Arguing Essay: "Stonehenge and Judaic Influences"
	It is regretful that we cannot truly go back to the ancient days of the great monolith known as Stonehenge, to live among the people there and discover the secrets that they knew. The exact methods of building are not entirely known; but without a computer, calculator, compass or heavy machinery, the inhabitants of the British Isles somehow constructed this great monument which has withstood the test of time. Every year new reports and studies are done to discover just exactly how old these ruins are, as well as information regarding those who built it. Books upon books have been written upon the subject, and seemingly every generation for hundreds of years has had its own group of researchers, scientists, and observers trying to decipher meaning from one of the oldest man-made ruins in the world.
	One of the main questions researchers are trying to answer about Stonehenge is, “What is Stonehenge and what was it built for?” While examining these theories, we must keep in mind that they are, after all, just theories. Theories are not fact; they are hypotheses which have some information to back them up and nothing to dispute or disprove them at the time they are announced as theory, but can later be disproved with new information. Formulating theories upon Stonehenge is a fairly easy task, whereas there is very little concrete evidence to prove or disprove entirely any one given aspect. 
	Undoubtedly, the majority of theories surrounding the religious aspects of Stonehenge are rooted or credited to the Druids and the great astronomical properties of the ruins. Theories relating the physical characteristics of the monolith and celestial phenomena are very steady and almost unshakable, given the number of different calculated evidences that all match perfectly between the two. Archeological evidences definitely point towards some type of religious involvement with Stonehenge, but these findings are inconclusive as to the exact nature of what took place there so long ago. A piece of pottery could be an incense bowl, used to hold a liquid in a ceremony, or any other number of uses. This lack of exact information makes establishing a connection between any one religion or practice and these artifacts extremely difficult. As a result, no theologian, archeologist, or anthropologist can claim to have “the one truth” concerning the pre-Roman peoples of the Salisbury plains throughout history.
	However, one day while studying temples of different cultures in a book entitled Temple and Cosmos, I happened across diagrams of different temples with Judaic origins, as well as a detailed sketch of Stonehenge.  These diagrams depicted the positioning of the different structures in relationship to seasonal changes and ordinal directions. I have had an interest in Stonehenge for quite some time, and found this information insightful. Upon further examination of these references, I noticed that there were more than a few striking similarities in the architectural layout of all of these. This new insight once again sparked my interest in Stonehenge which had lain dormant for several years, and I began to reason out and research influences of the Judaic culture upon ancient Britain.
	Could a break off of the society from the region east of the Mediterranean (a society that many religionists and others speculate the human race perpetuated from), have migrated to the British Isles, carrying along with them their customs, traditions, and religion? My thesis or theory: Could Stonehenge have been built with the intent of worshiping Jehovah, the God of the Jews, in one of the oldest religions known? I believe this was the intent of the original builders of this great monument, and that over time other people who came and conquered the land, or even the descendants of the builders themselves, slowly changed the meanings and uses of the monolith for their own purposes or beliefs, resulting in the present-day ties to the Druids. My theory, is once again, just that---a theory, and should be treated as such. My intent is to review the information that I have researched and illustrate my conclusions, and then let the reader draw his or her own hypothesis or conclusions from there.
	Let us start with a brief synopsis or definition of the temple in general. Temples are houses of worship, generally specific to a particular religion, and more often than not are considered sacred, much more than a synagogue, chapel, or church building. Most temples that I have seen, in any religion including my own, are restricted to devout members of their own theological society, people who have, if you will, reached a certain goal. That goal could be obtaining a nirvana-like state, or simply maintaining a standard of following the commandments or instructions of your god. Because these temples are considered so sacred and holy, much time, thought, and preparation goes into the building of such. 
	Professor Hugh Nibley, author of Temple and Cosmos, has made some very interesting and key correlations between temples branching out from the religious background that I focus on now---Judaism. My own religion claims to have its roots with the Jews and the early Christian church. Our temples are patterned after the original temples that are discussed in the Old Testament, which is considered to be accurate given the amount of meticulous attention to detail that the Jews subscribed to in its preservation through time.  One of the most noticeable comparisons drawn between the temple of Jerusalem (known as Solomon’s Temple, patterned after the temples and tabernacles of Moses), a modern day temple of my own religion located in Salt Lake City, Utah, and Stonehenge, is that the entrance to each were constructed facing the east. The temple in Salt Lake, built upon the premise of “true north” and 19th Century directional finders and compasses, has two large wooden doors that are greeted by the sun every morning as it rises over the Wasatch mountain range. Similarly, it is recorded that the temple in Jerusalem also faced east, symbolic of facing a new day or greeting life. Stonehenge has a long entry way, a path if you will, which faces in an easterly direction, but slightly north. At first, the change in degree confused me, but the angle was meant to reflect directly upon the rising of the sun at Summer Solstice and not with our modern idea of which direction true east is. On that date, the sun rising in the eastern sky would shine directly down that path, straight in to the heart of Stonehenge, directly to one side of what is now known as the Heel Stone. The Heel Stone, at one time, was part of a small trilithon, meaning there was another upright stone directly next to it and the two were connected by another stone placed over the top. The sun would have shone directly through the hole created by those three stones.
	Symbolism also plays a major role in the layout and design of all three structures. Circles are used, in Judaism and in other societies as well, to represent an eternal nature or a balance of all things. Many circles, including the sun and earth, are used to decorate the temple in Salt Lake, as well as supposedly Solomon’s Temple. Stonehenge is, in and of itself, a series of roughly three circles(the number three also being very symbolic when talking about the Judaic and modern day Christian religions). Solomon’s Temple also had several “layers” or progressive orders, and who could enter into which section depended on their role in the religion. In short, the outer most area, or the “court of the people” was accessible to any worthy Jew who was making a sacrifice for penance of her or his sins. The second most inwardly layer, or the temple proper, contained the alter of incense and was restricted to priests, the sons of Levi, and the prophet. There was a third room in the center that only the prophet and selected priests were allowed in, referred to as the Holy of Holies, which contained the Ark of the Covenant. It is perfectly feasible that the construction of Stonehenge represents a similar nature. No altars now stand within the outer ring, but history tells us that often times ruins in Europe have been “borrowed from” by farmers, who use the stones they find to build a fence to house sheep or cattle. Altars usually consisted of smaller stones which would have been easy to take away from the site, and would not have left any permanent effect on the ground, and so it is extremely possible that they may have consisted at one time, but have since been removed. Records in this area show some of the boundaries of farms that are still cultivated by the family that has lived there for generations has existed for hundreds if not thousands of years, some with the original stone fences. “To this day many farms in nearby Devon have ‘hedgerows, boundaries and landmarks described by Saxon charters [that] can still be identified’”(Nibley 328).
	These similarities can only give hints, however, in regards to the origin of the people that built Stonehenge. This is a very difficult subject to accomplish for several reasons. First and foremost, when the Romans conquered the British Isles circa the first century A.D., in order to make their takeover complete, they destroyed many of the records detailing the history of the people in that area. This eliminated many, but not all chances of finding facts relating to the discovering and colonization of ancient U.K. Several theories have been drawn based upon texts that survived this purging of the past. One such document from Ireland, referred to as The Book of Conquests, had some information on the origins of Irish civilization.  Gerald Hawkins summarizes his findings:
There are mentioned three waves of early invaders; the Fomorians, the Sons of Partholan, and the Nemedians, not necessarily in that order, and not all necessarily pre-Stonehenge.
The Fomorians, fierce and dangerous, were ‘gloomy sea-giants. . .warlike. . .very troublesome to all the world.’ They were also diligent farmers; ‘they made sheep land.’ And---keep in mind the construction of Stonehenge---’they built towers.’ They brought their skills from Africa, by way of what we now call Spain(28-29).

