Composing Avebury

Author(s): Aaron Watson

Source: World Archaeology, Vol. 33, No. 2, Archaeology and Aesthetics, (Oct., 2001), pp. 296-
314
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/827904
Accessed: 08/07/2008 17:25

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

http://www.jstor.org
Composing Avebury

Aaron Watson

Abstract

Aveburyis one of the largestNeolithicmonumentsin the BritishIsles.Enormousearthworksdefine

a vast enclosureon the Wessexchalkland,and withinits boundariesare settingsof standingstones
whichreachinto the sky.The sheer size of this place is difficultto comprehendon the ground,and
to enterthe enclosureis to move into a spacethatcontrastsentirelywiththe surroundinglandscape.
On one level, Aveburyis a monumentof chalk and stone. On another,these materialsserved to
definespacesandcreateexperienceswhichareless often the subjectof archaeologicalanalysis.This
paper will consider how an appreciationof aesthetics might begin to dissolve these differing
approachesto the materialevidence.

Keywords

Monuments;experience;architecture;landscape;Neolithic;Avebury.

Introduction

Archaeologists have a long history of describing and classifying prehistoric monuments,

but are often less comfortable with defining how people might have experienced and
thought about these places. For instance, Neolithic henges have traditionally been cate-
gorized according to either their morphology (e.g. Atkinson 1951; Burl 1969; Catherall
1971; Clare 1986) or the investment of energy required in their construction (Renfrew
1973; Startin and Bradley 1981). Fieldwork typically employs established methodologies
for survey or excavation, techniques that can themselves come to dictate the ways in
which sites and landscapes are understood. Furthermore, we are accustomed to the
diagrammatic representation of sites in ways which are two-dimensional, static and
disembodied (Gillings and Goodrick 1996; Cummings 2000). This only serves further to
remove any sense of engagement with the places we study. Architecture is often funda-
mentally bound within a society's conception of the world, and archaeologists have noted
that many prehistoric monuments embody qualities of the landscape (Bradley 1993,
1998, 2000; Richards 1996a, 1996b; Tilley 1996). Likewise, archaeologists have acknow-
ledged that the landscape is more than a neutral backdrop to society (Bender 1992; Tilley
c;
o04H&V World Archaeology Vol. 33(2): 296-314 Archaeology and Aesthetics
s^0 2001 Taylor & Francis Ltd ISSN 0043-8243 print/1470-1375 online
(C)@?
t, ...... DOI: 10.1080/00438240120079307
 Composing Avebury 297

1994), and can be perceived in many different ways (Lowenthal 1975; Meinig 1979;
Cosgrove and Daniels 1988; Bender 1993; Tilley 1994; Hirsch and O'Hanlon 1995;
Schama 1995).
An increased emphasis upon aesthetics might be one means by which we could begin
to address these issues. Buildings and landscape influence people through a combination
of their senses and an emphasis upon these aspects would complement existing fieldwork
practices. An important element of aesthetics is the detailed analysis of the formal quali-
ties of objects, in order to understand how these qualities influenced human social
relationships (Gosden this volume). I will address this issue through a detailed consider-
ation of the henge at Avebury. It is only by recognizing the diverse sensory qualities of
places that we can even begin to interpret what their values and meanings might have
been. I shall primarily consider some of the various ways in which we can see Avebury,
but I shall also expand upon these perspectives to emphasize how people engaged with
the world through a combination of their senses. Ultimately, I intend to show how
Avebury might have been used and understood by people in the Neolithic.

A background to the Avebury region

Avebury is situated in the midst of one of the richest Neolithic landscapes in the British
Isles (Fig. 1). This is a region of rolling chalk downland intercut by dry valleys and the
River Kennet. Extensive scatters of worked stone suggest increasingly intense and wide-
spread occupation from the Mesolithic (Holgate 1987), this being set against a background
of environmental change which transformed the region from mixed woodland to rather
more open grassland (Evans et al. 1993).

The earlier Neolithic (c. 3700-3100 BC)

The earlier Neolithic saw the first phase of monument building in this landscape (Whittle
1993). Numerous long barrows were built on the downs (Barker 1985), including the West
Kennet megalithic tomb (Piggott 1962). Causewayed enclosures were also constructed,
the best known being Windmill Hill (Smith 1965; Whittle et al. 1999). Here, multiple
circuits of interrupted banks and ditches were a focus for substantial quantities of care-
fully placed deposits, including human and animal remains.

The later Neolithic (c. 3100-2000 BC)

In the later Neolithic, emphasis shifted towards a new range of monuments (Whittle
1993). In Wessex, this was an era of enormous henge monuments, with Avebury being one
of the largest of its kind (Fig. 2). Here, the earthwork is broken by four entrances, and
the interior contains pits and settings of standing stones (Smith 1965; Burl 1969, 1991;
Harding and Lee 1987). Excavation has been limited and we know very little about the
chronological sequence (Pitts and Whittle 1992). To the south-west of Avebury is Silbury
Hill, a mound at least 37m in height which has yet to produce any evidence of internal
burials or deposits (Whittle 1997a). Nearby, a series of palisaded enclosures are located
298 Aaron Watson

. / t --

'
\ , -,.,,;, ^g _Windm ill /,' Sheving Stone' ;l :Y

x ? -,%
x^-^ t,'^ .^^-:---:'--: ;:''^;;I ,. //N/

/-E \.' -.-._. , /'> i s -- -- I / Ij, i

X. .e~ ,
'/'~--V',d.' . . _,' . Ston e'_
Shelving , T , a n

' Mll a ' ,, > -

,t/-, 'b -, -' o \ ^'-, 4-. /'Falkners'Circle,. ,
'-" " sht
~
I~-'1
it ?Ho /p' r C .ntours
.-
^
} -Sir RA"-'V-OVK''O-
/ Hl , et/' 'EstK,n -
,?,,,60m, ,
F u1 ,h Rettin ofr~ Avebury,
;w ? i t
I),.....ne e- .

