DOCSLIB.ORG

The Mesolithic and the Planning Process in England

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Mesolithic and the Planning Process in England The Mesolithic and the Planning Process in England Volume 1 of 2 Edward Hillier Blinkhorn PhD University of York Archaeology January 2012 Abstract This thesis examines the situation of Mesolithic archaeology in the commercial sector as it was encountered under the aegis of PPG 16 in England, from 1990 to 2009. 1280 interventions make up the dataset, exclusively produced by developer-led investigations, and are derived from the grey literature. The large amount of fieldwork that is conducted in the commercial sector far outstrips that conducted by academics. Consequently, the large amount of reports that have been produced, and the nature of their archiving, has left academics and the public with little knowledge of the work that has been conducted. Therefore, this thesis represents a necessary and timely response to a neglected dataset. Three main themes are investigated. Firstly, the varied methodologies and the sequence of investigation are assessed for beneficial and detrimental aspects of fieldwork as it is conducted on projects incorporating solely Mesolithic archaeology and that of all periods. Secondly, communication between academia and the commercial sectors is assessed from the perspective of the grey literature, detailing strong points and shortcomings therein. Finally, the archaeological remains that have been reported on are examined, both to characterise the nature of Mesolithic archaeology from developer- funded projects and to examine the potential that it has to change interpretations of the period. 2 Table of Contents - Volume 1 Abstract.................................................................................................................................. 2 List of Tables........................................................................................................................10 List of Figures.......................................................................................................................11 Acknowledgements.............................................................................................................. 14 1 Loss of Innocence: The Nature of the Problem.........................................................16 1.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................16 1.1.1 Aims and Objectives...................................................................................17 1.2 Importance of the Mesolithic.............................................................................. 18 1.3 Importance of Development.............................................................................. 21 1.4 Importance of Fieldwork.....................................................................................22 1.5 Importance of Publishing.....................................................................................24 1.6 Archaeology as Research and Archaeology as a Planning Reality.................. 28 1.7 The Archaeological Schism................................................................................ 28 1.8 Structure of Thesis...............................................................................................30 2 The Academic Meso lithic........................................................................................... 33 2.1 Introduction......................................................................................................... 33 2.2 Discovery.............................................................................................................33 2.3 Environment........................................................................................................ 35 2.4 Animals................................................................................................................40 2.5 Lithics.................................................................................................................. 43 2.5.1 Microliths.................................................................................................... 44 2.5.2 Macroliths................................................................................................... 47 2.5.3 Discussion................................................................................................... 47 2.6 Other Artefacts.................................................................................................... 48 2.6.1 Utilitarian.................................................................................................... 48 2.6.2 Non-Utilitarian........................................................................................... 49 2.7 Features................................................................................................................ 50 2.7.1 Structures..................................................................................................... 50 2.7.2 Wood............................................................................................................ 52 2.7.3 Tree Throws................................................................................................. 2.7.4 Pits.............................................................................................................. .. 2.7.5 Hearths.......................................................................................................... 3 2.7.6 Miscellanea.................................................................................................. 54 2.7.7 Natural Features......................................................................................... 55 2.8 Spatial Intelligence, Theories and Themes...................................................... 56 2.8.1 Economics................................................................................................... 57 2.8.2 Processualism..............................................................................................58 2.8.3 Seasonality.................................................................................................. 59 2.8.4 Settlement...................................................................................................61 2.8.5 Landscape................................................................. 