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
View More Photos »
Stonehenge secrets
Carved sarsens-enormous blocks of hard sandstone-were used to build the towering trilithons that dominate the landscape of Salisbury Plain in southern England. But archaeologists Timothy Darvill and Geoffrey Wainwright believe the smaller so-called bluestones hold the key to unraveling Stonehenge's mystery (Michael Freeman)

Photo Gallery (1/10)

Carn Menyn

Explore more photos from the story

Related Books

Stonehenge: The Story So Far

by Julian Richards
English Heritage, 2007

The Making of Stonehenge

by Rodney Castleden
Routledge, 1993

More from Smithsonian.com


Editor’s Note: This article was adapted from its original form and updated to include new information for Smithsonian’s Mysteries of the Ancient World bookazine published in Fall 2009.

The druids arrived around 4 p.m. Under a warm afternoon sun, the group of eight walked slowly to the beat of a single drum, from the visitors entrance toward the looming, majestic stone monument. With the pounding of the drum growing louder, the retinue approached the outer circle of massive stone trilithons—each made up of two huge pillars capped by a stone lintel—and passed through them to the inner circle. Here they were greeted by Timothy Darvill, now 51, professor of archaeology at Bournemouth University, and Geoffrey Wainwright, now 72, president of the Society of Antiquaries of London.

For two weeks, the pair had been leading the first excavation in 44 years of the inner circle of Stonehenge—the best-known and most mysterious megalithic monument in the world. Now it was time to refill the pit they had dug. The Druids had come to offer their blessings, as they had done 14 days earlier before the first shovel went into the ground. “At the beginning we warned the spirits of the land that this would be happening and not to feel invaded,” said one of their number who gave his name only as Frank. “Now we’re offering a big thank-you to the ancestors who we asked to give up knowledge to our generation.”

The Druids tossed seven grains of wheat into the pit, one for each continent, and offered a prayer to provide food for the world’s hungry. The gesture seemed fitting, given the nature of the excavation; while other experts have speculated that Stonehenge was a prehistoric observatory or a royal burial ground, Darvill and Wainwright are intent on proving it was primarily a sacred place of healing, where the sick came to be cured and the injured and infirm restored.

Darvill and Wainwright’s theory rests, almost literally, on bluestones—unexceptional igneous rocks, such as dolerite and rhyolite—so called because they take on a bluish hue when wet or cut. Over the centuries, legends have endowed these stones with mystical properties. The British poet Layamon, inspired by the folkloric accounts of 12th-century cleric Geoffrey of Monmouth, wrote in A.D. 1215:

The stones are great;
And magic power they have;
Men that are sick;
Fare to that stone;
And they wash that stone;
And with that water bathe away their sickness.

We now know that Stonehenge was in the making for at least 400 years. The first phase, built around 3000 B.C., was a simple circular earthwork enclosure similar to many “henges” (sacred enclosures typically comprising a circular bank and a ditch) found throughout the British Isles. Around 2800 B.C., timber posts were erected within the enclosure. Again, such posts are not unusual—Woodhenge, for example, which once consisted of tall posts arranged in a series of six concentric oval rings, lies only a few miles to the east.

Archaeologists have long believed that Stonehenge began to take on its modern form two centuries later, when large stones were brought to the site in the third and final stage of its construction. The first to be put in place were the 80 or so bluestones, which were arranged in a double circle with an entrance facing northeast. “Their arrival is when Stonehenge was transformed from a quite ordinary and typical monument into something unusual,” says Andrew Fitzpatrick of Wessex Archaeology, a nonprofit organization based in Salisbury.

The importance of the bluestones is underscored by the immense effort involved in moving them a long distance—some were as long as ten feet and weighed four tons. Geological studies in the 1920s determined that they came from the Preseli Mountains in southwest Wales, 140 miles from Stonehenge. Some geologists have argued that glaciers moved the stones, but most experts now believe that humans undertook the momentous task.

The most likely route would have required traversing some 250 miles—with the stones floated on rafts, then pulled overland by teams of men and oxen or rolled on logs—along the south coast of Wales, crossing the Avon River near Bristol and then heading southeast to the Salisbury Plain. Alternatively, the stones may have come by boat around Land’s End and along the south coast of England before heading upriver and finally overland to Stonehenge. Whatever the route and method, the immensity of the undertaking—requiring thousands of man-hours and sophisticated logistics—has convinced Darvill and Wainwright that the bluestones must have been considered extraordinary. After all, Stonehenge’s sarsens—enormous blocks of hard sandstone used to build the towering trilithons—were quarried and collected from the Marlborough Downs a mere 20 miles to the north.


