by Stephen Phillips (Reply to Query from Yair, 21 August, 2014, 25 Av, 5774)
My research involves looking at the movement of peoples by looking at archaeological evidence and comparing it to the written evidence. In other words, I deal with facts and not assumptions, but unfortunately many academics have invented theories the source of which have often been difficult to trace. For example, one of these theories is that the 'p' Celt culture arrived before the 'q' Celt culture. As already demonstrated in a previous email, the first use of the name Britannia being written with a 'P' dates to Marcian of Heraclea who used the word Pruten in his Periplus Maris Exteri, his work being dated around 515-562 CE. Archaeologists have got things upside down!
To put a date on the construction of Stonehenge is not easy. Despite what archaeologists might say, you CANNOT date stone. There is no ancient document which mentions Stonehenge which can give a date to the place. Over the years, there have been many wild attempts at dating the site, with estimates generally in the region of ca. 2400 BCE for the placement of the first stones. Whilst I can only theorise on the date of the site, in the light of my research, I feel that I am in a better position to comment than archaeologists who are still relying on theories which have time and again proved to be wrong.
Whilst any suggestion I make is conjectural, it would nevertheless be based on a historical timeline which is now concordant with the factual evidence rather than the lies and deceptions which have been left to us by the likes of Geoffrey of Monmouth and archaeologists who seem keen to push back history to some remote period! It seems that man likes to think in terms of tens of thousands of years of existence because it provides him with a comfort zone. If he realised that this planet was only a few thousand years old, he would become insecure in the knowledge that HaShem (Baruch hu [Blessed be HE]) is in control after all. Whilst I am currently neither in a position nor qualified enough to challenge the archaeological evidence, my general opinion is that they are out by more than two and a half thousand years in their estimate for the construction of Stonehenge!
Looking at things subjectively:
The Phoenicians may have mined southern England and Ireland from an early age, but they typically were seafaring people, and they relied heavily either on sea ports or on rivers for transportation of their goods. As there is no sea or river in the general vicinity of Stonehenge, I believe we can safely rule out any suggestion that the Phoenicians were responsible for the construction.
Bede tells us that the Britons were the first settlers to arrive on this island.
"To begin with, the inhabitants of the island were all Britons, from whom it receives its name; they sailed to Britain, so it is said, from the land of Armorica, and appropriated to themselves the southern part of it." (Bede, The Ecclesiastical History of the English People Book 1, Chap. 1.)
I am able to demonstrate that the Britons arrived at the beginning of the second century BCE. They, however, settled on the river Thames in the south-eastern part of the island in and around what in later times became known as Londinium. When the Romans invaded Britain from the time of Julius Caesar onwards, the Britons were forced northwards and ended up in Wales. It is therefore unlikely that they were responsible for Stonehenge.
The Domnian who came from southern Ireland (these are the Tuatha Danaan of the Irish records, which is why the Irish lost track of them) settled in Devon and Cornwall, though the kings of Devon and Cornwall who ruled over them belonged to the tribe of Ethan son of Zerach. These were located too far West to have been responsible for the construction of this edifice.
This leaves the possibility of it being either the Atrebati or the Belgae. These peoples are not mentioned either by Pliny or by Tacitus. They are first mentioned by Ptolemy as being in the land in the middle of the second century CE. (Geog. Book 2, Chap. 3, 26-8 - but Chap. 2 in some copies.) The Atrebati seem to be named after the region of Atropatene in Armenia, which is where some of the Ten Tribes were planted by the Assyrians. The Belgae came via Germany and were descended from Bela[gh] son of Benjamin. (Num. 26:38.) The suggestion that Stonehenge should be dated earlier than the first century CE is clearly untenable.
It is my opinion (and I would reiterate that it is only conjecture on my part) that Stonehenge was used as some sort of altar. The fact that it was constructed of unhewn stones suggests that it was erected by Israelites:-
" And there shalt thou build an altar unto the L-rd thy G-d, an altar of stones; thou shalt lift up no iron tool upon them. Thou shalt build the altar of the L-rd thy G-d of unhewn stones; and thou shalt offer burnt-offerings thereon unto the L-rd thy G-d." Deut. 27:5-6.
According to Wikipedia:-
"Three of the posts (and possibly four) were in an east-west alignment which may have had ritual significance." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonehenge#Before_the_monument_.288000_BC_forward.29)
This also suggests an Israelite influence. The idea that Israelites could have built Stonehenge before Israel even existed would be folly, now wouldn't it?
As for other monoliths, you have already hit the right spot when you quote the prophet Yeremiahu when he talks about setting up waymarks and high heaps in Jer. 31:21.
I hope that this information is helpful to you. Sorry I can't be more specific, but I feel that by identifying the Britons as the first settlers in Britain, it significantly narrows down the timeline for the dating of these structures.