62 2.8.6 Recent Developments.................................................................................64 2.9 Conclusion...........................................................................................................65 3 Developer-led Archaeology in Context......................................................................67 3.1 Introduction......................................................................................................... 67 3.2 History of emergency fieldwork........................................................................67 3.2.1 Development of the Rescue System........................................................... 68 3.3 Policy and Legislation and Funding..................................................................71 3.3.1 Planning Policy Guidance 16: Archaeology and Planning......................72 3.3.2 Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979.......................75 3.3.3 Funding....................................................................................................... 78 3.4 Stratification of archaeological investigation.....................................................80 3.4.1 Appraisals.................................................................................................... 81 3.4.2 Desk Based Assessments (DBAs).............................................................82 3.4.3 Environmental impact Assessments (ElAs)..............................................83 3.4.4 Field Evaluations........................................................................................ 84 3.4.5 Mitigation Strategies...................................................................................89 3.4.6 Post-Excavation.......................................................................................... 92 3.4.7 Sites and Monuments Record (SMR) / Historic Environment Record (HER) ................................................................. 93 3.5 Trends in Fieldwork............................................................................................94 3.5.1 Theory and Sampling....................................................................................95 3.6 Conclusion...........................................................................................................99 4 Methodology...............................................................................................................101 4.1 Introduction........................................................................................................101 4.2 Data Identification............................................................................................. 101 4.3 Data Availability............................................................................................... 105 4 4.3.1 Units.......................................................................................................... 4.3.2 HERs..........................................................................................................106 4.3.3 Copyright................................................................................................... 107 4.4 Data Collection.................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • EAA Meeting 2016 Vilnius
    www.eaavilnius2016.lt PROGRAMME www.eaavilnius2016.lt PROGRAMME Organisers CONTENTS President Words .................................................................................... 5 Welcome Message ................................................................................ 9 Symbol of the Annual Meeting .............................................................. 13 Commitees of EAA Vilnius 2016 ............................................................ 14 Sponsors and Partners European Association of Archaeologists................................................ 15 GENERAL PROGRAMME Opening Ceremony and Welcome Reception ................................. 27 General Programme for the EAA Vilnius 2016 Meeting.................... 30 Annual Membership Business Meeting Agenda ............................. 33 Opening Ceremony of the Archaelogical Exhibition ....................... 35 Special Offers ............................................................................... 36 Excursions Programme ................................................................. 43 Visiting Vilnius ............................................................................... 57 Venue Maps .................................................................................. 64 Exhibition ...................................................................................... 80 Exhibitors ...................................................................................... 82 Poster Presentations and Programme ...........................................
    [Show full text]
  • 6 Cook: Howe Mire, Inveresk | 143
    Proc Soc Antiq Scot, 134 (2004), 131–160 COOK: HOWE MIRE, INVERESK | 131 Howe Mire: excavations across the cropmark complex at Inveresk, Musselburgh, East Lothian Murray Cook* with contributions from A Heald, A Croom and C Wallace ABSTRACT Excavations across the complex of cropmarks at Inveresk, Musselburgh, East Lothian (NGR: NT 3540 7165 to NT 3475 7123), revealed a palimpsest of features ranging in date from the late Mesolithic to the Early Historic period. The bulk of the features uncovered were previously known from cropmark evidence and are connected with either the extensive field system associated with the Antonine Fort at Inveresk or the series of Roman marching camps to the south-west of the field system. The excavation has identified a scattering of prehistoric activity, as well as Roman settlement within the field system, together with dating evidence for one of the marching camps and structures reusing dressed Roman stone. INTRODUCTION reports have been included in the site archive. A brief summary of these excavations has been An archaeological watching brief was previously published (Cook 2002a). conducted in advance of the construction of This report deals solely with the excavated 5km of new sewer pipeline from Wallyford to area within the scheduled areas which com- Portobello (NT 3210 7303 to NT 3579 7184). prised a 6m wide trench approximately 670m The construction works were conducted by M J long (illus 1) (NT 3540 7165 to NT 3475 7123). Gleeson Group plc on behalf of Stirling Water. The trench was located immediately to the The route of the pipeline ran through a series south of the Edinburgh to Dunbar railway line of cropmarks to the south of Inveresk (illus (which at this point is in a cutting) and crossed 1; NMRS numbers NT 37 SE 50, NT 37 SW both Crookston and Carberry Roads, Inveresk, 186, NT 37 SW 33, NT37 SW 68 and NT 37 Musselburgh.
