The Early Field Systems of the Stonehenge Landscape

Abstract

Recent survey, excavation and analysis in the Stonehenge World Heritage Site (WHS) during 2015 and 2016 has revealed new details of landscape structuration and the deposition of the dead during the Middle Bronze Age. The research reported here demonstrates the existence of early fields or enclosures in the eastern part of the WHS, that was previously thought to be an area of little agricultural or domestic activity in the Bronze Age. These features were succeeded by a major ditch system in which two individuals were buried, an unusual way of dealing with the dead in the Middle Bronze Age. At the same time, the body of a perinatal infant was deposited in a palisade ditch in the western part of the WHS. The paper explores how these actions help elucidate a period of significant change in the landscape around Stonehenge, during which natural features, ancestral monuments and the recent dead were enmeshed in complex ways of bounding and dividing the landscape.

Middle Neolithic pits and a burial at West Amesbury, Wiltshire

“…These latter two features were truncated by part of a large near-contemporary badger sett, the southern extent of which was encountered in the southern excavation trench ( Figure 3). A Middle Bronze Age linear feature was also present and is reported elsewhere (Roberts et al 2017).…”

“…To the northwest, small circular features [91605] and [91607] had sufficient depth and regularity of profile to be convincing postholes, although like the other postholes, lacked definitive dating evidence, with worked flint from all of them comprising mostly micro-debitage and technologically resembling the widespread 'background' assemblage present across the King Barrow Ridge hillside (Richards 1990, 15-22). It is notable that the postholes form a line at the edge of the large Middle Neolithic badger sett to the west, which may also coincide with the location of a patch of woodland (Roberts et al 2017)perhaps they mark a boundary of this possible area of woodland, as their form and arrangement do not support a structural interpretation?…”

“…The excavations conducted by this project were distributed over a considerable area (Figure 1) and revealed archaeology of distinct periods in particular areas. Results and interpretations have been presented in a series of specialist papers that allow a more multivocal approach than would be possible in a traditional monograph, and to reach more specialist audiences (Roberts et al 2017;Valdez-Tullett and Roberts 2017;Mays et al 2018;Roberts et al 2018;Pelling 2019;Worley et al 2019;Bishop et al in press;Russell et al forthcoming). This article draws together our research on the Middle Neolithic features encountered by the project, and sets them in their wider context.…”

Optically stimulated luminescence profiling and dating of earthworks: the creation and development of prehistoric field boundaries at Bosigran, Cornwall

“…Even when artefacts can be dated with certainty, it is rarely possible to know whether they are in primary or secondary contexts. Common strategies for establishing the age of earthworks include dating by association with adjacent archaeological features of known age, or analysis of stratigraphic relationships to features that can be dated independently (Johnston 2005;Roberts et al 2017). Through careful analysis of relative chronologies, narratives of landscape development can be composed using termini post or ante quem (Herring et al 2016).…”

Novel insights into prehistoric land use at Stonehenge by combining electromagnetic and invasive methods with a semi-automated interpretation scheme

“…These include pre-Holocene (240-150 ka; Supplementary Methods S3.4.2) windblown deposits trapped in natural hollows and solution pipes (T12). Over larger areas, particularly in association with extensive traces of prehistoric farming (Roberts et al, 2017), enhanced conductivities under both wet and dry conditions indicate buried soils and clay-rich deposits to a depth of 0.8 m below the surface (T15).…”