PAST 1

AA PPOOSSSSIIBBLLEE SSEECCOONNDDNNEEOOLLIITTHHIICC HHOOUUSSEE AANNDDAANN UUNNUUSSUUAALL MMOORRTTLLAAKKEEBBOOWWLL FFRROOMM KKIINNGGSSMMEEAADDQQUUAARRRRYY,, HHOORRTTOONN,,BBEERRKKSSHHIIRREE

During excavations conducted by Wessex Archaeologyat the CEMEX Kingsmead Quarry at Horton lastsummer, a post-built structure interpreted as a possiblerectangular house was revealed. It may prove to beEarly Neolithic in date and if so will be the second suchfeature to be recorded as part of the ongoing works.The quarry site is close to the River Thames and the siteof the Staines (Yeoveney Lodge) causewayed enclosurethat was excavated by Robertson-Mackay over 50years ago.

Defined by 27 postholes, the house was rectangular inplan with four deeper and more substantial centralpostholes that may have supported an upper storey orelevated storage space. A pair of relatively substantialpostholes on the south-east side could have defined anentrance. Dating is uncertain at present as the featureyielded scant evidence, though this did include a flintblade core, bladelets, chips and burnt flint along withtiny, abraded sherds of possible pottery and fired clay.Despite extensive sampling, few environmental remainswere recovered from the posthole fills. In plan, thestructure bears a striking resemblance in both size anddimensions to one of the Early Neolithic buildingsfound at Lismore Fields, Buxton, Derbyshire. It alsoshares a number of features - a bowed end wall andpaired corner post-settings - with this site. It is differentfrom and smaller than the first Horton structure(discovered in 2008) which was constructed aroundmassive corner posts with probable plank-built walls

(noted as a darker soil stain). The wall slots of thisbuilding had the capacity for trapping refuse and,therefore, a greater range of material was recoveredincluding probable Carinated Bowl pottery, flintwork,charred cereal and hazelnut shell, animal bone and aflake from a Group VI (Langdale) axe. This buildinghas been radiocarbon dated to the 38th to 37thcenturies BC.

The new structure adds to our increasing knowledge ofactivity at Horton during the 4th millennium BC andcould be associated with deposits of occupation debrisfound within the ditch of an Early Neolithic U-shapedenclosure. Other finds of this date include a pit-defined‘house-void’ and a low scatter of residual finds of flintand pottery.

Early Neolithic houses are rare in southeast Englandand it is unusual to find two in close proximity. As wellas the two buildings from Horton, at least two moreare known from the surrounding area of the ColneValley. One occurs only a few miles to the east atCranford Lane (Nick Elsden pers. comm.) and the

NUMBER 71 July 2012

THE NEWSLETTER OF THE PREHISTORIC SOCIETY Registered Office University College London, Institute of Archaeology, 31–34 Gordon Square, London WC1H 0PY

http://www.prehistoricsociety.org/

The copy date for PAST 72 is 1 October 2012. Contributions to Joanna Brück, School of Archaeology, Newman Building, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland. Email: joanna.bruck@ucd.ie Contributions on disc or as e-mail attachments are preferred (either word 6 or rtf files) but hardcopy is also accepted. Illustrations can besent as drawings, slides, prints, tif or jpeg files. The book reviews editor is Jacky Nowakowski, 4 Melrose Terrace,Campfield Hill, Truro, Cornwall TR1 1EZ. Email: jnowakowski@cornwall.gov.uk Queries over subscriptions and

membership should go to the Society administrator Tessa Machling at the London address above.

71

PAST

Possible Early Neolithic house

other is higher up the Colne Valley at Gorhambury.Other examples are known from the Upper Thamesand from around the Thames estuary. These structuresare small in number and of two broad types - post-builtwith probable wattle walls and post with plankwalling. Collectively they occur in a wide range of sizes.As noted above, the ground plan of the new Hortonhouse is remarkably close in size and layout to one ofthe two overlapping structures at Lismore Fields (wethank Daryl Garton for a useful discussion of thispoint). It is unclear whether this difference inconstruction choice and technique between the twoHorton buildings is significant. Certainly a possiblelink between a site in the Thames Valley and one in thePeak District has implications for how we interpret thespread of a farming lifestyle around 3800 BC. This isno less true of the other Horton building that is similarin plan to structures recorded at Gorhambury, Stanstedand Fengate - all in eastern England. How these links inarchitecture, dwelling and material culture (similarways of making pots, knapping flint and the use ofLangdale axes) played out in terms of identity,movement and social connections in these small-scalesocieties is beyond the scope of this note. Thepossibility of a common understanding and knowledgeof how to plan and build in timber is certainlyintriguing.

The quarry also provided an opportunity to furtherinvestigate an oval barrow that had been discovered 20years ago and since published by Dr Steve Ford ofThames Valley Archaeological Services. It was possibleto examine the remaining part of the outer ditch, whichbelonged to a secondary oval barrow phase of late 4thmillennium date. This ditch surrounded a much smallerU-shaped enclosure that is currently imprecisely datedbut probably belongs to the mid-4th millennium. Theprevious investigations had recovered a remarkableseries of birch bark containers along with a nearcomplete Fengate-style bowl from the outer ditch.Excavation in 2011 produced no further bark bowls,although traces of waterlogged wood were recovered.However, placed on the base of the ditch was a largefragment from a Mortlake Ware bowl. The vessel,

which has traces of charred residue from cooking, isdecorated with panels of impressions and curvilinearmotifs made from end-to-end fingernail impressions.This type of decoration is rare in southern England andincludes a ‘cup’ from the West Kennet long barrow.However, the most striking parallel for the Mortlakebowl is with a series of vessels from East Yorkshire. Thecurvilinear end-to-end impressed finger-nail motifs alsolink this vessel with the earlier find of the Fengate-stylebowl, which also had cooking residue. In terms ofdecoration, both vessels are regionally unusual. Theirplacing near the ditch base hints that they may havebeen deposited in special circumstances, perhaps asrefuse from feasting. Enough of the Mortlake bowlsurvives to indicate a hemi-spherical profile, while theFengate bowl is of typical trunconic flat-based form.Their recovery as placed deposits on the base of theouter ditch once again reinforces the idea that theround and flat-based bowl forms were incontemporaneous use during the final centuries of the4th millennium BC.

