1. Preamble1
Stonehenge (fig. 1),
one of the most famous megalithic sites, still appears, though many
studies have been devoted to its understanding, as an outstanding
monument. Long considered a "solar Temple", which opened
the door to all kinds of cosmological theories, the most recent
studies emphasize its role as a place for burial, a role which
appears in a
variety of
similar structures in this area. In fact, the originality of
Stonehenge is mainly due to the monumental stone construction made of
gigantic blocks assembled as "trilithons" in the central
part, and as a continuous colonnade forming a ring whose diameter is
about 30 meters.
2. This
word derives from Saracen,
which originally means “from pagan origin”, and has no scientific
ground.
2. A
Short description
2.a.
Lithic remains
For both
the graphic and written description of this phase of the monument,
one should refer to the results of the work of archaeologist Richard
JC Atkinson, who conducted the most comprehensive and serious study
of the whole site, between 1950 and 19643. For the central part, the
most accurate plan, reproduced here (fig.
2), was published by Anthony Johnson
in 2008. The numbering of artefacts, especially the stones, was
established by Petrie in 1880 and allows to identify the elements of
the site. Of course, many additional studies and excavations have
been undertaken since the work of Atkinson, and they have completed,
or sometimes have even changed, the interpretation of the site4.
3. R..J.C.
Atkinson, Stonehenge, Hamish Hamilton, 1956. 225 annotated
photographs tracing the research, excavations and restoration work
carried out since 1901, including those conducted by Atkinson can be
seen on the Website of English Heritage.
4. Among
other recent works, research carried out by Professor Mike Parker
Pearson, from the Department of Archaeology at the University of
Sheffield is of particular significance.
The
monument itself is part of a series of prehistoric sites located
about ten kilometers north of the city of Salisbury in the
County
of Wiltshire. The most outstanding part of Stonehenge consists of
seventy-five huge stones forming two distinct groups. Five
units are found in the centre,
each having three stones (trilithons), are placed in an elongated
pentagonal figure, facing north-east. On the outskirts a "colonnade"
with sixty units: thirty pillars and thirty lintels forming a perfect
circle placed about 4.10 m high.
This
phase of construction, the best known because of its unique
appearance and the problems its interpretation and construction
poses, is called "Stonehenge IIIa,” by Atkinson, meaning
2000-1700. However, according to sources or authors, dates vary quite
widely, between 2600 and 1500 BC. This is a fairly wide span of
time
within which it is difficult to have a specific milestone. Basing
himself on a radiocarbon dating Mike Parker Pearson has recently
located the phase of the sarsen to 2600-2100 BC5.
5. Parker-Pearson
and others, "The Age of Stonehenge ', Antiquity, 81 (313). pp.
617-639. The issue of various dating will be enlarged upon
below.
Let
me only mention the other smaller stones, from more distant origin6,
which form two complementary figures: a circle of fifty-seven stones
around trilithons, and a figure of nineteen stones shaped like
a horseshoe
among these trilithons. The outer circle was built
with re-used stones7. These two groups, later
than sarsen in their present position,
are not part
of the reasoning developed here. Even if their presence is
definitely
important in the spacial device, they do not interfere with
observations that relate to sarsen. Above all, as they do not show up
in their original state, their interpretation is more complex.
6. It
would seem that these stones come from Pembrokeshire, a County
south-west of Wales.
7. At
least two blocks are lintels that belonged in a first phase to a
trilithon-type structure in bluestone. Atkinson thinks he has found
the location of the stones in their first state (op. cit. P48-49),
prior to the erection of the sarsen.
This monumental circular stone setting itself fits into a broader composition marked by ground movements: an irregular ditch lined on the inside by a circular bank that is more polished (320 feet - or 97.5 meters8 – in diameter), a series of fifty-six holes (called Aubrey holes9) drawing a circle of 88 m in diameter, most of which were occupied by cremation burial places. The original destination of these holes is uncertain. Then, still close to the outside circle of the monument, more than fifty other graves whose position has not always correctly been identified by the first excavators10.
8. I foot = 30,48 cm
9. Named
after a 17th-century antiquarian who first reported the existence of
these holes.
10. R.J.C.
Atkinson, Stonehenge, p. 13-14.
Fig. 4 a and b –
Bird's
eye views (a. from the north-east; b. from the north-west with
numbering blocks).
2.b.
The peripheral ring of stones
This
is a set of thirty upright stones (which I will call "pillars"
here) which are placed on a circle of 29.70 meters (108 feet) in
diameter inside, with the same number of "lintels"11. The
pillars, spaced
from each other by 3.11 metres center to center, and 4.10 m high,
were numbered clockwise, from 1 to 30 starting from the axis of the
so-called "avenue" that is oriented north-east. The lintels
are numbered 101 to 130, number 101 being based on pillars 30 and
1. According to this system, it is easy to understand that lintel
127, for example, rested on pillars 26 and 27.
11. The
lintels ' width is quite regular (1 m or so), so the outside diameter
can be estimated to 30.70 m. This dimension does not apply to the
pillars below, whose rear face is irregular.
The
pillars - this
feature is immediately noticeable when looking at the pictures -
are very irregular in appearance and size, while the lintels are well
cut and regular.
Seventeen
pillars still stand in their original location. Only six lintels
still rest on the pillars: 130, 101, 102 form a continuous sequence,
105, 107 and 122 are isolated on their supports. If we consider the
stones in place or
the ones
fallen, the circle looks perfectly continuous and does not show,
which is strange if one accepts the idea of a monumental entrance in
this direction, any variation at the meeting of the axis of the
so-called avenue.
R.J.C.
