Early View: Zitierfähige Online-Fassung mit vorläufiger Seitenzählung. Nach Erscheinen des gedruckten Bandes finden Sie den Beitrag mit den endgültigen Seitenzahlen im Open Access dort: http://journals.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/arch-inf Den gedruckten Band erhalten Sie unter http://www.archaeologische-informationen.de.

Early View: Quotable online version with preliminary pagination. After the printed volume has appeared you can find this article with its final pagination as open access publication there: http://journals.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/archParker-inf Pearson,The printed volumeM. et al.will (eds) be available (2020). there: http://www.archaeologische-informationen.de for the Ancestors 1 .

Review of: Parker Pearson, M., Pollard, J., Rich- mations buried near the are given ards, C., Thomas, J., Tilley, C. & Welham, K. but no further details are provided. (eds) (2020). Stonehenge for the Ancestors, Part The monograph is a hefty 602 pages, packed 1: Landscape and Monuments. Leiden: Side- with in-depth specialist reports and thorough stone Press. 606 pp, 202 illustrations (b/w), 190 excavation descriptions. The publisher Sidestone illustrations (colour), hb/pb/online. ISBN 978-90- Press has used an innovative publishing model, 8890-702-9. https://www.sidestone.com/books/ with the book available at various prices: an ex- stonehenge-for-the-ancestors-part-1 pensive hardback, a less expensive paperback, a very modestly priced downloadable PDF, or a free Susan Greaney version to read online. This aim to provide free public access is admirable; the website informs This is the first of four volumes setting out in full that it has been read online 890 times since pub- the results of the Stonehenge Riverside Project lication in October 2020. The PDF is perhaps the (hereafter SRP), a major archaeological study of most useful format – easy to search by keyword the in , England, and to selectively read about the relevant site, under which fieldwork took place between 2003 as this is first and foremost a reference volume, and 2009. The project is led by Professor Mike rather than something to be read cover-to-cov- Parker Pearson, together with a stellar team of er. There is no overall conclusion at the end, and archaeologists from several British universities, most of the chapters end rather abruptly without who have all contributed to this opening volume. summary or synthesis and cross-referencing be- The introductory chapter sets out the extraor- tween the chapters is somewhat lacking. Perhaps dinary vision and scope of the endeavour, with the synthesis will come in a later volume in the a map (Fig. 1.7) showing the location of the 56 series.However, reading the entire volume is well trenches excavated, reminding the reader of the worth the effort, as there are significant results sheer scale of the project. Originally fieldwork presented, as well as some insightful and use- was conceived to test the hypothesis that Stone- ful analyses. The figures are of variable quality was a monument to the ancestors and and not plentiful; a consistent style for mapping was linked to the ceremonial timber and earth would have reduced several accessibility and ap- complex at , interpreted as the pearance issues. Figures 2.1 and 9.1 are examples domain of the living, by the River Avon (Parker of maps that are not easy to read. Some drawings Pearson & Ramilisonina, 1998). However, as the are reproduced rather small (e.g. Fig. 7.11); others project developed several other research objec- are far too large (e.g. Fig. 6.16-19). Many sections tives emerged, leading to investigations at the would have benefited from more photographs Stonehenge Greater Cursus and nearby Ames- and detailed maps, particularly the phenomeno- bury 42 long barrow, at two natural stones logical accounts of travelling along the cursus, the (Cuckoo Stone and Tor Stone), at a bluestone avenue or the River Avon, to assist those less fa- scatter near Fargo Plantation and a sarsen-dress- miliar with the landscape. ing area to the north of Stonehenge. Some of the work presented in this volume This firstvolume covers all the sites investigat- has been previously published elsewhere, either ed in the wider landscape around Stonehenge and within SRP books aimed at the public (Park- work undertaken at Stonehenge itself, where Au- er Pearson, 2012; Parker Pearson et al., 2015) brey Hole 7 was re-excavated. Volume 2 is due to or within academic papers (Parker Pearson et provide various syntheses of artefactual and eco- al., 2009; Thomas et al., 2009; Allen et al., 2016; factual evidence, Volume 3 dedicated to Durring- Willis et al., 2016). On occasion, it is difficult to ton Walls and , and Volume 4 will in- know whether certain chapters are edited ver- clude all results from later periods, from the early sions of previously available work or contain new onwards. This first volume is roughly information; close reading and comparison is re- chronological with earlier chapters dedicated to quired. Some chapters see the welcome publica- early monuments and sites, followed by tion of research based originally on student MA largely late Neolithic results. Although the aim and PhD theses (Whitaker, 2010; Willis, 2019). to keep all material later than this for Volume 4 However, the great achievement of the volume is appears logical, it does lead to some frustrating that it finally presents the detailed results of the omissions. For example, the Bronze Age post- research excavations that many of us have heard holes at West henge are mentioned but so much about over the past 15 or so years. For not discussed, and the radiocarbon dates for cre- example, here we have the details those perigla-

