Dispatch from Stonehenge, Day 10
April 9: Archaeology in a Fishbowl
- By Dan Jones
- Smithsonian.com, April 09, 2008, Subscribe
There is one clear lesson from the past 10 days of excavating at Stonehenge: if you're planning to dig up one of the world's most intriguing archaeological sites, anticipate that a good chunk of your time will be spent dealing with the ensuing media and academic frenzy.
The official inauguration of the project consumed almost the entire first day, leaving only 11 days for the actual excavation. The sacrifice, however, was worth it, in terms of raising public awareness about the excavation and the theory that the lead archaeologists, Tim Darvill and Geoff Wainwright, are seeking to validate—that Stonehenge was a not a burial ground or massive calendar, but a pilgrimage site for healing. News about the excavation has saturated the British media. (Even the sensationalist tabloid, The Sun, ran a story about it—albeit not as long as an article speculating about Paul McCartney's new girlfriend.) Since then, reporters and film crews from as far afield as Russia have converged on the monument to see the now-famous trench. The various archaeologists on the team have had to take periodic breaks from shoveling and shifting to do interviews. Welcome to archaeology in a fishbowl.
Today, it was the turn of academics to join reporters for the privilege of an up-close-and-personal encounter with Stonehenge's past. On the hour, groups of eight or so were escorted to the inner circle, where Darvill and Wainwright took turns to deliver impromptu seminars.
Despite these intrusions, progress has continued apace. (The result of 12 hours per day on site.) The emerging physical evidence—including fragments of bluestone and sarsen scattered throughout the site—reflect a complex history: the original bluestones that comprised Stonehenge were placed here, then moved there, perhaps moved again and then left behind—only to suffer a thousand blows from hammers and chisels, as people sought to possess their chunk of the magical stone, believed to have life-giving properties.
These findings challenge more orderly accounts of Stonehenge's history, which envisioned it being built in more-or-less distinct stages. A fuller picture of the history of this small plot of land will no doubt emerge over the coming days of digging and the ensuing months of analysis.
Meanwhile, the hunt continues for charcoal to be used in carbon dating and pinpointing the precise year that the bluestones arrived at Salisbury Plains. (Some snail shells found in the trench can also be dated with this technique.) Darvill and Wainwright remain sanguine and believe they will get the material they need. They will, in any case, get everything that is there. If this dig doesn't provide the answers, they are probably not there to be found.
Dan Jones is a freelance science writer who has contributed articles to New Scientist.
Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.
Comments (2)
Oh do come on, Stonehenge is UNIQUE, quite literally nothing else like it is known to exist, therefor English Heritage are quite correct to limit the dig in the way they have. This is particularly true as almost half the site has been excavated (very badly) in the past. It is imperitive that no more is dug than is required. As for "dig deeper", my understanding is that they are going down to the chalk BEDROCK. There seems no point in going further.
Posted by Bill Hume on April 16,2008 | 01:20 PM
Everyone unite and petition to give them more time to dig at the site. I know they had to go through *&%# to get the two weeks in the first place but since it seems like the media hasn't given them a break to get done what they came to do, then give them more time. Of course I am partly to blaim since I want to know every detail too. So since I am to blaim I want to start a campaign to allow them more time, at least one more week so they can go deeper, wider, and do a more thorough job. I would expect this kind of government control from a non-allied country however the control level for this site has been as much of the story as the dig, why? We should know what happened there, good or bad. Is the monitary value of the "secret" of Stonhenge so great that we cannot be allowed to get to the truth?
Posted by Kimberly Brunni on April 14,2008 | 08:56 AM
The attention this is getitng is amazing!!!! I just don't see why the media has to interrupt the dig just to get the latest "scoop"!
Posted by A. Dehmer on April 13,2008 | 01:25 PM
This is a very short dig, as archaeological digs go, and with all the interruptions and diversions, it's hard to imagine that Darvill and Wainwright could manage to get enough evidence to prove or disprove any theory. And, since they have a theory, there is always the danger of only noticing the things that help to prove it and ignoring the rest. I hope that isn't happening. What are the blue stones? Are they natural stones, or did humans apply color to them for some reason?
Posted by Ms Troy Parker Farr on April 12,2008 | 01:35 PM
I'm a bit amused...just what is there in the Stonehenge that these archaeologist are trying to prove that the scientific community is not yet aware of? So ok, it's not a burial ground but a healing place...that's it? At any rate good luck to the whole team!
Posted by R. SALVA on April 11,2008 | 11:23 PM
DIG DEEPER! Learn the lesson of the "Clovis Points" in U.S. archaeology. Everyone stopped digging once they found a Clovis Point - the Monte Verde, in Chile, happened and they dug a little deeper on the SAME sites . . . guess what, someone was there LONG BEFORE the Clovis Point makers . . . so please DIG DEEPER while you have the opportunity! David David G. Onn dgonn@udel.edu
Posted by David G. Onn on April 11,2008 | 06:30 PM
interesting
Posted by erik on April 11,2008 | 05:41 PM