Stone Henge-Hog
September 28, 2008 - 11:02 pmMany curious artefacts have been brought to light from beneath the earth of Stonehenge and the surrounding landscape over the years, artefacts such as the engraved chalk plaques, the “Stonehenge Ceramic Object” and the inscribed tablet of tin that was discovered in the ruins during the reign of Henry VIII. In addition, there are the curious Mesolithic pits to the northwest of Stonehenge and the huge tree that once stood in the Avenue on the approach to Stonehenge, but I’m just not aware of any idol, statuette or figurine that’s ever been discovered there. However, during the course of the Stonehenge Riverside Project’s excavations this year, the archaeologists were digging to the west of Stonehenge in what’s come to be known as the Palisade Ditch. While they were doing so, they unearthed the amazing creature in the photograph above, which at first sight, when viewed from the front, seems like a pig with floppy ears, but when this object’s seen from all the other angles (see below) it’s clear that the animal is a hedgehog. All things considered, the name Stone Henge-Hog seems appropriate, so that’s how I’ll refer to it from now on.
The discovery came about when the archaeologists were excavating the earth from the ditch and they uncovered the top of what was clearly a human skull belonging to a child. The coroner was informed and when permission was granted the next day to unearth the remains, the careful excavation of this infant’s grave continued. Judging from the size of the bones, the remains were of a child aged roughly three years old, who’d been reverentially laid to rest on his or her right side at the bottom of the ditch. When I was working at the Dark Ages site of Hamwic in Southampton in the winter of 2000, I excavated a rubbish pit and discovered a child’s jawbone, something that put me in a melancholy frame of mind because I naturally couldn’t help wondering what grim sequence of events had to these remains ending up in such a desolate place. I know the bare minimum about the burial of this child at Stonehenge, but there can be nothing worse in the world of humans, or animals for that matter, than to witness the death of your offspring and to have to finally let them go and release them forever into the cold embrace of the grave.
So, it’s not difficult to envisage the raw emotion and harrowing grief that would have accompanied the death of this child, and his or her subsequent burial during what I understand was the Late Bronze Age or Early Iron Age. On balance, I subscribe to the theory that Stonehenge was first and foremost a place of the dead, but as I’ve written elsewhere, it’s not sufficient to view the monument solely as a place of shadows, spirits and ancestor worship. Of course, I’m not possessed of the ability to gaze back into the past with 20/20 vision, but it seems to me that if Stonehenge was a place of death to our ancestors, then it’s highly likely that it would have been a place steeped in profound sorrow.
This sensation may well have been ameliorated to some extent by the bereaved gazing up at the stars with some expectancy and hope that there was another life up there somewhere, possibly on the Moon, or else as one of the tiny, cold fires that burned in the dark heavens. As the archaeologists gradually cleared away the soil, they discovered the chalk figurine roughly halfway down the child’s body, suggesting that it may have been left there clutched in the tiny hands. Of course, I’m sure there’ll be no end of argument as to what the precise function and significance of this figurine was, but it’s hard not to see it as a child’s favourite plaything, lovingly carved from chalk by a doting father, then placed in the grave to keep his child company in the afterlife, or as the great Roman poet Catullus wrote “Nunc it per iter tenebricosum illud, unde negant reddire quemquam” – “now he goes down that shadowy path from which they say no one returns…”
Stonehenge was undoubtedly the scene of violent death on at least two occasions when we consider the Sentinel found in the ditch and the man from the Saxon era who’d been beheaded, while I don’t doubt that there were many more, both human and animal, throughout prehistory. If we think of it as a place of the dead or as a royal cemetery, then this too has melancholy overtones, while the phantasmal notion that the sick, injured and diseased laboriously made their way to Stonehenge in the vain hope of a cure for their ills hardly brightens the picture or banishes the shadows.
So, amid the aura of gloom that surrounds and permeates this incredible monument, it comes as a beam of light to find a child’s toy lovingly placed with the tiny corpse to keep him or her amused and keep him or her company through eternity. I’m not aware of hedgehogs having any significance in any pagan tradition, nor have I ever heard of hedgehogs mentioned in connection with Stonehenge, so this discovery must rank as yet another unique and baffling aspect of the most famous and instantly recognisable prehistoric monument on Earth.
