DOCSLIB.ORG

Origins of the Sarsen Megaliths at Stonehenge Exclusive Licensee David J

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Origins of the Sarsen Megaliths at Stonehenge Exclusive Licensee David J SCIENCE ADVANCES | RESEARCH ARTICLE ARCHAEOLOGY Copyright © 2020 The Authors, some rights reserved; Origins of the sarsen megaliths at Stonehenge exclusive licensee David J. Nash1,2*, T. Jake R. Ciborowski1, J. Stewart Ullyott1, Mike Parker Pearson3, American Association 4 5 1 6,7 for the Advancement Timothy Darvill , Susan Greaney , Georgios Maniatis , Katy A. Whitaker of Science. No claim to original U.S. Government The sources of the stone used to construct Stonehenge around 2500 BCE have been debated for over four centuries. Works. Distributed The smaller “bluestones” near the center of the monument have been traced to Wales, but the origins of the sarsen under a Creative (silcrete) megaliths that form the primary architecture of Stonehenge remain unknown. Here, we use geochemical Commons Attribution data to show that 50 of the 52 sarsens at the monument share a consistent chemistry and, by inference, originated NonCommercial from a common source area. We then compare the geochemical signature of a core extracted from Stone 58 at License 4.0 (CC BY-NC). Stonehenge with equivalent data for sarsens from across southern Britain. From this, we identify West Woods, Wiltshire, 25 km north of Stonehenge, as the most probable source area for the majority of sarsens at the monument. INTRODUCTION that sarsen was used to construct megalithic monuments in Kent, The origins of the stones used to build the monument of Stonehenge Dorset, and Oxfordshire [e.g., (18)], it is not impossible that these and their transportation methods and routes have been the subject regions could also have supplied stones for Stonehenge. Furthermore, of debate among archaeologists and geologists for more than four as the distant sources of the bluestones attest, the choice of stone centuries (1–6). Two main types of stones are present at the monument used to construct Stonehenge was far from pragmatic or based simply (Fig. 1). The smaller “bluestones” have attracted the most geological on local availability (14, 19). attention. These stones—which include dolerites, tuffs, rhyolites, Here, we apply a novel combination of geochemical and statis- and sandstones—are clearly not local to Stonehenge, which stands tical approaches, developed and validated on silcretes in southern in an area underlain by Chalk bedrock. Recent studies suggest that Africa (20, 21), to determine the provenance of the sarsen stones at the igneous bluestones originated from the Preseli Hills in southwest Stonehenge. First, we use portable x-ray fluorescence spectrometry Wales [e.g., (7–9)], over 200 km west of the monument, and that the (PXRF) to provide an initial chemical characterization of all extant sandstone Altar Stone came from east Wales (10). However, with sarsen uprights and lintel stones. The resulting data are analyzed the exception of work by Howard (11), no research has been pub- statistically to determine the degree of chemical variability present lished on the sources of the larger sarsens [a vernacular term for the across the monument. We then undertake inductively coupled plasma duricrust silcrete; (12)], erected during the mid-third millennium mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) and ICP–atomic emission spectro- BCE, that comprise the main architecture of Stonehenge (13, 14). metry (ICP-AES) analyses of (i) samples from a recently rediscov- Today, only 52 of the original ~80 sarsen stones remain at the mon- ered core drilled through sarsen Stone 58 at Stonehenge and (ii) a ument. These include all 15 stones forming the central Trilithon representative range of sarsen boulders from across southern Britain. Horseshoe, 33 of the 60 uprights and lintels from the outer Sarsen These analyses are used to generate high-resolution chemical signa- Circle, plus the peripheral Heel Stone, Slaughter Stone, and two of the tures for the monument and potential source regions. Comparisons four original Station Stones. of these signatures allow us to identify the most likely source area Typical sarsen uprights at Stonehenge have a long-axis length of for the sarsens at Stonehenge. 