Experience and perception of memorable places: lithic scatters and mapping the British Neolithic

CHAPTER FIVE

EXPERIENCE AND PERCEPTION OF MEMORABLE PLACES:

LITHIC SCATTERS AND MAPPING THE BRITISH NEOLITHIC

CLIVE JONATHON BOND

“… flint scatters at these locales would have had considerable significance during the Mesolithic and early Neolithic for a recognition, reading and understanding of place.” —Tilley 2004: 207

Introduction

In recent years many authors have written about dwelling (Ingold 1993), locales (Edmonds 1999), taskscapes (Edmonds 1997) and inhabitation (Chadwick 2004). Often, little lithic data is found amongst pages of social theory. Instead, only descriptive social prehistory is provided, without explicit linkage to the quantitative lithic data (Pollard 1998, 1999). Even within Tilley’s seminal text, lithic scatters are mentioned, but only as a contributing factor to aiding the structuring of prehistoric social practices. How this was done is not explored. Ironically, these places that must have been socially constructed (Tilley 1994, chapter 2) were not deemed ‘places’ in their own right. Instead, they were just part of the land that people moved through.

This chapter will address this issue; the social meaning of lithic scatters, as a residue of past social practices. Four themes are to be discussed: artefacts, place, space and time; all are key components towards understanding the social meaning of lithic scatters. The concept of ‘memorable places’ is introduced as a way of emphasising the long-lived and socially constructed nature of lithic scatters (Bond 2004a, b, 2006, 2007,

Experience and Perception of Memorable Places 87

2009a, b). These are places re-visited over generations, key to, not marginal to understanding the changing social landscape of regional British prehistory.

The premise here is that lithic scatters were distinctive places that were constructed by repeated and long-term activities - the accretion of artefacts. Lithic scatters are not only a type of site (English Heritage 2000), rather a distinctive humanised place (Schofield 2000). By definition lithic scatters are places constructed from artefacts; their materiality is bound together. This chapter will discuss a methodology for analysing lithics from lithic scatters in two regional case studies: central Somerset and the East Anglian Fen-edge in Norfolk (Figs 5-1, 5-2 and 5-3.1 and 5-3.3). The two case studies will focus on the analysis of lithic assemblages recovered from field surveys in the two separate regions. These lithic data are contrasted providing information from which to discuss the changing social meaning, experience and perception of lithic scatters in the British Neolithic.

Fig. 5-1. Location – A: the British Isles and the location of the two case studies; B: South-West and central Somerset, the Brue Valley and Shapwick Burtle, Shapwick; C: East Anglia, eastern Britain and the Norfolk fen-edge and Wissey embayment, Catsholme Farm, Methwold Hythe, Methwold. Note the diagonal etched box in B and C are insets of study area, as shown in Fig. 5-2.

Context and Methodology

There are two methodologies worthy of consideration: a field method deployed to recover lithics from lithic scatters, from plough soil and/or pasture land; a method deployed to record the resultant lithic artefact

Chapter Five

88

assemblages. Both in Somerset and in Norfolk, comparable field methods have been utilised, albeit over a longer time frame. That is, informal fieldwalking has occurred on Shapwick Burtle, perhaps since 1911 (Bulleid and Jackson 1937). Despite, more recent interventions at Catsholme Farm, Methwold Hythe, Methwold, Norfolk, with the recovery of lithics in an extensive systematic survey (Silvester 1991), this does not make direct comparison impossible. Shapwick Burtle, Somerset and Catsholme Farm, Norfolk, are viewed as ‘hot spots’ in their regional landscapes. Both may be asserted as preferred places (Dunnell 1992) or ‘persistent places’ (Barton et al 1995; Schlanger 1992), with contrasting, but comparable histories of recording.

Sites and field methodologies: Two field methods have been utilised on both lithic scatters (Fig. 5-2); field survey and shovel test pit survey. Field walking, or survey, was either freestyle walking with recording to an eight or ten figure national grid reference (resolution within 20 metres sq.) per scatter, as at Shapwick Burtle or grid walking and timed total collection, as at Catsholme Farm.

Shapwick Burtle is a sand island amongst peat wetland, a few hundreds of metres north of the Lias slope of the Polden Hills in central Somerset, South-West Britain (Figs. 5-1 and 5-2). It forms part of a sequence of sand islands, a distinctive deposit known as the Burtle Beds or Formation that emerge through the peat moorland of the Somerset Levels (Campbell et al. 1998). Shapwick Burtle rises over 6m above the peat (Fig. 5-3.3). In prehistory with lower peat phragmites or raised bog surface this would have been more defined (Wilkinson and Bond 2001). These deposits are often rich in fossils and prehistoric archaeology (Bulleid and Jackson 1937). At Shapwick Burtle field walking on ploughed areas or investigating mole hills has provided hundreds of lithics over the twentieth century. Whilst this was informal walking, the provenance of collections is well sourced. The wetland-edge surveys of the Somerset Levels Project also contributed sizeable assemblages and with high resolution provenance (Brown 1986; Coles 1989). Skilled amateur collection has continued, from specific locales on this Burtle island sourced from mole hills (J. W. Hayes collections; Bond 2004b: fig. 4a).


Fig. 5-2. Case studies and landscape context: Top: the field survey and shovel test pit survey at Catsholme Farm, Methwold Hythe, Methwold, Norfolk. Known lithic scatters recovered by the Fenland Project are shown, small triangles, numbered; ranged circles are lithics, recorded either within the north-west corner of the field (grid survey), or extend north and west (shovel test pit survey). The grid walked plots were set within two 50m x 50m squares, divided into 5m x 5m squares, collected timed at 20 minutes per square. The shovel test pit survey extended this sample frame west and north down slope into the fen-edge and peat. Grid walked data is plotted in intervals of 5 artefact, from 0 (x), 5 to 23-47 artefacts. The shovel test pit survey is plotted in intervals of 2-5 artefacts, from 0 (x), 1-2 to 12 artefacts. The peat and chalk upland of the promontory are clearly labelled. Bottom: the survey and shovel test pit survey at Shapwick Burtle, Shapwick, Somerset: lithic scatters recorded as Historic Environment Records are plotted, as open circles (HER 30434; 30270; 30274; 30430; 30267, at distance from the Burtle HER 30293 and 30282). These represent historic collections and more recent collections, e.g. Mr. Hayes’ assemblages. Squares indicate the location of shovel test pits across, surveyed as part of the Shapwick Project (Bond 2007; Thorpe and Gerrard 2007). The 6m O.D. rise of the sand slopes of Shapwick Burtle are clearly illustrated. Ordnance Survey data, Licence Number: LA07683X.

Chapter Five

90

1 2

3 4

Fig. 5-3. Landscape and artefacts: 1. Shovel test pit survey, spring 2003. Shovel-testing is taking place in the 50m x 50m square just off the slope into the peat on the northern slopes of the Catsholme Ridge. The slope is discernable to the left, with a tractor’s trailer parked in the pasture. The ploughed peat of the Black Fens is shown to the right background. 2: Lithics recovered by field survey at Catsholme Farm, spring 2003. Flint cores, core fragments, irregular waste and flakes are all mostly later Mesolithic and earlier Neolithic in date. Scale, the flint core length is just over 8cm. 3: The Shapwick Burtle, the northern slope, rising above the peat, spring 2010. The Burtle slope rise 3-6m above the O.D. Left of the trees is the location of the Post Track/Sweet Track terminal, trench B; lithic scatter HER 30274 is just off the picture. Scatter HER 30434 extends over the crest of the Burtle slope, the open ground central in the picture. 4: Lithics recovered by freestyle survey of mole hills from Shapwick Burtle. Flint and chert cores, core fragments, flaked and blades, all mostly dating to the early Mesolithic. Scale, the flint core length at the top right is just over 8cm.

More structured systematic survey was deployed, as part of the Shapwick Project, with the fields incorporating Shapwick Burtle being subject to shovel test pit survey (Smith and Thorpe 1995; Thorpe and Gerrard 2007: 268-271). Shovel test pit survey is a means of obtaining a controlled and standard sample of ploughs soil that can be used as a comparison to other survey techniques (cf. Krakker et al. 1983; Wobst


1983). The field technique deployed at Shapwick and Catsholme Farm, Norfolk, was to take 5 ‘tests’ or shovel tests, per 50m x 50m square, removing soil to a depth of 2 centimetres (Fig. 5-2). The sample of plough soil containing artefacts recovered is a bucket of plough soil per test in total equating to 150 litres sample per 50m x 50m square. This is converted to a 500,000 litres volume metric sample (Wobst 1983: 61). Thus, each 50m x 50m square based on 150 litres is a small, but comparable sample of 0.0003% per 50m x 50m square. The methodology is robust, directly comparable to field walked data and can indicate a presence of artefacts in the plough soil. Further detail on the method may be found elsewhere (Bond 2006: chapter 3, DVD, ii 3.5.2; Bond 2007: 718; Smith and Thorpe 1995; Thorpe and Gerrard 2007: 266-267).

