DOCSLIB.ORG

A Neolithic and Bronze Age Monument Complex and Its Early Medieval Reuse: Excavations at Netherfield Farm, South Petherton, Somerset, 2006

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Neolithic and Bronze Age Monument Complex and Its Early Medieval Reuse: Excavations at Netherfield Farm, South Petherton, Somerset, 2006 02 Mudd:Layout 1 03/07/2013 08:49 Page 3 A Neolithic and Bronze Age Monument Complex and its Early Medieval Reuse: Excavations at Netherfield Farm, South Petherton, Somerset, 2006 andrew mudd and mark brett With contributions by Hugo Anderson-Whymark, Stuart Black, Sarah Cobain, Jonny Geber, Frances Healy, Nathalie Marini, E. R. McSloy, Elaine L. Morris, Kathryn M. Price, Sylvia Warman, Geoff Warren, Nick Watson, Keith Wilkinson and Tim P. Young An early Neolithic causewayed enclosure, a middle Neolithic long enclosure and an earlier Bronze Age open enclosure were among a group of prehistoric features discovered and examined by excavation at Netherfield Farm, South Petherton during archaeological mitigation work ahead of the construction of a natural gas pipeline between Ilchester and Barrington, Somerset, in 2006. Of particular interest were burnt deposits within the long enclosure ditches and a possible Bronze Age field system. Assemblages of pottery and flintwork contribute to the understanding of these features and a programme of radiocarbon dating has amplified the chronology of activity on the site. Evidence from a group of burnt and unburnt pits and a partial enclosure reveal the reuse of the site between the fifth and eighth centuries AD. INTRODUCTION The discovery and partial excavation of a group of prehistoric monuments at Nether - field Farm, South Petherton, in Somerset provides new information on the distribu - tion and use of monumental architecture in Neolithic and Bronze Age Britain. The group comprised an extensive spread of remains, including a causewayed enclo sure, a long enclosure and a linear arrangement of ring-ditches, and is the first of this type of complex to be found in Somerset. The small size of the causewayed enclosure and the low frequency of material found retrieved from its ditches explain its incon spicuous presence in the modern landscape. Conversely, the long enclosure contained relatively abundant charred plant remains and other finds. The nature of both these monuments makes the complex unusual in national terms since causewayed enclosures are usually the more archaeologically productive of the two. The pits and ditches on the site of Archaeol. J., 169 (2012), 3‒86 02 Mudd:Layout 1 03/07/2013 08:49 Page 4 4 excavations at netherfield farm, south petherton the causewayed enclosure returned radiocarbon dates between the fifth and eighth centuries ad and indicate its reuse during the early medieval period. This evidence conforms to a wider pattern of early medieval activity found in and around prehistoric monuments identified across the county and beyond. As elsewhere, the extent, nature and motives for this reuse are not easily determinable from the scant remains recovered. illus. 1 Site location. Scale 1:125,000 BACKGROUND Cotswold Archaeology carried out a programme of archaeological work along the route of a new gas pipeline between Ilchester (NGR ST 50952295) and Barrington (ST 37851860) in Somerset (Illus. 1) between April 2005 and September 2006. Following several stages of earlier desk-based and field survey, field evaluation took place as mitigation work along the 17 km pipeline route between April and June 2006. Significant archaeological remains were identified in nine fields. Two of these fields, Areas 47 and 48, contained archaeological features that are considered to be of national 02 Mudd:Layout 1 03/07/2013 08:49 Page 5 excavations at netherfield farm, south petherton 5 significance and are the subject of this report. The other archaeological findings mainly relate to Roman settlement and land use and are summarized elsewhere (Brett and Mudd forthcoming). The initial blanket magnetometer survey along the entire 20 m-wide pipeline ease - ment revealed a circular enclosure (later defined as a causewayed enclosure) and a long enclosure on land north of Netherfield Farm (Sites 48A and 48B: Illus. 