6.0 to 7.0 m (including sections below ground) and weigh ~20 metric tons, with the largest reaching 9.1 m (Stone 56) and having an above- ground weight of ~30 metric tons (Stone 54) (15). Their size, cou- RESULTS pled with the limited occurrence of sarsen boulders on Salisbury Chemical variability within the sarsen stones at Stonehenge Plain today (16), has led to the perceived wisdom that these stones Nondestructive chemical analyses of all 52 sarsens present at Stone- were sourced from the Marlborough Downs (Fig. 1B), 30 km to the henge were undertaken using PXRF. This involved taking five read- north of the monument (17). This view has prevailed since the writ- ings at random positions across each stone, generating 260 analyses ings of the 16th century antiquary William Lambarde (1) but is for 34 chemical elements (see Materials and Methods; full dataset is rarely challenged and has never been rigorously tested. It is certain- provided in data file S1). The PXRF data demonstrate that the sarsens ly true that the most extensive spreads of sarsen boulders in Britain typically comprise >99% silica, with only traces of each of the other today occur on the Marlborough Downs (Fig. 1A). However, given major elements (Al, Ca, Fe, K, Mg, Mn, P, and Ti) present. This high purity is in line with the previous analyses of British sarsens [e.g., (22–24)] and reflects the mineralogy of the stones, which comprise 1School of Environment and Technology, University of Brighton, Lewes Road, Brighton quartz sands cemented by quartz. Ten of the PXRF analyses at the BN2 4GJ, UK. 2School of Geography, Archaeology and Environmental Studies, Uni- monument record anomalously low Si (see Materials and Methods), versity of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa. 3Institute of Archaeology, University College London, 31-34 Gordon Square, London WC1H 0PY, UK. 4Depart- which most likely indicates that nonquartz accessory mineral grains ment of Archaeology and Anthropology, Bournemouth University, Fern Barrow, were excited by the x-ray beam during data acquisition. These read- Poole, Dorset BH12 5BB, UK. 5English Heritage, 29 Queen Square, Bristol BS1 4ND, ings are excluded from subsequent statistical investigations. 6 UK. Department of Archaeology, University of Reading, Whiteknights, Reading Linear discriminant analysis (LDA) and Bayesian principal com- RG6 6AH, UK. 7Historic England, 4th Floor, Cannon Bridge House, 25 Dowgate Hill, London EC4R 2YA, UK. ponent analysis (BPCA) were used to analyze the PXRF data (see *Corresponding author. Email: [email protected] Materials and Methods). BPCA was chosen over standard principal Nash et al., Sci. Adv. 2020; 6 : eabc0133 29 July 2020 1 of 8 SCIENCE ADVANCES | RESEARCH ARTICLE A Sampling sites B 20 Marlborough 1–6. See map (B) Downs 7–8. Mutter’s Moor, Devon 9–10. Valley of the Stones, Dorset 1 2 11. Bramdean, Hampshire Avebury 3 12–14. Brighton area, East Sussex 4 15. Blue Bell Hill, Kent River Kennet 5 16. Lenham Quarry, Kent East Anglian Heights 6 17–18. Gestingthorpe, Essex route 19 s 19. Sudbury, Suffok 17–18 20. Castle Rising, Norfolk Knap Hill son’ n Atki Chilterns Marden H i l Marlborough l ’ s Downs r o u London Basin route t 1–6 e 15 Salisbury Plain New North Downs 16 Rive Sampling sites r 11 Avon 1. Monkton Down Stonehenge 12–14 2. Totterdown Wood South Downs 3. Clatford Bottom 7–8 05km 0 4. Piggledene 5. Lockeridge Dene Sarsen and puddingstone sites 6. West Woods Stonehenge 9–10 Hampshire Common puddingstone areas Basin 05km C Heel Stone D Bank and ditch (Stone 96) 25 26 27 enclosure 28 127 29 Avenue 23 30 North “Barrow” 130 22 60 101 1 122 Slaughter Stone 21 Central sarsen 102 2 (Stone 95) 59a 160a trilithon horseshoe 58 Station Stone 160b (Stone 93) 158 59b 3 120 160c 57 59c Outer 156 sarsen 19 4 