Antiquity http://journals.cambridge.org/AQY

Additional services for Antiquity:

Email alerts: Click here Subscriptions: Click here Commercial reprints: Click here Terms of use : Click here

Wearing environment and making islands: Britain's inland north sea

Christopher Evans

Antiquity / Volume 89 / Issue 347 / October 2015, pp 1110 - 1124 DOI: 10.15184/aqy.2015.99, Published online: 09 October 2015

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0003598X1500099X

How to cite this article: Christopher Evans (2015). Wearing environment and making islands: Britain's Bronze Age inland north sea. Antiquity, 89, pp 1110-1124 doi:10.15184/aqy.2015.99

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/AQY, IP address: 131.111.185.1 on 10 Oct 2015 Wearing environment and making islands: Britain’s Bronze Age inland north sea Christopher Evans∗

Dramatic environmental changes have had an enormous impact on human populations in the past, sometimes expressed through objects that might easily be overlooked. The later marine inundations within the fenland of East Anglia—and the eventual creation of its islanded marsh- landscape—demanded a social response open to investigation. Did they alter the ways that communities expressed their identity? Did larger communities develop to exploit the new economic potential of things such as salt? London N Behind these major shifts, smaller signifiers 0km400 such as shell necklaces may offer clues about use of resources and the identity of those who lived through these changes. Keywords: East Anglia, the Fens, Bronze Age, seashells, personal ornamentation, field systems, islands, environmental change,

Makeshift ornamentation Five matching perforated freshwater mussel shells (Unio spp.; see Figure 1) were found together during the excavation of a later Bronze Age settlement at Striplands Farm, Longstanton, (Evans & Patten 2011). The site lay well inland on a clay and gravel terrace-edge 10km north-west of Cambridge, 5km from the Great Ouse and 10km from the River Cam, the two nearest major river valleys (Figure 2). In addition to a handful of earlier Beaker (c. 2400–2000 cal. BC) and Deverel Rimbury (c. 1600–1200 cal. BC) sherds, it yielded an impressive assemblage of Late Bronze Age pottery (c. 4150 sherds), and radiocarbon dates from the site fell between the twelfth and ninth centuries cal. BC. The site’s various posthole settings included at least two roundhouses, but the most characteristic components were a series of deep waterlogged wells. Not only did the latter produce the

∗ Cambridge Archaeological Unit, Division of Archaeology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3DZ, UK (Email: [email protected])

C Antiquity Publications Ltd, 2015 ANTIQUITY 89 347 (2015): 1110–1124 doi:10.15184/aqy.2015.99 1110 ern niomn n aigislands making and environment Wearing 1111 C niut ulctosLd 2015 Ltd, Publications Antiquity

Figure 1. Shell necklace finds: right) Striplands Farm, Longstanton freshwater mussel shell setting; below) Thorney Borrow Pit’s perforated cockle and whelk shells (with the latter’s find-spot indicated left; Mudd & Pears 2008: fig. 2 & pl. 12).

Research Christopher Evans

Figure 2. Location of sites tracing the sea (top): 1) Striplands Farm, Longstanton; 2) Upper Delphs, Haddenham; 3) Barleycroft Farm/Over; 4) Colne Fen, Earith; 5) Block Fen, Mepal; 6) Fengate/ and Must Farm; 7) Eye Quarry; 8) Briggs Farm, Thorney; 9) Pode Hole/Tower’s Fen/Bar Pastures, Thorney; 10) Nine Bridges, Northborough; 11) Welland Bank; 12) Langtoft; 13) Billingborough; 14) Redgate Hill; 15) Holme-next-the-Sea (see text for specific site references and, otherwise, Knight 1998,Chowneet al. 2001, Pickstone & Mortimer 2011 and summaries in Evans et al. 2009:chap.2; see also Gurney 1980, Lane & Morris 2001: 8–9). The sea’s inland progression from the later to the earlier/Middle Bronze Age (after Waller 1994) (below).

