A year at Stonehenge.

A year at Stonehenge. You didn't need to be an archaeologist in 2008 to know thatthings were happening at Stonehenge. For years controversial plans toimprove the Stonehenge environs (costed at 600m [pounds sterling]) haddominated media and much academic debate, but in November 2007 theBritish government announced that it couldn't afford them (Pitts2008a). The plans were dropped (much cheaper changes are now beingimplemented to make Stonehenge look nice for the 2012 Olympics: EnglishHeritage English Heritage is a non-departmental public body of the United Kingdom government (Department for Culture, Media and Sport) with a broad remit of managing the historic environment of England. It was set up under the terms of the National Heritage Act 1983. 2008). There are new broadcasts and press stories featuring thestones every year, but 2008 was different. As road protests diminished,real archaeologists took the stage. Real archaeology happened, too. With two television films, coverstories in National Geographic and The Smithsonian magazines, web blogsand widespread media reports, it was difficult to escape the fact thatStonehenge and its surrounding World Heritage site were being subjectedto new excavations: but for many--even at times for those actuallyengaged in some of the work--exactly what was being done, and why, wereharder to discern. What happened? Was the fieldwork of high quality andresearch-integrated, or pandering to the media? Should there be more, orless excavation at such an iconic ancient site? 2008 at Stonehenge wasalso about how archaeology and the media interact, and other issues ofpublic engagement and curatorial management. How are we doing? Timewatch 1 Archaeologists dug, but others led. The two major players in thisstory were the BBC BBCin full British Broadcasting Corp.Publicly financed broadcasting system in Britain. A private company at its founding in 1922, it was replaced by a public corporation under royal charter in 1927. , with their BBC2/Open University history documentaryseries Timewatch, and the National Geographic Society. The firstproject, funded by the BBC with Smithsonian Networks Smithsonian Networks (SNI/SI) is a joint venture between Showtime Networks and the Smithsonian Institution. The service consists of Smithsonian Channel HD, Smithsonian On Demand, and smithsoniannetworks.com. , was a smallexcavation near the centre of the monument. Here Timothy Darvill(professor of archaeology at Bournemouth University Bournemouth University is a university in and around the large south coast town of Bournemouth, UK (although its main campus is actually situated in neighbouring Poole). It has several well respected departments including The School of Health and Social Care, The School of , responsible for theStonehenge World Heritage site research framework: Darvill et al. 2005)and Geoffrey Wainwright Geoffrey Wainwright is a British Methodist theologian.Born in Yorkshire, England, in 1939, Geoffrey Wainwright is an ordained minister of the British Methodist Church. He received his university education in Cambridge, Geneva, and Rome, and holds the Dr. Th��ol. (president of the Society of Antiquaries ofLondon The Society of Antiquaries of London (SAL) is a learned society, based in the United Kingdom, concerned with "the encouragement, advancement and furtherance of the study and knowledge of the antiquities and history of this and other countries". , and pioneer excavator ex��ca��va��torn.An instrument, such as a sharp spoon or curette, used in scraping out pathological tissue.excavator (eks´k at nearby Durrington Walls Durrington Walls is a prehistoric henge enclosure monument situated close to Woodhenge on Salisbury Plain. It is a Class II henge and measures around 500m in diameter. Along with the other giant examples at Avebury, Marden and Mount Pleasant in Dorset it is one of the 'super-henge' in the 1960s:Wainwright & Longworth 1971) directed the excavation of a 3.5m x2.5m trench (Figure 1). It was sited between the sarsen Sar´senn. 1. One of the large sandstone blocks scattered over the English chalk downs; - called also sarsen stone ltname>, and Druid stone ltname>. circle and thering of bluestones it encloses, where an earlier bluestone bluestone,common name for the blue, crystalline heptahydrate of cupric sulfate called chalcanthite, a minor ore of copper. It also refers to a fine-grained, light to dark colored blue-gray sandstone. structureonce stood in what are known as the Q and R holes. (There are two