I am far more interested in why Stonehenge was built than in how it was built, but one particularly baffling aspect of the creation of the monument comes to mind more and more often. To illustrate my point, I can do no better than to quote from Aubrey Burl’s superb book The Stonehenge People, page 179.
“When one realises that there were to be thirty pillars, thirty lintels, two or three more portal stones and fifteen massive sarsens for the trilithons, the mere slog and drive required for the smoothing of the stones amazes the modern reader. And this was the beginning.
Woodworking techniques demanded more than planed surfaces. The stones had to be connected together as though dowelled by a megalithic carpenter. The tops of the uprights had to be bashed and scoured into two tenons or bulbous pegs to hold the lintels securely. The circle-lintels had to be delicately curved to follow the long line of the circle. They had to be chamferred, with bevelled edges, to sit firmly on their uprights and they had to have two deep mortise-holes pounded and pestled out of their undersides, the spacing neatly measured so that they would receive the tenons of the two pillars across which they would lie. The ends of these incredible lintels were also beaten into toggle-points, with the V-shaped ‘beak’ of one end to be inserted into the V-shaped groove of the adjoining lintel like pieces of a geometrical jigsaw, socketed together, stone by stone, in a huge, immovable ring high above the ground. In a timber building, the result would have been an achievement for any prehistoric architect. In sarsen it was almost a miracle.”
Of course, there is far more to it than just that, as Aubrey Burl makes clear in the rest of the chapter. Without listing all the other astonishing physical properties of the site and the architecture, our ancestors put in unimaginable hours of monotonous, tiring work on a stone almost as hard as steel, and they somehow made the top of the lintel circle level, despite the slope on which the monument was built. As well as that, the tops of the lintels were also flat.
I am neither an architect nor a stonemason, admittedly, but I’ve wondered about this raised circle of level, flat lintels for years, on and off. Instead of matters becoming clearer, they become more confused as far as I’m concerned, because all I see are problems. If the builders had simply fashioned an interlocking ring of lintels with a flat upper surface that did nothing more than sit upon the ground, I would be amazed at the achievement, but as we know, they did far more than this.
Without going into every detail, the sheer complexity of the enterprise to make an interlocking lintel ring that sits level on top of the joints of a ring of thirty uprights – on a slope - makes me wonder how on Earth it could have been executed so successfully. It may be clear to others, but I cannot see how you could fashion a few interlocking lintels and at the same time be certain that they would sit on the joints of the relevant uprights and curve at the correct angle without raising them and lowering them several times because minor corrections needed to be made. It would be difficult and frustrating enough in wood, but I understand that these lintels weighed something like eight tons each.
I could continue for hours, of course, but I’m sure that anyone with a serious interest in Stonehenge will immediately appreciate the difficulties involved, not to mention what may have been generations of labour to dress the stones properly.
So, was the lintel ring made to ‘crown’ the uprights, implying that the uprights were marginally more important? Or were the uprights there to elevate the ring to the sky, making the lintels marginally more important? I can see of course that there were numerous other complexities to the layout of the structure, such as the dressing of the faces of the stones, the size of the gaps between the uprights relative to the size of the uprights, and so forth, but my mind keeps returning to one question: What was so important about this circle of lintels that the upper surfaces, which aren’t visible from ground level, had to be flat and level? This implies functionality of some kind, perhaps a walkway, but if so, what was so important about it that our ancestors devoted such a colossal amount of time and effort into making it?
And what was it about this elevated, flat, interlinking and level circle of stone that meant it leapt into being from out of nowhere and was never repeated?
I have some vague ideas, which I’m trying to put together in a remotely coherent and persuasive form, but until then, I am interested as always in hearing the views on others on this.
.png)
{ 199 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
Next Comments →
“When one realises that there were to be thirty pillars, thirty lintels, two or three..”
If proof suddenly came to light that there never were thirty pillars and thirty lintels, would that make the lintels less impossible?
“Impossible” in this context was a figure of speech, an observation, an admission of complete bafflement and the opinion of someone who isn’t an engineer or a stonemason, Jonathan. Even if there were 24 uprights on a slope supporting 24 level and flat curved, interlocking lintels, it would still, in my opinion, be an achievement far beyond my ability to comprehend.
“I can’t believe that!” said Alice.
“Can’t you?” the queen said in a pitying tone. “Try again, draw a long breath, and shut your eyes.”
Alice laughed. “There’s no use trying,” she said. “One can’t believe impossible things.”
“I dare say you haven’t had much practice,” said the queen. “When I was your age, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”
I have just published a satirical novel concerning Stonehenge – but that is not why I am commenting here. The book can look after itself. The point I would like to make is that while researching it, I became thoroughly intrigued by the HORIZONTALITY of the lintel arc. I am a civil engineer and can assure your contributors that building the lintel arc/circle was far more difficult than erecting the big central trilithons – Richards and Whitby showed in 1994 that you only needed 130 men to do this. And the shape and horizontality of the lintel arc possess immense symbolism of something. So why do so many people ignore it – always focusing on the alignment of the uprights?
I give an explanation of my research under the tag Defective Thought 3 on my website (and would greatly appreciate a link with this site). Last December Dan Holdsworth made a comment here that echoed some of my own conclusions, but I go a few steps further with a suggestion that a stone structure with some endurance was needed – to measure the movement of the cosmos in line with the Precession of the Equinoxes – or maybe the 18 year lunar standstills.
It seems to me we need a Stonehenge Lintel Appreciation Society (SLAC). Have a look at the last drawing in Defective Thought 3. (The comment box won’t accept it. But I’m happy to pass it on).
Jack
Your comment reflects my own view that the lintel circle allowed for unambiguous astronomical observations. Whether the Stonehengers discovered the precession of the equinoxes using this tool or just used it to refine their understanding of the sun and moon, it still would have made astronomical observation much easier and more accurate than using variable horizon risings and settings. I also include a link to your defective thinking 3 comment for others to access.
http://defectivegods.com/stonehenge-book/stonehenge-circle-of-lintels/
Whilst the observatory theory is plausible, for me it just does not feel right this was the sole reason for all the effort involved in dragging huge stones many miles.
John
Of course Stonehenge had other meanings and purposes some we can’t even imagine. The astronomical only explains why they went to so much trouble with the lintels.
If, as Dennis has suggested, the Druids were the inheritors of traditions and practices with pre-Iron Age origins, and the roles and functions of Druids drew on knowledge of a wide range of studies including religion, astronomy, law, geography, philosophy, magic, and divination, then it stands to reason (in my mind, at least) that Stonehenge would have been conceived and designed with the practicing of all of those — and much more — in mind.
In the context of astronomical observation, is there any relevance to the height of the lintels?
As a newcomer to your discussion, please forgive if I’ve missed something but surely the point is an anthropological one: Colin Renfrew talks much of the importance of ‘symbolism’ in his book Prehistory – the making of the human mind. If he and other anthropological archaeologists are correct, the creation of this unique stone structure (the circular elevated horizontal structure) is providing evidence of a truly remarkable society existing 2400 BC – long before the Greeks and contemporary with the Egyptians.
