stonehenge - English Heritage

047-120 section 2.qxd 6/21/05 4:19 PM Page 80
Illustration 57
Postholes possibly forming
a gallows at Stonehenge.
A: Stonehenge with the
area of the detailed plan
(B) indicated. C: Section
through the grave and
stonehole Y9. [After Pitts et
al. 2002, figure 2.]
Evidence of execution may also be provided by the cleft
skull of one of the intrusive burials in the Wilsford G3 long
barrow near the Wilsford–Charlton parish boundary
(Cunnington 1914, 403). Bonney (1966) has noted the
prevalence of pagan Saxon burials near parish boundaries
which he takes as evidence for both the pre-parish system
origins of the boundaries themselves and the peripheral
location of burials relative to the main settlement areas. This
arrangement does, however, deserve further exploration as
the location of settlements remains largely unknown.
At a larger scale, the administrative units that would later
become known as hundreds (see below) are believed to have
been established in the seventh century (Yorke 1995, 89–90),
perhaps reflecting a post-Roman tribal landscape of so-called
‘micro-kingdoms’ (Reynolds and Semple in Pitts et al. 2002,
143). By the ninth century, the Stonehenge Landscape is
comfortably within the still-larger early medieval Kingdom of
Wessex (Illustration 58). Documentary evidence for this period
is rather better than it is in surrounding areas, mainly because
of the ecclesiastical and royal associations with Amesbury.
The town of Amesbury has been subject to several
historical investigations which together provide a fairly
detailed understanding, although tentative, of its early
development (Hinton 1975; Haslam 1984; Chandler and
Goodhugh 1989; Illustration 59). There are references
relating to Amesbury in Saxon charters, the Will of King
Alfred (d.899) bequeathing (aet) Ambresbyrig to his
younger son Aethelweard, and lands left in King Eadred’s
(d.955) will to his mother Eadgifu (Finberg 1964). It has
been suggested that the place-name aet Ambresbyrig
probably indicates its early existence as a burh or
fortification belonging to Ambre (Gover et al. 1939, 358).
Indeed, the place-name Ambre may have pre-Saxon origins
and perhaps represents the name of the semi-mythical
Ambrosius about whom legends were well established by
the eighth century (Gover et al. 1939, 358; Morris 1973,
100). If so, it may support the notion that Ambrosius
Aurelianus established a garrison in response to the
resistance against the Saxon invaders during the third
quarter of the fifth century (Bond 1991, 385). Alternatively,
the personal element could represent Ambri, who is
mentioned in Geoffrey of Monmouth’s legend of Stonehenge
and ‘of the hill of Ambrius’ although Geoffrey does not
specify where this was (Chandler and Goodhugh 1989, 5).
If the origins of Amesbury are obscure, so too is much of
its early development. If it was the centre of a royal estate,
as has been suggested (Haslam 1976, 5), then it is likely to
have been a settlement for the estate staff. Such a
settlement might have consisted of a minster, a
headquarters for the priests working throughout the estate,
a mother church for all Christian worship, and various staff
premises: the beginnings of a small town (Hinton 1975,
27–8). The king held assemblies at Amesbury in AD 932 and
AD 995 (Bond 1991, 386) and in AD 979 a new abbey was
founded by Queen Aelfthryth, one of only two churches
dedicated to St Melor in the country (Haslam 1984, 130–1).
In AD 1177 the church was refounded in its present location
as a priory under the Order of Fontevrault, suggesting that
an earlier church of the order had existed prior to the tenth
century. Some evidence for the earlier church has come to
light in the form of pieces from two Saxon crosses that came
to light during restoration works in 1907 (Ball 1979). One of
the crosses takes the form of a simple plain equal-armed
cross with chamfered edges and a central recessed disc
containing a concentric ring of small bosses. It probably
dates to the late eleventh or early twelfth century. The
second cross is more ornate and is represented by two
joining fragments from a wheelhead cross of the tenth or
eleventh century, made of sandstone. The design includes
two concentric wheels with a continuous interlacing design
on the faces and edges. The location of this putative early
settlement is, however, wholly conjectural, the best
estimate being that it lies somewhere near the ‘ancient’
river crossing at Queensberry Bridge near Vespasian’s Camp
and perhaps extending along the present High Street
(Chandler and Goodhugh 1987, 7). Given the ecclesiastical
importance of Amesbury a royal palace might also be
expected, but none has yet been found.
The Domesday survey records that Amesbury was held by
the King in 1066 and had never paid geld nor had they been
assessed in hides, the usual form of taxation. Instead, tax had
been paid in kind, probably the earliest form of formalized
taxation known in England and generally dating at least as far
back as the seventh century (Chandler and Goodhugh 1989,
6). By the eleventh century, Amesbury was the focal point for a
hundred, which was accredited with substantial areas of
woodland. It has been proposed that the original estate could
have incorporated the whole of the Hundred of Amesbury
80