	Another reference specifically cited towards colonization from the middle east to Great Britain, from the book Whence Came They? by Dr. Vaughn E. Hansen, refers to the Scottish Declaration of Independence. The author states:
According to George N. Wilson the Scottish Declaration of Independence, dated 1320 A.D., asserts “. . .that they [the Scots] ‘came from Greater Scythia, passing through the pillars of Hercules [Gibraltar], sojourned a while in Spain, and thence [proceeded] to settle in Scotland,’ one thousand two hundred years after the outgoing of the People of Israel from Egypt [which was ca. 286 B.C.]”(53).

	This is, of course, after the dates which carbon dating places the building of Stonehenge, but I make reference of it here to point out that the few records that are still in known existence seem to have many similarities, no matter the dates cited within them. Stonehenge is not, of course, the only monument of its kind in the world, or even in Great Britain. Several other similar circles of upright standing stones were constructed in the British Isles, at roughly the same time, according to carbon dating. 
Intensive studies of the British ruins made since World War II have steadily pushed back the dates until now we find the great “henge” monuments appearing around 3400 B.C. Avebury, where I spent happy days in utter solitude back in 1942. . .is dated to 2500 B.C.; but Silbury Hill, which is part of the complex and is the largest artificial mound in Europe, perfectly round in shape, and the work of “a capable and well-organized society which was highly motivated and disciplined,” was begun circa 2750 B.C., about the date of the Great Pyramid of Giza. The renowned Stonehenge, instead of 1500 B.C., is now put at 2500. More surprising is the fact that the land was covered with well-kept farms by the middle of the fifth millenium B.C., with “agriculture. . .established on a more permanent basis around 3800 B.C.”(Nibley 382).