Atkinson interpreted the slightly wider passage underneath lintel 101
(It
is 1
foot taller than the neighbouring openings) as an indication of an
axial entry into the circle of sarsen. The width of this passage
(1.23 m) is however smaller than those of other bays in the same
circle, for example between pillars 5 and 6 (1.32 m) or between
pillars 21 and 22 (1.66 m), both bays that no one thought of
as
being interpreted as an access. These changes are just due to the
great irregularity in the size of pillars.
2.c. The
central trilithons
In
the center, of the five initial trilithons three trilithons are still
standing (they are about 6 meters high), the fourth and the axial
trilithon, which is higher (7.3 m), are partly destroyed. Since
these trilithons are independent structures, the pillars are
completely erected above the lintel and the gap between the pillars
is very small.
The
state of the monument has changed since the first descriptions as
some stones have fallen12 while others were re-erected during
restoration work undertaken since 1905, but I will not insist on
those variations that do not interfere in the discussion below.
12. In
particular the axial trilithon, the largest (55+56+156), which
collapsed in 1620. Pillar 56, the largest upright stone in Britain,
was re-erected in 1901. The neighboring trilithon (57+58+158)
collapsed in 1797 but was restored by Atkinson in 1956.
Despite
the missing parts, the overall restitution of the monument in stone
seems clear: a central oblong horseshoe opening to the north-east
direction which corresponds to a monumental straight "avenue"
that is over 500 m long. This figure is enclosed in a continuous
circular portico.
.
3. Remarks
about stonework
This
article aims to provide an interpretation of the monument based on
material characteristics observed and reported since a long time, but
which, to my knowledge, have not been explained by the previous
scholars who studied the monument.
.
Fig. 5 a and b -
Well
dressed interior facings of the outer ring of sarsen.
.
The
"colonnade" in fact shows a curious feature: the lintels
are carved on all sides. The inner and outer facings are especially
prepared according to the geometry of vertical cylinders
corresponding to the rays inside and outside the circle. It is
different with the pillars : we can see that they are prepared only
on the side towards the inner structure of trilithons13. The other
vertical surfaces, that is to say, the two sides and rear, are quite
irregular, bearing some traces of cleaning, but most often in their
original state after having been extracted from the quarry (fig. 5 and 6).
The
pillars show very irregular widths, and the result is a complete lack
of homogeneity in the succession of pillars, which contrasts with the
regular
interior
facing where the vertical faces of the lintels and pillars are cut
perfectly straight in a concave manner, and perfectly fit the
regular shape of a cylinder.
In
any context of stone architecture of antiquity, the following
conclusion would have resulted from this simple observation: the
regular faces were meant to be viewed, and on the contrary the
roughly worked faces correspond to faces which remained invisible.
13. R.J.C.
Atkinson, Op. Cit., p. 23 : « In
every case the better (i.e. the flatter) of the two broad surfaces
has been set facing inwards. »
Fig. 6 a et b –
Contrast
between the treatment of external and internal surfaces: the example
of pillar 27.
.
Conversely,
to accept this difference in treatment for a monument which is
visible from such a distance causes some amazement all the more so
because of the chaotic appearance it gives the monument from the
outside. At the same time, why is it different for the crown of
lintel, which was however the most difficult part to get access to ?
The following lines aim at taking advantage of this fact - which in
itself is not new but has never been really explained - and see what
it implies for the restitution of monumental Stonehenge.
The
empty
spaces between the pillars are, as mentioned before, really variable,
depending on the width of these pillars. They vary around 1 m, more
precisely between 80 and 166 cm. These variations are incompatible
with the idea of a passage. There is a clear contradiction between
the supposed "monumental avenue" several hundred meters
long and the absence of any access device along its axis at the very
point of its contact with the stone circle. Besides one can only be
surprised that a structure whose internal surfaces have been
carefully dressed should on the contrary reveal rough
surfaces for the visitors who approach along what is
considered as a monumentalized “avenue”.
But
there is a construction technique which is attested in ancient times,
and already in megalithic monuments in the Western world. It consists
in structuring the walls by vertical blocks and then fill the voids
with stones that are more or less worked. A telling example of
this process is still visible in the dolmen called the "Fairies'
Cave", located in Brueil-en-Vexin near Paris (fig. 7) and in the covered
alley called Crec'h Quillé at Saint Quay Perros (fig. 8). These structures
with alternating upright big stones and filling are used, in this
funerary architecture of prehistoric megaliths, as retaining wall.
The best side is facing an open space designed in a hollow14. On the
contrary, the sides and back retain the embankment.
14. In
the two examples cited here, the upright stones were linked
horizontally by slabs covering the walkway and not by lintels like in
Stonehenge.
Fig. 7 –
« La Cave-aux-Fées », Brueil-en-Vexin (France)
Fig. 8 - Entrance to the covered walkway at Crech'h Quillé (Côtes d'Armor, France)
My
colleague Philippe Fraisse told me that this technique of filling in
gaps between vertical slabs of gneiss is still used in Greece in the
Cyclades, for instance in the islands of Tinos and Paros. As evidence
I produce two pictures here, pictures taken by him in 2011 that show
the amazing historical permanence of this ancestral technique.
Fig. 9 - Separation or terrace walls in Tinos, Cyclades, Greece
(photographs : Ph. Fraisse).
The
drawing reproduced here is arbitrary considering the size and shape
of the stones that provide the filling: the
flat stones were inspired by some of the examples discussed here. The
wall may have been covered with a rough coating which would ensure
the uniform appearance of this stone retaining wall palisade. This
coating, uniting the entire wall, would conceal irregularities
created by the width of pillars and would settle the issue raised by
pillar 11, whose much smaller dimensions have posed many problems for
commentators who were puzzled by its exceptional reduced size.
