Sarsen Route Across the Pewsey Vale

The Sarsens of Stonehenge

Donald A. E. Cross

The Geographical Journal
Vol. 128, No. 1 (Mar., 1962), p. 127
Published by: Wiley
Article Stable URL:http://www.jstor.org/stable/1794182

.... As regards Dr. Hill’s suggested land route from the crest of the Marlborough Downs to the river Avon near Upavon across the Vale, I would prefer route A—B down the scarp at Walker’s Hill rather than that above Huish because I would venture to suggest a more appropriate trans-valley route than either Atkinson’s or the author’s. This would be a route down Walker’s Hill to Alton Priors, very cLose to the line of the Ridge Way (which here has come across the Downs by Avebury and East Kennett), then west of Woodborough Hill to Honeystreet Farm, past Woodborough, Broad Street and Gores along the line of the present minor road to meet the western tributary of the Avon near Cuttenham Farm, just below Wilsford. This route is along a broad well- drained ridge at between 370—350 feet O.D. and follows the route by which the Ridge Way itself crossed the valley. It would seem logical that the stones should be trans ported along an established valley route rather than by hacking out a new route to the east which also involved an additional crossing of the Avon near Manningford...

DONALD A. E. CROSS
West Oxfordshìre Technical College
Witney Lecturer in Geography
21 January 1962


(A citation I had previously overlooked which concurs with my publication -
Map of the sarsen route to Stonehenge - The Origin Of The Stonehenge Sarsens leaflet (ISBN 9780957093003)

Did Saving Stonehenge Dismantle Private Property Rights?

Below are some extracts from an interesting article on how the Lubbock's Preservation of Ancient Monument Bill was a watershed in the rights of private property and the State's power over it and its owner.

Before it was passed an owner's right to do as he wanted to with his property was largely unhindered by the state. Sir John's bill was narrowly focused, but its opponents warned it was a slippery slope eroding property rights. The view that private property rights were too important to be meddled with was the excepted view of society. The strong version of this view is now almost completely absent from political circles, all the slippery slope examples, and many more, have come to pass and we live in a nation with very different views on the inviolability of private property.

Joseph L. Sax, Is Anyone Minding Stonehenge--The Origins of Cultural Property Protection in England, 78 Cal. L. Rev. 1543 (1990).

https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38JJ8X

 Available at: http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/californialawreview/vol78/iss6/3

On February 7, 1873, Sir John Lubbock, a Member of Parliament for Maidstone, introduced into the House of Commons what might have seemed the most innocuous of legislative proposals, "A Bill to Provide for the Preservation of Ancient National Monuments."...

Sir John drafted his bill to be as uncontroversial as possible. It established a commission with authority to designate important antiquities as ancient monuments. The owners of any such designated monument would thereafter be obligated to notify the government, and offer it the monument for purchase, before undertaking construction on the site. If the government decided not to exercise its right of purchase, the owners were free to go forward with their work. The owners were entitled to full compensation. Last, in order to intrude as little as possible on the private lives of the landowners, all inhabited places, dwellings, gardens, and parks were excluded from the bill's coverage.

Despite its seeming restraint, the Ancient Monuments bill generated a fire storm of opposition. Sir John pressed unsuccessfully for its enactment every year for ten years. When a monuments law finally passed in 1882, it had been stripped of its strongest provisions, concerning notice and compulsory purchase. Under the bill that was finally enacted, the government could do no more than purchase from a willing seller should the Treasury deign to provide any money for that purpose, accept the role of guardian of designated monuments at the behest of an owner, or accept monuments deeded or willed to the government by private owners.
Why was the Lubbock bill so controversial? It was certainly not the subject matter, as antiquities were greatly prized by the English..... Hardly anyone disputed the worthiness of the goals of the Ancient Monuments bill; it was the legislation's mechanism for achieving those goals to which people objected....

His was the first piece of legislation in the Anglo-American world' to embrace two related principles: that the protection of cultural property was a governmental duty, and that public ownership and control should be brought to bear on unwilling proprietors. The Ancient Monuments bill shifted the line between public and private authority a considerable distance for that time. A Member of Parliament expressed the contemporary dissatisfaction with the Lubbock bill, as experienced by the proprietor of Stonehenge: "[He] had done his best to protect that 'ancient monument,' and.., objected to having the jurisdiction over his own property taken out of his hands."

What was missing from Lubbock's defense of the bill was the recognition that his legislation attacked a central premise of the private property system: whatever values inhered in property, private proprietorship was a sufficient institution to ensure their protection. No government action was necessary to remind the citizenry of its duties. Not everyone phrased criticism of this aspect of the bill as crudely as Sir William Harcourt, who said: "It was wonderful to see how some hon. Members sank all their ordinary principles whenever one of their peculiar hobbies was affected.... [One] became a Communist, put on the red cap, and said that private property was nothing to him."'....

