Eternal Idol

So is it

a) older than thought
b) younger than thought
c) a place of burial
d) place of healing
e) none of the above
f) all of the above

Frankly I no longer give a damn.

If it’s any consolation, you’re certainly not the only person to start thinking along these lines, because I’ve heard virtually identical sentiments from a number of people recently, and I might add that these were well-informed, open-minded individuals who had what was formerly a great interest in the place. I think this is a very great shame and I can understand why as well, but it’s not decreased my fascination with Stonehenge. For anyone who’s interested, I’ll still be writing about the ruins as best I can and at some great length, rather than offering up the press release or caption to a postcard format that’s becoming a feature elsewhere.

Dennis and Pete:

Stop, catch your breath, get your bearings, take some time to be present in your respective personal lives, and don’t worry about the rest of us for a bit. Though we appreciate your endeavors to respond personally to each and every post here, I’m sure everyone will agree with me that no one will feel slighted or ignored if you don’t for a while. The wealth of information and insight that you both contribute to the topic of Stonehenge and its environs is (to quote Zaphod Beeblebrox) “amazingly amazing”, but we’ll all be the richer for it if you give allow yourselves the time you need to attend to catching up with yourselves and your own lives, and all that entails.

Personally, I believe We should think of Stonehenge in the same way as We might a Great Norman Cathedral.

Do they contain the dead?. Yes but is it about the dead?. The living meet there. But is it about a the living?. There will be statues of a Woman. But is it about that Woman or Women and Mothers?. There will be a Cross. But. is it about the Cross?. (If the story is to believed then Jesus died on the end of a spear). There will be Windows. But is it about the Sky? Seats. But is it about sitting?. Books, but is it about the reading? Stories. But is it about the stories?. Water. but is it about water. Birth. Marrage and so on and so on.. The Building will have an alignment but does that have any importance?. It will be huge. But does that mean anything?.. Gigantic Doors. But is that to keep People in or out.

If you found a Norman Cathedral and you didn’t know what it was…

What would you think?..

Tony

“The power of thought! The magic of the mind!” Who needs specialist BBC factual commissions, flagship documentary series or a degree in archaeology when I can sit here at my leisure (sort-of) and read beautifully-phrased, considered, thought-provoking and insightful comments like this from Tony? Eternal Idol took a bit of setting up and maintaining, but as far as I’m concerned, it’s been worth the effort a thousand times over when I see comments like this and others of its kind. If just one other person “out there” agrees that this exchange is thought-provoking, then it will all have been worthwhile.

Right, this comparison with a mediaeval cathedral was one that I once disliked and disagreed with for all manner of reasons, but I long ago began to have second thoughts. Professor Terry Meaden wrote to me about his belief that religion, as opposed to a purely practical motive, was the driving force behind the building of huge stone structures in prehistory and mediaeval times and it’s hard to argue with this logic.

Otherwise, in what I think is a severely-underrated book, Bernard Cornwell made some very insightful comments in the appendix to his novel of Stonehenge. From memory, he said that as time progressed, cathedrals went on to perform important functions such as choral concerts, weddings, funerals, coronations and a wide range of other meaningful activities that wouldn’t leave a record for those investigating the place millennia later. He also wrote that he thought that places such as mediaeval cathedrals and Stonehenge were built to “echo the awesome mystery of the unknown” and while I’d agree in principle, I think we can be more specific.

Bearing in mind Marcus Aurelius’ “first principle” of simplicity, what is a cathedral? To my mind, its most basic and fundamental characteristics are an ostentatious display of brute force and highly skilled workmanship to construct something out of stone that will hopefully serve as a place where mankind can commune with God. It may or may not have been on a previously revered site, it may or not be aligned in a meaningful way, but I’m pretty confident that this is what a cathedral is, in its most basic definition. The scale and intricacy of the architecture, as well as the labour, both skilled and unskilled, are intended to impress the Almighty, while the most basic ceremonies of prayer and preaching the word of God continue in this vein. Afterwards, we can add all manner of adornments, but from what I can see, the founding principle of a cathedral is an impressive attempt in stone to establish contact with the Almighty.

There are obvious parallels with Stonehenge here, but without wishing to wander away from this theme, it seems to me that the foremost deities worshipped by the men and women who built Stonehenge as we see it today lived in the sky – I think there’s a whole world of meaningful and profitable exploration here alone, and I also think that the implications are quite astonishing when we think them all through. I’ve attempted to look into this elsewhere on Eternal Idol, but I’ll return to this another time.

So, I think I’d agree that over the course of time, Stonehenge was used in a periodic fashion for a wide variety of uses and we’ve seen from the results of the Darvill and Wainwright excavation that there’s evidence in the form of yew, holly and ivy that Stonehenge was in use during midwinter as late as the seventeenth century, perhaps. However, while this certainly allows us a further glimpse into the minds of later celebrants at Stonehenge, it still doesn’t answer the question of why the site of Stonehenge was so demonstrably important as far back as 8,500 BC when the pits in what is now the carpark were dug, why there began an ongoing series of increasingly impressive constructions in earth, timber and stone on the site, or whether there was a clear and credible link between what went on there in 8,500 BC and the activity on the site 5,000 years later.

It seems to me that it’s well worth looking at what little we know of the presence of the Mesolithic people in the Stonehenge area – I hate expressions like “the Mesolithic people”, but I’ll refine this to do them justice in another post. All that we have to go on, it seems, are a few pits directly northwest of Stonehenge and some remnants of organic material from around 1,000 years later from the site of Stonehenge itself. This might not seem much, but to quote the great Sir Thomas Browne, (1605 – 1682), “What song the Sirens sang, or what name Achilles assumed when he hid himself among women, though puzzling questions, are not beyond all conjecture.” I also plan to bear in mind what Carl Sagan’s similar observation “Imagination takes us to worlds that never were, but without it, we go nowhere.” Next stop, when I’ve got time and when I’ve taken Aynslie’s generous-spirited advice, the car park…

If we make this an open quest for truth where we share all of our ideas, conjectures, theories and evidence there is much we can honourably gain. It is probably approaching the time whereby we dispense with all prior thought and analysis and placing everything we have in front of us, consider anew.

I would argue that this should not exclusively be a job for archaeologists. There is a need to embrace ideas, possibilities and visions that whilst fitting the clues we have, may boldly exceed that which is considered ‘safe’ for a scientist to suggest.

