One of the biggest advances ever in understanding Stonehenge in its landscape – this year’s Stonehenge Riverside Project (SRP) dig beside the Avon has produced some astounding results. The highlight is the discovery of a new stone circle and henge, called Bluestonehenge by the SRP’s leader, Professor Mike Parker Pearson, and Mike was kind enough to present his findings to the Wiltshire Archaeology and Natural History Society in Devizes recently. This is my report on what he had to say. I was privileged to play a very small amateur part in the dig, so I’ve added my own observations if I think they can supplement Mike’s story.
The site
The new Bluestonehenge (BH) occupies a site close beside the river Avon in the hamlet of West Amesbury, at the end of the inferred Avenue route. The Avenue, which had never been properly explored at its far end, crosses a small field as it approaches the Avon, in a sheltered and fertile shallow valley, watered by a small spring.
Anyone who is familiar with the rather bracing conditions to be found up on the chalky, dry and exposed shoulder where Stonehenge is sited can’t fail to notice the polarising differences between the two sites. Although the stone ring in BH sits on a small spit or tongue of natural chalk – which probably marked the site on the river bank as a natural landing point – the surrounding subsoil is mostly sticky periglacial clay, making digging conditions rather difficult.
Only part of the henge site was accessible to the excavation team, as a property boundary crosses it, and the remaining land is river bank with carefully protected fishing rights. Some of the original henge bank and ditch has been lost to the river, but the stone circle is largely intact, and a little more than a third of it was excavated, giving a high degree of confidence in the conclusions.
The discovery
Last year’s SRP excavations (2008) included a short exploration at West Amesbury to locate the end of the Avenue. Extensive geophysics surveys – resistivity, magnetic, radar – showed nothing, but a long narrow trench was dug across the field close to the river. By good fortune, the trench showed two segments of a circular ditch: the henge ditch. If the dig had been a few yards further away from the river, then the ditch would have been missed, and probably the Avenue ditches too, because they don’t reach quite as far as the henge.
The original henge bank had disappeared, eroded back into the ditch. But the discovery forced a re-examination of the geophysics records, and with hindsight it was possible to see four anomalies within the ditch, arranged in such a way that they could be on a circle. Perhaps they were the remains of sarsens forming a stone setting within a henge?
No further excavation was possible at that time, but 2009’s SRP dig was designed to explore this exciting possibility.
Early finds
Test pits over a wide area showed two main areas of flint finds. Most of the finds were either Mesolithic or Bronze Age, showing that the site seemed not to be inhabited by Neolithic people. Many Early Mesolithic flints were found on the tongue of chalk showing that this area had been used extensively, possibly since the time that the Car Park posts were erected at Stonehenge (8000BC). This is important in itself, as it indicates that the Stonehenge area must have been highly significant while the Mesolithic people who erected the posts were living in the valley, near fresh water.
The major trench at BH showed that the henge ditch is 25m in diameter, with a 30m diameter bank. The Avenue ditches almost meet the henge bank but fall short. Finds from the Avenue and the henge ditches show that they’re likely contemporary, dug at the same time. Last year’s dig uncovered an antler at the bottom of a ditch segment that dated to around 2400BC. The henge/Avenue dates inferred from flint finds have yet to be confirmed by the radiocarbon dating from this year’s organic finds.
The four anomalies – the possible sarsen holes – were a big disappointment. They turned out to be dense distributions of flint nodules in the natural spur of chalk, a result of natural weathering causing a “deflation horizon”. They were simply a natural phenomenon, but they played their part in the big discovery by contributing to the expectations of the site.
A narrow trench across the Avenue line and further away from the Avon revealed the Avenue ditches, as well as a mass of mediaeval activity. In fact, it was difficult to disentangle all the mediaeval land boundaries and pits from the prehistoric targets. But eventually the two Avenue ditches, about 18m apart, became clear, and the eastern ditch was particularly fruitful. It showed a line of stake holes in the bottom of the ditch, the remains of a length of palisade. The palisade does not seem to have extended all the way to the terminus of the ditch. In the same area as the stakes, one lucky excavator found the most incredibly perfect and delicate oblique ripple-flaked arrowhead. It was pointing up the Avenue towards Stonehenge, and must have been a deliberate deposit.
Within the henge
The archaeological sequence within the henge was complicated. Apart from the inevitable mediaeval disturbance, some Late Bronze Age post pipes cut into the filled henge ditch and intersected with the bottom of what was to prove a bluestone hole. The dating was provided by post-Deverel Rimbury pottery which was in use around 1000BC. At least one of the post holes was massive – the photo shows an excavator removing material from a still deepening post pipe. The significance of these posts is that the Bronze Age people must have known of the presence of something highly important from the past – the posts were erected right at the edge of the earlier stone circle.
Elsewhere, excavation uncovered patches of flint-cobbled surfaces at the bottom of the henge ditch, so that people could stand in the clayey bottom. Nearby was found the butt of a greenstone axehead.
Where the ditch had been recut in the Bronze Age, it had narrowly missed the bottom of the original ditch terminal. And that allowed Mike’s team to discover an important “structured deposit” of a flint-worker’s hammerstone, shaped antler tool, a series of struck flints, and the sacrum of a cow. (Cattle remains are often found in ditch terminals.) But the most interesting find was almost missed – the vestigial remains a “burnt organic container” – was it a basket, or a bowl? And what did it contain? Maybe time and expert investigation will tell.
The stone ring
There’s no doubt the finally-revealed stone holes – the hoped-for target of the dig – contained bluestones. There were only four pieces of sarsen found within the henge, and they were river-worn. The nine stone holes uncovered showed the characteristic proportions and dimensions of their counterparts at Stonehenge, though perhaps were dug a little deeper, probably because of the softer clay subsoil.
The interpretation of the stone holes changed dramatically during the dig. An early count showed only four holes in the trenches, and an aerial shot I was able to get from a flight overhead allowed me to calculate a circle containing about 10 stones. This was similar to the directors’ estimate, but within a few days the diggers appeared to discover intermediate stoneholes, and suddenly the estimate shot up to around 24 or 25 stones. These were erected on a circle of almost exactly 10m diameter across the ditch centreline.
Each stonehole excavated differed slightly, showing that it was likely that different gangs erected each stone. One showed a nest of packing stones, carefully placed around and under the bluestone, while the next revealed a pad of alluvial clay, compressed into the underlying chalk. The pad retained a perfect imprint of the bottom of the original stone.
The packing stones gave rise to a mystery. Each hole had an extraction ramp, showing the angle at which the stone was withdrawn. Each stone was extracted whole, for there were no bluestone fragments. And yet the nest of packing stones was virtually complete, which would have been impossible if the stone had simply been dragged up the extraction ramp. The photo shows a nest of packing stones, lower right, with the excavator standing in the angled extraction ramp, below the edge of the packing stones.
So how was it done?
The answer the team came up with was the use of an A-frame. Their hypothesis is that the stones were physically lifted up from the holes by attaching ropes to the peak of the A-frame, and then hauling the frame more upright. This would allow the stone to clear the packing, and then be withdrawn by hand along the extraction ramp.
This was a clever solution to the problem, but gives rise to another question. Why was so much care expended on removing the stones?
Repurposing the stones
It was at this point in the excavation that Mike made his momentous announcement. He often gave a progress report at the start of the day’s dig, and on this occasion he really caught his audience’s attention. The gist of the theory was that the 24 bluestones from BH were carefully removed, and then dragged up what is now the Avenue to be reused in the later designs of Stonehenge.
This is a seductive idea, because of the arithmetic. Mike excavated Aubrey Hole 7 last year to remove the buried cremated remains that had been deposited there since 1935. He discovered the characteristic crushing of the bottom chalk indicating a standing stone. This had been observed by the original excavator in 1920, but he’d been overruled by others. In addition, the proportions and dimensions of the Aubrey Holes all show the same characteristics of known bluestone holes. So the deduction is that there were 56 bluestones dating from the earliest Phase 1 in around 3000BC.
When you add the 24 stones transported from BH, they total 80 stones, which is too close for coincidence to the usual estimates of 79-80 for the bluestones in the later settings. It appears that the BH ring had been desanctified, the stones carefully removed and consolidated with the existing stones at Stonehenge, to re-launch the monument. At the same time, or soon after, the bluestones were joined by the massive sarsens to create the monument we know today.
This completely rewrites the history of not just Stonehenge, but a much enlarged Stonehenge ritual landscape. Mike summed up the significance of this revelation with the words that I can still clearly hear in my mind: “It’s not quite Tutankhamun’s tomb, but…”
Not only do we have an astounding new theory that closely links two separate monuments over a period of around 500 years, but a double slice of luck should enable definite confirmation. Not only was an antler found directly under the bottom of one of the original holes (incontrovertible dating for the date of erection), but another antler was found near the top of an extraction ramp, most likely confirming when the stone was removed. So, when the RC dates are in, they should provide reliable dating for both start and end dates of the BH ring. And these can be compared with corresponding dates at the Stonehenge site.
Shapes and sizes
The comparison may be a lot tighter than simple dates. An intriguing consequence of the imprints left behind in the bottom of the bluestone holes is that they can be accurately modelled in 3D using a laser scanning technique. And if the shape of the original stones can be retrieved, then they can be compared with existing stones at Stonehenge.
