:: wikimiki.org ::

Weißenfels (district)

Weißenfels (district)

Weißenfels is a district (Kreis) in the south of Saxony-Anhalt, Germany. Neighboring districts are (from south clockwise) Burgenlandkreis, Merseburg-Querfurt and the saxonian district Leipziger Land.

History

Near the small town Goseck archaeologists discovered in 1999 the oldest solar observatory in Europe, beating Stonehenge by more than 2000 years. Around 5000 BC the circular trench with a diameter of 75 meter was surrounded with wood palisades, with three openings which allowed to measure the date of the spring and autumn equinox. Excavations on the site are planned to continue until 2007. The district in today's borders was created in 1994, when the two previous districts Weissenfels and Hohenmölsen were merged.

Geography

The main river in the district is the Saale, with viticulture along the river valley. In the east of the district is the lignite open pit mining area of Hohenmölsen.

Coat of arms

Towns and municipalities

External links

- [http://www.landkreis-weissenfels.de Official website] (German) Category:Districts of Saxony-Anhalt

Saxony Anhalt

Flag

image:saxony anhalt flag.jpg
Statistics
Capital:	Magdeburg
Area:	20,447 km²
Inhabitants:	2,580,626(2001)
pop. density:	126 inh./km²
Website:	[http://www.sachsen-anhalt.de/ sachsen-anhalt.de]
ISO 3166-2:	DE-ST
Politics
Minister-President:	Wolfgang Böhmer (CDU)
Ruling party:	CDU/FDP coalition
Map
250px

Saxony-Anhalt (in German, Sachsen-Anhalt) is one of the sixteen Bundesländer (federal states) that make up the Federal Republic of Germany. It has an area of 20,447 km², and a population of 2.6 million. Its capital is Magdeburg. The state's name is sometimes spelled Saxony Anhalt in English (ie, without the hyphen).

Geography

Lying to the northeast of central Germany, it is eighth largest in area and (since 1996) tenth in population among the country's sixteen Bundesländer. It borders on the states of Lower Saxony to the northwest, Brandenburg to the east, Saxony to the southeast and Thuringia to the southwest. Most of the state is plain and agriculturally used, but in the southwest there is the eastern part of the Harz mountains. The main river of Saxony-Anhalt is the Elbe, running through the state from southeast to northwest. The second largest river, the Saale, is a tributary of the Elbe. See also List of places in Saxony-Anhalt.

Administrative subdivision

Saxony-Anhalt is divided into 21 (rural) counties (Landkreise), Map of Saxony-Anhalt showing the district boundaries and three independent cities (Stadtkreise),
- Dessau
- Halle (Saale)
- Magdeburg From 1990 to 2003 Saxony-Anhalt was divided into three districts (Regierungsbezirke) - Dessau, Halle and Magdeburg. On January 1, 2004 these three districts were abolished, and the 24 counties have since constituted the primary divisions of the state. A reform to reduce the number of counties is currently planned. Becoming effective in July 2007 there are supposed to be only 11 counties and 3 independent cities.

History

The state was created in 1990, shortly before German reunification, covering much the same area as an earlier unit (1947-1952) comprising the former Anhalt, the former Prussian Province of Saxony and some small exclaves of the former Brunswick-Lüneburg. The state and its larger cities have lost population since 1989 with migration to the former West Germany.

List of minister presidents of Saxony-Anhalt

1945-1952

# 1945 - 1949: Erhard Hübener (LDPD) # 1949 - 1952: Werner Bruschke (SED)

1990 to date

# 1990 - 1991: Gerd Gies (CDU) # 1991 - 1993: Werner Münch (CDU) # 1993 - 1994: Christoph Bergner (CDU) # 1994 - 2002: Reinhard Höppner (SPD) # since 2002: Wolfgang Böhmer (CDU)

Economy

Saxony Anhalt is famous for its good soil. The "Magdeburger Börde" contains the best soil in all of Germany and some of the best of Europe. The food industry has an important role in this state. Some of the best known products are "Baumkuchen" from Salzwedel (Altmark) or "Hallorenkugeln" from Halle. In the industrial sector the chemical industry is quite important. One of the biggest chemical producing areas can be found around the cities of Wolfen and Bitterfeld. Because of the chemical industry Saxony Anhalt is also the largest receiver of FDIs (Foreign Direct Investments) in all of eastern Germany.

Anthem

- Lied für Sachsen-Anhalt ("Song for Saxony-Anhalt")

External link

- [http://www.sachsen-anhalt.de/ Official governmental portal]
- [http://www.sachsen-anhalt.tk/ Webportal Saxony-Anhalt] Category:Saxony-Anhalt Category:States of Germany als:Sachsen-Anhalt ko:작센안할트 주 ja:ザクセン＝アンハルト州 simple:Saxony-Anhalt

Burgenlandkreis

The Burgenlandkreis is a district (Kreis) in the south of Saxony-Anhalt, Germany. Neighboring districts are (from north clockwise) Merseburg-Querfurt, Weißenfels, Leipziger Land, Aschersleben-Staßfurt, Altenburger Land, Greiz, district-free Gera, Saale-Holzland, Weimarer Land, Sömmerda and the Kyffhäuserkreis.

History

The district was created in 1994 when the districts Naumburg, Nebra and Zeitz were merged.

Geography

Main rivers in the district are the Saale and its affluent Unstrut, and also in the south of the district the Weiße Elster. The highest elevation is the Seeligenbornberg (355 m), the lowest elevation is in the Saale valley near Gosek (97.8m).

Coat of arms

Towns and municipalities

External links

- [http://www.burgenlandkreis.de Official website] (German) Category:Districts of Saxony-Anhalt

Merseburg-Querfurt

Merseburg-Querfurt is a district (Kreis) in the south of Saxony-Anhalt, Germany. Neighboring districts are (from northwest clockwise) Sangerhausen, Mansfelder Land, Saalkreis, the district-free city Halle, the districts Delitzsch and Leipziger Land in Saxony, the districts Weißenfels and Burgenlandkreis, and the Kyffhäuserkreis in Thuringia.

History

The district was created in 1994 by merging the previous districts Merseburg and Querfurt.

Geography

The main river of the district is the Saale.

Coat of arms

Towns and municipalities

External links

- [http://www.merseburg-querfurt.de Official website] (German) Category:Districts of Saxony-Anhalt

Leipziger Land

Leipziger Land is a district in Saxony, Germany. It is bounded by (from the north and clockwise) the districts of Delitzsch, the district-free city Leipzig, Muldentalkreis, Mittweida, the district Altenburger Land in Thuringia, and the districts Burgenlandkreis, Weißenfels and Merseburg-Querfurt in Saxony-Anhalt.

History

The history of the region is influenced by the city of Leipzig. See there for more information. The district was established in 1994 by merging the former districts of Leipzig, Borna and Geithain.

Geography

The main river of the district is the Weiße Elster (white elster), which also flows through the city of Leipzig itself. The area south of Leipzig is a big lignite day mining area, which will be recultivated as a lakeland in the near future. The lignite also made the area the main industrial area of East Germany.

Coat of arms

Towns and municipalities

External links

- [http://www.landkreis-leipzigerland.de Official website] (German) Category:Districts of Saxony

Archaeology

Archaeology or archeology (from the Greek words αρχαίος = ancient and λόγος = word/speech/discourse) is the study of human cultures through the recovery, documentation and analysis of material remains and environmental data, including architecture, artifacts, biofacts, human remains, and landscapes. The goals of archaeology are to document and explain the origins and development of human culture, understand culture history, chronicle cultural evolution, and study human behaviour and ecology, for both prehistoric and historic societies.

