Stonehenges on both sides of the Atlantic

By Robert M. Schoch
Boston University


North of Boston, near North Salem, New Hampshire, is a labyrinth of megalithic stones that have been the object of wonder and a topic of heated argument for more than two centuries. Sprawling over a couple of dozen acres are found stone walls and various structures that at first glance look like building foundations, cellars, tunnels, and caves - - all composed of laid stone, sometimes still in natural shapes and sometimes roughly worked. The largest placed stone has been estimated at eleven tons. Parts of the complex have been given evocative names, for example, the “Oracle Chamber” and the “Sacrificial Table.” Large erected stones on the periphery of the complex are aligned with significant astronomical positions such as the sunrise and sunset on the equinox, mid-summer and mid-winter sunrises and sunsets, and apparently various lunar motions and stellar alignments, some of which appear to date to the second millennium B.C. This is the site variously known as “Mystery Hill,” “Mystery Hill Caves,” or since the 1980s as “America’s Stonehenge.”

What is “America’s Stonehenge”? Superficially it bears little similarity to the Stonehenge on the Salisbury Plain of England. How old is America’s Stonehenge? Who built it and why? What was it originally like? These are all unanswered questions, but many answers have been proposed.

Solid historical records of America’s Stonehenge date back to the early nineteenth century when Jonathan Pattee lived on and at the site from 1826 to 1855. Pattee and his family used parts of the structure as foundations for buildings and as root cellars, and some people have suggested that Pattee and his five sons built the structures. But, based on one of the stones that is surrounded by a tree stump that began growing in 1769, at least part of the structure must date prior to Pattee’s time. In modern times a number of charcoal samples have been collected from the site, in more or less close approximation to the stone structures, and radiocarbon analyses have yielded dates from historical times to around 2,000 B.C.

Since Pattee’s time, the site has had a checkered history. It was used as a ready quarry (not unlike the Great Pyramid in Egypt during Muslim times), and the structures were dismantled and rock carried away to build local foundations, churches, and other buildings. It is estimated that perhaps 40% of the rock was removed during the nineteenth century.

In the 1890s a professor of architecture at Dartmouth College, Hugh Morrisson, argued that Native Americans who had no tradition of such stone building could not have erected the structures. In 1936/7 William B. Goodwin purchased the property, carried out various excavations and studies, and promoted the view that Culdee Monks from Ireland had circa 1000 A.D. crossed the Atlantic, settled in New Hampshire, and built the site. In the 1950s the area came under the control of Robert E. Stone who first leased and then purchased “Mystery Hill.” In 1958 Stone opened the site to the public, and he initiated a still-ongoing program of serious study, documentation, excavation, and restoration of the site.

Numerous researchers have become involved with, or offered interpretations of, America’s Stonehenge. Opinions range from the notion that it is, after all, simply colonial foundations and root cellars, to linking it to ancient European cultures, such as those that constructed megalithic buildings in Malta and Greece, to thinking in terms of a medieval influx of Europeans across the Atlantic (variations on the themes of Norse warriors or Irish Monks), to attributing the sighting stones constructions to ancient Native Americans. The late Barry Fell, in particular, popularized the concept that some of the stones found at America’s Stonehenge (and many found elsewhere as well) contain cryptic inscriptions written in various Celtic or Gaelic (Ogham), Iberian, and Phoenician scripts, giving clues as to potential builders, or at least visitors to, the site (see Fell’s book, America B.C.). Other researchers have countered that the so-called inscriptions are simply plow marks, root remains, or natural erosion features in the stone.

I am convinced that there was contact between the Old and New Worlds in pre-Columbian times, but I would not hang the case on America’s Stonehenge. I have had the opportunity to explore the site firsthand, and I do not know what to make of it. I tend to think it is not all of one piece - - that is, it may be a mixture of modern (eighteenth and nineteenth century) and ancient structures, but even among the ancient portions I could find no definitive evidence of non-Native American influence. In some ways America’s Stonehenge is a microcosm of the general arguments often encountered in archaeology where the hard evidence is just too sparse to come to a definitive conclusion. It may seem like a copout, but in the case of America’s Stonehenge I rather not judge until, and unless, some compelling evidence is discovered that can be used to firmly attribute and date it.

Turning to the “real” Stonehenge in England, which definitely is thousands of years old and astronomically aligned, new theories and developments continue to be proposed. Last year (2005) Timothy Darvill, professor of archaeology at Bournemouth University, and archaeologist Geoff Wainwright announced that they had found the exact quarry from which the bluestones of Stonehenge were taken over 4,000 years ago. Site of the quarry: Carn Menyn, a mountain in the Preseli Hills of Pembrokeshire, in southwest Wales. This meant, according to their interpretation, that huge monoliths had been quarried and moved some 240 miles to the site of Stonehenge, a truly incredible feat. But just this month (June 2006), geologists from the Open University using geochemical analyses, led by Professor Olwen Williams-Thorpe, have countered that the bluestones used to construct Stonehenge were not moved over two hundred miles by humans, but brought the distance by Ice Age glaciers and then utilized by ancient humans. Even if this proves to be the case, and as a geologist it certainly makes sense to me, it was still a truly monumental feat to carve the bluestones and erect them as the magnificent structure that we see today.