The Stonehenge Hidden Landscapes Project

* Correspondence to: C. GaApplied Sciences, UniversiBD7 1DP, UK. E–mail: c.ga

Copyright © 2012 John

Archaeological ProspectionArchaeol. Prospect. (2012)Published online in Wiley Online Library(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/arp.1422

Short Report

The Stonehenge Hidden Landscapes Project

CHRIS GAFFNEY1*, VINCE GAFFNEY2, WOLFGANG NEUBAUER3,4,EAMONN BALDWIN2, HENRY CHAPMAN2, PAUL GARWOOD2, HELEN MOULDEN2,TOM SPARROW1, RICHARD BATES6, KLAUS LÖCKER3,5, ALOIS HINTERLEITNER3,5,IMMO TRINKS3, ERICH NAU3, THOMAS ZITZ3, SEBASTIAN FLOERY3,GEERT VERHOEVEN3 AND MICHAEL DONEUS3,4,7

1 Archaeological Sciences, School of Applied Sciences, University of Bradford, Bradford, West YorkshireBD7 1DP, UK2 Institute for Archaeology and Antiquity, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK3 Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Archaeological Prospection and Virtual Archaeology, Hohe Warte38, A-1190 Vienna4 VIAS-Vienna Institute for Archaeological Science, University of Vienna, Franz-Klein-Gasse 1/V, A-1190 Vienna5 ZAMG-Archeo ProspectionsW, Hohe Warte 38, A-1190 Vienna6 University of St Andrews, North Street, St Andrews, Fife, KY16 9AL, UK7 Department for Prehistoric and Medieval Archaeology, University of Vienna, Franz-Klein-Gasse 1/III,A-1190 Vienna, Austria

ABSTRACT Over the centuries many archaeologists h
ave investigated the site of Stonehenge and we now know a great dealabout the phasing and nature of the site. However, the area around the henge, while containing many symbolicand ritual elements, is curiously ‘blank’. The Stonehenge Hidden Landscapes Project aims to place the site andits development through time within a landscape context using fast and accurate ground-based geophysicaltechniques. The project has developed a rapid strategy to map, visualize and interpret landscape-scale dataand is applying the strategy to the area known as the Stonehenge ‘envelope’. The data are interpreted within adata rich three-dimensional data cube that has provided new insights regarding the apparent blank areassurrounding Stonehenge. It is an aim of the project to discover more about Stonehenge by looking out from thesite rather than looking at it. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Key words: landscape; magnetometry; GPR; data fusion; visualization; Stonehenge

Despite intensive archaeological and antiquarian researchover several hundred years much of the Stonehengelandscape remains unsurveyed and effectively terra incog-nita. The Stonehenge Hidden Landscapes Project (SHLP)seeks to tackle current limitations and gaps in our know-ledge and understanding of the landscape through asurvey of the areas between known monuments andusing state of the art geophysical and remote sensingsurvey. This work will be at an unprecedented scale with

ffney, Archaeological Sciences, School ofty of Bradford, Bradford, West [email protected]

Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

a projected initial survey area of about 8.2km2. This workcovers a significant part of the Stonehenge WorldHeritage Site (WHS). This is possible due to the recentadvances in data acquisition, processing, visualization,spatio-temporal data analysis and interpretation thathave been adopted and developed within the researchprogramme of the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute forArchaeological Prospection and Virtual Archaeology inVienna and its international partners (LBI ArchPro).Within the LBI ArchPro research programme differentareas for distinct case studies have been selected as a basisfor the development and testing of new concepts forefficient and universally applicable tools for spatial,

Received 5 January 2012Revised 1 February 2012

Accepted 2 February 2012

Figure 1. Maximum planned extent of the Stonehenge Hidden Landscapes Project survey area. (Basemap © Crown Copyright/database right2011. An Ordnance Survey/EDINA supplied service.)