Ontology and definition

In the Old World, archaeology has tended to focus on the study of physical remains, the methods used in recovering them and the theoretical and philosophical underpinnings in achieving the subject's goals. The discipline's roots in antiquarianism and the study of Latin and Ancient Greek provided it with a natural affinity with the field of history. In the New World, archaeology is more commonly devoted to the study of human societies and is treated as one of the four subfields of Anthropology. The other subfields of anthropology supplement the findings of archaeology in a holistic manner. These subfields are cultural anthropology, which studies behavioural, symbolic, and material dimensions of culture; linguistics, which studies language, including the origins of language and language groups; and physical anthropology, which includes the study of human evolution and physical and genetic characteristics. Other disciplines also supplement archaeology, such as paleontology, paleozoology, paleoethnobotany, paleobotany, geography, geology, art history, and classics. Archaeology has been described as a craft that enlists the sciences to illuminate the humanities. Writing in 1948, the American archaeologist Walter Taylor asserted that "Archaeology is neither history nor anthropology. As an autonomous discipline, it consists of a method and a set of specialised techniques for the gathering, or 'production' of cultural information". Archaeology is an approach to understanding human culture through its material remains regardless of chronology. In England, archaeologists have uncovered the long-lost layouts of medieval villages abandoned after the crises of the 14th century and the equally lost layouts of 17th century parterre gardens swept away by a change in fashion. In downtown New York City archaeologists have exhumed the 18th century remains of the Black burial ground. Traditional Archaeology is viewed as the study of pre-historical human cultures; that is cultures that existed before the development of writing for that culture. Historical archaeology is the study of post-writing cultures. In the study of relatively recent cultures, which have been observed and studied by Western scholars, archaeology is closely allied with ethnography. This is the case in large parts of North America, Oceania, Siberia, and other places where the study of archaeology mingles with the living traditions of the cultures being studied. Kennewick_Man is an example of archaeology interacting with modern culture. In the study of cultures that were literate or had literate neighbours, history and archaeology supplement one another for broader understanding of the complete cultural context, as at Hadrian's Wall. Hadrian's Wall

Importance and applicability

Most of human history is not described by any written records. Writing did not exist anywhere in the world until about 5000 years ago, and only spread among a relatively small number of technologically advanced civilisations. In contrast Homo sapiens have existed for at least 200,000 years, and other species of Homo for millions of years (see Human evolution). These civilisations are, not coincidentally, the best-known; they have been open to the inquiry of historians for centuries, while the study of pre-historic cultures has arisen only recently. Even within a civilisation that is literate at some levels, many important human practices are not officially recorded. Any knowledge of the formative early years of human civilisation - the development of agriculture, cult practices of folk religion, the rise of the first cities - must come from archaeology. Even where written records do exist, they are invariably incomplete or biased to some extent. In many societies, literacy was restricted to the elite classes, such as the clergy or the bureaucracy of court or temple. The literacy even of an aristocracy has sometimes been restricted to deeds and contracts. The interests and world-view of elites are often quite different from the lives and interests of the rest of the populace. Writings that were produced by people more representative of the general population were unlikely to find their way into libraries and be preserved there for posterity. Thus, written records tend to reflect the biases of the literate classes, and cannot be trusted as a sole source. The material record is nearer to a fair representation of society, though it is subject to its own inaccuracies, such as sampling bias and differential preservation. In addition to their scientific importance, archaeological remains sometimes have political significance to descendants of the people who produced them, monetary value to collectors, or simply strong aesthetic appeal. Many people identify archaeology with the recovery of such aesthetic, religious, political, or economic treasures rather than with the reconstruction of past societies. This view is often espoused in works of popular fiction, such as Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Mummy, and King Solomon's Mines. When such unrealistic subjects are treated more seriously, accusations of pseudoscience are invariably levelled at their proponents (see Pseudoarchaeology, below). However, these endeavours, real and fictional, are not representative of the modern state of archaeology.

Goals

There is still a tremendous emphasis in the practice of archaeology on field techniques and methodologies. These include the tasks of surveying areas in order to find new sites, digging sites in order to unearth the cultural remains therein, and classification and preservation techniques in order to analyse and keep these remains. Every phase of this process can be a source of information. The goals of archaeology are not always the same. There are at least three broad, distinct theories of exactly what archaeological research should do. (These are beyond the scope of the present discussion, and are discussed at length below.) Nevertheless, there is much common ground.

Academic sub-disciplines

Main article: Archaeological sub-disciplines As with most academic disciplines, there are a very large number of archaeological sub-disciplines characterised by a specific method or type of material (e.g. lithic analysis, music, archaeobotany), geographical or chronological focus (e.g. Near Eastern archaeology, Medieval archaeology), other thematic concern (e.g. landscape archaeology), or a specific archaeological culture or civilisation (e.g. Egyptology).

Cultural resources management

Cultural resources management (CRM) (also called heritage management in Britain) is a branch of archaeology that accounts for most research done in the United States and much of that in western Europe as well. In the United States, CRM archaeology has been a growing concern since the passage of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and most of the archaeology done in that country today proceeds from either direct or related requirements of that measure. In the United States, the vast majority of taxpayers, scholars, and politicians believe that CRM has helped to preserve much of that nation's history and prehistory that would have otherwise been lost in the expansion of cities, dams, and highways. Along with other statutes, this mandates that no construction project on public land or involving public funds may damage an unstudied archaeological site. The application of CRM in the United Kingdom is not limited to government-funded projects. Since 1990 PPG 16 has required planners to consider archaeology as a material consideration in determining applications for new development. As a result, numerous archaeological organisations undertake mitigation work in advance of (or during) construction work in archaeologically sensitive areas, at the developer's expense. Among the goals of CRM are the identification, preservation, and maintenance of cultural sites on public and private lands, and the removal of culturally valuable materials from areas where they would otherwise be destroyed by human activity, such as proposed construction. This study involves at least a cursory examination to determine whether or not any significant archaeological sites are present in the area affected by the proposed construction. If these do exist, time and money must be allotted for their excavation. If initial survey and/or test excavation indicates the presence of an extraordinarily valuable site, the construction may be prohibited entirely. CRM is a thriving entity, especially in the United States and Europe where archaeologists from private companies and all levels of government engage in the practice of their discipline. Cultural resources management has, however, been criticized. CRM is conducted by private companies that bid for projects by submitting proposals outlining the work to be done and an expected budget. It is not unheard-of for the agency responsible for the construction to simply choose the proposal that asks for the least funding. CRM archaeologists face considerable time pressure, often being forced to complete their work in a fraction of the time that might be allotted for a purely scholarly endeavour.

Field methods

Survey

A modern archaeological project often begins with a survey. Regional survey is the attempt to systematically locate previously unknown sites in a region. Site survey is the attempt to systematically locate features of interest, such as houses and middens, within a site. Each of these two goals may be accomplished with largely the same methods. Survey was not widely practiced in the early days of archaeology. Cultural historians and prior researchers were usually content with discovering the locations of monumental sites from the local populace, and excavating only the plainly visible features there. Gordon Willey pioneered the technique of regional settlement pattern survey in 1949 in the Viru Valley of coastal Peru, and survey of all levels became prominent with the rise of processual archaeology some years later. Survey work has many benefits if performed as a preliminary exercise to, or even in place of, excavation. It requires relatively little time and expense, because it does not require processing large volumes of soil to search out artefacts. (Nevertheless, surveying a large region or site can be expensive, so archaeologists often employ sampling methods.) It avoids ethical issues (of particular concern to descendant peoples) associated with destroying a site through excavation. It is the only way to gather some forms of information, such as settlement patterns and settlement structure. Survey data are commonly assembled into maps, which may show surface features and/or artefact distribution. The simplest survey technique is surface survey. It involves combing an area, usually on foot but sometimes with the use of mechanised transport, to search for features or artefacts visible on the surface. Surface survey cannot detect sites or features that are completely buried under earth, or overgrown with vegetation. Surface survey may also include mini-excavation techniques such as augers, corers, and shovel test pits. Aerial survey is conducted using cameras attached to aircraft, balloons, or even kites. A bird's-eye view is useful for quick mapping of large or complex sites. Aerial imaging can also detect many things not visible from the surface. Plants growing above a stone structure, such as a wall, will develop more slowly, while those above other types of features (such as middens) may develop more rapidly. Photographs of ripening grain, which changes colour rapidly at maturation, have revealed buried structures with great precision. Aerial survey also employs infrared, ground-penetrating radar wavelengths, and thermography. Geophysical survey is the most effective way to see beneath the ground. Magnetometers detect minute deviations in the Earth's magnetic field caused by iron artefacts, kilns, some types of stone structures, and even ditches and middens. Devices that measure the electrical resistivity of the soil are also widely used. Most soils are moist below the surface, which gives them a relatively low resistivity. Features such as hard-packed floors or concentrations of stone have a higher resistivity. Although some archaeologists consider the use of metal detectors to be tantamount to treasure hunting, others deem them an effective tool in archaeological surveying. Examples of formal archaeological use of metal detectors include musketball distribution analysis on English Civil War battlefields, metal distribution analysis prior to excavation of a nineteenth century ship wreck, and service cable location during evaluation. Metal detectorists have also contributed to the archaeological record where they have made detailed records of their results and refrained from raising artifacts from their archaeological context. In the UK, metal detectorists have been solicited for involvement in the Portable Antiquities Scheme. Regional survey in maritime archaeology uses side-scan sonar.

