close

According to Prof Atkinson, writing about his Silbury investigations in Antiquity...
http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:Q6fkQfLF7hYJ:www.antiquity.ac.uk/Ant/044/0304/Ant0440304.pdf+revetments+silbury&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&ie=UTF-8
"From undisturbed contexts on the top of the mound there came a sherd of flint-gritted Windmill Hill ware and a fragment of rock apparently identical with one of the varieties of Stonehenge bluestone (volcanic ash). Since it is now clear that the top section of the mound above the terrace is not a later addition, the deposition of this fragment ought not to be significantly later than the radiocarbon date of 2145 BC & 95 obtained for the building of the primary mound (Atkinson, 1969). The infer- ence to be drawn is that at least some of the bluestones were already in Wiltshire some centuries before their first use at Stonehenge itself."

(But .... isn't there also just a bit of a chance that the Stonehenge bluestone circle was first erected in Avebury and was then moved to Stonehenge?...a tenth of the effort subsequently used on the sarsens. Or was he wrong, was this Bluestone not bluestone? Did it go missing?)

nigelswift wrote:
The infer- ence to be drawn is that at least some of the bluestones were already in Wiltshire some centuries before their first use at Stonehenge itself."

(But .... isn't there also just a bit of a chance that the Stonehenge bluestone circle was first erected in Avebury and was then moved to Stonehenge?...a tenth of the effort subsequently used on the sarsens. Or was he wrong, was this Bluestone not bluestone? Did it go missing?)

There's another way of looking at this, in some barrows, and shafts, ritual goods (and according to Burl, soil as well) from a previous site can be brought to be deposited as an offering... so that, as at Maumesbury Rings, the shafts had "antique" pieces of pot on younger pieces of pot disturbing the image of sequential layering...
The internal walling bit is interesting, Someone called Gray in the 19th C wrote a very long report on Wick Barrow, Storgusey, which also had a beautiful interior wall surrounding the mound, in the sense that soil was piled up against it as soon as it was built....

According to Prof Atkinson, writing about his Silbury investigations in Antiquity...
http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:Q6fkQfLF7hYJ:www.antiquity.ac.uk/Ant/044/0304/Ant0440304.pdf+revetments+silbury&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&ie=UTF-8
"From undisturbed contexts on the top of the mound there came a sherd of flint-gritted Windmill Hill ware and a fragment of rock apparently identical with one of the varieties of Stonehenge bluestone (volcanic ash). Since it is now clear that the top section of the mound above the terrace is not a later addition, the deposition of this fragment ought not to be significantly later than the radiocarbon date of 2145 BC & 95 obtained for the building of the primary mound (Atkinson, 1969).
Nigel, I haven't read the above link very carefully as it's rather long, but is Atkinson saying that he found a fragment of bluestone while excavating the top of Silbury? Does he say how big the fragment was?

from
http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:Q6fkQfLF7hYJ:www.antiquity.ac.uk/Ant/044/0304/Ant0440304.pdf+revetments+silbury&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&ie=UTF-8

Then the Druids lined up for their procession, two abreast. ‘The answer, my
friend’ stopped blowing in the wind, and a section of the wired-off crowd, almost invisible
behind the floodlights, began alively and un-friendly rendering of ‘Oh, oh, the Hokey Cokey’
as the Druids began their ceremonial walkabout.
As they formed and re-formed in no doubt highly symbolical groupings, snatches of their
liturgy came floating through the mist.
It seemed predictable stuff. ‘Came from the All-High in the golden age when the mysteries
were revealed.
...’‘Right leg out and shake it
all about...’

(But .... isn't there also just a bit of a chance that the Stonehenge bluestone circle was first erected in Avebury and was then moved to Stonehenge?
Warning... entering fantasy land...

Assuming the top of Silbury was designed to be flat it follows that it was designed to be flat for a reason (well, that's not for sure of course but it's a reasonable assumption :-)

Question. I've always thought a Stonehenge-type structure on top of Silbury would look rather nice and I seem to remember that the size of area at the top of the Hill is very close to the area that Stonehenge occupies (I know the top of Silbury has been messed about with a lot but the respective areas do seem to be pretty close). Now... if a bit of bluestone has also have been found up there as well that's rather interesting; it doesn't prove anything of course but... I just wonder... mmm... did Stonehenge once sit on the top of Silbury Hill?

Ducks, heads for cover and awaits the fallout (and if I don't come out until Tuesday it's because I'm in Avebury until then... yippee!).

Assuming there was a fragment of bluestone present, it was only a single fragment, not a large piece or even several shards. Who's to say this solitary fragment wasn't brought along to Silbury by a neolithic man, perhaps as a tribute or a totemic symbol - a personal attachment for him back to Stonehenge. I carry a stone in my pocket as a keepsake, maybe the neolithic artisans were in the habit of doing the same ? Perhaps the bluestone was immediatly identifiable as being connected with Stonehenge and carried a certain prestige when shown - a sort of 'Access all areas' backstage pass that allowed this individual to visit the pinnacle of Silbury. If it was sharp or unworked, perhaps it slipped out of his bag or 'pocket' and became lost underfoot, maybe it was ceremoniously buried as a libation or as a 'connector' between the two sites.

Either way, it would be marvellous to discover that a dance of bluestones once topped Silbury, a stone crone on a vast head of earth.

x W