Momentous discovery at Stonehenge Avenue
September 22, 2008 - 1:14 amPete Glastonbury’s photograph of a contemplative Professor Mike Parker-Pearson studying a feature just to the north-east of Stonehenge is one of the most striking and thought-provoking images of Stonehenge I’ve ever seen. The excavated section is just down the hill from the Heel Stone and from what I gather, the archaeologists from the Stonehenge Riverside Project dug there after the spot was located by a geophysics survey. The eighteenth century antiquary William Stukeley wrote that he’d seen ‘manifest hollows’ just outside Stonehenge along the course of the Avenue and it seems that the photograph above shows where one of these hollows was located.
The chalk at Professor Mike Parker-Pearson’s feet once formed part of the Avenue’s bank, but as you can see, it curves around an obstacle that once stood in its path. The nature of the fill of this hole suggests that it once held a tree, rather than a post, and that the tree slowly rotted away where it stood; furthermore, as the tree died, its roots withdrew and damaged the bank, which was never repaired. As for the size of this tree, its trunk had a circumference of roughly fifteen feet.
This was obviously a tree of substantial size by just about any standards, but it would have posed no impediment to the builders of the Avenue had they wanted to remove it, yet they didn’t. Instead, they built the banks of the Avenue around it, so it’s not out of the question that they deliberately incorporated it into the path of the Avenue, while it’s possible that the Avenue was purposefully aligned so as to include the tree. One of the many amazing implications of this discovery is that there were once other natural features such as stones, trees and springs along the course of the Avenue that either determined its path or else were deliberately incorporated into the structure for reasons known only to the people that built it.
If Stukeley was right about other ‘manifest hollows’ along the course of the Avenue immediately adjacent to Stonehenge, then there’s the distinct possibility that anyone approaching the monument would have wandered through a tunnel of trees, something that brought to mind what I once wrote about the Stonehenge Sentinel and Diana’s Grove. I’ve no idea what kind of tree once stood in this hollow, nor do I have any idea of what height it would have been, but if a number of decent-sized trees once stood so close to Stonehenge, then it seems to pretty much rule out the idea of people inside Stonehenge watching the sun rise over the Heel Stone on Midsummer’s Day, because the view would probably have been impeded by a mass of branches and leaves.
I’ve always been slightly doubtful about the arguments put forward about stone being a metaphor for the ancestors and wood representing the living, but now I’m not so sure. Everything about Stonehenge tells us that it was associated with death, but the men and women who built it chose to deliberately incorporate at least one massive living tree into the Avenue, something that seems the polar opposite to the concept of dying.
Aside from this, there’s the unavoidable suggestion of tree worship in some way, shape or form, while there’s the equally unavoidable suggestion of enlightenment. The connection between trees and being granted knowledge from a divine source goes back as far as the stories of the Garden of Eden, while there are other notable examples such as Buddha being granted enlightenment while sat under a tree and the Norse god Odin hanging himself from a tree for three days to acquire wisdom. Everything about the architecture of Stonehenge, from the internal bank and external ditch to the increasingly small gaps between the stones, tells us that it was a place of secrets, so it seems singularly appropriate for a neophyte or challenger approaching the monument to pause or spend the night beneath a tree prior to venturing into the inner circle.
News has just come in that Professors Darvill and Wainwright have conclusively dated the building of Stonehenge to 2,300 BC, and you can see for yourselves on the link above how these gentlemen believe Stonehenge to have been a healing shrine. Now, I’ll reserve judgement on this until I see their Timewatch special, but one baffling thing about this date is that it means Stonehenge was built around a century after Silbury Hill was constructed, while the official English Heritage investigation into Silbury Hill concluded that Silbury Hill was built to give the people of the time something to do and that its unique form was no reflection of a unique function. It seems very odd indeed to me that so much relatively aimless labour went into building Silbury Hill, only for the people of the time to suddenly be possessed a century later of one of the greatest visions of engineering of all time, which resulted in the building of Stonehenge, apparently as the A + E department of southern England.
On the subject of dates, if the tree that once stood in the Avenue had been an oak, then it could easily have been standing for hundreds of years prior to the building of Stonehenge, so we have to wonder at how its importance to the builders of the Avenue squares with the idea of Stonehenge as a healing shrine. If it had been a yew, then such a tree with a girth or circumference of 15 feet suggests that it could have been there for far longer than mere centuries, so this immense timespan makes me wonder once more about the structures that once stood in the Mesolithic pits to the northeast of Stonehenge, while there are also the Mesolithic and Palaeolithic finds at the beginning of the Avenue to consider. The site of Stonehenge was clearly of huge importance thousands of years before 2,300 BC, so I look forward to learning more about the healing stones theory when it’s expounded in full detail on Timewatch, while I’ll also be intrigued to learn how the BBC’s statement that the “building of Stonehenge has been pinpointed to 2,300 BC” squares with a recent assessment that the sarsens were put in place around 2,600 BC.
Finally, for now, I’ve posted up a number of articles here on Eternal Idol that various others “out there” have taken exception to, but without being able to point out where I’ve gone wrong, of course. One of these concerned the Stonehenge Sentinel, and while I doubt that I’ve got the actual scenario anywhere near 100% accurate, everything I’ve learned about Stonehenge suggests to me that there was a periodic ceremony at the stones that was broadly similar to the one I’ve described, while the discovery of the huge tree that once stood in the Avenue, with its overtones of concealment and enlightenment (among others), goes to support the concept of a sentinel and a sacred grove, to my mind. Occasionally, I learn of other notions concerning Stonehenge, such as the idea that it was once roofed, for example, and while I don’t personally subscribe to them, I am of course prepared to carefully consider them all.
