Neolithic and Bronze Age Landscapes of Cumbria 9781407302973, 9781407321233

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Table of Contents
List of Figures
Acknowledgements
Introduction
Chapter 1: Welcome to Cumbria: geography and legacy
Chapter 2: Ways into the prehistoric landscapes of Cumbria
Chapter 3: The occupation record
Chapter 4: The monument record
Chapter 5: Classification and distribution of stone circles and henges
Chapter 6: The upland record
Chapter 7: Landscape setting of monuments
Chapter 8: Burial and depositional traditions
Chapter 9: Nature and scale of occupation: a case study from the Furness Peninsula
Chapter 10: Local and regional traditions
Bibliography
List of appendices
Key to appendices
Appendices

Citation preview

BAR 463 2008

Neolithic and Bronze Age Landscapes of Cumbria

EVANS

Helen Evans

NEOLITHIC AND BRONZE AGE LANDSCAPES OF CUMBRIA

B A R

BAR British Series 463 2008

Neolithic and Bronze Age Landscapes of Cumbria Helen Evans

BAR British Series 463 2008

ISBN 9781407302973 paperback ISBN 9781407321233 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407302973 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR

PUBLISHING

Table of contents List of figures Acknowledgments

v vii 1

Introduction Chapter 1: Welcome to Cumbria: geography and legacy Introduction Cumbrian geographies First impressions The layout Landuse, enclosure and the antiquarian legacy The Collingwoods Monuments The lithic record The Langdale ‘axe factories’ Discussion Conclusion

3 3 4 4 7 7 8 8 9 10 10

Chapter 2: Ways into the prehistoric landscapes of Cumbria Introduction Scales of analysis Places and times in the physical landscape Ways into Cumbrian Landscapes Monuments Environments Lithics Practicalities of a regional landscape archaeology Landscape setting of monuments Survey and excavation Collection and analysis of archival records Conclusion

11 11 12 13 14 14 15 15 16 16 17

Chapter 3: The occupation record Introduction The environmental record The elm decline Woodland composition into pollen zone VIIa Woodland clearance episodes North and east Upland tarns Postglacial marine transgressions Coastal clearings The lithic record West coast and eastern uplands collections The Furness collections The use and availability of lithic raw materials Working tuff Raw materials, technology and dating Mixed assemblages Finding the Neolithic Core technology Later Neolithic/Early Bronze Age scatters

18 18 18 19 20 22 23 23 24 25 26 26 27 27 30 31 31 33

i

Approaching the occupation record Places and times Clearance foundation and maintenance Occupation patterns Conclusion

34 35 36 37 38

Chapter 4: The monument record Introduction Divisions of labour and scale Type and typology Typology and architecture Constructional complexity and time depth Morphological classification of Cumbrian monuments How many ways round a circle? The upland record: coverage and compatibility LAU methodology Funerary cairns Ringcairns Approaches to ‘variant circles’ Cairnfield typology A consistent and integrated approach

40 40 40 41 42 42 43 44 44 45 45 45 46 46

Chapter 5: Classification and distribution of stone circles and henges Introduction Henges and style zones Circle Henges and Western Circle Henges Freestanding circles Does size matter? Circularity Too many or too few of the wrong sort of stones? Outliers Burials ‘Burnmoor’ and ‘concentric’ circles: visibility and phasing Small circles as kerbed funerary monuments A new direction? Sites not included as stone circles Freestanding circles and hengiform features ‘Funerary’ monuments Regional morphology and distribution Distribution, time depth and monument complexes New questions

49 49 49 51 51 51 52 52 54 54 55 58 58 59 59 59 63 66

Chapter 6: The upland record Introduction The cairnfield record: defining an approach Simple cairnfield and monuments Upland monuments and landscape histories Enclosures Long cairns Distribution of enclosures and long cairns Round funerary cairns: methodology and approach Summit cairns Funerary cairns in cairnfield contexts Cairn cemeteries and ceremonial complexes Ringcairns: methodology and approach Large ringcairns/embanked circles ‘Classic’ ringcairns

67 67 68 68 69 71 72 74 74 75 75 75 76 76

ii

Small stone rings Architecture and chronology: circles at variance? Discussion: distribution of Neolithic and Bronze Age monuments Conclusion

76 77 78 79

Chapter 7: Landscape setting of monuments Introduction Long cairns and enclosures Landscape setting of the Cumbrian circles Stone circles, routeways and landscape zones Big hills Becks, springs and coastal circles Architecture, movement and visibility: framing a way? Burnmoor Second circles and lost monuments: what are we missing? Movement, transition and the seasonality of circles Landscape settings of ringcairns and funerary cairns Bootle Fell Town Bank and Stockdale Moor Coniston and Torver Banniside High Pike Haw and Bleaberry Haws Discussion: monuments, journeys and identities Conclusion

80 80 81 82 82 83 83 84 86 87 89 89 91 94 96 96 97 99

Chapter 8: Burial and depositional traditions Introduction Character of the evidence Neolithic cairns Beakers, cists and the ‘single grave’ tradition Into the Bronze Age: monument complexes and the wider landscape Cairnfield cairns and token deposits Flat cemeteries and natural places Caves and grykes ‘Pieces of places’ Making monuments from places Conclusion

100 100 101 104 108 109 111 112 113 113 115

Chapter 9: Nature and scale of occupation: a case study from the Furness Peninsula Introduction The Furness Peninsula Character of the evidence Later Mesolithic/Early Neolithic scatters The coastal lowlands Walney Island Following the valleys Life and death on the limestone ridge Caves, grykes and Neolithic monuments On Birkrigg Continuity of place into the Bronze Age Later Neolithic and Bronze Age scatters On Walney Occupation practice Scales of community: lithic raw materials and exchange Conclusion

118 118 120 120 121 124 127 128 129 130 132 133 136 137 139

iii

Chapter 10: Local and regional traditions Introduction: scales of analysis Chronology, history and temporality Encounters with mountains The nature and identification of local and regional traditions A regional sequence Discussion Further work Future potential

140 141 141 143 144 146 146 149

Bibliography

150

List of appendices

172

Key to appendices

173

Appendices

176

iv

List of Figures 1.1. 1.2. 1.3. 1.4. 3.1.

Cumbria on the Irish Seaboard. Cumbria in Northern England. Land over 200m AOD is stippled. Simplified geology of Cumbria. After Shackleton (1966). Main locations mentioned in the text. Inset: Layout of the Three Shires. Location of pollen sample sites discussed in chapter three. Map data © Crown Copyright Ordnance Survey. An Edina Digimap/JISC supplied service. The Temple Sowerby Moss sample site. fieldwalking areas. From Skinner (2000). 3.2. The Howgill Castle sample site. From Skinner (2000). 3.3. Bank Moor sample site. From Skinner (2000). 3.4. Great Rundale pollen sample site. and findspots. From Skinner (2000). 3.5. Locations of lithic scatters and pollen sites on the west coast. 3.6. Position of the ‘25 ft beach’. After Cherry & Cherry (2002). 3.7. Selection of tuff forms from the Furness transect. Illustrations by Sharon Arrowsmith. 3.8. Distribution of polished, unpolished and perforated axes from southern Cumbria. Map 3.9. data © Crown Copyright Ordnance Survey. An Edina Digimap/JISC supplied service. 3.10. Blade based material from the Furness transect. Illustrations by Sharon Arrowsmith. 3.11. Flake based material from the Furness transect. Illustrations by Sharon Arrowsmith.

3 3 5 6 19 21 21 22 22 25 26 28 29 32 32

4.1.

LAU cairnfield typology. After Quartermaine (2002).

42

5.1. 5.2. 5.3. 5.4. 5.5. 5.6. 5.7. 5.8. 5.9.

Burl’s (1976) Cumbrian stone circle typology. Examples of ‘Burnmoor’ and ‘concentric’ stone circles. Examples of small and large kerbed monuments. Examples of large stone circles. Hengiform monuments. The four main sub regions of Cumbria and associated monument groups. The monument complex at Long Meg. Map data © Crown Copyright OS (2002). The monument complex in the Shap environs. After Beckensall (2002). Cluster of henges and stone circles on the south west coast. Mapping data © Crown Copyright Ordnance Survey. An Edina Digimap/JISC supplied service.

53 56 57 60 61 62 64 64 65

6.1.

Distribution of ‘simple’ and ‘complex’ cairnfields on the south western fells. Map data © Crown Copyright Ordnance Survey. An Edina Digimap/JISC supplied service. Plans of upland enclosures. After RCHME (1996a, 1996b), EH (2000). Examples of long cairns. Drawings after Masters (1984). Distribution of long cairns and enclosures. Map data © Crown Copyright. Distribution of long cairns, enclosures and stone circles. Map data © Crown Copyright. Cairnfields, ringcairns and funerary cairns on the south western fells. © Crown Copyright. Examples of large ringcairns, ‘classic’ ringcairns and small stone rings. Drawings after Waterhouse (1985) and LAU (1987, 1985, 1994).

68

6.2. 6.3. 6.4. 6.5. 6.6. 6.7. 7.1. 7.2. 7.3. 7.4. 7.5. 7.6. 7.7. 7.8. 7.9. 7.10. 7.11. 7.12. 7.13. 7.14. 7.15. 7.16. 7.17.

Samson’s Bratful, looking towards the coastal plain. Heathwaite long cairn, looking towards the Duddon. Schematic drawing of conjoined enclosure and stone circle at Long Meg. Aerial photo of conjoined enclosures at Summer Hill (source: LDNPA). Swinside below Raven Crag. Gamelands at the foot of Great Asby Scar. Simplified contour plan of the Burnmoor circles. After LAU (1984). Brat’s Hill, situated in a natural bowl, facing North West. View from White Moss, looking west along the ridge. Obscured view to the west from Low Longrigg North East. View from Low Longrigg towards the central Fells. View from Castlerigg down St. Johns in the Vale. Photo: Adrian Chadwick. Lonscale Fell forms a ‘backdrop’ behind Castlerigg. The Duddon estuary from Lacra C. Overtly monumental gatepost at Lacra. Stukeley’s (1776) second circle at Long Meg was where a barn now stands. The flattened north eastern perimeter of Long Meg.

v

70 72 73 73 74 76 80 80 81 82 82 83 84 84 85 85 85 86 86 86 86 87 87

88 88 90 92

7.24. 7.25. 7.26. 7.27. 7.28.

Giants Graves standing stones, marking the entrance into the Whicham valley. Long Meg. Cairnfields on Bootle Fell. After LAU (1987). Distribution of monuments on Town Bank and Stockdale Moor. Map data © Crown Copyright Ordnance Survey. An Edina Digimap/JISC supplied service. Monuments on the southern extent of Stockdale Moor. After LAU (1985). Location of Banniside, Torver High Common (THC) and Bleaberry Haws. Map data © Crown Copyright Ordnance Survey. An Edina Digimap/JISC supplied service. Cairnfields to the east of Torver Beck. After LAU (1994). Cairnfield and monuments on Bleabery Haws. After (LAU 1994). Bleaberry Haws funerary cairn (THC XIV 113. SMR 1614). Bleaberry Haws summit cairn (THC IV 135, SMR 1613) looking south. Stone circles, rivers and estuaries.

8.1. 8.2. 8.3. 8.4 8.5. 8.6. 8.7. 8.8 8.9 8.10

West facing section through Sizergh 2. Plan of limestone wall and boulder kerb at Sizergh 2. Radiocarbon determinations of bone samples from Sizergh Tumulus 2. Timber circle postholes at Oddendale. After Turnbull & Walsh (1997). Ringcairn sealing Oddendale timber circle. After Turnbull & Walsh (1997). Plan of Broomrigg C. After Hodgson & Harper (1950). Section through Broomrigg C. After Hodgson & Harper (1950). Plan of Banniside ringcairn. After Collingwood (1912). Section through Banniside ringcairn. After Collingwood (1912). Funerary cairn on The Tongue, Troutbeck.

102 102 104 105 106 107 107 109 109 114

9.1.

119

9.3. 9.4. 9.5. 9.6. 9.7. 9.8. 9.9. 9.10. 9.11. 9.12. 9.13. 9.14. 9.15. 9.16. 9.17. 9.18. 9.19. 9.20. 9.21. 9.22. 9.23. 9.24. 9.25. 9.26. 9.27.

Layout of the Furness Peninsula. Map data © Crown Copyright Ordnance Survey. An Edina Digimap/JISC supplied service. The Furness transect survey, illustrating presence and absence of lithic finds. Map data © Crown Copyright Ordnance Survey. An Edina Digimap/JISC supplied service. Moorhead Cottages, facing north east. Dungeon Lane, surrounded by higher ground. Stank valley, facing north west. Summary data of lithic scatters from coastal lowlands. Blade based material from coastal scarp scatters. Illustrations by Sharon Arrowsmith. Location of scatters and empty fields along the coastal scarp. Location of lithic scatters on south Walney. Lithic scatters associated with the Mill Beck valley. Looking north west towards Breastmill Beck. Lithic scatters at Gleaston and environs. The Gleaston valley, looking north west. Summary data of blade based valley scatters. Summary data of blade based scatters on higher ground. Distribution of lithics and finds of stone axes and bronzes across Furness. Monuments, burials and finds in the Urswick environs. View of the Leven estuary promoted by the setting of Birkrigg stone circle. Excavation plan of Birkrigg stone circle. After Gelderd & Dobson (1912). View of the Leven and the fells beyond from the Birkrigg summit cairn. Part of the south eastern perimeter of the Skelmore Heads enclosure. Summary data of mixed and ‘later’ scatters from the Furness transect. Summary data of scatters from Walney. Selection of lithic finds from Mulgrew’s (MUL). Illustrations by Sharon Arrowsmith Selection of lithic finds from Roanhead (RD). Tiny polished stone axe from Roanhead (RD). Plan of excavated features at Roanhead, Sandscale Haws (RD).

121 121 121 122 122 123 123 124 124 124 124 125 125 125 126 129 129 130 131 133 133 134 135 135 136

10.1. 10.2. 10.3.

Encounters with mountains. Photo: Mark Edmonds. View into the central Lakes from an axe quarry on Stickle Pike. Walking over quarry waste. Photo: Mark Edmonds.

142 143 143

7.18. 7.19. 7.20. 7.21. 7.22. 7.23.

9.2.

vi

92 94 94 95 96 96 98

119

Acknowledgements This volume is dedicated to my family, without whose help and support this research would not have been possible. Many, many thanks are due to my parents, Margaret and Lionel Scott, for their constant support and encouragement, and for putting up with me, my dog and other people in their house for long periods of time. Thanks also to my brother David for periodically dragging me away from academia to play in the countryside. More recently, the publication of this thesis has been hindered by Dave Tyler, and my apprenticeship into the world of building limes. Many thanks are due to Mark Edmonds for his dedicated supervision and his support and encouragement through my time at Sheffield. It will be evident that Mark has influenced the character of this thesis in many ways. I hope our shared obsession with Cumbria has produced results which match his expectations. Sandra Robinson and Mark Jackson introduced me to Birkrigg, Stone Walls and the archaeology of the Furness limestones in the early 1990s. Dave Coward’s. encyclopaedic local knowledge and commitment to prehistoric archaeology in Furness was also a source of enthusiasm and encouragement. Without access to the lithic data from Dave’s fieldwalking project and the many long discussions resulting from its analysis, this thesis may well have been very different in character. Many thanks are due to Sharon Arrowsmith for stepping in at such a late date and producing beautiful illustrations of the rocks. I am grateful to Mark Brennand for his support and advice and for taking the time to comment on drafts of the original thesis. Mark’s knowledge of prehistory formed the basis for many discussions and as Co-ordinator of English Heritage’s Regional Research Framework for the North West (2006, 2007) he provided the opportunity for useful meetings with other archaeologists working in the area. The Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society kindly provided funds to help with the expenses of the Furness Transect project, and together with the National Trust, paid for Radiocarbon dating material from Sizergh Tumulus 2. Thanks are also due to Caroline Skinner who provided me with a copy of her unpublished PhD thesis. This has contributed greatly to the region’s environmental record and provided much needed dating evidence. Any misrepresentation of her data stems from my poor understanding of pollen analysis. Jamie Lund, Robert Maxwell, Pete Burton and Brian Fereday of the National Trust licensed our excavations at Sizergh and Roanhead, lent us tools and provided other information. Thanks are due to Jamie Lund in particular for providing data from the National Trust SMR, and for his boundless enthusiasm. Helena Smith provided information from the County SMR and Eleanor Kingston and John Hodgson from the Lake District National Park SMR. I am grateful to Tim Allen for helping me with the GIS and for listening to a great deal of ranting. Finally, thanks to Mills and especially the late Bean for being brown and for looking after me on our many adventures on the fells. The following volume is an almost unchanged version of my PhD thesis, submitted at the University of Sheffield in 2005. Due to publication costs, the thesis has however lost the many colour images necessary to ‘get across’ particular aspects of the landscapes under discussion. I hope this does not detract from any of the arguments and observations made.

vii

viii

Introduction “A revival of prehistoric studies in our district entails three kinds of work. First, to become acquainted with the discoveries already on record, and to think out their implications. Secondly, by new field-work to make fresh discoveries. Thirdly, to master the apparatus of the modern prehistorian, and, in particular, to know one’s way about the best recent literature” (Collingwood 1933: 165).

production of distribution maps at different scales to assess the distribution and landscape setting of particular types of sites and finds. Only then would it be possible to complete the third stage, that of interpretation.

Writing in 1933, Collingwood's call for a ‘revival’ of prehistoric study in Cumbria neatly sums up the scope of the following thesis. Although archaeological method and theory have seen significant alteration in the intervening 80 years, Cumbria’s prehistoric record has seen little consistent academic attention. Together with data derived from new fieldwork, this thesis outlines and discusses the evidence available and brings it in line with current interpretative methodologies.

The following thesis draws on Collingwood’s ideas in a number of ways, not least in that in order to interpret Cumbria's prehistoric record at a regional scale, it has been necessary to analyse and interpret many disparate strands of evidence. Only through setting out and discussing previously available evidence and adding to it through new fieldwork and excavation is it possible to construct, then forward an holistic and integrated regional sequence in line with contemporary academic schema.

One of the problems this research was designed to address is that Cumbrian stone axes have dominated interpretations of the region’s prehistory and that analyses have been based largely on their distribution at a national scale. This study is not, however, concerned specifically with stone axes, nor with attempting to ‘fit’ evidence for Neolithic occupation and monument use into narratives concerning their production and exchange. Instead, through the use of an integrated approach, its aim is to explore patterns of occupation and landuse in Cumbria from the Later Mesolithic to the Early Bronze Age. Rather than focussing on a period specific study or one based on the analysis of a particular category of archaeological evidence, the main concern of this research is to produce an integrated regional sequence. Only then will it be possible to address research questions relating to specific aspects of Cumbria’s prehistoric record.

The analyses undertaken for the production of this thesis have included the examination of environmental data, the collection and characterisation of lithic scatters, interpretation of the distributions, settings and architecture of monuments and the analysis of burial and depositional practices. Beyond integrating the evidence within a coherent intellectual framework, basic data analysis has been problematic. There is no regional chronology and there are biases relating to the survival and identification of particular types of evidence, across the region and across different topographic zones. The ways this information has been collected and interpreted in the past has also caused problems at a number of levels. Despite this, it has been possible to produce internally coherent datasets with which to work and to interpret them at a number of geographical and analytical scales.

One of the main problems with the production of a regional narrative has been the reconciliation of evidence for localised occupation and monument use with contemporary academic interpretations. Conventional ‘grand narrative’ approaches to prehistoric archaeology have tended to collapse evidence for regional diversity into simplistic national syntheses. Although recent approaches have stressed the existence and importance of distinctive regional traditions, most have focussed on their theoretical implications rather than their material manifestations. Fundamentally, if we want to explore the nature of regional traditions, we need holistic studies of specific areas based on the analysis, integration and interpretation of raw data. This is not a new idea, but one that often falls outside the scope of regional studies.

Chapter one provides an introduction to Cumbrian landscapes and demonstrates the need for a regional approach towards the county’s prehistoric record. Drawing on the use of theoretically informed landscape perspectives in the interpretation of prehistoric occupation, chapter two sets out the methodological and interpretative frameworks forming the basis of this study. Chapter three outlines the character and distribution of environmental and lithic data and develops a model of the likely nature of landuse and occupation these represent. Chapter four introduces the monument record and outlines methodological approaches to particular monument types. Chapter five discusses the classification and interpretation of stone circles and chapter six interprets the character and distribution of all Neolithic and Early Bronze Age monuments. Analysis of the landscape settings of monuments (chapter seven) and evidence for burial and deposition (chapter eight)

In 1933, R. G. Collingwood forwarded a four-headed approach for the advancement of knowledge of Cumbrian prehistory; office work, fieldwork, excavation and publication. The office work included three main tasks. The first task, the cataloguing and classification of sites and finds would be followed by the second, the 1

illustrate the social and geographical scales at which communities operated over the Neolithic and Bronze Age and how they drew on and appropriated aspects of the natural world. Demonstrating the articulation of themes discussed in earlier chapters, chapter nine takes the form of an integrated case study of occupation, monument use

and depositional practice across the Furness Peninsula. The final chapter discusses the nature and identification of regional traditions, forwards an integrated regional narrative and concludes with suggestions for further work.

2

Chapter 1: Welcome to Cumbria: geography and legacy However, the lack of an identifiable chambered long cairn tradition has impacted significantly on the way the area has been perceived. Since the delineation of the ‘Western Neolithic’ style zones, Cumbria has remained marginal to the classificatory and interpretative schema of the Irish Sea traditions (Piggott 1954; Powell et al. 1969; Cummings & Fowler 2004). Rather than shared monument traditions, it has been the distribution of stone axes from the central Lakes that has been used to identify links across the Irish Seaboard (e.g. Cooney 2000; Cummings 2004).

Introduction The geographical location and distinctive topographic character of Cumbria have had a significant impact not only on the character and survival of its prehistoric record, but also the ways it has been interpreted in the past. Looking at the region from a number of different historical and geographic perspectives, this chapter is concerned with two main themes; an introduction to the internal layout of Cumbria, and discussion of how its prehistoric archaeology has been understood from within, and in relation to its neighbouring regions. These factors have left a formidable legacy. Grand narrative approaches have often overlooked the importance of Cumbria as a prehistoric region, and local and academic research has built on culture historical concerns with charting its links with other areas rather than defining a coherent regional sequence. Although there is a significant amount of material with which to work, this has seen little synthesis or interpretation at a regional scale. Cumbrian geographies Cumbria is situated both within northern England and on the western seaboard (figures 1.1 & 1.2). Its geographical positioning has meant it has been secondary to the interpretative traditions which characterise these areas. To its east, the Pennine ridge has been understood as a physical and a conceptual barrier separating the Highland and Lowland Zones of mainland Britain. The delineation of these areas, largely on the basis of geology (e.g. Fox 1932; Childe 1940), has led to the marginalisation of western Britain from the so-called ‘core’ regions of the south and east. From culture historical approaches onwards through processual and post-processual perspectives, the monuments of the Lowland Zone have often been understood to reflect the ‘prehistoric process’ at a national scale. Consistently dependent on re-reading the same datasets, influential theoretical narratives based largely on the monuments of Wessex have been used to chart the emergence of social and political hierarchies, to discuss ritual landscapes and to explore the experiential aspects of monumental architecture (e.g. Renfrew 1973; Clarke 1972; Burgess 1980; Bradley 1984; Thomas 1991, 1993, 1999; Barrett 1994). Although reliance on these areas has provided the datasets through which to forward grand narrative accounts, understandings of regions in the north and west remain based largely on the classification schema forwarded by the proponents of culture history (see Harding 2000; Cummings & Whittle 2004; Cummings & Fowler 2004).

Figure 1.1 (top): Cumbria on the Irish Seaboard. Figure 1.2 (bottom): Cumbria in northern England. Land over 200m OD is stippled.

A similar situation exists with the relationship between Cumbria and its neighbours to the east. Largely in reaction to the interpretive bias towards the south, calls have been made for integrated accounts of the prehistory of northern England (e.g. Harding et al. 1996; Frodsham 2000). However, where Cumbria is mentioned in research agendas for the north, attention is commonly focussed on furthering knowledge of the exchange networks illustrated by the distribution of stone axes (Bradley & Edmonds 1993; Durden 1996; Harding et al. 1996; Bradley 2002b; Harding 2003). With perhaps the exception of the perceived role of the Penrith henges in ‘facilitating’ the movement of axes across the Pennines, monuments in Cumbria have played only minor roles in accounts of northern England. Traditionally understood

Cumbria was claimed as a Secondary Neolithic region on the basis of finds of stone axes and Peterborough ware from Ehenside Tarn (Darbishire 1873; Piggott 1954). 3

as one of the core areas of the Lowland Zone, the largely earthen monuments of the north east have been easy to relate, at a superficial level at least, to those of the southern chalklands. As such, on the basis of present knowledge, a ‘prehistory of the north’ would remain biased towards those regions east of the Pennines.

interpretation in the past, it became clear that these potentials could only be realised through an holistic and multi-scale approach. In order to produce a coherent and integrated regional account then, it has been necessary to confront the lithic, monument and environmental records from ‘the bottom up’.

First impressions

This change in focus, and the increased bulk of the data that came with it, meant it was necessary to limit the physical scale of primary research and also that the evidence available could be confronted from different geographical perspectives. The key categories of data forming the foci for this research are most clearly represented across the southern half of Cumbria and in many cases occur in close spatial proximity. Taking in the central and south western fells, the west coast and the Morecambe Bay peninsulas, analysis of unpublished survey data, Sites and Monuments Records and published accounts has allowed integration and analysis of the evidence at a close landscape scale. For the remainder of the region, research has been based primarily on published sources. Shifting the focus away from the Eden Valley has meant it has been possible to redress some major regional imbalances, and has also allowed comparison between traditions of occupation and monument use across different areas of Cumbria. Not only this, looking at the county’s prehistoric record from different geographical scales has meant it has been possible to further understand ways that local and regional traditions related to those evidenced beyond modern political boundaries.

“In Prehistoric times the wildness of the unaccustomed heights and the hostility of the natives may well have persuaded strangers that the boundaries of the region were safer than its unknown heart” (Burl 1988:183).

As a native of Cumbria, I found the ways the region has been treated frustrating at a number of levels. It was this frustration which led in part to the initiation of this research. Reading around the available local literature it became clear that although the area had seen a significant history of archaeological investigation, there was no clear regional account. That academic accounts were dominated by the production of stone axes and their subsequent movement beyond the county boundaries led to some questions about what was happening inside. What were people doing when they weren’t making axes or trading them at stone circles? How did the diversity of landscapes in Cumbria affect patterns of movement and occupation across different parts of the region? How did this relate to narratives based on the southern chalklands? Looking at the evidence, it was striking that the distribution of monuments and axe finds along major routeways between the uplands and lowlands, and occupation sites along the coast suggested the layout of the landscape impacted on occupation and communication in the past much as it does in the present. As will be discussed below, this was by no means a new idea. However simplistic, it paved the way to thinking about Cumbria’s prehistoric record from my own perspective; from the inside, from the valleys and dales rather than from beyond the county boundaries or from the bird’s eye perspective of a distribution map.

The layout Romantic attitudes towards the central fells have been problematic to the ways Cumbria has been perceived. Carrying with them a raft of preconceptions, the fells which dominate the ‘Lakes’ often loom larger in the imagination than they do in much of the region. Not only does this owe much to the area’s literary history (see Nicholson 1955; Edmonds 2004), it also stems from the delineation of political boundaries. From a map-based perspective, the Lake District National Park (established in 1951) remains central to views of Cumbria. This has meant not only that those areas outside the central Lakes are often overlooked, but also that the wide diversity of landscapes which characterise the county as a whole rarely see consideration. As the fells are central to perceptions of the county, they are also central to its geological layout (figure 1.3). However, the drainage system stemming from central Cumbria spreads north to Carlisle, south to Morecambe Bay, west to the Irish Sea and east to the Pennines. Put in the simplest terms, the geological configuration of Cumbria is akin to the effect of slicing the top off an onion; the older rocks lie at the centre of the region, with the later, softer, deposits encircling them in virtual rings (Nicholson 1955, 1972). Whilst they were laid down in layers, the rocks have weathered in different ways and their makeup is central to understanding the character of different areas of the region. The oldest rocks, the dark, smooth Skiddaw

At the outset of this research, it was envisaged that detailed analysis of the substantial lithic archive available (see below) could provide a context through which to understand the relationship between domestic occupation, landuse and the construction and use of monuments. Following basic data collection however, it became clear that there are significant problems with the ways all aspects of the prehistoric record have seen analysis and interpretation in the past. Methodological approaches towards much of the data were disorganised and incoherent and interpretation of different categories of evidence unreliable, based often on historically constituted re-readings of the same datasets. This meant that looking at lithics in relation to monuments and environmental data would be untenable. There are many different categories of evidence available, including the landscape itself, and each have their own specific potentials for the understanding of prehistoric occupation. Looking at the ways in which the evidence has seen 4

form flattish hills and fells with shallow valleys, and lie in turn against the newer grey-white limestone fells of the eastern uplands and Morecambe Bay peninsulas. The Red Sandstones form a belt of rich lowland arable virtually encircling the rocky landscapes that characterise much of the Lake District (Nicholson 1972). Emerging in Furness then running up the coast to St Bees, these cover most of the Solway Plain to Carlisle before returning south down the Eden valley.

Slates, occupy much of northern Lakes, with a few outlying patches such as Black Coombe on the south west coast (Shackleton 1966). The Borrowdale Volcanic Series formed when a series of volcanoes erupted from the seabed formed by the slates. From their vents spread interleaved beds of lava of blue grey ash, tuff and breccias (ibid.). These rocks vary in hardness and weathering into different configurations of hard high ridges and crumbling screes, include the Scafell group, the Coniston range, the Langdales, Helvellyn and High Street.

Whilst Cumbria has been understood as a coherent region distinct from others in northern England, it is also split into discrete areas by virtue of its internal topography. Until 1974, Cumbria consisted of three Lake Counties; Cumberland, Westmorland and Lancashire-north-of-theSands (figure 1.4). Standing on Wrynose Pass on the line of the Roman road running between the central Lakes and the west coast by way of Hardknott Roman fort, the Three Shires Stone marks the traditional boundary between these distinct and very different areas of Cumbria. The delineation of the three counties has been defined not by solid geology, but by the effects of glaciation. It was the movement of ice that created the systems of U-shaped dales and lakes radiating from the central fells and running into the diversity of lowland landscapes beyond. The county of Cumberland incorporates the bulk of the central and western mountains and lakes and the valley systems that characterise them. In the north these run north west/south east, bordering on the Solway with Dumfriesshire, to the north east with the Pennines and to the west with the Irish Sea. Between St Bees and the Duddon estuary, the valleys are oriented north east/south west. Cumberland and Westmorland meet along a line broadly stretching between the Langdales, Helvellyn and Ullswater. Taking in the mountains and high fells south of Ullswater and east of Windermere, the Shap uplands and the southern Eden valley, Westmorland is predominately landlocked. Bordering the Pennines to the east, the area is defined by the north/south running valleys of the Lune, Lowther and the Eden, linked to North Lancashire by the the Kent as it flows into Morecambe Bay. Lancashire-north-of-the-Sands is defined to the west by the Duddon estuary and to the east by the Winster and Lake Windermere. The region includes a variety of landscapes from the Coniston range, to the lowlying areas surrounding the north/south running lakes of Windermere and Coniston and the southern peninsulas. Although apparently isolated, squeezed between Cumberland and Westmorland, the area has traditionally been allied with Lancashire by way of communication across the sands of Morecambe Bay.

Figure 1.3. Simplified geological makeup of Cumbria. After Shackleton (1966).

The Lake Counties are clearly defined by the physical makeup of modern Cumbria and the ways the valleys radiate from the central fells. This pattern of ridges and dales was compared by Wordsworth to a spoked cartwheel, with its hub somewhere near Dunmail Raise, north of Grasmere (Nicholson 1972).

The Coniston Flags and Grits, the Banniside Slates and the Kirby Moor Flags characterise the southern slopes of the central Cumbrian dome from Coniston to Windermere and Kendal (Shackleton 1966). In contrast with the hard craggy volcanics against which they lie to the north, these 5

Figure 1.4. Main locations mentioned in the text. Inset: layout of the Three Shires.

6

However, antiquarian records attest to the removal of stone circles and burial cairns in lowland areas and also to finds located whilst quarrying sand and stone for building materials.

Although this lies on the main north/south route between Windermere and Keswick, this hub is not a gathering point, rather a point of departure (ibid.). That the three counties have been locked into different networks of communication with their neighbours is due not only to their physical location, but also that life has been lived up and down the dales which run from the fells, rather than across them: “Like the becks it begins at the dale head, gathers tributaries from farms and hamlets, and descends to the comparative lowlands where it usually finds a village or small town” (Nicholson 1972: 16).

In lowland coastal contexts, peat cutting and the drainage of wetland areas for agriculture revealed a rich record of features such as buried trackways, metalwork, stone axes and occupation evidence. The drainage of Ehenside Tarn, for example, revealed a wealth of waterlogged wooden material alongside ceramics and stone axes (Darbishire 1873). In areas where land has been reclaimed and subsequently ploughed, the margins of former ponds, mosses or tarns have consistently revealed scatters of lithic material.

“How greatly the mountains divide the people who live among them can be seen from the case of the two Seathwaites. Both are dale villages. From one to another is less than ten miles as the raven flies....But one Seathwaite is in Borrowdale, which runs due north, and the other is in Dunnerdale, which runs due south. The farmer’s wife in Borrowdale does her shopping in Keswick; Her next dale neighbour beside the Duddon goes down to Broughton, and beyond to Ulverston or Barrow. Barrow and Keswick are not widely separated to anyone with a car, but, until recently, the dalesman did not often own a car, and if he tried to make the journey by rail, he would have been lucky to manage it in four hours” (Nicholson 1972: 17).

During the mid to late nineteenth century, the increasing intensity of antiquarian activity, an offshoot of ‘gentlemanly’ interests that also included sketching and survey, led to the excavation of many monuments, only few of which reached publication. Together with anecdotal descriptions and surveys (e.g. Eccleston 1872; Clifton Ward 1878; Dymond 1880, 1881, 1890, 1892; Taylor 1881) barrow excavations were undertaken by wealthy landowners and other dignitaries such as Canon Greenwell (1866, 1877), Canon Simpson (1882), Swainson Cowper (1888), Lord Lonsdale (Mawson 1876) and Lord Muncaster (Dymond 1892).

Landuse, enclosure and the antiquarian legacy Not only has the configuration of Cumbria determined the ways communications between different areas have been played out, it is also closely entwined with the region’s social, agricultural, industrial and archaeological history. The second half of the nineteenth century brought the railways, and due in part to the Romantic Poets, the railways brought mass tourism into the central Lakes. The railways also impacted on the growth of the mining and ironworking districts spawning urban construction in both its tourist and industrial towns. Around the same time, drainage, clearance and enclosure brought about considerable changes to the agricultural landscape. Although both urban and rural expansion were destructive to archaeology, the recognition of burial sites and chance finds, alongside the growth of antiquarianism, meant a fostering of interest in the prehistoric record.

The Collingwoods W. G. Collingwood, eminent historian, novelist, and secretary to John Ruskin was amongst the last antiquarian excavators in the region, undertaking relatively detailed investigations of prehistoric monuments (1901, 1912; Cross & Collingwood 1929). Collingwood published inventories of the prehistoric and historic monuments of Cumberland (1923) followed by those of Westmorland and Lancashire-north-of-the-Sands (1926), culminating in his guide The Lake Counties (1932). After his death in 1932 his equally influential son, Robin Collingwood, professor of metaphysical philosophy and the author of The Idea of History (1946) took over his father’s mantle as president of the Cumberland and Westmorland Archaeological and Antiquarian Society. Perhaps R. G. Collingwood’s most influential contribution was his paper An Introduction to the Prehistory of Cumberland, Westmorland and Lancashire-north-of-the-sands (1933), which outlined understandings of the region’s prehistoric record and aimed to set a research agenda for the society's newly established Committee for Prehistoric Studies. Concerned with the lack of interest in prehistoric archaeology in the years following the First World War, Collingwood urged that if properly studied, the region’s prehistoric remains could “contribute their quota towards solving the general problems of prehistory” (1933: 165).

Although urban construction produced many axes and other implements, it was activity associated with land improvement and enclosure that had the greatest affect on the archaeological landscape. Today, the most visually impacting of these is the relationship between upland and lowland monuments. On the upland fringe, particularly on the south western and eastern fells, there are many extant cairnfields. Frequently ending abruptly at the enclosure boundaries, which often extend deep into the valleys, stone built cairns and other features were often used as quarries for wall building materials (Edmonds & Evans in prep). That monuments in lowland contexts remain extant both on common land and emparked landscapes, and are visible as soilmarks on aerial photographs, attests to the intensity of improvement before and during the main period of enclosure. In both upland and lowland contexts, it was in only relatively few cases that features destroyed by clearance were recorded.

Collingwood’s interpretative scheme, drawing on the ideas of Childe (1925, 1930) and Fox (1932) was impressive both in scale and discussion and delivered with intuitive foresight. He addressed the geographical 7

monuments (Burl 1976; Masters 1984), with the long and round cairns of the Eden valley linked to the Yorkshire traditions (Manby 1970; Masters 1984; Kinnes & Longworth 1985; Bradley & Edmonds 1993).

patterning of monuments in different landscape zones and within and between the different regions of Cumbria, together with erudite discussion of burial traditions and the distribution of stone axes and bronzework in relation to settlement evidence. Although the strength of Collingwood’s work was that his interpretations were based on the integration of different aspects of the prehistoric record, it also clearly illustrates the two key themes that have come to characterise studies of Cumbrian prehistory. The first has been the identification of links to the Irish Seaboard and Eastern Yorkshire and the routes through which these were maintained. The second, a debt to Fox (1932), is that through its very physical location, the region has been understood as culturally backward and of little significance compared to its neighbours.

There has been some suggestion of minor differences between monument traditions either side of the Cumbrian mountains (e.g. Collingwood 1933; Burl 1976; Bradley & Edmonds 1993). However these have been significantly overstated, not least as there are major problems of coverage between the east and west of the county, and the antiquarian excavations upon which many interpretations have been based were biased towards the Eden Valley (e.g. Greenwell 1874, 1877; Taylor 1881, 1886). This situation has been further exacerbated by an over reliance on the external morphology of extant and unexcavated monuments to draw links between different regions. These factors have meant that a very small number of monuments bearing superficial similarities to those from other areas have seen consistent attention to the detriment of the many other examples that exist in the region.

Collingwood considered the application of conventional dating schema inappropriate: “when the successive waves of civilisations came, they reached our remote western corner quite late if at all” (1933:170). Lacking Early Neolithic dolmens or ‘true’ long barrows, the area was thought to have been populated through the arrival of Secondary Neolithic cultures and the Beaker Folk, between 1800 and 1500 BC (ibid.). Collingwood was aware that Scandinavian archaeologists had assigned axes of the 'thin-butted type' to the Early Neolithic. However, in line with contemporary British schema (e.g. Childe 1925), “the fact that these axes are common in the district-about a hundred are known-makes it impossible to accept this chronological equation for our region, so we are obliged to put the axes at a much later date” (Collingwood 1933: 177). Beginning his interpretative scheme with the distribution of stone axes and stone circles which are at their densest in south and west Cumbria, Collingwood surmised that Secondary Neolithic communities arrived on the Irish Sea coast, then worked northwards from Black Coombe and inland towards the Derwent and Eden valleys (ibid.). The Beaker Folk entered the region from Yorkshire and worked their way down the Eden valley: “We may regard the Beaker Folk from the east and the circle builders from the west as meeting there and combining to found a hybrid civilisation” (ibid.: 181). This argument has proved to be a tenacious one.

The academic focus on the Neolithic monuments of Cumbria has meant those of Bronze Age date have often been overlooked. Although upland cairnfields, funerary cairns and ringcairns saw attention at the hands both of antiquarian and later excavators, culture historical interpretations of the Bronze Age in Cumbria, while discussing its geographical insularity, used material culture rather than monuments to stress links with Yorkshire and Ireland (e.g. Fell 1940, 1953; Fell & Hogg 1962; Clough 1968, 1969; Hogg 1972). Clare Fell in particular undertook to chart the routes that styles of metalwork, food vessels, beakers and collared urns had taken into different areas of Cumbria; through the Tyne gap or Swaledale into the Eden Valley, and from the Irish Sea coast into the south west of the region. In common with both earlier and later interpretations, Cumbria was understood as little more than a stopping point between areas perceived as having more interesting archaeology: “..if the area had any cultural effect on Ireland at this time, it was merely to transmit from Yorkshire and Northumberland pottery forms created there” (Fell 1940:126).

The lithic record

Monuments

Approaches to the lithic record stem from the discovery of scatters in sand dune contexts during the 1930s. Flints collected from Eskmeals, and reported by the CWAAS Committee for Prehistoric Studies (Spence 1937) formed the catalyst for further surveys, culminating in the first major evidence for Neolithic and Bronze Age ‘sandhill’ occupation sites (Fair 1936, 1937; Cross 1938, 1939, 1942, 1946, 1947, 1949, 1950; Barnes 1954, 1955). As early as 1939, lithics from Walney North End were described by Graeme Clark (Cross 1939) as being indicative of a ‘poverty industry’, with affinities to similar dune and raised beach sites in Northern Ireland and Western Scotland (e.g. Lacaille 1939, 1954).

The ‘hybrid’ nature of number of Cumbrian monuments, with architectural ‘affinities’ to both Highland and Lowland Zone traditions has been a key concern of academic interest in the region. The Penrith henges in the Eden Valley have been claimed as ‘geological hybrids’, sitting on the line drawn between the western stone circle traditions and the hengiform monuments of the east (e.g. Burl 1976). Mayburgh has been has been claimed as a derivative of the Irish passage graves, the eastern henges and the western stone circle traditions (Atkinson 1951; Burl 1976; Barnatt 1989, 1990; Bradley 1998). Along the west coast, Swinside stone circle and the long cairn of Samson’s Bratful have been claimed as western seaboard 8

different principles; whilst Later Neolithic/Early Bronze Age scatters from the eastern uplands have been linked with the Yorkshire traditions, the coastal dune scatters are seen to “confirm the poverty status of the industries” (Cherry & Cherry 1987b: 8).

Whilst affinities to Irish assemblages were defined on the basis of tool forms such as hollow scrapers and Bann River points (e.g. Cross 1939), links with Scottish assemblages were based largely on the diminutive size and poor quality of the pebble flint available along the Irish Sea coast. So whilst the term ‘poverty industry’ was initially ascribed on the basis of raw materials, it has been taken to imply that the lithic technology, and the prehistoric inhabitants to which it belonged, were ‘backward’ compared to the those of the flint rich Lowland Zone chalklands. This owes much to the ideas of Fox (1932) and Childe (1940) who stressed the stubborn insularity of the inhabitants of the Highland Zone. Discussing sandhill sites in western Scotland, Lacaille referred to their occupants as “squatters”, “small unenterprising societies” (1954: 276-77) late to take on the cultural aspects of the dominant Neolithic and Bronze Age cultures. This perspective clearly influenced interpretation of raised beach scatters from Cumbria. Nickson & Macdonald, in their discussion of a microlithic scatter from Drigg, concluded:

Despite the significant quantities of lithic material collected from the region, there remain some fundamental chronological and interpretative problems. Although detailed environmental data exists from many of the same areas from which flintwork has been derived (e.g. Pennington 1975; Tipping 1994), it remains that the actual character of landuse and domestic occupation these represent has seen virtually no discussion. Instead, it has been the distribution of the lithic evidence and the differential use of raw materials either side of the central fells that have seen consistent discussion. In common with monuments, interpretation of the lithic occupation evidence from Cumbria has focussed on its possible relationship to the exchange networks illustrated by the density of Cumbrian stone axes in Yorkshire (e.g. Bradley & Edmonds 1993; Durden 1996; Cherry & Cherry 2000, 2002; Bradley 2002b).

“...one has to remember that this has always been looked on as a backward region; if, therefore, the Drigg culture resembles a Mesolithic one, it may still be Neolithic in time” (1955: 29).

The Langdale ‘axe factories’

Spanning thirty years from the 1960s, field survey undertaken by the Cherry family has covered the west coast from St Bees to Haverigg and the eastern uplands between Shap and Kirby Stephen (Cherry 1963, 1965, 1967, 1969, 1982; Cherry & Cherry 1973, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987a, 1987b, 1992, 1993, 1995, 1996, 2002). The Cherrys’ approach to lithic characterisation has remained entrenched within culture historical diagnostic and interpretative frameworks. Ascribing large and often mixed assemblages to particular period specific ‘cultures’ has led to claims that no scatters in the region could be ascribed an Early Neolithic date (e.g. Cherry & Cherry 1996, 2002; see chapter three). Although the Cherrys have identified ‘Late Mesolithic’ and ‘Late Neolithic’ and ‘Bronze Age’ industries, this argument has been maintained despite the fact that pollen records illustrate clear evidence for Early Neolithic clearance and cultivation (e.g. Pennington 1975). The perceived technological backwardness of Early Neolithic communities in Cumbria has therefore been taken to imply that:

Research into the production and distribution of Cumbrian stone axes is of both regional and national importance. It has been the national importance that has seen consistent attention; we still understand little of the context of axe production and circulation within the region. Although the focus on stone axes has been detrimental to understanding the character of the remainder of Cumbria’s prehistoric record, this situation is ironic as axes have the potential to shed light on the character of occupation and landuse. Closer understandings of their social and domestic contexts are of fundamental importance to a regional narrative. Much of the early research on the production and distribution of Cumbrian axes was undertaken by Clare Fell, whose contribution to current understandings of the region’s prehistoric record cannot be underestimated. Concentrating largely on material culture studies, Fell’s work included many gazetteers and discussion of the distribution of material culture, stone axes in particular (e.g. Fell 1948, 1950, 1953, 1954, 1957, 1964, 1967, 1971, 1972, 1974, 1980; Bunch & Fell 1949; Fell & Hogg 1962; Fell & Coles 1965; Fell & Davies 1988).

“..in chronological if not cultural terms, Late Mesolithic communities in Cumbria were contemporaneous with Early Neolithic communities in East Yorkshire” (Cherry & Cherry 2002: 14).

Although stone axes had been found in the vicinity of Stake Pass as early as 1918 it was not until their petrological sourcing to the Borrowdale Volcanic Series (Keiller et al. 1941), that their production and distribution came under detailed investigation. As petrological analysis was undertaken across Britain, the distribution of Group VI forms sparked interest not only in the ‘industrial’ scale of production that had taken place at the ‘axe factories’ but also the exchange networks linking Cumbria to other regions (Fell 1948, 1954, 1964; Bunch

The majority of scatters from the west coast are made up of the locally available pebble flint that characterises the ‘poverty industries’ of the Irish Seaboard. Scatters from the eastern uplands however comprise significant amounts of chalk flint, thought to derive from Yorkshire (Cherry & Cherry 2000, 2002). At a basic level, this has meant lithic occupation evidence from either side of the Cumbrian mountains has seen interpretation according to 9

exploration of their character and chronology. Both academic and local archaeologists have focussed either on researching specific monument types or on the collection and analysis of particular elements of material culture. Interpretations of the environmental record, undertaken by pollen analysts, have fallen back on grand narrative accounts, which in turn have been used to interpret other aspects of the prehistoric record. The academic separation of ‘specialist’ approaches has also meant there has been little successful integration of different categories of evidence and with the lack of secure dating, that there is no clear regional sequence with which to work. This means we understand little of the local or regional character of occupation across Cumbria, or how this changed over the Neolithic and Bronze Age. A regional account needs therefore to deal with the different categories of evidence available not simply as normative economic indicators or as links to other regions, but as evidence of occupation and landuse across the physical landscapes of Cumbria itself. Despite numerous chronological insecurities, the analysis and integration of different datasets from different areas of the region can provide ways into understanding the relationship between people and the land in a way that is neither economically deterministic or overly normative.

& Fell 1949; Plint 1962, 1978; Manby 1965; Clough 1973; Houlder 1979; Cummins 1979, 1980; Claris & Quartermaine 1989; Bradley & Edmonds 1993). The research project undertaken by Bradley & Edmonds (1993) saw a shift in focus, being concerned with elucidating the social, rather than economic context of exchange in Neolithic Britain. Although excavations in the central fells have been invaluable to understanding the chronology of production, this work lacked close consideration of the social and domestic context of stone axes within the region. Although Bradley & Edmonds made gestures towards discussing ‘Great Langdale in its regional context’ (1993, chapter 7), interpretations of Neolithic occupation practice were simplistic, based on uncritical readings of palynological and lithic data. In fact, in common with earlier interpretations (e.g. Collingwood 1933; Manby 1965; Burl 1976), the bulk of the concluding narrative strayed from the monuments of the Eden Valley across the Pennine ridge to East Yorkshire. Discussion Interpreting the Axe Trade clearly illustrates the main problems this research has been designed to address. Wide scale academic investigations tend to pick out particular aspects of the prehistoric record for use as case studies in arguments pertaining to the major interpretative problems of British prehistory. Bradley and Edmonds (1993) had little concern with presenting an account of the Cumbrian Neolithic, focussing rather on the social context of axe production and circulation across Britain. The positioning of Cumbria is extremely conducive to these sorts of approach. As the region is important to the understanding of ‘national’ exchange networks, and as it sits between the Highland and Lowland zones, academic attention has often been focussed on using aspects of the prehistoric record to chart links across different regions and between different interpretative traditions. At a closer scale, the distinctive physical layout of the region, with valleys radiating from the ‘hub’ of the central Lakes occupied by the Borrowdale Volcanics, has meant it has been conducive to mapping the movement of the stone axes beyond its boundaries.

Conclusion Central to this introduction to Cumbria has been the consideration of different geographical scales of analysis. From the delineation of the Highland and Lowland Zones to the understanding of regional and inter-regional traditions, the physical configuration of Cumbria is intimately entwined with the ways its prehistoric record been approached in the past. From a closer perspective, the very diversity of landscapes across Cumbria has also affected the ways, and scales at which life has been lived both in the past and the present. If we are to understand the different social and geographical scales at which prehistoric communities operated, consideration of the character of local, regional and inter-regional landscapes must be central to any account. Not only is it necessary to approach the prehistoric record with reference to the physical landscapes in which life was played out, interpretation of the evidence must be set within an intellectual framework appropriate to working at these scales. The following chapter outlines the ways that theoretically informed landscape perspectives have been drawn on in the interpretation of the available datasets, and how their integration can inform understandings of the character of prehistoric occupation.

In general, grand narratives such as Interpreting the Axe Trade use synthetic studies to bulk out accounts of particular regions. However, the lack of modern excavation and consistent academic attention has meant these accounts have been based on interpreting the distribution of poorly understood datasets rather than

10

Chapter 2: Ways into the prehistoric landscapes of Cumbria Burl 1976; Barnatt 1989) or on the specific ways individual sites could be ‘experienced’ (e.g. Thomas 1993; Barrett 1994; Bradley 1998). The notion that monuments might illustrate something of the scale and character of occupation, and how this changed over time, remains one that is rarely considered.

Introduction This chapter is concerned with setting out the methodological and interpretative frameworks that form the central tenets of this study. The first section illustrates the geographical and theoretical scales of analyses employed and outlines the key themes and issues that will be confronted. Following this, a discussion of the use of theoretically informed landscape perspectives suggests the ways it is possible to interpret aspects of prehistoric occupation and landscape perception. This lays out approaches to understanding environmental data, lithic evidence and the monument record in the context of physical and socialised landscapes. The final section illustrates the methodological practicalities of constructing a regional landscape archaeology, and the means through which this has been achieved. Outlining the nature of the available evidence, and the original fieldwork undertaken, this demonstrates the process by which different classes of data have seen analysis and integration.

From the topographic settings and architecture of monuments to excavated sites, lithic scatters, environmental records, landscape surveys and monument distributions, the evidence can be approached at local, regional and inter-regional scales. By tacking back and forth between these scales (see Thomas 1998), it is possible to look at the social construction of community at different levels; the ways people moved and organised themselves across local and regional landscapes, and the ways, and places in which they came together. Through detailed investigation of different classes of evidence, we can begin to understand some of the ways localised traditions drew on those of the wider world, and how this changed over time. Only then will it be possible to assess how these practices articulated with the larger scale social processes evidenced in other areas.

Scales of analysis

There are significant interpretative, chronological and methodological problems pertaining to the integration of all aspects of the prehistoric record in Cumbria, as will be discussed in detail over the following chapters. In order to develop a regional perspective however, we need firstly to take into account the physical landscapes in which prehistoric occupation took place. Geographical scale is of central importance if we are to understand the ways that individual valley systems, different topographic zones and the places within them were chosen for occupation and the construction of monuments. In Cumbria this is perhaps easier than other areas in that much of the region is characterised by starkly contrasting upland and lowland landscapes including coastal and lowland areas, major and minor river valleys, fells and high mountainous uplands. However, these occur in different configurations throughout the county, and even across relatively small districts, individual areas are so different in so many ways it seems naïve to assume they were all occupied and thought about in the same ways by prehistoric communities. Consideration of the physical conditions in which people lived across different areas allows the analysis of localised histories of occupation. Across the southern and eastern limestones, for example, the character of landuse and occupation practice is likely to have been different to that in areas such as the Eden valley or the west coast. From the outset, this means evidence for prehistoric occupation is a product of histories, and these have to be understood in relation to local conditions.

The development of a regional sequence for prehistoric Cumbria demands an holistic approach, central to which is the integration and interpretation of the available evidence at different geographical and analytical scales. The question of scale is a critical one and is one of the central themes of this thesis. Chapter one demonstrated that the geographical scales at which the prehistoric record in Cumbria has been approached have been detrimental both to establishing a regional sequence and also to understanding the relationships between people and the landscapes they inhabited. At a closer level, the static chronological and geographical scales of analysis we often employ fail to capture the fact that within these landscapes, the lives of prehistoric communities worked at a variety of levels. Much as they do in the present, everyday lives would have operated across different places at different times and under varied sets of social circumstances. It is necessary we understand that everyday and seasonal subsistence tasks brought people into different spheres of contact than those where communities came together, for example, at large scale monuments. Consideration of routine temporalities is therefore of fundamental importance; not only with respect to understanding patterns of landuse and occupation, but also how routine life acted as a frame for reproducing ideas of social identity. Consideration of the ways and scales at which people operated can feed into understandings of different scales of community and also into understandings of monuments. This approach represents a departure from ‘traditional’ approaches to monuments which have focussed either on the distribution of particular forms across wide areas (e.g.

Each of the available datasets, including the physical landscape, has its own potentials. It is their exploration 11

The idea that landscapes are replete with humanly understood places not only provides contexts for human activity, it introduces the perspective that places are understood with reference to the past (e.g. Gosden 1994; Gosden & Head 1994). Whether this past be mythical, generational and/or tied into physical experience, research has demonstrated that aspects of the landscape are drawn on in the creation and maintenance of social identity (e.g. Taçon 1991; Bender 1993; Tilley 1994; Hirsch & O’Hanlan 1995; Ingold 2000). Understanding some of the themes underlying the ways small scale groups move around and perceive the landscapes in which they live means it is possible to look from more localised perspectives at the physical settings in which prehistoric activity took place (e.g. Tilley 1994; Edmonds 1999; Evans et al. 1999).

and integration which can allow the formulation of questions regarding the ways communities operated, and how this changed over time. How did monument location articulate with occupation evidence illustrated by lithic and environmental data? Does this suggest why different kinds of monuments were constructed in particular places, or particular types of places? Did this change over time? What do the settings of monuments suggest about the relationships between people and specific aspects of the natural world? And what was the relationship of funerary and other ritual and depositional practices to routine life? What do different types of monument, and the sorts of places that they were constructed, tell us about different scales of community? In other words, did large hengiform monuments operate at different social scales to small stone circles? Did large scale monuments remain in use into the Bronze Age? If so, how do they relate to the upland cairnfield record?

In many small scale societies, the distinctions we draw in the present between ‘nature’ and ‘culture’ are not clearcut, with elements of the natural world holding symbolic significance (e.g. Tuan 1977; Ingold 1986, 2000; Morphy 1995; Taçon 1991). Even in our own society, these lines are sometimes little more than arbitrary, as might be illustrated by modern and historical perceptions of the Lake District (see Edmonds 2004). Anthropological sources suggest features such as mountains, hills, rock outcrops and caves, as well as water sources such as rivers, lakes, springs and the sea may have held special importance. Acting not only as orientational foci, these may have held totemic significance, drawing on creation myths and concerns with ‘other’ worlds, supernatural or real, beyond that of the everyday. Important features are often linked by trackways, along which are networks of places, each with their own meanings and associations. The significance of these places is formed in a variety of ways, with reference to mythical and more recent pasts, and their relationship to resources (e.g. Morphy 1995; Taçon 1991). Journeys between different locales also hold great importance (Ingold 1986). Places and the pathways between them become enculturated through social and physical memory, and the stories told about them also act to encode information about the places and times where particular resources are available (e.g. Morphy 1993, 1995; Ingold 1986, 1993; Layton 1995; Ashmore & Knapp 1999). Histories and traditions are therefore created, maintained and recreated through reference to the intimate knowledge people have with routine landscapes (Ingold 1993). Knowledge gained through everyday tasks is passed down through generations and learnt through practical experience. Not only this, the deployment of practical skills in the routines and practice of daily and seasonal life tie into the affirmation of gender and age relations (e.g. Bourdieu 1977; Giddens 1984; Moore 1986; Fullagar & Head 1999).

Analysis of monuments at the scale both of local and regional landscapes must take account of time depth. Interpretations based on the distribution of particular chronologically specific monument classes tend to overlook the fact that monument clusters are the product of long term histories. Not only do static distribution maps often fail to represent older and younger monuments of different types in the vicinities, for example, of stone circles (e.g. Burl 1976; Barnatt 1989), they brush over the possibility that these monuments may themselves have seen re-use and elaboration after their initial construction. Analysis of time depth can only be confronted through an integrated analysis of all aspects of the monument record, and is of fundamental importance if we are to understand change over time. Places and times in the physical landscape These are significant and problematic questions, and before they can be confronted in detail, it is essential they are situated within a coherent intellectual framework. The development of theoretically informed landscape perspectives is relatively new to archaeology, and in order to interpret the evidence, it is necessary to draw on themes derived from a number of disciplines. The development of current understandings of, and approaches to the archaeology and perception of prehistoric landscapes have been driven by the ways geographers and anthropologists have come to understand the importance of the relationship between people and place. In some ways a reaction to ethnographically derived spatial modelling and concerns with economic adaptation (e.g. Binford 1979, 1980; Clarke 1968, 1972), later approaches stressed that landscapes are not merely environments or neutral backdrops against which people live (e.g. Relph 1976, 1981; Cosgrove 1984; Ingold 1993; Tilley 1994). From an archaeological perspective, this has transformed the ways the notion of ‘landscape’ can be understood (e.g. Fleming 1990; Bender 1993; Gosden & Head 1994; Chadwick 2004) and has also informed the scales at which landscapes can be approached.

Incorporating themes thrown up by anthropological studies of landscape occupation and perception into understandings of the prehistoric record is difficult in many ways. Not only are these examples modern and static snapshots of long term social and political histories 12

The architecture and settings of monuments draw heavily both on aspects of localised topography and wider landscapes. Their common location between landscape zones suggest concern with transitions (Bradley 1993; Tilley 1994). This is brought into focus by cursus monuments and processional ways which can be seen to draw lines between, and cross, different topographic zones (Barrett et al. 1991; Bradley 1993; Tilley 1994; Last 1999).

in other parts of the world, it remains that there is no universality of experience, even at a local scale. From a western perspective, we cannot recreate past understandings which were themselves the products of distinctive and dynamic histories of landscape use, perception, political and social change. However, taking the physical landscape as the basic unit of analysis, and looking at recurrent themes evidenced by the archaeological record (e.g. Barrett 1994; Gosden 1994; Layton & Ucko 1999) it should be possible to identify some of the ways prehistoric communities occupied and perceived the landscapes in which they lived, and how this changed over time. In other words, we can explore the character and temporality of specific traditions of landscape occupation, and ask how these were caught up in the fabric of social life.

Monuments were carefully located within the landscapes in which they were set; in relation to valley systems, landscape zones, and significant places within them. Set in order to fix vantage points in relation to the local and wider world, the views from many monuments often hold wide vistas, focussing on important natural features, local and regional landmarks (e.g. Richards 1993, 1996a, 1996b; Tilley 1994, 1996; Bradley 1998; Cummings & Whittle 2004; see chapter seven).

Ways into Cumbrian landscapes Monuments

Criticisms have been levelled at phenomenological approaches to ‘seeing-in-the-landscape’, not only in that such schools of thought stress the universality of physical and visual experience (see Cosgrove 1984; Bender 1993), but also that views from monuments in the present may have been restricted by vegetation (Fleming 1999; Cummings & Whittle 2004). In Cumbria, like many upland areas, the weather may have also precluded visibility. Given that communities would have had an intimate understanding of where (and when) monuments were located, it may be that seeing was not always of primary importance. Not only may the very act of monument construction have been great significance, the importance may lie in ‘knowing’ that the setting and architecture of monuments drew on, and ‘stood for’ important aspects of the social and physical world.

The act of architectural construction overtly formalised the significance of particular places (e.g. Bradley 1993). Tied into both social and physical landscapes, monuments would have been bound up in distinctive histories. Alongside the places in which they were constructed, the building materials utilised may have held symbolic associations and these would have been learnt though the construction and embellishment of monuments, the activities carried out within them, and in their environs (Edmonds 1999). Many monuments appear to have drawn on, or have been located and constructed with reference to what may be understood as their antecedents, features termed as the ‘natural’ monuments of the Mesolithic (e.g. Bradley 1991a, 1993, 2000a; Tilley 1994). Monument construction often mimicked geological forms (Richards 1996a; Tilley 1994, 1996) and like natural caves and fissures, monument architecture often allowed access to ‘other’ worlds, physically and metaphorically separated from the realms of everyday life (Barnatt & Edmonds 2002). The ways the anatomy of monuments allowed both physical and visual access had the affect of affirming and maintaining aspects of the social construction of community (Giddens 1984; Thomas 1993; Barrett 1994; Parker Pearson & Richards 1994).

So how can these ideas be drawn on and developed in the analysis of monuments in Cumbria? Looking at the settings of monuments and the ways they reference local and wider landscapes can demonstrate not only of the significance of particular places and natural features, but the ways these were drawn on over time. Although the prehistoric ‘meanings’ of aspects of the natural world are unknowable, recognition of the types of features referenced by monuments may suggest some of the ways they fed into the creation and maintenance of social identity.

Journeys or passages are key metaphors in both occupation and ritual practice (Ingold 1986, 1993; Last 1999). The provision of formal entrances to monuments of different types, like the entrances to caves and fissures, channel bodily movement and can also act as transformative portals, crossing which have the effect of inverting the concerns and inhibitions of everyday life (e.g. Van Gennep 1960; Douglas 1966). The very concept of ‘rites of passage’ suggests a concern with movement and transition. The ritualised bodily movement and procession suggested by the anatomy of monuments could therefore be understood as a metaphor of these themes, not only at a physical but also at a landscape scale.

Not only were many different types, and scales, of monument constructed over the Neolithic and Bronze Age, their physical configuration as they exist in the present represents the culmination of long term histories. Both individual sites and monument clusters were constructed and located with reference both to the natural world and to each other. Perhaps the clearest approach to understanding these histories therefore is to work back from the configuration of monuments as they appear in the present. If monuments are understood as embodiments of certain sets of ideas rather than examples of particular classificatory types (see chapter four), then 13

the reworking of individual sites, changing depositional traditions and the construction of ‘new’ forms might suggest alterations in the ways monuments were used and perceived, and illustrate something of the nature of social process.

would have remained relatively constant, changing environmental conditions, influenced by both anthropogenic and natural causes, are likely to have altered the ways particular areas were utilised and the resources they provided.

The analysis of monuments has to take place at a number of different geographical scales, as illustrated by the structure of the following chapters. Their changing distributions and locations over the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age can demonstrate shifts not only in the structure of community, but also the ways people organised themselves over different areas of local and regional landscapes (chapter six). The articulation of large scale ceremonial complexes and smaller scale monuments in other areas of the landscape can begin to illustrate the ways communities combined and separated at different times and places (chapter seven). Together with analysis of the burial and depositional practices associated with monuments and natural features (chapter eight), it is possible to suggest the ways, and places, in which social concerns were negotiated at different social and geographical scales, and how this changed over time.

Many areas of Cumbria have seen environmental analysis. In some cases in areas close to recorded prehistoric activity, records illustrate evidence for clearance and cultivation in particular landscape zones (e.g. Pennington 1970, 1975; Walker 1966a, 2001; Skinner 2000). The potentials of this material will be further discussed in chapter three. Palaeoenvironmental data is not without its problems, not least in the extent to which we can trace the scale and duration of vegetation change at an appropriate human scale. However together with evidence derived from lithic scatters and monuments, the environmental record can begin to illustrate some of the places, and sorts of places which were exploited and the ways this changed over time. Lithics In comparison with problems relating to the interpretation of environmental data, the lithic record is the clearest indicator of prehistoric occupation practice at a human scale. The very action of lithic exploitation, use and discard means the analysis of stone tools can be approached from different perspectives. Not only can their distribution and associations illustrate the character of landscape occupation, they can also suggest something of the significance of different types of tools and the materials from which they were made.

Environments If we are to begin to understand why monuments were constructed in particular places, we have to situate them in relation to the physical environment and contemporary patterns of movement and residence. Whilst the evidence for prehistoric occupation in Cumbria is problematic, both environmental and lithic data can be utilised to illustrate something of its nature, and how it changed over time (chapter three). Themes drawn from studies of small scale societies in other areas suggest the histories of particular communities would have been closely linked with locally distinctive landscape features and places that particular resources were available. Between the sea, the coastal and inland lowlands, up valleys into the fells and the high mountainous centre of the region, prehistoric communities would have had a intimate knowledge, learnt over time and passed down through generations, of the landscape and the resources different places and times had to offer.

Establishing the nature and chronology of occupation strategies on the basis of lithic scatters is problematic. However in conjunction with the physical characteristics of the landscapes in which these are located, together with environmental data, it is possible to formulate ideas of the ways people moved between and occupied particular habitat types and landscape zones (e.g. Foley 1981b). The composition of assemblages in different settings can suggest the sorts of activities that were carried out (Mellars 1976; Torrence 1986; Inzian et al. 1992; Edmonds 1995), and technological changes in the character of flintworking (Pitts & Jacobi 1979; Ford 1987; Ford et al. 1987; Edmonds 1987, 1995) can illustrate some of the ways this changed over time. At a broader scale, the local and regional conditions dictating the availability of workable stone likely informed different attitudes to particular raw materials and the ways, and places, that it was procured, worked and circulated. In cases where the locations of stone sources both within and outside a given region can be identified with certainty, the distribution of particular raw materials can illustrate the existence of local, regional and interregional networks of contact and affiliation (e.g. Bradley & Edmonds 1993).

The physical character of Cumbria and its occupation history into the present day demonstrates that it is not an easy region for people to impose themselves upon, rather, it imposes on them. Therefore, it is not environmentally deterministic to propose that the physical character of the landscape defined the ways prehistoric communities lived their day to day lives. Put another way, the varied nature of landscapes in Cumbria would have offered a series of potentials that shaped traditions of occupation. What we need to consider here are the specific ways these potentials can be established. Environmental data can be used to illustrate the presence and variety of vegetation cover across different topographic and ecological zones. Together with the physical character of different areas, these can suggest the differential availability of vegetation, animals and mineral sources. Although many

The interpretation of lithics in landscape studies is intimately linked to anthropologically derived 14

constructed with reference both to their immediate surroundings, to the wider landscape and to other monuments. The fieldwork undertaken was designed in order to address previous imbalances and to record the settings and locations of different monument types.

understandings of the ways occupation is linked to resource procurement. Like other naturally occurring resources, the use and procurement of stone tools and lithic raw materials in many small scale societies draws heavily on their social and symbolic attributes (e.g. Taçon 1991; Morphy 1995). Stone objects and the raw materials from which they are produced are not always understood purely as functional implements. Not only can these be symbolic of places and the qualities with which they were associated, they can also tie into the maintenance of age and gender distinctions (e.g. Binford 1979; Taçon 1991; Thomas & Edmonds 1987; Bradley & Edmonds 1993; Edmonds 1995, 2004; Fullagar & Head 1999).

It is possible to use Geographical Information Systems (GIS) in a variety of ways to assess the locational significance of different types of site, however it should not be seen as an interpretative tool in its own right. It simply does not provide us with ‘the answers’. Prehistoric monuments in other areas have seen a degree of analysis in relation to both aspect and viewsheds (e.g. Johnson & North 1997; Gillings et al. 1999; Cummings & Whittle 2004). Although these sorts of analyses highlight common themes, over reliance on GIS can have the effect of brushing over important aspects of the relationship between monuments and landscape. Viewshed analysis ‘looks out’ from monuments and fails to assess their settings in relation to localised landscape features. This situation is further exacerbated in that Ordnance Survey contour data, recorded for example at 10 or 20 metre intervals, often overlooks microtopographic changes and the presence of locally prominent landscape features. Not only did these inform the location and character of individual monuments, many such features obscure the digital ‘vistas’ that viewshed analyses produce. Furthermore, when monuments have been located through recent metric and GPS (Geographical Positioning System) survey, many are not in the exact same positions recorded by the Ordnance Survey. So although GIS is useful in order to assess the distribution and location of monuments, it is only as reliable as the map and archival data on which it is based and the questions which are asked of it. Rather than relying on digital data, assessment of the landscape settings of monuments was carried out on foot.

Practicalities of a regional landscape archaeology Confrontation of the issues outlined above can only occur after the available evidence has seen collation, analysis and integration. Only through the application of theoretical perspectives to raw data can an interpretative narrative can be put forward. As discussed in chapter one, although aspects of the region’s archaeology have seen a degree of attention, the majority of data pertaining to occupation and monument use remains undigested. It is necessary, therefore, to demonstrate the processes by which archival material has seen collation and analysis and how it has seen integration with the fieldwork elements of this study. In a perfect world, the different classes of evidence discussed above would be easily integrated to provide a narrative of landscape occupation, perception and social change. However, not only are there are major problems of academic legacy, geographical coverage and dating, the situation is further exacerbated by the lack of modern excavation. Although targeted critical analysis of aspects of the prehistoric record could provide closer understandings of the available data, it was necessary that ‘new’ material be derived through fieldwork. Financial and time constraints meant that the large scale survey and excavation needed to address major problems of coverage and chronology was impossible. Small scale projects however could begin to redress regional imbalances and provide contexts through which to reassess earlier interpretations of particular types of material. The fieldwork element of the project was concerned with two broad themes; undertaking small scale collaborative programmes of surface survey and excavation and characterising the landscape setting of monuments.

Assessment of the settings of all recorded monuments across the region would be no small undertaking. As such, although the vast majority of extant small and large stone circles across the county were recorded, the main focus for fieldwork was on the southern half of Cumbria. Visits were made to many of the different ‘types’ of monument identified; long and round funerary cairns, henges, stone circles, ringcairns and cairnfields. Analysis included recording aspects of their architecture, associations with other monuments and their relationship to localised landscape features. The ways monuments were set in relation to aspects of the wider landscape was also noted, and with open features, views were recorded from within them and from their wider environs. Recording the settings of monuments included textual description, photography and the analysis of unpublished survey plans, Ordnance Survey maps and GIS data. Looking at, and looking from these monuments at different geographical scales allowed the recognition of a number of common trends in monumental architecture and setting, and some of the ways this changed over time.

Landscape setting of monuments Looking at the settings of monuments in Cumbria has a long pedigree. Capturing the imaginations of poets, travelling writers and antiquarians from at least the seventeenth century (e.g. Aubrey 1650; Stukeley 1776; Dymond 1881), even into the present day, the focus has remained fixed on a limited number of the more ‘spectacular’ circles (e.g. Collingwood 1933; Burl 1976; Bradley 1998). Little attention has been paid to the ways in which monuments of all kinds were located and 15

which to forward a model of prehistoric occupation on the Furness peninsula (chapter nine) and also formed a platform from which to interpret aspects of the prehistoric record from across the county as a whole.

Survey and excavation Through consultation and collaboration with local and curatorial bodies, limited programmes of survey, surface lithic collection and excavation have also taken place. Targeted on the south Cumbrian peninsulas, this work has begun to redress a number of regional imbalances and allowed the confrontation of questions relating to localised processes and the ways these articulated across the county as a whole.

Collection and analysis of archival records Given the ways the prehistoric record in Cumbria has been approached in the past, it was necessary to initiate close scale analysis of the available archives to construct an internally coherent dataset. The main forms of evidence available were published and unpublished investigations and data derived from the county Sites and Monuments Record (SMR). Although published records included academic studies and those relating to the environmental record not available on the SMR, the majority of information was derived from notes and papers in the Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (CWAAS).

Over three seasons between 2002 and 2004, a programme of landscape survey and small scale excavation was carried out on Sizergh Fell, south of Kendal. A collaboration between the National Trust and the University of Sheffield, the project was designed to explore the character, extent and condition of prehistoric and historic archaeology in order to feed into conservation and management concerns. A major element of the project was the partial re-excavation of a funerary cairn, together with reassessment of material derived from its initial investigation (McKenny Hughes 1904b; Start 2002; Evans & Edmonds 2003). Together with analysis of beaker material, a stone axe and related material deposited in natural limestone outcrops in the environs of the cairn (McKenny Hughes 1904a, Edmonds et al. 2002), one of the main results of the project has been to provide a context from which to confront issues regarding the relationship between monuments and depositional practice.

Information available on the County SMR is variable in coverage and quality. Although the majority of data related to sources published by the CWAAS, the SMR also allowed access to unpublished survey records, excavation reports and chance finds. Every record in the ‘prehistoric’ and many in the ‘unknown’ category in the SMR were transcribed by hand, then inputted into a digital database. Unpublished records were collected from across the southern half of Cumbria, with data for this area alone comprising over 1300 records, including chance finds, burials, monuments and cairnfield areas.

On the Furness Peninsula, a large scale fieldwalking transect was initiated by local archaeologist Dave Coward in 1997. The lithic scatters recovered have been fully recorded, analysed and interpreted as part of the present study. The survey covered a number of topographic zones and areas where occupation evidence had been recorded in past. Significantly, this has allowed the reinterpretation of scatters collected between the 1930s and 50s and the integration of lithic data with the many Langdale axe finds collected from Furness over the past century (chapter nine). At Sandscale National Nature Reserve, coastal erosion of a scatter identified in a sand dune context prompted a small scale evaluation at Roanhead in collaboration with the National Trust and English Nature (Evans & Coward 2003, 2004). Revealing a stakehole structure, a number of pits and a substantial lithic assemblage, the excavation provided comparative data through which to assess previously collected material from similar contexts. Information concerning coastal formation and the effects of sand dune erosion on the visibility and destruction of archaeological sites has also fed into management and conservation plans for the reserve.

As the Lake District National Park Authority (LDNPA) and the National Trust also support SMRs relating to land under their ownership and management, further consultation with curatorial archaeologists meant detailed information not present on the County SMR was made available. Contact was also made with local and academic archaeologists working in the area. Gaining access to unpublished lithic collections, excavation records, environmental data and detailed local knowledge provided an invaluable resource and led to the collaborative fieldwork projects discussed above. The integration of the different categories of evidence was problematic at a number of levels. Not only have surveys, excavations and previous studies of the prehistoric record been set at different geographic and analytical scales, they are all products of different historically constituted approaches to specific categories of data. As will be discussed in the following chapters, this has caused problems, in particular concerning the construction of a coherent dataset with which to work. After the initial collection and collation of published and unpublished sources, the data was split into different categories; monuments of different types, burials, lithic scatters and other occupation evidence, chance finds and environmental records. Previous interpretations of each then saw critical analysis. In the first instance, this focussed on the reassessment of classificatory,

The lithic collections from Furness are of both local and regional importance. Together with evidence derived from excavation at Sizergh and Sandscale, the fieldwork undertaken has not only provided new data with which to work, it has allowed the reinterpretation of previously recorded material. This has provided evidence through 16

and to provide an integrated study of prehistoric occupation and monument use. Outlining the issues confronted over the following chapters, some of the means through which this will be achieved have also been established.

methodological and interpretative schema, and in the second to clarify (where this was possible) locational and structural details pertaining to individual sites. This process involved deconstructing the data, and the ways that different ‘types’ of evidence had been approached, recorded and understood in the past. In this light, the records were reorganised in order to simplify what was an extremely large and complex dataset (chapter four).

Over the course of this discussion, a number of key themes have emerged. Not only can an integrated holistic approach towards the interpretation of different classes of evidence illustrate the character of prehistoric occupation at localised scales, the landscapes in which peoples lives were played out were themselves of great significance. At a fundamental level, the character and layout of the physical landscape defined the nature of occupation and the ways communities understood themselves in relation to routine landscapes and to the wider world. If we are to understand the relationship of funerary and other ritual practice with routine life, then the likely nature of movement, residence and landuse needs to be established, alongside the ways this changed over time. If the character of occupation and landuse can illustrate some of the times and places important to prehistoric communities, this can feed into understandings of the concerns that the changing distributions, settings and locations of monuments might represent. Chapter three is concerned not only with setting out the evidence for occupation and landuse in the forms of environmental and lithic data, it also provides a context through which to confront aspects of the monument record discussed in subsequent chapters.

The construction of individual databases meant they could be imported into a GIS. Although the use of GIS can be problematic at a close topographic scale, one of its main strengths is that it becomes possible to visually reintegrate data of different classes and chronological periods with the physical landscape. With digital mapping available at a number of scales, analysis took place at local and regional levels. This allowed analysis of the locations, settings and distributions of monuments and occupation evidence, and provided a way into understanding aspects of change over time. Conclusion The critical analysis of both published and unpublished data allowed the identification of significant problems with the available information. More broadly, the wide geographical scales of earlier analyses clearly demonstrated that local and intra-regional traditions remain poorly understood. This chapter has served to illustrate the methodological and interpretative scales of analysis which can be utilised to redress this imbalance,

17

Chapter 3: The occupation record The elm decline Introduction The elm decline has been attributed to many factors, including climate change, the effects of woodland management and Dutch elm disease (Iversen 1941; Troels Smith 1960; Rackham 1988; Edwards 1993; Veere 2000). These arguments have remained the basis for discussion, some of which has taken place on Cumbrian soil (Walker 1955, 1966a; Oldfield 1963; Oldfield & Statham 1963; Pennington 1970, 1975, 1997; Smith 1981).

This chapter is concerned with setting out the character and distribution of lithic and environmental data. That previous approaches have either been site specific, or characterised by uncritical observations at a regional scale means there is no regional synthesis of the prehistoric occupation record. The primary aim of this chapter is to outline the available data, and through the use of contemporary academic approaches, to develop a model of the likely nature of landuse and occupation these represent. Although the data can illustrate the character of different landscape zones and suggest some of the ways they were exploited, both suffer from major problems of physical coverage and chronological focus. Difficulties with interpreting the occupation evidence at a landscape scale illustrate a clear need for an holistic and integrated approach to the prehistoric record. The second concern of this chapter is to provide a context through which to understand how the location of monuments tied into occupation practice.

Traditional emphasis on the elm decline, alongside changing methods of pollen analysis means there are significant problems with source compatibility and close dating. The elm decline, or the pollen zone VIIa/b transition, has often been used as a standard against which to ‘date’ other clearance episodes (e.g. Pennington 1975). This has serious implications for the use of relatively dated diagrams and only fully radiocarbon dated absolute sequences can be taken to be chronologically secure (Skinner 2000). Few of these exist in Cumbria and much of the evidence is either based on extrapolation from a single radiocarbon date for the zone VIIa/b boundary, or by analogy to other sequences from the region. Interpretation of postulated sequences is further problematic as published descriptions often do not clearly differentiate between radiocarbon and extrapolated dates (e.g. Pennington 1970, 1975, 1997).

The environmental record The environmental record from Cumbria appears particularly strong; since the 1950s, cores have been taken from contexts such as peat bogs, kettle holes, lakes, upland and lowland tarns and estuarine areas. Although the pollen record covers different topographic zones, the evidence is biased towards the central uplands and the south west coast, with markedly less evidence from the north and east, or the lower lying fells (figure 3.1).

The majority of diagrams analysed during the 1960s and 70s were based on relative values of the taxa represented. As a result, small scale changes in pollen frequencies were often overlooked, in particular before the zone VIIa/b boundary when human interference, according to archaeological narratives, was supposed to begin. A number of diagrams exhibit evidence of pre-elm decline disturbance. After identifying such activity at Thrang Moss, Urswick Tarn and Ellerside Moss, Oldfield (1963; Oldfield & Statham 1963) returned to previous sequences (Smith 1958, 1959; Oldfield 1960) finding similar episodes that had been overlooked. At Blea Tarn, Pennington (1975) illustrated that absolute pollen diagrams, providing independent curves for all taxa, showed changes in environmental conditions where relative diagrams (Pennington 1964) had shown little variation. Interpretations may therefore be skewed by the differential detail of relative and absolute diagrams, and a lack of secure dating further exacerbated by extrapolation and analogy.

Interpreting the environmental evidence is problematic not least as the majority of pollen studies have been directed at identifying climate change rather than human activity. Most analyses have been based on the detection of major climatic episodes represented by vegetation changes recognisable as ‘pollen zones’. Prior to the availability of radiocarbon dated sequences, these were based on Godwin’s (1956) Flandrian zones and subzones, which have traditionally been related to specific prehistoric periods. Vegetational and environmental changes at the transition between pollen zones VIIa and VIIb represent the elm decline. The Godwin zonation scheme, on the basis of which Neolithic agriculture appeared at c. 3000 BC, is rarely used in the interpretation of modern diagrams. However its inclusion here is important as many sequences saw analysis before the availability of radiocarbon dating. The majority of pollen studies undertaken by non-archaeologists are problematic as interpretations are often based on ‘fitting’ the results into outdated interpretations of the changing nature of prehistoric activity.

Reliance on such methodologies, together with the lack of major climatic changes between pollen zones VIIb and VIII, has implications for understanding later activity. Environmental evidence relating to Later Neolithic and Bronze Age occupation is poorly understood.

18

1. Ehenside Tarn.

16. Urswick Tarn

2. Angle Tarn

17. Helsington Moss

3. Langdale Coombe

18. Witherslack Hall

4. Thunacarr Knott

19. Helton Tarn

5. Blea Tarn

20. Nichols Moss

6. Red Tarn Moss.

21. Foulshaw Moss

7. Red Tarn.

22. Haweswater

8. Devoke Water

23. Thrang Moss

9. Blind Tarn

24. Temple Sowerby

10. Goatswater

25. Howgill Castle

11. Eskmeals

26. Great Rundale

12. Williamsons Moss

27. Bank Moor

13. Barfield Tarn 14. Roudsea Wood 15. Ellerside Moss

Figure 3.1. Locations of main pollen sample sites discussed. Appendix 6.1 includes citations and grid references for each site, and where possible, details of radiocarbon dates relevant to the discussion within this text. Mapping data ©Crown Copyright Ordnance Survey. An Edina Digimap/JISC supplied service.

Where early clearance has been identified, the pollen record illustrates activity was afterward more or less continuous and increasingly intensive, but specific phases were dated only by extrapolation from the zone VIIa/b boundary. At Ehenside Tarn, Walker (2001) identified intensive clearance between 2050 and 940 cal BC, separated from dated Neolithic episodes by a short interruption. This phase had previously been dated (by extrapolation) to the Roman period (Walker 1966a) and would have remained so had the site not seen reanalysis (Walker 2001).

Moreland 1990; Evans 2004a). Although the resulting perceptions of closed canopy forest remain in use, recent work in forestry and bio-diversity has suggested few such environments would have existed (e.g. Wilkinson et al. 1997; Veere 2000). Both hazel and oak, characteristic of ‘closed canopy forest’, will only grow in conditions where light is present, in fact both species generate only in grazed open landscapes (Veere 2000). Their presence in pollen diagrams essentially contradicts the closed canopy model; it suggests grazing affected forest composition (Buckland & Edwards 1984) and that a wide variety of ground flora would have been present. The herb and shrub flora of mixed wooded environments is poorly recognised not only as these produce little pollen, but also that particular techniques of woodland management stop them from flowering. Many understorey species are insect pollinated, again rendering them unidentifiable (Veere 2000). Pollen analyses of modern grazed park-like landscapes reveal great similarities to prehistoric pollen spectra interpreted as being indicative of closed forest (ibid.). Within such landscapes, species such oak, elm, lime and beech emit a great deal of pollen into the atmosphere, whilst grazing and the presence of mantle vegetation precludes the flowering and movement of grassland pollen. These

Woodland composition into pollen zone VIIa Flandrian II represents a period of development of mixed deciduous closed canopy forest between 5500 and 3200 BC (7500-5000 BP) (Pennington 1997). The concept of closed canopy forest is problematic in that the basis for its albeit notional existence is a product of antiquarian sources which have been built upon rather than questioned (Veere 2000). Interpretations of succession, some dating as early as the seventeenth century (ibid.) were influenced by medieval concerns with wildwood and silva, where the forest was perceived as untamed wilderness, imbued with biblical connotations (e.g. 19

that herbaceous plants dropped to a minimum, and birch, pine and oak were reduced. Following this episode, hazel and heather spread, and the herb component expanded (ibid.). Above this level the sequence had been truncated by later activity.

factors indicate the ‘closed forests’ suggested by pollen analyses were open park-like landscape analogous to modern wood pasture (ibid.; Simmons 1993). Although there are significant problems with the interpretation of pollen data from Cumbria, they do illustrate a variety of different habitats. In the central fells, birch and elm populated the highland valleys, and on the hills and coastal margins occurred in association with oak. Alder grew in the valley bottoms, around tarns and acidic hollows (Walker 1965). At the higher extents of the tree line, birch woodland predominated with some pine on more marginal soils (Pennington 1975, 1997). At Langdale Combe the opening of zone VIIa was defined by high alder values, together with oak and elm, and low hazel values indicating relatively stable conditions (Walker 1965). Between zones V and VIIa, no herb pollen was recorded at Blea Tarn and Devoke Water (below 250 metres AOD), and there was less than 10% at Seathwaite, Blind Tarn and Goatswater (between 400 and 600 metres AOD). High hazel values were recorded at the majority of these sites (Pennington 1997) which suggests a more open canopy than often proposed. Pennington suggested the upper extent of the tree line was at about 760 metres AOD (1970), however others believe it was lower, around 600 metres (Simmons et al. 1981; Bradley & Edmonds 1993). On the lower lying limestones, ash and lime were predominant over elm (Pennington 1975; Birks 1982) and the evidence suggests some of these areas remained comparatively clear of trees (Skinner 2000; Stallibrass 1991). Many coastal areas illustrate high levels of hazel, holly, ivy and other shrubs and climbers (Birks 1982; Powell et al. 1971) also indicating open environments.

The Howgill Castle sampling site is a valley mire below Burney Fell (figure 3.3). Here, mixed deciduous forest conditions existed into the Later Mesolithic until at c. 4009 cal BC when the sequence illustrated the presence of cereal pollen. From c. 3577 cal BC levels of woodland fell markedly, mirrored by a massive rise in plantains, bracken, sedges and other herbaceous plants. Disturbance of the sample site truncated evidence of later activity. The Bank Moor sampling site is an upland swallow hole on limestone above the 300 metre contour (figure 3.4). During the Mesolithic and Neolithic the area was characterised by open grassland with stands of birch, hazel and willow. High levels of charcoal from c. 5900 cal BC were not evidenced by pollen fluctuations and may have resulted from wind dispersal from fires (Skinner 2000). Between c. 4300 and 3200 BC, the vegetation was marked by the spread of open grassland. The period between c. 3300 and 2000 BC saw a reduction in the diversity of herbaceous taxa, but the increased presence of grassland indicated a relatively open environment. At c. 2941 cal BC, values of birch and grasses decreased markedly in association with high levels of charcoal, suggestive of managed burning. This period also saw a rise in water level evidenced by the erosion of clayey material into the basin edge. It is probable this was clearance related erosion, exacerbated by worsening environmental conditions (ibid.). At c. 1950 cal BC high levels of charcoal coincided with the first appearance of cereal pollen. At c. 1442 cal BC the record illustrates a massive increase in hazel mirrored by a dramatic drop in birch until c. 1174 cal BC. Cereal pollen and charcoal were present, discontinuously, for much of this period. Although the evidence is equivocal, this may suggest the area was being used consistently, and perhaps cyclically, for small scale cultivation (ibid.).

Woodland clearance episodes: North and east Few detailed analyses of pollen sequences from northern and eastern Cumbria have been undertaken. Until recently Walker’s version of events stressed that although clearance took place along the coast in the Later Mesolithic and Early Neolithic, it was not common in the Eden valley until about a thousand years later (1966a: 196). This has been reiterated in influential accounts in the archaeological literature, as have interpretations of pollen sequences from other areas of the region analysed before the availability of scientifically dated sequences (e.g. Simmons & Tooley 1981; Bradley & Edmonds 1993).

On the Appleby fells, the highest sample site was at Great Rundale, an area of limestone uplands (figure 3.5). The pollen sequence ran from c. 3350 BC, with peat formation starting at c. 3300 cal BC (Skinner 2000). At c. 2886 cal BC alder decreased, accompanied by the spread of bracken, hazel and grasses. At c. 2316 BC a second drop in hazel was matched by a peak in herbaceous plants. At c. 2137 cal BC there were drops in birch, pine, lime, and elm, accompanied by peaks in hazel, grasses, heathers and bracken. No clear anthropological indicators were represented until c. 1827 cal BC, which suggests either natural openings or small scale woodland management (ibid.). At c. 1827 cal BC there was a marked drop in hazel, and an increase in grasses, bracken and plantains, accompanied by charcoal, until c. 1649 cal BC when values of plantain and bracken fell. At this time oak and alder increased alongside grasses and heather,

A recent study of the southern Eden valley (Skinner 2000) has revealed a rich and diverse history of prehistoric landscape exploitation. The study was based on four localised pollen catchment sites in different landscape zones, and included radiocarbon dated sequences for each (see appendix 6.2). The lowest lying site was Temple Sowerby Moss, a small basin mire on a terrace above the Eden floodplain (figure 3.2). Fluctuations of heather associated with charcoal were recorded within the forest understorey soon after 5632 cal BC (ibid.). At c. 3899 cal BC clearance was evidenced in 20

Figure 3.2. The Temple Sowerby Moss sample site and fieldwalking areas. From Skinner (2000).

Figure 3.3 The Howgill Castle Sample site. From Skinner (2000).

with reduced values of birch and hazel. High levels of charcoal suggest localised clearances (ibid.). At c. 1473 cal BC heather, grasses and alder were cleared, and together with charcoal and cereal pollen, indicate arable

activity. An increase in sphagnum suggested that the surface of the peat was becoming increasingly wet and the cereal pollen was likely transported from elsewhere (ibid.). 21

Figure 3.4. The Bank Moor sample site. From Skinner (2000).

Figure 3.5. The Great Rundale sample site and lithic findspots. From Skinner (2000).

Skinner’s (2000) study clearly illustrates that different vegetation sites have different histories of use. Not only has the presence of naturally open landscapes with a variety of species rich ground flora been established, but also that many of the peaks and troughs identified in the pollen record may be the result of natural processes. However, managed burning was taking place on the terraces of the Eden floodplain as early as c. 5632 cal BC and continued into the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age on the limestone plateau. Cereal cultivation was evidenced in the glacial valley at Howgill Castle at c. 4009 cal BC, but did not take place on the limestone uplands until the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age. What is clear at the upland sites of Bank Moor and Great Rundale is that although the evidence suggests small scale occupation from the Later Mesolithic and Early Neolithic onwards, this became more intensive only during the Later Neolithic and Early Bronze Age.

Upland Tarns Evidence for woodland disturbance on the central and western fells is relatively well known, used both in the interpretation of axe production, and the identification of processes leading up to peat formation (e.g. Pennington 1975; Bradley & Edmonds 1993). The earliest episode of clearance is derived from excavations at Thorn Crag. Sealed by peat, axe working debris associated with a mineral soil and charcoal dated to 4209-3709 cal BC, with pollen data illustrating an elm decline at 4100-4030 cal BC (Jamie Quartermaine pers. comm.). Downslope, the sequence from Blea Tarn is extrapolated from a single radiocarbon date of c. 3700 cal BC for the first clearance episode (Pennington 1975). Here a rise in herbaceous pollen took place in pine-birch woodland and was maintained for around 200 years (ibid.). This preceded more intense clearance extrapolated from about 3050 BC to at least c. 2400 BC (ibid.). At both Blea Tarn and Red Tarn, a fine band of mineral silt occurred at the second phase, illustrating increased soil erosion (Pennington 1964).

These closely dated sequences clearly demonstrate problems with previous pollen analyses. Skinner’s (2000) work has illustrated a variety of distinct vegetational habitats at a localised scale. Such a series of pollen sites, reflecting extra-local vegetation, are of greater use in the interpretation of prehistoric landscapes than the tarns and lakes traditionally subject to analysis. As such, the evidence derived from pollen analytical studies undertaken earlier in the development of the technique, and detailed below, should be treated with caution.

After the elm decline at Angle Tarn, the profile illustrated an inwash of acid Mor soil. Pennington interpreted the accumulation and increasing acidity of soils as a response both to deteriorating soil conditions and the clearance of high forest trees (1964, 1975). At Angle Fell and Red Tarn Moss, charcoal layers were present alongside evidence for clearance of birch and pine around the VIIa/b boundary (Pennington 1964). Cores from Devoke Water, Seathwaite Tarn and Blind Tarn contained a band 22

breached Helton Tarn, which lies in the Winster valley 4 miles inland and at 5 metres AOD (Smith 1958). The clay layer can also be recognised at Foulshaw Moss, Helsington Moss and Nichols Moss (Smith 1959).

of mineral silt with organic debris containing mountain grassland species immediately above (ibid.). Disturbance of this type can change the relationship between soils and vegetation in that the replacement of deep rooted by shallow rooted plants initiates soil acidification, especially in upland areas with high rainfall (Dimbleby 1962).

Coring on the floor of Morecambe Bay suggests submerged forests lie on fossil interfleuves between the palaeochannels of the rivers Kent, Leven and Keer (Tooley 1978) and further submerged landscapes are believed to occur around Walney and the Duddon estuary (Clare 2000). Pollen cores from southern and western mosses illustrate coastal mires, initiated towards the end of zone VIIa, began as fens and reedswamps with some open water, and later became converted to raised bogs, often with saltmarsh represented by fossil tidal creeks (Oldfield & Statham 1963; Oldfield 1963; Tipping 1994). Similar environments have been identified on the Solway (Walker 1966a; Bewley 1994).

The link between heathland burning and upland peat initiation is relatively well established (e.g. Casedine & Hatton 1993; Simmons 1993, 1996; Moore 1988, 1993). In many areas, whilst post elm decline episodes associated with burning do occur in such contexts, most are Mesolithic in date or occur around the zone VIIa/b boundary (Moore 1993). Other than at Angle Fell and Red Tarn Moss, there is no recorded evidence of such activity in the west and central fells (Pennington 1975). In eastern Cumbria however, managed burning was occurring as early as c. 5632 cal BC and carried on into the third millennium BC (Skinner 2000).

Work undertaken at Eskmeals has illustrated vegetational changes occurring as a result of human interference and natural processes (Bonsall 1981; Bonsall et al. 1986, 1989, 1994; Tipping 1994; figure 3.6). On the west coast the process of coastal formation differs from that on the low energy shores of Morecambe Bay. At Eskmeals coastal influx between c. 5970-5480 cal BC and 56135240 cal BC meant a sea-level rise of c. 2 metres AOD producing a series of shingle ridges between 1 and 1.5 kilometres inland (Tipping 1994). At Williamson’s Moss, these formed a barrier isolating an inland basin from marine influence culminating in the development of a lagoon (Bonsall et al. 1994; Hodgkinson et al. 2000). The maximum transgression has been identified in a number of areas situated around the 8 metre contour. Closely associated with the later shingle ridges in some areas are windblown dune systems. These formed as sea levels fell during the later third and early second millennia BC, a chronology borne out by the presence of Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age lithic scatters in such contexts (Tooley 1990; see below).