This website, and some of the debate which may be stressful at times, does add value by bringing more of those who care, from a number of diverse backgrounds, into communication with each other.

It should be applauded.

Fully agree Frank. Science is burying itself in its own preconceived ideas and Dennis and Pete deserve our thanks for making this the best site there is on Stonehenge.

This website is an exceptionally useful and friendly place for the exchange of ideas. If we have even just a little evidence for our ideas, we should not be embarrassed to share them, because as Charles Darwin remarked:

“False facts are highly injurious to the progress of science, for they often endure long; but false views, if supported by some evidence, do little harm, for every one takes a salutary pleasure in proving their falseness: and when this is done, one path towards error is closed and the road to truth is often at the same time opened.”

Darwin was a bold scientist! But we are all seeking after the truth, and that involves observing and contemplating, whatever we wish to describe it as.

It does seem remarkable that so much new evidence is coming to light now, at the present time. In my own examination of Stonehenge and related places, it has amazed me that so much has gone unobserved. I had assumed that more or less everything that could be discovered had already been discovered. But this is not so: We must use our own eyes, examine carefully what is before us, and contemplate its implications.

I think the main problem is experts being scared of being lampooned by their colleagues for not following their instincts and being forced to hold to established ideas. So without addressing these issues there will never be change. This site is so refreshing as it is so wonderfully open and the people that frequent it never cease to amaze me with the endless possibilities for interpretation out there.

So don’t lose heart.

It’s amazing how this forum shows all sorts of new perspectives. For instance, Dennis’s reponse to Tony’s cathedral analogy prompted me into a new line of thought, which ended up by linking the cathedral analogy more directly to Stonehenge.

Dennis said: “…the founding principle of a cathedral is an impressive attempt in stone to establish contact with the Almighty.” That gave me cause to think, for I’d always assumed that a cathedral is primarily an assertion to the local peasantry of the power of God. They had their local church to communicate with the Almighty but, when Salisbury cathedral was built 750 years ago, the contrast between the dwellings of the ordinary people and the cathedral would have been as great in building terms as between a bullock cart and a space rocket in today’s world of transport. How could it not fill people with awe?

But, while there are “obvious parallels with Stonehenge here,” as Dennis says, I think this is a distraction. The point of a church or cathedral is that it is filled with symbolism. The obvious symbols are the shape and orientation, the repeated cross, and so on. But all the carvings, decorations and motifs are symbols too, along with colours, numbers – even the vestments of the priest.

A symbol is something that represents something else, especially when it expresses a concept for which we humans simply don’t have the language. And that’s especially true for mystical concepts, like the Trinity, because we can’t completely grasp them. So we use a symbol, like a triangle to represent the Trinity, because we can understand and accept the symbol of the concept … and it can be more evocative and emotional than words themselves.

Stonehenge (and the other great monuments from our prehistory, obviously) will almost certainly have been as equally filled with symbols as a church or cathedral. The design and the orientation (and much more that has long vanished) will have expressed spiritual concepts that the Stonehenge people were striving to convey in the only way they could – in physical form.

It seems to me that we have to add a parallel stream to the archaeological study of these enigmatic and enthralling monuments. We need also to try and capture and explain the symbols that they embody. I know that the proponents of the Healing and Death/Life theories would probably claim they’re doing that, but to me it seems they’re ignoring a huge amount of detail. So much is significant in a church – the same must be true of our centre of interest, too.

For me, this is the Great Question about Stonehenge – the symbolism of the place. If we can get a glimpse of the symbolism, then we’ll start to understand its people’s beliefs, hopes and fears. And we’ll be able to transport ourselves back in time as we understand more about what made them tick. (Regrettably, it’s the closest I’ll get to time travel – but it’s worth the effort!)

It seems a daunting task to define the symbols and then explain them. But there must be some avenues that are open to us. Anthropology is one. (Do archaeology courses at university teach anthropology too?) I know virtually nothing of this, so I have to be very careful here, but Wikipedia uses “symbolism” as one of the areas of study of socio-cultural anthropology. Another avenue is one I referred to in an earlier post – research into the hard-wired neurological constructs that we all have, including grids of lozenges, arcs, circles and spirals. And then there’s the rock art that we have aplenty in the UK (like Kilmartin, for instance) and throughout the world. Ally these with the general principle of continuity that seems to apply in human behaviour, and I think that imaginative archaeology could take a great leap forward.

As a very naive example, I suggested (in an append to the Henge-hog article) that the design of Stonehenge could represent – symbolize – a tiered model of the cosmos, as envisaged by the Stonehenge people. I proposed that the journey up the Avenue would be completed by a symbolic journey through – or round – the layered cosmos, finally ending up in the centre, the ultimate layer of the cosmos. I thought that might be the true Domain of the Ancestors. But now I’ve just found that the Temple in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus was also divided up like this, with courtyards within courtyards that represented increasing degrees of sanctity, eventually reaching the Sanctum sanctorum, the holy of holies – the place where God dwelt. Christian churches have these layers, too: nave – chancel – altar/sanctuary where eventually only the priest can go.

Could it be that there’s a continuity of symbolic thought here? And, if so, the centre of Stonehenge could represent, rather than the Domain of the Ancestors, the Domain of the Sky God (remembering Dennis’s theory of “deities who lived in the sky”). And that generates all sorts of interesting possibilities.

Too long a post, I’m afraid, but I guess I’m simply saying that we need to use our imaginations and wide research to understand the imaginations of the Stonehenge people. Their imaginations gave rise to the symbolism of the place, and I believe that the symbolism is everything – the key to understanding the enigma.

Well, I’m very pleased and honoured by all these comments and I’m sure Pete is, too. Obviously, I read them all and digest them, and they’re all interesting and useful in their own way. I’d never heard the Darwin quote, but I thought it was wonderful and very appropriate, and it’s something I’ll certainly bear in mind. As for what Frank has to say, I’d just point him towards my numerous entries on the Druids by way of proof that, not only do I not dismiss these ancient priests from the story of Stonehenge, but I take them very seriously indeed.

As for Alex’s insightful offering, I certainly would not worry about a post being ‘too long’ because I’d far prefer to have something I can really look into and think about, while it’s food for thought for anyone else who cares to read it and think about it as well. I can’t lay my hands on it just now, but in the aforementioned novel of Stonehenge, in the appendix section, Bernard Cornwell wrote what I thought was a superb comment to the effect of how we can admire Stonehenge and marvel at the engineering accomplishments, but without a glimpse into the minds of the builders, it is somewhat meaningless.