It seems obvious that Stone Henge-Hog is a child’s plaything and to my eyes, it possesses a real charm and an innocent beauty. The only other possible function for such a thing that springs to mind is as some kind of talisman to keep away the disintegration of the body, on the grounds that hedgehogs eat worms and worms in their turn are part and parcel of the consuming grave. However, this naturally begs the question of why no other chalk hedgehogs have been found. When the antiquarians were busy breaking into barrows, I suppose it’s not out of the question that one of the labourers hired to do the hard work may have discarded a chalk figurine encrusted with soil thinking it to be rubble, but this is just me casting about and thinking out loud about this curious find.
Hedgehogs have long been used as food by rolling them in clay, then baking them to remove the spines, but I find it hard to envisage this creature being placed in a child’s grave to provide symbolic sustenance in an afterlife. I understand that they’re largely nocturnal creatures, so it may have been placed there as a guide in the dark, or else they have a reputation for killing adders by biting the tails and forcing the snake to gradually dash itself to death on the spines – I don’t know, so this is all just speculation.
The only other thing that comes to mind is that hedgehogs roll into a ball to protect themselves from harm, which is broadly similar to the curled-up position in which many human remains from this area have been discovered. Hedgehogs notably hibernate and sleep through the long nights of the winter, so it may have been a symbol of rebirth and reawakening, but again, I really don’t know. What I do know is that the person who lovingly created Stone Henge-Hog went to great pains to carve an endearing creature from the chalk of the plain, complete with snout, coat, possibly eyes and little legs, and that this tiny creature was of enormous value to the child with whom it was buried and to the grieving parents who placed it there.
Otherwise, if you know anything about hedgehogs in art, religion, folklore, mythology or any other field that might be relevant, or if you think you’ve spotted something about this carving that others have missed, then please write in and share it with the rest of us – as always, all information is gratefully received and posted up for everyone to see.
All the words worth reading by Catullus, Pink Floyd and Black Sabbath.
Palisade excavation photographs copyright Pete Glastonbury 2008.
Stone Henge-Hog came to light as a result of the careful work by archaeologists working on the Stonehenge Riverside Project.
We’re very grateful to Chris Kerns for permission to use his photographs of this unique discovery.
UPDATE: Rather than write a new post, I’m very grateful to Jasmine for writing in with information about the folklore on hedgehogs, which I’ve posted up as a comment below. In addition to this, we’ve also had some more information from one of the Stonehenge Riverside Project archaeologists who excavated this strange creature, so rather than paraphrase what Chris had to say, I’ll reproduce his message in its entirety:
The “hedge-pig” was actually found near the top of the pit in which the infant was buried. Actually it was almost directly above the complete pot and associated animal (unknown what kind of animal in the range of a pig or sheep) burial within the pit. It was a rather stratigraphically complex pit. It seems plausible that the “hedge-pig” may have been place on the top of the burial pit. This may have been an offering or some sort of protective iconography, or possibly just some sort of grave marker. I’m sure eventually there will be some thoroughly thought out theories of its purpose, but for now as I know you understand much of it is just speculation. I don’t think this information changes your blog too much, but small details can sometimes be rather important. Anyways, hope this helps you out.
UPDATE: The SRP are currently referring to the animal represented by this figurine as a “hedge-pig”, but if anyone can discern any other creature in this carving besides a hedgehog, then please feel free to submit a comment explaining precisely why.
Suggestions involving giraffes, oarfish or albatross are highly unlikely to be published, unless they’re particularly amusing, convincing (unlikely) and/or inventive.
UPDATE: I’m most grateful to Jasmine for pointing me towards this picture of a gold, Ptolemaic hedgehog pendant with rhomboidal or lozenge shapes covering its body, presumably put there to represent the creature’s spines.
Gold Ptolemaic hedgehog pendant
42 Responses to “Stone Henge-Hog”
I see a Pig..
Tony
It looks a bit like one directly from the front, but from the front and above, especially with the shape of the snout, it looks like a hedgehog. There’s no curly tail, it’s got short stumpy legs and apart from anything else, it seems very flat and fat to be a pig.
Wow, what an intriguing post. All sorts of questions come to mind, generated by this Palisade enigma. Why is it such an elusive part of the Stonehenge landscape?
