Archaeological Research Agenda For The Avebury WHS

This volume draws together contributions from a number of specialists to
provide an agenda for future research within the Avebury World Heritage Site.
It has been produced in response to the English Heritage initiative for the
development of regional and period research frameworks in England and
represents the first formal such agenda for a World Heritage Site.
Following an introduction setting out the background to, need for and
development of the Research Agenda, the volume is presented under a series of
major headings. Part 2 is a resource assessment arranged by period from the
Lower Palaeolithic to the end of the medieval period (c. AD 1500) together
with an assessment of the palaeo-environmental data from the area. Part 3 is
the Research Agenda itself, again arranged by period but focusing on a variety
of common themes. A series of more over-arching, landscape-based themes for
environmental research is also included.
In Part 4 strategies for the implementation of the Research Agenda are
explored and in Part 5 methods relevant for that implementation are presented.
Archaeological Research Agenda
for the
Avebury World Heritage Site
Avebury Archaeological & Historical Research Group (AAHRG)
February 2001
Published 2001 by the Trust for Wessex Archaeology Ltd

Portway House, Old Sarum Park, Salisbury SP4 6EB
Wessex Archaeology is a Registered Charity No. 287786
on behalf of English Heritage and the Avebury Archaeological & Historical Research Group
Copyright © The individual authors and English Heritage all rights reserved
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue entry for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN 1–874350–36–1
Produced by Wessex Archaeology

Printed by Cromwell Press Ltd, Trowbridge
The cost of this publication was met by English Heritage
Front Cover: Avebury: stones at sunrise (© English Heritage Photographic Library. J920762, Sept 1992)
Back Cover: Aerial photograph of the Avebury Henge (© English Heritage Photographic Library.
K910422, May 1991)
Contents
List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iv 3.8 Later Saxon and Medieval

List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iv by Andrew Reynolds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iv 3.9 Palaeo-Environmental Evidence
Foreword by Geoffrey Wainwright . . . . . . . . . . . . . .v by Michael J. Allen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .vi 3.10 Towards a Research Framework for the
Foreign language summaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .vi Avebury Landscape by Rosamund M.J.Cleal
and Michael J. Allen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57
Part 1: Introduction by Amanda Chadburn and
Melanie Pomeroy-Kellinger Part 4: Research Strategies
1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 4.1 Lower and Middle Palaeolithic
1.2 The Need for Research Agenda . . . . . . . . . .2 by Julie Scott-Jackson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62
1.3 Aims and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 4.2 Late Glacial and Early Post-glacial
1.4 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 by Andrew J. Lawson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62
4.3 Neolithic and Early Bronze Age
Part 2: Resource Assessment by Rosamund M.J. Cleal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63
2.1 Lower and Middle Palaeolithic 4.4 Late Bronze Age by Gill Swanton,
by Julie Scott-Jackson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Chris Gingell and Andrew J. Lawson . . . . . . .67
2.2 Late Glacial and Early Post-glacial 4.5 Iron Age by Amanda Chadburn and
by Andrew J. Lawson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 Mark Corney . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67
2.3 Neolithic and Early Bronze Age 4.6 Romano-British by Mark Corney and
by Rosamund M.J. Cleal and R. Montague . . .8 Bryn Walters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68
2.4 Late Bronze Age by Gill Swanton, 4.7 Post-Roman and Early Saxon by Gill Swanton
Chris Gingell and Andrew J. Lawson . . . . . . .19 and Peter Fowler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68
2.5 Iron Age by Amanda Chadburn 4.8 Later Saxon and Medieval
and Mark Corney . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 by Andrew Reynolds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69
2.6 Romano-British by Mark Corney and 4.9 Palaeo-Environmental by Michael J. Allen . .70
Bryn Walters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24
2.7 Post-Roman and Early Saxon by Gill Swanton Part 5: Methods and Techniques
and Peter Fowler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 5.1 Geophysical Survey by Andrew David . . . . .71
2.8 Later Saxon and Medieval 5.2 Environmental Archaeology
by Andrew Reynolds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28 by Michael J. Allen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79
2.9 P alaeo-Environmental Evidence 5.3 Earthwork Survey by Mark Bowden . . . . . .79
by Michael J. Allen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34 5.4 Surface Artefact Collection
by Andrew J. Lawson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80
Part 3: Research Agenda 5.5 Evaluation Excavation by Andrew J. Lawson 81
3.1 Lower and Middle Palaeolithic 5.6 Full Excavation by Rosamund M.J. Cleal . . .81
by Julie Scott-Jackson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38 5.7 Aerial Survey by Robert Bewley and
3.2 Late Glacial and Early Post-glacial Fiona Small . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83
by Andrew J. Lawson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39 5.8 Geographical Information Systems (GIS)
3.3 Neolithic and Early Bronze Age by Nick Burton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86
by Rosamund M.J. Cleal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40 5.9 Metal detecting by Amanda Chadburn . . . .89
3.4 Late Bronze Age by Gill Swanton, 5.10 E xperimental Archaeology by Gill Swanton .91
Chris Gingell and Andrew J. Lawson . . . . . . .43
3.5 Iron Age by Amanda Chadburn Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93
and Mark Corney . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44 Appendix A. Section authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .101
3.6 Romano-British by Mark Corney and Appendix B. Other AAHRG members 1996–2000
Bryn Walters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47 who contributed to the formulation of the
3.7 Post-Roman and Early Saxon by Gill Swanton research agenda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .101
and Peter Fowler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .102
iii
List of Figures
Fig. 1 Distribution of findspots and sites Fig. 11 Durotrigian silver and bronze staters, found
attributed to Palaeolithic, Late Glacial and near Silbury Hill in 1991
Early Post-glacial periods Fig. 12 The Marlborough Bucket
Fig. 2 Distribution of Neolithic and Early Bronze Fig. 13 Distribution of Romano-British sites in the
Age sites and monuments in the wider Avebury area
Avebury area Fig. 14 Plan of the Silbury Romano-British
Fig. 3 Distribution of Neolithic and Early Bronze settlement
Age sites and monuments within the Fig. 15 Distribution of Post-Roman and early
Avebury WHS Saxon sites in the Avebury area
Fig. 4 Stone axes from Windmill Hill Fig. 16 The Wansdyke
Fig. 5 Antler pick and rake from Windmill Hill Fig. 17 Extract from the RCHME survey of
Fig. 6 Plan of excavation trenches in the Henge Avebury with outline of the possible 9th
Fig. 7 South-west quadrant of Avebury Henge and century burh
Stone Circle Fig. 18 Hundreds and Parishes in North Wiltshire
Fig. 8 Excavation in Longstone Field, Fig. 19 Location of sites where with environmental
Beckhampton, 1999 evidence has been recovered in the Avebury
Fig. 9 Distribution of later Bronze Age sites and area
monuments in the Avebury area Fig. 20 New ‘feature’ in the Avebury Henge, 1995
Fig. 10 Distribution of Iron Age sites and Fig. 21 Isometric drawing of the Overton Down
monuments in the Avebury area Experimental Earthwork
List of Tables
Table 1 Probable Iron Age enclosures in and Table 5 Geophysical survey in the Avebury area and
around the Avebury WHS beyond
Table 2 Probable Iron Age unenclosed settlements Table 6 Monarch (NMR) record summaries:
in and around the Avebury WHS records created and updated for each
Table 3 Iron Age coins in the Oxford University quarter sheet
Celtic Coin Index found in the Avebury Table 7 New sites identified in the Avebury WHS
area Mapping Project
Table 4 Sites where environmental evidence has
been recovered in the Avebury area
Acknowledgements
The authors and editors of this volume would like to Smith; Geoffrey Wainwright; Alasdair Whittle; the staff
thank all past and present members of AAHRG for of English Heritage Aerial Survey, Avebury WHS
their various contributions which have made this Mapping Project and National Monuments Record.
publication possible. Thanks are due to Amanda
Chadburn, Julie Gardiner, Kate Fielden and Melanie
Pomeroy for editing, and to Nick Burton for compiling
the maps. Illustrations
The individual authors would like to thank the The distribution maps, Figs 1–3, 9, 10, 13, 15 and 19,
following for reading and commenting on earlier drafts and Fig. 18, were produced by Nick Burton via the
and for providing help and additional data: Dave Avebury WHS Geographical Information System ©
Batchelor; Andrew David; Duncan Coe; Bruce Eagles; English Heritage; Figs 6 and 17 were produced by
Dave Field; Andrew Fitzpatrick; Charly French; RCHME © English Heritage; Fig. 21 after Jewell
Philip de Jersey; Julie Gardiner; Alex Gibson; Mark 1963; Figs 4, 5 and 7 © The National Trust; Figs 11
Gillings; Andrew Lawson; Rebecca Montague; Mike and 12 © Wiltshire Heritage Museum, Devizes; Fig. 16
Pitts; Josh Pollard; Julian Richards; Colin Shell; Isobel © Mick Aston; Fig. 14 after Corney 1997b, fig. 1.
iv
Foreword
Avebury and Stonehenge are part of the same methodologies to fill these. For Avebury this was
World Heritage Site. Both have Management Plans accomplished over a long period of time by many
which place considerable importance on the en people and this document is a tribute to their per
couragement and promotion of academic research to sistence and determination. It portrays in classic format
achieve a greater understanding of their rich cultural a statement of what is known and what we now need
heritage. There was a unswerving belief on the part of to know. In time the document will become outdated
all those associated with the completion of the as new research necessitates reviews. A fear of
Management Plans that such research and the under obsolescence should never prevent the compilation of
standing it brings are not optional extras, but essential research agendas. Indeed there is a case for arguing that
for the appropriate management of the heritage assets their value is best gauged against the frequency with
which make these World Heritage Sites outstanding which they are reviewed.
landscapes of universal significance. Improved understanding is the key to good land
For both Avebury and Stonehenge the work has management and this excellent document provides the
begun with the compilation of a gazetteer of what is essential adjunct to the Management Plan. Both
known and the codification of that information with documents must develop together to ensure their
compatible machine-based formats employing the mutual success and one may feel confident that the
latest technology with particular reference to geo Avebury Archaeological and Historical Research
graphical information systems. Such records have been Group will ensure that the proper priorities are
compiled and are accessible to the public as well as to maintained.
academics and land-managers. Subsequent conferences
and documents identified the gaps in our under Geoffrey Wainwright
standing and promoted appropriate research topics and November 2000
v
Summary
This volume draws together contributions from a number of Lower Palaeolithic to the end of the medieval period (c.AD
specialists to provide an agenda for future research within 1500) together with an assessment of the palaeo
the Avebury World Heritage Site. It has been produced in environmental data from the area. Period 3 is the Research
response to the English Heritage initiative for the Agenda itself, again arranged by period but focusing on a
development of regional and period research frameworks in variety of common themes. A series of more over-arching,
England and represents the first formal such agenda for a landscape-based themes for environmental research is also
World Heritage Site. included.
Following an introduction setting out the background to, In Part 4 strategies for the implementation of the
need for and development of the Research Agenda, the Research Agenda are explored and in Part 5 methods
volume is presented under a series of major headings. Part relevant for that implementation are presented.
2 is a resource assessment arranged by period from the
Résumé Zussamenfassung
Cet ouvrage rassemble les contributions d'un certain Dieser Band beinhaltet Beiträge von Spezialisten zur
nombre de spécialistes pour établir un programme de Planung zukünftiger Forschungen im Avebury
recherches pour l'avenir sur le site d'Avebury, inscrit au Weltkulturerbe. Er wurde auf eine Initiative des
Patrimoine Mondial. Il a été élaboré à la suite d'une English Heritage hin zur Entwicklung regionaler und
initiative d'English Heritage en vue de développer des auf Perioden bezogener Forschungsrahmen in England
schémas pour la recherche par région et par période en produziert und stellt den ersten formalen
Angleterre et constitue le premier programme officiel Forschungsplan für ein Weltkulturerbe dar.
de cet ordre pour un site inscrit au Patrimoine Es beginnt mit einer Einführung, die den
Mondial. Hintergrund des Forschungsplans, dessen Notwendig
Après une introduction qui retrace l'arrière-plan du keit und seine Entwicklung erläutert, und wird durch
programme de recherches, en explique la necessité et weitere Teile ergänzt. Bei Teil 2 handelt es sich um eine
le développement, le volume se présente sous la forme Bewertung der Resourcen, die nach Perioden geordnet
d'une série de grands intitulés. La deuxième partie sind. Dies beginnt mit dem frühen Paläolithikum und
consiste en une évaluation des ressources par époque geht bis zum Ende der mittelalterlichen Periode (ca.
et s'étend du paléolithique inférieur à la fin de la 1500 AD). Eingeschlossen darin ist eine Bewertung der
période médiévale (c. 1500 ap. J.-C.) ainsi qu'en une paläoökologischen Daten des Gebietes. In Teil 3 wird
évaluation des données relatives au paléo der Forschungsplan selbst dargestellt, wobei wieder
environnement de la région. Le programme lui-même nach Perioden geordnet wird, und dabei aber auch eine
constitue la troisième partie, également ordonnée par Vielzahl von allgemeinen Themen behandelt werden.
période mais se concentrant sur divers thèmes Zusätzlich sind eine Reihe von weiter greifenden, auf
courants. Elle comprend aussi une série de thèmes plus die Landschaft bezogenen Themen für ökologische
compréhensifs fondés sur le paysage et destinés à la Forschungen enthalten.
recherche environnementale. In Teil 4 werden die Strategien für die praktische
Dans la quatrième partie, on explore les stratégies Anwendung des Forschungsplans untersucht, und in
pour la mise en application du programme de Teil 5 werden schließlich die Methoden vorgestellt, die
recherches et dans la cinquième, on présente les für diese Anwendung relevant sind.
méthodes appropriées à cette mise en place.
(Annie Pritchard) (Peter Biehl)
vi
Part 1: Introduction
Amanda Chadburn and Melanie Pomeroy-Kellinger
1.1 Background research designs and meshing individual projects,

such a group would allow for efficient information
The Avebury World Heritage Site (WHS) and its wider exchange. English Heritage (1992, 11–12).
hinterland comprises a landscape which is a palimpsest
of archaeological features. Avebury is one of a small The Management Statement recognised that a
number of areas in southern Britain which appears to suitable group to undertake this work – the Avebury
have acted as a focus for ceremonial and ritual activities Environs Forum (AEF) – had already been in existence
during the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age; it is one the since 1990. In due course the AEF agreed to under
richest and most varied of these areas.The particularly take the role set out in the English Heritage Manage
rich assemblage of archaeological sites, both visible and ment Statement, although they reserved the right to
buried, provides a vivid record of past landscape meet separately if necessary as their role was wider than
patterns and use and has exerted a considerable visual that set out by English Heritage.
and cultural influence on the surrounding landscape for In September 1996, a Management Plan Officer
more than 5000 years. was appointed by the National Trust (funded by
The Avebury WHS, an area of 22.5 square English Heritage), with the specific aim of writing a
kilometres, together with Stonehenge, was inscribed management plan for the Avebury WHS.This initiative
onto the World Heritage List by UNESCO in 1986 in was part of a national programme to ensure that all
recognition of its outstanding universal value. Avebury British WHS had management plans.The International
is located on the Marlborough Downs in Wiltshire, Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS)
around 40 km north-west of Stonehenge.The Avebury guidelines for the contents of management plans
Henge and Stone Circles, Silbury Hill, West Kennet suggested that research programmes should be
Avenue and other associated sites greatly contribute to included (Feilden and Jokilehto 1993, 28 and 39).
a distinctive historic and cultural landscape. The ICOMOS requirement was set against the
Since 1990 a group of archaeologists has been general need for research designs in the wider
meeting regularly to discuss archaeological issues archaeological community at this time. In 1995,
affecting the Avebury WHS (Chadburn 1998). From following its earlier work on research frameworks
February 1996 onwards a key focus of discussion has (English Heritage 1991b), English Heritage conducted
been the formulation of a comprehensive research a survey of research designs in England to record
agenda for the WHS and its wider hinterland. During existing research frameworks, and to make re
the last decade, the composition of the group has often commendations as a focus for a wide ranging debate
changed, and this publication represents the written about the way forward (Olivier 1996, 2). The
and verbal contribution of many people (Appendices A publication of Frameworks For Our Past (ibid.)
and B). This volume takes the form of a series of promoted the planning of future priorities for
individually-authored papers written in consultation archaeological research and the development of
with other members of the Avebury Archaeological and regional strategies, resulting in publications such as
Historical Research Group (AAHRG), rather than a such as Wessex Before Words (Woodward and Gardiner
document written by committee. The following text 1998) and Framework for the Eastern Counties
therefore displays a diversity of styles and approaches (Glazebrook 1997). However, despite the ICOMOS
to the archaeological potential of the area. guidelines, we have been unable to find any detailed
AAHRG was set up in early 1993 following the published research agenda for any WHS, and we
publication by English Heritage in 1992 of the believe this document represents the first formal and
Management Statement for the Avebury WHS (English detailed research agenda of this kind in the world.
Heritage 1992) and AAHRG (1993). The EH Geoffrey Wainwright, the then chairman of the main
document established a number of principles for Avebury WHS Working Party, suggested in late 1995
management of the WHS, and recommended that two that AAHRG should take the research framework
sub-groups be set up to assist a main WHS Working forward for use in the Avebury Management Plan.The
Party in the matters of a) archaeological and historical published Management Plan (English Heritage 1998),
research and b) visitor and traffic management. taking into account the first draft Research Agenda
The specific role suggested for an archaeological (AAHRG 1997) heavily emphasises the need for
sub-group was to: ongoing archaeological research, the further
development of the research agenda, and for sustain
seek to co-ordinate the efforts of the various bodies ability in research methods (Section 1.2 below).The
with interests in theWHS. Besides formulating broad Plan also highlights the high potential for further
2
research and the close link between research and evidence for which is less tangible and more elusive.
cultural heritage management in the Avebury WHS. There is a strong possibility of the discovery or
One of the 26 main objectives in the Plan focuses rediscovery of as yet unknown archaeological sites, as
specifically on research, aiming to: illustrated by the recent discovery (1987–9) of the
buried features of the impressive Late Neolithic
Encourage and promote academic research to ‘palisade enclosures’ complex at West Kennett and the
achieve a deeper understanding of the WHS ‘Beckhampton Avenue’ in 1999. Moreover, the
necessary for its appropriate management. All RCHME (now English Heritage) has recently
research should be carried out with due regard to the undertaken a thorough examination and transcription
principles of sustainability and to appropriate of all aerial photographic coverage of the WHS area as
standards of work. (English Heritage 1998, part of their National Mapping Programme (described
Objective Z). in Section 5.7). This work has already resulted in the
discovery of a number of previously unknown sites and
The Research Agenda presented here is primarily landscape features, including ploughed-out barrows,
concerned with academic and scientific research enclosures and parts of field systems. Part 3 of this
issues rather than management issues, and in this volume presents the many gaps in our current state of
respect the Research Agenda and Management Plan knowledge for all periods, and the great potential of the
are two separate documents. However, the two are area for answering important research questions.
designed to be closely intertwined and together they The Avebury WHS is well protected by the various
comprise a universal framework as described in designations for conservation and by planning policy.
Frameworks for Our Past (Olivier 1996, 5, and fig.1). Thus, the opportunities for making new discoveries
The recently published WHS Management Plan for through the development control process are limited.
Stonehenge announces the intention to develop a This makes the existence of the Research Agenda and
separate research agenda for this part of the WHS framework for implementation of crucial importance.
(English Heritage 2000, section 4.7.8). The WHS, because of its intrinsic values and
international importance, does attract a great deal of
interest and concern from the public as well as from
1.2 The Need for a Research Agenda archaeologists. The existence of the Research Agenda
associated with the Management Plan is essential to aid
Research agenda have long been the subject of a good level of public awareness and to stress that
archaeological debate in Britain. The introduction of research is in the public interest.
PPG 16 (DoE November 1990) led to concerns that
development-sponsored work was being undertaken in
an academic vacuum. Even before this there were The Sustainability of Research
similar concerns, principally following the rescue
programmes of the 1960s and 1970s. Recently, Olivier It is essential for the long-term preservation of the
concluded that the archaeological discipline needed a WHS that all uses of the site are sustainable.Therefore,
general framework of well-synthesised investigation to like any other land use, research has to be undertaken
support the development of a new generation of on a sustainable basis. In the context of research,
research, and to provide reference points for cultural sustainability can be defined as meeting today’s need for
resource management. In particular, regional as well as improved knowledge and understanding of the WHS
national strategies were needed (Olivier 1996, 2). without jeopardising the ability of future generations to do
Morris argued convincingly that research-driven the same.
archaeology was both good for archaeology and cost- Advances in knowledge rely on measures taken now
effective, and that without research strategies and to preserve enough physical and documentary evidence
agenda ‘all that happens is that another avalanche of to allow future investigations and discoveries to
data is added to a largely unconsulted archive which is improve understanding which can be passed on. This
increasingly unaffordable to store’ (Morris 1997, 11). raises the question of what level of survival of physical
Such problems were felt at the local level in the evidence is needed to sustain such investigation into the
Avebury area which was, despite its international status, future, allowing for ever-changing research interests.
experiencing difficulties in the co-ordination of Paradoxically, excavation means the destruction of the
research. Although the importance of the key physical evidence (apart from the artefacts and
archaeological features has been recognised and ecofacts).With advances in techniques in the future, it
studied, the cultural landscape of the Avebury WHS is is probable that future generations of archaeologists will
not particularly well understood or documented. The be able to extract more information from smaller
extant earthworks are easily recognised and can be samples of the evidence. For some interests, past
planned for and managed. However, a wide range of destruction may already have precluded the pursuit of
archaeological features and sites exists in the area, the some lines of research; for some, nothing less than total
3
preservation of what remains will suffice; for others, a • Recognise the importance of research in the
more modest level of preservation will be required. In WHS.
the case of particular archaeological sites and • Identify gaps in our understanding and promote
monuments, different levels of preservation might be the appropriate research topics and
appropriate to support different lines of inquiry: the methodologies to fill the gaps.
requirements of palaeoenvironmental research might • Support research into all periods and all
be quite different from those of other lines of inquiry. relevant aspects of the WHS and its environs,
The objective should be to aim at preserving the ensuring the conduct and methods of research
maximum rather than the minimum sample required are sustainable and compatible with the
to sustain future research. identification and protection of WHS values.
Although some excavation and surface collection • Ensure research is conducted in accordance with
will be necessary to answer key research and hence the objectives of the Management Plan.
management questions, it is recognised that these • Promote a policy of preserving maximum
activities do diminish the evidence available to future rather than minium remains (although some
generations of researchers, and as such do carry some excavation may be desirable), encouraging the
moral obligations of care. These activities should be use of non-invasive techniques.
kept to a minium and only carried out when there is a • Publish and disseminate existing information
valid and defensible reason.The use of non-destructive and ongoing research results to the land
prospection techniques and ‘experimental’ techniques managers, the public and the archaeological
should be encouraged. community.
There is a strong necessity for continued academic • Encourage the use of the most appropriate
input and a research framework for the future techniques for the successful investigation of the
management of the WHS. Research is essential to priority research areas.
informed understanding, management and inter
pretation. It is difficult to distinguish between The concept of archaeological significance is a
academic- and management-led research, as all dynamic one, which will change with the times and
research can have management potential and with advances in archaeological method and theory.
implications. Because of the elusive nature of many The Research Agenda will continue to evolve and be
buried archaeological features, leading to surprise updated on a regular basis.
discoveries, it is often difficult to know the management The Agenda is principally aimed at people
implications until the research has been completed.The intending to conduct research, individuals and agencies
extent to which further research is required to help with concerned with conservation and management in the
specific management issues or problems needs to be area, and all with a desire to understand more about
examined further over the next few years. The Avebury’s past. However, it is considered that the
continued updating of the Research Agenda should Research Agenda will only be effective if widely
assist in addressing these issues. However, the Research disseminated to the academic community via con
Agenda does not intend to focus on the Avebury ventional publication and electronic access. In general
landscape and foster archaeological over-exploitation. the Agenda itself encourages the publication and wide
The Research Agenda should help to ensure that a dissemination of existing information and ongoing
balanced and sustainable level of research is achieved research results. It is planned to publish the whole of
by providing guidelines for research, mechanisms for the text presented here on the English Heritage web
consultations, and the coordination of resources. site. www.english-heritage.org.uk
1.3 Aims and Objectives 1.4 Methodology
The general aim of the Research Agenda proposed here The Avebury Research Agenda is presented in line with
is to: the definition and structure recommended in
Frameworks For Our Past (Olivier 1996).The Research
actively encourage sustainable levels of research into Agenda comprises: a resource assessment (Part 2: a
all periods and all relevant aspects of the WHS and description of the archaeological resource and state
its near environs, in order to improve archaeological ment of the current state of knowledge); a list of gaps
understanding, to better inform other academics, and in that knowledge and the potential of the resource to
to allow informed archaeological resource manage answer questions (Part 3); and a statement setting out
ment to take place. priorities (Part 4); and methods (Part 5). Because of
the complexity of the palimpsest of archaeological
Detailed objectives to meet these needs include: features in the WHS, and the difficulties of dealing with
the transitional periods, a holistic and diachronic
4
approach is used in the Research Agenda.Thus, themes identification of gaps in our knowledge, and research
have been identified as priority research areas, whose priorities by theme (Parts 2, 3, and 4).This version was
investigation will improve understanding of most widely circulated to AAHRG members and other
chronological periods. academics and archaeologists for comment. Since then,
The AAHRG group devoted considerable time to a series of methods and techniques was written up by
discussing the methodology and format of the Agenda. experts with reference to the Avebury WHS (see section
Members felt that the Agenda should not be 5). In addition, a comprehensive report on the
constrained by chronological divisions or by the limit environmental evidence was produced with specific
of the WHS boundary which has little academic or reference to Avebury (Allen 2000a). Thus, a more
archaeological integrity. Indeed, many of the authors comprehensive second draft, compiled by Melanie
have considered archaeological evidence for some Pomeroy, was produced and circulated in October
periods from quite far afield in order to place the 2000 (AAHRG 2000). Subsequently, a series of maps
Avebury evidence in its proper context. However, for was prepared by Nick Burton from the Avebury GIS
practical purposes both a chronological and thematic database (Figs 1–3, 9, 10, 13, 15, 19). Finally, Julie
approach has been taken. The period divisions used Gardiner at Wessex Archaeology undertook the copy
are1: editing and publication in February and March 2001.
It is recognised by AAHRG and the individual
Lower & Middle Palaeolithic 500,000 BP–40,000 BP authors that aspects of the Agenda are incomplete and
Upper Palaeolithic/Late Glacial that there is scope for it making it more
& Early Post-Glacial2 18,000 BP–4,300/4,200 BC comprehensive.3 It was intended to include sections on
Neolithic & Early Bronze Age 4,300/4,200 BC–1,400 BC the post-medieval period and on absolute dating
Late Bronze Age 1,400 BC–750 BC methods. However, at this time it has been difficult to
Iron Age 750 BC–AD43 gain contributions from experts in these fields. It is
Romano-British AD 43–410 hoped that this volume will be updated on a regular
Post-Roman and Pagan-Saxon AD 410–700 basis as research is conducted, new discoveries are
Later Saxon and Medieval AD 700–1500 made, and research priorities evolve. It is intended that
the AAHRG group will continue to exist to pursue its
A number of AAHRG members with specific work on the implementation and updating of the
expertise took certain of these periods to compose Agenda. Other sections which may be considered for
resource assessments and identify gaps in our inclusion in the future include topics such as sacred
knowledge. Data from the Wiltshire Sites and landscapes, cosmology, and the impact of 20th century
Monuments Record (SMR) was made available for interventions in the WHS.
each period. However, more than half of the sites As mentioned above, this Agenda has been
identified on the SMR are undated, indicating the need developed from a series of voluntary contributions from
for further investigation. a number of individual authors, without heavy text
The authors were also asked to highlight lacunae editing.This is reflected in the different levels of detail
and research objectives in relation to a number of given the text and slight variations in the geographical
themes chosen by AAHRG: focus of the period sections.Thus, the text purposefully
reflects a range of different styles and approaches to the
• Settlement and land use future of the past in the Avebury WHS4.
• Environment
• Chronology Endnotes
• Ceremony, ritual and religion 1. The dates given here for the chronological periods
• Engineering, craft and technology reflect the definitions given by the individual authors
• People (diet and health) of the text specifically for the Avebury area. Some of
• Social organisation, economy and subsistence the dates may therefore differ slightly from those
• Transport and communication. included in standardised archaeological period lists
used by organisations such as the (former) RCHME
These themes proved very useful for dealing with and English Heritage.
the complexities of transitional periods and for 2. This time-frame excludes the period of the last major
allowing a comparative approach across the board. glaciation when Britain was largely uninhabited
Much debate continued about the nature of the 3. The spelling of the place-names in this volume follows
Agenda, resulting in the completion of the first draft those set out by Isobel Smith (1965)
document, compiled by Amanda Chadburn in 4. Most of the papers in this volume were written before
December 1997 (AAHRG 1997).This version greatly publication of Peter fowler’s substantial research in
contributed to the research issues written into the the area (Fowler 2000). Future updates of this volume
emerging WHS Management Plan. The first draft will take fully into account the results of that
mainly focused on the resource assessment and influential work.
Part 2: Resource Assessment
2.1 Lower and Middle Palaeolithic Stone Tool Technology

Julie Scott-Jackson
Within the Avebury area is the important high-level
The Lower Palaeolithic period (in Britain) extends Lower and Middle Palaeolithic site on Hackpen Hill.
from approximately 500,000 years BP (Oxygen Isotope Stone tools excavated from this site in 1912 have been
Stage (OIS)13) to around 180,000 years BP (OIS 6/7), the subject of considerable study (see Kendall 1916;
a date which is generally considered to mark the end of Lacaille 1971; Scott-Jackson 2000). Advances in the
the Lower Palaeolithic period and the beginning of the knowledge of artefact technology and the context and
Middle Palaeolithic. No sharp divisions exist anywhere relationships of the various industry types would make
between the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic; the a re-examination and assessment of the other artefacts
distinction is always blurred. The Middle Palaeolithic recovered from the Avebury area likely to prove
period (in Britain) lasted from around 200,000 years worthwhile. It is also possible that some may have been
BP (OIS 6/7) to approximately 40,000 years BP (OIS wrongly described (such as sarcen handaxes), a common
3–4) – a time span which is synonymous with the final problem with surface finds reported over a number of
glaciation at the end of the Devensian period and the years, during which taxonomies are refined and
beginning of the British, Early Post-glacial Upper altered.
Palaeolithic.
The key component in determining the patterns of
Lower and Middle Palaeolithic occupation in Britain Downland Areas and the British Lower and
over geological time may well have been the regulating Middle Palaeolithic Archaeological Record
effects of marked climatic change on both the sea-levels
and the migration of flora and fauna.This generated a The Chalk downlands which so characterise the
situation conducive to intermittent rather than Avebury area of Wiltshire stretch through twelve
continuous occupation. The Lower and Middle counties of southern England, they are invariably
Palaeolithic periods in the British archaeological capped, on the highest parts, with deposits mapped as
record are, therefore, a discontinuous record of Clay-with-flints. Over the past 100 years or so, many
change. Further research is required before any Lower Lower and Middle Palaeolithic stone tools have been
and Middle Palaeolithic sites within the Avebury area found in association with the deposits mapped as Clay-
can be assigned with confidence to a particular stage with-flints. The virtual exclusion of these high-level
within the Pleistocene. stone tools from the British Lower and Middle
Palaeolithic archaeological record is due to the lack of
appropriate research and general misunderstandings
The Earliest Inhabitants regarding both the archaeological integrity of the
artefacts from these high-levels and the processes that
Stone tools represent the oldest traces of a human have operated on the Chalk downlands and the
presence and manufacturing activity in Britain. deposits mapped as Clay-with-flints over geological
Although it is generally agreed that the Upper time. Naturally, those sites which provide the best
Palaeolithic industries are associated with modern examples of Palaeolithic industries and/or contain other
humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) no satisfactory or notable finds will command the greatest attention.
generally agreed correlation appears to exist between However, it is essential that the Palaeolithic landscape
the different industry-types of stone tools and various is considered as a whole, or the local/national ar
species of Homo in the British Lower and Middle chaeological record will be distorted.The information
Palaeolithic; nevertheless enough is known to provide provided here is a brief extract from more substantial
a general picture. It is not possible to say with any publications (Scott-Jackson 1999; 2000) which go
certainty whether the Palaeolithic peoples who visited some way to redressing the issue of the data distortion.
Britain at any one time during the middle and upper
Pleistocene were Archaic Homo sapiens or Neanderthals
(Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) with specific clinal Environment
characteristics. However, the hominid tibia found at
Boxgrove (site date around 500,000 years BP) has been Although Wiltshire lay beyond the ice-sheets, glacial
assigned to Homo cf heidelbergensis (Stringer 1996) and and interglacial cycles during the Pleistocene effected
the Swanscombe skull (site date around 400,000 years dramatic changes on the Avebury area.Unfortunately,
BP) has certain cranial skeletal characteristics usually the role of periglaciation in shaping the downlands over
associated with Neanderthals. No Palaeolithic human geological time has been over-emphasised. Often the
remains have been found in the Avebury area. effects of periglaciation have been confused with those
6
of solution (as noted by Williams 1980; 1986; and artefacts are reported as being single surface finds from
Scott-Jackson 2000) with the result that both the high- the topsoil overlying Chalk downlands. However, the
level Lower and Middle Palaeolithic find sites/spots on most important of the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic
deposits mapped as Clay-with-flints, and indeed the finds from the Avebury area are those which have come
artefacts themselves, have been academically devalued. from the little appreciated Palaeolithic site on the
Significantly, it is the presence of basin-like solution deposits mapped as Clay-with-flints on Hackpen Hill,
features that has been instrumental in retaining the a site which was excavated, with great care by H.G.O.
deposits mapped as Clay-with-flints and the associated Kendall (see Kendall 1916; Lacaille 1971; Scott-
Palaeolithic artefacts on the highest downland hilltops Jackson 2000). It is imperative that the data distortions
and plateaux, over geological time. The greatest relating to Hackpen Hill which are contained in the
number of stone tools found on the highest downland archaeological records as set out in the RCHME
hilltops and plateaux have been surface finds. However, (1999a) report regarding the Kendall (1916) excava
there are a few well documented records of Lower and tions are adjusted.
Middle Palaeolithic artefacts which have been found The high-level sites on Hackpen Hill are in an area
embedded in the deposits mapped as Clay-with-flints mapped as Clay-with-flints, Kendall recorded the
when, for one reason or another, the top-soil was presence of flint and gravel both as surface finds and
removed. Embedded artefacts are particularly during the excavation. Both flint and gravel are
important as the majority of these finds have proved to expected components of deposits mapped as Clay-
be discrete assemblages that are indicative of in situ with-flints. Kendell took great pains to establish the
Palaeolithic sites. integrity of the excavated Palaeolithic artefacts on
The importance of the Lower and Middle Hackpen Hill as the Harrisonian eolith debate was
Palaeolithic archaeological potential within the deposits raging at this time (Scott-Jackson 2000).
mapped as Clay-with-flints on the downlands in the The grid reference (SU 121 726, centre point) does
Avebury area needs due consideration following the not relate to Kendall’s excavations at the high-level site
recent excavation of a Palaeolithic site in Kent. Using in the saucer-shaped solution depressions at SU 128
a specific modern scientific methodology (developed by 726 close to Glory Ann pond, but to the lower levels of
the author) the in situ status of a high-level Lower Monkton Down, where many pits have been dug.The
Palaeolithic site on deposits mapped as Clay-with-flints pits in this low-level Monkton Down area may be the
was confirmed (Scott-Jackson 1994; 2000). These result of flint, gravel or chalk extraction.
findings have effectively demolished previously held The report (RCHME 1999a) states that ‘there has
arguments that none of the high-level assemblages on been considerable flint and gravel extraction in the area
deposits mapped as Clay-with-flints, however appar in the Post Medieval period ... and ... some of the
ently discrete, could be found in situ. The existence of features may even be natural’.
measurable stratigraphy in the excavated trenches was The RCHME report is misleading in its assumption
demonstrated, refuting another long held opinion that that the hollows Kendall excavated on the high-level
processes operating in cold and temperate environ site at Hackpen Hill near Glory Ann pond are one and
ments will have removed any useful stratigraphic or the same as the low-level pits at the base of Monkton
environmental evidence from such deposits. This Down where flint digging and gravel extraction is
unique discovery has now made it possible, for the first recorded. Kendall’s important, and rare, report of
time, to directly link and compare (using more than embedded Palaeolithic artefacts from this high-level
one simple category) a high-level site on deposits site on deposits mapped as Clay-with-flints is
mapped as Clay-with-flints with dated low-level sites effectively, but mistakenly, dismissed as the following
across Britain – effectively expanding the British quotes from the report show: ‘His [Kendall’s]
Palaeolithic archaeological record. excavations at two such depressions in the area in
There have been no detailed geological investiga dicated the presence of a gravel bed, and worked flints
tions of any Lower and Middle Palaeolithic find-sites recovered were compared by him to Palaeolithic
within a 5 km radius of Avebury village. material’ and ‘The discovery of Palaeolithic (and later)
worked flints in the Hackpen Hill area is far from
unusual, there having been many surface finds’.
Resource Assessment (Fig. 1)
To date there are 14 recorded Lower and Middle 2.2 Late Glacial and Early Post-Glacial
Palaeolithic find-spots/sites within a 5 km radius of Andrew J. Lawson
Avebury village (Fig. 1; see Wessex Archaeology 1993;
Scott-Jackson 1999). The period marked by an amelioration of climate after
Most of the finds are curated in either Devizes the last glacial maximum (at c.18,000 BP: OIS 2) to the
Museum or the British Museum, the whereabouts of establishment of the first Neolithic farming
the others remains unknown. The majority of the communities (at about 5500 BP, c. 4300 cal BC1) is
7
�
� �
�
� ��
�
��
�
� � ��
� �
��
�
�
� �
� �
� � �
�
� �
�
� � �
� �
�
� �
�
�
� � ��
�
�
�
� ��
� ��
� ��
� ��
��
��
��
��
�
��
��
��
��
Fig. 1 Distribution of findspots and sites attributed to the Palaeolithic, Late Glacial and Early Post-glacial periods
��
referred to here as the Early Post-glacial. In geological Britain as the Windermere Interstadial; the Younger
terms, the period incorporates the final part of the Dryas equated with the Loch Lomond Stadial, while
Devensian glaciation (the Dilmington Stadial) and the Pre-Boreal, Boreal, etc, are stages of the Flandrian) into
first part of the present Holocene era. However, which human activities can be fitted (Bell and Walker
climatic and environmental changes were not constant 1992; Jones and Keen 1993).
but fluctuating. Detailed studies, largely of pollen se In Europe, Aurignacian industries, which are
quences throughout north-west Europe, have regarded by many to be the earliest undisputed product
established a succession of chronologically distinct of modern humans, occur by 35,000 BP. Few traces of
zones (Bölling, Older Dryas and Allerød combined in such an industry, produced prior to the last glacial
8
maximum some 20,000 years ago, are known in in the British Isles and dated by Whittle to
Britain. Furthermore, Britain appears to have been 4360/4240–4000/3820 cal BC (at 1 sigma, rounded
devoid of human settlement between the glacial out).
maximum and a warmer interlude at c.13,000 BP (the The well-known type site of Windmill Hill, now
Bölling or earlier Windermere) after which the dated by a large range of dates, was not constructed
archaeological evidence of the population gradually until the middle of the 4th millennium BC, and some
increases (Jacobi 1991; Housley et al. 1997). Ar at least of the long barrows of the area are relatively late
chaeological artefact assemblages pre-dating 9700 BP (South Street and Millbarrow – the latter just outside
are technologically similar and may be regarded as Windmill Hill, to the north). For the purposes of this
Upper Palaeolithic, whereas from the middle Pre- study the lower limit has been taken approximately as
Boreal chronozone onwards the toolkits reflect an the lower possible limit of the construction of Horslip
adaptation to more heavily wooded environments and – ie, at about 4300–4200 cal BC, and the upper, that
may be regarded as Mesolithic (Barton 1991; Smith of the funerary assemblages of the Early Bronze Age
1992). The earliest Mesolithic flint industries were and the transition to the Middle Bronze Age at around
based on relatively broad blades but from the 9th 1400 cal BC. Both upper and lower limits, however,
millennium onwards they were based on narrow blades need to be treated as approximate.
and individual artefacts became diminutive in size Archaeological activity within the WHS was intense
(microlithic). during the 20th century, following two and half
centuries of antiquarian activity centred on the henge
and round barrows. Previous archaeological and
Resource Assessment antiquarian activity is listed below, arranged by period
and site, followed by more general studies not confined
To date, 31 sites with Early Post-glacial artefacts have to specific sites. Where gazetteers or full studies exist
been recorded on the Wiltshire SMR in the four 5 km these are referred to rather than summarised. A small
squares centred on Avebury. They are all classified as number of sites outside the WHS are also referred to.
Mesolithic without further qualification.The majority
of finds have been recovered from the surface and, of
these, 16 are single or selected, characteristic artefacts
Earlier Neolithic Avebury (Figs 2 and 3)
(such as microliths, tranchet axes, etc), although larger
assemblages have been found at 11 sites. No Early Windmill Hill causewayed enclosure
Post-glacial site has been selected for excavation but The ditches (or at least one of the circuits) on Windmill
Mesolithic flint implements have been found Hill were noticed by Stukeley (1743) but were not
incidentally during the course of excavations at four subject to excavation until this century. H.G.O.
sites (see below). Most importantly Mesolithic artefacts Kendall, Vicar of Winterbourne Bassett, collected
have been discovered during controlled excavations voraciously on and around the hill early this century
initially designed to establish the sedimentary and and cut sections across the ditches in the early 1920s.
environmental history of the region (Evans et al. 1993). The history of the early investigation of Windmill Hill
An assessment and interpretative model of is fully discussed by Whittle et al. (1999) and in the
Mesolithic land use has been published by Whittle RCHME monograph on causewayed enclosures (in
(1990). prep.) (Figs 4 and 5). Whittle et al. (1999) is also the
full report on the 1988 season of excavation at the site.
Smith’s volume Windmill Hill and Avebury (1965) is
2.3 Neolithic and Early Bronze Age the definitive account of the five seasons of excavation
Rosamund M.J. Cleal and undertaken by Keiller, and of the excavations she
R. Montague conducted in 1957–8.The archive is held largely by the
Alexander Keiller Museum, although some finds are on
The transition to Neolithic practices and ways of life loan to Devizes Museum and some were discarded
may have come relatively late to the Avebury area. (particularly after a serious fire on Keiller’s property in
Whittle pointed out that the area ‘was not a primary 1945), dispersed, or lost.
zone for neolithic beginnings’, that being more likely to
be true of coasts, estuaries and well-watered river Long barrows (other than West Kennet)
valleys (1990, 108). The earliest dated activity A full and useful inventory of sites and possible or
identified so far within the WHS is the construction of mistakenly identified sites is given by Barker
Horslip (Windmill Hill) long barrow, with a range of (1985).Within the WHS three long barrows have been
4340–3640 cal BC (BM-180; 5190±150 BP). This excavated under modern conditions: South Street,
places Horslip at the boundary of Whittle’s phases A Horslip (also known as Windmill Hill) and Millbarrow
and B of the Neolithic period (Whittle 1993, 31, table (Ashbee et al. 1979; Whittle 1994). Just outside the
2), Phase A representing the earliest Neolithic activity WHS two have been excavated in the same time
9
� �
��
� �
�
��
�
� � ��
��
�
��
�
�
� �
� � �
� �
�
� ��
�
� ��
� � �
� � �
� ��
��
� ��
��
� � � �
��
�
��
� � � �
� � �
�
� � � �
� ��
�
�
� � �
��
� ��
��
� ��
� ��
� � � �
��
��
� � �
� ��
��
�
��
�
��
� �
��
� � � �
� � ��
��
� ��
� ��
��
� � � �
� � � ��
� ��
�
�
� ��
��
� � � � �
� ��
� � � �
� � � � ��
� ��
��
��
� � � �
� �
��
��
��
� �
� � �
� �
� � �
� ��
��
� ��
� � �
� � �
� � ��
� �
� ��
�
��
��
� ��
� ��
� �
� ��
��
� �
��
��
��
��
�
��
��
� ��
� ��
� ��
��
� ��
��
��
�
��
��
��
��
��
Fig. 2 Distribution of Neolithic and Early Bronze Age sites and monuments in the wider Avebury area
��
period: Beckhampton Road (Ashbee et al. 1979) and profile and molluscs are published (Evans 1972,
Easton Down (Whittle et al. 1993). 262–4). The finds are held by more than one museum
or university: the artefacts are in Devizes Museum, the
West Kennet long barrow human skeletal remains in the Duckworth Laboratory
Excavated in 1859 and 1955–6; the latter investigations of the University of Cambridge and the animal bones
were fully published by Piggott (1962), who gives a in the comparative series of the Department of Zoology
summary account of the earlier depredations and of the of the Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh (Piggott
excavation by Thurnam (1861; Piggott 1962, 1–7). 1962). The animal bones have recently (1998) been
Subsequent to this excavation a soil pit 1.2 m square analysed at the University of Sheffield, Department of
was excavated into the mound by J.G. Evans; the soil Archaeology and Prehistory.
10
� ��
�
�
��
� ��
��
��
�
��
�
� �
� �
��
� ��
�
� ��
��
��
� � � ��
� �
��
�
��
� � � �
��
��
� ��
� �
��
� ��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
� � � ��
� �
��
��
��
��
� ��
� �
��
��
� � ��
� �
��
� ��
� �
��
� ��
��
� ��
� ��
� � �
��
�
� � ��
��
��
� � �
��
� ��
�
� ��
��
��
�
� ��
��
��
��
� ��
��
��
��
�
��
��
��
��
��
��
Fig. 3 Distribution��
of Neolithic and Early Bronze Age sites and monuments in the Avebury area
Later Neolithic Avebury ‘nothing peculiar was observed’ ( Hunter 1829).