C Antiquity Publications Ltd, 2015

1112 okehl-ekae(eo)fo atnQar,Langtoft, Quarry, perforated Unit). Archaeological Cambridge Baston and (top) from (see Lincolnshire deposit (below) sea-mussel cockleshell-necklace Ditch-end 3. Figure field Age Bronze Middle with associated been have and fen-edge west-central recovered. was the assemblage basal along regular necklace the a mussel-shell from the of was that securing It features the paramount. these place; that of being features one obviously first very of situations the the fill off-river in also such locale are in they ‘inland’ supply artefacts, an water organic such of of wealth a colonisation and enabled finds small the of bulk hnpdaeeple ons w osbefamnso okeadsamse hl,a shell, sea-mussel and cockle enhanced of slightly fragments the were possible of conditions two brackish indication nearby counts, direct to pollen little attest shows Chenopodiaceae could evidence that environmental All Trimble proximity. and sea’s & economic Lane the by landscape’; as occupied ‘fluid insofar was a land (i.e. of creeks tidal swathe of intervening myriad the 2010 a proper; by sea crossed the saltmarshes from kilometres former some fenland’s west-central the to close ( settlements shoreline contemporary other of number a from oprbenclc etnso oehterirdt r nw rmfrhrnorth farther from known are date earlier somewhat of settings necklace Comparable h edsse n eteeta hre r yia ftemjrt fteesites, these of majority the of typical are Thorney at settlement and system field The 362–65, , iue2 Figure iue4 Figure g 6 figs .Teewr l oae n‘oi’gae ercsadwudhv lain have would and terraces gravel ‘solid’ on located all were These ). o oain htgah yD Webb, D. by photographs location; for 6 169). & 168 , ern niomn n aigislands making and environment Wearing 1113 eercvrdfo n fthe Pears east of ( Pit, Borrow one of Thorney from at ditches recovered were ( whelk ‘holed’ freshwater cockleshells ( perforated than Seven shells. rather seashells, are however, settings These systems. ibr otr n o ladder, cockleshells ( log perforated a three yielded and pottery Deverel waterlogged of Rimbury quantities with a along south well, Here, in Langtoft, Lincolnshire. Quarry, at excavations Baston during discovered was h ot e ( of Sea North embayment fringing the former have saltmarshes region’s would to the both close during Age been as Bronze unexpected, the The entirely coast. not are however, the settings, necklace from seashell than inland more located 35km today are Quarry enrcvrdfo hs ie and sites these from recovered have been briquetage the of (Waller quantities of beds Indeed, clay extent fen the marine by documented eatdraedule Cerastoderma iue3 Figure hre orwadLangtoft and Borrow Thorney 2008 C Hutton ; niut ulctosLd 2015 Ltd, Publications Antiquity 1.Asmlrfind similar A 71). : ucnmundatum Buccinum iue1 Figure 2008 iue2 Figure ,tgte iha with together ), ). ;Mudd& .Ti is This ). 1994 ). ),

Research Christopher Evans few shells of Hydrobia ulva and H. ventrosa in the snail assemblage and the presence of two beetle ‘type-markers’ (Paracymus aenus and Ochthebius marinus; Rackham in Daniel 2009: 159). By contrast, investigations at Langtoft have now produced substantial marine shell assemblages. In addition to the marine snail Hydrobia ulva, the common or blue sea mussel (Mytilus edulis) occurs, and, in one case, its shells had been dumped in a ditch terminal (Figures 3 & 4; Hutton 2008: 24; de Vareilles in Hutton & Dickens 2010: 23–24). The marine snail lives on seaweed and thus hints of that sea plant’s utilisation, and Langtoft is in fact one of the very few prehistoric sites in the region to have such evidence (see also Murphy 2009, 27–31 & 49–51). More dramatically attesting to the nearby presence of the sea was the recovery of the pelvic bone of a grey seal at Welland Bank settlement (Albarella & Viner nd). Marine exotica have been recovered from other prehistoric sites in southern Britain. These range from a dolphin vertebra in a Grooved Ware pit at Redgate Hill, Hunstanton (Bradley et al. 1993: 64), to a heap of cockleshells reportedly within a Beaker grave at Southchurch, Essex (Clarke 1970: 444 & 481) and a great white shark’s tooth associated with Late Bronze Age midden deposits in Llanmaes, Vale of Glamorgan (Gwilt & Lodwick 2009). Yet, as far as can be established, the shell-only necklaces described here are unparalleled in the Middle and later Bronze Age of southern Britain. Seashells do feature in a few Early Bronze Age necklaces, such as periwinkles at the Shrewton Barrow burial (Green & Rollo-Smith 1984), but most of these are fossil shells, akin to the scaphopods from the Thomas Hardye School Site in Dorchester (Gardiner et al. 2007: 41 & 52). Recent findings are the seashell disc-beads in an otherwise jet and amber bead Early Bronze Age necklace from Great Cornard, near Suffolk (Demarchi et al. 2014); here, it needs also to be acknowledged that some of the amber found in Bronze Age contexts may have been derived from the North Sea shore of Britain, rather than from the Baltic (Beck & Shennan 1991). Conjuring up images of a Bronze Age replete with shell necklaces can make the period seem ‘different’ in almost an anthropological manner, with Polynesia perhaps no longer seeming quite so distant. Yet these shell(-only) necklaces evidently interacted with a range of other personal ornaments (see Roberts 2007), which include an array of fairly humble items now widely recovered from burials, such as single amber beads, shale ear-studs and perforated animal teeth (Evans et al. 2013: 82). These can only rank as modest personal- or group-category expressions when compared with the period’s more flamboyant metalwork ornaments. The latter would have been rare prestigious items, but the widespread recovery of ‘small ornaments’ suggests that during the Bronze Age, markers of identity were relatively common. Admittedly, the degree to which these pieces would have been meaningful or ‘readable’ and potentially emblematic has yet to be established. It would seem, nonetheless, that substantial portions of the populace were sending signals by their appearance (e.g. Sørensen 1997;Bruck¨ 2004), and it can only be assumed that it is with such expressions that the shell necklaces resonated. Perhaps, in the light of many of these items’ ‘makeshift’ or immediate qualities, it is not surprising that Longstanton vs Thorney’s/Langtoft’s respective freshwater- and seashell-necklace settings should be environmentally sensitive. Burnt cockleshell pieces occurred within the fine-sieve residues from three of the Langtoft (Figure 4; Hutton 2011). It is unfortunate that, due to their fragmentation, we C Antiquity Publications Ltd, 2015

