There has been some discussion lately, on social media, on the possible occurrence of one or more deep pits at Stonehenge, in amongst the stone settings -- indicative of the extraction of use of large stones. This is not a new idea -- indeed, I had a discussion with Nick Snashall about this some years ago.
https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2016/08/extraction-pits-solution-hollows-post.html
In that discussion, I was not at all convinced by the argument that genuine extraction pits are genuinely different in kind (ie in morphological features) to other pits that are man-made either as sockets or to accommodate packing stones etc...........
See also:
https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2013/08/where-did-stonehenge-sarsens-come-from.html
https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2018/03/stonehenge-always-was-bit-of-mess.html
https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2019/02/were-some-stonehenge-sarsens.html
The honeycomb characteristics of the chalky ground surface beneath the Stonehenge layer and other accumulations of detritus have always suggested to me that at least some of the surface indentations and elongated hollows might mark the places from which noth sarsens and bluestones have been extracted and rearranged. There is the matter of the "stone 16 pit"......... or a pit that might have held stone 56......
In other words, there is a strong possibility that Stonehenge was simply built where it is because that is where the stones (or the bulk of them) were found...........
Some recent discussion has centred on a large "mystery pit" at the centre of Stonehenge, which has shown up in various excavations. Prof MPP thinks it is very intriguing, but Tim Daw thinks it is a genuine extraction pit, used for taking away the Lake House meteorite, which he speculates was found here. I'm not sure what the basis for that speculation might be. But why could the pit not have been an extraction pit once occupied by one of the larger sarsens or even by one or more bluestones?
To quote Mike Pitts in "Digging Deeper":
https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2018/04/pitts-and-very-ancient-sarsens.html
The idea is that there are two great pits at Stonehenge, larger than any other and both difficult to explain. One of these I partly excavated in 1979, where we found the impression of a standing stone on the bottom, and Atkinson excavated part of it in 1956 (thinking at the time it was the erection ramp for the Heelstone).The other is near the centre of Stonehenge. It was written about by Mike Parker Pearson and colleagues in Antiquity 2007, as part of their study of the site’s phasing. It’s a problematic thing, as Parker Pearson argues, excavated partly by Gowland in 1901 and partly by Atkinson on two occasions, in 1956 and 1958. There are two radiocarbon dates from samples that appear to be from the pit, but context details are missing and we can’t be sure exactly where they came from, and whether or not they were in pits dug into the filled larger pit; I don’t think we can trust these to age the big pit, which like that by the Heelstone, remains undated.
Both of these could be explained as filled natural hollows that once contained larger local sarsens. To the north-east, we may be looking at the stone that was dug out and raised, the Heelstone. To the south-west, we can only guess. It’s such a large pit, it might have held the tallest stone, trilithon Stone 56 which now stands at the end of the pit. I suggested Stone 16 as a possible candidate, because of its odd shape.
20 comments:
I have tracked down my copy of Historic England 2015: The Stonehenge Landscape - Analysing the Stonehenge World Heritage Site, Bowden M, Soutar S, Field D & Barber B. Will see whether anything may be useful in relation to this. I've referred to it previously.
I think Mike Pitts, who excavated very near the Heelstone, might say the Heelstone itself may never have been moved but was more or less in its original position. There has been discussion as to whether it had a " twin".
Had a look into other sources of information on Stone 16. Here's a easily read one, if not entirely trustworthy, from National Geographic (Simon Banton's blogsite is also informative).
https://blog.education.nationalgeographic Part of Stonehenge May Have Been In Place Long... [ 12 April 2018]
Brian, I have noticed in the References section of your The Stonehenge Bluestones ( 2018) you list on page 250 ' Field, D. at al. 2015. Ana!yitical Surveys of Stonehenge and its Environs, 2009 - 2013. Proceedings of the Prehistorical Society. This MAY be very similar to the Historic England 2015 I have referred to.
Dave's Field and McComish write in "Neolithic Horizons" (2016) that Flinders Petrie speculated the Stonehenge sarsen stones originated in its immediate vicinity and, indeed, that the REASON for the location of the site rested on the presence of a cluster of large sarsen stones. Early 20th century excavator William Gowland, and geologists Prof Judd and even H H Thomas ( he of long - distance brawny hauling of Preseli Bluestones!) came to the similar conclusion: Stonehenge 's sarsens originated in its very doorstep e.g. H H Thomas, p 242 in his 1923 article in Antiquaries Journal.
As has often been expressed on these Blog pages, for over 60 years there has been this " conventional" or " received" wisdom from Stonehenge's wise 'Gatekeepers' or 'founts of all knowledge' that the sarsen monoliths definitely were - humanly = transported from up to 20 miles to the north. Richard Atkinson was very influential in advocating this was so, full stop no argument. But, considering @ how Richard Atkinson changed his mind in his later years on how the Bluestones may have arrived, and (b) the fact that recently David Field and others are drawing attention to the likelihood of sarsen monoliths being obtained right on Stonehenge's own doorstep, it seems to me that English Heritage's interpretation gurus are decades behind what perhaps is staring them corporately in the face! Is E.H. a bureaucratic juggernaut? .... surely not!
