Timothy Darvill
Since the cut-off date of January 2005 for activities included in the first Research Framework (Darvill 2005), work within the Stonehenge part of the Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites World Heritage Site (WHS) has continued apace, including the first excavations for more than 40 years inside Stonehenge itself. This review continues the story up until March 2012 and considers both development-driven and curiosity-driven research. Much of the work, regardless of its origination or operational context, has contributed towards the furtherance of 20 out of 25 research objectives articulated in Darvill 2005. This is a remarkable achievement within a period of just six years or so, and in part illustrates the continuing attraction of Stonehenge and its landscape as a key resource for the investigation, illustration, and understanding of British prehistory and its wider European context. It also illustrates the value of using the WHS as a laboratory for the innovation, testing, and validation of new methods and techniques that even when applied to familiar archaeological landscapes provide new discoveries and new insights of real significance.
The Stonehenge part of the WHS is a dynamic working landscape requiring active management, maintenance, and improvement which naturally gives rise to the need for predetermination works (desk-based assessments; field evaluations; Environmental Impact Assessments etc.) as well as mitigation schemes during groundworks and site-based operations. These provide an interesting randomizing element to the study of the landscape which usefully complements the more targeted investigations prompted by problem-orientated research.
The following account is divided into two parts. First there is a brief overview of the research undertaken and the results achieved. Second, building on these findings, attention is directed towards changing understandings of selected aspects of the past, the landscape, and the sites within it. In compiling this account extensive use has been made of project-related publications, many of which are interim statements. However, mention may also be made of several syntheses and overviews that have appeared between 2005 and 2012, notably Darvill’s (2006) study of the Stonehenge landscape from earliest times through to the 20th century AD from a biographical perspective; Burl’s (2006) history of Stonehenge; Lawson’s (2007) overview of archaeology in Wessex drawing heavily on the results of investigations by Wessex Archaeology; Richards’ (2007) story of what is known about the monument; Hill’s (2008) incisive historical overview of changing interpretations of Stonehenge and what it means to people; Johnson’s (2008) innovative study of the lay-out and design of Stonehenge; and Chippindale’s (2012) fourth revision of his encyclopaedic work on Stonehenge and its history.
Research undertaken during the time period covered here can be divided into that prompted by development proposals and problem- orientated investigations. The main database of the Archaeological Investigations Project records a total of 47 archaeological events within the parishes of Durrington, Amesbury, Wilsford and Winterbourne Stoke in the period 2006–2010, just under half being desk-based assessments, field evaluations, and Environmental Impact Assessments, while just over half are post-determination or research- focused investigations (on-line database at: http://csweb.bournemouth.ac.uk/aip/aipintro.ht m).
The most high-profile development in the WHS over the past 30 years has been that connected with the relocation of the visitor centre as part of the ongoing Stonehenge Conservation Management Programme promoted and co-ordinated by English Heritage. After the preparation and retraction of planning applications for a development at Larkhill in 1991 and Countess Road in 2005 (Darvill 2005, 11–14; 2006, 276–80; Pitts 2005a) further desk-based studies (Leary 2008) and public consultations (see Pitts 2008a for summary) were carried out for five sites (V, W, X, Y, Z), with Airman’s Corner emerging as the favoured option with closure of the A344 and a visitor centre designed by architects Denton Corker Marshall (Anon. 2009a; Pitts 2010; and see Marshall 2007 for interview with the architect). Field evaluations included a geophysical survey of an area of about 3ha that confirmed details of probable 19th- and 20th-century buildings and identifying a series of pit-like anomalies (Draper 2011, 287–8). A previously unrecorded ring of pit- or posthole-like anomalies was located in the field north-west of the cross-roads at Airman’s Corner immediately outside the WHS boundary. Surveys were undertaken of the A344 corridor (Komar and Field 2012). Field evaluation trenches were excavated to the north and south of the A344 in 2011. Construction work on the site began in February 2012.
Numerous evidence-based research papers and strategy documents have been compiled in connection with the development of the visitor centre and independently, including a synthesis of work on the landscape, environment and economy of the WHS (Canti et al. 2011); an interpretation strategy (Carver and Greaney 2011); and reviews of visitor trends (Mason and Kuo 2008). (Contribution to 2005 Research Objective 1).
The Public Inquiry on proposals for the upgrading of the A303 with an on-line solution that included a bored tunnel south of Stonehenge was held in Salisbury in February and March 2004. The inspector’s report was finally published in July 2005 but the Department of Transport announced its decision not to proceed with the published scheme because of increased construction costs (Pitts 2005b). Further consultations followed in January 2006 (Pitts 2006a) with the conclusion that the Department of Transport would undertake minor works to existing roads as an interim solution and on 6 December 2007 the Government announced that the tunnel scheme had been withdrawn. These consultations and reviews prompted considerable debate (cf. Brown 2005; Fielden 2007; Heyworth 2006; Pitts 2006b; 2008b; Stone 2006). No new archaeological works were undertaken after 2006, although investigations relating to schemes proposed in the period 1991–2006 have been published (Leivers and Moore 2008). (Contribution to 2005 Research Objective 20).
Although outside the WHS, the high ground to the south and east of Amesbury has been the subject of extensive development through the 1990s and 2000s and has proved rich in archaeological remains of prehistoric and later date. In total, more than 25 ha have been excavated or stripped of topsoil and the archaeological features mapped, recorded and sampled (Barclay 2010). Celebrated finds include the ‘Amesbury Archer’ and his ‘companion’ discovered and investigated in May 2002 as part of an open-area excavation, and the ‘Boscombe Bowmen’ discovered and excavated in April 2003 during the course of a watching brief. Both graves, the earliest Beaker burials currently known in Britain dating to the 24th century cal BC have been fully published (Fitzpatrick 2011), supporting several new popular accounts (McKinley 2011; Fitzpatrick and Catling 2012). Connections with the continent are evident in both graves and scientific evidence suggests that the ‘Archer’ had travelled very considerably during his life and that many of the other burials represented in these two graves had travelled widely (Chenery et al. 2006).