As such, the ruins provide me with literally endless food for thought, simply trying to put myself in the position of the various people who either built one of the phases or else frequented the site for compelling reasons of their own, so no, I don’t think for a moment that archaeologists have anything like a monopoly of informed thought on the place, although we’d be mad not to pay the closest attention to each and every thing that sees the light of day, no matter how baffling or seemingly contradictory to other trains of thought.

It makes obvious sense to try to reach back into the Palaeolithic in search of the beginnings of Stonehenge, but this is such a distant period that endured for so long with so little evidence of its passing, at least as far as Stonehenge is concerned, that it would be very hard work indeed. Until such time as I can get a remotely convincing picture together, I’ll concentrate my attention on the events on 8,500 BC or thereabouts when the Mesolithic pits were dug, so I’ll aim to put something up in a few weeks’ time. I try not to go in for cliches where I can avoid them, but given that the site of Stonehenge seems to have been important to our ancestors for at least 10,000 years and possibly a great deal longer, it seems unavoidable that there are many equally valid truths about the place, depending on which particular time frame we choose to examine. Be that as it may, I’m in no doubt whatsoever that the site of Stonehenge is the single most astonishing location of its kind on the planet and it may be that material eventually comes to light to support this idea.

Meanwhile, thank you all for writing in because it’s just such a pleasure to have the grey matter and imagination forced into action by having the luxury of sitting here and reading your contributions, regardless of their length.

Dennis,

I read with great pleasure your paper on the Druids and greatly respect you for giving consideration to the idea that Druidry in some form, has its ancient origins here in Britain.

It is greatly suggested in the Roman and Greek writings of antiquity.

It seems highly probable to me that the Druids were a late manifestation of an enduring mystical and perhaps also scientific tradition, centred in Britain and stretching back way beyond the Celtic period.

The recent evidence about the avenue of trees and features going around these at Stonehenge could also suggest the same. Let’s hope that there is good justification to explore this possibility now!

You have an open mind and the courage to speak from your own views unswayed by the current (largely unchallenged) popular belief among your peers.

You have integrity and my respect for that!

Frank

Thank you, Frank, and I’m glad what you read gave you pleasure, but I don’t see it as a matter of integrity at all. As I’ve said a thousand times, perhaps, I’m simply interested in the truth.

You wrote “It seems highly probable to me that the Druids were a late manifestation of an enduring mystical and perhaps also scientific tradition, centred in Britain and stretching back way beyond the Celtic period.” Well, I don’t think I often speak of absolute certainties, but on this occasion, I don’t doubt for a moment that what you wrote is not just probable, but unavoidable. I’ve gone into it in some detail elsewhere in this site, and it’s yet another subject to which I plan to return with a vengeance…..one day when I’ve got time!

Understanding the symbolism is an important step in understanding the motivation and beliefs of the people of Stonehenge.

Two symbols that appear to have particular significance are the diamond / lozenge, and the spiral.

Understanding these symbols is a hard, or near impossible task if we do not have an understanding of the context. But look carefully at the magnetometer survey of Stanton Drew. It appears to my eyes that there are carvings, very faint and with a poor signal to noise ratio, in the surface of the ground. We are familiar with the idea of horses and other figures carved into chalk hillsides, but has anybody considered that such a practice was much more widespread, and not necessarily limited to hillsides?

There is an excellent website describing symbols:

http://www.symbols.com

In particular, examine Group 14, which describes numerous types of spiral symbols.

Interestingly, Alex and Hugo have written about symbols at Stonehenge, which has prompted me to mention (yet again!) my pet theory about Stone 16 at Stonehenge. Sorry if I’m boring everyone.
(Thanks to Hugo for the link to the symbols website!)

I’ve been banging on to various people that I think Stone 16, the sarsen at SW of the outer circle, is very important because when studying photographs I’d taken at sunrise on 6 Dec 2006 (on Private Access), I noticed that the sun’s rays had highlighted a fat inverted ‘V’ low down on its inner face. I’ve posted photos of this on the ‘Stonehenge’ site page on the Megalithic Portal website. Have also posted a simple sketch I’d drawn, making the feature more identifiable in the photos, and showing other important ‘symbols’ on two of its faces. (Sketch also shows the ‘lozenge’ appearance of the whole [SW-facing] outer surface of the stone – including a well-defined ‘spine’ – [there is a triple-view photo of this, taken Summer Solstice Eve, on the site page], and from the side, looking towards NW, the protruding ‘pregnant belly’ [see separate photo, also taken Summer Solstice Eve, of this feature] which is actually how the outer face, facing the setting sun at Winter Solstice, is viewed from SE.)

Stone 16 is usually more famous for it’s NW face (side), which is like adzed wood.

I thought the inverted ‘V’ might represent a kind of ‘vulva’ mark, or certainly some kind of female fertility symbol. The lozenge is supposed to represent ‘female’ too, I believe? The pregnant belly is obviously female.
Because of these three ‘symbols’, I think that the stone could possibly be a fertility rite stone, tying in with ceremonies when these features are highlighted, as I saw them [the 'V' at sunrise on 6 Dec, for instance]… or just at Winter Solstice, or between 6 Dec and 6 January?
The ‘V’ mark could be the most important one, with the ‘lozenge’ and (hoped-for?) ‘pregnant belly’ an offering to the ‘gods’ of the Mid-Winter sunsets, even though the ‘belly’ is best viewed looking NW (which could be incorporated in sunset rituals at Summer Solstice, perhaps?)

I also wondered if Stone 15 may have had ‘male’ symbols, making a more potent offering to the ‘gods’. The two stones lay either side of the main NE/SW axis of Stonehenge.

Prof Atkinson once observed that the outer face of the remaining Great Trilithon upright is finished off very smoothly, and looks very flat. He thought this was because it was meant to be looked at during a ceremony. That face of Stone 56 actually faces the ‘V’ on Stone 16.
Of course, the builders might have changed their mind at the last moment and erected the stone with the smoother face outwards!

Looking at the symbols website that Hugo recommended, I can’t seem to find an appropriate inverted ‘V’, but the inverted curved symbol represented ‘Sky’, or ‘Rainbow’ [02:1].
(It also occurred to me that it could possibly represent an antler-pick, as it is slightly tilted, but the feminine links to the other features swayed me. If anyone cares to check this out, they can make up their own minds.)

