A Research Framework for the , and Associated Sites World Heritage Site

Research Activity in the 2005–2012

Timothy Darvill

i

A Research Framework for the Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites World Heritage Site

Research Activity in the Stonehenge Landscape 2005–2012

Timothy Darvill

with contributions by Matt Leivers, Andrew B. Powell, Melanie Pomeroy-Kellinger and Sarah Simmonds

Illustrations by Rob Goller

ii

Contents

Research agenda and research strategy ...... 8 List of Figures ...... iv The new Research Framework’s components . 9 List of Plates ...... iv Radiocarbon dates ...... 10 Acknowledgements ...... v Lifespan ...... 10 Foreword ...... vi Abstract ...... vii Foreign language summaries ...... ix Research activity in the Stonehenge landscape 2005-2012 ...... 11 by Timothy Darvill Introduction ...... 11 Introduction ...... 1 Research undertaken ...... 11 by Matt Leivers, Andrew B. Powell, Melanie Development-prompted research ...... 11 Pomeroy-Kellinger and Sarah Simmonds Problem-orientated research ...... 14 Management Plans and Research Frameworks1 Forging new understandings ...... 22 Review of the existing frameworks ...... 3 Dating ...... 22 Recent research ...... 3 Long-distance connections ...... 23 The new Research Framework ...... 5 Landscape structure ...... 24 Aims and objectives ...... 6 Importance of other monuments ...... 24 Consultation...... 6 Geographical scope ...... 7 Structure ...... 8 Bibliography ...... 25 Resource assessment ...... 8

iii

List of Figures

Figure 1 The WHS boundaries Figure 3 The Stonehenge WHS Figure 2 The Avebury WHS

List of Plates

Plate 1 Removing the A344 during the Plate 5 Multi-sensor vehicle-towed Stonehenge Environmental gradiometer at Stonehenge, June 2011 Improvement Project Plate 6 Excavations over the line of the Plate 2 timber settings south of Double Bluestone Circle at Stonehenge, April 2008 Plate 3 Airman’s Corner, prior to the closure Plate 7 Stonehenge: the Bluestones and of the A344, the relocation of the cross, and the construction of the new Plate 8 Barrows in the Stonehenge landscape. Stonehenge Visitor Centre Plate 9 Replicas of the Beakers from Plate 4 Finds from the ‘ Archer’ Amesbury Down grave

iv

Acknowledgements

The researching, writing and production of this on their 2010 Research Agenda for Normanton Framework was commissioned and partly Down, thus saving us the effort of reinventing funded by Historic . The project was the wheel. Access to the draft 2013 Research undertaken by , for whom Plan for Stonehenge and the Avenue was it was successively managed by Paul White, similarly helpful. Nikki Cook and Matt Leivers. At Historic The comments of our referees were England (then ), the project invaluable in making the Research Framework was managed by Kath Perrin until 2011, after better than it otherwise would have been. which Helen Keeley assumed responsibility for Frances Healy is grateful to Nikki it. Amanda Chadburn was instrumental in Cook for the invitation to contribute the getting the project established and funded. Avebury Resource assessment, to Alex Bayliss In its final form it incorporates the for access to Historic England models and files contributions of many individuals, only some and, especially, for comment on a draft, to of whom wrote the words of which it Peter Marshall for access to the Silbury Hill ultimately consists. Everyone who contributed models, to Jim Leary for permission to include – either in a workshop or meeting or through the Marlborough dates, to Mike Parker comments on drafts – altered the shape the Pearson for permission to use dates from the Framework finally took. Many of the authors Beaker People Project and to Mandy Jay for of the resource assessments wrote in their own information. time, for no financial reward. In addition to the Bruce Eagles wishes to acknowledge named authors, we are particularly grateful to the assistance of Barry Ager (who kindly the overlapping memberships of the Avebury discussed the vessel from the Marlborough and Stonehenge Archaeological and Historical area and the silver brooch from East Kennett) Research Group and the Stonehenge and and Susan Youngs (the penannular brooches Avebury Revised Research Framework Project from the vicinity of Oldbury). Dr Joshua Board, especially Rosamund Cleal, David Pollard drew attention to the letter in his Dawson, Helen Keeley, Phil McMahon, Dan possession that appears to refer to intrusive Miles, Melanie Pomeroy-Kellinger, Joshua Anglo-Saxon interments in the East Kennet Pollard, Sarah Simmonds, Nicola Snashall, . Richard Henry provided Francis Taylor and Beth Thomas. Kate Fielden information from the PAS Database. copy edited an earlier version of the draft text. Photographs and other illustrations Stuart Needham, Andrew Lawson and were provided by Timothy Darvill, Joshua Ann Woodward graciously allowed us to draw Pollard and Wessex Archaeology.

v

Foreword

In 1986 Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated World Heritage properties. The publication of Sites was one of the small group of seven sites this first joint Research Framework is an which were the first in the UK to be inscribed important step in fulfilling this ambition. on the UNESCO World Heritage List. I am Historic England has been eager to therefore delighted to see the publication of the produce a single Research Framework first joint Stonehenge and Avebury Research covering the whole World Heritage Site in line Framework on the 30th Anniversary of its with UNESCO’s recommendation to take a inscription as a World Heritage Site. unified approach to managing serial Sites. In Stonehenge and Avebury were doing so, the World Heritage Site partners inscribed as one World Heritage Site for their have built on the success of the earlier Avebury Outstanding Universal Value. The Site is Research Agenda and Stonehenge Research recognised by UNESCO as a masterpiece of Framework. human creative genius that demonstrates the This new joint Framework is the technological and engineering skills of a long result of committed and effective partnership lost Neolithic and culture. The working. The document is a true collaboration; World Heritage Site extends far beyond the the work of individual researchers, university iconic at Avebury and Stonehenge to academics, national and local authority staff, encompass their surrounding landscapes, each museum curators and private sector heritage containing an unusually dense concentration of professionals. The wider community has also exceptionally well-preserved prehistoric had the opportunity to influence the questions monuments. Both landscapes have a research being investigated through public consultation potential that is internationally recognised. undertaken as part of the document’s Over the last 30 years, great advances have development. been made in our understanding of the World This Research Framework will be Heritage Site as well as its protection and available to universities and research enhancement. organisations as well as the wider community. The UNESCO Operational Guidelines There is much here that will help to inspire and for the Implementation of the World Heritage direct future research into these remarkable Convention advise States Parties to make and unparalleled landscapes over the next 30 resources available to encourage and undertake years and beyond. research. They recognise that knowledge and understanding are fundamental to the Duncan Wilson identification, management, and monitoring of Chief Executive, Historic England

vi

Abstract

The Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated guide and inform future research activities in Sites World Heritage Site comprises two areas the historic environment and, in turn, its of Wessex chalkland some 40 km apart, management and interpretation. The intention connected by their distinctive complexes of is that it will be underpinned by data- Neolithic and Bronze Age sites. Both areas management systems that can be actively have played a central role in the understanding maintained as project-specific tools into the of Britain’s prehistoric past and are among the future. This new framework, therefore, fulfils a most iconic and widely-recognised prehistoric number of objectives. It provides revisions landscapes in the world. Their international (redrafting and updating) of the existing significance was recognised by their Avebury and Stonehenge resource inscription on UNESCO’s World Heritage List assessments; it starts the process of in 1986, and it is particularly apt that this new harmonising and integrating the earlier Research Framework should mark the 30th separate research documents with the anniversary of the World Heritage Site's production for the first time of a single, creation. combined research agenda and strategy for the These volumes represent the first step whole World Heritage Site; and it develops a towards the production of a fully integrated method to facilitate future review and revision. Research Framework for the Site. The first In future, this task will be undertaken by volume consists of an update to the Resource ASAHRG, which replaces the Avebury Assessment for the Stonehenge area, which Archaeological and Historical Research Group extends the scope of the original version to promote and disseminate historical and (Darvill 2005) to 2012. The second contains a archaeological research in the World Heritage new Resource Assessment for the Avebury Site as a whole. area which incorporates the 2008 boundary Recent Research in the Stonehenge changes. Both of these volumes explicitly Landscape 2005–2012 consists of summaries expand the focus of the earlier Resource of development-prompted research and Assessments from archaeology to the wider problem-orientated research, followed by a historic environment. The third volume is a looking at recently changed and Research Agenda and Strategy for the whole changing aspects of research: dating, long- World Heritage Site. The rationale for the form distance connections, landscape structure, and this Framework takes is complex, and is laid the relevance of other monuments. The out in the Introduction, but it is envisaged as Avebury Resource Assessment provides both an intermediate stage between the separate cross-period assessments of the resource based documents that were originally produced on a number of specific research methods (AAHRG 2001; Darvill 2005) and a single which have been used to develop our integrated assessment, agenda and strategy. understanding of the archaeology in the The new Framework is the result of Avebury area, and a series of period-based consultation across the research community in assessments, from the Palaeolithic to the its broadest definition. Authors were invited to modern period. The Research Agenda produce resource assessments and technical articulates the significant gaps in our summaries; workshops and meetings guided understanding, by posing some of the the initial drafts of the Research Agenda; the outstanding questions in a form that is relevant Avebury and Stonehenge Archaeological and to a number of chronological periods and Historical Research Group (ASAHRG) major thematic subjects of relevance to the provided criticism of both. Drafts of texts were unique character of the World Heritage Site. presented for public consultation and comment The Research Strategy sets out a framework of via the internet. The Research Strategy was principles under which research should be formulated based on their content, and the carried out in the World Heritage Site, and whole circulated for further comment. In identifies practical means by which such consequence, the new Research Framework programmes of investigation can be facilitated, offers a guide that reflects the priorities and co-ordinated, resourced, sustained and encompasses the views of the widest possible communicated, and by which the Research community. It is in every sense a collaborative Framework as a whole can be reviewed and document, produced by and for the updated. constituency of researchers working within the The continuing nature of World Heritage Site. archaeological research inevitably means that These documents are intended to many discoveries – some of considerable vii

significance – were made during the period of up-to-date is not a failing, but rather an the writing of these volumes. In order to bring indication of the need for a planned approach the years of work which have gone into these to investigation in an area which still, after documents to fruition, a line had to be drawn. centuries of investigation, has not given up all That the Research Framework is not absolutely of its secrets.

viii

Abrégé

Le site classé au patrimoine mondial de circuler le tout pour davantage de Stonehenge, Avebury et sites associés commentaires. Par conséquent le nouveau comprend deux zones crayeuses, distantes de cadre de recherches offre un guide qui reflète quelques 40 km, unies par leurs complexes les priorités et englobe les idées de la plus particuliers de sites du néolithique et de l’âge large communauté possible. C’est un du bronze. Ces deux zones ont joué un rôle document collaboratif dans tous les sens du central dans la compréhension du passé terme, produit par, et pour, les membres du préhistorique de la Grande-Bretagne et se collège de chercheurs travaillant dans le site situent parmi les paysages préhistoriques les classé au patrimoine mondial. plus symboliques et les mieux connus du Ces documents sont destinés à guider monde. Leur importance internationale fut et inspirer les futures activités de recherches reconnue par leur inscription sur la liste des dans cet environnement historique et, le sites classés au patrimoine mondial de moment venu, sa gestion et son interprétation. l’UNESCO en 1986, et il est particulièrement L’intention est qu’il sera étayé par des approprié que ce nouveau cadre de recherches systèmes de gestion de données qui peuvent vienne marquer le trentième anniversaire de la être activement conservés dans l’avenir comme création de ce site patrimonial. Ces volumes outils spécifiques à une mission. Ce nouveau constituent le premier pas vers la production cadre satisfait donc à un certain nombre d’un cadre de recherches entièrement intégré d’objectifs. Il apporte des révisions (nouvelle pour ce site. Le premier volume consiste en rédaction et mise à jour) des évaluations une mise à jour de l’évaluation des ressources existantes des ressources d’Avebury et de de la zone de Stonehenge, qui allonge la portée Stonehenge; il met en marche le procédé de la version originale (Davill 2005) jusqu’en d’harmonisation et d’intégration des 2012. Le second contient une nouvelle précédents documents de recherches séparés évaluation des ressources pour la zone avec pour la première fois la production d’un d’Avebury qui incorpore les changements de programme unique de recherches et d’une limites de 2008. Ces deux volumes stratégie combinée pour l’ensemble du site agrandissent explicitement le point central de classé au patrimoine mondial, et il développe l’évaluation précédente, de l’archéologie à une méthode pour faciliter les prochaines l’environnement historique, plus étendu. Le revues et révisions.Dans l’avenir cette tâche troisième volume consiste en un programme et sera entreprise par ASAHRG, qui remplace le une stratégie de recherches pour l’ensemble du Groupe de Recherches Archéologiques et site classé au patrimoine mondial. La logique Historiques d’Avebury pour la promotion et derrière la forme que prend ce cadre est dissémination de la recherche historique et complexe et est expliquée dans ses grandes archéologique dans l’ensemble du site classé. lignes dans l’introduction, mais on l’envisage Récentes recherches dans le paysage comme un stade intermédiaire entre les de Stonehenge 2005–2012 consiste en résumés documents séparés qui furent produits de recherches suite à des projets de originellement (AAHRG 2001; Darvill 2005) construction et de recherches liées à un et une évaluation intégrée unique, programme problème, suivis d’une section examinant les et stratégie. aspects récemments changés ou changeants de Le nouveau cadre est le résultat d’une la recherché: datation, relations lointaines, consultation de toute la communauté des structure du paysage, et rapport avec d’autres chercheurs au sens le plus large du terme. monuments. L’évaluation des ressources Des auteurs furent invités à produire des d’Avebury fournit à la fois des évaluations de évaluations des ressources et des résumés la ressource à travers le temps reposant sur des techniques, des ateliers et des réunions méthodes de recherche spécifiques qui ont été orientèrent les ébauches initiales du utilisées pour développer notre compréhension programme de recherches, le Groupe de de l’archéologie dans la région d’Avebury, et Recherches Archéologiques et Historiques une série d’évaluations, concentrée sur une d’Avebury et de Stonehenge (ASAHRG) période, du paléolothique à la période fournit un bilan critique des deux. Des moderne. ébauches des textes furent soumises à une Le programme de recherches expose consultation publique et à des commentaires les importantes lacunes dans notre via l’internet. La stratégie de recherche fut compréhension en posant certaines des élaborée sur la base de leur contenu et on fit questions en suspens sous une forme qui est ix

appropriée à certaines périodes chronologiques nombreuses découvertes, certaines et des sujets thématiques majeurs appropriés au extrèmement importantes, eurent lieu pendant caractère unique du site. La stratégie de la période où on écrivait ces volumes. De recherche met en place un cadre de principes manière à ce que les années de travaux qui sont en fonction desquels la recherche devrait être passées dans ces documents portent leur fruit, entreprise dans le site classé, et identifie des il nous a fallu tirer un trait. Que le cadre de moyens pratiques grâce auxquels de tels recherches ne soit pas parfaitement à jour n’est programmes d’investigation peuvent être pas un échec, mais plutôt une indication du facilités, coordonnés, financés, soutenus et besoin d’une approche planifiée des recherches communiqués et par lesquels le cadre de dans une zone qui, encore maintenant, après recherche dans son ensemble peut être revu et des siècles d’investigation, n’a pas révélé tous mis à jour. ses secrets. La nature continue de la recherche archéologique signifie qu’ inévitablement de Traduction: Annie Pritchard

