STONEHENGE HIDDEN LANDSCAPES PROJECT; GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATION
AND LANDSCAPE MAPPING OF THE STONEHENGE WORLD HERITAGE SITE
V. Gaffney, C. Gaffney, P. Garwood, W. Neubauer, H. Chapman, K. Löcker, E. Baldwin
1. RESEARCH SUMMARY AND CONTEXT
Stonehenge occupies one of the richest archaeological landscapes in the world, recorded in the course of intensive archaeological and antiquarian research over several hundred years, yet
much of this landscape effectively remains terra incognita. The
Stonehenge Hidden Landscapes Project aims to address current
limitations and gaps in our knowledge and understanding of the
Stonehenge landscape by conducting a cutting-edge geophysical
and remote sensing survey at an unprecedented scale – to encompass a large portion of the World Heritage Site - with a projected
total survey area of about 10 square kilometres. This is possible
only because of the unique expertise and combined resources of
the project partners, the Visual and Spatial Technology Centre
(VISTA) at the Institute of Archaeology and Antiquity, University of Birmingham, and the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Archaeological Prospection & Virtual Archaeology (LBI ArchPro)
in Vienna.
The results of the project are used to create a highly detailed archaeological map of the ‘invisible’ landscape, providing the basis for a full interpretative synthesis of all existing remote sensing and geophysical data from the study area, as well
as comparative evaluation of the results of archaeological excavation data in relation to geophysical results. For the first time it
is thus possible to create total digital models of the Stonehenge
landscape at a true ‘landscape scale’ that not only transcend the
immediate surrounds of individual monuments within the study
area, but also tie them together within a seamless map of subsurface and surface archaeological features and structures.
Although recent studies have provided an unusually detailed
archaeological and digital database for Stonehenge and its immediate environs (notably: RCHME 1979; Richards 1990; Cleal
et al. 1995; Exon et al. 2000; Larrson and Parker Pearson (eds)
2008), the historic research emphasis on the monuments has
rarely permitted a rigorous analysis of wider landscape structures in relation to the emerging complexity of the archaeological evidence. This is perhaps surprising given the explicit
landscape-scale and context of analysis and interpretation embodied in much of this work, including special prominence given
to structured ‘symbolic landscapes’, cosmography and architectural order (e.g. Darvill, 1997; Parker Pearson and Ramilisonina, 1998; cf. Darvill, 2006, Lawson, 2007). Hitherto, despite
the impressive scale and outstanding results of recent fieldwork
programmes, especially those undertaken by the Stonehenge Environs and Stonehenge Riverside projects, these have reproduced
a fairly traditional monument/site-focused approach to field investigation. The nature, spatial locations and extent of previous
geophysical prospection work within the study area are broadly
consistent with this wider pattern, being driven either by reactive evaluation strategies determined by the planning process and
mitigation of proposed development, or by monument-focused
research agenda, resulting in discontinuous, fragmentary, relatively small-scale and often linear rather than spatially-extensive
survey areas (Payne, 1995; David and Payne, 1997; David, 2005;
Figure 1: Stonehenge within the UK.
Darvill, 2005, Maps B, Q). The guiding philosophy of the project
presented here is entirely different: the intention is to explore
landscape as undivided three-dimensional space and to understand ancient built environments and associated practices at extensive scales within that spatial framework.
Whilst this approach certainly underpinned previous work in
the Stonehenge landscape by members of the current team (see
Exon et al., 2000), the Stonehenge Hidden Landscapes Project
aims to pursue a range of new research objectives (not limited
to known monuments) at a much greater scale and a far higher
level of both data resolution and complexity. In recent years,
teams from VISTA have also been engaged in constructing a virtual environment for the immediate area around Stonehenge and
have undertaken geophysical survey work within the wider landscape. There is now the opportunity to realize the full potential
of this outstanding technological, methodological and research
expertise and the exceptional scale of resourcing available to the
project. This consortium has been created as part of the Ludwig
Boltzmann Institute for Archaeological Prospection and Virtual
Archaeology, which has provided funding for international par-
V. Gaffney, C. Gaffney, P. Garwood, W. Neubauer, H. Chapman, K. Löcker, E. Baldwin
Figure 2: Stonehenge plan.
Figure 3: Stonehenge and major monument groups.
ticipation and access to the exceptional technical resources that
are used during survey. The University of Birmingham IBM Visual and Spatial Technology Centre is the UK partner within the
consortium and leads the fieldwork, supports project management and provides regional expertise.