	Nibley also refers to Stonehenge’s astronomical properties, as well as other civilizations’ use of stones. Referring to “portable temples” of the Israelites, such as those used by Moses and the Children of Israel on their Exodus from Egypt: “The appointed place always had some structure, even if it was only a tent or stone (usually a ring of standing stones). This structure was considered sacred and was preserved in the building of the temple, which was built to house the original structures”(49, italics added for emphasis).
	As stated earlier, there is much speculation in regard to the exact religious uses of Stonehenge. Ashes of supposedly cremated individuals have been found in the area, some within the Aubrey holes themselves(which are to be discussed in greater detail shortly hereafter). Many anthropologists speculate these were sacrifice victims, others claim that they could be priests or other religious/social notaries. The cause of the deaths are not known, leaving wide open a vast array of possibilities. The only real conclusion we can draw from these would be that death and/or the afterlife would have played a major role in the beliefs of the people who frequented Stonehenge. Rodney Castleden gives his own insight:
The meaning of the cremations at Stonehenge is not immediately obvious. To argue from them that Stonehenge was a charnel-house or mortuary seems unwise. The architectural references, and the shape and arrangement of the trilithosn in particular, suggest that the temple was dedicated to a religion in which death played a major part(220). 

	Bowls, containers, and tools that have been found across the Salisbury plains could have been used for a number of different reasons. Therefore, nothing may really be concluded based upon archeological evidences found at and around the site. We must use other information.
	“It is now apparent that Stonehenge, like many other---but certainly far from all---prehistoric earth and stone monuments, was indeed aligned to take regard of celestial phenomena”(Souden 118). Much of astronomy is mentioned in regard to Stonehenge and the positioning of the stones. Around the circumference of the circle of stones are what is referred to as the Aubrey holes. 
While making his survey of Stonehenge for Charles II, John Aubrey noticed five shallow depressions irregularly spaced round the precinct, just within the bank. These, “little cavities in the ground, from whence one may conjecture the stones were taken,” are known as Aubrey holes after their discoverer. . .
It was not until 1920 that Aubrey’s pits were rediscovered. [Lt.-Col. William] Hawley first consulted Aubrey’s plan. . .and then probed the Stonehenge soil for them: he found one, then more, and finally discovered an entire sequence of regularly spaced pits about 
	5 m apart (Castleden 62-63).

	These pits have all been emptied since, and it has been found that they extended around the whole of the structure, at regular intervals each time. These pits or holes have been theorized to show rotations or positions of the moon. Gerald S. Hawkins in Stonehenge Decoded used an IBM computer to determine the accuracy of the holes. “With six stones, three white, three black, the Aubrey hole computer could have predicted---quite accurately---every important moon event for hundreds of years”(141). While Hawkins seems to have discovered what seems to be a very probable use for the Aubrey holes, the greater trilithons still remain largely a mystery as to their use and positioning. “While we can only speculate about the parliamentary function of Stonehenge, it is less difficult to guess at the symbolic meaning of the spatial layout of the trilithons themselves”(Stover and Kraig 174).
	How does this relate to other temples? The temple in Salt Lake City also has markings involving changes in celestial entities. Around the entire outside wall are 51 carvings, each one on a small stone partition which are evenly spaced with windows in between, overall depicting one complete rotation of the earth, each carving going phase by phase. The towers themselves, three on the east to represent the higher priesthood of Melchizedek and three shorter on the western side representing the Aaronic or lesser priesthood, along with sections of the north and south walls, are said to coincide with the twelve months of the year. April, believed by many to be the month of the Christ’s birth and death according to history and not current observances, is represented by the tallest tower on the eastern side, directly in the middle(which also contains the entrance door mentioned previously). We know also that the temple in Jerusalem was rich with celestial and other symbolism, according to the Old Testament and other ancient texts, as well as being decorated with cherubim, plant life, and scroll work overlaid with gold. Around the outer walls surrounding the court of the people were twelve towers, representing the twelve tribes of Israel.
	We may never know for certain who built Stonehenge and what their purpose was. These similarities could be direct tie-ins or mere coincidences. The monument could principally have been an astronomical computer and religious structure on the side. It could have been a place of sacrifice for paganly Druids, or it could have been a worshiping ground for a group broken off from the Jews, to pray and make sacrifices of animals and incense to Jehovah. As long as our evidence remains inconclusive, the facts will remain as such, also; however our biggest links come from comparing it to other structures and cultural attributes throughout the world from other societies. Some day we may know for absolute certain, but for now it remains a mystery and a wonder for all who care to explore Stonehenge’s deeper meanings.

Bibliography
Castleden, Rodney. The Making of Stonehenge; London; New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1987. 
Hansen, Vaughn E. Whence Came They?: Springville: Cedar Fort, Inc, 1993. 
Hawkins, Gerald S. Stonehenge Decoded: New York: Delta, 1965.
Nibley, Hugh. Temple and Cosmos: Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1992.
Souden, David. Stonehenge Revealed; New York: Facts on File, 1997. 
Stover, Leon E., and Bruce Kraig. Stonehenge : The Indo-European Heritage; Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1978.