Section 3 – Research Agenda
 

"The only interesting answers are those that destroy the questions"
(Susan Sontag, 1968, **)

Developing an agenda: defining issues

Axiomatic to modern traditions of research is the idea that good questions lead to good results; one measure of such success is the extent to which the results obviate the original question by creating new ones to move understandings forward. There are many different kinds of research question, some simply interrogatory others interlocutory. In broad terms they can be divided into three groups reflecting different scales of approach (Darvill 1998, 5):

Questions: Matters which are capable of relatively direct solution given some kind of carefully planned and direct inquiry. Things such as the date of a site or structure; the relationship of one thing to another; or the association of one group of material with another.

Problems: These are substantial matters which do not have a simple answer. Rather they require careful resolution, probably over a period of time, based on the structured accumulation of verifiable data using specific methodologies. The quality of solution to any problem is in part a consequence of the methodology adopted. Typical problems might, for example, include the dating of a particular kind of pottery, the nature of settlement in a defined region, the nature of associations between one set of things and another, or the essential characteristics of a type of archaeological deposit. Unlike the solutions found for specific questions, the resolution of a well-defined problem provides the basis from which confident interpretations can thereafter be made, at least until the problem is redefined.

Themes: These are general interpretative matters which are not so much specific studies as broad subject domains which can bind together and embrace a series of connected but not necessarily united studies.

 Collectively, these can most easily been seen as "issues", namely important subjects for consideration, discussion, debate, or resolution through research, inquiry, experimentation, or investigation. Listed together such issues form a research agenda of the kind envisaged by Olivier (1996, 5), but there are many different ways of looking at issues, what they cover, their philosophical and theoretical underpinnings, and the interest groups they serve.

 Issues generally arise from critical reflection on what is already known (Section 2 above), and in many cases come into clear focus when contrasted with the existing structure or traditional classification of the inherited knowledge base. Thus, rather than perpetuate the regularized chronological  subdivision of the past into rigid units or exploit the cybernetic logic of integrative themes, the aim here is to allow issues to be self-defining in terms of  their location and relationship to earlier schema. For presentational reasons, and to assist in evaluating them, they have been arranged below into three main groups:

Period-based and site-based issues - Synchronic views of some particular part of the past in the present or a particular site; the classic snap-shot image of what happened at a particular moment in time and space. In many cases these are the BIG issues that visitors focus on when looking at or being shown a particular site.

Subject-based issues - Diachronic views of a currently defined field of interest that cross-cuts time and space, often focused at the landscape or inter-site level.

Contextual and interpretative issues - Perspective or process-based fields of interest that relate to fundamental understandings of the archaeological material, its formation, biases, strengths, weaknesses, and what we make of it.

In many cases of course individual issues might span more than one heading, and indeed some overlap in terms of their coverage. Some of the issues relate to a particular site, some to the whole archaeological resource of the World Heritage Site, and others to still wider contexts. There is no attempt here to privilege one kind of issue over another, their inclusion here indicates that one or more sector of the research community concerned with the Stonehenge Landscape considers them important and worthy of pursuing.
 

Period-based and site-based issues

Issue 1: What is Stonehenge?

Background: Probably the most frequently-asked question about Stonehenge itself, although recognized by archaeologists as a series of questions about each of the different articulations (phases) of the site. There is probably no single answer. The archaeological focus on the construction phases has shifted attention away from its use; although ethnographic models suggest that divisions between construction and use are perhaps rather artificial and that the act of construction, modification, and reconstruction is central to the meaning of the structures themselves. Some elements look like  well-known kinds of monument: for example the ditch looks like that of a causewayed enclosure while some of the stone settings match with settings found at stone circles elsewhere in north-west Europe. What is unique, as far as can be told, is the sequence represented and the use of five massive trilithons and stone lintels on some settings. Whether Stonehenge was unique in the Neolithic world or unique only in being the one that survives is not known, but again deserves attention.

 Closely linked to this issue are the matters of: Why build Stonehenge? How many Stonehenges were there on the site? How was it used? What was the precursor to the visible Stonehenge?
 

Issue 2: Who built Stonehenge?

Background: A superficially simple question but one that connects into a wide range of problems and themes. Since it is not known whether the present Phase 1 is indeed the earliest structure on the site there is the matter of whether it is a third millennium BC community or an earlier one that is the target of attention. Taking the main recorded phases of the monument, there has been considerable debate about the role of cultures outside Wessex in the Stonehenge World and indeed beyond. Connections with Mycenean Greece have been much discussed (see Renfrew 1968; 1997, 5-6), as too possible influences from Armorica (Burl 1997; Scarre 1997). The International Millennium Exhibition staged in 2001 in Nuremburg (Germany) and entitled "Mycenae : Nuremburg : Stonehenge" suggests that there is considerable interest in the very long distance links represented by later Neolithic and Bronze Age constructions across the Old World. More locally, there are important strands of this issue that relate to whether the builders were local indigenous populations partly or whole, and/or to what extent others from elsewhere in southern Britain and beyond were involved.

 Closely linked to this issue are questions such as: what kind of social organization prevailed?  The earlier phases seem well within the abilities of later Neolithic communities to judge from their other achievements, but the sarsen trilithons and peristyle demanded labour on a quite different scale. Perhaps this southern monument ended up being a truly national undertaking.
 

Issue 3: Where did the builders and users of Stonehenge live?