However, there is a limit, and I find that I’m coming perilously close to it when I read the following extract from the BBC link above:
Professor Wainwright added: “Was the Amesbury Archer, as some have suggested, the person responsible for the building of Stonehenge? I think the answer to that is almost certainly ‘no’.
“But did he travel there to be healed? Did he limp, or was he carried, all the way from Switzerland to Wiltshire, because he had heard of the miraculous healing properties of Stonehenge? ‘Yes, absolutely’.
For once, words fail me when I consider the truly superhuman feat of carrying someone from Switzerland to Wiltshire, while the idea of someone in excruciating agony from an apparent knee injury limping this distance strains my credulity to its utmost limits. I was working at Wessex Archaeology when the Archer was discovered, so I’m fully conversant with the circumstances of the excavation and I also listened very carefully to what Jackie McKinley had to say when she examined the Archer’s remains in the Finds Department four days after they were unearthed. I can only conclude that there’s been some terrible misunderstanding somewhere along the line for Prof Wainwright to form an opinion such as the one he’s given, but once again, I’ll wait to see what the Timewatch programme has to say about all this.
In the normal course of events, I would have written a great deal more about all this, including the quietly hidden away but almost certainly more important finding that the site of Stonehenge was in use as far back as 7,200 BC, but these aren’t the normal course of events. Despite the wealth of fascinating discoveries made by archaeologists working on the Stonehenge Riverside Project this year, surprisingly little has been made available to the public so far, although I’m told that some of it will be written about in one or more forthcoming editions of British Archaeology. I don’t doubt that the archaeologists on the project would’ve liked to have revealed more because they’re naturally enthusiastic about what they do, while it’s clear that there’s an enormous interest in anything to do with the most fascinating prehistoric monument on the planet.
I’m no expert on searching the internet, but you don’t have to look far to learn just how wearisome and trying it is for the archaeologists, at best, to have to tread on ego-shells during a series of formal and informal meetings with groups or individuals objecting to certain aspects of the excavations, and at the worst, to endure verbal abuse while they’re working. Regardless of your views on the removal of human remains, the blunt fact remains that it’s only human nature to take exception to being harassed, so it’s little surprise that public information has been so limited and as a result, we’re all the poorer.
Words by Dennis Price. Photographs copyright Pete Glastonbury 2008.
38 Responses to “Momentous discovery at Stonehenge Avenue”
How minuscule are the pieces left?
If they had any value as mementoes, charms or healing then surely even the smallest chippings would have been gathered up?
Perhaps these chippings are indicative the site was not accessible to the hoi polloi.
There are some pics of them on the trailers for the Timewatch programme. Mostly fairly small flakes, up to 5 or 6 cm. as far as I can make out. Some bigger stones — maybe packing materials. And mostly rhyolite, not spotted dolerite. It will be interesting to see the stone analysis — re stone sizes, shapes and petrology. There seem to me to be some fine-grained sedimentary rocks too. Of course D&W refer to them all as “healing bluestone” — although why you would want to smash up stones that are supposed to have had magical or healing properties, I can’t imagine. This is the old debate about the Stonehenge Layer all over again. For me, this just shows that the bluestones had no particular value. They were picked up opportunistically from an erratic train, casually used or not used in one uncompleted setting after another, and then some of them were just smashed up to avoid the bother of carting them off to somewhere else.
Wow, based on a tiny little trench, these two have found some dateable material and decided it must be the from the earliest erection of the stones at Stonehenge. Watching the second video clip on the BBC page is hilarious! How can you infer that the sarsens came after the bluestones without excavating one? The clip says that the previous date was an educated guess – so why do they essentially guess that the sarsen phase must still follow the bluestone phase? Perhaps it means the bluestone alignment is later than thought, but it doesn’t follow that every other part of Stonehenge is also. I’ve never seen such unprofessional and sensationalist research and presentation of data. What’s truly bizarre is that they’ve probably uncovered some interesting data, but presented it in a way as to totally undermine themselves! It probably wasn’t as dramatic as they hoped so they decided to embelish the findings by essentially making up an entire new chronology of the site.
As for the assertion that an abnormal number of bodies around Stonehenge show signs of injury, who did they actually look at? Amesbury Archer and that’s it, is my guess.
Oh, and that quip about finding evidence that people were at Stonehenge long before anyone thought – Mesolithic post-holes anyone?
The whole press release seems to have been an entire work of fiction designed to get them some press and fame. Quite sickening really.
Latest quote fro the good Professor W: “Next season we will be back in Preseli, looking for more evidence of ritual practice at the home of the bluestones. I’m sure we’ll find the Welsh architect of Stonehenge yet,” Wainwright said.
Oh dear — now I’m getting seriously concerned about HIS state of health, let alone that of the Amesbury Archer.
According to Maev Kennedy http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/sep/22/archaeology?gusrc=rss&feed=uknews
“By re-examining old records they have now found evidence of chips of bluestone buried with many bodies in the Stonehenge area – including that of the Amesbury Archer, one of the richest finds in decades, who died around 2,300 BC”
This is the first I’ve heard of bluestone being found with the archer.
Can anyone confirm this?
Thank goodness we have such eminent archaeologists to go through Wessex Archaeology’s outdated and incomplete records of the Archer. Interesting article Pete, I hadn’t seen that one yet. I truly wonder if they have any other evidence to go on for ‘horrific injury’ or ‘abnormal amounts of injuries’ other than the Amesbury Archer – he does seem to be the only one referenced. Perhaps they’re also considering the truly death dealing injuries sustained by the Stonehenge Archer. Actually it all makes sense now Dennis – not a Sentinel at all, he staggered there after being shot (probably in France or some such place). Perhaps the headless Saxon had the same idea?