Received: 2 Feb 2021 Archäologische Informationen 44, Early View accepted: 1 March 2021 CC BY 4.0

published online: 26 March 2021 1 Rezensionen Rezensionen Susan Greaney cial stripes and chalk ridges under the avenue, the the Greater Cursus) which are usefully detailed. evidence for the at West Amesbury, Analysis of the distribution of worked flint shows the interpretation of Aubrey Hole 7 at Stonehenge that the westernmost ditch of the cursus was de- as having held an upright stone and the evidence liberately selected as a suitable place to reduce for the dressing of a single sarsen stone to the flint nodules, whereas other parts of the cursus north of the monument. This volume allows the had sparse evidence for flint-working (p. 128). evidence to be scrutinised and interpretations to The excavations have provided important radi- be assessed. ocarbon determinations on antler that date the After setting out the background to the SRP construction of the Greater Cursus and Ames- and its evolving objectives and providing a brief bury 42 long barrow, as well identifying a series introduction to the key sites in Chapter 1, Chapter of re-cut pits at both sites dating to the late Neo- 2 by Welham and Tilley focuses on early Neolith- lithic, when the monuments appear to have been ic long barrows, cursus monuments and cause- reinstated in the landscape. The excavation of a wayed enclosures in the Stonehenge area. The tree-throw pit and hollow at Woodhenge con- section on long barrows is a valuable discussion taining carinated bowl pottery, animal bone and on their landscape positioning and includes a use- worked flint shows evidence for considerable ful table, including their orientation, dimensions, activity in the early Neolithic. It is possible that and shape (Tab. 2.1, 2.2). Intervisibility studies signs of this occupation were still visible in the between these early Neolithic monuments are a late Neolithic when Woodhenge was construct- little speculative without evidence for the date ed; one was filled with rammed chalk before the of their construction as only three long barrows henge bank was raised. The pottery report by have absolute dates associated with them. There Cleal includes a thorough discussion of early follows a classic phenomenological account of Neolithic pottery from the Stonehenge landscape walking the Greater Cursus in either direction (p. 150-151), concluding that the material from (p. 53-56), presented without reference to recent Woodhenge is most closely paralleled at Con- scholarship that examines the value of such ac- eybury Anomaly and as such represents activity counts in generating valid archaeological inter- from the earliest Neolithic. pretations (e.g. Brück, 2001; Brophy & Watson, Moving away from detailed excavation re- 2018) nor to alternative interpretations that the ports, the next section (Chapter 4, by Parker cursus might have formed a barrier to people and Pearson and Richards) focuses on the Stonehenge their animals moving north-south along the dry bluestones, the components of that monument valley of Stonehenge Bottom (Pearson & Field, brought from the Preseli Hills in south-west 2011, figs 16-17, 38-39). After some interesting ide- . The chapter examines the suggestion that as about different cosmological worlds of higher the at Stonehenge held bluestones ground, surface watercourses and ‘dead rivers’ or and presents the results of investigations at the dry coombes (p. 58), there is a slip back into rath- bluestone scatter at Fargo Plantation and prelim- er simplistic ideas about long barrows being used inary work at a pit circle north of Airman’s Cross, by small communities and cursus monuments by both located to the north-west of Stonehenge. larger kin groups. Here the argument is that the Aubrey Holes, 56 Chapter 3, authored by Thomas and Pollard, pits set just within the bank and ditch at Stone- incorporates the excavations at the Greater Cur- henge, held stone pillars, rather than containing sus and nearby Amesbury 42 long barrow, as timber posts or simply being pits. Figure 4.5, a well as early Neolithic activity at Woodhenge. chart that compares the width and depth of a The introduction to the cursus excavations re- variety of stoneholes, postholes and pits, clear- peats elements of the previous chapter somewhat ly demonstrates that these were not postholes. but otherwise this is a valuable report on some But what about simple pits? The evidence for the crucial excavations in the Stonehenge area, with stone pillar interpretation rests on the evidence clear plans and sections, useful photographs and from the re-excavated Aubrey Hole 7, which is detailed contextual information. Like the other not presented until later in the chapter. Here, chapters that follow, there are specialist analyses we learn that a 40 mm thick patch of crushed of geophysical survey, soil micromorphology, chalk remained in the base of the pit, described radiocarbon dating, ecofactual and artefactual as having ‘lost its structure’ due to the pressure analysis (antler, pottery, worked flint, human of a heavy stone (p. 182). It is difficult to know remains, land snails, charred plant remains and if this layer was crushed in or is sim- wood charcoal, as well as a chalk artefact from ply a trample layer from when the Aubrey Hole

