Monument Building in Prehistory: A Revised Sexual Selection Lens on Stonehenge

Monument Building in Prehistory: A Revised Sexual Selection Lens on Stonehenge, Silbury Hill, and Avebury

Introduction

The Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age in Britain (circa 3000–2500 BCE) saw an intense period of monument building, resulting in iconic structures like Stonehenge, Silbury Hill, Avebury, Durrington Walls, and Mount Pleasant . Traditionally viewed as ritualistic, communal, or astronomical, these projects demanded significant labour and resources. Building on a sexual selection framework previously applied to Acheulean handaxes—where production signaled skill, wealth, and status—this post proposes that monument building also served as a display of mate-attracting traits. The sexual selection process described here operates as an instinctive mate-driven selection, where mate choice is driven by innate preferences rather than conscious deliberation, similar to how animals instinctively respond to displays of fitness in potential partners, leading to increased reproductive success.

The Monument-Building Context

This period marked a transition to agricultural societies with increased social complexity. Stonehenge, built in phases from 3000 to 2000 BCE, involved transporting massive stones, showcasing engineering prowess. Silbury Hill, constructed around 2400 BCE, is Europe’s largest man-made mound, requiring an estimated 4 million labour hours. Avebury, also from around 2600 BCE, features the largest stone circle in Europe, enclosing two smaller circles. Durrington Walls, a large henge near Stonehenge, dates to around 2500 BCE and housed temporary settlements for builders. The Ring of Brodgar in Orkney, built around 2500 BCE, is a Neolithic henge and stone circle, part of a larger ritual landscape. These projects coincided with population growth, trade, and stratification, creating a competitive social environment.

Revised Sexual Selection Framework

Skill as a Fitness Signal: Monument building required advanced engineering and coordination, akin to the craftsmanship of Acheulean handaxes. Leaders who orchestrated projects like Stonehenge’s solstice alignments or the Ring of Brodgar’s precise circle demonstrated cognitive and organizational skills, signaling genetic fitness to potential mates.

Hygiene as Management of Communal Health: The original hygiene argument focused on discarding handaxes to avoid pathogens. Reframed here, hygiene is the ability to manage large communal gatherings without starvation or poisoning. Sites like Durrington Walls hosted feasts, evidenced by animal bones and pottery. Leaders who ensured food safety—avoiding spoilage or contamination—and prevented famine during these events signaled health management skills, enhancing their appeal as mates by demonstrating traits linked to group survival.

Conspicuous Consumption and Wealth: Monuments required immense resources, similar to handaxe discard. Silbury Hill’s chalk mound, Avebury’s massive stones, and the labour for Durrington Walls’ henge reflect surplus wealth. Leaders who could mobilize such resources demonstrated provisioning ability, a key factor in mate choice.

Status as a Social Signal: P.J. O’Rourke’s analogy of a Mercedes-Benz 380SL convertible as a modern status symbol applies: monuments were prehistoric “luxury cars.” Stonehenge, Avebury, and the Ring of Brodgar, visible across landscapes, were public displays of power, enhancing the status of their builders and making them more attractive mates.

Clarifying the Instinctive Nature of Sexual Selection

For casual readers, it’s crucial to clarify that the sexual selection described here does not imply that Neolithic individuals deliberately built monuments to “be sexy” or consciously attract mates. Instead, this process is an instinctive mate-driven selection, shaped by subconscious evolutionary pressures. Just as birds instinctively respond to displays like a peacock’s tail, humans are driven by innate preferences for traits signaling fitness—such as skill, health management, and wealth—without deliberate intent. Over generations, these instinctive preferences favoured monument builders who exhibited such traits, embedding these behaviours in the cultural practices of the time.

Reexamining the Period Through This Lens

Social Competition: Monument building may reflect competition among groups to attract mates and allies, explaining the frenzy of construction. Sites like Avebury, Stonehenge, Durrington Walls, Silbury Hill, and the Mount Pleasant henge, often in close proximity, suggest a regional “arms race” in display, mirroring the runaway selection seen in Acheulean handaxes.

Communal Gatherings as Mate Choice Venues: Feasting at Durrington Walls and ceremonies at Stonehenge and the Ring of Brodgar provided opportunities for mate choice. Leaders who managed these events successfully — ensuring food safety, disease contol and abundance — demonstrated mate quality, akin to bowerbird displays.

Gender Roles: This framework assumes females chose mates, influenced by these displays, with males or male-led groups competing. The fuller argument includes female invlovement in the creation of these displays, simply put mothers who help sons to reproductive success get more descendants, and so on.