Sorry if I sound narked by all this….
I’ve no real grasp of all the finer details of the Stonehenge environment, but I’m guessing the press releases are being written by someone who has training in writing news stories to make the press, and probably with little or no archaeological understanding. It may seem an obvious point, but their job is to get news sources to take the story, and unfortunately, even in the most prestigious news agencies, the sensational will usually gain precedence over simple fact. Unfortunate because most people will gain their knowledge of our history from sources, such as the BBC – its not as if schools will teach children about the various sites and phases in the stonehenge landscape, or even try and instil a sense of wonder and curiosity.
Anyway, as I said earlier, my understanding of the archaeology on the site is limited at best, but could the fact that there are so many flakes around point to a more mundane solution? That the stones were still being worked and shaped right up until the time when the stone circles fell out of common use? Perhaps, over the centuries, different people had different needs of the stones and moved them and shaped them to their purpose – its a poor analogy, but a bit like an old building that has had numerous renovations and extensions, changes made over many decades and centuries. It’s not a sexy, or radical explanation, but it doesn’t require quite the leap of faith of endowing the stones with magical healing properties (what next, a UFO landing sight…!).
Apologies if this is all old hat, or plain rubbish, I have an interest in the history of our islands and culture, but no schooling in it.
I saw the Archer and his finds close up at first hand for over a year, from the time that his remains and grave goods were first examined in the Finds Department at Wessex in May 2002. I also assisted with the various national and international broadcasts that covered the find when I worked in the ‘Communications’ Department at Wessex, but I honestly don’t remember any mention of bluestone being found with him and I think something like this would’ve stuck in my memory. I don’t think there’s any mention at all of bluestone being found with the Archer on the Wessex Archaeology site, either, so this seems just plain wrong.
Otherwise, I can’t think of any notable examples off-hand about people surviving arrow wounds for a long time after they were shot, apart from Otzi perhaps. However, I’m pretty sure that my namesake, St Denis, managed to wander around carrying his own head while simultaneously lecturing the heathen responsible for his decapitation, so it’s not completely out of the question that the Saxon in question headed along to Stonehenge in the hope of a cure. It reminds me of the old joke “How do you get rid of 14 pounds of ugly useless fat at a stroke? Cut off (insert name as applicable)’s head!” Ho-ho!
The Smithsonian article refered to by Brian on another thread reads:
“As so often happens in archaeology, the new findings raise nearly as many questions as they answer. Charcoal recovered by Darvill and Wainwright indicating the burning of pine wood in the vicinity dates back to the eighth millennium B.C. Could the area have been a ritual center for hunter-gatherer communities some 6,000 years before the earthen henge was even dug? “The origins of Stonehenge probably lie back in the Mesolithic, and we need to reframe our questions for the next excavation to look back into that deeper time,” Darvill says.”
Is another excavation planned?
Neil, sorry no one replied to yours straightaway – I think we got our wires crossed behind the scenes somewhere. Anyway, thank you for writing in, while I’m sure that none of us here would claim to have a monopoly on the truth. However, we’re all very interested indeed in finding out what the truth is or was, and there certainly seem to be some pretty striking examples of people getting things wrong.
As I’ve written loads of times on this site, one of the scourges of archaeology today is the wilful misinterpretation of the writings or findings of others, and while I might tolerate harsh language and I’ll positively welcome dissenting views, there’ll be no wilful misinterpretation on this site EVER. If anyone wants that kind of thing, there are plenty of other big sites that make a positive virtue of it and they’re not hard to find.
Be that as it may, I just don’t see how the BBC, of all institutions, can write about pinpointing the date for the construction of Stonehenge. I happily accept that the vast majority of people who’ve heard of Stonehenge don’t have any idea about the first earthen phase, the timber phase and so on, and that’s fine because I for one wasn’t born aware of Stonehenge. However, from what I can see, it’s just plain wrong to write that Stonehenge (itself) was built in 2,300 BC, not least because I don’t think anyone’s saying that, not even Professors Darvill and Wainwright.
Likewise, one would expect some accuracy from The Guardian, but I’ll be absolutely amazed if it turns out that bluestone was found with the Archer. I remember that there was a lot of excited speculation back in 2002 that the stone from his wristguard might have originated in Wales, but I’m pretty sure it didn’t, although I’ll have to try and check.
No apologies are required, either, for writing stuff that you fear is old hat or rubbish, because we’re going over a lot of old ideas here anyway and it’s clear from all the comments that many people entertain low opinions of the views of others as far as recent history at Stonehenge is concerned. You’re welcome to write in whenever you want and and your idea about the bluestones being constantly reused on site sounds fine to me, while if you find something of interest here on Eternal Idol, either in the posts or among the detailed comments others have submitted, then I’m sure everyone else will be very pleased.
“The archaeologists also recovered carbonised plant material, which subsequent radiocarbon analysis dated to 7330-7070BC”
I wonder how much attention this snippet will get in the Timewatch film?
The reference to the Mesolithic material in Pete’s comment is very interesting, and gives me an excuse to raise a point that’s been nagging at me for some time. The Mesolithic Pits in the carpark at Stonehenge, which apparently date from around 8,500 BC, are regarded as being highly significant for the Stonehenge site as a place of continuing religious significance. After all, the pits predate the earliest earthwork phase of Stonehenge by more than 5000 years. That’s a lot of continuity!
