Beyond Stonehenge: Uncovering the Forgotten World of Neolithic Henges and Their Cosmic Connections
- apeach5
- Nov 4, 2024
- 12 min read
Updated: Jun 2
Introduction
A henge is a type of prehistoric earthwork structure from the Neolithic and early Bronze Age, dating back roughly 3000–2000 BC. It features a distinctive circular or oval earthen enclosure defined by an outer ring-shaped bank and an inner ditch, which enclose a central area. Although fewer than 100 surviving examples exist across Britain and Ireland today, it’s likely that many more henges were originally constructed. Typically, henges feature one or more causeways—openings that cut through the bank and ditch to provide access to the central circle. When two causeways are present, they often align directly opposite each other across the enclosure. Most henges range from 20 to 100 metres in diameter, though monumental examples, termed "superhenges" (like Durrington Walls and Avebury in Wiltshire), measure up to 500 metres across.
The term "henge" originates from Stonehenge, Britain’s most iconic prehistoric site, also located in Wiltshire. Although Stonehenge is famous, it does not technically qualify as a true henge, as its main ditch lies outside the primary bank rather than inside, as in most henges. Stonehenge is unique in many ways, for instance its stone “doorways” or trilithons—three-stone structures with horizontal lintels supported by vertical stones— that likely inspired the “henge” term, which may derive from an Old English word for “hanging” or “suspended.” Despite often being overshadowed by other Neolithic monuments like stone circles, long barrows or passage graves, henges held a prominent place within Neolithic society. Beyond ceremonial uses, these circular enclosures likely fulfilled social, astronomical, and symbolic roles.
Despite their architectural complexity and significance in Neolithic society, henges have often been overshadowed in archaeological literature by burial-focused monuments like long barrows and passage graves. This marginalisation may be attributed to the challenges in interpreting henge functions due to their open, artefact-sparse interiors and fewer direct clues regarding their purpose. Only recently, through advancements in archaeological and archaeoastronomical methods, have henges begun to receive renewed attention as intricate ritual landscapes that challenge earlier, oversimplified interpretations.
In this post I will explore the architecture of henges, their regional variations, and their potential roles in Neolithic cosmology, social structure, and connections with other contemporary structures like causewayed enclosures and cursus monuments. By examining sites such as Arbour Low, Avebury, Brodgar, Durrington Walls, Maumbury Rings, Mayburgh, Thornborough and Knowlton Circles, this analysis will highlight the varied forms and functions of henges within Neolithic culture and ritual practice.
Architectural Overview, Regional Variations.
Henges exhibit a range of architectural forms, influenced by regional practices, environmental factors, and cultural beliefs. Their defining feature—a circular or oval earthwork enclosure with an internal ditch—often includes additional structures like concentric rings, timber posts, or stone circles.
Differences in building materials further underscore the regional and symbolic distinctions among henges. In sites like Durrington Walls and Stonehenge, the contrast between wooden and stone elements within and outside the henges may represent a division between realms of the living and the dead. Mike Parker-Pearson argues that Durrington Walls, with evidence of wooden monuments, habitation, feasting, and domestic activities, symbolised community and life, whereas Stonehenge’s stone settings and landscape represented ancestral realms (Parker-Pearson, 2012). This timber-stone dichotomy illustrates the symbolic layering within henge architecture, with stone possibly evoking permanence and lineage, and timber suggesting the impermanence of life as Parker-Pearson suggests.
While henges are commonly associated with communal rituals, they may also have fulfilled other social and astronomical purposes. The carefully maintained, artefact-sparse interiors of many henges indicate that they were revered spaces, reserved for ritual rather than daily life (Pollard, 2008). However, evidence at Durrington Walls complicates this interpretation. Here, a plethora of domestic artefacts and animal bones, unearthed in association with large-scale feasting events, suggests that henges could also host lively gatherings, perhaps linked to seasonal cycles or community celebrations.
The architectural diversity observed across henge sites may reflect underlying social distinctions among Neolithic communities. Regional variations—such as timber henges in southern England and stone circles in northern Scotland—indicate different cultural priorities and resources that influenced each community's choice of building material. These variations suggest that henges, while united by their circular form, represented localised expressions of identity and cosmology, with each community adapting the structure to meet both practical and symbolic needs within its unique landscape.
Burials at Henges
Human remains found at some henges reflect varied burial practices, often located at specific points within the monument. Burials frequently appear at key locations, such as ditch terminals, entrance causeways, or near central circles, suggesting these spaces held sacred significance. Some henges contain cremated remains placed in pottery or pits, while others feature inhumations, or unburned bodies, in shallow graves. The choice to place burials along the periphery rather than centrally may reflect a desire to maintain the interior as a ritual space dedicated to ceremonies or community gatherings.
