DOCSLIB.ORG

GROOVED WARE POTTERY in the UPPER THAMES VALLEY: CONTEXT and DESIGN by SARAH JAYNE BOTFIELD

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
GROOVED WARE POTTERY in the UPPER THAMES VALLEY: CONTEXT and DESIGN by SARAH JAYNE BOTFIELD GROOVED WARE POTTERY IN THE UPPER THAMES VALLEY: CONTEXT AND DESIGN by SARAH JAYNE BOTFIELD A thesis submitted to the University of Birmingham for the degree of MASTER OF PHILOSOPHY Institute of Archaeology and Antiquity School of Arts and Law University of Birmingham January 2012 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. ii Abstract The later Neolithic period saw the emergence of Grooved Ware pottery within Britain and Ireland. The three styles are often associated with henge monuments, pit groups or passage graves and accompanied by unusual or complex deposits. However, it is not clear whether the depositional practices of all three styles of Grooved Ware pottery followed the same pattern, or were treated differently. In the Upper Thames Valley many of the known Grooved Ware sites are situated on the lower gravel terraces and although this distribution may be a reflection of where developer-led archaeology has occurred, it does not help to explain why they were placed there initially and why other areas were avoided, such as the large henge monuments within the Upper Thames Valley. This thesis analyses the depositional contexts of all three styles of Grooved Ware pottery within the Upper Thames Valley and evaluates these from a landscape perspective, to determine whether all three styles were deposited in similar contexts to each other. Their distinctive decorative designs are also examined in an attempt to ascertain whether they held any iconological significance, thereby influencing how the pottery was treated and therefore governing both choice of location and manner of deposition iii to Dr Paul Middleton, a source of inspiration List of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1 1.2. Grooved Ware - Previous Research................................................................................. 2 1.2.1 A Brief Introduction To Grooved Ware Pottery ........................................................ 2 1.2.2 Grooved Ware............................................................................................................ 4 1.3. Research Aims and Objectives ........................................................................................ 9 1.4. Methodology and Structure ............................................................................................. 9 1.4.1. Methodology ............................................................................................................. 9 1.4.2. Structure ................................................................................................................. 11 2.0. GROOVED WARE IN THE UPPER THAMES VALLEY: DATA AND ANALYSIS . 12 2.1. Grooved Ware Sites, Abingdon Area ............................................................................ 15 2.1.1. Abingdon Common, Abingdon .............................................................................. 15 2.1.2. Barrow Hills, Radley ............................................................................................. 16 2.1.3: Barton Court Farm, Abingdon ................................................................................ 19 2.1.4: Spring Road, Abingdon .......................................................................................... 22 2.1.5: Corporation Farm, Abingdon ................................................................................. 23 2.1.6. Drayton North Cursus ............................................................................................. 25 2.1.7. Drayton South Cursus ............................................................................................. 27 2.1.8. Didcot Power Station .............................................................................................. 29 2.2. Grooved Ware Sites, Witney /Eynsham Area ............................................................... 31 2.2.1 Gravelly Guy, Stanton Harcourt, Witney ................................................................ 31 2.2.2: Vicarage Field, Stanton Harcourt ........................................................................... 33 2.2.3 Cassington, Witney .................................................................................................. 35 2.2.4. Foxley Farm, Eynsham ........................................................................................... 37 2.3 Grooved Ware Sites, Lechlade Area .............................................................................. 38 2.3.1. Lechlade Cursus ..................................................................................................... 38 2.3.2. Roughground Farm, Lechlade ................................................................................ 40 2.4. Grooved Ware Sites, Lambourn and Berkshire Downs Area ........................................ 42 2.4.1. Seven Barrows All Weather Gallop, Sparsholt ...................................................... 42 2.4.2. Tower Hill, Ashbury ............................................................................................... 43 2.5 Summary ......................................................................................................................... 44 3.0 GROOVED WARE IN THE UPPER THAMES VALLEY: DEPOSITIONAL CONTEXTS AND SITE ANALYSIS ..................................................................................... 46 3.1. Durrington Walls Style .................................................................................................. 47 3.2. Woodlands Style ............................................................................................................ 56 3.3. Clacton Style ................................................................................................................. 65 3.4 Summary ......................................................................................................................... 70 3.5 Grooved Ware Distribution: Intra-Site Analysis ............................................................ 71 3.5.1. Clustering Between The Grooved Ware Style Associated Contexts ...................... 72 3.5.2 Clustering Between Grooved Ware and Non-Grooved Ware Neolithic Features ... 74 3.5.3. Clustering Between Non-Grooved Ware Neolithic Features ................................ 75 3.5.4. Associations Between Grooved Ware Features and Earlier Ancient And Contemporary Monuments ............................................................................................... 76 3.6. Summary ........................................................................................................................ 79 iii 4.0 GROOVED WARE POTTERY IN THE LANDSCAPE .................................................. 80 4.1. Grooved Ware Distribution / Spatial Analysis In The Upper Thames Valley .............. 80 4.2. Grooved Ware Distribution / Spatial Analysis In the Upper Thames Valley ............... 81 4.2.1. Landscape Study ..................................................................................................... 81 4.2.3. Viewshed Analysis ................................................................................................. 96 4.2.4. Summary ............................................................................................................... 108 5.0. DISCUSSION AND INTERPRETATION ..................................................................... 109 5.1. Grooved Ware and the Landscape of the Upper Thames Valley ................................ 109 5.2. Grooved Ware Deposition In The Upper Thames Valley: Cultural Influences .......... 112 5.3. Comparison of Grooved Ware Deposition In The Upper Thames Valley To Other Areas of Britain .................................................................................................................. 119 6.0 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 126 APPENDIX A: Grooved Ware Locations and Excavation Data ............................................ 153 A.1: Abingdon Common ........................................................................................................ 153 A.2. Barrow Hills, Radley ...................................................................................................... 154 A.3. Barton Court Farm, Abingdon ........................................................................................ 156 A.4. Spring Road, Abingdon .................................................................................................. 157 A.5. Corporation Farm, Abingdon ......................................................................................... 158 A.6. Drayton North Cursus, Drayton ...................................................................................... 159 A.7. Drayton South Cursus, Drayton .....................................................................................
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]
  • 11 Witney - Hanborough - Oxford
    11 Witney - Hanborough - Oxford Mondays to Saturdays notes M-F M-F S M-F M-F Witney Market Square stop C 06.14 06.45 07.45 - 09.10 10.10 11.15 12.15 13.15 14.15 15.15 16.20 - Madley Park Co-op 06.21 06.52 07.52 - - North Leigh Masons Arms 06.27 06.58 07.58 - 09.18 10.18 11.23 12.23 13.23 14.23 15.23 16.28 17.30 Freeland Broadmarsh Lane 06.35 07.06 08.07 07.52 09.27 10.27 11.32 12.32 13.32 14.32 15.32 16.37 17.40 Long Hanborough New Road 06.40 07.11 08.11 07.57 09.31 10.31 11.36 12.36 13.36 14.36 15.36 16.41 Eynsham Spareacre Lane 06.49 07.21 08.20 09.40 10.40 11.45 12.45 13.45 14.45 15.45 16.50 Eynsham Church 06.53 07.26 08.24 08.11 09.44 10.44 11.49 12.49 13.49 14.49 15.49 16.54 17.49 Botley Elms Parade 07.06 07.42 08.33 08.27 09.53 10.53 11.58 12.58 13.58 14.58 15.58 17.03 18.00 Oxford Castle Street 07.21 08.05 08.47 08.55 10.07 11.07 12.12 13.12 13.12 15.12 16.12 17.17 18.13 notes M-F M-F S M-F M-F S Oxford Castle Street E2 07.25 08.10 09.10 10.15 11.15 12.15 13.15 14.15 15.15 16.35 16.35 17.35 17.50 Botley Elms Parade 07.34 08.20 09.20 10.25 11.25 12.25 13.25 14.25 15.25 16.45 16.50 17.50 18.00 Eynsham Church 07.43 08.30 09.30 10.35 11.35 12.35 13.35 14.35 15.35 16.55 17.00 18.02 18.10 Eynsham Spareacre Lane 09.34 10.39 11.39 12.39 13.39 14.39 15.39 16.59 17.04 18.06 18.14 Long Hanborough New Road 09.42 10.47 11.47 12.47 13.47 14.47 15.47 17.07 17.12 18.14 18.22 Freeland Broadmarsh Lane 07.51 08.38 09.46 10.51 11.51 12.51 13.51 14.51 15.51 17.11 17.16 18.18 18.26 North Leigh Masons Arms - 08.45 09.55 11.00 12.00 13.00
    [Show full text]
  • Renfrewshire Local History Forum & Authors RLHF Journal Vol.3 (1991/2)
    RLHF Journal Vol.3 (1991/2) 5. Megaliths on Arran - Maths, Myths and Mysteries Aubrey Burl Buchan Lecture, 1991, Ayr (Society of Antiquaries of Scotland) Abstract The prehistoric archaeology of the islands of Malta and Arran is entirely different. That on Malta is characteristic of an “island culture' with unique styles of architecture unaffected by outside influences. Arran, despite the splendour of its megaliths, lacks such individuality. Its monuments are those of external culture. The explanation is simple. Malta is an isolated island fifty miles from Sicily and with no attractive local products to encourage trade. Arran is closely surrounded to north, west and east by the Scottish mainland, and lies at the intersection of several important routes. Its earliest megalithic sites are chambered tombs of the Clyde-Solway tradition with crescentic forecourts and segmented chambers. One, Monamore, excavated by Dr Euan MacKie in 1961, yielded calibrated dates ranging from 3900 to 2900 BC. In Great Britain most regional groups of tombs display an interest in particular orientations. The entrances of many Clyde-Solway tombs are generally aligned to the north east, perhaps toward the mid summer sunrise, and on Arran on the remote cairn of Carn Ban is almost perfectly directed towards this solar event. Other Arran tombs, however, do not share this orientation, demonstrating some fragmentation of beliefs. Carmahome, near Blackwaterfoot, is an oddity on Arran, a circular tomb of the Inverness-shire Clava passage-grave tradition, suggesting Middle or Late Neolithic contacts between Arran and the northern end of the Great Glen. The stone circles on Arran also share architectural traits with mainland regions.
    [Show full text]
  • Applications Determined Under Delegated Powers PDF 317 KB
    West Oxfordshire District Council – DELEGATED ITEMS Application Types Key Suffix Suffix ADV Advertisement Consent LBC Listed Building Consent CC3RE G County Council Regulation 3 LBD Listed Building Consent - Demolition CC4RE G County Council Regulation 4 OUT Outline Application CM County Matters RES Reserved Matters Application FUL Full Application S73 Removal or Variation of Condition/s HHD Householder Application POB Discharge of Planning Obligation/s CLP Certificate of Lawfulness Proposed CLE Certificate of Lawfulness Existing CLASS Change of Use – Agriculture to CND Discharge of Conditions M Commercial PDET28 Agricultural Prior Approval Hazardous Substances Application PN56 Change of Use Agriculture to Dwelling HAZ Householder Application under POROW Creation or Diversion of Right of Way PN42 Permitted Development legislation. TCA Works to Trees in a Conservation Area Telecoms Prior Approval TPO Works to Trees subject of a Tree PNT Non Material Amendment Preservation Order NMA Withdrawn FDO Finally Disposed Of WDN Decisio Description Decisio Description n Code n Code APP Approve RNO Raise no objection REF Refuse ROB Raise Objection P1REQ Prior Approval Required P2NRQ Prior Approval Not Required P3APP Prior Approval Approved P3REF Prior Approval Refused P4APP Prior Approval Approved P4REF Prior Approval Refused West Oxfordshire District Council – DELEGATED ITEMS Week Ending 26th February 2021 Application Number. Ward. Decision. 1. 19/03436/FUL Bampton and Clanfield APP Installation of an Equine Training Area/Manege Land At Cobfield Aston Road Bampton Mr And Mrs Will And Sharon Hicks DELGAT 2. 20/01655/FUL Ducklington REF Erection of four new dwellings and associated works (AMENDED PLANS) Land West Of Glebe Cottage Lew Road Curbridge Mr W Povey, Mr And Mrs C And J Mitchel And Abbeymill Homes L 3.