You are welcome to use those photos on your website Dennis (and the sketch) if you credit me with their copyright.

Angie, you’re certainly not boring me and I very much doubt you’re boring anyone else here, either. It never ceases to amaze me how, on first sight, Stonehenge is an incomprehensible pile of stones, devoid of detail, but when you keeping looking, all manner of intriguing features gradually make themselves known.

These symbols and stones have caught your eye, so I’ll certainly have a good look at them and thank you for bringing them to our attention (that’s not the Royal ‘we’, by the way) because they’re all the more food for thought for us all. In a similar vein, I was long ago struck by all the northwestern features at Stonehenge and I’m sure there are many other elements of the ruins that different people find striking or meaningful, so I’m pleased when people like yourself write in with a detailed observation for the rest of us to consider and thank you also for your kind offer.

Wow! Angie’s very interesting post started firing all sorts of synapses.

The vulva interpretation seems possible to me because of two things. First, the male Heel Stone shadow “impregnation” as proposed by Terence Meaden requires a female counterpart, the vulva (although he proposed the Alta Stone). There is an equivalent pairing at Avebury, where the Heel Stone’s counterpart, the Obelisk at the centre of the South Circle, impregnated Stone 106 in the surrounding circle. The vulva of Stone 106 looks graphically anatomical rather than a symbolic V but the equivalence of these two pairings – at Stonehenge and Avebury – is startling. Second, the reverse side of Angie’s stone shows what she describes in her Megalithic Portal photos as a “spine” on its outer face, the SW. Well, I’ve just seen something very similar, again at Avebury, in the Avenue, and there it’s described by those circumlocutory archaeologists as “ithyphallic”. I had to look it up, but I’ll give you a clue: “ithy” means “straight” or “erect”.

So it seems to me that Stone 16 could be androgynous – having both male and female sex organs. Its vulva receives the Heel Stone shadow phallus at midsummer, and the Sun brings its erect phallus to life at midwinter sunset in the SW, to start the seasonal swing into springtime. In both cases, the sun is the planter of seed, the stone in the monument represents the earth mother, the receiver of the seed.

Once you start looking for these sexual characteristics in the stones, you seem to see them everywhere, especially at Avebury, where the stones have far more natural shaping. And if it sounds as though my mind can only run along certain paths, that’s what comes from reading Terence Meaden. You have been warned!

Thanks to Angie for her illuminating photos, sketches and ideas – I haven’t seen this described elesewhere.

*Thank you Alex!* AND Dennis, for your support.
At last someone is taking an interest and making valuable comments.

(A bit of free-thinking now!):

After writing my previous message I woke next day and started to think again about the position of the ‘V’ mark on Stone 16.
Originally I wondered if it was there because it was the right height for symbolic ‘fertilisation’ by the ‘High Priest’, or ‘whoever’ during a ritual or ceremony.
Then I wondered about the impact of the tall smooth face of Stone 56 opposite it, and imagined that during a good, clear [SW area] sunset perhaps it glowed in some way with the rosiness of the setting sun.
As the sun disappeared and the sky grew pinker, would the higher [outer] part of the Trilithon be redder than lower down, where Stone 16 and Stone 15 and their lintels cast their shadows? (Could it even reflect on Stone 16′s inner face at all?)
What part could that have played?
Is it possible that, at Winter Solstice sunset, as the tallest stones reddened, a symbolic ‘baby’ emerged from the ‘V’, and was held up to the glowing Great Trilithon? If so, what may have simultaneously happened at Stone 15′s inner face….??
(It’s hard to think of Stonehenge in it’s original form.)

What gave me this idea was remembering photos I’d taken with young people who’d come to celebrate the Summer Solstice in 2007, sitting on the ground beneath it, leaning back on Stone 16 with their heads just touching the ‘V’.
(See the photos I specifically took on Solstice Eve that year when the light was fading. – The ‘V’ is much shallower but still just distinguishable. I’d intended to capture the effect at sunrise, but cloud obscured the sun… not to mention the many bodies of revellers that might have got in the way!)
It would be hard to check out the effect of the Heel Stone shadow at Summer Solstice, but a day or two either side might work?

Anyway, if you were sitting below the ‘V’, imagine the extra impact of looking up at Stone 56. It’s awesome, isn’t it? From every angle of Stonehenge that huge, smoothly finished stone draws the eye… and Atkinson thought the outer face was important.

By the way Alex, did you notice the diamond/lozenge shape on the outer face of Stone 16, which enclosed the ‘spine’?
That’s very interesting – your interpretation of the ‘spine’ as phallic. I wonder how the size and shape of that ‘spine’ would equate to the gap between the Trilithon [55/56] behind it… whether there is any link between them?

My son-in-law picked up John North’s ‘Stonehenge’ at a car boot last week and I scanned through the pages last night to see if he’d mentioned anything. All I’d done previously was to take a quick look at the pictures and figures and see if Stone 16 was in the index. It was, but only as a ref to a photo of its NW, ‘adzed’ side!
(It looks like a very clever, scientific study to me… don’t know if I will be able to read all of it, or understand it, even when I find the time! Science and geometry were never my strong points at Grammar!)
*However*: This is what I found (Under ‘The Ring of Sarsens’, p.420.):

“The best face – that most carefully dressed – is usually to the inside, but one should not make too much of this fact, for there are some key outer faces on which much care was lavished – on stones 1, 30, 16, for example – and this was for good astonomical reason.”

It was late when I sat looking through it, but I could NOT find anything to expand on that statement. Perhaps someone else has read it and remembers?

The other two sides: the NW is well-documented as being like adzed wood, and if you look at the SE side, the lower part is ‘draped’ like material (‘the skirts of a robe’ effect?)

If you have the time to take aboard another thing, I’ve posted ‘Possible Discovery at West Kennet Long Barrow’ on Megalithic Portal. This is about another ‘vulva’ mark stone, and its neighbouring ‘phallic’ symbol stone in the West chamber at WKLB.

Enough for now. This WAS going to be an ‘early’ night!

Angie, you made a point early in your post that struck me forcibly – the sunset glow on the stones. This is a brilliant insight, which perhaps helps makes more sense of the markings on the outside of Stone 16.

