Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:19:34.510Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assembly and Collection – Lithic Complexes in the Cambridgeshire Fenlands

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 February 2014

Mark Edmonds ,
Christopher Evans  and
David Gibson
Mark Edmonds
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology and Prehistory, University of Sheffield
Christopher Evans
Affiliation:
Cambridge Archaeological Unit, Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge
David Gibson
Affiliation:
Cambridge Archaeological Unit, Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Campaigns of large-scale fieldwalking and in-depth evaluation on later Mesolithic, Neolithic, and Bronze Age lithic scatters are reported. In a regional context they are remarkable in their scale, density, and resolution, and raise questions concerning the character of early settlement and its corollary in landscape mobility – variously an archaeology of ‘meeting/return’, ‘task’, and ‘trace’.

Résumé

On fait le compte-rendu de campagnes d'arpentage de champs sur une grande échelle et une évaluation en profondeur des répartitions lithiques du mésolithique tardif, du néolithique et de l'âge du bronze. Dans un contexte régional, ils sont remarquables par leur échelle, leur densité, leur qualité, et suscitent des questions concernant le caractère de l'occupation primitive et son corollaire dans la mobilité du paysage - en d'autres termes une archéologie de ‘rencontre/retour’, ‘tâche’ et ‘trace’.

Zusammenfassung

In diesem Beitrag wird über großflächige Feldbegehungskampagnen und gründliche Auswertung spärmesolithischer, neolithischer und bronzezeitlicher Steinartefaktstreuungen berichtet. In einem regionalen Kontext betrachtet sind sie in ihrem Ausmaß, ihrer Dichte und Verteilung beachtlich und werfen Fragen auf zum Aussehen und Ausmaß früher Besiedlung und folgerichtig zur Mobilität in einer Landschaft – dies ist je nach dem eine Archäologie von „Treffen/Rückkehr“, “Anforderung“ und „Spur“.