    [Show full text]
  • Typological, Chronological and Cultural Verification of Pleistocene and Early Holocene Bone and Antler Harpoons
    93 TYPOLOGICAL, CHRONOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL VERIFICATION OF PLEISTOCENE AND EARLY HOLOCENE BONE AND ANTLER HARPOONS Przegląd Archeologiczny Vol. 61, 2013, pp. 93-144 PL ISSN 0079-7138 TADEuSz GALIńSKI TYPOLOGICAL, CHRONOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL VERIFICATION OF PLEISTOCENE AND EARLY HOLOCENE BONE AND ANTLER HARPOONS AND POINTS FROM THE SOUTHERN BALTIC ZONE The study catalogues all currently known finds of bone and antler harpoons and points associated with Paleolithic, Mesolithic and Protoneolithic culture in the southern Baltic zone, between the mouths of the Oder and Niemen rivers. It undertakes an analysis of the category in typological, chronological and cultural terms, taking into consideration results of recent paleogeographic investigations and research on the Stone Age in this region. An important element of this study are drawn plates of nearly all of the discussed objects as well as distribution maps. The author gives a critical analysis of the classic harpoon and point typology presented by J.G.D. Clark (1936) in the context of a broader source base, en- compassing finds from the entire Baltic zone. A detailed morphological classification of harpoon barbs is one of the most important tools essential to this end. KEY WORDS: Paleolithic, Mesolithic, Protoneolithic, harpoons, points, barbs, tang, base, bone, antler, assemblages INTRODUCTION The study refers to the author’s 1980s publi- the author on harpoons and points discovered in cation in the journal “Materiały zachodniopomor- recent years, as well as those in museum collec- skie” (Szczecin), where all the then known finds tions. Most importantly, however, knowledge of of bone and antler harpoons and points from the the region’s natural environment, as well as its southern Baltic zone between the mouths of the cultural and chronological development has pro- Oder and Niemen rivers were collected and dis- gressed substantially, especially with regard to cussed for the first time in Polish archaeological the Mesolithic in northern Poland.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix E: Glossary of Terms
    AT THE ROAD’S EDGE: FINAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF THE WILSON FARM TENANCY SITE Appendix E: Glossary of Terms Glossary of Terms Artifact -Any object shaped or modified by man, or as a result of human activity. Archaeology -The study of the people of the past through the systematic recovery and analysis of the artifacts/material evidence they left behind. Archival Research – research conducted in places where public or historical records, charters, and documents are stored and preserved. Assemblage – Collection of persons or things: in archaeological contexts, the collection of artifacts from a particular site, from a stratigraphic level, or cultural component within the site, or a particular artifact class, such as lithics or ceramics. Census, U.S. – An official count of the nation’s population taken every 10 years, often including a collection of demographic information. Culture – A uniquely human system of behavioral patterns, beliefs, habits, and customs, used to interact with other people and with the environment, acquired by people through a nonbiological, uninherited, learned process. Datum – A point, line, or surface used as a reference, as in surveying. Diagnostic - An artifact that can clearly be dated and/or identified as to maker, date, place of origin, etc. Feature -Any soil disturbance or discoloration that reflects human activity. Also, an artifact too large to remove from a site; for example, house foundations, storage pits, etc. Flotation – The process of sifting soil samples through a fine screen while running a steady stream of water over the sample; residual materials such as tiny artifacts, seeds, and bones are separated out into light and heavy fractions for analysis.
    [Show full text]
  • Excavation Report