Much else has been found in this major development area, including a pit circle 63m across, prehistoric pits, food vessel graves, and a teenage boy buried with 90 tiny amber beads which have reignited a debate about the possibility of connections with the Aegean world in the early 2nd millennium cal BC (Barclay 2010: 41). Work in the area continues.
A watching brief carried out during the construction of a new fire hydrant at Boscombe Down Airfield in 2008 revealed the burial of an adult male in a shallow oval grave below a cairn of stones dated to 1750–1610 cal BC (NZA 28700: 3379±30 BP) as well as six sections of ditch probably connected with a later prehistoric field system in the area, two pits, and Early Bronze Age pottery in a tree- throw hole (Manning et al. 2010). A further watching brief in 2008 connected to the construction of a new accommodation block at Boscombe Down Airfield, Amesbury, revealed a section of a Wessex Linear ditch and a burial dated to cal AD 1460–1640 (NZA-30656: 438±20 BP) (McKinley and Manning 2010). A series of important Romano-British cemeteries have also been investigated. (Contributions to 2005 Research Objectives 13 and 15).
Also outside the WHS, investigations in Amesbury continue to enhance understanding of its early structure and development. A 0.05ha site near Salisbury Street examined in 2005–6 revealed Saxon ditches whose alignment and position carry through into modern boundaries, and substantial domestic and craft activity in the 10th and 11th centuries AD, but less in the 12th century (Powell et al. 2009). Test-pitting on the former Co-op site in Salisbury Street in 2008 revealed post- medieval garden soils and made ground (Draper 2010, 336) while a watching brief in the same year for topsoil stripping over 5.8 ha of ground in Southmill Hill revealed a section of a previously investigated Wessex Linear ditch and tree-throw pits (Draper 2010, 336–7). A field evaluation in 2008 in Countess Road revealed a large ditch that was considered part of the eastern boundary of Amesbury Abbey (Draper 2010, 337) while a second evaluation in the same road revealed post-medieval pits (Draper 2010, 337). Negative evidence is also important and a watching brief at 14a Stonehenge Road, Amesbury, on the edge of the town revealed no archaeological deposits (Brayne 2006). (Contribution to 2005 Research Objective 15).
Stray finds arising from development work, metal-detecting, or casual discoveries have been recorded by the Portable Antiquities Scheme with some of the highlights published in Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine since 2007 (Hinds 2007; 2008; 2009; 2010; 2011). Items from the Stonehenge area include fragments of a Late Iron Age copper alloy beaded torc from near Amesbury (Hinds 2009, 339). (Contribution to 2005 Research Objective 15).
Other small-scale archaeological investigations include recording works at Durrington Manor in 2004 which revealed chalk quarry pits and garden features of late 18th- and 19th-century date as well as residual medieval, Romano- British, and prehistoric material (Anon. 2006, 266); and a watching brief associated with power cable laying which examined a total of 23 test pits of which five produced evidence of possible archaeological features, although none contained datable material (Wessex Archaeology 2005).
Fieldwork for the Stonehenge Riverside Project was carried out annually between 2003 and 2009; and a post-excavation programme based around the Feeding Stonehenge Project is on-going. The AHRC-funded project involved collaboration between staff from the Universities of Sheffield, Bristol, Bournemouth, Manchester, and London. In addition to a great deal of media interest, some sensationalising the discoveries made, there are numerous published reports, overviews, summaries, and notes (Anon. 2007a; 2008a; 2011a; Aronson 2010; Alexander 2009; Balter 2008; Parker Pearson 2007; 2008; Parker Pearson et al. 2005; 2009a; Pitts 2005b; 2006c; 2008c; 2008d; 2009; 2011a, 35; SRP 2007; 2008). A website shows the positions of trenches and surveys (http://blogs.bournemouth.ac.uk/seeing- beneath-stonehenge/).
The underlying hypothesis explored through the project was that Stonehenge was a place memorializing the ancestral dead that was connected by way of the River Avon to sites such as Durrington Walls which were occupied by the living on festive occasions if not on a permanent basis. Such a model posited a simple binary opposition between eternal stones and perishable timber that was mediated by the monuments’ relationships to the Avon which was proposed as an intermediate zone into which the remains of the dead were cast (Parker Pearson 2004; 2007, 125; Parker Pearson et al. 2005; 2006a).
Investigations in 2003 were confined to clearance of vegetation along the banks of the Avon east of Durrington Walls, coring across the floodplain of the Avon Valley and westwards to Durrington Walls, and geophysical surveys inside the henge (Parker Pearson 2007, 129). 2004–06 saw further studies of the landscape (Tilley et al. 2007), but investigations focused on a series of trenches at Durrington Walls (Pitts 2008b, 15– 16). These included extensive coverage around the eastern entrance and avenue leading to the Avon (Parker Pearson et al. 2006b); a cutting through the bank of the henge-enclosure on the east side; the examination of the west side of the Southern Circle; and three trenches in the central part of the interior to investigate small ditched enclosures revealed by geophysical survey (Parker Pearson 2007; Thomas 2007). Together this work led to a revised provisional phasing for the site and other monuments in the area (Parker Pearson 2007, 133; Parker Pearson et al. 2007): limited activity in the 4th millennium cal BC; Southern Circle built in the mid-3rd millennium cal BC, perhaps with other structures to the west; avenue constructed to link the Southern Circle with the Avon, incorporating solsticial alignments; square- shaped structures built over the banks of the avenue and to the north of it (six excavated in all); bank and ditch of the henge-enclosure built partly covering the south-western avenue bank and the ground surface on which the houses had been built; occupation associated with Grooved Ware and Beaker around the south side of the henge-enclosure bank.