It turns out that there is a strong candidate for a match. This photograph from English Heritage shows the bluestone 68 at Stonehenge which has a strongly defined groove, and it’s possible that this groove matches a similar grooved base to one of the stones from the west of BH.
If such a connection can be made, then it’s unquestionable proof that the two sets of stones were integrated into the new design at Stonehenge.
Another intriguing possibility that will be much harder to prove is that the ring at BH was lintelled. Stonehenge possesses two lintelled bluestones, and Mike thinks that it’s just possible that they could also have been used as lintels at BH, in which case the theme for the unique design we see at Stonehenge today could have been inspired by the lost ring beside the Avon.
But where might the inspiration for BH have sprung from?
Origins
There is a strong association between Stonehenge and Wales and the West Country. Whether the bluestones were transported by glaciers or human agency, they incontrovertibly originated from Wales. In addition, strontium analysis of animal remains found in the Stonehenge landscape show they came from the west.
The earliest Neolithic finds in the British Isles come from Ireland, and pottery styles show that Early Neolithic culture spread all the way along the west coast from the Scottish Isles in the north, to Paignton in Devon and to France. Wales has an impressive collection of 4th millennium tombs that show an active Early Neolithic culture. And it also has a proto-Stonehenge, near Bangor.
Although Mike didn’t mention it by name, I think he must have been referring to Llandegai 1, a henge outside Bangor that is the most closely aligned in the British Isles with the Stonehenge design. With dates of 3,200 BC from ditch material and 3,350 BC from a cremation, it’s possibly the earliest dated henge yet found. Its bank is within the ditch, as at Stonehenge, and it’s described as having been the site of a large Neolithic ceremonial centre which sounds very similar to the Stonehenge complex – for instance, it had a cursus, and many cremation burials were found in the henge, as at Stonehenge. Its excavator described it as “a natural meeting place of land and sea routes”, and he associated the early usage of the site with axe-trading. (Perhaps the greenstone axe found at BH came from here?) And Stonehenge is of course at the nexus of major overland routes, like the Ridgeway and Harroway, and the Avon river route to the sea.
So it’s possible that Llandegai provided the jumping-off point for a migration of the Welsh Neolithic culture and cattle towards the east that ended in a similar settlement on the easy grazing of Salisbury Plain. And what more natural than to import the familiar religious designs that reassured the new settlers that this was their new home from home? But it will take a lot more research using techniques like strontium analysis before proving this theory of origination.
Human agency, or glaciation?
The two monuments at Stonehenge and BH both show an impressive collection of bluestones. We know they came from Wales, but how did they arrive? While acknowledging that current research is casting new light on glaciation, Mike still prefers the idea of human agency. He referred to the latest article in British Archaeology from Rob Ixer, that relocates the source of many of the stones away from Carn Meini, the traditional source, preferring Carn Goedog, for instance for the source of the spotted dolerites, because of a closer chemical match.
Mike’s opinion gained from his glaciation experts is that potential bluestone-carrying glaciations would have come no closer than about 50 miles, dropping their load in the area of Somerset and Gloucestershire. So what evidence is there for bluestones in that area?
There we find Stanton Drew, a massive henge that incorporates stones of varied geology that have been imported from many miles away. But there isn’t a single bluestone there. Mike feels that if glaciations were a factor, then bluestones would inevitably have been used at Stanton Drew. They haven’t – and that destroys the credibility of the glacier-borne theory.
So did the Neolithic people transport the stones by water or land? For Mike, they’d have done anything to avoid the uncertainties of a water route. In short, he believes that – “it’s the labour that counts” – and that work gangs would have competed eagerly for the prestige of the heaviest stones or the greatest distance.
Construction
The dimensions of BH are simple: the stone circle is 10m in diameter, the henge ditch is 25m, and the bank is 30m (midline to midline). There are some small variations in these figures, because of the inevitable irregularities introduced by construction, but it seems that there was a basic multiple of five underlying all the dimensions.
At this point, I have to suspend my disbelief. Mike claims the basic unit of length that was used by the designers was (in current terms) 5 metres, and this length corresponds very closely to what in traditional English measure is a rod (or a pole, or a perch.) Mike’s advisors propose that this basic prehistoric measure of length is 15 “long feet” (a multiple of 5 again) where a long foot is 1.056 English feet.
The proof appears to be evident in the design at Stonehenge. The Aubrey Holes are spaced one rod apart. For comparison purposes, the BH ring is only two rods in diameter, so it’s tiny. I didn’t collect all the details, but the rod underlies the entire Stonehenge design: the Aubrey Holes have a diameter of 9 rods, the bank 10 rods, the ditch 11 rods, and the counterscarp 12 rods. In the lintelled ring, each lintel is 10 long feet (two thirds of a rod) while the trilithon horseshoe is constructed on a spacing pattern of multiples of 5 rods. Each trilithon lintel is one rod in length.
Mike claims that this produces an extremely simple construction method, that bypasses all the complicated geometrical constructions required by Anthony Johnson’s analysis, for instance. Mike is not proposing a universal measure, like Alexander Thom’s Megalithic Yard. Rather, he is proposing a local measure that persisted in the area of Salisbury Plain. Is it possible this measure ultimately become the English rod that, apparently, defined the length of the stick needed to control oxen at the plough?
Connection to Stonehenge
During the active phase of BH – assumed to be between 3000BC and its dismantling in around 2500BC – how did it relate to its bigger neighbour, Stonehenge? During this time there was no Avenue connecting the two, yet there had been some early logical connection through the common use of bluestones. Puzzlingly, Stonehenge went through a long period after 3000BC when it was used less – indeed, became partially overgrown – although it was still used for cremation burials.
Mike Parker Pearson believes that during this period BH had more of a connection with Coneybury Henge. Coneybury is close to a direct line between Stonehenge and the Avon site, and is high up on the chalkland, overlooking Stonehenge. It was excavated in 1980 by Julian Richards, who found a north eastern entrance, like Stonehenge’s, with wooden settings within, and the possibility of an east-west setting of bluestone-sized pits.
But the really intriguing characteristics of Coneybury are its dates. Outside the henge is a pit, called the Coneybury Anomaly, filled with early Neolithic pottery and a large deposit of animal bones, including a minimum of 10 cattle, plus several roe deer, two red deer and a pig. This pit may represent the remains of one major episode of feasting, carefully buried. The remains would have fed a lot of people, and the bones date to early in the 4th millennium BC. A series of dates from pits inside the henge and the primary ditch show that Coneybury was in active use from about 3300BC to 2450BC – in other words, completely spanning the dates when BH was in use.
It seems possible that Coneybury may have been the first point of contact for the earliest Neolithic settlers from the west. One way of settling this would be to test the teeth from the cattle buried in the Anomaly, using strontium analysis, to see if they originated from Wales. Mike is planning to carry out this test, and the results should be extremely interesting. But whatever the origin of the animals and people, it seems to have been an important component of the Stonehenge landscape at the same time as BH.
Coneybury is accessible from BH directly, with no more effort than using the Avenue route – both routes have to climb the King Barrow ridge. But Mike makes an interesting proposition for the route from Coneybury to Stonehenge: he thinks that it took a more southerly route, and used a coombe, or shallow valley to go west before approaching Stonehenge directly from the south. The southern entrance, marked by the diminutive sarsen stone 11, could be a recognition of the earlier approach route.
In the footsteps of the Gods
We may never know what was the transformational event or belief that prompted the dismantling of the bluestone ring at BH, and its re-erection at Stonehenge. But Mike Parker Pearson is sure that he knows how the change took place, and was marked.
After the careful removal of the bluestones from their BH setting, they were moved to Stonehenge along what we now know as the line of the Avenue. This route is the most direct and follows an economical line across the King Barrow ridge but, most significantly, it joins with the solstice sunrise line at the bottom of the final slope up to Stonehenge – the dramatic approach to the Heel Stone when the rising midsummer sun shines directly into the centre of the monument.
Mike Parker Pearson opened his talk with a discussion of this line, but it seems most relevant here. When a trench was opened up across this final part of the Avenue last year, Mike’s geomorphology experts pointed out that the two parallel ridge and ditches that mark the sunrise line are natural features (caused by periglacial erosion) which coincidentally are directly on the sunrise axis.
Mike surmises that this natural feature and its significant alignment must have been known to the Neolithic people, and this was a major reason for the siting of Stonehenge. This natural astronomical alignment was then enhanced by a circular cremation cemetery with a bluestone ring at the top of the rise.
When Stonehenge was redeveloped around 2500BC, it was natural to incorporate the new bluestones by using the original feature that had made the site special. The route by which they had been moved was commemorated by an extension of the Avenue banks and ditches all the way down to the circle by the river. And there a circular ditch and bank was dug to mark the place where the where the stones had originally stood.
Stonehenge’s key position in a ritual landscape appears to have been originally a recognition of the Sun or Sky gods, and this aspect was preserved through its history, until it was finally commemorated in the connection to its early partner site, Bluestonehenge.