The Lubbock bill invoked the quite different picture of an expanding government with an open-ended cultural program.

The opposition sought to illustrate the significance of the difference by asking what limits could be placed upon the principle embodied in the Ancient Monuments bill. If it was appropriate for government-rather than the owner of the land-to decide the fate of a Roman camp or a prehistoric mound, why should not government soon be deciding the fate of a great many other things? As the Attorney General, Sir John Holker, put it:

If they adopted the principle of the Bill in this respect, where was its application to cease? If they were going to preserve at the expense of private rights everything which happened to be of interest to the public, why should they confine the legislation to those ancient monuments?... Why should they not equally provide for preservation of the mediaeval monuments-of those old abbeys and castles which were quite as interesting as the Druidical remains? And why should they stop even there? Why not impose restrictions on the owners of pictures or statues which might be of great national interest? If the owner of the "Three Marys" or of Gainsborough's "Blue Boy" proposed to send it out of the country, were they to prevent him, on the ground that the matter was one of national concern? If they said that a certain circle of stones was of such national interest that an interference with private rights was justifiable in order to preserve it, might they not also say that a certain row of beech trees on a man's estate which gave great pleasure to persons passing by ought in the same manner to be preserved?

It took less than a hundred years until the fanciful examples the Attorney General put forward became common realities. The government of England does provide for the preservation of medieval structures, restrict the exportation of famous paintings, and preserve forests. England also has a special and extensive law that permits the adoption of "tree preservation orders," precisely to protect features such as rows of aesthetically pleasing beech trees.

The assumption under which the Attorney General operated was that the objects he mentioned were preeminently private and thus should be at the disposal of individual owners. That certainly was the common understanding of the time, so much so that it was apparently thought sufficient merely to offer telling examples to show the flawed principle in the Lubbock bill. Sir John Lubbock himself repeatedly insisted that he supported no such broad principle. But his opponents had the better of the argument. Whatever principle justified a public takeover of Stonehenge was no less applicable to a medieval manor or an ancient grove of trees. The Lubbock bill had to stand or fall on some large claim in favor of collective policies displacing the individualistic, decentralized, and autonomous system of private property that existed in the late nineteenth century...

It is now almost universally agreed that the state has both a right and a duty to protect cultural heritage properties, notwithstanding the reluctance of a private owner, and that the owner of such properties can no longer assert a "childish right of destruction." These precepts are a legacy left us by Sir John Lubbock...no one in the Anglo-American world had articulated a legal rationale for preservation legislation prior to the debates over the Lubbock bill. No historian has yet made an effort to trace the direct influence of the ideas underlying the Ancient Monuments bill or the lessons from the threatened loss of Stonehenge or the rescue of Avebury....

Position of Stone Hole 97

English Heritage have marked the position of Stone Hole 97 with a very handsome marker.

Stone hole 97 was discovered by Mike Pitts in 1979 and is alongside the Heel Stone, it may be where a companion stone to the Heel Stone stood, or where the Heel Stone was moved from. The centre of it is abut 2m from the nearest point of the heel stone and is "cut through by the ditch around the Heelstone", with it mainly lying within the ditch enclosure.

Unfortunately the marker is about 5m from the Heel Stone and entirely without the ditch enclosure. If it marks where the second of a pair of stone stood the effect of two pillars bracketing the solstitial sunrise is now not obvious.

Before the marker was installed I wrote a bog post about getting the position correct. :( 

ORIGINAL POST from May 2013

One of the improvements that is planned for Stonehenge is the marking of Stone Hole 97 and the Solstitial Alignment on the ground. But the plans seem to have 97 marked in the wrong place. 

UPDATE - EH say the mistake has been noted and will be corrected.

April 2012 EH plans for after the A344 is closed and grassed over from http://southplanning.wiltshire.gov.uk/public-planning-application-documents/00543000/00542853_Amended_Plan.pdf

Mike Pitts' plan at the same orientation taken from:

Mike Pitts' plan (and he discovered Stonehole 97) from http://mikepitts.wordpress.com/2012/12/01/stonehenge-in-five-easy-stages-or-perhaps-six/


A more detailed plan of the Heel Stone area, though I haven't located the original source.

Heelstone, Stonehenge - Refraction Seismic (1984) from http://www.panoramio.com/photo/58474363 by Gary Denke

Click any to embiggen

Fargo Plantation Barrow Clump

A detailed plan (click to embiggen) of the clump of barrows (and a henge) in the Fargo Plantation from the planning application doscumentation - http://southplanning.wiltshire.gov.uk/public-planning-application-documents/00540500/00540343_Amended_Plan.pdf Follow the link for a larger version.

