Carbon Dating Sets Stonehenge Origin At 2300BC
Archaeologists are closer to discovering how and why the mysterious edifice known as Stonehenge was built after having pinpointed its construction to 2300BC.
Experts said they now have the most accurate radiocarbon date yet, proving the ring’s original bluestones were put up 300 years later than previously thought.
Professors Tim Darvill and Geoff Wainwright said the dating is the biggest finding from an excavation inside the henge and believe they have found evidence suggesting Stonehenge was a center of healing.
Others have argued that the monument was a shrine to worship ancestors, or a calendar to mark the solstices.
The BBC Timewatch series has documented the progress of the recent dig and will broadcast it on September 27.
Archaeologists and spectators have marveled at the construction of Stonehenge for centuries.
Mineral analysis indicates that the original circle of bluestones was transported to the plain from a site 240km (150 miles) away, in the Preseli hills, South Wales.
This extraordinary feat suggests the stones were thought to harbor great powers.
Darvill and Wainwright believe that Stonehenge was a center of healing – a "Neolithic Lourdes", where the sick and injured traveled from far and wide to be healed by the powers of the bluestones.
An abnormal number of the corpses found in tombs nearby Stonehenge display signs of serious physical injury and disease, they said.
Analysis of teeth recovered from graves show that "around half" of the corpses were from people who were "not native to the Stonehenge area".
Professor Darvill, of Bournemouth University, said Stonehenge would attract not only people who were unwell, but also people who were capable of healing.
"Therefore, in a sense, Stonehenge becomes ‘the A & E’ of southern England."
However, without a reliable carbon date for the construction of Stonehenge, it has been difficult to establish this, or any other, theory.
The consensus view for the date of the first stone circle was anywhere between 2600BC and 2400BC until now.
Professors Darvill and Wainwright were granted permission by English Heritage to excavate a patch of earth just 2.5m x 3.5m, in between the two circles of giant sarsen stones.
Around 100 pieces of organic material were unearthed from the original bluestone sockets, now buried under the monument. Of these, 14 were sent for modern carbon dating, at Oxford University.
The carbon dating showed that 2300BC is the most reliable date yet for the erection of the first bluestones.
The result was rounded down to "between 2400BC and 2200BC" – but 2300BC is taken as the average. An even more precise date will be produced in the coming months.
"It’s an incredible feeling, a dream come true," said Professor Wainwright, formerly chief archaeologist at English Heritage.
"We told the world we were going to date Stonehenge. That was a risk, but I was always confident," said Professor Darvill.
The date range ties in closely with the date for the burial of the so-called "Amesbury Archer", whose tomb was discovered three miles from Stonehenge.
Some archaeologists believe the Archer is the key to understanding why Stonehenge was built.
Analyses of his corpse and artifacts from his grave indicate he was a wealthy and powerful man, with knowledge of metal working, who had traveled to Salisbury from Alpine Europe, for unknown reasons.
Darvill and Wainwright believe that the Archer came to Stonehenge to be healed, as post mortem examinations show that he suffered from both a serious knee injury and a potentially fatal dental problem.
However, without an accurate date for Stonehenge, it was not even clear whether the temple existed while the Archer was alive.
His remains have been dated between 2500BC and 2300BC – within the same period that the first stone circle was erected.
"It’s quite extraordinary that the date of the Amesbury Archer is identical with our new date for the bluestones of Stonehenge," said Professor Darvill.
"These two things happening within living memory of each other for sure is something very, very important."
Professor Wainwright added: "Was the Amesbury Archer, as some have suggested, the person responsible for the building of Stonehenge? I think the answer to that is almost certainly ‘no’.
"But did he travel there to be healed? Did he limp, or was he carried, all the way from Switzerland to Wiltshire, because he had heard of the miraculous healing properties of Stonehenge? ‘Yes, absolutely’.
"Tim and I are quite convinced that people went to Stonehenge to get well. But Stonehenge probably had more than one purpose, so I have no problem with other people’s interpretations."
The team also uncovered organic material that indicates people inhabited the Stonehenge site as long ago as 7200BC – more than 3,500 years earlier than anything previously known.
Bluestone chippings also outnumbered sarsen stone chippings by three to one – which Wainwright takes to be a sign of their value.
"It could be that people were flaking off pieces of bluestone, in order to create little bits to take away… as lucky amulets," he said.
Darvill and Wainwright are preparing to publish an academic report of their excavation, and will announce their findings to their peers next month, in a lecture at London’s Society of Antiquaries.
The new date was a major milestone in understanding Britain’s most famous monument, experts on Stonehenge agreed.
“This is a great result – a very important one,” said Dr. Andrew Fitzpatrick, of Wessex Archaeology.
"The date of Stonehenge had been blowing in the wind. But this anchors it. It helps us to be secure about the chronology of events.
"The theory that it was a centre of healing is certainly a plausible one, but I don’t think we can rule out the other main competing theory – that the temple was a meeting point between the land of the living and the dead.
"I am not yet persuaded that the Amesbury Archer came to Stonehenge to be healed. I favor the interpretation that he was one of the earliest metal workers, who traveled to the area to make a living from his skills.
"In any case, it is still not clear if his burial predated Stonehenge."
“We are pleased that the professors’ precision in targeting that small area of turf and their rigorous standards in archaeological excavations have produced such a rich collection of physical evidence,” said Dave Batchelor, Stonehenge curator at English Heritage.
"We are looking forward to seeing the results of the full analysis, but from what we understand so far, we believe they have added valuable information to the chronology of Stonehenge."
—
On the Net: