Timber Circles - Could they be buildings

[Geoff Carter]

I have floated the idea in my blog, that Timber circles were large annular buildings. This is based on my analysis of these structures using my own methodology developed over the last twenty years of studying postholes, which I refer to Theoretical Structural Archaeology.

I study postholes and try to understand them structurally, as engineering and architecture, and I do not concern myself about the wider arguments based on not understanding them; calling things ‘ritual’ is one up from ‘activity’ as a euphemism for ‘people did something here’, [but we have no real idea of what/why/etc.].

Peter has sent me a very good well-argued piece about his belief that they were freestanding timber analogues of stone circles, which is the generally accepted view of the subject.

[Geoff Carter]

Peter Dunn said:
I wanted to comment on Geoff’s blog re timber circles and Mike PP’s ideas.
I am sure Mike doesn’t need me to defend his ideas but for what it is worth, I have worked with Mike in the past and closely followed the Stonehenge Riverside Project, his ideas appear to me to be as considered and solid as any other archaeologist I have worked with (there have been quite a few) and far more so than some, I would have thought that the success of the SRP speaks for its self. Not the least of his attributes is he is enthusiastic and good to work with and has respect for others work, and importantly for mine too.
I am working my way though Theoretical Structural Archaeology, enjoying it and agreeing with a lot of the points made particularly on the interpretation or lack of interpretation of many aspects of sites with post holes and other sites in general particularly the preconceptions of excavators and simplistic or wrong explanations (or no explanation) trotted out to the public.
However the part of the proper study of mankind is post holes concerning timber circles particularly Durrington and Woodhenge I think is wrong. There is a good explanation of the changing interpretation of these monuments in Alex Gibson’s Stonehenge and Timber Circles chapter 6 and in Mike Pitt’s Henge World. Maud Cunnington the excavator of Woodhenge and the Sanctuary considered that woodhenge was the prototype for Stonehenge of free standing posts possibly with lintels echoing earlier views on Stonehenge’s “imitation of wooden architecture” and was also not convinced that the Sanctuary was roofed and Grahame Clark concluded that Arminghall was an open air temple . The roofed hypothesis had been proposed for Woodhenge by Cunnington’s nephew and much later by Stuart Piggot in 1940 drawing analogy with Brazilian round houses and Omaha Native American lodges but didn’t think this relevant to all timber circles. True the excavator of Durrington Geof Wainwright in the 60’s did go with the roofed building theory but in the Durrington Walls report Chris Musson although considering roofed building forms for Woodhenge, Durrington south and north and the Sanctuary concludes that “ the best hope for an all- embracing explanation lies in the idea of ritual or symbolic settings of free standing posts”.
In the usual calculations for interpreting the depth/height/diameter and function of the posts at Durrington and Woodhenge the depth of the largest rings of posts appear to be to a greater depth than would be nesseccary for a roofed building, the roof structure adding greater stability to the posts, but their depth is explained if they are interpreted as free standing with that extra need for stability.
Alex Gibson excavated Sarn y brn caled and considered it to be freestanding and linteled this emphasising the circularity of the arrangement.
The Riverside Project has recently produced further information for Durrington which makes the roofed theory unlikely for the S. Circle. There is no evidence of erosion due to the amount of water runoff which would come from such a large roof, the north western side of the circle is definitely incomplete in rows 2A and 2B in the area excavated to see if there was a rear entrance, this unfinished character making a roof unlikely. There is a tantalising possibility that a tree throw which occupies the position of the “missing” posts and contains worked flint possibly deliberately deposited , contained a standing tree incorporated into the circle or that the throw was surrounded by posts.
Then there is my own contribution to the debate for what it is worth (depending on whether you think reconstruction illustration/art influences archaeological thought) this I came up with when drawing a pen and ink illustration for Mike Parker Pearson’s Bronze Age Britain in 1992/93. I drew 4 different reconstructions of the south timber circle at Durrington they were based on the various theories proposed already, however these timber circles fascinated me and I spent many hours reading the Durrington volume and particularly pouring over the plans of the circles. It occurred to me that after the enormous entrance posts lead you into the circle the route to the centre was blocked by the posts 84 and 95 of rows D and C which lead you to the left in a clockwise and sun wise route between these rows. Since the idea of the free standing theory seemed more likely to me, Stonehenge was not roofed so why should timber versions of the same type of structure and if there were lintels as at Stonehenge then if you put lintels on the posts of the processional route this gave an extra sense of direction and force to the route it also fitted with the partial rammed chalk path on that route. Mike was ok with this idea and later showed me an article from I think Current Archaeology on Alex Gibbon’s reconstruction of Sarn y brn caled with lintels and pointing out how they enhanced the circularity of the monument which is certainly the case. So I think I may have been the first to suggest this route through the timbers.
Later in 1993 I did a colour eyelevel reconstruction of the Durrington South circle for the Grimes Graves guide which I suggested to the author as an example of the enormous constructions undertaken with flint and stone axes, this reconstruction has been used over and over again in EH books, guide books, exhibitions, other publications on the Neolithic and to illustrate the discovery of the massive (timber) rings at Stanton Drew in all the quality press in 1996. It also shows the circle with that same route accentuated by the use of lintels, due to the paintings use so many times and in so many types of media I hope this might have planted the idea elsewhere or got people to look again at what now appears to be the current interpretation amongst the experts.
The point is that no one has been suggesting that because the structure was probably not roofed this makes the structure less sophisticated or complex in fact they seem far more so, or that the people that built this and similar massive undertakings were a bit thick because they couldn’t get out of the rain and cold. The uncovering of the possibly hundreds of sophisticated and high status dwellings surrounding the circles at Durrington suggests that they could have open air ritual and a degree of comfort.

[Geoff Carter]

A couple of years ago I was looking at a different problem with large late Iron Age structures; there is a limit beyond which it is impractical to build a conical roof, due to the nature of tree growth and conical geometry.

Circular buildings wider than c.17m require an annular roof structure, however this provides the possibility of an open area at the centre, or a secondary conical roof, and is a practical way of creating larger roofed areas. This form off structure is subject to the same limits in relation to rafter length, c.17m being the maximum width of such a roof.

From my perspective the number, positioning, load distribution, and layout of posts in timber circles is designed to facilitate the construction of a roof, they are sized between 40’ –50’ this being the optimum size of a roof truss in this period.

I can think of no conceivable reason for builders to layout a perfectly viable building of this type, holding perhaps 1500 people, focused on a central area, and then not put a roof on it.

What do we imagine went on there?
What did they do when it rained?

I don’t consider any argument that involves spurious ethnographic parallels as having any merit in discussions of built environments. You cannot just randomly pick built environments from other parts of the world and start making inferences about archaeological evidence for structures built for different environments, with different materials and by entirely unrelated cultures, (it’s the sort of thing we condemn Eric von Däniken for).

Thus, one aspect of current thinking I find particularly strange is the symbolism argument:
Stone represents death in Madagascar
Therefore: Stone circles represent death
Therefore: Timber circles represent life [qed]
This cannot work for SE England where there is no stone and some northern areas where there is no timber.
If I am correct, think of the work it will generate for you!

[Peter Dunn]

Sorry about the length of time to respond I am slow at this type of communication.
I find these structures and this period so fascinating it isn’t enough to just try and understand them structurally, the why and what for are as important as whether they were structurally sound, fell down in the first strong wind or had a roof (or not). In the last 50 years good reconstruction paintings have populated sites with people hopefully doing appropriate things, reflecting the current evidence and archaeological theories or even starting some new directions of thought. Working with artists on reconstructions many archaeologists say the process generates new questions and questions old assumptions good reconstructions are part of the archaeological process and one of the best interpretation tools informing academics and public. To not try and understand “people did something here what was it” is like some reconstructions, devoid of humanity and atmosphere with a lonely figure put in for scale.
At Durrington and Stonehenge there is clear evidence of some of the activities taking place in or around both sites and it isn’t too difficult to infer from this evidence why the people who constructed, developed and used these sites over hundreds of years were performing these activities, ritual also appears to be a fair description of some of the activities.
At Durrington South Timber Circle there are stone, flint and bone objects, antler picks and pottery deposited in a structured way at the base of the timbers and after they had rotted, many young pigs were shot with arrows and feasting appears to have taken place probably at a winter festival, there are probably hundreds of well built houses with built in wooden furniture, hearths are sealed when houses are deserted and houses are covered by the massive bank or demolished as the ditch is dug to encircle the decayed timbers and “special” houses. Surely a place associated with people doing things of a life affirming nature in a ritual or celebratory way?
Stonehenge was a cremation cemetery for an estimated at 240 people from the construction of the ditch bank and Aubrey Holes 3000 BC, until the arrival of the sarsens around 2400BC, Durrington has only 2 pieces of human bone, no Neolithic houses have yet been found around Stonehenge. Although there are probably timber structures at Stonehenge possibly with bluestone settings before the erection of the sarsens, while the timbers rotted at Durrington the Stones at Stonehenge were rearranged, the design becoming more complicated echoing the concentric timbers of Durington. Two parts of a complex of monuments linked in design the use of different materials symbolising permanence (of death?) and decay (of life?). No spurious ethnographic parallels needed.
The parallels between Durrington and Stonehenge included the indication that there is some limiting or at least channelling of people as the monuments are approached and again the further in to the centre you get both have avenues and facades along processional routes so perhaps many less than 1500 people actually got to the centre.
If it rained they would get wet as at Stonehenge then nip back to their house where the fire was blazing away for a pig kebab or perhaps they all had good wet and cold weather wear ala Otzi. Performing outdoor activities possibly in the rain seems an absolutely reasonable thing to do compared with moving moderately heavy stones hundreds of miles from all parts of west and south Wales, very heavy stones 20 miles from the Marlborough downs or huge timbers equally far. People had been gathering at Causewayed Enclosures wondering up and down Cursus monuments in the open and thousands of people have sat or stood in all weathers to watch football, rugby and that strange inexplicable 5 day ritual, usually with an indecisive ending, called cricket.
In all areas of the country there are differing constructions of earth, timber and stone in a variety of combinations no doubt due to the available local supplies or as at Stonehenge and probably other places the willingness to get what was deemed essential at some inconvenience.
I cannot say what might be the case in the South East of England for it is a strange land beyond comprehension.
Returning to the question of timber structures and roofs I am not an engineer or architect but from the extremely well constructed arguments in your blog I can see that some of these timber structures could have had roofs although I would point out again that Chris Musson regarded it unlikely in the Durrington Volume for Woodhenge and Durrington the size of the structure at Stanton Drew would rule it out. What of the timber palisades and structures at West Kennet or Greyhound Yard Dorchester?
Thanks for the comment about the lefty in the Battle of Hastings pic he may just be there to frame the image nicely, it is some years ago I painted it. But he also portrays the traditional English round shield, axe and skirted chainmail as they have all sometimes been shown when the majority of Armoured English appear form the Bayeux Tapestry to be equipped similarly to the Norman forces. In a drawing I did for an exhibition at Portchester all the soldiers on board a Roman warship are lefties for some reason.


