Interpreting Solstitial Alignments in Late Neolithic Wessex CLIVE RUGGLES Abstract Resumen. Considering that the solsttial orientation of the sarsen monument at Stonehenge is arguably the most famous manifestation of ancient astronomy intheentire world, and thatthe practice of solstitial alignment is widely reported as being repeated at @ number of contemporary monuments in the Vicinity, tis extrzordinary thatthe basic evidence relating tothe orientations and alignments ofthese ‘monuments has never been consistently assessed and clearly presented. This article aims to address this shortcoming and to make some modest i ences that are broadly in tune witheurrentthinking in interpretative archaeology. We conclude that the principal known timber and stone monuments ‘within 3kmof Stonehenge were indeed solsttially aligned, although not in & consistent manner, but the earthen enclosures (henges) around them fail to reflect a similar concern with the Sun, New evidence from the southern timber circle at Dur- rington Walls, in particular, bears significantly "upon the muchdiseussed question of the intended directionality ofthe solsttil axis at Stonchenge. Ya que la orientacién solsticial del monumento de piedra (sarsen) en Stonehenge puede con- siderarse como la mas famosa manifestacién de la astronomfa antigua en el mundo y dado que Ja prictica de orientar los monumentos hacia los solsticias era un hecho que se repetia enaquel tiempo en algunos de los monumentos vecinos, sorprende que hasta la fecha los datos referentes a esas orientaciones y alineaciones nose han revisado sistemiticamente ni pablica~ mente, E] presente articulo pretende remediar esta situaciGn y ofrecer ciertas especulaciones pertinentes conforme a la ténica de pensam- iento actual en la arqueologta interpretativa Concluimos que los monumentos de piedra y madera situados dentro del perimetro de 3 km respecto a Stonehenge fueron realmente orientados hacia los solsticios aunque no de Ja misma manera, mientras que los recintos de tierra (henges) que rodean al Stonehenge no reflejan la misma preocupacidn por el sol En particular, los datos que provienen del es- tudio del eirculo de madera sur en Durrington Walls, parecen aportar una nueva informacién importante sobre cul era Ia direceién deseada del eje solsticial de Stonehenge. Clive Ruggles is Emeritus Professor of Archaeoastronamy at Leicester Univers, UK. He is President ofthe Prehistoric Society, based in London, and Vice-President of Commision 41 History of Astronomy) of the International Astronomical Union. He has authored or edited several books in achaeoastronomy, including Astronomy in Prehistoric Britain and Ireland (Yale University Press, 1999), Records in Stone (Cambridge University Press, reprinted 2002), Ancient Astronamy: An Encylopedia of Cosmolagies and Myth (ABC:CLIO, 2005), and (with Gary Urton) Skywotehing inthe anclent World: New Perspectives in Cultura Astronorny University Pres of Colorado, 2007) (© 2005 by the Univesity of Teas Pres, PO. Box 7819, Austin, TX 78713-7819(a) aune 1. (a) The view from the center of the sarsen monument at Stonehenge outward along the axis toward the NE. The Heelstone is visible on the right (southeastward) side of the axis (photograph by Clive Rugates). (b) A similar view from the center of “Foamhenge,” a full-scale reconstruction built in June 2005 for Channel 5 T'V (UK) and the National Geographic Channel. Beyond the sarsen circle are the (standing) Slaughter Stone and a companion, and farther in the distance are the Heelstone and its companion. At Stonehenge itself, these four stones could bave formed a “corridor” down which the light of the rising midsummer Sun would have shone into the center of the sarsen monument (photograph by Clive Ruggles). (b)Introduction: Stonehenge Solstices Revisited Although engineers, astronomers, and historians of astronomy have, for many years, taken great intey- est in various possible solar and lunar alignments at Stonehenge (e.g., Hawkins 1963, 1964; Hoyle 1966, 1977; Newham 1966, 1972; North 1996:393-502; see also Aveni 1997:57-91; Kelley and Milone 2005:187-193; Wood 1978:1-17, 160-181; for eriti- cal overviews see Heggie 1981:145-151, 195-206, Ruggles 1999a:35—41, 44-47, 136-139), they have tended to ignore the broader aspects of the local con: text, including the landscape topography and other broadly contemporary monuments.’ Most archaeolo- gists, on the other hand, have adopted the opposite approach, restricting their astronomical attentions at Stonehenge to the solstitial axis, Early accounts tended to assume that the significant direction was to the NE, toward midsummer suntise (e.g.. Childe 1940:109; Hawkes 1962:168), whereas recent ones have come to favor the opposite direction, toward midwinter sunset (e.g., North 1996; Parker Pearson 2005:66-67; Richards 1991:127-128; Sims 2006). The principal argument in favor of the former is the likely existence of a “corridor” formed by two pairs of stones—the Heelstone and a companion (Pitts 1981) plus the Slaughter Stone anda companion (Burl 1994) through which the light of the rising midsummer Sun would have shone spectacularly into the center of the sarsen monument (Figures 1a and 1b; see also Pasztor et al. 2000; Roslund and Pésztor 1997). This is remi- niscent of the way solstitial sunlight was channeled into dark spaces, such as the interior of the passage tomb at Newgrange (Ruggles 19992:12-19). Several lines of argument support the alternative view. The first is that the initial “bluestone” setting, which pre~ ceded the sarsens, appears to have had as its focal point the “Altar Stone,” somewhat larger than the thers, standing across from the entrance on the SW side (Cleal, Walker, and Montague 1995:188). This suggests a primary interest (or sacred focus) that in- volved facing this direction—one that existed even before the sarsens were brought to the site. A second argument is that the formal (or ceremonial) approach to Stonehenge along the avenue was from the NE, again suggesting that the focus of interest was straight ahead, i.., to the SW (see Parker Pearson 2005:66), ‘A further line of reasoning follows from the analysis of pig bones at the nearby henge enclosure of Dur- ington Walls (Albarella and Serjeantson 2002). This shows that slaughtering and feasting took place as part of winter, rather than summer, festivities (Parker Pearson 2005:65-67). Of course, it is not out of the question that both directions and both solstices were important, either contemporaneously or at different stages.” Also found in the archaeological literature are nu- ‘merous statements that the practice of solstitial align: ment is repeated at other monuments in the vicinity of Stonehenge that are broadly contemporary with the construction of the sarsen monument in the mid-third millennium s.c. (see Figure 2), Thus, the maltipletim- ber rings at Woodhenge, 3 km to the ENE, are widely quoted as being aligned upon midsummer sunrise (e.g., Burl 1991:48; Childe 1940:109; Cunnington 1929:9-16; Darvill 1997190; Gibson 1998:78-79; Parker Pearson 1993:70, 2005:61) and also, in the other direction, upon midwinter sunset (Parker Pear- son 2005:66). The almost-eradicated henge at Coney- bury, 1.3 km to the ESE (Darvill 1997:187; Richards 1991.98), is also quoted as solstitially aligned. So too is another site of which no trace now exists above the ground: the so-called South Circle —actually, an- other set of concentric timber rings—within the great henge enclosure (“superhenge”) at Durrington Walls, adjacent to Woodhenge (Parker Pearson 2005:66) Extraordinarily, however, very few of these assertions fare backed up with quantitative data. Some plans, where they exist, do not even have reliable north points. The plan reproduced by Gibson (1998:79, Figure 69) is particularly unhelpful in this respect: although the solstitial axis is marked, the lines mark- ing the north-south and east-west directions deviate from orthogonality by some 3°. ‘The past two decades have seen the rise of radical new interpretative approaches seeking to identify aspects of perception and experience that helped to shape physical and cultural landscapes (Ashmore and Knapp 1999), including those of the Neolithic (c.g., Bradley 2000; Cooney 2000; Garnham 2004; Scarre 2002; Thomas 1991; Tilley 1994). Consid- erations of solstitial orientation, and other ways in Voune XX 2006 3ricuré 2. Area map showing the locations of the main Late Neolithic sites discussed in this article, showing theit rela- tionship to each other, to the River Avon, and to topographic features, particularly to the north and east, The areas of progressively darker shading represent arcas above 120 m, 140 m, and 160 m elevation, respectively, with lower (80 m ‘and 100 m) contours visible in the unshaded area and higher ones (180 m, 200 m, and 220 m) in the most darkly shaded area, The shallow valley running through the sharp bend (“elbow”) in the avenue immediately to the NE of Stonchenge is Stonehenge Bottom, and the hill in the NE of the area is Sidbury Hill (drawing by Phill Johns).which alignments upon celestial bodies could have expressed perceived relationships of cosmological significance, have increasingly informed these broad- er interpretative frameworks, Neolithic Wessex bein 1 prime example (¢.g., Darvill 1997:182-193, 2005: Parker Pearson 1993:59-72, 2005:52-68; Parker Pearson and Ramilisonina 1998; Pollard and Ruggles 2001), For this reason, itis clearly important to clarify the basic archaeoastronomical evidence, as well as {o extend it cautiously and systematically, so that archaeology and archaeoastronomy remain in tune as broader interpretations are developed and refined ‘The work described in this article arose from the author's involvement in the Stonchenge Riverside Project, a five-year project aiming to develop new interpretations of the monument through analysis of its chronological and spatial relationships with other monuments and features in its landscape (Parker Pearson, Richards, etal. 2003, 2004; Parker Pearson, Cleal, etal. 2007). The requisite fieldwork was carried ut during August and September 2005 in association with excavations, landscape surveys, and recon- struction