Taking up Danj’s comment, in order to conceive of meaning in the stars and translate that into geometric models, the people concerned needed to have had thought their way through the basic concepts of motion, light and time that we now take so much for granted. They did this with, as far as we know, no written language.
But in that last statement lies another thought: these guys were surrounded with chalk and probably had charred boards in abundance. Are we seriously to believe that no one picked up a bit and drew a diagram? Maybe the only thing that they didn’t have, was paper.
Which brings me on to John Witts’s point. David Field is an archaeologist who has been working on the extremely detailed survey work of the Stonehenge Landscape Project. In the lectures he has been giving, he raises the possibility that the site may have been the natural location of a peculiarly thick deposit of the sarsen stratum that overlaid the chalk. It is entirely possible, it seems that much of the stone for the trilithons and the lintel circle/arc might have been locally sourced. What we see of the landscape now is not at all what it was 4000 years ago. For that we need go to Fyfield Down.
Sculling through past comments I see much said about wooden henges lacking evidence of horizontal circles. In my book I mention Stonehenge and Timber Circles, by Alex Gibson 2005. It is good reading and contains the evidence so far.
John Witts asks about the height of the lintels: is it relevant to astronomy? Now there’s an interesting point. If they had no established datum – if they were building the first – then all measurements would be relative to it. And if they were measuring the azimuth variation of stars over time, the height would only be determined by practical considerations like tree height, atmospheric pollution and the height of the observer. In the novel, a character decides that there was a hell of a lot of wood smoke from bronze smelting (this being the early bronze-age)! On http://www.defectivegods.com, at Defective Thought 3, I state that the rising point of constellations would move 0.27m along the lintels in 72 years. Please have a look. But it’s all surmise. Can anyone come up with a cogent argument against?
It would be convenient if the stones were local, but it does seem that moving large stones several miles was not just confined to Stonehenge and it appears place rather than a local source of stone was the overriding concern and the Mesolithic post holes might have had a significance.
I do not see how anything could have been achieved without some understandable planning and records. Something I have never thought about in this context is, did the Egyptians have a blue print for the pyramids?
The only requirement for an artificial horizon is that the platform be high enough so that none of the panoramic view would be blocked by interference such as hills and trees. I think the height chosen was based on the heights of the available sarsens used to build the monument. Observations would have had to be made from the platform as ground observation would be blocked by the stones and subject to the slight slope Stonehenge was built on.
The observer would first have to establish the cardinal points on the horizontal circle and use these as reference points for observations. The ability of megalithic man to determine these is well established as there are any number of standing stones with north-south and east-west orientations throughout Britain.
If you take a plan of the Sarsen Circle (I used Johnson’s from 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stone_Plan.jpg ) and locate these points on it you come up with the north point (center of recumbent 127 between stones 26 and 27), east point (stone 4 just N of the surviving lintel), south point (between 11 and 12) and west point ( south end of 19) you’ll find none of these intact enough to provide any evidence.
Once the cardinal points were established, an observer would probably set up on the south point of the ring for summer sun observations and the north point for winter sun observations. This raises the interesting question of why stone 11 is only half height. It has been theorized, I can’t remember who by, that this half stone allowed access to the lintel ring and was used to support a wooden structure to climb up.
Starting, again, from north the midwinter sunrise would occur at the south end of 3 (no lintel) and the midwinter sunset at 19 which is recumbent. The major lunar standstill positions would be at the south end of stone 5-no lintel- (rise) and in the gap with no stones southeast of 19 (set).
Using the south point, the midsummer sunrise would be at lintel 105 between 4 and 5 and the midsummer sunset would be in the stoneless gap between 120 and 21. For the moon, the rise would be at 3 center (no lintel) and set in the same stoneless gap as the sunset.
This gives only one lintel surviving that may have marked the SS sunrise, 105, and raises the question-is one of the mysterious holes on the lintel tops on lintel 105? I did not try to find which lintels had these 3″ holes as I didn’t want to prejudice my analysis. All data is based on 2500 BC.
We should also consider the possibility that they split the difference and used the E-W points for observation. This gives SS (rise)-27 (no lintel), WS (rise)-gap between 11 and 10, SS (set)-stone 26 (no lintel)and WS (set)-stone 12 (recumbent).
All this is might have been but the upshot is that only lintel 105 is intact and if it has a hole, this argues that they may have drilled it to mark the SS sunrise. If it doesn’t, this is not how they did it, if they did.
I hope someone can find out which lintels have holes.
I’m doubtful of the astronomical use of the lintel ring as the purpose of Stonehenge design. It seems to me the presence of the five interior trilithons would significantly obstruct all kinds of sight lines from a central location, a clear problem. Would the Stonehenge Astronomer have to keep hopping around to get a clear view to measure the azimuth or elevation of a celestial body rising above the lintels night after night, year after year? If so, I pity the poor bloke.
Furthermore, there are all kinds of other elements of Stonehenge design that I can’t imagine contribute anything to lintel astronomy. The Avenue, the Heel Stone, the Station Stones, Aubrey holes, etc. In some cases – certainly the Heel Stone – there may well be astronomical applications. But how those would relate to the lintel ring is murky. Why do all that if you intended the place to be a lintel observatory?
But even more, while I’m at it, I’m also very skeptical of a multi-function aspect to the design of Stonehenge. I would like to believe that the central sarsen architecture is the product of the mind of one person intended for one purpose. To me, a religious focus – the Goddess? – is very likely. That the Stonehenge Architect had a shopping list of uses and built the place to satisfy a variety of tasks seems questionable.
From my former engineering career, the concept of of “design trade-offs” is very real. The more capability requirements you lay on a product, the more compromises you have to make in its design, and with enough requirements the design degenerates into mush.
A multi-function thing can’t be made simple and elegant. It’s complicated and awkward in at least some ways. And if anything, Stonehenge is elegant.
Furthermore, we have the examples of historical and structures produced by architects throughout the ages. The pyramids were built to bury pharaohs. The Parthenon was built to honor Athena. The Coliseum was built to provide bloody entertainment for the masses. The Pentagon was built to facilitate the conduct of war. Salisbury Cathedral was built to worship God. Etc.
None of those were built as multi-function edifices, although they could certainly be used in unintended ways. The Parthenon a powder and ammunition storage facility? And see what happened.
And given all that, Stonehenge was built to carry out the list of things that Aynslie proposes? I just don’t believe it. I think the Stonehengers constructed it for their very specific purpose, one which we may never divine. Later generations may have used it in ways the original builders never intended. And indeed, we can impute things – I give you Hawkins – that the original designers likely never dreamed about. But that’s the way things go.
