THE STONEHENGE ARCHER by Volunteer Keith Rodger

Tags

Archaeology, Salisbury Museum, Stonehenge, Stonehenge Archer, volunteer

Salisbury Museum exhibit

Death of the Stonehenge Archer: A discussion by Keith Rodger

The skeleton of a Neolithic or early Bronze Age man, dated to about 2300 BC, of about 25 years of age, was found buried in the ditch surrounding Stonehenge.  He is known as the “Stonehenge Archer” because of where he was buried and he was buried with a stone bracer.  His grave had been significantly disturbed by animals; neither one fibula (the lesser shinbone), nor his feet were found. Otherwise, the skeleton was in good condition.  

He had been shot to death with arrows; three stone arrowheads were found in the region of his chest and witness marks on his bones testify to a fourth arrow.  It is possible that he was hit by more arrows that have not left marks on the bones.  None of his wounds was to his front.

Of the four arrows, two did not penetrate his ribs.  This is consistent with them being shot at long range and may have been the first hits.  Although not immediately mortal, these wounds are likely to have reduced his mobility, which may have permitted his assailants to close the range.  A third arrow passed between two ribs but the depth of penetration is not known.  The fourth and presumably final arrow entered the victim’s back and passed through the top of the heart or its major blood vessels; this would have been quickly fatal.

In the following I discuss reasons for his killing, which is by no means unique, and choice of burial site, which is.  Five possible reasons have been proposed for his killing: viz sacrifice, ritual murder, execution, warfare and fracas.  The discussion will be guided by “Occam’s razor” that one should not elaborate assumption beyond necessity.  

The first three are, in their own ways, rituals and should therefore have been repeated.  However, this case seems to be unique in that only one such burial has been found in the ditch around Stonehenge.  Of course, there may be or have been others that are undiscovered but, using the ‘razor’, we should not assume evidence that we do not have.  On that basis, these will be discussed no further.

Warfare also seems unlikely.  If he had been an attacker, surely he would have been left to rot on the plain or even mutilated.  Had he been a defender, he would have been among the glorious dead and given a more elaborate funeral.  Of course, it is possible that burial in the ditch was some kind of ritual that was appropriate for a killed enemy on the one hand or a gallant defender on the other.  (See note 1 below)  Once again, the ‘razor’ suggest that we should discount both since they need additional assumptions.

This leaves fracas.  Assuming a fight between local men, there may have been good reason for hiding the corpse and burial is an obvious choice.  However, Salisbury plain consists of a thin covering of turf on chalk and a newly dug grave would leave an obvious white patch.  The ditch around Stonehenge at that time however would have been white and a newly dug grave less obvious.  Perhaps that is why he was put there.  His missing feet and fibula seem to have disappeared after burial rather than removed as part of the burial rites, eg to stop his corpse walking and haunting his killers.  These losses might be due to animals, in which case birds removing partly fleshed bones from the surface would seem to be the most likely since mammals would have dug for more, or they could have been lost by erosion.  Either explanation would suggest a rather shallow grave so that the bones became exposed, consistent with the hypothesis of fracas.  Otherwise, they may have been broken up during the grave’s disturbance by animals and decayed.  The distribution of his known injuries is consistent with an ambush and pursuit.  

As Sherlock Holmes should have said, “Eliminate the possible and what is left ought to be the most plausible.”.  Five possible scenari have been considered and four rejected via Occam’s razor, leaving the fifth, fracas, as the most plausible but not necessarily correct scenario:  readers and visitors should make up their own explanation.  I hope mine will provoke thought, provide other ‘Engagement Volunteers” with useful ideas and that William of Occam has not become giddy rotating in his grave.

Note 1  It has been suggested that he did receive an elaborate funeral, gave goods consisting of the arrow heads that killed him and the bracer that he was (presumably) wearing do not suggest an elaborate funeral to me; rather more a disposal with minimum fuss.

Note 2 It is interesting to point out how technology has improved.  Initially carbon dating of the corpse required the whole of his left femur (thighbone) was destroyed to yield sufficient carbon for analysis.  Later a small hole was drilled in the right femur to provide sufficient material for a more precise date.  The left femur is a replica, as can be seen from the difference in colour.

