1. Stanton Drew Stone Circles

In 1994 and 1995 I did an archaeology course at Bristol University. I want somewhere to keep the results, so have decided here is as good as any place, plus someone just may have an interest in it.

My first assignment was in February 1994

"Describe the methods that you would use to locate and investigate a prehistoric settlement site"

In many ways locating a prehistoric site is no different to locating any other archaeological site. The first task is to gather as much data as possible to enable the investigator to make guesstimates about the people who may have used the site in prehistory. This will enable informed deductions to be made as to what is being looked for and where it might me found. For example the location and type of structures comprising a late bronze age period settlement will be very different from an early neolithic homestead, and both will bear little resemblance to the differing needs for winter quarters of a hunter gatherer group.

Once a tentative site has been located it is important to be aware of any earlier work done in the general area, or on the site itself, by archaeologists, by people working in related disciplines, or even those digging up a new pipeline or other building type work, so as to establish, what ever possible about the nature of local geology and topography etc. It will then be necessary to review the various techniques available to assist in identifying a more specific site location, bearing in mind the limitations that each method may have in relationship to the actual landscape involved. Locative non/low-invasive techniques include:-

Field-walking - over ploughed fields that have been weathered by frost and rain to 'clean' flint, pottery shards and other objects that have been turned up by the plough. This work is labour intensive and can be carried out as a random, extensive or intensive collection (or plotting) of objects found on the surface. The limitation of this method is that it is not particularly useful in dairy country where the archaeologist is dependent on the vagaries of local farmers/government/utilities/business (needing to dig/deliver/quarry) or the even more erratic assistance of untrained moles. Failing such assistance test holes can be bored in the soil to obtain samples of materials (flint, pottery shards, hearth remains, cereal grain, pollen, composition of the soil etc).

Air photography - can be very helpful in locating sites through crop marks, which are the result of ditches and pits holding back the ripening of crops (resulting in dark marking) and of masonry causing weathering (lighter markings) in comparison with 'normal' crop growth. Soil marks can also be seen on fields that have been recently ploughed and may be quite spectacular. The best results are gained on light, well drained soils, (chalk, limestone and gravel). When photographs are taken at particular times of the day a great deal of information can be obtained from the shadows thrown by the angle of the plane and the sunlight, highlighting raised ground such as earthworks. Drawbacks include the expense of commissioning (there are some good, less expensive air photo libraries available), clay soils rarely produce crop or soil marks and dairy farming areas are limited to the location of sites where features could throw a shadow, or during rare periods of extreme drought, when the outline of buildings etc., may show up as the grass dies. It is also important to know the history of the site as it is possible for an interesting 'prehistoric site' to metamorphose into the pattern produced by a fair ground or some other recent activity!

Magnetometry - plots variations in the magnetism caused by disturbances in the soil, whether this disturbance is made by people or nature. This technique is useful to a depth of a half to 1 metre, depending on content (e.g. highly magnetic material such as burnt coals can be plotted to a much deeper level than less magnetic content) and can produce excellent dot density mapping. The limitations of this method are that the best results are achieved under similar conditions as for air photography, it cannot be used where igneous rock is present (most of the South West) and is useless in the presence of corrugated iron, electricity pylons, transmitter masts or within five metres of a wire fence. Equipment operators footwear must have rubber soles, they are unwise to carry keys, wear clothing with zips or metal jewellery. It is also quite expensive costing in the region of £250-500 per hectare (+VAT).

Resistivity (Ground) Penetrating Radar - tests the level of resistance to an electrical current passed between two probes. Through this method it is possible to record buildings, ditches and metalled surfaces. The main limitation of this technique is the cost at £6-700 per hectare (+VAT). A combination of magnetometry and resistivity can produce extremely stunning results (at an equally stunning price). Additionally ground penetrating radar, capable of penetrating concrete, may be used in built up areas, although this is in its infancy and even more expensive.

Once a site has been located it will be necessary to decide which, if any, further methods of investigation will be adopted. Can sufficient information be gained by utilising non-invasive techniques (magnetometry/resistivity.ground penetrating radar)? Minimally invasively (field walking/augering)? By sample excavation of portions of the proposed site, with the aim of obtaining maximum information, whilst keeping destruction to a minimum? Or by a full scale excavation? Whichever method is chosen may well be dependent on the future safety of the site. If the site can be protected the investigation can afford to be minimalist, however, if the evidence will be destroyed (e.g. by building the foundations for a new Hypermarket) a full rescue excavation should be carried out to preserve the evidence by record. In between it is likely that a combination of methods will be used, in order to locate optimum areas for sample excavations. At all stages it is vital to apply meticulous systems of record keeping that will enable future investigators to pin point exactly what was found and where, and to ensure that full interdisciplinary expertise are called on to maximise the information gained from the site.

