An early Neolithic pottery vessel from Fitz Park, Cockermouth, Cumbria

VOLUME 15

2015

TRANSACTIONSOF THE

CUMBERLAND & WESTMORLAND

ANTIQUARIAN & ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY(FOUNDED 1866)

Reprinted from the

TRANSACTIONSOF THE

CUMBERLAND & WESTMORLAND

ANTIQUARIAN & ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY(FOUNDED 1866)

Reprinted from the

55149_CWAAS_CD_COVER.indd 1 29/06/2015 15:19

Process Cyan

NOTES

An early Neolithic pottery vessel from Fitz Park, Cockermouth, Cumbria

Scott WilliamS and Robin Holgate WitH contRibutionS by lauRa StRaffoRd and goRdon cook

Excavation by Archaeological Research Services Ltd of a palaeochannel at Fitz Park, Cockermouth, produced 53 fragments from a single early Neolithic Carinated Bowl, pieces of charcoal and a single grain of emmer wheat. The grain of emmer wheat was dated by radiocarbon dating with 95.4% probability to 4886+/-29 BP. The absence of traces of domestic or any other contemporary activity suggests that the palaeochannel may have held a special significance for the early Neolithic people of the area with the fragments of the broken pottery vessel being placed deliberately into the standing water as a votive offering.

Background

ARCHAEOLOGICAL Research Services Ltd was commissioned by Lovell Partnerships in January 2014 to undertake evaluation trenching at Fitz Park, Cockermouth (NY1055830792) in advance of a proposed housing

development scheme (Lotherington 2014); the site is situated immediately north west of a banked and ditched enclosure – a Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM 27706) – which is considered to date to the Romano-British period (Giecco 2009).

The evaluation trenching resulted in the discovery of a silted-up palaeochannel in trench 20 from which numerous fragments of early Neolithic pottery were recovered (Lotherington 2014, 11). In February 2014 a 20m by 17m section of the palaeochannel next to trench 20 was excavated (Williams 2014) in order to determine the probable origin of the pottery, understand its distribution within the palaeochannel and determine the extent of any archaeological features located in the immediate vicinity. The palaeochannel, which curves from south west to north east, is situated c.110m to the south of the River Derwent (Fig. 1). It was well defined towards the western end of the trench and more ephemeral towards the east, where it was confined to a thinner channel, although this appeared to be widening as it reached the limit of excavation. The solid geology of the area comprises mudstone and siltstone of the Hope Beck formation overlain by alluvial deposits of clay, silts, sandstone and gravels (BGS 2014).

The excavation

The trench was opened by machine to expose the course of the palaeochannel. Three 2m wide slots were then excavated by hand across the palaeochannel (Figs. 2 and 3). All deposits within the palaeochannel containing artefacts, or with the potential

Transactions C&WAAS CW3, 15, 2015, 211-254

NOTES212

fig. 1. Location plan.

NOTES 213

fig. 2. Excavation trench plan.

NOTES214

to contain organic material, were sampled and subject to flotation through a 500µm sieve.

The only feature revealed within the excavation trench was the silted-up palaeochannel. Riverine gravels were observed to the north and south of the channel, which represented the limit or banks of the palaeochannel under investigation. A sandy yellow clay deposit (2003), which was probably the result of alluviation, extended across the palaeochannel and was excavated to a maximum depth of 0.30m (Figs. 2 and 4). This deposit was overlain to the north by a strip of silt (2009), similar in character to the overlying subsoil (2002), which filled a depression running parallel between the channel and the gravel terrace (2008) to the north to a depth of 0.30m. The alluvial deposit (2003) sealed a shallow mid-grey alluvial silty clay (2007) measuring approximately 0.10m in depth. This clay deposit, limited to the northern periphery of the palaeochannel, yielded a number of pottery fragments and crumbs. A dark grey/black organic-rich alluvial silt (2005) measuring 0.15m at its maximum recorded depth was sealed at the base of the palaeochannel and extended across its width. Fragments of pottery and charcoal were also found throughout this deposit. Deposits (2007) and (2005) were sampled for environmental flotation.

fig. 3. View across the excavation, facing east north east. Scale = 2m x 2m.

