Lintel 122 Keystone Carving

Lintel 122 has a pronounced bulge in its middle which makes more doorway like. The uprights, especially 22 have vertical lines which also add to the effect.

The Avenue - Not A Processional Way?

The Avenue - the detailed EH report argues it was never much used as either a processional or stone dragging route. Was it purely symbolic? This conclusion rather goes against the new favourite theory that the stones were designed to be seen by the masses from the heelstone area.


http://services.english-heritage.org.uk/ResearchReportsPdfs/031_2012WEB.pdf -
31/2012 - Stonehenge World Heritage Site Landscape Project: The Avenue and Stonehenge Bottom
Analytical earthwork survey and investigation, by the former Archaeological Survey & Investigation team of EH, of the area to the north of Stonehenge revealed several zones of archaeological interest. Chief among these and well-known is the Avenue which, for the first part of its course, survives as an earthwork. When studied it is more substantial closer to Stonehenge than elsewhere. The lack of hollowing where the Avenue passes over a steep bluff at the ‘elbow’ is highlighted, raising the question of the degree to which the Avenue can ever have been a heavily used route, either for stone moving or processions.

And from the report itself:

...current theories on the purpose of the Avenue see it as a route for the transport of the bluestones from the River Avon or as a commemoration of that route, the argument being that the Avenue follows the easiest gradients from the river. This may be true for most of the route but at one crucial point,the ‘elbow’,it is not. A route a hundred metres or so further west here, utilising the dry valley which runs down from the current car park,would have avoided the steepest part of the low bluff;this, however, would not bring Stonehenge into view on the solstice alignment — it could be argued that the extra effort of bringing the stones up the bluff on that crucial alignment was part of the purpose. Another curiosity of the Avenue’s route up the bluff, however, is the lack of hollowing which we would expect at this point if it had been subjected to heavy traffic for any length of time. This lack of hollowing is clear both from surface observation for the current project and from the excavations. It is precisely on shoulders such as this that hollow ways first develop. This argues somewhat against the ‘elbow’ either as a route for the stones or as a well used procession route over any length of time. If processions did take place up this slope they either did not happen very often or did not involve many people....

English Heritage 2012 Research Reports on Stonehenge

http://services.english-heritage.org.uk/ResearchReportsPdfs/003_2012WEB.pdf
3/2012 - Larkhill Barrows, Durrington, Stonehenge World Heritage Site Landscape Project : Archaeological Survey Report
Rapid field investigations of two areas near Larkhill complement a detailed analytical survey of the round barrow cemetery south-east of Down Barn, Durrington, and other recent surveys undertaken as part of English Heritage’s Stonehenge World Heritage Site Landscape Project. They provide updated information on the condition of the round barrows, some suggestion of multiple phases and highlight the presence of pond barrows and an alignment of three small bowl barrows.


http://services.english-heritage.org.uk/ResearchReportsPdfs/029_2012WEB.pdf
29/2012 - Stonehenge World Heritage Site Landscape Project: Lake Barrows, The Diamond and Normanton Gorse
Rapid survey of three areas on Boreland Farm was undertaken as part of the Stonehenge World Heritage Site Landscape Project. Barrows, field systems and linear ditches were investigated, as well as elements of the more recent landscape. The opportunity has been taken to report a previous survey of the nearby long barrow Wilsford 34. The most significant issues raised are: the previously accepted relationships between the Lake Barrows and adjacent linear ditches; and the existence of the ‘North Kite’ enclosure. A more conventional relative chronology between the barrows and the linear ditches is suggested here but more detailed survey is recommended to resolve this issue satisfactorily; in the light of results from aerial survey it is suggested that the ‘North Kite’ is a fortuitous survival of linear ditches which were otherwise ploughed out before the first maps and antiquarian records were made.