Catsholme Farm, the locality is also known as Catsholme Hill or peninsula, is a chalk ridge juts out from the Norfolk fen-edge in East Anglia, eastern Britain (Figs. 5-1 and 5-2). The Norfolk fen-edge is a chalky upland with a skirt land where peat erodes adjacent to the light cover sands on the chalk. The farm covers most of this ridge or peninsula (Silverster 1991: 8) that forms a promontory out into the peat fens. The land rises to between 3m and 4m O.D. with humose clayey and fine loamy soils (Fig. 5-3.1). Since the 1950s there have been chance finds on and around the peat fens of Methwold Hythe and Catsholme Farm. In 1955 digging of a trench recovered parts of a human skeleton associated with animal bones near the farm (HER 2549). Similarly, a farmer re-cutting a field dyke in 1959 recovered on a buried mineral soil long blades indicative of a late Upper Palaeolithic/early Mesolithic industry (Silvester 1991: 62). Other undated and radiocarbon dated human skeletons have been recorded within the adjacent fens. An early Bronze Age date has been demonstrated for one example at nearby Hemplands Farm, Methwold Hythe (Healy and Housley 1992). The peat fens of Methwold are well known for metal Bronze Age objects; a rapier and a torc from Catsholme are part of this distribution (HER 2541, 2537). In the 1980s the Fenland Project Survey deployed a 30m transect spacing across the parish and on Catsholme Farm, where land was available (Silvester 1991: 8-9, fig. 34). The survey recorded a number of lithic scatters, variously of Mesolithic, earlier Neolithic, to later Neolithic and/or Bronze Age in date (Silvester 1991: 62-67, figs. 35 and 36). Six concentrations of lithic scatters were recorded, together with abundant evidence of burnt flint scatters, ‘pot-boilers’ (HER 23660). The Mesolithic components of the scatters have been viewed as part of a ‘continuous spread’ focused on the Catsholme ridge (HER 20991; Silvester 1991: 62). In 2003 a field survey was completed on selected fields where the Fenland Project had recovered

Chapter Five

92

lithic scatters; the aim was to record more accurately the extent and boundaries of each lithic scatter (HER 41026, 20991; Bond 2003a). Initially, over areas of 50m x 50m square, centred on three known scatters (Sites 21, 25 and 26, see Fig. 5-2) some 1570g of lithics were recorded. Most of this, 1166g, (74%), was recorded from the north-west corner of the field incorporating Site 25. To establish the size and shape of this scatter, two 50m x 50m squares were laid out and divided into 5m x 5m squares. Each 5m x 5m grid square was then walked at timed intervals of 20 minutes. This survey generated 454 artefacts (5466g). As the scatter in this corner of the field appeared to extend beyond the ploughed field, into a pasture paddock, perhaps down slope into the peat, it was also decided to deploy a shovel test pit survey. Based on the survey grid for the 50m x 50m squares, this was extended to include a further four other squares, covering the paddock and down slope/fen-edge soils north of Site 25. These additional squares were set out to accommodate 5 ‘tests’, using the same method as used at Shapwick Burtle (Figs. 5-2 and 5-3.1). The shovel test pit generated an additional assemblage of 56 lithics. A total of 510 lithics are discussed below (the 98 lithics recorded by the Silvester’s survey form Site 25 are not included below (Silvester 1991: microfiche I: E6).

At both Shapwick Burtle and Catsholme Farm (Site 25; the 2003 surveys only): lithics have been recovered from the plough soil over a succession of years (Fig. 5-3). Material has been recorded on discrete parts of the ‘Burtle’ sand island and grid walking has been used at Catsholme Farm to record lithics within 5m x 5m squares. Arguably, as the Burtle is so slight in extent and provenance is accurately recorded, both field walked data sets are comparable. Both sites have been subject to the same shovel test pit methodology complementing previous field walking. Direct comparison between these different plough soil field surveys is argued here to be valid. This aspect is beyond this chapter. However, the statistical validity of survey versus shovel test pit recovery has also been discussed elsewhere (Bond 2006: chapter 3, DVD, ii, 3.5.2; Bond 2007).

Importantly, both sites in contrast to the surrounding well-known archaeology and extensive systematically surveyed landscape indicate ‘hot spots’ for prehistoric activity. This is particularly so, when regarding the extended time frame Mesolithic to later Neolithic and/or earlier Bronze Age (Bond 2004a, b, 2006, 2007; Healy 1991, 1996; Silvester 1991). Therefore, comparison of both sites, their lithic assemblages is suggested here to be a useful medium from which to explore the pattern in the use of place over several hundreds of years. Central to this is the meaning of


artefacts, their accumulation over time and the changing social meaning of place to generations of local prehistoric peoples.

Assemblage recording method and analysis: There are two camps, two ways of analysing lithic assemblages. One, traditionally focuses only on retouched artefacts, typologies of the ‘tools’ and disregards the majority of any assemblage. That is, up to 95%, if not more, of any lithic assemblage can equate to waste produced from flaking stone. Typically, the overall composition of an assemblage is dominated by waste: cores, irregular waste, core trimming flakes, flakes and blades. The second camp, the ‘whole assemblage’ approach (Gardiner and Shennan 1985: 66), may utilise all aspects of an assemblage to understand the typology, but also technological character of the assemblage. This may also include quantitative analyses (for example metric analysis following Ford et al. 1984; Pitts 1978; Pitts and Jacobi 1979), all to indicate the technological signature and broad period of different groupings of lithics within the assemblage. The typology and technologies identified in a lithic assemblage derived from the disturbed plough soil can be compared with examples from excavated and/or radiocarbon-dated assemblages. These assemblages regionally demonstrate an understood change in flaking technology, blade to flake production within the Holocene (Ford et al. 1984; Pitts 1978; Pitts and Jacobi 1979). There is also a presence of certain retouched forms, the product of those lithic industries, broadly in keeping with other excavated and radiocarbon-dated assemblages in southern England. In Somerset well dated small assemblages, sometimes recorded with chronologically diagnostic pottery are comparable: for example, Brean Down (Saville 1990); Norton Fitzwarren (Savile 1989); the Sweet Track/Post Track and Skinner’s Wood (Brown 1986). In Norfolk and the fenland region lithic industries are well dated, and/or recorded in pottery bearing contexts: for example, Shippea Hill and Peacock Farm, Littleport (Smith et al 1989; see for the Mesolithic in Norfolk, Jacobi 1984); Broome Heath, Ditchingham (Wainwright 1972); Redgate Hill, Hunstanton (Bradley et al. 1993); Grimes Graves (Saville 1981).

By analysing a total lithic assemblage, retouched artefacts and waste, the total assemblage can be analysed and lithics can be assigned to broad groupings of material broadly dated and understood in technological terms. The result is to infer a date to elements of the assemblage and function. Depending on the assemblage composition, chronological change may be ascribed to proportions of lithics including the traditionally viewed undated waste. This combined approach enables a statement on what is represented by a mixed-period lithic assemblage derived from the ploughsoil, making it possible to suggest a certain proportion of material,

Chapter Five

94

retouched forms (typology) and waste (technology), is most probably of a certain broad time-frame; for example, Mesolithic, later Mesolithic, early Neolithic, or even Beaker or indeterminate later Neolithic or early Bronze Age. This method has been applied in a number of regions, from the Wessex chalklands (Ford 1987; Richards 1978) to more northern regions (Waddington 1999) and the East Anglian Fen-edge including assemblages recovered from the immediate environs of Catsholme Farm, part of the Fenland Project survey (Healy 1991).

In the case of lithic data drawn from both Shapwick Burtle and Catsholme Farm, both have been grouped and analysed into a total of 15 data quality and period filters (Table 5-1). The terms data quality and period filters are used primarily to emphasize that the lithic groups are organized as a hierarchical system. This straddles different groups of lithics with more or less quality of data inferred in terms of chronological resolution. This chronological resolution is supported by the presence of typologies, technologically diagnostic artefacts, metric analysis (and a demonstrated change in blade and flake shape) and condition of materials. In central Somerset at Shapwick Burtle and at Catsholme Farm, Norfolk it has been the surface lithic assemblages do exhibit a range of patina types, that may relate to the date of the industry (Brown 1986; Healy 1996; Norman 2003). Therefore, Table 5-1 summarizes the groups of lithic artefacts and attributes that have enabled the assignment of artefacts to each group. Note data quality and period filters may or may not overlap in time. However, the result is the ability to phase groupings of lithic artefacts relatively within a lithic scatter. This makes it possible to provide relative phasing of activity across the site, locale and broader landscape in both Norfolk and Somerset (Fig. 5-2). Lithic scatter data is presented in Tables 5-2 and 5-3 as combining survey and test pit data. As stated both are comparable in the success and coverage of a method, thus, the assemblage can be regarded from each site as coming from the same context: systematically sampling the plough soil.

Expe

rienc

e an

d Pe

rcep

tion

of M

emor

able

Pla

ces

95

Tab

le 5

-1. A

sum

mar

y of

the

type

of a

rtef

acts

, the

ir a

ttri

bute

s, as

ass

igne

d to

bro

ad g

roup

ings

- da

ta q

ualit

y an

d pe

riod

filte

rs.

No.

ca

l. B

C

Dat

a qu

ality

an

d pe

riod

fil

ters

Abb

revi

at

ions

in

Text

Tech

nolo

gy a

nd ty

polo

gy*

Ret

ouch

ed fo

rms

Patin

a

1 _

?Pre

hist

oric

?P

REH

Ir

regu

lar a

nd a

ngul

ar fl

akes

or c

hunk

s. Th

is g

roup

in

clud

es m

ater

ial t

hat i

s stru

ck, b

ut m

ay n

ot b

e hu

man

ly w

orke

d: fl

akes

with

out d

iagn

ostic

fe

atur

es; n

atur

al p

ebbl

es a

nd 'l

imin

g fli

nts'

(irre

gula

r chu

nks,

lum

ps a

nd fl

akes

, im

porte

d in

to

the

area

from

Wilt

shire

)

Non

e H

eavy

, m

ediu

m a

nd

light

2 10

,000

-700

Pr

ehis

toric

PR

EH

Chr

onol

ogic

ally

unc

lass

ified

mat

eria

l, bu

t de

finite

ly fl

aked

. Was

te d

omin

ated

, with

chu

nks,

core

s and

cor

e-no

dule

s. M

ore

rare

ly re

touc

hed

form

s, su

ch a

s scr

aper

s

Scra

pers

, m

isce

llane

ous

reto

uche

d fla

kes/

blad

es

Hea

vy,

med

ium

, few

lig

ht

3 10

,000

-400

0M

esol

ithic

M

E D

omin

ated

by

was

te; f

lake

s, so

me

core

s and

cor

e fr

agm

ents

with

som

e re

touc

hed

form

s, su

ch a

s pa

rticu

lar s

crap

ers.

Not

e, n

o di

agno

stic

type

s, bu

t gi

ven

the

degr

ee o

f pat

inat

ion

this

gro

up m

ay b

e a

resi

dual

ele

men

t of t

he e

arly

Mes

olith

ic. O

ther

da

ta fi

lters

: 4. E

M; 5

. LM

Scra

pers

, m

isce

llane

ous

reto

uche

d fla

kes/

blad

es

Hea

vy,

med

ium

, few

lig

ht

4 10

,000

-650

0Ea

rly

Mes

olith

ic

EM

Dia

gnos

tic w

aste

, with

bro

ad fl

ake/

blad

e sc

ars o

n co

res,

mic

rolit

hs, t

ypic

ally

'Bro

ad b

lade

'. C

omm

on, e

nd a

nd e

nd a

nd si

de sc

rape

rs o

n fla

kes.

Bur

ins,

mic

robu

rins a

nd m

isce

llane

ous

reto

uche

d fla

kes.