project forming part of the second season of the Stonehenge Riverside Project. ‘The aims were threefold: + To clarify the basic data regarding the axes of the principal Late Neolithic monuments in the Stone~ henge area and their relation to solstitial sunrise and sunset.” * To investigate astronomical alignments of possible significance in the wider landscape, including sight lines between pairs of monuments and between monuments and prominent natural places. + To inform the wider interpretations being devel- oped as part of the Stonehenge Riverside Project as a whole, Inaddressing the first of these aims, it was necessary to reexamine existing excavation reports and plans, as well as to undertake fresh fieldwork with com- pass-clinometer and, where necessary, Total Station (theodolite with electronic distance measurement capability [EDM]). It was particularly important to take into account new features and information revealed by the 2005 excavations, especially at Dur- rington Walls. Evidence Old and New: ‘A Reassessment of the Field Data General Remarks ‘A number of key publications give access to the de- finitive archaeological data upon which all interpreta- tions must be based and in the light of which all ar- chaeoastronomical data must be assessed. Prominent among these is the publication of various twentieth- century excavations at Stonehenge and its immediate surroundings (Cleal, Walker, and Montague 1995). While this volume also contains interpretations, including many that continue to be debated (c.g Burl 2000:349-375; Darvill 2005; Parker Pearson, Pollard, Richards, et al. 2006), the archaeological facts that underlie these interpretations are clear. In particular, the volume has established a sequence of phases that, while tentative in respect of many details, ‘and certainly likely to be subject to further revision should new evidence emerge in the future, is consis- tent with the existing evidence (Cleal, Walker, and Montague 1995:464~465) and has replaced the older phase sequence established by Atkinson (1979:101, 215-216) as the standard reference chronology.* See Lawson (1997) for a useful summary. Likewise, the report of the Stonehenge Environs Project (Richards 1990) provides definitive informa- tion concerning the wider landscape and its monu- ments, including the report of the excavation of Co- neybury henge in 1980 (Richards 1990:123-158). The interior of Woodhenge was excavated between 1926 and 1928, anda full report exists (Cannington 1929). broad strip across Durrington Walls was excavated in 1966 and 1967 ahead of the construction of the present ‘A345 road, and again a full report exists (Wainwright and Longworth 1971). Wainwright's excavations re- vealed the existence of two multiple timber circles that had stood inside the henge, which have become known as the North Circle and South Circle, each of which fell partly within the excavated strip. The excavations at Durrington Walls in September 2005, directed by Michael Parker Pearson and Julian Thomas, included an area around the henge entrance and a segment of the South Circle that had not been in the line of the road and hence excavated earlier by Wainwright (Parker Pearson, Pollard, Tilley, et al. 2005). Voune XX 2006 5Table 1. Reference Table of Specified Locations Location Grid Reference Elevation (m) Latitude (°) Stonehenge sarsen monument, center 42046 '42194° 103 51.1783 Stonehenge avenue, elbow 41270 14258" 85 51.1817 Coneybury henge 41344 14160° 120 SLIT3L Woodhenge 41506 14338" 98 51.1889 Durrington Walls henge entrance 41523 14360° 8h 51,1908 Durrington Walls South Circle 41514 14366" 85 S11914 Notes: The grid references are on the British National Gr jd, OSGB (1936) datum, and are quoted in alkfigure form (see Ruggles 1999a-x), The methods by which they were determined are given in the notes below, which are referenced in the table. All latitudes have been obtained from the noted grid referenet leacsuk/arieugi -c using the author's GRIDLA program available from huip:/ivow, “From the published plan by Cleal, Walker, and Montague (1995:Figure 79), projected onto their Plan 1. Backed up by GPS ,Feadings and estimates from 1:25000 OS map. From the published plan by Cleal, Walker, and Montagu 1:25000 OS map. ‘From RCHM(E) (1979:Attached Map No. 1). Backed up by GPS readings ve (1995-Plan 3). Backed up by GPS readings and estimates from sd estimates from 1:25000 OS map. “Grid reference from GPS readings and 1:25000 OS map. Elevation from plan by RCHM(E) (1979:Figure 10}. ‘The data reported in this paper are obtained from firsthand field surveys, taking account of features revealed by the excavations in progress; from published reports; and from calculations based on data from 1:50000 and 1:25000 Ordnance Survey topographic maps. Theodolite/EDM surveys were undertaken using a Leica Total Station, the PB ~ Az (plate bearing minus azimuth) correction being deter- mined from timed observations of the Sun (Ruggles 1999a:167-168). Compass-clinometer surveys used a Silva Survey Master instrument together with a fur- ther prismatic compass as a consistency check. Error reduction was achieved for azimuth readingsby sight- ing upon reference points whose location, and hence true azimuth, could be determined independently us- ing maps and/or GPS. The standard GPS receiver used. to determine locations for this purpose was generally considered accurate in the horizontal plane to within 10m.’ Altitude readings were calibrated using reverse readings between wo points. ‘Various points in the landscape are specified in the sections that follow. For convenience, the data con- 6 ARCHAEOASTRONOMY cerning their locations are summarized in Table 1 When discussing potential astronomical align- ‘ments, it should be standard practice to present azi- muths, altitudes, and declinations (as, e.g., Hoskin 2001:223~260; Ruggles 1999a:207-222; Thom 1967:97-101). The fact that this is still not done consistently can ead to confusion and theessential as- tronomical facts being obscured. To the nearest 0.05°, the “target” declinations of interest are as tabulated in Table 2. The declinations of measured alignments, ‘were determined (both for surveys and map caicula- tions) using the author's GETDEC program freely available from http://www.le.ac.uk/ar/rug/® Another cause of obscuration is overpreci- sion—the tendency to quote measured azimuths or declinations to a degree of precision that is entirely unjustified given the nature of the structural align- ments being proposed or the state of preservation of the archaeological remains. In what follows, a preci- sion greater than 0.1° is rarely justified, with a figure of 0.2° or higher being more appropriate in the case of most structural alignments.Table 2. Reference Table of Solstitial Declinations 3000 n.c. 2500 n. 2000 B.c. A.D. 2000 Summer solstice. upper limb 4243 $24.25 424.2 Summer solstice, center $24.05 +240 423.95 423.45 Summer solstice, lower limb 423.8 $23.75 423.7 423.2 Winter solstice, upper limb 23.8 23.75 -23.7 23,2 Winter solstice, center 24.05 24.0 -23.95 23.45 Winter solstice, lower limb 243 24,25 242 -23.7 Note: All values are given in degrees and are quoted to the nearest 0.058, Afler Ruggles (19998:57) Stonehenge: The Sarsen Monument, Station Stone Rectangle, and Avenue Azimuths. The axial orientation of Stonehenge and the orientation of the avenue leading up from/down to the NE have generated high levels of interest stretch- ing right back to the early twentieth century, when many people fervently believed that determining this orientation —given the assumption of ahighly precise alignment upon the solsttial sunrise~ provided the best means to date the monument.’ In view of these high levels of interest, the data concerning the rel- evant azimuths remain remarkably confused. Geometrical determinations of the sarsen axis are available from two independent sources. Cleal, Walker, and Montague (1995) worked froma plan of the stones, still standing in the sarsen circle, using CAD to deter mine its geometrical center, and then determined the axis by projecting a line from this center to the center line of the avenue at its terminal just outside the enclo- sure ditch (1995:170). The azimuth of this axis is not quoted, but it is marked on an accompanying figure (Figure 79). Projecting this onto a larger-scale plan (Plan 1), which is georeferenced tothe British National Grid, yields a grid azimuth of 48.4°/228.4° 0.2, cor- responding to a true azimuth of 48.5°7/228.5° £0.27" In 1973, the Thoms carried out their own survey of the sarsen monument, including the trilithons (Thom, ‘Thom, and Thom 1973; see also Thom and ‘Thom 1978:138-162). While their geometrical interpreta- tion ofthe five trlithons aslyingon anellipse ishighly questionable, their considerations of geometrical symmetry nonetheless provide an estimate of the axial orientation obtained from the sarsen monument itself. The azimuth they quote is 49.95°/229.95° + 0.05° (Thom, Thom, and Thom 1973: 81; Thom and Thom 1978:145). ‘Although their exact chronological relationship to the sarsen structures is unknown, the orientation of the Station Stone rectangle provides a further possible indication of the intended orientation of the phase 3 monument. Working from both Cleal, Walker, and Montague’s and Thoms’ plans, Ranieri (2003) has ‘used computer techniques to determine the orienta- tion of the best-fit rectangle to the four Station Stoves. He obtains an azimuth of 49.8°/229.8° 0.2°. Various estimates are available of the orientation of the straight section of the avenue leading from the terminal at Stonehenge 530 m NE to the sharp bend (“elbow”) in the shallow valley known as Stonehenge Bottom, but they produce surprisingly inconsistent results, Atempts have certainly been made to deter- mine the orientation by direct measurement, but the accuracy of this is limited by the poor surface vis- ibility of the parallel ditches and banks. The first the odolite measurement was by Lockyer (1909:65-66), who obtained 49.6° + 0.1° (actually 49.65° near the terminal and 49.55° near the elbow). The most recent theodolite survey of which the author is aware was Vout XX 20067Table 3. Orientation Data from