Thus a continuity of memory was assured, a continuity that has allowed modern archaeologists to reveal even more of Stonehenge’s early history. There will inevitably be yet more exciting discoveries in the future.
All the text and photographs in this report are courtesy of Alex Down, apart from the illustration of Bluestonehenge which was created by Peter Dunn [see previous post on Bluestonehenge Press Release for details]. It surely goes without saying that I’m enormously grateful to Alex for all his hard work and dedication in enabling us all to read this account.
57 Responses to ““It’s not quite Tutankhamun’s tomb, but…” – an account of Professor Mike Parker Pearson’s recent presentation on “Bluestonehenge””
Fascinating. Thank you, Dennis and Alex. Alex provided a similar service last November (http://www.eternalidol.com/?p=1137) and it may be a labour of love, but nevertheless a labour which he kindly shares.
As then, I wish the Mesolithic was brought into this just a little more. If the Hampshire model is followed, then the chalk downs were not settled or much visited in the Mesolithic. That there is widespread Mesolithic evidence around Stonehenge would seemingly contradict the activity in the neighbouring county.
Why choose to put posts up so near to Stonehenge, slap bang in the middle of the downs and so far from the Avon? Although there may be a far later Welsh /Irish link and perhaps this area was important to native ‘Britains’ long before any architectural influences or ideas came from ‘abroad’. (Perhaps that could also be applied to current thinking?)
The RC dating for the new circle will be very interesting, but my feeling is that this site is connected to earlier rather than later activity at Stonehenge.
As I made clear, Alex did the bulk of the work, not to forget toiling in the mud down by the Avon, so he deserves all the credit and praise anyone cares to heap on him. But thank you anyway, John, as your kind words are greatly appreciated.
I think you’re quite right, Neil – there’s a great deal here for us all to pore over for a long time to come. I was thinking of getting the ball rolling with an observation or comment of my about one particular aspect of the site, but it can wait while others digest what’s here and offer their own thoughts. Thanks for writing in, though, and I’m sure Alex will appreciate what you had to say.
Neil and John, thanks for the kind comments. You both raise very interesting points which need further exploration. I’ll have to return to John’s ideas about the Mesolithic, but Neil and I have both had very similar ideas about the significance of Stonehenge arising from the consolidation of stones from other sacred places into the rebuilt Stonehenge.
In a post on 8th October under the Press Release thread, I mentioned that I wanted to bring Coneybury into the story, but I’d been deterred by MPP who told me that I was off-beam. That, it now transpires, was because I only knew about the wooden settings in Coneybury (that I suggested might have translated to the very enigmatic wooden settings in the centre of Stonehenge – in the same way the the BH bluestones were translated to Stonehenge.) MPP, in his lecture, is now saying that there may well have been bluestone settings in the middle of Coneybury Henge, and this is, as far as I know, totally new information. I certainly couldn’t find it in my books or on the Web.
But it makes the case even more strongly for Coneybury playing a really significant role in the early history of Stonehenge. And, as Neil says, the acquisition of stones from two more sites (not just Bluestonehenge) must have made the sanctity of the rebuilt Stonehenge even more than the sum of its parts.
It seems to me that the early history of Stonehenge is become a far more diffuse picture, with the significance of the ritual landscape being spread between at least three sites – and I’m sure there’ll be more, because we can’t ignore the Cursus, and the possibility of another bluestone site at its western end. And then, in 2500BC, this whole zone becomes concentrated in the sarsen monument, carrying huge extra significance from the other sites around it. It’s awe-inspiring to think of the religious energies and charge that must have been concentrated into the new design.
John makes an interesting point when he says “If the Hampshire model is followed, then the chalk downs were not settled or much visited in the Mesolithic.” I’m sure I’ve written on this in the past – and of course I can’t find it! – but I’ve felt for some time that there is something “otherworldly” about the High Plain. By this, I mean the bleak upper chalkland of Salisbury Plain, far removed from water – exactly the sort of ground where we find Stonehenge. There is a high central dome that can be seen quite clearly using the 3D capabilities of Google Earth, for instance.
This is all the purest of speculation, based on the thinnest of threads … but one of the continuing ideas in EI is the significance of the colour white (expressed in the name Albiones, for instance.) For Mesolithic people, for whom their very existence depended on water and hunting, perhaps the High Plain represented a sort of no-go area? It overlaid the pure white rock, maybe associated with a Moon Goddess and therefore sacred; and it barely supported life, as it was arid, dry and exposed.
The SRP excavations showed how Mesolithic activity seemed to be concentrated on a focal point near the flowing river, and John claims that the Hampshire Downs are not much used by Mesolithic people. I wonder if the association of the sacred with the chalk and the domestic with the river valleys, plus the association of death (or the difficulty of life) high up on the chalk with the life-giving properties of flowing rivers created a sort of Life/Death separation in the minds of the Mesolithic people?
It’s a thin basis on which to construct a theory, but it might provoke some new ideas. Such a perception by Mesolithic hunters could continue as tradition or tribal lore straight into the Neolithic, where the Stonehenge landscape becomes a sort of “dead zone” (a term used by the Time Team program.) This dead zone is distinctly separated from the living zone of Durrington Walls which, though situated on chalk, is low down and very close by the river Avon.
What would the Mesolithic posts mean? Bluestonehenge (BH) is situated at the southeast corner of the central High Plain of Salisbury. To access the centre of the Plain, travellers would need to take the line through what is now Stonehenge. If BH was a focal point for Mesolithic activity, and the Plain was actually some sort of no-go area associated with Death, then the Car Park posts may have acted as a sort of warning: “Do not advance beyond this point.” They may have marked a liminal zone, that area between Life and Death, an area that later became the point from which the dead of the Neoliithic community were freed to join their ancestors.
If this is so, then ancient views of the meaning of the landscape were captured in landscape markings (posts) and these taboos or prohibitions were passed down through the generations and developed in the most extraordinary way by the builders of Stonehenge and its surroundings.
The Neolithic must have represented the final flowering of the long-term connection with the ancestors. Soon the Bronze Age changed the social dynamic of prehistoric society, and power and prestige among the living superseded the cult of the Ancestors.
Despite all of the evidence gathered, some of which is truly fascinating, we are still left speculating just as before.
Study of the Welsh and Irish folk lore gives clues as to this change in values, from Goddess centric golden age (within nature) where the elderly are considered wise and the ancestors guard the wellbeing of the people, towards a world of mixed focus, the new force of thought being patriarchal, an age of warriors and farmers, of kings and heroes alongside the older order, and by the Iron Age the latter is dominant, but not exclusively so.
It is a bit soon to say that reverence for the ancestors has seen its final flowering, considering the ongoing reverence attributed them by some of us 5000 years on and our determination to see them honoured.
Alex
You are correct that this we have discussed this before but as of yet I couldn’t find the section.
The following influenced my thinking on the Mesolithic
http://thehumanjourney.net/pdf_store/sthames/Hampshire%20Revised%20Mesolithic.pdf
“Patterns of resource exploitation and land use seem to have changed markedly by the Late Mesolithic (early 7th late 5th millennium BC) Now we see many smaller flint scatters occurring over a much wider topographical and geological area, though the traditional use of the Greensands continues. Whether this spreading out was the result of population increase, changes in resource availability brought about by natural climatic and vegetational successions or as a result of anthropogenic factors, or through pure curiosity, is impossible to determine, but it seems that most landscapes within the county were brought into use by or during the 6th millennium cal BC. Traditional criteria seem to have applied, however, as sites still tend to be located overlooking running water and either on sands and gravels or, on the Downs, where superficial deposits overlie the chalk.
Again, such a preference is most likely to reflect patterns of vegetation and, concomitantly, the availability of associated resources. We can see that, in general, the largest and most complex assemblages are still those that are located on the sands and we can envisage the regular movement of smaller groups of people along the river valleys penetrating the chalklands in search of seasonal resources and/or on hunting trips.”
Against that, there are the Mesolithic posts high on Salisbury, misplaced in therefore both time and location, perhaps influencing nothing or a prelude to all that followed?
Alex I think this is where the Mesolithic posts were discussed in some detail
For me, the most startling conclusion from MPP’s lecture was the dramatic change in ideas about the origins of Stonehenge. I had assumed that it was a logical evolution of the causewayed camp on Robin Hood’s Ball, dating from the very early 4th millennium, and supposedly in use for 1000 years. Jan Harding, in her “Henge monuments of the British Isles” says “Stonehenge 1 appears to owe more to the causeway camp tradition than to a henge form.”
But MPP is now proposing that it may stem from the Llandegai 1 henge that dates from around 3350-3200BC. This would tie in with the earliest Coneybury Henge date of 3350BC.
So, instead of a simple progression from Causewayed camp to single (Stone)henge (with Coneybury ignored and obscure), we now have three different henges possibly spinning off from the earliest, Coneybury. The allure of Coneybury is enhanced by its Anomaly yielding very early dates of 4050-3640BC.
The obscure Robin Hood’s Ball seems to lose its position as early model for Stonehenge, and cedes the centre of gravity of the Stonehenge landscape to Coneybury. There the site (though not the henge) was in use as early as the causewayed camp, and its use continues to around the time of the last phase of Stonehenge. During that time, the henge appeared and appears to have been the forerunner of Stonehenge and Bluestonehenge, all three with bluestones.