Finally, discovering the first Neolithic house was downto having the right approach to the excavation.Finding the second involved keeping to this strategyand targeting otherwise blank areas in a landscapemasked by Middle Bronze Age and Roman farmsteads,fields and open land. At Horton the equal importanceof looking at all areas has been rewarded by a numberof important discoveries. Our gratitude is therefore tothe client, and to the various individuals, Andy Scott(CEMEX), Adrian Havercroft (GuildhouseConsultancy) and Fiona MacDonald (BerkshireArchaeology), who have advised and supported thisendeavour and not least those in the field who had aflexible and professional approach to the unexpectedsignificant discoveries and at times low densityarchaeology.

Alistair Barclay, Gareth Chaffey and Andy Manning(Wessex Archaeology)

2 PAST

Mortlake bowl from the base of the oval barrow ditch (© Karen Nichols, Wessex Archaeology)

Reconstruction of the 2008 house (© Karen Nichols, Wessex Archaeology)

RRUUBBIIRRIIZZII:: AA NNEEWW SSTTOONNEEAAGGEE SSIITTEE IINN UUGGAANNDDAAWWIITTHH GGIIAANNTT BBIIFFAACCEESS

IntroductionStone Age archaeology in eastern Africa is currentlyenjoying a revival of interest due to advances indating methodologies which have allowed far betterchronological control than has previously beenavailable. New discoveries and the increasinginfluence of genetic studies have played a significantrole in increasing the prominence of Africa in theoriesconcerning the emergence and spread of Homosapiens to the rest of the world. These early membersof our species are generally associated with earlyMiddle Stone Age (MSA) stone tool assemblages.Consequently Early Stone Age (ESA) assemblagesand ‘transitional’ (ESA-MSA) lithic industries (suchas the ‘Sangoan’ and ‘Lupemban’) are increasinglyimportant in elucidating how these early humanslived. In general, the trend in stone tool analyses hasmoved away from unilinear progression of evolvingstone tool types to a much more contextual andcomplex impression of emerging technologicalvariability both within the ESA and the MSA. Whileeastern Africa has played an important role inarguments relating to the spread of Homo sapiens,most sites lie in the eastern branch of the Rift Valley,while the western branch of the Rift has remainedlargely neglected despite its ecological diversity andsuitability for hominin occupation during theQuaternary. Here, we offer a preliminary overview ofnew work in the western branch of the Rift directedby one of the authors (Laura Bassell), following twosurvey seasons since 2009 and the first season’sexcavation, completed in January and February thisyear. The aim of this work is to examine humanevolution in its palaeoecological context.

Context of survey and excavationIn 2009 and 2010, targeted survey was conductedfrom Sango Bay along the Kagera River to establishthe potential of this important region for furtherresearch. The aim was to try and identify ESA/MSA(‘Sangoan’) artefacts in a stratified context with aview to obtaining reliable dates on this ‘transitionalindustry’, which remains poorly defined bothchronologically and technologically. An additionaland equally important aim was to situate thearchaeology in its landscape context and relate thebehavioural signature to larger scale theoretical issuessuch as the role of refugia during periods of aridity.Several sites were identified that are of high potentialfor further excavation and dating, as well as forenvironmental reconstruction and landscape change.

The first excavation season has focussed on an areain Uganda, along a tributary of the Kagera River

known as the Orichinga. The Kagera forms theboundary between Rwanda, Uganda and Tanzania,and drains into Lake Victoria. The principalexcavation area occurs to the north of the oncefamous sites at Nsongezi, and the new sites wereidentified as artefact horizons in the laterally variableNsongezi Series. Unusually for Africa, the Kageraexhibits a fluvial terrace sequence at least partlyrelated to the tectonic activity associated with thewestern Rift. The extensive exposures that have beenthe foci of our archaeological excavations are locatedin an area known as Rubirizi. Photographs taken inthe 1930s show erosion gullies in this vicinity, butwith limited clean exposures and no houses. Due toincreased building related to the local refugee camp,road development schemes and house construction,the sand in these comparatively stable badlandsgullies is now being extensively quarried, exposingdeep sections and numerous artefacts.

PAST 3

View of Rubirizi 1 excavation area looking to the north west over the Orichinga Valley (photo: L. Bassell 2012).

Main artefact horizon at Rubirizi 1: note the very large biface to the left of the excavator (photo: L. Bassell 2012).

2012 excavations and surveyTwo principal excavation areas were opened atRubirizi in February of 2012 which were about 1kmapart, Rubirizi 1 and Rubirizi 2. Both sites were inareas that are regularly being quarried by hand forsand. At Rubirizi 1, an area of 8m x 8m was opened.At Rubirizi 2, an area of approximately 4m x 3m wasopened. In both locations excavations proceeded tothe main artefact horizon, seen in section prior toexcavation at both locations. The aim of opening twoareas was to ascertain whether major chronologicalor behavioural differences exist between the two sites,and to determine whether there were anypreservation differences. Survey demonstrated thatcomparable artefact horizons are extensive in theregion, and are currently being destroyed. Forexample, the piles of stones in the right hand cornerof Figure 1 above are all artefacts that have beendiscarded from quarrying activity just outside thepicture. Precisely how these horizons relate to eachother temporally is not yet clear. The excavationswere conducted together with extensivegeomorphological survey, differential GPS survey andsedimentological logging to assist in answering thesequestions.

Large areas were opened to determine artefactdensity and distribution/pattern and to clarify thedepositional environment or environments. Based onsurvey prior to excavation, it was thought that theartefact distribution was most likely to be patchywith artefacts occurring in small but separatedconcentrations. However, in both Rubirizi 1 and 2the artefacts uncovered were found to be almostcontinuous ‘pavements’ of densely packed andsometimes interlocked artefacts. Full analysis of thelithics has not yet been conducted, but a wide varietyof bifacial forms was found, numerous cores, flakesand other debitage. Some of the bifaces are extremelylarge, being in excess of 34cm maximum lineardimension (MLD) while others are less than 10cmMLD. The lithics are generally quartzite which islocally abundant, and occasionally quartz. At bothsites the condition of these artefacts was fresh andunrolled, suggesting minimal movement prior to theirdeposition. Preliminary examination of the lithicmaterial suggests that at both sites nearly all thematerial recovered is the result of knapping. Onedifference between the two excavation areas is thatRubirizi 2 yielded a greater proportion of unworkedquartz pebbles.

The sediments at both the excavation sites are fluvial,although lacustrine deposits were also identifiedwithin the Nsongezi Series during survey, probablypostdating the fluvial sediments in which the artefacthorizons were found. Previous researchers hadpostulated that similar lacustrine sediments observedelsewhere in the area were related to former levels of

Lake Victoria, but our research indicates alternativeexplanations are possible. Excitingly, some fossilisedfaunal remains were also recovered from theselacustrine deposits. Samples were taken forenvironmental analyses and also for dating.

