Ancient and ArchaeologyΜύ permalink
wood henges?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Μύ
Posted by Ceilteach_Kitten (U6750508) on Sunday, 8th February 2009
After watching the Time Team special last night on links between Stonehenge and wooden henges at Durrington Walls I was struck by the recreation of a wood henge carried out in the programme.
Watching them erect these tall, straight trunks i wondered what evidence there is that henges would have looked like this? I would imagine that oak would have been more readily available to the people of the time and a tall, straight oak is certainly a rare thing in my experience. To find the numbers needed for a henge of such a large scale must have been nigh on impossible.
It lead me to imagine what a wood henge with twisted trunks, possibly with branches left on to form "links" to the adjacent trees (almost like hands holding or a natural barrier) would look like? Would this change our views on what the henges were for? It would certainly give a different atmosphere from a henge composed of completely vertical poles.
Also, is there evidence as to whether the bark was stripped from the trunks? I know there is evidence (tool marks etc) for bark stripping on functional structures such as causeways and docks but if the archaeologists theory of wood henges celebrating mortality is correct, surely it would make more sense to let the bark decay naturally, just as a dead body would?
Basically, i am asking what evidence is there for recreating wood henges!! (i know the easy answer is not a lot, but i am still interested!) -
Message 2
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Sunday, 8th February 2009
I've responded on the History Hub. Do we need two threads going simultaneously? It is a bit confusing.
TP -
Message 3
Posted by Ceilteach_Kitten (U6750508) on Sunday, 8th February 2009
yeah i know! wasn't sure which was the best place to post the question thiugh!!!
-
Message 4
Posted by MendipTim (U13707598) on Sunday, 8th February 2009
Hi,
Good questions. Sorry I don't have any answers.
Late Stonehenge construction appears to be the only British Henge buiding that used deliberatly straight materials. In all other constructions the builders seemed to have revelled in the use of asymetrical materials, loving the 3D effects of random shapes, which would be highly enhanced at night when lit by firelight.
If they had twisted, barked trunks & branches why didn't they just plant live trees? There seems to be an assunption that the wooden posts were tall but is there any evidencce of this?
Stonhenge is an anomally amongst henges in its height. It has taken on the mantle of being the most important British Henge, so we assume that other henges would have been similar sized. In fact most surviving henges are still small circles enclosed by a low mud bank which are easily destroyed so many more have probably been lost over time. Even the other stone circles should be regarded as "oddities" in the Henge world.
About 20 years ago it was dicovered that the 3 stone circles at Stanton Drew were surrounded by many hundreds of post holes up to 1Km or more from the stones. We were promised more reseach, but so far I havn't seen any. It has been suggested that these were a giant maze of screens to protect the work of the priests from the public (or vice Versa!). The sheer scale as well as the lie of the land would make this doubtful. It would seem far more likely that these were shorter posts that either marked out some pre-determined processional route (as in Tibet, & Mecca) or tribal pitching posts for huge gatherings (as in the Hindu Kumph Mela, or Glastonbury festival!) probably allocated by lottery before each gathering to stop tribal squabbles for the prime spots & early ticket touts! -
Message 5
Posted by henvell (U1781664) on Sunday, 8th February 2009
There were wood posts at Stonehenge nearly 4Ka before stone construction began at the site.They were found,when a car park was made.One theory was that they may have been a type of totem pole [?].
Wooden ritual structures predate megaliths at numerous sites in the UK and Ireland.From memory one in NW Ireland dates to ca or shortly after 6000 BCE.Whether the posts were stripped is a moot point,because in most cases only the post holes remain. -
Message 6
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Sunday, 8th February 2009
Hi MendipTim,
What makes a henge into a henge is the circular earth bank and inward facing ditch. Stone circles are, well, stone circles. Some monuments have, or had, both elements. The henges are considered to be Neolithic in date, and the stone circles Early Bronze Age. The function of the henge bank and ditch is open to question, but most scholars have seen it as a boundary between a secular and a sacred space. Whether, symbolically, it stopped things getting in or getting out is up for discussion.
