Towards a Reappraisal of Henge Monuments.

It is 50 years since Stuart Piggott excavated the prehistoric complex at Cairnpapple. At that time there were few excavated parallels in Scotland, and interpretation inevitably relied heavily on sites excavated in southern Britain. Much more locally relevant data are now available and the sequence at Cairnpapple can now be reassessed its regional context.Piggott identified five Periods, commencing with a stone setting, ‘cove’ and cremation cemetery of ‘Late Neolithic date’ around ‘c. 2500 B.C.’. Period II was a henge monument, consisting of a ‘circle’ of standing stones with ceremonial burials in association, and an encircling ditch with external bank – ‘Of Beaker date, probably c. 1700 B.C.’ Period III comprised the primary cairn, containing two cist-burials ‘Of Middle Bronze Age date, probably c. 1500 B.C.’ Period IV involved the doubling of the size of the cairn, with two cremated burials in inverted cinerary urns. ‘Of final Middle Bronze Age or native Late Bronze Age date, probably c. 1000 B.C.’ Period V comprised four graves ‘possibly Early Iron Age within the first couple of centuries A.D.’The present paper, using comparable material from elsewhere in Scotland, argues for a revised phasing: Phase 1, comprises the deposition of earlier Neolithic plain bowl sherds and axehead fragments with a series of hearths. This is comparable to ‘structured deposition’ noted on other sites of this period. Phase 2 involved the construction of the henge – a setting of 24 uprights – probably of timber rather than stone, probably followed by the encircling henge ditch and bank. The ‘cove’ is discussed in the context of comparable features in Scotland. Phase 3 saw the construction of a series of graves, including the monumental ‘North Grave’, which was probably encased in a cairn. Piggott's ‘Period III’ cairn was then built, followed by the ‘Period IV’ cairn. The urn burials seem likely to have been inserted into the surface of this mound, which may have covered a burial (since disturbed) on the top of the Period III mound, or may have been a deliberate monumentalising of it. The four graves identified as Iron Age by Piggott seem more likely to be from the early Christian period.The reassessment of Piggott's report emphasises the value of the writing of a clear, and sufficiently detailed account. While no report can be wholly objective it can be seen that Piggott's striving for objectivity led him to write a paper that is of lasting value.

Section: Developments Since 1987mentioning

confidence: 99%

Cairnpapple Revisited: 1948–1998

Barclay

1999

“…A rectangular arrangement of stones is also thought to have existed at the centre of Avebury's South Circle (Smith 1965,199-201). Although apparently later than the henge, the position of the structure at Bryn Celli Ddu is interesting, for it lay near the entrance of the passage grave, in a position recalling those arrangements of features at Maxey 62 and Penlle'rbebyll (Clare 1986, fig. 7).…”

Section: The Origins and Functions Of Those Sites Considered To Be Hementioning

confidence: 88%

“…This parallel may, however, again be nothing more than the result of a common constructional problem or technique. The situation in which some of the free-standing rectangular encl6sures were associated with burial and covered in the final phase by a mound, as at Nutbane, whilst others were not, can be paralleled amongst some henges (compare the 'sighting' of Bryn Celli Ddu) and more particularly amongst those sites listed in Appendix II of Clare 1986. The burning down of the Nutbane structure and its sealing by a mound can also be compared with Iron Age sites such as Navan (Selkirk and Waterman 1970) and Dun Ailinne (Wailes 1974). Whilst these will be returned to later, it is necessary to draw attention here to the possibility that the buildings (Auchategan, Ballyglass ( fig.…”

Section: The Origins and Functions Of Those Sites Considered To Be Hementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Such sites appear to support the view that the later Bronze Age saw the 'dissociation of the grave building from the grave -the temple cult from the cult of the dead' (Glasbergen 1954, 149). Roder (1948) has compared one such temple, the Goloring, with the henges (see also Clare 1986, figs. 6 and 9 for a further comparison of this site, Urmitz and the earlier British monuments).…”

Section: The Origins and Functions Of Those Sites Considered To Be Hementioning

confidence: 99%

“…At Blackhouse Burn, a bank alone seems to have served to create a complex analogous to Durrington Walls/ Woodhenge (see Clare 1986, fig. 10).…”

Section: The Henge-ring Bank-ring Ditch Complexmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Towards a reappraisal of henge monuments: origins, evolution and hierarchies

Clare

1987

Self Cite

A simple derivation of henges from causewayed camps is rejected. Attention is also drawn to a range of neolithic structures, some covered by a mound, some not. Though interpreted as mortuary structures, they have affinities to henges. Henges may thus best be derived from a broad tradition of neolithic structures; this may in turn have been part of a more widely distributed north-west European tradition of both ritual and domestic structures. Within Britain, similarities of form and function suggest that henges should be seen as a parallel development to ring banks, ring ditches and stone circles. Regional preferences rather than distinct regional types of monuments emerged. Later survival of henge traditions into the first millennium is also discussed.

A Second Timber Circle, Trackways, and Coppicing at Holme-next-the-Sea Beach, Norfolk: use of Salt- and Freshwater Marshes in the Bronze Age

Robertson¹,

Taylor²,

Tyers³

et al. 2016

Since 1998 archaeological investigations on Holme-next-the-Sea beach have recorded the waterlogged remains of two Bronze Age timber circles, timber structures, coppiced trees, metal objects, and salt- and freshwater marshes. The second timber circle (Holme II) is only the third waterlogged structure of its type to be discovered in Britain and only the second to be dated by dendrochronology. The felling of timbers used in Holme II has been dated to the spring or summer of 2049 bc, exactly the time as the felling of the timbers used to build the first circle (Holme I). This shared date provides the only known example of two adjacent monuments constructed at precisely the same time in British prehistory. It also informs comparisons between Holme II and other British timber circles and therefore helps develop interpretations. This paper suggests Holme II was a mortuary monument directly related to the use of Holme I.