DOCSLIB.ORG

Stonehenge for the Ancestors, Part the Monograph Is a Hefty 602 Pages, Packed 1: Landscape and Monuments

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Stonehenge for the Ancestors, Part the Monograph Is a Hefty 602 Pages, Packed 1: Landscape and Monuments 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: Stonehenge http://www.archaeologische-informationen.de for the Ancestors 1 . Review of: Parker Pearson, M., Pollard, J., Rich- mations buried near the Cuckoo Stone 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 Stonehenge landscape in Wiltshire, 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 henge 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 Durrington Walls, 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 sarsen 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 Woodhenge, 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 Bronze Age 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 Neolithic 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 Amesbury 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 stone circle 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- Wales. The chapter examines the suggestion that as about different cosmological worlds of higher the Aubrey Holes 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.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The University of Bradford Institutional Repository
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Bradford Scholars The University of Bradford Institutional Repository http://bradscholars.brad.ac.uk This work is made available online in accordance with publisher policies. Please refer to the repository record for this item and our Policy Document available from the repository home page for further information. To see the final version of this work please visit the publisher’s website. Where available access to the published online version may require a subscription. Author(s): Gibson, Alex M. Title: An Introduction to the Study of Henges: Time for a Change? Publication year: 2012 Book title: Enclosing the Neolithic : Recent studies in Britain and Ireland. Report No: BAR International Series 2440. Publisher: Archaeopress. Link to publisher’s site: http://www.archaeopress.com/archaeopressshop/public/defaultAll.asp?QuickSear ch=2440 Citation: Gibson, A. (2012). An Introduction to the Study of Henges: Time for a Change? In: Gibson, A. (ed.). Enclosing the Neolithic: Recent studies in Britain and Europe. Oxford: Archaeopress. BAR International Series 2440, pp. 1-20. Copyright statement: © Archaeopress and the individual authors 2012. An Introduction to the Study of Henges: Time for a Change? Alex Gibson Abstract This paper summarises 80 years of ‘henge’ studies. It considers the range of monuments originally considered henges and how more diverse sites became added to the original list. It examines the diversity of monuments considered to be henges, their origins, their associated monument types and their dates. Since the introduction of the term, archaeologists have often been uncomfortable with it.
    [Show full text]
  • Concrete Prehistories: the Making of Megalithic Modernism 1901-1939
    Concrete Prehistories: The Making of Megalithic Modernism Abstract After water, concrete is the most consumed substance on earth. Every year enough cement is produced to manufacture around six billion cubic metres of concrete1. This paper investigates how concrete has been built into the construction of modern prehistories. We present an archaeology of concrete in the prehistoric landscapes of Stonehenge and Avebury, where concrete is a major component of megalithic sites restored between 1901 and 1964. We explore how concreting changed between 1901 and the Second World War, and the implications of this for constructions of prehistory. We discuss the role of concrete in debates surrounding restoration, analyze the semiotics of concrete equivalents for the megaliths, and investigate the significance of concreting to interpretations of prehistoric building. A technology that mixes ancient and modern, concrete helped build the modern archaeological imagination. Concrete is the substance of the modern –”Talking about concrete means talking about modernity” (Forty 2012:14). It is the material most closely associated with the origins and development of modern architecture, but in the modern era, concrete has also been widely deployed in the preservation and display of heritage. In fact its ubiquity means that concrete can justifiably claim to be the single most dominant substance of heritage conservation practice between 1900 and 1945. This paper investigates how concrete has been built into the construction of modern pasts, and in particular, modern prehistories. As the pre-eminent marker of modernity, concrete was used to separate ancient from modern, but efforts to preserve and display prehistoric megaliths saw concrete and megaliths become entangled.
    [Show full text]
  • Cuisine and Consumption at the Late Neolithic Site of Durrington Walls
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by UCL Discovery Feeding Stonehenge: cuisine and consumption at the Late Neolithic site of Durrington Walls Oliver E. Craiga, Lisa-Marie Shillitoa,b, Umberto Albarellac, Sarah Viner-Danielsc, Ben Chanc,d, Ros Cleale, Robert Ixerf, Mandy Jayg, Pete Marshallh., Ellen Simmonsc, Elizabeth Wrightc and Mike Parker Pearsonf aBioArCh, Department of Archaeology, University of York, Heslington, York YO10 5DD, UK. b School of History, Classics and Archaeology, University of Edinburgh, UK cDepartment of Archaeology, University of Sheffield, UK d Laboratory for Artefact Studies, Faculty of Archaeology, Leiden University, The Netherlands e Alexander Keiller Museum, Avebury, Wiltshire, UK f Institute of Archaeology, University College London, London, UK g Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Department of Human Evolution, Deutscher Platz 6, 04103 Leipzig, Germany h English Heritage, 1 Waterhouse Square, 138-142 Holborn, London, UK Introduction Henges are distinctive monuments of the Late Neolithic in Britain, defined as ditched enclosures in which a bank is constructed outside the ditch. The largest is Durrington Walls (Fig 1), a 17ha monument near Stonehenge. Excavations at Durringon Walls from 1966 to 1968 revealed the remains of two timber circles, the Northern and Southern Circles, within the henge enclosure (Wainwright and Longworth, 1971). More recent excavations (2004-2007) have identified a settlement that pre-dates the henge by a few decades and is concurrent with the main construction phase of Stonehenge (Parker Pearson et al., 2007, Parker Pearson, 2007, Thomas, 2007). Middens and pits, with substantial quantities of animal bones, broken Grooved Ware ceramics and other food-related debris, accumulated quickly since the settlement has an estimated start of 2535-2475 cal BC (95% probability) and a use of 0-55 years (95% probability).
    [Show full text]
  • Stonehenge Bibliography
    Bibliography Abbot, M. and Anderson-Whymark, H., 2012. Anon., 2011a, Discoveries provide evidence of Stonehenge Laser Scan: archaeological celestial procession at Stonehenge. On-line analysis report. English Heritage project source available at: 6457. English Heritage Research Report http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/latest/ Series no. 32-2012, available at: 2011/11/25Nov-Discoveries-provide- http://services.english- evidence-of-a-celestial-procession-at- herita ge.org.uk/Resea rch Repo rtsPdf s/032_ Stonehenge.aspx (accessed 2 April 2012). 2012WEB.pdf Anon., 2011b, Stonehenge’s sister? Current Alexander, C., 2009, If the stones could speak: Archaeology, 260, 6–7. Searching for the meaning of Stonehenge. Anon., 2011c, Home is where the heath is. National Geographic, 213.6 (June 2008), Late Neolithic house, Durrington Walls. 34–59. Current Archaeology, 256, 42–3. Allen, S., 2008, The quest for the earliest Anon., 2011d, Stonehenge rocks. Current published image of Stonehinge (sic). Archaeology, 254, 6–7. Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural Anon., 2012a, Origin of some of the Bluestone History Magazine, 101, 257–9. debris at Stonehenge. British Archaeology, Anon., 2006, Excavation and Fieldwork in 123, 9. Wiltshire 2004. Wiltshire Archaeological Anon., 2012b, Stonehenge: sourcing the and Natural History Magazine, 99, 264–70. Bluestones. Current Archaeology, 263, 6– Anon., 2007a, Excavation and Fieldwork in 7. Wiltshire 2005. Wiltshire Archaeological Aronson, M., 2010, If stones could speak. and Natural History Magazine, 100, 232– Unlocking the secrets of Stonehenge. 39. Washington DC: National Geographic. Anon., 2007b, Before Stonehenge: village of Avebury Archaeological and Historical wild parties. Current Archaeology, 208, Research Group (AAHRG) 2001 17–21.