Hunter was reporting this episode and was not
Henge, stone & timber circles, avenues one of those involved.
Avebury henge (Fig. 6) Reported 1833: Record by Henry Browne of digging at
The henge was not extensively or systematically the Cove and finding ‘the place of burnt
excavated until the investigations of Gray and Keiller sacrifices’; probably therefore encountered the
this century, but there have been a number of smaller burning pit of the northern stone (Browne, H.
excavations over the last two centuries. Finds made 1833 An illustration of Stonehenge and Avebury;
prior to Keiller’s work are in general not held by the information taken from Smith 1965).
Alexander Keiller Museum, which was not founded 1865: Excavations on behalf of the Wiltshire
until 1938. Archaeological Society by A.C. Smith and W.
Cunnington, which lasted for a week. They
Reported 1829: Record of digging at the foot of the Cove recognised the burning pit for the northern
stones to the depth of a yard or more, but stone of the Cove and also examined the bases
11
Fig. 4 Stone axes from Windmill Hill Fig. 5 Antler pick and rake from Windmill Hill
of the surviving stones of the Cove, digging on uncovered to show the size of the stone, and
both west and east sides of the western stone then re-covered, the sites marked with wooden
(the back stone) and close to the southern (side) pegs (Lukis 1882, 153). Lukis found much
stone. Apart from the Cove they also trenched coarse pottery, and also records the finding of an
through an earthwork in the SE part of the NE ‘entire vessel of the same kind of clay’ near to the
quadrant, finding part of a ‘stag’s horn’ and centre of the Southern Inner Circle when a hole
pottery. was dug for a flagpole (ibid.).
In the SE quadrant they dug a trench at the 1894: Excavation carried out for Sir Henry Meux,
centre of the Southern Circle, and across it to under the direction of his steward, E.C.
the north, south-west and east of the centre Trepplin, and supervised in the field by another
(each trench c. 60 ft (18.3 m)). In the centre was of his staff,Thomas Leslie. Between the 4th and
a large quantity of burnt sarsen, including 19th of July a trench was dug through the bank
fragments and chips, and ‘charred matter’, and in the SE quadrant, and an extension of 6 ft (1.8
there was similar material in all the trenches.The m) was made along the ditch.These works were
excavators presumed a large central stone in the not published, although an account is given in
middle of the Circle, but found no evidence of the record of the fiftieth general meeting of the
an interior setting to the Circle. Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History
Several trenches were dug into the bank, Society (WAM 33 (1904), 103) and also
although locating these is difficult from the described by Gray (1935, 103–4). He estimated
report and they do not appear to have been the trench to have been 8 ft (2.4 m) wide by 140
substantial. The largest trench was dug into the ft (42.7 m) long, with a 6 ft (1.8 m) extension
bank of the NW quadrant and extended ‘many along the ditch. Gray describes the excavation
yards’ into the bank; the buried soil proved to be from Leslie’s ‘rough diary’, which he possessed.
a stiff, red clay. There were no finds from this Leslie recorded what ‘appeared to be the grass
trench and only one pottery sherd from the surface line of an inner rampart, defined by a
smaller trenches (Smith 1867, 209–6). curved line of vegetable mould 3½ in. in
In total, 14 excavations were undertaken. No thickness’ (ibid., 104).The turf line beneath the
human remains were found but finds did bank was also recognised, reaching a thickness
include sheep, cattle and horse bones, some of of nearly 2 ft (0.61 m) in the ‘middle of the inner
which were clearly modern. Modern glass and slope’. It appeared to have been burnt, with
pottery was also recovered, but British pottery wood ash visible, and was said to be 2.25 ft (0.69
was also found. The buried sites of three stones m) below the level of the adjoining field (ibid.).
in the south-western quadrant were also (A pencil sketch of the bank section, with a
recorded, having been revealed by parching of report of the dig, probably from Leslie, exists in
the grass. correspondence with the Cunningtons in the
1881: Probing by workmen with iron bars (directed by library of the Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural
A.C. Smith and W.C. Lukis) revealed 18 buried History Society, Devizes; information from M.
stones (16 in the Outer Circle and two in the Pitts). There were few finds, all apparently
Northern Inner Circle), half of which were in dispersed, although two antler picks were
positions noted by Stukeley as representing bought by the Society at a subsequent sale of
stones which had been destroyed. These were Meux’s effects (Gray 1935, 105). Passmore
12
Fig. 6 Plan of excavation trenches in the Avebury Henge
describes three flints as having been found, two Passmore, and are in the Ashmolean Museum,
of which he illustrates (1935); one is a serrated Oxford.
flake and one a chisel arrowhead, Clark’s type D 1908, 1909, 1911, 1914, 1922: Excavations on behalf of
(Clark 1935). The other object, a combined the British Association, directed by Harold St
scraper and point, and the arrowhead, are George Gray. Excavations mainly in the ditch,
illustrated by Smith (1965, 225–6, fig. 76.F188, but also to reveal one of the stones of the
F189). These three objects were purchased by Southern Inner Circle (Gray 1935, 131–2, fig. 5)
13
Fig. 7 South-west quadrant of Avebury Henge and Stone Circle
and three buried stones (or three parts of one Post-1960 minor episodes: Since 1960 there have been
stone) within the interior of the Inner Northern many minor episodes of archaeological re
Circle (ibid., 108). The excavations were cording, mainly associated with services and
published in 1935. The finds are mainly in maintenance.These have been recorded by staff
Devizes Museum, though some were dispersed. of the Alexander Keiller Museum (mainly
A catalogue (compiled by M. Pitts) of the Faith Vatcher in the 1960s and 1970s; Michael
location of antler and bone finds, including Pitts in the late 1970s and early 1980s), by
dispersed finds, is in the Alexander Keiller archaeological contractors and by National Trust
Museum. Smith also illustrates and discusses archaeologists. Some of these have been
some of the St George Gray material (1965, reported only in interim, but most of the
224, n.1; 228, n.2, 229). archives are available in the Alexander Keiller
1937, 1938, 1939: Excavations by Alexander Keiller in Museum. Excavation preceding work on the
the NW sector (1937), SW sector (1938) and north wing of the Great Barn in 1982 was
SE sector (1939). In the NW and SW sectors published in full (Evans et al. 1985). National
the excavations were largely confined to the Trust work is recorded by Intervention No.;
Outer Circle, while in the SE sector an area in summaries are sent to the Wiltshire SMR, and
the interior was excavated, including part of the full reports and archives are available at the
interior of the Southern Inner Circle. A partial Alexander Keiller Museum.Work on the backlog
section into the bank was undertaken of the SW of unreported sites from the 1960s onwards is
sector in 1938. Keiller published an interim being undertaken by the National Trust at the
report on the 1937 and 1938 seasons (Keiller Alexander Keiller Museum.
1939) but the excavations were not fully 1969 Avebury School Site: Unpublished excavation by
published until 1965 (Smith 1965). Mrs Vatcher on the site of the new building for
1960: Excavations by Stuart Piggott to confirm or the Avebury Church of England primary school.
refute the existence of a third circle, north of the The area was largely occupied by medieval
Northern Inner Circle, and to locate a stone features, but a small area of remnant bank
near the northern entrance causeway shown by (surviving to a height of c.2.0 m) was included
Stukeley. In neither case did he find evidence for in the excavation. Soil profile and molluscs for
the existence of former stone settings (Piggott the remnant bank were published by Evans
1964). (1972, 268–74). Finds and paper archive are in
14
the Alexander Keiller Museum. A reinter passed through in 1668 (cited by Burl 1992, 168)).
pretation of the buried soils has more recently That area is now much disturbed because of the former
been publish (Pitts and Whittle 1992, 206; and cafe at that site; if the burials lay south of the road and
more fully described in Pitts 2001b). east of the Sanctuary they would probably have been
removed by the chalk digging which has extensively
The Sanctuary disturbed that area.
Excavated by M.E. Cunnington in 1930, the Sanctuary Dr Toope’s comments are, however, an intriguing
was interpreted in the excavation report as an unroofed observation, although possibly one more relevant to the
timber structure that was later replaced by a stone Roman or medieval sections of the Research Agenda.
structure.The surviving stones were destroyed in 1724. The impression given, although the point is not made
The site was not totally excavated, and as can be seen specifically by Toope, is that they were extended burials
from plate 1 of the excavation report (M.E. rather than crouched, and therefore perhaps less likely
Cunnington 1931) large areas between the outer stone to be Neolithic or Bronze Age than later. If the burials
circle and the outer post-hole circle were left were on the level ground to the north they must have
unexcavated, as was the vast majority of the area lain very close to the Roman road and might therefore
immediately outside the structure. be Roman, or, as Mrs Cunnington suggested, they may
Various reinterpretations of the site have been have been a war cemetery for the battle aet Cynetan of
proposed. R.H. Cunnington (1931) attempted to place 1006 between the Saxons and Danes (Cunnington
all the post-holes as components of a single roofed 1933, 169). There are both Roman and (early) Saxon
building. Piggott (1940) regarded the site as a burials within the Overton Hill barrow cemetery, on the
succession of progressively larger roofed timber edge of which the Sanctuary is situated.
buildings, the last with a stone circle incorporated in
the structure alongside wooden posts. He considered Smaller stone circles
that the outer stone ring was added as a fourth phase. A number of smaller stone circles is recorded in the
Pollard (1992) rejected the more complicated phasing vicinity of Avebury. Some survive in a much reduced
for a single or, at most, double phased (one timber and state, whilst others have been totally destroyed. None
one stone) monument.The majority of finds from The of the circles has been excavated in the accepted sense,
Sanctuary are in Devizes Museum; the animal bone is and consequently both the date and form of these
in the Natural History Museum. In 1999 a limited features, and the possible presence of associated
area, within the area excavated by Mrs Cunnington, features are unknown.
was reopened by M. Pitts, which has aided in
reinterpretation of the evidence from 1930 (Pitts 2000; 1. Falkner’s Circle:This circle, c. 258 m east of the West
2001a). Kennet Avenue, was observed by a Mr Falkner in 1840,
Human bones were discovered close to the who saw one standing stone, two recumbent stones and
Sanctuary in the 17th century by a Dr Toope of nine ‘hollow places’ where stones had stood.The circle
Marlborough, who corresponded with John Aubrey was c. 36.5 m in diameter. Only the standing stone now
(letter of 1 December 1685; quoted in Long 1858, remains, and the precise location of the circle relative
327). Dr Toope reported having encountered workmen to the standing stone is not known, the map published
who had been making new boundaries to enclose land in Long (1858) not showing any features by which the
for grass, who had found bones. Dr Toope returned and relation of the surviving stone to the former stone
collected ‘bushells’ for making into medicine. The setting can be estimated (ie, there is no compass point
burials were shallow, only a foot or so beneath the and the field boundary, which did exist at that time, is
topsoil, and Toope reported their feet as lying towards not shown).
the ‘temple’ (the Sanctuary). ‘I really believe’ he wrote,
‘the whole plaine, on that even ground, is full of dead 2.Winterbourne Bassett: This circle lies 5 km to the north
bodies.’ (ibid.). of the Avebury henge (and outside the present
He also gives some indication of location, when he boundaries of the WHS) in an area of ridge and furrow.
says that the ‘temple’ is about 80 yards away (c. 73 m) The circle was originally recorded by Stukeley as
and mentions that the workmen were not ‘far off the comprising two concentric rings of stones, with a single
road’. The ground is most ‘even’ to the north of the stone to the west of the circle. It is not clear from the
Sanctuary, as it lies on the end of Overton Hill with the description whether the stones in the circles were
ground falling away on the other sides, but it seems odd standing when Stukeley saw them, although an outlier
in that case that Toope did not mention that the burials to the west does appear to have been. None of the
were across the road from the Sanctuary (as the road stones was standing when recorded by Smith (1885)
appears to have run close to its present course, at least and Lukis (1883).They investigated the site by probing
by the time of the Andrews & Drury map of Wiltshire and (very) limited excavation (just enough to uncover
1773, and indeed the stones of the surviving circle were the buried stones), and recorded a central stone which
apparently visible from the road at the time Pepys had not previously been mentioned. The true form of
15
the circle is unknown as the possibility exists that the ‘stone-hopped’, and so large areas of the interior of the
stones may be misplaced rather than fallen in situ. A Avenue in this area have not been investigated
geophysical survey was carried out here in 1998 by archaeologically.
English Heritage but was inconclusive.
Area 3: Five stone-holes have been excavated at the
3. Broadstones SU 165 688 (Barnatt 1989): This is a southern part of the Avenue, where it straddles the A4
small stone circle first recorded by Aubrey as to the east of West Kennett House, (see Smith 1965,
comprising eight recumbent stones ‘In a Lane from fig. 72) and four stones survive in the hedgerow
Kynet towards Marlborough’. Stukeley added the bordering the A4 (ibid. 72). The very southern end of
observation that four other stones may have formed the the Avenue where it joins the Sanctuary was excavated
beginning of an avenue running out from the circle. by M.E. Cunnington in 1930. The far eastern part of
The exact location of this circle is not known and the Avenue as it approaches/leads from the Sanctuary
attempts to place it using the documentary evidence was fieldwalked in 1991 by The National Trust.
have resulted in three separate grid references being
suggested (Meyrick 1955; Burl 1976; Barnatt 1989). Area 2: The rest of the Avenue between Areas 1 and 3
The evidence for its existence seems convincing, and has only been partially and non-intrusively investigated.
it seems likely to have lain close to the river Kennet just The area from just to the south of the Late Neolithic
east of the southern end of that part of Clatford Bottom ‘Occupation Site’ excavated by Keiller to a farm track
which lies north of the A4, possibly around SU north of the A4 was investigated by geophysical survey
162–163 690, in a field which, according to (published in Ucko et. al. (1991)).The part of the West
documentary sources cited by Meyrick, has been Kennet Avenue south of Keiller’s excavated area and
known as Broadstone Mead for centuries (1955, 192). west of the lane from the A4 to Avebury (which
includes the area geophysically surveyed) was
4. Langdean SU 1180 6570: Recorded by Passmore intensively fieldwalked in 1995. None of the stoneholes
(1923), about 11 m in diameter; could be a barrow in this area have been excavated.Two stones survive in
kerb, but uncertain. It is rejected by Barnatt, who this area, and the position of a third was located to the
describes it as ‘likely to be the rim of a barrow or a north of the A4 by the Ordnance Survey in 1883 (see
house site’ (1989, 505). A recent review of the site is also section on Geophysical Survey, Section 5.1).
provided by Mortimer (1997).
The exact course of the West Kennet Avenue is,
5. South of Silbury/Beckhampton Penning (SU 0985 surprisingly enough, still uncertain. The results of the
6714): A large oval setting of small stones, 261 ft north geophysical survey were good in the northern part of
to south, 216 ft east to west (c. 80 x 66 m), probably the area surveyed, but inconclusive in the southern
first recorded by Stukeley (‘a very large oblong work, area. The course of the Avenue in the field to the west
like a long barrow, made only of stones pitched in the of the Sanctuary is also unknown, as it is in the vicinity
ground’; 1743, 46) and later investigated by Smith of West Kennett House.
(1878; 1881). Considered by Barnatt to be an Some Ground Penetrating Radar has been carried
‘enclosure rather than a stone circle’ (1989, 505) and out on the Avenue south of the length excavated by
by Barker to be a possibly destroyed long barrow Keiller. This has successfully identified a number of
(Barker 1985, 24, entry no. 31). Most recently buried stones (Shell and Pierce 1999).
reviewed by Mortimer (1998).
Beckhampton Avenue & associated structures
The existence or non-existence of an avenue of
West Kennet Avenue standing stones running towards Beckhampton and
The West Kennet Avenue links the henge with the connected in some fashion with the two standing
Sanctuary, some 2.3 km to the south-east. For the Longstones was a matter of debate from the early 18th
purposes of this discussion, the Avenue will be split into century when its existence was postulated by Stukeley
three areas: until 1999 when its existence, at least in Longstones
Field, was demonstrated (Gillings et al. 2000a; 2000b).
Area 1: the northern part excavated by Keiller Ucko et al. (1991, 195) note that from 1719 to 1723
Area 2: the central area between areas 1 and 3 Stukeley did not recognise any entrance to the henge
Area 3: the eastern part of the Avenue from West as original other than the southern one, so that the
Kennett to the Sanctuary question of an avenue to the west did not arise. None
of the previous observations by other writers had
Area 1: The northern third of the Avenue was noticed such a setting of stones.
excavated and reconstructed by Keiller in 1934–5 and In Abury Stukeley describes the course of the
1939; two stone-holes within this length had earlier Avenue in some detail (1743, 34–7; table viii),
been excavated by M.E. Cunnington in 1912. Keiller charting its course from the western entrance to the
16
henge, along the village street, across the Winterbourne, would have formed the inner face in Stukeley’s
out past South Street to the Longstones where one of interpretation.
the stones formed the back of a Cove, down to The Beaker is classified as Northern/Middle Rhine
Beckhampton and beyond, finally terminating below group by Clarke (1970, fig. 233). A small sherd of
Cherhill and Oldbury Downs. The descriptions seem another Beaker (classified by Clarke as indeterminate)
fairly confident at the village end, becoming vaguer as was found 2ft (0.6 m) deep in undisturbed packing
the Avenue passes westward, until the final western boulders against the wall of the hole on the opposite
stretch seems fairly clearly not much more than wishful side to the burial (Cunnington 1913, 5), appearing to
thinking combined with the occurrence of natural indicate that this stone at least was erected during the
sarsens. currency of Beakers (c. 2600–1800 cal BC).
In an attempt to resolve some of the uncertainty
The Longstones surrounding the stone settings around the Longstones
Two stones, one larger than the other, standing in the geophysical survey was undertaken by the Ancient
field north of South Street. In Stukeley’s interpretation Monuments Laboratory. Both resistivity and magneto
of the evidence the larger stone (Adam) was the eastern meter survey were undertaken and have been fully
side stone of a south-east facing Cove which lay within published (Ucko et al. 1991, 196–9; see also David,
the Avenue, with the backstone fallen and the western Section 5.1). Further geophysical survey was
side stone destroyed (Ucko et al. 1991, pl. 60; Stukeley undertaken by the same team in 1999, leading to the
1743, 35). The backstone was therefore a stone of the successful excavation that summer of six stone and
Avenue, as was the stone now known as Eve, the stone positions for the Avenue east of the Longstones
smaller of the two surviving stones, which stands some by the universities of Leicester, Southampton and
40 m to the east. Stukeley saw only those two stones Wales (Newport) (Gillings et al. 2000a). The same
still standing, but he clearly did see others fallen, the excavations also confirmed the existence of an
most important being the putative backstone (he enclosure, first recognised from aerial photography in
records the western arm of the Cove as already having 1997, adjacent to (and with the ditch passing between)
been carried away, so that must be regarded as less the Longstones (Fig. 8). This is now known to date to
certain). Aubrey may have seen the Cove standing, as the 3rd millennium cal BC having produced Grooved
he describes ‘southward from Aubury in the ploughed Ware from low in the ditch and a radiocarbon date in
field, doe stand three upright stones perpendicularly, the first half of that millennium.
like the three stones at Aubury; they are called the
Devill’s Coytes’ (quoted in Long 1858, 330).This has
usually been interpreted as referring to a cove on the Cursus Monument
West Kennet Avenue, but could have been the
Beckhampton Cove (Ucko et al. 1991, 190); both West A single aerial photograph (Maj. Allen Neg 143) shows
Kennet and Beckhampton could be described as a possible cursus monument just outside the WHS to
‘southwards’, West Kennet to the south east and the west, in Cherhill parish (SU 0703 7000). Close to
Beckhampton at south of west, and the description as it are ring-ditches, one of which seems to enclose a ring
‘in the ploughed field’ would seem to fit Beckampton of holes. The site has not been located on the ground,
better than West Kennet, as the latter would seem to be largely due to the disruption to the area caused by the
more naturally described as beside the road. military buildings around Yatesbury (Grinsell 1957,
The larger stone (Adam) fell on 2nd December 55).
1911 and was re-erected by Mrs Cunnington in 1912.
(The stone may not have been re-erected in the same
attitude as before its fall; I.F. Smith pers. comm. on Monumental Mounds (ie, other than obvious
photographic evidence of A.D. Passmore). A disturbed barrows)
burial was found during the excavation of the stone-
hole and the area around it, associated with sherds of Silbury Hill
a Beaker. It is not clear from Mrs Cunnington’s report The largest prehistoric artificial mound in Europe,
which side the Beaker-associated burial lay, as she Silbury Hill has long attracted speculation about its age
describes its position as ‘presuming that the three and function. Five additional episodes of intrusive
stones of the cove originally formed a sort of triangular investigation and one non-intrusive have taken place on
enclosure this face of the stone [ie the face against and around the hill since the Duke of Northumberland
which the burial lay] would have been the inner one’ and Colonel Drax first sunk a central shaft from the top
(1913, 3). It is clear from the introduction to this of the mound down to ground level in 1776–7.
report, however, that Mrs Cunnington considered that In 1849, and again in 1922, tunnels searching for a
both remaining stones formed part of a widely spaced central burial chamber were unsuccessful, and in 1867
Cove and that her ‘inner face’ would therefore have excavations proved that the Roman road (the present-
been the eastern face, rather than the western, which day A4) swerved around the base of the hill, and
17
Fig. 8 Excavation in Longstone Field, Beckhampton 1999
therefore post-dated it. In 1886 the ditch around the The Marlborough Mound
hill was explored by sinking ten shafts into it (Whittle This is 19.8 m high, with a basal diameter of about 84
1997, 10). m and a summit diameter of 30 m (Best 1997); it lies
In 1959 a resistivity survey of the mound was close to the confluence of the Kennet and Og and
undertaken, but did not produce any notable results. formed part of Marlborough Castle (it now lies within
Three seasons of excavations were carried out by the grounds of Marlborough College). It has not been
Professor R.J.C. Atkinson in 1968–70, and these excavated, but in two episodes, this century and last,
showed that there were three phases of construction of antlers have been found within the Mound: once in
the hill, and important environmental information was 1912 in a ‘pocket about half way up and 2′–3′ in’; in the
recovered (Atkinson 1968; 1970). These excavations 1890s a single antler was found on the opposite side of
have recently been fully published by Whittle (1997) the Mound. In the 1930s a single antler tine was also
who also provides a summary of the previous found ‘on the slope of the chalk 40 yds to the north’
investigations (ibid., 8–11). (Brentnall 1938). Of these occurrences one (1912) was
18
certainly seen by the author who reported it, and the World Heritage Site has been examined by these four
find of the antler tine north of the Mound may also episodes; the area covered by the earlier collections is
have been. No note is made in the publication of the not certain.
subsequent location of the antlers.
The evidence for a prehistoric date for the Mound Early collectors
has most recently been reviewed by Best, who J.W. Brooke: Collection in Devizes Museum, including
concludes that it is probably not prehistoric as it fits some material from Avebury (Cunnington and
quite comfortably within the category of mottes as Goddard 1934, 8).
although large it is not outside the range of known
motte size (Best 1997). It would appear, however, W. Browne: Largely Windmill Hill; Collection in
sensible to reserve judgement until the date of antlers Devizes Museum (ibid., 6).
associated with the Mound are known. Recently
Grooved Ware has been discovered in Marlborough, H.G.O. Kendall: Large quantities of flint were collected
less than 1 km from the Mound, which indicates some from the Avebury region in the early part of this
Later Neolithic activity in the area (information from century by H.G.O. Kendall, the vicar of Winterbourne
Cotswold Archaeological Unit). Bassett. Kendall noted concentrations of flint on
Windmill Hill, and also on Hackpen Hill, and
West Kennet Palisaded Enclosures published reports in journals including Proceedings of
Two enclosures and associated features, surrounded by the Prehistoric Society of East Anglia, Proceedings of the
palisades, in the valley of the Kennet; they are later Prehistoric Society and Proceedings of the Geological
Neolithic in date and have produced a range of Association. His collections and some notes are held in
radiocarbon dates, Grooved Ware and other finds. the Alexander Keiller Museum, Avebury, having been
Excavations in the late 1980s and early 1990s and bought from him and from his widow by Alexander
geophysical surveys over the same period have been Keiller.
fully published by Whittle (1997).
A.D. Passmore: A.D. Passmore also collected large
numbers of flints in the Avebury environs, and his notes
Earlier Bronze Age Avebury allow the approximate findspots of concentrations of
struck flint artefacts to be located, as did the notes
Round barrows made by Kendall. His collection is held in the
A Gazetteer of round (and long barrows) was compiled Ashmolean Museum, Oxford.
by the RCHME. Round barrows within the World
Heritage Site were investigated in the 19th century Recent work
largely by Sir Richard Colt Hoare (1812) and by Dean R. Holgate and J. Thomas 1983: The results of a
Mereweather (1851), although destruction by plough fieldwalking survey in the Avebury environs, and a
ing and antiquarian disturbances are also recorded by consideration of Kendall’s and Passmore’s collections
Aubrey and Stukeley. Grinsell (1957) remains a useful was published in interim form by Holgate in 1987.The
and accessible summary of barrow investigations prior lack of information about the field conditions
to the mid-1950s. encountered, methodology employed and negative
observations made by Kendall and Passmore led
Holgate and Thomas to survey areas of Avebury in an
Environmental Archaeology attempt to map more precisely the distribution of
artefacts across the landscape.The shift in settlements
Recent work has largely been by the University of from the upper slopes of the Downs in the earlier
Wales, under the direction of Professors J.G. Evans and Neolithic towards the lower valley slopes in the later
A.W.R. Whittle. Full accounts are given in Whittle Neolithic was surmised from the survey material.Their
(1993), Evans et al. (1993) and Whittle (1997). Allen work also concluded that the flint scatters, recognised
(this volume) summarises the environmental evidence by Kendall and Passmore and encountered during the
from the area. recent survey on the SE slope of Windmill Hill and NE
of Avebury, were mainly later Neolithic in date and
contained a variety of implements, whereas those to the
Settlement and Evidence of Occupation south of Avebury were probably Bronze Age in date
and contained few implements. Both the finds and
Surface collections and casual finds paper archive are held by the Alexander Keiller
Unstructured but extensive surface collection was Museum.
undertaken by interested amateurs in the early years of
this century. In recent years a total of four episodes of Surface collection by University ofWales (Cardiff) 1992: An
more methodologically rigorous field collection has area south of the Windmill Hill causewayed enclosure
taken place. Just over 15% of the area of the Avebury was subjected to systematic surface collection in 1992,
19
associated with test pit and geophysical surveys. This Age finds, except for the location of a lost disc barrow,
work demonstrated both earlier Neolithic and later although the conditions of recovery during the work
Neolithic activity and is fully published (Whittle et al. may have contributed to this apparent absence (Allen
2000). and Powell 1996a, 82).
Surface collection by the National Trust:Three episodes of

fieldwalking have been undertaken by the National 2.4 Late Bronze Age
Trust on land prior to it being put down to permanent Gill Swanton, C.J. Gingell and
pasture. These plots of land are no longer ploughed in
order to prevent any further damage to both underlying
Andrew J. Lawson
archaeological features and to artefacts already in the
ploughsoil. The three episodes comprise: The bulk of the field archaeological investigation of this
period has taken place on the chalk downland to the
1. The field to the east of the Sanctuary, and 21 north, east and south of the core of the WHS, spanning
acres around Seven Barrows, walked in 1990 its boundary. The latter cuts across the extensive field
2. The field to the south and west of the Sanctuary; systems which form the bulk of the physical evidence
and the south part of Avebury Down and the for the middle and later Bronze Age in the study area.
north part of Overton Hill, to the west of the Evidence for Late Bronze Age activity (Fig. 9) is
Ridgeway, walked in 1991 derived from aerial photography, study of earthworks
3. The southern part of Waden Hill and part of the and some excavation; the resulting information falls
West Kennet Avenue, walked in 1995 into many of the themes identified in the Research
Agenda, described below.
The paper archive and the finds for these projects Collections of relevant material are held by the
are held by the Alexander Keiller Museum in Avebury. museums at Avebury and Devizes.The holdings in the
These finds are under analysis. latter includes the Meyrick collection, a valuable result
of field walking at the time that land was being brought
Surface collection by Chippenham College: Several into cultivation during and after World War II. There
episodes of collecting were carried out in the early may be material in other museums and in private
1990s by Chippenham College Practical Archaeology hands.
Group. Apart from short notes of the work in the yearly
archaeological review in WAM there appears to be no
record of this work. Some of the finds have now been 2.5 Iron Age
deposited in the Alexander Keiller Museum but in the Amanda Chadburn and
absence of full records they are generally locatable only Mark Corney
to field.
The Iron Age of the Avebury WHS is poorly under
Occupation evidence stood. In contrast to earlier periods, there are no
In addition to finds made during surface collection and spectacular earthworks or monuments within the
evidence of occupation at the major sites there have boundaries of the WHS. However, in the wider vicinity,
been many small instances of material representing there is plenty of evidence for activity during this period
occupation having been recovered fortuitously during which must have had an effect upon the archaeology
ground disturbing works and excavations of sites for within the WHS (Fig. 10). For example, Avebury may
other reasons. Such instances include: Horslip and have been close to an Iron Age oppidum in the
South Street barrows (Ashbee et al. 1979), pre- Marlborough area. We have therefore discussed those
enclosure at Windmill Hill (Smith 1965; Whittle et al. monuments and sites outside the WHS which we feel
1999), pits on Waden Hill, sherds possibly from an are likely to have influenced the Iron Age sites within
open site on the ridge east of Avebury (‘Hackpen’; the WHS. We have indicated where sites and
Piggott 1935), from Butlers Field, Avebury and monuments fall within the WHS in the text which
beneath the henge bank at Avebury (Evans et al. 1993; follows.
Smith 1965), Avebury G55, close to West Kennet long The resource assessment was undertaken using data
barrow (ibid.) and from Overton Hill (Smith and from the Wiltshire County Council SMR, the English
Simpson 1964). Heritage NMR and NAR, the Celtic Coins Index at
Outside the WHS there are notable occurrences also Oxford University and personal knowledge.The SMR
at Cherhill (Evans and Smith 1983) and Roughridge for the Iron Age in the WHS contains many entries of
Hill (Proudfoot in prep.). It is likely that these are only pottery finds from excavations and fieldwalking, and
a small sample of the whole, although it has also to be some single findspots of metalwork, as well as details
noted that along the whole length of the Avebury sewer of ‘minor’ settlements.
trench there were virtually no Neolithic or Early Bronze
20
� �
��
� �
�
��
�
� � ��
� �
�
��
�
� �
� � � �
��
� ��
�
� ��
� � �
� � �
� ��
��
� ��
��
� � � �
��
�
� � � �
� � �
�
� � � �
� ��
�
�
� � �
��
� ��
��
� ��
� ��
� � � �
��
��
� � �
� ��
��
� � ��
��
�
��
� �
��
� � � � ��
��
��
� ��
��
� � � � �
� � �
��
�
�
� ��
��
� � � ��
� �
� ��
� � � � ��
� ��
��
��
� � � �
� �
� � � �
��
��
�
�
� �
� � �
� �
� � �
� ��
��
� ��
� � �
� � �
� � ��
� �
� ��
�
�
� �
� ��
� ��
� ��
��
�
�
�
��
�
� ��
� ��
� ��
��
��
��
��
��
�
�
��
��
��
��
��
Fig. 9 Distribution of later Bronze Age sites and monuments in the Avebury area
��
Resource Assessment finds including chariot fittings (SMR data). Other

settlements of this period survive as earthworks on the
Although best known for its earlier prehistoric edge of the chalk escarpment overlooking the Vale of
monuments, the Avebury area also contains a wealth of Pewsey, such as Huish Hill and Newtown, Alton Priors.
later prehistoric remains. The most highly visible of Away from the scarp edge, apart from the Fyfield and
these are the hillforts, represented by Oldbury Castle, Overton Down area (RCHME AP transcript 1995),
Rybury, Giant’s Grave, Martinsell Hill and Barbury the remaining non-hillfort sites are largely plough-
Castle; none of these fall within the WHS. Barbury levelled and only known from air photography or
produced interesting evidence for metalworking in the antiquarian accounts.
form of a ‘blacksmith’s hoard’ containing an number of
21
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
�
� ��
� ��
� ��
��
��
��
��
��
��
�
��
��
��
��
Fig. 10 Distribution of Iron Age sites and monuments in the Avebury area
��
The settlement record for the period is biased Wiltshire (McOmish 1996). All of these named sites
towards the chalk, although the work of Mrs fall outside the WHS, underlining the difficulty of
Cunnington at All Cannings Cross demonstrated the interpreting this period within the WHS.
potential and importance of the Vale of Pewsey The area is relatively ‘busy’ in the Iron Age. For
(Cunnington 1923). As well as All Cannings Cross, example, there are nine known enclosures in and
similarly located sites of the Early Iron Age include around the WHS which are morphologically likely to be
Erlestoke (unpub. Devizes Museum) and Black Patch, Iron Age although they do have similarities to some
Pewsey (unpub. Devizes Museum). All these sites may Anglo-Saxon enclosures; see Blair 1985.They include
have had a similar function to those ‘midden’ sites at a cropmark site south-west of East Kennett (SU 1066);
Potterne (Lawson 2000) and East Chisenbury, two enclosures represented by earthworks and
22
cropmarks near New Town (SU 1164: scheduled as Table 2. Probable Iron Age settlements in and
Wilts 681 and SU 1264: scheduled as Wilts 679); around the Avebury WHS
earthworks and cropmarks at Huish Hill (SU 1564); an
enclosure and field system in Preshute parish at which
Iron Age sherds were recovered (SU 1374); an
enclosure on Overton Down of a pre-Roman Little
Woodbury type settlement containing four circular
timber buildings, partly excavated by Peter Fowler in
1965 (Fowler 1967; SU 1370); and a cropmark site at
North Farm (SU 1368) with a denuded bank and
ditch, and antennae, enclosing many pits.
These latter two sites are scheduled monuments
(Wilts 824 and SM number 21763 respectively) and have virtually no evidence for this. Fowler found little
are the only known examples of Iron Age enclosures evidence for Iron Age arable fields on the Fyfield and
within the WHS. Such enclosures all presumably Overton Downs, and speculated that the Downs might
represent rural settlement locations. A now lost Iron have been large pastoral ranches during this period,
Age settlement at Preshute found by Hoare, at which perhaps relating to the nearby hillforts (Fowler, pers.
querns and pottery were recovered, may be the same comm., Society of Antiquaries lecture 27.11.1997;
as the site at SU 1374 described above (Table 1, no. 5). 2000)
There are also a number of other similar enclosures Records of individual findspots of Iron Age material
(all plough-damaged and under cultivation) at foot of in the region (Wilts SMR; NMR; Oxford University
escarpment overlooking Vale of Pewsey, including a Celtic Coin Index and Devizes Museum) point to
large site at Woodborough Hill (SU 1161), which may relatively high levels of activity throughout the 1st
be Early–Middle Iron Age, and another enclosure at millennium BC (we await the new Iron Age catalogue
Huish (SU 1463). Further cropmarks around the All of material in Devizes Museum; Corney forthcoming).
Cannings Cross site at SU 0763, are indicative of These findspots are mainly of coins, brooches, pins and
further non-enclosed settlement in this area perhaps pottery. However, when examined in detail, the
Iron Age in date. A rapid examination of aerial photo distribution of this material, along with earthworks or
graphs held by English Heritage at Swindon has cropmarks of Iron Age type does, on the available
identified further potential sites in the Vale of Pewsey, evidence, appear sparse for the area around Avebury
at the foot of Martinsell Hill, Knap Hill and Horton, henge. This contrasts strongly with the evidence from
Bishop’s Canning. Some of the numerous other elsewhere within the WHS, especially as excavations on
undated enclosures in and around the WHS noted in Windmill Hill and Millbarrow have identified later
the SMR may also date to the Iron Age. prehistoric episodes of cultivation (Smith 1965;
Five apparently unenclosed settlements are also Whittle 1994). The research by Wessex Archaeology
known, three from Fyfield (Table 2). There are into a new foul sewer pipeline in the area also produced
numerous boundaries and field systems within and a paucity of evidence for Iron Age activity in their study
around the WHS, many of which are traditionally area (Powell et al. 1996, 83), so it appears likely that
described as ‘Celtic’. However, there has been little some parts of the WHS were actively used during the
published work on these fields, and although it is likely Iron Age, and other areas avoided.
that at least some were in use during the Iron Age, we Within and in the near environs of the WHS, there
are two marked concentrations of La Tène I fibulae,
Table 1. Probable Iron Age enclosures in and firstly on the high ground to east of Avebury henge, and
around the Avebury WHS secondly, to the west beyond Beckhampton, which are
indicative of some sort of Iron Age activity in these
(site numbers correspond to enclosures shown on Fig. 10)
areas. A fragment of a bronze scabbard chape was
found some considerable time ago near Beckhampton
(referred to in Powell et al. 1996, 13), and another fibula
was recovered from Millbarrow in Whittle’s excavations
(Whittle 1994). Silbury Hill also seems to have acted
as a focus for activity, with records of an Iron Age urn,
an Iron Age coin and La Tène I bow brooch, and
further Iron Age Durotrigian silver and bronze staters
being discovered ‘near’ the Hill (Fig. 11).
Large, unordered surface collections of Iron Age
pottery were collected by Meyrick from the 1930s–50s,
largely on the high ground to east and south of the
henge complex, which seem indicative of the fact that
23
and Durotrigian coinages are also found in the area

(Table 3), and very recently (in 2000) a ‘Savernake
Forest’ type stater has been found at Avebury (not
included in Table 3). Although most recent scholars
(Millett 1990, 67) place the Avebury WHS firmly
within the territory of the Atrebates (which is partly
supported by the coin finds – see Table 3), the coin
evidence suggests that early Trinovantian/Catuvel-
Fig. 11 Durotrigian silver and bronze staters, found near launian coinages were also used in the area, and that
Silbury Hill in 1991 (¾ actual size) there is a strong influence from the Dobunni.
the field systems in this area were being used (if not Who the Belgae were and where they fit into this
formed) during the Iron Age (Gingell, 1992, 4). area is also unknown although it is suggested by Millett
However, some of Meyrick’s ‘Iron Age C’ pottery could that they were also not that far away from the WHS
be immediately post-Conquest in date. Peter Fowler’s (1990, 67).
work on the Fyfield and Overton Downs (Fowler 2000) A cropmark site at Brown’s Farm (just to the south
provides more detailed evidence for land use in this of Marlborough) appears to show a polygonal enclo
area during the Iron Age, although preliminary results sure, which is possibly an Iron Age shrine/temple (SU
suggest a paucity of data for this period (Fowler and 1967). This interpretation is strengthened by its
Blackwell 1998; Fowler 2000). Iron Age pottery is proximity to an adjacent Romano-British temple
found at a low density throughout many parts of the complex.
WHS (SMR data) – perhaps as a result of the There are – as usual with the Iron Age – very few
manuring of arable fields. human remains from the area, and none known from
In the WHS and its environs, Iron Age coins appear the WHS itself, although the famous Marlborough
to concentrate towards the east, around Savernake and Bucket probably came from a rich funerary context,
Forest Hill near Marlborough, and into eastern end of and there are reports of other cremation burials from
Vale of Pewsey around Milton Lilbourne. These and this vicinity. Possibly all such reports relate to a single
other finds suggest that there was a major Late Iron Age (now lost) cremation cemetery near Cunetio. An burial
centre at or near Forest Hill – the Marlborough Bucket dated to the Iron Age was excavated by H.G.O. Kendall
(Fig. 12) came from just below Forest Hill earthwork in 1922–3 at Winterbourne Monkton (SMR data) just
site on the floodplain. As well as earlier potin coins, to the north of the WHS.
Trinovantian/Catuvellaunian, Atrebatic, Dobunnic The dating of Iron Age sites in the WHS is largely
dependant upon typological dating methods, using
pottery and the metalwork finds described above. The
Table 3. Iron Age coins in the Oxford Celtic
Coin Index (up to June 1997) within the area
Eastings 0–25, Northings 60–80, that encloses
the Avebury WHS, and total of all known Iron
Age coins in the area
Note: The Celtic Coin Index mainly holds records of coins

that have been photographed, so not all Iron Age coins are
Fig. 12 The Marlborough Bucket recorded within it
24
Devizes Museum Iron Age collections currently being recent aerial photographs taken by RCHME, most
reassessed will provide a basic chronological framework notably at Huish (SU 1363) and Wilcot (SU 1361). At
for the area (Corney forthcoming). For the early Iron least one of the above sites (Brown’s Farm, SU 1967,
Age, the artefacts from the All Cannings Cross site may be associated with a temple or shrine).
provide some relative dating evidence, and the A large number of other settlements of varying
forthcoming publication of the early Iron Age site at characteristics are known or suspected, for example,
Potterne will also help (Lawson 2000). For the Late Fyfield Down and Overton Down (Fowler 2000), All
Iron Age, the coins from the area, although unstratified, Cannings (SU 0764), Knap Hill (SU 1263),
are suggestive of the use of the WHS during the later Honeystreet (SU 1061), Cherhill Down (SU 0569),
Iron Age, and the ceramics from Withy Copse near east of Gopher Wood (SU 1464), Huish Hill (SU
Martinsell Hill (SU 1764) also provide some relative 1564), Martinsell Hill (SU 1763 & 1864) and
dating evidence for this period. Marlborough (SU 1968). Additionally, a number of
Absolute dates are rare, and have been recovered cropmark enclosures of probable Iron Age date are, by
incidentally through research programmes into the analogy with similar sites elsewhere in Wiltshire, likely
monuments of earlier periods.There are some Iron Age to have continued into the Romano-British period, for
radiocarbon dates from the henge itself, from charcoal instance, the enclosure complex at East Kennett (SU
from stake-holes, suggesting some use of the 1066). Similarly, finds of Romano-British pottery from
monument during this period (Whittle 1990). Another hillforts such as Oliver’s Castle (SU 0064) and Oldbury
radiocarbon date of the Late Bronze Age/Early Iron (SU 0469) suggest a continued use of Iron Age
Age was obtained on antler fragments from the eastern locations, (in the case of Oldbury, the further discovery
side of Silbury Hill recovered during excavations in of pennant roof tiles raise the possibility of a substantial
1867 and 1922. This date – 1280–780 BC (I-2795; Romano-British building, possibly a temple, adjacent
2750±100 BP – is dismissed as being too late by both to the hillfort). Extensive spreads of Romano-British
Atkinson (1967, quoted by Whittle (1997) and Whittle material noted by local fieldworkers such as Meyrick
(1997, 12), and is unlikely to represent Iron Age activity (Swanton 1987) suggest a well-settled landscape.
at Silbury. Notable concentrations occur at West Overton (SU
1268), Alton (SU 1163 & 1166), East Kennett (SU
1165), All Cannings Down (SU 0966) and
2.6 Romano-British Winterbourne Monkton (SU 1274–1275) (ibid).
Mark Corney and Bryn Walters Evidence of industrial activity is concentrated on
the eastern fringe of the region; most notable is the
Although overshadowed by the prehistoric remains, the Savernake Pottery industry, a ceramic tradition of
Avebury environs also contain a significant Romano- probable Late Iron Age origin (Hopkins, pers. comm.),
British archaeological resource (Fig. 13). A number of continuing into the 3rd century AD. Major kiln groups
substantial settlements are known in the region and exist around Column Ride (Annable 1962) and
they will have undoubtedly influenced the local Broomsgrove Farm, with a possible further group
economy, society and administration. To the north of immediately to the west of Martinsell hillfort and at
the region the ‘small town’ at Wanborough has a regular Withy Copse, Oare (Swan 1984).
grid and at least one public building (Burnham and The Roman period is the closest historically
Wacher 199; Phillips and Walters 1977).To the west the recorded period with which an obtainable resource
poorly understood site of Verlucio (Sandy Lane) is a might be compared with prehistoric ceremonial and
focus for villa and other settlement types, whilst recent religious practices. Consequently the collating of
work in the Silbury Hill (Fig.14) area has demonstrated Roman evidence is of paramount importance. The
the presence of a substantial settlement here (Powell et possibility of continued reverence of the Avebury
al. 1996; Corney 1997a). On the eastern fringe of the complex should be given serious consideration (cf
discussion area the ‘small town of Cunetio (Mildenhall) Williams 1998). Ritual and ceremonial sites in the
is likely to have played an increasingly important role region are strongly suggested at a number of locations.
as a regional administration centre in the late Roman A major shrine associated with a spring is probable at
period (Corney 1997b). Mother Anthony’s Well (ST 9964), located at the foot
Villas and other substantial buildings are fairly of Oliver’s Castle, Oldbury hillfort (see above),
evenly distributed over the area of enquiry, with known Brown’s Farm, Marlborough (SU 1967) – where a
or probable examples at Cherhill (SU 0370), Bishops close association with the find spot of the Savernake
Cannings (SU 0465), Avebury Trusloe (SU 0870), Hoard suggests a Late Iron Age origin, Winterbourne
West Overton (SU 1368), Preshute (SU 1670), Monkton Down (SU 1272) and close to Silbury Hill
Brown’s Farm (SU 1967), Forest Hill (SU 2068), (SU 0968–1068). An unusual Roman barrow burial
Draycot (SU 1463), and Alton (SU 1361). Further tradition has been identified through excavation on
probable sites in the Vale of Pewsey have been noted on Overton Hill (Smith 1964) and Roman activity
25
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
�
�
� ��
� ��
� ��
��
��
��
��
�
�
��
��
��
��
��
��
Fig. 13 Distrbution of��

Romano-British sites in the Avebury Area
around prehistoric funerary monuments is suggested landscape during the Romano-British period with
by finds from West Kennet long barrow (Piggott 1962; settlements of many forms.The potential wealth of the
Williams 1998).The possibility of Roman re-use of the area in the late Roman period has been recently
Avebury henge is discussed in more detail below. demonstrated by the discovery of the large hoard of
Burials of Roman date are known from a number of siliquae from Bishops Cannings (Guest 1997).
locations such as Honeystreet (SU 1061), The results of Peter Fowler’s work on Fyfield Down
Marlborough (SU 1969) and Silbury Hill (SU 1068). and Overton Down (Fowler 2000) are of great
The general background pattern of ‘stray’ finds interest and importance in providing an insight into the
from the region suggest an ordered and structured evolution of the chalk downland economy.
26
Fig. 14 Plan of the Silbury Hill Romano-British settlement

27
��
��
��
��
��
�
� ��
� ��
� ��
��
��
��
��
��
��
�
��
��
��
��
Fig. 15 Distribution of post-Roman and early Saxon sites in the study area
��
2.7 Post-Roman and Early Saxon Local charters, although of later date, are likely to
Gill Swanton and Peter Fowler indicate land divisions which are relevant to this period.
Other sites which are highly likely to bear a relationship
The sunken-floored houses discovered in the Glebe to events in the immediate Avebury area are the late-
Field Car Park and excavated by Mrs Vatcher and by occupied Roman villas, Cunetio, Wansdyke, Overton
Chippenham College provide the bulk of the evidence Down Site XII, Bishops Cannings hoard and local hill
currently known for early Saxon settlement in the forts such as Oldbury which has produced post-Roman
immediate area. There have been further finds of metalwork.
pottery of the period at West Kennett and there may
well be more in the collections of the local museums at Glebe Field Car Park Site, Avebury: This area contains
Devizes and Avebury. the remains of a number of sunken featured buildings
28
which produced, in terms of finds, mainly grass-

tempered pottery, bone objects and animal bone
together with a small amount of metalwork and a few
glass beads. Further evidence from this site will be
forthcoming when the material from the Chippenham
College excavations is available. Sunken-featured
buildings and chaff-tempered pottery occur throughout
the Anglo-Saxon period but the indications are, in the
case of Avebury, that these are early; the glass beads are
6th century (unless they are heirlooms) and Andrew
Reynolds research has identified shifts in settlement in
the Avebury area throughout the Saxon period.
Wansdyke, Cunetio and Bishops Cannings: There is

evidence for massive fortifications being built at Cunetio
in the late Roman period, though not enough research
has been done yet to establish for how long this
stronghold was in use. There is a consensus of current
thought that the construction of the Wansdyke (Fig. 16)
took place around AD 500. At Bishops Cannings, not
far from the conjunction of the Roman Road and
Wansdyke at Morgans Hill, a hoard of coins, jewellery
and military metalwork had been deposited adjacent to
a large villa. These sites indicate considerable activity
in the late and immediately post Roman periods.
2.8 Later Saxon and Medieval