broadclasses of megalith megalithHuge, often undressed stone used in various types of Neolithic and Early Bronze Age monuments. The most ancient form of megalithic construction is probably the dolmen, a type of burial chamber consisting of several upright supports and a flat roofing slab. at Stonehenge: the larger stones carved from sarsen,the hard sandstone whose source almost certainly lay between Stonehengeand the Marlborough Downs 30km to the north; and the smaller bluestones,a variety of rocks whose sources have mostly been pinpointed tolocations 250km away in south-west Wales.) Darvill and Wainwright sought to date the first arrival ofbluestones at Stonehenge, an event then thought from circumstantialevidence circumstantial evidenceIn law, evidence that is drawn not from direct observation of a fact at issue but from events or circumstances that surround it. If a witness arrives at a crime scene seconds after hearing a gunshot to find someone standing over a corpse and holding a to have occurred around 2600 BC. They argued that these stones,transported from Wales, were crucial to understanding Stonehenge,dismissing the theory that the bluestones had reached the area inglaciers long before (Thorpe et al. 1991). [FIGURE 1 OMITTED] In 2001 they had begun a field survey of suspected quarry areas onCam Meini in the Presell pre��sell?tr.v. pre��sold , pre��sell��ing, pre��sells1. To sell (a house, for example) in advance of construction.2. To promote (a product not yet on the market) by means of advertising.3. Hills (Darvill & Wainwright 2008). Theyconsistently refer to the 'spotted dolerite' from Meini as thesole Stonehenge bluestone, although a detailed mineralogical survey hadproposed 10 localised sources for bluestones, not all of them dolerite dol��er��ite?n. Chiefly BritishA dark, fine-grained igneous rock; diabase.[French dol��rite, from Greek doleros, deceitful (from its easily being mistaken for diorite) ,and recognised that two more lay beyond the Preselis (Thorpe et al.1991). Other shorthand devices Darvill and Wainwright employ includereferring to the Q and R holes as footings for 'the doublebluestone circle', when indications are that this arrangement,while undetermined in detail, was not of that form (contrast Cleal etal. 1995:169-83 and Darvill 2006:119-24). Claims that 'discarded pillar-stones' on the slopes ofCarn Meini have anything to do with Stonehenge (or are even prehistoric)have yet to be substantiated, but as with much else, we await fullpublication of the evidence. This applies particularly to claims thatprehistoric carvings embellish springs on Carn Meini, and that humanremains buried around Stonehenge show an unusual degree of injury ordisease--both used to support a case that the bluestones were taken toStonehenge because of their believed healing properties. This is an ideaderived from a medieval story; an additional theory that the largerstones represented paired gods was not aired in 2008 (Darvill 2006:141-6). The excavation had received the blessing of Druids before it beganand was well covered by the press, a Timewatch camera crew, aSmithsonian daily blogger and a live camera feed to a tent erected inthe public car park (Figure 2). "The quest is now on', wroteSimon Mackie in his Timewatch blog two days before the end of the dig,'to find organic material from the stone holes that can be used todate when the bluestones were set' (BBC 2008). There was soon talkof suitable samples having been found, but what those were we would haveto wait until September Until September is a 1984 romantic drama set in France. It stars Karen Allen as an American tourist in Paris who falls in love with a married Frenchman (Thierry Lhermitte). External links to find out. Meanwhile a different sponsor waspreparing its own offensive. [FIGURE 2 OMITTED] National Geographic The other excavation was quite different (Figure 3). Perhaps thelargest university-based archaeological field programme ever seen inBritain, the Stonehenge Riverside Project The Stonehenge Riverside Project is a major archaeological research study interested in the development of the Stonehenge landscape in Neolithic and Bronze Age Britain. In particular, the project is interested in the relationship between the Stones and surrounding monuments and features (SRP SRP - A data link layer protocol. ) began in 2003 andculminated in 2008 with a typically ambitious season (future work willinvolve surface survey and possibly minor excavation only). Itsdirectors, Mike Parker Michael Parker (b. October 31, 1949) is a politician from the state of Mississippi.Parker was born in Laurel, Mississippi and he graduated from William Carey College with a BA in English in 1970. Pearson (the driven, confident leader fromSheffield University, excited by ideas more than artefacts and welcomingboth other researchers into the team and the visiting public to thesites), Joshua Pollard (Bristol University), Colin Richards and JulianThomas (Manchester University), Christopher Tilley Christopher Y. Tilley is a British archaeologist and a well-known proponent of post-processual archaeology.Tilley's major works on theoretical archaeology were written with his colleague Michael Shanks, and include ReConstructing Archaeology and (UCL UCL University College LondonUCL Universit�� Catholique de LouvainUCL UEFA Champions LeagueUCL Upper Confidence LimitUCL University of Central LancashireUCL Upper Control LimitUCL Unfair Competition LawUCL Ulnar Collateral Ligament ) and Kate Welham(Bournemouth University), each have their own interests. The differentuniversities and sponsors also spin their own publicity. The sheer scaleof the excavations continues to unleash a wealth of new data toarchaeologists accustomed to squeezing scraps from small, oftenpoorly-recorded projects that took place in the last century- orearlier. [FIGURE 3 OMITTED] The project's size had its advantages. Encouraged to visit,other archaeologists could be assured of plenty to see. Many came,contributing to intellectual debate and on-site interpretation asexcavation progressed and, sometimes, questioning what they saw intrenches worked by students gaining field experience. All this wascuratorially overseen by English Heritage, but face to face peer reviewin the field is also a powerful form of quality control. Excavators whohave sought to understand the work of their predecessors are aware ofthe extent to which future archaeologists will pore over their archive.Archaeologists will be unforgiving of flaws in the final publications. The National Geographic Society (NG) was not the SRP's largestsponsor (the UK Arts and Humanities Research Council The Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) is a British Research Council that provides government funding for grants to undertake research in the arts and humanities, mainly to universities in the United Kingdom. can lay claim tothat), but it was the only one demanding exclusive rights. This threwinteresting light on the ways of the media. Excavation trenches werescattered over the northern half of the World Heritage site, oftenvisually isolated from each other. Determined journalists and bloggerscould find themselves almost accidentally publishing new discoveries farin advance of media events launched by one of the world's mosthighly-resourced and experienced operators. This information, of course, was not always sound, and oftenapparently collected from people who knew no more than the journalists(a particularly prolific blogger is Dennis Price, athttp://www.eternalidol.com). Yet notwithstanding that much data werealready circulating, it was only when NG launched its embargoed pressreleases that national and international media took interest. Then for abrief, intense period through a sort of journalistic peer reviewprocess, reports on the SRP made headlines around the world, before therelatively reliable data slipped from view and back into the waitingarms of bloggers. On 29 May NG put out a story referring for the first time to theradiocarbon dates from cremated human bone described elsewhere in thisissue (Parker Pearson et al. 2009). It argued that these datesdemonstrated that Stonehenge was for long a 'domain of thedead', Parker Pearson's clear riposte ri��poste?n.1. Sports A quick thrust given after parrying an opponent's lunge in fencing.2. A retaliatory action, maneuver, or retort.intr.v. to the rival theory ofDarvill and Wainwright that the stones were a place of healing, a'prehistoric Lourdes'. The work of both teams featured in theJune National Geographic magazine (Alexander 2008), and an'exclusive look at the new discoveries' of the SRP wouldappear in a 'global premiere' on the National GeographicChannel on 1 June. The NG film Stonehenge Decoded focused on sarsen stones, withambitious dramatisation n. 1. same as dramatization.Noun 1. dramatisation - conversion into dramatic form; "the play was a dramatization of a short story"dramatization of the monument's construction: this seconddifference from Darvill and Wainwright's approach was emphasised