Juris
Juris
If your gods are the sun and the moon, what better way to worship them then to build a temple where you could observe their movements on top and adore them inside. This doesn’t stretch multifunctional in any real way. I agree that Stonehenge was a temple and its purpose divine but I don’t think that restricts its use to only one purpose.
If all of the functions I mentioned above weren’t specialized areas the way they are today, but interdependent–I might also add school, theater, and place of healing to the already lengthy list–then a single multi-functional structure might make sense. I’m not saying they were interdependent, but neither can I say they weren’t. After all, every couple of years someone (“expert” and not-so-expert) claims to have finally figured out what Stonehenge was truly used for. Maybe they’re all correct.
Aynslie, I can see where you are coming from as I have been there, but surely it is necessary to consider the effort that went into Stonehenge and that was for a very specific reason which the mass was ready to buy into. I suggest a kind of Olympic fever as how many are really ‘turned on’ by astronomy?
On the other hand see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdGzcXxn94E
I am told by archaeologists in the know that there is serious doubt that the lintels ever formed a complete circle. What we can see now, Juris, is an arc that, when viewed from a point inside the horseshoe of trilithons, i.e. near the theoretical centre of the circle, cuts across the eastern sky in a convenient position to observe most risings of Sun, Moon and stars. It may, possibly have been the case that the lintels were a convenient line of rock upon which marks could have been made to denote where the risings occurred. The observer position could have equally been easily fixed.
Neveretheless, all this is guesswork. What is incontroversial is that the focus of design purpose and effort at Stonehenge was the creation of the elevated, horizontal arc or circle. Do we, in this discussion, agree?
John — I don’t, in fact, subscribe to most (if any) of the suggestions I’ve put forward here. I like to look at things from as many angles as possible, even if I don’t agree with or believe any of them. Just because I don’t believe something doesn’t mean it can’t be the truth.
I think our modern world view prevents us from comprehending the “why” behind the existence of Stonehenge. It’s an impenetrable wall between us and the Stonehengers that will very likely never be scaled or breached, simply because the experiential areas of our brains develop/ed and function/ed in ways that make us alien to each other. All we can probably ever hope to understand about the Stonehengers can be found in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.
Unfortunately, we (not you and I, but most modern people) don’t seem willing to consider the views of those few groups who still live a Stone Age existence, or whose world views align more with the Stone Age because their culture retains certain aboriginal aspects of it.
My opinion is that we shouldn’t be looking to archaeologists or mathematicians or geologists or engineers or historians to help explain what Stonehenge might have been about. We should be looking to anthropologists.
Are there any anthropologists who have studied the Stonehengers? Any who have and done a comparative study with aboriginal groups who retain practices and views from the Stone Age?
Jack,
Thank you very much for writing in and I wish you well with your book and with your site. If you wish, I will happily publish a new post devoted to both, while you’re welcome to write to me via the address on the Contact page at the top of this site if you wanted to send me any new text as an introduction for others for what you do.
I also think your idea of a Stonehenge Lintels Appreciation Society is an excellent one, although I must admit I’m biased because the lintels have always fascinated me, along with the much-neglected counterscarp. While I think of it, please don’t worry about being a newcomer or mentioning something that’s already been said, because I’ve certainly repeated myself on more than one occasion here and there’s no harm at all in going over these matters again – on the contrary, it’s very pleasurable and that’s what this site is intended for.
I should also add that I don’t mind in the least if the discussions migrate to your excellent site, either, because as long as Stonehenge and the people who built it and carried out their ceremonies there are being actively discussed by people who don’t dismiss them as “practically savages – howling barbarians…”, then I’m perfectly happy.
I have to say that I was amused by your use of the words “archaeologists in the know”, because it seems a contradiction in terms and you’ll see plenty of examples of this if you care to browse through the many entries and comments on this site. As for the lintels, I’ve written about them at great length on more than one occasion, but I never tire of thinking out loud about them and reading the considered thoughts of others.
As you imply, it seems that at least one major focus of the design, purpose and effort at Stonehenge was the creation of the elevated, horizontal arc or circle, but there are many aspects of this that I find maddening (in an enjoyable way, I might add). I’ve read about the fantastic effort that the builders went to in order to make this raised surface horizontal, but I cannot for the life of me begin to understand why they went to such trouble to make it horizontal to such a degree. Nor can I understand why the upper surfaces were so flat – again, on account of the sheer effort involved, and that’s before we consider the intricate connecting joints and the fantastic difficulty in getting the whole thing in place, as well as the strange circular depressions.
If we assume that some prehistoric visionary told his fellows that he had this wonderful idea of creating a raised level platform that could be used for astronomical observations, I can’t help feeling that everyone else would have been extremely doubtful about this. I can’t see that the effort involved would have been worth it, especially when the alternative of building a raised wooden platform would have been so much simpler. If the intent was merely to observe, or perhaps even measure and calculate, a wooden structure would have performed this function just as well.
Nor can I see how the vast sarsen bulk of Stonehenge would have been merely a ‘supporting act’ for the all-important raised surface, while the matter of writing – while I remember it – is yet another matter that often occupies my thoughts. One of the other regular contributors to Eternal Idol is working on such a study, but we all have different calls on our time, so I’m not sure what the state of play is with that particular post. From what I’ve seen, there are a great many etchings, carvings and engravings at Stonehenge and in the landscape, while for what it’s worth, Mike Pitts chooses to describe the axes and dagger as hieroglyphs, something I’d certainly go along with.
Otherwise, I personally believe that Stonehenge was a structure that incorporated a wide variety of functions that were of enormous importance to the people who built it. I’m not just talking about providing a ‘ritual meeting place’ for the people of the time, or about an observatory, either, because even on our own age, the look of the ruins is unforgettable, being instantly imprinted on the mind and memory, so the stones much have had an even more dramatic impact around 4,500 years ago.
As I’ve remarked here before, Henry of Huntingdon was struck by the vision or idea of ‘doorways piled upon doorways’, which is an unavoidable impression. I can’t see how such an arrangement or impression was accidental, and I can’t see that it’s an accident that the word ‘Druid’ is related to the word for ‘door’, as pointed out by Dr Robin Melrose. Then there’s the idea of a dancefloor for giants, bluestones that were filled with stars and such like, as well as the nearby Bluestonehenge and connecting Avenue. I could go on and I probably will again at some point, but for me, the level lintels – whether an arc or completed circle – are just one tantalising aspect of what I think of as a fantastically sophisticated machine, rather than a monument.
I remain unconvinced about anthropology. Tribes which have not developed in 5000 years cannot now be representative of those which did advance by embracing, and then developing, what at the time was new ideas and technology.
Stonehenge may have become multi-functional but like Christian cathedrals that does not necessarily provide the reason why it was built. Cathedrals were built to glory in God but they also became symbols of the power of the church and the ruling elite. Apart from the orientation of cathedrals on a east west line astronomy certainly did not get much of a look in the early centuries of the of the second millennium.