Rezensionen 2 Parker Pearson, M. et al. (eds) (2020). Stonehenge for the Ancestors 1 was excavated in the past (the SRP investigation maps of sarsen, bluestone, worked flint, burnt was the third time this pit had been excavated). flint, pottery, flint tools and cores (Fig. 4.32-39). In any case, the crushing interpretation is not Although a concentration of bluestone fragments substantiated by the soil micromorphological was found, overall numbers were low (seven analysis (p. 190). A rather large amount depends pieces), and no associated features were identi- on the interpretation of this crucial context and fied. It seems likely that these fragments relate to it would have been good to see a full analysis of the breaking up of a bluestone in the early Bronze the previously excavated Aubrey Holes; much Age, given a correlation with Beaker pottery and of the volume is written as if it were proven fact flintwork of that period. The final part of Chapter that the Aubrey Holes contained stones. This 4 presents the results of test pits dug at a pit cir- reader at least would like to see more evidence cle identified through geophysical survey to the for this; it must be a future research priority to north of Airman’s Corner (p. 209-211), thought to excavate an undisturbed Aubrey Hole. Discus- be a candidate for a bluestone circle; further exca- sion proceeds to the dressing of the bluestones vations were planned here but were not permit- and where the two bluestone may once ted. The low densities of worked flint and lack of have stood at Stonehenge, concluding that they bluestone fragments suggests that this may sim- were part of the small (10 m diameter) blue- ply be a post or pit circle. stone circle which stood briefly at the centre of Chapter 5, written by a team led by Parker the site (p. 175). The idea that they spanned the Pearson, publishes the results of excavations at north-east entrance as part of the Q and R hole West Amesbury, where a stone circle and henge setting is dismissed, as the lintels are claimed to were found where the meets be too short, but the measurements presented the River Avon. This important discovery, hith- here are significantly different to those presented erto unknown and only seen on geophysical sur- in the results of the laser scan of the monument vey results with the benefit of hindsight, is key (Abbott & Anderson-Whymark, 2012, 50) and to understanding the Avenue and riverside area, need to be clarified. Further discussion at the end and provides crucial evidence for the history of of chapter (p.212-213) suggests that the undressed the bluestones. The of the stoneholes varied bluestones of the present outer circle may and henge ditch are presented in detail, show- have had longer histories than the dressed pillars ing the varied types of stoneholes and packing of the inner horseshoe, which are postulated to used, and clearly setting out the argument for have stood at West Amesbury henge. It would them having held bluestone pillars. Laser scans have been good to see more consideration of the and good photographs of the stoneholes help the here, in terms of their shapes and reader to picture the evidence clearly, particu- sizes, and the geology of the chips recovered larly the impressions in the base of stonehole D. from them. Despite these criticisms, the discus- Despite a series of six Neolithic radiocarbon de- sion of the Stonehenge bluestones and how they terminations on samples of animal bone and ant- fit into the overall phases of Stonehenge (and ler picks from the monument, the chronology re- potentially elsewhere) is valuable, as are the de- mains unclear and there is some tension evident tails of the Aubrey Hole 7 excavations, including here between the authors; much depends on how an undisturbed cremation found on the edge of the contexts are interpreted (p. 273). The large the main pit, now known to be one of the oldest and multi-period flint assemblage from this site is dated individuals buried at the site. The blue- particularly interesting, including non-local Bull- stones clearly had varied and complex histories head flint, and a concentration of Neolithic chisel of movement, dressing, arrangement, re-arrange- . Chan’s analysis and discussion of ment and removal; as the authors say, the final this material is hugely informative, exploring the phase of Stonehenge is clearly a ‘merging and association between different forms of Neolithic consolidation’ of multiple components into one and pottery styles (p. 294-295). Exca- monument (p. 300). vations of the nearby avenue ditches nearby re- The search for potential dressing or standing vealed a series of nine postholes and packing that sites for the bluestones elsewhere in the land- suggest this section of the avenue was originally scape led to an investigation of a potential blue- a fenced palisade (p. 259). stone scatter near Fargo Plantation and the Great- Chapter 5, written by a four-author team led er Cursus, identified during fieldwalking in the by Chan, turns attention to the at Stone- 1940s. Careful investigation through the digging henge, presenting the results of a small trench of 104 test pits has produced detailed distribution dug to the north of the monument which revealed