bythe apparent absence of bluestones at Stonehenge altogether. DurringtonWalls, 'a city for the living, the largest settlement in northernEurope from this period', was linked to Stonehenge by a river andtwo linear earthworks or avenues. Stonehenge itself was 'a monumentnot to ancient gods, but to the dead'--i.e. the ancestors (ParkerPearson & Ramilisonina 1998). Back to Stonehenge The previous years' excavations, on which the NG film drewheavily, had been mostly at Durrington Walls and nearby. In 2008 the SRPmoved closer to the stones, with one small trench actually within themonument, over an Aubrey Hole. Some 50 cremation cremation,disposal of a corpse by fire. It is an ancient and widespread practice, second only to burial. It has been found among the chiefdoms of the Pacific Northwest, among Northern Athapascan bands in Alaska, and among Canadian cultural groups. burials are known tohave been found at Stonehenge, but only a few were accessible: most hadbeen reburied in 1935 in Aubrey Hole 7, which had originally beenexcavated in 1920 (Pitts 2001: xiii, 103). The aim was to recover thesebones for study and dating; the work was directed by Parker Pearson,Julian Richards and the author (Figure 4). Within the SRP this was a minor excavation, if with substantialpost-excavation challenges. But its location and the known quantities ofhuman remains raised new problems. On the one hand it required a licencefrom the Ministry of Justice, under the Burial Act 1857. This grantedpermission to remove 'the remains of persons unknown', andobliges the team to rebury Re`bur´yv. t. 1. To bury again.Verb 1. rebury - bury again; "After the king's body had been exhumed and tested to traces of poison, it was reburied in the same spot" them within two years, 'in a burialground in which interments may legally take place'--which of courseexcludes Stonehenge. This situation arose from an interpretation of thelaw that the Ministry of Justice is revisiting. The excavation was closely watched by Druids and other Pagans, someof whom asked that the remains be reburied, and some that the excavationshould be stopped (Figure 5). English Heritage had allowed some Pagansto hold a ceremony at the Aubrey Hole, but the procession was disruptedby other Pagans before it could leave the car park. A noisy standoffensued, and as the archaeologists tried to explain the excavationspurpose, one Pagan was heard to say, "Blood will flow'. Later,one of the archaeologists was asked if they would "dig up theirgranny', and in a prominent feature in the regional press (writtenby Arthur Pendragon, 'senior Druid DruidMember of a learned class of priests, teachers, and judges among the ancient Celtic peoples. The Druids instructed young men, oversaw sacrifices, judged quarrels, and decreed penalties; they were exempt from warfare and paid no tribute. and prospective independentParliamentary candidate for Salisbury'), they were called'grave robbers'. [FIGURE 4 OMITTED] The excavation was completed without incident, maintaining a lowpublic profile once the work was underway (though, naturally, filmed fortwo different future TV productions), and recovered a large quantity ofhuman remains in excellent condition. The edges of an Aubrey Hole wereexamined for the first time in nearly 60 years. The circle of 56 pits isa famous but enigmatic part of Stonehenge, whose interpretation hasmoved from a ring of stones, through a ring of posts, to empty pits andback to posts (Cleal et al. 1995: 94-107). There was now an opportunityto test the theory that the original interpretation was correct. Given the pit had already been cleaned out twice before, it couldbe accepted that Aubrey Hole 7 had once held a standing stone; in a pitof this size, it could only have been a bluestone. Building on this andrecords from the 1920s excavations, one could then envisage a ring of 56bluestones standing around 3000 BC. By this argument, megaliths andcremation burial would have co-existed throughout the major prehistoricphases at Stonehenge (Parker Pearson et al. 2009). Timewatch 2 Darvill and Wainwright were not expected to support the case for anearly bluestone circle, and on 21 September they announced at aTimewatch press event that they had dated the arrival of bluestones atStonehenge (some 700 years later) to 2300 BC. This date, 'said to be the most accurate yet', revisesthe previously accepted 2600 BC. It is incompatible both with otherradiocarbon dates, and with stratigraphy stratigraphy,branch of geology specifically concerned with the arrangement of layered rocks (see stratification). Stratigraphy is based on the law of superposition, which states that in a normal sequence of rock layers the youngest is on top and the oldest on the from earlier excavations (Clealet al. 1995; Parker Pearson et al. 2007), but these are issues still tobe addressed. "We told the world we were going to date Stonehenge;Darvill told BBC News. 