Stonehenge is a prehistoric monument that has captured the attention and imagination of billions of people worldwide, and still continues to baffle and intrigue archaeologists in the present. Located on the Salisbury plain in Wiltshire, England, and known for its rings of massive trilithons, Stonehenge is one of the most researched and well-known archaeological monuments, comparable to other megalithic structures located nearby, such as Avebury. Aspects of the monument that capture the attention of archaeologists include the construction of the monument and the cultural significance and purpose of the mysterious site. 

Our understanding of the cultural significance of Stonehenge has evolved considerably over time, reflecting changes in archaeological theories, methodologies, and broader cultural attitudes. Initially, interpretations of Stonehenge were heavily influenced by the prevailing cultural perspectives of the time, leading to a variety of speculative explanations for its existence. For example, in the early 1600s, Inigo Jones and John Webb proposed a theory that Stonehenge was a religious monument built to honor the god Caelus, a primordial god of the sky in Roman culture (Darvill, 2016). Another theory, developed later by John Aubrey, suggested that the megalithic structure was a temple of the Druids, a culture of ancient Celtic origin (Pearson, 2012). Over the centuries, as archaeological and scientific methods have developed, our understanding has shifted toward more evidence-based interpretations, though the monument’s exact purpose remains a subject of debate. Theories centered on the astronomical computing and tracking aspect of the monument have become much more popular, as recent developments in archaeological dating have shown that the construction of Stonehenge was a continuous process, contributed by numerous cultures that inhabited the area (Darvill, 2016). Recent theories even connect Stonehenge to the natural architecture of the land surrounding it, as well as nearby monuments such as Woodhenge, in a narrative focused on life and death, marked by burial sites in the area (Pearson, 2012). This makes Stonehenge a much more complicated monument, unlikely to have one, single purpose. 

Another aspect of our understanding of Stonehenge that has changed over time is the construction of the monument, including dates of construction with distinguishable periods, thanks to advancements in archaeological methods, radiocarbon dating, and other scientific analyses. Initially, estimates of Stonehenge’s age and the understanding of its construction phases were largely speculative. Over the centuries, as archaeological techniques have improved, so too has our grasp of this ancient monument’s timeline. The construction of Stonehenge, once enveloped in mystery, has been unraveled through the years to reveal a detailed and complicated chronology. Initially perceived as a monolithic project of Druidic or even mythical origins, contemporary analysis marks its inception around 3000 BC, with its construction unfurling in discernible stages until approximately 1500 BC (Darvill, 2016). This revelation sprang from the sophisticated application of radiocarbon dating and geophysical surveying, peeling back layers of time to expose a sequence of development that spanned millennia. The earliest phase is now understood to have begun with the formation of a ditch and building of the site’s enigmatic sarsen stone circle around 2500 BC (Darvill, 2016). This was followed by the introduction of bluestones originating in Wales, which were transported over huge distances, showcasing an extraordinary level of prehistoric engineering and community effort. Further advances in our understanding show the various reconfigurations these stones underwent, each alteration marked by shifts in the socio-religious landscape of the era. The emerging picture is one of a monument in perpetual evolution, intimately linked with the astronomical, ceremonial, and scientific rhythms of its inhabitants’ lives. This nuanced view of an extremely popular monument points out our limited understanding and inspires archaeologists to develop better methods of research and reconstruction. 

Sources:

Parker Pearson M. Researching Stonehenge: theories past and present. Archaeology International. 2012;(16):72-83. Accessed March 23, 2024. https://search-ebscohost-com.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ant&AN=XRAI14A01Z-676&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Darvill T. Houses of the holy : architecture and meaning in the structure of Stonehenge, Wiltshire, UK. Time and mind. 2016;9(2). Accessed March 23, 2024. https://search-ebscohost-com.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ant&AN=652930&site=ehost-live&scope=site