Also in 2006 a small trench was excavated within the southern part of the interior of Woodhenge, intersecting the outer three rings of posts known from earlier work in an area where stone sockets had also been recorded (Pollard and Robinson 2007; Pitts 2008b, 17). The presence of stone settings within Woodhenge was confirmed although the sequence of construction could not be established. Test-pitting was carried out in the area south of the Stonehenge Cursus at its eastern end in an effort to pinpoint a putative monument associated with a long-known scatter of Bluestone. Although further pieces of Bluestone were found no structure was located.
Resistivity and magnetometer surveys were carried out by English Heritage over the western end of the Stonehenge Cursus to clarify the position of the earthworks in July 2006 and 2007, and the southern end of the Stonehenge Avenue where it approaches the Avon in July 2006 (Draper 2008: 274; 2009: 338; Payne 2007a; 2007b). Surveys were also carried out at Durrington Walls in 2005 and 2006, here including ground penetrating radar (Anon. 2007b, 234; Draper 2008, 276).
In 2007 work continued at Durrington Walls in the area between the henge-enclosure and the Avon and sampled a wide range of other sites in the landscape. Five trenches were excavated into the Stonehenge Cursus (SRP 2007; Thomas et al. 2009): one through the western terminal ditch, showing that the ditch here was 1.6 m deep. A piece of antler pick from the base of the ditch has provided two almost identical radiocarbon dates of 3630– 3380 cal BC (OxA-17953: 4716±34 BP) and 3630–3370 cal BC (OxA-17954: 4695±34 BP) which are taken as secure dates for the initial construction of the cursus in the middle centuries of the 4th millennium cal BC. A trench through the northern boundary at the point where it is joined by the internal cross- ditch showed that the two ditches did not intersect and that the cross-ditch contained pottery of the later 2nd millennium cal BC. The northern cursus ditch was 1 m deep, and in the 5 m stretch investigated seemed to be slightly off-line, so confirming that it was dug as a series of short segments. A third trench in the southern boundary immediately adjacent to the cutting made by Stone in 1947 confirmed the presence of recut pits dug in the mid-3rd millennium cal BC at a time when monument construction in the area was at its peak. Two trenches were excavated in the interior towards the western end to investigate geophysical anomalies but failed to reveal corresponding archaeological features. An area around the Cuckoo Stone to the west of Woodhenge was examined (Pitts 2008c, 14–15). Trenches were cut into and around ring ditch Durrington 68 to investigate the possible house-structure.
In 2008 a sixth trench was cut into the Stonehenge Cursus to investigate its eastern terminal showing that, like the western, the earthworks at the terminals were more substantial than those forming the long sides (SRP 2008; Thomas et al. 2009). At Stonehenge itself Aubrey Hole 7 was re- excavated in order to recover for analysis the 60 or more cremation burials deposited there in 1935 by William Hawley following his excavation of 32 Aubrey Holes during the 1920s (Parker Pearson et al. 2009b; 2010, 15; Pitts 2008d). Despite being excavated on two previous occasions (in 1920 and 1935) the base of Aubrey Hole 7 is reported to have preserved crushed chalk comparable to that found in stone-holes elsewhere at Stonehenge while a previously unrecognised cremation pit in the side of the Aubrey Hole was also recorded (cf. Anon. 2009b; Catling 2009, 24–5). The idea that Stonehenge was a cemetery for an elite was proposed (Anon. 2008a; Parker Pearson et al. 2009b).
2008 also saw work on the Stonehenge Avenue with trenches across it north of the A344 and in Stonehenge Bottom. Test pits and an evaluation trench were dug at the riverside end of the Stonehenge Avenue in a garden east of West Amesbury House revealing a Mesolithic flint scatter, a 4th or 3rd millennium cal BC flint scatter, and features that were later understood as the earthworks of a henge monument between the boundary earthworks of the Avenue and overlooking the Avon (Parker Pearson et al. 2009a, 8–9). A stone-dressing area north of the A344 and west of the Avenue was explored, and the eastern ditch of the Amesbury 42 long barrow was sampled to reveal evidence for at least two phases in its construction. West of Stonehenge a section of the Gate Ditch (otherwise known as the Palisade Ditch) was explored and shown to be Bronze Age in origin (Catling 2008); a roughly carved chalk pig was recovered from a pit that also contained infant bones cut into the fill of the ditch and provisionally dated to the period 450–100 cal BC (Anon. 2008b; Pitts 2008e).
In 2009 further investigations were undertaken at the southern end of the Stonehenge Avenue revealing further details of a stone circle c. 10 m in diameter with an estimated 25 pillars considered to have been Bluestones. The circle was dismantled in prehistoric times and its site contained within the earthworks of a small henge (variously referred to as Bluestonehenge or West Amesbury Henge) with an entrance to the east and a ditch 25 m in diameter (Catling 2009; Parker Pearson et al. 2009a; 2010). The riverside end of the Stonehenge Avenue was also located as a pair of parallel ditches 18.1 m apart; they had held posts forming a small palisade. Re-use of the area in the later Bronze Age was recorded. (Contributions to 2005 Research Objectives 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 15, and 24).