The chronology of peat formation across the Cumbrian uplands is poorly understood, however it appears processes set in motion around the elm decline culminated in peat formation. Evidence from Blea Tarn suggests this began during the Later Neolithic (Pennington 1975) and at Thunacar Knott (Clough 1973; Pennington 1975) charcoal associated with an area of axe working sealed by peat dated to between 2850 and 3250 BC (Bradley & Edmonds 1993). At Great Rundale peat formation began at c. 3300 cal BC (Skinner 2000). The spread of peat is however affected by very localised conditions, so cannot be assumed to have formed at the same time in different places. Postglacial Marine transgressions Like the circumstances surrounding peat formation, evidence for marine transgressions (Tooley 1978, 1980; Tipping 1994; Zong & Tooley 1996) illustrate changing environmental conditions were the norm from the Postglacial onwards. Flandrian I and II saw major episodes of sea level fluctuation. During Flandrian II the Early Postglacial sea level rise slackened slightly between 5000 and 4980 BC, after which levels fell dramatically. At Downholland Moss in Lancashire, the removal of marine conditions extended over a surface c. 2 kilometres in width (Tooley 1978). Between 4800 and 4300 BC, sea levels rose over a metre and again inundated a great deal of land. At about 4000 BC, levels fell, again removing marine conditions. Between 4000 and 3800 BC, sea levels again rose rapidly, falling back between 3775 and 3500 BC. Between 3500 and 3000 BC the sea level began to rise swiftly, then later fell again by about a metre. Further less marked incursions occurred between 28502595 BC, and 1750-1200 BC (ibid.).

Coastal clearings After isolation of the basin at Williamson’s Moss, anthropogenic influences are discernible at c. 4780-4470 cal BC (Tipping 1994; Hodgkinson et al. 2000). Like other sites, pollen analyses illustrate a ‘double elm decline’, the first of dated to 4458-4047 cal BC and the second, associated with evidence for cereal cultivation, to 3893-3381 cal BC (Tipping 1994; Hodgkinson et al. 2000). The first ‘elm decline’ was characterised by the reduction of hazel and the expansion of oak, lime and ivy. The presence of ash, hawthorn, juniper and ribwort plantain suggest the colonisation of open areas (Tipping 1994). Forest regeneration followed, accompanied by a decline of oak and its replacement by wetland trees as a result of rising water levels. The second phase was characterised by a peak in grasses and ribwort plantain, together with a number of cereal grains (ibid.).

The coastal strip north of Morecambe Bay is formed of estuarine clay extending into the Winster valley and for 2 miles into the Gilpin valley. Laid down at the time of the transgression early in pollen zone VIIa, the sea also 23

small amounts predating a decline in elm at the VIIa/b boundary. The lack of strong evidence for early large scale clearance in the area is further emphasised by recent pollen analysis at Foulshaw and Helsington (Wimble et al. 2000). Between 3000 and 2000 cal BC, the record illustrates small peaks of plantains and grasses, together with drops in elm, ash and lime. Larger scale clearances between 2000 and 1300 cal BC are characterised by steep falls in elm, ash and lime and hazel, with plantains, nettles and bracken increasingly evident. Cereal pollen in the area was not recorded until between 1300 and 900 cal BC (ibid.).

At Barfield Tarn, clearance was recorded at 4457-3825 cal BC (Hodgkinson et al. 2000) followed by a further episode at the VIIa/b boundary (Pennington 1970, 1975). The second ‘elm decline’ was accompanied by the expansion of grasses, weeds and cereal pollen. Charcoal associated with the steepest fall in oak suggested the use of fire in ground preparation. The core revealed a stratigraphic change from organic mud to redeposited clay, coinciding with a steep fall in elm and oak at the VIIa/b boundary. This change was interpreted as a consequence of increased soil erosion, exacerbated by climatic fluctuations (ibid.). Later the area around Barfield Tarn saw clearance and cultivation leading to almost complete deforestation (Pennington 1970).

The rocky and marshy nature of the terrain close to the Morecambe Bay estuaries has traditionally limited arable agriculture, with many areas used for rough grazing. Whilst the environmental evidence is poorly understood and much activity is not recognisable in the pollen record, it does reflect differences in the intensity of occupation of different areas. Although there are significant gaps in coverage, what the available evidence does illustrate is that different sorts of landscapes, in different sorts of topographic zones, were used in different ways. At a regional scale, the wide diversity of different landscape types across Cumbria have impacted significantly on historical patterns of landuse. Varying topographic conditions and soil types supported different vegetation communities as they do today and these would all have been used in locally specific ways. With perhaps the exception of Skinner’s work (2000) pollen analysis does not have the resolution to illustrate these at an appropriate human scale. At a broad level however, around Morecambe Bay, in common with the western lowlands and the eastern and central uplands, the evidence suggests a progressive intensity of clearance and cultivation over increasingly widespread areas into the Later Neolithic and Bronze Age.

Two distinct clearance episodes have been identified at Ehenside Tarn (Walker (1966a, 2001), the first taking the form of reduced values of elm and oak and the subsequent spread of hazel, ash and birch. Ribwort plantain, sorrel, mugwort and grasses also flowered. The second phase involved clearance of the smaller trees, leaving the open herbaceous vegetation of ribwort plantain, grasses and cereal pollen. Reanalysis and radiocarbon dating of pollen data from Ehenside Tarn illustrate the main periods of activity span between c. 3900 and 1500 cal BC with increased charcoal between c. 3000 and 2600 cal BC (Walker 2001). In south Cumbria, Oldfield (1963) recorded two episodes of clearance at Witherslack Hall, Nichol's Moss, Urswick Tarn, Ellerside Moss, Thrang Moss and Haweswater where minor woodland disturbances preceded the zone VIIa/b boundary. The first episode at Thrang Moss saw reduced values of elm, ivy and oak coinciding with the spread of ribwort plantain, grasses and bracken. This was followed by more extensive clearance associated with ribwort plantain, sorrel, mugwort and grasses following partial forest regeneration (ibid.).

A number of the areas and locational habitats where clearance has been identified are closely associated with lithic evidence. Although interpreting both environmental and lithic data is problematic, their close analysis can begin to illustrate some of the ways different environments were exploited and how this changed over time. Before going on to integrate this evidence it is necessary to outline the character and interpretation of the lithic record in Cumbria, and explore the ways contemporary academic approaches can be drawn on in understandings of the nature and scale of occupation.

To the east of the Leven, Ellerside Moss was characterised by alder carr bordered by bog and saltmarsh. The sequence illustrated a clearly marked elm decline yielding the first ribwort plantain, but with no apparent change in grass pollen (Oldfield & Statham 1963). At Roudsea Wood, drops in elm, oak and ivy occurred between 3850 and 3150 cal BC (Birks 1982). Occasional ribwort plantain and grass occurred from 3400 BC onwards together with a further drop in elm values, and occasional cereal pollen from c. 3150 BC (ibid.).

The lithic record In contrast to the west coast, sequences from sites on Morecambe Bay exhibit only minor clearance episodes. At Witherslack Hall, Smith (1958) recorded isolated occurrences of ribwort plantain before the opening of zone VIIb, believed to have been derived from pasture on Whitbarrow Scar, a limestone fell to the east. Given the openness of the local tree cover these could be entirely natural. Helton Tarn (ibid.) Foulshaw Moss, Nichols Moss and Helsington Moss (Smith 1959) illustrated similar sequences, with ribwort plantain occurring in

The ways the lithic record in Cumbria has seen interpretation in the past is intimately tied in with environmental evidence; in the uplands with the onset of axe production, and in the lowlands with coastal foreland development. Like the environmental data, the lithic record is limited by incomplete topographic coverage, with much of the densest evidence for occupation along the coast. 24

between the 1930s and 60s were also returned to. A number of the significant concentrations recorded therefore represent biased densities resulting from repeated visits to particular locations. Comparison between the Cherrys’ collections and those derived from more recent surveys is therefore problematic as they preclude all but the most basic qualitative analysis.

Landuse in many areas of Cumbria is characterised by grazing, with only limited ploughing. Although there have been a limited number of surface surveys in ploughzone contexts, the majority of collections have been recovered from erosion scars or derived from disturbance by developments overlooked by or undertaken prior to PPG 16 (English Heritage 1991). Given the changing conditions and largely reactive processes which have characterised collection, acquiring an unbiased picture of the density, character and chronology of lithic occupation evidence is at best problematic.

The eastern uplands collections were recovered from an area between Shap and Kirkby Stephen (Cherry & Cherry 1987a, 1995, 1996, 2002). 152 scatters were identified, the majority clustered around the 270 metre contour. These were mainly less than a hundred pieces, with a single scatter of over a thousand. With the exception of the larger assemblages, identified in the spoil of a gas pipeline, most were collected from areas of rabbit disturbance and molehills. Although these have seen interpretation as ‘sites’ (e.g. Cherry & Cherry 1987a), they cannot be used to identify methodologically secure scatters or distributions, and should be understood merely as clusters of findspots.

West coast and eastern uplands collections By far the largest lithic collection from the region is that of the Cherry family; since the 1960s their work has illustrated the location and extent of material from the west coast and eastern uplands (Cherry 1963, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1969, 1982; Cherry & Cherry 1973, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987a, 1987b, 1987c, 1992, 1993, 1995, 1996, 2000, 2002; figure 3.6). Although these surveys form the majority of published material from the region, their interpretation is problematic on many levels. Most assemblages were collected prior to the implementation of the rigorous methodologies which characterise contemporary approaches to lithic collection, analysis and interpretation (e.g. Shennan 1985; Pitts & Jacobi 1979; Brown & Edmonds 1987; Ford 1987; Ford et al. 1987).

One of the fundamental problems with the Cherrys’ work is that other than the collection and description of lithic material, there appears to have been no focussed interpretative approach. Interpretations as to the dates of particular scatters are frustrated by major problems of inference. At times, in attempts to date particular scatters, especially those which may or may not be Neolithic, the Cherrys resorted to physical associations between diagnostic forms in mixed assemblages, non-local raw material use, differential patination, the presence of polished stone axe fragments and uncritical readings of palynological data (e.g. Cherry 1969; Cherry & Cherry 1996, 2002; see below). Despite these problems however, their work is of great importance. Without this considerable resource, there would be little understanding of the character and location of lithic scatters across the region. Skinner (2000) undertook a small scale field survey programme to analyse the presence of occupation evidence in relation to pollen sampling sites. Two main areas were covered by systematic survey. The first, at Temple Sowerby (figure 3.2) revealed a number of discrete and mixed scatters represented by a total of 78 pieces. A second survey was carried out at Great Rundale (figure 3.5), which covered 5 square kilometres of exposed peat sections above the 660 metre contour. 1907 pieces were identified in six main clusters. No lithic data at such altitudes is available from the remainder of the county, and as such this assemblage is regionally important. Although the sample data derived from Skinner’s (2000) study were limited, detailed technological, raw material and distributional analyses were carried out. Clearly defined bases for the identification and interpretation of the scatters and their constituents were established. Furthermore the results of the pollen data were integrated with the archaeological record, and the landscape settings of the assemblages also saw discussion (see below).

Figure 3.6. Locations of lithic scatters (triangles) and pollen sites (stars) on the west coast. Mapping data ©Crown Copyright Ordnance Survey. An Edina Digimap/JISC supplied service.

The Cherrys’ west coast collections were derived from an area between St Bees and Haverigg, largely concentrated between the 8 and 30 metre contours (Cherry 1963, 1965, 1966, 1969; Cherry & Cherry 1973, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1996, 2002; Figure 3.6). 158 ‘sites’ ranged from single finds to collections in their thousands. Assemblages were derived from contexts including eroding clifftops and cliff faces, sand dunes and areas of inland erosion and disturbance. Those from ploughzone contexts were completely cleared of all visible material and fields often saw visits for ‘new crops’ in later seasons (Cherry & Cherry 2002). Many eroding sites located 25

methodologies means it has been possible to understand why earlier classification schema have been so problematic.

The Furness collections A large scale field survey project was initiated in Furness in 1997, which continued into 2005. The lithic collection has been catalogued, subjected to metric analysis and interpreted together with Dave Coward as part of the original research for this study. Running north/south between Sandscale and Rampside and east/west from Walney to Gleaston, the transect covered a variety of landscape zones from coastal sites to inland valleys and localised uplands. The long term nature of the project has allowed the systematic survey of over ninety individual fields. Both empty fields and those containing scatters have been recorded, allowing for analysis of presence and absence of occupation remains in different topographic zones (figure 9.2).

The use and availability of lithic raw materials Understandings of coastal formation and erosion are inextricably linked to the recognition and interpretation of lithic scatters as well as understandings of the raw materials in use. At Eskmeals, radiocarbon determinations have illustrated the formation chronology of the coastal foreland (Bonsall et al.1986, 1989, 1994). Dates from a series of shingle ridges correspond to the Postglacial marine transgressions, the highest of which is known as the ‘25 ft beach’. Widely believed to be characterised by the eight metre contour between St. Bees to Walney, it is along and above this feature, where it can be reliably traced, that Late Mesolithic and Early Neolithic material is clustered (Cherry 1969; Cherry & Cherry 1986, 1996, 2002; figures 3.6, 3.7). As Later Mesolithic scatters are located inland of the eight metre contour, any Early Mesolithic material associated with former coastlines would have been washed away (Cherry & Cherry 2002). A series of 'intermediate' shingle ridges formed as sea levels fell and erosion of the sand dune systems which now cover these ridges often reveals lithic material of Later Neolithic/Early Bronze Age date.

Monitoring of coastal erosion has also produced a significant amount of material. At Sandscale, excavation of a posthole structure and pits associated with a lithic scatter of Later Neolithic/Early Bronze Age date was undertaken (Evans & Coward 2003, 2004; figure 9.27). Developments overlooked by the planning process on south Walney have also yielded significant amounts of material similar to that collected from Walney North End during the 1930s and 40s (e.g. Cross 1938, 1940). The largest assemblage from the Furness collection comprises over 600 pieces with the remainder ranging from single finds to assemblages of around 100 pieces. The larger scatters are mixed in date, with many smaller clusters seemingly representative of single period activity. As a whole, the survey has illustrated relatively dispersed finds with few major clusters when compared to the Cherrys’ coastal material. This is a result of the methodological sampling strategy employed, rather than repeated walking of the same areas. Where reactive collection has occurred in Furness, larger assemblages have indeed been identified. The Furness assemblages are locally significant and also provide an important starting point for re-analysis of lithic material across the county. Derived from a number of different topographic settings across a discrete area, these provide an important contrast to the Cherrys’ material. Assemblages from the western coastal contexts or the eastern uplands, separated by c. 80 km, have often been unquestionably taken to represent the spectrum of lowland and upland occupation across Cumbria, even though raw material and monument traditions suggest differences in the character of occupation either side of the central fells. That the Furness transect covered inland, coastal and localised upland areas not only means different ‘types’ of assemblage have been recovered from the same area, but also these can begin to illustrate localised patterns of movement between landscape zones. At a closer interpretative scale, the Furness collections have seen full metric analysis, consideration of reduction technology and raw material use (appendix 5). That these assemblages can be ‘dated’ in relation to contemporary characterisation

Figure 3.7. Position of the ‘25ft beach’ (dashed line) and associated scatters. After Cherry & Cherry (2002).

26

remain to be identified. Caveats aside, trends illustrated by the differential use of raw materials suggest whilst this was dictated by local conditions, during the Neolithic, ‘non-local’ flint appears to have become increasingly available.

Graeme Clark (in Cross 1939) described lithics from Walney North End as characteristic of the ‘poverty industries’ of Northern Ireland and western Scotland. This terminology, clearly informed by culture historical concerns, was defined on the basis of the poor quality and diminutive size of the locally available flint. In geological terms, flint is entirely absent from Cumbria although chalk is present at the same latitude in east Yorkshire and County Antrim. Pebble flint does however occur in the shingle ridges characterising many west facing shorelines, in boulder clays on south Walney (Barnes & Hobbs 1952) and most likely in other contexts elsewhere in the region.

Understandings of the geological derivation of flint in Cumbrian assemblages remain highly speculative and tied in with culture historical concerns. Linked to the exchange networks suggested by the distribution of Cumbrian axes, the grey chalk flint is thought to derive from the boulder clays of East Yorkshire (Cherry & Cherry 1987a) and the higher quality black material from the coastal sources at Flamborough Head (ibid.; Durden 1996). At a fundamental level, there are differences between the use and availability of raw materials either side of the Cumbrian mountains. This is likely to relate to networks of contact to both the east and the west and to the exchange of Langdale axes. This issue will be discussed in due course, however it remains that the identification of exchange networks has taken precedence over understanding the importance and use of lithic raw materials in their own local contexts.

Although the coastal pebbles can be as large as a 10 centimetre cube, most are “no larger than a walnut” (Barnes & Hobbs 1952: 26). The flint is variable both in quality and colour, occurring in a continuum from pale yellow to orange, red and brown. This colour and quality variation is problematic in a number of ways, not least in terms of the identification of non-local flint. In west and south Cumbria, coastal pebble flint is the greatest constituent of the scatters identified. In the eastern uplands, pebble flint is also present although its colour, size and quality suggests it was derived from local river gravels (Cherry & Cherry 1987a). Scatters from both areas contain chert, tuff, and other material including black and grey ‘chalk’ flints. Chert occurs in limestone in south Cumbria, areas of the eastern uplands (Cross 1939; Cherry & Cherry 1987a, 1995) and in the river gravels of the Eden valley (Skinner 2000). In the east it is known to outcrop on Crosby Ravensworth fell, Orton Scar and close to Newbiggin Tarn (Cherry & Cherry 1987a), and in Furness at Dalton and Sandscale (Cross 1939). Although there is little evidence of chert working in Furness and along the west coast where pebble flint was easily available, in the eastern uplands chert forms the greatest constituent of Later Mesolithic/Early Neolithic assemblages (Skinner 2000; Cherry & Cherry 2002). In contrast, later assemblages from the eastern uplands contain significant amounts of chalk flint. There is less evidence for the use of chalk flint on the west coast although this does occur in greater quantities in the south east (Cherry & Cherry 2000) and in Furness, where a variety of flint has been identified over and above that available in the coastal shingle (chapter nine).

Working tuff Although the use of Borrowdale Volcanic Series tuff for the production of stone axes in Cumbria has a significant history of interpretation, its use for the production of lithic forms analogous to those made in flint has received only cursory discussion (Cherry & Cherry 1973, 1982; Bradley & Edmonds 1993; Edmonds 2004). This is virtually unknown in wider literature; Pitts & Jacobi, in a discussion of the use of non-flint stone sources, concluded: “Even rocks with a conchoidal fracture habit (principally stone groups VI, VII and VIII) could neither be worked finely enough, nor could produce sufficiently sharp an edge, for the manufacture of usable flake tools” (1979: 176).

Contrary to this supposition, cores, microliths, blades, flakes, scrapers and other forms of tuff have been collected from across the region (Cherry & Cherry 1973, 1983, 1987a; Coward & Evans in prep; figure 3. 8). In general, tuff only appears in small proportions, normally only one or two pieces in what are often substantial assemblages.

Understanding the derivation of lithic raw materials is problematic in that prehistoric communities evidently knew of and used a variety of locally available materials, many of which occurred in pockets of glacial drift, clays and gravels away from their parent source.

Many studies of the Langdale 'axe factories' have involved the mapping of production sites and the petrological identification of tuff outcropping in the central fells. These investigations illustrated material of varying quality outcrops not only in the Langdales but also at Scafell and Glaramara (Houlder 1979). Tuff from which axes were produced appears to derive largely from this broad area (but see Fell & Davis 1988). However few have seen petrological identification, so although different petrological groups have been identified, axes made from tuff are commonly ascribed

That the constituents of scatters differ between the east, west and south of the region results not only from the exploitation of locally available materials but also from exchange networks. These two factors are a problem. Although we know the sources of some local materials, others, particularly those in drift deposits, may yet 27

Figure 3.8. Selection of tuff forms from the Furness transect. Illustrations by Sharon Arrowsmith.

production site at Thunacar Knott (Clough 1973) produced radiocarbon dates of 3250-2850 cal BC (Bradley & Edmonds 1993). More recently, excavations have produced a series of Early Neolithic determinations; at Stake beck, charcoal from a working floor was dated to 3730-3410 cal BC, and charcoal associated with debitage at Harrison Stickle was dated to 3780-3530 cal BC and 3780-3525 cal BC (ibid.). At Stickle Pike, Top Buttress site 95 yielded two dates of 3690-3370 cal BC and 3500-3100 cal BC, thought to bracket the main period of its use (ibid.).

to Group VI, linking them with the Langdale sources. Possible working sites have however been discovered on Fairfield, north east of Ambleside (Jamie Lund pers. comm.) and it is likely that more remain to be identified. Whilst it has commonly been assumed that tuff was only available in the central fells, petrological analysis of microlithic material from St. Bees identified an Ennerdale banded tuff alongside that of the Borrowdale Volcanics. Both occur as beach pebbles and are present in the glacial drift (Cherry & Cherry 1973). Unworked tuff pebbles have been found in lithic scatters on the west coast, Walney and in the eastern uplands (Cross 1947; Cherry & Cherry 1983; Cherry & Cherry 1987a). The presence of pebble tuff in such contexts has been taken to suggest that the high quality material used for the production of stone axes was not quarried at source until the Early Neolithic (Bradley & Edmonds 1993).

The earliest available dates for the production of Langdale axes comes from Thorn Crag where recent excavations produced a determination of 4209-3709 cal BC (Jamie Quartermaine pers. comm.). The two latest available dates from the complex, 3500-3100 cal BC (Bradley & Edmonds 1993) and 3250-2850 cal BC (Clough 1973) illustrate that axe production took place into the Later Neolithic and on the basis of currently available evidence, was in progress for over a thousand years.

Although the broad chronology of axe production seems relatively well understood (Bradley & Edmonds 1993), there are no secure dates either for its onset or its demise. As discussed above, charcoal from an axe

28

Figure 3.9. Distribution of polished , unpolished and perforated stone axes from the southern half of Cumbria (see appendix 5). Map data © Crown Copyright Ordnance Survey. An Edina Digimap/JISC supplied service.

Although the sequence of technological approaches to the production of stone axes is relatively well understood at source (Bradley & Edmonds 1993), there are major chronological problems further away. As approaches to axes have been dominated by the interpretation of exchange networks (Fell 1964; Manby 1965; Bradley & Edmonds 1993) understandings of their use and significance within Cumbria remain problematic (but see Edmonds 2004). One of the main reasons for this is that the majority have been chance finds resulting from nineteenth century ploughing, drainage and urban expansion.

Compared to the research of Group VI axes, perforated axe types have seen little analysis other than in terms of the increasing use of localised stone sources after the Later Neolithic (Bradley & Edmonds 1993). Although a small number of perforated tuff implements exist, its conchoidal fracture habit means it is difficult to perforate. Petrological group XV, sourced to the Coniston area, was utilised largely for the production of axe hammers and adzes (Roe 1979). Group XV forms are distributed across northern England, tailing off in frequency further to the south (ibid.). Few shafthole implements have seen petrological identification however although little is known of their significance or close dating, across Cumbria, their distribution is very similar to that of group VI forms (figure 3.9).

Although these likely represent only a small proportion of those recovered, away from the production sites, over 100 polished and roughout stone axes and at least 25 fragmentary or broken forms have been recorded in the southern half of Cumbria alone. Added to this, in the same area there are at least 40 nineteenth and early twentieth century accounts of ‘celts’ and ‘hammers’ (including a number of hoards) the majority of which are likely to be polished and unpolished examples (figure 3.9). Perforated axes of various types occur in similar densities to Group VI forms, with at least 130 recorded in the southern half of Cumbria alone.

The distribution of ‘Langdale’ axes in Cumbria occurs in two main concentrations; the river valleys radiating from the central fells, and low lying areas such as the coastal strip and the Eden valley. Three basic forms are represented; roughouts, and the so-called ‘Cumbrian’ and ‘Variant’ types (Fell 1964; Manby 1965). Polished ‘Cumbrian’ axes predominate in the coastal lowlands and the Eden valley, however closer to source, there are markedly more roughouts and part finished examples. Their changing proportions suggest the final polishing 29

and grinding of axes took place in or close to occupation areas (Bradley & Edmonds 1993; Edmonds 2004). This is illustrated by the presence of roughouts and polished stone axes together with grinding stones at coastal sites such as Ehenside Tarn (Darbishire 1873). In these sorts of contexts, ‘Variant’ axes are also common. These are of smaller dimensions to the classic ‘Cumbrian’ types, and including adzes and chisels, result from modification and resharpening of axes after their original production (Manby 1965; Bradley & Edmonds 1993; Edmonds 2004).

Mixed assemblages Although many lithic scatters have been derived from along the west coast, most attention has been focussed on those from Eskmeals. At both Williamson’s Moss and Monk Moors large concentrations of lithic material have seen excavation and a small number of features have provided Late Mesolithic radiocarbon determinations. Although details of the excavations and the lithic material derived remain largely unpublished (and unavailable for analysis), the density of activity has been taken to suggest year round occupation during the Later Mesolithic (Bonsall 1981, Bonsall et al. 1986, 1989, 1994).

The recovery of both ‘Variant’ axes and fragments of reused axes in association with lithic scatters illustrates these forms were utilised in domestic contexts as well as being produced for exchange. Axes themselves, both in polished and roughout form, were reworked to create usable flakes and blanks for the production of other implements. This is not a new observation (Manby 1965; Bradley & Edmonds 1993) however their significance has often been overlooked. These can only be identified when polished surfaces, edge facets or thinning scars are present on the dorsal surfaces of utilised flakes. As tuff from drift, coastal and riverine sources is thought to have been in use from the Later Mesolithic onwards, those forms without scarring relating to axe production remain unrecognisable.

At Williamson's Moss, extensive activity was centred around the banks of an inland tarn formed after 54735074 cal BC (Bonsall et al. 1994). Excavation of 125 square metres revealed an assemblage of more than 34000 pieces, and occupation remains including stakeholes, pits and hearths. Wooden ‘structures’ dated to the fifth millennium BC (but not stratigraphically associated with lithic material) were taken to represent substantial occupation remains (Bonsall 1981; Bonsall et al. 1986, 1989, 1994). These are now, however, believed to have been entirely natural (Hodgkinson et al. 2000; Croft et al. 2002). Although the bulk of lithic material from Williamson’s Moss was made up of microliths, microburins, blades and blade cores, many later forms were also present. Diagnostics included leaf and other arrowheads, knives and a roughout axe. Although stratigraphic relationships between this material is implied (Bonsall et al. 1994), the majority in fact occurred in a puddled topsoil context (ibid.).

Raw materials, technology and dating There are three main problems regarding the chronology of lithic assemblages in Cumbria. The first is that the vast majority have been derived from insecure contexts. The second is that the Cherrys’ assemblages have been subject to inappropriate dating schema. The third problem stems from attitudes towards the pebble flint ‘poverty industries’; not only is this historically constituted, at a national scale, analyses of reduction technology have concentrated on demonstrably datable assemblages from areas with abundant raw materials. In areas where pebbles constitute the predominant raw material, the evidence is suggestive of different technological traditions and material chronologies (e.g. Saville 1981; Young 1987; Waddington 2000). However how far these technologies do in fact differ from the relative changes exhibited across the Later Mesolithic/Early Neolithic and the Later Neolithic/Early Bronze Age in other areas is far from clear. Not only has little comparative technological analysis has been undertaken, it remains that most assemblages are ‘dated’ on the basis of the presence of poorly understood diagnostics rather than on the basis of technology. As discussed above, analysis and characterisation of lithic material from the Furness transect has provided a context from which to re-evaluate aspects of reduction technology and chronology across the region. Before going on to discuss these issues in relation to contemporary approaches to lithic characterisation, it is necessary to illustrate some of the reasons why dating lithic scatters in Cumbria has been so problematic.

A similar situation exists at Monk Moors where an area disturbed by construction and ploughing produced over 4000 lithic pieces (Cherry & Cherry 1986). These were primarily microlithic and included over 100 geometric and irregular microliths, hundreds of blades, blade and bladelet cores and microlithic waste. Three of the scatters yielded lumps and flakes of tuff, and a flake from site 2 with a partially polished surface suggests a Neolithic date for at least some of the material (Cherry & Cherry 1986). Monk Moors ‘sites’ 1 and 2 saw partial excavation in 1974 (ibid.). Site 2 comprised a single shallow pit, and site 1 revealed an arrangement of hearths and stakeholes with a hearth which produced a date of 5970-5360 cal BC (Bonsall 1989; Hodgkinson et al. 2000). Rather than being solely Later Mesolithic as has been insinuated (Bonsall 1981; Bonsall et al. 1989, 1994) the assemblages and the range of radiocarbon dates from Monk Moors and Williamson's Moss indicate multiple activity phases dating between the Later Mesolithic and the Early Bronze Age. The use of such scatters to identify Late Mesolithic activity to the detriment of other material has significant ramifications. Although these areas are of importance in that they evidently saw long histories of use, the continual focus on large and chronologically mixed assemblages means that in technological terms, we have little understanding of what changed and what 30

So where does this leave us? That the Cherrys’ interpretative focus was based on ‘finding’ the Early Neolithic illustrates one of the most fundamental problems with their approach. This was driven by attempts to distinguish, on the basis of poorly understood ‘diagnostics’, between Late Mesolithic, Early Neolithic, Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age lithic scatters. Even in those areas where the character of flintworking is well understood, it is often impossible to draw clear lines between the Later Mesolithic and the Early Neolithic on the basis of surface assemblages; in many cases only when stratigraphically secure collections have been derived from sub-surface features can Early Neolithic assemblages be securely identified.

remained relatively unchanged between the sixth and fourth Millennia BC. The ways this material has been interpreted has created significant problems with ‘finding’ the Neolithic. Finding the Neolithic Attribution of a Later Mesolithic or Early Neolithic date for lithic collections in Cumbria has traditionally been driven, as at a broader national scale, by the presence of diagnostic projectiles in association with blade based working. Blade based scatters in Cumbria have largely been ascribed to the Later Mesolithic on the basis of their common occurrence with microliths. Leaf shaped arrowheads, the sole typological form taken by the Cherrys to indicative an Early Neolithic date, are rare (Cherry & Cherry 1996; 2002). Lithic pieces from the west coast (Cherry & Cherry 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987b) number over 80000, yet this included only 48 arrowheads, largely of Later Neolithic and Bronze Age date (Cherry & Cherry 1996). Leaf shaped arrowheads number only 11, of which six were found in sand dune scatters associated with later material (ibid.). The dearth of diagnostic arrowheads has meant that Langdale axes and tuff flakes with polished surfaces have been taken to indicate Early Neolithic occupation (Cherry & Cherry 1996, 2002). However:

The results of recent excavations on Furness have begun to elucidate questions of chronology and association. At Holbeck Park, Barrow, deposits in a tree throw contained over 100 sherds of Early Neolithic pottery associated with a rod microlith and two tuff flakes (OAN 2002). A second site at Roose Quarry included a pit containing two leaf shaped arrowheads, a flint blade, two flakes of polished tuff, and fragments of an Early Neolithic carinated bowl (Jones 2001). These finds might suggest the dearth of ‘fine’ forms such as leaf arrowheads, and the lack of Early Neolithic pottery in association with lithic scatters results from these having been placed in subsurface pits. Such patterning has been identified in other areas (e.g. Healy 1987), and can also be demonstrated by the fieldwalking assemblage from Roose Quarry within which there were no ‘diagnostic’ Early Neolithic forms (see chapter nine). These excavated sites illustrate two main points, the first of which being that a microlithic technology persisted in Cumbria into the Neolithic and as such, no clear distinctions can be drawn between Later Mesolithic and Early Neolithic surface scatters. The second is that given ‘diagnostic’ forms are problematic both in terms of visibility and chronology, the clearest approach to understanding lithic scatters has to be one based first and foremost around technology.

“....if we define an early Neolithic assemblage as one based on a blade technology with leaf arrowheads and polished stone implements, excluding earlier or later tool forms, then none of the 158 sites in our coastal survey can safely be assigned to the early Neolithic” (Cherry & Cherry 1996: 61).

The eastern uplands yielded over fifteen times more arrowheads than the coastal scatters, although ‘classic’ Early Neolithic assemblages, according to the Cherrys, were still impossible to identify (Cherry & Cherry 1987a, 1996). Although leaf arrowheads and polished axe fragments was identified in six instances (Cherry & Cherry 1996), these were associated either with microliths or later projectiles (ibid.). Basically, the ‘package’ used by the Cherrys to identify Early Neolithic scatters is untenable. Although there is an undeniable association between these forms, stone axes were produced into the Late Neolithic, and leaf arrowheads occur into the Bronze Age (Green 1980). The association between leaf arrowheads, stone axes and axe fragments in Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age scatters in sand dune contexts is testament to this point.

Core technology Recent approaches to lithic analysis place emphasis on the constituents of whole assemblages, including cores and waste, rather than focussing purely on diagnostics. In terms of dating, these have been based on looking at the changing character of reduction technology between the Later Mesolithic/Early Neolithic and the Later Neolithic/Early Bronze Age. The majority of published analyses have been undertaken on assemblages from southern England, and we have to ask how far these models are applicable to pebble flint assemblages in the north and west. Across the country as a whole, lithic assemblages exhibit a remarkable degree of homogeneity, with subtle variations in reduction technology at a regional scale often related to the character of available raw materials (Edmonds 1995).

Assemblages containing material of ‘mixed’ diagnostic date are common in the north and west and have thrown up similar interpretative problems. Numerous instances of leaf and later arrowheads in assemblages also containing microliths have been recorded (e.g. Young 1987; Waddington 2000). In Cumbria, the presence of both Group VI axes and leaf arrowheads in scatters which would have been dated to the Later Mesolithic in their absence clearly suggests that a microlithic technology persisted into the Neolithic. 31

Figure 3.10. Blade based material from the Furness transect. Illustrations by Sharon Arrowsmith.

Figure 3.11. Flake based material from the Furness transect. Illustrations by Sharon Arrowsmith.

32

The assemblage included a leaf arrowhead, a scraper made from chalk flint, retouched and edgeworn flakes/blades, a chert blade, three single platform cores and a large tuff blade made on a polished axe fragment (Cherry & Cherry 1985). At St Bees Golf Course VIII, a blade based scatter including end scrapers and a high proportion of utilised blades and flakes, exclusively made on black chalk flint, was also assigned a Later Neolithic date (Cherry & Cherry 1983, 2002). In both cases, the presence of chalk flint clearly drove the attribution of a Later Neolithic date for blade based scatters which illustrate clear Later Mesolithic/Early Neolithic characteristics.

It has been assumed the flint in use in Cumbria was technologically restrictive, however despite constraints imposed by its size it nevertheless possible to distinguish between scatters with high frequencies of blades from those where a flake technology predominated (see chapter nine). This means it is possible to draw on technological analyses from other areas in the characterisation of lithics from Cumbria. Later Mesolithic/Early Neolithic scatters are based around the production of blades (figure 3.10). Blade based assemblages often incorporate less than 20% actual blades however, with narrow flakes occurring in higher proportions (Ford 1987). Flakes are a necessary element of core reduction and those with parallel dorsal scars can also be used to illustrate blade manufacture (ibid.). Blade scatters often include small and exhausted single and double platform cores suggesting the maximum number of blades were produced from relatively small amounts of raw material. The constituents of such assemblages illustrate a high degree of careful working, with core preparation and rejuvenation suggesting an organised approach to the production of narrow blade and flake blanks. In terms of tool forms, Later Mesolithic/Early Neolithic scatters illustrate an emphasis on retouched and edgeworn flakes and blades, with end/side scrapers, awls/borers and multi-use forms commonly represented. This relatively restricted range of tools were easily portable and could have been used for a variety of tasks (Edmonds 1987, 1995).

In Furness, the majority of blade based scatters incorporate significant quantities of good quality translucent flint. There is no clear difference in the occurrence of ‘non-local’ flint between Later Mesolithic/Early Neolithic and Later Neolithic/Early Bronze Age scatters. That black chalk flint is present in demonstrably Early Neolithic assemblages from excavated sites in Furness (Jones 2001; OAN 2002) demonstrates that ‘dating’ scatters on the basis of nonlocal materials has masked the presence of such assemblages in the Cherry collections. Later Neolithic/Early Bronze Age scatters Compared to the relative lack of Early Neolithic pottery and arrowheads in surface scatters, Later Neolithic/Early Bronze Age forms are less rare, and particularly in the eastern uplands (Cherry & Cherry 1996, 1996b, 1987a, 2002), have been used to date associated scatters. Assemblages interpreted as being Later Neolithic were associated with grooved and Peterborough wares and Bronze Age scatters with beaker material (Cherry & Cherry 1987a, 2002). There is an obvious problem here as the onset of beaker production is broadly contemporary with that of grooved ware (Thomas 1991; Bradley 1984; Gibson 2002 ) and the presence of both in ‘domestic’ assemblages is relatively late in the sequence (Bradley 1984). The distinctions drawn between Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age scatters (Cherry & Cherry 2002) were also based on arrowhead forms known to span the transition. Given these problems, and that the majority of scatters from the eastern uplands were derived from erosion scars, the dating of this material to specific periods is problematic.

Although the Cherrys drew qualitative distinctions between flake and blade based assemblages, there are some major problems with their approach to technology. Although nearly 5000 cores were collected from the coastal and upland sites, together with over 61000 pieces of waste (Cherry & Cherry 2002), little analysis of this material has taken place. With the exception of waste considered diagnostic (e.g. bladelet cores in association with microlithic debitage), most has not seen analysis or published description. This means not only that little information regarding reduction technology or chronology can be derived from the published data but also that in the absence of ‘diagnostics’, a variety of other factors and associations have been used to differentiate between scatters of supposedly different date. Given these and other problems relating to the interpretation and consistency of the published data, the constituents of the Cherrys’ assemblages are not recorded in detail here, or included in the appendices to this thesis.

In technological terms, Later Neolithic and Bronze Age assemblages can be identified by their contrast to blade based scatters (figures 3.10, 3.11). Flake cores, predominantly of a larger size than blade cores, appear in a variety of forms often with multiple platforms. Flakes illustrate little evidence of preparation and careful working, many lacking identifiable bulbs and platforms. Flake scatters include a variety of tool and core forms compared to the relatively restricted range in blade assemblages (Edmonds 1987, 1995). Furthermore, in contrast to the ‘multi-use’ forms characterising earlier

Distinctions drawn between ‘Later Neolithic’ and ‘Bronze Age’ assemblages were based on differential raw material use. Although the reasons for this assumption are unclear, it appears the Cherrys believed non-local raw materials were present in west Cumbria only during the Late Neolithic. Waberthwaite 5 was assigned a Late Neolithic date (Cherry & Cherry 2002). 33

relation to landscape setting and the types of working or tool forms prevalent in specific contexts. Together with broad chronological indicators and the differential use and distribution of raw materials, it is possible to identify how localised patterns of landscape occupation changed over time. Before this can be discussed in more detail however, it is necessary to set up some models of the likely character of occupation and landuse and situate them in an appropriate academic framework.

assemblages, distinctive tool ‘types’ can be identified, which often appear to have been produced for specific tasks. Flake tools are in general larger and cruder than earlier forms, however a number of finely worked ‘classic’ tool types, such as thumbnail scrapers, knives and arrowheads illustrate the invasive retouch more common to earlier assemblages. Later Neolithic and Early Bronze Age assemblages are often larger than earlier scatters and are often located close to raw material sources (Edmonds 1987, 1995; Ford 1987).

Approaching the occupation record In the absence of diagnostics, the bases on which the Cherrys assigned Later Neolithic and Bronze Age dates to lithic scatters are unclear. As discussed above, these appear based on the idea that non-local raw materials were present in the Later Neolithic but relatively absent into the Bronze Age. Attributions of Bronze Age dates are further problematic in that many scatters dated to the Bronze Age on the west coast have been derived from shingle ridges exposed by the movement of sand dunes. Perhaps the most significant problem with this approach is that these assemblages are consistently situated on or close to sources of pebble flint. The rough technology which characterises them is commonly used to differentiate between blade and flake based assemblages (Pitts & Jacobi 1979; Ford 1987; Ford et al. 1987; Edmonds 1987) and has been used by the Cherrys to attribute all dune scatters to the Bronze Age. However, like assemblages from other stone sources, the constituents of these scatters illustrate the informal use of abundantly available pebble flint, the production of blanks, raw material testing and significant quantities of primary debitage (Inzian et al. 1992; Torrence 1986; Edmonds 1995; see chapter nine). Although the presence of scatters in dune contexts suggests a Later Neolithic/Early Bronze Age date by physical association, Later Mesolithic/Early Neolithic material associated with shingle deposits share many of the same attributes. Distinguishing between them is difficult in particular when the specific mechanics and chronologies of coastal formation are unknown.

The culture historical approaches characterising previous interpretations of the lithic record in Cumbria were based on identifying sites belonging to specific prehistoric cultures, the idea being that there were clear distinctions between Mesolithic, Neolithic, and Bronze Age occupation. Such lines were commonly drawn on an economic basis, concentrated on the changes thought to separate the transitory lifestyles of Late Mesolithic hunter-gatherers and the settled agriculture practised by Neolithic and Bronze Age farmers. Understandings of lithic scatters based on identification of ‘sites’, are linked into perceptions of Neolithic sedentism. The traditional idea of settled Neolithic farmers was heavily influenced by LBK settlements in central Europe, despite their much earlier dates. Closer to home, the stone houses and field characterising elements of the Orcadian and Irish Neolithic (see Cooney 1997, 2000) were taken to indicate similar lifestyles on the British mainland. Since surveys aimed at the discovery of such sites revealed only insubstantial subsoil features (e.g. Healy 1987; Holgate 1988) it has increasingly been recognised that ‘sedentary’ occupation need not have been the norm even in those areas where ‘settlements’ can be identified. Interpretation of the ways lithics relate to prehistoric occupation patterns has a complex history drawn from a number of disciplines. Together with changes in academic approaches over recent decades, there are some significant problems relating to the interpretation of this material, especially at a regional scale. One of the main problems with understanding localised and regional lithic data is that they are difficult to reconcile with wider academic interpretations, themselves extremely presumptive and based (often implicitly) on ethnographic analogy.

Despite the often restrictive nature of the available raw materials, the technological changes used to separate the Later Mesolithic/Early Neolithic from the Later Neolithic/Early Bronze Age in other regions can be identified in Cumbria. However, the ways lithic collections have been treated in the past has effectively masked their recognition. The assumptions characterising previous approaches to the lithic record have created problems which have worked their way into the regional literature without being questioned even at a basic level. In order to begin to redress these problems, what is needed is a more generalised approach towards chronology and a more detailed focus on technology in line with contemporary approaches to lithic characterisation.

Together with challenges to traditional understandings of the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition (e.g. Thomas 1988, 1991; Bender 1978; Bradley 1993; Pluciennik 1998) academic narratives based largely on anthropological models (e.g. Boserup 1965; Ingold 1986, 1993) have become focussed on pathways, seasonal movement, resource procurement and the effects domestication had on mobility and residence (e.g. Barrett 1989, 1994; Bradley 1993; Tilley 1994; Edmonds 1999). Ironically, that the ‘mobility’ model is now seen as having wide application across the British Isles means we are in

Re-evaluation of the published record, together with the results of surface survey undertaken in Furness allows for the identification of different ‘types’ of lithic scatter, in 34

of grazing, wild animals are hunted, fruits and nuts gathered, crops are tended and woodlands are maintained and harvested. Within these subsistence related practices, lithic raw materials are exploited, worked, used and discarded.

danger of building what Cooney has termed the “new mobility orthodoxy” (1997: 24). Even when regional diversity is increasingly stressed, academic narratives, often based on the southern downlands, have become embedded in the literature with those areas formerly taken as the exemplars of sedentary occupation now often treated as the exceptions.

So how do we go about interpreting the lithic occupation record in Cumbria? Recent approaches have stressed the importance of landscape scales of analysis, rejecting the ‘site’ concept completely in favour of letting the data ‘speak for itself’ (Foley 1981a, 1981b; Schofield 1987; Zvelebil et al. 1992; Spikins 1995). Lithic scatters represent the reduction and discard of cores and tools than rather than being clearly indicative of settlement sites or even short term occupation (Edmonds 1995). If parts of communities split off from each other to take part in different aspects of subsistence practice, the ‘occupation’ patterns represented by the lithic record need not represent the movement and residence of whole communities, but areas in which particular activities were undertaken. Dense concentrations of lithics in particular areas illustrate repeated visits to particularly favourable locations. Given the majority of stone tools were made for subsistence related tasks, the lithic record suggests domestic occupation was inextricably linked to subsistence activity. Together with pollen data, and the character of the landscape itself, it is possible to suggest some of the activities that took place in the different environments from which stone tools have been recovered. That occupation practice was essentially local means these need not bear close comparison with other areas of the British Isles, or even different areas of a given region (see Cooney 1997, 2000).

The background to the ‘mobility’ trend is Ingold’s (1986) description of tenurial perception amongst small scale societies. Whilst the landscapes of hunter gatherers are made up of paths and tracks, the territories of agriculturists are made up of blocks or plots of land. On this basis, archaeologists have tended to label prehistoric communities either as ‘hunter-gatherers’ or ‘pastoralists’, with Mesolithic and Neolithic groups associated with ‘paths’ and Bronze Age communities with bounded ‘places’ (see Cooney 1997). These labels are problematic not only in that this polarisation fails to address change over time, but also that the societies on which these models were based are modern products of localised sets of historical and geographical conditions. Many modern societies do not conform to specific economic labels, within which there are countless different sorts of mobility and residence. Elements of ‘mobile’ economies often take place alongside ‘sedentary’ agricultural practices. Communities move around the landscape at different temporal and spatial scales, some of which are more closely structured and tied to individual places than others (Whittle 1997). Ethnographic studies clearly illustrate patterns of movement and occupation are the products of indigenous histories with subsistence strategies dictated by the seasonal and local availability of resources (Casimir & Rao 1992; Ingold et al. 1988a, 1988b; Ingold, 1986, 1993, 2000; Morphy 1995; Bloch 1995). At a fundamental level, it remains that occupation patterns are essentially local and their variety/variability is tied into the character and different potentials offered by specific landscapes.

Places and times Studies of both the lithic and environmental records in Cumbria have concentrated on the description and dating of ‘episodes’ of human activity. Few interpretations have confronted what sorts of practices this data represents, or the ways this changed over time. There are both practical and inferential limitations relating to the integration of these sources, in particular at a close spatial scale. Whilst the lithic record illustrates something of the nature of domestic and subsistence activity in specific places, the environmental record relates to agricultural practice over relatively wide areas. Furthermore the locations of ‘occupation’ and ‘agriculture’ are not necessarily equivalent and the character of each may have taken many different forms, both between areas and over time.

In terms of understanding prehistoric patterns of residence and mobility, perhaps the most useful approach is to take on the diversity of such patterns, and the themes by which they are driven, rather than relying on ethnographic or period specific ‘labels’. This diversity offers some sense of the sorts of subsistence practice different kinds of movement might entail (Whittle 1997). Although lithic scatters lack the close resolution to illustrate either the temporal or spatial scale of occupation, the underlying themes by which these patterns are created may illustrate the different times and places that were important.

Despite uncertainties surrounding the interpretation of the pollen data record there is patterning in the location and extent of forest disturbance over the Mesolithic and Early Neolithic. The evidence suggests that from the sixth millennium BC, communities were actively involved in the creation and maintenance of forest clearings in a variety of settings.

The themes it is possible to draw from small scale societies in other parts of the world stress residential fluidity (Whittle 1997). Movement between different areas, at different social and geographical scales, takes place in order to exploit different resources. Domesticated animals are moved between different areas

• In both low lying areas and the high uplands, clearings which appear to be associated with the 35

prevented regeneration without human intervention (Buckland & Edwards 1984; Veere 2000), so clear episodes of burning or disturbance can be seen as purposive manipulation to promote grazing for wild animals, and later, to provide browse and fodder for domesticates (Simmons & Innes 1987; Simmons 1996).

maintenance of open or grassland areas were established, occasionally through the use of fire. • Small scale cultivation occurred both on the coastal plain and the eastern limestone plateau at around 4000 BC.

The introduction of domesticates would have brought about pronounced changes in both the character and perception of the environment. These may be reflected in the changing nature and intensity of clearance across the Neolithic and Bronze Age. Changes in the nature of landscape occupation that cultivation, herding, grazing and the over wintering of animals brought with it mean routines would have become increasingly structured and predictable. Not only would animals have been moved between places where water and fodder were available, clearings and woodland resources would have to be maintained.

• The earliest episodes of forest disturbance recorded across the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition appear to be smaller in scale than those that occur later. After the Early Neolithic, the location and extent of clearance and cultivation is more difficult to establish. However the results of early analyses, alongside dated sequences from south and east Cumbria (Skinner 2000; Wimble et al. 2000) illustrate some broad themes. • Sequences indicating early clearance episodes often suggest an almost continuous presence, separated by regeneration phases, through to the Later Neolithic and beyond.

Pollarding and coppicing may have been undertaken in clearance contexts. Although not directly analogous to prehistoric communities in Cumbria, there is historical and archaeological evidence for the use of woodland resources for animal fodder. Leafy hay was produced through the summer harvesting of leaf bearing twigs, often from pollards, and in late winter and early spring, leafless twigs, birch catkins and climbers such as ivy were harvested and fed directly to animals (Ramussen 1989; Haas et al. 1998; Halstead & Tierney 1998). In Cumbria and other areas, holly was farmed for the over wintering of livestock; extant hollins are still common, as are grown out pollards, traditionally lopped for spring and winter fodder (Winchester 1987; Fleming 1998; Edmonds 2004). Such practices are not clearly demonstrable by palynological data, however waterlogged wood in archaeological contexts has demonstrated that Neolithic woodland management did take place (Rackham 1977; Ramussen 1989; Edmonds 1999; Pryor 1999). In Cumbria the disappearance of ivy at the same time as clearance episodes at Bowness Common, Ehenside Tarn (Walker 1966a), Roudsea Wood (Birks 1982), Urswick Tarn and Thrang Moss (Oldfield 1963) has been taken to suggest its use as fodder (Walker 1966a).

• During and after the Later Neolithic, the evidence illustrates areas of both the uplands and lowlands which had not seen sustained clearance in earlier periods saw more intensive use, both for cereal agriculture and pasture. • Changing climatic conditions alongside the increasing intensity of human activity brought about peat formation in areas of the high uplands during the Later Neolithic. Clearance foundation and maintenance Although the pollen record suggests clearings were established in a variety of settings, it remains that we understand little of their nature. What was the character of landuse and how far did this relate to localised environmental conditions? The varied topography and geology of the region supported a wide variety of vegetation cover which occurred in different densities in different areas. The majority of clearance episodes identified over the Late Mesolithic and Early Neolithic appear limited and need not imply large scale or even purposeful deforestation. Windthrow, storm damage, forest fires, erosion and disease create the majority of openings in the forest canopy (Peterken 1996) and it seems likely the opportunistic exploitation of natural clearings was the cause of many clearance episodes (Simmons 1996; Brown 1997; Edmonds 1999). Animals would have been drawn to the herbage occurring in clearings and areas of browse in naturally light areas such as rivers, tarns and lakes. Such conditions would also have attracted human communities.

During and after the Later Neolithic, many areas became increasingly open due both to natural processes and the effects of human activity. In the uplands, areas of heath and grassland spread. Some areas were utilised for small scale cultivation and it is possible that burning, cultivation and grazing were cyclical (Skinner 2000), separated by regeneration phases. Although the pollen record does not have the resolution to demonstrate the detail of such practices, that early clearance episodes were separated by regeneration phases may suggest patterns of exploitation shifted periodically in earlier periods, only later becoming more intensive and closely focussed.

Evidence of woodland clearance and burning from the Late Mesolithic onwards suggests the herbaceous component of clearings and areas of open canopy were managed in a variety of ways. Grazing would have

The pollen rain on which the majority of analyses have been based was itself drawn from a mosaic of locally and 36

the long term use of particular areas, and repeated visits to specific places within them.

regionally fluctuating habitats. Clearance episodes could reflect a variety of practices; natural openings, management cycles within open woodland, clearing maintenance and the opening of paths between clearings (Evans et al. 1999). Over time, pathways between clearings are likely to have become wider and more widespread, culminating in the large scale episodes identified in the pollen data. These were the results of long term processes; although many places saw repeated use from the Mesolithic onwards, this led to the proliferation and increasing intensity of clearance into the Later Neolithic and Bronze Age.

Although there are major problems of coverage, concentrations of lithics illustrate strong associations with specific types of environment, likely relating to the particular sorts of activity carried out there. Focussed on estuaries, raw material sources, freshwater tarns and ponds, rivers and the natural routeways they follow, these illustrate the natural world and the resources it provided, determined some of the ways that occupation patterns played out. Lithic scatters from areas such as Williamson's Moss, Walney North End and St Bees (Cross 1938; Cherry & Cherry 1983; Cherry 1969; Bonsall et al. 1994) demonstrate the importance of estuarine locations from the Later Mesolithic onwards. Such areas provided a variety of resources and although scatters in such contexts have been interpreted as year round occupation (Bonsall 1981) they may also reflect repeated visits and/or potentially large gatherings of people.

Occupation patterns So how do we go about using themes drawn from the environmental record in the interpretation of prehistoric occupation patterns? Beyond the data itself, the ambiguity of the pollen record means we understand little of the specific nature of activity. However, given that animal husbandry, woodland management and cultivation are closely linked to the seasonal routines of grazing and harvesting, it seems likely that occupation ran in conjunction with these cycles. Consideration of the types of places where clearance and occupation have been recorded may therefore imply the existence of seasonal routines. During the Later Mesolithic and Early Neolithic, pollen evidence from the high uplands suggests small scale clearances were established in sheltered valleys at the edge of the treeline and in the environs of upland tarns. Over the course of fourth and third millennia BC, deteriorating climatic conditions, exacerbated by human activity at these altitudes, brought about the onset of peat formation. Activity in such contexts is illustrated by lithics of Late Mesolithic/Early Neolithic date from peat erosion scars around Great Rundale Tarn (Skinner 2000). Domesticated and wild cattle horn sheaths and similar lithic material from peat on the Moorhouse nature reserve (Johnson & Dunham 1963) in the Pennines close to Skinner’s (2000) sample sites has been taken as suggestive of hunting and grazing in the high uplands (ibid.). In the central fells, it was in such contexts that stone was quarried for the production of axes. Given the proximity of upland clearance to these areas, it seems likely that axe production took place in conjunction with summer grazing (Bradley & Edmonds 1993; Edmonds 2004). The distribution of axes down the major valleys and in coastal and lowland contexts seems to suggest that communities, or parts of communities, moved periodically, and probably seasonally, between the high uplands and lower lying areas.

The large and multi-period estuarine spreads grade out to smaller concentrations of Neolithic and Bronze Age material, the majority of which suggests relatively small scale occupation along and above former shorelines (e.g. Cherry 1982; Jones 2001; OAN 2002; Evans & Coward 2003). Given that there is little obviously Mesolithic material associated with these scatters, this may relate to a subtle expansion of occupation during the Early Neolithic, becoming more obvious in later periods (see chapter nine). Similar trends have been identified on the terraces of the Eden Valley and the eastern limestones (Skinner 2000; Cherry & Cherry 2002). What is common to these scatters is that they all occur in areas were lithic raw materials were available. These may represent procurement sites, close to freshwater sources, where stone was exploited and worked in conjunction with the occupation of these resource rich areas. Inland from the coast, many scatters are located around sources of fresh water. Assemblages at Bailey Ground, St Bees 8 (Cherry & Cherry 1984, 2002) and Temple Sowerby (Skinner 2000) were all focussed around lowland tarns and ponds. Occupation evidence from Ehenside Tarn included pottery, wooden bowls and hearths (Darbishire 1873). The lack of lithic material from its wider environs (Cherry & Cherry 1984; Hodgkinson et al. 2000) suggest the tarn edge itself was the focus for occupation. Although not necessarily locally specific, environmental evidence from Williamson's Moss, Barfield Tarn, Ehenside Tarn and Temple Sowerby suggest such areas formed the focus for agricultural activity from the Later Mesolithic onwards (Pennington 1975; Walker 1966a, 2002; Tippping 1994; Skinner 2000).

Whilst such interpretations are persuasive, and appear to ‘fit’ the evidence, they are simplistic and fail to address change over time, particularly into the Later Neolithic and Bronze Age. Whilst transhumance models forwarded for the Neolithic are a point of departure for understanding the nature of occupation, it remains that the lithic record does not illustrate specific scales and patterns of temporal or physical movement. What both the pollen and lithic data clearly demonstrate however is

Data available from inland contexts is significantly less detailed than that from the coast. However evidence from Furness and the eastern uplands illustrates that inland scatters, closely associated with ponds, springs and becks, 37

Neolithic-Bronze Age transition. Recognisable across the region in pollen sequences, if less so with the lithic data, this is particularly evident in the monument record.

are situated along natural routeways. Large concentrations of chronologically mixed material have been identified in areas where valley systems meet, with smaller dispersed clusters along the natural routeways between them. This suggests repetitive and long term movement up and down valleys, with occupation occurring at particular points on the routeways between them. In the eastern uplands, Later Mesolithic/Early Neolithic scatters have been identified in clusters along the edge of the limestone scarp, with mixed and later material occurring predominantly around the heads of major valleys, in some cases in the environs of major monument complexes (Cherry & Cherry 1987a, 2002).

Conclusion At a regional scale, both the environmental and lithic record are geographically skewed datasets and cannot, by themselves, be used to reconstruct the locally specific ways in which particular landscapes were utilised. Instead, they can offer a sense of broad trends which suggest that prehistoric communities were moving between landscape zones, at least from the Early Neolithic and likely much earlier. We still understand little of the close character, organisation and temporality of occupation, or the specifics of how this changed over time. To further understand the ways, and scales, at which people inhabited and moved between different areas, we need to consider the evidence from the middle ground between them.

The only evidence for lithic scatters in upland contexts comes from the eastern fells. Here a distinction has been drawn between scatters containing different arrowhead forms (Cherry & Cherry 1987a; 2002). Leaf and petit tranchet derivatives were generally located in sheltered areas of relatively low ground between the 270 and 340 metre contours (Cherry & Cherry 2002). That these were commonly associated with scatters including ceramic forms suggests this occupation was not entirely transitory. Above 350 metres, barbed and tanged arrowheads were common, less often associated with scatters of other material (ibid.). Whilst the Cherrys have attached chronological implications to this disparity, at a general level it suggests that upland occupation centred on the lower slopes, with occasional forays onto higher ground.

Between the lowlands and high central fells that have formed the main focus of this chapter lie a diversity of upland landscapes. Although lithic and environmental data are poorly represented, many of these areas are occupied by extant monuments. The following chapters are concerned with problems relating to understanding the wide variety of forms represented, and exploration of the ways their settings and distribution can inform more detailed interpretations of occupation practice and landuse. Through outlining and discussing the character of the monument record, the following five chapters culminate with detailed discussion of the character of landscape occupation, and the ways that relationships between people, monuments and important aspects of the natural world unfolded across the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age.

In some ways, this observation brings us full circle. Interpretations of axe production during the Neolithic suggest similar sorts of practices. However, ‘after the axe’, the environmental record suggests proliferation, diversification and intensification of upland use. This can be illustrated by the pollen record from the eastern uplands at Bank Moor. Situated above the 300 metre contour within Cherry & Cherrys’ (1987a) postulated range of ‘occupation’, Bank Moor was characterised by species rich grassland from the Mesolithic onwards (Skinner 2000). During the Early Neolithic, Bank Moor would have been conducive to grazing, hunting and occupation. Although activity in open areas is not discernible in the ‘clearance’ record, this is suggested by lithic finds in similar contexts (e.g. Cherry & Cherry 1987a). Only in the second half of the Neolithic were high levels of charcoal recorded at Bank Moor, suggesting managed burning (Skinner 2000). Charcoal was recorded discontinuously into the first half of the second millennium BC and cereal pollen from the Early Bronze Age onwards. The presence of cairnfields close to Bank Moor may indicate the charcoal present from the Later Neolithic related to vegetation stripping prior to field clearance, with limited cereal cultivation taking place from the Early Bronze Age (ibid.). The pollen sequence from Bank Moor, and the presence of cairnfields in its environs illustrates a significant change in agricultural practice compared to earlier periods. The timing of this shift goes hand in hand with changes to the scale and character of occupation at and after the

Chapter four outlines the ways monuments in Cumbria have been identified and interpreted in the past. Discussion of the appropriateness of conventional classification schema, and the sorts of processes that monuments are likely to represent, forms the basis for outlining a consistent approach to the available data. Chapter five is concerned with the interpretation of stone circles and henges. The geographical and interpretative scales at which they have been understood in the past have led to major inferential problems. These relate not only to the identification of particular monumental ‘types’, but also to the histories of individual monuments and ceremonial complexes. These issues need resolution before this large dataset can be approached in its own regional context. Chapter six is concerned with the character and distribution of monuments. Taking the cairnfield record as the point of departure, the narrative focuses on the identification of time depth in the extant record and the ways shifts in the distribution and location of monuments illustrate changes in the scale and structure of community. Chapter seven confronts the landscape 38

Chapter nine returns to integrate themes from the present chapter with those established through the analysis and interpretation of monuments. Detailed analysis of lithic data from the Furness peninsula together with consideration of the ways monuments, burial and depositional practice articulated with the natural landscape leads to a consideration of the character of occupation across the Neolithic and Bronze Age. Together with exploration of the ways and media through which communities operated at different social and geographical scales, chapter ten discusses the nature of local and regional traditions and, bringing together the different strands of evidence, forwards a concluding regional narrative.

settings of monuments. At both local and closer topographic levels, how monuments sit in relation to the landscape, and to other monuments, illustrates something of the nature and scale of occupation. Discussion of how particular features were set in relation to aspects of the natural world leads to a consideration of the ways, and places, in which dispersed communities combined and separated over the Neolithic and into the Bronze Age. Chapter eight is concerned with burial and depositional traditions. Drawing on themes established in earlier chapters, the narrative is concerned with the changing ways the dead were drawn on in different contexts, and how burial and depositional practice articulated with occupation patterns, tenurial concerns and important aspects of the natural world.

39

Chapter 4: The monument record unpublished gazetteer (Clare 1973), these were the sole records of these areas until more than century after they were surveyed and at present remain the only published sources. The 1980s and 90s saw a programme of large scale upland survey undertaken by Lancaster Archaeological Unit (LAU, now Oxford Archaeology North) for the Lake District National Park Authority. Commissioned partly in response to problems of coverage and as an administrative tool, the surveys identified over 13000 features on the western, southern and eastern fells. The results remain unpublished at present, however alongside published interims (Quartermaine 1989; 2002), the survey data are available as individual Sites and Monuments Records.

Introduction Whilst studies of monuments in Cumbria have been undertaken, like the lithic and environmental records, there is no synthesis or interpretation of the existing data. The majority of monuments have been identified by their external morphology and therefore have been subject to a variety of classification schema. It is problems with these that this chapter aims to address. As discussed in chapter two, it has been necessary to ‘deconstruct’ the evidence in order that an internally coherent dataset be produced. As the following chapters confront different aspects of the monument record in detail, this section provides only a background to subsequent discussion. The first section outlines the geographical and analytical scales at which monuments have been approached, with the second focussed on the appropriateness of classification schema for understanding individual monuments and regional sequences. The final section details problems with the identification and classification of monuments in Cumbria and sets out the basis for a consistent and integrated approach.

The identification and interpretation of monuments in Cumbria has seen a bipartite division of labour and academic attention. This has been further exacerbated by period specific approaches to ‘Neolithic’ stone circles and the ‘Bronze Age’ upland record. The ways different types of monuments have seen identification and classification clearly illustrate the contrast between academic and administrative approaches. Although divergent in some ways however, what these have in common is a rigid adherence to typological schema. Academics have used typology to establish national chronologies which fit into clear functional and period distinctions. Administrative approaches, based on the need to manage large datasets, have conformed with these chronologies. However these have been historically constituted, changing alongside alterations to academic thought. At a regional scale, this means the ways that different monument ‘types’ have been classified varies between different sources and over time.

Divisions of labour and scale As a prehistoric region, Cumbria is best known for its stone circles, with the remainder of the monument record often overlooked. Widely considered to be a nationally important group of monuments, the Penrith henges, Long Meg, Swinside and Castlerigg have seen much academic attention (e.g. Collingwood 1933; Burl 1976; Bradley 1984, 1998; Bradley & Edmonds 1993). Site specific work ranges from site descriptions, syntheses of antiquarian sources to detailed metric and geophysical survey (Dymond 1881; Waterhouse 1984; Topping 1992). The majority of work has however focussed on the typology and distribution of circles at both national and regional scales (Burl 1976, 1988; Annable 1987; Barnatt 1989). Resulting in the interpretation of stone circles focussing either on site plans or regional distribution maps, this has meant they have often been divorced from their own landscape contexts. Not only this, stone circles have become separated from the localised and wider regional sequences of which they were part, the remainder of monuments having seen little academic attention or close characterisation. Although long cairns and enclosures have been identified, the monument record is dominated by round funerary cairns and ringcairns, often associated with upland cairnfields. Alongside the lack of academic interest, the extent and sheer numbers of these features has meant until recently, many remained unrecorded.

Type and typology The vast majority of monuments recorded in Cumbria have been classified by their external morphology. This has often led to their unthinking conversion into ‘typesites’ understood to relate to examples in other areas. Such normative approaches could be taken to imply we know exactly what all these monuments represent and exactly how old they are. In reality however, there are some fundamental problems here. In itself, classification is a basic theoretical construct through which we can talk about process with reference to empirical data. The use of such constructs in archaeology, in particular through taxonomic classification, has a pedigree rooted in 18th century studies of biology and plant science. In the cabinets of many collectors, fossils, plants and geological samples were arranged in order of size and material alongside archaeological specimens. During the late 19th century, the classification of prehistoric stone and metal implements, together with geological understandings of stratigraphy led to the foundation of the Three Age System, thus opening the way to the typological methods

During the 19th century, antiquarians undertook detailed descriptive and measured surveys of a number of cairnfield areas (e.g. Clifton Ward 1878; Dymond 1893; Swainson Cowper 1888a). With the exception of an 40

chronologically specific) architectural forms. According to conventional chronologies, henges and stone circles were constructed in the second half of the Neolithic. However these were also constructed into the Bronze Age, when they became smaller and more architecturally varied. This ‘sliding scale’ of circularity is problematic in that where such features remain unexcavated they have been subject to a variety of elaborate classification schema based on their visible morphology and diameter.

of culture history. Whilst the schema proposed by 19th century archaeologists were based on the establishment of relative chronologies, culture historical approaches became more closely focussed on typology and geographical distribution (Renfrew 1974). taxonomy 1. The science, laws, or principles of classification. 2. Biology. The theory, principles, and process of classifying organisms in established categories according to observed similarities or supposed evolutionary relationships (Reader’s Digest 1984).

Perhaps the most widely known scheme of this sort was proposed by Lynch (1972), who drew distinctions between forms exhibiting traits shared by stone circles and simple cairns. ‘Variant circles’ were split into two categories based on the presence or absence of an open internal area. These were sub-classified into a number of different types based on the size and spacing of uprights or kerbing, and the presence or absence of surrounding banks. Monuments with open central areas were classified as ringcairns, and subgrouped as stone rings, kerbed ringcairns, complex ringcairns and embanked stone circles. Monuments based around cairns were classified as kerb circles, circle cairns, platform cairns and kerbed cairns.

On the basis of the excavated ‘type-sites’ which became the exemplars of particular prehistoric cultures, ‘affinities’ were drawn between monuments in different areas. Illustrating clear similarities to principles of biological classification, the relationship between dated ‘type-sites’ and their shared morphological similarities with unexcavated monuments in other regions had significant ramifications. Belonging to the prehistoric periods defined by the Three Age System, established ‘categories’ of monument were identified across the country. Dating evidence from ‘type-sites’ was then used to ‘confirm’ the chronological (or supposed evolutionary) relationship between these monuments. One of the major problems inherent to these approaches is that typological evolution and chronological process are not necessarily mutually exclusive. In other words, things may change in similar ways over time, but under different circumstances and in different places, this change may occur at different rates and in different ways.

There are a number of problems with the variant circle typology, not least that of geographical scale. Lynch’s (1972) scheme was originally devised on the basis of excavations in north Wales. However largely as a result of comparisons drawn between the Welsh sites and excavated examples in other areas (Lynch 1979) it has been used more widely than was proposed. The variant circle typology was based on a well preserved and regionally coherent group of monuments. Identifying the same or similar forms in different contexts is difficult as both within and between different areas there are differences in preservation (Leighton 1984; Barnatt 1989). Furthermore, in many regions the specific forms identified in Wales simply do not exist, with ringcairns and funerary cairns appearing on the surface at least, as relatively simple monuments. The application of these schema at a wide geographical scale has the effect of precluding comparisons between different types of monument likely to result from localised traditions drawing on aspects of more widely recognised forms (Barnatt 1989; Last 1999).

The existence of regional diversity in monument form has long been recognised, however what may be minor architectural differences in the forms of similar monument types have commonly been treated as superficial products of wider scale social processes. Prehistoric communities may have taken on aspects of monumental traditions in different contexts, therefore, shared styles need not represent shared practices or common understandings (Evans 1988; Thomas 1998). If different communities had their own understandings of what monuments represented, then their construction and use was the product of localised histories, social and political conditions. Typology and architecture

The subclassifications proposed by Lynch illustrate a problem related to both geographical and interpretative scale which pertains equally to all monuments: that of nomenclature. The very nature of taxonomy means that the constituents of typologies need names. Whether by family or genus, these names are the signifiers of certain sets of determined conditions. Across the country as a whole monuments that look the same as those identified in other areas, have been assigned the same names, and by extension, the same dates and functions (e.g. Lynch 1972; Gibson 1998). Therein lies the problem. By giving things names we, in effect, deny the possibility of differences in chronology, history and use.

The second major problem with typology, for the purposes of this research, relates specifically to the understanding of circular monuments. The ways these have been approached illustrates interpretative issues clearly relating to the use of (borrowed) classification schema. Stone circles, ringcairns and round funerary cairns, often situated in upland regions, have traditionally seen identification and interpretation by analogy to better understood sequences from lowland Britain. That virtually all monuments constructed in Britain between 3000 and 1500 BC were circles of one kind or another (Bradley 1998) has led to problems relating to the identification of particular (and supposedly 41

Figure 4.1. LAU cairnfield typology. After Quartermaine (2002).

Although features such as henges, enclosures, long barrows and cursuses have seen classification as separate ‘types’ of monument, what we understand of the activities that took place within them suggest they performed similar roles (albeit at different scales). All were used in different ways to mediate relationships with the living and the dead, and between local and wider communities (ibid.). Although the names of these monuments imply discrete roles, none can be securely ascribed specific functions. The logical conclusion would be to dispense with the classificatory labels that force sites into formal categories and consider them as unique expressions of shared monumental ideas (ibid.).

Constructional complexity and time depth Looking at monuments can be confusing. We tend to assume they are static and classify them as if they are the results of formal single phase designs. However to do so is to ignore the fact that we are often looking at an end point of what may have been a variety of constructional episodes. Perhaps one of the reasons we often assume monuments were single phase forms is our traditional reliance on the results of antiquarian excavations. Nowhere is this clearer than round barrow excavations where the presumption has long been that these represented single phase monuments heaped up over a central grave.

In purely theoretical terms the idea of dispensing with these labels is tempting but would be extremely counterproductive, leading to the loss of all our basic material categories. Although classification is itself normative at different levels, names as signifiers can be retained if we change the sets of conditions to which they refer. It is only by retaining broad classificatory distinctions that it is possible to explore the similarities and differences which characterise the roles and understandings of monuments at different social, geographical and temporal scales.

More detailed investigation often tells a different story. Excavations of enclosures, long cairns, henges, stone circles, round funerary cairns and ringcairns have all illustrated long histories of deposition and alteration. Often taking place over hundreds of years and crossing our period distinctions, many assumed a variety of forms prior to that we see today. Monuments may then be better understood as ‘projects’ (Evans 1988). The many different forms in which particular monument types occur, often themselves subject to detailed classification (e.g. Lynch 1972; Burl 1976; Gibson 1998) can then be seen as stages in processes which ended at different points at different sites (Barrett 1994; Bradley 1998).

Morphological classification of Cumbrian monuments That few monuments in Cumbria have seen detailed excavation means there is no secure chronology from which to work. The subsequent reliance on identification by morphology has created problems compounded by extrapolation to other regions. The ways specific monument types have been approached and interpreted will be explored in detail in later chapters. The purposes of this discussion are to introduce these monuments and outline problems relating to their identification.

What we do know of excavated sites is that remodelling often transformed their significance. Processes such as the blocking of entrances, the addition of covering mounds, the construction of façades and the replacement of timber features with those of stone are common to all ‘types’ of monument. That these were subject to similar sets of processes suggests that drawing sharp distinctions between them may overlook basic similarities in the roles they assumed. Last (1999) argued that in the case of Neolithic monuments, all have their origins in attempts to mediate social relationships by controlling areas of space.

Although no Neolithic enclosures have been positively identified in Cumbria, a number of possible examples have seen recent survey (see chapter six). Occupying both 42

Barnatt 1988; Quartermaine & Leech forthcoming). Period specific studies have often meant the large ‘Neolithic’ stone circles and henges have seen classification without consideration of the smaller ‘Bronze Age’ monuments and vice versa. In other cases, investigations of type specific monuments have been based on aspects of their typological evolution without consideration of other similar forms. This means that although many circular monuments in the region have seen classification, the significance of others has been overlooked.

hilltop locations and lowlying contexts these occur in a variety of forms not always closely reminiscent of the exemplars of the southern lowlands. In some cases this has meant monuments such as Skelmore Heads and Carrock Fell have been interpreted as Iron Age hillforts (Collingwood 1938a; Powell 1963). Given the evidence from other regions, it seems likely that particular enclosures saw use and re-use from the Neolithic into the Iron Age and later (Edmonds 1999; Edmonds & Seaborne 2000). The identification of long cairns is equally problematic, albeit in different ways. The majority have been identified according to their morphology and it is possible that some may be natural features (Masters 1984). On the basis of problems relating to the identification of long cairns in northern England, Masters set out a number of criteria:

At a basic level, the classification of monuments commonly rests on the presence of specific architectural traits. However, there is a great deal of architectural crossover between monuments traditionally understood to relate to different periods and supposed functions. One of the reasons the Cumbrian monuments have been classified in so many different ways is that the region has been used as a battleground for understanding the relationship between henges and stone circles (Burl 1976; Bradley 1998).

“The classic long cairn is a roughly trapezoid or rectangular mound of stone...It is usually between 15 and 100 metres long and its length is at least twice the greatest width…When cairns are well preserved the profile will descend gradually from the wider end of the cairn, and if the cairn is on sloping ground the wider end will tend to be uphill” (1984: 54).

Traditional classifications of henges have been based on the presence and configuration of ditches, banks and entrances (Atkinson 1951; Harding 2003). This method is problematic not least as it has been imposed, at a national scale, on monuments varying enormously in size and architecture. This has been crucial to the ways henges have been understood in relation to other monuments, in particular when the focus has been on the identification of large stone circles with ‘henge’ characteristics (see chapter five).

Although these are indeed ‘classic’ long cairn attributes, it remains that without excavation, there are significant practical problems pertaining to the secure identification of such features in the field. Discussion of long cairns in Cumbria has been limited to structural comparisons with other areas of northern England (Manby 1970; Powell 1972; Masters 1984). As with these regions, it is clear that some share structural characteristics with round cairns. However over and above descriptions of antiquarian investigations at Raiset Pike and Skelmore Heads (Greenwell 1877; Powell 1972) we have little idea of the character or chronology of these monuments.

Most monuments in Cumbria lacking perceptible ditches, where analyses have taken place these have been focussed on the presence of banks and entrances. The problem with defining the relationship between henges and stone circles, and in turn, stone circles and ringcairns, is whilst they vary in diameter, there are few clearcut architectural distinctions between them. One of the ways stone circles and embanked monuments have been separated has been through the definition of ‘freestanding’ stone circles. This has meant in some cases that stone circles surrounded by banks have seen identification as hengiform types and those without as freestanding circles.

Given problems concerning the secure identification of long cairns and enclosures, there have been few attempts at classification, largely as they have been assumed to occur in distinctive easily identifiable forms. It is ironic that because these monuments have been supposed to conform to the exemplars of other regions, we in fact know almost nothing about them. As the possible or likely ‘Early Neolithic’ monuments identified in Cumbria are so few in number there has been no need to ‘sort’ them into distinct typological groups. Where the situation becomes increasingly more complex is when monuments have assumed circular forms.

The ways monuments such as henges, stone circles and ringcairns have been ‘split’ or ‘lumped’ has significant ramifications not least that as a regional group, these monuments are impossible to interpret in relation to conventional schema. Not only have stone circles been split according to the presence of henge characteristics, they have seen classification as a coherent monument group and also in relation to ‘later’ ringcairns. Freestanding circles themselves have been split into subgroups, often on the basis of internal features not necessarily related to their original forms. Within the broad distinction that has traditionally been drawn between the ‘early’ (large) and ‘late’ (small) circles there

How many ways round a circle? Compared to long cairns and enclosures, stone circles have seen a long history of antiquarian attention and academic study and they have been subject to varying levels of interpretation and classification (Clare 1973; Burl 1976; 1988; Waterhouse 1985; Annable 1987; 43

pertaining to the nature, architectural characteristics or often the precise location of particular sites. Furthermore the identification of many has been based on those elements which individual researchers believed to characterise particular ‘types’ of monuments. This has led to many inconsistencies within the SMR and the duplication of records. For example at Gawthwaite, Clare (1973) described three possible ringcairns (SMR 2170, 2171). Detailed description of these features (Swainson Cowper 1893) makes it clear they were round cairns. Together with Clare’s description of an ‘eccentrically placed mound & loose stones’ associated with SMR 2171, this suggests they were disturbed in the intervening period. A similar sequence is illustrated on Potter Fell where the identification of a small stone circle (Plint 1960) probably relates to the remains of a burial cairn recorded by Matchell (1691).

are a number of architectural features shared by both ‘types’ (and a number of ringcairns). According to Lynch (1972) and Quartermaine and Leech (forthcoming), freestanding stone circles are a subset of the ‘variant circle’ group. Many authors however have not used these criteria when classifying these features, instead defining stone circles as a distinct monumental ‘type’ (taking in both large and small examples) and/or identifying different subsets of feature, grouping freestanding stone circles with different types of ‘variant circle’ (e.g. Clare 1973; Burl 1976; Waterhouse 1985; Barnatt 1989). Given that the classification schema imposed on the Cumbrian monuments represent at best, a significant source of confusion, it remains also that they relate to only a small proportion of the monuments identified. One of the main problems with these varying scales of analysis is the lack of compatibility between datasets. Most investigations have not been based on primary fieldwork or data collection and many have inadvertently fed off long held interpretations and identifications that are fundamentally flawed. Many features falling under the title of ‘stone circle’ have been misidentified, often due to over-reliance on antiquarian descriptions. Whilst the term could apply to any circular setting of stones, it is commonly (but not always) implied that this refers to the large monuments of probable Neolithic date, rather than the smaller and more numerous ‘Bronze Age’ forms. A number of the ‘stone circles’ identified by antiquarians (nomenclature often retained by later authors) are in fact better understood as ringcairns and funerary cairns (see chapter five).

A number of features which saw antiquarian description and/or excavation have been surveyed by the LAU. A number of these had previously been given approximate grid references on the SMR however when later identified on the ground and added again to the SMR database, it appeared as if there were large clusters of monuments at some locations. As such, it is only through close analysis of particular sites, and references pertaining to them, that it is possible to ascertain how many features listed on the SMR are actually physically present, accurately located and identified. LAU methodology Although the monument ‘types’ identified by the LAU are internally coherent, there are problems with the classification scheme utilised. This was based partly on Lynch’s (1972, 1979) variant circle typology, but slightly altered to take in Waterhouse’s (1985) ‘embanked circles’. Categories of monument not characterised by Lynch were classified after Yates’ (1984) work on round cairns in Dumfries and Galloway, Masters’ (1984) description of long barrows in northern England, and partly defined in response to fieldwork results (Quartermaine & Leech forthcoming). On the basis of this classification scheme, individual features were categorised into different ‘types’ within which were various subclassifications (Robinson 1998; Quartermaine & Leech forthcoming).

The second problem is the inconsistent selection of datasets. Academic studies undertaken by Burl (1976), Barnatt (1988), Waterhouse (1984) and Annable (1987) were based on secondary sources relating to features previously published as ‘stone circles’ and the number identified is different in every case. At the other end of the scale, those authors working from primary sources and unpublished survey data have had entirely different datasets from which to work (Quartermaine & Leech forthcoming; Clare 1973). This means that the well known examples have been picked out and classified to the detriment of a wide variety of similar forms either not previously identified or not published as ‘stone circles’. The upland record: coverage and compatibility

• Funerary cairns long round starfish

That over 13000 features have been identified by the LAU within the National Park has led to the production of a significantly larger and more complex dataset than was previously available. Although detailed data from the upland surveys are available through the county SMR, outside the National Park, the information available for those monuments that have been recorded is confined largely to a few published sources and Clare’s (1973) gazetteer.

• Stone circles and ringcairns freestanding circle concentric stone circle embanked stone circle cairn circle kerbed cairn kerbed ring cairn stone ring

Although the SMR contains many references to individual monuments, there is often little detail 44

small stone ring

Excavated evidence from Cumbria and other regions illustrates that the commonly held distinctions between funerary and clearance cairns do not always hold true (Johnston 2000, 2001; see chapter eight). The identification of monuments as either equating to funerary/agricultural according to their morphology is interpretatively problematic, but forced largely by practical circumstance. Although there are a wide variety of round funerary cairn forms in the region, as the significant majority have been identified by the LAU (and others have been subject to rather less stringent characterisation) their methodology is retained for the purposes of this study. Issues pertaining to the settings and distributions of funerary cairns and their relationship with cairnfields are discussed in chapters six and seven.

• Cairnfield occupation features clearance cairns stone banks hut circles/platforms rectangular huts enclosed settlements stock enclosures Funerary cairns There are some clear problems with this scheme, in particular that monuments likely to be the end products of similar sets of circumstances were subject to inappropriate subclassification, in the case of round and kerbed cairns, even placed in different categories. Funerary cairns in Cumbria occur in a variety of round, oval and elongated shapes of different sizes, some with visible kerbing, some without. A number of the more elongated forms have been identified as possible Neolithic long cairns by the LAU, on the basis of some of the ‘less diagnostic’ attributes set out by Masters (1984; see chapter six). That the remainder have been classed as round cairns brushes over aspects of localised monumental architecture and/or potential chronological significance. The one exception to this is illustrated by the inclusion of ‘starfish’ cairns (round cairns with banks spiralling from the cairn edge) of which five examples have been identified (Quartermaine & Leech forthcoming). Although it is unclear whether the banks and cairns are contemporary, it appears these have been treated as a specific monument ‘type’ on the basis of antiquarian nomenclature (Taylor 1886).

Ringcairns The identification of ringcairns is fraught with difficulty. Features identified as funerary cairns may be infilled ringcairns, features identified as ringcairns may be disturbed funerary cairns and ringcairns can also be indistinguishable from hut circles. The criteria used by the LAU to distinguish between ringcairns and hut circles were based on diameter ranges and associations with different ‘types’ of cairnfield. The cairnfield typology proposed was based on the assumption that simple cairnfields were ‘early’ in date and complex examples were ‘late’ (see below). Whilst hut circles (diameters between 4 and 18 metres) were usually associated with complex cairnfields, ringcairns (diameters between 7.5 and c. 25 metres) were more often found in simpler cairnfields (Quartermaine & Leech forthcoming). This correlation is not exclusive however and there are a number of ringcairns associated with complex cairnfields. There may therefore be ringcairns identified as hut circles due to their association with particular ‘types’ of field system.

The common association between round funerary cairns and cairnfields has meant that the identification of round cairns has been based partly on distinctions drawn between funerary and clearance cairns. Clearance cairns were defined as being varied in form but in general irregular, with poorly defined edges and 3-4 metres in diameter (Quartermaine & Leech forthcoming). Round funerary cairns are more prominent than clearance cairns, with rounded profiles and regular well-defined shapes (ibid.). Based on examples from south west Scotland (Yates 1984) round funerary cairns have been defined as being much larger than clearance features with diameters ranging between 7 and 26 metres (Quartermaine & Leech forthcoming). Where disturbance has occurred funerary cairns have also been identified by the presence of robber cuts and exposed cists (ibid.). Identification is also based on landscape setting:

The LAU approach to separating ringcairns and funerary cairns was to assess them in relation to their morphology and condition, their settings and their associations with other monuments; round cairns being in prominent locations isolated from other monuments with ringcairns being more closely associated with cairnfields (Quartermaine & Leech forthcoming). Although this may work at a basic level, there are features for which these distinctions do not hold true. Ringcairns in locations more pertinent to barrows are often suggested to be disturbed funerary cairns. However the setting of a ringcairn that has been converted into a funerary cairn is, by definition, going to be the same. This not only demonstrates the complexity of the upland record, it also illustrates the rigidities of classification schema fail to take account of structural complexity and time depth.

“The funerary round cairn is typically located in a prominent position which has a commanding aspect with respect to the adjacent topography. This can be a hill summit or any raised position....They are often the most prominent feature in the immediate locality and this discriminates them from larger clearance cairns which are usually associated with other cairns of a similar size” (ibid.).

Approaches to ‘variant circles’ That the LAU classification scheme was based on Lynch’s (1972) variant circles is inappropriate not least as few distinctive forms have been recorded in Cumbria. 45

Based both on the presence or absence of orthostats and according to diameter, ringcairns were split into three main forms; kerbed ring cairn, large stone ring and small stone ring (Quartermaine & Leech forthcoming). Kerbed ring cairns were defined as kerbed annular banks incorporating a single large monolith. As with round funerary cairns (separated from kerbed cairns) their classification relies on the recognition of kerbing and orthastats which may have been robbed or obscured. That splitting kerbed ringcairns from those without kerbing is inappropriate is illustrated in that only two kerbed cairns have been identified.

Cairnfield typology There are historical implications relating to the ways cairnfields have been treated at a national scale and present understandings of the upland record in Cumbria rest on interpretations generated in the 1960s and 70s. ‘Settlement’ of these landscapes, often assumed to be permanent, has been understood primarily in economic and (environmentally) deterministic terms. As the onset of upland settlement was believed to begin in the Middle Bronze Age, environmental analysis from Cumbria (Pennington 1964; Walker 1966b) was taken to suggest the sequence was well understood. Although the LAU surveys have the potential to transform understandings of the character and chronology of upland occupation, discussion has largely been restricted to economic and functional interpretations built on deterministic assumption:

There are further problems relating to sorting different ‘types’ of ringcairn according to diameter, not least that the LAU have imposed different ‘functions’ on features of different sizes. Large stone rings (classic ringcairns) are between 7.5 and c. 25 metres in diameter and ring features less than 7.5 metres in diameter have been characterised as small stone rings. Quartermaine and Leech (forthcoming) suggest these are products of stone clearance rather than being associated with ‘ceremonial’ activity. There are a number of qualitative distinctions between classic ringcairns and small stone rings (see chapter six). However there is at present no evidence suggesting they played different roles and there is in fact no clear diameter split between them.

“During the Bronze Age clearance appears to have extended to the uplands, particularly in the areas of south west Cumbria adjacent to the coastal plain, and the fells today contain large numbers of clearance cairns, burial cairns and field systems dating to this Bronze Age exploitation of the landscape. A combination of soil exhaustion and climatic deterioration eventually left the marginal uplands agriculturally unviable and there was an extensive retreat from the fells. Many of the upland settlements appear to have been abandoned by the Iron Age and the land was in many cases never re-occupied” (Robinson 1998:1).

Approaches to the characterisation of ringcairns in other areas illustrate similar problems. In the Peak District Barnatt (1990) split ringcairns into two types based on the presence of kerbing. External measurements of ‘embanked stone circles’ ranged from 5.5 to 31 metres with simple ringcairns between 6 and 25.5 metres. Further analysis indicated that both belonged to the same building tradition and were probably identical in function (ibid.). One of the most obvious points here is that those features identified by Barnatt exhibit a very wide diameter range. In Wales, contrary to earlier analyses where ringcairns had been subdivided into ‘complex’ and ‘simple’ forms on the basis of the presence of orthastats (Lynch 1972, 1979), Lynch (1993) split ringcairns into small (8-10 metres), medium (14-16 metres) and large (19-25 metres). However she concluded that they illustrated a similar range of activities and there were few perceptible differences between them (Lynch 1993).

Interpretation of the data generated by the upland surveys has so far been limited to the creation of a cairnfield typology, based on a presumptive chronology of ‘economic adaptation’ (Quartermaine 2002; Quartermaine & Leech forthcoming). According to the LAU typology (figure 4.1, appendix 3), ‘Primary’, ‘Proto field systems’ and ‘Cairn-field systems’ are believed to be largely Bronze Age in date. ‘Cultivated field systems’, on the basis of associated enclosed settlement types, are thought to date to the Later Bronze or Early Iron Age. One of the main problems with this typology is that it denies the possibility of identifying time depth in the extant record. Understandings of the chronological significance of cairnfields are frustrated by how they appear in the present. Small ‘primary’ cairnfields are assumed to be ‘early’ whilst more structured field systems are taken to be ‘later’ (Quartermaine 1989, 2002). Whilst in some cases this interpretation may be valid, there is an obvious problem here: it is likely that all areas of clearance began with a limited number of cairns. ‘Primary’ cairnfields could therefore relate to areas where small scale clearance occurred at any point in time, but was not sustained. Descriptions of the more complex cairnfields and field systems stress the economic adaptation of earlier clearance in order to rationalise the land for increasingly mixed forms of agriculture. The introduction of garden plots in the ‘Proto-field system’ has been understood as a ‘significant innovation demonstrating the introduction of basic arable techniques’ (Robinson 1998).

While recent approaches to the classification of ringcairns have illustrated distinctions drawn between different ‘types’ is not clearcut, it remains that they appear in a wide variety of sizes. In Cumbria classic ringcairns and small stone rings (where these can be identified with any certainty) occur in different settings and illustrate different associations with other monuments. It may be that different forms of similar monument ‘types’ were constructed and utilised in different contexts and this may have changed over time. These issues will be discussed further in due course.

46

Not only were these set within wider social processes, individual features within these ‘types’ likely represent the culmination of long and varied histories. However, at one level, classification is central to our understanding of empirical data. Given that monuments need names, it is necessary to acknowledge these terminologies are shorthands, through which it is possible to look in detail at the significance of particular monument forms at different scales.

Whilst this may be valid in a functional sense, there are other factors to consider. Working on cairnfields and field systems on the Gritstone moors of the Peak District, Barnatt (1999, 2000) has argued that a broad division can be drawn between well and poorly defined field layouts. Better developed cairnfields and field boundaries appear to reflect a longer duration of use, beginning in the Later Neolithic/Early Bronze Age and running into the Iron Age. In the Peak, complex cairnfields usually occur in agriculturally favourable areas with good aspect and at a lower altitude than simple cairnfields.

In order to allow for the architectural variability illustrated by the extant record and the different levels of detail available, the terminology utilised needs to be relatively simple. After a significant time collating and analysing the data in different ways, it has been possible to identify seven broad monument ‘types’ on the basis of their broad morphological characteristics. Each of these ‘types’ take in a number of the different subclassifications imposed on these forms in the past. It is also possible to distinguish between two broad configurations of cairnfield:

Although complex cairnfields suggest longevity, the recognition of either ‘simple’ or ‘complex’ field areas depends on visibility. The visibility of field boundaries and lynchets (those features taken by the LAU as evidence of complexity and arable agriculture) can be put down to a variety of circumstances. These include the natural degree of stoniness, the propensity for soil loss due to localised topographic conditions and the nature of use to which particular areas were put (Barnatt 1999, 2000). In the Peak, the upland record is defined by two kinds of field layout; classic cairnfields, and fields defined by earthen boundaries. The “crucial distinction to be drawn is that there was no functional difference between the fields and the cairnfields…both represent agricultural areas and there is no evidence to suggest that the character of the farming in each differed” (Barnatt 1999: 28).

• • • • • • • • •

Interpretation of the increasing complexity of the cairnfield record as a typological indicator is persuasive but inherently problematic. Most analyses have been focussed on attempts to identify chronological evidence of economic ‘adaptation’. At a broad scale, cairnfield typologies do illustrate some of the ways in which the character of upland occupation changed over time. However, this method of interpretation denies the possibility that different agricultural and occupation practices may have existed together in different areas. The character of the cairnfield record in Cumbria, together with the chronological implications of associations between cairnfield and other upland monuments form the basis for chapter six.

Long cairns Round funerary cairns Large Enclosures Freestanding stone circles monuments Large ringcairns Classic ringcairns Small stone rings Simple cairnfields Complex cairnfields

and

hengiform

By definition, the nomenclature imposed on these monuments carry with them some interpretively loaded implications. However given the lack of secure dating for the majority, there is a clear need to retain some basic associations in order to establish a floating regional chronology. Furthermore is it only through the use of trans-regional labels that it is possible to tack back and forth between interpretative scales and to look at similarities and differences between monuments in Cumbria and those in other areas. Although the recognition of variety/variability at a local scale forms an important part of a regional study, it is crucial that analysis can still take in grander scales without being simplistic or involving basic and uncritical extrapolation from elsewhere.

A consistent and integrated approach The ways monuments in Cumbria have been classified has caused a number of problems, the most fundamental of which is that in its present form, the evidence available is internally incoherent. As discussed in chapter two, it has been necessary to produce a clear and consistent dataset in order to begin further analysis. This has demanded the establishment of a basic classification scheme, which, given the thread of this discussion, has been a problematic issue. By classifying monuments, we overlook some fundamental problems relating to what appear to be well established sequences at a national scale. Monuments of different forms were the result of localised environmental, social and historical conditions.

Within each of the monument ‘types’ identified, there are a variety of architectural forms and some of these relate to relatively localised traditions. There are also distinctions between the individual monument types proposed. For example, there are many different ‘types’ of round funerary cairn; some occupy the internal elements of stone circles, others have been found to be infilled ringcairns, and across the region, these features occur in a variety of settings and illustrate different associations with other monuments. The following chapters have been designed to confront each of these categories of monument from different perspectives and 47

to explore the similarities and differences between them. Only through an integrated and holistic approach to the evidence is it possible to assess how the settings and distributions of monuments relate to the ways people organised themselves over local and wider regional landscapes and how communities changed over time.

stone circles (chapter five) rests largely on how the imposition of inappropriate classification schema has impacted on the ways we understand these monuments in the present. Working through these problems allows some basic re-definition of their character, chronology and distribution across the region. The remainder of the monument record is discussed in chapter six. This outlines how the morphology and changing distributions of monuments can not only inform the construction of a basic chronology, but also illustrate the statics and dynamics of social change over the Neolithic and Bronze Age.

Perhaps one of the clearest themes that has emerged in this chapter is that stone circles and henges have seen different treatment to the remainder of the monument record. By necessity then, the following two chapters are structured along the same lines. Analysis of henges and

48

Chapter 5: Classification and distribution of stone circles and henges “It is easy to point to Long Meg ...or to the Keswick Carles...as an example of a ‘great stone circle’; but it is difficult to draw the line between these and the small stone circles which often surround Bronze Age burials. The question must be raised: is there really any essential difference? Are the great circles only enlarged and exaggerated specimens of the much commoner small? If so, the small being sepulchral and of Bronze Age date, the large too will have that purpose and be of that period; and any attempt to draw a line between these two classes will be foredoomed to failure. Here we tread on controversial ground” (Collingwood 1933: 173-4).

Introduction

Henges and style zones

Since R.G. Collingwood's (1933) Introduction to the Prehistory of Cumberland, Westmorland and Lancashire North of the Sands, attempts to understand the Cumbrian circles have seen little interpretative advancement. Collingwood argued that the great stone circles, including the henge at Mayburgh, were of Secondary Neolithic date and were primarily ceremonial in purpose. The ceremonial circles had a large diameter, a large number of stones and contained no burials. Circles with a smaller diameter and a smaller number of diminutive stones were believed to be sepulchral in nature and Bronze Age in date (ibid.).

Classification of the Cumbrian circles rest primarily on two main sources; Burl’s Stone Circles of the British Isles (1976) and Barnatt’s Stone Circles of Britain: Taxonomic and Distributional Analysis and a Catalogue of Sites in England, Scotland and Wales (1988). Although Barnatt’s analysis was quantitative, based on multivariate analysis, Burl took a more qualitative approach. However, that both imposed rigid classification schema at a national scale means present understandings of the Cumbrian monuments are problematic, not least as the region has been central to interpreting the relationship between henges and stone circles.