x

Zusammenfassung

Die Weltkulturerbestätte Stonehenge, Avebury Avebury and Stonehenge Archaeological and and Associated Sites (Stonehenge, Avebury Historical Research Group (ASAHRG) und zugehörige Fundstellen) besteht aus zwei kommentierte beides kritisch. Erstfassungen 40 km voneinander entfernten der Texte wurden im Internet zugänglich Kreidelandschaften in der Region Wessex, die gemacht, um Kommentare und Vorschläge der beide durch einzigartige Komplexe breiteren Öffentlichkeit einzuholen. Auf deren neolithischer und bronzezeitlicher Fundstellen Grundlage wurde dann eine gekennzeichnet sind. Beide Gebiete sind von Forschungsstrategie ausformuliert und noch zentraler Bedeutung für unser Verständnis der einmal zirkuliert, um weitere Kommentare zu britischen Vorgeschichte und gehören weltweit ermöglichen. Somit bietet das neue zu den prähistorischen Landschaften mit dem Rahmenkonzept einen Leitfaden, der die höchsten Wiedererkennungswert und Prioritäten und Ansichten der größtmöglichen Symbolcharakter. Ihre internationale Anzahl an Interessierten umfasst. Es handelt Bedeutung verhalf ihnen 1986 zum Eintrag in sich um ein in jedem Sinne kollaboratives die Liste der UNESCO Welterbestätten, und es Dokument, das von und für die in der ist daher mehr als angemessen, dass dieses Welterbestätte tätige Forschungsgemeinschaft neue Rahmenkonzept für die Forschung zum erstellt wurde. 30. Jahrestag der Eintragung erscheint. Die Die Dokumente sollen zukünftige vorliegenden Bände sind ein erster Schritt für Forschungsvorhaben in der historischen die Festlegung eines ganzheitlichen Landschaft, sowie deren Management und Rahmenprogramms für die weitere Interpretation begleiten und unterfüttern. Es ist Erforschung dieser Fundstellen. Der erste Band geplant, dies durch Datenverwaltungssysteme besteht aus einer Aktualisierung der ersten zu unterfüttern, die zukünftig als Version einer Bestandsaufnahme und projektspezifische Tools aktiv gepflegt werden Potentialseinschätzung für die Region um können. Das neue Rahmenkonzept erfüllt Stonehenge (Darvill 2005), wobei der daher mehrere Ziele. Es bietet eine abgedeckte Zeitraum bis auf 2012 erweitert Neubearbeitung (Neuentwürfe und wird. Der zweite Band beinhaltet eine neue Aktualisierungen) der existierenden Bestandsaufnahme und Einschätzung für die Bestandsaufnahmen für Stonehenge und Region um Avebury, mit Berücksichtigung der Avebury; es beginnt den Prozess, die bereits Verschiebungen der Grundstücksgrenzen im vorhandenen älteren Forschungsdokumente zu Jahr 2008. Beide Bände sind explizit darauf integrieren und mit der erstmaligen Schaffung angelegt, den Fokus der früheren einer einheitlichen, ganzheitlichen Bestandsaufnahmen von einer rein Forschungsagenda und -strategie für die archäologischen Perspektive auf die historische gesamte Welterbestätte zu harmonisieren; und Landschaft als Ganzes zu erweitern. Der dritte es entwickelt eine Methode, die zukünftige Band enthält die Forschungsagenda und - Prüfungen und Überarbeitungen ermöglicht. strategie für die gesamte Welterbestätte. Die Diese Aufgabe wird in Zukunft von ASAHRG Gründe für die Form dieses Rahmenkonzeptes wahrgenommen. Sie ersetzen damit den sind komplex und werden in der Einleitung Avebury Archaeological and Historical beschrieben. Es ist beabsichtigt, dass das Research Group und werden historische und vorliegende Werk einen Zwischenschritt archäologische Forschungen in der zwischen den zuerst angefertigten Welterbestätte insgesamt fördern und Einzeldokumenten (AAHRG 2011; Darvill veröffentlichen. 2005) und der angestrebten ganzheitlichen Neue Untersuchungen in der Bestandsaufnahme, Agenda und Strategie Landschaft um Stonehenge 2005–2012 besteht darstellt. aus Zusammenfassungen von baubegleitenden Das neue Rahmenkonzept ist das oder problemorientierten Forschungsvorhaben, Ergebnis von Rücksprachen mit einer so gefolgt von einem Abschnitt zu kürzlich inklusiv wie möglich definierten veränderten oder sich verändernden Aspekten Forschungsgemeinschaft. Die einzelnen der Forschung: Datierung, Fernkontakte, Autoren sollten Bestandsaufnahmen und Landschaftsstruktur und die Bedeutung anderer fachliche Zusammenfassungen liefern; zu Monumente. Neben periodenspezifischen ersten Fassung der Forschungsagenda fanden Abschnitten, vom Paläolithikum bis in die begleitende Workshops und Treffen statt; der Moderne, bietet die Bestandsaufnahme xi

Avebury diachron angelegte Einschätzungen des Potentials der archäologischen Ressource, gestützt auf eine Reihe von Forschungsmethoden, die unser Verständnis der Archäologie von Avebury vertieft haben. Die Forschungsagenda legt die erheblichen, noch bestehenden Wissenslücken dar. Hierbei werden einige der noch unbeantworteten Fragen in einer Art und Weise formuliert, die ihre Relevanz für mehrere der chronologischen Perioden und Themenbereiche darlegt, welche für den einzigartigen Charakter der Welterbestätte von Bedeutung sind. Die Forschungsstrategie definiert ein Gerüst aus Prinzipien, nach denen sich weitere Forschungen in der Welterbestätte richten sollten und identifiziert praktische Wege, mittels derer solche Untersuchungsprogramme ermöglicht, koordiniert, finanziert, aufrechterhalten und kommuniziert werden sollen, sowie die Bestandsaufnahme selbst überprüft und aktualisiert werden kann. Archäologische Forschung ist von Natur aus kontinuierlich. Es ist somit unvermeidbar, dass viele Entdeckungen – einige davon von erheblicher Tragweite – während des Schreibens der vorliegenden Bände gemacht wurden. Um die vielen Jahre Arbeit, die in diesen Dokumenten stecken, zu einem fruchtbaren Abschluss zu bringen, musste dennoch eine Grenze gezogen werden. Dass das Rahmenkonzept nicht absolut aktuell ist, ist jedoch keine Schwäche, sondern zeigt eher, wie wichtig ein gut durchgeplanter Ansatz für weitere Untersuchungen in einer Region ist, die selbst nach jahrhundertelanger Erforschung noch nicht alle ihre Geheimnisse preisgegeben hat.

Übersetzung: Daniela Hofmann

xii

Introduction by Matt Leivers, Andrew B. Powell, Melanie Pomeroy-Kellinger and Sarah Simmonds

The Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites The two areas were also the subjects World Heritage Site comprises two areas of of separate research frameworks – Wessex chalkland, 40 km apart, surrounding Archaeological Research Agenda for the Stonehenge and Avebury (Fig. 1), that are Avebury World Heritage Site (Avebury renowned for their distinctive complexes of Archaeological and Historical Research Group Neolithic and Bronze Age sites. These sites 2001) and Stonehenge World Heritage Site: An have played a central role in the understanding Archaeological Research Framework (Darvill of Britain’s prehistoric past and – together with 2005). their surrounding landscapes – have The Avebury Research Agenda, international significance, as recognised by the published in 2001, was highly influential, inscription of the World Heritage Site in 1986 being the first such document produced for any on UNESCO’s World Heritage List for its World Heritage Site. It was produced by the Outstanding Universal Value. Avebury Archaeological and Historical Over the centuries, research into these Research Group (AAHRG), a group of sites and the landscapes they occupy has taken professional curators, academics and freelance many forms and reached many and diverse researchers who met to encourage, co-ordinate conclusions: about the people who used them and disseminate research in the Avebury part and about how, when and why they were of the World Heritage Site. A chronological constructed. Some of that research contributed and thematic approach was adopted in to the degrading of the archaeological remains compiling the document, which consisted of and it is the awareness that this finite resource individually-authored papers written by period needs to be effectively conserved which makes and subject specialists. a framework for the facilitation and direction The Stonehenge Research of sustainable research central to the Framework, published four years later, was a management of the World Heritage Site significantly different document, reflecting the (UNESCO 1972, Article 5). rapidly evolving thinking about the role, format and content of archaeological research Management Plans and Research frameworks. It, too, was based on the contributions of individual specialists, but it Frameworks was compiled and edited by a single hand giving it a greater consistency of style and UNESCO stresses the need for ‘serial’ World content; it also benefited from the availability Heritage Sites comprising more than one area of considerably greater resources for mapping (such as Stonehenge and Avebury) to have ‘a and illustration. management system or mechanisms for Both research frameworks followed ensuring the co-ordinated management of the the tripartite structure recommended in separate components’ (UNESCO 2013, para. Frameworks For Our Past (Olivier 1996), a 114). Although arguments have been advanced strategic review of research policies for the separation of Stonehenge and Avebury undertaken for English Heritage. Each into separate World Heritage Sites, this comprised a period-based resource assessment possibility was ruled out in December 2007 describing the current state of knowledge about when the Government announced that there the archaeological resource in their respective would be no re-nomination of the World areas, a research agenda pointing out areas of Heritage Site. The individual management research which could help gaps in that plans – the Stonehenge World Heritage Site knowledge, and a research strategy Management Plan 2009 (Young et al. 2009), formulating proposals and priorities for and the Avebury World Heritage Site carrying out such research. Despite their Management Plan (Pomeroy-Kellinger 2005) shared overall structure, the organisation and – have recently been replaced by a joint presentation of these three main sections management plan for the whole World differed considerably between the two Heritage Site (Stonehenge and Avebury World documents. Nonetheless, both shared a strong Heritage Site Management Plan: Simmonds and Thomas 2015). 1

Figure 1 The WHS boundaries

2

emphasis on archaeology rather than the wider and development-led projects, and both historic environment. intrusive and non-intrusive fieldwork, and their results are outlined in the various sections of Review of the Existing Frameworks this document. It is apparent that the research by Melanie Pomeroy-Kellinger frameworks have been referred to in fieldwork project designs, and indeed in bids for funding. Research frameworks are temporary To what extent these projects would documents, providing a point-in-time view of have been undertaken anyway, without the the state of knowledge, priorities and strategies existence of the research frameworks, is for research as envisaged at their compilation. difficult to assess; this was a subject of lively In the introduction to the original Avebury debate during a Research Agenda Workshop agenda it was stated that the document would held in in June 2011. What is clear, be updated on a regular basis as research was however, is the large number of new conducted and new discoveries made, and as discoveries, leading to the development of new research priorities evolved (AAHRG 2001, 4). theories and interpretations, which have Similarly, the need for reflexivity and revision resulted from these projects. In many ways was made explicit in the Stonehenge they have led to a wider focus on the framework (Darvill 2005, 32) which was prehistoric landscapes surrounding the two anticipated as being a statement of research iconic stone circles. With the media attention issues and priorities for approximately a that has come with some of the discoveries, decade (ibid., 4). there is now a greater public appreciation of Attempting to assess the relative the complexity and significance of these success or failure of archaeological research landscapes. While many of these fieldwork frameworks is quite a challenging task. There projects have been published, it is anticipated are no agreed criteria for such an analysis, or a that in the next few years a wealth of new consensus on their value. There is a range of information will become available. indicators which could be measured, such as Despite this, we know that the how many research projects were undertaken, landscapes of Stonehenge and Avebury have how many research questions were addressed, not yet given up all of their secrets. However, or how many new sites have been added to the what has been discovered in the last 10 years Historic Environment Record (HER), but none will help us to ask more detailed and complex of these are meaningful in isolation. In many questions in the future, and within the aims and ways it is easier to focus on what would objectives of this new, combined research constitute failure. In the case of the earlier framework. The discussions, debate and documents for Avebury (AAHRG 2001) and communication within the archaeological Stonehenge (Darvill 2005), failure would mean community resulting from the publication of that the documents were ignored and not used, the earlier documents and this revised version, which clearly has not been the case. The fact will continue to be hugely beneficial to our that there is presently a consensus that they understanding and management of these need to be revised (and that funding has been internationally significant landscapes. obtained to undertake this process) can be seen as indicating a level of success. Recent Research The aims of both of the earlier documents were clearly set out (Avebury, Since 2001 major research has been section 1.3; Stonehenge section 1), and were undertaken in both parts of the World Heritage similar: to actively encourage research into all Site. This included , excavation and periods, to improve understanding, to better synthesis at Avebury and its surrounding inform other researchers, and to allow monuments (Fig. 2), by a team from the informed management to take place. Looking Universities of Bristol, Leicester and at the wide range of research and management Southampton (the Longstones and Negotiating projects undertaken since 2001 across both Avebury projects) which had notable results, parts of the World Heritage Site, there is a such as the discovery of the Beckhampton good indication that many of these earlier aims Avenue (Gillings et al. 2008). At Silbury Hill, have been addressed. There have been at least English Heritage undertook conservation, 10 major archaeological projects, and many repair and excavation, and the Romano-British other smaller ones, including the Silbury Hill settlement was examined. The on-going project, SPACES, Negotiating Avebury, and Between the Monuments Project (a others. These include both academic research collaborative effort by the Universities of

3

Figure 2 The Avebury WHS

Southampton and Leicester and the National Work on museum collections includes Trust) has been investigating the character of the Early Bronze Age Project by human settlement in the Avebury landscape Birmingham University, and the Beaker during the 4th to mid-2nd millennia cal BC, People Project by the Universities of Sheffield, and its relationship to changing environmental Durham and Bradford. Chronological and social conditions. modelling of the Stonehenge sequence has At Stonehenge (Fig. 3) excavation been revised (Marshall et al. 2012). Parch- was carried out in 2008 by the SPACES marks observed during the dry summer of Project, while several well-known prehistoric 2013 revealed the locations of missing monuments close to Stonehenge were 17–20 (Banton et al. 2014). investigated by the Stonehenge Riverside Practice-based research includes the Project, which also discovered the West publication of the surveys for the Highways Amesbury at the end of the Stonehenge Agency in advance of the proposed A303 road Avenue on the bank of the River Avon as well improvements (Leivers and Moore 2008), and as investigating Aubrey Hole 7 within further work associated with the new Stonehenge itself. The Stonehenge World Stonehenge Visitor Centre, including the Heritage Site Landscape Project (English closure of the A344 and excavations on the Heritage) involved non-invasive survey of the line of the Avenue beneath it (Wessex Stonehenge environs alongside documentary Archaeology 2015). and archive research (Field et al. 2014a and b; The landscape of the entire World Bowden et al. 2015). The Stonehenge Hidden Heritage Site and its wider environs has now Landscapes project (by the Ludwig Boltzmann been mapped twice as part of the National Institute, Birmingham University and Mapping Programme (NMP): in 1997–8 from international partners) has produced digital all accessible aerial photographs, while in mapping of the Stonehenge landscape, 2010–11 that mapping was further enhanced revealing a wealth of previously-unknown sites via the analysis of more recent reconnaissance via remote sensing and geophysical survey photographs and of lidar data (Crutchley 2002; (Baldwin 2010; Gaffney et al. 2012).