Modern access pathway circle Altar Stone 105 56 51 5 55a Bluestone Bluestone 152 circle horseshoe 53 52 55b 107 6 Station Stone 16 154 (Stone 91) 15 54 7 N 14 South “Barrow” 8 Upright sarsen 9a 9b Bank and ditch Fallen sarsen 10 enclosure Sarsen lintel stone 12 11 Sandstone 03m 0 “Bluestone” 01m 0 Fig. 1. Stonehenge in context. (A) Distribution of silcrete boulders across southern Britain, including sarsens and conglomeratic variants known as puddingstone [data from (16, 22, 28, 46, 47)]. (B) Sampling sites and topography in the Stonehenge-Avebury area [areas in pale gray at 100 to 175 m above sea level (asl), and those in dark gray at 175 to 270 m asl], along with proposed transportation routes for the sarsen stones. (C) Plan of Stonehenge showing the area of the monument enclosed by earthworks plus numbered peripheral sarsen stones. (D) Detail of the main Stonehenge monument showing the remaining bluestones and numbered sarsen stones. component analysis (PCA) as the latter has limited utility for zero- introduction of iron and replacement of Si by Ca during late-stage inflated or incomplete datasets (25), both common issues in geo- diagenesis and subaerial weathering; (23)], and Co, Cd, Se, Sb, and chemical studies where many elements are at such low concentrations Sn (which were below detection limits in all PXRF readings). that they fluctuate close to or below instrumental detection limits. Exploratory LDA models indicate significant clustering of the For all statistical analyses, data for the following elements were PXRF data (model accuracy, ~0.25), with most analyses falling within omitted—Si, Ca, and Fe [to avoid potential anomalies caused by the a single cluster (Fig. 2A). We define a sarsen as being statistically Nash et al., Sci. Adv. 2020; 6 : eabc0133 29 July 2020 2 of 8 SCIENCE ADVANCES | RESEARCH ARTICLE AB Fig. 2. Results of the statistical analysis of PXRF data from all 52 sarsen stones at Stonehenge.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Using Scale Modelling to Assess the Prehistoric Acoustics of Stonehenge Cox, TJ, Fazenda, BM and Greaney, SE
    Using scale modelling to assess the prehistoric acoustics of stonehenge Cox, TJ, Fazenda, BM and Greaney, SE http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2020.105218 Title Using scale modelling to assess the prehistoric acoustics of stonehenge Authors Cox, TJ, Fazenda, BM and Greaney, SE Type Article URL This version is available at: http://usir.salford.ac.uk/id/eprint/58059/ Published Date 2020 USIR is a digital collection of the research output of the University of Salford. Where copyright permits, full text material held in the repository is made freely available online and can be read, downloaded and copied for non-commercial private study or research purposes. Please check the manuscript for any further copyright restrictions. For more information, including our policy and submission procedure, please contact the Repository Team at: [email protected]. Journal of Archaeological Science 122 (2020) 105218 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Archaeological Science journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jas Using scale modelling to assess the prehistoric acoustics of stonehenge Trevor J. Cox a,*, Bruno M. Fazenda a, Susan E. Greaney b a Acoustics Research Centre, University of Salford, Salford, M5 4WT, UK b English Heritage, 29 Queen Square, Bristol, BS1 4ND, UK ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Keywords: With social rituals usually involving sound, an archaeological understanding of a site requires the acoustics to be Acoustics assessed. This paper demonstrates how this can be done with acoustic scale models. Scale modelling is an Stonehenge established method in architectural acoustics, but it has not previously been applied to prehistoric monuments. Prehistoric The Stonehenge model described here allows the acoustics in the Late Neolithic and early Bronze Age to be Scale modelling quantified and the effects on musical sounds and speech to be inferred.