What I’m interested in is the statistical significance of the pit finds. The pits were found in an excavated area of about 0.5ha, according to the ruler tool in Google Earth, and they’re about 260m from the centre of the monument. If we consider Mesolithic finds within a radius of 500m to be highly significant to the actual site, then the carpark excavations sampled just 0.7% of the total area. Or, put another way, if if there was only one Mesolithic site predating Stonehenge, we got lucky with a 150 to one chance.
The likelihood – or lack of it – of that chance find makes me wonder what we’d find if a serious geophysics survey were done over a square kilometer around Stonehenge. I suppose some of it has already been surveyed, but not enough to be statistically significant? My guess is that more pit anomalies would be found, because the Mesolithic evidence in Pete’s comment (in the Bluestone ring, I believe) is separated by 1000 years from the pits, so there already appears to be 1000 years of continuity. There must be more evidence in the area that we haven’t found yet.
And why just Stonehenge? In the south of England alone, sites like Avebury and Stanton Drew must also have had a continuing tradition that’s hidden from us. A recent geophysics survey in the largest ring at Stanton Drew found amazing evidence of post holes like Woodhenge – I wonder what farther reaching surveys would find?
I know that these surveys are expensive, but while the technology itself is very sophisticated, the methods of deploying it seem very primitive, with junior team members prodding at the ground in what looks (on TV!) to be a rather inconsistent way. With the GPS methods that are available to farmers today, it should be possible to build automated geophysics machines with data loggers that could cover large areas precisely, consistently and rapidly. They could revolutionize archaeology.
But the future of archaeological tools aside, I think maybe we should be considering the possibility of much more Mesolithic activity in the area than the carpark pits would indicate … and similar activity in other significant sites elsewhere.
Without Eternal Idol virtually nothing of this season’s Riverside Project would be known. Could the lack of official information from the Project be more to do with finds not fitting the stone/dead wood/live theory?
It appears so many of the esteemed Archaeologists involved in the Project have given their support to this idea. The problem with it is the main stay was pure interpretation having taken enormous liberties with the few facts available. The body language of Mike PP in the photo can hardly be considered to be that of someone excited by the possible enormity of the find?
It must be dangerous to consider Stonehenge solely as a place of the dead. If Stonehenge was anything it was a place of worship (probably lunar at first and then later solar). I don’t need to go to Madagascar to draw a modern day comparison. In a few thousand years how will our churches be viewed? There will be little evidence left apart from the graves. But even these days (and admittedly for a decreasing number) churches remain very much a focus for the living.
I await with scepticism the dating evidence from W & D. Even if it does prove accurate in the immediate context it remains to be seen how safely it can be extrapolated to the rest of the monument. Hopefully the TimeWatch program will not be as poor as Stonehenge Decoded, but from what I have heard of Wainwright on Radio I will not be surprised if it is.
As anyone who visits Eternal Idol will surely have gathered, both Pete and I are rabidly enthusiastic about and interested in Stonehenge, and we do our level best to make information public. I might add that this is in sharp contrast to the practises of some (but most certainly not all) archaeologists, but it’s not too hard to work out who these particular people and institutions are.
We’ve got something of a backlog of unpublicised material from SRP 2008 and elsewhere, but it’s most often a matter of finding the time to present it properly. It would be simple to do what some other ‘big’ websites do, which is essentially to put up a picture and a caption to make an album of postcards, but we’re genuinely interested in trying to gain a glimpse into the minds of the astonishing men and women who built Stonehenge and Silbury Hill. As such, I enjoy writing about these subjects and if it provokes comment from anyone else who might have a different take on matters, then we can all only profit, or at least that’s what we think.
Our 90 minute Silbury Hill film still hasn’t seen the light of day yet, but that’s not because we’re hiding anything away, although there are certainly some surprises on there that I very much doubt have been aired elsewhere. It’s just that we’ve not had the resources to do full justice to the opportunity we were given, but when the day comes, we’ll make it public.
I’ve got no reason at all to think that the comparative lack of publicised information from this year’s SRP is down to discoveries contradicting previously held ideas, while I’ve got every reason to think that it’s squarely down to the archaeologists being sick and tired of being harrassed and sometimes abused. Regardless of anyone’s views on reburial and suchlike, the simple, blunt reality is that the archaeologists are the ones doing the excavating, so if they start to think it’s more trouble than it’s worth to publicise their discoveries for fear of having their time taken up with informal meetings at best and confrontations at worst, then that’s just the way it is, and no amount of wishing will make things otherwise. Regardless of what views I personally hold, I doubt I’d have shown the same degree of patience they all displayed, either.
As for the photo, the simple truth is that I’ve always found Mike Parker-Pearson to be extremely genial and thoughtful, while I’ve not forgotten that his sadly brief contribution to the Silbury Hill documentary was the shining pinnacle of the production. You can take if from me and Pete that the photo does indeed show him deep in thought at what he’s studying, because he’s pretty much in the process of working out the implications as the photo’s being taken. You must remember that I had the advantage of writing it up at leisure afterwards and working out the implications for a few days before the article was posted up, whereas MPP’s captured in a silent snapshot of time very shortly after the amazing feature came to light.
Otherwise, I was absolutely fascinated by every last aspect of what came out of the recent Timewatch promotions, especially the Mesolithic dating evidence, so I shall be glued to my television set this Saturday evening along with a great many others, I suspect.
I hope we don’t get served up with a BBC production like we’ve seen over the summer.
BlueStoneKickers!
Dennis
I fully accept that your personal acquaintance of Mike PP et al means you are far better placed to know what makes them tick than me.
But, it is from this site we learn about the palisade and tree holes which seems an awful lot of living (wood) in the realm of the dead (stone).
What puzzles me is a palisade is far from a recent discovery. The palisade ditch was excavated by the Vatchers in the late 60′s and they found post holes a hundred or so yards (i.e the car park) from Stonehenge.