In between the very early anomaly dates, and the flowering of the henges near the end of the fourth millennium, the Cursus made its appearance dated to around 3500BC, possibly influenced by a cursus at Llandegai. And there are correspondingly early dates from Early Neolithic pits on King Barrow Ridge.
If MPP is right about the influences coming from the far west – and assuming it can be proved by strontium analysis of cattle teeth, for instance – then it appears as though there had been a continuing tradition of contact over the huge distance from North Wales (Llandegai) – about 170 miles in a straight line – with a transfer of culture starting with a cattle cult, and continuing with structures like the Cursus, and culminating in henges and stone circles.
Where does that leave Robin Hood’s Ball? Perhaps the causeway camp was the last refuge of the Mesolithic people in the area. There was obviously a continuing community of Mesolithic people in the area, from at least 8000BC, preferring the river valleys for their hunting and habitation … but (my inference here) gathering high up on the chalk for social or religious observances. Is it possible that there was parallelism between the Mesolithic people, still living hunter/gatherer lives around 4000BC, and an influx of Neolithic ideas with people from the far west?
If this was the case, it’s impossible to know how quickly the assimilation would have taken place, but the new Neolithic ideas must have been adopted very quickly, and the strange and obscure causewayed camp lost its significance for the late Mesolithic hunter/gatherers as the new culture involving cattle took rapid hold.
Obviously I’m thinking aloud here, and I’m sure that I’ve overlooked information or dates that will completely discredit this theory. I’d be interested in what other subscribers to EI think about it. And while MPP talks about strontium analysis of cattle teeth, another interesting approach might be a DNA analysis of the bones of burials that date to the 4th millennium. I’m guessing that it should be possible to differentiate the DNA of the incoming Neolithic people who’d spread along the west coast from the DNA of the indigenous Mesolithic people who’d originally inhabited the area from the old land bridge with Europe. That might yield some very interesting information about the mixing of two cultures at Stonehenge.
One last point that might interest Dennis – he believes in the significance of the northwest direction from Stonehenge, a direction he calls the Tanith line. I measured the direction to Llandegai from Stonehenge, and it corresponds much more closely to a northwest direction than some vague location in the Preseli Hills. I’d bet that Tanith points to North Wales!
Of course, that still leaves the problem of the origin of the bluestones ….
Thank you, Alex, for yet another detailed and engrossing submission. I’m guessing that I’m not alone in not having posted up a comment to your account of Mike’s presentation because there’s so much there to ponder over. I’ll have to make a start on one point, though, and I’ll do so as soon as I’ve gathered my thoughts on it, while it concerns the packing stones found at the bottom of a hole once occupied by a bluestone.
Other than that, the mention of Robin Hood’s Ball is of course fascinating and from memory, there’s some considerable material written about this in Stonehenge in its landscape, so when I’ve got time, I’ll ask Juris to look up & pass on the relevant section. I always thought that Stonehenge was far more like a causewayed enclosure than a henge, but again, this is something I’ll have to gather my thoughts on and I’m pretty sure it will need a whole post, rather than just a comment – we’ll see. I keep thinking of something that Mike Pitts confirmed/pointed out in the early pages of Hengeworld i.e. Stonehenge wasn’t originally stone and it wasn’t a henge, either.
As for ‘Tanith’, thank you for pointing it out. I’ve written about this alignment several times and while I don’t know what it was, there’s definitely something there, from the ‘fine detail’ in the Stonehenge landscape, with more perhaps to come to light, to sites further afield, such as Bath and Usk in south Wales. It just seems an almighty coincidence that there should be so many significant features and sites roughly to the northwest of Stonehenge, while this ‘roughly’ corresponds with the place[s] where the bluestones originated and where the midsummer sun set. I’ve not yet been able to make much sense of it, but one day, perhaps, the blessed light of understanding will dawn.
Alex, thank you for a well written report. I am intrigued by the discovery of a natural explanation for the siting of Stonehenge. But one thing disturbs me. Could you please clarify for a layman the following. You say, quote:
“When a trench was opened up across this final part of the Avenue last year, Mike’s geomorphology experts pointed out that the two parallel ridge and ditches that mark the sunrise line are natural features (caused by periglacial erosion) which coincidentally are directly on the sunrise axis.
Mike surmises that this natural feature and its significant alignment must have been known to the Neolithic people, and this was a major reason for the siting of Stonehenge.”
End of quote.
A trench is dug. It reveals a natural feature, that we think was known to the Neolithic people. Today, we were not aware of this natural feature until we dug the trench. How certain can we be that this natural feature was visible on the surface and not buried 6000 years ago?
A quick and sincere thanks to Alex for the lengthy and detailed article (and his interesting follow-up comments). Much anticipated, and greatly appreciated.
I’m in Lancashire now, at my brother’s, but earlier this week was staying in N.Wales. I passed Bangor at least twice, so if I’d known about this I’d certainly have tried to visit the Llandegai henge site – though from planning on previous visits, I understand it now lies underneath an industrial estate.
Could Mike Parker Pearson get permission to excavate in the area, I wonder?
Sounds like the NW has lots of surprises in store for us, after all!
Gilbert, I wish that I could give you an authoritative answer on your question. MPP didn’t spend a lot of time on this, but he showed a slide of the trench cross-section and, in the section across the Avenue, we could see that the entire width was riven by significant fissures in the chalk. On either side were deeper fissures, corresponding to the Avenue ditches. And though the slide didn’t show it, ground radar shows a third parallel Avenue ditch to the east, I believe, that’s equivalent to today’s marked ditches.
The geomorphologists who were in attendance were of the opinion that the ditch fissures had the same origin as the intermediate fissures, and it was they who framed Mike’s assertion that the ditches (at least) are natural features.
There are several points that occur to me about these ditches and their corresponding banks. I find it difficult to imagine that the outlying banks were formed at the same time (by natural processes) as the ditch/fissures. So it seems likely to me that the original natural feature was enhanced by the builders. But when? If Mike is right and the Midsummer-aligned ditches were a factor in the siting of Stonehenge, then the enhancement would have been later. Much later, if the conventional dating is believed – the Avenue is normally dated as almost the last activity in the Phase 3 building of Stonehenge: Aubrey Burl has the date at about 2400BC.
But Burl’s date may only be relevant to the part that runs from Stonehenge Bottom, over King Barrow Ridge, and down to the Avon. That would tie in with the commemoration of the bluestone removal from BH, and leaves the date of the banks in the original northeast Avenue alignment in doubt.
Gilbert asks “… how certain we can we that this natural feature was visible on the surface and not buried 6000 years ago?” Another good question but maybe easier to answer. It’s clear that the Plain surface has eroded over the millennia through natural weathering. In another part of the Plain, MPP was talking about losing up to a metre from the original surface level. I don’t believe that’s true at Stonehenge, but it’s certainly lower than it was, with the result that many of the sarsens had become unstable over time.
So I think that the fissures that I saw in the photo are smaller versions of the originals, as the original chalk under a thin topsoil has decreased. The original designers of Stonehenge would have seen more prominent features than we do today.
One very minor point of detail: the information board for The Avenue shows a gleaming white chalk highway between two equally white ditches and banks. It looks very impressive, but the evidence from the excavation shows that this cannot be true. Even if the topsoil had been removed, the surface would gave been highly unstable and prone to heavy weathering.
The final approach to Stonehenge must have been up a grassy green sward …. were the ditches enhanced to be white? Possibly, but the whole significance of the Avenue (other than as a commemorated route, late in its history) must now be open to reappraisal, especially as MPP is proposing a southern approach route from the newly-reinstated Coneybury Henge. These are interesting times for those of us who’re single-mindedly pursuing enlightenment about Stonehenge!
It is good that at least one other feature on Salisbury Plain is being considered in the scheme of things – it is at least part of the way towards a coherent objective theory incorporating the whole landscape, with each monument considered in relation spatially, temporally and functionally one with another.
This new discovery on Stonehenge has to make one wonder what else is there? As I understand it, a large area of Stonehenge remains to be covered by even the most basic geophysical survey, so hopefully, this find will provide the impetus for further investigation of the landscape generally, as well as the known monuments.
I couldn’t agree more – there are the LiDAR scans, there are ‘things’ that people have spotted on the ground, there’s the literary & folklore record and God only knows what else. When you consider that human residency around Stonehenge may have stretched back to the Palaeolithic [I'm not sure about this] with activity continuing at the site up until the 17th century, there are an awful lot of possibilities. Profs Darvill & Wainwright seem to have found evidence that the Romans used the place, which I don’t doubt for a moment, so there’s a huge amount of time and space to be covered.
The Anglo-Saxon period seems to have been almost entirely neglected, but it’s something else I’ve been working on with some help from a very astute & well-informed source. Then there are the 15 ‘missing years’ of Atkinson’s rampage at Stonehenge and as I’ve pointed out several times on this site, a large collection of Stonehenge artefacts from Hawley’s era went on eBay a few years ago. Judging from what Profs D & W found, I’m sure there’s a huge amount within the narrow confines of the site itself – as for the surrounding landscape and what may lie to the northwest…..