"Westi /
^BeckhamptonRoad''/;,
Ro Kennet -'

stone.at th q -
,n[a a- . t1 a"e w c c / t [

-\"'^ r /::' .//^ // // y^ !l/^ \ r\

!i!!l
!^/

i l tlh (7a) Other ss barrowe

CiLong ''

th Sa ury
(Burl979:27)an unStoe 1 / )Contours
. .. ';f a monumt
aloat' ...... le ,-buryHIll, b,(1 m int_
ervals)
^
I-J /_____ 1 km
,stone at the Sanctuary. .",''dth , --'-
, oumna - connected these to Avebury.

Figure1 The setting of Avebury, showing places mentioned in the text.

 Composing Avebury 299

t/ _. /-

! ' ? /+

/+
! +0
* I~ ~ I

Ston

"
+- +\~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Psil
- loato of
+\~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~sadn
tn
Known location
0 100 m of~~~~

+ standing stone

The is thuh+ob
Sanc~~~~~tur otmoaywt vbr Cnigo 91 olr
Se hig
1992).~~~ ~ ^I Ovro,il
upo h iehswd ,t+
iesoe adcp Possible locationof
fmnmns

0 lOnm * Known location of

Figure2 Plan of Aveburyshowinginternalfeatures.In the absenceof a publishedmetricplan,the

contourlines have been derivedfrom Smith(1965).

Composing time

The Sanctuary is thought to be contemporary with Avebury (Cunnington 1931; Pollard

1992). Set high upon Overton Hill, the site has wide views over a landscape of monuments.
Across the Kennet valley, the East and West Kennet long barrows are clearly visible,
already centuries old when the Sanctuary was in use. A series of palisaded enclosures
formerly stood below, with the distinctive profile of Silbury Hill rising beyond. Yet, despite
these references and close spatial proximity, the Sanctuary is not actually connected to
any of these places. Rather, an avenue of paired stones links the circle to Avebury itself,
over two kilometres distant (see Fig. 1). Evidence of compacted ground along the course
300 Aaron Watson

of the Kennet Avenue suggests that people might have repeatedly moved along it (Ucko
et al. 1991: 190). But, when viewed from the Sanctuary, the Avenue stones are not seen
in association with the henge, which is hidden behind a low ridge. Rather, the line of
sarsens appears to lead towards a quite different monument altogether: the early Neolithic
causewayed enclosure upon Windmill Hill. While we cannot be certain of precisely how
Windmill Hill would have appeared in the time of Avebury, the construction of a group
of round barrows within its boundaries in the Bronze Age would seem to indicate that its
location retained a potent social significance over a long period of time. This pattern of
intervisibility is unlikely to be fortuitous, as the Sanctuary was set in one of the few loca-
tions where such elaborate visual relationships could be observed (Watson 2000). This is
demonstrated when walking along the Avenue itself towards Avebury, as most of these
monuments are not visible along much of the route. It is only when the stones cross a low
ridge about five hundred metres from Avebury that the Windmill Hill enclosure suddenly
reappears. This time the relationship between the hill and the stones is reversed, however,
and it is now the enclosure which is framed between monoliths.
How might these views have been understood in the Neolithic? The purely visual juxta-
position between these places induces a strong impression that the Avenue not only linked
places, but conflated time. Participants moving between the Sanctuary and Avebury not
only began their journey in association with pre-existing long barrows, but set out along
a route which first led them towards an ancient enclosure. It is only towards the end of
the Avenue that the past itself becomes eclipsed by stones. Intriguingly, this effect heralds
the first view of Avebury itself. Perhaps, people were in some way physically playing out
beliefs about their history during the act of moving along the Avenue.
The importance of creating specific connections between places might begin to help us
understand why the Kennet Avenue describes gentle arcs across the land (Thomas 1991,
1999; Tilley 1994). This is evident during the final approach to Avebury, where the Avenue
carefully directs the observer so that they are unable to see into the henge until they are
almost passing through the entrance. This retains a sense of mystery of what lies within
until the last moment, as well as increasing the visual spectacle by placing the observer so
that they see two of the largest stones within Avebury symmetrically framed through the
entrance (Thomas 1993; Barrett 1994). It seems that the Avenue carefully orchestrated
passage through the landscape which influenced how people could move and what they
could see, emphasizing connections between places and maximizing the spectacle of
moving between these monuments. Once inside Avebury, however, the participant
becomes both visually and physically isolated by immense earthworks. I will now consider
these issues by looking in detail at the form of Avebury and then extending these obser-
vations into the wider landscape.