Now for me that evidence alone would have cast at least a little doubt about the living/dead theory but it was, as predicted, ignored in Stonehenge Decoded.
As it is it could be the palisade ditch provides some of the best clues as to what was going on at Stonehenge. Its importance in the scheme of things may have been underestimated simply because it lacks in grandeur?
I was just being fair with regards to MPP, that’s all, because I’ve always found him to be very approachable, genial, thoughtful and full of admiration for the achievements of our ancestors. There are certain others that I most certainly do not hold in the same high regard, though. As for the palisade, please bear with us because Pete and I are trying to get some more info on this and other aspects of the recent digs. As soon as we get there, we’ll post it all up.
Fairness is a very clear characteristic of this site.
And in fairness Mike PP (unlike others) had the consideration to reply to an email I sent him. So I certainly cannot disagree with your assessment of him.
What I do feel strongly is he is wrong to have adopted the theory he has without explaining away the palisade at the car park. If it had been made of stone posts fair enough then at least it is consistent.
And I always look to Eternal Idol first for any news or views.
Well, as I’ve said, there are plenty of bigger sites out there whose ‘contributors’ make a positive virtue of wilful misinterpretation, nit-picking and generally complaining, not to mention publicly demonstrating their resentment and pig ignorance. I just don’t see any future in this kind of thing, not least because my time’s pretty limited.
Brian is a good case in point as far as our policy’s concerned. I don’t agree with the glaciation theory, but he’s aired his views, he’s gone into meticulous detail and patiently answered all the points that have been put to him, so I for one consider myself vastly better informed about the whole matter than I was before, while there’s also his personal account of trying to move a bluestone, which I was fascinated by, so everyone’s a winner!
I’m sure that Mike Parker-Pearson would like nothing more than to have a camera crew down at Stonehenge right now, with graphic artists to hand and so forth, so that he could enthuse about the place and explain his thinking about the place in light of the new discoveries. Even if that were to happen, there’s the matter of TV schedules, budgets and so forth, while the television exec equivalents of David Milliband would be asking him exciting questions beforehand about demographics, what’s NEW in this programme and so on and so forth. I haven’t personally asked him, but I simply doubt that MPP or any of the others have the platform to speak about the 2008 season in an informed fashion right now.
Even if all this were somehow possible, there’s the process of ‘peer review’, which means that everyone else wanting to make a name for themselves gets to have a chance at nit-picking first before any considered report hits the presses.
Fortunately, neither Pete nor myself feel bound in any way by this convention, as our ‘peer review’ comes from a far wider and more discerning audience. Anyone and everyone who logs in to Eternal Idol is free to make virtually whatever comments they want in public, and not behind closed doors with months before publication. One of these fine days, probably on the occasion of my forthcoming birthday, I’ll celebrate by going over the various things that Eternal Idol’s ‘got right’ in advance of everyone else, as well as putting information and photographs in the public domain before they appear elsewhere. What we put up may well not be perfect, but in my view, it’s preferable to nothing at all.
As I said earlier, we’ve now got something of a backlog of material from SRP 2008, but as soon as we can remotely do it justice, it’ll be going up and believe me, there’s some good stuff to come. I gather that various articles will be appearing in Mr Pitts’ British Archaeology magazine in the near future and I don’t doubt they’ll be more informed than what we’re currently able to post up here. I say this without a hint of irony or jealousy, because that’s simply the way the world is and I’ve no complaints – Pete and I do what we do when we can, while British Archaeology does likewise.
Finally, as I know I’ve said before, Pete and I never tire of hearing that people are pleased with what they see and read here. We’re only human, so the odd word of appreciation is music to our ears, believe me!
The following link is very interesting summary of the living dead theory
http://www.louistalboys.com/stonehenge/downloads/stonehenge%20geophysical.pdf
Rgds
John
I’m not sure if the Tree was alive when it was incorporated into the Avenue. But it would certainly be a good way to kill a Tree. Building up the soil around it’s trunk would rot the bark and the Tree would be effectively ‘ring barked’, leading to death…
Tony
I went back to the section of Avenue from the Avon today and walked the banks.
I found several holes that could have easily held a sizable tree.
Piling up soil around the base of a Tree or planting a Tree too deep will cause rotting of the bark. The bark is the Tree’s Skin. It protects the living tissue just underneath it. Damage or destruction of the Phloem and Cambium Layer will almost certainly result in death of the Tree.
Were the Trees already dead? Were they used as posts, limbs removed? Did they people realize that building up soil would damage them?. Did the Trees exist before the route? Maybe they were planted in the banks..
Tony
All that we (i.e. Pete and I) know is that 1: the chalk bank of the Avenue at this point deliberately curved around some obstacle, 2: the damage to the chalk looked as if it had been caused by tree roots pulling back through the chalk as the tree died and 3: that those present thought the fill of the hole was characteristic of a tree dying and rotting there.
I suspect that the builders knew that removing or damaging a tree’s bark would kill it, but we don’t know if the bank of the Avenue came into contact with the tree’s trunk or if it was constructed so as to remain a respectful distance away.
I think that if a tree had been planted in the Avenue’s bank at a later date, it wouldn’t have left a feature with the precise characteristics that we’ve seen. Whether there were posts or living trees there with a girth of around 15 feet, it radically alters my mental picture of what the approach to Stonehenge would have looked like, and it’s got major implications for trying to understand the mindset of the builders and celebrants.
“The chalk bank of the Avenue at this point deliberately curved around some obstacle” That being the case, then I believe you are right. major implications…
A Tree of the girth described tells you you that it has grown in an open environment. Little or no competition from other Trees. As the area had been deforested, possibly for thousands of years. The Tree must of been selected/protected or planted..