As John said, it’s good that the other components of the Stonehenge landscape are being brought into the picture. For me, the most amazing part of the new perspective that’s opening up is the significance of Coneybury as a sort of mother henge, giving rise to Stonehenge on the west and Bluestonehenge on the east at around the same time. It seems a coincidence that Coneybury Henge (as opposed to the earlier features) must have been constructed at about the same time as the linear Cursus. And within the henge there is this mysterious linear feature of bluestone holes (allegedly) with an east-west alignment.
The supposed bluestone setting is very mysterious – I can’t find any reference to it in the literature, which otherwise gives consistent accounts of Julian Richards’ findings nearly 30 years ago. But if we are to believe MPP’s account, a Llandegai tradition seems to have been exported to Coneybury and the Cursus, and then developed and refined into a Llandegai clone at Stonehenge. Possibly Bluestonehenge represents another aspect of Llandegai, as yet undiscovered?
I’ve been thinking about the removal of the bluestones from BH, by using an A-frame. The flint packing gives rise to this approach, as a straight lift seems the only way to clear the intact packing before using the extraction ramp. I used my original photo (you can see a small version in the original post) to estimate the depth of the bluestone hole, using the depth of the topsoil as a gauge. I reckon the depth is 1 metre, rather deeper than the Aubrey Holes, which have an average depth of .75 metres, though this may have been eroded.
Using an A-frame of 15′ in length (or, in Neolithic terms, 1 rod!), positioned at an angle of 45 degrees over the top of the stone, a rope of at least 100′ would have needed a pull of around 6 tons to unstick the stone, accounting for the angles and a stone weight of at least 4 tons. That means 60 hefty chaps who can control their strength precisely, because the stone has to be lifted about 2′ at which point it’s moved outwards by 1′ and cleared the packing ring. It can then be lowered from the top of the A-frame onto the extraction ramp. This requires precise control from the pulling team and from the engineers controlling the stone’s securing straps.
In the context of what came later at Stonehenge, maybe this isn’t such a daunting task, but can you imagine how difficult it would be to reproduce the same feat today? The forces are very high – the A-frame has compressive forces of at least 7 tons and has to be built accordingly – while the management of the very large workforce must have required discipline and stamina of a high order.
From the position of the extraction ramps, the stones were dragged outwards, and maybe that’s why MPP is confident the the surrounding hengeworks were dug after the stones were removed, as a commemorative act. It seems to me that the A-frame would have had to be anchored very securely in order to maintain control over the stone removal, and I’d have thought there might be anchor posts left in the ground. I think I’d be looking back over the excavation records for the possibility of two post hole remains spaced 1 Neolithic rod from the bluestone hole, and about one third of a rod apart. That’s the A-frame evidence!
More wild speculation about the stone holes. It struck me that the two notable holes that MPP brought to the public’s attention were the stone with the careful flint packing, with the adjacent stone that showed a completely different packing style based on a pad of clay.
I know that I’ll be accused of bees-in-bonnets and one-track minds, but this seems to be another example of the complementary pairing of opposites. OK, it’s a long shot, and I have no more information about the other holes, so I’m working on a sample of one – not good statistics. But if these are a complementary pairing – in the same way that stones in the Avenue at Avebury go in complementary male/female pairs – perhaps the pairing would be formalized with a physical link: a lintel that joined the two.
In MPP’s presentation, he mentioned the possibility of lintels at BH (see the notes above) and this seems to be a possible reason why lintels may have been used. I’m not suggesting that the whole ring had a continuous lintel ring like the later sarsen ring at Stonehenge. Rather, a number of pairings (maybe up to 12) that were more in the style of the Stonehenge trilithons.
It seems very clear that lintels were used with the bluestone orthostats at some stage in their history, whether in Wales, BH or SH. So the observation about the packing and placement of the stones may provide a clue to the reason?
Maybe off the beaten track here, but I’ve just started reading Stephen Oppenheimer’s Origins of the British book – I realise his findings are not taken wholesale as fact, and that they can be contentious in places, but he makes the case for separate migrations of people in the Neolithic, or perhaps earlier into different parts of the British Isles.
Although this might not be linked, he makes a case for a group of peoples moving into the Atlantic seaboard and western regions of Britain (Cornwall, Devon, Wales, Scotland etc) from the Iberian peninsula, and for a different group of peoples moving across into eastern Britain from a more mainland Europe sort of Belgic/Germannic region.
If this did take place before or during the Meso- or Neolithic, and given what we have in the Stonehenge landscape, with sarsens from the local area and bluestones possibly from Wales, or maybe as Brian asserts also locally, but with similar stones being used in Wales. Could we be seeing an element of a mixing of these two cultures?
I may well be reading too much into Oppenheimer’s book (and I’ll admit to not having read much of it yet), but there does seem to be a mixing of traditions/cultures/styles in this part of Wiltshire that seems to have come together in the ‘classic’ Stonehenge with lintels, sarsens and bluestone configurations.
May be something there? Or I may be talking nonsense!
Among the various things that have been keeping me very happily busy, I’ve been corresponding with Dr Robin Melrose about a number of matters, particularly the Iberian influences that you mention, Neil. Like everything else, I’d post it if I had the time, but either I do it full justice with all the detail and my best writing, or else it has to wait. Take it from me, though, there’s some truly fascinating material there and one of these fine days, it’ll see the light.
If I may take a leaf from your book, Alex, I’m afraid that we have no evidence whatsoever for the use of an ‘A’ frame, other than a reasonable inference. Of all the discoveries at Bluestonehenge, this was the one that amazed me the most – the picture of the stone hole with the packing stones still in place, because I find it almost impossible to imagine how our ancestors managed to lift 6 tons or so of bluestone vertically and in what must have been a controlled fashion.
This link should hopefully take you to the relevant pages in Geoffrey of Monmouth’s ‘History of the Kings of Britain’, in which he describes in detail how Stonehenge was moved from Mount Killaraus to Salisbury Plain.
“Some prepared cables, others small ropes, others ladders for the work, but all to no purpose. Merlin laughed at their vain efforts, then began his own contrivances. When he had placed in order the engines that were necessary, he took down the stones with an incredible facility….”
It doesn’t matter to me whether or not this described the building of the sarsen uprights and the ring of interlocking lintels, or an earlier project involving bluestones, some of which know also had lintels. Either way, it’s just stating the obvious that any phase of Stonehenge was an astonishing engineering achievement, while the further back in time we go, the greater that achievement must rank. I’m simply amazed at the site of the intact circle of packing stones with all that it implies, while I’m also inclined to think that Geoffrey of Monmouth’s much maligned story dates back as far as 3,000 BC. With the revelation that Bluestonehenge was revisited and reused as recently as the late Bronze Age, it seems unavoidable to me that Geoffrey had a clear picture of these far-off events. This is something I’d intended to write about on another occasion and I certainly will, because this aspect deserves studying at length.
The reason I mentioned that there’s no evidence for an A frame is because this looks like ‘magic’ to me, bearing in mind the late Sir Arthur C. Clarke’s observation about any sufficiently advanced technology being indistinguishable from magic.
See also
Dennis, I’d forgotten Geoffrey’s references to Merlin’s contrivances but, especially in the context of dismantling stones, it sounds highly appropriate. Of course there isn’t any recognized evidence for A-frames at present, so their use remains an inference at present, as you say. But thinking through the simple mechanics of using an A-frame, as I described it, the location of the feet of the frame becomes very important, in view of the massive forces transmitted through the frame.
Though I can calculate forces easily enough, I’m not a practical engineer, and I may have missed some easier engineering trick of using A-frames. But, if I was doing it, I’d butt their feet up against some buried posts that could withstand a sideways push of several tons. The feet of the A-frame would be recessed to locate securely on the restraining posts. My guess would be that these posts would leave some archaeological traces, as you’d have to go well below the topsoil.
I’ve gone back to look at the aerial shots of the site, and compared the SRP’s measurements. The radius of the bluestone circle is 1 Neolithic rod (NR) of 5metres, while the ditch radius is 2.5 NR, to the centreline. I was estimating an A-frame of around 1 NR in length but, the greater the length, the more easily it would do its job. It seems to me that, if A-frames were used, the evidence of their use was lost when the henge ditch and bank were dug.
But here’s a thought: suppose that the ditch was dug, not only as a commemorative act, as MPP suggests, but as a way of “cleaning” or rededicating the sanctity of the site? After all, the site had been home to a highly significant stone circle. Its careful removal would have left a probably untidy ring of highly functional but distinctly profane wooden posts – the restraining posts for the A-frames.
What better way of leaving a perfect memory of the site than completely eliminating all traces of the rude mechanicals with a classic circular henge ditch and bank?
Alex, this will have to be brief for now, but thank God someone’s got their eye on the ball. My mind was all over the place last night when I posted up my semi-coherent comment about Geoffrey of Monmouth, but you’re exactly right. Geoffrey writes in specific detail about the great care taken in dismantling ‘Stonehenge’ prior to the monument being moved, so it obviously fascinates me to learn that our ancestors did precisely this when ‘decommissioning’ Bluestonehenge. At the risk of sounding like a scratched record, I could write about this at great length and in great detail, so I’ll try to find the time to do so.