THE MISSING SETTLEMENT OF STANTON DREW

In practice what actually happens when an attempt is made to locate, and/or investigate a site, is that an individual (or team of people) come up with a hypothesis which will be a hybrid of expertise and knowledge, add a spoonful of wishful thinking/romance, a dash of common sense and a pinch of luck stirred together. If the search is going to be for a defined structure in an unspecified locality (e.g. a hill fort in the south west) the variables will be different from a quest to locate an undefined structure at a specific locale (e.g. the dwelling places of the builders/users of the stone circles at Stanton Drew). I have chosen to apply the various archaeological investigative techniques to the latter.

Stanton Drew is situated 6 miles to the south of Bristol in the Chew Valley. During the Neolithic[1] people built a complex of three stone circles (the Great Circle with a diameter of 113 metres being the second largest in Britain, only exceeded by Avebury[2]), a Cove and a Quoit (possibly two). The only other archaeological evidence for the period (apart from a scatter of flint implements and flakes) is a storage/rubbish pit containing grooved ware pottery, a flint scraper and some flakes at Ben Bridge (found by P A Rahtz when he stripped 1,200 acres of the Chew Valley prior to flooding in the 1950's)[3]. He also found a much earlier neolithic hut and associated pit, which "seemed likely to have been only a temporary shelter"[4]. It is not known where the builders/users of the circles lived, what economic activity they participated in or where they buried their dead. Even during the middle neolithic, when the population is thought to have been less sparse, the evidence is not sufficient to permit a determination of "the relative contribution (of) crop cultivation and animal husbandry"[5]. Unless one goes overboard on romantic mysticism (by accepting that an ancestor/ress of Merlin moved and raised the stones by magic flute music, assisted by a medieval knight's arm, or the work of satan[6]), it must be assumed that the neolithic builders lived, loved, ate, slept, and laughed within a reasonable proximity of the stones.

As no serious archaeological work has been carried out it is not known when the complex was built or how many phases there may have been[7]. Its present composition appears to suggest an internal system of alignments, which will have been of great importance to the users of the monument. A major alignment connects the Cove, Great Circle and the North East Circle (both of the latter have avenues, that lead down to (and form an alignment with) the River Chew, the second alignment is between the South West Circle and the Hauteville Quiot[8]. Stukely visited the stones in 1723 and his drawings show a "second Quoit north of the road west of the Tollhouse"[7], which suggests that there is a missing feature which would form a third set of alignments. It is interesting that that the only finds in the locality (of flint implement and flake scatters) are found within the monument itself or in the fields to the west of the Cove (in the garden of the Druids Arms public house), which may (or may not) be significant as to the meaning of the alignments to the builders. It should be noted that higher population densities are known to have occurred regionally to the North, East and South.

The people who built and used the circles decided on where to site the monument, based on a relationship that they perceived to exist between the landscape, their religious beliefs and socio/economic needs. Each belief, or need, will have had a variable attached that we must forever remain in ignorance of. Meaningful beliefs and rituals of utmost significance to the peoples of prehistory will forever remain foreign to us. While we may not come close to understanding why these people built a monument on a terrace, overlooking the water meadows that line the banks of the River Chew, we can make rather more deductions about where they may have lived. They will need to have lived above the flood plain[9] of the water meadows. That is on, or above, the level of the monument itself. Near to water, foraging (for food and fuel), grazing and hunting. The type of structures they lived in would depend on who the people were.

The lack of evidence of economic activity or settlement in the valley during the late neolithic, suggests the possibility that the majority of worshippers did not live locally all the year round. The regional evidence suggests that the circles were built on a border separating pottery styles[10]. There is suggestive evidence in the distribution pattern of stone axes which also raises the possibility of a boundary existing near the circles[11]. Longer distance connections may also have been maintained at the site which was close to one end of the Jurassic Way (connecting Rudston in Yorkshire with Bath). Thus one factor in the selection of the site as a monument may have been it's relationship to other, more populous, regions (to the north, east and south) providing a ritual site, communication and trade centre for a bringing together of tribal gatherings in a neutral zone. If the above holds any truth it would suggest the possibility of a seasonal encampment of light structures (tepees/benders) erected annually over a great length of time. Such structures would leave little material evidence. However, there is evidence of late neolithic settlement sites on the lowlands of southern Britain, represented only by hearths, flint/pottery debris and pits, which are not found in association with substantial structures. Excavations at one of these sites (Honington, Suffolk) revealed "a series of oval dark patches which the excavators suggested were the floors of tents or light huts"[12]. It was noted that the majority of flint and pottery sherds were found in the discoloured areas.

Taking the above data into consideration I would look for an encampment site (evidence of refuse pits, hearths and concentration of flint implements/pottery sherds) west of the Druids Arms, at (or above) the 48 metre elevation of the monument terrace[13]. As the fields identified are all under grass I would have to examine the spoil of molehills[14], marking any finds for later plotting onto an ordinance survey grid. If a pattern of concentration of materials should emerge, I would combine this with some trial auger drills, the contents of which could also provide samples of pollen etc for analysis. If this were satisfactory I would consider a resistivity or magnetometry survey over a fairly wide area and see if a pattern should emerge of pits that might signify where a sample excavation trench should be laid. If a miracle should occur and the auger drills produced evidence of fire (below the red alluvium level which has proved to be of post Roman date during the Chew Valley excavations[9]), then it would indicate extending the sample excavation to diameter of about twelve feet (the average size of the modern tepees at the Talley Valley in Wales). Taking two 90% segments and carefully excavating the site to see if any evidence of discolouration should occur to confirm (or not) the base of a tepee (or similar structure).