Composing materials

In the modern world, there is a tendency for materials such as soil, stone or timber to be
considered as resources, and there is less concern with the variety of ways in which people
might engage with the very substance of the land. The act of opening up the ground in
prehistory might have been a meaningful event which was conceived very differently from
 Composing Avebury 301

our perceptions of earth-moving today (Thomas 1999: 75). A consideration of these

elements encourages us to think about the diverse qualities of such materials and the poss-
ible values attached to them.
Avebury contains a range of elements which were gathered from the region in which it
was set. The sarsen stones probably originated among the thousands of boulders which
are naturally strewn along the valleys of the surrounding downland. We have very little
idea about how these peculiar topographic features were understood by people in prehis-
tory, but it would seem likely that they were rich in myth and meaning. Many of these
'Grey Wethers' may have been significant places in their own right (Pollard and Gillings
1998: 158), as a number which had formerly been used for polishing stone axes came to
be incorporated within the chambers of the West Kennet long barrow (Piggott 1962: 19).
Several more have been found within Avebury itself (Smith 1965:223; Gillings and Pollard
1999). Perhaps each of these stones had its own story to tell, a story which would ulti-
mately become subsumed within the great circles and avenues (Gillings and Pollard 1999),
where they seem to have been chosen for their shape, colour and texture (Burl 1979: 143,
153; Pollard and Gillings 1998: 156-7). This is analogous with Stonehenge, where stones
also seem to have been placed according to their visual characteristics (Whittle 1997b).
Clay was used to pack some of the stones in place (Smith 1965: 221), but it is difficult
to explain why this clay was brought from nearby streams in preference to that which
naturally occurs in the chalk (Pollard and Gillings 1998). One aspect could have been its
colour, as the dark brown riverine clay contrasts entirely against the pale bedrock clay.
Perhaps this quality was just as important as practical purposes, an issue which is increas-
ingly being recognized by archaeologists (Gage et al. 1999). Likewise, four pits in the
vicinity of the Obelisk did not hold uprights, but were filled with clean soil, also dark
brown in colour (Smith 1965: 201), and the same is true of a pit cluster within the Kennet
Avenue (Smith 1965: 212). Substantial blocks of Middle and Lower Chalk were also used
as packing. This material can only be found at substantial depths underground, and was
most likely derived from the ditch of the henge (Smith 1965: 221,248). While this material
had not been transported long distances, perhaps its procurement from deep underground
invested it with a different kind of significance or value.
But what about the place which was constructed from these materials? Why is Avebury
so vast, and why were smaller circles placed within it? I shall now demonstrate how the
henge was carefully located in the landscape to create a series of spectacular visual effects
which might have served to reinforce the social order of its users.

Composing architecture

Avebury's perimeter earthwork encompasses a shallow natural dome (Burl 1979: 143).
Indeed, the only level ground within the henge extends from the Southern Entrance
towards the centre of the monument (Fig. 2). This effectively divides the interior in half
with the other three entrances being situated downslope from the centre. This arrange-
ment not only seems to have been deliberate, but was used to great effect. From the end
of the Avenue two enormous sarsens frame the view towards the centre (Fig. 3).
Between these monoliths the observer looks across the only expanse of level ground
302 Aaron Watson

and towards the two Inner Circles. To either side, the ground gradually descends along
the course of the Outer Circle, and the stature of these stones rapidly diminishes as they
drop beneath the level of the viewer. The bank actually decreases in height away from
the entrance (Burl 1979: 174), further accentuating the size of stones in the Inner Circles
and exaggerating the perspective of distance. The superimposition of standing stones
would have denied a clear view towards the centre, perhaps even creating the illusion
of a solid wall or some kind of building (Fig. 3). In combination, architecture and subtle
topography emphasized the central settings, but would have made it very difficult for
participants to determine their precise configuration (Burl 1979: 150; Barrett 1994;
Thomas 1993).
These elements would have influenced the movement of people. At other circular
monuments in Wessex such as Durrington Walls, Woodhenge, or the Sanctuary, partici-
pants might have been guided along circular pathways (Thomas 1991; Pollard 1992). If we
follow similar conventions at Avebury, a variety of experiences are revealed. If partici-
pants followed the Outer Circle, not only would they have walked alternately uphill or
downhill between successive quadrants, but their view of the monument changed dramati-
cally. Moving between the Southern and Eastern Entrances, the ground gradually
descends so that the viewer is soon lower than the central region of the monument. It
becomes progressively more difficult to see across the henge, and upon reaching the
Eastern Entrance only half of the interior is visible (see Fig. 3). The central ridge now
constitutes the near horizon, with the stones of the Inner Circles skylined and crested
upon the break of slope. The visual appearance of the monument has been transformed.

Composing landscape

Like the Avenue, the location and configuration of Avebury could represent rather more
than just bounded spaces or prescribed sequences of movement. The visual appearance
of this place is also of central importance, especially where architecture is set against the
wider landscape in ways which cannot easily be understood when viewed in two dimen-
sions.
Just as an observer's understanding of Avebury's format changes dramatically depend-
ing upon their location, so the view of the wider landscape is also transformed. In those
places around the perimeter stone circle where it is not possible to see the far side of the
henge, the hills surrounding Avebury are often visible. This is intriguing because the chalk
ridges of the downland closely match the profile of the bank and almost exactly continue
its line (Plate 1). In other words, these hills frequently adopt the role of the bank in those
places where the earthwork itself is hidden from view. This replacement can be so effec-
tive that the observer is unsure whether it is the monument or the natural landscape they
are observing.
It has been suggested that the setting of monuments such as Avebury ensured a
balanced horizon that would be suited to astronomical observation. This might be a possi-
bility at Stonehenge (Burl 1979: 131) which has clear alignments upon the movement of
the sun, but seems less relevant to Avebury where astronomical alignments have yet to
be convincingly identified. Another idea is that the low-lying location could relate to the
Figure 3 Contrasting views into Avebury. The top view is an illustration of how the Southern Entrance migh
were in place. Below, the poorly preserved Eastern Entrance is depicted schematically, with the positions of
304 Aaron Watson

environment of the valley itself, in terms of proximity to settlement, water sources and
shelter (Burl 1979: 143). However, it seems more likely that the relationships between
monument and landscape served to reinforce one of the most fundamental aesthetic quali-
ties of the henge: a sense of enclosure.

