Friday, 23 May 2025

Why the "West Woods" Sarsens couldn't come from Salisbury Plain

 According to the document "Earliest Movement of Sarsen Into the Stonehenge Landscape: New Insights from Geochemical and Visibility Analysis of the Cuckoo Stone and Tor Stone", the sarsens from West Woods, located on the Marlborough Downs, could not have originated from Salisbury Plain due to a combination of geological, geochemical, and observational evidence. Below is an abstracted and comprehensive explanation:

Geological Conditions

The formation of large sarsen stones, like those found at West Woods and used at Stonehenge, requires specific geological conditions that are not sufficiently met on Salisbury Plain. The document outlines five key factors necessary for sarsens with West Woods' characteristics to form locally:

  1. Presence of Paleogene Sediments:
    • Salisbury Plain likely had Paleogene sediments of mid-Eocene age or earlier, making this condition feasible. However, this alone is insufficient without the other factors aligning.
  2. Thick Sandy Horizons:
    • The sediments on Salisbury Plain are dominated by clays, silts, and thin sand units rather than the thick, sandy horizons (1-2 meters or more) needed to form large sarsens. In contrast, such thick sands are present in the Marlborough Downs, where West Woods is located.
  3. 'Clean' Sands:
    • The sandy horizons must be free of clay minerals that inhibit quartz overgrowth cementation, a process critical to sarsen formation. Salisbury Plain's sediments contain clay, making them less suitable, whereas West Woods’ sands are relatively 'clean'.
  4. Geological Structure:
    • A structural context, such as a synform, is required to promote sustained silica-bearing groundwater flow for cementing large sarsens. The Marlborough Downs feature such synformal structures, but Salisbury Plain exhibits only gentle dips and lacks comparable formations, reducing the likelihood of significant sarsen development.
  5. Geochemical Similarity:
    • For sarsens to match West Woods geochemically, the sands must have a similar mix and abundance of non-quartz minerals. The document notes that sediment composition varies over short distances (e.g., within the Marlborough Downs), and Salisbury Plain’s depositional environment differs, making an identical geochemical profile unlikely.

Geochemical Evidence

  • Geochemical analysis using portable X-ray fluorescence spectrometry (pXRF) and Bayesian Principal Component Analysis (BPCA) shows that the Cuckoo Stone, Tor Stone, and most Stonehenge sarsens (e.g., Stone 58) share a statistically similar chemical composition, pointing to a common origin at West Woods. This similarity is improbable if the stones formed on Salisbury Plain, given the differing sediment sources and conditions.

Physical Distribution and Size

  • Sarsens on Salisbury Plain are smaller (largest recorded less than 3 meters) and less numerous compared to the Marlborough Downs, where large boulders predominate. The sarsens at Stonehenge, the Cuckoo Stone (2 meters long, 6.5 tonnes), and the Tor Stone (2.8 meters long, 4 tonnes) are significantly larger than those typically found on Salisbury Plain, supporting the conclusion that they were transported from West Woods rather than sourced locally.

Conclusion

The sarsens from West Woods could not have come from Salisbury Plain because:

  • The geological conditions on Salisbury Plain—lacking thick, clean sandy horizons and appropriate structural contexts—do not support the formation of large sarsens like those at West Woods.
  • Geochemical evidence links the Stonehenge sarsens, Cuckoo Stone, and Tor Stone to West Woods, not Salisbury Plain.
  • The size and scarcity of sarsens on Salisbury Plain further indicate that the large stones used in the Stonehenge landscape were imported from the Marlborough Downs.

Thus, the document concludes that these sarsens were likely transported from West Woods rather than formed locally on Salisbury Plain.

What the Romans Didn't Do to Us

 


For decades, the story of Maiden Castle in Dorset, England, has been a gripping tale of Roman conquest. Picture it: a massive Iron Age hillfort, one of Britain's largest, stormed by Roman legions in AD 43, its brave Durotrigian defenders cut down in a brutal massacre. Skeletons with horrific wounds, some with spearheads lodged in their bones, were unearthed in the 1930s, and archaeologist Mortimer Wheeler declared them victims of a Roman attack, their deaths "fraught with high tragedy." It’s a story that’s been retold in books, documentaries, and classrooms, cementing Maiden Castle as a symbol of Iron Age Britain’s violent end.

But what if this iconic tale is wrong? A groundbreaking new study by archaeologists Martin Smith, Miles Russell, and Paul Cheetham, published in the Oxford Journal of Archaeology (2025), turns this narrative on its head. Their findings suggest that the Romans didn’t slaughter the people buried at Maiden Castle’s east gate. Instead, the evidence points to a darker, more complex story: Britons killing Britons, long before the Romans set foot in Dorset.

Rewriting History with Radiocarbon Dating

The key to this revelation lies in a new radiocarbon dating program. The researchers analyzed bones from 22 individuals in the so-called "war cemetery" and found that the burials span several generations, from the late first century BC to the mid-first century AD, with a few extending into the second century AD. This timeline rules out a single, catastrophic Roman attack in AD 43. Instead, the dates cluster into three distinct periods of violence, each roughly a generation apart, suggesting multiple episodes of conflict.

These findings dismantle the idea of a one-off massacre. The burials, concentrated near the hillfort’s east gate, include men and women, but young adult males dominate, many bearing gruesome injuries—sword cuts, skull fractures, and spear wounds. Some show "overkill," with far more wounds than needed to kill, hinting at intense, possibly ritualistic violence. Far from being Roman handiwork, these injuries likely came from fellow Britons, perhaps during internal power struggles or raids among the Durotriges, the local tribe.

A Cemetery of Elites, Not Victims

The study also reveals that Maiden Castle wasn’t just a dumping ground for war casualties. The burials are carefully arranged, with bodies placed in distinct styles: some tightly curled in shallow graves with pots or meat joints, others stretched out flat, a style hinting at Roman influence. Some graves even contain Roman artifacts, like a copper ear scoop, suggesting cultural exchange before the conquest. This mix of traditions shows a society in transition, adapting to new ideas while holding onto old ones.

Dietary clues from stable isotope analysis add another layer. The buried individuals ate a protein-rich diet, heavy on meat, unlike the more grain-based diets of ordinary folk at nearby sites like Poundbury. This suggests that those laid to rest at Maiden Castle were high-status—perhaps warriors, nobility, or even local leaders. The hillfort, long abandoned as a fortress, seems to have become a sacred burial ground for an elite few, chosen for their status or violent deaths.

Dynastic Dramas and Double Burials

One of the most intriguing discoveries is the presence of "double burials"—pairs of individuals buried together in single graves, often with severe wounds. These are rare in Iron Age Britain, and the study suggests they could be kin, like siblings or cousins, killed in the same violent event. Recent DNA studies hint that Durotrigian society was matrilocal, with wealth and land passing through women. Could these double burials represent the last of a family line, cut down in feuds over power or inheritance? The researchers draw a striking parallel to a later Roman cemetery in York, where similar burials may reflect a dynastic purge. At Maiden Castle, the violence might stem from internal rivalries, with elite families vying for control as the shadow of Rome loomed.

Why the Romans Got the Blame

So why did Wheeler pin the blame on the Romans? Context matters. In the 1930s, with World War II on the horizon, the idea of an invading force slaughtering locals resonated deeply. Wheeler, a master storyteller, linked the burials to the Roman conquest, crafting a narrative that fit the era’s fears of invasion. As Martin Smith notes, there’s a parallel here: just as Britons in the early first century AD might have felt the growing threat of Rome, Wheeler’s generation faced an uncertain future. This mindset shaped how the evidence was interpreted, turning Maiden Castle into a symbol of resistance against foreign invaders.

