When Was Stonehenge Erected?





Until comparatively recent years, the date of Stonehenge was a subject

for speculation, and so fascinating did it prove that it attracted the

attention of a vast number of minor authorities, who in the face of no

definite data on which to base their theses, set the date of

Stonehenge at almost any period except that to which it has been

proved to belong.



Many decided definitely that it was of Roman origin. For the most

part, these speculations have not been based upon the tangible

evidence of the Stones, the Tools, and the Barrows, but rather upon

the records of early historians, whose evidence in those days was

probably not a question of first-hand information.



After all, the objects actually exhumed from the foundations of the

Stones, must of necessity be the evidence of greatest importance. What

are these objects? The following is a complete list taken from Mr.

Gowland's report.



Excavation I. (Seven feet deep.)--A Roman coin of Commodus and a

penny of George III. at eight inches below the turf.



A flint hammer-stone, and a splinter of deer's horn embedded in the

chalk, at a depth of two and a half feet (below datum line).



Excavation II. (Eight feet deep.)--Two, edged hammer-stones of

flint, and two rounded ones of the same material, at a depth of three

feet (below datum).



Excavation III. (Eight feet three inches.)--A halfpenny of George

I., just below the turf.



A Roman coin (sestertius of Antonia) ten inches below the turf, and a

pewter farthing of James II. at the same depth.



Below this, at a depth varying from two feet to four feet, were

twenty-six axes and hammer-stones of flint, two hammer-stones of

Sarsen, and a large maul of the same material weighing over sixty-four

pounds.



A fourth excavation, known as Excavation Q, yielded at a depth of

three feet six inches to four feet six inches, ten flint axes, one

sandstone axe, nine edged flint hammer-stones, four rounded flint

hammer-stones, ten Sarsen hammers, and seven mauls, weighing from

thirty-six to fifty-eight and a half pounds. Large numbers of deer's

horn splinters were discovered in this excavation.



Excavation V. (Eight feet deep.)--Four axes of flint, one of Sarsen,

three edged hammer-stones of flint, one Sarsen and one Diabase

hammer-stone, were found at depths varying between two feet and four

feet.



One Sarsen hammer-stone was found under the base of the foreign

upright, which stands in front of the upright monolith of the Great

Trilithon, at a depth of six feet below datum.



In this last excavation, at a depth of about seven feet, the slab of

tooled Sarsen already referred to was discovered, and on it a very

small stain of copper carbonate. The depth at which this stone was

discovered precludes the possibility of metal being thus sunk by moles

or rabbits.



This list, like the details of the foreign stones, may not be of

general interest, but it affords a very powerful argument for the date

of the structure.



To summarise the finds. The metal objects found consist of various

coins ranging from Roman to recent times, about half a dozen in

number, all coming from the surface, and none at a greater depth than

ten inches. In other words, they may be classed as superficial

finds, of very little value; the more so, as some of the more recent

coins were found at a greater depth than those of earlier date. The

only other trace of metal is the small green stain upon the slab of

Sarsen already alluded to. This stain can only have been caused by the

contact with the stone of a small fragment of copper, which appears to

have been entirely decomposed, as no traces of it could be found. It

must have been very minute, since had it exceeded one-eighth of an

inch, it could not have escaped the mesh of the sieve employed in

searching for it. Clearly, therefore, it could not have been an

implement; perhaps it was an ornament.



On the other hand, the Stone Implements discovered number one hundred

and fifteen, and were found scattered through the excavations at all

depths, and even under the foundations of one of the foreign stones.



Probably the entire area of Stonehenge, if opened up, would yield over

seven thousand examples.



The evidence of the Stone Implements goes far to give the date of the

building. Horn picks similar to those employed at Stonehenge have been

found in considerable numbers at Grimes Graves, where they were used

for excavating chalk in order to win flint for implement making. Other

picks have been found at Cissbury, near Worthing, where similar chalk

workings existed. This resemblance between the finds at Stonehenge,

Cissbury, and Grimes Graves, does not, however, end with the picks; it

is repeated in the similarity of the Implements of Stone, those at

Stonehenge being in some cases the counterpart of those found in the

other localities.



The Cissbury Implements have been assigned to the Stone Age, or at

any rate to the Age of Flint manufacture by General Pitt Rivers, who

discovered and reported upon them. Canon Greenwell describes the

Implements from Grimes Graves as belonging to a period when both

metal and stone were in use.



It is obvious, therefore, that the similarity between the tools used

in the construction of Stonehenge, and those used in other parts of

England for similar purposes, and definitely assigned to their period

in the history of Man, demonstrates very clearly that the date of the

building of Stonehenge may fairly be placed at a time when the use of

stone was continuous with a partial use of bronze; and that if

Stonehenge is not a Neolithic structure, it must certainly belong to

the Early Bronze period. It might be urged that the roughness of the

Tools, coupled with the marked absence of bronze, indicates an even

earlier period than that already stated, but it must be remembered

that the form of the implement is not always a criterion of its age.

Moreover, bronze tools were not necessary for the dressing of the

Stones, though had they been plentiful, it is more than probable that

some might have been either lost or dropped during the work, and would

have come to light during the excavations.



Yet another sidelight upon the date of Stonehenge is to be found in

the presence of chippings of foreign stone found inside some of the

neighbouring Bronze Age barrows, which prove conclusively that the

barrows must have been built at a date later than the erection of

Stonehenge.



To many people, the mention of a period of culture, such as the Early

Bronze Age, may not convey very much. To give a date in years, on the

other hand, is not always easy. The march of culture in those days was

slow, and the gradation from the use of one material to another very

prolonged, often reaching into centuries. Consequently any date must

only be approximate and given under great reserve. The late Sir John

Evans has suggested that the Bronze Age in this country might be set

at 1400 B.C. Continental authorities set the age for countries in

Europe somewhat earlier, at about 2000 B.C. This is a perfectly

natural conclusion, for it is an ascertained fact that the flow of

civilisation was from East to West, as has always been the case, and

that, therefore, it is only to be expected that the Bronze Age of the

Continent would ante-date that of England by some centuries.



But, it is obvious from our present knowledge of Stonehenge that the

Bronze Age was hardly established in the sense as used by Sir John

Evans. Probably at the time of the building of Stonehenge bronze was

only known as a rare substance, whose very scarcity would make it

valuable as material for ornaments. It would not, therefore, be

inconsistent with existing evidence to set the date of Stonehenge

roughly at from 1700-1800 years B.C.





What Was Stonehenge? Dressing The Stones facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Feedback