Ronald Hutton: Comprehending Stonehenge
[Ronald Hutton is Professor of History at the University of Bristol. His recent books include Debates in Stuart History, 2004, and The Druids: A history, published last year.]
Why is Stonehenge the most famous prehistoric monument in the world? A large part of the answer lies in the domination of modernity by Western nations, and the supremacy of Britain among them, both in military and economic terms, as that modernity was being developed. In that sense Stonehenge was simply the top antiquity of the top nation at a critical moment in history. Situation helped its fame, as it is set in the heartland of the realm. Indeed, for almost 200 years it has been right next to the London-to-Exeter highway, a position which is now its greatest liability as the stranglehold of main roads around it has so far prevented any redevelopment of the site to make it more attractive and appropriate for visitors. Just as important, however, has been the fact that Stonehenge simply looks like nothing else: no other ancient structure in Europe has its trademark form, of a freestanding pattern of door-jamb-and-lintel settings composed of megaliths. It is clearly the work of human hands, but has an unusually primordial and organic appearance, of mighty boulders smoothed, shaped and fitted together in such a way as to enhance their natural power as well as to create a building. As such, it has attracted curiosity and admiration ever since the twelfth century, and probably for much longer.
Since 1900, archaeology has made one considerable contribution to an understanding of Stonehenge: to establish firmly that it was a creation of the late Neolithic. The stones that we see now were mostly erected in a series of still hazily understood phases between about 2600 and 2000 bce, within a much older earthwork that once probably contained a timber circle. Other than that, we are still left with a conclusion which can be surmised without the aid of excavation: that it was the work of a bunch of reckless, megalomaniac, elitist carpenters. They were clearly carpenters because they worked stone with techniques much more appropriate to wood, such as mortise-and-tenon joints. They were megalomaniac to have tried that at all, and even more so in their choice of stone. It is very rare to find a prehistoric monument in Britain made of large stones that were obtained from more than five miles away. The huge sandstone uprights and lintels of Stonehenge were dragged about twenty miles, while the smaller but still substantial blocks called the Altar Stone and the bluestones were obtained from more than a hundred miles further than that; as the crow flies and not as the person tugs, paddles and sails. Such an enterprise is unique in the British prehistoric record, and may be in Europe. To do all this argues for recklessness in itself, but in addition the plan pushed at the very limits of the possible, and perhaps beyond them. For the biggest three-stone setting, the Great Trilithon, no second upright could be found large enough for the design. In the end a shorter one was used with a sideways bulge at the bottom end, in the hope that this would anchor it. It did not, and the huge arch fell and broke, although it may have taken millennia to do so. It is not even absolutely certain that the monument was finished; definite proof seems still to be lacking that the arc of stones in the outer ring that is missing today was ever completely there. The makers may simply have run out of materials, or willpower, or else had some reason for leaving the structure open on one side. Finally, they were elitist because, unlike the hundreds of other stone circles of Neolithic Britain, Stonehenge was constructed as a series of screens, to conceal the activities of what could only have been a relatively small number of people (or deities or spirits) in the centre.
Beyond that, all is speculation. ...
Read entire article at Times (UK)
Why is Stonehenge the most famous prehistoric monument in the world? A large part of the answer lies in the domination of modernity by Western nations, and the supremacy of Britain among them, both in military and economic terms, as that modernity was being developed. In that sense Stonehenge was simply the top antiquity of the top nation at a critical moment in history. Situation helped its fame, as it is set in the heartland of the realm. Indeed, for almost 200 years it has been right next to the London-to-Exeter highway, a position which is now its greatest liability as the stranglehold of main roads around it has so far prevented any redevelopment of the site to make it more attractive and appropriate for visitors. Just as important, however, has been the fact that Stonehenge simply looks like nothing else: no other ancient structure in Europe has its trademark form, of a freestanding pattern of door-jamb-and-lintel settings composed of megaliths. It is clearly the work of human hands, but has an unusually primordial and organic appearance, of mighty boulders smoothed, shaped and fitted together in such a way as to enhance their natural power as well as to create a building. As such, it has attracted curiosity and admiration ever since the twelfth century, and probably for much longer.
Since 1900, archaeology has made one considerable contribution to an understanding of Stonehenge: to establish firmly that it was a creation of the late Neolithic. The stones that we see now were mostly erected in a series of still hazily understood phases between about 2600 and 2000 bce, within a much older earthwork that once probably contained a timber circle. Other than that, we are still left with a conclusion which can be surmised without the aid of excavation: that it was the work of a bunch of reckless, megalomaniac, elitist carpenters. They were clearly carpenters because they worked stone with techniques much more appropriate to wood, such as mortise-and-tenon joints. They were megalomaniac to have tried that at all, and even more so in their choice of stone. It is very rare to find a prehistoric monument in Britain made of large stones that were obtained from more than five miles away. The huge sandstone uprights and lintels of Stonehenge were dragged about twenty miles, while the smaller but still substantial blocks called the Altar Stone and the bluestones were obtained from more than a hundred miles further than that; as the crow flies and not as the person tugs, paddles and sails. Such an enterprise is unique in the British prehistoric record, and may be in Europe. To do all this argues for recklessness in itself, but in addition the plan pushed at the very limits of the possible, and perhaps beyond them. For the biggest three-stone setting, the Great Trilithon, no second upright could be found large enough for the design. In the end a shorter one was used with a sideways bulge at the bottom end, in the hope that this would anchor it. It did not, and the huge arch fell and broke, although it may have taken millennia to do so. It is not even absolutely certain that the monument was finished; definite proof seems still to be lacking that the arc of stones in the outer ring that is missing today was ever completely there. The makers may simply have run out of materials, or willpower, or else had some reason for leaving the structure open on one side. Finally, they were elitist because, unlike the hundreds of other stone circles of Neolithic Britain, Stonehenge was constructed as a series of screens, to conceal the activities of what could only have been a relatively small number of people (or deities or spirits) in the centre.
Beyond that, all is speculation. ...