Editor’s Note: This article was adapted from its original form and updated to include new information for Smithsonian’s Mysteries of the Ancient World bookazine published in Fall 2009.

The druids arrived around 4 p.m. Under a warm afternoon sun, the group of eight walked slowly to the beat of a single drum, from the visitors entrance toward the looming, majestic stone monument. With the pounding of the drum growing louder, the retinue approached the outer circle of massive stone trilithons—each made up of two huge pillars capped by a stone lintel—and passed through them to the inner circle. Here they were greeted by Timothy Darvill, now 51, professor of archaeology at Bournemouth University, and Geoffrey Wainwright, now 72, president of the Society of Antiquaries of London.

For two weeks, the pair had been leading the first excavation in 44 years of the inner circle of Stonehenge—the best-known and most mysterious megalithic monument in the world. Now it was time to refill the pit they had dug. The Druids had come to offer their blessings, as they had done 14 days earlier before the first shovel went into the ground. “At the beginning we warned the spirits of the land that this would be happening and not to feel invaded,” said one of their number who gave his name only as Frank. “Now we’re offering a big thank-you to the ancestors who we asked to give up knowledge to our generation.”

The Druids tossed seven grains of wheat into the pit, one for each continent, and offered a prayer to provide food for the world’s hungry. The gesture seemed fitting, given the nature of the excavation; while other experts have speculated that Stonehenge was a prehistoric observatory or a royal burial ground, Darvill and Wainwright are intent on proving it was primarily a sacred place of healing, where the sick came to be cured and the injured and infirm restored.

Darvill and Wainwright’s theory rests, almost literally, on bluestones—unexceptional igneous rocks, such as dolerite and rhyolite—so called because they take on a bluish hue when wet or cut. Over the centuries, legends have endowed these stones with mystical properties. The British poet Layamon, inspired by the folkloric accounts of 12th-century cleric Geoffrey of Monmouth, wrote in A.D. 1215:

The stones are great;
And magic power they have;
Men that are sick;
Fare to that stone;
And they wash that stone;
And with that water bathe away their sickness.

We now know that Stonehenge was in the making for at least 400 years. The first phase, built around 3000 B.C., was a simple circular earthwork enclosure similar to many “henges” (sacred enclosures typically comprising a circular bank and a ditch) found throughout the British Isles. Around 2800 B.C., timber posts were erected within the enclosure. Again, such posts are not unusual—Woodhenge, for example, which once consisted of tall posts arranged in a series of six concentric oval rings, lies only a few miles to the east.

Archaeologists have long believed that Stonehenge began to take on its modern form two centuries later, when large stones were brought to the site in the third and final stage of its construction. The first to be put in place were the 80 or so bluestones, which were arranged in a double circle with an entrance facing northeast. “Their arrival is when Stonehenge was transformed from a quite ordinary and typical monument into something unusual,” says Andrew Fitzpatrick of Wessex Archaeology, a nonprofit organization based in Salisbury.

The importance of the bluestones is underscored by the immense effort involved in moving them a long distance—some were as long as ten feet and weighed four tons. Geological studies in the 1920s determined that they came from the Preseli Mountains in southwest Wales, 140 miles from Stonehenge. Some geologists have argued that glaciers moved the stones, but most experts now believe that humans undertook the momentous task.

The most likely route would have required traversing some 250 miles—with the stones floated on rafts, then pulled overland by teams of men and oxen or rolled on logs—along the south coast of Wales, crossing the Avon River near Bristol and then heading southeast to the Salisbury Plain. Alternatively, the stones may have come by boat around Land’s End and along the south coast of England before heading upriver and finally overland to Stonehenge. Whatever the route and method, the immensity of the undertaking—requiring thousands of man-hours and sophisticated logistics—has convinced Darvill and Wainwright that the bluestones must have been considered extraordinary. After all, Stonehenge’s sarsens—enormous blocks of hard sandstone used to build the towering trilithons—were quarried and collected from the Marlborough Downs a mere 20 miles to the north.