Oth

er d

ata

filte

rs: 3

. ME

Obl

ique

ly bl

unted

po

ints

(larg

e), n

on-

geom

etric

form

s, bu

rins,

micr

obur

ins,

end a

nd

end a

nd si

de sc

rape

rs

Hea

vy to

m

ediu

m

Cha

pter

Fiv

e

96 5 65

00-4

000

Late

r M

esol

ithic

LM

D

iagn

ostic

was

te, w

ith n

arro

w fl

akes

/bla

des o

r bl

adel

et sc

ars o

n co

res,

mic

rolit

hs ty

pica

lly

'Nar

row

bla

de',

smal

l and

thin

non

-geo

met

ric a

nd

geom

etric

type

s. Sm

all m

icro

burin

s (fe

w).

Oth

er

data

filte

rs: 6

. LM

/EN

Obl

ique

ly b

lunt

ed

poin

ts (s

mal

l),

cres

cent

s, sc

alen

es,

mos

t geo

met

ric,

smal

l mic

robu

rins,

smal

l rou

nd sc

rape

rs

Med

ium

to

light

, to

none

6 65

00-2

900

Late

r M

esol

ithic

&

/or e

arlie

r N

eolit

hic

LM/E

N

Mos

tly n

ot d

iagn

ostic

; cor

es, f

lake

s, na

rrow

fla

kes,

blad

es. A

lso

som

e sc

rape

rs o

n fla

kes,

othe

r m

isce

llane

ous r

etou

ched

flak

es. O

ther

dat

a fil

ters

: 5.

LM

; 7. E

N

Scra

pers

, m

isce

llane

ous

reto

uche

d fla

kes/

blad

es

Ligh

t to

none

7 40

00-2

900

(383

8 B

C

Post

Tra

ck;

3806

-07

BC

Sw

eet

Trac

k)

Earli

er

Neo

lithi

c EN

G

roup

typi

cally

ear

lier N

eolit

hic

with

ty

polo

gica

lly d

iagn

ostic

reto

uche

d fo

rms:

leaf

-sh

aped

arr

owhe

ads,

chip

ped

and

polis

hed

axes

, as

smal

l and

sim

ples

scra

pers

, suc

h as

the

shor

t sc

rape

r. C

lass

ic w

aste

, inc

lude

s nar

row

flak

e,

blad

e-lik

e fla

kes a

nd so

me

blad

es; e

vide

nce

for

core

pre

para

tion

and

reju

vena

tion

(for

exa

mpl

e,

core

tabl

ets a

nd c

ore

reju

vena

tion

flake

s). O

ther

da

ta fi

lters

: 6. L

M/E

N; 7

. EN

Leaf

-sha

ped

arro

whe

ads,

chip

ped

and

polis

hed

axes

, sh

ort s

crap

ers

Ligh

t to

none

8 29

00-2

500

Earli

er

Neo

lithi

c &

/or

mid

dle

Neo

lithi

c

EN/M

N

This

gro

upin

g is

less

dis

tinct

ive,

with

few

re

touc

hed

form

s and

was

te d

omin

atin

g: c

ores

, irr

egul

ar w

aste

, tec

hnol

ogic

ally

nar

row

flak

e ba

sed.

Oth

er d

ata

filte

rs: 7

. EN

; 9. M

N/L

N

Scra

pers

, m

isce

llane

ous

reto

uche

d fla

kes/

blad

es

Ligh

t to

none

9 29

00, 2

500-

2000

M

iddl

e N

eolit

hic

and/

or la

ter

Neo

lithi

c

MN

/LM

Li

thic

s with

in th

is gr

oup

are l

ess d

iagno

stic,

but f

lakes

do

tend

to b

e bro

ad. F

lake

s are

mor

e squ

at an

d br

oad

in sh

ape,

with

littl

e sig

n of

core

pre

para

tion.

Bla

des a

re

few

. Was

te do

min

ates

, with

few

reto

uche

d fo

rms.

Oth

er d

ata fi

lters:

8. E

N/M

N; 1

0. L

N

Scra

pers

, m

isce

llane

ous

reto

uche

d fla

kes/

blad

es

Non

e

Expe

rienc

e an

d Pe

rcep

tion

of M

emor

able

Pla

ces

97

10

2500

-200

0 La

ter N

eolit

hic

LN

Gro

up ty

pica

lly in

clud

es p

artic

ular

late

r Neo

lithi

c re

touc

hed

form

s, su

ch a

s the

Pet

it tr

anch

et

arro

whe

ad, c

hise

l arr

owhe

ad a

nd la

rge

scra

pers

(f

or e

xam

ple,

the

hors

e sh

oe sc

rape

r). F

lake

s are

fe

w, b

ut te

nd to

be

larg

e, h

ard

ham

mer

in ty

pe.

This

dem

onst

rate

s tec

hnol

ogic

ally

the

shift

from

na

rrow

to b

road

flak

e pr

oduc

tion,

with

a

corr

espo

ndin

g re

duce

d em

phas

is o

n co

re

prep

arat

ion

and

mai

nten

ance

. Oth

er d

ata

filte

rs: 9

. M

N/L

N; 1

1. B

K; 1

2. L

N/E

B; 1

3. E

B/M

B

Petit

tran

chet

ar

row

head

s, ch

isel

ar

row

head

s and

la

rge

scra

pers

(for

ex

ampl

e, th

e ho

rse

shoe

scra

per)

Non

e

11

2500

-180

0 B

eake

r B

K

This

gro

up is

dom

inat

ed b

y di

agno

stic

reto

uche

d fo

rms,

incl

udin

g th

umbn

ail s

crap

ers a

nd b

arbe

d an

d ta

nged

arr

owhe

ads.

Scal

e fla

king

is m

ore

evid

ent o

n ot

her f

orm

s of s

crap

er, f

or e

xam

ple

sem

i-circ

ular

scra

pers

and

pla

no-c

onve

x kn

ifes.

Flak

es, o

verla

p in

type

with

adj

acen

t gro

ups:

br

oad

and

squa

t in

shap

e, w

ith li

mite

d pl

atfo

rm

prep

arat

ion.

Oth

er d

ata

filte

rs: 9

. MN

/LN

; 10.

LN

; 12

. LN

/EB

; 13.

EB

/MB

Thum

bnai

l scr

aper

s, ot

her s

cale

-fla

ked

scra

pers

, pla

no-

conv

ex k

nife

s, si

ckle

kn

ifes,

dagg

ers a

nd

all t

ypes

of b

arbe

d an

d ta

nged

ar

row

head

s

Non

e

12

2400

-150

0 In

dete

rmin

ate

late

r Neo

lithi

c or

ear

ly B

ronz

e A

ge

LN/E

B

Was

te w

ould

ove

rlap

with

adj

acen

t gro

ups:

bro

ad

and

squa

t in

shap

e, w

ith li

mite

d pl

atfo

rm

prep

arat

ion;

som

e la

rge

flake

s. R

etou

ched

form

s on

larg

e fla

ke b

lank

s are

pre

sent

, for

exa

mpl

e,

circ

ular

and

sub-

circ

ular

scra

per f

orm

s. O

ther

dat

a fil

ters

: 9. M

N/L

N; 1

0. L

N; 1

1. B

K; 1

3. E

B/M

B

Larg

e m

isce

llane

ous

scra

pers

, m

isce

llane

ous l

arge

re

touc

hed

flake

s

Non

e

Cha

pter

Fiv

e

98 13

2000

-900

In

dete

rmin

ate

early

Bro

nze

Age

or m

iddl

e B

ronz

e A

ge

EB/M

B

Was

te te

nds t

o be

larg

e or

on

irreg

ular

flak

es,

with

har

d ha

mm

er a

nd lo

w b

ulba

r ang

le. F

ew

piec

es p

rovi

de re

touc

hed

edge

s, in

form

al, c

oars

e an

d sh

ort i

n ex

ecut

ion.

Mis

cella

neou

s ret

ouch

ed

form

s, sc

rape

rs, f

lake

s are

com

mon

. With

in th

e st

udy

area

exa

mpl

es a

re fe

w fr

om b

oth

exca

vate

d an

d pl

ough

soil

asse

mbl

ages

. Oth

er d

ata

filte

rs: 1

2.

LN/E

B; 1

4. M

B/L

B

Few

reto

uche

d fo

rms;

mis

cella

neou

s re

touc

hed

flake

s, co

arse

scra

pers

Non

e

14

1000

, 900

-70

0 In

dete

rmin

ate

mid

dle

Bro

nze

Age

or l

ater

B

ronz

e A

ge

MB

/LB

W

aste

tend

s to

be la

rge

or o

n irr

egul

ar fl

akes

, w

ith h

ard

ham

mer

and

low

bul

bar a

ngle

. Raw

m

ater

ial c

an b

e re

-use

d, in

clud

ing

ther

mal

fr

actu

red

flint

. Exp

edie

nt w

orki

ng d

emon

stra

ted

- po

or te

chni

cal s

kills

, on

ad-h

oc fl

ake

blan

ks. F

ew

piec

es p

rovi

de re

touc

hed

edge

s, in

form

al, c

oars

e an

d sh

ort i

n ex

ecut

ion.

Mis

cella

neou

s ret

ouch

ed

form

s, sc

rape

rs, f

lake

s are

com

mon

. With

in th

e st

udy

area

exa

mpl

es a

re fe

w fr

om b

oth

exca

vate

d an

d pl

ough

soil

asse

mbl

ages

. Oth

er d

ata

filte

rs: 1

3.

EB/M

B

Few

reto

uche

d fo

rms;

mis

cella

neou

s re

touc

hed

flake

s

Non

e

15

1600

-180

0 (A

D)

Post

-M

edie

val/E

arly

M

oder

n

MO

D

This

gro

up c

onsi

sts o

f one

cla

ss o

f arte

fact

, w

ithou

t was

te: t

he g

un fl

ints

. G

un fl

ints

N

one

*Not

e on

hie

rarc

hica

l sys

tem

of d

ata

qual

ity a

nd p

erio

d fil

ters

: In

colu

mn

5 at

the

end

of e

ach

stat

emen

t the

dat

a fil

ters

that

may

or

may

not

be

cont

empo

rary

with

, or a

t lea

st p

artly

ove

rlap

in ti

me

with

that

dat

a fil

ter a

re li

sted

.

