Haca's pen? | Forum — The Modern Antiquarian

O

ocifant Apr 4, 2011 08:54:37

Replying to ocifant

Windmill Hill is too far, the Sanctuary is too close (and not on a hill). So I've discounted those two already.

T

tiompan Apr 4, 2011 08:56:08

Replying to ocifant

ocifant wrote:

Just browsing through Rude Stone monuments by James Fergusson (1872), and I came across this section on Avebury, after a description of the main henge and it's contents:

The second member of the Avebury group is the double circle, or rather double oval, on Hakpen hill - Haca's Pen (Haca, or Haco, according to Kemble, was some mythical person with a very Danish name which is found in Hampshire and Berkshire, as well as here. Pen seems to mean merely enclosure, as it does now in English. See Kemble, in 'Journal Arch. Inst.' xiv. p. 134.) this was, according to Stukeley ' 138 feet by 155 feet, and had an avenue 45 feet wide, as compared with 51 feet which Sir R. C. Hoare gives for those of the Kennet avenue of Avebury. The avenue is supposed to have extended in a perfectly straight line for above a quarter of a mile, pointing directly towards Silbury Hill, which is about one mile and a quarter distant.

The third member of the group is the famous Silbury Hill, about a mile distant due south from Avebury. That these two last named are of the same age, and part of one design, seems scarcely open to doubt; but it is quite an open question whether Hacas Pen belongs either to the same age or the same design. Its stones were very much smaller, its form different, and its avenue pointing towards Silbury looks as if that monument existed, and may have long existed before it was built; but of this hereafter.

Taking the measurements quoted, today's Hackpen Hill seems too far for this 'double circle with an avenue pointing toward Silbury, 1 1/4 miles distant'. A can't see anything on MAGIC or the OS which this would equate to.

Any ideas?

Stukely decribes Overton Hills as Hakpen and the description fits so I guess it's the Sanctuary .

V

VBB Apr 4, 2011 09:02:49

Replying to ocifant

It is the Sanctuary.

It is easy to be misled by this as there is an unstated agenda. Look to his difference with Lubbock over Silbury ahd his corrupting certain names to fit (rather put to the sword by A.C. Smith).

He read Bay Down, as corrupted from Rae Down, as Badon as in Mount Badon, and made Silbury the burial mound of the Arthur's battle of Mons Badonicus.

O

ocifant Apr 4, 2011 09:10:01

Replying to ocifant

Many thanks all. The Sanctuary it is.

O

ocifant Apr 4, 2011 09:12:46

Replying to ocifant

I really should read further before posting and bothering you all. :-)

The book gives a plan several pages on, showing Hackpen Hill to the east of Waden.

C

Chance Apr 4, 2011 11:44:30

Replying to ocifant

Although some of the arguments put forward are correct, the assumption that the stone circles must be The Sanctuary is not.

The stones that made up The Sanctuary were removed in Stukeley's day (Winter of 1724) and the site was only rediscovered in 1930.

What is refered to here, could be the two stone circles that stood due north of The Sanctuary, on the other side of the A4.

See the Wiltshire sites and monuments listings,

SU16NW556
http://history.wiltshire.gov.uk/smr/getsmr.php?id=14198

and

SU16NW564
http://history.wiltshire.gov.uk/smr/getsmr.php?id=14206

I'm in the process of adding some of the more dubious stone circles around Avebury to the TMA database.

Why not add these two yourself, Ocifant?

Chance

S

Sanctuary Apr 4, 2011 13:04:40

Replying to ocifant

ocifant wrote:

Just browsing through Rude Stone monuments by James Fergusson (1872), and I came across this section on Avebury, after a description of the main henge and it's contents:

The second member of the Avebury group is the double circle, or rather double oval, on Hakpen hill - Haca's Pen (Haca, or Haco, according to Kemble, was some mythical person with a very Danish name which is found in Hampshire and Berkshire, as well as here. Pen seems to mean merely enclosure, as it does now in English. See Kemble, in 'Journal Arch. Inst.' xiv. p. 134.) this was, according to Stukeley ' 138 feet by 155 feet, and had an avenue 45 feet wide, as compared with 51 feet which Sir R. C. Hoare gives for those of the Kennet avenue of Avebury. The avenue is supposed to have extended in a perfectly straight line for above a quarter of a mile, pointing directly towards Silbury Hill, which is about one mile and a quarter distant.

The third member of the group is the famous Silbury Hill, about a mile distant due south from Avebury. That these two last named are of the same age, and part of one design, seems scarcely open to doubt; but it is quite an open question whether Hacas Pen belongs either to the same age or the same design. Its stones were very much smaller, its form different, and its avenue pointing towards Silbury looks as if that monument existed, and may have long existed before it was built; but of this hereafter.

Taking the measurements quoted, today's Hackpen Hill seems too far for this 'double circle with an avenue pointing toward Silbury, 1 1/4 miles distant'. A can't see anything on MAGIC or the OS which this would equate to.

Any ideas?

Yes the Sanctuary is good but how does one confuse two circles with two ovals?

R

Rhiannon Apr 4, 2011 13:22:16

Replying to ocifant

http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/post/58001/avebury.html
is the picture that came to my mind.

Also I seem to recall someone (ah one of those antiquarians) saying it was 'hac pen' meaning head of a snake, because they were determined it was druidic and connected with snakes?? (or am I misremembering) and the snakey shape of the avenue would make the circles on the hill the head. 'Pen' means head / top in welsh. Not quite sure what they were intending the hack bit to mean though.

V

VBB Apr 4, 2011 18:23:33

Replying to ocifant

Are you still not convinced?
Can’t have you going to bed only to be going over and over this. I forget the page numbers, but have a look ten or twelve pages on from that passage and you will see Fergusson refers back to the earlier para and goes on to discuss what Aubrey and Toope said about size and the bones recovered by the latter (at the Sanctuary) and then draws this into being the remains of those that fought in the battle of Kennett in 1006 (hence it fits his general Avebury is a battleground theory). There is also a rather large clue in the size quoted by Fergusson being “138 feet by 155 feet”, which is the measurement bar 4 and 6 inches of what Stukeley made of the outer ring of the Sanctuary. In this he also cites only the diameters of one not two separate circles, so of what he speaks has one oval ring inside the other. There is also another large clue in Fergusson stating that it “had an avenue 45 feet wide” of course. It is clear then that albeit he avoids the name Sanctuary (see it is absent from index) this is the site he is on about.