2). Two long but relatively narrow evaluation trenches partially confirmed their form and date. However, the potential importance of the discovery led to the decision to fully define the extent of the features by magnetometer and excavate a larger area than would be affected by the pipeline. To compensate for this additional work it was agreed that the complex of features to the north (Area 47) would be examined in a watching brief, rather than by excavation. The extended magnetometer survey commenced in the southern part of the site and fully defined a small causewayed enclosure comprising a single, incomplete, circuit (Illus 2 and 3). Two partial enclosures lay immediately to the east and north- east, apparently respecting both the causewayed enclosure and each other. The block of mottled geophysical terrain further north-east contained little that was clearly identi fiable except two north-west aligned linear features which correspond tolerably well with former field boundaries of post-medieval date. To the north-east again, the exca va tions defined the full length of the long enclosure (c. 80 m) and a linear arrange- ment of ring-ditches. There were linear ditches here as well, some of which respected the ring-ditches. Other linear ditches were only faintly defined but appeared to include a small double-ditched enclosure in the northern corner of this area. The magnetometer survey suggested a further extension of this pattern of enclosures, but this was not conclusively defined within the pipeline easement. The overall results indicated a group of earlier prehistoric monuments in these fields, potentially dating from the earlier Neolithic to the Middle Bronze Age, and representing a ceremonial complex so far unique for Somerset. The trial trenching established that the archaeological features were poorly pre - served and no stratigraphy survived above the surface of the natural substrate. Accordingly, the overlying topsoil and subsoil (altogether a little over 0.4 m thick) was stripped to the top of the substrate under archaeological direction by means of a mechanical excavator using toothless grading buckets. The whole area of the cause - wayed enclosure and adjacent features was exposed in this manner (Illus. 7) together with the western end of the long enclosure, including the ditch terminals (Illus. 4). The archaeological features were planned by hand on drafting film. Fifty per cent of all discrete features were excavated following a general excavation sampling strategy. One hundred per cent excavation was adopted for pits containing burnt material. A more limited intervention, comprising the hand-excavation of six sections through the ditches, was required for the long enclosure because only its western end was affected by the course of the pipeline. This report contains edited specialist reports, full versions of which are held in archive. All radiocarbon dates are calibrated and given at 95% probability unless other- wise stated. Posterior density estimates derived from Bayesian modelling of the radio- carbon dates are expressed in italics. 02 Mudd:Layout 1 03/07/2013 08:49 Page 6 6 excavations at netherfield farm, south petherton illus. 2 Areas 47 and 48, showing geophysical survey results (Archaeological Surveys Ltd). Scale 1:4000 02 Mudd:Layout 1 03/07/2013 08:49 Page 7 excavations at netherfield farm, south petherton 7 illus. 3 Areas 47 and 48, showing abstraction and interpretation of geophysical survey results. Scale 1:4000 02 Mudd:Layout103/07/201308:49Page8 illus. 4 Plan of Site 48B, long enclosure, showing archaeological features. Scale 1:1000 02 Mudd:Layout 1 03/07/2013 08:49 Page 9 excavations at netherfield farm, south petherton 9 SITE DESCRIPTION The site lies on a gently inclined north-west-facing slope north of Netherfield Farm, approximately 500 m south-east of the hamlet of East Lambrook in the parish of South Petherton. The excavated area is situated just above the 20 m contour within 200 m of Lambrook Brook which drains into the River Parrett 1 km or so to the north-east. The geology here is a Late Pleistocene colluvial deposit which comprises a pale clay- silt with varied flint pebble inclusions deriving from the underlying Dyrham Forma- tion mudstones and sandstones (Wilkinson 2011). The poor preservation of bone here results from the sediment’s moderate acidity. The complex of Neolithic and Bronze Age features at Netherfield Farm was shown to spread over a distance of c. 600 m south-west/north-east along the east bank of the Lambrook Brook. The group comprised a causewayed enclosure, an adjacent and later U-shaped enclosure, a long enclosure about 150 m further north-east with a linear arrangement of ring-ditches close by, and a pattern of Bronze Age ditches and enclo - sures still further down the valley to the north-east. Linear magnetometer anomalies in Area 46 further north-east, examined by trial trenching, were not archaeological. neolithic Pit 48644 Lying between the two arms of the long enclosure (Illus. 