stonehenge - English Heritage

047-120 section 2.qxd 6/21/05 4:20 PM Page 101
for reconstructing ancient skies. However, it is important not
to abandon quantitative studies of astronomical potential: a
careful balance is needed (Ruggles 2001).
The solstitial axis of Stonehenge Phase 3 remains the only
really uncontentious astronomical alignment at the site
(Ruggles 1997; 1999a, 136–9; Illustration 80), although even
here there is continuing debate as to whether the principal
focus of attention was the midsummer sunrise to the
northeast and/or the midwinter sunset to the southwest (e.g.
Burl 1994; Parker Pearson and Ramilisonina 1998). It is
generally accepted that the adjustment of the main axis to a
solstitial orientation represented an attempt to reinforce the
symbolic power of the monument at the time of its
reconstruction in stone (cf. Bradley 1993, 100). Despite muchquoted
claims to the contrary, there are no structural features
in Stonehenge Phase 1 or 2 that convincingly indicate an
earlier interest in the moon, although some evidence to
support the idea has emerged recently from studies of the
spatial patterning of carefully placed animal and human bone
deposits, human cremations, and other artefacts in the ditch
and Aubrey holes (Pollard and Ruggles 2001).
A more widespread but coarser concern with astronomy,
manifested in consistencies of orientation amongst widely
spread groups of monuments that could only have been
achieved in relation to the diurnal motion of the sky, is
evident even in the early Neolithic. Burl (1987, 26–8) has
noted that the orientations of 65 long barrows on Salisbury
Plain are consistently between north-northeast and south.
Although Burl’s own lunar interpretation has been
questioned (Pollard and Ruggles 2001) this pattern fits a
‘sun rising – sun climbing’ explanation that applies to many
groups of Neolithic tombs and temples throughout western
Europe (Hoskin 2001). An alternative suggestion that
alignments on various bright stars were widespread in early
and middle Neolithic Wessex (North 1996) has been heavily
criticized (Aveni 1996; Ruggles 1999b). Systematic studies
of the siting and orientation of monuments in the
Stonehenge area landscape, from the early Neolithic
onwards, are needed to clarify such issues.
Broader cosmologies remain relatively unexplored. Darvill
(1997a, 186–7) has presented a case that Stonehenge 2 and
3 lay at the centre of a conceptual quadripartitioning of
space, demarcated by the solstitial directions, that
influenced patterns of monument construction and many
other activities (e.g. flint mining). The spatial distribution of
‘formal’ deposits at Stonehenge itself bears strongly upon
this issue, but because the available data are limited to the
eastern part of the site, their ability to distinguish between
various possible prevailing cosmological schemas is severely
limited, something that would be altered drastically if it were
ever possible to excavate critical sections of the
northwestern and southwestern parts of the ditch.
Illustration 80
Stonehenge showing the
main astronomical axes
and alignments.
A: Alignments proposed
by Gerald Hawkins for
the early phases of
Stonehenge and (B)
alignments through the
central trilithons. C: The
main northeast–southwest
axis projected onto
Phase 3 of the monument.
D: Schematic representation
of the main solar
movements in relation to
Phase 3 of the monument.
[A and B based on Hawkins
1966a, figures 11 and 12;
C after Cleal et al. 1995,
figure 79; D after Atkinson
1987, 11.]
101