'That was a risk, but I was alwaysconfident: Timewatch: Stonehenge was broadcast on 27 September. Like theNG film, it was visually stunning, but its narrative raised newquestions. By moving bluestones forward to 2300 BC, and thus forcing thestratigraphically later sarsens to an even more recent time, Darvill andWainwright could argue that cremation burial had ceased when the firststones were erected at Stonehenge; and that the bluestones werecontemporary with the Amesbury Archer,the richly-endowed burial of an individual (one of the very few ofany date near Stonehenge available for study) who had suffered severeinjuries--albeit long before he died. Stonehenge was about healing, notdeath. [FIGURE 5 OMITTED] On 9 October, Darvill and Wainwright made a presentation to theSociety of Antiquaries of London. The 2300 BC radiocarbon date seemed tohave been derived from one of a large group of samples that risked beingeither residual or intrusive. This is a common problem, given the natureof the samples, which were small particles of burnt material, and thepotentially confusing effects to archaeologists of bioturbation--themovement of small items across stratigraphic stra��tig��ra��phy?n.The study of rock strata, especially the distribution, deposition, and age of sedimentary rocks.strat units through the action ofanimals such as earthworms--a phenomenon raised by Richard Atkinson(1957), drawing on research at Stonehenge itself by none other thanCharles Darwin. These doubts surfaced on BBC Radio 4's MaterialWorld (16 October) in which both the date and the healing hypothesiswere questioned. 'There is so much excitement aboutStonehenge', presenter Quentin Cooper remarked, astutely asking hisarchaeological participants 'Do you have difficulty stopping peoplegoing too far with any piece of work you've done?' Public interest It has been an entertaining year at Stonehenge. Other scientistsmight envy the spectacle of prominent academics' theories beingdebated in public, in this case the meaning of Stonehenge--there hasbeen little like it since the monument was bitterly fought over by InigoJones, Walter Charleton, John Webb and Robert Gay in the seventeenthcentury. But has it been edifying? Perhaps Darvill and Wainwright were naive in the extent to whichthey thought they could determine an archaeological narrative presentedby a powerful broadcaster; at the October meeting they seemed to bedenying some of the things they had earlier said to the press. But thereality is that explanatory theories about Stonehenge Stonehenge has been subjected to many theories about its origin, ranging from the academic worlds of archaeology to explanations from mythology and the paranormal. Early interpretationsMany early historians were influenced by supernatural folktales in their explanations. (ParkerPearson's have also been criticised: Whitley 2002) or theprehistoric past in general can never be proven. Amongst ourselves weunderstand that, or are complicit com��plic��it?adj.Associated with or participating in a questionable act or a crime; having complicity: newspapers complicit with the propaganda arm of a dictatorship. in the suspension of criticism, butaudience-hungry broadcasters want simple, strong stories, and hardenedjournalists and cynical bloggers demand that impossible proof. We can, though, see a strength in the huge public interest, thewillingness of senior archaeologists to engage with it, and theprominent roles given to archaeological data and excavation inaddressing Stonehenge's meaning. It was not so long ago thatRichard Atkinson derided speculation about Stonehenge as'futile' (Fowles & Brukoff 1980: 9), an attitude thatfailed to discourage the kind of conjecture that ignores archaeologyaltogether. There could be no simpler gauge of the interest intheory-driven excavation than the media coverage of Stonehenge in 2008,dramatically illustrated by Google Trends (Pitts 2008b). Readers canexplore this themselves by entering 'Stonehenge' (alone, orwith other terms) at www.google.com/trends, which creates historicgraphs of search intensities. Stonehenge has an annual peak at themidsummer solstice, now an event attracting tens of thousands ofvisitors overnight. In 2008 this was outdone out��do?tr.v. out��did , out��done , out��do��ing, out��doesTo do more or better than in performance or action. See Synonyms at excel. by three additional peaks,which Google labelled with press notices titled 'Archaeologistsstart Stonehenge dig, Kansas City Star, Mar 31', 'Study:Stonehenge was a burial site, San Francisco Chronicle The San Francisco Chronicle was founded in 1865 as The Daily Dramatic Chronicle by teenage brothers Charles de Young and Michael H. de Young.