In the same way I believe Stonehenge must have been a religious monument representing a common idea that was developed by the Druids (or their equivalent) and which every one bought into. Once Stonehenge was constructed that religion was, as such, set in stone but over time and under the stimulus of new ideas human nature would have developed and manipulated it.
John
The common idea behind the building of Stonehenge is the crux of the matter. We already have an anthropological explanation (two of them if you count the Lourdes theory) behind its development from MPP and his comparative Madagascar Death-Life/Wood-Stone analog. Many people were buried at Stonehenge and it is one of the biggest Neolithic graveyards in Europe but when were they buried? We take information that spreads out over 15 centuries and use all of it to try to understand why Stonehenge was built, but the motivation behind its construction probably only encompasses a century or two out of this huge swath of time.
You say that astronomy was not a hot ticket item to the people back then, except of course, for the nerdy proto-Druids who dug it. That may not be an accurate statement as the sky and its nightly show were an integral part of daily life for everyone back then and provided the entertainment we get from TV, texting and blogging. There were no city lights and city delights to distract the populace and the night sky was shining gloriously above their heads whenever the night was clear. They were far more aware of it than we have been for many generations.
If someone or some group had figured out how the sun and moon worked and convinced the people from all over southern Britain they had the right stuff, this could have been the impetus for Stonehenge’s construction and it would parallel in every respect the medieval cathedral motif. They put all their eggs in one basket and raised the greatest monument of its time to their gods.
MPP’s Theory of Unification makes more sense if the people unified over one compelling idea that grabbed their attention from Cornwall to Cumbria and prompted their participation in the construction. MPP doesn’t provide a real basis for this idea and I can’t imagine that people from far away would give two hoots about the local dead at Stonehenge. I do think they would go to all the trouble of traveling to Salisbury Plain and slaving away on the transport, dressing and erection of the stones, if they thought it would somehow bring them closer to the gods and sweeten the path of life for them. They would also return home and build modest mini-Stonehenge equivalents which may explain the numerous stone circles found everywhere rock is available in Britain.
Anthropology does provide a key to understanding what the primordial idea behind Stonehenge was but only if it is objectively applied without prejudice and shoe-horning preconceived, modern ideas onto a Neolithic landscape. I doubt this will ever happen as I am unimpressed with earlier efforts (the list is endless but starts with Coming of Age in Samoa). Using modern approaches in understanding the minds of “primitive” people (I’d like to see a reality show where primitives are mixed with modern people on an island without modern conveniences) is of little value unless done with an open mind and no preconceived ideas. The history of speculation on Stonehenge is nothing if not a laundry list of preconception starting with Inigo Jones and his Temple of Coelus with its 6 trilithons.
Just a couple of centuries ago, these peoples were living a mostly Stone Age existence here in the U.S. From what’s expressed in this article, astronomy clearly was—and still is—very important to them as a people.
Jack makes a good point: The Salisbury plain is rich in materials which are capable of being easily and accurately crafted into fine instruments. If the primary purpose was to be an observatory, why pick materials which are difficult to work and not easily found?
According to Caesar, the Druids claimed that they were knowledgeable about the size of the world. Dennis points out, probably correctly, that the Druids were the inheritors of whatever went before. A few months ago, I looked at methods you would need to use to show that the world was a sphere; and not a disk or an endless flat plain (I was on Simon Mayo’s Radio 2 Drivetime last Monday explaining it if anyone was tuned in). A simple system that would work is best suited to the far south of England (in a location with coastline), so I decided to do the experiment and see how it functioned. On arrival at the best possible topographical spot, I found a neolithic mound placed where I would need it and with features perfectly arranged for the task (a bit more information here).
This monument, if it ever served this purpose, is located appropriately, contains no frills and was constructed as simply as possible to do the task with the minimum effort and maximum benefit (knowledge).
Like Stonehenge, this monument is sited in chalk-lands. However, by comparison, Stonehenge is located in a position which is unsuitable (variable horizons in most directions), it is constructed of inappropriately over-designed materials for the task of observation and has had the largest bulk of effort of its construction spent on details which also do not perform the task of observation (eg inward facing lintels).
I also agree with Jack about the monument’s design. The creation of a ring or arc (there is evidence, yet to be published, that it was not intended to be a circle). This was a circular arc for which chalk would not do as the primary material: Chalk could have been replaced on a regular basis.. a good easy option in this area. Chalk’s main disadvantage is that it friable and does not survive rough handling: One indicator for its use might be that its purpose was associated with rough wearing (some form of specific utilitarian purpose).
Aynslie
The Pe Sla or Old Baldy site mentioned in the link you provided is one I know well from my youth as I hiked this area numerous times growing up and used to walk in and spend the weekend camping and enjoying the wilderness with no sign of human presence anywhere. I remember the most striking thing I ever saw on all those perambulations during a summer I will never forget. That year, 1972, saw a massive flood sweep down from the Black Hills in early June into my home town of Rapid City, SD. Some 238 people were killed and life in Rapid definitely changed forever. I used to go on these hikes when I could to get away from an extremely depressing environment that wore on everyone in town.
While camping in the area near Pe Sla, I hiked back into the mountains headed southeast from the little town of Rochford. Late in the afternoon, I came upon a clearing with a small meadow with a natural mound at its center. It was an extremely unusual place considering the terrain with this mound forming an almost perfect circle and gently sloping into the meadow. I walked up to the top to look around and got a real surprise. A perfect circle had been laid out on the top some 80-100 feet in diameter demarcated by four unexpected markers-the still hairy skulls of four Indian ponies pointing outward from the circle and located at the cardinal points.
I was taken aback by what I saw but treated what was there with the respect deserved by any sacred site. This was obviously a Native American ritual site constructed by either Sioux or Cheyenne indians to hold a very powerful and sacred ceremony. I’d never seen or heard anything like this and I was fairly well aware of Native rituals having grown up with Sioux friends and spent an entire summer living with 75 native kids and 10 wasicu (white people) kids at a summer program-a real eye-opener. The setup reminded me of a Grass Dance (a purification dance to sanctify the area within the circle) or a Round Dance ( a friendship dance for all people to join in to complete the sacred circle of life and to help keep all things on earth in balance) but was neither.
The most important ritual of the Sioux, (Arapaho, Arikara, Asbinboine, Cheyenne, Crow, Gros, Ventre, Hidutsa, Sioux, Plains Cree, Plains Ojibway, Sarasi, Omaha, Ponca, Ute, Shoshone, Kiowa, and Blackfoot tribes also did the sun dance) dance pantheon is, of course, the Sun Dance (Wi-wanyang-wa-c’i-pi). It involves building a circular lodge of 28 posts with a central tree (The Tree of Life) where some Sioux warriors hang after being pierced with pegs inserted into the incisions. It is held at the time of the full moon nearest the summer solstice every year and lasts 28 days (A sacred number which also comprises the number of spokes on the Medicine Wheel in Wyoming). The piercing allows the warriors to achieve oneness with Wakan Tonka, the creator, and sometimes visions they would not otherwise have while sacrificing their flesh and pain to insure the blessings of the creator on their tribe. Other warriors dance around the tree with buffalo skulls attached to their piercings and a buffalo skull is also used as an altar for the ceremonies. Sitting Bull had his vision of dead wasicu soldiers falling out of the sky at a Sun Dance after he had pierced his arms 100 times just prior to the Battle of the Little Bighorn in 1876. All this smacks of Stonehenge and the rituals performed there and throughout Great Britain some 4500 years ago.
