Stonehenge bluestones used for their healing properties?

[Big Les]

OK, so I'm quite out of touch with developments in the archaeology of Stonehenge and Salisbury plain in general. I've had my head in other things for a good few years. But much as I remember reading Timothy Darvill with interest as an undergrad, and hearing that he'd pinpointed the source of the stones (http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/news/wales-news/tm_objectid=15661198&method=full&siteid=50082&headline=archaeologists-figure-out-mystery-of--stonehenge--bluestones-name_page.html) this latest bit of news sounds suspiciously like bald speculation to me...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7337292.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7322753.stm

In this part of Wales, the healing power of the bluestones is the stuff of myth and legend. Darvill and Wainwright have discovered extraordinary similarities between the local Bedd Arthur bluestone circle, and the circle at Stonehenge. This, combined with growing evidence of illness and injury from human remains unearthed around Stonehenge, has led the team to a fascinating new theory. The researchers believe that the bluestones were healing stones, and that they were transported to Stonehenge because people believed they had a magical ability to cure.

I'm thinking (hoping) that there must be more to it.

[SDC]

How? Did folks grind them up and smoke them?

Healing rocks, yet...

[RobRoy]

I'm thinking (hoping) that there must be more to it.

Sorry, what more are you looking for? Or are you concerned that the report seems to be straying into woo territory with claims about the stones themselves?

I heard an interview with the chief archaeologist on the site the other day, and he did mention the blue stones. It seemed like an interesting dig.

[Big Les]

Sorry, what more are you looking for? Or are you concerned that the report seems to be straying into woo territory with claims about the stones themselves?

I heard an interview with the chief archaeologist on the site the other day, and he did mention the blue stones. It seemed like an interesting dig.

Not woo Rob, more like "phenomonology", where archaeologists decide that we can't ever truly know the past, so we might as well just speculate.

I admit to not having read his book (http://www.bournemouth.ac.uk/newsandevents/News/2006/november06/stonehenge.html), but it seems that the theory is based upon;

1) The bluestones being associated with natural springs
2) Springs being somehow linked to healing
3) Another circle of bluestones existing near the extraction point in Wales
4) Many of the bodies excavated at SH bearing signs of injury and disease

Seems like an exercise in join-the-dots to me, since;

1) The bluestone quarry/spring correlation may be coincidence
2) We have no idea whether Neolithic people saw springs as healing
3) There being another ring of bluestones proves nothing beyond them being favoured by some for henge-building.
4) Many of the bodies EVERYWHERE in prehistory show such signs, which would not in themselves mean that people were visiting SH on healing pilgrimages.

I guess since I really discovered scepticism, a lot of the speculative hypotheses by professional archaeologists don't seem *that* much more scientific than people like Robert Bauval. There's still a world of difference, but I'm just uncomfortable with what seem to be quite big reaches, which no matter how carefully couched by the authors, are nonetheless represented by the media as earth-shattering set-in-stone conclusions.

I mean, the Beeb article implies that the bluestones are somehow recent finds.

[RobRoy]

Not woo Rob, more like "phenomonology", where archaeologists decide that we can't ever truly know the past, so we might as well just speculate.

Oh, I see what you're saying. From what I understood, there wasn't that much more to his particular theory, but that he hoped to provide more evidence during this dig.

[Big Les]

Well, that's fair enough. But that does seem rather like concocting a theory, then looking for the evidence that might fit it. Not the way science works, but then archaeology always was more of an "art". The whole discipline is prone to flights of fancy, wishful thinking, and even downright woo. The number of archaeologists I've met or heard about that think dowsing is a valid geophysical technique is quite worrying. I know, because until about 3 years ago, I thought it was too!

[trvlr2]

Well, that's fair enough. But that does seem rather like concocting a theory, then looking for the evidence that might fit it. Not the way science works, but then archaeology always was more of an "art". The whole discipline is prone to flights of fancy, wishful thinking, and even downright woo. The number of archaeologists I've met or heard about that think dowsing is a valid geophysical technique is quite worrying. I know, because until about 3 years ago, I thought it was too!

Three years ago? Are you six, now? Seven?:rolleyes:

[Brainache]

Hey, this Darvill bloke is giving a lecture at the school where I've been working for the last few months. It's my last day tomorrow, but the lecture is on next month. I might see if I can get a seat and find out a bit more about this.