Having borrowed from the library Mike Pitts' " How to Build Stonehenge ", Thames & Hudson, 2022, it turns out that his chapter Raw Materials: Sarsen is worthy of study. Pitts tells us that " at least two [ Sarsens from Salisbury Plain itself], and, I would claim, also the Heelstone, were found and erected close to where they had lain for millions of years" ( page 76). Earlier, on page 61, he says " as far back as the 1500s John Leland, a travelling antiquary, told a version of the medieval story of Stonehenge's creation in which Merlin, far from bringing stones from Ireland, sought them on Salisbury Plain, where they were 'enormous and prolific '.
But! Of all things we definitely know, was that the Avenue tramlines were always there.
Yes, it would have taken a clever witchdoctor to have said. "Hey! These lines, they're aligned with the solar equinox. How odd is that! Must mean The Gods did it. Let's build a temple at the top."
There didn't need to be a jumble of half buried sarsen or bluestones.
That may well be right. But.......on the summer solstice, the longest day of the year, the sun rises behind the Heel Stone and its first rays shine into the heart of Stonehenge. This alignment is deliberate, and is shared with many other henges e.g. Woodhenge to the north - east.
Thanks for this Brian. I wouldn't have known to look at this. (have linked you in as to why here: https://bsky.app/profile/aneolithicuniverse.bsky.social/post/3lkta2jkmds2g )
Wondering 😔 whether glacial geomorphologist Brian will have something to say about Steve's " tramlines"? By the way, the Avenue was built AFTER most of the Stonehenge building activities......
The Avenue is ice damage to the rocks below. Later, the lines were enhanced and extended by man. They predate everything.
Yes, Stonehenge is aligned to the solstice, by the builders. Or rather, Stonehenge is aligned to The Avenue : -)
Tony, you've added comments to several discussions about The Avenue...
https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/search?q=+the+avenue
Yes,Steve, I am aware of my historical comments. I tend to focus upon the periglacial stripes in the wider Stonehenge landscape. This is because I take on board seriously what Brian has had to say over the years. He taught me geomorphology at University as a Geography undergraduate. Brian has drawn attention to the other periglacial stripes elsewhere on that same side of Stonehenge ( as indeed has field archaeologist David Field).
It sort of aligns Tony. But there's no evidence of it being intentional. By comparison, Buckingham Palace (a monument), The Mall (similar to Avenue with bend), it's roundabout (the circular component), the trees on the Mall and many other outlying features (equivalent: station stones) align with a minor lunar event. There's way more aligning features than Stonehenge. But there's no evidence of the British Monarchy being part of a lunar cult or lunar astronomic society. But it would make a damn good conspiracy theory.
Agree with your comment about alignments, Jon. One needs toi be very cautious. if one throws a collectionb of esicks onto the ground, thay will all pointv in different directions, and all of them will be aligned with something or other, if your imagination is vivid enough. Reminds me of my post of many years ago about the precise geometrical patterns demonstrated by Woolworths stores...... https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2011/04/navigating-to-stonehenge-lessons-from.html
Today's comment you have made at 12.43, Brian, as a response to Jon''s, makes me recall how Wiltshire County Archaeologist Roy Canham reacted to the eager bloke in the Council print room, who expected Roy to applaud his "discovery" of prehistoric sites aligned with mega - sites like Avebury, Silbury Hill and Stonehenge. Roy gently rebuked him.....
Thanks Brian. Another useful reference!
The photograph at the beginning of your Post showing the honeycombed nature of the surface after removal of the fallen trilithon in 1958 appears in " Stonehenge: a History in Photographs ", by Julian Richards. Most of the book's photographs come from the National Monuments Record, English Heritage's public archive. Do you possess this book, Brian? By the way, I occasionally attend talks given by Julian for the U3A Archaeology Group at Westbury. The last time was on March 14th and I spoke to him briefly.
The 1958 book, Stonehenge: a History in Photographs has on page 54 'Excavation of Stones 32, 33 and others (NMR 888 P 50792)'. It says "archaeologists have uncovered the BURIED STUMPS of Stones that have long since disappeared above ground, demonstrating the VARIETY of rocks that fall within the general description of ' bluestone '. In addition to the hard dolerites and rhyolites identified by Thomas in the 1920s there are also volcanic and cancerous aahes, ROCKS SO SOFT that over the millennia they have mostly dissolved and only survive below ground.
Brian, I shall be sending you one or more mobile text messages over the weekend which I believe you'll find interesting. I'm unable to currently email you.
Post a Comment