C. Gaffney et al.

non-invasive archaeology. The collective resources andexpertise available amongst the LBI ArchPro Instituteand its associated partners permit innovative approachesto the archaeological exploration, documentation andinvestigation of the cultural heritage contained in entirearchaeological landscapes. The SHLP is one of the LBIArchPro case studies (http://archpro.lbg.ac.at) directed

Table 1. Techniques used during the first 2 years of the Stonehenge H

Technique Option Feature

Earth resistance Twin XSquare X

Electrical imaging Campus Tigre RM XFlashRES64 X

Magnetometer CV cart XFF cart XFF motorized XBartington HH X

Ground-penetrating radar Mala motorized XS&S motorized XSingle X

Electromagnetics EM31 XCMD mini explorer X

Laserscan Leica XRiegl

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

by the LBI ArchPro partner, the Visual and Spatial Tech-nology Centre (VISTA) at the Institute of Archaeologyand Antiquity, University of Birmingham in cooperationwith Archaeological Sciences at Bradford and the Univer-sity of St Andrews.The results of this work are forming the basis of a

highly detailed archaeological map of the ‘invisible’

idden Landscapes Project.

Landscape 2010 area 2012 area Total area

(ha) (ha) (ha)

– – 0.04 0.04– 0.32 – 0.32X 0.0032 – 0.0032X – 0.34 0.34– – 3.8 3.8– 15.1 – 15.1X 28.16 221.1 249.26– 4.4 – 4.4X 16.8 31.9 48.7X 13.4 – 13.4– 2.4 1 3.4X 0.54 – 0.54– – 1.6 1.6– 2.3 3.3 5.6X – 28.7 287

83.4 550.1 633.5

Archaeol. Prospect. (2012)DOI: 10.1002/arp

http://archpro.lbg.ac.at


landscape, providing the basis for a full interpretativesynthesis of all existing remote sensing and geophys-ical data from the study area, as well as comparativeevaluation of the results of archaeological excavationdata in relation to geophysical results. For the first timeit is becoming possible to create total digital models ofthe Stonehenge landscape at a true ‘landscape scale’that is not only transcending the immediate surroundsof individual monuments within the study area, butalso tying them together within a seamless map ofsubsurface and surface archaeological features andstructures. The scale and comprehensive nature of thisdataset will allow archaeologists to pose new ques-tions about the past not possible using informationonly from surface remains or limited excavations.Our knowledge of the Stonehenge archaeological

landscape is being transformed by integrating remotesensing and geophysical prospection with novel visuali-zations that combine the existing landscape withprospection and other archaeological data in a seamlessfashion. The SHLP consortium aims to survey themajor-ity of available land within the area of the ‘StonehengeEnvelope’ (defined by Cleal and Allen, 1995) over aperiod of 4 years (Figure 1). The group is now in thesecond year of the project and the results to date aregenerating new ideas about the past and will informfuture research avenues, whilst enhancing the heritagemanagement plans of regional and national curators.Stonehenge and its immediate environs have gener-

ated an unusually detailed archaeological and digitaldatabase from decades of work bymany research teams(notably: RCHM(E), 1979; Richards, 1990; Cleal et al.,1995; Exon et al., 2000; Larsson and Parker Pearson,2008). However, the historic research emphasis on theknownmonuments has not permitted a rigorous analysisof the wider landscape and the known cultural featuresin relation to the emerging complexity of the archaeo-logical evidence. Despite the impressive scale andoutstanding results of recent fieldwork programmes,especially those undertaken by the Stonehenge Environsand Stonehenge Riverside projects, these have repro-duced a fairly traditional monument/site-focusedapproach to field investigation. The explicit landscape-scale and context of analysis and interpretation em-bodied in much of this (recent) work, including specialprominence given to structured ‘symbolic landscapes’,cosmography and architectural order (e.g. Darvill,1997, 2006; Parker Pearson and Ramilisonina, 1998;Lawson, 2007), suggest that there is considerable scopefor improving the interpretation of the landscape usingremote sensed data for areaswhich, previously,may havebeen regarded as blank or unimportant. The nature,spatial locations and extent of previous geophysical


prospection work within the study area are broadlyconsistent with this wider pattern, being driven eitherby reactive evaluation strategies determined by the plan-ning process and mitigation of proposed development,or by a monument-focused research agenda, resultingin discontinuous, fragmentary, relatively small-scaleand often linear rather than spatially-extensive surveyareas (Payne, 1995, 2006; David and Payne, 1997; David,2005; Darvill, 2005). The guiding philosophy of the SHLP,underpinned by the groups’ previous work in theStonehenge landscape (Exon et al., 2000), is entirelydifferent: the intention is to explore landscape as undiv-ided three-dimensional space and to understand ancientbuilt environments and associated practices at extensivescales within that spatial framework through time.The extent of previous geophysical prospection of all

