Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T11:38:14.309Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Analytical Surveys of Stonehenge and its Environs, 2009–2013: Part 2 – the Stones

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2015

David Field ,
Hugo Anderson-Whymark ,
Neil Linford ,
Martyn Barber ,
Mark Bowden ,
Paul Linford ,
Peter Topping ,
Marcus Abbott ,
Paul Bryan  and
Deborah Cunliffe
...Show all authors
David Field
Affiliation:
2 West Nolands, Yatesbury, Wiltshire, SN11 8YD [email protected]
Hugo Anderson-Whymark
Affiliation:
University of York, Department of Archaeology, The King’s Manor, York, Y01 7EP
Neil Linford
Affiliation:
Historic England, Fort Cumberland, Fort Cumberland Road, Portsmouth, Hampshire, PO4 9LD
Martyn Barber
Affiliation:
Historic England, The Engine House, Firefly Avenue, Swindon SN2 2EH
Mark Bowden
Affiliation:
Historic England, The Engine House, Firefly Avenue, Swindon SN2 2EH
Paul Linford
Affiliation:
Historic England, Fort Cumberland, Fort Cumberland Road, Portsmouth, Hampshire, PO4 9LD
Peter Topping
Affiliation:
School of History, Classics and Archaeology, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Non-invasive survey in the Stonehenge ‘Triangle’, Amesbury, Wiltshire, has highlighted a number of features that have a significant bearing on the interpretation of the site. Geophysical anomalies may signal the position of buried stones adding to the possibility of former stone arrangements, while laser scanning has provided detail on the manner in which the stones have been dressed; some subsequently carved with axe and dagger symbols. The probability that a lintelled bluestone trilithon formed an entrance in the north-east is signposted. This work has added detail that allows discussion on the question of whether the sarsen circle was a completed structure, although it is by no means conclusive in this respect. Instead, it is suggested that it was built as a façade, with other parts of the circuit added and with an entrance in the south.

Résumé

Prospection analytique de Stonehenge et de ses environs, 2009–2013: deuxième partie, les pierres, de David Field, Hugo Anderson-Whymark, Neil Linford, Martyn Barber, Mark Bowden, Paul Linford et Peter Topping

Une prospection non-invasive dans le ‘Triangle’ de Stonehenge, à Amesbury, Wiltshire, a mis en lumière un certain nombre de vestiges qui ont une portée significative sur l’interprétation du site. Il se peut que des anomalies géophysiques indiquent la présence de pierres ensevelies, ce qui renforce la possibilité de présence d’anciens arrangements de pierres, tandis que des lasers scanneurs ont révélé des détails sur la manière dont les pierres avaient été taillées, certaines sculptées plus tard avec des symboles de haches et de poignards. La probabilité qu’un trilithe de pierre bleue avec linteau constituait une entrée au nord-est est indiquée. Ces travaux ont ajouté des éléments qui permettent de discuster de la question de savoir si le cerle de grès Sarsen était une structure complète, bien qu’ils ne soient en aucun cas concluants sur ce sujet. Au lieu de cela, nous proposons qu’il avait été construit comme façade, d’autres parties du circuit ayant été ajoutées, ainsi qu’une entrée au sud.

Zussamenfassung

Analytische Surveys von Stonehenge und seiner Umgebung, 2009–2013: Teil 2, die Steine, von David Field, Hugo Anderson-Whymark, Neil Linford, Martyn Barber, Mark Bowden, Paul Linford und Peter Topping

Nicht-invasive Untersuchungen im Stonehenge-“Dreieck”, Amesbury, Wiltshire, ließen mehrere Befunde erkennen, die für die Interpretation des Ortes von Bedeutung sind. Geophysikalische Anomalien dürften die Position verborgener Steine anzeigen, was die Möglichkeit älterer Steinanordnungen wahrscheinlicher werden lässt, während Laserscans Details liefern zur Art und Weise, in der die Steine zugerichtet wurden, von denen einige später mit Axt- und Dolch-Symbolen versehen wurden. Die Wahrscheinlichkeit, dass ein mit Sturz versehener Blaustein-Trilith einen Eingang im Nordosten formte, wird angezeigt. Diese Arbeiten erbrachten weitere Details, die eine Diskussion der Frage erlauben, ob der Kreis aus Sarsensteinen eine vervollständigte Struktur bildete, obwohl sie in dieser Hinsicht keineswegs abschließend ist. Stattdessen wird angeregt, dass der Kreis als Fassade gebaut worden war, mit weiteren angefügten Teilen des Umlaufs und einem Eingang im Süden.