[2] The paper grew along with San Francisco to become the largest circulation newspaper on the West Coast of the , May 29' and'UK experts say Stonehenge was place of healing, OregonLive.com Sep22'. The dates, of course, coincide with the press events notedabove. Consultation Within the profession, reactions to what has been happening atStonehenge are mixed. Amongst British prehistorians, and beyond thoseworking with Darvill and Wainwright, I have found it hard to identifyanyone prepared to offer strong support to the healing stones idea ortheir radiocarbon chronology. The scale and apparent speed at which theSRP has been moving have caused some concern, perhaps more amongst thosewhose particular knowledge lies elsewhere (a substantial proportion ofthat small circle constituting British Neolithic or Bronze Agespecialists must in some way be involved with the project, and regularlyaware of progress). On the other hand, amongst the SRP itself there is asense that conservation agencies consider excavation something to becurtailed rather than encouraged. We expect field projects at high profile archaeological sites to bewell considered, and the importance of consultation is recognised,especially when there is no development or other threat. A good exampleof this occurred at Sutton Hoo, where Antiquity's editor directedmajor fieldwork at the famous Anglo-Saxon royal burial ground The Royal Burial Ground is a cemetery used by the British Royal Family. It surrounds the Royal Mausoleum on the Frogmore estate in the Home Park at Windsor in the English county of Berkshire. inSuffolk. Here, the project design, including proposals for both researchand management, was prepared in 1983-5 for a research committee,published in 1986 and publicly debated before scheduled monument consentwas granted and full excavations began (Carver 2005). Consultation at Stonehenge has been substantial, but it hasoccurred in a different way. The International Council on Monuments andSites The International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) is a professional association that works for the conservation and protection of cultural heritage places around the world. (ICOMOS ICOMOS International Council On Monuments and Sites ) suggested in 1993 that research programmes should beincluded in World Heritage site management plans. The research statementfor Avebury (inscribed by UNESCO UNESCO:see United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. UNESCOin full United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization with Stonehenge in 1986) is thought tobe the first such produced (Chadburn et al. 2001: 1). Stonehenge(Darvill et al. 2005) and Orkney (inscribed in 1999, Downes et al. 2005)followed, and a framework is being drafted for the Bend of the Boyne,Ireland, ascribed World Heritage site status in 1993(http://heritagecouncil.ie/archaeology/bru_na_boinne). Prepared locally by specialist teams with extensive publicconsultation, these are substantial studies about four great prehistoricritual landscapes, offering what Darvill (2007) has described as 'atransparent and structured approach to the planning and execution ofhigh quality research'. Styles vary, but for their respective WorldHeritage sites they summarise the state of knowledge, with extensivebibliographies, review major issues that require attention, and considerhow the research might be implemented, with the clear message that thisis a desired outcome. In a foreword to the Stonehenge research frameworkNeil Cossons, the then English Heritage chairman, hoped the publicationwould 'kick-start a new era of responsible management combined withimportant, query-driven investigation' (Darvill et al. 2005: v). When the SRP, and Darvill and Wainwright, applied for scheduledmonument consents to excavate at or around Stonehenge, the requests werejudged by English Heritage (who administer SMC SMC Saint Mary's CollegeSMC Santa Monica CollegeSMC Solaris Management ConsoleSMC