kinds within the Stonehenge WHS until 2001 has beenestimated at 3.16 km2 (David, 2005, p. 14). Since thattime, additional geophysical survey in the area,primarily connected with the Stonehenge RiversideProject, comprises about 0.8 km2 (this is a roughestimate as only a small part of this work has beenpublished to date; Payne, 2006). Overall, therefore, lessthan 4.0 km2 of the landscape have been subject to non-systematic geophysical survey of diverse types, withvariable data resolution and uneven and fragmentedspatial coverage. In contrast, the SHLP consists of acoherent systematic approach applying remote sensingcombined with a ground-based high-intensity geophys-ical survey encompassing much of the WHS, providinghigh-resolution, contiguous extensive mapping ofgeophysical data at an unprecedented scale and detail.The coverage of such considerably large areas andincreased sample densities at constant expenditure oftime in the field are possible by high inherent samplerates of the motorized multisensor and multichannelsurvey systems and advanced positioning and naviga-tion solutions developed by the LBI ArchPro. The useof motorized measurement devices for archaeologicalprospection suggests several technological and meth-odological challenges to be investigated within the LBIArchPro case studies. For the SHLPwe are using a rangeof GPS aware sensor arrays, including motorized multi-channel ground-penetrating radar (GPR) arrays andfluxgate and caesium sensor arrays for magnetometry,drawn by ATVs such as quad bikes or similarly low-impact tractors. The project is also undertaking moredetailed surveys of selected areas, especially the majorround barrow groups close to Stonehenge, applyingmanually operated survey systems (GPR, magnetics,electromagnetic, earth resistance/resistivity). Detailedhigh-resolution digital terrain models were alsocollected during survey via a long-range terrestrial laser


Figu

re2.

Mag

netometer

data(201

0–11

):white

=�2

nT,black

=+3n

T.(Aerialp

hotograp

h:DigitalGlobe.)Th

isfigu

reisavailablein

colour

onlineat

wileyonlinelibrary.com

/journal/arp.

C. Gaffney et al.

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Archaeol. Prospect. (2012)DOI: 10.1002/arp

Figu

re3.

Som

ehigh

lighted

anom

aliesof

particular

interestfrom

thefirst2yearsof

theStoneheng

eHidden

Land

scap

esProject.(Aerialpho

tograp

h:DigitalGlobe.)A

:Anap

parentmajor

gapinthecentre

oftheno

rthern

Cursusditch.

B1andB2:

Themap

ped

routeof

thepalisad

editch,

which

nowseem

sto

reachalmosttotheCursusbut

nottolinkwith

theditchsection

southof

theA34

4.Aseriesof

smallm

onum

ents

andfeatures

includ

ing:

C,anew‘hengiform

’mon

umentat

thesite

ofAmesbury50

,to

theno

rthw

estof

Stoneheng

e,co

mprisingtwo

opposed

arcs

oflargepits

surrou

ndingapitcircle;D

,alargeho

rsesho

emon

umentsou

thof

theCursus;E1,clustersof

anom

alou

sfeatures

westo

fKingBarrowrid

ge;E

2,similaro

ned

geof

cursus/argo

intersection;

F,aseriesof

largepits

invario

usposition

sacross

thesurveyed

area

but

with

twovery

largepits

situated

atthewestern

andeasternendsof

theCursus

mon

ument;G,arang

eof

annu

larfeatures

–somerelatedto

reco

rded

crop

marks

andsomeno

t.



C. Gaffney et al.

scanner. Table 1 summarizes the range of geophysicaland remote sensing data collection systems currentlybeing used by the project team.The results of the first year’s survey demonstrate the

value of multisurvey technologies at this scale andattracted significant media interest due to the locatingof a new hengiform structure only a short distancefrom Stonehenge itself. The extents of individualsurveys are indicated in Table 1 and the magnetometerdata are shown in Figure 2. The level of detail withinthe image is unprecedented and detailed interpretationwill take some time, supplemented and enhanced bycomparative analysis of the GPR and other supportingtechnologies. Nevertheless, some points of particular

Figure 4. Images containing important details from the first two seasonsfeatures (G on Figure 3). (B) Horseshoe feature with possible post settingson Figure 3). (D) Small gaps in the Cursus ditch (not highlighted on Figureof the Avenue (B2 on Figure 3).


