Situated at Overton Hill just over four miles west of Marlborough adjacent to a lay-by on the A4, there was once a megalithic series of circles called `The Sanctuary´. According to William Stukeley the site had been completely destroyed in 1724 by two farmers, Green and Griffiths, who had mined it for its stone, and it had become only a local folk tale until Maude Cunnington excavated the area in 1930.¹ In what was then known as Mill Field she found the remains of six timber rings arranged in concentric circles. Today only concrete slabs remain to indicate the presence of what was an extraordinary series of circles. Although the sequence of construction is entirely conjectural there is evidence that the timber outer ring of around 129.7 feet in diameter and the third ring of 46.8 feet diameter, were at some point replaced by stone megaliths. Corroboration for which is astonishingly easy to find. Samuel Pepys for example, noted in his famous diary that on June 15 ^th 1668 he had passed The Sanctuary in a coach and seen for himself the great stones of its construction.² Aubrey likewise wrote a similar description describing two concentric Sarsen rings of around five feet in height.³

The most curious fact about The Sanctuary is the presence of stone fragments in virtually all of the holes, which indicates once again that cohesive planning was taking place. Many of these stone fragments were Sarsen stone chippings that showed either scorch marks or fracturing by fire, but in hole number 27 in ` C' ring a unique deposit of nephrite was found. This volcanic material originated from the eastern side of Eifel in the Rhineland and was shown by the excavator to have remained undisturbed for over 4000 years.⁴ So what was so special about this rock, that caused it to be carried from Germany to Wiltshire to be deposited in a religious edifice?

We will probably never know, but its presence serves to emphasize the sacredness of the site. An impression reinforced by the presence on early plans of an avenue that radiates out from the centre of the circle towards the henge at Avebury, confirming an integral connection with Avebury, which lies some one and a half miles towards the Northwest. If you stand at the centre of the site and gaze towards the left-hand entrance stone, (depicted as Y) you will find that this extended line points towards Silbury Hill, which lies around half a mile away down the slope. If you stare to the right, and through point Z you will find that the line cuts through the natural slope of Waden Hill, which runs from the Avebury Stone Circle and nearly reaches Silbury Hill where it vanishes into the lower ground.

There is therefore a gap between Waden Hill and Silbury Hill and it is curious that `The Sanctuary´ markers point to both Hills. An almost idle fancy might suppose that Silbury Hill, the largest man-made hill in Europe, was deliberately built to enable something placed on its brow to be seen from `The Sanctuary´, or vice-versa. (See Photo Page to decide for yourself) A tempting thought certainly, but one unfortunately without any archaeological evidence, although the name Waden, which derives from the Anglo-Saxon Wead-hun meaning 'the place of pagan worship´, tends to reinforce the possibility of just such a cultic significance. It is certain however that The Sanctuary held a potent religious significance, as is affirmed by the presence of the skeleton of a young girl that was found near one of the stone holes of the inner ring. Found with a Beaker pot, which has been assigned to between 2400 BC and 2250 BC, other finds have also included grooved-ware pottery, flints, and animal bones.

The drawing is based on the scale plan in  Megalithic Rings, Plans and data for 229 Monuments in Britain, B.A.R. Series 81 by Alexander Thom and Aubrey Burl, and depicts the overall arrangement of the site.⁵ Again the arrangement of the circles is not precise and for the diameters of the rings a mean had to be taken of steel tape measurements to the centres of the markers. Yet we have no evidence that the centre of the markers, stones or holes, either here or at Stonehenge was the builders preferred datum. They might just have well chosen to scribe a circle onto the ground with rope and pegs, then dug away from the line. In this event either of the perimeter diameters is more likely to be correct. The truth is the measurements are so imprecise as to be only guidelines, yet when we compare the circles of the Sanctuary with the Stonehenge geometry, a marked similarity becomes clearly evident.

Click Here to continue

1          Stukeley, W., (1743), Abury Described, pp 15, 31., cited in Dames, M., (1996), The Avebury Cycle, Thames & Hudson, 2^nd Edition , London p 66

2          Pepys, S., Diary, ed. Wheatley, H. B., (1897), vol. 8. Bell. p 49 cited in Dames, (1996), p 66

3          Aubrey, (1659-70), 322.,  cited in Dames, (1996), 66

4          Cunnington, M. E., in Wilts. Arch. Mag., (1931), vol. 45 314. 332., cited in Dames, (1996),  76, 79

5       Thom, A. & A.S. & Burl, A., (1980), Megalithic Rings, Plans and data for 229 Monuments in Britain, B.A.R. Series 81 pp 124-5