Stonehenge 3 Structure | Inward direction ‘Ontward direction defining a orientation | Avimuc | Attitudes Declination Azimuth | Altitude | Declination -24.520.2 | 485402" |05+0.1° |4245+02 Sarsen center to middle |228.5+0.2 |05#0.1" of avenue at terminal Avenue 0520.1 | -23920.2 | 49.7403 |0.6+005'|4240202 Station Stone rectangle |229.840.2° |0.5+0.1" 0.6 +0.05 424.040. Geomevical axis of | 229.95 0.05] 0.5 0.1" | ~23.8 = 0.05} 49.95 + 0.05" 0.6 = 0.05'/+23.90.05. symmetry of trilithon | setting Dotes:The methods by which the listed quantities were determined are given inthe notes below, which ae referenced inthe table: Declnations were calculated from the given azimuth and altude, together with the latitude (se Table 1), using the a thors GETDEC propram availabe from htplwwie.ae.tkariig! * From te axis marked onthe published plan by Clea, Walker, and Montague (1995-Figwre 79, projete onto Plan 1) * From the published survey by Thor, Thom, and Thom (19731, Those authors quoted accuracy. From Ranieri (2008). * This best estimate is obtained by combining the following (see text): 49.6°/229.6° +0.1° (Lockyer 1909), 49,9°/229.9° + 0.05° (Atkinson 1978), 49 4°2204" + 0.1 (rom Cleal, Walk, and Montague 1995), and 502230. + 0.4° (Ruggles—see txt “From the published survey by Thom, Thom, and Thom (1973:84). Those authors” quoted accuracy. [Assumed fob the same asthe altitude 0.2 othe right (te note) * Calculated from OS map data. Judging by Lockyer (1909:91), the horizon in this direction ~currently obscured by trees- ‘would be formed by Sidbury Hil (12-7 kin). However, the nearer ground at distance of ost under 3 kr yields an almost identical ale * Calculated from OS map data, The horizon is 4 km distant “this, following easton in note his the figure from the terminal of he avenve “thi, asumed ob the same asthe alte 03 othe ight (ee nol), the gue from the ternal ofthe aveme "his gure, obtained by GETDEC, isin agreement with that quoted by Thom, Thom, and Thom (1973:84; see also Thom and Thom 1978:150) undertaken by Atkinson (1978), who obtained 49.9° rent author in 2005 (50.2°/230.2° + 0.4°) are broadly + 0.05° (actually 49.87° for the NW ditch from end consistent with Atkinson's figures. On the basis of to end and 49.94° for the SE bank) (see also North these data, it seems unwise to claim that the accuracy 1996:235). Cleal, Walker, and Montague (1995:Plan _towhich the azimuth of the avenue is currently known 3) supply a plan, at 1:5000 scale, georeferenced to _is any better than about + 0.3°, with the safest mean the British National Grid, showing the positions of figure being about 49.7° excavations both at the terminal and the elbow, and ‘The various azimuth data are summarized in Table the line of the avenue extrapolated between them. The 3. The figures confirm that the azimuths of the avenue, grid azimuth obtained from this plan is49.3°/229.3° + the Station Stone rectangle, and the geometrical axis, 0.1°, corresponding to a true azimuth of 49.4°/229.4° _of symmetry of the sarsen monument coincide to £0.1° and therefore closer to Lockyer than Atkinson. __ within about 0.3° and are possibly even closer. On On the other hand, the results of less accurate com- the other hand, the center line of the avenue as it pass-clinometer and GPS measurements by the cur- approaches Stonehenge does not align with the geo B _ARCHAEOASTRONOMYTable 4, The Approach up to Stonehenge Along the Avenue from the Elbow i Azimuth Altitude Declination Left Side |Right Side Bottom Left) Top Right | Bottom Right ~20mfrometbow | 228.25 | 231.25 3.7 | 217 22.1 (first appearance | of sarsen circle) ~50mfromelbow | 228.25 | 23125 |25) 15 23.7 ~ 100 m from elbow | 228.0 | 231.5 [20] 10 ~24.3 ~ 200 m from elbow | 227.75 | 231.75 0s 24.9 Note: Dectinations ofthe horizon points formed by the top and bottom visible extent of each side of the sarsen circle as viewed from various points on the avenue, progressing up from the elbow (first 200 m). The azimuth and altitde values ere determined from compass-cli can then be expressed easily to the nearest quater degree). Azimuth and dectination values are quoted to the nearest 0.2: smeter measurements assuming a mean azimuth of 229.75° (this value is chosen since azimuth readings. 5° and altitudes to the nearest 0.5°, all valves are given in degrees and considered accurate to the nearest 0.5° metrical center of the sarsen monument (see also North 1996:406). It is this fact that accounts for the aberrant figure obtained when attempting to define the orientation by joining the geometrical center to the middle of the avenue at the terminal Horizon Altitudes and Dectinations, Tre horizon altitude in the direction of midsummer sunrise is not now direetly determinable because of interven- ing trees, but the Thoms (Thom, Thom, and Thom 1973:84; Thom and Thom 1978:150) obtained a value very close to 0.6”, in agreement with Lockyer (1909:67), None of these authors was concerned with the horizon in the opposite direction, but map deter~ minations give a figure of 0.5° + 0.05°. This concurs broadly both with North’s (1996:459) note that, if devoid of trees, its horizon altitude would be close (0. 0.4°, and with clinometer measurements taken by the author. As Table 3 shows, the various structures (ignor- ing the spurious “axis” from the geometrical center to the middle of the avenue at the terminal) yield northeasterly declinations of +23.9° or +24,0° and southwesterly declinations of ~23.8° or ~23.9°. And as Table 2 shows, these correspond in the second half of the third millennium ».c. to the center of the dise of the rising midsummer Sun and the upper part of the disc of the setting midwinter Sun, All of these quoted declinations assume that the horizon was clearly visible. If, for example, trees covered the distant horizon, this would effectively increase the allitude (and hence shift the azimuth) at which the Sun would appear or disappear. For either solstitial direction at Stonehenge, a given increase in altitude would increase the declination by roughly 70 percent of that amount (resulting in a greater positive declination in the northerly axial direction or a lesser negative declination in the southerly one). Views on Approach. What all these determinations have in common is that the geometric configuration of the monuments considered almost in the abstract, and a cit assumption is made that observations, whether of the midsummer rising Sun or midwinter setting Sun, ‘were made from the precise geometrical center. This is despite the fact that this point was never, to our knowl- edge, permanently marked nor could it have been practicable for more than one person to have been there ata time. The assumption even persists into recent in- vestigations by archaeoastronomers who openly avow Vouwe XX 2006 9123 “Foamhenge”: view from ca. 10 m NE of the Heelstone and companion along the axis to the SW. Beyond these stones are another pair, the Slaughter Stone and a companion, together with a third stone to the tight (there was possibly also another stone to the left). Beyond this is the sarven circle and the Callestof the five trilithons within it. The reconstrue- tion shows well how the top portion of the trilithon arch protrudes above the sarsen circle Is as the site is approached, framing a small rectangle of sky in the axial direction (photograph by Clive Ruggles) (© pursue interpretations related to social practice rather than astronomical abstraction (Iwaniszewski 2003a: see also lwaniszewski 2003b). If we are inter ested in how people actually experienced the monu- ment and perceived its cosmic connections, then we would be better off asking what they could actually have observed as they approached the monument or gathered within it. This leads us to consider not only where celestial events took place on the horizon but how segments of that horizon (and/or the sky above it) were obscured by, or conversely revealed by gaps between, the stones themselves. ‘The formal, or “ceremonial,” approach to the 10. ARCHAEOASTRONOMY ‘monument was from the NE. This seems evident not only from the existence of the avenue (albeit that the chronological relationship between the avenue and the sarsen circle is still unclear archaeologically) and also from the layout of the five trilithons. Viewed from the elbow, Stonehenge is invisible (contrary to North 1996:Figure 95), The sarsen stones come quickly into view as one ascends along the avenue toward the monument, becoming fully visible after a mere 20 mor so. Compass-clinometer measurements taken in 2005 show that from this point, the altitude of the top of the stones is 2°, the altitude of the horizon (slightly above the base of the stones) 1.5°, and theazimuthal extent 3°, all measurements being made to the nearest 0.5%. As the approach continues, the altitude of the stones decreases slightly and the azi- muthal angle subtended by the sarsen cirele increases steadily. Taking the mean true azimuth of the avenue from existing determinations (see above), one can then calculate the relevant declinations, The results are tabulated in Table 4 An interesting result revealed by this exercise is that, as viewed from the point where the sarsen circle first makes its dramatic appearance on the final ap- ioure 4, The setting Sun viewed five days before the winter solstice in 2005, along the axis, through the arch of the sarsen circle fon the NE side. Stone 56, the right-hand upright of the great triithon, survives, with the ball joint visible that originally held the triithon lintel in place (photograph by Clive Rugales), proach along the avenue up to Stonehenge (Cleal, Walker, and Montague 1995:40), the setting midwin- ter Sun would have sunk down just tits left, its upper limb moving down and right and just making contact with the bottom left corner of the visible monument as the Sun finally disappeared, From points farther up the approach, the solstice Sun would be seen to set into the monument, In approaching the monument ftom this direction, the viewer eventually draws level with the Heelstone. Both North (1996) and Sims (2006) have considered Vouume XX 200611the appearance and astronomical potential of the sarsen monument as viewed from the final