Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T11:45:06.868Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Parchmarks at Stonehenge, July 2013

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 August 2014

Simon Banton ,
Mark Bowden ,
Tim Daw ,
Damian Grady  and
Sharon Soutar
Simon Banton
Affiliation:
111 Avon Banks, Figheldean, Wilts SP4 8JU, UK
Mark Bowden
Affiliation:
2English Heritage, The Engine House, Swindon SN2 2EH, UK
Tim Daw
Affiliation:
3Cannings Cross Farm, All Cannings, Devizes, Wilts SN10 3NP, UK
Damian Grady
Affiliation:
2English Heritage, The Engine House, Swindon SN2 2EH, UK
Sharon Soutar
Affiliation:
2English Heritage, The Engine House, Swindon SN2 2EH, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Despite being one of the most intensively explored prehistoric monuments in western Europe, Stonehenge continues to hold surprises. The principal elements of the complex are well known: the outer bank and ditch, the sarsen circle capped by lintels, the smaller bluestone settings and the massive central trilithons. They represent the final phase of Stonehenge, the end product of a complicated sequence that is steadily being refined (most recently in Darvill et al. ‘Stonehenge remodelled’, Antiquity 86 (2012): 1021–40). Yet Stonehenge in its present form is incomplete—some of the expected stones are missing—and it has sometimes been suggested that it was never complete; that the sarsen circle, for example, was only ever finished on the north-eastern side, facing the main approach along the Avenue. A chance appearance of parchmarks, however, provides more evidence.

Keywords

StonehengesarsensY and Z holesAubrey holesparchmarks
Type
Research
Information
Antiquity , Volume 88 , Issue 341 , September 2014 , pp. 733 - 739
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ashbee, P. 1998. Stonehenge: its possible non-completion, slighting and dilapidation. Wiltshire Archaeology and Natural History Magazine 91: 139–42.Google Scholar
Bowden, M.C.B., Soutar, S., Field, D.J. & Barber, M.J.. Forthcoming. “A striking picture of ancient times”: analysing the Stonehenge World Heritage Site landscape. Swindon: English Heritage.Google Scholar
Cleal, R.M.J., Walker, K.E. & Montague, R.. 1995. Stonehenge in its landscape: twentieth-century excavations. London: English Heritage.Google Scholar
Darvill, T., Marshall, P., Pearson, M. Parker & Wainwright, G.J.. 2012. Stonehenge remodelled. Antiquity 86: 1021-40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
David, A., Cole, M., Horsley, T., Linford, N., Linford, P. & Martin, L.. 2004. A rival to Stonehenge? Geophysical survey at Stanton Drew, England. Antiquity 78: 341-48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, R. & Catt, J.A.. 1987. Causes of crop patterns in eastern England. Journal of Soil Science 38: 309-24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2389.1987.tb02147.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Featherstone, R., Horne, P., Macleod, D. & Bewley, R.. 1995. Aerial reconnaissance in England, summer 1995. Antiquity 69: 981-88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Field, D.J. & Pearson, T.. 2010. Stonehenge World Heritage Site Landscape Project: Stonehenge, Amesbury, Wiltshire: archaeological survey report (EH Research Dept Report Series 109-2010). Swindon: English Heritage.Google Scholar
Gibson, A. 1998. Stonehenge and timber circles. Stroud: Tempus.Google Scholar
Linford, N. 2013. Stonehenge, Wiltshire: report on magnetic susceptibility survey, January 2013 (EH Research Dept Report Series 49-2013). Swindon: English Heritage.Google Scholar
Linford, N., Linford, P. & Payne, A.. 2012. Stonehenge monument field and barrows, Wiltshire: report on geophysical surveys, September 2010, April and July 2011 (EH Research Dept Report Series 34-2012). Swindon: English Heritage.Google Scholar
Pitts, M.W. 1981. Stones, pits, and Stonehenge. Nature 290: 46–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/290046a0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitts, M.W. 2001. Excavating the Sanctuary: new investigations on Overton Hill, Avebury. Wiltshire Archaeology and Natural History Magazine 94: 1–23.Google Scholar
Pitts, M.W. 2013. Stonehenge dispute solved after 260 years. British Archaeology 132: 6.Google Scholar
Pollard, J. 1995. Structured deposition at Woodhenge. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 61: 137-56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0079497X00003066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilley, C., Richards, C., Bennett, W. & Field, D.. 2007. Stonehenge—its landscape and its architecture: a reanalysis, in Larsson, M. & Pearson, M. Parker (ed.) From Stonehenge to the Baltic: living with cultural diversity in the third millennium BC (British Archaeological Reports international series 1692): 183–204. Oxford: Archaeopress.Google Scholar
Wainwright, G.J. & Longworth, I.H.. 1971. Durrington Walls: excavations 1966–1968 (Society of Antiquaries Research Reports 29). London: Society of Antiquaries.Google Scholar