I truly believe that an anthropologist, applying a close study of Native American sky worship practices from the Sioux to the Anasazi in Chaco Canyon, could provide some unforeseen insight into the Stonehenge People and where they were coming from.
Getting back to the horsehead circle in the Black Hills, the grass inside the circle was trampled and I have a hunch a ceremony had been conducted there not too long before my visit. The site chosen was also very close to the center of the storm which had caused the flood, something I know personally having spent the night trying not to get swept away by the flood waters that stranded my brother and I on a road near Rochford and watching the storm circling above us all night. My guess is that the ceremony was one of propitiation, an attempt to help restore the balance of life after this obvious sign that not all was well in heaven. Many Sioux were killed by the flood as quite a few lived in the flood plain along Rapid Creek.
We may have moved beyond all this and consider it superstitious nonsense except for one thing-it isn’t. As Hamlet so elegantly puts it:
Horatio:
O day and night, but this is wondrous strange!
Hamlet:
And therefore as a stranger give it welcome.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
To clarify, I am not saying that astronomy was not important but that the important work in that respect had already been done and had been used by a priestly caste as the basis of a popular religion before Stonehenge was constructed on already sacred ground.
I am therefore arguing against what seems to me to be the reverse of this process that would have resulted in Stonehenge being constructed which have benefited, at least immediately, the ‘nerdy’ few.
I cannot recall which thread it was on but I did reference the following site http://www.impurplehawk.com/naspirit.html. as I believe we can learn more about our ancestors from the North American Indians. Indeed, I think far more than can be learnt from equatorial tribes. And indeed in the very article you reference there is perhaps a good an explanation as any of what Stonehenge was about:
“Therefore, it only serves that Pe’ Sla, a location in the heart of the Black Hills that serves as a basis for our star maps, is also a sacred site where ceremonies must be observed each year. According to our beliefs, these rituals must be performed to keep the Universe in harmony and preserve the well being of all, Native and non-Native alike”.
Prof Colin Renfrew is an archaeologist/anthropologist of international repute. He also appears to possess a very open mind. I was fascinated by his book Prehistory -the Making of the Human Mind. In it he refers to work done by other notable academics and a US psychologist who were suggesting that humans seem to wish to create symbols for ideas – metaphors, models, writing, diagrams etc. Stonehenge offers us a magnificently symbolic structure with such a gloriously impenetrable meaning, we cannot fail but to be fascinated.
But surely it is the anthropological analysis of that symbolism that holds the key to the meaning, if we are ever going to understand. But, I suppose, there are many people who don’t actually want to know the answer. It’s more fun to just let your imagination play.
Personally, I argue that there are few ‘religious’ buildings that possess no purpose other than the glorification of a god. Indeed I can think of none. They all have more with territorialism, power, politics and utility than with morality or ethics. The teachings of the most influential prophets have all rejected the worship of such things haven’t they?
Jack -
Some interesting comments, I was struck by your last paragraph about religious buildings. That made me think of a certain religious building in the small “up north” Minnesota town of Williams, where the population of the cemetery outnumbers the population of the town.
But the cemetery also has a religious building – I’ve sent Dennis a couple of photos of this building and perhaps he could add those here.
As you can see, it’s not a massive edifice, and indeed the seating in the church accommodates a congregation of precisely three. But it is well maintained and indeed still used on occasion.
But per your comment, does this religious building have much to do with territorialism, power, politics, or utility?
Well, that could be debated. And indeed should you ever have a chance to visit Minnesota I would be delighted to give you a guided tour of this building and then perhaps we could retire to the nearby local bar for what I’m sure would be a lively debate on the question. Any others who would care to join us – DanJ lives within a day’s drive – would be more than welcome.
Juris
Here’s the church, here’s the steeple…
Open it up….
It is not the concept or the building that was corrupted but those who sought to use them for their own devices be that “territorialism, power, politics, or utility” It must be remembered that there were many who sacrificed themselves trying to defend religious beliefs but found that these very beliefs could be distorted in almost any way to justify anything (we live in an age where that practice is as strong as any).
A Christian church normally takes on the symbol of a cross which is an obvious reference to the crucifixion. I just wonder what anthropology can possibly make of a circular monument which, if there is anything can be assumed about it, is designed to show key aspects of the sun and moon? Perhaps our anthropologist may chose to overlook that symbolism and determine it is the stones themselves which are the symbol although that seems to equate to the idea each block in a cathedral represents an ancestor and the cathedral itself is meaningless.
Juris what a nice insight and I love the sign “church door is left unlocked” – that era has long gone in Britain – “guard dogs patrol”.
Juris, many thanks for your kind invitation. I would very much like to come to Minnesota one day and talk this through with you two.
In the meantime, I accept the challenge about the Williams Church. But this is dangerous stuff and I shall quite understand if Dennis is reluctant to publish it.
Even though the church is of the minimalist variety, it says to me, ‘Here, in this place, we proudly announce that we consider ourselves to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. In this place we build in a certain way because that advertises our history. We paint buildings white – for purity, and we possess the resources to do it. Beware, all you who do not follow the same culture or moral code.’
Having said that, I would like to add that I am a church bell ringer, that’s change ringing, usually on eight bells: big ones on wheels. The bells are hung, with great difficulty, in massive frames in church towers here in England and we ‘ring the changes’. We announce services and matters of significance to the surrounding community. Two hundred years ago all this had a practical purpose because few people had timepieces and even less had a radio. Today, it just sounds nice. And, of course, we are saying, ‘Listen to this! This is our culture, we have been doing it in this country for over five hundred years. It is clever stuff – can you match it? Oh, and by the way, we are also announcing that we consider ourselves to be supporting the Christian faith.’
So coming back to Stonehenge, I think I still maintain that almost every ‘religious’ building has more to do with territorialism, power and utility than with the search for the meaning of life. If this notion is correct, it would be unreasonable to assume, with our limited knowledge, that the structure, or even the other elements of Stonehenge, served only one purpose, or even any one purpose – that is in practical, on the ground, reality, whether or not the ostensible, official, purpose was something else.
Interesting post, Juris. In my locality, in Brabant, every self respecting village has a little chapel. They are designed for the religiously inclined traveller to rest a while and worship. New ones are still being built today. They are often dedicated to the Virgin Mother and can accommodate a small group only, rather like yours in Minnesota.
I have noticed similar shrines in other countries – Japan springs to mind where many neighborhoods have a modest place of worship for the individual or small group. Religion is not always grandiose.