Stonehenge as a Product of Red Queen Runaway Selection

Stonehenge and similar monuments may be as “useless” as a peacock’s tail in a functional sense, serving primarily as products of “Red Queen” runaway evolutionary pressure through sexual selection. The “Red Queen” hypothesis, inspired by Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking-Glass, describes an evolutionary arms race where individuals must continuously escalate traits to maintain relative fitness in a competitive environment (Van Valen, 1973). In sexual selection, runaway processes occur when a trait—like the peacock’s elaborate tail—becomes increasingly exaggerated because it confers a reproductive advantage, despite offering little survival benefit (Fisher, 1930). Stonehenge, with its labour-intensive construction and astronomical alignments, may reflect such a process: its builders, driven by instinctive mate-driven selection, created ever-grander monuments to outcompete rivals in attracting mates, embedding this escalation in cultural practices without a direct survival purpose.

Supporting Evidence

Archaeological Patterns: The scale of monuments like Avebury and the Ring of Brodgar suggests display purposes beyond utility. Feasting evidence at Durrington Walls indicates large gatherings where health management was crucial. The labour-intensive nature of Silbury Hill aligns with conspicuous consumption.

Evolutionary Parallels: Large-scale displays in other species, like bowerbird structures, serve mate attraction, supporting the idea that human monuments combined skill, health management, wealth, and status.

Social Stratification: The period saw increasing hierarchy, with elite burials near Stonehenge. Leaders who controlled monument projects likely gained prestige, enhancing their mate attractiveness.

Counterarguments and Challenges

Ritual Functions: Monuments are often seen as ritualistic or astronomical, with Stonehenge’s solstice alignments and the Ring of Brodgar’s ceremonial role suggesting spiritual purposes over mate attraction.

Lack of Direct Evidence: There’s no direct evidence of mate choice at these sites or that health management influenced mating decisions. Communal health practices are inferred, not proven.

Egalitarian Dynamics: Some argue Neolithic societies were more egalitarian, with communal labour rather than elite-driven projects, challenging individual mate attraction motives.

Implications and Future Research

This perspective frames monuments as stages for mate competition, emphasizing social and reproductive pressures. Future research could explore isotopic analysis of remains to trace mobility and mating patterns, or comparative studies of monument scale and social complexity to test mate competition hypotheses.

Disclaimer

This theory assumes a cultural context in the Neolithic period where females predominantly chose mates and males competed through displays like monument building. While this hypothesis is reasonable given evolutionary parallels and archaeological patterns, it acknowledges potential objections, exceptions, and assumptions—such as the possibility of more egalitarian or varied mating dynamics. The focus on female choice and male competition is a simplifying framework for understanding prehistoric behaviours and makes no claim to reflect or morally justify present-day cultural norms or gender roles.

Conclusion

The monument-building frenzy, including Stonehenge, Silbury Hill, Avebury, Durrington Walls, and the Ring of Brodgar, may reflect an sexual selection displays of skill, health management, wealth, and status. 

References

Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12(1), 1–49. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00023992
Darvill, T. (2006). Stonehenge: The biography of a landscape. Tempus Publishing. https://www.thehistorypress.co.uk/publication/stonehenge/9780752433424/
Fisher, R. A. (1930). The genetical theory of natural selection. Oxford University Press. https://archive.org/details/geneticaltheoryo00fish
Kohn, M., & Mithen, S. (1998). Handaxes: Products of sexual selection? Antiquity, 72(276), 518–526. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/abs/handaxes-products-of-sexual-selection/4A546341A997CA7F1E9F1053B7A18482
O’Rourke, P. J. (1983). Modern Manners: An Etiquette Book for Rude People. Atlantic Monthly Press. https://groveatlantic.com/book/modern-manners/
Parker Pearson, M. (2012). Stonehenge: Exploring the greatest Stone Age mystery. Simon & Schuster. https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Stonehenge/Mike-Parker-Pearson/9780857207333
Ridley, M. (2025). Birds, Sex and Beauty. HarperCollins. https://books.google.com/books/about/Birds_Sex_and_Beauty.html?id=ZHW00AEACAAJ
Van Valen, L. (1973). A new evolutionary law. Evolutionary Theory, 1, 1–30. https://www.mn.uio.no/cees/english/services/van-valen/evolutionary-theory/volume-1/vol-1-no-1-pages-1-30-l-van-valen-a-new-evolutionary-law.pdf
Whittle, A. (1997). Sacred mound, holy rings: Silbury Hill and the West Kennet palisade enclosures. Oxbow Books. https://www.oxbowbooks.com/oxbow/sacred-mound-holy-rings.html
Whitehead, A., Sinclair, A., & Scott, C. (2024). Cross-contamination via stone tool use: A pilot study of bifacial butchery tools. EXARC Journal, 2024(2). Retrieved April 26, 2025, from https://exarc.net/issue-2024-2/ea/cross-contamination-stone-tool
Zahavi, A. (1975). Mate selection—A selection for a handicap. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 53(1), 205–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5193(75)90111-3