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 artículo se centra en los monumentos del paisaje
de Stonehenge, a fin de ofrecer una idea "moderna" de estos
monumentos y su astronomía que concuerde con las pruebas arqueológicas más
recientes. Aunque la conexión de Stonehenge y otros monumentos cercanos con la
astronomía está reconocida por la UNESCO como parte del Valor Universal
Excepcional del Sitio del Patrimonio Mundial de Stonehenge, la única
manifestación específica de ello que ha logrado un amplio consenso entre los
arqueólogos son las líneas de visión solsticiales, indicadas por los ejes
principales de las configuraciones de piedra de Stonehenge y los círculos
múltiples de postes de madera de Woodhenge y el Círculo del Sur de Durrington
Walls. Estas líneas de visión-suficientemente precisas para señalar el
solsticio en el paisaje aunque no en el tiempo-parecen representar un
desarrollo específico en esta zona hacia mediados del III milenio a.C.
Luego pasamos a criticar algunos artículos recientes de
arqueólogos muy respetados que proponen (i) que Stonehenge encapsulaba
elementos clave de un calendario solar de 365 ¼ días en la numerología de sus
características principales; (ii) que se construyó un "megacírculo"
de enormes fosos, de más de 2 km de diámetro, en la misma época que el círculo
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 más allá de las evidencias disponibles y se enfrentan a las
consideraciones metodológicas básicas (por ejemplo, con respecto a la selección
de datos) que han sido bien conocidas por los astrónomos culturales desde los
años 80.
Concluimos hablando de algunas cuestiones abiertas. La
primera, si Stonehenge y algunos monumentos contemporáneos cercanos hubieran
podido ser colocados en lugares ya percibidos como significativos debido a la
alineación aproximadamente solsticial de las características naturales. Otra
cuestión es durante cuánto tiempo continuaron las líneas de visión
solsticiales, y cómo 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 prácticas
desarrolladas siglos antes en el suroeste de Gales, de donde procedían las
"bluestones" ("piedras azules") de Stonehenge? Una última
pregunta, que sigue en gran medida sin resolverse, es si la alineación lunar
del rectángulo formado por las "Station Stones" es realmente
intencional y, en caso afirmativo, cuál fue su propósito y significado.
Investigaciones recientes han logrado arrojar nueva luz sobre el tema.
Palabras clave: Prehistoria británica,
Stonehenge, Líneas de visión solsticiales, Selección de datos, Metodología.
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).
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.
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.
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.