Andrew Reynolds
Avebury is one of the few places in north Wiltshire for Fig. 16 The Wansdyke from the air
which excavated and standing structural evidence exists
for an Anglo-Saxon settlement with a long history, that Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Settlement at
then developed into the medieval period and later.The Avebury: an assessment
research potential is high and it is a matter of some
concern that no full synthesis has been published. Excavations to the west of the henge monument at the
Consequently, the importance of the Anglo-Saxon and present visitor car park have provided evidence for
medieval remains has yet to be fully realised. settlement in the early Anglo-Saxon period, although
The only work to attempt to draw together all forms the density, character and dating of occupation is hard
of evidence for Anglo-Saxon and medieval settlement to determine on the basis of current knowledge. Dating
at Avebury is that prepared by Professor Martyn Jope rests on three glass beads considered by Peggy Guido
and intended for publication in Isobel Smith’s 1965 to be of 6th-century date associated with at least two
volume Windmill Hill and Avebury. The absence of sunken featured buildings identified in excavations
Jope’s paper from the volume has meant that an im inside the entrance to the Glebe Field car park in 1976
portant aspect of Avebury’s archaeology has remained (DoE 1977, 32–3). Further structural evidence,
without public assessment, although a version of the probably broadly contemporary, includes a sunken
article has recently been published (Jope 1999). A featured building in the northern part of the car park,
recent undergraduate dissertation undertaken at found in 1985, and a further example adjacent to the
University College London has listed the unpublished Vatchers’ earlier excavation found in 1988 (Borthwick
excavations and provided a useful overview of the 1985; Leah 1988).
current state of knowledge based upon the work of the The 1985 excavations revealed further features
present writer (Harward 1997). which were not excavated owing to time constraints –
The documentary evidence for Avebury and its a situation to be very much regretted given Avebury’s
parish has been synthesised and published in the VCH potential for understanding settlement processes in the
account of the Hundred of Selkley (Freeman 1983), pre-Conquest period.The 1988 excavations revealed a
whilst the evidence for transport and communications series of post-holes, which might represent either fence
in and around the monument has recently been lines or perhaps fragments of earthfast timber halls; the
clarified and expanded (Reynolds 1995). former would indicate a date in the 6th century or later,
29
when property boundaries became common again on settlement extending to the west of the suggested burh;
rural settlement sites (Reynolds 1999, 48–50). Anglo- a situation of no small academic importance.
Saxon interest in the henge itself is revealed by the It may be significant that the morphology of the
finding of chaff-tempered pottery in the upper fills of earlier layout is comparable with the elliptical plans of
the henge ditch during St George Gray’s excavations in both Ramsbury and Kintbury to the east; both im
the earlier part of the 20th century (Gray 1935). This portant Anglo-Saxon towns with minster churches and
type of pottery, however, can only be broadly dated to burh suffixes. To the south, at Tilshead, and at Winch-
between the 5th and early 10th centuries (Hamerow et combe in Gloucestershire, further elliptical plan forms
al. 1994, 15) in the absence of sherds displaying can be observed in combination with later Anglo-Saxon
diagnostic decoration or form. administrative centres and minster churches (although
Excavations by John Evans et al. to the north of the there is no documented minster at Tilshead) (Haslam
car park settlement in Butlers Field have provided a 1984, 117–18, fig. 49; Bassett 1985).
series of radiocarbon dates between AD 800 and AD Within the suggested burh, which survives as an
1200, which indicate occupation in the middle to late earthwork along the southern and western sides of the
Anglo-Saxon period and beyond (Evans 1993, 146, enclosure, regular plots of land are laid out
table 1). Of particular importance is a calibrated date perpendicular to the east–west herepað route that passes
of AD 680–1030 (OxA-1220; 1160±80 BP ) obtained through both the henge and the burh: the course of the
from faunal remains apparently in an occupation herepað itself can be reconstructed from a variety of
deposit (Evans et al. 1993, 146, table 1 and 190). This sources (Reynolds 1995). Settlement planning of this
middle to late Anglo-Saxon date was obtained from type is commonly found in the Burghal Hidage towns,
Evans’s Cutting J, which lay on the south side of an such as Cricklade and Wallingford, but not in normal
eliptical plan-form arguably of this period (see below). rural settlements. It is of interest to note that the area
At the School site, on the south side of the west encompassed by the proposed burh is comparable to
entrance of the henge, Faith and Lance Vatcher estimations made for the extent of Anglo-Saxon
revealed occupation earlier than, contemporary with, Marlborough and Wilton (listed in the Burghal Hidage)
and later than, that found by Evans, including a date (see Haslam 1984, 99, fig. 39 and 126, fig. 52). It might
of AD 660–1020 (HAR-1696; 1200±80 BP ) from a pit also be suggested that the henge itself served as an area
containing grain in association with occupation debris where stock could be kept in times of emergency. The
(Wilson 1970, 200-1; Cleal pers. comm. 2000). plan forms of many of the larger burghal towns
Although the Vatchers’ excavations remain un indicates open spaces within the major fortifications,
published, the excavation plan indicates dense and but the henge would have served the purpose perfectly
successive occupation phases. Timber structures are and thus have minimised the labour requirement for
seemingly represented, although the stratigraphic the initial building of the burh.
relationships between the various features are not On the basis of plan form, the existence of a
shown. Structures and boundaries are clearly substantial church, the association of the henge and
perpendicular to the current high street but little more settlement with a herepað, and the various
can be ascertained without a detailed analysis of all archaeological discoveries, it is possible to suggest that
aspects of the excavation archive. Avebury is a failed small town of 9th and 10th to early
Medieval Assize Rolls of 1289 describe the henge 11th century date (Reynolds 2001). The early
itself as waledich (ditch of the Britons) (Kempson 1955, radiocarbon date from the School site could just as
60–1), and it seems highly likely that the modern place- easily belong to the initial phase of settlement within
name of Avebury refers to an Anglo-Saxon settlement the proposed burh as to the underlying plan-form,
to the west of the monument rather than the henge particularily as the earthwork phases at most excavated
itself. The English Place-Name Society interpretation burh sites are undated. Jeremy Haslam has suggested
of the name meaning ‘fortified place by the Avon’ that the decline of Chisbury and Bedwyn (both east of
(Gover et al. 1939, 293–4) would fit well with the Marlborough) can be ascribed to the growth of
evidence from the RCHME survey (Fig. 17) which Marlborough and Ramsbury in the late Anglo-Saxon
shows a rectangular enclosure, surrounding the church period (Haslam 1984, 140). It seems equally likely that
and regular house plots, extending westward from the competing settlements to the west of Marlborough
west entrance of the henge toward the Winterbourne. could have experienced decline to the benefit of
The most likely historical context for such a settlement Marlborough and perhaps also to Calne. By 1086 the
plan is the later 9th or early 10th century, when Domesday Survey records only the presence of the
fortified settlements, or burhs, were either refortified or church and its holding of two hides of land under the
newly established across southern England in response entry for Avebury, itself an indicator of the former’s
to the Viking threat after Alfred’s defeat of Guthrum minster status (Blair 1985, 108, fig. 7.1).
and his army at Edington in Wiltshire in 878 (Anglo- St James’ Church itself contains displaced sculpture
Saxon Chronicles s.a. 878). The RCHME survey of the 9th–10th centuries. Recent work on the building
appears to show an underlying, and thus earlier, by the Compton Bassett Area Research Project and
30
Fig. 17 Extract from the RCHME survey of Avebury with outline of the possible 9th century burh and earlier
enclosures
(independently) Professor Rosemary Cramp has mistakenly refers to the sculpture being set into the
revised both the dating and recording of the structure tower rather than the north-west corner of the nave).
undertaken by Harold and Joan Taylor (Taylor and It may be further conjectured that the displaced
Taylor 1965, 32–4; Semple in prep.). The north-west sculpture is related to a church contemporary with the
corner of the present nave is composed of side alternate building of the putative burh . The rebuilding of c. AD
megalithic quoins incorporating a fragment of Anglo- 1000 described below, therefore, apparently occurred
Saxon sculpture, of later 9th or 10th-century date and shortly before Avebury’s decline to a settlement of a
originally part of either a cross shaft or a coffin lid.This more rural character.
displaced stone indicates that the standing Anglo- The 10th- or 11th-century fabric of St James’
Saxon fabric might represent the second masonry includes single splay windows, with external rebates for
church on the site. Monumental sculpture is more wooden frames, on either side at the west end of the
likely to be associated with an important church rather nave. Circular windows with holes for wicker formers
than, for example, representing an isolated preaching appear to have been positioned above the single-splay
cross as is often presumed (cf. Jope 1999, 61 who windows and it seems probable that each side of the
31
nave was furnished with four single-splay windows with other being Edith Weston in Rutland) of the
circular lights above each one. The chancel of the Benedictine Abbey of St Georges de Boscherville near
Anglo-Saxon church was apparently discovered during Rouen (Kirby 1956, 392). The priory at Avebury was
restoration in 1878 being shorter than the present set up soon after grants of land were made for its
chancel and probably of a single bay (see Taylor and support in 1114 (ibid.). The peculiar position of the
Taylor 1965, 32–4 for a fuller description and Semple French monks is borne out by the fact that they were
forthcoming for a revision of aspects of the Taylor’s granted leave from Shire and Hundredal jurisdiction by
work). St James’ Church (dedicated to All Saints in the Henry I; privileges which were later confirmed by
13th century) would have been an impressive building Henry II and Richard I in 1189 and 1198 respectively
by local standards in the years around AD 1000. (ibid.). The priory seems to have been a small-scale
The medieval settlement can only be viewed in operation, probably with a small staff, but a series of
terms of continuity from the Anglo-Saxon period as its disputes with the parish church (and its owner by 1133,
location (and that of later settlement) was clearly Cirencester Abbey) is recorded throughout the Middle
established by the late Anglo-Saxon period. This is Ages (ibid.).
evidenced by the Vatchers’ school site excavations and A number of potentially medieval vernacular
by the often-substantial finds of medieval pottery from buildings survive in the village, but only a thorough
the majority of excavations within and adjacent to the investigation behind the present frontages would
henge monument (Jope 1999). Clearly though, the enable this aspect to be elucidated. A small amount is
medieval settlement was complex and dynamic with a known about medieval domestic structures from
number of foci and the precise chronology of expansion excavations over a wide area including the Vatcher’s
and contraction is not yet established.The finding of a School site excavations noted above for their earlier
late Anglo-Saxon coin brooch at Avebury Trusloe may remains.The recent Kennet Valley Foul Sewer pipeline
indicate that the origins of that settlement lie in the pre- revealed apparently dense occupation in Butler’s
Conquest period, although the find might equally well Field, to the south and west of the henge, characterised
represent a casual loss (Wilts SMR SU06NE404). A by pits, ditches and a possible sarsen wall-foundation
sherd of ‘possibly Saxon’ pottery was found on the sealed by a layer containing a single sherd of 13th–14th
south side of Beckhampton Road at Avebury Trusloe century pottery (cf. Powell et al. 1996, 63–5). These
in 1997 (Wilts SMR SU06NE405). results concur with those from the cuttings made in
St James’ Church was comprehensively remodelled Butler’s Field by Evans et al. (1993), which suggest that
in the Norman period, during the early to mid 12th the dry valley floor either side of the Winterbourne was
century, when aisles were added on both sides of the cultivated and settled from the mid- 12th to late 13th
nave. Towards the end of the 12th century, the church century, with the subsequent consolidation of
acquired its finely decorated font.The font is seemingly settlement on higher ground on either side of the river
not Anglo-Saxon as is often claimed, (cf. Powell et al. (Avebury Trusloe to the west and Avebury to the
1996, 59), although certain stylistic details of the upper east)(Powell et al. 1996, 61). The recent RCHME
band of decoration do suggest Anglo-Scandinavian survey has recorded complex and well-preserved
influence/survival/revival and there are indications that earthworks in and around the monument with features
the lower band of decoration might be a later addition. of several phases clearly visible west of the henge.These
There is 13th-century work, including the chancel and latter features include water meadow earthworks and
a lancet window at the west end of the north aisle, but the well-preserved remains, seemingly of at least two
also several reset groups of encaustic floor tiles at the phases, of the settlement earthworks of Avebury
east end of both aisles.The tower is late medieval (15th Trusloe.
century), with archaeological indicators that its west The use of the henge up to the 14th century is
door is a later insertion, perhaps of the 16th century. largely unremarkable in archaeological terms. Pottery
Both aisles were widened during the 15th century, of 12th- and 13th-century date has been recovered with
presumably on different occasions as they are of frequency from excavations and other interventions
differing widths, and the south doorway (of the second within the monument, both from excavated boundary
half of the 12th century) which gave access into the banks and ditches, largely in the south-east sector of the
Norman church was reset into its current position.The henge, but also from what was presumably ploughsoil
rood loft at the east end of the nave is 15th century, but (Burl 1979, 37; Jope 1999, 68). During the 14th
much of the screen itself is later, probably Victorian. century interest in the stones themselves is brought
The presence of an alien priory at Avebury in the sharply into focus via evidence for the burial of up to
medieval period is of significance yet remains 40 (and perhaps more) of the stones (Smith 1965,
uninvestigated by archaeological techniques (excepting 176–8). Jope’s analysis of medieval ceramics from stone
the RCHME survey). Traditionally the priory is burial pits concluded that there was little material
thought have occupied the site of Avebury Manor, ie, earlier than the late 13th or 14th century (Jope 1999,
immediately adjacent to the Parish church (Burl 1979, 67), whilst the recent discovery and excavation of
34). Avebury was one of only two English holdings (the buried stones of the Beckhampton Avenue has revealed
32
at least four as yet undated stone burials which are largely without the henge until the post-medieval
probably con-temporary with those found within the period, but extended and expanded westwards and
henge (Gillings et al. 2000a, 7). northwards in the form of Avebury Trusloe and the
There is a tendency to ascribe the destruction of growth of Avebury village itself.
stones at Avebury by medieval populations to
ecclesiastical concerns about pagan practices or
revivals, but to view the better documented stone The Avebury Area
burning and burial of the 18th century in more
practical terms (cf. Burl 1979, 66–7; Gillings et al. Archaeological evidence for Anglo-Saxon settlements
2000a, 7). Impressive as the prehistoric stone settings of the period up to c. 950 in the vicinity is poorly
are in terms of scale, if medieval populations driven by researched and almost entirely unpublished. Settlement
religious fervour desired the removal of the stones this sites have been recognised at Yatesbury, Liddington,
could surely have been done in totality quickly and Swindon and Littlecote among other less well
relatively easily. Of particular interest is the discovery investigated examples (Fig. 18). Burial sites of the early
of the so-called ‘barber-surgeon’ found during Keiller’s period comprise intrusive interments in round barrows
campaign in 1938 (see Burl 1979, 39–40 for a such as those at Yatesbury and West Overton (Smith
description and discussion of this remarkable find).The 1884; Eagles 1986), although flat cemeteries are known
burial is dated to c. 1320–1350 on the basis of assoc to the east at Blacknall Field, Pewsey and in the south
iated coins (Ucko et al. 1991, 178) and concurs well of the county, most notably in the Salisbury region
with that suggested by ceramics for the general period (Eagles 1994).
of medieval stone burial at Avebury. Further, a buried The Late Anglo-Saxon timber fortification on the
stone along the line of the Kennet Avenue was top of Silbury Hill is of considerable interest as studies
associated with a worn silver penny of Henry III, of Anglo-Saxon civil defence have relied almost
minted between 1222 and 1237 (Burl 1979, 37). The wholly upon the evidence from the major fortified sites
condition of the coin indicates its loss after a listed in the Burghal Hidage of the early 10th century.
considerable period of circulation and a date of Richard Atkinson’s discovery of postholes, associated
deposition c.1300 is not unlikely. with iron nails and a coin of Æthelred of ‘about 1010’,
The late middle ages at Avebury are represented on the shelf of the upper terrace of the hill indicate a
largely by additions and alterations to St James’ fortified site (Atkinson 1970, 313–14) suggesting that
Church, as described above. Interestingly, Jope notes the name Silbury is best interpreted as OE sele-burh
that late medieval ceramics are largely absent from meaning ‘fortified structure or hall’.The presence of a
excavated assemblages at Avebury, although this most Viking burial on the top of Silbury Hill has been
likely reflects the reversion to pasture of the henge suggested on the basis of the finding of human bones,
interior as opposed to a contraction of settlement (Jope including a skull, ‘deers horns’, an iron knife with a
1999, 69). bone handle, two ‘brass bits of money’ and an iron
horse-bit on the summit of the hill in 1723 (Stukeley
Summary 1743, 158). Stukeley’s draft manuscript for his 1743
From the evidence available, it can be argued that early Abury, however, describes the horse-bit as being found
medieval settlement began immediately to the south separately and seemingly on the slopes of the hill rather
west of the henge monument, probably during the 6th than the summit (Evison 1969, 335–6, note 9). The
century, and most likely comprised a single farmstead. condition of the skeletal remains and the ‘deers horns’
By the early 9th century the settlement had moved is described as ‘excessively’ and ‘very’ rotten by
northwards and eastwards, up to the west entrance of Stukeley, and all of the finds, with the apparent
the henge itself. During the 8th or perhaps the 9th exception of the horse-bit were made in the area of a
century an elliptical plan-form developed, with ‘great hole’ sunk into the top of the hill in 1723. In
evidence for further enclosures to the north and south, other words, none of the finds need be associated with
which perhaps included the precinct of a minster the human and animal bones, which may well be
church (the present-day St James). In the 9th century prehistoric to judge by their condition. The horse-bit
the settlement was arguably replanned on a major scale itself is probably not of 9th- or 10th-century date as
and the minster church, either rebuilt or newly built, suggested by Vera Evison, but more likely an 11th
leaving the fragments of Anglo-Saxon sculpture which century piece (J. Graham-Campbell pers. comm. 1998)
survive today incorporated into the late Anglo-Saxon associated with late Anglo-Saxon military activity on
church and the present south porch. The extent of the the summit of the hill.
proposed 9th century settlement indicates speculative Fieldwork atYatesbury to the north-west of Avebury
urban development, but by the time of the Domesday has suggested that the region was defended by a
Survey the rural character of Avebury, which has network of minor fortifications which relied on
persisted into modern times, was established.With the intervisible signal stations and military roads (Reynolds
exception of property boundaries, settlement lay 1999, 92–4; 2000, 113–18). Viking activity in the
33
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
� � � ��
�
� �
� �
�
� �
� � � �
� �
�
�
��

� � � � � �
� �
�
� �
� �
� � � �
� �
� �
�
� � � � � � �
��
� � � � � �
�
� ��
�
� �
� � ��
� �
� � �
��

� �
�
� � � � � � � � ��
� �
Fig. 18 Hundreds and parishes in northWiltshire with Avebury parish and the Hundred of Selkley highlighted
��
vicinity of Avebury is recorded in Anglo-Saxon Chronicle the medieval settlement pattern was largely fixed.Two
entries for 1006 and 1010. substantial field projects, on Fyfield and Overton
Archaeological evidence for late Anglo-Saxon Downs to the east of Avebury and at Yatesbury to the
settlement in the locality is notably sparse, although this west, provide important comparative data from which
is probably due to a lack of fieldwork rather than any to assess the relative economies and status of nearby
other factor.The Pewsey Vale in particular possesses an Anglo-Saxon and medieval settlements (Fowler 2000;
impressive number of Anglo-Saxon land charters, Reynolds in prep.).
largely of the 10th century, which indicate that the Apart from existing settlements with medieval or
basic framework of the landscape in the Avebury region earlier origins, there are also extensive traces of
is a product of that period.The origins of the manorial deserted or shrunken settlement in the region (for
system, viewed more clearly in the Domesday Survey a example Bupton, Richardson and Beversbrook to the
century later, lie in the 10th century during which time west and Shaw to the east). Medieval archaeologists
34
now view such sites as part of the continuum of human potential for addressing national research questions in
settlement and not as a phenomenon in their own right. addition to local and regional issues. The potential to
Work on the individual settlements of the region has examine long-term trends in the development of
tended toward morphological analysis in recent years settlement at Avebury from the post-Roman period
(Lewis 1994), although the deserted settlements of the through to the end of the middle ages and beyond
broader western region have recently been reviewed makes the medieval archaeology of Avebury very
(Aston 1989) along with aspects of medieval settlement special indeed.
in general (Aston and Lewis 1994). There are
limitations with morphological approaches and it is
clear from the archaeological record that settlements 2.9 The Palaeo-environmental Data
were subject, in many cases, to continual morphological Michael J. Allen
change.There has been only limited work in the market
towns. Jeremy Haslam’s 1984 review of Wiltshire’s In this review and research agenda, the term ‘palaeo
Anglo-Saxon towns still provides the research agenda environmental’ refers to data, material or analyses
as little new data has become known, apart from that, which help us to formulate opinions about the nature
for example, at Warminster and Wilton (Smith 1997; of the past physical landscape; how it changed, and the
Andrews et al. 2000), although Wiltshire County nature, use and management of the biological resources
Council are currently preparing a new assessment of it supported. It refers to evidence which relates to the
the urban archaeological resource in the county. nature of the broader landscape and of vegetation type,
The potential of the pre-Conquest charter evidence landscape form, soil type, and land use categories. In
for landscape reconstruction has been clearly other words what did the landscape look like? and what
demonstrated (Hooke 1998; Costen 1994), although did people do in it in terms of acquisition of resources
much remains to be done with this material and with for life and to eat, rather than the ‘economy’ per se. In
the later cartographic and documentary sources. Of earlier periods exploitation occurred without major
particular importance is the reconstruction of the modification and in later periods highly sophisticated
agrarian landscape in both the early and middle Anglo- schemes of management of introduced biological
Saxon periods, prior to the establishment of open field resources existed; ie, farming of livestock and of cereal
systems in the region. and other food plants together with a wider economic
The precise chronology of the introduction of open basis including trade and import of these food stuffs.
fields in the broader Wessex region is a fundamental This document attempts to cover a period from 18,000
research issue, which requires extensive fieldwork if BP (Late Glacial) to the later Saxon and medieval
broader patterns are to be understood. The recent period (AD 1500). The landscape and its resources
discoveries of buried stones along the line of the former essentially define the parameters of human activities
Beckhampton Avenue highlights this aspect given that (environmental possibilism) as outlined by Allen
extensive traces of ridge and furrow were found (2000c). In later periods (Iron Age on) land use relates
underneath the modern ploughsoil over the area in closely to aspects of the economy, subsistence and the
which buried stones were found (Gillings et al. 2000a, environment.
3, fig. 1). If the Beckhampton stones were buried The review and the palaeo-environmental research
during the early 14th century (see above), then a late agenda here largely concentrates on the nature of the
date is apparent for the ridge and furrow given that the physical landscape, as this provides a framework, and
field would be difficult to plough if the stones were still outlines the preservation of the palaeo-environmental
present. Open fields are generally considered to material. In concentrating more on landscape rather
develop from the 10th century (Reynolds 1999, than economic issues it is biased towards the
155–6). The social and settlement organisation that prehistoric and earlier historic periods rather than later
their existence implies emphasises the importance of episodes. In addition, although evidence of crops and
establishing chronologies, particularly when settlement plants are included, evidence derived from animal bone
evidence is sparse. Medieval strip-lynchets have been is not overtly included this section as this is more
recorded in the Avebury area, recently at Waden Hill, readily available and is dealt with in the period reviews.
Beckhampton and Compton Bassett, but one of the The nature of the presence and preservation of
most extensive excavations undertaken on such field palaeo-environmental information is largely contingent
remains is close by at Horton (Powell et al. 1996, 65–6; upon the physical and climatic characteristics of the
Soffe 1993, 145; Reynolds 1994, 180–5; Wood and area under study. In this case the largely calcareous
Whittington 1959). Cretaceous chalklands produced rolling landforms
incised by river valleys that support rendzinas and
Conclusion typical brown earths (see Evans et al. 1993, fig. 3).
Southern England has lower rainfall totals than
In conclusion, the Anglo-Saxon and medieval archae upland Britain, and has a summer rainfall deficit which
ology of Avebury and its environs is complex and precludes ombrotrophic and blanket peat bog
varied, but also of a high quality and with significant formations, and the accumulation of deep peat and
35
��
��
��
� ��
��
��
�
��
� ��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
� ��
��
��
��
��
��
�
� ��
� ��
� ��
��
��
��
��
�
��
��
��
��
Fig. 19 Location of sites in the Avebury area where environmental evidence has been recovered
��
sediment in sequences such as occur in upland glacial are highly biased towards snails and bone which are
valleys. well preserved, and biased against waterlogged remains
The predominately calcareous geology largely in this largely free draining and dry landscape. It is
produces strongly alkaline hydrological, peat, soil and perhaps a surprise, in view of the nature of the area,
sediment conditions. Such alkalinity and biogenically that a relatively high number of pollen analyses have
active conditions are generally detrimental to the been conducted for a chalkland region.This largely due
preservation of pollen (Scaife 1987, 126–7), but often to the research and personal interests of Dimbleby
ideal for calcareous shells and bones. To a large extent (1965) and Dimbleby and Evans (1974).
these geological and climatic parameters define the The majority of the palaeo-environmental data that
nature of the preserved remains and it is, therefore, no can be offered for more detailed scrutiny has been
surprise to see that the resources, and study of them, recovered from archaeological excavation or specific
Table 4.sites in the Avebury area where environmental evidence has been recovered
36
37
environmental enquiry since 1970 (Table 4). It is landscape is not served particularly well by
fortunate in that Professor John Evans has had a long- environmental enquiry (Allen 2000a, figs 2 and 3).
term interest in the area, working with Isobel Smith in There has been an emphasis on the understanding
the late 1960s, publishing data from a series of small of the local environment around individual sites or,
excavations and a wider landscape interpretation in his more recently, on the ecological and historical
book (Evans 1972), then publishing the data with the development of individual components of the
full archaeological reports (eg, Ashbee et al. 1979; landscape, eg, the Upper Kennet river valley system
Evans and Smith 1983). His research in the area (Evans et al. 1988; 1993). Apart from the novel and
concluded with a major research project (Evans et al. ground breaking review by Smith (1984), there has
1993), but his influence, or that of his research students been little attempt to examine the WHS as a whole ‘site’
and colleagues, is still seen in the corpus of data and in terms of its palaeo-environmental landscape. review
excavations undertaken and published by Whittle, of the palaeo-environmental history and general
comprising one of the most outstanding ongoing development of the WHS is given in the archive to the
research projects in the chalklands of southern archaeological works along the Kennet Valley Foul
England. Sewer pipeline undertaken by Wessex Archaeology, and
in Landscape Assessment and Planning Framework
(Chris Blandford Associates 1997, section 2.4). These
The Data generally indicate the typical landscape succession
published by Evans (Evans and Jones 1979, 209).
A relatively large number of specific investigations of
Late Glacial deposits is derived from John Evans’s early
research interest in the environment and climate under Endnote
1All radiocarbon dates, unless otherwise stated, are presented
which periglacial solifluction deposits occurred. The
at 2 sigma (95% confidence). Calibrations have been cal
majority of the data in the area are, however, heavily
culated using the maximum intercept method (Stuiver and
skewed towards the monumental aspects and
Reimer 1986) and the data of Stuiver et al. (1998)
accompanying Neolithic and Bronze Age sites. In the
Iron Age and later periods, it is fair to say that this
Part 3. Research Agenda
3.1 Lower and Middle Palaeolithic The Lower and Middle Palaeolithic site on
Julie Scott-Jackson Hackpen Hill in the Avebury area is one of the rare,
very important, well documented ‘embedded’ high-
Lower and Middle Palaeolithic artefacts represent the level stone tool-manufacturing sites on deposits
earliest evidence of human occupation in the Avebury mapped as Clay-with-flints. Carefully controlled,
area. They may be found in a variety of geological detailed investigations at Hackpen Hill, using the new
contexts, namely: deposits mapped as Clay-with-flints; methodology developed for such sites which identifies
low-level gravels; and the topsoil overlying the Chalk. subtle stratigraphies in high-level excavated sites
The deposits mapped as Clay-with-flints, which are allowing inferences to be made, is now recommended
held in solution features on the highest-levels of the (Scott-Jackson 2000). As most of the Avebury artefacts
Chalk downlands and particular environments in the have been recovered as surface finds, the information
low-level gravels, have the greatest potential for the that they impart is somewhat limited. However,
retention of Palaeolithic sites in situ. Lower and Middle distribution of artefacts in the wider landscape
Palaeolithic artefacts found on/in the topsoil above the provides valuable information in itself, as these stone
Chalk and shallow deposits of valley gravel are in a tools testify to Palaeolithic peoples’ use of the
derived context. landscape as a whole (Gamble 1996).
Such artefacts are not without importance, as each
one reflects both the action of a Palaeolithic person and
a geological process or processes. The findspot will Economy and Subsistence
provide clues to both the processes that have moved
them and, as they will have eroded out from a higher The subsistence strategies of Lower and Middle
level – the possible existence of a previously Palaeolithic peoples in Britain can only be inferred
undiscovered Palaeolithic sites. One findsite 15 km east through detailed excavation of sites in primary context.
from Avebury that requires special mention is the In general, the evidence from contemporary sites in
Palaeolithic site at Knowle Farm, Savernake, which is other areas of Britain, shows that these Palaeolithic
situated in soliflucted head gravel. Excavated by peoples were hunter-scavenger-gatherers who appear to
H.G.O. Kendall and others, this site produced many have gradually adapted their subsistence strategies to
handaxes. As the site poses major geological and maximise their success in the face of climatic changes.
archaeological problems, the recommendations are that However, their exploitation of the natural resources
the site itself should be left until appropriated dating has, in certain areas appears to have been greater than
techniques are developed. their actual needs and may well have contributed to the
demise of particular species. Suitable sites providing the
necessary level of resolution await discovery in the
Settlement and Land Use Avebury area.
As Lower and Middle Palaeolithic people were hunter-

scavengers-gatherers, the Downland area provided Ceremony and Ritual
them with many opportunities. Although no actual
structures have survived, we know from the stone tools There is no evidence for any Lower and Middle
which have been found that these early visitors to the Palaeolithic ritual behaviour or ceremony in the
Avebury area camped by the rivers and streams and on Avebury area, indeed there is little evidence in the
top of the downs. Whether these camps were home- overall record of the British Palaeolithic.
bases, butchering areas or consumption/resting areas
we do not know.The hilltops and plateaux edges of the
downlands were important to Palaeolithic people. Transport and Communication
From these high places they could (safely) watch the
movements of animals (and other groups of people!) on No evidence exists to suggest that transport in the
both the hillsides and in the valleys below. They could Lower and Middle Palaeolithic was not entirely on foot.
also manufacture stone tools from the readily available Lithic procurement studies have shown that in some
flint or stone. High-level vantage points and knappable area materials were collected often from some distance
material are consistent unifying features of all high-level and brought to the site. It is not inconceivable that
occurrences on the deposits mapped as Clay-with- particular paths and routes were used by these early
flints.The burnt flint often found at these working sites hunters and gatherers. However, no such system of
is indicative of the presence of small hearths. communication is now identifiable.
39
3.2 Late Glacial and Early Post Britain there is evidence that Mesolithic hunters
glacial periodically burned tracts of woodland, presumably to
Andrew Lawson assist in hunting and the encouragement of fresh
vegetational growth. Clearance through the felling of
Settlement and Land Use trees was not widespread but probably restricted to the
margins of natural glades and watercourses.
No Upper Palaeolithic remains have been identified in
the Avebury region. Both activity (hunting and
temporary stay) and settlement (base) sites have been Chronology
suggested for the Mesolithic although extensive sites
have not been investigated by excavation. The Only about 125 late Upper Palaeolithic sites have been
recognition of Mesolithic artefacts in different identified in Britain and few open air sites (as
topographic locations indicates that, whereas river opposed to cave sites) have produced radiocarbon dates
valleys may have provided the greatest range of natural earlier than 10,000 BP (Barton 1991). However, these
resources and hence were attractive for settlement, a include Thatcham Site 3 in the Kennet Valley and
variety of activities occurred throughout the landscape. Three Ways Wharf in another tributary of the Thames.
A few sites in the British Isles have provided The recognition of other Upper Palaeolithic sites in the
evidence for light, stake-supported structures while Kennet Valley (Bonsall 1977) demonstrates the
others have revealed pits of various forms (for potential for similar sites of this period in the Avebury
example, Jacobi 1981; Allen 1995) . Further evidence area, possibly masked by the later deposits demon
for any Mesolithic structures would be an important strated by Evans
addition to the current, small national repertoire. Generally, the chronology of the Mesolithic activity
Excavations in 1997 by Mike Hamilton and Ian in the Avebury area is poorly understood. In con
Dennison (University College, Cardiff), 7 km south sequence, discussions of the adaptation of hunting
east of Avebury, at Golden Ball Hill investigated a site communities to their changing environment or of
previously identified from a surface lithic scatter. Flint transition to an agricultural economy are difficult.The
pebble floors, hearths and post-holes, probably recovery of such information is fundamental to an
representing light buildings, were associated with the understanding of the establishment of communities
lithics (Dennison 1997). However, the date and nature who constructed the first monuments of the Avebury
of the lithics and features, whether Late Mesolithic, WHS.
Early Neolithic or Bronze Age, has yet to be
established. It is likely that Late Mesolithic flints were
incidentally incorporated into later prehistoric surfaces Ceremony, Ritual and Burial
and structures.
Little is known of the belief systems of Upper
Palaeolithic and Mesolithic peoples in Britain. How
Environment ever, the later Upper Palaeolithic industries are coeval
with the later Magdalenian (V–VI) of France and its
Evans et al. have established that throughout the astonishing array of works of art which can be related
Windermere Interstadial and Loch Lomond Stadial, to belief systems (Bahn and Vertut 1997). Mobiliary art
the period of the later Upper Palaeolithic settlement of is uncommon in Britain but there is no reason why
Britain, the Avebury area was open country, albeit that examples should not be found on open air sites.
the hydrological regime, and consequently the The discovery of substantial Early Mesolithic
vegetation, varied depending upon the topographic post-pits near Stonehenge has raised questions of their
situation. This open country gradually gave way to function and the suggestion that ceremonial posts were
woodland (attested at Avebury in the 9th millennium erected has been put forward (Allen 1995). It is
BP and at Cherhill in the 8th millennium BP), which possible that the occurrence of such features has been
was apparently ubiquitous in the study area by the overlooked on other sites (Allen and Gardiner
middle Holocene. Further afield, in the Kennet Valley forthcoming). It may be significant, therefore, that
near Newbury, wide tracts of peat formed from Pre- Mesolithic flints have been found during the
Boreal times onwards, probably effecting the investigation of three Neolithic long barrows (Horslip,
depositional regime upstream, but contemporaneous South Street, West Kennet) and at Windmill Hill. It
peat deposits have not been located in the Avebury might be postulated that the earthwork monuments at
region itself. such sites do not reflect primary ceremonial activity but
Mesolithic artefacts have been found in stratified that they were built at locations with established
deposits at Avebury,West Overton and Cherhill in soils traditions or with ceremonial connotations.
which formed under such woodland conditions, and The national absence of cemeteries (except possibly
from beneath Neolithic monuments. Elsewhere in in the Mendip caves), or indeed of many burials, of this
40
period makes the study of human populations difficult. 3.3 Neolithic and Early Bronze Age
No human skeletal remains have been attributed to the Rosamund M.J. Cleal
period in the Avebury area but any discovery would be
of great significance. Settlement and Land Use
Research within the World Heritage Site has been