    Excavation Report Roman and Medieval Settlement remains along the Stow Longa to Tilbrook Anglia Water Pipeline Evaluation and Excavation Report January 2009 Client: Anglia Water OA East Report No: 990 OASIS No: oxfordar3-52223 NGR: TL 0800 6900 to 1100 7100 Roman, Saxon and medieval settlement remains along the Stow Longa to Tilbrook Anglian Water Pipeline Archaeological Evaluation and Excavation By Rob Atkins BSocSc Diparch With contributions by Barry Bishop MA; Peter Boardman BA; Paul Blinkhorn BTech; Alasdair Brooks BA MA DPhil; Steve Critchley BSc MSc; Nina Crummy BA FSA; Chris Fane MA MSc BABAO; Carole Fletcher HND BA AIFA; Rachel Fosberry HNC Cert Ed AEA; Alice Lyons BA MIFA and Paul Spoerry BTech PhD MIFA Editor: James Drummond-Murray BA PG Dip MIFA Illustrators: Crane Begg BSc, Gillian Greer BSc MAAIS and Caoimhín Ó Coileáin BA Plates: Andrew Corrigan BA Report Date: January 2009 © Oxford Archaeology East Page 1 of 90 Report Number 990 Report Number: 990 Site Name: Roman, Saxon and medieval settlement remains along the Stow Longa to Tilbrook Anglian Water Pipeline HER Event No: ECB 2780 (for test pits within Tilbrook and evaluation trenches from Tilbrook to Stow Longa. ECB 3507 was given for the two small excavation areas within Stow Longa village Date of Works: November 2007 to October 2008 Client Name: Anglian Water Client Ref: JUL059/07 Planning Ref: N/A Grid Ref: NGR TL 0800 6900 to 1100 7100 Site Code: MULSLT 07 Finance Code: MULSLT 07 Receiving Body: CCC Stores, Landbeach Accession No: Prepared by: Rob Atkins Position: Project Officer Date: December 2008 Checked by: James Drummond-Murray Position: Project Manager Date: December 2008 Signed: .................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • A Unique Engraved Shale Pendant from the Site of Star Carr: the Oldest Mesolithic Art in Britain
    A unique engraved shale pendant from the site of Star Carr: the oldest Mesolithic art in Britain 1 1 1 1 Nicky Milner ,​ Michael Bamforth ,​ Gareth Beale ,​ Julian C. Carty ,​ Konstantinos ​ ​ ​ ​ 2 1 3 1 4 Chatzipanagis ,​ Shannon Croft ,​ Chantal Conneller ,​ Ben Elliott ,​ Laura C. Fitton ,​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 1 2 1 1 1 Becky Knight ,​ Roland Kroger ,​ Aimée Little ,​ Andy Needham ,​ Harry K. Robson ,​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 1 5 Charlotte C. A. Rowley ,​ Barry Taylor ​ ​ 1 D​ epartment of Archaeology, The King's Manor, University of York, YO1 7EP, UK 2 D​ epartment of Physics, University of York, Heslington, York, YO10 5DD, UK 3 A​ rchaeology (SALC), University of Manchester, Mansfield Cooper Building, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK 4 C​ entre for Anatomical and Human Sciences, Hull York Medical School, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK 5 D​ epartment of History and Archaeology, University of Chester, Chester, CH1 4BJ, UK Keywords: Mesolithic, art, pendant, RTI, SEM, use wear, amulet ​ Summary In 2015 an engraved shale pendant was found during excavations at the Early Mesolithic site of Star Carr, UK. Engraved motifs on Mesolithic pendants are extremely rare, with the exception of amber pendants from southern Scandinavia. The artwork on the pendant is the earliest known Mesolithic art in Britain; the ‘barbed line’ motif is comparable to styles on the continent, particularly in Denmark. When it was first uncovered the lines were barely visible but using a range of digital imaging techniques it has been possible to examine them in detail and determine the style of engraving as well as the order in which the lines might have been made.
    [Show full text]
  • First Year Prehistoric Fieldschool at Star Carr
    The Post Hole Issue 31 The secret dig: First year prehistoric fieldschool at Star Carr Phoebe Haigh1, Sophie Austin1 1Department of Archaeology, University of York, The King’s Manor, York, YO1 7EP Email: [email protected] , [email protected] This article will briefly summarise the research background of the famous Mesolithic site of Star Carr in the Vale of Pickering (North Yorkshire) and discuss the experiences of first year University of York undergraduate students, Sophie Austin (BA Archaeology) and Phoebe Haigh (BSc Archaeology), on their excavation fieldschool at the site. Figure 1: 2013 Star Carr fieldschool students and staff (Reproduced with kind permission of the POSTGLACIAL Project) First year undergraduates at the University of York’s Department of Archaeology spend three weeks of their summer term on fieldschool. This year, the Department offered a historical and a prehistoric option for students to participate in. This year, prehistorians (Figure 1) were delighted to learn that they would be digging at Star Carr, though under strict instructions to keep the excavation a secret until after it had finished in order to respect the landowners’ wishes as they did not want to attract publicity. Excavated in the 1950s, Grahame Clark’s finds at Star Carr (then known as Site 4) elevated an otherwise unremarkable field in the Vale of Pickering to archaeological fame. In this article, we will briefly summarise the history of excavations at the site of Star Carr and around Lake Flixton as well as discussing the highlights of the dig and the more general experience of fieldschool. Star Carr: A brief history Star Carr is an extraordinary Mesolithic occupation site in the Vale of Pickering on the edge of palaeo-Lake Flixton.