Excavation

Archaeological excavation existed when the field was still the domain of amateurs, and it remains the source of the majority of data recovered in most field projects. It can reveal several types of information usually not accessible to survey, such as stratigraphy, three-dimensional structure, and verifiably primary context. Modern excavation techniques require that the precise locations of objects and features, known as their provenance or provenience, be recorded. This always involves determining their horizontal locations, and sometimes vertical position as well. Similarly, their association, or relationship with nearby objects and features, needs to be recorded for later analysis. This allows the archaeologist to deduce what artefacts and features were likely used together and which may be from different phases of activity. For example, excavation of a site reveals its stratigraphy; if a site was occupied by a succession of distinct cultures, artefacts from more recent cultures will lie above those from more ancient cultures. Excavation is the most expensive phase of archaeological research. Also, as a destructive process, it carries ethical concerns. As a result, very few sites are excavated in their entirety. Sampling is even more important in excavation than in survey. It is common for large mechanical equipment, such as backhoes (JCBs), to be used in excavation, especially to remove the topsoil (overburden), though this method is increasingly used with great caution. Following this it is usual to hand-clean the exposed area with trowels or hoes to ensure that all features are apparent. The next task is to produce a site plan and then use it to help decide the method of excavation. Features dug into the natural subsoil are normally excavated in portions in order to produce a visible archaeological section for recording. Scaled plans and sections of individual features are all drawn on site, black and white and colour photographs of them are taken, and recording sheets are filled in describing the context of each. All this information serves as a permanent record of the now-destroyed archaeology and is used in describing and interpreting the site.

Post-excavation analysis

Once artefacts and structures have been excavated, or collected from surface surveys, it is necessary to properly study them, to gain as much data as possible. This process is known as post-excavation analysis, and is normally the most time-consuming part of the archaeological investigation. It is not uncommon for the final excavation reports on major sites to take years to be published. At its most basic, the artefacts found are cleaned, catalogued and compared to published collections, in order to classify them typologically and to identify other sites with similar artefact assemblages. However, a much more comprehensive range of analytical techniques are available through archaeological science, meaning that artefacts can be dated and their compositions examined. The bones, plants and pollen collected from a site can all be analysed (using the techniques of zooarchaeology, paleoethnobotany, and palynology), while any texts can usually be deciphered. These techniques frequently provide information that would not otherwise be known and therefore contribute greatly to the understanding of a site.

History of archaeology

Main article: History of archaeology The history of archaeology has been one of increasing professionalisation, and the use of an increasing range of techniques, to obtain as much data on the site being examined as possible. Excavations of ancient monuments and the collection of antiquities have been taking place for thousands of years, but these were mostly for the extraction of valuable or aesthetically pleasing artefacts. It was only in the 19th century that the systematic study of the past through its physical remains began to be carried out. Archaeological methods were developed by both interested amateurs and professionals, including Augustus Pitt Rivers and William Flinders Petrie. This process was continued in the 20th century by such people as Mortimer Wheeler, whose highly disciplined approach to excavation greatly improved the quality of evidence that could be obtained. During the 20th century, the development of urban archaeology and then rescue archaeology have been important factors, as has the development of archaeological science, which has greatly increased the amount of data that it is possible to obtain.

Archaeological theory

Main article: Archaeological theory There is no single theory of archaeology, and even definitions are disputed. Until the mid-20th century and the introduction of technology, there was a general consensus that archaeology was closely related to both history and anthropology. The first major phase in the history of archaeological theory is commonly referred to as cultural, or culture, history, which was developed during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In the 1960s, a number of young, primarily American archaeologists, such as Lewis Binford, rebelled against the paradigms of cultural history. They proposed a "New Archaeology", which would be more "scientific" and "anthropological", with hypothesis testing and the scientific method very important parts of what became known as processual archaeology. In the 1980s, a new movement arose led by the British archaeologists Michael Shanks, Christopher Tilley, Daniel Miller, and Ian Hodder. It questioned processualism's appeals to science and impartiality and emphasised the importance of relativism, becoming known as post-processual archaeology. However, this approach has been criticised by processualists as lacking scientific rigour. The validity of both processualism and post-procuessualism is still under debate. Archaeological theory now borrows from a wide range of influences, including neo-Darwinian evolutionary thought, phenomenology, postmodernism, agency theory, cognitive science, Functionalism, gender-based and Feminist archaeology, and Systems theory.

Public archaeology

Early archaeology was largely an attempt to uncover spectacular artifacts and features, or to explore vast and mysterious abandoned cities. Such pursuits continue to fascinate the public, portrayed in books (such as King Solomon's Mines) and films (such as The Mummy and Raiders of the Lost Ark). Much thorough and productive research has indeed been conducted in dramatic locales such as Copán and the Valley of the Kings, but the stuff of modern archaeology is not so reliably sensational. In addition, archaeological adventure stories tend to ignore the painstaking work involved in modern survey, excavation, and data processing techniques. Some archaeologists refer to such portrayals as "pseudoarchaeology". Nevertheless, archaeology has profited from its portrayal in the mainstream media. Many practitioners point to the childhood excitement of Indiana Jones films and Tomb Raider games as the inspiration for them to enter the field. Archaeologists are also very much reliant on public support, the question of exactly who they are doing their work for is often discussed. Without a strong public interest in the subject, often sparked by significant finds and celebrity archaeologists, it would be a great deal harder for archaeologists to gain the political and financial support they require. In the UK, popular archaeology programmes such as Time Team and Meet the Ancestors have resulted in a huge upsurge in public interest. Where possible, archaeologists now make more provision for public involvement and outreach in larger projects than they once did. However, the move towards being more professional has meant that volunteer places are now relegated to unskilled labour, and even this is less freely available than before. Developer-funded excavation necessitates a well-trained staff that can work quickly and accurately, observing the necessary health and safety and indemnity insurance issues involved in working on a modern building site with tight deadlines. Certain charities and local government bodies sometimes offer places on research projects either as part of academic work or as a defined community project. There is also a flourishing industry selling places on commercial training excavations and archaeological holiday tours. Archaeologists prize local knowledge and often liaise with local historical and archaeological societies. Anyone looking to get involved in the field without having to pay to do so should contact a local group.

Pseudoarchaeology

Main article: Pseudoarchaeology. Pseudoarchaeology is an umbrella term for all activities that claim to be archaeological but in fact violate commonly accepted archaeological practices. It includes much fictional archaeological work (discussed above), as well as some actual activity. Many non-fiction authors have ignored the scientific methods of processual archaeology, or the specific critiques of it contained in Post-processualism. An example of this type is the writing of Erich von Däniken. His Chariots of the Gods (1968), together with many subsequent lesser-known works, expounds a theory of ancient contacts between human civilisation on Earth and more technologically advanced extraterrestrial civilisations. This theory, known as palaeocontact theory, is not exclusively Däniken's nor did the idea originate with him. Works of this nature are usually marked by the renunciation of well-established theories on the basis of limited evidence, and the interpretation of evidence with a preconceived theory in mind.

Looting

Looting of archaeological sites by people in search of hoards of buried treasure is an ancient problem. For instance, many of the tombs of the Egyptian pharaohs were looted in antiquity. The advent of archaeology has made ancient sites objects of great scientific and public interest, but it has also attracted unwelcome attention to the works of past peoples. A brisk commercial demand for artefacts encourages looting and the illicit antiquities trade, which smuggles items abroad to private collectors. Looters damage the integrity of a historic site, deny archaeologists valuable information that would be learnt from excavation, and are often deemed to be robbing local people of their heritage. The popular consciousness often associates looting with poor Third World countries. Many are former homes to many well-known ancient civilisations but lack the financial resources or political will to protect even the most significant sites. Certainly, the high prices that intact objects can command relative to a poor farmer's income make looting a tempting financial proposition for some local people. However, looting has taken its toll in places as rich and populous as the United States and Western Europe as well. Abandoned towns of the ancient Sinagua people of Arizona, clearly visible in the desert landscape, have been destroyed in large numbers by treasure hunters. Sites in more densely populated areas farther east have also been looted. Where looting is proscribed by law it takes place under cover of night, with the metal detector a common instrument used to identify profitable places to dig.

Public outreach

Motivated by a desire to halt looting, curb pseudoarchaeology, and to secure greater public funding and appreciation for their work, archaeologists are mounting public-outreach campaigns. They seek to stop looting by informing prospective artefact collectors of the provenance of these goods, and by alerting people who live near archaeological sites of the threat of looting and the danger that it poses to science and their own heritage. Common methods of public outreach include press releases and the encouragement of school field trips to sites under excavation. The final audience for archaeologists' work is the public and it is increasingly realised that their work is ultimately being done to benefit and inform them. The putative social benefits of local heritage awareness are also being promoted with initiatives to increase civic and individual pride through projects such as community excavation projects and better interpretation and presentation of existing sites.

Descendant peoples

In the United States, examples such as the case of Kennewick Man have illustrated the tensions between Native Americans and archaeologists which can be summarised as a conflict between a need to remain respectful towards burials sacred sites and the academic benefit from studying them. For years, American archaeologists dug on Indian burial grounds and other places considered sacred, removing artefacts and human remains to storage facilities for further study. In some cases human remains were not even thoroughly studied but instead archived rather than reburied. Furthermore, Western archaeologists' views of the past often differ from those of tribal peoples. The West views time as linear; for many natives, it is cyclic. From a Western perspective, the past is long-gone; from a native perspective, disturbing the past can have dire consequences in the present. To an archaeologist, the past is long-gone and must be reconstructed through its material remains; to indigenous peoples, it is often still alive. As a consequence of this, American Indians attempted to prevent archaeological excavation of sites inhabited by their ancestors, while American archaeologists believed that the advancement of scientific knowledge was a valid reason to continue their studies. This contradictory situation was addressed by the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA, 1990), which sought to reach a compromise by limiting the right of research institutions to possess human remains. Due in part to the spirit of postprocessualism, some archaeologists have begun to actively enlist the assistance of indigenous peoples likely to be descended from those under study. Archaeologists have also been obliged to re-examine what constitutes an archaeological site in view of what native peoples believe to constitute sacred space. To many native peoples, natural features such as lakes, mountains or even individual trees have cultural significance. Australian archaeologists especially have explored this issue and attempted to survey these sites in order to give them some protection from being developed. Such work requires close links and trust between archaeologists and the people they are trying to help and at the same time study. While this cooperation presents a new set of challenges and hurdles to fieldwork, it has benefits for all parties involved. Tribal elders cooperating with archaeologists can prevent the excavation of areas of sites that they consider sacred, while the archaeologists gain the elders' aid in interpreting their finds. There have also been active efforts to recruit aboriginal peoples directly into the archaeological profession.

Repatriation

A new trend in the heated controversy between First Nations groups and scientists is the repatriation of native artifacts to the original descendents. An example of this occurred June 21, 2005, when a community members and elders from a number of the 10 Algonquian nations in the Ottawa area convened on the Kitigan Zibi reservation in Kanawagi, Quebec, to inter ancestral human remains and burial goods — some dating back 6,000 years. The ceremony marked the end of a journey spanning thousands of years and many miles. The remains and artifacts, including beads, tools and weapons, were originally excavated from various sites in the Ottawa Valley, including Morrison and the Allumette Islands. They had been part of the Canadian Museum of Civilization’s research collection for decades, some since the late 1800s. Elders from various Algonquin communities conferred on an appropriate reburial, eventually deciding on traditional cedar and birchbark boxes lined with cedar chips, muskrat and beaver pelts. Now, an inconspicuous rock mound marks the reburial site where close to 90 boxes of various sizes are buried. Although negotiations were at times tense between the Kitigan Zibi community and museum, they were able to reach agreement. (Source: [http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/magazine/SO05/indepth/archaeology.asp Canadian Geographic Online].)

External links

- [http://www.archaeologynews.org Archaeology News] Current News and Information pertaining to all areas of archaeology, plus free news feeds for webmasters.
- [http://nefer-seba.net/Archaeological-Fieldwork.php Excavation Sites] Archaeological work and volunteer pages.
- [http://wasteflake.com/tiki-index.php?page=PopularArchaeology Archaeology in Popular Culture]
- [http://www.anthropologie.net/ Anthropology Resources on the Internet] - Anthropology Resources on the Internet : a web directory with over 3000 links grouped in specialised topics.
- [http://www.archaeology.org/ Archaeology magazine] published by the Archaeological Institute of America
- [http://www.archaeologydirectory.com/ Archaeology Directory] - Directory of archaeological topics on the web.
- [http://cctr.umkc.edu/user/fdeblauwe/iraq.html The 2003- Iraq War & Archaeology] Information about looting in Iraq.

Stonehenge

Stonehenge is a Neolithic and Bronze Age monument located near Amesbury in the English county of Wiltshire, about 8 miles (13 km) northwest of Salisbury. It is composed of earthworks surrounding a circular setting of large standing stones, known as megaliths. There is some debate about the age of the stone circle, but most archaeologists think that it was mainly constructed between 2500 BC and 2000 BC. The older circular earth bank and ditch, which constitute perhaps the earliest phase of the monument, have been dated to about 3100 BC. The site and its surroundings were added to the UNESCO's list of World Heritage Sites in 1986. It is also a legally protected Scheduled Ancient Monument. The monument itself is owned and managed by English Heritage whilst the surrounding downland is owned by the National Trust. Stonehenge is located at .

Etymology

Christopher Chippendale's Stonehenge Complete gives the derivation of Stonehenge as being from the Old English words "stān" meaning "stone", and either "hencg" meaning "hinge" (because the stone lintels hinge on the upright stones) or "hen(c)en" meaning "gallows" or "instrument of torture". Medieval gallows consisted of two uprights with a lintel joining them rather than the inverted L-shape more familiar today. The "henge" portion has given its name to a class of monuments known as henges. Archaeologists define henges as earthworks consisting of a circular banked enclosure with an internal ditch. As often happens in archaeological terminology, this is a holdover from antiquarian usage, and Stonehenge cannot in fact be truly classified as a henge site as its bank is inside its ditch. Despite being contemporary with true Neolithic henges and stone circles, Stonehenge is in many ways atypical. For example, its extant trilithons make Stonehenge unique. Stonehenge is only distantly related to the other stone circles in the British Isles, such as the Ring of Brodgar.

Development of Stonehenge

Ring of Brodgar The Stonehenge complex was built in several construction phases spanning 2,000 years, although there is evidence for activity both before and afterwards on the site. Archaeologists have found three large Mesolithic postholes which date to around 8000 BC nearby, beneath the modern tourist car-park, and which may have had ritual significance, although there is no suggestion they are connected with the later monument. During the earlier Neolithic, a cursus monument was built 600m north of the site as the first farmers began to exploit the area. Later prehistoric pottery, Roman coins and the burial of a decapitated Saxon man have been excavated from Stonehenge, the last dated to the 7th century AD. Dating and understanding the various phases of activity at Stonehenge is not a simple task; it is complicated by poorly-kept early excavation records, surprisingly few accurate scientific dates and the disturbance of the natural chalk by periglacial effects and animal burrowing. The modern phasing most generally agreed by archaeologists is detailed below. Features mentioned in the text are numbered and shown on the plan, right, which illustrates the site as of AD 2004. The plan omits the trilithon lintels for clarity. Holes that no longer, or never, contained stones are shown as open circles and stones visible today are shown coloured.

Stonehenge 1

AD 2004 The first monument consisted of a circular bank and ditch enclosure (7 and 8) measuring around 115 m (320 feet) in diameter with a large entrance to the north east and a smaller one to the south (14). The builders placed bones of deer and oxen in the bottom of the ditch. These bones were considerably older than the antler picks used to dig the ditch and had been well looked-after for some time prior to burial. The ditch itself was continuous but had been dug in sections like the earlier causewayed enclosures and the chalk spoil piled up to form the bank. This first stage is dated to around 3100 BC after which the ditch began to silt up naturally. Within the outer edge of the enclosed area was dug a circle of 56 pits each around 1m in diameter (13), known as Aubrey holes after John Aubrey, the seventeenth century antiquarian who was thought to have first identified them. The pits may have contained standing timbers although there is no excavated evidence of them. A small outer bank beyond the ditch could also date to this period (9).

Stonehenge 2

Evidence of the second phase is no longer visible. It appears from the number of postholes dating to this period that some form of timber structure was built within the enclosure during the early 3rd millennium BC. Further standing timbers were placed at the northeast entrance and a parallel alignment of posts ran inwards from the southern entrance. The postholes are smaller than the Aubrey Holes, being only around 0.4m in diameter and are much less regularly spaced. The bank was purposely reduced in height and the ditch continued to silt up. At least twenty-five of the Aubrey Holes are known to have contained later, intrusive, cremation burials dating to the two centuries after the monument's inception. It seems that whatever the holes' initial function, it changed to become a funerary one during Phase 2. Thirty further cremations were placed in the enclosure's ditch and at other points within the monument, mostly in the eastern half. Stonehenge is therefore interpreted as functioning as an enclosed cremation cemetery at this time, the earliest known cremation cemetery in the British Isles. Fragments of unburnt human bone have also been found in the ditch fill. Late Neolithic grooved ware pottery has been found in connection with the features from this phase providing dating evidence.

