The circular monument known as Stonehenge has fascinated man for countless ages. What was it for and who built it are the commonest of questions directed at the experts in the subject.

Scientists, scholars and men of learning through out the ages have presented their theories but none have convinced the masses that their theory is the one and true explanation.

I do not for see the presentation of my personal theory as one that will elicit much discussion on the matter for it is much to simple in form and reason to be considered as a serious threat to the "experts" in the field.

My definition of an expert is one who knows all there is to know about a subject. Since we know very little about the actually people who constructed Stonehenge then there are no experts in this field. We are all just informed amateurs guessing and supposing what might really have happened. We can only hope that at some point in the future science will provide us with the answers and solve one of the greatest mysteries of our earth.

We do know many things about the actual physical site and archeology has provided us with some very tantalizing clues as to the origin of some of the materials and some tentative dates of their construction.

It is accepted fact that some of the stones were transported in some manner from the western part of Wales and others from a site only thirty some miles from the henge. A lot of time and energy was expended on this so the purpose of the stones must have significant meaning to those that erected them.

Yet the stones came only many years after the initial construction on the site.

The circular ditch and supporting berm (earthen bank) were the first items on the site. There was also found to be evidence that a number of wooden posts were placed into the ground just inside the berm.

It has been ascertained from antler bones that were used to dig the ditch and left lying there when they stopped working, that the ditch was dug around the year 3000 BC give or take fifty years.

There is a prominent gap in the ditch, berm and wooden postholes facing the east. This indicates a form of entranceway into the circle. A smaller gap appears in the south face but appears to have been modified at some point after the original construction. The southern gap is not as clean or well defined at the eastern one.

These antler bones were very significant in the dating of the site. They are consistent with the type of tools available at the time and have been found in many other Neolithic sites around Briton.

So we have a ditch and a circular wall of earth made from the dirt from the ditch with a circle of wooden posts inside the earthen wall. There is only one entrance and that is from the east. What we have here is a classic defensive fortification or campsite.

I have read that the "experts" have discounted this theory, that it does not match any fortification they are aware of in Briton. I say give me a break! It matches every major fortification ever built by any armed group.

The Bushmen of Africa used to encircle their campsites at night with thorn bushes to protect themselves from animals. It is a concept that goes back many thousands of years and practiced by many different cultures. The idea of surrounding yourself with a physical barrier in times of trouble is one that early man knew quite a bit about. So don't tell me that the idea is unheard of. It is the scale of the defensive works that has never been seen before the idea has been around for quite a while.

The first thing you have to look at is where the henge is built. Salisbury plain is a low rolling plain surrounded by hills. The henge is situated strategically in the middle or close to it, of the plain. No one can approach the henge from any direction with out being spotted from a great distance. Any one defending a position in the henge would have ample warning of attack.

Also a circular design gives the defender the opportunity to protect itself on all sides with out weakening itself. The defenders can stand literally shoulder-to-shoulder and back-to-back and never place an unguarded side to the enemy. Any military analyst worth his salt will agree to this. The British Army used very similar tactics (the square) successfully for many years.

Why the ditch? It was obviously never meant to hold water; it was designed as a dry ditch. You have to remember how battles were fought in those days to answer this question.

The ditch and its accompanying earthen berm force any military force that wishes to attach the site to enter the ditch and place them self in a position below the defenders standing on the top of the berm. At a time when weapons consisted of hand held spears, sticks and stones and maybe the occasional antler fashioned into a weapon, fighting would have been basically hand to hand. A man attempting to crawl out of a ditch and climb an earthen berm leaves himself exposed to dreadful harm from those standing above him. Stones, clubs and spears would make short work of men hindered in this way.

The wooden postholes inside the berm were a secondary line of defense. If the attackers managed to make their way through the ditch and over the berm the defenders could retreat behind the wooden posts. The attackers would have to pass between the wooden posts to follow this would again put them in a position of disadvantage. They would have to go between the post where the ability to swing their weapons would be hindered again giving the defenders another advantage. It is very simple yet effective for the time period.

As for attacking the site from the main and only entrance, the attackers would be forced to follow the path of least resistance, between the ditch and berm and posts. A space only wide enough for several men at a time. This would again force the enemy to come to the defender under his terms.

Everything about this first construction at the site screams to me that it is a defensive fortification but who would be so organized as to need and build such a structure in 3000 BC?

From what we know of these times it is inferred that man gathered in small extended family sized units, groups of no more than twenty or thirty individuals. It is also thought that these groups were mostly nomadic in nature, as the countryside would not support such a group for extended periods of time. These groups were thought to be hunter-gatherers, people who would hunt small animals and forage for berries and roots.

I think that the evidence of the existence of Stonehenge is proof that this is not so. Who ever built Stonehenge was a well-organized group of men under the direction of a strong and intelligent leader. They had to come from somewhere and I feel they originated from the area of the Welsh Mountains. (I will expand on this a little later.)

