Analytical Surveys of Stonehenge and its Immediate Environs, 2009–2013: Part 1 – the Landscape and Earthworks

Abstract

Integrated non-invasive survey in the Stonehenge ‘triangle’, Amesbury, Wiltshire, has highlighted a number of features that have a significant bearing on the interpretation of the site. Among them are periglacial and natural topographical structures, including a chalk mound that may have influenced site development. Some geophysical anomalies are similar to the post-holes in the car park of known Mesolithic date, while others beneath the barrows to the west may point to activity contemporary with Stonehenge itself. Evidence that the ‘North Barrow’ may be earlier in the accepted sequence is presented and the difference between the eastern and western parts of the enclosure ditch highlighted, while new data relating to the Y and Z Holes and to the presence of internal banks that mirror their respective circuits is also outlined.

Analytical Surveys of Stonehenge and its Environs, 2009–2013: Part 2 – the Stones

“…Many of the stones in the southern part of the setting are now fallen or are missing, but there are other irregularities and the location of the chalk mound in the south-east reported in Part 1 of this paper (Field et al 2014) serves to encourage a greater focus on these. Indeed the various components of the present survey help contribute to, although do not fully resolve, the fundamental issue of whether the sarsen settings ever formed a ‘complete’ circle, attention to which was drawn by Cleal et al (1995, 205–6), subsequently Ashbee (1998), and more recently signposted by Tilley et al (2007, 199–201).…”

“…While the first part of this paper dealt with new discoveries in the area immediately around the stones at Stonehenge (Field et al 2014), this second part concentrates on the central area and the stones themselves. The work formed part of the Stonehenge World Heritage Site Landscape Project which was established by English Heritage in 2008 to provide fresh and up to date information for the proposed new Visitor Centre and to assist, support, and complement the work of the various universities that had become involved in research within the locality during the first decade of the century.…”

Durrington walls and the Stonehenge Hidden Landscape Project 2010–2016

“…In 2012 the Stonehenge Hidden Landscapes Project (SHLP) published a short report in Archaeological Prospection (Gaffney et al, ) describing the project goals, the nature of fieldwork to be undertaken and the extent of the survey area. The primary aim of the project was to produce a new understanding of the Stonehenge landscape that transcends the interpretative limitations of traditional monument‐ and site‐focused approaches to field investigation characteristic of previous studies within the world heritage site (Bowden, Barber, Field, & Soutar, ; Cleal, Walker, & Montague, ; David & Payne, ; Field et al, ). In contrast, the SHLP has applied a range of geophysics and remote sensing technologies at a true ‘landscape scale’ to create a seamless map of subsurface and surface archaeological features and structures, encompassing both known monuments and new discoveries as elements within richly detailed and far more spatially‐extensive survey datasets.…”

The ring sanctuary of Pömmelte, Germany: a monumental, multi-layered metaphor of the late third millennium BC

“…Recent initiatives, such as the Stonehenge Riverside and Stonehenge Hidden Landscape Projects have made it clear that the entire area around this site must be interpreted as a complex, structured, cultural landscape (Parker Pearson 2013; Field et al . 2014). Thus, while the wooden architecture of Durrington Walls and Woodhenge, and the stone architecture of Stonehenge and Bluestonehenge were interrelated, they fulfilled different social and ritual functions.…”