Background: Although half a dozen timber structures dating to the period 3000-1500 BC are known in the Stonehenge Landscape most are regarded as ceremonial places. Is this right? What variation exists? What should be expected given the known range of habitations in the Stonehenge World? Where might they be preserved; do such contexts exist? Are existing categories of definition relevant? Should we be looking for a "new" kind of archaeological evidence such as “yurt”-like shelters represented archaeologically as rings of stakeholes, a hearth, one or two pits (possibly latrines), and light scatters of rubbish?
 

Issue 4: The appearance and later history of Stonehenge

Background: Depictions of Stonehenge with complete rings of stone uprights are based on a series of untested assumptions (Ashbee 1998). There are insufficient stones at the site today to complete the circular settings, but little evidence has been advanced for the systematic robbing or destruction of the site as, for example, is documented at Avebury. Equally, obvious destinations need to be fully checked: use for road-metalling on the adjacent turnpike (now the A344); hardcore to prevent carts and carriages getting bogged down in the 17th and 18th centuries AD (are the layers of chippings recorded by Hawley and others all working waste are is some broken-up orthostats?); the fabric of local churches and Roman villas; the fabric of Amesbury Abbey; and the rockeries of Wilton. A line of holes make by a stone-breaker’s jumper can be seen in the now supine Slaughter Stone strongly suggests systematic robbing at some period.

 The original position and arrangement of some stones is far from certain, yet are also critical to understanding the appearance and use of the site. A case in point is the so-called Altar Stone in the central area (Burl 2001). What happened at Stonehenge between about 1500 BC and the 18th century AD when the first systematic records of the site began to be made represents a big gap in knowledge and one that has very considerable implications for understanding and presenting the earlier periods too. Key matters include:
 

Issue 5: Carvings, rock art, and the surfaces of the stones

Background: The presence of rock art on the surfaces of some of the stones at Stonehenge was first recognized in modern times as fact in 1953, since when the material has been much discussed (Cleal et al. 1995, 30-33). The antiquity of the carvings, mainly axes, is based on stylistic grounds. No detailed full systematic study of the surfaces of the extant stones has been carried out (which must include the tops of the lintels), although some latex moulds were made in the 1950s (now seemingly lost) and in 1967 stereometric photography was used (see Cleal et al. 1995, figure 9). Recording could now be done using laser-imaging to create micro-topographic models that can be illuminated from any angle during computer analysis. One of the key matters is to resolve conflicting interpretations of motifs such as the “box” (Burl 1997; Scarre 1997), another is to separate out as far as possible the relatively modern graffiti from potentially authentic prehistoric rock art. Knowing its full extent and character is a first step, recognizing that some may have been on the stones before they were brought to Stonehenge. Surface models would also provide a means of monitoring change to the rock surfaces.

 The similarity of Stonehenge to the site of Flagstones, Dorset, raises the question of whether there was rock art on the sides of the Stonehenge ditch as there was at Flagstones (Woodward 1988). Indeed it must be queried whether other monuments in the Stonehenge Landscape carry rock art, as seems to be increasingly recognized elsewhere in central southern England.
 

Issue 6: The linear structures in the Stonehenge Landscape

Background: A great deal of attention has focused on the circular elements of the Stonehenge Landscape, especially the henges and barrows. Also of note are the many linear structures. The cursus is the most investigated so far, but even here excavation has been minimal and detailed survey almost non-existent. It is probably the most completely preserved cursus so far known in the British Isles, and was the first to be recognized and so named. Detailed topographic surveys at the Cleven Dyke, Scotland (Barclay and Maxwell 1998, 27-29) show the complexity of a broadly similar linear structure and the value of such work. Further afield, note may be made of the “Banqueting Hall” at Tara in Ireland. Geophysical survey would also repay the effort, as shown with the so-called "Lesser Cursus" (David and Payne 1997, 88) which is probably more at home in the long-mound / bank barrow tradition avenue of the Wessex later Neolithic (cf. Bradley 1983). Work at the Stonehenge Avenue suggests that stone settings might be present along the banks, but this has never been tested. The phasing of the Avenue also remains unresolved.

 The palisade ditch located on the west side of the Avenue and running for over 1km on the northwest side of Stonehenge itself has been sectioned on three occasions (1953, 1967, and 1978). A burial dated to the later Bronze Age was found cut into the top of the ditch in 1967, but the palisade itself is clearly earlier (Cleal et al. 1995, 155-61) and perhaps related to the now widely recognized series of later Neolithic palisaded enclosures from many parts of the British Isles (Gibson 1998). The Stonehenge palisade ditch urgently needs to be dated properly, set within the wider sequence, and traced to determine if it is part of an enclosure or not. Stonehenge may turn out to be a small structure immediately outside a far more substantial timber-walled enclosure.

 The long barrows within the Stonehenge Landscape have not been studied much in recent years. Many have been damaged by cultivation over the last century or so and their original outline and form obscured. It is clear, however, that there are several different shapes and sizes represented. Within the WHS only two long barrows, Winterbourne Stoke Crossroads and Durrington 42 at the east end of the Cursus, fully deserve that classification; the remaining examples, including perhaps the so-called long mortuary enclosure on Normanton Down, appear to be oval barrows (cf. Drewett 1975, 137-8) but this again needs checking. No details of the internal arrangement of these barrows are known; whether there are stone or wooden chambers, for example. Geophysical surveys could help here, but excavation will ultimately be needed for dating and to determine internal sequences of construction.
 

