This article is from
Creation 42(2):36–38, April 2020

Browse our latest digital issue Subscribe

Stunning Stonehenge!

‘Stone Age’ relic of post-Babel construction?



Standing tall and silent in southern England’s Salisbury Plain, like an array of monolithic guardians to a history long forgotten and shrouded in the mists of time, is Stonehenge. It is Britain’s most culturally iconic, enigmatic megalithic site. With claims of being more ancient than the oldest Egyptian pyramids, the mighty stone blocks that comprise Stonehenge have long challenged researchers to explain how they were transported and erected, for what purpose, and by whom.

Let the rocks speak

Geologists have determined that at least 42 of Stonehenge’s smaller, volcanic ‘bluestones’1 (each weighing between 2–5 tonnes) were transported from the Preseli hills in Pembrokeshire, West Wales—a staggering 250 km (180 miles) away! Furthermore, ancient quarrying marks have been discerned in these outcrops during an archaeological exploration in 2019.

Stonehenge’s larger blocks are called ‘sarsen’ stones, the name for a form of silicified sandstone (sandstone impregnated with silica). These weigh on average 23 tonnes, with the largest, called the Heel Stone, weighing a staggering 32 tonnes.

Sarsens are also found as isolated boulders, called ‘erratics’, strewn across the southern English landscape, the nearest occurring at Marlborough Downs, some 32 km (20 miles) away. Sarsens are believed to have formed above chalk, which chemically altered the sandstone to form ‘silcrete’, like a thick crust.

The sarsens must have been worked on site, because mounds of flaked rock and stone hammers have been found. The blocks were shaped to fit together, like mortise and tenon joints. For interested readers, a virtual 3D tour is available online.2

Even the name Stonehenge is mysterious. It is likely derived from the Old English words stān (stone) and hencg (hinge)—since the stone lintels ‘hinge’ on the uprights.3 Whatever the meaning, a lot ‘hinges’ on the interpretation of their history.

History in the eye of the beholder

Intensively studied for over a century, science has begun to lift the veil on Stonehenge’s secrets. Archaeologists have learned much from what has been discovered about the site and the surrounding ceremonial landscape in which it stands.4 Using observational science, we can agree as to the size, weight, chemical composition and general descriptions of the stones, as well as the dimensions of the earthworks which once surrounded them and the artefacts associated with them.5 However, when it comes to their history, no investigators from that ancient past have left a record of any observations. So imagination, necessarily guided by presuppositions, comes into play.

Based on carbon-14 dating assumptions,6 the site is claimed to be up to 10,000 years old, which exceeds the biblical age for creation itself. Consequently, Bible-believers need to discern the facts and separate them from the fiction. Opinions about Stonehenge rest on different worldviews, and history is usually written by the ones whose view ‘wins’.

Real history depends on the Bible

So, where does Stonehenge fit in world history? After Creation and the Fall, the next greatest event in Earth history is the global Flood of Noah’s day (c. 2500 BC). God declared to Noah, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land … Behold, I will destroy them with the earth … For behold, I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth to destroy all flesh…” (Genesis 6:7a, 13b, 17a). Such a globe-destroying Flood would have erased every trace and memory of man’s pre-Flood civilization from the face of the earth, except those on board Noah’s Ark. Even megaliths as massive as Stonehenge wouldn’t stand a chance against the mighty Deluge of Noah’s day. The Flood eroded and reshaped the entire surface of the earth, depositing huge depths of sediments full of the dead remains of the pre-Flood world. Besides, the sarsen stones are a sedimentary rock, mostly composed of sand laid down by moving water—and it is overwhelmingly likely this was formed during the Flood itself. Stonehenge simply cannot be a pre-Flood construction.

Scripture’s next historic milestone is the Tower of Babel, where the “earth [that] had one language” was divided in Peleg’s day (Genesis 11:1, 10:25, c. 2250 BC).7 Genesis 11:1–9 tells of the building humans erected in rebellion against their Creator. As a result, God confused the one language spoken until that time, and scattered the people over the face of the earth (Genesis 10:32). The dispersed groups carried with them whatever technology and knowhow had been retained by people in these groups. This would help determine the nature of the civilization each group would ‘re-establish’ in various locations. Remarkably, in many places where these groups settled, huge megalithic structures were erected.8 Their purpose seems to have been to once again engage in worship of the “host of heaven”, mentioned repeatedly in the Old Testament as a mark of rebellion against God.

