The full report is available on my new CD Rom
The Avebury Grand Tour with video stills and pano's.
http://peteglastonbury.ic24.net/
Here's a selection about this feature.
PeteG

A 35m length of the ditch (F.102) was exposed in the south-western third of Trench 30. It was sampled by means of five 2m wide sections. In each the width of the feature was between 4-5m, and upon excavation was found to comprise a series of cuts in the range 0.2-0.7m deep, giving a very irregular profile overall. In the southern part of its investigated length the earliest element was a linear arrangement of large flat-bottomed pits around 1.0-1.2m in diameter. This ‘pit alignment’ may only have run over a short distance, being present in just two of the excavated sections. A succession of shallow, flat-bottomed ditches then followed, each being filled with clean chalk rubble. The homogeneity of the fills often made the identification of individual cuts a very difficult process, except where there were marked variations in the compactness of the chalk rubble, or discrete steps in the ditch profile. In some sections a minimum of seven or eight separate cuts were present. Finds were very few, comprising a few tiny scraps of pottery in an earlier Neolithic fabric, and a large sherd of Roman colour-coat beaker from a loamy upper fill. The absence of medieval and later ceramics, which are present within the overlying ploughsoil, and the morphology of the ‘pit alignment’ and ditches strongly suggest a later Bronze Age or Iron Age date. The feature is probably related to so-called ‘Wessex linears’.

Successively re-cut and backfilled, there is no doubt that this is a rather curious feature, and one that does not conform to the normal logic of a ditch. For most of its life it must have acted as a nominal and largely symbolic boundary, repeatedly reinstated through re-cutting, but instantly negated through backfilling. In this respect, the act of its creation/re-creation was likely to have been more important than any physical presence it held as an effective boundary. It is tempting to think that the ditch system served to cognitively divide two areas of the later prehistoric landscape: that to the east where the main megalithic settings of the Avebury complex lay; and the (by this stage) much more intensively used landscape of settlement and field-systems to the west. Both in this region and around Stonehenge, earlier megalithic settings certainly seem to have been treated in a very circumspect manner during the later 2nd and 1st millennia BC, potentially even becoming ‘taboo’ space (Gillings & Pollard in press). Here we may have a boundary whose principal role was to reinstate a division between different spatial and ontological domains.