Archive for the 'Wessex Archaeology' category
No one could be more interested than me in the recent developments at Stonehenge. Well, it’s perfectly possible, I suppose, that someone else ‘out there’ might be even more fascinated with the ruins than I am, but I base my blunt statement on the simple fact that I’ve been running Eternal Idol for over 5 years. On that time, over 300 original posts have appeared here, along with something like 3,300 comments and contributions, along with countless links, photos, diagrams, graphics, news reports, accounts of meetings and so on.
Over the weekend, I noted that some comments went up here to the effect that Eternal Idol is the world’s foremost site as far as Stonehenge is concerned, and this may be true. Certainly, I know of no other like it, and if I did, I would of course be more than happy to link to this other site and announce its existence to the Four Winds. From the very start, Eternal Idol, along with its study of Stonehenge, Silbury Hill and our ancestors has been a labour of love, with others choosing to contribute freely and for the benefit of all. All of which set me to thinking…
Last week, there was a flurry of press reports from numerous sources concerning “Hillside Henge”, all of which have been posted here as links. There was great excitement all round, but precious little detail, and what detail there is proved to be somewhat confusing, rather than illuminating. For example, on the BBC link, we learned of a new henge “made of wood and aligned with Stonehenge itself…”
How? By virtue of the fact that you can draw a straight line connecting the two? As for this structure being made of wood, how do we know this? Thankfully, Mike Pitts wrote a sober and informative piece for the BBC, going into what I presume is very interesting detail for the layman, but the mere existence of Mike Pitts’ piece begs the question of why the BBC didn’t include what he had to say in a more informative original announcement?
More amazing still, we learn from the Independent’s Archaeology Correspondent that this new structure was “almost certainly some kind of Neolithic temple” and that it “appears to have been a circle of massive timber obelisks, constructed more than 4,200 years ago.” Where do I begin?
I’m far from convinced that Stonehenge itself was a temple as we understand the word today, and I’ve written about this before. How we know that “Hillside Henge” was “almost certainly some kind of Neolithic temple” is beyond me, while I’m equally baffled as far as the dates are concerned, because as far as I’m aware, we have no way of knowing how precisely how old this structure is.
As for the existence of timber “obelisks”, I’m at a loss. To be sure, it’s an exciting new addition to the lexicon of the Stonehenge landscape, but as I understand it, an obelisk is “a tall, narrow, four-sided, tapering monument which ends in a pyramid-like shape at the top.” How can anyone reasonably conjecture the existence of multiple structures like this, which as far as I’m aware are unprecedented in Neolithic features?
There’s a mention of Hillside Henge, Stonehenge and Coneybury being ‘roughly aligned’, but apart from the simple observation that Hillside Henge lies to the northwest of Stonehenge, there is otherwise not the faintest sign of interest in this compass direction. I personally think this is extremely odd, on account of the many features that lie to the northwest of Stonehenge, while it is the direction in which the sun sets on Midsummer’s Day and it also marks the approximate home of the bluestones, regardless of how they ultimately found their way to Stonehenge.
Even more bizarre is the fact that yet another large wooden henge or temple with a curious feature at its centre lies ‘somewhere to the northwest of Stonehenge’, but this latest ‘most exciting discovery in 50 years or so’ has not even been reported! Its existence is well-known in certain archaeological circles and has been for some time, but for a multitude of truly fascinating reasons, no press release has been issued and it’ll probably be quietly forgotten until such time as it suits someone to release news of this latest discovery.
So, it might well be that if you’re reading this, then you have a genuine interest in the landscape of Stonehenge and are following the advice given by Mike Pitts on page 299 of Hengeworld – “Perhaps now, having read this far, you feel like having a go at working it (the mystery of Stonehenge) out for yourself. I recommend you do. There is something quite special about deep contemplation of our ancestors….” However, if you’re a member of the public and you’re having a serious stab at studying Stonehenge, then you might as well forget it because there’s something huge ‘out there’ that you don’t know about and won’t know about, either, so you can’t include it in your calculations. Ah well, you read the new new Henge here first, while you’ve also read about yet another huge and unrecorded prehistoric feature here first, but I’ll write more about this last one in a separate post as soon as I get a chance.