Volunteers’ Week

Tags

Stonehenge

Monday 3 June and the first of our events to mark National Volunteers’ Week at Salisbury Museum…a Stonehenge Landscape Guided Walk. A brilliant event, walking through the landscape around Stonehenge with its round barrows, long barrows, cursus and Stonehenge Avenue – in the very capable and informative hands of Mike Robinson and Don Carmichael – two National Trust guides. A great way to start the week!

THEN

…AND NOW

It’s All In The Mind…

Tags

Anthony Hawley, Chris Elmer, Stonehenge, Volunteer events

Volunteer Events

Thursday 28 February 10.30 – Noon

Volunteer Coffee Morning

Chris Elmer, lecturer at the University of Southampton, will give a talk: ‘It’s all in the mind: how museums make the past come alive’.

Come along, meet friends, enjoy beverage and cake and what will be an excellent talk. No need to book.

Wednesday 27 March 10.30 – Noon

Collections in Focus Lecture

Volunteer Anthony Hawley will give a talk on his grandfather William Hawley, who was an archaeologist, amongst other very varied things. He worked on Stonehenge and had connections with the museum over seventy years ago. ‘Should be fascinating. No need to book.

Salisbury Miscellany – talk by Volunteer Alan Clarke

Tags

Museum, Salisbury, Stonehenge, volunteer

About fifty Volunteers recently enjoyed Alan Clarke’s ‘Salisbury Miscellany’ – a look at some of the museum’s photographic collection, one of our regular Collections in Focus talks.

Here are some of the photos he showed us, and a few which we didn’t see:

Alan started with this one of himself – the horse is about to be decapitated! Notice Alan’s expression!!

A favourite – the earliest known photo of Salisbury

Repairs to the spire, early 1950s. Where are the hard hats, hi-viz jackets, harnesses?

!!!!!!!!

An early photo of Stonehenge, with repairs to make….

Alan pointed out that, over the centuries, pretty much every stone must have had to be re-erected at some time.

How did they move those stones in the past? Interesting reconstruction here..

There have been endless efforts to work out how it was all done. This one is from the 1970s.

Thank you Alan!

HIGH STREET CONNECTION WITH STONEHENGE WOOLLEN INDUSTRY by Volunteer Alan Clarke

Tags

Collections, Salisbury, Stonehenge, volunteer

Alan Clarke brings us more interesting photographs and a fascinating story of the connection between High Street, Salisbury and the Stonehenge Woollen Industry which we heard about last week.

A standing live ram held by a hoisting belt was the emblem adopted by the Duke of Burgundy when he founded the Order of the Golden Fleece in 1430.  He obtained great wealth from the wool trade in Flanders.  This emblem, the golden fleece, was adopted as the traditional sign of a woollen draper’s shop.  Hence the carved sheep above the former SPCK shop at 51 High Street, Salisbury.

Charles Scammell, an antique dealer, sold 51 High Street to Catherine Lovibond in about 1919.  Catherine was the youngest of three daughters of Joseph Lovibond (1833-1918), a former Mayor of Salisbury (1878-1890), who lived at Lake House, up the Woodford valley.  He was chairman of John Lovibond & Sons, Ltd, and of The Tintometer Ltd.

Catherine trained as a designer and took an interest in spinning and weaving. Encouraged by her father who had no sons, she started to teach the local women the processes involved, setting up looms and spinning wheels in Lake House. At first things did not go well but gradually the scheme caught on, so that by 1900 some of the products were being exhibited at the Albert Hall.  A company called the Stonehenge Woollen Industries was formed and despite a fire which almost destroyed Lake House in 1912, expansion continued, moving to Stratford sub Castle after the death of her father in 1918. Retail outlets were established in four places including 51 High Street, Salisbury.  This is when the carved sheep was placed over the High Street door to denote her trade.

51 High Street, sheep in view to the left

Catherine married Major Radcliffe James Lindsay Bashford in 1919 but he died soon afterwards on 20 August 1921.  Then in 1929 she became the third wife of Rowland George Allanson Allanson-Winn; Lord Hedley.  In his youth he had been editor of the Salisbury Journal for two years.  He died 22 June 1935.