Closely associated with the development of the Stonehenge Visitor Centre and associated management and presentational works, English Heritage undertook a new detailed survey of the Stonehenge landscape between 2009 and 2012. The work included topographic and geophysical surveys, architectural surveys and investigations, revisions to aerial photographic plots, and the revision of the GIS for the WHS. Lidar data was also examined with a special focus on 20th-century military activity, and medieval, post-medieval, and modern impacts on the landscape.
A series of survey reports has been produced (Barber, 2014a; 2014b; Bishop 2010; 2011a; 2011b; Bishop and Amadio 2010; Bishop and Komar 2010; Bowden 2010; 2011; Bowden and Barrett 2010; Bowden et al. 2012; Field 2009; Field and Pearson 2010; Field et al. 2012; 2014b; Komar 2010; Lane 2011; Linford et al. 2012; Newsome et al. 2010; Pearson et al. 2011; Pearson and Field 2011a; 2011b; Soutar 2012). Popular accounts of aspects of the work have been published (Anon. 2010a; Field et al. 2010), as well as more substantial reports (Bowden et al. 2015; Field et al. 2014a). Amongst the important findings are the possible presence of a low mound under the south-eastern sector of Stonehenge itself and the multi-phase structural nature of many of the round barrows in the surrounding landscape. (Contributions to 2005 Research Objectives 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, and 24).
In March 2011 English Heritage commissioned 3D laser scanning specialists the Greenhatch Group, together with Atkins Mapping and Archaeo-Environment Ltd, to capture the stones and the landscape surrounding them at a level of precision and definition never before attempted (Last et al. 2011). The survey includes all the visible faces of the standing and fallen stones of Stonehenge, including Station, Heel and Slaughter stones, as well as the top of the horizontal lintels (Abbott and Anderson-Whymark 2012). (Contribution to 2005 Research Objective 7).
In 2007–8 English Heritage compiled a preliminary catalogue of human remains excavated from within the Stonehenge Landscape that were datable to the period 3700–1600 cal BC (Vincent and Mays 2010a; 2010b). Contacts with museums and other institutions that might hold relevant material provided the main sources of information. Four ‘standard boxes’ and fourteen ‘skull boxes’ of disarticulated remains from more than 30 different sites were examined and considered to have little further research value. Some 116 articulated skeletons were identified, of which about half were found to be in good condition and all have potential for further work. A total of 123 cremation deposits were assessed, many of which had not previously been studied. (Contribution to 2005 Research Objective 23).
This interdisciplinary project based at the Universities of Sheffield and Durham, and the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany, aims to resolve the ‘immigration versus local development’ problem amongst Beaker populations in Britain and, in doing so, transform understanding of economy and society at the time of Stonehenge by studying mobility, diet, and health (Jay and Montgomery 2008; Chamberlain et al. 2012).
The objectives of the project are: a) to systematically sample a large proportion of the surviving, well-preserved skeletal remains of the Beaker period for a comprehensive range of isotopes relating to the reconstruction of individuals’ diet and mobility; b) to systematically record and/or reassess these individuals’ dentition (through studies of microwear and macrowear) and skeletal remains which will shed light on diet, health, trauma, physical stress and funerary manipulation, and: c) to improve knowledge of these individuals’ social and temporal contexts through systematic study of their burial contexts, circumstances of discovery and chronology. Around 250 individuals from five geographical areas (Scotland, East Yorkshire, Wessex, Wales, and the Peak District) are being studied. Preliminary results suggest some movement of people (Jay and Richards 2007a; Jay et al. 2012). (Contribution to 2005 Research Objective 1, 4, 23).
In April 2008 Timothy Darvill (Bournemouth University) and Geoffrey Wainwright (Bluestone) directed an excavation within the south-eastern quadrant of Stonehenge in the area between the Sarsen Circle and the Bluestone Circle adjacent to Stones 9 and 10 to the south-east, and 34 and 35a to the north- west amid much media interest (Anon. 2008c; 2008d; 2009b; Draper 2010: 337; Pitts 2008c; 2009; Selkirk 2008). The work formed part of a wider long-term collaborative programme of investigation known as SPACES (Strumble-Preseli Ancient Communities and Environment Study) that seeks to examine, characterise, and date, identified bluestone extraction sites, associated monuments, and nearby settlements on Carn Meini, and to examine the relationships between these places and water sources within and around the eastern Preseli ridge. The central research questions are simply: when were the spotted dolerite (Preselite) pillar stones taken from Preseli to Stonehenge, by whom, in what context, and why?
Moving beyond Stonehenge is considered critical to resolving issues of structure, significance and importance, and regular interim reports and accounts have been published on the SPACES project since its inception in 2002 (Anon. 2011b; Catling 2007; Darvill and Wainwright 2002a; 2002b; 2003; 2005; Darvill et al. 2003; 2004; 2006; 2007a; 2007b; 2009; Jones 2008; Marziou and Crançon 2008). As a working hypothesis, it is contended that the Bluestones provided the power of place that made Stonehenge special and that their significance to people at the time was that the stones themselves and water associated with them were believed to have healing properties (Alexander 2009; Catling 2007; Darvill 2007; 2009a; 2009b; 2011; Darvill and Wainwright 2011).
The specific purpose of the 2008 investigations at Stonehenge was two-fold. First, to clarify the form and date of the Double Bluestone Circle constructed from c. 80 stones transported to the site from the Preseli Hills of south-west Wales. Second, to document the subsequent history of the bluestones through later phases in the monument’s history, particularly the activities resulting in the so- called ‘Stonehenge Layer’ and the construction of the Bluestone Circle still visible today. A detailed interim account has been published (Darvill and Wainwright 2009) as well as various summaries documenting on-going post-excavation research (Darvill and Wainwright 2011).