The Bronze Age-Iron Age Transition in the Vale of Pewsey, Wiltshire

The Bronze Age-Iron Age Transition in the Vale of Pewsey, Wiltshire Vol 1 | Paul Tubb - Academia.edu

""This research set out to investigate the nature and extent of prehistoric human activity in the Vale of Pewsey, Wiltshire, a relatively poorly understood area located between the Marlborough Downs and Salisbury Plain. This was to be achieved through a combination of archival reassessment, aerial photographic interpretation and non-intrusive fieldwork. It became obvious that the Vale was the location for a considerable density of Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age sites, many of which were so called “midden” or “black-earth “sites, and this report concentrates on this period.  A survey of some 240 square km of the Vale was undertaken and the results analysed in the context of the few black-earth sites in the area that had previously been investigated. A number of well preserved sites dating from this period were identified and surveyed for the first time and fragments of the late prehistoric landscape defined and discussed. 

Recent interpretations of Casterley Camp as a hill-top enclosure of this period were investigated and challenged as a result of fieldwork. The nature of the Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age subsistence system and society in this area are discussed and ethnographic comparables offered. The formation and meaning of black-earth sites and the role of these sites in the contemporary society discussed. The apparent uniqueness of the concentration of sites in the Vale of Pewsey is considered by comparison with other areas of Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age activity in southern Britain and, finally, suggestions for future work in the area are made.""

Lots about All Cannings Cross (the site I own!) and other sites - download and enjoy.

dropbox.com

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/4rawgupm00g6a8q/k0zVTQHZtL  111.48 MB

The Altar Stone - A Fallen Stone or Original Sunrise Marker?

A few clippings about the Altar Stone.

Because it lies skewed across the Summer Solstitial Sunrise it has been assumed it is a fallen stone. But no hole has been found for it and it is hard to see how it fell in to its present position if it was a central marker. Atkinson wondered if it was part of a pair - see below - but there seems to be little evidence for this theory. I think the consensus view is coming round to believing it is is substantially in its original position and orientation.

Gordon Freeman points out that this skewed position aligns it to the Winter Solstitial Sunrise as well as crossing the Summer one.   This happens to be the same argument I make about the Great Trilithon which is parallel to the Altar Stone - see http://www.sarsen.org/2012/07/stonehenge-resurrection-alignment.html.

Intriguingly there are two post holes marked to the north-west of the Altar Stone. Further north-west the ground has been too disturbed by early excavations but could they be the corners of a platform or other structure also so aligned?

From Atkinson's Stonehenge

The naming of the Altar Stone is due, apparently, to

Inigo Jones, who made the first ‘plan’ of Stonehenge in

162o (p. 186). Though it has long since become established,

it should not be taken to imply any knowledge of the real

purpose of the stone, which is entirely unknown.

The Altar Stone (8o) is the largest of all the ‘foreign

stones’ at Stonehenge. It is a rectangular recumbent block

of sandstone, 16 ft. long by 3 ft. wide by 1 ft. deep, 

embedded in the earth so that its top is level with the surface,

about 15 ft. within the central sarsen trilithon. Two fallen

members of this trilithon now lie across it (stones 55 and

156), and their weight has probably pressed it down to its

present position. Like the adjoining bluestones, it has been

carefully dressed to shape, but its exposed surface is now 

considerably abraded by the feet of visitors. 

The Altar Stone is not symmetrical to the axis, nor does it

lie at right-angles to its line, though this lack of symmetry

is small enough to be appreciated better on a plan than by

casual inspection on the ground. Nevertheless, the amount of

discrepancy appears to be more than can be accounted for

by movement when the two sarsens fell upon it. It cannot be

assumed, therefore, that the Altar Stone was ever placed in

intentionally in the position it now occupies. Indeed, it has

been suggested that it formerly stood upright on one end, on

the axis, and has fallen on top of its own stone-hole, as the

neighbouring stone 55 has certainly done. Some support for

this suggestion comes from the report by Colt Hoare, the

patron of William Cunnington, that the latter found

a disturbance 6 ft. deep ‘close to the altar'. Though it is not

certain exactly where this was, the description of the filling

of the hole makes it sound much more like a genuine stone-

hole than the site of some treasure-hunter’s excavation. Unless

further excavations are made, however, the problem of the

purpose and position of the Altar Stone will remain unsolved. 