In the meantime, thank you once again and congratulations on your perspicacity.
Thinking about Geoffrey of Monmouth’s description of the dismantling and re-erection of the Stonehenge stones. It occurred to me that the planning and engineering skills of the scale used during the various phases of Stonehenge and other British monuments must have been widely known. Specialized, for certain, but just consider the staggering size of some of the uprights in Brittany. As it’s unlikely that all large-scale standing stones were the brainchild and work of a small handful of people (especially spread over such a large geographic area), I think it’s just as likely that the skills were passed down from one generation to the next and could very well have survived–as things tend to do–as fragments of folklore. All it takes is one storyteller incorporating a fragment or two into his story…
Well, all credit once more to Alex for noting that Geoffrey of Monmouth specifically referred to the dismantling of Stonehenge. If he’d been talking about a simple stone circle without dressed stone and without interlocking lintels, it seems to me that he’d have written in terms of Uther & co simply digging it up, then loading it onto carts.
But he didn’t – he specifically writes of dismantling, the effort involved and the ‘magical’ engines Merlin used to dismantle them, transport them then re-erect them. All this was fascinating enough in the context of Stonehenge, but now we have another and earlier stone circle that was also dismantled with great care, it becomes more engaging still, at least as far as I’m concerned.
I’m sure you’re right about Britanny as well, while there are some other vast standing stones in Britain, such as the Devil’s Arrows. I assume that the builders possessed skills that must have been widespread and passed on, and as you say, it only takes one story-teller to incorporate a few details into their story. I could write about Geoffrey of Monmouth all night, I really could, but I think it’s unavoidable that when he wrote his account of the building of Stonehenge, he was privy to information that had been passed down over the course of 4,000 years or so.
Amazing.
Thanks Alex for that very detailed report. Glad things have moved on from a discussion that started off as something akin to a campaign to sanctify that good chief called MPP. The Revelations of St Michael…….. actually they were more speculations than revelations, and again it’s sad to see some interesting work becoming overblown simply because MPP cannot resist speculating and fantasizing. Presumably this is what he instinctively does, under no pressure from the media. So far as I can see, there is no reason at all to assume that there were 24 (or whatever) bluestones on this site, or to assume that they were taken from here and re-erected at Stonehenge. There were some stones here, as suggested by the sockets; but I see no reason whatsoever to assume that they were preferentially bluestones rather than small sarsens, or a mixture of whatever happened to be handy.
Why cannot these guys simply stick to the facts? Developing hypotheses from established facts is something that has to be done in all scientific endeavour — but it seems to me that in archaeology there is this crazy tendency to create mountains of speculation out of minute quantities of data. Which only goes to show that archaeology is not a science at all, but a humanity which involves the use of a few technical gadgets.
And I cannot see any reason whatsoever to assume that Geoffrey of Monmouth has anything “historical” to tell us about either Stonehenge or Bluestonehenge. As authorities have been saying ever since his fantastical “History” was first circulated, it was a novel, pure and simple, in which he used his imagination (rather than hazy “folk memories” about 4,000 years old) to “explain” how big stones got from his wonderful Mount Killaraus to Stonehenge, with the magical assistance of the wonderful Merlin.
Brian, I think you’re being a bit harsh in your rejection of some careful archaeology when you dismiss the idea of 24 bluestones. I’m not sure if it’s in the public domain, but I have an Aerial-Cam photo of nine diggers, each standing beside an excavated stone hole. This segment of holes is rather less than half the perimeter – say, 35-40%, by eye – and it’s easy to calculate a figure that’s equivalent to MPP’s range of 24-25 stones. Of course, that assumes that the stone circle is continuous, but it seems a reasonable assumption, in comparison with the Aubrey ring, for instance.
And why is it assumed they’re bluestones? Because of a compelling statistical analysis that I saw in the Guildhall last year, and Devizes this year. The proportions of known postholes, sarsen holes and bluestone holes are plotted on a chart (depth v width) and there is a distinct and obvious clumping of the different types of hole. When you overlay the BH holes over the earlier data it falls squarely within the bluestone clumping. In addition, there was virtually no sarsen found anywhere within the henge.
When you add up all the evidence (the “facts” that you ask the SRP team to stick to), the hypothesis about the history of the bluestones is difficult to dismiss – there’s so much in favour of it. Unless you’re so biased in favour of another theory that you’re blind to the facts? It doesn’t seem to be a “minute quantity of data” to me – there’s a lot of data from an intensive and highly productive three+ weeks of digging. Ask me about it!
But I’m not going to argue with you about Geoffrey of Monmouth 
I am, but it’ll have to wait a little while.
Thanks Alex. Good to bounce this around. re the statistics. You have 3 types of sockets. One for big stones, that happen to be sarsens at Stonehenge. One for small stones that (if we use Stonehenge as an analogy) might be made of anything — sarsen (used in the Stonehenge lintels) or up to 25 different rock types known collectively as “bluestones.” Then post holes, which will obviously be different again. None of that does anything to convince me that the 9, or 24, or whatever, sockets actually held “bluestones” rather than small sarsens. The bluestones are highly variable in their shapes. There was “virtually no sarsen” found in the dig? I thought there was “virtually no bluestone” either? Where does that get us?
I don’t dispute that masses of hard work — and good work at that — has been done on this dig by honest and hardworking archaeologists and volunteers. And I don’t dispute that you guys now have masses of very interesting data. But sorry — I still don’t see anything that supports MPP’s theory of the history of the bluestones. You can work very hard, and be an honest sort of fellow, but you can still be up the creek!
I’m being devil’s advocate here, and am suggesting that the Emperor wears no clothes. Oh dear — what a thought……. shame on me!
Statistics aren’t my strong point, but I’ll give it a try anyway. If the “authorities” have been saying that Geoffrey’s history was a work of imagination, then that in itself is a very good reason for me to be highly suspicious.
So, if Geoffrey was making up his ‘novel’ as he went along, drawing each and every strand out of thin air, then let’s have a look at the options that were available to him as a writer of creative fiction. He said that Stonehenge originally came from Mt Killaraus in Ireland, but it seems most likely that the bluestones came from somewhere in south-west Wales. We know that this region was the domain of Irish kings during the Dark Ages, or the Arthurian time that Geoffrey was writing about, so on balance, he was right about their place of origin.
If he’d been making the whole thing up, he could have chosen virtually anywhere else in the known world of the time, which makes for a great many other possible locations. Given the size of south-west Wales in comparison with the rest of the British Isles, I’d say that at a conservative estimate, he could have chosen around 20 other locations as the place or places where Stonehenge originally stood. Let’s also add a miserly 5 apiece for Italy, Germany, Greece, Gaul and Troy, where Brutus came from – this makes 45 possible other locations, which is a ridiculously low figure for the known world of Geoffrey’s time, but it’ll do for now.
Geoffrey also told us that Stonehenge originally stood on a mountain, so as we know that some bluestones once supported lintels, it’s not unthinkable that there was once a bluestone monument with lintels somewhere in south-west Wales, or on a mountaintop. If he were plucking the whole thing from thin air and trying to tell a gripping tale, he could have said that Stonehenge once stood on a hill, overlooking a cliff, in a valley, on a plain, in a forest or wood, in an old circular earthwork such as the Priddy Circles or Durrington Walls, on an island, in some deep hole or cavern, on the seashore or partly submerged by the sea, arising only at low tide. Here we have another 10 variants with which to multiply our first 45, which makes the chances of him being right 450 to 1, but there are a few more possibilities to consider.
The most notable element of the stones’ journey was the transportation across water, so a journey not involving water is an option, as well as perhaps a trek through some huge wood, making 3. 3 x 450 = 1350, but what else what else could Geoffrey have made up?
Well, he specified that Stonehenge as a monument to the dead and all the evidence suggests he was exactly right, but he could equally well have described it as a representation of a crown for Aurelius, as a meeting place or parliament of sorts for nobles, a huge sundial, a sanctuary for criminals, an arsenal or storage place for weapons, a monument glorifying the strength of Aurelius’ army, a monument indicating the centre or heartland of Aurelius’ kingdom, a prison for giants, an observatory, a bullring, a lighthouse, lookout post or beacon, a place marking buried treasure, a rallying point for his army in times of war, a place of pilgrimage, an execution place for criminals or the remains of some kind of tower, perhaps.
Remember, we are told that Geoffrey wrote fiction or pseudo-history, so it is only fair to consider the many dramatic options open to such a writer; with little effort, here are another 18 lurid possibilities, so 18 x 1350 = 24,300, or a 1 in 24,300 chance of getting just these 3 elements right so far. Let’s say for now that my calculations are something like 60% wrong – that still leaves odds of 1 in 10,000 that Geoffry could have got these things right by guesswork.
These odds seem pretty impressive to me, but there are many other aspects of what Geoffrey wrote that are worth considering, so I’ll collect my thoughts on them and resume some time tomorrow, with luck.
Homer also dealt only in the creation of fiction–right?
