Three Chronological Models for Stonehenge

The new Stonehenge chronological modelling gives three possible models for the construction stages:

Order of construction

The radiocarbon evidence from the models for the stone settings provides a most likely order for the all of the dated constructional events of:

Model 1 

Sarsen Circle > Stonehole E > Sarsen Trilithons > Beaker burial > Bluestone Circle > Bluestone Horseshoe > Z Holes > Y Holes.
The probability of this is though only 27%.

Model 2 

Stonehole E > Sarsen Trilithons > Beaker burial > Bluestone Circle > Bluestone Horseshoe > Z Holes > Y Holes.
The probability of this is only 31%.

Model 3 

Sarsen Circle > Stonehole E > Sarsen Trilithons > Beaker burial > pit_WA_2448 > Bluestone Circle > Bluestone Horseshoe > Z Holes > Y Holes.
The probability of this is though only 13%.


All three chronological models for the stone settings at Stonehenge presented above have produced stable model outputs with the prior beliefs they contain being compatible with the available radiocarbon dates. Thus, although the statistical models have allowed us to combine different types of information, we ultimately still need to use archaeological judgement to decide between them.
The models are all based on the belief that the major settings are the product of single (relatively quick) unitary episode of activity rather than the result of longer and more piecemeal episodes of construction (Bayliss et al 2007b, 46). Given the limited number of samples available at present such an assumption remains the only pragmatic way of modelling the chronology. Sensitivity analyses have highlighted the key component of these models that determines the differences in the monuments chronology is the relationship between the Sarsen Circle and Trilithons. The choice of a preferred model is therefore at present a simple matter of archaeological interpretation, and without further excavation to provide more samples associated with the major constructional events (for example the Sarsen Circle), reaching agreement is likely to be some way off.
Model 3 is our preference for the chronology of the monument because it incorporates what we believe to be the most reliable reading of the stratigraphy of the stone settings (Darvill and Wainwright 2009, Darvill et al 2012; Parker Pearson et al 2007, 2009).

Notes:

Stonehole E is by the Slaughter Stone.




Pit WA 2448 is the large hole that was dug by the Great Trilithon that was identified by Atkinson as the erection ramp, an idea that Mike Parker Pearson et al dismissed: http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/9174/1/Age_of_Stonehenge_Antiquity-2.pdf

The probabilities only add up to 71% which indicates there is still a large amount of uncertainty in the results.

Stonehenge Chronological Modelling Paper

The paper with the scientific details for the recent Antiquity paper on the chronology of Stonehenge has been released:

1/2012 - Stonehenge, Amesbury, Wiltshire: Chronological Modelling

Report Number: 1/2012
Series: Research Department Reports
Pages: 68

Summary

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

Keywords

Radiocarbon Dating

Download Report File(s)

	Stonehenge, Amesbury, Wiltshire: Chronological Modelling
	File size: 1 mb

Stonehenge Accounts 1906

A snippet from Vol XXXIV of the WAHM - Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine - 1906

Stonehenge. An article on “The Case of Attorney-General v. Antrobus” in Evening Standard, reprinted in Wiltshire Advertiser, April 27th, 1906, praises Sir Edmund Antrobus’s efforts for the preservation of the monument. It states that up to January 1st, 1905, £980 had been taken at the gate, and £960 had been expended on the care of the stones and the payment of caretakers.


Presumably that is since he started charging in 1901at a shilling a head not just in 1904. Not much profit in those days....

Stonehenge Midwinter Solstice Sunrise Alignments - The Evidence

Stonehenge Winter Solstice 2012 provided an opportunity to test my theory that the Great Trilithon is deliberately skewed in relation to the rest of the trilithon horseshoe. That not only does the central gap allow the midwinter sunset / midsummer sunrise to shine through but also the angle of the whole trilithon aligns to the midwinter sunrise / midsummer sunset.

The summer solstice this year was too cloudy to observe the sunset but the winter solstice sunrise was unusually clear. I positioned myself behind Station Stone 93 and waited.

Success! Click any photo to enlarge. 

The sun rose as expected behind Stone 10 in line with the Great Trilithon alignment.

Checking my position in the light I was probably about 50cm too far south, but I was competing with other photographers on a very busy morning for the shots.

As Clive Ruggles writes in Proceedings of the British Academy, Volume 92: Science and Stonehenge - edited by Barry Cunliffe & Colin Renfrew 1997: "In the literature on archaeoastronomy, declinations are often quoted to a precision of 0.1 or even greater. However, the quality of the material evidence, together with the fact that the horizon around Stonehenge is relatively close (Cleal et al. 1995, 37) and devoid of prominent distant features interpretable as accurate foresights, do not justify considerations of declination to a precision much greater than the nearest degree, or approximately twice the apparent diameter of the sun or moon. To do otherwise is to risk obscuring any intentional, low-level astronomical effects with meaningless detail."

To within that accuracy and bearing in mind that Stone 56 was re-erected in 1901 by Gowland and so may be an inch or two out of its original position I am happy to state as a fact that the alignment I theorised actually is there.

A further complication is that the position of the sunrise now is different to where it was 4500 years ago. My colleague Simon Banton has been working on a different Midwinter Sunrise alignment. It is through a notch in  Stone 58. He has calculated the original sunrise position and his alignment shows remarkable accuracy. For more please see his blog

This is his alignment:

I have mapped his alignment and mine below. His is the top one, that also travels down the length of the Altar Stone.  I'm happy they are similar and accurate enough to be accepted as evidence.

Stonehenge Winter Solstice 2012 Sunrise Photos

Darvill and the Stonehenge Stone Sources

A new report on the Antiquity paper on the dates of Stonehenge.

And Did Those Feet: New Stonehenge dates

Tim Darvill, co-author of the paper, said that previous sequences suggested that Stonehenge started small and grew: in fact, ‘it starts big and stays big’, and the giant sandstone horseshoe came first, drawing stone from nearby quarries; only then were the smaller bluestones imported from Wales: ‘they sort out the local stuff first, and then they bring in the stones from Wales to add to the complexity of the structure’, Tim said. The new timeline ‘connects everything together, gives us a good sequence of events and it gives us a set of cultural associations with the different stages of construction’, he added.'

My reading of the paper - Antiquity Vol 86:334, 2012 pp 1021-1040 - Timothy Darvill and others - Stonehenge remodelled - doesn't give me that certainty that the bluestones arrived after the sarsens. I think it still embraces the possibility that the bluestones were on site before the sarsens, it specifically mentions that Bluestonehenge might predate the sarsen arrival and that the Aubrey holes probably held stones (type unspecified).

Of course Tim Darvill may not be being quoted accurately. I also don't like the use of the word "quarries" for the source of the sarsens. It implies they were dug out of the ground locally to Stonehenge and there is no evidence for that. No local quarries have every been found. Large sarsens are still found on the surface of the chalk downlands and deep in the clays of Bedfordshire and further afield. In the absence of any other evidence the use of surface sarsens mainly from the Marlborough Downs is the most justifiable theory.

End Of The World Playlist (REM free)

Just in case..... (Suggestions welcome)