Issue 7: Anglo-Saxon Stonehenge and the Christian transition

Background: One of the major advances in recent studies of Stonehenge and its surroundings is the recognition that the Anglo-Saxon presence at the site was rather greater, and perhaps more significant, than previously thought. The 7th century burial accompanied by possible evidence for a gallows (Pitts 2001b; and see Hinton 1998) together with coins from the area and a fair scatter of Anglo-Saxon pottery suggests that there is more to be found. Other undated features at Stonehenge may indeed prove to belong to this phase. Leslie Grinsell records a number of pagan Saxon burials in the area and there is an intriguing reference to a cemetery on Durrington Down (B Eagles **). A number of recent studies have considered the role and place of prehistoric monuments in the lives of Anglo-Saxon communities (Williams 1998) and it is well known that many such monuments were “Christianized” in the later 1st millennium AD (Grinsell 1987). Stonehenge thus provides a highly appropriate case-study for helping to understand this important transitional period when Christianity was replacing earlier, and potentially very deep-rooted ideologies.
 

Subject-based issues

Issue 8: Barrow cemetery evolution, structure, and meaning

Background: The Stonehenge Landscape contains more than 30 clusters of barrows of the sort conventionally referred to as cemeteries. Many have been partly or wholly damaged by agricultural activities with the result that there is not a single undamaged group around Stonehenge . A fair number of barrows have also been excavated, although no cemetery has been completely examined. Little or nothing is known about the flat graves that might be expected between and around the barrows of the major cemeteries. It is, however, clear that cemeteries typically include barrows of different date and form (Grinsell no date; Woodward 2000).

 Much reliance has been placed on traditional typologies and classifications of upstanding and recorded monuments, but none have adequately been defined in terms of the number and variety of burials represented, their area and limits, their "non-monumental" components, and the absolute dating of the constructional sequence and use patterns. Some human remains and cremations do survive in museum collections and could be used as the basis for a dating programme. In other cases it is known that human remains were reburied by their excavators; these could easily be recovered by re-opening earlier trenches.

 The relationship of the Wessex barrow cemeteries to those found elsewhere in the British Isles is also deserving of attention. Recent surveys of Bodmin Moor, the Dorset Ridgeway, and the Lincolnshire Wolds, for example, provide useful comparanda.
 

Issue 9: Monumentality and the changing landscape

Background: It is widely recognized that the Stonehenge Landscape contains a concentration of monuments the like of which is rare on a European scale. This is often explained as the result of a some kind of persistent recognition of the importance or significance of place. Both these assumptions need to be challenged and tested, and if supported some understanding of what that importance or draw might have been. Critical in this regard is recognizing when the process of monumentalization began. The presence of postholes dating to around 7500 BC to the northwest of Stonehenge have been cited as being significant (Parker Pearson and Ramilisonina 1998, 323) as too the presence nearby of an ancient and substantial tree (Darvill 1997, 174-6). Because of the way these features came to light (through excavations connected to management works in 1966 and 1988-9) very little of their context is known (Cleal et al. 1996, 43-56).

 One approach is to focus on the idea of “planning” in the landcape and to see how successive additions were influenced or otherwise by the disposition of the monuments already in place.

 On a broader front, the long-term effects (right down to the present day) of existing monuments in the landscape affects people's perception and understanding of that place even though the original meaning of some elements may be lost. Starting from a simple question - Why is Stonehenge where it is? - this issue builds into a broad theme about the meaning of monuments. What was the cultural context of the area before Stonehenge? How were Stonehenge and surrounding monuments re-used / resignificated in later times.
 

Issue 10: Sacred shapes, forms, and intervisibility

Background: The shape and form of Stonehenge itself, and all the other monuments in the Stonehenge Landscape too, were deliberately constructed and are likely to embody a range of meanings in their position, shape and form, orientation, and the materials used in their construction. Aspects of these possibilities have already attracted attention and have led to new ways of viewing the sites (Darvill 1997; Parker Pearson and Ramilisonina 1998; Pollard and Ruggles 2001; Whittle 1997). The intervisibility of monuments has also begun to be explored using the capabilities of GIS (Batchelor 1997). There is far more to do on this theme, not least drawing in anthropological models to provide new insights into the way things might have been treated.

 As it is often perceived, the Stonehenge Landscape tends to be constrained by the better preservation of monuments west of the River Avon. There are, however, fair number of barrows east of the Avon and these should perhaps be brought into the picture even though less visible. The Stonehenge Management Plan calls for a research-driven review of the boundaries of the World Heritage Site (English Heritage 2000, 4.4.17) and a preliminary to this would be a systematic review of representation of monuments east of the Avon and west of the Till.
 

Issue 11: The social use of space

Background: Considerable attention has been given to the reconstruction of the physical environment (although there is still more to do here), rather less to the way societies treated and used space. This is probably critical to understanding questions about the role and purpose not only of Stonehenge but also all the other sites around about. It cannot be assumed to be static, and the processes by which one society regards space in the light of its own heritage is itself a matter of general interest that work within the Stonehenge Landscape may shed light on.

 Distributions of a vast range of archaeological material need to be reviewed: one example is the distribution of rich Wessex-style graves which, looked at regionally, cluster east of the Avon rather than around Stonehenge itself (see Cunliffe 1993, figure 3.16 for a useful summary map). Scale is important here as the way space was regarded may well find expression at the small scale within individual sites and structures as well as across larger expanses (cf. Pollard and Ruggles 2001; Darvill 1997, 173). Key matters include:
 


Issue 12: Rivers, valleys, and water

Background: Although the chalk downlands have long been the centre of archaeological interest, the Stonehenge Landscape contains two main river valleys running broadly north to south: the Till to the west and the Avon to the east. The Avon in particular runs close to a number of key monuments including Durrington Walls (with its south-east entrance opening to the river), Woodhenge, Vespasian's Camp, and Ogbury. Long known as the focus of medieval and later settlements the valley has hardly been explored in terms of its place in the prehistoric settlement system. The Stonehenge Avenue connected Stonehenge with the Avon. The Avon is also widely believed to have played a role in the transportation of the Bluestone to Stonehenge whether by the northern route along the Bristol Avon / River Wylye / Wiltshire Avon route or the southern route using the Hampshire Avon / Wiltshire Avon (Atkinson 1979, 107).