The two men have spent the last six years surveying the Preseli Mountains, trying to ascertain why Neolithic people might have believed the stones had mystical properties. Most were quarried at a site known as Carn Menyn, a series of rocky outcrops of white-spotted dolerite. “It’s a very special area,” says Wainwright, himself a Welshman. “Approaching Carn Menyn from the south you go up and up, then all of a sudden you see this rampart composed of natural pillars of stone.” Clearly, Carn Menyn inspired the ancients. Gors Fawr, a collection of 16 upright bluestones arranged in a circle, sits at the bottom of a Carn Menyn hill.

But Darvill and Wainwright say the real turning point came in 2006, when the pair looked beyond Carn Menyn’s rock formations and began studying some springs around the base of the crags, many of which had been altered to create “enhanced springheads”—natural spouts had been dammed up with short walls to create pools where the water emerged from the rock. More important, some of the springheads were adorned with prehistoric art.

“This is very unusual,” says Wainwright. “You get springs that have funny things done to them in the Roman and Iron Age periods, but to see it done in the prehistoric period is rare, so we knew we were on to something.” In his history of Britain, Geoffrey of Monmouth noted that the medicinal powers of Stonehenge’s stones were stimulated by pouring water over them for the sick to bathe in. Indeed, many of the springs and wells in southwest Wales are still believed to have healing powers and are used in this way by local adherents to traditional practices. As Wainwright recalls, “The pieces of the puzzle came together when Tim and I looked at each other and said, ‘It’s got to be about healing.’”

Once the archaeologists concluded that the ancients had endowed the Carn Menyn rocks with mystical properties, “franchising” them to Stonehenge made sense. “Its intrinsic power would seem to be locked into the material from which it was made and, short of visiting Carn Menyn, which might not have been always feasible, the next best step would have been to create a shrine from the powerful substance, the stone from Carn Menyn itself,” says Timothy Insoll, an archaeologist at the University of Manchester. He has documented similar behavior in northern Ghana, where boulders from the Tonna’ab earth shrine—similarly invested with curative properties—have been taken to affiliated shrines at new locations.

Evidence that people made healing pilgrimages to Stonehenge also comes from human remains found in the area, most spectacularly from the richest Neolithic grave ever found in the British Isles. It belonged to the “Amesbury Archer”—a man between 35 and 45 years old who was buried about five miles from Stonehenge between 2400 and 2200 B.C. with nearly 100 possessions, including an impressive collection of flint arrowheads, copper knives and gold earrings.

The bones of the Amesbury Archer tell a story of a sick, injured traveler coming to Stonehenge from as far away as the Swiss or German Alps. The Archer’s kneecap was infected and he suffered from an abscessed tooth so nasty that it had destroyed part of his jawbone. He would have been desperate for relief, says Wessex Archaeology’s Jacqueline McKinley.

Just 15 feet from where the Amesbury Archer was buried, archaeologists discovered another set of human remains, these of a younger man perhaps 20 to 25 years old. Bone abnormalities shared by both men suggest they could have been related —a father aided by his son, perhaps. Had they come to Stonehenge together in search of its healing powers?

Remarkably, although Stonehenge is one of the most famous monuments in the world, definitive data about it are scarce. In part, this is because of the reluctance of English Heritage, the site’s custodian, to permit excavations. Current chronologies are based largely on excavations done in the 1920s, buttressed by work done in the ’50s and ’60s. “But none of these excavations were particularly well recorded,” says Mike Pitts, editor of British Archaeology and one of the few people to have led excavations at Stonehenge in recent decades. “We are still unsure of the detail of the chronology and nature of the various structures that once stood on the site.”

To strengthen their case for Stonehenge as a prehistoric Lourdes, Darvill and Wainwright needed to establish that chronology with greater certainty. Had the bluestones been erected by the time the Amesbury Archer made his pilgrimage to the megaliths? Establishing the timing of Stonehenge’s construction could also shed light on what made this site so special: with so many henges across Britain, why was this one chosen to receive the benedictions of the bluestones? Such questions could be answered only by an excavation within Stonehenge itself.

Darvill and Wainwright were well placed for such a project. Wainwright had been English Heritage’s chief archaeologist for several years. In 2005, Darvill had worked with the organization on a plan for research at the monument— “Stonehenge World Heritage Site: An Archaeological Research Framework”—which made the case for small-scale, targeted excavations. Following these guidelines, Darvill and Wainwright requested official permission for the archaeological equivalent of keyhole surgery in order to study part of the first bluestone setting on the site.

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.”

Not everyone buys into the healing stone theory. “I think the survey work [Darvill and Wainwright are] doing in the Preseli hills is great, and I’m very much looking forward to the full publication of what they’ve found there,” says Mike Pitts. “However, the idea that there is a prehistoric connection between the healing properties of bluestones and Stonehenge as a place of healing does nothing for me at all. As far as I’m concerned, it’s a fairy story.” Pitts also wants to see more evidence that people suffering from injuries and illness visited Stonehenge. “There are actually very few—you can count them on one hand—human remains around and contemporary with Stonehenge that haven’t been cremated so that you could see what injuries or illnesses they might have suffered from,” he says. “For long periods in the Neolithic we have a dearth of human remains of any kind.”

For his part, Wainwright believes that no theory will ever be fully accepted, no matter how convincing the evidence. “I think what most people like about Stonehenge is that nobody really knows why it was built, and I think that’s probably always going to be the case,” he says. “It’s a bloody great mystery.”


Single Page 1 2 3 4 Next »

    Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.



Additional Sources

Stonehenge and Neighbouring Monuments by R. Atkinson, English Heritage, 1990


 

Add New Comment


Name: (required)

Email: (required)

Comment:

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until Smithsonian.com has approved them. Smithsonian reserves the right not to post any comments that are unlawful, threatening, offensive, defamatory, invasive of a person's privacy, inappropriate, confidential or proprietary, political messages, product endorsements, or other content that might otherwise violate any laws or policies.

Comments (41)

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

I am an Art student, I like to see more of your history in Archaoelogy.

Posted by Samia Karam Daou on September 3,2010 | 01:46 PM

Seeing Stonehenge on Fox News this AM. It stikes me to be some way of telling "Time". The way it is placed, and following the shadows from the North Star.
Just a thought.

Posted by Debbie on July 23,2010 | 10:20 AM

If you actually look at the layout of stonehenge, it really looks like the world, the crust, the core, etc. Especially with the stones for north and south - almost like a representation of the north and south poles.

Posted by Douglas Atherton on January 28,2010 | 06:05 PM

It is a nice piece of information with great and deep thoughts.

Posted by Eliza on February 10,2009 | 12:16 AM

I am afraid I find this theory rather hard to swallow. Healing MAY have played SOME part of the rites at this ancient temple (people always have asked their gods for healing) but I cannot see ANY real evidence pointing in this direction, other than the medieval legend of Merlin the Wizard. The fact there are people buried in the area with injuries tells us nothing. Injuries of this kind are common in ALL ancient cemetaries across Britain--it was a hard life back then,easy to damage and hard to heal properly.If Stonehenge was a healing shrine it didn't do much good, as the henge itself contains the cremated remains of over 200 people, and the fields around are full of burial mounds! In the BBC timewatch special about this theory, they kept referring to the Amesbury Archer as having fallen from a horse. there's no evidence they were riding horses in Britain at that time,for one thing. Also, they mentioned bluestone in his grave--that's the first i've heard of it (and it's not in the exhibition containing his skeleton/grave goods.) There was also an error regarding his younger companion, stating that he too was born in the Alps--he wasn't,he was British born.These errors show some sloppy research. The funniest bit,though, was when they displayed the skull of a deformed woman and reverently stated, 'people like this often became healers!' Uhh, maybe sometimes, but sometimes the 'different ones' also became scapegoats and even sacrifices (ie in the dwarf woman and the malnourished woman interred in the ditches of Avebury and marden henges.) to suggest she was a healer because of her head was just barmy!

Posted by trilithon on January 27,2009 | 02:40 PM

Darvill and Wainright's hypothesis is built on the shakey foundation of human transport of the bluestones for S.W. Wales. There is a considerable body of geologic evidence to suggest that they were glacial erratics transported to S.W. England. The case is stated in an article published in January 2009:

http://www.earthmagazine.org/earth/article/1a1-7d8-c-1f

Darvill and Wainright are practicing sloppy science by not at least considering possibility. The sacred spring and stones notion has no factual basis in Pembrokeshire.

Posted by Lionel Jackson on January 5,2009 | 01:15 PM

Great article. I was particularly interested in the challenge of transporting these huge boulders from Wales. Does anyone have a reference to more detailed information about how they moved these monsters? Logs, yes. Rafts, yes. Anymore?

