Stonehenge Part 2

[Ill.u.s.tration: Flint implement from Stonehenge.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: Stag's horn pick from Stonehenge.]

In addition to the stone tools, picks of deer horn were employed for quarrying the chalk when making the foundations of the uprights. Those who are familiar with the antlers of the deer, will recall the sharp pointed tine, known as the "brow tine," which projects forward from the horn above its core or socket. This was the tooth of the pick, all other tines being sawn off; thus transforming the antler into a very rough implement closely resembling a pick, with a single point. Many splinters from these picks were found actually embedded in the chalk of the foundations, and one entire discarded example was discovered showing great signs of use, the brow tine being worn away to a considerable extent.

DRESSING THE STONES

There can be little doubt that the Sa.r.s.ens were first of all roughly hewn into shape, before they were conveyed to the site. It stands to reason that a primitive race, when faced with the problem of transporting a vast ma.s.s of stone, would first of all reduce its bulk to the approximate proportions which it would have when finished and erected. Moreover, the chippings and mason's waste discovered in the excavations of 1901 reveal comparatively little Sa.r.s.en stone, and only a few large fragments, such as must have been broken off in finally reducing the "Grey Wethers" to monolithic pillars and lintels. It must not be forgotten either, that the Sa.r.s.ens occur naturally in tabular blocks, well adapted to the purpose of the builders. The surface of these blocks is often soft, and sugary, while the body of the stone is dense. The nature of their composition is such that no two stones are quite alike in hardness, some can be disintegrated easily, even with the fingers, while others are dense, and will resist blows with a hammer and chisel.

But in any case the natural structure of the stone made it an ideal material for the Trilithons, or, it may be, that the Trilithons were the natural outcome of the physical peculiarities of the rock. The preliminary dressing may very possibly have been effected by lighting small fires along the proposed line of fracture, and heating the stone, and then by pouring cold water upon it, which would originate a cleavage in the grain, which would readily break away under blows from the heavy mauls referred to in Cla.s.s V. of the Implements. Sides and ends could thus be roughly squared.

The next point was the transportation of the rough ashlar to the site.

Here the problem is not so formidable as it appears, when it is remembered that time was no object to the builders, that labour was abundant, and that in all probability the work was undertaken under the stimulus of religion.

Labour, tree trunks, and stout ropes of twisted hide would have proved sufficient. It is only necessary to consider very briefly the megalithic monuments in Egypt, a.s.syria, and elsewhere, to see that such tasks were well within the capacities of a race emerging from comparative savagery. There exists on the wall of a tomb at El Bersheh in Egypt a very characteristic ill.u.s.tration of the transport of a Colossus; such as are to be seen _in situ_ in Egypt to-day. The approximate date of this is B.C. 2700-2500, and prior to Stonehenge by about 1000 years.

Arrived at the site, the more skilled work of final dressing was completed. A close examination of the face of some of the fallen stones reveals several shallow grooves on the face with a rib or projection between them. It has been suggested that the rough stone was violently pounded with the heavy mauls until the surface was broken up and reduced to sand for a considerable depth, and the _debris_ brushed away. The projecting ridge resulting from this could then be cut away by hammer and stone chisel, or even by the hammer alone.

TENONS AND MORTICES

Hitherto no word has been said as to the arrangement of mortice and tenon, by which the Trilithons are keyed together. This has been done purposely, in order that the constructional questions relating to Stonehenge should, as far as possible, be dealt with together, and in due order. In the outer circle of Trilithons each upright had two tenons worked on its apex, to bear the two lintels or horizontal stones which rested upon it. Corresponding mortices were sunk in those stones to admit the tenons. In the case of the Trilithons of the Inner Horseshoe, only one tenon on each upright was necessary.

Further, the ends of the lintels of the outer circle were shaped so as to dovetail into one another, and form what is known as a "toggle"

joint. This can easily be seen to-day, in the group of three Trilithons which lie between the Altar Stone and the Hele Stone. This careful arrangement, of mortice, tenon, and toggle, has doubtless very much to do with the comparative stability of Stonehenge at the present day. Had these simple but effective measures not been taken, it would not be exceeding the bounds of possibility to say that to-day the ruin would have presented a ma.s.s of fallen stones, and the task of their reconstruction would be well-nigh impossible.