4), pit 48644 was the earliest dated feature on the site. The pit was oval in shape and was 1.5 m long, 1.1 m wide and 0.6 m deep (Illus 5 and 6). Each of the three identified fills contained quantities of charcoal, dominated by oak but also containing elm, hazel/alder and cherry (Cobain this article; Tables 8 and 9). The upper fill contained a fairly substantial lump of oak charcoal, but a consideration of the form of the pit, without any recognisable post- setting or in situ burning, suggests that this does not represent the remains of an in situ post, but rather a secondary deposit of charred wood. A few crumbs of quartz- tempered pottery from the upper fill are only datable as Early to Middle Neolithic (McSloy this article), but two radiocarbon determinations on Prunus charcoal and hazelnut shell from the same context (48645) returned virtually identical dates in the range 3780–3660 cal. bc (NZA-35810, NZA-35816), making this feature substantially earlier than the long enclosure with which it appeared to be associated (Table 12; Healy, this report).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The University of Bradford Institutional Repository
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Bradford Scholars The University of Bradford Institutional Repository http://bradscholars.brad.ac.uk This work is made available online in accordance with publisher policies. Please refer to the repository record for this item and our Policy Document available from the repository home page for further information. To see the final version of this work please visit the publisher’s website. Where available access to the published online version may require a subscription. Author(s): Gibson, Alex M. Title: An Introduction to the Study of Henges: Time for a Change? Publication year: 2012 Book title: Enclosing the Neolithic : Recent studies in Britain and Ireland. Report No: BAR International Series 2440. Publisher: Archaeopress. Link to publisher’s site: http://www.archaeopress.com/archaeopressshop/public/defaultAll.asp?QuickSear ch=2440 Citation: Gibson, A. (2012). An Introduction to the Study of Henges: Time for a Change? In: Gibson, A. (ed.). Enclosing the Neolithic: Recent studies in Britain and Europe. Oxford: Archaeopress. BAR International Series 2440, pp. 1-20. Copyright statement: © Archaeopress and the individual authors 2012. An Introduction to the Study of Henges: Time for a Change? Alex Gibson Abstract This paper summarises 80 years of ‘henge’ studies. It considers the range of monuments originally considered henges and how more diverse sites became added to the original list. It examines the diversity of monuments considered to be henges, their origins, their associated monument types and their dates. Since the introduction of the term, archaeologists have often been uncomfortable with it.
    [Show full text]
  • Friday, the 19Th of June 09:00 Garcia Sanjuan, Leonardo the Hole in the Doughnut
    monumental landscapes neolithic subsistence and megaliths 09:25 schiesberg, sara; zimmermann, andreas 10:40 coffee break siemens lecture hall bosch conference room Stages and Cycles: The Demography of Populations Practicing 11:00 schiesberg, sara Collective Burials Theories, Methods and Results The Bone Puzzle. Reconstructing Burial Rites in Collective Tombs 09:00 schmitt, felicitas; bartelheim, martin; bueno ramírez, primitiva 09:00 o’connell, michael 09:50 rinne, christoph; fuchs, katharina; kopp, juliane; 11:25 cummings, vicki Just passing by? Investigating in the Territory of the Megalith Builders The pollen evidence for early prehistoric farming impact: towards a better schade-lindig, sabine; susat, julian; krause-kyora, ben The social implications of construction: a consideration of the earliest of the Southern European Plains. The Case of Azután, Toledo. understanding of the archaeological fi eld evidence for Neolithic activity in Niedertiefenbach reloaded: The builders of the Wartberg gallery grave Neolithic monuments of Britain and Ireland 09:25 carrero pazos, miguel; rodríguez casal, antón a. western Ireland 10:15 klingner, susan; schultz, michael 11:50 pollard, joshua Neolithic Territory and Funeral Megalithic Space in Galicia (Nw. Of 09:25 diers, sarah; fritsch, barbara The physical strain on megalithic tomb builders from northern How routine life was made sacred: settlement and monumentality in Iberian Peninsula): A Synthetic Approach Changing environments in a Megalithic Landscape: the Altmark case Germany –results of an
    [Show full text]
  • White Horse Trail Directions – Westbury to Redhorn Hill
