RESEARCHING THE STONEHENGE & AVEBURY WORLD HERITAGE SITE
ABSTRACTS
Defining the inherited natural landscape
Michael J. Allen, Bournemouth University, and Allen Environmental Archaeology
For many decades we have considered the Stonehenge area, like other areas to have
been one in which post-glacial woodland development occurred which eventually
enveloped moist of the landscape. This provided the landscape in which the first
Mesolithic communities entered to hunt deer, auroch and boar, and to collect other
woodland resources fruits, berries, wood, etc. In the early Neolithic these woodlands
were then locally and progressive cleared for the construction of monuments (long
barrows in the 37th century BC, and causewayed enclosures in the 36th century BC)
then clearing for browse and graze, and eventually tillage and farming etc. This
development is predicated on the basis of the widely accepted hypothesis that the
natural vegetation succession defended by Blytt and Serander uniformly covered most of
NW Europe. Recent research tests these assumptions and has profound and significant
effects for our understanding of the Stonehenge landscape as shows a whole re-thinking
of this landscape (and others) is required.
Stonehenge and Avebury from above: 1881-2010
Martyn Barber, English Heritage
English Heritage’s National Mapping Programme (NMP) aims to identify and map all
archaeological features visible on aerial photographs. Projects such as those focused on
the Avebury (1997-98) and Stonehenge (2001) landscapes are each able to draw on
thousands of photographs held in collections such as that of the National Monuments
Record, Swindon. Typically, the earliest available photographs tend to date to the early
1920s, but Stonehenge in particular is unique in possessing a history of aerial
photography that starts before the First World War.
Since the Avebury and Stonehenge projects were completed, regular aerial
reconnaissance has continued, additional collections of historic photographs have
become accessible, and data from new airborne survey techniques – notably lidar –
have increasingly become available. As a result, new discoveries continue to be made,
but not always from the most obvious sources. The aims of this presentation are, firstly,
to remind people that this work actually takes place and to encourage use of the results;
secondly to highlight some discoveries new and old; and thirdly, to offer a brief taste of
what aerial survey is actually all about.
Beyond Stonehenge
Timothy Darvill, Bournemouth University
Excavations at Stonehenge in spring 2008 comprised the second phase of a long-term
project known as SPACES, whose overarching aim is to examine the archaeology of the
Preseli Hills in southwest Wales and explore the relationships between Stonehenge and
the sources of the bluestones. Although small, the 2008 trench called into question many
traditional assumptions about the site, its history, and wider relationships. Looking to the
future, the SPACES project emphasizes the need to look beyond Stonehenge as a
familiar prehistoric monument.
Deciphering the palimpsest
David Field, English Heritage
Archaeological landscape investigation has produced evidence of several major
changes in prehistoric land-use on the chalk of Wiltshire. In addition, it has provided new
perspectives that influence interpretations of certain monuments within the World
Heritage Site. This short account will consider the surface evidence for some of these
including Silbury Hill, Stonehenge itself and, situated mid way between the two, Marden.
Practice-based Research
Andrew Fitzpatrick, Wessex Archaeology
Today most archaeological work is undertaken in response to proposed developments
and is undertaken by professional practices. While this practice-based research will
address research questions and can make important contributions, it is not researchdriven in the way that, for example, a research excavation is. Despite this, the model
typically used for projects undertaken by professional practice is that of a research
project.
This paper will outline some of the differences between the 'academy' and 'practicebased' models of research. It will be suggested that a clearer understanding of the
differences between these models will help understand what types of contribution they,
and also other types of research, might be anticipated to make to future Research
Agendas.
‘I have come after them and made repair’
Dr Rob Ixer FSA
The precise number, identity, geological provenance and prehistorical significance of the
various Stonehenge bluestones have been, and will always remain, contentious, for they
provide the stony springboards for speculation. Petrographical re-examination (using
‘total petrography’) of lithic assemblages collected during the last century, plus
examination of those from 21st century excavations, found within Stonehenge and its
immediate environs (over 7000samples) combined with dedicated, geological, in situ
collecting has allowed a greater qualification and quantification of the rock types,
demonstrated their relative archaeological ‘importance’ and suggested their possible
origins. However, the data have also uncovered cryptic questions including:  Why are some orthostats not represented in the abundant and spatially quite
uniform Stonehenge ‘debitage’ ---and vice versa?
