stonehenge - English Heritage

047-120 section 2.qxd 6/21/05 4:18 PM Page 48
in the Q and R holes roughly in the centre of the space
defined by the earlier earthwork. The main entrance to
this structure was to the northeast and was marked by
additional bluestones set inside the double circuit. It is
possible that a large slab of greenish sandstone, the Altar
Stone, was the focus of this structure; other stones may
have stood within and around it. External to the earthwork
enclosure, it is likely that at least the first straight length
of the Avenue belongs to this phase, as too stone settings
around the entrance.
Phase 3ii–v, broadly 2400–2000 BC, sees the demolition
of the Phase 3i structures and their replacement (perhaps
gradual) by an arrangement of four concentric stone
settings which from the inside working outwards comprise:
the bluestone horseshoe, five sarsen trilithons arranged in
a horseshoe, the bluestone circle, and the sarsen circle.
This is the stone structure that can be seen in a ruined
state today. Modifications were also made to the peripheral
arrangement of stones and the Avenue was extended to
the River Avon. The burial of an adult male with evidence
of traumatic pathology suggesting death caused by arrowshot
found in a grave dug into the ditch of the northwest
sector dates to about 2400–2140 BC (Evans 1984; Cleal
et al. 1995, 533).
The apparent integrity of the phasing of Stonehenge and
its associated structures hides a great deal of uncertainty
(see for example Case 1997). Only a few features have
been dated, and some key events have very few secure
associated dates. The distribution of elements over a large
area limits the use of horizontal and vertical stratigraphy.
The longevity of the sequence at the site inevitably
introduces problems of residuality in the disposition of finds
and datable material. Especially difficult issues include the
relationship between the Phase 1 and Phase 2 features; the
form and plan of the Phase 3i structure; the sequence of
construction for individual elements of the Phase 3ii–3v
settings; the sequence and arrangement of features in the
centre of the monument (cf. Burl 1997; 2001); the sequence
and arrangement of stone settings within and around the
northeast entrance (cf. Pitts 1982; Burl 1991; 1994); and
both the internal phasing of the Avenue construction and
the links between these and the development of the stone
settings (cf. Cleal et al. 1995, 533–4).
There is now very little doubt that a major factor in the
design of all phases of Stonehenge was the embodiment of
key moments in the movement of the sun, especially the
solstitial risings and settings. An analysis of patterning in
the deposition of finds relating to Phases 1 and 2 at the site
by Pollard and Ruggles (2001) suggests that the early
structure of the monument, and the attendant depositional
practices, embodied a scheme of radial division, including a
symbolic quartering primarily demarcated by solstitial rising
and setting points. Through sustained ritual practice,
however, the motions of the moon came increasingly to be
referenced through deposition, particularly cremations
(Pollard and Ruggles 2001, 69; cf. Burl 1994, 91).
Juxtaposing the movements of the sun and moon is a
feature of many early cosmological and calendrical schemes
(Hodson 1974), often reflecting concerns about day and
night, the transition between the two, and the movements
of one celestial body while the other is visually dominant.
Alexander Thom and colleagues speculated that the
markings on the gold lozenge from Bush Barrow may have
allowed it to be used as an alidade-type instrument to fix
the dates of 16 of the epochs in a 16-month calendar (Thom
et al. 1988), while the discovery in the late 1990s of the
Nebra sun-disc at a site in central Germany adds weight to
the contention that the sun and moon were combined in the
cosmologies of second-millennium BC Europe (Anon 2004).
That the form and shape of the various elements of
Stonehenge had specific functions and/or symbolic
meaning is inherent to many interpretations of the
structure. Hawkins, for example, suggested that the Aubrey
Holes had been used as marker-positions for calculations
that were made by moving stones between the positions to
predict solar and lunar events (Hawkins 1966a). Darvill has
suggested that the earthwork of Phase 1 represents a
microcosm of the local ‘bowl-like’ landscape (1997a, 181),
while Parker Pearson and Ramilisonina (1998), drawing on
cross-cultural ethnographic parallels, see the stone
structures in metaphorical terms as a domain of the
ancestors, durable and permanent, symbols of eternity
occupied by the spirits of the dead. Barrett (1997) has
emphasized the architectural order inherent to the structure
and the way this might be perceived and understood by
those entering the circle after walking up the Avenue from
Stonehenge Bottom. In a similar vein, Whittle (1997a)
emphasized the three-dimensional nature of the structure,
suggesting that in its architecture we may glimpse notions
of inclusion and exclusion, unity and division. Taking a
sideways view of the site from the field of medicine, Perks
(2003) notes the resemblance of the structure to the human
vulva with the birth canal at its centre.
Stonehenge is often regarded as entirely unique,
and in terms of its overall sequence and survival this
is probably true. Many of the individual elements
represented can, however, be paralleled elsewhere and it
remains an open question as to whether there were other
structures of similar complexity elsewhere in Britain. The
uniqueness of Stonehenge may lie in its survival rather
than its construction.
The earthwork elements of Stonehenge inspired
Christopher Hawkes to coin the term ‘henge’ in relation to
a group of prehistoric sacred places (Kendrick and
Hawkes 1932, 83) subsequently defined more closely by
Atkinson (1951) and Wainwright (1968). As the range of
sites that may be considered henge monuments has
expanded so the utility of the term adequately to embrace
the visible variation has been called into question, and in
many respects Stonehenge Phase 1 may now be
considered atypical and, in formal typological terms, more
closely allied to Kinnes’ (1979, 63 and 65–9) enclosed
cemeteries. Locally, Stonehenge Phase 1 shares many
traits with the Flagstones enclosure near Dorchester,
Dorset (Woodward 1988).
Looking beyond Stonehenge, a survey of henge
monuments and related sites by Harding and Lee in the
mid 1980s proposed three sub-divisions of the broad family
that had by that time become known as henges: hengeenclosures;
classic-henges; and mini-henges (Harding and
Lee 1987). These divisions have been widely adopted
and there are examples of each within the Stonehenge
Landscape (Illustration 30 and Map H). However, as more
henges are discovered across the British Isles it seems
increasingly relevant to see mini-henges and classic-henges
as part of an essentially continuous spectrum of
architecturally diverse structures forming arenas for a
range of activities at different scales (Harding 2003).
48