After the death of Catherine (Lady Headley) the business carried on for some years and it was not until 1959 that the shop was sold to the SPCK who at the time occupied 56 High Street, Salisbury.  The sheep trade sign was retained and remains to the present day.

A lady who lived close by me was 99 years old when she gave me an interview.  She told me she used to work in the High Street shop as a young girl.  She still had a Stonehenge Woollen Industries’ scarf.  The shop used to supply patterns and wool for people to knit orders, often to be fulfilled in 2 or 3 days.  Catherine used to travel to London by train to sell the items and to take orders.  Another neighbour remembers her mother knitting frantically last thing at night to finish off a garment.  Catherine originally set up the industry to provide employment for those in the countryside however its greatest use was to give employment to those returning from the First World War.

A Stonehenge Woollen Industries scarf

 

 

SOUNDWAVES! TOWARDS MUSIC – BRIAN GRAHAM by Volunteer Alan Crooks

Tags

Archaeology, Stonehenge, volunteer

When I first heard, some months ago now, that Brian Graham was going to exhibit a set which integrated archaeology, music and art, I immediately thought of Stonehenge, as I recalled reading something not too long ago of a theory concerning the acoustic properties of Stonehenge.

Coincidentally, this cropped up in my Facebook ‘Memories’ feed last week (‘Memories’ is one of my favourite features of Facebook). It was a 2012 paper by a doctoral researcher at Rock Arts Acoustics USA, one Steven Waller, who specialises in the sound properties of ancient sites, – the science of archaeoacoustics.

To understand this, one needs to appreciate that sound propagates through a medium (solid, liquid or gas) by means of waves. As a Science teacher, I used to demonstrate the properties of waves by means of a ripple tank. If standing water is disturbed on one side of a barrier containing a small gap, the waves are seen to fan out on the other side. This effect can be seen in real life at Lulworth Cove in Dorset (Fig.1).

Fig 1. Diffraction of waves at Lulworth Cove

When the barrier contains two gaps, the waves fanning out from each interfere with one another, causing the wave heights to be amplified in some places, and cancel out at others, creating ‘interference patterns’. This same effect occurs with sound. Thus Stephen Waller experimented by asking blindfolded volunteers to walk into a field as two pipers played. He then mapped where the volunteers said they could hear reduced or even no sound – so called ‘dead spots’.  The volunteers experienced quiet patches created by acoustic interference, leading to the ‘auditory illusion’ that massive objects stood between the listener and the instruments being played. Waller said that the volunteers “drew structures, archways and openings that are very similar to Stonehenge”. He speculated that the people who built Stonehenge may have become aware of this sound-cancelling effect during ceremonies involving musicians and would have thought it mystical – even magical, thus motivating them to build a stone circle whose design mimicked this acoustic illusion.

Interestingly, one of the legends concerning the ‘Merry Maidens’ neolithic stone circle, near St Buryan in Cornwall, says that some nineteen maidens, accompanied by two pipers, were dancing and making merry on a Sunday, and, as punishment for this sacrilege, they were all turned to stone –  petrified in a perfect circle – with the two pipers standing by themselves a little way off. This legend is reflected in the local name for the stone circle, Dans maen, meaning ‘dancing stones’.

There are also two other stones associated with the Merry Maidens, ‘The Fiddler’ to the west and the ‘Blind Fiddler’ to the north.

Such petrification legends concerning dancers and pipers (or at least, musicians) are frequently associated with stone circles throughout Britain, another example being ‘The Pipers Stones’ or Athgreany Stone Circle in County Wicklow. The Merry Maidens stone circle was depicted several times in Salisbury Museum’s 2017 exhibition, ‘British Art: Ancient Landscapes’, for example, in Ithell Colquhoun’s painting ‘Landscapes with Antiques, Lamorna’ (1955) (Fig 2).

Fig 2. ‘Landscape with Antiques, Lamorna’, showing the Merry Maidens stone circle and ‘The Pipers’ (Ithell Colquhoun, 1955).

