No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Stonehenge and the two-date theory
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 January 2012
Extract
In a recently published paper the conclusion was reached that Stonehenge was built at different periods, and that the Aubrey circle with the bank and ditch represent an older monument. In conclusion it is said ‘that Stonehenge was built after the Aubrey circle is certain’. There is, however, evidence that leads to a different theory, and this being so, it is desirable that it should be stated; otherwise it might appear that those interested agreed with the conclusion, or at least had no evidence to the contrary. A fact used to support the two-date theory is that the end of the ditch overlaps the avenue. There is general agreement that this ditch was levelled and obliterated on the surface in order that it should not obstruct the avenue. The critical point is when this filling-up took place. According to the two-date theory it was only when the later Stonehenge. was built, and therefore a long time after the ditch was first dug. But if the evidence from the excavation is carefully examined it becomes plain that this part of the ditch must have been refilled almost immediately after it was made.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright The Society of Antiquaries of London 1930
References
page 103 note 1 Antiquity, 03 1929.Google Scholar
page 104 note 1 Antiq. Journ., iv, 30. Figures inserted after quotations in the following pages refer to reports on the excavations at Stonehenge in this Journal, the number of the volume and page only being given.
page 106 note 1 The average depth of the filling at the centre of the ditch from measurements in the reports taken at sixteen different points is 49 in., of the ‘top layer’ 16 in., therefore the depth of silt averages 33 in.
page 106 note 2 Pitt-Rivers, , Excavations, iv, 24Google Scholar (Address to Archaeological Institute).
page 107 note 1 See, for instance, a paper by Mr.Gray, H. St. G. in The Antiquary, vol. ii, new series, 01. 1906, pp. 18–20,Google Scholar ‘The Beaker Class of Fictilia found in association with remains of the Roman Period.’
page 107 note 2 A flint implement of ‘Thames’ or ‘Campigny’ pick type, unweathered and evidently buried when newly made, was found among the possessions of the former inhabitants of a pit-dwelling in Casterley Camp, Salisbury Plain; the remains of these people, who had been wearing iron brooches of La Tène type, were found on the floor of the dwelling. Man, xxv, p. 83; see also note 3, p. 25, Journ. Roy. Anthrop. Instit., 01.–06 1928Google Scholar.
page 108 note 1 ‘The whole ditch resembled a quarry whence chalk blocks were obtained for building the bank’ (Antiquity, 03 1929, 81).Google Scholar
page 108 note 2 As, for instance, the polished stone axes of neolithic type that have been found in a number of Gallo-Roman temples (Antiq. Journ., viii, 314).
page 109 note 1 Archaeologia, lviii, 1–82; Wilts. Arch. Mag., vol. 33, 20.
page 109 note 2 Antiquity, 03 1929, 81.Google Scholar
page 109 note 3 For a summary of the evidence with regard to this, see Wilts. Arch. Mag. vol. 44, 332 (06 1929)Google Scholar.
page 110 note 1 Stonehenge: Plans, Descriptions, and Theories, 1882.Google Scholar
page 111 note 1 Antiquity, 03 1929, 80.Google Scholar
page 112 note 1 Antiquity, 03 1929, 81.Google Scholar
page 113 note 1 Antiquity, 03 1929, 88.Google Scholar The suggestion that Stonehenge is closely associated with barrows of the middle Bronze Age on account of sundry chips of ‘foreign’ stone found in them has been already dealt with in Antiquity, 06 1929, 223Google Scholar.