Technology largely, although not exclusively, concentrated on the
major archaeological sites of the Neolithic and Bronze
Advances in lithic technology are apparent throughout Age monument complexes, as is inevitable and under
this period. However, the subtle distinctions between standable. The setting of those sites remains less well-
Upper Palaeolithic, Early Mesolithic, Late Mesolithic understood than the sites themselves, despite research
and Early Neolithic typologies have not been projects over the last 10–15 years which have done
systematically sought in the assemblages from Avebury. much to fill some of the gaps. Of the gaps remaining it
In consequence, uncertainty remains over the true is possible to suggest remedies for some, while for
identifications of many individual artefacts and assem others it is difficult to suggest targeted research which
blages. Upper Palaeolithic artefacts may have been could easily offer solutions.
overlooked, tranchet axes may have been confused with Areas in which much could be added to our
unpolished Neolithic axes, small blade industries may understanding of the period in the WHS include:
have been assigned a Mesolithic or an early Neolithic
date without rationale and so forth. a) The early stages of Neolithic settlement in the
Avebury area.
Evidence for earliest Neolithic settlement in
Economy and Subsistence this area is thin, with only a single radiocarbon
date for Horslip long barrow to supply con
The population at this time were hunter-gatherers and firmation of an early date for Neolithic activity
entirely dependent upon the natural resources of the (ie in Whittle’s Neolithic phase A,Whittle 1993,
area. Only four sites in Britain (Star Carr, Thatcham, 31), though more may be represented by
Three Ways Wharf and Morton) have produced undated pre-monument episodes. Whittle has
substantial faunal assemblages to enable the hunting suggested that Mesolithic use of the area may
economy to be reasonably assessed. At these sites, red have been ‘slight and episodic’ in part because
and roe deer predominate with small quantities of elk, of the lack of water, and that this may have
aurochs and horse. Smaller animals, such as beaver, continued into the late 5th/early 4th millennium
marten, hare, wolf and fox are represented here and BC when Neolithic activity is attested elsewhere
elsewhere and were probably taken for their furs. In in the country (1993, 31).
northern Europe, examples of nets, bows, rope, etc, b) The nature and frequency of settlement between
demonstrate the range of equipment used in hunting, and around the major Neolithic/Early Bronze
fishing and fowling. Charred hazel nut shells are a Age ceremonial/ritual sites during the period of
frequent find on Mesolithic sites and offer limited their use (ie from the appearance of long
evidence for seasonal gathering. barrows and causewayed enclosures to the end
The discovery of any substantial mesolithic site with of the Early Bronze Age use of round barrows).
associated faunal remains would be of national signi Unlike the area around Stonehenge, which was
ficance but if it were associated with organic deposits extensively fieldwalked as part of the Stonehenge
it would be all the more significant. Environs Project, only just over 15% of the
World Heritage Site has been subject to
methodical surface collection (see Section 2.3).
Transport and Communication Much more was collected in a less structured
and methodical manner in the early years of the
The development of ubiquitous woodland cover century, largely by Kendall (see Section 2.3) and
during the Holocene would naturally have restricted by Passmore. Clearly there will only be a limited
the open movement formerly possible in the tundra amount of information to be derived from the
conditions of the Late Glacial. Communication would earlier collections but it should not be dismissed.
have been easier along watercourses and the discovery Gardiner, among others (1987), has argued that
of logboats elsewhere demonstrates the development of some information of value can be extracted from
water transport. The Kennet Valley has many known old collections, and it is also important to
Mesolithic sites (Lobb and Rose 1996,73) and, hence, recognise that areas collected in this way are not
it may have been a well-known axis for communication. necessarily now bare of finds. Study of the
41
behaviour of artefacts in the plough zone has Chronology: Relative and Absolute
shown that it is simplistic to assume that an area
is stripped clean of artefacts by being collected The relative sequence of the major monuments in the
once, or even on multiple occasions. An area is known in broad terms, but the fine detail is
examination of the old records and collected poorly understood. It is still not possible to determine,
material could offer both some insight into the for instance, the sequence of enclosure (or enclosures)
density of occupation, possibly with some and stone monuments at the henge and Avenues, nor
crude indication of date, and in addition give the chronological relationship of Silbury Hill’s
some indication of the duration and intensity of construction to those elements.
collecting by area. This could offer both In the case of isolated elements in the landscape,
information on settlement, and information for such as, in particular, the long and round barrows and
management, particularly in identifying those stone circles, chronological definition is even weaker.
areas which are likely to have been depleted by This leaves a situation in which attempts at explanation
repeated collecting. Moreover, consideration for the exceptional developments at Avebury are
needs to be given to the meaning of flint scatters handicapped not only by lack of information about
in the light of discoveries in other areas such as which monuments were in contemporary use with
the Walton Basin (Gibson 1997). which, thereby giving some idea of the scale of the
As an adjunct to this is it is clearly necessary complex in use, but also by there being little knowledge
to define those areas within the WHS landscape of the time periods necessary to construct the
which are likely to be masked by colluvium and monuments. Very different interpretations are
therefore may be presenting ‘false’ blank areas legitimately possible at present depending on whether
within the distributions. This fits well with the a long or short timescale is taken.
environmental research objectives.
c) The date and nature of the change from an
unenclosed landscape to one with extensive field Ceremony, Ritual, Burial, Religion
systems; most importantly, whether any change
takes place earlier than the Middle Bronze Age. The elucidation of these aspects of human use of the
area has formed a large part of the research to date. In
To summarise: there are indications of much use of particular the ritual and ceremonial use of Windmill
the landscape during this period, with locations Hill causewayed enclosure has emerged as a strong
varying in date and in intensity of use. At present there theme in recent research, replacing the more functional
is very little indication of a very early Neolithic date for interpretation current in earlier decades, and much of
any of this.The present state of knowledge can only be this was achieved by re-analysis of earlier work.
summarised as poor, and the context in which the It is clear that even in terms of the complexity of the
monuments developed and were used remains largely known ritual/ceremonial sites there may be more to be
unknown. revealed, as demonstrated by the discovery of the West
Towards the end of the period, or, perhaps more Kennet palisaded enclosures and the newly discovered
probably, in the succeeding period, the development of double ditched feature within the henge (Fig. 20).
large scale field systems appears to have radically Areas which clearly demand further work include the
altered the character of the landscape. The date of the area of the Longstones and the Beckhampton Avenue
inception of these field systems remains largely in general; the areas immediately outside the henge
conjectural. monument (where, for instance, Crawford and Keiller
noted pit-like features showing during the photography
for Wessex from the Air – although not photographed;
Environment Crawford and Keiller 1928, 31, observation of 22
June); the stone circles inside and outside the present
The Avebury area is fortunate in having been a focus boundary of the WHS, and the existence or non
for well-directed and intensive environmental research existence of the Yatesbury cursus.
for some years. Useful summaries are included, with An appreciation of monuments as spaces which
the results of specific projects, by Evans (et al. 1993) were created and used by real people has led to greater
and Whittle (1993; 1997). The outline of the environ attention being focussed on the three-dimensional form
mental history is now well-established but much detail of monuments, rather than their appearance in plan. As
could be usefully added to the picture. (See sections 2.9 most of the monuments concerned are denuded or
and 3.9 by Mike Allen in this volume). destroyed, wholly or partially, this is a field where new
42
Fig. 20 New ‘double-ditched feature’ in the Avebury henge, 1995
techniques such as virtual reality modelling come into Obvious gaps in knowledge which could be rectified
their own. Some work is already underway (jointly by by quite limited investigative work include using
universities of Newcastle, Leicester, Southampton and neutron activation to further the research by Smith
Wales (Newport)) but the potential offered by (1965) and later by Howard (1981) on local clay
techniques such as this, which also have the advantage sources, and it is possible that more detail could be
of being non-destructive and non-intrusive, is clearly added to the sourcing of the shelly fabrics by further
great. examination.
Engineering, Craft and Technology People (Diet and Health)
These themes have been addressed in the past in, for For the Neolithic and Bronze Age periods people as
example, the calculation of number of work hours represented by excavated human remains are relatively
required for the construction of the large monuments well-represented, compared with some periods within
or the likely organisation of pottery production the WHS. In terms of number of individuals re
(Howard 1981). These two major areas – techniques presented by excavated bone, there are more from the
and organisation of construction, and techniques and Neolithic period and Early Bronze Age than from all
organisation of production of items of material culture, the others.
particularly ceramics and lithics – seem likely to be The occurrence of human bone in causewayed
dominant in this area of research in future. enclosures has been a recent theme in Neolithic studies
43
and Windmill Hill is no exception to most in having at distances (pots, foreign stone, etc), which links this
least a small number of individuals represented by theme with that of Engineering,Technology and Craft.
some body elements.West Kennet long barrow has the
largest assemblage from the area, with 40–50 people
represented, of all ages, and relatively few modern 3.4 Late Bronze Age
techniques of elucidating family relationships, diet and Gill Swanton, C. Gingell and
health have been applied to this assemblage. If bone Andrew J. Lawson
from here and elsewhere in the area proved suitable for
DNA analysis there might be much scope for Settlement and Land Use
investigating family relationships.
Recent research on earlier Neolithic human bones The Marlborough Downs Project (Gingell 1992)
using stable isotope analysis has revealed some identified settlements to the north and south of the
patterns of use of plant, animal and marine resources WHS. Gingell assigns these to the Middle and later
in the diets of the Neolithic population of the 4th (but not latest) Bronze Age (see also Piggott 1942).
millennium BC in southern Britain, including three There may be some further sites in the study area: eg,
samples from West Kennet long barrow (M. Richards, investigations of earthworks on the western scarp of the
lecture to Prehistoric Society, February 2000). Further Upper/Middle Chalk could prove valuable.
work on diet could indicate whether these are part of The Marlborough Downs Project found little
a wider pattern within the Avebury and surrounding trace of the latest Bronze Age/Early Iron Age transition
area, or whether, for instance, the populations of which the excavator postulated was due to a change of
causewayed enclosures and long barrows differed in use of the area (Gingell 1992, 153.).The Fyfod project
their diets. (Fowler 2000) has identified enclosed Late Bronze
The use of absorbed residue analysis and SEM Age/Early Iron Age sites (Little Woodbury type) spaced
analysis of carbonised organic residues on pottery may across the Downs (Totterdown, Overton Down, West
be fruitful in indicating the original contents and use Overton, East Kennett).These late settlements appear
of ceramics in the Avebury area. to be as carefully positioned in the landscape as the
already extant co-axial field systems into which they
were set. The Overton Down settlement evidence
Social Organisation, Economy and Subsistence indicates that it was established in the 8th century BC
and by 600 BC had been destroyed. The West
These inter-related themes have been a recurrent Overton ‘Headlands’ site indicates intense activity
concern for this period for the entire history of interest (Fowler and Blackwell 1998; Fowler 2000) at this time.
in the Neolithic and Bronze Age periods in the area. The surviving evidence for physical organisation of
Attention has been focused, however, largely on the the landscape appears to stem from the Middle Bronze
major monuments, and particularly on Windmill Hill, Age, as elsewhere in Britain (eg, Fleming 1998). The
the henge, and West Kennet long barrow. Whether relationship between fields and settlements; their
settlement was transitory or otherwise is unknown, and geographical and chronological distribution; their
building up a picture of this is difficult when some of roots in preceding land use and succeeding practices;
the settlement sites are certainly buried in the valley and their significance of the monuments of the past (eg,
bottoms and so much emphasis has been laid on the was there ‘zoning’?). All merit further research.
monuments. Much remains to be done in terms of
integrating the known evidence from environmental
and economic analysis, with the very incomplete Environment
settlement picture and the still uncertain sequence of
monument building. Evidence comes from settlements, burial sites, ditches
and valley bottoms (dry and riverine). This provides a
widely distributed sample, possibly reflecting very
Transport and Communication localised conditions.There is considerable potential for
environmental study in the area, building on the work
This theme seems likely to remain marginal to this of Evans (Evans et al. 1993) in the Upper Kennet
period, not because of lack of importance during the Valley.
Neolithic period and Bronze Age, but because its
archaeological visibility is low.The area must, for most
of this period, have been criss-crossed by networks of Chronology
paths and tracks, well-known and recognised to their
users but unknown and unrecoverable to us. Indirect The dates available are widely scattered geographically.
evidence for transport and communication is, however, The dates available from the excavation of the
provided by material goods which were carried long cremation cemetery at West Overton (WO G19)
44
indicates prolonged use, which may have been linked Social Organisation, Economy and Subsistence
to reference to the past: availability of similar dating
evidence would assist in building a framework for The nature of land division, settlements and the
studying burial practice, land use, environmental possible ranking in the West Overton G19 cemetery
evidence and social links. should be taken together to approach this theme. Study
of nearby latest Bronze Age/Early Iron Age sites (Black
Patch, All Cannings Cross, Potterne, Bishops
Ceremony, Ritual, Burial, Religion Cannings) and clarification of the ‘start dates’ of local
hilltop enclosures may help to elucidate activities
The potential existence of further cremation cemeteries towards the end of the period.
(in the current absence of settlement evidence) Extension of the economic analysis in carried out as
provides the possibility of further careful sampling for part of the Marlborough Downs Project (Gingell 1992)
environmental, population and ceremonial activity.The would be useful; and the work carried out in the Fyfod
cremation cemetery at West Overton G19 site indicates project (Fowler 2000) will be valuable. Closer studies
careful selection of pyre materials and design of burial of bronze tools may indicate their source and their use.
situation (use of pot, stone, pits, etc) and subsequent Were, for example, the axes recovered from near West
curation of the site. Woods buried near to where they were utilised? Can
they be used to identify nearby woodland?
A study of the nature of land transport (human,
Engineering, Craft and Technology cattle, horse) would be extremely valuable, as would an
extension of the examination of the nature of the River
A study of the orientation and extent of the co-axial Kennet – did it provide a method of communication or
fields in the area, followed by comparison with other a barrier to it?
studies would be helpful for the investigation of
local/regional/large-scale land organisation.
Ceramic analyses modelled on those carried out for 3.5 Iron Age
the Marlborough Downs report (Gingell 1992) would Amanda Chadburn and
be useful. The Upper Kennet Valley has been a Mark Corney
communication route for thousands of years and the
opportunities for exchange/trade optimum. Long Settlement and Land Use
distant trade/exchange is known from earlier periods;
the continuation of such practices should be studies As we have seen, there is some evidence that Avebury
alongside detailed analysis of local trade and itself and its surroundings was avoided or lightly used
manufacture.(eg, the sarsen trade identified by Gingell during the Iron Age. The relative rarity of Iron Age
1992), sources of raw materials (eg, bronze work material in specific areas needs to be investigated as a
shops). It would be useful to investigate the possibilities priority; if this is a ‘real’ phenomenon, then explana
of nearby organic deposits (eg, Cannings Marsh in the tions for this pattern will be needed.
Pewsey Vale). There appear to be several main Iron Age settle
ment types represented in this area; a possible oppidum
in the Marlborough area, hillforts, and both enclosed
People (Diet and Health) and unenclosed settlements. Avebury may have been
located in the immediate hinterland of the oppidum, and
Bone evidence from the settlements excavated by this may be significant in understanding the Iron Age
Gingell indicates that availability of meat products archaeology of the area. The relationship between all
(though what was consumed on site of production may these types of settlement is not well understood, and
not be truly representative of marketable goods). Some further work is needed here.
cereal seeds from the period have been recovered (WO A great area of potential, especially for earlier Iron
G19, Marlborough Downs Project) and parts of other Age settlement, is the Vale of Pewsey, where a number
edible plants from the WO G19 cemetery. Ceramics of important Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age sites are
could be investigated for residues. known or suspected.This potential is partly suggested
The bones from West Overton G19 are being by the number of important Early Iron Age sites to the
studied for indications of health, age of death, etc. Bone south of the Vale, for example, Potterne, Erlestoke, and
collections in archives could receive the same Black Patch, the last of which is associated with an
treatment. Bones recovered in the future should be Anglo-Saxon cemetery.
carefully lifted to avoid modern contamination and Field systems are not well understood in the WHS
undergo rigorous study. and its environs, and these have the potential to tell us
much about the division of land, and when it was
45
divided, as well as the economy and subsistence – if comes from John Evans work in the Kennet Valley and
studied in depth.The pattern of land division, land use at North Farm, and from Peter Fowler’s work on the
and settlement during the earlier 1st millennium BC is Fyfield and Overton Downs (Fowler 2000). Wessex
an area of great interest, and the publication of Fowler’s Archaeology’s work on the Kennet Valley foul sewer
investigations of the Fyfield and Overton Downs pipeline (Powell et al. 1996) found remarkably little
(2000) will be of considerable value, and enable a more evidence for Iron Age activity – a fact they found
coherent view of land division to the south and east of surprising given the proximity of ‘Celtic’ field systems
Avebury to be taken (Fowler 2000). Gingell’s work, nearby. This is clearly an area where much remains to
although principally concerned with the Bronze Age on be understood.
the Marlborough Downs, has provided useful data for The economy in the WHS during the Iron Age may
this region (Gingell 1992). have been similar to other Wessex mixed arable and
We have noted an apparent archaeological ‘gap’ livestock regimes. This is reflected in the ordered and
which exists to the north and west of Avebury henge on structured landscape containing field systems, although
the Lower Chalk plateau, where no field systems or as we have seen, the detailed distribution of ‘Celtic’
enclosures of presumed Iron Age/Romano-British date field systems means some parts of the WHS were
seem to exist. This raises an obvious parallel with the probably not under cultivation. This land use pattern
immediate environs of Stonehenge, where intensive needs detailed investigation to complement Fowler’s
field-survey demonstrated a dearth of later prehistoric work in the east.
activity (Richards 1990, 280). Such an apparent
pattern is clearly worthy of more detailed investigation.
This land block seemingly devoid of significant Chronology: Relative and Absolute
subsistence and domestic activity starts at the bottom
of the Ridgeway scarp on the east and about 1 km to Relative dates provide most of the evidence for the Iron
the south of the current A4 road in the south, and Age of the WHS. The ceramic sequence is sufficiently
includes the henge itself, and the palisaded enclosures well understood in this area for sites with ceramics to
at West Kennett Farm. Wessex Archaeology’s work on be given broad date ranges. However, there is certainly
the foul sewer pipeline also found little Iron Age activity more work needed refining the ceramic type series for
(Powell et al. 1996).We need to investigate whether the the area. Generally, more dating evidence is needed
local Britons deliberately avoided certain kinds of especially for the hillforts, enclosures and field systems.
activity within parts of this possible sacred or taboo In particular, the Middle Iron Age sequence is not well
landscape during the Iron Age. understood and needs further work.
Hillforts in the region are situated at the edge of Absolute dating methods might have some
chalk escarpments, but have received little modern application for the Iron Age of the WHS. However, at
study.The Martinsell/Giant’s Grave complex has great present radiocarbon dates are unlikely to provide more
potential, especially as Meyrick and other local precise data than relative methods, as it is not yet
fieldworkers recovered large quantities of Early Iron possible to determine high precision dates for this
Age ceramics from between the two forts. The full period.This is especially true of the Early Iron Age, as
results of the English Heritage Ancient Monument’s the radiocarbon curve between c. 750 and c. 400 BC
Laboratory surveys in this area are eagerly awaited makes precise dating during this period extremely
(Payne forthcoming). An area of especial interest is difficult. The curve is better in the Middle and Late
likely to be at the foot of the Martinsell Hill/Giant’s Iron Age, where dating to c. 75 years at 2 sigma is
Grave and Knap Hill complex. The ‘midden’ at Oare possible. Other absolute dating methods might include
and the earthworks of Late Iron Age form on Huish dating the remains of lipids in Iron Age pottery, and the
Hill also have potential. The possible relationship OSL dating of colluvium.
between the Martinsell complex and the Forest We have no absolute dates for the hillforts yet,
Hill/Folly Farm complex during the Iron Age also although Martinsell should be early on morphological
needs investigation. The functions of hillforts in the grounds, and may have acted as a focal point during the
area – as evidenced by the Barbury Castle blacksmith’s Early Iron Age, perhaps falling out of use when the
hoard – and whether they are similar or varied – are focus apparently shifted further towards Marlborough
also largely unknown. in the late Iron Age.
Environment, Economy, and Subsistence Ceremony, Ritual, Burial and Religion
Land use in the Iron Age is covered above, and relates The distribution of coins, and the morphology of
closely to the topics of the economy, subsistence and cropmarks suggests that there is a major Iron Age
the environment. On the latter, what little is known religious site at Brown’s Farm, which is likely – on
46
analogy with other British sites – to be Late Iron Age It is possible that certain Iron Age sites may
in date. All this needs confirmation however, which themselves have had ritual or ceremonial functions. For
could only be done by excavation, even if limited in example, if All Cannings Cross and Bishops Cannings
scope. were midden-type deposits, that might imply feasting,
We are totally lacking any Early and Middle Iron seasonal gathering and other ceremonial activities.
Age data on these subjects. However, the reuse of the Around 30 miniature Late Iron Age/early Romano-
Neolithic and Bronze Age monuments cannot be British fibulae have been recovered from Monkton
discounted, and indeed the paucity of Iron Age Down, and are likely to have come from a structured,
domestic and secular activity around the Avebury henge ritual deposit, possibly a temple. A concentration of
may suggest it was a recognised space for ceremonial finds north of All Cannings Cross included miniature
functions. We need to investigate whether there was a Romano-British axeheads, and there is a Romano-
deliberate avoidance of a ‘sacred’ or taboo landscape British shrine here which might have had an Iron Age
during the Iron Age in this area. Conversely, perhaps predecessor. Similarly, the unusual Romano-British pits
Silbury Hill acted as a focus for Iron Age activity, as around Silbury Hill, which probably had a ritual
evidenced by the finds of brooches, coins and an urn function to judge from their contents, may have started
near to it. earlier during the Iron Age. However it is also worth
It is also the case that we have no idea when the considering that many current scholars of the Iron Age
religion(s) of the Iron Age peoples came into being, and believe that ritual and secular categories have little
it is not impossible – perhaps even likely – that such meaning, as they were seemingly intertwined in
religion(s) commenced before the Iron Age started. If everyday life during this period.
so, this could have serious implications for the There are no known Iron Age burials from the
continuity of use of ritual and ceremonial monuments, WHS, although we would not necessarily expect this,
and in the beliefs and rituals of the Britons. It could be given there general dearth of burials from the British
fruitful to investigate the degree of ceremonial/ Iron Age. One might, however, on analogy with other
ritual/religious continuation (if any) between the Iron sites in southern Britain, expect to find dismembered
Age and earlier periods. To this end, the immediate human remains in deliberate deposits within settlement
environs of the major Neolithic and Early Bronze Age sites – for example at ditch terminals, entrances, pits,
monuments in the WHS, such as Avebury henge, etc. The nearest Iron Age human remains come from
Silbury Hill, and West Kennet long barrow should be around Marlborough; from a burial at Monkton Down,
investigated. All recorded finds should be re-examined Winterbourne Monkton; and some modified human
with a view to understanding Iron Age activity on and crania were recovered from All Cannings Cross. The
in the vicinity of these major monuments. only candidates within the WHS are the undated
Some evidence suggests that there was Iron Age burials from Waden Hill, and on balance, it is unlikely
activity on or immediately around such monuments: they are Iron Age. Data is urgently required before this
Iron Age radiocarbon dates have been recovered from theme can be investigated in any meaningful way. It
Avebury henge (Whittle 1990, although by way of would be worthwhile re-assessing the evidence for the
contrast Smith 1965, 243 citing St George Gray, noted Iron Age burial at Winterbourne Monkton excavated in
the absence of an Iron Age horizon in the Avebury 1922–3. It would not be surprising if human remains
henge ditches); there is a square enclosure at Windmill were recovered from the enclosed and unenclosed
Hill which is reminiscent in plan of Iron Age/Romano- settlements as discussed above.
British temples (Smith 1965, 30–3; Smith ruled out a
Romano-British date for this enclosure, although
Romano-British pottery was recovered from the
bottom of the ditch and from the interior); Early Iron Engineering, Craft,Technology, and Industry
Age finds were made from elsewhere in the ditches of
the Windmill Hill causewayed enclosure (Smith 1965, The Iron Age ceramics recovered from the area are not
170–1); and Iron Age pottery was recovered during the well-understood. The nearest identified major pottery
1989 excavations by Whittle at the Winterbourne was in the Savernake Forest, where large quantities of
Monkton Long Barrow (Whittle 1994, 40). But such wheel-turned Iron Age/Romano-British ceramics were
apparent activity contrasts with the lack of evidence produced. There are the remains of a possible local
previously discussed, for secular and domestic activity pottery near Withy Copse and Martinsell Hill, where a
on a large scale around Avebury henge. Could all this mound containing numerous waster sherds of Iron Age
evidence suggest that the monuments were still date has been found, which requires further investi
regarded as sacred in the Iron Age, and domestic or gation. Ideally, a good ceramic series and sequence
secular activity could not take place near them, should be recovered for Iron Age sites in the WHS,
although perhaps religious or ceremonial activity could? which should then be thoroughly investigated, to
This whole theme deserves fuller attention from establish the likely sources of ceramics during the Iron
archaeologists and scholars in the future. Age in and around the WHS.
47
A group of coins (Dobunnic M types) appear to during the Iron Age, or during parts of it. At present,
have a localised distribution in the south of the the evidence is confused according to the distribution
Dobunnic territory. It is possible that the oppidum at of different artefact types (see for example the
Forest Hill may have been their mint site – it is as likely contrasting distribution of pottery types to coin types
as anywhere else on present evidence. It is also possible in Cunliffe, 1984) We should also remember that
that the oppidum was the centre for a pagus or sub-tribal political boundaries are unlikely to have remained static
group of the Dobunni during at least part of the Iron during this period.
Age (Van Arsdell 1989; Van Arsdell and de Jersey
1994). The relationship between the Atrebates and
Dobunni through time in this area is not well Transport and Communication
understood.
The presence of iron ore deposits at Westbury, There are three main natural routes within the area: the
which were certainly exploited during the Romano- Kennet valley; the Avon valley and the Vale of Pewsey.
British period, may suggest that iron was being mined These natural routes are likely to have been used
and worked here during the Iron Age too. Again, we during many periods. However, it is possible that the
need more details on the sources of Iron and other raw WHS sits on the edge of a number of Iron Age socio
materials in the Iron Age. politcal boundaries, which themselves perhaps date
back to earlier periods (see coin distributions in Van
Arsdell (1989) and pottery and artefact distributions
Social Organisation in Cunliffe (1984)).
In the Early Iron Age, it appears that the Vale of
Some suggestions of social stratification and ranking Pewsey was a fairly important communication route
are apparent from the variety of settlement types and associated with the movement of iron ore. This needs
the apparently rich burial from Marlborough, but only investigation, as do other key communication routes
in the later Iron Age. such as the Kennet and Avon. For example, it appears
There is little information for the Early and Middle that some Durotrigian coins were entering the area up
Iron Age, where our only evidence for this period the Avon Valley.
comes from the enclosures such as that at North Farm Local routes and networks could be investigated
(SU 1368) which are not yet well understood. from air photographs, especially where extensive field
However, during the Later Iron Age, there is a possible systems are known. It is worth stating that the modern
differentiation of settlements, from the high status Ridgeway route does not appear to be in use during the
presumed oppidum at Forest Hill to presumed lower Iron Age/Romano-British period, as it cuts a number
status enclosed and unenclosed settlements elsewhere. of ‘Celtic’ field systems (Fowler and Blackwell 1998;
However, models of social stratification as expressed by Fowler 2000).
ranked settlements in terms of plan and size (Cunliffe Other routes through the area are likely to have
1984) have been challenged by others such as J.D. Hill broadly followed the modern A345 road, the
who argue that high status goods are found as often on Lockeridge to Alton-Barnes road, and the modern
presumed ‘low status’ settlements in Wessex as in ‘high A361 road. Cross ridge dykes from the Bronze Age may
status’ hillforts.This theme requires investigation in and also have continued in use into the Iron Age. However,
around the WHS. until we understand the settlement and land use of the
Our lack of firm dating evidence for the unenclosed area rather better, we cannot understand the transport
and enclosed settlements, makes it difficult to networks within it in detail.
investigate social ranking or change in settlement types.
This could be rectified by an investigation of several
contemporaneous sites of varied size and plan. 3.6 Romano-British
Coin evidence suggests the WHS is on a tribal Mark Corney and Bryn Walters
boundary largely between the Dobunni and the
Atrebates; this boundary may shift through time. Settlement and Land Use
However, some Durotrigian influence is also apparent.
It would be worthwhile undertaking further Of the larger settlements in the Avebury region two,
investigation of artefacts including coins, to understand Cunetio and Silbury Hill are of special importance. At
this pattern further. The coin evidence, however, the former an early origin, possibly including a
contrasts with the distribution of certain Iron Age Claudian military phase, seems certain and the site
fibulae. Iron La Tène fibulae and involuted La Tène II marks a continuation of the major Late Iron Age
brooches have a marked distribution in central and complex centred on Forest Hill and the north-west
southern Wiltshire, and the WHS is on the northern fringe of Savernake Forest (Corney 1997b). The
edge of this distribution. It would be worth trying to intensification of activity at Cunetio in the last third of
investigate whether this area was on a tribal boundary the 4th century AD (including the provision of a
48
monumental defensive walled circuit) strongly suggests greater definition of other settlement types and
a state interest in the area – possibly as a regional compared with known Anglo-Saxon estates in an
garrison centre for Comitatensian forces and a local tax attempt to define possible late Roman land units.This
collection and administrative centre. A detailed approach has had considerable success in a recent
reappraisal of this site is urgently required. study of Salisbury Plain (RCHME in prep.).
The settlement adjacent to Silbury Hill demon The possibility of late Roman and early post-
strates the continuing Roman potential of the core Roman reoccupation of hillforts in the region is felt to
study area. Recent excavation and air photography be high, with evidence for activity known from
(Powell et al. 1996; Corney 1997a; Fig. 14) has shown Oliver’s Castle and Oldbury. The character of this re
the extent of the settlement to be in excess of 10 ha and use, whether secular or ritual, should be given serious
on two distinct axes; an east–west line astride the consideration and, given the probable 5th century AD
Roman road from Cunetio to Bath and a north–south date for Wansdyke (Eagles 1994), will have implications
axis on the west slope of Waden Hill, possibly along a for the post-Roman research strategy.
minor route leading to Avebury and beyond. This
settlement could also include a mutatio or mansio. The
possibility of a religious component also needs to be Environment, Land Use, Economy and
assessed. Roman wells or shafts at the base of Silbury Subsistence
Hill appear to be forming an arc around the outer edge
of the surrounding ditch and could be considered as Landuse has already been mentioned in passing above.
having a ritual function. The large number of late It is probable that much of the chalk downland field
Roman coins from the Silbury ditch excavation systems are still being used in one form or another in
undertaken by Atkinson has recently been assessed as the Roman period, although the precise detail of this
being of a probable votive character (Moorehead, pers. is still lacking. The questions relating to land use and
comm.). environment will be pertinent to many of the other
The work by Fowler (2000) on the chalk downland periods being reviewed. The recovery of detailed
gives an insight into rural settlement and land use environmental evidence is still restricted and largely
patterns in the immediate environs of Avebury. A pre- derived from John Evans’s work close to Avebury and
Roman origin for many of the chalkland field systems the Kennet Valley. Recent work by Wessex Archaeology
is certain in the light of recent work (Gingell 1992; around Silbury Hill has demonstrated that a metre or
Fowler 2000). It is probable that many of these systems more of colluvium (Powell et al. 1996) may mask much
continued to be used (and probably modified) during of the Roman settlement pattern on valley floors. The
the Roman period. Any additional research into field deep deposits of clay with flints overlying the chalk
systems should address this question. Beyond the between Marlborough and Pewsey require further
chalk, notably in the Vale of Pewsey, we still lack a investigation to ascertain whether extensive areas of
coherent picture of Roman settlement and landuse. managed woodland may have existed here. The
The concentration of finds around Honeystreet, Savernake pottery industry in the study area would
including burials, suggests a substantial settlement of certainly have required extensive tracts of managed
unknown extent and character. It is possible that this woodland to provide fuel for the kilns as well as access
site is located on a route across the Vale, linking the to sources of good quality clay.
Marlborough Downs with the Avon Valley and The Vale of Pewsey is very much an unknown
Salisbury Plain. Along the northern edge of the Vale quantity in terms of Roman land use and environment
there appears to be, on the available limited evidence, and should be a priority for future investigation. The
a preference for settlement (including substantial same is true for the area of lower chalk to the north of
buildings and villas) close to the foot of the chalk Avebury, where, like the Vale of Pewsey, the local
escarpment of the Marlborough Downs. This pattern geology has proved to be a poor reflector of buried
appears to mirror that already noted on the southern archaeology thus reducing the application of aerial
side of the Vale below the northern limit of Salisbury reconnaissance.
Plain (Corney in prep.). As yet we have very little The pattern observed by Fowler on Overton Down
evidence for landuse and division in the Vale of Pewsey, and Fyfield Down of an apparent move away from
although the work by Bonney (1979) on boundaries in arable to pastoral farming in the late Roman period is
the central part of the Vale and the southern of some interest. A similar phenomenon was observed
Marlborough Downs may point the way forward.This on the Berkshire Downs (Gaffney and Tingle 1989)
area is one of high priority. and further investigation of this apparent change in
If the general pattern of villa settlement observed emphasis would be important in formulating a view of
elsewhere in Wessex is the same in the Avebury region whether there is a widespread change in the late Roman
we can expect a number of villa-based estates in the rural economy. If this should prove to be so it is possible
region. The known distribution of villas and probable that it could be linked with late Imperial policy towards
villas should be investigated in conjunction with the the province of Britannia Prima.
49
Chronology: Relative and Absolute henge during service trench work requires careful
evaluation (Walter, pers. obs.).
The Roman period is of great importance in that it is The discovery of Roman round barrows on
the first period where an artefact-based absolute Overton Hill (Smith 1964), of a quite different
chronology can be established with a high degree of character to those known in eastern England, must also
certainty. Having said this there are, as ever, problem raise the possibility of a deliberate archaic funerary
areas. Most of the Roman artefacts from the region can tradition in the region.This may be underscored by the
be tolerably well-dated, however the ceramic sequence late Roman material from the West Kennet long barrow
for the early and late Roman period has considerable (Piggott 1962), a practice which can be parallelled at
scope for improvement. The origins of the Savernake other megalithic sites in Wessex (Williams 1998) and
industry now appear to have a pre-Roman origin and abroad (Carnac, Brittany).
the date of the final demise of the tradition is still
uncertain. Further work is still required on late Roman
local coarse wares including ‘shell-tempered’ wares and Engineering, Craft,Technology and Industry
hand made forms. The recent debate on the length of
time that late Roman silver coins continue to circulate The major Romano-British industry in the region is the
beyond AD 411 has been given renewed import by the production of Savernake pottery. Two main
study of the Bishops Cannings hoard by Dr P. Guest. concentrations of kilns are known, at Column Ride
His conclusion, that such coins could still be circulating (Annable 1962) and Broomsgrove Farm in the Vale of
as late as the 420s may have important implications for Pewsey (Swan 1984). The problems relating to the
the late Roman chronology of the region (Guest 1997). origins and decline of this industry have already been
Further radiocarbon determinations, especially from discussed above.
otherwise undated and unaccompanied inhumation Evidence for metalworking is, to date, sparse.
burials may prove to be a fruitful avenue of enquiry, However the probable Roman exploitation of the iron
especially for late and post-Roman studies. deposits at Westbury, at the western end of the Vale of
Pewsey, would suggest that localised smithing and
production should be expected.
Ceremony, Ritual, Burial and Religion Engineering is most obviously represented by the
construction of formal roads in the Roman period.This
The possibility of a ritual focus at Oldbury hillfort and is covered below. Although there is no evidence to date,
around Silbury Hill has already been referred to above. the possibility of Roman water management in the
Other potential sites are known within the region. At Kennet Valley should be borne in mind when research
All Cannings Cross (SU 0764) numerous finds of strategies are reviewed.
Romano-British miniature bronze axe-heads are most
likely votive deposits as are the large number of
miniature bronze fibulae from Winterbourne Monkton People (Diet and Health)
Down (SU 1272). Evidence for more formal Romano-
British temples or shrines comes from Mother The obvious source for such an avenue of enquiry will
Anthony’s Well (ST 9964) and Brown’s Farm, come from the burial record. Whilst scattered Roman
Marlborough (SU 1967). At the latter site air burials, both cremation and inhumation, are known,
photographs show a hexagonal structure to the east of there are no large samples available at present. The
an L-shaped building. A perimeter wall that may be location of both urban and rural cemeteries is a high
associated with a ditch encloses both features. It is priority as comparative studies may be illuminating in
possible that the whole complex may be a major assessing the socio-economic relationship between the
religious centre of a form akin to Pagan’s Hill, two communities.
Somerset. The proximity of this site to a multangular
enclosure on the findspot of the ‘Savernake Hoard’ of
Late Iron Age coins may suggest a pre-Roman origin. Social Organisation
Most important however is the possibility of Roman
religious reuse of Avebury henge. The curious The range of settlement types known suggests a wide
parchmark discovered in the north-west quadrant in range of social groups in the Roman period. Whilst at
the drought of 1995 is of particular interest (Feather- one level this may appear straightforward, we need to
stone et al. 1995; Fig. 20).This comprises of a circular know more of the details of the settlement hierarchy
feature surrounding a square.The location, respecting before embarking upon a detailed analysis. None of the
the existing stone settings and the form of the marks villas in the area has been examined in sufficient detail
must raise at least the possibility of a Roman date.The to allow full analysis of its plan or economic base.This
recent discovery of Roman stratigraphy within the could have a significant bearing on how we choose to
50
interpret the social structure. For example are we 3.7 Post-Roman and Early Saxon
dealing with developed aisled buildings or ‘multiple Gill Swanton and Peter Fowler
unit’ plan villas?
A more detailed picture of the non-villa settlement Settlement and Land Use
morphology is also desirable before we can begin to Currently there is no correlation between existing
make informed reconstructions of the social com villages and Anglo-Saxon settlement archaeology
position and complexities. At a coarse level it possible although the Glebe Field Car Park site and the finds
to see urban and rural components, but whether these from West Kennett, both alongside present villages,
distinctions are really meaningful in what was may indicate the position of early settlements. If there
essentially a rural province is still a moot point. The is any continuity, there has been later settlement shift.
presence of two small towns close to the Avebury Similarly, the now-known site of the original West
region,Wanborough and Cunetio, may indicate that the Overton (which may have already been deserted by the
area lay in two different pagi. If this is the case then they later 10th century) is alongside East Kennett.
are most likely to reflect pre-conquest groupings and Another hint of correlation might be that ‘early
some variation could be expected. More detailed settlements’ are connected in some way with boun
analysis of the coarse pottery in the region could assist daries (eg, East Kennett, the Overtons, Lockeridge,
in the identification of micro-regional trends. Fyfield). Apart from the probable villa at Fyfield, all
known pre-Anglo-Saxon settlements are not under
present or Anglo-Saxon villages: it appears that early
Transport and Communication Anglo-Saxon settlement occurred at the edge of
existing estates, away from where people were already
One major Roman road runs through the study area living.This may imply a gradual influx of people rather
from east to west.This is the route linking London with than a sudden arrival en masse. Following the evidence
Bath and the Bristol Channel at Sea Mills, near Bristol. from Avebury and West Kennett it may therefore be
Where still extant, most notably to the south-west of necessary to investigate the Kennet Valley in the vicinity
Beckhampton, the road survives as a substantial agger. of present villages for further indications of early
Much of the remainder of its course through the study settlement.
area is now known with reasonable certainty and It would be useful to understand the relationship of
current investigations by Gill Swanton are providing the early Anglo-Saxon settlement to the henge and to
details of an unexpectedly complex construction and the church and to the later abandoned village around
development. The road from Cunetio to Sorviodunum the winterbourne and east of Avebury Trusloe.
cuts across the eastern extremity of the study area Following or in parallel with this a programme of
although its exact course is uncertain where it crosses research along the valley could establish whether there
the east end of the Vale of Pewsey. Other roads must be are similar relationships between other prehistoric
anticipated in the region, although they need not be of monuments, possible early settlement (for instance, the
the same high standard of construction. palisaded enclosures and the early Anglo-Saxon
A route across the centre of the Vale of Pewsey pottery from West Kennett and the recently discovered
should be anticipated, perhaps through Honeystreet barrow east of Overton church), later settlement and
and climbing the chalk escarpment between Alton and churches.
New Town. A further east-west route through the Vale To the east, the town of Cunetio, also in the Kennet
may also be reasonably expected.The newly discovered valley, with its late Roman fortifications requires further
north–south axis of the settlement by Silbury Hill (see investigation, as does Verlucio to the west together with
above) appears to be laid out either side of a route the Wansdyke and its relationship to both of these
branching northwards from the London–Bath route, towns. The Wansdyke has been the subject of much
towards Avebury and, perhaps, ultimately Wanborough. debate; the following is a model which could be tested
At a more local level tracks etc through field systems by research, offered as an alternative to the ‘don’t know’
and downland pasture will be required for day to day syndrome Wansdyke was built in a great hurry c. 500
activities. Careful scrutiny of air photographs in before the battle of Mons Badonicus as a defensive
conjunction with study of the settlement pattern should frontier across the ‘Ridgeway zone’ by Britons v
be able to build upon the work already done by Fowler Thames Saxons and was abandoned, unfinished and
on Overton Down and Fyfield Down (Fowler 2000). redundant, immediately after that battle. Since the next
The possibility of the Kennet being navigable to tide of Saxons came from the south, ‘up its backside’,
shallow draught vessels as far as Cunetio is perhaps a so to speak, it was not reused since it was facing the
controversial point, but nevertheless should be wrong way – a neat argument which clearly dates it
considered if any large scale environmental studies are before c. AD 550 but means that it played no role in the
planned in the Marlborough region. Anglo-Saxon settlement of the area.
51
Away from the river valley, there is the possibility of Ceremony, Ritual, Burial, Religion
the reuse of hillforts and the continued occupation of
villas and ‘village’ sites such as OD XII on Overton Both ODXII and the Glebe Field Car Park sites yielded
Down. The latter site was created in abandoned fields objects which seem likely to have been hoarded,
c. AD 330 and continued in use into the mid 5th collected on the spot or brought from other sites (eg,
century, its inhabitants’ possessions including some of pennant sandstone tile on ODXII, worn stones on
high status.When abandoned the site was robbed of its Glebe Field Car Park).The possibility of a continuing
materials, presumably for reuse nearby; its successor Christian tradition in the post-Roman period must not
may lie in the adjacent valley bottom. be ruled out.The mention of a tessellated pavement at
There is very little evidence of what type of land use Fyfield House and the proximity of that building (with
was taking place during this period. Recent research its medieval origins) to Fyfield church indicates the
has indicated that alterations in sea levels may have possibility of a villa church in the late Roman period
affected trade towards the end of the Roman period with continuity of use or memory into the mediaeval
(ARA Conference BRITANNIA: the Maritime Links period. (note the Anglo-Saxon burial in the top of a
October 1997).That this may have had an effect on the Bronze Age barrow in the churchyard at Ogbourne St
inland economy would be an interesting avenue to Andrew).The pagan burials referred to above consisted
explore. Such settlements that are known may yield of two warriors, one female and two children.There are
some indications as to land use: this subject needs references in the East Overton charter to ‘heathen
detailed investigation. burials’.
Environment Engineering, Craft and Technology
The little evidence which exists for the period comes The chaff-tempered pottery of the period is very fragile
from: and survives only in protected conditions. That from
(a) Green’s excavations along the Wansdyke where Avebury and West Kennett will shortly be examined.
at Red Shore pasture was indicated and at New There is little else known for this period: a study of
Buildings where there was evidence for museum archives would be a preliminary to further
woodland or forest; research.
(b) Evans’s work in the Kennet Valley where
although there is no specific early Anglo-Saxon
horizon during the preceding Roman period the People (Diet and Health)
valley floor appears to have been used for
grazing. Very little is currently known; some evidence may be
There is no evidence of any major change in the forthcoming from the Avebury Glebe Field Car Park
landscape; when it is possible to decipher a landscape site; together with what is known from OD XII, this
from the 10th century charters it is a familiar one, not only gives a glimpse of eating habits and health matters.
only like today’s but with major features from earlier Investigation of further settlements and burials which
times. are discovered would greatly assist this line of
investigation.
Chronology
Social Organisation, Economy and Subsistence
Dating of the finds from the Glebe Field Car Park sites
will be useful (taking into account the difficulties over The economic and social changes taking place during
the recording of the Vatcher excavations). Should other and beyond the 5th century require examination,
settlements be discovered careful sampling for dating although the evidence upon which it is possible to draw
should be carried out. Late coins from the area (OD is very sparse. Some documents and texts may assist;
XII and Bishops Cannings Hoard) may indicate the later charters may enshrine arrangements stretching
continuing circulation during the 5th century. An back into the Roman period and beyond. (See also
examination of late coins from the area and their above, Settlement and Land Use).
contexts would be useful.The Anglo-Saxon cemetery
on Overton Hill, excavated in 1962, produced objects
of 5th–6th century date. There are texts and Transport and Communication
documents, such as the Anglo Saxon Chronicles, which
refer to this period and generally to the area; these are The presence of a major Roman road (The Roman
useful but require cautious treatment. ‘A4’) may have given the area an importance in
52
communication terms. Investigations in 1997 showed Settlement and Land Use

that in the lower lying sections of its route it appears to
have been subject to flooding and ‘side shifting’ as well In general terms, the location of Anglo-Saxon and
as resurfacing.The dates of these occurrences have not medieval settlement at Avebury is clearly established,
yet been established. It cannot be ruled out that some but all too little is known about internal organisation.
of this activity may be of post-Roman date: indeed it is Excavation could establish the extent of the car-park
more likely that an established and well surfaced route settlement, and limited cuttings the nature of tenement
would continue in use than not, at least for a while, boundaries within the present settlement in order to
unless (in the case of low lying areas) further flooding test hypotheses based upon topographical data.
made this impossible. Fieldwalking has high potential for the identification of
Later documentary evidence suggests that at some associated Later Anglo-Saxon and medieval
time the route eastwards from Piggledene shifted to the settlements, although earlier sites are less likely to be
north of the Roman Road and followed much the same recognised by ceramic scatters owing to the poor
route as it does now.The minor lanes and tracks in use quality and overall paucity of such finds on settlement
in early Anglo-Saxon times were probably already old sites. Analysis of the composition and nature of
and are also probably those which are still in use today assemblages derived from fieldwalking should enable
– the argument behind this is that there has been no areas of manured arable cultivation to be distinguished
basic change in land use or the centres to which it from ploughed settlement sites.
relates for 1500 years. The Ridgeway possibly began In the 1970s Peter Fowler showed that Fyfield and
developing during the early Saxon period but its West Overton parish units contained evidence for
existence is not documented until the 10th century Roman villas and medieval villages (1976) and a
charters. It was one of several north–south routes which reappraisal of this hypothesis has demonstrated an
served the area. It may have evolved as a convenient unbroken chain of eight such land units stretching from
throughway between land holdings on either side and Preshute to Compton Bassett (Langlands 1998).
has been used to define a number of local parish Further work will probably extend this group.
boundaries. Fieldwork and aerial photographic evidence has high
potential to examine evidence for field systems of ridge-
and-furrow type. Fieldwork atYatesbury, however, has
shown that evidence for such fields may only survive
3.8 Late Saxon and Medieval where enclosure period droveways have preserved
Andrew Reynolds traces of former fields along their course; thus
indicating the need for field investigation.
Any consideration of the Anglo-Saxon settlement at
Avebury should involve attempts to reconstruct early
territorial units. With this factor in mind the research Environment
area should include the Domesday (and probably much
earlier) Hundred of Selkley – the parish of Avebury lies There is little environmental material from which to
at the western end of the hundred (Fig. 18), which reconstruct agricultural systems and landscapes and it
extends eastward as far as Aldbourne and southwards should be viewed as a principal research objective to
as far as the northern edge of the vale of Pewsey. The obtain environmental evidence pertaining to the
presence in the local landscape of substantial ancient Anglo-Saxon and medieval periods: John Evans’s work
features such as Roman roads and Wansdyke can allow has demonstrated its potential value. Valley sediments
sequences of landscape development to be suggested have the potential to throw light on the post-Roman
upon the basis of horizontal stratigraphy.The dating of period, particularly where features such as dump
Wansdyke, however, is not yet closely established and lynchets and field banks that may be broadly datable
limited fieldwork might allow this problem to be seal them. The potential of sediments from the
resolved. Abberd Brook valley to the west of Avebury at
The study of settlement patterns should include an Compton Bassett should not be overlooked.
element not dictated by documented territories. In this Documentary sources (Anglo-Saxon charter
respect, it is important that the study area includes a boundaries and medieval estate records) and place-
sample of landscape of geological and topographical name evidence can establish an outline of the
contrast to the chalk downland. In common with environment, but further excavated data is required.
research into earlier periods, there has been a paucity
of fieldwork in adjacent areas, although the Fyfield
Down and Compton Bassett projects have made Chronology
significant progress in this respect.
Although radiocarbon dates have been obtained for
Middle to Late Anglo-Saxon occupation deposits, there
53
are queries regarding the dating of the car-park site and Engineering,Technology and Craft
the chronology of the various phases of earthworks
visible on the RCHME plan. Chaff-tempered pottery Detailed study of the building stone employed in St
is broadly dated between the 5th and 10th centuries, James’s Church would contribute to an understanding
but there is still a tendency to assign an early Anglo- of the mechanisms of the local building industry.
Saxon date (5th–7th centuries) to such material. The Topographical evidence from the RCHME survey
RCHME plan should allow the elucidation of a clear suggests middle and late Anglo-Saxon planned phases
relative chronology for the various phases, but further to the settlement. A study of property boundaries and
scientific dates are needed – particularly for the sub- plot dimensions would help address issues of public
rectangular burh and for the apparently planned planning policy the early England. The nature of
settlement it overlies. A full analysis of the RCHME industrial production in Anglo-Saxon and medieval
plan would allow a refined sampling programme to be Avebury is very poorly understood owing to a lack of
achieved. Almost all post-Roman artefacts from excavated data, although petrological analyses of
previous excavations remain unpublished and/or excavated ceramics is likely to shed light on patterns of
unstudied and require assessment. local and regional manufacture and supply.
Ceremony, Ritual, Burial and Religion People (Diet and Health)
The new feature within the henge (Fig. 20) bears close There is little available data from which to assess the
affinities with a newly identified type of early Anglo- physical attributes of local populations, although
Saxon shrine (Blair 1995). Such shrines comprise documentary sources will generally assist the
square structures, which are either sited within or reconstruction of population size in the post-Conquest
encapsulate circular monuments of earlier date. period. Burial sites other than at St James’s Church are
Hence, the new feature may be of more than one known (see Ceremony, Ritual, Burial and Religion
period. There is considerable scope here to investigate above) but their potential is difficult to assess without
monument reuse (cf. Bradley 1992). further data.
The SMR includes a number of groups of burials
near the monument. These include secondary
interments in barrows (usually 6th–7th century Anglo- Social Organisation, Economy and Subsistence
Saxon) but also other undated burials. A detailed
reappraisal of these may well provide a framework for Social organisation is reasonably well understood on a
interpretation, eg, relationships to boundaries. The broad level, although there is high potential for detailed
presence of a probable minster church at Avebury by local and regional research into this material. Charter
the 9th century suggests Christian control of burial and place-name evidence, combined with the admin
rites in the area by the end of that century, with the istrative framework of hundreds and estate organisation
burials of executed felons probably on the southern provided by the Domesday Survey, should allow a
boundary of Selkley Hundred at Stanton St Bernard – relatively clear view of landscape organisation and
where charter bounds of 957 and 960 record a wearh management. The status of Avebury in the Anglo-
roda (OE criminals cross/gallows) on Wansdyke Saxon period is hard to assess without further
(Reynolds 1999, figs 28, 83 and 109). excavation, although the presence of a minster church
The nature of burial between the 7th and 10th from the 9th century ensures that there will be evidence
centuries, however, is poorly understood and it seems for social hierarchy from at least that time.
that field cemeteries continued in the manner of the Understanding Anglo-Saxon agriculture through
late pagan burial grounds until much later that is archaeological evidence is arguably far more
commonly perceived (Lucy and Reynolds forth problematic than it is in prehistory or in the Roman
coming). Exploratory fieldwork could establish the date period as there are no characteristic field types. Study
and character of the undated burial(s) at the foot of of documentary and aerial photographic evidence
Waden Hill and of the possible cemetery near the together with an analysis of the features on the
sanctuary. Burial in the medieval period presumably RCHME plan should further understanding of the
took place at St James’ Church. nature of medieval agriculture. It is important,
The siting of Anglo-Saxon burials and religious however, that the period should not be seen in blanket
structures (including churches) in proximity to pagan terms.The RCHME survey indicates that agricultural
monuments is of considerable interest (with notable regimes were altered and farming practices changed
concentrations in Wiltshire, Dorset and Yorkshire) and over time. Properly excavated and recorded
Avebury presents important opportunities for such assemblages of faunal remains are required to
studies. understand the nature of animal husbandry (parti
54
cularly in the Anglo-Saxon period), as the material Looking Forward or Looking Back
excavated to date is not suitable for detailed analysis.
In determining a research agenda for the entire
landscape there are two main approaches to the
Transport and Communication creation of a structured research agenda for
environmental archaeology. One is by review (Allen
Study of the Anglo-Saxon road network in the 2000a) – ‘looking back’, and the other by questioning
Avebury area has been undertaken since 1994 by the – ‘looking forward’ (see Allen 1998). The assiduous
Compton Bassett Area Research Project using a review of past work can indicate obvious gaps and
combination of documentary, placename, cartographic weaknesses in our overall picture.These can then form
and archaeological evidence. Provenance studies of the basis of prioritised lists. Review, therefore, isolates
building stones and ceramics (see Engineering, areas we need to concentrate upon to increase
Technology and Craft above) would provide further coverage (in space and time) of our database. It does
data from which to assess the relative importance of not, however, necessarily advance our interpretational
communication networks already identified. power or knowledge or even greatly enhance our
understanding of landscape history and land use. For
this reason the major concept of ‘looking forward’ is
3.9 Palaeo-environmental offered as a basis for providing the essential key
Michael J. Allen framework of enquiry for the entire WHS, and within
which a series of broadly chronological themes may
No archaeological research projects have attempted to also be addressed. In many ways this reiterates some of
embrace the WHS as a single site with all of its the research ideas outlined for Wessex as a whole (Allen
complexities either in a project, or as a concept. It is 1998), but includes points specific to the Avebury
clear that, in order to understand this arbitrarily WHS. The environmental archaeological research
defined area, we need information to provide agenda therefore comprises three elements:
interpretation not just of individual sites but of the area
as a whole. In many respects this requires the • Research Framework
aggregation of site-based data (cf. Allen 1997a), and the • Chronological and Thematic Priorities
inclusion of studies of specific landscape zones, eg, the • Environmental Enquiry
Upper Kennet valley (Evans et al. 1988; 1993; Mount
1991). The first of these underpins the other two but will
Key issues in understanding human activity, be dealt with along with the framework for thematic
exploitation and use of the area, modification of, and exploration of the archaeological evidence proposed by
constructions within the landscape are based upon the Cleal (Section 3.10, below).
distribution of both the natural and modified biological
resources. As a result of the extensive research of John
Evans we have a general chronological scheme for the Chronological and Thematic Priorities
chalklands of southern England(Evans and Jones 1979,
209; see also Entwistle and bowden 1991, table 2) but Many of the broader chronological and thematic
little information of the pattern of land use within this priorities defined here for the Avebury WHS, are
area. The definition not only of land use around local applicable elsewhere in Wessex (Allen 1998).These are
sites but of the pattern of land use across the region set out in broadly chronological order, though nearly
(the WHS) will help us to construct the ‘archaeological all themes are relevant to more than one period or
stage’ upon, and in which, communities lived and by series of events.
which their activities were constrained (Allen 2000b;
2000c). It provides the resource base and potential in Late Glacial/Upper Palaeolithic
terms of the flora and fauna; ie, food, fuel and shelter. Defining the Late Glacial environment (Alleröd phase
Examining evidence for the past landscape and of soils) and the potential for early habitation in the
landscape change can help us understand the develop chalkland should be a priority. Alleröd phase buried
ment of how prehistoric families used and lived the soils have recently been discovered in dry valleys in
landscape in terms of clearance, farming and Wessex (Burleston Down, Dorset;Watcombe Bottom,
cultivation, and how the consequences of any changes Isle of Wight), and in wetter locations (Westhampnett,
were met by those communities. In effect, the land West Sussex) which may contain evidence not only of
scape is as important as the sites within it; it is more the warming climatic conditions that prevailed, but also
that just the backdrop to the stage, it is integral to, and the possibility of human habitation in this ameliorating
defines, the parameters of human activity (environ period (Housley et al. 1997).
mental possibilism).
55
Palaeolithic was chronological uniform (Tansley 1939). Was the