1114 niae NB h ugn odsbst,wt t rnAeslen a xaae rvosyb rhelgclProject Archaeological by previously excavated was saltern, Age necklace cockleshell Iron and its finds Morris sea-mussel with & of Lane sub-site, location see the Road with Services; interments Outgang system cockleshell-accompanied field the with Age cemetery Bronze (N.B. Middle indicated its top) of Lincolnshire: portion Langtoft, a Quarry, below) Baston indicated; of Plan 4. Figure 2001 250–62). : ern niomn n aigislands making and environment Wearing 1115 C niut ulctosLd 2015 Ltd, Publications Antiquity

Research Christopher Evans

Figure 5. A possible cross-fen/-sea connection: left) Bar Pasture Farm, Thorney neonate burial with ‘holed’ limpet visible at the elbow (Richmond et al. 2010) and shown in detail above (photograph by Phoenix Consulting Ltd); right) the saltmarsh setting of Holme-next-the-Sea’s tree-inverted (‘Seahenge’ reconstruction by David Dobson, from Brennand & Taylor 2003,figs47&48). cannot determine whether they were perforated and therefore whether they were once worn by the deceased (see also Murphy in French 1994: 79–80). The idea that they were worn may gain greater credibility with the knowledge that a neonate inhumation at Bar Pasture Farm at Thorney (Figure 5; Richmond et al. 2010) was accompanied by a single perforated seashell along with a food vessel (c. 2200–1800 cal. BC); there the shell lay by the elbow, perhaps worn as a wrist ornament. Although concretion makes its absolute identification difficult, it would appear to be that of a common limpet (Patella vulgate). Unlike the other aforementioned seashell-necklace components—whose whelk and cockles would have frequented the estuarine muds and sands of the western fen- edge shore—limpets would only have been found along rocky coasts and the nearest suitable location would have been the coast near Hunstanton, some 60km to the north-east (Figure 2). C Antiquity Publications Ltd, 2015

1116 sn vdneta aeilwsdpstdaogtesoeie nta,dpsto was deposition instead, shoreline; the along Trump deposited Bradley (e.g. way was (e.g. a material such river-related in that predominantly marked been evidence have no to appear is not does can itself few sea very the only which of issues, crucial of a host here. for a highlighted raises responsible be have This also must dynamics. marshes—there was social inland levels and major later sea sea been freshwater expanding the in of fronts—the expansion rise both huge Fens—during on a the Thus, to the impact; led marshland. and marine by river-drainage this region’s of Indeed, the Sea of attention. matter backing-up greater that a North wholesale received just remarkable not the even Age—has seems of not Bronze It the is embayment itself. in movement so shoreline major more the the and a not Neolithic, of was of however, movement period, existence wholesale this agent the the striking at coastal most but shoreline The distant people, the area. a to Hunstanton of of regard from away expression with moved relocation continued had of the who represent family a thus by may identity limpet Pasture Bar The communities sea Inland ogdsac xhnecmoiishv enwdl icse eg Mithen (e.g. discussed widely been have commodities exchange long-distance Schlichtherle seietycnue ymtra rddfo akiestlmnssc sRunnymede as such distributions. metalwork settlements sea-edge bankside distinctly from eroded Needham (e.g. material tidal a Bridge by to been confused relationship to have evidently Valley in not is Thames metalwork the Age would Burgess Bronze in & sea (Needham made of the reach been distribution creeks, have phase-by-phase spring-tide and Attempts the with entity. rivers discuss and delineated of saltmarshes, the readily length by of and Blurred the ‘closed’ position itself. The up in Fens). incursions Grunty concept estuarine and problematic Flag a (e.g. is embayments shoreline fen ‘pocket’ upon focused uaRn ( Ring Kula n hnivrigadeetn h reisl ol aeefcieyaone ote‘world saltmarsh the the to amounted into effectively environment have ( would woodland down’ itself upside a tree turned the from erecting trunk and inverting The oak then inversion. central and seem great structural ‘Seahenge’ coastal/inland the of fantastic of qualities truly dragging extraordinary a the timber materialises Hunstanton, Age Taylor It near Bronze under-appreciated. & coast Early (Brennand the Holme-next-the-Sea on the specific at located more with neighbour) Also a connection its about special and speculation some (‘Seahenge’ promote have circles also family rocky can the this it from Did family but the a linkage. inland, by in brought relocated shell heirloom had an limpet than that perforated more coast no The be identities. might Pasture sub-regional Bar of at burial markers been have may finds n hc ehp h a atr iptidrcl referenced. indirectly settings, limpet ritual Pasture ‘standard’ Bar more other, the than perhaps significance which regional and wider much a had have may ohterlgossmoimo esel eg Eliade (e.g. seashells of symbolism religious the Both hntepro’ eawr spotdaanttergo’ aietasrsinsequence, transgression marine region’s the against plotted is metalwork period’s the When 1922 2009 —ti o n‘roat fteFn’mdlta spstdteeshell posited—these is that model Fens’ the of ‘Argonauts an not is )—it .Wientighr mut oayhn sdaai sMalinowski’s as dramatic as anything to amounts here nothing While ). iue5 Figure 2000 ern niomn n aigislands making and environment Wearing .Ta ad nteFn hr em oeiec htovrof whatsoever evidence no seems there Fens the in said, That ). 1980 .Gvnalti,i scnevbeta hsmnmn complex monument this that conceivable is it this, all Given ). .Wiepoeste aebe itnuse,tepicture the distinguished, been have propensities While ). 1117 1990 ;Evans 2002 1991 C ae Bradley & Yates ; 3–0 n hi oeas role their and 133–50) : niut ulctosLd 2015 Ltd, Publications Antiquity 2003 1968 2010 ;Suter& .There ). 2003 )or )?