The selective placement of burials around henge boundaries also hints at the symbolic or cosmological beliefs associated with death and the afterlife. Peripheral burials could signify a spatial division between realms of the living and the dead, with the centre reserved for communal or ritual functions. This arrangement may align with a cosmological worldview, symbolically reinforcing a divide between life cycles and death or mirroring beliefs about transitions between worlds.
Interestingly, henges sometimes contain only a few individuals, suggesting a degree of selectivity in burial practices. While not all henges contain human remains, many feature non-human deposits, such as animal bones or artefacts, possibly serving as offerings or dedications. This variety in burial and deposit practices illustrates the diverse ways henges were utilised across regions, with both burials and artefacts reflecting localised beliefs, social structures, or ritual expressions.
Henges, Long Barrows, Chambered Tombs, and Causewayed Enclosures
Henges share symbolic and spatial relationships with earlier Neolithic structures like long barrows and chambered tombs. These earlier monuments, such as the West Kennet Long Barrow, often served as communal burial sites, reinforcing kinship and collective identity through shared ancestry. As henges began to emerge, they seem to have supplanted long barrows as focal points for ritual, symbolising a shift from communal burial to more varied ceremonial practices (Piggott, 1962).
The development of henges was also influenced by causewayed enclosures, which predate them and show signs of communal activities, including gatherings, feasting, and occasional conflict. Sites like Windmill Hill and Hambledon Hill reveal that these early enclosures acted as hubs for social and economic exchange, a role that may have shaped the function of later henge sites. Archaeologist Francis Pryor suggests that causewayed enclosures provided a model for the more formalised ceremonial sites that henges represent (Pryor, 2011). This transition from causewayed enclosures to henges may reflect an evolution in ritual practices, as henges introduced more structured and spatially defined ceremonial spaces.
Many henges appear integrated into a wider network of Neolithic monuments, creating a landscape of interconnected ritual sites. At Avebury, for example, the arrangement of the henge, nearby stone circles, and adjacent avenues suggests deliberate alignment and sightlines between these features, reinforcing their interconnected roles within a ritual landscape. Such spatial relationships are mirrored at complexes like Thornborough Henges, where cursus monuments may have functioned as processional pathways, leading individuals toward the henges in structured ceremonies. These interactions highlight the communal aspect of henges, framing them as centres within larger ceremonial landscapes designed to enhance collective experience and connection to both land and cosmos (Gillings & Pollard, 2004).
Avebury Henge.
Avebury Henge, located in Wiltshire, England, is one of the largest and most complex Neolithic monuments in Europe. Constructed around 2500 BC, this massive earthwork and stone circle complex is part of a wider ritual landscape that includes Silbury Hill, West Kennet Long Barrow, and numerous smaller barrows and avenues. The site spans over 28 acres, making it one of the largest prehistoric stone circles in the world, with a circumference of approximately 1.3 kilometres.The henge itself consists of a deep ditch and high bank, encircling a large area that holds two smaller stone circles. This is a classic feature of henges, but the size of Avebury’s ditch and bank is particularly impressive. The ditch was originally up to 11 metres deep, while the bank would have been about 6 metres high, likely creating a sense of enclosure and separation from the outside world. The size of the original chalk cut white bank has puzzled archaeologists for many years. Researcher Terrance Mann describes this huge white bank as a representation of the Milky Way which at that time would have been at an angle of rising that laid it flat to the horizon encircling it entirely like the bank. Mann goes on to argue that Avebury was built:
“…on such a scale that it seems their goal was to incorporate the spirit of everything into the fabric of the monument. The Neolithic people wanted Avebury to be a mirror of the cosmos, a place that honoured, told and retold all its stories…this place was a powerful expression of their identity, and their relationship with the surrounding forces of nature and the cosmos.”
I have written about Mann’s thesis in more detail in a previous blog post here.
The Thornborough Henges
The Thornborough Henges in North Yorkshire also stand out as a unique henge complex in Britain. Comprising three henges aligned in a linear formation over approximately 1.6 kilometres, Thornborough is part of an extensive ritual landscape that includes other henges, cursus monuments, and burial mounds. Each henge features a circular bank and ditch with opposing causeways, placing it among the largest henge sites in Britain and comparable to superhenges like Avebury. The alignment of the three henges suggests a high degree of planning and social cooperation, indicating a level of communal effort beyond individual henge sites.
Although many British henges contain internal standing stones or timber circles, no clear evidence has been found for such structures at Thornborough, possibly due to erosion or later disturbances. However, nearby burial mounds suggest that the area may have functioned as a ceremonial or funerary landscape, reinforcing the idea that henges like Thornborough served as central sites for ritual, memory, and communal identity within the broader Neolithic landscape.