Ongoing work and observationsPost-excavation analysis of the material collected thisseason is ongoing. Although stone tools havepreviously been reported from the Kagera, this is thefirst time that it has been possible to realise the extentof unmixed, fresh artefact horizons, in what appearsto have been a rapidly deposited sedimentaryenvironment. The famous Kenyan sites ofOlorgesailie, Kilombe and Kariandusi spring to mindas comparable in terms of site type, artefact densityand distribution, although it remains to bedetermined whether the Rubirizi sites are comparablein age, lithic technology and typology. This researchwill also be the first time that any extensiveenvironmental work has been done on theQuaternary deposits in the region. The key questionsraised by this research are: 1) how old are these sites?;2) who made the artefacts?; 3) what accounts for thetremendous concentration of artefacts in one area?;and 4) what were the environments like at the time ofdeposition? It is anticipated that future work will alsofocus on other Stone Age sites in the Kageracatchment, in Tanzania and Rwanda as well asUganda. Through this future excavation and survey,it is hoped that the promise identified by Howell andClark in the mid-twentieth century can be realised:‘The . . . Kagera Valley is of extraordinary importanceto prehistoric archaeology’ (in Howell and Bourlière,African Ecology and Human Evolution, Chicago,494).

4 PAST

Examples of two very large bifaces and one very small biface from Rubirizi 1.

PAST 5

AcknowledgmentsWe would like to thank the National Council forScience and Technology for granting us a permit(SS2583) to conduct research in Uganda, and theNational Museums of Uganda for facilitating theresearch, in particular D. Ongwen, R. Mwanjankaleand J. Nyiracyiza. Thanks to the BIEA for theirlogistical support and technical expertise, especiallyB. Kimeu and J. Mutua. Above all, thanks to the trulyinternational team of researchers, students and localpeople who made this first season such a pleasure aswell as a success. This work was supported primarilyby a Phyllis and Eileen Gibbs Travelling Fellowship(awarded to LB) and a Quaternary ResearchAssociation grant and British Society forGeomorphology grant (awarded to TB).

Laura Basell (Oxford Brookes University; emaillbasell@brookes.ac.uk)Tony Brown (University of Southampton)

RRHHUUDDDDGGAAEERR EESSTTAATTEEPPRROOJJEECCTT,, 55000000 BBCC TTOO AADD11990000,, AANNGGLLEESSEEYY

Rhuddgaer Estate is located overlooking the MenaiStraits on the southwest coast of the island of Anglesey,north Wales. Despite being a clear focus of prehistoric,Romano-British and later activity, the area has beenlittle studied and no in-depth analysis of availablesources has been attempted. The aim of our project isto research the archaeology and history of the estate.The first phase of work in 2010 involved an extensivedocumentary and field name study. This led to theidentification of a potential Iron Age village as well asthe possible findspot of a Roman lead coffindiscovered in 1886. A geophysical survey was thencarried out with the aid of a grant provided by theCambrian Archaeological Association.

Geophysical results

Prehistoric archaeology detailed in antiquarian sourcesSeveral bronze spear heads were recorded as havingbeen recovered close to the shore of the estate. Abronze socketed axe (now lost) was also found on theestate and was identified by Frances Lynch asbelonging to the class of Irish bag-shaped axes.

Rhuddgaer Farm itself is situated within a rectangular,doubled-banked enclosure which may be associatedwith Iron Age and Romano-British activity. A largefarm house was built on the site in the post-medievalperiod and all finds from this period were recovered inassociation with later improvements to the main farmbuilding in the late 1800s. The existence of stone-builtcircular habitations described as Iron Age or Romano-British at this location is suggested by descriptions in alocal antiquarian’s tour of Anglesey in 1871.

Little, if anything, of this enclosure survives although itis described as rectangular in the antiquarian literature.Antiquarian records also document a number ofsettlements of Iron Age and Romano-British datewithin the surrounding area exhibiting a similarmorphology to Rhuddgaer Farm. Two have beenidentified within the study area: Caer Leb and BrynEryr. Excavations at Bryn Eryr by GwyneddArchaeological Trust in 1998 identified three distinctarchaeological phases, spanning from the Middle IronAge to the fourth century AD.

A tantalising but unfortunately unsubstantiated reportof possible Bronze Age funerary activity was made bythe Reverend Wyn Williams in the journal of theCambrian Archaeological Association in1861. Herecorded that a farmer on the estate discovered a stonecist containing bones in the southwest corner of themain farmyard enclosure. This was subsequentlyremoved and the farmer could not say whether thebones were human or not.

Results of geophysical surveyGeophysical survey was focused within the fieldidentified as the likely location of archaeologicalremains recorded in antiquarian sources. A carefulstudy of these sources indicated that an Iron Agesettlement may have existed in the northern part of thefield. Results for this area showed little evidence ofprehistoric activity and it was decided to changestrategy and target a large rise at the southern end ofthe field.

This strategy was much more successful and a numberof features were identified. Features 4 and 5 appear toshow evidence of early land enclosure, while features 8,9 and 10 show a number of ditches centred around acircular feature (feature 11). It is likely that thesefeatures are part of the prehistoric settlement whichwas discussed in the antiquarian sources. Features 12and 13 appear to be plough marks which may beMedieval in date, while features 1 and 2 are related torecorded post-Medieval agricultural activity.

The survey outcome was very positive and confirmedthe presence of archaeological remains on theRhuddgaer Estate. The survival level of these featuresis unknown and these works will form the basis ofexcavations to be carried out this summer. It is hopedthat this work will lead to a larger project studying thewider landscape surrounding the prehistoric ditch andbank enclosures.

Matthew Jones

MMEEEETTIINNGGSS PPRROOGGRRAAMMMMEE22001122--22001133

Further details, including times, prices, contactinformation and booking forms, will be posted on theSociety website as soon as they become available.

6 PAST

Prehistoric Society open day: excavations at HamHillMeet at Ham Hill at 2pm.

An exclusive tour for Prehistoric Society membersof the new excavations by Dr Niall Sharples(Cardiff University) and Chris Evans (CambridgeArchaeological Unit) at Ham Hill, the largest IronAge hillfort in Britain.

Cranborne chase revisited (plus Hambledon Hilland Hengistbury Head)Led by Dr Mike Allen and Dr Julie Gardener

University of Bradford AGES Research SeminarsWeekly lectures on prehistoric topics including theCelts in the West; whales in prehistory;bioarchaeology of the French and Italian UpperPalaeolithic; and aerial archaeology in Wales. Opento members by kind invitation of Dr Alex Gibson(see website for full details).

