1

Geophysical Survey Report, Arbor Low Environs Project.

Gib Hill Barrow, Derbyshire Case # SL00025653

Monument # 1011088

English Heritage Report

Dr Ian Parker Heath, Paul Cheetham and Lawrence Shaw

18/03/2013

2

Abstract

In March 2012 a geophysical survey was undertaken as part of the Arbor Low

Environs Project. This saw the undertaking of a gradiometer and resistivity survey

within a field south of the Arbor Low henge complex, focusing on the scheduled area

associated with the prehistoric avenue linked to the complex. The survey was

undertaken by Lawrence Shaw and Paul Cheetham of Bournemouth University, with

help from Dr Ian Parker Heath, project director. The results of this survey revealed a

continuation of the avenue ditch and bank, which was previously unknown. This

report details the results seen through the magnetometer and resistivity surveys

undertaken.

Acknowledgements

The project team would like to thank Graham Kirkham and Bernard Woolley for their

permission to undertake the surveys on their land, Nicky Dick for access and

hospitality, and Kay Gregory for her assistance in the field.

3

Contents

1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 5

2 Location, topography and geology ...................................................................... 5

3 A history of archaeological research: Arbor Low & Gib Hill ................................. 6

4 Rationale for the study ........................................................................................ 8

5 Aims and Objectives ......................................................................................... 10

6 Methodology ..................................................................................................... 11

6.1 Survey ....................................................................................................... 11

6.2 Post Processing ......................................................................................... 12

6.3 Conditions .................................................................................................. 12

7 Results ............................................................................................................. 13

7.1 Raw Data ................................................................................................... 13

7.2 Processed Data ......................................................................................... 14

8 Interpretation .................................................................................................... 15

8.1 Resistivity................................................................................................... 15

8.2 Magnetometry ............................................................................................ 16

9 Description ....................................................................................................... 17

9.1 Resistivity................................................................................................... 17

9.2 Magnetometry ............................................................................................ 18

10 Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 19

11 Bibliography ..................................................................................................... 20

Appendix i ............................................................................................................... 22

Appendix ii .............................................................................................................. 23

Appendix iii ............................................................................................................. 24

4

Table of Figures

Figure 1: Hypothesised location of processual routeway linking Arbor Low and the

River Lathkill, via Cales Dale. ................................................................................... 9

Figure 2: Map showing the 20x20 meter grid used for the survey. .......................... 11

Figure 3: Raw resistivity data. ................................................................................. 13

Figure 4: Raw magnetometry data. ......................................................................... 13

Figure 5. Processed resistivity data. ....................................................................... 14

Figure 6. Map showing the scheduling found across the Arbor Low avenue as seen

in the resistivity survey. ........................................................................................... 14

Figure 7: Resistivity interpretation. .......................................................................... 15

Figure 8: Labelled resistivity anomalies................................................................... 15

Figure 9: Magnetometry interpretations................................................................... 16

Figure 10: Labelled magnetometry anomalies. ........................................................ 16

5

1 Introduction

In the light of recent research at a number of henges, which has highlighted further

complexity of these prehistoric monuments e.g. Stonehenge Riverside Project

(Parker Pearson et al, 2006), this survey was undertaken as part of the Arbor Low

Environs Project (ALEP) which re-considers the Neolithic henge of Arbor Low (SK

1603 6355) and associated features, within the landscape that surrounds it.

The project is informed by, and seeks to support, a number of English Heritage and

Peak District National Park initiatives (e.g. English Heritage, 2003; Maguire, 2008).

Among the programmes detailed by English Heritage, we are seeking to add to the

overall understanding of a scheduled monument and the landscape within in which it

is located, involve members of the public and thereby provide access to the

archaeological process. In meeting its aims the Arbor Low Environs Project has the

potential to make a significant contribution to knowledge at both a local and regional

level and in terms of broader national debates about the creation, siting and use of

henge monuments in the Neolithic.