The Stonehenge Layer proved to be a heterogeneous series of interdigitated accumulative spreads of stone-rich material and soil that were subject to periodic disturbances, bioturbation, and stabilization giving rise to the formation of thin localised worm-sorted soils.
A total of 15 bedrock-cut features were recorded within the excavation, including four wholly or partially investigated by Hawley and Atkinson. The earliest features in the previously unexcavated section of the trench comprised four small round steep-sided pits, all wholly or partly truncated by later features. Two of the pits were cut by a larger roughly circular pit interpreted as a stone socket for one of the pillars in the Double Bluestone Circle which would equate with Q- Hole 13 in Atkinson’s scheme. Half of this feature lay within the trench and this part was fully excavated. Q-Hole 12, partly excavated by Atkinson, was also recognised in the trench, but the portion left untouched in 1964 was found to have been completely cut away by a pit/shaft of Roman date.
In the northern side of the trench two sockets for Bluestones 34 and 35a forming part of the Bluestone Circle were excavated. In the southern side of the trench part of the socket for sarsen Stone 10 was excavated. In the centre of the trench was a large slightly oval pit approximately 1.6 m by 1.25 m and 1.1 m deep, in the bottom of which as a rather worn copy of a coin of Constantius II dating to c. AD 348. A second Romano-British feature lay in the south-east corner of the trench. Medieval, post-medieval, and modern features are represented across the trench connected with stone robbing and antiquarian investigation.
Post-excavation work is underway. (Contribution to 2005 Research Objectives 1, 2, 3, and 5).
A collaborative programme by Birmingham University’s Visual and Spatial Technology Centre (VISTA) and the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Archaeological Prospection and Virtual Archaeology aims to use a range of geophysical surveys to consider the following objectives: the inter-visibility of monuments in the landscape; Stonehenge and its interaction with other monuments; the development over time of the Stonehenge landscape; and the activities between known monuments (Anon. 2010b). In 2010 the Greater Cursus Field was surveyed at high resolution and a segmented ditch and secondary inner ring of posts were discovered at Amesbury G50 attracting considerable publicity (Anon. 2010c; 2010d). First World War trenches were identified in the east of the survey area while much disturbance at the west end of the Cursus made interpretation difficult. Further surveys were carried out in 2011, extending the geographical extent of the survey eastwards and southwards (Anon. 2011c). (Contributions to 2005 Research Objectives 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 14, 15, 16, and 17).
An extensive high-resolution geophysical survey covering approximately two square kilometres was undertaken to the north of Stonehenge in June and October 2011 as an international collaboration between Bournemouth University and the German Archaeological Institute as part of a broader programme investigating early monument-building in different parts of Europe (Darvill et al. 2013). The area investigated included all of the Stonehenge Cursus together with downland extending southwards to the A344 and between King Barrow Ridge in the east and Fargo Plantation in the west. The aim of the work was to understand the structure of the Cursus and its spatial relationships with other monuments in the area. The survey provided abundant additional detail on the form and structure of the Stonehenge Cursus, including the recognition of entrances in both the long sides. Additional information about the internal form of round barrows in the Cursus Round Barrow Cemetery, the course of the Avenue, the course of the so-called Gate Ditch, and the numerous tracks and early roads crossing the landscape was gathered. In addition, a series of previously unrecognised features were recorded including: a pit-arc or cove below a barrow on the west side of King Barrow Ridge, a square enclosure on the east side of Stonehenge Bottom, a linear ditch on the same solsticial axis and parallel to the southern section of the Stonehenge Avenue, and a variety of pits and scoops. (Contributions to 2005 Research Objectives 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 14, 15, 16, and 17).
Studies of the historical records for the area around Vespasian’s Camp between 1999 and 2005 provided new insights into the impact of the 18th-century landscaping works in the area and suggested a lesser impact than had first been thought. Since 2005 excavations by a team initially from the Open University and subsequently the University of Buckingham have focused on the investigation of Blick Mead outside the north-east corner of Vespasian’s Camp (Jacques 2012; Jacques et al. 2010). Although once considered an 18th- century pond it is now recognised as a natural spring, the largest of a series in the area. In prehistoric times it may have been a seasonal feature, but 10 small excavations have revealed a wealth of deposits, the earliest of which include worked flints and an animal bone assemblage dominated by aurochs from the period 6250–4700 cal BC on the basis of two radiocarbon dates. A piece of rapier refashioned as a dagger and a piece of a bronze chisel suggest deposition at the spring in the Middle Bronze Age around 1400 cal BC. Later finds from the area include Iron Age pottery, a Romano-British lead curse, an Anglo-Saxon disc brooch, and medieval wooden staves showing the enduring nature of the place which the excavator suggests may be associated with a fertility/healing deity. The excavator notes the presence of other springs in the area, including one very near the stone circle and henge found by the Stonehenge Riverside Project at the southern end of the Avenue (Jacques 2012, 4). (Contributions to 2005 Research Objectives 4, 11, 15, and 17).