More recent work on the stone circles has been restricted to description, classification and proposals concerning the existence of astronomical alignments (Thom 1967, Burl 1976, Clare 1975; Waterhouse 1985; Annable 1987; Barnatt 1988). Most discussions of Cumbrian prehistory or stone circles as a monumental class use Burl’s (1976; 1988) analyses as a basis for interpretation (e.g. Annable 1987; Bradley & Edmonds 1993; Bradley 1998). Although the bases of Burl’s arguments can be questioned at a number of levels, the wide impact and subsequent reliance on his work has impeded further characterisation of the dates, settings and significance of these monuments.

At a national scale, understandings of this relationship have been largely reliant on geological determinism (e.g. Fox 1932; Burl 1976). Although in general, stone circles are distributed in western Britain and henges in the east, it has been the monuments on the imaginary line separating the Highland and Lowland zones that have been the focus of interest. Burl’s (1976) Circle Henges, seen as hybrids of henges and stone circles, fall into the 40 mile belt to the east and west of this line. Since the 1970s however, many henges have been recognised across the Highland zone regions (Gibson 1998; Harding 2003). In west Cumbria, ditched hengiform monuments with internal circular settings have been identified from aerial photographs at Gutterby and Summer Hill (see below). Together with the ditched enclosure at Long Meg (Soffe & Clare 1988), these illustrate that what has been seen as a clearcut geological division simply does not hold true.

As discussed in chapter four, problems with classification schema imposed on the henges and stone circles of Cumbria are a product of grand scale typological approaches. They also result in part from an academic obsession with origins, both chronological and geographic. Before the settings and distributions of these monuments can be confronted in their own local and regional contexts, it is necessary to ‘de-classify’ what in its present form is an extremely complex and confusing dataset. This chapter comprises two main sections. Following close analysis of past typological schema it is apparent that a number of different ‘types’ of monument have been classified as ‘stone circles’. This first section concludes with a breakdown of these forms and discussion of their likely character and chronology. The second section provides an interpretation of stone circle morphology and distribution at a close regional level. The identification of a series of major monument complexes demonstrates not only that previous analyses have been set at inappropriate geographical scales, but also that consideration of time depth in the monument record is crucial to understanding local and regional sequences.

Circle Henges and Western Circle Henges That monuments exhibiting a crossover between henges and stone circles have been classified according to the presence of external banks and formal entrances has meant they have been subject to a variety of confusing classifications. Not only are these internally inconsistent, there are a number of problems with the evidence utilised in the interpretation of particular monuments. Long Meg, for example, is an unusually large stone circle with a low external bank and portalled entrance. Long Meg has traditionally fallen somewhere between classifications of stone circles and henges, Burl being unsure whether to include the monument with the more ‘obvious’ henges: “several of the large open stone circles stand inside earth banks and are clearly related to henges” (1976: 38), “either in recognition of henge-ancestry, or perhaps evidence of multiphase construction” (ibid.:26).

49

configuration of banks and entrances commonly supposed to characterise circles with ‘henge ancestry’.

Although the reasons for Burl’s classifications were not set out specifically, he identified King Arthur’s Round Table as a classic henge (as it incorporates a ditch), with Mayburgh and putatively Long Meg as Circle Henges (ibid.).

Barnatt’s (1989, 1990) approach to separating henges and stone circles was to create the ‘Western Circle Henge’. This new monument class resulted from drawing a distinction between stone circles surrounded by earthworks, and those that were not. In Cumbria, Barnatt’s Western Circle Henges (Gamelands, Grey Yauds, Long Meg and Swinside) were characterised as being:

Although both King Arthur’s Round Table and Mayburgh are widely believed to have contained stone circles, the existence of such features is highly questionable. Aubrey, in his Monumenta Britannica of 1650 (1981) published a description of Dugdale’s records from a visit to Mayburgh, recording a pair of entrance stones and a central ‘cove’ of four standing stones. Stukeley described two circles, the inner one being the central setting which had remained until a year or two before his visit: “One stone, at least, of the outer circle remains, by the edge of the corn; and some lie at the entrance within side, others without and fragments all about” (1776: 44). On this basis, Mayburgh is widely believed to have contained two concentric circles (Barnatt 1990; Burl 1976; Waterhouse 1985). There is, however, little evidence in Stukeley’s account for an outer circle and it was not recorded in earlier descriptions. Geophysical survey illustrated the presence of anomalies which may relate to a central cove however evidence for an outer circle was entirely lacking (Topping 1992).

“..architecturally indistinguishable from the large freestanding examples. The exception is that some Western Circle Henges have external portal stones defining a single entrance through the bank. This characteristic is not found in freestanding cases” (Barnatt 1989: 51).

The creation of a distinction between Western Circle Henges and freestanding circles is questionable not least that the evidence utilised is inconsistent. The destroyed stone circle of Grey Yauds, for example, was classified as a Western Circle Henge on the basis of a description stating it had a diameter of c. 47.5 metres (Graham 1907). It seems Grey Yauds was included by Barnatt (1989) solely on this basis, as there is no evidence for either an earthwork or an entrance. More generally, classifications based on the presence of earthworks and entrance stones are problematic. In many areas of Britain formal entrances to stone circles are rare, however this is not the case in Cumbria. Although Swinside and Long Meg are the only examples to have extant double portalled entrances, together with Barnatt’s (1989, 1990) ‘Circle Henges’ of King Arthur’s Round Table and Mayburgh, many stone circles in the region incorporate prominent entrance stones.

As at Mayburgh, flanking stones were recorded at the northern entrance of King Arthur’s Round Table. Included in a sketch by Dugdale (Aubrey 1650) these had disappeared by the time of Stukeley’s visit (1776). The monument has suffered an unfortunate history, largely due to its ‘remodelling’ between 1770 and c. 1829 for use as a tea garden (Dymond 1890). Excavation during the 1930s illustrated that the ditches had been re-excavated with the spoil used to heighten the banks, with a possible central grave also having been disturbed (Bersu 1940). If there was any question over Bersu’s re-characterisation of the concentric timber circles identified by Collingwood (1938b) as animal burrows (Bersu 1940; Bradley 1994), recent geophysical survey found no evidence for settings within the monument (Topping 1992).

Although a number of stone circles are today visibly surrounded by earthworks, these are extremely susceptible to plough damage and erosion. At Swinside, although there is no visible earthwork an 18th century account describes one up to half a metre high (Barnatt 1989). As Dymond’s excavations (1902) located only a thin layer or rammed stones, it is probable the bank was ploughed out in the interim. The bank identified at Castlerigg, on the other hand, is believed to be the product of ploughing (Clare 1975; Barnatt 1989). There is a further problem concerning the recognition of enclosing earthworks. In Cumbria many stone circles are set within natural bowls which has an effect similar to surrounding them with artificial banks (see chapter seven). The presence or absence of constructed earthworks is therefore more a product of architectural classification than reflecting the ways monuments were set in relation to the natural world. These factors clearly illustrate that the separation of Circle Henges, Western Circle Henges and other stone circles is fundamentally flawed. There are qualitative differences between the more and less overtly monumental earthen and stone circles in the region. That said, before this relationship can be discussed in detail, it is necessary to explore the

Narratives concerning the Penrith henges are often based on King Arthur’s Round Table and Mayburgh as an isolated pair of monuments. However a lesser known feature, Little Round Table, is located in a field adjacent to King Arthur’s Round Table. Stukeley recorded an enclosure surrounded by a small ditch (1776) however by the 1850s cottages had been built on the site, which were later demolished to make way for Lowther Lodge (Topping 1992). Geophysical surveys have illustrated a ditch 92 metres in diameter with a north-easterly entrance (Topping 1992). On the basis of current knowledge, although both Mayburgh and King Arthur’s Table had entrance stones and Mayburgh had a central cove, there is no evidence that any of the Penrith henges contained internal circles. Throwing into question understandings of these features as ‘hybrid’ monuments, this returns the focus towards the 50

ways stone circles have seen classification as a monument class distinct from henges.

Does size matter? Both Burl (1976) and Barnatt (1989) split the circles into groups according to their diameter, followed by further sub-classifications also based on size. Barnatt (1989) divided the stone circles of Britain into 14 subgroups determined by multivariate analysis based on diameter, number of stones, average stone spacing and spacing variation, stone height, grading and circularity. Barnatt split the large stone circles into Western Circle Henges and Western Irregular Circles (with diameters largely between 20 and 40 metres). The smaller stone circles (less than 30 metres and predominantly beneath 20 metres) were then split into eight subgroups. This illustrated the morphological diversity of these sites very well, but meant drawing comparisons between them was almost impossible. The multivariate analysis utilised in fact had the effect of averaging out the differences between the circles - those aspects which makes them ‘individual’ monuments - in the attempt to identify broad architectural similarities across wide areas.

‘Freestanding’ circles Although large Cumbrian circles (be they hengiform or otherwise) have been classified and subclassified in different ways, the term ‘stone circle’ has also been applied to a variety of monuments, large and small, few of which have seen close characterisation. Before going on to outline those features which can be reliably identified as freestanding circles, and what their distribution and chronology might illustrate, there are some more basic problems to consider. What is a freestanding stone circle? And how have the ways these monuments been classified coloured our interpretations of what they represent? Approaches to the taxonomic classification of stone circles are problematic in themselves, but exacerbated by the quality and character of the evidence. Difficulties occur as a result of attempts to reconstruct the original size and makeup of circles either lost or partially extant, together with the imposition of classification schema, often at a national scale, on a large, varied and uncompromising group of monuments. That people have resorted to ‘sorting’ stone circles in so many different ways illustrates that little is known about their chronology. Although Barnatt’s (1989) work demonstrated regional groups of circles across Britain, his conclusions as to their date remained unspecific. His analysis suggested the larger open stone circles dated to the Later Neolithic and the Early Bronze Age. The smaller circles illustrated a degree of morphological crossover with the larger examples and were predominantly Early Bronze Age although some were thought to date to the Later Neolithic (ibid.).

Burl’s (1976) typological scheme was based on a rather wider variation in both diameter and stone height with large circles having a diameter of over 27 metres and small circles less than 21 metres. There are two obvious problems with this diameter split. Firstly, some of the less easily classifiable circles fall into the gap between these figures. Secondly, although no reason is specified, one would suspect that the split is not at the 30 metre mark as the ‘early’ circles at Swinside (28.7 metres), Ash House (c. 27 metres) and Grey Croft (27 metres) would then have become small and therefore ‘late’. Circularity Barnatt (1989) noted that very few stone circles in Britain are absolutely circular. Within a 4% deviation from a true circle, although some monuments exhibit a degree of circularity, no truly circular ‘circles’ were constructed in Cumbria. Thom (1967) had used the shape of stone circles to postulate that their layouts conformed to predefined plans. Although Burl (1976) called these arguments into question, he proposed that circularity and flattened rings were early features connected with the large open circles. There is a very basic problem with this approach. Suggestions of predetermined shapes could only be proposed through classification according to measured groundplans, and the existence of such reconstructed perimeters resulted from mathematical approaches to the identification of astronomical alignments. This demands a bird’s eye view unlikely to be available to the communities that laid out and constructed the circles. It has been noted that many monuments that were not truly circular in plan do appear to be from the ground, and this is likely a product of them being laid out by eye (Barnatt & Moir 1984). Circles would have also been laid out with reference to the local topography and to other monuments. So, for example, the layout of Long Meg (a flattened ring) is more likely a product of the monument being constructed in relation to

Burl (1976) suggested that the large Cumbrian circles were among the earliest of their kind in the country and identified four phases of construction spanning from the Middle or Later Neolithic to the Middle Bronze Age. His argument focussed on two main categories of evidence. The first was the external morphology of the monuments, which were grouped according to shape and external diameter, height and number of stones and the presence of distinctive architectural features. The early features were those shared by henge monuments; an emphasis on circularity, closely spaced stones creating the effect of a continuous wall, a single entrance with portal stones, the presence of outliers and an open central area (Burl 1969, 1976). Suggesting one of the problems with this analysis, the later traits were the absence of those features taken to indicate an early date. The second approach (discussed below) was the presence of associated burials, again taken to illustrate a ‘late’ date. Thirty two of Burl’s Cumbrian stone circles were ‘scored’ against both the early and the late traits identified (figure 5.1). Focussing on the available evidence however, it is apparent that few of these ‘traits’ stand up to close scrutiny.

51

integrity of published sources, some of which are more specific than others. Although Barnatt (1989) discounted poorly recorded examples from his analysis, Burl included a number of monuments which are incomplete or known only from anecdotal descriptions.

the large enclosure it appears to post-date, rather than being typologically indicative (figures 7.3, 7.17). Too many or too few of the wrong sort of stones? In some regions of Britain circles with a particular number of stones are common (Burl 1976; Barnatt 1989). Although such standardisation does not exist in Cumbria, that some examples incorporate a large number of stones has been taken as characteristic of ‘early’ circles. This is directly connected both to large diameters (e.g. Long Meg) and the close spacing of stones (e.g. Swinside). The number of stones incorporated in particular monuments, taken as a primary variable by both Burl (1976) and Barnatt (1989) crosscuts some basic distinctions in circle architecture. In many cases it is not known how many stones were originally present. Barnatt (ibid.) attempted to rectify this by adding stones where there were obvious gaps in perimeters. Stones have been removed from many of the Cumbrian circles, often to facilitate plough access. At Gamelands this took the form of toppling and burying stones and the destruction of others by blasting with explosives (Waterhouse 1985). At Kemp Howe an 18th century description reported that many stones had been utilised for building foundations and millstones, and “when polished they would make fine chimney pieces” (Nicholson & Burn 1777 cited. Waterhouse 1985).

A 19th century description of Ash House stone circle (Burl’s phase 2) states that the monument consisted of 22 stones (Cross & Collingwood 1929). Two stones 30 metres apart are marked on the Ordnance Survey (1998) as standing stones and have been interpreted by Waterhouse (1985) and Burl (1976) as the remains of the circle. A recent investigation (Croft 2000) suggests the site of the monument lies further to the south east where Waterhouse (1985) referred to stones from the original circle having rolled downslope, subsequently being incorporated into a wall. Although lacking in any secure locational information, Burl included Ash House in his analysis as a phase 2 circle on the basis of the former existence of 22 stones and the circle having a diameter of 27 metres or more. This measurement was based on the distance of the supposed arc between the two standing stones likely not to have been part of the circle. A similar problem exists with Kemp Howe (Burl’s Shap South) where antiquarian records refer to a ‘large circle’ forming the terminus of a stone avenue (Pennant 1790). Its only remains are an arc of six stones, the rest destroyed by robbing and railway construction in the 19th century. There is no evidence of an entrance and its diameter (24.4 metres) has been estimated from the remaining stones. Although the actual number of stones is unknown Burl (1976) recorded more than twenty, more than a metre high. He also recorded an outlier better interpreted as a standing stone belonging to the Shap stone avenue (Clare 1979).

Grey Croft and Blakeley Raise have both been reconstructed. At Grey Croft ten of an original twelve stones were re-erected in stone holes located through excavation (Fletcher 1956). Blakeley Raise, today a perfect circle of eleven stones with a diameter of 16.6 metres, saw reconstruction in 1925, the accuracy of which is in some doubt (Clare 1975). According to Thom (1967), obviously unaware of the circle’s more recent history (and the concrete plinths into which the stones had been set), the monument had a diameter of exactly 20 Megalithic yards. Furthermore, the line joining stone 5, the centre of the circle, and the summit of a distant hill illustrate the position of the setting moon at its most northerly position during its 18.6 year cycle (Thom 1967). Antiquarian records describe 13 stones with a further eight having been robbed for a gateway (Waterhouse 1985). This would put the accuracy of Thom’s observations into question. Burl (1976) characterised Blakeley Raise as a ‘late’ phase 3 circle, based on a reconstructed diameter with missing stones. The original total of at least 21 stones together with the likelihood the monument was larger in diameter, would have put Blakeley Raise into Burl’s phase 2, making it an ‘earlier’ rather than a ‘later’ circle.

Outliers According to Burl (1976) the presence of outliers is indicative of an early date. The misinterpretation of the outlier at Kemp Howe is a good example of the difficulties inherent to their secure identification. Outliers where originally present are perhaps more likely to be removed than the stones belonging to circles and in a number of instances those that have been recorded appear to be of natural origin. Whilst this may not have negated their importance to prehistoric communities, these features are extremely difficult to identify with certainty especially as some have been interpreted as ‘directional stones’ with astronomical significance (e.g. Thom 1967). Although there is a suspiciously monumental gatepost on the break of slope between Lacra A and Lacra C (figure 7.15), this has never seen interpretation as an outlier, and Long Meg herself may be the only incontestable example in the region. The outliers recorded at Castlerigg and Grey Croft lie 90 and 34 metres from their respective circles and that they are in their original positions is uncertain.

For many stone circles, antiquarian descriptions are the only records that survive. These descriptions are mainly focussed on describing the circle after its destruction. Some monuments survive as small numbers of standing stones, however others have been completely destroyed. Much of Burl’s (1976, 1988) analysis is reliant on the

52

‘Early’ traits

Total

Grand Total

10-15 stones

Stones 1m -

Concentric

Centre stone

Assoc. circle

Oval

‘Late’ traits

X X X X

X X X X

X X X X

X X X X

X X X X

X

X

X X X X

X X X

0 0 0 0

+7 +7 +6 +5.5

4.5 4 4

X X X

X X X

X X X

X X 1

X X X

X X X

X X X

X X X

0 0 -1

+4.5 4 3

X X X

2.5 3 3.5

X X X

X 1 X

X X 1

X X X

X X X

X X X

? X X

X X 1

-0.5

+2 +2 +1.5

? ?

X X

2.5 2

X X

X X

1 1

X X

X X

X X

? ?

X X

-1.5 -1.5

+1 + 0.5

X

X C C C ?

X X X X X

2 2 2 2 2

X X 1 X 1

X X X X 1

1 1 1 1 X

X 1 X X X

X X X X X

X X X X X

0 X X X ?

X X X 1 X

-2 -2 -2 -2 -2.5

0 0 0 0 -0.5

X X

X X

X X

X X

1.5 1

X 1

X X

1 1

X X

X X

X X

X X

1 X

-2 -2

-0.5 -1

X X X

F X X

X X X

2 0.5 0.5

1 X X

1 X X

X

0.5

0.5

0.5

1

0.5

X X X

1 X X

X X 0

X 1 X

-3.5 -2 -3

-1.5 -1.5 -2

Stones 1m +

Entrance

Outliers

Circ/flat

Bank around

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 ?

1 1 1 1

F F F C

1 1 X X

7 7 6 5.5

X X X

1 1 1

1 1 1

x X 1

0.5

X X

1 1 X

F C C

X X X

X X 1

1 X 1

1 1 X

0.5

? F F

1 1

1 X

X X

X X 0. 5 X X

1 X X X X

1 1 1

X X X X 1

X X X X

X X X

0.5

X X 1

Embanked

20+ stones

1 1 1 1

Diameter 21m-

Diameter 27m +

Total

Site

PHASE 1 Castlerigg Long Meg Swinside Grey Yauds

PHASE 2 Brats Hill Elva Plain Shap Centre Shap South Grey Croft Gamelands Ash House Broomrigg A

1 X X 0.5

-1 2

PHASE 3 Studfold Oddendale Casterton Kirk Blakely Raise Beacon Shap North Lacra B Kopstone Birkrigg

0.5

X 0.5

0.5

1 X

1

X X X

X X 1

X

X X X

X

X

X

X

X

C

X

1

1

1

1

X

X

1

X

X

-4

-3

X

X

X

X

X

C

X

1

1

1

1

X

X

1

X

X

-4

-3

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

0

X

1

X

X

X

1

0

X

-3

-3

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

0

1

1

X

X

X

1

X

X

-3

-3

X

X

X

X

X

C

X

1

1

1

1

X

X

1

X

X

-4

-3

X

X

X

X

X

C

X

1

1

1

1

X

X

1

X

X

-4

-3

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

0

1

1

1

X

X

X

X

X

-4

-4

X X X

X X X

X X X

X X X

X X X

X X X

X X X

0 0 0

X 1 1

X 1 1

1 1 1

1

X 1 X

X 1 X

0 0 0

1 X 1

-4

-4

0.5

-6.5

-6 5

-5

-5

0.5

PHASE 4 White Moss NE White Moss SW Gretigate NW Gretigate NE Low Longrigg SW Low Longrigg NE Moor Divock 4 Cockpit Lacra D Bleaberry Haws

Figure 5.1. Burl’s Cumbrian stone circle typology. After Burl (1976).

53

X

Burials

with reference to some typologically ‘late’ circles.

The second (and equally unsuccessful) route followed in order to assign dates to the Cumbrian circles is the presence of burials. Such analyses have been limited by the available evidence, together with a number of significant inferential problems:

‘Burnmoor’ and ‘concentric’ circles: visibility and phasing Internal cairns appear in large circles such as Brat’s Hill, Grey Croft and Studfold Gate, and smaller monuments such as Lacra B, and the Low Longrigg and White Moss circles (figure 5.2). These are often classified separately from the open monuments, either as ‘encircled cairns’ (Lynch 1972) or ‘Burnmoor circles’ (Clare 1973). Grouping circles according to the presence or absence of a central mound therefore crosscuts classificatory schema in which circles have been characterised according to diameter. Notwithstanding the schema utilised to separate the ‘Burnmoor’ circles from freestanding examples, there are questions relating to visibility. It is possible some circles may contain mounds not visibly extant, as was the case at Lacra B where the internal cairn was not identified until the monument saw excavation (Dixon & Fell 1948).

• Although many stone circles were used for burial, there is a significant amount of bias in the material Burl (1976) used to reach the conclusion that the presence of burials necessarily indicated a ‘late’ date for particular circles. • Burl (1976) used burial evidence to form a provisional typology for his small ‘late’ circles whilst not including that from the large ‘early’ circles. • Some of the ‘later’ stone circles identified by Burl (1976), on the basis of the burial evidence, are better understood as kerbed funerary monuments, either freestanding or situated within earlier open circles.

A similar situation exists with the classification of ‘concentric’ circles, of which eight examples were recorded by Burl (1976). Although ‘concentric’ circles have been classed together with freestanding circles by Waterhouse (1985) and Clare (1973), they have been classed separately by Quartermaine & Leech (forthcoming). As with the Burnmoor circles, Burl (1976) used the presence of ‘concentric’ circles as a late trait.

One of the main issues stemming from these points is that of excavation bias and the visibility of extant features. In the few cases where recorded excavation has taken place this has been focussed on monuments thought likely to contain burials. Large open stone circles have therefore seen little recorded excavation when compared to circles exhibiting extant internal features.

According to Burl (1976) concentric circles are extremely rare in Britain, numbering about 30. Barnatt believed concentric circles to be significantly rarer, identifying between nine and 14 examples, none of which were in Cumbria (1989:34). Of those features interpreted as ‘concentric’ circles by Burl (1976), Gunnerkeld, Oddendale, and Birkrigg are characterised by large freestanding circles with internal kerbed settings. The ‘concentric’ circles exhibit strong similarities to the larger ‘Burnmoor’ circles (figure 5.2). That the only perceptible dissimilarity here is the presence of visible kerbing around the ‘concentric’ examples, with the ‘Burnmoor’ circles containing apparently simple cairns. At a regional scale this choice of building materials appears to relate to localised traditions; the ‘Burnmoor’ circles are all in the west of the county, and the ‘concentric’ circles to the east and south.

At a national scale, very few stone circles, large or small, have failed to produce evidence for burial in some form (Barnatt 1989). Barnatt suggested that in particular within large open circles, a desire to maintain a central space meant burials were often placed in subsurface pits or cists (ibid.). Subsurface features within the large circles of Cumbria may remain unrecognised. Although antiquarian records contain descriptions of internal cairns at both Long Meg and Castlerigg, there is some consternation regarding their authenticity. Although excavations at Long Meg produced “giants bones and a body” (Dymond 1881), these are from an unknown context. At Grey Croft, calcined human bones were recorded beneath the central cairn (Fletcher 1956) and cists in two of the internal mounds at Brats hill contained burnt bone and antlers (Williams 1856, cited. Waterhouse 1985). Cists have been recorded at Gamelands and Gunnerkeld (Ferguson 1882; Waterhouse 1985) and a disturbed central grave was identified at King Arthur’s Round Table (Bersu 1940). These examples illustrate two main points. The first is that of the presence of burials within the so-called ‘early’ circles is commonly overlooked, and the second is that where identified, these often occur within central cists and beneath cairns. This begs a significant question: do these burials relate to the ‘original’ use of these circles, or are they suggestive of ‘re-use’ in later periods? This issue can be approached

Although it is not known whether ‘concentric’ and ‘Burnmoor’ circles are the final product of a number of constructional phases, it does seem unlikely that either existed as a single phase monumental form. Given the use of small stone circles for burial, the internal elements of these larger monuments suggest cairns, visibly kerbed or otherwise, were placed within previously open freestanding circles. These distinctions illustrate fundamental problems with the ways stone circles have been classified. Perhaps one of the reasons they do not conform to clearcut typological 54

use) also saw construction. Whilst this is not a clearcut distinction, it is an overt change. And this seems to have taken place around the same time as burial monuments saw proliferation both in the environs of monumental complexes and across many areas of the landscape.

schema is that all monuments had individual life histories. Many may have been designed to remain as open features but saw elaboration after their primary phase of use. Others, particularly the smaller of those features traditionally characterised as stone circles, may have been constructed from the outset with rather different aims in mind.

Although the chronology is less than well established, the cluster of monuments at Oddendale seems to conform to this sequence. The timber circle, built during the Later Neolithic, was situated less than a kilometre from the Oddendale stone circle, and it seems likely these were in use at the same time. Although the timber circle was replaced by a ringcairn during the Final Neolithic/Early Bronze Age (Turnbull & Walsh 1997), nearby, the stone circle saw the addition of a central kerbed cairn. At Hardendale Nab, a sequence begun during the Later Neolithic with an open cist saw the construction of a ringcairn and a sequence of funerary use into the Early Bronze Age (Howard-Davies & Williams forthcoming). Over and beyond associations with Hardendale Nab and the Oddendale ringcairn, the Oddendale stone circle is central to a complex of funerary monuments, including those at Iron Hill and Castlehowe Scar (figures 5.3, 5.8). Before going on to explore the significance of monument complexes, it is necessary to outline the character of these features, and others like them, as they have commonly been classified as small stone circles.

Recent excavation of a ringcairn close to the Oddendale stone circle has illustrated four main phases of construction between the Later Neolithic and the Early Bronze Age (Turnbull & Walsh 1997). The first phase of the monument took the form of a two roughly concentric timber circles (figure 8.3). The external circle had a diameter of 18 metres, with the internal ring at 12 metres. The inner circle produced dates of 2583-2483 cal BC, and 2853-2466 cal BC and the outer circle 2859-2579 cal BC (ibid.). At the centre of the monument, not stratigraphically related to the timber circles was a shallow grave inhumation with a number of beaker sherds. On removal of the timber circles, the post pits were sealed by boulder settings also containing beaker material. The spaces between the settings were later infilled to construct a simple ringcairn which saw further elaboration and funerary use into the Bronze Age (see chapter eight). At Hardendale Nab, a kilometre south west of the Oddendale ringcairn, a feature initially characterised as a funerary cairn revealed a number of phases of use and elaboration spanning from 3030-2500 cal BC into the Early Bronze Age (Williams & Howard Davies forthcoming). The first phase consisted of an open cist surrounded by a small mound. As at Oddendale, this feature formed the focus for the construction of a ringcairn which saw a number of phases of funerary use. Unlike the sequence at Oddendale however, the ringcairn was infilled and subsequently completely covered with a cairn.

Small circles as kerbed funerary monuments Historically, whilst it has been tacitly accepted that large open stone circles were primarily ceremonial and the smaller examples clearly related to burial (notwithstanding the lack of a clear distinction between these terms and the activities to which they relate) both large and small remain considered under the blanket term ‘stone circle’. Stone settings within open circles share many characteristics with what we might term ‘classic’ round funerary cairns and ringcairns. Although these have often been classified together with the larger circles, many of the ‘small’ examples are better understood as formal funerary monuments. On the basis both of their morphology and associated burial evidence (chapter eight), these features take two main forms.

The full area excavation of these sites illustrates a number of points. The lack of modern excavation in Cumbria has meant monuments identified on the basis of morphology have been considered to result from a single phase of use. Many, however, incorporate evidence of structural addition over significant lengths of time (see chapter eight). If the Oddendale ringcairn and the ‘Burnmoor’/ ‘concentric’ circles saw remodelling connected to funerary activity after their primary phase of use as ‘open’ monuments, this may be indicative of a temporal phase during which a variety of different monuments saw construction and/or structural elaboration. According to the broad national sequence, both timber and stone circles shifted from complex and overtly ceremonial monuments to forms more obviously focussed towards funerary activity during the Final Neolithic and Early Bronze Age (Gibson 1998; Bradley 1998). Some earlier open sites were reused for burial, and new monuments sharing similar architectural traits (and likely similar patterns of

A number of small kerbed circles, between c. 5 and 7 metres in diameter, are similar to the central elements of the ‘concentric’ circles. Castlehowe Scar, White Hag, Moor Divock 4, Broomrigg B, Iron Hill South, Little Meg, and Bleaberry Haws are distinctly rectangular in plan (figure 5.3). Although Broomrigg B and C, Moor Divock 4 and 5 and Little Meg were infilled, the remainder survive as apparently open monuments. The evidence suggests these were meant from the outset to be open with the addition of covering cairns a secondary consideration (see chapter eight). Barnatt (1989) suggested this type of monument may be the ‘upland’ equivalent of stake circles found beneath round barrows in other areas.

55

Figure 5.2. Examples of 'Burnmoor' (A-E) and 'concentric' (F-H) circles. A:Low Longrigg North East B:Low Longrigg South West C: White Moss North East D:Brats Hill E: White Moss South West

F: Birkrigg G: Oddendale stone circle H: Gunnerkeld Drawings A-D after Burl (1976) and F-H after Waterhouse (1985).

56

Figure 5.3. Examples of small and large kerbed monuments. A: Castlehowe Scar B: Moor Divock 4 C: Bleaberry Haws D: Iron Hill South E: Little Meg

F: White Hag G: Glassonby H: Iron Hill North I: Wilson Scar

Drawings after Waterhouse (1985).

The second group of monuments take the form of larger kerbed circles with relatively small, recumbent and closely spaced perimeters (figure 5.3). Exhibiting a morphological crossover with the smaller of the freestanding circles, the likelihood that these were

originally open monuments is suggested by excavations at Wilson Scar (Sieveking 1984), Glassonby (Collingwood 1901) and Broomrigg C (Hodgson 1952). Although in some cases these appear in the present as ‘open’ monuments, Iron Hill North, Wilson Scar, 57

compared to the overtly ‘ceremonial’ use of the larger open circles, their forms and locations are often similar. That the open kerbed monuments occur close to freestanding circles which themselves saw a shift in focus during the Final Neolithic and Early Bronze Age suggests there may have been no clearcut distinction drawn between the activities that were being carried out within them. The architecture and use of the smaller monuments may then have been an embellishment or continuation of concerns inherent to the earlier circles. These themes are critical to understanding the nature of monument complexes and time depth and form the basis for discussion in the final part of this chapter.

Broomrigg C and Glassonby were covered by mounds either sealing the kerb or infilling the kerbed area. The presence or absence of covering cairns has had a significant impact of the ways these features have seen classification. Particular classificatory ‘types’ can often be understood as stages in structural processes ending at different points at different sites (Barrett 1994; Bradley 1998). Excavation and factors of differential preservation have complicated this situation further in that what might be similar monuments have been classified differently, either by morphology or with reference to structures revealed by excavation.

Many of the sites included by Burl (1976), Waterhouse (1985) and others do not now fall into the classification of freestanding stone circles. A definitive list of freestanding circles and hengiform monuments in the region is therefore an essential starting point for further analysis. This means there is basic question to confront: how many freestanding stone circles are there in Cumbria?

There is a major problem of inconsistency here, illustrated by excavated monuments at Glassonby and Broomrigg B. Glassonby was initially believed to be a funerary cairn, however after excavation revealed a sealed kerbed structure (Collingwood 1901), it has seen classification as a stone circle (Burl 1976; Waterhouse 1985). The external morphology of Broomrigg C suggested it was a stone circle of 15.6 metres in diameter, and has been recorded as such by both Burl (1976) and Waterhouse (1985). Upon excavation however, the first phase of Broomrigg C was found to have been a small subcircular kerb 4.3 metres in diameter. When the larger kerbed monument was constructed on the site, this was partially destroyed, both being later infilled (Hodgson & Harper 1952; figure 8.5). However the earlier kerb, whilst exhibiting clear similarities to monuments such as Little Meg and Castlehow Scar, was not identified as a stone circle. Similar excavated structures have suffered comparable fates; the internal stone setting at Birkrigg 1 (Gelderd et al. 1912) has never been classified as a stone circle, neither have those sealed beneath excavated cairns at Hackthorpe Hall (Mawson 1876) or Levens (Sturdy 1976; Turnbull & Walsh 1996). Not only do these examples illustrate that excavated ‘burial cairns’ reveal evidence of time depth and structural elaboration, the imposition of inappropriate classification schema based on the identification of ‘stone circles’ rather than ‘funerary cairns’ means this has often been overlooked.

“The stone circles of Cumbria, numbering over fifty, represent one of the densest distributions of these features in the British Isles” (Burl 1988:175).

• • • •

Burl has “at least fifty six” (1976:26). Waterhouse (1984) has 65. Annable (1987) has 44. Barnatt (1989) has 32.

Barnatt’s (1989) analysis took many of the factors discussed above into account. His corpus included 69 recorded sites of which 37 were rejected, leaving 32 examples. According to the references used by Burl (1976), Waterhouse (1985) and Barnatt (1989), plus unpublished sites recorded on the county SMR, 76 stone circles and six hengiform monuments have been recorded. Of these 76, only 25 can be classified with any degree of confidence as large freestanding stone circles (appendix 1). The following breakdown lists the categories of circle which have been included or omitted from this total and identifies the range of forms identified.

A new direction? At present, although there is no way of securely dating the Cumbrian circles, there does appear to be a fairly clear sequence. It seems probable that the initial construction of the large stone circles and hengiform monuments has its roots in the Neolithic. Many of these were added to and continued in use, albeit with a shift in focus towards overtly funerary activity, into the Final Neolithic and Early Bronze Age. At this time, a variety of smaller open kerbed monuments were constructed, the majority of which also saw use, deposition, and structural elaboration into the first half of the Bronze Age (chapter eight). The most overtly monumental of such features, like those at Shap and in the environs of Long Meg, were constructed in complexes centred on the presence of earlier circles. Whilst in traditional terms the ‘functions’ of small circles appear to be ‘funerary’ in nature

Sites not included as stone circles A number of circles recorded by antiquarians have been omitted from this analysis. Although many of these monuments probably existed, without close description and locational information it is impossible to ascertain whether these were freestanding circles or ringcairns/funerary cairns. Other sites are not included as it has either been established that these were not, or likely not to have been stone circles. A total of 18 stone circles have been recorded through antiquarian records. Three still have a small number of stones remaining which allows them to be located with some security. Six of the 18 circles recorded by antiquarians have been completely destroyed and seven are no longer locatable. 58

• Omitted from this analysis: Moor Divock 3, Moor Divock 6, Moor Divock 7, Moor Divock 8, Broadfield, Le Wheles, Chapel Flat, Ringlen Stones, Motherby, Grasmere, Brougham Hall, Dacre, Rawthey Bridge, Knipe Scar B, Summerhouse Hill/Yealand Conyers, Gretigate A, Gretigate B, Gretigate C, “A 4 ft stone near Seascale” (SMR 1302), Low Kingate/Herd Wood and Fenwick (appendix 1.3).

Regional morphology and distribution The identification of a number of stone circles as phased monuments or funerary cairns has meant simplification of the forms under consideration, and as significantly, the number of monuments involved. Given problems with previous analyses, what is needed to clarify the distribution and significance of these features is a flexible approach focussed at a regional scale. Although there are qualitative distinctions between circles across the region, previous approaches have been based on too many variables. Rather than classifying them according to the presence or absence of specific architectural traits, the best approach is to allow these monuments to speak for themselves.

Freestanding stone circles and hengiform features • Stone circles partially/completely destroyed but retained for present analysis: Hall Foss, Annaside, Kirkstones, Long Meg 2, Castlerigg 2, Swinside 2, Lamplugh, Ash house, Lacra C, Grey Yauds, Blakeley Raise (appendix 1.1).

The simplest approach to analysis of stone circles and henges is a consideration of their diameters. The 25 freestanding stone circles and six hengiform monuments occur in a number of different sizes, with diameters between c. 20 and 100 metres. Over the county as a whole, these fall into three main groups.

• Extant/semi extant stone circles: Grey Croft, Gamelands, Kemp Howe, Birkrigg, Oddendale, Gunnerkeld, Castlerigg, Elva Plain, Swinside, Studfold Gate, Broomrigg A, Long Meg, Whitrow Beck, Brats Hill (figure 5.4; appendix 1.1).

• The first group, distributed across the county, have diameters between 20 and 34 metres.

• Hengiform monuments and large ?timber circles: Mayburgh, King Arthur’s Round Table, Little Round Table. Gutterby, Summer Hill W, Summer Hill E, Summer Hill S (figure 5.5; appendix 1.1).

• The second group, again distributed across the county, consist of large circles and hengiform monuments with diameters between 35-55 metres. • The third group consist of freestanding circles and hengiform monuments with diameters in excess of 90 metres. With the exception of Lamplugh (which has an estimated diameter) these are all situated in north-east Cumbria.

‘Funerary’ monuments A number of monuments described as stone circles in the past are likely to have been constructed specifically for the purpose of funerary related activity. The larger of these exhibit strong architectural and locational crossovers with the freestanding circles, but they are consistently smaller in size. On the basis of excavated burial evidence (chapter eight) such activity appears to characterise the Final Neolithic/Bronze Age transition.

On the basis of diameter, there is a small element of regional clustering in the size of stone circles and hengiform monuments, with the largest situated in the north east. However, splitting them into diameter based groups brushes over strong architectural similarities between sites of different sizes and forms. This is clearly demonstrated by the hengiform monuments. Appearing in two different size groups, they share a broad diameter range with some of the stone circles. Although stone circles of different sizes are distributed across the county, it is clear that so-called ‘early’ circles in different parts of the region (for example Swinside and Long Meg) are physically different in scale and overall character.

• Small kerbed funerary monuments: Iron Hill South, Little Meg, Bleaberry Haws, Castlehowe Scar, White Hag, Broomrigg B, Moor Divock 4, Moor Divock 5 (figure 5.3; appendix 1.2). • Large kerbed funerary monuments: Iron Hill North, Leacet Hill, Wilson Scar, Shapbeck/Knipe Scar A, Potter Fell, Glassonby, Broomrigg C, Broomrigg D, Lacra D, Lacra A, Lacra B, Low Longrigg SW, Low Longrigg NE, White Moss NE, White Moss SW (figure 5.3; appendix 1.2).

It appears that there is no coherent patterning on the basis of size as both henges and stone circles occur in different sizes across the county. This is not a dead end however; this lack of patterning is a product of attempting to ‘sort’ these monuments at too wide a geographical scale. Although the stone circles of Cumbria have commonly been understood as a coherent county-based group, approaching them from a closer perspective suggests they are better interpreted as relatively localised monument clusters.

• Large ringcairns. The Kirk, Lowick Beacon, Banniside, The Cockpit, Casterton, Kopstone and Swarth Fell (figure 6.7; appendix 1.2).

59

Figure 5.4. Examples of large stone circles. Where central elements exist in the present, these have been removed to illustrate similarities between circles of different classificatory 'types'. A: Brats Hill B: Grey Croft C: Swinside

D: Gunnerkeld E: Castlerigg F: Oddendale

G: Gamelands H: Elva Plain I: Long Meg

60

Figure 5.5. Examples of hengiform monuments. A: Gutterby (from sketch plot of aerial photograph) Source: LDNPA B: Summer Hill (from sketch plot of aerial photograph) Source: LDNPA C: King Arthur's Round Table. After Topping (1992). D: Mayburgh After Topping (1992).

61

Although the boundaries of the modern county conform to a landmass defined by the Pennines to the east and the Irish Sea to the west, this huge area is made up of a number of relatively distinct regions, themselves defined by natural boundaries (chapter one). On this basis, the stone circles and hengiform monuments can be divided into four main groups (within which there are likely to be further sub-groups). These four groups are not arbitrary, but correspond to the distribution of landmasses divided by the major river valleys which radiate from the central fells (figure 5. 6).

Swinside 2 Ash House Kirkstones

Unknown Unknown Unknown

Summer Hill timber circle

c. 30m

Gutterby Summer Hill W Summewr Hill E

c. 35m c. 35m c. 50m

Lamplugh

c. 90m

The south eastern region is defined to the west by the eastern fells and the Pennines to the east. To the west and south this broad area is defined by the Shap fells, Hawswater and the Lowther, Lune and Kent valleys. The area is defined by high ground interspersed with major north-south river valleys, bounded by the Crosby Ravensworth fells to the south east, forming the western extent of a major Pennine through-route.

The south western region is defined by the central fells to the east and the Irish Sea to the west. To the south this area is bounded by Morecambe Bay, the Furness Peninsula and the Cartmel fells, fractured again into discrete areas by the Duddon and Leven estuaries. To the north, the Irt valley separates the southern fells of Ulpha and Eskdale from the northern fells of Copeland and Ennerdale. Owing to the character of the major valleys, the landmass broadly defined by Lake Windermere and Coniston to the east, and Wastwater to the north, has an overall southwest facing coastal prospect. c. 18m c. 20m 21.7m c. 23m c.24m 24m 28.7m 30.4m

Unknown

Cumbria south east

Cumbria south west

Annaside Whitrow Beck Low Longrigg NE Hall Foss Lacra C Birkrigg Swinside Brats Hill

Castlerigg 2

Kemp Howe: Oddendale: Gunnerkeld:

c. 24 m 27 m 31.8 m

Gamelands:

44.4 m

Cumbria north east The north eastern region of Cumbria is defined to the west by Skiddaw, Helvellyn and high fells between. To the north east it is bounded by the Eden valley and the Pennine foothills, and to the north west of Penrith by the Carrock fells and the Caldew. The southern extent of this area is defined to the south by Whinfell, Moor Divock and the Eamont as it flows into Ullswater. Grey Yauds: Broomrigg A

47.5m 50m

Long Meg

109m

King Arthur’s Round Table

92.5m (external), 54m (internal) 90m (external) 170m (external), 90m (internal)

Little Round Table Mayburgh

Cumbria north west The north western Lakes is defined by the central fells and the Irish Sea. To the south it is bounded by the Irt, the Copeland fells and Wastwater. To the east it is defined by the Derwent valley which runs north-south between the Borrowdale fells then west to join the Irish Sea. The character of the major valley means that the overall coastal prospect of this area is north west facing and in some areas overlooks the Solway and the Galloway Peninsula. Grey Croft Studfold Gate Elva Plain Castlerigg

27m 32.8m 33.5m 32.6m

Blakeley Raise:

Unknown

Figure 5.6. the sub-regions and associated monument groups.

62

to the major rivers defining the regions proposed suggests they were located in areas where people coming from different directions might come together. The Penrith henges, for example, are situated between the north east and south east regions of Cumbria, and between Cumbria and the Pennine regions (figure 5.6). Such monuments may therefore have worked in different ways and scales, at different times; not only might they have been used by local groups, they may also have served as arenas for regional and inter-regional gatherings.

Approaching the circles as geographically localised groups, it becomes apparent that there is a degree of clustering in their size. Whilst the diameters of large circles in south west Cumbria range between 20 and 30 metres, in the north east, these are more than 40 metres. The ten or so so-called ‘early’ circles of these geographically separate areas are often directly compared or grouped together at a county scale. However, when considered separately, they have more in common with others in their immediate locality than those on the other side of the county. The relative sizing of monuments between areas is illustrated by the Gutterby and Summer Hill henges and stone circles in the same area. The henges are larger than the south western freestanding circles, but significantly smaller in size than their northeastern counterparts (figures 5.4, 5.5).

The ways that the landscape settings of stone circles and other monuments suggest the existence and articulation of different scales of community is discussed in chapter seven. Before these issues can be explored more fully, it is necessary to change the way we often focus on the distribution of circles. We have to look at how the histories of specific places determined the locations of many stone circles and at how the identification of major monument complexes can be used in the interpretation of regional sequences.

In the north east, whilst the stone circles are significantly larger than those in other areas of Cumbria, the hengiform monuments are relatively larger still. The diameter clustering of both freestanding circles and hengiform features within different regions of Cumbria would therefore appear to result from localised traditions of monument construction.

Distribution, time depth and monument complexes One of the main problems frustrating interpretation of the distribution of the Cumbrian circles has stemmed from approaches to territorial analysis. These have been based on ideas equating the ‘early’ monuments with (albeit abstracted) individual social groups at a county scale (e.g. Burl 1976, 1988; Barnatt 1989). Not only do the circles fall into discrete sub-regional clusters, it seems likely that different monuments operated at different social and geographical scales. Together with the fact that distributive analyses have been based on previous typological schema, this means territorial analyses have been fundamentally flawed.

Each of the regional groups proposed include one or more monuments, either stone circles or henges, overtly larger in size than the remainder identified. The evidence is problematic as it is likely that a significant proportion of the monuments originally present have been lost and it may be that those extant or recorded are exceptional examples of preservation. It seems unlikely therefore that the regions or regional ‘groups’ proposed equate to coherent ‘territories’ in any traditional sense. Notwithstanding the likelihood that many monuments have been lost, the fact remains that in those areas where henges have been identified, these are the largest monuments in their regional groups. In other areas however, the largest surviving monuments are stone circles. If this distribution is meaningful rather than a product of differential preservation, it demonstrates that distinctions drawn between henges and stone circles do not hold true. Over and beyond the lack of clearcut architectural distinctions, the implications for this argument are that the extremely large monuments in the regional groups identified may have operated at different scales, both social and geographical, to the smaller and more numerous circles.

One of the bases on which the so-called ‘early’ circles have been identified in the past has been their isolation from other monuments (e.g. Burl 1976; figure 5.1). However, the majority of large circles and henges lie in complexes, either closely associated with other monuments, and/or more widely spread over a few kilometres. The identification of monument complexes relates not only to analysis of extant features, but also to excavation evidence, antiquarian descriptions and aerial photographs. Aerial photographic evidence has recently brought to light a possible cursus and a number of enclosures in the environs of Long Meg, the largest of which is directly associated with the stone circle (Soffe & Clare 1988; figure 5.7). An antiquarian reference to a second stone circle to the south west of the main monument (Stukeley 1776), and the presence of funerary monuments at Glassonby and Little Meg illustrate that a variety of features saw construction and use over the Neolithic and into the Bronze Age. Although the Long Meg stone circle is often considered in isolation, not only is it probable it was built after the large enclosure and possible cursus were already in use, these features also formed foci for the construction of later monuments.

At both regional and more localised levels, the size of these monuments may illustrate something about catchment, and the differing scales of community involved in the gatherings which took place. In other words, it may be that the smaller circles operated at a similar social scale to Neolithic long cairns, with the large and more overtly monumental circles and henges assuming a similar role to earlier enclosures. So what is this telling us about the locations of specific monuments and the scales of community that used them? That a number of the large circles and henges are located close 63

Figure 5.7. Layout of the Long Meg complex. Contour data after Ordnance Survey (2002) (© Crown Copyright). A: Old Parks F Long Meg stone circle B: Glassonby G Location of Stukley’s circle C: Little Meg D: Location of natural spring E: Enclosure

Figure 5.8. Layout of the monuent complex in the Shap environs. After Beckensall (2002).

64

Figure 5.9. Cluster of henges and stone circles on the south west Cumbrian coast. Mapping data ©Crown copyright. An Edina Digimap /JISC supplied service.

north of the main monument, and records of a second circle at Swinside have also come to light (Sharon Arrowsmith pers. comm).

The hengiform monuments identified at Gutterby and Summer Hill are separated by 4 kilometres (figure 5.9). At Summer Hill aerial photographic evidence has illustrated a monument complex including a pair of conjoined circular ditches extremely similar in layout to the Long Meg circle and enclosure (figures 5.5, 7.4). Adjacent to the paired monuments are a cluster of two small circular ditched features and a possible timber circle. At Gutterby, a large hengiform monument with an internal circular setting is overlain by a D-shaped enclosure (figure 5.5) Although apparently isolated, the site at Gutterby was also once part of a wider complex:

As discussed above, there is a dispersed monument complex in the environs of Shap (figure 5.8); the circles of Oddendale and Kemp Howe are situated about 2.5 kilometres apart with Gunnerkeld a further 4 kilometres to the north. Defined by a series of high ridges between the Lowther and Eden valleys, the distribution of the circles frames a major complex of funerary monuments including Iron Hill North, Iron Hill South, Castlehowe Scar, the Oddendale timber circle/ringcairn and Hardendale Nab.

“On the Green Moor Farm are thirty stones called Kirk-stones, forming two circles, similar in position to those at Stonehenge. About 200 yards south of this Druidical monument is a large cairn of stones about 15 yards in diameter surrounded by massive stones at the base” (Eccleston 1872: 278).

Whilst the present discussion has been based predominately on monuments recorded as stone circles in the past, many ceremonial complexes incorporate ‘classic’ round funerary cairns, and a number occur in association with long cairns and enclosures. On the Furness Peninsula, an enclosure and long cairn at Skelmore Heads lie less than 2 kilometres to the north west of Birkrigg stone circle. Not only did the circle form the focus for a funerary cairn cemetery, it saw re-use for the deposition of cremations in the Early Bronze Age (see chapter nine). On Crosby Ravenworth Fell, an area already well known as a result of the Neolithic and Bronze Age funerary cairns excavated by Greenwell (1877), a large enclosure at Howe Robin lies immediately to the east of a possible long cairn at Cow Green (Masters 1984). The enclosure lies 3 kilometres north of Gamelands, below which Raiset Pike long cairn lies a further 4 kilometres to the south east.

The kerbed cairn is in a suspiciously similar position to the henge monument, with the likely site of Kirkstones 400 metres to the south east. Further ‘lost’ circles have been recorded in the immediate area; the stone circle at Annaside (Eccleston 1872) was less than a kilometre north west of Gutterby, and that at Hall Foss (ibid.) approximately halfway between Gutterby and Summer Hill (figure 5.9). Complexes such as those at Long Meg, Gutterby and Summer Hill illustrate that other circles which might appear isolated in the present may have been associated with monuments which have since been destroyed. At Castlerigg, Stukeley (1776) recorded a stone circle to the 65

These monument clusters illustrate the continued importance, not only of particular places, but of particular areas of the landscape over the Neolithic and into the Bronze Age. That the location of many stone circles may have been determined by earlier monuments, and these themselves formed the foci for the construction of later ones illustrates a number of points. The most important of these is that in order to understand the significance and distribution of stone circles, they cannot be approached in isolation from consideration of other monuments, or from the physical landscapes in which they were set. As discussed in chapter two, the clearest approach to understanding the landscape record, in particular at a localised scale, is through consideration of time depth. In other words, if we are to understand the nature of these complexes and the continued importance of particular places, it is necessary to work back from the configuration of monuments as they exist in the present.

New questions If monument complexes were products of the re-use of particular locations over the course of the fifth, fourth and third millennia BC, what may the individual elements of these complexes, ranging from large enclosures to stone circles and funerary monuments, be telling us about the changing structure of the communities that used them? And what might the longevity of such monuments illustrate? The question here is that if stone circles and other monuments operated at both community and intercommunity scales, then how did such groups organise themselves across the wider landscapes of the region and how did this change over time? One of the key issues discussed over the course of this chapter has been the proliferation of funerary monuments constructed in the Final Neolithic and Early Bronze Age. Although these have been discussed in relation to their identification as stone circles and often occur in ceremonial complexes, monuments of comparable forms saw construction across much of the landscape. Although many lowland examples have been destroyed, those that survive in upland areas illustrate a consistent association with cairnfields. Although interpreting the evidence is problematic, detailed analysis of the upland record illustrates clear themes relating to the changing structure and organisation of communities over the Neolithic and Bronze Age (chapter six). From this vantage point, analysis of the landscape settings of monuments suggests how upland occupation articulated within wider patterns of movement (chapter seven). Together with consideration of the changing nature of burial and depositional traditions (chapter eight), it is possible understand some of the ways communities operated at different social and geographical scales, combining and separating at different times and places across localised and wider regional landscapes.

Set in the middle ground between conventional scales of analysis, this perspective represents a radical departure from previous approaches. That stone circles have been subject to inappropriate classification schema at a county scale has divorced them from their own local contexts. This has been detrimental not only to understandings of the nature and scale of social interaction they represent, but also how this changed over time. These monuments should not therefore be seen merely as measured groundplans, dots on distribution maps, or the constituents of particular static monument ‘classes’ but rather as the products of localised landscape histories set within wider social trends. Fuller understandings of their significance at different social and geographical scales can therefore be gained not only through consideration of earlier and later monuments in their environs, but also through exploration of how the ways they were used tied into wider patterns of landscape occupation.

66

Chapter 6: The upland record Introduction

Where land of a suitable altitude to have allowed agricultural exploitation exists above medieval and 19th century enclosure boundaries, cairnfields are situated on shelves or shoulders of land between river valleys and the higher fells. That enclosure effected the present distribution of cairnfields is illustrated in that they often appear immediately beyond the walls demarcating the extents of cleared land. Although there are limited areas of clearance at higher levels, cairnfields predominate around the 200 metre contour. In west and south west Cumbria, where cairnfields are at their densest, these are predominantly situated on south and south-western facing shelves on the lower fringes of the fells. Some, such as Bootle Fell, directly overlook the coastal plain, and others, such as Town Bank and Stockdale Moor, face down the major river valleys which run between the central fells and the Irish Sea (see case studies in chapter seven).

Chapter five ended with a discussion of monument complexes and with the argument that their presence and longevity has been significantly underestimated in the past. Illustrating that the histories of specific places were significant for many of the monuments we see today, we need to understand why particular places saw the construction of particular ‘types’ of monuments. This chapter is concerned with the distribution of Neolithic and Early Bronze Age monuments. Looking also at the associations exhibited between different forms, it is possible to demonstrate how the contexts in which these saw construction can inform a broad regional sequence. Whilst ceremonial complexes remained in use into the Early Bronze Age, what is unclear at present is how their continued importance articulated with wider patterns of occupation. We therefore need to shift the focus to other areas of the occupied landscape, where, across the Neolithic-Bronze Age transition, a large number and wide variety of funerary monuments were constructed. These survive predominantly in upland areas, in particular in association with extant cairnfields. It was argued in the context of ceremonial complexes that the clearest approach to understanding their significance and the chronological sequences they represent is to work back from their present configurations. Given the complexity and time depth inherent to the upland record, this means that the analysis of cairnfields is an appropriate point of departure. The first section of this chapter sets out the character and distribution of cairnfields in south and west Cumbria. Following this, an outline of the relationship between cairnfields and prehistoric monuments in other upland regions sets up a context from which to approach their interpretation. The second section is concerned with the distribution of Neolithic and Early Bronze Age monuments, analysis of their changing settings and the physical associations between particular forms. Leading to the construction of a broad monument chronology for the region, the final section outlines the ways monuments of different scales, in different places, attest to the changing structure and organisation of community from the Early Neolithic to the Bronze Age.

Across the southern fells the situation differs in that the major valleys are aligned north-south. East of the Duddon valley, cairnfields are characterised by linear agglomerations strung along narrow shelves, or clustered on south or southwest facing shoulders. On the southern limestones, evidence for clearance is sparse. The land has been heavily improved in the low lying areas and the fells, supporting only thin soils covering outcropping limestone, are not suited to arable agriculture. Isolated areas of dispersed cairns do exist, however, testament to the long term occupation histories of particularly fertile areas, many monuments survive only as antiquarian records. The LAU (Quartermaine & Leech forthcoming) surveys have added significantly to the recognition of upland monuments. Although there are problems with the classification schema utilised, the surveys have thrown up a series of questions regarding the significance and chronology of cairnfields and their associations with other monuments, funerary cairns and ringcairns in particular. In order that this relationship be considered in detail, it has been necessary to simplify what is an extremely large and complex dataset. The present analysis of the cairnfield record is restricted to the southern half of Cumbria, where the cairnfields recorded have been split into ‘simple’ and complex’ forms (see chapter four). For the purposes of this analysis, ‘simple’ cairnfields comprise apparently random cairn clusters and those incorporating cairn alignments and small stretches of banking. ‘Complex’ cairnfields are those where the field layout appears organised, and includes enclosures and obvious ‘later’ settlement remains. Although there are more areas of upland clearance yet to be characterised, ‘simple’ cairnfields (recorded on the county SMR as of Spring 2002) number

The cairnfield record: defining an approach As discussed in chapter four, approaches to the cairnfield record have been defined by typological, functional and economic criteria. By their very nature, these deny consideration of how the character of particular landscapes determined the ways specific areas could have been used. That the topographic nature of many areas has dictated the availability of land suitable for agricultural use is reflected by the layout, distribution and survival of cairnfields. 67

Age has concentrated on the better developed sites (Barnatt 2000). It is not known if dispersed and disorganised simple cairnfields reflect ‘early’ clearance that was not sustained, attempts in later periods to expand larger complex systems, or even more recent clearance episodes.

around 250 (figure 6.1; appendix 3.2). This includes about 120 small cairnfields composed of ten or less features. There are approximately 52 examples of ‘complex’ cairnfields which equate to about a quarter of those identified. ‘Simple’ cairnfields take in the LAU ‘Primary’ and ‘Proto’ cairnfield types and ‘complex’ cairnfields broadly equate the LAU ‘Cairn-FieldSystems’ (figure 4.1, appendix 3.1)

Although the evidence is problematic, Barnatt (2000) suggested that in the Early Bronze Age, occupation and clearance activity on the East Moors of the Peak District may have been more extensive than in later periods. On the basis that small stone circles, ringcairns and funerary cairns were associated with both simple and complex cairnfield, Barnatt suggested that simple cairnfields may characterise Early Bronze Age occupation (ibid.). Through analysis of monuments associated with cairnfield areas on the East Moors, Barnatt (2000: 44) illustrated that 60-90% of cairnfields had associated stone circles, ringcairns or other stone settings, 80-90% had funerary cairns and 50-80% had both. This correlation has led to the suggestion that in the Early Bronze Age, funerary cairns, ringcairns and small stone circles were local monuments and every small farming community may have had them (Barnatt 1999, 2000). These associations provide a way into unravelling aspects of time depth inherent to the density and distribution of cairnfields in Cumbria. If simple areas of cairnfield represent ‘early’ clearance and occupation, then ‘complex’ cairnfields are likely products of their sustained use into the second half of the Bronze Age and likely the Iron Age. Barnatt has suggested “cairnfields elsewhere in Northern Britain need re-evaluation against the Peak District evidence” (1999: 34). Although the physical characteristics of the Peak and Cumbria are different in many ways, elements of the prehistoric record exhibit shared themes. As there are few other areas in western Britain where stone circles, ringcairns and cairnfields occur in close proximity, it may be possible to draw broad analogies between monuments in these two upland regions.

Figure 6.1 Distribution of ‘simple’ (triangle) and ‘complex’ (circle) cairnfields on the southwestern fells. Mapping data © Crown Copyright ordnance Survey. An Edina Digimap /JISC supplied service.

Although both simple and complex cairnfields are relatively evenly distributed across the same areas, complex cairnfields are only situated on relatively lowlying and free-draining areas of land. Around half of the simple cairnfield groups (making up three quarters of the cairnfield record) comprise clusters of ten or less cairns. Where these occur alongside complex cairnfields they are situated at their margins, on slopes or dry islands of often stonier land. This is illustrated most clearly east of the Duddon, where the topography is more restrictive to clearance than on the western fells and a significant proportion of cairnfield groups comprise less than ten cairns (figures 6.1, 6.6). Although there are few large cairnfields, where these do occur, they are surrounded by smaller areas of clearance at their peripheries. The majority are situated on limited areas of usable land, defined by areas of bog, outcropping rock, breaks of slope, or situated in cols between becks or ghylls. This patterning illustrates the rocky and inhospitable nature of the area, but also that ‘simple’ cairnfields are often peripheral to ‘complex’ examples.

Upland monuments and landscape histories Before looking closely at the relationship between individual cairnfield areas and Early Bronze Age monuments in Cumbria we need to confront problems relating to drawing comparisons with the Peak District. This first of these is that in Cumbria, associations between cairnfield and particular monument ‘types’ are not clearcut. Although a significant proportion of ringcairns in Cumbria are closely associated with cairnfields, this is not an exclusive relationship as many are situated within ceremonial complexes and cairn cemeteries. There are no large freestanding circles in the Peak, the presence of chambered cairns instead, suggestive these monuments played similar roles (see Bradley 1998b). The ‘stone circles’ associated with cairnfields in the Peak are small in diameter and likely to date to the Early Bronze Age (Barnatt 1990). These are

Simple cairnfield and monuments Although the longevity of complex field systems may be illustrated by the presence of features such as enclosed settlements and stock enclosures, tying down a chronology for the simpler areas of cairnfield is more difficult. In the Peak District, research extending the chronology of the East Moors cairnfields into the Iron

68

to their dating, it is necessary to provide summary descriptions and outline arguments relating to their physical makeup, chronology and longevity.

therefore more comparable to the cairnfield ringcairns both in the Peak and in Cumbria than they are to large freestanding circles. The differential distribution of monuments between these areas illustrates a point crucial for understanding regional landscape histories. As well as being situated in regions illustrating the differential use of particular monument ‘types’, Cumbria and the Peak are also dissimilar in physical character. This has led to distinctive localised and long term occupation histories based on the differential configuration of upland and lowland landscapes and valley systems. This may be illustrated by the distribution of Neolithic monuments. In Derbyshire, long and chambered cairns, like the major henge monuments, are distributed across the margins of the limestone White Peak (see Barnatt 1996a, 1996b). Ringcairns and small stone circles occur almost exclusively on the East Moors in association with cairnfields (Barnatt 1990). In southern and western Cumbria however, a number of long cairns occur in or close to cairnfields, and very few stone circles are associated with cairnfields. Although there may be other factors involved, whilst the Peak monuments exhibit clearcut distributional distinctions between classic ‘Neolithic’ and ‘Bronze Age’ forms, in Cumbria these lines are more difficult to draw. As discussed in chapter five, a number of large stone circles and henges in Cumbria are situated close to long cairns and enclosures, and the longevity of such areas is also evidenced by later funerary monuments. However, long cairns, enclosures, round funerary cairns and ringcairns also occur in isolation from overtly ceremonial complexes. So, unlike the evidence from the Peak, it is unclear how the changing distributions and associations between such features work at localised or regional scales.

Enclosures Although the distribution of Neolithic ‘causewayed’ enclosures was thought restricted to southern England (e.g. Bradley 1984), aerial reconnaissance, field survey and excavation have begun to change understandings of their character, setting and distribution (Oswald et al. 2001; Darvill & Thomas 2001). In Cumbria, this ‘gap’ has been thrown into relief by a number of recent discoveries. A number of putatively Neolithic enclosures have been identified, surviving as stone banks, earthworks and soil marks (RCHME 1996a, 1996b, 1996c; English Heritage 2002; Horne 2000; figure 6.2; appendix 2.2). As discussed in chapter four, one of the major problems regarding the secure characterisation of these features is that ‘anomalous’ upland enclosures such as Skelmore Heads and Carrock Fell have been identified as Iron Age hillforts (Collingwood 1938a; Powell 1963). Alongside similar examples in the region, these are formed of interrupted banks stretching between the rocky outcrops and scarps of which their perimeters are partially formed. Although their identification as hillforts rests on their ‘defensive’ positioning, they are not practically defensible (Edmonds 1993, 1999). Arguments for a Neolithic foundation for the enclosures vary from site to site, and are based on their morphology, setting and more circumstantial evidence (see appendix 6.2). As discussed in chapter five, at Long Meg aerial survey has demonstrated the existence of an enclosure larger and apparently earlier than the stone circle (Soffe & Clare 1988). Unlike the majority of those identified, that at Long Meg is relatively low lying and physically associated with a stone circle. The layout of the conjoined monuments at Summer Hill exhibits a striking similarity to those at Long Meg (figures 7.3, 7.4). Although the relationship between these ‘paired’ monuments is not clearcut, what is significant is that this suggests Early Neolithic monuments were commonly incorporated into later complexes.

So where does this leave us? On the basis of the LAU surveys it is possible to suggest that during the Early Bronze Age, upland ‘family’ farms, represented by individual cairnfield areas, were associated with ringcairns and funerary cairns. However, relating such occupation to the rest of the chronological picture is difficult. The sequence that led to the onset of upland clearance in the Cumbrian fells is unclear, as is the character of occupation and how this changed over time. Was cairnfield occupation persistent or seasonal in nature? What sorts of processes led to the formation of the upland record as it now stands? One of the major problems frustrating clarification of these questions is the ways these monuments have been classified. Before returning to further discussion of these issues, and a consideration of the nature and scale of upland occupation, there are some basic problems to address. As discussed in chapter four, a variety of different monument types were constructed and used in the Cumbrian uplands over the Neolithic and Bronze Age and these have seen little or no systematic attention. As there are questions as

The remainder of the enclosures occupy hilltop positions, and two of these are associated with long cairns and later monuments. Howe Robin is situated in an area dense with evidence for Neolithic and Early Bronze Age activity, including a possible long cairn at Cow Green. Neolithic occupation close to and within the enclosure is evidenced by finds including a polished stone axe, part of a polished flint axe, a leaf shaped arrowhead and sherds of Grimston ware (Cherry et al. 1985).

69

A

C B

Figure 6.2. Plans of upland enclosures. A: Carrock Fell B: Green Howe C: Skelmore Heads D: Howe Robin Stylised drawings after RCME (1996a, 1996b), EH (2000).

D 70

Skelmore Heads is the only example of a putatively Neolithic enclosure in Cumbria to have seen recorded excavation (Powell 1963). Unfortunately, interpretations as to the results of these investigations (where a palisaded enclosure of Late Bronze Age or Iron Age date was later replaced by an earthen bank and ditch) remain equivocal on a number of levels (RCHME 1996c). On the basis of the excavation records (Powell 1963) it appears there were no stratigraphic relationships between the ‘phases’ identified, no dating evidence was recovered and the only diagnostic material culture the excavation produced were two unstratified flint finds. Although the monument may have seen different phases of use, there is strong circumstantial evidence to suggest a Neolithic foundation. A long cairn is situated 50 metres to its north (Powell 1972), and a cache of roughout stone axes were located in limestone outcrops which forms part of the enclosure perimeter (Barnes 1963). Skelmore Heads also forms part of a monument complex including the Birkrigg stone circle and cairn cemetery, less than a kilometre to the south east (see chapter nine).

degree that only six can be considered possible examples, with five others more likely or definite (figure 6.3; appendix 2.1). Not only have many been destroyed since their initial identification, some are likely to be of natural origin, and others may be later funerary or clearance cairns, or products of more recent activity (see Masters 1984).

The morphology and setting of the enclosure at Carrock Fell, commonly known as an Iron Age hillfort (Collingwood 1938a) have recently been used to suggest a Neolithic date for its foundation (RCHME 1996a). The southern flank of the fell has been identified as the source of group XXXIV stone axes (Clough & Cummins 1988). Given the relationship between Neolithic enclosures and axe sources seems well established (Edmonds 1993, 1999), this association may provide circumstantial evidence of a Neolithic date.

Such uncertainties can be illustrated by two ‘long cairns’ on the west coast. The Muncaster long cairn on Stainton Fell is a large oval mound oriented east-west. To the east the mound merges into the natural slope, and to the south is a natural outcrop. From the west the mound is well defined, and incorporates two groups of tall stones. These have been interpreted as portal stones, or the remains of a straight frontal facade similar to that of the Lochill long cairn in south west Scotland (Masters 1973, 1984). Although the feature is possibly natural it displays some of the long cairn characteristics set out by Masters (1984; chapter 4). Without excavation however, its nature will likely remain unresolved. The Irton Fell ‘long cairn’ is unlikely to be a built monument. Taking the form of a broadly linear mound 19 metres in length, 11 metres wide and 3.2 metres high the east of the feature has been thought to have been augmented by clearance including two large upright stones (SMR 31060). However, the mound does not have a coherent profile, all of the stones forming its body and periphery appear to be earthfast, and a very similar natural outcrop lies c. 50 metres to its east.

Drawing a distinction between long barrows and natural features is a problem relating to our own perceptions of ‘architecture’ and modern classification schema. There is however a recognisable tradition of prehistoric communities in Cumbria drawing on aspects of the natural world in different ways, and a tradition of long cairn construction utilising geological features is evidenced by Crosby Garrett CLXXIV, which was partially formed from a limestone outcrop (Greenwell 1877). Such concerns are also evidenced in the construction of enclosures and the incorporation of a natural feature ‘reminiscent’ of a long mound within Green Howe (Horne 2000; see chapter eight).

Green Howe appears on the basis of its morphology to typify causewayed enclosures identified in other areas (English Heritage 2000). That the feature is overlain in places by possible Iron Age field systems (Higham 1978; English Heritage 2000) would suggest a prehistoric date for its construction, and Later Mesolthic/Early Neolithic lithic finds have been identified within its perimeter (John Hodgson pers. comm). Attention has also been drawn to a natural feature reminiscent of a long mound within the monument and as Neolithic enclosures are often associated with long cairns its incorporation may have been deliberate (Horne 2000).

The second problem with the identification of long cairns is their common association with cairnfields. In these contexts it is difficult to draw distinctions between ‘classic’ funerary long cairns, localised architectural funerary forms, or those elongated cairns produced through linear clearance. Fourteen features classified as long cairns are located in the LAU survey areas on the south western fells, three of which had previously been documented (Samson’s Bratful, Heathwaite Fell and Muncaster). According to Quartermaine & Leech (forthcoming), of those which satisfy some of the long mound criteria set out by Masters (1984), only two were thought to display ‘sufficient’ of these (Samson’s Bratful and Town Bank 654/SMR 30987). These did not include the long cairns at Muncaster or Heathwaite Fell. The remaining 11 examples, identified by Masters’ (1984) ‘less diagnostic’ criteria (oval or pear shaped mounds less

Long cairns In common with Neolithic enclosures, the identification of long cairns in Cumbria is problematic not least that this has predominately been based on their morphology. As discussed in chapter one, these poorly understood forms slipped through the culture historical ‘style zones’ of the western seaboard, with the region thought to contain only “a very few late degenerate cairns derived from the long barrow type” (Collingwood 1933: 168). Although 25 possible long cairns have been identified (Collingwood 1933; Manby 1970; Masters 1984; Quartermaine & Leech forthcoming), the secure characterisation of the majority is questionable to the 71

previously destroyed burial deposit has been taken to correspond to the mortuary structure at Raiset Pike (Powell 1972; Masters 1984; Manby 1970). These monuments may have been similar to examples in Scotland where early burial structures in individual round cairns were conjoined to form single long cairns (Lynch 1997).

than 15 metres, and often less than 10 metres in length) remain questionable. These are clustered on Town Bank and Stockdale Moor, close to Samson’s Bratful which is the least refutable example of a funerary long cairn in west Cumbria. Although those on Stockdale Moor are distributed amongst a number of bounded areas of cairnfield, six of the ‘long cairns’ identified at Town Bank cluster in the same area of cairnfield. Their structure and prominence may suggest funerary use, and a number are situated close to cairn cemetery clusters. However the spatial associations exhibited between these monuments suggests that with the exception of Samson’s Bratful, they are not ‘classic’ Neolithic long cairns.

Distribution of enclosures and long cairns Although the identification of long cairns and enclosures in Cumbria is problematic, in order to begin to understand the changing structure and organisation of communities over the Neolithic and Bronze Age, their distribution (as it is presently understood) needs to be considered. There is a clear need for excavation to take place at these monuments in order that their character and chronology can be established even at a basic level. At present, it is impossible to interpret the significance of individual sites, or their distribution over the county as a whole. However, on the basis of the evidence as it stands, it is apparent that these features exhibit a number of common settings and associations.

The majority of those features identified as long cairns on Town Bank and Stockdale Moor are oval or conform to the characteristic pear shape evidenced by Samson’s Bratful (figure 6.3) but are much smaller in size. Their clustering very close to Samson’s Bratful suggests that their construction echoes that of this large prominent long cairn. If so, this may illustrate very localised funerary architectural traditions based on pre-existing forms.

In Cumbria, like other areas, long cairns are relatively evenly distributed. In regions where more detailed analysis has taken place, these monuments have seen interpretation as ‘territorial markers’ and/or the communal burial places of individual communities (e.g. Renfrew 1973; Bradley 1993; Tilley 1994). Enclosures, however, have been understood to operate at rather different social scales, some at least acting as areas where dispersed communities came together at different times of the year. It has been argued that the interrupted banks and ditches characterising many Neolithic enclosures are the product of different social groups working together to maintain broader social ties in the creation of a communal monument (Startin & Bradley 1981; Evans 1988; Edmonds 1993, 1999). Such monuments also exhibit strong associations with death; not only are they often associated with long cairns, excavation has shown in some cases that both the ditches and internal areas of enclosures may have been used for exposure (Mercer 1980; Thorpe 1984; Edmonds 1993).

Figure 6.3 Examples of long cairns. A: Raiset Pike, B: Heathwaite, C: Samsons Bratful, D: Skelmore Heads. Drawings after Masters (1984).

At a broader level, as discussed in chapter four, the existence of oval or pear shaped funerary monuments suggests a strong architectural crossover between ‘long’ and ‘round’ cairns. This crossover is illustrated by those few examples which have seen excavation. Excavation of Crosby Garrett CLXXIV (Greenwell 1877) suggested the oval ‘long cairn’ resulted from a number of phases of structural addition culminating with the deposition of Later Neolithic inhumations (see chapter eight). Similarly, the long cairn at Raiset Pike (ibid.) resulted from several depositional phases, formed not of a single phase monument but by a pair of round cairns (Clare 1979). Skelmore Heads is the only long cairn in southern Cumbria to have seen recorded excavation, itself oval in shape (Powell 1972; figure 6.3). The existence of a large transverse slab in the barrow adjacent to one end of the

The relationship between isolated long cairns and those associated with enclosures in Cumbria is not clearcut (figure 6.4). It may be that the areas where enclosures were situated also formed the ‘home range’ of particular social groups, or that the long cairns close to enclosure sites operated at different social scales to more isolated examples. The former may be suggested by stable isotope evidence from Hambledon Hill which illustrated individuals in the internal long barrow had similar diets, whereas burials from the ditches represented a variety of dietary habits (Richards 2000). Although this could relate to ‘elite’ members of society with exclusive access to certain foodstuffs, this disparity is likely to suggest that whilst dispersed communities came together at such sites, many also operated at more localised scales.

72

distribution of long cairns and enclosures to that of stone circles (figure 6.5).

In Cumbria, the likelihood or identification of such uses cannot be determined by extrapolation to sites elsewhere. With the exception of associations between enclosures and long cairns, we understand little of the activities which took place. Recent syntheses and discussions (e.g. Bradley 1988; Thomas 1999, Edmonds 1993, 1999; Oswald et al. 2000) demonstrate variability within and between regions in terms of how enclosures were used over time, and how these related to regional and localised patterns of occupation. This begs a number of questions: were enclosures in Cumbria the focus for persistent occupation, and if so, at what scale? Did they see more consistent use as places for gatherings and ceremonial activity, and did this vary according to the landscape setting of individual sites? What, if any, was their relation to the production and circulation of stone axes?

The long cairns are evenly distributed, separated by major river valleys or on the eastern limestones, positioned where valley systems come together. That some stone circles were constructed close to long cairns suggests that their distribution conforms broadly to the major regions outlined in chapter five. However that markedly more stone circles and round funerary cairns were constructed into the Later Neolithic and Early Bronze Age suggests a significant change from earlier periods. This may relate to the dispersal or fragmentation of the communities which made up broader social groups. Whilst these groups continued to come together at major monument complexes, what is clear is that the proliferation of funerary monuments reflects an increased concern with marking attachments to place at closer social scales. Before these long term social processes can be discussed in detail, it is necessary to explore the character, settings and associations of round funerary cairns and ringcairns in the Cumbrian uplands.

Excavation of enclosures in southern Britain has revealed strong associations with the working and deposition of lithic materials. In some cases, significant volumes of primary waste appears to reflect the working of stone which outcropped close to particular sites (Edmonds 1993, 1999). The working, polishing and deposition of axes, both of local and non local stone is also common. Cumbrian axes in particular have been singled out for discussion as they consistently appear in such contexts (Bradley & Edmonds 1993, Edmonds 1999). So if Langdale axes were treated in special ways in enclosures in southern England, what was their significance closer to source? Although the evidence is slim, there are consistent associations between stone axes and enclosures in Cumbria. As outlined above, the southern flank of Carrock Fell has been identified as the source for group XXXIV stone. Chance finds of axes and axe fragments have been located within the Howe Robin Enclosure (Cherry et al. 1985), as well as a cache of group VI roughouts at Skelmore Heads (Barnes 1963). Until further work is carried out however, their significance cannot be reliably established. Given the problems inherent to the interpretation of long cairns and enclosures in Cumbria, all that can be derived from their distribution at present is that they appear to conform with broader national trends; operating a different social and geographical scales, these monuments served different scales of community and many formed the focus for the construction of later monuments. For the purposes of this discussion, one of the most important points to be made here is that in other areas, such sites saw a change in focus in the Late Neolithic. Long cairns saw closure or ‘final’ phases of deposition associated with beaker material or single inhumations, and oval and round barrows within or close to enclosures appropriated and transformed their original significance (e.g. Bradley 1992a; Thomas 1999; Edmonds 1999). As discussed in chapter five, such transformations signal a change in the architecture and use of monuments at a national scale. In Cumbria, this is evidenced by the construction of stone circles, followed by a proliferation of smaller circular funerary monuments. This changing scale of monument construction is illustrated through comparison of the

Above: Figure 6.4. Distribution of enclosures and long cairns. Below: Figure 6.5. Distribution of enclosures, long cairns and stone circles. Mapping data © Crown Copyright Ordnance Survey. An Edina Digimap/JISC supplied service.

73

Figure 6.6. Distribution of cairnfields and associated monuments across the southwestern fells. Mapping data © Crown Copyright Ordnance Survey. An Edina Digimap/JISC supplied service.

approach does not have the flexibility to take into account localised variation in monument architecture, for the purposes of this study, the LAU methodology is retained. Further analysis of the architectural traditions and likely chronology of particular round cairn ‘types’ will be further discussed in relation to burial and depositional traditions (chapter eight).

Round funerary cairns: methodology and approach Alongside cairnfields, round funerary cairns represent a significant proportion of the prehistoric sites identified across the Cumbrian uplands. Beyond factors of differential preservation, what is clear about their settings and locations is that they saw construction across all areas of the occupied landscape. As with enclosures and long cairns, with the exception of those formerly interpreted as stone circles, these features have seen little attention beyond their initial identification.

Summit cairns A significant proportion of the round funerary cairns identified in the Cumbrian uplands are isolated from other monuments. Situated on ridges and summits these features are locally prominent and many hold wide vistas. The majority have not seen detailed description since they were initially mapped by the Ordnance Survey, and others may remain concealed beneath modern marker or walker’s cairns (see figure 7.27). The locations of these features are specific to the topographic areas in which they are set and in some cases their recognition has been influenced by later landuse. In those areas where the landscape is low-lying, in particular on the southern and eastern limestone fells, only small numbers of funerary cairns have been identified, some through antiquarian excavation or description. Most are relatively isolated, and are distributed along prominent ridges and scarp edges overlooking the valleys that dissect the fells. These are likely to be localised variants of the summit cairns occupying the higher fells of the western and central Lakes. Neither of these landscape ‘types’ are suited to large scale agricultural exploitation and both have traditionally been used for summer grazing.

As of Spring 2002, over 200 features were recorded as round funerary cairns on the county SMR for the southern half of Cumbria. Of these, over 70 are not classed here as funerary cairns as their records lack coherent description or locational detail. While many may be funerary monuments, analysis of better recorded examples is more pertinent to the purposes of this study. The remaining 147 ‘round’ cairns occur in a variety of contexts (appendix 3.3). This total includes features situated within freestanding circles, a number formerly interpreted as small stone circles and those monuments on Town Bank and Stockdale Moor previously classed as long cairns. Around half the round cairns recorded in the southern half of Cumbria occur within the LAU survey areas. This illustrates not only that they commonly occur in association with cairnfields, but also that where detailed survey has not taken place, many more likely remain unrecorded. Although there are few clear distinctions between cairns deemed ‘funerary’ or ‘agricultural’ it remains that the available survey evidence has been based on maintaining distinctions between their morphology and setting (see chapter four). Although this simplistic 74

Britain cemeteries are less common than, for example, on the Yorkshire or Wessex chalklands. Where these do exist they are usually small, comprised of less than 10 monuments compared with the 20 or 30 that are commonplace in other areas (Lynch 1993). Across Britain, cemetery clusters are known in different concentrations, some tightly grouped with others more dispersed (Fleming 1971; Woodward 2000). Both exist in Cumbria, and although there are no clear distinctions, localised groups of funerary cairns occur largely in upland and cairnfield contexts with more dispersed examples situated in the environs of ceremonial complexes. In both cases these monuments occupy ridgetops and scarps overlooking valleys. The upland cemeteries are consistently associated with ringcairns.

Funerary cairns in cairnfield contexts The opening section of this chapter was concerned with analysis of the cairnfield record and discussion of the relationship between upland clearance, ringcairns and funerary cairns. By analogy with evidence from the Peak District it was suggested that where these monuments are associated with areas of cairnfield, they may relate to Early Bronze Age occupation, ostensibly of individual ‘family’ groups (Barnatt 1999, 2000). Such associations illustrate the proliferation of funerary monuments, with particular social groups increasingly concerned with marking their attachment to localised areas. So how does the distribution of funerary cairns in cairnfield contexts relate to the identification of such areas? Across the southern and western fells, the tightest clusters of funerary cairns are associated with major groups of simple cairnfield (figure 6.6). In dispersed areas of cairnfield such clusters are less apparent, with funerary cairns more evenly and widely distributed. In other words, major cairnfield groups contain significant numbers of funerary cairns but small areas of cairnfield are more often than not associated with only one or two funerary cairns. Their distribution at this scale therefore suggests that individual cairnfields may be associated with their own funerary cairns.

Ringcairns: methodology and approach Like funerary cairns, the interpretation of ringcairns in Cumbria is thwarted by difficulties (see chapter four). As of spring 2002, 67 possible/probable ringcairns were recorded on the SMR in the southern half of Cumbria and/or were known from published sources (appendix 3.4). The identification of at least 23 is questionable in that they may better be interpreted as hut structures or disturbed funerary cairns. Although some of these features may be, or may have been ringcairns these will not see detailed discussion. As with funerary cairns, analysis of better recorded examples may bring out themes equally pertinent to those that have not been securely characterised.

While this correlation is clear where individual areas of cairnfield can be identified, the situation is more complex in major cairnfield clusters. By approaching these at a closer scale, it is possible to identify distinctions between the settings and associations of funerary cairns, which are located in two main settings. The first, more common location is that they are situated on localised points of high ground within or slightly peripheral to areas of cairnfield. Such monuments are relatively low lying and likely to equate to the funerary cairns associated with individual field areas.

There are a number of reasons suggesting that the presently understood distribution of ringcairns is skewed. Although the LAU surveys have significantly increased the numbers identified in cairnfield contexts, it is likely more remain to be identified outside the upland survey areas. This is illustrated clearly by walkover survey in the central fells which has resulted in the identification of around 20 ringcairns of different forms (Rogers 2000). Situated in analogous settings to the summit cairns, these monuments may also be related to seasonal occupation of the high uplands (see below).

The second locational theme illustrated by funerary cairns exhibits a disparity with those clearly associated with individual areas of cairnfield. These are located along contours upslope of the main concentrations of cairnfield. Unlike the isolated and low lying examples, these commonly occur in clusters and are situated on natural routeways overlooking wide areas. Such clustering suggests these monuments form cemetery groups. If the individual funerary cairns associated with cairnfield areas are the ‘family’ monuments of an Early Bronze Age date as has been suggested (Barnatt 1999, 2000), this disparity may have chronological implications (see below).

Although ringcairns have been subject to subclassifications in the past, largely defined by Lynch’s ‘variant circles’ (1972, 1979), recent analyses have led to the recognition that these may have been overstated (Lynch 1993). Given the nature of the data concerning ringcairns in Cumbria, the most useful approach to their interpretation is one of simplicity. Like the stone circles, the main problem with the characterisation of these monuments is that there are a number of qualitative (if not clearly quantitative) physical distinctions between features classified under the broad heading of ‘ringcairn’. In Cumbria, although ringcairns share many architectural traits, they can be split into three broad ‘types’ on the basis of their sizes, their settings and their associations with other monuments.

Cairn cemeteries and ceremonial complexes Few funerary cairn cemeteries have been recognised in Cumbria and distinctions between funerary cairns in cairnfield contexts can only be drawn through close analysis of their settings and associations. Across upland

75

Within cairnfield contexts, ringcairns, like funerary cairns, occur in two main settings. They are commonly situated on localised hillocks or high points slightly isolated from the areas of cairnfield with which they are associated. In general they occur singly although there are a limited number of paired ringcairns and double features incorporating funerary cairns. However, these features also occur in association with funerary cairn cemeteries, located upslope and isolated from cairnfield areas and situated along valleyside routeways.

Large ringcairns/embanked circles A number of large and overtly monumental ringcairns in Cumbria are morphologically similar both to freestanding circles and ‘classic’ ringcairns but have commonly been grouped together with stone circles (Burl 1976; Waterhouse 1985). As discussed in chapter five, these are The Kirk, Lowick Beacon, Banniside, The Cockpit, Casterton, Kopstone and Swarth Fell (figure 6.7). Sharing a broad diameter range with the smaller freestanding circles and the larger of the ‘classic’ ringcairns these features are between 20 and 30 metres in diameter and are characterised by substantial ringbanks with or without surviving kerbing. Problems with their classification are illustrated by interpretations of the Cockpit. This large ringcairn has been interpreted as a ‘concentric’ stone circle (Quartermaine & Leech forthcoming), an ‘embanked circle’ (Waterhouse 1985), an ‘embanked stone circle’ (Burl 1976) and a ‘wall circle’ (Clare 1973). The large embanked monuments and their likely chronological relationship with freestanding circles was discussed in chapter five. Excavations at Oddendale and Hardendale Nab (Turnbull & Walsh 1997; Williams & Howard Davies forthcoming) illustrated complex structures which saw different constructional and depositional episodes over the Later Neolithic and Early Bronze Age. These date ranges, and those from other areas (see Lynch 1993) suggest large ringcairns are later in date than freestanding circles. What is common to the majority is they occur both in ceremonial complexes and in cairn cemeteries isolated from cairnfield occupation areas. The Cockpit and Kopstone are situated within a cluster of monuments on a routeway followed by the High Street Roman road. Neither have seen recorded excavation but are associated with a number of funerary cairns on Moor Divock (previously identified as stone circles) some of which contained Early Bronze Age cremations (Greenwell 1874; Taylor 1886). These monuments may be similar to those at the cemetery excavated at Brenig (Lynch 1993) which contained a variety of complex burial and ringcairn structures in use from the Later Neolithic into the Bronze Age.

Figure 6.7. Examples of large ringcairns, ‘classic’ ringcairns and small stone rings.

Small stone rings Little is known about the character and distribution of small stone rings. These simple ringbanks, in general between 5 and 10 metres in diameter, occur in localised clusters associated within or upslope from cairnfield areas. As with ‘classic’ ringcairns, these features often incorporate prominent earthfast stones on their perimeters and whilst they are usually characterised by the presence of an open central area this is sometimes infilled (Quartermaine & Leech forthcoming). It is likely that small stone rings are more common than has been recognised owing to their morphological similarity to other small circular forms.

‘Classic’ ringcairns Classic ringcairns, characteristically between 10 and 20 metres in diameter, illustrate architectural crossovers with the larger ringcairns but are in general smaller and less overtly ‘monumental’. These features occur in a variety of forms with and without visible entrances or prominent kerbing (figure 6.7).

At Birrell Sike, a feature initially characterised as a ‘hut circle’ saw excavation alongside a further four ‘clearance’ cairns. The internal area of the feature revealed structured charcoal deposits dating to the Early Bronze Age (Richardson 1982; see chapter eight). The excavation illustrated the feature was neither a ‘conventional’ robbed clearance cairn and on the basis of the existence of a cluster of these features within the cairnfield it is unlikely it was a ‘classic’ ringcairn (ibid.).

The thirty eight ringcairns identified in the southern half of Cumbria fall into four main geographical clusters, corresponding to the densest areas of cairnfield. As with the funerary cairn clusters with which these are commonly associated, the majority are either relatively densely but evenly distributed within wide expanses of cairnfield, or occur as more isolated examples associated with less densely clustered cairnfield areas (figure 6.6). 76

five funerary cairns constructed in its central area and internal cairns also occupy each of the four smaller circles at Low Longrigg and White Moss (figures 5.2, 7.7). Where concentrations of small upland circles exist in the south western Cumbrian uplands it is possible these represent Later Neolithic and Earlier Bronze Age occupation. These monuments may predate cairnfield occupation and may have performed similar functions to the ‘classic’ ringcairns and funerary cairns which saw construction in other contexts.

There are other clusters of such features in the central fells (Rogers 2000; see chapter seven). These are largely isolated from cairnfields and like classic ringcairns and funerary cairns in such contexts, may represent the use of the high uplands for summer grazing. Architecture and chronology: circles at variance? In some regions of western Britain, ringcairns occur exclusively in monument complexes, often associated with barrow cemeteries (Lynch 1993). In Cumbria however, ringcairns occur in complexes, in cairnfields and in relative isolation from other monuments. The question is, what can the settings, associations and diameters of the three ‘types’ of ringcairn identified tell us about the character and chronology of upland occupation?

Ringcairns have traditionally been understood as Middle Bronze Age ‘cremation cemeteries’, largely on the basis of antiquarian excavations. Although few modern excavations have taken place, changes in archaeological method and funding have begun to reveal long and complex histories for these monuments. Although close dating is problematic, many appear to have seen construction at or around the Neolithic-Bronze Age transition. Excavations in Cumbria and other areas have revealed earlier structures such as Neolithic timber circles, beaker burials and domestic beaker associations (e.g. Lynch 1993; Turnbull & Walsh 1997; Owoc 2001). Such monuments were then used for burial and deposition into the Bronze Age. This illustrates a number of important points, the first of which being that these features are often much earlier in date than has commonly been supposed. This has important ramifications for understanding the chronology of cairnfield occupation.

Morphologically, the large ringcairns share a diameter range and other architectural characteristics with both freestanding stone circles and classic ringcairns. The bottom end of the diameter range of classic ringcairns also illustrates a crossover with the small stone rings. Although drawing clearcut distinctions is problematic, the three broad ringcairn types illustrate a ‘sliding scale’ of size. This mirrors the increasingly localised associations illustrated between ringcairns and other monuments. To recap; both large and classic ringcairns are commonly associated with ceremonial complexes and cairn cemeteries. Large ringcairns in general appear associated with dispersed cemeteries such as that at Moor Divock, and classic ringcairns in more localised clusters situated above cairnfield areas. Classic ringcairns and small stone rings occur in contexts more closely associated with individual cairnfield areas, and apparently isolated in areas of the high uplands. Although the possibility that there are chronological implications here is difficult to establish, at a broader scale it is possible to identify some points in the processes which led to these changing associations.

Ringcairns where detailed excavation has revealed ‘early’ dates have almost exclusively been associated with ceremonial complexes. However like funerary cairns, these features also occur within dispersed cemetery clusters, closely associated with cairnfields and in the high uplands. This may be chronologically significant. Put simply, ringcairns in individual cairnfield areas may represent similar ‘kinds’ of features to those in monumental complexes, but situated according to slightly different, and more localised principles.

In chapter five it was argued that large stone circles with internal stone settings illustrated the remodelling of earlier open monuments. This change in focus towards overtly funerary ritual is echoed by the construction of ringcairns over earlier monuments (such as those at Oddendale and Hardendale Nab) and by the proliferation of funerary monuments across all areas of the occupied landscape. So, while new monuments were built in many areas, features which had seen earlier use often saw remodelling and deposition under different contexts and conditions.

The changing distributions and settings of monuments of similar morphological ‘type’ has implications for understanding the crossover between stone circles, kerbed funerary monuments and ringcairns, a problem illustrated by the definition of many such forms as ‘variant circles’ (Lynch 1972, 1979, 1993; Bradley 1998). The construction and use of architectural ‘variants’ drew on the significance of earlier stone circles and funerary monuments and it appears that particular monumental forms remained in use over long periods. Over these periods these were constructed in a variety of different contexts and settings and in a number of different size ranges. Nowhere is this clearer than when looking at different monumental 'types’ sharing similar architectural traits. Both stone circles and ringcairns surround open circular areas, and many examples of both ‘types’ incorporate prominent or distinctive stones on their southern perimeters. As discussed above, morphological similarities between long and round cairns illustrate similar architectural crossovers. This can be illustrated at

Few large stone circles in Cumbria are associated with cairnfields. Those that are (Brat’s Hill and Whitrow Beck) are situated in ‘gaps’ between clusters of classic ringcairns. This may be a product of different landscape histories. For example, although Burnmoor is covered with extant cairnfield, no ringcairns and only a limited number of funerary cairns have been recorded. However Brat’s Hill, a large circle of likely Neolithic date, saw 77

Over the course of this chapter it has been suggested that reference to the architecture and use of earlier monuments was one of the media through which social change occurred. Whilst there appear to be ‘dynamics’ illustrating the changing construction and use of particular monuments over time, drawing clearcut distinctions between these forms has overlooked the ‘statics’ which held such processes together. In other words, whilst the forms of monuments do illustrate change over time, similarities between them demonstrate clear references to the past.

a localised scale on Town Bank and Stockdale Moor where a number of pear shaped funerary monuments were constructed with conspicuous reference to the nearby long cairn of Samson’s Bratful. Whilst in some cases monuments were constructed with reference to earlier features in their immediate environs, broader similarities between monument forms are likely to result from constructing and using these features with reference to the past. At both a theoretical and landscape level, this is not a new idea, having been discussed in relation to the life histories of individual monuments, the growth of cemeteries and ceremonial complexes and at more interpretative scale, the changing structure of community across the Neolithic and Bronze Age (e.g. Barrett 1994; Bradley 1998).

So how are these elements of continuity and change reflected by monuments in Cumbria? The constituents of the upland record clearly suggest that cairnfield occupation was the culmination of wide scale social processes begun with the construction of the first large scale monuments during the Early Neolithic. But how do we go about understanding what appear to be significant social transformations over the course of these periods? Although the character and survival of aspects of the monument record means the picture is not clearcut, there are a number of common themes illustrated by the scale and distribution of monuments across the Neolithic and Bronze Age.

The distribution of ringcairns, funerary cairns and cairnfields across the Cumbrian uplands clearly illustrates a major change in occupation practice and monumental use around the beginning of the Early Bronze Age. Across Britain, this change has seen interpretation as the point of departure from which importance of ‘ritual’ landscapes of stone circles and ceremonial complexes declined, and was overtaken in significance by the concerns of localised communities with ‘agricultural’ landscapes (e.g. Barrett & Bradley 1980; Barrett et al. 1991, Barrett 1994; Bradley 1998). Although this has been assumed to mark a clearcut change into the Middle Bronze Age, it is apparent this is a culmination of processes emerging in the final stages of the Neolithic.

Early Neolithic long cairns and enclosures in Cumbria are in general widely and evenly distributed (figure 6.4). Long cairns separated by major valleys are likely to be indicative of the ‘home ranges’ of individual communities, with the distribution of enclosures at the heads of valley systems acting as places where widespread and dispersed communities may have come together at particular times of the year. The distribution of stone circles could be said to echo similar concerns. As discussed in chapter five, it seems likely that the overtly large monuments within the regional groups identified, for example Long Meg and Summer Hill, may have operated at similar scales to the earlier enclosures. This is further suggested in that both circles were situated adjacent to such features. These reflect a continuing concern with communities coming together at the meetings of valley systems, often in places which already had significant histories. The smaller and more widely dispersed circles may have played similar roles to the earlier long cairns, being the monuments of particular social groups (figure 6.5). However at a basic level, that stone circles are significantly more numerous than long cairns may suggest that individual communities were marking out connections to more closely defined areas of the landscape.