Stonehenge 3i

Archaeological excavation has indicated that around 2600 BC, timber was abandoned in favour of stone and two concentric crescents of holes (called the Q and R Holes) were dug in the centre of the site. Again, there is little firm dating evidence for this phase. The holes held 80 standing bluestones (shown blue on the plan) brought from the Preseli Hills, 250 km away in modern day Pembrokeshire in Wales. The stones, which weighed about four tons, consisted mostly of spotted dolerite but included examples of rhyolite, tuff and volcanic and calcareous ash. Each measures around 2m in height, between 1m and 1.5m wide and around 0.8m thick. What was to become known as the Altar Stone (1), a six-ton specimen of green micaceous sandstone twice the height of the bluestones, was also brought from the Welsh coast near Preseli and may have stood as a single large monolith. The north eastern entrance was also widened at this time with the result that it precisely matched the direction of the midsummer sunrise and midwinter sunset of the period. This phase of the monument was abandoned unfinished however, the bluestones were apparently removed and the Q and R holes purposefully backfilled. Even so, the monument appears to have eclipsed the site at Avebury in importance towards the end of this phase and the Amesbury Archer, found in 2002 three miles (5 km) to the south, would have seen the site in this state. The Heel Stone (5) may also have been erected outside the north eastern entrance during this period although it cannot be securely dated and may have been installed at any time in phase 3. At first, a second stone, now no longer visible, joined it. Two, or possibly three, large portal stones were set up just inside the northeastern entrance of which only one, the fallen Slaughter Stone (4), 16 ft (4.9 m) long, now remains. Other features loosely dated to phase 3 include the four Station Stones (6), two of which stood atop mounds (2 and 3). The mounds are known as 'barrows' although they do not contain burials. The Avenue, (10), a parallel pair of ditches and banks leading 3 km to the River Avon was also added. Ditches were later dug around the Station Stones and the Heel Stone, which was by then reduced to a single monolith.

Stonehenge 3ii

The next major phase of activity at the tail end of the 3rd millennium BC saw 30 enormous Sarsen stones (shown grey on the plan) brought from a quarry around 24 miles (40 km) north to the site on the Marlborough Downs. The stones were dressed and fashioned with mortise and tenon joints before 30 were erected as a 33 m (108 ft) diameter circle of standing stones with a 'lintel' of 30 stones resting on top. The lintels themselves were joined to one another using another woodworking method, the tongue in groove joint . Each stone weighed around 25 tons and had clearly been worked with the final effect in mind. The orthostats widen slightly towards the top in order that their perspective remains constant as they rise up from the ground whilst the lintel stones curve slightly to continue the circular appearance of the earlier monument. The sides of the stones that face inwards are more finely worked than the sides that face outwards. A total of 74 stones would have been needed to complete the circle and unless some of the sarsens were removed from the site, it would seem that the ring was left incomplete. Within this circle stood five trilithons of dressed sarsen stone arranged in a horseshoe shape. These huge stones, ten uprights and five lintels, weigh up to 50 tons each and were again linked using complex jointings. The images of a 'dagger' and 14 'axe-heads' have been recorded carved on one of the sarsens, known as stone 53. Further axe-head carvings have been seen on the outer faces of stones known as numbers 3, 4, and 5. They are difficult to date but are morphologically similar to later Bronze Age weapons. The pair of trilithons in north east are smallest, measuring around 6m (20 feet) in height and the largest is the trilithon in the south west of the horseshoe is almost 7.5m (24 feet) tall. This ambitious phase is radiocarbon dated to between 2440 and 2100 BC.

Stonehenge 3iii

Later in the Bronze Age, the bluestones appear to have been re-erected for the first time although the precise details of this period are still unclear. They were placed within the outer sarsen circle and at this time may have been trimmed in some way. A few have timber working-style cuts in them like the sarsens themselves, suggesting they may have been linked with lintels and part of a larger structure during this phase.

Stonehenge 3iv

This phase saw further rearrangement of the bluestones as they were placed in a circle between the two settings of sarsens and in an oval in the very centre. Some archaeologists argue that some of the bluestones in this period were part of a second group brought from Wales. All the stones were well-spaced uprights without any linking lintels inferred in Stonehenge 3iii. The Altar Stone may have been moved within the oval and stood vertically. Although this would seem the most impressive phase of work, Stonehenge 3iv was rather shabbily built compared to its immediate predecessors, the newly re-installed bluestones were not at all well founded and began to fall over. However, only minor changes were made after this phase. Stonehenge 3iv dates from 2280 to 1930 BC.

Stonehenge 3v

Soon afterwards, the north eastern section of the Phase 3iv Bluestone circle was removed, creating a horseshoe-shaped setting termed the Bluestone Horseshoe. This mirrored the shape of the central sarsen Trilithons and dates from 2270 to 1930 BC. This phase is contemporary with the famous Seahenge site in Norfolk.

Stonehenge 3vi

Two further rings of pits were dug outside the outermost sarsen circle, called the Y and Z Holes (11 and 12). The Z holes were about 2m outside the outermost sarsen circle and the Y holes about 5m further out. These were each of thirty pits and each seems to match with one of the uprights in the outer sarsen circle. They were never filled with stones however and were permitted to silt up over the next few centuries; their upper fills contain Iron Age and Roman material. Monument building at Stonehenge appears to have been abandoned around 1600 BC.

Theories about Stonehenge

Early interpretations

1600 BC Many early historians were influenced by supernatural folktales in their explanations. Some legends held that Merlin the wizard had a giant build the structure for him or that he had magically transported it from Mount Killaraus in Ireland, while others held the Devil responsible. Henry of Huntingdon was the first to write of the monument around 1130 soon followed by Geoffrey of Monmouth who was the first to record fanciful associations with King Arthur which led the monument to be incorporated into the wider cycle of European medieval romance. In 1615, Inigo Jones argued that Stonehenge was a Roman temple, dedicated to 'Cnelus', a pagan god, and built following the Tuscan order. Later commentators maintained that the Danes erected it. Indeed, up until the late nineteenth century, the site was commonly attributed to the Saxons or other relatively recent societies. The first academic effort to survey and understand the monument was made around 1740 by William Stukeley. As was his wont, Stukeley incorrectly attributed the site to the Druids. He contributed measured drawings of the site, which permitted greater analysis of its form and significance. From this work he was able to demonstrate an astronomical or calendrical role in the stones' placement. By the turn of the nineteenth century, John Lubbock was able to attribute the site to the Bronze Age based on the bronze objects found in the nearby barrows.

Archaeoastronomy and Stonehenge

For further information, see Archaeoastronomy and Stonehenge. Stonehenge is aligned north east — south west, and it has been suggested that particular significance was placed by its builders on the solstice and equinox points, so for example on a midsummer's morning, the sun rose close to the Heel Stone, and the sun's first rays went directly into the centre of the monument between the horseshoe arrangement. It is unlikely that such an alignment can have been merely accidental. A huge debate was triggered by the 1963 publication of Stonehenge Decoded, by British born astronomer Gerald Hawkins, who claimed to see a large number of alignments, both lunar and solar, and argued that Stonehenge could have been used to predict eclipses. Hawkins' book received wide publicity, partly because he used a computer in his calculations, then a rarity. Archaeologists were suspicious in the face of further contributions to the debate coming from British astronomer C. A. Newham and Sir Fred Hoyle, the famous Cambridge Cosmologist, as well as by Alexander Thom, a retired professor of engineering, who had been studying stone circles for more than 20 years. Their theories have faced criticism in recent decades from Richard Atkinson and others who have suggested impracticalities in the 'Stone Age calculator' interpretative approach. Today, the consensus is that some of the astronomical case, although not all, was overstated. Even so, since the sun rises in different directions in different geographical latitudes, for the alignment to be correct, it must have been calculated precisely for Stonehenge's latitude of 51° 11'. This alignment, therefore, must have been fundamental to the design and placement of at least some of Stonehenge's phases. The recent discovery of a neighbour to the Heel Stone has challenged the interpretation of it as a midsummer sunrise marker and it may have instead been one side of a 'solar corridor' used to frame the sunrise. Sun worship is certainly not an uncommon phenomenon amongst Neolithic peoples given their reliance on it for crop fertility. Despite as many as 20,000 people visiting Stonehenge during the 2005 summer solstice, growing evidence indicates that ancestors did not visit at all in the summer, but rather during the winter solstice. The only megalithic monument in the British Isles to contain a clear, compelling solar alignment is Newgrange which famously faces the winter solstice sunrise. The most recent such evidence includes bones and teeth from pigs that were slaughtered at nearby Durrington Walls, their age at death indicating that they were slaughtered either in December or January every year. Mike Parker Pearson of the University of Sheffield has said "We have no evidence that anyone was in the landscape in summer." ^{[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/06/21/nsolst21.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/06/21/ixportal.html]}