Much new research has been carried out into the geological origins and source outcrops of the various lithologies subsumed within the term ‘Bluestone’ as applied to the non-local stone used in the construction and workings of Stonehenge and found at the site itself and in the wider landscape. Stones SH34 and SH35a have been shown to be spotted dolerites (also known as Preselite) very similar to samples from Carn Menyn, while stones SH38 and SH40 are two different dacitic crystal-vitric- lithic ash-flow tuffs and SH46 and SH48 are two different rhyolitic crystal-vitric-lithic ash- flow tuffs (Ixer and Bevins 2011a). The stone type represented by SH48 was later defined as rhyolite Group E (rhyolite with visible feldspar phenocrysts) which is also represented by two pieces of debitage from the 2008 excavations (Ixer and Bevins 2011a, 22). Group D rhyolites (rhyolitic tuffs with late albite-titanite-chlorite intergrowths) are mainly confined to samples from the Stonehenge Cursus (see below) and are of unknown source (Ixer and Bevins 2010, 7; 2011a, 21–2). Three defined types of rhyolite (A–C) which are not represented amongst standing Bluestones at Stonehenge but have been recognised as debitage from the 2008 excavations within Stonehenge, the Heel Stone area, several Aubrey Holes, the Stonehenge Avenue, and the Stonehenge Cursus all derive from a series of outcrops at Craig Rhos-y-Felin near Pont Saeson on the north side of the Preseli ridge in Pembrokeshire (Ixer and Bevins 2011b; Bevins et al. 2011; Anon. 2011d; 2012a; 2012b). This source area was the focus of archaeological attention in summer 2011 when evaluation trenches against the outcrop located a detached columnar block and associated hammerstones (Parker Pearson et al. 2012).
A review of samples from the Altar Stone confirmed that it was a fine-to-medium grained calcareous sandstone of the kind found in the Senni Beds of south Wales. Four other pieces of sandstone from the Stonehenge Cursus, Stonehenge, Aubrey Hole 1 and Aubrey Hole 5 share a common lithology as low-grade metasediments and derive from a different source area, possibly from Lower Palaeozoic sandstone beds (Ixer and Turner 2006).
An examination of finds from the Cursus Field collected in 1947 and from excavations by the Stonehenge Riverside Project in 2006 and 2008 confirmed that much of the material could be matched with samples from Stonehenge (identified as Groups A–D: Ixer and Bevins 2011a; 2011b) but that some rhyolites could not be matched amongst existing samples (Ixer and Bevins 2010; Ixer et al. forthcoming).
Paul Robinson (2007) reported the results of petrological studies of 21 stone items from the Devizes Museum collections that were thin-sectioned by the Implement Petrology Committee of the South Western Federation of Museums and Art Galleries in the late 1950s. This includes material from barrows in Wilsford, Shrewton, and Winterbourne Stoke. An examination of spotted dolerite axeheads from southern England suggests that some may have been made from pieces of Stonehenge rather than introduced from more distant sources (Williams-Thorpe et al. 2006).
A new study of jadeite axe-heads from Wiltshire has shown that the example said to have derived from a barrow near Stonehenge and now in the Salisbury and South Wiltshire Museum (Accession number SSWM 28/59 (02919)) is of Alpine rock and is used to define the ‘Durrington type’ with an almond or teardrop-shaped outline and a sharply pointed butt. The original findspot of the piece remains a matter of debate, but a good case is made for derivation from the Knighton (Figheldean 27) long barrow (Sheridan et al. 2010, 26 and fig.7.2). (Contributions to 2005 Research Objectives 1, 5, 22).
This Leverhulme Trust funded project based at the University of Birmingham with participants from the universities of Bournemouth, Leicester, and the Open University, aims to catalogue and identify the significance of burial assemblages from Beaker and Early Bronze Age contexts in England (Woodward et al. 2005). Initial results show remarkable disparity in the use and fragmentation patterns of different artefact types. Some objects and groups it is suggested might be seen as symbolic depositions placed by mourners, or as parts of ceremonial costume, rather than as possessions of the deceased (Woodward et al. 2006; Woodward and Hunter 2011). (Contribution to 2005 Research Objective 22).
A variety of other pieces of research have been published, some revising earlier studies and others expanding into new areas.
The relative significance of solar and lunar orientations embedded in the architecture of Stonehenge has long been a subject of interest, and it remains so. Sims (2006) treats the sarsen monument at Stonehenge as one among a number of monuments with lunar–solar alignments which privileged night over day, winter over summer, dark moon over full. He proposes that the aim of the monument builders was to juxtapose, replicate and reverse certain key horizon properties of the sun and the moon, apparently with the intention of investing the sun with the moon’s former religious significance.
Beaker period and Early Bronze Age ‘Wessex Culture’ burials and burial mounds have attracted much attention in addition to the projects already described. An on-line database of late 3rd and 2nd millennium cal BC graves has been created by Andrew Martin and its content analysed (Martin and Langley 2006; Martin 2011). The first secure radiocarbon date of 2020–1770 cal BC (SUERC-26203: 3550±35 BP) for a Wessex I burial, the flexed inhumation of an adult male buried in a tree- trunk coffin accompanied by a Willerby type bronze flat axe, a crutch-headed bronze pin, a tanged bronze knife, and a piece of antler below West Overton G1 barrow, was published courtesy of the Beaker People Project (Needham et al. 2010a). And celebrating the two-hundredth anniversary of William Cunnington and Sir Richard Colt Hoare’s excavations into Bronze Age barrows on Normanton Down a reanalysis of the cemetery has been published (Needham et al. 2009; 2010b). This suggests that the EBA Period 3 burials in the cemetery, including the Bush Barrow grave, represent the last resting places of a dynastic succession that controlled access to Stonehenge for a while and presided over the ceremonies therein.
Artefacts from various parts of Britain have been shown to link with the gold lozenge from the Bush Barrow, amongst them a jet lozenge from Carlton Colville, Suffolk (Pitts 2007) and a broken amber lozenge from the Heathrow T5 excavations (Pitts 2011b).
A revised, slightly later, date for the early medieval execution at Stonehenge of cal AD 660–890 (OxA-13193: 1258±34 BP) has been published in the light of retesting one of the original samples (Hamilton et al. 2007).