Research Christopher Evans

It is only the use of seashell ornaments that suggests that these settlements beside the inland sea shared a distinct sub-regional identity (i.e. socio-grouping). The morphology of the settlements, their house architecture, pottery assemblages and burial rites show no obvious differences to the rest of the region. Equally, aside from the occasional presence of marine shells, the economic basis of these communities does not seem distinct in any way. Not only is there no evidence of marine fishing, but their livestock–herd ratios are essentially the same as on the more inland sites despite the availability of nearby saltmarsh pasture (Van de Noort 2004). Finally, these seaside settlements do not seem particularly distinguished in their material status or ‘wealth’; for example, they do not display any indication of having greater access to metalwork. As it can only be presumed that the main product of these settlements’ industry—salt— was widely traded, one would expect them to have connected to inland settlements. Certainly, there is no evidence that they were in any way remote or marginal communities. Yet if they were trading in salt, it could be supposed that they would have received something in return. What having access to seaside ‘extras’—salt and saltmarsh pasture—may have engendered is a relatively high settlement density. As outlined in the recent Fengate revisited volume (Evans et al. 2009: 256–60, fig. 6.9), the extent of the period’s field systems north from Thorney up into Lincolnshire seems vast. Some local differences are apparent, such as the greater incorporation of major droveways in the south Lincolnshire portions and a ‘culture zone divide’ has been claimed within it (Pryor 2002), but generally the field system(s) seemingly spread uninterrupted throughout this swathe and this itself must surely be telling. Within eastern England the two main areas of prehistoric trough-container salt production are the Thames ‘Gateway’ and the west-central edge of the Fens (Lane & Morris 2001,fig. 122). The vast majority of the latter area is of Middle Bronze Age attribution as opposed to the Lower Thames Estuary’s Late Bronze Age date (see e.g. Champion 2007: 110). What may well be relevant here is the degree to which the control of salt-making evidently promoted the Thames area’s high-status and metalwork production-related ringwork enclosures (e.g. Brown & Medleycott 2013; Yates 2013), and which seems to be absent from the fen- edge. If this is a valid reading and that salt production contributed to the establishment of markedly distinguished settlements within the Thames area, any sense of comparable ‘take-off’ seems to be absent from the East Anglian Fens. Yet it is possible to speculate that—if in a more centralised or focused manner than along the Thames—this might lie behind the extraordinary character of the greater Flag Fen basin’s archaeology (Pryor 2001). The evidence might almost suggest a polity-like phenomenon, including not just the Flag Fen timber platform but also that nearby at Must Farm, along with its recently excavated log boats (Knight 2009; Knight & Murrell 2012). Of course, the control of salt production would not have been the sole factor, but like the Thames, it may well have furthered local centres of metalwork production (Evans 2002), fostering a basis of prestige or a ‘different’ and higher status for those communities.

Tracing the sea: land loss and community ‘bunching’ The impact should be very obvious, but demonstrating the proximity of the (inland) sea to the region’s prehistoric communities can be surprisingly difficult. Marine fishbone seems C Antiquity Publications Ltd, 2015

