New discoveries about Stonehenge

I have been delighted by the numerous readers who have send emails and messages about the new discoveries about Stonehenge from the excavations in Wales. These wonderful readers have all enthusiastically claimed that the new findings fit beautifully with my theories about the purpose of Stonehenge and other monuments from the Neolithic.

The following is my response to the reports.

Image source and media report:

People need a vast knowledge system to survive, both physically and culturally. Cultures without writing have an alternative – orality – a complex of memory systems used to store a vast amount of pragmatic information. These mnemonic systems have been the focus of my academic research for well over a decade.

The new discoveries for Stonehenge describe a perfect system for replicating landscape sites when settling in the transition from a predominantly hunter-gatherer lifestyle to one with a base in agriculture. Key to such systems is the essential need for mnemonic structures such as the stone or timber ‘circles’. This is why they are found all over the world in this transition phase.

There are two possibilities which logically led to the transfer of the bluestone circle from the Preseli Hills in Wales to Salisbury Plain in Wiltshire. At this moment, I don’t think the archaeology is sufficient to differentiate between them.

Firstly, an entire tribe moving from Wales to the Salisbury Plain took their encyclopaedia with them. This would require the circle to be erected in the same order as in Wales and oriented in the same direction. In effect, these people were taking their database of knowledge with them, the structure in the stones, and the data in their memories.

Secondly, a different tribe conquering those in Wales might identify just how effective this memory technique is and steal only the technology. Essentially, they stole the database structure and filled it with their own data. The bluestones are particularly suited to a mnemonic purpose due to the blotches and blobs in their material makeup.

For those not familiar with my work, the analysis of indigenous cultures from all over the world showing how they use these mnemonic technologies can be found in my LaTrobe University PhD thesis, published by Cambridge University Press as Knowledge and Power in Prehistoric Societies (2015). An expansion of the archaeological sites for a general audience, but without as much technical detail, can be found in The Memory Code (2016). It is almost impossible to can see just how effective these methods are until you have tried them yourself. I get emails daily from readers astounded by their effectiveness. The techniques are detailed in Memory Craft (2019). In order to understand how the mnemonic technologies work from Indigenous and non-Indigenous perspectives, you are best to read my most recent book, Songlines: the power and promise (2020). It is co-authored by Dr Margo Neale, Head of the Centre for Indigenous Knowledges and Senior Indigenous Curator & Advisor to the Director at the National Museum of Australia.

A full bibliography can be found on my website.

The archaeological team reporting on the new Stonehenge find, led by Professor Mike Parker Pearson, are outstanding archaeologists. I have been following Parker Pearson’s teams thorough archaeological reports for years now. Without their rigorous detail, I could not have developed my ideas. However, I do find the constant emphasis on death to be limiting thinking about the way such a monument would function in an oral culture.

There is no doubt that considerations of death would have been part of the knowledge system, but indigenous cultures tend to utilise integrated knowledge systems in which all facets of knowledge are interwoven in song, dance and narrative – and physical spaces. Physical mnemonic technologies used in every oral culture I have explored include the the entire landscape, localised monuments and portable mnemonic devices. There is good reason to assume that the oral culture at Stonehenge, a mere 5,000 years ago, would have done the same.

In Australia, we are so fortunate to be able to learn from a continuous culture dating back over 60,000 years. We have ample evidence from our Aboriginal cultures of robust knowledge of landscape and skyscape events dating back 17,000 years. (See Patrick Nunn’s amazing book, The Edge of Memory). That is how powerful these methods can be and why they have developed in so many disparate cultures.

There are so many signs that Stonehenge served as a memory palace that is not a simplistic claim. There are ten criteria that I look for before I even suggest that a monument is primarily a knowledge space.

This suite of criteria is replicated at Stonehenge. There is far too much to explain here – that’s why it took a thesis and four books to thoroughly cover the topic!

For example, the essential presence of portable devices is represented at Stonehenge by Grooved ware pottery and the Stonehenge chalk plaques.

Above: A Grooved ware pot I was shown by Dr Ros Cleal at Avebury. (Photo: Damian Kelly). Those familiar with my work will notice the similarity in the pattern to the back of the lukasa of the Luba people which we know was used a mnemonic device because they explained how they use both the back and front of the lukasa. Australian Aboriginal shields also show the same patterning. There can be no link between Neolithic Brits and these contemporary cultures other than they share the same neurological structures used for memory. And that is the key to it all!

The Stonehenge chalk plaques are similar to the one I was shown at Salisbury Museum by Director, Adrian Green. (Photo: copyright Salisbury Museum. Reproduced with permission.) They would have worked a treat as a mnemonic device, recognisable as such by those familiar with mnemonic devices from oral cultures.

Let’s return to the constant reference to death. It is interesting to note that the Guardian report linked above included this statement:

The remains of at least 10 of 25 individuals, whose brittle charred bones were buried at the monument, showed that they did not spend their lives on the Wessex chalk downland, but came from more than 100 miles away.