The presumption that the posts were tall comes from the depth of the post-holes. If the posts were, for the sake of argument, only a metre high, they would only require a post-hole 20-30 cm deep to ensure stability. The post-holes at Woodhenge were 1-2 metres in depth I believe.
Stonehenge is odd since the stones are dressed to resemble timber. Other stone circles, "Long Meg & her Daughters" or Arbor Low for example, can be deeply impressive although their stones are not squared off. The Orkney stone circles, like Ring of Brodgar, appear to be constructed of dressed stones but I think the sand stone employed splits this way naturally.
To start to understand the thoughts of our ancestors we probably have to try to understand the meaning of the monuments in their wider landscapes. Woodhenge and Stone Henge are 'joined' by a river and aligned on astronomical events. Why? Also we have to consider 'materiality'. What was the symbolic significance of the material selected for the circles. One theory suggests that in southern Britain wood was used for houses and 'places of the living' whereas stone symbolised a 'place of the dead'.
It is easier to pose questions than to find answers of course,.
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 7
Posted by TheodericAur (U13724457) on Monday, 9th February 2009
Hi TP
By your definition what is the Avebury Circle then?
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 8
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Monday, 9th February 2009
Hi TA,
Avebury is certainly a henge since it has a truly massive ditch and bank, massive in height, depth and area that is. Within the henge is a large (but incomplete) outer stone circle; and within this circle the remains of two other smaller circles, which are even more fragmentary. Whatever its purpose those who built this monument were clearly people of great power.
The landscape round Avebury is remarkable, containing as it does the largest man-made hill in Eutope (Silbury) and the West Kennet long-barrow.
I don't know whether you use Google Earth but the landscape round Avebury shows to great advantage. As well as the monuments described there are several Bronze Age round barrows, an Iron Age hillfort (Oldbury Castle) and miscellaneous features of less certain provenance.
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 9
Posted by MendipTim (U13707598) on Monday, 9th February 2009
Hi TP
Thanks for putting some facts to my generalisations.
Just a couple of points. Post hole depth is not a true indicator of height, but rather an indictor of the stress level applied to the post. If a short pole was bent or used as a lever it would need the same depth hole as a lofty flag pole. Deep holes are also an aid to getting an exact placement at the time of contruction. eg: a teaspoon will easily fall out of a teacup but will stay in a mug! (my technical knowledge is amazing).
Alignments in old history are a real problem due to so many variations over time with magnetic & precessional wobbles as well as many different ways of measuring alignments; Great circle & rhumb lines etc. Then you have a vast array of alignment types; Solar, Lunar, Stella, Magnetic etc. The result is finding alignments is easy but proving them is a nightmare.
Thanks again for sharing your knowledge. -
Message 10
Posted by TheodericAur (U13724457) on Monday, 9th February 2009
Hi TP
You are absoloutely right the whole area is amazing. Fyfield Down shouldn't be forgotten withs its 25,000 Sarsen Stones.
The Ridgeway starts near West Kennet and runs nearby the Circle and there you have the connection to Barbury Castle, Liddington Castle, Wayland's Smithy, Uffington Castle.....all fairly close
Obviously a pretty popular area. Wilshire seems to have more than its fair share of ancient sites still shrouded in mystery
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 11
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Monday, 9th February 2009
The result is finding alignments is easy but proving them is a nightmare.
Μύ
Hi MendipTim,
I've often noticed that alignments quoted to prove a theory are often very selective. Typically someone will quote one measurement taken from the dozens possible within a site whilst all the others which don't match the theory are ignored. -
Message 12
Posted by MendipTim (U13707598) on Monday, 9th February 2009
TP
I need your medical aid! I'm having hallucinations: I thought I read that you were promoting the use of Google Earth! -
Message 13
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Monday, 9th February 2009
Hi MendipTim,
Google Earth isn't the equivalent of a proper oblique aerial photograph for archaeological purposes, but still it is free and you can get some amazing sights with it.