Resumen

Prospecciones analíticas de Stonehenge y sus entornos, 2009–2013: parte 2, las -piedras, por David Field, Hugo Anderson-Whymark, Neil Linford, Martyn Barber, Mark Bowden, Paul Linford y Peter Topping

La prospección no invasiva del ‘Triángulo’ de Stonehenge, Amesbury, Wilshire, ha puesto de relieve numerosas estructuras de gran relevancia para la interpretación del sitio. Las anomalías geofísicas podrían señalar la posición de piedras sepultadas añadidas a otros posibles acondicionamientos pétreos, al tiempo que el láser escáner ha aportado detalles sobre la manera en la que estas piedras han sido dispuestas, algunas posteriormente grabadas con símbolos de hachas y puñales. Se anuncia la posibilidad de que un trilito adintelado de roca alóctona formara una entrada en el lado noreste. Este trabajo ha aportado detalles que permiten abordar la cuestión de si el ‘sarsen circle’ (‘círculos de los moros’) llegó a ser una estructura completa, aunque no existen datos concluyentes al respecto. En lugar de esto, se sugiere que fue construido como fachada, con otras partes añadidas y con una entrada en el sur.

Keywords

Stonehenge Trianglegeophysical surveybluestonesarsencarvingslaser scanning
Type
Articles
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , Volume 81 , December 2015 , pp. 125 - 148
Copyright
© The Prehistoric Society 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abbott, M. & Anderson-Whymark, H. 2012. Stonehenge Laser Scan: Archaeological Analysis Report. English Heritage Research Department Report Series 32–2012. Portsmouth: English Heritage Google Scholar
Ashbee, P. 1998. Stonehenge: Its possible non-completion, slighting and dilapidation. Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Magazine 91, 139–143 Google Scholar
ArchaeoEnvironment Ltd. 2011. Archaeological Assessment of 3d Laser Scanning of Stonehenge. Unpublished report for English Heritage, copy held in the English Heritage Archives, SwindonGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, R. J. C. 1956. Stonehenge. London: Hamish Hamilton Google Scholar
Atkinson, R. J. C. 1957. Worms and weathering. Antiquity 31, 219–223 Google Scholar
Atkinson, R. J. C. 1960. Stonehenge. London: Pelican Google Scholar
Atkinson, R. J. C. 1979. Stonehenge. Harmonsworth: Penguin Google Scholar
Banton, S., Bowden, M., Daw, T., Grady, D. & Soutar, S. 2014. Parchmarks at Stonehenge, July 2013. Antiquity 88, 733–739 Google Scholar
Barclay, E. 1895. Stonehenge and its Earthworks. London: D. Nutt Google Scholar
Barker, C. T. 1985. The long mounds of the Avebury region. Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Society Magazine 79, 7–38 Google Scholar
Bevins, R. E., Ixer, R. A. & Pearce, N. J. G. 2014. Carn Goedog is the likely major source of Stonehenge doleritic bluestones: evidence based on compatible element geochemistry and Principal Component Analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science 42, 179–193 Google Scholar
Bevins, R. E., Ixer, R. A., Webb, P. C. & Watson, J. S. 2012. Provenancing the rhyolitic and dacitic components of the Stonehenge landscape bluestone lithology: new petrographical and geochemical evidence. Journal of Archaeological Science 39, 1005–1019 Google Scholar
Blow, D. 1902. The architectural discoveries of 1901 at Stonehenge. Journal of the Royal Institute of British Architects 9 (3rd series), 121–142 Google Scholar
Bowden, M. C. B., Field, D. & Soutar, S. 2012. Stonehenge World Heritage Site Landscape Project: Lake Barrows, the Diamond and Normanton Gorse. English Heritage Research Report 29–2012. Swindon: English Heritage Google Scholar
Bowden, M. C. B., Barber, M., Field, D. & Soutar, S. in press. The Stonehenge Landscape: analysing the Stonehenge World Heritage Site. Swindon: English Heritage Google Scholar