http://services.english-heritage.org.uk/ResearchReportsPdfs/031_2012WEB.pdf -
31/2012 - Stonehenge World Heritage Site Landscape Project: The Avenue and Stonehenge Bottom
Analytical earthwork survey and investigation, by the former Archaeological Survey & Investigation team of EH, of the area to the north of Stonehenge revealed several zones of archaeological interest. Chief among these and well-known is the Avenue which, for the first part of its course, survives as an earthwork. When studied it is more substantial closer to Stonehenge than elsewhere. The lack of hollowing where the Avenue passes over a steep bluff at the ‘elbow’ is highlighted, raising the question of the degree to which the Avenue can ever have been a heavily used route, either for stone moving or processions. The degree of later damage to the Avenue through use as a trackway and by cultivation at various times in the past has become evident. Earthworks associated with an 18th-century road and a 20th-century group of agricultural buildings were recorded. In Stonehenge Bottom quarrying has disturbed earlier remains but on the western slopes a series of terraces and platforms may relate to buildings associated with agriculture in the area. On the eastern slopes of the valley a number of barrows, trackways and other features were surveyed, along with traces of a possible enclosure close to the valley floor.


http://services.english-heritage.org.uk/ResearchReportsPdfs/032_2012WEB.pdf -
32/2012 - Stonehenge Laser Scan: Archaeological Analysis
From May to August 2012, ArcHeritage, in collaboration with Dr Hugo Anderson-Whymark, undertook the archaeological analysis of laser scan data of Stonehenge, collected by the Greenhatch Group in March 2011. The results of the project were beyond all expectations. The investigation identified traces of stone-working on virtually every stone, revealing significant new evidence for how Stonehenge was built. In addition, all of the known prehistoric carvings were identified and examined, and numerous new carvings of axe-heads and a possible dagger were revealed. The number of prehistoric axe-head carvings on Stonehenge has increased from 44 to 115; this doubles the number of Early Bronze Age axe-head carvings known in Britain. Differences in patterns of tooling across Stonehenge were also identified that reveal significant new evidence for how, and potentially when, different elements of the monument were constructed. The analysis revealed that the Sarsen Circle was built and dressed with an apparent emphasis on the NE-SW solstitial axis. The study also presents new evidence allowing the question of the non-completion of the Sarsen Circle to be explored. The project, funded by English Heritage, recorded all visible graffiti, damage, weathering and restoration. This revealed considerable evidence for the removal of stones from Stonehenge, and documented extensive damage from past visitors.


http://services.english-heritage.org.uk/ResearchReportsPdfs/034_2012WEB.pdf -
34/2012 - Stonehenge Monument Field and Barrows,Wiltshire: Report on Geophysical Surveys, September 2010, April and July 2011
Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) survey was conducted over an area of approximately 1.5ha centred on the stone circle at Stonehenge, Wiltshire (AMIE SU 14 SW4). The field work was undertaken to complement earlier geophysical survey coverage and a more recent earth work survey of the monument. In addition, three barrow groups (AMIE SU 14 SW397-401, SW89 and SW421-422) were surveyed with both GPR (2.0ha) and magnetic (2.8ha) techniques. The results from the GPR survey over the monument recorded responses to many known, recent interventions at the site such as the course of former track-ways recorded on historic aerial photographs. However, some new anomalies were also identified that enhance the existing geophysical record of the site and may well prove to be of archaeological significance. The survey of the barrow groups demonstrated the advantages of applying high sample density magnetic survey to complement existing coverage and the complexity of the GPR response over such features.



http://services.english-heritage.org.uk/ResearchReportsPdfs/035_2012WEB.pdf -
35/2012 - Stonehenge World Heritage Site Landscape Project: A344 Corridor: Level 1 Survey
This report describes the archaeological sites visible on the road verges either side of the A344 in the vicinity of Stonehenge. It focuses on the section of the A344 from its junction with the A303 in the east to the junction with the A360 at Airman’s Corner and highlights those areas that are particularly vulnerable to road works. This report supersedes a previously issued interim report (RDRS 8-2010).