4

Figure 3 The Stonehenge WHS

Bewley et al. 2005; Barber 2016, Avebury two halves of the World Heritage Site, and this Resource Assessment). had a significant influence on the decision to produce the first joint World Heritage Site The New Research Framework Management Plan for Stonehenge and by Sarah Simmonds Avebury, published in 2015 (Simmons and Thomas 2015). Reflecting the move to closer The path to the production of the Stonehenge working across the World Heritage Site the and Avebury Research Framework has been a Avebury Archaeological and Historical complex one. During the period of review and Research Group (AAHRG) was expanded in update of the Avebury Research Agenda 2014 to include Stonehenge and become the (AAHRG 2001), which began in 2008, a Avebury and Stonehenge Archaeological and number of key changes occurred in the Historical Research Group (ASAHRG). The management context. These led to the decision decision to produce a joint research framework to combine the Avebury document with the for Stonehenge and Avebury is part of this more recently-produced Stonehenge Research movement towards a more integrated approach Framework (Darvill 2005) in order to create a to the single World Heritage Site. joint Stonehenge and Avebury Research Funding criteria for the production of Framework. The decision to produce a three- research frameworks over this period also volume framework was influenced by a influenced the three-part publication format. number of factors, particularly the challenge of The process of updating the Avebury Research combining two very differently-produced Agenda began in 2008 following a period of resource assessments. This continuing peer review and an online survey circulated difference in approach to the two halves of the widely among the academic community. A World Heritage Site was in part a result of the project outline was submitted to English funding criteria in place during the Heritage on behalf of AAHRG based on the development of the joint framework. needs identified in the review and Wessex A fundamental change in the Archaeology was contracted to put together a management context was triggered by the detailed project design. Funding was agreed governance review of the World Heritage Site for new graphics and mapping and project in 2012. The review recommended a more management. joined-up approach to the management of the 5

No funding was available for the guide and inform future research activities in production of the new Resource Assessment, the historic environment and, in turn, its which consequently led to this section again management and interpretation. The intention being produced by individuals on a voluntary is that the Framework will be underpinned by basis. This approach provided the engagement data-management systems that can be actively of the academic community and in-kind maintained as project-specific tools into the contribution required by funders. An editorial future. This new Framework, therefore, fulfils committee made up of members of AAHRG a number of objectives: was established at the end of 2009. The • it provides revisions (redrafting and process of inviting contributors to update the updating) of the existing Avebury and resource assessment began in 2010. Stonehenge resource assessments, The decision to produce a joint incorporating the 2008 boundary research framework for Stonehenge and changes to the World Heritage Site, and Avebury – although very much in line with its explicitly expanding the focus from recommendations – did in fact precede the archaeology to the wider historic outcomes of the World Heritage Site environment; governance review. In mid-2010, revised • it starts the process of harmonising and English Heritage funding criteria meant that integrating the earlier separate research support was no longer available for updates to documents with the production for the existing research frameworks and it appeared first time of a single, combined research that the update of the Avebury Research agenda and strategy for the whole Agenda could no longer be supported. The idea World Heritage Site; and of producing a combined Stonehenge and • it develops a method to facilitate future Avebury Framework was suggested. In review and revision. In future, this task addition to producing a consistent approach to will be undertaken by the Avebury and the single World Heritage Site this would also Stonehenge Archaeological and constitute a new publication that would be Historical Research Group (ASAHRG), eligible for funding. Funding was secured for which replaces AAHRG to promote and the production of a new joint agenda and disseminate historical and strategy but it was decided that the resource archaeological research in the World assessments for the two halves would still be Heritage Site as a whole. considered updates. The Avebury resource assessment therefore maintained the approach of securing updates from individual Consultation contributors, while a brief update of the relatively recent Stonehenge Framework would Since the revised framework was first be produced by the single author (Tim Darvill) proposed, various forms of consultation have who had produced the 2009 Stonehenge been undertaken as to its form and content. Research Framework. This approach was Named authors were invited to produce agreed by AAHRG who recognised both the resource assessments and technical summaries; necessity and the challenge of combining the workshops and meetings guided the initial two very different formats of resource drafts of the Research Agenda; ASAHRG assessment in a single joint framework. provided criticism of both. Drafts of these Following completion of the sections were presented for public consultation Framework the project board decided to and comment via the internet, prior to further publish the Stonehenge and Avebury Research revision and comment by ASAHRG and Framework in three parts to reflect the very Historic England. Following their finalisation, different approach to production of the two the Research Strategy was formulated based on resource assessments. The joint agenda and their content, and the whole circulated for strategy section has been published as the third further comment. The entire process was part of the Framework. guided by a Project Board. In consequence, the new Research Framework offers a guide that reflects the Aims and Objectives priorities and encompasses the views of the widest possible community. It is in every sense The new Framework is intended to cover the a collaborative document, produced by and for whole World Heritage Site, revising and the constituency of researchers working within updating the earlier documents. It is the result the World Heritage Site. of consultation across the research community (in its broadest definition) and is intended to 6

Plate 1 Removing the A344 during the Stonehenge Environmental Improvement Project © Copyright Wessex Archaeology

Geographical Scope only be answered if consideration is given to a much wider area. One problem raised by the ‘serial’ nature of the However, the World Heritage Site lies World Heritage Site, comprising two relatively within, and close to the eastern edge of, the small areas of landscape separated by a area covered by the South West distance of some 40 km, is that of determining Archaeological Research Framework the appropriate geographical scope for its (SWARF, Webster 2008), which is bordered to Research Framework (Fig. 1). The boundaries the east by that covered by the Solent Thames of the two areas are largely arbitrary, although Research Framework (STRF, Hey and Hind the development in them of notable complexes 2014). Together these two frameworks cover of monuments does distinguish them from all the Wessex chalkland, which defines the much of the intervening (and surrounding) wider landscape occupied by the World landscape. Nonetheless, the density of Heritage Site. Although they encompass much archaeological sites and monuments more larger areas than the present research widely across Salisbury Plain, the Vale of framework, they articulate many of the broader Pewsey and the downland around Avebury research issues, of all periods, which are also does mean that research into the World of general relevance to the World Heritage Heritage Site cannot be undertaken in Site. They also cover some specific issues isolation. Indeed, the presence of a henge at relating to the Stonehenge and Avebury Marden of comparable size to those at monumental landscapes, and the other Avebury and (and monument complexes in their respective approximately midway between them), and of regions. a mound at Marlborough comparable to For these reasons, it has not been Silbury Hill, as well as other monument considered necessary to impose another complexes at a greater distance, such as in the arbitrarily defined ‘study area’ around the two Thames Valley and on Cranborne Chase, areas of the World Heritage Site. Instead, this indicates that many of the questions which can research framework keeps a close focus on the be asked about the World Heritage Site can World Heritage Site, while recognising variable wider contexts as appropriate. 7

Structure The resource assessment is split into two parts. The first, Methods of Research, Although the new Research Framework covers provides cross-period assessments of the the whole of the World Heritage Site, only its resource based on a number of specific agenda and strategy sections have been fully research methods, old and new, which have integrated. Because the levels of revision been used to develop our understanding of the considered appropriate for the two resource archaeology in the Avebury area. Descriptions assessments differed so markedly, their of some of these methods, and in some cases integration was not considered possible at this assessments of the resource as revealed by stage. This framework therefore comprises a them, were provided in Part 5: Methods and number of component parts. Techniques of the 2001 framework, as well as in a chapter on Palaeo-Environmental Resource Assessment Evidence at the end of the original resource assessment. The second part, Period-Based Not only is there at present no overall resource Assessments, represents to a large extent the assessment for the whole of the World complete replacement of the 2001 resource Heritage Site, there also remain significant assessment. It now includes, however, papers differences in the organisation and presentation on the Post-Medieval period, Built Heritage, of the current resource assessments for the and Modern Avebury, as well as separating the Avebury and Stonehenge areas, as brought Middle and Late Bronze Age. together here.

Stonehenge Research Agenda and Research The 2005 resource assessment remains current, Strategy but it is supplemented by this update by the same author. This consists of summaries of The new Research Agenda and Strategy cover development-prompted research and problem- for the first time both parts of the World orientated research, followed by a section Heritage Site. In the tripartite structure looking at recently changed and changing recommended by Olivier (1996), as followed aspects of research: dating, long-distance by the earlier Avebury and Stonehenge connections, landscape structure, and the frameworks, these two sections appear to have relevance of other monuments. quite distinct roles, the agenda describing the gaps in our knowledge and the strategy Avebury proposing ways of filling those gaps. There is, The Avebury Resource Assessment has, for the however, a degree of overlap between them, most part, been completely re-written and since some research questions cannot be expanded, and the new version replaces that realistically addressed until others have been contained in the 2001 document. As with the answered. Finding answers to some questions, original Avebury resource assessment, therefore, becomes part of the strategy for individual authors provided papers on a answering other questions. voluntary basis, and not all conformed to the There have been a number of guiding same template. In consequence, two (Romano- principles in the compiling of the agenda and British and mid–late Saxon) are updates strategy. First, an attempt had been made to similar to that produced for Stonehenge, rather make the document recognisable, as far as than full reassessments. In those instances, the possible, as a progression from the two earlier original 2001 assessments have been included versions, despite their evident differences in here for the sake of completeness. Most of the approach, combining both thematic and period- resource assessments were produced in 2011 based components. Secondly, consideration and 2012, except for the sections covering has been given to the need for it to be in a form environmental archaeology, GIS, the , suitable for future combined revision. Thirdly, and modern Avebury, which date from 2013, as the agenda is intended to be a working the post-medieval and modern resource document of use to a wide range of audiences, assessment, which dates from 2014, and the the objective has been to give it a relatively assessment of built heritage, which dates to straightforward and transparent structure; what 2015. it may lack in theoretical and philosophical

8

Plate 2 Neolithic timber settings south of Woodhenge © Copyright Stonehenge Riverside Project sophistication, it is hoped that it gains in clarity • to set out a framework of principles and usability. under which research should be carried out in the World Heritage Site; and Research Agenda • to identify practical means by which The purpose of the agenda is to articulate the such programmes of investigation can significant gaps in our understanding, by be facilitated, co-ordinated, resourced, posing some of the outstanding questions in a sustained and communicated, and by form that is relevant to a number of which the research framework can be chronological periods and major thematic reviewed and updated. subjects of relevance to the unique character of the World Heritage Site. The first part of the After considerable discussion, it remained of agenda outlines the themes which underlie the particular concern to the Project Board and period-based questions described in the authors that the Research Strategy was not second. These questions are those generated prescriptive. Consequently, it is a deliberate during the process of workshops, consultation move away from a document which prioritises and comment outlined above. particular pieces of research, instead offering guidance designed to encourage innovative Research Strategy research which exceeds the requirements of There were significant differences in the ‘best practice’. structure and content of the two previous strategies. The Research Strategies in the The New Research Framework’s original Avebury agenda comprised largely Components specific methodologies for answering specific questions, while the Research Strategy in the Although the individual parts of this present Stonehenge document consisted more of an Research Framework collectively cover the overarching plan, made up of a series of whole of the World Heritage Site, it remains an objectives under a number of broad thematic intermediate stage in the production of a fully headings. integrated framework, and is on its own a The new research strategy has a number necessarily incomplete document. It needs to of aims: be read in conjunction with the 2005 9

Stonehenge framework particularly and, to a Stonehenge Research Agenda (Section lesser degree, with the 2001 Avebury agenda. 3: Darvill 2005) Although some elements of the original Avebury agenda have been completely re- • Research Strategy written, the cumulative nature of Stonehenge and Avebury Research archaeological research and the re-iterative Strategy (Leivers and Powell 2016) nature of research frameworks mean that these Avebury Research Strategy (Part 3: superseded components still have a degree of AAHRG 2001) currency and value. All relevant components Stonehenge Research Strategy (Section of the past and present frameworks, therefore, 4: Darvill 2005) will be accessible online at a single location on the Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites Radiocarbon Dates World Heritage Site website (http://www.stonehengeandaveburywhs.org/m Calibrated date ranges were calculated by the anagement-of-whs/stonehenge-avebury- maximum intercept method (Stuiver and research-framework/). Reimer 1986), using the program OxCal v4.1 The new Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated (Bronk Ramsey 1995; 1998; 2009) and the Sites World Heritage Site Research INTCAL09 dataset (Reimer et al. 2009). Framework comprises the following main Ranges are rounded out to the nearest 10 years. component parts:

• Resource Assessment Lifespan Avebury Resource Assessment (Leivers and Powell (eds) 2016) The lifecycle of this document is likely to be Stonehenge Resource Assessment between five and ten years, parallel to the (Section 2: Darvill 2005) Stonehenge and Avebury World Heritage Site Stonehenge Update (this volume) Management Plan, and depending on the pace Avebury Resource Assessment (Part 1: of research in the World Heritage Site. The AAHRG 2001) progress of research will be monitored by ASAHRG, who will determine when a further revision is necessary. The next version of the • Research Agenda Research Framework should fully integrate Stonehenge and Avebury Research both parts of the World Heritage Site into a Agenda (Leivers and Powell 2016) single document. Avebury Research Agenda (Part 2: AAHRG 2001)

10

Research Activity in the Stonehenge Landscape 2005–2012 by Timothy Darvill (Received June 2012)

Introduction have appeared between 2005 and 2012, notably Darvill’s (2006) study of the Since the -off date of January 2005 for Stonehenge landscape from earliest times activities included in the first Research through to the 20th century AD from a Framework (Darvill 2005), work within the biographical perspective; Burl’s (2006) history Stonehenge part of the Stonehenge, Avebury of Stonehenge; Lawson’s (2007) overview of and Associated Sites World Heritage Site archaeology in Wessex drawing heavily on the (WHS) has continued apace, including the first results of investigations by Wessex excavations for more than 40 years inside Archaeology; Richards’ (2007) story of what is Stonehenge itself. This review continues the known about the monument; Hill’s (2008) story up until March 2012, and considers both incisive historical overview of changing development-driven and curiosity-driven interpretations of Stonehenge and what it research. Much of the work, regardless of its means to people; Johnson’s (2008) innovative origination or operational context, has study of the lay-out and design of Stonehenge; contributed towards the furtherance of 20 out and Chippindale’s (2012) fourth revision of his of 25 research objectives articulated in Darvill encyclopaedic work on Stonehenge and its 2005. This is a remarkable achievement within history. a period of just six years or so, and in part illustrates the continuing attraction of Research Undertaken Stonehenge and its landscape as a key resource for the investigation, illustration, and Research undertaken during the time period understanding of British and its covered here can be divided into that prompted wider European context. It also illustrates the by development proposals and problem- value of using the WHS as a laboratory for the orientated investigations. The main database of innovation, testing, and validation of new the Archaeological Investigations Project methods and techniques that even when records a total of 47 archaeological events applied to familiar archaeological landscapes within the parishes of Durrington, Amesbury, provide new discoveries and new insights of Wilsford and in the period real significance. 2006–2010, just under half being desk-based The Stonehenge part of the WHS is a assessments, field evaluations, and dynamic working landscape requiring active Environmental Impact Assessments, while just management, maintenance, and improvement over half are post-determination or research- which naturally gives rise to the need for focused investigations (on-line database at: predetermination works (desk-based http://csweb.bournemouth.ac.uk/aip/aipintro.ht assessments; field evaluations; Environmental m). Impact Assessments etc.) as well as mitigation schemes during groundworks and site-based Development-prompted Research operations. These provide an interesting randomizing element to the study of the Stonehenge Visitor Centre landscape which usefully complements the The most high-profile development in the more targeted investigations prompted by WHS over the past 30 years has been that problem-orientated research. connected with the relocation of the visitor The following account is divided into centre as part of the ongoing Stonehenge two parts. First there is a brief overview of the Conservation Management Programme research undertaken and the results achieved. promoted and co-ordinated by English Second, building on these findings, attention is Heritage. After the preparation and retraction directed towards changing understandings of of planning applications for a development at selected aspects of the past, the landscape, and in 1991 and Countess Road in 2005 the sites within it. In compiling this account (Darvill 2005, 11–14; 2006, 276–80; Pitts extensive use has been made of project-related 2005a) further desk-based studies (Leary 2008) publications, many of which are interim and public consultations (see Pitts 2008a for statements. However, mention may also be made of several syntheses and overviews that 11