Studies of the environment during the Palaeolithic have early Post-glacial to Atlantic woodland present
generally been undertaken within a broad palaeo ubiquitously across the landscape? Did the deciduous
geographic framework with aims such as examining Atlantic woodland develop over the whole of the
climatic change, chronology, broad vegetation changes, Avebury WHS? Or were there natural large openings
faunal catalogues and regional sedimentological and glades which were exploited and modified by
patterns (see sections by Lawson and Scott-Jackson, prehistoric communities as has been tentatively
this volume). Balaam and Scaife offer concerns on a suggested for the Dorchester area (see Allen 1997b,
national scale that ‘No concerted attempt has been 278).Would this provide some explanation for the foci
made to examine the possible effects, if any, of of Neolithic monuments in this region?
Palaeolithic man upon his local environment’ and in How did the woodland in the Kennet and
all palaeo-geographical studies it has been assumed that Winterbourne valleys differ from that on the lowland
the role of prehistoric communities was subordinate to chalk (around Avebury) and on the upland chalk? Did
that of natural causes’ (1987, 8).What is of particularly the nature of the early woodland on Windmill Hill,
importance in both archaeological and environmental Beckhampton Penning–West Kennett, and Overton
science is the presence of in situ, and not derived, Down vary, and is this reflected in the sites and
deposits and assemblages. Evans et al. (1988; 1993) occupation patterns?
have demonstrated the date and variation of deposits
within the Upper Kennet and Winterbourne (see also Clearance of the woodland (Mesolithic to
Allen and Powell 1996) and the potential for finding Roman period)
slack-water deposits and in situ remains in these valleys When did the first woodland clearances occur? We have
must be considered. evidence in Dorset (Down Farm) and Wiltshire
The climatic changes had a major influence in (Stonehenge) for clearance in the Mesolithic – what did
resculpting the physical nature of the local landscape it represent? How extensive was clearance around some
from the dry valleys infilled with periglacial solifluction of the Neolithic sites (eg, Windmill Hill), and what
material to the underfit rivers in the Kennet and viewsheds did this reveal? Was clearance species-
Winterbourne valleys (see Wymer 1999). These major selective? In what locations did this occur? How was
changes in the physical landscape ensure that defining clearance achieved? Can we define the nature and
the nature of Avebury area, even in broad terms, is extent of clearance rather than just acknowledge that
important in understanding the physical topography, it occurred? Is this indicative of woodland
the potential or likely location of both derived management? Was clearance for the timber or to create
Palaeolithic artefacts, but more importantly potential openings in the woodland canopy which may have
in situ deposits and assemblages. encouraged the growth of grasses and wild fruits to eat
and which would have attracted animals which could
Composition and seasonal distribution of wild be hunted, or for the creation of an open space for
fauna (Palaeolithic–Neolithic) occupation. Is clearance evidence of settlement? How
The presence, diversity, locational occurrence and big were these clearances? How did they expand and
seasonal availability of wild fauna is important from grow – can we map them? How did they relate to
Palaeolithic to Neolithic periods. Research needs to monuments, and to settlement?
address the presence and availability in the Avebury
region, and their contribution to the diet for which we Management of the woodland (Mesolithic to
can construct hunting and culling strategies. Spatial post-medieval)
variation may occur as herds migrate along river and What evidence is there for specific management within
dry valley routes, as opposed to those which browse the woodland? What was this for – the timber, an open
and range across the higher land. woodland resource to entice animals, or the encourage
ment of other floral communities (shrubs with fruits
Composition and distribution of the woodland and berries etc)? Were woods specifically planted,
mosaic (Palaeolithic–Medieval) designated and managed? Was there a ‘woodland
What was the wildwood like? There is a need to allocation’, or ownership which related to specific
characterise the early Post-glacial woodland vegetation communities, settlements or farms? Were there
in terms of species composition, variability, and different types of woodland which were used and
nature of the woodland canopy, the subcanopy and the managed for different resources?
woodland floor flora. It is necessary to examine this
over space to consider the mosaics of woodland and of Why is this area a focus of Late Neolithic–Early
glades (both natural and created) in that woodland. Bronze Age monuments? Was there an
Further, there is a need to challenge the Tansleyain environmental reason for this location?
concept that the woodland was both uniform across Can we detect any environmental reason for the choice
each topographic unit, and that the floral development and focus of Late Neolithic–Early Bronze Age activity
56
and monuments in this location? Does this relate to (estates, farms or parishes) of land, and the smaller
previous activity and clearance (Allen and Gardiner scale of individuals fields and paddocks. The type,
forthcoming)? What was the land use and economy of reason and date of division, and the use within those
the communities who built the monuments? Despite divisions may characterise the nature of the whole
the high level of research over the past 15 years, use of community. This is relevant from prehistory and
the landscape in which the Neolithic and Bronze Age throughout the historic periods. There is noticeable
monument complexes occur still remains less well difference in land allotment in the Overton–Fyfield
understood than the sites themselves.This is beginning area and Windmill Hill to West Kennett area – is this
to be addressed indirectly through analytical due to local topography, soils, former vegetation
programmes of individual sites or projects, rather than patterns, or is this a cultural choice (routeways, settle
overtly through the analysis with a common goal to ment inertia)?
examine some of the elements of the broader WHS as
a whole. Agricultural systems: field systems and how
they operated
How was the landscape inadvertently modified How field systems were operated as a unit is an
by human action? important issue in understanding them as archae
The development of the physical landscape can be seen ological sites, and understanding the economy of their
as a theme running through many archaeological owners.Where they for crops or animals? or were they
enquiries. But what changes did human activities used in rotation? Which crops were grown, and where
engender? (eg, Allen 1996). How, when, where and – where fields or field systems used simultaneously but
why did anthropogenically driven colluviation and on differing soil types used for different crops? Did the
alluviation occur? and what was the extent of same apply to animals? How were the field systems
sedimentation? When and how much sediment was used as stockyards and paddocks (see Pryor (1996) and
carried out of the topographic system encompassed by Fowler (2000) for examples). Well defined field
the WHS? What was the consequence of the erosion of systems exist on Overton–Fyfield Down, but do more
the soils, sediments and natural geology, and of the open, less well-defined systems exist elsewhere to the
deposition of the sediments in terms of pedology, west, eg, Windmill Hill, etc.
agronomy, floral potential, and topographical modi
fication? What consequence did this have, if any, upon Change in livestock, crops and agricultural
consequent land use and settlement patterns? systems
Changes in both the species of animals husbanded and
What was the economic basis of the societies in plants cultivated and in the morphology of those
the Avebury area – can we quantify this; what species can be documented.Was the change of species
was the land take required to support that (plants and animals) a cultural one (fashion, cultural
economy and what was the ‘whole diet’? preference/taste), or an economic one (changing
For each period or phase of activity one integral environ-ment, soil conditions, vegetation growth
element to understanding the communities and their making previous selections untenable, or requirement
individual or corporate actions is the ‘whole diet’ and for increased or change in productivity)? How did these
subsistence of those people. When was the first changes manifest themselves in the economy, the
evidence of agriculture? When did communities start to settlement and land use patterns and the archaeological
rely on agricultural produce rather than use it as remains (both materials and architecture of the field
supplement in a broader-based hunting-foraging- monument and archaeological remains)? Changes in
gardening economy? Can this change to reliance of the use of the land in the historic periods are as
agricultural produce be seen to relate to any specific important as in prehistory (Bell and Dark 1998). The
events in the archaeological record, eg, monuments combination of the environmental data with carto
building, settlement evidence? What was the sub graphic and documentary evidence provides an
sistence and farming economy? What was the opportunity for a much higher resolution of
proportion of animal husbandry (meat or dairy) to understanding.
plant foods? What is desired is a greater understanding
of the nature of the whole diet, not just disparate Establishing the rural economy and defining
elements of it, and the management of the land, plant changes cause and reason (all periods)
and animal resources both by individuals and at a The establishment of the rural economy is fundamental
community (market) level. to all periods. Defining changes, cause and reasons
allows us to explore the changing nature of settlements,
Land division and land allotment of community and of lifestyle.
From the Bronze Age onwards (if not earlier) formal Recording the changing land use and land organisa
division of the landscape occurred. At the wider scale tion and ownership. In the historic periods the
this included the dividing or defining of large blocks combination of environmental and landscape data with
57
Anglo-Saxon charter bounds, placenames and later potential to mask archaeological sites, the occurrence
historical documents is probably the most effective and date of these deposits over the whole area is
research path. therefore important. In this respect field testing and
prediction models (eg, GIS) such as that used by Day
People (1999) should be developed.
Humans peopled the landscape, but who were they? Buried soils and landscapes of the post Roman and
Where did they come from? Were they related? Saxon periods are likely to exist, and the occurrence of
Academic discussion has been prolonged about later medieval ridge and furrow lynchets may them
whether different cultures represent developments and selves mask, obscure and preserve important data of
the arrival or new ideas, or of new people.The presence post-Roman and pre 10th century AD date. The
of skeletal material from Neolithic to Bronze Age creation of ridge and furrow may protect portions of
enables the possibility of examining DNA between older, even prehistoric, evidence as Palmer illustrates
periods, and close family links within single burials (eg, (Palmer 1996).
West Kennett).
Waterlogged deposits
The presence of waterlogged deposits with the
Environmental Enquiry preservation of waterlogged plant remains and of
insects should be realised and examined to provide an
In addition to the main themes addressed above, we additional suite of data usually lacking from generally
can identify a few pertinent lines of environmental free-drained chalkland areas.
enquiry relating to the soils, vegetation and archae
ological science of the area.
3.11 Towards a Research Framework
Soils for the Avebury Landscape
Although buried soils are recognised and sampled Rosamund M.J. Cleal and
where they occur beneath archaeological monuments Michael J. Allen
(eg, Cornwall et al. 1997), they are rarely examined in
detail themselves (soil micromorphology).We have little The Archaeological Record
evidence of their character and type. Detailed Rosamund M.J. Cleal
environmental enquiry can determine the soil type, the
nature of the land use and start to build the soil Ritual and ceremony
signatures for the region which relate to the pattern of No study of the history and prehistory of the Avebury
human activity. Wider scale questions of the nature of area could fail to acknowledge that it is an area
the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age landuse can dominated by ritual and ceremony, but it is important
be addressed, and also the nature of the woodland to remember that the period of use of the monumental
regeneration in the later Neolithic.Was this a landscape complex, including even most of the funerary
or local (site) phenomenon (Allen and Scaife in prep.)? monuments of the Early Bronze Age, may only be
1500-2000 calendar years out of the last 6000. For only
Pollen sequences a third of its recent history, therefore, did the primary
There is a high relatively high degree of soil pollen ritual and ceremonial use of the monuments dominate
analysis, but fewer attempts has been made to look at the area. In the early centuries after this time memory
long palynological sequences that might survive in and folklore may have perpetuated some of the original
alluvial sequences, or even in fine-grained ditch fills. meanings, but for the majority of the period only the
tangible, and increasingly denuded, physical remains
Bracken have stood as a reminder of previous activities.
The presence of bracken is recorded by Dimbleby on For most of this time the meaning of the
a number of chalkland sites. It occurs in a number of monuments has therefore been obscure and in each
places. The ecology of this floral community and its period an understanding of what they meant, a
eradication from the chalkland landscape around reinterpretation of their meaning, or an ascription of
Avebury might help us understand the nature of the meaning to them will have taken place.These will have
soils and of land use (Dimbleby pers. comm.). varied from, perhaps, their origins being ascribed to
natural forces, or to supernatural ones, or the ascription
Sedimentary deposits to them of associations with the spiritual which may be
Many of the Holocene sediments (colluvium and quite different to their primary associations.
alluvium) have been shown to be related to human The effect of these tangible remains on both
activity, and themselves provide excellent resources for practical considerations of settlement and landuse, and
environmental enquiry. In view of this, and their on ritual and ceremony through time are important and
58
legitimate concerns for archaeology. In an area where activities involved in them are likely to have been very
monuments and settlement have stood in such a close marked, and this has been covered at length in the
relationship over such a long time period there must be period review, particularly with regard to the
great potential for addressing these problems, as is identification of settlement. For periods subsequent to
recognised in this volume in the period reviews. the Early Bronze Age ritual and ceremony is also
Two questions relevant to this theme may be seen inextricably linked with the theme of settlement, land
as applicable in every period: use and land division in that one factor in such use may
have been avoidance of areas with a ritual or ceremonial
• What was – as far as can be established by ‘history’, which in itself implies a recognition of some
archaeology – the nature of ritual and ceremony? areas as having such a ‘special’ nature. Such possibilities
• How did that involve – or how was it influenced emerge particularly strongly with the development of
by – the existence of the Neolithic and Bronze permanent boundaries, and culminate in the question
Age monuments. ? of the reality or otherwise of the apparent ‘black hole’
in settlement and use of the area around Avebury in the
Applying these questions to every period is an 1st millennium BC.
acknowledgement that the importance and influence of The possibility of a direct connection between the
the monuments for which the area is listed as a WHS monumental complex and ritual or ceremony in later
did not cease with the changes of the 2nd millennium periods has been suggested in this volume most
BC which saw the end of their primary use. strongly for the Late Iron Age and Romano-British
periods. In several areas there are indications of Roman
Shedding light on ritual & ceremony activity which possibly or probably included a ritual or
In this volume the potential for research to reveal new ceremonial element which was prompted by the
details of the Neolithic and Bronze Age monuments existing monuments. Finds from areas around Silbury
and to reveal other manifestations of ritual and Hill seem to include a votive element, finds from the
ceremony at every period has been suggested. For every henge may likewise be in part a result of non-domestic
period, probably from the Mesolithic onwards, there is activity, and choice of location for the unusual Roman
potential for recognising new sites or elements of sites barrows was presumably prompted by the existing
which may have a ritual or ceremonial content.This has Bronze Age mounds.
been amply demonstrated in recent years, for example, Saxon burials also occur in the same barrow
by the recognition of the West Kennett palisaded cemetery, so bringing ritual and ceremonial use of that
enclosures, by the newly discovered Middle Bronze Age area into historic times.The question of the motivation
cremation cemetery and other ritual and ceremonial for the burying of stones in the henge during the
features at West Overton G19, and by the unusual medieval period may be one in which historical rather
Roman barrows excavated in the 1960s on Overton archaeological techniques are more productive, but that
Hill. The increasing acknowledgement of a ritual too is a reminder that the influence of the monuments
element in everyday life in the past is also bound to lead is long-lasting.
to increasing recognition in the archaeological record,
and this area is peculiarly well-suited to such Settlement, land use and land division
approaches particularly if the focus does not rest This emerges as a major priority in almost every period
exclusively on the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age although the nature of the concern varies through time.
monuments: the content of the period reviews here In the earlier periods it is the identification and nature
shows that it should not. of settlement which predominates, while later it is the
details of morphology and hierarchy which assume
The influence of monuments greater importance. In all periods from the Neolithic
From the building of the earliest dated monument onwards there is the additional, but critical concern
within the WHS (which at present is Horslip long with identifying the nature of the relationship between
barrow) in the earlier Neolithic period, no period can settlement and the Neolithic complex of monuments.
be considered in isolation from what went before. Even
in the case of that ‘first’ monument, its location, Identification and nature of settlement
although almost certainly not the result of a For the pre-Neolithic periods identification of
relationship with other above-ground tangible occupation episodes is of paramount concern, given the
monuments, may well have been due to that place's paucity of known sites. Some potential exists in the re
history of previous use, stretching back into the examination of existing collections, and through
Mesolithic, which may have endowed it with some excavation of later sites. It is acknowledged that the
special qualities for the early Neolithic users of this area Avebury area is not one in which the potential for
(see Allen and Gardiner forthcoming, for instance). investigating the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic, Late
For the Neolithic and Bronze Age the influence on Glacial and Early Post-glacial is necessarily higher than
the surrounding area of the monuments and the in other areas within the region, but that the potential
59
for elucidation of these periods should not be forgotten For later prehistoric periods locating settlements is
when investigating the Neolithic and later periods. an equally high priority, although the emphasis
The Late Mesolithic to earliest Neolithic periods appears to have shifted away from Avebury. Indeed, for
emerge as of critical importance but with very little the later Bronze Age and Iron Age establishing that the
known at present.Whittle has identified the area as one apparent absence of settlement from the core area of
little used in the Late Mesolithic and in which Neolithic the World Heritage is real is a particular priority.
use cannot easily be dated on any scale until well into By the Roman period identification of settlement
the 4th millennium BC. At the same time hints of early assumes less importance, although the recent discovery
use such as evidence from beneath long barrows and of the Silbury/Winterbourne settlement shows that
for a pre-enclosure phase at Windmill Hill serve as a there still may be discoveries to be made. The
reminder that pre-monument use of the area should be potential for this is difficult to evaluate, but any surface
sought. collections conducted as part of work directed at
The settlement context of the Neolithic monuments identifying earlier settlement should also identify foci
has been stressed as little known and understood, and of later use as well.
the potential for shedding some light on this is high. Locating settlement remains a high priority in the
While large artefact scatters have been identified in sub-Roman and early Saxon periods, but becomes
overall terms, little is yet known of the detail of progressively less important through time as the general
Neolithic use of the Avebury landscape at the time of outline of the settlement pattern is fairly well
the monuments. High priority should be given to established for the historic periods.
approaching this problem through analysis of existing
material, formulation of an approach to in situ surface Settlement morphology and hierarchy
material which would both identify foci of settlement The nature of settlement is a research interest at all
without accumulating large collections of material, and periods, but there is little on which to base research into
investigating by geophysical survey and targeted morphology of earlier occupation. The form of the
excavation any likely occupation locations with newly identified Winterbourne/Silbury settlement and
features. its relationship to roads and routeways is as yet little
An approach along these lines would enable some understood, as in the undoubtedly complex nature of
comparisons to be made with the other half of the land use and land division. Land division in particular
World Heritage Site, where the results of the is a theme which runs through much of the later
Stonehenge Environs Project enable a more detailed prehistoric, Roman and more recent periods, and it is
picture of the context of the monuments to be intrinsically bound up with consideration of the
formulated than is possible at Avebury. Not only is settlements themselves. The possible continuation of
there potential for identifying areas of use, but for Roman estates into the Saxon period is one which has
identifying the nature of use to a degree greater than is been highlighted in at least three period discussions,
known at present. Ultimately, however, some and clearly calls for integrated research.
comparison needs to be made with areas outside the Moving into the historic period, morphology
immediate area of Avebury and the WHS in order to becomes a prime consideration, with the
establish whether what is represented close to the developmental history of Avebury village very poorly
monument sites is settlement at all and not some other sketched at present. Its standing in the earlier part of
form of use. this period and the use made, if any, of the henge
Towards the end of the main period of monument monument, is a pressing question and one which does
building and use the related themes of land use and have the potential to be approached with some hope of
land division assume a major importance. Use of the success.
landscape clearly undergoes a fundamental change
between the period of monument use in the 3rd
millennium BC and the end of the 1st millennium BC. The Environmental Record
In the earlier period the structure is largely one in Michael J. Allen
which boundaries in a permanent physical form are
absent, while later on boundaries become solid The research framework provides a way forward for the
features of the landscape. This almost certainly does examination of the Avebury WHS landscape and
not mean that the earlier landscape was unstructured comprises three interlinked component elements.
and the later structured, but the nature of the way in
which it was structured must have undergone some 1. Mapping land use
fundamental change. The date and nature of this Mapping interpretations of the patterns of vegetation
change, the rate at which it occurred and the location character and land use provides the basis for the
and nature of settlement which developed within the understanding of whole ‘archaeological’ landscapes.
structure of land boundaries are questions which must The map provides a major interpretative tool in its own
dominate this theme in the 2nd and 1st millennia BC. right (Allen 2000c) and does not merely provide the
60
background, like a ‘landscape’ painting, in which to j) a basis for defining the most important deposits
place the cultural objects and sites of study. The large on a site or non-site basis for advancing the
environmental datasets within confined and defined environmental and archaeological framework of
spatial parameters, enable the interpretational mapping the area.
of land use and vegetation character by period. The
interpretation of the environmental data for each site, Beneath the land use map is a dataset of site and
or ‘catchment area’ can be draped over a terrain model environmental data and of the environmental
of the study area. Informed interpretation of the areas interpretation of that information. Within this lies the
between those interpretation envelopes enables the confidence or weakness of presented mapped inter
production of a completed map (see Allen 2000c; pretation. The overall map is, therefore, comprised of
1997a, pls 1–5). Such maps can be challenged, inter a series of ‘interpretive pixels’, the physical distance
rogated and modified by further work.They provide the from the dataset (sites) and nature of that inter
basis for understanding the economic and resource pretation enables some sort of confidence level to be
base for society and for the development of their attributed to every area (pixel) of the map.
settlement patterns.These maps can contribute to the
understanding of social action and social power, 2. Chronological framework
especially in prehistoric monumental landscapes (cf Directly linked the creation of maps of land use and
Allen 1997a). vegetation character is the question of chronological
The environmental data, and the interpretation resolution. In order to facilitate the chronological and
derived from them need to be spatially fixed, cover the physical mapping of these data it is important that the
study area with relative uniformity, and be environmental datasets, and not just the archaeological
chronologically defined (Allen 2000c).The mapping of events, are well and closely dated. In order to map and
the whole Avebury WHS by a series of defined chrono to examine development within a study area it is,
logical stages or archaeological periods will enable therefore, necessary to ensure that datasets can be
and/or provide: related between sites to ensure contemporariety or
succession (Allen 1997a, 139). Often much of the data
a) indication of changing and developing landscapes will be derived from sequences of land snails or soil
which reflect the socio-economic status and events from deposits such as ditch fills which are not,
development of the local communities; therefore, well dated. Often only the base of the
b) possible indications of changes in emphasis, new sequence (ie, construction/digging of the ditch/feature)
ideologies, or of changing potential of the is dated; thus any events and changes in that sequence,
landscape to maintain specific soil, animal and which may cover centuries if not millennia, cannot be
plant resources; related to the temporal framework. It is critical that
c) indication of how communities have modified both the fills and the included environmental datasets
and used the wider, non-monumental land are closely dated (Allen 1997a, 138–40).
scape;
d) information of the distribution of that land use 3. Avebury WHS landscape issues
(though this is skewed to data sources which are Within the study area we can immediately isolate some
normally ‘archaeological sites’); issues relating to the local landscape.These are neither
e) the distribution, pattern and nature of exclusive nor inclusive, but provide an outline of some
exploitation of the area, and may enable issues derived from contributors to the period reviews
information about the economy and social land of this Research Agenda. Some issues are encapsulated
scape which created the physical land use in the mapping land use proposal, and in the
landscape; chronological themes listed below.
f) a physical map which can be tested, modified,
and amended with new fieldwork and new data. Rivers and streams
It is good base which can be continually up The course, nature, flow, size, and depth of the rivers
dated; and streams (Winterbourne, Kennet and Og) within
g) information from the maps provides a the study area for each defined period.Where were the
framework to query and helps drive targeted spring heads, and what was the nature of the valley
research; floors and sides? What was the vegetation on the river
h) the information provides an ideal basis for visual edges and in the valleys floors and how did this contrast
representation (eg, preliminary illustrations by with that on the interfluves. Are these differences
Jayne Brayne); reflected in the artefact distribution, settlement and
i) an aid in isolating potential important and fragile activity patterns? Variation in the sediment sequences
datasets which can be incorporated into the within the river valleys indicate that no one section is
management issues into the overall plan; necessarily representative of the whole (see Allen and
61
Powell 1996). Major studies have been conducted in Land in between

the Kennet, but little is known of the sedimentation The use of the land between the foci of Neolithic and
regime in the Kennet downstream from the Og (Mount Bronze Age monuments sites is particularly significant
1991; Evans et al. 1993, 189, 191, point 8). – these are areas particularly poor in study and weak in
data as few archaeological sites are defined or have
Colluvium been examined in these areas. Indeed few ‘sites’ per se
The presence and absence of colluvium on the chalk may occur in them, but these areas form an integral
downland and on river valley edges (which may mask part of the resource base which supported them.
prehistoric or historic sites; eg, Allen 1996). Note In the sections of this chapter that follow, strategies are
especially the Beaker sites recorded under hillwash in listed in no particular order of priority unless otherwise
Piggledene (Allen in Fowler 2000) and other earlier stated.
Bronze Age sites recorded under hillwash in the
Overton–Fyfield Area, eg, Down Barn, Overton
(Fowler 2000).
Part 4: Research Strategies
In the sections that follow, strategies are presented in cannot be guaranteed, however many investigations
no particular order of priority unless otherwise stated. prior to excavation take place or money spent.
1. Accurate and detailed recording using

4.1 Lower and Middle Palaeolithic appropriate scientific techniques is required for
Julie Scott-Jackson all Palaeolithic artefacts (however worn or
derived), the geological contexts of their
If in situ Lower and Middle Palaeolithic sites are to be findspots and any associated Pleistocene fauna
found on the highest hilltops and plateaux in (bones) and flora (pollen samples).
Downland areas mapped as Clay-with-flints in the 2. Where opportunities exist, investigations should
Avebury area and the integrity of these high-level sites be undertaken to examine, record and analyse
is to be maintained, then the new methodological the Pleistocene sediments. Data derived from
approach developed for identifying and analysing them such investigations will provide important
must be used (for details see Scott-Jackson 2000). additions to the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic
High- and low-level Palaeolithic sites should only be framework in the Avebury area.
investigated by fieldworkers with sufficient expertise, 3. All existing data on the Avebury Lower and
using all appropriate techniques. Such investigations Middle Palaeolithic findspots/sites should be
should only be permitted where adequate resources for reviewed and the artefact collections re
proper investigation, analysis and reporting have been examined. The results of these investigations
secured in advance. Controlled surface collection should be collated and published.
(fieldwalking) may locate Palaeolithic artefacts. Both 4. Given the importance of the context of the
the findspots of the surface finds and the artefacts findspots/sites, detailed information on geology
themselves must be recorded in detail. No augering, and topography should stated in addition to the
coring or removal of topsoil must take place on high- grid reference. A great deal of this information
level Palaeolithic findspots/sites on deposits mapped as is already to be found in Wessex Archaeology
Clay-with-flints, as such disturbances can result in the (1993) and Scott-Jackson (1999).
loss of crucial data and/or damage to the underlying
archaeology. All such investigations are to be
undertaken only as part of a controlled excavation
programme. 4.2 Late Glacial and Early
Geological exposures should be cleaned, recorded, Post-glacial
sampled and analysed by appropriated experienced Andrew J. Lawson
fieldworkers.The precise context of any archaeology or
faunal remains should be plotted with accuracy. Such 1. The location and controlled excavation of any in
requirements should be specified wherever exposures situ Upper Palaeolithic or Mesolithic material
are likely to occur (such as quarrying or deep would be of the greatest significance because no
excavation). PPG 16 and pertinent development plan extensive investigation of such a site has
policies should always be referred to in case of any occurred in the Avebury area.The site would be
threat from development to a known or potential all the more significant if were associated with
Palaeolithic site. preserved organic deposits or artefacts.
2. The comparison of different sites in different
topographical locations would help to develop a
Strategies picture of mobility, seasonality, communication
and land use.
As Lower and Middle Palaeolithic people were hunter/ 3. An outline environmental history of the area has
scavengers/gatherers in the Avebury area from around been developed and every opportunity should be
500,000 BP to approximately 40,000 BP, we must taken to enhance and develop the picture of late
consider the Avebury area landscape as whole and in Pleistocene and Holocene environments in the
consequence accept that no one site, in any one specific Avebury area. Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic
area, is likely to hold all the clues to the activities of a sites may occur beneath or within any of the
particular group or groups, of Palaeolithic people. valley sediments (solifluction, gravel, alluvium,
The discovery of in situ Lower and Middle peat) and the analysis of the physical context of
Palaeolithic sites (particularly on the deposits mapped the artefacts would be essential in determining
as Clay-with-flints) is the ideal, but such discoveries its contemporaneous environmental setting.
63
4. Whenever later prehistoric monuments 1. Can the dating of the use of West Kennet long
(especially those of the Neolithic) are excavated barrow in its primary funerary role be refined
particular vigilance must be maintained in the sufficiently so that the number of generations
recording of earlier, Mesolithic artefacts and this represents may be estimated to within four
features.The soil within which such artefacts are to five (ie, within 100 years) (4 existing dates
found may itself hold clues to the land use within the range 3780–3360 cal BC)?
history of the site. Any evidence for structures, 2. Can the date for the construction of the
ceremonial or domestic, must be regarded as of causewayed enclosure on Windmill Hill be
the greatest national priority. Similarly, any refined to within 100 years or less (19 existing
evidence which throws light on the mechanism dates from the site (one of which has been
of transition from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic rejected as it was on a bulked sample), six of
must be given the greatest priority. which are from primary contexts. These almost
5. Radiocarbon dates are essential to give greater all fall within the period 3700–3100 at 2 sigma;
precision to the differentiation of different lithic 3640–3350 at 1 sigma). Here the question might
technologies, environmental changes and the be whether high precision dating of antler from
initiation of built structures. primary contexts (and therefore strongly
6. A re-examination of extant collections would associated with the construction) might refine
confirm the identity of imprecisely described the dating.
objects. 3. Can the dates of construction of all long barrows
previously excavated be refined to within two
hundred and fifty years, or preferably within a
4.3 Neolithic and Early Bronze Age century or less? (Existing dates: Horslip, one
Rosamund M. J. Cleal date 4240–3810 cal BC; South Street, two dates
primary in ditches, one from mound all within
1. Establishing the Monument and Settlement 3640–3040 cal BC; Millbarrow, three dates
Sequence: dating primary in ditch c. 3380–2930 cal BC).
4. If the construction dates of monuments can be
Despite much well-directed work in the 1980s and refined, can existing dates (and any additional
1990s, particularly by M. Pitts and A.Whittle (Pitts and dates obtained) for pre-monument activity be re-
Whittle 1992;Whittle 1993) there are still problems in examined and modelled using the now better-
identifying a sequence to the monuments and in defined construction dates of the monuments
establishing dates for them.The problem is one which succeeding them?
also extends to other elements of the landscape. 5. Can the date of construction of the henge bank
Refinement of all of this is vital to a further under- and ditch be refined to within a century or less?
standing of Avebury. Existing date: (one date for henge ditch primary
There are two possible approaches which may be fill of 3040–2780 cal BC)?
considered, which should probably be tackled 6. Can the date or dates of the stone settings within
sequentially. Firstly, the examination of existing dates the henge be refined to within at least 250 years,
in the light of newly applied statistical approaches aided or preferably to within a century (Existing dates:
by acquiring new dates from material existing in the two dates 2870–2200 cal BC)?
archive, including reviewing the possibilities for high 7. Can the date of the construction of the West
precision dating. Secondly, it is inevitable that after a Kennet Avenue be established to within 250
particular point no further progress will be made with years, or preferably within a century, and the
the first approach, and targeted excavation for further chronological relationship with the Avenue
material will have to be considered to answer remaining settlement be established (no dates for the
questions Avenue; three for the settlement, two within the
Dating of the monuments and other use of the area range 3030–2700, one 4780–4530 cal BC)?
is vital if we are to understand the societies which 8. Can the date of the Sanctuary be established to
created them.There is a very great difference between, within 250 years, and preferably within a
say, a society which is able to construct a monument century or less. (No dates)?
like Avebury in a decade, and one in which such an 9. Can the date of the inception of Silbury Hill be
undertaking would take 500 years. Specific questions established within 250 years, or preferably
to be answered include the following (references to within a century, and the subsequent en-
existing dates are to dates as summarised by Whittle largement dated likewise (Three existing
1993; ranges of dates have been rounded outwards to conventional dates plus six experimental on turf.
ten years; based on one sigma ranges, as quoted in Excluding the turf dates, two from ditch
Whittle unless noted otherwise): (presumably therefore not from Phase 1)
64
2460–2040 cal BC, and one from the surface of suggested is carried out. The following questions,
the primary mound: 2880–2490 cal BC.)? however, certainly could not be answered from the
10. Is it possible to refine the dates of the West existing material:
Kennet palisaded enclosures, to within a century 1. Is the construction of Falkner’s Circle contem
or less, including any internal sequence (Six porary with (within 250 years or, preferably, a
dates from the ditches, 2860–1890 cal BC)? century) the construction of Avebury henge,
11. Are Beaker flat graves earlier than burials within West Kennet Avenue or other ceremonial/ritual
barrows, as if so they could represent the first sites This obviously could be extended to the
funerary use of areas which later became other small circles of the area, mostly outside the
barrow sites or barrow cemeteries? A con present WHS boundaries. An important
siderable number of flat graves were also consideration in looking at the area is whether
discovered to the north of Windmill Hill ceremonial/ritual monuments were part of a
(Grinsell 1957, 34, 126) in an area not used for landscape of largely contemporary monuments
round barrows. This might be a useful area for or whether use was spread over many centuries
investigating the question of flat graves, as it has and differed in scale with time (eg, the smaller
not been subject to research (I.F. Smith pers. stone circles are considered by some to be a late
comm.), and the potential for survival of and small scale continuation of earlier ritual/
evidence in this area should be assessed. ceremonial practices).
Most of the above questions are, deliberately, posed 2. What date is the double ditched feature within
to date events – in most cases the construction of the the henge; is it earlier than, contemporary with
monuments or major episodes in their constructional (even in broad terms), or later than the henge
history, rather than their use. If this seems limited, it monument? Is it prehistoric at all? Because of
must be argued in defence that the present state of the uncertainty over dating, even a date within
knowledge is so lacking in detail that establishing a a millennium would considerably increase the
reliable sequence of events in terms of the appearance present state of knowledge.
of the monuments and sites seems vital.The definition
of that sequence alone in a trustworthy form would
immeasurably increase the potential for interpreting the 2. Environmental
monumental complex, and further programmes of
work to establish the life histories of the monuments Although much environmental work has been done
and sites could then be formulated. within the World Heritage Site, much potential for
A first step in answering these questions must be to increasing knowledge of the area remains. The degree
undertake a full assessment of all material suitable for of clearance between monuments is little documented,
radiocarbon dating surviving in the archives, with a as is the possible ‘regeneration’ phase of the middle
rigorous consideration of their suitability for dating in Neolithic. A number of research areas appear
terms of their contexts and associations (and to be immediately of interest (see sections by Mike Allen in
followed by a specialist assessment of the suitability for this volume).
dating in terms of the physical condition of the
material).
To undertake such an assessment as a single project 3. Detail within Monuments
would be a large task, but sub-division could be
possible, to carried out over a substantial time period, Even within the major monuments there is scope for
and might perhaps usefully include material from sites further elucidation of the detail of those monuments.
neighbouring the WHS. Suggested sub-divisions could In particular, and given that henge monuments often
include material from: contain complex internal settings, the existence of
settings other than the known stone ones within the
• long barrows: South Street, Milbarrow, Horslip, henge must be considered a possibility. Neither the
Beckhampton, West Kennet Northern Circle nor the Southern Circle’s internal
• causewayed enclosures: Windmill Hill, Knap settings are completely known, the southern settings to
Hill, Rybury the east of the Obelisk being particularly problematic
• Beaker period flat graves, including those and anywhere within the henge there is the possibility
adjacent to the stones of the major monuments of timber settings as well as former stone settings.There
• round barrows are also problems in interpreting ‘extra’ stone and post
• the henge, avenues and the Sanctuary holes around the northern and southern entrances.
Within the henge geophysical survey has not always
Some (perhaps the majority) of the questions listed provided easily interpretable results, but new
above may not be answerable from existing material but techniques may offer further opportunities.
this cannot be certain until an assessment such as that
65
The form of the henge is asymmetrical east to west, That this should still be true of a World Heritage
for no obvious reason, in that its western side is Site which is probably regarded by non-archaeologists
flattened, but it appears to be largely symmetrical north as having been well-investigated is telling. Barker’s
to south. A reason could perhaps be sought in the paper suggests several possible lines of enquiry, and the
avoidance of something to the west. Similarly, the identification of ‘new’ long barrows through aerial
course of the Avenue and the ‘hollow’ immediately to photography by the RCHME is also encouraging (eg,
the south of the henge’s southern entrance suggest that the ‘new’ barrow at Lockeridge illustrated in Fowler
there may be features in this area which could be and Blackwell 1998, pl. 25). Sites which certainly merit
targeted in future work (D. Field pers. comm.). attention include Beckhampton Plantation, Beck-
Away from the henge much is still not known about hampton Penning and possibly Avebury Down within
areas which were clearly foci of ceremonial or ritual the present boundaries of the WHS, and the two as yet
activity. In particular the following are questions which unexcavated barrows in the ‘cluster’ of three certain
should be approached if we are to add further sites immediately to the north (ie, Shelving Stone and
substantial detail to an understanding of the monu Monkton Down; Millbarrow has been partially
mental complexes: excavated in recent years; Whittle 1994). The results
1. Does the Beckhampton Avenue run wholly or from Millbarrow indicate the nature of surviving
only partly along the line suggested by Stukeley, evidence in such ploughed-out sites, and the value
or elsewhere? The potential for finding further particularly of the environmental sequences preserved
settings around the area of the Longstones, and in the ditches.
perhaps also at the Avenue’s terminus, if that is Recently, a research project by Dr A. Gibson for
to the west, must be high. English Heritage has been proposed which fits well
2. Does the Yatesbury cursus exist or not? within this field of enquiry; this would examine West
Geophysical survey and trial trenching Kennet long barrow by targeted excavation to try and
(University of Wales, Cardiff) have so far proved establish whether the monument is single or multi-
unproductive but the existence of the cursus has phase, in particular focusing on the possibility of their
not yet convincingly been dismissed. In the being an earlier mound to which a later mound had
original photograph by Major Allen there are been added (A. Gibson presentation to AAHRG,
two large ring ditches beside the putative Spring 2000).
cursus: it is possible that these might be more
readily identifiable than the narrower and Round Barrows
perhaps slighter ‘cursus’ ditches, given the The survival of round barrows within the World
disturbance and dislocation of identifiable Heritage Site varies from those which have been
landscape features in this area. One of the ring plough-damaged to such an extent that only an eroded
ditches encloses a circular setting of holes ditch remains, to substantial surviving mounds (most
(Grinsell 1957, 55). A cursus would certainly fill of which have been damaged to varying degrees by
what at present seems to be something of a ‘gap’ antiquarian activity). The RCHME is compiling a
in monument construction in the later 4th gazetteer of barrows, with history and finds listed, and
millennium cal BC and around the turn of that a more rudimentary gazetteer exists for Avebury parish
millennium into the third. There is a case here at the Alexander Keiller Museum.
for using close-interval caesium-vapour magne It has become clear, however, from geophysical
tometry here, as elsewhere in the WHS. survey carried out prior to taking ploughed-down
3. What is the line of the West Kennet Avenue barrows out of cultivation (work commissioned by The
around West Kennet? It is not clear at present. National Trust), that the locations of such barrows are
Three other major areas of research fall into this not always accurately recorded. Some work is clearly
general theme. needed to establish accurately the sites of former
barrows, some of which are known only or primarily
Long mounds from antiquarian sources (such as that identified during
Barker (1985) in his valuable survey and gazetteer of work commissioned by Thames Water at the southern
long mounds in a wide area centred on Avebury end of Waden Hill (Powell et al. 1996)).
comments on how Stukeley’s account of long barrows The value of excavation in the case even of
in the Avebury region has ‘confused successive ploughed barrows has been demonstrated by the recent
generations of archaeologists. Even allowing for the excavation of West Overton G19, where a long and
inclusion of the stone enclosure at Beckhampton complex history of use proved to be recoverable
Penning and a certain amount of repetition, too few (Excavation and fieldwork in Wiltshire 1987, WAM 82,
monuments are known to account for all the sites he 181–2). Barrow ditches may provide good environ
mentioned’ (ibid., 25). mental sequences for post-construction phases, some
66
of which fall within the Early Bronze Age (and may also Future surface collection or assessment
of course provide evidence for later periods), and work Further surface collections may be made in future if
by Dr C. French and colleagues in Cranborne Chase land within the WHS is put down to grass to protect the
has demonstrated that buried soils can be preserved archaeological evidence, and appropriate sampling
even under fairly unpromising, damaged, barrows (M. strategies would need to be considered in that case to
Allen pers. comm). avoid the accumulation of large surface collections both
It has also become apparent that the areas around because of the pressure this puts on museum resources
barrows are likely to provide evidence of earlier and because of the impoverishment caused to the in situ
occupation, some of which has often become in material. Such strategies are being developed elsewhere
corporated in barrow mounds (and from them into the and a review of current research on this and the
ditches). Any work in the area of barrows should formulation of an appropriate approach would be
recognise the likelihood of encountering pits or other useful in the near future. Such guidance would be
features of later Neolithic or earlier date. The areas useful both for landowners wishing to carry out or
between mounds must also be regarded as important commission their own work (such as the National
for traces of activities contemporary with the use of the Trust) or those approached by other bodies wishing to
barrow (ie, with the funerary practices associated with carry out research.
it) and very little work has been done in the area to Some surface collection within the WHS in the
investigate the forms of barrow mounds to look for recent past was not carried out to professional stan
traces of ritual or funerary practices (D. Field pers. dards and has left a legacy of virtually unprovenanced
comm.). finds; this must clearly be avoided in the future at all
costs. Although study of surface artefact scatters is
Stone circles obviously easiest and most effective before any
It is clear that the state of knowledge regarding the conversion of existing arable land takes place, it is also
smaller stone circles within, and immediately outside, possible to make some assessment of the existence,
the WHS is seriously deficient. The small stone circles nature and extent of such material under existing
are sometimes referred to as later than the Avebury grassland through the excavation of test-pits (M. Pitts
stone settings (as in Burl 1979, chapter 9), but there is pers. comm.).This would be a useful method of filling
no firm evidence for date in any of them. In every case in those gaps in the landscape which are due to the
there is doubt either about the location of the circle, its existence of grassland since before the time at which
form or its reality: for Falkner’s the location is known surface collection began in earnest (ie, the early years
in general but not the detail of the stone settings; for of the last century).
Broadstones (Clatford) the location has not been Establishing the locations of settlement foci could
certainly identified; for Langdean and Winterbourne be furthered by a combination of analysis of surface
Bassett the features are known but are not certainly finds, geophysical survey, and excavation, such as was
stone circles. used successfully in the Stonehenge Environs Project at,
A particularly interesting possibility which should for instance, Fargo Wood and King Barrow Ridge
be considered is that stone circles may be late (Richards 1990). Locations within the WHS which
replacements for timber settings on the same sites, as might already be suggested for such investigation
this is an increasingly recognised pattern. It is worth include Waden Hill (the northern end) and Overton
noting that The Sanctuary was recorded only as a stone Hill. In the former, a moderately dense surface scatter
circle by Stukeley (with another concentric circle of worked flint (Holgate 1987, fig. 1) hints at
marked by depressions) and is now known to be on the settlement, while at the latter pre-Bronze Age finds
site of timber circles. were recovered from barrow excavations (Smith and
Simpson 1966; Smith 1964). It is also now becoming
increasingly apparent that barrow cemeteries were
4. Surface Scatters and Locating Settlement often placed in locations much used in earlier periods
and any such area should be considered as having a
Assessment and publication of existing material high potential for earlier settlement evidence.
from surface collection One other form of evidence for past use which is
There is a considerable body of surface collected particularly relevant to the WHS, is use of the local
material (outlined in Section 2.3 above) which is largely sarsen stone. The huge spreads of sarsen both within
unpublished. Those parts of it collected as part of the WHS (in its eastern part) and immediately outside
recent organised surface collection by the National are known to include utilised stones, but no full survey
Trust will be published by the National Trust, which is has yet taken place. Sarsen saddle querns and polishing
also considering integrating this material with pre stones are known as casual finds (I.F. Smith pers.
viously collected material from the area. comm.) but a systematic survey would almost certainly
reveal more.
67
Field survey, geophysical survey, aerial photography, stand the pattern of land use within the area
and targeted excavation and test-pitting together offer (especially the WHS) and the sequence of land
a huge potential for revealing the context in which allotment during the Iron Age (if not already
known monuments and sites lie. Most would have little allotted) and settlement patterns, including new
and some no impact on the fabric of the WHS and use and expansion into previously unused
would offer tremendous rewards in terms of the areas. This would assist us in identifying the
understanding of this area. areas where Iron Age peoples were apparently
active in the landscape, and those where they
appear not to have been.We could start to see if
4.4 Late Bronze Age the ‘blank areas’ are really blank or not. If they
Gill Swanton, C. Gingell and are, we can start to explore why this is the case.
Andrew J. Lawson 2. The range, dates, and types of settlement also
need to be understood for the area, including
1. Priority must be examination of the relationship their development through time, and their status
between settlements, fields and the older in relation to other settlement types. The
monuments; identification of zoning within the possibility of an Iron Age predecessor to Cunetio
landscape. Detailed study of air photographs to in the Marlborough/Forest Hill area requires
identify field patterns and settlement distri further investigation and the possibility that the
bution would be useful in this respect. WHS is in the immediate hinterland of an
Examination – initially using geophysical oppidum also needs to be investigated. The
methods – of barrow ditches and ring ditches for ceramic sequence is reasonably well understood
evidence of Middle/Late Bronze Age use. If this in this area, and could be used to date Iron Age
was happening, did it follow the pattern sites broadly (but see below), so their
suggested by Ann and Peter Woodward (1996)? development and contemporaneity can be
Selected excavation of fields, cemeteries and assessed.
valley bottom sites for environmental, ritual, 3. Ideally, extensive geophysical surveys and
social, economic and chronological evidence . earthwork surveys of the sites at Forest Hill, and
2. Museum archives may contain material with all the Martinsell Plateau, hillfort, and
dating potential; these should be identified and surroundings to Huish Hill should be
a programme initiated which will give local undertaken.
information and fit into a wider framework.
3. Study of human remains could produce further
evidence of burial practice, economy, environ Priority
ment, social organisation and health.
4. Examination of buried deposits should provide 1. A well-dated ceramic sequence should be
environmental data. recovered for the area. The existing collections,
5. Study of ceramics and (perhaps) bronzes may particularly Meyrick’s, should be re-examined in
indicate trade and communication patterns. order to try and achieve this. After that phase,
surface artefact collection within the WHS
targeted on Iron Age sites would refine this data,
4.5 Iron Age and would be preferred in the first instance to a
Amanda Chadburn and more destructive technique such as excavation.
Mark Corney Once these exercises have been undertaken, if
there is still insufficient data, one might then
Highest Priority need to excavate a site with decent stratigraphy
with a good range of well-stratified ceramic types
1. The highest priority, and one of national in order to construct a type series for the area.
importance, is to investigate the relationship The origins of Savernake Ware (probably Late
between the Neolithic and Bronze Age cere Iron Age) need to be investigated too. A
monial monuments and Iron Age activity. If it detailed petrological analysis of the clays and
can be proved that there is deliberate avoidance fabrics of Iron Age pottery within and around
of earlier monuments by domestic and agri the WHS should be undertaken.
cultural activity, then this has significant 2. The site at All Cannings Cross could usefully be
implications for our understanding of the sacred re-evaluated to provide evidence for the Early
and profane in the Iron Age, and the use of the Iron Age. This could include fieldwalking,
landscape in the Iron Age by the Britons. In geophysics and limited excavation. It would be
order to do this, we need to thoroughly under
68
desirable to establish the chronological link (if of Wansdyke and its relationship with the
any) between this site and Rybury. Roman road system coupled with the possibility
3. The Vale of Pewsey has a high potential for many of reuse of Oldbury hillfort must also warrant
aspects of the Iron Age of the WHS, and requires very high scourings.
a thorough evaluation and assessment, especially
along the base of the chalk escarpment which
appears a favoured settlement location. The Priority
possible link between Rybury and All Cannings
Cross needs investigation. 1. The Vale of Pewsey is an area of high potential,
4. We need to establish the environmental evidence as yet unrealised. The nature of the Roman
for this area during the Iron Age. settlement and economic pattern in this area
5. The transitional periods, ie, Late Bronze requires a very thorough assessment.
Age–Early Iron Age and Late Iron Age– 2. Building on the work of Fowler we also need to
Romano-British need investigation. However, increase our understanding of the land use
the Middle Iron Age is also poorly understood pattern in the study area and to define the nature
for the WHS. of any changes in emphasis in the rural
economy.
3. Location of cemeteries to provide samples of the
Lower Priority urban and rural Romano-British population and
any variety in funerary practices.
Although we would like to find human remains, we 4. An ambitious programme of environmental
have placed this as a lower priority because such sampling to better understand land use and
remains are so difficult to find in the Iron Age. It is management.
possible that a careful excavation of the Iron Age
settlements might produce partial or whole skeletal
remains, and the ditch terminals and pits of such sites Lower Priority
might repay close examination.
1. An evaluation of all Roman material from the
study area. Much of this is poorly provenanced,
4.6 Romano-British but would provide a general overview of activity
Mark Corney and Bryn Walters in the region.
Highest Priority
4.7 Post-Roman and Early Saxon
There are both general and specific strategies required Gill Swanton and Peter Fowler
here.
1. At the general level the need to assess the Highest Priority
development of romanisation in the region is
essential and should seek to identify how much 1. Recent work has indicated that the area was very
of the Romano-British settlement, social and important in the late Roman period, probably in
economic patterns evolved from an existing Late communications and military terms. Estab
Iron Age framework, or whether intrusive ele lishing the duration of this importance, what
ments can be identified. Detailed studies of local form it took and the settlements from which any
ceramic sequences will be invaluable. form of authority operated would assist in
2. A further general area of enquiry should be the elucidating social structure and the economy
creation of a detailed settlement morphology for upon which it depended. The need to establish
the region. pattern of settlement and its relation to past and
3. At a more specific level the possibility of Roman subsequent habitation is vital, including
ritual reuse of the Avebury henge and sur continuity/break/re-establishment in/of occupa
rounding monuments such as Silbury Hill tion of sites.
should be accorded a very high rating. 2. A thorough survey of the Wansdyke would be of
4. The cumulative evidence strongly suggests that great benefit.
the area is one of great importance in the late 3. The establishment of a chronological framework
Roman period and resources should be found to is of very high importance.
investigate the nature of late Roman Cunetio and 4. A detailed topographical study relating features
Verlucio. In developing this theme the broader the landscape to all the Saxon charters of the
context of the Bishops Canning hoard, the date area: these boundaries were old when ‘written
69
down’ and the charters incorporate clues to On a national basis, models for the development of
many older features in the landscape. post-Roman rural settlements are largely derived from
studies of the Midland nucleated villages and, in terms
of Anglo-Saxon settlements, on the recently published
Priority results of the Mucking project in Essex (Dyer et al.
1997; Hamerow 1993). Presentation of the Avebury
1. Further investigation into land use and results with additional fieldwork would begin to redress
environment to clarify the agricultural economy this geographical bias.
of the area. For example, a study of climatic The post-Roman archaeology of Avebury is clearly
changes and their effects on the river levels of more than incidental significance.The south-west of
would assist in indicating, for instance (a) England lacks a detailed case study of Early Anglo-
whether the use of the Roman road in the river Saxon to late medieval settlement and land use and
valley was possible throughout the period or Avebury has the potential to fulfil that role given the
whether it fell out of use due to wet conditions density, chronological range and quality of its post-
and (b) the type of land management which Roman archaeology.
might have been appropriate on the valley floor.
Waterlogged deposits should be sought to assist
in expanding the environmental evidence. Strategies
2. A study of the relationships between modern,
medieval, early post-Roman and Roman 1. Perhaps the greatest problem with Avebury’s
settlement and churches to investigate the Anglo-Saxon and medieval archaeology is the
survival or otherwise of Christianity. lack of consistency of previous investigations in
3. The study of existing human and animal terms of aims, recording methods and
remains to indicate diet, health and economy. publication (or not as is more frequently the
Location of settlements and burials would case). Although it is possible to construct a
greatly enhance these investigations. general model for the development of the
4. A survey of material of the period from a greater settlement, the first requirement must be an
geographical area to supplement the evidence assessment and production of a catalogue of the
available and place it in a wider context. existing post-Roman artefactual and ecofactual
5. In general, the thrust of research for this period evidence. Ideally, such a catalogue should
should shift to the valleys, their immediate slopes include copies of all unpublished plans, sections
and denes, rather than the downs. The latter and photographs.
ceased to be important c. AD 500 and were not 2. The potential of the RCHME survey to produce
so again until c. 1050.The specific study of a radical reinterpretation of local and regional,
settlements using maps, air photographs and if not national, importance is high and a full
documents followed by field survey and analysis of the plan should be given a high
geophysical investigation to trace shifts and priority. A metrological analysis of plots within
abandonment. the burh area should be undertaken as part of
this study.
3. The location of St James’ Church outside the
4.8 Later Saxon and Medieval west entrance of the henge raises interesting
Andrew Reynolds questions about the Anglo-Saxon attitudes to
ancient monuments.The church appears to have
The discovery of Anglo-Saxon and medieval settlement been of minster status in the later Anglo-Saxon
remains over a wide area at Avebury indicates that the period. This factor is likely to have influenced
development of the settlement has been complex. At the development of the settlement as minsters
most other sites in the county where Early Anglo-Saxon were often foci for mercantile and judicial
occupation has been found only small areas have activities in addition to their religious functions.
normally been examined and occupation sequences A complete record should be made of the
appear to be of seemingly short duration. The surviving Anglo-Saxon fabric with a full
importance of the Avebury evidence lies in its extent assessment of the later building.
and apparent chronological range. Detailed work at 4. Geophysical survey of selected areas, particularly
Avebury should ideally be coupled with work on other the Early, Middle and Late Anglo-Saxon
Anglo-Saxon and medieval settlement sites to allow a settlement to the west of the monument is
framework for further research in the region to be needed in order to attempt to determine their
established. extent and possible function.
70
5. Further scientific dates are required. Most Strategies