Composing the cosmos

When an observer stands within Avebury the interplay between the earthen bank and the
chalk ridges retains a feeling of enclosure that would otherwise be lost. Here, the inter-
play between hills and earthworks reinforces the impression that the henge is completely
contained within the landscape, just as the viewer is contained by the henge. Perhaps this
monument expressed a far more fundamental relationship between people and the world
in which they lived. Indeed, the form of monuments like this could ultimately have been
derived from the experience of the landscape itself, with the ground sweeping away from
the viewer to an all-encompassing horizon (Bradley 1998: 109). By looking vertically
upwards the skyline is even seen as a circle around the periphery of the vision. In addition,
many societies have traditionally placed themselves at the centre of the world (Tuan
1977), often with cities or temples representing the top of the world or even the centre of
the universe (Eliade 1954: 14). Places can become especially potent if these ideas are rein-
forced by the natural form of the landscape. Of particular significance is the basin, where
the earth rises to meet the sky in an elevated horizon (Higuchi 1983: 110; Norberg-Schultz
1985: 31). This seems interesting, given the low-lying situation of Avebury and the way in
which the appearance of the surrounding hills seems to be reflected in the form of the
earthen banks. In such circumstances, architecture may seek to reproduce, reveal or
enhance these fundamental qualities (Norberg-Schultz 1979). Henges elsewhere seem to
share similar relations to their surroundings. The Ring of Brodgar in Orkney appears to
have been built in the image of its hinterland (Richards 1996a), and comparable relation-
ships can be observed in the Milfield henge complex (Richards 1996b). Indeed, such
settings are reminiscent of henges and stone circles across the British Isles (Richards 1993;
Bradley 1998; Watson 2000), including Stonehenge (Cleal et al. 1995: 34-5; Darvill 1997).
Perhaps these later Neolithic circular monuments were perceived to be the centre of the
world, or axis mundi (Richards 1996a: 206). The idea of building at the centre of the
universe would be entirely in keeping with the world-views of societies who do not
conceive of the world as a globe and who engage rather more directly with the world
around them (Ingold 1995: 41).
These ideas may also help us to understand the division of Avebury's interior.

Composing circles

It has been suggested that Avebury was laid out according to elaborate geometric prin-
ciples (Thom and Thom 1978: 30-44), but there seem to be two fundamental problems
with this. First, any geometric considerations seem to have been compromised in order to
'fit' Avebury into the natural topography, and I have already described how this was used
Plate 1 A view looking east from near to the Northern Entrance, showing the relationship between the ea

Plate 2 A view from near to the Cove, showing the relationship between the henge bank and the hills bey
306 Aaron Watson

to differentiate experiences within the enclosure. The ground becomes irregular in many
places beyond the perimeter bank, so the inclusion of a larger area would have compro-
mised the symmetry of the interior. If the overall diameter had been smaller, the domed
effect would be lost altogether. Thus the format of Avebury successfully retained an
impression of enclosure while simultaneously permitting restricted views of the surround-
ing hills, all accomplished without substantially varying the height of the bank. Second,
Thom's approach makes few concessions to how the monument appears to people stand-
ing within it. I have already outlined the difficulties of conceiving the format of Avebury
from within its boundaries as this significantly reduces the degree to which such subtle
geometry can be appreciated on the ground. Indeed, a viewer standing within the two
Inner Circles cannot see the irregularities in the plan of the boundary earthwork. Rather,
the flattening effect of perspective actually creates the impression that these banks
describe a perfect circle around the viewer.
The Outer and Inner Circles also create two quite different views of the world. As I
have noted, viewers around the Outer Circle experience only partial views of both the
monument and the landscape. In contrast, the two smaller rings seem to monumentalize
spaces from which virtually the entire interior of the henge can be viewed, as well as opti-
mally positioning the viewer to see the hills beyond the earthworks. For instance, the zone
contained by the Inner Circles closely corresponds to the only region within the henge
from which both Silbury Hill and Windmill Hill are visible simultaneously. The situation
of the inner rings upon the central ridge within Avebury enabled them to command much
wider views, even before the bank suffered from erosion.
But, while the wider topography is highly irregular when viewed on a map (see Fig. 1),
the way in which people see the site is entirely different. Just as the irregular plan of the
earthwork cannot readily be appreciated from near to its centre, so the surrounding
topography also becomes 'flattened' to the eye, and there are few breaks in an almost level
horizon (Plate 2). The banks mask the ground immediately around the monument, effec-
tively removing immediate frames of reference and emphasizing the distant circle of hills.
Without this depth of view, the observer cannot easily judge distance to the skyline (see
Higuchi 1983: 79), and the way in which these hills are framed by the earthwork creates
the impression that the backdrop of hills is wrapped in a circle around the monument.
This is a contrived illusion which is peculiar to the henge, and it contrasts entirely with
the experience of moving through the wider landscape.
Thus the architecture of Avebury demarcates space so that an observer's view of the
world varies enormously according to their position within the monument. How can we
interpret this phenomenon?