First a comment on the henge-hog. When I first read Dennis’s post my first reaction was similar to his: that this poignant find must have been a much-loved toy that was placed with the body by distraught parents. But the placement of the carving (according to the update) seems to make that unlikely. As it’s placed above the body, and as the hedgehog hibernates, coming back to life, as it were, in the spring, it seems more likely that it acts rather like the cross over a Christian grave: it acts as a signal of hope for eternal life. And I can understand how keenly the parents of the Neolithic child must have wanted that.
But the Palisade. I’m amazed at how little is known of it. I revisited my base set of reference books, and I found the most cursory of references in Burl’s Stonehenge, and nothing in Castleden’s or Pitts’ books. However, Mike Pitts does talk about similar palisades at West Kennett, and he uses a term I like, megadendric. At 20′ high, and extending for 2+ miles (allegedly) it’s certainly mega. And as it’s supposed to be contemporaneous with Phase 1, it must have great significance.
As for significance, I think it’s significant that the excavation uncovered a burial. Let’s say that the palisade ditch is 3km in length, and the excavation is 10m (a guess, from Pete’s photos.) That means that only 0.3% was excavated … yet they found a burial. That seems even more of an incredibly lucky hit than finding the Mesolithic post holes through the car park excavation.
I know absolutely nothing of how the palisade was formed (and I was puzzled not to see any post pipes in the bottom of the ditch) so I can’t estimate the spacing of the posts. But is it possible that the Palisade possibly acted as a linear cemetery? Posts could have acted as markers, signals to the gods in the sky, or a bridge between earth and sky. The hedgehog would have been the parents’ own addition, as an extra plea to the deities.
This would have been before the development of the henge as we know it today, with the introduction of stone to represent the domain of the dead.
I’m afraid this post is very much in the thinking-aloud vein but, from what I’ve gleaned so far, the Palisade seems very much more important than the publicity it’s received so far would indicate!
Alex, we’re all thinking out loud here and I was very interested by what you had to say. Actually, there were two child burials close to each other and in a previous post – I can’t find it for the moment – there’s a picture of another Iron Age burial of a young man in what I’m certain is this Palisade ditch. I’m sure there’s a great deal more to come on this subject, but this is what Pete and I know for now – when we hear anything else, we’ll do our best to post it up, of course.
Dennis covered the iron age burial in the ” Stonehenge Sentinel, Tanith & Druid update” (August).
I was introduced to the palisade ditch by Orion J Beadling. He felt it could have a part to play in his ditch/moat theory. I think we agreed that it probably does not, but nevertheless it only goes to show how knowledge can germinate from the ideas of others and that is why Eternal Idol does such an important job.
I repeat my post under the topic “A host of intriguing discoveries by the Stonehenge Riverside Project..” The Vatchers found post holes butting each other in the underpass area but Evans, excavating near the elbow of the Avenue, did not. (The proximity of the ditch with a key point of the Avenue must be more than coincidence).
I am confused about Evans’ excavation because “Stonehenge in its Landscape” mentions posts being slid into the ditch (compacting the soil/acting as a ramp) but no impressions were found..”
My feelings remain that a wooden feature so close (75m) to the domain of the dead (i.e. Stonehenge) should be explained by those who adhere to the living/dead theory.
I entirely agree with Alex. I feel the ditch could prove an essential indicator as to what Stonehenge was about – it joins the Avenue at the elbow (and that must be more than a coincidence) and a palisade indicates very much the involvement of the living at the monument.
Alex, I’ve just been reading over your last post and it what you have to say naturally interests me. However, from what Pete and I understand, this Palisade or enclosure to the west of Stonehenge is thought to date from the late Bronze Age to the early Iron Age, so despite all this recent confusion over dates, Stonehenge would certainly have been standing when the children died and the figurine was put in place. At least, that’s how I understand it.
I do not think there is any specific dating evidence for the Palisade. It is “thought” to be Neolithic – the Iron Age burial was cut into the ditch.
The palisade ditch (or gate ditch) runs from the south west of Stonehenge to the Avenue elbow then perhaps turning north towards the Cursus although this seems lost now. It passes within 75m of to the north west of Stonehenge. This site may help : http://www.jungsteinsite.uni-kiel.de/2000_gibson/hindwell.htm
Harsh although it may seem, the context of the child’s burial along with carbon dating may help date it more accurately. It will be very interesting to see what the SRP makes of this but I must say I am not comfortable in any dealings with human remains – who is to say we now know best in these matters?