This report details a survey in the immediate vicinity of the barrow of Gib Hill, and is

the first step in a longer term programme of work being undertaken with a view to

test the hypothesis that the natural topography of Cales Dale was used as a

processual route in the Neolithic, from the River Lathkill to the henge of Arbor Low.

Examining this hypothesis will enable us to suggest a rationale for the siting and use

of the henge.

2 Location, topography and geology

2.1 The area discussed takes as its focus the monument complex of Arbor Low

and Gib Hill. This is located in the White Peak zone of the Peak District in Derbyshire

(SK 1603 6355 and SK1583 6332 respectively) and lies within the Peak District

National Park. The White Peak is a Carboniferous Limestone plateau lying between

approximately 200-400m OD. The area of the White Peak is well known for

extensive archaeological evidence and extant sites.

2.2 The topography of the region is typical of a karst landscape, with the presence

of caves, swallow/sink-holes, pavements etc. The immediate vicinity of the complex

6

has been discussed previously (e.g. Barnatt & Collis, 1996: 65). The henge itself sits

on a false crest of a ridge, and approximately 100m from the highest point of the

ridge to the south-east. To the north and north-west, the land drops away, and there

is a dry valley – Cales Dale - which eventually reaches Lathkill Dale to the east. Gib

Hill lies some 320m south-west of the henge. Beyond the edge of the scheduled

area the land drops away to the south-west/west towards the modern road (A515)

and there is a suggestion of a paleochannel crossing between the monument and

the modern road. The land then rises to form the eastern edge of the Dove Valley.

2.3 The underlying geology of the White Peak is, as was stated above,

Carboniferous Limestone. Within the area under discussion, there are subtle

changes which should be recognised. In the recent conservation plan for the

complex the author noted that Arbor Low itself sits upon a bed of Monsal Dale

Limestone and Gib Hill on a narrow band of Dolomitised Limestone (Maguire, 2008:

21), whilst the soil at both sites is said to be of Malham 2 association (Martin, 2001).

3 A history of archaeological research: Arbor Low & Gib Hill

3.1 The monument complex that includes Arbor Low and Gib Hill is located in a

landscape rich with ritual resources and close by are a number of natural features

such as caves, rock shelters and fissures. In prehistory they were frequently used as

repositories for human bones (e.g. Barnatt, 2005; Barnatt & Edmonds, 2002,

Jackson, 1951; Piggott, 1953). Arbor Low and Gib Hill have long been the focal point

of both antiquarian and archaeological interest and the story of antiquarian and

archaeological work undertaken has been reviewed elsewhere (e.g. Barnatt, 1996;

Maguire, 2008) with only particular points needing to be raised here. Firstly, the

excavation of the henge has been piecemeal and largely carried out prior to the

development of contemporary methodologies and standards; the last excavation for

example, was carried out by Gray in 1902 (see Gray, 1903). Secondly, a key facet of

antiquarian and archaeological literature concerning the site is that the focus has

been the monuments themselves whilst the landscape has, until relatively recently,

been largely neglected; hence, the overall aim of this project is to re-consider the

henge monument within a landscape that surrounds it.

7

3.2 There have been several recent attempts at interpreting the henge

monuments in general and Arbor Low in particular. Interpretations of this type of

monument include territorial marker, astronomical centre, an interface with the

supernatural and ritual site (e.g. Edmonds, 1999; Green, 2000; Harding, 2003;

Thomas, 1991; Warner, 2000; Watson, 2000). With increasing emphasis placed on

the ‘personal’ experience of landscapes, monuments and ritual the

phenomenological musings in the literature has generated to a number of

explorations of the rationales underpinning the siting of monuments, including

henges, in the past. The inter-visibility of monuments and the importance this might

have played in Neolithic society has become an accepted method of analysis (e.g.

Cummings & Whittle, 2003, 2004; Llobera, 2007), though not one without its critics

(e.g. Brück, 2005, Flemming, 2006).