approach, asthe viewer draws level with the Heelstone, although neither pays any attention tothe Heelstone companion (stone 97), which probably, although not certainly, stood alongside the Heelstone itself (Cleal, Walker, and Montague 1995:268-270) to form a “gateway” symmetrical around the solstitial axis (Burl 1994:Fig. ure4), Beyond this wasa further" gateway” formed by the Slaughter Stone and a second stone standing to its right, also symmetrical about the axis, possibly with a further standing stone on each side, making 2 total of four (Burl 1994:Figure 4). The visual effect can be imagined from the life-sized polystyrene model of Stonehenge (popularly dubbed “Foamhenge”) erected in June 2005 for TV programs broadcast on Channel 5 (UK) and the National Geographic Chan- nel (Figure 3). From this point, the view directly ahead would have been blocked by an almost solid mass of stone (Pitts 2000135), with the only line of sight into the distance being between the two uprights of the great trilithon, both above and below the lintel on the far side of the sarsen circle, A possible interpretation is that the lower gap formed a vertical slit, or “window,” al the bottom of which the winter solstice Sun would have appeared just before setting, while the remain- ing stones blocked out the sky to the left and right (Sims 2006:195). The sight, in the present day, of the solstitial Sun setting to the left of the remaining tilithon upright (stone 56) is certainly a spectacular one (Figure 4), However, there is a serious possibility that the Altar Stone was placed upright on the axis, in front of the great trilithon arch, at around the time the sarsens were erected (Cleal, Walker, and Montague 1995:231; Parker Pearson, Pollard, Richards, et al 2006) and hence blocked all but the upper part of the suggested slit, ast does in the Foamhenge reconstruc- tion (Figure 3), North (1996-459) notes that if the Altar Stone had, instead, Iain prostrate at the center of the monument, it would have formed an artificial horizon that enhanced, rather than blocked, the view of the setting midwinter Sun. However, this is purely conjectural, as are his altemative ideas about how the stone might have been placed so as to facilitate mid- winter sunset observations (North 1996:460-465), 12 ARCHAEOASTRONOMY Woodhenge At Woodhenge there are six concenttic oval rings of postholes with a single central grave placed within the inner ring, and surrounded by an earthen ditch and bank with a single entrance (Cunnington 1929; Evans and Wainwright 1979). The excavator, Maud Cunnington, noted that the long axes of the indi- vidual ovals did not quite coincide with the direction ‘of midsummer sunrise but found that a clear line of sight had existed in the solstitial direction (1929-9, 11). A number of arguments convinced her that the orientation was indeed deliberate and that certain ir- regularities in the spacing of the posts had arisen be- cause of the necessity of keeping the solstitial sight line clear (1929:16). Furthermore, a small grave lay oon this line, and at right angles to it, containing the crouched skeleton of a three-year-old child facing NE, toward the rising midsummer Sun (1929:13). It is this “Cunnington axis” that has been propagated through the archaeological literature, replicated in redrawings of the site plan by Childe (1940:108), Burl (1991:50, 1999-94), Gibson (1998:79), and others. In fact, Cunnington’s conclusions were based on observations of the actual summer solstice sunrise (1929:9, Footnote) and therefore take no account of the change in the obliquity of the ectiptic since the time of construction. Cunnington herself quotes the azimuth of her sight line (confirmed by theodolite measurements) as 50! and the horizon altitude as half a degree (Cunnington 1929:9, Footnote, and Plate 4)." These figures yield a declination of +23.5°, as would be expected, since this is the declination of the center of the solstitial Sun in modern times (Table 2). ‘An independent survey of the site was undertaken by Alexander Thom and published in Megalithic Sites in Britain (1967:Figure 6.16). The axis is clearly marked, and the following measurements are marked on the plan: az = 49.2, alt = 0.5, dee = 24.2. Unlike Cunningion, Thom could not survey the excavated postholes and instead surveyed the concrete marker posts that were erected shortly after Cunnington’s excavation (1929:2, Plate 5A). Despite the extreme care with which Thom (1967:73) undertook this survey, his survey relies on the marker posts accu-© GRAVE © POSTON THOM PLAN igure 5. Woodhenge. The “Cunnington axis” and “Thom axis” superimposed upon the archaeological features (Cunning- ton 1929:Plate 3; Evans and Wainvright 1979:Figure 40; Pollard 1995a:Figure 2) and (lightly shaded) the positions of the concrete pillars constructed at the site (© mark the postholes, according to Thom’s plans (1967:Figure 6.16). Thom's ‘geometrical constructions have been omitted, but his north point (which fits with Cunnington’s) has been retained (draw- ing by Phill Johns).Table 5. Orientation Data from Woodhenge Structure Inward direction Outward direction defining ja — orientation ‘Azimuth | Altitude | Declination | Azimuth | Altitude | Declination ‘Cunningham axis 0320.1} -23.7£03 | 50.5#0.3" jos#03" 423.5403 Thom axis 03201] 244201 | 492201" | 0520." [4242201 Notes: For general notes, see Table 3, * Value quoted by Cunnington (1929:9, Footncic) * Value quoted on Thoms plan (Thom 1967-74; Thom, Thom, and Burl 1980:130). “This value, deduced using GETDEC, corresponds to the value quoted in the annotations on Thom’s plan as published in Thom. (1967-74) but not to the value quoted on the same plan reannotated as published in Thom, Thom, and Burl (1980:130). *“Deduced from the value in the opposite direction quated by Cunnington (1929:9, Footnote). “ Deduced from the value in the opposite direction quoted by Thom (1967.74), rravre 6 The NE borizon at Woodhenge, viewed across the monument from 5m to the SW of the outer ring, on the Thom axis. Magnified portions of the photo (insets) show pegs marking both ends of the Thom axis together with the barrow ‘on the skyline directly above them (in the shape of a rounded mound with isolated trees just in front) (photographs by Clive Ruggles).rioURE 7. Plan of Coneybury henge (after Richards 1990: Figure 97; drawing by Phill Johns). rately corresponding to the centers of the excavated postholes—which it is not safe to assume—and his, plan ignores the central grave while including a large concrete post erected in the center that in fact does not mark a posthole at all Also unlike Cunnington, Thom fits the best axis ‘geometrically. At first sight this appears to have been done on the basis of Thoms imposed geometrical construction of “egg shapes.” However, in the com- mentary it emerges that the axis was “chosen to be along the azimuth of the point on the horizon where the midsummer sun first appeared around 1800 B.C.” (Thom 1967:73). In other words, Thom has made no aitempt to derive a best-fit axis from the spatial con- figuration of the postholes and then to see how closely itfits to the solstitial direction; he has simply assumed the solstitial orientation to be the intended axis, and in fact has derived his geometrical constructions based on this assumption. Interestingly, when Thom’s plan is reproduced in Thom, Thom, and Burl (1980:130), the same axial line is now labeled “az = 49.2, alt = 0.5, dec =23.9(sumat first appearance). The declina- tion yielded by this azimuth and altitude, according to GETDEC, is the originally quoted +24.2°, corre- sponding to the upper limb of the solstitial Sun. In an attempt fo visualize the data and assess the “best-fit axis” objectively, we show in Figure 5, superimposed, the locations of excavated postholes, following Cunningion’s plans, and the locations of the extant concrete markers, from Thom’s survey ‘Also superimposed are the “Cunnington axis” and “Thom axis,” but Thom’s geometrical constructions, have been omitted. Figure 6 shows the view in the northeasterly direction along the Thom axis. What of the reverse direction? Cunnington (1929:11) notes that the reverse direction along her sight line is not quite in the direction of midwinter sunset, owing to the altitude of the horizon, The alti- tude in question is quoted as “one third of a degree” (Cunnington 1929:9, Footnote). However, taking an azimuth of 230.5° and an altitude of 0.3° (confirmed to within 0.2° by clinometer measurements and map estimates) in fact yields a declination of ~23.7°, cor- responding exactly to the upper limb of the midwinter setting Sun in 2500-2000 .c, (Table 2). Thus, in fact, it i in this direction that her clear line of sight between the postholes would have been most effica- cious. The Thom axis, on the other hand, aligns upon «point farther to the left, over which the midwinter ‘Sun would have passed before setting ‘The other feature that is obvious from the exea- vation plans (see Figure 5), though often omitied from mention by the archaeoastronomers, is that the entrance of the ditch and bank enclosure surrounding, the rings of posts is not on the axial line but rather farther round to the north. From the geometrical center, the entrance extends between azimuths of approximately 20° and 40°, while the azimuth of the axis is close to 50°. ‘The axial orientation data are summarized in Ta- ble 5, Notwithstanding the fact that the entrance is not aligned with the axis, we tentatively identify the southwesterly direction as “inward.” Vowne XX 2006 15(by ‘ave & (a) Sketch plan of Durrington Walls and Woodhenge, showing their relationship to each other and to the River Avon, “The location of the recently discovered avenve is also marked (after Richards 1991: Figure 77; drawing by Phill Johns). (©) Plan of Durrington Walls showing the strip excavated by Wainwright (Wainwright and Longworth 1971) and line of the ‘ld road (solid), The dark inner ring is the ditch, and the more lightly shaded outer ring is the bank. Contours are marked in feet (after RCHM(E) 1979:Figure 10; drawing by Phill Johns).In summary, although the timber rings at Wood henge certainly appear to have had an axis of sym- metry