Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T21:45:29.476Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Neolithic Causewayed Enclosures and Later Prehistoric Farming: Duality, Imposition and the Role of Predecessors at Kingsborough, Isle of Sheppey, Kent, UK

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 February 2014

Michael J. Allen ,
Matt Leivers ,
Chris Ellis ,
Simon Stevens ,
Susan Clelland ,
Alex Bayliss ,
Chris Butler ,
Rowena Gale ,
Alex Gibson  and
Jacqueline I. McKinley
...Show all authors
Michael J. Allen
Affiliation:
AEA: Allen Environmental Archaeology: Redroof, Green Road, Codford, Wiltshire BA12 0NW & School of Conservation Sciences, Bournemouth University, Fern Barrow, Poole, BH12 5BB
Matt Leivers
Affiliation:
Wessex Archaeology, Portway House, Old Sarum, Salisbury, Wiltshire, SP4 6EB
Chris Ellis
Affiliation:
Wessex Archaeology, Portway House, Old Sarum, Salisbury, Wiltshire, SP4 6EB
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Developer-funded archaeology on the Isle of Sheppey resulted in the discovery of not one but two Neolithic causewayed enclosures on the same hilltop in very close (c. 300 m) proximity. In the later Bronze Age enclosures and cremation cemeteries were constructed immediately to the east, followed by Iron Age enclosures and, ultimately, field systems dating to the later Iron Age onwards.

A radiocarbon programme enabled the chronological sequence and hiatus between all of these events to be discerned, but the majority of this paper explores the physical, chronological, and social relationship between the two Neolithic causewayed enclosures. These were of different forms and, although on the same hilltop, they each seem to have had distinctly different viewsheds over the Thames and the Swale respectively. There are subtle, but potentially significant, differences in the material culture and deposition which allow exploration of the possible functions and role(s) of the two largely contemporaneous sites. Questions may be addressed such as whether they performed the same functions for two communities or had separate and distinct roles for a single community. Beyond the Neolithic, the paper also explores the nature of the later use of the hilltop. The Bronze Age enclosures, though agricultural in function, clearly seem to respect their Neolithic predecessors invoking a remembrance of space, which is lost by the Iron Age. The shift away from the special function of this landscape in the Neolithic to a subsequent agricultural use is explored, as is the hiatus in use and subsequent re-use of the area.

Résumé

Des études archéologiques, financées par des promoteurs, sur l'île de Sheppey, se sont conclues par la découverte de deux enclos néolithiques à chaussée empierrée sur le même sommet de colline et très proches l'un de l'autre (env. 300 m). A l'âge du bronze final, on construisait les enclos tout à fait à l'est et ils s'accompagnaient d'inhumations à incinération, s'en suivirent des enclos de l'âge du fer, et finalement, des systèmes de champs à partir de l'âge du fer final.

Un programme de datation au carbone 14 a permis de saisir la suite chronologique et les ‘hiatus’ de chacun de ces événements, mais cette étude se concentre sur l'exploration des relations physiques, chronologiques et sociales entre les deux enclos néolithiques à chaussée empierrée. Ils étaient de formes différentes, et bien que tous deux aient été situés sur le même sommet, ils semblaient chacun jouir d'une perspective de toute évidence bien différente sur la Tamise et la Swale respectivement. On a relevé des différences ténues, mais problablement chargées de sens, dans la culture matérielle et les pratiques de dépôt, ce qui nous permet d'explorer les fonctions et rôle(s) possibles de ces deux sites néolithiques en grande partie contemporains. Est-ce qu'ils assuraient les mêmes fonctions pour deux communautés ou assumaient-ils des rôles séparés et distincts pour une communauté unique? L'étude examine également la nature de l'utilisation du sommet plus tard. Les enclos de l'âge du bronze, bien qu'assumant une fonction agricole, semblaient de toute évidence respecter leurs prédécesseurs néolithiques, invoquant une mémoire du lieu qui avait disparu à l'âge du fer. On explore comment on s'est éloigné de la fonction spéciale de ce paysage au néolithique pour se tourner, par la suite, vers une utilisation agricole, ainsi que le cycle d'utilisation et de réutilisation des lieux.

Zusammenfassung

Eine durch Bauunternehmer finanzierte archäologische Untersuchung auf der Isle of Sheppey in Kent führte zur Entdeckung von zwei auf einer Bergkuppe unmittelbar nebeneinander (in ca. 300 m Entfernung) gelegenen Neolithischen Segmentgrabenanlagen. In der späteren Bronzezeit wurden östlich in unmittelbarer Nachbarschaft sowohl weitere Grabenanlagen als auch Brandbestattungen angelegt, denen wiederum eisenzeitliche Grabenanlagen und schließlich ab der späteren Eisenzeit Feldsysteme folgten.

