New Light on Stonehenge
The first dig in 44 years inside the stone circle changed our view of why—and even when—the monument was built
- By Dan Jones
- Photographs by Michael Freeman
- Smithsonian magazine, October 2008, Subscribe
(Page 3 of 4)
And so, under an overcast sky blanketing Salisbury Plain and under the watchful eye of English Heritage personnel and media representatives from around the world, Darvill and Wainwright’s team began digging in March 2008. Over the previous weekend, the team had set up a temporary building that would serve as a base for operations and marked out the plot to be excavated. Next to the site’s parking lot a newly erected marquee broadcast a live video feed of the action—and offered a selection of souvenir T-shirts, one of which read, “Stonehenge Rocks.”
The trench that Darvill and Wainwright marked out for the excavation was surprisingly small: just 8 by 11 feet, and 2 to 6 feet deep in the southeastern sector of the stone circle. But the trench, wedged between a towering sarsen stone and two bluestones, was far from a random choice. In fact, a portion of it overlapped with the excavation carried out by archaeologist Richard Atkinson and colleagues in 1964 that had partially revealed (though not for the first time) one of the original bluestone sockets and gave reason to believe that another socket would be nearby. In addition, Bournemouth University researchers had conducted a ground-penetrating radar survey, providing further assurance that this would be a productive spot.
Wainwright had cautioned me that watching an archaeological dig was like watching paint dry. But while the work is indeed slow and methodical, it is also serene, even meditative. An avuncular figure with a white beard framing a smiling, ruddy face, Wainwright joined Bournemouth University students operating a large, clattering sieve, picking out everything of interest: bones, potsherds and fragments of sarsen and bluestone.
Some days a strong wind blew through the site, creating a small dust bowl. Other days brought rain, sleet and even snow. As material was excavated from the trench and sifted through the coarse sieve, it was ferried to the temporary building erected in the parking lot. Here other students and Debbie Costen, Darvill’s research assistant, put the material into a flotation tank, which caused any organic matter—such as carbonized plant remains that could be used for radiocarbon dating—to float to the surface.
By the end of the excavation, contours of postholes that once held timber poles and of bedrock-cut sockets for bluestones were visible. In addition, dozens of samples of organic material, including charred cereal grains and bone, had been collected, and 14 of these were selected for radiocarbon dating. Although it would not be possible to establish dates from the bluestone sockets themselves, their age could be inferred from the age of the recovered organic materials, which are older the deeper they are buried. Environmental archaeologist Mike Allen compared the positions and depths of the bluestone sockets with this chronology. Using these calculations, Darvill and Wainwright would later estimate that the first bluestones had been placed between 2400 and 2200 B.C.—two or three centuries later than the previous estimate of 2600 B.C.
That means the first bluestones were erected at Stonehenge around the time of the Amesbury Archer’s pilgrimage, lending credence to the theory that he came there to be healed.
Among other finds, the soil yielded two Roman coins dating to the late fourth century A.D. Similar coins have been found at Stonehenge before, but these were retrieved from cut pits and a shaft, indicating that Romans were reshaping and altering the monument long after such activities were supposed to have ended. “This is something that people haven’t really recognized before,” says Darvill. “The power of Stonehenge seems to have long outlasted its original purpose, and these new finds provide a strong link to the world of late antiquity that probably provided the stories picked up by Geoffrey of Monmouth just a few centuries later.”
As so often happens in archaeology, the new findings raise nearly as many questions as they answer. Charcoal recovered by Darvill and Wainwright—indicating the burning of pine wood in the vicinity—dates back to the eighth millennium B.C. Could the area have been a ritual center for hunter-gatherer communities some 6,000 years before the earthen henge was even dug? “The origins of Stonehenge probably lie back in the Mesolithic, and we need to reframe our questions for the next excavation to look back into that deeper time,” Darvill says.