Plate 3 Airman’s Corner, prior to the closure of the A344, the relocation of the cross, and the construction of the new Stonehenge Visitor Centre © Copyright Wessex Archaeology summary) were carried out for five sites (V, trends (Mason and Kuo 2008). (Contribution to W, X, Y, Z), with Airman’s Corner emerging 2005 Research Objective 1) as the favoured option with closure of the A344 and a visitor centre designed by A303 Stonehenge Improvement Works architects Denton Corker Marshall (Anon. The Public Inquiry on proposals for the 2009a; Pitts 2010; and see Marshall 2007 for upgrading of the A303 with an on-line solution interview with the architect). Field evaluations that included a bored tunnel south of included a geophysical survey of an area of Stonehenge was held in Salisbury in February about 3ha that confirmed details of probable and March 2004. The inspector’s report was 19th- and 20th-century buildings and finally published in July 2005 but the identifying a series of pit-like anomalies Department of Transport announced its (Draper 2011, 287–8). A previously decision not to proceed with the published unrecorded ring of pit- or posthole-like scheme because of increased construction costs anomalies was located in the field north-west (Pitts 2005b). Further consultations followed of the cross-roads at Airman’s Corner in January 2006 (Pitts 2006a) with the immediately outside the WHS boundary. conclusion that the Department of Transport Surveys were undertaken of the A344 corridor would undertake minor works to existing roads (Komar and Field 2012). Field evaluation as an interim solution and on 6 December 2007 trenches were excavated to the north and south the Government announced that the tunnel of the A344 in 2011. Construction work on the scheme had been withdrawn. These site began in February 2012. consultations and reviews prompted Numerous evidence-based research considerable debate (cf. Brown 2005; Fielden papers and strategy documents have been 2007; Heyworth 2006; Pitts 2006b; 2008b; compiled in connection with the development Stone 2006). No new archaeological works of the visitor centre and independently, were undertaken after 2006, although including a synthesis of work on the landscape, investigations relating to schemes proposed in environment and economy of the WHS (Canti the period 1991–2006 have been published et al. 2011); an interpretation strategy (Carver (Leivers and Moore 2008). (Contribution to and Greaney 2011); and reviews of visitor 2005 Research Objective 20) 12

Plate 4 Finds from the grave © Copyright Wessex Archaeology

Amesbury Down graves, and a teenage boy buried with 90 tiny Although outside the WHS, the high ground to beads which have reignited a debate the south and east of Amesbury has been the about the possibility of connections with the subject of extensive development through the Aegean world in the early 2nd millennium cal 1990s and 2000s and has proved rich in BC (Barclay 2010: 41). Work in the area archaeological remains of prehistoric and later continues. date. In total, more than 25 ha have been A watching brief carried out during excavated or stripped of topsoil and the the construction of a new fire hydrant at archaeological features mapped, recorded and Boscombe Down Airfield in 2008 revealed the sampled (Barclay 2010). Celebrated finds burial of an adult male in a shallow oval grave include the ‘Amesbury Archer’ and his below a cairn of stones dated to 1750–1610 cal ‘companion’ discovered and investigated in BC (NZA 28700: 3379±30 BP) as well as six May 2002 as part of an open-area excavation, sections of ditch probably connected with a and the ‘’ discovered and later prehistoric field system in the area, two excavated in April 2003 during the course of a pits, and Early Bronze Age pottery in a tree- watching brief. Both graves, the earliest throw hole (Manning et al. 2010). A further Beaker burials currently known in Britain watching brief in 2008 connected to the dating to the 24th century cal BC have been construction of a new accommodation block at fully published (Fitzpatrick 2011), supporting Boscombe Down Airfield, Amesbury, revealed several new popular accounts (McKinley 2011; a section of a Wessex Linear ditch and a burial Fitzpatrick and Catling 2012). Connections dated to cal AD 1460–1640 (NZA-30656: with the continent are evident in both graves 438±20 BP) (McKinley and Manning 2010). A and scientific evidence suggests that the series of important Romano-British cemeteries ‘Archer’ had travelled very considerably have also been investigated. (Contributions to during his life and that many of the other 2005 Research Objectives 13 and 15) burials represented in these two graves had travelled widely (Chenery et al. 2006). Amesbury Much else has been found in this Also outside the WHS, investigations in major development area, including a pit circle Amesbury continue to enhance understanding 63 m across, prehistoric pits, food vessel of its early structure and development. A 0.05 13

ha site near Salisbury Street examined in Problem-orientated Research 2005–6 revealed Saxon ditches whose alignment and position carry through into Stonehenge Riverside Project/Feeding modern boundaries, and substantial domestic Stonehenge Project and craft activity in the 10th and 11th centuries Fieldwork for the Stonehenge Riverside AD, but less in the 12th century (Powell et al. Project was carried out annually between 2003 2009). Test-pitting on the former Co-op site in and 2009; and a post-excavation programme Salisbury Street in 2008 revealed post- based around the Feeding Stonehenge Project medieval garden soils and made ground is on-going. The AHRC-funded project (Draper 2010, 336) while a watching brief in involved collaboration between staff from the the same year for topsoil stripping over 5.8 ha Universities of Sheffield, Bristol, of ground in Southmill Hill revealed a section Bournemouth, Manchester, and London. In of a previously investigated Wessex Linear addition to a great deal of media interest, some ditch and tree-throw pits (Draper 2010, 336–7). sensationalising the discoveries made, there are A field evaluation in 2008 in Countess Road numerous published reports, overviews, revealed a large ditch that was considered part summaries, and notes (Anon. 2007a; 2008a; of the eastern boundary of Amesbury Abbey 2011a; Aronson 2010; Alexander 2009; Balter (Draper 2010, 337) while a second evaluation 2008; Parker Pearson 2007; 2008; Parker in the same road revealed post-medieval pits Pearson et al. 2005; 2009a; Pitts 2005b; 2006c; (Draper 2010, 337). Negative evidence is also 2008c; 2008d; 2009; 2011a, 35; SRP 2007; important and a watching brief at 14a 2008). A website shows the positions of Stonehenge Road, Amesbury, on the edge of trenches and surveys the town revealed no archaeological deposits (http://blogs.bournemouth.ac.uk/seeing- (Brayne 2006). (Contribution to 2005 Research beneath-stonehenge/). Objective 15) The underlying hypothesis explored through the project was that Stonehenge was a Portable Antiquities Scheme results place memorializing the ancestral dead that Stray finds arising from development work, was connected by way of the River Avon to metal-detecting, or casual discoveries have sites such as Durrington Walls which were been recorded by the Portable Antiquities occupied by the living on festive occasions if Scheme with some of the highlights published not on a permanent basis. Such a model in Archaeological and Natural posited a simple binary opposition between History Magazine since 2007 (Hinds 2007; eternal stones and perishable timber that was 2008; 2009; 2010; 2011). Items from the mediated by the monuments’ relationships to Stonehenge area include fragments of a Late the Avon which was proposed as an Iron Age copper alloy beaded torc from near intermediate zone into which the remains of Amesbury (Hinds 2009, 339). (Contribution to the dead were cast (Parker Pearson 2004; 2007, 2005 Research Objective 15) 125; Parker Pearson et al. 2005; 2006a). Investigations in 2003 were confined Other investigations to clearance of vegetation along the banks of Other small-scale archaeological investigations the Avon east of Durrington Walls, coring include recording works at Durrington Manor across the floodplain of the Avon Valley and in 2004 which revealed chalk quarry pits and westwards to Durrington Walls, and garden features of late 18th- and 19th-century geophysical surveys inside the henge (Parker date as well as residual medieval, Romano- Pearson 2007, 129). 2004–06 saw further British, and prehistoric material (Anon. 2006, studies of the landscape (Tilley et al. 2007), 266); and a watching brief associated with but investigations focused on a series of power cable laying which examined a total of trenches at Durrington Walls (Pitts 2008b, 15– 23 test pits of which five produced evidence of 16). These included extensive coverage around possible archaeological features, although none the eastern entrance and avenue leading to the contained datable material (Wessex Avon (Parker Pearson et al. 2006b); a cutting Archaeology 2005). through the bank of the henge- 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 14

Plate 5 Multi-sensor vehicle-towed gradiometer at Stonehenge, June 2011. Photograph by Timothy Darvill. Copyright reserved: BU and DAI the area (Parker Pearson 2007, 133; Parker Resistivity and magnetometer surveys Pearson et al. 2007): limited activity in the 4th were carried out by English Heritage over the millennium cal BC; Southern Circle built in western end of the Stonehenge to the mid-3rd millennium cal BC, perhaps with clarify the position of the in July other structures to the west; avenue constructed 2006 and 2007, and the southern end of the to link the Southern Circle with the Avon, where it approaches the incorporating solsticial alignments; square- Avon in July 2006 (Draper 2008: 274; 2009: shaped structures built over the banks of the 338; Payne 2007a; 2007b). Surveys were also avenue and to the north of it (six excavated in carried out at Durrington Walls in 2005 and all); bank and ditch of the henge-enclosure 2006, here including ground penetrating radar built partly covering the south-western avenue (Anon. 2007b, 234; Draper 2008, 276). bank and the ground surface on which the In 2007 work continued at Durrington houses had been built; occupation associated Walls in the area between the henge-enclosure with and Beaker around the and the Avon, and sampled a wide range of south side of the henge-enclosure bank. other sites in the landscape. Five trenches were Also in 2006 a small trench was excavated into the (SRP excavated within the southern part of the 2007; Thomas et al. 2009): one through the interior of Woodhenge, intersecting the outer western terminal ditch, showing that the ditch three rings of posts known from earlier work in here was 1.6 m deep. A piece of antler pick an area where stone sockets had also been from the base of the ditch has provided two recorded (Pollard and Robinson 2007; Pitts almost identical radiocarbon dates of 3630– 2008b, 17). The presence of stone settings 3380 cal BC (OxA-17953: 4716±34 BP) and within Woodhenge was confirmed although 3630–3370 cal BC (OxA-17954: 4695±34 BP) the sequence of construction could not be which are taken as secure dates for the initial established. Test-pitting was carried out in the construction of the cursus in the middle area south of the Stonehenge Cursus at its centuries of the 4th millennium cal BC. A eastern end in an effort to pinpoint a putative trench through the northern boundary at the monument associated with a long-known point where it is joined by the internal cross- scatter of Bluestone. Although further pieces ditch showed that the two ditches did not of Bluestone were found no structure was intersect and that the cross-ditch contained located. pottery of the later 2nd millennium cal BC. The northern cursus ditch was 1 m deep, and in 15

the 5 m stretch investigated seemed to be roughly carved chalk pig was recovered from a slightly off-line, so confirming that it was dug pit that also contained infant bones cut into the as a series of short segments. A third trench in fill of the ditch and provisionally dated to the the southern boundary immediately adjacent to period 450–100 cal BC (Anon. 2008b; Pitts the cutting made by Stone in 1947 confirmed 2008e). the presence of recut pits dug in the mid-3rd In 2009 further investigations were millennium cal BC at a time when monument undertaken at the southern end of the construction in the area was at its peak. Two Stonehenge Avenue revealing further details of trenches were excavated in the interior towards a c. 10 m in diameter with an the western end to investigate geophysical estimated 25 pillars considered to have been anomalies but failed to reveal corresponding Bluestones. The circle was dismantled in archaeological features. An area around the prehistoric times and its site contained within to the west of Woodhenge was the earthworks of a small henge (variously examined (Pitts 2008c, 14–15). Trenches were referred to as or West cut into and around ring ditch Durrington 68 to Amesbury Henge) with an entrance to the east investigate the possible house-structure. and a ditch 25 m in diameter (Catling 2009; In 2008 a sixth trench was cut into the Parker Pearson et al. 2009a; 2010). The Stonehenge Cursus to investigate its eastern riverside end of the Stonehenge Avenue was terminal showing that, like the western, the also located as a pair of parallel ditches 18.1 m earthworks at the terminals were more apart; they had held posts forming a small substantial than those forming the long sides palisade. Re-use of the area in the later Bronze (SRP 2008; Thomas et al. 2009). At Age was recorded. (Contributions to 2005 Stonehenge itself Aubrey Hole 7 was re- Research Objectives 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 15, and 24) excavated in order to recover for analysis the 60 or more cremation burials deposited there in Stonehenge World Heritage Site Landscape 1935 by following his Project excavation of 32 during the Closely associated with the development of the 1920s (Parker Pearson et al. 2009b; 2010, 15; Stonehenge Visitor Centre and associated Pitts 2008d). Despite being excavated on two management and presentational works, English previous occasions (in 1920 and 1935) the base Heritage undertook a new detailed survey of of Aubrey Hole 7 is reported to have preserved the Stonehenge landscape between 2009 and crushed chalk comparable to that found in 2012. The work included topographic and stone-holes elsewhere at Stonehenge while a geophysical surveys, architectural surveys and previously unrecognised cremation pit in the investigations, revisions to aerial photographic side of the Aubrey Hole was also recorded (cf. plots, and the revision of the GIS for the WHS. Anon. 2009b; Catling 2009, 24–5). The idea Lidar data was also examined with a special that Stonehenge was a cemetery for an elite focus on 20th-century military activity, and was proposed (Anon. 2008a; Parker Pearson et medieval, post-medieval, and modern impacts al. 2009b). on the landscape. 2008 also saw work on the A series of survey reports has been Stonehenge Avenue with trenches across it produced (Barber, 2014a; 2014b; Bishop 2010; north of the A344 and in Stonehenge Bottom. 2011a; 2011b; Bishop and Amadio 2010; Test pits and an evaluation trench were dug at Bishop and Komar 2010; Bowden 2010; 2011; the riverside end of the Stonehenge Avenue in Bowden and Barrett 2010; Bowden et al. 2012; a garden east of West Amesbury House Field 2009; Field and Pearson 2010; Field et revealing a Mesolithic flint scatter, a 4th or 3rd al. 2012; 2014b; Komar 2010; Lane 2011; millennium cal BC flint scatter, and features Linford et al. 2012; Newsome et al. 2010; that were later understood as the earthworks of Pearson et al. 2011; Pearson and Field 2011a; a henge monument between the boundary 2011b; Soutar 2012). Popular accounts of earthworks of the Avenue and overlooking the aspects of the work have been published Avon (Parker Pearson et al. 2009a, 8–9). A (Anon. 2010a; Field et al. 2010), as well as stone-dressing area north of the A344 and west more substantial reports (Bowden et al. 2015; of the Avenue was explored, and the eastern Field et al. 2014a). Amongst the important ditch of the Amesbury 42 long barrow was findings are the possible presence of a low sampled to reveal evidence for at least two mound under the south-eastern sector of phases in its construction. West of Stonehenge Stonehenge itself and the multi- a section of the Gate Ditch (otherwise known structural nature of many of the round barrows as the Palisade Ditch) was explored and shown in the surrounding landscape. (Contributions to to be Bronze Age in origin (Catling 2008); a 16

2005 Research Objectives 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, and 24)

Laser scanning of Stonehenge 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)

Human remains 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 Plate 6 Excavations over the line of the provided the main sources of information. Four Double Bluestone Circle at Stonehenge, April ‘standard boxes’ and fourteen ‘skull boxes’ of 2008. Photograph by Timothy Darvill. © disarticulated remains from more than 30 SPACES different sites were examined and considered to have little further research value. Some 116 individuals’ dentition (through studies of articulated skeletons were identified, of which microwear and macrowear) and skeletal about half were found to be in good condition remains which will shed light on diet, health, and all have potential for further work. A total trauma, physical stress and funerary of 123 cremation deposits were assessed, many manipulation, and: c) to improve knowledge of of which had not previously been studied. these individuals’ social and temporal contexts (Contribution to 2005 Research Objective 23) through systematic study of their burial contexts, circumstances of discovery and Beaker People Project/Beaker Isotope chronology. Around 250 individuals from five Project: mobility, migration and diet in the geographical areas (Scotland, East Yorkshire, British Early Bronze Age Wessex, , and the Peak District) are This interdisciplinary project based at the being studied. Preliminary results suggest Universities of Sheffield and Durham, and the some movement of people (Jay and Richards Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary 2007a; Jay et al. 2012). (Contribution to 2005 Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany, aims to Research Objective 1, 4, 23) resolve the ‘immigration versus local development’ problem amongst Beaker SPACES: Stonehenge excavation populations in Britain and, in doing so, In April 2008 Timothy Darvill (Bournemouth transform understanding of economy and University) and Geoffrey Wainwright society at the time of Stonehenge by studying (Bluestone) directed an excavation within the mobility, diet, and health (Jay and south-eastern quadrant of Stonehenge in the Montgomery 2008; Chamberlain et al. 2012). area between the Circle and the The objectives of the project are: a) to Bluestone Circle adjacent to Stones 9 and 10 to systematically sample a large proportion of the the south-east, and 34 and 35a to the north- surviving, well-preserved skeletal remains of west amid much media interest (Anon. 2008c; the Beaker period for a comprehensive range 2008d; 2009b; Draper 2010: 337; Pitts 2008c; of isotopes relating to the reconstruction of 2009; Selkirk 2008). The work formed part of individuals’ diet and mobility; b) to a wider long-term collaborative programme of systematically record and/or reassess these investigation known as SPACES (Strumble- 17