Mit Hilfe eines Radiokarbon-Datierungsprogramms konnte deren chronologische Abfolge und ein jeweiliger Hiatus zwischen diesen Ereignissen hergestellt werden. In diesem Artikel konzentrieren wir uns aber auf die Analyse der physischen, chronologischen und sozialen Verhältnisse der beiden Neolithischen Segmentgrabenanlagen. Diese Anlagen weisen unterschiedliche Formen auf und schienen, trotz der vergleichbaren Lage, sehr unterschiedliche Sichtbereiche, zum einen über die Themse und zum anderen über die Swale, besessen zu haben. Weiterhin lassen sich feine, aber wahrscheinlich signifikante Unterschiede in der materiellen Kultur und in den Deponierungssitten feststellen, die es uns erlauben, die möglichen Funktionen und Bedeutung dieser weitgehend gleichzeitigen Anlagen näher zu analysieren. Es stellt sich dabei die Frage, ob die Anlagen von zwei unterschiedlichen Gemeinschaften benutzt wurden oder ob sie von einer einzigen Gemeinschaft unterschiedlich benutzt wurden und deshalb unterschiedliche Funktionen besaßen? Im Beitrag untersuchen wir auch die Frage nach der zeitlich nachfolgenden Nutzung dieser Lokalität. Hierbei wird herausgestellt, dass die nachfolgenden bronzezeitlichen Grabenanlagen, die ebenfalls von einer ackerbaulichen Gemeinschaft genutzt wurden, räumlich eindeutig und damit wahrscheinlich auch inhaltlich auf die Erinnerung an die Neolithischen Anlagen Rücksicht nahmen, die dann aber zur Eisenzeit verloren ging. In diesem Zusammenhang wird sowohl die Veränderung der besonderen Bedeutung dieser Landschaft vom Neolithikum zu den nachfolgenden ebenfalls ackerbaulichen Perioden untersucht als auch die zyklische, fortführende Nutzung dieser Lokalität diskutiert.

Résumen

Investigaciones arqueológicas financiadas por promotores inmobiliarios en la Isla de Sheppey, Kent, han puesto al descubierto dos recintos neolíticos del tipo “causeway” en la cima de la misma colina, muy próximos el uno al otro (c. 300 m). Durante la última Edad del Bronce, se construyeron recintos en las inmediaciones hacia el este, así como varios enterramientos de cremación. En la Edad del Hierro aparecen nuevos recintos y finalmente se han encontrado sistemas de campo que pueden datarse desde la última Edad del Hierro en adelante.

Un programa de dataciones al carbono-14 permitió el discernimiento de la secuencia cronológica y del hiato entre cada uno de estos sucesos, pero este trabajo se centra en la exploración de las relaciones físicas, cronológicas y sociales entre los dos recintos neolíticos de tipo “causeway”. Estos tenían distinta forma y, a pesar de estar ambos situados en la misma colina, cada uno parece tener vistas claramente distintas – sobre los ríos Támesis y Swale respectivamente. Existen diferencias sutiles, pero probablemente significativas, en la cultura material y prácticas de deposición, que permiten la exploración de la posible función y papel(es) de estos dos yacimientos neolíticos en gran parte contemporáneos. ¿Desempeñaron las mismas funciones para dos comunidades o tuvieron papeles distintos y separados para una única comunidad? Este trabajo también explora la naturaleza del uso de la cima de la colina en épocas posteriores. Los recintos de la Edad del Bronce, aunque agrícolas en función, parecen respetar claramente a sus predecesores neolíticos evocando una memoria del espacio, que se pierde en la Edad del Hierro. El trabajo explora tanto el cambio de una función especial de este paisaje en el Neolítico a su posterior uso agrícola, como el ciclo de uso y reutilización de la localidad.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , Volume 74 , 2008 , pp. 235 - 322
Copyright
Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 2008

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

Adkins, L. & Needham, S. 1985. New research on a Late Bronze Age enclosure at Queen Mary's Hospital, Carshalton. Surrey Archaeological Collections 76, 11–50 Google Scholar
Alldritt, D. 2006. Wood charcoal from White Horse Stone. In Giorgi, J. (ed.), 2006Google Scholar
Allen, M.J. 1991. Analysing the landscape: a geographical approach to archaeological problems. In Schofield, A.J. (ed.), Interpreting Artefact Scatters; contributions to ploughzone archaeology, 39–57. Oxford: Oxbow Monograph 4Google Scholar
Allen, M.J. 1992. Products of erosion and the prehistoric land-use of the Wessex chalk. In Bell, M.G. & Boardman, J. (eds), Past and Present Soil Erosion: archaeological and geographical perspectives, 37–52. Oxford: Oxbow Google Scholar
Allen, M.J. 1995. Before Stonehenge. In Cleal, R.M.J., Walker, K.E. & Montague, R., Stonehenge in its Landscape: twentieth-century excavations, 41–63. London: English Heritage Archaeological Report 10Google Scholar