    [Show full text]
  • Stonehenge OCR Spec B: History Around Us
    OCR HISTORY AROUND US Site Proposal Form Example from English Heritage The Criteria The study of the selected site must focus on the relationship between the site, other historical sources and the aspects listed in a) to n) below. It is therefore essential that centres choose a site that allows learners to use its physical features, together with other historical sources as appropriate, to understand all of the following: a) The reasons for the location of the site within its surroundings b) When and why people first created the site c) The ways in which the site has changed over time d) How the site has been used throughout its history e) The diversity of activities and people associated with the site f) The reasons for changes to the site and to the way it was used g) Significant times in the site’s past: peak activity, major developments, turning points h) The significance of specific features in the physical remains at the site i) The importance of the whole site either locally or nationally, as appropriate j) The typicality of the site based on a comparison with other similar sites k) What the site reveals about everyday life, attitudes and values in particular periods of history l) How the physical remains may prompt questions about the past and how historians frame these as valid historical enquiries m) How the physical remains can inform artistic reconstructions and other interpretations of the site n) The challenges and benefits of studying the historic environment 1 Copyright © OCR 2018 Site name: STONEHENGE Created by: ENGLISH HERITAGE LEARNING TEAM Please provide an explanation of how your site meets each of the following points and include the most appropriate visual images of your site.
    [Show full text]
  • Researching Stonehenge: Theories Past and Present
    Parker Pearson, M 2013 Researching Stonehenge: Theories Past and Present. Archaeology International, No. 16 (2012-2013): 72-83, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/ai.1601 ARTICLE Researching Stonehenge: Theories Past and Present Mike Parker Pearson* Over the years archaeologists connected with the Institute of Archaeology and UCL have made substantial contributions to the study of Stonehenge, the most enigmatic of all the prehistoric stone circles in Britain. Two of the early researchers were Petrie and Childe. More recently, colleagues in UCL’s Anthropology department – Barbara Bender and Chris Tilley – have also studied and written about the monument in its landscape. Mike Parker Pearson, who joined the Institute in 2012, has been leading a 10-year-long research programme on Stonehenge and, in this paper, he outlines the history and cur- rent state of research. Petrie and Childe on Stonehenge William Flinders Petrie (Fig. 1) worked on Stonehenge between 1874 and 1880, publishing the first accurate plan of the famous stones as a young man yet to start his career in Egypt. His numbering system of the monument’s many sarsens and blue- stones is still used to this day, and his slim book, Stonehenge: Plans, Descriptions, and Theories, sets out theories and observations that were innovative and insightful. Denied the opportunity of excavating Stonehenge, Petrie had relatively little to go on in terms of excavated evidence – the previous dig- gings had yielded few prehistoric finds other than antler picks – but he suggested that four theories could be considered indi- vidually or in combination for explaining Stonehenge’s purpose: sepulchral, religious, astronomical and monumental.
    [Show full text]
  • Pearson, M. P. & Al.: Stonehenge for the Ancestors, 1
    PEARSON, M. P. & AL.: STONEHENGE FOR THE ANCESTORS, 1: LANDSCAPE AND MONUMENTS 1. Introduction The Stonehenge Riverside Project Background to the project Implications of the hypothesis Research aims M. Parker Pearson, J. Pollard, C. Richards, J. Thomas C. Tilley, K. Welham and P. Marshall 2. Fourth millennium BC beginnings: monuments in the landscape The landscape of the fourth millennium BC – (C. Tilley, W. Bennett and D. Field) Geophysical surveys of the Greater Cursus and Amesbury 42 long barrow – (K. Welham, C. Steele, L. Martin and A. Payne) 3. Fourth millennium BC beginnings: excavations of the Greater Cursus, Amesbury 42 long barrow and a tree-throw pit at Woodhenge The Greater Stonehenge Cursus – (J. Thomas) Amesbury 42 long barrow – (J. Thomas) Investigations of the buried soil beneath the mound of Amesbury 42 – (M.J. Allen) Stonehenge Lesser Cursus, Stonehenge Greater Cursus and the Amesbury 42 long barrow: radiocarbon dating – (P. D. Marshall, C. Bronk Ramsey and G. Cook) Antler artefact from the Greater Cursus and Amesbury 42 long barrow – (G. Davies) Pottery from the Greater Cursus and Amesbury 42 long barrow – (R. Cleal) Chalk artefact from the Greater Cursus – (A. Teather) Lithics from stratified contexts of the Greater Cursus – (B. Chan) Lithics from the ploughsoil of the Greater Cursus – (D. Mitcham) Lithics from stratified contexts of Amesbury 42 long barrow – (B. Chan) Human remains from Amesbury 42 long barrow and the Greater Cursus – (A. Chamberlain and C. Willis) Charred plant remains and wood charcoal from the Greater Cursus and Amesbury 42 long barrow – (E. Simmons) Woodhenge tree-throw pit – (J. Pollard) Pottery from the Woodhenge tree-throw pit – (Rosamund M.J.