Otherwise, as far as the current “New Henge” or “Hillside Henge” is concerned, I’m mystified by how little detail has gone into the official reports, while it strikes me that the aforementioned contribution by Mike Pitts on the BBC is a welcome addition as far as those with a genuine interest in the monument are concerned. The other reports strike me as simply a means of cashing in on the universal interest in Stonehenge, which further perpetuates my belief that the monument is far more of a ‘cash cow’ than a real site deserving of respect, study and veneration.
You’ll find other links to “Hillside Henge” on this site, sent in by enthusiasts, but they pretty much repeat the information in the original press releases. There’s some confusion about the precise location of Hillside Henge, which may have been intended from the start, but for those many people with a genuine interest in the place, I have to wonder why it’s left to Alex Down to visit the site and take measurements and photographs, to Juris Ozols in Minnesota to produce further contributions and graphics, and for me to write it all up and publish it. While I’m on the subject of contributors, I’m extremely grateful to my friend Lee Smeaton – a metal detectorist of all people, but as good a friend of our heritage as you could wish to meet – for taking the time and trouble to send in the enhanced photos (below), that may throw some further light on Hillside Henge.
Hillside Henge aside for now, why is it that Eternal Idol is regarded by some as the foremost site on Stonehenge, when by rights, there should be other contenders fiercely contesting this title?
I’ve spoken before with admiration about the Stonehenge Riverside Project and this admiration remains. They been excavating in the Stonehenge landscape for years, allowing visitors to watch the excavations and providing open days where anyone is free to question the archaeologists and wander around the sites. The SRP has come up with a host of fascinating discoveries in recent times, but while their website isn’t bad, it’s hardly up to date and brimful with information. Mike Parker Pearson has given talks on Stonehenge and he’s taken part in documentaries, all of which were informative and intriguing, but the blunt fact remains that while the people in charge of the SRP are a mine of experienced information, there’s not a lot of this on the internet, which is to my mind a very great shame.
Before I move on, I should point out (again) another major shortcoming in British archaeology. I’ve spoken to many senior archaeologists over the years who specialise in the study of Stonehenge (and Silbury Hill) and I’ve been fascinated to learn what they have to say in private conversations. However, these men have to be exceedingly careful with their public pronouncements because there’s a great deal of professional envy and resentment ‘out there’, from others who go over their printed words with a fine toothcomb, ready to pounce on any syllable deemed to be unprofessional, speculative or populist. Now, you might think that I’ve done exactly the same thing with what I’ve said about Hillside Henge, but while I was admittedly startled by Prof Gaffney’s announcement that “This (Hillside Henge) is probably the first major ceremonial monument that has been found in the past 50 years or so”, because the recent discovery of Bluestonehenge seems to have slipped his memory, I’m more disappointed by officialdom’s fleeting and inaccurate coverage of this new discovery.
The next contender for the person or organisation who should have the best Stonehenge site on the internet is Wessex Archaeology, not least because they use a stylised trilithon as their company logo in an obvious attempt to cash in on Stonehenge’s global reputation; where do I begin?
Apart from using a stylised Stonehenge trilithon, Wessex Archaeology undertook the Stonehenge A303 Test Pit Project in 2002 and I should know, because I worked on it. Archaeologists employed by Wessex Archaeology discovered the world-famous Amesbury Archer or King of Stonehenge and again, I should know because I was one of the first to see the remains and artefacts close up, while I was also involved in the many broadcasts made about this discovery, as I was one half of the laughably-termed Media and Communications Department.
Archaeologists employed by Wessex Archaeology excavated the Boscombe Bowmen or ‘Builders of Stonehenge’, another discovery I was intimately involved with throughout, while archaeologists employed by Wessex Archaeology have been present at numerous other Stonehenge-related discoveries over the years. Yet another was the laser-scanning of Stonehenge, carried out in 2003 by Wessex Archaeology and Archaeoptics, but I think it’s fair to say that the Stonehenge expertise gathered at Wessex Archaeology is not proportionately represented on their website. One might find this mildy surprising, when one also considers the size of their IT Department, the existence of a Media & Communications Department, their self-proclaimed status as an Educational Charity and the fact that the Chief Executive of Wessex Archaeology, Ms Sue Davies, was recently elected Vice Chairperson of the United Kingdom National Commission for UNESCO.