Résumen

Este artículo informa sobre las campañas de rastreamiento de campo a gran escala y una reevaluación en profundidad del material disperso encontrado datable al Mesolítico Superior, Neolítico y Edad del Bronce. En un contexto regional son de norar en su escala, densidad y resolución, y nos hacen preguntarnos acerca del carácter del asentamiento primitivo y su consecuencia en la mobilidad del paisaje – variadamente una arqueología de “encuentro/retorno”, “encargo” y “traza”.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , Volume 65 , 1999 , pp. 47 - 82
Copyright
Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bamford, H. 1982. Beaker Domestic Sites in the Fen Edge and East Anglia. East Anglian Archaeology 16.Google Scholar
Barnatt, J. 1996. Moving beyond the monuments: paths and people in the Neolithic landscapes of the Peak District. Northern Archaeology 13, 43–59.Google Scholar
Barrett, J. 1994. Fragments from Antiquity. Oxford: Blackwells.Google Scholar
Barrett, J. 1999. Chronologies of landscape. In Ucko, P. & Layton, R. (eds), The Archaeology and Anthropology of Landscape, 21–30. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Begg, C. & Lucas, G. 1997. Archaeological Investigations at Owl End Road, Bury, Cambridgeshire. Cambridge Archaeological Unit Report 241.Google Scholar
Boismier, W.A. 1997. Modelling the Effects of Tillage Processes on Artefact Distributions in the Ploughzone. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 259.Google Scholar
Bradley, R. 1984. The Social Foundations of Prehistoric Britain. London: Longmans.Google Scholar
Bradley, R. 1987. Flint technology and the character of prehistoric settlement. In Brown, A.G. & Edmonds, M. (eds), Lithic Analysis and Later British Prehistory, 181–6. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 167.Google Scholar
Brown, A. 1995. Beyond stone age economics: a strategy for a contextual lithic analysis. In Schofield, A.J. (ed.), Lithics in Context: suggestions for the future direction of lithic studies, 27–36. Lithic Studies Society Occasional Paper 5.Google Scholar
Brown, A. 1996. Use and non-use: aspects of the prehistoric exploitation of the fen-edge at Isleham. In Hall, D. 1996, 202–12.Google Scholar
Brown, T. 1997. Clearances and clearing: deforestation in Mesolithic/Neolithic Britain. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 16, 133–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruck, J. forthcoming. What's in a settlement? Domestic practice and residential mobility in Early Bronze Age southern England. In Bruck, J. & Goodman, M. (eds), Making Places in the Prehistoric World: themes in settlement archaeology. London: University College.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casimir, M.J. 1992. The dimensions of territoriality: an introduction. In Casimir, M.J. & Rao, A. (eds), Mobility and Territoriality: fishers, pastoralists and peripatetics, 1–26. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
Clark, J.G.D. 1955. A microlithic industry from the Cambridgeshire Fenland and other industries of Sauveterrian affinities from Britain. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 21, 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, J.G.D. 1960. Excavations at the Neolithic Site at Hurst Fen, Mildenhall, Suffolk (1954, 1957 and 1958). Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 11, 202–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, M. & David, A. 1995. Eye Hill Farm, Soham, Cambs. Report on Geophysical Survey. Ancient Monuments Laboratory Report 58/95.Google Scholar
Crowson, A., Lane, T. & Reeve, J. (eds), forthcoming. The Fenland Management Project: Summary Volume.Google Scholar
Edmonds, M. 1987. Rocks and risk: some problems with lithic procurement strategies. In Brown, A. G. & Edmonds, M. (eds), Lithic Analysis and Later British Prehistory, 155–80. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 167.Google Scholar
Edmonds, M. 1995. Stone Tools and Society. London: Batsford.Google Scholar
Edmonds, M. 1999. Ancestral Geographies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Edmonds, M. & Evans, C. 1994. Investigations at Honey Hill, Ramsey. Cambridge Archaeological Unit/English Heritage Unpublished Assessment Report.Google Scholar
Evans, C. 1985. Tradition and the cultural landscape: an archaeology of place. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 4, 80–94.Google Scholar
Evans, C. 1987. ‘Nomads in Waterland’? – prehistoric transhumance and fenland archaeology. Proceedings of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society 76, 27–39.Google Scholar
Evans, C. 1988. Acts of enclosure: a consideration of concentrically organised causewayed enclosures. In Barrett, J. & Kinnes, I. (eds.), The Archaeology of Context in the Neolithic and Bronze Ages: recent trends, 85–96. Sheffield.Google Scholar