It has been noted that Stonehenge is aligned with the direction of the sunset of the winter solstice and sunrise of the summer solstice. Those studying the astronomy of the ancients have made claims about Stonehenge’s use as an astronomical observatory, or calendar, used amongst other things to help plant crops, based on detecting alignments with the sun, moon and stars. It lends credence to the possibility the heavenly bodies were worshipped here, which were believed to guide all aspects of the lives of those which built and used the ceremonial site.

Further evidence of Stonehenge’s ceremonial significance is the acoustic properties of the aforementioned bluestones. When struck, the stones give off a metallic bell-like sound. Cross-cultural studies from much of the ancient world suggest that rocks with such musical or unusual sound properties were thought to contain magical forces or spirits. This might be why they were specially brought in from so far away.

Stonehenge: consistent with biblical history

When we consider the facts surrounding Stonehenge, there is nothing in observational science and archaeology that contradicts biblical history. It all hinges on worldviews and the interpretation of data by experts who were not there to observe when such monuments were first constructed. The Bible is God’s history book of the universe; it’s His story, so it should be our guide to understanding the past. As impressive as Stonehenge is, it’s a post-Flood, post-Babel monument, built by humans who were created with intelligence from the beginning.

A moving tale of human ingenuity

Modern experiments have demonstrated how the stones could have been moved and erected using only materials likely available to the original builders. British engineer Mark Whitby, archaeologist Julian Richards, and 130 volunteers moved a 40 tonne stone with a sled and lubricated rail, up a 1:20 slope. On level ground, or downhill, it was calculated that a similar stone could reasonably be transported 10 km per day. Their paper considered, but gave reasons why they discarded, the idea that rollers or similar methods were used. This stone was then raised upright into a hole, with the same profile found at Stonehenge, engineered in such a way as to allow the block to tilt to 70 degrees without sliding, before dropping into position. This was achieved by placing a stone at the hole’s leading edge, upon which the slab rotated, as on a hinge, and pulling it vertical by use of an A-frame lever. A scaffold ramp was constructed behind the stone, upon which the lintel was hauled on rails, onto the top of the standing stone, to form the completed trilithon (lintel resting on two standing stones).

‘A’ frame used as a lever to assist with the pull to upright
Cross-section of sledge and rails used to move stone
Stone rotated on a pivot and dropped into holding pit

References and notes

  1. Building Stonehenge,; accessed 15 Aug 2019.Return to text.
  2. Stonehenge virtual tour: inside the stones,; accessed 15 Aug 2019. Return to text.
  3. Or hen(c)en meaning ‘hang’ or ‘gallows’. Return to text.
  4. Led by the Stonehenge Hidden Landscape Project,; accessed 27 Jul 2019. Return to text.
  5. Neolithic stone tools, antler picks and ivory jewellery, but later Roman artefacts show it became an important shrine; see; accessed 27 Jul 2019. Return to text.
  6. Based on 14C dating of charcoal at the site, interpreted as proving the site “continuously evolved over a period of about 10,000 years … [and Stonehenge was] built between roughly 5,000 and 4,000 years ago”; Jarus, O., Stonehenge: Facts&theories about mysterious monument, 2017,, accessed 15 Aug 2019. Return to text.
  7. Archbishop James Ussher calculated the Babel event at five years after Peleg’s birth. James Ussher, (Pierce, L&M, Eds.) The Annals of the World, Master Books, Green Forest, AR, , p. 22, 2003. Return to text.
  8. Read about the 1000s of pyramid structures documented at:; accessed 27 Jul 2019. Return to text.

