Parker Pearson, M 2013 Researching Stonehenge: Theories Past and Present. Archaeology International, No. 16 (2012-2013): 72-83, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/ai.1601 ARTICLE Researching Stonehenge: Theories Past and Present Mike Parker Pearson* Over the years archaeologists connected with the Institute of Archaeology and UCL have made substantial contributions to the study of Stonehenge, the most enigmatic of all the prehistoric stone circles in Britain. Two of the early researchers were Petrie and Childe. More recently, colleagues in UCL’s Anthropology department – Barbara Bender and Chris Tilley – have also studied and written about the monument in its landscape. Mike Parker Pearson, who joined the Institute in 2012, has been leading a 10-year-long research programme on Stonehenge and, in this paper, he outlines the history and cur- rent state of research. Petrie and Childe on Stonehenge William Flinders Petrie (Fig. 1) worked on Stonehenge between 1874 and 1880, publishing the first accurate plan of the famous stones as a young man yet to start his career in Egypt. His numbering system of the monument’s many sarsens and blue- stones is still used to this day, and his slim book, Stonehenge: Plans, Descriptions, and Theories, sets out theories and observations that were innovative and insightful. Denied the opportunity of excavating Stonehenge, Petrie had relatively little to go on in terms of excavated evidence – the previous dig- gings had yielded few prehistoric finds other than antler picks – but he suggested that four theories could be considered indi- vidually or in combination for explaining Stonehenge’s purpose: sepulchral, religious, astronomical and monumental. Although he could not know that Stonehenge contained a large cremation cemetery, he guessed that its purposes were more sepulchral and monu- Fig. 1: William Flinders Petrie (c.1886). mental than religious or astronomical (1880: * UCL Institute of Archaeology, London WC1H 0PY, United Kingdom 31). Of the latter notion, he remarked: ‘The [email protected] astronomical theory has the strong evidence Parker Pearson: Researching Stonehenge 73 Fig. 2: Gordon Childe and a Russian archaeologist at Stonehenge. of the very close pointing to the midsummer Stonehenge. By this time, a string of archae- sunrise, but apparently none other that will ologists had dug there: William Gowland in bear scientific scrutiny’ (ibid.). A few years 1901 (1902), William Hawley in 1919–1926 later, another archaeologist, Sir Arthur Evans and, from 1950 onwards, Richard Atkin- – later the excavator of Minoan Knossos – son together with Stuart Piggott and J.F.S. proposed that Stonehenge was a monument Stone. Atkinson’s book on Stonehenge was to the dead, built to honour the ancestors of published in 1956 and, in the heyday of the a whole prehistoric tribe (1885). ‘culture history’ paradigm, he concluded that Many years later, Gordon Childe (Fig. 2) it was built to the specification of a Bronze included Stonehenge in his magisterial Age Mycenaean architect (1956: 163–64). overview The Dawn of European Civilization. In Atkinson’s view, Stonehenge (Fig. 3) was Although the book was first published in a true example of architecture in contrast to 1925, it was only in the sixth and final edi- mere construction, unparalleled in Britain’s tion, published in 1957 – the year of his death barbarian Bronze Age (ibid.). He considered – that Childe speculated on the purpose of it to be entirely out of character with other 74 Parker Pearson: Researching Stonehenge Fig. 3: Stonehenge from the air (photo: Adam Stanford). British monuments and thus had to be an broadly that of the antiquarians Aubrey, alien intervention. Conversely, Childe was Stukeley and others, followed by the 20th- in no doubt that it was an indigenous crea- century excavators at Stonehenge, followed tion. He had observed that stone circles were by the astronomers (Chippindale, 1994; Pitts, a peculiarly British phenomenon (1936) and 2001; Richards, 2007). he considered that Stonehenge was built by and for ancient Britons. From ancient druids to astronomers It had long been known that Stonehenge’s Putting aside for the moment the 12th- smaller monoliths – the bluestones – origi- century pseudo-history of Geoffrey of Mon- nated in the Preseli hills of west Wales and mouth, the first theory about Stonehenge Childe theorized that their long-distance in modern times was that it was a temple movement must have been the result of a for ancient druids, an idea first proposed by cooperative effort that could only have taken John Aubrey in the mid-17th century and place under special conditions: ‘This fantas- later elaborated by William Stukeley almost tic feat ... must illustrate a degree of politi- a century later (1740). Both of these remark- cal unification or a sacred peace ...’ (Childe, able antiquarians realized that Stonehenge 1957: 331). This insightful observation, just had been built before the Romans. Stukeley like those of Petrie and Evans, was then for- in particular drew on Classical Greek and gotten by both archaeologists and the public Roman comparisons to argue that the plan at large. and elevations of Stonehenge could be inter- The conventional narratives on theories preted as a roofless temple. Neither scholar about Stonehenge surprisingly ignore these could have any idea of the true antiquity of ideas proposed by three of the greatest Stonehenge, 3,000–2,500 years before the archaeologists of the late 19th-early 20th Romans came to Britain, so they could only century and focus on a different history, extrapolate that it had been used by the peo- Parker Pearson: Researching Stonehenge 75 ple that Caesar and other Classical authors cal investigations (1967; 1971; Thom and named as the resident religious elite – the Thom, 1974) to Gerald Hawkins’ proposi- druids. Stukeley was so taken by this theory tion amongst other things that the circle that he even took up druidry. More recently, of 56 Aubrey Holes within the circuit of this reinvention has led to a small but thriv- Stonehenge’s bank and ditch could be used ing ‘new age’ religion; some 4,189 people to predict lunar and solar eclipses (1965), described their religion as ‘druid’ in the UK’s Stonehenge gained a new and sensational 2011 census. Although Classical authors reputation as a repository of the ancients’ referred to ancient druids worshipping only lost knowledge. As the counter-culture of in wooded groves – there is no mention of the 1970s and early 1980s claimed Stone- any link between druids and stone monu- henge as spiritual inspiration for a lost world ment, let alone Stonehenge – the association of mysticism, so the archaeological ‘fringe’ of druids with Stonehenge has become fixed imputed a new range of earth mysteries, in the public consciousness. ley lines and hidden forces responsible for Whereas Hawley (1921) followed Stuke- Stonehenge’s location and raised stones. ley’s theory, proposing that Stonehenge Following on from Hawkins, the astrono- was a temple for priests and nobles, Richard mer Fred Hoyle developed his own expla- Atkinson (1956) saw Stonehenge as resulting nation of astronomical prediction at from the concentration of political power in Stonehenge (1977), although his book was the hands of a single individual who could nowhere near as successful as Hawkins’ draw on the architectural tradition of the Stonehenge Decoded. John North, a respected Bronze Age Aegean. This classic notion of historian of science, also developed some diffusion from an advanced civilization is unusually elaborate astronomical theo- one of many perceptions of Stonehenge as ries about Stonehenge and its surrounding being constructed by the non-indigenous monuments (1996). For many who were ‘other’, whether from Neolithic Brittany, impressed by the astronomical possibilities ancient Egypt or even outer space. Certainly of Stonehenge, the notion that it was oper- until a few decades ago, it was easy to per- ated by a ruling class of astronomer priests ceive Stonehenge as a mysterious intrusion became the theory of the day (e.g. Mackie, into an under-populated land where the few 1977). However, the astronomers’ bubble inhabitants eked out a miserable subsistence was burst by the arrival of archaeo-astrono- using only the most primitive technology for mers such as Clive Ruggles who could bring farming. As archaeologists have learned oth- expertise in both archaeology and astronomy erwise about population densities and early to bear on the problem. farming efficiency (e.g. Pryor, 2003), they Working from ethnographic analogies of have also discovered antecedents and precur- the integrated use of astronomy within the sors to the architecture of Stonehenge else- religions and cultures of traditional socie- where in Britain, notably in timber. In fact, ties, Ruggles and others not only argued for many of these innovations and architectures understanding the role of simple astronomy now appear to have originated on the mar- within its cultural context but also developed gins of Britain, notably in Wales and Orkney a critical methodology for assessing and eval- (Burrow, 2010; Gibson, 1998; 2010). uating competing astronomical claims. For Although the solstitial alignment of Stone- Ruggles, Stonehenge was not a computer henge and its avenue has been long known, or an observatory for prediction and obser- it was only in the 1960s that claims were vation, but a monument for memorializing widely accepted for Stonehenge’s role as an certain key heavenly events, notably