Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T10:46:49.548Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The world recreated: redating Silbury Hill in its monumental landscape

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Alex Bayliss ,
Fachtna McAvoy  and
Alasdair Whittle
Alex Bayliss
Affiliation:
1English Heritage, 1 Waterhouse Square, 138-142 Holborn, London EC1N 2ST, UK
Fachtna McAvoy
Affiliation:
2English Heritage, Fort Cumberland, Fort Cumberland Road, Eastney, Portsmouth PO4 9LD, UK
Alasdair Whittle
Affiliation:
3Cardiff School of History and Archaeology, Cardiff University, Humanities Building, Colum Drive, Cardiff CF10 3EU, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A classic exposition of the difficulties of dating a major monument and why it matters. Silbury Hill, one of the world's largest prehistoric earth mounds, is too valuable to take apart, so we are reliant on samples taken from tunnels and chance exposures. Presenting a new edition of thirty radiocarbon dates, the authors offer models of short- or long-term construction, and their implications for the ritual landscape of Silbury and Stonehenge. The sequence in which monuments, and bits of monuments, were built gives us the kind and history of societies doing the building. So nothing matters more than the dates…

Keywords

EuropeLate NeolithicEarly Bronze AgeBeakerritual landscaperadiocarbon datingSilbury HillStonehenge
Type
Research
Information
Antiquity , Volume 81 , Issue 311 , 1 March 2007 , pp. 26 - 53
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd. 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aerts-Bijma, A.T., Meijer, H. A. J. & van der Plicht, J.. 1997. AMS sample handling in Groningen. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 123: 221–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aerts-Bijma, A. T., Plicht, J. van der & Meijer, H. A. J.. 2001. Automatic AMS sample combustion and CO2 collection. Radiocarbon 43: 293–98.Google Scholar
Avebury Archaeological and Historical Research Group 2001. Archaeological research agenda for the Avebury World Heritage Site. Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology.Google Scholar
Atkinson, R.J.C. 1967. Silbury Hill. Antiquity 41: 259–62.Google Scholar
Atkinson, R.J.C. 1968. Silbury Hill, 1968. Antiquity 42: 299.Google Scholar
Atkinson, R.J.C. 1969. The date of Silbury Hill. Antiquity 43: 216.Google Scholar
Atkinson, R.J.C. 1970. Silbury Hill, 1969-70. Antiquity 44: 313–4.Google Scholar
Atkinson, R.J.C. 1978. Silbury Hill, in Sutcliffe, R. (ed.) Chronicle: essays from ten years of television archaeology: 159–73. London: British Broadcasting Corporation.Google Scholar
Barker, H., Burleigh, R. & Meeks, N.. 1971. British Museum natural radiocarbon measurements VII. Radiocarbon 13: 157–88.Google Scholar
Barrett, J. C. 1994. Fragments from antiquity: an archaeology of social life in Britain, 2900-1200 BC. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bayliss, A. & Ramsey, C. Bronk. 2004. Pragmatic Bayesians: a decade integrating radiocarbon dates into chronological models, in Buck, C. E. & Millard, A. R. (ed.) Tools for constructing chronologies: tools for crossing disciplinary boundaries: 25–41. London: Springer.Google Scholar
Bayliss, A., Ramsey, C. Bronk & McCormac, F. G.. 1997. Dating Stonehenge, in Cunliffe, B. & Renfrew, C. (ed.) Science and Stonehenge: 39–59. Oxford: British Academy.Google Scholar
Bayliss, A., Ramsey, C. Bronk, van der Plicht, J. & Whittle, A.. 2007a. Bradshaw and Bayes: towards a timetable for the Neolithic. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 17(1), Supplement, 1-28.Google Scholar
Bayliss, A., Whittle, A. & Wysocki, M. 2007b. Talking about my generation: the date of the West Kennet long barrow. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 17(1), Supplement, 85-101.Google Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C. 1995. Radiocarbon calibration and analysis of stratigraphy. Radiocarbon 36: 425–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C. 1998. Probability and dating. Radiocarbon 40: 461–74.Google Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C. 2001. Development of the radiocarbon calibration program. Radiocarbon 43: 355–63.Google Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C. & Bayliss, A.. 2000. Dating Stonehenge, in Lockyer, K., Sly, T.J.T. & Mihǎilescu-Bîrliba, V. (ed.) CAA96: computer applications and quantitative methods in archaeology: 29–39. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.Google Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C. & Hedges, R.E.M.. 1997. A gas ion source for radiocarbon dating, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 29: 45–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C., Higham, T., Bowles, A. & Hedges, R.E.M.. 2004a. Improvements to the pre-treatment of bone at Oxford. Radiocarbon 46: 155–63.Google Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C., Higham, T. & Leach, P.. 2004b. Towards high precision AMS: progress and limitations. Radiocarbon 46: 17–24.Google Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C., Pettitt, P. B., Hedges, R.E.M., Hodgins, G.W.L. & Owen, D. C.. 2000. Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford AMS system: Archaeometry datelist 30. Archaeometry 42: 459–79.Google Scholar
Buck, C. E., Cavanagh, W. G. & Litton, C. D.. 1996. Bayesian approach to interpreting archaeological data. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Buck, C. E., Christen, J. A., Kenworthy, J. B. & Litton, C. D.. 1994a. Estimating the duration of archaeological activity using 14C determinations. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 13: 229–40.Google Scholar
Buck, C. E., Litton, C. D. & Scott, E. M.. 1994b. Making the most of radiocarbon dating: some statistical considerations. Antiquity 68: 252–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buck, C. E., Litton, C. D. & Shennan, S. J.. 1994c. A case study in combining radiocarbon and archaeological information: the early Bronze Age settlement of St. Veit-Klinglberg, Land Salzburg, Austria. Germania 72: 427–47.Google Scholar
Buck, C. E., Kenworthy, J. B., Litton, C. D. & Smith, A.F.M.. 1991. Combining archaeological and radiocarbon information: a Bayesian approach to calibration. Antiquity 65: 808–21.Google Scholar
Buck, C. E., Litton, C. D. & Smith, A.F.M.. 1992. Calibration of radiocarbon results pertaining to related archaeological events. Journal of Archaeological Science 19: 497–512.Google Scholar
Buckley, J. D., Trautman, M. A. & Willis, E. H.. 1968. Isotopes radiocarbon measurements VI. Radiocarbon 10: 246–94.Google Scholar
Burleigh, R., Hewson, A. & Meeks, N.. 1976. British Museum natural radiocarbon measurements VIII. Radiocarbon 18: 16–42.Google Scholar
Case, H. 1997. Stonehenge revisited. Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine 90: 161–8.Google Scholar
Chadburn, A., McAvoy, F. & Campbell, G.. 2005. Inside the hill. British Archaeology 80 (January/February 2005): 14–15.Google Scholar
Cleal, R.M.J. & McSween, A.. (ed.) 1999. Grooved Ware in Britain and Ireland. Oxford: Oxbow.Google Scholar
Cleal, R.M.J., Montague, R. & Walker, K. E.. 1995. Stonehenge in its landscape: twentieth-century excavations. London: English Heritage.Google Scholar
Cornwall, I., Dimbleby, G. W. & Evans, J. G.. 1997. Soils, in Whittle, A. (ed.) Sacred mound, holy rings. Silbury Hill and the West Kennet palisade enclosures: a Later Neolithic complex in north Wiltshire: 26–9. Oxford: Oxbow.Google Scholar
Field, D. 2005. Surface story. British Archaeology 80 (January/February 2005): 15–8.Google Scholar
Fitzpatrick, A. 2002. ‘The Amesbury Archer’: a well furnished Early Bronze Age burial in southern England. Antiquity 76: 629–30.Google Scholar
Garwood, P. 1991. Ritual tradition and the reconstitution of society, in Garwood, P., Jennings, D., Skeates, R. & Toms, J. (ed.) Sacred and profane: 10–32. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology.Google Scholar
Gillings, M. & Pollard, J.. 2004. Avebury. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Gillings, M., Pollard, J. & Wheatley, D.. 2002. Excavations at the Beckhampton enclosure, Avenue and Cove, Avebury: an interim report on the 2000 season. Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine 95: 249–58.Google Scholar
Harding, R., Chadburn, A., McAvoy, F. & Campbell, G.. 2005. The future. British Archaeology 80 (January/February 2005): 18–9.Google Scholar
Hedges, R.E.M., Bronk, C. R. & Housley, R. A.. 1989. The Oxford Accelerator Mass Spectrometry facility: technical developments in routine dating. Archaeometry 31: 99–113.Google Scholar
Law, I. A. & Hedges, R.E.M.. 1989. A semi-automated pretreatment system and the pretreatment of older and contaminated samples. Radiocarbon 31: 247–53.Google Scholar
McAvoy, F. 2005. Silbury Hill, Wiltshire. An assessment of the conservation risks and possible responses arising from antiquarian and archaeological investigations deep into the Hill. Fort Cumberland, Portsmouth: English Heritage Research and Standards Department unpublished report.Google Scholar
Needham, S. P. 2005. Transforming Beaker culture in north-west Europe: processes of fusion and fission. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 71: 171–218.Google Scholar