    White Horse Trail Route directions (anti-clockwise) split into 10 sections with an alternative for the Cherhill to Alton Barnes section, and including the “short cut” between the Pewsey and Alton Barnes White Horses S1 White Horse Trail directions – Westbury to Redhorn Hill [Amended on 22/5, 26/5 and 27/5/20] Maps: OS Explorer 143, 130, OS Landranger 184, 173 Distance: 13.7 miles (21.9 km) The car park above the Westbury White Horse can be reached either via a street named Newtown in Westbury, which also carries a brown sign pointing the way to Bratton Camp and the White Horse (turn left at the crossroads at the top of the hill), or via Castle Road in Bratton, both off the B3098. Go through the gate by the two information boards, with the car park behind you. Go straight ahead to the top of the escarpment in the area which contains two benches, with the White Horse clearly visible to your right. There are fine views here over the vale below. Go down steps and through the gate to the right and after approx. 10m, before you have reached the White Horse, turn right over a low bank between two tall ramparts. Climb up onto either of them and walk along it, parallel to the car park. This is the Iron Age hill fort of Bratton Camp/Castle. Turn left off it at the end and go over the stile or through the gate to your right, both of which give access to the tarmac road. Turn right onto this.
    [Show full text]
  • How to Tell a Cromlech from a Quoit ©
    How to tell a cromlech from a quoit © As you might have guessed from the title, this article looks at different types of Neolithic or early Bronze Age megaliths and burial mounds, with particular reference to some well-known examples in the UK. It’s also a quick overview of some of the terms used when describing certain types of megaliths, standing stones and tombs. The definitions below serve to illustrate that there is little general agreement over what we could classify as burial mounds. Burial mounds, cairns, tumuli and barrows can all refer to man- made hills of earth or stone, are located globally and may include all types of standing stones. A barrow is a mound of earth that covers a burial. Sometimes, burials were dug into the original ground surface, but some are found placed in the mound itself. The term, barrow, can be used for British burial mounds of any period. However, round barrows can be dated to either the Early Bronze Age or the Saxon period before the conversion to Christianity, whereas long barrows are usually Neolithic in origin. So, what is a megalith? A megalith is a large stone structure or a group of standing stones - the term, megalith means great stone, from two Greek words, megas (meaning: great) and lithos (meaning: stone). However, the general meaning of megaliths includes any structure composed of large stones, which include tombs and circular standing structures. Such structures have been found in Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, North and South America and may have had religious significance. Megaliths tend to be put into two general categories, ie dolmens or menhirs.
    [Show full text]
  • The Medway Valley Prehistoric Landscapes Project
    AST NUMBER 72 November 2012 THE NEWSLETTER OF THE PREHISTORIC SOCIETY Registered Office University College London, Institute of Archaeology, 31–34 Gordon Square, London WC1H 0PY http://www.prehistoricsociety.org/ PTHE MEDWAY VALLEY PREHISTORIC LANDSCAPES PROJECT The Early Neolithic megalithic monuments of the Medway valley in Kent have a long history of speculative antiquarian and archaeological enquiry. Their widely-assumed importance for understanding the earliest agricultural societies in Britain, despite how little is really known about them, probably stems from the fact that they represent the south-easternmost group of megalithic sites in the British Isles and have figured - usually in passing - in most accounts of Neolithic monumentality since Stukeley drew Kit’s Coty House in 1722. Remarkably, this distinctive group of monuments and other major sites (such as Burham causewayed enclosure) have not previously been subject to a Kit’s Coty House: integrated laser scan and ground-penetrating landscape-scale programme of investigation, while the radar survey of the east end of the monument only significant excavation of a megalithic site in the region took place over 50 years ago (by Alexander at the The Medway Valley Project aims to establish a new Chestnuts in 1957). The relative neglect of the area, and interpretative framework for the Neolithic archaeology its research potential, have been thrown into sharper of the Medway valley, focusing on the architectural relief recently by the discovery of two Early Neolithic forms, chronologies and use-histories of monuments, long halls nearby at White Horse Stone/Pilgrim’s Way and changes in environment and inhabitation during the on the High Speed 1 route, and by the radiocarbon period c.