3.3 One feature which remains something of an enigma is the earthwork

sometimes referred to as either the Avenue or Serpentine. It is this feature which is

the focus of this survey. Since the 19th century, this relatively slight bank and

associated ditch has been documented as being in two sections and while there is

no firm evidence from excavation to link the two sections it is possible that later land

use has destroyed such a link. The feature itself is still visible both on the ground as

a faint linear feature (S. Newsome, pers. comm.) and from the air. The proximal

terminus, and hence the ‘avenue’, was stated by Gray (1903) to be broadly

contemporary with the henge bank, whilst the distal terminus has yet to be

examined. Gray excavated in two sections of this feature, both close to the proximal

terminus. It was found that the ditch was approximately 0.9m deep and 2.4m wide

and sloped gradually to meet the Limestone surface beneath the henge bank. He

also recorded a small number of finds which he interpreted as contemporary with the

construction of the monument. Although it only has a single bank it is possible to

interpret this feature as an ‘avenue’, similar to those found at Stonehenge,

Durrington Walls and Avebury. Its dimensions are similar to both the Avenue and the

Greater Cursus at Stonehenge. However, John Barnatt has offered several

suggestions as to the function of this earthwork (e.g. 1978: 75, 80). These include

the idea that it is not to be connected with the henge, rather that it is associated with

Gib Hill, acting as a guide, directing people from the henge to Gib Hill long cairn.

Barnatt has also postulated that the bank is perhaps a boundary, possibly dating to

8

late prehistory or early Roman period (cited by McGuire, 2008: 27). The uncertainty

surrounding this earthwork is summed up by McGuire who states that “the feature is

not thought to be a formal structure related to the henge” (2008: 24).

3.4 The landscape in the vicinity of the monuments has been the subject of some

interest recently, with English Heritage carrying out both geophysical and

topographic surveys of the henge and its immediate surroundings (Martin, 2001; S

Newsome, pers. comm.) which have recorded a range of possible features. The

geophysical survey reported by Martin (2001) produced some disappointing results

with little of note. In addition to this, a number of topographic surveys have been

carried out in and around the henge and barrows (e.g. Barnatt, 1991, 1993;

Newsome, pers.comm & forthcoming). The results from Barnatt’s work appear in the

recently published conservation plan (e.g. McGuire, 2008: 119). Here it can be seen

that the earthwork extends for only a short distance beyond the field boundary wall of

Gib Hill Plantation. The more recent survey by Newsome also shows the earthwork

extending beyond the same wall, but for a considerably greater distance (Newsome,

pers. comm.).

4 Rationale for the study

4.1 As a number of authors have argued and have highlighted, (e.g. Tilley, 1994;

Bradley, 2000; Scarre, 2011) there is much potential for archaeologists to explore

‘natural places’ and the landscape more broadly in our attempts to further

understand monuments. Indeed Bradley argues that monuments as a class of

archaeological site will remain abstract concepts while analyses fail to integrate them

with a wider, local landscape and he has called for both elements to become part of

future research programmes (Bradley, 2000: 33-35). This approach, which demands

that we collapse the modern dichotomy between nature and culture and instead

explore how features of the landscape held significance for people in the past, is one

that this project finds particularly compelling in relation to Arbor Low. Here, prior work

has provided information about the interior of the henge itself (discussed in more

detail in Section 3), but this work has not enabled the development of wider

interpretations that extend beyond this interior view. Consequently we argue that

exploring the wider landscape setting of Arbor Low (and specifically its relationship to

9

Lathkill Dale via Cales Dale) will enable a broader interpretation of the site and its

landscape to be developed.

Figure 1: Hypothesised location of processual routeway linking Arbor Low and the River Lathkill, via Cales Dale.