You asked about the effect of the sun on the smooth face of the trilithon – would it have had any effect on the inside face of Stone 16? My gut feeling is that sarsen stone is almost completely non-reflective and, while the illuminated part would glow pink, it would have had little effect on the lower Stone 16. However, I think that the sun shining directly on Stone 16′s outside face is a completely different matter. The stone would surely glow pink – and so would the markings.

To me, these “markings” look artificial; as though they’ve been dressed specifically by the original stone masons. They’re not described as such in “Stonehenge in its landscape” which, disappointingly, says virtually nothing about Stone 16, except to remark on its “fine tooling” in a colour plate (the adzed surface). But your remarkable photo seems quite clear. It looks like you’ve made an important discovery!

To be honest, when I first saw your photos (triptych of outside face), my first reaction was “vulva” – it looks like an anatomically stylized vulva. But then I was swayed by memories of the almost identical spine on Avebury Avenue Stone 36a that I’d seen only that afternoon, and Terence Meaden’s interpretation of it as ithyphallic. It could be either – or both together.

So, we have either male or female sex organ – or both – facing the midwinter sunset, ready to be lit by flaming red sunsets. These organs would become pink and engorged in the evening light. And that seems to me to be exactly the symbolism that expresses the need for a fertile new-born year, as the old year comes to an end, and the Stonehenge people look for signs that the cycle will start again.

I think this is a very exciting discovery. While I don’t think that it’s more than just one aspect of a very complex religious centre for the Stonehenge people, if we’re right about its meaning (a very big “if”!) then it’s an important step towards understanding the big picture.

On your other points – yes, I’d noticed the lozenge shapes, and it seems like more evidence of a symbolic Earth Mother/Goddess. The evidence does seem to stack up, doesn’t it? The other aspects of the stone seem to reinforce the feminine principle, and the pregnant profile would be symbolic expression of the result of the setting sun working its magic on the sex organs.

And John North’s book! I sometimes wonder if it’s like Steven Hawking’s “A brief history of time” which many people have bought but none has read. I have a copy of North’s book, and didn’t get much farther than the first few chapters. My impression was that it was all just too complicated – not only for me, but for the peoples of the time. While I have no doubt that they were every bit as intelligent as us (though perhaps not Professor North) would they have been bothered with finicky alignments over earthen monuments on many different stars? I’m coming to the conclusion that while the celestial sky was extremely important to them, it would have been celebrated symbolically, and not with quasi-scientific precision. But perhaps I should have another go at reading it …

I forgot to say in the last post that it was the shape of the “V” mark that led me to speculate [logical thinking!] that there could have been a symbolic “baby birth” in possible fertility rituals at the inner face of Stone 16. The symbols website that Hugo mentioned only had a double-curved “closed” shape representing a “vulva”. [The "Maiden", rather than the "Earth Mother" perhaps?] If this mark on Stone 16 was more “Earth Mother”, then this open upside-down “V” would look like the stretched moment of “giving birth”, as the baby slips out into the world. (I’m a mother of three and grandma to eight, so speak from experience!)

I have got a couple of Terence Meaden’s very interesting books too.

[Incidentally, he doesn't mention this feature, and the "fertility rite" stones I "discovered" in July 2007 at WKLB appear to be "faces" to him - like most of the stones at Avebury, including the W.K. Avenue.]

Thanks for your last comment Alex. I shall have a look at that “ithyphallic” stone 36a next time I visit. Funny that you should have only seen it that afternoon. My personal favourite is the next and last pair”…Mrs Tiggywinkle..” with her hood and her little hedgehog nose peeking out [on the east side], and her tiresome partner [opposite], “Mr Grumpy”! (I see the side-face of a man with big nose and down-turned mouth. See photos on West Kennet Avenue site page, on Meg P.)

Back to Stone 16: It’s hard not to sound sex-obsessed, which I’m not, (a psychiatrist would say something about my love of standing stones, I expect!) but you have to try to think in the manner that the Ancients would have. We don’t know what their lives were really like, but we can try to imagine. Without the stresses and material distractions of modern living, their existence – after getting on with the job in hand – would revolve around simple things: respect for their ancestors, shelter, food, water and sex. (I bet they didn’t treat the latter at all coyly, as we might today.) Life must have been very harsh then, even in peaceful times when there was no fighting with other tribes, and so bringing new life to swell the group and help with building monuments, cultivating land, reaping crops and rearing animals, would have been the most important thing of all. [They would have so many mouths to feed while building such monuments!]

Their nights would be long (especially in winter) and pitch black, except for any fires they could keep burning, so the night sky would be fascinating to them – like us watching TV? If they held night-time ceremonies at Stonehenge I bet the wind coming through gaps between the stones gave a good kindling effect to any fires which may have been burning inside the circle. (Would those have been “illuminating and warming” fires for the people, or cremation fires?) Each thought seems to provoke a question! [It's ok to waffle, isn't it Dennis?!]

Going back to John North’s statement about “dressing on some key outer faces including Stone 16″: perhaps he was only talking about the NW side with its “adzing effect”. That would be linked to some NW “astronomical reason” then, in his mind?

Another thing just sprung to mind. Regarding the idea of the Heel Stone’s shadow touching the “V” on Stone 16 (and my friend Jack who studies such effects has long agreed this is possible):

Could it be that Stone 16 was in a better position at one time (in an earlier “Stage” of Stonehenge) for this to happen at sunrise on Summer Solstice, either “where it is now”, or standing somewhere else on the site? If it was somewhere else, it may have been re-used because of its earlier importance?

If anyone wants to look through the photos on the Megalithic Portal website’s “Stonehenge” site page, several of the ones I’ve posted in the past two years have illustrated my thoughts on Stone 16′s importance.*

The main ones as follows:

The “pregnant belly” was taken on Summer Solstice Eve 2007, at sunset.
Other longer-distance photos highlight the flatness of Stone 56 (Gt. Trilithon’s remaining upright) and its position in relation to Stone 16, which does indeed look like the “chrysalis” that Mike Pitts calls it in “Hengeworld”!

Another shot, looking towards the NW Station Stone from the SE, shows how the “pregnant belly” of Stone 16 is well rounded as it aligns with that stone.
Distant shots of Stone 16 from the visitors’ walkway at SW give the outer face an effect of draped cloth (from upper right to lower left.)