NOTES 215

Pottery Analysis

Robin Holgate

The pottery fragments recovered from the palaeochannel deposits, mostly from (2005) but with 8 small body fragments and 18 crumbs from (2007), all appear to originate from a single vessel. The potsherds comprised four rim and 32 body fragments, of which two were conjoining pieces from the shoulder of the vessel. They are part of the same vessel as the 17 fragments and nine crumbs recovered from evaluation trench 20, making a total of 53 potsherds (of which four are rim fragments) and 45 crumbs.

Tempering includes poorly-sorted crushed-stone fragments from 1mm to 4mm in diameter. The outer and inner surfaces are mainly orange-brown or dark grey brown in colour with mica flecks visible; the core of the vessel is either orange-brown, grey-brown or dark grey brown. The clay and the inclusions would be consistent with a relatively local glacio-fluvial deposit source.

The vessel has a slightly outwardly flared rim (Fig. 5) and burnished and/or well-smoothed, external and internal surfaces. The outer diameter of the vessel is approximately 270mm. The wall is of variable thickness, averaging between 5mm (at the shoulder) and 12mm (near the rim). A line of three finger tips can be seen inside the vessel running parallel with the shoulder, left from when the person making this

fig. 4. Palaeochannel Slot 2 section, facing west. Scale = 2m.

NOTES216

coil-built vessel was creating the shoulder. The pieces of pottery are from an early Neolithic Classic Carinated Bowl, a type of pottery defined as open or neutral bowls with a change in angle low on the body wall and with simple or rolled-over rims and a fine finish (Herne 1988; Cleal 2004; Sheridan 2007). The vessel is comparable with examples of Classic Carinated Bowls found in Ireland, Yorkshire and south-west England (Sheridan 2007; Griffiths 2014; Cleal 2004). The potsherds represent part of a bowl which had broken, possibly deliberately, and placed in the palaeochannel. The broken edges were all unabraded and the presence of two conjoining fragments suggests they had not moved very far from their place of deposition.

Palaeoenvironmental Assessment

Laura Strafford

Three environmental samples for palaeoenvironmental analysis were taken from the palaeochannel: sample 001 was taken from context (2007); sample 002 was taken from context (2005) at the northern end of slot 1; and sample 003 was also taken from context (2005), at the southern end of slot 1. All three samples produced flots for analysis. In addition, hand-collected charcoal was also retrieved from contexts (2005) and (2007).

In general, the flots were fairly productive, with the exception of sample 002 which yielded very little charcoal, all of a very small size. Sample 001 was the most productive, with one charred cereal grain and ten charred hazelnut (Corylus avellana) shell fragments present. The cereal grain was poorly preserved; however, the overall shape suggests it may be Emmer (Triticum dicoccum). None of the other samples produced any charred plant remains other than charcoal.

In the case of the charcoal, the majority of the material was fragmented and identification down to species or even genus level was in most cases not possible. There is little diversity of wood species, with the vast majority of charcoal fragments examined clearly being ring-porous with wide rays, which is indicative of oak (Quercus

fig. 5. Carinated Bowl illustration.

NOTES 217

sp.) with possibly a small amount of ash (Fraxinus sp.); one large fragment of possible beech (Fagus sp.) was also identified.

The lack of round wood in any of the samples means that the suitability of the charcoal for radiocarbon dating is poor, and none of the charcoal is recommended to be submitted for AMS dating. The cereal grain and hazelnut (Corylus avellana) shell fragments from sample 001 were submitted for radiocarbon dating.

Radiocarbon Dating

Gordon Cook and Scott Williams

The sample, a charred grain of Emmer Wheat (Triticum diococcum), was submitted for radiocarbon determination to the Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre (SUERC). The sample was measured by AMS as described by Zondervan and Sparks (1997). The laboratory maintains a continual programme of quality assurance procedures and takes part in all international inter-calibration studies. The calibrated age ranges were determined using the Oxford University Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit calibration program OxCal4.1.