Preseli Ancient Communities and Environment pits, all wholly or partly truncated by later Study) that seeks to examine, characterise, and features. Two of the pits were cut by a larger date, identified bluestone extraction sites, roughly circular pit interpreted as a stone associated monuments, and nearby settlements socket for one of the pillars in the Double on Carn Meini, and to examine the Bluestone Circle which would equate with Q- relationships between these places and water Hole 13 in Atkinson’s scheme. Half of this sources within and around the eastern Preseli lay within the trench and this part was ridge. The central research questions are fully excavated. Q-Hole 12, partly excavated simply: when were the spotted dolerite by Atkinson, was also recognised in the trench, (Preselite) pillar stones taken from Preseli to but the portion left untouched in 1964 was Stonehenge, by whom, in what context, and found to have been completely cut away by a why? pit/shaft of Roman date. Moving beyond Stonehenge is In the northern side of the trench two considered critical to resolving issues of sockets for Bluestones 34 and 35a forming part structure, significance and importance, and of the Bluestone Circle were excavated. In the regular interim reports and accounts have been southern side of the trench part of the socket published on the SPACES project since its for sarsen Stone 10 was excavated. In the inception in 2002 (Anon. 2011b; Catling 2007; centre of the trench was a large slightly oval Darvill and Wainwright 2002a; 2002b; 2003; pit approximately 1.6 m by 1.25 m and 1.1 m 2005; Darvill et al. 2003; 2004; 2006; 2007a; deep, in the bottom of which as a rather worn 2007b; 2009; Jones 2008; Marziou and copy of a coin of Constantius II dating to c. Crançon 2008). As a working hypothesis, it is AD 348. A second Romano-British feature lay contended that the Bluestones provided the in the south-east corner of the trench. power of place that made Stonehenge special Medieval, post-medieval, and modern features and that their significance to people at the time are represented across the trench connected was that the stones themselves and water with stone robbing and antiquarian associated with them were believed to have investigation. healing properties (Alexander 2009; Catling Post-excavation work is underway. 2007; Darvill 2007; 2009a; 2009b; 2011; (Contribution to 2005 Research Objectives 1, Darvill and Wainwright 2011). 2, 3, and 5) The specific purpose of the 2008 investigations at Stonehenge was two-fold. Hidden Landscapes Project First, to clarify the form and date of the Double A collaborative programme by Birmingham Bluestone Circle constructed from c. 80 stones University’s Visual and Spatial Technology transported to the site from the of Centre (VISTA) and the Ludwig Boltzmann south-west Wales. Second, to document the Institute for Archaeological Prospection and subsequent history of the bluestones through Virtual Archaeology aims to use a range of later phases in the monument’s history, geophysical surveys to consider the following particularly the activities resulting in the so- objectives: the inter-visibility of monuments in called ‘Stonehenge Layer’ and the construction the landscape; Stonehenge and its interaction of the Bluestone Circle still visible today. A with other monuments; the development over detailed interim account has been published time of the Stonehenge landscape; and the (Darvill and Wainwright 2009) as well as activities between known monuments (Anon. various summaries documenting on-going 2010b). In 2010 the Greater Cursus Field was post-excavation research (Darvill and surveyed at high resolution and a segmented Wainwright 2011). ditch and secondary inner ring of posts were The Stonehenge Layer proved to be a discovered at Amesbury G50 attracting heterogeneous series of interdigitated considerable publicity (Anon. 2010c; 2010d). accumulative spreads of stone-rich material First World War trenches were identified in the and soil that were subject to periodic east of the survey area while much disturbance disturbances, bioturbation, and stabilization at the west end of the Cursus made giving rise to the formation of thin localised interpretation difficult. Further surveys were worm-sorted soils. carried out in 2011, extending the geographical A total of 15 bedrock-cut features extent of the survey eastwards and southwards were recorded within the excavation, including (Anon. 2011c). (Contributions to 2005 four wholly or partially investigated by Research Objectives 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 14, 15, Hawley and Atkinson. The earliest features in 16, and 17) the previously unexcavated section of the trench comprised four small round steep-sided 18

First Monuments Project geophysical surveys 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 (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 Plate 7 Stonehenge: the Bluestones and internal form of round barrows in the Cursus Trilithon © Copyright Wessex Archaeology Cemetery, the course of the Avenue, the course of the so-called Gate Ditch, bone assemblage dominated by aurochs from and the numerous tracks and early roads the period 6250–4700 cal BC on the basis of crossing the landscape was gathered. In two radiocarbon dates. A piece of rapier addition, a series of previously unrecognised refashioned as a dagger and a piece of a bronze features were recorded including: a pit-arc or chisel suggest deposition at the spring in the cove below a barrow on the west side of King Middle Bronze Age around 1400 cal BC. Later Barrow Ridge, a square enclosure on the east finds from the area include Iron Age pottery, a side of Stonehenge Bottom, a linear ditch on Romano-British lead curse, an Anglo-Saxon the same solsticial axis and parallel to the disc brooch, and medieval wooden staves southern section of the Stonehenge Avenue, showing the enduring nature of the place and a variety of pits and scoops. (Contributions which the excavator suggests may be to 2005 Research Objectives 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, associated with a fertility/healing deity. The 14, 15, 16, and 17) excavator notes the presence of other springs in the area, including one very near the stone Vespasian’s Camp excavations circle and henge found by the Stonehenge Studies of the historical records for the area Riverside Project at the southern end of the around Vespasian’s Camp between 1999 and Avenue (Jacques 2012, 4). (Contributions to 2005 provided new insights into the impact of 2005 Research Objectives 4, 11, 15, and 17) the 18th-century landscaping works in the area and suggested a lesser impact than had first Stone sourcing projects been thought. Since 2005 excavations by a Much new research has been carried out into team initially from the Open University and the geological origins and source outcrops of subsequently the University of Buckingham the various lithologies subsumed within the have focused on the investigation of Blick term ‘Bluestone’ as applied to the non-local Mead outside the north-east corner of stone used in the construction and workings of Vespasian’s Camp (Jacques 2012; Jacques et Stonehenge and found at the site itself and in al. 2010). Although once considered an 18th- the wider landscape. Stones SH34 and SH35a century pond it is now recognised as a natural have been shown to be spotted dolerites (also spring, the largest of a series in the area. In known as Preselite) very similar to samples prehistoric times it may have been a seasonal from Carn Menyn, while stones SH38 and feature, but 10 small excavations have revealed SH40 are two different dacitic crystal-vitric- a wealth of deposits, the earliest of which lithic ash-flow tuffs and SH46 and SH48 are include worked flints and an animal two different rhyolitic crystal-vitric-lithic ash- flow tuffs (Ixer and Bevins 2011a). The stone 19

Plate 8 Barrows in the Stonehenge landscape © Copyright Wessex Archaeology type represented by SH48 was later defined as different source area, possibly from Lower rhyolite Group E (rhyolite with visible feldspar Palaeozoic sandstone beds (Ixer and Turner phenocrysts) which is also represented by two 2006). pieces of debitage from the 2008 excavations An examination of finds from the (Ixer and Bevins 2011a, 22). Group D rhyolites Cursus Field collected in 1947 and from (rhyolitic tuffs with late albite-titanite-chlorite excavations by the Stonehenge Riverside intergrowths) are mainly confined to samples Project in 2006 and 2008 confirmed that much from the Stonehenge Cursus (see below) and of the material could be matched with samples are of unknown source (Ixer and Bevins 2010, from Stonehenge (identified as Groups A–D: 7; 2011a, 21–2). Three defined types of Ixer and Bevins 2011a; 2011b) but that some rhyolite (A–C) which are not represented rhyolites could not be matched amongst amongst standing Bluestones at Stonehenge existing samples (Ixer and Bevins 2010; Ixer et but have been recognised as debitage from the al. forthcoming). 2008 excavations within Stonehenge, the Heel Paul Robinson (2007) reported the Stone area, several Aubrey Holes, the results of petrological studies of 21 stone items Stonehenge Avenue, and the Stonehenge from the Devizes Museum collections that Cursus all derive from a series of outcrops at were thin-sectioned by the Implement Craig Rhos-y-Felin near Pont Saeson on the Petrology Committee of the South Western north side of the Preseli ridge in Federation of Museums and Art Galleries in (Ixer and Bevins 2011b; Bevins the late 1950s. This includes material from et al. 2011; Anon. 2011d; 2012a; 2012b). This barrows in Wilsford, Shrewton, and source area was the focus of archaeological Winterbourne Stoke. An examination of attention in summer 2011 when evaluation spotted dolerite axeheads from southern trenches against the outcrop located a detached England suggests that some may have been columnar block and associated hammerstones made from pieces of Stonehenge rather than (Parker Pearson et al. 2012). introduced from more distant sources A review of samples from the Altar (Williams-Thorpe et al. 2006). Stone confirmed that it was a fine-to-medium A new study of jadeite axe-heads grained calcareous sandstone of the kind found from Wiltshire has shown that the example in the Senni Beds of south Wales. Four other said to have derived from a barrow near pieces of sandstone from the Stonehenge Stonehenge and now in the Salisbury and Cursus, Stonehenge, Aubrey Hole 1 and South (Accession number Aubrey Hole 5 share a common lithology as SSWM 28/59 (02919)) is of Alpine rock and is low-grade metasediments and derive from a used to define the ‘Durrington type’ with an 20

almond or teardrop-shaped outline and a tanged bronze knife, and a piece of antler sharply pointed butt. The original findspot of below West Overton G1 barrow, was the piece remains a matter of debate, but a published courtesy of the Beaker People good case is made for derivation from the Project (Needham et al. 2010a). And Knighton (Figheldean 27) long barrow celebrating the two-hundredth anniversary of (Sheridan et al. 2010, 26 and fig. 7.2). William Cunnington and Sir Richard Colt (Contributions to 2005 Research Objectives 1, Hoare’s excavations into Bronze Age barrows 5, 22) on Normanton Down a reanalysis of the cemetery has been published (Needham et al. Ritual in Early Bronze Age grave goods 2009; 2010b). This suggests that the EBA This Leverhulme Trust funded project based at Period 3 burials in the cemetery, including the the with Bush Barrow grave, represent the last resting participants from the universities of places of a dynastic succession that controlled Bournemouth, Leicester, and the Open access to Stonehenge for a while and presided University, aims to catalogue and identify the over the ceremonies therein. significance of burial assemblages from Artefacts from various parts of Britain Beaker and Early Bronze Age contexts in have been shown to link with the gold lozenge England (Woodward et al. 2005). Initial results from the Bush Barrow, amongst them a jet show remarkable disparity in the use and lozenge from Carlton Colville, Suffolk (Pitts fragmentation patterns of different artefact 2007) and a broken amber lozenge from the types. Some objects and groups it is suggested Heathrow T5 excavations (Pitts 2011b). might be seen as symbolic depositions placed A revised, slightly later, date for the by mourners, or as parts of ceremonial early medieval execution at Stonehenge of cal costume, rather than as possessions of the AD 660–890 (OxA-13193: 1258±34 BP) has deceased (Woodward et al. 2006; Woodward been published in the light of retesting one of and Hunter 2011). (Contribution to 2005 the original samples (Hamilton et al. 2007). Research Objective 22) Early images of Stonehenge continue to provide a fascinating line of inquiry, with Other projects attention directed to a vignette of the site in a A variety of other pieces of research have been Scala Mundi dated to AD 1440–1 (Heck 2007) published, some revising earlier studies and and the image on page 291 of the edition of others expanding into new areas. Camden’s Britannia published in 1600 which The relative significance of solar and seems to be the earliest known illustration in a lunar orientations embedded in the architecture bound book (Allen 2008). John Herschel’s of Stonehenge has long been a subject of visits to Stonehenge in August 1865 provide interest, and it remains so. Sims (2006) treats dated illustrations before the collapse of Stones the sarsen monument at Stonehenge as one 21, 22 and 122 (Mitchell 2007). Alan Sorrell’s among a number of monuments with lunar– well-known reconstructions with their shades solar alignments which privileged night over of gloom and foreboding are now over 50 day, winter over summer, dark moon over full. years old (Pitts 2005c) while new images of He proposes that the aim of the monument Stonehenge in action have also been produced builders was to juxtapose, replicate and reverse in a way that prompts interesting questions certain key horizon properties of the sun and about the conventional phasing of the stone the moon, apparently with the intention of settings (Dunn 2012). The early history of investing the sun with the moon’s former aerial photography and its contribution to religious significance. understanding the Stonehenge landscape has Beaker period and Early Bronze Age been thoroughly investigated by Martyn ‘Wessex Culture’ burials and burial Barber (Barber 2011) while the potential of have attracted much attention in addition to the recent developments in lidar technology have projects already described. An on-line database been experimentally applied to the Stonehenge of late 3rd and 2nd millennium cal BC graves landscape (Bewley et al. 2005). has been created by Andrew Martin and its Military remains in the area continue content analysed (Martin and Langley 2006; to be a theme for research, the construction and Martin 2011). The first secure radiocarbon date use of training trenches being a theme explored of 2020–1770 cal BC (SUERC-26203: by Graham Brown and David Field (2007). 3550±35 BP) for a Wessex I burial, the flexed On a rather different track, the sounds inhumation of an adult male buried in a tree- and musicology of Stonehenge have emerged trunk coffin accompanied by a Willerby type as an interesting theme (Banfield 2009; Darvill bronze flat axe, a crutch-headed bronze pin, a 21

Plate 9 Replicas of the Beakers from Amesbury Down © Copyright Wessex Archaeology

2009c; 2009d) while the site and its landscape other things overturned, and whole new remain an inspiration for artists (Wickstead dimensions revealed. A selection of changed, 2008; 2014; Anon. 2008d), photography (Pitts changing, and new aspects are considered 2008f), and the production of souvenirs and briefly in the following sections. memorabilia (Richards 2008; 2009). Access to Stonehenge and its uses at the solstices have Dating been probed and documented (Blain and Wallis 2006; Hutton 2005; Worthington 2005a; 2005b). There has also been a Much has been done in recent years to improve continuing interest in experimental understandings of prehistoric chronologies and archaeology-related Stonehenge problems: the temporality represented by stratigraphic prominent is the practical question of how the sequences. Key here is the erosion of the large sarsens and the much smaller Bluestones largely obsolete cultural-historical Three-Age were moved from their sources to the site – terminology developed in the late 19th century with increasingly ingenious (and increasingly which can be replaced by a back-projected unlikely) solutions offered, including the use calendrical chronology. This has the effect of of ball-bearings in wooden runners (Young focusing attention on the way events unfold 2011). Finds from Durrington Walls have been and the speed of change over time. Needham used to suggest brewing at the site, an activity (2008) for example has compared the late 3rd enthusiastically reconstructed (Dineley 2008). millennium cal BC to the Renaissance in terms (Contributions to 2005 Research Objectives 1, of the cultural, artistic, and technical changes 3, 4, 11, 13, 17, and 25) wrought over a relatively short time. Placing Stonehenge and the other features in the landscape within a more robust chronological Forging New Understandings framework allows direct comparisons between sites in terms of their construction, use, The state of knowledge about Stonehenge and modification, and abandonment and on a its landscape is always provisional, always broader scale allows these sites to be situated changing, and always contingent on wider in relation to contemporary sites around the understandings of the monuments, material world. culture, and the worlds that earlier In looking at the history of individual communities inhabited. That is what makes the prehistoric sites there has been a tendency to site and its landscape so exciting as an arena follow an architecturally-based scheme for the for research, and it is notable that Stonehenge identification of formal phases; this is features at number six in the top-ten of BIG especially marked at Stonehenge itself. But research questions identified at the start of the there is an increasing recognition that second decade of the 21st century (Pitts 2011c, prehistoric sites were not delivered to 18). As a result of work over the last decade predetermined ‘blue-prints’, rather they some established ideas have been supported, evolved and developed through iterative