Allen, M.J. 2005. Beaker settlement and environment on the chalk downs of southern England. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 71, 219–245 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Annable, F.K. & Simpson, D.D.A. 1964. Guide Catalogue of the Neolithic and Bronze Age Collections in Devizes Museum, Devizes: Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Society Google Scholar
Archaeology South-East. 1999. Archaeological Evaluation at Kingsborough Farm, Eastchurch, Isle of Sheppey, Kent. Unpublished client report 962Google Scholar
Archaeology South-East. 2000. Archaeological Investigations at Kingsborough Farm, Eastchurch, Isle of Sheppey, Kent: post-excavation assessment and draft proposals for future work. Unpublished assessment report 1067Google Scholar
Ashbee, P. 2005. Kent in Prehistoric Times. Stroud: Tempus Google Scholar
Bamford, H. 1985. Briar Hill. Excavation 1974–1978. Northampton: Development Corporation Google Scholar
Barclay, A. 2002. Ceramic lives. In Woodward, A. & Hill, J.D. (eds), Prehistoric Britain. The Ceramic Basis, 85–95. Oxford: Oxbow Google Scholar
Barrett, J.C. 1980. The pottery of the Later Bronze Age in lowland Britain. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 46, 297–319 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrett, J. & Bond, D. 1988. The pottery. In Bond, 1988, 25–37 Google Scholar
Bashford, L., 2003. Organic Residue Analysis of Neolithic Pottery from Causewayed Enclosures at Kingsborough Farm, Eastchurch and Chalk Hill, Ramsgate, Kent. Unpublished MSc dissertation, University of Bradford Google Scholar
Bass, W.M. 1987, Human Osteology, Missouri Archaeological Society Google Scholar
Beck, C. & Shennan, S. 1991. Amber in Prehistoric Britain. Oxford: Oxbow Monograph 8Google Scholar
Beek, G.C. van. 1983. Dental Morphology: an illustrated guide. Bristol: Wright PSG Google Scholar
Bell, M., Allen, M.J., Smith, R.W. & Johnson, S. forthcoming, Mollusc and sedimentary evidence for the environment of Hambledon Hill and its surroundings. In Mercer, R. & Healy, F., Hambledon Hill. London: English Heritage Google Scholar
Bennett, K.D. Whittington, G. & Edwards, K.J. 1994. Recent plant nomenclatural changes and pollen morphology in the British Isles, Quaternary Newsletter 73, 1–6 Google Scholar
Bond, D. 1988. Excavations at the North Ring, Mucking, Essex: a Late Bronze Age enclosure. Chelmsford: East Anglian Archaeology 43Google Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C. 1995. Radiocarbon calibration and analysis of stratigraphy: the OxCal Program. Radiocarbon 37(2), 425–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C. 2001. Development of the radiocarbon program OxCal, Radiocarbon 43 (2A), 355–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, N. & Murphy, P. 1999. Neolithic and Bronze Age. In Brown, N. & Glazebrook, J. (eds), Research and Archaeology: a framework for the eastern counties, 2 research agenda and strategy, 9–13. Norwich: East Anglian Archaeology Occasional Paper 8Google Scholar
Buikstra, J.E. & Ubelaker, D.H. 1994. Standards for Data Collection from Human Skeletal Remains. Arkansas Archaeological Survey Research Series 44Google Scholar
Butler, C. 2003. Ringlemere: An assessment of the prehistoric flintwork. Unpublished reportGoogle Scholar
Case, H.J. 1986. The Mesolithic and Neolithic in the Oxford Region. In Briggs, G., Cook, J. & Rowley, T. (eds), The Archaeology of the Oxford Region, 18–37. Oxford: University Department of External Studies Google Scholar
Champion, T. 1980. Settlement and environment in later Bronze Age Kent. In Barrett, J., & Bradley, R. (eds), Settlement and Society in the British Later Bronze Age, 223–46. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 83Google Scholar
Childe, V.G. & Smith, I.F. 1954. Excavation of a Neolithic barrow on Whiteleaf Hill Bucks. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 20, 212–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, J.G.D., Higgs, E.S. & Longworth, I.H. 1960. Excavations at the Neolithic site at Hurst Fen, Mildenhall, Suffolk. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 26, 202–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, A. 1982. The Neolithic in Kent: a review. In Leach, P.E. (ed.), Archaeology in Kent to AD 1500. London: Council for British Archaeology Research Report 48Google Scholar
Coles, S., Hammond, S., Pine, J., Preston, S. & Taylor, A. 2003. Bronze Age, Roman and Saxon sites on Shrubsoles Hill, Sheppey and at Wises Lane, Borden, Kent. Reading: Thames Valley Archaeological Services Monograph 4Google Scholar
Cornish, V. 1946. The Churchyard Yew and Immortality. London: F. Muller Google Scholar
Cunliffe, B. 1984. Danebury: An Iron Age hillfort in Hampshire. Vol. 1. London: Council for British Archaeology Research Report 52Google Scholar