Sun 9 Sept 20122pm

Fri 14-Sun 16 Sept2012

Tuesdays 2012-135.15pm

Open DayHam Hill, Somerset

Weekend study tour

Lecture seriesVenue: University of Bradford

PAST 7

‘Hillforts in the West of Britain’Joint symposium with the South SomersetArchaeological Research Group, covering recentwork on hillforts in southwest England and Wales.For further details contact: Dr Clare Randall(clare.arch@gmail.com; 01305 833015). Price: £15

The 11th Sara Champion Memorial Lecture:‘Tangled histories: British prehistorians, researchpractice and disciplinary change, 1975-2010’ by DrAnwen Cooper (University of Oxford)

Including wine reception at 7pm and presentationof the Society undergraduate dissertation prize.

‘Creating communities: torcs and identity in laterIron Age Norfolk’ by Dr Jody Joy (British Museum)

Joint Prehistoric Society/Norfolk & NorwichArchaeological Society lecture

‘Maritime horizons in the Bronze Age of the south-west peninsula’ by Dr Stuart Needham (PrehistoricSociety)

Joint Prehistoric Society/Devon ArchaeologicalSociety lecture

‘Peasant life in a dynamic landscape. How DutchPrehistoric farming communities structured theircultural and physical environment’ by Prof. HarryFokkens (Leiden University)

A special lecture to introduce the subject of the2013 Study Tour. Open to all, whether coming onthe tour or not.

The prehistory of people and the body

A conference examining the person and the body in prehistory. Further details and list of speakers indue course.

Personal Histories - a panel on prehistory andprehistorians followed by discussion, Cambridge,organised by Dr. Marie-Louise Stig Sørensen

NetherlandsLed by Prof. Harry Fokkens (Leiden University).For details and queries contact: Prof. HarryFokkens h.fokkens@arch.leidenuniv.nl

Europa award conference for 2013: Prof. KristianKristiansen (University of Gothenburg)

There will be a fee for the conference but theEuropa Lecture is free to members.

Sat 6 Oct 20129.30-4pm

Weds 17 Oct 20126pm

Sat 3 Nov 20122.30pm

Thurs 24 Jan 20137.30pm

Weds 27 Feb 20136pm

Sat 2 Mar 2013

Spring 2013 TBC

May Sun 26-Sun 2June 2013

June 2013TBC

Day conference Venue: North Cadbury,Yeovil, Somerset

LectureVenue: Society of Antiquaries, Burlington House, Piccadilly,London

LectureVenue: Castle Museum,Norwich

Lecture Venue: County Hall, Exeter

LectureVenue: Society of Antiquaries, Burlington House, Piccadilly,London

Day conferenceVenue: Society of Antiquaries, Burlington House, Piccadilly,London

Afternoon eventVenue: Cambridge

Overseas study tourVenue: Netherlands

Day conference & EuropaLectureVenue: TBC

8 PAST

IIMMPPOORRTTAANNTT:: AARREE YYOOUU AA SSTTAARR??

Please look closely at the top right hand corner ofyour copy of PAST. Do you have a coloured star? Ifso, then you are NOT up-to-date with yoursubscription for the current year. If you have not paidthe FULL amount at one of the following rates, thenyour subscription will be invalid and you will not besent PPS when it is published. Rates for 2012 are asfollows: £35 Ordinary Members; £25 Retired withPPS; £17.50 Student; £12.50 Retired without PPS;and £50 for Institutional Members. Joint membershipfor any of the above (not including InstitutionalMembership) is £5.

If you are in any doubt about the status of yoursubscription, please contact our administrator TessaMachling at the address below, or by email atprehistoric@ucl.ac.uk. Cheques should be madepayable to ‘The Prehistoric Society’ and sent to: ThePrehistoric Society, Institute of Archaeology, 31-34Gordon Square, London, WC1H 0PY. Many thanksfor your support!

TTHHEE EEUURROOPPAA PPRRIIZZEE 22001122::AA TTRRIIBBUUTTEE AANNDDCCEELLEEBBRRAATTIIOONNThe Europa prize this year was awarded to RichardBradley in front of a packed auditorium at theUniversity of Reading. The conference was one ofcelebration and while the academic subjects centredon Richard’s research interests, the main themes of theday’s proceedings were warmth, friendship and goodhumour. All of these categories are as equallyattributable to Richard as his academic achievementsand his contribution to European prehistory.

The stage was admirably set by Ramón Valcarce(Santiago de Compostella) who started by informingwould-be tourists that Galicia has a higher averagerainfall than Glasgow and Cork and proceeded toexplain the complexity of Galician rock art and inparticular its location in the landscape; the view frombeing more important than the view to, which resonatesstrongly with the British material. Colin Richards(Manchester) continued the humorous vein and,stopping short of libel on the way, informed us that longcairns were living things with skins and spines, andwere conceived and were modified over considerabletime periods before finally entering ancestral realms.Sworn to secrecy, Mike Parker Pearson (Sheffield)broke his oath but not before detailing the new evidencefor the early history of a certain pile of rocks onSalisbury Plain and the (final) identification of thebluestones’ origins north of Preseli around the CraigRhosyfelin area. To Joakim Goldhahn (Kalmar) deathrituals on Scandinavian rock art were all about feet andboats with some new and important stratigraphicaldetail for the panels; once again the Neolithic estateagents were crying ‘location, location, location’. Billy(sorry, Professor William) O’Brien (Cork) reassured thepresent writer by informing us that Irish prehistoric siteswere almost as unproductive as Welsh ones. Thehillforts of his hillforts project were not helpingthemselves by producing the artefacts necessary toresolve the huge chronology problems or indeed thequestions of function and societal role. However, theupland hillforts did overlook the lowlands: now weawait the dates. The final contribution from ColinHaselgrove, Marc vander Linden (both Leicester) andLeo (Brad Pitt) Webley (Reading) gave preliminaryresults of their synopsis of European grey literature. Weeagerly await the final publication because as Marcpointed out, the time allotted equated to almost 2minutes per millennium.