Smooth Muscle CellSMC Small Magellanic Cloud (also see LMC)SMC Safety Management Certificate (maritime shipping)legalisation n. 1. the act of legalizing; same as legalization.Noun 1. legalisation - the act of making lawfullegalization, legitimationgroup action - action taken by a group of people on behalf ofthe UK government's Department for Culture, Media and Sport The Department for Culture, Media and Sport (sometimes abbreviated DCMS) is a department of the United Kingdom government, with responsibility for culture and sport in England, and some aspects of the media throughout the whole UK, for example broadcasting. ) and,where relevant, the National Trust, an independent conservation charitywith 3.5m members, which owns much land within the World Heritage site.The research framework was an important document in this assessment, asit was in the preparation of the fieldwork programmes (cf. Young et al.2008: paragraphs 2.1.10, 2.3.1). There is a significant difference between this process and thatexemplified at Sutton Hoo. In practice, at the moment of decision aboutmajor fieldwork, the burden fell on curatorial staff who, whileextremely familiar with Stonehenge, are not archaeological specialistsin that particular subject area. According to Parker Pearson (pers.comm.), there was 'close cooperation between curators, the SRPstaff and all other stake-holders, including academics'. But whatmost of us would regard as public consultation had occurred earlier, inthe preparation of the research framework when the issue of excavationwas not immediately relevant. This is how it came about that two quiteseparate excavations took place at Stonehenge in 2008: the consultationfor both had in effect occurred before the projects existed. The SRP isnoted in the framework (Darvill et al. 2005: 125) and Darvill is itslead editor, but future projects could arise that have no suchconnections, and would be judged against a consultation in which theyplayed no part. It is a system that has clear merits, but the curatorialresponsibility is high, and archaeologists--and the public--might feel amore open and targeted appraisal may become necessary. They might alsoquestion the curious situation in 2008, when the only outside peoplespecifically consulted by curators about the excavations atStonehenge--in private--were representatives of the sometimes unhelpfuland uninformed Pagans. Excavation This severance of consultation and research design from specificprojects (which nonetheless have their own rationales) might be a factorin a new development noted in 2008. Some of the SRP trenches weresignificantly smaller than had been planned, after restrictions imposedby English Heritage and the National Trust, arguably compromisingresearch intentions. A request for consent to re-excavate a barrowopened by William Stukeley in the seventeenth century was declined--yetwe are almost totally dependent on pre-modern investigations for ourknowledge of this key category of the Stonehenge landscape, which hasone of the largest concentrations of these Bronze Age burial mounds inEurope. There can be no doubt that had Darvill and Wainwright'strench been larger, their results would have been more useful andunderstandable. Keyhole sampling can lead too easily to problems ofinterpretation. What Stonehenge needs is not ever tinier interventions,but excavation-and re-excavation--on a scale appropriate to thequestions. Even within the monument, this could mean opening substantialareas. This is not an issue unique to Stonehenge. The draft revision ofthe Stonehenge World Heritage site management plan calls excavation'essentially a destructive process' (Young et al.2008:11.4.1), expressing an opinion increasingly held amongst curators.The idea that at some future date subsurface detection will be sosophisticated that excavation will no longer be necessary is alsospreading--and shared by some Pagans unhappy about the re-excavation ofAubrey Hole 7. These attitudes reflect a critical misunderstanding of the natureof archaeological research. Yes, excavation disturbs and removes thedeposits it investigates. But it also transforms and creates. Even poorquality excavation (as was most of the work that occurred at Stonehengeuntil this century) creates more than it destroys--in finds, samples andrecords, information, stories, inspiration and questions; and thesethings continue to operate down the generations, touching bothspecialists and public. This is not, of course, to say that anything butthe highest standards of