The unique alignment of the Thornborough Henges is often cited as resembling the configuration of Orion’s Belt, an astronomical theory suggesting a celestial connection. However, this interpretation remains speculative, as there is little concrete evidence to confirm a deliberate association with Orion beyond visual similarity. Alternative theories propose that the Thornborough Henges align with natural landmarks or river courses, supporting their possible function as processional pathways or ceremonial sites.
The Henge and the Heavens: Thom’s Astronomical Theories and Their Critics.
Alexander Thom, a pioneering figure in the study of Neolithic monuments, proposed that many stone circles and henges were intentionally aligned with astronomical events, functioning as sophisticated calendrical systems. Through meticulous fieldwork, Thom suggested that monuments like the Ring of Brodgar, Callanish, and Stonehenge were designed with remarkable precision to track solar and lunar cycles as well as other significant celestial events (Thom, 1971). According to Thom, the builders of these sites demonstrated advanced astronomical knowledge, creating alignments that may have functioned as large-scale observatories to time seasonal cycles, mark the passage of time, and enhance ritual activities.
Astronomical alignments at henges obviously begs the question, did they function as observatories? Stonehenge is renowned for its precise solar alignment, and other henges display similar, though less dramatic, orientations toward celestial events. Arbour Low in Derbyshire, for instance, although its stones are now fallen, may have been designed to align with lunar or solar cycles, hinting at its use as a ritual calendar (Barnatt, 1990). Some henges, such as the Ring of Brodgar in Orkney, stand out for their monumental scale and the astronomical alignments encoded in their layout. Brodgar’s stone circle, for instance, aligns with the midsummer sunrise and midwinter sunset, hinting at its role as a solar observatory or calendar guiding agricultural cycles or ceremonial events. Originally comprising 60 standing stones, of which 27 survive, Brodgar’s design likely involved considerable planning to reflect significant solar and lunar phenomena (Higginbottom et al., 2015).
Dorset henge Maumbury Rings original layout may also have included astronomical alignments, comparable to other henge sites (Barber, 2016). Similarly, Knowlton Circles in Dorset—a complex with three distinct henges—suggest possible symbolic connections to nearby cursus monuments, although firm astronomical evidence remains inconclusive (Darvill, 1987).
Mayburgh Henge in Cumbria, which contains a single central standing stone, offers a more enigmatic form of alignment. While it lacks the same level of astronomical precision as Stonehenge, its unique layout suggests it may have held special ceremonial significance. Ruggles notes that Mayburgh Henge lacks the precise solstice or lunar alignments found at more structured henges, such as those in southern Britain. However, the main entrance of Mayburgh, aligned towards the east, could suggest an orientation towards the sunrise at certain times of the year. This entrance, along with other subtle alignments in the henge, might have had a general astronomical function, possibly oriented towards equinoctial or seasonal observations rather than the specific solstitial orientations.
The lack of definitive, precise alignments at Mayburgh compared to other henges implies that astronomical function may not have been the henge's primary purpose. Instead, Ruggles and other researchers suggest that the monument's role could have been more symbolic or social, perhaps even ceremonial, rather than strictly observational. This contrasts with monuments like Stonehenge or the Ring of Brodgar, where clear alignments reinforce their potential roles as calendrical or ritual structures intimately linked to the sun and moon. (Ruggles, 1999).
These examples highlight how henges adapted over time, serving multifunctional roles that ranged from ceremonial to communal, illustrating their lasting importance within the Neolithic landscape.
Despite the evidence of astronomical alignments built into neolithic monuments, Thom’s theories, have faced significant criticism and revision. While Thom’s meticulous research on henge alignments revolutionised our understanding of their potential astronomical functions, his conclusions are often viewed with caution by contemporary archaeologists. Critics, including Clive Ruggles, argue that while Thom’s measurements revealed undeniable alignment patterns, his interpretations may overestimate the intentionality behind each orientation. Thom’s view presupposes that Neolithic builders prioritised strict calendrical accuracy, an assumption that modern scholars increasingly challenge. Instead, many archaeologists propose that henge alignments reflect broader symbolic relationships with celestial bodies, representing cosmological beliefs rather than serving as precise observatories (Ruggles, 1999). This nuanced approach suggests that while astronomy likely influenced henge construction, its role was one of many within a multidimensional social and spiritual landscape.
Despite these critiques, Thom’s work remains foundational in archeoastronomy, inspiring research that both builds on and critiques his findings. Recent studies on sites such as the Ring of Brodgar and Stonehenge have confirmed the likelihood of certain solar alignments, though often framed within a broader interpretive context that also considers social and ritual dimensions. Scholars today approach Thom’s theories with more nuance, acknowledging the role of astronomical alignment while recognising the interplay of spatial symbolism, social function, and ritual that likely characterised these sites. Thom’s contributions thus remain invaluable, providing a foundation for modern interpretations that explore the multidimensional significance of henges within Neolithic society.