“Stonehenge Sentinel, Tanith & Druid update” (August) was in fact June?
Rgds
John
Ah, something I forgot to mention – when Pete and I visited the palisade excavations, one of the archaeologists in charge told us that they thought this area had possibly been dug in the Late Bronze Age or early Iron Age on account of its shape. This might seem a bit vague, but the person we spoke to was good enough to think out loud and at least offer an opinion, although Pete might remember more?
I’ve just noticed what look like two or possibly three lozenge shapes on the rear view, or is it my imagination?
It does rather look like there’s a zig-zagging pattern or something rhomboidal or lozengey going on, indeed.
Thanks for that, Jas – it’s good to hear I’m not the only one. I’d looked at it for ages and not seen anything, then all of sudden, the shapes leapt out at me.
This is a quote from “Stonehenge in its Landscape” page 482.
(I hope it is allowed to be reproduced as it is very interesting that over 10 years ago this was considered to be important but it has taken to now to excavate it……….
” There remains one other as yet undated feature of the landscape which, if it does date to this period, is likely to alter fundamentally our perception of the setting in which Stonehenge stood and the ways in which the area around the monument was used. This feature is the Palisade Ditch, a length of which was excavated by Mrs Vatcher and is reported on in this volume.
As explained in Chapter 5, it was hoped to produce a terminus ante quem in the Early Bronze Age for this feature by the radiocarbon dating of an inhumation cut into its secondary filling, but this date proved unexpectedly late (i.e. Iron Age, see Chapter 8). When first published as a note, it was suggested that the feature was later Bronze Age in date (Vatcher and Vatcher 1968, 108), but there is no positive evidence for this and the later Bronze Age pottery is in the upper fill only” ……………….
Once a date is “known” for the ditch then perhaps its relevance can be assessed properly. However already there is : a body of a deer? (reported here); the Iron Age burial; and the burial of the two infants (also reported here). For a feature which has been largely ignored archaeologically, it seems already to have at minimum some importance in the scheme of things.
PS why can’t the SRP have a web site like the following link?
http://www.orkneyjar.com/archaeology/ringofbrodgar/intro.htm
Surely it is not because our they are such sensitive souls that criticism from the occasional eccentric is too much for them?
PPS: I can see the lozenges and if they were to prove real would be a major discovery given the gold breastplate ex Bush Barrow. On the other hand it seems it could just be a fortuitously shaped block of chalk in which we see what we want?
Regarding Dennis’s and John’s comments on the dating of the Palisade: I’d assumed it was from the early history of Stonehenge, but it does seem to be uncertain. Burl says of the building of Phase 1: “The earthwork was a secret place. Concealing it from the north was a long and high barrier lying southwest/northeast and extending for at least 900m.” So much for the 3km length, which I retrieved from a recent press report. Massive palisade barriers were erected at West Kennet, attributed by Mike Pitts simply to the “Neolithic”.
The Greater Cursus seems with more certainty to pre-date Phase 1, and the Palisade would have screened the Stonehenge site from the Cursus and any activity there. I think Burl has it right when he asserts that Stonehenge was “a secret place”. Just one more reason why we’re all so fascinated by it!
The lozenge / diamond shapes are clear and must surely have been deliberately carved.
It may well be that this shape had special significance, as there is a symbolic similarity with the gold diamond on the chest of the tall man in Bush Barrow. He was lying in a north-south direction. Do we know what direction this child is lying in?
The symbolism of the gold diamond may have been that of a shield, protecting the deceased, and this carved figure may also have that same meaning.
By the way, I prefer to use the word “diamond” not “lozenge”. A diamond brings to mind something precious and valuable, even sacred, whereas a lozenge is something that you suck for a sore throat.
May I advertise my book: “The Bones of Stonehenge” http://www.brontovox.co.uk
In the book I do consider the symbolism of various shapes, including the diamond. It may well be that it has the general meaning of being holy or sacred, but with secondary meanings such as protecting and shielding.
Thank you very much for that, Hugo, while I’m pleased that at least two other people beside me can see the shapes, so it’ll be interesting to see what happens when the figurine’s cleaned up and interesting to hear what the experts on the SRP make of it.