But the new evidence tells a different story. The violence at Maiden Castle peaked before the Romans arrived, likely driven by internal tensions—perhaps disputes over leadership, land, or resources. Ironically, the study suggests that this bloodshed largely stopped after the Roman conquest, as the region was pacified under Roman rule.

A New Story for Maiden Castle

This research doesn’t diminish the drama of Maiden Castle; it reframes it. Instead of passive victims of Roman aggression, the Durotriges emerge as active players in a turbulent world, navigating power struggles, cultural shifts, and the looming presence of Rome. The hillfort’s cemetery captures a snapshot of a society under stress, where elite warriors and leaders were laid to rest with care, their wounds a testament to fierce conflicts we’re only beginning to understand.

The study opens new questions. Who were these people, and what drove their conflicts? Could DNA analysis reveal family ties in the double burials? And how did the Durotriges balance tradition with Roman influence before the conquest? As Dr. Miles Russell puts it, the archaeological evidence now shows that "the Roman army committed many atrocities, but this does not appear to be one of them." Maiden Castle’s story is no less tragic, but it’s far richer—a tale of Britons shaping their own destiny, for better or worse, in the shadow of an empire.

Want to dive deeper? Check out the full study in the Oxford Journal of Archaeology (2025)

Stonehenge Byways Consultee Responses 2025

In late February/early March 2025, Wiltshire Council sent a communication to a number of organisations saying:

"Wiltshire Council as the Highway Authority is now seeking to develop a holistic approach that addresses Policy 6a and 6b of the Management Plan. To this end we are now looking to consult with user groups and interested parties for their views on what measures they feel would be appropriate and proportionate to address the problems being experienced.(with regards to the byways close to Stonehenge)"

Through a Freedom of Information request Simon Banton has elicited the responses, the full versions are here:  https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/stonehenge_byways_consultee_resp

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Below is a summary by Grok of the responses from organizations consulted by Wiltshire Council regarding the Byways Open to All Traffic (BOATs) around Stonehenge. Each section details what the respondent commented on, their recommendations, and an assessment of how their observations relate to the legal right to pass and repass along a right of way versus nuisances caused by potentially illegal activities. The responses are aligned with the council's aim to address Policies 6a and 6b of the Stonehenge, Avebury, and Associated Sites World Heritage Site (WHS) Management Plan, which focus on reducing negative impacts from traffic and managing vehicular access to protect archaeology, improve safety, and encourage exploration while maintaining access for essential vehicles.


1. National Trust

  • Comments:
    • Highlighted damage from motor vehicles on BOATs 11 and 12, including erosion and physical damage to archaeological sites, adversely affecting the WHS's Outstanding Universal Value and the settings of Scheduled Monuments.
    • Noted that climate change exacerbates vehicle-related degradation due to wetter conditions.
    • Cited impacts on tranquility and the experience of walkers, cyclists, and horse riders, with examples like a burnt-out bus, latrine pits, and fly-tipping on BOAT 12.
  • Recommendation:
    • Permanently prohibit motor vehicles on the BOATs to protect the WHS and enhance safety and enjoyment for non-motorized users.
  • Relevance to Right to Pass and Repass vs. Illegal Actions:
    • Relevant to Right to Pass and Repass: The concerns about erosion and archaeological damage stem directly from lawful vehicle use, justifying potential changes to access rights.
    • Nuisances from Illegal Actions: Fly-tipping, latrine pits, and the burnt-out bus are illegal activities that could be addressed through enforcement rather than altering access rights.

2. English Heritage

  • Comments:
    • Described operational challenges on Byway 12, including staff facing verbal abuse, trespassing, and managing illegal traders, fly-tipping, and human waste, which have decreased during temporary closures.
    • Noted safety risks from vehicles accessing the C506, speeding toward the Visitor Centre, and unauthorized drone activity originating from Byway 12.
    • Highlighted security concerns, including counter-terrorism risks due to easy vehicle access, and impacts on visitor experience from parked vehicles obstructing views of the Cursus and Cursus Barrows.
  • Recommendation:
    • Redesignate byways as "green" demotorized byways or close the section of Byway 12 south of the monument connecting to the A303 with hostile vehicle mitigation.
  • Relevance to Right to Pass and Repass vs. Illegal Actions:
    • Relevant to Right to Pass and Repass: Safety hazards (e.g., speeding vehicles) and view obstruction are tied to lawful vehicle use, supporting changes to access rights.
    • Nuisances from Illegal Actions: Trespassing, fly-tipping, illegal trading, and drone activity are illegal and could be managed separately through enforcement.

3. Trail Riders Fellowship (TRF)

  • Comments:
    • Argued that roads and motorcycle traffic have cultural heritage value integral to the WHS, unrecognized by the Management Plan.
    • Claimed no evidence exists of motorcycle damage to archaeology beneath byways, asserting low traffic volumes based on prior inquiries and research.
    • Suggested concerns focus on caravans, not motorcycles, and criticized the use of Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) over Public Space Protection Orders (PSPOs).
  • Recommendation:
    • Oppose restrictions on motorcycles unless evidence proves damage; advocate for collaborative management to preserve motorcycling heritage.
  • Relevance to Right to Pass and Repass vs. Illegal Actions:
    • Relevant to Right to Pass and Repass: Directly addresses the right of motorcyclists to use BOATs, arguing against restrictions on lawful use.
    • Nuisances from Illegal Actions: References to caravan-related issues suggest some problems may stem from illegal or misuse activities, though TRF focuses on lawful motorcycle use.

4. Green Lane Association (GLASS)

  • Comments:
    • Emphasized the cultural heritage of motoring on unsealed roads, asserting recreational use by members is sustainable and consistent with historical use.
    • Noted issues with extraordinary traffic (e.g., long-term parking, camping, unsuitable vehicles), causing littering and damage, often to avoid English Heritage fees.
    • Argued byway traffic impact is minimal compared to the A303 and criticized past maintenance with unsuitable materials.
  • Recommendation:
    • Manage access with measures like parking restrictions, width restrictions, or permits, rather than banning vehicles, to balance use and preservation.
  • Relevance to Right to Pass and Repass vs. Illegal Actions:
    • Relevant to Right to Pass and Repass: Focuses on preserving lawful vehicle access while addressing management, directly tied to access rights.
    • Nuisances from Illegal Actions: Long-term parking and camping are likely illegal or misuse, suggesting these could be tackled separately from lawful use.

5. Byways and Bridleways Trust

  • Comments:
    • Expressed concern over the lack of evidence for vehicle management and exclusion of cyclists and equestrians from Policies 6a and 6b.
    • Highlighted safety issues at the A303 crossing on Byway 12, with no safe crossing, and connectivity gaps (e.g., Byway 11, Bridleway 10).
    • Noted unauthorized camping as a primary issue, suggesting PSPOs over TROs, and criticized broad solstice TROs banning cycles and horses.
  • Recommendation:
    • Use PSPOs for camping; improve safety with crossings (e.g., Pegasus crossing) and new routes connecting Byway 11, 12, and Bridleway 10 for non-motorized users.
  • Relevance to Right to Pass and Repass vs. Illegal Actions:
    • Relevant to Right to Pass and Repass: Safety and connectivity issues relate to lawful use by all users, supporting adjustments to access rights.
    • Nuisances from Illegal Actions: Unauthorized camping is an illegal activity better addressed through targeted measures like PSPOs.