Evans, C. 1992. Commanding gestures in lowlands: the investigation of two Iron Age ringworks. Fenland Research 7, 16–26.Google Scholar
Evans, C. 1993a. Lithic ‘noise’ – low density scatters – missing settlements? The Langwood Farm Environs. Fenland Research 8, 14–6.Google Scholar
Evans, C. 1993b. Sampling settlement: investigations at Lingwood Farm, Cottenham and Eye Hill Farm, Soham. Fenland Research 8, 26–30.Google Scholar
Evans, C. 1995. An Interim Report on Further Investigations at Eye Hill Farm, Soham. Cambridge Archaeological Unit/English Heritage Unpublished Assessment Report.Google Scholar
Evans, C. forthcoming. Testing the ground – sampling strategies. In Crowson, A. et al. (eds) forthcoming.Google Scholar
Evans, C. & Serjeantson, D. 1988. The backwater economy of a fen-edge community in the Iron Age: the Upper Delphs, Haddenham. Antiquity 62, 381–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, C. & Gdaniec, K. 1995. Investigations at Eye Hill Farm, Soham. Cambridge Archaeological Unit/English Heritage Unpublished Assessment Report.Google Scholar
Evans, C. & Knight, M. 1996. The Barleycroft Paddocks Excavations, Cambridgeshire. Cambridge Archaeological Unit Report 218.Google Scholar
Evans, C., Pollard, J. & Knight, M. 1999. Life in woods: tree-throws, ‘settlement’ and forest cognition. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 18.Google Scholar
Evans, C. & Knight, M. forthcoming. A fenland delta: later prehistoric land-use in the lower Ouse Reaches. In Dawson, M. (ed.), Prehistoric, Roman and Saxon Landscape Studies in the Great Ouse Valley. Council for British Archaeology.Google Scholar
Evans, C. & Pollard, J. forthcoming. Storey's Bar Road sub-site – a re-appraisal. In Pryor, F., Archaeology and Environment of the Flag Fen basin. London: English Heritage Archaeological Report.Google Scholar
Fleming, A. 1987. The Dartmoor Reaves. London: Batsford.Google Scholar
Ford, S. 1987. Chronological and functional aspects of flint assemblages. In Brown, A. & Edmonds, M. (eds), Lithic Analysis and Later British Prehistory, 67–86. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 162.Google Scholar
Ford, S., Bradley, R., Hawkes, J. & Fisher, P. 1984. Flint working in the metal age. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 3, 157–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardiner, J.P. 1984. Lithic distributions and settlement patterns in central southern England. In Bradley, R.J. & Gardiner, J.P. (eds), Neolithic Studies, 15–40. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 133Google Scholar
Gardiner, J.P. 1987. Tales of the unexpected: approaches to the assessment and interpretation of museum flint collections. In Brown, A. & Edmonds, M. (eds), Lithic Analysis and Later British Prehistory, 49–66. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 162.Google Scholar
Gdaniec, K. 1996. A miniature antler bow from a Middle Bronze Age site at Isleham, Cambridgeshire, England. Antiquity 70, 652–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gosden, C. & Lock, G. 1998. Prehistoric histories. World Archaeology 30(1), 2–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, D. 1992. The Fenland Project, No. 6: The South-western Cambridgeshire Fenlands. East Anglian Archaeology 56.Google Scholar
Hall, D. 1996. The Fenland Project, No. 10: Cambridgeshire Survey, Isle of Ely and Wisbech. East Anglian Archaeology 79.Google Scholar
Hall, D. & Coles, J. 1994. Fenland Survey: an essay in landscape and persistence. London: English Heritage Archaeological Report 1.Google Scholar
Hazelgrove, C., Millet, M. & Smith, I. (eds) 1985. Archaeology from the Ploughsoil. Sheffield: University of Sheffield.Google Scholar
Healy, F. & Silvester, R. 1985. The Decoy Farm Sandhill, Hockwold, Norfolk. Fenland Research 3, 59–62.Google Scholar
Healy, F. 1991a. The hunting of the floorstone. In Schofield, A.J. (ed.), Interpreting Artefact Scatters, 29–37. Oxford: Oxbow Monograph 4.Google Scholar
Healy, J. 1991b. Appendix 1. In Silvester, R.J.The Fenland Project No. 4: The Wissey Embayment and the Fen Causeway, Norfolk. East Anglian Archaeology 52, 116–39.Google Scholar
Healy, F. 1992. Neolithic and Bronze Age – a shopping list (Regional Research Priorities Special Section). Fenland Research 7, 3–6.Google Scholar
Healy, F. 1996. The Fenland Project, No. 11: The Wissey Embayment: evidence for pre-lron Age occupation. East Anglia Archaeology 78.Google Scholar
Herne, A. 1992. The lithic assemblage. In Longworth, I. (ed.), Excavations at Grimes Graves, Norfolk. Volume 3, 21–93. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Holgate, R. 1988. Neolithic Settlement of the Thames Basin. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 194.Google Scholar