 Darvill (1997, 179) has proposed that Phase I of Stonehenge is a microcosm of the wider landscape with the flow of the river represented in the position of the main entrances into the enclosure. Parker Pearson and Ramilisonina (1998, 318) suggest that the river links the domain of the living with the domain of the ancestors, journeys along it representing the transformation from life to death. The role of the Stonehenge Cursus crossing the interflueve between the Avon and the Till may also be relevant.
 What are now seasonal watercourses or dry valleys deserve some further investigation as part of the need to examine the overall topography of the prehistoric landscape. Some may well have been more conspicuous and perhaps also more significant features in early times. It is notable, for example, that Stonehenge Bottom connects with the Avon valley and might at one time have been a feeder tributary or even a former river-course. The fact that the Stonehenge Avenue runs into Stonehenge Bottom on its first leg before running over King Barrow Ridge to join the Avon may be worthy of further investigation.

 Sherratt (1996) has drawn attention to possible connections between all the various river Avons in southern Britain suggesting that they were considered as one in ancient times: "The River". Coles (1994) has shown that other river systems in southern England might also be regarded as transportation routes. A number of matters may be considered here:
 


Issue 13: People, labour and the building of monuments

Background: The construction of Stonehenge, the Stonehenge cursus, Durrington Walls, and other monuments individually and collectively represents a huge investment of labour not least in terms of their physical construction, assembly, fitting together of the stonework, and building earthworks. Some estimates of labour requirements have been made (Renfrew 1973), and there have been experiments and proposals for simple tasks such as ditch-digging using bone and antler tools as well as more complicated tasks such as moving and raising the large stones at Stonehenge (e.g. Richards and Whitby 1997). Many of these exercises explore possibilities and provide time and motion studies. Many are still mesmerised by Richard Atkinson’s (1979, 105-122) experiments and his insistence upon sledges and the use of vast teams of human beings to pull them. As the date of the large stone settings becomes more sharply focused (2550-1660 BC) the possibility that some kind of wheeled vehicles were used must be entertained and deserves further exploration. Experiments using multi-block and oxen is one approach. The search for clues at Stonehenge itself in the form of ruts (Paul Ashbee reports seeing numerous ruts, apparently undated, along the line of the Avenue near Stonehenge during excavations in the 1950s). More work is also needed, especially using the ethnographic evidence of the 20th century sarsen industry in Wiltshire and the experience and skill of contemporary communities who have made similar achievements using comparable technologies. Matters to investigate include:
 

Issue 14: Materials, resources, and the origins of structural components and objects in the Stonehenge Landscape

Background: Much attention has focused on the source of the Bluestones at Stonehenge and elsewhere and the means by which they might have been moved. There are many other kinds of material from archaeological contexts whose origins deserve to be more closely examined. The sarsen stones at Stonehenge have traditionally been assumed to derive from the Avebury area, but this has not been scientifically demonstrated through characterization studies. Investigations of stone from the 1979-80 excavations around the Heelstone by Hillary Howard suggested that not all the sarsen came from the Marlborough downs; the only other likely source is east Kent where sarsen was used by builders of the Neolithic Medway tombs but this has not been followed up.

 There is much more work to be done on the sources of ceramics, stone objects, metal objects, and perhaps on the movement patterns of human beings buried around Stonehenge. Scientific methods of characterization and analysis provide new ways of exploring the materials represented in structures and objects.
 Contextual issues are also important here, for example the significance or otherwise of bluestone chips in nearby barrows.
 

Issue 15: Astronomy, attitudes, the idea sacred spaces, and cosmology

Background: The existence of astronomical alignments within the structure of Stonehenge and other monuments in the area (including Woodhenge) has been a recurrent theme of many descriptions and in an assumed element of many interpretations. The nature of these alignments has recently been the subject of investigation (Ruggles 1997), and some can be supported by the design and architecture of the monuments. There have been important shifts in the perception of such alignments away from the back-projection of 20th century precision astronomy and descriptive geometries towards more realistic views of how alignments may be embedded in prehistoric structures.

  One remaining matter is the widespread imposition of binary oppositions onto the archaeological material and the need to break down inappropriate oppositions (e.g. settlement :: ritual site / ritual landscape :: secular landscape). Patterns of deposition and cosmology will not only be found in architecture, but also in the nature, use, and deposition of artefacts (Darvill 1997; Pollard and Ruggles 2001). There has for a long time been a focus on Stonehenge, but what of the other structures and sites in the area such as Coneybury and Durrington Walls ?

 The archaeology of significated places is also a theme that deserves to be explored. One example are places of high visibility or the focus of attention from within established monuments: what was on the skyline at the point where the mid-summer sun rise visible from Stonehenge occurs?
 

Issue 16: Fieldsystems and the early agricultural landscape

Background: In 1957, Grinsell listed all the ancient fieldsystems in Wiltshire as essentially Iron Age in date, following conventional wisdom at the time (Grinsell 1957, 272-79). It is now known that fieldsystems are of many different types and of various dates from the later Neolithic through the Roman period (Fowler 1983, 94-119; Fowler and Blackwell 1998, 42-56). The evidence of aerial photography in the Stonehenge Landscape has revealed more than a dozen main blocks of fieldsystem; on morphological grounds there are several types represented and these deserve to be examined and characterized.