importantly, these are needed for the car-park
settlement and the possible middle Anglo-Saxon 1. Opportunistic examination, recording sampling
planned settlement. of sediment sequences and old land surfaces
6. Fieldwalking has high potential for addressing where they may be exposed by non-
questions about the chronology and pattern of archaeological work or by erosion. In periglacial
local settlement and land use. deposits and Late Glacial deposits in particular
7. Integration of the Avebury evidence into wider should be examined for in situ deposits,
studies offers much scope for understanding the especially Alleröd buried soils.
development of early-late Anglo-Saxon and 2. Creation of a DEM (A WHAT?) for the area
medieval settlement in north Wiltshire. A study with an environmental Geographical Informa
of hundredal organisation should throw light on tion System (GIS) including soils and sediment
processes of nucleation, the relative importance data. Field testing of sediments by augering and
of settlements in the region, trade and the development of a prediction model for the
communications. Sites of Anglo-Saxon origin occurrence of colluvium and alluvium. Also
such as the royal vills and market centres at incorporating field systems (lynchets, docu
Calne and Chippenham and the religious and mentary and modern).
defensive centres at Malmesbury and Cricklade 3. Collective database of all environmental data
will all require integration into the study. On into archives to enable cross-site comparisons
the medieval period the number of 4. The development of some basic recording
archaeologically and historically visible sites is requirement for all environmental enquiries (but
greatly increased and any research project specifically faunal measurements, soil recording
should attempt to relate the Avebury evidence to and analysis, data presentation/availability for
this network. charred plant remains, etc) to facilitate inter site
comparisons, ie, the examination of the broader
landscape
4.9 Palaeo-environmental 5. A concerted attempt should be made to find
Michael J. Allen long sequences for palynological investigation
such as those in the Avon Valley, Wiltshire, near
A number of research topics and questions were Durrington Walls, and Testwood Lakes,
outlined in Sections 3.9 and 3.10, above. It goes Southampton, Hampshire.
without saying that a full palaeo-environmental 6. The dating of sequences and events of
programme should accompany any archaeological environmental data from archaeological features
interventions in the WHS and that this should include by carefully sampling and consideration of
pre-planned archaeological investigations, oppor appropriate submission of radiocarbon samples
tunistic exposures during non-archaeological interven is a priority. This may require excavation of
tions, and exposures made though both animal and larger volumes of ditch or feature deposits to
visitor erosion. The aim of all enquiries should be in acquire appropriate material.
providing data towards the construction of a series of 7. DNA and radiocarbon dating programmes on
land use maps of the area for each period, to providing human remains are required.
a good chronological framework for the environmental 8. The constant updating of the DEM and GIS
sequence, and taking the opportunity to address other with new environmental interpretation is a
of the research topics above. requirement.
Part 5: Methods and Techniques
This section provides as assessment of archaeological Geophysical Techniques

methods and techniques which have been successfully
used in the Avebury area and have potential for further The details of the principles and methodologies of
use in addressing the research strategies and priorities archaeological geophysics are by now very well
set out in the previous chapter.The techniques outlined rehearsed in the literature (eg,Tite 1972; Aitken 1974;
are not prescriptive but merely a review of those which Clark 1996; Scollar et al. 1990). The methods which
are commonly used. Mindful of the need for have seen greatest employment at Avebury, resistivity
sustainable research methods, AAHRG seeks to and magnetic surveying, are those which already have
encourage the development and use of new and an established role in the discipline.
experimental non-invasive techniques in the Avebury Variation in soil magnetic susceptibility is the key to
area. magnetic detection. Topsoil contains a proportion of
magnetic iron oxides inherited from the parent
material and when these are subjected to burning, as
5.1 Geophysical Survey on a settlement or industrial site, they become
Andrew David magnetically enhanced. If this enhanced material
becomes concentrated within archaeological features
Geophysical survey is defined here as the ground-based cut into a subsoil of contrasting susceptibility it can
and non-intrusive use of geophysical methods to locate generate a detectable magnetic anomaly.
and characterise archaeological features and deposits. Magnetometry involves the measurement of the
Such methods are often supported by other techniques local magnetic field strength at close intervals (1.0 m
of geoarchaeological site investigation, such as augering or less) across the ground surface. The magnetometer
and magnetic susceptibility survey. Much less (usually a fluxgate gradiometer in the UK) responds to
commonly, the mapping of spatial patterns of chemical the magnetic anomalies caused by the localised
traces in the soil, as in phosphate survey, can also help concentrations of magnetically enhanced soil in
characterise former land use. The purpose of this features such as pits, ditches and the larger post-holes.
contribution to the Research Agenda is to appraise It also detects the remnant magnetisation of hearths
briefly the potential of specifically geophysical methods and industrial features such as kilns and furnaces.
to contribute to research and site management in the These remains are revealed as patterns of magnetic
Avebury area. Their application will of course be fully anomalies visible in computer generated plots of the
integral, where appropriate, with other methods of site areas surveyed.
prospection, particularly remote sensing (aerial Resistivity survey, where an electrical current is
photography and multi-spectral scanning), field introduced into the soil and the (apparent) resistance
walking, trial excavation and documentary research. to its passage is measured, responds to contrasts in
Apart from the obvious capabilities of geophysical porosity and moisture content – variations which can
survey to increase the understanding of known often be archaeological in nature. The method is
monuments, there is potential for the discovery of selected when the presence of building foundations,
entirely new archaeological sites. Geophysical survey rubble or paving is suspected, but is also capable of
not only directly serves research in this way but also has detecting large stones (megaliths), pits, ditches and
a very clear role in subsequent planning and site other features when the prevailing moisture conditions
management. By helping in the location and definition (which are seasonally variable) allow. As with
of archaeological sites, geophysical survey allows for a magnetometry, the outcome of resistivity survey is
much more informed planning process both to protect usually a two-dimensional spatial plot of the area
important remains and to improve their appreciation by surveyed. The depth of detection is related to probe
the world at large. The emphasis upon its deployment spacing which is often set at 0.5 m, giving a detection
within the management agenda for a World Heritage depth of some 0.75 m. Wider probe spacings may be
Site is entirely appropriate. appropriate in some cases.
The Avebury area shares its WHS designation with Current research in resistivity is aimed in particular
that around Stonehenge for which a detailed at investigating the potential of multiprobe arrays for
assessment of the geophysical potential has already the reconstruction of resistivity variation with depth
been published (David and Payne 1997). Much of the (Aspinall 1992; Szymanski and Tsourlos 1993). The
latter’s elaboration on the general potential for resulting vertical electrical sections (or the horizontal
geophysical survey in a Chalkland environment is just ‘slices’ through data from multiple adjacent sections)
as applicable to the Avebury area.The following resumé give an indication of broad variations at depth – but the
on techniques is therefore an adaptation of that resolution achieved is still only very coarse. Such work
account. has not yet featured much in the Avebury area and is
72
probably some way from making a significant impact reconnaissance tool but can certainly have a valuable
there (but see below). role in the detailed examination of sites where there are
Aside from resistivity and magnetometry, robust targets. There should be a degree of fore
electromagnetic (EM) methods of detection have seen knowledge of the character of underlying features and,
more limited use at Avebury but are likely to have a preferably, actual ‘ground-truth’ should be established
continuing and growing role as time goes on. These by coring or test trenching.With judicious selection, the
methods include the (continuous wave) measurement technique has potential applications in the Avebury
of soil conductivity, measurement of soil magnetic area, for example in the detection of buried megaliths
susceptibility (MS) and survey by ground penetrating and the investigation of earthworks and burial
(impulse) radar (GPR). monuments (see below).
Soil conductivity measurement provides results
which are directly comparable with those of resistivity
but without the necessity for the repeated insertion of Geological Background
electrodes. Using the Geonics EM38 soil conductivity
meter, experimental surveys have been undertaken (by The Avebury WHS is underlain by Chalk. Over the
Dr L. Somers) in the SE quadrant of the henge and (by higher ground there are thin cultivated soils with, in
the Ancient Monuments Laboratory) over the side places, an intermediate capping of Clay-with-flints.
ditches of the West Kennet Long Barrow. In both cases Valley bottoms are infilled with superficial deposits of
conventional Twin Electrode resistivity survey varying depths, including solifluction deposits,
produced the more promising results. colluvium and alluvium (Evans et al.1993).
Magnetic susceptibility survey provides an The geophysical potential of such substrates can be
indication of the relative concentration of artificially very high. Chalkland soils, in particular, often have a
enhanced material retained in the topsoil, whether or magnetic susceptibility that is well suited to
not archaeological features survive beneath. Thus, magnetometer survey (eg, on Windmill Hill, MS values
measurement of topsoil MS (at intervals of, say, 10 m) range between 20–135 x 10-8 SI/kg). However, most
over a large area (up to many hectares) can, by isolating archaeological features will become difficult to detect
zones of higher readings, suggest the former presence at soil depths exceeding a metre in the valley bottoms
of settlement or industrial activity. Such a general (Clark 1996). MS values tend to be lower in these areas
isation is not without its problems, however: the too (eg, 4–30 x 10-8SI/kg in the Winterbourne Valley:
mechanisms of magnetic enhancement, apart from GSB 1992a)
burning, are still only imperfectly understood; nor is it
yet possible to fully counteract the effects of natural
variations in MS, or the effect of modern influences Previous Geophysical Surveys within the WHS
(eg, cultivation). Whilst MS survey can be a valuable
approach to preliminary site reconnaissance, its results There has been a considerable amount of geophysical
must be interpreted with caution, and preferably in activity in the area over the last 25 years with over 30
accompaniment with indications provided by surveys have been conducted. No attempt will be made
magnetometry and/or other survey methods (English here to review all this work in any detail, but some of
Heritage 1995). MS measurements have been made at the main findings are summarised in the discussion of
several locations in the Avebury area as a supplement potential that follows. A listing of all the surveys known
to magnetometer survey (eg, on the route of the to the author is given in Table 5.
Kennet Valley Foul Sewer Pipeline (Powell et al. 1996) Within and around Avebury itself the Ancient
and at Windmill Hill (David et al. 1999). Monuments Laboratory (AML) have been conducting
Despite publicity, the use of ground penetrating surveys intermittently since 1975.This has been largely
radar in British archaeology is not yet very well in response to calls for further information about the
established, although an increasingly significant impact archaeology of the main monument complex, the
can be forecast. The technique depends upon the enclosures on Windmill Hill and the West Kennet long
detection of reflections of radio energy from major barrow. In the last ten years surveys have also been
dielectric interfaces in the soil (Conyers and Goodman undertaken by others, for instance the magnetometer
1997). It is well suited to the detection of voids and surveys by Cardiff University over parts of the West
some large features such as walls and megaliths, but the Kennett palisaded enclosures, Overton Down and
reflections can be very difficult to interpret. The elsewhere (Table 5) and GPR surveys by Cambridge
effectiveness of the technique is further hindered by University over buried monoliths on the course of the
moist and clay-rich soils and it has not yet been West Kennet Avenue. Development-driven surveys
satisfactorily demonstrated that it can unravel the more include those by Geophysical Surveys of Bradford
complex and subtle nature of much archaeological (GSB) along the course of the Kennet Valley Foul
stratigraphy. GPR is not usually an appropriate Sewer (GSB 1992a, 1992b; Powell et al. 1996). Also,
73
Table 5. Geophysical surveys in the Avebury area, 1975–2000 (WHS and beyond)
74
Conditions where mesolithic sites are well preserved

The National Trust has commissioned surveys on its and also shallow (<0.5 m) will be rare; however, if such
property, for instance within the grounds of Avebury conditions can be met, magnetometer survey would be
Manor (Bartlett 1991). the most appropriate method to adopt1, preferably with
a fine sample interval (eg, 0.5 x 0.25 m), and perhaps
using a highly sensitive instrument such as a caesium
Future Potential magnetometer. Such a methodology would only be
practical once the focus of a lithic scatter had already
In line with the format adopted elsewhere in the been located by fieldwalking. Prospecting for mesolithic
Research Agenda the potential contribution of sites more generally across the landscape is best
geophysical methodologies in the Avebury area will achieved by fieldwalking and/or test pitting; geophysical
now be discussed on a period by period basis. and geochemical methods on their own will be
confused by the overprinting of more recent
Lower and Middle Palaeolithic archaeological activity.
Geophysical techniques are unlikely to have much
application in the location of archaeological features or
occupation deposits of this age – which are in any case Neolithic and Early Bronze Age
likely to be a rarity. However, geophysics does have a It is to monuments of this period that most of the
role in the mapping of buried landscape features such geophysical effort in the Avebury WHS has so far been
as former drainage channels, and could therefore assist directed. Some of the most obvious potential that
with the prediction of the potential presence of buried remains is listed below:
Lower and Middle Palaeolithic deposits. In situ sites
have also been shown to survive in high level solution The henge
features on the deposits mapped as Clay-with-flints and Previous resistivity and magnetometer surveys have
these too have some potential to be located and defined demonstrated that some former stone positions and
(Scott-Jackson 2000; Section 4.1 above). other features are detectable within the henge (Ucko et
The choice of survey method will depend upon the al. 1990). The shadowy presence of previously un
prevailing site conditions and the particular require suspected circles hinted at within resistivity data from
ments of each situation. Radar and seismic methods are the NE quadrant (ibid, pl. 69) unfortunately remains
both capable of profiling buried features such as too insubstantial to be fully credible. The results of
palaeo-channels but have so far had little or no recent caesium magnetometry there are also incon
application in Quaternary archaeology in England. clusive1. However, recent very positive results of
Conductivity survey and resistivity profiling are resistivity survey in the NW Quadrant (Bewley et al.
methods that come more readily to mind. Resistivity 1996) demonstrate the need to:
survey and (to a lesser degree) magnetometry are
reported to have been successful in mapping the • complete high density and high sensitivity
solution features referred to above (Scott-Jackson 2000: magnetometer and resistivity survey of the entire
124–9; Reynolds Geo-sciences Ltd 1999, 6–7). Such henge; that is – to survey the SW quadrant and
methods can be used to complement one another and the unsurveyed areas of the SE and NE
are best applied as part of a carefully integrated quadrants.
programme of investigation. Where appropriate,
advantage should be taken of opportunities to obtain Of lower priority is a re-survey of those parts of the
ground truth from test pits and coring (eg, Bates and henge covered before 1996, using finer resolution and
Bates 2000). As in any such survey, however, care has more sensitive instrumentation. Seasonal resistivity
to be taken that such intrusions do not risk damaging tests could be carried out to determine the most
vulnerable deposits or artefacts. suitable time of year to use this method. Re-survey of
the ‘new’ feature in the NW Quadrant (ibid.) with
Late Glacial and Early Post-glacial resistivity (and perhaps GPR) might refine its detail
For these periods the limitations are mainly the same and resolve the question of the presence or absence of
as those mentioned above.There are strong indications a central pit.
that sites may be concentrated (and will certainly be More experimentally, it ought to be possible to use
better preserved) in river valley sediments; coring resistivity profiling and GPR to examine the gross
and/or test pitting, linked with biostratigraphic analysis physical structure of the henge bank and ditch. GPR
(Evans et al. 1993), are probably the most appropriate could be used to confirm the presence of buried
prospection methods to adopt in these conditions. sarsens.
Mesolithic sites may include features cut into the Any disturbance to the Cove area, arising from the
subsoil or bedrock, as well as hearths and artificial need to stabilise the monoliths there, should perhaps be
surfaces, and theoretically these should be no less preceded by detailed GPR, magnetic and resistivity
detectable than similar features of later periods. survey; however, the level of medieval and later activity
75
in this vicinity suggests that very little information • magnetic and resistivity survey of the accessible
additional to that from previous surveys (Ucko et al. environs of the site to determine whether there
1990) will be gained. GPR survey of the immediate are any outlying features.
surroundings of the Cove stones was conducted by
Aperio Ltd in 1998 as part of a geotechnical study of The fencing around the Sanctuary will severely
their stability (Dodds and Eddies 1998). The same hamper the potential of magnetometer survey, and
study also used acoustic methods to estimate the depth passing traffic would also be a difficulty. (A magnet
below the ground surface of the two Cove stones. ometer survey was carried out over a limited area by
Cambridge University in advance of M. Pitts’s excava
The West Kennet Avenue tion in 1999).
The course of this Avenue has been explored with
resistivity as far as the northern boundary of the West West Kennett Enclosures
Kennett Farm buildings, with mixed results (Ucko et Magnetometer surveys by Cardiff and Cambridge
al. 1990, 186–94, pl. 62).The technique was undoubt Universities were successfully able to supplement aerial
edly able to detect some former stone positions, notably photographic evidence at West Kennett and identify
those within some 150 m of the restored part of the parts of the palisaded enclosures and their associated
Avenue, but most of the others remain unlocated, as features (Whittle 1997). The survey coverage was
does any evidence of a ‘cove’ as referred to by both John limited, however, and there can be no doubt that more
Aubrey and William Stukeley (ibid., 190–3). More extensive coverage at a higher resolution and of a higher
recently, fieldwork by Cambridge University, using high sensitivity could provide significant additional
resolution GPR and resistivity profiling, has information.
successfully identified the depth and disposition of
individual buried sarsens (Pierce and Shell pers. The Beckhampton Avenue
comm.). Resistivity survey in Longstones field by the AML in
One curiosity, perhaps worth re-investigation, is a 1989 (Ucko et al. 1990, 196-9) was unable to confirm
sub-circular high resistance anomaly (encircling an area either the presence or absence of the avenue recorded
about 30 m in diameter) centred about the position of by William Stukeley in the 1720s. However, potentially
a former standing stone, assumed to be a remnant of significant anomalies were noted and these were the
the Avenue, recorded on the 1883 OS map at SU 1117 subject of re-survey in 1999, prior to their investigation
6856 (ibid., pl. 62c). More generally, it is a priority to: by excavation.The latter successfully demonstrated the
presence both of buried monoliths and stone
• re-survey the Avenue with resistivity to locate destruction pits (David 1999; Gillings et al. 2000a).
stone positions not previously detectable Further survey and excavation in 2000 have together
(perhaps owing to poor seasonal moisture confirmed the presence of at least four pairs of stone
contrasts at the time of survey); settings aligned with the Longstones, and have
• survey the Avenue with high sensitivity successfully identified former stone settings associated
magnetometry, extending widely to either side of with Adam (David 2000; Gillings et al. 2000a).
the estimated route; If the Beckhampton Avenue has thus been shown to
• survey the available open ground between the be a reality at least in the vicinity of the Longstones,
A4 and the Sanctuary (fieldwalked in 1991), in there still remains a need – perhaps now more than ever
the hope of tracing the exact course of the – to trace its full extent and its associations. In
Avenue here and its articulation with the particular there is renewed speculation concerning the
Sanctuary. It is very unlikely that geophysical form of its terminus. However, despite the successes of
methods (with the tenuous exception of GPR) 1999–2000, the geophysical resolution of these con
will ever be able to locate stone positions under tinuing issues remains problematic: stone positions
or near existing buildings (West Kennett seem only to be detectable in very few instances –
House), lay-bys or roads. insufficient to place much reliance upon large-scale
reconnaissance and for the recognition of patterns over
The Sanctuary a wider area. Despite both survey and excavation in
It is perhaps unlikely that geophysics will now locate 2000, the course of the Avenue to the south-west of the
unsuspected features within the circles at the Longstones remains uncertain and the location of a
Sanctuary; however, as the site was not totally terminus, over an increasingly large search area, will be
excavated, it would be sensible to: very difficult. Survey effort may be more productively
focused on tracing the route of the avenue to the north
• undertake a detailed high sensitivity and high east, towards the henge, but again the fact that stone
resolution magnetic and resistivity survey in case positions are only intermittently detectable is
features such as pits, burials or post-holes might inhibiting.
still be detectable, and
76
In the light of present knowledge, the optimum Long barrows

approach appears to be to: The AML survey of the long barrow at Shepherd’s
Shore, between Beckhampton and Devizes (Wilts
• conduct detailed resistivity survey along the 495c: Bray 1998), and of other chalkland long barrows
projected corridor of the avenue prior to a further afield (eg, Payne 2000), amply demonstrates
continuing programme of verification by ex the ability of magnetometry and resistivity to provide
cavation. The wider area in which the avenue images of their basic structure. Within the WHS the
might be expected to terminate ought also to be AML survey of the West Kennet long barrow was able
examined by detailed magnetometry, should any to define the general plan of the flanking ditches using
associated features (pits, ditches) be detectable magnetometry, resistivity and EM. These techniques
by this method. are therefore appropriate in other instances where such
knowledge might be valuable. Recent magnetometer
Closely associated with the Avenue and centred at surveys (2000) of the Horslip and South Street
SU 0892 6937 is the large oval enclosure of some 100 barrows, carried out in advance of their removal from
x 140 m initially identified from aerial photographs cultivation, have successfully confirmed their exact
(NMR 15653/10). Its circuit passes between the two locations but have yielded little further archaeological
Longstones and parts of it are visible as very faint information (Martin 2001a). Magnetometer survey has
magnetic anomalies in survey data gathered by the been extended around the West Kennet long barrow
Ancient Monuments Laboratory (AML) in 1989.This (2001) confirming the disposition of the ditches.
feature has again been confirmed by a combination of Where the long barrow mound is not covered in
additional geophysical survey and excavation (Gillings trees or shrubs, resistivity profiling and GPR, linked
et al. 2000a). with topographic survey, can be used to help discern
Further afield, the investigation of the possible structural components within the mound, and perhaps
cursus at Yatesbury has not yet been completed and even pre-mound features.The potential ability of GPR
remains a target for continued fieldwork. Preliminary to establish the presence and shape of sarsens can be
geophysical survey by Cardiff University has so far not valuable here, as in the detection of voids or chambers.
been able to resolve the identity of the cropmarks Unpublished GPR survey of Adams Grave is reported
concerned (Hamilton 1997, 3). to have successfully defined the barrow structure and
internal chambers (Pierce and Shell pers. comm.).
Stone circles The environs of long barrows, especially the
Apart from those within the henge and at the forecourt areas, are worth surveying with magneto
Sanctuary, at least four stone circles are recorded in the metry and detailed MS – for pits, gullies, and any
Avebury area, with varying degrees of certainty (Cleal, evidence of burning (Marshall 1998). Resistivity
Section 2.3, above). The site of one of these, the survey might locate outlying structural components.
supposed circle at Winterbourne Bassett (SU 6035
7550: Stukeley 1743, 45; Smith 1885, 76–7) has been Silbury Hill
surveyed by the AML using caesium and fluxgate Early attempts (in 1959 and 1968) to use resistivity
magnetometers, and resistivity. The results, whilst not survey to examine Silbury Hill were unsuccessful
definitive, suggest that the recumbent stones in this (McKim 1959; Whittle 1997, 20) and the sheer scale
area are not part of a deliberate arrangement (David in of the monument has inhibited further geophysical
prep.). exploration of it isurface and interior. However, the
Falkner’s Circle (SU 1098 6931), with much better partial collapse in May 2000 of the filling of the Duke
credentials as a stone circle, would clearly benefit from of Northumberland’s shaft, by presenting the need to
detailed resistivity and magnetic survey to locate stone determine whether or not further voids are detectable,
positions, pits, large post-holes and ditches if any of has lent a new incentive to this challenge. Shallow
these are present. resistivity, magnetometer and GPR surveys of the
Detecting the locations of other stone circles, now summit area of the hill have recently been undertaken
lost, is much more problematic, particularly where the by the English Heritage Centre for Archaeology (CfA)
only features may be buried stones or former stone but without any definite outcome (Linford 2001).
positions. It could be extremely time-consuming and If the logistical constraints can be overcome, there
probably unproductive to attempt to locate the is no reason why low frequency GPR and resistance
Broadstones, for instance. However, it will be necessary tomography cannot be attempted over the mound and
to review the documentary evidence and to assess the its surrounding ditch in order to try to obtain further
likely locations on the ground at first hand before information on its gross physical structure.3 For higher
coming to a decision on the potential of this case, and resolution results at depth, required for the location of
that of Langdean. voids and zones of weakness, the potential of 3D seis
77
mic tomography is currently being assessed (March MS measurements, when linked with subsequent
2001). selected magnetometer survey, fieldwalking and aerial
Less urgently, the extension of magnetometer photographic data, can be used over large areas (about
survey to take in the environs of Silbury Hill would be 100 ha) to locate topsoil enhancement associated with
of considerable value, to explore for contemporary prolonged settlement and industrial activity. However,
(and later) features. Magnetometer survey undertaken MS enhancement has not often been demonstrated
in 1997 (Hamilton pers. comm.) aims to further over Neolithic and Bronze Age sites as the magnetic
characterise the Roman settlement identified between signature over these can be weak or non-existent.Trial
Silbury and Waden Hills (Powell et al. 1996). excavation, as well as detailed follow-up magnetometer
survey, would be necessary to characterise areas of
The Marlborough Mound localised MS enhancement.
Although well outside the bounds of the WHS, the
Marlborough Mound perhaps ought not to be Later Bronze Age
excluded from this review. Nevertheless, the prospects Routine magnetometer survey may be the approach
are not encouraging: since the mound is heavily that offers most potential in this period, for helping to
vegetated and has been landscaped (Best 1997) there locate and characterise settlements and field systems,
seems little prospect of success. It will be necessary to and metalworking sites if these exist.
examine the site in detail to assess what potential it may Detailed and high sensitivity magnetometry and
have, if any, for geophysical survey.There may be scope MS might be capable of detecting subtle features such
for determining the presence of an associated ditch as former pyres and, perhaps, cremation burials –
although it is unlikely that this or any other geophysical should such features be expected in a particular area.
results will help determine the age of the mound.
Iron Age
Round barrows/ring ditches Iron Age settlement activity on chalkland soils is often
These can usually be detected with magnetometer very clearly detectable using routine magnetometer
survey if the sites are accessible and uncontaminated by survey and this method should be an indispensable aid
later activity, as has been demonstrated at the to the exploration of any sites of this age. If no priority
Beckhampton barrow cemetery (Powell et al. 1996), on sites stand out in the WHS itself at present, then
Overton Hill (Hamilton 1997) and on Windmill Hill attention could be focused on priority sites further
(David et al. 1999). Magnetometer survey can be afield, such as the possible oppidum at Forest Hill within
expected to locate barrows whose recorded positions the orbit of which Avebury may have lain.
may be in doubt, and to add detail to the components The geophysical potential of hillforts is demon
of known barrow cemeteries, especially where aerial strated by the results of the Wessex Hillforts Project
photographic coverage is poor. Detailed MS survey (Payne 1996; Payne forthcoming). Magneto-meter
might be capable of detecting traces of cremation pyres, survey has been deployed over a sample of 20 Wessex
and it would be valuable to use detailed magnetic hillfort interiors in order to improve their archae
survey to explore for contemporary features between ological interpretation and thereby their better
barrows. conservation. Several examples from north Wiltshire
have been surveyed (those closest to Avebury being
Settlement sites Martinsell Camp, Oldbury, Barbury Castle and
Routine magnetometer survey can be recommended Oliver’s Castle) with excellent results.There can be no
for the examination of potential settlement sites the doubt that continued magnetic investigation of hillforts
presence of which is indicated by lithic and/or ceramic and their environs will be highly productive. In specific
remains at the surface, or topographic survey. cases there may be scope for exploiting resistivity and
Magnetometer survey can locate associated features, GPR to examine defensive and other features such as
such as pits, ditches, hearths and gullies. Pits, mines building foundations, shafts and wells. Geophysical
and shafts can be examined using resistivity methods survey also offers the opportunity to detect and help
and GPR. interpret the multiple use of hilltops, from the
As the means of very rapid and detailed mesolithic to the early medieval period.
magnetometer coverage are developed in the future, Midden accumulations, such as those at All
using multiple detector arrays, it should become Cannings Cross, and perhaps Blackpatch, could also be
feasible to prospect over very large areas of the explored by magnetic survey. However, given the
landscape. It is now foreseeable that, one day, most of potential depth of anthropogenic deposits known at
the accessible parts of the entire WHS could be other such sites (Potterne, East Chisenbury, Oare),
surveyed, but at present it is only practicable to cover thought should also be given to using EM and resis
much smaller areas (<80 ha) although this is time- tivity profiling, linked to test pitting and/or coring.
consuming and expensive.
78
Magnetometer survey can also be used to examine it proves that such routeways (in this case invisible on
areas of ceramic production and metalworking. As for available aerial photographs) can be clearly detected,
the Romano-British and early medieval periods, as has also been the case at Yatesbury and elsewhere.
geophysical survey ought to be directed at exploring the Traces of a track have also been detected in the NE
source areas of metal detector finds, either individual Quadrant of the henge. Continued geophysical survey,
find-spots or the foci of local scatters. with excavated sections, would thus seem to have a
definite potential for the further determination of local
Romano-British communication routes.
Romano-British remains of almost every type are
highly amenable to geophysical methods on Chalkland Settlements
geologies, as witnessed by very many survey plots of An obvious and recurring problem with the geophysical
exceptional quality from southern England (Gaffney et survey of many medieval settlement sites is that they lie
al. 1998).Towns, villas, farms, field systems, industrial amongst or adjacent to existing settlement – as is
areas, ceremonial and military complexes and roads certain to be the case to the west of the henge at
may all be elucidated to some extent, and often in great Avebury (Reynolds 2001). Land available for survey in
detail, by routine magnetic and/or resistivity methods. such conditions is often altered by later activities and
Obvious initial targets include buildings (villas, is usually divided into inconveniently shaped and sized
temples) and other settlement sites (eg farmsteads) parcels, making survey impractical and hindering a
whose general presence is suspected from aerial coherent interpretation. These problems beset the
photographs and/or fieldwalking. Many such sites are survey undertaken in the Glebe Field car park (David
referred to in the foregoing resource assessment 1984). Furthermore, relevant features may be complex
(Corney and Walters, Section 2.6, above). and result in only weak and discontinuous anomalies,
Now that such surveys are being applied at ever- if at all; these will be even less detectable under
increasing scales of ground-coverage, it is possible for alluvium (as in the Winterbourne valley).
individual projects to examine entire Romano-British Despite such pessimism, there is clearly a need for
complexes, such as a town or estate, rather than a thorough assessment on the ground of the available
selected component parts, such as a villa or farmstead open areas to the west of Avebury (see RCHME plan
alone. The traditional techniques, deployed more and phasing by A Reynolds, Section 2.8, above) to
speedily, have much to offer at this enlarged scale of determine what might be achieved, and in what order
operation (eg, Wroxeter, 73 ha: Gaffney et al. 2000). of priority. At present it is sensible to suggest that
At a more focused and sensitive level, these and magnetic and resistivity survey would be most
other methods (EM, GPR) can be used to refine detail appropriately targeted at the larger peripheral areas, in
(eg, 3D structure of buildings) and tackle the detection the hope that patterns of anomalies may be detectable
of the more elusive features such as burials and the and can then be ‘followed’ into the more awkward
evidence for horticulture. Cemeteries, so far absent in survey areas nearer the core (where it may well then be
the area, are difficult to detect but not impossibly so, more appropriate to resort to excavation in any case).
if the search area can be reasonably constrained. The fields north of the A4361, between the main car
park and the henge, would very suitable for such initial
survey. Magnetometer survey, in particular, might pick
Anglo-Saxon and medieval up evidence for sunken featured buildings should they
At a national scale, geophysical survey has had extend into this area (and not be obscured by
significantly less impact in this period than in the reactions to landscaping, modern services, etc).
preceding Romano-British and Iron Age periods. Resistivity survey will respond to foundations and
However, there are a growing number of exceptions to ditched features, as has been shown to be the case
this general impression and the potential contribution recently in the NW Quadrant (Bewley et al. 1996)
of geophysical methods to the early medieval studies where previously unrecorded linear anomalies could be
has been under detailed review (David 1994). There medieval or earlier in origin.
may indeed be some potential in the Avebury WHS, but The scope for using more novel geophysical
hopes should not be unduly raised and very careful methods may be a little limited for this period at
selection will be necessary. Avebury. GPR might help clarify the nature of the ‘new’
feature in the NW Quadrant and, with resistivity
Roadways profiling, might assist in the characterisation of other
The AML resistivity survey outside the eastern particular features, such as the postulated burh
entrance of the henge very clearly detected a linear boundary. GPR could perhaps be used to explore for
anomaly confidently interpreted as a road running features within the church fabric, or below its floors;
parallel and to the north of the course of the present however, without additional corroborative information
lane (Ucko et al. 184–6, pl. 58). That this has a to help interpret the radar reflections this approach can
medieval origin must be considered highly likely, and confuse rather than clarify.
79
Stone foundations sensitivity magnetometry will be used with increasing

Resistivity is the best approach in this instance, should determination in the search for weakly magnetised and
there be reason to suppose that a building, such as a more deeply buried features. Targeted excavation,
priory, may exist in a particular area. Again, however, preceded by geophysical survey, offers the ideal
it is necessary to stress that results are rarely very approach in these circumstances.
positive where surveys areas are small and interrupted. Ever since probing was first recorded as a method
Unfortunately the graves in the Avebury churchyard of exploration at Avebury over a hundred years ago the
would severely hinder exploration here. use of minimally invasive techniques has contributed to
a growing understanding of the monuments there, and
Burials must continue to do so. Together with aerial photo
Burials, of whatever period, are notoriously difficult to graphy, geophysics has contributed to the revelation of
locate geophysically. Magnetometer survey is usually major new components of the archaeology of the WHS
the best approach for surveying pagan Anglo-Saxon over the last decade. Both ground-based and aerial
cemeteries where these are uncontaminated by more remote sensing methods must clearly play a substantive
recent ground disturbance (as at Blackpatch, Vale of role in any future research agenda for the area.
Pewsey; Clark 1996, fig. 78).
Most of the above comments, although specific to
Avebury itself, would be applicable to geophysical 5.2 Environmental Archaeology
survey considerations elsewhere with the WHS. Michael J. Allen
Investigations of buried soils, where opportunities