It’s been on my min for a long time that the effect of deforestation would have had a profound effect on the minds of the People..
Tony
The massive tree hole found in the bank reminded me that Rodney Castleden’s book “The making of Stonehenge” presents resistivity and magnetometer data from the first 240m of the Avenue. Castleden’s own interpretation of the data ” … reveals a pattern [of spot-disturbances] of eight pairs of stone-holes placed about 28.5m apart …” (pp 131-132).
He attributed these disturbances to bluestone holes, but suppose they were tree holes? Oak trees were revered by the Celts, at least, and on the continuity principle it is possible that they were revered by the Neolithic people in an earlier age. I checked the size (spread) of mature oak trees on the website of a tree supplier, and the figure given was 28m. Nice coincidence, but it seems a reasonable figure.
Dennis talks about the possibility of “a tunnel of trees” and 16 mature oaks over a distance of 240m would have been exactly that. The width of the Avenue is rather less than 28m, so the fully-grown trees would have formed a complete canopy.
Aubrey Burl’s book gives the date of the Avenue at around 2400BC, when the bluestones were put in their final places. (As an aside, am I the only one who’s getting increasing confused by the chronology of Stonehenge? Wooden structures suddenly appearing in Phase 2, redating of the sarsen circle, etc …)
Suppose that the trees were planted when the original Phase 1 henge was dug in around 3000BC. Oak trees can live for 1000 years, so when the Avenue was dug, they’d be fully mature, and the banks would have to “curve around the obstacle” as Dennis’s post and photo shows.
I’m not qualified to talk about the folklore of oak trees, but they seem to have had a special place in the spiritual world of prehistoric peoples and it seems reasonable that they might have formed part of the spiritual path from a place of the living to a place of the dead.
A dark tunnel of oak trees (even in winter) would have been a sombre and awe-inspiring – and dread-inspiring – approach to the home of the ancestors.
The massive tree hole found in the bank reminded me that Rodney Castleden’s book “The making of Stonehenge” presents resistivity and magnetometer data from the first 240m of the Avenue. Castleden’s own interpretation of the data ” … reveals a pattern [of spot-disturbances] of eight pairs of stone-holes placed about 28.5m apart …” (pp 131-132).
He attributed these disturbances to bluestone holes, but suppose they were tree holes? Oak trees were revered by the Celts, at least, and on the continuity principle it is possible that they were revered by the Neolithic people in an earlier age. I checked the size (spread) of mature oak trees on the website of a tree supplier, and the figure given was 28m. Nice coincidence, but it seems a reasonable figure.
Dennis talks about the possibility of “a tunnel of trees” and 16 mature oaks over a distance of 240m would have been exactly that. The width of the Avenue is rather less than 28m, so the fully-grown trees would have formed a complete canopy.
Aubrey Burl’s book gives the date of the Avenue at around 2400BC, when the bluestones were put in their final places. (As an aside, am I the only one who’s getting increasing confused by the chronology of Stonehenge? Wooden structures suddenly appearing in Phase 2, redating of the sarsen circle, etc …)
Suppose that the trees were planted when the original Phase 1 henge was dug in around 3000BC. Oak trees can live for 1000 years, so when the Avenue was dug, they’d be fully mature, and the banks would have to “curve around the obstacle” as Dennis’s post and photo shows.
I’m not qualified to talk about the folklore of oak trees, but they seem to have had a special place in the spiritual world of prehistoric peoples and it seems reasonable that they might have formed part of the spiritual path from a place of the living to a place of the dead.
A dark tunnel of oak trees (even in winter) would have been a sombre and awe-inspiring – and dread-inspiring – approach to the home of the ancestors.
Further to my comment above about the possible use of oaks in the avenue, I came across this text in the http://www.woodsforall.org website: “In Celtic mythology the Oak tree is the tree of doors, believed to be a gateway between worlds, or a place where portals could be erected, the trees were widely spread replacing the lime tree as the main sacred tree.)”
I know all the risks of selective quoting, but it did seem interesting that either a single tree – or avenue – on the route between the lands of the living and dead could be a portal between the two. Although the belief is attributed to the Celts, the general point must surely have had some continuity from an earlier time, whether the tree was an oak or a lime. Trees must have had enormous significance for Neolithic people, with particular qualities attributed to each.
Perhaps this knowledge formed part of the learning that was transmitted through the generations until it was associated with the Druid cult at the time of the Roman invasions. As Dennis has pointed out in his post titled “Specu-lation concerning the Druids”, the Roman geographer Pomponius Mela wrote that it took the Druids 20 years to learn the lore, so it must have had a long history. And that “they [the Druids] never perform any of their rites except in the presence of a branch of it (an oak).”
The significance of the oak (reinforced by the oak-bark tooling on one of the stones) could point to the need for presence of an oak (or oaks) in close proximity to the Stonehenge monument.
Further, an avenue of mature oaks forming a tunnel could closely simulate a cave (specu) or even a “secluded dale”. I don’t want to draw too close a parallel with Pomponius’s Druids, for we’re talking 2000 years earlier, but the ideas of caves, glades and secluded dales would have had great resonance for Neolithic people, still close to the primary wildwood, who’d been building “caves” from stone and wood in their communal death houses, the long barrows.
Of the two current theories about Stonehenge, I’ve preferred MPP’s Life/Death ideas. And I think that an Avenue tree (or trees) could lend just a little more weight to that theory.
If the hole has a circumference of fifteen feet, this would represent the Root ball. Not the girth of the Tree, which would be about half that, about seven feet. Not such a huge Tree after all.