  Such fieldsystems are notoriously difficult to date, but that should not prevent carefully targeted investigations. The temptation to date the construction and use of the fieldsystems by the dominant material spatially associated with them through surface recovery is to be avoided as such material could potentially relate to a period in history when manuring took place or cultivation has scattered earlier or later cultural material.

 The evolution of the fieldsystems is also important. Excavations elsewhere suggest that many have long histories consequent on the major investment in landscape organization that they represent. Are those in the Stonehenge Landscape which appear to be Bronze Age actually late Neolithic in origin?
 

Issue 17: Landscape evolution and design

Background: The modern landscape is a complicated palimpsest built up since early prehistoric times. There are a number of major gaps in the overall understanding of  how things have changed over time.

 The early prehistoric landscape, mainly the immediate post-glacial and Mesolithic periods (10,000 – 5,000 BC) is very poorly understood both in terms of its physical and environmental form (including topography, geomorphology, and appearance), and its cultural components such as the disposition and intensity of occupation. The importance of better understanding this phase of the landscape better is the increasing recognition of its importance in setting the scene and perhaps providing the impetus for the extraordinary range and density of sites and structures that characterize the rather better known landscape of the Neolithic and Bronze Age.

 The first millennium BC and first millennium AD are also major gaps for which detailed knowledge is sparse. The role of major monuments such as Vespasian’s Camp in relation to nearby sites such as Yarnbury and Ogbury needs to be explored. In some cases the Stonehenge Landscape may be too small an area for meaningful analysis.
 Much of what is visible in the World Heritage Site today is the result of post-Roman activities and especially recent land management policies by the principal landowners, the National Trust and the Ministry of Defence. Embedded in the modern structure of the landscape are many ancient features, as Bonney (1976) showed with reference to the Winterbourne Stoke / Wilsford cum Lake parish boundary which utilizes the alignment of the Winterbourne Stoke linear barrow cemetery and the Monarch of the Plain barrow. The relatively modern needs to be separated out from the potentially ancient.

 Post-medieval landscape design has not been explored in much detail within the Stonehenge Landscape, yet is potentially rather important and illuminates many of the lines of inquiry currently being tackled elsewhere (Williamson 1995). This is well demonstrated by the expansion of Amesbury Abbey park in the 18th century AD with the creation of the grotto (Gay’s Cave, with its “civilized” classical form emerging from the vermiculated rough stone) and the distant rides through Vespasian’s Camp to a distant view of the ultimate romantic ruin in the form of the “druidical” Stonehenge.

 Unpicking such a palimpsest requires great care and the use of multiple sources, especially for the medieval and later periods (cartography, historical documents, estate records, aerial photographs, oral history etc.). The GIS-based mapping already available at English Heritage provides a solid starting point and could be developed to provide a map-regression analysis of the landscape. This will be especially important in relation to:
 

Contextual and interpretative issues

Issue 18: The relationship between physical access, experience and people's sense of place

Background: Physical access to the Stonehenge Landscape is currently structured by existing roads, pathways, entrances, exits, and boundaries. How do these relate to known patterns in the sub-division of space in the past? How does the modern experience of space relate to former experiences? How can movement and experience be modelled? To what extent are placenames a reflection upon how the historic landscape has been perceived through the ages?
 

Issue 19: The robustness of assumed knowledge based on earlier investigations

Background: More than three-quarters of archaeological work in the Stonehenge Landscape was done in the 19th century and early 20th century before the availability of techniques such as radiocarbon dating, soil analysis, and environmental sampling. Many of the things we think we know about Stonehenge and other monuments around about we don't actually know at all; even though many have become "facts" and major planks in the support of general arguments and interpretations.

 Much has been achieved through the re-analysis and study of early archives and reports on this work, but it is not always clear exactly what antiquarian excavators mean when they report particular observations. Re-interpretation is sometimes possible, but in many cases this simply raises possibilities that deserve to be checked. Work at the Sanctuary near Avebury (Pitts 2001a) shows how much can be achieved through the careful re-examination of antiquarian excavations. Indeed, the Council for British Archaeology recommended the re-excavation of barrows unscientifically dug in the past in their 1948 field research policy document (CBA 1948, 92), a proposal that was considered to apply when Paul Ashbee re-excavated Amesbury Barrow 51 in 1960 and found that William Cunnington’s excavation for Sir Richard Colt Hoare in 1805 had in fact done relatively little damage (Ashbee 1976).

 This issue is essentially a contextual one, involving a large number of site-specific questions.

For Stonehenge:


For the Stonehenge Car-park:


For Bush Barrow:


Issue 20: Understanding and using the artefacts and ecofacts from the Stonehenge Landscape

Background: The 700 plus investigations in the Stonehenge Landscape over the past three centuries have yielded a vast collection of artefactual and ecofactual material. This is widely scattered amongst local and national museums. Some material that was excavated in the 19th century is known to have been reburied at its place of discovery and could, if exhumed, provide major new collections. Some artefactual material has been well-catalogued and described (e.g. Annable and Simpson 1964) and there are have been a number of studies of particular classes of material, often in the context of geographically broader reviews. Site-based studies of excavated assemblages are available for more recent excavations. There is no general corpus of excavated artefacts from the Stonehenge Landscape (although a listing and concordance of material from excavated barrows is awaiting publication) and major groups of material, such as later prehistoric pottery, flintwork, and stone objects, have never been adequately surveyed. Technical investigations of extant artefacts, such as, the study of use-wear patterns, breakage, and fragmentation, is urgently needed. In the case of human remains there is scope for biomolecular studies, such as DNA characterization. These are essentially thematic studies whose execution involves looking inside the Stonehenge Landscape and outside it to other parts of the Stonehenge World.
 

