Stonehenge and its Environs forum 134 room
Image by RiotGibbon
close
more_vert

UncleRob wrote:
But the consensus seemed to be that the "20 foot high fence" had been over-egged by the papers
I don't think it was the papers, judging by the quotes from Mike Pitts and Josh Pollard here - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2655187/Stonehenge-was-hidden-from-lower-classes.html

Glad they're re-thinking though. It was a bit depressing to think of the original Stonehenge hidden away rather than being part of the landscape - and it had put King Arthur in a difficult position as he's vowed to stay camping there until the modern fences are gone!

But a windbreak? That doesn't sound right either.

Mike Pitts and Mike Parker-Pearson were there but didn't get a chance to talk with them. However, Phil Harding was in a chatty mood and his opinions on the proposed new visitor centre were very illuminating!
It was a private conversation so can't repeat it, sorry ;)
Jim.

Yes the "palisades" site is turning out to be rather interesting. If I were choosing sites for next year's dig (the last one before funding dries up - aaargh - what is wrong with this country's sense of priorities here), I'd put a lot of effort into this one. It is basically the featureless field directly west of the henge. Mostly it seems to contain a late Bronze age / early Iron Age settlement, perhaps from after Stonehenge had fallen out of use. There was a deep midden pit found so that has yielded a lot of dateable material. In due course we'll know a bit more about how it all fits together chronologically, including perhaps the chalk "pig". Perhaps there are older features that are contemporaneous with the henge, though it seems neat to think of the landscape as devoid of everyday habitation until it was deconsecrated, and then the farmers moved in.