    [Show full text]
  • A303 Amesbury to Berwick Down
    A303 Amesbury to Berwick Down TR010025 6.3 Environmental Statement Appendices Volume 1 6 Appendix 6.1 Annex 8 Influences of the monuments and landscape of the Stonehenge part of the World Heritage Site on literature and popular culture APFP Regulation 5(2)(a) Planning Act 2008 Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 October 2018 HIA Annex 8 – Influences of the monuments and landscape of the Stonehenge part of the WHS on literature and popular culture Introduction Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites was inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage Site List in 1986, one of the original list of seven sites in the UK to be put forward for inscription. The Statement of Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) was adopted in 2013. The Statement of OUV notes that ‘the monuments and landscape have had an unwavering influence on architects, artists, historians and archaeologists’ (UNESCO 2013). The 2015 Management Plan (Simmonds & Thomas 2015) identifies seven Attributes of OUV for the entirety of the WHS, of which the seventh is: ‘The influence of the remains of the Neolithic and Bronze Age funerary and ceremonial monuments and their landscape setting on architects, artists, historians, archaeologists and others.’ The landscape around Stonehenge, comprising natural and cultural elements, is not just a physical environment, but an abstraction that is perceived by the human observer. Such observers have included literary writers, poets and travel writers, who have used their sense of the place as they experienced it to inspire their creative writing. The unique strength of Stonehenge is that the monument is an instantly recognisable structure which resembles no other and onto which a range of fantasies can be projected (Hutton 2009, 45).
    [Show full text]
  • 2019-2020 Annual Report and Financial Statements
    ANNUAL REPORT and FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - for the year ended 31 MARCH 2020 STATEMENTS REPORT and FINANCIAL ANNUAL The Museum, 41 Long Street, Devizes, Wiltshire. SN10 1NS Telephone: 01380 727369 www.wiltshiremuseum.org.uk Our Audiences Our audiences are essential and work is ongoing, with funding through the Wessex Museums Partnership, to understand our audiences and develop projects and facilities to ensure they remain at the core of our activities. Our audience includes visitors, Society members, school groups, community groups, and researchers. Above: testimonial given in February 2020 by one of our visitors. Below: ‘word cloud’ comprising the three words used to describe the Museum on the audience forms during 2019/20. Cover: ‘Chieftain 1’ by Ann-Marie James© Displayed in ‘Alchemy: Artefacts Reimagined’, an exhibition of contemporary artworks by Ann-Marie James. Displayed at Wiltshire Museum May-August 2020. (A company limited by guarantee) Charity Number 1080096 Company Registration Number 3885649 SUMMARY and OBJECTS The Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Researchers. Every year academic researchers Society (the Society) was founded in 1853. The carry out important research on the collection. Society’s first permanent Museum opened in There are over 500,000 items in the collections Long Street in 1874. The Society is a registered and details can be found in our online searchable charity and governed by Articles of Association. database. The collections are ‘Designated’ of national importance and ‘Accreditation’ status Objects. To educate the public by promoting, was first awarded in 2005. Overseen by the fostering interest in, exploration, research and Arts Council the Accreditation Scheme sets publication on the archaeology, art, history and out nationally-agreed standards, which inspire natural history of Wiltshire for the public benefit.