Issue 21: The meaning and utility of traditional monument classifications

Background: Early work in the Stonehenge Landscape was instrumental in defining the categories used for the classification of archaeological monuments. In some cases these have been expanded and applied to other parts of Britain with little critical review of their utility. Amongst the most significant such classifications are those relating to barrows. As the homeland for these classifications it would be appropriate to revisit them and deploy modern methods of investigation as well as new approaches to classification and taxonomy to consider the coherence and integrity of these traditional systems. Especially important are:
 

Issue 22: Contemporaneity and the relationships between monuments at the landscape, regional, and world scale

Background: Although Stonehenge is unique in terms of some of its structures and the particular succession of structures on the same site over a period of more than 2000 years it is also very much part of a tradition of late Neolithic and early Bronze ceremonial centre. Examples are known at intervals of roughly 40km across much of the British Isles. In Wessex they include: Avebury (Wiltshire), Dorchester on Thames (Oxfordshire), Dorchester (Dorset), and Knowlton (Dorset), Priddy (Somerset). Most contain a selection of monuments drawn from a wider repertoire such that not every centre has the same set; all have common elements. Such a pattern was been used by Colin Renfrew (1973) to look at social change (and see also Ashbee 1978, 83 and 101).

 Accessibility may have been a key element to the positioning and distribution of these centres and associated monuments. In the wider Stonehenge world there are similar sites around Newgrange in the Boyne Valley of Ireland, Mainland Orkney, and Carnac in Britanny. Each is separated by a degree of physical distance, but there are major questions also about the social distance between centres - questions of identity and territory - and whether there are lesser-order centres of some kind in between.
 On a wider scale still, there is the question of how the architecture of Stonehenge 3 fits into the contemporary traditions found in other parts of Europe.
 

Issue 23: Filling the gaps and understanding distributions

Background: A considerable amount of survey work has been done around Stonehenge, much of it methodologically tied to the prevailing land-use regimes. Thus, south of Packway, most work has concentrated on fieldwalking and the recovery of material from cultivated land; north of the packway there is very little opportunity for such work, and instead the focus has been on topographic survey and earthwork plotting. Combining earthwork evidence and cropmark evidence visible on aerial photographs provides one means of developing broader overviews even though the nature of the data on which such plots are based is variable. Aerial photographs do not, however, give total coverage of relevant archaeological features. Small features such as graves and pits are poorly represented and need to be sought by other means.

  The use of other techniques which would serve to link existing surveys, provide consistent data over broader areas, and fill physical gaps in existing data sets with comparable data is possible. The use of test-pits to quantify topsoil content where fieldwalking is impractical is one possibility whose potential has been demonstrated. Further extensive geophysical and geochemical surveys would provide another layer of distributional information.

 Some comparative studies with other areas of southern Britain would provide a more secure understanding, in absolute and relative terms, of the distributional data available. Many of the approaches applied here can be non-destructive or involve only minimal intervention. Taking the broad view there is also work to be done on understanding why preservation is apparently so different in different parts of the landscape, and what the implications of this are for interpreting what is already known and targeting future work. One critical question of wider interest, but potentially answerable with data from the Stonehenge Landscape, concerns understanding the meaning and interpretation of flint scatters and some understanding of their variability.
 

Issue 24: Populating the record for post-Roman studies

Background: While the importance of understanding the post-Roman landscape is widely recognized and frequently acknowledged, the database from which to work on these matters is generally inadequate. The ability to draw on sources of evidence such as placenames, documentary sources, cartographic evidence, legal instruments, and, for the most recent periods, also oral histories too, provides a rather different complexion to the essential research resource. There is an urgent need to integrate these traditional sources for post-Roman archaeological studies with the existing database which focuses on the kinds of data most relevant to prehistoric archaeology.
 Much of the conventional archaeological data for the post-Roman period has accumulated as the incidental outcome of work focused on other matters. Surveys of the area with more explicitly defined objectives in relation to later periods (e.g. historic buildings) provide an obvious means of redressing the balance.
 

Issue 25: Shaping popular perceptions

Background:  There are many stories, myths, legends, and popular perceptions about both ancient and modern aspects of the Stonehenge Landscape. They are documented since at least the time of Geoffrey of Monmouth and are reflected in many aspects of popular culture through recent centuries: literature, poetry, music, painting, drawing, and most recently in advertising and product endorsement. How such things have influenced people’s perception of Stonehenge and its landscape is not fully known. Equally, the seemingly endless discussions about the future placement of visitor facilities and the controversy surrounding plans for road improvements impact on shared and individual perceptions of the site and its surroundings; well evident in the level of press coverage and the number of cartoons based on particular readings of the issues.

 The influence of popular perceptions on visitor interest and the levels of expectation that visitors have are major components relevant to visitor management and the presentation of the site and its surroundings.
 