3 Rezensionen Susan Greaney a sarsen dressing area. Astonishingly, the project tive (e.g. petit-tranchet arrowheads and serrated appears to have found the sarsen debris from flakes) can actually be found in various periods the shaping of a single sarsen monolith, with a of the Neolithic (p. 380-381). By comparing with ‘stone shadow’ or hole within the debris show- the assemblage from the early Neolithic features ing its recumbent position. The analysis of huge at Woodhenge, he shows that chronological dif- quantities (34,941 pieces) of sarsen from this site ference can actually be identified through subtle has clearly been a mammoth task, and an inter- differences in the character of core-working. The esting contrast is presented with a nearby trench final discussion by Richards (p. 404-408) expands across the avenue, where far less evidence for to include the possibility that the at stone-working was found. Whitaker’s analysis of Stonehenge was a recumbent natural stone near- the hammerstones provides much-needed clarity by before being erected, perhaps providing an over terminology and presents careful analysis impetus for the construction of the monument in of their materials, form and use (p. 332-354). 307 this location. quartzite sarsen and flint hammerstones were Chapter 8, by Parker Pearson and three oth- found, as well as many hundreds of fragments ers, focuses on excavations of across the avenue: of broken tools; the impression is that this was a trench close to Stonehenge and several more a landscape strewn with sarsen debris and scat- located at the avenue ‘elbow’ and nearby ‘Gate tered tools when Stonehenge was being built. Ditch’. Both earth resistance and magnetometry Slightly rushed last-minute edits in this chapter survey were used to survey this portion of the av- to incorporate references to Nash et al. (2020) on enue, helping to clarify several details, although the geological origin of the sarsens should per- it is not clear why resistance survey was not com- haps have been captured in a simple note at the pleted over the entire avenue width (Fig. 8.2). beginning of the monograph. This may have helped answer research questions The next chapter, authored by Richards, fo- relating to possible stoneholes along the avenue. cuses on excavations around two recumbent nat- The trench across the avenue has important re- ural sarsens in the Stonehenge landscape – the sults for our understanding of the appearance of Cuckoo Stone, not far from Woodhenge, and the the Stonehenge landscape, with the identification ‘Tor Stone’ near Bulford. These revealed that the of particularly wide and deep periglacial linear stones have been the focus for activity over a pro- features, lying within two parallel chalk ridg- longed period, with associated pits, original stone es, which were later accentuated by the avenue hollows and stone sockets uncovered, as well as banks. Evidence was found for partial re-cutting later activity including cremation burials (Cuckoo of the avenue ditches in the early Bronze Age Stone) and a ring ditch (Tor Stone, detailed in Vol- (p. 427). The results of excavations at the elbow ume 4). Frustratingly, both original stone hollows help to disentangle prehistoric and historic fea- and the stone socket at the Tor Stone do not have tures, provide much-needed clarity on Atkinson’s section drawings, presumably because they were previous work, as well as showing how the local dug in plan. Considering the presence of both a topography was subtly used to lay out this part posthole and a stone socket within the Cuckoo of the avenue. Ruggles has contributed surveys Stone hollow (p. 368), and the importance of rec- of the solar alignments of this final section of the ognising prehistoric sarsen extraction hollows avenue, showing that only the upper segment elsewhere, this is unfortunate. The evidence for would have had an alignment with the winter the stone socket at the Cuckoo Stone is not clearly solstice sunset. Parker Pearson’s discussion sec- elucidated and the sequence somewhat fuzzy – if tion suggests that the avenue was built to mark a post was erected in the hollow after the sars- the route of the bluestones from West Amesbury, en had been extracted but before it was erected, although this wasn’t the most direct route. More where was the stone in the meantime? Never- convincing is the idea that this unusual “corrugat- theless, the results presented here are important, ed area of land” (p. 472) near Stonehenge attracted showing how the act of moving or raising these the attention of prehistoric people, who noticed stones necessitated reciprocal acts of deposition the alignment with the solstice and interpreted nearby, with digging tools and feasting remains it as an affirmation of cosmic harmony, although buried in pits near the Cuckoo Stone, and at Tor the explanation rests too much on a binary notion Stone the marking of the original hollow with a of nature and culture, “the location of Stonehenge flint and sarsen cairn. The worked flint analysis […] may thus be explained by Neolithic people’s cul- by Chan shows that a number of artefact types tural appropriation of these natural features” (p. 472). usually thought of as being chronologically sensi- Chapter 11, by a multi-author team led by