Stonehenge is of course a UNESCO World Heritage site, situated not only in the United Kingdom, but also a mere stone’s throw away from the majestic offices of Wessex Archaeology. Chief Executives and Heads of Department at Wessex Archaeology are paid far better than I am, they have a lot more free time on their hands than I do, they have better access to Stonehenge, related projects and related experts than I do and they have vastly superior computer technology, yet their website is hardly a cornucopia of information as far as Stonehenge is concerned. And as the icing on the cake, as it were, the staff at Wessex have been banned from accessing Eternal Idol from their workplace, while anyone found attempting to do so faces some pretty unforgiving questioning.
I’ll have far more to say about Wessex Archaeology and Stonehenge as the year progresses, but I will simply leave you to ponder why this institution isn’t aiming to be the first stop for Stonehenge information on the internet. Mystifying though this situation is, it seems positively straightforward in comparison with the current status of English Heritage, as far as Stonehenge is concerned.
If Wessex Archaeology are well-connected and comfortably off in terms of Stonehenge connections, then English Heritage, as the current custodians of the ruins, are faced with what is self-evidently an embarrassment of riches. And yet, when we glance at their website, which most reasonable people might expect to be the last word in instantly accessible and comprehensible information on Stonehenge, we find very little indeed.
When I type “Stonehenge English Heritage” into Google, I get this result for the homepage, and while there are some tabs, which I’ll come to shortly, the rest of the page is dominated by ticket prices and exhortations to spend money in the visitors’ shop, buying membership and so on. The spirit of Mammon is alive and well here, but what happens when we turn to Explore Stonehenge and the Interactive Map?
Now, it may well be that I’ve missed something amidst this veritable treasure-trove of up-to-date information on Stonehenge, as maintained up its custodians, but I’d be grateful to anyone who can point out updates on:
Hillside Henge, “probably the first major ceremonial monument that has been found in the past 50 years or so.”
Bluestonehenge, “one of the most important prehistoric finds in decades.”
Professors Wainwright and Darvill’s 2008 excavation at Stonehenge, the first since 1964 and the subject of a BBC Timewatch special, in conjunction with the Smithsonian Museum. Good Lord – there IS a page on this!
The filming of an episode of Dr Who, one of the most famous, popular and successful sci-fi series of all time, at Stonehenge.
The discovery that Stonehenge was a royal cemetery.
The news that the 56 Aubrey Holes may once have held bluestones.
The removal of the Ancestors from Aubrey Hole 7.
The subsequent Druid picket of Stonehenge.
The Amesbury Archer or The King of Stonehenge.
The Boscombe Bowmen or The Builders of Stonehenge.
I could go on and on and on, but you’d be better of simply scrolling through Eternal Idol to find everything that’s not featured there. Druid links with Stonehenge, Aborigines performing dances at Stonehenge, Pytheas of Massilia, Stonehedge, Stonehump….you name it, it can’t be found.
What of the appearance of The Ancestor at Stonehenge? Perhaps I’m looking in the wrong place, so let’s have a look at the Summer Solstice 2010 tab. Well, that’s odd – no mention of The Ancestor, no pictures, no reference to the extensive media coverage, no mention of this unique cultural event, no mention of the first time a giant’s appeared at Stonehenge since Geoffrey of Monmouth described the monument being built by such creatures…nothing.
This complete absence of competition for Eternal Idol can’t be put down to a lack of funding – Stonehenge receives something like 1,000,000 visitors a year at around six pounds a head, so when you add sales from the shop, parking and God only knows what else into the pot, there should be more than enough to pay for someone to post a few updates every few days. But apparently not.