Issue 26: The environmental context

Background: It is well-known that the Stonehenge Landscape visible today is a relatively modern creation. Major advances have been made in the understanding of earlier environments, and a set of predictive models built-up from available local sequences (Allen 1997). Many questions remain, however, on a site-by-site basis and with the Stonehenge Landscape as a whole. The need to provide this was well recognized in the Stonehenge Management Plan (English Heritage 2000, 4.7.6). Important matters include:
 


Issue 27: Erosion and rates of change

Background: The Stonehenge Landscape is one of the most intensively managed for archaeological objectives in England. As such it therefore provides an opportunity to monitor monument decay processes over long periods and match the patterns recorded against a detailed knowledge of land-use practices, weather conditions, visitor attention, and other factors that have been recognized as potentially significant for the preservation and conservation of sites. Woodland, pasture and arable land provide three key starting points for such monitoring, although bench-mark studies of a sample of monuments in each will be needed as the starting point. Changes to the surfaces of the stones at Stonehenge itself could be monitored through a rock art recording programme (see above). The need to provide research-based information about the condition and vulnerability of sites and monuments within the World Heritage Sites is was well recognized in the Stonehenge Management Plan (English Heritage 2000, 4.4.18-19)
 

Issue 28: The human experience of the research process

Background: How does archaeological knowledge of the Stonehenge Landscape get from the hole in the ground to the words on a signboard? Visitors to the World Heritage Site have a general interest in all stages of that process. There are questions of control and the politics of the way knowledge is created. Most people visiting the area have questions in their minds (some are those set out here) and are interested in the process of resolving them. How has knowledge of the site and the landscape changed? Is it any better now than 100 years ago? It is often said that the best thing about Stonehenge from the visitor's perspective is the "mystery" element; can that thrill of uncertainty be harnessed?
 

Issue 29: Co-ordination, interpretation, and recording

Background: The processes of carrying out research in the Stonehenge Landscape potentially involves many individuals and organizations; indeed this is already the case. The sharing of results, information, and resources potentially enriches the overall research endeavour. One of the suggestions made in the Stonehenge Management Plan is for the creation of an archaeological research group of some kind (English Heritage 2000, 4.7.3).

 A physical resource through which research can be facilitated is also lacking at Stonehenge. Such a facility might not only provide a local base from which work could be co-ordinated, but also provides a setting for the public display of recent findings and a guide to ongoing work. One of the suggestions made in the Stonehenge Management Plan is for the creation of research facility at the proposed new visitor centre site (English Heritage 2000, 4.7.5 and 4.7.8).

 The present Stonehenge Lanscape GIS maintained by English Heritage provides a substantial integrated record of archaeological interventions, sites, and monuments. As a tool to capture and present the vast body of data that has accumulated over the last 300 years or more it works well. Looking ahead, however, the nature of the data that will be generated through future fieldwork programmes is likely to be far more complicated in its structure and able to be used in far more sophisticated ways through combining datasets and using immersive digital technologies in the field and for visualization exercises for academic research and public display. Integrative approaches to diverse datasets such as have already been developed by the Stonehenge Landscapes Project (Exon et al. 2000) are an important first step in the greater use of digital technology.
 

Issue 30: The publication of outstanding investigations in the Stonehenge Landscape

Background: The publication in 1995 of the 20th century excavations at Stonehenge and monuments closely associated with it made accessible a vast body of data that had previously been hidden in unpublished archives and records (Cleal et al. 1995). In the last decade of the 20th century a great deal of work was carried out in the Stonehenge World Heritage Site in connection with the evaluation of possible sites for the proposed new visitor centre and road corridors for access tracks and the much trumpeted upgrading of the A303. Many of these studies were field evaluations or various kinds involving targeted trenching, surface collection, test-pitting, and extensive geophysical surveys. Some property development within the World Heritage Site also took place. It is also known that there are a few unpublished excavations of barrows and other features in the landscape from the 1960s. The key matters are thus:


Issue 31: The hidden landscapes

Background:  The rolling downland and incised river valleys of the Stonehenge Landscape provide a number of situations for the preservation of early land surfaces below more recent layers of colluvium. Sampling to date in areas such as Stonehenge Bottom shows that the accumulation and movement of mantle-deposits is complicated and not easily predicted. A systematic programme of modelling local site formation processes and the movement of soil and sediment in the environment world provide a major interpretative filter on distributional data, and explain at least some gaps in the current spread of site data.

 Another major source of information about early landscapes are the buried soils sealed by structures such as barrows and ramparts. Many of these may be accessible using the holes excavated by 19th century investigations. The extent of later Neolithic land surface sealed beneath the many hundreds of early Bronze Age barrows is probably one of the most important archaeological resources in the British Isles.
 

Issue 32: The missing slices of time

Background: The Stonehenge Landscape is best known for the archaeology of the "Age of Stonehenge". Very little is known about major slices of time either side the later Neolithic and early Bronze Age, and yet theses are very much part of the Stonehenge story. Especially poorly known is the archaeology (in conventional cultural-historical periods) of the:
 


Issue 33: Chronology and dating the undated

Background: Telling a good story about Stonehenge and its landscape requires a clear and full understanding of the dating of sites in terms of their internal sequence (order, duration etc.) and the contemporaneity of particular elements with phases or horizons at other sites both near and far. The extensive series of radiocarbon dates for Stonehenge itself has radically changed views on the development and relationships of that structure. There are also likely to be some surprises as the dating of the isolated burial at Stonehenge to the 7th century AD shows (Pitts 2001b). Few other sites in the area are as well dated, and many are simply not dated or assigned to broad phases on the basis of form or assemblages of artefacts excavated in the 19th century. The need to provide a more robust and extensive framework for all periods was well recognized in the Stonehenge Management Plan (English Heritage 2000, 4.7.6). Opportunities to redress the balance are provided by the absolute dating of human remains, objects, or the recovery of new samples from graves, pits, ditches, or old land surface through the re-opening of previous excavations.

 Aerial photography, fieldwalking, and surface survey have revealed a great many archaeological sites and scatters of material, many of which are undated. From flint scatters to crop-marks suggesting the presence of plough-levelled ditched enclosures the majority of material cannot be fitted into robust synchronic views of the landscape at a particular time or the sequence of changes viewed over the long term.