Bowen, C. & Smith, I. 1977. Sarsen stones in Wessex: the Society’s first investigations in the Evolution of the Landscape project. Antiquaries Journal 57, 185–196 Google Scholar
Bradley, R. 2002. The excavation of an oval barrow beside Abingdon causewayed enclosure, Oxfordshire. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 58, 127–142 Google Scholar
Bryan, P. G. & Clowes, W. 1997. Surveying Stonehenge by photogrammetry. Photogrammetric Record 15, 739–751 Google Scholar
Burl, A. 1976. The Stone Circles of the British Isles. New Haven & London: Yale University Press Google Scholar
Castleden, R. 1987. The Stonehenge People. London & New York: Routledge Google Scholar
Cleal, R. M. J. & Walker, K. E. with Montague, R. 1995. Stonehenge in its Landscape: twentieth century excavations. Salisbury: English Heritage Google Scholar
Cunnington, R. H. 1935. Stonehenge and its Date. London: Methuen Google Scholar
Darvill, T. 2005. Stonehenge World Heritage Site: an Archaeological Research Framework. London & Bournemouth: English Heritage & Bournemouth University Google Scholar
Darvill, T. & Wainwright, G. 2009. Stonehenge excavations 2008. Antiquaries Journal 89, 1–19 Google Scholar
Darvill, T., Marshall, P., Parker Pearson, M. & Wainwright, G. 2012. Stonehenge remodelled. Antiquity 86, 1021–1040 Google Scholar
Eagles, B. & Field, D. 2004. William Cunnington and the long barrows of the River Wylye. In R. Cleal & J. Pollard (eds), Monuments and Material Culture, 47–67. Salisbury: Hobnob Press Google Scholar
English Heritage. 1995. Stonehenge and Neighbouring Monuments. London: English Heritage Google Scholar
Eriksen, P. 2008. The great mound of New Grange. Acta Archaeologia 79, 250–273 Google Scholar
Field, D. 2005. Some observations on perception, consolidation and change in a land of stones. In G. Brown, D. Field & D. McOmish (eds), The Avebury Landscape: aspects of field archaeology on the Marlborough Downs, 87–94. Oxford: Oxbow Books Google Scholar
Field, D., Linford, N., Anderson-Whymark, H., Barber, M., Bowden, M., Linford, P. & Topping, P. 2014. Analytical surveys of Stonehenge and its environs, 2009–2013: part 1 landscape and earthworks. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 80, 1–32 Google Scholar
Field, D. & Pearson, T. 2010. Stonehenge WHS Landscape Project: Stonehenge, Amesbury, Wiltshire. English Heritage Research Department Report 109–2010. Swindon: English Heritage Google Scholar
Forde-Johnston, J. L. 1957. Megalithic art in the northwest of Britain: the Calderstones, Liverpool. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 23, 20–39 Google Scholar
Freeman, A. 2012. Hidden Stonehenge. London: Watkins Publishing Google Scholar
Geddes, I. 2000. Hidden Depths: Wiltshire’s geology and landscapes. Bradford on Avon: Libris Press Google Scholar
Gowland, W. 1902. Recent excavations at Stonehenge. Archaeologia 58, 37–118 Google Scholar
Green, C. P. 1997. The provenance of rocks used in the construction of Stonehenge. In B. Cunliffe & C. Renfrew (eds), Science and Stonehenge, 257–70. Proceedings of the British Academy 92. Oxford: Oxford University Press/British Academy Google Scholar
Hawley, W. 1921. Stonehenge: Interim report on the exploration. Antiquaries Journal 1, 19–41 Google Scholar
Hawley, W. 1922. Second report on the excavations at Stonehenge. Antiquaries Journal 2, 36–51 Google Scholar
Hawley, W. 1926. Report on the excavations at Stonehenge during the season of 1924. Antiquaries Journal 6, 1–25 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heath, R. 2000. Stonehenge. Trowbridge: Wooden Books Google Scholar
Howard, H. 1982. A petrographic study of the rock specimens from excavations at Stonehenge 1979–1980. In Pitts 1982, 104–124 Google Scholar
Ingold, T. 2000. The Perception of the Environment. London & New York: Routledge Google Scholar