Composing experience

It is possible that Avebury created experiences that were not open to all. Typical of many
monuments in British prehistory, the extent to which the henge could accommodate
participants varied across the interior. While the size of the enclosure would seem to
contrast entirely with the enclosed tombs which preceded it, there are architectural foci
within its boundaries which are very spatially restrictive. In these places at least, it is
 Composing Avebury 307

possible that the monument expressed differences within the social order of the
community by the degree to which individuals were permitted access. Interestingly, the
places which contrive the most effective illusion of circularity and centrality are also the
most spatially restrictive. This includes not only the Inner Circles, but their central foci -
the Obelisk setting and Cove. This is interesting given that the Obelisk seems to have been
a venue for activities, including the excavation of pits and the deposition of flint knapping
debris (Pollard 1992: 221). In contrast, the Outer Circle permits only fragmentary views
of both monument and landscape, but was capable of accommodating far greater numbers
of people. If Avebury was conceived as an axis mundi, social differences may have been
expressed according to a person's place relative to the centre of the world.
Other Late Neolithic monuments in the vicinity of Avebury create comparable relations
to the landscape. This is especially evident when the viewer stands within the Sanctuary.
From this circle, the ground gently slopes away in most directions, obscuring large areas
of the Kennet valley beyond. This unseen low ground separates the circle from higher
ridges beyond, and these hills place the observer at the centre of a circular basin. When
the monument was in use, this landscape is likely to have been framed between standing
stones and timbers, creating a space which on one level was separated from the wider
landscape, but on another was entirely contained within it. This sets up a series of relation-
ships between the observer and their surroundings that are shared between the Sanctu-
ary and Avebury. This highlights a fundamental difference between typological and
aesthetic approaches to monuments. The Sanctuary is classified as an open stone and
timber circle while Avebury is a henge, and each tends to be afforded a different place in
the literature (e.g. Harding and Lee 1987; Gibson 1994). However, both monuments
possess a similar sense of containment and separation from the wider landscape. Although
this was achieved in quite different ways, the Sanctuary drew upon characteristics of the
existing topography, while at Avebury these qualities were realized through the construc-
tion of earthen banks, both monuments actually establish remarkably similar relations
with their surroundings.
Silbury Hill is of particularinterest because it is characterized as an entirely different kind
of monument to henges and open circles. While the monumentality of the site could have
been further enhanced by situating it upon a hill (Darvill 1996: 219), it seems that physical
stature was not the only consideration. Rather, this enormous mound was placed in a very
similar way to the enclosures nearby, being set at the focus of a basin. It has been suggested
that Silbury Hill acted as a kind of elevated platform (Barrett 1994:31), an interesting possi-
bility given that the site began its life as a circularfeature of similar dimensions to the Sanc-
tuary which later came to be raised up into the sky (Bradley 2000: 107). Like the Sanctuary
and the Inner Circles within Avebury, the summit area is a confined space which could not
have accommodated a large number of people. Individuals at the top would not only have
been elevated above other members of the community, but also positioned at the centre of
an arc of hills. Here, the margins of the summit plateau set up a break of slope surrounding
the viewer so that they cannot see the sides of the mound itself. Like the views from the
nearby enclosures, this removes immediate frames of reference and creates an impression
that the observer is somehow suspended above the valley. Archaeologists would not typi-
cally classify Silbury Hill in the same way as open enclosures, but it seems that some of the
aesthetic experiences which each afforded might have been comparable.
308 Aaron Watson

Composing the senses

While I have focused primarilyupon the visual elements of Avebury, the other senses have
a major role to play (Carpenter 1973; Porteous 1990; Classen et al. 1994; Rodaway 1994;
Gell 1995; MacGregor 1999). There are many possibilities for considering aspects such as
the haptic and visual textures of stone (Cummings 1999). For instance the two large stones
at the Southern Entrance might have been chosen for their contrasting appearance, and
the smooth polished surfaces which resulted from stone axe polishing are often more
easily located by touch than by observation. While the olfactory experiences of entering
a confined space like the West Kennet long barrow are likely to have been intense, the
role of scent within an open space like Avebury is more difficult to assess. Perhaps part
of the significance of this space was that many of the scents associated with the wider world
would have been absent.
Sound is another important issue that has not been considered at Avebury, despite our
acknowledgement that the sound environment is a significant means by which people
understand their world (Gibson 1966; Schafer 1977; Pocock 1989, 1993; Rodaway 1994).
The acoustics of megalithic buildings have received increasing attention (Devereux and
Jahn 1996; Watson and Keating 1999, 2000; Watson 2001), and it is possible to make
suggestions at Avebury despite its poor preservation. For instance, sounds generated
within the henge would tend to be contained within the earthwork, and would not have
been clearly heard from outside. Likewise, the interior would have been artificiallyquieter
than the outside world, as sounds would not pass easily into the interior. This sets up clear
distinctions between those who were present inside, and those who were not. In a similar
way, the three large monoliths of the Cove would screen the movement of sound in some
directions while projecting them outwards through its open side. Perhaps this feature
acted rather like a stage in a theatre.
The two Inner Circles were likely to have been intense acoustic spaces. Experiments at
the Ring of Brodgar in Orkney have shown that circulararrangementsof stones are tremen-
dously effective at creating echoes (Watson and Keating 2000: 260). This would be particu-
larly noticeable at Avebury, where the stones chosen for the Inner Circles seem to have been
larger and broader than those employed elsewhere within the monument (Pollard and
Gillings 1998: 156), and therefore more suited to the reflection of sound. An intriguing
acoustic aspect of circularspaces is that the nature of echoes changes dramaticallydepend-
ing upon the location of the listener and the sound source. Near to the centre, sounds will
be reflected simultaneously from all sides of the circle, thus returning as a coherent echo
which surrounds the listener. Near to the boundaries, however, the echoes will become
increasingly indistinct and directional as the sounds are moving various distances across the
interior (Watson and Keating 2000: 260). Thus the centres of these circles would have been
major acoustic focuses, distinct from the more chaotic responses in other parts of the circle.