The radiocarbon dating result is given in Table 1, and is quoted in accordance with the international standard known as the Trondheim convention (Stuiver and Kra 1986). They are conventional radiocarbon ages (Stuiver and Polach 1977).

table 1. Radiocarbon date for Emmer Wheat grain.

Context Material Lab Codeδ13C(‰)

Radio­carbon

Age (BP)

Calibrated daterange (95%confidence)

Calibrated daterange (68.2%confidence)

2007Emmer

Wheat grainSUERC-52877

(GU33907)–25.7 4886 ± 29

3707 - 3638 cal BC

3695 - 3645 cal BC

The calibrations of the results, relating the radiocarbon measurements directly to calendar dates, are also given in Table 1. All have been calculated using the calibration curve of Reimer et al.(2004) and the computer program OxCal v4.1 (Bronk Ramsey 1995; 1998; 2001; in press). Terrestrial samples are calibrated using the IntCal13 curve. The calibrated date ranges are quoted in the form recommended by Mook (1986), with the end points rounded outwards to 10 years.

Discussion

The lower deposits of the palaeochannel were securely sealed and undisturbed beneath an alluvial deposit which spanned its width. Towards the east of the trench, where the channel was more ephemeral, the lacustrinal basal fill of the channel was discontinuous and less distinct. Deposit (2007), limited to the northern periphery of the palaeochannel, produced fragments of pottery and charcoal which were spread throughout; a single grain of Emmer Wheat (Triticum diococcum) recovered from this context was dated with 95.4 per cent probability to 4886+/-29 BP. Basal deposit

NOTES218

(2005), first noted during the evaluation trenching, was a very dark grey/black colour and was of a variable depth across the channel; charcoal and pottery fragments were also found throughout this deposit. The fragments recovered from both deposits appear to originate from the same vessel, an early Neolithic Carinated Bowl, which fits with the radiocarbon date obtained.

The pottery did not display any evidence of rolling or abrasion, having crisp and fragmented edges and, with the addition of the presence of conjoining pieces, would appear to suggest that the broken vessel may have been deposited into standing water. The distribution of charcoal fragments alongside the pottery may also support this theory. The pottery fragments were recovered from both the northern and southern edges of the channel. If the water was flowing the charcoal would remain in suspension when deposited and continue downstream. It is possible that the palaeochannel had become silted up and cut off from the flow of water during the Neolithic period when deposition occurred. The lacustrinal mud of the basal fill was a fine-grained sediment formed in a non-flushing environment, i.e. open water, and the area may have resembled a shallow pond in appearance.

The absence of other domestic activity debris (aside from charcoal) was notable. No archaeological features, evidence for dumping of refuse, or soil staining that may indicate degraded material, were observed within the excavation trench at the periphery of the palaeochannel along the riverine gravels. There were no animal bones or other artefacts to suggest domestic occupation in the immediate vicinity. However, the presence of early Neolithic pottery within the channel may represent evidence of domestic activity at or near the edge of the pond or, indeed, may represent some form of structured deposition. Taking into account the potsherds originating from a single vessel, structured deposition appears to be the more likely process by which the pot was deposited into the water. It is possible that the silted-up channel may have held a special significance for the Neolithic people of the area, and the fragmented bowl was placed into the water as some form of offering.

Excavations at other sites in Cumbria have revealed features which have produced early fourth millennium BC pottery and radiocarbon dates. A small hearth excavated at Cocklades, near Carlisle, was radiocarbon dated to 3650-3510 cal BC (Hodgson and Brennand 2006, 32). Pits and scoops containing plain bowl fragments and fire-fractured stones were excavated at High Crosby on the northern side of the River Eden upstream at Carlisle, whilst fragments of plain bowl pottery were recovered from pits at Scotby Road, Carlisle on a site overlooking the confluence of the Eden with a minor stream, the Durranhill Beck (McCarthey 2002, 37). At Holbeck Park, on the Furness Peninsular, a probable tree throw hollow was investigated; it contained plain bowl pottery fragments representing at least eight different vessels, struck flint, a carbonised wheat grain, carbonised hazelnut shells and charcoal resulting from early Neolithic people visiting, cultivating or occupying a small clearance (Oxford Archaeology North 2002). Five radiocarbon dates, one taken from the charred grain, produced a date range of 4000-3700 calBC for the assemblage (Hodgson and Brennand 2006, 32). At Roose Quarry, also on the Furness Peninsula, a hearth pit yielded fragments of undecorated Carinated Bowl, two flint leaf-shaped arrowheads and stone flakes that

NOTES 219

are likely to be reused fragments of polished stone axes (Jones 2001). These sites are interpreted as indicating shifting settlement and cultivation rather than perennial occupation (Jones 2001; Oxford Archaeology North 2002, 32).