Conclusions occur, through archaeological excavation, or via
specific research programmes, should include a
Geophysical survey on the Wiltshire chalkland has often programme of soil micromorphology accompanied by
proved highly effective, particularly for the location and other basic techniques to characterise the soils, and
characterisation of Iron Age and Romano-British sites. land snail and pollen analysis. Suitable samples should
Within the Avebury WHS most fieldwork has naturally be taken to secure the recovery of charred remains and
been concentrated on the Neolithic and Bronze Age consideration given to radiocarbon dating providing
monuments. Although such efforts have indeed met that there is material representing an event, rather than
with considerable success, the problems of locating just datable material that can be submitted.
geophysically subtle features and distinguishing these The examination of glacial and periglacial deposits
from natural ones, will remain a difficulty for future should be undertaken with some informed view to
research to overcome. Here there is scope for the more record and map their occurrence.
selective use of methods such as GPR and resistivity The excavation and recording of the Avebury ditch
profiling which can focus on particular components of sequence accompanied by a full sampling for land
the area. The WHS offers opportunities for experi snails, soils, pollen and charred remains to provide a
mentation with these and other methods – for example key, long palaeo-environmental and chronological
the detailed 3D delineation of buried sarsens. Such sequence for this monument.
methods should also be applicable to the exploration of The creation of a DEM with land use envelopes
structures and earthworks. Indeed, it is now not too draped over the terrain model for each period.
fanciful, inter alia, to see the fusion of geophysical data
with other physical and historical records, helping to re
create the evolving appearance of the monument 5.3 Earthwork Survey
through time (Pollard and Gillings 1998). Mark Bowden
Although efforts must continue to be directed
toward the monuments themselves, where excavation Earthwork survey is the primary means of recording
itself cannot easily be contemplated, there is no less of and analysing upstanding features, sites and land
a need to explore the intervening spaces between. scapes. It gives information on the form, condition, and
Despite an interest in the use of more ‘novel’ relative chronology of features. It can also give in
geophysical methods it must nevertheless be restated formation about function but rarely about absolute
that routine magnetometry and resistivity are likely to chronology.The most recent text on earthwork survey
remain the most effective at the general level of is Bowden (1999); other useful references are Bettess
prospection.The speed and quality of geophysical data (1984) and Brown (1987, chaps 3 and 4).
capture and manipulation will improve even further in Most monuments within the current WHS
the future, and these ground-based methods ought to boundary have been subject to large-scale survey by the
be used over much larger tracts of landscape than is at RCHME within recent years and a number of sites in
present practicable. One can hope also that high the region immediately surrounding the WHS have also
80
been surveyed. More could and should be done within Thus, a programme devised to answer questions on
and around the WHS, particularly in tandem with other lithic scatters, for example, may encounter pottery of
survey methods. It is intended, for instance, that air different periods which should be collected and
photographic mapping of the WHS at 1:10,000 will be recorded in the appropriate fashion. Discriminatory
followed up by field checking. Extensive field systems programmes which might seek only metal objects, for
to the south of the A4, previously unrecorded because example, should be discouraged.
of their poor condition and low visibility, pose a The collection of archaeological material brings
particular problem. Large-scale survey of field systems with it certain moral obligations. By removing materials
and associated features, paying particular attention to from their place of discovery we may be taking away
the distribution of sarsen stones, in the Fyfield and vital clues to the understanding of the site and may
Overton Downs area, should be accorded a high diminish the evidence available to future researchers.
priority. We should, therefore, not collect material unless there
Standards for undertaking earthwork survey in is a valid reason for doing so but where it is justified,
England have been set by the RCHME (1999b). As an accurate record of all discoveries must be made.
with any other archaeological activity, provision must No artefact should be removed from the WHS
be made for archiving the results of earthwork survey unless its position has been accurately recorded.
in a suitable repository. Publication should be con Landowners should insist that any archaeological
sidered whenever survey leads to significant new discovery made on their land is reported to the County
insights. Archaeologist or, in the case of Treasure, the Coroner.
When systematic searches are planned they must
comply, as a minimum, with the standard defined by
5.4 Surface Artefact Collection Wiltshire County Council (1995). There may be
(Fieldwalking) occasions when it is appropriate to vary this standard:
Andrew J. Lawson for example, more intense study may require collection
from the total area under investigation, or timed
In the past, durable objects such as pottery, coins, stone collection may be relevant.The standard does not apply
implements, etc, were frequently lost or discarded. solely to professional archaeologists. Anyone using a
These normally became incorporated into the soil metal detector should not only abide by the Treasure Act
where they may have remained until the present day. 1996 Code of Practice but should also comply with the
Similarly, abandoned buildings may have become County standard.
buried by the accumulation of soil over them.
However, subsequent ploughing may cut into
previously undisturbed soil layers and bring to the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic
surface the artefacts and building materials contained
within them.The systematic recording or collection of Controlled surface collection may locate Lower and
these materials (often referred to as fieldwalking) and Middle Palaeolithic artefacts. Detailed recordings must
the analysis of their distributions can be used to be made of the find-spot, the artefacts themselves and
indicate the position, date and type of activity any disturbance to the top soil for subsequent
originally responsible for them. Thus, the location of inclusion in the PADMAC Gazetteer (Scott-Jackson
past activity can sometimes be recognised from the 1999, ongoing) and English Heritage’s Southern Rivers
surface of the ground without recourse to further Palaeolithic Project (Wessex Archaeology 1993–99).
disturbance of the site, for example through excavation. Randon auguring, coring, digging or stripping of the
As recognised in this Research Agenda, surface topsoil is strongly discouraged.
artefact collection is a valuable technique for extending
our knowledge on activities of all periods of the past.
Suitable land management regimes for the conserva Upper Palaeolithic, Late Glacial and Early
tion of archaeological remains can only be made from Post-glacial
an informed position and hence, where suitable
conditions exist, surface artefact collection can con The identification of surface lithic scatters (through
tribute both to our knowledge of the past and fieldwalking) will help to enhance our knowledge of the
appropriate management strategies. density of the population and their use of the land at
Surface artefact collection normally relies on the this time. Coring and test-pitting, linked to biostrati
visibility of archaeological material. It is most effectively graphic analysis, may be valuable in locating sediments
carried out when the land is in optimal condition, for which could contain Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic
example when the broken surface has weathered and remains. A programme of prospection is required to
been washed by rain. If such exercises are to benefit the assess the apparent gaps in distribution, especially in
broader study of the WHS, collection should not areas where land management schemes favour
discriminate between different classes of material. reversion to grassland or woodland.
81
Neolithic and Bronze Age complies with the Institute of Field Archaeologists
standard. Both of these documents stress that the aims
Some surface collection will be necessary if there are and objectives of the proposed work should be clearly
opportunities for taking further arable out of cultivation stated and the programme of work carefully designed
within the WHS to protect archaeological features and both to meet them and to avoid unnecessary erosion of
deposits. Careful sampling strategies would have to be the archaeological resource. The full range of
designed to avoid the amassing of large surface appropriate scientific techniques for archaeological and
collections (see Section 4.3). environmental analysis should be employed whenever
excavation is undertaken in the WHS so as to
maximise the retrieval of information.
Iron Age This Research Agenda has highlighted the gaps in
existing knowledge and indicates the most important
The site at All Cannings Cross would be an ideal priorities for future research. It does not exclude the
example to re-evaluate to provide evidence for the Early possibility that other priorities will emerge as enquiry
Iron Age. This could include fieldwalking. This would continues. In the meantime, it can be used as a basis for
be a useful technique to try and date undated or planning excavation strategies which will constructively
presumed Iron Age enclosures in the WHS. contribute to the our understanding of the WHS and
our obligations to its proper management.
From time to time, it is necessary to establish the
Romano-British and Post-Roman presence or absence, nature, extent, condition and
quality of archaeological remains through limited
Fieldwalking should be a major component of any sample excavation. This is particularly the case where
study in areas where aerial photography is less the remains are poorly understood yet decisions
predictable, notably the lower chalk and the Vale of concerning their future management must be made.
Pewsey. For example, new development may threaten
archaeological remains whose importance cannot be
gauged from existing information or from un-intrusive
Late Saxon and Medieval techniques. Limited evaluation excavation may be
necessary to enable the local authorities to comply with
Field walking should be undertaken on a systematic government guidance (PPG 15, PPG 16) and adopted
basis to locate outlying settlement sites. The survey planning policies. Indeed, it is suggested that, because
should encompass all artefact types. of the unpredictable nature of certain archaeological
remains and their potential importance in the context
of the WHS, any proposed building development or
5.5 Evaluation Excavation significant land use change (such as forestry) should be
Andrew J. Lawson preceded by appropriate assessments and field
evaluation.
Excavation is commonly used by archaeologists to In all cases of evaluation excavation, the work
investigate ancient remains and monuments. However, should proceed with the same care as any
the technique is both intrusive and destructive of the archaeological excavation (below) and should seek to
remains themselves and hence should only be used remove only the minimum amount of archaeological
where justifiable in answering important archaeological deposits necessary to meet the requirements of the
questions and in the absence of less intrusive methods. exercise. All work should comply with the definitions
It is a legal offence to carry out any work on a of ACAO (1993) and the minimum standards defined
Scheduled Monument without the written consent of by Wiltshire County Council (1995) and the Institute
the Secretary of State. For the avoidance of doubt, of Field Archaeologists.
anyone planning an excavation (archaeological or
otherwise) within the WHS is advised to ascertain the
status of the site from English Heritage. 5.6 Full Excavation
Although there is a presumption nationally that Rosamund M.J. Cleal
important archaeological remains should be preserved
in situ, and the international designation of the WHS It is clear that there are some questions which are
intensifies our duty of care for such remains, there will impossible to answer other than by excavation, but
be occasions when excavation is necessary to further excavation should not be undertaken lightly by
our knowledge of the remains. No excavation should be archaeologists, and nowhere should this be more true
conducted unless it has been planned in line with the than within the WHS.This document stresses the need
advice of English Heritage (contained in The for full assessments of existing material from past
Management of Archaeological Projects (1991) and excavations – such as material with potential for
82
radiocarbon dating or for shedding light on medieval successfully from excavation, in which their context is
Avebury – but as well as identifying useful material for best established.
analysis it is likely that such exercises will emphasise the
huge gaps in knowledge about the WHS which have Structural detail: Although non-invasive methods can
already been identified by this Research Agenda. Some recover structural detail, mainly in the form of plans,
of the questions this document has raised could the Avebury area has not always provided good results.
undoubtedly be answered fully or in part by excavation For fine detail and for fuller understanding of plans,
and the great challenge for the future is to establish a particularly the elucidation of structural relationships,
framework in which excavation is acknowledged as an excavation is irreplaceable as a technique.
invaluable and irreplaceable tool, but in which it takes
place within consensual restraints aimed at ensuring Some of the above may be achieved through other
that such excavation does not perpetuate some of the means, such as watching briefs during service
failings of past research excavation. trenching, but these are not ideal conditions and may
In all the themes identified in this volume – be ones in which material is lost. It was possible for the
Settlement, Environment, Chronology, Ceremony and professional archaeologists involved to state, following
Ritual, etc, – non-intrusive techniques offer valuable the Kennet Valley Foul Sewer project, that, in regard to
but limited scope for answering the questions raised. the apparent absence of Neolithic activity along the
Excavation, on the other hand, in many cases offers the pipeline ‘Nevertheless, it must be admitted, that the
best chance, and in some cases simply the only chance nature of the fieldwork, as imposed by the method of
of answering those questions, or of even approaching pipeline replacement, was never conducive to the
them. It should also be stressed that with modern recovery of ephemeral features or small stray finds’
techniques, targeted excavation could in many cases (Powell et al. 1996, 82). Excavation, on the other hand,
have a reasonable chance of achieving its goals is conducive to exactly that.
through intrusion in only a tiny proportion of the site Many of the sites have statutory protection, al
being investigated. Some of these benefits may be easily though this does not exclude excavation as a technique.
identified and summarised. For non-Scheduled areas (ie, for the majority of the
WHS) it has not on the whole been archaeology which
Dating: Non-intrusive methods generally have a low has caused the most intrusion but rather the provision
potential for dating, usually relying on morphology, of services. It has not been considered reasonable in
which can give ambiguous or even misleading results social terms to alter the location of services to preserve
(For example the newly identified feature in the north small areas of archaeological deposit (eg, the work in
west quadrant of the henge has been tentatively Butler’s Field 1997; see also Management Plan,
identified as Neolithic, Bronze Age, Romano-British, English Heritage 1998, appendix L, guidelines on
Saxon and medieval, on the basis of its form). services), nor should it be considered reasonable to
Excavation, on the other hand, can provide both sacrifice the needs of research to the preservation of
relative and absolute dating, through stratigraphy, finds small areas of archaeological deposit if such an
and material for absolute dating. investigation is undertaken to the highest standards of
the time and has a reasonable chance of answering
Environment: It is difficult to envisage circumstances in clearly defined questions.
which totally non-invasive techniques can provide It is impossible to define all the research questions
material which will shed light on past environments likely to arise, even within a limited timeframe (as
(although very minimally invasive techniques, demonstrated by the almost yearly identification of new
particularly augering, can do so). Small scale sites by the former RCHME), but a document such as
excavation within the Avebury area has been this can go some way to defining many of the existing
particularly successful in producing evidence of past problems, and some of the most obvious are outlined
environments (Evans et al. 1993). below.It is not the place of a document such as this to
prescribe measures but voluntary adherence to a set of
Economic and social: Evidence for plants, animals and guiding principles is perhaps a goal which it is
people is generally only recovered through invasive reasonable to suggest as achievable among archae
techniques, and most successfully through excavation. ologists working in the area. Adherence to this could
then be taken as an indication of good intention in the
Artefacts: It is difficult to envisage non-invasive case of research proposals made on land not covered by
techniques which would recover artefacts, as the other protective measures and so aid landowners in
removal of artefacts itself could be categorised as evaluating such proposals (ideally also with the
invasive (apart perhaps from analysis of surface guidance of archaeological professionals, such as
scatters in which material is replaced within surface from within the existing County structure, and bodies
collection areas). Artefacts are recovered most such as AAHRG). Guidelines do already exist for
83
specific purposes, such as the Managemement of every opportunity to render their work widely
Archaeological Projects (English Heritage 1991) and accessible.
Institute of Field Archaeology guidelines, and these do Difficulties of physical access, the concerns of
offer a framework of recognised good practice. It is, landowners and the protection of the WHS from over-
however, also worth reiterating here features of promotion may in some cases restrict what it is possible
excavation which should reasonably be given particular to offer the public in terms of access during excavation,
attention. Such a code could include at least the but there are fewer constraints on post-excavation
following: analysis and interpretation. It is increasingly apparent
that it is the process of ‘finding out’ which excites
• that the aims and outline of excavation should be public interest and if archaeology is to remain of
clear and made widely available (to aid interest to society it is important that the excitement of
evaluation of how reasonable they are within the research is conveyed, a process in which the WHS can
context of present knowledge of the WHS and play a part.
the extent of archaeological deposits); Irrespective of whether the archives are deposited at
• that excavation projects should be able to the Alexander Keiller Museum, any publications
demonstrate access to an appropriate range of should also be deposited there, where public access to
specialists both during and after excavation; archaeological work on the WHS can be ensured close
• that arrangement for the deposition of finds to the sites investigated.
should be agreed with the landowner before ex
cavation and discussed with the relevant
museum, and that landowners should be en 5.7 Aerial Survey
couraged to deposit all finds in the appropriate Robert Bewley and Fiona Small
museum (the Alexander Keiller Museum
Acquisitions & Disposal Policy specifies material The numerous prehistoric and later monuments
from the civil parish and from sites crossing the within the area now defined by the WHS have been the
parish boundary which relate to the Avebury focus of varying degrees of investigation since as far
complex of monuments; the Wiltshire Heritage back as the latter half of the 17th century. To the
Museum, Devizes collects material from present day some 470 individual investigations within
elsewhere in the WHS); the area of the Avebury World Heritage Site Mapping
• that interim reports should be made available as Project (AWHSMP) have been recorded by the
soon as practicably possible, and made as widely National Monuments Record (NMR) and un
available as possible – including deposition in doubtedly there are many more which have not been
the Alexander Keiller Museum, where public recorded. The earliest were excavations carried out by
access is encouraged, and, that the full Dr R.Toope on West Kennet Long Barrow and a burial
publication of all results should be achieved near the Sanctuary between 1678 and 1685 to collect
within a reasonable time. This should apply human bone for his patent medicines (Piggott 1962).
equally to results which are tangential to the Many of the excavations were undertaken in the 19th
main objectives of the research as to those which century simply to open and remove any remains of
fulfill specific objectives (eg, an unsuspected interest or value from the numerous Bronze Age round
Roman burial in a barrow ditch being dug for barrows which dotted the landscape.
prehistoric research). ‘Reasonable’ is of course As with many other areas, despite this apparent
open to interpretation, but a decade is probably saturation of archaeological investigation concentrated
too long, even for a major excavation, and in one particular area new discoveries are continually
decades certainly too long. Nor does it any being made (Bewley et al. 1996). The results of the
longer seem reasonable to withhold from public RCHME’s AWHSMP (see below) have illustrated the
access the interim results of research, pending number of previously unrecorded sites which have been
full publication. discovered through systematic analysis of existing
photographs and more recent reconnaissance in
If excavation is to be considered a reasonable varying conditions throughout the seasons (Small
undertaking within the WHS the results, even interim 1999). A continued programme of aerial recon
results, should be fed back to the archaeological naissance is of the utmost importance in the ongoing
community and the wider public as soon as possible. assessment and monitoring of the WHS.
In an age where there are many outlets for information, There should also be greater emphasis on following
and in an area where there is scope for presenting on up and investigating sites discovered through aerial
going research to the public (through the on-site photography, perhaps through geophysical and ground
museum and other outlets), it is not unreasonable to survey or even excavation where it is felt likely to be
expect those choosing to work within the WHS to use beneficial.
84
A new use for aerial photography has recently been 5. RCHME: Avebury Air Photographic Survey
developed (Scott-Jackson 2000) for the identification (1996). A 1:1000 scale survey of the features
of hidden geological features associated with, or visible as parchmarks within the henge
indicative of, in situ Lower and Middle Palaeolithic monument at Avebury, combined with the plan
sites, prior to a geological survey and subsequent ex of the earthwork remains of the henge recorded
cavation. during the field survey of Avebury and Avebury
Trusloe (Bewley et al. 1996). (NMR Event UID
1059067)
Existing Transcription Work 6. RCHME: Avebury World Heritage Site NMP
(Small 1999) carried out at 1:10,000 scale,
There has been a number of detailed archaeological covering an area of 225 km squares. (NMR
surveys carried out within the area of the Avebury Event UID: 1088916)
World Heritage Site in recent years.The two main types
are detailed ground-based field survey of upstanding
earthwork sites and aerial photographic survey of sites RCHME Field Survey Projects
surviving as cropmarks and earthworks. The majority
of these surveys has been carried out by the former RCHME Field Survey section have carried out a
RCHME, and are detailed below. RCHME Aerial number of detailed surveys of specific sites and small
Survey Special Projects (carried out at various scales, landscape areas surviving as earthworks within the area
recording features visible as earthworks and over a number of years including:
cropmarks):
1. Windmill Hill (1989) 1:1000 scale.
1. RCHME: West Kennett Farm Project (1990) 2. Avebury and Avebury Trusloe Survey (1991)
carried out at 1:2500 scale covering an area of 1:1000.
2.8 km square close to West Kennett Farm in the 3. West Kennet Long Barrow (1992) 1:500 scale.
Kennet Valley. (NMR Event UID 932656) 4. Knap Hill Neolithic Enclosure (1996) 1:1000
2. RCHME: Kennet Valley foul sewer improve scale.
ment (1992) carried out at 1:2500 scale 5. Easton Farm DMV (1996) 1:1000 scale.
covering four sections of the proposed sewer 6. Shaw Village DMV (OS Antiquity Model)
improvement with a total area of 85 ha. (NMR 1:2500 scale.
Event UID 965816) 7. Rybury Neolithic Camp 1:1000 scale.
3. RCHME: West Kennett - East Kennett Project 8. Calstone Wellington DMV (OS Antiquity
(1992) carried out at 1:2500 scale, covering an Model) 1:2500 scale.
area of 3.2 km square, 2 km south-east of
Avebury. (NMR Event UID 936869)
4. RCHME: Fyfield Down and Overton Down Other Surveys
Mapping Project (1996) carried out at 1:10,000
scale, covering an area of 25 km square. (NMR 1. Richardson DMV (OS Antiquity Model, 1973)
Event UID 1075247) 1:2500 scale
2. West Overton Field Survey 1:1000 scale.
Table 6. Monarch (NMR)Record Summaries: records created and updated for each
quarter sheet
85
Table 7. New sites identified in the AWHSMP
Project Results and Analysis For the project a total of 561 NMR records were
amended in some way. This figure includes the sites
As noted above, the project area of the RCHME’s which were not included in the transcriptions because
Avebury World Heritage Site Mapping Project has been these could not be identified on the available
the subject of many different types of survey over a long photographs. Also, two of these sites were excluded
period of time. The results of some of these earlier because they were not considered to be of
surveys have been collated to form parts of both the archaeological significance on the basis of the aerial
Wiltshire SMR and the NMR. Both these records were photographs, and 551 sites were not included because
consulted during the course of the AWHSMP with the they referred to find spots, excavations and buildings.
aim to update both with any new information and The results of the survey represent an average
amend any existing records, where necessary. For the increase of approximately 1.7 new sites per square km
purpose of this report, a NEW site is one which has no for the entire survey area.
previous NMR record.
During the course of the survey approximately 3960 SMR record summary
individual photographs held by the National Wiltshire SMR holds a comprehensive record of
Monuments Record Centre were consulted. These archaeological sites, finds and buildings for the entire
included 2798 specialist obliques and 1162 vertical survey area. The SMR contains information from
photographs. In addition to these the photographic surveys and excavations from as early as 1678-85 when
collections of the Cambridge University Committee for the West Kennet Long Barrow was first excavated.
Aerial photography (CUCAP) and Wiltshire County Prior to the AWHSMP survey there were 1939
Council SMR were also consulted. individual SMR records for the survey area.The survey
was able to add a further 325 new records, not
Monarch (NMR) record summaries previously recorded by the SMR (or NMR), bringing
As a result of the project, the following numbers of new the total number of SMR records to 2264. This
NMR records were created and updated for each represents an overall increase of 14.3% in the number
quarter sheet (Table 6). of SMR sites, equating to approximately 1.4 new sites
Prior to the survey 1112 individual NMR records per km2.
had been recorded within the MONARCH database.
Resulting from the survey, with the addition of the 380 Period summaries
new NMR sites discovered from aerial photographs, In addition to those existing new Monarch records
there are a total of 1492 sites recorded for the entire there were several occasions where new individual sites
survey area. This final number of records includes the were added to an existing Monarch record such as
551 documented archaeological sites, find spots, barrows added to known barrow cemeteries, and the
buildings and excavation sites.This represented a total Period Summary below uses this definition of a new
average increase in the number of NMR records of site (Table 7).
25% for the whole survey area. The area around Avebury has been of particular
The majority of the new sites were represented by archaeological interest for a long period of time, noted
five main types of site, mostly medieval in date, or for the intensity of Prehistoric sites surviving as
where the date was unknown. These included ridge- earthworks. Because of this long history of investigation
and-furrow; lynchets; enclosures; water meadows; and there were comparatively few new prehistoric sites
field systems.These are discussed in more detail below. discovered by this latest survey.
86
There were 44 Bronze Age sites, all of which were chemical surveys, fieldwalking and small-scale
round barrows. Only three of these were seen as excavations) are required at a number of sites,
earthworks. There were 35 sites which were classified but especially:
as prehistoric because no specific prehistoric period
could be assigned or the site was considered to have its 1. the sub-rectangular enclosure discovered in
origins in two or more prehistoric periods. Table 7 1995 within the henge at Avebury (Bewley et al.
shows the breakdown of those new sites transcribed 1997). (Fig. 20);
and recorded in MONARCH according to their 2. possible enclosure around the barrow
assigned period. cemetery on Waden Hill (Cleal pers. comm.);
A large proportion of the new sites recorded during 3. possible building within the Iron Age
the AWHSMP was medieval or post-medieval in date. enclosure on Overton Down (Small 1999, 27);
These accounted for 50.5% of all sites for the whole 4. possible palisade enclosure (ibid., 26)
survey area and were primarily associated with additional to the complex of Neolithic palisade
agricultural activity. enclosures (Whittle 1997) investigated at West
The major groups were represented by medieval Kennett.
lynchets (64 sites), ridge-and-furrow (70 sites),
medieval and post-medieval water meadows (21 sites) In addition, research is needed to explore if
and 21 field system records, of which, six were of agricultultural erosion is responsible for the recent
medieval date. The high number of medieval, post- appearance of certain sites on aerial photographs which
medieval and modern sites being recorded is mainly have not been seen in previous decades.
due to the fact that these types of sites were not
considered worthy of recording until recently.
Consequently, few records for ridge-and-furrow, water 5.8 Geographical Information
meadows, post-medieval dewponds or World War II Systems (GIS)
sites such as pillboxes and decoys existed in the records. Nick Burton
There were also 89 sites with no known period
classification; the largest group represented by the site A Geographical Information System (GIS) consists of
type ‘enclosure’, numbered 38 in total. a set of hardware and software for the collection,
storage, manipulation, analysis and output of spatially
referenced data. It allows the storage of many different
Recommendations for Future Research ‘layers’ of data, all of which share a common coordinate
system, and so can be viewed as maps and analysed in
Resulting from the most recent work in the WHS the combination with one another. These layers can
following four recommendations for future research represent anything from land use, recorded
have been made: archaeology, geology and soils, to degree of slope,
• A continued programme of aerial recon probability of worked flint densities or land visible from
naissance is of the utmost importance in the a point within the landscape. They may also include
ongoing assessment and monitoring of the georeferenced aerial or satellite imagery, other remotely
WHS. Combined with this should be a pro sensed data or ground-based geophysical survey.
gramme of maintaining the NMP data (maps Having said this, most GIS software can now also
and records) as up-to-date as possible and an store and access a range of non-geographically
integrated approach to future field investiga referenced material such as scanned documents and
tions, based on the NMP mapping. drawings, excavation records, historic photographs,
• All the sites for which a date has not been video clips, sound, and virtual reality reconstructions.
confirmed require further investigation, and it is These do not fit in with the traditional Cartesian view
strongly recommended that a programme of of discrete map layers, which can be overlain one on top
fieldwalking of all sites visible as cropmarks and of another, but nevertheless are an increasingly
soilmarks be carried out within the WHS on a important part of these systems.What is more, many of
systematic basis over the next five years. these datasets can also be accessed spatially. For
• As a result of field investigation of some of the example all the photographs of specific monuments or
NMP transcriptions it is recommended that all finds within a site or a landscape can be represented by
remaining extant Prehistoric and Romano- points on a map which, when selected, displays the
British settlements and field systems on Overton photograph or even a 360° panorama (Goodrick 1999)
and Fyfield Downs require ground surveys at on screen.
1:1,000 or 1:2,500 scale. The development of Internet technology is
• Investigations (through documentary research, currently influencing the use of GIS as it is becoming
non-intrusive survey, geophysical and geo increasingly easier to access and integrate information
87
held by different organisations in different locations. It Flint density distributions: results collated from field-
is now possible to not only create links from locally held walking programmes.
data to any number of websites or HTML documents,
but it is also possible to interrogate remote Geo Listed buildings: from the English Heritage database.
graphical Information Systems and serve your own GIS
on the web for others to use. Land ownership: areas owned by the National Trust.
Various boundaries: WHS, SSSI, scheduled monument

The Avebury WHS GIS extents.
As discussed in the Avebury World Heritage Site As is clear from the above list, the emphasis has
Management Plan (English Heritage 1998), a GIS for been on the collection of information for supporting
the WHS has been developed side by side with the the Management Plan. Although the range of data sets
creation of the document.The initial development has is currently limited, it is hoped that this document,
been undertaken in order to contribute to the coupled with the current implementation of the
formulation of the plan. It will now continue to be used Management Plan, will create a substantial
for both the implementation, and to aid future improvement in the quality and amount of information
research programmes within the area (Burton 2000). which can be included and subsequently called upon
The system4, currently managed by English for future studies.
Heritage Centre for Archaeology, covers a rectangular
area of 13 x 12 km (SU 0263 to SU 1575) which The use and potential of GIS
includes the entire WHS. The advantages of such systems over previous methods
of data storage, integration and manipulation are not
Current information held by the GIS discussed here. The adoption of GIS by archaeology
The following information is currently held, or has has been fairly rapid and well documented (eg. Allen
been commissioned. et al. 1990; Lock and Stancic 1995), and a trend
towards the use of this methodology as a mainstream
Archaeology: enhanced Wiltshire County Council approach is continuing, especially within the domain of
SMR. This contains around 1600 records with sites and monuments records, as well as a growth in its
graphical representation using points, lines and areas use within archaeological units. The landscapes and
for different monument classes. An attempt has been archaeology of the Avebury and Stonehenge WHS have
made to minimise the degree of simplification of the been the focus of a number of GIS-related studies, the
wealth and complexity of archaeological information results of which help to illustrate both the type of work
available. For example, settlements are stored both as which can be and is being carried out using this type
areas delineating their limits, as well as lines of approach, and the potential that an integrated system
representing as much of the internal detail as possible. could have for contributing to a research programme.
Round barrows and ring ditches are not just held as Perhaps the most prolific type of GIS-based
points, but also as areas, based upon their dimensions research within archaeology has been predictive
held within the database. This means that the GIS is modelling. This is a statistical methodology which
not confined to just working on research at the calculates how much of the variation in the distribution
landscape scale, but can claim to operate at a number of some part of the archaeological record can be
of different resolutions. explained by the variation in a number of chosen
factors. For example, the distribution of Palaeolithic
Basemap: Ordnance Survey 1:10000 raster and Mesolithic sites could be attempted to be
explained by factors such as elevation, soil-type,
Current land use: five classifications. These are: arable, distance to water, slope and aspect. GIS lends itself
permanent pasture, temporary pasture, built up areas, very well to representing and analysing these discrete,
and trees. measurable, and mappable environmental variables,
and they have been used in an attempt to explain
Topography: Ordnance Survey Land-Form PROFILE spatial patterning and preference (Kuna and
contour data and an English Heritage 1:500 contour Adelsbergerova 1995), and predict both optimum site
survey of the Avebury henge and part of the village. location (Kvamme 1990), and site probability
distribution within a landscape (Brandt et al. 1992).
Survey coverage: four layers showing areas of geo Within the Stonehenge landscape Wheatley (1996)
physical survey, fieldwalking, auguring and test- has investigated the distribution of lithic debitage using
pitting. this technique. The study used the results of the
88
Goodrick (1996), who provide many arguments and

Stonehenge Environs Project (Richards 1990) in order to examples of the advantages which this integration can
both predict lithic densities elsewhere within the bring in allowing a move towards a set of tools and
landscape, as well as assess the effectiveness of approaches which can better investigate the ‘temporal,
predictive modelling as an alternative to spatial spatial, and social dynamics that characterise past
interpolation. One important aspect of this work is the landscapes’ (1996, part 11.html).
attempt to involve not only environmental factors, but At Avebury the use of Virtual Reality and GIS is
also variables which reflect cultural activities and currently being used as part of a series of studies, the
influences. It is argued that the location of burial Negotiating Avebury project (Pollard and Gillings
monuments may have had some subsequent influence 1998), in order to investigate ‘past and present
upon human activity within those areas, and so factors encounters’ with the monument complex. This
including density of round barrows and distance to innovative work not only investigates the visual aspects
long barrows were used. of approach and movement, but also engages with the
Another area of study for which GIS is used heavily concepts of time and space, as perceived by those
is digital elevation modelling and visibility analysis. By within a variety of alternative models.This project also
obtaining elevation values at known locations, a extends to using similar techniques to look at the
model of an area can be interpolated, for which all invested meaning associated with the shape, position
heights across the surface are then known. See and nature of materials within the monument.
Burrough (1986) for a more comprehensive explana Although not exhaustive, these few examples show
tion. the diversity of methods currently being employed.The
A model can be shaded, exaggerated, and viewed in variety of techniques available, and the increasing use
perspective in order to visualise and emphasise of integrated technology is in part a reflection of the
topographic detail. Other layers of data, such as maturity of theory within what was once considered by
recorded archaeology, aerial photography or geo many to be a neutral, atheoretical tool. Debates on such
physical survey imagery, can also be draped over the subjects as the rejection of the neutrality of GIS
terrain, providing a powerful tool for both interpreting (Wheatley 1993), the role of determinism (Gaffney and
or monitoring the use of the environment over time. van Leusen 1995; Llobera 1996), and the differences
Although this technique has been used to model buried between vision and perception (Gaffney et al. 1995,
surfaces (Ove Arup 1991; Burton and Shell 2000), it Gillings and Goodrick 1996), now mean that we are
is mainly carried out for the present landscape and then much better equipped to investigate a far greater range
used to calculate both areas visible from sites of archaeological questions.
(viewsheds), and intervisibility between them. For GIS has many roles to play within a research
example, the visual relationship between long barrows context and is clearly not simply limited to carrying out
in the Avebury and Stonehenge area has been analysis for a particular study.The ability to record and
investigated using Cumulative Viewshed Analysis, a well organise very large amounts of different types of data
received development of the basic technique by the means that GIS can clearly be a focal point for
archaeologist involved (Wheatley 1995). The use of synthesising existing research, survey, and excavation
viewsheds at the intra-site level is less common information. It can then be used to help highlight gaps
although it is currently being explored at Avebury in the record, prioritise programmes of data collection,
(Pollard and Gillings 1998).This tailoring of standard as well as facilitating ideas through easier access to
techniques and adaptation of off-the-shelf software in organised spatially referenced information. The
order to help address archaeological questions is increasing use of data standards and metadata should
increasing, especially within visibility studies (Fisher also improve the ability for data to be transferred
1992; Lake et al. 1998). between different systems.
Also on the increase is the integration of GIS with
other technology, namely VRML (Virtual Reality
Modelling Language) and the use of the Internet.The
web version of ‘Virtual Stonehenge’ 5 (Burton et al. Specific Recommendations and Further Issues
1999), is one such development which goes some way
to allowing the user to move away from the more As far as specific recommendations go it is important
traditional planimetric view of the landscapes and that it is archaeological questions, and not a toolkit and
‘explore’ the environment, and confront the methodology, which should be leading research.
archaeology using different methods. Yorston and However, there are a number of issues to be resolved,
Gaffney have also used technology based on the web to and also some gaps within the existing data are evident.
begin to look at the spatial relationship of barrow The following are suggestions for immediate
placement in the Stonehenge area as part of a wider enhancements which would be beneficial to more than
study.6 The use of VRML and its relationship with GIS- one area of research, or whose establishment now
based studies is explicitly addressed by Gillings and would benefit studies in the medium to long term:
89
• The collection and inclusion of better dates and 5.9 Metal Detecting at Avebury
phasing for the recorded archaeology database, WHS: Guidance for Detectorists
along with details of the evidence and references. and Curators and the Potential of
• Improved topographic survey information. the Technique
Current Ordnance Survey 1:10000 contours Amanda Chadburn
only allow studies at a landscape level; much
better detail is required to allow effective
research at the local or intra-site scale. Past Metal Detecting Activity in the WHS
• Establishing a database for recording major sub
surface horizon depths from coring or test- Metal detectorists have in the past made a number of
pitting undertaken within the river valleys. This important finds in the Avebury WHS.Whilst these have
will allow future modelling of buried landscape made a notable contribution to archaeology in general,
features for studying potential site location in particular our understanding of small finds (for
within the valleys. A first step would be the example, the Late Bronze Age fibula published in Hull
definition of soil erosional and depositional and Hawkes (1987, 12)), they cannot be said to have
zones in the WHS landscape. made any significant contribution to our understanding
of the Avebury complex of monuments (although the
Much of the above has been written with the recent discovery of a group of three Bronze Age
existing WHS GIS in mind, considering its future artefacts at Bishops Cannings a very short distance
development in order to create a critical mass of useful outside the southern boundary of the WHS may well
information. Holding data in this way would mean a do so).
single point of call for those wishing to carry out In contrast, it must be regretted that there are
research, rather like the current role of the county Sites known important individual archaeological finds
and Monuments Record. The logistics of its loca- which have not furthered our knowledge as much as
tion(s), maintenance, copyright and sensitivity are all they could have done.These include discoveries which
issues which require further consideration. have gone unreported (for example an early Saxon
However, a central mass of information is not the applied disk brooch). Other finds are unconfirmed and
only option. The increasing use of data standards, the of questionable authority, or are so loosely provenanced
Internet, metadata, and good practice guidelines, that a great part of their archaeological value is effect
developed and promoted partly by organisations such ively lost (for example the 10th century German
as the Archaeology Data Service (Gillings and Wise sterling said to have been found ‘near Silbury Hill’, and
1998), now provide alternative ways forward. the two Iron Age coins found ‘near Silbury Hill’, now
One approach is to document the GIS layers in a in Devizes Museum; Fig. 11). Some objects have a
national or large-scale metadata database which then reported findspot which is now believed to be
directs an interested party towards what is appropriate, completely false (for example a purported Bronze Age
available and where it is held. Data can then be metalwork hoard said to have been found near the West
requested or downloaded from the originator or, if it Kennet Long Barrow which is now believed to have
has been deposited, a data archive. been uncovered in south Wiltshire).
Internet developments mean that another, perhaps In short it is difficult to assess how great a
ideal, approach may soon be practical. Those contribution metal detecting as a technique has made
responsible for creating or maintaining information, towards our understanding of the WHS. It is not a
such as national bodies, local governments, commercial technique which has yet been widely used by
archaeological units and academic departments, could archaeologists working in the area, and its use has
maintain their own data within spatial databases which therefore been by metal detectorists rather than
are made available to others over the Internet. Users professional archaeologists. However, it has the
will then be able to view and query any of these layers potential to be a useful tool in aiding our understanding
simultaneously regardless of where the data sits on this of the area.
distributed database. Although there are current
problems in the speed of data transfer, spatial data
standards, the sensitivity of some data, and the The Potential of the Technique
sometimes bizarre attitudes towards copyright, the
advantages of accessing a wide variety of consistent and Metal detecting has the potential to retrieve small metal
up-to-date information from those people who items which are often difficult to find by other methods.
maintain it may mean that this approach to creating Such finds may be of critical importance in furthering
and using Geographical Information Systems is our knowledge of the WHS in a particular period. One
increasingly sought after. obvious category of find is coinage. In the Iron Age, for
90
example, the boundaries of the various Iron Age voluntary responsible recording and reporting of
peoples before the Roman Conquest are almost archaeological finds, with a view to extending this
exclusively drawn from the distribution of coin types Portable Antiquities Scheme over the whole of England.
(see Section 3.5, above), and a better understanding of At the time of writing in 2000, however, there has not
the distribution of their coinages would lead to a better yet been a notable response by the general public in
understanding of these ‘kingdoms’. A similar case can Wiltshire to this initiative, but this is probably largely
be made for an improved understanding of Anglo- due to the fact that Wiltshire has not yet been chosen
Saxon coinages, but the find of almost any metal object as a county to receive extra funding in the pilot
will improve the knowledge of its particular type, recording scheme.
typology, distribution and rarity, which will be of There are still serious weaknesses within the
benefit to our understanding of all metal-using periods current laws; any archaeological sites which are not
in the Avebury WHS. (There is even an antiquarian legally protected by scheduling can still be metal
record of a Romano-British coin hoard found in the detected if the landowner grants permission for this.
east of the WHS in an unrecorded location, which was There are many unscheduled archaeological sites
apparently left in situ – still to be recovered!). within the WHS, some of which may relate to the
Geophysical surveys (as well as formal archaeological Neolithic and Bronze Age complex of monuments at
excavation) can usefully provide information about the Avebury. The designation of a monument or area as a
context of a metal-detected find. WHS now imposes obligations on the UK government
to ensure its good management and protection, and
this relates not only to scheduled monuments but to
The Current Legislation and Initiatives other archaeological sites within the WHS.
Metal detectors can be used on any land in England

