Archaeologists Say Stonehenge May Have Been Healing Site...

British Archaeologists have said on Monday that south-Britain monolithic site Stonehenge may have drawn ailing people from all over Europe who came in hopes of healing, according to the first archaeological digs to be conducted at the site for more than four decades.

Digs conducted by Bournemouth University archaeologists Geoffrey Wainwright and Timothy Darvill with special permission from Britain’s National Heritage organization, which administers and cares for national monuments, unearthed that grave-sites scattered around the Stonehenge area showed that not only were roughly half of them "not native to the Stonehenge area", but that most of them were suffering from some sort of injury or illness at the time of their death.

"Stonehenge would attract not only people who were unwell, but people who were capable of [healing] them," said Professor Darvill, "Therefore, in a sense, Stonehenge becomes 'the A & E' of southern England," or, differently put, an ancient equivalent of the modern-day Lourdes shrine, which is revered for the same miraculous healing powers.

Stonehenge is built from massive stones – as heavy as 50 tons – called sarsens, which are set up standing in concentric circles, surrounded by a circular earth mound and ditch (this earth formation is often encountered in the Neolithic as a primitive form of fortification). The sarsens are surrounded by smaller stones, made of white-speckled dolomite, also known as bluestones due to the bluish hue they take on when cut or wet. The sarsens were quarried 24 miles north of Stonehenge, in Marlborough Downs, while the bluestones were imported from Wales, regardless of the great effort, due to their believed healing abilities. As an aside, bluestones are first recorded in medieval literature as healing stones, although their presence here may indicate that their reputation as such is far older than that.

Scientists have also used the opportunity of this dig to conduct carbon dating of the site. They dug a 2.5m x 3.5m patch of earth beneath one of the bluestones, and sampled organic material from the area. This was carbon-dated, placing the site "between 2400BC and 2200BC,” with a generally-accepted average of 2300BC. This is 200 years earlier than previous estimates, and is the most precise dating of the site that archaeologists have been able to produce to date. "It's an incredible feeling, a dream come true," says Prof. Wainwright.

The date that scientists have resolved for the Stonehenge site coincides with one of the earliest skeletons found there, the “Amesbury Archer,” a wealthy, powerful fellow who seemed to have come from the Alps in Europe, and who had knowledge of metallurgy. One of the theories for his presence there is that he brought the trade to the area, and practiced it there, perhaps even had a hand in construction or other works on Stonehenge, but a serious knee injury and a grave dental problem that were discovered upon examination of the skeleton, propose another theory: that he may have been one of the early pilgrims who sought healing at the holy site; it’s unknown whether the stones were standing or not at the time.

The earliest signs of habitation however, according to the Bournemouth Univ. team’s findings, date as far back as 7200BC, that’s three and a half millennia before any previous finds. This means that, at the time of the giant stones’ erection, the place already had a long history.