Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-544b6db54f-rcd7l Total loading time: 0.277 Render date: 2021-10-23T16:00:52.992Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Article contents

Stonehenge remodelled

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Timothy Darvill
Affiliation:
Archaeology Group, School of Applied Sciences, Bournemouth University, Fern Barrow, Poole, Dorset BH12 5BB, UK (Email: tdarvill@bournemouth.ac.uk)
Peter Marshall
Affiliation:
English Heritage, 1 Waterhouse Square, 138–142 Holborn, London, EC1N 2ST, UK (Email: peter.marshall@english-heritage.org.uk)
Mike Parker Pearson
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S1 4ET, UK (Email: m.parker-pearson@sheffield.ac.uk)
Geoff Wainwright
Affiliation:
March Pres, Pontfaen, Fishguard, Pembrokeshire SA65 9TT, UK (Email: geoff@bluestone.eu.com)
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Extract

HTML view is not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

We are pleased to present the latest account of the sequence of burial and construction at the site of Stonehenge, deduced by its most recent excavators and anchored in time by the application of Bayesian radiocarbon modelling. Five prehistoric stages are proposed, of varied duration, and related by our authors to neighbouring monuments in the Stonehenge environs. While it may never be possible to produce a definitive chronology for this most complex of monuments, the comprehensive and integrated achievement owed to these researchers has brought us much closer to that goal. It is from this firm platform that Stonehenge can begin its new era of communication with the public at large.

Type
Research article
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd. 2012