Posted by Douglas Sprague on November 29,2008 | 10:44 AM

Re: "Pitts also wants to see more evidence that people suffering from injuries and illness visited Stonehenge." Perhaps Mike Pitts should consider that this was a very successful healing center! That would mean that there aren't going to be any evidentiary remains because everyone got healed and went back to their homes. There would only be "evidence" if the people didn't get healed. Face it, Stonehenge is a very special place on this earth and has been for millenium, so lack of "evidence" isn't going to change that.

Posted by drhooper on November 18,2008 | 12:08 PM

WAS AN EXCITING TO READ ABOUT STONEHENGE,HOWEVER, IT DIDN'T EXPLAIN THE MYSTERY ANY MORE THAN PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED DIGS AT THE SITE...WHAT DO PRESENT DAY DURIDS THINK PURPOSE WAS? POSSIBLEY A SECRET ORAL TRADION EXISTS?

Posted by JUNE E. WATKINS on November 16,2008 | 02:53 AM

"We need some scientific studies into the healing properties of colours." I can think of nothing more profoundly in need of study than the healing properties of colours. I am astounded by the depth of your scholarship in determining the ancients used blue to promote healing. Gaia took as her husband Uranus, who was also her son (source: http://www.pantheon.org/articles/g/gaia.html) - this is the Gaia of which we speak?

Posted by wjoconnor on November 16,2008 | 12:21 PM

We need some scientific studies into the healing properties of colours. Blue, for example, depending on its shade, profoundly affects mood and I use it to enhance deep feelings of warmth, safety, and peace. No one can doubt that mood affects health so the ancients probably used blue to promote healing. I believe Gaia is alive and there are many places all over Gaia that are power centres of one kind or another. Some feel welcoming and quite a few do not. Some promote healing while others promote fear. Can the powers of a healing place be augmented by the presence of bluestones?

Posted by Masonblue on November 11,2008 | 12:27 PM

it's awesome!!! i learned much..

Posted by camille on November 11,2008 | 07:30 AM

If you are interested in the design of Stonehenge see: http://www.solvingstonehenge.com

Posted by digger on November 4,2008 | 05:42 AM

I think that instead of trying to figure out how these old structures have lasted as long as they have, we should be more interested in building a building or bridge that lasts longer than 30 years.It will be sad to see what future generations think about our moment in time.As another person asked,"who is more intelligent,early humans or us?" The way we are going, distant generations will hardly be able to see any signs of intelligence from our time spent on the planet.

Posted by susan on October 22,2008 | 11:04 AM

I think it's important to avoid monothesisism and stop trying to find the "one true answer" to our questions. Stonehenge was probably many things to many people over the course of its thousands of years. Start thinking "both/and" instead of "either/or."

Posted by Isaac Bonewits on October 13,2008 | 10:49 PM

Some think that we are so smart now. Others think that we are very stupid. For example, people getting mortgages that they had no hope of being able to pay and people lending them the money when they knew or should have known that it would not be repaid. The ancients were smart-and industrious also. At least, some of them were. Have humans evolved for the better since 40,000 years ago? Are we behaving any better than they were 1200 years ago (or whenever it was) when Moses was alleged to go up on Mount Sinai?

Posted by Donald W. Bales on October 11,2008 | 05:59 PM

This is one of the most interesting and ancient artifacts that holds ones interest over eons of time. I never lose interest and I have been reading about Stonehenge for over 65 years. I believe if they keep working on the ancient history of Stonehenge. They will come up with very viable answers about the why's and the wherefors and the reasoning behind Stonehenge. Keep up the good work and keep studying. We do need more answers. Thanks for the studies.

Posted by Ron Hale on October 5,2008 | 11:58 PM

I challenge archaeologists everywhere: Now investigate the megalithic structures in New England. They are likely almost as old as Stonehenge, of similar derivation and purpose, and were NOT built by Native Americans. They are patently of European (most likely Celtic) origin. The sole reason that the scentific community still refuses to do archaeological research on them is because, by and large, it is truly afraid of what it will find. Columbus was, indeed, far from first.

Posted by William on October 4,2008 | 12:27 AM

I disagree with hoping that they find out how it was built. If we do find out, it won't be such a mystery and won't seem as fascinating.

Posted by Michelle on October 4,2008 | 06:40 PM

My family recently visited Stonehenge and it really was a great experience. We had a beautiful July day with picture-perfect clouds. After we went around the site once, dark clouds moved in only over stonehenge and made for some spooky photos. Well worth the trip, if you ever get the chance.

