Archive for December, 2006
On November 5th, 2000, the Japanese newspaper Mainichi Shimbun published some damning photographs or video stills of the archaeologist Shinichi Fujimura, clearly showing him digging holes in the early morning light then burying stone artefacts that would later be “discovered” either by Fujimura himself or by unwitting members of his archaeological team.
Show me more… »
From what we understand from the various radiocarbon results, both Stonehenge and Silbury Hill were under construction in or around 2,500 BC. Archaeologists and prehistorians are uncertain to say the least about the function of stone circles and henges in prehistoric Britain, yet both Silbury Hill and Stonehenge stand head and shoulders above the competition because of their unparalleled ability to perplex and to evoke awe and wonderment.
Show me more… »
The Pillars of Creation
5:30 pm
The Hubble Telescope captured this stunning image in 1995; a matter of hours later, the NASA engineers who had the privilege of being the first to gaze upon this otherworldly vision named the structures and the picture “The Pillars of Creation”. The accompanying text on the Hubble Site News Center captures the eerie mood perfectly, suggesting that these structures could be undersea coral, enchanted castles or space serpents, but it goes on to point out that the pillar-like structures are columns of cool interstellar gas and dust that are also incubators for new stars in what is known as the Eagle Nebula.
Show me more… »
The Doors of Perception
5:40 pm
A feature by Maev Kennedy in the Guardian on Monday November 27th 2006 revealed that the oldest detailed drawing of Stonehenge has come to light. It was found in Douai in northern France, apparently in a copy of the Scala Mundi, or the Chronicle of the World. You will all have seen the article and the drawing by now, so let us see if we can possibly bring anything new to the subject.
As Maev Kennedy reports, this is the oldest detailed drawing of Stonehenge and it seems to have been based on first-hand observation. The artist has paid great attention to detail, taking pains to show the protruding tenon joints that were undoubtedly visible at the top of other uprights that had lost their lintels at the time the drawing was made. The artist was further correct, because the tenons fit into the lintels via corresponding mortice joints, but the Douai drawing shows the tenons piercing the lintels and emerging at the top, something that we know is incorrect.
Nonetheless, it is a fair enough representation of a unique piece of architecture. Furthermore, it is clear that the drawing depicts the inner trilithons at Stonehenge, because the structures are shown standing independently of each other, unlike the series of uprights and lintels in the encircling sarsen ring. The drawing has been made from an aerial vantage point, but if the artist had somehow scrambled up the stones by using a ladder, they would have seen that the tops of the lintels were flat and not run through by the tenon joints from beneath. Nonetheless, given the degree of detail, the balance of probability seems to suggest that whoever drew Stonehenge in the Scala Mundi had visited the site at some point and had inspected the ruins in person.
However, there is a mystery when it comes to the number of trilithons shown, because the drawing clearly depicts four of them all facing in towards each other. Maev Kennedy correctly points out that only three complete trilithons are now standing, so the details of the recently discovered portrayal suggests that four of the original five trilithons survived into the fifteenth century.
This is a fair enough assumption, but if the stones at Stonehenge had suffered a similar fate to those at Avebury and we had been left only with the work carried out by Inigo Jones for our knowledge of the site, we might well be left thinking that six trilithons had once stood there. Of course, you could argue that painstaking archaeological excavation by the likes of Professor Richard Atkinson would have eventually revealed the true number of trilithons, but this is besides the point.
There are tales attached to numerous stones circles in Britain that say it is impossible to count the true number of stones there. After the Battle of Worcester, the defeated King Charles II spent a whole day at Stonehenge counting and recounting the stones to wile away the time, but modern archaeologists have now successfully managed to number them all. Nonetheless, it is one of the curious properties of Stonehenge that we see what we want to see there and judging from the evidence of the illustrations made from the time of the Scala Mundi onwards, this has always been the case.
We might think that such a thing has come to an end in our current Age of Scientific & Archaeological Enlightenment, but this is not so; for evidence of this, we need only look at Stone 11 of the outer sarsen ring. Stone 11 now leans out and protrudes at an angle from the rest of the uprights in the sarsen circle, while it is noticeably smaller in width and height than the other regularly-sized sarsen uprights. As such, it is impossible for it to have supported lintels like the other uprights in the circle, unless there had been a support made from wood or from another stone to make up the height. It is just possible that the builders, for reasons known only to themselves, took down Stone 11 at some point and reduced it in size before replacing it, but this seems extremely unlikely.
In any event, all the modern illustrations purporting to show what Stonehenge looked like when it was completed contain this glaring inaccuracy and overlook the problems of continuity posed by Stone 11. All the official modern illustrations show a complete circle of sarsen uprights surmounted by a continuous ring of lintels because it is convenient and pleasing to the eye, so despite our supposed meticulous attention to archaeological detail, the blunt and undeniable fact remains that we have still not moved on from the wishful thinking contained in the drawing of the fourteenth century Scala Mundi.
Admittedly, our perception of Stonehenge is complicated by the unique nature of the architecture there and by the ruinous state of the monument, with its leaning columns and scattered stones. Be that as it may, Stonehenge possesses the curious property of imprinting some image of itself in the mind of the observer, while this image invariably consists of some variation on the theme of uprights capped by lintels, whether these be the trilithons or else the structure of the surrounding circle. The remarkable thing about this motif is its sheer simplicity and the fact that despite this simplicity, it is not a design known anywhere else. The Lion Gate at Mycenae and certain prehistoric tombs in Malta exhibit a similar design, but these are not freestanding structures because they are incorporated into other masonry.
If the unique architecture of Stonehenge makes such an impression upon us today, then it is highly likely that it had a similar effect upon visitors to the site in prehistoric times. We know that the Saxons regarded the place with awe as they gave the monument its enduring name of “The Hanging Stones”, which in addition to the sense of a gallows, may carry a sense of stones hanging in the air – we see a similar train of thought in the name of “The Hanging Gardens of Babylon”.
Whatever function Stonehenge performed in prehistory by way of hosting ceremonies or observances, there seems little doubt that the primaeval and unparalleled design of the monument was the main element that imprinted itself upon the imaginations and consciousness of visitors, celebrants and observers. This vivid impression almost certainly remained with them when they left the region and it would have been a highly potent factor in spreading the fame of Stonehenge to other parts. There are all manner of theories concerning what Stonehenge was used for in prehistoric times, the most recent being that it was a place of healing, but until we solve the fundamental question of what the architectural design of the entire monument truly represents and put this matter beyond doubt, then we shall all still continue to be beguiled by the false spectre of what we want to see, whether this be a square of trilithons, a hexagon of trilithons, Druids greeting the Solstice Sun or a complete stone circle, but we shall not discern what was really there.
Words by Dennis Price. Photograph copyright Dennis Price 2006.