If I did locate an encampment, I would immediately make copies of this assignment and send it to funding bodies to raise the necessary finance to carry out a long overdue excavation of the Stanton Drew Monument and its environments.

February 1994.

N O T E S:

1. Most Authorities agree a late neolithic dating from complimentary evidence

2. The Stonehenge People P145/1987

3. Excavations at Chew Valley Lake P195/1977

4. Excavations at Chew Valley Lake P8/1977

5. The Archaeology of Avon P16-17/1990

6. All possibilities suggested by myth or New Age Theory

7. The Stanton Drew Stone Circles 1985

8. The Archaeology of Avon (illustration 4) 1990

9. Excavations of Chew Valley Lake P6/1977

10. Prehistoric Britain P74&P126/1987

11. The Social Foundation of Prehistoric Britain P66/1987

12. Introduction to British Prehistory P145/1981

13. Ordnance Survey Map 1962 14. Utilising, of course, the excavation skills of my unique team of trained moles.

ILLUSTRATIONS

1. Photograph of fieldwalker receiving a flint implement from a trained mole assistant at Stanton Drew (frontispiece)

2. Aerial view of Stanton Drew - Archaeology of Avon P20

3. Map of the Chew Valley - Excavations at Chew Valley Lake

4. Existing alignments at Stanton Drew - Archaeology of Avon/P21

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

ASTON & ILES The Archaeology of Avon Avon CC 1990

BARKER, Phillip Techniques of Archaeological Excavations Batsford 1982

BRADLEY, Richard The Social Foundations of Prehistoric Britain Longman 1987

CASTLEDON, Rodney The Stonehenge People Routledge & Kegan Paul 1987

CLARK, Anthony Seeing Beneath the Soil Batsford 1990

DARVILL, Timothy Prehistoric Britain Batsford 1987

GRINSELL, Leslie Stanton Drew Stone Circle Ministry of Works 1956 - Prehistoric Bristol BHA 1969 - Stanton Drew: From Folk Tradition to the New Archaeology Avon Past Spring 1983 - The Stanton Drew Circles Bristol & Avon Archaeological Group 1985

MEGAW & SIMPSON Introduction to British Prehistory Leicester University Press 1981

RHATZ & GREENFIELD Excavations at Chew Valley Lake HM Stationery Office 1977

WILSON, D R Air Photo Interpretation Batsford 1982

Tutor Comments:

This is very well presented, illustrated and referenced and shows a good grasp of appropriate methods. However, their application is perhaps not as systematic as it could be and in some ways the question asked is not fully answered except in the last section which is unfortunately rather hurried. It would be a good idea in future to avoid introducing too many of your own personal observations/feelings (a shame really) and concentrate on the question. Every county has an archaeologist who also [u[has to maintain a 'Sites and Monuments Record' (SMR) which contains details of sites, find spots etc. Mark Corney (Time Team)

Obviously a great deal has occurred over the intervening years, and not only the cost of magnetometry/Resistivity (I have no idea whether it is currently more or less expensive, but more is known about the Site, which makes it on a par with Stonehenge and Avebury for complexity. Still no excavations though some plans do appear to be on the drawing board. An update from Wikipedia is given below, plus a couple of www sites for those who wish to pursue it further. That is if anyone does! Still it doesn't matter if my typing is for no one but myself. Once I have them all typed up (or the majority) I will get a site to keep them on for perpetuity or something.

"Geophysical survey Geophysical work by English Heritage in 1997 revealed a surrounding ditch and nine concentric rings of postholes within the stone circle. More than 400 pits, 1 m across and at 2.5 m intervals, stood in rings at the site. The ditch is 135 m in diameter and about 7 m wide. A 40 m wide entrance was visible on the north east side. No surrounding bank has been identified although the site awaits excavation. The geophysical work transformed the traditional view of Stanton Drew as being a surface monument and the Great Circle is now seen as being one of the largest and most impressive Neolithic monuments to have been built. Analogous with the circles of postholes at sites at Woodhenge, Durrington Walls and The Sanctuary, it is thought that the pits would have held posts which would have either been freestanding or lintelled as they could not have supported a roof at that size. Nearby and to the north east is a smaller ring of 8 stones in the centre of which the geophysical work identified four further pits. A third ring of 12 stones, measuring 43 m wide, stands to the south west."

http://www.eng-h.gov.uk/archaeometry/StantonDrew/henge_monuments_somerset_stanton_drew_henge.html

Please remember, the assignment was written a long time ago!