As part of this process, it is intended to undertake more detailed surveys of selected areas combining both magnetometry
and ground-penetrating radar surveys, especially of major round
barrow groups close to Stonehenge (such as the Cursus, Winterbourne Stoke Crossroads and Normanton Down groups). These
have been subject to very little recent investigation, despite their
exceptional research significance for the British Early Bronze
Age at a national scale, their relevance to European Bronze Age
studies (i.e. in relation to the Wessex rich graves and continental interactions), and specific mention in all research agenda and
strategy documents produced for the World Heritage Site (see
below), the Wessex region (Woodward and Gardiner, 1998) and
the South-West England region (Webster, 2007).
More generally, the project addresses many of the research,
conservation and management priorities identified in the Stonehenge World Heritage Site Archaeological Research Framework
(Darvill, 2005, 107-20) and in the Stonehenge World Heritage
Site Management Plan (English Heritage, 2009). Indeed, by
virtue of its scale and spatiality integrative qualities there are
few research issues specified in these documents that are not
addressed in some way by the project. Of these, the following
stand out as exceptionally significant in terms of project design
implications and their interpretative potential in relation to the
already existing data sets arising from the survey work:
2. PROJECT OBJECTIVE
Our knowledge of the Stonehenge archaeological landscape will
be revolutionized by integrating remote sensing and geophysical
prospection with context aware visualization, which combines
the existing landscape with prospection and other archaeological data in a seamless fashion. It has been proposed that the
VISTA/LBI consortium should survey the majority of available
land within the area of the ‘Stonehenge Envelope’ (defined by
Cleal and Allen, 1995) over a period of four years using the
unique equipment resource available to the group. In doing so,
the partners are developing the research results to create an unparalleled remote-sensed database, integrating the data in a novel
manner in order to inform archaeological research and heritage
management for regional and national curators. See Figure 5 for
the initial outline of the total study area.
The extent of previous geophysical prospection of all kinds
within the Stonehenge World Heritage Site up to 2001 has been
estimated at 3.1602 square km (David, 2005, 14). Since that
time, additional geophysical survey in the area, primarily connected with the Stonehenge Riverside Project, probably amounts
to less than 800 ha (this is a rough estimate as only a small part of
this work has been published; Payne, 2006). Overall, therefore,
less than 4.0 square km of the landscape have been subject to
geophysical survey of diverse types, variable data resolution and
uneven and fragmented spatial coverage. In contrast, the project
outlined here consists of a single high-intensity geophysical survey encompassing an estimated 14 square km of the World Heritage Site, providing high-resolution, contiguous extensive mapping of geophysical data in its own right, while also providing
a means to tie together and re-evaluate all previous geophysical
surveys with reference to a single seamless ‘control’ data set.
Stonehenge World Heritage Site Archaeological Research
Framework (Darvill, 2005)
Strategic objectives
1. Investigate the essential importance and distinctiveness of
Stonehenge past and present.
3. Modelling environment and landscape change.
4. Understanding occupation.
6. The Avenue – ground checking geophysical anomalies
and mapping.
8. Investigate the palisade ditch northwest of Stonehenge.
Stonehenge Hidden Landscapes Project
Figure 4: Previous research areas: 1) Stonehenge and its Environs (RCHM(E), 1979). 2) The Stonehenge Environs Project (Richards,
1990). 3) Stonehenge in its Landscape (Cleal et al., 1995). 4) Birmingham Stonehenge Landscapes inner study area (Exon et al., 2001).
5) Birmingham Stonehenge Landscapes enlarged study area (Exon et al., 2001).
10. Barrow cemetery surveys.
12. Characterise and investigate the main fieldsystems within
the Stonehenge landscape.
14. Compiling a geophysical map of the Stonehenge area.
24. Develop enhanced mapping and visualization programmes for archaeological data sets.
Research agenda issues
15. Filling data gaps.
7. The linear structures in the Stonehenge landscape.
16. Validating and dating features revealed by aerial photography.
9. Barrow cemetery evolution, structure and meaning.
17. Understanding recent land-use change and Historic Landscape Characterization.
10. Monumentality, materiality, memory, identity, and the
changing landscape.
12. The social use of space.
V. Gaffney, C. Gaffney, P. Garwood, W. Neubauer, H. Chapman, K. Löcker, E. Baldwin
15. Astronomy, attitudes, the idea of sacred spaces, and cosmology.
16. Field systems and the early agricultural landscape.
17. Landscape evolution and design.
18. Relationship between physical access, experience and
people’s sense of place.