Palynological analysis of deposits from upland tarns and lowland mosses has produced evidence of small-scale cultivation on the Cumbrian coastal plain and upland clearances for grassland in the 4th millennium BC (Pennington 1975). As outlined above, archaeological investigations in recent years that have taken place in northern and western Cumbria show that farming communities were exploiting coastal, lowland and riverine locations in the early 4th millennium BC, possibly with seasonal movement between the lowlands and uplands (cf. Evans 2004, 127). Marine transgression of low-lying areas, which also encroached up some of the river valleys, also took place in the early 4th millennium BC (Tooley 1978). It was during this period that fragments from a single Carinated Bowl were deposited in open water at The Fitz, Cockermouth.

Carinated Bowls, cereal remains, domesticated animal bones and ground stone axeheads were amongst the first Neolithic items to appear in the British Isles (Whittle et al. 2011, 800). At present, the earliest known examples of Carinated Bowls are from south-east England, dating to the 41st-40th centuries cal BC. They first appear in south-west England, Wales, northern England, Ireland and southern Scotland in the 39th century cal BC (Whittle et al. 2011, 839). Carinated Bowls are often found in pits or in pre-barrow occupation deposits. However, the most closely-dated early Neolithic ceramic vessels in the British Isles were found alongside the Sweet Track, a wooden trackway dated to 3807/3806 BC by dendrochronology that stood proud of standing water in the Somerset Levels. Here, fragments of several Carinated Bowls were associated with the trackway, including pieces of the same vessel found distributed some distance from each other on either side of the trackway (Coles and Orme 1976, 65). Two stone axeheads, one of polished jadeite and the other a flint perform, were also recovered. These items have been interpreted as votive offerings deposited in a watery context. Indeed, the hafted stone axe and other material recovered from Ehenside Tarn in Cumbria have also been reinterpreted as representing possible votive offerings (Clare 2009, 83).

The similarity in radiocarbon dates associated with early Neolithic items, including Carinated Bowls, megalithic tombs and greenstone axeheads, spreading from Brittany to the Irish Sea and then as far as the west coast of Scotland and the north coast of Ireland has been viewed as evidence for one or more hypothetical northwards ‘diaspora’ up the Irish Sea (Sheridan 2004, 10-12; Sheridan and Pétrequin 2014, 373-4). The deposition of the Carinated Bowl fragments at The Fitz, Cockermouth in the early 37th century cal BC, some 100 years after the construction of the Sweet Track, appears to be an example of the practice of making votive offerings in low-lying watery contexts that occurred in western England at a time when rising sea levels and the flooding of low-lying coastal and inland areas were reaching their zenith (cf.Tooley 1978).

S.Williams and R. Holgate, www.archaeologicalresearchservices.com

NOTES220

Acknowledgements

Archaeological Research Services Ltd would like to thank all those who contributed to the outcome of this project, in particular Mike Mercer of Lovell Partnerships for commissioning the works, Darren Slack of The Fitz for facilitating access, and Jeremy Parsons of Cumbria County Council for his advice and assistance throughout the project.

BibliographyBritish Geological Survey, viewed at http://www.bgs.ac.uk/ (accessed 06.01.14).Clare, T., ‘No-man’s land revisited: some patterns in the Neolithic of Cumbria’, in Brophy, K. and Barclay,

G. (eds.), Defining a Regional Neolithic : The Evidence from Britain and Ireland. Eynsham: Oxbow Books, (2009), 78-91.

Cleal, R.M.J., ‘The Dating and Diversity of the Earliest Ceramics of Wessex and South-west England’, in Cleal, R. and Pollard, J. (eds.), Monuments and Material Culture. Papers in honour of an Avebury archaeologist: Isobel Smith. Salisbury: Hobnob Press, (2004), 164-92.