Fig. 10 - The stone structure of Stonehenge in its current state (left) and
restored (right) with a filling of rubble (probably covered with a
coating).
|
Notwithstanding
the careful work of internal facings, let us signal another feature
that clearly distinguishes the elaborately constructed trilithon from
former Stonehenge megalithic phases, namely the presence of a system
of mortise and tenon cut at the same time as the blocks, ensuring the
strength of horizontal and vertical assemblies15. This technique seems
to have been inherited from a wood technology, that is to be found in
Mycenae or in Lycia (Turkey), again as part of an architecture that
implements blocks of considerable size. This tradition continued
until the classical period (lower part of the monument of the Nereids
in Xanthos16).
15. Completed
by another type of assembly inspired by wood construction: horizontal
lintels show tongur-and-groove joins that allow the stones to block
each other.
16. P.
Demargne, Fouilles de Xanthos I, Les piliers funéraires, fig. 10, P.
Demargne and P. Coupel, Fouilles de Xanthos I II, Le Monument des
Néréides: architecture, Klincksieck, Paris, 1963, p. 34 and n. 6.
4. New
restoration proposal of Stonehenge
What
would
the monumental complex of Stonehenge look like in this case?
We
would have a large circular space bounded by a continuous wall
retaining a conical mound of earth whose
limit would be indicated by the slope perimeter of about 100 meters
in diameter which can still be seen on the ground. From the mound,
only the ring of stones formed by lintels and carefully prepared
because of its impact on the site would emerge and, in the central
space forming a circular enclosed courtyard, the tops of the central
trilithons. Incidentally the issue of how to obtain the regular
surfaces of the ring would no longer arise because instead of being
perched more than 4 meters high, it would be accessible at the top of
the mound.
Fig.
12 - Restored views of the Stonehenge mound : from far (a) and from
close (b).
.
Stonehenge,
in this case, would be part of the well known family and widely
developed type of burial mounds or tumuli,
here with an open central portion, because I rule out the idea,
despite the relatively short distances to cross between the
peripheral ring and the trilithons, of a device covering the central
circle. Not only is there no evidence to that effect, but such a
device would be difficult to design because of the lack of trilithon
in "front" of the central pentagon and also the increasing
height of the trilithons. The slopes of the "crater" would
be the area for burial of the deceased and the crater area was
probably reserved for rituals, an area organized by trilithons whose
height was slightly higher.
Before
further discussion about the consequences of this hypothesis, let me
first try to meet objections that could go against this
interpretation.
4.a. The
disappearance of the fill blocks
This
objection, which immediately comes to mind, consists in
saying that we should have found stone filling on the site. Yet the answer lies in the many examples of architectural remains
of this type including dolmens that present no more than their main
stone structure. Let me insist on two more recent cases, where we
realize that the major structural elements of buildings stayed in
place, while the filling has completely disappeared: a Roman oil
factory in Brisgane, Algeria (fig. 13), and two buildings that probably date
back to Roman times in the still unexcavated site of Blaundos in
Phrygia (fig. 14).
The
explanation for this loss applies to Stonehenge all the more as,
where everyone knows that the movement of larger blocks required
considerable resources: the constructions, transformed into real
quarries, offered abundant building materials, which had been already
prepared for use. Over centuries, it is no real surprise that in a
region lacking building stones such as Stonehenge, all that could be
recovered, that is to say primarily transportable stones, should
have been recovered.
Outside
the block filling, five pillars of the crown were partially destroyed
and five other pillars, on the south-west side, have totally
disappeared, probably having been crushed as their transport was not
an option. It definitely proves that the site was operated as a
quarry during its history. People in the neighbourhood there, after
first recovering the stones that were the most easily transportable,
have also reused larger monoliths by first reducing them to the
state of fragments.
4.b. The
disappearance of the earthwork.
My colleague Jacques Bourcier an engineer was kind enough to calculate the volume of soil corresponding to the mound overturned here. The result is 22,300 m3, a value well below that of other nearby mounds. The largest known mound, Silbury, corresponds to a volume of 248,000 m3 of earth! He also calculated that a ramp with a slope of 1% (630 m long) would require 33,400 m3 of earth. Today only a circular bank of earth is visible on the site, it looks perfectly regular but is quite silted, and bordered by a ditch which is itself very irregular both in plan and depth.
The disappearance of earth, which is in sharp contrast with the maintenance of other burial mounds can be explained by the presence of hundreds of graves, whose presence is revealed by the latest research17, maybe thousands if we restore the mound in its elevation. The search for artefacts in the burial was enough motivation for the systematic digging and clearing of the mass of earth, unlike the royal or princely tumuli of the Eastern World which were limited to a single burial chamber. Even in the case of a single grave, the mound may disappear completely as that of the tomb of the Princess of Reinheim that was recently restored on the site located on the French-German border (Archaeological Park Bliesbruck Moselle / Saar Reinheim)18. The mound of Silbury, 30 km from Stonehenge, has passed through the ages because no research done there for centuries has revealed any graves. It is to be noticed that in agricultural areas there is a trend to erase mounds .
17. « For
Parker-Pearson, Stonehenge may have been a cemetery reserved for a
local elite, a cemetery which later would have become more and more
popular, as indicated by the increasing number of graves over time.
His opinion is that from the beginning, the site was dedicated to the
realm of the dead [...] »,
Archéologia n°460, p.23.