Expe

rienc

e an

d Pe

rcep

tion

of M

emor

able

Pla

ces

99

Tab

le 5

-2. T

he q

uant

ifica

tion

of fi

ve fi

eld

wal

ked

asse

mbl

ages

and

shov

el te

st p

it su

rvey

-der

ived

lith

ics f

rom

Sh

apw

ick

Bur

tle, S

omer

set.

C

ores

Ir

regu

lar

was

te

Cor

e tr

imm

ing

flake

s

Fla

kes

Bla

des

Ret

ouch

ed

form

s To

tals

?Pre

hist

oric

_

80

_ 45

_

_ 12

5

0.0%

64

.0%

0.

0%

36.0

%

0.0%

0.

0%

Pr

ehis

toric

1

17

_ 19

5 _

_ 21

3

0.4%

7.

9%

0.0%

91

.5%

0.

0%

0.0%

Mes

olith

ic

_ _

_ 13

1

1 15

0.0%

0.

0%

0.0%

86

.6%

6.

6%

6.6%

Early

Mes

olith

ic

3 _

_ 13

10

_

26

11

.5%

0.

0%

0.0%

50

.0%

38

.4%

0.

0%

La

ter M

esol

ithic

5

1 _

2 7

_ 15

33.3

%

6.6%

0.

0%

13.3

%

46.6

%

0.0%

Late

r Mes

olith

ic &

/or m

iddl

e N

eolit

hic

4 6

_ 61

13

_

84

4.

7%

7.1%

0.

0%

72.6

%

15.4

%

0.0%

Earli

er N

eolit

hic

9 1

_ 14

3

_ 27

33.3

%

3.7%

0.

0%

51.8

%

11.1

%

0.0%

Earli

er N

eolit

hic

&/o

r mid

dle

Neo

lithi

c _

_ _

_ _

_ _

0.

0%

0.0%

0.

0%

0.0%

0.

0%

0.0%

Mid

dle

Neo

lithi

c &

/or l

ater

Neo

lithi

c _

_ _

3 _

_ 3

0.

0%

0.0%

0.

0%

100.

0%

0.0%

0.

0%

Cha

pter

Fiv

e

100

Late

r Neo

lithi

c _

_ _

1 _

_ 1

0.

0%

0.0%

0.

0%

100.

0%

0.0%

0.

0%

B

eake

r _

_ _

_ _

1 1

0.

0%

0.0%

0.

0%

0.0%

0.

0%

100.

0%

In

dete

rmin

ate

late

r Neo

lithi

c or

ear

ly

Bro

nze

Age

_

_ _

_ _

_ _

0.

0%

0.0%

0.

0%

0.0%

0.

0%

0.0%

Inde

term

inat

e ea

rly B

ronz

e A

ge o

r mid

dle

Bro

nze

Age

_

_ _

_ _

_ _

0.

0%

0.0%

0.

0%

0.0%

0.

0%

0.0%

Inde

term

inat

e m

iddl

e B

ronz

e A

ge o

r lat

er

Bro

nze

Age

_

_ _

_ _

_ _

0.

0%

0.0%

0.

0%

0.0%

0.

0%

0.0%

Tot

als

22

105

_ 34

7 34

2

510

4.

3%

20.5

%

0.0%

68

.0%

6.

6%

0.3%

Expe

rienc

e an

d Pe

rcep

tion

of M

emor

able

Pla

ces

101

Tab

le 5

-3. T

he q

uant

ifica

tion

of g

rid-

wal

ked

and

shov

el te

st p

it su

rvey

lith

ics f

rom

Cat

shol

me

Farm

, Met

hwol

d H

ythe

, Met

hwol

d, N

orfo

lk, 2

003.

Cor

es

Irre

gula

r w

aste

C

ore

trim

min

g fla

kes

Fla

kes

Bla

des

Ret

ouch

ed

form

s To

tals

?Pre

hist

oric

_

_ _

1 _

_ 1

0.

0%

0.0%

0.

0%

100.

0%

0.0%

0.

0%

Pr

ehis

toric

_

4 1

66

_ _

71

0.

0%

5.6%

1.

4%

92.9

%

0.0%

0.

0%

M

esol

ithic

_

3 1

105

7 _

116

0.

0%

2.5%

0.

8%

90.5

%

6.0%

0.

0%

Ea

rly M

esol

ithic

6

3 17

6 47

3 7

7 67

2

0.7%

0.

3%

22.7

%

61.2

%

0.9%

0.

9%

La

ter M

esol

ithic

5

_ 48

13

2 24

16

22

5

2.2%

0.

0%

21.3

%

58.6

%

10.6

%

7.1%

Late

r Mes

olith

ic &

/or e

arlie

r Neo

lithi

c 2

2 33

12

6 4

4 17

1

1.1%

1.

1%

19.2

%

73.6

%

2.3%

2.

3%

Ea

rlier

Neo

lithi

c 3

1 46

73

3

17

143

2.

0%

0.6%

32

.1%

51

.0%

2.

0%

11.8

%

Ea

rlier

Neo

lithi

c &

/or m

iddl

e N

eolit

hic

1 _

6 19

_

_ 26

3.8%

0.

0%

23.0

%

73.0

%

0.0%

0.

0%

M

iddl

e N

eolit

hic

&/o

r lat

er N

eolit

hic

_ _

1 _

_ _

1

0.0%

0.

0%

100.

0%

0.0%

0.

0%

0.0%

Cha

pter

Fiv

e

102

Late

r Neo

lithi

c _

_ _

1 _

_ 1

0.

0%

0.0%

0.

0%

100.

0%

0.0%

0.

0%

B

eake

r _

_ _

_ _

_ _

0.

0%

0.0%

0.

0%

0.0%

0.

0%

0.0%

Inde

term

inat

e la

ter N

eolit

hic

or e

arly

B

ronz

e A

ge

_ _

_ _

_ _

_

0.

0%

0.0%

0.

0%

0.0%

0.

0%

0.0%

Inde

term

inat

e ea

rly B

ronz

e A

ge o

r mid

dle

Bro

nze

Age

_

_ _

_ _

_ _

0.

0%

0.0%

0.

0%

0.0%

0.

0%

0.0%

Inde

term

inat

e m

iddl

e B

ronz

e A

ge o

r lat

er

Bro

nze

Age

_

_ _

_ _

_ _

0.

0%

0.0%

0.

0%

0.0%

0.

0%

0.0%

Tot

als

17

13

312

996

45

44

1427

1.1%

0.

9%

21.8

%

69.7

%

3.1%

3.

0%


Artefacts: Technological Signatures of Working Stone

The combined survey and shovel test pit survey lithics from both sites provide nearly c.2,000 artefacts (Tables 5-2 and 5-3). The assemblage from Shapwick Burtle relates to a number of find spots across the thin width of the island. It is surprising that this island is a ‘hot spot’, but perhaps even more so than that of the single fen-edge promontory locale at Catsholme Farm; the number of artefacts recovered at Shapwick Burtle is nearly three times that of Catsholme Farm! Even within the local landscape setting Shapwick Burtle provided a very high register of activity. Lithic scatters with more than a few hundred artefacts are rare and often form long discontinuous spreads across several hundred meters, as recorded along the stream lines on the adjacent Polden Hills (Bond 2004b, 2007). In the Norfolk fen-edge, at Methwold opposite the Catsholme Ridge, lithic scatters may form a ribbon of ‘moderate’ artefacts spread. These mostly consist of less than a hundred artefacts, mostly within an area twenty, thirty to forty meters square and are typically termed a ‘moderate spread of flint’ (Silvester 1991, microfiche I: E4-E10).

At Shapwick Burtle lithics are produced on chert and flint (Fig. 5-3.2). Quality flint is not found in Somerset, so has most likely been imported from the Wessex chalklands at least 40 km to the east. The most common flint is a Green-black-grey Downland flint, carried onto the island in small nodules (Bond 2004a). These may have been worked down; de-corticated, at least to test the quality before travel to Somerset. Even the chert, mostly of a Greensand Chert type may not be local, rather regional. The nearest deposits may be from Head deposits of the Brue or in the River Tone gravels tens of kilometres to the south.

Although cortical flakes are recorded, most are partly-cortical indicating reduction of a core on site; perhaps a pre-pared core with little cortex. Cores are recovered, all indicating blade and flake technology, core reduction and discard to a more or lesser degree. Flaking is dominant (69.7% of the assemblage), with few finished retouched forms discarded. Taking each broad period it is possible to draw technological threads out to interpret change in activity on the island. The prehistoric generic material cannot be assigned to a more chronologically or technologically diagnostic grouping (Table 5-2). It may be mostly Mesolithic in origin. The generic Mesolithic grouping (n=116), from the white to blue grey patina and condition of the artefacts, suggest an early Mesolithic date. The balance of this and the subsequent early Mesolithic grouping (n=672) suggest parity, reinforcing this interpretation. The early Mesolithic is the most dominant grouping of material in the assemblage (672/1427, or

Chapter Five

104

47.0%). In this group cores are present, all with fine flake and broad blade scars; core trimming flakes indicate reduction in situ supported by the main emphasis on flakes and blades. Retouched forms include scrapers and some classic simple obliquely blunted point microliths characteristic of the early Mesolithic ‘Maglesmosian’ industries (Clark 1933; Wainwright 1960).