    [Show full text]
  • Henges in Yorkshire
    Looking south across the Thornborough Henges. SE2879/116 NMR17991/01 20/5/04. ©English Heritage. NMR Prehistoric Monuments in the A1 Corridor Information and activities for teachers, group leaders and young archaeologists about the henges, cursus, barrows and other monuments in this area Between Ferrybridge and Catterick the modern A1 carries more than 50,000 vehicles a day through West and North Yorkshire. It passes close to a number of significant but often overlooked monuments that are up to 6,000 years old. The earliest of these are the long, narrow enclosures known as cursus. These were followed by massive ditched and banked enclosures called henges and then smaller monuments, including round barrows. The A1 also passes by Iron Age settlements and Roman towns, forts and villas. This map shows the route of the A1 in Yorkshire and North of Boroughbridge the A1 the major prehistoric monuments that lie close by. follows Dere Street Roman road. Please be aware that the monuments featured in this booklet may lie on privately-owned land. 1 The Landscape Setting of the A1 Road Neolithic and Bronze Age Monuments Between Boroughbridge and Cursus monuments are very long larger fields A1 Road quarries Catterick the A1 heads north with rectangular enclosures, typically more the Pennines to the west and than 1km long. They are thought to the low lying vales of York and date from the middle to late Neolithic Mowbray to the east. This area period and were probably used for has a rural feel with a few larger ceremonies and rituals. settlements (like the cathedral city of Ripon and the market town of The western end of the Thornborough pockets of woodland cursus is rounded but some are square.
    [Show full text]
  • The Landscape Archaeology of Martin Down
    The Landscape Archaeology of Martin Down Martin Down and the surrounding area contain a variety of well‐preserved archaeological remains, largely because the area has been unaffected by modern agriculture and development. This variety of site types and the quality of their preservation are relatively unusual in the largely arable landscapes of central southern England. Bokerley Dyke, Grim's Ditch, the short section of medieval park boundary bank and the two bowl barrows west of Grim's Ditch, form the focus of the Martin Down archaeological landscape and, as such, have been the subject of part excavations and a detailed survey by the Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England. These investigations have provided much information about the nature and development of early land division, agriculture and settlement within this area during the later prehistoric and historic periods. See attached map for locations of key sites A ritual Neolithic Landscape….. Feature 1. The Dorset Cursus The Cursus dates from 3300 BCE which makes it contemporary with the earthen long barrows on Cranborne Chase: many of these are found near, on, or within the Cursus and since they are still in existence they help trace the Cursus' course in the modern landscape. The relationship between the Cursus and the alignment of these barrows suggests that they had a common ritual significance to the Neolithic people who spent an estimated 0.5 million worker‐hours in its construction. A cursus circa 6.25 miles (10 kilometres) long which runs roughly southwest‐northeast between Thickthorn Down and Martin Down. Narrow and roughly parallel‐sided, it follows a slightly sinuous course across the chalk downland, crossing a river and several valleys.