Conclusion
Henges stand as some of the most captivating yet somewhat overlooked monuments of Neolithic Britain, embodying a sophisticated range of functions, symbolism, and architectural ingenuity that shaped the prehistoric landscape. These circular earthworks reflect the complex cultural practices and cosmological understanding of Neolithic societies. From their architectural distinctiveness to the precision of certain astronomical alignments, henges reveal a society that valued spatial orientation deeply, potentially aligning with solar, lunar, and social cycles to mark time and enhance communal gatherings.
The evolution of henge construction and use—from sites incorporating burials to those seemingly dedicated to seasonal gatherings—demonstrates a dynamic interpretation of space and purpose. Iconic henges like Stonehenge, Avebury, and the Orkney complexes reveal not only the technical prowess of their builders but also suggest complex ritual practices that resist easy categorisation. These spaces may have served as social hubs, gathering sites, or locations for rituals bridging the living with the cosmos. Furthermore, the interrelationship between henges and other Neolithic structures, such as causewayed enclosures and cursus monuments, underscores the interconnectedness of ceremonial landscapes, where each element likely held a distinct yet complementary role.
Modern archaeological methods and technological advancements are reshaping our understanding of these monuments, challenging previous interpretations and unlocking new perspectives on Neolithic cosmology and worldview. Examining henges through diverse lenses—from physical architecture to ritualistic implications—scholars are revealing a more nuanced appreciation of these enigmatic structures. Far from being forgotten, henges are emerging as architectural marvels and pivotal elements in the spiritual and communal lives of Neolithic societies, reflecting an intricate worldview that integrated the environment, celestial patterns, and human experience. In this light, henges deserve renewed attention and recognition as significant, multifaceted sites within the Neolithic heritage of Britain.
In the past, the ambiguity surrounding henge functions led to their comparative neglect in the study of Neolithic Britain. However, new analytical tools and methodologies have reshaped our understanding, highlighting henges as complex and multifunctional structures deserving of scholarly focus. Advances in archaeoastronomy, soil analysis, and digital reconstruction now allow researchers to reconstruct henge sites with unprecedented detail, revealing their nuanced roles in Neolithic cosmology and social life. As these structures regain the attention they merit, henges are emerging not only as architectural achievements but also as central elements in the ceremonial and spiritual lives of prehistoric communities. This rediscovery challenges us to appreciate the sophistication of Neolithic society, inspiring a renewed sense of wonder and respect for these ‘forgotten’ monuments within Britain’s ancient landscape.
Bibliography
Barber, M. (2016). Stone Circles of the British Isles and Brittany. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Barnatt, J. (1990). The Henges, Stone Circles, and Ringcairns of the Peak District. Sheffield: J.R. Collis Publications.
Cummings, V., & Richards, C. (2020). Monuments in the Making: Relational Approaches to Neolithic Monuments in Scotland. Oxford: Windgather Press.
Darvill, T. (1987). Prehistoric Britain from the Air: A Study of Space, Time, and Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gillings, M., & Pollard, J. (2004). Avebury. London: Duckworth
Higginbottom, G., Tonner, P., & Curtis, N. (2015). "Revealing the Structures of Prehistoric Perception: An Archaeoastronomical Study of the Neolithic Monuments of Orkney." Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 25(1), pp. 55-69.
Mann, N. (2012). Avebury Cosmos: The Neolithic World of Avebury henge, Silbury Hill, West Kennet long barrow, the Sanctuary & the Longstones Cove. Moon Books:
Parker Pearson, M. (2012). Stonehenge: Exploring the Greatest Stone Age Mystery. London: Simon & Schuster.
Peach, A. (2024) https://www.stonetemplegardening.com/post/the-neolithic-world-and-the-astronomy-of-avebury-stone-circle-silbury-hill-west-kennet-long-barrow
Piggott, S. (1962). The West Kennet Long Barrow: Excavations 1955-56. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
Pollard, J. (2008). "Circles of Stone and Circles of Wood: Henges and Timber Circles in Neolithic Britain." Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 27(3), pp. 209-223.
Pryor, F. (2011). Britain BC: Life in Britain and Ireland Before the Romans. London: HarperCollins.
Renfrew, C. (1973). Before Civilization: The Radiocarbon Revolution and Prehistoric Europe. London: Penguin.
Ruggles, C. (1999). Astronomy in Prehistoric Britain and Ireland. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Thom, A. (1971). Megalithic Sites in Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
#AncientSacredSites #HistoricalMysteries #AncientWonders #PrehistoricMonuments #Archaeology #AncientHistory #SacredLandscapes #CulturalHeritage #MegalithicSites #Stonehenge #StonehengeMystery #StonehengeHistory #StonehengeSecrets #Avebury #AveburyStoneCircle #AveburyMystery #AveburyHistory #AncientRituals #NeolithicCulture #MegalithicMonuments #SpiritualJourneys #HistoricLandmarks
Comments