For the later Mesolithic a similar proportion of the assemblage is broken down to cores, waste, including core trimming flakes, flakes and blades (n=225). This is the second highest value for a grouping within the assemblage. Flakes and blades include fine, slender parallel punch types, characteristic of careful and skilled core reduction. Retouched forms include slender narrow blade obliquely blunted microliths, more rare ‘hollow-based’ forms and micro-burins (cf. Bond 2009a). For the transitional, or ‘mixed’ assemblage of the later Mesolithic and/or earlier Neolithic a similar emphasis on flake production is shown (high flake numbers, fewer blades, may suggest an earlier Neolithic bias). Retouched flakes and scrapers are included. The arrival of the earlier Neolithic continues a similar technological trend; cores are now with parallel-sided narrow flakes, broader flakes, some multi-platform in type. Flakes remain high in the proportions, but less so than previously. Core trimming flakes are increased, perhaps indicating a less efficient reduction process, contrasted with earlier practices. Importantly, retouched forms increase markedly (11.8%). A leaf-shaped arrowhead was recovered from shovel test pitting, a chronologically diagnostic piece; simple end scrapers were also recorded, as are retouched flakes. At this time, the Post and Sweet Track would have been established, abutting the north side of Shapwick Burtle and recorded in the terminal trench B (Coles et al. 1973). Here, a finely worked, pre-pared core with narrow parallel-sided flakes scars, large flakes, including a polished axe flake; leaf-shaped arrowheads and a flaked axe were all deposited further into the phragmites swamp beside the track (Bond 2003b, 2004a). In the broader landscape including the Polden Hills or the low-lying Nidons leaf-shaped arrowheads are also recorded. The assemblage drawn from surface survey on the Burtle mirrors the arrival of this cultural/technological package, that of the earlier Neolithic. Tasks involving the use of scrapers, even the processing of hunt kills, may also suggest a residue of short-stay camps on the island. These actions may or may not be related to the use and frequenting the wetland, including the construction and maintenance of the tracks or any former path. Importantly, the emphasis is no longer solely on core reduction and flaking, with hunting related items; for example, microliths. After the earlier Neolithic/middle Neolithic grouping it appears only the odd core or


flakes are recorded. It is as if the Shapwick Burtle locales fall silent, abandoned from use into later prehistory.

At Catsholme Farm lithics are from locally derived flint (Table 5-3 and Fig. 5-3.2). In contrast to Shapwick, the chalky flint utilised in this assemblage is either a grey, mottled type, with abraded cortex (pebble-like) or a dark black flint. Both can readily fit the description of ‘chalk flint’, a dark grey to back, fresh, or weathered cortex derived from Breckland nodules, or ‘Gravel flint’, with smooth, rounded pebbles, abraded and discoloured cortex (Healy 1991: 125). Both are locally sourced, either from till and gravel deposits on the floor of the Fen Basin and, perhaps from surfaces on the adjacent chalk upland, or the cover loamy soils of the nearby Breckland plateaux less than 5 km away (Healy 1991: 125). Cortical flakes are recorded, diagnostic of working on site. However, the dominant stage of reduction present is partly-cortical implying pre-dressed, worked down cores came onto the site. Indeed, as with Shapwick, the low ratio of core/flakes 22/510, or 17/1427, must indicate that cores were carried away from the site after reduction; prepared larger flakes may well have been carried onto the island and promontory in readiness to flake. Both locales must have been part of a broader seasonal settlement cycle, cores being worked and discarded elsewhere. Interestingly, contrasting with Shapwick, no record of core trimming flakes are provided at Catsholme Farm (Table 5-3). As part of the irregular waste category, hammerstones are recorded, as are larger chunks, core fragments and chips. From a particular 5m x 5m square (square B), grid walking yielded some 15 spalls, chips and small flakes, taken as micro-debitage from flaking events, perhaps of Mesolithic and/or earlier Neolithic date. This, taken with cores, flakes and blades, suggests core reduction linked to fine flake/blade production. Unlike Shapwick, much burnt lithic material is recorded; some actual discernable flakes and retouched forms and more common ‘pot-boilers’. This burnt lithic material is a sizeable proportion of the whole (n=148, or 29.0%). If lithic material is burnt, this is taken to be indicative of longer-stay activity, more camp related.

As with Shapwick, flaking is the dominant element of the Catsholme Farm assemblage (68.0% of the assemblage), with slightly higher proportions of cores (4.3%) and few retouched forms. Taking each broad period at a time, the character of the technological change and settlement history at this locale can be shown (Table 5-3). At Catsholme Farm, the sequence begins with a single flake, perhaps of long blade type, possibly attributed to the late Upper Palaeolithic/early Mesolithic. This item is recorded within the early Mesolithic category in Table 5-3. This highly

Chapter Five

106

patinated piece, with perhaps a few other flakes may well represent an earlier Late Glacial presence. These lithics are similar to the 30 blades, recorded some 1.5 km east just off the chalk upland in peat recovered from a buried mineral soil when a ditch was being cleaned out (HER 4738: Healy 1996: 53; Silvester 1991: 62).

Un-diagnostic prehistoric material is common (213/510, or 41.7%). This may not be typically diagnostic of one period, but may given its shape/size (small to medium flakes), condition, for example patina, relate to the later Mesolithic to Neolithic component of the assemblage. Similarly, the Mesolithic group, particularly given the balance of the assemblage may be early Mesolithic, rather than later (Table 5-3). A single fragment of a sub-circular scraper is attributed to this group perhaps later in Mesolithic. The early Mesolithic is dominated by flakes and blades, with a few cores. The later Mesolithic is similar, but with more cores present. The later Mesolithic and/or earlier Neolithic can be combined with the earlier Neolithic. Flakes are small, parallel-sided with a few fine parallel-sided, punch manufacture blades are included. Core reduction is a key theme, increasingly so in the earlier Neolithic (cores are 33.3%); flakes dominate. As at Shapwick, after the earlier Neolithic and into the middle and later Neolithic, only occasional flakes are recorded. The only other retouched form, a fine Beaker barbed and tanged arrowhead is recorded, perhaps a hunting loss.

Tables 5-2 and 5-3 provide a listing of lithic technologies present, discarded across each locale. There are similarities between the two sites despite their different regional settings. The gross trend in the activity is comparable: a presence of hunting, perhaps stone working activity in the early Mesolithic (Shapwick, 8.1% of the assemblage; Catsholme Farm, 5.0% of the assemblage). In the later Mesolithic stone working, perhaps also hunting continues, but at a lesser rate at Catshome Farm (Shapwick, 15.7% of the assemblage; Catsholme Farm, 2.9%). In the earlier Neolithic flaking stone continues, but at Shapwick retouched artefacts become significantly more common. The Catsholme Farm earlier Neolithic signature is half that of Shapwick (Shapwick, 10.0% of the assemblage; Catsholme Farm, 5.2%). This may relate to the direct impact of more regular, and/or more sustained stays, as foragers and hunting parties frequented Shapwick Burtle and the surrounding wetlands leading to the construction of the Post Track and Sweet Track (Bond 2003a, 2004b). Alternatively, Catsholme Farm, may have been a less well visited locale. Its importance may have been more a hunting stand set off a path linking inlets and river valleys along the fen-edge (Healy 1991; Silvester 1991). Although, the small-scale societies that lived in these regions frequenting


each place had no contact, they shared similar long-term patterns in lifeways. The lithic technology is comparable and can provide a basis from which to compare how artefacts aided the creation of place in two separate regions. The coming of the earlier Neolithic appears to have impacted both sites differently; at Shapwick, a change in routines and flaking is perhaps timed with the arrival of pottery using and track building peoples. In Norfolk, the technological signature is similar to that of the later Mesolithic (just more cores). Even by comparing two locales in two separate regions, it is possible to see how complex historical events; the frequency of people visiting a place; the duration of activities; the diversity of activities and tasks carried out, all may impact on how that place was re-used, abandoned or visited again over generations. The settlement process, perhaps part of a pioneering Neolithic phase (Cleal 2004: 181; Thorpe 1999: 94-96), given different regional and local histories of place must have been complex. Some locales would have continued to have been selected, based on local community knowledge, folklore and traditions, for seasonal camps, close to well worn paths. Others may have been ignored, as different peoples came into contact with different bands and tribes making competing claims to land, water and vantage points in the land.

Creating Place from Space: Landscape, Movement and Technological Routines

As stated at the beginning, flint scatters have been referenced by Tilley (2004) and others when attempting to discuss the social construction of place and the changing perception and experience of the physical prehistoric landscape. However, the actual daily, certainly seasonal routines that led to the creation of these humanised places have rarely been addressed (the exception being Edmonds et al. 1999; Edmonds 1997; Pollard 1998, 1999). More importantly, even when British prehistorians try to gain a social understanding they often do not articulate the technological data. Instead, often they prefer to emphasize the theoretical construct of place (Hind 2004a, 2004b).

The two case studies presented here are very different local and regional contexts. Both are riverine and wetland locales at the time of the Neolithic some distance from the sea but part of large floodplain systems. In the Brue Valley in Somerset, the main focus of earlier Neolithic settlement is mapped on river streams running north-south down from the Polden Hills (Bond 2006, 2007). Where surveyed these parts of the hills have yielded extended ribbons of discontinuous lithic scatters, some

Chapter Five

108

extended back in time to the early Mesolithic (Bond 2007, 2009b). There are also small undulating hummocks, the Nidons, part of the wetland/slope margin. These locations are also well populated, as are spring lines on the lower light loam soils of the hills.

On the Norfolk fen-edge, inlets and rivers, such as the Methwold Hythe valley, or the Wissey Valley itself, the silted stream being only a few hundred meters north of the Castholme Ridge were key areas of activity in the Mesolithic and into the later Neolithic and earlier Bronze Age. Mixed deciduous woodland would have dominated the Fen Basin, including the Wissey embayment, the immediate setting of the Catsholme Ridge. Small sand islands in the Wissey embayment, together with the actual rivers and fen-edge serving as a corridor between rivers have all been suggested to be the main focus in the Mesolithic (Silvester 1991: 80, fig. 45). The lithic scatters at Catsholme were suggested to be linked to denser scatters on high ground overlooking the Wissey. The inlet on the adjacent chalk fen-edge, known as the Hythe valley also provided a focus for camps. From the earlier Neolithic into the later Neolithic, earlier Bronze Age and Beaker period, lithic scatters clustered towards the fen-edge with increased volumes recorded (Silvester 1991: 62-67, 80-87, figs., 35, 36, 45, 46, 47). This pattern of settlement, whether longer stay, or more representative of repeated short-stay seasonal activity, culminates with the emergence of large spreads of ‘pot-boiler’ scatters (Silvester 1991: 85-87, fig. 49). Although this burnt flint material is often inter-mixed with Mesolithic and earlier Neolithic artefacts, as indeed, it is at Catsholme Farm, the majority may well date to the later Neolithic, if not more the earlier to middle Bronze Age (Silvester 1991: 87). This phenomenon is not recorded on the Nidons and Polden Hills in the Brue Valley. Only small proportions of lithics are burnt in any lithic scatter, as is the case on Shapwick Burtle. Some themes here may distinguish different senses of place for prehistoric communities: land use, movement across topography, within and between wetland, rivers and upland. The duration of activity, number of site visits, even the season, the timing of journeys and stays may distinguish different types of attachment to place. As Edmonds’ has also mentioned, each locale may have witnessed different combinations of people; gender and age, social affiliations, meetings (Edmonds et al. 1999). The proximity to a river or fen-edge corridor paths, may have been highly significant. Access to viewpoints across the wetland, or streams running up to the Polden Hills ridge-line, a natural pathway running west-east, may have attached different numbers of people at different seasons, or periods.