22

episodes of creativity in which the act of change. Heyd (2007; 2008) has characterised construction was itself a major focus of the as the third and last of attention, so while it may be helpful to think in a succession of supra-regional expansionistic terms of ‘stages’, monuments should be seen cultures to emerge in northern and western as ongoing projects rather than a succession of Europe from the mid-4th millennium cal BC complete entities. onwards. The Bell Beaker Culture originated The 2008 excavations in the central in the Iberian Peninsula and spread eastwards part of Stonehenge revealed the difficulties of not as a single homogeneous tradition but interpreting the documented stratigraphy for rather as a series of supra-regional groupings the purposes of chronological modelling. including the Mediterranean Group, East Together with new information from work at Group, and Atlantic Group. Within the Aubrey Hole 7, a new staging of the features Atlantic Group (also known as the Maritime inside Stonehenge has been assembled on the Beaker Complex) Needham (2005) has basis of a revised modelling of the available identified what he terms ‘the phases of radiocarbon dates (Darvill et al. 2012). This meaning’ spanning the period 2400 cal BC to suggests that the central Trilithon Horseshoe 1700 cal BC. First is a period when Beakers was the first structure to be built in the central were part of a circumscribed exclusive culture; area, perhaps along with the Sarsen Circle. The pottery styles comprised low-carinated Bluestone circles were added later. Some (Maritime) forms. Around 2250–2150 cal BC discussion of the contemporaneity of other was a period of rapid mutation when Beaker monuments in the landscape has been traditions underwent a fusion with local published on the basis of interim results from Corded Ware traditions along the coastlands of the Stonehenge Riverside Project (Parker the English Channel, North Sea, and Rhine Pearson et al. 2007). Delta, prompting the second phase as a period With a start-date of c. 2950 cal BC for of instituted culture when pottery forms the construction of the earthwork enclosure at included weak-carinated, tall mid-carinated, Stonehenge itself, many questions remain long-necked, short-necked, high-bellied, low- about what was happening in the landscape bellied, and globular forms. Finally, from 1950 during the preceding millennia. This gap is cal BC to 1700 cal BC Beaker traditions were starting to be filled by the discoveries around ‘past references’ to by-gone trends with pottery Vespasian’s Camp by David Jacques and forms dominated by long-necked, globular, colleagues (Jacques et al. 2010) and by and mid-bellied styles. discoveries made north-west of Countess A critical question now is how Roundabout during field evaluations for the changes at Stonehenge fit into this bigger A303 upgrading (Leivers and Moore 2008, 14– picture. Relevant here is the interest in solar 19 ). There is much more to be done on this symbolism represented within the Bell Beaker chapter in the history of the Stonehenge Culture, the role of the distinctive ceramic landscape. vessels, and the impact of the wanderlust shown by early Bell Beaker communities. The Long-distance Connections ‘Amesbury Archer’ is the earliest recorded Beaker-associated burial in Britain dating to the period 2380–2290 cal BC (Fitzpatrick Discussion of long-distance connections 2011). Oxygen isotope analysis of his teeth between the Stonehenge area, the near suggests that in his early years he lived in a continent, and the world of central Europe, colder climate than Wessex, and an Alpine southern Europe, and the Mediterranean has a origin for this individual is favoured. Objects long and turbulent history (see Darvill 2006, in the grave indicate international connections 174–5 for summary). Over the past decade or for the deceased or those associated with his so the cultural geography of northern and funeral rituals that extend from Iberia to western Europe has come into sharper focus as central Europe. Based largely on the presence a result of much new research, especially for of a well-used cushion-stone amongst the the 3rd and 2nd millennia cal BC. The relative grave goods accompanying the ‘Archer’, isolation of the British Isles during the early Fitzpatrick (2011, 236–7) concludes that he 3rd millennium cal BC when Grooved Ware was somehow involved in metalworking and was the dominant ceramic in use has become that he travelled to Britain in this connection. clear. Equally, the period of The ‘Boscombe Bowmen’ also travelled, internationalization associated with an uptake although probably on a more limited compass in the use of Beaker pottery around 2400 cal and most probably from west Wales BC illustrates the speed with which things (Fitzpatrick 2011, 32). It is tempting to link 23

their travels with the transportation of the cemetery at Barrow Hills, Radley, Oxfordshire Bluestones from west Wales to Stonehenge (Barclay and Halpin 1999, 298–325) and it and certainly an early Beaker context for this would be interesting to examine similar would be appropriate (Case 1997). Much possibilities in relation to the social use of therefore depends on when exactly these stones space within the Stonehenge cemeteries in the first appeared at Stonehenge: Parker Pearson light of the detailed survey data now becoming preferring a date in the first quarter of the 3rd available. millennium cal BC date, while Darvill and Natural characteristics of the post- Wainwright favour the last quarter of the 3rd glacial landscape have been presented as millennium cal BC when Beaker associations possible structuring elements of the 3rd and would be fully acceptable (cf. Anon. 2009b). 2nd millennia cal BC socially-constructed A continuation of international landscapes of monuments (Parker Pearson et connections through the post-Beaker centuries al. 2010), although earlier debates about of the early 2nd millennium cal BC can be similar patterns in relation to a possible suggested from finds made with burials in the northern branch of the Stonehenge Avenue surrounding landscape; it was these that summarily dismissed at least some options mainly fuelled earlier debates. Needham (Cleal et al. 1995, 312–14). Geophysical (2000) provides a context for the movement of surveys have revealed other cultural features in artefacts over long distances in terms of cross- the landscape that might be relevant to large- channel connections with communities who scale structuring but these need investigating were themselves in contact with more distant in order to date them and assess their groups so that items could move ‘down the contribution. The full publication of line’ step by step. Isotope analysis of teeth investigations carried out on behalf of English from the skeleton of a young man associated Heritage for the proposed visitor centres at with a necklace of amber beads found at Larkhill and Countess Road as well as the Amesbury Down re-opened the debate about recent studies at Airman’s Corner would direct links to the Aegean in the mid-2nd provide useful information about the date and millennium cal BC (Barclay 2010) although extent of features recorded through aerial these have not yet been fully published. photography and geophysical survey.

Landscape Structure Importance of Other Monuments

It has long been recognised that Stonehenge is Stonehenge has long dominated the not an isolated structure but rather one that is archaeology of its landscape, a matter that the spatially and chronologically connected to topographic and geophysical surveys on a other sites in the area and beyond. One of the landscape scale are beginning to address. big achievements of the extensive hi-resolution Through this work new structures are being geophysical surveys is to show just how empty discovered and additional phases to previously the surrounding landscape really is. This is recorded structures are being identified. supported by the poverty of finds made during Important here is the pit/post circle north-west field evaluation for the road schemes in the of Airman’s Corner, the henge and stone circle area (Leivers and Moore 2008). Prior to the within the southern terminal of the Avenue at development of the major barrow cemeteries West Amesbury, the possible cove on King there were large open spaces around Barrow Ridge and the features on the flanks of Stonehenge; open that is in the sense of not Stonehenge Bottom recorded through containing structures that leave distinctive geophysical surveys. With the exception of the geomagnetic signatures. Even with the West Amesbury Henge, all need field appearance and elaboration of the barrow evaluation as a matter of urgency to validate cemeteries to their full extent during the them. The same applies to other features middle centuries of the 2nd millennium cal BC identified though aerial photography and there were large empty spaces. These could be surface survey. One of the obvious conclusions seen as gathering places or arenas for of such work by the Stonehenge Riverside performances associated with the use of Project is just how dangerous it is to build Stonehenge itself or the barrows within the models that are heavily reliant on undated barrow cemeteries. Such a pattern has been earthworks and structures. discerned in the layout of the excavated barrow

24

Bibliography

Abbot, M. and Anderson-Whymark, H., 2012. Anon., 2011a, Discoveries provide evidence of Stonehenge Laser Scan: archaeological celestial procession at Stonehenge. On-line analysis report. English Heritage project source available at: 6457. English Heritage Research Report http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/latest/ Series no. 32-2012, available at: 2011/11/25Nov-Discoveries-provide- http://services.english- evidence-of-a-celestial-procession-at- heritage.org.uk/ResearchReportsPdfs/032_ Stonehenge.aspx (accessed 2 April 2012). 2012WEB.pdf Anon., 2011b, Stonehenge’s sister? Current Alexander, C., 2009, If the stones could speak: Archaeology, 260, 6–7. Searching for the meaning of Stonehenge. Anon., 2011c, Home is where the heath is. National Geographic, 213.6 (June 2008), Late Neolithic house, Durrington Walls. 34–59. Current Archaeology, 256, 42–3. Allen, S., 2008, The quest for the earliest Anon., 2011d, Stonehenge rocks. Current published image of Stonehinge (sic). Archaeology, 254, 6–7. Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural Anon., 2012a, Origin of some of the Bluestone History Magazine, 101, 257–9. debris at Stonehenge. British Archaeology, Anon., 2006, Excavation and Fieldwork in 123, 9. Wiltshire 2004. Wiltshire Archaeological Anon., 2012b, Stonehenge: sourcing the and Natural History Magazine, 99, 264–70. Bluestones. Current Archaeology, 263, 6– Anon., 2007a, Excavation and Fieldwork in 7. Wiltshire 2005. Wiltshire Archaeological Aronson, M., 2010, If stones could speak. and Natural History Magazine, 100, 232– Unlocking the secrets of Stonehenge. 39. Washington DC: National Geographic. Anon., 2007b, Before Stonehenge: village of Avebury Archaeological and Historical wild parties. Current Archaeology, 208, Research Group (AAHRG) 2001 17–21. Archaeological Research Agenda for the Anon., 2008a, What lies beneath Stonehenge? Avebury World Heritage Site. Salisbury, Current Archaeology, 219, 7. Wessex Archaeology/English Anon., 2008b, Stonehenge: an elite cemetery? Heritage/AAHRG Current Archaeology, 221, 6. Baldwin, E 2010 Stonehenge Hidden Anon., 2008c, Stonehenge Bogles. Current Landscapes Interim Geophysical Survey Archaeology, 224, 12–13. Report Field Season I (2010-2011). Anon., 2008d, Unravelling the mystery of the University of Birmingham, unpubl rep for Stonehenge Bluestones. The first the and English Heritage excavation at Stonehenge in 44 years. Balter, M., 2008, Early Stonehenge pilgrims Current Archaeology, 218, 4. came from afar, with cattle in tow. Anon., 2009a, Stonehenge Bluestones: who is Science, 320 (no. 5884), 1704–05. right? Current Archaeology, 226, 10. Banfield, S. (ed), 2009, The sounds of Anon., 2009b, English Heritage unveils Stonehenge. Oxford: Archaeopress (BAR Stonehenge visitor centre designs. Current British Series 504). Archaeology, 237, 8–9. Banton, S, Bowden, M, Daw, T, Grady, D and Anon., 2010a, Britain in Archaeology: Soutar, S 2014 Parchmarks at Stonehenge, Stonehenge. British Archaeology, 115, 9. July 2013. Antiquity 88, 733–9 Anon., 2010b, A new henge discovered at Barber, M., 2011. A History of Aerial Stonehenge. On-line source available at: Photography and Archaeology: Mata http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/latest/ Hari’s Glass Eye and Other Stories. 2010/07/22july-stonehenge.aspx (accessed Swindon: English Heritage. 2 April 2012). Barber, M 2014a Stonehenge WHS Landscape Anon., 2010c, Mound discovered at Project: ‘Restoring’ Stonehenge 1881-1939 Stonehenge. Current Archaeology, 241, 6– EH RRS 6-2014 7. Barber, M 2014b Stonehenge WHS Landscape Anon., 2010d, [New geophysical surveys at Project: Stonehenge Aerodrome and the Stonehenge]. Current Archaeology, 246, 6– Stonehenge Landscape EH RRS 7-2014 7. Barber, M 2016 Aerial Archaeology, in Leivers and Powell (eds) 2016, 15–20.

25

Barclay, A., 2010, Excavating the living dead. Down Barrows. Swindon: English Heritage British Archaeology, 115, 36–41. Research Department Report Series 108- Barclay, A. & Halpin, C., 1999, Excavations at 2010. (Available on-line at: Barrow Hills, Radley, Oxfordshire. Volume http://research.english- I: the Neolithic and Bronze Age monument heritage.org.uk/report/?14950). complex. Oxford: Oxford Archaeological Bowden, M., 2011, Stonehenge World Units (Thames Valley Landscapes 11). Heritage Site Landscape Project: Bevins, R.E., Pearce, N.J.P. & Ixer, R.A., Earthworks at Lake and West Amesbury. 2011, Stonehenge rhyolitic bluestone Swindon: English Heritage Research sources and the application of zircon Department Report Series 92-2011. chemistry as a new tool for provenancing (Available on-line at: rhyolitic lithics. Journal of Archaeological http://research.english- Science, 38, 605–622. heritage.org.uk/report/?15044). Bewley, R.H., Crutchley, S.P. & Shell, C.A., Bowden, M., Barber, M., Field, D. and Soutar, 2005, New light on an ancient landscape: S., 2015, The Stonehenge Landscape: ‘a lidar survey in the Stonehenge World striking picture of ancient times’: analysing Heritage Site. Antiquity, 79, 636–47. the Stonehenge World Heritage Site. Bishop, S., 2010, Stonehenge World Heritage Swindon: Historic England Site Landscape Project: Durrington Firs. Bowden, M. & Barrett, K., 2010, Stonehenge Swindon: English Heritage Research World Heritage Site Landscape Project, Department Report Series 86-2010. Normanton Down: Archaeological survey (Available on-line at: report. Swindon: English Heritage http://research.english- Research Department Report Series 90- heritage.org.uk/report/?14927). 2010. (Available on-line at: Bishop, S., 2011a, Stonehenge World Heritage http://research.english- Site Landscape Project: Level 1 Field heritage.org.uk/report/?14931). Investigations. Swindon: English Heritage Bowden, MCB, Field D and Soutar, S 2012 Research Department Report Series 82- Lake Barrows, The Diamond and 2011. (Available on-line at: Normanton Gorse EH RRS 29-2012 http://research.english- Brayne, K., 2006, Report on an heritage.org.uk/report/?15034). Archaeological Watching Brief at 14a Bishop, S., 2011b, Stonehenge World Heritage Stonehenge Road, Amesbury. Rudyard Site Landscape Project: King Barrow Consultancy Ridge. Swindon: English Heritage Bronk Ramsey, C 1995 Radiocarbon Research Department Report Series 83- calibration and analysis of stratigraphy, 2011. (Available on-line at: Radiocarbon 36, 425–30 http://research.english- Bronk Ramsey, C 1998 Probability and dating, heritage.org.uk/report/?15035). Radiocarbon 40, 461–7 Bishop, S. & Amadio, L., 2010, Stonehenge Bronk Ramsey, C 2009 Bayesian analysis of World Heritage Site Landscape Project: radiocarbon date, Radiocarbon 51(1), 337– The and surrounding area. 60 Swindon: English Heritage Research Brown, G. & Field, D., 2007, Training Department Report Series 85-2010. trenches on Salisbury Plain: archaeological (Available on-line at: evidence for battle training in the Great http://research.english- War. Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural heritage.org.uk/report/?14926). History Magazine, 100, 170–80. Bishop, S. & Komar, A., 2010, Stonehenge Brown, K., 2005, Being bold at the stones. World Heritage Site Landscape Project, British Archaeology, 83, 26-7. Fargo South: archaeological survey report. Burl, A., 2006, Stonehenge: a new history of Swindon: English Heritage Research the world's greatest stone circle. London: Department Report Series 96-2010. Constable. (Available on-line at: Canti, M., Campbell, G. and Greaney, S. (eds), http://research.english- 2011. Stonehenge World Heritage Site heritage.org.uk/report/?14937). Synthesis: Landscape, environment and Blain, J. & Wallis, R.J., 2006, Past and pagan economy (Draft 1.0). London: English practices:: moving beyond Stonehenge. Heritage report PNUM 6132 Public Archaeology, 5(4), 211 – 222. Carver, E. & Greaney, S., 2011, Stonehenge Bowden, M., 2010, Stonehenge World World Heritage Site. A strategy for Heritage Site Landscape Project: Wilsford interpretation, learning and participation 26

