stonehenge - English Heritage

047-120 section 2.qxd 6/21/05 4:18 PM Page 41
identified in modern times and the name applied at that time
has since been used to refer to the class as a whole. Piggott
(1973b) and Whittle (1977) provide useful general background
accounts of the period relevant to the Stonehenge
Landscape. Map G shows the distribution of recorded sites
and finds relating to the early and middle Neolithic.
Not all monuments of the period were substantial and
upstanding. A large pit 1.9m across and more than 1.25m
deep on Coneybury Hill (known as the Coneybury
Anomaly: Illustration 23) has been dated to 4050–3640 BC
(OxA-1402: 5050±100 BP). It is interpreted as a ceremonial
feature associated with feasting on the basis of the rich
faunal assemblage that includes abundant remains of
cattle and roe deer together with lesser amounts of pig,
red deer, beaver, and brown trout. Parts of at least 37
ceramic vessels were represented as well as 47 flint
scrapers, two leaf-shaped arrowheads, and a broken
ground flint axe (Richards 1990, 43).
Mention should also be made of the Wilsford Shaft
excavated in 1960–2 by Edwina Proudfoot and Paul Ashbee
as a result of investigating the presumed pond barrow,
Wilsford 33a, to the southwest of Stonehenge (Ashbee et al.
1989). The chalk-cut shaft was 30m deep and 1.8m wide. The
bottom section was waterlogged and preserved organic
remains including wooden objects such as broken buckets
and pieces of cord. Although conventionally dated to the mid
second millennium BC, the series of radiocarbon dates
begins at 3650–3100 BC (OxA-1089: 4640±70 BP). The
earliest date relates to a section of wooden bucket and is
both chronologically and stratigraphically the earliest date
obtained. All the other dates from the site fall in good
chronological order in relation to their depth within the shaft.
The early date was rerun with a similar result and tests were
carried out to check for contamination resulting from
conservation with negative results (Housley and Hedges in
Ashbee et al. 1989, 68–9). Bearing in mind the use of antler
picks for the digging of the shaft a Neolithic date for its
construction and initial use followed by refurbishment and
cleaning-out (perhaps including dressing the walls with
metal axes?) should not be ruled out. At the very least the
site has yielded the best evidence in Britain for a wooden
bucket dating to the mid third millennium BC. Further work
and additional dating on the assemblage of organic objects
has much potential. Consideration might also be given to a
role for the shaft in relation to a solar cosmological scheme
given its position southwest of Stonehenge on the axis of the
midwinter sunset as viewed from Stonehenge.
Other, rather smaller, pits and clusters of pits also of the
fourth millennium BC were found on King Barrow Ridge and
Vespasian’s Ridge during the upgrading of the A303,
although details are scant (Richards 1990, 65–6). Bone from
the pit on King Barrow Ridge was dated to 3800–3100 BC
(OxA-1400: 4740±100 BP). Another small early Neolithic pit
was found in 1968 during the laying of an electricity cable
west of King Barrow Ridge. Sherds of a single vessel
representing a small cup or bowl were found (Cleal and Allen
1994, 60). The exploration of a dense flint scatter northeast
of the enclosure boundary at Robin Hood’s Ball revealed a
cluster of shallow pits containing pottery, flintwork, and
animal bones. Two have been dated to 3800–3100 BC (OxA­
1400: 4740±100 BP) and 3650–2900 BC (OxA-1401: 4550±120
BP). Their purpose is unknown, but similar arrangements
have been noted at other enclosure sites in southern
England including Windmill Hill (Whittle et al. 2000, 141–4).
Although early accounts of Neolithic enclosures in
southern Britain cite Yarnbury as a possible example
(Curwen 1930, 37), this was disproved by the results of
Cunnington’s excavations in 1932–4 (see Oswald et al. 2001,
157). The only certain early–middle Neolithic enclosure in
the Stonehenge Landscape is Robin Hood’s Ball, although
other likely looking sites which have yielded Neolithic finds,
such as Ogbury, deserve further attention.
The enclosure of Robin Hood’s Ball exists as a wellpreserved
earthwork towards the northwest corner of the
Illustration 24
Robin Hood’s Ball from the
air, looking northwest.
[Photograph: English
Heritage NMR18220/31
©Crown copyright (NMR)]
41