References

Allen, M.J. & Bayliss, A.. 1995. Appendix 2: the radiocarbon dating programme, in Cleal, R.M.J., Walker, K.E. & Montague, R. (ed.) Stonehenge in its landscape: twentieth-century excavations: 511-35. London: English Heritage.Google Scholar
Ashbee, P. 1998. Stonehenge: its possible non-completion, slighting and dilapidation. Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine 91: 139-42.Google Scholar
Atkinson, R.J.C. 1956. Stonehenge. London: Hamish Hamilton.Google Scholar
Atkinson, R.J.C. 1979. Stonehenge (reprinted with revisions). Harmondsworth: Pelican Books.Google Scholar
Barclay, A. & Marshall, P. with Higham, T.F.G.. 2011. Chronology and the radiocarbon dating programme, in Fitzpatrick, A. (ed.) The Amesbury Archer and the Boscombe Bowmen. Bell Beaker burials at Boscombe Down, Amesbury, Wiltshire (Wessex Archaeology Report 27): 167-84. Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology.Google Scholar
Bayliss, A., Ramsey, C. Bronk & McCormac, F.G.. 1997. Dating Stonehenge. Proceedings of the British Academy 92: 3959.Google Scholar
Bayliss, A., Mcavoy, F. & Whittle, A.. 2007. The world recreated: redating Silbury Hill in its monumental landscape. Antiquity 81: 2653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C. 1995. Radiocarbon calibration and analysis of stratigraphy: the OxCal program. Radiocarbon 37: 425-30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C. 1998. Probability and dating. Radiocarbon 40: 461-74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C. 2001. Development of the radiocarbon calibration program OxCal. Radiocarbon 43: 355-63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C. 2009. Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon 51: 337-60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C. & Bayliss, A.. 2000. Dating Stonehenge, in Locker, K., Sly, T.J.T. & Mihailescu-Bîrliba, V. (ed.) CAA 96: Computer applications and quantitative methods in archaeology (British Archaeology Report International Series 845): 2939. Oxford: Archaeopress.Google Scholar
Cleal, R.M.J., Walker, K.E. & Montague, R.. 1995. Stonehenge in its landscape: twentieth-century excavations (English Heritage Archaeological Reports 10). London: English Heritage.Google Scholar
Cunnington, R.H. 1935. Stonehenge and its date. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Darvill, T. 2006. Stonehenge: the biography of a landscape. Stroud: The History Press.Google Scholar
Darvill, T. & Wainwright, G.. 2009. Stonehenge excavations 2008. The Antiquaries Journal 89: 119. doi:10.1017/S000358150900002x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darvill, T., Wainwright, G., Armstrong, K. & Ixer, R.. 2009. Strumble-Preseli ancient communities and environment study (SPACES): sixth report 2007-08. Archaeology in Wales 48: 4756.Google Scholar
Field, D., Pearson, T., Barber, M. & Payne, A.. 2010. Introducing ‘Stonehedge’ (and other curious earthworks). British Archaeology 111: 3235.Google Scholar
Fitzpatrick, A.P. (ed.) 2011. The Amesbury Archer and the Boscombe Bowmen. Bell Beaker burials at Boscombe Down, Amesbury, Wiltshire (Wessex Archaeology Report 27). Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology.Google Scholar
Gowland, W. 1902. Recent excavations at Stonehenge. Archaeologia 58: 3782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawley, W. 1921. Stonehenge: interim report in the exploration. The Antiquaries Journal 1: 1941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawley, W. 1922. Second report on the excavations at Stonehenge. The Antiquaries Journal 2: 3652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawley, W. 1923. Third report on the excavations at Stonehenge. The Antiquaries Journal 3: 1320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawley, W. 1924. Fourth report on the excavations at Stonehenge (June to November 1922). The Antiquaries Journal 4: 3039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawley, W. 1925. Report on the excavations at Stonehenge during the season of 1923. The Antiquaries Journal 5: 2150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawley, W. 1926. Report on the excavations at Stonehenge during the season of 1924. The Antiquaries Journal 6: 116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawley, W. 1928. Report on the excavations at Stonehenge during 1925 and 1926. The Antiquaries Journal 8: 149-76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ixer, R.A. & Bevins, R.. 2010. The petrography, affinity and provenance of lithics from the Cursus field, Stonehenge. Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine 103: 115.Google Scholar
Ixer, R. A. & Turner, P., P. 2006. A detailed re-examination of the petrology of the Altar stone and other non-sarsen sandstones from Stonehenge as a guide to their provenance. Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine 99: 19.Google Scholar
Marshall, P. In press. Bayesian modelling of dates. in Pearson, M. Parker, Richards, M., Chamberlain, A. & Jay, M. (ed.) The Beaker people: isotopes, mobility and diet in prehistoric Britain (Prehistoric Society Monograph). Oxford: Oxbow.Google Scholar
Marshall, P., Darvill, T., Pearson, M. Parker & Wainwright, G.. 2012. Stonehenge, Amesbury, Wiltshire: chronological modelling. English Heritage Research Report 1/2012. Available at http://research.english-heritage.org.uk/report/?15075 Google Scholar
Marshall, P., Ramsey, C. Bronk & Cook, G.. In press. Radiocarbon dating, in Pearson, M. Parker, Pollard, J., Thomas, J., Richards, C. & Welham, K.. Durrington Walls and Woodhenge: a place for the living (The Stonehenge Riverside Project 2). Oxford: Oxbow.Google Scholar
Needham, S., Pearson, M. Parker, Tyler, A., Richards, M. & Jay, M.. 2010. A first ‘Wessex 1’ date from Wessex. Antiquity 84: 363-73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newall, R.S. 1929. Stonehenge. Antiquity 3: 7588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker Pearson, M., Cleal, R., Marshall, P., Needham, S., Pollard, J., Richards, C., Ruggles, C., Sheridan, A., Thomas, J., Tilley, C., Welham, K., Chamberlain, A., Chenery, C., Evans, J., Knüsel, C., Linford, N., Martin, L., Montgomery, J., Payne, A. & Richards, M.. 2007. The age of Stonehenge. Antiquity 81: 617-39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker Pearson, M., Chamberlain, A., Jay, M., Marshall, P., Pollard, J., Richards, C., Thomas, J., Tilley, C. & Welham, K.. 2009. Who was buried at Stonehenge? Antiquity 83: 2339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker Pearson, M., Pollard, J., Thomas, J. & Welham, K.. 2010. Newhenge. British Archaeology 110: 1521.Google Scholar
Piggott, S. 1951. Stonehenge reviewed, in Grimes, W.F. (ed.) Aspects of archaeology in Britain and beyond. Essays presented to O.G.S. Crawford: 274-92. London: H.W. Edwards.Google Scholar
Pitts, M. 1982. On the road to Stonehenge: report on the investigations beside the A344 in 1968, 1979, and 1980. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 48: 75132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitts, M. 2000. Hengeworld. London: Century.Google Scholar
Pitts, M. 2008a. Aubrey hole could change Stonehenge's meaning. British Archaeology 103: 7.Google Scholar
Pitts, M. 2008b. The big dig: Stonehenge. British Archaeology 102: 1217.Google Scholar
Pitts, M., Bayliss, A., Mckinley, J., Budd, P., Evans, J., Chenery, C., Reynolds, A. & Semple, S.. 2002. An Anglo-Saxon decapitation and burial from Stonehenge. Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine 95: 131-46.Google Scholar
Reimer, P.J., Baillie, M.G.L., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J.W., Blackwell, P.G., C. Bronk Ramsey, Buck, C.E., Burr, G., Edwards, R.L., Friedrich, M., Grootes, P.M., Guilderson, T.P., Hajdas, I., Heaton, T.J., Hogg, A.G., Hughen, K.A., Kaiser, K.F., Kromer, B., McCormac, F.G., Manning, S.W., Reimer, R.W., Richards, D.A., Southon, J.R., Talamo, S., Turney, C.S.M., Plicht, J. Van Der & Weyhenmeyer, C.E.. 2009. Intcal09 And Marine09 Radiocarbon age calibration curves, 0-50, 000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon 51: 1111-50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, J. 2007. Stonehenge: the story so far. London: English Heritage.Google Scholar
Ruggles, C. 1997. Astronomy and Stonehenge. Proceedings of the British Academy 92: 203-29.Google Scholar
Stone, E.H. 1924. The stones of Stonehenge. London: Robert Scott.Google Scholar
Thomas, H. H. 1923. The source of the stones of Stonehenge. The Antiquaries Journal 3: 239-60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorpe, R.S., Williams-Thorpe, O., Jenkins, D.G. & Watson, J.S.. 1991. The geological sources and transport of the bluestones of Stonehenge, Wiltshire, UK. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 57: 103-57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
You have Access
37
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Stonehenge remodelled
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Stonehenge remodelled
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Stonehenge remodelled
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *