The Full Wiki

Henge: Map


Wikipedia article:

Map showing all locations mentioned on Wikipedia article:

henge is a prehistoric architectural structure. In form, it is a nearly circular or oval-shaped flat area over 20 metres (65 feet) in diameter that is enclosed and delimited by a boundary earthwork that usually comprises a ditch with an external bank. The earthwork permits access to the interior by one, two, or four entrances. Internal components may include portal settings, timber circles, post rings, stone circles, four-stone settings, monoliths, standing posts, pits, coves, post alignments, stone alignments, burials, central mounds, and stakeholes.

Because of the defensive impracticalities of an enclosure with an external bank and an internal ditch (rather than vice versa), henges are considered to have served a ritual, rather than a defensive, purpose (c.f. circular rampart).


The word "henge" is a backformation from Stonehengemarker, the famous monument in Wiltshiremarker. Stonehenge is not a true henge at all as its ditch runs outside its bank, although there is a small extant external bank as well. The term was first coined in 1932 by Thomas Kendrick who later became the Keeper of British Antiquities at the British Museummarker.


Henges may be classified as follows:
  • Class I henges have a single entrance created from a gap in the bank;
  • Class II henges have two entrances, diametrically opposite each other;
  • Class III henges which have four entrances, facing each other in pairs.
Sub groups exist for these when two or three internal ditches are present rather than one. Henges are usually associated with the Late Neolithic or Early Bronze Age, and especially with the pottery of this period: Grooved Ware, Impressed Wares (formerly known as Peterborough Ware) and Beakers. Sites such as Stonehengemarker also provide evidence of activity from the later Bronze Age Wessex culture.

Henges often contain evidence of a variety of internal features including timber or stone circles, pits or burials, which may pre- or post-date the henge enclosure. They should not be confused with the stone circles which are sometimes present within them. Similarly shaped, but larger enclosures are known as Henge enclosures whilst smaller ones with other types of enclosing features are known as Hengiform monuments.

Some of the finest and best-known henges include:

Burials have been recorded at a number of excavated henges, both pre-dating the henge and as a result of secondary reuse. At Avebury at least two very disturbed inhumations were found in the central area. At King Arthur's Round Table, Cumbriamarker, a cremation trench lay within the monument, while at Woodhengemarker a central burial of a child was interpreted by its excavators as a dedicatory offering. Phosphate surveys at Maxeymarker henge suggested that burials may also have been present within this monument. Cairnpapple and North Mains both had burials before the henge, as well as after.

Stone circles are also found within a few henges, with at least six cases identified in England. At Arbor Lowmarker in Derbyshiremarker, all the stones except one are laid flat and do not seem to have ever been erected as no stoneholes have been found. Elsewhere, often only the stone holes remain.

Origin and distribution

Efforts to provide a direct lineage for the henge from earlier enclosures have not been conclusive; their chronological overlap with older structures making it difficult to see them as a coherent tradition. They seem to take the concept of creating a space separate from the outside world one step further than the causewayed enclosure and firmly focus attention on an internal point. In some cases, the construction of the bank and ditch was a stage that followed other activity on the site. Balfargmarker, North Mainsmarker and Cairnpapple earlier cremations and deliberate smashing of pottery predate the enclosure.

There are concentrations of henges over much of Britain. Orkneymarker (Cunliffe 2001) and Wessexmarker (Burl 1969) have both been suggested as the original provenance of the monument type, however, others remain unconvinced (Barclay 2005). Unlike earlier enclosure monuments, henges were not usually built on hilltops but on low-lying ground, often close to watercourses and good agricultural land.

Some scholars, such as the editors of the 1982 edition of the Penguin Dictionary of Archaeology, have claimed that henges are unique to the British Islesmarker and that similar, much earlier, circles on the Continent, such as Goseck circlemarker (which has no bank in any case) and later ones such as Goloringmarker are not proper "henges". However, The Penguin Archaeological Guide, published in 2001, does not comment on geographical locations for henges.

Julian Cope's book The Megalithic European proposes that the henge was a regional development from the Europe-wide causewayed enclosure, appearing following a cultural upheaval in around 3000 BC which inspired the peoples of Neolithic Europe to develop more independently. He mentions the 'rondel enclosures' of Bavariamarker's Isar Valleymarker which according to investigations by the German archaeologist R. A. Maier "drew comparisons with the henge monuments and causewayed enclosures of the British Isles". Although still with a multiple-causewayed ditch and entrances at cardinal points, the roundels are described by John Hodgson as not being positioned with defensive aims in mind and the largest, at Kothingeichendorf, appeared to be "midway between a henge and a causewayed enclosure".