4.2 The hypothesis that ALEP seeks to test is that the natural valley of Cales

Dale, which stretches from the River Lathkill to the henge monument of Arbor Low,

was used as a prehistoric routeway between the river and the henge (Figure 4.1). In

reviewing the evidence for other henge sites in the UK it is clear that the route to and

encounter of the site was one of particular importance. For example there are a

number of henges which have earthworks or megalithic architecture associated with

them (e.g. Avebury, Stonehenge and Durrington Walls). In each case the associated

constructions are interpreted as playing an integral role in directing the route taken

by those who used the monument. At Avebury for example the ‘avenue’ is

interpreted as being a link to the Sanctuary (e.g. Pollard & Reynolds, 2002). Recent

research at Durrington Walls has shown this henge clearly linked to the nearby river

by an avenue, which in turn linked Durrington Walls to Stonehenge, further

downstream (Parker Pearson et al, 2006). In addition to the above, there are a range

10

of further arguments that support our hypothesis regarding the important symbolic or

cosmological connections that may have been drawn between Arbor Low and the

River Lathkill. Of particular relevance here is the work of Richards (1993, 1996a & b).

Richards (1996a & b) highlighted the significance of water to the siting of henge

monuments, with many being located close to rivers and low-lying areas. These

include the Orcadian henges of the Ring of Brodgar and Stones of Stenness,

Marden and Durrington Walls in Wiltshire and the Thornborough henges in North

Yorkshire (e.g. Harding, 2003).

4.3 In view of this and the range of recent works on the location of monuments

dating to the Neolithic (e.g. Cleal & Pollard, 2004; Edmonds,1999; Loveday, 2006;

Oswald et al, 2001) it is now more pertinent than ever to re-consider Arbor Low in a

wider context. The presence of these patterns elsewhere therefore lead us to

postulate that a similar importance may have been ascribed to the routeway

provided by the natural topography of Cales Dale, between the River Lathkill and

Arbor Low.

5 Aims and Objectives

The Arbor Low Environs Project has the following overall aims:

To increase understanding of the role and experience of Neolithic ceremonial

monuments in the Peak District.

To explore the relationship between the Neolithic henge site of Arbor Low and

its surrounding topography.

To meet these aims an initial survey season (2012) of geophysical survey

work in the upper part of the dale, in the immediate vicinity of Arbor Low, was

undertaken.

11

6 Methodology

6.1 Survey

Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS)

The use of a Leica VIVA GNSS Smart Net Differential GPS was employed to create

the grids used for the survey. A 20 x 20 meter grid was created in ArcGIS 10 prior to

the survey and uploaded onto the GPS (Figure 2). The stakeout function was then

used on the GPS system to intern the pre-produced grid, which was located within

2cm accuracy. This grid was used for both the resistance and magnetics surveys.

Figure 2: Map showing the 20x20 meter grid used for the survey. © Crown Copyright/database right 2013. An Ordnance Survey/EDINA supplied service.

Resistivity

This survey saw the use of a GeoScan Research RM15 to undertake a resistivity

survey. The machine was calibrated at 1 metre spacing to take 1 metre samples

along 1 metre traverses within 20 x 20 metre grids. The traverse recording method

was zig-zag and the grids were walked from south to north. Resistivity is an active

survey technique which uses an electric current that passed through the ground,

measuring the strength at which it passes from one probe to another. The

12

measurement of Ohms identifies features beneath the ground affecting the strength

that the current can pass through them. In particular, resistivity is very useful when

looking to identify any ditches and bank such as those already associated with the

Arbor Low Avenue.

Magnetometry

The Bartington Grad 601-2 Fluxgate Gradiometer was also used to survey the site.

This twin probe setup was calibrated to take 0.125 metre sampling along 1 metre

traverses in a parallel method within 20 x 20 metre grids. Traverses were walked in

the same directions as the resistivity surveys (South to North). This passive form of

survey measures how the strength of a magnetic field varies across an area. By

measuring the nanoteslas (nT) between two points, the fluxgate gradiometer can

create an image of any magnetic disturbances found throughout a study area.

