Experts uncover series of Stonehenge mystery monuments that could reveal secrets of the past

Prehistoric people created a vast network of monuments inside the sacred landscape’s bedrock

<p>New light on Stonehenge: Archaeological investigations in the area surrounding the famous ancient temple have discovered that prehistoric people were creating other ritual monuments by cutting into the landscape’s bedrock</p>

New light on Stonehenge: Archaeological investigations in the area surrounding the famous ancient temple have discovered that prehistoric people were creating other ritual monuments by cutting into the landscape’s bedrock

Archaeologists investigating Stonehenge’s ancient prehistoric landscape have discovered a series of previously unknown mystery monuments.

By using a special detection method to analyse the ground, they have, for the first time, revealed how prehistoric people were hacking vast circular holes in the Stonehenge landscape’s chalk bedrock.

Around 100 of these mysterious newly discovered rock-cut basins and pits were between 4m and 6m in diameter and in some cases, at least 2m deep.

Some of the holes would have required the systematic removal of at least 25 cubic metres (around 60 tonnes) of solid chalk – a time-consuming task for prehistoric people, equipped only with stone and wooden tools, deer antler pickaxes – and possibly fire (to help fracture the chalk).

Scientists work on the excavation site at Stonehenge

Indeed, a small number of rock-cut pits and basins may have involved the quarrying and removal of between 40 and 60 cubic metres (100-150 tonnes) of chalk.

The vast newly found rock-cut prehistoric monuments, scattered across Stonehenge’s sacred landscape, are baffling archaeologists – because, so far, they haven’t been able to firmly deduce why they were created.

The available evidence suggests that they are a previously largely unknown class of prehistoric monuments, but made at widely differing times in prehistory.

The archaeological investigation has so far demonstrated that the oldest example was made in around 8,000 BC (at least 5,000 years before Stonehenge existed), while others were hacked out of the bedrock 500 years before Stonehenge – with yet others being created while Stonehenge was in decline.

The wide time range for this newly discovered type of large rock-cut monument suggests that in each epoch, their Mesolithic, Neolithic and Bronze Age creators made them for widely differing purposes

The wide time range for this newly discovered type of large rock-cut monument suggests that in each epoch, their Mesolithic, Neolithic and Bronze Age creators, made them for widely differing purposes.

In the Mesolithic (Middle Stone Age) period, some may have been created as sophisticatedly designed hunting traps.

But in the Neolithic and Bronze Age, it’s likely that many were dug for ritual purposes. Indeed, the major clusters of these newly identified rock-cut pits seem to have been deliberately located so that they overlooked Stonehenge itself, much of which is believed to have been built during the Bronze Age.

“The new discoveries we’ve made demonstrate that Stonehenge’s prehistoric landscape was even more complex than we had thought. Our work suggests that Britain’s most famous archaeological area still has a lot more mysteries to reveal,” said University of Birmingham archaeologist, Professor Paul Garwood, one of the project’s investigators.

The specific detection system the archaeological team has used to analyse the ground is known as electromagnetic induction (EMI) – and it’s the first time that that system has been used on such a large scale. It is also the first time that the system’s efficacy has been ground-truthed through sample excavations.

The major clusters of these newly identified rock-cut pits seem to have been deliberately located so that they overlooked Stonehenge itself

Using the EMI system, the archaeologists and other scientists – from the University of Birmingham and Ghent University in Belgium – surveyed a full square mile of Stonehenge’s prehistoric landscape.

“Geophysical survey allows us to visualise what’s buried below the surface of entire landscapes,” said Ghent University geophysics expert Professor Philippe De Smedt.

In total, they found up to 2,500 rock-cut pits – including around 300 with diameters of more than 2.5m (around 100 of which had diameters of 4-6m).

The oldest example was a 4m-diameter, 2.2m-deep pit dating from the early Mesolithic period (around 8,000 BC). It had a very unusual y-shaped profile and may have been an animal trap..

The upper part of the “y” consisted of an inverted (though truncated) cone-shaped rock-cut pit, while its bottom half (the tail of the “y”) comprised a vertical 1.5m-diameter cylinder-shaped shaft.

Perhaps significantly, it was located just 10m away from another 1m-diameter circular rock-cut feature (some of which would originally have been up to 75cm deep) and may have been a level platform (deliberately cut into the slope of the hill) for a timber windbreak or rudimentary shelter. This possible temporary dwelling (perhaps some form of wigwam or tent) has not been dated – but may also be Mesolithic and, if so, might well have been used by the hunters who built the probable trap.

Mesolithic structures are extremely rare in Britain. Indeed, if the shallow rock-cut platform (which has several small possible stake holes immediately adjacent to it) is the floor of some sort of Mesolithic dwelling, it would be the oldest “house” site in the Stonehenge landscape.

Although structures from the Mesolithic era are very rare, there is evidence that hunter-gatherers from that period did build a probable ritual monument in the area around what would, millennia later, become Stonehenge. That discovery (evidence for a series of three massive totem-pole-style timber obelisks) was made in the mid-20th century – and the newly discovered Mesolithic rock-cut pit (and potentially the “house” platform) is further evidence of the importance of the Stonehenge area in that very early period.

Data from the Stonehenge landscape investigation has just been published in the Journal of Archaeological Science, accessible here, starting today.

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Please enter a valid email
Please enter a valid email
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Please enter your first name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
Please enter your last name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
You must be over 18 years old to register
You must be over 18 years old to register
Opt-out-policy
You can opt-out at any time by signing in to your account to manage your preferences. Each email has a link to unsubscribe.

By clicking ‘Create my account’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Join our new commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in