    [Show full text]
  • Stonehenge and Ancient Astronomy Tonehenge Is One of the Most Impressive and Best Known Prehistoric Stone Monuments in the World
    Stonehenge and Ancient Astronomy tonehenge is one of the most impressive and best known prehistoric stone monuments in the world. Ever since antiquarians’ accounts began to bring the site to wider attention inS the 17th century, there has been endless speculation about its likely purpose and meaning, and a recurring theme has been its possible connections with astronomy and the skies. was it a Neolithic calendar? A solar temple? A lunar observatory? A calculating device for predicting eclipses? Or perhaps a combination of more than one of these? In recent years Stonehenge has become the very icon of ancient astronomy, featuring in nearly every discussion on the subject. And yet there are those who persist in believing that it actually had little or no connection with astronomy at all. A more informed picture has been obtained in recent years by combining evidence from archaeology and astronomy within the new interdiscipline of archaeoastronomy – the study of beliefs and practices concerning the sky in the past and the uses to which people’s knowledge of the skies were put. This leaflet attempts to summarize the evidence that the Stonehenge monument was constructed by communities with a clear interest in the sky above them. Photograph: Stonehenge in the snow. (Skyscan/english heritagE) This leaflet is one of a series produced by the Royal Astronomical Society (RAS). An electronic version is available for download at www.ras.org.uk. It has been written by the following members of the RAS Astronomical Heritage Committee: Clive Ruggles, Bill Burton, David Hughes, Andrew lawson and Derek McNally.
    [Show full text]
  • Ever Increasing Circles: the Sacred Geographies of Stonehenge and Its Landscape
    Proceedings of the British Academy, 92, 167-202 Ever Increasing Circles: The Sacred Geographies of Stonehenge and its Landscape TIMOTHY DARVILL Introduction THE GREAT STONE CIRCLE standing on the rolling chalk downland of Salisbury Plain that we know today as Stonehenge, has, in the twentieth century AD, become a potent icon for the ancient world, and the focus of power struggles and contested authority in our own. Its reputation and stature as an archaeological monument are enormous, and sometimes almost threaten to overshadow both its physical proportions and our accumu- lated collective understanding of its construction and use. While considerable attention has recently been directed to the relevance, meaning and use of the site in the twentieth century AD (Chippindale 1983; 1986a; Chippindale et al. 1990; Bender 1992), the matter of its purpose, significance, and operation during Neolithic and Bronze Age times remains obscure. The late Professor Richard Atkinson was characteristically straightforward when he said that for questions about Stonehenge which begin with the word ‘why’: ‘there is one short, simple and perfectly correct answer: We do not know’ (1979, 168). Two of the most widely recognised and enduring interpretations of Stonehenge are, first, that it was a temple of some kind; and, second, that its orientation on the midsummer sunrise gave it some sort of astronomical role in the lives of its builders. Both interpre- tations, which are not mutually exclusive, have of course been taken to absurd lengths on occasion. During the eighteenth century, for example, William Stukeley became obses- sive about the role of the Druids at Stonehenge (Stukeley 1740).