19. The robustness of assumed knowledge based on earlier
investigations.
21. Meaning and utility of traditional monument classifications.
22. Contemporaneity and relationships between monuments
at landscape, regional & world scales.
23. Filling the gaps and understanding distributions.
24. Populating the record for post-Roman studies.
25. Environment and change to the physical landscape.
26. The hidden landscapes.
27. The missing slices of time.
31. Shaping popular perceptions
33. Linking research and site management.
34. Restoration and access.
35. Importance and vulnerability.
The results of survey to date have been dramatic and these will
be outlined in the following papers. Without doubt this has resulted in a degree of variation to the original proposals figure
6. There will also be the need to elaborate on some aspects of
the project. The serendipitous location of new monuments frequently results in the re-direction of resource during fieldwork
and there will, for instance, be an increasing complementary
emphasis on the survey of upstanding monuments and particularly the barrow groups surrounding the Stonehenge Envelope
to provide an insight into monuments which may not have been
excavated or which have only previously attracted the attention
of antiquarians. The results however, will certainly be unique
in terms of the holistic landscape generated and the quality and
extent of the data generated.
REFERENCES
B ENDER B. 1998. Stonehenge: Making Space. Berg: Oxford.
C LEAL RMJ, WALKER K, AND M ONTAGUE R. 1995. Stonehenge in its Landscape. London: EH Arch Rep 10.
C LEAL RMJ, A LLEN MJ. 1995. The visual envelope. In Stonehenge in its Landscape: twentieth century excavations, Cleal
RMJ, Walker KE and Montague R, 34-40. London: English Heritage.
DAVID A. 2005. Ground-based geophysical surveys. In Stonehenge World Heritage Site: an archaeological research framework, Darvill T, 14-15. London and Bournemouth: English Heritage and Bournemouth University.
DAVID A, PAYNE , A. 1997. Geophysical surveys within the
Stonehenge Landscape: a review of past endeavour and future
potential. In B Cunliffe and C Renfrew (eds), Science and Stonehenge, 73-113. Oxford: Proceedings of the British Academy 92.
DARVILL T. 1997. Ever increasing circles: the sacred geographies of Stonehenge and its landscape. In B Cunliffe and C Renfrew (eds), Science and Stonehenge, 167-202. Oxford: Proceedings of the British Academy 92.
DARVILL T. 2005. Stonehenge World Heritage Site: an archaeological research framework. London and Bournemouth: English
Heritage and Bournemouth University.
DARVILL T. 2006. Stonehenge: the biography of a landscape.
Stroud: Tempus.
E NGLISH H ERITAGE 2009. Stonehenge World Heritage Site
Management Plan.
E XON S, G AFFNEY V, W OODWARD A, YORSTON A. 2000.
Stonehenge Landscapes: journeys through real-and-imagined
worlds. Oxford: Archeopress.
L ARSSON L, PARKER P EARSON M. (eds). 2008 From Stonehenge to the Baltic: living with cultural diversity in the third
millennium BC. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1692.
L AWSON A. 2007. Chalkland: an archaeology of Stonehenge
and its region. Hobnob Press: Salisbury.
PARKER P EARSON M, R AMILISONINA. 1998. Stonehenge for
the ancestors: the stones pass on the message. Antiquity 72:308326.
PAYNE A. 1995. Appendix 1: Geophysical surveys at Stonehenge, 1993-4. In Stonehenge in its Landscape: twentiethcentury excavation, Cleal RMJ, Walker KE, Montague R, 495510. English Heritage: London.
PAYNE A. 2007. Stonehenge Riverside Project, West Amesbury
and Greater Cursus, Wiltshire: report on geophysical surveys,
July 2006. London: English Heritage Research Department Report Series 41.
Richards J. 1990. The Stonehenge Environs Project. London:
EH Arch Rep 16.
RCHM(E). 1979. Stonehenge and its Environs: monuments and
land use. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
W EBSTER CJ. (ed) 2007. The Archaeology of South West England. South West Archaeological Research Framework: Resource Assessment and Research Agenda. Taunton: Somerset
County Council.
W OODWARD A, G ARDINER J. (eds) 1998. Wessex before
words: some new research directions for prehistoric Wessex.
Trust for Wessex Archaeology.
Stonehenge Hidden Landscapes Project
Figure 5: Original survey area.
Figure 6: Surveyed area in October 2012.