Helpful Resources

Readers’ comments

Renton M.
We visited Stonehenge in 2014 and went through the excellent new visitors centre there. On reading all the display panels however, it became quite clear that no one has any idea about what it was for or when it was built. All appeared to be speculation. They told a story but at the end of the day nothing was solid. As I recall Bill Cooper (in an online translation of 'The Chronicle of the Early Briton's) suggested that it could even have been built as late as about 500AD, because the Roman's tended to give Latin names to things like this that existed when they were in Britain... but Stonehenge never got a Latin name...suggesting to was built post Roman times. ICR has an article by Brian Thomas on this...' A Recent Origin for Stonehenge?'
Gavin Cox
Hi Renton,
Glad you got time to see the Henge up close and personal. You put your finger right on it, there is little to go on in terms of solid evidence to prove who built the Henge, for what purpose and when exactly. However, I am hesitant to agree that Stonehenge was built as late as 500AD. Although 14C dating becomes less reliable the further one goes back towards the Flood, the relative dating of innumerable objects and sites would all have to be fundamentally questioned if we are to propose Stonehenge was created as late as 500AD! I just don't see that as reasonable course to follow. For instance flint tools found at the site would suggest a material culture existed there far outdating the technologies available in 500AD. However, just because something is dated at 3000 BC (pre-Flood) doesn't mean we need to rigidly accept that date, but hold it lightly as a relative date. Stonehenge can be sensibly placed in Biblical history as a post-Flood, post-Babel monument, but to place it vastly more recently as some have suggested, I see little to no justification.
Egil W.
Hi, thanks for another well-written and interesting article!