Incidentally, I didn’t mention the shallow inverted “triangle” at the top of Stone 16′s inner [NE] face. In some shots it stands out really strongly, but I wonder how that would show if the lintel was in place? There are other apparent criss-cross hatchings on this face too. As well as two decent photos of that “V” mark face, there are also some stills taken from camcorder film at dawn on 6 Dec 06.

The photos of young people sitting against the stone by the “V” mark show how shallow the carving usually appears.

There is also the triple aspect of the outer [SW] face, showing the “spine” and its surrounding “lozenge” occupying most of the stone’s face. (Except the “draped” part bottom right.) The one on left taken 6 Dec 06, the two on right, Summer Solstice 07.

*If you are unsure how to access these: Once in Megalithic Portal web pages – http://www.megalithic.co.uk – enter “Stonehenge” in the Search box top left of page, and press “Enter” [largest key at right of keyboard]. This opens a page showing several files on Stonehenge, but you need to open the item [13th down the page this morning!] “…Stonehenge, Stone Circle in Wiltshire”, with the photo of a reflection of two sarsens and their lintel in a puddle on a fallen stone. Once into the site page, at the bottom of the 20 or so photos on the first page there is an option to “click here to see our entire collection”. Be patient as there are so many to open! Most of above are in that section. Dennis, let me know if you want any for Eternal Idol pages.

[note: there are also options to open three more files of photos at top of first page. Haven't checked them out as I write this.]

Dennis’s piece about the car park posts to the NW of Stonehenge, and the possibility that they were some kind of Totem pole much revered by the people at that time made me wonder about Stone 16 again!

Alex suggested that the ‘spine’ on the outer SW face of Stone 16 was ithyphallic. That is quite logical and a good idea.

But – how about the ‘spine’ [which is very straight sided] representing one of those earlier tall posts – a sort of transference of temporary wood to permanent stone?
Also, bearing in mind that Stone 16′s NW side (facing those once-important stones) was ‘adzed’ to look like wood, thus conferring the material quality to this important stone??
A ‘nod’ to an earlier place of much reverence.

Blimey, talk about great minds thinking alike! And quite possibly thought transference too. Independently, in another post under the Eternal Idol? topic, I floated the idea of the qualities of the (wooden) megadendrons transferring, at some time during the Mesolithic, to the bluestones, the first stones to be used at Stonehenge. But Angie’s idea sounds at least as plausible, especially with the adzing. It neatly ties together two or three different threads. Brilliant.

Have left comments regarding the possible ‘spine/post’ under some of my Stonehenge photos on the Megalithic Portal, and also commented under two by other people. One of these shows the NW ‘adzed face’ of Stone 16, and the other (by friend Jack) shows the effect of sunset’s light on Stonehenge at 5th January.
These will be easy to access by going to the ‘What’s New (Latest Block)’ page, and then looking in ‘Latest eGallery Comments’.
Instructions for accessing website in previous comment above.

Sorry Alex, I hadn’t read that. Hope you didn’t think I was pinching your ideas!

I had another one this afternoon! Jeeez…

What if there had been a tall post somewhere to the SW of the circle, which cast a long shadow towards the stones as the sun set?…
… and when the shadow aligned with [or crept up] that long ‘spine’/'post’ on Stone 16, the MidWinter Solstice celebrations began?

Absolutely not, Angie, I was just fascinated and delighted to see that similar ideas are cropping up independently. For if different people independently start thinking along the same lines, that seems to me to give validation and weight to the idea. (I always was an optimist!)

When I saw your idea about the post to the SW (a midwinter counterpart to the Heel Stone, obviously) I immediately went to my on-loan copy of SIIL (sadly to be returned to the library soon – they don’t like it leaving the premises) to see if the limited geophysical surveys showed anything (Appendix 1). The resistivity survey didn’t go outside the bank/ditch, unfortunately, for that survey contains enough granularity to show up features like that. The wider magnetometry survey is a bit ambiguous. It does show three pit-like features roughly SSW but is very cautious about the interpretation, and even the most westerly of the features from Stone 16 is only about 25 degrees west of south – nowhere near the sunset axis. But, for me it’s interesting (because I’ve been banging on about this for some time) that SIIL says that “the presence of the Mesolithic postpits in the car park indicates that other features may lie within the area.” Exactly!

All is not lost for Angie’s phallic post. The resistivity does show a very small lone anomaly, unmentioned in SIIL, pretty much exactly on the SW axis. I’m not nearly knowledgeable enough to know if it could be a postpit, but it has low resistivity, whereas the Aubrey holes have high resistivity. However, in the eastern half of the monument there are other bigger anomalies with a similar signature, and they’re cautiously (and controversially) interpreted as the positions of previously unrecorded outlying stones.

So your idea, Angie, is possible, and very appealing, for the symbolism is extremely powerful – possibly even more powerful than that of the Heel Stone. For the Heel Stone’s shadow would only be seen as detumescent (if you see what I mean) and withdrawing, while the SW post’s sunset shadow would be, well, full of vigour. And that’s the promise of the New Year just starting.

The only possible counter-argument that I can see is that this powefully symbolic scene is enacted on the outside of the monument, and there would have had to be some sort of crowd control for it to have been observed. And I’m not sure what effect the bank would have had 500 years after it was first built (to a height of 6′ approximately, or 1.8m).

But I guess crowd control was much less of a problem than it is now, at midsummer! I think Angie’s idea has huge potential to add to the overall interpretation of the site.

I’ve just found, almost as a postscript in the Terence Meaden book I’d borrowed (Secrets of Avebury), that he mentions the Station Stones at Stonehenge as having the same properties as the Heel Stone/Altar Stone combination.

Angie floated the idea of a post (or lost stone) to the SW outside the lintel ring that cast a midwinter shadow on a vulva marking on Stone 16, in the same way as the Heel Stone appears to impregnate the Altar Stone at midsummer. Meaden also points out that the same sort of pairing can be inferred for the Station Stones – 91/94 and 92/93.

He adds to his case by pointing out that two of the Station Stones (92 and 94) have banks dug around them in exactly the same way as the male Heel Stone, and the one mainly complete Station Stone remaining, 91, has a vulvar crease on it. So he believes that there were originally two male stones, 92 and 94, and the shadow of 94 impregnated the (missing and female) stone 93 at midsummer; the missing male stone 92 impregnated the fallen female stone 93 at midwinter.