Early images of Stonehenge continue to provide a fascinating line of inquiry, with attention directed to a vignette of the site in a Scala Mundi dated to AD 1440–1 (Heck 2007) and the image on page 291 of the edition of Camden’s Britannia published in 1600 which seems to be the earliest known illustration in a bound book (Allen 2008). John Herschel’s visits to Stonehenge in August 1865 provide dated illustrations before the collapse of Stones 21, 22 and 122 (Mitchell 2007). Alan Sorrell’s well-known reconstructions with their shades of gloom and foreboding are now over 50 years old (Pitts 2005c) while new images of Stonehenge in action have also been produced in a way that prompts interesting questions about the conventional phasing of the stone settings (Dunn 2012). The early history of aerial photography and its contribution to understanding the Stonehenge landscape has been thoroughly investigated by Martyn Barber (Barber 2011) while the potential of recent developments in lidar technology have been experimentally applied to the Stonehenge landscape (Bewley et al. 2005).
Military remains in the area continue to be a theme for research, the construction and use of training trenches being a theme explored by Graham Brown and David Field (2007).
On a rather different track, the sounds and musicology of Stonehenge have emerged as an interesting theme (Banfield 2009; Darvill 2009c; 2009d) while the site and its landscape remain an inspiration for artists (Wickstead 2008; 2014; Anon. 2008d), photography (Pitts 2008f), and the production of souvenirs and memorabilia (Richards 2008; 2009). Access to Stonehenge and its uses at the solstices have been probed and documented (Blain and Wallis 2006; Hutton 2005; Worthington 2005a; 2005b). There has also been a continuing interest in experimental archaeology-related Stonehenge problems: prominent is the practical question of how the large sarsens and the much smaller Bluestones were moved from their sources to the site – with increasingly ingenious (and increasingly unlikely) solutions offered, including the use of ball-bearings in wooden runners (Young 2011). Finds from Durrington Walls have been used to suggest brewing at the site, an activity enthusiastically reconstructed (Dineley 2008). (Contributions to 2005 Research Objectives 1, 3, 4, 11, 13, 17, and 25).
The state of knowledge about Stonehenge and its landscape is always provisional, always changing, and always contingent on wider understandings of the monuments, material culture, and the worlds that earlier communities inhabited. That is what makes the site and its landscape so exciting as an arena for research, and it is notable that Stonehenge features at number six in the top-ten of BIG research questions identified at the start of the second decade of the 21st century (Pitts 2011c, 18). As a result of work over the last decade some established ideas have been supported, other things overturned, and whole new dimensions revealed. A selection of changed, changing, and new aspects are considered briefly in the following sections.
Much has been done in recent years to improve understandings of prehistoric chronologies and the temporality represented by stratigraphic sequences. Key here is the erosion of the largely obsolete cultural-historical Three-Age terminology developed in the late 19th century which can be replaced by a back-projected calendrical chronology. This has the effect of focusing attention on the way events unfold and the speed of change over time. Needham (2008) for example has compared the late 3rd millennium cal BC to the Renaissance in terms of the cultural, artistic, and technical changes wrought over a relatively short time. Placing Stonehenge and the other features in the landscape within a more robust chronological framework allows direct comparisons between sites in terms of their construction, use, modification, and abandonment and on a broader scale allows these sites to be situated in relation to contemporary sites around the world.
In looking at the history of individual prehistoric sites there has been a tendency to follow an architecturally-based scheme for the identification of formal phases; this is especially marked at Stonehenge itself. But there is an increasing recognition that prehistoric sites were not delivered to predetermined ‘blue-prints’, rather they evolved and developed through iterative episodes of creativity in which the act of construction was itself a major focus of attention, so while it may be helpful to think in terms of ‘stages’, monuments should be seen as ongoing projects rather than a succession of complete entities.
The 2008 excavations in the central part of Stonehenge revealed the difficulties of interpreting the documented stratigraphy for the purposes of chronological modelling. Together with new information from work at Aubrey Hole 7, a new staging of the features inside Stonehenge has been assembled on the basis of a revised modelling of the available radiocarbon dates (Darvill et al. 2012). This suggests that the central Trilithon Horseshoe was the first structure to be built in the central area, perhaps along with the Sarsen Circle. The Bluestone circles were added later. Some discussion of the contemporaneity of other monuments in the landscape has been published on the basis of interim results from the Stonehenge Riverside Project (Parker Pearson et al. 2007).
With a start-date of c. 2950 cal BC for the construction of the earthwork enclosure at Stonehenge itself, many questions remain about what was happening in the landscape during the preceding millennia. This gap is starting to be filled by the discoveries around Vespasian’s Camp by David Jacques and colleagues (Jacques et al. 2010) and by discoveries made north-west of Countess Roundabout during field evaluations for the A303 upgrading (Leivers and Moore 2008, 14– 19). There is much more to be done on this chapter in the history of the Stonehenge landscape.
