The modern understanding of Stonehenge is the product of centuries of debate, discussion, and research. Our understanding of the people behind the construction of Stonehenge and the role it played in a ritualistic context has radically shifted as more technologically sophisticated and methodologically sound approaches have given archaeologists a clearer picture of Stonehenge’s past. The historiography of Stonehenge has, therefore, seen a progression that can offer insight into the evolution of archaeology as a discipline, and it therefore warrants a closer examination.
Stonehenge’s construction has been attributed to radically different groups by various sources. In the 12th century, Geoffrey of Monmouth cast the monument as a monument to the fallen and dated Stonehenge to the time of Aurelius Ambrosius and Merlin, roughly the fifth century (Evans 1889, 326). In the 1620s, this theory was replaced with the less outlandish, if still-inaccurate theory of Inigo Jones that the monument was a temple of the Roman god Coelus (Darvill 2016). Around the same time, Walter Charleton would propose that Stonehenge had been a court of the Danish Kings (Darvill 2016). The theory that would largely supplant Jones’s and Charleton’s was articulated by John Aubrey, who attributed the construction to the Druids, and used the alignment of the monument to the sun at midsummer to justify his claim (Darvill 2016). Modern archaeology, empowered by radiocarbon dating and a more methodological approach generally argues that the monument was built over thousands of years in a social context that shifted throughout the construction from insular communities to ones more connected to the rest of Europe (Darvill 2016).
Just as the builders of Stonehenge’s have been the subject of some controversy, the role of Stonehenge has also been hotly debated. As seen above, the monument has been seen variously a monument to the dead, a temple to a Roman god, and a druidic temple. While these theories have generally struggle to withstand any serious scrutiny, the theory that the monument served a primarily calendric purpose emerged as a successor to the theory that it was a druidic temple, and the same astronomical alignments were used as justification (Darvill 2016). This casting, however, is not generally accepted in modern discussions, which hold that the purpose was “primarily ritual and magical in nature” with the calendric elements seen as a secondary function (Ray 1987, 225). The specific details of these rituals have been the subject of much speculation with ancestral and sun deities (Darvill 2016) as well as rituals surrounding renewal (Ray 1987, 277) have been common theories when the ritualistic context of Stonehenge is discussed. Such speculation, however, is largely fruitless. There is a lack of conclusive evidence as to the specific context of Stonehenge, and theories about the specific meanings of the monument are generally only speculation. What is generally clear is that Stonehenge lacked one unified purpose throughout its existence; having been constructed and used over thousands of years, the ritualistic purpose of Stonehenge almost inevitably underwent changes throughout its use as the people that used it transitioned from “insular Grooved Ware-using communities” to “Beaker-using communities” that were much more connected to the rest of Europe (Darvill 2016). A survey of the meaning of Stonehenge, therefore, reveals very little certainty about the specific ritualistic meaning of the monument.
References
Evans, Arthur J. “STONEHENGE.” In The Archaeological Review 2, no. 5 (1889): 312–30. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44243808.
Ray, Benjamin C. “Stonehenge: A New Theory.” In History of Religions 26, no. 3 (1987): 225–78. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1062375.
Darvill, Timothy. “Houses of the Holy: Architecture and Meaning in the Structure of Stonehenge, Wiltshire, UK.” In Time and Mind 9, no. 2 (2016): 89-121. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1751696X. 2016.1171496.