As to carbon-dating; could be interesting to have models of which atmospheric post-Flood conditions would generate a generally higher ‘carbon-age’ in ancient artefacts (of wood, bones, etc), than the carbon-amounts presupposed in uniformitarian geology.
Gavin Cox
Thanks Egil,
Such modelling as you propose would only be useful if it could take into account all variables such as the field strength of the earth's magnetic field at the time of the Flood, the amount of aerosols given off by tectonic events, the amount of biomatter buried by the Flood- good luck with that one. For a good summary of why 14C dates cannot be accepted the further one goes back to the Flood event read CMI's Answer's chapter on 14C dating, there is a lot involved.
Thomas C.
Stonehenge is one of many places that humans built to give them the restart of the year. Useful in knowing when to plant. We have a three hundred and sixty degree circle today. Where did that come from? Could it be that the pre-flood year was twelve months of thirty days each? Thus three hundred and sixty days even per year. And that after the flood even the earth sped up because the waters below to some extent changed places with the earth above, thus moving mass toward the center of rotation and speeding up that rotation slightly. Hebrew prophecy seems to use the 360 day year. And there was confusion as to the start of the year by early rulers, including Roman rulers so they changed the number of days in a month and even started the calendar over upon their rise to power. Not only Stonehenge but wood henge in America and some churches had special apertures that cast sun beams on certain spaces to indicate the return of the planet to the same place in orbit. Something the old calendar did not provide.
Gavin Cox
Hi Thomas, thanks for taking the time to read my article and to write in. As with so much surrounding Stonehenge, conjecture reigns, so I tried to stay to the facts. Although what you write is interesting, it can't be substantiated. If you're interested in reading about the possible pre-Flood calendar and if it changed and why, then CMI has in interesting article, see here.
Edward K.
I would like to know why some people are so adverse to technological advances or why there seems to be an insistence on regarding faith as not being cognitive. I find that to be extremely irritating!!!!
Andrew S.
Hi Gavin - an interesting well written paper. It would be interesting to consider how such ancient sites correlate with other sites, such as the Carahunge site in Armenia. Cara means stone, and hunge is similar to henge, possibly meaning sound, or foundation or treasure in Armenian. As people travelled away from Shinar, then they took with them their pagan beliefs, showing correlation across thousands of km. [link deleted per feedback rules]Carahunge
Gavin Cox
Hi Andrew,
Many thanks for your kind comment and most fascinating connection with the Armenian stone circles. Like a lot of things concerning the British Stonehenge, much is surrounded in mystery and conjecture, including the derivation of the word 'henge'. I went for what British scholars were saying, deriving the word from Old English for 'hinge', or 'hang'. But, if like you say, the idea of stone circles and the word 'henge' meaning 'sound' migrated from the Near East, away from Babel, along with the dispersed people groups, then possibly we should look for the derivation of the word there. The holes in the Armenian stones make me think they could have been used as some sort of astronomical observatory, or as some have suggested, made sounds. There is a sound connection to Stonehenge as I mentioned in my article, where the bluestones have a certain bell-like quality when struck, which may have had a religious significance. Its just a pity someone didn't leave a note (pun intended) on the stones, so that we could all understand their true purpose and who built them and when.
Robert R.
simple search of the Internet and or YouTube reveals some interesting details about the Stonehedge we see today as being constructed or reconstructed in 1954. You may want to research this to see if it is true but the photographs seem pretty authentic. [link deleted per feedback rules]Lf119qOXQaA
Gavin Cox
Hi Robert,
I didn't include the recent restoration of Stonehenge in the modern era, as you point out, (actually, several, during the 1950s and 1960s). If you go here, you can read about it. There is an internet conspiracy theory that uses these same photos to suggest Stonehenge was actually constructed for the first time in the 1950s! A simple search of the internet can soon debunk these ideas. Historical records first appear centuries before mentioning Stonehenge. For instance it appears in Henry of Huntingdon's archaeological study c. AD 1130, and six years later in Geoffrey of Monmouth. In 1200 and 1250 records, Stonehenge appeared, and in 1297, and 1470. Pretty difficult to reconcile with the idea Stonehenge was constructed in the 1950s.
Lucas W.
Wonderful article as usual! I read everything I can get my hands on about ancient Britain, and one possibility as to the transportation of the Welsh stones that I have yet to hear discussed (it would be immediately tossed by deep time adherents) is that the structure may have been erected while post-Flood ice covered most of the island. Could not the stones have been pushed or pulled across the self-lubricating ice? Perhaps it even helped ease a passage across the Bristol channel? Just a thought.
Gavin Cox
Hi Lucas, many thanks for your kind comment. When it comes to the Ice Age, and Stonehenge's relationship to it, then most scholars would say Stonehenge was built after the ice receded which left behind the 'sarcen' stones (silicified sandstone), which can still be seen scattered around on the landscape. There is no controversy here, the stones were probably transported by the ice sheet itself, not by people. The original builders used the scattered stones left on the landscape in their construction. However, the bluestones were transported from quarries 250 km away in South Wales, where quarry marks and rough stones have been identified. They likely did this using sleds, which experiments performed have shown was a feasible method.
Tony B.
Stonehenge could have been built with help from the Nephilim. Genesis 6:1-4.
Gavin Cox
Hi Tony,
Nephilim helped build Stonehenge? I highly doubt it. We must avoid wild speculation in our attempts to explain post-babel structures like Stonehenge (or Egypt's Pyramids) and stick to the facts. My article summarises some of the ways archaeologists have shown that using commonly available materials, conventional technology available at the time, and human ingenuity, it would be perfectly feasible to construct Stonehenge. People have always been intelligent, because they were made in the image of God, and so can achieve great things, even far back in history.
Howard C.
[Noah's Flood] silliness is what you are basing your judging of how old Stonehenge is. The scriptures promote the best way of living, by promoting the Ten Commandments, and the teachings of Jesus, but they simply are not reliable in the Genesis stories. I will tell you now, that you will discard what I have written today, and take for complete truth what was written many centuries ago, by someone you never knew, that got it all wrong.
Gavin Cox
Thanks Howard for taking the time to write in. You state "This silliness is what you are basing your judging of how old Stonehenge is" (referring to your ideas of how the Flood and Creation took place, which I've not included in the feedback for brevity). If you read my article you will see I take Biblical history as an accurate chronological record of real events. I mention the Flood (c.2500 BC), because Stonehenge must be a post-Flood monument (it could never withstand the force of the Flood waters). I also mention Babel, as Stonehenge must have been built some time after Babel, (c.2250 BC) to allow for the migration of people groups to northern latitudes.

You also state "The scriptures promote the best way of living, by promoting the Ten Commandments, and the teachings of Jesus, but they simply are not reliable in the Genesis stories."