    [Show full text]
  • Circular Route from Durrington Walls to Stonehenge
    Circular route from Durrington Walls 3 Stonehenge Cottages, King to Stonehenge Barrows, Amesbury, Wiltshire SP4 7DD This walk explores two major historic monuments, Durrington TRAIL Walls and Stonehenge, in Walking the heart of the Stonehenge World Heritage Site. On this GRADE circular walk you will discover the Moderate landscape in its full glory from the Bronze Age barrows to the First DISTANCE World War military railway track, 5 miles (7.6km) as well as its diverse wildlife and plants. TIME 4 hours Terrain OS MAP Landranger 184; This circular walk follows hard tracks and gently sloping downs. Surfaces can be uneven, with potholes Explorer 130 or long tussocky grass. Dogs welcome on a lead and under control, as sheep and cattle graze the fields and there are ground-nesting birds. Contact Things to see 01980 664780 [email protected] Facilities Durrington Walls The old railway track The Avenue Have a look around you and Stonehenge Landscape has a This impressive bank and ditch http://nationaltrust.org.uk/walks appreciate the nature of this rich military history. The Lark Hill earthwork is more than 1.5 henge as an enclosed valley. Military Light Railway (LMLR) miles (2.5km) long. It may have If you were here over 4,500 line, ran through the landscape been the ceremonial route and years ago you would have seen from Amesbury to Larkhill and on entrance to the stone circle and In partnership with several shrines around the to the Stonehenge aerodrome recent excavations suggest it slopes, and Neolithic houses from 1914 until 1929.
    [Show full text]
  • Durrington Walls
    Feeding Stonehenge: cuisine and consumption at the Late Neolithic site of Durrington Walls Oliver E. Craig1, Lisa-Marie Shillito1,2, Umberto Albarella3, Sarah Viner-Daniels3, Ben Chan3,4, Ros CleaP, Robert Ixer6, Mandy Jay7, Pete Marshall8, Ellen Simmons3, Elizabeth Wright3 & Mike Parker Pearson6 The discovery o f Neolithic houses at Durrington Walls that are contemporary with the main construction phase o f Stonehenge raised questions as to their interrelationship. Was Durrington Walls the residence o f the builders o f Stonehenge? Were the activities there more significant than simply domestic subsistence? Using lipid residue analysis, this paper identifies the preferential use of certain pottery types for the preparation o f particular food groups and differential consumption of dairy and meat products between monumental and domestic areas o f the site. Supported by the analysis o f faunal remains, the results suggest seasonal feasting and perhaps organised culinary unification o f a diverse community. Keywords: UK, Stonehenge, Neolithic, feasting, isotopic lipid residue analysis, public and private consumption 1 BioArCh, Department o f Archaeology, University o f York, Heslington, York YO lO 5DD , U K (Email: Oliver. craig@york. ac. uk) 2 School o f History, Classics and Archaeology, Armstrong Building, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK 2 Department o f Archaeology, University o f Sheffield, Northgate House, West Street, Sheffield S I 4ET, U K 4 Laboratory for Artefact Studies, Faculty o f Archaeology, Leiden
    [Show full text]
  • Durrington Walls
    Durrington Walls Stonehenge builders' houses found A huge ancient settlement used by the people who built Stonehenge has been found, archaeologists have said. Excavations at Durrington Walls, near the legendary Salisbury Plain monument, uncovered remains of ancient houses. People seem to have occupied the sites seasonally, using them for ritual feasting and funeral ceremonies. In ancient times, this settlement would have housed hundreds of people, making it the largest Neolithic village ever found in Britain. The dwellings date back to 2,600-2,500 BC - according to the researchers, the same period that Stonehenge was built. But some archaeologists point out that there are problems dating Stonehenge itself because the stone circle has been rebuilt many times. The village would have housed hundreds of people (Image: National Geographic) Consequently, archaeological material has been dug up and reburied on numerous occasions, making it difficult to assign a date to the original construction. But Mike Parker Pearson and his colleagues are confident of a link. "In what were houses, we have excavated the outlines on the floors of box beds and wooden dressers or cupboards," he explained. The Sheffield University researcher said this was based on the fact that these abodes had exactly the same layout as Neolithic houses at Skara Brae, Orkney, which have survived intact because - unlike these dwellings - they were made of stone. The researchers have excavated eight houses in total at Durrington. But they have identified many other probable dwellings using geophysical surveying equipment. In fact, they think there could have been at least one hundred houses. Each one measured about 5m (16ft) square, was made of timber, with a clay floor and central hearth.
    [Show full text]