Stonehenge - a House of the Holy?

Houses of the Holy: Architecture and Meaning in the Structure of Stonehenge, Wiltshire, UK,
Timothy Darvill (2016)

Time and Mind, 9:2, 89-121, DOI:10.1080/1751696X.2016.1171496 

ABSTRACT: Stonehenge in central southern England is internationally known. Recent re-evaluations of its date and construction sequence provides an opportunity to review the meaning and purpose of key structural components. Here it is argued that the central stone structures did not have a single purpose but rather embody a series of symbolic representations. During the early third millennium this included a square-in-circle motif representing a sacred house or ‘big house’ edged by the five Sarsen Trilithons. During the late third millennium BC, as house styles changed, some of the stones were re-arranged to form a central oval setting that perpetuated the idea of a sacred dwelling. The Sarsen Circle may have embodied a time-reckoning system based on the lunar month. From about 2500 BC, more than 80 bluestones were brought to the site from sources in the Preseli Hills of west Wales about 220km distant. Initially arranged as a Double Circle they were variously rearranged at least four times over the following centuries. The diverse lithology of the bluestones reflects the landscape from which the stones derived so that the monument embodied a microcosm of the distant land. Associations with water and healing suggest one reason why Stonehenge became such a powerful place in prehistoric times.

The paper is interesting and provoking and an excellent addition to the canon of Stonehenge research.

It is wide ranging and discusses many different ideas and sets them within the historical context.

It is probably just because I have spent many hours studying the exact layout of the sarsens that I am uneasy with one of the central themes of the paper. 

The central theme that concerns me is that the sarsens represent a ‘square-in-circle’ structure,  To quote: "specific similarities between the Sarsen Trilithon Horseshoe and the form of late Neolithic houses....the central square-shaped elements, the hearth and living floor, are usually set within a circular or near circular outer frame forming an integral part of the structure in which the difference in shape is absorbed by the thickness of the wall itself. Looked at as a kind of house, the Great Trilithon at Stonehenge could be seen as the equivalent of a dresser with a clear bipartite left and right division." This identification of the houseyness of Stonehenge then underpins his thesis of it being a house of the Holy.

There are many examples of neolithic ‘square-in-circle’ structures given and the accompanying plan of Stonehenge supports the comparison. The position of the stones at Stonehenge has been measured and recorded many times and so it is understandable that the source for Darvill's plan of the central Sarsen arrangement is just given as "various".

But to my mind the plan doesn't compare well with many of the other published plans of Stonehenge.

Darvill plan left, English Heritage plan right, click to enlarge.

His plan makes the ‘square-in-circle’ more obvious than other plans do, but I worry if it is accurate.

Normal-Sized People Can Move Big Rocks

(Picture by Tropenmuseum, part of the National Museum of World Cultures, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=8673555 )


Andy White Anthropology blog has a series of posts on moving megaliths in Indonesia - very interesting and instructive.

http://www.andywhiteanthropology.com/blog/normal-sized-people-can-move-big-rocks-a-quick-note-on-the-megalithic-traditions-of-nias-indonesia

http://www.andywhiteanthropology.com/blog/normal-sized-people-can-move-big-rocks-the-example-of-sumba

http://www.andywhiteanthropology.com/blog/normal-sized-people-can-move-big-rocks-the-example-of-the-angami-naga


And there are videos as well -




There are several short, recent (2009-2014) videos on YouTube that show stones being pulled by the Naga:

• Viswema, Nagaland (3:34)
• Maram Naga, part 1 (0:52)
• Maram Naga, part 2 (0:49)
• Maram Naga - pulling a stone uphill (0:41)
• Kigwema Village (1:50)

Climate Change Threatens Stonehenge - claim

Climate change to threaten Stonehenge? Daily Mail warns of moles undermining the stones? As an English Heritage report says: "Interestingly, the changes predicted for the 4000-4500BP period by the Bridge CGM are actually quite similar to the predictions of future climate change in the UK (Wilby et al 2006), which implies that we are moving back to a 4000-4500BP climate in the UK." Source - http://services.english-heritage.org.uk/ResearchReportsPdfs/012_2012WEB.pdf

So Stonehenge has seen it and survived it all before, if the predicted climate change ever arrives. - The Daily Mail story? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3611827/Could-moles-really-end-toppling-Stonehenge.html

For another view see https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/05/31/stonehenge-at-risk-from-bugs-bunny/

UCL Test Pulling a Stone

http://www.itv.com/news/west/2016-05-23/how-many-people-does-it-take-to-build-stonehenge/

The building of Stonehenge has been a topic of discussion for centuries but today all our questions may be answered.