Dallimore, W. 1908. Holly, Yew and Box. London: John Lane, Bodley Head Google Scholar
DeRoche, C.D. 1997. Studying Iron Age production. In Gwilt, A. & Haselgrove, C. (eds), Reconstructing Iron Age Societies: new approaches to the British Iron Age, 19–25. Oxford: Oxbow Monograph 71Google Scholar
Diack, M. 2002. Barton Hill Drive, Minster, Sheppey. Canterbury Archaeological Trust Annual Report 2001–2, 44–5 [http://www.canterburytrust.co.uk/annreps/annreps.htm]Google Scholar
Dimbleby, G.W. 1985. The Palynology of Archaeological Sites. London: Academic Google Scholar
Dines, H.G., Holmes, SC.A. & Robbie, J.A. 1954. Geology of the Country around Chatham. Memoir of the Geological Survey, Great Britain. London: HMSO Google Scholar
Drewett, P. 1977. The Excavation of a Neolithic causewayed enclosure on Offham Hill, East Sussex, 1976. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 43, 201–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drewett, P. 1978. Neolithic Sussex. In Drewett, P.L. (ed.), Archaeology in Sussex to AD 1500, 23–29. London: Council for British Archaeology Research Report 29Google Scholar
Dunning, G.C. 1966. Neolithic occupation sites in East Kent. Antiquaries Journal 46, 1–25 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dyson, L., Shand, G. & Stevens, S. 2000. Causewayed Enclosures, Current Archaeology 168, 470–2Google Scholar
Edlin, H.L. 1949. Woodland Crafts in Britain. London: Batsford Google Scholar
Edmonds, M. 1993. Interpreting causewayed enclosures in the past and the present. In Tilley, C. (ed.), Interpretative Archaeology, 99–142. Oxford: Berg Google Scholar
Edwards, E. 2006. White Horse Stone and Pilgrim's Way: early prehistoric pottery. In Booth, P (ed.), Ceramics from Section 1 of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, Kent. CTRL Scheme-wide Specialist Report Series, Archaeology Data Service [http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/proArch/ctrl/index.cfm]Google Scholar
Evans, C. & Knight, M. 2001. Excavations at Barleycroft Farm: the Southern Field investigations. Cambridge: Cambridge Archaeological Unit (Barleycroft Farm/ARC Paper 2)Google Scholar
Evans, J.G. & Rouse, A. 1991. The land Mollusca. In Sharples, N.M., Maiden Castle; Excavations and Field Survey 1985–6, 118–125. London: English Heritage Archaeological Report 19Google Scholar
Evans, J.G. Rouse, A. & Sharples, N. 1988. The landscape setting of causewayed camps: recent work on the Maiden Castle enclosure. In Barrett, J.C. & Kinnes, I.A. (eds), The Archaeology of Context in the Neolithic and Bronze Age: recent trends, 73–8. Sheffield: J.R. Collis Google Scholar
Field, D. & Woolley, A.R. 1984. Neolithic and Bronze Age ground stone implements from Surrey: morphology, petrology and distribution. Surrey Archaeological Collections 75, 85–109 Google Scholar
Firth, A. 2000. Development-led archaeology in coastal environments: investigations at Queenborough, Motney Hill and Gravesend in Kent, UK. In Pye, K.. & Allen, J.R.L. (eds), Coastal and Estuarine Environments: sedimentology, geomorphology and geoarchaeology, 403–17. Geological Society Special Publication 175Google Scholar
Fuller, D., Stevens, C. & McClathie, M. in press. Routine activities, tertiary refuse and labor organization: social inferences from everyday archaeobotany. In Madella, M. & Savard, M. (eds), Ancient Plants and People: contemporary trends in archaeobotany. Tucson: University of Arizona Press Google Scholar
Gale, R. 1992. Charcoal. In Butterfield, C.A. & Lobb, S.J., Excavations in the Burghfield Area, Berkshire. Development in the Bronze Age and Saxon Landscapes, 65–8, 158–9. Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology Report 1Google Scholar
Gale, R. 1997. Charcoal, pp 77–82, in Fitzpatrick, A.P., Archaeological Excavations on the Route of the A27 Westhampnett Bypass, West Sussex, 1992, Vol. 2: the Cemeteries, Wessex Archaeology Report No. 12.Google Scholar
Gale, R. 2003. Charcoal from Brackmills Link Road, Northampton, in Chapman, A., Three Bronze Age burial sites in Northamptonshire, 12. Northamptonshire Archaeology 31, 1–14 Google Scholar
Gale, R. & Cutler, D. 2000. Plants in Archaeology. Kew: Westbury/Royal Botanic Gardens Google Scholar
Gibson, A.M. 1995. The Neolithic pottery from Cross Roads and St Richard's Road, Deal. Unpublished report 21 for the Canterbury Archaeological TrustGoogle Scholar
Gibson, A.M. 1996. The Neolithic and Beaker pottery from Laundry Road, Minster, Kent. Unpublished report 37 for the Trust for Thanet ArchaeologyGoogle Scholar
Gibson, A.M. 2006. The Neolithic and Early Bronze Age pottery from the causewayed enclosure at Chalk Hill, Ramsgate, Kent. Unpublished report 96 for the Canterbury Archaeological TrustGoogle Scholar