The first stage of the monument was the bluestone circle talked about in the media reports. There were no big sarsens in the centre. They came 500 years later. Does the evidence of 10 to 25 individuals over 500 years seem enough to suggest that it was primarily a cremation burial site, primarily about death?


It was known that Stonehenge was used as an early cremation cemetery, but not who was buried there. … It will show how Stonehenge, believed to be a tribute to the dead, is actually a second-hand monument, brought by neolithic people migrating east into England from Wales.

Why is it believed to be a tribute to the dead? Surely, the vast amount of information needed to maintain life would be just as significant, if not a great deal more so. Granted, that knowledge is often integrated in teachings from the ancestors. In all oral cultures, the concept of ‘ancestors’ is far more complex than just relating to a memorial to the dead.

If we are to draw parallels from monuments and memory systems when considering Stonehenge, it is essential that we only consider evidence which dates from times when there has been little or no contact with writing. As soon as a literate culture intervenes, very quickly the power associated with knowledge and memory diminishes and the indicators are lost. We cannot transfer beliefs or customs from one culture to another, but we can transfer generalisations from multiple cultures about how humans maintain critical knowledge when they are dependent on memory.

The time has come to acknowledge that the people who built Stonehenge, and all the other incredible Neolithic monuments around the world, were not ‘primitive’ people on the journey to ‘civilisation’, but complex, intelligent, knowledgeable people with the same intellectual capacity as contemporary humans – embracing science (my focus), philosophy, ethics and so much more. Working with Aboriginal cultures, Australian archaeologists include such understanding in their interpretations every day. The rest of the world needs to follow suit.

Share on Share on FacebookPin on PinterestPrint this pageTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someone

2 thoughts on “New discoveries about Stonehenge”

  1. I have a comment about the burial site. Several of my Aboriginal ancestor groups go back to Carnarvon Gorge as a ceremonial site. Of the handful of ceremonial places I have visited this one has indicators of lots of groups coming together for communal trade and initiation with art appearing slightly different in each spot. The area is also site by site is like a compound of sites that you travel between. However supposedly the area was also used for burials. Upon reading several pre 1980s archaeological discoveries of ransacked bodies that were mummified in airtight bark coffins. One of these bodies had several items one of which was a carved bone which was likely a personal tchuringa. I had heard both oral history, read and recently at the time discussed with another community that still does traditional burial practice. I knew the objects found on the body were objects of power, some decoration and some practical but the tchuringa like object was carved with the same symbols as several sites near it. The men I spoke to from another group explained to me that sometimes bodies of a sacred site owner/manager senior elder/loreperson would often be buried with the personal objects including a carved object to guide ceremony. Considering the age of the site and its heavy use I would have assumed more bodies but after chatting to the traditional mob they clarified a story of my own people that only very important/special people were buried with objects and near sacred sites or their site. Stonehenge body remains and other British Neolithic sites may be not a priest but the manager of that site that’s why only a few bodies are there. According to several traditions I’ve heard in Australia it seems some sites were more important. Carnarvon Gorge is essentially permanent water with permanent carbohydrate of cycad seeds that are highly toxic and the technique to purify it needs a running stream which Carnarvon has. There is also a vulva diamond shape and I notice the cycad seeds have a pineapple like diamond segment look to them and the Gorge is also like a womb shape and apparently has both a birthing and a male initiation site. The male site is a natural hard to get to amphitheatre and has all the hallmarks of the public and secret plus rebirth from a womb like cave of initiations. The diamond vulva shapes were carved on a small bone object and the archaeologist could not interpret it at the time and called it jewellery but to me the fact it had the diamond vulva shape and was on a woman body buried at the site struck me as not just coincidence when added to our oral history of reasoning for burials. Most burials there also face the rising son and are on one side of the gorge not the other which ties into a local concept about power of giving and receiving in a spiritual sense as well based around left and right body parts. So I’d assume Stonehenge probably had these layers of use much like memory stones and orality as well. I’d assume due to this that’s why only a few managers/priest/site controllers were buried there. Alternatively ritual sacrifice which I actually feel might have been a later cultural evolution that extended out of the earlier more person to person ritual sorcery that pre proto agricultural societies engaged in in a very hidden way rather than at a communal level as in later more warring permanently settled towns. This last fact of ritual sacrifice seeming rarer is that most Aboriginal and other societies have moral stories about people who engaged not just murder but forms of ritual murder to get power who were punished by the collective society. Only later agricultural and pastoral societies especially agricultural seem to have more stories of sacrifice a person.

    1. Thank you so much, Ruby. This makes a lot of sense and justifies the archaeological record at Stonehenge in terms of the few remains, yet the abundant evidence of it being a ceremonial / knowledge site.

      I really appreciate your insight – how incredibly valuable Indigenous knowledge is when adding the intellectual component to archaeological interpretation!


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *