The Neolithic and Early Bronze Age: Resource Assessment

87 Chapter 7 The Neolithic and Early Bronze Age: Resource Assessment by Richard Bradley (County contributions by Kim Biddulph, Steve Ford, Julie Gardiner, Gill Hey and Ruth Waller; palaeoenvironmental contribution by Mike Allen) Introduction Durrington Walls, just as it is important to think about an early Bronze Age that does not depend on the rich The nature of the evidence burials found on the Dorset and Wiltshire chalk. Not only does the Solent-Thames corridor avoid these It is often claimed that linear projects such as pipelines famous groups of monuments, it covers an area in or major roads provide a novel perspective on the past. which certain kinds of structure seem to be rare or They cannot represent a ‘random sample’ of archaeolog- absent. Causewayed enclosures are unusual outside ical observations because each element does not have the Thames Valley and southern Cotswolds; long the same chance of being selected. Instead, their course barrows of classic form are not represented across the is essentially arbitrary and bears no obvious relationship entire study area; henges are uncommon or take to the geography of any particular period. For that unusual forms, and rich early Bronze Age cemeteries reason the results of monitoring these developments are are the exception rather than the norm. That may not often surprising, and it is those surprises that provide a be an impediment to research, for it can be argued stimulus for rethinking archaeological orthodoxies. that, within the wider context of British prehistory, Regions prove to have been settled where few sites had developments in the heart of earlier prehistoric Wessex been known before; rich burials are found outside the were altogether exceptional. A framework of more small concentrations on which the literature had been general application may depend on fieldwork in other based; new kinds of monument are revealed and familiar regions, in particular the major river valleys and the forms occur in unfamiliar settings. It is not the most North Sea coast. obvious way of conducting research, but sometimes the A few basic points need to be made at the outset. results of this work offer a perspective out of which new Some of these observations apply to the entire prehis- approaches to the past can develop. toric sequence; others are specific to the period between The same should be true of the Regional Research 4000 and 1500 BC that provides the subject of this Assessments, of which this publication is an example. chapter. They are concerned with regions of the country which have been selected on the basis of modern administra- tive arrangements. They lack any real geographical Inherited landscapes and Neolithic and early unity, and the relationships between their component Bronze Age land use parts may well have changed over time. On the other It is no longer satisfactory to suppose that the earlier hand, like the road schemes that have done so much to prehistoric landscape was covered by a continuous widen the scope of prehistoric archaeology, the canopy of trees (Allen and Gardiner 2009). By the process of bringing together what is known about beginning of the Neolithic period some areas had been these areas of land can be remarkably productive. A modified by burning – both deliberate and accidental – distribution of key sites and other selected sites is and others by natural events, especially storms (Brown shown in Figure 7.1. 1997). The vegetation cover will also have been As it happens, the area selected for the Solent- affected by the activities of wild animals, by the ecolog- Thames Research Assessment has many of these ical preferences of different kinds of woodland, and advantages. Like the building of pipelines, it makes during the Neolithic period by such practices as archaeologists think harder about some areas that have coppicing and pollarding. There was greater variation not played a major part in writings about prehistory – than is generally supposed, and recent research in the Isle of Wight, for example, or the Buckinghamshire Cranborne Chase and on the Yorkshire Wolds suggests Chilterns. Quite by chance, it also avoids a region that certain areas of chalk downland may never have whose monuments have been over-emphasised in been covered by primary forest in the way that is accounts of prehistoric Britain. It is an important commonly supposed (French et al. 2007; Allen and challenge to write about the Neolithic period without Scaife 2007). That is especially important because both discussing Hambledon Hill, Stonehenge, Avebury and these regions contain an unusual concentration of 88 Solent-Thames Research Framework for the Historic Environment Figure 7.1 Neolithic and Early Bronze Age sites mentioned in the text Chapter 7 The Neolithic and Early Bronze Age: Resource Assessment 89 Neolithic monuments. By contrast, there is little to Some of the changes to the natural environment that suggest the