From the school newsletter:

THE COLLEGE STREET LECTURE
Tercentenary Lecture of the Society of Antiquaries
Merlin’s Magic Circles: Stonehenge and the use of the Preseli Bluestones
Professor Timothy Darvill
Professor of Archaeology in the School of Conservation Sciences
and Head of the Centre for Archaeology, Anthropology and
Heritage at Bournemouth
Tuesday 13th May 2008, 6.00 for 6.30pm
Palladium Theatre, College Street
Stonehenge in central southern England is known the world over
as an iconic symbol of Europe’s prehistoric past. In this lecture
Professor Darvill will show that while Stonehenge’s origins as a
ceremonial monument were conventional enough its later history
was exceptional. Key to the transformation was the arrival of
about 80 pillars of Bluestone rock brought a distance of around
250km from the Preseli Hills of southwest Wales to Salisbury
Plain. But why were these stones important? And what did they
mean to Neolithic people? Using archaeological evidence from
Stonehenge itself and from recent work in the Preseli Hills, and
folklore and oral tradition dating back to the 13th century AD,
a new picture of Stonehenge is emerging in which the stones
themselves can be seen to have perceived magical properties
connected with healing. Their re-use in later and ever more
elaborate structures at Stonehenge show something of their power
and significance and illustrate how the landscape of the Preseli
Hills is constructed in microcosm at Stonehenge. People were
attracted to the area from continental Europe, and what started
out as a local focus became a celebrated place for prehistoric
pilgrimage.
Timothy Darvill has served as Chairman of the Institute of
Field Archaeologists, was a Member of the Council of the
National Trust, and is currently a Vice-President of the Society
of Antiquaries of London. Current research interests focus
on archaeological resource management and the Neolithic of
northwest Europe. He is the author of over a dozen books.
Limited parking will be available in the Middle Playground; entry
from Stanley Street. Light refreshments will be available before
the lecture.

[Big Les]

Three years ago? Are you six, now? Seven?:rolleyes:

What's your problem? I'm not too proud to admit that I was wrong, and simply had uncritically bought what my lecturer had told me.

Age and intelligence have little to do with lack of critical thinking, as you ought to know if you've lurked here for two years or so.

[Big Les]

Hey, this Darvill bloke is giving a lecture at the school where I've been working for the last few months. It's my last day tomorrow, but the lecture is on next month. I might see if I can get a seat and find out a bit more about this.

From the school newsletter:

Thanks Brainache - that's the second mention of "oral tradition" I've seen. From the 13th century? Is he kidding? That's about as relevant to prehistoric ritual beliefs (whatever they might have been) as Mormonism.

[AgeGap]

Saw the article on Ceefax yesterday. It made the link between bluestone (diabase??) and healing. I just assumed, perhaps wrongly, that the link had already been made and was a well known historical fact.
On a more important note for Spinal Tap fans, anybody notice the videos in the first link? The volume can be turned up to eleven. This is one louder.

No one knows who they were, or what they were doing...
but their legacy remains...
hewn into the living rock of Stonehenge...

[sophia8]

Using archaeological evidence from
Stonehenge itself and from recent work in the Preseli Hills, and
folklore and oral tradition dating back to the 13th century AD,
a new picture of Stonehenge is emerging in which the stones
themselves can be seen to have perceived magical properties
connected with healing.
In that era, anything from 'ancient times' was thought by somebody to have healing/magical properties. For instance, there's a set of very old illuminated gospels (I think it's the Durham Gospels) that spent a couple of centuries in the possession of a local farming family. This family were illiterate and assumed the big fancy picture of a bull on the front meant it was good for cattle in some way; so every year, they'd ritually dip it in the cattle trough for the good of their cows.
And practically every location that has megalithic monuments has an old folk tradition of pouring water over the stones to produce a magical or healing elixir; presumably, that's the "oral tradition" that the Prof is talking about.

[Big Les]

Yes, of course. But these are oral/folk traditions from thousands of years hence. Sure there is continuity of that kind of superstitious belief, but I just don't think we can assume the same of Neolithic people with any degree of certainty.

Certainly not to the confidence level of the media reports. But then, when have the media accurately reported anything like this? I'll try and get the 2006 book and keep an eye out for excavation reports in future.

[RobRoy]

Yes, of course. But these are oral/folk traditions from thousands of years hence. Sure there is continuity of that kind of superstitious belief, but I just don't think we can assume the same of Neolithic people with any degree of certainty.

But as theories go, it seems okey dokey to me. Is there evidence that seems to dispute the claims?

Certainly not to the confidence level of the media reports. But then, when have the media accurately reported anything like this? I'll try and get the 2006 book and keep an eye out for excavation reports in future.

Exactly. The media is trying to report something to the masses, and when that happens there will always be a degree of sensationalism. Besides which anything to do with the "mysterious" Stonehenge always carries a slant with it to begin with.