[Ill.u.s.tration]

Evidently the early mason found the cutting of these tenons by no means an easy task, for, with two exceptions, the workmanship is not remarkable. Luckily for the observer to-day the tenon on the remaining upright of the Great Trilithon is very strongly marked, and stands out boldly on its apex, thus affording a clue to those existing on other stones. The mortice holes were easier to accomplish. A small depression may have been made first of all, and then a round stone inserted with sand and water. In this way a smooth hollow could soon be worn. This principle is and has been applied by stone-using peoples in all quarters of the globe. The rough dovetailing of the lintels of the outer circle would present no difficulty to users of the tools already mentioned.

To-day the surfaces of the Sa.r.s.ens bear undoubted signs of weather, but in the Stonehenge of yesterday the Sa.r.s.ens were beautifully finished with rough tooling all over their surface. This final finish was achieved by the Quartzite Hammers (Cla.s.s IV.). A very beautiful piece of this work was discovered by Mr. Gowland in 1901. In the process of raising the upright of the Great Trilithon, a thin slab of that part of the stone which had been buried in the foundation became detached. The tooling upon this fragment is absolutely perfect, and as clean and sharp as it was when it left the hand of the craftsman about four thousand years ago. So remarkable was the workmanship that experiments were made on pieces of Sa.r.s.en with various materials to endeavour to secure the same quality of surface, during which it was found that whereas the ordinary masons' chisels of to-day failed to produce the effect, a quartzite pebble used as a tool at once reproduced the character and surface of the original finish on the Trilithon.

The foreign stones appear to have been treated in a very similar manner, but it is not possible to discuss this with the same detail as in the case of the Sa.r.s.ens, for the body of the rock to be dealt with varied vastly in quality and fracture. The method of dressing by pounding was probably not adopted. Quant.i.ties of small chippings from the foreign stones were found in 1901, so many indeed as to justify the claim that these stones were actually dressed on the spot, and not partly shaped before being transported to the circle, as in the case of the Sa.r.s.ens. This at once disposes of a popular and ingenious suggestion that the foreign stones were originally a temple elsewhere, and that in migrating to Salisbury Plain, the tribe had brought their temple with them.

THE PROCESS OF ERECTION

Contrary to another cherished belief, the Sa.r.s.en Trilithons were erected first, followed by the foreign stones. The building of the group was continuous and no gap separates the Trilithon from the foreign upright. Of this abundant ocular proof was forthcoming in 1901, when the foundations of the great Trilithon were laid bare, and the leaning upright restored to its original perpendicular position.

When the ground was opened it was found that each upright had been differently bedded in the earth--and for a very good reason. The one was twenty-nine feet eight inches long, while the other was only twenty-five feet. Obviously they were the two finest "grey wethers"

obtainable in the flock, and because of that, they were set aside for the most prominent place in the enclosure. The master builder decided that the height of this central Trilithon should be the equivalent of twenty-one feet at the present day. Therefore it was necessary to bed one stone deeper than the other, in order that their two summits should be level to receive the lintel, or impost. One stone, therefore, was sunk to a depth of four feet, while the other extended downwards eight feet three inches. To compensate for the lack of depth in the shorter stone, its base was shaped into an irregular projecting boss to give it a greater bearing area. It was decided to raise the larger stone first, and the foundation was dug as follows: A slanting trench was cut with the deer's horn picks through the earth and chalk, having at its deeper end a perpendicular chalk face against which the Sa.r.s.en could rest when upright. Rubble and chalk were cleared away, and the stone carefully slid down the plane to its foundation. To raise it, now that its base rested against a solid wall of chalk, was not a great matter. The same ropes of hide and tree trunks which had served for its transport would again have come into play. Slowly it would be levered up, and packings or wedges of wood or stone inserted.

Thus inch by inch, probably, it rose higher and higher, strutted up, perhaps, by strong saplings as it reared its head above the busy crowd of builders. Blocks of Sa.r.s.ens were packed beneath it to equalise the bearing, and then the excavation was filled in with chalk and rubble, which doubtless was well rammed down and consolidated with the big sixty-pound mauls. Among the packing of chalk and rubble were found a considerable number of the rough implements already referred to.

