by Matt Leivers, Andrew B. Powell, Melanie Pomeroy-Kellinger and Sarah Simmonds
The Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites World Heritage Site comprises two areas of Wessex chalkland, 40 km apart, surrounding Stonehenge and Avebury (Fig. 1), that are renowned for their distinctive complexes of Neolithic and Bronze Age sites. These sites have played a central role in the understanding of Britain’s prehistoric past and – together with their surrounding landscapes – have international significance, as recognised by the inscription of the World Heritage Site in 1986 on UNESCO’s World Heritage List for its Outstanding Universal Value.
Over the centuries, research into these sites and the landscapes they occupy has taken many forms and reached many and diverse conclusions: about the people who used them and about how, when and why they were constructed. Some of that research contributed to the degrading of the archaeological remains and it is the awareness that this finite resource needs to be effectively conserved which makes a framework for the facilitation and direction of sustainable research central to the management of the World Heritage Site (UNESCO 1972, Article 5).
UNESCO stresses the need for ‘serial’ World Heritage Sites comprising more than one area (such as Stonehenge and Avebury) to have ‘a management system or mechanisms for ensuring the co-ordinated management of the separate components’ (UNESCO 2013, para. 114). Although arguments have been advanced for the separation of Stonehenge and Avebury into separate World Heritage Sites, this possibility was ruled out in December 2007 when the Government announced that there would be no re- nomination of the World Heritage Site. The individual management plans – the Stonehenge World Heritage Site Management Plan 2009 (Young et al. 2009), and the Avebury World Heritage Site Management Plan (Pomeroy-Kellinger 2005) – have recently been replaced by a joint management plan for the whole World Heritage Site (Stonehenge and Avebury World Heritage Site Management Plan: Simmonds and Thomas 2015).
The two areas were also the subjects of separate research frameworks – Archaeological Research Agenda for the Avebury World Heritage Site (Avebury Archaeological and Historical Research Group 2001) and Stonehenge World Heritage Site: An Archaeological Research Framework (Darvill 2005).
The Avebury Research Agenda, published in 2001, was highly influential, being the first such document produced for any World Heritage Site. It was produced by the Avebury Archaeological and Historical Research Group (AAHRG), a group of professional curators, academics and freelance researchers who met to encourage, co-ordinate and disseminate research in the Avebury part of the World Heritage Site. A chronological and thematic approach was adopted in compiling the document, which consisted of individually-authored papers written by period and subject specialists.
The Stonehenge Research Framework published four years later, was a significantly different document, reflecting the rapidly evolving thinking about the role, format and content of archaeological research frameworks. It, too, was based on the contributions of individual specialists, but it was compiled and edited by a single hand giving it a greater consistency of style and content; it also benefited from the availability of considerably greater resources for mapping and illustration.
Both research frameworks followed the tripartite structure recommended in Frameworks For Our Past (Olivier 1996), a strategic review of research policies undertaken for English Heritage. Each comprised a period-based resource assessment describing the current state of knowledge about the archaeological resource in their respective areas, a research agenda pointing out areas of research which could help fill gaps in that knowledge, and a research strategy formulating proposals and priorities for carrying out such research. Despite their shared overall structure, the organisation and presentation of these three main sections differed considerably between the two documents. Nonetheless, both shared a strong emphasis on archaeology rather than the wider historic environment.
by Melanie Pomeroy-Kellinger
Research frameworks are temporary documents, providing a point-in-time view of the state of knowledge, priorities and strategies for research as envisaged at their compilation. In the introduction to the original Avebury agenda it was stated that the document would be updated on a regular basis as research was conducted and new discoveries made, and as research priorities evolved (AAHRG 2001, 4). Similarly, the need for reflexivity and revision was made explicit in the Stonehenge framework (Darvill 2005, 32) which was anticipated as being a statement of research issues and priorities for approximately a decade (ibid., 4).
Attempting to assess the relative success or failure of archaeological research frameworks is quite a challenging task. There are no agreed criteria for such an analysis, or a consensus on their value. There is a range of indicators which could be measured, such as how many research projects were undertaken, how many research questions were addressed, or how many new sites have been added to the Historic Environment Record (HER), but none of these are meaningful in isolation. In many ways it is easier to focus on what would constitute failure. In the case of the earlier documents for Avebury (AAHRG 2001) and Stonehenge (Darvill 2005), failure would mean that the documents were ignored and not used, which clearly has not been the case. The fact that there is presently a consensus that they need to be revised (and that funding has been obtained to undertake this process) can be seen as indicating a level of success.