The bluestones

Roger Mercer has observed that the bluestones are incongruously finely worked and has suggested that they were transferred to Salisbury Plain from an as yet unlocated earlier monument in Pembrokeshire, Wales. If Mercer's theory is correct then the bluestones may have been transplanted to cement an alliance or display superiority over a conquered enemy although this can only be speculation. Oval shaped settings of bluestones similar to those at Stonehenge 3iv are also known at the sites of Bedd Arthur in the Preseli Hills and at Skomer Island off the southwest coast of Pembrokeshire. Some archaeologists have suggested that the igneous bluestones and sedimentary sarsens had some symbolism, of a union between two cultures from different landscapes and therefore from different backgrounds. Recent analysis of contemporary burials found nearby known as the Boscombe Bowmen, has indicated that at least some of the individuals associated with Stonehenge 3 did indeed come from modern day Wales. Petrological analysis of the stones themselves has verified that they could only have come from the Preseli Hills and it is tempting to connect the two. The main source of the bluestones is now identified with the dolerite outcrops at Carn Menyn although work led by Olwen Williams-Thorpe of the Open University has shown that further bluestone sources over a wider area of Preseli were also exploited. Aubrey Burl contends that the bluestones were not transported by human agency at all and were instead brought by glaciers at least part of the way from Wales during the Pleistocene. No geological evidence has been found for any glacial activity between Preseli and Salisbury Plain however and no further specimens of the unusual dolerite stone have been found in the vicinity.

Stonehenge as part of a ritual landscape

Pleistocene Many archaeologists believe Stonehenge was an attempt to render in permanent stone the more common timber structures that dotted Salisbury Plain at the time, such as those that stood at Durrington Walls. Modern anthropological evidence has been used by Mike Parker Pearson and the Madagascan archaeologist Ramilisonina to suggest that timber was associated with the living and stone with the ancestral dead. They have argued that Stonehenge was the terminus of a long, ritualised funerary procession, which began in the east at sunrise at Woodhenge and Durrington Walls, moved down the Avon and then along the Avenue reaching Stonehenge in the west at sunset. The journey from wood to stone via water was a symbolic journey from life to death. There is no satisfactory evidence to suggest that Stonehenge's astronomical alignments were anything more than symbolic and current interpretations favour a ritual role for the monument that takes into account its numerous burials and its presence within a wider landscape of sacred sites.

Construction techniques and design

Durrington Walls Durrington Walls Much speculation has surrounded the engineering feats required to build Stonehenge. Assuming the bluestones were brought from Wales by hand, and not transported by glaciers as Aubrey Burl has claimed, various methods of moving them relying only on timber and rope have been suggested. In a 2001 exercise in experimental archaeology, an attempt was made to transport a large stone along a land and sea route from Wales to Stonehenge. Volunteers pulled it on a wooden sledge over land, but once transferred to a replica prehistoric boat, the stone sank in rough seas of the Bristol Channel. As far as positioning the stones, it has been suggested that timber A frames were erected to raise the stones, and that teams of people then hauled them upright using ropes. The topmost stones may have been raised up incrementally on timber platforms and slid into place or pushed up ramps. The carpentry-type joints used on the stones imply a people well skilled in woodworking. They could easily have had the knowledge to erect the monument using such methods. Alexander Thom was of the opinion that the site was laid out with the necessary precision using his megalithic yard. The engraved weapons on the sarsens are unique in megalithic art in the British Isles, where more abstract designs were favoured. Similarly, the horseshoe arrangements of stones are unusual in a culture that otherwise arranged stones in circles. The axe motif is, however, common to the peoples of Brittany at the time, and it has been suggested at least two stages of Stonehenge were built under continental influence. This would go some way towards explaining the monument's atypical design, but overall, Stonehenge is still inexplicably unusual in the context of any prehistoric European culture. Estimates of the manpower needed to build Stonehenge put the total effort involved at millions of hours of work. Stonehenge 1 probably needed around 11,000 hours work, Stonehenge 2 around 360,000 and the various parts of Stonehenge 3 may have involved up to 1.75 million hours work. The working of the stones is estimated to have required around 20 million hours work using the primitive tools available at the time. Certainly, the will to produce such a site must have been strong, and it is considered that advanced social organisation would have been necessary to build and maintain it.

Alternative views

Stonehenge's fame comes not only from its archaeological significance or potential early astronomical role but also in its less tangible effect on visitors, what Christopher Chippindale describes as "the physical sensation of the place", something that transcends the rational, scientific view of the monument. This manifests itself in the spiritual role of the site for many different groups and a belief that no single scientific explanation can do justice to it as a symbol of the great achievement of ancient people and as a symbol of something that continues to confound mainstream archaeology. Post-processualist archaeologists might consider that treating Stonehenge as a computer or observatory is to apply modern concepts from our own technology-driven era back into the past. Even the role of indigenous peoples in archaeology, rarely applied in Western Europe, has created a new function for the site as a symbol of Welsh nationalism. Some have theorised that it represents the female sexual organs ([http://www.observer.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,992215,00.html Article from The Observer]) or have identified a phallic shape in the Heel Stone. UFO sightings in the area, perhaps connected with the military installations around Warminster have led to ideas over it being an alien landing site. Alfred Watkins found three ley lines running through the site and others have employed numerology dowsing or geomancy to reach diverse conclusions regarding the site's power and purpose. New Age and neo-pagan beliefs might see Stonehenge as a sacred place of worship which can conflict with its more mainstream role as an archaeological site, tourist attraction, or marketing tool. The significance of the 'ownership' of Stonehenge in terms of the differing meanings and interpretations held by the many orthodox and unorthodox stakeholders in the site has been increasingly apparent in recent decades.

Excavations at Stonehenge

The first recorded excavations at Stonehenge were carried out by William Cunnington and Richard Colt Hoare. In 1798, Cunnington investigated the pit beneath a recently fallen trilithon and in 1810, both men dug beneath the fallen Slaughter Stone and concluded that it had once stood up. They may have also excavated one of the Aubrey Holes beneath it. In 1839, one Captain Beamish dug around the Altar Stone and a little later Charles Darwin was granted permission by the Antrobus family who owned Stonehenge to hold a small excavation to test his theories about earthworm activity burying ancient structures. On New Year's Eve 1900, another trilithon fell over and Sir Edmund Antrobus undertook to right it and set it in concrete. Following public pressure and a letter to The Times by William Flinders Petrie, he agreed to re-erect the stones under archaeological supervision so that records could be made of the below ground archaeology. Antrobus appointed a mining engineer William Gowland to manage the job who despite having no previous archaeological experience produced some of the finest, most detailed excavation records ever made at the monument. Gowland established that antler picks had been used to dig the stone holes and that the stones themselves had been worked to shape on site. The largest excavation at Stonehenge was undertaken by Colonel William Hawley and his assistant Robert Newall after the site had come into state hands. Stonehenge and 30 acres of land had been purchased by Mr. Cecil Chubb for £6,600 on September 21, 1915 — he then donated the purchase to the British state three years later. Their work began in 1919 following the transfer of land, funded by the Office of Works, and continued until 1926. The two men excavated portions of most of the features at Stonehenge and were the first to establish that it was a multi-phase site. In 1950 the Society of Antiquaries commissioned Richard Atkinson, Stuart Piggott and Marcus Stone to carry out further excavations. They recovered many cremations and developed the phasing that still dominates much of what is written about Stonehenge. In 1979 and 1980 Mike Pitts led two smaller investigations as part of service trenching, close by the heelstone, finding the evidence for its neighbour. More recent excavations have been held to mitigate the effects of electrical cables, sewage pipes, and a footpath through the site.

Myths and legends

1980 Friar's Heel: The Heel Stone was once known as "Friar's Heel." A folk tale, which cannot be dated earlier than the seventeenth century, relates the origin of the name of this stone: The Devil bought the stones from a woman in Ireland, wrapped them up, and brought them to Salisbury plain. One of the stones fell into the Avon, the rest were carried to the plain. The Devil then cried out, "No-one will ever find out how these stones came here." A friar replied, "That's what you think!," whereupon the Devil threw one of the stones at him and struck him on the heel. The stone stuck in the ground and is still there. Some claim "Friar's Heel" is a corruption of "Freya's He-ol" or "Freya Sul", from the Germanic goddess Freya and (allegedly) the Welsh words for "way" and "sun day" respectively. Arthurian legend: Stonehenge is also associated with Arthurian legend. Geoffrey of Monmouth said that Merlin the wizard directed its removal from Ireland, where it had been constructed on Mount Killaraus by Giants, who brought the stones from Africa. After it had been rebuilt near Amesbury, Geoffrey further narrates how first Ambrosius Aurelianus, then Uther Pendragon, and finally Constantine III, were buried inside the ring of stones. In many places in his Historia Regum Britanniae Geoffrey mixes British legend and his own imagination; it is intriguing that he connects Ambrosius Aurelianus with this prehistoric monument, seeing how there is place-name evidence to connect Ambrosius with nearby Amesbury.