Discussion: composing Avebury

Avebury existed on many different levels. In one respect, it was a structure built from
fragments of other places and other times. In the creation of this place great trenches were
 Composing Avebury 309

dug into the ground with the spoil being sculpted into immense banks, inverting the
natural state of the chalk. The land was turned inside out, placing the henge on a frontier
between worlds above and beneath the ground. In their natural settings, sarsen stones
were already important places, but many of these blocks were subsequently dug from the
ground, moved and then returned to the earth. Now they stood upright, and were
composed with many others in the image of a circle. These stones were placed in exca-
vated holes which reconnected them with the chalk bedrock, and some were immersed in
clay from nearby stream-beds. Thus stone came to be combined with chalk, clay and,
metaphorically, with water - all elements which were fundamental to the lives of these
people. Many blocks of chalk used to pack the stones in place had their origins deep within
the ditch, suggesting that it was not only the visible landscape which was significant, but
also that hidden beneath the soil. The visible surfaces of the stones projected into the sky,
creating an axis that was linked with the heavens while being rooted in materials derived
from deep beneath the ground.
Furthermore, Avebury was a landscape within the landscape. When they moved
through the enclosure, people entered a space which transformed their engagement with
the environment. By its very nature, the monument removed participants from the famil-
iar sounds and smells of the wider landscape and constructed new worlds in their place.
The stones may have been derived from the landscape, but now they were composed
according to their shape, size, colour and texture. The architecture itself contrived a circu-
lar view of the world and a sense of centrality which could not be recreated elsewhere,
and even the intangible movement of sounds within the innermost spaces appeared to
confirm this fundamental order. While our modern understanding of the world recognizes
these elements to be illusionary, we should not allow this to reduce their potential signifi-
cance in prehistory. People would not have benefited from the scientifically informed
hindsight which we possess today, and would have had to understand such effects in their
own terms.
On the grandest scale, Avebury and its neighbouring sites appear to have been
composed in the image of the wider landscape. The valley around Avebury is divided into
a series of basins, each occupied by circular monuments and separated by the central mass
of Waden Hill. These basins are themselves contained by arcs of higher downland: the
Ridgeway, Wansdyke, Cherhill Downs and Windmill Hill. Intriguingly, this impression of
the topography seems to have been reproduced in the fundamental format of Avebury.
Just like the broader landscape, the henge interior consists of a series of circular spaces
(Fig. 4). Arcs of standing stones distinguish different domains, yet all are enclosed by a
raised earthwork, just as the natural basins in the wider landscape are surrounded by
ridges of higher downland.

Conclusions

In this paper I have focused upon the aesthetic qualities of Avebury, and have made
suggestions about how these might have influenced human social relationships. This
emphasis may not answer all of our questions about how monuments might have been
used or perceived in prehistory, but it does encourage us to look very carefully at
310 Aaron Watson

Figure4 A schematicillustrationof the way in whichthe Aveburylandscapecan be understoodas

a seriesof basins.The largestcircleindicatesthe approximatelimitsof the viewfromAveburyitself,
while the smallercirclesrelate to SilburyHill and the palisadedenclosures.These circlesdo not
representpreciseviewsheds,but areintendedto indicatehow the topographyappearsto be divided
into a seriesof circularspaceswhen viewed fromthese sites.

archaeological remains and their wider landscape setting. Such an approach can show us
that the location and configuration of monuments may reflect rather more complex
relationships between people and the landscape than have generally been acknowledged.
This could explain why there are parallels between henges across Britain, yet each also
displays highly individual qualities. By considering such fundamental issues, we can
begin to understand why the classification of monuments according to the details of their
architecture has been so problematic. Every monument was built to respond to its
surroundings in subtle ways which tend not to be acknowledged by traditional fieldwork
 Composing Avebury 311

techniques. While archaeologists frequently employ specialists to analyse environmental

material, chronology, lithics or ceramics as part of a fieldwork strategy, there is at present
rather less regard for the architectural, experiential or aesthetic characteristics of sites.
In part, this is because these aspects are difficult to record and communicate. Rather than
just seeing this as a problem, however, it serves only to emphasize monumental archi-
tecture as an ultimate expression of the aesthetic relations between people and the world
in which they lived. It seems that we shall have to rise to this challenge if we are to further
enrich our interpretations not only of monuments, but of the people who built and used
them. By developing a more reflexive response to our surroundings, we realize that a
structure like Avebury can transform our perception of an entire landscape. To pass
through the earthwork is to enter a Neolithic space, carefully constructed to influence
what people see, and how they can move. Avebury was a world within the world, created
in the image of the encircling landscape, and composed from physical fragments taken
from the very fabric of that land. Yet, while we might see Avebury with twenty-first-
century eyes, and think about it with twenty-first-century minds, in many ways it is still
possible to make that journey. We can transcend the boundaries and move between the
stones, ultimately to place ourselves at what may once have been understood as the
centre of the cosmos.