The aims of both of the earlier documents were clearly set out (Avebury, section 1.3; Stonehenge section 1), and were similar: to actively encourage research into all periods, to improve understanding, to better inform other researchers, and to allow informed management to take place. Looking at the wide range of research and management projects undertaken since 2001 across both parts of the World Heritage Site, there is a good indication that many of these earlier aims have been addressed. There have been at least 10 major archaeological projects, and many other smaller ones, including the Silbury Hill project, SPACES, Negotiating Avebury, and others. These include both academic research and development-led projects, and both intrusive and non-intrusive fieldwork, and their results are outlined in the various sections of this document. It is apparent that the research frameworks have been referred to in fieldwork project designs, and indeed in bids for funding.
To what extent these projects would have been undertaken anyway, without the existence of the research frameworks, is difficult to assess; this was a subject of lively debate during a Research Agenda Workshop held in Devizes in June 2011. What is clear, however, is the large number of new discoveries, leading to the development of new theories and interpretations, which have resulted from these projects. In many ways they have led to a wider focus on the prehistoric landscapes surrounding the two iconic stone circles. With the media attention that has come with some of the discoveries, there is now a greater public appreciation of the complexity and significance of these landscapes. While many of these fieldwork projects have been published, it is anticipated that in the next few years a wealth of new information will become available.
Despite this, we know that the landscapes of Stonehenge and Avebury have not yet given up all of their secrets. However, what has been discovered in the last 10 years will help us to ask more detailed and complex questions in the future, and within the aims and objectives of this new, combined research framework. The discussions, debate and communication within the archaeological community resulting from the publication of the earlier documents and this revised version, will continue to be hugely beneficial to our understanding and management of these internationally significant landscapes.
Since 2001 major research has been undertaken in both parts of the World Heritage Site. This included survey, excavation and synthesis at Avebury and its surrounding monuments (Fig. 2), by a team from the Universities of Bristol, Leicester and Southampton (the Longstones and Negotiating Avebury projects) which had notable results, such as the discovery of the Beckhampton Avenue (Gillings et al. 2008). At Silbury Hill, English Heritage undertook con- servation, repair and excavation, and the Romano- British settlement was examined. The on-going Between the Monuments Project (a collaborative effort by the Universities of Southampton and Leicester and the National Trust) has been investigating the character of human settlement in the Avebury landscape during the 4th to mid-2nd millennia cal BC, and its relationship to changing environmental and social conditions.
At Stonehenge (Fig. 3) excavation was carried out in 2008 by the SPACES Project, while several well- known prehistoric monuments close to Stonehenge were investigated by the Stonehenge Riverside Project, which also discovered the West Amesbury Henge at the end of the Stonehenge Avenue on the bank of the River Avon as well as investigating Aubrey Hole 7 within Stonehenge itself. The Stonehenge World Heritage Site Landscape Project (English Heritage) involved non-invasive survey of the Stonehenge environs alongside documentary and archive research (Field et al. 2014a and b; Bowden et al. 2015). The Stonehenge Hidden Landscapes project (by the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute, Birmingham University and international partners) has produced digital mapping of the Stonehenge landscape, revealing a wealth of previously-unknown sites via remote sensing and geophysical survey (Baldwin 2010; Gaffney et al. 2012).
Work on museum collections includes the Early Bronze Age Grave Goods Project by Birmingham University, and the Beaker People Project by the Universities of Sheffield, Durham and Bradford. Chronological modelling of the Stonehenge sequence has been revised (Marshall et al. 2012). Parch-marks observed during the dry summer of 2013 revealed the locations of missing sarsens 17–20 (Banton et al. 2014).
Practice-based research includes the publication of the surveys for the Highways Agency in advance of the proposed A303 road improvements (Leivers and Moore 2008), and further work associated with the new Stonehenge Visitor Centre, including the closure of the A344 and excavations on the line of the Avenue beneath it (Wessex Archaeology 2015).