    [Show full text]
  • Phase 2 Stage 1 Eastchurch, Isle of Sheppey, Kent
    Wessex Archaeology Kingsborough Manor Phase 2 Stage 1 Eastchurch, Isle of Sheppey, Kent Assessment of Archaeological Excavation Results Ref: 57170.01 October 2005 KINGSBOROUGH MANOR PHASE 2 STAGE 1 EASTCHURCH, ISLE OF SHEPPEY, KENT Assessment of Archaeological Excavation Results Prepared on behalf of Jones Homes (Southern) Ltd 3 White Oak Square Swanley Kent BR8 7AG by Wessex Archaeology Portway House Old Sarum Park Salisbury SP4 6EB Report reference: 57170.01 October 2005 © Wessex Archaeology Limited 2005 all rights reserved Wessex Archaeology Limited is a Registered Charity No. 287786 KINGSBOROUGH MANOR PHASE 2 STAGE 1 EASTCHURCH, ISLE OF SHEPPEY, KENT SUMMARY Wessex Archaeology was commissioned by Jones Homes (Southern) Ltd to conduct archaeological excavations on land associated with Phase 2 Stage 1 of an ongoing, low- density housing development. The Phase 2 Stage 1 site was located north east of Kingsborough Farm, Eastchurch, Isle of Sheppey, Kent, and to the north west of Kingsborough Manor housing development Phase 1 (Fig. 1). Work was undertaken between July and September 2004 and was carried out as a condition of planning permission for the development granted by Swale District Council and pursuant to a specification issued by the Heritage Conservation Group of Kent County Council. This report provides a brief summary of the excavation results. The Site (NGR 597725 172394) comprised an area of land totalling approximately 15,759m² and was located to the north of Kingsborough Farm, 2km south-east of Minster and c. 1.25km to the north-west of the village of Eastchurch, Isle of Sheppey. It occupies an elevated position on the Isle of Sheppey, close to the north eastern edge of a ridge extending east-west along the island, with commanding views to the north and east over the Thames and the Essex coast.
    [Show full text]
  • Lessons from Star Carr on the Vulnerability of Organic Archaeological Remains to Environmental Change
    Lessons from Star Carr on the vulnerability of organic archaeological remains to environmental change Kirsty Higha,1, Nicky Milnerb, Ian Panterc, Beatrice Demarchib, and Kirsty E. H. Penkmana aDepartment of Chemistry, University of York, York YO10 5DD, United Kingdom; bDepartment of Archaeology, University of York, York YO1 7EP, United Kingdom; and cYork Archaeological Trust, York YO1 7BX, United Kingdom Edited by Dolores R. Piperno, Smithsonian Institution, Fairfax, VA, and approved September 13, 2016 (received for review June 7, 2016) Examples of wetland deposits can be found across the globe and recently reported loss of palynological information (10) is testa- are known for preserving organic archaeological and environmen- ment to the fragility of the paleoenvironmental remains. tal remains that are vitally important to our understanding of past This accelerated deterioration has been attributed to modifi- human–environment interactions. The Mesolithic site of Star Carr cation of the water table at Star Carr via the insertion of a series of (Yorkshire, United Kingdom) represents one of the most influen- field drains in 2000 AD. As a result, the water table now lies below tial archives of human response to the changing climate at the end the cultural layers in parts of the site (14, 15). Organic preserva- of the last glacial in Northern Europe. A hallmark of the site since tion at wetland sites is achieved primarily through the suppres- its discovery in 1948 has been the exceptional preservation of its sion of aerobic microbial activity through constant waterlogging organic remains. Disturbingly, recent excavations have suggested (16, 17). At Star Carr, in addition to this loss of waterlogging, high that the geochemistry of the site is no longer conducive to such concentrations of sulfur have been identified that are thought to remarkable survival of organic archaeological and environmental originate from pre-Holocene pyrite-rich Kimmeridge and Spee- materials.