http://services.english-heritage.org.uk/ResearchReportsPdfs/001_2012WEB.pdf
1/2012 - Stonehenge, Amesbury, Wiltshire: Chronological Modelling
This report contains details of all the radiocarbon determinations obtained on samples dated from Stonehenge up to the end of 2011. A series of chronological models based on different readings of the archaeology are presented for the monument as a way of exploring how these interpretations influence our understanding of its chronology.
Authors
Darvill , T , Marshall , P , Parker Pearson , M , Wainwright , G


Earlier Online Reports:

Stonehenge World Heritage Site Landscape Project: Architectural Assessment 
The Stonehenge World Heritage Site is designated for the importance of its surviving prehistoric mon...
42/2011

Stonehenge World Heritage Site Landscape Project: Level 1 Field Investigations 
A series of rapid field (Level 1) investigations around Stonehenge have identified a range of previo...
82/2011

Stonehenge World Heritage Site Landscape Project: King Barrow Ridge 
A rapid field investigation (Level 1 survey) along the King Barrow Ridge has identified previously u...
83/2011

Stonehenge World Heritage Site Landscape Project: Earthworks at Lake and West Amesbury 
Two sets of medieval and early post-medieval earthworks on the southern boundary of the Stonehenge W...
92/2011

Stonehenge World Heritage Site Landscape Project: The Greater Cursus, Durrington, Wiltshire 
In 2010 the Research Department of English Heritage undertook the first detailed analytical earthwor...
103/2011

Stonehenge World Heritage Site Landscape Project: The Stonehenge Avenue, Amesbury, Wiltshire 
Forthcoming.
104/2011

Stonehenge World Heritage Site Landscape Project: Stonehenge Down and the Triangle, Amesbury, Wiltshire 
Survey of the earthworks on Stonehenge Down, including those in the immediate environs of Stonehenge...
105/2011

The Archaeology of the A344 corridor: Level 1 Survey, Stonehenge WHS Landscape Project 
Forthcoming.
8/2010

Assessment of Human Remains Excavated from the Stonehenge Landscape 3700-1600BC 
Human remains excavated from the Stonehenge Landscape dating from 3700-1600BC were assessed. The ass...
34/2010

Stonehenge World Heritage Site Landscape Project: The Cursus Barrows and Surrounding Area 
The area between the A344 and the Fargo Plantation, to the north-west of Stonehenge, was surveyed by...
85/2010

Stonehenge World Heritage Site Landscape Project: Durrington Firs 
Analytical survey and investigation of the earthworks within part of the Durrington Down plantation,...
86/2010

Stonehenge World Heritage Site Landscape Project, Normanton Down: Archaeological Survey Report 
The Normanton Down Barrow Group is one of the most prominent Neolithic and Bronze Age cemeteries in...
90/2010

Stonehenge World Heritage Site Landscape Project: Lake Down, Wilsford-cum-Lake 
Archaeological features on Lake Down, including a barrow group, were surveyed at a scale of 1:1000 i...
95/2010

Stonehenge World Heritage Site Landscape Project, Fargo South: Archaeological Survey Report 
The area of Fargo Plantation to the south of the earthwork known as the Stonehenge Cursus was invest...
96/2010

Stonehenge World Heritage Site Landscape Project: Winterbourne Stoke Crossroads 
To the north-west of the Winterbourne Stoke Crossroads (also known as the Longbarrow Crossroads but...
107/2010

Stonehenge WHS Landscape Project: Wilsford Down Barrows 
The Wilsford barrow group is one of the least studied of the major cemeteries around Stonehenge. It...
108/2010

World Heritage Site Landscape Project: Stonehenge, Amesbury, Wiltshire 
Analytical survey of the ground surface at Stonehenge revealed the presence of a number of interesti...
109/2010

New Stonehenge Geophysical Report Published

Research Report Series 34-2012
STONEHENGE MONUMENT FIELD AND BARROWS, WILTSHIRE
REPORT ON GEOPHYSICAL SURVEYS, SEPTEMBER 2010, APRIL AND JULY 2011
Neil Linford, Paul Linford and Andrew Payne

Available from the English Heritage Website here.

Lots of information and hints for further investigation.

An Unspotted Dagger on Stone 4?

