Healing at Stonehenge
Britain’s Bournemouth University archaeologists, led by Geoffrey Wainwright, president of the London Society of Antiquaries, and Timothy Darvill, on September 22, 2008, speculated that it may have been an ancient healing and pilgrimage site, since burials around Stonehenge showed trauma and deformity evidence: “It was the magical qualities of these stones which … transformed the monument and made it a place of pilgrimage for the sick and injured of the Neolithic world.” Radio-carbon dating places the construction of the circle of bluestones at between 2,400 B.C. and 2,200 B.C., but they discovered charcoals dating 7,000 B.C., showing human activity in the site. It could be the primeval equivalent of Lourdes, since the area was already visited 4,000 years before the oldest stone circle, and attracted visitors for centuries after its abandonment. However, this theory is hotly disputed, on the grounds that it is not adequately underpinned by evidence on the ground, either in the Preseli Hills area or at Stonehenge.
December 17th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
There is no evidence, in my view, that contradicts the possibility that people once visited stonehenge as a place of healing. Much is made of burial material from the vicinity that is stated to show signs of trauma, abcesses, deformities and the like. However, I have yet to see the statistics - how many burials have been excavated, what proportion show injuries etc. There really is insufficient evidence to make the claim that Stonehenge was a forerunner of Lourdes! If it was a place of healing, how come there are so many dead people buried there?
I think Darvil and Wainwright place too much belief in early folklore suggesting that there is not a stone at this place that does not have healing properties, and that the stones were transported there because of their healing properties.
Frankly, I think that they concocted this inept theory in order to persuade English Heritage to allow them to dig the place up again. And this from Wainwright, who introduced the JCB to british archaeology when he ripped into Durrington Walls some years ago…..no carefull sieving of the topsoil there, one notes!
One wonders why there is no mention of the proven astronomical relationships shown to be at stonehenge. Could that be because neither Darvil or Wainwright accept that there was any possible astronomical orientation, here or at any other prehistoric site? One wonders why a couple of chancers like these two were let loose on the place. How about using some non-invasive geophysical methods to look beneath the surface?
This dig was really about trying to recover data that was not recorded when it should have been by other spade and wheelbarrow-men like Hawley in the 1920’s and Atkinson in the 1950’s
We probably will never know what stonehenge was really about because what evidence was originally there has been dug up without being properly recorded. Leave what is left un-excavated there alone and let future specialists work on it in 500 years time.
February 27th, 2010 at 11:25 am
Hello,
I don’t believe in the theory’s from led by Geoffrey Wainwright, president of the London Society of Antiquaries, and Timothy Darvill, on September 22, 2008.
They try to explain , by using other places like Lourdeses. Stonehenge is Stonehenge not Lourdeses.
So both people above used there imaginations and cognition to explain a theory down to their personnel drive, assumption and core beliefs and also the professional power and titles, to broadcast above idea.
I agree that Stonehenge must be an old constantly visited and pilgrim place by people> we try to assume behaviour in form of theory’s but there is no proof I’m afraid.
And magic, well, how you proof magic ?
BUT
just one example:
WE human don’t build a cathedral and than chip it into flakes , in terms to consume. Because if so, it wouldn’t have last for so long .
I believe the chips are remains of the final finish process of the stones.
That’s against common human behaviour, especially for a special place, in terms of a psychological perception of mine, by reading these theory from Darvill and Wainright, it leaves more the impression, that their theory has more to do with themselfs, nothing else.
Kind Regards
S.W