6. British Horse Society (BHS)

  • Comments:
    • Reported illegal parking by campervans on the Druid’s Lodge byway and safety hazards at the A303 crossing, including accidents and near-misses.
    • Noted motorcyclists use byways without camping, unlike four-wheeled vehicles causing disruption.
  • Recommendation:
    • Reclassify byways as Restricted Byways or close to four-wheeled vehicles; create new non-vehicular routes (e.g., connecting Druid’s Lodge to Springbottom Farm and Strangways).
  • Relevance to Right to Pass and Repass vs. Illegal Actions:
    • Relevant to Right to Pass and Repass: Proposals to limit vehicle types and enhance non-vehicular access directly affect lawful use rights.
    • Nuisances from Illegal Actions: Illegal parking and camping are separate issues that could be enforced without changing access rights.

7. Chief Constable of Wiltshire Police

  • Comments:
    • Recognized impacts from vehicle use on BOATs, noting temporary closure aids repairs without apparent negative community impact.
    • Stressed avoiding disproportionate effects on communities or cultural celebrations.
  • Recommendation:
    • Extend the temporary closure as a test, consult communities, and explore management options (e.g., allowing horses but not cars).
  • Relevance to Right to Pass and Repass vs. Illegal Actions:
    • Relevant to Right to Pass and Repass: Suggests a trial affecting vehicle access rights, directly tied to lawful use management.
    • Nuisances from Illegal Actions: No specific mention of illegal activities, focusing instead on lawful use impacts.

Additional Notes

  • Organizations That Responded: From the list provided, responses were received from National Trust, English Heritage, Trail Riders Fellowship, Green Lane Association, Byways and Bridleways Trust, British Horse Society, and the Chief Constable of Wiltshire Police. Non-respondents included Wiltshire & Swindon Countryside Access Forum, British Driving Society, Open Space Society, Road Haulage Association, and Fleet Transport Association. The Ramblers responded, but their response is not detailed in the document.
  • Council Actions: The document does not provide a summary, prĂ©cis, action plan, or policy derived by Wiltshire Council as of 30/04/2025, suggesting these are still under consideration.

Conclusion

Most respondents’ observations blend issues tied to the lawful right to pass and repass (e.g., erosion, safety, archaeological damage from vehicle use) with nuisances from illegal actions (e.g., fly-tipping, unauthorized camping). Recommendations range from outright vehicle bans (National Trust, English Heritage) to nuanced management preserving access (TRF, GLASS), with others (BHS, Byways Trust) advocating for safety and connectivity enhancements. The council must distinguish between lawful use impacts requiring access changes and illegal activities manageable through enforcement to craft a balanced approach.

The Evolution of the National Heritage Collection Agreement

 English Heritage's licence to operate the Historic England collection of properties has been renewed.

The original 2015 licence is available here:  https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/licence_to_manage_the_national_h

The 2025 one here: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/renewal_of_english_heritages_lic

A quick analysis by Grok of the changes:

Significant Changes from 2015 to 2025

1. Term and Extension

  • 2015 Agreement: The initial term is set at 8 years from the Commencement Date (1 April 2015), ending on 31 March 2023, with no explicit provision for extension beyond this period (Clause 2.1, Definition of "Term"). A two year extension was granted to 2025.
  • 2025 Agreement: The initial term is extended to 10 years from the Commencement Date (1 April 2025), ending on 31 March 2035. Additionally, the agreement introduces a mechanism for two potential 5-year extensions, up to a maximum term of 20 years (ending 31 March 2045), subject to mutual agreement before the Extension Confirmation Date (5 years prior to the Term End Date) (Clause 2.4, Definition of "Term End Date").
  • Significance: The longer initial term and the option for extensions reflect a shift towards a more sustained partnership, providing the Charity with greater operational stability and planning flexibility.

2. Funding Arrangements

  • 2015 Agreement: Includes references to a "Funding Agreement" and a specific "Capital Grant" of £80 million provided to the Charity, indicating structured financial support from the Commission (Definitions, Clause 4.2). These are separate agreements executed alongside the licence.
  • 2025 Agreement: Removes references to both the Funding Agreement and the Capital Grant from the definitions and core clauses. Instead, Clause 4.8 introduces a provision where the Commission will "seek funding" from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS) in specific circumstances (e.g., catastrophic loss, disproportionate expenditure, or to reduce conservation deficits), with no obligation to secure or provide such funding itself.
  • Significance: This shift suggests that the initial setup funding has concluded, and the Charity is now expected to be more financially self-sustaining, with funding support becoming contingent and discretionary rather than predefined.

3. Opening Hours Flexibility

  • 2015 Agreement: The Charity is required to maintain public opening hours for each Historic Property at no less than 75% of the 2014/15 levels (or 980 hours where unspecified), with reductions needing Commission consent unless due to specific exceptions (e.g., health and safety, repairs) (Clause 5.3).
  • 2025 Agreement: Grants the Charity "absolute discretion" over opening hours for individual Historic Properties, provided the total annual opening hours across all Historic Properties do not fall below 75% of the 2023/24 levels (Clause 4.2). The baseline is updated, and the requirement applies collectively rather than per property.
  • Significance: The 2025 agreement offers the Charity greater operational flexibility to manage opening hours across the portfolio, adapting to visitor patterns or resource constraints, while still ensuring overall public access.

4. Governance and Oversight

  • 2015 Agreement: The Commission can appoint a representative to the Charity’s Board (Clause 40.4), but there are no specific provisions for ongoing attendance or access to board materials beyond general cooperation clauses.
  • 2025 Agreement: Enhances Commission oversight significantly:
    • The Commission is entitled to appoint one trustee to the Charity’s Board (Clause 35.1).
    • The Charity must invite the Commission’s Chief Executive to attend trustee meetings as an observer and provide papers to the Chair of the Commission’s Audit and Risk Assurance Committee (Clause 40.4).
    • The Charity’s Chair and Chief Executive must attend Commission trustee meetings when requested to report on performance (Clause 40.5).
  • Significance: These changes strengthen the Commission’s influence over the Charity’s governance, ensuring closer alignment with the Commission’s objectives and increased transparency, likely reflecting lessons learned from the initial decade of operation.

5. Insurance Requirements

  • 2015 Agreement: Mandates the Charity to maintain building insurance for Historic Properties against risks specified in 'Managing Public Money,' with obligations to reinstate properties using insurance proceeds (Clause 54.1). Additional insurance requires Commission consent aligned with HM Treasury guidance (Clause 55.1).
  • 2025 Agreement: Removes the obligation to insure buildings, stating the Charity is "not obliged" to effect building insurance (Clause 47.1). If insurance is taken, conditions apply (e.g., noting Commission interest), but the Charity can self-insure, and there’s no duty to reinstate properties damaged by uninsured risks (Clauses 47.2, 47.4).
  • Significance: This relaxation reduces the Charity’s financial burden and aligns with a risk management approach where reinstatement is discretionary, possibly reflecting a reassessment of cost versus benefit after 10 years of operation.