Architectural similarities between stone circles, ringcairns, funerary cairns and roundhouses have been taken to suggest an overarching prehistoric cosmology crossing what are often considered to be relatively clearcut distinctions between the Neolithic and the Bronze Age (Barrett 1988b, 1994; Bradley 1998). However what such broad scale analyses fail to recognise is that these monuments operated at a variety of different social scales, as did the communities that built and used them. These similarities in architectural form may also be seen, more simply, as reflecting the legitimation of social change across these periods, through the retention, in different social and geographical contexts, of ‘traditional’ architectural forms and the practices with which they were associated. Discussion: distribution of Neolithic and Bronze Age monuments If the last three chapters have illustrated anything at all, it is that the classification of monuments has frustrated fruitful interpretation of the changing character of prehistoric occupation. Not only did the same ‘sorts’ of monument operate at different social and geographical scales, morphological classification has meant analyses of such features have commonly divorced them from their settings and the other monuments with which many were associated.

During the Later Neolithic and into the Early Bronze Age, there is a clear shift towards the construction and use of round funerary monuments. The changing significance of large stone circles is illustrated by the addition of central elements to previously open monuments, together with the construction of funerary monuments in their environs. The size of round funerary monuments and their common association with individual inhumations has been linked to the fragmentation of large 78

continuing importance of wider networks of contact. Whilst the continued use of ceremonial complexes may have been an expression of affiliations between different social groups, in contexts closely associated with upland occupation the use of funerary cairns and ringcairns drew on more localised concerns.

scale communities (Thomas 1991, 1998; Bradley 1984; 1998; Barrett 1994; Edmonds 1995). Rather than the ‘communality’ stressed by burial in Neolithic cairns, such monuments have been interpreted as the expressions of overt concerns with lineage and genealogy. Although this opposition has been significantly overstated (see chapter eight), these monuments do suggest an overt change in the structure of community. From a quantitative perspective, this is demonstrated not only their relatively small size, but also by their sheer numbers and the diversity of contexts in which they were constructed.

Conclusion Through consideration of the upland record at different geographical scales it has been possible to identify common themes pertaining to the setting, distribution and associations between particular monument forms. This has allowed a broad sequence of monument use to be established, which, for the purposes of this study, culminates with the onset of large scale upland cairnfield agriculture. Through deconstructing the typologies imposed on these areas in the past it has been argued that ‘simple’ areas of cairnfield associated with funerary cairns and ringcairns reflect upland occupation likely to correspond to the Early Bronze Age ‘family farms’ identified by Barnatt (1999, 2000) in the Peak District.

The proliferation of funerary monuments and the growth of upland cairn cemeteries into the Bronze Age suggests concerns with marking increasingly localised patterns of occupation. Individual funerary cairns and ringcairns were constructed on high summits and along ridgeways, and cemeteries grew up on natural routeways between areas of low and high ground. In some cases in places already occupied by earlier monuments, these may relate to patterns of movement and transitory occupation set in motion during earlier periods. If so, cairn cemeteries including both ringcairns and funerary cairns cannot necessarily be assumed to be contemporary to the cairnfields that they commonly overlook. It is possible that elements of such cemeteries may have been constructed before the onset of the large scale upland clearance, established under conditions not hinged on persistent upland occupation.

Working back from these configurations it has been possible to identify the sorts of processes that led to the formation of the upland record as it exists in the present, and to address a number of questions regarding the changing scale of occupation across the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age. It has been established that monuments not only operated at different social and geographical scales, but also that they illustrate strong and long term connections between communities and the physical worlds in which their lives were played out. However, it remains that we still understand little of the character of routine occupation that these monuments represent. In order to demonstrate the nature and temporalities of occupation, and the ways communities drew on and organised themselves in relation to aspects of the natural world, it is necessary to confront the monument record from a more localised perspective. The following chapter is designed to address these issues, through analysis and interpretation of the topographic setting, architecture and distribution of monuments discussed over the last two chapters.

Although this may have been the culmination of gradual and long term processes, large scale clearance of the Cumbrian uplands becomes archaeologically detectable during the Early Bronze Age. Accompanied by the construction of ringcairns and funerary cairns closely associated with individual cairnfields, this clearly illustrates that particular areas, likely associated with ‘families’ within wider social groups, became foci for the expression of localised tenurial concerns. On this basis it has commonly been supposed that such communities became increasingly isolated. However, as will be discussed in relation to the burial and depositional traditions associated with upland monuments and those in ceremonial complexes (chapter eight), that both saw use during the Early Bronze Age is testament to the

79

Chapter 7: Landscape setting of monuments Other long cairns illustrate similar settings. That at Heathwaite is situated above a tributary of Kirkby Pool, which runs into the Duddon below. Lying hidden beneath a locally prominent outcrop, it is oriented downslope and along the natural routeway between the Duddon estuary and the Coniston uplands (figure 7.2). Skelmore Heads long cairn is situated in a shallow east-west orientated valley above which is the prominent scarp occupied by the Skelmore Heads enclosure. The long axis of the monument is oriented east-west, following the line of a routeway between the Furness Fells and the Leven estuary. Raiset Pike is set between outcrops on a route between the Lune and Eden valleys to the Crosby fells. The long cairn at Haverbrack is situated adjacent to and below a limestone outcrop on a routeway between the Kent estuary and the south eastern fells. Unlike those monuments today situated on open moorland, Haverbrack lies in woodland and wide views from it are impeded. It is likely that the other long cairns were situated in similar contexts and visibility of areas they referenced would have been obscured. Knowledge of their location may have meant being able to physically ‘see’ these areas did not hold great importance. In wooded contexts, these monuments, situated on already well trodden routeways, could be ‘found’ through reference to the outcrops close to which they were located.

Introduction Chapter six illustrated how different scales of community are evidenced by different ‘types’ of monuments and the ways this changed over time. This chapter explores how these processes played out across local and regional landscapes. Analysis of the settings of monuments ties into understandings of the character and temporality of occupation. Not only are many situated in or between landscape zones traditionally exploited on a seasonal basis, they also illustrate the relationships between different scales of community and specific types of landscape feature. The first section of this chapter outlines the settings of long cairns, enclosures, stone circles and henges, their relationships with the natural world and what their locations suggest about the nature and scale of occupation. The architecture, settings and embellishment of stone circles illustrate the formalisation of processes begun in the Early Neolithic, which in turn carry through into later monuments. The second section confronts the landscape setting of ringcairns, round funerary cairns and their associations with cairnfields. Through a number of case studies it is possible to look at how the organisation of upland occupation changed over time and the ways this related to the long term processes evidenced at ceremonial complexes. The discussion culminates with exploration of how monuments in different settings suggest the ways different scales of community articulated over the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age, both across the physical landscape and within wider social worlds. Long cairns and enclosures Recent interpretations of Early Neolithic occupation practice have suggested that earlier patterns of movement became increasingly formalised, linked to changing attitudes to the land that came with the herding of domesticates (Bradley 1993, 1998; Thomas 1988; 1991; Pluciennik 1996; Edmonds 1999). Such arguments often draw on the common location of long cairns on pathways between landscape zones, areas also often associated with Later Mesolithic activity (e.g. Tilley 1994). Although little is known about long cairns in Cumbria, they share common locational themes and their settings illustrate what in other areas has been interpreted as reference to the natural ‘monuments’ of the Mesolithic (Bradley 1991a, 2000a; Tilley 1994, 1996).

Figure 7.1. Samson’s Bratful, looking west towards the coastal plain.

Long cairns in Cumbria are located on natural routeways between upland and lowland areas. Samson’s Bratful is situated in a classic position on a shoulder of Stockdale Moor between the Bleng valley and the steep incline towards the central fells. Situated above the spring of a tributary beck, and overlooking the Bleng and the Irish Sea beyond, the cairn lies beneath a locally dominant ridge, almost hidden between outcrops (figures 7.1, 7.22).

Figure 7.2. Heathwaite long cairn, looking south towards the Duddon estuary.

80

construction of major ceremonial monuments during the Later Neolithic. Both the Duggleby Howe and Maes Howe enclosures, which have been drawn on in the interpretation of that at Long Meg (Bradley & Edmonds 1993) have been described as ‘formative’ henges; monuments with more in common with enclosures than ‘classic’ henge forms (Harding 2003). Their location in shallow valleys would have restricted wide visibility of the world beyond. If the higher surroundings of these monuments were wooded, these may have performed similar functions to the banks which were to surround henges and large stone circles (see below).

Similar locational themes have been identified elsewhere in western Britain (e.g. Tilley 1994, 1996; Tilley & Bennet 2001). Discussing the settings of Neolithic burial chambers in south west Wales, Tilley (1994) suggested that the rock outcrops themselves were the dominant foci, and the monuments, often indistinct from the natural features that surround them, drew on the past significance of particular places. Alongside cursus monuments, the significance of long cairns has been seen to illustrate the embellishment of existing places on routes and pathways (Thomas 1991; Barrett 1994; Last 1999). In south west Wales, as in Cumbria, the viewsheds from, and linear orientations of these monuments focus on natural routeways. This suggests they were intended to be approached from particular directions and they were the focus for movement between landscape zones.

Landscape setting of the Cumbrian circles The settings of stone circles in Cumbria have been addressed at a number of different levels in the past. At a regional scale their distribution has been seen as significant as many are situated close to the natural routeways thought to be utilised for the transportation of stone axes from the central fells to the world beyond (Fell 1964; Manby 1965; Burl 1976; Bradley & Edmonds 1993; Harding 2003). Indeed, some authors have visualised a virtual ring of stone circles around the central Lakes defining the ‘entrance’ to its mountainous centre (e.g. Burl 1988).

Whilst operating at a wider social scale, Neolithic enclosures incorporate similar concerns with the natural world. That the majority enclose prominent hilltop locations means they hold unrestricted views for many miles. Skelmore Heads overlooks much of the Furness Peninsula, and on a clear day, the central fells are clearly visible beyond the Furness Fells. Similarly, Green Howe is situated to overlook the Solway and the northern and western fells, and Howe Robin overlooks both the Lune and the Eden valleys. Like long cairns, enclosures also drew on more localised aspects of topography. The construction of banks in some cases may have been the embellishment or ‘monumentalisation’ of areas already defined by the natural topography. At Skelmore Heads, Carrock Fell, Howe Robin and Hallin Fell, for example, the enclosure banks run along scarps joining areas of outcropping rock (figures 6.2, 9.21). Distinct from the hilltop enclosures are two relatively lowlying features now identifiable as soilmarks. The enclosure at Long Meg (figures 5.7, 7.3), in contrast with the stone circle, is situated in a shallow valley where wide visibility of the surrounding area is impeded. The larger and more irregular of the two ‘hengiform’ enclosures at Summer Hill (figure 7.4) is situated in a similar setting downslope of the smaller monument, again on the edge of a shallow valley. At Long Meg, a possible cursus monument has been identified to the south west of the circle and enclosure. In general these sorts of features are considered to be of Middle Neolithic date, chronologically juxtaposed between the better known sequences of ‘Early’ and ‘Late’ (Harding & Barclay 1999). Like Early Neolithic long cairns, these linear monuments fixed earlier patterns of progression through and between particular places (ibid.; Last 1999). Drawing on topographic contrasts to formalise the transitional aspects of movement between upland and lowland areas, it has been argued that cursus monuments represent the increasing formalisation of social territories after the Early Neolithic (Last 1999). At Long Meg, if the possible cursus and the enclosure predate the stone circle, it is possible they represent the processes leading up to the

Figure 7.3. Long Meg stone circle and plot of enclosure identified by aerial photographs.

Outside Cumbria, the distribution of stone axes has also been used to interpret the location of monuments on major through routes. The Thornborough henges, for example, are situated along the River Ure as it descends from Wensleydale into the Vale of Mowbray, interpreted as a route used for the passage of axes from Cumbria over the Pennines (Harding 2003). Other henge complexes in the area are situated close to the river Wharfe; “a possible routeway for Group VI axes known to have been moving in large quantities to the Lincolnshire Wolds and Trent 81

Valley” (ibid.: 100). While it appears there is a relationship between the distribution of stone circles and axes, within Cumbria, discussions have consistently failed to consider the localised settings of these monuments. Focussing exclusively on the distribution of axes, the people that carried them have also been overlooked. At a fundamental level, axe distributions are the products of hand to hand exchange, and their ‘movement’ could only be achieved by people coming together at both local and wider geographical scales.

Stone circles, routeways and landscape zones Although the topographic settings of the Cumbrian circles appear varied, their locations incorporate common themes. These illustrate continuity with earlier monuments which is also reflected in that circles are locally distinctive, relating closely to both the characteristics of their immediate surroundings and to the world beyond. Some stone circles in Cumbria are situated in the high uplands, and some on the lowland fringe. Others were constructed in lowlying locations close to the coast and/or major rivers. Although there are differences in scale, there are few obvious architectural distinctions between circles situated in different landscape zones. Like long cairns, many stone circles are situated in areas where the high uplands meet the lowland fringe, for example on low hills between areas of higher land, or on plateaus between upland shoulders and lower lying areas. This may be illustrated in that circles are often at or close to the junction between later unenclosed and enclosed land. The propensity for modern farms to be situated close to stone circles (e.g. Swinside, Long Meg, Birkrigg, Whitrow Beck, Lacra, Gunnerkeld, Oddendale) also illustrate they are set between landscape zones. Upland farms are often situated in sheltered locations between upland and lowland areas to suit the needs of seasonal grazing regimes.

Figure 7.4. Aerial photograph of conjoined enclosures at Summer Hill. Source: LDNPA.

It is likely that major henge monuments and ceremonial complexes, situated close to major rivers and the natural routeways they follow, reflect the coming together of dispersed communities; indeed, the sites at Thornbrough have been referred to as a “centre for pilgrimage” (Harding 2003: 98) bringing in people (and axes) from across wide areas. These monuments may have operated at different geographical scales to the enclosures of the Early Neolithic. However, in terms of social if not physical scale, stone circles and henges were not dissimilar to the earlier enclosures and it seems likely that the activities carried out within them were similar. That stone axes have been found in association with both monument ‘types’ suggests that these included, but were not exclusively centred around the exchange of material culture. Compared to the settings of many enclosures overlooking localised valley systems, henge and stone circle complexes, often associated with major rivers, are suggestive of wider networks of contact, but with gatherings contained within smaller and increasingly formalised arenas.

Big Hills Circles were also set in relation to local landmarks. This works at two scales, the first of which is localised in that like long cairns, they are often situated in relation to locally distinctive knotts or outcrops. The second is that they are often situated below more prominent landmarks. To the west of the central fells, Whitrow Beck stone circle is situated at the foot of Stainton Pike, Hall Foss at the foot of Black Coombe, Lacra below Great Knott, and Swinside at the foot of Raven Crag (figure 7.5). In the east and north, Gamelands is situated at the foot of Great Asby Scar (figure 7.6), Castlerigg below Londscale Fell and Skiddaw (figure 7.13) and Grey Yauds under Lawson Hill.

In many ways, ideas generated by analyses of the circles at a county scale have illustrated broad themes concerning their settings in relation to the wider world. However, as discussed in chapter five, it has not been considered how stone circles were set in relation to the local topography or prominent local landscape features, how they were set in relation to earlier monuments, or how later monuments were set in relation to them. Consideration of such issues is fundamental to understanding both the character of occupation and the broader social processes and networks of contact these monuments represent.

Figure 7.5. Swinside below Raven Crag.

82

interpret the proximity of Kemp Howe to the Lowther, and Swinside to the Duddon (Burl 1976). Although the locations of these monuments close to major rivers would have been of significance for contact between dispersed communities, at a closer level, they are also located adjacent to small rivers and tributaries, in river bends, below waterfalls and close to springs. Many circles are situated on plateaus formed by river bends, often giving the impression of an ‘island’ location. This is also reflected by the names given to particular circles; Whitrow Beck stone circle is situated in a bend in Whitrow Beck and Hall Foss shares its name with the waterfall close to which it was located (Foss being a derivative of force). Similarly, Gunnerkeld (Keld being a Scandinavian word for spring) is situated on a low plateau above a bend in Gunnerkeld Sike, close to which are a number of springs. Gamelands and Kemp Howe are also situated on plateaus defined by fossilised watercourses associated with seasonal springs.

Figure 7.6. Gamelands at the foot of Great Asby Scar.

The location of these monuments suggests strong connections between prehistoric communities and visible landmarks. Alongside clear similarities to the location of long cairns beneath locally distinctive outcrops, this aspect of setting was maintained at later monuments. Banniside ringcairn for example, is situated at the foot of Coniston Old Man, The Beacon below Lowick Beacon, Bleaberry Haws beneath High Pike Haw and Heathwaite Giant’s Grave at the base of Blawith Knott. It may be that across the Neolithic and Bronze Age, these distinctive peaks assumed totemic significance. Such associations have been noted in relation to Neolithic (if not Early Bronze Age) monuments in other areas (Cummings & Whittle 2004; Cummings 2004; Whittle 2004).

The settings of circles on ‘islands’ is common to their positioning in both upland and lowland contexts. Although difficult to assess under modern conditions, the areas around some circles may have been prone to seasonal flooding. This may have affected access to some circles, many of which are today situated on dry land surrounded by bogs, springs or waterlogged ground. The suggestion that stone circles and henges may have been perceived as islands (and situated on islands metaphorical or real) has not gone unnoticed in wider interpretations (Bradley 1998; Richards 1996; Parker Pearson & Ramilisonina 1998; Harding 2003). In Cumbria such themes appear to have had a particularly vivid and consistent expression.

Becks, springs and coastal circles Little is known about the circles of the western coastal lowlands. Although the location of Grey Croft may appear unique, the henges at Gutterby and Summer Hill illustrate similar coastal settings. Circles such as Hall Foss, Annaside and Kirkstones were destroyed by agricultural improvement and others such as Ringlen Stones, by urban expansion. If the upland circles are situated in ‘intermediate’ landscape zones, then the coastal examples are set between land and sea. There is a problem of terminology here, as the term ‘landscape’ is a product of modern land perception. If the sea was understood as an extension to the land rather than separate and impassable as it is perceived today, then coastal circles may be seen to mediate between these two zones in a similar way as the upland circles between high and low ground.

Architecture, movement and visibility: framing a way? The experience of standing inside circles reinforces the metaphor of monuments as islands, or as architecturally and topographically defined areas set in relation to both the local and the wider world. There are many metaphorical layers implicit within the broader settings of these monuments, and at a closer scale, the use of topography as an element of circle architecture. Recent theoretical approaches to henges and stone circles have made much of the ways their architecture reflects the wider landscape. Some circular monuments make reference to vistas and prominent landscape features. This has been taken to suggest that perceptions of circular landscapes were linked to an overarching prehistoric cosmology (e.g. Richards 1996a, Bradley 1998; Harding 2003). Drawing on the ways in which monuments are set to reference aspects of the ‘wider’ world, such approaches have consistently overlooked more localised concerns. Furthermore that they are set at generalised scales has meant that previously drawn differences between stone circles and henges have been maintained.

Annaside, Kirkstones, Gutterby and Summer Hill were situated close to the coast on areas of raised land. The hillocks on which these were located are today surrounded by areas of drainage and these monuments may have originally been situated on islands of dry land between wetlands and the sea. The location of the Penrith Henges between the rivers Eamont and Lowther has seen discussion in terms of the relationships often illustrated between henges and water (Richards 1996b; Harding 2003). Similar scales of reference have been used to 83

Bradley (1998) argued that one of the most significant distinctions between the architecture and settings of henges and stone circles concerned the visibility or concealment of the surrounding landscape. The continuous earthwork of the henge was seen to form a closed horizon, masking the landscape immediately beyond but referencing the wider, circular horizon visible in the distance. The henge bank therefore formed a closed microcosm of the wider world. The stone circle however was entirely open and reflected the characteristic features of the landscape and the configuration of the surrounding country. “Thus a well-known circle like Castlerigg seems to crystallise the characteristic features of the landscape in which it was built, with a facade of standing stones confronting a chain of mountains” (ibid.:122).

Burnmoor The Burnmoor circles are a distinctive and seemingly atypical group of monuments. It has been argued (chapters five and six) that the smaller paired circles at Low Longrigg and White Moss can broadly be interpreted as Early Bronze Age ‘burial’ circles, with their architecture and setting drawing on Brat’s Hill. That the smaller circles likely represent an embellishment of the concerns inherent to earlier monuments is clearly suggested by their settings. From Burnmoor there are extensive views of Scafell and the central fells to the east and the coastal plain and the Irish Sea to the west. The five circles are situated on a shoulder below which the land drops sharply towards the coast. This shoulder is defined by Boat Howe below which the circles at Low Longrigg and White Moss are located on two promontories. Brat’s Hill lies to the south of the lower lying land that the promontories define (figure 7.7).

In Cumbria, the use of localised topography in the setting of large circular monuments has a number of effects, none of which are specific either to stone circles or henges. Achieved more often through careful location than the use of constructed architectural features these effects include the visibility or concealment of wide vistas, prominent local features and other monuments in the immediate area. The close physical setting of circles often determines what is visible from their interiors and in which direction. The character of the local landscape means these effects are different for each monument, however a number of shared themes are illustrated by their settings. This would call into question distinctions drawn between ‘open’ circles and ‘closed’ henges, and can be illustrated through a number of case studies.

Figure 7.8. Brats Hill sits in a natural bowl. Facing north.

Brat’s Hill, one of Burl’s (1976) ‘early’ circles, is situated in natural bowl formed by two rocky outcrops (figure 7.8). Although the environs of the monument afford wide vistas, from its interior views of the sea and coastal lowlands are obscured, with the central mountains only partially visible over the outcrops which frame the monument. When climbing to Burnmoor from the village of Boot or descending from Boat Howe, the circle is not visible. The outcrops both conceal the presence of the monument, but also act as waymarkers by which to approach it. This sort of setting is closely analogous to that of long cairns. A shallow valley separates Brat’s Hill from the circles at White Moss, which are situated on a low ridge defined to the west by a promontory below which the land drops sharply into the valley below. White Moss SW is situated at the western extent of the promontory, with White Moss NE 46 metres to the north east. From the interior of the south west circle there is a clear view of the coast and the valley below However from the north east circle, the outcrop defining the western extent of the ridge obscures the visibility of all but the sea/sky horizon (figure 7.9).

Figure 7.7. Simplified plot of the Burnmoor circles. After LAU (1984).

84

Brat’s Hill illustrates architectural elements usually associated with henge monuments however in terms of setting, has much in common with long cairns. Although wide visibility is precluded from the interior, its location suggests transition between upland and lowland areas. These views may also have been precluded if woodland was present in its environs. Clearly drawing on the architecture and location of the earlier monument, the viewsheds afforded from Low Longrigg and White Moss illustrate a more obvious concern with this transition. At a physical level, movement between these paired monuments plainly draws upon and exaggerates this change. Situated on high promontories, the views suggested by the positioning of the circles would probably not have been obscured by localised tree lines.

Figure 7.9. View from White Moss NE, looking west along the ridge. Sea/sky horizon visible in background.

The twofold division of henges (closed) and freestanding stone circles (permeable) does not hold true for many of the Cumbrian circles. In addition to those such as Castlerigg that are indeed set with the wide visibility of a circular landscape (and often thought to be illustrative of the Cumbrian circles as a regional group) there are those, such as Brat’s Hill, that are set in natural bowls so the main characteristics of the surrounding landscape are precluded from view. So as the henge is isolated and defined by its surrounding earthwork, many stone circles are isolated and defined by their setting within natural bowls. It is perhaps the deficit of an obviously constructed earthwork that has meant that these stone circles have in the past been interpreted rather differently to henges.

The Low Longrigg circles are on the higher promontory to the north west of Brat’s Hill and White Moss. These monuments are situated at the highest western end of this spur, from which the land falls steeply into the valley below. As at White Moss, the south western circle is situated at the end of the spur from which the valley and coast are clearly visible. From the north eastern circle, 35 metres from Low Longrigg SW, the local skyline to the west is the end of the spur upon which the circles are situated. As such, the visibility of the coastal plain and valley below are again precluded from its interior (figure 7.10). Looking east from both circles are wide vistas of the central fells (figure 7.11).

Not all circles are located to obscure views of the world beyond. Some circles are more ‘permeable’ than others. Often situated on localised promontories, visibility from these monuments is often framed in order that particular vistas are suggested by the setting of circles, and movement between them. Whilst this would appear only to only be at the more ‘permeable’ of the monuments, the provision of entrances at henges and stone circles, as well as avenues of standing stones, suggests circles were intended to be approached from particular directions. Whilst the close landscape settings of monuments may have changed over time, the emphasis remained on movement, both between monuments and between transitional areas of the landscape.

Figure 7.10. Obscured view to the west and coastal plain from Low Longrigg NE.

The majority of circles in Cumbria were positioned to promote a particular directional view. Inland and coastal circles, whilst being set in visually different locations, are consistently located below prominent hills. Although communities may have attached totemic significance to particular landmarks, these settings also have wider ramifications. At Castlerigg for example, passing through the portalled entrance at the higher northern end of the circle, the observer tends to look south east down the valley of St John’s in the Vale (figure 7.12). Londscale Fell, Blencathra and Skiddaw to the north form a backdrop and preclude a long distance view in this direction (figure 7.13). Figure 7.11. View into the central fells from Low Longrigg.

85

Second circles and lost monuments: what are we missing? The Burnmoor complex may appear atypical if not unparalleled in Cumbria. However as discussed in chapter five, there are a number of distinctive complexes of paired monuments in the region, including those at Summer Hill, Penrith and Long Meg. At Lacra, a badly disturbed group of circles illustrate similar locational tendencies to Burnmoor, with intervisibility between them and aspects of the local landscape being precluded through their settings. What was probably a large circle at Lacra C is only identifiable as a curvilinear arrangement of three boulders. It is however different in character and setting to the others in the complex, occupying a plateau overlooking the Duddon estuary (figure 7.14). A stone avenue (Dixon & Fell 1949) between Lacra A (situated within a natural bowl from which wide visibility is precluded) Lacra D (a possible funerary cairn) and Lacra C is suggestive of a paired circle complex. An extremely tall pointed standing stone now utilised as a gatepost is situated on the line of the avenue on the break of slope between these monuments (figure 7.15). This may be an outlier, and is situated in a position relative to that at Long Meg.

Figure 7.12. View from Castlerigg down St. Johns in the Vale. Photo: Adrian Chadwick.

Figure 7.13. Lonscale Fell forms a backdrop behind Castlerigg.

Significantly, this is not how Castlerigg has traditionally been perceived, largely as analyses of the monument have looked at the ways it references aspects of the ‘wider’ world, rather than its localised significance. Like the upland coastal circles of Lacra and Whitrow Beck this aspect of location and visibility is echoed by the situation of Birkrigg stone circle. To its north the local summit of Birkrigg common obscures visibility inland, and to its south the land drops sharply towards the coast (figure 9.18). Like Whitrow Beck and Lacra C (figure 7.14), the wide view downslope of Birkrigg takes in the mouth of the estuary below. These circles are all therefore positioned so that the onlooker will tend, or be persuaded by the architecture and positioning of the circle, to look up or down through the natural valley routeways with which these monuments are associated.

Figure 7.15. Monumental gatepost on the break of slope between Lacra C and D (visible in background.

As outlined above, Castlerigg, whilst being surrounded by a continuous horizon of hills, is situated overlooking St. John’s in the Vale (figure 7.12). The location of Stukeley’s (1776) second circle is not securely identifiable but was probably to the west and downslope of the extant circle. The two monuments may not have been intervisible and like Lacra and Long Meg, an outlier lies on the break of slope between them. From the probable location of the second circle (recorded as being larger in size than the extant example and in a setting more akin to other of the large circles), there is a clear view down the Greta valley. This is not afforded from within the extant circle. The extant circle at Swinside has a south easterly facing entrance which leads the observer to look upslope through the valley leading towards Thwaites Fell. That this view is suggested by the architecture of the circle is uncommon as the majority of other circles are set to look downslope. Knott Hill, to the immediate south of the

Figure 7.14. View of the Duddon estuary promoted by the setting of Lacra C.

86

circle obscures visibility to the south. If the second circle recorded at Swinside (Sharon Arrowsmith pers. comm.) was situated south east of the present circle, it would have held a clear view down the Duddon valley to the coast.

movement between different areas of the landscape after the Early Neolithic and the use of ‘central’ places for the coming together of geographically dispersed communities. During the Later Neolithic, it is likely the stone circle we see today was constructed directly adjacent to the enclosure. Although it has been assumed that the circle replaced the enclosure (Bradley 1998), the presence of aligned entrances between them suggests both remained significant (figure 7.3). Channelled movement between the ditched enclosure and the upstanding stone circle drew on themes relating to ‘transition’ between them. The juxtaposition of entrances at Summer Hill may illustrate similar concerns (figure 7.4).

The likely settings of the second circles at Castlerigg and Swinside have significant implications. Their ‘pairing’ suggests similar concerns to the small paired Burnmoor circles: transition between landscape zones. Similar themes are clearly echoed at Long Meg. Here, Bradley (1998) noted that when the enclosure was replaced by the stone circle, despite the monuments being contiguous, they were located according to different principles. Whilst the ditched enclosure was situated in a shallow valley with visibility impeded by the local topography, the stone circle commands a virtually continuous horizon of hills and mountains (ibid.). Although the recognition of this distinction is an interesting observation, it does not fully address the settings of these monuments. The lack of a clear view from the interior of the Long Meg enclosure illustrates similarities with henges and stone circles set in natural bowls. Although the setting of the stone circle has commonly been related to those exhibited by henges, the ‘continuous horizon of hills’ noted by Bradley (1998) has been overstated. Like Castlerigg, the monument has consistently seen interpretation as relating to the ‘wider world’; whilst there are hills in one direction, below the circle, and clearly visible downslope to the east, to the south and west this view is restricted by a slight rise in the natural topography (see figure 5.7). It was on top of this rise that Stukeley’s second circle was located, on a plateau now occupied by a barn. Looking from the centre of the extant circle, its location is clearly visible through the entrance and aligned with Long Meg herself (figure 7.16). The second circle would have held a wide view down the Eden valley. Although the rise to the south west of the Long Meg circle may have restricted visibility between the two monuments, Long Meg herself, situated on the break of slope between them, would have been visible from both.

Figure 7.17. The flattend north eastern perimeter of Long Meg stone circle.

Stukeley’s second stone circle at Long Meg, like those recorded at Castlerigg and Swinside, suggests movement between ‘paired’ circles referenced different landscape zones as well as being set in relation to the wider world. By the Early Bronze Age, it is possible all the monuments in the environs of Long Meg, including the burial circles at Glassonby and Little Meg (see below) were in use concurrently. Located in settings clearly referencing the importance of linear movement both through the landscape and between monuments, similar themes became increasingly formalised and embellished over the Neolithic and into the Early Bronze Age. Movement, transition and the seasonality of circles In other areas of Britain, monument complexes, more consistently researched and understood than those in Cumbria, are relatively common. Features such as cursuses, stone avenues or processional ways link monuments across relatively wide areas. Although these sorts of features are not well known in Cumbria their presence is illustrated by the Long Meg cursus and the stone avenues at Lacra and Shap. At Shap, an avenue of standing stones, of which twenty seven survivors have been identified (Clare 1979), runs for a distance of between 2.5 and 3 kilometres from Kemp Howe to a funerary cairn on Skellaw Hill (figure 5.8).

Figure 7.16. Stukeley’s (1776) second circle was situated beyond Long Meg herself, where a barn now stands in the background.

The enclosure and possible cursus monuments at Long Meg, incorporating aspects of Earlier Neolithic forms, represent the increasing formalisation of linear patterns of 87

The use of standing stones as ‘waymarkers’ is well established (e.g. Bradley 1992b, 1993). In Cumbria these exist as outliers to stone circles, and as constituents of avenues or processional ways. Usually on natural routeways close to or between ceremonial complexes, these also occur as isolated or paired standing stones (figure 7.18). Along with earthfast rocks, standing stones were sometimes embellished with rock art motifs, and may represent the formalisation of particular paths. The demarcation of routeways, not only close to ceremonial complexes but stretching into the wider landscape, suggests increasingly structured movement into the Early Bronze Age. Although these were already in use, such pathways became ritualised and controlled through their partial monumentalisation (Thomas 1991; Barrett 1994; Last 1999). Forming foci for the construction of a variety of monuments, they linked natural features, topographic zones and the monuments which marked them, both in space and time. The pairing of many circles, and their linkage through proscribed and channelled progression, suggests movement between monuments acted to mediate journeys between landscape zones. The settings of these monuments would also have lent themselves to mediation between other sorts of physical, social and seasonal transformation.

cosmologies, they should not, however, be considered as the prime motivation for the construction of these monuments. Decorated stones at both Long Meg and Castlerigg have been linked to the observance of celestial events, motifs being particularly visible when being ‘lit up’ by the setting midwinter sun (e.g. Hood & Wilson 2002, 2003). Whilst this decoration may have been important, it illustrates the embellishment of particular features in places that would already have been significant. By focussing our attention on decorated stones we prioritise sites where rock art has been identified to the detriment of other important features.

Figure 7.19. Long Meg.

A number of circles have particularly prominent stones on their southern and south western perimeters. Like the overtly decorated stones, their incorporation may have been concerned with referencing particular alignments. At White Moss NE, the south western stones are particularly pointed (figure 7.9), and Castlerigg and Gunnerkeld, among others, have large prominent large stones on their southern perimeters. Many circles incorporate a single stone of a different lithic raw material. Grey Croft, for example, is formed of Borrowdale volcanic agglomerates, apart from a single sandstone at the south east. At Gamelands all but one of the stones are Shap granite with the exception being a limestone boulder on its south eastern perimeter and at Lacra B a single stone with quartzite inclusions breaks the circle to the east.

Figure 7.18. Giants Graves standing stones mark the entrance into Whicham valley.

So under what sorts of contexts did these journeys take place? As discussed in chapter three, both the lithic and environmental evidence can taken to suggest transhumant movement, closely tied to the seasonal rhythms of grazing, animal husbandry and agriculture. That different scales of community made journeys to monument complexes at particular times suggests these journeys were tied into seasonal cycles. Therefore, the transitional aspects of the settings of circles relate not only to transition between particular landscape zones, but also the times that these were exploited. This may be suggested also by specific elements of monumental architecture.

The use of particularly large or pointed stones, stones of different raw materials and rock art illustrates that different media were used to draw reference to the southern and eastern perimeters of stone circles. Alongside the ‘transitional’ settings of these monuments then, referencing particular celestial alignments may have been significant to understanding the changing seasons. Where such themes are perhaps more clearly demonstrated is in the architecture and embellishment of open funerary monuments. As discussed in chapter six, many ringcairns and small kerbed circles in the region incorporate prominent stones on their southern and eastern perimeters. This illustrates not only continuity with the architecture of stone circles, but also that these

Standing stones, sometimes embellished with rock art motifs, are often closely associated with stone circles. A number of these illustrate orientations towards celestial alignments (Thom 1967; Burl 1976; Ruggles 1999). Whilst these have been an important aspect of prehistoric 88

features were closely associated with funerary practice into the Bronze Age.

cairnfields and associated upland monuments through case studies. In chapter six it was suggested that cemetery clusters on valleyside routeways may represent upland activity prior to large scale cairnfield clearance. Possibly established under conditions not hinged on sustained occupation, these might relate to the formalisation of routes between landscape zones. Monuments closely associated with areas of cairnfield, however, suggest the presence of the Early Bronze Age ‘family farms’ identified in the Peak District (Barnatt 1999, 2000). The settings of cairnfields and associated monuments therefore illustrate the ways upland occupation was organised, and how this may have changed over time. Like stone circles, approaching these monuments at a landscape scale illustrates how their locations and settings drew on localised topographic features and referenced the wider world. Taken together, it is possible to suggest how upland monuments articulated not only with localised patterns of landscape occupation, but also with the different scales of community evidenced by the continued use of ceremonial complexes.

Decorated stones have been identified, for example, at Little Meg, Iron Hill South, Moor Divock 4 and Glassonby (Beckensall 2002). At Little Meg two stones marked with spiral motifs are situated on the inside of boulders on its north eastern perimeter. Covered by a later cairn, the monument surrounded a central cist, stones from which were decorated with cup and ring marks (Beckensall 2002). The excavation of Glassonby (Collingwood 1901) illustrated that two stones on its sealed perimeter kerb bore rock art motifs. One (now missing) was located at the south west, and the second, at the south east, is decorated with concentric circles (Beckensall 2002). At Iron Hill South, all but one of the stones forming the kerb are of Shap granite, with the remainder, a sandstone, being decorated with six simple cup marks (ibid). As at Little Meg, the markings identified both at Glassonby and Iron Hill South were on the internal faces of the kerbs, and were later sealed by covering cairns. The incorporation and embellishment of these stones within overtly funerary monuments may well have been symbolically linked into ideas concerning the seasonality of life, death and re-birth. These themes would have been of further significance at the point at which these monuments were sealed by covering cairns, and the motifs were buried, separated from the living world. Similar practices are illustrated in other areas of western and northern Britain (Bradley 1992b, 1993; Barnatt 1990).

Bootle Fell On Bootle Fell, a shoulder of land adjacent to and overlooking the western coastal plain, cairnfield areas are distributed across a series of terraces above the river Annas. This relatively discrete upland shoulder is defined by the steep ghylls of Crookley and Kinmont Becks. To the east, Stoneside Hill rises to a height of 422 metres then plateaus onto Thwaites Fell, Black Coombe and Swinside Fell, before dropping into the Whicham valley. Bootle Fell is dissected by Damkirk Beck and Oldclose Gill which spring from between the 180 and 240 metre contours, the same height as the densest areas of cairnfield (figure 7.20). Monuments detailed in the following case studies are referred to by their county SMR numbers, with LAU survey numbers where no SMR data was available.

Over the course of this chapter it has been established that the locations and closer settings of Neolithic monuments expressed concerns with physical, seasonal and social transition. Over the Later Neolithic and Early Bronze Age, the addition of ‘second’ circles, the use of rock art, standing stones and the construction of funerary monuments both within and away from major ceremonial complexes attests to a process of the formalisation of existing routeways between landscape zones. As discussed in chapter six, whilst the continued use of ceremonial complexes attests to the coming together of dispersed communities, the proliferation of monuments into all areas of the occupied landscape suggests these were also increasingly tied into more localised concerns. Drawing on the architecture and practices associated with large ceremonial monuments, the changing scales of these features suggests individual communities within wider social groups became increasingly concerned with marking out their connections to specific areas of the occupied landscape. In terms of the monument record, these processes are particularly evident in upland contexts.

The cairnfields on Bootle Fell are distributed over two areas separated by Oldclose Gill. Relatively dense concentrations of cairnfield occur to the west, whilst to the east, clearance is less complex and more widely dispersed. These two areas are also separated by a ditched droveway (1490) leading between the village of Bootle and Thwaites Fell. Close to the trackway, cairnfield 7719 is located on a well defined terrace bounded to the west, east and south by breaks of slope and to the north by bog. The area is dissected by the eastern tributary of Oldclose Gill which flows into the western tributary below. Five ringcairns are associated with cairnfield 7719. One example (31049) is adjacent to the droveway, at the edge of the main concentration of cairnfield. Although the feature is relatively lowlying it overlooks the valley of Crookley beck as it drops to the south.

Landscape setting of ringcairns and funerary cairns The final sections of this chapter detail the settings of

89

Figure 7.20. Cairnfields and associated monuments on the western part of Bootle Fell. Individual cairns represented by dots. Drawing after LAU (1987).

major areas of cairnfield but overlooks the denser areas of clearance west of Oldclose Gill. Downslope and to the south another round cairn (31050) is situated in a prominent position but occupies the back edge of the localised hummock so wide views of the cairnfields and coastal plain below are largely obscured. On the same contour to the south is a further funerary cairn (31052). This monument again occupies a distinctive promontory position and is set back from the break of slope.

On the same contour and to the north of ringcairn 31049 is a cluster of four small stone rings (31040, 31041, 31032, 31043). These are situated on a raised rocky hummock, an island within the otherwise boggy delta formed by the tributary springs of Oldclose Gill. Ringcairn 31048 is amongst the highest features recorded on Bootle Fell, located on the 270 metre contour 100 metres south of the droveway. Partially overlain by a funerary cairn, the feature is isolated on a high plateau overlooking the coastal plain, the valleys of Crookley Beck and Oldclose Gill and the cairnfields below.

Although there are no ringcairns south of Crookley Beck there are a number of low lying funerary cairns situated within areas of cairnfield. A group of four (1483) are located on a lowlying shoulder overlooking the junction between Crookley and Grassgill becks. In a similar setting, slightly isolated from the simple cairnfield with which they are associated are a pair of sizable funerary cairns (31043 and 31044) located on a break of slope overlooking the confluence of Grassoms Beck and Crookley Beck.

Funerary cairns across the eastern part of Bootle Fell are relatively evenly distributed. Located on localised knolls and outcrops amongst small discrete areas of cairnfield, they are clustered close to the trackway and ringcairns. Situated slightly downslope and to the west of ringcairn 31048 a large funerary cairn (31046) occupies a high localised hummock on an otherwise flat area occupied by a simple cairnfield (figure 7.20).

West of Oldclose Gill the distribution of monuments is different to the east. The western areas are defined by broadly linear agglomerations of dense cairnfield incorporating stretches of banking and cairn alignments. These areas are defined by terraces situated between the

Between the cluster of small stone rings and ringcairn 31049 is a large round cairn (31051) situated on a localised knoll. Although there are a number of poorly defined cairns in its environs it is not associated with any 90

areas. If the density of the cairnfields on the lower lying western part of Bootle Fell results from sustained and long term use, it is possible the initial distribution of funerary cairns and ringcairns in relation to cairnfield was at a similar scale on both sides of the fell. In other words, variation in the character and density of cairnfield and associated monuments relates clearly to their longevity. That agriculture was sustained on the accessible western part of Bootle Fell is illustrated by the presence of medieval field systems and homesteads close to the main cairnfield areas.

beck courses, and are associated with two ringcairns and four funerary cairns. Ringcairn 31035 is situated 20 metres from the head of Damkirk Beck, located on a rise above the eastern edge of cairnfield 1488. The area occupied by this relatively dense area of simple cairnfield is defined by Damkirk Beck, areas of bog and the course of Kinmot Beck to the west. There is a single funerary cairn (31036) associated with this cairnfield, west and downslope of the ringcairn. Ringcairn 31037 is situated south of 31035, 150 metres south of the western tributary head of Oldclose Gill. The feature, which is prominent and well defined, overlooks the main area of cairnfield 9368. The northern and western extent of the cairnfield is separated from cairnfield 1488 by Damkirk Beck. To the south and east the area is confined by Oldclose Gill. Three funerary cairns (LAU 432, 433 and 406) are associated with cairnfield 9368. These are located on the edge of the main area of clearance, overlooking Oldclose Gill where it descends to meet Damkirk Beck below.

Town Bank and Stockdale Moor All of the ringcairns so far recorded in west Cumbria north of the Esk are associated with cairnfields on Town Bank and Stockdale Moor, at the southern extent of the Copeland fells, north of Wastwater (figure 7.21). Defined by the Calder and Bleng valleys the area is bisected by Worm Gill which separates Town Bank from Stockdale Moor. The Bleng and Worm Gill valleys form natural passes up towards Caw Fell and the central fells. These passes go up either side of the Stockdale Moor promontory, on the lower shelves of which Samson’s Bratful long cairn is located. A number of summit cairns occupy the high peaks and ridges above the cairnfield areas. Although many of are overlain by walkers cairns, some are likely to be of prehistoric origin.

The cluster of funerary cairns on the eastern side of Bootle Fell are relatively widely dispersed, situated on localised hillocks and promontories. Although some are related to particular areas of cairnfield, many are isolated on higher land. These cluster within a similar contour range in the environs of the trackway and overlook the eastern part of the fell and the coastal plain. To the east of Oldclose Gill, the two ringcairns separated by the trackway, difficult to relate to particular areas of cairnfield, are associated with the cluster of funerary cairns and small stone rings. This suggests they were situated according to different principles than the lower lying examples. The cluster is clearly focussed on high land adjacent to the droveway, and may predate the onset of large scale cairnfield clearance. It is of significance then, that the ceremonial complex at Summer Hill lies close to Bootle village, where the trackway leads down onto the coastal plain.

The main clusters of cairnfield on Town Bank are situated between the 200 and 300 metre contours between Worm Gill, Kinniside Common and Lank Rigg, which rises to a height of 541 metres. To the north of Town Bank a packhorse bridge spanning the Calder was a crossing point for a Medieval droveway crossing Town Bank and Worm Gill, then following the valley below Stockdale Moor to Skalderskew (Hindle 1984). The majority of cairnfields on Town Bank are complex. Closely associated with the former droveway, these incorporate ‘homesteads’ associated with field systems, enclosures and hut groups (Quartermaine 1989). Although this configuration suggests longevity, there are areas of simpler dispersed cairnfield on more marginal land to the east. Again closely associated with the route of the droveway, the group of six pear-shaped ‘long cairns’ (see chapter six) are situated between the 230 and 250 metre contours within an area of cairnfield (9353). Situated close to the steep northern edge of Worm Gill, ringcairn 30982 is associated with a limited area of clearance.

Funerary cairns situated in lower lying contexts on Bootle Fell are located on the margins of cairnfields. They are frequently set at a lower contour than the cairnfields, and overlook the confluences of the tributary becks and the larger watercourses into which they flow. The four ‘classic’ ringcairns on Bootle Fell are situated almost equidistantly across areas where land suitable for relatively large scale clearance is available. The two on the western side of the fell are closely associated with, and situated overlooking dense areas of cairnfield. These features are also located adjacent to the springs of tributary becks. This locational factor is echoed by the setting of the cluster of small stone rings, situated upslope of the cairnfields, between the tributary heads of Oldclose Gill.

Two round funerary cairns have been recorded on Town Bank (9360, 30995). These are situated on a promontory above the watershed of Worm Gill and the Calder. Overlooking the Calder as it flows towards the coast funerary cairn 30995 has seen partial excavation revealing a cist in its south east quadrant (Spence 1938). Downslope and to the east is a prominent pear-shaped cairn adjacent to a ringcairn (30990) at the margin of a complex cairnfield (9358).

As discussed in chapter six, dense distributions of upland monuments are likely to be the products of time depth, relating to the sustained use of particularly favourable 91

Figure 7.21. Location and distribution of upland monuments across Town Bank and Stockdale Moor in relation to the west coast. Mapping data ©Crown Copyright Ordnance Survey. An Edina Digimap/JISC supplied service.

Figure 7.22. Distribution of monuments across the southern extant of Stockdale Moor. After LAU (1985).

92

A further group of funerary cairns is distributed along the south eastern slope of this promontory. One of these (30975) occupies the summit of the promontory with two more (30974, 30976) set on its ridge further downslope. These overlook ringcairn 30950 and ringcairn 30952 which is on the same contour as Samson’s Bratful. Ringcairn 30950 is separated from ringcairn 30953 by the tributary beck that springs below Samson’s Bratful and both overlook Scalderskew Beck and the Bleng valley. Ringcairn 30952 is situated towards the centre of a number of relatively dispersed clusters of cairnfield (9324) to the east and downslope of which a prominent oval funerary cairn overlooks the Bleng valley (30954).

The third ringcairn recorded on Town Bank (30979) is situated 320 metres to the east of the main areas of cairnfield. On a promontory adjacent to the northern edge of Worm Gill, and overlooking its confluence with Swarth beck, it is directly opposite a small stone ring (30958) on Stockdale Moor. Stockdale Moor is defined by the Bleng and Skalderskew valleys to the west and south, and Cawfell which rises to a height of c. 650 metres in the east. The cairnfields on Stockdale Moor, separated from Town Bank by Worm Gill, are situated between the 250 and 280 metre contours (figure 7.22). The majority are relatively simple, due in part to the proliferation of small tributary becks which dissect the area.

A number of ringcairns on Town Bank and Stockdale Moor occur with cairn cemeteries, and all of these clusters are situated to overlook the natural routeway occupied by the former droveway. At Monks Graves the infilled ringcairn (30967), set amongst a cluster of prominent funerary cairns, appears to have been converted into a funerary cairn. The second ringcairn (Pearson’s Fold) is amongst the highest monuments on Stockdale Moor, situated overlooking the Monks Graves cemetery and the land below as it descends towards Worm Gill and Skalderskew Beck.

Nine ringcairns have been identified on Stockdale Moor. These are relatively evenly distributed and as on Town Bank, occur in a variety of contexts. The ringcairn at Pearson’s Fold (30791) is on high land, isolated from the main areas of cairnfield. Located at a height of c.300 metres, it lies above and overlooking Cawfell Beck which runs down from the steep ghyll of Pearson’s Fold. Not closely associated with any cairnfields, this feature lies upslope and to the east of four prominent kerbed cairns and an infilled kerbed ringcairn (30967) at Monks Graves. Slightly isolated and downslope of this cluster is the Monks Graves ‘long cairn’ (30966).

A second significant cluster of funerary cairns is situated in the environs of the promontory below which Samson’s Bratful is located (figures 7.1, 7.22). These are situated to overlook the landscape below and the steep descent towards the Bleng valley and out towards the Irish Sea. As Samson’s Bratful is on a shoulder of land close to passes between the main river valleys and the central fells, the round cairn clusters in the area are also set in relation to them; Monks Graves overlooks Worm Gill as it drops towards the valley floor and the main cluster of funerary cairns at Town Bank is set above the watershed of Worm Gill and the Calder, with clear views of the coastal plain.

Downslope from Monks Graves, and closer to the cairnfield areas are a pair of sizable round cairns (9307). Together with those at Monks Graves, these overlook Worm Gill and south west towards the Bleng valley as it leads towards the coast. A small stone ring (30958) is situated to the north of Pearson’s fold, separated from it by the tongue of high land occupied by the Monks Graves cemetery. This feature is situated on a scarp above the junction of Swarth Beck with Worm Gill, opposite the ringcairn on Town Bank (30979).

The ringcairns on Town bank and Stockdale Moor, like those on Bootle Fell, are widely dispersed. With the exception of those associated with Monks Graves, they are lowlying and closely associated with areas of cairnfield. A number are situated overlooking valleys and as at Bootle Fell, are located close to the springs of tributary becks. The lower lying funerary cairns over Town Bank and Stockdale Moor also share similarities with those on Bootle Fell, being situated below the cairnfields with which they are associated and set directly overlooking watersheds. Across Town Bank and Stockdale Moor as a whole, those oval or pear shaped funerary cairns previously identified as long cairns and likely localised variants of ‘round’ funerary monuments (chapter six) are relatively lowlying. Where isolated examples of this form occur they are situated downslope of round cairn clusters. While their chronology is unclear, this may mean, as well as being architecturally similar to classic long cairns, they were set in analogous locations. Like Samson’s Bratful, they may have formed the focus for later monuments.

Downslope of Monks Graves, and separated from it by Cawfell Beck, two complex double ringcairns have been recorded (30956, 30957). Situated on localised hillocks on the flat boggy terrace between Cawfell Beck and Caw Gill, they overlook the junction of the Worm Gill and Skalderskew Beck and the route of the former droveway. On the south western part of Stockdale Moor, to the south of Caw Gill, ringcairn 30953 is located below and to the west of Samson’s Bratful, overlooking the Bleng. It is situated close to a tributary which runs into Scalderskew Beck. Upslope and to its north east a group of funerary cairns incorporates a round and a pear shaped cairn (30960, 30961) on the same contour as the Samson’s Bratful, and another round cairn further downslope (30959). The cairns are located between a flat boggy shoulder with dispersed areas of simple cairnfield (9314) and the distinctive rocky promontory which separates the north and south of the moor. 93

Figure 7.23. Location of Banniside, Torver High Common (THC) and Bleaberry Haws. Mapping data ©Crown Copyright Ordnance Survey. An Edina Digimap/JISC supplied service.

Brown Pike and Walna Scar before beginning its descent to Seathwaite where it joins the Duddon. The pass, regarded as an ‘ancient trackway’, was used as a packhorse route in the Medieval period and to transport slate from quarries in the Coniston fells until the last century (Hindle 1984; Evans 1991).

As discussed in chapter six, the differential setting of monuments in relation to cairnfield areas may be chronologically significant. Cemetery clusters are situated upslope of the main cairnfield areas, on or overlooking routeways and river valleys. Summit cairns and ringcairns in the higher uplands hold similar views. The viewsheds afforded from these monuments have much in common with stone circles. That funerary cairns and ringcairns associated with cairnfields are situated overlooking or adjacent to localised becks and ghylls may suggest a change over time. That the cairnfield monuments are situated to look ‘inwards’ may suggest that localised tenurial concerns began to assume greater importance than the broader landscape connections illustrated by earlier monuments. Coniston and Torver The Coniston Range forms the northern extent of the Furness Peninsula and is separated from the main body of the southwestern fells by the Duddon. To the north east of the Seathwaite fells, Bannishead and Torver High Common form a narrow shoulder running north eastsouth west along the base of the southern slopes of Coniston Old Man. To the south east, the land slopes down to Coniston and Torver. The Walna Scar road runs from Coniston across the foot of Coniston Old Man, to

Figure 7.24. Monuments to the east of Torver Beck. After LAU (1994).

Evidence for upland clearance on the southern fells is composed largely of cairnfields comprising less than ten cairns. In the Torver area the majority, comprising 94

Figure 7.25. Cairnfields and monuments on Bleaberry Haws. After LAU (1994). within the LAU survey areas (1994) and are not recorded on the Sites and Monuments Record. Many were identified by the Ordnance Survey (1998) and although some are covered by walker’s cairns they may be of prehistoric origin.

dispersed clusters of five or less cairns, are strung out between the 250 and 300 metre contours. It is close to this contour range that the proliferation of small springs and tributaries flowing from the high crags join larger becks which flow down steep ghylls towards Coniston Water and the river Lickle. The funerary monuments identified form coherent groups separated by the main ghylls and are associated with cairnfield clusters. High above the main cairnfield clusters there are a number of summit and ridgetop cairns, including a ‘quartz’ cairn close to Goat’s Water (Poucher 1956). Most were not

The following section refers to the monuments recorded by their LAU (1994) survey numbers for Torver High Common (THC) as this data was not available on the county SMR.

95

which rises to 320 metres. 13 groups of small simple cairnfield are clustered along the contour above Bull Haw Moss (250 metres). A linear stone and earth dyke (SMR 1625; Swainson Cowper 1888 A) stretches for 1360 metres from Bleaberry Haws, downslope to Bull Haw Moss, dog-legs to join a second linear section to the west and carries on up and over Banks (figure 7.25). Although the boundary is associated with a complex of prehistoric monuments, and has been compared to those in such areas as Dartmoor, it is thought equally likely to be medieval in date (LAU 1994).

Banniside A number of dispersed simple cairnfields are situated amongst the crags and becks east of Torver beck at Banniside (figure 7.23). At the foot of Coniston Old Man, Banniside ringcairn is directly below a junction between the Walna Scar road and a track running along the scarp edge towards Bleaberry Haws. Situated below the 250 metre contour, the monument was excavated by Collingwood (1912) and is set on what appeared to be a man-made boulder clay platform added to an outcrop next to the course of a seasonal spring (figure 8.7).

On a shoulder below and to the north east of the summit of Bleaberry Haws is a large ringcairn (THCXIV/92; SMR 1612; Swainson-Cowper 1888 H; figures 6.7, 7.25). It is situated adjacent to a spring joining Seal Gill, which occupies a shallow valley on the 300 metre contour separating Bleaberry Haws from High Pike Haw. Visible from the ringcairn on a localised horizon to its north west, below the summit of Bleaberry Haws and overlooking Seal Gill, is a large funerary cairn made of river cobbles (THC XIV 113; SMR 1614; Swainson-Cowper 1888 G; figure 7.26).

In a sheltered position adjacent to and overlooking Torver Beck, an enclosed settlement is associated with a small number of cairns (THCVII; figure 7.24). Above and to the north are six clusters of clearance cairns (THC I, THC VI). Directly above and overlooking the cairnfields, on the trackway along the escarpment, four large kerbed cairns occupy the highest point of the ridge (THCV/26, THCIII/1, THCIII/19, THCIII/18 and are situated to overlook the steep ghyll where a number of tributaries conjoin to form Torver beck. A trackway up the ghyll leads towards Goatswater, Coniston Old Man, and the Walna Scar pass. A kilometre to the south east of Banniside, another group of tributaries flow down from Brown Pike and Walna Scar, conjoining at the 300 metre contour to form Ash Gill Beck (figure 7.23). Ash Gill forms the easternmost of a complex formation of becks running south east towards Coniston Water, and south west towards the river Lickle and the Duddon. Bull Haw Moss and Seal Gill run south west along the high valleys to the north west and south east of Bleaberry Haws. It is associated with this promontory, beneath the peaks of White Maiden and White Pike, that a cairn cemetery is situated in association with scattered cairnfields.

Figure 7.26. Bleaberry Haws funerary cairn.

The summit of Bleaberry Haws is occupied by a prominent funerary cairn (THCIV; SMR 1613; Swainson-Cowper 1888 E) from which there are extensive views; south-west towards the coast, and to the north east, the Coniston Range. The feature is overlain by a walker’s cairn (figure 7.27) and although and burial deposits had previously been removed, Swainson Cowper’s (1888a) excavation revealed it had been constructed on a natural outcrop.

High Pike Haw and Bleaberry Haws North of Seal Gill and Bleaberry Haws two small stone rings are located on Torver Bottom, between the tributaries of Ash Gill and overlooking Bleaberry Haws (figure 7.25). The easternmost (THC XII) is on the 350 metre contour above a marshy area close to a spring. Amongst crags on terraces above the beck tributaries are number of clearance cairns (THC XVI). The second small stone ring (THC XVI) is south west of the first, on the back edge of a promontory at 370 metres, above a marshy area between two spring heads. These examples illustrate similar settings to small stone rings in other areas, situated between tributaries on high ground overlooking areas of cairnfield. Five dispersed groups of cairnfield (THC XI, THC XIII, THC XV, THC XVIII), all uncharacteristically above or around the 320 metre contour, occupy land between the crags and becks of High Pike Haw, immediately north of Seal Gill. The densest clusters of cairnfield on Bleaberry Haws are on the lower south western slopes of Bleaberry Haws,

Figure 7.27. Bleaberry Haws summit cairn looking down the Duddon to the sea.

96

of water for both humans and animals, as outlined in chapter one, they have historically impacted on the ways settlement, agriculture and communication have been organised.

West and downslope of the summit cairn, a feature described as a small stone circle (Burl 1976; Waterhouse 1985; LAU 1994) is situated on a terrace above the 320 metre contour (THCXIV 136; SMR 1615, SwainsonCowper 1888 F). The monument is similar to the small kerbed settings at Iron Hill South and Little Meg (figure 5.3).

Together with the environmental and lithic records, prehistoric monuments in Cumbria suggest seasonal occupation patterns with communities, or parts of communities, moving between upland and lowland areas. Whilst the settings of monuments clearly reference these transitions, at a closer level, these also relate to more localised features. Particular ‘sorts’ of natural feature were drawn on across the region. At a local scale, the referencing of these specific features suggests long term connections between communities and particular places in the landscape and may illustrate tenurial concerns. Long cairns were closely associated with rock outcrops and prominent hills. A number of these distinctive hilltops, which are likely to have been of earlier significance, were formalised through the construction of Neolithic enclosures. Drawing on connections between communities and aspects of the natural world, stone circles and ringcairns were located beneath both localised knotts and prominent mountains and hills, often visible from long distances. Many such features were further appropriated through the construction of summit cairns. It is likely then that particular communities and wider social groups identified themselves and were identified by others in relation to these features.

Swainson Cowper (1888) excavated a further two cairns at Bleaberry Haws (discussed in chapter eight). Downslope and to the south of the complex around the ridge summit, these are associated with small cairnfields on Bull Haw Moss. Situated on the valley side is a large cairn (THC XXIII, 160; Swainson-Cowper 1888 B). Although it is relatively lowlying there is clear visibility of the Bull Haw Moss valley below. The second cairn (THC XXIII 164; Swainson Cowper 1888 C) is extremely lowlying, situated below the 250 metre contour on the valley floor adjacent to the Bleaberry Haws dyke (SMR 1625). Although the monuments at Banniside and Torver are distributed at a different scale to those on Bootle Fell, Town Bank and Stockdale Moor, their settings and associations illustrate clear similarities. The monuments at Bannishead and Torver High Common are distributed along the same ridgeway, but situated on individual parcels of land defined by becks flowing from the fells. Dispersed cairnfields are separated by tributary becks and associated with funerary cairns and ringcairns. Ringcairns are located adjacent to springs and tributaries of these becks, and, like the earlier stone circles, are situated directly beneath prominent landmarks; Banniside at the foot of Coniston Old Man, and the Bleaberry Haws ringcairn below the twin peaks of White Maiden and White Pike. These monuments are associated with groups of funerary cairns situated on localised promontories on routes between lowland valleys and the fells. At Banniside a cluster of funerary cairns overlook Torver Beck as it descends to Coniston Water, and at Bleaberry Haws, the cairn cemetery is set to overlook the route of the river Lickle and its tributaries as they flow towards the Duddon and the Irish Sea.

As well as being located with reference to geological features, monuments drew heavily on watercourses. Whilst long cairns were located in relation to localised becks and tributaries, where these features appear to have been drawn on more overtly is through the construction of stone circles. These closely referenced river courses and in many cases were set on islands, metaphorical or real. In upland and cairnfield contexts similar concerns are echoed in that ringcairns were located on raised areas close to springs, with funerary cairns set to overlook ghylls and watersheds. That these monuments referenced such localised features may also indicate that the identities of particular communities were intimately tied in with the landscapes in which their daily and seasonal lives were played out.

Discussion: monuments, journeys and identities

By looking at monuments in relation to the watercourses with which they were associated, it is possible to identify the ways their positioning referenced both local landscapes and tied into wider networks of communication. In other words, their settings reflect the ways communities operated at different social and geographical scales and how these concerns were articulated across the landscape.

The setting and architecture of monuments on Bootle Fell, Town Bank, Stockdale Moor and Torver illustrate a number of common themes in different landscapes. For the purposes of this discussion, perhaps the most pertinent is that these features, in common with other monuments, illustrate consistent concerns with routeways between landscape zones and with water. These associations are unsurprising given the nature and often uncompromising topography of the region. Access and movement between landscape zones is restricted, in particular in the fells. Rivers and becks, of which there are many, follow the easiest routes through these imposing landscapes. As well as being important sources

“Like the becks it [life] begins at the dale head, gathers tributaries from farms and hamlets, and descends to the comparative lowlands where it usually finds a village or small town ...” (Nicholson 1972: 16).

97

Figure 7.28. Stone circles, rivers and estuaries. Birkrigg stone circle overlooks the conjoined rivers of the Leven, The Crake and Rusland Pool as they flow into Morecambe Bay (figure 9.18). The Lacra circles overlook the estuary formed by the Duddon and Kirkby Pool (figure 7.14). Whitrow Beck stone circle is positioned above the estuary formed by the Esk, the Irt, the Mite and Whitrow Beck itself. Grey Croft is situated on a plateau above the estuary where the Calder, the Ehen and Newmill Beck join the Irish Sea (see also figure 7.21). The sources and tributaries of these rivers are closely associated with other upland monuments. Worm Gill, flowing between the cairnfields on Town Bank and Stockdale Moor, joins the Calder beneath funerary cairns on Town Bank, from which the estuary at Grey Croft is clearly visible. One of the sources of the Calder springs close to the circle at Blakeley Raise, and a tributary of the Ehen flows from below the Studfold Gate circle. The association between the Ehen and Neolithic and Bronze Age occupation is well known; Ehenside Tarn produced numerous wooden implements, stone axes and pottery (Darbishire 1872). Together with the density of coastal lithic scatters between Nethertown and Seascale (Cherry & Cherry 1984), these rivers clearly formed the focus for occupation and movement between landscape zones.

Cairnfields and other upland monuments illustrate clear concerns with the tributary becks which run off the fells into the larger rivers below. The beck heads, their watersheds and the routes of the rivers physically defined the land available for agriculture in the uplands and these features formed natural boundaries between cairnfield

groups. Given that many cairnfield areas had their own funerary monuments and ringcairns, it seems likely that watercourses defined boundaries between the areas exploited by individual small scale social groups. As the tributaries run off the fells, they combine to form 98

inter-community levels. What happened before and after the stone circles is of equal importance, however their construction represents points in long term processes; not only did these monuments draw on themes pertinent to long cairns and enclosures, they themselves saw addition and embellishment with similar forms constructed in analogous settings across the landscape. These aspects of continuity suggest similar issues were being addressed and understood through the construction of different monumental ‘types’ (see Last 1999). By focussing on movement and transition between topographic zones, journeys through the landscape, often following the lines of watercourses, can be understood as key metaphors in increasingly formalised ritual practice (Richards 1996b; Last 1999).

larger rivers. In the east of Cumbria these flow through regional routeways, associated with which are major monument complexes, for example at Penrith and Shap. In the west and south, the becks and rivers conjoin to form estuaries where they meet the Irish Sea, places also marked by monuments such as Summer Hill, Grey Croft and Birkrigg. The localised becks and spring heads which characterise many areas of the uplands not only form the points from which the larger rivers are derived, many were themselves marked by monuments. The settings of circles and henges in relation to estuaries and watersheds suggests the areas taken in by rivers and their tributaries reflected the ‘catchment’ of individual groups and the wider communities which came together at these monuments. Henges, upland and lowland circles, ringcairns and funerary cairns can therefore be understood as constituents of complex networks of monuments situated at specific points within both local and wider regional landscapes. If, as the settings of many monuments suggest, individual social groups and wider communities identified themselves with particular tributaries and rivers, these features could be understood as metaphors for different scales of community.

Conclusion The ways monuments were situated in networks across the landscape may indicate how patterns of seasonal movement played out over the Neolithic and into the Bronze Age. The relationship between monuments at a close landscape scale illustrates the significance of rivers, their tributaries and aspects of the natural world such as mountains and more localised landscape features to the social identities of particular communities. At a physical level these also defined the ways people organised themselves across and moved between different areas of the landscape. The significance of these journeys and their associations with seasonal transition and transformation are clearly evidenced by the burial and depositional record. Attesting to the ways that different scales of community articulated and how they drew on and appropriated aspects of the natural world in the maintenance of social identity and tenurial ties, these traditions form the focus for the following chapter.

The association of circles and henges with estuaries and confluences illustrates the conjunction or meeting of disparate rivers, supporting dispersed communities, with the sea and the world beyond. That some circles are set to overlook the physical and metaphorical combination of the local, the regional and the inter-regional may reflect the need to mediate between these worlds. Stone circles and monument complexes served as locales in which to undertake formal or traditional ways of mediating and dealing with issues of transition and transformation, seasonality, exchange and interaction at community and

99

Chapter 8: Burial and depositional traditions provide structural and loose stratigraphic information. However, interpretations were set within culture historical frames of reference with emphasis placed on the identification of material culture styles rather than the understanding of stratigraphic sequences. More recent investigations, of which there have been few, have revealed monuments with rich and complex histories. Providing scientific dating, detailed analysis of burial deposits and material culture assemblages, this information indicates the major loss of detail which characterises most early investigations.

Introduction Discussions in previous chapters have established some of the ways monuments related to how people moved around and understood the landscapes in which their lives played out. Seasonal journeys between landscape zones became increasingly marked by monuments into the Early Bronze Age. Drawing on aspects of the natural world, and formalising and embellishing places that had seen earlier use, monuments tied into the maintenance of social identity and tenurial ties. But how do their contents relate to their settings? Burial and other sorts of depositional practice have seen limited discussion in previous chapters as they were common practice at different ‘types’ (and scales) of monument. In this chapter, the focus is on the character of deposition itself and exploration of the relationships between people, monuments and the natural world. As with other elements of the prehistoric record in Cumbria, there is no synthetic account or interpretation of burial and depositional practice. This chapter sets out the evidence, and discusses how it articulates with the themes established in earlier chapters.

Academic approaches to prehistoric burial in northern England have been based on the classification of common denominators; particular types of funerary site associated with specific ‘packages’ of burial furniture and material culture (e.g. Clare 1973; Kinnes 1979, Annable 1987; Barnatt 1996a). Although these sorts of approach, often based on statistical analysis, have added to understandings of chronology and material culture associations, they have commonly brushed over the complexities inherent to funerary and depositional practice. As with aspects of monument architecture, elements of the ‘burial’ record in Cumbria slip through traditional classification schema. Although what we might call ‘formal’ burial traditions in ‘classic’ monument forms are apparent, less easily interpreted token deposits of charcoal and material culture are much more common. As a result, previous analyses have failed to find anything but a small degree of quantitative patterning in the available data (e.g. Annable 1987).

The first section outlines the character of the evidence, and problems with the ways it has been interpreted in the past. This is followed by a discussion of Neolithic funerary practice, leading to a reassessment of the ‘single grave’ burial traditions of the Neolithic-Bronze Age transition. The third section concerns funerary and depositional practice into the Bronze Age. Focussing on the deposition of human and cultural remains in areas away from ceremonial complexes, this allows consideration of how ‘token’ deposits can be interpreted in the context of seasonal occupation. Through discussion of depositional traditions and monuments associated with natural features, the final section outlines the ways people forged and maintained connections with particular places, drawing on the dead and other ‘transformed’ substances at different social and geographical scales.

The chronology of Neolithic and Bronze Age burial in Britain is apparently well understood; in the Early Neolithic, long cairns, often associated with wooden and stone chambers, were repositories for the communal burial of disarticulated bone. During the Final Neolithic and Early Bronze Age this gave way to articulated inhumations in cists or cut graves, often accompanied by beakers. During the Bronze Age, burial turned to cremation, associated with urns and food vessels. Cremations were often found to be ‘secondary’ burials, inserted into barrows built to cover earlier central ‘primary’ inhumation graves. Although this narrative does suggest a broad overall chronology it is inherently problematic. Reliant on long held ideas concerning the increasing stratification of prehistoric society, such accounts also result from ‘grand narrative’ approaches where patterns of variability are compressed in order to produce neat syntheses of the national ‘story’.

Character of the evidence The majority of evidence for prehistoric burial in Cumbria is derived from antiquarian sources. Given the character of those investigations that reached publication, it is apparent that the data are skewed in a number of ways. That the majority of investigations were focussed on recovering ‘central’ burials means it is likely that cut features and deposits and structures outside central excavation areas were overlooked. Although early attention was predominantly focussed on easily accessible features, most associated with major monumental complexes, Collingwood’s (1933) ‘call to arms’ prompted the excavation of many upland monuments. Records of these are relatively detailed and

Traditional interpretations, based on the ‘fact’ that burial during the Final Neolithic and Early Bronze Age focussed on single, central inhumations, are derived from early antiquarian excavations (Peterson 1972). Increasingly, the evidence suggests that single phase monuments account for only a limited proportion of those 100

cremations were still hot (e.g. Barnatt 1994). Where pyres have not been identified, it is possible that cremation took place at some distance. The deposition of ‘cold’ cremations in perishable containers or urns also suggests that cremated remains were curated. As with many inhumations, both urned and unurned cremation deposits (where these have seen modern analysis) often represent more than one individual (McKinley 2003). Token deposits of cremated and unburnt remains are common and it may be that elements of the same individual saw deposition in a number of different contexts. This suggests that in some cases mortuary rites and burial were neither spatially nor temporally connected.

constructed. Where burial cairns have seen detailed excavation, single ‘primary’ burials are often impossible to identify, with many deposits associated with the original ground surface (Peterson 1972; Barnatt 1996a). Evidence for stake circles, ‘mortuary houses’, boxes or cists, ring ditches and kerbs sealed beneath barrows is well known from the Neolithic onwards (e.g. Lynch 1972, 1979, 1993; Kinnes 1979; Barnatt 1996a; Woodward 2000). In many cases, the addition of a covering cairn or mound was merely a constructional episode, finalising the use of an open site and providing a focus for later insertions and structural additions. The existence of protracted mortuary and funerary rituals over the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age is also well established (e.g. Barrett 1988b, 1990, 1991, 1994; Thomas 2000; Brück 2001). During the Early Neolithic, excarnation and the movement of bone between different sites was apparently common (e.g. Mercer 1980; Thorpe 1984). In some regions, movement and curation of human remains is suggested by the emphasis, in specific assemblages, on long and skull bones with smaller body parts poorly represented. During the Later Neolithic and Bronze Age partially and fully disarticulated burial, primarily of skull and long bone fragments is also well attested, as is the existence of excarnation platforms (Barnatt & Collis 1996; Turnbull & Walsh 1996). Evidence for large pits containing multiple burials of different phases and disturbed and re-used cists (Peterson 1972; Barnatt & Collis 1996; Woodward 2000; Owoc 2001) are also common, suggesting the movement and mixing of human remains after what may be perceived archaeologically as their ‘final’ deposition. To constructed mortuary and burial monuments can be added the token deposition of human remains in caves, fissures and natural mounds (Edmonds & Seaborne 2001; Mullin 2001; Barnatt & Edmonds 2002).

Further complications arise from pottery classification. Such analyses focus on three main phases; beaker inhumations are thought to have been superseded by cremations associated with food vessels and food vessel urns, leading to the collared urn tradition and the use of ‘accessory’ vessels. Within these typologies, regional and chronological traditions have been identified, based on decorative and morphological traits (e.g. Longworth 1984). Radiocarbon dated excavation evidence from Cumbria and other regions suggest these presumptive chronologies do not hold, with collared urns dating to very early in the Bronze Age (Longworth 1992; Wild 2003). Furthermore, where collared urns were used as containers for cremations, food vessels are usually ‘accessory’ vessels associated with unurned cremations or token deposits. Both often occur in the same contexts and it seems likely, rather than being chronologically distinctive forms, particular vessels were deemed suitable for specific types of deposition. Beyond problems of typology, where burial deposits were not found in association with datable material culture, similarities between funerary practice across the Neolithic and Bronze Age and into later periods means that chronological resolution is difficult. Roman and Saxon inhumations and cremations have been identified in prehistoric monuments (e.g. Greenwell 1877), some solely as a result of radiocarbon determinations (Olivier 1987). Inhumations placed in limestone hollows at Levens have produced Iron Age dates (Hodgson & Brennand 2006), as have deposits from a burial cairn at Sizergh (Edmonds & Evans 2007; see below). Although these are significant problems, it is possible to outline a broad chronology of burial and depositional practice.

Chronological distinctions traditionally drawn between inhumation and cremation have been overstated, as particularly over the Neolithic-Bronze Age transition, cremations, disarticulated and articulated inhumations are well represented, often in the same contexts (Peterson 1972; Kinnes 1979; Annable 1987; Barnatt 1996a). The evidence also suggests a degree of continuity in that cremation ritual was an extended process. This practice involves at least two phases; the cremation itself, and deposition of the remains (Barrett 1990, 1991; Barnatt 1996a). The presence of unburnt bone and cremation deposits in association with excarnation platforms (e.g. Barnatt & Collis 1996; Turnbull & Walsh 1996; Mullin 2003) suggests mortuary practice was even further protracted, possibly including the cremation of excarnated bone. Pyre remains and pits containing cremations and charcoal deposits are commonly found in open structures beneath cairns and associated with the tops of cairns which saw subsequent phases of construction (Barnatt 1996a; Williams & Howard Davies forthcoming). Pyre sites, illustrated by post settings and areas of burnt ground are relatively common and in some cases, scorched pits suggest that burial took place whilst

Neolithic cairns Although little is known of Neolithic burial traditions in Cumbria, evidence from other areas of northern Britain has suggested understandings of long cairns have been overstated. In East Yorkshire the earliest Neolithic round cairns were contemporary with many long cairns (Harding 1996). Both ‘types’ of monument were associated with crematoria or disarticulated burials within linear structures as well as individual inhumations with grave goods (Kinnes 1979). 101

102

Figure 8.2. Plan of limestone wall and boulder kerb at Sizergh Tumulus 2.

Figure 8.1. West facing section through Sizergh Tumulus 2, illustrating position of the limestone wall and boulder kerb.

‘the shape and size of a doorstop’ were arranged in a circle c. 18 metres across with the central area roughly paved with limestone (Dobson 1927). Two phases of deposition comprised 17 mixed deposits of disarticulated human and animal bone. The later deposits, one of which was associated with a boar’s tusk and a piece of ornamented bronze, were sealed beneath limestone boulders. The earlier deposits were more randomly scattered with the majority containing the fragmentary bones of more than one individual, many including juvenile, neonatal or foetal material. As at Crosby Garrett CLXXIII skull and long bone fragments formed the majority of the skeletal material identified.

Raiset Pike, Greenwell’s Crosby Garrett CCXXVII (1877), is perhaps the best known ‘long cairn’ in Cumbria. Formed in fact of two conjoined round cairns (Clare 1979) it has been subject to many interpretations (Manby 1970; Ashbee 1970; Kinnes 1979; Masters 1984; Kinnes & Longworth 1985; Annable 1987). In the eastern cairn, a wooden and stone mortuary house containing disarticulated burials had been burnt in situ. The western end of the structure was marked by a standing stone placed transversely to the line of the monument, as was the western end of the second cairn. Constructed with larger rocks than that to the east, the western cairn contained many unburnt deposits of scattered human bone, principally of children, both on the original ground surface and throughout the body of the monument. Many deposits were discrete, placed under flagstones.

The evidence available for these monuments is less than clear. However, partial excavation and reanalysis of material recovered from a ‘pavement’ cairn on Sizergh Fell suggests something of their nature and chronology. The initial excavation of ‘Tumulus 2’ revealed a cairn c. 17 metres in diameter, covering a central platform of limestone slabs surrounded by a rubble wall (McKenny Hughes 1904b). Deposits of bone within the cairn were believed to comprise four adults and a child, interred within small stone settings (ibid.). Re-analysis of the skeletal material illustrated that a minimum of 13 individuals were present (Start 2002). In addition to the five initially recorded, the remains of eight infants were identified, ranging from a 36 week foetus to a child of six months (ibid.). Partial re-excavation revealed that the cairn sealed an internal wall of large quarried limestone slabs and a rough kerb of boulder erratics (Evans & Edmonds 2003, Edmonds & Evans 2007, figures 8.1, 8.2). These suggest the wall surrounded the central platform, which remained open before the covering mound was added (ibid.).

The oval ‘long cairn’ at Skelmore Heads saw excavation in the 1950s prior to which it had been subject to the attentions of an antiquarian group who recorded the presence of pottery and bones (Powell 1972). Two stone uprights project from the mound towards its eastern end and Powell’s investigation revealed a further two within the cairn. The large transverse slab adjacent to the destroyed burial deposit has been taken to correspond to the structure at Raiset Pike (ibid.; Manby 1970; Masters 1984). These monuments share similarities with other oval and round cairns, also likely of Neolithic date, on the southern and eastern limestones. Greenwell’s (1877) excavation at Crosby Garrett CLXXIV revealed inhumations with Later Neolithic grave goods (Kinnes 1979) as well as burnt and unburnt disarticulated burials. The oval cairn was made up of half a metre of material added to a limestone outcrop (Greenwell 1877). About a dozen scatters of human remains were identified at its north, with the ‘distinct’ inhumations at the south. Although the stratigraphy is unclear, the majority of scattered burnt and unburnt bone was within a discrete cluster and the inhumations were associated with the original ground surface. Like at Raiset Pike, this suggests the monument saw a number of stages of construction and deposition.

McKenny Hughes’ (1904b) description of the excavation, together with his stylised section drawing and the skeletal material suggest the monument saw several phases of construction and deposition. Two of the burials recorded by McKenny Hughes were situated on top of the boulder platform, with the remaining three at higher levels. A number of bone fragments were also found scattered beneath the platform. Although McKenny Hughes believed these had percolated from above, it seems likely these represent the primary use of the monument for exposure (Evans & Edmonds 2003; Edmonds & Evans 2007).

On the southern and eastern limestones there is a tradition of round ‘pavement’ cairns, deposits within which have much in common with the western cairn at Raiset Pike. At Crosby Garrett CLXXIII, a round cairn covered an area of limestone slabs “placed together in the most regular order, overlapping each other, commencing from some laid quite flat at the centre and upon the natural surface of the ground” (Greenwell 1877: 387). Deposits of disarticulated and fragmentary bone represented largely by skull and long bone fragments were located at different levels, and in different areas of the cairn. As at Raiset Pike West and Crosby Garrett CLXXIV, animal bones were dispersed throughout, many associated with burial deposits.

Radiocarbon dates from bone collagen samples from within the cairn (figure 8.3) clearly illustrate its longevity. Though limited two only two successful dates, the first, from relatively high in the mound, yielded a determination from the middle of the first millennium BC. The second date, from material likely to have come from the pavement beneath the mound, dated to the earlier fourth millennium BC. In terms of the later date, it seems that at least one burial from high in the mound is Iron Age in date. It may be significant that an IA/RB enclosure, also associated with

Birkrigg Disc Barrow exhibits some striking similarities to Crosby Garrett CLXXIII. A wall of limestone slabs 103

with the introduction of beakers and the ‘single grave tradition’. The evidence from Cumbria, however, suggests otherwise.

at least one burial, lies downslope and to the west of the cairn (McKenny Hughes 1912; Edmonds & Evans in prep). Close by in the village of Levens, Iron Age burials have also been found deposited in limestone grykes (Hodgson & Brennand 2006). This seems to be a longstanding tradition in the area as will be discussed further in due course. Sample no

BP

BC Cal

212112

2140±40

760-640

212113

4950±40

560-390 3790-3650

Beakers, cists and the ‘single’ grave tradition Individual beaker inhumations appear relatively rare in Cumbria. Although the majority of those recorded are from the Eden valley this distribution may not be a real cluster as has been supposed (Collingwood 1933; Clough 1968; Annable 1987). The area saw many nineteenth century excavations, in particular by Greenwell whose works (1874, 1877) remain the primary source. In west Cumbria, that there are no published beaker inhumations may result from the lack of recorded excavation. This is also suggested by the recent excavation of a cairn near Aspatria where three beakers were located in association with a possible grave (Mark Brennand pers. comm.).

1 sigma (68% probablilty) 520-400 cal BC

3770-3670 cal BC Figure 8.3. Radiocarbon determinations of bone samples from Sizergh Tumulus 2.

In terms of its wider context, the Early Neolithic date from bones associated with the pavement at Sizergh broadly concurs with evidence from similar monuments in the region. The disarticulated deposits at the western cairn at Raiset Pike, and those at Crosby Garrett CLXXIII (Greenwell 1877) have been dated to the Neolithic on the basis that mixed disarticulated burials, including children, were deposited beneath slabs or in association with rough ‘paving’ (Kinnes 1979). Worked and unworked animal bone is also common in these monuments, a feature again attributed to the Neolithic (ibid.). However, as illustrated by burials in the Sizergh cairn (Edmonds & Evans 2007), disarticulation alone cannot be used to ascribe a Neolithic date (Peterson 1972) and these features all appear to be the products of several different phases of use. Together with the Early Neolithic date from Sizergh, the presence of bronzework and a boar’s tusk with a disarticulated deposit in the final phases of Birkrigg Disc Barrow and finds of a Later Neolithic date (Kinnes 1979) with articulated inhumations at Crosby Garrett CLXXIII suggest these ‘pavement’ cairns had roots in the Neolithic.

The majority of beaker and single inhumations recorded in Cumbria are associated with open circular structures, many close to or within earlier monuments. Excavations illustrate both disarticulated and articulated remains in cists or cut graves, with and without evidence for a covering mound. As discussed in chapter five, cists have been recorded in stone circles at Gamelands, Gunnerkeld and Brats Hill (Williams 1856, cited. Waterhouse 1985; Dymond 1881). At Long Meg there is a reference to a ‘body and giant’s bones’, possibly associated with an internal cairn (Aubrey 1650; Dymond 1881). The early investigation and ploughing in the interior of many circles may mean burials in such contexts are underrepresented. Downslope of Sizergh Tumulus 2, on the banks of the river Kent close to Morecambe Bay, a large cairn at Levens Park revealed a complex structural sequence and a number of inhumations. As the excavation was not completed, the phasing of the monument is unclear and a number of sequences have been postulated (Sturdy 1972; Turnbull & Walsh 1996). Later Mesolithic/Early Neolithic lithic material on the original ground surface was identified both within and outside the structure, some of which was associated with charcoal spreads (Turnbull & Walsh 1996; Cherry & Cherry 2000). On the basis of the excavation plan it is possible that a grave (B4) cut into the original ground surface towards the centre of the structure, surrounded by a ring of boulders and later covered by a cairn, either predated or was contemporary with what has been interpreted as the ‘primary’ burial (B1). This was described as a ‘disturbed’ inhumation (Sturdy 1972) in a grave cut through the charcoal spreads, accompanied by two beakers and two flint knives. The grave lay within an unexcavated circular boulder structure 8 metres in diameter which was later infilled and saw the deposition of two further inhumations (Turnbull & Walsh 1996). A cairn of 25 metres in diameter, from which stray cremated bones were recovered, sealed the whole structure (ibid.). Although the sequence is far from clear, large kerbed circles with central graves are relatively common, not only in

The emphasis on partial disarticulated deposits suggests funerary rites were complex and extended, and that bones may have been mixed, curated and moved between different monuments. The emphasis on larger and more distinctive bones such as skull and long bone fragments also suggests these sorts of practices. At Crosby Garrett CLXXIII “There was no appearance of a body in its entirety ever having been placed within the mound, nor were there any of the smaller bones, such of those of the hand and foot” (Greenwell 1877: 387). It is possible these monuments may have seen use for different ‘types’ of deposition. The common emphasis on children may suggest individuals were treated differently according to principles of age and perhaps gender. It may have been that monuments associated with children’s bones and the partial remains of adults were used for exposure, with some deposits, particularly of larger and adult bones, removed to be interred elsewhere. At a national scale, exposure, the movement and curation of human bone is commonly believed to have ended in the Final Neolithic 104

gathering in the past. As with many ‘open’ monuments, such places saw a shift in focus during and after the Later Neolithic, with increased emphasis on ceremonies and structures associated with the treatment of the dead.

Cumbria, but also in areas such as the Scottish Highlands (see Bradley 1998). The internal structure at Levens was interpreted (Sturdy 1972) as a Neolithic house on the basis of the charcoal layers and lithic scatter which it overlay. A site at Borwick, associated with Early Bronze Age inhumations and a bronze axe, overlay a similar lithic assemblage (Olivier 1987). Funerary monuments with such associations are relatively common across Britain (Gibson 1982) but remain poorly understood, interpreted as occupation sites fortuitously or purposefully sealed beneath barrows. Although the internal kerb at Levens was a funerary related structure, the setting and architecture of the external kerb suggests it may have been a freestanding or embanked stone circle in a lowlying coastal setting similar to Grey Croft. If so, its construction formalised the use of an area, on a river bank close to an estuary, which had formed the focus for

At Oddendale, beaker material was associated with boulder settings sealing the post pits which had contained the Neolithic timber circles (Turnbull & Walsh 1997; figure 8.4). Although the evidence is equivocal, it is likely that an inhumation accompanied by a beaker sherd saw deposition in a grave at the centre of the structure at a similar time. Cremated bone and crushed pottery within the grave was thought likely to represent a secondary insertion (ibid.). Later phases of the monument included the construction of a ringcairn and the deposition of human bone, collared urn and food vessel fragments in its fabric. An excarnation platform associated with uncremated bone was constructed against the southern perimeter of the ringcairn, with a boulder facade (ibid).

Figure 8.4. Timber circle postholes at Oddendale. After Turnbull & Walsh (1997).

105

Figure 8.5. Ringcairn sealing the Oddendale Timber circle. Clusters of stone can be seen infilling postholes to the north and east and a boulder platform to the south west of the main ringcairn structure. (After Turnbull & Walsh (1997).

Less than a kilometre south west of the Oddendale ringcairn a monument at Hardendale Nab suggests similar practices. The excavation demonstrated that a variety of different structures within a given area were in use at the same time and also that funerary traditions associated with ‘Neolithic’ monuments continued into the Bronze Age.

these contained the remains of more than one individual, a high proportion of which were children. Human and animal bone was found distributed both throughout and cut into the limestone rubble which made up each phase of the monument. Deposits of cremated infant and animal bone had also been scattered across the monument between structural phases (ibid.).

Hardendale Nab illustrated four main phases of construction and deposition, likely to date from the Later Neolithic and more consistently into the Bronze Age (Williams & Howard Davis forthcoming). The first phase was an open limestone cist supported by an earthen mound, and the second, the construction of a ringcairn with an integral cist surrounding the earlier feature. Associated with the primary phases were two rectangular paved stone settings, situated outside the ringcairn structure. These were empty, but burnt, and may have been used as pyre sites or excarnation platforms (ibid.). The third phase involved the deposition of rubble over the internal and external features to form a low flat topped platform. Later the whole structure was sealed beneath a cairn. Each phase was associated with individual and token cremations, some associated with urn and food vessel fragments, and scatters of burnt and unburnt bone, many mixed with animal remains. Many of

Hardendale Nab illustrates important points relating to the continued deposition of disarticulated inhumations and token scatters of burnt and unburnt bone, often representing children, into the Bronze Age. As at Oddendale, the site remained in use for several centuries, and saw numerous phases of deposition and structural elaboration. Although such practices probably occurred at other monuments, it is only through detailed and full area excavation these can be clearly established. Partial, token and mixed deposits of both cremated and unburnt bone deposited within particular monuments illustrate the existence of complex and protracted mortuary and burial rites. This is a crucial to understanding the nature of funerary ritual, and practices that structural features such as cists and other stone settings might represent. The remains of small vertebrates such as vole and shrew in the cist at Hardendale Nab suggest it remained open and was used as a roost by hunting birds (Stallibrass 1991). 106

mortuary ritual. Cists and cut graves, either empty or containing disturbed and/or secondary burials have been identified in Cumbria and other regions (Barnatt 1996a; Owoc 2001). Whilst in some cases this may be attributable to earlier excavations, many have been found sealed beneath extant monuments and it is likely these were disturbed in antiquity. The small and larger kerbed features with which cist and beaker burials are commonly associated have traditionally been regarded as stone circles and often occur within ceremonial complexes.

The cremation within the cist may have been a ‘secondary’ deposit, interred in the feature following its use for exposure (Williams & Howard Davis forthcoming). Central or off-central cists or cut graves occur within a number of large and small kerbed settings. The majority have produced disturbed deposits, and evidence suggestive of the use and re-use of open structures. Cists are associated with small kerbed settings, many of which, such as Iron Hill South, Little Meg and Bleaberry Haws (figure 5.3) have traditionally been identified as small stone circles. It seems likely these structures were similar to the primary phase of Hardendale Nab. Whilst some were infilled, some remained open and others saw further structural elaboration and deposition. Excavation of Broomrigg C (Hodgson & Harper 1950) revealed the first phase of the structure was a kerb with a diameter of 4.3 metres containing an empty cist (figures 8.6, 8.7). The addition of a kerbed structure with a diameter of c. 15 metres partially destroyed the structure surrounding the cist. This larger circular monument, within which was a second probable cist, formed the focus for urned and unurned cremations associated with the original ground surface (ibid.). Similar themes were evidenced in a funerary cairn at Hackthorpe Hall, Lowther (Mawson 1876). Excavation revealed a sealed kerb within which two cists, less than a metre apart, occupied the central area. One was completely empty and the second, surrounded by four unurned cremation burials cut into the original ground surface, contained a large quantity of fragmentary bones. A number of urned and unurned burials were identified, in pits neatly spaced along the north western and south eastern perimeter of the kerb. An external cobble surface similar to the features at Hardendale Nab and Oddendale was identified at the north west of the kerb, inside which the ground was heavily burnt (ibid.).

Figure 8.6 (top). Excavation plan of Broomrigg C. After Hodgson & Harper (1950). Figure 8.7 (bottom). Section through Broomrigg C cist. After Hodgson & Harper (1950).

The kerbed structures at Broomrigg C and Hackthorpe Hall illustrate common themes. Both were apparently open, with cut features and finds associated with old ground surface. Other monuments in the region exhibit similarities; at Wilson Scar, cut graves and scattered cremated deposits were contained within a kerbed monument (Sievking 1984) and the kerbed structure at Glassonby (Collingwood 1901) contained an empty cist. The presence of ‘paired’ cists at Hackthorpe Hall and Broomrigg C is also evidenced at Clifton, close to Mayburgh, where two beaker cist burials were recorded beneath a barrow (Taylor 1881). Both cut into the original ground surface, the first contained a crouched inhumation with a beaker and a bone pin. The second, less than a metre to the north, contained fragmentary bones and two beakers.

These features are reminiscent of ‘earlier’ excarnation platforms and can be shown to have been associated with open structures, or those which by their architecture allowed access postdating their construction. In terms of cists, the provision of lids (either of stone or more perishable materials) would have allowed such access. The evidence also suggests that many buried deposits saw re-excavation (see below). The structures discussed have complex associations and clearly illustrate different histories. What may have been cists surrounded by stone and/or earth settings such as those at Little Meg and Iron Hill South appear in the present as ‘stand alone’ monuments. In some cases, such features formed the focus for later elaboration, with the construction of circular monuments around them. At Hardendale Nab, the cist was surrounded by a ringcairn, and that at Broomrigg was also incorporated within a

Empty cists at Hackthorpe Hall, Glassonby and Broomrigg suggest these features were not initially ‘meant’ for burial, but played a role in specific stages of 107

section concerns the character of this activity and its relationship with burial and depositional practice across the wider landscape. First however, it is necessary to recap the evidence for Early Bronze Age use of the monuments discussed above. Together with the evidence from cists, the presence of stone platforms to the exterior of Hardendale Nab (Williams & Howard Davies forthcoming), Oddendale (Turnbull & Walsh 1996) and Hackthorpe Hall (Mawson 1876) suggest the exposure and curation of human bone. Where burning has been identified, it is possible that excarnated bone was also cremated. Urned and unurned deposits are represented on ground surfaces, as are scatters of burnt and unburnt bone, often associated with sherds of collared urn and food vessel. Scattered bone and urn fragments are also common in the bodies of open monuments and within covering cairns (Olivier 1987; Turnbull & Walsh 1996, 1997). Evidence for similar practices have been identified in other areas of northern and western Britain (Barnatt 1996a; Mullin 2003) and the derivation of some may result, as at Hardendale Nab (Williams & Howard Davies forthcoming), from the scattering of bone in the open air, across the tops of extant monuments which later saw structural addition.

circular kerb. In both cases, the later features involved the construction of second cist structures and formed foci for the deposition of cremation deposits. The external morphology of monuments often masks a great deal of time depth and architectural embellishment. That the majority were subject to antiquarian excavation means this phasing is impossible to determine, however sites such as Oddendale and Hardendale Nab demonstrate not only that ‘central graves’ and cists occur inside a variety of different circular settings, but also that the monuments surrounding and covering them cannot be taken to be contemporary. Morphological classification is therefore inappropriate as these monuments represent stages of ‘projects’ comprising many episodes of use, deposition and structural elaboration which ended at different points at different sites. Furthermore, the classification of built monuments overlooks the fact that similar sequences have been found to centre on geologically natural features. At Ewanrigg near Maryport, twenty eight burials largely of Early Bronze Age date were associated with a natural knoll (Bewley et al. 1992). Two of the earliest features illustrate the disturbance and mixing commonly associated with cists and beaker deposits. Fragments of beaker were identified close to the base of a central pit (84), with sherds from a second vessel higher up in its disturbed fills. Although no human remains were recovered, it was thought the feature had seen two phases of ‘burial’ (ibid.). Charcoal from a disturbed fill, dated to 3350-2920 cal BC, although deemed ‘not archaeologically acceptable’ (ibid.: 351) could relate to an earlier phase of activity with which the feature, or its contents, were associated.

Freestanding circles were also utilised into the Early Bronze Age. Although the nature of this use in unclear it is illustrated by central structures built to contain areas used for the deposition and treatment of human remains. The internal element of Birkrigg stone circle saw a complex sequence of events, including the deposition of several layers of cobbles, both sealing and cut through by pits containing urned and unurned cremations and deposits of pyre debris (Gelderd & Dobson 1912; figure 9.19). Lacking evidence for burial per se, the internal elements of Lacra B and Grey Croft may have been used as pyre sites. At Lacra B a ring of stones sealed a mound covering a layer of burnt earth and charcoal. Beneath a pile of stones on the old ground surface were a few fragments of burnt bone. The excavators believed the mound had once contained a burial with the stones “..thrown here to mark the spot from which the central burial had been taken” (Dixon & Fell 1948: 16). Similar deposits were recorded within Grey Croft where a cairn of layered stones, some burnt, overly burnt bone fragments mixed with partially fused sand and charcoal sealing “thick layers of black unctuous material” (Fletcher 1957: 5).

The central cist was covered by a small cairn associated with food vessel fragments. Illustrating evidence of robbing, the cist contained a secondary deposit of unburnt human bone and a food vessel urn. The fill of its construction trench contained fragments of human bone, suggesting an earlier deposit had been truncated. The cist was surrounded by a ring of pit cremations similar in plan to those within the kerbed circle at Hackthorpe Hall. That the Ewanrigg cist formed the focus for an unenclosed cremation cemetery leaves us with the possibility that ‘stand alone’ structures such as that at Little Meg and Iron Hill South, of which only the central elements have seen excavation, may have been the foci for similar deposits.

These examples illustrate the changes in focus established in earlier chapters; the growth of ceremonial complexes, the elaboration of individual monuments and the shift in focus towards funerary ritual around the Neolithic-Bronze Age transition. The complex nature of deposits within stone circles and other monuments suggest that into the Early Bronze Age, human remains were curated and moved around and that protracted mortuary rituals took place. Although elements of these traditions drew clearly on the past, they also have much in common with those associated with ‘new’ monuments constructed in upland contexts.

Into the Bronze Age: monument complexes and the wider landscape So far, this discussion has focussed largely on evidence derived from monuments in ceremonial complexes, many of which appear to have had their roots in the final stages of the Neolithic. Although the individual monuments discussed illustrate different sequences and constructional histories, most were open, and most saw deposition and structural elaboration into the Early Bronze Age. This 108

been identified, deposits and artefacts indirectly associated with human burial predominate, alongside token charcoal deposits either in pits or associated with old ground surfaces. Before establishing the likely nature of these deposits and how they might best be interpreted, it is necessary to set out the available evidence.

Whilst ceremonial complexes remained in use into the Early Bronze Age, their significance altered alongside the proliferation of monuments into all areas of the occupied landscape. The following discussion seeks to establish how the depositional traditions in such contexts compare with those in ceremonial complexes, and how this might illustrate the articulation of different scales of community discussed in earlier chapters. If small scale monuments in the ‘occupied’ landscape were constructed and used by individual descent groups (e.g. Peterson 1972; Garwood 1991; Barrett 1990, 1994; Barnatt 1996a, 1999, 2000), then how do the depositional practices with which they were associated illustrate the ways that localised concerns articulated with those of the wider world?

Recorded excavations of upland funerary monuments are few and far between, with the Banniside ringcairn (Collingwood 1912) perhaps the best known example. Although the bank remains unexcavated two phases of deposition were identified within the internal area (ibid.; figures 8.8, 8.9). The first consisted of two deposits associated with the original ground surface; an off-central collared urn cremation (B), and a deposit of ‘bone ash’ and charcoal (A). These were covered with a layer of clay, above which were two further deposits. A spread of ‘bone ash’ with flints and a clay bead (C), was situated above the collared urn (B) and a charcoal deposit, burnt in situ, was associated with a piece of haematite and food vessel and collared urn sherds (D). A collared urn (E) was placed in a hole beside an outcrop. Within the urn was an adult female cremation (ibid.), an accessory cup containing an infant, and a food vessel sherd. South west of Banniside, a funerary cairn at Bleaberry Haws (Swainson Cowper 1888a C; see chapter seven) contained a similar range of deposits. South west of a central disturbance from which ‘old bones’ had previously been removed (ibid.) a cist contained a deposit of burnt bones. Outside it were fragments of undecorated pottery. At the north of the cairn, a pit sealed by a cobble contained burnt bones, food vessel sherds, a bone ‘whistle’ and a flint flake (ibid.). A second charcoal filled pit was identified to the east. Although no outer kerbing was recorded (possibly due to the excavation methodology) all of the features were cut into the natural ground surface, suggesting an open structure. Scatters of burnt bone were recorded in the body of the covering cairn. At Mecklin Park, of the three cairns known to have seen investigation, two produced cultural material, but no human remains were located (Spence 1937; Fletcher 1985). A single beaker sherd was located in the material of a kerbed cairn which covered a central area of brushwood charcoal and a cluster of quartz pebbles (Spence 1937). A second denuded monument produced over a hundred jet beads, food vessel sherds, a barbed and tanged arrowhead, a whetstone, haematite, flint scrapers and a plano-convex knife (Fletcher 1985). Hollows in the side of the monument were infilled with charcoal and ash. Cairns in similar contexts in the region have been found to contain similar empty or infilled ‘pocket holes’ (Hodgson 1928; Cross & Collingwood 1929; Spence 1935a).

Figure 8.8 (top): Plan of Banniside ringcairn. After Colllingwood (1912). Figure 8.9 (bottom) Section through Banniside ringcairn. After Collingwood (1912).

Cairnfield cairns and token deposits Although funerary cairns can be identified in association with cairnfield areas, excavated evidence from Cumbria and other areas illustrates that the classification of cairnfield monuments as equating either to funerary or agricultural use is untenable (Brück 1999; Johnston 2000, 2001; see below). As discussed previously, the settings of upland monuments suggest communities were increasingly concerned with marking their connections with places in the occupied landscape. However, the depositional record illustrates that rituals associated with these monuments were not solely concerned with human burial. Although cremated and uncremated remains have

Although little is known about their context, urns, pottery fragments and burnt bones were recovered from cairns at Barnscar by Lord Muncaster (Dymond 1892). Walker later excavated ten of the four hundred or so cairns on the 109

the product of single events. Given that these sorts of deposits occur in a variety of contexts, it seems likely that similar types of ceremony took place both at features built as a specific event, and the overtly ceremonial monuments used over longer periods. The repetitive activity at Brenig 44, alongside the existence of analogous deposits beneath and within the bodies of cairnfield cairns suggests the ties formed between people, monuments and the places that they were constructed were affirmed and reaffirmed, perhaps related to cyclical activities.

fell however “no artifacts other than the cairns themselves were encountered” (1966b: 54). Excavations revealed that prior to cairn construction, the ground had been stripped, with pits likely produced through the removal of boulders or treeroots infilled with burnt stones and charcoal, probably a result of clearance related burning (ibid.). A layer of clay capped these features, to which was added a cairn. The deposition of rammed or burnt earth has also been identified in cairns on Carrock and Corney fells (Spence 1935a; Barker 1951; Ward 1977). Funerary deposits have also been recorded in such contexts; on Carrock Fell a cairn sealed a pit containing burnt bones and charcoal (Barker 1934), and at Bolton Wood a cairn overlay a boulder sealing a deposit of black earth and burnt bone (Spence 1937). Similar deposits were identified on Hawkshead Moor. On his first attempt, Swainson Cowper (1888a) cut two trenches across a cairn, recording a possible circle of stones and a pit containing a cremation with a flint knife. The cairn later saw complete excavation, revealing six charcoal deposits on the natural ground surface (Swainson Cowper 1888b).

Using evidence from cairnfield excavations in Cumbria and Northumberland, Johnston (2000, 2001) argued that token deposits within clearance cairns were related to the legitimation of tenure. Whilst the structural elaboration of many ‘clearance’ cairns incorporated reference to formal funerary monuments, token deposits associated with them incorporated metaphors to burial, marking the history of communities and their links with particular places. Johnston suggested token charcoal deposits were linked to ceremonies associated with “breaking new ground” (2001: 105). These types of practice were replicated in different ways at different sites, some of which included the more conspicuous and formalised token burial of human remains:

As discussed in chapter six, at Birrell Sike, a small stone ring and four clearance cairns saw excavation (Richardson 1982). The perimeter bank of the ring feature sealed charcoal deposit and scatters and concentrations were identified within its central area, one of which was sealed by a stone slab. Charcoal from a stone lined hole was dated to 1720 ± 100 b.c (ibid.). The excavation revealed the kerb was contained within a cut trench, suggestive that the structure was built for a specific purpose, rather than being solely of a ‘clearance’ function as has been suggested (Quartermaine & Leech forthcoming). Four further cairns were excavated, all exhibiting differences in structure and deposition. Cairn 13 was bounded by a kerb at the centre of which a slab covered a charcoal deposit dated to 1690 ± 100 b.c (Richardson 1982).

“...there is evidence in the structure of some of the small cairns, for instance the incorporation of token burials, to suggest that they are implicated in establishing, asserting or maintaining rights to land by acting as temporal markers to critical moments in the history of the field” (Johnston 2001:104).

Given the increasingly ‘local’ focus of monument construction and upland clearance after the NeolithicBronze Age transition, the conduct of rituals based around clearance events is not surprising. If token deposits can be interpreted as spatial and temporal markers asserting the connections between people and place, then the logical extension of this argument would be that all types of deposit performed similar roles. The question is, how do the token deposits in cairnfield areas, likely related to repetitive and cyclical events, relate to those in other contexts? Together with discussion of deposition associated with natural places, exploration of this issue forms the basis for the remainder of this chapter. First, however, we need to discuss how Early Bronze Age funerary deposits can be understood in the context of seasonal occupation practice.

These examples have much in common with upland monuments across western Britain which have been the subject of recent discussion (e.g. Lynch 1993; Barnatt 1994; Johnston 2000, 2001). As in Cumbria, charcoal deposits in such features are not restricted to any specific monument type, occurring in ringcairns, funerary cairns and sealed beneath ‘clearance’ features. Lynch (1972, 1979, 1993) has done much to bring the differences between different ‘types’ of cremated deposit into focus, illustrating that deposits not containing human remains were more significant in number, and were in many cases earlier in date than cremation burials in the same monuments (Lynch 1979, 1993). That charcoal pits contained hazel and alder, whereas those containing cremated bones were predominantly oak, led to proposals that two different kinds of ceremony took place (Lynch 1979, 1993). Radiocarbon dates from charcoal pits in different stratigraphic positions at the Brenig 44 ringcairn spanned almost five hundred years beginning early in the Bronze Age (Lynch 1979). The longevity of the depositional sequence at Brenig 44 may be at odds with token deposits in cairnfield cairns, which may have been

The evidence suggests that mortuary and funerary rites were extended, with cremations deposited in urns, bags or other perishable containers, as well as in pits, often but not exclusively associated with pyre debris. In cases where detailed analysis has taken place, burial deposits have been found to incorporate the remains of either more, and often rather less than a single individual. Token deposits of cremated and unburnt bone are common in monuments of all ‘types’ across all areas of the landscape. That these appear to have been curated and moved around suggests that what may be perceived 110

Seascale, an urned cremation was found on a shingle terrace close to occupation attested by lithic scatters (Parker 1926; Cherry 1967) and at Trough Head, Walney, food vessel and Peterborough ware have been found eroding from a sea cliff together with Later Neolithic/Early Bronze Age lithics (Barnes 1970; see chapter nine). On Walney North End, beaker and grooved ware have been found in association with flint scatters and small amounts of human bone (Barnes 1956, 1970). Like in the uplands, these finds illustrate that as in other areas, during the Bronze Age burial and ceramics associated with the dead became increasingly tied to the domestic sphere (Bradley 1984; Barrett 1994; Brück 1999, 2001).

archaeologically as ‘burial’ may have only been a phase of mortuary activity which took place in many different contexts. Similar sorts of activity are common in other areas; at the Moel Goedog ringcairn in Wales, two pits containing charcoal and token deposits of burnt bone were excavated (Lynch 1979). Adhering to the bone in one case was a grey and in another case a brown soil, both very different to the natural on site (ibid.). This suggests the bone was dug up, transported some distance from its ‘original’ context, and reburied in the ringcairn. At Eagleston Flat in the Peak District a cremation cemetery included both urned and unurned burials recovered from ‘cold’ and ‘scorched’ pits (Barnatt 1994). Pyres associated with unurned burials in scorched pits suggested that whilst some cremation did take place on site, those burials associated with urns, and no identifiable pyre sites were brought in from elsewhere. Pollen spectra from one such feature were noticeably different from the site sequence and suggested the deposit had been imported (ibid.).

The urn cemetery at Ewanrigg was discovered during fieldwalking of a Romano-British occupation site. Situated on a sandstone knoll above a fossilised bend in the river Ellen (Bewley et al. 1992), the site produced ten collared urn burials and sixteen unurned cremations. The burials at Ewanrigg were arranged in a rough circle around the disturbed central cist. Scorched pits in two instances illustrate the cremations were hot when deposited. Of all the graves, burial 5 was the most complex. A circular arrangement of postholes was identified at the base of a scorched pit, charcoal from which produced a date of 2290-1750 cal BC (ibid.). A collared urn contained the remains of an adult male and an accessory cup, together with other finds including a ‘connecting rod’ thought to be from a bronzeworking furnace (ibid.). Although the majority of deposits contained only one individual, Burial 18 comprised an inverted collared urn containing an adult male, an adult female and a child. Charcoal from the pit dated to 24501830 cal BC (ibid.).

In Cumbria, although urned and unurned cremations are common in monuments associated with ceremonial complexes, relatively few have been identified in cairnfield contexts, a situation also evidenced in areas to the north, south and west (Mullin 2003; Yates 1984; Waddell 1970). That the majority of cremations at Eagleston Flat were in flat graves in an area of open ground surrounded by cairnfield not only demonstrates that funerary and agricultural features were unambiguously combined (Barnatt 1994), but also suggests the likelihood that flat or unenclosed cemeteries exist in cairnfield contexts in other areas. These examples beg further questions; if some at least of the token deposits in cairnfields were imported, where were they imported from? And given that upland occupation was probably seasonal, what evidence is there for funerary monuments in lowland areas?

At Church Road, Allithwaite, ten burials were located in a limestone gryke adjacent to a spring (Wild 2003). One of the four unurned cremations was believed to have been deposited in a perishable container, with four cremations in inverted collared urns. Two of the unurned deposits were pyre debris rather than ‘formal’ cremations (McKinley 2003). At least twelve and probably fifteen individuals were represented and a high proportion were immature, including a neonate, a young infant and four or five juveniles (ibid.). Most deposits comprised two, and in one case, three individuals, the majority of which were female adults with children. A date of 2027-1741 cal BC was derived from an urned cremation containing an adult female, a juvenile, and an infant (Wild 2003). The deposition of pyre debris at Allithwaite may imply cremation was undertaken nearby however no areas of burning were identified, nor was there any evidence of scorching (ibid.). That a number of deposits were within containers may suggest these were brought in from elsewhere. Although adult females and children may have died at the same time, it is possible that remains, particularly of children, saw curation until the ‘right kind’ of social death could be conferred on them.

As discussed in earlier chapters, upland funerary monuments were commonly situated close to prominent natural features and watercourses. Not only did such features hold totemic significance, they marked out the physical organisation of communities across specific areas. If the token deposits identified in upland contexts were associated with tenurial issues, and such concerns were linked with the use and appropriation of natural features, how did these themes play out across the Cumbrian lowlands? Most of the burial urns identified in lowland contexts have been located close to modern settlement areas. Consistently near springs and rivers, the majority have been found in association with geological features not marked or enclosed by built monuments. Although the presence of Deverel Rimbury flat cemeteries in domestic contexts is well documented in southern England (e.g. Barrett 1994) such associations remain to be established in the north, where the collared urn tradition appears to have been maintained (Barnatt 1994). At Herding Nab,

Male and female, young and old were represented at the 111

location of upland monuments and concerns with springs and confluences were clearly echoed in lowland contexts. The deposition of urns in natural places was part of a long tradition of depositing human and other cultural remains in and building monuments on, or with close reference to important aspects of the natural world. The very act of deposition is an extension to the act of building; addressing ideas about the renewal or assertion of tenurial concerns through reference to the dead and through reference to locally significant places. It is the nature of these references, and to the places to which they referred that we now turn.

Allithwaite cemetery, which may suggest a familial burial area. At Ewanrigg (Bewley et al. 1992), although the radiocarbon dates derived were similar to those from Allithwaite, the demographic spread was noticeably different (Wild 2003). Here only one double cremation was identified, with the majority of burials comprising a single adult. This would suggest there were no ‘hard and fast’ rules concerning burial in these contexts. Given the lack of comparable deposits excavated under laboratory conditions, the high proportion of dual burials at Allithwaite could be either an unusual departure from ‘normal’ practice, or a rare survival of it (McKinley 2003). The evidence from Hardendale Nab, where the majority of ‘individual’ deposits contained more than one individual, often an adult associated with a child (Williams & Howard Davies forthcoming), alongside an adult female and a child deposited together at Banniside (Collingwood 1912) may suggest the latter.

Caves and grykes There is strong evidence for the deposition of cultural material and human remains in natural features in Cumbria, particularly in the caves and grykes of the Morecambe Bay limestones (see chapter nine). Such concerns can be traced back the earliest evidence of occupation, and continued into the historic period. Across much of Western Europe, the character of caves and deep fissures, allowing the entry of individuals or the deposition of material culture ‘into the earth’ suggests their significance went beyond burial (Bradley 1998, 2000a; Edmonds & Seaborne 2001; Barnatt & Edmonds 2002). Dating non-typological artefacts and human and animal bones within cave deposits are problematic, however in North Wales and the Peak their use during the Neolithic and Bronze Age is well established (Barnatt & Edmonds 2002).

Unenclosed lowlying cemeteries such as Ewanrigg and Allithwaite may appear atypical yet many urned and unurned burials have seen deposition in natural features. Two further urns have been located in Allithwaite; one during quarrying, and a second in ‘Yew Tree field’ (Stockdale 1864) possibly associated with the Church Road cemetery (Wild 2003). At Ireleth Mill on Furness, several urns arranged in a straight line were found during the excavation of a reservoir (Spence 1935b) and a similar line of urns was recorded near Cartmel (Stockdale 1864). The majority of urns have been found during quarrying; at Garlands, near Carlisle, twenty one urns and six accessory cups were discovered in a sand pit in 1861 (Hodgson 1957). The Netherhall collection, consisting of at least nine vessels from Maryport may represent a similar cemetery group (ibid.). At Stainton Head on Furness, two collared urns, one associated with an accessory cup and one with a bronze knife were recovered during sand quarrying (Fell 1957; see chapter nine). A number of burials were discovered in a sand quarry at Waterloo Hill, Aglionby (Hodgson 1956). Two areas of deposition were located; the first comprised two collared urns. The second, a fragmentary urn with scattered cremated bones, was close to a fragmentary inhumation. A further two urns, surrounded by blackened material, were recovered together with unurned deposits found in heaps “as if they had been deposited in skin bags” (ibid.:15).

A number of caves have seen excavation at Allithwaite, less than a kilometre downslope of the cremations found within a limestone gryke (Wild 2003). At Kirkhead, flint and bronze artefacts, prehistoric pottery, Romano-British coins, as well as undated human and animal bones have been recovered. That the cave saw earlier use is testified by a Palaeolithic date from an antler (Salisbury 1997; Young 2002). Fragments of human skulls and long bones associated with prehistoric pottery, flints and animal bones have been recovered from the nearby Whitton’s Cave and a similar assemblage from Kents Bank Cavern (Salisbury 1992, 1997). Other caves and fissures have produced a similar range of human remains and cultural material. These are mainly undated but illustrate finds from the Palaeolithic to the Early Medieval period. Although a small number of stone axes and axe fragments have been identified in caves together with pottery and human remains (Jackson 1913; Atkinson 1926), many more saw deposition in limestone outcrops and wetland areas. As will be discussed below, the deposition of human remains and material culture in caves and limestone outcrops consistently occurs close to Neolithic and Bronze Age monuments. First, however, it is necessary to explore some of the reasons why such material may have been placed in these contexts, then to relate this back to discussion of early Bronze Age depositional practice.

The locations of the urn cemeteries identified illustrate a strong concern with prominent natural features associated with water. The Ewanrigg cemetery was located within a bend on the fossilised course of the River Ellen, and Aglionby with a hillock close to a delta associated with the Eden. At Springfield, Ainstable, an enlarged food vessel was discovered in a gravel pit at the confluence of Croglin Water with Briggle Beck (Fell & Hogg 1962). These associations have much in common with the

112

The deposition of skeletal material, axes and pottery have assumed importance in archaeological interpretations. However, the use and deposition of ‘natural’ materials have been awarded lesser significance as these substances fit less easily into our classification schema. Deposits of charcoal, burnt earth and stone were important elements of the ceremonies associated both with built monuments and natural features. Such deposits, where recognised, suggest that these too may have been the ‘pieces’ of places, and tokens of events which occurred away from the context of their final deposition. Beaker material at Mecklin Park (Spence 1937) and Ewanrigg (Bewley et al. 1992) was associated with quartz pebbles and at Birkrigg 1, over thirty deposits of dark earth and charcoal, likely to have been placed in bags or boxes, were placed within a kerbed monument (Gelderd et al. 1914). Each deposit contained one or two quartz and feldspar pebbles, described by the excavators as ‘alien stone’ (ibid.: 469).

‘Pieces of places’ Using the Langdale quarries as an example, Bradley argued that stone axes may have been understood as ‘pieces of places’ (2000a: 85-90). The character and location of the working sites in Cumbria seem to have been as important as the material found there. Many quarries were chosen for their inaccessibility, and people who acquired axes at a distance obviously understood that they came from ‘unusual’ locations (Bradley & Edmonds 1993; Bradley 2000a). Not only is the deposition of Cumbrian axes common in contexts such as causewayed enclosure and henge ditches (Edmonds 1993; Pryor 1999; Harding 2003), many have been found in association with ‘natural’ features. In Ireland for example, 43% of the Langdale axes identified had been deposited in rivers and bogs (Cooney & Mandal 1998). The character of axe deposition in Cumbria is rarely considered in academic interpretations. If stone axes were considered as ‘pieces of places’ as Bradley (2000a) suggested, it would be remarkable if this was not drawn on within Cumbria, where their sources in the central fells are visible from many areas.

Together with the deposition of quartz and token charcoal deposits in other areas (e.g. Lynch 1993; Owoc 2001; Cummings & Whittle 2004) the evidence suggests such material was transported some distance prior to its deposition. Analysis of charcoal from sites in Wales and the Peak has illustrated many of the tree species represented were not evidenced in contemporary pollen spectra and it seems likely deposits of ‘special’ charcoal were brought to monuments in containers and tipped into pits (Lynch 1993; Barnatt 1994). These deposits exhibit striking similarities with practices suggested by the burial record; not only were they curated and moved between different places, they illustrate concerns with the transformation and fragmentation of matter by fire. A deposit of ‘dark earth’ deposited within Birkrigg stone circle, itself close to a copper source, contained a high percentage of magnesium oxide (Gelderd & Dobson 1912). The compound is used as an alloy in metalworking. However, that it is also used as a laxative means establishing a link between its presence and the deposition of ‘transformative’ materials associated with bronzeworking is problematic.

Axes were understood in different ways, relating to their sources, their biographies and those of the people that carried them (Edmonds 1995, 2004). It seems likely therefore that other types of deposit, artefacts or materials with their own individual histories and associations, may have represented events such as funerary, mortuary and other rituals. Understood as pieces of the places, and reminders of the times and people with which these were connected, these could be understood as the ‘metaphors to burial’ (Johnston 2000, 2001) suggested by token deposition in cairnfield contexts. As discussed above, beaker sherds not seemingly related to ‘formal’ burials have been found in various contexts. Cairns covering the infilled postholes of the timber circle at Oddendale contained beaker material (Turnbull & Walsh 1997) and at Sizergh, beaker sherds were recovered from a limestone gryke (McKenny Hughes 1904a). A beaker sherd was recovered from a cairn at Mecklin Park (Spence 1937) and at Ewanrigg, sherds of different beakers were found in a disturbed pit (Bewley et al. 1992). Such material is reminiscent of the food vessel and collared urn fragments in token deposits at other monuments. It seems likely this material represents the use of fragmentary vessels as part of extended funerary ritual not always directly connected to the deposition of human remains. Mortuary and funerary rites took place in a variety of contexts spread over different areas of the landscape; at ceremonial complexes, in monuments and natural mounds close to upland and lowland occupation areas and in caves, grykes and fissures. Given the spectrum of places with which the dead were associated, it may be that tokens of different individuals (either skeletal remains or material associated with the funerals of particular people) saw ‘burial’ in all areas of the seasonally exploited landscape.

Making monuments from places ‘Pieces of place’ are also evidenced in materials used in the construction of monuments. Although the majority of freestanding circles are made from locally available stone, as discussed in chapter seven, many incorporate a single stone of a different raw material. Although their exact geological derivation is unknown, some may have been transported greater distances than others. This use of ‘alien’ stone is most clearly evidenced in funerary monuments. The kerb at Glassonby was formed of red and white sandstone, blue whinstone, greenstone and granite (Collingwood 1901). Some of the Shap burial circles are composed of pink granite, locally available but a striking contrast to the white limestones on which they were set. At Oddendale, pink granite was used to backfill the postholes of the timber circle (Turnbull & Walsh 1997) and the same material was used for the entrance to the Hardendale Nab ringcairn (Williams & Howard 113

west (Evans & Edmonds 2007; figures 8.1, 8.2). The Langdale range and Stickle Pike are clearly visible from Sizergh, a locational theme shared by many places where axes have seen deposition (see chapter nine). It is tempting to suggest a degree of contemporaneity for these finds. Their deposition as pieces of places, or tokens of events, brought together many symbolic associations relating to the way people forged connections to and between particular places. The deposition of transformed skeletal, ceramic and geological material within built monuments and limestone grykes beneath a prominent local outcrop within clear view of the central fells illustrates a clear crossover between the ‘natural’ and the ‘cultural’ landscape in which these activities took place.

Davies forthcoming). As discussed in chapter seven, some erratics and prominent stones within kerbed structures bore rock art motifs and illustrated alignments to astronomical events. Through the use of colourful and sparkling stones, monuments such as passage graves, stone circles, ringcairns and burial cairns, particularly in Ireland and Scotland, illustrate similar concerns (Lynch 1998; Bradley 2000b). Whilst emphasis on the aesthetic qualities of monuments and their connections to specific places and times held great importance (e.g. Lynch 1975; 1998), the use of particular materials also exhibits concern with their transformation and transportation into social arenas associated with the coming together of communities. Transformation and fragmentation are essential elements of the ongoing process of death and regeneration (e.g. Brück 1999, 2001). Whilst materials such as human remains, wood, pottery and bronze could be transformed from ‘natural’ materials through the use of fire, these are more archaeologically visible than geological material. Individual stones and boulders were also brought together, from a variety of locations, to be deposited within monuments or used in their construction. Like the ‘transformed’ natural material of quarried, worked, polished and curated Langdale axes, these were also pieces of places imbued with biographies and symbolic connotations. Brought into close focus when incorporated into monuments, many saw further embellishment with rock art motifs, some lit up by the sun at particular points of the solar cycle.

Figure 8.10. Funerary cairn built on, and from, a natural outcrop on the Tongue, Troutbeck.

Issues of deposition and the appropriation of natural features can be illustrated by a group of features on Sizergh Fell, situated below a distinctive limestone outcrop crowning a hill overlooking Morecambe Bay. As discussed, beaker sherds were recovered from the fell in the first years of the twentieth century (McKenny Hughes 1904a). After being placed in a limestone gryke, these were covered by a stone then sealed by a cairn. Rather than using the abundantly available outcropping limestone, the builders chose to construct the cairn from the glacial boulders that occur wedged in the grykes of the limestone. Tuffs and lavas of the Borrowdale Volcanics, these were derived from the same source area used for the production of Langdale axes.

Lithic materials used in monument construction, the deposits placed inside them and in their environs drew on an array of references to the landscape. Recent work in other areas has stressed similar traditions (e.g. Barnatt & Edmonds 2002; Tilley 1994, 1996; Tilley & Bennett 2001; Bradley 1998, 2000a). Not only were fissures and caves used for deposition, the construction and location of monuments often appropriated or referenced aspects of the natural world. Interpretations of upland Cornish landscapes have illustrated similarities between tors and tombs, stressing that the sharp distinctions often drawn between built and natural features misrepresents the ways prehistoric communities understood the formations they encountered (Tilley 1996; Bradley 2000a; Tilley & Bennett 2001).

Investigation of what had initially been identified as a cairnfield or cemetery associated with the beaker cairn and the Sizergh 2 pavement cairn centred on the evaluation of a mound identified on aerial photographs (Edmonds et al. 2002). Excavation revealed the feature was a limestone outcrop and that a small broken and burnt polished stone axe, together with axe working debris and an inverted polissoir, had been deposited in a gryke at its highest point. The feature was less than 50 metres south of the beaker cairn and both had seen deposition equidistant from the Sizergh 2 pavement cairn. Partial re-excavation of this monument (discussed above) revealed it had been kerbed with the same blue grey volcanic erratics chosen to cover the beaker deposit to its

On Bodmin Moor, Tilley (1994, 1996) recognised the relationship between tors, outcrops and monuments changed over the Neolithic and Bronze Age. Neolithic long cairns were located and oriented with reference to prominent tors which may already have been significant. In Cornwall, not only did the construction of Neolithic dolmens mimic that of the tors, and often included raw materials taken from them, monuments were situated with reference to, but at a ‘respectable’ distance from these features (Tilley & Bennett 2001). Over the Later Neolithic and Early Bronze Age however, there was a change in focus, with many burial cairns built on stone stacks, outcrops and earthfasts. 114

Similarities between cairn material and outcropping rock means it is often difficult to determine whether particular features are the result of geological processes or human agency. There is a long history of misidentification of such features; during the nineteenth century, a number of ‘barrow’ excavations in the region revealed natural outcrops or mounds (Greenwell 1874, 1877; Ferguson 1888) and more incursions likely remain unpublished. Although excavations at Sizergh revealed natural limestone hummocks, at least two of these had been used for deposition (Edmonds et al. 2002). Using nineteenth and twentieth century investigations of such features across Britain, Mullin (2001) suggested their use during the Bronze Age was a result of misidentification and that the histories and associations of particular landscape features had been forgotten. There are many problems relating to modern understandings of the importance of natural features to prehistoric communities, perhaps the most critical of which results from modern classification. Twentieth century ‘common sense’ is a stumbling block in that we draw sharp lines not only between nature and culture, but also geology and archaeology. In prehistory, such distinctions may have been drawn rather differently if at all, and the evidence suggests a very blurred line between the ‘found’ and the ‘made’ (Barnatt & Edmonds 2002; Edmonds et al. 2002; Edmonds & Evans 2007). These issues have also seen discussion in relation to stone circle ‘architecture’ (chapter seven). Aspects of the geological world were humanised, transformed into overtly symbolic cultural objects such as axes, pottery and elements of monument architecture. Many constructed burial mounds echo the forms of natural features (e.g. Richards 1996a) and it is likely that caves, outcrops and natural mounds were the antecedents of, as well as being used in conjunction with built monuments (Barnatt & Edmonds 2002). There was a change in the use and appropriation of such features as monuments over the Later Neolithic and Early Bronze Age. However rather than the invention of entirely ‘new’ traditions, these illustrate increased concerns with marking out and reasserting the tenurial connotations of already important markers and places in the landscape.

One of the reasons little is known about Neolithic monuments in Cumbria results from their similarity to natural features. A number are formed partially from outcrops, and some may be entirely natural. Crosby Garrett CLXXIV was built on a limestone outcrop and both Sizergh Tumulus 2 and Birkrigg Disc Barrow were situated on outcrops of the same material. The use of platforms in ‘pavement’ cairns is also significant in that these directly overlay and mimicked the natural limestone pavement below, and were likely themselves quarried from these same outcrops. Sealing burials beneath such features, or exposing bones on top of them probably had direct association with deposition in caves and fissures. As discussed previously, banks delineating enclosures also incorporate distinctive natural features (figure 6.2). The Green Howe enclosure surrounds a natural feature reminiscent of a long cairn (Horne 2000; RCHME 2000) and much of the western perimeter of the Carrock Fell enclosure (RCHME 1996a) is formed by precipitous rock outcrops. At Skelmore Heads (Powell 1963; RCHME 1996b) around half of the enclosure is formed by outcropping limestone, as is that at Howe Robin (RCHME 1996c; figure 6.2). Howe Robin also incorporates a number of shake holes (natural limestone depressions formed by surface collapse). Deposition within, and the construction of monuments in association with such features is not uncommon in the British Isles (Bradley 2000) again providing a strong link with practices associated with caves, grykes and fissures. During the Later Neolithic and Bronze Age, in common with examples in Cornwall (Tilley 1996; Tilley & Bennett 2001), many monuments in Cumbria were constructed on top of prominent outcrops and incorporated earthfast stones. In some cases these appropriated the landmarks referenced by earlier monuments (see chapter nine). Similar associations have also been discussed in relation to rock art and the embellishment of natural features with built monuments. The inclusion of earthfast stones in monuments is part of a similar process; incorporating places already of significance more overtly into the ‘cultural’ world. Banniside ringcairn has a large earthfast on its southern perimeter (figure 8. 8), and many small stone rings in the central Lakes were built around ‘monumental’ natural boulders (Rodgers 2000). At Lacra D, the massive block of stone central to a kerbed monument is reminiscent of examples from Cornwall, where large earthfasts have been found beneath excavated cairns (Tilley & Bennett 2001). Many funerary cairns in Cumbria were built on prominent stone outcrops located on summits, scarps and ridges, and other examples likely remain sealed by extant cairn material. The prominent summit cairn on Bleaberry Haws was constructed on a natural outcrop (Swainson Cowper 1888) (figure 7.27) and alongside many other examples, two funerary cairns on The Tongue, Troutbeck, incorporated distinctive rock outcrops to the extent that cairn material is difficult to separate from natural scree (figure 8.10).

Conclusion As has been stressed in earlier chapters, classification schema imposed on both monuments and their contents are problematic in a number of ways. Not only have academic grand narratives stressed neat and simplistic sequences at a national scale, over reliance on interpretations derived from antiquarian investigations are clearly fraught with Victorian and modern western perceptions of the lines between nature, culture, geology and archaeology. Reliance on presumptive typology and the perception that sharp lines could be drawn between different burial traditions, material culture and monument types overlook not only the extended nature of mortuary and burial practice, but also a great deal of continuity across the Neolithic and Bronze Age, and even into the Iron Age. Concentrating on period or type specific classification denies consideration of the longer term 115

During the Neolithic, and into the Neolithic-Bronze Age transition, the dead, or parts of the dead, were brought to ‘intermediate’ areas of the landscape occupied by complexes including Neolithic long and round cairns, enclosures, stone circles and henges. Whilst many such complexes focussed on large scale monuments, cists and smaller kerbed forms were constructed in prominent locations in their environs. These often drew on and appropriated the architecture and setting of earlier forms and although many ‘appear’ to be Bronze Age, radiocarbon dated material has illustrated at least some had their roots in the Later Neolithic.

processes that monuments, deposition and funerary practice represent, across periods and across local and regional landscapes. The classification and typological schema commonly utilised in the interpretation of burial traditions mask a wide array of mortuary, burial and other rituals, in particular the curation and transportation of human remains and cultural material between different places. Whilst limited evidence from individual monuments might imply such practices, it is only through looking at different ‘types’ of monuments and natural features in different landscape settings across the region that it becomes apparent these were commonplace.

After the Neolithic-Bronze Age transition, rather than being closely focussed in the environs of ceremonial complexes, mortuary and funerary ritual took place, in archaeologically visible ways, in all areas of the landscape. Many monuments were constructed to appropriate natural features; in the uplands, outcrops and earthfasts were used as the basis for ringcairns and funerary cairns, and in lower lying areas, natural mounds and limestone grykes were used as cemeteries. These places were already recognised points of reference, with their use as monuments formalising and appropriating their local significance. With a clear emphasis on token deposits, the dead were drawn on in a variety of different contexts and settings. Whilst such practices may well have occurred in earlier periods, and would have been equally important, the proliferation of monuments into the Early Bronze Age suggests explicit statements were being made, marking out the histories of and connections between small scale communities and particular areas. Commonly located close to water sources, the arteries of communication across the landscape, such features not only signified tenurial concerns but also made conspicuous reference to the relationship between the local, the seasonal and the wider world.

There are significant problems with understanding the aspects of continuity and change characterising Neolithic and Bronze Age funerary traditions. Although ‘new’ burial furniture and pottery forms appear during and after the Later Neolithic, mortuary and funerary rites remained based largely on earlier traditions. Not only were deposits of human remains and other materials curated and moved around, some monuments may have seen different elements of mortuary activity to others. That the evidence illustrates the use and significance of individual monuments changed over time means excavated deposits likely relate to a jumble of different activities and concerns connected to the localised histories of individual monuments and the places they were located. Such diversity is common if under-acknowledged across northern Britain (e.g. Peterson 1972; Yates 1984; Annable 1987; Barnatt & Collis 1996; Woodward 2000; Mullin 2003) but is by no means a new idea: “The study of these ancient interments in this part of the country [the Eden Valley] seems to indicate that the practice of inclosing the calcined bones in an urn, and that of depositing the burnt remains on the ground without an urn, were contemporaneous. It would appear also that the ceremony of cremation, and that of inhumation and cist burial were both practised by the same races, at the same period of time. It might be said even that these separate usages were practised indifferently by the same people; at least it does not seem clear how we are to differentiate the conditions which determined the selection of one order of interment or the other, for it is not very unusual to meet with both burnt and unburnt remains, side by side, as it were, in the same barrow” (Taylor 1881:93).

As discussed in chapter seven, the distributions and settings of monuments suggest that local and wider scales of community combined and dispersed on a seasonal basis. Monuments in ceremonial complexes, upland and lowland contexts contain token deposits of human bone and demonstrate concerns with the transformation of 'natural’ substances, often but not always through the use of fire. Alongside elements of some Later Neolithic and Bronze Age monuments illustrating alignments to particular celestial events, such deposits appear to be related to the cyclical and seasonal symbolism of death, rebirth and fertility. It seems likely that practices surrounding funerary rites occurred at places, and times of the year when communities came together at ceremonial complexes, themselves replete with symbolic associations to movement, seasonal and social transition. There is evidence of pyre sites within freestanding stone circles and other open monuments. Such highly visible and potent ceremonies, like the re-excavation or burial of fragmentary bones or cremated remains brought from elsewhere, suggests it was important that members of the wider community conferred ‘social’ death on particular individuals. At other times, when these groups dispersed,

Both individual monuments and the constituents of monument complexes suggest the working and reworking of particular places over long sequences. Sometimes this reworking was structural, and sometimes it took the form of deposition. Both structural and depositional practices also drew on aspects of the natural topography, in many cases appropriating natural features already referenced by earlier monuments. Over time, that such concerns are illustrated across the landscape suggests not only that these practices tied closely into the relationship between people and the natural world, this also demonstrates the ways that different scales of community articulated into the Early Bronze Age.

116

number of monuments have been found to contain deposits of quartz and other ‘alien’ pebbles. Whilst some sorts of stone may have been locally available in the glacial drift, these were no less important than others brought in from greater distances. The setting and architecture of monuments incorporated many references to their places, and times, within the local and wider world, as did the deposits with which they were associated. The deposition of both ‘pieces of places’ and ‘pieces of people’ may then have been inextricably linked in time and space, used in a variety of processes and ceremonies concerned with the reaffirmation of both familial and broader social ties.

tokens of burials and other symbolic rites were transported between seasonal occupation areas, seeing deposition in other landscape settings in order to maintain stability, fertility and connections to particular places. Whilst this is particularly evident in the Early Bronze Age, such practices may represent the increasing formalisation and visibility of earlier traditions. Many monuments, in particular those within ceremonial complexes, incorporated carefully selected constructional materials, suggesting that particular types of stone were regarded as ‘pieces of places’. Stone axes were placed in natural features close to monument complexes and a

117

Chapter 9: Nature and scale of occupation: a case study from the Furness Peninsula Neolithic/Early Bronze Age lithic evidence and demonstrates the changing structure and scale of occupation. The final section, drawing on the differential use of lithic raw materials, explores the ways different scales of community articulated across the peninsula and related to the wider world.

Introduction One of the key themes established over the previous chapters is that monuments, although drawing on wider inter-regional processes, were the products of localised traditions and landscape histories. Not only this, their settings and uses illustrate something of the character of occupation and how this changed over time. As discussed at the outset of this thesis, it is only through integrated analysis of all aspects of the prehistoric record that it is possible to explore the relationships between people and the landscapes in which their lives took place. Through analysis of the lithic occupation record together with monuments and depositional practice across the Furness Peninsula, this chapter seeks to address the ways the themes established in earlier chapters played out across an individual valley system.

The Furness Peninsula Furness is defined by the estuarine coastlines of the Duddon and Morecambe Bay (figure 9.1). Its north western coast supports a thin strip of littoral, with the land rising steeply to the Furness fells before dropping again to Ulverston, Dalton and Barrow. Low Furness is characterised by glacial valleys and drumlins, in the Urswick area punctuated by a high limestone ridge. Although there are no major rivers, becks flow through the valleys towards the flats and mosses of the Morecambe Bay estuary, which in some areas extend into the valley floors. Many of the mosses have been drained and together with the lowlying valleys are now used for arable and grazing. The industrial town of Barrow is surrounded by high land to the north east and in all other directions by estuarine flats and the sea. Walney Island is characterised to the north and south by coastal gravels and sand dune systems which flank the lowlying narrow strip of boulder clays and marine alluviums. Separated from main body of the peninsula by Walney and Piel Channels, the island shelters Barrow harbour which has been of great historical and economic importance. After the use of the natural harbour formed by Roe and Piel islands in the medieval period, Barrow Island harbour and docks have seen heavy reworking associated with the shipbuilding industry.

Not only has Furness seen a substantial collection of fieldwalking data characterised and interpreted as part of this study, the area’s prehistoric record includes many chance finds, excavated monuments and evidence for deposition. The following case study has provided the opportunity to fully integrate a variety of data and explore them in the context of local landscape occupation. Chapter three outlined the character of the lithic record in Cumbria. Through a critique of the published evidence it was demonstrated that problems with the ways assemblages have been characterised in the past could be resolved through close analysis of assemblages from Furness. Contrary to earlier interpretations, analysis of reduction technology illustrated that there are relatively clear distinctions between scatters dating from the Later Mesolithic/Early Neolithic and those of the Later Neolithic/Early Bronze Age. Based on these, it is possible to explore how the occupation sequence unfolded in relation to the themes established in earlier chapters.

Although the peninsula appears isolated, its place in relation to other areas of Cumbria means it has formed a link between the central Lakes, Lancashire and the west coast. At low tide, the traditional and often dangerous route between these areas was across the sands of Morecambe Bay and the Duddon. The journey is attested to in historical records including those pertaining to Henry IV’s visit to Furness Abbey, which he thought was on an island (Hindle 1984). Furness Abbey was amongst the richest and most powerful of the Cistercian houses. Pivotal to both the industrial and agricultural history of the region, its location on the peninsula drew on its perceived marginality, but also on the availability of a rich array of natural resources and a harbour from which to trade.

The following is split into four sections. Following an introduction to Furness, the first sets out evidence for Later Mesolithic/Early Neolithic lithic material in different settings across the peninsula, and establishes the likely character of landuse and occupation they represent. The second section is concerned with the monument and depositional record, following the process of monument construction and the use and appropriation of natural places from the Neolithic into the Bronze Age. Exploring themes of continuity and change suggested by the monument record, the third section sets out the Later

118

Figure 9.1. Layout of the Furness Peninsula. Map data © Crown Copyright Ordnance Survey. An Edina Digimap/JISC supplied service.

Figure 9.2. The Furness transect survey, illustrating presence and absence of lithic finds. Map data © Crown Copyright Ordnance Survey. An Edina Digimap/JISC supplied service.

119

of Morecambe Bay, sea levels were between 3 and 5 metres higher than the present day and in the Winster and Gilpin valleys reached four and two miles inland respectively (Smith 1958, 1959; Tooley 1978, 1980).

Character of the evidence Evidence for prehistoric occupation on the peninsula owes much to its relatively recent history, with the majority resulting from the industrial and agricultural boom of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The development of new housing, as well as quarrying and clearance associated with enclosure brought to light chance finds including burials, bronzes, polished and perforated stone axes (Gaythorpe 1897, 1900, 1904, 1906; Cowper 1907). The attentions of the Barrow Naturalists Field Club, itself symbolic of the urban middle class ‘Victorian ideal’ of the industrial boom are also worthy of note, including excavations around Urswick (Dobson 1907, 1912, 1914, 1927; Gelderd & Dobson 1912; Gelderd et al. 1914).

Lithic evidence for lowland occupation during the Later Mesolithic/Early Neolithic transition is clustered between 20 and 30 metres AOD, along ridges overlooking the coastal wetlands (figure 9.8). Many mosses, today retaining evidence of fossilised saltmarsh creeks, are likely to have been characterised by a mosaic of habitats; willow, birch and alder carr, interspersed with shallow standing pools or slow moving water. Macrofossil analysis at High Hyton on the south west Cumbrian coast illustrated that such environments, like today, included populations of yellow flag iris, water mint, sedges, rushes, bramble and stinging nettle (Wilkinson et al. 1997; Clare 2000).

One of the first major prehistoric occupation sites to be recognised in Cumbria was on Walney North End where coastal erosion revealed hundreds of lithic implements, stone axes, hearths and middens. The published reports are a product of their time, being anecdotal and lacking in contextual description (Cross 1938, 1939, 1942, 1946, 1947, 1949, 1952; Barnes 1955). Further evidence from Walney remains even less well understood. Material has been recovered from eroding seacliffs (Barnes & Hobbs 1952; Barnes 1970), and unrecorded assemblages, many associated with hearths, have been collected from South End Haws (Dave Coward pers. comm.). Much cannot now be traced, and the curatorial circumstances of collections deposited at Barrow museum means beyond published records, little further information is available.

The exploitation of these areas is evidenced by macrofossil analysis from Holbeck, where blackberry and elderberry seeds (suggesting autumnal occupation) were present in the fill of an Early Neolithic tree throw pit, together with carbonised wheat, burnt hazelnuts and oak charcoal (OAN 2002). The pit contained 106 sherds of Early Neolithic pottery, a rod microlith, two retouched flakes, three pieces of bladeworking debitage and 34 chips of burnt flint. Two flakes of volcanic tuff were recovered, one of which had been retouched (ibid.). Other features included shallow pits containing no artefacts and another tree throw. A similar site at Roose Quarry (Moorhead) was situated on a ridge close to a coastal inlet (figure 9.8) near to where a polished stone axe was recovered in the nineteenth century (Gaythorpe 1897). A pit contained sherds of an Early Neolithic bowl, a fragment of polished tuff, two leaf shaped arrowheads and a retouched blade (Jones 2001). The charcoal rich fills included a wheat grain, fire cracked quartz pebbles and lumps of squeezed clay. A clay lined pit was also excavated and a second polished tuff flake was recovered from topsoil above one of two postholes. Four further pits, all empty, were identified further to the north west.

Constructing a synthesis and interpretation of the evidence in line with the themes drawn from earlier chapters is problematic in that much is poorly recorded, little can be securely dated, and the evidence is physically dispersed. However, as discussed in chapter three, a surface survey transect over the southern Furness Peninsula has recently been undertaken (figure 9.2). Covering areas where material has been recovered in the past, the project provides a context from which to reintegrate and interpret this data. Also demonstrating the presence and absence of lithic material across specific areas, the transect illustrates the scatters discussed below reflect ‘real’ patterning rather than being products of differential collection strategies. In the following, assemblage codes are in parenthesis. The constituents of the scatters and details of the characterisation methodology utilised are detailed in appendix 5.

The excavations at Holbeck (OAN 2002) and Roose Quarry (Jones 2001) were small scale evaluations ahead of development. As of 2005, neither has gone to full excavation and no radiocarbon determinations are available. However, the features containing material culture at both sites are unequivocally Early Neolithic in date, with the Holbeck tree throw demonstrating the use of microliths after the Mesolithic. The Roose site was ploughed following evaluation and the opportunity was taken to compare the results of fieldwalking with material derived from the excavation. The fieldwalking assemblage (MD) consisted of 28 pieces, 19 of which were identifiable tool types. These included an awl, three edgeworn flakes, three retouched flakes (one on tuff), a retouched blade and a backed blade with opposed notches on its long edges. Six heavily worked broken retouched

Later Mesolithic/Early Neolithic scatters The coastal lowlands As outlined in chapter three, over the Later Mesolithic and Early Neolithic, sea level fluctuations exposed and inundated wide areas of land. On the seaward facing shorelines of Furness, raised and storm beach deposits can be identified, and many of the lowlying valleys leading from the coast are characterised by marine alluviums and silts. As has been identified in other areas 120

pieces were also present, alongside six chunks of burnt flint and a single tuff waste flake. Compared to the relative lack of fine forms, the presence of two leaf shaped arrowheads and a finely worked flint blade in the pit may illustrate, as suggested by Healy (1987), that high quality implements saw deposition in different ways to ‘everyday’ tools.

22 identifiable tools. A blade core, a core rejuvenation reused as an awl and two small flake cores were identified alongside waste chunks and spalls. Tools included side/end scrapers on blades, a backed blade, retouched blades and flakes, together with broken fragments of bifacially worked implements including two leaf arrowhead tips. Concretions of ironpan on some implements suggests their derivation from ploughed out subsoil features. Inland from Dungeon Lane (figure 9.4) a concentration at Stank (STA) was situated on a sheltered flat area on the same valley floor. Located between the lowland mosses and the higher ground of the Stank valley (figures 9.5, 9.8) the assemblage included nine exhausted single and opposed platform blade and bladelet cores, alongside four core rejeuventaions. Identifiable tool types included side/end scrapers, retouched blades and flakes, retouched bladelets and a denticulate.

A small scatter at Westfield (WF), 1.5 km south of Moorhead, was situated on a scarp overlooking a valley sloping towards a coastal inlet and Walney Channel (figure 9.8). The scatter included a leaf shaped arrowhead and a side/end scraper. Inland and 0.5 km to the east of Moorhead/Roose Quarry, an assemblage from Moorhead Cottages (MC) was situated along the same ridge, and may represent a continual scatter separated by unploughed fields. Unlike Moorhead and Westfield however, Moorhead Cottages has an east facing aspect looking down a shallow valley towards Morecambe Bay and north towards the Furness fells (figures 9.3, 8.8). Clustered along a high scarp above the mosses, the scatter was dominated by edgeworn and retouched flakes and blades, with a number of broken blades and bladelets represented alongside five blade cores, waste chunks and spalls.

Figure 9.5. Stank valley, facing north east.

Walney Island One of the main problems with understanding the settings and chronology of lithic scatters on the coastal lowlands is that it is difficult to visualise the impact changing sea levels had on a landscape characterised by a network of valleys, hillocks and drumlins. The effects of the marine transgressions on Walney are perhaps easier to envisage. The island is characterised by low inlets and shallow valleys punctuated by areas of higher ground, themselves never much over 10 metres AOD (figure 9.9). Although the island’s formation is poorly understood, the maximum marine transgression on the west Cumbrian coast can be identified by raised beaches at c. 8 metres. It is therefore likely that for much of the Neolithic, Walney formed an archipelago of dry islands, at high tide at least, surrounded by sea. On the main body of the island Later Mesolithic/Early Neolithic scatters are situated on high ground and on its north and south ends, associated with raised beach deposits.

Figure 9.3. Moorhead Cottages, facing north east towards Morecambe Bay and the fells.

Figure 9.4. Dungeon Lane under the plough.

Commonly attributed a Later Neolithic/ Early Bronze Age date, assemblages from Walney North End contain a proportion of earlier material. Alongside stone axes and axe fragments, hollow scrapers, leaf shaped arrowheads, blades, bladelets and a microlith were collected (Cross 1938, 1939, 1942, 1946, 1947, 1949, 1952). Of those which saw illustration, a bladeworking element is also

Further inland a number of valley bottom scatters have been identified. Situated within the same contour range as the scarp scatters, these are slightly set back from the coast. A scatter at Dungeon Lane (DL) was located on a flat sheltered valley floor surrounded by mosses (figures 9.4, 9.8). The assemblage comprised 52 pieces including 121

Identifiable Later Mesolithic/Early Neolithic material included an opposed platform blade core and a number of blades. Dorsal scarring relating to bladeworking was present on a number of implements, including two tuff flakes. A similarly mixed scatter was identified at Mulgrew’s (MUL), adjacent to a tarn close to a coastal inlet on the east shore of the island. Although largely of Later Neolithic/Early Bronze Age date, an ‘earlier’ presence is suggested by edgeworn and retouched blades and bladelets, a geometric microlith, a single platform blade core and a hollow scraper. All the pieces identified were of pebble flint with the exception of four tuff forms; the cutting edge and butt of the same polished stone axe, and two large flakes detached from axes, one of which was polished (figure 3.16).

exhibited by dorsal scarring on many implements. Following the ‘discoveries’ on Walney North End in the 1940s, the island became a focus for collectors. During construction work at West Shore School, situated on a high point at the centre of the island, microliths were located together with blades, blade cores, scrapers and the butt of a polished axe (Barnes 1970b). Further south, microliths and opposed platform cores were collected from cliffs at Hillock Whins (ibid.) and at Trough Head, a microlith, blades, blade cores, a side scraper and two tuff flakes were identified (Barnes & Hobbs 1950; Barnes 1970b). Fieldwalking at Trough Head (TH) has produced a scatter of mixed date. The assemblage as a whole comprised 140 pieces, largely waste derived from primary and secondary reduction (figure 9.23). Location MD MC STA WF DL

Height AOD 20m 30m 20m 10m 30m

No.

tools

waste

blades

flakes

52 28 51 37 10

22 19 23 11 6

25 6 22 24 2

7 2 10 1 0

17 18 16 11 5

Chunks/ spalls 24 7 21 16 5

Blade cores 0 0 3 0 0

Flake cores 0 0 1 0 0

Figure 9.6. Summary data from the coastal scarp scatters.

Figure 9.7. Selection of blade based material from the coastal scarp scatters. Illustrations by Sharon Arrowsmith.

122

Figure 9.8. Location of scatters (marked in black) and empty fields (marked in grey check) along the coastal scarp. Map data © Crown Copyright Ordnance Survey. An Edina Digimap/JISC supplied service.

So what do scatters from the coastal environs of the Furness peninsula suggest about the character of occupation during the Later Mesolithic/Early Neolithic? Although the evidence from Walney is problematic, small amounts of Later Mesolithic/Early Mesolithic material are represented in what are predominantly later scatters. The spreads are relatively small and dispersed along high points, possibly the product of people periodically crossing Walney Channel at low tide to collect and work flint from the coastal shingle. On the peninsula itself, occupation was focussed in localities from which a variety of resources could be exploited. Scatters are located along ridges of light glacial sand overlooking mosses, often close to coastal inlets. Areas characterised by saltmarsh and moss, once established, would have provided wild resources including water fowl, and when the water table permitted, areas of grazing for both wild animals and domesticates. The presence of cereal grains at both Holbeck and Roose/Moorhead (Jones 2001; OAN 2002) may suggest small scale agriculture was being undertaken nearby.

Figure 9.9. Location of lithic scatters on South Walney. Map data © Crown Copyright Ordnance Survey. An Edina Digimap/JISC supplied service.

123

30 metre contours on the valleyside below Leece tarn (LEE). Situated on a route between Leece, Gleaston and Urswick, the scatters, one with a fragment of a roughout axe, comprised multi-use and retouched blade and flake forms. Roughout axes, polished axes and axe fragments have been identified in the area (Fell 1971; Robinson 1985). Further inland, Gleaston Castle is situated at the meeting of two valleys, one heading north west towards Urswick, the other north east to Scales and the Morecambe Bay coast (figure 9.13). Similar in nature and setting to Breastmill Beck, large scatters have been identified on terraces above the valley floor. The assemblage from Gleaston 8 (GLE 8) was situated directly adjacent to Gleaston Castle, and overlooked a prolific spring and the becks which meet on the valley floor. Located in a sheltered area at 30 metres AOD, a total of 80 lithic pieces were identified. Identifiable tool forms included two geometric microliths, three retouched bladelets, two microlithic scrapers, retouched flakes and blades and waste including eight blade cores. To the immediate south west, a continuation of GLE 8 was identified in sloping fields overlooking the valley floor (GLE 6 & 7). Mixed in technological character, this included retouched and edgeworn blades and flakes, two geometric microliths, two retouched bladelets, a hollow scraper, a fragment of a polished axe and a tuff thinning flake. Further axes and lithic finds have been identified in the valley between Gleaston and Scales (Dave Coward pers. comm.).

Figure 9.10. Lithic scatters associated with Mill Beck valley.

Whilst scatters close to the coast, such as Moorhead, Moorhead Cottages and Westfield appear to represent shifting occupation along ridges above mosses where valleys met the sea, those at Stank and Dungeon Lane occupied well defined and sheltered flat areas further inland. Following the valleys Inland from the coast, along the sides of a major valley running into the interior of the peninsula, a blade based scatter at Parkhouse (PAR) was identified on a terrace above Mill Beck (figure 9.10). Upslope to the north, through the grounds of Furness Abbey, a large Later Mesolithic/Early Neolithic scatter was identified at Breastmill Beck (BMB). This was concentrated along a terrace above the junction of two valleys, one turning west towards the Duddon estuary, and the second continuing north east along the scarp separating High and Low Furness (figure 9.11). Situated directly upslope of Breastmill and Poaka becks, on the 50 metre contour, the scatter comprised 89 pieces including a microlith, a denticulate, a hollow scraper, 15 retouched flakes and blades (including two of tuff) alongside a collection of waste and a retouched blade core.

Figure 9.12. Lithic scatters in the environs of Gleaston.

Figure 9.11. Looking west towards Breastmill Beck (field beyond wooded valley). Black Coombe in the background.

Returning south to the Low Furness mosses, small scatters of dispersed finds were identified between 20 and

Figure 9.13. The Gleaston valley, looking north west.

124

Location Parkhouse Breastmill Beck Leece Gleaston 8

Height AOD 30m 50m

No.

tools

waste

blades

flakes 6 38

Chunks/ spalls 3 35

Blade cores 0 1

Flake cores 0 1

12 89

6 44

4 36

1 13

30m 40m

32 80

15 52

14 21

5 17

12 29

13 21

0 8

2 0

Figure 9.14. Summary data of blade based valley scatters. Location New Close Stainton Muttons

Height AOD 70m 70m 70m

No.

tools

waste

blades

flakes

18 5 26

8 3 18

4 1 6

2 3 2

3 1 11

Chunks/ spalls 6 1 10

Blade cores 2 0 2

Flake cores 0 0 1

Figure 9.15. Summary data of blade based scatters on higher ground.

Figure 9.16. Distribution of lithics and finds of stone axes and bronzes across Furness. Map data © Crown Copyright Ordnance Survey. An Edina Digimap/JISC supplied service.

The valley meetings at Gleaston and Breastmill Beck formed the foci for repeated episodes of occupation and activity along routeways between inland and coastal areas, between which small scatters cluster along the valley sides. What is clear from the locations of these scatters is that they were situated in different environments. Inland from the coast, pollen records suggest lowlying areas were wooded, although their

altitudes and proximity to tarns and waterways means they would have been conducive to occupation. The lower fells and their margins supported a thinner canopy, and on the limestones of Gleaston and Urswick, lime, hazel, holly, ivy and other climbers would have flourished in the light areas provided by thin soils and outcropping pavement.

125

Figure 9.17. Monuments, burials and finds in the Urswick environs. Map data © Crown Copyright Ordnance Survey. An Edina Digimap/JISC supplied service.

meetings of valley systems and in localised areas of upland. Whilst pebbles were exploited from coastal shingle on Walney, denser scatters on the mainland suggest occupation was valley based, shifting across the scarps and ridges close to the coast, and up and down valleys. During the Earlier Neolithic, macrofossil cereal remains from pits on the coastal plain may suggest arable agriculture took place on the glacial sands, with clearance for pasture in the inland valleys.

Pollen records from Urswick Tarn, 2 kilometres north of Gleaston, illustrate Later Mesolithic/Early Neolithic activity (Oldfield & Statham 1963). Although the sequence is not closely dated it is in some ways similar to those from other areas of the coastal plain. Situated at the foot of Skelmore Heads, pollen from the tarn illustrated minor woodland disturbances preceding an elm decline at the zone VIIa/b boundary (ibid.). The first took the form of a drop in elm, and the subsequent expansion of pine. The second more intensive episode was characterised by the almost equal reduction of oak, elm and pine. The lack of cereal pollen or arable weeds, along with very high values of plantain and grasses suggest clearance for pasture rather than cultivation (ibid.).

Environmental evidence from west Cumbria illustrates cereal cultivation on the coastal plain during the Early Neolithic. Occupation at Williamson’s Moss (Bonsall 1981; Bonsall et al. 1986, 1989, 1994) likely represents repeated episodes of activity from the Later Mesolithic into the Bronze Age. Perhaps akin to Walney North End, occupation at Williamson’s Moss was focussed on a major estuary. Along the western coastal strip, scatters strung along and above former shorelines (Cherry & Cherry 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986) are situated in analogous contexts to those above the Furness mosses. Although little is known of inland occupation in west Cumbria, the evidence from Furness suggests transitory movement between landscape zones, following the lines of major through routes. As on the west coast, the valley based distribution of axes in Furness is comparable with the lithic evidence (figure 9.16). Whilst some places were used only sporadically, others, in areas close to predictable resources, were visited regularly over long periods. Communities may have combined and separated at different times of the year, with smaller groups splitting off, to follow wild animals, lead domesticated ones, to tend crops, pollards and coppice, and to collect resources from both woodland and coastal contexts. The physical character of the main Furness valleys provided contexts in which scattered and dispersed communities would have routinely come together close to the coast,

As discussed in chapter three, it is likely that both grazing and woodland management were undertaken in clearance contexts. In grazed areas, pollards would be out of the reach of animals, and trees may have also been coppiced to provide browse and winter fodder. Alongside occupation close to valley floors, such activities may be represented by lithic scatters in their higher reaches. Small clusters around the 70 metre contour (figure 9.15), at the heads of valleys and close to localised water sources, may represent activity episodes connected to woodland management, grazing or hunting. Scatters from New Close (NC) and Stainton (ST) included retouched and edgeworn blades and flakes, together with two blade cores from New Close and a tuff endscraper from Stainton. A blade based scatter at Muttons 1 (MUTT) included a heeled tortoise core (figure 3.10) and one from Leece (LE 1) included a finely worked backed blade. Scatters of Later Mesolithic/Early Neolithic date illustrate different types of occupation in a range of specific places and environments; on the scarps separating the coastal mosses from the glacial sands of the coastal plain, at the 126

Gaythorpe 1906).

and where the valleys meet again on the Urswick limestones.

As the Furness transect did not cover the limestone north of Gleaston, there is little information regarding the character of occupation in the Urswick environs. However, evidence from the eastern uplands can suggest the nature of occupation on limestones chosen for the construction of Neolithic monuments. Whilst the two areas are different in physical character, they share similar monument traditions and comparison between them can also illustrate something of the nature of wider patterns of landuse (see below).

Life and death on the limestone ridge Following the Gleaston valley inland, upslope of Urswick tarn is the hilltop enclosure of Skelmore Heads. The hill forms the northernmost extent of a limestone scarp which, at between 90 and 130 metres AOD, shelters and encloses the Urswick valley (figures 9.1, 9.17). To the south of Skelmore Heads are the valleys of Low Furness and on a clear day, the central mountains are visible to the north. To the east the coast and the Leven estuary are obscured by Birkrigg Common, and to the west the land rises towards the Furness Fells. Skelmore Heads long cairn is situated downslope of the crest of the hill in a shallow east-west orientated valley, which to the west forms a natural route over the Furness Fells. To its east, the Leven estuary is visible beyond the slopes of Birkrigg common.

Raiset Pike long cairn is situated close to a prominent natural outcrop on a lowlying shoulder between the Crosby fells and a route between the Lune and Eden valleys. Close to the cairn, clustered along localised ridges and becks, twelve scatters yielded nearly two thousand lithic pieces (Cherry & Cherry 1987a), the majority of Later Mesolithic/Early Neolithic date. Upslope and to the west is Gamelands stone circle, to the south and north west of which a number of lithic scatters have been identified (ibid.). As at Raiset Pike, the scatters were dominated by a comprehensive range of Later Mesolithic/Early Neolithic forms, with later diagnostics also present. In the Lowther valley, spoil from a pipeline along a river terrace close to Kemp Howe revealed Grimston ware and a large Later Mesolithic/Early Neolithic assemblage (ibid.). Further to the south, concentrations were identified at the foot of the limestone escarpment above Wicker’s Gill. Again dominated by a blade based technology and including significant numbers of tuff forms, these also contained Later Neolithic/Early Bronze Age diagnostics (ibid.).

The northern extent of Skelmore Heads is delineated by a bank and ditch, with its southern and western perimeters formed of outcropping limestone (figures 6.3, 9.21). A hoard of roughouts in a limestone outcrop which partially forms the enclosure, within clear view of their source in the central Lakes, attests to its importance during the Neolithic. A stone axe has been recovered from the fields below the hilltop (Barnes 1963), and further less clearly provenanced examples from the immediate area. These include a number recovered from limestone grykes to the south of Urswick (ibid.; SMR 2318, 2320), one of which was found with an ‘upper quernstone’ which may have been a polissoir. South west of Skelmore Heads, forming the southernmost point of the limestone ridge is a quarry at Stone Close. Above 80 metres AOD, this was a prominent outcrop enclosed by a bank of uncertain date (Dobson 1912). With wide views of Furness and the fells beyond, Stone Close was the highest point in the immediate neighbourhood. Many prehistoric finds were located during quarrying, including at least twelve stone axes, both polished and in roughout form and a polissoir (ibid.). Downslope of the quarry, at the head of a shallow valley, a cluster of lithic finds included a tuff endscraper and a multi-use tool on pebble flint (ST). To the north west, below Bolton Heads, a second cluster included a finely trimmed bladelet. A number axes have been identified in the area (Gaythorpe 1900; Spence 1940; Fell 1971). These finds demonstrate not only that the limestone ridge the focus for small scale occupation, but also that prominent outcrops along its highest points, likely free of tree cover and affording wide views, were used for the deposition of axes and polissoirs. Such practices may also be suggested by antiquarian finds from High Haume, at the southernmost point of the High Furness ridge; “We have been informed that, upon removal of what appeared to be the foundation of and old building near High Haum, about twenty celts and stone hammers were found in various states of preparation” (Joplin 1843: 95;

Some material in the environs of monuments clustered on the lower slopes of the eastern uplands may represent occupation relating to their construction and use. However, given the character of the scatters it is likely the location of these monuments, along watercourses and on terraces between upland and lowland contexts, drew on their earlier significance. Upslope of the monuments, on the lower slopes of the Crosby and Shap fells and overlooking the valleys below, clusters of lithic material have been identified on scarps and sheltered areas close to outcropping limestone pavement (Cherry & Cherry 1987a). Smaller assemblages have been collected from higher exposed areas of the fells. At the Howe Robin enclosure, fragments of both tuff and flint axes have been identified, alongside a leaf shaped arrowhead and sherds of Grimston ware (Cherry et al. 1985). Whilst not directly analogous to occupation evidence from Furness, collections from the eastern uplands illustrate that limestone escarpment close to Neolithic monuments formed a focus for extensive occupation, some of which likely pre-dated their construction. Clustered on scarps, valley heads and along watercourses, such assemblages illustrate similar themes to those evidenced in Furness.

127

A bone point from the Bart’s Shelter assemblage produced a date of 6110-5883 cal BC (Hodgkinson et al. 2000). Close by, two caves have revealed analogous assemblages. At Bonfire Scar excavations revealed closely packed human skulls and longbones (Atkinson 1926). A number of finely worked flint implements and the butt of a stone axe were recorded alongside pottery sherds, oyster shells and animal bone (ibid.). Upslope and to the east, a stone axe recovered from limestone on Baycliff Haggs (Dobson 1914) may have drawn on the significance of a small cave in the same locality which contained a number of human skulls (Barber 1869).

Environmental evidence from the eastern limestones also bears some similarity. Downslope of Raiset Pike, pollen evidence from Sunbiggin Tarn (Webster 1969, cited. Cherry & Cherry 1987a) illustrated the clearance of trees and spread of grassland after the elm decline, but as at Urswick (Oldfield 1963), no cereal pollen was identified. Upslope and to the north of Sunbiggin, at Bank Moor (see chapter three), the fells were predominantly clear of trees during the Early Neolithic and characterised by species rich grassland (Skinner 2000). Lithic finds from the area are dominated by arrowheads alongside evidence for small scale occupation (Cherry & Cherry 1987a). Taken together with occupation of the Furness valleys, the evidence suggests the limestone fells and their environs were utilised for hunting, and provided grazing for both wild animals and domesticates.

Human remains were deposited in limestone fissures over long periods, and with the exception of diagnostic artefacts within chronologically mixed assemblages, the majority are not closely datable. However that the environs of these features often saw the construction of Neolithic monuments suggests they drew on what may be termed as the ‘natural’ monuments of the Mesolithic. As discussed in chapter eight, similarities between practices illustrated by cave assemblages and burial traditions suggest deposition took place in a variety of contexts. Although such practices might be more clearly evidenced during the Early Bronze Age, drawing on concerns with the entry of human bone and material culture ‘into the earth’, it is likely that Neolithic monuments drew on, and continued traditions already focussed on significant natural places (Barnatt & Edmonds 2002).

The common association between axes and enclosures suggests these distinctive high points, enclosed by limestone outcrops and overlooking valley systems, formed foci for activities centred around the deposition and possibly the exchange of stone axes. Their location in upland areas used for grazing and hunting, away from the lower-lying fertile valleys of the Pennine foothills and the Furness coastal plain, may indicate such areas were what might be described as ‘common land’. At particular times of the year these were central to the occupational ranges of a number of different communities, likely coming into these areas from different directions.

South of Urswick, the Tosthills dolmen is a chamber formed of two limestone uprights supporting a capstone of the same material. Situated close to a valley floor between two ridges of outcropping limestone, little is known of the structure, although a bronze knife has been recovered from its environs (Dobson 1912). Monuments of similar form are common along the Irish Seaboard (Lynch 1997; Tilley 1994; Cummings & Whittle 2004). Whilst their close dating is enigmatic, the use of uprights to support heavy capstones quarried from nearby outcrop can be seen as analogous to the use of limestone caves and fissures.

Caves, grykes and Neolithic monuments Long cairns and enclosures in Cumbria, whilst being located in association with natural routeways and valley systems, drew on prominent natural features. Although the significance of these features is often based on supposition, on the Morecambe Bay peninsulas there is clear evidence for deposition in limestone caves and fissures close to monuments. At Haverbrack, across Morecambe Bay from Furness, Dog Hole formed the focus for deposition into the early medieval period. Excavations in the shaft produced the remains of at least three children and eighteen adults, some of which illustrated cut marks (Jackson 1914; Benson & Bland 1963; Bland 1994). Situated on a limestone ridge above the Kent estuary, Dog Hole is less than 100 metres from the Haverbrack long cairn. Close to a probable prehistoric enclosure at Wharton Crags, on limestone above the Keer estuary, the Badger Hole cave produced human and animal remains together with a Langdale axe, Later Neolithic pottery and beaker sherds, an antler pick, a chert scraper and flint flakes including a possibly Palaeolithic bladelet (Jackson 1913; Hodgson & Brennand 2006).

Below the summit of Birkrigg Common, Birkrigg Disc Barrow is situated on the northern end of a prominent limestone ridge overlooking Skelmore Heads. Before the covering mound was added, the monument was a circular platform of limestone (Dobson 1926) which overlay and mimicked the natural pavement below. As discussed in chapter eight, the platform may have been used for excarnation during the Neolithic. Given the fragmentary and disarticulated nature of the excavated deposits (Dobson 1926) and its proximity to the Skelmore Heads enclosure, long cairn and the Urswick caves, it is possible deposits were transported between these sites.

On the Urswick limestones the earliest evidence for cave use is from Bart’s Shelter, to the east of Birkrigg Common. Overlooking Morecambe Bay, Mere Tarn and the Gleaston valley, the cave contained human and animal remains, lithics dating between the Early Mesolithic and the Bronze Age and a Bronze Age brooch.

Across Morecambe Bay, the Sizergh Fell ‘pavement’ cairn drew on similar themes. Similar in form and nature to Brikrigg Disc Barrow, Sizergh Tumulus 2 (Mckenny Hughes 1904a, 1904b; Edmonds & Evans 2007) was set beneath a locally prominent outcrop on the end of a 128

landscape features and micro-topopgraphic changes to promote particular views of the landscape; between upland and lowland areas, between valley systems, and between land and sea. A second stone circle may once have existed on the common (Joplin 1846). As discussed, ‘paired’ circles drew on and physically stressed themes and concerns already inherent to the location and setting of these monuments. Progression between circles acted as metaphorical transition between landscape zones. Such monuments, akin to earlier enclosures, formed arenas within which concerns with seasonality, exchange, physical and social transformation were mediated.

distinctive limestone ridge overlooking the Kent estuary. As discussed in chapter eight, grykes in the immediate environs of monument, and the outcrop on which it was focussed, saw the deposition of beaker material less than fifty metres from a gryke into which had been placed a broken stone axe, tuff flakes and a polissoir. Across the Morecambe Bay limestones, stone axes were placed in limestone grykes on the high points allowing clear views of the central mountains and often the coast. As discussed in previous chapters, these places, and these sorts of places were chosen for the construction of monuments across the region. Depositional practices evidenced on the limestones, together with the construction and use of monuments made a variety of references; to localised natural features, to the stone sources and uplands of the central fells and the estuaries coming together into Morecambe Bay and the Irish Sea. On Birkrigg Close to the farm hamlet of Sunbrick, Birkrigg stone circle was constructed on a west facing shoulder directly below the summit of Birkrigg common, the highest point on the Furness limestone ridge. Situated 2 km south east of Skelmore Heads long cairn, the circle drew on similar locational themes, being set between landscape zones along the same route between the coastal lowlands and the Furness fells. Compared to the long cairn, the location of the circle illustrates a shift in focus with reference being made to its place within, and connections to the wider world. Birkrigg Common is characterised by areas of outcropping pavement visible for many miles around. The prominent ridge likely acted as an indicator not only of the location of the monument but may also have assumed totemic significance (see chapter seven).

Figure 9.19. Plan of Birkrigg stone circle illustrating excavated deposits. After Gelderd & Dobson (1912).

The Final Neolithic and Early Bronze Age saw burial monuments constructed close to ceremonial complexes and across the occupied landscape. On Birkrigg, the stone circle and the Birkrigg Disc Barrow formed the foci for a cairn cemetery. Five have seen excavation (Geldred et al. 1914), four of which were located along the summit of Birkrigg, effectively appropriating this distinctive landscape feature. Of these one was completely empty, and a second revealed a green slate boulder sealing a deposit of dark earth (ibid.). A third was composed of an earthen mound sealing a similar deposit, with the covering cairn made of glacial erratics (ibid.). Like the cairn of volcanic erratics covering the beaker deposit at Sizergh, the monument was in clear view of the central fells. Birkrigg 1 was located to the north-eastern end of the ridge, on Appleby Hill, commanding a wide view over Morecambe Bay, north towards the mountains, and west to Black Coombe and the Isle of Man. The earliest phase of the monument was a small stone circle with a diameter of c. 4 metres (Gelderd et al. 1914). After the deposition (and likely removal) of a central deposit comprising human teeth and potsherds scattered on the ground surface, the circle was infilled. That the stones remained proud is suggested by over thirty token depositons within the extent of the circle. As discussed in chapter eight, many were found to contain a white quartzite pebble which “in practically every case was associated with two

Figure 9.18. View of the Leven estuary promoted by the setting of Birkrigg stone circle.

The construction of the circle beneath the summit of the common meant visibility of the Furness valleys, Skelmore Heads and Birkrigg Disc Barrow were obscured. Downslope of the monument the land drops sharply towards the coast, with its setting promoting a wide view over the Leven Estuary and Morecambe Bay (figure 9.18). As with many circles in the region, its location, although addressing similar concerns with the movement suggested by long cairns, drew on localised 129

from scorched pits. Three of the four urns at Birkrigg were inverted, and the mouth of urn 3 at Appleby Slack (like that at Allithwaite) rested on the limestone bedrock. This may suggest that if the urns were brought in from elsewhere, their contents were emptied back into the earth.

pieces of alien stone. One piece was red porphyry, the other a greenish stone” (Geldred et al. 1914: 469). These deposits were later covered by a cairn, into which two partial inhumations were inserted. The first was fragments of skull and teeth interred within a stone setting and the second a disarticulated inhumation with a bronze awl (ibid.). A disarticulated inhumation of skull and longbone fragments may have been inserted into the Birkrigg Disc barrow at a similar time, which suggests its primary phases had come to a close. The burial was accompanied by a boar’s tusk and a piece of ornamented bronze (Dobson 1927).

Perhaps the most enigmatic of the depositional practices associated with the Birkrigg monuments are the token deposits of organic matter and /or charcoal, analogous to traditions identified in upland and cairnfield contexts. On Birkrigg, these were sometimes associated with a single token of unburnt bone and often with ‘alien’ pebbles brought in from elsewhere. The evidence suggests the emphasis remained on the burial of token, partial and disarticulated remains at least into the Early Bronze Age. As discussed in chapter eight, it is likely that cremated remains were subject to a protracted series of rituals, in different locations, not necessarily restricted to their final deposition. As with earlier periods, the evidence suggests limestone fissures and caves continued to be used for mortuary ritual and the deposition of human remains. Close to the Birkrigg cairns on Appleby Slack, the infill of a limestone gryke was exposed by men digging out a trapped ferret (Erskine & Wood 1936). Further excavation revealed an artificially widened fissure c. 2 metres in depth. A large number of fragmentary unburnt human and animal bones were identified, including an inhumation, beneath which was a partial human mandible and six teeth. A layer of black earth covered a deposit of stones sealing a deposit of charcoal rich material above the natural clay. As there was no material culture identified, the deposits cannot be securely dated. A similar deposit, however, was recovered from a gryke in Heaning Wood, Urswick (Barnes 1970b). Here, unburnt fragments of three individuals were found together with a large quantity of animal bones, a fragment of collared urn and a large tuff knife.

Figure 9.20. View of the Leven estuary and the fells beyond from Birkrigg summit cairn.

A central kerb was added to the internal area of Birkrigg stone circle, probably in the Early Bronze Age (figures 9.18, 9.19). Excavation revealed both the inner and outer areas of the circle had been roughly paved (Geldred & Dobson 1912). Within the inner circle, two distinct layers of cobbling were identified, separated by a thin layer of soil, and sealing a complex sequence of deposits. The central element of the circle was used repeatedly for the deposition of cremated remains. Upslope of the stone circle, a burial cairn at Appleby Slack, almost hidden in a shallow bowl defined to the east by a limestone outcrop, revealed a similarly complex sequence (Geldred et al. 1914).

Continuity of place into the Bronze Age Although some ways of dealing with the dead changed during the Bronze Age, many elements of the treatment and deposition of human and cultural material were maintained. New monuments were constructed in a variety of contexts, and earlier monuments and natural features continued in use. Evidence from Urswick demonstrates places important in the ‘Neolithic’ landscape formed foci for later activity. On Baycliff Haggs, where a stone axe had been placed in a limestone gryke close to a cave used to deposit human remains, a number of burials were discovered whilst ‘levelling’ ground. A collared urn containing a cremation was recovered from a heap of stones and ‘a little distance’ away, a cist contained two inhumations (West 1805). Although the presence of a covering cairn was not recorded, nor the space between the burials, these clearly illustrate the continuing significance and appropriation of particular landscape features into the Bronze Age.

Like the ‘earlier’ funerary sites of Birkrigg Disc Barrow and Birkrigg 1, deposits at Appleby Slack and the internal element of Birkrigg stone circle illustrate emphasis on the token deposition of human remains. This is illustrated at Appleby Slack in particular, where a high proportion of pit deposits and scatters contained only one token piece of unburnt bone within ‘cremated’ deposits. The character of most of the deposits at Appleby Slack and Birkrigg stone circle, whether they incorporated human remains or not, suggests they were cremated nearby. The majority of pits were scorched, and spreads and deposits of burnt earth and charcoal infilled the cremation pits. The spreads of charcoal and burnt earth in particular at Appleby Slack may be suggestive of imported pyre debris, with only one area at Appleby Slack, and none at Birkrigg stone circle, suggesting that cremation took place on site. The urned burials from both sites were not associated with burnt material, and none were recovered 130

Later Mesolithic and Early Neolithic. The burials suggest that activity continued into later periods, with the sheltered valley below the locally dominant Stone Close likely forming the focus for occupation. During the Early Bronze Age, evidence for deposition and burial in the Urswick environs reflects both continuity and change. As in other areas, deposits both of material culture and human remains were placed in caves, fissures, grykes and other natural features, many of which, situated on prominent hills and escarpments, had seen earlier use. Drawing on and appropriating their earlier significance and likely signifying the identities and concerns of particular local communities, many such features saw the construction of burial cairns. Earlier monuments associated with these features saw structural elaboration and the addition of burials, and ‘new’ monuments were constructed in their environs. As in the Neolithic, funerary and associated rituals were based around the token burial of human remains. Some of these may have been cremated close to the monuments in which they saw deposition and others brought in from elsewhere. As discussed in chapter eight, the sorts of activities evidenced on Birkrigg are similar to those represented in upland cairnfield contexts. The dead and the monuments and natural features into which they were placed, were being increasingly drawn on in the assertion of tenurial concerns.

Figure 9.21. Part of the south eastern perimieter of the Skelmore Heads enclosure.

As discussed, on the basis of its interpretation as an Iron Age hillfort, excavations on Skelmore Heads led to the suggestion it had been subject to two phases of construction; the first being a palisaded enclosure and the second a bank and ditch constructed along the northern perimeter (Powell 1963).The evidence upon which the postulated sequence is based is however questionable as there was no relationship determined between the ‘palisade’ and the bank (RCHME 1996c). The ‘later’ phase was thought to be Iron Age date since the earthworks were deemed “appropriate only in the context of human warfare” (Corcoran 1963: 18). Recent surveys cast doubt on its defensible nature:

Evidence for the use of the Furness fells during the Neolithic and Bronze Age is sparse. However, two large embanked ringcairns have been identified north of Ulverston. The Kirk and Lowick Beacon are situated on routeways across the fells towards the Coniston valleys and uplands. As with those on Birkrigg, their settings reference important localised features and draw on distinctions between local and wider landscapes.

“The northern rampart is relatively slight, and the southern, gentler, slope could not be easily defended: the rocks there, while forming an effective visual barrier do not form a physical one. The eastern and western slopes which define two sides of the enclosure are steeper, though again the barrier is less physical and more symbolic” (RCHME 1996c: 11).

Although dating remains equivocal, the continuing importance of the site into the Bronze Age is demonstrated by the deposition of a hoard of socketed Bronze axes in a limestone fissure and by the later find of a saddle quern (Fell 1963). At the southern end of the limestone ridge, Stone Close also continued to be used for deposition. Alongside the dozen or so Neolithic axes, a socketed bronze axe, a palstave, and a bronze ring were recovered, alongside a ground cobble granite axe and numerous quernstones and quern fragments (Dobson 1912; Fell 1963). Close to a swallow hole downslope of Stone Close, quarrying for road material at Stainton Head revealed a sandy hillock had been used for the deposition of cremations. Although a collared urn containing a tanged bronze knife, and a collared urn containing an accessory cup were recorded (Fell 1957) further burials included several urns smashed up by workmen (Dobson 1912).

The Beacon is located in a lowlying position at the foot of Lowick Beacon, itself appropriated by a summit cairn of uncertain date. Close to the modern route between Morecambe Bay, the Duddon and the west coast, the large ringcairn was situated to overlook Coniston Water and the central Lakes. With the exception of a cairn close to its southeastern perimeter, no other monuments have been identified however the monument is situated below enclosure boundaries and its surrounding have seen some improvement. To the southwest, the Kirk is situated on a shoulder of land below three high points, one of which is today occupied by a wind farm. The shoulder is the focus for springs conjoining to form Gill House Beck, which runs into the Duddon estuary. Although the estuary is not visible from the ringcairn, there is a clear view upslope of the monument from a large oval funerary cairn. Excavated in the nineteenth century, the cairn revealed calcined bones in a cist with two megaliths at its western end (Joplin 1846). Although small numbers of cairns have been identified, the area has not seen detailed survey and much of it been disturbed by slate quarrying. A few kilometres to the north west, areas of cairnfield, funerary cairns and ringcairns cluster on the lower lying fells at

Across Cumbria, urn cemeteries have been found in association with features such as sandy hummocks and limestone grykes, often situated close to natural springs and watercourses (see chapter eight). As discussed above, lithic scatters and stone axes in the Stainton area (ST) suggest it was utilised for hunting and grazing during the 131

Manor Park and Gleaston 10 and 11 illustrate a gradual proliferation away from the valley bottoms, with activity spreading upslope on flatter areas along the valley sides. As in earlier periods, small scale activities also took place in the higher reaches of the valleys. Close to the clusters of Later Mesolithic/Early Neolithic material at Leece (LE 1) a hollow based arrowhead was found together with an edgeworn flake on high ground west of the village (LE 7). That occupation was focussed in the same areas, on high ground, and at the meetings of major valley systems suggests a degree of continuity inland from the coast. Where the picture is noticeably different however is in the coastal lowlands where the majority of Later Mesolithic/Early Neolithic activity was focussed.

Gawthwaite and Heathwaite. It is tempting to suggest these were exploited by communities from Furness, with The Kirk and Lowick Beacon, on routeways between the peninsula and the fells, representing increasingly structured movement between transitional areas of the landscape. Later Neolithic and Bronze Age scatters Monuments and depositional practices evidenced on Furness during the Later Neolithic and Early Bronze Age illustrate changes in the ways in which communities referenced and appropriated prominent landscape features. Although continuing to combine and disperse at different times and places, clear lines were drawn between local and wider communities, with occupation increasingly tied to specific places. Lithic evidence from the coast and valleys of Furness suggest similar themes.

As discussed above, over the Later Mesolithic and Neolithic, tidal incursions inundated and exposed lowlying land on the coastal lowlands. During the Later Neolithic and Early Bronze Age, whilst small scale incursions did occur, sea levels dropped with more stable conditions allowing the formation of dune systems on west facing coasts. Along sheltered shores of Morecambe Bay and the Duddon however, salt marshes and former intertidal environments converted to bog (Smith 1958, 1959; Oldfield & Smith 1963). Compared to earlier periods, there is little evidence these environments saw extensive occupation. That later scatters are small and widely dispersed may indicate activity was restricted in scale and episodic in nature. At Four Lane Ends (FLE) four scatters comprised a total of only seventeen flake based pieces. A range of tool forms were represented, including split pebble scrapers, two thumbnail scrapers, a heavy duty chopper, and notched and nosed implements. Similar small scatters of material were identified at Roosecote Moss (RM) and at Rampside Road (RP), where a burnt scraper and a number of flakes were identified in association with a large scatter of unworked burnt flint (figures 9.13, 9.43).

Returning down the valley from Urswick to Gleaston Castle, lithic scatters from the valley junction attest to its continued use. With the exception of a thumbnail scraper from GLE 8, no clear diagnostics were present, however both GLE 6/7 and GLE 8 incorporated flake based forms, including a number of the distinctive ‘specialist’ tools common in Later Neolithic/Early Bronze Age assemblages. To the north of where earlier occupation had been centred on the spring and the valley floor, a flake based scatter including a flake core, a thumbnail scraper and a heavy duty chopper was identified on a flat area of land on the western side of the valley (GLE 10 & 11). A bronze axe has also been found in the area (Swainson Cowper 1888a). Similar themes are evidenced at Breastmill Beck, in that although the scatter (BMB) contained predominantly Later Mesolithic/Early Neolithic forms, small amounts of later material were present, including a flake core and a number of ‘specialist’ tool types made on flakes and chunks. Upslope and to the south of Breastmill Beck, a Later Neolithic/Early Bronze Age scatter was identified on a gently sloping field at Manor Park (MP; figures 9.10, 9.14). Thumbnail scrapers, a range of nosed and spurred implements, a heavy duty chopper and part of a jet bangle were identified alongside waste including four flake cores. Upslope of Manor Park, small dispersed scatters have been identified at Rakesmoor (RR) and Sinkfall (SLL), and on the other side of the valley (MUTT, DS, PD) all situated around the 70 metre contour (figure 9.15).

Numerous metalwork finds have been identified on the mosses (figure 9.16), including a bronze dagger from Rampside (Cowper 1907). A bronze rapier was found at Paige Bank Moss (ibid.), close to where a spearhead was brought up by the ploughing of a meadow (SMR 2600). Together with the discovery of a bronze axe “12 inches below the surface” (Fell 1940: 121) at Mossfield, Roose, these finds may suggest the coastal wetlands were utilised in different ways to earlier periods. Along the Morecambe Bay coast likely Bronze Age trackways have been identified on the Foulshaw and Gilpin mosses (Barnes 1904; Hodgson & Brennand 2006). Again associated with metalwork finds, it is possible similar features on the Furness mosses, built in order to connect islands of dry land, became a focus for deposition during the Bronze Age.

Scatters at Breastmill Beck and Gleaston illustrate that during the Later Neolithic and Early Bronze Age, scarps and terraces above valley floors continued to be occupied, although at a smaller scale than earlier periods. Scatters at

132

Location Gleaston 6/7 Gleaston 10/11 Manor Park Dalton South Parkers Dalton Rakesmoor Sinkfall Four Lane Ends Roosecote Moss Rampside Road Sandscale Farm Roanhead

Height AOD 40m 40m

No.

tools

waste

blades

flakes 23 11

Chunks/ spalls 10 6

Blade cores 0 0

Flake cores 0 1

46 18

32 8

6 7

11 0

40m 50m 70m 60m 50m 20m

138 5 2 4 4 17

54 3 1 3 2 15

55 2 1 1 1 1

5 0 1 0 0 0

61 3 0 3 3 9

57 2 1 1 1 7

2 0 0 0 0 0

4 0 0 0 0 0

20m

4

1

2

0

3

1

0

0

20m

49

3

1

0

0

6

0

0

10m

14

7

7

0

6

5

3

1

5m

191

19

171

0

21

163

1

1

Figure 9.22. Summary data of mixed and ‘later’ scatters from the Furness transect. Location Trough Head Mulgrews Hare Hill Hillock Whins 1 Hillock Whins 2 Hillock Whins 3 Hillock Whins 4 Middle Hill Lamity Sike North End

Height AOD 10m 10m

No.

tools

waste

blades

flakes 44 92 6 4

Chunks/ spalls 95 466 2 14

Blade cores 1 1 0 0

Flake cores 2 49 0 0

10m

140 619 33 19

14 101 7 2

123 518 24 17

2 7 1 1

10m

18

8

9

0

7

11

0

0

10m

72

8

58

0

9

57

0

1

10m

61

24

35

1

24

5

0

1

10m 5m 10m

31 7 3

4 1 2

27 6 1

0 1 0

26 6 0

2 0 1

1 0 1

0 0 0

Figure 9.23. Summary data of scatters from Walney.

a peat filled hollow in the cliff face (HW 1) pits, postholes and lenses of charcoal rich material have been recorded. An eroding pit contained 72 lithic implements, the majority of which were waste chunks and spalls derived from pebble reduction. Tools included three pebble scrapers, a thumbnail scraper, an edgeworn flake, a heavy duty chopper and two retouched spalls (HW 3). Above the cliff face, sand eroded by cattle poaching revealed 61 pieces (HW 4) including pebble and thumbnail scrapers, utilised flakes and a chunk of tuff. Further inland, a scatter of 18 similar pieces including a thumbnail scraper was identified close to a pond (HW 2). Similar small scatters have been identified at Middle Hill (MH) and Lamity Sike (LS). Middle Hill, a west facing high point overlooking the Irish Sea, lies directly upslope of an area of dense occupation at Mulgrew’s.

On Walney On Walney, the stabilisation of sea levels led to the formation of sand dune systems on both its far north and the south ends and probably exposed lowlying land between the boulder clay ‘islands’. During and after the Later Neolithic, the same areas used in earlier periods for the exploitation of coastal shingles formed foci for repeated occupation episodes (figures 9.9, 9.23). Close to where fragments of food vessel were picked up from below a cliff face during the 1950s (Barnes & Hobbs 1952), 33 lithic pieces were collected from a burnt peaty lens eroding from a cliff at Hare Hill (HH). The majority were waste chunks and spalls, however pebble scrapers, awls/borers and three tuff flakes were identified. Two sherds of flat bottomed pottery with quartz and granite inclusions, a lump of baked clay and a piece of burnt bone were also collected. At Hillock Whins, four areas of erosion produced lithic collections. Close to the area where a narrow blade microlith was recovered from

The collection from Mulgrew’s (MUL) comprised over 600 pieces, of which the majority was waste (figure 9.24). With the exception of four tuff forms (including a butt and the cutting edge of a polished stone axe), all were of pebble flint. Waste was mainly primary and secondary chunks and spalls derived from pebble 133

Figure 9.24. A selection of lithic finds from Mulgrew’s (MUL). Illustrations by Sharon Arrowsmith

was Later Neolithic/Early Bronze Age. Finely worked arrowheads, including barbed and tanged, hollow based and petit tranchet derivatives were collected. Although many of these were made on translucent or other high quality material, the majority of tools collected were of pebble flint. Illustrations and descriptions suggest the assemblage was dominated by split pebble scrapers, awls, borers, notched, nosed and spurred implements as well as heavy duty choppers and cutting tools. Non-flint implements included flakes and chunks of tuff, and polished and broken stone axes, some re-used as choppers. Ground implements of local basalt and gritstone were also identified, together with a number of porecllanite flakes from Tievebulliagh in Antrim (Cross 1946). Anvils similar to those identified at Mulgrew’s were also represented, alongside hammerstones and worked cobbles (Cross 1949).

reduction and the production of blank flakes, with many unretouched split pebbles illustrative of raw material testing. The assemblage was dominated by flake and pebble forms, and included 20 flake cores, and 29 forms on primary split pebbles. Many of these exhibited damage at their distal ends indicative of a bi-polar technology, and three anvil stones were recovered. A variety of tool types were represented at Mulgrew’s, including convex and plane scrapers, awls/borers, notched, nosed and spurred implements, abraded and retouched pebbles, and heavy duty chopping and cutting tools (figure 9.24). A total of 16 bifacially worked blank flakes were identified, all of a similar size range averaging 25 by 20 mm, many seemingly discarded due to raw material flaws. Given the existence of similar forms within Later Neolithic/Early Bronze Age assemblages close to raw material sources in other areas (Edmonds 1995), it is possible these flakes were blanks made for the production of arrowheads. None, however, were present within the assemblage. The assemblage from Trough Head (TH) was also largely waste derived from primary and secondary reduction. Of the 140 pieces collected, 123 primary and secondary chunks and flakes were identified including two rough flake cores, and only 14 identifiable tool forms (figure 9.23). As at Mulgrew’s, with the exception of two tuff waste flakes, the assemblage was made up entirely of pebble flint.

Sandscale Haws is less than a kilometre north east of Walney North End, separated from the island by Walney Channel. Several flint scatters and polished stone axes have been identified on Sandscale (Dobson 1914; Barnes & Hobbs 1952; Barnes 1954) together with a number of unpublished examples (NNR warden, pers. comm.). On the south end of the Sandscale peninsula, flint flakes, cores, an arrowhead, a fabricator and a bronze axe have been identified (Cross 1946; White 1994). At Sandscale Farm (SF) 14 pieces of flint were collected as part of the Furness transect. This small and dispersed scatter of flakes and chunks included two awls/borers, a heavy duty cutting tool and four rough pebble cores.

Long term collection, undertaken by a number of individuals, with finds recovered from blowouts, former shorelines and exposed sections of the dunes meant that the assemblages recovered from Walney North End were mixed (Cross 1938, 1939, 1942, 1946, 1947, 1949, 1952; Barnes 1956). Whilst Later Mesolithic/Early Neolithic forms were present, the majority of material recovered

On the north end of Sandscale Haws, excavation of the site of a lithic scatter exposed by a sand dune blowout at Roanhead revealed a small stakehole structure and a 258

number of pits (Evans & Coward 2003, 2004; figure 9.27). Occupying a sheltered position on the coast facing north up the Duddon estuary, the structure was situated on a shingle ridge thinly covered by windblown sand at c. 5 metres AOD. Although few finds were located through excavation, the surface assemblage comprised a tiny polished stone axe (figure 9.26), two pieces of a polished tuff whetstone, an anvil and 191 pieces of worked flint (RD). Tools included a barbed and tanged arrowhead, pebble and thumbnail scrapers, retouched and edgeworn flakes, a heavy duty chopper and two awls/ borers (figure 9.25). A rough blade core and a bi-polar flake core, both re-used as choppers, were also identified alongside split pebbles, primary and secondary waste. A polissoir, an axe hammer, two barbed and tanged and a petit tranchet derivative arrowhead found in the 1940s (Barnes 1954) were from the same area.