Geoff Carter said:

A couple of years ago I was looking at a different problem with large late Iron Age structures; there is a limit beyond which it is impractical to build a conical roof, due to the nature of tree growth and conical geometry.

Circular buildings wider than c.17m require an annular roof structure, however this provides the possibility of an open area at the centre, or a secondary conical roof, and is a practical way of creating larger roofed areas. This form off structure is subject to the same limits in relation to rafter length, c.17m being the maximum width of such a roof.

From my perspective the number, positioning, load distribution, and layout of posts in timber circles is designed to facilitate the construction of a roof, they are sized between 40’ –50’ this being the optimum size of a roof truss in this period.

I can think of no conceivable reason for builders to layout a perfectly viable building of this type, holding perhaps 1500 people, focused on a central area, and then not put a roof on it.

What do we imagine went on there?
What did they do when it rained?

I don’t consider any argument that involves spurious ethnographic parallels as having any merit in discussions of built environments. You cannot just randomly pick built environments from other parts of the world and start making inferences about archaeological evidence for structures built for different environments, with different materials and by entirely unrelated cultures, (it’s the sort of thing we condemn Eric von Däniken for).

Thus, one aspect of current thinking I find particularly strange is the symbolism argument:
Stone represents death in Madagascar
Therefore: Stone circles represent death
Therefore: Timber circles represent life [qed]
This cannot work for SE England where there is no stone and some northern areas where there is no timber.
If I am correct, think of the work it will generate for you!

[Geoff Carter]

Sorry to take so long to reply, like you writing is not my forte, but unlike you I am a poor artist. I have been working on a post which covers these buildings, and I will return to the topic in detail in a later post, but it is not a priority.
http://structuralarchaeology.blogspot.com/2009/06/30-not-going-with...

There has been a great deal of investment in the ‘ritual’ view. It is a fantastic conceit; it basically means they don’t understand it, but won’t admit it. This gives them licence to print as many words of speculation as they like. These structures can be mythologized, which gives full reign to ‘theoretical’ archaeologists to make up whatever stories they like.

My explanations are practical and define the probable height, load, and function of each post in three dimensions, as a result of following a rational and repeatable methodology.

If a monument is ‘ritual’ you don’t have to define what it actually is, represents, or symbolises, but this allows you to not explain it in the most complex terms imaginable, with reference to just about anything care to imagine. Thus, they may relate to the ritual practices of the Ngwato tribe of the Limpopo basin, or be created by left-handed people who’s favourite colour was blue, - anything your ‘authority or standing’ in the archaeological will allow you to get away with.
They could be caused by a mass outbreak of communal maypole dancing, or be symbolic of the founding ancestors penis, around which they sat/ danced / made offering to, outdoors, in the winter and autumn, in England. I would favour dancing, that way you keep warm.
When I ask people to explain why they think these buildings are free standing, it comes down to ‘Prof X says so’, - probably an expert on ‘ritual’, in other words a specialist in not understanding things and explaining them away. Without any decent arguments or logic archaeology becomes religion, we ‘believe’ on the strength of the priests authority, but at the expense rational thought and our own understanding.

Reconstructions, asides from the artistic ability and imagination of the artists, are only as good as the brief, if the brief is vague so will be the result. ‘Ritual’ is a deliberately vague term; it’s a term of last resort to avoid admitting we don’t actually understand.
There is also a problem with ‘visual feedback’, theory informs the art, the art then reinforces and feeds the theory, and so on. People are now developing their ideas around the pictures and not the original evidence.

Artists like yourself have a far greater impact on peoples’ conception of the past than you might imagine, probably greater even than the words they read. Pictures, while they might have fuzzy bits, don’t include caveats and ‘either/ors’; they are a simple, easy to understand, statement with little room for ambiguity.