The Society’s AGM, with probably the fullest house inthe Society’s history, was admirably chaired by thePresident who awarded the Baguley Prize to RebeccaRedfern and then the Europa Award to RichardBradley who in return (and adjacent to a life-sizedcardboard cut-out of a younger self) told us of thelinks between domestic and ritual architecture inEurope from the Neolithic to the early historic period.There were other highlights: the launch of two newresearch papers (a festschrift to Richard and thevolume ‘Is there a British Chalcolithic?’), a winereception hosted by our new publisher CUP and thePresident’s bottle of 1908 cognac to name but five(sorry, that was the cognac). I hope members willforgive the flippancy of this review of what is thebiggest day in the Society’s calendar, but it was exactlywhat a Prehistoric Society event should be:informative, cordial, even jovial, and above all acelebration of prehistory. Our thanks to all whohelped make this celebration special.

Alex Gibson

The Europa prizewinner with a slightly more youthful doppelgänger

PAST 9

TTHHEE EEUURROOPPAAPPOOSSTTGGRRAADDUUAATTEECCOONNFFEERREENNCCEEFrom northernmost Europe to northwest Portugal viaSweden, Orkney, Ireland, and Cumbria… If thissounds like the itinerary for a typical Richard Bradleyfield season, that may be because much of theresearch presented at this year’s conference wasdirectly inspired by his work. His wide interests werereflected in themes of landscape, society,monumentality, image and memory, and representedin discussions of megaliths, mountains, materialculture and, of course, rock art.

The programme began with three papers examiningthe role of northern rock carvings as social agents.Courtney Nimura explored this in relation to thecultural and social re-negotiation of shorelinecosmologies in Scandinavia; Mark Sapwellconsidered the carvings as a medium for knowledgetransfer - ‘think tanks’ for the exploration of ideas atcommunication nodes in the landscape of westernRussia and northern Sweden; and Rebecca Enlanderlooked at the role of rock art in the north of Irelandin the creation and maintenance of regional identities.

Post-lunch the focus switched to the thorny questionof mobility - of people, things, and ideas. HélènePioffet offered an innovative multi-scalar châineopératoire approach to the acculturation vscolonisation debate, exploring regional transmissionof pottery technologies. Neil Wilkins then used FoodVessel ceramics to explore changes and continuity inEarly Bronze Age ritual and materiality, andmovement and connections were also key to AliceRoger’s paper which outlined her plans to investigatemaritime cultural interactions and exchange alongthe North Sea coast through a study of monuments,intervisibility and material culture. The section wasconcluded by Hugo Sampaio who explored thepower of natural places in northwest Portugal. Heargued that concentrations of diverse artefacts foundat distinctive sites may indicate that these locales weresymbolic nodes within prehistoric networks.

The final session demonstrated the dividends yieldedby applying new perspectives and re-examiningexisting data. Ed Blinkhorn revealed how analysis of‘grey literature’ from developer-led archaeology has re-drawn distribution maps for the EnglishMesolithic, and called for greater knowledge transferbetween academia and commercial units. Olaf Bayerre-analysed lithic material from southern England inthe context of aerial photographs, geographicalsurvey and targeted excavation, suggesting thatsurface scatters have potential far beyond a proxy forhuman presence/absence.

The final two papers moved to northern Britain.Recent dating work in Orkney was the basis of ChrisKerns’ exploration of Neolithic ‘lifeways’ through

time/space relationships between chambered cairnsand settlements. Peter Style then drew together anumber of Bradley-inspired themes, introducing anew ‘mini-monument’ - the boulder-cairn - foundclose to the stone axe quarries of central Cumbria.Peter suggested these may reflect an extended socialsignificance for this important locale, proposing apossible mythological link between the distinctiveprofile of the mountain stone sources and thedecoration of similarly-shaped outcrops in the valleysbelow.

In his keynote speech, Chris Gosden discussed thecomplicated nature of continuity in relation tosettlement patterns and field systems, withgenealogies written across the English landscape. Thecontinuity of research is surely just as complex, but ifone were to analyse the genealogies of ideas writtenacross the archaeological literature of recent years,many of the younger ‘branches’ could no doubt betraced back to a Bradley publication. On the evidenceof the papers presented here, Richard must feelreassured that his many seeds of inspiration appear tobe flourishing!

Kate Sharpe, Durham University

RRUUNN OOFF PPPPSS

Run of PPS 1973-1982 inclusive for sale for areasonable price. Buyer must be willing to collect from southeast London, though seller coulddeliver to central London. Please contactchristine.bannan@virgin.net or telephone +44 207732 9243 for further information.

CCOONNFFEERREENNCCEE NNEEWWSS

Archaeology across the border: prehistoriccommunities in the Tyne-Forth region and beyondThe Royal Society of Edinburgh, George Street,Edinburgh, Sat 29 Sept 2012, 10am-5pm

In the last two years the Tyne-Forth Prehistory Forumhas sought to stimulate new discussion and researchinto the prehistoric archaeology of northeast Englandand southeast Scotland. In this meeting of the AHRC-funded project ‘Investigating prehistoricsocial and cultural networks through the Tyne-Forthprehistory forum’, we aim to consider: What can we now say about the prehistoric communities living between the Forth and the Tyne - about theirlandscapes, dwellings, monuments, burial practicesand the things of their everyday lives? How were theyinterconnected with one another, and withcommunities elsewhere? We also aim to focus on theTyne-Forth region in prehistory at a larger scale, and

explore whether this region could even becharacterised as such at various times. What were themajor events, changes and trends in the prehistory ofthe region? Were these apparent across the region asa whole or confined to particular landscapes?

The event is free and open to all, but advancebooking is required as places are limited. To book a seat please email Rachel Crellin(r.j.crellin@ncl.ac.uk). Speakers and presentationtitles will be announced on our websitehttp://research.ncl.ac.uk/tyneforthprehistoryforum/290912meet.html.

African Archaeology Research DayDept. of Archaeology, University of Southampton, 3-4 Nov 2012

A two day meeting on recent research in Africanarchaeology. Keynote speakers: Prof DavidMattingly and Dr Henry Lamb. For furtherinformation, see http://aard.soton.ac.uk/

TTHHEE WWOORRLLDD’’SS EEAARRLLIIEESSTTMMOOUUNNTTAAIINN FFOOLLKK??

If you take a trip to hike or ski in the mountains, assomeone with an interest or career in archaeology, youmay find yourself wondering, ‘Why did people in thepast come up here? How did they make a living?’ Andrightly so. Mountains may play host to many picnics,but for the most part they are not one. This is because,relative to lower elevations, mountains can make lifetough on account of shorter growing seasons, lowerprimary productivity, prolonged snow cover,unpredictable resources, lower temperatures, reducedpartial oxygen pressures and rugged, broken terrain.As the American archaeologist Mark Aldenderfer haspointed out, these factors are especially restrictive forhunter-gatherers, whose lifestyles are so bound upwith the distribution of natural resources in time andspace. By contrast, for agriculturally-based societies,mountains don’t seem to pose much of a problem,something evident from the fact that these areassupported some of the world’s greatest empires - theInca and the Tibetan empires, for example - and thattoday, according to the United Nations MillenniumEcosystem Assessment, they are home to no less thanone-fifth of the world’s population. Yet it wasforagers, not farmers, who originally colonised theworld’s mountain systems and high plateaux. Again,why and how?