Rezensionen 4 Parker Pearson, M. et al. (eds) (2020). Stonehenge for the Ancestors 1

Parker Pearson, focuses on the River Avon, a key of pig rib. Although these dates on human bones part of the original hypothesis about the link be- from Stonehenge have been published elsewhere tween Durrington Walls and Stonehenge. The already (Parker Pearson et al., 2009, tab. 2; Willis results of an augering survey include important et al., 2016, tab. 2) it is useful to have a compre- evidence for the form and location of the river in hensive and accurate list (Tab. 11.3-4), particu- prehistory, as well as detailed palynological ev- larly as these dates have been published at least idence for changing environment and tree-cover twice with incorrect rounding of determinations throughout prehistory. A phenomenological ac- and error ranges (Sneock et al., 2018, tab. S1; Wil- count of travelling down river by canoe empha- lis, 2019, tab. 22). The chapter clearly summarises sises the distinct meanders of this section of the how these new determinations alter the existing river system, creating a disorientating experience. phasing of Stonehenge (Darvill et al., 2012); be- Here it is clear that the authors (Tilley and Ben- cause most of the dates are obtained on unstrat- nett) envisage a journey made by people in boats ified contexts or are from contexts where they during some sort of ceremonial event or rite de might be residual, there are only minor changes to passage. However, as Parker Pearson and Rich- the overall chronology of the site. A new date on a ards go on to explain, the exact role of the river female cremation from ditch cutting 42 provides was not specified in the original hypothesis, and a constraint on the digging of the ditch which can they suggest an alternative, that it was “a meta- now be estimated at 2995-2900 cal BC (95 % prob- phoric route for a more intangible passage” instead ability; ditch_construction, Fig. 11.2), probably (p. 497). One could go further to suggest that the 2970-2915 cal BC (68 % probability) (p. 536). How- avenues that link Durrington Walls and Stone- ever, the main aim of the dating programme was henge to the river are about connecting these to establish the period during which Stonehenge monuments to a source of power, to a flow of en- was used as a burial place. Dates from the cremat- ergy, and to a wider world of places and mean- ed and unburnt bone provide a coherent group ings, rather than creating a particular routeway. dating to the first half of the 3rd millennium, but The claim that there is increasing evidence for the they are not statistically consistent, suggesting role of rivers in funerary rituals in the late Neo- more than one episode of use. Two alternative lithic is not borne out by the sources cited (p. 497) models are presented (p. 539-543): one eliminates and evidence for this remains very sparse. The a particularly late date on a cremation from the question of what people were doing with their ditch, providing an accurate estimate for the main dead at the time that Durrington Walls was oc- floruit of funerary activity in the period between cupied in the latest Neolithic remains unknown. 3070-2945 cal BC and 2860-2755 cal BC (95 % prob- Willis’s Chapter 10 presents the results of her ability). The alternative uses a trapezoidal mod- PhD research on the cremated remains from Au- el for the funerary phase of activity, providing a brey Hole 7. Her summary of all known human more accurate estimate for the earliest and latest remains from Stonehenge is a timely reminder of burials at the site. Both should clearly be used to- the sheer quantity of material from the site, much gether, despite the authors preference for the sec- of it now sadly lost. The painstaking work of ana- ond of these options. lysing the cremations has resulted in some fasci- To summarise, this first SRP volume - pre nating insights into the more than 50 estimated sents an exceptional range of archaeological evi- individuals represented by these remains. People dence that transforms our understanding of both of range of ages, from neonate to over 50 years Stonehenge, nearby monuments, and their wider of age were buried, both male and female, with landscape context. Bringing together such a huge some displaying signs of degenerative disease. A range of specialist expertise from a wide team is summary and discussion would have been wel- an extraordinary achievement. At times, the read- come here, perhaps with potential aspects of fur- er must dig through this wealth of information to ther study identified. identify the most significant discoveries, find the The finalchapter of the volume presents radio- more pertinent observations, and make connec- carbon dates from Stonehenge, written by a team tions between chapters. The effort is well reward- of three led by Marshall, presents a series of new ed however, as a detailed and coherent picture of radiocarbon dates from the monument. These in- this remarkable landscape begins to emerge. clude dates on the cremations from Aubrey Hole 7, as well as five unburnt human bones and two human teeth excavated from the ditch fills, a stone setting and a possible posthole, and a fragment