18. « At
the location of the pond located east of the villa a small hill of
120 m diameter of 2 m above the level of surrounding fields could be
found in 1950. Excavations have shown that it was a burial area
with several Celtic mounds, which had been levelled since
Roman times
» (I underline). Internet Site presentation
of Bliesbruck-Reinheim:
Concerning
the small bench that is still visible, a close examination of the
data from excavations - as far as the few data allow - provides a
clear enough explanation. During the excavations Atkinson was
surprised to find a bench of chalk below the slope itself and he
suggested a partial dissolution of the chalk on the entire site
except under the embankment19. This feature is really visible on the
photo of Figure 15, where I have also tried to draw the section
revealed by the excavation. The explanation by natural erosion put
forward by the excavator is inconsistent and refers to a geological
period that is incompatible with the archaeological data20.
A
far more simple explanation, is to consider that this bench is
intentional and was intended not only to mark the limits of the mound
in a precise way, but also to maintain the earth in the circle drawn
by the crown. Has this bench been obtained by stripping the
surrounding areas or by the movement of material during the digging
of the parallel ditch (which would explain its great irregularity)?
Only one new study of this bench, actually unexpected but probably
necessary for the proper maintenance of earth, would provide further
elements to respond to this question.
19. « Atkinson,
Op. cit.
p. 10 : « Indeed its actual height is even less than it
appears, for excavations in 1954 revealed the surprising fact that
the surface of the natural chalk is nearly a foot higher beneath the
centre of the bank than it is elsewhere ».
20. Dean
Talboys, « Stonehenge. The Geological Date of the Site is
between 8,000 - 27,000 Years ».
Taking
the explanation of Atkinson literally, the author deduces a
much earlier date for the site due to the natural dissolution speed
of chalk!
Fig.
15 – Explanation
for the surelevation of the chalky soil.
Fig. 16 – General view showing the insertion of the stone building in the tumulus.
4.c. Positive
arguments supporting
the hypothesis proposed
In
addition to the main argument concerning the processing of surfaces
and the regular appearance that would then present all the visible
parts of the architecture built on the site, several
points must be underlined for which our hypothesis provides an answer
to the questioning or solves apparent contradictions.
Beside
the surface dressing, we can also notice, when looking at an
elevation, that the size of pillars is very irregular and in
complete contrast with their precise location, which was the most
important because it depended on the circle of lintels, the only
visible culmination of the complex. According to Atkinson, only the
pace of implementation of the pillars has been the subject of
special care.
The
orientation of the complex and its prolongation by the "monumental
avenue" has been overstated. As we have seen, the relationship
between these two entities does not give rise to any particular
device that would allow access to the inner round space. It is likely
that this "monumental avenue" rather corresponds to a ramp
for the transport of huge blocks21, previously delivered by river. If
this "avenue", whose interruption between the outer ring
and the ring of stone would also be inexplicable in the commonly
accepted scenario where all the device remains at ground level, is
oriented in a special way , it is actually because it continues the
axis of the device of trilithons. The space enclosed by the
trilithons was actually oriented to sunrise.
Atkinson
himself stressed that
it was impossible to exactly determine, from the remains, this axis
and, hence, the empty speculations about precise astronomical
calculations. For example, I demonstrate , by arbitrary comparison,
the similar orientations of Stonehenge and of the temple of Apollo at
Delphi. To orient sacred buildings towards the rising sun is a
common feature during antiquity22.
21. The
process for the erection of the blocks is explained below.
22. Concerning
the Greek world, see Marie-Christine Hellmann, Architecture
grecque, 2. Architecture religieuse et funéraire,
Picard, p. 188-189
When
we look at a map (fig. 18) at the route between the River Avon and Stonehenge23,
we understand that the first part of the course aims to reach a point
on this axis, from which the ramp will start, built with very little
inclination that allows to move the biggest blocks to the top of the
mound.
23. Portions
of the road between the straight part of the “avenue” linked
to the Avon River were identified during a campaign of aerial
photographs conducted in 1921 (Atkinson, op. Cit. P. 56).
4.d. Setting
up blocks
This
question, which mainly concerns the larger blocks, has led to many
assumptions. The pillars of the outer circle weigh an average of 26
tonnes24, the lintels only 6.75 tonnes, but the difficulty was
especially due to raising
the pillars to
the top,
even a little bit higher because they fit
into
these pillars using mortise and tenon.
24. With
large variations depending on the thickness of the blocks.
Fig. 17 – Compared orientations at Stonehenge and Apollo Temple at Delphi.
Fig. 18 - Map of the area of Stonehenge (from Archéologia n°460, p. 24)
A : Stonehenge
B : Cursus (about 3.500 BC)
C : so-called « avenue » creating a link between Stonehenge and Avon River.
G et H : series of tumuli in the Stonehenge area
The
blocks of trilithons are still heavier, almost 50 tons for the
pillars of central trilithon. The excavations have provided
an important indication because, at the foot of the pillars, holes
made to receive the buried part of the block, have been found. They
include a sloping side (45°) to receive the inclined blocks before
they were erected to their final position.
For
the ring device, the inclined side, facing out, shows that the blocks
were prepared by pulling them toward the center of the monument. For
trilithons, the downside instead shows that the blocks were recovered
by pulling them from the outside. All the proposals made so far
assume that the central trilithons were built first for a problem of
accessibility and that the peripheral ring was
completed afterwards.
Regarding
the peripheral ring, the simplest hypothesis is to consider that
access of the blocks was done along the slope of the mound. To switch
the pillars, it was enough to raise them to a height that was
slightly above their center of gravity, that is to say 2.5 meters25.
The techniques used are the same as those of the erecting of
Egyptian obelisks26.