with the permission of the landowner, although many Recommendations and Guidance
public bodies who own land ban their use. Any finds
recovered belong to the landowner, except if they are Given all the above, we strongly urge that metal
found to be ‘Treasure’ – formerly known as ‘Treasure detectors are only used within the WHS in a controlled
Trove’. (These are artefacts made of precious metal fashion, such as on an archaeological excavation run by
and other artefacts found in association; a fuller competent archaeologists, or as part of an
definition of ‘Treasure’ can be found in the leaflet The archaeological survey, which has an appropriate finds
Treasure Act. Information for Finders of Treasure (England policy within its project design. We would not
and Wales)published by the DCMS in July 1997. recommend the use of metal detectors on known
However, it is also against the law to use a metal archaeological sites, unless in the context of an
detector on a Scheduled Monument or an Area of archaeological project such as described above. Neither
Archaeological Importance (designated under the 1979 would we recommend the use of metal detectors on
Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act) archaeologically ‘blank’ areas within the WHS unless
without the permission of English Heritage (users must again in the context of an approved archaeological
apply for a Section 42 licence). survey.
Irresponsible or unrecorded metal detecting is still This should not be seen as an attack on the rights
a major problem for archaeologists and others, and it of the individual but an acknowledgement of the
was to partly address the problems of illicit or overriding importance of the WHS and the fragility of
unrecorded metal detecting, that recent changes have the archaeology within it, which of course, once
been made both to the law relating to ‘Treasure’ and to destroyed or damaged by unrecorded and unreported
funding for museums to improve recording. In fairness, metal detecting, is lost and cannot be replaced.
these criticisms can equally apply today to objects Landowners and detectorists should seek further
found by people other than metal detectorists and advice from the Avebury WHS Implementation Officer
certainly may be widely applied to finds made in the or the County Archaeological Service if they are unsure
more distant past in the WHS.The Treasure Act of 1996 on how to proceed. Guidelines on metal detecting are
(DNH 1997) came into force in September 1997 and also available from the Council for British Archaeology,
has widened the definition of ‘Treasure’, leading to a English Heritage and Wiltshire Archaeological and
sevenfold increase in the number of archaeological Natural History Society amongst others.
items so defined by January 1999 (DCMS 1999, 3). A metal detector is simply a tool which can be used
Alongside the new Act, the government introduced an or abused, depending on the purpose and skill of the
initiative to try and record the majority of newly user.We would not wish to impose a blanket ban on the
discovered archaeological items which fall outside the use of metal detectors within the WHS.There may still
definition of ‘Treasure’. Pilot schemes were introduced be opportunities for amateur metal detectorists (who
in various parts of the country to encourage the are often extremely skilled at finding metal objects) to
91
Fig. 21 Isometric drawing of the Overton Down Experimental Earthwork
work within the WHS, if they were prepared to become much potential to research in the Avebury area.
a part of an archaeological project team.This approach Experiments into processes affecting archaeological
is working well in other parts of the country (for sites and buried materials have been carried out since
example in Norfolk, where metal detectorists work 1960.Three main projects have been undertaken (part
alongside professional archaeologists on road schemes). related through the tradition of archaeological work in
We would recommend that a metal detector survey the area and the individuals involved).
is undertaken in advance of any large-scale earth- The longest running programme is that of the
stripping within the WHS, such as constructing a Experimental Earthworks Committee. Set up in 1958
pipeline, and that the spoil heaps are also detected. All by the British Association for the Advancement of
archaeologists should consider doing such metal Science (Jewell 1963; Bell et al. 1996) the Committee
detecting work as part of their excavations within the runs one site on Overton Down (Fig. 21) and a sister
WHS, and if they choose not to, this should be justified. site on sand near Wareham in Dorset. For the first time
Metal detector surveys could either be done by field archaeologists and natural scientists were
archaeologists or by skilled metal detectorists working cooperating on a long term project which would outlive
as part of an archaeological project team. its originators and many who will have worked on its
In summary, the use of responsible and controlled various aspects during its lifetime.The Overton Down
metal detecting within the WHS, as set out in our site lies within the Fyfield Down National Nature
guidelines above, is to be encouraged as another useful Reserve.
archaeological technique. The experiment was designed to study the
denudation and silting of earthworks and the
deterioration of materials buried within and under
5.10 Experimental Archaeology constructed features. The aim was to provide data
Gill Swanton produced under recorded conditions which could be
compared to observations on archaeological sites.
The long tradition of experimental archaeology and its The shape chosen was a linear bank with a single
interdisciplinary approach brings a unique aspect and ditch, not to imitate any particular archaeological
92
monument but as the most practical design for establishing experiment as an accepted part of
sampling a long-term experimental site.The bank and archaeological practice.
ditch were built to precise specifications so that Another set of experimental earthworks, run by the
alterations to their shape could be accurately Buster Ancient Farm in conjunction with the Experi
monitored. Markers were placed below and within the mental Earthworks Committee has one of its sites in
bank and on the berm so that movement and the grounds of the Science Museum at Wroughton. It
compression could be assessed. Combinations of is octagonal in shape, each ‘arm’ having combinations
buried materials mirroring items which are found in of turfed/unturfed bank and berm/no berm. Careful
archaeological conditions were set in repeated patterns measuring of the silting of the ditch and vegetation of
along the length of the bank, in two environments (turf both the ditch and its internal bank are combined with
and chalk) and located where the planned sections daily weather recording.The octagonal shape allows for
would take place at 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64 and 128 years. as many aspects of weather variables as possible and the
During the ongoing monitoring and the planned project complement the Experimental Earthwork
interventions some observations of the soil formation Committee’s sites by providing data from a simulated
processes taking place have particular relevance for domestic or farmstead situation.
archaeology. During the early erosion processes turf The most recent experiment to be set up is one
from the edges of the ditch frequently fell in root-down, examination of survival of dairy products on pottery
enabling the ditch to be stable and vegetated in 24 (lipid analysis).Two sites are involved, one in the valley
years.The indications are that unless dramatic changes of the River Kennet, the other on the edge of the chalk
take place the ditch will retain its shape without further downland. The buried pot sherds are recovered at set
large-scale silting. A similar profile with an established intervals and the degradation of the dairy products
turf-line was noted at Millbarrow (Whittle 1994) but examined (Heron and Evershed 1992).
in this case below a deep consistent fill. The
comparison between the two raises the possibility that Endnotes
in the past ditches may have been deliberately
backfilled. 1Outside the WHS, on Golden Ball Hill near Alton Barnes,
Another feature noted during monitoring was the conventional magnetometer survey has located an anomaly
presence of Roman pottery in the early erosion which was later found to be associated with apparently
products at the base of the ditch.The site sits in an area Mesolithic features (Dennis and Hamilton 1997).
of known Romano-British fields and the sherd had 2Caesium magnetometry was undertaken here in 1997 by Dr
been brought down in a fallen turf.The presence of an Jörg Fassbinder, working with the Ancient Monuments
object on the base of a ditch known to be 2000 years Laboratory, using Scintrex CS2 sensors and MEP720
younger calls into question the dating of ditches by magnetometer processors with a sensitivity of +0.001nT. No
their contents. magnetic anomalies corresponding with the very tentative
An extremely important aspect of the experiment resistivity patterning could be discerned. This work is part of
has been ongoing vegetation survey. The process of a wider project comparing the performances of caesium and
making available raw chalk to plants favouring an fluxgate magnetometers on a range of archaeological sites in
alkaline environment resulted in an increase in the England.
variety of flora inside the Earthwork enclosure 3A seismic survey of the ditch and corings was undertaken by
compared with that outside, with important the Dept of Geology, University College of South Wales and
implications for the management of chalk downland. Monmouthshire, under the direction of Dr R Blundell,
The care with which the experiment was designed during the Atkinson campaign of excavations 1968–70
has made it possible to add new aspects to it without (Whittle 1997, xi).
affecting the original aims. Detailed analyses of 4See http://www.english-heritage.gov.uk/knowledge/
processes affecting the buried materials in their micro archaeology/whs.asp for further details.
environments, soil chemistry, micro-morphology, 5The model is currently unavailable but will eventually be
micro-biology, DNA work and seed bank survival have held at either www.intel.com, www.english-heritage.org.uk,
been added to the repertoire of studies. The or www.stonehengemasterplan.co.uk
interdisciplinary nature of the project and the 6See http://www.bufau.bham.ac.uk/newsite/Projects/SB/
development of a team approach have been important barhtml.htm for a description of this work. To see some of the
and although there are problems associated with accompanying animations produced by the project visit
conducting a programme of this nature, particularly http://intgat.tigress.co.uk/rmy/index.html
funding and continuity, the project has assisted in
Bibliography
AAHRG. (1993). First Report by the Archaeological and Allen, M.J. and Powell, A.B. (1996). The contribution of
Historical Research Sub-Group to the Avebury World pipeline archaeology to our understanding of the
Heritage Site Working Party. June 1993, unpubl. environment, farming and settlement patterns of the
AAHRG. (1997). Research Agenda for the Avebury WHS. First Winterbourne and Kennet Valleys, in Powell et al. 1996,
draft, unpubl. 82–8
AAHRG. (2000). Research Agenda for the Avebury WHS. Annable, F.K. (1962). A Romano-British Pottery in
Second draft, unpubl. Savernake Forest: Kilns, Wiltshire Archaeol. Natur. Hist.
ACAO. Association of County Archaeological Officers. Mag. 1–2. l
(1993). Model Briefs and Specifications for Archaeological Andrews, P., Mepham, L. and Seager Smith, R. (2000).
Assessments and Field Evaluations, Bedford Excavations in Wilton, 1995–6: St Johns Hospital and
Aitken, M.J. (1974). Physics and Archaeology, Oxford: South Street, Wiltshire Archaeol. Natur. Hist. Mag. 93,
Clarendon Press, 2nd edn 181–204
Allen, K.M.S., Green, S.W. and Zubrow, E.B.W. (eds). Ashbee, P., Smith, I.F. and Evans, J.G. (1979). Excavation of
(1990). Interpreting Space: GIS and Archaeology. London: three long barrows near Avebury,Wiltshire, Proc. Prehist.
Taylor and Francis Soc. 45, 207–300
Allen, M.J. (1995). Before Stonehenge, in Cleal, R.M.J., Aston, M. 1989. A regional study of deserted settlements in
Walker, K.E. and Montague, R., Stonehenge in its the west of England, in Aston, M. Austin, D. and Dyer,
Landscape:Twentieth–century excavations, London: English C. (eds), The Rural Settlements of Medieval England,
Herit. Archaeol. Rep. 10, 41–63 105–28, Oxford: Blackwell
Allen, M.J. (1996). Colluvial and alluvial sequences in the Aston, M. and Lewis, C. (eds). (1994). The Medieval
Winterbourne Valley, in Powell et al. 1996, 48–52 Landscape of Wessex, Oxford: Oxbow Monogr. 46
Allen, M.J. (1997a). Environment and land-use: the Aspinall, A. (1992). New developments in geophysical
economic development of the communities who built prospection, in Pollard, A.M. (ed.), New Develop-ments in
Stonehenge (an economy to support the stones), in Archaeological Science, 233–44, London: Proc. Brit.
Cunliffe, B. and Renfrew, C. (eds), Science and Stonehenge, Acad. 77
Proc. Brit. Acad. 92, 115– 44 Atkinson, R.J.C. (1968). Silbury Hill, 1968, Antiquity 42, 299
Allen, M.J. (1997b). Landscape, land-use and farming, in Atkinson, R.J.C. (1970). Silbury Hill, 1969–70, Antiquity 44,
Smith, R.J.C., Healy, F., Allen, M.J., Morris, E.L., 313–4
Barnes, I. and Woodward, P.J., Excavations Along the Route Bahn, P. and Vertut, J. (1997). Journey through the Ice Age,
of the Dorchester By-pass, Dorset, 1986–8, Salisbury:Wessex London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson
Archaeol. Rep. 11, 277–83 Balaam, N.D. and Scaife, R.G. (1987). Archaeological pollen
Allen, M.J. (1998). Landscape and landuse reconstruction: analysis, in Mellars, P. (ed.), Research Priorities in
looking forward or looking back?, in Woodward and Archaeological Science, 7–10, London: Counc. Brit.
Gardiner (eds) 1998, 15–17 Archaeol.
Allen, M.J. (2000a). Palaeo–Environmental Research Agenda for Barker, C.T. (1985). The long mounds of the Avebury
the Avebury WHS, Wessex Archaeol. unpubl. Region, Wiltshire Archaeol. Natur. Hist. Mag. 79, 7–38
Allen, M.J. (2000b). Soils pollen and lots of snails, in Green, Barnatt, J. (1989). Stone Circles of Britain, Oxford: Brit.
M.T, A Landscape Revealed – 10,000 Years on a Chalkland Archaeol. Rep 215
Farm, 36–49, Stroud: Tempus. Bartlett, A. (1991). Report on Geophysical Survey at Avebury
Allen, M.J. (2000c). High resolution mapping of Neolithic Manor,Wiltshire, 1991, unpubl.
and Bronze Age chalkland landscape and land-use; the Barton, N. (1991). Technological innovation and continuity
combination of multiple palaeo–environmental analyses at the end of the Pleistocene in Britain in Barton, N.,
and topographic modelling, in Fairburn, A. (ed.), Roberts, A.J. and Roe, D. (eds) 1991, The Late Glacial in
Landscape and Environment, Economy and Society: plants in North-west Europe, 234–45,York: Counc. Brit. Archaeol.
Neolithic Britain, 9–26, Oxford: Neolithic Studies Group, Res. Rep. 77
Oxbow Books Bassett, S.R. (1985). A probable Mercian royal mausoleum
Allen, M.J. and Carruthers, W.J. (1989). Environmental at Winchcombe, Gloucestershire. Antiq. J. 65, 82–5
Assessment of the Alluvial Deposits (trench H), in West Bates, M.R. and Bates, C.R. (2000). Multidisciplinary
Kennet Farm,West Kennet, Marlborough,Wilts. Salisbury: approaches to the geoarchaeological evaluation of deeply
Wessex Archaeol.unpubl. Client Rep., 40–8 stratified sedimentary sequences: examples from
Allen, M.J. and Gardiner, J. (forthcoming). A sense of time Pleistocene and Holocene deposits in southern England,
– cultural markers in the Mesolithic of southern United Kingdom, J. Archaeol. Sci. 27, 845–58
England?, in David, B. and Wilson, M. (eds), Inscribed Bell, M. and Dark, P. (1998). Continuity and change:
Landscapes: marking and making places, Univ. Hawaii Press environmental archaeology in historic periods, in Bayley,
94
J. (ed.), Science in Archaeology; an agenda for the future, Burton, N.R. (2000). New tools at Avebury, Antiquity 74,
179–94, London: English Heritage 279–280
Bell, M., Fowler, P.J. and Hillson, S.W. (eds). (1996). The Burton, N.R., Hitchen, M.E. and Bryan, P.G. (1999).Virtual
Experimental Earthwork Project 1960–1992,York: Counc. Stonehenge: a fall from disgrace?, in Dingwall, L. (ed.),
Brit. Archaeol. Res. Rep. 100 Archaeology in the Age of the Internet. CAA 97 Computer
Bell, M. and Walker, M.J.C. (1992). Late Quaternary Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology,
Environmental Change. Physical and Human Per-spectives, Oxford: Archaeopress
Harlow: Longman Burton, N.R. and Shell, C.A (2000). GIS and visualising the
Best, J. (1997). The Marlborough Mound, in Whittle 1997, palaeoenvironment, in Lockyear, K., Sly, T.J.T. and
169–70 Mihailescu-Birliba, V. (eds), Computer Applications and
Bettess, F. (1984). Surveying for Archaeologists, Durham: Quantitative Methods in Archaeology. CAA 96, Oxford:
Durham Univ. Excav. Comm. Archaeopress
Bewley, R. Cole, M., David, A., Featherstone, R., Payne, A. Chris Blandford Associates. (1997). Landscape Assessment and
and Small, F. (1996). New features within the henge at Planning Framework; Avebury World Heritage Site
Avebury, Wiltshire: aerial and geophysical evidence, Management Plan, London: English Heritage
Antiquity 70, 639–46 Chadburn, A. (1998). Research Agenda in the Avebury WHS,
Blair, J. (1985). Secular Minster churches in Domesday in Woodward and Gardiner (eds) 1998, 34–5
Book, in Sawyer, P. (ed.), Domesday Book: a reappraisal, Clark, A.J. (1996). Seeing Beneath The Soil, London:
104–42, London: Edward Arnold Batsford, 2nd edn
Blair, J. (1995). Anglo-Saxon pagan shrines and their Clark, J.G.D. (1935). Derivative forms of the petit tranchet
prototypes, Anglo-Saxon Stud. Archaeol. Hist. 8, 1–28 in Britain, Archaeol. J. 91(1), 32–58
Bonney, D.J. (1979). Early boundaries and estates in Clarke, D.L. (1970). Beaker Pottery of Great Britain and
southern England, in Sawyer, P. (ed.), English Medieval Ireland, Cambridge: Univ. Press
Settlement Conyers, L.B, and Goodman, D. (1997). Ground-Penetrating
Bonsall, C. J. (ed). (1977) Upper Palaeolithic gazetteer, in Radar: an introduction for archaeologists, California:
Wymer, J.J. (ed.), Gazetteer of Mesolithic Sites in England Altamira
and Wales with a Gazetteer of Upper Palaeolithic Sites in Corney, M. (1997a). New evidence for the Romano-British
England and Wales, 417-32, London: Counc. Brit. settlement by Silbury Hill, Wiltshire Archaeol. Natur. Hist.
Archaeol. Res. Rep. 20 Mag. 90, 139–41
Borthwick, A. (1985). Avebury 1985. Trowbridge: Wiltshire Corney, M. (1997b). The origins and development of the
Co. Counc. Lib. Mus. Service small town of Cunetio, Britannia 28, 337–49
Bowden, M. (ed.). (1999). Unravelling the Landscape: an Corney, M. (forthcoming). Catalogue of Iron Age artefacts
inquisitive approach to archaeology, Stroud: in Devizes Museum, Wiltshire Archaeol. Natur. Hist. Mag.
RCHME/Tempus Cornwall, I., Dimbleby, G.W. and Evans, J.G. (1997). Soils,
Bowen, H.C. and Fowler, P.J. (1962). The archaeology of in Whittle 1997, 26–9
Fyfield and Overton Downs,Wiltshire: (interim report), Costen, M. (1994). Settlement in Wessex in the tenth century,
Wiltshire Archaeol. Natur. Hist. Mag. 62, 98–115 in Aston and Lewis (eds) 1994, 97–114
Bradley, R.J.( 992).Time regained: the creation of continuity, Crawford, O.G.S. and Keiller, A.K. (1928). Wessex from the
J. Brit. Archaeol. Assoc. 142, 1–20 Air, Oxford: Clarendon Press
Brandt, R., Groenewoudt, B.J. and Kvamme, K.L. (1992). Cunliffe, B. (1984). Iron Age Communities in Britain,
An experiment in archaeological site location: modelling London: Routledge 2nd edn
in the Netherlands using GIS techniques, World Archaeol. Cunnington, M.E. (1913).The re-erection of two fallen
24, 268–82 stones, and discovery of an interment with drinking cup,
Brentnall, H.C. (1938). Marlborough Castle, Wiltshire at Avebury, Wiltshire Archaeol. Natur. Hist. Mag. 38, 1–8
Archaeol. Natur. Hist. Mag. 48, 133–43 Cunnington, M.E. (1923). The Early Iron Age Inhabited site
Brown, A. (1987). Fieldwork for Archaeologists and Local at All Cannings Cross Farm,Wiltshire, Devizes: G. Simpson
Historians, Batsford. London Cunnington, M.E. (1931), The Sanctuary on Overton Hill,
Burrough, P.A. (1986). Principles of Geographical Information near Avebury, Wiltshire Archaeol. Natur. Hist. Mag. 45,
Systems for land Resources Assessment, Oxford: Clarendon 300–35
Press Cunnington, M.E. and Goddard, E.H. (1934). Catalogue of
Burl. A. (1976). The Stone Circles of the British Isles, Yale: Univ. Antiquities in the Museum of the Wiltshire Archaeological &
Press Natural History Society at Devizes Part II, Devizes
Burl, A. (1979). Prehistoric Avebury,Yale: Univ. Press Wiltshire Archaeol. Natur. Hist. Soc.
Burl, A. (1992). Two early plans of Avebury, Wiltshire Cunnington, R.H. (1931). The Sanctuary on Overton Hill.
Archaeol. Natur. Hist. Mag. 85, 163–72 Was it roofed ? Wiltshire Archaeol. Natur. Hist. Mag. 45,
Burnham, B. and Wacher, J. (1990). The Small Towns of 486–8
Roman Britain, London: Batsford
95
Cunnington, R.H. (1933). Wiltshire in pagan Saxon times, English Heritage. (1995). Geophysical Survey in Archaeological
Wiltshire Archaeol. Natur. Hist. Mag. 46 Evaluation, Research & Professional Services Guideline
David, A. (1994). The role of geophysical survey in early 1
medieval archaeology, Anglo-Saxon Stud.Archaeol. Hist. 7, English Heritage.(1998). Avebury World Heritage Site
1–26 Management Plan
David, A. (1999). Beckhampton, near Avebury,Wilts: draft report English Heritage. (2000). Stonehenge World Heritage Site
on geophysical survey, May 1999, London: Anc. Monum. Management Plan
Lab. Rep. Entwistle, R. and Bowden, M. (1991). Cranborne Chase; the
David, A. (2000). Beckhampton, near Avebury,Wilts: draft report molluscan evidence, in Barrett, J., Bradley, R. and Hall,
on geophysical survey, May 2000, Anc. Monum. Lab. Rep. M., Papers on the Prehistoric Archaeology of Cranborne
David, A. and Payne, A. (1997). Geophysical surveys within Chase, 20–48, Oxford, Oxbow Monogr. 11
the Stonehenge landscape: past endeavour and future Evans, J.G. (1965). Land Mollusca, in Smith 1965, 44–5
potential, in Cunliffe, B. and Renfrew, C. (eds), Science Evans, J.G. (1966). A Romano-British interment in the bank
and Stonehenge, 73–113, London: Proc. Brit. Acad. 92 of the Winterbourne, near Avebury, Wiltshire Archaeol.
David, A., McOmish, D. and Whittle, A. (1999).The lay-out Natur. Hist. Mag. 61, 97–8
of the enclosure: earthwork and geophysical survey, in Evans, J.G. (1968a). Periglacial deposits on the chalk of
Whittle et al.1999, 7–23 Wiltshire, Wiltshire Archaeol. Natur. Hist. Mag. 63, 12–26
Day, C.A. (1999). Predicting archaeo-colluvium on the Berkshire Evans, J.G. (1968b). Changes in the composition of land
Downs, Univ Oxford: unpubl. PhD thesis molluscan populations in north Wiltshire during the last
Dennis, I. and Hamilton, M.A. (1997). Exploratory 5000 years, Symp. Zool. Soc. Lond. 22, 293–317
excavations and survey of mesolithic, Late Bronze Age Evans, J.G. (1969). Further periglacial deposits in North
and Iron Age sites at Golden Ball Hill, near Alton Barnes, Wiltshire,Wiltshire Archaeol. Natur. Hist. Mag. 64, 112–3
Wiltshire: an interim report for 1997. Cardiff Stud. Evans, J.G. (1972). Land Snails in Archaeology, London,
Archaeol. Spec. Rep. 7, unpubl. Seminar
Dennison, S. (ed.). (1997).Three Mesolithic houses Evans, J.G. and Jones, H. (1979). Mount Pleasant and
discovered near Avebury, Brit. Archaeol. 28, 4 Woodhenge: the land Mollusca, in Wainwright, G.J.,
Department for Culture, Media and Sport. (1999). Portable Mount Pleasant, Dorset: Excavations 1970–1971, 190–213,
Antiquities Annual Report, 1997–98 London: Rep. Res. Comm. Soc. Antiq. London 37
Department of the Environment. (1977). Archaeological Evans, J.G. and Smith, I.F. (1967). Cherhill. Bristol: Univ.
Excavations, 1976, London: HMSO. Bristol Dept. Extra-Mural Stud. Archaeol. Rev. 2, 8–9
Department of the Environment. (1990). Planning Policy Evans, J.G. and Smith, I.F. (1983). Excavations at Cherhill,
Guidance: Archaeology and Planning (PPG16) North Wiltshire 1967, Proc. Prehist. Soc. 49, 43–117
Department of the Environment (1994). Planning Policy Evans, J.G., Limbrey, S., Maté, I. and Mount, R. (1988).
Guidance: Planning and the Historic Environ-ment (PPG15) Environmental change and land-use history in a Wiltshire
Department of National Heritage. (1997). The Treasure Act river valley in the last 14,000 years, in Barrett, J.C. and
1996: Code of Practice Kinness, I. (eds), The Archaeology of Context in the Neolithic
Dimbleby, G.W. (1965).The buried soil under the outer bank and Bronze Age: recent trends, 97–103 Sheffield: Univ.
and pollen analysis, in Smith 1965, 36–8 Sheffield
Dimbleby, G.W. and Evans, J.G. (1974). Pollen and land- Evans, J.G., Limbrey, S., Maté, I. and Mount, R. (1993). An
snail analysis of calcareous soils, J.Archaeol. Sci. 1, 117–33 environmental history of the upper Kennet valley,
Dodds, G.S.H. and Eddies, R. (1998). The Cove, Avebury: Wiltshire, for the last 10,000 years, Proc. Prehist. Soc. 59,
investigation to determine the depth of two standing stones, 139–95
Aperio Ltd, Project No 2057, unpubl Evans, J.G., Pitts, M.W. and Williams, D. (1985). An
Dyer, C. Lewis, C. and Mitchell-Fox, P. (1997). Village, excavation at Avebury,Wiltshire, 1982, Proc. Prehist. Soc.
Hamlet, and Field, Manchester: Univ. Press. 51, 305–20
Eagles, B.N. (1986). Pagan Anglo-Saxon burials at West Evison,V.I. (1969). A Viking Grave at Sonning, Berks, Antiq.
Overton, Wiltshire, Wiltshire Archaeol. Natur. Hist. Mag. J. 49, 330–45
80, 103–20 Featherstone R., Horne P., MacLeod D. and Bewley R.
Eagles, B.N. (1994). The archaeological evidence for (1999). Aerial reconnaissance, summer of 1996, over
settlement in the fifth to seventh centuries AD, in Aston England, Archaeol. Prospect. 6, 47–62
and Lewis (eds) 1994, 13–32 Feilden, B.M. and Jokilehto, J. (1993). Management Guidelines
English Heritage. (1991a). Management of Archaeologi-cal for World Cultural Heritage Sites, Rome: ICCROM
Projects, 2nd edn Fisher, P. (1992). First experiments in viewshed uncertainty:
English Heritage. (1991b). Exploring our Past: strategies for the simulating fuzzy viewsheds, Photo-grammetric Engineering
archaeology of England and Remote Sensing 57(10), 345–52
English Heritage. (1992). Avebury World Heritage Site. A Fleming A, (1988). The Dartmoor Reaves, London: Batsford
Management Statement. 23 September 1992, unpubl.
96
Fowler, P.J. (1967).The archaeology of Fyfield and Overton Gillings, M. and Goodrick, G. (1996). Sensuous and reflexive
Downs, Wiltshire: (third interim report), Wiltshire GIS: exploring visualisation and VRML. Internet Archaeol.
Archaeol. Natur. Hist. Mag. 62, 16 1: (http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/ issue1/)
Fowler, P.J. (1976). Agriculture and rural settlement, in Gillings, M. and Wise, A. (eds). (1998). Good Practice in the
Wilson, D.M. (ed.), The Archaeology of Anglo-Saxon Archaeological Use of Geographical Information Systems: A
England, 23–48, Cambridge: Univ. Press Guide from the Archaeology Data Service, London: Arts and
Fowler, P.J. (2000). A Landscape Plotted and Pieced. Landscape Humanities Data Service
History and Local Archaeology in Fyfield and Overton, Gillings, M., Pollard, J. and Wheatley, D. (2000a) .The
Wiltshire, London: Soc. Antiq. London Beckhampton Avenue and a new Neolithic enclosure near
Fowler, P.J. (2001). The Fyfield and Overton Project Avebury: an interim report on the 1999 excavations,
1959–1998; FWP 63; FWP 65, Archaeological Data Wiltshire Archaeol. Natur. Hist. Mag. 93, 1–8
Service Internet Publication http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/ Gillings, M., Pollard, J. and Wheatley, D. (2000b), The Rev
catalogue/exc_arch/Fyfod/ William Stukeley’s lost megalithic avenue, PAST 34, 8–9
Fowler, P.J. and Blackwell, I.W. (1998). The Land of Lettice Gingell, C. (1992). The Marlborough Downs: a later Bronze Age
Sweatapple. An English Countryside Explored, Stroud: landscape and its origins, Devizes: Wiltshire Archaeol.
Tempus Natur. Hist. Soc. Monogr. 1
Freeman, J. (1983). Avebury, in Elrington, C.R. (ed.), A Glazebrook, J. (1997). Research and Archaeology: a framework
Victoria County History of Wiltshire Volume 12, 16–31, for the Eastern Counties, 1. resource assessment. Dereham: E.
Oxford: Univ. Press Anglian Archaeol. Occas. Pap. 3
Gaffney, C.F, Gater, J.A., Linford, P., Gaffney, V.L. and Goodrick, G. (forthcoming). VRML, Virtual Reality and
White, R. (2000). Large-scale systematic fluxgate Visualisation, Proc. Computer Applic. Archaeol. Conf.,
gradiometry at the Roman city of Wroxeter, Archaeol. Birmingham 1997
Prospect. 7, 81–99 Gover, J.E.B., Mawer, A. and Stenton, F.M. (1939). The
Gaffney, V. and Leusen, P.M. van. (1995). Postscript – GIS, Place-Names of Wiltshire, Cambridge: Univ. Press
environmental determinism and archaeology, in Lock and Gray, H. St George. (1935). The Avebury excavations,
Stancic (eds) 1995, 367–82 1908–1922, Archaeologia 84, 99–162
Gaffney, V. and Tingle, M.(1989), The Maddle Farm Project, Grinsell, L.V. (1957). Archaeological gazetteer, in Pugh, R.B.
Oxford: Brit. Archaeol. Rep. 200 and Crittall, E. (eds), A History of Wiltshire 1(1), Oxford:
Gaffney, V.L, Gaffney, C.F. and Corney, M. (1998). Inst. Hist. Res./Univ. Press
Changing the Roman landscape: the role of geophysics Guest, P. (1997). Hoards from the end of Roman Britain, in
and remote sensing. In Bayley, J. (ed.), Science and Bland, R. and Orna-Ornstein, J. (eds), Coin Hoards from
Archaeology: an agenda for the future, London: English Roman Britain 10
Heritage Hamerow, H. (1993). Excavations at Mucking Volume 2: the
Gaffney,V. Stancic, Z. and Watson, H. (1995). Moving from Anglo-Saxon settlement, London: English Heritage
catchments to cognition: tentative steps towards a larger Archaeol. Rep. 21
archaeological context for GIS, Scott.Archaeol. Rev. 9/10, Hamerow, H., Hollevoet, Y. and Vince, A. 1994. Migration
41–4 Period settlements and Anglo-Saxon pottery from
Gamble, C.S. (1996). Hominid behaviour in the Middle Flanders, Medieval Archaeol. 38, 1–18
Pleistocene; an English perspective, in Gamble, C.S. and Hamilton, M.A. (1997). A geophysical exploration for two
Lawson, A.J. (eds), The English Palaeolithic Reviewed, round barrows, Avebury, Cardiff Stud.Archaeol. Spec. Rep.
63–71, Salisbury Wessex Archaeol. 6, unpubl.
Gardiner, J. (1987). Tales of the unexpected; approaches to Hamilton, M.A. and Dennis, I. (1998). A geophysical
the assessment and interpretation of museum flint exploration for Avebury G29a, Cardiff Stud. Archaeol.
collections, in Brown, A.G. and Edmonds, M.R. (eds), Spec. Rep. 10, unpubl.
Lithic Analysis and Later British Prehistory, 49–65. Hamilton, M.A, Dennis, I. and Swanton, G. (1998). A
Oxford: Brit. Archaeol. Rep. 162 geophysical survey at North Farm, Wiltshire, 1998,
Goodrick, G. (1999). VRML, Virtual Reality and Cardiff Stud. Archaeol. Spec. Rep. 8, unpubl.
Visualisation, in Dingwall, L. (ed.), Archaeology in the age Harward, C.A.B. (1997). Some Beautiful Parasite:Avebury into
of the Internet. CAA 97 Computer Applications and the Medieval Period, Univ. London: unpubl. BA Dissert.
Quantitative Methods in Archaeology, Oxford: Archaeopress Haslam, J. (1984).The towns of Wiltshire, in Haslam, J. (ed.),
GSB, Geophysical Surveys of Bradford. (1992a). Report on Anglo-Saxon Towns in Southern England, 87–147,
geophysical survey: Kennet Valley Foul Sewer Improvements, Chichester: Phillimore
unpubl. Rep. 92/37 Heron, C. and Evershed, R. (1992). The survival of food
Gibson, A. (1997). Survey in the Walton Basin (Radnor residues: new methods of analysis, interpretation and
Valley), Powys, Trans. Radnorshire Soc. 67, 20–62 application, Proc. British Acad. 77, 187–208
Hooke, D. (1998). The Landscape of Anglo-Saxon England,
Leicester: Univ. Press
97
Housley, R.A., Gamble, C.S., Street, M. and Pettitt, P. Langlands, A. (1998). Roman to Saxon Wiltshire: a study in
(1997). Radiocarbon evidence for the Lateglacial human administrative continuity, Univ. London: unpubl. dissert.
recolonisation of Northern Europe, Proc. Prehist. Soc. 63, Lawson, A. (2000) Potterne 1982–5: animal husbandry in later
25–54 prehistoric Wiltshire, Salisbury, Wessex Archaeol. Rep. 17
Howard, H. (1981). In the wake of distribution: towards an Leah, M.D. 1988. Excavations in the car park,Avebury, level III
integrated approach to ceramic studies in prehistoric archive report, Wiltshire Rescue Archaeology Project,
Britain, in Howard, H. and Morris, E.L. (eds), Production unpubl. rep.
and Distribution, a Ceramic Viewpoint, 1–30, Oxford: Brit. Lewis, C. (1994). Patterns and processes in the medieval
Archaeol. Rep. S12 settlement of Wiltshire, in Aston and Lewis (eds) 1994
Hull, M.R. and Hawkes, C.F.C. (1987). Corpus of Ancient 171–94
Brooches in Britain by the Late Mark Reginald Hull. Pre- Linford, N. (2001). Silbury Hill,Wiltshire: report on geophysical
Roman Bow Brooches, Oxford: Brit. Archaeol. Rep. 168 survey, February 2001. Portsmouth: English Heritage
Hunter, J. (1829). The present state of Abury, Wilts., Centre for Archaeology Report Series
Gentleman’s Mag. 1829 (2), 1–7 Llobera, M. (1996). Exploring the topography of mind: GIS,
Institute of Field Archaeologists. Standards and Guidance for social space and archaeology, Antiquity 70, 612–22
Archaeological excavations Lobb, S. and Rose, P. (1996), Archaeological Survey of the
Jacobi, R.M. (1981). The last hunters in Hampshire, in Lower Kennet Valley, Salisbury, Wessex Archaeol. Rep. 9
Shennan, S.J. and Schadla Hall, R.T. (eds), The Lock, G. and Stancic, Z. (eds). (1995), Archaeology and
Archaeology of Hampshire, 10–25,Winchester: Hampshire Geographical Information Systems: a European perspective,
Fld Club Archaeol. Soc. Monogr. 1 London: Taylor and Francis
Jacobi, R. (1991). The Cresswellian, Creswell and Cheddar, Long,W. (1858). Abury. Wiltshire Archaeol. Natur. Hist. Mag.
in Barton N., Roberts, A.J. and Roe, D. (eds) 1991, The 4, 307–63
Late Glacial in North-west Europe, 128–40,York: Counc. Lucy, S.J. and Reynolds, A.J. (forthcoming). Burial in early
Brit. Archaeol. Res. Rep. 77 medieval England and Wales: past, present and future, in
Jewell, P.A. (ed). (1963). The Experimental Earthwork at Lucy. S.J. and Reynolds, A.J. (eds), Burial in Early
Overton Down, Wiltshire 1960, London: Brit. Assoc. Medieval England and Wales, London: Soc. Medieval
Advance. Sci.. Archaeol. Monogr. 17
Jones, R.L. and Keen, D.H. (1993). Pleistocene Environments Lukis, W.K. (1883). Report on the Prehistoric Monuments
in the British Isles, London: Chapman and Hall of Wilts., Somerset and South Wales, Proc. Soc. Antiq.
Jope, E.M. (1999). The Saxon and medieval pottery from London 2 ser 9(3), 344–55
Alexander Keiller’s excavations at Avebury, Wiltshire Marshall, A. (1998). Neolithic long barrows: use of integrated
Archaeol. Natur. Hist. Mag. 92, 60–91 remote sensing at high resolution to establish general lay
Keiller, A. (1939). Avebury: Summary of excavations, 1937 out and detect foreground structure, Archaeol. Prospect. 5,
and 1938, Antiquity 13, 223–33 101–16
Kempson, E.G.H.( 1955). The Anglo-Saxon name for the Martin, L. (2001a). Two long barrows near Avebury,Wiltshire:
Avebury Circle, Wiltshire Archaeol. Natur. Hist. Mag. 56, report on geophysical surveys, December 2000, Portsmouth:
60–1 English Heritage Centre for Archaeology Report Series
Kendall, H.G.O. (1916). Excavations on Hackpen Hill,Wilts, Martin, L. (2001b). West Kennet long barrow,Wiltshire: report
Proc. Soc. Antiq. London, 2 ser 28, 26–48 on geophysical survey, January 2001, Portsmouth: English
Kirby, J.L. (1956). Priory of Avebury, in Pugh, R.B. (ed.), The Heritage Centre for Archaeology Report Series
Victoria History of Wiltshire Volume 3, 392–3, London: McOmish, D. (1996). East Chisenbury: ritual and rubbish at
Oxford Univ. Press the British Bronze Age–Iron Age transition, Antiquity 267,
Kuna, M. and Adelsbergerova, D. (1995). Prehistoric 68–76
location preferences: an application of GIS to the McKim, F.R., (1959). An attempt to locate a burial
Vinorsky potok project, Bohemia, the Czech Republic, in chamber in Silbury Hill, Wiltshire Archaeol. Natur. Hist.
Lock and Stancic (eds) 1995, 117–32 Mag. 57, 176–8
Kvamme, K.L. (1990). The fundamental principles and Merewether, J. (1851). Diary of a Dean London, extracts
practice of predictive archaeological modelling, in from Proc. Archaeol. Inst. 1849, Salisbury
Voorrips, A. (ed.), Mathematics and Information Science in Meyrick, O. (1955). The Broadstones, Wiltshire Archaeol.
Archaeology: a flexible framework, 257–95, Bonn: Stud. Natur. Hist. Mag. 56, 192–3
Modern Archaeol. 3 Millett, M. (1990). The Romanisation of Britain, Cambridge:
Lacaille, A.D. (1971). Some Wiltshire palaeoliths, prehistoric Univ. Press
and Roman studies, Brit. Mus. Quart. 35, 1–4 Morris, R. (1997). Right and wrong ways to do archaeology,
Lake, M.W., Woodman, P.E. and Mithen, S.J. (1998). Brit. Archaeol. 29, 11
Tailoring GIS software for archaeological applica-tions: Mortimer, N. (1997). On longan dene neodewearde, 3rd
an example concerning Viewshed Analysis, J.Archaeol. Sci. Stone 26, 24–6
25, 27–38
98
Mortimer, N. (1998). Beckhampton Penning: the stone circle Pryor, F. (1996). Sheep, stockyards and field systems: Bronze
that never was, 3rd Stone 29, 17–18 Age livestock populations in the Fenlands of eastern
Mount, R.J. (1991). An Environmental History of the Upper England, Antiquity 70, 313–24
Kennet Valley, and Some Implications for Human RCHME. (1999a). Alleged flint mines on Hackpen Hill. Nat.
Communities, Univ.Wales, College Cardiff, unpubl. PhD Monum. Rec. Unique Identifyer: 1065129, Swindon
thesis RCHME, (1999b). Levels of Archaeological Survey: a
Olivier, A. (1996). Frameworks for our Past. A Review of descriptive specification, Swindon
Research Frameworks, Strategies and Perceptions, London, Reynolds, A.J. 1994. The Compton Bassett Area Research
English Heritage Project B first interim report, Inst. Archaeol. Bull. 31,
Ove Arup. (1991). York Development and Archaeological Study, 169–98
London: English Heritage Reynolds, A.J. (1995). Avebury, Yatesbury and the
Palmer, R. (1996). A further case study for the preservation archaeology of communications, Pap. Inst. Archaeol. 6,
of earthwork ridge-and-furrow, Antiquity 70, 436–40 21–30
Passmore, A.D. (1923). Langdean stone circle, Wiltshire Reynolds, A.J. (1999). Later Anglo-Saxon England: life and
Archaeol. Natur. Hist. Mag. 42, 364–6 landscape, Stroud: Tempus
Passmore, A.D. (1935). The Meux excavation at Avebury, Reynolds, A.J. (2000).Vikings and villages in north Wiltshire,
Wiltshire Archaeol. Natur. Hist. Mag. 47, 163 Curr. Archaeol., 171, 113–18
Payne, A. (1996). The use of magnetic prospection in the Reynolds, A.J. (2001). Avebury: a late Anglo-Saxon burh?,
exploration of Iron Age hillfort interiors in southern Antiquity 75, 29–30
England, Archaeol. Prospect. 3, 163–84 Reynolds Geo-sciences Ltd (1999). Geophysical Investigation
Payne, A. (2000).Whitebarrow,Tilshead 4 long barrow,Tilshead, at Holybourne, Hampshire, Mold: unpubl. rep. for
Wilts: report on geophysical surveys May 1997, London: PADMAC Unit, Univ. Oxford
Anc. Monum. Lab. Rep. 70/2000 Richards, J. (1990), The Stonehenge Environs Project, London:
Payne, A. (forthcoming). The Wessex Hillforts Project: new Hist. Build. monum. Comm. England Archaeol. Rep. 16
perceptions of 1st millennium BC monumental earthworks in Robertson MacKay, M.E., A ‘head and hooves’ burial
central southern England, London: English Herit. Archaeol. beneath a round barrow, with other Neolithic and Bronze
Rep.. Age sites, on Hemp Knoll, near Avebury,Wiltshire, Proc.
Phillips, B. and Walters, B. (1977). A Mansio at Wanborough, Prehist. Soc. 46, 171–4
Britannia 8, 223–8 Scaife, R.G. (1987). A review of later Quaternary plant
Piggott, C.M. (1942). Five late Bronze Age enclosures in microfossil and macrofossil research in Southern
Wiltshire 1939, Proc. Prehist. Soc. 8 48–61 England; with special reference to environmental
Piggott, S.P. (1940). Timber circles: A re-examination, archaeological evidence, in Keeley, H.C.M. (ed.),
Archaeol. J. 96(2), 193–222 Environmental Archaeology: a regional review, vol II,
Piggott, S.P. (1962). TheWest Kennet Long Barrow: Excavations 125–203, London, Hist. Build. Monum. Comm. England
1955-56, London, HMSO, Ministry of Works Archaeol. Occas. Pap. 1
Rep. 4 Scollar, I., Tabbagh, A., Hesse, A. and Herzog, I. (eds).
Piggott, S. (1964). Excavations at Avebury, 1960, Wiltshire (1990). Archaeological Prospecting and Remote Sensing,
Archaeol. Natur. Hist. Mag. 59, 28–9 Cambridge: Univ. Press
Pitts, M. (2000). Return to the Sanctuary, Brit.Archaeol. 51, Scott-Jackson, J.E. (1994). Lower Palaeolithic finds at Wood
14–20 Hill, East Kent: A geological and geo-morphological
Pitts, M. (2001a). Excavating the Sanctuary: new approach to an archaeological problem, Lithics, 13, 11–16
investigations on Overton Hill, Avebury, Wiltshire Scott-Jackson, J.E. (1999). Gazetteer of Lower and Middle
Archaeol. Natur. Hist. Mag. 94, 1–23 Palaeolithic artefacts found in relation to deposits mapped as
Pitts, M. (2001b). Hengeworld, London: Arrow, 2nd edn Clay-with-flints on the Chalk downlands of southern
Pitts, M. and Whittle, A.W.R. (1992). The development and England, on-going unpubl. (available from PADMAC, see
date of Avebury, Proc. Prehist. Soc. 58, 203–12 Appendix A)
Pollard, J. (1992). The Sanctuary, Overton Hill, Wiltshire: a Scott-Jackson, J.E. (2000). Lower and Middle Palaeolithic
re-examination, Proc. Prehist. Soc. 58, 213–26 Artefacts from Deposits Mapped as Clay-with-flints: a new
Pollard, J. and Gillings, M. (1998). Romancing the Stones: synthesis with significant implications for the earliest
towards a virtual and elemental Avebury, Archaeol. occupation of Britain, Oxford: Oxbow Books
Dialogues 5(2), 143–64 Shell, C.A. and Pierce, C.W. (1999). In Nat. Trust Archael.
Powell, A., Allen, M.J. and Barnes, I. (1996). Archaeology in Rev. 7, 58
the Avebury Area,Wiltshire: recent discoveries along the line Small, F. (1999). RCHME: Avebury World Heritage Site
of the Kennet Valley Foul Sewer Pipeline, 1993, Salisbury: Mapping Project. A Report for the National Mapping
Wessex Archaeology Report 8 Programme
PPG 15 (see Department of the Environment) Smith, A.C. (1867). Excavations at Avebury. Under the
PPG 16 (see Department on the Environment) direction of the Secretaries of the Wiltshire Archaeological
99
and Natural History Society, September 29th–October Taylor, H.M. and Taylor, J. (1965), Anglo-Saxon Architecture,
5th 1865, Wiltshire Archaeol. Natur. Hist. Mag. 10, 209–16 Cambridge: Univ. Press
Smith, A.C. (1878). Supposed stone-circle near Avebury, Thurnam, J. (1861). On the examination of a chambered
Wiltshire Archaeol. Natur. Hist. Mag. 17, 253–4 long barrow at West Kennet,Wiltshire, Archaeologia 38(2),
Smith, A.C. (1881). On British stone and earthworks on the 405–21
Marlborough Downs,Wiltshire Archaeol. Natur. Hist. Mag. Tite, M.S. (1972). Methods of Physical Examination in
19, 45–67 Archaeology, London: Seminar
Smith, A.C. (1884). Guide to the British and Roman Ucko, P.J., Hunter, M., Clark, A.J. and David, A. (1991).
Antiquities of the North Wiltshire Downs, Marlborough: Avebury Reconsidered: from the 1660s to the 1990s, London:
Marlborough College Natur. Hist. Soc. Unwin Hyman
Smith, A.C. (1885). Guide to the British and Roman Van Arsdell, R.D. (1989). Celtic Coinage of Britain, London:
Antiquities of the NorthWiltshire Down in a Hundred Square Spink
Miles Around Abury, Devizes, 2nd edn Van Arsdell, R.D. and Jersey, P. de. (1994). The Coinage of the
Smith, C. (1992). Late Stone Age Hunters of the British Isles, Dobunni, Oxford: Univ. Press
London: Routledge Wessex Archaeology (1992–7). The Southern Rivers
Smith, I. (1964). Excavation of three Roman tombs and a Palaeolithic Project and the English Rivers Palaeolithic Project
prehistoric pit on Overton Down, Wiltshire Archaeol. Reports, Salisbury: Wessex Archaeol.
Natur. Hist. Mag. 59, 68–85 Wheatley, D. (1993). Going over old ground: GIS,
Smith, I.F. (1965). Windmill Hill and Avebury: excavations by archaeological theory and the act of perception. In
Alexander Keiller 1925–39, Oxford: Clarendon Andresen, J., Madsen,T. and Scollar, I. (eds), Computing
Smith, I.F. (1965a). Excavation of a bell barrow, Avebury the Past, Computer Applications in Archaeology CAA92,
G.55, Wiltshire Archaeol. Natur. Hist. Mag. 60, 24–46 133–8, Aarhus: Univ. Press
Smith, I.F. and Simpson, D.D.A. (1966). Excavation of a Wheatley, D. (1995). Cumulative Viewshed Analysis: a GIS-
round barrow on Overton Hill, north Wiltshire, England, based method for investigating intervisibility, and its
Proc. Prehist. Soc. 32, 122–55 archaeological application, in Lock and Stancic (eds)
Smith, R.W. (1984). The ecology of Neolithic farming 1995, 171–86
systems as exemplified by the Avebury region in Wheatley, D. (1996). Between the lines: the role of GIS-based
Wiltshire, Proc. Prehist. Soc. 50, 99–120 predictive modelling in the interpretation of extensive
Smith, R.W. (1997). Excavations at Emwell Street,Warminster: survey data, in Kammermans, H. and Fennema, K. (eds),
the early economy and environment of a Wiltshire market Interfacing the Past: computer applications and quantitative
town, Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology methods in archaeology CAA95, 275–92, Leiden: Univ.
Soffe, G. (1993). A barrow cemetery and other features Press
recorded by air photography at Bechampton Whittle, A. (1990). A model for the Mesolithic– Neolithic
?BECKHAMPTON, Avebury,Wiltshire Archaeol. Natur. transition in the upper Kennet valley, north Wiltshire,
Hist. Mag. 86, 142–57 Proc. Prehist. Soc. 56, 101–10
Stringer, C.B. (1996). The Boxgrove tibia; Britain’s oldest Whittle, A.W.R. (1993). The Neolithic of the Avebury area:
Hominid and its place in the Middle Pleistocene record, sequence, environment, settlement and monuments,
in Gamble, C.S. and Lawson, A.J. (eds), The Palaeolithic Oxford J. Archaeol. 12(1), 29–53
Reviewed, 52–6, Salisbury: Wessex Archaeol. Whittle, A. (1994). Excavations at Millbarrow Neolithic
Stuiver, M. and Reimer, P.J. (1986). A computer program for chambered tomb, Winterbourne Monkton, north
radiocarbon age calculation, Radiocarbon 28, 1022–30 Wiltshire, Wiltshire Archaeol. Natur. Hist. Mag. 87, 1–53
Stuiver, M., Reimer, P.J., Bard, E., Beck, J.W., Burr, G.S., Whittle, A. (1997). Sacred Mound, Holy Rings. Silbury Hill and
Hughen, K., Kromer, B., McCormac, F.G., Plicht, J. van the West Kennet palisade enclosures: a later Neolithic complex
der and Spurk, M., 1998. INTCAL 98 radiocarbon age in north Wiltshire, Oxford: Oxbow Monogr. 74
calibration, 24,000–0 cal BP, Radiocarbon 40, 1041–84 Whittle, A., Davies, J.J., Dennis, I., Fairburn, A.S. and
Stukeley, W. (1743). Abury: A Temple of the British Druids, Hamilton, A.S. (2000). Neolithic activity and occupation
London outside Windmill Hill causewayed enclosure, Wiltshire:
Swan, V. (1984). The Roman Pottery Kilns of Britain, survey and excavation 1992–93, Wiltshire Archaeol.
London: RCHME Supp. Ser 5 Natur. Hist. Mag. 93, 168–75
Swanton, G. (1987).The Owen Meyrick Collection, Wiltshire Whittle, A., Pollard, J. and Grigson, C. (1999). The Harmony
Archaeol. Natur. Hist. Mag. 81, 7–18 of Symbols; the Windmill Hill causewayed enclosure, Oxford:
Szymanski, J.E. and Tsourlos, P. (1993). The resistive Oxbow Books, 127–38
tomography technique for archaeology: an intro-duction Whittle, A., Rouse, A.J. and Evans, J.G. (1993). A Neolithic
and review, Archaeologia Polona 31, 5–32 downland monument in its environment: excavations at
Tansley, A.G. (1939). The British Islands and their Vegetation, the Easton Down long barrow, Bishops Cannings, north
Cambridge: Univ. Press Wiltshire, Proc. Prehist. Soc. 59, 197–239
100
Williams, H.(1998). The ancient monument in Romano- Wiltshire County Council. (1995). Standards for Achaeological
British burial practices, in Forcey, Hawthorne and Assessment and Field Evaluation in Wiltshire, Trowbridge:
Witcher (eds). TRAC 97, Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Wiltshire County Archaeological Service
Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference Wood, P. and Whittington, G. (1959). The investigation of
Williams, R.B.G. (1980). The weathering and erosion of strip lynchets north of the Vale of Pewsey, Wiltshire
Chalk under periglacial conditions, in Jones, D.K.C. Archaeol. Natur. Hist. Mag. 57, 163–72
(ed.), The Shaping of Southern England, 225–48, London: Woodward, A. and Gardiner, J. (eds). (1998). Wessex Before
Academic Words: some new research directions for prehistoric Wessex,
Williams, R.B.G. (1986). Periglacial phenomena in the South Salisbury: Wessex Archaeol. fro Counc. Brit. Archaeol.
Downs, in Sieveking, G. de G. and Hart M.B. (eds), The Wessex/Forum Archaeol. Wessex
Scientific Study of Flint and Chert, Proceedings of the Fourth Woodward, A.B. and Woodward, P.J. (1996).The topogrophy
International Flint Sym-posium, 161–7, Cambridge: Univ. of some barrow cemeteries in Bronze Age Wessex, Proc.
Press Prehist. Soc. 62, 275–91
Wilson, D.M. 1970. Medieval Britain in 1969, Medieval Wyles, S.F. and Allen, M.J. (1996). Land Mollusca from the
Archaeol. 14, 200–1 Waden Hill Lynchet, in Powell et al. 1996, 70–1
Wymer, J.J. (1999). The Lower Palaeolithic Occupation of
Britain, Salisbury, Wessex Archaeol.
101
Appendix A: Section Authors
Dr Michael Allen Andrew Lawson

Wessex Archaeology, Portway House, Old Sarum Park, Wessex Archaeology, Portway House, Old Sarum Park,
Salisbury SP4 6EB Salisbury SP4 6EB
Dr Robert Bewley Rebecca Montague

English Heritage, NMRC, Kemble Drive, Swindon SN2 (formerly) The National Trust, Alexander Keiller Museum,
2GZ High Street, Avebury SN8 1RF
Mark Bowden Melanie Pomeroy-Kellinger

English Heritage, NMRC, Kemble Drive, Swindon SN2 Avebury WHS Office, Kennet District Council, Browfort,
2GZ Bath Road, Devizes SN10 2AT
Nick Burton Dr Andrew Reynolds

Dept of Geography, University of Portsmouth, Buckingham Dept of Archaeology and History, King Alfred’s College,
Building, Lion Terrace, Portsmouth PO1 3HE Sparkford Road, Winchester SO22 4NR
Amanda Chadburn Dr Paul Robinson

English Heritage, 29 Queen Square, Bristol BS1 4ND Devizes Museum, Long Street, Devizes SN10 1NS
Dr Rosamund Cleal Dr Julie Scott-Jackson

The National Trust, Alexander Keiller Museum, High Street, PADMAC Unit, Donald Baden-Powell Quaternary Research
Avebury SN8 1RF Centre, Pitt Rivers Museum, Oxford University, 60 Banbury
Road, Oxford OX2 6PN
Dr Mark Corney
Dept of Archaeology, University of Bristol, 43 Woodlands Fiona Small
Road, Bristol BS8 1UU English Heritage, NMRC, Kemble Drive, Swindon SN2
2GZ
Dr Andrew David
English Heritage, Fort Cumberland, Fort Cumberland Road, Gill Swanton
Eastney, Portsmouth PO4 9LD North Farm, West Overton, Marlborough SN18 1QE
Professor Peter Fowler Bryn Walters

11 Amwell Street, London EC1R 1UL 27 The Broadway, Radbourne Chantry, Swindon SN2
Chris Gingell
The National Trust,The Stables, Philips House, Dinton SP3
5HH
Appendix B: Other AAHRG Members 1996–2000 Who
Contributed to the Formulation of the Research Agenda
Mike Pitts Rosie Edmunds

David Batchelor Alex Bayliss
David Field Dr Alex Gibson
Dr David Thackray Dr David Wheatley
Dr Kate Fielden Dr Josh Pollard
Dr Colin Shell Peter Saunders
Brian Davison Dr Rowan Whimster
Duncan Coe Dr Bruce Eagles
Clare Conybeare Dr Julian Richards
Sian Williams Dr Alasdair Whittle
Index
Note:This is not an exhaustive index. It concentrates on sites and individuals of importance to the Avebury WHS.
The principal topics and periods covered in the report are not indexed in detail precisely because they form
individual sections of the chapters and are listed in the table of contents. General references to ‘Avebury’, ‘the
henge’, ‘the stone circles’ and passing references to other monuments are similarly not cited in the index. Individual
monuments comprising the Avebury complex are indexed separately.
Colt Hoare, Sir Richard 18

Adam and Eve, see Longstones
Cunetio (Mildenhall) 24, 27, 28, 47, 50, 67, 68
All Cannings Cross 21, 44, 46, 67, 77
Cunnington, Maud (Mrs) 14, 15, 16, 21
Alleröd phase soils 54, 70
Cunnington, Richard 14
Anglo-Saxon Chronicles 33, 51
Cunnington, William 10-11
Atkinson, Richard 17
cursus monument (Yatesbury)16, 65
Aubrey, Sir John 14, 18, 75
Avebury
Devizes Museum (Wiltshire Heritage Museum) 6, 8, 9, 13,
Alexander Keiller Museum 8, 10, 13, 18, 19, 27, 65, 83
14, 22, 27, 83
Avebury Archaeological and Historical Research Group
Domesday Survey 29, 32, 33, 52
(AAHRG) 1, 3
Avebury School Site 13-14
East Kennet long barrow Fig. 3
Avebury Trusloe Fig. 13, 31, Table 4, Fig. 19, 50
East Kennett
Avebury World Heritage Site Mapping Project 83-6
palisaded enclosures 24
burh 29, Fig. 17, 53, 69
environmental data from Table 4, Fig. 19
‘double-ditched feature’ (‘new feature)’ 41, Fig. 20, 49,
Evans, John 9, 29, 37, 41, 43, 48, 52, 55
53
Environs Forum 1
Falkner’s Circle Fig. 3, 14, 64, 76
Henge 10-14, Fig. 3, Fig. 6, Table 4, Fig. 19, Table 5
Fyfield 22, Table 2, 52 see also Overton and Fyfield Downs
Management Plan 2, 3, 82
Management Statement 1
George, H. St George 10, 11, 12-13, 29
priory 31
Giant’s grave hillfort 20, 45
Research Agenda drafts 1
Glebe Farm car park site 27-8, Fig. 15, 50, 51, 78
St James’ Church Fig. 15, 29-31, 32, 53, 69
Golden Ball Hill Fig. 1, 39, 92
WHS Working Party 1
geophysical surveys Table 5
Grooved Ware 16, 18
Barbury Castle hillfort 20, 45
barrows, round 14, 18, 65, 86 see also burials
Hackpen Hill 5, 6, 38
Beckhampton Avenue 2, Fig. 3, 15-16, 31, 32, 41, 65 see also
herepað 29
Longstones Field
Horslip long barrow 8, Fig. 3, 19, 58, 63
geophysical surveys Table 5, 75 environmental data from Table 4, Fig. 19
Beckhampton Road long barrow geophysical surveys Table 5, 76
environmental data from Table 4, Fig. 19 Mesolithic flints at 39
Beckhampton Penning stone circle 15, 65 Hundred of Selkley 28, Fig. 18, 52, 53
Bishops Cannings 24, 28, 46
Boxgrove, E. Sussex 5 Keiller, Alexander 8, 10, 15, 32
Broadstones stone circle 15, 76 Kendall, H.G.O. 6, 18, 23, 40
burials 79 Kennet Valley Foul Sewer 31, Fig. 14, 37, 72, 82
Neolithic 42-3 environmental data from Table 4, Fig. 19
Beaker 16, 64 geophysical surveys Table 5
Bronze Age 14, 43 Knowle Farm Palaeolithic site 38
Iron Age 68
Saxon 14, 44, 51, 53 Langdene (possible stone circle) 15
Roman 14, Fig. 13, 25, 46, 49, 68 La Tène brooches 22, 46, 47
Butler’s Field Fig 3, 29, 31 Leslie, Thomas 11
environmental data from Table 4, Fig. 19 long barrows 8-9, 64 see also individual examples
Longstones 16, 41
Celtic Coins Index 19, 22, Table 3 Long Stones long barrow Fig. 3
Chippenham College (surface collection by) 19, 27 Longstones Field 15, Fig. 8
Clay-with-flints 5, 6, 38, 62 geophysical surveys Table 5, 75
coins Lukis, W.C. 11, 14
Iron Age 22, Fig. 11, Table 3, 45, 47, 89
Roman 49, 90 Marlborough Bucket 23, Fig. 12
Henry III silver penny 32 Marlborough College (excavations by) 17
103
Marlborough Downs Project 43, 44

geophysical surveys Table 5, 76
Marlborough Mound 17-18, 77

Iron Age activity 46
Martinsell hill(fort) 20, 24, 45, 46

Romano-British settlement beside 25, Figs 13-14, 47, 48
Meyrick, O. 15, 19, 22, 45, 67

Sites and Monuments Record (SMR) 4, 13, 19, 85
Millbarrow (long barrow) 8, Fig. 3, 22, 63, 65

Smith, A.C. 10, 11

Smith, Isobel 4, 8, 14, 16, 28, 42

South Street long barrow 8, Fig. 3, 19, 63
Monkton Down pits 6, Fig. 3, 65

National Trust, the 1, 13, 15, 19, 74

Mesolithic flints at 39
Stukeley, Sir William 14, 15, 18, 75
Oldbury Castle hillfort 20, Fig. 10, 24, 48, 49, 68

Stonehenge

Management Plan 2
oppidum 19, 44
Mesolithic pits 39
possible at Forest Hill 23, 47, 77
Overton and Fyfield Downs (Fyfod Project) 22, Fig. 10, 23,
Toope, Dr 14, 83
24, 25, 33, 43, 45, 48, 50, 51, 56, 61, 72

Vatcher, Faith (Mrs) 13, 27, 28, 31
Overton Hill Fig. 3, 14, 77
Saxon cemetery 51
Waden Hill Fig. 3, 19, 48, 53, 65, 86
Passmore, A.D. 11, 15, 18, 40

Piggledene, environmental data from Table 4, Fig. 19, 61

Wansdyke 27, Fig. 15, 28, Fig. 16, 51, 52, 53, 68
Piggott, Stuart 9, 13, 14

Pitts, Michael 13, 14, 63

Wessex Archaeology 22, 37, 45, 48
place-name evidence 29, 53

West Kennet Avenue Fig. 3, 15, 16, 63, 65, 72,
Potterne 44, 77
pottery
West Kennet long barrow 9, Fig. 3, 25, 43, 63, 72, 83
Neolithic 42
Bronze Age 44
Iron Age 22, 23, 24, 46

Mesolithic flints at 39
Roman 24, 46
West Kennett
kilns 24, 49
palisaded enclosures 2, Fig. 3, 18, 45, 58, 72, 86
Savernake Ware 24, 46, 67

Saxon 27, 31, 51, 53

West Overton 52
Bronze Age cremation cemetery 43-4, 65
Whittle, Alasdair 8, 41, 46, 63
radiocarbon dates 8, 24, 37, 46, 63-4

Windmill Hill causewayed enclosure 8, Fig. 3, Figs 4-5, 18,
RCHME National Mapping Programme 2

19, 22, 39, 43, 59, 63, 64, 72
Roman roads 16-17, Fig. 13, 47, 50, 51, 52

Sanctuary, the Fig. 3, 14, 63, 66

Winterbourne Bassett stone circle 14-15


Withy Copse 24, 46
Silbury Hill Fig. 3, 16-17, 41, 63, 68
Duke of Northumberland’s Shaft 16

Yatesbury 32, 52 see also cursus monument

104
If you would like this document in a different format, please contact

our Customer Services department:
Telephone: 0870 333 1181
Fax: 01793 414926
Textphone: 01793 414878
E-mail: [email protected]

Archaeological Research Agenda For The Avebury WHS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Archaeological Research Agenda For The Avebury WHS

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Archaeological Research Agenda For The Avebury WHS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the purpose of the document?

What is the purpose of the document?

What time periods are covered in the resource assessment?

What time periods are covered in the resource assessment?

This volume draws together contributions from a number of specialists to

Avebury World Heritage Site

Avebury Archaeological & Historical Research Group (AAHRG)

Published 2001 by the Trust for Wessex Archaeology Ltd

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

Produced by Wessex Archaeology

The cost of this publication was met by English Heritage

List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iv 3.8 Later Saxon and Medieval

(Annie Pritchard) (Peter Biehl)

Amanda Chadburn and Melanie Pomeroy-Kellinger

1.1 Background research designs and meshing individual projects,

1.3 Aims and Objectives 1.4 Methodology

2.1 Lower and Middle Palaeolithic Stone Tool Technology

Later Neolithic Avebury ‘nothing peculiar was observed’ ( Hunter 1829).

Fig. 6 Plan of excavation trenches in the Avebury Henge

Fig. 7 South-west quadrant of Avebury Henge and Stone Circle

Fig. 8 Excavation in Longstone Field, Beckhampton 1999

Surface collection by the National Trust:Three episodes of

Resource Assessment finds including chariot fittings (SMR data). Other

and Durotrigian coinages are also found in the area

Note: The Celtic Coin Index mainly holds records of coins

Fig. 13 Distrbution of��������������������������������������������������������������������������������

Fig. 14 Plan of the Silbury Hill Romano-British settlement

which produced, in terms of finds, mainly grass-

Wansdyke, Cunetio and Bishops Cannings: There is

2.8 Later Saxon and Medieval

��������������� ��������������� � � �����

���������������� ������ �����������������������������������������������������������

As Lower and Middle Palaeolithic people were hunter-

Research within the World Heritage Site has been

Fig. 20 New ‘double-ditched feature’ in the Avebury henge, 1995

Engineering, Craft and Technology People (Diet and Health)

Environment, Economy, and Subsistence Ceremony, Ritual, Burial and Religion

Environment Engineering, Craft and Technology

communication terms. Investigations in 1997 showed Settlement and Land Use

Ceremony, Ritual, Burial and Religion People (Diet and Health)

Palaeolithic was chronological uniform (Tansley 1939). Was the

Powell 1996). Major studies have been conducted in Land in between

1. Accurate and detailed recording using

5. Further scientific dates are required. Most Strategies

This section provides as assessment of archaeological Geophysical Techniques

Conditions where mesolithic sites are well preserved

In the light of present knowledge, the optimum Long barrows

Stone foundations sensitivity magnetometry will be used with increasing

Investigations of buried soils, where opportunities

Table 7. New sites identified in the AWHSMP

Various boundaries: WHS, SSSI, scheduled monument

Goodrick (1996), who provide many arguments and

Metal detectors can be used on any land in England

Fig. 21 Isometric drawing of the Overton Down Experimental Earthwork

Appendix A: Section Authors

Dr Michael Allen Andrew Lawson

Dr Robert Bewley Rebecca Montague

Mark Bowden Melanie Pomeroy-Kellinger

Nick Burton Dr Andrew Reynolds

Fig. 13 Distrbution of��

��

��