fieldwork should be condoned now, but itexplains why we find value in excavations conducted in quite differentcontexts to our own. In a narrow, technical way, archaeological excavation isdestructive, even as it generates substantial material forarchaeologists to think with; but in a wider cultural sense it isprofoundly creative. Whatever we might feel about particular incidents,interpretations or personalities, then, 2008 at Stonehenge was a vintageyear. The stories will grow with the telling. References There are too many publications to list here about recentStonehenge work, in print and on the web (including annual reports fromthe SRP). References in Parker Pearson et al. 2009 offer a good entry topeer reviewed literature. Pitts 2008b is the most up-to-date overview ofrecent fieldwork, and when viewed online (http://www.britarch.ac.uk/BA/ba102/feat4.shtml) has extensive links to sites maintained bybroadcasters and archaeologists; there is also a list of archaeologicalreferences, with further online links. ALEXANDER, C. 2008. If the stones could speak. National Geographic213(6): 34-59. ATKINSON, R. 1957. Worms and weathering. Antiquity 31: 219-33. BBC 2008. Stonehenge--the healing stones. Available atwww.bbc.co.uk/history/programmes/stonehenge. CARVER, M. 2005. Sutton Hoo: a seventh century princely burialground in context (Reports of the Research Committee of the Society ofAntiquaries of London 69). London: British Museum. CHADBURN, A., J. GARDINER, K. FIELDEN & M. POMEROY-KELLINGER(ed.). 2001. Archaeological research agenda for the Avebury WorldHeritage site. Salisbury: English Heritage. CLEAL, R., K. WALKER & R. MONTAGUE. 1995. Stonehenge in itslandscape: twentieth-century excavations (English HeritageArchaeological Report 10). London: English Heritage. DARVILL, T. 2006. Stonehenge: the biography of a landscape. Stroud:History Press. --2007. Research frameworks for World Heritage sites and theconceptualization con��cep��tu��al��ize?v. con��cep��tu��al��ized, con��cep��tu��al��iz��ing, con��cep��tu��al��iz��esv.tr.To form a concept or concepts of, and especially to interpret in a conceptual way: of archaeological knowledge. World Archaeology 39:436-57. DARVILL, T. & G. WAINWRIGHT. 2008. Beyond Stonehenge: Cam Meiniand the Preseli bluestones. Heritage in Wales 39: 15-19. DARVILL, T., V. CONSTANT & E. MILNER. 2005. Stonehenge WorldHeritage site." an archaeological research framework. London &Bournemouth: English Heritage & Bournemouth University. DOWNES, J., S. FOSTER, C. WICKHAM-JONES & J. CALLISTER (ed.).2005. The heart of Orkney World Heritage site research agenda.Edinburgh: Historic Scotland. English Heritage. 2008. The future of Stonehenge. Available athttp://www.stonehengeconsultation. org. FOWLES, J. & B. BRUKOFF. 1980. The enigma of Stonehenge.London: Cape. PARKER PEARSON, M. & RAMILISONINA. 1998. Stonehenge for theancestors: the stones pass on the message. Antiquity 72: 308-26. PARKER PEARSON, M., R. CLEAL, E MARSHALL, S. NEEDHAM, J. POLLARD,C. RICHARDS, C. RUGGLES, A. SHERIDAN, J. THOMAS, C. TILLEY, K. WELHAM,A. CHAMBERLAIN, C. CHENERY, J. EVANS, C. KNOSEL, N. LINFORD, L. MARTIN,J. MONTGOMERY, A. PAYNE & M. RICHARDS. 2007. The age of Stonehenge.Antiquity 81: 617-39. PARKER PEARSON, M., A. CHAMBERLAIN, M. JAY, P. MARSHALL, J.POLLARD, C. RICHARDS, J. THOMAS, C. TILLEY & K. WELHAM. 2009. Whowas buried at Stonehenge? Antiquity 83: 23-39. PITTS, M. 2001. Hengeworld. 2nd edition. London: Arrow. --2008a. Stonehenge: now what? British Archaeology 99: 10-15. --2008b. Stonehenge. British Archaeology 102:12-17. THORPE, R., O. WILLIAMS-THORPE, D. JENKINS & J. WATSON Wat��son, James Dewey Born 1928.American biologist who with Francis Crick proposed a spiral model, the double helix, for the molecular structure of DNA. He shared a 1962 Nobel Prize for advances in the study of genetics. . 1991.The geological sources and transport of the bluestones of Stonehenge,Wiltshire, UK. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 57(2): 103-57. WAINWRIGHT, G. & I. LONGWORTH. 1971. Durrington Walls:excavations 1966-1968 (Reports of the Research Committee of the Societyof Antiquaries of London 29). London: Society of Antiquaries of London. WHITLEY, J. 2002. Too many ancestors. Antiquity 76: 119-26. YOUNG, C., A. CHADBURN & I. BEDU. 2008. The Stonehenge WorldHeritage site management plan consultation draft July 2008. London:English Heritage. Also available athttp://www.englishheritage.org.uk/server/show/nav.8670. Mike Pitts, 11 Silverless Street, Marlborough, SN8 1JQ, UK