The
minimum slope of the mound necessary for this task is 4.3°27. To then
place lintels, we must raise the mound to its final height (just over
4.10 m). The slope rises this time to 11% but this time it is to
transport the "smallest" blocks among the sarsen.
25. One
must indeed take into account the full height of the block, including
the buried part.
26. For
comparison, the oldest known obelisk, erected during the reign of
Sesostris I in Heliopolis (1942 BC) is three times heavier than the
largest blocks of Stonehenge. It measures 20.73 meters (high )and
weighs 120 tons. The technique of setting up obelisks has been
described by J.-Cl. Golvin (La
construction pharaonique du Moyen Empire à l'époque gréco-romaine :
Contexte et principes technologiques
, Picard, 2004 ): it consisted in dragging the block from a platform
to its location by removing the sand located in the pit prepared in
advance.
27. A
parodic text of the scribe Hori that describes the construction of a
ramp mentions a slope of 7.5% ("papyrus Anastasi,"
manuscript of 10 247 British Museum, quoted in J.-Cl. Goyon et al. La
construction pharaonique,
p. 208-209).
The
ring being completed, the axial ramp that I reconstitute in
place of the alleged processional route allows to bring and, more
importantly, to implement the trilithons in the most economical way.
As a matter of fact, this ramp, passing above the lintels, ends by a
central platform that enables the implementation of all the blocks
of the group of trilithons. Whatever length is considered for the
avenue with a minimum of 230 yards = 210 meters (Atkinson p. 67), the
slope obtained is very low (maximum 2%)28.
Not
only does the difference in height of the central and the peripheral
colonnade make it easy to overcome the obstacle of the lintels of the
circular ring, but, again, we can see the perfectly logical
placement of the ramp as the trilithons are higher along this
direction: 6.10 m (lintel included) for the first pair, 6.55 m for
the next pair and finally 7.30 m for the axial trilithon (6.70 m
without the lintel29) : see fig. 20.
28. The
Avenue goes to the North East on a distance of 590 m, then bends to
reach the river, which flows 1,8 km away. To reach the height of the
lower face of the lintel of the largest trilithon (6.20 m), a ramp of
1% is sufficient along the whole straight section. If we consider a
shorter distance of 342 meters (which corresponds to the visible part
of the road), the percentage is 2%. The ramp of Khafra pyramid
was over 1.5 km long and in some Egyptian quarries, they can reach 12
km. These calculations show that the axial portion of the avenue of
Stonehenge is more than enough to move blocks up with a very low
slope.
29. The
lintel of the axial trilithon lies on the ground.
Furthermore,
by first
constructing the ring of stone, well wedged through a vertical and
horizontal system of mortise and tenon, it leads to a very strong
peripheral structure that can more easily control the implementation
of central blocks, since it gives the opportunity to attach tow
cables along the diameters on opposite points for each of the
trilithons.
Having
a stable ground up to the top of the blocks over the entire periphery
greatly facilitates operations (fig. 21). There is no need to imagine any
lifting system consisting of cranes or pulleys that would be
anachronistic at that time and even ineffective.
Fig. 19 – First phase of work, view showing the construction of the stone ring.
Left : pillars are carried along the mound. A slope of 5% is needed to bring blocks to a level from which they can be toggled to their final position.
Then the void between pillars is filled with rubble so that this structure can retain the elevation of earthwork behind.
Right : to put in place the much lighter lintels, earthwork must be raised to the top of the pillars. Then the slope is about 10%.
No lifting device is required for all these operations because stones are dragged only on logs or rather sled, and descended with ropes.
Then the void between pillars is filled with rubble so that this structure can retain the elevation of earthwork behind.
Right : to put in place the much lighter lintels, earthwork must be raised to the top of the pillars. Then the slope is about 10%.
No lifting device is required for all these operations because stones are dragged only on logs or rather sled, and descended with ropes.
At
the beginning of the article in which he proposed an early dating for
the erection of these stones, Mike Parker Pearson underlined
how a priori impossible it was to accept all the dating given by
radiocarbon, since the erection of trilithons, according to these
dating would have been done later than the construction of the stone
circle30. For this reason he came up against the interpretation of the
pits where the artefacts were extracted from and dated.
But we now
see that what seemed impossible, namely the placement of trilithons
after the peripheral ring, in the hypothesis of erecting the stones
from the ground, would on the contrary fully be explained in the
scenario of a unique axial ramp for the implementation of trilithons,
from the center, by descent in the cavities provided for this
purpose.
30. « The
discrepancy between these two sets of dates poses a conundrum. How
can the great trilithon, dated to
2440-2100
ca BC, be
later
than
the sarsen
circle which encloses it? Was the circle incomplete or even
partially dismantled to allow builders to erect this enormous
structure within the monument? », Op.
Cit.
p. 621.
4.e. The
central trilithons
The
five central trilithon pillars differ from the pillars by the fact
that the uprights are placed entirely under the lintels, that is to
say that the central space is very small, reduced to an acceptable
minimum needed to implement them with the use of ropes. As a result,
the central void, that is again totally irregular, does not seem to
be interpreted as a "gate" (a human being does not easily
pass through it or with real difficulty, depending on the case) or
even as a device to intentionally create an opening .
Fig. 20 – Second phase of work: delivery and erection of the trilithons. From a central platform, the trilithons, whose height grows along the ramp, are put in place in their final spot only with the help of ropes. Then the lintels are carried horizontally after the pit has been filled.
However
only careful observation on the site could provide evidence that
there was a filling that would transform the trilithons into
rectangular panels measuring ca 5 m by 6-7 m high. I applied such a
filling in Figure 16, noting that such large panels could create
qualified surfaces for decorations. There are images of axes31
and some
other geometric patterns engraved on the back of some trilithons, but
because of their small size and especially their random position,
they probably don't belong to any intentional setting.