    [Show full text]
  • From Bone and Antler to Early Mesolithic Life in Northern Europe
    10 This volume of the series ‘Untersu- Daniel Groß · Harald Lübke · John Meadows · Detlef Jantzen (eds.) chungen und Materialien zur Steinzeit in Schleswig-Holstein und im Ostsee- raum’ represents the proceedings of a workshop held at the Centre for Baltic Working at the Sharp End: and Scandinavian Archaeology (ZBSA) in Schleswig in March 2016. It is a part of the editors’ project ‘A reassessment From Bone and Antler of the chronology and stratigraphy of the early Holocene site Hohen Viecheln (Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania) with to Early Mesolithic Life special focus on diagnostic bone arte- facts’, funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG). in Northern Europe The project was dealing with the re- evaluation of the Mesolithic site Hohen Viecheln 1 for chronological and stratigraphical aspects. This volume Detlef Jantzen (eds.) · comprises its final publication and additional modern studies about the site by different scholars, which are furthermore embedded into the inter- national research landscape by adjacent studies covering an area from modern John John Meadows · day Britain in the west to the Urals in the east. Harald Harald Lübke · Daniel Daniel Groß Antler and Bone From End: Sharp the at Working to Early Mesolithic Europe LifeNorthern in ISBN 978-3-529-01861-9 10 Untersuchungen und Materialien zur Steinzeit in Schleswig-Holstein 9 783529 018619 und im Ostseeraum Untersuchungen und Materialien zur Steinzeit in Schleswig-Holstein und im Ostseeraum Band 10 Untersuchungen und Materialien zur Steinzeit in Schleswig-Holstein und im Ostseeraum aus dem Museum für Archäologie Schloss Gottorf und dem Zentrum für Baltische und Skandinavische Archäologie in der Stiftung Schleswig-Holsteinische Landesmuseen Schloss Gottorf Band 10 Begründet von Jürgen Hoika † Herausgegeben von Sönke Hartz und Harald Lübke Working at the Sharp End: From Bone and Antler to Early Mesolithic Life in Northern Europe Daniel Groß, Harald Lübke, John Meadows and Detlef Jantzen (eds.) 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Palaeolithic and Mesolithic
    Palaeolithic and Mesolithic 2 Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Robert Hosfield, Vanessa Straker and Paula Gardiner with contributions from Anthony Brown, Paul Davies, Ralph Fyfe, Julie Jones and Heather Tinsley 2.1 Introduction For the Palaeolithic periods the open-landscape archaeology is dominated by lithic scatters (predom- The South West contains a diverse variety of Palaeo- inantly of deeply buried artefacts, frequently in fluvial lithic and Mesolithic archaeology of differing degrees deposits, and particularly true in the Lower and of significance. This reflects the nature of the arch- Middle Palaeolithic), although occupation sites such as aeological material itself, the histories of research Hengistbury Head (Barton 1992) and Kent’s Cavern in different parts of the region and, with regard to (Campbell and Sampson 1971) are also present. the Palaeolithic period, the differential preservation For the Mesolithic, there are greater numbers of of Pleistocene landforms and deposits throughout the excavated sites (especially from Somerset), although region. One of the key features of the Palaeolithic surface or shallow sub-surface lithic scatters are still archaeology is the presence of a significant cave-based common, especially in the west. resource in south Devon and northern Somerset, which is unquestionably of national significance (see Overall, the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic archae- for example, Campbell and Sampson 1971; Tratman ology of this region is generally rather poorly known, et al. 1971; Bishop 1975; Harrison 1977; Straw 1995; reflecting an absence of robust geochronological 1996; Andrews et al. 1999). frameworks, the predominance of research into a handful of cave and open sites over the lithic scatter In terms of an open-landscape Palaeolithic record, resource (whether located on the surface or deeply there is an inevitable bias towards those areas with buried) and the absence of any major syntheses.
    [Show full text]
  • Stonehenge's Avenue and Bluestonehenge
    Stonehenge’s Avenue and Bluestonehenge Michael J. Allen1, Ben Chan2, Ros Cleal3, Charles French4, Peter Marshall5, Joshua Pollard6, Rebecca Pullen7, Colin Richards8, Clive Ruggles9, David Robinson10, Jim Rylatt11, Julian Thomas8, Kate Welham12 & Mike Parker Pearson13,* Stonehenge has long been known to form part of a larger prehistoric landscape (Figure 1). In particular, it is part of a composite monument that includes the Stonehenge Avenue, first mapped in 1719–1723 by William Stukeley (1740) who recorded that it ran from Stonehenge’s northeast entrance for over a kilometre towards the River Avon, bending southeast and crossing King Barrow Ridge before disappearing under ploughed ground. He also noted that its initial 500m-long stretch from Stonehenge was aligned towards the midsummer solstice sunrise. Archaeological excavations during the 20th century revealed that the Avenue consists of two parallel banks with external, V-profile ditches, about 22m apart. The dating, phasing and extent of the Avenue, however, remained uncertain. Its length could be traced no closer than 200m from the River Avon (Smith 1973), and the question of whether the Avenue’s construction constituted a single event had not been entirely resolved (Cleal et al. 1995: 327). Our investigations were part of a re-evaluation of Stonehenge and its relationship to the River Avon in 2008–2009, involving the re-opening and extension of trenches previously dug across the Avenue during the 20th century and digging new trenches at West Amesbury beyond the then-known limit of the Avenue. The result of this work was the discovery of a new henge at West Amesbury, situated at the hitherto undiscovered east end of the Avenue beside the River Avon.
    [Show full text]