Try it with a tape measure
Tony
We didn’t say that the hole had a circumference of 15 feet. Our information is that the size of the hole, and presumably the curve of the Avenue’s bank, indicated that a tree with a girth of roughly 15 feet once stood there, so it might have been larger than this or indeed, it might have been smaller.
I’ve just had a wander around my estate and I’ve found a few oaks and a yew with girths of about 15 feet and they’re massive trees, to me at least. I’ll try to get some photos later with me hugging them (!) to show the girth, then a longer shot to show the height, but if anyone else can supply something like this, then please feel free. As for Alex’s comments, I thought they were absolutely fascinating and I’ll try to do them justice in a post at some point, although it might take a week or so as I’m a bit tied up right now.
Thanks for clearing that up..
I’d have to be an automaton not to be excited by the thought of these huge trees, but we’re just posting up what we know. If we find out anything to the contrary i.e. it was 7 feet in girth, it was a molehill or it was a post, then rest assured it’ll go up asap.
I got me wires crossed..
Tony
Dennis, you wrote : “while I’ve got every reason to think that it’s squarely down to the archaeologists being sick and tired of being harrassed and sometimes abused. Regardless of anyone’s views on reburial and suchlike, the simple, blunt reality is that the archaeologists are the ones doing the excavating, so if they start to think it’s more trouble than it’s worth to publicise their discoveries for fear of having their time taken up with informal meetings at best and confrontations at worst, then that’s just the way it is, and no amount of wishing will make things otherwise.”
I wish that I had spotted this earlier in order to make a reply.
The Druids that gathered to spiritually prepare the ground at several of your dig sites were well received, well behaved, and stopped work for all of a few minutes only in a very cordial manner.
When assembled for the same with regard to the Aubrey hole 7 excavation, we had only just learned of the scale of remains involved and that MP at least, has no intention of returning any.
Given the circumstances that most of those gathered regard Stonehenge as the most holy of holy places and the ancestors concerned as like to saints, the shock and horror was felt deeply.
We also felt angry and betrayed, for we had placed great trust in English Heritage with whom we meet regularly. They failed to advise the RP that this excavation would need special consideration in light of the present day beliefs surrounding the ancestors, they failed to consult ourselves or adequately forewarn as to the intentions regarding these same and they should have known better.
We were only gathered for about one hour, made a circle away from your dig and although beating drums and giving voice to a variety of opinions, we did not stop your work or deliberately harrass anyone. Considering that we support your science and all genuine search for truth, and felt that our good will and trust had been greatly betrayed, we behaved on the whole very well.
If you were to march into the Vatican and remove St Paul, never to be returned, I very much doubt that the churchmen their would be any where near as pleasant or as passive as were we.
Take a less extreme example: Imagine that you were granted consent by DCMS to go into Salisbury cathedral and dig a tomb within the confines of the church itself, that the Bishop and priest only had a day or so’s notice from DCMS, and scarce details, but who then decided to support the science and do the spiritual necessaries over the remains. They then learn, just half an hour before the ceremony that the archaeologists intend to keep all the remains and maybe put them on display. How accommodating do you think they would feel then?
I apologise to any Christians who might find any parallels between us uncomfortable but given a largely Christian context to our society today I do not know of any other way to explain how we were feeling that morning when all this came to light.
The science, as confirmed to us by one of the worlds top forensic scientists, requires only a few grammes of human material to be retained, and that would allow for retention against future as yet unforeseen tests as well. These ancestors mean a great deal to many, especially those for whom the actual presence of the ancestors in the landscape actually is part of their spiritual reason to be there.
The issue will doubtless need resolution in the near future, and it would be far better that we spend a little time talking, understanding each others needs and trying to reach an amicable middle ground than have to fight this through the courts.
We share a great deal in common in our reverence for Stonehenge, and in our human quest to understand our origins.
It is a poor excuse to wave in the air that archaeologists are too busy to spend the odd half hour here and there talking with people about a matter of such importance (At a minimum, that would be good manners all considering).
It is also unclear t me how spending half an hour here or there talking with other stakeholders should in any way reflect on their desire to publish material here when the two are entirely disconnected, unless that is, that now the sharing of information is being made a hostage to their not being accountable?
With great respect for your friends on the RP, the RP is funded by the government of our people, and thereby the taxpayer, and so it really should not be too much trouble to share the discoveries that belong to us all, or to talk with those your dig will effect on a deeply spiritual level to seek reasonable solution regarding remains.
Research into Stonehenge does not happen only below ground, it happens with a study of anthropology, ancient folklore, astronomy and there are philosophical spiritual and magical avenues of exploration also. All are valid, and I suspect that with regard to the enigma of Stonehenge, none in isolation has the power to solve the mystery.
This dig is exciting, and may add much value to our knowledge, it may even give the great missing clue that we all yearn to find but it exists in an ocean of ideas and beliefs. There is nothing to suggest that it alone is so important as to merit a complete disregard for other people or for the very special people who’s remains are at issue.
It would be very easy to dismiss the modern Druids as a bunch of long haired trouble makers, or fantasists trying to live a Victorian fantasy about an ancient priesthood of which there is but scarce evidence, or as a bunch of ignorant new agers with no idea about the ‘reality’ of Stonehenge or the comparative intelligence of those involved in the dig.
I would not be truthful if I did not confess that on occasion such generalized dismissals have some merit, but there are very many exceptions. Among the many exceptions there are people who are educated, well read, intelligent, hard working and sincere in deeply rooted faith. There are also those guided from sources that you will not find in any library and practicing arts still way beyond the grasp of science.