Giorgi, J. 2006. The plant remains from White Horse Stone. In Giorgi, (ed.), 2006Google Scholar
Giorgi, J. (ed.). 2006. Palaeoenvironmental evidence from section 1 of the Channel Tunnel Rail Kent. CTRL Schemewide Specialist Report Series, Archaeology Data Service [http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/proArch/ctrl/index.cfm]Google Scholar
Godwin, H. 1956. The History of the British Flora. Cambridge: University Press Google Scholar
Green, H.S. 1980. The Flint Arrowheads of the British Isles. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 75Google Scholar
Green, H.S. 1984. Flint arrowheads: typology and interpretation. Lithics 5, 19–39 Google Scholar
Greig, J. 1981. Past and Present Lime Woods of Europe. London: English Heritage, AML Report 3558Google Scholar
Grime, J.P., Hodgson, J.G. & Hunt, R. 1988. Comparative Plant Ecology; a functional approach to common British Species. London: Unwin Hyman Google Scholar
Grove, J. & Lovell, J. 2002. Excavations within and close to the Late Bronze Age enclosures at the former Queen Mary's Hospital, Carshalton, 1999. London Archaeologist 10 (1), 13–19 Google Scholar
Hamilton, S. & Seager Thomas, M. 2005. Neolithic and Bronze Age pottery. In Bishop, B. & Bagwell, M., Iwade: occupation of a North Kent village from the Mesolithic to the medieval period, 20–38. London: Pre-Construct Archaeology Monograph 3Google Scholar
Healey, E. & Robertson-Mackay, R. 1983. The lithic industries from Staines causewayed enclosure and their relationship to other Earlier Neolithic industries in southern Britain. Lithics 4, 1–27 Google Scholar
Healy, F. 2004. Hambledon Hill and its implications. In Cleal, R. & Pollard, J. (eds), Monuments and Material Culture. Papers in Honour of an Avebury Archaeologist: Isobel Smith, 15–38. East Knoyle: Hobnob Press Google Scholar
Healy, F. 2006. Pottery deposition at Hambledon Hill. In Gibson, A. (ed.) Prehistoric Pottery: some recent research, 11–37. Oxford: British Archaeological Report S1509Google Scholar
Hedges, J. & Buckley, D. 1978. Excavations at a Neolithic causewayed enclosure, Orsett, Essex, 1975. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 44, 219–308 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helbaek, H. 1952. Early crops in southern England. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 18, 194–233 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herne, A. 1988. A time and a place for the Grimston Bowl. In Barrett, J.C. & Kinnes, I.A. (eds), The Archaeology of Context in the Neolithic and Bronze Age: recent trends, 9–29. Sheffield: J.R. Collis Google Scholar
Hillman, G.C. 1981. Reconstructing crop husbandry practices from charred remains of crops. In Mercer, R.J., (ed.), Farming Practice in British Prehistory, 123–62. Edinburgh: University Press Google Scholar
Hillman, G. 1984. Interpretation of archaeological plant remains; the application of ethnographic from Turkey. In van Zeist, W. & Casparie, W.A. (eds), Plants and Ancient Man: studies in the palaeoethnobotany, 1–41. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema Google Scholar
Holden, J.L., Phakley, P.P. & Clement, J.G. 1995a. Scanning electron microscope observations of incinerated human femoral bone: a case study. Forensic Science International 74, 17–28 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holden, J.L., Phakley, P.P. & Clement, J.G. 1995b. Scanning electron microscope observations of heat-treated human bone. Forensic Science International 74, 29–45 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holgate, R. 1988. Neolithic Settlement of the Thames Basin. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, S.C.A. 1981. Geology of the Country around Faversham. Memoir of the Geological Survey, Great Britain. London: HMSO Google Scholar
Jelgersma, S. 1979. Sea-level changes in the North Sea basin, in Oele, E., Schüttenhelm, R.T.E. & Wiggers, A.J. (eds), The Quaternary History of the North Sea, 233–48. Upsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Symposia Universitatis Upsaliensis Annum Quingentesimum Celebrantis 2Google Scholar
Jessup, R.F. 1939. Further Excavations at Julliberrie's Grave, Chilham. Antiquaries Journal 19, 260–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keatinge, T.H. 1982. Influence of stemflow on the representation of pollen of Tilia in soils. Grana 21, 171–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kreuz, A. 2000. Functional and conceptual archaeobotanical data from Roman cremations. In Pearce, J., Millett, M. & Struck, M. (eds), Burial, Society and Context in the Roman World, 45–51. Oxford: Oxbow Google Scholar
