Aerial Investigation and Mapping Report - English Heritage

The 1874 photographs were taken by a firm of professional photographers, G & R Lavis,of Eastbourne. Their existence came to light in the wake of the 1969 work (Holden 1971,43), and one in particular proved of interest. Taken from the ground below, and directlyin front of, the restored outline, Holden (1971, 49) noted ‘faint markings in the turf’which, he suggested, ‘can be interpreted as an alternative outline of the Long Man’s leftleg’. He wasn’t overly confident, suggesting ‘rabbit runs or the traces of footpaths formedby the workmen who laid the bricks’ as alternative explanations. ‘Nevertheless,’ hecontinued, ‘the resemblances to a leg and a foot are there and they should be recorded’,before going on to note that these markings were no longer visible on the ground, norcould they be seen on ‘modern aerial photography’.Rodney Castleden has taken a more positive view of the 1874 photograph. In his 1983book The Wilmington Giant, he noted how on the photograph ‘The crisp white outline ofthe Giant’s left leg overlaps a faint image in the turf of an alternative position for the entireleft leg, not just the left foot…’. So clear did the outline seem to Castleden that heexpressed difficulty understanding how the restorers, on seeing the photograph, ‘eitherdid not notice the correct outline of the left leg in the turf or, if they did, chose not torectify their mistake’ (Castleden 1983, 34). Twenty years later, he went further,questioning the failure to rectify the ‘mistake’’ during the 1890-1 re-bricking as well, beforequerying Holden’s reluctance to accept the evidence of the photograph. This time, usinghigh-contrast enlargements, Castleden noted that ‘the entire left leg shows up well. Thephantom foot appears long and tapered, continuing the diagonal thrust of the leg…Viewed as a whole, the ghost outline forms a consistent alternative leg, the earlier leg thatwas entirely overlooked during the 1873-74 restoration. The aerial photographs showslight indications of an earlier position for the lower right leg too, making the image moresymmetrical’. He was also able to discern ‘an earlier position for the fork of the legs abouta metre higher up the hill and to the right (east) of the present position, which I had notpreviously suspected. It also shows an earlier position of the right foot. Its toe was belowthe sole of the present foot, reaching roughly the same contour as the toe of the originalleft foot. Both feet pointed diagonally down the slope before 1873’ (Castleden 2003, 44-5, his emphasis), although this clearly contradicts the earliest known sketches.Castleden undertook resistivity survey in 1996-97 across large areas of the Long Man,partly in order to test these observations (Castleden 2002). Interpreting the resultsproved difficult – ‘the terracettes crossing the image as lines of lows made the faint andambiguous resistivity variations behind them difficult to decipher’ (ibid., 92). Evenidentifying the modern body outline proved difficult. However, for the lower legs and feet,despite continuing problems with the data, Castleden felt able to offer a ‘paperrestoration’ of the original position of both legs and feet:‘It is not possible to extract the shape of the [left] foot from the resistivity readings ontheir own; but when they are compared with the foot outline on the Lavis photograph itis possible to see that the indistinct patch of lows coincides with it. The diagonal form ofthe foot is visible. The original foot was well clear of the present foot and entirely© ENGLISH HERITAGE 69 22 - 2013