I do not have a photo, I guess because these shrines are so common here, although I could make some if people are interested. My feeling is that Neolithic people would have had their small chapels too, perhaps a single standing stone close to a pathway, a natural spring, or an ancient tree in a forest clearing. They built cathedrals too, Stonehenge, Avebury, Carnac, and many others.
Reflecting on my last post, I know some of the people who built our little chapel and how it happened. A call went out for craftsmen and the land was gifted. The building was a personal act of worship for those involved and the materials were mostly gifted or acquired with donations. The state was not involved beyond granting the building permission.
I believe this is how many of the neolithic monuments were created. The act of construction was as important as the finished result. The craftsmen put their souls into making it perfect and did not count the cost of their labour.
Design was not a big issue – everybody knows what a little chapel should look like. SH is all the more remarkable because it seems to be a unique design.
With regard to “territorialism, power, politics, or utility”, I was raised Catholic and totally agree that the church as sacred house of the Lord is something that has been left in the dust of history. That being said, when did this happen? Of course, it depends on where and when. At the time Stonehenge was constructed, I don’t think the people of Britain had reached that level of cynicism, hypocrisy or bureaucracy necessary for such corruption. On the other hand, the Egyptians at this same time obviously had. Every culture, when isolated, develops in its own way and all the evidence from Neolithic Britain says that a quasi-egalitarian tribal structure probably existed on the island when Stonehenge rose on Salisbury Plain. This gets back to the Sioux Sun Dance I mentioned above. I am sending Dennis a plan of a sun lodge which he’ll hopefully post up that speaks much more elegantly of connection than anything I can say.
The Sun Dance was outlawed in both Canada (only the piercings and gift-giving) and the US at the turn of the 20th century because it was too barbaric. It was re-created from the recollections of surviving elders and the full ceremony became legal in 1951 in Canada and 1978 in the US. If you look at the symbolic nature of the lodge with the center pole, its circular nature reflects the circle of life (and death) which was the central tenet of Plains Indian religion. Its nature and the time of year when it’s held reflect an offering to the sun. Some tribes used a circle of only 12 posts for the lodge which symbolized the moon and the 12 full moons of the year. Either way, the sun and moon were connected directly to Wakan Tanka and symbols of his power and beneficence. Sun worship was still prevalent in Ireland when St Patrick did his thing and the story of Cromm Cruach, the main god of Ireland surrounded by a circle of 12 stones whom Patrick threw down, gives some insight into the power the sun still exerted, power that undoubtedly goes back in time through the Druids to the Neolithic. This poem from the Irish Dinnsenchas gives some idea of its power:
To him, without glory,
They would kill their wretched offspring
With much wailing and peril,
To pour their blood around Cromm Cruach.
Milk and corn
They would ask from him speedily,
In return for one-third of their healthy issue;
Great was the horror and the scare of him.
To him,
Noble Gaels would prostrate themselves;
From the worship of him, with many manslaughters,
The plain is called Mag Slecht.
Patrick refers directly to the sun in his Confessio and almost falls prey to its seductive power:
“That same night, when I was asleep, Satan assailed me violently, a thing I shall remember as long as I shall be in this body. And he fell upon me like a huge rock, and I could not stir a limb. But whence came it into my mind, ignorant as I am, to call upon Helias? And meanwhile I saw the sun rise in the sky, and while I was shouting ‘Helias! Helias’ with all my might, suddenly the splendour of that sun fell on me and immediately freed me of all misery.”
The circularity of the Sarsen Circle at Stonehenge or any stone circle in Great Britain is a direct reflection of the sun and moon and I think the people of Stonehenge were erecting a permanent Sun Lodge. One of my favorite Irish poems, evocative of what was going on in Ireland (and Britain before the Romans reared their ugly heads) is the Ode to the Sun in the Leabhar breac:
Anticipate, my lays, O Sun! thou mighty Lord of the seven heavens
mighty governor of the heavens
sole and general God of man
thou gracious, just, and supreme King
whose bright image constantly forces itself on my attention.
To whom heroes pray in perils of war
all the world praise and adore thee.
For thou art the only glorious and sovereign object of universal love, praise, and adoration.
Danj, if you think the Stonehenge builders hadn’t reached our level of cynicism and hypocrisy, then you really do need to read my book. Their mental capacity was no less than ours – the bones show it.
For those who have not seen this article (which I have referenced before) it may have something of value with regard to this thread:
http://www.online-archaeology.co.uk/Contribute/ArchaeologyArticles/tabid/85/PageID/76/ArticleID/7/articleType/ArticleView/Default.aspx
Jack,
Your novel shows them that way, but we really have no idea of what they were like. As to their intellectual capabilities, I don’t think anyone who thinks they were howling savages has ever considered the elegant architecture of Stonehenge. As to the “beef” there is none until the Early Bronze Age and sites like the Bush Barrow and the Amesbury Archer. I didn’t say they didn’t become more “civilized” later, but there is no compelling evidence of individual ego at the time Stonehenge was built.
For those of you who might care to read my thoughts and for those of you who might be able to enlighten me in some way – either by pointing out where I’m wrong or else by pointing out something I’ve missed – here are some things that disturb me about the lintels at Stonehenge.
I’ll begin with the bluestones. I personally believe that our ancestors discerned stars and the Milky Way in some of those stones, but while I gather that this effect is most apparent when the stone’s wet or when it’s been freshly chipped, I still think that our ancestors were aware in some way that some of these stones contained stars, or what looked like stars. I’m inclined to think that our ancestors regarded the heavenly stars, as opposed to the ones set in stone, as their own distant ancestors, so it follows for me that the stars in the bluestones would also have had connotations or links with the deceased. The fact that Stonehenge began life, apparently, as a vast cemetery, and that bluestones may have been positioned there as early as 3,000 BC, reinforces this idea for me.
I may be wrong, but I think these ‘stars’ or constellations in the bluestones were as real as shapes in clouds, which in themselves possess some kind of supernatural quality. I don’t know how our ancestors viewed their reflections in rivers or ponds, but I somehow doubt that they had a scientific grasp of the properties of light and reflection, so I suspect that they viewed these reflections as the ka, ba, spirit double, doppelganger or something of the kind. I mention this as another possible supernatural aspect of their world, along with the stars in the bluestones, but we could also speak about echoes, perhaps, as real manifestations of the ‘otherworldly’ in their lives.
We know that some prehistoric graves contained fossils, while there’s at least one part of Salisbury Plain, close to Sidbury Hill, where an unusual amount of the flint and flint nodules contain fossilised plants and animals. My point, in the event that I’m not making myself clear, is that I think our ancestors would have seen physical things such as rivers, ponds, flints, amber and perhaps others as containing some strange form of life, so it seems natural to me that they would have viewed the stars in the bluestones in the same way. While I don’t know what value or values they would have ascribed to these ‘stars’, I’m inclined to think they would have been connected with the dead, for the reasons I’ve just given.