For the last several years, with financial support fromthe Prehistoric Society, these questions have been atthe fore of a University of Cambridge-basedmultidisciplinary project, ‘Middle Stone Age of theLesotho Highlands’. The Maloti-Drakensbergmountains of eastern Lesotho in southern Africa are

not as tall or ecologically extreme as the world’s greatmountain systems - the Andes, the Rockies, the Alps,the Karakoram or the Himalayas - but they are heavilydissected, difficult-to-access uplands with the highestpeaks exceeding 3000m, highly seasonal rainfall andtemperature, snowfall in the winter months, andpatchy resource distributions. And in contrast to theirbigger cousins, none of which were permanentlyoccupied by humans until the climate beganimproving at the tail-end of the last glacial, ourpreliminary results show that the Maloti-Drakensbergwere exploited regularly, and sometimes intensively, asearly as 85,000 years ago. Finds dating to this timefrom sites in other parts of southern Africa suggestmodern humans were exhibiting unprecedenteddegrees of technological and cultural complexity,which provokes the question of whether thesebehavioural innovations are somehow linked to anewfound ability, or flexibility, to adapt to challengingecosystems such as mountains.

Our research in the Lesotho Highlands focuses on twolarge rockshelter sites, Melikane and Sehonghong. Thesites are situated along tributaries of the Orange(locally known as the Senqu) River at altitudes of1875 and 1800 metres above sea level respectively.Both were originally excavated in the early 1970s bythe pioneering Cambridge archaeologist PatrickCarter, who was unable to date substantial portions oftheir deep sedimentary sequences because they stretchbeyond the limits of the radiocarbon dating method.But by employing optically stimulated luminescence(OSL) and rigorous pre-treatment techniques forradiocarbon samples, we are developing robustchronologies for both sites. At the moment, the overallimpression from our cross-correlated radiocarbon andOSL results from Melikane is that human occupationof that rockshelter was strongly pulsed, withoccupations occurring at c. 85-80 ka, 60 ka, 50 ka,46-38 ka, 28 ka, 9 ka, 3 ka, and in the first millenniumAD, and long hiatuses between these pulses when thesite was largely or totally abandoned. Another majorthrust of recent research at the site is to understand theenvironmental conditions under which the site, and byextension the highlands, were occupied. Various proxy

10 PAST

indicators from Melikane indicate that humanoccupation there often occurred, grossly speaking,when environmental conditions were relatively arid.Perhaps the best example of this is the occupationalpulse between 46 and 38,000 years ago, when theclimate appears to have deteriorated, with rapidoscillations within generally very cold and aridconditions. Yet these layers comprise over one third ofthe sequence and contain some of the densestarchaeological material. Thus, despite the reducedtemperatures, lower precipitation and rapid climaticoscillations, early modern humans were clearlyintensely exploiting the highland landscape at thistime.

Returning to the one of two questions posed at theoutset of this report - why were they doing this? - onepossibility is that during arid phases humans weredrawn to highland Lesotho because of its stable supplyof fresh water, and the animal and plant resourcesdependent on it. Seen in this light, the mountains maynot have been quite so grim, provided that bufferingmechanisms and foraging strategies were in place tocounter problems like cold and marked seasonality.This leads on to our second question - how were theyable to make a living? Having constructed ourchronological and environmental frameworks, we arenow turning our efforts to answering this key questionby analysing the faunal and lithic assemblagesobtained from each site. We are also comparing thelatter with data generated from field surveys of themany undated open-air Middle Stone Age lithicscatters in the areas surrounding these shelters, withthe ultimate aim of understanding how the highlandlandscape was successfully exploited by these, some ofthe world’s earliest mountain dwellers.

Dr Brian A. Stewart, McDonald Institute forArchaeological Research, University of Cambridge

AA FFIIRRSSTT MMIILLLLEENNNNIIUUMM BBCCDDOOUUBBLLEE--RRIINNGGWWOORRKKEENNCCLLOOSSUURREE AATTMMEEIILLLLIIOONNYYDDDD

In July 2011, a team of archaeology students fromBangor University, Cardiff University and theUniversity of Vienna excavated part of a hilltopenclosure near Rhiw, on the southwestern end of theLlŷn Peninsula in northwest Wales. This was ourproject’s second excavation season at Meillionydd. Itwas funded by the Prehistoric Society and theUniversity of Wales Publications and CollaborativeResearch Committee. An HLF-funded communityproject ran alongside the excavations, incollaboration with Menter y Felin Uchaf and the LlŷnLandscape Partnership.

The project is designed to explore a ‘double-ringwork’ hilltop enclosure which dates to the firstmillennium BC. Leslie Alcock’s excavations at CastellOdo in the 1950s first highlighted the significance ofthese monuments. This enclosure has a Late BronzeAge-Earliest Iron Age timber predecessor, in the formof a palisade and post-built roundhouses,provisionally dated by the pottery assemblage to theninth and eighth centuries BC. The excavations atMeillionydd have produced preliminary radiocarbondates spanning the mid-eighth century to the end ofthe third century cal. BC, and while no early timberpalisade has been identified, separate timber andstone phases are apparent. A further ten double-ringwork sites exist on the peninsula, suggesting thepresence of a relatively distinct regional tradition.They are all under 1ha, enclosed by bivallate circular-shaped banks, and they contain a handful ofroundhouses.

Meillionydd was first investigated in 2007 by G.Smith and D. Hopewell from GwyneddArchaeological Trust, who undertook amagnetometer survey which defined a circularbivallate embanked enclosure 105m by 85m, withroundhouse platforms located on the inside of theinner bank and in the centre. A recent GPR survey,carried out by Ray Karl and Klaus Loecker in April2012 with a team from the Ludwig BoltzmannInstitute for Archaeological Prospection and VirtualArchaeology in Vienna, produced spectacular resultswhich have provided additional data on the structureand layout of the settlement.

