Inscribing Space: Formal Deposition at the Later Neolithic Monument of Woodhenge, Wiltshire

Abstract

This paper presents evidence for intentionally structured deposition at the later Neolithic earthwork and timber setting of Woodhenge, near Amesbury, Wiltshire. Deposition is seen as a process through which a variety of connotations and symbolic references were incorporated in the monument, in addition to contributing towards a complex classification of space that served to order ceremonial and ritual practices. The evidence for formal deposition is also considered in the context of comparable, contemporary, activity at two other extensively excavated monuments in the region — Durrington Walls and Stonehenge I. Finally, complementarity and contrast in such special practices are viewed in relation to individual monument histories and the possiblity that, whilst the product of a general sacred tradition, the way in which each of the monuments was used was structured by different sets of meanings.

The Stonehenge Riverside Project: exploring the Neolithic landscape of Stonehenge

“…This originated in work undertaken by two of the authors in the 1980s, re-assessing the evidence from Geoffrey Wainwright's excavations at the Durrington Walls henge, and suggesting that many of the deposits at the site had been deliberately placed, as one aspect of ritual activity (Richards and Thomas 1984). More recently, increasingly sophisticated analyses have drawn attention to the important role of depositional practice in transforming the meaning of place, and in engendering memory (Pollard 1995;. Both within monumental structures and in isolated pits dispersed across the landscape, the placement of artefacts and other materials appears to have been one of the key means by which people expressed their connection with specific locations during the British Neolithic (Garrow 2006).…”

Settlement, Landscape and Social Identity: The Early‐Middle Bronze Age Transition in Wessex, Sussex and the Thames Valley

“…The structured manipulation and deposition of material culture is another persistent feature of these sites and one that has been much discussed in recent years (e.g. Pollard 1995;Thomas 1996b). Of course, in such 'socially sensitive' places, objects that were implicated in the process of social reproduction are likely to have been treated and disposed of with careful adherence to cultural principles.…”

Stonehenge Triangle<br>Trikotnik pri Stonehengeu</br>

“…The visibility between Stonehenge (101 m) and Woodhenge (97 m) was possible only because of the structures which certainly were built at those two locations and which each had to be less than 10 meters high. Furthermore, the visibility between Bluestonehenge (69 m) and Woodhenge was possible 7 "Woodhenge is a small annex on the south side of this monument; dates from an antler pick (BM-677 3817±74 BP) and animal bone (BM-678 3755±54 BP) from its ditch place its digging in the period 2394-2039 cal BC (Pollard 1995)" (Parker Pearson et al 2007). 8 "Woodhenge provides a case in point (Cunnington 1929;Pollard and Robinson 2007).…”