The new radiocarbon dating also raises questions about a theory advanced by archaeologist Mike Parker Pearson of the University of Sheffield, who has long suggested that Stonehenge was a massive burial site and the stones were symbols of the dead—the final stop of an elaborate funeral procession by Neolithic mourners from nearby settlements. The oldest human remains found by Parker Pearson’s team date to around 3030 B.C., about the time the henge was first built but well before the arrival of the bluestones. That means, says Darvill, “the stones come after the burials and are not directly associated with them.”
Of course it’s entirely possible that Stonehenge was both—a great cemetery and a place of healing, as Darvill and Wainwright willingly admit. “Initially it seems to have been a place for the dead with cremations and memorials,” says Darvill, “but after about 2300 B.C. the emphasis changes and it is a focus for the living, a place where specialist healers and the health care professionals of their age looked after the bodies and souls of the sick and infirm.” English Heritage’s Amanda Chadburn also finds the dual-use theory plausible. “It’s such an important place that people want to be associated with it and buried in its vicinity,” she says, “but it could also be such a magical place that it was used for healing, too.”
Single Page « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.
Related topics: Archaeology Neolithic England Stonehenge
Additional Sources
Stonehenge and Neighbouring Monuments by R. Atkinson, English Heritage, 1990










Comments (41)
+ View All Comments
I have visited Stonehenge a number of times and there is an imprint of a dagger style knife on one of the large stones that make the circle. There is never a mention of it on any publications or documentries. Why is that, it must have significance. If you could answer me I would appreciate it cause it has always question for me. Thank you in advance, Allan Willmon
Posted by Allan Willmon on April 25,2013 | 10:06 PM
Sir(s): This is just a very humble observation from an uneducated old man. I have windows on my computer which has a view of stone hinge. From this viewing I can see some lettering made from the photo. I do not know what the letters mean but for me they are very pain. I am sure someone in the past has brought this but just incase no one has please take a look at that particular viewing. It reminds me of and IBM select typewriter wheel that was used during the early seventies; as the letter was pressed on the key board the wheel revolved and made a corresponding imprint onto the paper. Maybe when stone hinge was formed it was a way to communicated depending on the given view or angle of approach. Again I am just an old man who really does not know very much but I thought I would at least pass on what I was seeing correct or not. Please forgive my ignorance. Respectfully, Tom B.
Posted by Tom Birdsong on February 13,2013 | 10:27 AM
OK this was 2008 ... in 2012, "Genesis of Genesis" expanded on the 2011 book, "Grandpa Was A Deity" and showed how Stonehenge contributed to, and in part explains, the long ages attributed to the Biblical Patriarchs... and eventually gave us our modern Western Calendar. The cover image of Stonehenge and the Star of David sows how the two are linked ... It would be really neat to see is any Stonehenge archaeologist can refute the facts presented in "Genesis of Genesis" ... but, of course, they can not. Rather, in a decade or so, they will simply represent them as their own.
Posted by Bill Lipton on February 10,2013 | 03:14 PM
Your article states, ‘We now know that Stonehenge was in the making 400 year … ‘. First the circular earthworks were built and finally hundreds of years later the huge stones were installed. Amazing! It’s a simple question really … how did those who put the finishing touches to Stonehenge know what was in the minds of those who started this ‘sacred’ project. And, if you have ever watched theorists trying to erect (Stonehenge) stones only a fraction of the size of the original you would understand that whoever put the huge stones in place wouldn’t have complicated matters by first digging a ditch. The whole construction programme is further confused by archaeological ‘belief’ that, ‘before the large stones were brought in the blue stones were arranged in a double circle’. Incredible! It becomes apparent to anyone who applies a little thought to Stonehenge that archaeologists have no explanation for Stonehenge outside a few Aubrey holes, bluestones, potsherds and antler bones, oh and of course it is ‘sacred’. They appear to have abandoned it to Druids and sun worshippers. They also appear to ignore their own findings. In the English Heritage is a plate (based on archaeology) that shows the final Phase of Stonehenge had two Heel stones, two Intermediate and three Portal stones outside the Henge. Have you ever looked at the Constellation of Orion? Just as an aside there were thirty upright sarsen stones in the Henge. Giza (Great Pyramids) are thirty degrees longitude east of Stonehenge. Geoffrey
Posted by Geoffrey Morgan on January 17,2013 | 11:40 AM
Huge fan, do you think there's a reason a pick was found at stonehenge, and an arrowhead was found at bluestone henge? And what's up with the hazil? Could it have been wicca?