In the excavation season in 2011, we reopened andextended the 2010 trial trenches on the southeasternside of the enclosure, near to the entrance-way, inorder to characterise different areas. Trench 1 wasoriginally positioned to examine a roundhouse, theinner bank and part of a quarry hollow; it was

PAST 11

extended in 2011 to the east and the west so that afull section through the outer and inner bank and theinner roundhouse could be explored. Trench 2originally examined the outer bank and this wasextended in 2011 to explore more of the bankstructure and the quarry hollow. Trench 3 examinedpart of the inner bank and roundhouses.

The excavations demonstrated that the outer bank isconstructed from simple dumps of earth and stone,faced roughly with stones, and associated with quarryscoops. A wide quarry hollow, c. 6m wide, is locatedin front of the outer bank. It truncated an earlierditch which is visible on the geophysics and

represents an earlier phase of boundary. The quarryhollow was also the focus for occupation activity in alater phase of the settlement. Rather unexpectedly,the extension to trench 2 revealed that the bank hadbeen partially cut away to incorporate a later stoneroundhouse (see Figure 1). This building, beingattached to the outer bank and next to the enclosureentranceway, may have played an important role onthe settlement.

The inner bank is very different. This was badlypreserved and only the foundation stones survived,consisting of a linear arrangement of boulders setwithin a shallow foundation trench and located

12 PAST

The hut platform in Trench 1 west extension, showing the pits before excavation and the curvilinear wall gully, with upright packing stonesin situ (the stretch of the gully in the foreground was excavated in 2010). The stone infill of the roundhouse is clearly visible in the section.

Trench 2: the stone roundhouse wall set into the outer bank next to the entranceway. The original inner facing stones of the outer bank are visible in the floor on the left.

PAST 13

immediately behind a roundhouse platform. Thestone infills within the quarry hollow demonstratethat the banks were deliberately slighted duringoccupation or abandonment.

The roundhouse platform in trench 1 west extensionwas set within a shallow terrace scoop, and the flooris characterised by a number of postholes and largepits. The curving wall slot of a plank builtroundhouse terminated within a large pit withpacking stones, which is probably the door-post of aneast-facing entrance porch. Part of a curvilinear stonewall was located next to the wall slot. This wasoriginally interpreted as the remains of a later stoneroundhouse which was set into the body of the bank,although it may well be an outer wall-face associatedwith the plank-built roundhouse. On abandonment,the roundhouse platform was deliberately infilledwith compact rubble layers which appear to partlyderive from the slighting of the adjacent bankstructure. This is a substantial packing, c. 0.5m thick,which is rich in heat-affected stone and it is certainlya deliberate infill.

In trench 3, a number of roundhouses were identified.The early occupation phases are represented by smallpits and gullies which are difficult to reconstruct. Apost-built timber roundhouse, c. 12m in diameter,was clearly identified and this contained a centralhearth pit. This showed evidence for being rebuilt atleast once and a large double posthole on thesoutheast indicates the location of an entrance porch.The central hearth is securely placed in this phase asit was truncated and sealed by a later stoneroundhouse wall. A date of 753-410 cal. BC (2 sigma;

GU26311) on charred twigs from the basal fill of thehearth confirms an earlier Iron Age date for thebuilding. Following its abandonment, a substantialcut for a terrace was created and within this there istentative evidence for two roundhouses. The nextphase was well defined, and involved the constructionof a stone roundhouse with a diameter of c. 9m andan entrance to the southwest. Where the stone-facedwall was positioned within the terrace cut, it stood toa height of 0.75m with a thickness of c. 1.5m. Thehouse floor was cut by pits which include a stone-lined storage pit and a series of working hollows. Oneof the final working hollows produced a date of 384-203 cal. BC (2 sigma; GU26312), which would placethis building in the Middle Iron Age. The buildinghad also been deliberately infilled with stone rubbleand the deposits produced three spindlewhorls, twoof which were unfinished. These deposits may wellindicate the presence of elaborate closing rites whichtook place on the settlement during its abandonment.

The third excavation season is taking place in July2012. We will reopen and extend trenches 1 and 2 tocreate a 10m by 20m trench. Here we will continue toinvestigate the inner and outer boundaries with theassociated roundhouses.

Kate Waddington and Raimund Karl, BangorUniversity

TTHHEE PPRREEHHIISSTTOORRIICCSSOOCCIIEETTYY AANNDD CCAAMMBBRRIIDDGGEEUUNNIIVVEERRSSIITTYY PPRREESSSS

Trench 3: the Middle Iron Age stone roundhouse wall, which sealed a hearth pit associated with an earlier

Iron Age post-built roundhouse.

As many of you may be aware, the Society has been innegotiation with a number of publishers regardingpublication of PPS. Following an exhaustivecomparison process we have decided to partner withCambridge University Press from January 2013.

It was the decision of Council that CUP bestappreciates our unique history and is very sympatheticto our requirements. Indeed, CUP already manages anumber of other related archaeological journal titles.PPS will be available in print and electronic formatson Cambridge Journals Online and back copies(including PPS East Anglia) will be digitised as part ofthe Cambridge Journals Digital Archive. These will allbe available to members for no extra fee and areexpected to become available, in batches, over thenext year.

We have decided that it is time to update our journalcover and will be moving to a more colourful designin keeping with CUP’s other titles. Be assured that thequality of the journal will remain unchanged and weretain editorial and copyright control. PAST will beslightly rebranded and will become a full colour, 16page, publication.

As far as membership goes, all will remain the same:our Membership Secretary, Tessa Machling, will stillbe the main contact for the Society and will continueto handle all individual membership payments.We are very excited about the new partnership andfeel it will offer many benefits to our members. Wewill be in touch with more information as we movethrough the transition process. If you have anyqueries, please do not hesitate to contact Tessa atprehistoric@ucl.ac.uk.

TTHHEE SSTTOONNEEHHEENNGGEEHHIIDDDDEENN LLAANNDDSSCCAAPPEESSPPRROOJJEECCTT

Despite intensive archaeological and antiquarianresearch over several hundred years, much of theStonehenge landscape remains unsurveyed andeffectively terra incognita. The Stonehenge HiddenLandscapes Project (SHLP) seeks to transform ourknowledge and understanding of the landscapethrough intensive surveys not only of the knownmonuments but also of the areas between them, usingstate-of-the-art geophysical and remote sensingtechniques. This work is being undertaken at anunprecedented scale, with a projected initial surveyarea of about 8.2 km2, covering most of the StonehengeWorld Heritage Site.