The landscape of the entire World Heritage Site and its wider environs has now been mapped wice as part of the National Mapping Programme (NMP): in 1997–8 from all accessible aerial photographs, while in 2010–11 that mapping was further enhanced via the analysis of more recent reconnaissance photographs and of lidar data (Crutchley 2002; Bewley et al. 2005; Barber 2016, Avebury Resource Assessment).
by Sarah Simmonds
The path to the production of the Stonehenge and Avebury Research Framework has been a complex one. During the period of review and update of the Avebury Research Agenda (AAHRG 2001), which began in 2008, a number of key changes occurred in the management context. These led to the decision to combining the Avebury document with the more recently-produced Stonehenge Research Framework (Darvill 2005) in order to create a joint Stonehenge and Avebury Research Framework. The decision to produce a three-volume framework was influenced by a number of factors, particularly the challenge of combining two very differently-produced resource assessments. This continuing difference in approach to the two halves of the World Heritage Site was in part a result of the funding criteria in place during the development of the joint framework.
A fundamental change in the management context was triggered by the governance review of the World Heritage Site in 2012. The review recommended a more joined-up approach to the management of the two halves of the World Heritage Site, and this had a significant influence on the decision to produce the first joint World Heritage Site Management Plan for Stonehenge and Avebury, published in 2015 (Simmons and Thomas 2015). Reflecting the move to closer working across the World Heritage Site the Avebury Archaeological and Historical Research Group (AAHRG) was expanded in 2014 to include Stonehenge and become the Avebury and Stonehenge Archaeological and Historical Research Group (ASAHRG). The decision to produce a joint research framework for Stonehenge and Avebury is part of this movement towards a more integrated approach to the single World Heritage Site.
Funding criteria for the production of research frameworks over this period also influenced the three-part publication format. The process of updating the Avebury Research Agenda began in 2008 following a period of peer review and an online survey circulated widely among the academic community. A project outline was submitted to English Heritage on behalf of AAHRG based on the needs identified in the review and Wessex Archaeology was contracted to put together a detailed project design. Funding was agreed for new graphics and mapping and project management.
No funding was available for the production of the new Resource Assessment, which consequently led to this section again being produced by individuals on a voluntary basis. This approach provided the engagement of the academic community and in-kind contribution required by funders. An editorial committee made up of members of AAHRG was established at the end of 2009. The process of inviting contributors to update the resource assessment began in 2010.
The decision to produce a joint research framework for Stonehenge and Avebury – although very much in line with its recommendations – did in fact precede the outcomes of the World Heritage Site governance review. In mid-2010, revised English Heritage funding criteria meant that support was no longer available for updates to existing research frameworks and it appeared that the update of the Avebury Research Agenda could no longer be supported. The idea of producing a combined Stonehenge and Avebury Framework was suggested. In addition to producing a consistent approach to the single World Heritage Site this would also constitute a new publication that would be eligible for funding. Funding was secured for the production of a new joint agenda and strategy but it was decided that the resource assessments for the two halves would still be considered updates. The Avebury Resource Assessment therefore maintained the approach of securing updates from individual contributors, while a brief update of the relatively recent Stonehenge Framework would be produced by the single author (Tim Darvill) who had produced the 2005 Stonehenge Research Framework (Pl. 1). This approach was agreed by AAHRG who recognised both the necessity and the challenge of combining the two very different formats of resource assessment in a single joint framework.
Following completion of the Framework the project board decided to publish the Stonehenge and Avebury Research Framework in three parts to reflect the very different approach to production of the two resource assessments. The joint agenda and strategy section has been published as the third part of the Framework.
The new Framework is intended to cover the whole World Heritage Site, revising and updating the earlier documents. It is the result of consultation across the research community (in its broadest definition) and is intended to guide and inform future research activities in the historic environment and, in turn, its management and interpretation. The intention is that it will be underpinned by data-management systems that can be actively maintained as project-specific tools into the future. This new framework, therefore, fulfils a number of objectives:
Since the revised framework was first proposed, various forms of consultation have been undertaken as to its form and content. Named authors were invited to produce resource assessments and technical summaries; workshops and meetings guided the initial drafts of the Research Agenda; ASAHRG provided criticism of both. Drafts of these sections were presented for public consultation and comment via the internet, prior to further revision and comment by ASAHRG and Historic England. Following their finalisation, the Research Strategy was formulated based on their content, and the whole circulated for further comment. The entire process was guided by a Project Board.