Recent history

By the beginning of the 20th century many of the bluestones were leaning precariously, probably due to the increase in curious visitors clambering on them during the nineteenth century. Additionally two of the trilithons had fallen over during the modern era. Three phases of conservation work were undertaken which righted unstable or fallen stones and carefully replaced them in their original positions using information from antiquarian drawings. If nothing else, this means that Stonehenge is not quite as timeless as its tourist publicity would suggest and that as with most historic monuments, conservation work has been undertaken. Stonehenge is a place of pilgrimage for neo-druids and those following pagan or neo-pagan beliefs. The midsummer sunrise began attracting modern visitors in 1870s, with the first record of recreated Druidic practices dating to 1905 when the Ancient Order of Druids enacted a ceremony. Later the sun-worshipping Church of the Universal Bond adopted the site for their neo-Druidic rituals from 1912 until 1932 when their plans to scatter the ashes of cremated former members at the site were refused. Despite efforts by archaeologists to stress the differences between the Iron Age Druidic religion (the Celts first came to Britain about 500 BC), the much older monument (Stonehenge construction ended about 1600 BC), and modern Druidry, Stonehenge became increasingly associated with abstruse rituals practised by white-robed wizards. After the Second World War the Universal Bond was permitted to re-commence its ceremonies although archaeologists such as Glyn Daniel and Stuart Piggott continued to campaign against what they saw as bogus Druidry throughout the 1950s, 60s and 70s. The earlier rituals were augmented by the Stonehenge free festival, held between 1972 and 1984, and loosely organised by the Politantric Circle. However, in 1985 the site was closed to festivalgoers by English Heritage and the National Trust by which time the number of midsummer visitors had risen from 500 to 30,000. A consequence of the end of the festival was the violent confrontation between the police and new age travellers that became known as the Battle of the Beanfield when police blockaded a convoy of travellers to prevent them from approaching Stonehenge. There was then no midsummer access for almost fifteen years until limited opening was negotiated in 2000. In more recent years, the setting of the monument has been affected by the proximity of the A303 road between Amesbury and Winterbourne Stoke, and the A344. Projects for moving the road or placing it in a tunnel under the site have been proposed in the past, but these have often been opposed, as they are either too expensive or too destructive. In early 2003 the Department for Transport announced that the A303 would be upgraded, including the construction of the Stonehenge road tunnel. The plans are still controversial and the government has not yet finalised the plans. Also announced has been a new heritage centre, which was intended to be open in 2006. Current provision for visitors has often been criticised; in 1993 Stonehenge's presentation was condemned by the Public Accounts Committee of the British House of Commons as 'a national disgrace'. Even so, the plans for the new centre have aroused significant controversy especially from nearby landowners and residents. English Heritage proposes a new purpose-built facility 3km from the stones at Countess Road in Amesbury, on the edge of the World Heritage Site boundary. Visitors would be ferried to and from drop off points near the monument by land trains. They would then approach the stones themselves on foot for the final kilometre. Locals in Amesbury have complained that the scheme would shift traffic congestion from Stonehenge to their own village. They have also suggested that the necessary time that the public would now have to spend travelling to and from Stonehenge would likely dissuade many visitors, especially American and Japanese tourists on whistle-stop tours of England, to visit at all. By 2008, the new road schemes were to have been completed and the old roads closed. Costs for the new road and visitor facilities were estimated at £270m by English Heritage. In July 2005 however the plans were thrown into uncertainty following refusal of planning permission for the visitors' centre by Salisbury District Council whilst the British government placed the rising costs of the road scheme under review. Remediation of unsuitable geology along the road route the site may add a further £200m to the costs. 2008).]]

Laser scanning the Bronze Age dagger and axes at Stonehenge

In 2003 a team from [http://www.wessexarch.co.uk/ Wessex Archaeology] and [http://www.archaeoptics.co.uk/ Archaeoptics] used laser scanning technologies to analyse and record the surfaces of the megaliths at Stonehenge which contain prehistoric and post-medieval carvings. This was the first time laser scanning had been used at Stonehenge. The Bronze Age carvings of a dagger and an axehead were first discovered by archaeologist Richard Atkinson in 1953 on stone number 53, one of the imposing sarsen trilithons. A contemporary survey in 1956 by Robert Newell revealed that the total number of axes on this stone totalled 14, all on the same face of the stone, looking inwards to the centre of the stone circle. Typologically, the axes have a Middle Bronze Age date. The surface of stone 53 containing Bronze Age carvings was laser scanned at a resolution of 0.5mm, resulting in hundreds of thousands of individual 3D measurements known as a point cloud. This data was then processed into a meshed 3D solid model for analysis using custom software written by [http://www.archaeoptics.co.uk/ Archaeoptics] called [http://www.archaeoptics.co.uk/products/demon/ Demon3D]. The team pioneered some visualisation techniques to enhance the outlines of the known carvings. During this process, the faint outline of two previously unknown axes was spotted in an [http://www.stonehengelaserscan.org/animations.html animation], separate from the carvings recorded by Newell. Subsequent enhancement of the data confirmed that the shapes were of flanged axes, similar in shape to those which are clearly visible, but either badly eroded, or were originally carved much shallower than their counterparts. The larger of the [http://www.stonehengelaserscan.org/stone53/s53newcarvings.html two carvings] differs slightly from the other axes in that it has two 'lugs' along its shaft, and others have interpreted that it could represent either an axe, a mushroom, or a ram's skull. The results of these investigations were published in the [http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba73/feat1.shtml November 2003] edition of [http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba.html British Archaeology], and the project website can be visited at http://www.stonehengelaserscan.org/ where animations and interpretations of the data may be viewed.

Replicas and derivative names

eroded Stonehenge's fame has led to numerous efforts to recreate it, using a variety of different materials, around the world. Some have been carefully built as astronomically-aligned models whilst others have been examples of artistic expression or tourist attractions. There is a full-size replica of Stonehenge as it would have been before decay at Maryhill in Washington State, built by Sam Hill as a war memorial. It is even aligned to the midsummer sunrise, but to the true position of the sun at the virtual horizon, rather than the apparent position of the sun at the actual landscape horizon. Stonehenge Aotearoa in the Wairarapa region of New Zealand is a modern adaption aligned with the astronomy seen from the Antipodes, it was built by the [http://www.astronomynz.org.nz/stonehenge/stonehenge.htm Phoenix Astronomical Society] from wood and sprayed concrete. The University of Missouri at Rolla has a half-scale replica located on campus, [http://web.umr.edu/~stonehen/ UMR Stonehenge] is built from solid granite. Carhenge was constructed from vintage American cars near Alliance, Nebraska by the artist Jim Reynolds in 1987. A full-size [http://www.strohhenge.de Strawhenge] was assembled in Kemnath in Bavaria in 2003 from 350 bales of straw and used as a music venue. Another replica, called Stonehenge II, in Texas is constructed from an adobe-like material. Tankhenge existed in the border zone of Berlin in the early 1990s after the collapse of the Wall. Tankhenge was constructed from three ex-Soviet armoured personnel carriers. A full-size Stonehenge made out of foam — and inevitably called Foamhenge — stands near Natural Bridge, Virginia [http://www.tackytreasures.com/tackyhtml/places-foamhenge.html] whilst a polystyrene version was built by British television station Channel 5 in 2005 as the centrepiece for a programme on the original monument. The rock band Black Sabbath featured a Stonehenge stage set for the 1983-1984 Born Again tour that ended up being too large to fit in most venues. When bassist Geezer Butler was initially asked by the stage designer how he visualised the Stonehenge set, Butler responded, "Life size, of course." This was ridiculed in the movie This is Spinal Tap, when the band orders a Stonehenge set but it arrives in miniature. Aside from modern replicas, several other archaeological sites have had Stonehenge's name partially or fully incorporated into their own names. America's Stonehenge is an unusual and controversial site in New Hampshire. A henge near Stonehenge containing concentric rings of postholes for standing timbers, discovered in 1922, was named Woodhenge by its excavators because of similarities with Stonehenge. The timber Seahenge in Norfolk was named as such by journalists writing about its discovery in 1998. In November 2004, a 7 m diameter circle of postholes was found in Russia and publicised as the Russian Stonehenge. In 1995, Graeme Caims of Hamilton, New Zealand, built a replica of Stonehenge out of 41 refrigerators.