The excavation revealed eleven stakeholes surrounded by rough boulder settings, which formed a D-shaped structure approximately two by three metres across, with a linear cobble arrangement defining its shoreward extent. Although there was no direct dating derived from the posthole fills, the polished stone axe was found wedged between the exposed stones of a linear cobble structure. Associated with the postholes were four shallow pits. A broken thumbnail scraper was found associated with the fill of the westernmost pit, and a large flake of black translucent flint was discovered unstratified above the truncated fill the easternmost pit. The fourth pit contained a broken retouched flint flake. Given the lack of structural evidence from the Cumbrian coast, the site may be best understood by analogy to others on the western seaboard where similar structures in sand dune contexts have seen excavation. Although little is known about their character, these have been interpreted as tents or windbreaks and are often associated with domestic beaker assemblages and burnt mounds (Simpson 1971; Darvill 1996). At Roanhead, although not directly related to the excavated site, a deposit of fire cracked granite and burnt material lies 75 metres to the west (Evans & Coward 2003) and a cluster of burnt granite spreads have been identified in a blowout on Walney North End. Along the west coast of Cumbria, many analogous flint assemblages have been identified in sand dune contexts, and may have been associated with similar occupation features. At Drigg flint scatters with ‘Bronze Age affinities’ have been identified in association with ‘hearths’ (Cherry 1982). One of these saw evaluatory excavation and reinterpretation as a burnt mound dating to 2900-2507 cal BC and 2456-2039 cal BC (OAN 2001). Recent survey and excavation in Cumbria suggest these features are relatively common and occur in both upland and lowland contexts (LAU 1995, 1996; Heawood & Huckerby 2002). In a number of areas on North End, dune movement revealed midden deposits, some of which, separated by lines of clean sand (Cross 1939; Barnes 1956) likely indicate repeated occupation episodes. One of these contained beaker sherds, potboilers, shellfish, brushwood charcoal and animal bone (Cross 1939). Beaker was also identified at sites identified by Barnes (1956).

Figure 9.25. Selection of finds from Roanhead (RD).

Few prehistoric faunal assemblages have been identified in Cumbria (Stallibrass & Huntley 1996). Middens on North End contained many ‘ox’ bones, with smaller amounts of sheep/goat, deer, pig and porpoise (Cross 1939), illustrating the presence of wild and domesticated animals. Communities on Walney evidently drew on a wide variety of resources, some of which may not have been available on the island itself. The west facing area of North End provided lithic raw materials in the coastal shingle. Food resources including fish, shellfish and sea mammals were easily available, as was fresh water from a number of localised springs.

Figure 9.26. Tiny polished axe from Roanhewad (RD).

135

Figure 9.27. Plan of excavated features at Roanhead, Sandscale Haws (RD).

at a localised scale by the spread of activity away from valley bottoms and scarps at Breastmill Beck and Gleaston to terraces along the valley sides. Similar patterns were evident in scatters from Temple Sowerby in eastern Cumbria (Skinner 2000).

Occupation practice Later Neolithic and Early Bronze Age scatters on Furness attest to a great deal of continuity. They also suggest that rather than the shifting patterns of earlier periods, the overall scale of occupation became increasingly focussed on particular places; on Walney and Sandscale and the environs of valley meetings leading to Urswick and the uplands beyond. As the Furness transect was restricted to the southern part of the peninsula, evidence for use of the limestones is limited to chance finds and monumental and depositional practice. What is clear is that the coastal lowlands no longer formed the focus for extensive occupation. Although environmental conditions on the estuarine mosses may have changed the availability of resources, the soils of Low Furness are particularly fertile. Given Later Neolithic/Early Bronze Age occupation is evidenced further inland, and along the coastal shores, it may be that agriculture took place on the drier ridges but was not closely tied to domestic occupation.

Inland from the valley meetings at Breastmill Beck and Gleaston, monuments and evidence for deposition suggest both continuity and change in the character of occupation, and the scale and structure of community. During the Final Neolithic and into the Bronze Age, likely in parallel with occupation on Walney and the inland valleys, human remains and other elements of material culture saw deposition in limestone grykes, caves and monuments in the Urswick environs. Whilst larger scale communities still came together on Birkrigg, the protracted nature of burial and token deposition illustrates that the dead were utilised in the affirmation of local as well as broader social ties. These activities took place in areas which had seen use in the past, however, the marked appropriation of particular places and monuments illustrates explicit concerns with the identification of local communities with specific places.

There is little data either for coastal foreland chronology or agricultural practice on the peninsula. However as discussed in chapter three, across the region as a whole, pollen records suggest increased clearance, and the proliferation of intensification of agriculture into areas that had seen little arable use in earlier periods. Although the lithic record does not clearly represent ‘agricultural’ practice, such changes may be suggested

By the Later Bronze Age and Iron Age these concerns are clearly evidenced in the occupation record, with the construction of enclosed settlements on the Urswick limestones. Many such features were recorded in the 19th century and have since been destroyed. Settlement enclosures have been identified at Stone Walls, Stone 136

social and geographical scales at which agricultural life is played out.

Close, Little Urswick Crags, Foula and at Appleby Slack on Birkrigg common. A possible example has also been identified by aerial photographic evidence close to Skelmore Heads. Perhaps the best preserved site is Stone Walls. Situated a few hundred metres south west of the Tosthills dolmen, Stone Walls comprises two enclosures, hut platforms and field boundaries (RCHME 1996d). Elements of the complex have seen excavation, with a scrap of ornamented bronze and a flint scraper recovered from the central hut structure (Dobson 1907). In the nineteenth century a hoard of bronze axes and rings was recovered within two hundred yards of the site (Barber 1869). The dating of these ‘settlement’ enclosures is equivocal, with many likely in use into the Iron Age and the Romano-British period (McKenny Hughes 1912; Hodgson & Brennand 2006). Given the existence of similar structures in association with many upland cairnfield areas, it seems unlikely that they represent a clear shift in occupation practice after the Bronze Age.

On Furness, the location of settlement enclosures drew on the past in a variety of ways. Not only were they situated in ‘transitional’ areas of the landscape, between the coastal lowlands and the high uplands, they were also in the environs of Neolithic and Bronze Age monuments and areas of deposition associated with limestone caves and fissures. These were places already replete with significance, and this was consistently drawn on in the affirmation of tenurial ties. In earlier periods, the area had formed a focus for communities coming together, likely as an adjunct to seasonal grazing patterns. The location of settlement enclosures may illustrate, as with earlier monuments, that they were positioned in order that a variety of landscape zones, and the resources these provided could be exploited at different times of the year. Given the nature of the cairnfield record, the use of these dwellings likely remained tied into patterns of seasonal landscape use. On the coast, some continuity of occupation practice is evidenced on Walney North End. Here, pottery and thick midden layers of Later Bronze Age or Iron Age date have been identified in the sand dunes, together with wild and domestic animal bones and hearths where “masses of shellfish had been boiled in crude bucket shaped pots” (Barnes 1956: 4).

Although in the Neolithic, the structured movement of livestock between upland and lowland areas is difficult to prove conclusively, the environmental record for clearance in the high upland valleys, alongside evidence for the production of axes certainly suggests such practices took place (Bradley & Edmonds 1993; Edmonds 2004). Axe production has been seen as an adjunct to seasonal grazing, with some members of the community left to tend stock in upland valleys, whilst others made the final climb into the high mountains to quarry and work stone in the high peaks (Edmonds 2004). Finds of both roughout and polished axes bring these communities back down the valleys from the central mountains, into the lowland and coastal areas more conducive to winter occupation. Over the Later Neolithic and Early Bronze Age and into later periods, the use of upland areas is well attested by the environmental and cairnfield record. Shafthole axes and other implements produced from localised sources in the central and western uplands, identified in cairnfield areas down major valleys and along the coast, illustrate a degree of continuity from earlier periods.

Walney North End has played a central role in interpretations of prehistoric occupation in Cumbria and its links with other areas of the Irish Seaboard. During the 1930s, lithics from the site were described as characteristic of the ‘poverty industries’ of Northern Ireland and western Scotland (Cross 1939). Brought into focus by a number of axes from Walney, their marked clustering across Furness, alongside that of later bronzes, was taken to illustrate coastal exchange networks, along the western seaboard and across the Irish Sea (Fell 1940, 1972).

Historical references and placename evidence from Cumbria suggest transhumant grazing patterns from at least the Early Medieval period (Bradley & Edmonds 1993). Summer sheilings and homesteads are in evidence in many upland valleys, and although records go back no further than the 12th century AD, it is likely these patterns have been relatively consistent since the introduction of domesticates. In modern Cumbria, animals are moved between seasonal pastures with summer grazing in the upland fells, retreating to lower sheltered ground in the winter months. Today, lantern processions in the market towns of Kendal and Ulverston in September mark the traditional times of livestock returning from the fells, celebrating the coming together of dispersed communities, not only of animals, but of people. Overwintering, followed by lambing and calving in Spring, take place close to the domestic sphere. These seasonal traditions have always been tied closely to the

As has been discussed, prehistoric communities operated at different social and geographical scales. Clear lines were drawn between the routine worlds of local everyday landscapes, and those which involved coming together with those from further afield. Whilst culture historical frames of reference have focussed on the latter, it remains that for much of the year, occupation was essentially local; repetitive episodes of living and working in familiar territory, seeing familiar faces and undertaking the tasks of everyday and seasonal life. Monuments such as enclosures, henges and stone circles, their locations drawing on and formalising earlier traditions of social interaction, were visited at particular times of the year and provided arenas in which face to face encounters between both the dispersed members of wider communities and those belonging to the world beyond. Whilst the activities that took place within such contexts cannot be established

Scales of community: lithic raw materials and exchange

137

have polissoirs, for example at Sandscale (Barnes 1954) and Walney North End (NE). Shafthole implements made on local grits and granites available in the central uplands have been identified in these same areas and share a distributional pattern to Group VI forms across the peninsula, the region and northern England (Roe 1979; figure 3.9).

with certainty, the likelihood is that these involved exchange; not only of animals and elements of material culture, but the negotiation of debts, obligations and tenurial issues, the exchange of marriage partners, ideas and the reaffirmation of shared cultural values. Over and beyond similarities in monument architecture, burial traditions and ceramic styles evidenced across Cumbria, of the ways we can begin to understand how ‘local’ occupation tied into the wider world is through the presence of lithic raw materials. Much has been made of the presence of ‘non-local’ flint within lithic assemblages in Cumbria, in particular in relation to its inferred association with the exchange of Group VI axes. In Furness, whilst scatters on the coastal shingle sources largely comprise 100% local pebble flint, those further inland incorporate significant quantities of translucent material. Whilst pebble flint occurs consistently within these scatters, it was in general used for the production of pebble scrapers, awls/borers and rough flakes and blades. The higher quality translucent flints, occurring in colours ranging from black to grey, brown and cream, were chosen for the production of finely worked implements including blades, microliths, thumbnail scrapers and arrowheads. These materials also form the majority of heavily and invasively retouched broken forms. The evidence for ‘non-local’ lithic materials in the Furness assemblages illustrates little clear patterning. Cores of all the translucent and high quality flints identified are present, sometimes identifiable as pebbles. The majority of assemblages were dominated by secondary and tertiary pieces with only small amounts of waste. This suggests that in general, the primary reduction of superior quality flint took place elsewhere and that these materials were curated, recycled and worked to exhaustion. Although some of this flint may have been available in pockets of glacial drift and in coastal deposits, the majority, in the form of pebbles, cores, blanks or finished implements, is likely to have been the product of hand to hand exchange.

Initially quarried from sources in the central Lakes, during the Neolithic and Bronze Age, roughout axes, both of Langdale and other stones, were brought down the valleys where they saw the final stages of production. Those that remained on the peninsula were broken, reworked, deposited and discarded in a variety of different contexts, as were the flints that had been brought in from further afield. The significance of each of the stages of the use life and deposition of these implements was drawn on in a number of ways, relating to their own life cycles and biographies and to the concerns of the people that carried them. Like other aspects of the local world which were repeatedly drawn on, axes and flint tools were ‘pieces of places’ and such processes contributed to the ways people came to recognise themselves, and others, as members of distinct but interconnected communities. That such communities were part of wide scale networks of affiliation stretching over both land and sea may implicitly be suggested by the concentration of axes and non local flint forms at Gleaston, Urswick and on Walney North End and Sandscale. Both areas are in estuarine locations; Birkrigg overlooking Morecambe Bay (figure 9.18) and Walney North End and Sandscale, the Duddon. South Walney is situated where the Morecambe Bay estuaries meet the Irish Sea, and on a clear day, Anglesey is visible to the south. Walney North End is at the point where the Duddon estuary opens out to meet the Irish Sea, across which the Isle of Man is often visible. Across the Duddon sands the skyline is dominated by Black Coombe, and the site of the Lacra stone circles on Great Knott. A short distance across the Duddon sands to the west coast, the henge at Gutterby is 12 km north of Walney North End, with the monument complex at Urswick a similar distance to the south east.

As discussed in chapter three, evidence for axe working in lowland contexts is difficult to establish with any certainty. The majority of axes recovered from Furness have been chance finds and few have been recorded in direct association with lithic occupation evidence. However, polished axes, roughouts and axe fragments are clustered along the main valleys and localised high points where Neolithic occupation is evidenced by lithic scatters (figure 9.16). Many are broken fragments or the small ‘variant’ forms likely subject to reworking through use, and others, particularly on the limestones, are the products of structured deposition, as are a number of polissoirs. Largely as a result of the polissoirs found in association with roughouts, polished and part polished axes at Ehenside Tarn (Darbishire 1873), together with chance finds in other lowland areas, it seems likely that the final grinding and polishing of axes took place in lowland occupation areas. Numerous axes have been found with the Furness coastal scatters, as

Although the evidence is problematic, Walney and Sandscale may have been central to the relationship not only between communities on Furness, but also across Morecambe Bay, the central fells and the west Cumbrian coast. On the basis of the presence of porcellanite fragments from Antrim at Walney North End, Furness may also have been central to ties stretching across and along the Irish Sea. Across the Duddon and along the west coast, large scatters in estuarine locations such as St Bees Head, Eskmeals and Seascale may be analogous to the occupation evidenced on Walney. That these also were tied into broader networks of interaction is suggested by the presence of significant amounts of non local flint and a Ronaldsway axe from Bailey Ground (Cherry 1967), close to the estuarine circle at Grey Croft.

138

of particular resources and also the ways these places had seen used in earlier periods. Lithic scatters alone are a blunt instrument for understanding the statics and dynamics of occupation practice over the Neolithic and Bronze Age. However, when considered in conjunction with the distributions and settings of monuments, evidence for the appropriation of ‘natural’ features and the characteristics of the landscapes in which they were situated, it is possible to forward a broad model of occupation and understand something of the nature of settlement practice.

As discussed in chapter seven, the landscape settings of stone circles in Cumbria make clear reference to water sources, and the meetings of major valley systems. The locations of these features clearly drew on earlier traditions of gathering in such contexts, and are clear testament to the existence of different scales of community. Stone circles on the west coast of Cumbria, such as Birkrigg, Grey Croft and Lacra are clearly located to reference estuaries and the coming together of dispersed communities, in particular places, to confront the wider world. So not only was the occupation on Walney was located in order to exploit a variety of different localised resources, and the natural harbour afforded by Walney Channel, its physical location may have been central to the coming together of wider networks of community on the west coast of Cumbria and beyond.

The Morecambe Bay peninsulas evidence a number of shared traditions. The limestones formed prominent landmarks with which people identified themselves. They also provided contexts through which pieces of places and pieces of people could be returned into the earth, in ways that in other areas may have been achieved through different means. That elements of depositional and monumental practice were shared across the southern and eastern limestones is testament to extensive networks of communication and cultural affiliations across relatively wide areas. The articulation of the ‘local’ and the ‘regional’ worked in different ways in different places. From Furness, networks of contact stretched in every direction and everyday occupation on the peninsula meant that constant reference was made not only to aspects of the local landscape, but also to the world beyond. Alongside the production of a regional sequence of landuse, occupation, monuments and deposition practice across the Neolithic and Bronze Age, these themes form the basis for discussion in the concluding chapter.

Conclusion Across Cumbria, the architecture and settings of monuments and the ways they were constructed and used share many common themes. Monuments and traditions of dealing with the dead were part of shared cultural repertoires evident across many areas of Britain. In terms of occupation practice, although there are similarities across and between regions, patterns of movement and residence are essentially local and vary across different landscapes. Occupation and monument practice result from different sets of localised traditions, tied closely to the uplands, lowlands and routeways which characterise individual valley systems. Communities moved around and inhabited different areas drawing on the availability

139

Chapter 10: Local and regional traditions “From the topographic settings and architecture of monuments to excavated sites, lithic scatters, environmental records, landscape surveys and monument distributions, the evidence can be approached at local, regional and inter-regional scales. By tacking back and forth between these scales it is possible to look at the social construction of community at different levels; the ways people moved and organised themselves across local and regional landscapes, and the ways and places in which they came together. Through detailed investigation of different classes of evidence, we can begin to understand some of the ways localised traditions drew on those of the wider world and how this changed over time. Only then will it be possible to assess how these practices articulated with the larger scale social processes evidenced in other areas” (this volume: chapter two, page 11).

“Travelling is a reciprocal activity. Or, to put it in terms of grammar, ‘to visit’ is a transitive verb: it needs the visitor and the visited. In the case of the Lakes, the visited was not just a place but a people, and the rise of the tourist trade was due as much to the wish of the inhabitants as that of the tourists themselves, as much to conditions inside the Lakes as to fashions outside” (Nicholson 1955: 11).

Introduction: scales of analysis At the outset of this thesis, the need for an integrated synthetic study of the prehistoric landscapes of Cumbria was established. The narrative produced would have to result from a multiscale analysis set within a coherent intellectual framework. This meant not only working with an extraordinarily varied dataset which needed far more basic sorting than was envisaged, but also situating and analysing this material in a landscape context. Approaching the evidence from different geographical scales has allowed exploration of the ways the varying landscapes of Cumbria were occupied, drawn on and appropriated by prehistoric communities. Through an integrated and holistic approach, it has also been possible to demonstrate some of the ways monument construction and depositional practice articulated with seasonal patterns of occupation and landuse.

A successful regional narrative therefore needs not to be solely an account of a region. Rather, it should be an account of the ways localised histories and traditions stemming from the very character of the landscape became enmeshed within wider social and political trends. Nicholson went some way achieve this aim. Through topographic description, historical accounts, plays, poetry and prose (e.g. 1955, 1972; Curry 1994), he spent a career experimenting with different literary media. However, based on the personal and physical experience of living across Cumbrian landscapes and intimate knowledge of its people and their histories, he himself admitted his work was not always successful (1972).

As discussed in chapter two, we often approach analysis of the prehistoric record from static perspectives. Only through looking at all of the evidence at different scales has it been possible to produce an integrated regional study. Although working through the data has itself been problematic, what was unclear at the outset of this research was that writing a regional narrative is an incredibly difficult process.

If generations of literary authors have found it difficult to get across the character of Cumbria, we have to ask if the ways we interpret and write about the prehistoric record can successfully capture the nature and scale of life as it was lived across specific landscapes and in relation to broader trends. Not only do we have to create narratives from cumbersome datasets divorced from their original contexts, reliance on the timescales and geographies of typology and classification is obstructive to understanding the articulation of local and regional. The construction of linear narratives is problematic because it is difficult to capture the character and diversity of landscapes, but also, the ways we approach archaeological data tend to separate people from the landscapes in which they lived. As such, before outlining a regional sequence, it is necessary to explore some of the ways that the articulation of local, regional and wider traditions are evidenced in the archaeological record, and how these can be understood in the context of routine landscapes.

The difficulties of writing any sort of regional account can be illustrated by the ways people have tried to capture the character of Cumbrian landscapes. The Lake District has attracted the attentions of writers, poets and painters since at least the eighteenth century. Notwithstanding books based on the lives and works of the lakeland poets, galleries and shops are filled with paintings, tour guides and descriptive and romantic accounts heavy on prose and metaphor (see Nicholson 1955; 1972; Edmonds 2004). What is common to many attempts to get across the character of the region, or aspects of its history, is that few are particularly successful. Whilst many accounts romanticise Cumbria as a ‘rustic’ backwater on the edge of Britain, its history and character are defined by local and regional traditions mixed with ‘outside influences’. The boom and bust of the cloth trade, mining, slate quarrying and ironworking, the rise of the Picturesque, the Romantics, and in particular the tourist industry has affected not only the nature and perception of Cumbrian landscapes, but also its inhabitants:

One of the main concerns of The Lakers: The Adventures of the First Tourists (Nicholson 1955) was to discuss the ways perceptions of the Lake District landscapes have changed over time. The book was concerned more with the distortions of landscape perception rather than the objective truth; 140

“..but because we can only measure change in relation to that which does not change [the physical landscape], it will help us to understand how people looked at the Lakes if, first of all, we look for ourselves, though we must remember that our vision may be just as subjective in our own way as was theirs” (1955: 1).

One of the central concerns of this research has been the identification and analysis of time depth in the archaeological record. Crucial to landscape scales of analysis is the recognition that in all but rare circumstances, the evidence that we work with is the product of long term histories. Monument complexes for example at Long Meg, Birkrigg and Shap attest to the continued use and reworking of particular places over long periods. The persistence of these places can be seen to transcend generational time (e.g. Bradley 1987, 1991b, 2000a, 2002a). Although individuals might have been unaware of how long certain rituals or forms of deposition had been taking place, when the first funerary cairn in a cemetery was constructed, or how understandings of certain practices had changed over time, they were likely to have been understood to be linked to the mythical past. Taking proscribed forms often outside the realms of everyday life, ritual practice can naturalise changes in social formation (Bradley 1991b, 1998; Barrett 1994; Gosden 1994). This means what we identify as long term traditions evidenced by the archaeological record were mutable, and understandings of the pasts to which particular places or monuments referred were likely reworked over time (e.g. Evans 1988; Edmonds 1993, 1999; Bradley 2002a).

Nicholson’s approach brings us back to one of the themes explored in chapter two; although we can never grasp the specifics of the ways people understood themselves in relation to the land, taking the physical landscape as the basic unit of analysis allows exploration of how the temporalities of occupation were caught up in social life. Drawing on the local, the intra-regional, the regional and the wider world, the social and geographical scales at which communities operated overlapped in many ways. Although life is always lived in the present, across different times and places and in a variety of social settings, it is also played out with reference to the past and in anticipation of the future. Many of these concerns are fossilised within the archaeological record. It is the scales at we chose to interpret them which separate grand narrative accounts from studies based on the specifics of local landscapes. Chronology, history and temporality

Another of the ways in which it is possible to work through aspects of social change is through looking at the relationship between communities and what we classify as the natural world. In the broadest sense, this relates to the conditions in which people lived and the places that resources were exploited. However, looking at how aspects of the landscape were referenced and appropriated has allowed some understanding of the senses of meaning attached to particular places. The evidence discussed demonstrates that it can be unwise to draw sharp distinctions between ‘nature’ and ‘culture’ as they were inextricably linked.

One of the central concerns of this thesis has been to present a narrative set in the middle ground between conventional scales of interpretation. Looking at how local temporalities articulated with the wider traditions that characterise the Neolithic and Bronze Age at a national scale has meant it has been possible to understand something of the nature of regional traditions and change over time. However one of the issues the discussion has brought out is that the linear timescales with which we work in the present fail to articulate with those across which prehistoric lives took place (e.g. Bradley 1987; 1991a, 2001a, 2002a; Ingold 1993; Gosden 1994; Barrett 1994).

Encounters with mountains

At a basic level, the perception of time can be split into three overlapping stages. For the purposes of this discussion, these can be termed temporality, history and chronology; temporality being routine cycles of occupation, history being understandings of the ways temporality created meaningful places, and chronology being the ways that histories are evidenced, and ordered and arranged by us, in relation to the archaeological record. Put another way, these can also be understood as relating to the scales and longevity of memory; the physical time of routine experience, the generational or genealogical time of particular social groups, and the mythical time of social memory and tradition. Only through understandings of the ways these different timescales collapsed into each other is it possible to look at the ways routine landscapes were understood, drawn on and reworked.

In order to illustrate the overlapping scales of social life, the fells that dominate most accounts of Cumbria, as well as the physicalities of the region, are an appropriate point of departure. Not only did the fells work in relation to people in different physical contexts, they also tied into different scales of generational and mythical time. The physical significance of the Cumbrian mountains works at different levels. The most prominent landmarks in the region, they form the backbones of and backdrops to many different landscapes. Mountains such as Coniston Old Man, the Langdale Pikes, Scafell, Skiddaw and Helvellyn can be experienced in many ways; they take different forms when encountered close up, or seen at a distance, appearing and disappearing with the changing weather and from points on routes between different places (figure 10.1). At a regional scale, mountains form barriers to movement and communication.

141

the floodplains, upland limestones and valleys of the Eamont, the Lowther, the Eden, the Kent and the Lune. The valley systems and topographic zones within each of these regions presented a diversity of potentials to prehistoric communities; different configurations of lowlands, uplands, vegetation and waterways with different histories of use. Informed not only by the topography of individual valleys and the routeways between them, movement and occupation was also based on tradition, knowledge of what particular places had to offer. Journeys between camps and clearings along coasts or floodplains, up the valleys and into the uplands meant following long established paths and trackways, learning the best places to cross becks and ghylls, and where particular resources would be available. Along these paths, people would recount myths and stories attached not only to mountains, rivers, lakes, outcrops and clearings, but also to the people that had gone before. The existence of long term and repetitive traditions of movement and landuse in the fells and the continued importance of particular places is demonstrated not only by the pollen and monument record, but also by evidence for stone axe production. On the basis of currently available dates, the axe quarries were in use for around a millennium, a timespan also attested by pollen evidence. Alongside monuments constructed in important points of transition on routes into the uplands, many set to reference the mountains that towered above, such places remained in use well beyond the realms of generational time.

Figure 10.1. Encounters with mountains.

Serving to define the geological and topographical character of different areas of Cumbria, they acted as reference points and also provided resources exploited by prehistoric communities. For much of the Neolithic and Bronze Age, the fells were visited over the course of seasonal routines. Such visits required journeys, and these journeys created certain temporalities for experience.

Once in the fells, journeys to the higher peaks may have been undertaken by specific members of the community (Edmonds 2004). Climbing precipitous paths, crossing becks and scrambling across screes to the quarries would have taken on special significance. Reaching the summits, for example of Stickle Pike, Scafell or Glaramara, the views afforded took in wide expanses (figure 10.2). Offering different outlooks on the layout of the world below, beyond the landscapes of everyday life, journeys to these places would have affirmed the identities of different social groups and the individuals which made them up. It is for these and many other reasons that mountains often assume totemic significance.

As has been discussed, the physical layout of Cumbria has traditionally impacted significantly on the ways life has been lived; not only in relation to what Wordsworth described as the ‘cartwheel’ of valley systems radiating from the central fells, but also the variety of topographies within. The landscapes of the coastal fringe are characterised by lowland mosses with estuaries and creeks leading to the rockier terrain of the inland valleys. From the coast of the old county of Cumberland, these lead into the dales of the Derwent, the Esk, the Irt, the Ehen and the Duddon, towards the lakes and the high ground beyond. In the south, the coastal mosses of Lancashire-north-of-the-Sands are dominated by lowlying limestone fells. These lead along shallow wetland valleys towards the lowland hinterlands along the Crake and the Leven, to Coniston Water and Windermere then into the central fells. Westmorland is largely landlocked, dominated to the west by the central fells and to the east by the Pennine ridge. Here, life is lived along

The physical experience of visiting the axe quarries, even in the present day, brings to mind the experience of the distant and mythical past (Figure 10.3). Over the Neolithic, walking over quarry waste, picking up discarded hammer stones and broken roughouts, people worked alongside each other in places where the past was clearly and physically evident in the present. In Cumbria, stone axes provide a context through which to bring together understandings of the relationship between people and the landscape. That monuments and aspects of the natural world were enduring places suggests some of the ways that routine experience articulated with longer term pasts. The landscape itself 142

If axe sources and mountains were times and places where different scales of social, temporal and geographical existence overlapped, the question is, how do we identify and interpret these geographies? How can we untangle the ways in which local, regional and interregional traditions articulated? The easy option would be to fall back onto established academic practice and present an abstract narrative pitched largely at a national scale. Given there are similarities in the character of monuments, material culture and even depositional practice at that scale, this has its attractions. However as has been established, there are also important differences manifested at both local and regional levels. These have to be central to any account.

was caught up in patterns of landuse, resource procurement, monument construction and ritual practice that acquired physical, generational and mythical histories.

Gaining knowledge of the wider world though the exchange of ideas and material culture worked in such a way that people came to recognise themselves as members of distinct but interconnected communities. However, shared material culture repertoires should not be understood as shared understandings (Thomas 1998) and ‘exotic’ implements or materials may have been drawn on and understood in different ways. An individual in Furness or the Eden Valley signalling their place in the local community through the use of a stone axe from Ireland or a barbed and tanged arrowhead made from Yorkshire flint was also, and perhaps unknowingly, referencing wider traditions of which they may have known very little. Understandings of ideas and the significance of material culture may have varied from place to place, from person to person and from community to community. If social change could only occur with reference to the past, the introduction of new ideas and material culture would have been incorporated into existing value systems and localised traditions. This means that the articulation of the ‘local’ the ‘regional’ and the ‘national’ worked in different ways in different places.

Figure 10.2. View into the central Lakes from Stickle Pike.

Figure 10.3. Walking over quarry waste.

The nature and identification of local and regional traditions Making stone axes in the mountains brought different kinds of time into focus. However this was also a context in which different geographies became enmeshed. Like stone circles and funerary cairns, the quarries assumed monumental significance; the axes derived from them tied closely into the ways local landscapes were used and perceived and also how axe production, circulation and deposition articulated with the larger worlds of the British Neolithic. At a regional scale the distribution of working sites to the west, south, east and north of the central source suggest that communities approached from different directions. This likelihood is also demonstrated also by the presence of non-local hammer stones at source and the distribution of roughouts and polished axes along valleys radiating from the central fells (Bradley & Southren 1990; Bradley & Edmonds 1993; Edmonds 2004). Returning to the significance (and visibility) of mountains, this means they can be understood in similar ways to major ceremonial monuments; places of local, regional and inter-regional significance serving as markers for places where people travelling in different directions might come together.

The identification of regional traditions has its complexities. To take the variety of monumental, depositional and occupation practice demonstrated by the evidence, for example from Furness, and expand these across Cumbria would brush over the diversity which characterises the prehistoric record and has informed the very nature of this thesis. It is only through consideration of the physical landscape and how the layouts of valley systems tied into the wider geographies of social life, that we can begin to understand the character of regional traditions. Cumbria incorporates many different landscapes, each with distinctive topographies and varied configurations of monuments and occupation evidence. Situated in geographically diverse areas, these would likely have been involved in different networks of contact and communication. Any given area would have had people coming in and going in every direction, bringing in and taking out ideas and material culture. Regional traditions were therefore configurations of a mess of different concerns and practices. Based not only on the mythical 143

and occupation histories of local landscapes, they were drawn from contact with neighbouring communities and tied into broader inter-regional trends.

A regional sequence “We must now gather up the results of our survey and offer a general sketch- very tentative, and presented merely as a working hypothesis to be tested by fieldwork and excavation...” (Collingwood 1933: 189-90).

Given these complexities, to what extent is it possible to recognise any coherent patterning in the archaeological record? As has been discussed, not only are there groups of henges and stone circles which broadly conform to the physical layout of the county’s regions, there are localised clusters of specific monument forms. The distinctive small paired circles on White Moss, Low Longrigg and Lacra, for example, are similar in setting and layout and all were situated with reference to earlier circles. On Town Bank and Stockdale Moor the pear shaped ‘long cairns’ might be understood as localised variants drawing on the form and location of Samson’s Bratful. Although these monuments can be understood to draw on wider concerns, they are also all products of localised traditions. These drew on the past importance of particular places and architectural forms in locally and historically specific ways.

The following section lays out the key themes established over the course of this thesis and illustrates the unfolding of the later prehistoric sequence in Cumbria. The construction of this narrative is thwarted by some major chronological problems, not least in that it is difficult to identify a point from which to begin. In coastal contexts, evidence for occupation in both the Early and Later Mesolithic has been obscured by the Postglacial marine transgressions. With the exception of Early Mesolithic implements found in caves, Later Mesolithic radiocarbon dates from pits at Monk Moors and heathland burning on the Eden floodplain little is known of the character and scale of occupation. Although Later Mesolithic lithic assemblages are inseparable from those of the Early Neolithic, the very existence of ‘mixed’ scatters illustrates a continuity not only of technology, but of place, over the MesolithicNeolithic transition. Echoed by the environmental record, the evidence illustrates the continued use of particular places. What this might indicate is that the seasonal use of particular wild resources continued into the Neolithic. Although the introduction of domesticated plants and animals would have meant significant changes in the ways people became tied to particular places, it seems likely that the predictable routines that came with domesticates were incorporated and naturalised within existing traditions of occupation.

There is some suggestion of variation in monument form either side of the central fells. As discussed in chapter nine, shared traditions can be identified across the southern and eastern limestones. Neolithic long cairns such as Raiset Pike and Skelmore Heads appear architecturally similar, and the limestone ‘pavement’ cairns at Sizergh 2, Birkrigg Disc Barrow and Crosby Crosby Garrett CLXXIII share depositional and architectural traits. Similar themes may be demonstrated in the ways large open circles were reworked in the Early Bronze Age. Although their final forms can be understood to have resulted from similar processes, that the ‘Burnmoor’ circles of western Cumbria and the socalled ‘concentric’ circles of the east have been classified separately in the past may demonstrate localised interpretations of broader traditions.

Lithic evidence from lowland and coastal contexts illustrates that into the Neolithic, occupation shifted across areas from which a variety of different resources could be exploited; along ridges and above mosses close to the sea, in sheltered valley bottoms, on floodplains and around lowland tarns and estuaries. Environmental records suggest woodland management from the Later Mesolithic, with cultivation occurring close to the coast and in the Eden Valley around 4000 BC. Although evidence for inland occupation is limited, the use of valley meetings such as those at Gleaston and Breastmill Beck in Furness suggest repetitive movement up and down valleys, with occupation focussed on sources of fresh water. In upland areas, the environmental evidence suggests grazing related clearance. Given the seasonal conditions inherent to occupation of the high fells, this can be taken to suggest their use for summer pasture, with both wild animals and domesticates retreating to more sheltered areas in the autumn months. The timing of these movements was probably influenced by the ripening of crops and fruits. This may be suggested by the presence of blackberry and elderberry seeds in the Early Neolithic tree throw pit at Holbeck, together with carbonised wheat and burnt hazelnuts.

Across Cumbria, although there appear to have been localised and regional variants on similar themes, drawing distinctions between different areas is impossible not least as there are some real problems of coverage. That there are more similarities than differences in monument form illustrates that monuments were set within broader traditions. Although the evidence is problematic it does suggest that some monuments to the east and west of the mountains drew on themes shared with those along the Irish Seaboard and across the Pennine ridge. In some ways this observation brings us full circle, returning to culture historical interpretations and the wide scale exchange networks suggested by the distribution of stone axes. However, if we understand that these distributions are the products of localised histories and traditions, and interactions between people at different social and geographical scales then we may be in a position to understand how the routine practices of everyday and seasonal life in Cumbria tied into to what we understand as the wider trajectories of the Neolithic and Bronze Age.

144

between the fells and lower lying areas. Compared to the numbers of known long cairns, their proliferation suggests the communities which came together at ceremonial complexes were splitting off into more discrete areas of the routine landscape. Into the Later Neolithic, distinctions were drawn not only between landscape zones, but also between the individual valley systems which make up the region.

As well as the new concerns over land and time which arose from the relationship that developed between people and domesticates, routine life brought about encounters with others. Not only were there chance meetings and collaboration in the practical activities that made up day to day life, these encounters also took place at more specialised times and places. The journeys taking communities between landscape zones were marked, in some areas at least, by long cairns. Although almost nothing is known about their chronology, they were constructed in established places along known routes between the uplands and lowlands, and like at Heathwaite, Raiset Pike and Samson’s Bratful, with reference to prominent outcrops and watercourses. Acting also as orientational markers, it is likely that such features, the natural ‘monuments’ of the Mesolithic, were drawn on to illustrate continuity with the past. Not only this, the construction of built monuments can be understood to reflect concerns with marking out the connections between people and areas of land or grazing brought about by the introduction of domesticates.

The distribution of stone circles illustrates an important point in the process leading to the increased structure of movement and residence into the Final Neolithic and Early Bronze Age. Alongside their smaller physical scale, the proliferation of monuments across the landscape illustrates an increasingly localised focus. The variety of settings in which these occur; along established pathways, on ridges and scarps, overlooking watersheds and close to earlier monuments, suggests that important places on journeys became increasingly marked and appropriated. Together with the erection and decoration of standing stones and prominent earthfasts, these monuments suggest structured and formalised movement. Often drawing on natural features already important in social memory and identity, like the deposition of human remains in caves and outcrops, these monuments drew on and referenced the pasts of individual communities. That their construction and embellishment signalled connections between localised communities and particular places meant they provided important foci in the processes leading to a shift in tenurial focus into the Bronze Age.

At wider social and geographical scales, seasonal movement also brought dispersed communities together at enclosures. Like long cairns, the specific chronologies of these monuments are unknown. Skelmore Heads and Howe Robin are situated close to long cairns and alongside Carrock Fell have close associations with stone axes, tying them into localised concerns as well as the wide scale social exchange networks of the Early Neolithic. Alongside their locations at the heads of valley systems, their physical size is testament to the collaboration of large scale communities.

Environmental sequences illustrate that in both upland and lowland contexts, places that had seen Neolithic agriculture continued and intensified in use and in the Early Bronze Age this spread into other areas of the landscape. The long term cyclical nature of management, cultivation and clearance meant that in the uplands, clusters of cairnfields grew up between becks and rivers, many associated with their own ringcairns and funerary monuments. Evidence from lowland areas suggests similar themes were played out. Reflecting concerns with appropriating places of past significance, burials were placed in earlier funerary cairns and in natural features close to occupation areas. That these monuments (constructed or otherwise) seem to have operated as familial plots suggests an increasingly localised domestic focus.

Not all of the places where people came together were marked by constructed monuments. At the axe quarries in the central Lakes, in coastal contexts or where rivers met, communities came into contact with people coming from different directions. Meetings at monuments and other places may have meant the exchange of axes and animals brought down off the fells, as well as the exchange of ideas and material culture brought in from the wider world. Into the Later Neolithic, the existence of such gatherings is more clearly demonstrated by the construction of henges and large stone circles, formalising the earlier use of estuaries, the meetings of valley systems, or built close to earlier monuments. Across the county, these monuments occur in different configurations, indicating the unfolding of localised sequences. Although their chronology is problematic, they may represent points in processes begun in the Middle Neolithic with the construction of lowlying enclosures such as those at Long Meg and Summer Hill.

If the funerary monuments on routeways were constructed as points on journeys and not established under conditions hinged on persistent occupation, those more closely associated with cairnfields and lowland occupation areas illustrate that patterns of residence became focussed on particular places.

The distributions, settings and dimensions of henges and stone circles suggest they operated at overlapping scales; whilst the larger monuments may have taken over the roles of earlier enclosures, others may have been similar in scale to long cairns. The smaller and more ‘localised’ stone circles illustrate continuity in landscape use, marking places of physical, social and seasonal transition

At a localised scale, individual parcels of land and monuments with which they were associated were often situated immediately adjacent to others. Working in these places would have involved daily encounters and shared practical activity. Not only this, communities, or parts of 145

of the Neolithic and Bronze Age at a national scale.

communities continued to move on a structured seasonal basis, and the journeys involved would have required planning and collaboration. People and animals followed established routeways between the uplands and lowlands, camping in places that had formed foci for occupation in the past. In some contexts these journeys were carried out for specific purposes. These involved the exploitation of localised upland stone sources and in coastal and riverine contexts, occupation occurred where flint and other resources were available. As in earlier periods, these were the places where people came into contact with others and in some cases were marked by major ceremonial monuments.

Across Britain, although there are broad similarities in prehistoric monument style and material culture at local, regional and national scales, there are also some strong differences. The process of classifying and grouping monument styles has been detrimental to understandings of the places these features occupied in the landscapes of the communities that built and used them. The construction and use of monuments reflect concerns with the articulation of different scales of community. This means that looking at their settings and associations and the ways these changed over time can illustrate more of the character of occupation than adherence to the rigidities of traditional academic classification.

If the monument record suggests that individual communities saw themselves as small groups tied to particular places, they also remained within wider social worlds. The dispersal of communities across the landscape was mirrored by the fragmentation and transformation of people and other substances evidenced by the depositional record; not only in the domestic sphere but also in association with monument complexes. The articulation of the ‘local’ and the ‘regional’ is evidenced by the settings and scales of monuments used into the Early Bronze Age. Focussed on watercourses and the routeways they provided, henges, stone circles, ringcairns and funerary cairns formed networks of places and marked routes. Their settings can be understood as a metaphor for the different scales at which these communities operated. The configuration of springs, becks, rivers, estuaries and the sea are clearly marked by monuments and formed foci for the ways small scale groups understood themselves in relation to wider social worlds. If the small monuments close to springs and beckheads focussed on the expression of localised identities, ceremonial complexes where rivers met represented the concerns of larger communities coming together. Additions to ceremonial complexes, the reworking of old monuments and the construction of new ones across the occupied landscape, together with the deposition of token remains in both domestic and overtly ceremonial contexts suggest the dead and the past were drawn on in the negotiation of social tensions. These were concerned not only with the affirmation of ties between people and place, but also with marking out and coming to terms with the changing social, temporal and geographical scales at which communities operated into the Bronze Age.

According to conventional wisdom, the Early Bronze Age witnessed changes in the scale and distribution of monuments, together with the introduction of new material forms, signalling a clear shift from earlier periods. However as has been illustrated, reliance on typology has masked a great deal of continuity in landuse, occupation and depositional tradition. Many of the ‘new’ practices suggested by material culture and monument architecture were used in relation to localised histories and this allowed the naturalisation of change within existing traditions. Attaching our narratives of social change to traditional typologies has masked the subtleties of social process. At a fundamental level, monument styles and packages of material culture form the basis of our period distinctions and concomitant models of social change. By retaining them, we are left in a position where it is impossible to confront understandings of its nature. Instead, we should perhaps look at the changes between the fifth and second millennia BC as gradual and cumulative processes; social change always occurred under localised conditions, and there were few clear breaks from the past. Only through consideration of the ways long term local traditions drew on and articulated with those of the wider world will it be possible to further understand the different ways, and scales, at which people made sense of the routines and temporalities of the world around them. Further work Although it has been possible to forward a regional sequence through the use of an integrated approach to Cumbria’s prehistoric record, it remains that there are some major problems of chronological security. Each of the categories of evidence discussed throws up specific methodological and interpretative issues. Through pollen sequences, lithic assemblages, monuments and material culture, the most significant of these is the lack of close dating. Focussing on the identification of continuity and change from the fifth to the second millennia BC has meant it has been possible to forward a ‘floating’ regional sequence. Those few radiocarbon dates that do exist have been used to illustrate specific points within the long term processes identified. However, it remains that the evidence precludes discussion of many questions relating

Discussion The reconciliation of different scales of existence; geographical, social and temporal, is extremely difficult to achieve within a linear academic narrative. Given that these were a fact of life in prehistory as they are today, this illustrates significant problems in the ways and scales at which we often approach the prehistoric record. As has been demonstrated, if we are to understand how ritual and routine lives were played out across local and regional landscapes and how this changed over time, then we must resist the desire to forward simplistic synthetic accounts 146

to chronologically prehistoric record.

specific

aspects

of

nationally important, but remain poorly understood. Assemblages from such contexts are in need of full characterisation, dating and publication.

Cumbria’s

One of the central themes of this thesis has been that understandings of regional and local traditions should not be extrapolated solely from national typologies or evidence from other areas. In Cumbria, this is illustrated in that long held interpretations of the character and chronology of landuse, occupation, monuments and burial traditions have been thrown into question by recent work. Among others, issues such as the dating of collared urns (Bewley et al. 1992; Wild 2003), the chronology of landuse in the Eden Valley (Skinner 2000) and the excavation of a Neolithic timber circle sealed beneath the Oddendale ringcairn (Turnbull & Walsh 1997) illustrate a clear need to reassess the ‘received wisdom’ of traditional chronologies and typologies at regional and national levels. Although this thesis has gone some way to highlight these issues, this can only be achieved through further research and excavation. The following section outlines how some of the chronological and other problems brought to light by the present research should be addressed in the future.

• Radiocarbon dating of human bone from cave sites and other natural features is important to further ascertain the nature of depositional and burial traditions. • Excavators should be made aware of the potential for prehistoric and later material to have been placed within prominent and/or subsurface geological features. Curatorial bodies should ensure such features see appropriate investigation. Lithic scatters • Methodologically secure transect based programmes of surface survey are important to establish the presence and absence of lithic scatters across different topographical zones. Where ploughing has been limited, these could also provide contexts for excavation.

Environment

• As the majority of previously collected assemblages have been collected as a result of erosion and often contain material of mixed date, the identification and excavation of stratigraphically secure and scientifically datable material in association with lithic assemblages is imperative.

• Further detailed environmental work is imperative in order that the results of early pollen analytical studies are revised in line with modern dating and interpretative methodologies. This should involve the reinterpretation of previous work as part of a broader programme of radiocarbon dating existing material. Sampling and close analysis of sedimentary contexts close to known prehistoric sites should also take place.

• A number of unpublished excavations and fieldwalking programmes have taken place. The characterisation and publication of this material is important for furthering understandings of technology, chronology and landscape use.

• Pollen evidence is poorly represented between coastal and high upland contexts. The results of Skinner’s (2000) work in eastern Cumbria have clearly demonstrated that there are appropriate sedimentary contexts in the middle ground between these areas and these should form the foci for future studies.

• The close analysis of the Cherry collections has the potential to clarify technological distinctions between Later Mesolithic/Early Neolithic technologies and those of the Later Neolithic/Early Bronze Age. Re-interpretation of this material in line with contemporary approaches is critical to altering outdated understandings of the region’s lithic record.

• Future excavation of prehistoric sites should include the sampling of environmental material for pollen analysis and the identification of macrofossil and faunal remains. Bulk samples from stratigraphically secure feature fills and sealed ground surfaces can provide much needed dating evidence, information regarding diet and subsistence regimes as well as that regarding the character of the contemporary landscape.

• Existing lithic assemblages occur in a variety of local and non-local raw materials. Raw material characterisation of the available lithic resource may illustrate aspects of the intra and interregional exchange of raw materials, possibly related to the circulation of Group VI axes.

Cave sites and natural features Polished, roughout, socketed and shafthole stone axes • Palaeolithic/ Early Mesolithic activity is suggested by a number of cave excavations which at present remain entirely or incompletely unpublished. These sites are potentially

• As with lithic assemblages, the recovery of stone axes from within stratigraphically secure contexts together with scientifically datable 147

no longer visible on the ground, should be undertaken through detailed archival research, targeted geophysical survey and small scale excavation.

material is imperative. Not only will this help to elucidate questions regarding material associations, the changing morphology of stone axes and the use of non-flint stone artefacts (in particular those of tuff) remain poorly understood.

Long cairns • Although over 20 possible long cairns have been identified in Cumbria, none have seen modern investigation. The close characterisation of such features is important to securely establish the presence, chronology and architecture of Neolithic long cairns in the region. This may clarify problems regarding the relationship between long and round cairns and allow further understandings of the relationship between Neolithic monuments and geologically natural features.

• Continued monitoring of erosion at and close to stone sources in the central, western and eastern fells could lead to the identification of new working and quarry sites. There is at present no clear understanding of the onset or demise of the production of polished or shafthole axes and excavation has the potential to produce new radiocarbon dates. • Detailed morphological and petrographic analysis should take place on roughout, polished and shafthole axes held in museum and private collections. At present there is no definitive list or number of axes collected either from stone sources or chance finds in other contexts. Such analyses could help with the identification of stone sources away from the central and western fells and have the potential to elucidate questions regarding the character and chronology of axe production.

Ringcairns and round funerary cairns • The characterisation of round funerary cairns and ringcairns in the many contexts in which these occur (ceremonial complexes, cemeteries, on summits and ridges and in association with upland cairnfield areas) is imperative. This information would be invaluable to understanding changes in the uses, physical forms, scales and locations of monuments over time. Although much of the excavated evidence is restricted to antiquarian sources, when such features have seen modern excavation they have illustrated long histories of deposition and architectural embellishment. Analysis should include archival research where recorded excavations have taken place, alongside survey and excavation to further understandings of the chronology and character of burial and depositional traditions.

Enclosures, stone circles and hengiform monuments • Although a significant number of large upland enclosures have been identified through field and aerial survey, they are extremely poorly understood. Further survey and excavation are imperative if we are to understand their character, chronology and longevity. These monuments are of both regional and national importance. Even at a small scale, excavation could provide much needed environmental and dating evidence and elucidate questions regarding the region’s monument sequence.

Cairnfields

• Targeted investigation of conjoined monuments such as those identified through aerial photographs at Long Meg and Summer Hill have the potential to provide important information regarding their chronology and longevity, as well as the relationship between lowlying enclosures, henges and stones circles. As with the upland enclosures, geophysical survey together with small scale excavation could provide significant results at local, regional and national scales.

• Outside those upland cairnfield areas which have seen detailed survey by the LAU, the information available remains confined largely to antiquarian descriptions. In order that this fieldwork bias is not taken to represent the actual distribution of monuments at a topographic or regional scale, further landscape surveys should be undertaken. These should focus on areas outside the Lake District National Park, in the high fells and in areas of such as woodland plantations and the upland fringe where modern agriculture has not impacted significantly on the archaeological landscape.

• At a broader level, the closer characterisation and clarification of sequences of individual sites and wider monumental complexes is imperative in order to bring understandings of such features in line with other areas of the British Isles. Such programmes, based on extant monuments, those identifiable by soil marks and those recorded but

• Current interpretations of the cairnfield record are presumptive with classification based on monument morphology. No modern excavation has taken place in such contexts and further characterisation of these features is necessary if 148

Outside the bounds of the Lake District National Park at least, this situation has begun to change. As yet unpublished excavations ahead of quarrying and development along the coastal plain have been carried out up to and including 2005. Revealing detailed evidence for burial, deposition and occupation practice across the Neolithic and Bronze Age and into the Iron Age (Mark Brennand pers. comm.) these will provide much needed material culture assemblages and radiocarbon dates.

we are to understand the chronology and nature of cairnfield occupation and landuse. Close scale survey and excavation of all ‘types’ of cairnfield features should be undertaken in order to provide dating and environmental evidence, information regarding architectural and depositional traditions, structural complexity and time depth. Although small scale investigations would be extremely useful, large landscape scale projects have taken place in other regions and have yielded successful and significant results.

Whilst development led excavation is limited and the provision of scientifically dated material can in many cases only be achieved through new work, there is a high potential within private collections and unpublished research. There is a strong need to promote positive communication between local archaeologists and regional curatorial bodies. Together with the assessment of museum collections and other archives, it is necessary to critically evaluate these resources in order that they can be drawn on in the future. These issues have seen recent and detailed discussion in English Heritage’s Regional Research Framework for the North West (Brennand 2006, 2007; Hodgson & Brennand 2006; 2007). Providing specific details of the problems and initiatives necessary to furthering knowledge of the region’s archaeology, the Research Framework promotes the need for a research orientated approach to be firmly embedded in curatorial practice and to be explicitly promoted through it. The documents also include recommendations for development control procedures and future research investigations. Critical to these recommendations is that where excavation takes place in the future there must be provision for scientific sampling and radiocarbon dating. Information drawn from the present research has contributed to the Research Framework Resource Assessment and Agenda documents. It is hoped that together with this thesis, these will be used as solid bases from which to undertake further targeted research of Cumbria’s prehistoric archaeology.

Future potential These suggestions for further research are significant and in the present academic, curatorial and financial climate, it seems unlikely many will be confronted in the foreseeable future. There is some hope however. Tackling some of the specific issues outlined above has the potential to be nationally as well as regionally significant. Although few university departments undertake fieldwork in the county at present, there has been a renewed interest in northern and western Britain as a whole. It is hoped that in the future, both small and large scale projects could be organised in the region, set up as collaborative partnerships between universities, local archaeological organisations, the Lake District National Park and other curatorial bodies. Some of the problems of chronology and fieldwork coverage discussed throughout this thesis stem from the ways that Cumbria’s prehistoric record has been treated in the past. However, as with other areas, those more recent excavations which have provided secure dating and material culture assemblages have been derived from development control interventions. Cumbria’s topography and the status of much of the region as a National Park has often precluded large scale development and little archaeological work has taken place in areas with known prehistoric sites or findspots.

149

Bibliography Annable, R. 1987. The Later Prehistory of Northern England. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 160. Ashbee, P. 1970. The Earthern Long Barrow in Britain. London: Dent. Ashmore, W. & Knapp, B. 1999. Archaeological Landscapes: constructed, conceptualised, ideational. InW. Ashmore, & B. Knapp (eds.). Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary Perspectives. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 1-32. Atkinson, R. 1951. The henge monuments of Great Britain. In R. Atkinson., C. Piggott & N. Sandars. Excavations at Dorchester. Oxford: Ashmolean museum, pp. 87-107. Atkinson, W. 1927. Report on the exploration of Bonfire Scar cave and Dobson cave near Scales in Furness. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 27: 110-116. Aubrey 1650 (1981). Monumenta Britannica. Boston: Little, Brown & Co. Barnatt, J. 1986. Bronze Age remains on the East Moors of the Peak District. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal 106:18-100. 1987. Bronze Age Settlement on the East Moors of the Peak District of Derbyshire and South Yorkshire. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 53: 393-418. 1989. Stone Circles of Britain: Taxonomic and Distributional Analysis and a Catalogue of Sites in England, Scotland and Wales. Oxford, British Archaeological Report 215. 1990. The Henges, Stone Circles and Ringcairns of the Peak District. Sheffield: John Collis. 1994. Excavations of a Bronze Age unenclosed cemetery, cairns and field boundaries at Eagleston Flat, Curbar, Derbyshire 1984, 1989-90. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 60: 287-370. 1996a. Barrows in the Peak District: a review and interpretation of extant sites and past excavations. In Barnatt, J. & Collis, J. Barrows in the Peak District: Recent Research. Sheffield: John Collis, pp. 3 -94. 1996b. Moving beyond the monuments: paths and people in the Neolithic landscapes of the Peak District. In Frodsham, P. (ed.). Neolithic Studies in No-Man’s Land. Northern Archaeology 13/14: 43-60. 1999. Taming the land: Peak District farming and ritual in the Bronze Age. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal 119: 19-78. 2000. To each their own: later prehistoric farming communities and their monuments in the Peak. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal 120-1:86. Barnatt, J. & Collis, J. 1996. Barrows in the Peak District: Recent Research. Sheffield: John Collis. Barnatt, J. & Edmonds, M. 2002. Places apart? Caves and monuments in Neolithic and earlier Bronze Age Britain. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 12 (1): 113-29. Barnatt, J. & Moir, G. 1984. Stone circles and megalithic mathematics. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 50: 197216. Barker, M. 1934. Tumuli near Carrock Fell. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 34: 107-112. 1951. Some excavations in the Carrock area. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 51: 201-202.

150

Barnes, F. 1954. Further prehistoric finds from Furness. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 54: 5-8 1955. Pottery from prehistoric sites, North End, Walney. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 55: 1-16. 1963. Discovery of four roughed-out stone axes at Skelmore Heads, July 1959. In Powell, T. Excavations at Skelmore Heads near Ulverston, 1957 and 1959. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 63: 1-16. 1970a. Prehistoric pottery from Furness. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 70: 1-8. . 1970b Microlithic sites on Walney Island. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 70: 277-80. Barnes, F. & Hobbs, E. 1951. Implements from Plain Furness. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 51:1-3. 1952. Newly discovered flint chipping sites in the Walney Island locality. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 52: 20-29. Barnes, J. 1904. Ancient corduroy roads near Gilpin Bridge. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 4: 207-210. Barrett, J. 1988a. Fields of discourse: reconstituting a social archaeology. Critique of Anthropology 7 (3): 5-16. 1988b. The living, the dead and the ancestors: Neolithic and Bronze Age mortuary practices. In J. Barrett & I. Kinnes (eds.) The Archaeology of Context in the Neolithic and Bronze Age: Recent Trends. Sheffield: John Collis, pp 30-41. 1989. Time and tradition: the rituals of everyday life. In Nordsröm, H., & Knape, A. (eds.). Bronze Age Studies. Stockholm, pp. 113-126. 1990. The monumentality of death: The character of Early Bronze Age mortuary mounds in southern England. World Archaeology 22 (2) 179-189. 1991. Towards an archaeology of ritual. In P. Garwood, D. Jennings, R. Skeates & J. Toms (eds.). Sacred and Profane. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology Monograph 32, pp. 1-9. 1994. Fragments from Antiquity. Oxford: Blackwell. Barrett, J. & Bradley, R. 1980. Settlement and Society in the British Later Bronze Age. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 83. Barrett, J., Bradley, R. & Green, M. 1991. Landscape, Monuments and Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Beckensall, S. 2002. Prehistoric Rock Art in Cumbria. Stroud: Tempus. Bender, B. 1978. Gatherer-hunter to farmer: a social perspective. World Archaeology 10: 204-222. 1993. Introduction: landscape- meaning and action. In Bender, B. (ed.). Landscape: Politics and Perspectives. Oxford: Berg, pp. 1-18. Benson, D & Bland, K, 1963. The Dog Hole, Haverbrack. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 63: 61-76. Bersu, G. 1940. King Arthur’s Round Table: Final report including the excavations of 1939 with an appendix on the Little Round Table. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 40: 169-206. 151

Bewley R. 1994. Prehistoric and Romano British Settlement in the Solway Plain, Cumbria. Oxford: Oxbow Monograph 36. 1993. Survey and excavation at a crop-mark enclosure, Plasketlands, Cumbria. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 93:1-18. Bewley, R., Longworth, I., Browne, S., Huntley, J. & Varndell, G. 1992. Excavation of a Bronze Age cemetery at Ewanrigg, Maryport, Cumbria. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 58: 325-54. Binford, L. 1979. Organization and formation processes: looking at curated technologies. Journal of Anthropological Research 35 (3): 255-273. 1980. Willow smoke and dog’s tails: Hunter-gatherer settlement systems and archaeological site formation. American Antiquity 45 (1): 4-20. Birks, H. 1982. Mid-Flandrian forest history of Roudsea Wood National Nature Reserve, Cumbria. New Phytologist 90: 339-354. Bland, K. 1994. Cause of death of the humans recovered from the Dog Hole, Haverbrack. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 94: 285-286. Bloch, M. 1995. People into places: Zaphimary concepts of clarity. In E. Hirch & M. O’Hanlon (eds.). The Anthropology of Landscape: Perspectives on Place and Space. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 63-77. Bonsall, C. 1981. The coastal factor in the Mesolithic settlement of north west England. In B. Gramsch (ed.). Mesolithikum in Europa. Postdam: Veröffentlichungen des museums fur Ur-und Frühgeschite, pp. 451-52. Bonsall. C, Sutherland, D., Tipping, R & Cherry, J. 1986. The Eskmeals project 1981-5: an interim report. Northern Archaeology 7/1: 3-30. 1989. The Eskmeals project: Late Mesolithic settlement and economy in north west England. In C. Bonsall, (ed.). The Mesolithic in Europe. Edinburgh: John Donald, pp. 175-205. Bonsall, C., Sutherland, D. & Payton, R. 1994. The Eskmeals coastal foreland: archaeology and shoreline development. In J. Boardman & J. Walden (eds.). Cumbria Field Guide. Oxford: Quaternary Research Association, pp. 90-103. Bordieu, P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. (Trans. R. Nice) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Boyd, M. 1990. A hoard of unpolished stone axes from Pike of Stickle, Great Langdale. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 90: 99-104. Boserup, E. 1965. The Conditions of Agricultural Growth: The Economics of Agrarian Change Under Population Pressure. New York: Aldine Publishing. Bradley, R. 1984. The Social Foundations of Prehistoric Britain. Harlow: Longman. 1987. Time regained: the creation of continuity. Journal of the British Archaeological Association 160: 1-17. 1991a. Monuments as places. In P. Garwood, D. Jennings, R. Skeates & J. Toms (eds.). Sacred and Profane. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology Monograph 32. 1991b. Ritual, time and history. World Archaeology 23: 209-219. 1992a. The excavation of an oval barrow beside the Abingdon causewayed enclosure, Oxfordshire. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 58: 127-42. 1992b. Turning the world- rock carvings and the archaeology of death. In N. Sharples, & A. Sheridan (eds.). Vessels For The Ancestors. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp.168-178. 1993. Altering the Earth. Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. 152

1994. The philosopher and the field archaeologist: Collingwood, Bersu and the excavation of King Arthur’s Round Table. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 60: 27-34. 1998a. The Significance of Monuments. London: Routledge. 1998b. Stone circles and passage graves: a contested relationship. In A. Gibson & D. Simpson (eds.). Prehistoric Ritual and Religion. Stroud: Sutton, pp. 2-13. 2000a. An Archaeology of Natural Places. London: Routledge. 2000b. The Good Stones. A New Investigation of the Clava Cairns. Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. 2002a. The Past in Prehistoric Societies. London: Routledge. 2002b. The Neolithic and Bronze Age periods in the north: some matters arising. In C. Brooks, R. Daniels & A. Harding (eds.). Past Present and Future: The Archaeology of Northern England. Architectural and Archaeological Society of Durham and Northumberland Research Report 5, pp. 37-44. Bradley, R. & Southern, R. 1990. Petrographic analysis of hammerstones from the Neolithic quarries at Great Langdale. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 56: 117-22. Bradley, R. & Edmonds, M. 1993. Interpreting the Axe Trade: Production and Exchange in Neolithic Britain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brennand, M. 2006 (ed.). The Archaeology of North West England: An archaeological research framework for North West England: Volume 1 resource assessment. CBA North West. Brennand, M. 2007. (ed.). Research and Archaeology in North West England: An archaeological research framework for North West England: volume 2 research agenda and strategy. CBA North West. Brown, A. 1997. Clearances and clearings: deforestation in Mesolithic/Neolithic Britain. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 16: 133-146. Brown, A. & Edmonds, M. 1987. Lithic analysis and Later British Prehistory: Some problems and approaches. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 162. Brück, J. 1999. What’s in a settlement? Domestic practice and residential mobility in Early Bronze Age southern England. In J. Brück & M. Goodman, M. (eds.). Making Places in the Prehistoric World. London: UCL Press, pp. 52-75. 2001. Body metaphors and technologies of transformation in the English Middle and Later Bronze Age. In J. Brück (ed.). Bronze Age Landscapes: Tradition and Transformation. Oxford: Oxbow, pp. 149-60. Buckland, P. & Edwards, K. 1984. The longevity of pastoral episodes of clearance activity in pollen diagrams: the role of post occupational grazing. Journal of Biogeography 11: 243-249 Bunch, B. & Fell, C. 1949. A stone axe factory at Pike of Stickle, Great Langdale, Westmorland. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 15: 1-20. Burgess, C. 1980. The Age of Stonehenge. London: Dent. Burgess, C. & Spratt, D. 1985. Upland settlement in Britain: the second millennium BC and after. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 143. Burl, A. 1969. Henges: internal structures and regional groups. Archaeological Journal 126: 1-28. 1976. The Stone Circles of the British Isles. New Haven: Yale University Press. 1988. ‘Without sharp north...’: Alexander Thom and the great stone circles of Cumbria. In C Ruggles (ed.). Records in Stone: Papers in Memory of Alexander Thom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 175-205.

153

Casedine, C. & Hatton, J. 1993. The development of high moorland on Dartmoor: fire and the influence of Mesolithic activity on vegetation change. In F. Chambers (ed.). Climate Change and Human Impact. London: Chapman & Hall, pp. 11-131. Casimir, M. & Rao, A. 1992. Mobility and Territoriality: Social and Spatial Boundaries Among Foragers, Fishers, Pastoralists and Peripatetics. Oxford: Berg. Chadwick, A. 2004. ‘Geographies of sentience’- an introduction to space, place and time. In A. Chadwick (ed.). Stories from the Landscape: Archaeologies of inhabitation. Oxford: British Archaeological Report (international series) 1238, pp. 1-32. Cherry, J. 1963. Eskmeals sand dunes occupation sites. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 63: 31-52. 1965. Flint chipping sites at Drigg. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 65: 1966. Four stone axes and a macehead from SW Cumberland. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 66. 1967. Prehistoric habitation sites at Seascale. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 67: 1-16. 1969. Early Neolithic sites at Eskmeals. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2): 69: 40-53. 1976. A stone axe head from Low Borrowdale Ground, Corney. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 76. 1982. Sea cliff erosion at Drigg, Cumbria: evidence of prehistoric habitation. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2): 82:1-6. Cherry, J. & Cherry, P.J. 1973. Mesolithic inhabitation sites at St. Bees. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 73: 47-66. 1983. Prehistoric habitation sites in west Cumbria: part 1, the St. Bees Area and north to the Solway. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2): 83: 1-14. 1984. Prehistoric habitation sites in west Cumbria: part II, Nethertown to Seascale. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2): 84:1-18. 1985. Prehistoric habitation sites in west Cumbria: part III, Drigg to Ravenglass. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2): 85: 1-10. 1986. Prehistoric habitation sites in west Cumbria: part IV, the Eskmeals area. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2): 86: 1-18. 1987a. Prehistoric Habitation Sites on the Limestone Uplands of Eastern Cumbria. Kendal: Cumberland and Westmorland Archaeological and Antiquarian Society Research Volume 2. 1987b. Prehistoric habitation sites in west Cumbria, part V: Eskmeals to Haverigg. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2): 87: 1-10. 1987c. Fieldwalking at Levens. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2): 254-255. 1992. Further research on the prehistory of the Cumbrian limestone uplands: the ceramic evidence. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 92: 13-22. 1993. Flints from Skirwith in Carlisle museum. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 93: 19-24.

154

1995. Prehistoric habitation on the Cumbrian limestone uplands 1986-93. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 95: 1-22. 1996. Coastline and upland in the Cumbrian Neolithic. In P. Frodsham (ed.), Neolithic Studies in No-Mans Land. Northern Archaeology 13/14, 63-6. 2000. A Late Mesolithic assemblage from Levens Park. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 100: 25-32. 2002. Coastline and upland in Cumbrian prehistory-a retrospective. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (3) 2: 1-21. Cherry, J. Cherry, P. & Ellwood, C. 1985. Archaeological survey of the Howe Robin and Raven Gill areas, Orton: occupational evidence. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 85: 19-34. Childe, G. 1925. The Dawn of European Civilisation. London: Kegan Paul. 1930. The Bronze Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1940. Prehistoric Communities of the British Isles. London: Chambers. Clare, T. 1973. Aspects of the stone circles and kindred monuments of north west England. Unpublished MA dissertation, University of Liverpool. 1975. Some Cumbrian stone circles in perspective. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 75: 1-16. 1978. Recent work on the Shap avenue. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 78: 5-16. 1979. Rayset Pike Long Cairn in the Machell MSS. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 79: 144-6. 2000. The distribution of some archaeological sites in relation to features of Holocene coastal change. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 100: 1-24. Clarke, D.1972. Models in Archaeology. London: Methuen. Claris, P. & Quartermaine, J. 1989. The Neolithic quarries and axe factory sites of Great Langdale and Scafell Pike: a new survey. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 55: 1-25. Clifton Ward, J. 1878. Notes on archaeological remains in the Lake District. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (1) 3: 241-65. Clough, T. 1968. The Beaker period in Cumbria. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 68: 1-21. 1969. Bronze Age metalwork in Cumbria. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 69: 1-39. 1973. Excavations on a Langdale axe chipping site in 1969 and 1970. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 73: 25-46. Clough, T. & Cummins, W. 1988. Stone Axe Studies. London: CBA Research Report 67. Collingwood, R. G. 1933. An introduction to the Prehistory of Cumberland, Westmorland and Lancashire-north-of-theSands. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 33: 163-200. 1933b. Prehistoric settlements near Crosby Ravensworth. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 33: 201-226. 155

1938a. The hillfort on Aughertree Fell. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 38: 32-41. 1938b. King Arthur’s Round Table, interim report on the excavations of 1937. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 38: 1-31. 1946. The Idea of History. Oxford: Clarendon. Collingwood, W. G. 1901. A tumulus at Grayson-Lands, Glassonby, Cumberland. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 1: 295-299. 1912. An Exploration of the circle on Banniside Moor, Coniston. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 10: 342-51. 1923. An inventory of the ancient monuments of Cumberland. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2): 206-276. 1926. An inventory of the ancient monuments of Westmorland and Lancashire-north-of-the-Sands. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 26: 1-62. 1932. The Lake Counties. London: Dent. Cooney, G. 1997. Images of settlement and landscape in the Irish Neolithic. In P. Topping (ed.). Neolithic Landscapes. Neolithic Studies Group Seminar papers 2. Oxford: Oxbow Monograph 86: 23-32. 2000. Landscapes of Neolithic Ireland. London, Routledge. Cooney, G. & Mandal, S. 1998. The Irish Stone Axe Project, Monograph 1. Dublin: Wordwell. Cosgrove, D. 1984. Social Formation and Symbolic Landscape. London: Croom Helm. Coward, D. & Evans, H. (In Prep). Prehistoric landscape occupation on the Furness Peninsula. Due for publication in Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society. Cowper, H. 1907. Bronze Age relics from Furness. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 7: 39-41. Croft, S. 2000. A topographical phenomenological analysis of prehistoric sites within the South Lakeland landscape. Unpublished BA dissertation, University of Reading. Croft, S., Ball, C. & Dickinson, S. 2003. Excavations at Drigg, Cumbria. Archaeology North 21: 14-15. Cross, M. 1938. A prehistoric settlement on Walney. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2): 38:160. 1939. A prehistoric settlement on Walney Island, Part II. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 39: 262-283. 1942. A prehistoric settlement on Walney Island, III. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 42: 11-19. 1946. A prehistoric settlement on Walney Island, IV. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 46: 67-76. 1947. A prehistoric settlement on Walney Island, V. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 47: 67-88. 1949. A prehistoric settlement on Walney Island, VI. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 49: 1-9.

156

1950. A prehistoric settlement on Walney Island VII. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 50: 15-19. Cross, M. & Collingwood, R. G. 1929. Explorations on Thwaites Fell, South Cumberland. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 29: 250-58. Cummins, W. 1979. Neolithic stone axes: distribution and trade in England and Wales. In T. Clough & W. Cummins (eds.) Stone Axe Studies. London: CBA Research Report 23, pp. 5-12. 1980. Stone axes as a guide to Neolithic communications in England and Wales. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 46: 45-60. Cummings, V. 2004. Connecting the mountains and sea: the monuments of the eastern Irish Sea zone. In V. Cummings & C. Fowler (eds.). The Neolithic of the Irish Sea: Materiality and Traditions of Practice. Oxford: Oxbow, pp. 2936. Cummings, V. & Whittle, A. 2004. Places of Special Virtue: Megaliths in the Neolithic Landscapes of Wales. Cardiff Studies in Archaeology. Oxford: Oxbow. Cummings, V & Fowler, C. 2004. Introduction: locating the Neolithic of the Irish Sea: materiality and traditions of practice. In V. Cummings & C. Fowler (eds.). The Neolithic of the Irish Sea: Materiality and Traditions of Practice. Oxford: Oxbow, pp. 1-8. Curry, N. 1994. (ed.). Norman Nicholson, Collected Poems. London: Faber and Faber. Curteis, M. 1989. A polished stone axe from High Frith. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 89: Daniels, M. 1995. Recent archaeological work in Cumbria. Archaeology North 9: 20-21. Darbishire, R. 1873. Notes on discoveries at Ehenside Tarn, Cumberland. Archaeologia 44: 273-92. Darvill, T. 1996. Neolithic buildings in England and Wales and the Isle of Man. In T. Darvill & J. Thomas (eds.). Neolithic Houses in North-West Europe and Beyond. Oxford: Oxbow Monograph 57, pp. 77-112. Darvill, T. & Thomas, J. 2001. Neolithic Enclosures in Atlantic Europe. Neolithic Studies Group Papers 6. Oxford: Oxbow. Dickinson, L. 1935. A stone axe from Lindale in Cartmel. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 35: 70-72. Dimbleby, G. 1965. Post-glacial changes in soil profiles. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 161, 355-361. Dixon, J. & Fell, C. 1948. Bronze Age burial circles at Lacra, near Kirksanton. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 48: 1-15. Dobson, J. 1907. Urswick Stone Walls. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 7:72-94. 1912. Report on an ancient settlement at Stone Close, near Stainton in Furness. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 12: 277-84. 1914. Neolithic implements in Furness. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 14: 272-273. 1927. Report on the exploration of the Sunbrick disc barrow. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 27: 100-109. Douglas, M. 1966. Purity and Danger. London: Routledge. Durden, T. 1996. Lithics in the north of England: production and consumption on the Yorkshire Wolds. In P. Frodsham 157

(ed.). Neolithic Studies in No-Man’s Land. Northern Archaeology 13/14: 79-86. Dymond, C. 1880. Gunnerkeld stone circle. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (1) 4: 537-45. 1881. A group of Cumberland megaliths. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (1) 5: 39-57. 1890. Mayburgh and King Arthur’s Round Table. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (1): 11: 187-219. 1892. Barnscar: an ancient settlement in Cumberland. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (1) 12: 179-187. 1902. An exploration of ‘Sunkenkirk’, Swinside, Cumberland, with incedental researches in its neighborhood. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 2: 56-63. Eccleston, J. 1872. Ancient remains at Lacra and Kirksanton. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (1) 1: 278-281. Edmonds, M. 1987. Rocks and risk: problems with lithic procurement strategies. In A. Brown & M. Edmonds (eds.). Lithic Analysis and Later British Prehistory. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 162:55-79. 1993. Interpreting causewayed enclosures in the past and the present. In C. Tilley (ed.). Interpretative Archaeology. Oxford: Berg, pp. 99-142. 1995. Stone Tools and Society. London: Batsford. 1999. Ancestral Geographies of the Neolithic. London: Routledge. 2004. The Langdales: Landscape and Prehistory in a Lakeland Valley. Stroud: Tempus. Edmonds, M. Evans, H. Lund, J. Maxwell, R. & Start. M. 2002. Evaluation of landscape features on Sizergh Fell. Archaeology North winter 2002: 13-15. Edmonds, M & Evans, H. 2007. Made and Found: cairns and natural mounds on Sizergh Fell. In P. Cherry (ed.). Studies in Northern Prehistory. Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society Record Series XXXIII, pp 115-140.A. Edmonds, M. & Thomas, J. 1987. The Archers: an everyday story of country folk. In Brown, A. & M. Edmonds (eds). Lithic Analysis and Later British Prehistory. Oxford: British Archaeologcial Report 162, pp. 187-196. Edmonds, M. & Seaborne, T. 2001. Prehistory in the Peak. Stroud: Tempus. Edwards, K. 1993. Models of mid-Holocene forest farming for north west Europe. In F. Chambers (ed.). Climate Change and Human Impact. London: Chapman & Hall, pp. 133-145. English Heritage 1991. Planning Policy Guidance Note 16: Archaeology and Planning. London: HMSO. 2000. A probable prehistoric causewayed enclosure on Green How, Cumbria. Unpublished survey report. Erskine, J. & Wood, J. 1936. A Birkrigg burial. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 36: 150-157. Evans, A. 1991. Lost Lancashire: The Story of Lancashire-beyond-the-Sands. Milnthorpe: Cicerone Press. 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 Age: Recent Trends. Sheffield: John Collis, pp. 85-96. Evans, C., Pollard, J. & Knight, M. 1999. Life in woods. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 18 (3): 241-254. 158

Evans, H. 2004a. Who’s afraid of the big bad woods? Forest wilderness in the Middle Ages. In A. Chadwick (ed.). Stories from the Landscape. Oxford: British Archaeological Report (International Series) 1238, pp. 73-87. 2004b. Where is the Cumbrian Neolithic? In V. Cummings & C. Fowler (eds.) Neolithic Traditions of the Irish Sea: Materiality and Traditions of Practice. Oxford: Oxbow, pp.123-28. Evans, H. & Coward, D. 2003. Archaeological fieldwork carried out at Sandscale NNR, Barrow in Furness, September 2003. Unpublished report available at Cumbria county SMR 2004. A prehistoric occupation site at Sandscale Haws, Barrow-in-Furness. CBA North Winter 2004. Evans, H. & Edmonds, M. 2003. Interim report on archaeological fieldwork undertaken on Sizergh Fell, South Cumbria, July 2003. Unpublished report available at Cumbria county SMR. (In prep). Enclosure and enclosures: survey and excavation of a settlement enclosure on Sizergh Fell, south Cumbria. Fair, M. 1936. A sandhill site at Eskmeals, West Cumberland. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2): 36: 20-23. 1937. West Cumberland sandhill occupation, flintworking in the sandhills. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 37: 214-5. 1943. The Gosforth area in Prehistory. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 43: 50-54. Fell, C. 1940. Bronze Age connections between the Lake District and Ireland. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 40: 118-130. 1948. A stone axe factory site, Pike o’Stickle, Great Langdale. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 48: 214-5. 1950. Great Langdale stone axe factory. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 50: 1-14. 1953. A beaker burial on Sizergh fell, near Kendal. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 53: 1-5. 1954. Three polished stone axes. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 54: 1-4. 1957. Middle Bronze Age urns from Furness. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 57: 9-12. 1963. A socketed bronze axe from Little Langdale. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 63:280-281. 1964. The Cumbrian type of polished stone axe and its distribution in Britain. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 30: 39-55. 1971. Committee for Prehistoric Studies- unpublished records for Westmorland and Lancashire-north-of-the-Sands. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 71: 1-11. 1972. Neolithic finds at Brougham. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 72: 36-43. 1974. Short notes on unrecorded prehistoric sites and finds. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 74: 1-7. 1980. An engraved polished stone axe, supposed to have been found at Pike of Stickle, Great Langdale. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 80: 153-155. 159

1995. Two bronze implements from South Lakeland. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 95: 271-2. Fell, C. & Davis, V. 1988. The petrological identification of stone implements from Cumbria. In T. Clough & W. Cummins (eds.). Stone Axe Studies. London: CBA Research Report 67, pp. 71-77. Fell, C. & Hogg, R. 1962. A food vessel from Springfield near Ainstable. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 62: 27-30. Fell, C. & Coles, J. 1965. Reconsideration of the Ambleside hoard and the burial at Butts Becks quarry, Dalton in Furness. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 65: 38-52. Fell, C. & Richardson, G. 1975. Unpublished excavations by the late Miss K. Hodgson. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 75: 17-28. Ferguson, R. 1882. Stone circle at Gamelands, Bland House Brow, Township of Raisebeck, Parish of Orton, Westmorland. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (1) 6: 183-185. 1888. The so-called ‘tumuli’ near Dalston Hall, Cumberland. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (1) 9: 117-118. Fleming, A. 1971.Territorial patterns in Bronze Age Wessex. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 37: 138-166. 1990. Landscape archaeology, prehistory and rural studies. Rural History 1 (1): 5-15. 1998. Swaledale: Valley of the Wild River. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 1999. Phenomenology and the megaliths of Wales: A Dreaming too far? Oxford Journal of Archaeology 18 (2): 119-125. Fletcher, W. 1956. Grey Croft stone circle, Seascale. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 57: 1-6. 1985. Cairns at Mecklin Park, Santon Bridge. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 85: 11-18. Foley, R. 1981a. Offsite archaeology: an alternative approach for the short sighted. In I. Hodder, I., G. Issac, & D. Hammond (eds.). Pattern of the Past. pp. 157-183. 1981b. A model of regional archaeological structure. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 41: 1-17. Ford, S. 1987. Chronological and functional aspects of flint assemblages. In A. Brown & M. Edmonds (eds.). Lithic Analysis and Later British Prehistory. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 162: 67-86. Ford, S., Bradley, R., Hawkes, K. & Fisher, P. 1987. Flint working in the age of metal. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 3: 157-173. Fox, C. 1932. The Personality of Britain. Cardiff: National Museum of Wales. Fraser, D. 1985. Castlerigg stone circle: documentary and field survey. Unpublished English Heritage document. Frodsham, P. 2000. Worlds without ends: towards a new prehistory for central Britain. In J. Harding & R. Johnston (eds.), Northern pasts: Interpretations of the Later Prehistory of Northern England and Southern Scotland. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 302, pp. 15-32. Fullagar, R. & Head, L. 1999. Exploring the prehistory of hunter-gatherer attachments to place: an example from the Keep river area, Northern Territory, Australia. In P. Ucko & R. Layton (eds.). The Archaeology and Anthropology of Landscape. London: Routledge, pp. 322-335 Gaythorpe, H. 1897. Prehistoric implements in Furness. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian 160

and Archaeological Society (1) 14: 44-47. 1900. Prehistoric implements in Furness and Cartmel. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (1) 16: 152-6. 1904. Prehistoric implements in Furness. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 4: 325-29. 1906. Prehistoric implements in Furness. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 6: 143-148. Garwood, P. 1991. Ritual tradition and the reconstruction of society. In P. Garwood, D. Jennings, R. Skeates & J. Toms (eds.). Sacred and Profane. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology Monograph 32, pp. 10-32. Gelderd, C. Randall, J. & Dobson, J. 1914. Some Birkrigg barrows. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 14: 466-79. Gelderd, C. & Dobson, J. 1912. Report on the excavations carried out at Druid’s circle, on Birkrigg in the parish of Urswick, September 1911. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 12: 262-76. Gibson, A. 1982. Beaker domestic sites. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 107. 1998. Stonehenge and Timber Circles. Stroud: Tempus. 2002. Prehistoric Pottery in Britain and Ireland. Stroud: Tempus. Gillings, M., Mattingly, D. & van Dalen, J. 1999. Geographical Information Systems and Landscape Archaeology. Oxford: Oxbow. Godwin, H. 1956. The History of British Flora. Cambridge: Cambridge Universrity Press. Gosden, C. 1994. Social Being and Time. Oxford: Blackwell. Gosden, C. & Head, L. 1994. Landscape: a suitable ambiguous concept. In C. Gosden,, L. Head & J. White. Archaeology in Oceania 29. Graham, T. 1907. The Grey Yauds, a vannished stone circle. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 7: 67-71. Green, H. 1980. The flint arrowheads of the British Isles: a detailed study with comparanda from Scotland and Ireland. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 75. Greenwell, W. 1874. Recently opened tumuli in Cumberland and Westmorland. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (1) 1: 19-25. 1877. British Barrows. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Halstead, P. & Tierney, J. 1998. Leafy hay: an ethnoarchaeological study in NW Greece. Environmental Archaeology 1: 71-80. Harding, J., Frodsham, P. & Durden, T. 1996. Towards an agenda for Neolithic Studies in Northen England. In P. Frodsham, (ed.). Neolithic Studies in No-man’s land. Northern Archaeology 13/14: 189-201. Harding, J. 1996. Reconsidering the Neolithic round barrows of Eastern Yorkshire. In P. Frodsham, (ed.). Neolithic Studies in No-man’s land. Northern Archaeology 13/14: 67-78. 2000. From coast to vale, moor to dale: patterns in later prehistory. In J. Harding & R. Johnston (eds.), Northern Pasts: Interpretations of the Later Prehistory of Northern England and Southern Scotland. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 302, pp. 1-14. 161

2003. Henge Monuments of the British Isles. Stroud: Tempus. Harding, J. & Barclay, A. 1999. (eds.) Pathways and Ceremonies: The Cursus Monuments of Britain & Ireland. Neolithic Studies Group seminar papers 4. Oxford: Oxbow. Hass, J. Karg, S. & Rasmussen, P, 1998. Beech leaves and twigs used as winter fodder: examples from historic and prehistoric times. Environmental Archaeology 1: 81-86. Healy, F. 1987. Prediction or prejudice? The relationship between field survey and excavation. In A. Brown & M. Edmonds (eds.). Lithic Analysis and Later British Prehistory. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 162, pp. 9-18. Heawood, R. & Huckerby, E. 2002. Excavation of a burnt mound at Sparrowmire Farm, Kendal. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (3) 2: 29-50. Higham, N. 1978. Early field survival in north Cumbria. In H. Bowen & P. Fowler (eds.). Early Land allotment in the British Isles: A survey of recent work. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 48. Hindle, B. 1984. Roads and Trackways of the Lake District. Ashbourne: Moorland Publishing. Hirch, E. & O’Hanlon, M. 1995. The Anthropology of Landscape: Perspectives on Place and Space. Oxford: Clarendon. Hodgkinson, D., Huckerby, E., Middleton, R. & Wells, C. 2000. The Lowland Wetlands of Cumbria. North West Wetlands Survey 6. Lancaster: Lancaster University Press. Hodgson, K. 1928. Excavations above Milkinstead, Eskdale. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 28: 149-51. 1935. Notes on stone circles at Broomrigg, Grey Yauds etc. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 35: 77-9. 1952. Further excavations at Broomrigg near Ainstable. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 52: 1-8. 1956. Three unpublished collections of Bronze Age pottery: Netherhall, Garlands and Aglionby. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 56: 1-7. Hodgson, K. & Harper, K. 1950. The prehistoric site at Broomrigg near Ainstable: excavations 1948-9. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 50: 30-42. Hodgson, J. & Brennand, M. 2006. The prehistoric period resource assessment. In M. Brennand (ed.). The Archaeology of North West England: An Archaeological Research Framework for North West England: Volume 1 resource assessment. CBA North West. Hogg, R. 1958. A polished stone axe from Ambleside. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 58: 186-7. 1972. Factors which have affected the spread of early settlement in the Lake Counties. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 72: 1-35. Holgate, R. 1988. A review of Neolithic domestic activity in southern Britain. In J. Barrett & I. Kinnes, (eds.). The Archaeology of Context in the Neolithic and Bronze Age: Recent Trends. Sheffield: John Collis, pp. 104-12. Hood, S. & Wilson, D. 2002. Long Meg winter shadow path. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (3) 2:301-302. 2003. Further investigations into the astronomical alignments at Cumbrian prehistoric sites. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (3) 3: 203-212. Houlder, C. 1979. The Langdale and Scafell Pike axe factory sites: a field survey. In T. Clough & W. Cummins (eds). 162

Stone Axe Studies. London: CBA Research Report 23. Horne, P. 2000. A Neolithic Causewayed Enclosure in Cumbria. Archaeology North 17: 13. Ingold, T. 1986. The Appropriation of Nature. Manchester: Manchester University Press. 1993. The temporality of the landscape. World Archaeology 25 (2): 152-174. 2000. The Perception of the Environment: Essays on Dwelling, Livelihood and Skill. London: Routledge. Ingold, T., Riches, D. & Woodburn, J. 1988a. Hunters and Gatherers: Volume 1. Oxford: Berg. 1988b. Hunters and Gatherers: Volume 2. Oxford: Berg. Inzian, M., Roche, H. & Tixier, J.1992. Technology of Knapped Stone. Meudon: CNRS. Jackson, J. 1913. Report on recent explorations at Dog Holes, Wharton Crag. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 14: 262-271. 1914. Report on the exploration of a cave at Haverbrack, Westmorland. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 14: 262-271. Johnson, G. & Dunham, K. 1963. Geology of Moorhouse. Nature Conservancy 2. London: HMSO. Johnson, I. & North, M. 1997. Archaeological Applications of GIS. Sydney: University of Sydney. Johnston, R. 2000. Dying, becoming and being the field: prehistoric cairnfields in Northumbria. In J. Harding & R. Johnston (eds.), Northern Pasts: Interpretations of the Later Prehistory of Northern England and Southern Scotland. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 302, pp. 57-70. 2001. ‘Breaking new ground’: land tenure and fieldstone clearance during the Bronze Age. In J. Brück (ed.). Bronze Age Landscapes: Tradition and Transformation. Oxford: Oxbow, pp. 99-109. Jones, E. 2001. Results of an archaeological evaluation at Roose Quarry, Barrow-in-Furness, Cumbria. Unpublished report. Joplin, C. 1846. Remains ascribed to the era of the Druids in Furness, north of Lancashire. Archaeologia 31: 448-453. Keiller, A., Piggott, S. & Wallis, F. 1941. First report of the sub-committee of the south-western group of museums and art galleries on the petrological identification of stone axes. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 7: 50-72. Kinnes, I. 1979. Round Barrows and Ring Ditches in the British Neolithic. London: British Museum (Occasional Paper 7). Kinnes, I. & Longworth, I. 1985. Catalogue of Excavated Prehistoric and Romano-British Material in the Greenwell Collection. London: British Museum. LAU, 1984. Archaeological Survey of Burnmoor, Cumbria, Unpublished report. 1987. Archaeological survey of Bootle Fell, Cumbria. Unpublished report. 1985. Archaeological survey of Town Bank and Stockdale Moor, Cumbria. Unpublished report. 1994. Archaeological survey of Torver High Common, Cumbria. Unpublished report. 1995. Archaeological survey of Torver Low Common, Cumbria. Unpublished report. 2001. Drigg, Cumbria: assessment of archaeological evaluation. Unpublished Report. Lacaille, A. 1954. The Stone Age in Scotland. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Layton, R. 1995. Relating to the country in the western desert. In E. Hirch & M. O’Hanlon (eds.). The Anthropology of 163

Landscape: Perspectives on Place and Space. Oxford: Clarendon, pp. 210-232. Layton, R. & Ucko, P. 1999. Introduction: gazing on the landscape and encountering the environment. In P. Ucko & R. Layton (eds.). The Archaeology and Anthropology of Landscape. London: Routledge, pp.1-20. Last, J. 1999. Out of line: cursuses and monument typology in eastern England. In J. Harding & A. Barclay (eds.). Pathways and Ceremonies: The Cursus Monuments of Britain & Ireland. Neolithic Studies Group Seminar Papers 4. Oxford: Oxbow, pp. 86-97. Longworth, I. 1984. Collared Urns of the Bronze Age in Britain and Ireland. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 1992. The pottery. In R. Bewley, I. Longworth, S. Browne, J. Huntley & G. Varndell. Excavation of a Bronze Age cemetery at Ewanrigg, Maryport, Cumbria. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 58: 325-54. Lynch, F. 1972. Ring cairns and related structures in Wales. Scottish Archaeological Forum 4: 61-80. 1975. The impact of landscape on prehistoric man. In J. Evans, S. Limbrey & H. Cleere (eds.). The Effect of Man on the Landscape: The Highland Zone. London: CBA Research Report 11: 124-127. 1979. Ring cairns in Britain and Ireland: their design and purpose. Ulster Journal of Archaeology 42: 1-19. 1993. Excavations in the Brenig Valley. Aberystwyth: Cambrian. 1997. Megalithic Tombs and Long Barrows. Princes Risborough: Shire. 1998. Colour in prehistoric architecture. In A. Gibson & D. Simpson (eds.). Prehistoric Ritual and Religion. Stroud: Tempus, pp. 68-79. McKenny Hughes, T. 1904a. Some notes on mound opening, with a description of one recently explored on Sizergh Fell, Westmorland. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 4: 71-9. 1904b. On another tumulus on Sizergh fell. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 4:201-4. 1912. On an ancient enclosure and interment on Heaves Fell. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 12: 397-402. Mckinley, J. 2003. Cremation analysis. In C. Wild. A Bronze Age cremation cemetery at Allithwaite, Cumbria. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (3): 23-50. Manby, T. 1965. The distribution of rough-out 'Cumbrian' and related axes of Lake District origin in Northern England. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 65: 1-37. 1970. Long barrows of Northern England: structural and dating evidence. Scottish Archaeological Forum 2: 1-27. Masters, L. 1984. The Neolithic long cairns of Cumbria and Northumberland. In R. Miket, & C. Burgess. (eds.). Between and Beyond the Walls. Edinburgh: John Donald, pp. 52-73. 1973. The Lochill long cairn. Antiquity 37: 96-100. Mawson, J. 1876. An account of the opening and subsequent removal of an ancient British barrow in the parish of Lowther. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (1) 2: 11-13. Mellars, P. 1976. Settlement patters and industrial variability in the British Mesolithic. In G. Sieveking, I. Longworth. & K. Wilson (eds.). Problems in Economic and Social Archaeology. London: Duckworth, pp. 375-399. Mercer, R. 1980. Hambledon Hill: A Neolithic Landscape. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Moore, H. 1986. Space Text and Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

164

Moore, P. 1988. The development of moorlands and upland mires. In M. Jones (ed.) Archaeology and the Flora of the British Isles. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology. 1993. The origin of blanket mire, revisited. In F. Chambers (ed.). Climate Change and Human Impact. London: Chapman & Hall, pp. 217-224. Moreland, J. 1990. From the primeval to the paved: environment, perception and structural history. Scottish Archaeological Review 7: 14-22. Morphy, H. 1993. Colonialism, history and the construction of place: The politics of landscape in Northern Australia. In B. Bender (ed.). Landscape: Politics and Perspectives. Oxford: Berg, pp. 205-243. 1995. Landscape and the reproduction of the ancestral past. In E. Hirch & M. O’Hanlon. (eds.). The Anthropology of Landscape: Perspectives on Place and Space. Oxford: Clarendon, pp. 184-209. Mullin, D. 2001. Remembering, forgetting and the invention of tradition: burial and natural places in the English Early Bronze Age. Antiquity 75: 533-537. 2003. The Bronze Age Landscape of the Northern English Midlands. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 351. Munn Rankin, W. 1910. The peat mosses of Lonsdale. Naturalist 119: 153. Nicholson, N. 1955. The Lakers: The Adventures of the First Tourists. London: Robert Hale Ltd. 1972. (second ed.). Portrait of the Lakes. London: Robert Hale Ltd. Nicholson, J. & Burn, R. 1777. History and Antiquities of Westmorland and Cumberland. Nickson, D. & McDonald, J. 1955. A preliminary report on a microlithic site at Drigg, Cumberland Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 55: 17-29. North, O. 1936. Stone circle, Summerhouse Hill, Yealand. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 36: 129-31. 1937. Local stone and bronze implements. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 37: 155-6. 1945. Addenda. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 45:200. OAN 2002. Holbeck Park Avenue, Barrow-in-Furness: evaluation report. Unpublished document. Oldfield, F. 1960. Pollen analysis and man’s role in the ecological history of the south east Lake District. Geografiska Annaler 45 (1): 23-40. 1963. Studies in the Post Glacial history of British vegetation: lowland Lonsdale. New Phytologist 59: 192-217. Oldfield, F. & Statham, D. 1963. Pollen-analytical data from Urswick Tarn and Ellerside Moss, North Lancashire. New Phytologist 62: 53-66. Olivier, A. 1987. Excavation of a Bronze Age funerary cairn at Manor Park, near Borwick, North Lancashire. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 53: 129-86. Ordnance Survey, 1994. Nwestern fells (Long meg pic) 1998. The English Lakes South Western Area. Outdoor Leisure 6. London: HMSO. Oswald, A., Dyer, C. & Barber, M. 2001. The Creation of Monuments: Neolithic Causewayed Enclosures in the British Isles. Swindon: English Heritage.

165

Owoc, A. 2001. The times, they are a changin’: experiencing continuity and development in the Early Bronze Age funerary rituals of south western Britain. In J. Brück. (ed.). Bronze Age Landscapes: Tradition and Transformation. Oxford: Oxbow, pp. 193-206. Parker Peason, M. & Ramilisola 1998. Stonehenge for the ancestors: the stones pass on the message. Antiquity 72: 30826. Parker Pearson, M. & Richards, C. 1994. Architecture and Order: Approaches to Social Space. London: Routledge. Pennant, T. 1790. (Fifth ed.). A Tour in Scotland; 1769. London: Benjamin White. Pennington, W. 1964. Pollen analyses from the deposits of six upland tarns in the Lake District. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 248: 205-44. 1970. Vegetational history of north-west England: a regional study. In D. Walker, D. & R. West (eds.). Studies in the Vegetational History of the British Isles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 41-80. 1975. The effect of Neolithic Man on the environments of north west England: The use of absolute pollen diagrams. In J. Evans, S. Limbrey & H. Cleere (eds.). The Effect of Man on the Landscape: The Highland Zone. CBA Research Report 11: 74-86. 1997. Vegetational history. In G. Halliday (ed.). A Flora of Cumbria. Centre for north west regional studies, University of Lancaster. Bolton: Shanleys, pp. 43-50. Peterkin, G. 1996. Natural Woodland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Peterson, F. 1972. Traditions of multiple burial in Later Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Britain. Archaeological Journal 129: 22-55. Piggott, S. 1954. The Neolithic Cultures of the British Isles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pitts, M. & Jacobi, R. 1979. Some aspects of change in flaked stone industries of the Mesolithic and Neolithic in southern Britain. Journal of Archaeological Science 6: 163-7. Plint, R. 1960. Stone circle on Potter Fell, near Kendal. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 60: 201. 1962. Stone axe factory sites in the Cumberland fells. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 62: 1-26. 1964. A flint axe from Underbarrow. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 64: 376. 1978. More stone axe factory sites in the Cumberland fells. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 78: 1-14. Pluciennik, M. 1998. Deconstructing ‘the Neolithic’ in the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition. In M. Edmonds & C. Richards (eds.) Understanding the Neolithic of North Western Europe. Glasgow: Cruithne Press, pp. 61-83. Powell, T. 1963. Excavations at Skelmore Heads near Ulverston, 1957 and 1959. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 63: 1-30. 1972. The Tumulus at Skelmore Heads near Ulverston. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 72: 53-6. Powell, T., Corcoran, J., Lynch, F. & Scott, J. (eds.). 1969. Megalithic Enquiries in the West of Britain. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. Powell, T., Oldfield, F. & Corcoran, J. 1971. Excavations in Zone VII peat at Storrs Moss, Lancashire, England. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 37: 112-137.