A group of volunteers in London is conducting a mass experiment to find out how the ancient monument came to be.

At noon today, 23 May, the team will attempt to drag a one tonne concrete block using a replica of a neolithic wooden sledge. Each of the famous bluestones at the site in Wiltshire weighs at least double that but it will help researchers understand the origins of the World Heritage Site......



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/05/23/stonehenge-wasnt-so-hard-to-build-after-all-archaeologists-disco/

Just how did prehistoric Britons manage to transport the huge bluestones of Stonehenge some 140 miles from the Presili Mountains in Wales to their final home on Salisbury Plain, Wiltshire.

The answer is surprisingly simple. The feat really isn’t as hard as everyone imagined

In fact the one tonne stone whizzed along the make-shift silver birch track when pulled by just 10 people, moving at around 10 feet every five seconds – which works out faster than one mile per hour if pulled continually, rather than in the short bursts of the experiment........




From the Daily Mail -

...But the project was a far scaled down version of the real thing, with the hefty slab weighing just half as much as the lightest blue stone used in the construction of Stonehenge.

With ropes laced through holes in the concrete coffin-shaped slab, a video shows approximately 20 volunteers heaving at a call.

Their manual efforts pay off as the slab rolls across the logs, demonstrating how the Neolithic construction force behind the real monument would have shifted the stones thousands of years ago.

However, while the UCL group successfully demonstrated how the concrete slab could be moved a few metres, the efforts are truly dwarfed by the scales involved in building Stonehenge....


And a video from the BBC - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36364498



All very interesting especially as I have a full size, full weight (40 tonne per upright) trilithon replica just waiting for some one to attempt to move it and put it up by hand...http://www.sarsen.org/2014/11/stonehenge-experiment-to-be-repeated.html

Healing Stonehenge

Tim Darvill has a new paper out...

Houses of the Holy: Architecture and Meaning in the Structure of Stonehenge, Wiltshire, UK

Time and Mind: The Journal of Archaeology, Consciousness and Culture

Volume 9, Issue 2, 2016

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/figure/10.1080/1751696X.2016.1171496

ABSTRACT
Stonehenge in central southern England is internationally known. Recent re-evaluations of its date and construction sequence provides an opportunity to review the meaning and purpose of key structural components. Here it is argued that the central stone structures did not have a single purpose but rather embody a series of symbolic representations. During the early third millennium this included a square-in-circle motif representing a sacred house or ‘big house’ edged by the five Sarsen Trilithons. During the late third millennium BC, as house styles changed, some of the stones were re-arranged to form a central oval setting that perpetuated the idea of a sacred dwelling. The Sarsen Circle may have embodied a time-reckoning system based on the lunar month. From about 2500 BC, more than 80 bluestones were brought to the site from sources in the Preseli Hills of west Wales about 220km distant. Initially arranged as a Double Circle they were variously rearranged at least four times over the following centuries. The diverse lithology of the bluestones reflects the landscape from which the stones derived so that the monument embodied a microcosm of the distant land. Associations with water and healing suggest one reason why Stonehenge became such a powerful place in prehistoric times.

Article is available for £28 or through the usual academic channels.

The view from the western end of the Cursus

Very kindly Austin Kinsley has sent me one of Pete Glastonbury's wonderful Stonehenge shots which shows the New Visitor Centre and Coach park from the western end of the Cursus; the proposed new Coach Station building is near the two white coaches that show up in the middle of the picture.

Click to enlarge, (c) Pete Glastonbury

Objections to the Proposed Stonehenge Coach Station

UPDATE 4/8/16

The minutes of the Planning Committee ar now available:

http://unidoc.wiltshire.gov.uk/UniDoc/Document/File/MTYvMDM5ODgvRlVMLDc1MTM3OA==

With regard to the promised path on the route of the grassed over A344 they had this to say:


It was noted that the permissive path agreed as part of a legal agreement when the A344 was originally closed, was further down the site and did not form part of this application.....Although the location of the pathway connected to the A344 promise was outside of the application area, it was felt that Officers should work to achieve it.


UPDATE: 18/7/2016

The application is unsurprisingly recommended for approval but I'm pleased to see my major objection has succeeded.