aligned broadly in the direction of midsummer sunrise/midwinter sunset, say, t0 within a degree (two solar diameters), the precise orientation (if this is a meaningful concept to pursue) temains an open question. There is no compelling reason, on the basis of the existing evidence, to suggest that either direc- tion was the more significant one, unless we accept Cunnington’s original narrow “line of sight” between the posts as the intended axis along which the solstitial Sun was observed. If so, then despite Cunnington’s own interpretation —the evidence weighs slightly in favor of the midwinter sunset, rather thanthe midsum- mer sunrise, being the more significant event. Coneybury Henge At Coneybury, located in a plowed field with no trace remaining visible on the ground, the results of geophysical survey and excavation in 1980 give us good indication of the layout of the henge ditch swith its single entrance (Figure 7; Richards 1990-Figure 97; see also Richards 1991:94) and indicate the exis- tence of internal timber structures. If we judge by the published plan Richards 1990-Figure 97) and rely upon the north point, the entrance as viewed from the geo- metrical center extended between azimuths of roughly 66° and 74°, Even this crude estimate puts it well away from the direction of summer solstice sunrise (around azimuth 50°, given the horizon altitude of around 0.5° as determined from clinometer measurements in 2005), Contrary to Darvill (1997-187), one would need a horizon altitude of around 15° to shift the position of midsummer sunrise into alignment with the entrance. OF course, it can be argued that itis unreasonable to.choose the geometrical center, especially of such a crudely shaped ring, in order to define the orientation. However, there is a reasonably clear axis of symmetry, from any point along which the mean azimuth of the entrance is about 70°; therefore, there can be litle argument, from the existing archaeological evidence, about the general orientation of the monument, Durrington Walls The henge enclosure of Durrington Walls (Figures 8a and 8b) is one of the most impressive in England. Its size is similar to that of Avebury, though it is less conspicuous in the modern landscape because of the. A345 main road, which cuts across it from north to south on a high embankment, The henge is also unusual in having been built on quite a steep slope, enhancing a natural dip in the landscape, The natural topography was used to reduce the huge human effort needed toconstract the enclosure so that, forexample, a large part of the western bank is simply an enhance- ment (sharpening) of an existing rise in ground level rather than a totally artificial bank and ditch. ‘The existence of two timber structures within the enclosure—the North Circle and South Circle—was revealed by excavations in 1966 and 1967, priorto the construction of the new A345 road (Wainwright and Longworth 1971). Like Woodhenge, the South Circle (in its second phase) comprised six concentric rings of upright timbers, but here they were almost circular. The North Circle is a double circle within a complex, and possibly multiphase, set of structures inclnding a timber avenue (Wainwrightand Longworth 1971:41— 44), Woodhenge itself stood on higher ground just beyond the southern rim of the henge, and at least one further timber circle, Durtington 68, stood farther again to the south (Pollard 1995b). These four circles may have been just a few among numerous broadly contemporary timber constructions both within and outside the henge enclosure. The North Circle and Durrington 68 circles will not be considered further here, although there are grounds for suggesting that, like the South Circle (to be considered below), they were both oriented to the SE (Pollard 1995b:124-125), Durrington Walls South Circle. The eastern side of the South Circle was sited directly in the line of the new road (Figures 9a and 9b), and thus some 65 per- cent of the total area was excavated by Wainwright (Wainwright and Longworth 1971:23-38). In 2005, anew sector was opened up cutting through the three outer rings on the northwestem side (Parker Pearson, Pollard, Tilley, et al. 2005; Parker Pearson, Pollard, Richards, et al. 2006). Wainwright's excavation revealed the existence of two exceptionally large “entrance” posts on the southeastern side, The 2005 excavation confirmed that these were not matched Vous XX 200817igure 9. (a) The plan of the South Circle at Durrington Walls used for the “Time Team” reconstruction. Darker shaded circles represent the part excavated by Wainwright and follow Wainwright and Longworth (1971:Figure 14). Lighter shaded circles are extrapolations made in advance of the 2005 excavations. The circles have been overlaid purely to aid in setting out the site but help to emphasize the irregularity in the precise placing of the stones (courtesy of Videotext Communications Ltd), North is to the lef on this plan (b) The site of the South Ciccle within Durrington Walls henge, viewed from the NW. The area under excavation is a sector cutting through all of the concentric rings on the NW side. The eastern side of the structure, constituting about 65 percent of its total area, was sited under what is now the road embankment. The embankment also obscures the horizon in the SE direction that the monument faced (photograph by Clive Ruggles).Table 6, Orientation Data from Durrington Walls Structure Inward direction Outward direction defining ST ~ * ~ orientation [Azimuth | Altitude | Dectin Arimmuth Declination South Circle, 3104205] 50410] 4281211 | 1304205" 23.8204 axial orientation Entrance avente 306.7 40.1" ]4041.0" | 425.2209 | 12670." | 08202 | -21.7202 | Notes: For general notes, sce Table 3 * From the excavation pla relying upon the north point (Wainwright and Longworth 1971:Figure 14). ° Obtained by offset from a point ~50 mato the SE, from which point a theodolite survey of the horizon was undertaken. “ Obtained from independent ropographie survey using @ Tots Orientation of ditch on NE side, determined directly by theodalite survey during th Determined by direct survey. Only adjacent horizon points on the opposite northwestern side, although it may be that the circle was incomplete there, perhaps deliberately left so (Parker Pearson, Pollard, Tilley, ct al, 2005; Parker Pearson, Pollard, Richards, etal. 2006)."" The axial orientation of the South Circle, as de- termined from the excavation plan (Wainwright and Longworth 1971:Figure 14; see also Figure 9a) by taking the line through the geometrical center and passing midway between the entrance posts, and rely- ing upon the north point, was 130.4°. Since the south- easterly horizon is obscured by the road embankment (Figure 9b), its altitude was determined by offsetting from a point on the eastem side of the road. The value obtained was 0.6°, yielding a declination of -23.8° ‘and thus confirming Parker Pearson's (200566) claim that it was aligned upon midwinter sunrise In view of the uncertainties concerning the di rectionality of the solsttial axes at Stonehenge and Woodhenge, Durrington Walls South Circle acquires aa special interest. Because the whole henge is placed ‘on ground that stopes significantly down toward the SE (see Figure 8b), the solstitial alignment is not re~ versible. The horizon in the northwesterly direction is formed by the rim of the henge itself. An independent topographic survey by Total Station in September 2005, taking into account the original ground level at the South Circle, which was evident from the ex- cavation in progress, provided an estimate of the Station. were visible through vegetation, ence the slight uncertainty horizon altitude in the northwesterly direction of 5.0°. Because of the closeness of the horizon this value is subject to significant uncertainties, but nonetheless the declination obtained, around +28°, is well outside the solar range." Durrington Walls Main Entrance. Unexpectedly, the 2005 excavations in the vicinity of the main henge entrance revealed the existence of an avenue, a little over 20 m wide, running between the henge entrance and the River Avon, which is only about 100 m away (see Figure 8a) (Parker Pearson, Pollard, Tilley, et al, 2005:4; Parker Pearson, Pollard, Richards, et al. 2006). It is constructed of parallel ditches and ban} and is similar to the Stonehenge avenue in width and in the fact that it connects the henge entrance to the river, though of course the two avenues differ greatly in length. As Parker Pearson, Pollard, Richards, et al, (2006) note, the Durrington avenue runs against the grain of the valley's contours, which suggests that factors other than mete topographic expediency determined its orientation. ‘The orientation of the ditch on the NE side of the avenue was determined directly by theodolite survey during the excavations and found to be 126,7°/306.7°. ‘The horizon in the southeasterly direction was par- tially obscured by vegetation, but it was possible to determine the altitude in the direction of orientation as 0.8°. This yields a declination of -21.7°. The horizon Voune XX 2006 19altitude in the northwesterly direction is obscured by the modern road but would have been formed by the henge rim on the NW side, as for the South Circle The topographic survey mentioned above permitted the horizon altitude in this direction to be estimated despite the lack of a direct line of sight, and the estimate was 4.0°. Thus, we obtain a northwesterly declination of 25.2°. Given the uncertainties in the altitude determination (£0.9°), itis within the bounds of possibility that this was a deliberate and quite pre~ cise solstitial orientation, It is also possible that the avenue pinches in at the henge entrance end, which would mean that the mean avenue orientation was greater than that of the NE ditch, or that the avenue is not straight. This issue may be clarified as the ex- cavations continue in future years. ‘The orientation data from Durrington Walls are summarized in Table 6. Discussion The Solstitial Orientations: Facts and Interpretations (Our results can be summarized as follows: + The timber and stone circles. The axial orientations of the sarsen monument at