166

Poucher, W. 1960. The Lakeland Peaks. London: Constable & Co. Pryor, F. 1999. Etton: Excavations at a Neolithic Causewayed Enclosure near Maxey, Cambridge, 1982-1987. London: English Heritage. Quartermaine, J. 1989. Interim results of survey work on Stockdale Moor and Town Bank, west Cumbria. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 89: 25-31. 2002. Upland survey: Neolithic and Bronze age sites. In C.Brooks, R. Daniels & A. Harding (eds.) Past Present and Future: The Archaeology of Northern England Durham. Architectural and Archaeological society of Durham and Northumberland Research Report 5: 29-36. Quartermaine, J. & Leech, R. forthcoming. The Later Prehistory of the Lake District: Results of Recent Surveys. RCHME 1996a. Carrock Fell, Caldbeck and Mungrisdale, Cumbria. Unpublished survey report. 1996b. Howe Robin, Crosby Ravensworth, Cumbria. Unpublished survey report. 1996c. Skelmore Heads, Urswick, Cumbria. Unpublished survey report. 1996d. Stone Walls, Urswick, Cumbria. Unpublished survey report. Rackham, O. 1977. Neolithic woodland management in the Somerset Levels. In J. Coles (ed.). Somerset Levels Papers 3. Exeter: University of Exeter, pp. 77-99. 1988. (revised ed.). Trees and Woodland in the British Landscape. London: Dent. Rasmussen, P. 1989. Leaf foddering in the earliest Neolithic agriculture: evidence from Switzerland and Denmark. Acta Archaeologica 60: 71-86. Relph, E. 1976. Place and placelessness. London: Pion. 1981. Rational landscapes and Humanistic Geography. London: Croom Helm. Renfrew, C. 1973. Monuments, mobilisation and social organisation in Neolithic Wessex. In C. Renfrew (ed.). The Explanation of Culture Change. London: Duckworth, pp. 539-58. 1974. British Prehistory: Changing configurations. In C. Renfrew (ed.). British Prehistory: A New Outline. London: Duckworth, pp.1-40. Reader’s Digest, 1984. Reader’s Digest Great Illustrated Dictionary. London: Reader’s Digest. Richards, C. 1993. Monumental choreography: architecture and spatial representation in Late Neolithic Orkney. In C. Tilley (ed.). Interpretative Archaeology. Oxford: Berg, pp. 143-178. 1996a. Monuments as landscape: creating the centre of the world in Late Neolithic Orkney. World Archaeology 28 (2): 190-208. 1996b. Henges and water: towards an elemental understanding of monumentality and landscape in Late Neolithic Britain. Journal of Material Culture 1: 313-336. Richards, M. 2000. Human consumption of plant foods in the British Neolithic: direct evidence from bone stable isotopes. In A. Fairbairn (ed.). Plants in Neolithic Britain and Beyond. Neolithic Studies Group Seminar Papers 5. Oxford: Oxbow, pp. 123-136. Richardson, C. 1982. Excavations at Birrell Sike near Low Prior Scales, Cumbria. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 82: 7-27. 1990. A catalogue of recent acquisitions to Carlisle museum and reported finds from the Cumbrian area. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 90: 1-98. 1998. A catalogue of recent acquisitions to Tullie House Museum and reported finds from the Cumbrian area 1990167

1996. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 98: 1-61. Robinson, K. 1998. Prehistoric settlement and field system remains in the Lake District uplands. Unpublished Monuments Protection Programme document. Robinson, R. 1985. Some recent finds of stone axes in Furness. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 85: 35-42. Rodgers, P. 2000. Ring and boulder cairns on the Langdale and Grasmere fells, Lake District National Park. Archaeology North 17: 16-18. Roe 1979. Typology of stone implements with shaftholes. In T. Clough & W. Cummins (eds.) Stone Axe Studies. London: CBA Research Report 23. Ruggles, C. 1999. Astronomy in Prehistoric Britain and Ireland. London: Yale University Press. Salisbury, C. 1992. The Pleistocene exploitation of Cumbria: a review of the evidence. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 92: 1-7. 1997. The Prehistoric occupation of Blenkett Wood, near Allithwaite. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 97: 1-10. Saville, A. 1981. The flint and chert artefacts. In R. Mercer. Excavations at Carn Brea, Illogan, Cornwall. Cornish Archaeology 20: 101-152. Scofield, A. 1987. Putting lithics to the test: non site analysis and the Neolithic settlement of southern England. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 6 (3): 269-284. Shackleton, E. 1966. Lakeland Geology. Keighley: Fretwell & Brian Ltd. Shennan, S. 1985. Experiments in the Collection and Analysis of Archaeological Survey Data: The East Hampshire Survey. Sheffield: John Collis. Sieveking, G. 1984. Excavation of a stone circle at Wilson Scar, Shap north, in 1952. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 84: 31-40. Simmons, I. 1993. Vegetation change during the Mesolithic in the British Isles: some amplifications. In F. Chambers (ed.). Climate Change and Human Impact. London: Chapman & Hall, pp. 109-18. 1996. The Environmental Impact of Later Mesolithic Cultures. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Simmons, I., Dimbleby, G. & Grigson, C. 1981. The Mesolithic. In I. Simmons & M. Tooley. The Environment in British Prehistory. London: Duckworth, pp. 82-124. Simmons, I. & Tooley, M. 1981. The Environment in British Prehistory. London: Duckworth. Simpson, 1882. Stone circles near Shap, Westmorland. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (1) 6: 176-181. Simpson, D. 1971. Beaker houses and settlements in Britain. In D. Simpson (ed.) Economy and settlement in Neolithic and Early Bronze age Britain and Europe. Leicester, Leicester University Press, pp. 131-52. Soffe, G. & Clare, T. 1988. New evidence of ritual monuments at Long Meg and Her Daughters, Cumbria. Antiquity 62, 552-7. Skinner, C. 2000. Recognising and reconstructing prehistoric landscapes: a new case study from eastern Cumbria. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Leicester. Smith, A. 1958. Two Lacustrine deposits in the south of the English Lake District. New Phytologist 57: 363-386. 1959. The mires of south-western Westmorland: stratigraphy and pollen analysis. New Phytologist 67: 119-124.

168

Smith, A. 1981. The Neolithic. In I. Simmons, & M. Tooley (eds.). The Environment in British Prehistory. London: Duckworth, pp. 125-209. Spence, J. 1935a. A note on tumuli of Threpow Rise, Moor Divock. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 35: 66-68. 1935b. Report of the committee for prehistoric studies 1933-35. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 35: 259-261. 1937. A tumulus at Mecklin Park, Santon Bridge. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 37: 104-5. 1939. Ancient remains in Ennerdale and Kinneside parish. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 39: 31-34. 1940. Report of the committee for prehistoric studies 1937-9. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 40: 99-117. Spikins, P. 1995. Virtual landscapes: GIS and lithic scatters. A. In Schofield (ed.). Lithics in Context. Lithic Studies Group Occasional paper No 5. London: HMSO, pp. 95-104. Stallibrass, S. 1991. The animal bones. In J. Williams & C. Howard Davies (2005). Excavations on a Bronze Age Cairn at Hardendale Nab, Shap, Cumbria. Archaeological Journal, 161, 11-53 Stallibrass, S. & Huntley, J. 1996. Slim evidence: a review of the faunal and botanical data from the Neolithic of Northern England. In P. Frodsham (ed.). Neolithic Studies in No-man’s land. Northern Archaeology 13/14: 35-42. Start, M. 2002. Reanalysis of human skeletal material excavated by T. McKenny Hughes from a cairn on Sizergh Fell in 1903. Unpublished report produced for the National Trust. Stockdale 1864. Annales of Cartmel. Ulverston. Stout, H. 1961. Gretigate stone circles, Gosforth. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 61: 1-6. Stukeley, W. 1776. Itinerarium Curiosum. London: Baker & Leigh. Sturdy, D. 1972. A ring cairn in Levens Park. Scottish Archaeological Forum 4: 52-61. Swainson Cowper, H. 1888a. Some prehistoric remains in North Lonsdale. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (1) 9: 200-205. 1888b. Some prehistoric remains in North Lonsdale. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (1) 9: 497-504. Tacon, P. 1991. The power of stone: symbolic aspects of stone use and tool development in western Arnhem Land, Australia. Antiquity 65: 269-285. Taylor, M. 1881. On the discovery of prehistoric remains at Clifton, Westmorland. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (1) 5: 79-97. 1886. The prehistoric remains on Moordivock, near Ullswater. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (1) 8: 323-347. Thom, A.1967. Megalithic Sites in Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Thomas, J. 1988. Neolithic explanations revisited: the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in Britain and south Scandinavia. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 54: 59-66. 1991. Rethinking the Neolithic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 169

1993. The politics of vision and the archaeologies of landscape. In B. Bender (ed.) Landscape: Politics and Perspectives. Oxford: Berg, pp. 19-48. 1998. Towards a Regional Geography of the Neolithic. In M. Edmonds, M & C. Richards (eds.) Understanding the Neolithic of North-Western Europe. Glasgow: Cruithne Press, pp. 37-60. 1999. Understanding the Neolithic. London: Routledge. 2000. Death, identity and the body in Neolithic Britain. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 6: 653-668. Thompson, B. 1963. A polished stone axe from Grasmere. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 63: Tipping, R. 1994. Williamsons Moss: palynological evidence for the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in Cumbria. In J. Boardman & J. Walden (eds.). Cumbria Field Guide. Oxford: Quaternary Research Association, pp. 104-27. Tilley, C. 1994. A Phenomenology of Landscape: Places, Paths and Monuments. Oxford: Berg. 1996. The powers of rocks: topography and monument construction on Bodmin Moor. World Archaeology 28 (2): 161-176. Tilley, C. & Bennett, W. 2001. An archaeology of supernatural places: the case of west Penwith. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute (n.s) 7: 335-362. Tooley, M. 1978. Sea Level Changes: The Coast of North West England during the Flandrian Stage. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1980. Theories of coastal change in North West England. In F. Thompson (ed.). Archaeology and Coastal Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 74-86. 1990. The chronology of coastal dune development in the United Kingdom. Catena Supplement 18: 81-88. Topping, P. 1992. The Penrith henges: a survey by the Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 58: 249-264. Torrence, R. 1986. The Production and Exchange of Stone Tools. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Troels Smith, J. 1960. Danmarks Geologiske Undersogelse 4 (4): 1-32. Tuan 1977. Landscapes of Fear. Oxford: Blackwell. Turnbull, P. & Walsh, D. 1996. A beaker burial in Levens Park. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 96: 13-26. 1997. A prehistoric ritual sequence at Oddendale, near Shap. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 97: 11-44. Veere, F. 2000. Grazing Ecology and Forest History. Wallingford, CABI publishing. Waddell, J. 1970. Irish Bronze Age cists: a survey. Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 100: 91-139. Waddington, C. 1999. A Landscape Archaeological Study of the Mesolithic-Neolithic in the Millfield Basin, Northumberland. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 291. 2000. The Neolithic that never happened? In J. Harding & R. Johnston (eds.) Northern Pasts: Interpretations of the Later Prehistory of Northern England and Southern Scotland. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 302, pp. 33-44. Walker, D. 1955. Studies in the Post glacial history of British vegetation: Skelsmergh Tarn and Kentmere, Westmorland. New Phytologist 54: 222.

170

1965. The Postglacial period in the Langdale Fells, English Lake District. New Phytologist 64: 488-510. 1966a. The Late Quaternary history of the Cumberland lowland. Transactions of the Royal Society B 251: 1-210. 1966b. Excavations at Barnscar. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 65: 53-65. 2001. The dates of human impacts on the environment at Ehenside Tarn. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society 3 (1): 1-20. Ward, J. 1977. Cairns on Corney Fell, West Cumberland. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 77: 1-6. Waterhouse, J. 1985. The Stone Circles of Cumbria. Chichester, Phillimore & Co Ltd. West, T. 1805. The Antiquities of Furness. Ulverston. White, A. 1994. An Early Bronze Age axe from Sandscale, Cumbria. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (2) 94: 283-5. Whittle, A. 1997. Moving on and moving around: Neolithic settlement mobility. In P. Topping (ed.). Neolithic Landscapes. Neolithic Studies Group Seminar papers 2. Oxford: Oxbow Monograph 86: 15-22. 2004. Stones that float to the sky: portal dolmens and their landscapes of memory and myth. In V. Cummings & C. Fowler (eds.). The Neolithic of the Irish Sea: Materiality and Traditions of Practice. Oxford: Oxbow, pp. 81-90. Winchester, A. 1987. Landscape and Society in Medieval Cumbria. Edinburgh: John Donald. Wild, C. 2003. A Bronze Age cremation cemetery at Allithwaite, Cumbria. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (3): 23-50. Howard-Davis, C. & Williams, J, 2005 Excavations on a Bronze Age cairn at Hardendale Nab, Shap, Cumbria, Archaeological Journal, 161, 11-53 Wilkinson, D., Clapham, A. & Clare, T. 1997. The ground flora of the British wildwood. Quaternary Newsletter 83: 15:20. Wimble, G., Wells, C. & Hodgkinson, D. 2000. Human impact on mid and late Holocene vegetation in south Cumbria, UK. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 9 (1): 17-30. Woodward, A. 2000. British Barrows: A Matter of Life and Death. Stroud: Tempus. Yates, M. 1984. Bronze Age round barrows in Dumfries and Galloway. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 132. Young, R. 1987. Lithics and Subsistence in North-Eastern England. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 161. 2002. The Palaeolithic and Mesolithic periods in Northern England: An overview. In C. Brooks, R. Daniels & A. Harding (eds.). Past, Present and Future: The Archaeology of Northern England. Durham: Architectural and Archaeological Society of Durham and Northumberland Research Report 5: 19-36. Zong, V. & Tooley, M. 1996. Holocene changes and crustal movements in Morecambe Bay, northwest England. Journal of Quaternary Science 11 (1): 43-58. Zvelebil, M., Green, S. & Macklin, M., 1992. Archaeological landscapes, lithic scatters and human behaviour. In J. Rossignol & L. Wandschneider (eds.). Space, Time, and Archaeological Landscapes. New York: Plenum, pp. 193226.

171

List of appendices

1.1. 1.2. 1.3.

Key to appendices Large freestanding circles and hengiform monuments. Kerbed funerary monuments and ringcairns. Sites omitted from the present analysis.

173 176 177 178

2.1. 2.2.

Long cairns. Enclosures.

179 180

3.1 3.2. 3.3. 3.4.

LAU cairnfield typology. Cairnfields. Funerary cairns. Ringcairns.

182 183 191 194

4.1.

Excavated monuments and natural features.

195

5.1. 5.2. 5.3. 5.4. 5.5. 6.1. 6.2. 6.3.

SMR records of stone axes and bronze finds across southern Cumbria. Location of Furness lithic scatters. Key to assemblage sheets. Assemblage sheets for the Furness scatters.. Lithic raw material frequencies in the Furness assemblages. Pollen sites mentioned in the text. Summary of Skinner’s (2000) peat accumulation rates and radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon dates mentioned in the text.

196 200 201 203 239 240 241 242

172

Key to appendices Appendix 1. Monuments identified as stone circles Concerning sites identified across the whole of Cumbria, this appendix is split into three sections and details information concerning the monuments discussed in chapter five. Appendix 1.1 lists those monuments characterised as large freestanding circles and hengiform types. Appendix 1.2 lists monuments previously classed as stone circles which have been characterised as large and small kerbed funerary monuments and large ringcairns. Appendix 1.3 lists sites identified as stone circles but omitted from the present analysis due to a lack of secure information regarding their character and/or location. As the majority of the monuments identified as stone circles in Cumbria have been discussed in the text and described more fully by Waterhouse (1985) and Barnatt (1989), the appendices provide only summary information. Each includes National Grid References (where known), site names, descriptions and references. Figure numbers are provided where individual monuments have been illustrated within the text. Appendix 2. Long cairns and enclosures Concerning sites identified across the whole of Cumbria, this appendix is split into two sections and details information concerning long cairns and enclosures. Appendix 2.1 provides details of long cairns identified across Cumbria. The majority have been discussed in the text and described more fully by Masters (1984). The information provided is therefore concerned only with location and summary morphological description, with published references where appropriate. National Grid References are provided for all monuments and SMR numbers for those within the southern Cumbria study area. Appendix 2.2 provides details of the 7 monuments in Cumbria recently identified as possible/likely prehistoric enclosures. These forms have been discussed in the text and some have seen summary description by Oswald et al. (2001). Given the uncertainties surrounding the chronology of many, the appendix describes their morphology, setting and any circumstantial evidence suggestive of a Neolithic date for their foundation. National Grid References, SMR, NMR and SAM numbers are also included. Appendix 3. Cairnfields, funerary cairns and ringcairns Concerning sites identified across the southern half of Cumbria, this appendix is split into four sections and details information concerning elements of the upland and cairnfield records. Appendix 3.1 details the LAU cairnfield typology of upland agricultural settlement discussed in chapter four (Robinson 1988; Quartemaine 1989, 2002; Quartermaine & Leech forthcoming). The cairnfield ‘types’ described are illustrated in figure 4.3. Appendix 3.2 details ‘simple’ and ‘complex’ cairnfield areas identified across the southern half of Cumbria. As discussed in chapter six, ‘cairns’ relates to cairnfield areas composed of ten or less individual monuments, ‘simple’ relates to cairnfields of 10 or more cairns exhibiting little coherent structure and organisation, and ‘complex’ refers to cairnfield areas with alignments, banks and obviously organised field areas. Appendix 3.3 details round funerary cairns identified in different contexts across the southern half of Cumbria. These contexts are self evident however in the light of discussions in chapters six and seven ‘cairnfield’ funerary cairns in appendix 3.3 do not differentiate between those isolated from or within cairnfield areas. This is not always noted on SMR records and only through close analysis (either on foot or with reference to detailed survey plans) is it possible to tell these monuments apart. ‘Fellside’ funerary cairns related to those where no clear information was available. Appendix 3.4 details ringcairns identified across the southern half of Cumbria. Appendices 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 are based on information derived from the county SMR as of Spring 2002 and provide only 173

summary information. The majority of the monuments listed have been recorded as part of the LAU upland surveys and are to be published in full (Quartermaine & Leech forthcoming). Detailed survey data for cairnfields and associated monuments are available on the SMR. SMR/survey numbers and National Grid References for individual monuments and cairnfield areas are included within the appendices. Due to the size of the datasets involved, the appendices do not include monuments for which there was insufficient locational/structural information. Given problems with the secure identification of particular forms from SMR and survey data based on monument morphology (as discussed in chapter four) the monument ‘types’ proposed are provisional. Appendix 4. Excavated monuments and natural features Appendix 4.1 provides summary information pertaining to excavated monuments and natural features discussed in the text. The majority of the information available for these sites has been synthesised in chapters eight and nine and some of this material has been subject to statistical analysis by Annable (1987). There is little to be gained by attempting to tabulate/quantify the data derived from these investigations. It has been established that many monuments had long and complex histories and similar depositional practices occurred in a variety of different contexts across the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age. Many of the investigations described were undertaken in the 19th and early 20th centuries and lack secure statigraphic/contextual information. The detailed results of more recent excavations are published in full elsewhere and not included here. Radiocarbon dates derived from these excavations and quoted in the text are detailed in appendix 6. The data included in appendix 4.1 includes National Grid References for individual sites (where known), summary description of monument architecture/deposits and published references. Figure numbers are also included where individual sites have been illustrated. Appendix 5. Stone axes, bronzes and lithic scatters This appendix concerns the character and distribution of stone axe and bronze finds across the southern half of Cumbria and lithic assemblages derived from the Furness peninsula. As discussed in chapter three, details of the Cherrys’ lithic archive (e.g. Cherry & Cherry 1983, 1984, 1985, 1987a, 1987b, 1996, 2002) from the west coast and eastern uplands are not included here. As has been established, there are significant problems with the characterisation and interpretative methodologies utilised and without further work, the published assemblages provide little beyond basic qualitative and locational information. The results of Skinners (2000) field survey are not included (see note below). Appendix 5.1 details finds of stone axes (polished/unpolished and shafthole) and bronzework across the southern half of Cumbria as recorded on the County SMR as of Spring 2002. This should not be treated as a definitive catalogue of finds form the area. The production of a comprehensive list would require significant archival and museum research and is beyond the remit of the present study. As discussed in chapter three there are significant problems with the character of the evidence. As the majority of recorded finds result from 19th and early 20th century activity the data available is often restricted. Implements recorded as ‘axes’ in appendix 5.1 relate to those records where the information available does not clearly distinguish between roughout and polished ‘celts’ or axes. Different perforated forms are described as ‘shafthole’ axes as the information available does not often differentiate between particular classificatory ‘types’. The appendix provides a list of finds with summary descriptions, references and SMR numbers. Most of the National Grid References give only general locations due to the lack of secure information characterising descriptions of many early finds. Appendix 5.2 details the locations of lithic scatters derived from the Furness transect survey. The appendix includes National Grid References for the centres of lithic scatters and assemblage names/codes. Appendix 5.3 provides a key to understanding the numeric codes utilised in the lithic characterisation process and explains the layout of the assemblage sheets used in appendix 5.4. Appendix 5.4 provides information regarding each of the individual lithic assemblages from the Furness transect. The assemblages have been fully characterised and subject to metric analysis however sheets in this format illustrate the constituents of the assemblage more clearly than the original characterisation sheets. The assemblage sheets include the constituents of individual scatters, analysis of reduction technology and waste. They also outline the presence of diagnostic implements and specific technological attributes. Appendix 5.5 illustrates the frequencies of particular lithic raw materials in each of the lithic assemblages from the Furness transect. As the raw material patterning within and between different assemblages was discussed in chapter nine, appendix 5.5 provides only summary information.

174

Appendix 6. Environmental data and radiocarbon dates This appendix is concerned with detailing the pollen sample sites and radiocarbon dated deposits mentioned in the text. Due to the complexities of dealing with both pollen and radiocarbon data and inconsistencies between the ways specialists from different fields disseminate and interpret this material, this appendix provides only summary descriptions and references to the original published/unpublished sources. A full list of radiocarbon dated material and environmental samples from the Cumbrian lowlands is included in The Lowland Wetlands of Cumbria (Hodgkinson et al. 2000). Appendix 6.1 details the locations and references pertaining to the pollen sample sites mentioned in the text, together with brief descriptions of interpretations derived from radiocarbon dated samples. Appendix 6.2 details radiocarbon dated samples from Skinner’s (2000) study together with data pertaining to the calculation of peat accumulation rates. Appendix 6.3 details the radiocarbon dates from monuments, occupation features and axe working sites mentioned in the text. This information includes site location, radiocarbon dates (as quoted in original texts) and references. Where this information is available, the context of the radiocarbon dated material and lab references are also included.

175

176

519200

502410

502390

493860

484150

528300

527900

528400

487950

487950

317255

313425

310900

352300

325800

351900

310250

310250

480970

314920

317295

480960

315010

345700

481320

314980

488130

484320

310610

317170

513300

356800

522300

487100

311200

304000

517750

356820

512900

548700

354500

359200

502380

303340

502785

508200

364000

317250

531700

317600

502810

523600

329100

537200

523600

329100

317280

546700

354800

357100

502340

317370

537200

514030

306010

357100

473960

329230

517700

487300

319200

306500

North

485300

East

309900

Site

Summer Hill

Summer Hill

Mayburgh

Little Round Table

King Arthur's Round Table

Gutterby

Whitrow Beck

White Moss SW

White Moss NE

Swinside 2

Swinside

Studfold Gate

Oddendale circle

Low Longrigg SW

Low Longrigg NE

Long Meg 2

Long Meg

Lamplugh

Lacra C

Lacra B

Lacra A

Kirkstones

Kemp Howe

Hall Foss

Gunnerkeld

Grey Yauds

Grey Croft

Gamelands

Elva Plain

Castlerigg

Castlerigg 2

Broomrigg A

Brat's Hill

Blakely raise

Birkrigg

Ash House

Annaside

Status

Hengiform

Hengiform

Hengiform

Hengiform

Hengiform

Hengiform

Stone circle

Stone circle

Stone circle

Stone circle

Stone circle

Stone circle

Stone circle

Stone circle

Stone circle

Stone circle

Stone circle

Stone circle

Stone circle

Stone circle

Stone circle

Stone circle

Stone circle

Stone circle

Stone circle

Stone circle

Stone circle

Stone circle

Stone circle

Stone circle

Stone circle

Stone circle

Stone circle

Stone circle

Stone circle

Stone circle

Stone circle

Description

Appendix 1.1. Large freestanding circles and hengiform monuments.

Circle of stone or timber settings c . 30m in diameter. Unpublished; identified from aerial photographs.

'Conjoined' ditched enclosures (50m and 30m diameter) with internal post/stone settings. Unpublished; identified from aerial photographs.

Circular bank with eastern entrance. Internal diameter 90m, external 170m. Internal standing stones. Dymond (1890); Topping (1992).

A ditch 92 metres in diameter with a north-easterly entrance (Topping 1992)

Bank surrounding circular ditch. SE entrance. Internal diameter 54m, external 92.5m. Dymond (1890); Bersu (1940); Topping (1992).

Circular ditch, c . 35m diameter, with evidence for internal post/stone settings. Unpublished; identified from aerial photographs.

9 large boulders, diameter c . 20m. Unpublished; SMR 31011.

14 stones, 16.6m diameter. Central cairn. Burl (1976, 1988); Waterhouse (1985).

11 stones, diameter 16.2m. Central cairn. Burl (1976, 1988); Waterhouse (1985).

2nd circle recorded at Swinside, archival documents from Swinside farm. Sharon Croft pers. comm.

51 stones, diameter 28.7m. Portalled entrance to SE. Dymond (1902); Burl (1976); Waterhouse (1985).

15 stones, 26m by 33m. Central mound with stone slab. Mason & Valentine (1925); Waterhouse (1985).

34 stones, diameter 27.1m. Internal stone setting. Waterhouse (1985).

9 stones, diameter of 15.2m. Central cairn. Burl (1976, 1988); Waterhouse (1985).

Dilapidated circle of 15 stones, diameter 21.7m. 2 central cairns. Burl (1976, 1988); Waterhouse (1985).

2nd circle at Long Meg recorded by Stukeley (1776). Smaller than the extant circle, to the south west.

69 stones, 109m by 93m. Outlier. SW portalled entrance. Dymond (1881); Burl (1976); Soffe & Clear (1988); Waterhouse (1985).

Possible large circle of which 6 stones remained in 1842. Estimated diameter of c .90m. Waterhouse (1985).

Arc of 3 stones, estimated diameter 24m. Dixon & Fell (1948); Waterhouse (1985).

6 of 11 stones, diameter 14.7m. Internal cairn. Dixon & Fell (1948); Waterhouse (1985).

8 stones, diameter 15.7m. Dixon & Fell (1948); Waterhouse (1985).

Destroyed (?)concentric stone circles close to Gutterby. Eccleston (1872).

Arc of 6 boulders, estimated diameter 24.4m. Stone avenue. Nicholson & Burn (1777); Clare (1978); Waterhouse (1985).

Destroyed circle, c . 23m diameter. 8 large stones in 1794. Eccleston (1872); Waterhouse (1985).

c. 21 stones, diameter 31.8m. Northern entrance. Internal stone setting with emptied cist. Dymond (1880); Waterhouse (1985).

'Lost' circle of 88 stones, 47.5m diameter. Remaining outlier. Nicholson & Burn (1777); Hodgson (1935); Waterhouse (1985).

Reconstructed circle of 10 stones (originally 12) diameter 27m. Small central cairn. Fletcher (1956); Waterhouse (1985).

40 stones remain of a circle 44.4m by 38.8m. Stones set in low bank. Ferguson (1882); Waterhouse (1985).

Diameter 33.5m, 15 stones, originally about 30. Waterhouse (1985).

38 of 42 stones, 32.6 by 29.9m. Northern entrance, rectangular stone setting to south east. Waterhouse (1985); Fraser (1985).

2nd circle at Castlerigg recorded by Stukeley (1776). Larger than the extant circle, downslope to west.

Dilapidated circle c . 50m diameter, possible stone avenue. Hodgson (1935); Waterhouse (1985).

c. 40 stones, diameter c. 30.4m. 5 internal cairns. Clare (1975); Waterhouse (1985), Burl (1976, 1988).

Re-erected. Present diameter 16.6m. Original had c . 21 stones rather than the present 11. Clare (1975); Waterhouse (1985).

Circle of 24m diameter with internal stone setting. Gelderd & Dobson (1914); Waterhouse (1984).

Likely original 22 stones. 2 standing stones recorded by OS (1998), Burl (1976), Waterhouse (1985) probably not part of the circle.

Destroyed circle with 12 stones and a diameter of c . 18m. Hutchinson (1794); Eccleston (1972); Waterhouse (1985).

177

514700

537500

511600

359600

357700

360700

496700

328460

515460

484230

328000

358740

482990

325130

546600

522200

348300

355000

518270

354970

546600

588650

355260

354800

49880

350340

494600

522200

349300

326400

522000

349400

519200

526300

356300

345700

481240

315130

521700

514800

359600

349600

539300

357300

480000

546500

354800

369000

North

East

Ringcairn

Ringcairn

Ringcairn

Ringcairn

Large ringcairn

Large ringcairn

Large ringcairn

Kerbed cairn

Kerbed cairn

Kerbed cairn

Kerbed cairn

Kerbed cairn

Kerbed cairn

Kerbed cairn

Kerbed cairn

Kerbed cairn

Kerbed cairn

Status

Small kerbed cairn

Small kerbed cairn

White Hag

Little Meg

Iron Hill South

Small kerbed cairn

Small kerbed cairn

Small kerbed cairn

Castlehowe scar Small kerbed cairn

Broomrigg D

Broomrigg B

Bleaberry Haws Small kerbed cairn

Swarth Fell

Kopstone

Casterton

Banniside

Lowick Beacon

Kirk

Cockpit

Wilson Scar

Shapbeck

Potter Fell

Moor Divock 5

Moor Divock 4

Leacet Hill

Lacra D

Iron Hill North

Glassonby

Broomrigg C

Site

Appendix 1.2. Kerbed funerary monuments and ringcairns.

11 granite boulders, diameter c. 6m. Waterhouse (1985).

Internal cist surrounded by 11 stones, 5.9m by 4.7m. Dymond (1890); Waterhouse (1985); Beckensall (2002).

9 stones, 7.1m by 6.2m. Remains of possible cist within. Waterhouse (1985); Beckensall (2002).

11 pink granite boulders, diameter c. 5m. Waterhouse (1985)

Irregular circle measuring 5.5 by 4.5m. Fell & Richardson (1975); Waterhouse (1985).

Kerbed structure with robbed central pit. 4 of 7 stones remain. Diameter 3.4m. Hodgson (1952), Waterhouse (1985).

7 stones arranged in an 'ellipse' 4.7 by 3.7m. Swainson-Cowper (1888a); Waterhouse (1985).

65 low stones/slabs set close together around a central area c. 16m in diameter. Waterhouse (1985).

Large standing stone set in a ringbank/stone circle possibly c. 17m in diameter. Taylor (1886); Waterhouse (1985).

19 stones set in an irregular ringbank c . 19m diameter. See Waterhouse (1985).

Ringbank of c. 15m, with internal standing and fallen slabs. Excavated by Collingwood (1912). Waterhouse (1985).

Large embanked ringcairn, low internal and external standing stones/slabs remain. Diameter c . 30m. Waterhouse (1985).

Embanked ringcairn, some low internal standing stones/slabs remain. Diameter c . 30m. Joplin (1846); Waterhouse (1985).

Embanked circle with an internal diameter of 26m. Kerbing on inner face. Taylor (1886); Waterhouse (1985).

35 low kerbstones, external bank, partially ?paved interior. Inhumations and token deposits on ground surface. Sieveking (1984).

Also known as Knipe Scar A. Dilapidated structure described as a 'concentric' circle (Turner 1986). Diameter c . 22m.

Identification of a small stone circle (Plint 1960) probably relates to the remains of a burial cairn recorded by Machell (1691).

Disturbed mound with standing stones, diameter 14m. Simpson (1882); Taylor (1886); Waterhouse (1985).

10 stones in a bank around the top of a cairn, 11m in diameter. Simpson (1882); Taylor (1886); Waterhouse (1985).

Excavated by Ferguson (1881), cremations, urns, token deposits. Diameter 11.5m, originally 10 stones. Waterhouse (1985).

Small dilapidated circle c. 18m in diameter. Large stone in centre, urn at the foot of an outer stone. Dixon & Fell (1948).

19 small boulders around a central mound, 14.5 by 11.5m. Collingwood (1933b); Waterhouse (1985).

Kerbed funerary cairn, max. diameter 15.7m. Collingwood (1901); Waterhouse (1985); Beckensall (2002).

14 stones, diameter 15.6m. Kerbed cist cairn, partly destroyed by addition of a large kerbed cairn. Hodgson & Harper (1950).

Description

178

522000

349400

502400

522000

349400

303800

505910

341630

510760

518000

298900

299530

588800

355200

529200

503600

305700

341900

503600

305700

522000

503600

305700

349400

489300

316900

522000

545000

343000

349400

North

East

Also known as Summerhouse Hill (North 1936b). Not thought to be a stone circle (Burl 1976). Now in Lancashire.

Yealand Conyers

Appendix 1.3. Sites omitted from the present analysis.

A 4 ft stone near Seascale recorded as a stone circle. SMR 1302.

Seascale

Lost' circle west of Egremont consisted of 10 large stones, '60 paces in circumference'. Collingwood (1933); Waterhouse (1985).

Recorded by Nicholson & Burn (1777) as a circle of stones used for druidical worship. Located on the edge of the Howgills.

Rawthey Bridge

Ringlen Stones

c. 15.5m diameter. ?Destroyed in the 19th century. Probably a kerbed cairn/ringcairn. Collingwood (1923); Waterhouse (1985).

?Burial cairn recorded by Taylor (1886), since destroyed. Part of a cemetery including Cockpit and Kopstone. Waterhouse (1985).

?Burial cairn recorded by Taylor (1886), since destroyed. Part of a cemetery including Cockpit and Kopstone. Waterhouse (1985).

?Burial cairn recorded by Taylor (1886), since destroyed. Part of a cemetery including Cockpit and Kopstone. Waterhouse (1985).

?Burial cairn recorded by Taylor (1886), since destroyed. Part of a cemetery including Cockpit and Kopstone. Waterhouse (1985).

Also called Hird Wood. Dilapidated possible stone circle. c . 19.8m. Possible central cairn. Waterhouse (1985)

Possible stone circle east of Whitehaven, thought to have been destroyed in 1628. Collingwood (1933); Waterhouse (1985).

Recorded by Simpson (1882) as a concentric circle. Recorded as 'lost' by Waterhouse (1985).

I of 3 recorded by Stout (1961). Survey and excavation located only recent field clearance. SMR 1292, Daniels (1995).

I of 3 recorded by Stout (1961). Survey and excavation located only recent field clearance. SMR 1292, Daniels (1995).

Recorded by Stout (1961). Survey and excavation located only recent field clearance. SMR 1292, Daniels (1995).

Motherby

Moor Divock 8

Moor Divock 7

Moor Divock 6

Moor Divock 3

Low Kingate

Le Wheles

Knipe Scar B

Gretigate C

Gretigate B

Gretigate A

Several large stones between the Grasmere and Keswick roads recorded in the 19th century. Waterhouse (1985).

A circle recorded in Dacre parish. Waterhouse (1985).

Dacre

Grasmere

Lowlying monument with large stones, c . 27m in diameter. Destroyed. Waterhouse (1985).

Chapel Flat

Recorded as a small stone circle (SMR 1464), possible funerary cairn or ringcairn.

A circle of gritstones 18m in diameter surrounding a pile of stones. Close to Mayburgh, now destroyed. Waterhouse (1985)

Brougham

Fenwick

'Lost' monument. 6 stones in 3 pairs around a mound. C18th excavation, 3 cists with inhumations. Waterhouse (1985).

Description

Broadfield

Site

179

480200

508050

488230

494620

511900

582700

513500

524300

502000

507750

509870

509841

508270

506461

509775

509892

509986

509880

348200

309840

325029

314790

361600

353800

358800

353700

313700

310150

307638

307299

309630

327079

309787

307602

307680

307600

509900

580800

357100

307630

507200

368400

509870

507000

365000

307570

North

475390

East

327440

Sitename

Town Bank X (536)

Town Bank X (558)

Town Bank X (541)

Town Bank X (518)

Town Bank (551)

Monk's Graves

Mickledon

Stockdale Moor IV

Town Bank XI

Town Bank X (564)

Stockdale Moor 1

Irton Fell

Trainford Brow

Oddendale

The Currick

Cow Green

Muncaster/Stainton Fell

Heathwaite

Samson's Bratful

Haverbrack

Lamb Crag

Raiset Pike

Crosby Garrett CLXXIV

Skelmore Heads

Status

Questionable

Questionable

Questionable

Questionable

Questionable

Questionable

Questionable

Questionable

Questionable

Questionable

Questionable

Questionable

Questionable

Likely

Likely

Likely

Likely

Likely

Likely

Likely

Excavated

Excavated

Excavated

Excavated

Parish

Ennerdale

Ennerdale

Ennerdale

Ennerdale

Ennerdale

Ennerdale

Lakes

Ennerdale

Ennerdale

Ennerdale

Ennerdale

Copeland

Lowther

Crosby Ravensworth

Carlisle

Crosby Ravensworth

Muncaster

Kirkby Ireleth

Ennerdale

Beetham

Carlisle

Crosby Garrett

Crosby Garrett

Urswick

SMR

9353

9353

9353

30985

30986

30966

3017

30961

30990

30987

30954

31060

31065

9315

2488

2225

References

Appendix 2.1. Long cairns.

Quartermaine (1989).

Quartermaine (1989).

Quartermaine (1989).

Quartermaine (1989).

Quartermaine (1989).

Quartermaine (1989).

Clare (1973).

Quartermaine (1989).

Quartermaine (1989).

Quartermaine (1989).

Quartermaine (1989).

Masters (1984).

Masters (1984).

Collingwood (1926); Masters (1984).

Masters (1984).

Masters (1984).

Masters (1984).

Masters (1984).

Masters (1984).

Fell (1971); Masters (1984).

Masters (1984); Clare (1973).

Greenwell (1877); Masters (1984); Kinnes (1979).

Greenwell (1877); Masters (1984); Kinnes (1979).

Powell (1963, 1972).

Description

One of six 'long cairns' in cairnfield 9353.

One of six 'long cairns' in cairnfield 9353.

One of six 'long cairns' in cairnfield 9353.

One of six 'long cairns' in cairnfield 9353.

Prominent oval cairn, boulder on top. 1 of 6 in cairnfield 9353.

Well defined, semi circular appendage at north end.

Possible pear shaped disturbed barrow in cairnfield at Mickledon.

Pear shaped cairn in cairnfield 9314.

Long mound, 10.5 by 6.2m.

Pear shaped cairn with boulder on top. 1 of 6 in cairnfield 9353.

Long cairn' within cairnfield 9324.

Probably a natural outcrop. oriented WSW/ENE.

Bipartite, possible ditch E. end. Oriented E/W.

Long barrow W. of Oddendale.

Trapezoid mound oriented E/W, wider end to E.

Oriented E/W, wider end to east.

Oval mound with possible façade. Oriented E/W.

Pear shaped, oriented NE/SW.

Pear shaped, oriented SE/NW. higher end to SE.

Trapezoid/oval mound, orientation N/S, wider end to S.

Unrecorded excavated cremation trench.

Bipartite, oriented NW/SE, wider end to SE.

Oval cairn oriented N/S. situated on limestone outcrop.

Oval mound with internal standing stones. Oriented E/W.

Appendix 2.2. Enclosures CARROCK FELL NGR: NY 3425 3364 NMR: NY 33 SW 1 and 3 COUNTY SMR: 2973 SITE STATUS: SAM 22545

HOWE ROBIN, CROSBY RAVENSWORTH FELL NGR: NY624 104 NMR: NY61 SW 75 COUNTY SMR: 16761 SITE STATUS: Not scheduled

Carrock Fell, first described in the regional literature by Collingwood (1937) is recorded on the NMR as an Iron Age hillfort. Surveyed by the RCHME (1996a), this isolated hilltop monument lies between 640 and 665 metres AOD and encloses an area of 1.94ha. The enclosure is defined by a discontinuous stone rubble bank surviving to a maximum height of 1.6 metres. Below the north west and south west there are scree slopes and in places the perimeter of the monument is formed of naturally outcropping rock. Roughly pear shaped in plan and oriented with east-west, the enclosure is 220 metres in length and has a max. width of 100 metres. Ten separate lengths of bank have been identified, however there is no extant evidence for the presence of either an internal or external ditch. Two mutilated cairns occupy high points within the enclosure. The southern flank of Carrock Fell has been identified as the source of group XXXIV stone axes (Clough & Cummins 1988). Given that the relationship between Neolithic enclosures and axe sources is well established (Edmonds 1993, 1999), this may well be suggestive of a Neolithic date for the monument.

The Howe Robin enclosure, surveyed by the RCHME (1996b), is situated at a height of 360 metres AOD on Crosby Ravensworth Fell. Occupying an area of 4.55 ha, the monument is roughly heart shaped and is 250 metres in length with a maximum width of 220 metres. Situated on a prominent limestone plateau, the monument survives as discontinuous sections of earthen bank and/or rubble scarp linking the outcropping limestone of which hilltop is primarily formed. At the foot of the bank/scarp are a series of irregular impressions cut into the limestone. These range from clearly constructed ditch segments to shallow scoops cut out of the natural rock. The enclosure is situated in an area dense with evidence for Neolithic and Bronze Age activity. Numerous funerary cairns have been recorded in the environs of the Howe Robin enclosure, including a long cairn at Cow Green (Masters 1984). The enclosure is also situated roughly half way between the stone circles of Gamelands and Oddendale, both of which form part of major monument complexes. Neolithic occupation both close to and within Howe Robin has been illustrated by both lithic and ceramic evidence (Cherry et al. 1985). Finds included a small polished stone axe, a number of flakes struck from polished stone axes, part of a polished flint axe, a leaf shaped arrowhead and a number of sherds of Grimston ware.

GREEN HOW, AUGHERTREE FELL NGR: NY2574 3746 NMR: NY23 NE12 COUNTY SMR: 31727 SITE STATUS: LDNPA, not scheduled.

SKELMORE HEADS, URSWICK NGR: SD 274 751 NMR SD27 NE2 COUNTY SMR: 2248 SITE STATUS: SAM 27688

Initially identified by aerial survey in 2000, Green Howe, on the western end of Aughertree Fell, appears on the basis of its morphology to typify causewayed enclosures identified in other areas (English Heritage 2000). At a height of 320 metres AOD, the hilltop enclosure occupies an area of 0.62ha and is comprised of a single circuit of discontinuous bank and ditch. With a length of 132 metres and a width of 56 metres the oval perimeter consists of irregular segments of bank with corresponding causeways. A possible entrance causeway has been identified midway along the southern circuit. Later Mesolithic/Early Neolithic lithics (including a number of microliths) have been recovered from the environs of the monument and a number of funerary cairns are situated close by. Earthwork features overlying the enclosure appear to correspond with likely Iron Age and RomanoBritish field systems recorded by Higham (1978). Attention has also been drawn to a natural feature reminiscent of a long mound within the enclosure which appears to be respected by the perimeter of the circuit (Horne 2000).

The Skelmore Heads enclosure, situated on the southern Furness Peninsula, has in general been considered to be a univallate hillfort of Iron Age date. Situated on a prominent flat topped hill at a height of 95 metres AOD, the enclosure covers an area of 1.7ha and is 143 metres in length and 98 metres in width. Surveyed by the RCHME (1996c), the enclosure is broadly rectilinear in form, a shape defined largely by the presence of outcropping limestone and steep slopes which form much of the western southern and eastern perimeter of the monument. To the north the enclosure is defined by a bank and ditch. Skelmore Heads saw limited excavation by Powell (1963). Interpretations as to the results of these investigations (where a palisaded enclosure of Iron Age date was later replaced by an earthen bank and ditch) remain equivocal on a number of levels (see RCHME 1996c). Although the monument may well have seen a number of different phases of use, there is strong 180

circumstantial evidence to suggest a Neolithic foundation from the site (Evans 2004). A long cairn is situated 50 metres to the north of the enclosure (Powell 1963, 1972; Masters 1984), and a cache of roughout stone axes were located in limestone outcrops which partially form its perimeter (Barnes 1963).

SUMMER HILL, BOOTLE NGR: SD 102 879 NMR: COUNTYSMR13937 SITE STATUS LDNPA, not scheduled. A number of previously unknown monuments have recently been identified, through aerial reconnaissance, on the west Cumbrian coastal plain. These include a complex of hengiform and possibly funerary monuments at Summer Hill, less than a kilometre to south of Bootle. Perhaps of the most significance are a pair of conjoined circular ditched features illustrating evidence of internal settings. The organisation of these monuments exhibits a strong similarity to the enclosure and stone circle at Long Meg.. Summer Hill East has an approximate diameter of 50 metres, whilst Summer Hill West is c. 35 metres across. To the north of these monuments are a further three circular features. The largest of these, with no surrounding ditch, appears to be a timber circle with a diameter of c. 30 metres. Two or more cremation burials were recovered from the environs of these monuments during the construction of a gas pipeline in the early 1990s (County SMR 16767). Summer Hill lies a kilometre to the north of Barfield Tarn where pollen analysis has illustrated woodland clearance and cereal cultivation from the Early Neolithic onwards (Pennington 1975; Hodgkinson et al. 2000).

HALLIN FELL, ULLSWATER NGR: NY 435 197 NMR: 17670_63 COUNTY SMR: n/a SITE STATUS: LDNPA, not scheduled. Very little is known of the enclosure at Hallin Fell, Ullswater, only recently identified through aerial survey by English Heritage. Hallin Fell is an isolated hill on the eastern shore of Ullswater, situated north and downslope of Martindale common. The enclosure bank itself cuts off the summit of the fell (at 388 metres AOD) and is formed of a massive rubble rampart following a steep scarp at a height of c. 350 metres AOD. The bank runs between outcrops across the south of the fell, on the basis of aerial photographic evidence, for a distance of c. 200 metres. The remainder of the fell summit is formed by outcropping rock and steep gradients running down towards the lake. Given the location and architecture of the enclosure, it seems likely it is prehistoric in date, however the site has not yet seen detailed survey and there are few known prehistoric sites in its close environs. A cairn is situated adjacent to the enclosure on the south eastern flank of the of the fell, with a second example overlying the enclosure bank close to what may be a southerly entrance. Further afield, the site is to the west of High Street Roman road, alongside which are numerous Neolithic and Bronze Age monuments such as the Moor Divock cemetery complex and the Swarth Fell ringcairn. LONG MEG NGR: NY 571 372 NMR: 908034 COUNTY SMR: 6154 SITE STATUS: SAM 23663 With a maximum diameter of 109 metres, the Long Meg stone circle is the sixth largest in size in Britain and has seen interpretation as one of the earliest stone circles in the British Isles (Burl 1976). A large sub circular enclosure has been identified immediately adjacent to its northern perimeter (Soffe & Clare 1988). With a length of 220 metres and a width of 190 metres, the enclosure is significantly larger in size than the stone circle. Likely entrances have been identified both to the north and south (see Burl 1994), the southernmost meeting the stone circle on its flattened northern perimeter at the point at which an outlying stone may have formed an entrance between the two monuments. Long Meg formed the focus for a series of monuments including the Glassonby and Little Meg funerary monuments, a second stone circle recorded by Stukeley (1776) and a possible cursus monument (Soffe & Clare 1988; Beckensall 2002). 181

Appendix 3.1. LAU cairnfield typology type of field system. This later fossilisation of field systems within later developed field systems is considered to be an indicator of continuity of settlement.

The following descriptions, based on the typological definition of five types of upland agricultural settlement (Quartermaine 1989, 2002; Quartermaine & Leech forthcoming) are taken from an unpublished English Heritage Monuments Protection Programme document produced for the National Trust (Robinson 1988). Problems with this typology are discussed in chapter four and the cairnfield ‘types’ are illustrated in figure 4.3.

Arable cairnfields. The survey produced evidence of medieval cairnfields which served arable agriculture. Here cairnfields comprise a series of elongated cairns along the edges of cultivation terraces and are associated with the medieval type of simple farmstead or shieling.

Primary cairnfield: Random cairnfield development is the most common agricultural feature of the uplands and is considered to reflect recently cleared forest lands of the Bronze Age. They appear as simple small cairnfields with no evidence of stone banks, cairn alignments or other elements of a protofield system and there is never any contemporary association with lynchets. Protofield system: Adaptation of the primary random cairnfield by using stone banks or alignments of cairns in order to demarcate and rationalise the land for agriculture. In some cases they incorporate stone huts and small cultivation plots denoting a degree of established settlement and the introduction of mixed agricultural practice. These are essentially hay meadows with boundaries possibly for the purpose of stock control and to segregate hay growing areas from general pasture. The introduction of small garden plots at some sites is a significant innovation demonstrating the introduction of basic arable techniques within an overall pastoral economy. Cairn-field-system: The classic example of this system incorporated a series of fields defined by long continuous stone banks oriented downslope. Some fields have randomly distributed cairnfields contained by field boundaries, while others have no cairnfields but include garden plots and hut circles. Although this cairnfield system is more rationalised and ordered than the typologically earlier protofield system, the agricultural methodologies are similar, however this latter system appears to offer a more balanced mixed economy. Cultivated field system: This is a major departure from the earlier cairnfield system. The classic example has a series of regular rectilinear fields defined by lynchets. There are no cairns within the fields although a small number are aligned along the top of the field system and in relation to field boundaries. Fields are up to 100 metres in length and average 32 metres wide and this size implies that they were cultivated. There is no large random cairnfield in association and the emphasis is on cultivation rather than pastoralism. Fields are directly associated with complex farmsteads comprising hut circles and sunken enclosures suggesting a Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age date. The cultivated field system appears both to have been constructed from the outset in this developed form or to have developed out of an earlier 182

183

492334

492528

492621

494413

498100

492971

488769

507570

507930

509690

509780

509640

326836

327701

326572

329040

327429

327034

309250

309130

308200

308600

307800

494299

326422

327054

496059

327784

489190

494560

327772

326778

496266

327520

490503

495840

326182

327906

495809

326934

494467

495461

326531

326828

495015

326483

492330

493880

327117

327567

496380

332520

489648

493642

326927

326875

493803

326991

494097

494147

326319

326673

493762

326926

492474

496397

327524

327232

495286

326575

496840

496301

327595

328620

489909

327185

492339

496471

374740

327062

West

488430

East

313820

Location

Town Bank

Town Bank

Town Bank

Stockdale Moor

Stockdale Moor

Round Haw

Hazel Hall

Prehistoric

Bleaberry Haws

Inking Knott

Greaves Ground

Green Howe

White Borran

Nutty sheep fold

Banks/Plattocks

Inking Knott

Wool Knott

Banks/Plattocks

Green Howe

Banishead

Green Howe

Bleaberry Haws

Banishead

Banishead

Banishead

Bleaberry Haws

Banishead

Banishead

Bleaberry Haws

Banks/Plattocks

Torver

Banks/Plattocks

Banks/Plattocks

Bleaberry Haws

Banks/Plattocks

Banishead

Bleaberry Haws

Banishead

Beacon Tarn

Banishead

Bootle Fell

Parish

Ennerdale

Ennerdale

Ennerdale

Ennerdale

Ennerdale

Coniston

Coniston

Coniston

Coniston

Coniston

Coniston

Coniston

Coniston

Coniston

Coniston

Coniston

Coniston

Coniston

Coniston

Coniston

Coniston

Coniston

Coniston

Coniston

Coniston

Coniston

Coniston

Coniston

Coniston

Coniston

Coniston

Coniston

Coniston

Coniston

Coniston

Coniston

Coniston

Coniston

Coniston

Coniston

Bootle

SMR/LAU

9354

9342

9344

9320

9321

TLC

TLC

2692

THC/1620

TLC

TLC/1633

TLC

TLC

TLC

THC

TLC

TLC

THC

TLC

1607

TLC

THC/1621

THC

THC

THC/1610

THC

THC

THC/1614

THC

THC

2064

THC

THC/1631

THC

THC

THC/1610

THC/3892

THC/1610

TLC

THC/1610

9386

Description

Appendix 3.2. Cairnfields.

Small group of cairns on a steep slope.

Small isolated group of cairns on an island of well drained land.

Town Bank VII cairnfield. Small group, ill defined.

Isolated group of 5 cairns beside a beck.

Small group of 4 cairns.

TLC XXI (159-61). Medium sized cairnfield on a tongue of flat land.

TLC I (5-9). Small cairnfield on a terrace.

5 cairns 3-6m diameter, 1 is 6m diameter and kerbed.

THC XXIIa (156,158) 2 cairns.

TLC IV (25-8) 4 cairns, 2 possibly natural.

TLC III (19-21). Small cairnfield on a flat topped terrace.

TLCVIb (36-8) 3 cairns in natural bowl.

TLC IXX (142-49) medium size cairnfield, relatively large cairns, parallel to break of slope.

TLC XXII (79-83). Disparate group of cairns.

THC XXIII (159-66). Scattered group of clearance cairns above valley floor. linear distribution.

TLC II (13-14) 2 cairns, small cairnfield on a natural terrace.

TLC XV (105-111). Large cairnfield of 7 cairns on terrace.

THC XXIV (178-184) Group of ill defined cairns.

TLC V (31-3) Small area of clearance in a gully.

2 small mounds located on east facing slope.

TLCVIa (34-8). Small cleared area of land surrounded on 3 sides by natural drop.

THCXXIIb (168-71) 4 cairns, 2 possibly natural. on broad natural terrace.

THC VII (47-49, 218). Group of 4 cairns close to quarry, well defined and prominent.

THC V/24-25. 2 clearance cairns.

THC VIc (32-7) Well defined large cairns next to Torver Beck.

Bleaberry Haws THC XVI (106, 108). 2 clearance cairns assoc with a small stone ring (107)

THC XI Flask Brow, group of 5 cairns ( 68-72).

THC XIII (82-5) Small group of ill defined cairns between two streams.

Bleaberry Haws THC XVII (110-112) Group of 3 cairns in a natural bowl.

THC XXV a (186-90) 3 cairns and 2 of ill defined structures.

Mound on west facing slope.

THC XXVd (206, 207, 219, 220). Small group of ill defined cairns on a narrow terrace.

THCXXVb (193-8, 222). Small group 7 cairns on a terrace.

THCXXIIc (172-7). Small group of cairns on a natural terrace.

THC XXVc (199-206) Cairnfield on flat bottomed gully base.

THC VIb 2 cairns on terrace edged by stream gullies.

High Pike Haw THCXV (93-104). Small cairnfield on slope between 2 areas of crag/scree.

THC VId (38-42). Small scattered cairnfield next to Torver Beck.

TLC XIV (93). Cairn 5m by 2.5m, no other cairns in vicinity.

THC VIa, 2 cairns and a bank on well drained land between 2 crags.

8 cairns, 4 well defined and large, 4 small.

Simple/complex

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

184

488750

487810

488700

486800

486950

487050

487375

487625

487420

488700

325340

325450

325650

325400

325300

324900

324865

325290

324965

325650

490000

490500

494785

494940

494980

494950

497581

497400

505460

507500

506300

489550

513000

493600

317300

317000

313613

313625

313910

313390

314638

345300

313930

311400

312300

352360

341000

323180

484700

485040

320400

326560

485300

507700

311900

326600

488600

321800

506900

488600

321800

506590

498190

318600

326300

497210

315130

342710

497970

316330

507300

510400

308700

326200

509190

309970

478900

510250

307650

339600

West

514000

East

314500

Location

Seathwaite

Low Harstop

Natland

Grey Borran

Yokerill

Countess Eck

Staveley

Linbeck Gill

Stainton Fell

Stainton Fell

Stainton Fell

Stainton Fell

Thwaites Fell

Smallthwaite

Gawthwaite

Gawthwaite

Gawthwaite

Mickledon

Troutbeck

Mickledon

Hampsfell

Thwaites Fell.

Heathwaite Fell

Heathwaite Fell

Heathwaite Fell

Heathwaite Fell

Heathwaite Fell

Heathwaite Fell

Thwaites Fell.

Heathwaite Fell

Heathwaite Fell

Whin Garth

Field Broughton

Field Broughton

Birkenthwaite

Devoke Water

Eskdale

Boat Howe

Cawgill

Town Bank

Ennerdale Forest

Parish

Seathwaite

Patterdale

Natland

Nether Wasdale

Nether Wasdale

Nether Wasdale

Nether Staveley

Muncaster

Muncaster

Muncaster

Muncaster

Muncaster

Millom Without

Millom

Lowick

Lowick

Lowick

Lakes

Lakes

Lakes

L. Allithwaite

Kirkby Ireleth

Kirkby Ireleth

Kirkby Ireleth

Kirkby Ireleth

Kirkby Ireleth

Kirkby Ireleth

Kirkby Ireleth

Kirkby Ireleth

Kirkby Ireleth

Kirkby Ireleth

Gosforth

F. Broughton

F. Broughton

Eskdale

Eskdale

Eskdale

Ennerdale

Ennerdale

Ennerdale

Ennerdale

SMR/LAU

13958

5338

14897

1345

3040

7664

4626

7531

8692

8693

8693

8691

16597

9127

2175

2178

2173

8667

1931

3015

2445

9393

3207

3207

3207

9430

9427

4932

9393

3207

9394

8778

6853

6853

4719

7530

7015

1202

9310

9352

17728

Description

Cairnfield.

Cairns.

Appendix 3.2. Cairnfields.

Clearance cairns identified from aerial photographs.

4-5 small cairns.

7 cairns.

8 cairns.

Possible cairn and hut platform.

Group of 3 round cairns.

Small cairnfield. 9 oval cairns and banks.

5 cairns.

6 cairns surrounded by bog.

Cairn, stone bank.

Cairns near Cloven Stone.

5 clearance cairns west of Smallthwaite Forest.

Mounds.

10 mounds and cairns.

Mounds.

7 cairns and a stone bank.

Round cairn E of Hagg Gill. Clearance below enclosure wall.

Linear clearance bank and 3 cairns.

Cairns.

Thwaite cairnfield. Low scatter of mounds.

Small group of cairns, possibly augmented outcrops.

Group of 3 cairns.

4 irregular mounds.

Cairns, some possibly natural.

Cairns, some probably natural.

Cairns.

Low scatter of mounds on a spur, possibly natural.

Cairnfield scattered over undulating slopes.

Small group of 4 prominent cairns.

Small cairnfield, including possible funerary cairns.

Earthen bank and heaps of boulders.

Earthen bank and heaps of boulders.

6 cairns and a possible enclosure.

5 cairns.

3 isolated small cairns.

Partially grassed heaps of stone clearance.

Small group of clearance cairns.

Group of small irregular cairns in a gully. Possibly natural.

Cairnfields settlements etc. Multiperiod sites, no SMR definition.

Simple/complex

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

185

495940

494470

490760

495600

494840

474180

493780

493070

493700

490785

493300

493950

318500

318590

318000

318550

325540

313980

313510

313950

313310

313200

313650

514232

349348

496700

514760

353939

319370

512369

352869

318500

511490

347180

491800

512924

353219

327400

512790

355404

498700

512590

344073

350400

513138

352328

498880

501900

325500

350340

492200

321100

512114

493400

321400

352149

494300

323000

513037

493500

322000

352831

494100

322600

513750

491600

320500

353250

493850

323160

514200

494400

322300

349610

492500

321000

514380

493500

321800

349850

West

493670

East

321350

Location

Whitrow Beck

Waberthwaite Fell

Whit Crags

Whitrow Beck

Waberthwaite Fell

Whitrow Beck

Urswick

Ulpha

Wood Knotts

Park Moss

Hesk Fell

Freeze Beck

Rough Crag

Torver

Potter Fell

Potter Fell

Hawswater

Rowentree Crag

Thiefstead

Naddle Forest

Naddle Forest

Hawswater

Tailbert Head

Hawswater

Hawswater

Stone How

Hawswater

Hawswater

Hawswater

Cockley Beck

Seathwaite

Seathwaite

Seathwaite

Kiln Bank,

Caw

Seathwaite

Seathwaite

Goat Crag

Tarnhill.

kiln Bank

Kiln Bank

Parish

Waberthwaite

Waberthwaite

Waberthwaite

Waberthwaite

Waberthwaite

Waberthwaite

Urswick

Ulpha

Ulpha

Ulpha

Ulpha

Ulpha

Ulpha

Torver

Strickland Roger

Strickland Roger

Shap Rural

Shap Rural

Shap Rural

Shap Rural

Shap Rural

Shap Rural

Shap Rural

Shap Rural

Shap Rural

Shap Rural

Shap Rural

Shap Rural

Shap Rural

Seathwaite

Seathwaite

Seathwaite

Seathwaite

Seathwaite

Seathwaite

Seathwaite

Seathwaite

Seathwaite

Seathwaite

Seathwaite

Seathwaite

SMR/LAU

8796

8746

31008

8799

8747

8798

13725

3199

7778

7800

7779

7809

1441

3235

2086

2086

31567

31573

8142

31358

31354

31357

31554

31576

31455

8149

31587

31372

31563

1361

2693

1628

1457

1627

2691

1635

13860

1622

1458

1626

1623

Description

Cairns.

Appendix 3.2. Cairnfields.

Small scattered group of cairns either side of a beck.

6 cairns, short section of bank.

4 cairns.

8 clearance cairns.

Small group of cairns.

Oval cairn, Little Urswick Crags.

2 cairns close to Ulpha settlement site.

6 cairns identified from aerial photographs.

8 possible cairns identified from aerial photographs.

6 cairns identified from aerial photographs.

5 cairns around the edge of stone free area.

5 round and 1 oval cairn.

Cairn.

3 cairns.

2 former cairns.

6 cairns, well defined, and a possible bank.

8 small clearance cairns.

Cairns and a wall, poor condition.

Cairns.

7 small cairns.

Clearance cairns.

7 cairns, 6 in a line.

3 small cairns.

3 cairns.

Small cairnfield of 7 cairns, bank, possible field boundary.

3 prominent cairns, 2 large, 1 small.

Isolated cairn.

Cairn.

Cairnfield.

4 cairns.

Mounds on a NW facing hillside.

Caw summit cairns.

Mounds on W facing hillside.

Cairnfield.

Cairnfield and enclosure.

Clearance cairns.

Mounds in a slight hollow.

mounds and cairns.

3 grassed cairns in steep sided pass.

Heaps of stones.

Simple/complex

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

cairns

186

497699

318531

509400

513850

511300

494080

357100

353750

357450

318450

490600

489000

353100

495500

505700

313900

313000

495160

313930

318900

496800

313690

495000

494400

313900

495070

495747

313493

318580

495880

314110

317800

494500

488300

325100

313600

488600

325000

495350

486170

325370

496000

500500

344000

313200

506000

311650

313600

505420

310370

496900

502560

317410

315200

497750

316950

487900

499400

319300

325840

503310

318850

487700

498500

316020

325240

503300

496750

317620

316660

498010

509300

308700

503650

509800

307400

316700

521010

315970

318000

West

491600

East

312900

Location

Buckbarrow

Crosbythwaite

Ulgra Beck

Crosby Gill

Hesk fell

Theifstead

Hawswater

Hawswater

Natland

Buckbarrow

The Knott

Birkby Fell

Stainton Ling

Barnscar

Birkby Fell

Whitrow Beck

Barnscar

Barnscar

Birkby Fell,

Heathwaite Fell

Heathwaite Fell

Heathwaite Fell

Heathwaite Fell

Heathwaite Fell

Hugill

Whin Garth

Whin Garth

Burnmoor

Pike How

Low Birker Tarn

Whillan Beck

Hare Gill

Devoke Water

Burnmoor

Burnmoor

Pike How

Birkerthwaite

Town Bank

Town Bank

Lanthwaite Green,

High Corney

Parish

Waberthwaite

Ulpha

Ulpha

Ulpha

Ulpha

Shap Rural

Shap Rural

Shap Rural

Natland

Nether Wasdale

Muncaster

Muncaster

Muncaster

Muncaster

Muncaster

Muncaster

Muncaster

Muncaster

Muncaster

Kirkby Ireleth

Kirkby Ireleth

Kirkby Ireleth

Kirkby Ireleth

Kirkby Ireleth

Hugill

Gosforth

Gosforth

Eskdale

Eskdale

Eskdale

Eskdale

Eskdale

Eskdale

Eskdale

Eskdale

Eskdale

Eskdale

Ennerdale

Ennerdale

Buttermere

Waberthwaite

SMR/LAU

1453

1408

7774

1450

1451

8327

8219

1943

14846

1326

8695

7638

8683

31020

8743

1434

8733

1437

2699

2163

2165

2161

2160

2141

15026

8769

1314

1351

1425

7048

16835

7705

5350

6326

6327

7527

31709

9338

9358

1091

8755

Description

Simple/complex

complex

c .400 cairns, banks, plots, lynchets. Developed cairnfield close to stone circles.

complex

Appendix 3.2. Cairnfields.

Mounds and cairns on a SW slope.

200-250 cairns, field system, shielings, medieval settlement.

Cairns and enclosures identified on aerial photographs.

Cairns, enclosures, field boundaries etc.

50-80 cairns, oval enclosure, field system. Some probably medieval.

cairnfield, banks.

Large cairnfield, cairns, linear clearance, enclosures.

Cairnfield and hut circle.

Cairnfield/ field system identified from aerial photographs.

Cairns, hut circles banks etc.

39 oval cairns in 4 clusters. Alignments representing plot edges.

10 long cairns, 70 round cairns, stone banks, field system.

Cairnfield, alignments/plots etc.

Complex cairnfield, field system, small fields and plots, cairn alignments, banks etc.

60 oval cairns, banks alignments plots etc.

complex

complex

complex

complex

complex

complex

complex

complex

complex

complex

complex

complex

complex

complex

complex

complex

complex

cairnfield N of Whitrow Beck. Includes banks, alignments, lynchets.

complex

2 groups cairns (c . 60) divided by bank.

complex

complex

complex

complex

complex

complex

complex

Many phases cairnfield (3-400 cairns), enclosures, settlements.

285 cairns west of Devoke water. Settlement, banks, field systems.

Settlement and 9 cairns.

Settlement and cairns.

Settlement and cairns.

Settlement and cairns.

Settlement and cairns.

Enclosure, cairns, boundaries identified from aerial photographs.

Cairnfield, linear banks, hut platforms.

complex

complex

c . 160 oval/circular cairns. Banks and stone free plots also visible. Cairns, hut circles and enclosure.

complex

Cairnfield, hut circles, field system. 7 cairns, 1 oval, 6 round. Occasional banks.

complex

complex complex

c . 30 cairns, banks/walls/hut circles/settlements. Cairnfield to west and east of hut circle enclosure.

complex

c . 30 cairns, parallel downslope banks.

complex

complex

complex

complex

complex

complex

cairns

Enclosure containing 10 cairns.

Enclosure containing 3 hut circles and 8 cairns.

23 cairns, 2 enclosures, 5 lengths of bank.

13 cairns. field plot inside curvilinear bank/ enclosure.

Town Bank IV, 6 sub-groups of features including cairnfields, banks, enclosures, hut circles.

Town Bank XI. Complex of cairnfield, banks, fields, hut circles and enclosed settlement.

Enclosed settlement and cairns.

Small compact group of cairns.

187

478900

486900

501900

488300

489000

488600

489500

489200

350000

349400

312700

313160

313000

313800

312600

312900

494650

489717

484000

509790

510150

509850

510050

514000

510200

508650

509500

509500

509900

509900

509800

510100

508200

508300

509950

508600

509200

326950

327064

329000

306700

308150

309690

309450

312800

309130

309150

309500

306600

307650

307900

308300

308450

310340

310400

308600

309900

309500

492203

492700

312800

327687

490430

312700

496286

490440

313110

327858

491200

313300

488800

493550

313000

489400

491800

313000

312750

490730

313530

313200

West

493950

East

313390

Location

Cawgill

Stockdale Moor

Town Bank

Stockdale Moor

Stockdale Moor

Town Bank

Town Bank

Town Bank

Town Bank

Town Bank

Stockdale Moor

Town Bank

Town Bank

Char Dub

Town Bank

Stockdale moor

Town Bank

Town Bank

Stainton Gap

Wool Knott

Bleaberry Haws

Grey Stone

Banishead

Bootle Fell

Coppycow

Oldclose Gill

Low Kinimont

Little Grassoms

Bootle Fell

Bootle Fell

Mecklin Park

Sizergh

Beetham

Charlesground Gill

Buckbarrow

Buckbarrow

High Corney

Whitrow Beck

High Corney

Buckbarrow West

Whitrow Beck

Parish

SMR/LAU

TLC

THC

TLC/1634

THC

1489

7691

7719

1488

1491

1490

1483

3719

2508

2519

15165

1431

1431

8757

8794

8754

1404

8795

Ennerdale

Ennerdale

Ennerdale

Ennerdale

Ennerdale

Ennerdale

Ennerdale

Ennerdale

Ennerdale

Ennerdale

Ennerdale

Ennerdale

Ennerdale

Ennerdale

Ennerdale

Ennerdale

Ennerdale

Ennerdale

9309

9313

9341

9318

9317

9339

9343

9349

9353

9360

9304

9335

9334

4760

9332

9300

9340

9359

Egton with Newland4821

Coniston

Coniston

Coniston

Coniston

Bootle

Bootle

Bootle

Bootle

Bootle

Bootle

Bootle

Irton with Santon

Sizergh

Beetham

Waberthwaite

Waberthwaite

Waberthwaite

Waberthwaite

Waberthwaite

Waberthwaite

Waberthwaite

Waberthwaite

Description

Simple/complex

complex

Cairnfield and possible settlement site.

complex

simple

simple

Town Bank VI. Ill defined group of cairns.

Appendix 3.2. Cairnfields.

Cawgill cairnfield, isolated from main groups by becks. Poorly defined clearance cairns.

Stockdale Moor II. Cairnfield split into 3 main parts.

Town bank III. Lots of outcropping stone, some mounds probably natural.

Stockdale Moor II. 25 largely peat covered cairns.

Stockdale Moor 1 (NW). 14 cairns.

Town Bank V. Ill defined group of cairns, some possibly natural.

Town Bank VII. Small group of cairns.

Town bank cairnfield. Loosely distributed cairns and banks, irregular clearance debris.

Cairnfield with group of 'long cairns'. Small irregular clearance cairns, 2 cairn alignments.

Town Bank XV. Loosely distributed cairns.

Stockdale Moor VI. Small group of cairns and short sections of bank.

Town Bank III cairnfield. Cairns and banks.

Town Bank III. Group of random ill defined cairns in area of outcropping stone. 3 sections of bank.

Char Dub cairnfield, east of Ennerdale Water. Some linear cairn alignments.

A few remote cairns associated with ring cairn 30979.

Stockdale moor VII. Group 1: 12 poorly defined cairns. Group 2: 10 cairns, 1 stretch banking.

simple

simple

simple

simple

simple

simple

simple

simple

simple

simple

simple

simple

simple

simple

simple

simple

simple

simple

Stainton Gap cairns. Town Bank XIV. Loose collection of random cairns around enclosure/hut circle.

simple

simple

simple

TLC XIII (94-104). Large group of cairns spread out across wide area.

Bleaberry Haws THCXIX (119-30) cairnfield on narrow natural terrace just above floor of Plattocks.

TLC IX (Grey Stones) (42-58). 16 scattered cairns.

simple

Cairnfield and banks, west slope of hill, c . 20 cairns. THC I, 2-3, 8-17, 216. Small dispersed linear cairnfield on narrow terrace.

simple

10 cairns.

simple simple

Cairnfield of c . 30 cairns identified form aerial photographs.

simple

simple

simple

simple

natural

Cairnfield on west slope of hill.

Little Grassoms cairns. On west facing slope.

Cairnfield built around base of natural hillock.

16 clearance cairns and banks associated with funerary cairns and medieval field system.

Scattered cairnfield with linear alignments of cairns.

Slight irregular mounds

complex

c. 100 cairns. field system, lynchet, alignments. Field system identified from aerial photographs.

complex

c. 100 cairns, lynchets, banks, alignments, a hut circle.

complex complex

3 cairnfields incorporating alignments and banks.

complex

Cairnfield, field system.

complex

complex

3 large cairnfields and field system.

Cairnfield and field system.

cairnfield, bank, hut circle, lynchets, stone circle.

188

510150

508600

497380

498350

498050

498540

309700

309500

315620

318570

315100

318780

497380

506000

507250

506300

506500

505300

505000

507600

506950

478290

505001

501500

487560

487850

486950

487600

486470

488460

488500

487960

315620

309500

311750

312300

310400

309300

310700

311750

311530

339370

343900

312500

325310

325250

325150

325000

325780

325450

325000

325620

496770

316680

496850

498190

318800

317230

505590

499700

502998

318340

318060

497484

316430

315500

497020

497300

317860

317100

497900

507800

310000

496900

507800

309300

318000

509330

309820

317500

West

508900

East

309600

Location

Heathwaite Fell

Heathwaite Fell

Heathwaite Fell

Mawthwaite Moss

Heathwaite Fell

Heathwaite fell

Heathwaite Fell

Heathwaite Fell

Mecklin Park

Hugill

Hampsfield Fell

Whin Garth

Whin Garth

Whin Garth

Whin Garth

Whin Garth

Whin Garth

Whin Garth

Blengdale Forest

Water Crag

Woodend Bridge

Woodend Bridge

Smallstone Beck

Milkingstead

Burnmoor

Burnmoor

Rough Crag

Birker fell

Prehistoric

The Seat

Birkerthwaite

Birkerthwaite

Brantrake moss

Birkerthwaite

Devoke Water

Stockdale Moor

Stockdale Moor

Stockdale Moor

Stockdale Moor

Cawgill

Stockdale Moor

Parish

Kirkby Ireleth

Kirkby Ireleth

Kirkby Ireleth

Kirkby Ireleth

Kirkby Ireleth

Kirkby Ireleth

Kirkby Ireleth

Kirkby Ireleth

Irton with Santon

Hugill

Grange

Gosforth

Gosforth

Gosforth

Gosforth

Gosforth

Gosforth

Gosforth

Gosforth

Eskdale

Eskdale

Eskdale

Eskdale

Eskdale

Eskdale

Eskdale

Eskdale

Eskdale

Eskdale

Eskdale

Eskdale

Eskdale

Eskdale

Eskdale

Eskdale

Ennerdale

Ennerdale

Ennerdale

Ennerdale

Ennerdale

Ennerdale

SMR/LAU

3544

9398

3212

2169

9413

9429

9409

3207

3709

15047

19243

8775

8777

1340

8762

8766

8772

8776

8765

2696

31716

31716

4719

4268

7897

1352

1424

4780

4720

1423

1426

1427

1430

1427

5349

9314

9326

9324

9322

9311

9312

Description

Simple/complex

simple

simple

Area of primary cairnfield. 3 main groups. 40 cairns various shapes and sizes.

Appendix 3.2. Cairnfields.

Giant's Grave's cairns.

Cairnfield.

Settlement / cairnfield.

Cairnfield.

Cairns next to a former tarn.

Cairns.

Cairns.

Small group of cairns. Low turf covered mounds associated with natural outcrops.

Cairns banks and alignments. Spence (1936); Fletcher (1985).

Cairnfield and dyke identified from aerial photographs.

Cairns and field boundaries.

Whin Garth cairnfield, boggy unimproved moorland.

Small group of elongated cairns on an island of well drained land.

Oval walled enclosure with cairns.

Whin Garth field system. 422 components, banks cairns ring cairns etc.

Simple cairnfield.

Cairnfield.

Compact cairn group with lengths of short bank.

simple

simple

simple

simple

simple

simple

simple

simple

simple

simple

simple

simple

simple

simple

simple

simple

simple

simple

simple

simple

Simple cairnfield.

simple

c. 120 cairns, short banks, enclosures and stone free plots.

simple

simple

simple

simple

Cairnfield 850m new wooden bridge.

c. 70 oval and circular cairns.

Group of 21 cairns.

10 cairns on steep sided ridge.

simple

c . 40 oval/circular cairns over an extensive area. Small cairnfield (11 cairns) including a funerary cairn, a standing stone, 2 banks.

simple simple

c . 50 cairns and banks c . 100 cairns.

simple simple

c . 30 round and oval cairns. c . 80 cairns and an enclosure.

simple

c . 60 cairns, stone banks and plots. 10 cairns.

simple

simple

simple

simple

simple

simple

simple

simple

13 cairns, alignments and short stretches of bank.

121 oval /circular cairns.

Stockdale Moor IV. 7 small groups of cairns and a few stone banks.

Stockdale Moor IX. Compact cairnfield, isolated from others.

Stockdale Moor cairnfield. A number of clearance cairn clusters.

Stockdale Moor I. Small group of cairns, short sections of bank.

Small groups of cairns between Cawfell Beck and Caw Gill.

Stockdale Moor V. Cairnfield, randomly distributed.

189

488240

487340

486200

487475

488040

487200

487600

487330

487100

504500

506800

325400

325470

325400

325110

325130

324700

325800

325060

325150

329200

326700

490000

489900

490000

489420

495800

496340

495450

494720

494400

494700

494890

495500

496900

497493

496500

494000

501750

493400

493200

510990

512433

317900

316900

318300

312500

313760

313400

314370

314420

313950

313820

312850

314380

314314

324100

322700

325110

321900

321600

356400

353129

489100

317800

316800

506815

484700

326480

320400

506430

488400

325300

506220

487605

325225

327140

486360

325640

327070

West

488340

East

325320

Location

Hawswater

Shap

Seathwaite

Kiln Bank,

Graitscale

Seathwaite

Dunnerdale

Muncaster

Birkby Fell

Barnscar

Stainton Fell

Stainton Fell

Stainton Fell

Stainton Fell

Barnscar

Barnscar

Barnscar

Smallthwaite

Hodgewife Fell

Hodgewife Fell

Fenwick

Lath Rigg

Gawthwaite

Mickledon

Mickledon

Mickledon

Mickledon

Blea Tarn

Heathwaite Fell

Heathwaite Fell

Heathwaite Fell

Heathwaite Fell

Heathwaite Fell

Heathwaite Fell

Heathwaite Fell

Heathwaite Fell

Heathwaite Fell

Heathwaite Fell

Heathwaite Fell

Heathwaite Fell

Heathwaite Fell

Parish

Shap Rural

Shap

Seathwaite

Seathwaite

Seathwaite

Seathwaite

Seathwaite

Muncaster

Muncaster

Muncaster

Muncaster

Muncaster

Muncaster

Muncaster

Muncaster

Muncaster

Muncaster

Millom Without

Millom Without

Millom Without

Millom Without

Millom

Lowick

Lakes

Lakes

Lakes

Lakes

Lakes

Kirkby Ireleth

Kirkby Ireleth

Kirkby Ireleth

Kirkby Ireleth

Kirkby Ireleth

Kirkby Ireleth

Kirkby Ireleth

Kirkby Ireleth

Kirkby Ireleth

Kirkby Ireleth

Kirkby Ireleth

Kirkby Ireleth

Kirkby Ireleth

SMR/LAU

31577

4280

1630

1629

3012

4423

1500

7532

9448

8732

8693

8688

8684

8687

8735

8742

4718

7790

9125

1465

1481

1466

2178

8668

8672

3017

3016

3018

9428

3207

2166

3207

4409

3207

9439

3210

4409

9403

3207

3211

9402

Description

Simple/complex

Cairns.

Appendix 3.2. Cairnfields.

Large dispersed cairnfield, 50 cairns, banks/walls.

Cairnfield.

11 grassed heaps of stone.

Cairnfield.

At least 24 cairns.

Cairnfield and standing stone.

Group of 11 cairns either side of a beck.

13 cairns on col between 2 outcrops.

10 oval cairns.

Random distribution of cairns on an island of well drained land.

Small group of cairns between 2 stream gullies.

16 oval cairns, 2 short banks.

14 Clearance cairns.

Small cairnfield with banks.

40 oval cairns, stone banks, NE of Barnscar.

49 cairns, an enclosure and 5 short banks.

18 cairns, long and round.

Cairns & stone bank.

Mounds and heaps of stone.

Cairnfield.

Cairnfield.

10 mounds and cairns.

Stone bank linking 2 streams and a cairn 4 by 3 m.

21 cairns and a stone bank.

Cairns and banks at Mickledon.

Cairns and banks at Mickledon.

Blea Tarn cairnfield.

Cairns.

Small scatter of cairns.

Cairns and mounds.

Group of large cairns, some possibly natural.

simple

simple

simple

simple

simple

simple

simple

simple

simple

simple

simple

simple

simple

simple

simple

simple

simple

simple

simple

simple

simple

simple

simple

simple

simple

simple

simple

simple

simple

simple

simple

simple

simple

simple

Cairnfield.

simple

Compact substantial cairnfield, c . 40 cairns.

simple

simple

simple

simple

simple

simple

Group of cairns NE of enclosure.

Settlement/ cairnfield.

Cairnfield.

Cairns.

Small compact cairnfield. 10 large well defined cairns.

Cairns.

Cairns.

190

496000

496060

496610

496480

492730

496270

496070

496400

492000

492000

492900

493430

490680

492640

492500

491300

318150

318820

318810

317980

318330

318240

317750

316400

350000

349200

313300

313790

313030

313210

313500

311260

493800

507300

307100

492500

513950

352950

312500

514000

353400

312600

West

513400

East

353400

Location

Whitrow Beck

Corney Fell

Lambground

Waberthwaite

Corney Fell

Buckbarrow

Waberthwaite Fell

Buckbarrow

Underbarrow

Underbarrow

Hall Beck

Woodend Bridge

Brown Rigg

Hole House

Sike Moss

Ulpha Fell

Ulpha Fell

Woodend Bridge

Low Prior Scales

Thiefstead

Bracken How

White Raise

Parish

SMR/LAU

8143

8128

8220

Waberthwaite

Waberthwaite

Waberthwaite

Waberthwaite

Waberthwaite

Waberthwaite

Waberthwaite

Waberthwaite

Underbarrow

Underbarrow

Ulpha

Ulpha

Ulpha

Ulpha

Ulpha

Ulpha

Ulpha

Ulpha

1438

7652

7666

4781

7777

1453

8745

2701

4159

4161

1413

7717

1449

1452

1412

1411

1409

1410

St Briget Beckermet1287

Shap Rural

Shap Rural

Shap Rural

Description

Simple/complex

Appendix 3.2. Cairnfields.

Large cairnfield with short stretches of walling.

Small primary cairnfield (20 cairns). 2 groups separated by a bank.

2 small cairnfields separated by a mire. 13 cairns and stone clearance banks.

simple

simple

simple

simple

simple

20 cairns.

simple

c .30 cairns. Simple but incorporating alignments.

simple

simple

simple

simple

Over 60 clearance cairns.

17 basic cairns.

Cairns.

cairnfield.

cairnfield.

simple

simple

More than 20 cairns.

simple

c. 15 cairns situated among loose rock on open fell.

simple

simple

simple

simple

simple

33 cairns, 2 with kerbing.

15 grassed heaps above a stream.

15 circular and oval shaped clearance cairns.

Cairnfield, linear boundaries.

20 cairns along W facing slope.

13 cairns, some in a line.

simple simple

Mounds and field boundaries.

simple

simple

Banks, cairns, ring cairn.

13 cairns, ill defined.

Small dispersed cairnfield and enclosure.

191

509705

508310

508045

509500

509845

511680

509300

498050

498050

505420

309975

309612

310239

306600

307020

308950

309350

315100

315100

318480

494714

326563

509712

490434

327252

309967

496474

327896

508132

496244

327685

508310

496298

327730

310236

494957

326602

310170

494488

326742

509810

494428

326790

508940

496443

327725

310031

490710

331430

309615

516250

326110

508465

488976

312978

309485

488300

313160

509750

489039

313541

309948

488800

312750

509330

488622

313707

494440

489200

313900

309820

489801

312598

345700

489128

312984

489026

489017

313331

489045

488615

313082

326698

469330

322040

326738

West

474470

East

326270

Type

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Chamber tomb

Location

Burnmoor

Brantrake Moss

Brantrake Moss

Stockdale Moor

Lank Rigg

Town Bank

Town Bank

Stockdale Moor

Stockdale Moor

Stockdale Moor

Stockdale Moor

Stockdale Moor

Stockdale Moor

Stockdale Moor

Stockdale Moor

Stockdale Moor

Stockdale Moor

Cawfell Beck

Crook

White Borran

White Borran

Bleaberry Haws

Beacon Tarn

Banishead

Banishead

Banishead

Bleaberry Haws

Bleaberry Haws

Bleaberry Haws

Banishead

Colton

Brund fell

Bootle fell

Great Grassoms

Bootle Fell

Bootle Fell

Bootle Fell

Bootle Fell

Bootle Fell

Bootle Fell

Bootle Fell

Bootle Fell

Barrow

Urswick

Parish

Eskdale

Eskdale

Eskdale

Enn and Kinn

Enn and Kinn

Enn and Kinn

Enn and Kinn

Enn and Kinn

Enn and Kinn

Enn and Kinn

Enn and Kinn

Enn and Kinn

Enn and Kinn

Enn and Kinn

Enn and Kinn

Enn and Kinn

Enn and Kinn

Enn and Kinn

Crook

Coniston

Coniston

Coniston

Coniston

Coniston

Coniston

Coniston

Coniston

Coniston

Coniston

Coniston

Colton

Borrowdale

Bootle

Bootle

Bootle

Bootle

Bootle

Bootle

Bootle

Bootle

Bootle

Bootle

Barrow

Urswick

SMR/LAU

1329

1430

1430

9307

3597

30995

9360

30976

30960

30969

30970

30974

30975

30968

30956

30959

30964

9311

3375

TLC

TLC

THC/1613

TLC/1638

THC

THC/1610

THC

THC/1614

Description

Maiden castle round cairn, local high point northern end Burnmoor.

Northern round cairn associated with cairnfield.

Southern round cairn associated with cairnfield.

Pair of sizable and well defined cairns on top of a ridge.

Lank rigg round cairn. Skylined, modern marker cairn on top.

Town Bank XIII. Large and disturbed. Spence (1938).

Town Bank XV. l Possible funerary cairn

Stockdale Moor round cairn. Large circular prominent mound. Group of 3 in a line.

Stockdale Moor IV round cairn. Central depression.

Stockdale Moor Monk's Graves round cairn.

Stockdale Moor Monk's Graves round cairn. Kerbed.

Stockdale Moor round cairn. large circular prominent mound. Group of 3 in a line.

Stockdale Moor round cairn. Large circular prominent mound. Group of 3 in a line.

Stockdale Moor kerbed round cairn. Cairnfield 9302

Stockdale Moor V ring cairn/round cairn.

Stockdale Moor IV. Prominent round cairn Stockdale Moor North.

Stockdale Moor (Monk's Graves) kerbed cairn.

2 mounds, both disturbed.

Cist burial recorded from within disturbed cairn.

TLC XX (150) 2 cairns either side of a beck (150/151).

Funerary cairn, modern marker cairn on top. Swainson Cowper (1888a) TLC XX (151) 2 cairns either side of a beck (150/151), valley floor.

Round cairn on summit, overlain by walkers cairn.

THCIII site 1. Banishead Quarry. Natural rise overlooking Torver Beck.

THC III 19. Kerbed, overlooking Torver Beck.

THC III 18. Kerbed, highest point of hill, overlooking Torver Beck.

THC XIV site 113. Large cairn with central depression.

THCXXIII (160). Prominent, large central depression.

THC XXIII (164). Lowlying prominent cairn, large central depression.

THC V 26. Round cairn Banishead Quarry, possible kerbing.

Heap of stones, slab 0.75m by 0.3m, disturbed at centre.

Bowl barrow western side of Brund Fell.

Large prominent disturbed kerbed cairn.

Prominent, well defined.

Barrow associated with 2 enclosures and ringcairn.

Barrow in cairnfield, situated on a knoll.

Very large, very prominent.

Large cairn.

Large prominent circular mound, almost flat topped. Possible kerbing.

Well defined, possible kerb.

Pear shaped cairn on a small hillock.

Large and prominent, overlooks beck.

Tumulus removed in 1810 in SW. corner of Dovecotes field. Fell (1957).

Tosthills chamber tomb. EBA knife find. Dobson (1912).

Appendix 3.3. Funerary cairns.

THC/1616/7

THC1618/9

THC

2065

13817

31050

1483

31048

7691

31054

7719

31036

31051

31046

31052

2622

2311

Context

summit

cairnfield

cairnfield

summit

summit

cairnfield

cairnfield

cairnfield

cairnfield

cairnfield

cairnfield

cairnfield

cairnfield

cairnfield

cairnfield

cairnfield

cairnfield

cairnfield

fellside

valley floor

valley floor

summit

summit

summit

summit

summit

fellside

fellside

cairnfield

cairnfield

fellside

fellside

summit

cairnfield

cairnfield

cairnfield

cairnfield

cairnfield

cairnfield

cairnfield

cairnfield

cairnfield

lowland

valley floor

192

West

502998

498120

501500

485540

487588

487758

487428

487641

486700

490950

482700

506804

506327

508050

502000

507630

501700

501700

507779

506750

506640

507610

507730

485870

485890

485760

484900

489717

495490

494280

494270

495499

496890

494450

508400

514458

513225

512962

492400

493200

493700

496670

493850

493300

East

318340

333730

312500

326400

325727

325626

325095

325876

325900

326510

325000

326680

327374

336760

340400

342500

336630

336630

342740

340560

342730

342470

342730

349750

350520

326440

326450

317648

313340

313570

313573

133496

315120

314020

313900

349969

352830

352978

32100

321600

322700

325550

323160

322400

Type

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Location

Stephenson Ground

Seathwaite

Seathwaite

Seathwaite

Seathwaite

Seathwaite

Hawswater

Hawswater

Hawswater

Stockdale Moor

Stainton

Muncaster Birkby Fell

Muncaster

Muncaster

Barnscar

Thwaites Fell

Gawthwaite

Gawthwaite

Levens

Levens

Troutbeck

Troutbeck

Troutbeck

Troutbeck

Troutbeck

Rydal beck

Rydal Beck

Troutbeck

The Raise

Rydal Beck

Lakes

Mickledon

The Kirk

Rattan Howe

Mawthwaite Moss

Kirkby Ireleth

Heathwaite Fell

Heathwaite Fell

Heathwaite Fell

Gawthwaite

Mecklin Park

Hawkshead

Burnmoor

Parish

Seathwaite

Seathwaite

Seathwaite

Seathwaite

Seathwaite

Seathwaite

Rowentree crag,

Rowentree crag,

Naddle forest

N. Wasdale

Muncaster

Muncaster

Muncaster

Muncaster

Muncaster

Muncaster

Millom Without

Lowick

Lowick

Levens

Levens

Lakes

Lakes

Lakes

Lakes

Lakes

Lakes

Lakes

Lakes

Lakes

Lakes

Lakes

Lakes

Kirkby Ireleth

Kirkby Ireleth

Kirkby Ireleth

Kirkby Ireleth

Kirkby Ireleth

Kirkby Ireleth

Kirkby Ireleth

Kirkby Ireleth

Irton with Santon

Hawkshead

Eskdale

13856

13860

3220

5949

1630

1458

31573

31552

31355

1331

12279

2699

8735

31055

1434

8733

31033

2176

2170

2668

2504

1923

1925

1930

1928

1924

13681

13681

1926

1902

13682

31023

3016

2182

1637

4408

31071

3207

31072

31073

2171

3709

2061

Description

Previously opened cist group.

4 funerary cairns and other clearance cairns either side of a stream.

Burial cairn.

Burial cairn with internal cist.

Barrow in cairnfield, excavated 1950, not backfilled, supposedly kerbed.

Round mound, kerbed, disturbed.

Large, well defined, associated with cairnfield.

Funerary cairn away from main cairnfield group. Prominent, well defined.

Prominent, on small rocky knoll.

Seatallan cairn, overlooking Stockdale Moor.

Ringcairn/barrow on Stainton Ling, quartz fragments in mound material.

Possible funerary cairn within cairnfield. Prominent, isolated from cairnfield on high local point, disturbed.

Large prominent mound regular profile, possible kerbing,

Round cairn

520m S. of Barnscar.

Heavily robbed round cairn.

barrow/ring cairn disturbed. Swainson-Cowper (1893).

2 damaged round cairns, Gawthwaite Moor. Swainson-Cowper (1893).

Round barrow.

Damaged round barrow 700 yards N. of Levens Bridge.

Disturbed round cairn, valley bottom Hagg Gill.

Disturbed round cairn, The Tongue, Hagg Gill.

Round cairn, Hagg Gill.

Tumulus and natural mound.

Disturbed round cairn, valley bottom Hagg Gill.

Round cairns on valley floor 70m E. of Rydal Beck.

3 round cairns on valley floor 70m E. of Rydal Beck.

Round cairn, Hagg Gill.

Contained a cist with bones, destroyed C19 for wall building.

Round cairn 180m E. Rydal Beck. kerbed projection.

Damaged large solitary cairn.

Possible barrow.

Oval mound, possible ditch, boulder at one end. Joplin (1846).

Rattan Howe cairn.

2 cairns, Mawthwaite Moss.

Prominent oval mound.

Funerary cairn, bank to N. edge.

Large excavated kerbed cairn.

Prominent, central depression.

Disturbed round/ring cairn, Gawthwaite Moor.

Cairns excavated by Spence (1936); Fletcher (1985).

Thompson Ground. Cairn excavated by Swainson Cowper (1888b).

Burnmoor, S. of Eller How, cairnfield funerary cairn

Appendix 3.3. Funerary cairns.

SMR/LAU 1352

Context

cairnfield

cairnfield

cairnfield

cairnfield

cairnfield

cairnfield

cairnfield

cairnfield

cairnfield

summit

summit

summit

cairnfield

cairnfield

cairnfield

cairnfield

fellside

fellside

cairnfield

valley floor

valley floor

valley floor

valley floor

valley floor

valley floor

valley floor

valley floor

valley floor

summit

fellside

fellside

fellside

cairnfield

summit

summit

cairnfield

cairnfield

cairnfield

cairnfield

cairnfield

cairnfield

cairnfield

fellside

summit

193

513662

513440

511408

498880

494030

353762

353420

352647

350340

318540

474310

474340

474300

492740

490620

484130

508270

507750

509900

509880

509870

509870

509841

509892

509986

509775

506461

501100

496700

502340

502785

328350

328910

328680

313637

312740

310630

309630

310150

307630

307600

307570

307638

307299

307602

307680

309787

327079

339200

310300

317370

317250

502410

480970

502380

317295

314920

303340

502390

474520

328840

502810

472600

328000

317255

474490

328530

317280

492800

492290

315800

349300

496060

515470

355640

496500

511180

349070

318120

493600

322900

318810

West

493750

East

322950

Type

St. circle cairn

St. circle cairn

St. circle cairn

St. circle cairn

St. circle cairn

St. circle cairn

St. circle cairn

ring ditch

ring ditch

Oval cairn

Oval cairn

Oval cairn

Oval cairn

Oval cairn

Oval cairn

Oval cairn

Oval cairn

Oval cairn

Oval cairn

Oval cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Funerary cairn

Location

Grey Croft

Lacra B

Burnmoor

Burnmoor

Burnmoor

Burnmoor

Burnmoor

Muncaster

Lakes

Mickledon

Stockdale Moor

Town Bank

Town Bank

Town Bank

Town Bank

Town Bank

Town Bank

Town Bank

Stockdale Moor

Stockdale Moor

Gutterby

Kinmot Beck

Charlesground Gill

Birkrigg

Birkrigg

Birkrigg

Birkrigg

Birkrigg

Birkrigg

Cunswick Scar

Ulpha Fell

Ulpha Fell

Ulpha Fell

Hesk Fell

Potter Fell

Seat Robert

White Raise

White Raise

Shap

Hawswater

Stephenson Ground

Stephenson Ground

Parish

Seascale

Millom Without

Eskdale

Eskdale

Eskdale

Eskdale

Eskdale

Muncaster

Lakes

Lakes

Enn and Kinn

Enn and Kinn

Enn and Kinn

Enn and Kinn

Enn and Kinn

Enn and Kinn

Enn and Kinn

Enn and Kinn

Enn and Kinn

Enn and Kinn

Whicham

Waberthwaite

Waberthwaite

Urswick

Urswick

Urswick

Urswick

Urswick

Urswick

Underbarrow

Ulpha

Ulpha

Ulpha

Ulpha

Strick. roger

Shap Rural

Shap Rural

Shap Rural

Shap

Selside Pike

Seathwaite

Seathwaite

SMR/LAU

1288

1480

31714

31711

31713

31712

31715

16766

1898

3017

30966

30985

30986

30990

30987

9353

9353

9353

30954

30961

1493

1431

31027

2375

2371

2372

2324

2368

2370

Description

Cairn inside Grey Croft stone circle. Fletcher (1956).