With the right mindset on both sides, we may actually be of benefit to one another and have insights to share both ways.
We all do what we do because Stonehenge really matters. None of us are totally clear as to why, but we feel it and know it deep down. That is why the archaeologists are so excited about excavating there, and it is the same feeling that draws me there to watch sunset and sunrise on a freezing cold winter solstice.
Stonehenge is not just a relic of the past, it is a temple for the living.
As a priest to the gods and peoples of Albion I have no wish to obstruct or harrass scientists. I do care that in the way that they pursue their study it does not undo the magic of the place or the resting peace and dignity of the ancestors.
Frank
Hi Frank – first of all, I don’t want you visiting Eternal Idol and checking each entry for fear of being misrepresented, because I naturally want you and (just about) anyone else to visit it for pleasure.
The simple truth is that you misunderstood what I wrote, but looking back over it, I can see why you took it the way you did and the fault is mine, for which I apologise. I had meant to write that when two groups of people with opposing views meet up, it’s inevitable that both sides will feel aggrieved and I was simply trying to reflect a reality, as opposed to apportioning blame or taking sides. Whatever I meant to write, it came across the wrong way, so I’m sorry for this.
As for the SRP, I’m not 100% sure of my ground, but this is how I understand the situation to be. I was under the impression that they were funded by the National Geographic Society rather than the government, but I’ve not asked about this in any detail, I must admit. As I think the SRP do a brilliant job, far better, far more open and far more conscientious than a commercial outfit would be, for example, I’ve consistently given credit where it’s due.
Furthermore, Pete Glastonbury and I have held back from publishing some information and photos out of common courtesy for the National Geographic Society because they naturally wish to profit from their backing of the excavations when they publish photos and articles themselves. I’m not aware of any law that stops us, but as I’ve said, it’s simple common courtesy because we have no wish to impede these excavations in any way – on the contrary.
I should also point out that it’s not ‘my’ SRP in any way, either, because I’m not employed by them, nor do I have any say in what they do, but I’ve always had very good reason to be impressed by the way they all conduct themselves.
Otherwise, I might be guilty of reporting hearsay, something I wish to avoid, but I’d heard from some archaeologists that a lot of time was being taken up with meeting different groups and individuals opposed to the exhumations in formal and informal meetings, so it’s possible that you were unaware of all these meetings, if indeed they took place. I can’t help thinking that it would make life a very great deal easier for everyone concerned if there was a single unquestioned spokesperson for all those with reservations about the excavations and a single spokesperson for the archaeologists, English Heritage and so forth, who could meet up long beforehand.
This is yet another matter I intend to look into fully one day, but it makes a mess of the whole process of negotiation if someone/anyone proclaims themselves to be unamenable to reason and independent of the agreements, whichever side they may be on. What with the weather and a schedule to meet, I still think it’s understandable if archaeologists, who weren’t planning to be a part of any discussions, become irritable when the process becomes random. Again, this isn’t intended to take sides in any way, because it’s just meant as an observation of fact, whether we might like it or not.
As for some of the other points you made, you’re pretty much preaching to the converted, although I’d be a fool not to admit that there are some issues here that aren’t black and white, so I’ll try to write about this in a long, considered piece on another occasion.
Finally, there’s no question in my mind that you value Stonehenge and that you have a real interest in learning more about it, so you are always welcome to submit your thoughts to Eternal Idol and to make them public for all to see.
Best wishes from
Dennis
Thanks Dennis for shedding light on where you were coming from with this and I now fully understand.
I am aware of only one meeting so far between the Druids and RP team, although it is possible that some small groups might like to make a name for themselves by being the ones to make a breakthrough and therefore might act independently.
The likelihood is that they would have to go through English Heritage to arrange such meetings and so I’ll make enquiries.
It would certainly be to everyone’s benefit if all the various interested pagan groups were to collaborate and provide a single team as a point of contact and communication between our community and the project. If it is the case that multiple contacts have been made I’ll try to get something more sensible organised.
Frank
Thank you, Frank, for having the good grace to take what I had to say in the spirit in which it was intended.
The impression I got from some of the archaeologists was that some individuals and groups had spoken to the archaeologists on site over the course of the dig – I wasn’t there, so I don’t know and you shouldn’t take this as gospel, but I just don’t have any good reason to doubt them. I also didn’t get the impression that the people in question had gone through EH, rather that they’d just wandered onto the site, but again, you shouldn’t take this as gospel.
There’s absolutely no avoiding this subject of the ongoing difference of opinion, but I really don’t see any good reason at all why it shouldn’t be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction, or to the satisfaction of every reasonable person of goodwill, put it like that. Stonehenge is a place of fascination, admiration and indeed reverence for many people and I’d squarely include myself in that company, as I’m in awe of the place and of the people who built it. I’ve derived a huge amount of enjoyment from the ruins for longer than I care to remember and this is something that shows no signs whatever of abating, so I wish for nothing more than the same for everyone else, whatever their interest in the place might be or whatever their function.
Care to comment?
from the BBC website:
———————————————————————————–
They note that “an abnormal number” of the corpses found in tombs nearby Stonehenge display signs of serious physical injury and disease.
———————————————————————————–
Surely this is true of all burials in christian church graveyards also?
People tend to die of these type of ailments.
They go on to say
—————-
They also found that bluestone chippings outnumbered sarsen stone chippings by three to one – which Wainwright takes to be a sign of their value.
“It could be that people were flaking off pieces of bluestone, in order to create little bits to take away… as lucky amulets,” he said.
—————-
surely this means that the sarsen chippings were more valuable?
The size and number of sarsens compared to bluestones that were dressed would leave far more sarsen chippings.