Stonehenge and the multiple concentric timber circles at Durrington South Circle (within Durrington Walls henge) and Woodhenge (outside it), are all solstitially aligned. In the case of Stonehenge and Woodhenge the alignment could have operated in either direction, but at Durrington South Circle different horizon altitudes ensure that only the outward direction was, solstitial. In each case, outward is toward sunrise, but while Stonehenge and Woodhenge are oriented NE-SW, and hence align upon midsummer sunrise and midwinter sunset, Durrington South Circle aligns southeastward upon midwinter sunrise. + The avenues, Following the 2005 excavations, it is clear that there existed a short earthen avenue connecting the entrance of Durtington Walls to the River Avon, bearing obvious similarities to the much longer avenue connecting Stonehenge to the same river. The segment of the Stonehenge avenue 20 ARCHAEOASTRONOMY adjacent fo the monument is solstitially aligned in both directions. At Durrington, on the other hand, the avenue is aligned only on the solstitial event in the direction of approach— midsummer sunset. + The enclosures. The enclosures at Woodhenge and Coneybury were not solstitial: the Wood- henge entrance is oriented about 20° too far anti- clockwise (northward), and Coneybury about the same too far clockwise (eastward), The same is true to a lesser extent at Stonehenge, where the axis defined by the principal enclosure entrance has azimuth 43° (Ruggles 1997a:214-215), although here it is clear that the earthen enclo. sure (technically not a henge, since the bank is inside the ditch) considerably predated the stone circles, having been constructed in the Middle Neolithic ca. 2950 n.c. (Cleal, Walker, and Mon- tague 1995:531). While the henge entrance at Durrington broadly faces the direction of mid- winter sunrise, it is also topographically defined, being at the lowest point and the closest to the river, Here, it is the avenue, running somewhat inst the local topography, that seems to have explicitly followed the solstitial orientation. It is well known that the axial orientation of the Station Stone rectangle and the sarsen structures does not respect that of the principal enclosure entrance (Cleal, Walker, and Montague 1995:Fig- ure 79). There is a similar disparity between the orientation ofthe enclosure entrance at Woodhenge and the axis of symmetry of the internal timber ovals and, to a lesser extent, between the orienta- tion of the South Circle at Durrington and the main henge entrance, At Coneybury we have too little information about the internal timber structures to be able to judge, In short, there is no evidence from the earthen enclosures to argue for deliberate solstitial orien- tation. Durrington is crucial in any attempt to interpret these solstitial alignments, precisely because the horizons in the southeasterly and northwesterly directions are at significantly different altitudes, This prevents what, may have been a meaningful solstitial alignment inStonehenge Woodhenge Durrington entrance Darrington South Circle only one direction giving rise, as a passive and possi. bly unintended consequence, to a solstitial alignment in the opposite direction." This said, we are still left with the following possibilities: , ‘Outward Direction Midwinter sunset | Midsummer sunrise Midwinter sunset | Midsummer sunrise Midsummer sunset ‘Midwinter sunrise Even this simple table serves to counter oversim- plistic readings of the evidence. Thus, if we argue in favor of either the inward or outward direction being exclusively of significance at Stonehenge and Wood- henge, then one or other of the Durrington alignments, gives us problems. If we argue similarly in favor of an exclusive interest in either sunrise or sunset, or in midsummer or midwinter, then again one of the two Durrington alignments counters the argument. In order to move forward, we need to consider how people understood and interacted with these alignments in practice, even if only in the process of setting them up. In one sense, Cunnington’s “line of sight” approach to identifying the axis at Woodhenge was a useful first move in this direction—certainly more promising than the “joining the dots” approach common among archaeoastronomers in the 1960s and 1970s. However, all it tells us specifically is that if the gap identified by Cunnington was indeed the line of sight that was used to identify the solstitial axis, then it is more likely that the midwinter sunset direc- tion was the significant one. This is hardly a strong, argument. Likewise, the “geometty of obscuration” approachemployed by North at Stonehenge, although conceptually representing a marked improvement over deductions made solely on the basis of two-di- ‘mensional site plans, really only succeeds in drawing attention to the uncertainty over whether the Altar Stone blocked the midwinter sunset sight line through the middle of the sarsen monument. We can begin to make real progress by moving from a static view in which people make observations to one in which people move around and experience things. This compels us to face some broader inter- pretative issues, and in what follows we will follow the interpretative paradigm that considers questions of perception and the orchestration of experience by people both dwelling within and moving around land- scapes laden with cosmological meaning (Ruggles 1999a:120-121, 152-155). Consider first the formal, or “ceremonial,” ap- proach to Stonehenge along the avenue. The path of the avenue may have been determined by a range of factors related to the experience of walking it (Exon et al, 2000:72-73; also see Tilley 1994:173-201 on the Dorset cursus), but on the final approach, after the moment of invisibility —of being cut off from the goal, perhaps metaphorically as well as visually, at the elhow—has been passed, it follows the solstitial orientation. The effects of this may have been mani- fested on the path of approach to, rather than upon arrival at, the monument: thus, if the journey was made at sunset around the shortest day of the year, as a prelude to nighttime festivities at the stones, the Sun would have been seen to set into the monument on approach. Is it too fanciful fo imagine that the Sun ‘was seen to sink into the monument, endowing it with its sacred power, just prior to the arrival ofthe human celebrants? Even if this scenario is only remotely near the tcuth, the implication is clearly one of looking forward toward the midwinter sunset—in which case it was the inward direction, the sunset, and the winter solstice that were significant here, Parker Pearson, Pollard, Tilley, et al. (2005:5) suggest that the Stonehenge and Durrington avenues represent segments of a symbolic routeway, significant in relation to fertility rites, that connects the two sites to each other via the river. Following Parker Pearson and Ramilisonina’s (1998) suggestion that henge, built in stone, represented the domain of the dead while Durrington Walls, built in timber, was the domain of the living, they argue that the route leads between these two domains. At midwinter, movement. is from Durrington to Stonehenge, and at midsummer it is in the other direction, perhaps because ancestors provide fertility. jone- Vouune XX 2006 21(a) 1GuRe 19, The “Time Team” reconstruction of Durrington South Circle, (a) The entire reconstruction viewed from the ESE. The sizes and heights of the timbers are estimated from the ‘widths of the excavated postholes (photograph by Clive Ruggles) (b) The view northwestward in through the entrance. The pathway formed by the wider gaps between the posts can be seen bending round to the left (photograph by Clive Ruggles).If the presence of the avenues suggests a connec tion, and also a symbolic dichotomy, between Stone- henge and Durrington, what of the timber circles? If wwe seek an interpretation that applies to both, than wwe have two choices: 1. Both face outward to sunrise: midsummer in the case of Woodhenge and midwinter in the case of Durrington South Circle 2. Bothachieve their symbolic function atmnidwinter. At ‘Woodhenge, this relates to entry into the monument, while at Durrington South Circle it relates to looking ‘out from, or moving away from, the monument. Aline of approach that may help distinguish between these possibilities relates to the fact that in both of these multiple timber circles, despite the clear exis tence of separate concentric rings of posts, the posts seem to be surprisingly irregularly placed"*—all the more so given the apparent precision with which their principal axes were aligned upon the relevant solstice. Could it be that the irtegular placement of the posts was in fact quite deliberate, itself helping to orchestrate the experience of walking around among them? Many people who walked around in the life- sized reconstruction of Durrington South Circle cre~ ated by the TV program “Time Team” (Figure 10a) Were staggered o discover that, although the structure was inherently permeable, they felt constrained to walk around on certain paths where there were wider spaces between posts, There is no doubt that the un- even spacing contributed to this sensation. The “Time Team” reconstruction also provided spectacular confirmation of the fact, first pointed out by Thomas (1991:49-51), that as one enters the ‘monument through the entrance, one is inexorably drawn round toward the left. The way forward di- rectly toward the center is “blocked,” and the wider path leads round to the left (Figure 10b). Every one of dozens of casual visitors observed by the author followed this path. After doing so, one ends up mov- ing clockwise around the monument between two of the concentric circles. This, presumably, delayed entry into the center, but it may also be significant that clockwise is sunwise, as for the Navajo, who still insist that movement should always be sunwise within the hogan (traditional house) (Griffin-Pierce 1992:92-96), Similarly, the patterns of posts at Woodhenge may have helped to enforce or encourage clockwise procession between two of the concentric rings (Pollard 1995a:152), an idea that seems to be supported by the spatial patterning