Proximity to other events and occasions where local customs were played out may also be important to local small-scale societies. In Somerset, Shapwick Burtle was overlooked and in sight of the Mendip Hills. Here, at least 5 kilometres away, either across the wetland, or a round trip of 10 kilometres or more, this was the only location of a grouping of land barrows (Bond 2006: chapter 4). In Norfolk, there are only two upstanding monuments but these are at least 20 kilometres or more away as the crow flies, north-east in a dry river valley to West Rudham and Harpley near the Head waters of the Babingley River (Ashwin 1996: 45-47, fig. 3). The nearest probable long barrow may be Fincham, within 8 kilometres to the north-east of the Wissey embayment (Ashwin 1996: fig. 3). Both Shapwick Burtle and Catsholme Farm then may well have been some distance from regular and sizeable gathers of kin, the aggregation and meeting of social groups. As the later Neolithic gave way to the Bronze Age, a greater emphasis on burial, or deposition of bodies in the Fens over looked by the Catsholme Ridge and metal work deposition may have changed this role (Healy 1996). Indeed, more barrows, or even flat burials, may well be an emerging context in the skirtland and peat wetland islands of the fen-edge in the Bronze Age. Interestingly, for both sites the composition of the lithic scatter drops away after the earlier Neolithic (Tables 5-2 and 5-3). This may indicate a move away from that location as over time less and less people visited seasonally, until the locale was abandoned. In Somerset, as with the fen-edge in Norfolk, islands and wetland locations appear to have been a focus of metalwork deposition or hoarding (Pearce 1983). Site abandonment may even have been a direct impact of this changed perception of place, both settings so closely linked to wet/dry-land interface.

Lithic scatters, lithic artefacts, actively created a notion of place for those who visited them. Over generations settlement cycle was entwined with the habitual working of stone at a place. Artefact and physical location, place comes closely together to cement social meaning to a lithic scatter. Place was created by the working of stone; that stone added to the physical presence of human intervention at that locale. People whether they had worked stone at that place or not, may well have understood that corticated, rough stone objects in the soil, represented past camps, or even a more mythical presence. Stone, as discussed above would also have been brought to the setting to be worked; as core, or pre-form; even the discard of broken implements; or forgotten losses during a hunt, as with the Beaker fine barbed and tanged arrowhead recovered at Catsholme Farm. The function/role of that place in one settlement pattern may have changed from one season to another, within seasons and also over generations. But,

Chapter Five

110

artefacts, through their production and discard, would have contributed to establishing each social place in the minds of local communities.

Time: Place in Generational Time

Archaeologists have generally taken to think of time as that of their own; linear time, the way one ascribes an artefact to part of the Three Age System. This, however, may not help understanding of place and the way prehistoric peoples perceived their world. History perceived as lived experience, as anthropologically documented for non-western small scale societies may be a more useful concept to consider (Eriksen 1995: 230). Perceptions of place and time may be viewed as localised processes and events. The life cycle is one such perception. This is experienced by the individual and the group, part of a life cycle and ageing process. Generational time and the use of time averaging (Gamble 2001: 135-136) can be applied. People may have experienced places over generations of visits; previous generations may have informed forager parties of the locations, resources and history of the place. The lithic data presented in Tables 5-2 and 5-3 may be set into a time-frame consistent with human generations (see Bond 2004a, 2009c).

The lithic data, as analysed and presented in data quality and period filters can be set into a time-frame consistent with human generations, time averaged at the generation - 25 year interval. ‘Generation’ means here the average time in which children are ready to replace their parents, commonly set in the modern world as 25-30 years (Hassan 1981: 140-142). Parker Pearson has given the value of 25 years and this is used here (1993: 2). Recent work summarised by Chamberlain reports on analogy with ethnographic records and living non-western populations indicating extended life expectancy (2000: 102-104, fig. 1). Generational statistics remain estimated within a 30-25 year span but depends on mortality rates for specific populations (Chamberlain 2000: 102). The generational interval is an estimate used here only to demonstrate a potential human perception of time. Importantly, the generational interval would in any human population relate to the age of biological maturity, fertility rate, and perhaps social mores and the onset of rites of passage to adulthood (Hassan 1981: 141). As artefacts are discarded the lithic scatter is formed, fixed into the social landscape. Table 5-4 presents a discard rate of artefacts per generation for Shapwick Burtle and Catsholme Farm. This adds another dimension to understanding: what did it mean to experience a place over a human life cycle. Artefact discard (Figs. 5-3.2 and 5-3.4), demonstrate human agency, a presence at a spot in a meaningful landscape.


Table 5-4. Human generations and lithic discard at Catsholme Farm, Methwold Hythe, Methwold, Norfolk and Shapwick Burtle, Shapwick, Somerset. Catsholme Farm, Methwold Hythe, Norfolk Period

Total lithics

Human generations

Artefacts per generation

Early Mesolithic (c.9500-6500 cal. BC) 26 120 0.2 Later Mesolithic (c.6500-4300 cal. BC) 15 88 0.1 Later Mesolithic &/or earlier Neolithic (c.4300-3800 cal. BC)

84 20 4.2

Earlier Neolithic &/or middle Neolithic (c.3800-2900 cal. BC)

27 36 0.7

Middle Neolithic &/or later Neolithic (c.2900-2400 cal. BC)

4 20 0.2

Indeterminate later Neolithic or Early Bronze Age (c.2400-2000 cal. BC)

1 16 0.06

Totals 157 300 Shapwick Burtle, Somerset Period Total

lithicsHuman generations

Artefacts per generation

Early Mesolithic (c.9500-6500 cal. BC) 672 120 5.6 Later Mesolithic (c.6500-4300 cal. BC) 225 88 2.5 Later Mesolithic &/or earlier Neolithic (c.4300-3800 cal. BC)

171 20 8.5

Earlier Neolithic &/or middle Neolithic (c.3800-2900 cal. BC)

169 36 4.6

Middle Neolithic &/or later Neolithic (c.2900-2400 cal. BC)

2 20 0.1

Indeterminate later Neolithic or Early Bronze Age (c.2400-2000 cal. BC)

0 16 0

Totals 1239 300 Notes: i) the interpretation of this data is based on the assumption that each lithic scatter was used intermittently, as part of a cycle of settlement; use, re-use and abandonment; ii) Human generations are assumed to equal 25 years; iii) The numbers expressed in this table are an approximate index of the level of activity at a multi-period lithic scatter. That is, it is assumed artefacts were discarded at regular intervals through successive generations. ‘Continuity’ is taken to mean intermittent use or re-use of a scatter over the long term, as stated in note ii). The interpretation here is that the settlement and subsistence pattern of any period was

Chapter Five

112

linked into a cycle of discovery, use, re-use and abandonment at each locale (cluster of lithic scatters). At this scale of chronological resolution it is contentious to assume all scatters were contemporary at any one period. But, it is suggested here that all scatters were most probably understood as social places across the periods, until placed were permanently abandoned. iv) Note the true totals per generation, taking into account the estimated original quantities of material discarded in the ploughsoil (Boismier 1997) would have been something like twenty times those listed above. No attempt is made here to extrapolate ploughsoil populations. However, what is clear from the function and relationship between the calculations is that the scale and ratio of reduction or increase would stay the same; v) Data quality and period filters are combined to create six groupings, to fit calendar years and the currency of overlapping technologies and typologies; later Mesolithic (1), later Mesolithic and/or earlier Neolithic (2), earlier Neolithic and/or middle Neolithic (= earlier Neolithic+earlier Neolithic and/or middle Neolithic (3)), middle Neolithic and/or later Neolithic (=middle Neolithic and/or later Neolithic+later Neolithic (4)), later Neolithic or early Bronze Age (=indeterminate later Neolithic or early Bronze Age+Beaker (5)), early Bronze Age or middle Bronze Age (6). The lithic technology is therefore more than just that; it demonstrates a fixing of meaning, a human presence and reading of the land. Social construction of place occurred, the prehistoric actor witnessed events at this place, assigned meaning to that locale.

When comparing both lithic data sets and the discard of lithics per generation there are discrete differences discerned in the overall trend (Table 5-4). Firstly, at Shapwick Burtle, the number of artefacts discarded in the early Mesolithic is substantially higher than that at Catsholme Farm. This may relate to a very real presence; number of visits to the place. Alternatively, at Catsholme Farm, the discard rate is similarly low for the early and the later Mesolithic, compared to Shapwick Burtle. This patterning may well relate to different degrees of a human presence at each locale. Shapwick Burtle was a ‘hot spot’ in the early Mesolithic, whereas Catsholme Farm was one of a number of scatters, across a peninsula (Silvester 1991: 80). In the later Mesolithic, much fewer artefacts were discarded at the Burtle (Bond 2004a). Indeed, this is also the case for the Polden Hills and there appears an almost total move in settlement pattern away, refocusing on the Mendip Hills to the north-east (Bond 2007, 2009a, 2009b). Both lithic scatters seem to come alive with the later Mesolithic and/or earlier Neolithic (Table 5-4). However, even this shows a slightly different order of magnitude: 4.2 to 0.7 artefacts per generation at Catsholme Farm; this compares to 8.5 to 4.6 artefacts per generation at Shapwick Burtle. It is as if there is a low drip, by drip pattern of activity at Catsholme Farm with a slight rise with the arrival of a Neolithic lifestyle.


At Shapwick Burtle the impact appears greater. This impact may have played out in the experience and changed perception of the sand island for local peoples. The construction of the Sweet Track and the arrival of pottery using people, perhaps part of a pioneering phase of settlement may relate to this register in artefact discard. Working stone, its discard and contribution to creating a socialised place are demonstrated to have changed. Artefacts, when deployed in this type of analysis help access the experience of that place through the human life cycle (generational time, cf. Bond 2009c).

