Durham E-Theses Pits and the architecture of deposition narratives of social practice in the neolithic of North-East England Edwards, Benjamin How to cite: Edwards, Benjamin (2009) Pits and the architecture of deposition narratives of social practice in the neolithic of North-East England, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/2164/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk 2 The copyright of this thesis rests with the author or the university to which it was submitted. No quotation from it, or information derived from it may be published without the prior written consent of the author or university, and any information derived from it should be acknowledged. Pits and the Architecture of Deposition Narratives of Social Practice in the Neolithic of North-East England Benjamin Edwards PhD Archaeology University of Durham July 2009 1 9 JAN 7010 Declaration This thesis is the result of my own work, material from the published and unpublished work of others, which is referred to in this thesis, is credited to the author(s) in question in the text. This thesis is approximately 100,000 words in length. Benjamin Edwards I Abstract This doctoral thesis examines the practice of depositing material culture and its relationship with social change during the Neolithic period in north-east England. For the purposes of this study the Neolithic is defined as the period in which the pottery styles of Carinated Ware, Impressed Ware and Grooved Ware were made and used. The study area encompasses County Durham, Northumberland and the now defunct county of Tyne and Wear. Previous work on Neolithic deposition has been apt to confine it within a series of dichotomous relationships: the potency of material culture versus the power of performance; rubbish versus 'meaningful' material; and the structured versus the unstructured deposit. This study demonstrates how these oppositions are unnecessarily reductive and result from modern classifications of artefacts - norms concerning the value of refuse and the role of 'symbolic' material - that have come to be imposed upon the past. By undertaking a statistical and comparative analysis of deposited material culture from the North-East, this research emphasises the complexity of past artefact classification, and the transformative role that depositional practices can have upon whole societies. It also shows how acts of deposition are intimately connected with architectural forms, be they single posts in pits, or complexes of henges. By utilising a biographical and narrative approach to interpretation, eschewing the search for the 'symbolic' in artefact disposal, the deposition of material culture is exposed as central to the ontological security of Neolithic communities and the built environment that they created. II Acknowledgements I am very grateful to all of the following for their support during the preparation of this thesis. My supervisors Chris Scarre and Margarita Diaz-Andreu, University of Durham, and my partner Rachel Pope, University of Liverpool, for their invaluable advice throughout. Roger Miket for providing me with access to the Thirlings archive and numerous insights on the archaeology of the North-East. Chris Burgess at the Northumberland HER and David Mason at the County Durham HER for access to their records. Kate Wilson and Rob Young of English Heritage for making work on protected sites an easy task. Peter Carne, Archaeological Services Durham University, for providing unpublished commercial reports and access to vital equipment. Anthony Harding, University of Exeter, for advice concerning the Milfield monument complex. Blaise Vyner for advice on County Durham cursuses and causewayed enclosures. Arthur Anderson, University of Durham, for standing on many a cold hillside with surveying equipment. Ill Contents Declaration I Abstract II Acknowledgments III Contents IV Figures VI Tables X Graphs XII Chapter 1 - Introduction 1 Some Deposits from the Past 1 Theoretical and Investigative Background 2 Definitions 11 The Study Area 13 Structure of the Study 17 Chapter 2 - The Neolithic of North-East England 19 Introduction 19 Investigations, Evidence and Syntheses 20 Artefacts, Ecofacts and Dating 25 Sites and Monuments 40 Conclusion 58 Chapter 3 - Pits and Depositional Practice in Neolithic Britain 61 Introduction 61 Neolithic Pit Deposition: A History of Interpretation 62 Material Culture 84 