found in formal deposits within the monument. If similar practices of clockwise procession took place at both circles, this seems to fly in the face of choice 2, which implies dichotomy between facingin and facing out. On the other hand, choice 1 also seems to present a problem, since this emphasizes facing out- ‘ward rather than coming inward, at both monuments. A possible resolution to this problem may be indicated by considering once more the approach to Stonehenge along the avenue. Perhaps, the perception was that the un entered the monument, followed by the human celebrants. If so, then it would scarcely be surprising to find the people themselves mimicking the actions of the Sun, for example, in moving clockwise. ‘The point about this speculation is that it implies that the rays of the Sun are perceived to enter the monument. In that case, what we perceive as an outward-facing alignment upon sunrise would be perceived by Late Neolithic people as the rays of the rising Sun entering the monument—closely followed, perhaps, by people. ‘And this would at least give us a plausible and self- consistent scenario, in which celebrants entered exch set of timber circles at dawn; but at Woodhenge this took place at midsummer, whereasat Durrington South Circle it took place at midwinter. ‘The final point that should be made is that although a solstitial alignment might be quite precise spa- tially—that is, tuly aligning upon the rising or setting solsttial Sun—itis necessarily not precise in time. The difference in the rising or setting path of the Sun is only minuscule for several days on either side of each of the solstices. This dispenses with what to us might have seemed a problem: inclement weather at the solstice. ‘The solstitial observance in question could have taken place on any clear dawn/dusk close to the solstice, or repeatedly over a number of days. Future Prospects ‘This discussion of the solstitial alignments in Late Neolithic Wessex almost inevitably raises more questions than it answers. On the other hand, it does, Vows XX 2006 23perhaps, confirm something that has become increas- ingly evident in archaeoastronomy in recent years: we can learn much from considering a modest set of alignments of modest precision in their broadey archaeological context. In one sense, the analysis presented here perhaps starts to fillaniche somewhere between the considerations of large groups of similar ‘monuments that have driven archaeoastronomical re- search in prehistoric Europe for many years (Hoskin 2001; Ruggles 19992:91—111) and the consideration of “one-off” alignments as a small part of the broader archaeological interpretation of particular sites (e.g, Ruggles 1998, 1999c), ‘The focus on solstitial observations also raises oth- erinteresting questions fromthe archacoastronomical point of view, such as whether solstitial determina- tions, if made sufficiently accurately, could lead to the discovery of the precession of the equinoxes (Hughes 2005). On the methodological level, we certainly need toavoid descending into complete subjectivity by be~ 1g demonstrably systematic in our treatment of the evidence (otherwise we lay ourselves open to some of thecriticisms currently being leveled at “phenomeno- logical” approaches—see Fleming [2005]); but at the same time we need to rate that evidence against ideas with a firm basis in cultural anthropology if we wish to arrive at plausible social interpretations, As the Stonchenge Riverside Project progresses, it may be that new archaeological evidence will emerge that will inform these issues further, Also, in ongoing work we are investigating whether these and other monuments deliberately referenced both one another and prominent natural features in the landscape, and whether there is any evidence of dual topographic and celestial associations such as skyline monuments or prominent hill summits coinciding with solar rising or setting positions. ‘Acknowledgments Lam indebted to Michael Parker Pearson and Julian ‘Thomas for inviting me to join them on the 2005 season of the Stonehenge Riverside Project and for their encouragement and logistical support. T am grateful to Darlow Smithson Productions Ltd for the opportunity to participate in their “Stonehenge Live! 24 ARCHAEOASTRONOMY program, which featured “Foamhenge,” the life-sized reconstruction of Stonehenge made of polystyrene foam, and to Videotext Communications Ltd for the opportunity to participate in their “Time Team” pro- gram, which featured the construction of a life-sized replica of the South Circle at Durrington using real timbers. Finally, grateful thanks are due to Jude and Tony Currivan fortheirassistance, followingachance encounter, in the Total Station survey at Durrington. Notes 1, Some exceptions are Aveni (1997-76-79), who briefly discusses Durrington Walls and Woodhenge, and North (1996), in particular, who examines some of the other mon ments in considerable detail and does consider some of the issues raised in thisaticle, but his interpretations have proved ‘contrnversial in several respects (Aveni 1996; Renfrew 1996; Ruggles 1999) 2, Although Sims (2006:197) has recently argued other- wise, his contention that the (approximately) solstitialalign- ment in the NE direction is “an unintended and fortuitous ‘consequence of the monument’s geographical position” is ‘based on the totaly spurious argument that (the azimuths of) suntise and sunset at the opposite solstices are only separated by approximately 180° at around latitude 51 3, We do not consider the equinoxes. Various people from Cunnington (1929:11) onward have introduced the equinoc: ‘ial rising Sun ioto their arguments, but as the principal axes of the monuments we shall be considering are all aligned intercardinally rather than cardinally (by which we mean approximately NW-SE or NE-SW rather than N-S or E-W), the question of the equinoxes does not arse. In any case, see Rugales (1997, 2005:148~152). 4, It is unfortunate, therefore, that archacoastronomical ‘works are still continuing to appear that use the obsolete Atkin- son sequencing (e.g., Kelley and Milone 2005:187~193).. 5.A positional accuracy of around 10 m is generally good ‘enough for the purpose of calibrating azimuths obtained from ‘compass readings, Random errors limit the accuracy of such readings to around 0.5° at best, and the issue isto determine, for any point of observation, the Az —Azsu (trae azimuth ‘minus magnetic azimuth) correction given the possibility that local magnetic anomalies could introduce a systematic error ‘overand above the mean magnetic declination. Ifthe point of ‘observation and the targetcan each be determined to within 10 1m, then provided they are atleast 2 km apart, the true azimuth is independently determined to within 05° 6, See also Ruggles (1999a:169). For any given horizon altiqude, the program applies mean correction forastronomi- cal refraction (see Thom 1967:26). The requisite site latitudes are listed in Table 17. The azimuths of solstital sunrise and sunset as viewed from a given place vary over time asa result ofthe long-term variation in the obliquity of the ecliptic (see, e.g., Ruggles 19994:57), 8, The British National Grid is a Transverse Mercator projection, which, as with all attempts to represent Earth's surface in the form of a flat two-dimensional map, involves distortions. Thus, for example, the difference between grid north and true north varies from place to place. Around Stone- henge the difference is small, with true azimuth exceeding grid azimuth by some 0.1°. See, for example, htp-Hwww. ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/gps/information/coordi natesystemsinfo/guidetonationalgridipagel htm. 9. Of a handful of additional holes found within the ditch, ‘one was adjacentto postholein the next-to-innermostringon the NE side, and another adjacent 10a posthole in the next-to ‘outermost ring on the SW side. Ifthese additional holes also, held posts, then the gaps between these two pairs of adjacent posts, Cunnington suggested, might have served as sighting deviees (1928:11; see also Buel 1999:91). 10, Cannington, in common with a number of other authors, ‘uses the term elevation rather than alriude, as here, to denote the vertical angle between a viewed point (for example, on the horizon) and the horizontal plane through the observer. For clarification, see Ruggles (19992:ix). IL. If it is true that the circle was incomplete on the NW side, whether or not it was left incomplete deliber ately, then this strengthens arguments against these timbers, having been the supports for a roofed building (Musson 1971:367-368), 12. Itwill not escape some readers’ notice that this dectina- ton is close to that ofthe setting major standstill Moon. One would be inclined to dismiss this out ofhand as fortuitous were it not, for example, forthe alignment evidence from the Sta tion Stone rectangle at Stonehenge (Ruggles 1997a:218-220) and other indications, such as the spatial configuration of formal deposition during phase 2 (Pollard and Rugeles 2001), that lunar symbolism may have played a role at Stonchenge even before the arrival of the bluestones and sarsens. Sins (2006) takes this idea @ good deal further. Nonetheless, cussion of putative lunar alignments is beyond the scope of this article 13. Ironically, Cunnington (1929:11) applied 2 similar argument at Woodhenge back in the 1920s to argue that hee axis faced midsummer sunrise but not midwinter sunset; but she had failed to take into account the change in the obliquity of the ecliptic, which, as we have seen, reverses, the argument 14, This is contrary to Cunnington, who argued that the layout of the timber post rings at Woodhenge was regular enough to suggest the use of rudimentary geometrical prin- ciples (Cunnington 1929-15), and, of course, Thom, whose ‘geometrical constructions take no account of the positions of the actual posts within each constructed oval. References Albarelta, Umberto, and Dale Serjeantson 2002 A Passion for Pork: Meat Consumption at the British Late Neolthie Site of Durvington Walls In Consu- ing Passions and Paterns of Conswnpion, edited by Preston Miracle and Nicky Milner pp. 33-49, MeDon- ald Insitute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge Ashmore, Wendy, and A. Bernard Knapp (editors) 1999 Archacologies of Landscape. Blackwell, Malden, Massachusetts, and Oxford Atkinson, Richard J.C 1978 Some New Measurements on Stonehenge. Nanure 215:30-52. 