[Ill.u.s.tration: The central Entrance of Stonehenge. Looking S.W.]

The shorter upright was next set on end. A shallower excavation had to suffice in this case, but the base of the stone, as has been already intimated, was wider, and to secure greater stability blocks of Sa.r.s.en were provided for the stone to rest on, other blocks being packed in carefully as it was raised, and curiously enough among the firm packing were several large stone mauls, fitted in to make the whole ma.s.s solid and compact. There is no direct evidence as to the actual method of placing the imposts upon the uprights. It has been suggested, and with every show of reason, that one extremity of the imposts would be raised and packed with timber. The opposite end would then be similarly treated. In this way, by alternately raising and wedging first one side and then the other, the impost could have been brought, in time, level with the summit of its upright, and levered over on to the tenons.

Such a method is employed by primitive races to-day.

RAISING THE FOREIGN STONES

The five Sa.r.s.en Trilithons already mentioned were raised into position from the inside of the circle. Investigation has shown this to be a fact. It therefore stands to reason that the Foreign Stones were erected last, and not first as has so often been supposed.

This is a hard saying, for it at once negatives the picturesque legend that the Foreign Stones were a stone circle brought from Ireland, and erected by a colonial tribe, who afterwards gave dignity to their primitive temple by the erection of stately Trilithons. Furthermore, the _debris_ of the ancient mason reveals chippings of Sa.r.s.en and Foreign Stone intermingled so thoroughly as to preclude any idea of two separate periods of building. Stonehenge, therefore, was erected at one date and continuously. It is a question, as yet, if the outer Sa.r.s.en Trilithons were erected from the outside or the inside of the circle.

It has not been possible, in the foregoing brief description, to enter into minute detail, but it is hoped that sufficient has been said to show the stages by which the work of building was approached.

First, the rough tr.i.m.m.i.n.g of the Sa.r.s.en, as it lay upon the Down, then its transport to the spot, its final dressing, and the preparation of its foundation, followed by those anxious days during which the builders toiled as they raised it aloft; the feverish haste with which they rammed and packed the loose rubble about its foot, casting in their mauls and implements to wedge and fix it securely on its base: and last of all, the final effort of raising the impost on its wooden bed, rising now on this side, now on that, as the packings were inserted beneath the levered stone. What a contrast to the Stonehenge of to-day--abandoned and silent on the fast vanishing Plain of Salisbury. Yesterday, it was the workplace of a teeming hive of masons, the air filled with the tap of the smaller hammers dressing the stone faces, with the sullen thud of the big maul pounding the face of a newly arrived Sa.r.s.en, while the faint m.u.f.fled "peck" of the deer's horn told of trench workers dressing down a chalk face to receive the thrust of the monolith, while high above the steady tap of the picks and hammers came the sounds of an unknown tongue raised now in command, now in argument, or encouragement as the work went on.

WHEN WAS STONEHENGE ERECTED?

Until comparatively recent years, the date of Stonehenge was a subject for speculation, and so fascinating did it prove that it attracted the attention of a vast number of minor authorities, who in the face of no definite data on which to base their theses, set the date of Stonehenge at almost any period except that to which it has been proved to belong.

Many decided definitely that it was of Roman origin. For the most part, these speculations have not been based upon the tangible evidence of the Stones, the Tools, and the Barrows, but rather upon the records of early historians, whose evidence in those days was probably not a question of first-hand information.

After all, the objects actually exhumed from the foundations of the Stones, must of necessity be the evidence of greatest importance. What are these objects? The following is a complete list taken from Mr.

Gowland's report.

_Excavation I._ (Seven feet deep.)--A Roman coin of Commodus and a penny of George III. at eight inches below the turf.

A flint hammer-stone, and a splinter of deer's horn embedded in the chalk, at a depth of two and a half feet (below datum line).

_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 Sa.r.s.en, 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 Sa.r.s.en 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 Sa.r.s.en, three edged hammer-stones of flint, one Sa.r.s.en and one Diabase hammer-stone, were found at depths varying between two feet and four feet.

One Sa.r.s.en 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 Sa.r.s.en 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 cla.s.sed 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 Sa.r.s.en 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.