Brian, I don’t blame you for being sceptical, given your starting position. And if I was acting as Devil’s Advocate too, I suppose I could argue that if there were any bluestone-sized sarsens lying around at BH, their portability and convenience would mean that they’d be repurposed in later times for building materials, and we’d have lost sight of them. There are small sarsens around now – there’s a very nice gatepost on the track up to WKLB, for instance, and I bet there are a lot more around. But, as far as I know, they haven’t been found at megalithic sites. (The prefix “mega” is significant here, I think!) I’m fairly certain that no small (bluestone-sized, that is) sarsen holes are found at Avebury – or anywhere else that I know of. I’d be glad to be corrected on this.
So, if I was lining up evidence for bluestones versus random collection of stones including sarsen at BH, I’d list these supporting points:
1. Bluestones and sarsen holes both have differentiating characteristic dimensions that are statistically very significant. The 9 BH holes fall clearly into the bluestone grouping.
2. In the Wessex landscape there doesn’t appear to be any evidence for small sarsens, or miniliths. If there were any, they all appear to have dropped off the megalithic map.
3. All the BH stones seem to have been moved carefully at the same time. This clearly points to prehistoric movement, rather than later destruction for quarrying. And if they were carefully moved, the only reasonable conclusion is to Stonehenge, indicated by the physical connection of the Avenue. And there are no small sarsens at Stonehenge.
4. In the real world, natural sarsen stone doesn’t seem to naturally form convenient needle-shaped lumps. Yesterday I was walking south of Avebury and I came across dozens of sarsens, and every single one was an amorphous lump of essentially unworkable stone. A small sarsen of the length and width to fit in the holes found at BH would have needed an infeasible amount of effort to fit it. That work wasn’t undertaken at SH until 500 years later, and left unmistakable traces close by. Those traces weren’t found at BH even with extensive test-pitting.
Against this, one could list:
1. The stone hole of a small sarsen would probably be indistiguishable from a bluestone, if the stone was shaped in the same way.
2. Small sarsens would be coveted for building material and may have been removed.
3. And… that’s it.
I think if we put these points to twelve good men and women true, the jury would have no hesitation in choosing the bluestone option. I agree it’s not totally conclusive evidence, but it delivers what is the only reasonable hypothesis, given what we know now.
As with any hypothesis, it will continue to be tested and, as more evidence comes to light, it will be seen as stronger or weaker. But it’s persuaded me – and I can’t really see why it’s incompatible with your glaciation theory either. Surely you can’t oppose the hypothesis simply because it’s proposed by MPP?
Another way of looking at Dennis’s analysis of GofM’s story is through memes – or, as Wikipedia puts it, “any unit of cultural information, such as a practice or idea, that is transmitted verbally or by repeated action from one mind to another.”
As Aynslie says, “… it???s just as likely that the skills were passed down from one generation to the next and could very well have survived???as things tend to do???as fragments of folklore.” Fragments of folklore – sounds like memes to me!
The story of the stones in the Stonehenge landscape must have dominated the culture in the area for dozens and dozens of generations – probably thousands of years. Actually there are about 150 generations between SH and GofM, so it’s not surprising that the memes would have got knocked about a bit, Chinese Whispers-style, just as their physical counterparts – genes – get knocked about a bit by cosmic rays, etc. It’s called evolution, and Geoffrey’s story seems to have evolved. But it still recognizably has the same original memes, just as we have 99% the same genes as a chimpanzee.
I’m inclined to think that good ol’ Geoffrey was on to something, and he was passing on powerful and compelling memes that, Selfish Gene-style, needed only to propagate themselves in human minds. Richard Dawkins would be proud of him! (But I’d love to know where Geoffrey got that bit about Africa ….)
Well, so every last person & academic in the 19th century firmly believed, with one notable exception, of course!
Alex -
I’ve been reading these posts and the question of “small sarsens” had occurred to me to. I’d like to propose that there is at least one of them at a megalithic site – and potentially a very significant one too – that being Stone 11 of the Stonehenge Circle. It of course marks the southern entrance although is very mysterious in general.
From SIIL, page 195, it appears to be about 1 m by 0.6-0.8 m in size. How does that match with the stone holes at Bluestonehenge?
To be sure it is one of a kind so difficult to draw any general conclusions from that.
New information just posted on the Brit Arch site by Rob Ixer and Richard Bevins. They have found another source outcrop for fragments / flakes / stones from assorted Stonehenge / Avenue digs. A peculiar type of rhyolite has been traced to Pont Saeson, near Brynberian, on the northern side of Preseli. The details are here: British Archaeology
http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba109/interim.shtml
———————–
Important revision to Stonehenge bluestone theory
——————————————
Rob Ixer and Richard Bevins
This is the third source locality which can best be described as undistinguished or lacking in prominence in the landscape. the others are Carn Llwyd, a small outcrop on the N side of Carningli, and Carn Clust-y-ci, on the N slope of Dinas Mountain. Interestingly enough, this new source is within the narrow band (about 3 kn wide) which seems to represent the contact zone between Irish Sea Ice coming in from Cardigan Bay and Welsh Ice coming down from Mid Wales.
There is absolutely no reason why our heroic ancestors would have taken stones from any of these three localities — and every reason (when one considers glacier dynamics) why they would have been entrained and carried off by an overriding glacier.
I have also put a summary on my blog:
http://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2009/10/another-bluestone-source-identified.html
In case anybody missed it, here is the ref for the EARTH magazine article:
Stonehenge’s Mysterious Stones
A tale of glaciers, man, rocks and North America
http://www.earthmagazine.org/earth/article/1a1-7d8-c-1f
Juris, your figures must be WxD. More relevant, possibly, is the height (depending on how you account for its angle of cant) that’s about two thirds of its neighbours. The average height of the full-height sarsens in the outer ring is 18′, or 5.5 metres. That makes Stone 11 nearly 4m in height, and its stone hole will be more than 1.5m deep.
These dimensions far exceed the dimensions of the bluestones, which I thought were about 6′, 2m in height. Or so I thought, until I went to the SH Wikipedia entry, and found this: “Each monolith [bluestone] measures around 2 metres (6.6 ft) in height, between 1 m and 1.5 m (3.3-4.9 ft) wide and around 0.8 metres (2.6 ft) thick.” Those WxD figures sound very similar to yours.
But now take a look at the EH’s B&W picture inline in my original post. Compare the two bluestones with the collapsed sarsens – huge discrepancy, with the bluestones looking very slender in comparison. Most of the sarsens in the ring are close to 5′ x 8′. I guess Stone 11 is smaller, but your figures (in imperial) of about 3′ x 2′ are puny in comparison. I’d have guessed bigger from my photos, in comparison with its neighbours …
I believe that there is a big difference between the bluestones we see in the EH photo and Stone 11. A factor of nearly x2 in the height for a start, which would mean a factor of x2 in the supporting holes at BH. So I’m not convinced that Stone 11 represents a reasonable substitute for any bluestone. It’s possible, I admit, but it is very much a one of a kind.
Brian, thanks for the links you provided. I enjoyed the article in Earth magazine, though I see you decided to overlook the latest evidence that the Aubrey holes were filled with bluestones rather than wood. Wooden posts are so last century!
But your posts do raise some interesting points. I compared your map of the erratic train in your own website with the position of Stanton Drew. And it appears that the train would have gone slap bang through the Stanton Drew site. Obviously this was an express, rather than a stopping train, because there isn’t any bluestone to be found in Stanton Drew, as MPP points out (see main post above.) This seems to me to be a huge probolem for the erratic theory. If the Stonehenge people followed the train west as you suggest, they would surely have reached Stanton Drew, only 35 miles west, and the builders at Stanton Drew would surely have capitalized on the glacial rock rather than travelling for the red stone that they exclusively used.
There’s another interesting point in the BritArch article. Rob Ixer seems a bit ambivalent about the Preseli source of the rhyolite (“Although not an exact match for the Stonehenge rocks, the Pont Saeson lithics strongly suggest ….”) he points out that the original source was on the slopes of Cadair Idris. This is very interesting in view of MPP’s placement of the model for Stonehenge outside Bangor. OK, Cadair Idris is a few miles from Bangor, but it’s an interesting place, redolent with mythology and folklore, and a very important site in Welsh history.
As the centre of gravity of Stonehenge’s origins seems to move north westwards, the new findings about the bluestones seem to align with human history. I reckon the glacial transport theory is still struggling … while the latest petrological evidence seems to offer support for the MPP theory of Llandegai origins.
There may be one flaw in the argument, if the builders of Stanton Drew did not want to use ‘bluestones’ even though they were available?
That sounds reasonable, because I’m sure the different stones were deemed by our ancestors to possess different qualities. However, Brian’s point seems to be that these bluestones constituted handy building material, which is why they were used at Stonehenge and elsewhere, so it seems odd that the builders of Stanton Drew ignored them if they were lying around. Furthermore, if they were lying around, but the builders actively chose not to use them, then it suggests that the bluestones were deemed to possess some quality, albeit one that the builders of SD didn’t want to incorporate into their monument.
Alex, Rob can speak for himself, but I don’t think he refers to the original source having been on Cader Idris. That was his earlier thinking, which has (in the light of the new evidence) now changed. Nothing in life is certain, but he seems now to have abandoned the North Wales connection completely — and thinks that Pembrokeshire is the most likely source for these unusual rhyolites. Not sure why you should want to support MPP on this — that “North Wales connection” was a pretty wild idea anyway.