existence of comparable environments in took place during or after this period have severely the study area (Robinson 1992a and b; Hey et al. 2011 biased the archaeological record. In the valleys of major b; Field 2004; 2008). rivers like that of the Thames, occupation sites and some The pattern of prehistoric activity cannot be of the smaller monuments have been buried beneath reconstructed on the basis of modern land use. There later deposits of alluvium (Robinson 1992b; Evans are areas that provide evidence of continuous occupa- 1992a; Parker and Robinson 2003). Others were tion, for example the Thames gravels (Barclay et al. preserved because they occupied the hollows left by 1996), while there are others that show signs of intensive former channels and escaped destruction by the plough. activity in certain phases and little evidence of occupa- On the chalk there is another source of bias, for not only tion in others. The character of the local soils has has much of the original topsoil been lost by erosion, this changed significantly. The clay-with-flints which caps process had led to the accumulation of deep deposits of the chalk was intensively used in the Mesolithic and hill wash on the valley floors. Recent work in Sussex and Neolithic periods but was less densely settled during Kent has shown that these had buried some of the later phases. Similarly, the heathland soils of the New elusive living sites of the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Forest and perhaps the Hampshire Greensand saw a (Allen and Scaife 2007). Similar evidence has been peak of activity during the Bronze Age, but since then identified on the Chilterns and it is probable that the they seem to have been regarded as marginal land (Field same process happened in other parts of the study area 2008). (Evans 1972; Evans and Valentine 1974). The increase in the number of palaeo-environmental Archaeologists still assign a special status to the datasets has improved the resolution at which we can archaeology of the chalk. That needs careful considera- look at landscapes and land-use, whether for individual tion. It is true that it is an area with an unusual density of sites or across whole regions (Allen 1997a and b; Allen field monuments, but this is only partly due to develop- and Gardiner 2009). We can now start to re-address ments during the prehistoric period. To a large extent the some key questions surrounding the presence and use prominence of chalkland monuments is the result of later of ‘farmed’ produce, and whether this indicates a wholly land use. These structures escaped some of the destruc- farming economy. The Neolithic may partly be defined tive activities that affected their lowland counterparts. by the presence of farming activities, but Neolithic For example, it is often supposed that early Bronze Age communities may have had a risk-averse strategy which burial mounds were sited in prominent positions, yet involved hunting and gathering as well as farming their overall distribution is most obviously related to (Jones 2000; Moffett et al. 1989; Robinson 2000). In important valleys, as it is on the Isle of Wight (Allen and addition, the use of domesticated resources does not Scaife 2007). The earthworks on the hills have escaped require a sedentary lifestyle. The issue as to whether the the damage experienced by barrows on the lower ground, economy of these communities becomes largely, or and yet it is often the case that a distribution of standing wholly, based around a domesticated food supply mounds gives way to one of ring ditches. They are discov- requires further study. ered by different methods and sometimes they are treated While there may be some relationship between the as different kinds of monuments. extent of open ground and the choice of certain regions The survival of so many earthworks on the high for monument building, it is not correct to use the downland introduces yet another bias, for it is often frequency of earthwork structures to estimate the supposed that they were located along ‘ridgeways’: long intensity of occupation in any part of the study area. The distance paths extending between major groups of construction of such monuments certainly required a monuments. The antiquity of these routes is very significant labour force, but its members could have doubtful. Their course is not reflected by later prehis- been drawn from a wider region. Elsewhere in England, toric field systems and land boundaries, suggesting that some monument complexes are associated with such features as the Berkshire Ridgeway or the Icknield evidence of nearby settlement, but there are others Way did not exist until long after the period discussed where it is absent (Bradley 2006). In the same way, it is here (Harrison 2003). Instead it seems as if the main incorrect to suppose that areas that lack large concentra- communications were along the valleys and around the tions of field monuments were less intensively occupied.

Load more