Acknowledgements

An early version of this paper was presented at the Theoretical Archaeology Group
meeting in 1998. The paper has benefited from discussions with many people, including
Andy Jones, Colin Richards, Hannah Sackett and Howard Williams. In particular I would
like to thank Richard Bradley and Vicki Cummings for commenting upon drafts of the
text. Thanks also to Ros Cleal and Chris Gingell for their invaluable assistance with access
to the landscape of the World Heritage site at Avebury. This research was conducted as
part of a PhD project funded by the University of Reading and the British Academy.

Department of Archaeology
University of Reading

References

Atkinson,R. J. C. 1951.The hengemonumentsof GreatBritain.In Excavationsat Dorchester,Oxon

(eds R. J. C. Atkinson, C. M. Piggott and N. K. Sandars).Oxford:Departmentof Antiquities,
AshmoleanMuseum,pp. 81-107.
Barker,C. 1985.The long moundsof the Aveburyregion. WiltshireArchaeologicalMagazine,79:
7-38.
Barrett,J. C. 1994.Fragmentsfrom Antiquity:An Archaeologyof Social Life in Britain,2900-1200
BC. Oxford:Blackwell.
Bender, B. 1992.Theorisinglandscapes,and the prehistoriclandscapesof Stonehenge.Man, 27:
735-55.
312 Aaron Watson

Bender, B. 1993. Landscape: Politics and Perspectives. Oxford: Berg.

Bradley, R. 1993. Altering the Earth. Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland Monograph
Series Number 8.
Bradley, R. 1998. The Significance of Monuments. London: Routledge.
Bradley, R. 2000. An Archaeology of Natural Places. London: Routledge.
Burl, A. 1969. Henges: internal features and regional groups. The Archaeological Journal, 126: 1-28.
Burl, A. 1979. Prehistoric Avebury. London: Yale University Press.
Burl, A. 1991. Prehistoric Henges. Princes Risborough: Shire.
Carpenter, E. 1973. Eskimo Realities. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Catherall, P. D. 1971. Henges in perspective. The Archaeological Journal, 128: 147-53.
Clare, T. 1986. Towards a reappraisal of henge monuments. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society,
52: 281-316.
Classen, C., Howes, D. and Synott, A. 1994. Aroma: The Cultural History of Smell. London:
Routledge.
Cleal, R., Walker, K. and Montague, R. 1995. Stonehenge in its Landscape: TwentiethCentury Exca-
vations. London: English Heritage.
Cosgrove, D. and Daniels, S. 1988. The Iconography of Landscape. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Cummings, V. 1999. Touching the world: the haptic geographies of the Neolithic. Paper presented
at the Theoretical Archaeology Group Conference, Cardiff, UK.
Cummings, V. 2000. Landscapes in motion: interactive computer imagery and the Neolithic land-
scapes of the Outer Hebrides. In UK Chapter of Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods
in Archaeology (eds C. Buck, V. Cummings, C. Henley, S. Mills and S. Trick). Oxford: British
Archaeological Reports, International Series 844, pp. 11-20.
Cunnington, M. E. 1931. The 'Sanctuary' on Overton Hill, near Avebury. WiltshireArchaeological
and Natural History Magazine, 45: 300-5.
Darvill, T. 1996. Prehistoric Britain from the Air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Darvill, T. 1997. Ever increasing circles: the sacred geographies of Stonehenge and its landscape. In
Science and Stonehenge (eds B. Cunliffe and C. Renfrew). Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.
167-202.
Devereux, P. and Jahn, R. G. 1996. Preliminary investigations and cognitive considerations of the
acoustical resonances of selected archaeological sites. Antiquity, 70: 665-6.
Eliade, M. 1954. The Myth of the Eternal Return. London: Arkana (Penguin).
Evans, J. G., Limbrey, S., Mate', I. and Mount, R. 1993. An environmental history of the upper
Kennet Valley, Wiltshire, for the last 10,000 years. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 59:
139-95.
Gage, J., Jones, A., Bradley, R., Spence, K., Barber, E. J. W. and Tagon, P. S. C. 1999. What meaning
had colour in early societies? Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 9: 109-26.
Gell, A. 1995. The language of the forest: landscape and phonological iconism in Umeda. In The
Anthropology of Landscape: Perspectives on Space and Place (eds E. Hirsch and M. O'Hanlon).
Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 232-54.
Gibson, A. 1994. Excavations at the Sarn-y-bryn-caled cursus complex, Welshpool, Powys, and the
timber circles of Great Britain and Ireland. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 60: 143-223.
Gibson, J. J. 1966. The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
 Composing Avebury 313