You say: “As the centre of gravity of Stonehenge’s origins seems to move north westwards, the new findings about the bluestones seem to align with human history.” Sorry — but there is nothing at all to support that statement.
Regarding Stanton Drew, why would you expect bluestones to the north of the Mendips? Geoff Kellaway suggested back in 1971 that the stream of Irish Sea ice that came up the Bristol Channel may have had three components — a southern one with Scottish and Bristol Channel erratics, a middle one (that came in across Somerset and south of the Mendips) with these wretched stones we have to refer to as “bluestones”, and a northern stream which contained much more material from the Welsh uplands and maybe also from the Midlands. That would make sense in terms of the glaciology.
I’m reasonably happy with the proposal which Lionel and I made in that EARTH article, which would bring the erratic train in across Somerset, south of the Mendips.
Regarding Stanton Drew again, does anybody have a full list of all the lithologies represented there? The stones seem to be very variable…….
Brian,
Gordon Strong seems to be the ‘expert’ on Stanton Drew.
He wrote ‘Stanton Drew and its Ancient Stone Circles’ in the ‘Wooden Books’ series about that particular site.
See: http://www.gordonstrong.co.uk/stantondrew.htm
Maybe you could contact him?
Brian,
Since my last comment (which seems to have disappeared into the ether!) I found this in a leaflet of ‘Dept of the Environment: Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings’, reprinted 1971, and written by L.V.Grinsell, FSA:
“The stones are mostly of the local conglomerate. One or two are stated to be of oolite probably from Dundry about three miles to the north, while Hautville’s Quoit and possibly others may be of sarsen.”
Something else he wrote caught my eye:
“The Avenue, extending slightly north of due east towards the River Chew, has eight stones which are now visible – four in the north and four in the south row. At a point about 330 feet east of the circumference of this circle, this Avenue converges with that extending from the North-eastern Circle. They may have continued as one Avenue and this soon reached the lower ground which must have been flooded in winter.”
It made me think of the Avenue leading to the Bluestonehenge circle beside the River Avon.
I wish MPP would excavate Stanton Drew!
[Hope I'm not being boring, but I found some truly amazing dowsing patterns of ritual movement there.]
Interesting site and fantastic pictures! Thanks Angie. In one of his publications Geoff Kellaway actually refers to “the Stanton Drew moraine.” Never having examined the site myself, I have no idea how reliable this may be — but from some of the other web sites I’ve looked at there do seem to be a number of different rock types represented.
On checking up on Stanton Drew, I found another paper by Geoff Kellaway, published in the Survey of Bath and District No 17 (2002), in which he argues strongly that the bluestones which were used in the stone settings at Stonehenge were all stolen or removed from earlier stone settings — monoliths, dolmens, long barrows — as part of the Stonehenge enterprise. That would of course accord with the MPP theory of the Bluestonehenge stones being removed (with reverence or irreverence) from that place to Stonehenge itself. Geoff argues that the reason for this “stone stealing” was that the bluestones always were in short supply, and that they never had enough of them to finish the job (whatever that might have been….)
He thinks the Boles Barrow bluestone was “the one that got away” — maybe because it was a bit too far from Stonehenge for the builders to bother with. He also thinks there were bluestones (large and small) all over the place, including the Stonehenge neighbourhood, the Cursus, the Boles Barrow area, and Normanton Barrows. He says that Cunnington found a piece of bluestone in the Normanton barrow that had previously been examined by Stukeley. He also reminded us of Cunnington’s conclusion that “these pieces (of bluestone) were scattered about on the plain before the erection of the tumuli under which they have been found.”
Interesting stuff!
Brian, you’re thoroughly confusing me – easily done, I admit. Above, you said: You say: “As the centre of gravity of Stonehenge’s origins seems to move north westwards, the new findings about the bluestones seem to align with human history.” Sorry – but there is nothing at all to support that statement.
I was trying to suggest that the origin of the bluestones appeared to be farther north than the Preselis, and I inferred that from the BritArch link: But the latter had surprising results, and has led to our radically modifying our proposal that many of the bluestones do not have a Preseli Hill origin, but have an unknown and possibly non-southern Welsh origin.
Now that seems clear enough. A posting in Megalithic Portal has Ixer and Bevin’s asserting that … many bluestones came not from Pembrokeshire, but from “a far wider and, as yet, unrecognised area or more likely areas” – perhaps north Wales (Snowdonia, the Llyn Peninsula and Anglesey), or even beyond.
That seems even clearer. And strongly supports MPP’s ideas about the Llandegai origins of Stonehenge. So I have to disagree that ” … there’s nothing at all to support [my] statement.”
As far as Stanton Drew is concerned, you seem surprised that I’m placing the line of the train through Stanton Drew, and therefore north of the Mendips, but that’s because I was working from your – admittedly very small scale – map on your website. I’m not sure I can be blamed for that misinterpretation!
You quote Kellaway, but as I understand it (that is, not very well) he proposed his glaciation theory in 1971, when there was much less known about British glaciations, and it still seemed possible that a recent glaciation had reached that far south. But, even with up-to-date knowledge, the inference of a Greatest British Glaciation seems very thin, with no date attributable …. but I’m guessing it’s at least many hundreds of thousands of years ago? And when I search for the GBG on Google, the only references I find are yours! Perhaps the academics call it something else, but it seems a very elusive concept, with some extremely uncertain parameters. And to pin your very negative hypothesis for bluestones at Stonehenge on as thin a concept as the GBG seems more wildly speculative than the alternatives.
However, there may be academic papers on the GBG, or whatever it’s called, that would make me change my mind. If they’re accessible to a lapsed academic like me, I’d be keen to see them. Any chance?
http://www.lundyisleofavalon.co.uk/stonehenge/stnpik01.htm
http://www.lundyisleofavalon.co.uk/stonehenge/stnpik01.htm
It just seemed to me that there is a theme of concentric rings common to both?
I just wonder if Stanton Drew was the subject of a full archaeological excavation what would be found. After all it is up there with Avebury, Stonehenge and the Rings of Brodgar which have received much recent attention.
I do not believe the Bluestones were local to Stonehenge but the odds are they were much nearer than South Wales?
http://www.eng-h.gov.uk/archaeometry/StantonDrew/
Sorry duplicated the link (the change in hour always effects me) this is the correct second link
Alex — your citations are a bit out of date. Not that I’m blaming you — things are moving rather fast at present. Ixer and Bevins have changed their minds — see the latest post in Brit Arch. The stones they thought had come from N Wales now appear to have come from Brynberian in Pembs — or around there.
Sorry — the term “Greatest British Glaciation” is one used by me and the glaciologists. Not in common use, or in print yet — but it will be. It’s a handy term, because we still do not know what ages these older glaciations are, or where glacial deposits that are younger overlap deposits that are older. Suggest you look up “Anglian” or “Lowestoftian” glaciations — plenty in the literature. And buy the book — too many refs for me to cite here on a blog site!
re my maps, Alex. I agree there are several of them — work in progress! Not surprising that you are a bit confused. So am I. This is not an exact science — but that does not mean we’re not on the right track here. The boundaries / junctions between ice streams are very difficult to reconstruct, especially after several hundred thousand years! I’m waiting for some more computer modelling to be done — that might well help, since it will give a better indication of the weight of ice coming off the Welsh Uplands, and how that might have affected the positioning of the junctions between different segments of the ice stream.
John Leland, Henry VIII’s Royal Antiquary, says that Stonehenge was not sourced from Ireland but another circle on Salisbury plain – so why not Leland’s circle?
Where did you find this, John? I’m particularly interested because of the “eternally to be lamented” loss of the tablet of tin that was found at Stonehenge during the reign of Henry VIII.
http://apollo5.bournemouth.ac.uk/stonehenge/framedraft.htm
Page 23 of Section I under “The Reformation and Stonehenge” ”
“Although the site of Stonehenge is not included in Leland’s itinerary elsewhere he repeats Geoffrey of Monmouth’s story with a variant in which Merlin obtains the stones not from Ireland but from a place on Salisbury Plain (Leland 1709)”
Interesting — I wonder where Leland got that idea from?
By the way, I’ve been mulling over the Irish Sea Glacier and the Bristol Channel ice stream again:
http://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/
Did anybody see the extraordinary nonsense from our old friend GW the other night? Out with the fairies again. It’s on BBC iPlayer here (the first third of the programme):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00nv5kv/Hidden_Histories_Series_2_Episode_1/
Care to comment?
Many thanks for that Alex, very illuminating indeed and probably enough material there to occupy everyone who reads EI for many a moon. Very interesting about the the use of the Rod as a measure, and its connections to ploughs and cattle.
If the BH bluestones were re-used in a construction phase of SH, I wonder if the stones from other circles, whether known or as yet undiscovered, were also used at SH? Perhaps, it acquired so much importance because it is the sum of more than one original sacred place – or perhaps it’s late and I need to turn my computer off and get some sleep!
Thanks again Alex, I’m looking forward to reading everyone’s thoughts.
Neil