    [Show full text]
  • Neolithic Society in Northern Greece: the Evidence of Ground Stone Artefacts
    Neolithic society in Northern Greece: the evidence of ground stone artefacts Volume I Christina Tsoraki Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Archaeology, University of Sheffield October 2008 to (j3en ABSTRACT Analysis of ground stone technology from the Neolithic of Greece rarely goes beyond incomplete descriptive accounts to focus on the activities performed with these tools and the contexts of their use. Ground stone products are seen as mundane static objects devoid of meaning and lacking significance. The aim of this thesis is to move away from incomplete accounts of ground stone technology and static typologies. Drawing upon the concepts of the chaine operatoire and 'object biographies' this thesis investigates ground stone technology as a social practice focusing on the life-cycle of artefacts from raw material selection to final deposition. The underlying premise is that a contextual approach can contribute to understanding the ways in which the production, consumption and discard of ground stone artefacts were structured within different forms and scales of social practice and the manner in which these differences articulated different meanings and social understandings. The aims of the thesis were materialised through the study of the rich ground stone assemblage from the LN settlement of Makriyalos, Greece. The analysis of the chaine operatoire of the Makriyalos ground stone assemblage revealed diverse technological choices expressed throughout the cycle of production and use. Established traditions existed according to which specific materials were considered to be appropriate for the production of different objects. Furthermore, detailed analysis suggests that the resulting objects were far from mundane artefacts but were instead active media for expressing choices informed by cultural understandings of appropriateness.
    [Show full text]
  • Supplementary Information for Ancient Genomes from Present-Day France
    Supplementary Information for Ancient genomes from present-day France unveil 7,000 years of its demographic history. Samantha Brunel, E. Andrew Bennett, Laurent Cardin, Damien Garraud, Hélène Barrand Emam, Alexandre Beylier, Bruno Boulestin, Fanny Chenal, Elsa Cieselski, Fabien Convertini, Bernard Dedet, Sophie Desenne, Jerôme Dubouloz, Henri Duday, Véronique Fabre, Eric Gailledrat, Muriel Gandelin, Yves Gleize, Sébastien Goepfert, Jean Guilaine, Lamys Hachem, Michael Ilett, François Lambach, Florent Maziere, Bertrand Perrin, Susanne Plouin, Estelle Pinard, Ivan Praud, Isabelle Richard, Vincent Riquier, Réjane Roure, Benoit Sendra, Corinne Thevenet, Sandrine Thiol, Elisabeth Vauquelin, Luc Vergnaud, Thierry Grange, Eva-Maria Geigl, Melanie Pruvost Email: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Contents SI.1 Archaeological context ................................................................................................................. 4 SI.2 Ancient DNA laboratory work ................................................................................................... 20 SI.2.1 Cutting and grinding ............................................................................................................ 20 SI.2.2 DNA extraction .................................................................................................................... 21 SI.2.3 DNA purification ................................................................................................................. 22 SI.2.4
    [Show full text]
  • Palaeoecological, Archaeological and Historical Data and the Making of Devon Landscapes
    bs_bs_banner Palaeoecological, archaeological and historical data and the making of Devon landscapes. I. The Blackdown Hills ANTONY G. BROWN, CHARLOTTE HAWKINS, LUCY RYDER, SEAN HAWKEN, FRANCES GRIFFITH AND JACKIE HATTON Brown, A. G., Hawkins, C., Ryder, L., Hawken, S., Griffith, F. & Hatton, J.: Palaeoecological, archaeological and historical data and the making of Devon landscapes. I. The Blackdown Hills. Boreas. 10.1111/bor.12074. ISSN 0300-9483. This paper presents the first systematic study of the vegetation history of a range of low hills in SW England, UK, lying between more researched fenlands and uplands. After the palaeoecological sites were located bespoke archaeological, historical and documentary studies of the surrounding landscape were undertaken specifically to inform palynological interpretation at each site. The region has a distinctive archaeology with late Mesolithic tool scatters, some evidence of early Neolithic agriculture, many Bronze Age funerary monuments and Romano- British iron-working. Historical studies have suggested that the present landscape pattern is largely early Medi- eval. However, the pollen evidence suggests a significantly different Holocene vegetation history in comparison with other areas in lowland England, with evidence of incomplete forest clearance in later-Prehistory (Bronze−Iron Age). Woodland persistence on steep, but poorly drained, slopes, was probably due to the unsuit- ability of these areas for mixed farming. Instead they may have been under woodland management (e.g. coppicing) associated with the iron-working industry. Data from two of the sites also suggest that later Iron Age and Romano-British impact may have been geographically restricted. The documented Medieval land manage- ment that maintained the patchwork of small fields, woods and heathlands had its origins in later Prehistory, but there is also evidence of landscape change in the 6th–9th centuries AD.