Posted by Ed on October 4,2008 | 04:52 PM

After reading the article, I immediately called my son, who has visited Stonehenge and told him of the article. Then pulled it up on the internet -BUT the "stones" I enjoyed the most, was the Bernini article and then the Getty presentation. Love Bernini! Retired art teacher but still active artist, Sue Davis

Posted by Sue Davis on October 4,2008 | 02:34 PM

i Think it worked, thats why not a lot of bodies where found...they survived... silver nitrate is known to fight off infections, maybe that blue stone olds some similar properties

Posted by joel cabana on October 4,2008 | 02:06 PM

Buildings are made of from 3 elements...Wood (Timber), Stone and sand... For decades it is stiil there standing (the stone edge)... and there are no more woods left...maybe lost...burnt or etc... For me..its just a structure of a building..which are left is only stone structure... why do the scientist consider it as a castle..where the wooden structure is already destroy and what is left is only the stone, which is a hard piece of the "CASTLE STRUCTURE"...maybe not a castle..but a sacred temple...or etc... nh

Posted by Merlin on October 4,2008 | 01:32 PM

What a fascinating article. I am wondering if the stones themselves could have been used for medicinal purposes. Perhaps the fragments that Barbara referred to from the CNN article could have been crushed or dissolved and ingested. I know that dolemite is even today sold for it's magneseum and calcium content to be taken as supplements, not that this is recommended considering the possible lead exposure.

Posted by lisa on October 3,2008 | 03:39 PM

The article kept me glued to my monitor. As for Mr. Pitts, his skepticism is interesting since one would not expect to find a large number of skeleton remains if, in fact those who came to Stonehenge were healed and left. Mr. Pitts, they didn't need to bury those who became well again. They went back to their homes.

Posted by Ron on October 2,2008 | 04:33 PM

It is important for the public to realize that the use of lithics for healing is universal primordeal wisdom, there is considerable evidence to substanciate this. But it is also important to know that as archaeologists we provide plausible arguement, we can never totally prove, it just isn't possible to be so exact with so little information and such a momentous era of change! Anyone who has held Bluestone will be aware of the energy it imparts, it has a noticable vibration.

Posted by Allison Beldon-Smith ( MA) on September 26,2008 | 06:46 PM

I hope that they get to the bottom of the Stonehenge mystery because that's what researchers are trained for and it would be so interesting just to know. It would still be a great monument to history. Nothing would take that away.

Posted by Lise on September 25,2008 | 09:52 PM

I have to agree with Wainwright at the end of the article- the most wonderful thing about Stonehenge is the mystery. the 'how's and why's' keep everyone wondering and without this sense of awe, the site might have gone out of existence long ago. We then would know nothing of our past. I love these articles where the answer to one question begets another 30 questions which may never be answered. Thank you! wonderful pics too...

Posted by Kristin on September 24,2008 | 02:59 PM

The CNN article states, "As evidence, Darvill said his dig had uncovered masses of fragments carved out of the bluestones by people to create amulets. Any rock carried around in such a way would have had some sort of protective or healing property, he said. He said that theory was backed by burials in southwest England where the stones were interred with their owners." I am curious if there are any documented cases of of stones interred in graves in places even further away. Is anyone looking into this?

Posted by Barbara on September 23,2008 | 09:43 AM

Great article Dan!

Posted by Asher on September 22,2008 | 03:29 PM

What I think is that the graves and injured skeletons and people from all over are from the fact that you needed a massive workforce to move this stone, and it was such hard work that tons died, injured themselves, or got sick. The Henge itself is an alien landing pad. The surgery / medical practices were actually aliens teaching such practices to the humans. j/k ofc, but hey, it could happen.

Posted by Jay on September 22,2008 | 03:27 PM



Advertisement


On Smithsonian Channel


Stonehenge Deciphered

For the first time in nearly half a century a new archaeological dig was permitted inside the sacred circle at Stonehenge and Smithsonian Channel cameras were there to capture it every step of the way. Watch "Stonehenge Deciphered" to see what was unearthed and hear the startling new theories two scientists have set out to prove.

Advertisement

Follow Us





First Name
Last Name
Address 1
Address 2
City
State   Zip
Email


Travel with Smithsonian




Smithsonian Store