Gillings, M. and Goodrick, G. 1996. Sensuous and reflexive GIS: exploring visualisation and VRML.
Internet Archaeology, 1: http: /www.intarch.ac.uk/journal/issuel/.
Gillings, M. and Pollard, J. 1999. Non-portable stone artefacts and contexts of meaning: the tale of
the Grey Wether (www.museums.ncl.ac.uk/Avebury/stone4.htm). World Archaeology, 31: 179-93.
Harding, A. and Lee, G. 1987. Henge Monuments and Related Sites of Great Britain. Oxford: British
Archaeological Reports, British Series 175.
Higuchi, T. 1983. The Visual and Spatial Structureof Landscapes. London: MIT Press.
Hirsch, E. and O'Hanlon, M. 1995. The Anthropology of Landscape: Perspectives on Space and
Place. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Holgate, R. 1987. Neolithic settlement patterns at Avebury, Wiltshire. Antiquity, 61: 259-63.
Ingold, T. 1995. Globes and spheres: the topology of environmentalism. In Environmentalism: The
View from Anthropology (ed. K. Milton). London: Routledge, pp. 31-42.
Lowenthal, D. 1975. Past time, present place: landscape and memory. The Geographical Review, 65:
1-36.
MacGregor, G. 1999. Making sense of the past in the present: a sensory analysis of carved stone
balls. World Archaeology, 31: 258-71.
Meinig, D. 1979. The Interpretationof Ordinary Landscapes: Geographical Essays. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Norberg-Schulz, C. 1979. Genius Loci: Towards a Phenomenology of Architecture. London:
Academy Editions.
Norberg-Schulz, C. 1985. The Concept of Dwelling: On the Way to Figurative Architecture. New
York: Electra/Rizzoli.
Piggott, S. 1962. The West Kennet Long Barrow: Excavations 1955-56. London: HMSO.
Pitts, M. and Whittle, A. 1992. The development and date of Avebury. Proceedings of the Prehis-
toric Society, 58: 203-12.
Pocock, D. 1989. Sound and the geographer. Geography, 74: 193-200.
Pocock, D. 1993. The senses in focus. Area, 25(1): 11-16.
Pollard, J. 1992. The Sanctuary, Overton Hill, Wiltshire: a re-examination. Proceedings of the Prehis-
toric Society, 58: 213-16.
Pollard, J. and Gillings, M. 1998. Romancing the stones: towards a virtual and elemental Avebury.
Archaeological Dialogues, 5: 143-64.
Porteous, J. D. 1990. Landscapes of the Mind: Worlds of Sense and Metaphor. Toronto: University
of Toronto Press.
Renfrew, C. 1973. Monuments, mobilization and social organisation in Neolithic Wessex. In The
Explanation of Culture Change: Models in Prehistory (ed. C. Renfrew). London: Duckworth, pp.
539-8.
Richards, C. 1993. Monumental choreography: architecture and spatial representation in Late
Neolithic Orkney. In InterpretativeArchaeology (ed. C. Tilley). Oxford: Berg, pp. 143-78.
Richards, C. 1996a. Monuments as landscape: creating the centre of the world in late Neolithic
Orkney. World Archaeology, 28: 190-208.
Richards, C. 1996b. Henges and water: towards an elemental understanding of monumentality and
landscape in Late Neolithic Britain. Journal of Material Culture, 1: 313-36.
Rodaway, P. 1994. Sensuous Geographies. London: Routledge.
Schafer, R. M. 1977. The Tuning of the World. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart.
314 Aaron Watson

Schama, S. 1995. Landscape and Memory. London: Fontana Press.

Smith, I. 1965. Windmill Hill and Avebury: Excavations by Alexander Keiller 1925-1939. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Startin, W. and Bradley, R. 1981. Some notes on work organisation and society in prehistoric
Wessex. In Astronomy and Society During the Period 4000-1500 BC (eds C. Ruggles and A.
Whittle). Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, British Series 88, pp. 289-96.
Thom, A. and Thom, A. 1978. Megalithic Remains in Britain and Brittany. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Thomas, J. 1991. Rethinking the Neolithic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thomas, J. 1993. The politics of vision and the archaeologies of landscape. In Landscape: Politics
and Perspectives (ed. B. Bender). Oxford: Berg, pp. 19-48.
Thomas, J. 1999. An economy of substances in earlier Neolithic Britain. In Material Symbols:
Culture and Economy in Prehistory (ed. J. E. Robb). Southern Illinois University, Carbondale:
Centre for Archaeological Investigations Occasional Paper No.2, pp. 70-89.
Tilley, C. 1994. A Phenomenology of Landscape. Oxford: Berg.
Tilley, C. 1996. The power of rocks: topography and monument construction on Bodmin Moor.
World Archaeology, 28: 161-76.
Tuan, Yi-F. 1977. Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience. London: Edward Arnold.
Ucko, P. J., Hunter, M., Clark, A. J. and David, A. 1991. Avebury Reconsidered: From the 1660's to
the 1990's. London: Unwin Hyman.
Watson, A. 2000. Encircled space: the experience of stone circles and henges in the British Neolithic.
Doctoral dissertation, University of Reading.
Watson, A. 2001. The sounds of transformation: acoustics, monuments and ritual in the British
Neolithic. In The Archaeology of Shamanism (ed. N. Price). London: Routledge.
Watson, A. and Keating, D. 1999. Architecture and sound: an acoustic analysis of megalithic
monuments in prehistoric Britain. Antiquity, 73: 325-36.
Watson, A. and Keating, D. 2000. The architecture of sound in Neolithic Orkney. In Neolithic
Orkney in its European context (ed. A. Ritchie). Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeologi-
cal Research, pp. 259-63.
Whittle, A. 1993. The Neolithic of the Avebury area: sequence, environment, settlement and
monuments. Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 12: 29-53.
Whittle, A. 1997a. Sacred Mound, Holy Rings. Oxford: Oxbow Monograph 74.
Whittle, A. 1997b. Remembered and imagined belongings: Stonehenge in its traditions and struc-
tures of meaning. In Science and Stonehenge (eds B. Cunliffe and C. Renfrew). Oxford: Proceed-
ings of the British Academy, pp. 145-66.
Whittle, A., Pollard, J. and Grigson, C. 1999. The Harmony of Symbols: The Windmill Hill Cause-
wayed Enclosure. Oxford: Oxbow Books.