I might add that I agree with you whole-heartedly concerning the terms ‘diamond’ and ‘lozenge’ shapes with their modern connotations, at least. I’d never thought to look it up before, but my Concise Oxford Dictionary tells me that lozenge is a mediaeval English word that derives from ‘losenge’, which is Old French, ultimately deriving from a word of Gaulish or Iberian origin.
Otherwise, I have a feeling that the child was buried with their head to the north, but I’m not sure about this, so I’ll try to check it out.
On looking into the origin of the word lozenge, it looks like it could be more apt than we may think:
Forget
1. a small, flavored tablet made from sugar or syrup, often medicated, originally diamond-shaped.
2. Geometry Now Rare. diamond (def. 8).
And perhaps think more
3. Heraldry.
a. a diamond-shaped charge.
b. a diamond-shaped device bearing the arms of a woman.
[Gaulish *lausa flat stone + -enge < Gmc -inga -ing3]
Also:
Probably from a pre-Roman Celtic language, perhaps Iberian *lausa or Gaul. *lausa “flat stone” (cf. Prov. lausa, Sp. losa, Catalan llosa, Port. lousa “slab, tombstone”), from a pre-Celtic language. (Online Etymology Dictionary)
It was found near those hanging flat stones – of course it’s almost impossible to sex prepubescent individuals osteologically, but my money’s on the likelihood of the remains being female…
See I managed to omit the salient point in regards to the possible feminine interpretation of the skeletal remains, as lozenge also ‘A form of the escutcheon used by women instead of the shield which is used by men’ (Same source).
“The power of thought” The magic of the mind!” I set this site up with a number of aims in mind, perhaps the foremost being to explore reasonable possibilities and to learn from the thoughts and ideas of others….I’m in seventh heaven!
I draw kind readers’ attention to http://www.myebaystore.com/item_pages/31492c.htm. This Ptolemaic (305 – 30 BC) 22k gold hedgehog amulet/pendant also displays lozenge or rhomboidal design we see on the above carved animal.
I also draw your attention to http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/picture06302003.htm, a 2040-1640 BC faience furzepig and images of hedgehogs on http://prometheus.med.utah.edu/~bwjones/C1705165967/E20070615092843/index.html that display similar characteristics.
Just some interesting correspondences and images that initial research served up… I’m sure further investigation wil yield more surprising results.
As an aside the site below deals with the Bowl Barrow breastplate (i.e diamond/lozenge) and intricacies of the design
And a very interesting aside it is, too. I must admit, I’ve not had a good look at this gentleman’s work yet and I was a bit doubtful about what I’d heard of it. However, in light of the staggering new benchmark for credibility set by the recent Timewatch, I’ll most certainly be having a far closer look at some of these other ideas when I’ve got the time. If that sounds insulting to anyone, then I can only say that it’s not meant to be, but it’s just that I’ve had quite a jolt to the system and I now have a slightly different world view, which I suppose is no bad thing.
The lozenge/diamond motif is a tiny hook on which to hang a huge topic, but this seems as good a place as any … and I find it extremely interesting. It’s the subject of art, religion and the Neolithic mind.
The chalk hedgehog does appear to be covered in a grid of lozenges (that’s the term used in the literature.) And a lozenge grid (especially in Jasmine’s Ptolemaic picture) is not a bad stylized representation of how hedgehogs’ spines do cross at different angles.
But it seems as though the grid and the lozenge are more than just a convenient way for the Neolithic artist to suggest a hedgehog. Research has been done into how prehistoric people viewed the world, and especially Neolithic people (see “Inside the Neolithic Mind”, by David Lewis Williams and David Pearce – Thames and Hudson). According to the research, it was largely through altered states of consciousness that early peoples built their ideas of the world and its place in the cosmos. It sounds far-fetched, but it’s convincingly argued through connection with hard-wired neurological constructs that we all have. These are triggered by the trance-like states of an altered state of consciousness, and the result is a standard set of patterns or visions. These include grids of lozenges, zigzag patterns, arcs and spirals. (A spiral manifestation we’ve all heard of today is the tunnel/vortex of a near-death experience.) Anyway, these patterns are found consistently through all ancient cultures.