6. Termination Provisions

  • 2015 Agreement: Termination is possible for material defaults (remediable or irremediable), insolvency, or force majeure, with a Remediation Plan Process for remediable defaults (Clauses 56, 57). No specific mechanism addresses repeated minor breaches.
  • 2025 Agreement: Expands termination grounds:
    • Introduces "Persistent Breach," allowing termination for repeated non-material breaches after a warning notice and final warning notice process (Clauses 48.3, 48.4).
    • Adds a structured dispute resolution process before termination, escalating from legal heads to chief executives, chairs, and potentially DCMS (Clause 65).
  • Significance: The Persistent Breach mechanism and dispute resolution process enhance the Commission’s ability to address ongoing issues systematically, balancing fairness with enforceability, and reflect a more mature contractual framework.

7. Data Protection

  • 2015 Agreement: Includes basic data protection clauses aligned with the Data Protection Act 1998 (Clause 43), with no detailed schedules or modern compliance frameworks like GDPR.
  • 2025 Agreement: Updates to reflect UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018, with a comprehensive Schedule 14 detailing data processing roles, obligations, security, and cross-border transfers (Clause 38, Schedule 14). Emphasizes the Charity’s role in determining Personal Data collection.
  • Significance: This update aligns with post-Brexit data protection laws and increased regulatory focus, ensuring robust handling of personal data in line with contemporary standards.

8. Employment Provisions

  • 2015 Agreement: Focuses on the initial transfer of employees from the Commission to the Charity (Clause 47), with detailed pension arrangements (Clause 49) and exit provisions for potential future transfers (Clause 48).
  • 2025 Agreement: Shifts focus to exit provisions only (Clause 42), detailing employee transfers back to the Commission or a Replacement Operator upon termination, with no mention of initial transfers or pensions, as these were resolved in 2015.
  • Significance: The change reflects the completion of the 2015 transition, with the 2025 agreement preparing for potential end-of-term transitions, assuming employment structures are now established.

Summary

The transition from the 2015 to the 2025 agreement marks a maturation of the partnership between the Commission and the Charity. Key changes include a longer and extendable term, a move away from fixed funding to discretionary support, increased operational flexibility (e.g., opening hours, insurance), stronger Commission oversight in governance, and updates to reflect legal developments (e.g., Brexit, GDPR). These adjustments suggest a relationship that has evolved from an initial setup phase to one focused on sustainability, adaptability, and refined accountability after a decade of experience.

Thursday, 22 May 2025

Not Every Neolithic Find Is About Stonehenge: The Real Story of Ancient Skin Colour


Introduction: Stop Dragging Stonehenge Into It

Let’s get one thing straight: we’re sorry for even mentioning Stonehenge in the title. It’s a tired journalistic trick, slapping “Stonehenge” onto every Neolithic discovery to grab clicks, and it’s frankly exhausting. A recent genetic study from the University of Ferrara in Italy has been spun as revealing the skin colour of Stonehenge’s builders, but—surprise—it’s not specifically about them. The research, which maps pigmentation across ancient Eurasia, is compelling enough without leaning on Stonehenge as a crutch. It suggests dark skin was common in Europe 5,000 years ago, so, sure, Stonehenge’s builders were likely dark-skinned, based on broader trends. We don’t dispute that. But let’s focus on what the study actually says, not the lazy headlines.

Key Points

  • The study shows dark skin was prevalent in Europe during the Neolithic period, around 5,000 years ago, but it’s about Eurasian populations, not Stonehenge’s builders specifically.
  • Some research suggests Neolithic farmers had lighter skin, fuelling debate, but journalists don’t need Stonehenge to make this interesting.
  • As a preprint, the study’s findings are preliminary, yet robust enough to stand without sensationalist props, aligning with prior work like the Cheddar Man study.
  • The obsession with tying every find to Stonehenge distracts from the real story: the complex evolution of human pigmentation.

What the Study Actually Found

The University of Ferrara’s study, published as a preprint on bioRxiv, analysed DNA from 348 ancient individuals across Eurasia, spanning 45,000 to 1,700 years ago. It found that dark skin dominated in Europe during the Paleolithic period and remained common into the Neolithic and Bronze Ages. This suggests a slower shift to lighter skin than previously thought, likely driven by adaptation to low sunlight. Stonehenge, built around 5,000 years ago, gets dragged into the narrative because it’s a Neolithic landmark, but the study’s scope is far broader. It’s about population trends, not a specific construction crew.

Why the Stonehenge Hype?

Journalists love Stonehenge because it’s a cultural magnet, instantly evoking mystery and ancient wisdom. But this study doesn’t need that prop. Its findings—that dark skin was common longer than expected—are fascinating without tying them to a single monument. The hype distorts the science, making it seem like the study dug up Stonehenge’s builders when it’s really about a continent-wide genetic picture. Meanwhile, some sources claim Neolithic farmers had lighter skin, stirring debate, but even that doesn’t justify the Stonehenge obsession.

Why It Matters

This research reshapes our view of ancient European diversity, showing dark skin was the norm for longer than assumed. It challenges outdated depictions of ancient Britons and highlights the gradual nature of human adaptation. The Stonehenge link is a distraction— the real story is how our ancestors’ appearance evolved across millennia, not just at one site. The study’s preprint status means it’s not peer-reviewed yet, but its data is strong enough to stand on its own.

What’s Next

Future studies could analyse DNA from actual Stonehenge-related remains to pin down specifics, but that’s not what this study did. Peer review will test its conclusions, potentially settling debates about Neolithic skin colour. For now, let’s stop pretending every ancient DNA find is a Stonehenge exclusive and appreciate the broader picture of human evolution.

Detailed Insights

The Study: Genetic Insights into Ancient Pigmentation

The study, titled Inference of human pigmentation from ancient DNA by genotype likelihood, analysed 348 ancient genomes from Eurasia, covering 45,000 to 1,700 years ago. Led by Silvia Perretti, Maria Teresa Vizzari, and Silvia Ghirotto, it used a genotype likelihood method to infer skin, hair, and eye colour from degraded DNA. It found that 92% of Paleolithic individuals (13,000–35,000 years ago) had dark skin, 8% had intermediate tones, and none had pale skin. By the Iron Age (1,700–3,000 years ago), this shifted to 55% dark, 27% intermediate, and 18% pale. Stonehenge’s era, around 5,000 years ago, falls in a period when dark skin was still prevalent, but the study isn’t zeroing in on Wiltshire.

It builds on earlier work, like the 2018 Cheddar Man study, which found a 10,000-year-old Briton with dark skin and blue eyes, showing continuity in these traits.

Methodology: Decoding Ancient DNA

Skin colour is polygenic, and ancient DNA is often fragmented, making analysis tricky. The Ferrara team tested three pigmentation inference methods, finding genotype likelihood best for low-coverage DNA. This approach compares genetic markers to modern European DNA to predict traits. The study’s 348-genome dataset spans Europe and Asia, but includes no Stonehenge-specific samples. Its reliance on regional trends is solid, but the preprint status means peer review is pending, and journalists exaggerating its Stonehenge connection aren’t helping clarity.The Ferrara study suggests dark skin was common 5,000 years ago, but some research, like a 2019 BBC piece, claims Neolithic farmers had paler skin, brown eyes, and dark hair, unlike darker-skinned Mesolithic locals. 

Implications for Human Evolution

The study shows the shift to lighter skin in Europe was gradual, likely for better vitamin D absorption in low-sunlight areas. Dark skin persisted long after humans left Africa 60,000–70,000 years ago, reflecting diverse ancient populations. Stonehenge’s builders probably fit this pattern, but the study’s value lies in its broader scope, not a single site. It challenges Eurocentric depictions of ancient Britons as pale, urging us to rethink our ancestors’ diversity without needing a Stonehenge headline.

