Archive for the 'Stonehenge' Category

A Virtual Stonehenge Landscape

Over the past few months I’ve been hard at work producing an animation of the Environment Agency LIDAR survey of the Stonehenge World Heritage site. The resulting video is currently playing on an HD plasma screen in the “Making History: Antiquaries In Britain, 1707–2007” exhibition at the Royal Academy in London.

Read more about the Stonehenge landscape animation over a the Wessex Archaeology Computing blog.


A Virtual Stonehenge Landscape from Wessex Archaeology on Vimeo.

For the more technical minded people, the underlying DEM (Digital Elevation Model) is 8000×8000 at a resolution of 1m. You can view the video in HD over at Vimeo.

Share and Enjoy:
  • BlinkList
  • del.icio.us
  • digg
  • Furl
  • Reddit
  • YahooMyWeb

Stonehenge trilithons are older than we thought

The trilithons at Stonehenge are now thought to be much older than we previously thought.The latest edition of the archaeology journal, Antiquity (Volume 81 No. 313 September 2007, link to summary) contains an article by Mike Parker Pearson et al entitled “The age of Stonehenge”. It is a summary of progress so far on the Stonehenge Riverside Project and the Beaker isotope project, and contains some interesting and important revelations about the Stonehenge and its landscape.

It is now thought that the trilithons were erected not circa 2300 BCE, but between 2600-2400 cal BCE, making them contemporary with Durrington Walls. They now predate the earliest Beaker burials in Britain, shaking our understanding of the late Neolithic and early Bronze Age.

Unfortunately, unless you have access to a library or institution that subscribes to Antiquity in hard copy, you’ll have to pay £15 to download a PDF of the article. I’m sure it won’t be long before some of the key points are available online, with a little bit of luck.

Share and Enjoy:
  • BlinkList
  • del.icio.us
  • digg
  • Furl
  • Reddit
  • YahooMyWeb

Another theory about how Stonehenge was built

BBC Homepage featuring StonehengeA colleague pointed me at the BBC homepage today, which was featuring a nice slideshow displaying images of Stonehenge. The photos linked through to a story entitled “Stonehenge building riddle tackled“.

It’s always fun to suggest how the great sarsen lintels might have been raised on top of the upright stones, and there have been some novel suggestions. Today’s idea comes from Bristol engineer Nick Weegenaar:

“The lintels were rolled in the wheel until they were above the uprights, and then lowered down.

“The wheel would have been on a track, with counterweights to act as ballast.”
Quoted from the story on the BBC website

Basically, the lintel is put into a huge wheel, which is on a track. As the wheel is rolled, the lintel is lifted up into the air and deposited neatly on top of the upright stones. The wheel passes between the uprights while it does this.

There is an animation at the foot of the BBC story, that shows how this might all work. The first thing that struck me about this idea, is that many of the trilithons don’t have a large enough gap between the uprights to allow a huge wheel to pass between. I’ll let this image illustrate my point:

Could this machine have really worked if it couldn’t fit between the uprights?
The image is a mix of one of my photos and the demonstration on the BBC website.

English Heritage’s Dave Batchelor, Head of Metric Survey, hit the nail on the head:

“This level of infrastructure is very likely to have left some traces and none have yet been found.”

He also queries whether the wheel was in use in Britain in 2300BC. I’d add that I’m not sure if railways, let alone wheels, were in use at the time…

..unless the Amesbury Archer was some kind of Isambard Kingdom Brunel

It is fascinating to speculate on how the lintels might have been raised (amongst other engineering that took place), and long may healthy speculation continue. However, we must consider how easy it is to impose modern thinking upon the past. The old “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” adage aside, I don’t buy this new approach, novel as it is.

Weegenaar’s approach would only work on some of the trilithons, and there is no evidence for complex wheels at this point in the Bronze Age in Britain. It is easy to project our modern engineering knowledge of wheels and counterweights into the past.

But there is also no published archaeological evidence from the various excavations at Stonehenge in the last century that supports the use wooden ramps or tracks that I, nor others I have asked, can think of.

Another example of engineering ignores archaeology? Perhaps.

What’s wrong with shed loads of people, a lot of rope, big mounds of earth, and tree trunk rollers? :-)

Here’s to the next idea!

Share and Enjoy:
  • BlinkList
  • del.icio.us
  • digg
  • Furl
  • Reddit
  • YahooMyWeb