Part 7

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?

The Megalithic Stone structures, which exist not only in this country but also throughout the Continent of Europe, are a special feature of that period known as the Neolithic Age. As has already been shown, Stonehenge represents a very late type, erected at a time when the bronze culture had begun to overlap that of polished stone (Neolithic).

These stone structures can be roughly divided into three classes.

1. Single upright stones, or menhirs (Celtic = "high stone"), which may be commemorative of some great event or personage.

2. Dolmens (Celtic = "table stone"), in which a stone slab is set table-wise on three or four uprights.

3. Cromlechs (Celtic = "stone circle"). Circles enclosing barrows or dolmens.

Stonehenge is a highly specialised example of this last class. Round these cromlechs popular myth and superstition have crystallised themselves into tales of the devil and his works (as in the case of Stonehenge), ogres, giants, dwarfs, Sabbath breakers, and infidels, turned to stone. In nearly every case there is some story of the supernatural, which cannot be accidental, but which must have its root in past religious observance.

It is a recognised fact that the worship of stones is more widely distributed than any other primitive cult. Its almost universal distribution can be referred to the tendency of the half savage mind to confuse persons and things, and from seeming likeness of the inanimate to the animate, to endue the lifeless object with the virtue and power of the living object. This mental outlook is better understood in practice than in theory. A Melanesian native may come across a large stone, lying upon the top of a number of smaller stones. It suggests to him a sow with her litter of pigs, and he at once makes an offering to it, in the hope that he will secure pigs. In determining the function of Stonehenge, therefore, it will be useful to compare it with similar existing stone circles. The largest of these in this country is Avebury, not many miles distant from Stonehenge. Unluckily, to-day it is so ruined that its former greatness is hardly to be distinguished by the unskilled observer. Formerly comprising some hundreds of unhewn Sarsen stones, barely a score remain in position at the present day. In Avebury, as it was, can be found the early typic model of which Stonehenge is the final product. The use of the circle as a basic form is common to both. In Avebury the Sarsen is a rough unhewn monolith; in Stonehenge it is squared, dressed, and crowned with its lintel. All evidences of a slow evolution from Neolithic to Bronze culture. But whereas the circle alone is used at Avebury, Stonehenge has in addition the horseshoe series of Trilithons and foreign uprights, and in this particular differs from all other Cromlechs in this country. It is the climax of the Megalithic monument, and its use very certainly must have been connected with the religion of the race which set it up. It was, in short, a religious structure, probably used for the observation of the sun, and possibly connected with "nature worship."

The fact that the sun rises over the Hele Stone on the Summer Solstice, and that it can be observed in direct alignment with the centre of the Great Trilithon, can hardly be due to accident. Chance might bring two stones into such a position on the Solstice, but, in this case, the entire monument is so arranged as to place the rising sun in a due line with its axis on this particular day.

It will be well to consider the facts which must have been within the knowledge of the builders of Stonehenge, and to trace as far as may be their reasoning in the building of it.