Limitations and Future Directions

The study’s preprint status means it awaits peer review, and its lack of Stonehenge-specific DNA makes the link to its builders an educated guess. The debate over Neolithic skin colour calls for targeted studies, perhaps on Stonehenge burials. Future advances in DNA sequencing could clarify regional pigmentation variations, but for now, the Stonehenge hype is a distraction from solid science.

Conclusion

The Ferrara study convincingly shows dark skin was common in Neolithic Europe, likely including Stonehenge’s builders, but it’s not about them specifically. Journalists’ obsession with Stonehenge cheapens the science, which stands strong without the gimmick. The debate over Neolithic skin colour—dark versus light—reflects the field’s complexity, but this research doesn’t need a famous monument to matter. As peer review looms, let’s focus on the real story: the diverse, evolving tapestry of ancient humans, not just one pile of stones.

Key Data Table

Period Dark Skin (%) Intermediate Skin (%) Pale Skin (%)
Paleolithic (13,000–35,000 years ago) 92 8 0
Iron Age (1,700–3,000 years ago) 55 27 18

References

  1. Perretti, S., et al. (2025). Inference of human pigmentation from ancient DNA by genotype likelihood. bioRxiv.
  2. The Independent. (2025). Ancient Britons who built Stonehenge had dark skin, scientists reveal.
  3. BBC News. (2019). Stonehenge: DNA reveals origin of builders.
  4. IBTimes UK. (2025). New DNA Evidence Suggests The Builders Of Stonehenge Were Dark-Skinned.
  5. BBC News. (2018). Cheddar Man: DNA shows early Briton had dark skin.

Saturday, 17 May 2025

Dolerite Dump Spotted Near Stonehenge

UPDATE: I'm informed that the heaps may not be planings as first reported, I hope to get a definite answer soon.



Nick Bull has posted a picture on line of the road planings dumped on the Stonehenge drove to be used to improve it. The monument itself is a couple of hundred metres to the left of the photo.

Stonehenge Drove photo by Nick Bull

Recycled planings compact down to make great tracks so this might seem to be good news. 

But they are classified as waste so a waste exemption U1 must be applied for before they are used.

I haven't been able to find the one they are using here - https://environment.data.gov.uk/public-register/view/search-waste-exemptions - which is connected to the general information about waste exemptions - including that you cannot apply for one  if  it may "adversely affect the countryside or places of special interest". https://www.gov.uk/guidance/choosing-waste-exemptions-for-waste-management-activity So I don't know what Environmental Impact Assessment has been performed.

So what might be the problem?

Road planings usually contain dolerite chips, if the quarry that they came from is Criggion Quarry, near Welshpool, spotted dolerite. It’s tough stuff, perfect for road surfacing.

But really spreading it around the landscape is nightmare for anyone studying the rocks of Stonehenge.


Friday, 16 May 2025

Missing Data: Stonehenge and Its Astronomical Connections

Missing Data

Authors: Clive Ruggles (rug@le.ac.uk), University of Leicester, United Kingdom; Amanda Chadburn (amanda.chadburn@hotmail.com), Bournemouth University, United Kingdom

Citation: Ruggles C., Chadburn A.; 2024 "Missing data". Cosmovisiones/Cosmovisões 5 (1): 99-109. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24215/26840162e007

Received: 07/04/2023, Accepted: 10/06/2024

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License.

Resumen

Este breve artĂ­culo se centra en los monumentos del paisaje de Stonehenge, a fin de ofrecer una idea "moderna" de estos monumentos y su astronomĂ­a que concuerde con las pruebas arqueolĂ³gicas mĂ¡s recientes. Aunque la conexiĂ³n de Stonehenge y otros monumentos cercanos con la astronomĂ­a estĂ¡ reconocida por la UNESCO como parte del Valor Universal Excepcional del Sitio del Patrimonio Mundial de Stonehenge, la Ăºnica manifestaciĂ³n especĂ­fica de ello que ha logrado un amplio consenso entre los arqueĂ³logos son las lĂ­neas de visiĂ³n solsticiales, indicadas por los ejes principales de las configuraciones de piedra de Stonehenge y los cĂ­rculos mĂºltiples de postes de madera de Woodhenge y el CĂ­rculo del Sur de Durrington Walls. Estas lĂ­neas de visiĂ³n-suficientemente precisas para señalar el solsticio en el paisaje aunque no en el tiempo-parecen representar un desarrollo especĂ­fico en esta zona hacia mediados del III milenio a.C.

Luego pasamos a criticar algunos artĂ­culos recientes de arqueĂ³logos muy respetados que proponen (i) que Stonehenge encapsulaba elementos clave de un calendario solar de 365 ¼ dĂ­as en la numerologĂ­a de sus caracterĂ­sticas principales; (ii) que se construyĂ³ un "megacĂ­rculo" de enormes fosos, de mĂ¡s de 2 km de diĂ¡metro, en la misma Ă©poca que el cĂ­rculo de piedras de Stonehenge, centrado en Durrington Walls Henge; y (iii) que se colocaron dos grandes fosas en el "Stonehenge Cursus", situadas en las alineaciones de la salida y la puesta del sol del solsticio de verano, vistas desde la "Heel Stone". Presentamos nuevas pruebas para contrarrestar estas ideas (ii) y razonamos que todas ellas son extrapolaciones que van mucho mĂ¡s allĂ¡ de las evidencias disponibles y se enfrentan a las consideraciones metodolĂ³gicas bĂ¡sicas (por ejemplo, con respecto a la selecciĂ³n de datos) que han sido bien conocidas por los astrĂ³nomos culturales desde los años 80.

Concluimos hablando de algunas cuestiones abiertas. La primera, si Stonehenge y algunos monumentos contemporĂ¡neos cercanos hubieran podido ser colocados en lugares ya percibidos como significativos debido a la alineaciĂ³n aproximadamente solsticial de las caracterĂ­sticas naturales. Otra cuestiĂ³n es durante cuĂ¡nto tiempo continuaron las lĂ­neas de visiĂ³n solsticiales, y cĂ³mo debe interpretarse, particularmente con respecto a las ideas de rituales solsticiales que implicaban procesiones entre los distintos monumentos. Tercero, ¿es posible que las orientaciones solsticiales evidentes en Stonehenge y sus alrededores a mediados del III milenio a.C. derivaran de prĂ¡cticas desarrolladas siglos antes en el suroeste de Gales, de donde procedĂ­an las "bluestones" ("piedras azules") de Stonehenge? Una Ăºltima pregunta, que sigue en gran medida sin resolverse, es si la alineaciĂ³n lunar del rectĂ¡ngulo formado por las "Station Stones" es realmente intencional y, en caso afirmativo, cuĂ¡l fue su propĂ³sito y significado. Investigaciones recientes han logrado arrojar nueva luz sobre el tema.

Palabras clave: Prehistoria britĂ¡nica, Stonehenge, LĂ­neas de visiĂ³n solsticiales, SelecciĂ³n de datos, MetodologĂ­a.

Abstract

This short paper focuses on monuments in the Stonehenge landscape, including Stonehenge itself, with the aim of presenting a "modern" picture of these monuments and their astronomy that is consistent with the latest archaeological evidence. While the connection of Stonehenge and other nearby monuments to astronomy is recognized by UNESCO as part of the Outstanding Universal Value of the Stonehenge World Heritage site, the only specific manifestation of this that has achieved broad consensus among archaeologists is the solstitial sightlines, indicated by the main axes of the stone settings at Stonehenge and the multiple timber circles at Woodhenge and Durrington Walls Southern Circle. These sightlines - precise enough to pinpoint the solstice in space although not in time - seem to represent a specific development in this area around the mid-3rd millennium BC.

