Field et al 2014: The Landscape and Earthworks

Reference:
David Field, Neil Linford, Martyn Barber, Hugo Anderson-Whymark, Mark Bowden, Peter Topping, Paul Linford, Marcus Abbott, Paul Bryan, Deborah Cunliffe, Caroline Hardie, Louise Martin, Andy Payne, Trevor Pearson, Fiona Small, Nicky Smith, Sharon Soutar and Helen Winton (2014). Analytical Surveys of Stonehenge and its Immediate Environs, 2009–2013:
Part 1 – the Landscape and Earthworks.
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 80, pp 1-32 
doi:10.1017/ppr.2014.6

Quote:

The Project brought to bear an integrated array of non-invasive survey techniques, including earthwork analysis, geophysics, laser scanning, and aerial survey, together with documentary and archive research. All monuments in the World Heritage Site with a visible surface component were investigated........

This part of the paper concentrates on everything other than the stones, within and beyond the Stonehenge earthworks.  There are many interesting observations.

Figure 2 from the paper, showing the twentieth century excavated area.  It is still the case that only about 50% of the area occupied by the stone monument has been excavated.    So the stratigraphy is still only partly known, as is the nature of the Stonehenge Layer and the characteristics an origins of the stones and fragments that happen to have been collected.  If anybody says to you "Twenty percent (or whatever) of the rhyolite debitage at Stonehenge has come from the Rhosyfelin area", what they actually mean is "twenty percent of the rhyolite samples that happen to have been collected from the bits that we know something about......."

There is a short section on the "periglacial stripes" described so lovingly by MPP and his colleagues, but it's disappointing that the authors do not really examine the very dodgy use of this "periglacial" label -- and in the process perpetrate the myth.  As I have said many times before, I  see no reason to use the periglacial label myself, in spite of being rather fond of periglacial geomorphology, since the most parsimonious explanation of these "parallel stripes" is simply that they are solutional rills formed by water flowing downslope on a shallow gradient over many millennia. Field et al say "it seems most likely that they (the stripes or rills) represent a geological interface, perhaps concentrated flint or marl seams embedded within the underlying chalk."  I agree with that 100%.

As for the MPP idea that Stonehenge is where it is, and the alignment of the Avenue is what it is,  because of the alignment of these rills -- the authors are mercifully silent, suggesting to me that they don't think much of it........

 More attention is given to a little mound -- just 25 cm high, in the southern part of the stone setting.  It's about 15 m across, and has an irregular surface.   Apart from assuming that it is natural, the authors are a bit mystified by it.  Something to do with the irregular surface of the chalk?  Something to do with the Stonehenge Layer?  Something to do with solution hollows or the past location of sarsens removed and erected on the site? 

 Quote: "Several authorities have suggested that the sarsens were sourced from the area of Stonehenge or somewhere closely adjacent (see below). Darvill et al. (2012, 1029) have recently suggested that some stone was probably present on site at the outset; notably the massive cone-shaped Heelstone as it has been considered to have been extremely difficult to move (Johnson 2008, 121), an observation supported by measurements taken from the laser scan data which demonstrates that it is the heaviest stone on site (Abbott & Anderson Whymark 2012; Field et al. forthcoming). "

There is some interesting wotk on the barrowes (we won't delve into tht just now), with a suggestion that some of them may have originated as long barrows and that there may have been a number of phases of construction / modification.  Quote: "It is clear that far from being isolated, Stonehenge may have been a component part in a ceremonial and funerary area within its immediate environs, with origins and traditions potentially traceable to the earlier Neolithic.  Initially at least the focus of activities may have been around one or more of these other monuments." Interesting.......

Now to the North and South Barrows within the Stonehenge earthworks.  Yet more interesting info. The authors suggest that the North Barrow is not younger than the  rest of the monument (as normally assumed), but is probably older.  The interesting thing about this is that Atkinson recorded bluestone chips in its bank -- and if his records are correct, that must mean that bluestone fragments were present on this site BEFORE the Stonehenge embankment was constructed.  This is a highly significant finding, and I am not aware of any comments on it thus far in the recent literature.  This paper accepts that the bank and ditch were built around 5,000 yrs BP.

There is a detailed and fascinating discussion of the embankment, ditch and Avenue, and the relations between them -- very fastidious and well described, and mercifully free of speculation.  Then the authors go on to describe the barrows in the Stonehenge landscape, and the Y and Z holes.

Overall, the most interesting things to come out of this paper are:

1. The so-called periglacial stripes are not accorded any great significance, either in landscape terms or in the interpretation of the Avenue or the Stonehenge area as a whole.

2.  The authors appear to have no problem with the idea that many or most of the sarsens at Stonehenge have come from the neighbourhood.

3.  If the North Barrow is indeed older than the Stonehenge embankment, it shows that bluestone fragments were present in this landscape before work started on the Stonehenge earthworks.    That of course would support the thesis that other long barrows could contain bluestones as well -- and that the Boles Barrow bluestone was indeed embedded in the Neolithic long barrow there,  well before Stonehenge was thought about.......