In consequence, the new Research Framework offers a guide that reflects the priorities and encompasses the views of the widest possible community. It is in every sense a collaborative document, produced by and for the constituency of researchers working within the World Heritage Site.
One problem raised by the ‘serial’ nature of the World Heritage Site, comprising two relatively small areas of landscape separated by a distance of some 40 km, is that of determining the appropriate geographical scope for its research framework (Fig. 1). The boundaries of the two areas are largely arbitrary, although the development in them of notable complexes of monuments does distinguish them from much of the intervening (and surrounding) landscape. Nonetheless, the density of archaeological sites and monuments more widely across Salisbury Plain, the Vale of Pewsey (Pl. 2) and the downland around Avebury does mean that research into the World Heritage Site cannot be undertaken in isolation. Indeed, the presence of a henge at Marden of comparable size to those at Avebury and Durrington Walls (and approximately midway between them, Pl. 3), and of a mound at Marlborough comparable to Silbury Hill, as well as other monument complexes at a greater distance, such as in the Thames Valley and on Cranborne Chase, indicates that many of the questions which can be asked about the World Heritage Site can only be answered if consideration is given to a much wider area.
However, the World Heritage Site lies within, and close to the eastern edge of, the area covered by the South West Archaeological Research Framework (SWARF, Webster 2008), which is bordered to the east by that covered by the Solent Thames Research Framework (STRF, Hey and Hind 2014). Together these two frameworks cover all the Wessex chalkland, which defines the wider landscape occupied by the World Heritage Site. Although they encompass much larger areas than the present research framework, they articulate many of the broader research issues, of all periods, which are also of general relevance to the World Heritage Site. They also cover some specific issues relating to the Stonehenge and Avebury monumental landscapes, and the other monument complexes in their respective regions.
For these reasons, it has not been considered necessary to impose another arbitrarily defined ‘study area’ around the two areas of the World Heritage Site. Instead, this research framework keeps a close focus on the World Heritage Site, while recognising variable wider contexts as appropriate.
Although the new Research Framework covers the whole of the World Heritage Site, only its agenda and strategy sections have been fully integrated. Because the levels of revision considered appropriate for the two resource assessments differed so markedly, their integration was not considered possible at this stage. This framework therefore comprises a number of component parts.
Not only is there at present no overall resource assessment for the whole of the World Heritage Site, there also remain significant differences in the organisation and presentation of the current resource assessments for the Avebury and Stonehenge areas, as brought together here.
The 2005 resource assessment remains current, but it is supplemented by an update on research undertaken since then, Recent Research in the Stonehenge Landscape 2005–2012, by the same author. This consists of summaries of development-prompted research and problem-orientated research, followed by a section looking at recently changed and changing aspects of research: dating, long-distance connections, landscape structure, and the relevance of other monuments.
This update is available on-line via this link
The Avebury Resource Assessment has, for the most part, been completely re-written and expanded, and the new version replaces that contained in the 2001 document. As with the original Avebury Resource Assessment, individual authors provided papers on a voluntary basis, and not all conformed to the same template. In consequence, two (Romano-British and mid–late Saxon) are updates similar to that produced for Stonehenge, rather than full reassessments. In those instances, the original 2001 assessments have been included here for the sake of completeness. Most of the resource assessments were produced in 2011 and 2012, except for the sections covering environmental archaeology, GIS, the Iron Age, and modern Avebury, which date from 2013, the post- medieval and modern resource assessment, which dates from 2014, and the assessment of built heritage, which dates to 2015.
The resource assessment is split into two parts. The first, Methods of Research, provides cross-period assessments of the resource based on a number of specific research methods, old and new, which have been used to develop our understanding of the archaeology in the Avebury area. Descriptions of some of these methods, and in some cases assessments of the resource as revealed by them, were provided in Part 5: Methods and Techniques of the 2001 framework, as well as in a chapter on Palaeo- Environmental Evidence at the end of the original resource assessment.