There is one glaring problem with the theory of the henge being a defensive fortification and it is this; there is no archeological evidence to show that the site was ever inhabited. Not by a large band of armed men and certainly not for an extended period of time. There is also no evidence that any major battles occurred in the immediate area, though this is not conclusive.

Now I am faced with the question of why some one would go to all the trouble and effort to build such a site and then not use it.

Now we are still talking about the original first phase of construction, the circular ditch, berm and postholes.

Why was the time taken to dig a ditch with deer antlers and pile the earth up inside the site if not for protection? I can only come to one conclusion; it was a safe meeting place for leaders of rival tribes to gather.

Use your imagination here and envision the leaders of all the major tribes travelling to the site from all directions.

The tribes would make camp on the hills surrounding the plains where they could see the site and all the other tribes camped around it. They would be able to watch closely as their leader would descend onto the plain and proceed to the henge. They would be able to view any groups approaching the henge from any direction from the hills and could rush to the aid of their leader if treachery was observed on the part of any of the other tribes.

The leaders would enter the henge only during daylight and return each evening to their campsites on the surrounding hills. This would explain the lack of archeological evidence of habitation. No one spent more than a few hours inside the circle at any one time. It was simply a meeting place of the Kings.

The tribal leaders could also feel safe in that they too could view any approaching groups from any direction. They could stand within this circle and face their rivals with out putting their backs to any of them. Discussions could take place with little or no fear of deception.

This, my friends, is what I consider to be the original meeting of what later came to known as "The Round Table".

***

I have probably upset some people with my rather insolent suggestion that Stonehenge is the original Round Table but let me try and explain.

Everyone knows of the legend of King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table. It has existed in myth and mystery for hundreds of years. I am one who believes that legends are usually based in one form or another in actual facts.

King Arthur really did exist, not as a single person but a combination of two Welsh Kings separated only by time. This has been proven beyond a doubt by two rather intrepid investigators by the names of Alan Wilson and Baram Blackett.

These two men, over a period of almost fifty years have scoured the pages of many ancient manuscripts and searched the land for obscure gravesites and battlefields. They began their search for the real King Arthur on separate levels and came together to combine their knowledge. What they discovered is now slowly being accepted as fact, as other researchers double-check their sources and information.

King Arthur was not a single man he was the culmination of two men, one from the 4th century AD and the other from the 6th century. Both Welsh kings or more correctly kings of Khymru clans or tribes (the original name of the Welsh). The deeds and stories of these men were told and retold over the years and some how became entangled as one.

My point in this is to show that the practice of the Welsh tribes meeting to choose a person who would lead them into battle as their Warlord was a common practice.

Farther back than any written records go the legends and fables show there is one common factor amongst the stories of the Khymru and that is the fact that they knew that as single tribes they could be easily defeated but united they posed a formidable foe. Time and time again in the ancient legends and stories we hear of a leader chosen by the tribes to lead them into battle. And time and time again history shows us that the Welsh tribes combined under a single leader with stood invasion and wrecked havoc amongst the aggressors.

When Julius Caesar invaded the Isle of Briton it was the Welsh tribes who beat them back into their boats and forced them to flee. And again the next year when they tried again it was the combined forces of all the Welsh tribes that brought the roman legions to their knees. It was only through the leadership of their Warlord or Pendragon that the Khymric tribes were triumphant.

No one knows when or how this practice started it is as ancient as the stones that lie within the ring of earth.

The practice of the tribes meeting and choosing a single leader in times of war is the basis for my theory. And what better place to meet and make these decisions than a place of neutrality chosen for its secure setting.

One of the major clues to the identity of the users of the henge is the blue stones. It is my theory that the stones were transported from the Welsh Mountains to the site to represent each of the major tribes, one stone for each tribe, and one leader for each tribe.

If you were to make a very long and wild stretch you may see the similarities of this arrangement to that of our modern parliamentary system. Each tribe being represented by a single man in a meeting where all are equal and decisions are made as a whole and not singular. The major difference being that the leaders of these tribes was not chosen by popular vote but by actions and prowess.

This was a council of war where all parties were concerned with one thing the preservation of their lands and their way of life. They had come together for a single purpose and this was to defeat the threat that faced them all, for they were of the thought that if one tribe fell the rest would follow unless they banded together as one in a unified army. This was very progressive thinking for the time and where the concept came from is any ones guess. Needless to say it is a practice that was carried on for many hundreds of years with great success, for the area now known as Wales has never been known to be conquered at any time in history.

By now I have probably upset more of you but think about this. The original concept of the Round Table was one of equality and honor. Stonehenge exemplifies this in every way. Here men of arms met as equals and in safety to discuss the saving of their lands and ways of life. And unified into a single unit to defend these principals, what is of greater honor than this? Men cast aside their petty differences for a common goal and pledged their lives to the protection of their homeland. This would certainly rank this site as sacred to any that believe in these ideas.

It is no wonder that as time passed the construction on the site became more permanent for it had become, as it is today a monument. A sign to all men that when the whole basis of your society is threatened men can meet and join together and work as one to save it.

---