Features such as ditches, pits and hearths should be represented as positive

readings due to their altered magnetic levels.

6.2 Post Processing

Geoplot and ArcGIS were the two software programs used to process the three

datasets gathered during the survey

6.3 Conditions

Weather conditions varied from sun to heavy rain during the different surveys.

However this does not seem to have had an effect on the results seen.

13

7 Results

7.1 Raw Data

Figure 3: Raw resistivity data. © Crown Copyright/database right 2013. An Ordnance Survey/EDINA supplied service.

Figure 4: Raw magnetometry data. © Crown Copyright/database right 2013. An Ordnance Survey/EDINA supplied service.

14

7.2 Processed Data

Figure 5. Processed resistivity data. © Crown Copyright/database right 2013. An Ordnance Survey/EDINA supplied service.

Figure 6. Map showing the scheduling found across the Arbor Low avenue as seen in the resistivity survey. © Crown Copyright/database right 2013. An Ordnance Survey/EDINA supplied service.

15

8 Interpretation

8.1 Resistivity

Figure 7: Resistivity interpretation. © Crown Copyright/database right 2013. An Ordnance Survey/EDINA supplied service.

Figure 8: Labelled resistivity anomalies. © Crown Copyright/database right 2013. An Ordnance Survey/EDINA supplied service.

16

8.2 Magnetometry

Figure 9: Magnetometry interpretations. © Crown Copyright/database right 2013. An Ordnance Survey/EDINA supplied service.

Figure 10: Labelled magnetometry anomalies. © Crown Copyright/database right 2013. An Ordnance Survey/EDINA supplied service.

17

9 Description

9.1 Resistivity

Within the results seen in the resistivity survey there are 8 anomalies identified as

being of interest in Fig 8. The first of these is the identification of the previously

known avenue bank and ditch found within the scheduled area, A1 and A2. Here the

bank of the avenue is visible as a high reading running east west and to the north of

the avenue ditch which bands the south side of the bank. Both features measure

around 3.5 meters in width and were visible on the ground whilst surveying. From

Figure 6 it is also visible that the scheduling of this area misses a small section of the

ditch. The high low anomaly seen to the north of anomaly A2 is a result of a

shadowing effect created by the bank. To the south of the avenue ditch, there I also

a number of small, high resistivity anomalies that run parallel with the ditch,

anomalies E1, E2, E3 and E4. Whilst undertaking the survey, it was noted that these

areas were very stony under the resistivity probes and it is possible that this could be

up cast associated with initial cutting of the avenue ditch. Alternatively, it would

appear that previous use of the field saw ploughing run from north east to south

west, and these anomalies could be stones dragged across for the avenue bank.

Heading north-westwards, outside of the scheduled area, is the continuation of the

avenue ditch, anomalies B and B1. However, these are segmented by an area

where the ditch appears to be lost, F. Although there may be some faint sign of the

ditch continuing between these two sections, there is nothing substantial. Similarly,

there is no obvious evidence of the bank continuing past the area of scheduling other

than in one or two discrete locations.

Upon identifying that the avenue ditch continues to run up to the north western wall

of the field, it was decided to undertake a single survey grid to other side of the wall

to confirm if the ditch continued through to the other side. Unfortunately no clear

features were visible other than a number of high resistivity readings, anomalies G1

and G2. These are also seen in the magnetometry survey as anomaly K. Whilst

undertaking the survey in this area, it was identified that the ground had been heavily

disturbed by possible quarry pits and this may be the reason the feature does not

appear to continue through into the next field.

18

Also visible in the survey are the three linear anomalies seen running from the north

west to south east of the eastern end of the survey, anomalies D1, D2 and D3.

Although only partially visible, these negative anomalies measuring around one

meter in diameter, were also recorded in the magnetometry survey running from the

fence line in the north, toward the avenue ditch (magnetometry anomalies D1 to D5).

It is unclear whether these anomalies continue past the avenue ditch; however their

dimensions and readings suggest they are geological rather than archaeological.