  Some material is conveniently used to fit particular models or views of the landscape without much recognition of the uncertainties over the chronological position of the material in question. This expanse of recorded archaeology needs making useful in terms of its contribution to the Stonehenge story by selective excavation to confirm its existence (or former existence), and, where possible, provide a date. Only in this way can reasonable sampling schemes be developed to investigate the archaeology of particular periods are regions.
 
 


References

Allen, M J, 1997, Environment and land-use; the economic development of the communities who built Stonehenge (an economy to support the stones). Proceedings of the British Academy, 92, 115-144

Annable, F K, and Simpson, D D A, 1964, Guide catalogue of the Neolithic and Bronze Age collections in Devizes Museum. Devizes: Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society

Ashbee, P, 1960, The Bronze Age Round Barrow in Britain. London: Phoenix

Ashbee, P, 1998, Stonehenge: its possible noncompletion, slighting and dilapidation. Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine, 91, 139-142

Atkinson, R J C, 1979, Stonehenge (2nd Edition). Harmondsworth: Penguin

Barclay, G, and Maxwell, G S, 1998, The Cleaven Dyke and Littleour (= Society of Antiquaries of Scotland Monograph 13). Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland

Batchelor, D, 1997, Mapping the Stonehenge World Heritage Site. Proceedings of the British Academy, 92, 61-72

Bradley, R, 1983, The bank barrows and related monuments of Dorset in the light of recent fieldwork. Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society, 105, 15-20

Burl, A, 1997, The sarsen horseshoe inside Stonehenge: a rider. Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine, 90, 1-12

Burl, A, 2001, The third stone. The Altar Stone at Stonehenge: prone to doubt. 3rd Stone, 40, 48-55

Cleal, R M J, Walker, K E, and Montague, R, 1995, Stonehenge in its landscape. Twentieth-century excavations (= English Heritage Archaeological Report 10). London: English Heritage

Coles, B J, 1994, Trisantona rivers: a landscape approach to the interpretation of river names. Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 13.3, 295-312

Darvill, T, 1997, Ever increasing circles: the sacred geography of Stonehenge and its landscape. Proceedings of the British Academy, 92, 167-202

Darvill, T, 1998, Notes towards the development of a prehistoric research framework. In A Woodward and J Gardiner (eds), Wessex before words. Some new research directions for prehistoric Wessex. Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology for CBA Wessex and Forum for Archaeology in Wessex. 5-6

David, A, and Payne, A, 1997, Geophysical surveys within the Stonehenge Landscape: a review of past endeavour and future potential. Proceedings of the British Academy, 92, 73-113

Drewett, P, 1975, The excavation of an oval burial mound of the third millennium bc at Alfriston, East Sussex, 1974. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 41, 119-152

Fowler, P J, 1983, The Farming of Prehistoric Britain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Fowler, P, and Blackwell, I, 1998, The land of Lettice Sweetapple. An English countryside explored. Stroud: Tempus

Gibson, A, 1998, Hindwell and the Neolithic palisaded enclosures of Britain and Ireland. In A Gibson and D Simpson (eds), Prehistoric Ritual and Religion. Stroud: Sutton Publishing. 68-79

Grinsell, L V, 1957, Archaeological gazetteer. In R B Pugh and E Crittall (eds), The Victoria History of the Counties of England: Wiltshire. Volume 1.1. London: Institute of Historical Research. 21-279

Grinsell, L V, no date, The Stonehenge Barrow Groups. Salisbury: Salisbury and South Wiltshire Museum

Olivier, A, 1996, Frameworks for Out Past. London: English Heritage

Parker Pearson, M, and Ramilisonina, 1988, Stonehenge for the ancestors: the stones pass the message. Antiquity, 72, 308-26

Pollard, J, and Ruggles, C, 2001, Shifting perceptions: spatial order, cosmology, and patterns of deposition at Stonehenge. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 11.1, 69-90

Pitts, M, 2001, Excavating the Sanctuary: new investigations on Overton Hill, Avebury. Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine, 94, 1-23

RCHME, 1979, Stonehenge and its Environs. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press

Renfrew, C, 1968, Wessex without Mycenae. Annual Bulletin of the British School in Athens, 63, 277-85

Renfrew, C, 1973, Monuments, mobilization and social organization in Neolithic Wessex. In C Renfrew (ed), The Explanation of Culture Change. Models in Prehistory. London: Duckworth. 539-558

Renfrew C, 1997, Setting the scene: Stonehenge in the round. Proceedings of the British Academy, 92, 3-14

Richards, J, and Witby, M, 1997, The engineering of Stonehenge. Proceedings of the British Academy, 92, 231-256

Ruggles, C, 1997, Astronomy and Stonehenge. Proceedings of the British Academy, 92, 203-230

Scarre, C, 1997, Misleading images: Stonehenge and Brittany. Antiquity, 71, 1016-20

Sherratt, A, 1996, Why Wessex? The Avon route and river transport in later British prehistory. Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 15.2. 211-234

Sontag, S, 1968, ******. Esquire, July 1968

Whittle, A, 1997, Remembered and imagined belongings: Stonehenge in its traditions and structures of meaning. Proceedings of the British Academy, 92, 145-166

Woodward, A, 2000, British Barrows. Stroud: Tempus Publishing

Woodward, P, 1988, Pictures of the Neolithic: discoveries from the Flagstones House excavations, Dorchester, Dorset. Antiquity, 62, 266-74
 
 

All materials are copyright to the Stonehenge Research Project, Bournemouth University, 2001, unless stated otherwise.
Last updated 11th October 2001