    [Show full text]
  • The Long Barrows and Long Mounds of West Mendip
    Proc. Univ. Bristol Spelaeol. Soc., 2008, 24 (3), 187-206 THE LONG BARROWS AND LONG MOUNDS OF WEST MENDIP by JODIE LEWIS ABSTRACT This article considers the evidence for Early Neolithic long barrow construction on the West Mendip plateau, Somerset. It highlights the difficulties in assigning long mounds a classification on surface evidence alone and discusses a range of earthworks which have been confused with long barrows. Eight possible long barrows are identified and their individual and group characteristics are explored and compared with national trends. Gaps in the local distribution of these monuments are assessed and it is suggested that areas of absence might have been occupied by woodland during the Neolithic. The relationship between long barrows and later round barrows is also considered. INTRODUCTION Long barrows are amongst the earliest monuments to have been built in the Neolithic period. In Southern Britain they take two forms: non-megalithic (or “earthen”) long barrows and megalithic barrows, mostly belonging to the Cotswold-Severn tradition. Despite these differences in architectural construction, the long mounds are of the same, early 4th millennium BC, date and had a similar purpose. The chambers of the long mounds were used for the deposition of the human dead and the monuments themselves appear to have acted as a focus for ritual activities and religious observations by the living. Some long barrows show evidence of fire lighting, feasting and deposition in the forecourts and ditches of the monuments, and alignment upon solstice events has also been noted. A local example of this can be observed at Stoney Littleton, near Bath, where the entrance and passage of this chambered long barrow are aligned upon the midwinter sunrise1.
    [Show full text]
  • Neolithic Report
    RESEARCH DEPARTMENT REPORT SERIES no. 29-2011 ISSN 1749-8775 REVIEW OF ANIMAL REMAINS FROM THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE OF SOUTHERN BRITAIN (4000 BC – 1500 BC) ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES REPORT Dale Serjeantson ARCHAEOLOGICAL SCIENCE Research Department Report Series 29-2011 REVIEW OF ANIMAL REMAINS FROM THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE OF SOUTHERN BRITAIN (4000 BC – 1500 BC) Dale Serjeantson © English Heritage ISSN 1749-8775 The Research Department Report Series, incorporates reports from all the specialist teams within the English Heritage Research Department: Archaeological Science; Archaeological Archives; Historic Interiors Research and Conservation; Archaeological Projects; Aerial Survey and Investigation; Archaeological Survey and Investigation; Architectural Investigation; Imaging, Graphics and Survey; and the Survey of London. It replaces the former Centre for Archaeology Reports Series, the Archaeological Investigation Report Series, and the Architectural Investigation Report Series. Many of these are interim reports which make available the results of specialist investigations in advance of full publication. They are not usually subject to external refereeing, and their conclusions may sometimes have to be modified in the light of information not available at the time of the investigation. Where no final project report is available, readers are advised to consult the author before citing these reports in any publication. Opinions expressed in Research Department Reports are those of the author(s) and are not necessarily those of English Heritage. Requests for further hard copies, after the initial print run, can be made by emailing: [email protected]. or by writing to English Heritage, Fort Cumberland, Fort Cumberland Road, Eastney, Portsmouth PO4 9LD Please note that a charge will be made to cover printing and postage.
    [Show full text]