These altered states can be triggered by, say, prayer for Christians, meditation, induced pain (American red Indians), hallucinogenic drugs (many African and South American cultures) and rhythmic drumming and dancing (Aborigines, and many others.)
Without being able to do justice here to all the ideas, these altered states give access to insights into a sort of mystical or spiritual world, which is of enormous concern to non-literate people who have no other means of explaining the workings of the physical world and cosmos around them. The patterns play a huge part in their art and, in turn, in their spirituality and world view – their cosmos.
Without trying to explain the meaning of the lozenge, it should be unsurprising that we find it on a carved hedgehog, an animal which may quite likely have had its own symbolism of rebirth. And as John Witts said, the Bowl Barrow breastplate has the lozenge shape – and it’s also repeated within it in a grid, together with zigzag patterns. This piece must have had powerful symbolism.
One last comment. The book makes a compelling case for the spiral representing a tiered view of the cosmos, something that’s familiar to religions throughout the world. (The Christian Heaven/Earth/Hell model is a simpler, three-layered example.) We see spirals and concentric rings in rock art in many places. Here’s an intriguing thought: suppose Stonehenge is actually a representation of the Neolithic cosmos, a spiral/concentric ring model made real? I haven’t fully thought this through, but if it was the cosmos made real on Salisbury Plain, then MPP’s idea of Domains of the Living and Dead could be fully realized here. The journey of ashes or body up the Avenue would be completed by a symbolic journey through – or round – the layered cosmos, finally ending up in the centre, the true Domain of the Ancestors, the ultimate layer of the cosmos.
And I didn’t think I’d end up here, after starting with a hedgehog! The spiral/ring cosmos idea might be a further aid to understanding Stonehenge’s rationale – do any Eternal Idol readers know if it’s been explored in connection with Stonehenge before?
I know very little about hallucinogenics, but it’s certainly an interesting notion. However, while I quoted Catullus earlier when he spoke about his girlfriend’s pet sparrow ‘going down that shady path from which they say no one returns’, this is a path that very few care to venture onto.
I know of one Senior Archaeologist who’s written a fascinating paper that’ll never see the light of day, and I worked with A Nother who was similarly interested. I’m sure it’s possible to recover traces from prehistoric containers, but in my experience, they’re all scoured clean – sometimes several times – and no tests are carried out on what they may once have held.
I don’t have the page number to hand, but there’s a fairly salutary example given in Hengeworld of the fate that awaits those who try to pursue this avenue of exploration as professional archaeologists.
The idea of Stonehenge as some kind of a representation of a Neolithic or Bronze Age cosmos is also interesting and Prof John North’s written a great deal about this in his book, including the admittedly faint notion that the Y and Z holes were dug as spirals, but I wouldn’t be remotely surprised if there were a lot more aspects to consider in the general vein.
Is it inevitable that the deeper you dig the less sure you become about what the hell was going on at Stonehenge?
I take a pragmatic view and feel what happened had a relevance (beneficial) to the priesthood and/or the community it served. That may bave been physical or emotional – after that what else is there?
As for geometry then Stonehenge may be whatever in hindsight you choose to see? But, if this it is a lozenge on the piece of chalk (hedgehog) then it must be relevant given the Bush barrow breastplate.
And Dennis this could be a discovery you are actually credited with:)
I’d far prefer to know a great many things about Stonehenge and not be able to make sense of them, than to know a little and believe I had the answer – on which subject, one of my favourite expressions is “Ignorance might be bliss, but it’s still ignorance!”
It reminds me of a long time ago when I was a child, when so many things were intensely frustrating because they were so alien and because I never believed I’d get to grips with them, but over the course of time, most of them eventually fell into place even if it took decades. I’m just grateful that such an eternally fascinating structure as Stonehenge exists, because I never tire of pondering about the ruins and trying to put myself in the place of the people who built them and who performed their various ceremonies there.
As for being credited with any discovery, trust me when I say that this is not something I lose any sleep over! Credit where it’s due, I say, and every dog has its day…
The first reference I have seen as to Hedgehogs is that they were part the Mesolithic diet at Starr Carr.
Stonehenge may be even older than we think, a new excavation has found. The famous “bluestones” which now form the smallest of the circles may have once stood around its perimeter, centuries earlier.