1118 nieyasn nteoc esd ie,ad ni eety hscudas esi of said be also could this recently, until and, sites, Serjeantson seaside (e.g. once species the freshwater on absent entirely ao aeBoz g–rnAestlmn ope nLnwo ig immediately (Evans Ridge ground Langwood higher of on to location retreat complex the localised settlement with to Age BC, attesting millennia Age–Iron above first Bronze early Late and major second a late the during ‘creep’ marshland ht nltrpeitr,teoc otnosEyCatrs‘eisl’ls 0 fits of 60% lost ‘peninsula’ Ely/Chatteris continuous ( once marshland the to prehistory, landmass later in that, adcp fteFn.Rnigi iefo io rss ( ‘rises’ minor from size in 90km Ranging than Fens. the of landscape nlssfo h vrNrosecvtos oae hr h ra uedbuhsinto debouches Ouse Great the ( where Fens located excavations, the Narrows Over the from analysis Murrell & Knight hs nld h utFr netgtos ihisfihwisadeltas sbn has (Knight fishbone palaeochannels. platform traps; timber river eel Age along Bronze and Late weirs sites farm’s fish the Age its with Bronze associated with discovered of investigations, been Farm series Must a the include of These excavation the with changing n fl’acut aebe xlrd(Evans explored been have involved accounts fish ‘folk’ of and transportation off-site any that or processes. channel consumption filleting the that efficient beside highly either sites suggesting to settlements, limited not contemporary was has nearby fishbone whose techniques, at of recovery part discovered comparable sites, been mid-stream Despite ‘special’ fishing. be is evidently to stress was seem to Narrows point attraction other Over The and Age. Farm palaeochannel Bronze Must major Middle both the the for to that although down significant carp, brackish is been and have evidence pike to of This shown was consisted Age. species Iron main the the throughout reasons: and two Age Bronze Late and Middle ytm(94.Boz g edssesaenwkont ewdsra (Yates field widespread Fengate be the to of known establishment now the are in systems factor field marine major pressure Age a land local Bronze be local to adaptation (1984). Sturt caused to system reacted have pressure also and would have that see exploitation incursions thought would these and 2011; the communities that & suggested how of Pryor 2004 of inundations. detailing consideration (e.g. recent little pasture Noort’s relatively for de saltmarshes Van of from aside Yet, lnsd h hdalclgc ftergo’ rnAecmuiis(Evans communities Age Iron region’s the of logic’ ‘hydraulic the alongside n al rneAeocpto adbros ln t de (Hall edges its along barrows) ( (and example occupation obvious Age most Bronze the Early provides and Chatteris, and Ely flood- of steady-state, relocated incursions, progressively marine but local of terrace-edges stayed face organisation raised communities of the landscape envisaged: upslope. absence usually in of the are origins. shorelines ‘idea’ In models their stabilise crops. retreat widespread and and for more animals control account much humans, to of to a interfacing to unlikely the relate are and must triggers they environmental Instead, immediate such and yn ewe n maoesalvl ideBoz g edsse xed across extends system field Age Bronze Middle a level, sea above 2m its and 1 between lying etil h mato uhln osa hstm uthv enmsie ti estimated is It massive. been have must time this at loss land such of impact the Certainly h mlctoso rhsoi odn ihnofiilhsoia ore rmteFens the from sources historical official within flooding prehistoric of implications The h lc e erc,lignrho h ra uesplecanlbtenteIsle the between palaeochannel Ouse’s Great the of north lying terrace, Fen Block The c 14km . iue2 Figure 2 2 ,teemrhecoe sad,a one egahcuis hr oeo the of some share units, geographic bounded as islands, marsh-enclosed these ), Hn Palmer & (Hunn 2012 ;Evans .Smlry h nes oainpormeadsalfid fraction finds small and programme flotation intense the Similarly, ). iue6 Figure ern niomn n aigislands making and environment Wearing tal et 1993 . .I a hs nnain htcetdteisland-dotted the created that inundations these was It ). 2014 tal et .Teelwad eeaprnl bnoe u to due abandoned apparently were lowlands These ). , 2015 . 1994 1119 ,soe htfihwscnue rmthe from consumed was fish that showed ), ony&Ervynck & Dobney ; 1997a e loIvn Evans & Irvine also see ; 2003 ࣘ iue 1 Figures h)t h seo l (more Ely of Isle the to 1ha) C niut ulctosLd 2015 Ltd, Publications Antiquity ). 2006 & 2007 1992 ,teehsbeen has there ), 6 ,wt Neolithic with ), .Ta snow is That ). 49) and 84–93), : 1997 2012 2007 2009 b). ), ), ;

Research Christopher Evans

Figure 6. Making islands/losing land: top) the former Ely/Chatteris peninsula’s loss of dry land incurred through later prehistoric sea/marsh incursions; below) modelling animal and human community inundation-retreat (note also the various marsh-/sea-created ‘small islands’ that came to dot the area). same ‘islands-as-laboratories’ qualities as their oceanic equivalents (e.g. Fitzhugh & Hunt 1997). There are numerous small islands within the Fens in the range of 20–50ha. Each could have supported a single Iron Age farmstead, but this pattern is not reflected in the archaeological record. Rather, farmsteads are usually only found on the larger islands (100ha+), where multiple small settlements are known. On at least some parts of the Isle of Ely, and elsewhere along the fen-edge, the Iron Age settlements are separated by intervals of C Antiquity Publications Ltd, 2015

1120 A B lofudepeso nsalieso aeilclue nldn oehn sbscas basic as Acknowledgements something including responses distance, culture, But a material settlement. at of shells for settlement freshwater items large of a small sufficiently necklaces relocate in deemed to expression was decision found island the also marsh-enclosed be a it if responses whether Social prehistory.or islands’. understood, of later ‘making be the during and to region inland need far the sea when the in account by wrought into inundation included taken changes These fully landscape be advocated must massive is change that the environmental determinism considering of environmental impact of social kind the no but certainly here; is It fully. more land’ the rhsoy sopsdt ogradadtetaigo h adbnahtesa(Gaffney sea the beneath land the of greater tracing the al a et and Doggerland have to humans opposed As birds, prehistory. to akin ‘bunched’—more distance. a locally at relocate have to to capacity the aurochs to instance, likely relationship for in beaver range-behaviours—with, and regard, animal or this on In inundation Ouse). of (the valleys river Over impact fen-edge and concurrent in Nene) people (the of Fengate concentration at relocated further as a have to such well led may have that they could repair, This beyond distance. Deciding a worsened at landscape. had area ‘jumped’ immediate the effectively in conditions have may communities generation—some 2015 h ae’ rgnlfiue eettesil fAd aladtesui htgah sb aeWebb. Dave by is photography studio the and Hall Andy of skills Yates. the Dave reflect and figures Sturt Fraser original Sørensen, Garrow, paper’s Louise The Marie Duncan Rackham, Serjentson, James French, Dale Pryor, Taylor, Francis Maisie Charly Pollard, Sharples, Josh Fokkens, Niall Tabor, Lane, Tom Jonny Knight, Harry Mark Healy, Frances Dickens, fenland Hall, Richard David Alison to Boreham, Gdaniec, Steve grateful Darrah, Kasia Appleby, also Grahame Richard inspiration: am Brittain, and I Marcus discussion Woodward. Bradley, sustained Ann for Richard and Hutton, colleagues Jacqui Sheridan Age thank: Bronze Alison to and Richmond, like would Andy I Malim, themes, paper’s Tim this Madgwick, to relating information specific supplying For ( explored been recently has neighbours. model needed steady-retreat-through-flooding or single wanted not they and words, just clusters other or multiple-family In threat, in islands. perceived live isolated a to order on to wanted in farmsteads response have this communities; to in What social seem perhaps larger utilised. people ties, sociability, in were kinship for live maintain locations to and desire island labour a all share simply to that were is great reflect densities also so settlement may regional not distribution the was generally pressure while land-use that high, suggests This 300–500m. only References ECK LBARELLA lal,teefcso nnainrqiefrhrepoaina ao yai within dynamic major a as exploration further require inundation of effects the Clearly, rsn rmtefilwr tteOe arw,a lentv oti oe flocal- of model this to alternative an Narrows, Over the at fieldwork the from Arising Britain welland-bank http://www.shef.ac.uk/archaeology/research/ at: Available Archaeology. of Department Sheffield: of University Bank. Welland . ,C.&S.S .I h aeo utie xaso nflowtradmrhadgnrto upon marshland—generation and floodwater in expansion sustained of face the In ). 2007 ,U.&S.V ObwMngah8.Ofr:Oxbow. Oxford: 8). Monograph (Oxbow ,i rhelg fteFn h rsigne st rbeaie‘h e beneath sea ‘the problematise to is need pressing the Fens the of archaeology in ), HENNAN acse 8Jn 2015). June 18 (accessed INER 1991. . d nmlbnsform bones Animal nd. . me nprehistoric in Amber ern niomn n aigislands making and environment Wearing vs seashells. 1121 B RADLEY abig:CmrdeUiest Press. University deposits Cambridge votive Cambridge: and hoards prehistoric of analysis .1990. R. , C h asg fam:a archaeological an arms: of passage The niut ulctosLd 2015 Ltd, Publications Antiquity iue6 Figure ;Evans tal et . .