Coles, J.M. and Orme, B.J., ‘The Sweet Track Railway Site’, Somerset Levels Papers, 2, (1976), 34-65.Evans, H., ‘Where is the Cumbrian Neolithic?’, in Cummins, V. and Fowler, C. (eds.) The Neolithic of the

Irish Sea. Materiality and traditions of practice. Oxford: Oxbow Books, (2004), 123-8.Giecco, F., Geophysical Surveys of land at Fitz Park, Cockermouth, Cumbria. North Pennines Archaeology

unpublished report (2009).Griffiths, S., ‘A Bayesian Radiocarbon Chronology of the Early Neolithic of Yorkshire and Humberside’.

Archaeological Journal 171, (2014), 2-29.Herne, A., ‘A time and a place for the Grimston bowl’, in Barrett, J.C. and Kinnes, I.A. (eds.), The Archaeology

of Context in the Neolithic and the Bronze Age: recent trends, (Sheffield: J.R. Collis Publications, 1988), 9-29.Hodgson, J. and Brennand, M., ‘Prehistoric Period Resource Assessment’, in Brennand, M. (ed.), The

Archaeology of North West England. An Archaeological Research Framework for the North West Region. Volume I Resource Assessment. Archaeology North West, 8, (2006), 23-58.

Jones, E., Results of an archaeological evaluation at Roose Quarry, Barrow-in-Furness, Cumbria. Headland Archaeology Ltd, unpublished report no. 6/10/298 (2001).

Lotherington, R., An Archaeological Evaluation at Fitz Park, Cockermouth, Cumbria. Archaeological Research Services Ltd unpublished report no. 2014/25 (2014).

McCarthy, M.R., Roman Carlisle and the lands of the Solway (Stroud: Tempus, 2002).Oxford Archaeology North, Holbeck Park Avenue, Barrow-in-Furness. Evaluation Report. Oxford

Archaeology North unpublished report no. 2002-03/007 (2002).Pennington, W., ‘The effect of Neolithic man on the environments of north-west England: the use of absolute

pollen diagrams’, in Evans, J., Limbrey, S. and Cleere, H. (eds.), The effect of man on the landscape: the highland zone. London: Council for British Archaeology Research Reports 11, (1975), 74-86.

Sheridan, J.A., ‘Irish Neolithic pottery: the story in 1995’, in Kinnes, I. and Varndell, G. (eds.), ‘Unbaked Urns of Rudely Shape’. Essays on British and Irish Pottery for Ian Longworth. Oxford: Oxbows Monograohs 55, (1995), 3-21.

Sheridan, J.A., ‘Neolithic connections along and across the Irish Sea’, in Cummins, V. and Fowler, C. (eds.) The Neolithic of the Irish Sea. Materiality and traditions of practice. Oxford: Oxbow Books, (2004), 9-21.

Sheridan, J.A., ‘From Picardie to Pickering and Pencraig Hill? New information on the ‘Carinated Bowl Neolithic’ in northern Britain’, in Whittle, A. and Cummings, V. (eds.), Going Over. The Mesolithic-Neolithic Transition in North-West Europe, (Oxford, Proceedings of the British Academy 144, Oxford University Press, (2007), 441-492.

Sheridan, J.A. and Pétrequin, P., Constructing a Narrative for the Neolithic of Britain and Ireland. Proceedings of the British Academy 198, (2014), 369-90.

Tooley, M.J., Theories of Coastal Change in North-West England, in Thompson, F.H. (ed.), Archaeology and Coastal Change, (London: Society of Antiquaries, 1978), 74-86.

Whittle, A., Healy, F. and Bayliss, A., Gathering Time. Dating the Early Neolithic Enclosures of Southern Britain and Ireland. Oxford: Oxbow Books, (2011).

Williams, S., Fitz Park, Cockermouth, Cumbria. Archaeological Excavation 2014. Archaeological Research Services Ltd unpublished report no. 2014/42 (2014)