Peter Keith Squire, who helps keep Stonehenge secure at night, has been out with his torch dagger spotting again. He recently sent me a stunning photo of the dagger on Stone 23 - http://www.sarsen.org/2012/10/new-photo-of-stone-23-dagger.html.

So now have a look at this photo I took of a carving on Stone 4, taken with his torch shining vertically down.

There seems to be two holes above a faint shaft that then goes down into more familiar axe shape. Click any photo to enlarge them to make them clearer.

The Laser Scan has a Luminance Lens picture of Stone 4 on which I have highlighted it as well.

But the official results only pick up the axe head - F693.

I must have another look at the actual stone but from the comfort of my desk it does look very like the dagger on 23 and not just another axe head.

Dagger on Stone 23 and for comparison some of the axes and daggers on Stone 53:

On the left is the newly discovered "dagger" F600 and above it "axes" F596 and F601 which have a swelling on the handle. There seems to be a continuum between axes and daggers.

Hole H

Cleal et al provides a good summary of the knowledge of Hole H.

Just to record my belief, I think that it is a stonehole, as are Holes F & G, because of the size of the hole. I think H was dubbed the Bush Hole is because it had a smaller hole in the side wall where a bush or tree had grown in the disturbed ground.

I admit this is just my belief and the evidence is slim but taken with the descriptions of the three holes and others it seems to be more than plausible.

More on the Holes F, G and H at http://www.sarsen.org/2012/07/fgh-first-wife-stones.html

Stone 55 Stonehole - Correction to Cleal

For an update of this post and more information see http://www.sarsen.org/2013/03/stone-55-putting-record-straight.html


Cleal's Stonehenge in Its Landscape: 20th Century Excavations (English Heritage Archaeological Report) seems to be mistaken ('Quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus') as to the stonehole of the fallen upright of the Great Trilithon Stone 55.


Here is the passage from Cleal and the Figure 12 referred to from Gowland's report.

The vertical scale in Gowland's diagram is in 6 inch increments (150mm).
Click picture to enlarge.

Cleal's text:

Trilithon III, the ‘Great Trilithon’
Trilithon Stone 55, WA 4143: Gowland excavated be
neath one part of this stone (55a) which is fallen and broken
into two parts (excavation Q Gowland 1902, 52—4, figs 7 and
12) (Plate 5.3). He did not find a clear well-cut hole but only
a ‘shallow cavity’ and he postulated that the stone had stood
in the cavity, propped and wedged by sarsen stones which he
found lying under the fallen stone. The ‘cavity’ as it shows in
section is barely 2ft (0.6 1m) deep (op cit, fig 12) and it seems
unlikely that such a large stone could have stood in it. Without
full excavation of the area under 55a, however, Gowland’s
observations and interpretation cannot be tested. The section
which shows the ‘cavity’ (je Gowland 1902, fig 12) also shows
a much clearer and deeper cut which looks similar to the
stonehole for Stone 56. This, however, if it was the hole for 55,
would place that stone too far into the interior to line up with
Stone 56. Gowland does not explicitly describe this cut but he
may be referring to it when he describes how two of the blocks
of sarsen which he considered to have been supports for Stone
55 when it was standing ‘had the ground entirely cut away from...

Cleal says that the hole is barely 2 feet deep (ie four six inch increments). This is the measurement from the underside of the fallen stone to the bottom of the hole. But the stone is sunk into the ground. On the left can be seen the ground surface level. One can only estimate the the ground surface when the stone was upright but it is probably close to the level marked. This would give a hole depth of about 3'6" or 7 of Gowland's marks. The bulbous base of 55 is also about 3' 6" from the worked flat side to its base indicating that this is the depth it probably was in the ground. Gowland's hole fits perfectly.

The cut in front may be part of the very ancient hole that was dug in front of the Trilithon for reasons unknown. It is also not clear how deep and far under Stone 55a Gowland excavated and if the illustrated cut extends under the stone or is the end view of the Western edge.

For more on the original position of Stone 55 see http://www.sarsen.org/2012/06/original-position-of-stone-55.html