The scale and ambition of this project is possible due torecent advances in data acquisition, processing andvisualization, adopted and developed within theresearch programme of the Ludwig Boltzmann Institutefor Archaeological Prospection and VirtualArchaeology in Vienna and its international partners(LBI ArchPro: http://archpro.lbg.ac.at). The collectiveresources and expertise of the LBI ArchPro Instituteand its partners permit innovative approaches to theexploration, documentation and investigation of entirearchaeological landscapes. The SHLP is one of the LBIArchPro case studies, directed by the Visual and SpatialTechnology Centre (VISTA) at the Institute ofArchaeology and Antiquity, University of Birmingham,in co-operation with Archaeological Sciences atBradford and the University of St Andrews.

The results of this work are steadily being integratedinto a highly detailed archaeological map of the

14 PAST

Magnetomtry coverage of the central northern part of the SHLP survey area to August 2012. Since then, extensive further areas have been surveyed to the northwest and southeast.

‘invisible’ landscape, involving an interpretativesynthesis of the high-density datasets being producedby the project, along with all existing remote sensingand geophysical data from the study area, andcomparative evaluation of the results of previousarchaeological excavation data in relation togeophysical results. For the first time, it is possible tocreate total digital models of the Stonehenge landscapeat a true ‘landscape scale’, transcending the immediatesurrounds of individual monuments and tying themtogether within a seamless map of sub-surface andsurface archaeological features and structures. Thescale and comprehensive nature of this dataset willallow archaeologists to pose new questions about pastStonehenge landscapes that are otherwise impossibleusing information only from surface remains or limitedexcavations.

Total survey coverage so far is about 4.5 km2, whichalready makes SHLP one of the largest contiguousgeophysical survey programmes ever undertaken. Eventhis does not fully reflect either the scale or intensity ofthe survey work which - importantly - combinesmultiple survey technologies over the same areas. Thecoverage of such large areas, with hugely increasedsample densities recovered at constant tempos in thefield, are possible because of the high inherent samplingrates of the motorized multi-sensor and multi-channelsurvey systems being used, and the advancedpositioning and navigation solutions developed by theLBI ArchPro. The level of detail generated by thesetechnologies is unprecedented, and detailedinterpretation will inevitably take some time tocomplete. Nevertheless, points of particular interestfollowing a second season of work can be highlighted.

These include:

1. An apparent major gap exists in the centre of thenorthern ditch of the Greater Cursus, and severalsmaller entrances have been identified at points aroundthe circuit, suggesting complex forms of access andceremonial use;2. The mapped course of the Palisade/Gate ditch nowshows that it almost reaches the Cursus at its northernend, and that a wide gap exists between the northernditch section and the Palisade to the south of the A344;3. Numerous small monuments and other distinctivefeatures have been discovered, including: (i) A new ‘hengiform’ monument at the site ofAmesbury 50, to the northwest of Stonehenge,comprising two opposed arcs of large pits surroundinga pit oval; (ii) A large horseshoe-shaped monument south of theeast end of the Cursus;(iii) Several large pits in various locations across thesurveyed area, including two very large pits situatedtowards the western and eastern ends of the GreaterCursus; (iv) Several new annular, pennanular and segmentedring ditches, some of which appear to be truncatedround barrows while others are more likely to be smallhengiform enclosures. 4. GPR surveys of standing round barrows haverevealed several examples of probable multi-phaseconstruction sequences, as well as clear evidence for theforms of antiquarian investigations and other kinds ofexcavation.5. Field systems and linear and curvilinear ditches,previously unknown or only sketchily recorded, havebeen identified in several parts of the areas surveyed.These include a range of land boundaries, probablesettlement enclosures and other structures of likely laterprehistoric, Roman and medieval date.

PAST 15

Amesbury 50 ‘hengiform’ monument. Ground penetrating radar results have shown that the pits forming the inner oval

arrangement are each at least 1.0 m in diameter and 1.0 m deep.

Two of the SHLP motorised geophysical survey systems inoperation at Stonehenge: mult-sensor fluxgate-gradiometer array(upper); MALÅ Imaging ground penetrating radar array (lower).

Among the most intriguing new features identified sofar are the two large pits within the Cursus. These areboth about 5m in diameter and at least 1m deep, andappear to be positioned on alignments towardsmidsummer sunrise and sunset when viewed from theHeel Stone, located just outside the entrance toStonehenge. Such an alignment is unlikely to be acoincidence and seems to suggest a substantive linkbetween ritual activity within the Cursus and the areaof Stonehenge itself. The nature of the pits is uncertainat this time though the existence of timber or stonesettings associated with the pits cannot be discounted.The position of the western pit below a near horizon,and therefore not directly visible from Stonehenge, alsosuggests that visual aids such as fire or smoke wouldhave been required to identify this point for viewers atthe Heel Stone. These features, and their relationshipsto other sites and monuments in the wider landscape,including the possible northern entrance to the Cursus,may provide some clues to help us explain the spatialstructuring of the Cursus and Stonehenge monuments,a connection that has long been suspected but which islittle understood.

A fuller description of the research background,organisation and methodology of the StonehengeHidden Landscapes Project, and a more detailedsummary of the results so far, are available in the mostrecent issue of Archaeological Prospection (C. Gaffneyet al. 2012). Geophysical surveys will continue foranother two years, with coverage extending wellbeyond the current area and involving the use of novel

sensor techniques such as graviometry. The results ofthese surveys are already generating newinterpretations of the broader Stonehenge landscape,based on a radical new appreciation of very differentkinds - and very different spatial configurations - ofland use in comparison to those recognised previously.This new framework of knowledge and understandingwill inform future research, whilst also enhancing theheritage management plans of regional and nationalcurators. The Stonehenge area has long beeninvestigated archaeologically, but only now - as a resultof SHLP - can we say that we are creating a genuinelandscape archaeology of the Stonehenge landscape.

Vince Gaffney, Paul Garwood and Eamonn Baldwin(University of Birmingham), Wolfgang Neubauer(Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for ArchaeologicalProspection and Virtual Archaeology, Vienna), andChris Gaffney (University of Bradford)

The Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for ArchaeologicalProspection and Virtual Archaeology (archpro.lbg.ac.at)is an international research collaboration of the LudwigBoltzmann Gesellschaft (A), the University of Vienna(A), the Vienna University of Technology (A), ZAMG-the Austrian Central Institute for Meteorology andGeodynamics (A), the Province of Lower Austria (A),RGZM-the Roman-Germanic Central Museum, Mainz(D), RAÄ-Swedish National Heritage Board (S), IBMVISTA-University of Birmingham (GB), and NIKU-Norwegian Institute for Cultural Heritage Research (N).

16 PAST

The large pits within the Cursus, apparently positioned on alignments towards midsummer sunrise and sunset from the Heel Stone.