We proceed to critique some recent papers by well-respected archaeologists proposing (i) that Stonehenge encapsulated key elements of a 365¼-day solar calendar in the numerology of its key features; (ii) that a "mega-circle" of huge pits, over 2 km in diameter, was built around the same time as the stone circle at Stonehenge, centred on Durrington Walls Henge; and (iii) that two large pits were placed in the Stonehenge Cursus positioned on the summer solstice sunrise and sunset alignments as viewed from the Heel Stone. We present new evidence to counter (ii) and argue that all these ideas extrapolate well beyond the available evidence and fall foul of basic methodological considerations (e.g., regarding data selection) that have been well known to cultural astronomers since the 1980s.

We finish with a discussion of some open questions. The first is whether Stonehenge and some nearby contemporary monuments might have been placed at locations already perceived as significant because of the approximately solstitial alignment of natural features. Another is how long the solstitial sightlines remained "operational" in the sense of being usable for actual observations, and what this implies for their interpretation - particularly for ideas of solstitial observances involving processions between the different monuments. Third is the possibility that the solstitial orientations evident at and around Stonehenge in the mid-3rd millennium BC might have derived from practices developed centuries earlier in southwest Wales, from which the Stonehenge bluestones were brought. A final question that remains largely unresolved is whether the lunar alignment of the Station Stone rectangle at Stonehenge was indeed intentional and, if so, what was its purpose and meaning. Recent investigations have succeeded in casting some new light on the subject.

Keywords: Prehistoric Britain, Stonehenge, Solstitial sightlines, Data selection, Methodology

Sighting the Sun in the Stonehenge Landscape

Stonehenge remains firmly associated with astronomy in the global public perception, even though most do not fully understand how and why. Ideas depicting it as an "astronomical observatory" incorporating numerous alignments upon horizon rising and setting points of the sun and moon (Hawkins 1965) or as a "backsight" for highly precise lunar observations (Thom, Thom, and Thom 1975) have long been consigned to history (Ruggles 1999a), but unfortunately these still remain as credible explanations for many people. North's (1996: xxxix) audacious claim that "Stonehenge was indeed built to an astronomical design, or rather succession of designs, but all of them were much more ingenious that has previously been recognized" proved equally controversial (Ruggles 1999b), as did Sims' (2006) proposal that its design facilitated observations of the "dark moon" necessitated by deeply embedded ancestor rituals connecting lunar cycles to ancient hunting practices. Various other astronomical speculations relating to Stonehenge over the years have failed to achieve consensus among either archaeologists or archaeoastronomers.

On the other hand, the connection to astronomy at the Stonehenge World Heritage Site has been recognised by site managers and formally by UNESCO (decision 32 COM 8B.93) since 2008 as part of its "Outstanding Universal Value" (Young, Chadburn and Bedu 2009: 25-27; Chadburn and Ruggles 2017) and this is therefore critical to preserving its World Heritage status. This link to the skies is manifested most clearly and credibly by various solstitial sightlines found at Stonehenge and other nearby monuments (Fig. 1).

It is generally accepted that the solstitial axis of the stone settings at Stonehenge was deliberate, with the direction towards winter solstice sunset - "ahead" when following the direction of formal approach to the monument along the Avenue - likely to be the more significant (Ruggles 2014). The sightlines in each direction are more closely aligned upon the first or last gleam, rather than the centre or lower limb of the sun, and are precise to within ~0.5° (Ruggles 2006). This means that they are precise enough to fix the solstices in space - i.e., their position in relation to the landscape - but do not pinpoint them in time because there was no discernible difference in the sunrise or sunset position for several days either side of the actual solstice1. Consequently Stonehenge would have functioned well to identify a range of days around one or other solstice when, say, ceremonies should be carried out (presumably whenever a non-cloudy day permitted observation of the sun rising or setting along the alignment); but it could not be used as an accurate calendrical "instrument" for determining the exact dates of the solstices.

1 It is helpful to distinguish between (i) constructions that are broadly solstitially aligned, such as Maes Howe tomb in Orkney (precision say ~5°); (ii) those that pinpoint the solstice in space, as at Stonehenge (~0.5°); and (iii) those that pinpoint the solstice in time, as Thom (1971:37-38) suggested might have been done at Kintraw (~0.01°) (Ruggles and Chadburn 2024: 107).

A map of a city

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Figure 1: The main archaeological monuments in the Stonehenge World Heritage Site. Based on scheduled monument data from Historic England. Other features drawn from Ordnance Survey mapping data. After Chadburn and Ruggles 2017, fig. 4.1.

A diagram of a river

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

 

Figure 2: Plan of Woodhenge and Durrington Walls showing the principal alignments and their declinations. For more information see Ruggles (2014) and Ruggles and Chadburn (2024: ch. 6).

 

A practice of precise solstitial orientation around the mid-3rd millennium BC is not only evident at Stonehenge itself but at two nearby monuments, Woodhenge and Durrington Walls Southern Circle, both multiple concentric rings of timber posts (Fig. 2). At Woodhenge the axis is defined by the long axis of the concentric oval rings (see Ruggles 2006 for a discussion of the slightly different azimuth determinations by Cunnington, the excavator, and Thom). At Durrington Walls a short Avenue, discovered in 2005 during excavations by the Stonehenge Riverside Project, led down from the Southern Circle towards the River Avon (Parker Pearson 2007). Both monuments were later enclosed in henges (earthen ditch and bank). Through computer reconstructions based on DTM data and excavated evidence, we can now visualise the solstitial alignments at Durrington Walls (Ruggles and Chadburn 2024: 97-98), despite the fact that the site of the circle itself is buried beneath a road embankment. A contemporary posthole alignment recently discovered at Lark Hill to the north, built through the entrance of a causewayed enclosure constructed several centuries earlier, was aligned with similar precision upon the rising summer solstice sun (Ruggles et al. 2021).

The solstitial alignment of the main axes of several monuments in the Stonehenge landscape seems to represent a specific development in this area around the mid-3rd millennium BC. While long barrows in the area constructed around a millennium earlier manifest patterns of orientation more broadly correlated with the sun(specifically, within sunrise/sun-climbing sectors of the horizon) (Burl 1987; Ruggles 1997) ², they were clearly influenced by a number of other factors (Tilley, Bennett,and Field 2020). Elsewhere, well-known solstitial alignments of specific monuments(such as the Newgrange passage tomb in Ireland) appear to be “one-offs” within pat-terns of orientation influenced by a range of factors (Prendergast 2016).

Moreover, there is no evidence that they persisted or developed further. Rather, the alignments at both Durrington Walls and Woodhenge appear to have been short-lived, with the posts decaying or the sight-lines becoming compromised by later constructions such as henge banks (Ruggles and Chadburn 2024: 109–111). 

² These reflect local orientation patterns found widely among groups of later prehistoric ceremonial and funerary monuments in Western Mediterranean Europe (Hoskin 2001).