Research Christopher Evans

BRADLEY,R.,P.CHOWNE, R.M.J. CLEAL,F.HEALY & EVANS, C. 1997a. Sentimental prehistories: the I. KINNES (ed.). 1993. Excavations on Redgate Hill, construction of the fenland past. Journal of Hunstanton, Norfolk, and at Tattershall Thorpe, European Archaeology 5: 105–36. Lincolnshire (East Anglian Archaeology 57). http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/096576697800660294 Dereham: Field Archaeology Division, Norfolk – 1997b. Hydraulic communities: Iron Age enclosure in Museums Service. the East Anglian fenlands, in A. Gwilt & BRENNAND,M.&M.TAYLOR. 2003. The survey and C. Haselgrove (ed.) Reconstructing Iron Age societies: excavation of a Bronze Age timber circle at new approaches to the British Iron Age: 216–27. Holme-next-the-Sea, Norfolk, 1998–9. Proceedings Oxford: Oxbow. of the Prehistoric Society 69: 1–84. – 2002. Metalwork and ‘Cold Claylands’: pre-Iron Age http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0079497X00001250 occupation on the Isle of Ely, in T. Lane & J. Coles BROWN,N.&M.MEDLEYCOTT. 2013. The Neolithic (ed.) Through wet and dry: proceedings of a conference and Bronze Age enclosures at Springfield Lyons, Essex: in honour of David Hall (Lincolnshire Archaeology excavations 1981–1991 (East Anglian Archaeology and Heritage Reports Series 5 and WARP 149). Chelmsford: Historic Environment Essex Occasional Paper 17): 33–53. Sleaford: County Council. Lincolnshire Archaeology and Heritage. BRUCK¨ , J. 2004. Material metaphors: the relational – 2003. Britons and Romans at Chatteris: investigations construction of identity in Early Bronze Age burials at Langwood Farm, Chatteris. Britannia 34: in Ireland and Britain. Journal of Social Archaeology 175–264. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3558544 4: 307–33. EVANS,C.&R.PATTEN. 2011. An inland Bronze Age: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1469605304046417 excavations at Striplands Farm, West Longstanton. CHAMPION, T.C. 2007. Prehistoric Kent, in Proceedings of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society J.H Williams (ed.) The archaeology of Kent to AD 100: 7–46. 800: 67–132. Woodbridge: Boydell Press and Kent EVANS,C.withE.BEADSMOORE,M.BRUDENELL & County Council. G. LUCAS. 2009. Fengate revisited: further fen-edge CHOWNE,P.,R.CLEAL & A.P. FITZPATRICK with excavations, Bronze Age field systems/settlement and P. A NDREWS. 2001. Excavations at Billingborough, the Wyman Abbott/Leeds Archives. Cambridge: Lincolnshire, 1975–8: a Bronze–Iron Age settlement Cambridge Archaeological Unit. and salt-working site (East Anglian Archaeology 94). EVANS,C.withM.BRUDENELL,R.PATTEN & Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology. R. REGAN. 2013. Process and history: prehistoric CLARKE, D.L. 1970. Beaker pottery of Great Britain. fen-edge communities at Colne Fen, Earith (The Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. archaeology of the Lower Ouse Valley, volume I). DANIEL, P. 2009. Archaeological excavation at Pode Hole Cambridge: Cambridge Archaeological Unit. Quarry: Bronze Age occupation on the EVANS,C.,J.TABOR &M.VANDER LINDEN. 2014. Cambridgeshire Fen-edge (British Archaeological Making time work: sampling floodplain artefact Reports British series 484). Oxford: Archaeopress. frequencies and populations. Antiquity 88: 241–58. DEMARCHI, B., S. O’CONNOR,A.DE L. PONZONI, http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X0005033X R. DE A.R. PONZONI,A.SHERIDAN,K.PENKMAN, EVANS,C.withJ.TABOR &M.VANDER LINDEN. 2015. Y. HANCOCK &J.WILSON. 2014. An integrated Twice-crossed river: prehistoric and approach to the taxonomic identification of palaeoenvironmental investigations at Barleycroft prehistoric shell ornaments. PLoS ONE: Farm/Over, Cambridgeshire (The archaeology of the PONE-D-14-11186R1. Lower Ouse Valley, volume III). Cambridge: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0099839 Cambridge Archaeological Unit. DOBNEY,K.&A.ERVYNCK. 2007. To fish or not to FITZHUGH,B.&T.L.HUNT. 1997. Islands as fish? Evidence for the possible avoidance of fish laboratories: archaeological research in comparative consumption during the Iron Age around the perspectives. Human Ecology 25: 379–83. North Sea, in C. Haselgrove & T. Moore (ed.) The http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1021867425111 Later Iron Age in Britain and beyond: 403–18. FRENCH, C.A.I. 1994. Excavation of the Deeping St Oxford: Oxbow. Nicholas Barrow Complex, South Lincolnshire (Lincs. ELIADE, M. 1991. Images and symbols: studies in religious Archaeology and Heritage Reports series 1). symbolism. Princeton (NJ): University of Princeton Heckington: Heritage Trust for Lincolnshire. Press. GAFFNEY,V.,K.THOMSON &S.FITCH. 2007. Mapping Doggerland: the Mesolithic landscapes of the southern North Sea. Oxford: Archaeopress.