1979 Stonehenge. Penguin, London ‘Aveni, Anthony F. 1995 BetweenaRock and « Hard Pee, (Review of North 1996) Nature 383:403-404, 1997 Stairways to the Stors: Skywatching in Three Great Ancient Cultures. Wiley, New York Bradley, Richard 2000 An Archaeology of Natura Places. Routledge, Lon- «don and New York. Burl, Aubrey 1991 Prehistoric Henges. Shire Publications, Princes Risborough, United Kingdom. 1994 Stonehenge: Slaughter, Sacrifice and Sunshine Wilshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine 8785-95 1999 Great Stone Circles. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut, and London, 2000 The Stone Circles of Britain, Ireland and Britany. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticuand London. Childe, V. Gordon 1940 Prehistoric Communities ofthe British sles. Cham- bers, London Cleat, Rosamund, Karen Walker, and Rebecea Montague 1995" Stonehenge in kts Landscape: Twentith-Centary Excavations. English Heritage, London. ‘Cooney, Gabriel 2000" Landscapes of Neolithic dreiand. Routledge, Lon- ddon and New York ‘Connington, Maud E. 1929 Woodhenge. George Simpson, Devites. United Kingdom Danvill, Timothy 1997” Ever Increasing Circles: The Sacred Geographies of Stonehenge and Its Landscape. Yn Science and Stonchenge, edited by Barry Cunliffe and Colin Renfiev, pp. 167-202, British Academy, London, Darvill, Timothy (editor) 2005" Stonehenge World Heritage Site: An Archaeolo- sical Research Framework. English Heritage and Vounse XX 2006 25‘Bournemouth University, London and Bournemouth, Evans, John G., and Geoffrey J. Wainwright 1979 The Woodhenge Excavations. In Mount Pleasant, Dorset: Excavations 1970-1971, Incorporat ing an Account of Excavations Undertaken dt Woodhenge in 1970, by Geoffrey J. Wainwright, pp. 71-74, Society of Antiquaries of London, London, Exon, Sally, Vince Gaffaey, Ann Woodward, and Rot Yor ston 2000 Stonehenge Landscapes: Journeys Through Real ‘and. Fmagined Worlds. Archaeopress, Oxford. Fleming, Andrew 2005 Megaliths and Post-Mot Wales." Antiquity 79:921-932. Garnham, Trevor 2004 Linesonthe Landscape, Circles from the Sky: Mont ments of Neolithic Orkney, Tempus, Stroud, United ism: “The Case of Kingdom, Gibson, Alex 1998 Sionehenge and Timber Circles. Tempus, Stroud, United Kingdom. Griffin-Pierce, Trudy 1992. Earth Is My Mother, Sky Is My Father: Space, Time ‘and Astronomy in Navajo Sandpainting. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Hawkes, Jacquetta 1962 Man and the Sun. Cresset, London. Hawkins, Gerald 8. 1963 Stonehenge Decoded. Nature 200:306-308, 1964 Stonehenge: A Neolithic Computer. Narure 202:1258-1261. Heggie, Douglas 1981 Megalithic Science: Ancient Mathematics and As tronomy in Northwest Europe. Thames and Hudson, London. Hoskin, Michael 2001” Tombs, Temples and Their Orientations. Ocarina Books, Bognor Regis, United Kingdom, Hoyle, Fred 1966 Speculations on Stonehenge. Antiquity 40:262 216. 1977 On Stonehenge. Heinemann, London. Hughes, David 2005 Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Skywatchers end the Precession of the Equinox. Journal ofthe British ‘Astronomical Association 115(1):29-35. Iwaniszewski, Stanistay 20032 The ‘Twelve Days at Stonehenge. In Calendars, Symbols and Orientations: Legacies of Astronomy in Culture, edited by Mary Blomberg, Peter Blom- berg, and Géran Henriksson, pp. 27-31. Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden, 20036 The Erratic Ways of Studying Astronomy in Culture. 26 ARCHAEOASTRONOMY In Calendars, Symbols and Orientations: Legacies of Astronomy in Culture, edited by Mary Blomberg, Peter Blomberg, and Goran Henriksson, pp. 7-10. Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden, Kelley, David H., and Eugene F. Milone 2005 Exploring Anciew Skies: An Encyclopedic Survey of ‘Archaeoastronomy. Springer, New York. Lawson, Andrew 1997 ‘The Structural History of Stonehenge. In Science and Stonehenge, edited by Barry Cunliffe and Colin Renfrew, pp. 15-37. British Academy, London, Lockyer, Norman 1909 Stonehenge and Other British Stone Monuments ‘Astronomically Considered. 2nd ed. Macmillan, London. Musson, Chris 19TL A Study of Possible Building Forms at Durrington ‘Walls, Woodhenge and the Sanetwary. Appendix. VII in Durrington Walls: Excavations 1966-1968, edited by Geoffrey J. Wainwright and Ian H. Longworth, pp. 363-377 Society of Antiquaries of London, London. Newham, C.A. ["Peter"} 1966 Stonehenge—A Neolithic Observatory. Nature 211:456-458. 1972 The Astronomical Significance of Stonehenge. Moon Publications, Shirenewton, United Kingdom. North, Joho D. 1996 Stonehenge: Neolithic Man and the Cosmos. Harp- erCollins, London. Parker Pearson, Michael 1993 English Heritage Book of Bronze Age Britain. Bats- ford/English Heritage, London, 2005 English Heritage Book of Bronze Age Britain. Rev ‘ed, Batsford/English Heritage, London. Parker Pearson, Michsel, Rosamund Cleal, Joshua Pollard, Colin Richards, Clive Ruggles, Julian Thomas, Chris Tilley, Kate Welham, Andrew Chamberlain, Carolyn Chenery, Jane Evans, Janet Montgomery, and Mike Richards 2007 The Age of Stonehenge. Antiquity. in press. Parker Pearson, Michacl, Joshua Pollard, Colin Richards, Julian Thomas, Chris Tilley, Kate Welham, and Umberto Albarella 2006 Materializing Stonchenge—the Stonehenge River- side Project and New Discoveries. Journal of Mate- rial Culture 1W(1~2)221-261 Parker Pearson, Michael, Joshua Pollard, Chris Tiley, Julian “Thomas, Colin Richards, and Kate Welham 2005 ‘The Stonehenge Riverside Project: Interim Report 2005. Electronic document, bttp:/www-shef.ae.uk/ archaeology/researchistonehenge, accessed March 2007. Parker Pearson, Michael, and Ramilisonina 1998 Stonehenge for the Ancestors: The Stones Pass onthe Message, Antiguity 72:308-326, Parker Pearson, Michael, Colin Richards, Mike Allen, An- drow Payne. and Kate Welham 2003 The Stonehenge Riverside Project: New Approach- esto Dusringion Walls, PAST: The Newsletter of he Prehistoric Society 45:6-8. 2004 The Stonehenge Riverside Project: Research Design and Initial Results. Journal of Nordic Archacologi- ‘eal Science 1445-66 Pésztor, Emilia, Akos Juhése, Miklés Dombi, and Curt Rostund 2000 Computer Simulation of Stonehenge. In Virtual Real syindrchaeology, edited by Juan A. Barce¥6, Maurizio Forte, and Dovald H. Sanders, pp. UHI-113, BAR {memationl Series 843. Archacopress, Oxford. Pius, Mike WS! The Discovery of a New Stone at Stonehenge, Ar- chaeoastronomy 4(2}-16-21 2000 Hengeworld. Arrow, London. Pollard, Joshua 19952" Inseribing Space: Formal Deposition at the Later Neolithic Monument of Woodhenge, Wiltshire. Pro- ceedings of the Prehistoric Society 61:137-156. 1995 ‘The Durrington 68 Timber Circle: A Forgotten Late Neolithic Monument. Wiltshire Archaeological and ‘Natural History Magazine 88:122-125. Pollard, Joshua, and Clive Ruggles 2001" Shifting Perceptions: Spatial Order, Cosmology, and Patterns of Deposition at Stonehenge. Cambridge Archaeological Journat 1\(1):69-80. Ranieri, Marcello 2003” Geometry at Stonehenge. Archaeoastronomy: The Journal of Astronoray in Culture 7-81-93. RCHMEE) 1979 Stonehenge and Its Environs: Monuments and Land Use. Royal Commission on Historical Monuments (England), Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh Renfrew, Colin 1996 ‘A Sceptic's Henge. (Review of North 1996.) Times Literary Supplement, 18 October:10. Richards, Julian 1990 The Stonehenge Environs Project. Historie Build- ings and Monuments Commission for England, London. 1991 English Heritage Book of Stonehenge. Batsford! English Heritage, London Roslund, Curt and Emilia Pészior 1997 Stonehenge, ett Ijusspel? Populir Arkeotogi 15¢9)18-22, Ruggles, Clive 19972 ‘Astronomy and Stonchenge. In Seience and Stone- henge edited by Barry Cunliffe and Colin Renfrew, ‘pp. 203-229. British Academy, London. 1997 Whose Equinox? Archaewastronomy 22 (Supple- ‘ment to Journal for the History of Astronomy 28) 845-50, 1998 The Possible Astronomical Alignment of the Cleaven Dyke. In The Cleaven Dyke and Littleour: Monuments in the Neolithic of Tayside, edited by Gordon J. Barclay and Gordon S. Maxwell, pp. ‘50-52, Monograph Series 13. Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, Edinburgh Astronomy in Prehistoric Britain and Ireland. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut, and London. ‘Sun, Moon, Stars and Stonehenge. (Review of North 1996.) Archaeoastronomy 24 (Supplement to Jour: nal for she History of Astronomy 30)S83-S88, ‘The Orientation of Altar and Other Wedge Tombs in the Mizen Peninsula. Appendix 3 in Sacred Ground: Megalithic Tombs in Coastal South West Ireland, edited by William O’Brien, pp. 315-317, Bronze Age Studies 4. Department of Archacology, National University of Ireland, Galway. 2005 Ancient Astronomy An Encyclopedia of Cosmologies ‘and Myzh. ABC-CLIO, Santa Barbara, California. Scarre, Chris (editor) 2002” Monuments and Landscape in Atlantic Europe. Routledge, London and New York. Sims, Lionel 2006 The “Solarization” of the Moon: Manipulated Knowledge at Stonehenge. Cambridge Archaeo- logical Journal 16(2):191-207. 1999 19996 ‘Thom, Alexander 1967 | Megalithic Sivesin Britain. Oxford University Press, Oxford. ‘Thom, Alexander, and Archibald 5. Thom 1978 Megalithic Remains in Britain and Brittany. Oxford University Press, Oxford, ‘Thom Alexander, Archibald S. Thom, and Aubrey Burl 1980 Megalithic Rings, BAR British Series 81. British “Archaeological Reports, Oxford. “Thom Alexander, Atchibald S. ‘Thom, and Alexander S, Thom 1973 Stonehenge. Journal for the History of Astronomy 5:71-90, Thomas, Julian 1991 Rethinking she Neolithic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Tilley, Christopher 1994 A Phenomenology of Landscape. Berg, Oxford. ‘Wainwright, Geoffrey J. and Ian H. Longworth I9TL Durrington Walls: Excavations 1966-1968. Society of Antiquaries of London, London. ‘Wood, John B. 1978 Sun, Moon and Standing Stones. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Voune XX 2006 27