interest can already be highlighted at this stage(Figures 3 and 4). These include:

i an apparent major gap in the centre of the northernCursus ditch (Figure 3: A);

ii the mapped route of the palisade ditch, whichnow seems to reach almost to the Cursus but notto link with the ditch section south of the A344(Figure 3: B1 and B2);

iii a series of smallmonuments and features including:iv a new ‘hengiform’ monument at the site of

Amesbury 50, to the northwest of Stonehenge,comprising two opposed arcs of large pitssurrounding a pit circle (Figure 3: C),

of the Stonehenge Hidden Landscapes Project. (A) Circular ditched(D on Figure 3). (C) Small gaps in the Cursus ditch (not highlighted3). (E) The ‘Palisade’ ditch indicating a terminus (in box) to the west


Figu

re5.

Relationshipof

largepits

within

theCursusandtheHeelS

tone.(Basem

ap©

CrownCop

yright/datab

aserig

ht20

11.AnOrdnanceSurvey/EDINAsuppliedservice.)



C. Gaffney et al.

v a large horseshoe monument south of the Cursus(Figure 3: D),

vi clusters of anomalous features (Figure 3: E1 and E2),vii a series of large pits in various positions across the

surveyed area but with two very large pitssituated in the western and eastern ends of theCursus monument (Figure 3: F1 and F2), and

viii ‘G’, a range of annular features some related torecorded crop marks and some not.

The two large pits highlighted within the Cursus(Figure 5), each of which measures 5m in diameterand a minimum of 1m deep, appear to be posi-tioned on alignments towards midsummer sunriseand sunset when viewed from the Heel Stone, thestone standing just outside the entrance to Stone-henge. Such an alignment is unlikely to be coinci-dence and would appear to suggest a substantivelink between ritual activity within the Cursus andthe area of Stonehenge itself. The nature of the pitsis uncertain at this time. Although the existence oftimber or stone settings associated with the pitscannot be discounted, the position of the westernpit below a near horizon and therefore not visiblefrom Stonehenge itself suggests that visual aids,such as fire or smoke, would have been requiredto make this point visible to a viewer at the HeelStone. Taken with other features, including the possiblenorthern entrance to the Cursus, these newly discoveredfeatures begin to provide a structure to the monumentsthat has long been suspected but lacked supportingdetail (Bender, 1998, pp. 78–86). Discussion relating tohow the Cursus functioned within a larger ritual land-scape will be greatly assisted by the current mappingand further speculation, including the potential use ofthe Cursus for processions, may be considered onthis basis. These are just a few of the ideas gener-ated from the newly acquired geophysical data,which are suggestive of a very different use of thebroader Stonehenge landscape than previouslypresented. Only by taking into account the possiblefunctions and interrelationships of all the featuresthat might have been important in this ancient land-scape can we approximate a comprehensive under-standing of human behaviour in this importantarea of southern England.Geophysical surveys will continue for another

2 years with extensive coverage extending beyond thecurrent area and will include other, novel, sensortechniques. The team will also place an increasing com-plementary emphasis on the survey of upstandingmonuments and particularly the barrow groups sur-rounding the Stonehenge Envelope to provide further


insight into monuments which may not have beenexcavated or which have only previously attractedthe attention of antiquarians.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the landowners of the area wesurveyed, the National Trust: in particular NicolaSnashall, David Thackray, Chris Gingall, Mike Dando,Lucy Evesham and Martin Papworth, as well as tenantfarmers Robert Turner, Hugh Morrison, ChristopherKing and Philip Sawkill. We are indebted to the monu-ment custodians English Heritage: in particularAmanda Chadburn, Rachel Foster, David Field andMark Bowden. We are pleased to thank RichardOsgood and Antony Butcher of the MoD/DefenceEstates. Julian Richards provided invaluablediscussion during the fieldwork. The Wiltshire andSwindon Historic Environment Record were also help-ful in supplying data. The Project has benefittedthrough support from MALÅ Geoscience (http://www.malags.com/home), Foerster Group (http://www.foerstergroup.com/Home-DM.22.0.html), PicoEnvirotec (http://www.picoenvirotec.com/environment/)and Reigl (www.riegl.com/). We would like to thankProfessor Larry Conyers for facilitating the prompt publica-tion of this Short Report.We would like to thank the following for contributing

to the fieldwork element of this project: Rob Fry, JamesBonsall, Heather Gimson, James Gaffney, LawrenceShaw, Nico Neubauer, Mario Wallner, Rubina Bergauer,Alexandra Vonkilch, Julia Wilding, Jutta Rasel, ViktorJansa, Tanja Trausmuth, Olivia Senk, Elisabeth Schadek,Knut Paasche and Lars Gustavsen.The Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Archaeological