2010–15. London: English Heritage Darvill, T., 2009c, Right Here! Right Now! – [Limited circulation printed report 51695 Prehistoric monuments in rock and roll. In (AGD82 04/11)] J. Parker (ed), Written on Stone: The Case, H.J., 1997, Stonehenge revisited. A cultural reception of British prehistoric review article. Wiltshire Archaeological monuments. Newcastle upon Tyne: and Natural History Magazine, 90, 161–8. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. 128-42. Catling, C., 2007, Message in the stones. Darvill, T., 2009d, Stonehenge in rock. In S. Current Archaeology, 212, 12–19. Banfield (ed), The sounds of Stonehenge. Catling, C., 2008, Chris Catlings’ Diary. Oxford: Archaeopress BAR British Series Current Archaeology, 224, 16. 504. 66–73. Catling, C., 2009, Bluestonehenge. Current Darvill, T., 2011, Misty mountain hop: Archaeology, 237, 22–8. Prehistoric stone working in south-west Chamberlain, A., Parker Pearson, M. & Wales. In V. Davis & M. Edmonds (eds), Richards, M., 2012, The Beaker isotope Stone Axe Studies III. Oxford: Oxbow project: mobility, migration and diet in the Books. 131–146. British Early Bronze Age. Online Darvill, T., Lüth, F. and Rassmann, K., 2013. introduction available at: Stonehenge, Wiltshire, UK: high resolution http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/archaeology/res geophysical surveys in the surrounding earch/beaker-isotope/index (Accessed 4 landscape, 2011, European Journal of April 2012). Archaeology 16 (1), 63-93. Chenery, C.A., Evans, J.A., & Fitzpatrick, Darvill, T. & Wainwright, G., 2002a, SPACES A.P., 2006, Bronze Age childhood – exploring Neolithic landscapes in the migration of individuals near Stonehenge, Strumble-Preseli area of southwest Wales. revealed by strontium and oxygen isotope Antiquity, 76, 623-4. tooth enamel analysis. Archaeometry, Darvill, T. & Wainwright, G., 2002b, 48(2), 309–21. Strumble-Preseli Ancient Communities and Chippindale, C., 2012, Stonehenge Complete Environment Study (SPACES): First report (Fourth Edition). London: Thames & 2002. Archaeology in Wales, 42, 17-28. Hudson. Darvill,T. & Wainwright, G., 2003, Stone Cleal, R.M.J., Walker, K.E. and Montague, R., circles, oval settings and henges in south- 1995. Stonehenge in its Landscape: west Wales and beyond. Antiquaries twentieth century excavations. London: Journal, 83, 9-45. English Heritage Archaeological Report 10 Darvill,T. & Wainwright, G., 2005, Beyond Crutchley, S. 2002 Stonehenge World Heritage Stonehenge: Carn Menyn and the Site Mapping Project: Management Bluestone. British Archaeology, 83, 29–31. Report. Swindon, English Heritage Darvill,T. & Wainwright, G., 2009, Darvill, T. (ed), 2005, Stonehenge World Stonehenge excavations 2008. Antiquaries Heritage Site: An archaeological research Journal, 89, 1–19. framework. London & Bournemouth: Darvill, T., & Wainwright, G., 2011, The English Heritage and Bournemouth Stones of Stonehenge. Current University. Archaeology, 252, 28–35. Darvill, T., 2006, Stonehenge: the biography Darvill, T, Davies, R. V., Evans, D.M. Ixer, of a landscape. Stroud: Tempus. R.A. & Wainwright, G., 2007a, Strumble- Darvill, T., 2007, Towards the within: Preseli Ancient Communities and Stonehenge and its purpose. In D. A. Environment Study (SPACES): Fifth Barrowclough & C. Malone (eds), Cult in Report 2006. Archaeology in Wales, 46, context. Reconsidering ritual in 100–07. archaeology. Oxford: Oxbow Books. 148– Darvill,T., Driver, T. & Wainwright G., 2007b, 57. Among and stone circles on Banc Darvill, T., 2009a, Beyond Stonehenge: Du. British Archaeology, 92 (January– seeking the start of the bluestone trail. In C. February 2007), 26–29. Scarre (ed), Megalithic quarrying. Darvill, T., Evans, D. M. & Wainwright, G., Scourcing, extracting and manipulating the 2003, Strumble-Preseli Ancient stones. Oxford: Archaeopress BAR Communities and Environment Study International Series 1923. 45–53. (SPACES): second report 2003. Darvill, T., 2009b, Everybody must get stones. Archaeology in Wales, 43, 3-12. Internet Archaeology, 26 [Online at: Darvill, T., Evans, D.M. and Wainwright, G., http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue26/darvill_ 2004. Strumble-Preseli Ancient index.html ] Communities and Environment Study 27

(SPACES): third report 2004, Archaeology Field, D. & Pearson, T., 2010, Stonehenge in Wales 44, 104–9 World heritage Site Landscape Project. Darvill, T., Evans, D. M., Fyfe, R. & Stonehenge, Amesbury, Wiltshire: Wainwright, G., 2006, Strumble-Preseli Archaeological Survey Report. London: Ancient Communities and Environment English Heritage Research Department Study (SPACES): Fourth report 2005. Report Series 109–2010 (Available on-line Archaeology in Wales, 45, 17–23. at: http://research.english- Darvill, T., Marshall, P., Parker Pearson, M., heritage.org.uk/report/?14951). and Wainwright, W., 2012. Stonehenge Field, D., Pearson, T., Barber, M, Payne, A., remodelled, Antiquity 86 (334), 1021-40. 2010, Introducing 'Stonehenge' (and other Darvill, T., Wainwright, G., Armstrong, K. & curious earthworks). British Archaeology, Ixer, R., 2009, Strumble-Preseli ancient 111, 32–5. communities and environment study Fielden, K., 2007, Stonehenge Update. Rescue (SPACES): Sixth report 2007–08. News, 102, 2. Archaeology in Wales, 48, 47–56. Fitzpatrick, A.P., 2011, The Amesbury Archer Dineley, M., 2008, The Durrington maltsters. and the Boscombe Bowmen. Bell Beaker British Archaeology, 98, 30–1. burials at Boscombe Down, Amesbury, Draper, S. (compiled), 2008, Excavation and Wiltshire. Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology. Fieldwork in Wiltshire 2006. Wiltshire Fitzpatrick, A.P. & Catling, C., 2012, Gold in Archaeological and Natural History their hair. Pioneering travellers along the Magazine, 101, 274–84. copper road. Current Archaeology, 265, Draper, S. (compiled), 2009, Excavation and 26–33. Fieldwork in Wiltshire 2007. Wiltshire Gaffney, C, Gaffney, V, Neubauer, W, Archaeological and Natural History Baldwin, E, Chapman, H, Garwood, P, Magazine, 102, 331–45. Moulden, H, Sparrow, T, Bates, R, Locker, Draper, S. (compiled), 2010, Excavation and K, Hinterleitner, A, Trinks, I, Nau, E, Zitz, Fieldwork in Wiltshire 2008. Wiltshire T, Floery, S, Verhoeven, G and Doneus, M Archaeological and Natural History 2012 The Stonehenge Hidden Landscapes Magazine, 103, 336–48. Project, Archaeological Prospection 19, Draper, S. (compiled), 2011, Excavation and 147–55 fieldwork in Wiltshire 2009. Wiltshire Gillings, M, Pollard, J, Wheatley, D and Archaeological and Natural History Peterson, R, 2008 Landscape of the Magazine, 104, 283–92. : excavation and fieldwork on the Dunn, P., 2012, New visions of Stonehenge. Avebury Monuments, 1997–2003.Oxford, British Archaeology, 123, 40–44. Oxbow Books Field, D., 2009, Airman’s Corner, Hamilton, D., Pitts, M. & Reynolds, A., 2007, Winterbourne Stoke, Wiltshire. A revised date for the early medieval Investigation of earthworks. London: execution at Stonehenge. Wiltshire English Heritage Research Department Archaeological and Natural History Report Series 40–2009 (Available on-line Magazine, 100, 202–03. at: http://research.english- Heck, C., 2007, A new medieval view of heritage.org.uk/report/?14775). Stonehenge. British Archaeology, 92, 10– Field, D, Bowden, MCB and Soutar, S 2012 15. The Avenue and Stonehenge Bottom EH Hey, G and Hind, J 2014 Solent-Thames RRS 31-2012 Research Framework for the Historic Field, D., Linford, N., Barber, M., Anderson- Environment: Resource Assessment and Whymark, H., Bowden, M., Topping, P. Research Agendas. Oxford, Oxford Wessex and Linford, P., 2014a. ‘Analytical Surveys Archaeology Monogr. 6 of Stonehenge and its Immediate Environs, Heyd, V., 2007, Families, prestige good, 2009-2013: Part 1 – the Landscape and warriors and complex societies: Beaker Earthworks’. Proceedings of the groups and the 3rd millennium cal BC. Prehistoric Society 80, 1-32 Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 73, Field, D., Linford, N., Barber, M., Anderson- 327–80. Whymark, H., Bowden, M., Topping, P. Heyd, V., 2008, [Copper Age Europe]. British and Linford, P., 2014b. ‘Analytical Surveys Archaeology, 101, 24. of Stonehenge and its Immediate Environs, Heyworth, M., 2006, Not the breadth if vision 2009-2013: Part 2 – the Stones’. it deserves. British Archaeology, 87, 51. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 82 Hill, R., 2008, Stonehenge. London: Profile Books. 28

Hinds, K., 2007, Highlights from the Portable Jay, M., & Montgomery, J., 2008, Beaker Antiquities Scheme (PAS) in Wiltshire People Project. British Archaeology, 101, 2005. Wiltshire Archaeological and 26. Natural History Magazine, 100, 238–39. Jay, M. & Richards, M., 2007, The Beaker Hinds, K., 2008, Highlights from the Portable People Project: progress and prospects for Antiquities Scheme (PAS) in Wiltshire the carbon, nitrogen and sulphur isotope 2006. Wiltshire Archaeological and analysis of collagen. In M. Larsson & M. Natural History Magazine, 101, 280–84. Parker Pearson (eds), From Stonehenge to Hinds, K., 2009, Highlights from the Portable the Baltic. Living with cultural diversity in Antiquities Scheme (PAS) in Wiltshire the third millennium BC. Oxford: 2007. Wiltshire Archaeological and Archaeopress (BAR International Series Natural History Magazine, 102, 339–45. 1692). 77–82. Hinds, K., 2010, Highlights from the Portable Jay, M., Parker Pearson, M., Richards, M. P., Antiquities Scheme (PAS) in Wiltshire Nehlich, O., Montgomery, J., Chamberlain, 2008. Wiltshire Archaeological and A. & Sheridan, A. 2012. The Beaker Natural History Magazine, 103, 341–48. People Project: an interim report on the Hinds, K., 2011, Highlights from the Portable progress of the isotopic analysis of the Antiquities Scheme (PAS) in Wiltshire organic skeletal material. In M. J. Allen, A. 2009. Wiltshire Archaeological and Sheridan & D. McOmish (eds.), The British Natural History Magazine, 104, 288–92. : People, place and polity in Hutton, R., 2005, From universal bond to the later 3rd millennium. Oxford: The public free for all. British Archaeology, 83, Prehistoric Society and Oxbow Books 10–15. (Prehistoric Society Research Paper 4). Ixer, R.A. & Bevins, R.E., 2010, The Johnson, A., 2008, Solving Stonehenge. petrography, affinity and provenance of London: Thames and Hudson. lithics from the Cursus Field, Stonehenge. Jones, D., 2008, New light on Stonehenge. Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural Smithsonian, 39.7, 36–46. History Magazine, 103, 1–15. Komar, 2010, Stonehenge World Heritage Site Ixer, R.A. & Bevins, R.E., 2011a, The detailed Landscape Project: Lake Down, Wilsford- petrography of six orthostats from the cum-Lake. Swindon: English Heritage Bluestone Circle, Stonehenge. Wiltshire Research Department Report Series 95- Archaeological and Natural History 2010. (Available on-line at: Magazine, 104, 1–14. http://research.english- Ixer, R. & Bevins, R. 2011b, Craig Rhos-y- heritage.org.uk/report/?14936). Felin, Pont Saeson is the dominant source Komar, A. and Field, D., 2012. Stonehenge of the Stonehenge rhyolitic ‘debitage’. WHS Landscape Project: A344 Corridor: Archaeology in Wales, 50, 21–31. Level 1 Survey. English Heritage Research Ixer, R.A., Bevins, R.E. & Dover, M., Report Series 35-2012. forthcoming, The identification and spatial Lane, R., 2011, Stonehenge World Heritage distribution of lithic fragments excavated Site Landscape Project. Stonehenge, from test pits in the Cursus field near Amesbury, Wiltshire: Architectural Stonehenge, Wiltshire. Lithics. Assessment. London: English Heritage Ixer, R.A. & Turner, P., 2006, A detailed re- Research Department Report Series 42– examination of the petrology of the Altar 2011. (Available on-line at: Stone and other non-sarsen sandstones http://research.english- from Stonehenge as a guide to their heritage.org.uk/report/?14994). provenance. Wiltshire Archaeological and Last, J., Bryan, P., Field, D. & Greaney, S., Natural History Magazine, 99, 1–9. 2011, A new eye on Stonehenge. Past, 69, Jacques, D., 2012, Summary of AA309 and 3–4. U211 students’ field work at Vespasian’s Lawson, A., 2007. Chalkland. An archaeology Camp, near Stonehenge, Wiltshire, 2005- of Stonehenge and its region. Salisbury: 2011. On-line account available at: Hobnob Press. http://www.open.ac.uk/Arts/classical- Leary, J., 2008, Stonehenge Environmental studies/amesbury/discoveries.shtml. Improvements Project: An Archaeological (Accessed 2 April 20120). desk-based Assessment of Areas V, W, X, Y Jacques, D., Phillips, T. & Clarke, M., 2010, A and Z. London: English Heritage. reassessment of the importance of Leivers, M. & Moore, C. 2008. Archaeology Vespasian’s Camp in the Stonehenge on the A303 Stonehenge Improvement. landscape. Past, 66, 12–14. Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology. 29