    [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]
  • Open Downland
    8. LANDSCAPE TYPE 1: OPEN DOWNLAND Location and Boundaries 8.1. The landscape type encompasses a number of distinct downland blocks from the Marlborough Downs (1A) and Horton Down (1C) in the west running through to the Lambourn Downs (1B) and Blewbury Downs (1D) in the east. Boundaries are mainly defined by topography and the Upper Chalk geology, and in the north relate to the top of the Scarp (landscape type 5). To the south, the edge of the chalk similarly forms a distinct boundary. Overview The Open Downlands are the remote heart and core of the North Wessex Downs, with the dramatic landscapes created by the underlying chalk rocks being one of the defining features of the AONB. The subtle curves and undulations of the landform are revealed by the uniform clothing of cropped grass or cereals creating a landscape with a simple and elemental quality, accentuated by vast skies. The open, expansive views are punctuated by distinctive beech clumps crowning the downland summits, forming prominent and highly visible landmarks. Sparsely populated, the downlands possess a strong sense remoteness and isolation. Predominantly in arable cultivation these are landscapes of great seasonal variation, with muted browns and greys of the chalk and flinty soils in the ploughed autumn fields, giving way to fresh greens of the emerging crops in winter and spring and sweeping yellows and golds of summer. The characteristic close-cropped springy downland turf of the surviving herb-rich chalk grassland provides an important habitat and this landscape type contains the largest areas of designated chalk grassland in the AONB, with 15 Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).
    [Show full text]
  • Excavations at Vicarage Field, Stanton Harcourt, 1951
    Excavations at Vicarage Field, Stanton Harcourt, 1951 WITH AN ApPENDIX ON SECONDARY NEOLITmC WARES IN THE OXFORD REGION By NICHOLAS THOMAS THE SITE ICARAGE Field (FIG. I) lies less than half a mile from the centre of V Stanton Harcourt village, on the road westward to Beard Mill. It is situated on one of the gravel terraces of the upper Thames. A little to the west the river Windrush flows gently southwards to meet the Thames below Standlake. About four miles north-east another tributary, the Evenlode, runs into the Thames wlllch itself curves north, about Northmoor, past Stanton Harcourt and Eynsham to meet it. The land between this loop of the Thames and the smaller channels of the Windrush and Evenlode is flat and low-lying; but the gravel subsoil allows excellent drainage so that in early times, whatever their culture or occupation, people were encouraged to settle there.' Vicarage Field and the triangular field south of the road from Stanton Harcourt to Beard Mill enclose a large group of sites of different periods. The latter field was destroyed in 1944-45, after Mr. D. N. Riley had examined the larger ring-ditch in it and Mr. R. J. C. Atkinson the smaller.' Gravel-working also began in Vicarage Field in 1944, at which time Mrs. A. Williams was able to examine part of the area that was threatened. During September, 1951,' it became necessary to restart excavations in Vicarage Field when the gravel-pit of Messrs. Ivor Partridge & Sons (Beg­ broke) Ltd. was suddenly extended westward, involving a further two acres of ground.