I love tracking Roman roads and finding DMVs. The Yorkshire Dales are particularly brilliant. I wouldn't tell everybody but I have a weakness for Google Earth volcanoes as relaxation from all the archaeology!
TP -
Message 14
Posted by MendipTim (U13707598) on Tuesday, 10th February 2009
TP,
I hope all those volcanoes are over 18 years old!
If you ever get bored of Earth's Blow-holes may I suggest the Pacific Islands or my personal preference of putting on some relaxing music & then drifting about 3Km above the Australian Outback; it knocks spots off any digital visuals provided by any media players.
I agree with you about it's limitations, mainly due to its lack of definition at really close scale. However it is great for putting places in context with other places & the surrounding landscape: in a way that would be virtually impossible with conventional aerial photography. -
Message 15
Posted by TheodericAur (U13724457) on Tuesday, 10th February 2009
Hi Mendip Tim
Its also great for "flying" directly between places to see how they link, like Carreg Cennen, Oxwich and Tintagel or indeed between Beacons etc.
Quite an eye opener.
Regards - TA -
Message 16
Posted by iloveaudi (U13825591) on Tuesday, 10th February 2009
I would have thought that their would be many Oaks or other species of tree available and with straight trunks. Ancient forests had naturally closely spaced trees resulting in tall and straight trunks.
Alex. -
Message 17
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Wednesday, 11th February 2009
... putting on some relaxing music & then drifting about 3Km above the Australian Outback
Μύ
Richard Clayderman hits Oodnadatta. The mind boggles. -
Message 18
Posted by MendipTim (U13707598) on Wednesday, 11th February 2009
iloveaudi,
I agree: there were plenty of straight Oak trees available over the following millenia for ship building & they would have needed far more wood for each ship than for the pillars of a wood henge. Whether there were suitable local trees is another matter, even if Salisbury Plain was as barren then as it is today the lowland areas surrounding it were almost certainly heavily forested; a lot of which still remains today.
It may even be a case of Natural Deselection: if all the straight trunked Oaks were felled for timber the distorted ones would remain & continue to spread Acorns with genes to produce more distoted trunks, whilst there would be few Acorns with "straight" genes. I'm no Biologist so I don't know if this is so, but it sounds plausable & a suitable theory for Darwin Year. -
Message 19
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Wednesday, 11th February 2009
Ship builders and timber frame/roof builders favoured the wood from Quercus Patraea, a variety of oak that is now very rare. Quercus Robur, the indigenous one we are left with is a squatter tree. The quality of the wood from both is on a par but Patraea produced strong planks up to a hundred feet long sometimes whereas Robur yields wide boards, but rarely anything exceeding fifty feet. The Forest of Dean was a great source for Patraea one time.
Nowadays in southern Britain you'd be doing well to see either species. Oaks there tend to be the even squatter Quercus Ilex (Holm Oak), or the even more plentiful Quercus Cerris (Turkey Oak) which is straighter than the Ilex but not much taller. The wood of both however is consistently good. Both were allegedly imported in the late Anglo-Saxon period, hinting at Patraea shortages even then.
For an idea of how impressive Patraea groves must have looked (and you need a fair amount of imagination to achieve it) check out the timbers in Westminster Abbey roof. The longest were allegedly all taken from one particular grove near Dublin. There it had been considered a sacred grove, which meant that by the mid 13th century it contained probably the only remaining specimens old enough and therefore long enough to meet the demands of the job. No dendrochronogical evidence exists but tradition (and simple mathematics) places them between seven hundred and a thousand years old.
Dublin oaks also roofed Salisbury Cathedral and dendrochronogical research there has shown that they were over three hundred years old, then a standard age for the specimens being shipped out by "William of Dublin" but already considered rare in England.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Μύto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.