References

- Burl, A , Prehistoric Stone Circles (Shire 2001)
- Chippendale, C "Stonehenge Complete" (Thames and Hudson, London, 2004)
- Chippindale, C et al., Who owns Stonehenge? (London, Batsford 1990)
- Cleal, Walker, & Montague, Stonehenge in its Landscape (London, English Heritage 1995)
- Hall,R, Leather,K, Dobson, G, Stonehenge Aotearoa (Awa Press 2005)
- Hutton, R, From Universal Bond to Public Free For All, British Archaeology 83, July-August 2005 p11
- North, J, Stonehenge: Ritual Origins and Astronomy (HarperCollins, 1997)
- Pitts, M, Hengeworld (London, Arrow 2001)
- Mooney, J, Encyclopedia of the Bizarre (Black Dog & Leventhal Publishers, 2002)

External links

- [http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/stonehenge English Heritage guide to Stonehenge]
- [http://www.stonehengelaserscan.org/ Stonehenge Laser Scans]
- [http://www.thestonehengeproject.org The Stonehenge Project]
- [http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/site/458 Information and images of Stonehenge at the Modern Antiquarian website]
- [http://www.tivas.org.uk/stonehenge/stone_ast.html Supposed astronomical alignments at the monument]
- [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/10/1031_021031_Stonehenge.html Pagan views of Stonehenge]
- [http://www.britishtours.com/360/stonehenge.html Virtual Reality image of Stonehenge at Dawn]
- [http://witcombe.sbc.edu/earthmysteries Witcombe.sbc.edu's Earth Mysteries]
- [http://www.2stonehenge.com/stonehenge.html Stonehenge.]
- [http://www.andyworthington.co.uk 'Stonehenge: Celebration and Subversion' by Andy Worthington] Category:Archaeological sites in Britain Category:Arthurian legend Category:Buildings and structures in Wiltshire Category:English Heritage Category:History of Wiltshire Category:Megalithic monuments Category:Scheduled Ancient Monuments Category:Visitor attractions in Wiltshire Category:World Heritage Sites in England ms:Stonehenge ja:ストーンヘンジ simple:Stonehenge

Equinox

: This article is about the astronomical phenomenon. For other meanings of the word Equinox see Equinox (disambiguation). In astronomy, an equinox is defined as the moment when the sun reaches one of two intersections between the ecliptic and the celestial equator. The word "equinox" comes from the Latin for "equal night". The equinoxes in March and September are the two occasions each year when the day and the night are of equal duration. For measuring the length of a day, sunrise is the moment when the sun is half-above the horizon and sunset is the moment when the sun is half-under the horizon. Using this definition, the length of the day (and the night) is precisely 12 hours at an equinox. More commonly the day is defined as the period that sunlight may reach the ground in absence of local obstacles. Because the Sun is not a point but appears as a disc, and because sunlight is refracted downwards by the atmosphere, the day by that definition is a few minutes longer than the night (almost 14 minutes at the equator, and more towards the poles), making the practical equality of day and night happen a few days before the vernal equinox and a few days after the autumnal equinox.

Equinox Dates/Times (Universal Time)
Year	Spring starts (March)	Autumn starts (September)
2000	20th Mar 07:35	22nd Sep 17:27
2001	20th Mar 13:31	22nd Sep 23:04
2002	20th Mar 19:16	23rd Sep 04:55
2003	21st Mar 01:00	23rd Sep 10:47
2004	20th Mar 06:49	22nd Sep 16:30
2005	20th Mar 12:33	22nd Sep 22:23
2006	20th Mar 18:26	23rd Sep 04:03
2007	21st Mar 00:07	23rd Sep 09:51
2008	20th Mar 05:48	22nd Sep 15:44
2009	20th Mar 11:44	22nd Sep 21:18
2010	20th Mar 17:32	23rd Sep 03:09
2011	20th Mar 23:21	23rd Sep 09:04
2012	20th Mar 05:14	22nd Sep 14:49
2013	20th Mar 11:02	22nd Sep 20:44
2014	20th Mar 16:57	23rd Sep 02:29
2015	20th Mar 22:45	23rd Sep 08:20

In the Northern Hemisphere, the March equinox is known as the vernal (spring) equinox and the September equinox is the autumnal (autumn) equinox. In the Southern Hemisphere, these names are transposed. The March equinox typically falls on either March 20 or 21 and the September equinox on September 22 or 23 – the dates vary because the tropical year is not a whole number of days. Because the Earth's orbit is elliptical, the dates on which the equinoxes fall do not divide the year into equal halves. The equinoxes can also be interpreted as virtual points in the sky. Although, during full daylight, stars other than the sun are overwhelmed by sunlight, making it hard to see where the sun is compared to other celestial bodies, the sun does have a position (as seen from the Earth) relative to the other stars. As the Earth moves around the sun, the apparent position of the sun relative to the other stars moves in a full circle over the period of a year. This circle is called the ecliptic, and is also the plane of the Earth's orbit projected against the whole sky. The other bright planets like Venus, Mars and Saturn, also appear to move along the ecliptic, because their orbits are in a similar plane to Earth's. Another virtual circle in the sky is the celestial equator, or the projection of the plane of the Earth's equator against the whole sky. Because the Earth's axis of rotation is tilted relative to the plane of Earth's orbit around the sun, the celestial equator is inclined to the ecliptic. Twice a year, the sun, making its progress around the ecliptic, crosses the plane of the Earth's equator. These two points are the equinoxes. The time at which the sun passes through each equinox point can be calculated precisely—so the equinox is actually a particular moment, rather than a whole day.

Apparent behaviour of the sun

On the equinoxes, everywhere over the globe, the sun rises true east (parallel to lines of latitude), sets at true west, and the length of the day equals the length of the night.

March equinox

At the North pole the sun passes from a 6-month-long night to a 6-month-long day. At the Arctic circle the sun reaches an altitude of 23° in the South. At the Tropic of Cancer the sun reaches an altitude of 67° in the South. At the equator the sun rises in a vertical line from the East on the horizon to the zenith, and then sets in a vertical line from the zenith to the West on the horizon. At the Tropic of Capricorn the sun reaches an altitude of 67° in the North. At the Antarctic circle the sun reaches an altitude of 23° in the North. At the South pole the sun passes from a 6-month-long day to a 6-month-long night.

September equinox

At the North pole the sun passes from a 6-month-long day to a 6-month-long night. At the Arctic circle the sun reaches an altitude of 23° in the South. At the Tropic of Cancer the sun reaches an altitude of 67° in the South. At the equator the sun rises in a vertical line from the East on the horizon to the zenith, and then sets in a vertical line from the zenith to the West on the horizon. At the Tropic of Capricorn the sun reaches an altitude of 67° in the North. At the Antarctic circle the sun reaches an altitude of 23° in the North. At the South pole the sun passes from a 6-month-long night to a 6-month-long day.

Equinoctial point

The equinoctial point occurs twice a year (around March 21st and September 23rd), when the sun passes through the equinox. At this point (equinoctial point) the length of the day and night are the same.

Weißenfels (district)

History

Geography

Coat of arms

Towns and municipalities

External links

Saxony Anhalt

Geography

Administrative subdivision

History

List of minister presidents of Saxony-Anhalt

1945-1952

1990 to date

Economy

Anthem

External link

Burgenlandkreis

History

Geography

Coat of arms

Towns and municipalities

External links

Merseburg-Querfurt

History

Geography

Coat of arms

Towns and municipalities

External links

Leipziger Land

History

Geography

Coat of arms

Towns and municipalities

External links

Archaeology

Ontology and definition

Importance and applicability

Goals

Academic sub-disciplines

Cultural resources management

Field methods

Survey

Excavation

Post-excavation analysis

History of archaeology

Archaeological theory

Public archaeology

Pseudoarchaeology

Looting

Public outreach

Descendant peoples

Repatriation

Related topics

External links

Further reading

Stonehenge

Etymology

Development of Stonehenge

Stonehenge 1

Stonehenge 2

Stonehenge 3i

Stonehenge 3ii

Stonehenge 3iii

Stonehenge 3iv

Stonehenge 3v

Stonehenge 3vi

Theories about Stonehenge

Early interpretations

Archaeoastronomy and Stonehenge

The bluestones

Stonehenge as part of a ritual landscape

Construction techniques and design

Alternative views

Excavations at Stonehenge

Myths and legends

Recent history

Laser scanning the Bronze Age dagger and axes at Stonehenge

Replicas and derivative names

See also

References