Discussion of long-distance connections between the Stonehenge area, the near continent, and the world of central Europe, southern Europe, and the Mediterranean has a long and turbulent history (see Darvill 2006, 174–5 for summary). Over the past decade or so the cultural geography of northern and western Europe has come into sharper focus as a result of much new research, especially for the 3rd and 2nd millennia cal BC. The relative isolation of the British Isles during the early 3rd millennium cal BC when Grooved Ware was the dominant ceramic in use has become clear. Equally, the period of internationalization associated with an uptake in the use of Beaker pottery around 2400 cal BC illustrates the speed with which things change. Heyd (2007; 2008) has characterised the Bell Beaker Culture as the third and last of a succession of supra-regional expansionistic cultures to emerge in northern and western Europe from the mid-4th millennium cal BC onwards. The Bell Beaker Culture originated in the Iberian Peninsula and spread eastwards not as a single homogeneous tradition but rather as a series of supra-regional groupings including the Mediterranean Group, East Group, and Atlantic Group. Within the Atlantic Group (also known as the Maritime Beaker Complex) Needham (2005) has identified what he terms ‘the phases of meaning’ spanning the period 2400 cal BC to 1700 cal BC. First is a period when Beakers were part of a circumscribed exclusive culture; pottery styles comprised low-carinated (Maritime) forms. Around 2250–2150 cal BC was a period of rapid mutation when Beaker traditions underwent a fusion with local Corded Ware traditions along the coastlands of the English Channel, North Sea, and Rhine Delta, prompting the second phase as a period of instituted culture when pottery forms included weak-carinated, tall mid-carinated, long-necked, short-necked, high-bellied, low- bellied, and globular forms. Finally, from 1950 cal BC to 1700 cal BC Beaker traditions were ‘past references’ to by-gone trends with pottery forms dominated by long-necked, globular, and mid-bellied styles.
A critical question now is how changes at Stonehenge fit into this bigger picture. Relevant here is the interest in solar symbolism represented within the Bell Beaker Culture, the role of the distinctive ceramic vessels, and the impact of the wanderlust shown by early Bell Beaker communities. The ‘Amesbury Archer’ is the earliest recorded Beaker-associated burial in Britain dating to the period 2380–2290 cal BC (Fitzpatrick 2011). Oxygen isotope analysis of his teeth suggests that in his early years he lived in a colder climate than Wessex, and an Alpine origin for this individual is favoured. Objects in the grave indicate international connections for the deceased or those associated with his funeral rituals that extend from Iberia to central Europe. Based largely on the presence of a well-used cushion-stone amongst the grave goods accompanying the ‘Archer’, Fitzpatrick (2011, 236–7) concludes that he was somehow involved in metalworking and that he travelled to Britain in this connection. The ‘Boscombe Bowmen’ also travelled, although probably on a more limited compass and most probably from west Wales (Fitzpatrick 2011, 32). It is tempting to link their travels with the transportation of the Bluestones from west Wales to Stonehenge and certainly an early Beaker context for this would be appropriate (Case 1997). Much therefore depends on when exactly these stones first appeared at Stonehenge: Parker Pearson preferring a date in the first quarter of the 3rd millennium cal BC date, while Darvill and Wainwright favour the last quarter of the 3rd millennium cal BC when Beaker associations would be fully acceptable (cf. Anon. 2009b).
A continuation of international connections through the post-Beaker centuries of the early 2nd millennium cal BC can be suggested from finds made with burials in the surrounding landscape; it was these that mainly fuelled earlier debates. Needham (2000) provides a context for the movement of artefacts over long distances in terms of cross- channel connections with communities who were themselves in contact with more distant groups so that items could move ‘down the line’ step by step. Isotope analysis of teeth from the skeleton of a young man associated with a necklace of amber beads found at Amesbury Down re-opened the debate about direct links to the Aegean in the mid-2nd millennium cal BC (Barclay 2010) although these have not yet been fully published.
It has long been recognised that Stonehenge is not an isolated structure but rather one that is spatially and chronologically connected to other sites in the area and beyond. One of the big achievements of the extensive hi-resolution geophysical surveys is to show just how empty the surrounding landscape really is. This is supported by the poverty of finds made during field evaluation for the road schemes in the area (Leivers and Moore 2008). Prior to the development of the major barrow cemeteries there were large open spaces around Stonehenge; open that is in the sense of not containing structures that leave distinctive geomagnetic signatures. Even with the appearance and elaboration of the barrow cemeteries to their full extent during the middle centuries of the 2nd millennium cal BC there were large empty spaces. These could be seen as gathering places or arenas for performances associated with the use of Stonehenge itself or the barrows within the barrow cemeteries. Such a pattern has been discerned in the layout of the excavated barrow cemetery at Barrow Hills, Radley, Oxfordshire (Barclay and Halpin 1999, 298–325) and it would be interesting to examine similar possibilities in relation to the social use of space within the Stonehenge cemeteries in the light of the detailed survey data now becoming available.
Natural characteristics of the post- glacial landscape have been presented as possible structuring elements of the 3rd and 2nd millennia cal BC socially-constructed landscapes of monuments (Parker Pearson et al. 2010), although earlier debates about similar patterns in relation to a possible northern branch of the Stonehenge Avenue summarily dismissed at least some options (Cleal et al. 1995, 312–14). Geophysical surveys have revealed other cultural features in the landscape that might be relevant to large- scale structuring but these need investigating in order to date them and assess their contribution. The full publication of investigations carried out on behalf of English Heritage for the proposed visitor centres at Larkhill and Countess Road as well as the recent studies at Airman’s Corner would provide useful information about the date and extent of features recorded through aerial photography and geophysical survey.
Stonehenge has long dominated the archaeology of its landscape, a matter that the topographic and geophysical surveys on a landscape scale are beginning to address. Through this work new structures are being discovered and additional phases to previously recorded structures are being identified. Important here is the pit/post circle north-west of Airman’s Corner, the henge and stone circle within the southern terminal of the Avenue at West Amesbury, the possible cove on King Barrow Ridge and the features on the flanks of Stonehenge Bottom recorded through geophysical surveys. With the exception of the West Amesbury Henge, all need field evaluation as a matter of urgency to validate them. The same applies to other features identified though aerial photography and surface survey. One of the obvious conclusions of such work by the Stonehenge Riverside Project is just how dangerous it is to build models that are heavily reliant on undated earthworks and structures.
Part of the Research Frameworks Network