Mythical rings? Waun Mawn and Stonehenge Stage 1

Abstract

In a recent Antiquity article, Parker Pearson and colleagues (2021) presented results from excavations at Waun Mawn in south-west Wales, interpreting the site as a dismantled stone circle and source for some of the Bluestone pillars used in the Aubrey Holes at Stonehenge. Here, the author examines the evidence, showing that alternative interpretations are possible. Waun Mawn is argued to represent a series of smaller stone settings, typical of ceremonial sites in south-west Wales. Meanwhile the Aubrey Holes are shown to reflect a well-established regional sequence in which post circles are followed by pit circles. A Welsh ‘source-circle’ for Stonehenge cannot be excluded but, the author argues, the claim is unsupported by the current evidence.

How Waun Mawn stone circle was designed and built, and when the Bluestones arrived at Stonehenge: a response to Darvill

“…The other pits in this south-eastern arc are similar, and are probably also to be interpreted as preparation pits for stones that were never erected. On the Waun Mawn stoneholes generally, we note that the fills of these features were clearly distinguishable and carefully recorded by a very experienced team; Darvill's (2022) observation that he personally believes that the photograph of one of these stone sockets (Parker Pearson et al . 2021b: fig.…”

“…In responding to our Antiquity article, 'The original Stonehenge?' (Parker Pearson et al 2021b), Timothy Darvill (2022) questions both the interpretation of Waun Mawn as an unfinished stone circle and the suggestion that elements of the site were subsequently removed to Stonehenge. His argument that the plan of the known features at Waun Mawn should be understood as a series of linear monuments suffers, however, from a major error: it is based on a partial plan, published in 2021, which has been superseded by a much more detailed plan published following the 2021 excavations (Parker Pearson et al 2021a;Parker Pearson 2022; see Figure 1).…”

Beyond the bluestones: links between distant monuments in Late Neolithic Britain and Ireland

“…The bluestones employed at Stonehenge were enclosed by settings of sarsens, obtained from 25km away near Avebury. The contrast between more local and exotic materials must have been important (Darvill 2006;Nash et al 2020), but its significance is open for debate. At least five of the sarsens were also embellished with depictions of metal artefacts-115 Early Bronze Age axe heads and three daggers-making yet another reference to the wider world.…”

“…These issues regarding changing patterns of movement and regional connections are particularly relevant to a discussion in this journal of the relationship between Stonehenge in Wessex and a recently investigated monument at Waun Mawn in south-west Wales (Parker Pearson et al . 2021, 2022; Darvill 2022). The discussion raises some important questions.…”

“…The first concerns whether or not Waun Mawn was in fact a stone circle and if it shared the same plan, dimensions and orientation as the first setting of monoliths at Stonehenge. Darvill (2022) is not convinced by the argument that the Welsh structure was dismantled and removed to a distant location: if that did happen, where was it taken? No bluestones have been identified at Waun Mawn itself (Bevins et al 2022), so, if the site took the form favoured by the excavators, it must have been the idea that was transported to Wessex rather than its physical structure.…”