According to Burl, the Station Stones were erected around 2500BC, shortly before the great sarsen circles. And if the two-way symbolism of the Station Stones (winter and summer) was seen as important, then wouldn’t two different enactments have been built into the great circle? If Meaden is right about the Four Stations, then it seems to add extra weight and validation to Angie’s suggestion about Stone 16.

One more idea about the outer (SW facing) face of Stone 16, with it’s ‘spine’ and surrounding ‘lozenge’..
[you heard it here first, remember!]
A bit of a ‘shot in the dark’ (by arrow?)….
Could the ‘spine’ represent a bow, and the lozenge shape either side the ‘pulled string’ of the bow, ready to release an arrow?
(I was going to say ‘longbow’ but don’t know when they came into use.)
We see daggers and axes represented at Stonehenge, so why not bows and arrows, too, especially if the builders used them in their pig-shooting at Durrington Walls? Not to mention the Amesbury Archer himself……. the ‘King of Stonehenge’.

A bow? Bit of a long shot … Could be … or it could be a grain of wheat. It came to my attention – the prepared mind – in some animal feed, and it looks very similar to Angie’s photos. For comparison purposes, you can see an individual grain here:
http://www.bakeinfo.co.nz/cyberguide/wheat/grain.htm

It has a long straight ‘spine’ (reversed out) just like the shape on stone 16. The winter/spring sun on the symbolic grain would warm it and bring it to life, a symbolic hope for the germination of the year’s crops.

Obviously, the grain could be interpreted as vulva too … I wonder if it was the vulva shape of the grain that gave it a special significance for early people, and led to its development into a crop? While I think the shape on the stone is unlikely to be simply a symbolic grain, it’s quite possible that different ideas were conflated into one all-purpose symbol that includes a number of different related and important concepts. I think it was John who pointed out the significance of the lozenge, and Angie described this carving at one point as ‘lozenge-shaped’. From what we’ve discussed, this lozenge seems to encompass different ideas of fertility, though graphic sexual symbolism, impregnation, germination of seed, etc. This all seems to equate to an appeal to an Earth Goddess, doesn’t it?

Don’t forget it all started off with the *inner* [NE] face of Stone 16, and the upside-down fat ‘V’ shape, which made me think of a possible vulva-mark/fertility symbol. Then, at about the same time, I noticed features of the SW face: the ‘pregnant belly’ shape (as viewed looking from the SE side of the stone towards NW), and the long, narrow raised spine effect, enclosed in its lozenge shape – (virtually the whole of the SW face, when viewed from SW towards NE).

This ‘discovery’ was nothing to do with reading anything on EI, and was posted ages ago on the Megalithic Portal. I had read many times before, that lozenges seem to be linked to female symbolism. Indeed, stones of the West Kennet Avenue were usually referred to as ‘female’ and often lozenge shaped, while their ‘male’ counterparts were longer and taller ‘phallic’ shapes. We all seem to accept this as fact, because someone told us so! (Or is there some other ‘proof?’)

There is also a shallow inverted triangle shape on the top of the inner face, as well as several marks like intentional ‘hatching’ on that side.

It is since posting my findings on here and reading others’ enthusiastic comments (thank you!) that I was inspired to think of the ‘spine-as-post’ (with the NW side of the stone like ‘adzed wood’ [Atkinson and Pitts] linking it in with previous wooden posts – perhaps even the three tall posts that once stood in the car park area, as they lay in the same direction?); or ‘spine-as-bow’ (esp. as the stone is curved outwards like a drawn bow when viewed from the NW ‘adzed side’ towards SE), and the possibility of the ‘lozenge’ shape being a drawn bow-string. Yes, I agree that idea might be far-fetched, but not impossible.

My ideas haven’t been based on anything anyone else has said here, as I’d hardly read any of the many recent comments before posting. Wondering about the significance of Dennis’s NW posts did prompt the idea of the adzing, though, and the ‘spine-as-post’. Even a possible link with the ‘pregnant belly’…?

I certainly think several symbols could have been amalgamated into this one special stone, and it is quite possible that Alex’s wheat grain could be one of them. Was the grain of the wheat grown then (‘Spelt’) the same shape as shown in your link, Alex?

By the way, the grain image reminded me of a cowrie shell. When I was a child I knew they held a certain ‘mystery’, yet my mother would never explain…!

Angie, you make a very good point about accepting the symbolic shapes because someone told us – I’m finding it increasingly difficult to sort out what’s proven from what’s supposition and what’s, well, overactive imagination. In this case, I think that a number of threads came together in a tangle in my poor confused mind, and seemed to equate to Goddess. And your observations about the pregnant belly and the adzed marks (that I’d forgotten about) seem to add weight to that. But I’m aware that my imagination can get a bit overactive, so I’ll back out here, as gracefully as I can.

However, on the question of spelt, I’m on firmer groud. Phew. I found this image: http://www.all-creatures.org/recipes/i-spelt.html in which the grain, with the reversed out ‘spine’, looks remarkably similar to our modern wheat. So I suppose that it’s still a possibility – but I’m not betting money on anything at the moment

Alex, don’t be confused, because I do agree with you about it being a ‘Goddess’ stone, as it has so many feminine symbols. That was the idea I floated on here in the beginning, and what I really thought (hoped) it was – a fertility/Mother Earth symbol.

It is only since reading other comments and good ideas on here (including your own) that I’ve started to wonder if the ‘spine’ shape could represent anything else….. hence the post and the bow.

I don’t know why I suddenly stopped to think about the origin of that theory about lozenges this afternoon, because I’ve always accepted that idea before, and been quite happy with it. I just suddenly thought ‘Why?’, and ‘Who says?’

[Ah - I see Terence Meaden, in his book 'The Secret of the Avebury Stones', says that:
"In recent years there has been considerable progress in analysing ancient symbols, especially Neolithic ones. Comparisons can also be made with symbols from extant religions whose meanings and ancient origins are adequately understood. Thus, following traditional spiritual symbolism as acknowledged by hundreds of millions of Hindus and Tantrics over thousands of years, stones and images dominated by a simple isosceles triangle are always viewed as female."

"On its own, the triangle is the Yoni Yantra or Kunti Yantra, because it symbolises the vulva and pubic zone by which it stands for the Great Mother as the source of all life. At the same time it is the sign of the original trinity - the triple goddess in her three ages of maiden, mother and wise woman." ... [I'll settle for 'wise woman'. I like that better than crone!] … “The lozenge symbol goes farther, for it is made up of two triangles base to base, in which the upward-pointing triangle can indicate the navel triangle …”

It’s better if it IS correct as far as the feminine symbolism on Stone 16 is concerned.