 

Some Recent Ideas

Darvill (2022) has recently proposed that Stonehenge encapsulated key elements of a 365¼-day solar calendar in its architectural design. The basic argument is that there are 30 uprights in the sarsen circle, 5 trilithons and 4 Station Stones, and 30 × 12 + 5 = 365, with 4 representing the quarter. This is simply playing with numbers—"numerology"—recognized for many decades by cultural astronomers as an unhelpful approach. Its dangers are most evident from the complete absence of any physical structures at Stonehenge manifesting the number 12. Added to this, the solstitial alignment does not accurately mark the solstice in time (see above) and there is no independent cultural evidence whatsoever for the existence of a 365¼-day calendar at Stonehenge. See Magli and Belmonte (2023) for a thorough critique. The numerological subjectivity is underlined by Meaden's (2023) alternative interpretation in which one of the circle stones, Stone 11, is counted as "½" so that the circle stones are supposed to represent the 29½ days of the lunar phase cycle. (Shadow alignments are also added into the mix.)

In another recent paper, Gaffney et al. (2020) have argued that Durrington Walls Henge was surrounded by a huge ring, over 2 km in diameter, of massive pits up to 20 m wide. The supposed ring is evidenced from two main arcs of features identified from geophysical surveys. The northern arc is formed by what is in fact a curved line of natural sinkholes running down a dry valley in the chalkland landscape, albeit some of them elaborated by human intervention in prehistoric times (Leivers 2021), together with some other identified features. The second arc, on the south-western side, comprises a mixture of Bronze Age and unverified features, with many comparable features being omitted (see Fig. 3). The dangers of data selection, as well as of biased interpretation, are again clear, not least because many of the areas in and around the "circle" have not been investigated.

A map of a field

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

 

Figure 3: Part of the alleged large pit circle, as enumerated by Gaffney et al. (2020), compared with the locations of prehistoric scheduled monuments (pink areas), taken from historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list (satellite layer), © Historic England. 9A, 6A and 4A (which actually coincide with the scheduled areas, despite discrepancies between the marked positions of the latter and features evident on the OS base map) are scheduled as levelled Bronze Age bowl barrows (SM 1009145, SM 1009137, and SM 1009138 respectively). Gaffney et al. undertook core investigations at unscheduled features 8A, 7A and 5A, finding no signs of human activity at 8A and 7A but some charcoal and bone at 5A. Moreover, organic matter within cores 5A, 7A and 8A varies in date by around four thousand years (Gaffney et al. 2020, Table 1).

A third idea, which received significant press coverage back in 2011, is that two large (undated) pits within the Stonehenge Cursus, which dates to the mid-4th millennium BC, marked sunrise and sunset at the summer solstice as viewed from the Heel Stone. There are issues concerning the visibility of the pits from the Heel Stone, but most important is that the selected pits are merely two among several other large pits in the vicinity3. The Heel Stone itself is undated, although the fact that it is now known to have come from the same sarsen source as nearly all the other sarsen uprights at Stonehenge means that it may have been positioned at a similar time, around 2500 BC. All this undermines Gaffney et al. (2012)'s suggestion that this positioning of the two large pits was significant and "unlikely to be a coincidence".

The authors of all these papers, well respected archaeologists, seem to be falling into traps all too familiar to cultural astronomers from the early critical development of their discipline. It took many years for early archaeoastronomers, especially those from the 'green' school, to recognize the importance of the broader archaeological/cultural context in framing credible interpretations (Aveni 1989; 2016), which was happening around the same time that 'post-processual' archaeologists were striving to develop frameworks of interpretation appropriately grounded in anthropological theory (e.g., Johnson 1999). Archaeoastronomers have long acknowledged that statistical objectivity is a goal neither achievable (because of arbitrary choices of hypothesis) nor appropriate in an anthropological context (at its simplest, because people in the past did not act like laws of the universe) (Ruggles 2011). But we have gone badly astray if the pursuit of more contextual, theory-aware approaches then results in trying to mould the archaeological evidence to fit a favoured theory rather than letting it speak for itself. It seems ironic that archaeoastronomers are now having to critique mainstream archaeologists in this regard, although less surprising perhaps in view of a similar debate some two decades ago between phenomenological and more conventional approaches in landscape archaeology (Tilley 1994; Fleming 2006). The simple rules espoused by statistician Peter Freeman at the original Oxford conference in 1981 - 'Observe everything' and 'Report all you observe' (Freeman 1982) - seem as relevant now as they ever have been.

3 The pits in question (F1 and F2) were part of "a series of large pits", but none of the rest are highlighted on the plans (Gaffney et al. 2012: 154 and figs 3 and 5). However, some of these other nearby pits/features are shown in a later paper (Gaffney et al. 2020: fig. 9).

Open Questions

The process of interpretation always involves extrapolating beyond the evidence in one sense, but has to mean suggesting credible ideas, not only well grounded theoretically but consistent with the archaeological and archaeoastronomical evidence as it stands - and ideally that are open to further investigation in the future.

It has been suggested, for example, that Stonehenge is where it is because of the approximately solstitial alignment of natural features, in this case striations in the chalk subsoil surface caused by water running downhill away from the site in that direction (Parker Pearson 2012: ch. 16). What is to us a coincidence of nature may have provided a tangible connection between the landscape and skyscape to ancient peoples. This might well have been perceived as demonstrating the sacred power and significance of the place, a power that was then appropriated and enhanced by the construction of a succession of monuments at Stonehenge itself, and the Avenue. While there is doubt about the visibility of those striations in the early Neolithic landscape, similar arguments might apply at Durrington Walls Southern Circle and the Lark Hill posthole alignment, both of which face down dry valleys that lead off in broadly solstitial directions (Leivers 2021; Ruggles et al. 2021). These are ideas that need to be, and are being, investigated further.

Another open question relates to the chronological development of the solstitial sightlines and how long they remained "operational" in the sense of being usable for actual observations. Recent dating evidence suggests that, within a century or so of their construction, the solstitial alignments at both Woodhenge (where the timbers rotted away) and Durrington Walls Southern Circle (which was enclosed within a 300 m-wide henge monument), ceased to be of practical use (Ruggles and Chadburn 2024: 109-111; Chadburn and Marshall n.d.).

At the other end of the timeline, the broadly solstitial alignment of Waun Mawn stone circle in the Preseli mountains in southwest Wales (the area from which the Stonehenge "bluestones" were sourced), a site put forward as a possible precursor to Stonehenge (Parker Pearson et al. 2021), might suggest that a tradition of solstitial orientation could originally have developed in that region before being transported (along with the stones) to Stonehenge and subsequently refined. This is a viable theory but it needs stronger supporting evidence. In particular, there remains considerable uncertainty about exactly when the bluestones were first brought to the Stonehenge area: whether this was only shortly before, or at around the same time as, the large sarsens, or many centuries earlier.

One of the biggest open questions relates to potential connections between Stonehenge and the moon. The only putative lunar sightlines indicated in the overall architectural design are towards the most southerly moonrise and most northerly moonset along the longer sides of the Station Stone rectangle. Recent geochemical analyses (Nash et al. 2020) have confirmed that the Station Stones were provenanced from the same area (the West Woods area of the Marlborough Downs, about 25 km north of Stonehenge) as the large sarsens. This, and their careful positioning in relation to the sarsen circle, with the longer sides almost tangential to it, suggest that they were put in place around the same time as the larger stones. The problem is that, being perpendicular to the main solstitial axis, the lunar alignments could have arisen fortuitously given that the shorter sides of the rectangle were solstitially aligned along the main axis of the monument.