31. The
similarity of these axes with Mycenaean representations had provided
one of the arguments used by Atkinson to establish a link between the
builders of Stonehenge and the Aegean world from the Bronze Age.
The
layout of the five trilithons is reminiscent of the "horseshoe"
oval shape which can be found in the oldest religious structures in
Greece32. It would be tempting to imagine a covered space, but I have
already mentioned that this assumption is not supported by any trace
on the remains, which most probably stood in the open.
32. Marie-Christine
Hellmann, Architecture grecque, 2. Architecture religieuse
et funéraire, Picard, p. 35-42
Fig. 21 – Transport of the trilithons on the ramp placed in the axis of the monument after the construction of the stone circle.
5. Consequences
for the functional interpretation of the site.
The
hypothesis presented here is consistent with a funeral function of
the monument that can be called a tumulus with a central courtyard.
On the other hand, the pillars being part of a continuous wall and
the trilithons being in an enclosed space, any geometric
interpretation related to solar alignments, apart from the general
direction depending on the summer (or winter) solstice become
meaningless.
We
should
remember that recent research undertaken on the site33 goes almost all
in this direction and point out that Stonehenge was mainly a burial
place from the third millennium. This burial place was completed with
a monument devoted to a ritual dedicated to the dead probably due to
the status of the people buried there. The main change is that this
monument is set inside a tumulus which is a very common device in
this area .
33. Mike
Parker Pearson, as part of the Stonehenge
Riverside Project :
We
should notice that this interpretation leads to the absence of a
walk-in access. There probably was, to access the central courtyard,
a secondary device or a device that was implemented only when needed.
Such a situation is well suited to a funeral place open to the winds.
It
has already been noticed that the dating of this part of the
construction was much later than the other Neolithic monuments of
Western Europe. Indeed, the regular geometry presented by the
memorial stone with its crown34, and assembly of vertical and
horizontal stones, do not belong to the time of the menhirs, which is
a much cruder architecture where geometry is not required35. In
this case we are oriented towards an environment which is much
closer, from a technical point of view, to the constructions of the
Eastern Mediterranean in particular Egypte36
and Mycenaean Greece.
Depending on the timing of the erection of the Sarsen phase of
Stonehenge, the reference to Egypt or to the Mycenaean world is more
appropriate.
In
the Mycenaean world we can find buildings which, although
architecturally much more developed (tholoi
like the “Treasury of Atreus” in Mycenae or at Orchomenos in
Boeotia) have the same layout plan: a circular central space
dedicated to ritual and graves placed laterally under a mound of
earth. One could also mention the "circle of graves" at the
entrance of the city of Mycenae. The hypothesis of the use of
Mycenaean builders had already been advocated by Atkinson and
accepted by Jean-Pierre Adam38.
This
issue is however related to problems of chronology beyond the scope
of this study. If we accept the dates proposed by Parker Pearson
(before and after 2400), we will turn more readily to the hypothesis
of an influence, even with technological transfer from Egypt, where
at the same time the Pyramids of Giza were built including the
connected funerary temples. The use of an axial ramp would not be
surprising in the case of an Egyptian influence.
34. RJC
Atkinson 34 (Op. Cit. p. 26) emphasizes the extraordinary precision
of the implementation of the ring of lintels.
35. It
is the only one in which the stones are squared, dressed, and
provided with lintels or imposts,
Frank Stevens, Stonehenge
Today and Yesterday,
Heywood Sumner, 1916. Stevens
refers here to the many circular funerary structures found in
Britain.
36. Note
that the construction of the valley temple (or temple of granite)
part of the Khafra funerary complex, Giza, has striking
similarities, especially the height of the pillars which is the same:
4.10 m!
37. R.J.C.
Atkinson, Stonehenge, p. 163-164.
38. L'archéologie
devant l'imposture, Robert Laffont, p. 140-141.
Stonehenge
anyway seems to be part of a tradition that began in the Neolithic
period (including dozens of earlier tumuli nearby Stonehenge) and
continues during the 2nd and 1st millennia BC in the East (Lydian
tombs or Macedonian tumuli).
Many
issues have to be reviewed in the light of this new interpretation.
It is known that the first stone circle (bluestones or foreign
stones), built before the monumental ensemble
mentioned here, was moved and rebuilt, perhaps in the form of the
circle seen today in the space between the central device and the
perimeter wall. Smaller than the ensemble studied here, it may be the
boundary of a sacred area.
5.a. Other
upright stones
I
have not mentioned several isolated blocks, some of which had their
heyday before the most recent studies have shown how inaccurate the
cosmological exegesis is: I mean the (Friar's) Heel Stone that
stands in the “avenue”, surrounded by its own small tumulus. This
megalith existed before the ramp and maybe reappeared after removal
of the latter. Atkinson had already settled the fate of the alleged
alignment of this block towards sunrise at the summer solstice39.
I
also think that the two "stations" on the periphery of the
mound are earlier works than the constructions that have been
discussed here. All these blocks which, unlike ours, are part of an
elaborated design, are instead isolated blocks, that are completely
raw and belonging to the megalithic era. As for the alleged stone of
sacrifice (Slaughter Stone), this stone is also a standing stone
erected in alignment with the Heel Stone, marking the axis of
orientation of the complex of Stonehenge before it was "petrified"
with the sarsen.
39. R.J.C.
Atkinson, Stonehenge, p. 15.