 Why are the geological origins of the non-dolerite bluestone so diverse and often
from ‘insignificant’ outcrops?
Detailed rock and mineral geochemistry plus statistical analysis of the ‘debitage’ may
answer these and the more straightforward questions.
Authoring the mound: recent work at Silbury Hill
Jim Leary, English Heritage
The 2007/8 Silbury Hill Conservation Project was perhaps the last opportunity for our
generation to take a look inside this unusual monument. This paper will consider how
retracing Richard Atkinson’s 1968 tunnel into the heart of the hill and using an intensive
programme of recording and sampling provided detail about the construction and use of
Silbury Hill. Now, exactly ten years after the hole appeared and almost exactly two years
after fieldwork finished, new information has been generated about the archaeology of
Silbury Hill. A new book, ‘The Story of Silbury Hill’, will be published this October.
A complex of cemeteries
Stuart Needham, Independent Researcher & John Hunter, Birmingham University
This paper looks further at the relationship between barrow cemeteries and pre-existing
monument complexes during the earlier half of the second millennium BC. Opinion
swings to and fro as to why certain zones in the landscape, such as the Avebury and
Stonehenge WHSs, seem to have a disproportionate number of burial mounds (barrow
intensification). Although the barrows/cemeteries can in places seem like constellations
around former sites, it is suggested that it is a mistake simply to view these landscapes
accretively. Specific research needs to be directed towards not only this broader issue,
but also how individual cemeteries evolved and how they came to have their particular
landscape settings and spatial interrelationships. Questions and ideas leading out from
joint research on the Normanton Down barrow complex (with Andrew Lawson and Ann
Woodward) and the Leverhulme backed Ritual in Early Bronze Age grave groups project
will provide foundations for exploration.
Future research priorities
Mike Parker Pearson, Sheffield University
Neolithic Avebury: present and future knowledge
Josh Pollard, Bristol University
Due in no small part to its archaeological 'fame' and prominent position within the
literature, there will always exist a perception that our knowledge of the prehistory (and
especially that of the Neolithic) of the Avebury landscape is comprehensive: that our
narratives of this region are substantially complete. Such a perception is deceptive. The
region has witnessed major programmes of fieldwork since the mid 1980s, and these
have substantially transformed our knowledge of the Neolithic here, but it is sobering to
reflect on the 'known unknowns' - the sequence of monumental construction at the
Avebury henge; the scale, tempo and composition of settlement events; the timing of
Neolithic beginnings in the region; and so forth. There remains much to be done.
Wrapping up Stonehenge
Colin Richards, Manchester University
Landscape archaeology with high resolution models from airborne survey
C.A. Shell, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge
As well as a proven role in the prospection for new sites and assessing the surface
survival of known monuments, airborne laser scanning (lidar), with synthetic aperture
radar (IFSAR), provide accurate digital landscapes for the study of monument locations
and their inter-relationships. They provide also the valuable landscape vehicle for GIS
display of spatial data sets for both evidence-based research and resource
management. Examples of recent integrated investigations are given for both.
The Stonehenge cursus complex
Julian Thomas, Manchester University
The Stonehenge People Project: assessing the human remains from the
Stonehenge landscape 3700-1600 BC
Stefanie Vincent, English Heritage
In 2005 Stonehenge: An Archaeological Research Framework highlighted the current
lack of comprehensive knowledge of the extant human remains from Stonehenge and
the surrounding area. The Stonehenge People Project: set out to locate and
osteologically assess remains from the study area termed the ‘Stonehenge Landscape’
(as defined in the research framework) which were dated to 1600-3700BC. This
presentation will provide a brief overview of the work carried out and discuss the
potential of the remains to inform future research.