If it was indeed designed for sighting the moon, the alignment to the northwest is surprisingly accurate (dec. +28.4°), but the practicalities of scattered observations (due both to the complex lunar motions and the uncertain weather) in and around major standstill years make intentional high precision unlikely (Ruggles 2014). On the other hand, a concentration of cremations and offerings deposited around the site during the centuries before the sarsen monument was constructed can be seen around the direction of most southerly moonrise, suggesting a pre-existing interest in the moon's appearances unusually far north or south (Pollard and Ruggles 2001). The orientation of the long sides of the rectangle perpendicular to, rather than along, the solstitial axis also give credibility to the lunar sightlines. To date, though, no credible lunar alignments have been identified at any of the nearby contemporary monuments.

Cited References

Aveni, A.F. (1989) Whither archaeoastronomy? In Aveni, A.F. (ed.) World Archaeoastronomy. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press. 3-12.

Aveni, A.F. (2016) Reidentifying archaeoastronomy. Journal of Skyscape Archaeology (2.2), 245-249.

Burl, A. (1987) The Stonehenge People. London: Dent.

Chadburn, A. and Marshall, P. (n.d.) New radiocarbon dates for Woodhenge. Forthcoming.

Chadburn, A. and Ruggles, C. (2017) Stonehenge World Heritage Property, United Kingdom. In Ruggles, C. (ed.), Heritage Sites of Astronomy and Archaeoastronomy in the Context of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention: Thematic Study no. 2. Paris: ICOMOS. 41-62.

Darvill, T. (2022) Keeping time at Stonehenge. Antiquity (96), 319-335.

Fleming, A. (2006) Post-processual landscape archaeology: a critique. Cambridge Archaeological Journal (16), 267-280.

Freeman, P.R. (1982) The statistical approach. In Heggie, D.C. (ed.), Archaeoastronomy in the Old World. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press. 45-52.

Gaffney, C., Gaffney, V., Neubauer, W., Baldwin, E., Chapman, H., Garwood, P., Moulden, H., Sparrow, T., Bates, R., Löcker, K., Hinterleitner, A., Trinks, I., Nau, E., Zitz, T, Floery, S., Verhoeven, G., Doneus, M. (2012) The Stonehenge Hidden Landscape Project. Archaeological Prospection (19), 147-155, doi.org/10.1002/arp.1422.

Gaffney, V., Baldwin, E., Bates, M., Bates, C.R., Gaffney, C., Hamilton, D., Kinnaird, T., Neubauer, W., Yorston, R., Allaby, R., Chapman, H., Garwood, P., Löcker, K., Hinterleitner, A., Sparrow, T., Trinks, I., Wallner, M., Leivers, M. (2020) A massive, Late Neolithic pit Structure associated with Durrington Walls Henge. Internet Archaeology (55) doi.org/10.11141/ia.55.4.

Hawkins, G.S. (1965) Stonehenge Decoded. New York: Doubleday.

Hoskin, M.A. (2001) Tombs, Temples and their Orientations. Bognor Regis: Ocarina Books.

Johnson, M. (1999) Archaeological Theory: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.

Leivers, M. (2021) The Army Basing Programme, Stonehenge and the emergence of the sacred landscape of Wessex. Internet Archaeology (56), doi.org/10.11141/ia.56.2.

Magli, G. and Belmonte, J. (2023) Archaeoastronomy and the alleged 'Stonehenge calendar'. Antiquity 97 (393), 745-751, doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2023.33.

Meaden, T. (2023) Stonehenge: an integrated lunar-solar calendar with shadow-casting stones at the two solstices. Journal of Skyscape Archaeology (9), 86-92.

Nash, D., Ciborowski, C., Ullyott, S., Parker Pearson, M. Darvill, T., Greaney, S., Maniatis, G., Whitaker, K. (2020) Origins of the sarsen megaliths at Stonehenge. Science Advances 6, eabc0133, science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abc0133.

North, J.D. (1996) Stonehenge: Neolithic Man and the Cosmos. New York: Harper Collins.

Parker Pearson, M. (2007) The Stonehenge Riverside Project: excavations at the east entrance of Durrington Walls. In Larsson, M. and Parker Pearson, M. (eds.) From Stonehenge to the Baltic. Oxford: BAR IS 1692. 125-144.

Parker Pearson, M. (2012) Stonehenge: Exploring the Greatest Stone Age Mystery. London: Simon & Schuster.

Parker Pearson, M., Pollard, J., Richards, C., Thomas, J., Tilley, C., Welham, K., Albarella, U. (2006) Materializing Stonehenge. Journal of Material Culture (11), 227-260.

Parker Pearson, M., Pollard, J., Richards, C., Welham, K., Kinnaird, T., Shaw, D., Simmons, E., Stanford, A., Bevins, R., Ixer, R., Ruggles, C., Rylatt, J., Edinborough, K. (2021) The original Stonehenge? A dismantled stone circle in the Preseli Hills of west Wales. Antiquity 95 (379), 85-103.

Pollard, J. and Ruggles, C. (2001) Shifting perceptions: spatial order, cosmology, and patterns of deposition at Stonehenge. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 11(1), 69-90.

Prendergast, F. (2016) Interpreting megalithic tomb orientations and siting within broader cultural contexts. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 685, 012004, iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/685/1/012004.

Ruggles, C. (1997) Astronomy and Stonehenge. In Cunliffe, B. and Renfrew, C. (eds), Science and Stonehenge. London: British Academy. 203-229.

Ruggles, C. (1999a) Astronomy in Prehistoric Britain and Ireland. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Ruggles, C. (1999b) Sun, moon, stars and Stonehenge. Archaeoastronomy - supp. to Journal for the History of Astronomy 30- (24), S83-88.

Ruggles, C. (2006) Interpreting solstitial alignments in Late Neolithic Wessex. Archaeoastronomy -Journal of the Center for Archaeoastronomy- (20) 1-27.

Ruggles, C. (2011) Pushing back the frontiers or still running around the same circles? 'Interpretative archaeoastronomy' thirty years on. In Ruggles, C. (ed.), Archaeoastronomy and Ethnoastronomy: Building Bridges between Cultures. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press. 1-18.

Ruggles, C. (2014) Stonehenge and its landscape. In Ruggles, C. (ed.), Handbook of Archaeoastronomy and Ethnoastronomy. New York: Springer. 1223-1238.

Ruggles, C. and Chadburn, A. (2024) Stonehenge: Sighting the Sun. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press/Historic England.

Ruggles, C., Chadburn, A., Leivers, M., Smith, A. (2021) A possible new sightline in the Stonehenge landscape. Journal of Skyscape Archaeology (7), 144-156.

Sims, L. (2006) The 'solarization' of the moon: manipulated knowledge at Stonehenge. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 16(2), 191-207.

Thom, A. (1971) Megalithic Lunar Observatories. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Thom, A., Thom, A.S., and Thom, A. S. (1975) Stonehenge as a possible lunar observatory. Journal for the History of Astronomy (6), 19-30.

Tilley, C. (1994) A Phenomenology of Landscape. London: Berg.

Tilley, C., Bennett, W., and Field, D. (2020) Long barrows in the Early Neolithic landscape c. 3800-3400 BC. In Parker Pearson, M. et al. (eds.) Stonehenge for the Ancestors, Part 1: Landscape and Monuments. Leiden: Sidestone Press. 36-48.

Young, C., Chadburn, A., and Bedu, I. (2009) Stonehenge World Heritage Site Management Plan 2009, English Heritage/ Stonehenge WHS Committee. www.stonehengeandaveburywhs.org/assets/Stonehenge-WHS-Man-Plan-2009-low-res.pdf.