Ixer, R. A. & Bevins, R. E. 2011. The detailed petrography of six orthostats from the Bluestone Circle, Stonehenge. Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine 104, 1–14 Google Scholar
James, Col. Sir H. 1867. Plans and Photographs of Stonehenge: Tutasachan in the Isle of Lewis and Cromlechs 1867. Southampton: Ordnance Survey Google Scholar
Johnson, A. 2008. Solving Stonehenge: the new key to an Ancient Enigma. London: Thames & Hudson Google Scholar
Jones, I. 1655. The Most Notable Antiquity of Great Britain, Vulgarly Called Stone-Heng, on Salisbury Plain, Restored. London: James Flesher, Daniel Pakeman & Laurence Chapman (facsimile edition 1972 with introduction by G. Parry. Menston: Scolar Press)Google Scholar
Jones, I. 1725. The Most Notable Antiquity of Great Britain, Vulgarly Called Stone-heng, on Salisbury Plain, Restored. 2nd edn (in combined volume with Charleton 1725 and Webb 1725). London: D. Browne, J. Woodman and D. Lyon Google Scholar
Judd, J. W. 1902. Origin of the rock-fragments found in the excavations. In Gowland 1902, 115–118 Google Scholar
Lambrick, G. 1988. The Rollright Stones. London: HBMCE Google Scholar
Lane, R. 2011. Stonehenge, Amesbury, Wiltshire: architectural assessment. English Heritage Research Department Report 42–2011. Portsmouth: English Heritage Google Scholar
Larssen, L. 2011. The ritual use of axes. In V. Davis & M. Edmonds (eds), Stone Axe Studies III, 203–214. Oxford: Oxbow Books Google Scholar
Lawson, A. 1995. The twentieth century. In Cleal et al. 1995, 345–347Google Scholar
Lawson, A. 2007. Chalkland: an archaeology of Stonehenge and its region. East Knoyle: Hobnob Press Google Scholar
Linford, N., Linford, P. & Payne, A. 2012. Stonehenge Monument Field: Report on Geophysical Surveys, September 2010, April and July 2011. English Heritage Research Department Report 34–2012. Portsmouth: English Heritage Google Scholar
Long, W. 1876. Stonehenge and its barrows. Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Magazine 26, 1–244 Google Scholar
Lukis, Rev. W. C. 1882. Report on the prehistoric monuments of Stonehenge and Avebury. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries 9 (2nd series), 141–147 Google Scholar
Marshall, P., Darvill, T., Parker Pearson, M. & Wainwright, G. W. 2012. Stonehenge, Amesbury, Wiltshire: chronological modelling. English Heritage Research Department Report 1–2012. Portsmouth: English Heritage Google Scholar
Nash, G. H. & Stanford, A. 2009. Encryption and display: recording new images on the Calderstones in Liverpool. In T. Barnett & K. Sharpe (eds), Carving a Future for British Rock Art. New Directions for Research, Management and Presentation, 11–24. Oxford: Oxbow Books Google Scholar
Needham, S. 1996. Chronology and periodisation in the British Bronze Age. Absolute chronology: archaeological Europe 2500–500 bc . Acta Archaeologica 67, 121–140 Google Scholar
Needham, S., Bronk Ramsey, C., Coombs, D., Cartwright, C. & Pettitt, P. 1998. An independent chronology for British Bronze Age metalwork: the results of the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator programme. Archaeological Journal 154, 55–107 Google Scholar
Parker Pearson, M. 2009. The Stonehenge Riverside Project: excavations at the entrance of Durrington Walls. In M. Larrson & M. Parker Pearson (eds), From Stonehenge to the Baltic: living with cultural diversity in the third millennium bc , 125–144. British Archaeological Report S1629. Oxford: Archaeopress Google Scholar
Parker Pearson, M. 2012. Stonehenge: exploring the greatest stone age mystery. London: Simon & Schuster Google Scholar
Parker Pearson, M., Cleal, R., Marshall, P., Needham, S., Pollard, J., Richards, C., Ruggles, C., Sheridan, A., Thomas, J., Tilley, C., Welham, K., Chamberlain, A., Chenery, C., Evans, J., Knüsel, K., Linford, N., Martin, L., Montgomery, J., Payne, A. & Richards, M. 2007. The Age of Stonehenge. Antiquity 81, 617–639 Google Scholar