McKinley, J.I. 1993 Bone fragment size and weights of bone from modern British cremations and its implications for the interpretation of archaeological cremations. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 3, 283–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKinley, J.I. 1994a. The Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Spong Hill, North Elmham Part VIII: the cremations. Gressenhall: East Anglian Archaeology 69Google Scholar
McKinley, J.I. 1994b. Bone fragment size in British cremation burials and its implications for pyre technology and ritual. Journal of Archaeological Science 21, 339–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKinley, J.I. 1997a. The cremated human bone from burial and cremation-related contexts. In Fitzpatrick, A.P. Archaeological Excavations on the Route of the A27 Westhampnett Bypass, West Sussex, 1992 Volume 2, 55–72. Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology Report 12Google Scholar
McKinley, J.I. 1997b. Bronze Age ‘Barrows’ and the funerary rites and rituals of cremation. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 63, 129–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKinley, J.I. 2000. Phoenix rising; aspects of cremation in Roman Britain. In Millett, M., Pearce, J.. & Struck, M. (eds), Burial, Society and Context in the Roman World, 38–44. Oxford: Oxbow Google Scholar
McKinley, J.I. 2004. Compiling a skeletal inventory: cremated human bone. In Brickley, M. & McKinley, J.I. (eds), Guidelines to the Standards for Recording Human Remains, 9–12. British Association for Biological Anthropology & Osteoarchaeology/Institute for Field Archaeology Google Scholar
MacPherson-Grant, N. 1968. Two Neolithic bowls from Birchington, Thanet. Archaeologia Cantiana 83, 249–50Google Scholar
Macpherson-Grant, N. 1980. Archaeological work along the A2: 1966–1974, Archaeologia Cantiana 96, 133–83Google Scholar
Macpherson-Grant, N. 1991. A re-appraisal of prehistoric pottery from Canterbury, Canterbury's Archaeology 1990/1991, 38–48 Google Scholar
Macpherson-Grant, N. 1994. The pottery. In Perkins, D.R.J., Macpherson-Grant, N. & Healey, E., Monkton Court Farm evaluation, 1992, 248–88. Archaeologia Cantiana 14, 237–316 Google Scholar
Mercer, R. 1988. Hambledon Hill, Dorset, England. In Burgess, C., Topping, P., Mordant, C. & Maddison, M. (eds), Enclosures and Defences in the Neolithic of Western Europe, 89–107. Oxford: British Archaeological Report S403Google Scholar
Mercer, R. & Healy, F. forthcoming. Hambledon Hill. London: English Heritage Google Scholar
Mitchell, A. 1974. A Field Guide to the Trees of Britain and Northern Europe. London: Collins Google Scholar
Moffett, L.C. 1991. Pignut tubers from a Bronze Age cremation at Barrow Hills, Oxfordshire, and the importance of vegetable tubers in the prehistoric period. Journal of Archaeological Science 18, 187–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moffett, L.C. 1999. The prehistoric use of plant resources. In Barclay, A. & Halpin, C., Excavations at Barrow Hills, Radley, Oxfordshire. Volume 1 The Neolithic and Bronze Age Monument Complex, 243–7. Oxford: University Committee for Archaeology Google Scholar
Moffett, L, Robinson, M.A. & Straker, S. 1989. Cereals, fruit and nuts: charred plant remains from Neolithic sites in England and Wales and the Neolithic economy. In Milles, A., Williams, D. & Gardner, N. (eds), The Beginnings of Agriculture, 243–61. Oxford, British Archaeological Report S496Google Scholar
Mook, W.G. 1986. Business meeting: recommendations/resolutions adopted by the twelfth International Radiocarbon Conference. Radiocarbon 28, 799 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, C. 2002. Late Bronze Age, Romano-British and early/middle Saxon features at Hoo, St Werburgh. Archaeologia Cantiana 122, 259–74Google Scholar
Moore, P.D. & Webb, J.A. 1978. An Illustrated Guide to Pollen Analysis. London: Hodder & Stoughton Google Scholar
Moore, P.D., Webb, J.A. & Collinson, M.E. 1992. Pollen Analysis. 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Google Scholar
Murton, J.B., Whiteman, C.A., Bates, M.R., Bridgeland, D.R., Long, A.J., Roberts, M.B. & Waller, M.P. (eds), 1998. The Quaternary of Kent and Sussex. Field Guide. London: Quaternary Research Association Google Scholar
Needham, S. 1993. The structure of settlement and ritual in the Late Bronze Age of south-east Britain. In Mordant, C. & Richards, A. (eds), L'habitat et l'occupation du sol á l'Age du Bronze en Europe, 49–69. Actes du Colloque International du Lons-le-Saunier, 16–19 Mai, 1990. Paris. Edition du Comité des Travaux historique et scientifique; Documents Prèhistorique 4Google Scholar