    [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]
  • THE SINCEREST FORM of FLATTERY: an ANALYSIS of FULL-SCALE, EX SITU REPLICAS of WORLD HERITAGE SITES by REBECCA LEIGH MCMANUS
    THE SINCEREST FORM OF FLATTERY: AN ANALYSIS OF FULL-SCALE, EX SITU REPLICAS OF WORLD HERITAGE SITES by REBECCA LEIGH MCMANUS (Under the Direction of WAYDE BROWN) ABSTRACT Full-scale, ex situ replicas of UNESCO World Heritage Sites can be found in five countries and their constructions predate even the World Heritage Convention itself. Clearly, the desire of humans to copy the architectural wonders of the world has a long and enduring history. This thesis will attempt to answer three related questions. First, what is the intent behind constructing these replicas? Second, how do the public and cultural heritage professionals receive these replicas? And third, how do these replicas fit into the ongoing discussions on authenticity and interpretation in historic preservation? INDEX WORDS: Replica, Full-Scale, Ex Situ, World Heritage Convention, World Heritage Sites, Stonehenge, Maryhill Stonehenge, Foamhenge, Parthenon, Nashville Parthenon, Hallstatt Village, Luoyang Hallstatt, Great Sphinx at Giza, Chuzhou Sphinx, Duplitecture, Nara Document, Venice Charter, Postmodernism, Forgeries, Umberto Eco, Jean Baudrillard, Richard Handler, Albert Lessing, Biana Bosker. THE SINCEREST FORM OF FLATTERY: AN ANALYSIS OF FULL-SCALE, EX SITU REPLICAS OF WORLD HERITAGE SITES by REBECCA LEIGH MCMANUS BA, Emory University, 2013 A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree MASTER OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION ATHENS, GEORGIA 2016 © 2016 Rebecca Leigh McManus All Rights Reserved THE SINCEREST FORM OF FLATTERY: AN ANALYSIS OF FULL-SCALE, EX SITU REPLICAS OF WORLD HERITAGE SITES by REBECCA LEIGH MCMANUS Major Professor: Wayde Brown Committee: Scott Nesbit Akela Reason Taylor Davis Electronic Version Approved: Suzanne Barbour Dean of the Graduate School The University of Georgia May 2016 iv DEDICATION I dedicate this work to my parents, who encouraged me to keep pursuing knowledge, and to Alex Green, Sophia Latz, and Lesa Miller for their support and editorial advice.
    [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]
  • 2021-01-15 - Lecture 03
    2021-01-15 - Lecture 03 1.3 Megaliths and Stone Circles; Building as Memory 1) Architecture as Second Nature begins as creating mere dwelling… a place of protection from the forces of nature. Soon, building begins to take on more significance as it embodies symbolic and ritualistic meaning, becomes a place of reverence, and becomes a place of memorialization of the dead and the marking of time of human memory… 2) Vocabulary: • cairn — burial mound of stones (may have earth on top of stones). British Isles term. • dolmen — two megaliths (or more) standing upright and capped by a trabeated megalith • menhirs — raised stones, similar to a stele or gravestone but may have more meaning due to formal attributes of their arrangement • orthostats — vertical megaliths revetting the lower cella (chamber) of a proto-temple • poché — in an architectural diagram, the poché is the representation of material that forms space within a building. This is it’s first meaning. There are more. • revetment — sloping or battered walls reinforced with stronger material, usually stone • trabeation — a word that describes a post and lintel structural configuration • trilithon — a dolmen-type arrangement of three megaliths • tumulus — burial mound of earth, not necessarily including stone (but may) • vernacular — a building tradition based on tradition rather than formal education. May be based more on local programmatic needs (bank barns, tobacco barns, dogtrot houses), availability of materials, and traditions of building rather than any formal ideas. Vernacular architecture rarely has a known architect. 3) Examples of stone arrangements for memory and for celestial understanding: • Carnac, Brittany, France. Fields of menhirs — 4000 - 2500 BCE.