Parker Pearson, M. & Ramilisonina, . 1998a. Stonehenge for the ancestors: the stones pass on the message. Antiquity 72, 308–326 Google Scholar
Parker Pearson, M. & Ramilisonina, . 1998b. Stonehenge for the ancestors: part two. Antiquity 72, 308–326 Google Scholar
Payne, A. 1995. Geophysical surveys at Stonehenge. In Cleal et al. 1995, 495–510Google Scholar
Petrie, W. M. Flinders. 1880. Stonehenge: plans, description, and theories. London (facsimile 1989 c/w Stonehenge Astronomy – an update by Gerald Hawkins London: Histories & mysteries of man Ltd)Google Scholar
Piggott, S. 1939. The Badbury Barrow, Dorset, and its carved stone. Antiquaries Journal 19(3), 291–299 Google Scholar
Piggott, S. 1948. Destroyed megaliths in north Wiltshire. Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Society Magazine 52, 390–392 Google Scholar
Pitts, M. 2001. Excavating the Sanctuary: new investigations on Overton Hill, Avebury. Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Society Magazine 94, 1–23 Google Scholar
Pitts, M. 1982. On the road to Stonehenge: report on investigations beside the A344 in 1968, 1979 and 1980 [Avenue, Heelstone, petrology, chronology]. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 48, 75–132 Google Scholar
Pryor, F. 2008. Seahenge: a quest for life and death in Bronze Age Britain. London: Harper Perennial Google Scholar
RCHMS Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of Scotland. 2008. Kilmartin: an inventory of the monuments extracted from Argyle. Volume 6. Edinburgh: RCHMS Google Scholar
Richards, J. 1991. The English Heritage Book of Stonehenge. London: Batsford/English Heritage Google Scholar
Smith, J. 1771. Choir Gaur; the Grand Orrery of the Ancient Druids commonly called Stonehenge on Salisbury Plain. Salisbury Google Scholar
Stone, E. H. 1924. The Stones of Stonehenge. London: Robert Scott Google Scholar
Stout, G. 2010. Monumentality and inclusion in the Boyne Valley, County Meath, Ireland. In J. Leary, T. Darvill & D. Field (eds), Round Mounds and Monumentality in the British Neolithic and Beyond, 197–210. Neolithic Studies Group Seminar Papers 10. Oxford: Oxbow Books Google Scholar
Stukeley, W. 1740. Stonehenge: a temple restor’d to the British druids. London: W. Innys & R. Manby Google Scholar
Thomas, J. 2007. The internal features at Durrington Walls: investigations in the Southern Circle and Western Enclosures. In M. Larsson & M. Parker Person (eds), From Stonehenge to the Baltic: living with cultural diversity in the third millennium BC , 159–168. British Archaeological Report International Series 1696. Oxford: Archaeopress Google Scholar
Thorpe, R. S., Jenkins, D. G. & Watson, J. S. 1991. The geological sources and transport of the bluestones of Stonehenge, Wiltshire, UK. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 57, 103–157 Google Scholar
Thomas, H. H. 1923. The source of the stones of Stonehenge. Antiquaries Journal 3, 239–310 Google Scholar
Tilley, C., Richards, C., Bennett, W. & Field, D. 2007. Stonehenge: its architecture and its landscape: a re-analysis. In M. Larsson & M. Parker Pearson (eds), From Stonehenge to the Baltic Living with cultural diversity in the third millennium bc , 183–204. British Archaeological Report S1692. Oxford: Archaeopress Google Scholar
Whittle, A. W. 1997. Remembered and imagined belongings: Stonehenge in its traditions and structures of meaning. In B. Cunliffe & C. Renfrew (eds), Science and Stonehenge, 145–162. Proceedings of the British Academy 92. Oxford: Oxford University Press/British Academy Google Scholar
Wiltshire, J. 2012. Defective Gods. Amazon kindle edition:Loose Histories Google Scholar
Wood, J. 1747. Choir Gaure, vulgarly called Stonehenge on Salisbury Plain, described restored and explained. Oxford: Oxford Theatre Google Scholar