In view of this I find myself slightly disappointed that Brian Graham’s exhibition does not explicitly feature Stonehenge.

I shall return to the subject of waves in a future blog.

 

LAST MAN STANDING

Tags

Archaeology, Collections, Museum, Stonehenge, volunteer, Volunteering

OR    The Last of the Box Makers by Volunteer Mary Crane

Everyone who worked on the Pitt-Rivers collection (and probably anyone who has attended a coffee morning) will know that some larger museum items, eg model stone Celtic crosses, need to be packed in purpose-made boxes.

Confronted with an instruction sheet, two thicknesses of corrugated card, a metre rule, pencil, craft knife, glue gun and tape,  I think all of us had a go, with varying degrees of enthusiasm, at making boxes.

Once all the Pitt-Rivers artefacts were safely stowed away, most volunteers moved on to other areas of the museum’s collections. However, when Adrian realised he still had a few willing box-makers (and lots of unused card) he introduced four of us to the History Store (up in the ‘gods’ behind a no-entry curtain!). There we found large models of Stonehenge, of barrows, and of flint mines and the like. Sue and Alan Haddock, Roger Collins and I have slowly worked our way through, producing custom-made boxes for these, and packing objects away.

Some boxes had to have little flaps at the side so that hands would be able to reach in and extract the models. Some had to have a front flap and a movable tray so that the object inside could be pulled out. Others have flip down sides. We were constrained by the size, shape and weight of each object, the amount of storage space on shelves, and, increasingly as time went on, by the size of the pieces of cardboard we had left.

Some models, like that of the flint mine, had little model people (and a dog!) attached, and all these had to be carefully swaddled. Packing became quite an art as once in the box, the object had to be immovable and protected from inadvertent knocks. Presumably quite a lot of these objects will be moved to the new storage unit at Old Sarum and we expect them to be able to survive the journey intact.

There are just a few of the very large models left. The Haddocks have moved on to other volunteer work and Roger and I are now the only box makers left. While we await some more large sheets of card, Adrian has found us some clocks to box and pack. What else will he find, we wonder?! It is very satisfying though, to know that we are helping to protect the museum’s collections for future generations.

As for me, I enjoy making boxes. I can’t speak for Roger!

SALOG VISIT by Volunteer Alan Crooks

Tags

Archaeology, English Heritage, News, Old Sarum, SALOG, Stonehenge, volunteer, Volunteering, Volunteers, Wiltshire

SALOG Volunteers’ Visit to Old Sarum and Stonehenge Visitor Centre

Just before the museum closed for the day one evening in mid-October, I was intrigued to see Professor Mike Parker-Pearson of the Stonehenge Riverside Project deep in conversation with somebody in the café. My curiosity was satiated the following day when watching BBC TV ‘South Today’ during which it was reported that he was due to open a new exhibition at the Stonehenge Visitors Centre,  ‘Feast! Food at Stonehenge’, which invites visitors to explore the diet and lifestyle of the people that built Stonehenge; and the culture, rituals and identity of food in prehistory (see photos of reconstructed buildings at Stonehenge, below).

 

This was the subject of the second part of a SALOG Volunteers social afternoon on Monday 30^th October.

On arrival at the Stonehenge Visitors Centre, Volunteers from Salisbury Museum, Wiltshire Museum, English Heritage, the National Trust and Wessex Archaeology were given time to mingle and to enjoy coffee and biscuits before being given a ten minute introduction to the exhibition by the Interpretation Officer, Hannah Brown. We were then allowed to explore the exhibition at leisure.

By way of background, the objective of the Stonehenge Riverside Project was to examine the relationship between the Stonehenge stones and surrounding monuments and features, including the River Avon, Durrington Walls, the Cursus, the Avenue, Woodhenge, and various burial mounds, and nearby standing stones. The main aim of the project was to test the hypothesis that Stonehenge was a monument dedicated to the dead, whilst Woodhenge & Durrington Walls, two miles away, were monuments to the living and more recently deceased.

It is believed that the builders of Stonehenge settled in nearby Durrington Walls in the 25^th century B.C. and excavations of this site have revealed an abundance of food waste, stone tools and pottery, which are thus available for analysis.