As you’ll see on the Explore Stonehenge page, there is a list of handsome credits, which I’ll reproduce here “This interactive map was funded by the New Opportunity Fund and created by Oxford ArchDigital in April 2004. The project was led by Isabelle Bedu, the Stonehenge World Heritage Site Coordinator, in collaboration with the English Heritage web team and the Wiltshire County Council project Window On Wiltshire. A huge thank you to Helen Shalders, Kate Turnbull, Fiona Ryan, Graham Sear, Margaret Cook, Vuk Trifkovic, Tom Goskar, Damian Grady, Helena Cave-Penney, Amanda Chadburn and all the others involved in the project.”
Well, Tom Goskar was a former colleague of mine at Wessex Archaeology and I understand that he’s now occupying the dizzy heights of management, but while I’ve long lost touch with him, it looks from the above as if 2004 was the last time he made any serious attempt to put original information about Stonehenge into the public domain, although I’m always prepared to learn otherwise.
As for Amanda Chadburn, she holds some senior position within English Heritage, but you’re welcome to look this lady up for yourselves. I heard her name mentioned recently in Alex Down’s report on the recent Stonehenge and Avebury Seminar at Devizes, in which he wrote:
“Amanda Chadburn welcomed us, and introduced the seminar, and explained that the two different sites are actually just one WHS – that was news to me – with the large gap of Salisbury Plain and Pewsey Vale in between. She explained that it’s proposed that an Archaeological Research Group be set up for the whole WHS, and asked for ideas to help frame its terms of reference. I’ve sent mine, and I bet that the readership here has a whole lot more.”
Well, I’ve had what I flatter myself is a brilliant idea, Amanda – why don’t you, and all those others who currently occupy well-paid and stratospheric positions in the world of Stonehenge archaeology, start pulling your fingers out and start making more than a token effort to show an interest in Stonehenge? If you want suggestions to help frame terms of reference for an Archaeological research Group for the Stonehenge World Heritage site, might it not be big help if all concerned updated their websites more than just the once every few years? The IFA’s rules and regulations aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on, but somewhere among all the dross is a real gem, which is worth reproducing here:
“The fuller understanding of our past provided by archaeology is part of society’s common heritage and it should be available to everyone. Because of this, and because the historic environment is an irreplaceable resource, archaeologists both corporately and individually have a responsibility to help preserve the historic environment, to use it economically in their work, to conduct their studies in such a way that reliable information may be acquired, and to disseminate the results of their studies.”
Around four and a half thousand years ago, our ancestors embarked on an unimaginable labour, dragging vast quantities of stone many miles across rough terrain to a site their ancestors before them had chosen to venerate many millennia before. Using nothing more than mauls and their bare hands, they fashioned these rough stones and erected them into a monument that is regarded as a true Wonder of the World, a now-crumbling set of ruins that draws visitors from around the planet to stare in open-mouthed admiration, awe and bafflement.
However, their descendants – those tasked by society to investigate, record, safeguard and disseminate the information pertaining to this Wonder of the World – simply find it beyond their abilities to create an official and accessible repository of knowledge on the internet worthy of the name, let alone update it in a meaningful fashion; as for a visitors centre – forget it. All this despite enjoying facilities, benefits and a standard of living incomprehensible to those long dead men and women whose remains are now scattered throughout the landscape, in museums and university laboratories.
So, I ask again “How much longer must this utter travesty continue?”
Unlock the Gates of Janus
1:58 am
The Reburial Issue is a highly contentious subject and it’s one that’s currently occupying the minds of many people on both sides of the Great Divide. Over the course of 2009, there were a few occasions when I considered writing a lengthy contribution of my own on the subject and publishing it here on Eternal Idol, but I quickly decided that there would be no real point.
Show me more… »
I’m planning to embellish this site further by adding a static page containing quotes about Stonehenge, so when I find the time, I’ll post it up. My personal favourites thus far come from Sir Arthur C. Clarke, who wrote, on page 146 of Arthur C. Clarke’s Mysterious World “Only one thing can be stated with certainty about such structures as Stonehenge: the people who built them were much more intelligent than many who have written books about them”.
Show me more… »