Further description from Cleal (Stonehenge in its landscape: Twentieth century excavations by R. M. J. Cleal, K. E. Walker and R. Montague)

Stonehole  WA 3359 in (excavation) C53. This stonehole,
for which there is no extant section, was considered too
small to have held the Altar Stone but might have held
the pair to it (Atkinson 1979, 212). An interesting coda
to this is that at the end of the interview held between
Professor Atkinson and two of the authors of this volume
a few months before his death, his parting words were
that he had often thought that the reason for creating the
tongue and groove pair could have been to form a large
single block which would have more nearly matched the
size of the Altar Stone than any other single Bluestone,
and that the two joined stones could have stood in the
hole WA 3359, with the Altar Stone in a hole in the
unexcavated area on the other side of the axis. This
possibility is not dismissed here, although without exca-
vation the existence of a pair cannot be confirmed. Even
with excavation it is unlikely that such isolated features
could be assigned to one particular setting. It does seem
probable, however, that the Altar Stone was standing in
a hole somewhere within the line of the Sarsen Trilithons
when it fell, judging by its present position, although this
does not preclude an earlier site for it, as suggested in
sub-phase 3i, within the first Bluestone setting.

OBSERVATIONAL ARCHAEOASTRONOMY AT STONEHENGE:
WINTER SOLSTICE SUN RISE AND SET LINES ACCURATE TO
0.2° IN 4000 BP
Gordon R. Freeman and Phyllis J. Freeman

A Winter Solstice Sun Rise observation line crosses the Sarsen Circle between Sarsens 21 and 22, through the Trilithon gap 57-58, past the NE edge of Bluestone 69, above and parallel to the Altar Stone80, past the NE edge of Trilithon Sarsen 53 and the SW edge of Circle Sarsen 8.

The fact that the WSR and WSS lines intersect above the centre of the Altar Stone (Fig. 9),
make it virtually certain that the Altar Stone is still in its original orientation. Stone 80 was
probably pushed downward when 55 fell on it.

The sarsens of Salisbury Plain – A conversation with David Field | Armchair prehistory

The sarsens of Salisbury Plain – A conversation with David Field | Armchair prehistory:

Excerpts from David Field's emails.

... There are, however, quite a few smaller sarsens around on Salisbury Plain and some were indeed incorporated into long barrows. Knook Barrow had a cairn of sarsen, Arn Hill long barrow had a standing stone, Corton long barrow had a ‘massive boulder’. Cunnington said that sarsens can be found all over the downs beneath the turf and that farmers plough them up in the area north of Stonehenge (Larkhill west of barracks) from time to time. There is a long barrow there (Figheledean 31-see attached) with three in the ditch and another six in a line where they were disturbed when the military built a rifle range. Quite a few around Bulford, aside from the Cuckoo stone (attached), Togstone and the one in the river, there is one from a round barrow that had a burial beneath an ‘immense sarsen’ and a number of others noted on early maps. One of the King Barrows formerly had a sarsen circle or kerb around it. Today the Imber to Chittern valley has many small boulders and cobbles on the
slopes and in the stream and presumably many more were once visible when the area was cultivated.

As you rightly say, none of these are large in trilithon terms, but then neither are any of those on the Marlborough Downs where they rarely exceed a couple of metres – three at the most. The big ones there seem to have been reserved for the Cove and blocking stones at West Kennet. The survival of many on the Marlborough Downs can be put down to lack of agriculture (it’s a degree colder there than Salisbury Plain) for they get in the way of ploughs and soon get cleared and broken up or buried. You can trace the clearance process at Overton/Fyfield from undisturbed sarsens on the summits, to the clearance to field edges to create ‘Celtic’ Fields in the Bronze Age on the upper slopes, to the development of lyncheted fields that cover the sarsens around the edge in the Roman and medieval periods on the lower slopes. If the same processes took place on Salisbury Plain where there was widespread agriculture in Roman, medieval and post-medieval times there will be many other sarsens buried beneath the field lynchets.

So where did the big ones come from?”

I think that regarding statistical pattern of distribution based on size frequency the Marlborough Downs would have it as there are so few around Stonehenge. But the difference between a three metre and five metre sarsen is quite dramatic and I imagine that just one in either place could shift the balance. Its perhaps worth noting, though, that the heelstone is not exactly small and because of its shape few people will argue that it was brought from far.
Heavy mineral and grain size analysis carried out in the 80s on some of the Stonehenge sarsen indicated that it did not match samples from Clatford Bottom and Piggledene on the Marlborough Downs. Not that this really demonstrates much as sandstones can differ in composition quite dramatically over relatively short distances, except to perhaps note that, for the moment, it provides no support for the idea of a Marlborough Downs origin....



Edward Pegler's blog also has an interesting argument about the origin of the Bluestones, and the water at Avebury, as well as lots of other stuff!