The anomaly marked C in the interpretation shows a low resistance areas seen in

the survey that appears to run from north the south along the north west wall of the

field. This is also picked up in the magnetometry survey (magnetometry anomaly C)

and was noted on the ground whilst survey was undertaken as being associated with

previous farming that had taken place in the field. Anomaly H is a large low

resistance feature measuring around five meters in diameter. Unfortunately the

whole of this feature was not surveyed but the reading suggests this may be an area

of interest.

9.2 Magnetometry

As seen in both the resistivity survey and illustrated in Fig 10, the magnetometry

survey identified the previously known avenue bank and ditch seen within the

scheduled area, anomalies A1 and A2. Similarly, the magnetometry survey also

revealed the continuation of the avenue ditch through the middle of the field,

anomalies B1. However, unlike the resistivity, the magnetometry shows the

continuation of the avenue ditch through to the field wall on the western side,

anomalies B3 and B5. As well as this there would appear to be possible evidence of

part of the avenue bank along a section of the ditch, recorded as anomaly B4.

However, as seen in the resistivity, no evidence of the bank and ditch continuing into

the neighbouring field can be seen, even after surveying a larger area. The

anomalies marked as J do show a high and low magnetic linear feature running in a

similar direction to that of the avenue. However, it is unclear whether they are

related.

19

Anomalies E and H, identify an area of high reading anomalies of varying shapes

and sizes. It would appear that the area has seen some activity taking place across it

and this may be evidence pits. Similarly, the anomalies seen at I show varying shape

size and levels of magnetic response, which are different to those seen elsewhere in

the survey. This could also therefore, indicate an area of archaeological activity

within the survey area.

To the Northwest corner of the field, anomalies F1 and F2 identify a high reading

anomaly that runs from the North to the Southwest before turning at a right angle

towards the North West. This feature also appears to continue into the neighbouring

field, anomaly F3. Judging from the size and shape of this anomaly, it may be

possible that this is a ditch. In the top Northwest corner of the field there is a large

irregular shaped, high magnetic anomaly, anomaly G. This was visible on the ground

as a large, sub circular mound with a depression in the centre and appeared to be

filled with rubble. It is likely that this is associated with quarrying work that was

undertaken in the area.

10 Conclusion

Through the use of two different survey methods, this survey has shown that the

avenue bank and ditch associated with Arbor Low henge, does continue for at least

another 100 meters to the west of the point it was previously thought to have

finishing. Although it is not seen to be continuing in the neighbouring field, it would

seem strange that the ditch and bank respect the boundaries of a later field wall, so it

would therefore be appropriate to assume that the avenue does continue on past this

field. Due to more modern quarrying activity interfering with the monument in this

area, it is unclear as to where the avenue runs past this point and further work will be

required to identify where the avenue runs from this point on and where it terminates.

As well as identifying the continuation of the avenue, the surveys have also identified

a number of anomalies and features that may be associated with the pre-historic

activity taking place in this area, of which further investigation may be required

through excavation.

20

11 Bibliography

Barnatt, J. (1978). Stone circles of the Peak. A Search for Natural Harmony. Wellingborough: Turnstone Press,.

Barnatt, J. (1991). Upper Oldhams Farm, Middleton by Youlgreave, Derbyshire, Archaeological Survey 1991. Archaeological Interpretation and Recommendations on Presentation. Unpublished report for Peak Park Joint Planning Board.

Barnatt, J. (1993). Upper Oldhams Farm – Stanton Estate Land, Middleton by Youlgreave, Derbyshire. Archaeological Survey 1993. Unpublished report for Peak Park Joint Planning Board.

Barnatt, J. (2005) Lathkill Dale Nature Reserve: Over Haddon, Monyash and Youlgreave Parishes, Derbyshire. Archaeological Survey. Unpublished report, Peak District National Park Authority, Bakewell.