The professional consensus is that the views won't be spoilt by a new building so nothing can be done about that but the blocking up of the pedestrian access to the east of Byway 12 will be prevented:

The plan - http://unidoc.wiltshire.gov.uk/UniDoc/Document/File/MTYvMDM5ODgvRlVMLDc0MDEyMw==

The Officer's recommendation:"Notwithstanding the submitted drawings showing the proposals for directing pedestrian arrivals in the vicinity of the A344 junction with Byway 12, prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved further details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority demonstrating how pedestrians using the signed and lined route on the southern side of the A344 can access the Stones without having to cross the A344 or to walk within the route used by the Visitor Transit System to the east side of Byway 12. The approved details shall be implemented before the proposed bus turning arrangements are brought into effect."

http://unidoc.wiltshire.gov.uk/UniDoc/Document/File/MTYvMDM5ODgvRlVMLDc0MTg1NQ==

My objection was noted under: Other issues raised that are not material planning considerations: 

Some aspects of the original planning permission for the Visitor Centre are still not completed/conditions not complied with, e.g. the Right of Way from the Stock Bottom (A303) to the Stones, along the path of the old A344 is still not open for use, and there is no landscaped walk to the Stones from the Visitor Centre – [There is an ongoing enforcement case regarding some issues from the previous consent, however this is not of relevance to the current proposal].


ORIGINAL POST:


I have been carefully looking through various planning documents about the New Visitor Centre near Stonehenge and the hub at Stonehenge, this is in response to English Heritage applying to alter the coach and visitor transit facilities which badly need improving. I look forward to the day when a safe and efficient system is put in place and I would not wish to impede this, but at the same time this is an incredibly valuable and important landscape and to accept the second best for short term expediency shames us all.

It is with regret, but a sense of having to do the right thing, that I have lodged two objections to the new planning application 16/03988/FUL for these changes which include the building of a new coach station in the present temporary coach park.

The objections are:

Objection 1

In the previous application S/2009/1527 ,  which this application is attempting to rectify some of the inadequacies of, the Environmental Statement 11110202R_ESVol 3_App 6.1_MH_24-09-09 notes that the Coach Park, and to a lesser extent the New Visitor Centre, will have a substantial/adverse impact on the view from VP09 the western end of the Cursus (the impact was predicted to decrease over fifteen years as landscaping shielded it). From the Lesser Cursus VP10 it would also have a similar effect. It is worth noting that the planted landscaping was removed when the temporary  coach park was installed and so the decrease in impact has yet to start.

The new building in the Coach Park will be very prominent from these two viewpoints and yet the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, 11110205_Photosheets_08-04-16.indd, makes no mention of these views from these very important monuments within the World Heritage Site and the substantial adverse effect it will have.

This omission is so egregious that the application presents a false impression of the Landscape and Visual Impact and should be thus rejected until such time as a proper and thorough Landscape and Visual Impact survey is conducted taking into account the already established key views.

Objection 2

In the previous application S/2009/1527 ,  which this application is attempting to rectify some of the inadequacies of, the encouragement of non-vehicular access to the facilities was rightly a major factor. A key component was the encouragement of walkers and cyclists from Amesbury, and its links to national public transport.

The Phasing of the Works document  for the previous application S/2009/1527 ,   http://unidoc.wiltshire.gov.uk/UniDoc/Document/File/Uy8yMDA5LzE1MjcsNjk5MTI4 makes clear that in the summer of 2016  that the permissive path for walkers and cyclists will be made available on the route of the old A344 from Stonehenge Bottom to its junction with Byway 12

This new application shows the blocking up of the gate and path at the western end of this route and no mention of how the promised permissive path will be implemented. As well as encouraging more sustainable travel to the centre it is important for experiencing the holistic history of the site that this path follows the ancient road.

This omission is so serious the application should be rejected until such time as plans to show this permissive path following the route of the old A344 are included and how its users are to be allowed passage.

I hope these objections encourage English Heritage to look again at their plans and produce something better.

If you wish to comment to the council you have until Thursday 2nd June via the online comment system  

Trying to produce a focused and specific objection I concentrated on the lack of a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment of the building. There are two Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment survey documents produced, neither of them as far as I can see discuss the impact of this new building after it has been built. http://unidoc.wiltshire.gov.uk/UniDoc/Document/File/MTYvMDM5ODgvRlVMLDcyMTYyOA== does discuss the impact of the revised coach park from the Cursuses and concludes it will be mildly beneficial.

This is because the new coach park will have landscaped screening planted. The irony is that the original coach park had such planting, which was then ripped out for the temporary facilities introduced last year. So the improvement is merely returning to what should be there...


UPDATE

Very kindly Austin Kinsley has sent me one of Pete Glastonbury's wonderful Stonehenge shots which shows the New Visitor Centre and Coach Park from the western end of the Cursus; the proposed new Coach Station building is this side of the two white coaches that show up in the middle of the picture.

Click to enlarge, (c) Pete Glastonbury