Posted by alexa on December 14,2012 | 03:14 PM
Perhaps if it began as a cemetery, it occurred to the people later that the spirits of the dead could help to heal the living. Thinking as such, they brought the bluestones--which were believed to have healing properties--to the site, knowing that the buried bodies (or what remained of them) were nearby, and that their spirits still lingered near the site. Because there was a source of water--which is viewed in many cultures as a symbol for healing and purity--they placed the bluestones strategically. Oftentimes, they healed themselves and their kin, and not quite as often did visitors such as the Archer happen along--and if the properties of the bluestone were as beneficial to healing as believed, not so many people would have died, and as a result would not have been buried around the site. That is how I piece this together, according to the evidence and hypotheses in the article...
Posted by Satakieli on December 2,2012 | 09:10 AM
A thought occurs, what if both are the answer both a site of healing and of interment. If it were a site for rites of leadership, the court of a king so to speak, and the kingship was perceived to be connected with healing as some old legends suggest. It could also have been a sign of honor to be buried in such a place.
Posted by william powers on October 5,2012 | 08:05 PM
Every time the word Stonehenge comes to our mind it reminds us of the remarkable efforts made by those who made this beautiful monument, http://liveoncampus.com/wire/show/3388776 here is a recreation of how Stonehenge may have been raised 4500 years ago, it takes you back in times when wooden logs were used to roll objects from one place to other with ropes made out of tree barks.
Posted by Vivek on June 24,2012 | 01:08 AM
Surely it's only the relatively recent introduction of effective medicine which provides Lourdes with sick and injured people? A few thousand years ago, one may have been very lucky to survive at all. I would suggest that a full-scale geo-scan type survey (non-invasive) should be done immediately out to the barrows on the near horizon and then determine some other 'great' places to dig. Come on English Heritage, get your fingers out!
Posted by James Clifton-Harrison on April 12,2012 | 10:00 AM
I don't think the blue stones came from Preceli mountain. I think they come from Garreg Las which means blue stone in Welsh. If you were to walk that mountain from North to South on a sunny winters day you'd soon discover why.
Posted by Huw Thomas on April 6,2012 | 05:26 PM
I was wondering why ,if bluestones were used for healing and worked why are doctor's not using them now,,they would work today to , sounds like you are saying they cured very severe illness's.since they have no widespread use they must not work now or then.so why would anyone go to a healing place that does not work.therefore i can only assume that it was not a place of healing at all.
Posted by steve schnitzler on March 6,2012 | 11:55 PM
is there any record of maintenance/construction work done on the stones at Stonhenge? I seem to remember some 50/60 years ago when "Council workers realigned some of the stones"
Ernie
Posted by melbournebird on November 8,2011 | 09:08 PM
Dear Mr. Jones,
I am doing a paper on Stonehenge for a college project and I was wondering if you wouldn't mind answering some questions for me.
Thank you,
Brandon Beck
Posted by Brandon Beck on October 18,2011 | 11:38 AM
The thought that the "bluestones" had healing properties is a good one. The lack of remains in the area around stonhenge could be taken as evidence that they worked! The lame and sick were restored and simply walked away. The grotto at Lourdes still attracts visitors for the same reason. Same for the sacred well at Glastonbury. Hauling rocks to construct religious monuments to heal the soul is one of mankind's oldest traditions. Some of these efforts were/are just more complex than others.
Posted by Tom Holliday on December 22,2010 | 03:06 PM
+ View All Comments