    [Show full text]
  • The Bronze Age: Stonehenge
    The Bronze Age: Stonehenge Stonehenge is a very famous stone circle in the south of England that was started in the Stone Age and continued into the Bronze Age. They started by digging a circular ditch that was 100 metres across using picks made from antlers. There were two entrances to the circle. There were 56 pits dug around it which were one metre deep, with flat bottoms. They could have held timber posts, or stones, or might have been a part of a religious ceremony. The second stage saw 82 stones added in a double circle pattern. These stones came all the way from South Wales, 240 miles away! They were called bluestones because they looked blue if they were broken or wet. The stones were around two metres tall and over one metre wide. About 500 years later, more stones were added. The Sarsen stones were enormous, over four metres high, two metres wide and weighing up to 30 tonnes! An outer circle was created, with stones laid horizontally across the top. In the middle, more stones were arranged in a horseshoe shape. At the centre was a stone called the Altar Stone. During the final changes, the original bluestones were rearranged into the horseshoe and circle shape that can be seen today. The stones were lined up so you can see the sunrise at midsummer and the sunset at midwinter at opposite ends of the circle. To make the stones fit together well, they carved bumps and holes to make them fit together, a bit like building bricks! There is one stone that looks red when it gets wet because there is iron in the rock.
    [Show full text]
  • A Sermon in Stone
    A Sermon in stone “Sweet are the uses of adversity, Which, like the toad, ugly and venomous, Wears yet a precious jewel in his head; And this our life, exempt from human haunt, Finds tongues in trees, books in the running brooks, Sermons in stones, and good in everything. I would not change it.” William Shakespeare (1564 - 1616) From ‘As You Like It’ At the same time the fellahin were toiling to erect the Pharaohs’ pyramids, people were erecting the stones of Stonehenge, about 5,500 years ago. This was only 3,000 years since man domesticated wheat! Stonehenge is built on Salisbury Plain which is an undulating tract of chalky downland covering an area some twenty miles long and sixteen miles wide in the south-east corner of Wiltshire between Salisbury and Devizes. It is a country of limey soil spread thinly over a thousand feet of pure soft white limestone consisting almost entirely of the fossils of minute animals and sea-plants, which lived between seventy and one hundred million years ago when the Plain formed the bed of a comparatively shallow sea. To the archaeologist, it is the country of Stonehenge, a country of barrow, tumuli, earthworks, hill forts and field systems through which can be traced man’s progress and achievements in pre-historic and early historic times, a country which is probably the finest open-air museum in the British Isles. When we visited the site I was struck by two things: It is a Cathedral! But why build it here? DESIGN The stones are aligned almost perfectly with the sunrise on the summer solstice, and it is almost unquestioned that Stonehenge was built as a spectacular place of worship.
    [Show full text]
  • The Engineering of Stonehenge
    Proceedings of the British Academy, 92, 231-256 The Engineering of Stonehenge JULIAN FUCHARDS & MARK WHITBY Introduction Julian Richards The experiments THE EXPERIMENTS DESCRIBED IN THIS PAPER, and the thoughts which both preceded and arose from them, are the direct result of the involvement of both authors in the production of a BBC programme in 1994. The series, ‘Secrets of Lost Empires’, exam- ined the greatest and most enduring engineering challenges of the ancient world, among which is the construction of Stonehenge, or more precisely, of the sarsen horseshoe and circle which form the most impressive elements of the stone structures. Within these, the single largest element is the Great Trilithon, now ruinous, but the largest of the individual stone settings, each of which consist of two uprights and one horizontal lintel (Fig. 1). The brief was to demonstrate, using human effort and such technology as could reason- ably be expected to have been available to the builders of Stonehenge during the earlier part of phase 3, now dated to between 2550 and 1600 BC (Cleal et al. 1995, 167) how this could have been accomplished. The nature of the experiment was dictated by the evidence provided by Stonehenge itself, the sarsen stones, estimated as weighing up to 40 tonnes, for which no convincing evidence for local origin could be produced. A possible source on the Marlborough Downs, some 30 km to the north, was first suggested by Samuel Pepys in 1665 (quoted in Brentnall 1946) and was reaffirmed by Colt Hoare in the early nineteenth century (Colt Hoare 1812, 149-50).
    [Show full text]