovered from these post-holes were a single piece of burnt bone and quantities of charcoal, shown to be Pinus sp. Despite the obvious east-west alignment the significance of these holes is unknown, but archaeologists are fairly certain that they contained large posts. The dates for these fragments give a spread of 300 years, which at the very least suggests the structure was in use for a considerable time. 3
These dates are derived from radiocarbon dating of the large numbers of antlers found at the bottom of the ditch. The bones showed considerable wear leading to the conclusion that they had been used
as picks then deposited ceremonially in the bottom of the ditch. As there was no primary silt beneath the bones it was concluded that they were deposited very soon after construction, leading to the dating of the ditch works.
Curiously some animal bones have been found in the same stratigraphic layer that date to well before the ditch construction and lead to the conclusion that the bones had been collected over a period of 50 to 850 years before the
construction occurred. Such usage can only have been ritualistic or religious, but should not necessarily imply a separation from astronomical function.
4 The Aubrey holes were just visible to John Aubrey in the 17th century, as the summer he investigated was exceptionally hot, leaving a darker area where the holes stood against
the parched surrounding earth. Of the 56 holes numbers 33 to 54, a full 22 of the 56 have never been excavated. It is likely that they never will be, as the British Government has not allowed large-scale excavation since Colonel
Hawley in the 1920's. 5 The presence of ash and decalcified bone 6 Burl, A., (1989), The Stonehenge People, Barrie & Jenkins, London.p 51 7 The excavation of the postholes, which supported the structure, circumstantially evidences that the original wooden building was substantial. One for example, had been cut into the chalk rock, was 1.2 metres deep, 0.8 metres in diameter, and had been packed hard with rammed chalk. 8 Burl, A., (1989), The Stonehenge People, Barrie & Jenkins, London.p 53 9 Burl, A., (1989), The Stonehenge People, Barrie & Jenkins, London.p 93 10 Burl, A., (1989), The Stonehenge People, Barrie & Jenkins, London.p 107 11 Only four radiocarbon dates are considered to be reliable and in themselves have a spread of 450 years giving a very broad spread of dates for the initial work on the Avenue to (2590-2330 cal BC) and (2240-1880 cal BC) for the final work. What is significant, but still of speculation is that both the first and the last works on the Avenue were carried out near Zone G of the Stonehenge monument. 12 The derivation of the name Sarsen is obscure, but as Aubrey Burl points out, some prehistoric burial grounds on the Chotanagur Plateau in India built of big stone slabs are called sasans. The Beaker people probably spoke an Indo-European language and it may be that the `sazzans' as they were once known in Wiltshire, derive from a common source in the Indo-European language of the Neolithic western world. In Aubrey Burl's view stone was brought to Stonehenge because wood was mortal and stone immortal, which reinforces this burial scenario. However Peter Newham suggested that the 29 Sarsens of the circle and the diminutive stone number 11, were a representation of the 29.5 days of the lunar month, yet the roughness of the stones and the closeness of the Trilithons would make any astronomical sightlines inaccurate. Others rather disingenuously suggest that the builders merely ran out of stone, but whatever the reality the modern consensus is that the Sarsen circle and Trilithons have no astronomical significance. R S Newell's suggestion that Stonehenge was sepulchral with the Winter Solstice sunset, symbolically passing through the great Trilithon and illuminating the door to the afterlife, is as likely as any and has the added advantage of being an evocative statement of the builders possible beliefs. Yet by 2000 BC the Beaker glory was waning and a re-emergence of earlier traditions and practices probably occurred, which may account for the abrupt cessation of construction. Some of the stones had yet to be positioned and yet others were removed and their holes filled in. 13 Service, A. & Bradbury, J., (1996), The Standing Stones of Europe, Wiedenfield & Nicholson, 1996, London. 14 Pitts, M., (2001), Hengeworld, Arrow Books, London.p 198 15 Pitts, M., (2001), Hengeworld, Arrow Books, London.p 202 16 Burl, A., (1989), The Stonehenge People, Barrie & Jenkins, London. p 145 17 North, J., (1996), Stonehenge, Neolithic Man and the Cosmos, Harper Collins, London. p 25 18 How are we to judge whether a particular alignment was stellar or solar? Precessional changes affect stellar alignments more greatly than solar. John North gives the example that the Pleiades rose 10º south of east at Stonehenge in 4200 BC, but in 3000 BC they rose due east. The Sun on the other hand alters by approximately one fifth of a degree every thousand years. East-West directions in long barrows are relatively uncommon providing strong evidence for John North's view that the Wessex barrows were mostly stellar with the later circular monuments being solar or lunar. The average height of the inhabitants was 5' 7", and the ditches may well have been designed to view the stellar alignments by standing in the ditch. In his analysis of Fussell's Lodge, North calculates that the Stellar observatory was in use at 4235 BC. Given that experiment has shown the weathering of the surroundings of a ditch can cause it to fill in less than ten years, if the barrows were used as sighting platforms they would have needed to have been regularly cleaned out. At the Horslip (Windmill Hill) site in the 39th century BC the direction of the rising of Sirius was then at right angles to its setting. This right-angled property was relatively short lived. Was this the reason for moving the observatories in latitude? North's analysis clearly shows that different barrows, lying on ground that was curved and aligned differently, managed to indicate the same pair of stars and at dates broadly in agreement with radiocarbon evidence. (Deneb, Aldebaran, Sirius, and Rigel.) North calculated the odds against consistently hitting a solution by chance and found them to be very great indeed, so much so that his conclusion is that astronomical activity in the long barrows is not an illusion. Moreover he is equally certain that Stonehenge was never the site of a Long Barrow and consequently never used as a stellar observatory. 19 Pitts, M., (2001), Hengeworld, Arrow Books, London, p 165 20 Pitts, M., (2001), Hengeworld, Arrow Books, London, p 166 21 Burl, A., (1989), The Stonehenge People, Barrie & Jenkins, London. p 199 22 Hawkins, G. S., (1973) Beyond Stonehenge, Hutchinson, London. p 17
|
|
|
|