Alasdair Whittle also views the development of the henge as a regional variation within a European tradition that included a variety of ditched enclosures. He notes that henges and the grooved ware pottery often found at them are two examples of the British Neolithic not found on the Continent. Caroline Malone also states that henges did not occur in the rest of Western Europe but developed from a broader tradition of enclosure to become "a phenomenon of the British Isles, a native tradition with sophisticated architecture and calendrical functions".


Henges may have been used for rituals or astronomical observation rather than day-to-day activity. That their ditches are located inside their banks indicates that they were not used for defence and that the barrier the earthworks provide was more likely symbolic than functional. Following arguments presented for Irish Iron Age enclosures, Barclay suggested that they are 'defensive': that the ditch and bank face something 'dangerous' inside the enclosure. He has also suggested that the considerable range of things surrounded by the earthworks, and the very long date range, are because henges were designed mainly to enclose pre-existing ceremonial sites that were seen as 'ritually charged' and so dangerous to people. It has been conjectured that whatever took place inside the enclosures was intended to be separate from the outside world and perhaps only known to select individuals or groups.

The alignment of henges is a contentious issue. Popular belief is that their entrances point towards certain heavenly bodies. But henge orientation is highly variable and may have been more determined by local topology than by desire for symbolic orientation. Statistical analysis showed that Class I henges have a slight tendency to have an entrance set in the north or north-east quarter. Class II henges generally have their axes aligned approximately south-east to north-west or north-east to south-west.

It has been suggested that the stone and timber structures sometimes built inside henges were used as solar declinometers to measure the position of the rising or setting sun. These structures by no means appear in all henges and often considerably post-date the henges themselves. Thus they are not necessarily connected with the henge's original function. It has been conjectured that they could have been used to synchronize a calendar to the solar cycle for purposes of planting crops or timing religious rituals. Some henges have poles, stones or entrances that indicate the position of the rising or setting sun during the equinoxes and solstices, while others appear to frame certain constellations. Additionally, many are placed so that nearby hills either mark or do not interfere with such observations. Finally, some henges appear to be placed at particular latitudes. For example, a number are placed at a latitude of 55 degrees north, where the same two markers can indicate the rising and setting sun for both the spring and autumn equinoxes. But henges are present from the extreme north to the extreme south of Britain and so their latitude could not have been of great importance.

Formalisation is commonly attributed to henges; indications of the builders' concerns in controlling the arrival at, entrance to, and movement within the enclosures. This was achieved through placing flanking stones or avenues at entrances of some henges, or by dividing up the internal space using timber circles. While some were the first monuments to be built in their areas, others were added to already important landscapes, especially the larger examples.

The concentric nature of many of the internal features, such as the five rings of postholes at Balfarg or the six at Woodhenge, may represent a finer distinction than the inside-out differences suggested by henge earthworks. The ordering of space and the circular movement suggested by the sometimes densely-packed internal features indicates a sophisticated degree of spatial understanding.

Carhengemarker is either a modern parody or artistic tribute to the famous Stonehenge structure.

See also



  • R. J. C. Atkinson 1951. The henge monuments of Great Britain.
  • Barclay, G J The henge and hengiform in Scotland, in Set in stone: new approaches to Neolithic monuments in Scotland, Cummings, V and Pannett, A, Oxbow, Oxford, 2005, pp81–94.
  • Burl, A 1969 Henges: internal features and regional groups, Archaeological Journal, 126, pp1–28.
  • Cunliffe, B Facing the Ocean: the Atlantic and its Periphery 8000BC-AD1500, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  • Hodgson, J Neolithic Enclosures in the Isar Valley, Bavaria in Enclosures and Defences in the Neolithic of Western Europe (Part ii), Burgess, C, Topping, P, Mordant, C and Maddison, M, Oxbow, 2003 qtd in Cope, J, The Megalithic European, Harper Collins, 2004, pp48–49.
  • The Penguin Dictionary of Archaeology Bray, W and Trump D (eds), Penguin London, 1982
  • Malone, C Neolithic Britain and Ireland, Tempus, Stroud, 2001
  • Whittle, A The Neolithic Period in The Archaeology of Britain, Hunter, I and Ralston, J (eds), Routledge, London, 2005.
  • Thomas, J, Understanding the Neolithic, Routledge, London, 2004

External links

Embed code:

Got something to say? Make a comment.
Your name
Your email address