Conclusion: A Brief History of Deposition 86 Chapter 4 - The Meaning of Deposition? How Archaeology Interprets 89 Introduction 89 The Classification of Material Culture 91 The Classification of Practices 98 Ritual Activity and Material Culture 110 Conclusions: Some Problems and an Alternative 120 Chapter 5 - Analysing Deposition: the Pits at Thirlings 124 Introduction 126 Background to the Analysis 132 Deposition Analysis 136 Pottery Abrasion 147 Spatial Analysis 160 Conclusions 181 IV Chapter 6 - Narrating Deposition: Interpreting the Pits at Thirlings 183 Introduction 183 Prologue: The Origins of the Material Culture 185 Narrative I: Pottery Biographies 190 Narrative II: Pit Biographies 200 Conclusions: Contingent Intentions 205 Chapter 7 - Contemporary Deposition: The Context of Thirlings 210 Introduction 210 The Eastern Pit at Yeavering 212 The Broomridge Round Barrow 224 Neolithic Long Cairns: Deposition and Architecture 240 Conclusions: Depositing Pots, Depositing Architecture 255 Chapter 8 - Subsequent Deposition: The Milfield Henges 262 Introduction 262 Depositing Inside Henges 274 Depositing Whole Henges 286 Conclusions: Issues of Enclosure 296 Chapter 9 - Discussion and Conclusions 301 Introduction 301 In Search of a Method: Interpreting Deposition 302 A Biography of Deposits in the Neolithic of Northumberland 307 Social Change and the Context of Deposition 314 In Conclusion 327 Appendices 328 1. Database 1: The Pits at Thirlings 329 2. Database 2: Datable Pits at Thirlings 334 3. Database 3: Individual Sherd Data 336 4. Kolmogorov-Smirnov Tests 348 5. Kendall's Tau Tests 355 Bibliography 359 V Figures 1.1- "Conjectural restoration" of a Neolithic pit dwelling c. 1899 1 (Clinch 1899, 134) 1.2 - The objects of study 3 1.3 - Area encompassed by this study, conurbations shaded 13 1.4 - The topography and rivers of north-east England 15 1.5 - Solid geology of north-east England 16 2.1 - C.T. Trechmann and the excavation of Hasting Hill round barrow 21 (courtesy of Roger Miket) 2.2 - A Carinated bowl from Thirlings (after Miket and Edwards forthcoming) 25 2.3 - Impressed Ware pots from Thirlings (after Miket and Edwards forthcoming) 29 2.4 - Grooved Ware potsherds from Thirlings 32 (after Miket and Edwards forthcoming) 2.5 - Distribution of Neolithic stone axes 35 (Durham & Northumberland HERs 2007 and (Miket 1984)) 2.6 - Radiocarbon dates showing the ceramic succession in the Milfield Basin 36 2.7 - Radiocarbon dates of first clearance episodes from pollen cores in the 38 North East 2.8 - The location of the pollen core sites discussed in the text 38 2.9 - The distribution of long and round cairns/barrows 41 2.10- The long cairn at Dour Hill, note the poor condition of the monument 43 (photograph by the author 2005) 2.11 - The damaged long cairn at Devil's Lapful (photograph by the author 2005) 44 2.12 - The distribution of cursus monuments and causewayed enclosures 45 2.13- The causewayed enclosure and cursus at Hasting Hill 45 (Tyne & Wear HER 2008) 2.14 - The potential cursus (highlighted) and round barrow at Copt Hill 47 (courtesy of Blaise Vyner) 2.15- The distribution of pit sites and alignments 48 2.16 - Plan of the excavated features at Bolam Lake 49 (Waddington and Davies 2002, 9) 2.17- Plan of the excavated Three Kings, Redesdale (Burl and Jones 1972, 6) 51 2.18 - The distribution of henges and stone circles 53 2.19- Cups and rings at West Lordenshaw, Birky Hill, Coquetdale (Aron Mazel 55 2004, copyright Stan Beckensall Archive, University of Newcastle) VI 3.1 - Location of sites discussed in chapter three 62 3.2 - Pit 3 at Broome Heath (after Wainwright 1972, 13) 64 3.3 - Two types of pit at Beckton Farm (after Pollard 1997, 85) 67 3.4 - Examples of shafts from Eaton Heath (after Wainwright 1974, 18) 68 3.5 - Pottery and flint refits between the clustered pits at Kilverstone 70 (after Garrow 2006, 50) 3.6 - The distribution of bone, pottery and flint in the Coneybury anomaly 74 (after Richards 1990, 41) 3.7 - The Area C pits at Balfarg, note the stone packing 75 (after Barclay and Russell-White 1993, 61) 3.8 - The differential deposition of worked bone (top) and leaf arrowheads 79 (bottom) at Windmill Hill (after Whittle et al. 1999, 366) 3.9 - Sections of the shafts at Maumbury (after Bradley 1975, 12) 80 4.1 - Ritual metaphysics 116 5.1 - Plan of Neolithic activity at Thirlings 125 5.2 - The location of Thirlings 126 5.3 - Calibrated CI 4