There were apparently bluestones at Bluestonehenge, which were then removed and taken to Stonehenge in or around 3,000 BC before being moved once more to some as yet unknown place. As we know, they were later retrieved and placed into new positions at Stonehenge, before being removed again on a number of occasions until such time as the builders of Stonehenge were satisfied that the arrangement or arrangements were precisely how they wanted them.
I know I’m simplifying matters and leaving out others that are doubtless relevant and important, but after the bluestones were put in their final places (forgetting for a moment the later Roman interest in the ruins), our ancestors constructed the sarsen uprights and lintels around and above the revered bluestones. Now, it may be, as some here maintain, that the purpose of the lintel ring was for astronomical observations, but even if this ancient astronomy was largely what we’d now describe as astrology, my doubts remain.
I’m aware that some of the bluestones were dressed and used for what we’d describe as a practical purpose, because they possessed joints and were somehow positioned together to form another structure. However, as they contained ‘stars’, as they were roughly the size of a man, as they were (apparently) originally placed in the Aubrey Holes, as they were placed in a huge cemetery, as their arrangement provided channels and corridors inside the circle, and so on, then I would regard them as primarily serving what I would call a religious, magical or otherworldly purpose first and foremost.
With this in mind, I do not understand why another structure, made of different material and erected with a truly fantastic degree of effort and difficulty, should be put in place around these ‘magical’ stones if the later structure served a practical purpose i.e. observation, be it astronomical or astrological in nature. To my mind, the two just do not go together, because the bluestones seem to embody and demonstrate one set of beliefs, whereas the sarsens – if the lintels were primarily for observational purposes – were the physical embodiment of a completely different way of thinking.
I’ve naturally read all the contributions that others have sent in and I completely understand the thinking behind the idea that the level and horizontal lintels were put in place so as to better observe and perhaps measure the movements of heavenly bodies. I’m certainly not pouring scorn on the idea, but something about it just does not ring true for me and one of my principal objections is the nature of the bluestones.
I won’t deny that this subject sometimes comes close to driving me mad with frustration. From what I understand from studying the engineering and architectural aspects, the fact that our ancestors put in place a lintel ring – or lintel arc – of such sophistication and sheer size, and managed to make it flat and horizontal to such a remarkable degree, borders on the miraculous. If all this fantastic effort and skill was purely so that some astronomer priests could have an elevated flat place from which to make observations, then I simply do not understand how the workmen and populace could have been persuaded to take part in such a vast and prolonged undertaking, unless there was a guarantee that the astronomer priests would discern something of truly immense importance in the skies, which to my mind they could have done anyway from virtually any other spot that allowed them a clear view of the heavens. So, I personally don’t think they were just observing and I’ll leave it at that for now.
Otherwise, I constantly wonder at how our ancestors would have named or viewed this new place on top of the lintels. I was surprised to learn, when reading a Bill Bryson book recently, that there was no word in English to convey the idea of ‘upstairs’ until around the time of Shakespeare or perhaps later. Clearly, our ancestors would have had prepositions conveying the idea of being on or on top of something, so they could have described the astronomer priests as being ‘on top of’ the stone lintels, but I doubt that they used that expression. The lintels were apparently an unprecedented construction, so I wonder how this ‘thing’ was named or described? It was huge, tall and it was the only thing of its kind in the world, so I can’t help doubting that an observer at the time would have described priests standing on top of a raised stone ring to view the heavens, as I feel there must have been some other concept involved.
Yet another aspect of all this that baffles me is the fact that anyone standing on top of the lintels, for whatever purpose, would have been visible to anyone and everyone who was in the immediate landscape at the time. There’s nothing wrong with that, on the face of it, and I’m certain that certain select individuals did indeed wander this flat, curved, raised pathway for some reason and that while they were doing so, they were visible to all. However, it’s at odds with the otherwise secretive nature of the monument, that was once surrounded by a six foot high internal bank that would have precluded observation of whatever was taking place inside the monument. On top of that, we recently learned of ‘Stonehedge’ or the hedges that may once have surrounded the monument, while the narrow gaps between the various uprights and the crowded nature of the inside of the circle would have made observation from outside extremely difficult, if not impossible. By complete contrast, someone standing on top of the lintels would have been able to see just about everyone and everything beneath them, as well as being able to see the heavenly bodies above them and being a lot closer to them than anyone else.
I could continue in this vein for a very, very long time. Among other things, I’d like to explore the modern English concepts of exaltation, consideration and communion in possible connection with the subject at hand. I wonder what the circular depressions on top of some of the lintels were for. I wonder how ancient astronomer priests observed and measured the heavenly bodies in the night sky, particularly a night sky without a moon, and I wonder if they wrote any of these things down and if so, what on? How could they see in such darkness?
I wonder about the nature of an observatory with purely astronomical functions being sited in a place where many hundreds of people had been buried in the preceding centuries, and which was later surrounded by vast, outlying cemeteries, up to and including the children who were buried closeby in around 100 BC, when one was discovered with a chalk pig or hedgehog on their grave. And there were other Iron Age burials in the nearby Palisade, Y Holes and the monument itself. Of course, all this doesn’t preclude the idea of a structure erected principally for observation of the stars, but everything at Stonehenge and in the surrounding landscape seemed heavily weighted in favour of the dead and I would personally include the ‘stars’ in the bluestones in all this.
I have absolutely no wish or intention to demonstrate any superior knowledge here, as I can only speak from experience. However, I’m not of a nervous disposition and I’ve been to hundreds of haunted locations in my time, in Britain and abroad, by night and often alone, so I would simply say that in my personal experience, Stonehenge is not the most inviting location I’ve ever been to by night, and that’s with two busy roads nearby and other visitors and security guards in attendance. It’s very hard to put myself in the position of our ancestors as far as these matters go, but I’d guess that any astronomer priest in prehistory who visited Stonehenge by the dead of night to climb on top of the lintels and observe the stars for hours must have had nerves of steel, if his mind wasn’t on other matters. And so on, and so forth.
As I said, I could write about all this for a very long time yet, but while I’m confident that I’m eligible for membership of the Stonehenge Lintels Appreciation Society, I don’t want to risk coming across as one of the anti-heroes in an H.P. Lovecraft story.
Hi Dennis
The lintels of the outer rim are interesting because they would have required a supreme amount of engineering effort to construct: Making flat surfaces is difficult, but making an inward facing cylindrical surface ups the ante a bit.
This main design feature (an inward facing shallow cylinder set at high level with a level rim) is probably the key. As yet, I’ve not come across an astronomy based explanation for this.
By comparison, the bluestones appear to be re-used items from past constructions. Not saying that the blues weren’t important; they may have held that magical quality you describe. But from what’s there, it looks like they held this significance to another perhaps earlier monument.