From these artifacts, scientists have been able to show that our ancestors were bringing animals from as far away as Scotland, some 500 miles away, suggesting that Stonehenge was an important site known right across Britain at this time, and that people were travelling these sorts of distances in order to participate both in the building of the monument, which occurred in several phases, and in midwinter feasts. Some discussion ensued as to the logistics of driving animals these distances, and the time it would take.

As a chemist, I was particularly interested in the techniques used to establish these facts. For example, animal bones can be identified by inspection and it is clear that our Neolithic ancestors at Stonehenge were deriving meat from a variety of sources: cattle, pigs, sheep and goats. The distances travelled were established by analysing the ratios of strontium isotopes in their teeth by the technique of Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectroscopy. Strontium compounds, which mimic calcium compounds and therefore enter animals’ teeth, are present in the soil and enter the animals through the food chain. The particular ratios of strontium isotopes identified reflect the underlying geology where the animal once lived. As a chemist and, latterly a chemistry teacher, I was impressed by the clarity of the diagrams used to illustrate these points, and would have been delighted to have had this example and diagram illustrate this analytical technique (Fig 1).

Figure 1. Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectroscopy of strontium compounds in animals’ teeth

Another point of interest for me was the fact that Neolithic people were lactose-intolerant, and had to turn milk into products such as cheese and yoghurt before consumption (Fig 2 below):

This reminded me of a particularly popular experiment I devised for Key Stage 3 Science students, where we used rennet to curdle milk to make junket. We flavoured the product with strawberries and were able to consume it afterwards, having taken appropriate H&S precautions during the preparation. Again, this would have been a useful illustration to have used at the time.

Preparation of yogourt

Earlier there  was a visit to the inner bailey at Old Sarum.

 

Being only a mile from my home I am very familiar with this site. Nevertheless, some new things were brought to my attention, for example a ‘mason’s mark’ on a stone block in the east range of the courtyard house (Fig 3).

A question was asked and some discussion ensued about the little-known tunnel which once existed through the northern rampart, the site of which is still visible (Fig 4).

The English Heritage ‘Old Sarum’ guidebook tells us that this tunnel was first discovered in 1795. This discovery was recorded in the ‘Gentleman’s Magazine’ of February 2^nd, 1795. Following this, the tunnel was much visited by members of the public for several years before being re-sealed in 1822.

The tunnel was re-excavated in 1957 by the Ministry of Public Buildings and Works (now Department of the Environment)  assisted by members of the archaeology section of the Salisbury and District Field Club, including Davids Algar, Sanders and Truckle, during which, among other things, examples of dated 18^th Century obscene Anglo-Saxon graffiti were found.

Nobody is quite sure who built this tunnel, or for what reason. Its construction was apparently beyond the skills of Iron Age Man, but various people have speculated that it was built by the Romans or the Normans. One theory, which was also that espoused by our EH Guide during this visit, is that it was a ‘sally-port’ to enable an enemy force to be attacked from the rear or, if the city were besieged, to provide a means of escape from it.

A fuller description of this tunnel and the 1957 excavation can be found in The [Salisbury] Journal of 13^th October, 1988, ‘’Old Sarum’s Secret Tunnel’ .

 By Volunteer Alan Crooks Monday 30^th October 2017

Thank you

Tags

Stonehenge, volunteer, Volunteering, Volunteers

It is always nice to receive thanks, and to have some feedback….

Thank you for a super afternoon on Monday.  The information gained added to what we already knew, and Stonehenge Visitors’ Centre displays were particularly interesting.  I know from talking to others that our “work” as Engagement Officers has already been enhanced by Monday’s experiences, and additional information given to visitors at Salisbury Museum has been appreciated.  These days out also enable us to meet up with other volunteers, which is great!

From a Salisbury Museum Volunteer

Volunteer Visit to Old Sarum and Stonehenge

Tags

Archaeology, English Heritage, News, Stonehenge, Wessex

On a beautiful autumn day, Volunteers joined a SALOG visit to Old Sarum and then a tour of the new exhibition at Stonehenge.