New features within the henge at Avebury, Wiltshire: aerial and geophysical evidence

Abstract

The hot and dry summer of 1995 once again proved the value and cost-effectiveness of aerial survey. Numerous parchmarks were a product of the dry conditions throughout England, but especially in chalk grassland, and they revealed important new archaeological information. A parchmark within the great Neolithic henge at Avebury identifies a new subterranean feature, confirmed by geophysical survey, which fills in further details of the Avebury enclosure.

Geophysical prospection at Floridablanca archaeological site, San Julian Bay, Argentina

“…These methods have demonstrated their value to the archaeological community in detecting, mapping and studying the characteristics of diverse types of features and structures under the subsurface-walls, foundations, ditches, middens and hearths (e.g. Thomas, 1988;Dalan et al, 1992;Bewley et al, 1996;Silliman et al, 2000;Ambos and Larson, 2002;Thacker and Ellwood, 2002). Although these methods have been applied systematically in archaeology for 50 years, their implementation in Argentina is only beginning.…”

Romancing the stones

“…To overcome this, basic contour information and the primary survey points used in their generation, have been extracted from an English Heritage survey commissioned in 1990. This data has been used in the first stage of producing a fully three-dimensional representation of the monument (figure l).The problem with this, and other surveys such as the detailed hachure plan of the R C H M E (Bewley et al 1996), is that they leave the earthwork features of the monument in splendid isolation, severed from any surrounding landscape context. The available English Heritage survey is also flawed by its concentration on broad topographic trends at the expense of subtle earthwork detail.…”

“…Whilst useful in providing basic informa- 4). This is based upon several sources, including on-the-ground observation, the frontispiece to Stukeley's Abury (Stukeley 1743), his field drawings, and archaeological evidence from excavation, geophysical survey and cropmarks (Smith 1965;Ucko et al 1991, 157-235;Bewley et al 1996). Necessarily, it is only as accurate as the sources allow, and the (Ucko et al 1991, pi.…”

“…physical survey and aerial photography have alerted us to the unsuspected structural c o mplexity of the monument (Ucko et al 1991,157-235;Bewley et al 1996); the earthwork and stone settings have been given context through a radiocarbon chronology (Pitts and Whittle 1992); and a programme of fieldwork within the environs of the monument provides a background of social, monumental and environmental change within which the late Neolithic henge and megalithic settings can be better understood (Whittle 1993). Archaeological work has proceeded against a backdrop of controversy over proposed development, the implementation of new management plans, and a resurgence of 'alternative' o r ' N e w Age' interest (Fielden 1996;Gingell 1996;Pitts 1990;.…”

Virtual Avebury revisited

“…However, in discussing these new approaches we become trapped in the toils of computer terminology -computers do not always do the things that are routinely claimed for them. The statement that the plan published by Bewley et al (1996) leaves 'the earthwork features of the monument in splendid isolation' (p. 149) is due to a simple misunderstanding. The published plan is an extract from a much larger landscape plan in which the henge, significantly, appears in the north-east corner, emphasising that it is the historical development of Avebury and Avebury Truslow as a whole, not just the neolithic phases, which is of interest to the landscape archaeologist.…”