Anthony Johnson's "immaculate Stonehenge". Too perfect, and too many pillars that do not accord with reality. Personally, I think the evidence favours the idea of a grand project, never completed because the builders ran out of stones.
This is an extract from the laser survey report from 2012. written by Abbott et al:
Abbott, M. et al 2012. Stonehenge Laser Scan -- archaeological analysis report. EH Report Series 32-2012 (EH Project 6457), 71 pp
StonehengeLaserScan_ArchaeologicalAnalysis.pdf
Incomplete or imperfect and damaged: the non-completion theory re-considered
Ever since John Wood (1747) wondered why so many of the lintels were missing from
Stonehenge, and how any would-be stone robber might have removed them without
damaging the uprights, successive authors have questioned whether Stonehenge was ever
finished. After accurately surveying the monument, William Flinders Petrie invigorated
the debate, stating:
'The evidence for non-completion of the outer sarsens, is in the very much smaller Stone I..... Again Nos. 21 and 23 are both defective in size compared with the rest; these show that II was no single freak,
but was the result of not having better material. If the builders ran so short as to have to use such a stone as II, is it not very probably that they had not enough to finish the circle?' (Petrie 1880, 16)
This issue is still hotly debated; Christopher Tilley et al. (2007) argue that the monument
was not completed, while Anthony Johnson (2008, I46) argues for a finished monument.
This debate was also considered by David Field and Trevor Pearson following their survey
of Stonehenge (2010, 62-66). Analysis of the laser-scan data has revealed significant new
evidence that informs, rather than solves, this debate. Key aspects of the non-completion
theory are reviewed. These are:
was not completed, while Anthony Johnson (2008, I46) argues for a finished monument.
This debate was also considered by David Field and Trevor Pearson following their survey
of Stonehenge (2010, 62-66). Analysis of the laser-scan data has revealed significant new
evidence that informs, rather than solves, this debate. Key aspects of the non-completion
theory are reviewed. These are:
• The presence and use of 'inadequate' stones (e.g. Stones II and 21).
• The absence of approximately one third of the Sarsen Circle on the SW side of the
monument and the absence of the majority of the lintels.
• The absence of documentary evidence for the removal of stones or slighting of the
monument.
The use of inadequate stones, particularly on the SW half of the monument, is central
to the non-completion theory. The diminutive Stone 11 has been subject to the most
debate: it is not only narrow, it is the only upright not of full height. This study has
observed that Stone 11's top is broken off, confirming the views of Lukis (1882), Stone
(1924) and Atkinson (1956). The stone may well, therefore, have stood to full height
and, if its current width was maintained, the c.l m-wide stone top would have provided a
more than adequate seat for the ends of two lintels (cf Johnson 2008). There is, however,
no doubt that many of the stones in the SW part of the Sarsen Circle, particularly
from Stone 11 to 21, are less substantial and regular than those on the NE side of the
monument. We have argued above that the positioning of individual stones, based on
their size, shape and pattern of dressing, is an important aspect of the architecture of
the Sarsen Circle. The largest, most regular and finest dressed stones are positioned
towards the NE of the circle, where they are viewed as one approaches the circle from
the Avenue. The view from the centre of the monument is also significant but, due to the
masking effect of the Sarsen Horseshoe, the most important faces are again those on the
NE side of the monument. The absence of dressing on the exterior surfaces of stones
on the SW of the Sarsen Circle indicates that the monument was not designed to be
approached from this direction.
to the non-completion theory. The diminutive Stone 11 has been subject to the most
debate: it is not only narrow, it is the only upright not of full height. This study has
observed that Stone 11's top is broken off, confirming the views of Lukis (1882), Stone
(1924) and Atkinson (1956). The stone may well, therefore, have stood to full height
and, if its current width was maintained, the c.l m-wide stone top would have provided a
more than adequate seat for the ends of two lintels (cf Johnson 2008). There is, however,
no doubt that many of the stones in the SW part of the Sarsen Circle, particularly
from Stone 11 to 21, are less substantial and regular than those on the NE side of the
monument. We have argued above that the positioning of individual stones, based on
their size, shape and pattern of dressing, is an important aspect of the architecture of
the Sarsen Circle. The largest, most regular and finest dressed stones are positioned
towards the NE of the circle, where they are viewed as one approaches the circle from
the Avenue. The view from the centre of the monument is also significant but, due to the
masking effect of the Sarsen Horseshoe, the most important faces are again those on the
NE side of the monument. The absence of dressing on the exterior surfaces of stones
on the SW of the Sarsen Circle indicates that the monument was not designed to be
approached from this direction.
In the non-completion theory there are two common implicit assumptions:
• That the circle was of uniform construction, e.g. 'The planned norm would appear to have
been Stone 29, 30 and 1 to 7' (Ashbee 1998, 139)
• That the raw materials from which Stonehenge were constructed were not identified
before construction started and the supply of materials was exhausted, e.g. 'An
examination of the stones at Stonehenge would appear to shew that the builders were
unable to obtain sufficient material of suitable quality and of large enough size to properly
fulfil their requirements. They had to take what they could get rather than what they would
have desired. This indicates a very limited supply' (Stone 1924, 73)
The argument for a 'planned norm' is certainly questionable and one may argue that
this issue is compounded by the way in which we commonly view Stonehenge: through
plans and artificially elevated bird's eye-view reconstructions. Both of these viewpoints
encourage us to consider the Sarsen Circle as a regular structure, as from these
perspectives we can see a perfect circle. Moreover, in the artificially elevated views it is
possible to see the outer face of the circle in the foreground and the inner face at the
back of the circle. On the ground - the viewpoint for this monument in the Neolithic
far less of the circle can be appreciated from a single viewpoint. When standing on the
Stonehenge Avenue, one can see the exterior faces of the NE half of the monument;
however, due to the curve of these, it is not possible to see the precise form of each
stone. The visual illusion of regularity from this perspective may well have influenced the
positioning of individual stones on this side of the monument. For example, Stone 3 has a
very large flake scar on the exterior NE edge, but this irregularity is not visible from the
Avenue: the break is in plain view but does not affect the outline of the stone. However,
had this stone been erected in the NW quadrant, e.g. in the position of Stone 27, this
irregularity would have been all too clear. Similarly, the large irregularities on the tops of
Stones 27 and 28 are not particularly visible from the Avenue, as they directly face the
observer. Yet had these stones been used on the SE or NW side of the monument, they
would clearly have stood out. Similarly, the stones that can be seen most clearly from the
centre of the monument are the most regular, well-dressed faces.
The argument for a 'shortage' of raw materials is particularly problematic. The
assumption that a design was generated before stones were identified implies that
the stones were little more than building blocks, comparable to material we might
purchase from builders' merchants. The stones themselves are however likely to have
been of some significance to the builders of Stonehenge who were prepared to go to
considerable lengths to bring stones from as far away as west Wales and north Wiltshire. (BJ comment: this cosy assumption of "significance" or links with "sacred sites" is not supported by any hard evidence. It cannot be used in support of an argument that Stonehenge was complete or immaculate.)
Rick Peterson's recent discovery of William Stukeley's 1723 drawing of shaped sarsen
stones at Clatford near Avebury indicates that stones of sizes equivalent to those of
the Sarsen Circle were available less than 20 miles away (Parker Pearson 2012, 297;
Piggott 1948).
assumption that a design was generated before stones were identified implies that
the stones were little more than building blocks, comparable to material we might
purchase from builders' merchants. The stones themselves are however likely to have
been of some significance to the builders of Stonehenge who were prepared to go to
considerable lengths to bring stones from as far away as west Wales and north Wiltshire. (BJ comment: this cosy assumption of "significance" or links with "sacred sites" is not supported by any hard evidence. It cannot be used in support of an argument that Stonehenge was complete or immaculate.)
Rick Peterson's recent discovery of William Stukeley's 1723 drawing of shaped sarsen
stones at Clatford near Avebury indicates that stones of sizes equivalent to those of
the Sarsen Circle were available less than 20 miles away (Parker Pearson 2012, 297;
Piggott 1948).