Newcomer, M.H. 1971. Some quantitative experiments in handaxe manufacture. World Archaeology 3, 85–94 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholls, R.J., Dredge, A. & Wilson, T. 2000. Shoreline change and fine-grained sediment input: Isle of Sheppey Coast. Thames Estuary, UK. In Pye, K. & Allen, J.R.L. (eds), Coastal and Estuarine Environments; sedimentology, geomorphology and geoarchaeology, 305–15. London: Geological Society Special Publication 175Google Scholar
Nielsen-Marsh, C., Gernaey, A., Turner-Walker, G., Hedges, R., Pike, A. & Collins, M. 2000. The chemical degradation of bone. In Cox, M. & Mays, S. (eds), Human Osteology in Archaeology and Forensic Science, 439–54. London: GMM Google Scholar
Oswald, A., Dyer, C., & Barber, M. 2001. The Creation of Monuments: Neolithic causewayed enclosures in the British Isles. Swindon: English Heritage Google Scholar
Oxford Archaeology 2004. Kingsborough Manor Phase 2 Stage 1, Eastchurch, Isle of Sheppey, Kent: Archaeological Evaluation Report. Unpublished client report 2245Google Scholar
Perkins, D.R.J. 1998. A Gateway Island. Unpublished PhD thesis. University College London Google Scholar
Philp, B. & Chenery, M. 1998. The Prehistoric and Monastic Site at Minster Abbey, Sheppey, Kent. Canterbury: Kent Special Subject Series 12Google Scholar
Pollard, J. 1999. Flint. In Whittle, A., Pollard, J. & Grigson, C., The Harmony of Symbols: the Windmill Hill causewayed enclosure, 318–7. Oxford: Oxbow CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pryor, F. 1998. Etton: excavations at a Neolithic causewayed enclosure near Maxey Cambridgeshire, 1982–7. London: English Heritage Archaeological Report 18Google Scholar
Rawlings, M., Allen, M.J., & Healy, F. 2004. Investigations of the Whitesheet Down Environs 1989 –90; Neolithic causewayed enclosure and Iron Age settlement. Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Magazine 97, 144–96Google Scholar
Reimer, P.J., Baillie, M.G.L., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J.W., Bertrand, C., Blackwell, P.G., Buck, C.E., Burr, G., Cutler, K.B, Damon, P.E., Edwards, R.L., Fairbanks, R.G., Friedrich, M., Guilderson, T.P., Hughen, K.A., Kromer, B., McCormac, F.G., Manning, S., Bronk Ramsey, C., Reimer, R.W., Remmele, S., Southon, J.R., Stuiver, M., Talamo, S., Taylor, F.W., Plicht, J. van der & Weyhenmeyer, C.E. 2004. Intcal04 terrestrial radiocarbon age calibration, 0–26 cal. kyr BP. Radiocarbon 46, 1029–58Google Scholar
Riley, H. 1990. The scraper assemblages and petit tranchet derivative arrowheads. In Richards, J., The Stonehenge Environs Project, 225–8. London: Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England Report 16Google Scholar
Robertson-Mackay, R. 1987. The Neolithic causewayed enclosure at Staines, Surrey: excavations 1961–63. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 53, 23–128 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, M. 1988. The significance of the tubers of Arrhenatherum elatius (L.) Beauv, from site 4, Cremation IS/II. In Lambrick, G. (ed.), The Rollright Stones; megaliths, monuments and settlements in the prehistoric landscape, 102. London: Historic Buildings & Monuments Commission for England Report 6Google Scholar
Robinson, M.A. 2000. Further considerations of Neolithic charred cereals, fruits and nuts. In Fairbairn, A.S. (ed.), Plants in Neolithic Britain and beyond, 85–90. Oxford: Oxbow/Neolithic Studies Group Seminar Paper 5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saville, A. 1980. On the measurement of struck flakes and flake tools. Lithics 1, 16–20 Google Scholar
Saville, A. 2002. Lithic artefacts from Neolithic causewayed enclosures: character and meaning. In Varnell, G. & Topping, P. (eds), Enclosures in Neolithic Europe, 91–105. Oxford: Oxbow Books Google Scholar
Scaife, R.G. 1988. The elm decline in the pollen record of S.E. England and its relationship to early agriculture. In Jones, M. (ed.), Archaeology and the Flora of the British Isles, 21–33. Oxford: University Committee for Archaeology Monograph 14/Botanical Society of the British Isles Report 19Google Scholar
Scaife, R. 1998. Pollen analysis. In Pryor, 1998, 301–9Google Scholar
Scheuer, L. & Black, S. 2000. Developmental Juvenile Osteology. London: Academic Google Scholar
Shand, G. 2000. Ramsgate Harbour Approach Road. Canterbury's Archaeology 1998 – 1999, 18–22 Google Scholar
Sharples, N.M. 1991. Maiden Castle, Excavations and Field Survey 1985–6. London: Historic Buildings & Monuments Commission for England Report 19Google Scholar