Ingold, T. 1982. Hunters, Pastoralists and Ranchers. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Ingold, T. 1986. The Appropriation of Nature. Manchester: University Press.Google Scholar
Leah, M. 1992. Excavations at Hogg's Drove and Mere Plot Drove in the Nar valley and at Methwold Hythe on the Norfolk fen-edge. Fenland Research 7, 57–60.Google Scholar
Leah, M. & Crowson, A. 1993. The excavation of a potboiler mound at Feltwell Anchor (Site 23650). Fenland Research 8, 46–50.Google Scholar
Louwe-Kooijmans, L.P. 1993. Wetland exploitation and upland relations of prehistoric communities in the Netherlands. In Gardiner, J. (ed.), Flatlands and Wetlands: current themes in East Anglian Archaeology, 71–116. East Anglian Archaeology 50.Google Scholar
Martin, E. & Murphy, P. 1988. West Row Fen, Suffolk: a Bronze Age fen-edge settlement site. Antiquity 62, 353–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, P. & Wiltshire, P., forthcoming. The FMP Earlier Prehistoric Environments Project.Google Scholar
Needham, S. & Spence, T. 1997. Refuse and the formation of middens. Antiquity 71, 77–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odell, G.H. & Cowan, F. 1987. Estimating tillage effects on artifact distributions. American Antiquity 52, 456–84.Google Scholar
Pelegrin, J. 1990. Prehistoric lithic technology: Some aspects of research. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 9, 116–25.Google Scholar
Pigeot, N. 1990. Technical and social actors: flintknapping specialists at Magdalenian Etiolles. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 9, 126–41.Google Scholar
Pitts, M. & Jacobi, R.M. 1979. Some aspects of change in flaked stone industries of the Mesolithic and Neolithic in Southern Britain. Journal of Archaeological Science 6, 163–7.Google Scholar
Pollard, J. forthcoming a. Prehistoric settlement and non-settlement in two southern Cambridgeshire river valleys: the lithic dimension and interpretative dilemmas. In Bradley, P. (ed.), Interpreting and Evaluating Lithic Scatters. Oxford: Oxbow Books.Google Scholar
Pollard, J. forthcoming b. ‘These places have their moments’: thoughts on occupation practices in the British Neolithic. In Bruck, J. & Goodman, M. (eds), Making Places in the Prehistoric World: themes in settlement archaeology. London: University College.Google Scholar
Pryor, F. 1978. Excavation at Fengate Peterborough, England: The second report. Royal Ontario Museum Archaeological Monograph 5.Google Scholar
Pryor, F. forthcoming. Archaeology and Environment of the Flag Fen Basin. London: English Heritage Archaeological Report.Google Scholar
Richards, C. 1996. Monuments as landscape: creating the centre of the world in Late Neolithic Orkney. World Archaeology 28(2), 190–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, J. 1990. The Stonehenge Environs Project. London: English Heritage Archaeological Report 16.Google Scholar
Saville, A. 1981a. Mesolithic industries in central England: An exploratory investigation using microlith typology. Archaeological Journal 138, 49–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saville, A. 1981b. Grimes Graves, Norfolk, Excavations 1971–72, Volume 2. London: Department of the Environment Archaeological Report 11.Google Scholar
Schofield, A.J. 1994. Looking back with regret; looking forward with optimism: making more of surface lithic scatter sites. In Ashton, N. & David, A. (eds), Stories in Stone, 90–8. London: Lithic Studies Society Occasional Paper 4.Google Scholar
Schofield, A.J. 1995. Artefacts mean nothing. In. Schofield, A.J. (ed.), Lithics in Context: suggestions for the future direction of Lithic Studies, 3–8. London: Lithic Studies Society Occasional Paper 5.Google Scholar
Schofield, A.J. & Humble, J. 1995. Order out of chaos – making sense of surface Stone Age lithics. Conservation Bulletin (March), 9–11.Google Scholar
Shennan, S. 1985. Experiments in the Collection and Analysis of Archaeological Survey Data: The East Hampshire Survey. Sheffield: Department of Archaeology & Prehistory, University of Sheffield.Google Scholar
Tilley, C. 1994. A Phenomenology of Landscape. London. Berg.Google Scholar
Tilley, C. 1996. The power of rocks: topography and monument construction on Bodmin Moor. World Archaeology 28(2), 161–76.Google Scholar
Waller, M. 1994. The Fenland Project, No. 9: Flandrian Environmental Change in Fenland. East Anglian Archaeology 70.Google Scholar
Whittle, A.W.R. 1997. Moving on and moving around: Neolithic settlement mobility. In Topping, P. (ed.), Neolithic landscapes, 15–22. Oxford: Oxbow Monograph 86.Google Scholar
Woodward, P.J. 1991. The South Dorset Ridgeway Project. Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society Monograph 8.Google Scholar