The new evidence comes from investigation of one of the 56 “Aubrey Holes” (named after the seventeenth-century antiquary who first noted them), which lie just inside the ditch and bank of the original henge monument, constructed in the early third millennium BC. Re-excavation of Aubrey Hole 7, originally dug in 1920, showed a layer of crushed chalk at the bottom that suggested it had once held a heavy stone.
“This had been missed by archaeologists twice before: it seems likely that similar evidence still survives in other Aubrey Holes”, said Mike Pitts, one of the excavation directors. “We propose that very early in Stonehenge’s history, 56 Welsh bluestones stood in a ring 87 metres (285 feet) across.” This early stone circle would date to 3000 BC, seven centuries before Stonehenge reached its present configuration.
“The new evidence from Aubrey Hole 7 suggests megaliths were present throughout Stonehenge’s existence” Mr. Pitts said. “Standing stones and burial of the dead may have been prominent aspects of Stonehenge’s meaning and purpose for a millennium”.
In the 1950s, when the last Aubrey Hole investigation was carried out, it was suggested that they held a ring of timber uprights, something seen elsewhere, including the nearby site of Durrington Walls and also at Arminghall in Norfolk. Professor Mike Parker Pearson noted, however, that in the 1920s it had been suggested that the bluestones had stood in the holes.
Many of the Aubrey Holes held cremated human remains, and the reason for the dig this August was to recover more bone for analysis; the project was separate from the trench inside the main circle of giant sarsen stones, dug this spring and recently the subject of a BBC [ital]Timewatch[end ital] programme raising the possibility that Stonehenge was an ancient therapeutic centre ([ital]The Times[end ital] ,DATE) (LISA: please add citation from last few weeks about S’henge as A&E department!).
The re-evaluation “has sweeping implications for our understanding of Stonehenge”, Mr. Pitts said. It means that at the least, the bluestones were transported from Wales at a much earlier date than hitherto accepted, with implications for the organization of Neolithic society in Britain five thousand years ago. Designing a monument using exotic materials, acquiring them and constructing this putative early stone circle argues for social control, and knowledge of distant domains, more complex than we have envisaged.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/court_and_social/article4909050.ece
If what is known is only considered when it fits into an established theory then it is not ignorance but misinformation.
Perhaps there is now a need to look at why flints were so evident in the ditch bottom? It is considered to be the result of opportunistic knapping because the bank, not the ditch, was the important feature. However the ditch was used for “offerings” (some much older than the dating of the ditch) and burials so this ritual/religious function could have precluded remnants of industrial activity?
Clearly another major dig is needed if information rather than guesswork is to be the basis of the understanding of Stonehenge.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/10/09/eastonehenge109.xml
“Now a team behind the latest dig suggest the standing stones were erected much earlier than previously thought, in 3,000 BC, and used for cremation burial throughout their history and not for healing”
“The second significant finding was from radiocarbon dating of human remains found on the site from between 2,300 and 3,000 BC. Researchers concluded that this meant cremation burial was going on long after the standing stones had been erected”
Both quotes from the same article – are you, like me, confused?
Sorry I did not paste the ending………….
How do subsequent burials prove the stones were not used for healing? And what relevance has the setting of 56 holes in a precise (i.e accurate to a couple of feet) circle of 284 feet to the dead?
I don’t see how some compressed chalk on the bottom of on e Aubrey Hole can be taken to mean that “contacts with Wales were established much earlier than previously thought.” There appears to be some loopy logic in all of that — since we don’t even know why or how the chalk was compressed, or what (if anything) may have been placed in the hole. Would it be too much to ask for some evidence here?
http://www.billbevanphotography.co.uk/imgs/gallery/3635/3635_135120741448c44c4fdc346.jpg
here’s a photo of Aubrey hole 7 after excavation.
You can see the damage to the hole where the stone(?) was levered out.