Shennan, I. & Horton, B. 2002. Holocene land- and sea-level changes in Great Britain. Journal of Quaternary Science 17, 511–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shennan, I., Lambeck, K., Horton, B., Innes, J., Lloyd, J., McArthur, J., Purcell, T. & Rutherford, M., 2000. Late Devensian and Holocene records of relative sea-level changes in northwest Scotland and their implications for glacio-hydro-isostatic modelling. Quaternary Science Reviews 19, 1103–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shennan, I., Peltier, W.R., Drummond, R., & Horton, B. 2002. Global to local scale parameters determining relative sea-level changes and the post-glacial isostatic adjustment of Great Britain. Quaternary Science Reviews 21, 397–408 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smart, J.G.O., Bisson, G. & Worssam, B.C. 1966. Geology of the Country around Canterbury and Folkestone. London: HMSO Google Scholar
Smith, W. 2002. A Review of Archaeological Wood Analyses in Southern England. Portsmouth: English Heritage Centre for Archaeology Laboratory Report 75Google Scholar
Stace, C. 1991. New Flora of the British Isles. Cambridge: University Press Google Scholar
Stevens, C.J. 2003. An investigation of consumption and production models for prehistoric and Roman Britain. Environmental Archaeology 8, 61–76 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, C.J. 2006. Charred plant remains from Saltwood Tunnel. In Giorgi, (ed.). 2006Google Scholar
Stevens, C.J. 2007. Reconsidering the evidence: towards an understanding of the social contexts of subsistence production in Neolithic Britain. In Colledge, S. & Conolly, J. (eds), The Origin and Spread of Domestic Plants in SW Asia and Europe, 375–89. London: University College London Press Google Scholar
Stevens, S. forthcoming. An archaeological investigation of land at Kingsborough Farm and Kingsborough Manor, Eastchurch, Isle of Sheppey. Archaeologia Cantiana Google Scholar
Stockmarr, J. 1971. Tablets with spores used in absolute pollen analysis. Pollen et Spores 13, 614–21Google Scholar
Tacitus, , Germania. London: Penguin Books trans. 1948 H. Mattingly Google Scholar
Thomas, J. 1991. Rethinking the Neolithic. Cambridge: University Press Google Scholar
Thomas, K.D. 1977. The land Mollusca from the enclosure on Offham Hill. In Drewett, 1977, 234–9Google Scholar
Thomas, K.D. 1982. Neolithic enclosures and woodland habitats on the South Downs, in Sussex, England. In Bell, M.G. & Limbrey, S. (eds), Archaeological Aspects of Woodland Ecology, 147–70. Oxford: British Archaeological Report S146Google Scholar
Thompson, J.B. 1999. The analysis of wood charcoals from selected pits and funerary contexts. In Barclay, A. & Halpin, C., Excavations at Barrow Hills, Radley, Oxfordshire: 1, the Neolithic and Bronze Age monument complex, 247–53. Oxford: Thames Valley Landscapes 11Google Scholar
Tutin, T.G., Heywood, V.H. et al. 1964–1980. Flora Europaea 1–5. Cambridge: University Press Google Scholar
Ward, G.K. & Wilson, S.R. 1978. Procedures for comparing and combining radiocarbon age determinations: a critique. Archaeometry 20, 19–31 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wessex Archaeology. 2002. Kingsborough Manor Development, Eastchurch, Isle of Sheppey, Kent: assessment report and proposals for post-excavation analyses and publication. Unpublished assessment report 46792.2Google Scholar
Wessex Archaeology. 2003. Holocene coastal environments, human activity and sea-level rise: archaeological investigations of three sites in the mid-Thames Estuary. Unpublished manuscriptGoogle Scholar
Wessex Archaeology. 2005a. Kingsborough Manor, Phase 2, Stage 2, Isle of Sheppey, Kent: Archaeological Evaluation Report. Unpublished client report 59630.01Google Scholar
Wessex Archaeology. 2005b. Kingsborough Manor, Phase 2, Stage 1, Eastchurch, Isle of Sheppey, Kent: assessment of archaeological excavation results. Unpublished assessment report 57171.01Google Scholar
Wessex Archaeology. 2006. Kingsborough Manor, Phase 3, Eastchurch, Isle of Sheppey, Kent: archaeological excavation report. Unpublished client report 62620.01Google Scholar
Wilson, T. 2002. The lithics. In Shand, G., Excavations at Chalk Hill, near Ramsgate, Kent 1997–8 Integrated assessment and updated research design, 23–6. Unpublished Report, Canterbury Archaeological Trust Google Scholar
Whittle, A.W.R. 1977. The Earlier Neolithic of Southern England and its Continental Background. Oxford: British Archaeological Report S35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittle, A.W.R. 1999. The Neolithic period, c. 4000–2500/2200 BC. In Hunter, J. & Ralston, I. (eds), The Archaeology of Britain, 58–76. London: Routledge Google Scholar
Whittle, A.W.R. 2000. Bringing plants into the taskscape. In Fairbairn, (ed.) 2000, 1–7 Google Scholar
Wilkinson, T. & Murphy, P. 1995. Archaeology of the Essex Coast 1: the Hullbridge Survey, Chelmsford: East Anglian Archaeology 71Google Scholar
Veen, M. van der. 1992. Crop husbandry Regimes; an archaeobotanical study of farming in northern England 1000 B.C. – A.D. 500. Sheffield: Sheffield Archaeological Monograph 3Google Scholar