Two
stones placed at the ends of a diameter seem to fit with two missing
stones from which only remain the foundation holes. These four
blocks that are not worked, and whose date is not provided, delimit a
rectangle that is perpendicular to the axis of the monument, whose
tops are near the limits of the mound40. In all likelihood, they marked
a geographic focus or a boundary of space devoted to the cult of the
dead.
The
stone called "altar stone", that
is
partly buried under fallen pillar 59 and hence inaccessible, may be a
key to understanding the ritual that took place at the center of
Stonehenge: exposure of the body, cremation ... but for now, any
interpretation remains purely conjectural.
40. These
are the four large black spots visible on Figure 2
5.b. Holes Y and Z.
Discovered
in 1923-24, this double ring of holes is a problem because of its
presence outside of the ring of stone, that is to say in an area
covered by the mound in my hypothesis. But it must be recalled that
on the one hand these holes have never been used and especially that
one of the holes is missing, corresponding to the site of a fallen
pillar41. They could be an earlier (abandoned project) or, conversely,
from a later period, for instance from a phase of destruction of the
entire funeral complex. Atkinson believed that a voluntary
destruction could be dated to the Roman occupation or to the Middle
Ages.
The
fact that these holes are devoid of any filling and that they have
never been of use could argue for larger projects begun and then
abandoned, with the same number of columns, spaced further apart.
These projects would have been abandoned precisely because of the big
span, a span difficult to fill. In this case, in fact, the project
corresponding to the Z holes would have been 38 m in diameter (axial
distance of 3.95 m between the pillars, instead of 3.10 m), the
project corresponding to the Y holes with a diameter of 53 m (axial
distance of 5.50 m). But the missing hole in front of the fallen
pillar 8, mentioned above, makes me rather lean for a development
that followed the destruction phase.
41. In
addition, the circular figure is very approximate, unrelated to the
accuracy of the circle of sarsen.
6. Conclusion
This
hypothesis could also affect the interpretation of the remains prior
to the lithic phase, that is to say, the post holes that indicate a
first state of the site, organized for a circular wooden
constructions. Maybe the holes can then be interpreted as receiving
posts for ongoing fences, but this is beyond the subject matter here42.
42. Note
the discovery in 2010 of a comparable site, 900 m west of Stonehenge,
called Woodhenge because of the absence of any remains in stone.
This
study aims to reconsider the architectural remains of Stonehenge from
a technical point of view, irrespective of any preconceived ideas.
Although the appearance of the restored monument in the phase of the
Bronze Age can, as a result of this study, appear very differently
from how we used to imagine these remains, the conclusions that can
be drawn would paradoxically confirm the intuitions of many
archaeologists who, like Atkinson, have tried for decades to
eradicate Stonehenge from its mysterious and esoteric approach and
emphasize its funerary function. We consider this monument, if we
accept the proposals presented here, as a typologically more simple
building and especially a construction of great logic, due to the
adaptation of a traditional form to the constraints of erecting the
huge stones that made Stonehenge so reputed.
Appendix:
the memorial of Huisnes-sur-mer, a modern Stonehenge?
My
friend and colleague Nicolas Bresch, whom I had explained my ideas
about Stonehenge, immediately reported to me the existence, not far
from Mont-Saint-Michel, of a memorial which shows a striking
similarity with the general
layout
I propose for Stonehenge (fig. 23).
Designed
in 1961 by the renowned German architect Johannes Krahn, close to
the site of the battle of Avranches that sealed the success of the
Allied landings of June 6, 1944, the memorial of Mount d'Huisnes
gathers the remains of 11,956 German soldiers who died during
fighting in western France. We find there too the idea of an
artificial mound with a large open courtyard in the center,
surrounded by the graves of soldiers placed in crypts housed on two
levels in a structure which recall that of the English site.
The
global concept of this monument is every bit the same, but it has not
been possible for me to find information about the references used in
this project. There is only one significant difference : the "wide
avenue" whose reality we deny at Stonehenge as an access device,
exists in Huisnes as a ramp for visitors. In this case, there was
also no need to transport large blocks of stone. In the central area
stands a large cross around which, especially on November 12
(Volkstrauertag),
the ceremonies of remembrance initiated by the Volksbund
association who initiated the project, take place.
Fig. 22 - German Memorial in Huisnes-sur-Mer, Normandy
- 1rst Floor and 2nd Floor plans
- Bird's eye view (Google)
- the inner space for ceremonies with the burials around
________________________
Bibliography :
Jones,
I, 1655, The most
notable antiquity of Great Britain vulgarly called Stone-Heng on
Salisbury plain. Restored by I.J.
Edited by J.Webb. London: J. Flesher for D. Pakeman and L. Chapman
Stukeley,
W, 1740. Stonehenge: a
temple restor'd to the British druids.
London: W. Innys &R. Manby
Cunnington,
W, 1884, Guide to the
stones of Stonehenge.
Devizes: Bull Printer.
Petrie,
W M F, 1880, Stonehenge:
plans, description, and theories.
London: Edward Stanford
Atkinson, R.J. C. 1984. Barrows excavated by William Stukeley near Stonehenge. Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine, 79, 244-246.
Atkinson, R.J. C. 1984. Barrows excavated by William Stukeley near Stonehenge. Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine, 79, 244-246.
Thurman,
J, 1868, On ancient
British barrows, especially those of Wiltshire and adjoining
counties. Part 1, Long
barrows. Archaeologia, 42, 402-21.
Gowland, W, 1902, Recent excavations at Stonehenge. Archaeologia, 58, 37-82.
Gowland, W, 1902, Recent excavations at Stonehenge. Archaeologia, 58, 37-82.
