Stonehenge, Today and Yesterday

by Frank Stevens

There can be little doubt that the Sarsens 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 mass 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 Sarsen 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 Sarsens 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 Class 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, Assyria, 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 illustration 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 débris 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 mass of fallen stones, and the task of their reconstruction would be well-nigh impossible.

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.