C Antiquity Publications Ltd, 2015

1122 K at platform timber Age Bronze a Excavating 2009. – G G H H 2011. – K L I G H G H RVINE ANE NIGHT NIGHT WILT URNEY REEN ARDINER UTTON UTTON UNN ALL 3 1–4. 63: Peterborough. Near , Farm, Must 287. Report Unit Archaeological Cambridge Bridges. Nine Age at Bronze Terminal settlement a of excavation and water Etton main to Northborough Water Anglian the otaposieArchaeology Northamptonshire Peterborough, Northey, at salt-production Committee. Project Fenland Cambridge: 56). Archaeology fenlands iclsie rea ad2009/2011 Land Freeman Lincolnshire: abig rhelgclUi eot1062. Report Unit Archaeological Cambridge 823. Report Unit Archaeological Land Whitfield the nweg:pois rcse,politics’. processes, proxies, climate knowledge: ‘Communicating in the fenlands, in Anglian history East climate the into digging waterlands: Anthropology rde Fen. Bradley agot iclsie h lb ad2007/2008 Land Glebe the Lincolnshire: Langtoft, 918. Report Unit Archaeological Cambridge Cambridge: aua itr rhelgclSociety Archaeological & History Natural Dorchester. Thomas School, at Hardye cemeteries and Early settlement and Age Beaker Bronze Neolithic, Late death: and life rdcini h fenland the in production salt Romano-British and prehistoric saltmaking: rs o Lincolnshire. Heritage for Lincoln: Trust 4). series Reports Heritage and 10–13. investigations. 1992 system: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0079497X00007556 Society Prehistoric the of . Proceedings Shrewton, near barrows round eighteen Archaeology Llanmaes. at feasting Prehistoric portion’? ..L A.J. .S A. ,T.&E.M ..1992. D.N. , ,A.&M.L ,J.&R.P ,R.&C.E ,C.&S.R ,M.&K.M of investigation archaeological The 1998. M. , .18.Eiec fBoz Age Bronze of Evidence 1980. D. , HERIDAN ute xaain tBso Quarry, Baston at excavations Further .2008. J. , ,J.&A.D AWSON ,J.,M.J.A TeFnadPoet 6 Project, Fenland (The 3:29–35. 233: ,E.L ALMER ORRIS rts Archaeology British 3 237–39. 53: &C.J.S OLLO VANS ODWICK xaain tLntf,Lincolnshire: Langtoft, at Excavations h ot-etr Cambridgeshire south-western The ICKENS URRELL LLEN abig:Cambridge Cambridge: . OADER 02 relnsand Greenlands 2012. . -S e..2001. (ed.). 93 h lc e field Fen Block The 1993. . MITH ..P A.B. , TEVENS 09 h ‘champion’s The 2009. . 2010. . 02 utFr and Farm Must 2012. . ,J.I.M Lnonhr Archaeology (Lincolnshire 94 h xaainof excavation The 1984. . rceig fDorset of Proceedings eln Research Fenland 07 atrof matter A 2007. . OWELL 5 1–11. 15: ute xaain at excavations Further ern niomn n aigislands making and environment Wearing ilnimof millennium A 2:15–21. 123: C / atAnglian East K 0 255–318. 50: INLEY ,P.H Cambridge: . 2:17–52. 128: Current , ARDING Current Past 8: . , 1123 R boundary cultural a as Valley Welland The 2002. – 2001. – L M M N N M P P M R ICKSTONE RYOR ANE OBERTS ICHMOND EEDHAM EEDHAM UDD ITHEN ALINOWSKI URPHY eiaeTutfrLincolnshire. for Trust Sleaford: Heritage 18–32. 17): paper and occasional 5 WARP series Reports Heritage Hall and David Archaeology of honour in conference a Lane T. in history, &J.Coles(ed.) long-term of example an zone: Heritage. landscape fenland a of environment nln:tefut report fourth the England: Society. Archaeological Northants Museum, Ontario Royal Toronto: & Northampton 2). Monograph Archaeological 7/Northants Monograph oteg ea Paul. Kegan & Routledge Guinea the New in Melanesian adventure of and archipelagos enterprise native of account an ekntn eiaeTuto Lincolnshire. of Trust Heritage 9). Heckington: series Reports Heritage and Archaeology 1991–1994 Edge, Fen on Lincolnshire sites the prehistoric on excavations adaptation: human prospect xaain.Vlm :tepsaeo h Thames. Museum. the British of London: passage the I: Volume excavations. Nicholson. BC 000–5000 20 xod Archaeopress. 437–69. Oxford: 83): series Age British Bronze Reports Later Archaeological British the in society and metalwork the Valley: evidence,inJ.Barrett&R.Bradley(ed.) Thames lower the in Age http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0079497X00027328 Society Britain. Age in Bronze ornaments Middle of reassessment a dead: abig:Ofr rhelg atRpr 1094. Report East Archaeology Oxford Peterborough Cambridge: Thorney, Fen, Prior’s Farm, Brigg’s of rhelgclRprsBiihsre 7) Oxford: Archaeopress. 471). series British Reports Archaeological 2004–2005 Pit’, Borrow ‘Thorney at ‘Excavations Peterborough: Thorney, Fen, Tower’s eotPC259a. Report report phase 1—interim Peterborough: Hole, Pode Farm, Pasture Bar ,T.&D.T .1984. F. , ,A.&B.P h lgFnBsnacaooyand Basin—archaeology Fen Flag The .2003. S. , .2009. P. , ..20.Aonn h iigbtntthe not but living the Adorning 2007. B.W. , ,S.P.&C.B 2000. S.P. , ,A.&R.M 3 135–67. 73: odn otnu Books. Continuum London: . . .C G. A., , .1922. B. , xaaina egt,Peterborough, Fengate, at Excavation RIMBLE EARS C h nls os:ahsoyand history a coast: English The fe h c:agoa ua history, human global a ice: the After hog e n r:poednsof proceedings dry: and wet Through niut ulctosLd 2015 Ltd, Publications Antiquity hei osligArchaeology Consulting Phoenix . OATES odn edned& Weidenfeld London: . unmd rderesearch Bridge Runnymede 2008. . URGESS ORTIMER roat ftewsenPacific: western the of Argonauts 2010. . rceig ftePrehistoric the of Proceedings &C.H RylOtroMuseum Ontario (Royal 90 h ae Bronze Later The 1980. . rneAefil ytmat system field Age Bronze li adcpsand landscapes Fluid 2011. . ALLYBONE odn English London: . (British h archaeology The (Lincolnshire (Lincolnshire London: . (British Settlement 2010. . .