Conclusions

Through the analysis of lithic data drawn from artefacts recovered by surveys at two separate locations this chapter has attempted to explore changes in the meaning of place in the British Neolithic. Artefacts form lithic scatters over time; they accumulate through successive visits, to form a signature that may be read indicating who and when people occupied a set locality. Although much under valued, these properties of lithic scatters are central to understanding how places were actively created by knowledgeable prehistoric agents over generations. A social archaeology of place must address the social construction of lithic scatters. For Tuan (1977) the key to understanding was the changing meaning and experience of place. This nuanced and humanistic understanding of social space inevitably led to the development of interpretative archaeology (Thomas 2001), including Tilley’s phenomenology of landscape. But, it is not just a critique of a field method (Fleming 1999, 2005) that is central to failure of such approaches in accessing the meaning of place. There is a lack of engagement with artefacts, either individually, or quantitatively. This results in spurious arguments about social meaning and experience of place without explicit reference to evidence. This may reflect a scholarly divide between landscape and artefact studies certainly noted in the mid-1980s by some British prehistorians (Bradley and Gardiner 1984: 3-4).

Ironically, in a preference for place and landscape understanding, what has failed to be delivered is a precise methodology for understanding the interrelatedness of artefacts and place. Studies have remained centred at broad scale syntheses (Barrett 1994; Bradley 2000; Tilley 1994; Whittle 2003). Social theory and landscape has also remained broad scale, in most cases, without directly using artefact data (see papers in Chadwick 2004). Thomas (1999: 17-23, figs. 2.2 and 2.3) attempted to use lithic data by discussing the technological balance of assemblages on a regional level, contrasting the earlier and later Neolithic lithic scatters. However, the

Chapter Five

114

discussion is tentative and ultimately the data is viewed as requiring more traditional excavated data to support any conclusions (Thomas 1999: 23). The full spatial and compositional potential of the lithic industries was not explored. Synthesis on landscape and lithic technology continue, but without attempting to engage with quantitative data (Conneller 2005; McFadyen 2008, 2009; Pollard 1998, 1999). Taskscapes and inhabitation are rarely themes where the actual lithic evidence is articulated against a backdrop of social theory. Social theory dominates the text. In this context there is emerging a deep divide in analytical site reports or artefact specialist reports on the one hand and on the other, the writing of social prehistory. Importantly, much debate on the application of social theory and understanding of prehistoric landscapes has also become dominated by the Anglo-American tradition (summarised in Thomas 1995, 2001). It is worth noting there are others in Europe and beyond who attempt to understand prehistoric landscapes, with different, but equally compelling traditions of scholarship (see papers in Bintliff et al. 2000; Darvill and Gojda 2001). The interpretative archaeologies may (for example Vedru 2007), or may not (Kuna 1991) be central to other landscape analyses.

Landscape archaeologies have mapped dots across the land, but relatively few British authors have interrogated these dots, asking the question what do theses dots actually mean; certainly survey data has been under-utilised and not played a part in the application of social prehistory (an exception is Barrett et al. 1991a, 1991b; Green and Zvelebil 1990; Zvelebil et al. 1992). This chapter has argued that in order to understand the unique character of two lithic scatters in the Neolithic a detailed analysis of the artefacts recovered is needed. Beyond eco-facts, artefacts act as a central compass in demonstrating a presence of human groups. Agency is accessible through quantitative analysis. Quantitative data from surveys, at a site and regional scale, can offer a way into understanding the experience of place. Artefacts had life histories (Gosden and Marshall 1999; Woodward 2002), they may have moved between different social settings, been possessed by different actors; meant many things as their roles changed. However, these life histories or biographies should not be considered separate to the physical and social setting of place. The biography of place is nothing without a biography of the artefact recovered from that place.

Generational time is one alternative way of re-thinking the relationships between place, artefact and people. Human memory is implicated in the way people appear to have re-visited lithic scatters over generations. The palimpsest nature of many lithic scatters means that they are truly memorable places (Bond 2004a, 2009c). Stone artefacts were made,


discarded and accumulated over generations, forming a unique and under explored resource for understanding the British Neolithic process regionally.

Bibliography

Ashwin, T. 1996. Neolithic and Bronze Age Norfolk. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 62: 41-62.

Barrett, J. C. 1994. Fragments from Antiquity. An Archaeology of Social Life in Britain, 2900-1200 BC. Oxford: Blackwell.

Barrett, J. C., Bradley, R. and Green, M. (eds.) 1991a. Landscape, Monuments and Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Barrett, J. C., Bradley, R. and Hall, M. (eds.) 1991b. Papers on the Prehistoric Archaeology of Cranborne Chase. Oxford: Oxbow Monograph, vol. 11.

Barton, R. N. E., Berridge, P. J., Walker, M. J. C., and Bevins, R. E. 1995. Persistent Places in the Mesolithic Landscape: an example from the Black Mountain uplands of South Wales. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 61: 81-116.

Bintliff, J. L., Kuna, M., and Venclová, N. (eds.) 2000. The Future of Surface Artefact Survey in Europe. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

Bond, C. J. 2003a. Of land, peat and sky: A shovel test pit survey at Catsholme Farm, Methwold Hythe, south-west Norfolk, as a method in assessing lithic scatters. Unpublished Document, 1-12, on file for HER 41026, at Historic Environment Record, Norfolk Landscape Archaeology, Gressenhall, Dereham. HER record available at Norfolk Heritage Explorer: http://www.heritage.norfolk.gov.uk/SingleResult .aspx?uid=MNF45302

—. 2003b. The coming of the earlier Neolithic, pottery and people in the Somerset Levels. pp. 1-27. In Gibson, A. M. (ed.) Prehistoric Pottery. People, Pattern and Purpose. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1156/Prehistoric Ceramic Research Group: Occasional Publication No. 4. Oxford: Archaeopress.

—. 2004a. The supply of raw materials for later prehistoric stone tool assemblages and the maintenance of memorable places in central Somerset. pp. 128-143. In Walker, E. A., Wenban-Smith, F. F. and Healy F. M. (eds.) Lithics in Action. Papers from the conference Lithic Studies in the Year 2000. Lithic Studies Society Occasional Paper 8. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Chapter Five

116

—. 2004b. The Sweet Track, Somerset: a place mediating culture and spirituality? pp. 37-50. In Insoll, T. (ed.) Belief in the Past. The Proceedings of the 2002 Manchester Conference on Archaeology and Religion. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1212. Oxford: Archaeopress.

—. 2006. Prehistoric Settlement in Somerset. Landscapes, Material Culture and Communities 4300 to 700 cal. BC. Vols. I and II and DVD. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. Winchester: Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, The University of Winchester (an accredited college of the University of Southampton).

—. 2007. Lithics. pp. 687-728. In Gerrard, C. M. and Aston, M. A. (eds.) The Shapwick Project, Somerset. A Rural Landscape Explored. The Society for Medieval Archaeology Monograph Series No. 25. Leeds: Maney Publishing.

—. 2009a. The power of place and regional identity in the British south-western Mesolithic. pp. 343-351. In McCartan, S., Schulting, R., Warren, G. and Woodman, P. (eds.) Mesolithic Horizons: Papers presented at the Seventh International Conference on the Mesolithic in Europe, Belfast 2005. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

—. 2009b. A Mesolithic social landscape in South-West Britain: the Levels and Mendip. pp. 704-714. In McCartan, S., Schulting, R., Warren, G. and Woodman P. (eds.) Mesolithic Horizons: Papers presented at the Seventh International Conference on the Mesolithic in Europe, Belfast 2005, Oxford: Oxbow Books.

—. 2009c. Biographies of stone and landscape: lithic scatters. Internet Archaeology 26. Available at: http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue26/1/toc.html

Boismier, W. A. 1997. Modelling the Effects of Tillage Processes on Artefact Distributions in the Ploughzone. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, British Series 259.

Bradley, R. J. 2000. An Archaeology of Natural Places. London: Routledge.

Bradley, R. J. and Gardiner, J. P. 1984. Introduction. pp. 1-4. In Bradley, R. J. and Gardiner, J. P. (eds.) Neolithic Studies. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, British Series 133.

Bradley, R. J., Chrowne, P., Cleal, R. M. J., Healy, F. and Kinnes, I. 1993. Excavations on Redgate Hill, Hunstanton, Norfolk and at Tattershall


Thorpe, Lincolnshire. Gressenhall, Dereham: East Anglian Archaeology 57.

Brown, A. G. 1986. Flint and chert small finds from the Somerset Levels, Part 1: The Brue Valley. The Somerset Levels Papers 12: 12-27.

Bulleid, A. and Jackson, J. W. 1937. The Burtle Sand Beds of Somerset. Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeological and Natural History Society 83: 171-195.

Campbell, S., Hunt, C. O., Scourse, J. D., Keen, D. H. and Stephens, N. (eds.) 1998. Quaternary of South-West England. London: Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Chapman and Hall.

Chadwick, A. M. (ed.) 2004. Stories from the Landscape. Archaeologies of Inhabitation. British Archaeological Reports, British Series 1238. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Chamberlain, A. 2000. Problems and prospects in palaeodemography. pp. 101-115. In Cox, M. and Mays, S. (eds.) Human Osteology in Archaeology and Forensic Science. London: Greenwich Medical Media Ltd.

Clark, J. G. D. 1933. Mesolithic sites on the Burtle Beds, near Bridgwater, Somerset. Man 65: 63-65.

Cleal, R. M. J. 2004. The dating and diversity of the earliest ceramics of Wessex and South-west England. pp. 165-192. In Cleal, R. M. J. and Pollard, J. (eds.) Monuments and Material Culture. Papers in honour of an Avebury archaeologist: Isobel Smith. Salisbury: Hobnob Press.

Coles, J. M. 1989. Somerset Levels Project Catalogue of Finds. The Somerset Levels Papers 15: 33-61.

Coles, J. M., Hibbert, F. A. and Orme, B. J. 1973. Prehistoric roads and tracks in Somerset, England: 3. The Sweet Track. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 39: 256-293.

Conneller, C. J. 2005. Moving beyond sites: Mesolithic technology in the landscape. pp. 42-55. In Milner, N. and Woodman, P. (eds.) Mesolithic Studies at the Beginning of the 21st Century. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Darvill, T. and Gojda, M. (eds.) 2001. One Land, Many Landscapes. Papers from a session held at the European Association of Archaeologists Fifth Annual Meeting in Bournemouth, 1999. British Archaeological Reports International Series 987. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Dunnell, R. C. 1992. The notion of site. pp. 21-41. In Rossignol, J. and Wandsnider, L. (eds.) Space, Time, and Archaeological Landscapes. New York: Plenum Press.

Edmonds, M. R. 1997. Taskscape, technology and tradition. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 29: 99-110.