If Scripture is not reliable in its truth claims then why should it in any way promote the best way of living? At the most you can say it promotes 'a way of living'. The Ten Commandments has 6 day Creation at its core in that God ordained the 7th day as the Sabbath Rest (Exodus 31:16-18). If this is historically inaccurate, then why should the Ten Commandments be any better than any other system of moral law? Jesus Himself taught Noah's Flood was a real event (Luke 17:26-28; Matthew 24:37) as did the other NT writers. If Jesus was mistaken about earth history, then He cannot be the Divine Son of God without error. Again, if that is the case, His teachings are of no more merit than any other historical religious leader.

You further state: "I will tell you now, that you will discard what I have written today, and take for complete truth what was written many centuries ago, by someone you never knew, that got it all wrong."

The first part of your sentence I concede, because I don't consider your writing represents anything other than a fallible human being's opinion.
The second, that I "take for complete truth what was written many centuries ago" I also concede, because my belief that the Bible is God's Word and without error is non-negotiable. Although I don't know the author of each individual book of the Bible (obviously) Scripture states that it is all "God breathed" (2 Timothy 3:16), and ultimately the Author is God Himself, who has revealed Himself through His Word and in the Person of Jesus Christ.

Lastly, you state that the "someone" who wrote Scripture "got it all wrong". If you believe that then you have contradicted your previous statement that "The scriptures promote the best way of living". I certainly wouldn't want to trust the words of someone who "got it all wrong"- that would be a promotion of the worst way of living.

I hope you learn to trust the Christ of the Scriptures, because He spoke Truth, He is the Truth.

Seathrún M.
As to the Confusion of Tongues at Babel, there are at least two other Bible passages which seem relevant. These are Numbers 22:28-30, where God enabled Balaam's ass to rebuke him in a human language, possibly Hebrew, and Acts 2:4-12 where the Holy Spirit caused the Apostles and their companions to speak about "the wonderful works of God" in all the languages of a vast international crowd gathered at the Jewish festival of Shavuot (Pentecost). Since there seem to have been about 120 in the room, this could mean that a similar number of languages were given to them.
Other passages regarding the "gift of tongues" are often regarded as highly controversial, but these two seem clear enough. Both seem to show that God instantaneously gave the ability to speak a new language to those who had not previously known it.
David P.
"Real History depends on the Bible". Well only for you. For the rest of the civilised and educated world, science - and we do live in 2020, not 1656 when that quaint theologian Bishop Ussher died - tells us that Abraham and Methuselah did not live to be several hundreds of years old and that the earth is billions of years old. In this article you accept that geology proves that the sarsen stones did come from the Preselli hills, but not that geological time is a thoroughly real and proven fact. Very curious. Do you not think that selectively picking out well proven scientific facts rather diminishes your raison d'être?
Tas Walker
You have raised so many issues here that a detailed response is needed.
"Real History depends on the Bible". Well only for you. [Yes, it is a worldview issue. Can you appreciate that your worldview is guiding your thinking?]
For the rest of the civilised and educated world, [Wow, you are so full of yourself, which may be preventing your seeing another point of view.]
science [What do you mean by science? And what science to you rely on? What was science in the 1930s, or the 1950s, or the present time, or what will be the fashion in 20 years time?]
- and we do live in 2020, not 1656 when that quaint theologian Bishop Ussher died [Very condescending.]
- tells us that Abraham and Methuselah did not live to be several hundreds of years old [Where did you read that? Why did they come to that conclusion? Perhaps there were factors at work that you and they are not aware of. There are good articles on that deal with this which you can find with the search box.]
and that the earth is billions of years old [Have you ever delved into how they came up with the billion-year age of the earth and the ongoing problems and contradictions with it. For example, against what did they calibrate the instrument that measured the age of the earth? Have you heard of the saying that if you repeat something over and over long enough eventually people will think it is a fact. Be careful that you are not conned.]
In this article you accept that geology proves that the sarsen stones did come from the Preselli hills, [Yes, that is based on observation.] but not that geological time is a thoroughly real and proven fact [Because geologic time is a philosophy. It is not based on observing the progress of time but on speculation.] .
Very curious. Do you not think that selectively picking out well proven scientific facts rather diminishes your raison d'être? [No. You have to learn not to accept everything that scientists say. Scientific facts? You need to have a way of being able to distinguish between fact and story telling, so that you don't fall for everything.]
Such a globe-destroying Flood would have erased every trace and memory of man’s pre-Flood civilization from the face of the earth, except those on board Noah’s Ark. Even megaliths as massive as Stonehenge wouldn’t stand a chance against the mighty Deluge of Noah’s day. The Flood eroded and reshaped the entire surface of the earth, depositing huge depths of sediments full of the dead remains of the pre-Flood world. Besides, the sarsen stones are a sedimentary rock, mostly composed of sand laid down by moving water—and it is overwhelmingly likely this was formed during the Flood itself. Stonehenge simply cannot be a pre-Flood construction.

