Romancing the Stones
Who built the great megaliths and stone circles of Great Britain, and why? Researchers continue to puzzle and marvel over these age-old questions
- By David Roberts
- Smithsonian.com, July 01, 2002, Subscribe
Steady rain fell diagonally, driven by a raw wind out of the north, and I narrowed the hood of my parka. With neither tent nor bag, I faced an unpleasant night on southern England's Salisbury Plain. At least my vigil would not be solitary. Around me a boisterous crowd of some 7,000 was camped on the turf at Stonehenge, the enigmatic circle of towering sandstone slabs capped with heavy lintels, whose origins lie in the Neolithic age, some 5,000 years ago. "The most celebrated prehistoric monument in the world," the distinguished archaeologist Sir Colin Renfrew called Stonehenge.
In 2000, fifteen years after the British government closed it to large groups of revelers—following desecration of the site and the death by drug overdose of a young woman in 1984—Stonehenge was reopened to groups, and a long tradition of celebrating the summer solstice resumed. Now, as I huddled in my foulweather gear, I observed an odd assortment— neo-hippies, self-styled latter-day Druids in white cloaks, Goths in black, New Agers of all persuasions, tattooed bikers, drunken "brew crew" louts of the sort that have given English football a bad name, along with suburban-looking families with young kids, and elderly couples. For hours, people played drums, zithers, horns and didgeridoos; hugged the stones, eyes shut in beatific trance; kissed each other as they stood inside the trilithons (as the assemblies of uprights and lintels are called); and danced upon the recumbent boulders. There were drugs, drink and a little nudity, but came a bleak, misty dawn and not one person had been arrested. The celebrants had even picked up their trash.
No matter how much mumbo jumbo gets projected onto Stonehenge, the intensity of the feelings of my fellow campers testifies to the enduring power the austere stone ring exerts upon human souls. Currently, a million visitors a year walk the designated path just outside the stone circle, marveling at the trilithons. Despite a century of serious archaeology, we still have only the foggiest ideas about why and how Stonehenge was built.
From Caesar's invasion of the British Isles in 54 b.c., which brought literacy to the country, until the 1130s a.d., Stonehenge went strangely unmentioned in the written record. Yet when Geoffrey of Monmouth set down his pioneering History of the Kings of Britain around 1136, he purported to know exactly how the stone circle had come into being. It first had stood "in the remotest confines of Africa," he wrote, "until a race of whimsical Giants transplanted it to MountKillaraus in Ireland." Then, in a.d. 480, the stones were moved to England.
Over the centuries since, British commentators have attributed the monument variously to Romans, Danes, Phoenicians, Druids, or the denizens of Atlantis—just about everyone but the native Brits themselves. As late as 1960, Richard Atkinson, then the leading expert on Stonehenge, argued passionately that a Mycenaean or Minoan architect must have directed native builders. And in 1966, Gerald Hawkins argued in Stonehenge Decoded that the megaliths made up a sophisticated observatory in which the stones served to record solstices and equinoxes and even to predict lunar eclipses. The book was hugely popular, but Hawkins' conclusions have been largely debunked.
Exactly how people with neither metal nor the wheel were capable of quarrying, dressing, transporting and erecting huge stones has been the subject of intense debate for centuries— though an experimental archaeology project in 1994 proved that, with a deft use of sledges, rails, ropes, ramps, pivot blocks and "tilting stones," as few as 100 people would have been needed to move and raise the 40-ton Stonehenge uprights.
For all its inscrutable majesty, it would be a mistake to view Stonehenge as one of a kind—an anomalous temple incomprehensibly erected on a treeless heath in the middle of nowhere. All over Western Europe, Neolithic (roughly 4000 to 2000 b.c.) builders constructed startlingly sophisticated monuments: not only stone circles but huge earthworks containing chambered tombs for the dead. Across Britain alone, there are some tens of thousands of ancient sites, each of which has it own unique stamp, its own idiosyncratic mysteries.
Twenty miles north of Stonehenge stands a monument every bit as enigmatic as its more famous rival, and because of its size, possibly more important. Avebury, which dates from about 2600 to 2400 b.c., does not strike the eye at first glance, as Stonehenge does. A town that first sprang up around a.d. 600 sprawls on top of it, and a paved road cuts through it.
Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.









Comments (3)
I was very excited by the braided honeysuckle rope find. However... "...the first evidence of tool use ever found in Britain." This statement is simply not true. The use and manufacturing of tools is well represented in British prehistory and goes back about 500,000 years. The upper paleolithic Creswellian Industry is one example. The flint mines of Grimes Graves were in use from about 3000 BC to 1900 BC -- the cited Seahenge example from the article falls near the end of its usage. Perhaps what was meant was 'metal' tool use, but that certainly wasn't what was written. Also, state-of-theart should read state-of-the-art and WiltshireCounty should be Wiltshire County.
Posted by SA on October 20,2012 | 05:44 PM
"Exactly how people with neither metal nor the wheel were capable of quarrying"
From "The early British Tin Industry, Chapter 2: Tinworking from prehistory until 1066"
p15: "Detailed electron probe analysis of European bronzes has led Northover to suggest that 'the number of metal sources was very limited, and there was often only one' "... " For the early bronze age, Northover has noted that tin bronzes were probably exclusively produced in Britain from South-Western cassiterite."
p14 "By contrast, on Dartmoor and to a lesser extent on Fowelymore there was no systematic reworking of the earlier steamworks and as a result, the artefacts were not exposed. On a positive note, this probably means that the evidence for early activity still remains on these moors."
So metal, and particulalry tin, appear to have been available to the neolithic peoples of this region at the time it was built.
For a new technically based theorum on Stonehenge see http://www.heavenshenge.com
Posted by Tans on November 21,2011 | 03:59 AM
I found this article very fascinating. i am 45yrs old now and i remember the timbers at holme-next-sea beieng exposed yrs ago when i was a child of before my teens. So the expert David Miles sat behind his desk who probably has never visited Holme, opinion counts for nothing! yours C Lee
Posted by C Lee on May 21,2008 | 03:52 PM