Research Christopher Evans

SERJEANTSON,D.,S.WALES &J.EVANS. 1994. Fish in VAN DE NOORT, R. 2004. The Humber wetlands: the later , in Archaeo-Ichthyological archaeology of a dynamic landscape. London: studies: papers presented at the 6th meeting of the Windgather. I.C.A.Z Fish Remains Working Group (Sonderdruck http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00068472 Offa 51): 332–39. Neumunster:¨ Wachholz. – 2011. Conceptualising climate change archaeology. SØRENSEN, M.L.S. 1997. Reading dress: the Antiquity 85: 1039–48. construction of social categories and identities in WALLER, M. 1994. Flandrian environmental change in Bronze Age Europe. Journal of European Archaeology fenland (The Fenland Project. 9/East Anglian 5: 93–115. Archaeology 70). Cambridge: Cambridgeshire http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/096576697800703656 Archaeological Committee. STURT, F. 2006. Local knowledge is required: a rhythm YATES, D.T. 2007. Land, power and prestige: Bronze Age analytical approach to the late Mesolithic and early field systems in southern England. Oxford: Oxbow Neolithic of the East Anglian fenland, UK. Journal Books. of Maritime Archaeology 1: 119–39. – 2013. Connecting and disconnecting the Bronze Age, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11457-006-9006-y in the archaeology of Essex: proceedings of the SUTER,P.J.&H.SCHLICHTHERLE. 2009. Prehistoric pile Chelmsford Conference (2008). Transactions of the dwellings around the Alps (UNESCO World Essex Society for Archaeology and History 3(for Heritage Candidature). Biel: Druckerei Gassmann. 2012): 26–36. TRUMP, B. 1968. Fenland rapiers, in J. Coles & YATES,D.&R.BRADLEY. 2010. Still water, hidden D. Simpson (ed.) Studies in ancient Europe: 213–25. depths: the deposition of Bronze Age metalwork in Leicester: Leicester University Press. the English fenland. Antiquity 84: 405–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00066667

Received: 16 June 2014; Accepted: 1 September 2014; Revised: 24 November 2014

C Antiquity Publications Ltd, 2015

1124