Parker Pearson, M. & Ramilisonina, . 1998. Stonehenge for the ancestors: the stones pass on the message. Antiquity 72: 308–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker Pearson, M. 2000. Ancestors, bones and stones in Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Britain and Ireland, in Ritchie, A. (ed.) Neolithic Orkney in its European context: 203–14. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological research.Google Scholar
Pitts, M. & Whittle, A.. 1992. The development and date of Avebury. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 58: 203–12.Google Scholar
Pollard, J. & Cleal, J.. 2004. Dating Avebury, in Cleal, R. & Pollard, J. (ed.) Monuments and material culture. Papers in honour of an Avebury archaeologist: Isobel Smith: 120–9. East Knoyle: Hobnob Press.Google Scholar
Pollard, J. & Reynolds, A.. 2002. Avebury: the biography of a landscape. Stroud: Tempus.Google Scholar
Reimer, P. J., Baillie, M.G.L., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J. W., Bertrand, C.J.H., Blackwell, P. G., Buck, C. E., Burr, G. S., Cutler, K. B., Damon, P. E., Edwards, R. L., Fairbanks, R. G., Friedrich, M., Guilderson, T. P., Hogg, A. G., Hughen, K. A., Kromer, B., McCormac, F. G., Manning, S., Ramsey, C. Bronk, Reimer, R. W., Remmele, S., Southon, J. R., Stuiver, M., Talamo, S., Taylor, F. W., van der Plicht, J. & Weyhenmeyer, C. E.. 2004. IntCal04 Terrestrial Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 0-26 cal kyr BP. Radiocarbon 46: 1029–58.Google Scholar
Renfrew, C. 1973. Monuments, mobilisation and social organisation in Neolithic Wessex. in Renfrew, C. (ed.) The explanation of culture change: 539–58. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Richards, C. 2005. A choreography of construction: monuments, mobilization and social organization in Neolithic Orkney, in Cherry, J., Scarre, C. & Shennan, S. (ed.) Explaining social change: studies in honour of Colin Renfrew: 103–13. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.Google Scholar
Sheridan, A. forthcoming. Scottish Beaker chronology: an assessment of the currently-available radiocarbon dating evidence, in Turek, J. & Krutova, M. (ed.) Beaker days in Bohemia and Moravia. Prague: Archaeologica.Google Scholar
Sigalove, J. J. & Long, A.. 1964. Smithsonian Institution radiocarbon measurements I. Radiocarbon 6: 182–8.Google Scholar
Stuckenrath, R. & Mielke, J. E.. 1973. Smithsonian Institution radiocarbon measurements VIII. Radiocarbon 15: 388–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuiver, M. & Polach, H. A.. 1977. Reporting of 14C data. Radiocarbon 19: 355–63.Google Scholar
Stuiver, M. & Reimer, P. J.. 1986. A computer program for radiocarbon age calculation. Radiocarbon 28: 1022–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuiver, M. & Reimer, P. J.. 1993. Extended 14C data base and revised CALIB 3.0 14C age calibration program. Radiocarbon 35: 215–30.Google Scholar
Thorpe, I. J. & Richards, C.. 1984. The decline of ritual authority and the introduction of Beakers into Britain, in Bradley, R. & Gardiner, J. (ed.) Neolithic studies: a review of some current research: 67–84. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.Google Scholar
Trautman, M. A. & Willis, E. H.. 1966. Isotopes, Inc. radiocarbon measurements V. Radiocarbon 8: 161–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Plicht, J., Wijma, S., Aerts, A. T., Pertuisot, M. H. & Meijer, H.A.J.. 2000. Status report: the Groningen AMS facility. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 172: 58–65.Google Scholar
Wainwright, G. 1989. The henge monuments. London: Thames & Hudson.Google Scholar
Walton, A., Trautman, M. & Friend, J. P.. 1961. Isotopes, Inc. radiocarbon measurements I. Radiocarbon 3: 47–59.Google Scholar
Ward, G. K. & Wilson, S. R.. 1978. Procedures for comparing and combining radiocarbon age determinations: a critique. Archaeometry 20: 19–31.Google Scholar
Whittle, A. 1997a. Sacred mound, holy rings. Silbury Hill and the West Kennet palisade enclosures: a Later Neolithic complex in north Wiltshire. Oxford: Oxbow.Google Scholar
Whittle, A. 1997b. Remembered and imagined belongings: Stonehenge in its traditions and structures of meaning, in Cunliffe, B. & Renfrew, C. (ed.) Science and Stonehenge: 145–66. London: British Academy.Google Scholar
Whittle, A., Barclay, A., Bayliss, A., McFadyen, L., Schulting, R. & Wysocki, M.. 2007. Building for the dead: events, processes and changing worldviews from the 38th to the 34th centuries cal BC in southern Britain. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 17(1), Supplement, 123-47.Google Scholar
Whittle, A., Pollard, J. & Grigson, C.. 1999. The harmony of symbols: the Windmill Hill causewayed enclosure, Wiltshire. Oxford: Oxbow.Google Scholar