Leivers, M and Powell, A B (eds) 2016 A Mitchell, H., 2007, John Herschel visits Research Framework for the Stonehenge, Stonehenge. British Archaeology, 95, 50– Avebury and Asscociated Sites World 51. Heritage Site: Avebury Resource Needham, S., 2000, Power pulses across a Assessment. Salisbury, Wessex cultural divide: cosmologically driven Archaeology Monogr. 38 acquisition between Armorica and Wessex. Leivers, M and Powell, A B 2016 A Research Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 66, Framework for the Stonehenge, Avebury 151–208. and Asscociated Sites World Heritage Site: Needham, S., 2005, Transforming Beaker Research Agenda and Strategy. Salisbury, Culture in northwest Europe: processes of Wessex Archaeology Monogr. 39 fusion and fission. Proceedings of the Linford, N, Linford, P and Payne, A 2012 Prehistoric Society, 71, 171–218. Stonehenge Monument Field and Barrows, Needham, S., 2008, In the Copper Age. British Wiltshire: report on geophysical surveys , Archaeology, 101, 19–23. September 2010, April and July 2011 EH Needham, S., Lawson, A. & Woodward, A., RRS 34-2012 2009, Rethinking Bush Barrow. British Manning, A., McKinley, J.I. & Barclay, Archaeology, 104, 13–17. A.,2010, Early Bronze Age burial remains Needham, S., Lawson, A. & Woodward, A., from Boscombe Down Airfield, Amesbury, 2010b, ‘A noble group of barrows’: Bush Wiltshire. Wiltshire Archaeological and Barrow and the Normanton Down early Natural History Magazine, 103, 309–12. Bronze Age cemetery two centuries on. Marshall, B., 2007, A sense of context and Antiquaries Journal, 90, 1–39. space: Interview with Barrie Marshall. Needham, S., Parker Pearson, M., Tyler, A., British Archaeology, 92, 66. Richards, M. & Jay, M., 2010a, A first Marshall, P, Darvill, T, Parker Pearson, M and 'Wessex 1' date from Wessex. Antiquity, Wainwright G 2012 Stonehenge, 84: 363–73. Amesbury, Wiltshire: chronological Newsome, S., Bowden, M., Komar, A & Bax, modelling. English Heritage Research S., 2010, Stonehenge World Heritage Site Department Report 1-2012. Portsmouth, Landscape Project: Winterbourne Stoke English Heritage Crossroads. Swindon: English Heritage Martin, A., 2011, The Alien Within: the Research Department Report Series 107- forgotten sub-cultures of the Early Bronze 2010. (Available on-line at: Age. In A. Jones & G. Kirkham http://research.english- (eds.), Beyond the core: reflections on heritage.org.uk/report/?14949). regionality in prehistory. Oxford: Oxbow Olivier, A 1996 Frameworks For Our Past: a Books. review of research frameworks, strategies Martin, A. & Langley, R., 2006, The Wiltshire and perceptions. London, English Heritage Heritage Museum Collections: online Parker Pearson, M., 2004, Earth, wood and catalogue and search engine. (Available fire: materiality and Stonehenge. In N. on-line at: Boivin & M.A. Owoc (eds), Soils, Stones http://www.wiltshireheritagecollections.org and Symbols: Cultural Perceptions of the .uk. Accessed 5 April 20120). mineral world. London: UCL Press. Marziou, A-F., & Crançon, S., 2008, Parker Pearson, M., 2007, The Stonehenge Stonehenge: La fin d’une énigme? Riverside Project: excavations at the east Archéologia, 460, 17–28. entrance of Durrington Walls. In M. Mason, P. & Kuo, I-L., 2008, Visitor Attitudes Larsson & M. Parker Pearson (eds), From to Stonehenge: International Icon or Stonehenge to the Baltic. Living with National Disgrace? Journal of Heritage cultural diversity in the third millennium Tourism, 2(3), 168–83. BC. Oxford: Archaeopress (BAR McKinley, J, 2011, Bare Bones. The International Series 1692). 125–44. Amesbury Archer and the Boscombe Parker Pearson, M., 2008, When did copper Bowmen. Current Archaeology, 251, 12– first come to Britain? British Archaeology, 19. 101, 25. McKinley, J.I. & Manning, A., 2010, Late Parker Pearson, M., Pollard, J., Richards, C., medieval / early post-medieval burial Thomas, J., Tilley, C., Welham, K.. 2005, remains from Boscombe Down Airfield, Stonehenge Riverside Project: Interim Amesbury, Wiltshire. Wiltshire Report 2005. Sheffield: University of Archaeological and Natural History Sheffield Department of Archaeology. Magazine, 103, 320–23. [Limited circulation printed report] 30

Parker Pearson, M., Pollard, J., Richards, C., http://research.english- Thomas, J., Tilley, C., Welham, K., & heritage.org.uk/report/?14572). Umberto, A., 2006a, Materializing Pearson, T., Field, T. & Bowden, M., 2011, Stonehenge: the Stonehenge Riverside Stonehenge World Heritage Site Landscape Project and new discoveries. Journal of Project: The Greater Cursus, Durrington, Material Culture, 11, 227 –61 Wiltshire. Swindon: English Heritage Parker Pearson, M., Pollard, J., Richards, C., Research Department Report Series 103- Thomas, J., Tilley, C., & Welham, K., 2011. (Available on-line at: 2006b, A new avenue at Durrington Walls. http://research.english- Past, 52, 1–2. heritage.org.uk/report/?15055). Parker-Pearson M., Cleal, R., Marshall, P., Pearson, T. & Field, D., 2011a, Stonehenge Needham, S., Pollard, J., Richards, C., World Heritage Site Landscape Project: Ruggles, C., Sheridan, A., Thomas, J., The Stonehenge Avenue, Amesbury, Tilley, C., Welham, K., Chamberlain, A., Wiltshire. Swindon: English Heritage Chenery, C., Evans, J., Knüsel, C., Research Department Report Series 104- Linford, N., Martin, L., Montgomery, J., 2011. (Available on-line at: Payne, A. & Richards, M., 2007, The age http://research.english- of Stonehenge. Antiquity, 81, 617–39. heritage.org.uk/report/?15056) Parker-Pearson, M., Chamberlain, A., Jay, M., Pearson, T. & Field, D., 2011b, Stonehenge Marshall, P., Pollard, J., Richards, C., World Heritage Site Landscape Project: Thomas, J., Tilley, C. & Welham, K., Stonehenge Down and the Triangle, 2009a, Who was buried at Stonehenge? Amesbury, Wiltshire. Swindon: English Antiquity, 83, 23–39. Heritage Research Department Report Parker Pearson, M., Pollard, J., Thomas, J., Series 105-2011. (Available on-line at: Welham, K., Rylatt, J., Casswell, C., Chan, http://research.english- B., Dover, M. & Nunn, B., 2009b, heritage.org.uk/report/?15057) Excavations at the riverside end of the Pitts, M., 2005a, Sex symbols found in Stonehenge Avenue. Stonehenge Riverside Stonehenge World heritage Site. British Project 2009 (Incorporating 2008). Archaeology, 80, 11. Sheffield: Pitts, M., 2005b, Objectors sense victory at Department of Archaeology. [Limited Stonehenge. British Archaeology, 84, 8. circulation printed report] Pitts, M., 2005c, Hysteria gloom and Parker Pearson, M., Pollard, J., Thomas, J. & foreboding. British Archaeology, 83, 16– Welham, K., 2010. Newhenge. British 19. Archaeology, 110, 15–21. Pitts, M., 2006a, Neolithic road is unique. Parker Pearson, M., Pollard, J., Richards, C., British Archaeology, 87, 7. Schlee, D., Welham, K., Bevins, R., Chan, Pitts, M., 2006b, Valley of the Grand. British B., Doonan, R., Pike, A., Ixer, R., & Archaeology, 88, 22–3. Simmons, E., 2012, The Stones of Pitts, M., 2006c, Unprecedented divide over Stonehenge Project. Investigations in the Stonehenge. British Archaeology, 89, 8. Nyfer (Nevern) Valley in 2011. Sheffield: Pitts, M., 2007, Unique decorated jet lozenge Department of Archaeology, Sheffield from Suffolk matches Stonehenge gold. University [Limited circulation printed British Archaeology, 94, 6. report] Pitts, M., 2008a, A photo by Bill Brandt, and Payne, A.W., 2007a, Stonehenge Riverside the intimacy of perceptions of Stonehenge Project, West Amesbury and Greater and landscape. Landscape, 9, 1–27. Cursus, Wiltshire: Report on geophysical Pitts, M., 2008b, Stonehenge. British surveys, July 2006. London: English Archaeology, 102, 12–17. Heritage Research Department Report Pitts, M., 2008c, Stonehenge: now what? Series 41–2007 (Available on-line at: British Archaeology, 99, 10-15. http://research.english- Pitts, M., 2008d, The Stonehenge Olympics. heritage.org.uk/report/?14551). British Archaeology, 102, 18-19 Payne, A.W., 2007b, Stonehenge Greater Pitts, M., 2008e, Aubrey Hole find could Cursus, western terminal, Wiltshire: Report change Stonehenge’s meaning. British on geophysical surveys, May and June Archaeology, 103, 7. 2007. London: English Heritage Research Pitts, M., 2008f, Child burial with unique Department Report Series 61–2007 carved pig. British Archaeology, 103, 9. (Available on-line at: Pitts, M., 2009, A year at Stonehenge. Antiquity, 83, 184–94. 31

Pitts, M., 2010, New centre for Stonehenge - if Archaeological and Natural History drivers agree. British Archaeology, 111, 6. Magazine, 103, 16–34. Pitts, M., 2011a, Heathrow amber could be a Simmonds, S and Thomas, B 2015 major prestige item. British Archaeology, Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites 117, 7. World Heritage Site Management Plan Pitts, M., 2011b, Digging for history. British 2015. Stonehenge and Avebury WHS Archaeology, 117, 34–39. Steering Committees Pitts, M., 2011c, 10 Big questions archaeology Sims, L., 2006, The 'solarization' of the moon: must answer. British Archaeology, 117, manipulated knowledge at Stonehenge. 14–21. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 16(2), Pollard, J. & Robinson, D., 2007, A return to 191–207. Woodhenge: the results and implications of Soutar, S 2012 Larkhill Barrows, Durrington the 2006 excavations. In M. Larsson & M. EH RRS 3-2012 Parker Pearson (eds), From Stonehenge to SRP [Stonehenge Riverside Project]. 2007. the Baltic. Living with cultural diversity in Excavation V. The Stonehenge Greater the third millennium BC. Oxford: Cursus. Online at: Archaeopress (BAR International Series http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/archaeology/res 1692). 159–68. earch/stonehenge/stonehenge07-05.html. Pomeroy-Kellinger, M 2005 Avebury World Accessed 14 July 2011. Heritage Site Management Plan. London, SRP [Stonehenge Riverside Project]. 2008. English Heritage The Stonehenge Riverside Project Powell, A.B., Chandler, J., Godden, D., Fieldwork in 2008. Online at: Mepham, L., Stevens, C. & Knight, S., http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/archaeology/res 2009, Late Saxon and medieval occupation earch/stonehenge/index.html. Accessed 14 near Salisbury Street, Amesbury. Wiltshire July 2011. Archaeological and Natural History Stone, P., 2006, Stonehenge – a final solution? Magazine, 102, 188–201. Public Archaeology, 5(3), 139 – 149. Reimer, P J, Baillie, M G L, Bard, E, Bayliss, Stuiver, M and Reimer, P J 1986 A computer A, Beck, J W, Blackwell, P G, Bronk program for radiocarbon age calculation, Ramsey, C, Buck, C E, Burr, G S, Radiocarbon 28, 1022–30 Edwards, R L, Friedrich, M, Grootes, P M, Thomas, J., 2007, The internal features at Guilderson, T P, Hajdas, I, Heaton, T J, Durrington Walls: investigations in the Hogg, A G, Hughen, K A, Kaiser, K F, southern Circle and western enclosures Kromer, B, McCormac, F G, Manning, S 2005–06. In M. Larsson & M. Parker W, Reimer, R W, Richards, D A, Southon, Pearson (eds), From Stonehenge to the J R, Talamo, S, Turney, C S M, van der Baltic. Living with cultural diversity in the Plicht, J and Weyhenmeyer, C E, 2009 third millennium BC. Oxford: Intcal09 and marine09 radiocarbon age Archaeopress (BAR International Series calibration curves, 0–50,000 years cal BP, 1692). 145–58. Radiocarbon, 51(4), 1111–50 Thomas, J., Marshall, P., Parker Pearson, M., Richards, J., 2007, Stonehenge: the story so Pollard, J., Richards, C., Tilley, C. & far. London: English Heritage. Welham, K., 2009, The date of the Greater Richards, J, 2008, Inspired by Stonehenge. Stonehenge Cursus. Antiquity, 83, 40–53. Current Archaeology, 222, 28–32. Tilley, C., Richards, C., Bennett, W. & Field, Richards, J., 2009, Inspired by Stonehenge. A D., 2007, Stonehenge – its landscape and celebration of the weird and wonderful. architecture: a reanalysis. In M. Larsson & Salisbury: Hobnob Press. M. Parker Pearson (eds), From Stonehenge Robinson, P., 2007, Some early petrological to the Baltic. Living with cultural diversity analyses of Neolithic and Bronze Age in the third millennium BC. Oxford: lithics in Wiltshire Heritage Museum. Archaeopress (BAR International Series Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural 1692). 183–204. History Magazine, 100, 187–91. UNESCO 1972 Convention Concerning the Selkirk, A., 2008, Stonehenge revealed. Protection of the World Cultural and Current Archaeology, 219,12–13. Natural Heritage. Paris, UNESCO World Sheridan, A., Field, D., Pailler, Y., Pétrequin, Heritage Centre P., Errera, M. & Cassen, S., 2010, The UNESCO 2013 Operational Guidelines for the Breamore jadeite axehead and other Implementation of the World Heritage Neolithic axeheads of Alpine rock from Convention (July 2013). Paris, UNESCO central southern England. Wiltshire World Heritage Centre 32

Vincent, S. & Mays, S., 2010a, Stonehenge Young, A., 2011, The one with archaeological Wiltshire. Assessment of human remains evidence to support it. British Archaeology, from the Stonehenge Landscape: 3700– 117, 44–5. 1600 BC. London: English Heritage Young, C, Chadburn, A and Bedu, I 2009 Research Department Report Series 34– Stonehenge World Heritage Site 2010 (Available on-line at: Management Plan 2009. London, English http://research.english- Heritage/Stonehenge World Heritage Site heritage.org.uk/report/?14875). Committee Vincent, S. & Mays, S., 2010b, The Stonehenge People Project: assessing the human remains from the Stonehenge landscape 3700–1600 BC. Past, 66, 11–12. Webster, C J (ed.) 2008 The Archaeology of South West England, South West Archaeological Research Framework: resource assessment and research agenda. Taunton, County Council Wessex Archaeology, 2005, Stonehenge Tunnel 11 KV Supply, Amesbury and Stapleford. Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology (Limited circulation printed report]. Wessex Archaeology 2015 Stonehenge Environmental Improvements Project: Assessment Report on Archaeological Mitigation. Salisbury, unpubl WA report 76862.04 Wickstead, H., 2008, Drawing time. British Archaeology, 101, 45. Wickstead, H., 2014. Another Proof of the Preceding Theory: Film, Materialities and Stonehenge. In I.A. Russell and A Cochrane (eds) Art & Archaeology. One World Archaeology 11. Springer: New York. Williams-Thorpe, O., Jones, M.C. Potts, P.J., Webb, P.C., 2006, Preseli dolerite bluestones: axe-heads, Stonehenge monoliths, and outcrop sources. Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 25, 29 – 46. Woodward, A. & Hunter, J., 2011, An examination of prehistoric stone bracers from Britain. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Woodward, A., Hunter, J., Ixer, R., Maltby, M., Potts, P.J., Webb, P.C., Watson, J.S. & Jones, M.C., 2005, Ritual in some early Bronze Age gravegoods. Archaeological Journal, 162, 31–64. Woodward, A., Hunter, J., Ixer, R., Roe, F., Potts, F., Webb, P., Watson, J. & Jones, M.C., 2006, Beaker Age bracers in England: sources, function and use. Antiquity, 80, 530–43. Worthington, A, 2005a, A black day for British justice. British Archaeology, 83, 20–3. Worthington, A. (ed), 2005b, The Battle of the Beanfield. Teignmouth: Enabler Publications.

33