I find this comment eroneous and even arrogant. It is true by observation that the flood annilated much of what was before as we can see evidence obivious change. But this statement, presented as fact cannot be verified and it is exactly what an evolutionist - gradualist would say. Presenting someting as a fact without proof (it is impossible to prove a lot of structures, buildings, pyramids that appear all over the globe that are obviously (most likely, pre-flood. These structures have not even been romotely explained by many scientists as they ponder who and what built these amazing structures, and what possible culture (that was supposed to be primative) could have built these structure. A few examples: The Giza pyramid, the structure in Bosnia, the massive blocks and foundations stones (largest in the world), in Israel, and many more. These pre-date anything we can logically put in a time line.
Before Genesis 6 there were a race of Nephilim. These giants were capable of moving, building and constructing massive structures we don't have the technolgy to even attempt. Just read the book of Enoch.
Gavin Cox
Dear PJ,
Thanks for taking the time to read my article and write in with your comment. I am not sure why you find the above quote from my article "erroneous and even arrogant", I am simply taking Genesis as real history and coming to conclusions based on that. God clearly stated "I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth" (Gen 6:7 KJV). That means people and all that was associated with them were wiped from the "face of the earth"- no trace, and that was what God said He would do. Therefore Stonehenge and other historic structures cannot be pre-Flood (they would have been utterly demolished without trace). As I also stated, the stones used in their construction are themselves sedimentary rock, often with fossils- so these materials are themselves Flood rocks. The conclusions I draw in my article are exactly the opposite of what a gradualist/ evolutionist would arrive at- surely you can understand that?