Prospection and Virtual Archaeology (archpro.lbg.ac.at) is based on an international cooperation of theLudwig Boltzmann Gesellschaft (Austria), the Univer-sity of Vienna, the Vienna University of Technology,ZAMG-the Austrian Central Institute for Meteorologyand Geodynamics, the Province of Lower Austria,Airborne Technology (Austria), RGZM (the Roman-Germanic Central Museum Mainz), RAÄ (SwedishNational Heritage Board), IBM VISTA (University ofBirmingham) and NIKU (Norwegian Institute forCultural Heritage Research).

References

Bender B. 1998. Stonehenge: Making Space. Berg: Oxford.Cleal RMJ, Allen MJ. 1995. The visual envelope. In Stone-henge in its Landscape: Twentieth Century Excavations,Cleal RMJ, Walker KE, Montague R (eds). EnglishHeritage: London; 34–40.

Cleal RMJ, Walker K, Montague R. 1995. Stonehenge inits Landscape. Archaeological Report 10. EnglishHeritage; London.


http://www.malags.com/home

http://www.malags.com/home

http://www.foerstergroup.com/Home-DM.22.0.html

http://www.foerstergroup.com/Home-DM.22.0.html

http://www.picoenvirotec.com/environment/

http://www.riegl.com/


David A. 2005. Ground-based geophysical surveys. InStonehenge World Heritage Site: an ArchaeologicalResearch Framework, T Darvill (ed.). English Heri-tage and Bournemouth University: London andBournemouth; 14–15.

David A, Payne A. 1997. Geophysical surveys within theStonehenge landscape: a review of past endeavour andfuture potential. In Science and Stonehenge, Cunliffe B,Renfrew C (eds). Proceedings of the British Academy92, Oxford; 73–113.

Darvill T. 1997. Ever increasing circles: the sacred geog-raphies of Stonehenge and its landscape. In Scienceand Stonehenge, Cunliffe B, Renfrew C (eds). Proceed-ings of the British Academy 92, Oxford; 167–202.

Darvill T. 2005. Stonehenge World Heritage Site: an Arch-aeological Research Framework. English Heritage andBournemouth University: London and Bournemouth.

Darvill T. 2006. Stonehenge: the Biography of a Land-scape. Tempus: Stroud.

Exon S, Gaffney V, Woodward A, Yorston A. 2000. Stone-henge Landscapes: Journeys Through Real-and-ima-gined Worlds. Archeopress: Oxford.


Larsson L, Parker Pearson M (eds). 2008. From Stone-henge to the Baltic: Living with Cultural Diversity inthe Third Millennium BC. British ArchaeologicalReports, International Series 1692: Oxford.

Lawson A. 2007. Chalkland: an Archaeology of Stone-henge and its Region. Hobnob Press: Salisbury.

Parker Pearson M, Ramilisonina. 1998. Stonehenge for theancestors: the stones pass on the message. Antiquity72: 308–326.

Payne A. 1995. Appendix 1: Geophysical surveys atStonehenge, 1993–4. In Stonehenge in its Landscape:Twentieth Century Excavations, Cleal RMJ, Walker KE,Montague R (eds). English Heritage: London; 495–510.

Payne A. 2006. Stonehenge Riverside Project, West Ames-bury and Greater Cursus, Wiltshire: Report on Geo-physical Surveys, July 2006. Research DepartmentReport Series No. 41/2007, English Heritage: London.

Richards J. 1990. The Stonehenge Environs Project. Arch-aeological Report 16. English Heritage; London.

RCHM(E). 1979. Stonehenge and its Environs: Monu-ments and Land Use. Edinburgh UniversityPress: Edinburgh.


The Stonehenge Hidden Landscapes Project

Documents

Transcript of The Stonehenge Hidden Landscapes Project