PeteG
from the latest issue of British Archaeology mag
“CHILD BURIED WITH UNIQUE CARVED PIG
A tiny carved chalk pig was buried with the remains of a young child
over 2,000 years ago within sight of Stonehenge. The bones of the infant
were in a pot dated to 450-100BC (Iron Age). The carving may have had a
ritual significance or have been a toy”
Mr Pitts says PIG so thats that then…
If, by “unique”, Mr Pitts means that it’s a pig that’s one of a kind, then he’s absolutely right. It’s the first pig I’ve seen that’s not shaped at all like a pig, but shaped just like a hedgehog. It’s the first pig I’ve seen without a curly tail, but with a “rear end” that looks like a hedgehog’s. It’s the first pig I’ve seen with no legs on the outside, but little legs hidden away underneath just like a hedgehog’s. It’s the first pig I’ve seen with a little pointy nose that looks just like a hedgehog’s and it’s also the first pig I’ve seen with what look like lozenge shapes carved onto it that are just like other shapes carved on other ancient hedgehogs. I’m also 100% positive that it was a “ritual object” as well. Or possibly a toy.
I don’t mind vigorous disagreements on Eternal Idol, but you’re going to dare to criticise Mr Pitts, then you’ll have the common courtesy to get your facts right beforehand and keep a civil tongue in your head.
What?
If BritArch says it’s a pig, then it’s a pig and I’d agree with them even if it was shaped like 15 anacondas doing the conga. Hedgehog? What were we thinking of?
This is the second iron age burial in the palisade ditch – the Vatchers found the first near the car park.
I don’t see how the only view that looks like a pig (i.e from the front) should determine the species. Perhaps it will be used to confirm Established views about Stonehenge – the SRP detailing how important pigs were to the “feasting” at Durrington.
From “Circles and Standing Stones” by Evan Hadingham (1977).
” These pits known as the Aubrey Holes………cremated bones were associated with many of the holes but this can hardly be a complete explanation of their function. The holes were set out with such accuracy along the circumference of a circle 284 ft 6 ins in diameter that the largest error in their spacing is 21 ins. This is a great deal less than the cumulative error we would expect if the holes had simply been measured of from pair to pair; evidently some other geometrical method must have been used.
“If the precision and purpose of the Aubrey Holes should seem baffling the mystery is deepened by perhaps the most inexplicable of all earth circles….. Maumbury Rings….. (Dorchester)…. inside the ditch diggers located a circle of 44 shafts dug in places to the astonishing depth of 35 feet down into the solid chalk. Timber posts can scarcely have been intended to fit holes of this depth while in many case nothing at all was found at the bottom of the shafts. Clearly a ring of pits signified something more than a functional means of disposing of the dead”
The writer was confident in the seventies that excavations had clearly established that the Aubrey Holes never held posts or stones. So how convincing is the evidence that they were stone holes as 3000 BC would make them concurrent with the digging of the ditch and there is no evidence of bluestone in its primary fill?
This from the same excellent book (Circles and Standing Stones Evan Hadingham – pp 41-2) ” Maumbury Rings is one of sevral large circles where a special variety of pottery is found……..known as Grooved Ware”. “Other than the fact that this pottery appears to imitate the form of wickerwork baskets little can be said of its origins except for the interesting possibiility of Boyne influences in some of the patterns; there are triangles and LOZENGES for example reminiscent of Newgrange….”
An illustatration from the following site:
Sorry to find that the photo of the hedge-pig is no longer available, I’d hoped to show this remarkable figure to a few people. Truly outstanding – a stark reminder of the humanity involved.
[...] der Uni Kiel geht an irakische Studentinnen. Kommentieren. Name (required) Mail (will not be …Eternal Idol Blog Archive Stone Henge-Hog – The Greatest Story Never Told … This site may help : [...]
Care to comment?
Hi Dennis. Fascinating piece. All strengths to Mike Parker-Pearson’s excavation, I say!
In Scotland, Lewis Spence noted that folklore has them connected to the spirit of the corn, the wee beast was met by reapers in the fields, ‘had the appearance of gray stone… could change its shape and lived amongst the corn’. He concludes the hedgehog was identified thus as he was ‘certainly a “surrogate” of the earth-monster.’
Also Albertus Magnus noted that “The hedgehog, which lives in its lair in the ground, indicates when storms of wind are coming. It makes three or four exits to its lair or dwelling and when it senses that the wind is going to blow from a certain direction, it closes the corresponding hole.”
With the windswept fields of grain crops being hurriedly taken in by farmers here before it is beaten down to the earth by the gusts and gales, it seems that the furzepig may be a beast of the agricultural field as much as it is of nature’s hedgerows…
Best as ever,
Jas