You say that Egypt's Pyramids and structures like Stonehenge have "not been remotely explained by science"- I simply don't accept that. Firstly, you are conflating two types of science remember. Scientists weren't there in history to directly measure and observe the construction of these buildings. And when they don't have any historical records of what the builders did, scientists can only bring to bear reasonable hypothesis to test. So we can't talk about 'proof', only what is on balance reasonable. I've summarised in my article how archaeologists used commonly available materials and 'low-tech' methods to show how the transport of huge stones long distances was feasible.
Neither the Pyramids nor Stonehenge required the Nephilim for their construction (or anti-gravity as suggested by another comment previously). We should steer clear of fantastic explanations. Scripture does not state the Nephilim constructed buildings. If Scripture stated the Nephilim did then you would have a case. However you go beyond Scripture and beyond common sense in your assertions.
John P.
I was wondering if they could have somehow used the earth's magnetic field or an antigravity device to move the large rocks and stones or would it have been more conventional lowtech? There are many huge buildings in Egypt and South America which have massive stones also.
Gavin Cox
Hi John,
My article was specifically aimed at showing how the huge blocks of Stonehenge could be moved the vast distances using conventional technology and materials available to the builders at that time in history. We don't have to resort to fantastic ideas of anti-gravity (etc.) to explain the moving of the stones. Human ingenuity and intelligence can explain Stonehenge (and other mega-structures like Egypt's Pyramids). Humans were endowed with remarkable abilities, and were made intelligent from the beginning. People didn't rise gradually from animal origins as evolutionary dogma demands but were able to perform great feats in the ancient past.
Berend D.
Thanks Gavin, appreciate the knowledgeable summary. Do you have a guesstimate what it would have cost to built this? I.e. was this economically expensive? A truly huge project, i.e. the moonshot of that time? Because it seems to me huge surpluses and knowledge went into this, is that right? Or would this have been possible for a small clan?
Gavin Cox
Hi Berend,
Thanks for your question. According to the study by British engineer Mark Whitby, archaeologist Julian Richards, 130 volunteers moved a 40 tonne stone. On level ground, or downhill, it was calculated that a similar stone could reasonably be transported 10 km per day. So I don't think it would have had a major economic impact. I saw another study by University College London (UCL), in the United Kingdom by Barney Harris, a Ph.D. student at UCL's Institute of Archaeology. With a group of 10 volunteers they moved a 1 tonne block, and he calculated a group of around 20 people would have been able to transport a single 2-ton bluestone by sled from Wales.
In a study by Richard Atkinson, a British archaeologist in 1951 he estimated nearly 30 million combined hours of labor would have been needed to build Stonehenge. However the UCL experiment will revise this figure down "significantly." So probably a village size clan could have constructed Stonehenge over several seasons without a huge economic impact.
Rene S.
Stonehenge was certainly built to last serving many functions/purposes under Gods direction. These ideas make sense having read the bible and knowing something’s about the author through reading his word. I like the post flood and Tower of Babel time frame and the idea of new beginnings of the year helping with crop planting and harvesting. It also serves as a reminder that everything was created by God intelligence given to man by God to come full circle and give glory , credit and to be in awe of his inspiration . Mysterious stones of enormous size still captivate and hold our attention as to the details. Perhaps that’s the point God cannot be fully comprehended for we can only see or know in part. Like Stonehenge we can know of his existence . Reminded that our spiritual health is important enough that God keeps sending us visible reminders from an invisible God to inspire us we need him every day of the year. Full circle. Joshua left stones in the river and bank by Devine guidance as a memorial. Thanks for the articles, most interesting.
Mike H.
I am curious as to the nature of the ringing "bell" quality the rocks have. There is a site in Montana where the rocks ring when struck with a metal hammer/object. If you strike the rocks nearby that are not in the pile (by pile I mean small hill) there is no ring. Very fun to explore with the kids. How does this happen and how did these large rocks get piles up just right so they could make music!
Gavin Cox
Hi Mike,
What exactly causes the ringing sound is still bit of a mystery, it could be due to a high silicon content, maybe unique joint patterns in the rocks, or their proximity to other boulders. Whatever is the cause, such rocks have been used for millennia by people for ceremonial reasons. They even have a name—"Lithophones". A study from the Royal College of Art in London by Researchers at the Landscape and Perception Project have shown how when struck the Bluestones in Stonehenge give off a bell like ring, identical to many rocks from a particular quarry where they were mined from in Preseli hills, Pembrokeshire, West Wales (200 miles away!). An investigator with the project, Paul Deveraux, told the BBC “In fact, we have had percussionists who have played proper percussion pieces off the rocks." And fascinatingly from an historical perspective the bluestones sound so much like a bell, churches in the region used them as their bells until the 1700s. A nearby village is named Maenclochog, meaning "ringing stones".
Mark A.
God used Foreign Accent Syndrome to confuse the languages at Babel. Could Stone Henge have been multi use in that it could have been a communal building as well as a observatory? With posts on the outside to support a Thatch roof? & the center of the henge a fire place for cooking etc built on top of stone platform to protect from running water. The carvings suggest maybe it also at one point could have been a market as well.
Gavin Cox
Hi Mark,
Genesis 11 doesn't state how God confused the languages at Babel, it was a supernatural event by the Sovereign will of God. So to attach labels like "Foreign Accent Syndrome" to God's Sovereign activity diminishes God's glory.
Regarding the use of Stonehenge, archaeologists can only work with the evidence that has survived to date, and remember, Stonehenge was produced by a culture that left no written records. There is no evidence of a roof covering Stonehenge, neither is there evidence of roof structures on other stone circles, so such thinking would be considered speculation at best. Archaeological evidence, however would suggest a mixed use for Stonehenge over the centuries, where material culture discovered so far shows evidence of food preparation at the site, a place of burial, possibly a healing centre and Roman coins suggest some sort of commerce at the site.

Comments are automatically closed 14 days after publication.