The absence of many stones from Stonehenge, combined with the absence of
documentary evidence for their breakage or removal, forms another cornerstone of
the non-completion debate. Analysis of the laser-scan data has revealed that significant
portions of most fallen stones have been removed from Stonehenge. Indeed, the
quantity of stone removed was very significant. The differential preservation of the NE
and SW halves of the monument still requires explanation, particularly as the evidence
for deliberate slighting is minimal and is confined to the attempted breakage and burial of
the Slaughter Stone at some point prior to the 19th century (cf Ashbee 1998). It should,
however, be noted that those sarsens that have pieces missing are the fallen ones, with
the sole exception of Stone 11. This indicates that these fallen stones were easy prey for
stone robbers. It is therefore worth questioning whether the pattern of fallen stones
results from differences in construction between the NE and SW halves of the Sarsen
Circle. It is certainly clear that the smaller stones have been used towards the rear of the
circle and, in the case of Stone 13, this was set in a very shallow stone hole. During his
visit in 2009, Malagasy archaeologist, Ramlisonina noticed that many of the fallen stones
have tapered and narrow bases: when these stones were erect and in situ, their above-
ground part would have given the appearance of symmetry with a rectangular shape
whilst their less symmetrical and less stable bases would have been hidden below ground,
sacrificing long-term stability and hence contributing to their collapse (Parker Pearson
2012, 293). Thus, if the less suitable monoliths were used in the SW, these may have
been the ones with the least stable bases.
documentary evidence for their breakage or removal, forms another cornerstone of
the non-completion debate. Analysis of the laser-scan data has revealed that significant
portions of most fallen stones have been removed from Stonehenge. Indeed, the
quantity of stone removed was very significant. The differential preservation of the NE
and SW halves of the monument still requires explanation, particularly as the evidence
for deliberate slighting is minimal and is confined to the attempted breakage and burial of
the Slaughter Stone at some point prior to the 19th century (cf Ashbee 1998). It should,
however, be noted that those sarsens that have pieces missing are the fallen ones, with
the sole exception of Stone 11. This indicates that these fallen stones were easy prey for
stone robbers. It is therefore worth questioning whether the pattern of fallen stones
results from differences in construction between the NE and SW halves of the Sarsen
Circle. It is certainly clear that the smaller stones have been used towards the rear of the
circle and, in the case of Stone 13, this was set in a very shallow stone hole. During his
visit in 2009, Malagasy archaeologist, Ramlisonina noticed that many of the fallen stones
have tapered and narrow bases: when these stones were erect and in situ, their above-
ground part would have given the appearance of symmetry with a rectangular shape
whilst their less symmetrical and less stable bases would have been hidden below ground,
sacrificing long-term stability and hence contributing to their collapse (Parker Pearson
2012, 293). Thus, if the less suitable monoliths were used in the SW, these may have
been the ones with the least stable bases.
In conclusion, this study provides evidence that 27 of 30 uprights of the Sarsen Circle
were certainly erected, and the presence of tenons on adjacent uprights may indicate
that all were present along with at least 26 of the 30 lintels. There is certainly no
convincing evidence that the circle remained incomplete, and in the light of the significant
degree of demonstrable stone robbing, it is possible that a complete Sarsen Circle once
existed. It is, however, clear that the Sarsen Circle was never a perfectly symmetrical
circle of regular pillar and lintels. Its SW half was not as well constructed as the surviving
NE half; the stones were smaller, less regularly shaped and their exterior surfaces were
left coarsely dressed or entirely unworked.
were certainly erected, and the presence of tenons on adjacent uprights may indicate
that all were present along with at least 26 of the 30 lintels. There is certainly no
convincing evidence that the circle remained incomplete, and in the light of the significant
degree of demonstrable stone robbing, it is possible that a complete Sarsen Circle once
existed. It is, however, clear that the Sarsen Circle was never a perfectly symmetrical
circle of regular pillar and lintels. Its SW half was not as well constructed as the surviving
NE half; the stones were smaller, less regularly shaped and their exterior surfaces were
left coarsely dressed or entirely unworked.
(BJ comment: As I have argued before, the argument in favour of a copmplete Stonehenge stone monument is really rather thin and unconvincing. It is all a matter of opinion........)
==============
There are a number of remarks and pieces of evidence relevant to this debate which are scattered throughout the report.
The above text concentrates too much on the sarsens, and there are few mentions of the bluestones, which are inherently much more significant in this debate because of their geological characteristics, their shapes and their sizes.
1 comment:
All fascinating arguments. One of the things I don't quite get is why the authors think that the monument would have to be "finished" in Sarsen stone. For example, timber could have been used in non-critical areas (and at a much lower cost). Another interesting possibility is that huge excavated chalk blocks might have been used for in the less critical areas (though these would not have survived any attempts at destruction)
Post a Comment