Hawley,
W, 1921, Stonehenge:interim
report on the exploration.
Antiquaries Journal, 1, 19-41.
Hawley,
W, 1922, Second report
o the excavations at Stonehenge.
Antiquaries Journal, 2, 36-52.
Hawley,
W, 1923, Third report
on the excavations at Stonehenge.
Antiquaries Journal, 3, 13-20.
Hawley,
W, 1924, Fourth
report on the excavations at Stonehenge,
1922. Antiquaries Journal, 4, 30-39.
Hawley,
W, 1925, Report on the
excavations at Stonehenge during the season of 1923.
Antiquaries Journal, 5, 21-50.
Hawley,
W, 1926, Report on the
excavations at Stonehenge during the season of 1924.
Antiquaries Journal, 6, 1-25.
Hawley,
W, 1928, Report on the
excavations at Stonehenge during 1925 and 1926.
Antiquaries Journal, 8, 149-76.
Newall,
R. S, 1929, Stonehenge.
Antiquity, 3, 75-88.
Newall,
R. S, 1929, Stonehenge,
the recent excavations.
Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine, 44, 348-359.
Newall,
R. S, 1952, Stonehenge
stone no. 66.
Antiquaries Journal, 32, 65-7.
Atkinson,
R J C, Piggott, S, & Stone, J F S, 1952, The
excavations of two additional holes at Stonehenge, and new evidence
for the date of the monument.
Antiquaries Journal, 32, 14-20
Atkinson,
R. J. C, 1956, Stonehenge.
London. Penguin Books in association with Hamish Hamilton.
Vatcher,
F de M & Vatcher, H L, 1973, Excavation
of three postholes in Stonehenge car park.
Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine, 68, 57-63
Atkinson,
R. J. C. & Evans, J. G. 1978.
Recent excavations at Stonehenge.
Antiquity, 52, 235-236.
Evans,
J G, 1984, Stonehenge:
the environment in the late Neolithic and early Bronze Age, and a
beaker burial.
Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine, 78, 7-30
Smith,
G, 1981, Excavations in
Stonehenge car park.
Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine, (1979-80)
74-75, 181.
Pitts,
M. W, 1981, The
discovery of a new stone at Stonehenge.
Archaeoastronomy, 4, 17-21.
Pitts,
M. W, 1982, On
the road to Stonehenge:
Report on investigations beside the A344 in 1968, 1979 and 1980.
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 48, 75-132.
Bond,
D, 1983, An excavation
at Stonehenge, 1981.
Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine, 77, 39-43.
Crawford, O. G. S, 1923, The Stonehenge Avenue. The Observer, 23rd October 1923.
Crawford, O. G. S, 1923, The Stonehenge Avenue. The Observer, 23rd October 1923.
Clay,
R. C. C, 1927, Stonehenge
Avenue. Antiquity, 1,
342-4.
Smith,
G, 1973, Excavations
of the Stonehenge Avenue at West Amesbury,
Wiltshire. Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine, 68,
42-56
Stone, J. F. S, 1947, The Stonehenge Cursus and its affinities. Archaeological Journal, 104, 7-19.
Stone, J. F. S, Piggott, S, & Booth, A, 1954, Durrington Walls, Wiltshire: recent excavations at a ceremonial site of the early second millennium BC. Antiquaries Journal, 34, 155-177.
Stone, J. F. S, 1947, The Stonehenge Cursus and its affinities. Archaeological Journal, 104, 7-19.
Stone, J. F. S, Piggott, S, & Booth, A, 1954, Durrington Walls, Wiltshire: recent excavations at a ceremonial site of the early second millennium BC. Antiquaries Journal, 34, 155-177.
Wainwright,
G J, 1970, The
excavation of prehistoric and Romano-British settlements near
Durrington Walls, Wiltshire, 1970.
Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine, 66, 76-128
Wainwright,
G. J. Donaldson, P. Longworth, I. H. & Swan, V. 1971.
The excavation of
prehistoric and Romano-British settlements near Durrington Walls,
Wiltshire, 1970.
Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine, 66, 76-128.
Graham,
A & Newman, C, 1993,
Recent excavations of Iron Age and Romano-British enclosures in the
Avon Valley. Wiltshire
Archaeological and Natural History Magazine, 86, 8-57
McKinley,
J L, 1999, Further
excavations of an Iron Age and Romano-British enclosed settlement at
Figheldean, near Netheravon. Wiltshire
Archaeological and Natural History Magazine, 92, 7-32
building
at Butterfield Down.
Rawlings,
M, & Fitzpatrick, A P, 1996, Prehistoric
sites and a Romano-British settlement at Butterfield Down,
Amesbury. Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine, 89,
1-43 Richard
Atkinson, Stonehenge,
Penguin Books, 1956, et rééditions
Cleal,
R. M. J., Walker, K. E. & Montague, R., Stonehenge in its
landscape (English Heritage, London, 1995)
Cunliffe,
B. & Renfrew, C. Science
and Stonehenge
(Proceedings of the British Academy - 92, Oxford University Press
1997)
Johnson,
A. Solving
Stonehenge,
Thames & Hudson 2008.
Stonehenge,
pèlerinage européen au IIIe millénaire, Archéologia n°460, nov.
2008.
Sites
internet :
Vue
panoramique à 360° :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/programmes/stonehenge/flash/panorama.swf
Photos
de JC Atkinson :
http://viewfinder.english-heritage.org.uk/search/reference.aspx?uid=60204&index=0&mainQuery=stonehenge&searchType=all&form=basic&theme=&county=&district=&placeName=
Stonehenge
Riverside Project :
http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/archaeology/research/stonehenge