I also still like the idea of a post standing towards the SW of the circle which casts its shadow on the ‘spine’ at Solstice Sunset. (Maybe someone will check this out for us in Dec? Perhaps I will if I can make it. I’ve only been to three Summer Solstices (2001, 2005 and 2007) but never a Winter one. Often thought I’d do it, but then the weather turns iffy… and it is 100 miles each way.)

It hasn’t got to be on the exact day, a couple of days either side would do, and should be easily seen from the public access paths – assuming public are still allowed in there at sunset? My own shadow (though I’m only 5’4″) should be long enough to touch the stone if I stand in the right place, shouldn’t it?

By the way, with the wheat idea… it is like a reversed image, isn’t it? The dents in the stone and the raised spine would be like a mould for the shape of the grain, I guess?

Angie, I think your identification of Stone 16 as being feminine, representing the Goddess/Earth Mother is great, and I fully agree. I think I was getting myself rather tied in knots because of the symbolic aspect: as far as I’m concerned, symbolism represents or stands in for the inexpressable, yet here we are trying to express it. But it’s fun trying, and we’ve had some good ideas.

I feel persuaded by the triple aspect of the Goddess – the maiden/mother/wise woman (yes, much better than crone!) And as for the symbolism, how about this? The SW face of the stone with its spine between the two crescent arcs represents three things:
1. a wheat or spelt seed, ungerminated, and lying IN the earth, waiting to be fertilized. This symbolizes the maiden, full of life-creating potential.
2. a vulva, the source of life, symbolizing motherhood, here ON the earth, fertile and sustaining.
3. a moon, in three phases of waxing, waning and full, separated by the spine. The moon (and I’m making it up as aI go along, here!) symbolizes age-old timeless wisdom, overarching vision from high ABOVE the earth.

See, I told you it was fun! Stretching several points, I could see three different aspects of the Goddess, in three levels of cosmology, and three different states: animal (mother), vegetable (seed) and mineral (moon). A triply triple Goddess symbolism. Plus, of course, there are the other feminine connections you’ve pointed out elsewhere on the stone.

The only possible flaw in the argument I can see (Hah!) is that as far as I know, there isn’t any symbolism (the SW vulva/grain) like this anywhere else. So the Stonehenge wise women and men would have been unique in the world. Oh well, back to the drawing board … though Stonehenge IS pretty unique

I think your idea of testing the pole/shadow idea is great. A potential problem is that (according to Google Earth) the path is just over 50m from the stone. That’s a long shadow to cast, even though I’m 6′. But it should be possible to work out what sort of pole would be needed, and where, and to check that against the anomaly I found in the SIIL geophysics. I shall go there on a clear day near the solstice, and see for myself.

Oh, good, Alex – it will be interesting to see what happens when you visit (assuming it IS sunny enough), and your 6ft frame casts a long shadow! If you see a ‘wise woman/crone’ in the vicinity, come over and say ‘Hello’….
I like all your interpretations of the SW side.
Re Stone 16′s ‘uniqueness’:
Don’t forget that I found what I consider to be a ‘vulva’ shape in the centre of a stone in West Kennet Long Barrow’s end chamber. It is the one facing you on the left, as you reach the end of the passage, and also stands nearest to the SW. Beside it, on the right, is a stone that looks ‘phallic’ to me. (An article about this was posted on the Megalithic Portal under ‘Possible Discovery at West Kennet Long Barrow’.)
There may be loads of examples of such symbolism to be found yet.

Angie, I said that I’d try and visit Stonehenge at midwinter sunset to see if the SW pole/stone idea would work. I made a trial run a couple of weeks back, which convinced me that I’d have to take advantage of an absolutely clear evening sky whenever I could, without worrying about the date. And on Wednesday this week, there was such a sky. No cloud in the west whatsoever.

Although we believed that midwinter would be the significant date, my visit was only about three weeks away, and the sun doesn’t move far along the horizon around the solstice. EH had moved the path even farther from the stones (about 100m) than when I last visited. But, to cut to the quick, I got some brilliant photos of my shadow reaching the stone, on which the carved vulva looked absolutely clear in the evening light.

Having taken photos of the outside of stone 16 from different angles, different times, and different lighting, I’m almost certain that the so-called vulva (or wheat grain, or moon phases) is artificial, although it may have been a natural feature that was enhanced by the stone dressers. And it looks as though it was designed to be most clear in evening light.

The phallic post/stone idea has received an unexpected boost. I’ve been reading Anthony Johnson’s “Solving Stonehenge” and, on p155 he refers to a possible stone at the southwest end of the axis. William Stukeley reported that there ‘ there seems to have been another stone lying upon the ground, by the vallum of the court, directly opposite the entrance of the avenue.’ Atkinson judged it to be near Aubrey Hole 28. And I can be pretty confident that, if there was such a stone, its shadow at a winter sunset would have been bold and strong on the carving on Stone 16 – it would only have been 35m from Stone 16, compared with my 100m.

It seems to me that a winter sunset ceremony would have been a strong possibility. Particularly as I remember reading somewhere (just can’t remember where, my usual problem!) that Stonehenge would more likely have been used for looking into, rather than for looking out, from inside. And Stukeley’s stone and the Stone 16 carving would have fitted this theory perfectly.

Alex, thank you so much for this comment [28 Nov]. I do appreciate your efforts in checking this theory out and am more than thrilled at the result!
I only got home tonight from my trip so missed your other private message [26th], but was about to reply when I decided to first check out Eternal Idol, and you’ve just done what I was going to suggest…. put it on the EI thread!
I still hope to go up sometime before 22nd Dec to see for myself, and shall be disappointed if I can’t witness this phenomenon.
All we need to do now is prove that a post or stone once stood in the correct place to the SW of Stone 16!
Many thanks!
Thanks too, to Dennis for providing the brainstorming place (melting pot?) for these ideas. If it comes to anything, “you read it here first!”

An update on the ‘Spine’ effect on Stone 16.
Look at this link, then follow the link in the comments I left:

http://www.megalithic.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=My_eGallery&file=index&do=showpic&pid=40118

Interesting, eh?