Chapter Five

118

—. 1999. Ancestral Geographies of the Neolithic: Landscapes, Monuments and Memory. London: Routledge.

Edmonds, M. R., Evans, C. and Gibson, D. 1999. Assembly and collection - lithic complexes in the Cambridgeshire Fenlands. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 65: 47-82.

English Heritage 2000. Managing Lithic Scatters. Archaeological guidance for planning authorities and developers. London: English Heritage.

Eriksen, T. H. 1995. Small Places, Large Issues. An introduction to social and cultural anthropology. London: Pluto Press.

Fleming, A. 1999. Phenomenology and the Megaliths of Wales: a Dreaming too far? Oxford Journal of Archaeology 18(ii): 119-125.

—. 2005. Megaliths and post-modernism: the case of Wales. Antiquity 79: 921-932.

Ford, S. S. 1987. Flint scatters and prehistoric settlement patterns in South Oxfordshire and East Berkshire. pp. 101-135. In Brown, A. G. and Edmonds, M. R. (eds.) Lithic Analysis and Later Prehistory: Some Problems and Approaches. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, British Series 162.

Ford, S. S., Bradley, R., Hawkes, J. and Fisher, P. 1984. Flint-working in the Metal Age. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 3(ii): 157-173.

Gamble, C. 2001. Archaeology: The Basics. London: Routledge. Gardiner, J. P. and Shennan, S. 1985. The Mesolithic, Neolithic and

Earlier Bronze Age Periods. pp. 47-72. In Shennan, S. Experiments in the Collection and Analysis of Archaeological Survey Data: the East Hampshire Survey. Sheffield: Department of Archaeology and Prehistory, University of Sheffield.

Gosden, C. and Marshall, Y. 1999. The cultural biography of objects. World Archaeology 31(ii): 169-178.

Green, S. and Zvelebil, M. 1990. The Mesolithic colonization and agricultural transition of South-East Ireland. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 56: 57-88.

Hassan, F. A. 1981. Demographic Archaeology. New York: Academic Press.

Healy, F. 1991. Appendix 1. Lithics and pre-Iron Age Pottery. pp. 116-139. In Silvester, R. J. The Fenland Project Number 4: The Wissey Embayment and the Fen Causeway, Norfolk, Dereham, Gressenhall: East Anglian Archaeology 52.

—. 1996. The Fenland Project, Number 11: The Wissey Embayment: Evidence for pre-Iron Age Occupation. Dereham: The Norfolk


Archaeological Unit, Fenland Project Committee and The Scole Archaeological Committee Ltd, East Anglian Archaeology 78.

Healy, F. and Housley, R. A. 1992. Nancy was not alone. Skeletons of the early Bronze Age from the Norfolk peat fen. Antiquity 66 (253): 948-955.

Hind, D. 2004a. Where many paths meet: towards an integrated theory of landscape and technology. pp. 35-51. In Chadwick, A. M. (ed.) Stories from the Landscape. Archaeologies of Inhabitation. British Archaeological Reports, British Series 1238. Oxford: Archaeopress.

—. 2004b. Picking up the trail: people, landscapes and technology in the Peak District of Derbyshire during the fifth and fourth millennia BC. pp. 130-176. In Chadwick, A. M. (ed.) Stories from the Landscape. Archaeologies of Inhabitation. British Archaeological Reports, British Series 1238. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Ingold, T. 1993. The Temporality of Landscape. World Archaeology, 25(ii): 152-174.

Jacobi, R. M. 1984. The Mesolithic of northern East Anglia and contemporary territories. pp. 43-76. In Barringer, C. (ed.) Aspects of East Anglian Pre-history. Norwich: Geo Books.

Krakker, J., Shott, M. and Welch, P. 1983. Design and evaluation of shovel-test sampling in regional Archaeological Survey. Journal of Field Archaeology 10: 469-480.

Kuna, M. 1991. The structuring of prehistoric landscape. Antiquity 65(247): 332-347.

McFadyen, L. 2008. Temporary spaces in the Mesolithic and Neolithic: understanding landscapes. pp 121-134. In Pollard, J. (ed.) Prehistoric Britain. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

—. 2009. Landscape. pp. 121-138. In Conneller, C. J. and Warren, G. (eds.) Mesolithic Britain and Ireland [Reprinted]. Stroud: The History Press.

Norman, C. 2003. Mesolithic to Bronze Age activity at Parchey Sand Batch, Chedzoy. Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeological and Natural History Society 145: 9-38.

Parker Pearson, M. 1993. English Heritage Book of Bronze Age Britain. London: English Heritage and Batsford.

Pearce, S. M. 1983. The Bronze Age Metalwork of South-Western Britain: Phttp://www.academicroom.com/?utm_source=MailingList&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Invitation+to+Scholars+2arts 1 and 2. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, British Series, 120 (i and ii).

Chapter Five

120

Pitts, M. W. 1978. Towards an understanding of flint industries in post-glacial England. The University of London Institute of Archaeology Bulletin 15: 179-197.

Pitts, M. W. and Jacobi, R. M. 1979. Some aspects of changes in flaked stone industries of the Mesolithic and Neolithic of Southern England. Journal of Archaeological Science 6: 163-173.

Pollard, J. 1998. Prehistoric settlement and non-settlement in two Southern Cambridgeshire River Valleys: the lithic dimension and interpretative dilemmas. Lithics 19: 61-71.

—. 1999. These places have their moments: thoughts on settlement practices in the British Neolithic. pp. 76-93. In Brück, J. and Goodman, M. (eds.) Making Places in the Prehistoric World. Themes in Settlement Archaeology. London: University College London.

Richards, J. C. 1978. The Archaeology of the Berkshire Downs: An Introductory Survey. Berkshire Archaeological Committee Publication No 13. Reading: Berkshire County Council.

Saville, A. 1981. Grimes Graves, Norfolk, excavations 1971-72: volume II. The flint assemblage. London: Department of the Environment Archaeological Reports 11.

—. 1989. The flint and chert artefacts. In Ellis, P. (ed.) Norton Fitzwarren Hillfort: a report on the excavations by Nancy and Philip Langmaid between 1968 and 1971. Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeological and Natural History Society, vol. 133: 18-23.

—. 1990. The flint and chert artefacts. pp. 152-157. In Bell, M. (ed.) Brean Down Excavations 1983-1987. English Heritage Archaeological Reports, No. 15. London: H.B.M.C.E.

Schlanger, A. H. 1992. Recognising persistent places in Anasazi settlement systems. pp. 1-112. In Rossignol, J. and Wandsnider, L. (eds.) Space, Time, and Archaeological Landscapes. New York: Plenum Press.

Schofield, A. J. 2000. Reflections on the future for surface lithic artefact study in England. pp. 45-55. In Bintliff, J. L., Kuna, M. and Venclová N. (eds.) The Future of Surface Artefact Survey in Europe. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

Silvester, R. J. 1991. The Fenland Project, Number 4: Norfolk Survey, the Wissey Embayment and Fen Causeway. Gressenhall, Dereham: East Anglian Archaeology 52.

Smith, K. and Thorpe, I. J. N. 1995. Shoveltesting at Shapwick: a preliminary report. pp. 73-84. In Aston, M. A. and Gerrard, C. M. (eds.) The Shapwick Project. An Archaeological, Historical and


Topographical Study. The Sixth Report. Bristol: Department of Continuing Education, University of Bristol.

Smith, A. G., Whittle, A. W. A., Cloutman, E. W. and Morgan, L. 1989. Mesolithic and Neolithic activity and environmental impact on the south-east fen-edge in Cambridgeshire. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 55: 207-249.

Thomas, J. S. 1995. The politics of vision and the archaeologies of landscape. pp. 19-48. In Bender, B. (ed.) Landscape: Politics and Perspectives. Oxford: Berg.

—. 1999. Understanding the Neolithic. London: Routledge.

—. 2001. Archaeologies of place and landscape. pp. 165-186. In Hodder, I. (ed.) Archaeological Theory Today. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Thorpe, I. J. N. 1999. The Origins of Agriculture in Europe. London: Routledge.

Thorpe, I. J. N. and Gerrard, C. M. 2007. 3.11. Shovel-pits. pp. 266-278. In Gerrard, C. M. and Aston, M. A. (eds.) The Shapwick Project, Somerset. A Rural Landscape Explored. The Society for Medieval Archaeology Monograph Series No. 25. Leeds: Maney Publishing.

Tilley, C. 1994. A Phenomenology of Landscape: places, paths and monuments. London: Routledge.

—. 2004. The Materiality of Stone. Oxford: Berg. Tuan, Yi-Fu. 1977. Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience.

Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Vedru, G. 2007. Experiencing the landscape. Estonian Journal of

Archaeology 11(i): 36-58. Waddington, C. 1999. A Landscape Archaeological Study of the

Mesolithic-Neolithic in the Milfield Basin, Northumberland. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, British Series 291.

Wainwright, G. J. 1960. Three Microlithic industries from South-West England and their affinities. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 26: 193-201.

—. 1972. The excavation of a Neolithic settlement on Broome Heath, Ditchingham, Norfolk, England. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 38: 1-107.

Whittle, A. W. A. 2003. The Archaeology of People. Dimensions of Neolithic Life. London: Routledge.

Wilkinson, K. N. and Bond, C. J. 2001. Interpreting archaeological site distribution in dynamic sedimentary environments. pp. 55-66. In Darvill, T. and Gojda, M. (eds.) One Land, Many Landscapes. Papers

Chapter Five

122

from a session held at the European Association of Archaeologists Fifth Annual Meeting in Bournemouth, 1999. British Archaeological Reports International Series 987. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Wobst, H. M. 1983. We can’t see the forest for the trees: sampling and the shapes of archaeological distributions. pp. 47-60. In Moore, J. and Keene, A. (eds.) Archaeological Hammers and Theories. New York: Academic Press.

Woodward, A. B. 2002. Beads and Beakers: heirlooms and relics in the British early Bronze Age. Antiquity 76: 1040-1047.

Zvelebil, M., Green, S. W. and Macklin, M. G. 1992. Archaeological landscapes, lithic scatters, and human behaviour. pp. 193-226. In Rossignol, J. and Wandsnider, L. (eds.) Space, Time, and Archaeological Landscapes. New York: Plenum Press.

Experience and perception of memorable places: lithic scatters and mapping the British Neolithic

Documents