5 Rezensionen Susan Greaney

References Thomas, J., Marshall, P., Parker Pearson, M., Pollard, J., Richards, C., Tilley, C. & Welham, K. (2009). The Abbott, M. & Anderson-Whymark, H. (2012). date of the Greater Stonehenge Cursus. Antiquity, Stonehenge Laser Scan: Archaeological Analysis Report. 83(319), 40-53. English Heritage Project 6457. (Research Report Series, 32-2012). Swindon: English Heritage. https:// Willis, C. (2019) Stonehenge and Middle to Late Neolithic research.historicengland.org.uk/Report.aspx?i=15106 Cremation Rites in Mainland Britain (c.3500-2500 BC). [2.2.2021]. Unpublished PhD thesis, University College London.

Allen, M. J., Chan, B., Cleal, R., French, C., Marshall, Willis, C., Marshall, P., McKinley, J., Pitts, M., Pollard, P., Pollard, J., Pullen, R., Richards, C., Welham, K. & J., Richards, C., Richards, J., Thomas, J., Waldron, T., Parker Pearson, M. (2016). Stonehenge’s avenue and Welham, K. & Parker Pearson, M. (2016). The dead of ‘’. Antiquity, 90(352), 991-1008. Stonehenge. Antiquity, 90(350), 337-356.

Brophy, K. & Watson, A. (2018). Perception and Whitaker, K. (2010). ‘Ponderous boulders’: an analysis of experience. In S. L. López Varela (ed.), The Encyclopedia the Stonehenge hammerstone assemblage. Unpublished of Archaeological Sciences. Wiley Blackwell: Chichester, MA thesis, Exeter University. West Sussex.

Bruck, J. (2005). Experiencing the past? The Susan Greaney development of phenomenological archaeology in School of Archaeology, History and Religion British Prehistory. Archaeological Dialogues, 12(1), 45-72. University of Cardiff Darvill, T., Marshall, P., Parker Pearson, M. & [email protected] Wainwright, G. (2012). Stonehenge remodelled. Antiquity, 86, 1021-1040. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3185-1313

Nash, D. J., Ciborowski, T. J. R., Ullyott, J. S., Parker Pearson, M., Darvill, T., Greaney, S., Maniatis, G. & Whitaker, K. (2020). Origins of the sarsen megaliths at Stonehenge. Science Advances, 6(31), eabc0133.

Parker Pearson, M. & Ramilisonina (1998). Stonehenge for the ancestors: the stones pass on the message. Antiquity, 72(276), 308-326.

Parker Pearson, M. (2012). Stonehenge: Exploring the Greatest Stone Age Mystery. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Parker Pearson, M., Pollard, J., Richards, C., Thomas, J. & Welham, K. (2015). Stonehenge: Making Sense of a Prehistoric Mystery. York: Council for British Archaeology.

Parker Pearson, M., Chamberlain, A., Jay, M., Marshall, P., Pollard, J., Richards, J., Thomas, J., Tilley, C. & Welham, K. (2009). Who was buried at Stonehenge? Antiquity, 83, 23-39.

Pearson, T. & Field, D. (2011). Stonehenge Cursus, Amesbury, Wiltshire: Archaeological Survey Report. (Research Department Report Series, 103). Swindon: English Heritage.

Snoeck, C., Pouncett, J., Claeys, P., Goderis, S., Mattielli, N., Parker Pearson, M., Willis, C., Zazzo, A., Lee-Thorpe, J. A. & Schulting, R. J. (2018). Strontium isotope analysis on cremated human remains from Stonehenge support links with west Wales. Nature Scientific Reports, 8, 10790.

Rezensionen 6