The second part, Period-Based Assessments, represents to a large extent the complete replacement of the 2001 resource assessment. It now includes, however, papers on the Post-Medieval period, Built Heritage, and Modern Avebury, as well as separating the Middle and Late Bronze Age.
The new Research Agenda and Strategy cover for the first time both parts of the World Heritage Site. In the tripartite structure recommended by Olivier (1996), as followed by the earlier Avebury and Stonehenge frameworks, these two sections appear to have quite distinct roles, the agenda describing the gaps in our knowledge and the strategy proposing ways of filling those gaps. There is, however, a degree of overlap between them, since some research questions cannot be realistically addressed until others have been answered. Finding answers to some questions, therefore, becomes part of the strategy for answering other questions.
There have been a number of guiding principles in the compiling of the agenda and strategy. First, an attempt had been made to make the document recognisable, as far as possible, as a progression from the two earlier versions, despite their evident differences in approach, combining both thematic and period-based components. Secondly, consideration has been given to the need for it to be in a form suitable for future combined revision. Thirdly, as the agenda is intended to be a working document of use to a wide range of audiences, the objective has been to give it a relatively straightforward and transparent structure; what it may lack in theoretical and philosophical sophistication, it is hoped that it gains in clarity and usability.
The purpose of the agenda is to articulate the significant gaps in our understanding, by posing some of the outstanding questions in a form that is relevant to a number of chronological periods and major thematic subjects of relevance to the unique character of the World Heritage Site. The first part of the agenda outlines the themes which underlie the period-based questions described in the second. These questions are those generated during the process of workshops, consultation and comment outlined above.
There were significant differences in the structure and content of the two previous strategies. The Research Strategies in the original Avebury agenda comprised largely specific methodologies for answering specific questions, while the Research Strategy in the Stonehenge document consisted more of an overarching plan, made up of a series of objectives under a number of broad thematic headings.
The new research strategy has a number of aims:
After considerable discussion, it remained of particular concern to the Project Board and authors that the Research Strategy was not prescriptive. Consequently, it is a deliberate move away from a document which prioritises particular pieces of research, instead offering guidance designed to encourage innovative research which exceeds the requirements of ‘best practice’.
Although the individual parts of this present Research Framework document collectively cover the whole of the World Heritage Site, it remains an intermediate stage in the production of a fully integrated framework and is on its own a necessarily incomplete document. It needs to be read in conjunction with the 2005 Stonehenge framework particularly and, to a lesser degree, with the 2001 Avebury agenda. Although some elements of the original Avebury agenda have been completely re-written, the cumulative nature of archaeological research and the re-iterative nature of research frameworks mean that these superseded components still have a degree of currency and value. All relevant components of the past and present frameworks, therefore, will be accessible online at a single location on the Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites World Heritage Site website (http://www.stonehengeand aveburywhs.org/management-of-whs/stonehenge-ave bury-research-framework/).
The new Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites World Heritage Site Research Framework comprises the following main component parts:
Avebury Resource Assessment (Leivers and Powell 2016)
Stonehenge Resource Assessment (Section 2: Darvill 2005)
Stonehenge Update (on-line)
Avebury Resource Assessment (Part 1: AAHRG 2001) Research Agenda
Stonehenge and Avebury Research Agenda Avebury Research Agenda (Part 2: AAHRG 2001)
Stonehenge Research Agenda (Section 3: Darvill 2005)
Stonehenge and Avebury Research Strategy Avebury Research Strategy (Part 3: AAHRG 2001)
Stonehenge Research Strategy (Section 4: Darvill 2005)
Calibrated date ranges were calculated by the maximum intercept method (Stuiver and Reimer 1986), using the program OxCal v4.1 (Bronk Ramsey 1995; 1998; 2009) and the INTCAL09 dataset (Reimer et al. 2009). Ranges are rounded out to the nearest 10 years.
The lifecycle of this document is likely to be between five and ten years, parallel to the Stonehenge and Avebury World Heritage Site Management Plan and depending on the pace of research in the World Heritage Site. The progress of research will be monitored by ASAHRG, who will determine when a further revision is necessary. The next version of the Research Framework should fully integrate both parts of the World Heritage Site into a single document.
Part of the Research Frameworks Network