    [Show full text]
  • University of Bradford Ethesis
    University of Bradford eThesis This thesis is hosted in Bradford Scholars – The University of Bradford Open Access repository. Visit the repository for full metadata or to contact the repository team © University of Bradford. This work is licenced for reuse under a Creative Commons Licence. THE NEOLITHIC AND LATE IRON AGE POTTERY FROM POOL, SANDAY, ORKNEY An archaeological and technological consideration of coarse pottery manufacture at the Neolithic and Late Iron Age site of Pool, Orkney, incorporating X-Ray Fluorescence, Inductively Coupled Plasma Spectrometric and Petrological Analyses 2 Volumes Volume 1 Ann MACSWEEN submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Archaeological Sciences University of Bradford 1990 ABSTRACT Ann MacSween The Neolithic and Late Iron Age Pottery from Pool, Sanday, Orkney: An archaeological and technological consideration of coarse pottery manufacture at the Iron Age site of Pool, Orkney, incorporating X-Ray Fluorescence, Inductively Coupled Plasma Spectrometric and Petrological Analyses Key Words: Neolithic; Iron Age; Orkney; pottery; X-ray Fluorescence; Inductively Coupled Plasma Spectrometry; Petrological Analysis The Neolithic and late Iron Age pottery from the settlement site of Pool, Sanday, Orkney, was studied on two levels. Firstly, a morphological and tech- nological study was carried out to establish a se- quence for the site. Secondly an assessment was made of the usefulness of X-ray Fluorescence Analysis, In- ductively Coupled Plasma Spectrometry and Petrological analysis to coarse ware studies, using the Pool assem- blage as a case study. Recording of technological and typological attributes allowed three phases of Neolithic pottery to be iden- tified. The earliest phase included sherds of Unstan Ware.
    [Show full text]
  • Machrie Moor Stone Circles Statement of Significance
    Property in Care (PIC) ID: PIC092 Designations: Scheduled Monument (SM90207) Taken into State care: 1972 (Guardianship) Last reviewed: 2004 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE MACHRIE MOOR STONE CIRCLES We continually revise our Statements of Significance, so they may vary in length, format and level of detail. While every effort is made to keep them up to date, they should not be considered a definitive or final assessment of our properties. Historic Environment Scotland – Scottish Charity No. SC045925 Principal Office: Longmore House, Salisbury Place, Edinburgh EH9 1SH © Historic Environment Scotland 2019 You may re-use this information (excluding logos and images) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit http://nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open- government-licence/version/3/ or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: [email protected] Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. Any enquiries regarding this document should be sent to us at: Historic Environment Scotland Longmore House Salisbury Place Edinburgh EH9 1SH +44 (0) 131 668 8600 www.historicenvironment.scot You can download this publication from our website at www.historicenvironment.scot Historic Environment Scotland – Scottish Charity No. SC045925 Principal Office: Longmore House, Salisbury Place, Edinburgh EH9 1SH MACHRIE MOOR STONE CIRCLES BRIEF DESCRIPTION Machrie Moor in Arran is a rich archaeological landscape containing prehistoric ritual, funerary and domestic structures. The visible monuments include stone circles, standing stones, chambered cairns, hut-circles and field systems.
    [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]
  • The Chalk Drums from Folkton and Lavant: Measuring Devices from the Time of Stonehenge
    The Chalk Drums from Folkton and Lavant: Measuring Devices from the Time of Stonehenge Anne Teather1, Andrew Chamberlain1, Mike Parker Pearson2 1. School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PT, U.K. ([email protected], [email protected]) 2. Institute of Archaeology, UCL, 31-34 Gordon Square, London, WC1H 0PY, U.K. ([email protected]) Abstract Investigating knowledge of mathematics and the use of standard units of measurement in prehistoric societies is a difficult task. For the British Neolithic period (4000-2500 BC) attempts to refine our understanding of mathematical knowledge for this period have been largely unsuccessful until now. Following recent research, we propose that there is a direct link between the design of the monument of Stonehenge and the chalk artefacts known as the Folkton and Lavant Drums, in which the Drums represent measurement standards that were essential for accurate and reproducible monument construction. This has important implications for the future analyses of artefacts and monuments for this period. Introduction Within studies of the British Neolithic, material culture and monument forms are commonly approached in different ways. Material culture is largely examined through the form, function and decoration of artefacts such as stone tools and pottery vessels (Hurcombe 2007, 59), while monuments (i.e. large-scale earthworks and structures built of timber and stone) are studied through elements of their construction, and evidence for their inferred use (Cummings 2008). This conventional approach inadvertently poses an interpretive separation, whereby items of material culture are sometimes conceived as being supplementary to British Neolithic monumental activity, and simply form an incidental part of the archaeological record.
    [Show full text]