Barnatt, J. & Collis, J. (1996). Barrows in the Peak District. Recent Research. Sheffield: J.R. Collis Publications,

Barnatt, J. & Edmonds, M. (2002). Places Apart? Caves and Monuments in Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Britain. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 12(1), 113-129.

Bradley, R. (2000). An Archaeology of Natural Places. London: Routledge.

Brück, J. 2005: Experiencing the past? The development of a phenomenological archaeology in British Prehistory. Archaeological Dialogues, 12 (1), 45-72.

Cummings, V. and Whitle, A. (2003). Tombs with a view: landscape, monuments and trees. Antiquity, 77, 255-66.

Cummings, V. and Whitle, A. (2004). Places of Special Virtue. Megaliths in the Neolithic Landscapes of Wales. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Edmonds, M. (1999). Ancestral Geographies of the Neolithic. Landscape, monuments and memories. London: Routledge.

English Heritage, (2003). Implementation Plan for Exploring Our Past, (accessed online www.english-eritage.org.uk/upload/pdf/plan_eop_98.pdf?1239629339).

Flemming, A, (2006). Post-processual landscape archaeology: a critique. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 16, 267-80.

Green, M. (2000). A Landscape Revealed. 10,000 Years on a Chalkland Farm. Stroud: Tempus,.

Jackson, W.F. (1951). Peterborough (Neolithic B) Pottery from High Wheeldon Cave, Earl Sterndale, near Buxton. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal, 71, 72-77.

Gray, H. St George. (1903). On the excavation at Arbor Low 1901-2. Archaelogia, 38.

Harding, J. (2003). Henge monuments of the British Isles. Stroud: Tempus,.

21

Llobera, M. (2007). Reconstructing visual landscapes. World Archaeology, 39 (1), 51-69.

Parker Pearson, M., Pollard, J., Richards, C., Thomas, J., Tilley, C., Welham, K. and Albarella, U. (2006) Materializing Stonehenge: The Stonehenge Riverside Project and new discoveries. Journal of Material Culture 11, 227-61.

Maguire, S. (2008). Arbor Low and Gib Hill Conservation Plan 2008. London: English Heritage.

Martin, L. (2001). Arbor Low, Derbyshire. Report on geophysical survey, August 1998. http://sdb2.eng-h.gov.uk/reports/arborlow.

Piggott, S. (1953). Secondary Neolithic burials at Church Dale near Monyash, Derbyshire. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 19, 228-230.

Pollard, J. & Reynolds, A. (2002). Avebury: the biography of a landscape. Stroud: Tempus.

Richards, C. (1993). Monumental Choreography: Architectural and Spatial Representation in Late Neolithic Orkney. In C Tilley (Ed) Interpretive Archaeology. Oxford: Berg, pp143-178.

Richards, C. (1996a). Henges and water: towards an elemental understanding of monumentality and landscape in Late Neolithic Britain. Journal of Material Culture, 1, 313-336.

Richards, C. (1996b). Monuments as landscape: creating the centre of the world in Late Neolithic Orkney. World Archaeology, 28, 190-208.

Scarre, C. (2011). Landscapes of Neolithic Brittany. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Tilley, C. (1994), A Phenomenology of Landscape. Oxford: Berg.

Warner, R.B. (2000). Keeping out the Otherworld: The Internal Ditch at Navan and other Iron Age hengiform enclosures. Emania, 18, 39-44.

Watson, A. (2000). Encircled Space: the experience of stone circles and henges in the British Neolithic. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Reading.

22

Appendix i

Processing methods Magnatometry: De striped using a zeo median travers (+ and – 5nt) Clipped Scale intervals for xy 25nt Magnification x4 Resistivity: High pass filter in a window of 7 x 7 to remove background geology

23

Appendix ii

3D image of the raw resistivity data showing the continuation of the avenue ditch.

24

Appendix iii

Trace model of the magnetometry in Field 1

Trace model of the magnetometry in Field 2