One thought …. as the stars are there for all to see then surely if there was a desire for them to be represented in stones. It must have at least been likely more than one site would have been constructed with that intention. That then leads to a question about the ‘bluestones’ – are they the only stones that produce such an effect or do other stones have similar properties? Or, perhaps, Stonehenge was the one place which was devoted to this symbolism? I think the prevalence of quartz at many other sites hints at a yes to the first question. That being so then perhaps the bluestones (and lintels) made Stonehenge unique although not the worship or any practice involving stars.
Dennis,
Then maybe you’d like to post the Stonehenge Lintel Awareness Campaign poster that I’ve sent you in an email this morning.
Dennis, the word “Bluestone” is defined by different people in different ways. Some people use it to describe any foreign stone at Stonehenge, including the altar stone. I think you use the word the way I do to describe the volcanic rocks in the inner and outer circles at Stonehenge which come from Prescelli.
According to this definition there are two distinct types and two distinct provenances for the Bluestones in Prescelli. Perhaps more will emerge as Dr Ixer continues his quest. The first type is the spotted dolerite (starry) which are found in the inner ring and likely come from the hill tops near Carn Menyn. Then there are the foliated rhyolites which Dr Ixer has located in a river valley near Pont Saeson and even to the craggy outcrops of Rhos-y-felin. The supposition is that stones in the outer circle belong mainly to this foliated rhyolite type although EH has not allowed detailed study and Ixer’s work is depending on analysis of broken fragments only. Carn Menyn and Pont Saeson are a couple of miles apart only.
For a layman like myself there is a distinct difference between the spotted dolerites and the foliated rhyolites beyond the different origin. In the spotted dolerites the volcanic minerals have crystallized in star-like patterns, while in the rhyolites the crystal forms are more like rivers running through the stone.
However the volcanic rocks arrived at Stonehenge I believe that stone age people would have appreciated these foreign stones with their crystalline composition and seen a difference between the spotted dolerites and the foliated rhyolites. Perhaps one type represented the stars and the other the rivers. They are both radically different from the stone types local to Stonehenge – chalk, sarsen, and flint. In the weathered form we see today it can be difficult to see the difference between a bluestone and a sarsen, but when broken or polished the bluestones reveal a rich variety of colour and composition expressing the variety of minerals they contain. “Blue’” is a bit of a misnomer – they can be blue, but they can be green and orange and other colours, partly depending on the light.
If you don’t mind I will split this post: you raise so many interesting points.
Coming to the lintels, I am persuaded that these may have been used to try and track precession. As far as I know, and I am happy to be corrected, the period between 3000 and 2000 BC would have been disturbing to a star-conscious society as the glorious spiral ring of the milky way slowly dropped below the horizon. I think Jack makes the case that the lintels could have been used to track these long term changes and perhaps the laser scans, when finally presented, might provide some evidence. Until then it is just an idea.
Given the effort involved it was likely a community project, reinforcing MPP’s idea of a unified society. My personal view is that it did not work, and therefore the unique design of Stonehenge was never repeated and Stonehenge itself fell into disuse. Perhaps the timescale was too daunting, understanding precession requires a view over 26,000 years. Tracking the sun or the moon or even the planets is relatively simple by comparison.
Stonehenge is telling a story about people who were trying to understand and fit in to their natural world, even to manage it. The final phase was the neolithic equivalent of the hadron collider.
Tracking precession is an interesting idea, though to my eyes the figures do not look correct.
Chris, is it reasonable to suggest that they would build a monument to track something over hundreds of years without them knowing whether or not the monument had a chance of working?
Tracking precession is only one idea, what about major lunar standstills and the possibility, in a bronze-age mind, that the moon might disappear from the sky entirely! I take the view that the movement of celestial bodies could not possibly have been considered irrelevant to the meaning of life, the universe and everything! It is surely ridiculous to think that pre-literate people did not attempt to measure the movement that they were observing. It is something homo-sapiens does naturally. As to what they thought they were measuring is pretty well anyone’s guess today.
Jonathan, it is a question of what might have been believed and how important it might have been for them. So do you believe the 56 Aubrey Holes are an attempt to reflect the greater lunar cycle – 93 would have been a bit better? Might the two Avebury circles have been used as a lunar calendar, even if not 100% accurate. Is Stonehenge really aligned to reflect the solstice? Were the long barrows aligned on the brightest stars?
Personally I believe our ancestors were fascinated by the cycles of the seasons and of the heavens and wanted to crack the code. They tried to reflect this in their works. To arrive at a number like 56 they would have had to pass knowledge over several generations, checking their observations. They would have had to make measurements over many years.
Precession would have been noticed over the several hundred years of cultural continuity represented in the Stonehenge landscape. Swathes of stars were disappearing without explanation. I think they would have wondered about this and they were, I think, accustomed to measuring heavenly cycles over more than one generation. Of course a 26000 year cycle is not something you want to measure bottom-up but it does not mean they did not try and I don’t suppose they knew it might take that long.
My example of the hadron collider is carefully chosen. Our scientifically minded society has cooperated among several nations to build an experimental tool that might not work and at enormous cost. Someone in 5000 years time might scratch their heads why we built a 27km tunnel over 100 metres underground in an almost perfect circle.
Bluestones and patterns -
I’ve sent Dennis three photographs I took just this morning of a Carn Meini bluestone I happen to have in my possession. It’s approximately 24 x 13 x 4 cm in size and surprisingly heavy.
I took the close up photos both dry (middle photo) and wet (third photo) and the colors certainly change. The light this morning was hazy overcast and I faced the bluestone toward the sun.
I though this would be interesting data relating to the point about star patterns on bluestones.
I should also point out that I’m glad I wasn’t here when the glacier deposited that bluestone erratic in my backyard. As we all know, and has been pointed out by various august authorities innumerable times, humans are incapable of transporting bluestones for even a few hundred miles. So human transport of some 4000 miles is incomprehensible. Obviously I didn’t do any such thing after my visit to Carn Meini.
Juris
Photo 1:
Photo 2:
Photo 3:
I take the view that the movement of celestial bodies could not possibly have been considered irrelevant to the meaning of life, the universe and everything!
That’s a very sensible point of view Jack. I agree you could theoretically track precession by the way, but it depends which stars you select as to what range of tracking you would observe (because stars are changing their apparent celestial plane with each change in the apparent axial direction of the polar axis, some stars could give high tracking rates over periods of a hundred years or less whereas others would have none at all over the same period).
The big objection I can see with relating this to Stonehenge is that, if you knew how to track precession, you could track it much more easily and accurately by using one pointy stone set near the top of a chalky hill and surrounded by a large chalky circular embankment with a level rim.
The hadron collider example is probably as good a comparison as any Chris: The ‘Phase 3′ structure has engineering hallmarks with few obvious architectural nods.
The major hallmark is the perfectly circular inward facing shallow cylinder made of lintels and set at a high level with a perfectly level rim: This would have been an exceptionally difficult production and setting out task.
← Previous Comments
Next Comments →