Cairn within Lacra B stone circle. Dixon & Fell (1948).

Cairn within White Moss SE stone circle.

2 cairns within Low Longrigg NE stone circle.

Cairn within White Moss SW stone circle.

Central cairn within Low Longrigg SW stone circle.

5 cairns within Brat's Hill stone circle.

Gas pipeline cut through probable ring ditch, 1992.

Possible ring ditch identified from aerial photographs.

Pear shaped disturbed barrow.

Monk's Graves 'long cairn'.

Town Bank X. feature 518 'long cairn'. 2 boulders middle of cairn. 1 of 6.

Town Bank X 551 'long cairn'. Boulder on top. 1 of 6.

Town Bank XI 'long cairn'.

Town Bank X. 564. 'long cairn' Pear shaped, boulder on top. 1 of 6.

TBX 558 'long cairn'. 1 of 6.

TBX 541 'long cairn'.1 of 6.

TBX 536 'long cairn'. 1 of 6 in cairnfield SMR 9353.

Stockdale Moor 1 'long cairn' Cairnfield 9324.

Stockdale Moor IV 'long cairn'. Pear shaped, 4.5m by 6.6m.

Gutterby cairn, kerbed. 185m south Kirkstones. Eccleston (1872).

Kinmot Beck, associated with cairnfield.

Large prominent cairn isolated from other cairns.

Birkrigg Disc Barrow. Dobson (1926).

Birkrigg 1. Gelderd & Dobson (1914).

Birkrigg round cairn. Gelderd & Dobson (1914).

Appleby Slack. Gelderd & Dobson (1914).

Birkrigg round cairn. Gelderd & Dobson (1914).

Birkrigg round cairn. Gelderd & Dobson (1914).

Damaged cairn with exposed central cist.

Summit Whitfell, kerbing w. edge, augmented by hill walkers.

Large disturbed kerbed oval cairn, S. facing slope N. of Rough Crag cairnfield.

Brown Rigg

Funerary cairn, in cairnfield.

2 former cairns.

Summit of Seat Robert, overlooking cairnfields at Rowentree Crag and White Raise.

Round cairn W. of White Raise.

Isolated cairn, White Raise.

Skellaw Hill round (bowl) barrow close to standing stone alignment.

Summit round cairn.

Previously opened cist group.

Previously opened cist group.

Appendix 3.3. Funerary cairns.

Not recorded

16598

1411

1410

1451

2086

31569

16783

31545

1567

1515

13857

13839

Context

circ. complex

circ. complex

circ. complex

circ. complex

circ. complex

circ. complex

circ. complex

fellside

fellside

cairnfield

cairnfield

cairnfield

cairnfield

cairnfield

cairnfield

cairnfield

cairnfield

cairnfield

cairnfield

cairnfield

valley floor

cairnfield

cairnfield

circ. complex

circ. complex

circ. complex

circ. complex

circ. complex

circ. complex

fellside

summit

cairnfield

cairnfield

cairnfield

fellside

summit

fellside

cairnfield

summit

summit

cairnfield

cairnfield

194

North

495003

496700

482990

484230

487964

507960

509369

489335

484900

507805

489828

508940

509630

498150

495767

510025

489093

509082

512687

512667

511600

512469

509790

509841

513665

495267

510208

489261

489263

488794

488332

489269

496480

486900

489024

496510

489024

495267

East

326724

328460

325130

328000

325630

309340

308450

312725

326450

309942

312750

309615

310350

315310

326467

309450

312286

309525

352111

352402

357100

353040

310004

307299

354468

326176

309770

312985

313019

313491

324985

312979

317920

325510

313067

317940

313067

326176

Status

Small stone ring

Small stone ring

Small stone ring

Small stone ring

Small stone ring

Small stone ring

Small stone ring

Small stone ring

Small stone ring

Small stone ring

Small stone ring

Small stone ring

Small stone ring

Small stone ring

Ringcairn

Ringcairn

Ringcairn

Ringcairn

Ringcairn

Ringcairn

Ringcairn

Ringcairn

Ringcairn

Ringcairn

Ringcairn

Ringcairn

Ringcairn

Ringcairn

Ringcairn

Ringcairn

Ringcairn

Ringcairn

Ringcairn

Ringcairn

Large ringcairn

Large ringcairn

Large ringcairn

Large ringcairn

Diameter

8.6m

8.5m

8.5m

7.0m

7.0m

6.8m

6.5m

6.5m

6.0m

6.0m

5.0m

3.8m

3.8m

unknown

unknown

unknown

unknown

unknown

unknown

unknown

9.0m

8.9m

8.9m

15.0m

12.4m

12.3m

12.0m

12.0m

12.0m

11.5m

11.0m

10.0m

10.0m

35.0m

30.0m

20.0m

19.6m

Parish

Coniston

Bootle

Ulpha

Bootle

Kirkby Ireleth

Ulpha

Bootle

Kirkby Ireleth

Bootle

Bootle

Bootle

Enn and Kinn

Coniston

Shap Rural

Enn and Kinn

Enn and Kinn

Shap Rural

Shap

Shap

Shap

Enn and Kinn

Bootle

Enn and Kinn

Coniston

Eskdale

Enn and Kinn

Enn and Kinn

Bootle

Enn and Kinn

Lowick

Bootle

Enn and Kinn

Enn and Kinn

Kirkby Ireleth

Lowick

Kirkby Ireleth

Coniston

Coniston

SMR/LAU

Location

Bleaberry Haws THC XII.

Bootle Fell.

Sike Moss.

Bootle Fell.

Heathwaite Fell.

Sike Moss.

Bootle Fell.

Heathwaite Fell.

Bootle Fell.

Bootle Fell.

Bootle Fell.

Stockdale Moor IX.

Bleab Haws THC XVI (site 107).

White Crag.

Town Bank XI.

Stockdale Moor

2 ringbanks.

Waite Howes.

Waite Howes.

Stockdale Moor V.

Bootle Fell.

Town Bank I.

THC XII (78).

Brantrake Moss.

Stockdale Moor, W. Pearsons Fold, N. Cawfell Beck.

Stockdale Moor V.

Bootle Fell.

Stockdale Moor 1.

Gawthwaite.

Bootle Fell.

Town Bank IX large complex two phase feature.

Stockdale Moor.

Giants Graves ringcairn (north).

Lowick Beacon.

The Kirk.

Banniside (Collingwood 1912).

Bleaberry Haws THC XIV (site 92). Swainson Cowper (1888a).

Appendix 3.4. Ringcairns.

THC

31049

1412

31049

2110

1412

31040

31062

31047

31043

31041

30958

THC

8331

30990

30967

31577

13991

31564

31564

30957

31039

30979

THC

7010

30971/9303

30956

31035

30952

2176

31037

30982

30953

31066

2179

2182

1608

THC/1612

195

522000

480960

502380

473960

496700

474310

474520

494428

507350

498120

501500

486900

474800

535300

476650

472500

unknown

476000

480140

480250

473100

472100

354000

315010

303340

329230

328460

328350

328840

326790

307020

333730

312500

349400

326800

303500

338700

324120

unknown

339000

341730

348290

348300

327800

510410

358140

546500

518270

354970

522000

513720

359080

354800

486190

350530

349400

527050

353750

537500

486840

349480

357700

474300

328680

546600

507000

365000

539300

507000

365000

354800

475390

327440

357300

North

507200

East

368400

Site

Bart's Shelter

Badger Holes

Dog Holes

Lindale Low

Kent's Bank Cavern

Aglionby

Stainton Head

Allithwaite

Ewanrigg

Heaning Wood

Sizergh Tumulus 1

Mecklin Park

Hawkshead Moor

Birrell Sike

Bleaberry Haws

Appleby Slack

Birkrigg 1

Bannisde ringcairn

Birkrigg stone circle

Grey Croft

Lacra B

Hackthorpe Hall

Broomrigg C

Moor Divock IV

Little Meg

Glassonby

Broomrigg B

Hardendale Nab

Wilson Scar

Oddendale

Levens

Clifton

Sizergh Tumulus 2

Birkrigg Disc Barrow

Crosby Garrett CLXXIII

Crosby Garrett CLXXIV

Skelmore Heads

Raiset Pike

Description

Appendix 4.1. Excavated monuments and natural features.

Multi-period finds including lithics, human remains, pottery and a Bronze Age brooch.

Multi-period finds including human remains, a stone axe, lithic material and beaker sherds.

Multi-period finds including human remains.

Multi-period finds including human remains.

Multi-period finds including human remains and Bronze Age pottery.

Urned and unurned cremations in a natural hummock.

Urned cremations in a natural hummock.

Urned and unurned cremation cemetery in limestone gryke.

Cist and unenclosed cremation cemetery on a natural hummock.

Urn fragments and human remains in a limestone gryke.

Beaker material in a limestone gryke beneath a cairn.

Beaker material and other finds in the body of a cairn

Pit and charcoal deposits beneath a cairn.

Token deposits within cairnfield structures.

Cist, pits and token deposits beneath a cairn.

Urned, unurned and token deposits beneath a cairn.

Kerbed open structure covered by mound. Later insertions and token deposits.

Ringcairn with two phases of urned/token deposits.

?Open kerbed structure within stone circle. Urned and token deposits.

Cairn within stone circle.

Cairn within stone circle.

Double cists and large open kerbed structure. Urn material.

Small kerbed cist superseded by large open kerbed structure. Urn material and other deposits.

Open kerbed structure with central ?cist/deposits and food vessel.

Open kerbed structure with central cist.

Open kerbed structure.

Kerbed structure with robbed central pit.

Multi phased cist/ringcairn structure with urn material and token deposits.

Open kerbed structure with inhumations and token deposits.

Timber circle/ringcairn with central grave, beaker. Urn material associated with ringcairn phase.

Beaker grave and inhumations within stone settings beneath a large cairn.

Double cists with beaker material.

Pavement' cairn with disarticulated burials.

Pavement' cairn with disarticulated burials.

Pavement' cairn with disarticulated burials.

Oval cairn on limestone outcrop. Articulated and disarticulated burials.

Disturbed oval cairn adjacent to Skelmore Heads enclosure.

Conjoined round cairns with disarticulated burials.

References

Hodgson (2004)

Jackson (1914).

Jackson (1913).

Salisbury (1992).

Salisbury (1992, 1997).

Hodgson (1957)

Hodgson (1957)

Wild (2003)

Bewley et al (1992)

Barnes (1970).

McKenny Hughes (1904a); Edmonds & Evans (2007).

Fletcher (1985).

Swainson Cowper (1888b).

Richardson (1982).

Swainson Cowper (1888a).

Gelderd et al. (1914).

Gelderd et al. (1914).

Collingwood (1912).

Gelderd & Dobson (1912).

Fletcher (1956).

Dixon & Fell (1948).

Mawson (1876).

Hodgson & Harper (1950)

Simpson (1882)

See Beckensall (2002).

Collingwood (1901).

Hodgson (1952)

Williams & Howard Davies (2005).

Sieveking (1984).

Turnbull & Walsh (1997).

Sturdy (1972); Turnbull & Walsh (1996)

Taylor (1881).

McKenny Hughes (1904b); Edmonds & Evans (2007).

Dobson (1927)

Greenwell (1877), Kinnes (1979).

Greenwell (1877), Kinnes (1979).

Powell (1972).

Greenwell (1877), Kinnes (1979).

East

North

Type

Parish

335200 354900 324000 328000 329250 328000 316700 301780 300790 307940 307900 304400 226000 341100 337000 337000 336300 322800 322000 321300 315300 300650 308950 307480 336000 339700 324000 326000 322000 327000 341325 348000 324750 327500 324140 321300 319860 323220 327200 323920 323050 322450 322100 321300 321690 320000 321460 322200 324900 327000 327000 327000 322100 322100 334400 325800 306030 303340 305000 339500 324500 326400 326000 342700 327000 325000 327400 326109 344210 320000 324000

498200 498300 472000 474000 477900 478000 496400 506800 505280 500390 500500 5000900 477000 509000 475000 478000 475000 481400 482000 501300 499900 521950 521710 521350 497000 487200 490000 510000 468000 472000 509545 489000 510640 508100 510270 507200 507370 506500 507200 509870 509730 509600 507700 507500 507600 507400 507100 506900 506500 507000 507000 507000 509300 509300 506700 477700 501140 502380 500200 482600 472500 473810 474000 485300 507000 472800 475200 471600 477170 470000 469200

axe axe axe axe axe axe axe axe axe axe axe axe axe axe axe axe axe axe axe axe axe axe axe axe axe axe axe axe axe axe adze adze axe working axe working axe working axe working axe working axe working axe working axe working axe working axe working axe working axe working axe working axe working axe working axe working axe working axe working axe working axe working axe working axe working axe fragment axe fragment axe fragment axe fragment axe fragment axe fragment axe fragment axe fragment axe fragment axe fragment axe hoard axe hoard axe hoard bronze axe bronze axe bronze axe bronze axe

Hawkshead 2039 Whitwell 4116 Urswick 2299 Urswick 2360 Ulverston 2212 Ulverston 2232 Ulpha 18985 St John Beckermet 18987 St Bridget Beckermet1258 Seascale 1276 Seascale 1277 Seascale 1304 Pennington 2239 Lakes 3781 L. Holker 2417 L. Holker 2422 L. Holker 4375 Kirkby Ireleth 2132 Kirkby Ireleth 2133 Eskdale 6336 Eskdale 6357 Distington 1042 Dean 1048 Dean 1049 Claife 2044 Cartmel fell 6860 Broughton West 1509 Borrowdale 4446 Barrow 2601 Aldingham 2347 Lakes 17116 Helsington 4070 Borrowdale 1230 Borrowdale 1362 Borrowdale 6338 Eskdale 1355 Eskdale 6317 Eskdale 6334 Lakes 3004 Borrowdale 6314 Borrowdale 6315 Borrowdale 6316 Eskdale 1354 Eskdale 1371 Eskdale 15240 Eskdale 19629 Eskdale 19630 Eskdale 6333 Lakes 15143 Lakes 16923 Lakes 16931 Lakes 19119 N. Wasdale 1365 N. Wasdale 5613 Lakes 1862 Pennington 2241 Seascale 1273 Seascale 1288 Seascale 1311 U. Allithwaite 4138 Urswick 2288 Urswick 2320 Urswick 2341 Witherslack 16720 Lakes 19113 Urswick 2265 Urswick 5443 Aldingham 2329 Arnside 19540 Barrow 19063 Barrow 2603

SMR

Description Syke side celt. Polished stone axe hammer. Celt, had been used for extracting haematite. Barber (1869). Stone lance/spearhead, Birkrigg. Axe, flints. Axe, Ulverston 1859. Stone hammer. Stone hammer, Barwicksted. Axe. Stone axe. Stone axe found about 2ft 6 beneath peat. 'Ronaldsway' axe with flint scatter from Bailey Ground. Cherry (1967). Several querns, stone balls and axes, railway works. Barber (1869). Low Bull Crag stone axe. Winder Moor axes. Stockdale (1864). Nunshill axes/celts. Stockdale (1864). Nab Green celts and hammers. Stockdale (1864). Stone axe, Soutergate. Spence (1937). Stone celt, 1896. Brotherkeld axe find. Stone hammer, Field Head Farm. Stone hammer. Stone hammer. Stone hammer, 1856. A beehive quern, stone celts and hammers from High Wray. Broken stone axe on Cartmel Fell forestry Road. A stone axe hammer and other implements. Langstrath axe find. Fell (1964). Stone axe sold in Wigton 1895, from Moorhead. Gaythorpe (1897). 2 stone celts, 1896 & 1898. Adze, 1896. Brigsteer stone adze. Glaramara, Plint (1962). Borrowdale. Looking Steads, Glaramara. Eskdale/Borrowdale/Scafell Pike quarries. . Brown Tongue working sites. Stone axe factory at Pike de Bield Moss. Stickle pike quarries and working sites. Glaramara south peak. Sprinkling crags, Eskdale. Great Slack axe chipping sites, roughouts, flakes, hammerstones etc. Flakes of a Neolithic character. Plint (1962). Broken roughouts, flakes and hammerstones, 1959. Tuff flakes a few hundred feet below Scafell Pike. Tuff flakes, Brown Tongue, Scafell. Richardson (1998). Large struck tuff flake, Scafell Pike, 1965. Richardson (1998). Tuff flakes at Rough Crag. 15 tuff flakes on path called 'Climber's Traverse', beneath Flat Crags. Axes/flakes/hammerstones, south scree. Richardson (1990). 21 implements of tuff. Richardson (1990). Mace and hammerstone, south scree. Richardson (1990). Roughout and flakes. Plint (1962). Axes flakes and discards at Hollow Stones. Grasmere axe, polished. Butt end missing. Thompson (1963). Stone celt, pre 1886. Butt end, reworked to a new edge. Incomplete polished axe found 1855. Fair (1935). Broken stone axe at Grey Croft. Fletcher (1956). Fragment of butt of stone axe, found with a flint scatter. Butt of a broken polished stone axe. Fell (1971). polished stone axe, cutting edge broken off. Barrow Museum 5135. Fragment of stone celt and upper quern stone found before 1923. 2 broken polished stone axes. Barrow NFC. Reworked axe fragment, 1ft below ground level. Broken end worked into a tang. Group of roughouts found under a stone. Boyd (1990). Various celts of stone, Stone Close. Dobson (1912). 4 roughouts in a limestone crevice, Skelmore Heads. Barnes (1963).. Bronze celt, Gleaston castle. Swainson Cowper (1888a). Bronze hammer flanged axe found New Barnes, Arnside. Narrow butt of a Bronze Age flat axe from near Barrow. Bronze age, hammered flanges. 12in below surface, Mossfield. Fell (1940).

Appendix 5.1. Stone axes and bronze finds across southern Cumbria.

196

East

North

Type

Parish

SMR

Description

337000 330000 330000 309100 310500 349500 328000 325000 351000 349900 324000 323800 346800 326100 350300 337000 327420 326350 326300 338430 336000 337260 337000 324200 324000 323270 344300 344000 300340 315820 328000 355900 345500 297200 304000 346500 323920 322000 324000 320500 318550 318220 319980 318330 318500 318600 319200 318600 319000 347400 348900 310000 227242 321200 333000 335000 334000 331300 345700 324000 306180 307200 306820 330900 331300 339000 338500 334000 335600 335500 335200

478000 502000 484000 503900 505300 485300 478000 472800 511000 487775 468000 468000 489100 471600 480200 504000 475090 474000 474500 475330 475000 504630 486000 468000 468000 463600 487000 487000 522510 488423 478000 498100 485600 517300 518000 477600 467370 469000 466000 469800 468440 470090 469990 469400 468340 468130 466200 468130 466200 479700 479700 488000 520591 488400 489000 485900 488800 497000 489300 475000 521510 521900 498950 479200 478700 480000 479700 483000 484800 499800 498200

bronze axe bronze axe bronze axe bronze axe bronze axe bronze axe bronze axe bronze axe bronze axes bronze blade bronze dagger bronze dagger bronze dagger bronze dirk bronze dirk bronze hoard bronze hoard bronze hoard bronze knife bronze palstave bronze palstave bronze palstave bronze palstave bronze rapier bronze spear bronze spear bronze spear bronze spear bronze spear bronze spear bronze spear bronze spear flint axe flint axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe

Cartmel fell Coniston Egton with Newland Gosforth Gosforth Levens Ulverston Urswick Shap Rural Levens Barrow Barrow Helsington Aldingham Beetham Lakes Urswick Urswick Urswick L. Allithwaite L. Holker Lakes Staveley Cart Barrow Barrow Barrow Crosthwaite Crosthwaite Distington Millom without Ulverston Whinfell Crosthwaite Whitehaven Arl/Friz Arnside Barrow Barrow Barrow Barrow Barrow Barrow Barrow Barrow Barrow Barrow Barrow Barrow Barrow Beetham Beetham Bootle Borrowdale Broughton west Colton Colton Colton Coniston Crosthwaite Dalton Dean Dean Drigg Egton with Newland Egton with Newland F. brought on F. brought on Haverthwaite Haverthwaite Hawkshead Hawkshead

4145 5606 5545 1285 6324 19332 2230 2265 31671 19621 2604 2604 4071 15296 15200 1876 2226 2314 2312 2413 2427 1875 19396 5595 2600 2619 4073 4131 1038 19302 2233 2460 4074 1189 1204 2521 2597 2599 2606 2609 2621 2716 2724 2725 2729 2730 2740 3114 3592 2516 4350 18981 19299 3586 2545 3575 3585 5537 4151 2200 1047 1050 1389 5561 5564 2401 3115 2560 2564 2038 2040

Bronze axe found in peat near Cartmel Fell. LBA socketed bronze axe found Low Fell, 1961. Fell (1963). Middle BA convex flanged axe, Spark Bridge. Fell (1964). Copper alloy axe, 1820, Rainors. Fair (1943). Copper battleaxe, 1820. Fair (1943). EBA cast flanged axehead. Portable Antiquities: LVPL288. Bronze axe Kirkdale. Socket celt, palstave and ring, bloomery cinder and iron ore. Dobson (1912). 2 LBA axes. Fell (1964). Copper alloy blade fragment, Sizergh castle. Richardson (1998). Dagger, Rampside. Lancs museum Swainson-Cowper (1907). Bronze dagger, Paige Bank, Rampside. Cowper (1907) Tanged dagger of EBA type in peat moss. Fell (1940). Bronze dirk, near Gleaston Castle. Pool darking bronze dagger/dirk MBA. Fell (1995). Ambleside hoard, 6 bronzes. Fell & Coles (1965). Bronze axe hoard, Skelmore Heads gryke. 6 socketed axes. Cowper (1905). Hoard, 250yrds Stone Walls. 4-5 bronze celts, 4-5 bronze rings. Barber (1869). Bronze knife, 1912. Tosthills chamber tomb. Dobson (1912). Palstave Wraysholme Tower. Stockdales (1864). Palstaves (2 or 3) ploughed up near Flookburgh before 1886. Cowper (1907). Bronze palstave at Millans park, Ambleside. Cowper (1905). MBA looped shield pattern palstave. MBA rapier. Cowper (1907). Bronze spearhead c . 1830, Barrow NFC. Meadow ploughing. Piel Castle spearhead. Gaythorpe (1906). Whitbarrow bronze spearhead, leaf shaped blade, loops. Clough (1969). Whitbarrow spearhead class IV. Clough (1969). Copper alloy spearhead. Bronze spearhed on Swinside Fell, 1880s. Keswick Museum. Spearhead, bronze. Cowper (1907). MBA looped bronze spearhead, edge of Whinfell Tarn. Cowper (1905). Broken flint axe. Plint (1964). Flint axe and tuff roughout. Axe hammer. Axe hammers said to have been found in Hagg wood. Perforated axe hammer, porpytic lava, Rampside churchyard. Gaythorpe (1897). Perforated and polished stone adze, Roose, 1901. Perforated sandstone axe hammer, Rampside. Gaythorpe (1904). Perforated macehead. On top of boulder clay, 2ft 6 down. CW11:483 Perforated BA axe/macehead. Barrow Museum acquisition 5193. Perforated macehead, North Scale, 2ft down in clay. Barnes & Hobbs (1947). Perforated stone axe hammer. 5 ft below surface, gravel on clay. Dobson (1914). Stone axe hammer, unfinished hourglass perforation. Dobson (1914). Macehead, 1875, 4ft from surface in solid clay. Gaythorpe (1904). Stone axe hammer. Barrow museum 5002. Gaythorpe (1904). Perforated stone axe hammer, igneous rock. Barrow museum 5005. Battleaxe, Vickerstown. Gaythorpe (1904). Perforated macehead. Biggar Park. Storth macehead. Stone hammer, hourglass perforation. North (1936). Stone axe hammer 7 by 4.5 inches. 1813. Broken stone axe hammer, 1887. Keswick museum. Stone axe with hourglass perforation. Possibly diorite. Fell (1971). Perforated stone axe found in drain cutting. Ealingheath stone axe hammer broken through perforation. Fell (1971). Perforated stone axe. Swainson Cowper (1888a). Perforated macehead. Perforated stone macehead, in a field pre 1974. 2 perforated axe hammers, possibly from Lindal. Joplin (1846). Perforated stone axe hammer. Perforated stone hammer, provenance uncertain. Dark red perforated stone hammer, Drigg. Cherry (1966). Perforated stone axe hammer, Plumpton Hall, 1951. Fell (1971). Perforated stone axe hammer found c . 1870, Plumpton Hall. Fell (1971). Perforated stone axe hammer. Aynsome perforated stone axe hammer, polished. Perforated stone axe hammer, Low Wood Bridge. Spence (1935). Part of a perforated stone axe, bed of River Leven. Dobson (1914). Axe hanging in a cow byre. Birkway farm, Outgate. Swainson-Cowper (1888a). Many stone implements including 3 large axe hammers.

Appendix 5.1. Stone axes and bronze finds across southern Cumbria.

197

East

North

Type

Parish

SMR

Description

335000 351000 351300 351000 351000 352100 321000 324500 338000 333900 336000 336300 337000 334100 349100 317200 319000 313100 325000 324760 326000 326000 327300 355000 352200 353000 352400 328500 341000 329000 327400 329000 327300 329700 324600 326000 325000 310700 311400 313500 313100 356000 341000 339900 302000 337000 327000 324600 328130 324700 321600 321430 319500 319350 317640 324700 317000 321600 318000 352100 329400 327450 330290 345400 306700 306820 306900 322800 323700 333900 335880

498000 488000 488400 484700 492000 492860 494500 490500 476000 479580 476000 476600 475000 504700 484500 488300 488000 496700 481000 479000 477000 477000 477300 518000 496900 497000 499300 494300 480000 477600 477400 479010 478800 478900 473100 474000 471500 493900 493900 481800 481600 498000 503000 499400 526000 504000 472000 470800 472540 469300 471500 470430 472600 470140 467720 467600 472500 470100 467000 481100 489800 501750 495400 488300 499100 499100 499200 481300 483900 479580 477280

perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perforated axe perorated axe polished axe polished axe polished axe polished axe polished axe polished axe polished axe polished axe polished axe polished axe polished axe polished axe polished axe polished axe polished axe polished axe polished axe polished axe polished axe polished axe polished axe polished axe polished axe polished axe polished axe

Hawkshead Helsington Helsington Hincaster Kendal Kendal Kendal Kirkby Ireleth L. Allithwaite L. Allithwaite L. Holker L. Holker L. Holker Lakes Levens Millom Without Millom Without Muncaster Pennington Pennington Pennington Pennington Pennington Shap Rural Skelsmergh Skelsmergh Strik. roger Torver U. Allith Ulverston Ulverston Ulverston Ulverston Ulverston Urswick Urswick Urswick Waberthwaite Waberthwaite Whicham Whicham Whinfell Windermere Windermere Winscales Lakes Aldingham Aldingham Aldingham Aldingham Barrow Barrow Barrow Barrow Barrow Barrow Barrow Barrow Barrow Beetham Colton Coniston Coniston Crosthwaite Drigg Drigg Drigg Kirkby Ireleth Kirkby Ireleth L. Allithwaite L. Holker

3569 4089 4090 4355 2481 2485 4099 3572 2431 4144 2421 3573 4147 6359 6080 19212 3574 18984 2140 2190 2240 3580 3589 1548 4112 4113 4115 3595 2456 2229 2242 3590 5588 6127 2287 2343 3576 18890 18989 18973 18974 4092 1901 2049 1054 1882 1023 2261 2333 3089 2292 2304 2710 2714 2731 3090 5598 5600 5601 4353 5574 17747 2030 4072 1338 1388 4431 5571 5572 18966 2408

Perforated stone implement, Hawkshead 1885. Swainson-Cowper (1888a). Perforated stone axe hammer. Larkrigg perforated stone axe hammer. Spence (1935). Stone hammer, perforated pebble. Spence (1935). Axe hammer. Spence (1935). Ovoid stone macehead with core drilled perforation. Thorny Hills. Fell (1971). Stone axe hammer. Barrow museum 5002. Gaythorpe (1904). Bridge End, perforated stone implement. CW 26:45 Perforated stone axe hammer. Allithwaite. Cartmel stone axe hammer. Cowper (1907). Cartmel perforated stone axe. Perforated stone implement. Swainson Cowper (1888a). Several stone hammers, intertidal meadow drainage. Stockdale (1874). Perforated pebble macehead. Ninzergh axe. hourglass perforation, broken and resharpend. North (1937). Hourglass perforated macehead. Richardson (1990). 1889, stone axe hammer Duddon Bridge. Collingwood (1926). Axe hammer, hourglass perforation. In a wall, Crag Farm, Birkby. Perforated pebble macehead with band of silica. 1880. Perforated axe hammer found during building of reservoir. Fell (1948). Perforated axe hammer, pre 1904. Barrow NFC. Perforated pebble on Rathvale Moor, 1880. Collingwood (1926). Perforated axe hammer, pre-1920. North (1945). Perforated stone hammer, roughly triangular. Spence (1935). Holme House perforated axe hammer Plint (1960). Stone axe hammer. Collingwood (1926). Garnett Bridge perforated axe hammer. Collingwood (1926). Perforated stone implement at Torver. Collingwood (1926). Stone axe hammer, Bognells Farm, 8ft depth. Perforated stone axe hammer. Gaythorpe (1897). Perforated axe, hourglass, Swarthmoor. North (1945). Perforated axe, Ulverston before 1939. Fell (1971). Rosside perforated stone axe hammer group XV Coniston Grit. Fell (1974). Ulverston axe hammer, 1868. Perforated stone axe hammer dark green porphitic lava. Dobson (1914). Stone axe hammer partly bored, interesting ornamental fluting. CW10:509 Perforated stone axe hammer. Spence (1935). Axe hammer 'beaker type' Muncaster Castle. Fell (1940). Bronze Age perforated axe hammer, bed of watercourse. Stone hammer, Arrow hill, 1860. Stone hammer. 1862. hourglass perforation. Perforated stone axe re-used as adze. Cowper (1934). Perforated stone axe hammer, Troutbeck, 1884. Perforated stone axe hammer, 1962. Calgarth. Fell (1971). Perforated stone axe hammer. Perforated stone adze, road alterations. High stone quarry. 1899. North (1937). Tuff axe, drainage, 1963. Fell (1971). Baycliffe Haggs axe, field wall pre 1914. Dobson (1914). Leece axe, Carrick. Sewage work 1956, Ruskin museum. Fell (1971). stone celt. 1859, Manor farm. Gaythorpe (1897). Stone axe, new church foundations, 1956. Two stone axes, polished. Barrow museum 5102,3; North (1937). Polished axe. Gaythorpe (1906). Polished axe above high water mark. Gaythorpe (1904). Polished axe, Peasholmes farm. Robinson (1985). Polished stone axe between airfield and North End. Fell (1971). Polished axe, Barrow. Fell (1971). Polished axe, Walney. Fell (1971). Stone celt, thin butted, polished blue stone, 1888. Collingwood (1926). Polished tuff axe, High Nibthwaite. Fell (1971). 'Engraved' axe poss. found E of south scree, Stickle Pike. Fell (1980). Small polished axe from bloomery hearth exc, Coniston. Robinson (1985), Polished axe, 1952, woodland track. Fell (1971). Stone polished axe of Cumbrian type Polished stone axe, pasture near 'White Garth'. Cherry (1966). Sturge Coll, British museum. Fell (1964). Polished axe from Soutergate. Fell (1964). Polished axe, Chapels. Fell (1971). Low Frith axe of tuff on beach. Curteis (1989). Large polished greenstone axe, Lower Holker.

Appendix 5.1. Stone axes and bronze finds across southern Cumbria.

198

East

North

Type

Parish

333000 336800 341000 347200 349750 299780 317500 315820 326000 357600 353000 294000 296100 301000 300900 330280 341000 329320 328000 328710 330000 330600 330200 329410 326470 324700 327200 311400 312300 313100 296000 339900 307530 324240 324280 320980 319000 323700 321000 321920 309000 305400 306000 321300 321000 321700 320000 321300 305400 334100 317600 304550 301000 301100 348750 326900 324000 326120 325000 297299 341560

507000 502000 503000 485400 485870 506900 478500 481670 476000 511280 513000 513000 513100 506000 507900 495280 480000 478570 478000 479010 476000 478300 477600 475070 473860 471600 475000 491100 481600 481900 516000 499700 503150 469420 468380 471580 466000 468800 487000 473980 528000 500500 514000 507200 507000 507400 507000 507000 502700 505300 482500 501840 504800 504700 492150 475300 472000 472960 473000 517300 499490

polished axe polished axe polished axe polished axe polished axe polished axe polished axe polished axe polished axe polished axe polished axe polished axe polished axe polished axe polished axe polished axe polished axe polished axe polished axe polished axe polished axe polished axe polished axe polished axe polished axe polished axe polished axe polished axe polished axe polished axe polished axe polished axe quern and axe unpolished axe unpolished axe unpolished axe unpolished axe unpolished axe unpolished axe unpolished axe unpolished axe unpolished axe unpolished axe unpolished axe unpolished axe unpolished axe unpolished axe unpolished axe unpolished axe unpolished axe unpolished axe unpolished axe unpolished axe unpolished axe unpolished axe unpolished axe unpolished axe unpolished axe unpolished axe unpolished axe unpolished axe

Lakes 1865 Lakes 1880 Lakes 1903 Levens 4067 Levens 4315 Lowside Quarter 3677 Millom 16739 Millom Without 18975 Pennington 5587 Shap Rural 19713 Shap Rural 31573 St Bees 1192 St Bees 1194 St John Beckermet 6438 St John Beckermet 6843 Torver 6129 U. Allith 2457 Ulverston 2207 Ulverston 2237 Ulverston 2244 Ulverston 2395 Ulverston 2397 Ulverston 5562 Urswick 2228 Urswick 2318 Urswick 2348 Urswick 5586 Waberthwaite 1456 Whicham 18968 Whicham 18970 Whitehaven 1190 Windermere 2048 Gosforth 1308 Aldingham 17930 Barrow 16786 Barrow 2268 Barrow 2741 Barrow 5762 Broughton west 2151 Dalton 4383 Dean 1060 Drigg 6462 Enn and Kinn 1206 Eskdale 1363 Eskdale 1364 Eskdale 1366 Eskdale 1370 Eskdale 4437 Gosforth 6460 Lakes 1861 Millom Without 18976 Seascale 1269 St Bridget Beckermet1270 St. Bridget Beckerme1268 Underbarrow 4106 Urswick 2224 Urswick 2305 Urswick 2354 Urswick 3567 Whitehaven 1189 Windermere 4221

SMR

Description Small axe in garden, 1925, polished cutting edge, rough butt end. Fell (1971). Polished axe, 5-6 ft deep. Hogg (1958). Polished axe, 5 and a half inches long. North (1934). Polished tuff axe and barbed and tanged arrowhead. Cowper (1905). Stone axe and flints 50m from cairn (SMR3107). Cherry (1987). Improvement to W. of Silver Tarn. Hodbarrow ore mine, 1 mile SE of Millom. In topsoil. Found/recorded 1874. 1959. Fell (1971) Axe find, Hardendale Fell, 2000. Polished stone axe, close to Rowentree Crag cairnfield. Fell (1964). 1887. Spence (1935). Spence (1935) Fell (1964). 1878, Ehenside Tarn. Cherry & Cherry (1984) Polished stone axe, Barrow museum. Lindale axe. Dickinson (1935). Partially polished tuff axe. Polished stone axe. Gaythorpe (1897). Smooth Cumbrian axe. Fell (1954). Polished stone axe, 6ft below surface before 1893. Rame, 1925. Polished axe ploughed up Saltcoats Farm 1969. Fell (1971). Polished axe, Sautergate, Barrow museum 5039 Polished axe, limestone gryke. Barrow NFC 1923. Polished axe. Fell (1971). Axe, Skelmore Heads ploughed field. Barnes (1963). Low Borrowdale Ground, polished axe, ploughing. Cherry (1976). 1868 Small, 1933. Polished axe, broken along one side. Polished stone axe, Culgarth 1913. Fell (1971). Stone axe with 3 rubbing stones, 6 inches underground. Fair (1943). Leece, 2 portions of roughout, broken in antiquity. Robinson (1985). Roughout in a barn wall. Moss Side, 1993. Roughout, 15 inches below surface, Hawcoat. North (1936). Roughout, Barrow NFC 1903. Stake Moss, Leece, roughout. Robinson (1985). Stone celt of rude workmanship, 1887, 8 inches long. Roughout, 1902. Two unpolished stone axes found west of Eaglesfield. Roughout. Cherry & Cherry (1984). Fell End axe find. Near Blakeley Raise. Fair (1935). Tuff axe found Scafell 1874. Fair (1935). Stone axe. Plint (1962). Stone axe, 1931. Close to main track,between Broad Crag and summit Scafell. 6 roughouts and some stone flakes Brown Tongue, 1959. Plint (1962). Broken roughout Scafell. Plint (1962). Small roughout. Cherry & Cherry (1984). Roughout, above tarn. Plint (1962). Roughout, field surface. Stone axe of banded tuff, unfinished. Fell (1967). 'Slate' stone axe, found (Bog Holes) near mouth of Ehen. Fell (1964). Roughout, found 1898. Roughout among limestone outcrops. Plint (1960). Roughout. Barnes (1963). Roughout axe (flaked celt) Stainton. Barrow museum 5282. Bolton chapel. Roughout Stainton Quarry (Stone Close). Fell (1971), Dobson (1912). Roughout and flint axe (see separate record). Roughout recorded by members of CWAAS.

Appendix 5.1. Stone axes and bronze finds across southern Cumbria.

199

Appendix 5.2. Location of lithic scatters from the Furness transect

East

North

323100 326000 324500 323200 323450 323800 322300 325300 323600 323250 325300 326400 320367 319300 319507 319700 321700 325800 321390 320770 323500 320250 322250 324600 318700 318000 323704 321100 324300 321100 321700 318490

469300 471500 469600 468000 468500 471500 471150 472600 469900 466630 468600 471700 463012 464700 475693 474150 472800 471300 472100 463200 472300 463270 473500 471300 465600 473400 473227 472800 466700 473390 471500 465890

Site name Dungeon Lane Gleaston 8 Leece Moorhead Moorhead Cottages New Close Parkhouse Stainton Stank Westfield Four Lane Ends Gleaston 10 & 11 Hare Hill Hillock Whins Roanhead Sandscale Farm Breastmill Beck Gleaston 6 & 7 Manor Park Mulgrews Mutton's Trough Head Dalton South Dendron Lamity Sike North End Parker's Rakesmoor Rampside Sinkfall Sixth Form College Walney Middle Hill

Site code

Height OD

Chronology

DL GLE8 LEE MD MC NC PH ST STA WF FLE GLE 10/11 HH HW RD SF BMB GLE 6/7 MP MUL MUTT TH DS DEND LS NE PD RR RP SLL SFC MH

30m 40m 30m 20m 30m 70m 25m 70m 20m 10m 20m 40m 10m 10m 5m 10m 50m 40m 40m 10m 70m 10m 50m 70m 5m 10m 70m 60m 20m 50m 45m 10m

Meso/Neo Meso/Neo Meso/Neo Meso/Neo Meso/Neo Meso/Neo Meso/Neo Meso/Neo Meso/Neo

200

Meso/Neo Neo/EBA Neo/EBA Neo/EBA Neo/EBA Neo/EBA Neo/EBA Mixed Mixed Mixed Mixed Mixed Mixed Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Appendix 5.3. Key to the assemblage recording sheets Group 5: Cutting tools 1. Egdeworn blade 2. Edgeworn flake 3. Retouched blade 4. Retouched flake

1. Constituents of the assemblage This section details the location of the lithic scatter and the technological makeup of the assemblage. Tools: Number of pieces classifiable as particular tool groups/types. Waste: Number of waste pieces (including cores). Cores: Number of cores. Blades: Parallel sided forms with a 2:1 length/width ratio or more. Flakes: Flakes with less than a 2:1 length/width ratio. Chunks/spalls: Flakes smaller than c. 10mm, or thicker/chunkier than classic flakes. Classifiable: Forms classifiable as either tools or waste Unclassifiable: Forms too badly broken to be securely identified. Formal: Tools exhibiting more than 5% of retouch. Informal: Tools exhibiting less than 5% of retouch, often edge damage/glossing.

Group 6: Heavy duty implements 1. Heavy edgeworn blades and flakes 2. Choppers 3. Heavy duty borers Group 7: Composite/microlithic forms 1. Geometric 2. Non-geometric 3. Retouched bladelets/microlithic manufacture Group 8: Miscellaneous 1. Spurred points 2. Notched flakes 3. Abraded edge 4. Misc. retouched 5. Broken retouched 6. Nosed 7. Multiuse 8. Denticulate

2. Tool types Identifiable tool types are split into eight main groups, based on the types of tool relating to particular ranges of activities/uses. In the absence of clear diagnostic indicators, these can also be indicative of chronology. For example, high proportions of retouched/edgeworn blades and flakes and multiuse forms are common in Later Mesolithic/Early Neolithic scatters. High proportions of tools seemingly made for specific tasks (e.g. notched, spurred and nosed forms) are common in Later Neolithic/Early Bronze Age assemblages (e.g. Gardiner 1987; Edmonds 1987, 1995). These groups are classified after Gardiner (1987) and are sub-divided into particular forms.

Group 9: Anvils and hammer stones No subgroups 3. Reduction and technology Aspects of reduction technology can be used to understand the chronology of lithic scatters through the identification of flake/blade ratios. The presence of particular types/proportions of waste can suggest some of the technological activities the assemblage represents (e.g. Ford 1987).

Group 1: Axes 1. Roughout 2. Part polished 3. Polished 4. Fragment

Core type: How many blade or flake cores are represented and whether these were reused as core tools. Waste type: Illustrates the constituents of waste in the assemblage and the average size of particular forms:

Group 2: Scrapers 1. Concave 2. Convex 3. Plane

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Group 3: Arrowheads 1. Leaf 2. Barbed and tanged 3. Triangular 4. Other

Flakes Blades Cores Chunks Spalls

Reduction: Number of primary, secondary, tertiary and pieces of unknown reduction (largely broken forms) within the assemblage. This can illustrate the nature of the scatter (e.g. a scatter situated close to a raw material source is likely to contain large proportions of primary and secondary forms, or if the scatter includes mainly

Group 4: Awls borers and piercers No subgroups

201

illustrates that pebble flint is markedly more common close to raw material sources on Walney and that nonpebble flint raw materials are well represented within the chronologically mixed valley based assemblages. The presence of tuff forms is also detailed.

tertiary forms this can be suggestive of contexts where tools were being utilised and reworked). Tool group: Illustrates whether particular types of tools were made on particular types of blanks and a general picture of the flake/blade ratio across the assemblage.

The lithic raw materials identified are split into eight groups. Raw material types 1, 2, 3 and 11 are definitely available locally with the remainder either from unidentified sources within the region or of non-local derivation. Raw material 5 is what is often referred to as ‘black chalk flint’ and raw material 13 as ‘grey Wolds flint’. The remainder could be specific raw material types or may relate to colour/quality variations within other raw materials (see discussion in chapter three).

4. Raw materials (see appendix 5.5) This analysis illustrates the presence/absence and proportions of different raw materials within each lithic scatter. Irrespective of tool forms, analysis of reduction technology of particular raw materials can suggest differential patterns of working within and between assemblages. Various statistical analyses were undertaken in order to assess differences in the reduction of raw materials; whether specific tool forms were made on particular types of flint and if there were any differences between the use and occurrence of different raw materials between earlier and later scatters. As discussed in chapter nine, there was little clear patterning in this material other than that higher quality flints were predominantly used for the production of finely worked implements and also formed the majority of heavily retouched broken forms in the assemblages. Analysis of change over time was also problematic as Later Neolithic/Early Bronze Age scatters were either located on the coastal shingle sources and comprised of 100% local pebble flint or were situated at valley meetings within chronologically mixed assemblages. Appendix 5.5 is therefore restricted to detailing the frequencies of the raw materials identified in relation the locations of individual scatters. This

1. Beach pebble flint (orange-brown) 2. Tuff. 3. Chert (black grey and white). 4. White flint speckled brown/red. 5. Translucent black/brown. 6. Mottled dark/light grey. 8. Yellow with dark inclusions. 9. Translucent buff grey/honey with white flecks. 10. Grey/black with orange-brown cortex. 11. Lignite/cannel coal 12. Pink. 13. Milky fawn with blue/grey veins. 14. Unknown/patinated.

202

Area

Code

BMB

NGR (centre)

Breastmill Beck

Height OD

50m

321770/472670

No. of pieces

89

tools

44

waste

36

unclass

5

flakes

38

blades

13

cores

2

chunks/ spalls

35

2. Tool types 1.1

2.1

1

3.1

1.2

2.2

2

3.2

5.2

7

1.3

2.3

3.3

5.3

3

3.4

5.4

5

=

15

1.4 =

0 =

3

4.0

=

0

Notes: 1 concave scraper 2 convex scrapers 4 awls/borers 7 edgeworn flakes 3 edgeworn blades 3 retouched blades 4 retouched flakes

=

4

4

5.1

6.1

7.1

6.2

=

0

8.1

9.0

7.2

8.2

=

7.3

8.3

3

8.4

3

8.5

12

8.6

2

=

1 geometric microlith 3 abraded edge 3 misc. retouched 12 broken retouched 2 nosed 1 denticulate

1

1

0

8.7 8.8

1

=

21

3. Technology and reduction Core type 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. = Tool group 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. =

Blade

Flake

1

1

1

1 Flake

Core tool

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. =

2

Blade

Waste type

Chunk

4 1 2 28 1 36

Size (av.) 31 27 22 11

Diagnostics present?

Reduction primary secondary tertiary unknown =

Notes

Microlith, denticulate 2

1

2 11

2 4

15 30

1 2 7

19 dorsal scarring 1 axe thinning flake 1 blade and 1 flake of tuff

4 7

Appendix 5.4. Assemblage sheets for the Furness lithic scatters.

203

6 7 53 23 89

Area

Code

DS

NGR (centre)

Dalton South

Height OD

50m

322250/473500

No. of pieces

5

tools

3

waste

2

unclass

0

flakes

3

blades

0

cores

0

chunks/ spalls

2

3.1

4.0

5.1

6.1

7.1

8.1

9.0

3.2

5.2

6.2

7.2

8.2

=

3.3

5.3

7.3

8.3

3.4

5.4

2. Tool types 1.1

2.1

1.2

2.2

1.3

2.3

2

1.4 =

0

=

0

=

0

=

0

=

0

1

8.4 0

=

0

Notes: 2 convex scrapers 1 abraded edge

=

8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 =

1

3. Technology and reduction Core type

Blade

Flake

Core tool

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. = Tool group 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. =

Waste type 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. =

Flake

Blade

Chunk

Size (av.)

2

Reduction primary secondary tertiary unknown =

Diagnostics present?

2 2 1

Notes

2

1

Appendix 5.4. Assemblage sheets for the Furness lithic scatters.

204

Area

Code

DEND

NGR (centre)

Dendron

Height OD

70m 1

324600/471300

No. of pieces

4

tools

2

flakes

3

blades

waste

1

unclass

cores

1

chunks/ spalls

2. Tool types 1.1

2.1

3.1

1.2

2.2

1.3

2.3

1.4

1

=

0

=

0

4.0

5.1

6.1

7.1

8.1

9.0

3.2

5.2

6.2

7.2

8.2

=

3.3

5.3

7.3

8.3

3.4

5.4

=

0

=

0

=

0

8.4 0

=

0

=

Notes: 1 axe fragment 1 broken retouched

8.5

1

8.6 8.7 8.8 =

1

3. Technology and reduction Core type

Blade

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. = Tool group 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. =

Flake

Core tool

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. =

1

Flake

Waste type

Blade

Chunk

1

Size (av.)

33

Reduction primary secondary tertiary unknown =

1 1 2 4

1

Diagnostics present?

Notes

1 roughout fragment with percussive damage dispersed group of finds

1

Appendix 5.4. Assemblage sheets for the Furness lithic scatters.

205

Area

Code

DL

NGR (centre)

Dungeon Lane

Height OD

30m

323000/469331

No. of pieces

52

tools

22

waste

25

unclass

5

flakes

17

blades

7

cores

5

chunks/ spalls

24

3.1

4.0

2. Tool types 1. 1

2.1

1. 2

2.2

1

1. 3

2.3

1

1. 4 =

0

=

2

5.1

6.1

7.1

8.1

3.2

5.2

6.2

7.2

8.2

3.3

5.3

5

7.3

8.3

3.4

5.4

1

=

6

=

0

Notes: 1 plane scraper 1 convex scraper 3 awl/borer 5 retouched blades 1 retouched flake 1 spurred 8 broken retouched

=

3

3

1

9.0 =

0

8.4 =

0

=

0 8.5

8

8.6 1 multiuse 8.7

1

8.8 =

10

3. Technology and reduction Core type

Blade

Flake

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. =

1

2

Tool group 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. =

1

Core tool

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. =

1 1

2 Flake

Blade

1

1

1 1

5

7 10

1 7

Waste type

Chunk

3

2 5

Size (av.)

5

Reduction primary secondary tertiary unknown =

4 12 5 6

4 11 34 3 52

Diagnostics present?

Notes

13 dorsal scarring exhausted cores. core rejeuvenation. blade side/end scrapers with heavy retouch. backed blade. bifacially worked broken frags. 2 tips ?leaf aheads, finely worked.

Ironpan cement on a number of objects may suggest derivation from subsoil features.

Appendix 5.4. Assemblage sheets for the Furness lithic scatters.

206

Area

Code

FLE

NGR (centre)

4 Lane Ends

Height OD

20m

unclass

1

chunks/ spalls

7

325030/468500

No. of pieces

17

tools

15

flakes

9

blades

waste

1

cores

2. Tool types 1.1

2.1

1.2

2.2

1.3

2.3

3.1 5

1.4 =

0

=

5

4.0

5.1

6.1

3.2

5.2

6.2

3.3

5.3

3.4

5.4

2

=

2

=

0

=

2

2

1

7.1

8.1

9.0

7.2

8.2

1

7.3

8.3

1

=

0

8.4 =

1

Notes: 5 convex scrapers 2 awls/borers 1 heavy duty chopper 1 notched 1 abraded edge 3 broken retouched 1 nosed

=

0 8.5

2

8.6

1

8.7 8.8 =

5

3. Technology and reduction Core type

Blade

Flake

Core tool

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. = Tool group 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. =

Waste type 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. =

Flake

Blade

Chunk

Size (av.)

Reduction primary secondary tertiary unknown =

1 1

Diagnostics present?

1 6 10 17

Notes

Thumbnail scraper. 3

2

1 2

1

1 dorsal scarring.

1 2 8

1 5

Appendix 5.4. Assemblage sheets for the Furness lithic scatters.

207

Area

Code

GLE 8

NGR (centre)

Gleaston 8

Height OD

40m

326100/471600

No. of pieces

80

tools

52

waste

21

unclass

0

flakes

29

blades

17

cores

8

chunks/ spalls

21

2. Tool types 1.1

2.1

3.1

1.2

2.2

2

1.3

2.3

1

1.4 =

0

=

3

5.1

4

6.1

2

7.1

3.2

5.2

3

6.2

2

7.2

3.3

5.3

5

3.4

5.4

4

=

16

=

4.0

0

=

Notes: 2 convex scrapers 7 awls/borers 4 edgeworn blades 3 edgeworn flakes 5 retouched blades 4 retouched flakes 4 heavy duty 2 geometric microliths

7

7

7.3

=

4

=

2

3

5

8.1

9.0

8.2

=

8.3 8.4

10

8.5

7

8.6 3 retouched bladelets 10 misc. retouched 7 broken retouched

8.7 8.8 =

17

3. Technology and reduction Core type

Blade

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. =

7 1

Tool group 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. =

Flake

Core tool

Waste type

Size (av.)

Reduction

1

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. =

8

18

8 5

21 22

primary secondary tertiary unknown =

6 19 38 6 80

21

8 Flake

Blade

1 1 6 1 2 8 19

1 9 3 3 16

Chunk

Diagnostics present?

1

1 thumbnail scraper. microliths.

5 1 3

Notes

16 dorsal scarring.

6 16

Appendix 5.4. Assemblage sheets for the Furness lithic scatters.

208

0

Area

Code

GLE 6/7

NGR (centre)

Gleaston 6 & 7

Height OD

40m

unclass

8

chunks/ spalls

10

325800/471250

No. of pieces

46

tools

32

waste

flakes

23

blades

11

cores

4.0

6

2. Tool types 1.1

2.1

1

3.1

1.2

2.2

3

3.2

5.2

1

1.3

2.3

3.3

5.3

4

5.4

5

1.4

1

=

1

=

4

3.4

1

=

1

Notes: 1 concave scraper 3 convex scrapers 1 arrowhead (type?) 1 edgeworn flake 4 retouched blades 5 retouched flakes 2 geometric microliths

=

5.1

0 =

6.1

7.1

6.2

7.2 7.3

2

8.1

1

8.2 2

9.0 =

8.3 8.4

10

=

0

=

2 retouched bladelets 1 spurred 7 broken retouched 1 nosed 3 abraded edge

4

8.5

7

8.6

1

8.7

3

8.8 =

12

3. Technology and reduction Core type 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. =

Blade

Flake

Core tool

Waste type 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. =

1

Tool group

Flake

Blade

Chunk

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. =

1 2 1

1

1

6

4

9 19

4 1 10

3

Size (av.) 35

3

21

Reduction primary secondary tertiary unknown =

1 8 26 11 46

6

Diagnostics present?

Notes

1 axe thinning flake. 1 reworked polished axe fragment. microliths arrowhead. 13 blade scars. 1 multiuse is denticulated.

2 3

Appendix 5.4. Assemblage sheets for the Furness lithic scatters.

209

0

Area

Code

GLE 11 8

Gleaston 10 & 11

NGR (centre)

Height OD

40m

326300/471820

No. of pieces

18

tools

flakes

11

blades

waste

7

unclass

3

cores

1

chunks/ spalls

6

2. Tool types 1. 1

2.1

1. 2

2.2

1. 3

2.3

3.1 2

1. 4 =

0

=

2

4.0

5.1

6.1

3.2

5.2

6.2

3.3

5.3

3.4

5.4

=

0

=

1

1

=

1

7.1

8.1

7.2

8.2

7.3

1

1

9.0 =

0

8.3 8.4

0

=

1

Notes: 2 convex scrapers 1 awl/borer 1 heavy duty 1 retouched bladelet 1 spurred 1 broken retouched 1 multiuse

=

1

8.5

1

8.6 8.7

1

8.8 =

3

3. Technology and reduction Core type 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. = Tool group 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. =

Blade

Flake

Core tool

1

Waste type 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. =

4

Size (av.) 23

1 2

22 49

Reduction primary secondary tertiary unknown =

1 6 9 2 18

8

1 Flake

Blade

Chunk

Diagnostics present?

Notes

Thumbnail scraper. 2

1 dorsal scarring. 1 1

1 1 4

2 4

Appendix 5.4. Assemblage sheets for the Furness lithic scatters.

210

Area

Code

HH

NGR (centre)

Hare Hill

Height OD

10m

unclass

2

chunks/ spalls

2

320370/463010

No. of pieces

33

tools

7

waste

flakes

6

blades

1

cores

3.1

4.0

24

2. Tool types 1.1

2.1

1.2

2.2

1.3

2.3

2

1.4 =

0

=

2

5.1

1

6.1

7.1

8.1

9.0

3.2

5.2

1

6.2

7.2

8.2

=

3.3

5.3

7.3

8.3

3.4

5.4

=

0

=

2

2

=

6.3

1

0

8.4 2

=

1

Notes: 2 convex scrapers 2 awls/borers 1 edgeworn flake 1 edgeworn blade 1 heavy duty borer

=

0 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 =

0

3. Technology and reduction Core type 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. = Tool group 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. =

Blade

Flake

Core tool

Waste type 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. =

Flake

Blade

1

Chunk

Size (av.)

1

Reduction primary secondary tertiary unknown =

9 9 10 5 33

1

Diagnostics present?

Notes

1 dorsal scarring.

3 tuff (2 flakes and 1 chunk)

1

1 1 1

1

1

4

1

2

Appendix 5.4. Assemblage sheets for the Furness lithic scatters.

211

Area

Code

HW

NGR (centre)

Hillock Whins

Height OD

10m

319300/464700

No. of pieces

61

tools

24

waste

35

unclass

2

flakes

24

blades

1

cores

1

chunks/ spalls

5

2. Tool types 1.1

2.1

1.2

2.2

1.3

2.3

3.1 5

1.4 =

0

=

5

5.1

1

6.1

7.1

8.1

9.0

3.2

5.2

4

6.2

7.2

8.2

=

3.3

5.3

7.3

8.3

3.4

5.4

5

=

10

=

4.0

0 =

Notes: 5 convex scrapers 3 awls 1 edgeworn blade 4 edgeworn flakes 5 retouched flakes 1 misc. retouched

3

3

=

0

3 broken retouched 2 nosed

=

8.4

1

0 8.5

3

8.6

2

0

8.7 8.8 =

6

3. Technology and reduction Core type 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. = Tool group 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. =

Blade

Flake

Core tool

Waste type 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. =

1

1 1 13 18 33

Size (av.) 34 30 20 10

Reduction primary secondary tertiary unknown =

14 18 23 6 61

1 Flake

Blade

Chunk

5 3 9

1

5 22

1

Diagnostics present?

Notes

Thumbnail scrapers. 1 dorsal scaring.

1 chunk of tuff

1 1

Appendix 5.4. Assemblage sheets for the Furness lithic scatters.

212

Area

Code

HW1

NGR (centre)

Hillock Whins 1

Height OD

10m

319300/464700

No. of pieces

19

tools

2

waste

17

unclass

flakes

4

blades

1

cores

4.0

5.1

6.1

7.1

1 8.1

6.2

7.2

8.2

7.3

8.3

chunks/ spalls

14

2. Tool types 1.1

2.1

3.1

1.2

2.2

3.2

5.2

1.3

2.3

3.3

5.3

3.4

5.4

1.4 =

0

=

0

=

0

=

0

=

8.4 0

=

0

=

Notes: 1 geometric microlith 1 misc. retouched

9.0 =

0

1

1 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 =

1

3. Technology and reduction Core type 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. = Tool group 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. =

Blade

Flake

Core tool

Waste type 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. =

Flake

Blade

Chunk

3

14 17

Size (av.) 28

15

Reduction primary secondary tertiary unknown =

Diagnostics present?

Notes

Narrow blade microlith.

All pebble flint

5 1 12 1 19

1 1 1

1

Appendix 5.4. Assemblage sheets for the Furness lithic scatters.

213

Area

Code

HW2

NGR (centre)

Hillock Whins 2

Height OD

10m

unclass

1

chunks/ spalls

11

319300/464700

No. of pieces

18

tools

8

flakes

7

blades

waste

9

cores

2. Tool types 1.1

2.1

1.2

2.2

1.3

2.3

3.1 1

1.4 =

0

=

1

4.0

5.1

3.2

5.2

3.3

5.3

3.4

5.4

=

0

=

0

=

6.1 1

1

6.2

7.1

8.1

9.0

7.2

8.2

=

7.3

8.3

0

8.4 1

=

1

=

Notes: 1 thumbnail scraper 1 edgeworn flake 3 broken retouched 1 nosed 1 multiuse

0 8.5

3

8.6

1

8.7

1

8.8 =

5

3. Technology and reduction Core type 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. = Tool group 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. =

Blade

Flake

Core tool

Waste type 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. =

Flake

Blade

Chunk

5 4 9

Size (av.)

15 10

Diagnostics present?

Reduction primary secondary tertiary unknown =

2 6 9 1 18

Notes

Thumbnail scraper. 1

One side of multiuse is denticulated.

1 1 3 6

1 1

Appendix 5.4. Assemblage sheets for the Furness lithic scatters.

214

Area

Code

HW3

NGR (centre)

Hillock Whins 3

Height OD

10m

319300/464700

No. of pieces

72

tools

8

flakes

9

blades

waste

58

unclass

6

cores

1

chunks/ spalls

57

2. Tool types 1. 1

2.1

1. 2

2.2

1. 3

2.3

3.1 3

1. 4 =

0

=

3

4.0

5.1

3.2

5.2

3.3

5.3

3.4

5.4

=

0

=

0

=

6.1 1

1

6.2

7.1

8.1

9.0

7.2

8.2

=

7.3

2

8.3 8.4

1

=

1

Notes: 3 convex scrapers 1 edgeworn flake 1 heavy duty 2 retouched bladelet 1 misc. retouched

=

2

0

1

8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 =

1

3. Technology and reduction Core type 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. = Tool group 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. =

Blade

Flake

Core tool

Waste type 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. =

1

1

Size (av.) 35

1 21 27

30 20 10

Reduction primary secondary tertiary unknown =

21 7 33 11 72

1 Flake

3

Blade

Chunk

Diagnostics present? 1 thumbnail scraper. 2 retouched bladelets.

Notes

All from pit fill so stratigraphically associated.

1 1 2 1 8

Appendix 5.4. Assemblage sheets for the Furness lithic scatters.

215

Area

Code

LS

NGR (centre)

Lamity Sike

Height OD

5m

318700/465600

No. of pieces

7

tools

1

waste

6

unclass

0

flakes

6

blades

1

cores

0

chunks/ spalls

0

4.0

5.1

2. Tool types 1.1

2.1

3.1

1.2

2.2

3.2

5.2

1.3

2.3

3.3

5.3

3.4

5.4

1.4 =

0

=

0

=

0

=

0

=

1

6.1

7.1

8.1

9.0

6.2

7.2

8.2

=

7.3

8.3

0

8.4 1

=

0

Notes:

=

8.5 8.6

1 edgeworn blade

8.7 8.8 =

0

3. Technology and reduction Core type 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. = Tool group 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. =

Blade

Flake

Core tool

Waste type 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. =

Flake

Blade

Chunk

Size (av.) 15

6

Reduction primary secondary tertiary unknown =

3 1 3 6

6

Diagnostics present?

Notes

All pebble flint

1

1

Appendix 5.4. Assemblage sheets for the Furness lithic scatters.

216

Area

Code

LE 1-5

Leece

NGR (centre)

Height OD

30m

324780/469600

No. of pieces

32

tools

15

waste

14

unclass

3

flakes

12

blades

5

cores

2

chunks/ spalls

13

3.1

4.0

2. Tool types 1.1

2.1

1.2

2.2

1.3

2.3

1.4

1

=

1

1

1

3.2 3.3

1

3.4 =

1

5.1

2

6.1

7.1

8.1

5.2

3

6.2

7.2

8.2

5.3

3

7.3

8.3

5.4

=

1

=

1

=

9.0 1

=

0

8.4 8

=

0

=

Notes: 1 roughout fragment 1 convex scraper 1 hollow based arrowhead 1 awl/borer 2 edgeworn blades 3 edgeworn flakes 3 retouched blades

0 8.5

1

8.6 8.7

1

8.8 =

3

3. Technology and reduction Core type 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. = Tool group 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. =

Blade

Flake

Flake

Core tool

1

1

1

1 Blade

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. =

3 8

5

2 8 2 14

28 22 10

Reduction primary secondary tertiary unknown =

1 15 12 4 32

Diagnostics present?

Notes

1

Hollow based arrowhead. Roughout fragment. Backed blade.

Dispersed scatters around village.

1 5

2

Size (av.) 19

Chunk

1 1 3

Waste type

4 dorsal scarring.

2

Appendix 5.4. Assemblage sheets for the Furness lithic scatters.

217

Area

Code

MP

NGR (centre)

Manor Park

Height OD

40m

321440/472020

No. of pieces

138

tools

54

waste

55

unclass

flakes

61

blades

5

cores

6

chunks/ spalls

57

2. Tool types 1. 1

2.1

1

3.1

1. 2

2.2

4

3.2

5.2

3

1. 3

2.3

1

3.3

5.3

1

3.4

5.4

8

=

12

1. 4 =

0 =

6

=

4.0

0 =

Notes: 1 concave scraper 4 convex scrapers 2 plane scrapers 5 awls/borers 3 edgeworn flakes 9 retouched flakes

5

5

5.1

6.1

2

7.1

8.1

6.2

1

7.2

8.2

7.3

8.3

6

8.4

5

=

3

=

0 8.5 8.6

3 heavy duty 1 spurred 6 abraded edge 5 misc. retouched 13 broken retouched 2 nosed

1

9.0 =

13 2

8.7 8.8 =

27

3. Technology and reduction Core type 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. = Tool group 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. =

Blade

Flake

1

2 1 1

1 2

Core tool

Waste type 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. =

15 2 6 30 2 55

Size (av.) 24 14 35 23 18

Reduction primary secondary tertiary unknown =

10 27 37 55 138

4 Flake

Blade

Chunk

Diagnostics present?

Notes

Thumbnail scrapers. 6

1

2 11 1

3 1

19 39

2 3

Fragment of jet bangle. 3 dorsal scarring.

2 6 12

Appendix 5.4. Assemblage sheets for the Furness lithic scatters.

218

0

Area

Code

MH

NGR (centre)

Middle Hill

Height OD

10m

318490/465890

No. of pieces

31

tools

4

waste

27

unclass

flakes

26

blades

0

cores

1

chunks/ spalls

4.0

5.1

6.1

7.1

8.1

9.0

6.2

7.2

8.2

=

7.3

8.3

2

2. Tool types 1.1

2.1

1

3.1

1.2

2.2

2

3.2

5.2

1.3

2.3

3.3

5.3

3.4

5.4

1

=

1

1.4 =

0

=

3

=

0

=

0

0

8.4 =

0

=

Notes: 1 concave scraper 2 convex scraper 1 retouched flake

0 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 =

0

3. Technology and reduction Core type 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. = Tool group 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. =

Blade

Flake

Core tool

1

Waste type 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. =

26

Size (av.) 20

Reduction primary secondary tertiary unknown =

4 13 13 30

26

1 Flake

Blade

Chunk

Diagnostics present?

Notes

Retouched flake is a heavily invasively worked backed knife. Blake core is tiny, exhausted and pyramidical. Convex scraper thumbnailesque.

Appendix 5.4. Assemblage sheets for the Furness lithic scatters.

219

Area

Code

MD

NGR (centre)

Moorhead

Height OD

20m

unclass

3

chunks/ spalls

7

323200/468000

No. of pieces

28

tools

19

waste

flakes

18

blades

2

cores

4.0

6

2. Tool types 1.1

2.1

3.1

1.2

2.2

3.2

5.2

3

1.3

2.3

3.3

5.3

2

3.4

5.4

3

=

8

1.4 =

0

=

0

=

0

Notes: 1 awl/borer 3 edgeworn flakes 2 retouched blades 3 retouched flakes 1 heavy duty chopper 1 spurred 1 misc. retouched

=

1

1

5.1

6.1 6.2

2

=

2

7.1

8.1

7.2

8.2

7.3

8.3

=

1

9.0 =

8.4

1

0 8.5

6

0

8.6 6 broken retouched 8.7 8.8 =

8

3. Technology and reduction Core type 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. = Tool group 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. =

Blade

Flake

Core tool

Waste type 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. =

Flake

1 6 2 6 15

Blade

Chunk

2

Size (av.) 20

4

35

primary secondary tertiary unknown =

1 11 10 6 28

6

Diagnostics present?

Notes

2 flakes of tuff

Early Neolithic occupation features excavated in this field (Holbeck) Pit with rod microlith, pottery and unpolished tuff flakes. Other flint forms in the report (Jones 2001).

broken pieces all heavily worked 2

2

Reduction

1 1

Appendix 5.4. Assemblage sheets for the Furness lithic scatters.

220

Area

Code

Moorhead Cottages No. of 51 pieces flakes

MC

NGR (centre)

Height OD

30m

323330/468460

16

tools

23

waste

22

unclass

6

blades

10

cores

4

chunks/ spalls

21

3.1

4.0

2. Tool types 1. 1

2.1

1. 2

2.2

1. 3

2.3

1

1. 4 =

0

=

1

5.1

2

6.1

7.1

8.1

1

9.0

3.2

5.2

3

6.2

7.2

8.2

2

=

3.3

5.3

4

8.3

1

3.4

5.4

3

=

9

=

0

Notes: 1 convex scraper 2 awls/borers 2 edgeworn blades 3 edgeworn flakes 4 retouched blades 3 retouched flakes 1 retouched bladelet 1 notched

=

2

2

7.3

1

0

8.4 =

0

=

1

8.5

2

8.6 2 broken retouched 1 multiuse 1 spurred

8.7

1

8.8 =

7

3. Technology and reduction Core type 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. = Tool group 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. =

Blade

Flake

2

1

1 3

Core tool

Waste type 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. =

Size (av.)

1

Reduction primary secondary tertiary unknown =

4 6 11 21

2 9 33 7 51

1 Flake

Blade

Chunk

Diagnostics present?

Notes

1

18 dorsal scars. 1 snapped bladelet, broken blades. 1 blade multiuse. 1 retouched bladelet. 1 exhausted core fragment. 3 single platform blade cores.

Lots finely worked broken things Lots bulbs, platforms and dorsal scarring

1 1 6

6

5 13

1 1 8

1 2

Appendix 5.4. Assemblage sheets for the Furness lithic scatters.

221

Area

Code

MUL

NGR (centre)

Mulgrews

Height OD

10m

320770/463200

No. of pieces

619

tools

101

waste

518

unclass

flakes

92

blades

7

cores

51

chunks/ spalls

466

2. Tool types 1.1

2.1

1

3.1

1.2

2.2

12

1.3

2.3

3

1.4

3

=

3 =

16

5.1

4

6.1

7

7.1

3.2

5.2

16

6.2

3

7.2

3.3

5.3

2

3.4

5.4

6

=

28

=

4

10

0 =

Notes: 1 concave scraper 2 convex scrapers 3 plane scrapers 10 awls/borers 4 edgeworn blades 16 edgeworn flakes 2 retouched blades 6 retouched flakes

10

7.3

=

10

=

10 heavy duty 1 geometric microlith 3 retouched bladelets 6 spurred, 4 notched 3 abraded 5 misc. retouched 5 broken retouched 4 nosed

1

3

3

8.1

6

9.0

3

8.2

4

=

3

8.3

3

8.4

5

8.5

5

8.6

4

8.7 8.8 =

27

3. Technology and reduction Core type 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. = Tool group 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. =

Blade

Flake

1

1 15 4

Core tool

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. =

29

1

20 Flake

Blade

Chunk /core 9

5 20 5 14 19 70

5 1 5

7

29 1 23 466

Size (av.) 26 25 28 24

Reduction primary secondary tertiary unknown =

393 183 152 32 619

519

29

7 7

Waste type

Diagnostics present?

Notes

Cutting edge and butt end of polished stone axe. Geometric microlith. 1 hollow scraper. 11 dorsal scarring.

Waste flakes as blanks.

8 28

Raw material testing. Core tools were scrapers, awls and heavy duty implements. All pebble flint with exception of 3 tuff forms.

Appendix 5.4. Assemblage sheets for the Furness lithic scatters.

222

Area

Code

MUT

NGR (centre)

Muttons Dalton

Height OD

70m

322348/472469

No. of pieces

26

tools

18

waste

6

unclass

2

flakes

11

blades

2

cores

3

chunks/ spalls

10

3.1

4.0

2. Tool types 1.1

2.1

1.2

2.2

1.3

2.3

2

1.4 =

0

=

2

6

5.1

3.2

5.2

2

3.3

5.3

2

3.4

5.4

=

0

Notes: 2 convex scrapers 6 awls/borers 2 edgeworn flakes 2 retouched blades 1 retouched bladelet 1 notched 1 broken retouched

=

6

=

6.1

7.1

8.1

1

9.0

6.2

7.2

8.2

1

=

7.3

1 8.3

0

8.4 4

=

0

=

1 nosed 1 multiuse

1 8.5

1

8.6

1

8.7

1

8.8 =

5

3. Technology and reduction Core type 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. = Tool group 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. =

Blade

Flake

Core tool

2

1 1

Waste type 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. =

1

Size (av.) 23

3

24

2 6

Reduction primary secondary tertiary unknown =

1 9 11 5 26

2 Flake

Blade

Chunk

Diagnostics present?

Notes

Thumbnail scarper. 2 2 2

4 2

1 2 9

2

3 dorsal scarring Lots of bulbs/platforms.

4 8

Appendix 5.4. Assemblage sheets for the Furness lithic scatters.

223

Area

Code

NC

NGR (centre)

New Close

Height OD

70m

323800/471500

No. of pieces

13

tools

8

waste

4

unclass

1

flakes

3

blades

2

cores

2

chunks/ spalls

6

3.1

4.0

5.1

1

6.1

7.1

8.1

9.0

3.2

5.2

1

6.2

7.2

8.2

=

3.3

5.3

1

7.3

8.3

3.4

5.4

2

=

5

2. Tool types 1.1

2.1

1.2

2.2

1.3

2.3

3

1.4 =

0

=

3

=

0

=

0

0

8.4 =

0

Notes:

=

8.5 8.6

3 convex scrapers 1 edgeworn blade 1 edgeworn flake 1 retouched blade 2 retouched flake

8.7 8.8 =

0

3. Technology and reduction Core type 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. = Tool group 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. =

Blade

Flake

Core tool

2

Waste type 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. =

2 1 1 4

Size (av.) 23 28

Reduction primary secondary tertiary unknown =

1 5 5 2 13

2 Flake

Blade

Chunk

Diagnostics present?

3

Blade cores. 2 dorsal scarring.

2

2

1

2

2

4

Notes

Appendix 5.4. Assemblage sheets for the Furness lithic scatters.

224

Area

Code

NE

NGR (centre)

Walney North No. of pieces

Height OD

10m

318000/473400

3

tools

flakes

2

blades

waste

1

unclass

cores

1

chunks/ spalls

1

2. Tool types 1.1

2.1

3.1

1.2

2.2

1.3

2.3

1.4 =

0

=

0

4.0

5.1

6.1

7.1

8.1

3.2

5.2

6.2

7.2

8.2

3.3

5.3

7.3

8.3

3.4

5.4

=

0

=

0

=

1

9.0

1

=

1

8.4 0

=

0

Notes: 1 spurred 1 anvil stone

=

8.5 8.6 8.7

waste: 1 blade core 8.8 =

1

3. Technology and reduction Core type 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. = Tool group

Blade

Flake

Core tool

1

Waste type 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. =

Flake

Blade

Chunk

1

Size (av.) 25

Diagnostics present?

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. =

Reduction primary secondary tertiary unknown =

1 1

Notes With basalt spreads in dune blowout on Walney North End.

Appendix 5.4. Assemblage sheets for the Furness lithic scatters.

225

Aea

Code

PD

NGR (centre)

Parkers Dalton No. of pieces

Height OD

70m

323787/472962

2

flakes

tools

1

waste

1

unclass

blades

1

cores

4.0

5.1

6.1

7.1

8.1

9.0

6.2

7.2

8.2

=

7.3

8.3

chunks/ spalls

1

2. Tool types 1.1

2.1

3.1

1.2

2.2

3.2

5.2

1.3

2.3

3.3

5.3

3.4

5.4

1.4 =

0

=

0

=

0

=

0

=

1

0

8.4 1

=

0

Notes: 1 retouched blade

=r

8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 =

0

3. Technology and reduction Core type 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. = Tool group 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. =

Blade

Flake

Core tool

Waste type 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. =

Flake

Blade

Chunk

Size (av.)

Reduction primary secondary tertiary unknown =

4

Diagnostics present?

1 1 2

Notes

1

1

Appendix 5.4. Assemblage sheets for the Furness lithic scatters.

226

Area

Code

PAR

NGR (centre)

Parkhouse

Height OD

30m

unclass

2

chunks/ spalls

3

322300/471150

No. of pieces

12

tools

6

waste

flakes

6

blades

1

cores

3.1

4.0

5.1

4

2. Tool types 1.1

2.1

1.2

2.2

1.3

2.3

2

1.4 =

0

=

0

3.2

5.2

2

3.3

5.3

1

3.4

5.4

1

=

0

=

0

=

0

6.1

7.1

8.1

9.0

6.2

7.2

8.2

=

7.3

8.3

0

8.4 =

0

=

Notes: 2 convex scrapers 2 edgeworn flakes 1 retouched blade 1 retouched flake

0 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 =

0

3. Technology and reduction Core type 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. = Tool group 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. =

Blade

Flake

Core tool

Waste type 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. =

Flake

Blade

Chunk

Size (av.))

2

Reduction primary secondary tertiary unknown =

2

1 2 7 2 12

4

Diagnostics present?

Notes

1 nice retouched blade. 1

1

3

1

4

1

1 dorsal scarring.

1

Appendix 5.4. Assemblage sheets for the Furness lithic scatters.

227

Area

Code

RR

NGR (centre)

Rakesmoor

Height OD

20m

321349/473973

No. of pieces

4

tools

3

flakes

3

blades

waste

1

unclass

cores

chunks/ spalls

1

2. Tool types 1.1

2.1

1.2

2.2

1.3

2.3

3.1 1

1.4 =

0

=

1

4.0

5.1

6.1

7.1

8.1

9.0

3.2

5.2

6.2

7.2

8.2

=

3.3

5.3

7.3

8.3

3.4

5.4

2

=

2

=

0

=

0

0

8.4 =

0

Notes: 1 convex scraper 2 retouched flake

=

0 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 =

0

3. Technology and reduction Core type 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. = Tool group 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. =

Blade

Flake

Core tool

Waste type 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. =

Flake

Blade

Chunk

1

Size (av.)

85

Diagnostics present?

Reduction primary secondary tertiary unknown =

2 2 4

Notes

1 2

Appendix 5.4. Assemblage sheets for the Furness lithic scatters.

228

Area

Code

RP 1-3

Rampside

NGR (centre)

Height OD

20m

unclass

45

chunks/ spalls

6

324280/466600

No. of pieces

49

tools

3

flakes

2

blades

waste

1

cores

2. Tool types 1.1

2.1

3.1

1.2

2.2

1.3

2.3

1

1.4 =

0

=

1

4.0

5.1

6.1

7.1

1 8.1

3.2

5.2

6.2

7.2

8.2

3.3

5.3

7.3

8.3

3.4

5.4

=

0

=

1

1

=

9.0 =

0

8.4 0

=

0

Notes: 1 plane scraper (tertiary, burnt) 1 awl/borer on pebble flint 1 geometric microlith on chert

=

1 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 =

0

3. Technology and reduction Core type 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. = Tool group 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. =

Blade

Flake

Core tool

Waste type

Size (av.)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. =

Flake

Blade

Chunk

Reduction primary secondary tertiary unknown =

Diagnostics present?

Notes

Geometric microlith

Three separate concentrations, the third of which was associated with a spread of 43 chunks and lumps and a single burnt scraper.

Appendix 5.4. Assemblage sheets for the Furness lithic scatters.

229

Area

Code

RD

NGR (centre)

Roanhead

Height OD

5m

321950/475690

No. of pieces

191

tools

19

flakes

21

blades

waste

171

unclass

cores

2

chunks/ spalls

2. Tool types 1.1

2.1

1.2

2.2

1.3

1

3.1 7

3.2

2.3

1.4 =

1

=

4.0

7

2

1

5.1 5.2

3.3

5.3

3.4

5.4

=

1

Notes: 1 small polished stone axe 7 convex scrapers 1 barbed and tanged arrowhead 2 awls/borers 3 edgeworn flakes 2 heavy duty 1 abraded edge

=

2

=

3

6.1

1

7.1

8.1

9.0

1

6.2

1

7.2

8.2

=

1

7.3

8.3

1

8.4 3

=

2

=

0 8.5 8.6

2 multiuse 1 anvil stone

8.7

1

8.8 =

2

3. Technology and reduction Core type 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. = Tool group 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. =

Blade

Flake

Core tool

1

1 Flake

7 1 1 3 1

1

1

1

1 Blade

Waste type 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. =

Chunk

Size (av.)

49 22 2

Reduction primary secondary tertiary unknown =

114

55 30 5

Diagnostics present?

Notes

2 pieces tuff whetstone. thunmbnail scrapers. barbed and tanged arrowhead. polished stone axe.

Associated with excavated posthole structure in sand dune blowout (Evans & Coward 2003)

1

3 16

Appendix 5.4. Assemblage sheets for the Furness lithic scatters.

230

Area

Code

RM

NGR (centre)

Roosecote Moss

Height OD

20m

323750/468550

No. of pieces

4

tools

1

waste

2

unclass

1

flakes

3

blades

0

cores

0

chunks/ spalls

1

4.0

5.1

6.1

7.1

8.1

9.0

6.2

7.2

8.2

=

7.3

8.3

2. Tool types 1.1

2.1

3.1

1.2

2.2

3.2

5.2

1.3

2.3

3.3

5.3

3.4

5.4

1.4 =

0

=

0

=

0

=

0

=

0

8.4 0

=

0

Notes: 1 broken retouched

=

8.5 8.6

1

8.7 8.8 =

1

3. Technology and reduction Core type 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. = Tool group 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. =

Blade

Flake

Core tool

Waste type 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. =

Flake

Blade

Chunk

2

Size (av.) 20

Reduction primary secondary tertiary unknown =

2 2 4

2

Diagnostics present?

Notes

1 1

Appendix 5.4. Assemblage sheets for the Furness lithic scatters.

231

Area

Code

SF

NGR (centre)

Sandscale Farm

Height OD

10m

319700/474150

No. of pieces

14

tools

7

flakes

6

blades

waste

7

unclass

cores

4

chunks/ spalls

5

2. Tool types 1.1

2.1

3.1

1.2

2.2

1.3

2.3

1.4 =

0

=

0

4.0

5.1

6.1

3.2

5.2

6.2

3.3

5.3

3.4

5.4

1

=

1

=

0

=

2

2

1

7.1

8.1

7.2

8.2

7.3

8.3 8.4

=

1

=

Notes: 2 awls/borers 1 retouched flake 1 heavy duty 1 spurred 1 misc. retouched 1 broken retouched

1

9.0 =

0

1

8.5 8.6

1

8.7 8.8 =

3

3. Technology and reduction Core type 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. = Tool group 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. =

Blade

Flake

Core tool

2

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. =

1 1

3

Waste type 1

Size (av.) 32

4 2

38 14

Reduction primary secondary tertiary unknown =

2 1 7 4 14

7

1 Flake

1 1

Blade

Chunk

1

Diagnostics present?

Notes

Blade cores very rough, and not exhausted, hinge fractures etc.

All pebble flint

2 dorsal scarring.

1 3 5

2

Appendix 5.4. Assemblage sheets for the Furness lithic scatters.

232

Area

Code

SLL

NGR (centre)

Sinkfall

Height OD

50m

unclass

1

chunks/ spalls

1

321160/473450

No. of pieces

4

tools

2

flakes

3

blades

waste

1

cores

2. Tool types 1.1

2.1

3.1

1.2

2.2

1.3

2.3

1.4 =

0

=

0

4.0

5.1

6.1

7.1

8.1

9.0

3.2

5.2

6.2

7.2

8.2

=

3.3

5.3

7.3

8.3

3.4

5.4

=

0

=

0

=

0

1

8.4 0

=

0

Notes: 1 abraded edge 1 broken retouched 1 broken tuff flake

=

0 8.5

1

8.6 8.7 8.8 =

2

3. Technology and reduction Core type 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. = Tool group 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. =

Blade

Flake

Core tool

Waste type 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. =

Flake

1 1

Blade

Chunk

1

Size (av.) 27

Diagnostics present?

Reduction primary secondary tertiary unknown =

3 1 4

Notes

1 1

Appendix 5.4. Assemblage sheets for the Furness lithic scatters.

233

Area

Code

SFC

NGR (centre)

Sixth form No. of pieces

Height OD

45m

321760/471390 4

tools

flakes

3

blades

waste

1

unclass

cores

1

chunks/ spalls

3

2. Tool types 1.1

2.1

1.2

2.2

1.3

2.3

3.1 1

1.4 =

0

=

1

4.0

5.1

6.1

7.1

8.1

9.0

3.2

5.2

6.2

7.2

8.2

=

3.3

5.3

7.3

8.3

3.4

5.4

=

0

=

0

=

0

8.4 0

=

0

=

8.5

Notes:

8.6

1 convex scraper 2 broken retouched

8.7

2

8.8 =

2

3. Technology and reduction Core type 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. = Tool group 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. =

Blade

Flake

Core tool

1

Waste type 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. =

1

Size (av.)

30

Reduction primary secondary tertiary unknown =

2 1 1 4

1

2 Flake

Blade

Chunk

Diagnostics present?

Notes

1

2 3

Appendix 5.4. Assemblage sheets for the Furness lithic scatters.

234

Area

Code

ST

NGR (centre)

Stainton

Height OD

70m

325640/472475

No. of pieces

5

tools

3

waste

1

unclass

1

flakes

1

blades

3

cores

0

chunks/ spalls

1

4.0

5.1

2. Tool types 1.1

2.1

3.1

1.2

2.2

3.2

5.2

1.3

2.3

3.3

5.3

3.4

5.4

1

=

3

1.4 =

0

=

0

=

0

=

0

2

6.1

7.1

8.1

9.0

6.2

7.2

8.2

=

7.3

8.3

0

8.4 =

0

Notes: 2 edgeworn blades 1 edgeworn flake

=

0 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 =

0

3. Technology and reduction Core type 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. = Tool group 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. =

Blade

Flake

Core tool

Waste type

Size (av.)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. =

Flake

Blade

Chunk

Reduction primary secondary tertiary unknown =

Diagnostics present?

1 3 1 5

Notes

1 tuff endscraper. 2 dorsal scarring.

Appendix 5.4. Assemblage sheets for the Furness lithic scatters.

235

Area

Code

STA

NGR (centre)

Stank

Height OD

20m

323600/469900

No. of pieces

37

tools

11

waste

24

unclass

2

flakes

11

blades

1

cores

9

chunks/ spalls

16

3.1

4.0

2. Tool types 1.1

2.1

1.2

2.2

1.3

2.3

2

1.4 =

0

=

2

2

5.1

3.2

5.2

1

3.3

5.3

1

3.4

5.4

2

=

4

=

0

=

2

6.1

7.1

8.1

9.0

6.2

7.2

8.2

=

7.3

2 8.3

0

8.4 =

0

=

Notes: 2 convex scrapers 4 awls/borers 1 edgeworn flake 1 retouched blade 1 retouched flake 1 retouched bladelet 1 denticulate

2 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8

1

=

1

3. Technology and reduction Core type

Blade

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. =

7 2

Tool group 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. =

Flake

4 13 Flake

Core tool

1 1 Blade

1

2 1 8

1

Size (av.)

Reduction

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. =

1

12

9 11 3 24

23 20 12

primary secondary tertiary unknown =

Chunk

Diagnostics present?

2

Exhausted single and opposed platform blade cores, and core rejuvenations.

2 3

Waste type

2 12 9 14 37

Notes

Denticulate. 6 dorsal scarring. 2

Appendix 5.4. Assemblage sheets for the Furness lithic scatters.

236

Area

Code

TH

NGR (centre)

Trough Head

Height OD

10m

320250/463270

No. of pieces

140

tools

14

waste

123

unclass

3

flakes

44

blades

2

cores

3

chunks/ spalls

95

3.1

4.0

5.1

1

6.1

3.2

5.2

5

6.2

3.3

5.3

1

3.4

5.4

2. Tool types 1.1

2.1

1.2

2.2

1.3

2.3

2

1.4 =

0

=

0

=

0

Notes: 2 convex scraper 1 edgeworn blade 5 edgeworn flake 1 retouched blade 1 heavy duty 1 notched 1 broken retouched

=

0

=

1

7.1

8.1

7.2

8.2

7.3

8.3

9.0 1

=

0

8.4 0

=

0

=

0 8.5

1

8.6 2 multiuse 8.7

2

8.8 =

3. Technology and reduction Core type 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. = Tool group 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. =

Blade

Flake

1

1 1

1

Core tool

Waste type

Size (av.)

Reduction

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. =

32

26

3 83

35 24

primary secondary tertiary unknown =

74 40 17 9 140

118

2 Flake

Blade

Chunk

2 5 1 4 10

Diagnostics present?

Notes

Opposed platform core.

All pebble flint with exception of 2 tuff waste flakes. These broken but with blade characteristics. .

6 with dorsal scarring.

2

2

2

Appendix 5.4. Assemblage sheets for the Furness lithic scatters. 237

Area

Code

WF

NGR (centre)

Westfield

Height OD

10m

323250/466630

No. of pieces

10

tools

6

waste

2

unclass

2

flakes

5

blades

0

cores

0

chunks/ spalls

5

2. Tool types 1.1

2.1

1.2

2.2

1.3

2.3

3.1 1

1.4 =

0

=

0

1

5.1

6.1

7.1

8.1

9.0

3.2

5.2

6.2

7.2

8.2

=

3.3

5.3

7.3

8.3

3.4

5.4

=

1

4.0

=

3

3

=

0

8.4 0

=

0

=

Notes: 1 leaf arrowhead 1 side scraper 3 awls/borers 1 end/side scraper 1 broken retouched

0 8.5

1

8.6 8.7

1

8.8 =

5

3. Technology and reduction Core type

Blade

Flake

Core tool

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. = Tool group 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. =

Waste type 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. =

Flake

Blade

Chunk

1

Reduction primary secondary tertiary unknown =

1

3 7 10

1

Diagnostics present?

Notes

Invasively worked leaf arrowhead.

1 3

1 2

Size (av.)

Side/end scraping/cutting tools.

1 4

Appendix 5.4. Assemblage sheets for the Furness lithic scatters.

238

Appendix 5.5. Lithic raw material frequencies in the Furness assemblages

Assemblage codes

1

DL LE MD MCOTT WFIELD SF NEW C STAIN STANK GLE8 THEAD BMB GLE MP GLE11 MUTT FLE HH HW3 RM MUL RD HW2 HW4 MHILL NEND LS RP DEND DS PD RR SFC SLL

1 9 1 6 14 3 4 3 13 24 12 4 50 2 8 6 14 159 19 11 27 7 1 2

2

3 2

3

4

5 3 5 5 4 1

1

Raw materials 6 8 9 10 Frequencies 6 1 1 4 1 5 2 1

2 2 4 3 2

1 1 1 6 3 2 1 2

12

13

5

5

5

19 4 5

5 15 10

4 2 10 1 1 1

3 2 7

7

9 14 10 6 14 1 7 2

2

4

7

7

10 2 8 1

9 5 6 3

2

23 2 1 6 6 9 4 13 3

3

4 3

1

1

1

2

1

1 3

1

2 1

1 1 1

1 2 1

1 1

2 1

1 1 1

1 1

14 6 8 20 1 2

1

15

1 1

11

1

1

1 3

1

1

1

239

Location coast coast coast coast coast coast valley valley valley valley coast valley valley valley valley valley coast coast coast coast coast coast coast coast coast coast coast coast valley valley valley valley valley valley

30m 30m 20m 30m 10m 10m 70m 70m 20m 40m 10m 50m 40m 40m 40m 70m 20m 10m 10m 20m 10m 5m 10m 10m 10m 10m 5m 10m 70m 50m 70m 60m 45m 50m

240

Location

Foulshaw Moss

Helton Tarn

Helsington Moss

Nichols Moss

Witherslack Hall

Urswick Tarn

Ellerside Moss

Thrang Moss

Hawswater

Roudsea

Williamson Moss

Barfield Tarn

Ehenside Tarn

Langdale Coombe

Blea Tarn

Devoke Water

Seathwaite Tarn

Blind Tarn

Goatswater

Thorn Crag

Red Tarn

Angle Tarn

Red Tarn Moss

Temple Sowerby

Howgill Castle

Bank Moor

Great Rundale

NGR

345415/482514

341888/485030

346700/489000

343500/482500

343500/486400

327069/474442

334900/480100

349700/476600

347850/476700

333000/482500

308500/491800

310800/486900

300300/507100

326200/508400

329300/508400

316000/497000

325200/498700

326300/496700

326600/497700

328300/507200

326900/503800

324500/507700

327100/503600

361600/527050

367710/529900

363980/512650

372100/528150

RC dates

References

Skinner 2000. Skinner 2000.

Peat formation c . 3300 cal BC. Clearance and burning c. 1800 cal BC until c. 1650 cal BC then c . 1500 cal BC.

Appendix 6.1. Pollen sites mentioned in the text.

Skinner 2000.

Clearance and burning at c . 2900 cal BC. Charcoal and cereal pollen at c . 1900 cal BC.

Skinner 2000.

Pennington 1964.

Pennington 1964.

Pennington 1964.

Jamie Quartermaine pers. comm. (OAN).

Pennington 1964

Cereal pollen at c. 4000 cal BC. Further clearance from c. 3570 cal BC.

Fluctuations of heather associated with charcoal soon after c . 5600 cal BC. Woodland clearance at c . 3900 cal BC.

Axe working debris sealed by peat associated with charcoal dated to 4209-3709 cal BC. Elm decline at 4100-4030 cal BC.

Pennington 1964.

Pennington 1964.

Pennington 1964.

Pennington 1964, 1971, 1975.

Walker 1965.

Walker 1966, 2001.

First clearance episode at c. 3700 cal BC.

Pennington 1971, 1975; Hodgkinson et al . 2000.

Main activity between c . 3900 and 1500 cal BC, increased charcoal between c. 3000 and 2600 cal BC.

Pennington 1971, 1971; Tipping 1994.

Birks 1982.

Oldfield 1963.

Oldfield 1963; Oldfield and Statham 1963.

Oldfield 1963; Oldfield and Statham 1963.

Oldfield 1963; Oldfield and Statham 1963.

Oldfield 1963.

Smith 1959; Oldfield 1963.

Smith 1959; Wimble et al . 2000.

Smith 1958.

Smith 1959; Wimble et al. 2000.

Clearance at 4457-3825 cal BC then at VIIa/b boundary with grasses, weeds and cereal pollen.

Anth. influences at c. 4780-4470 cal BC. First Elm decline 4458-4047 cal BC. Second and cereal pollen at 3893-3381 cal BC.

Small scale clearances between c . 3850 and c . 3150 BC. Grass/plantain from c. 3400 BC and cereal pollen from c . 3150 BC.

As at Foulshaw Moss. See Wimble et al. for details.

Small clearances between 3000 and 2000 cal BC . Larger between 2000 and 1300 cal BC. Cereal pollen between 1300 and 900 cal BC.

Site Temple Sowerby Howgill Castle

Great Rundale

Bank Moor

Sample no. UB3560

Depth cm 28-34

RC age

Min. 3309BC

Two sigma Cal 3037BC

4411±43 BP

3098BC

Max. 2919BC

UB3351 UB3841

64-68 23-24

6736±110 BP 4767±50 BP

5720BC 3637BC

5632BC 3577BC

5510BC 3386BC

5820BC 3690BC

5632BC 3577BC

5426BC 3380BC

UB3840 UB3839 UB3975

86-87 134-135 19-20

6335±46 BP 7686±68 BP 510±58 BP

5338BC 6594BC 1398AD

5265BC 6481BC 1418AD

5236BC 6443BC 1439AD

5410BC 6680BC 1301AD

5265BC 6481BC 1418AD

5220BC 6410BC 1466AD

UB3976 UB3977 OxA5882 OxA5883 OxA5867

100-101 180-181 28

3064±71 BP 4431±82 BP 870±50 BP

1422BC 3327BC 1047AD

1339BC 3064BC 1169AD

1216BC 2924BC 1226AD

1510BC 3360BC 1030AD

1339BC 3064BC 1169AD

1107BC 2900BC 1260AD

128

3535±50 BP

1943BC

1887BC

1779BC

2030BC

1887BC

1740BC

187

6675±60 BP

5635BC

5563BC

5493BC

5650BC

5563BC

5480BC

Min.

One sigma Cal Max. 3037BC 2827 BC

Table 6.2a. Details of Calibrated radiocarbon dates. Those dates in bold were used to calculate the peat accumulation rates detailed in table 6.2a. From Skinner (2000).

Table 6.2b. Peat accumulation rates. From Skinner (2000). Site Temple Sowerby Howgill Castle

Great Rundale

Bank Moor

Depths (cm) 75-102

Annaul acumulation rate (mm) 0.15

23-86

0.37

86-167

0.39

0-1

0.34

19-100

0.29

100-200 0-28

0.45 0.34

28-128

0.30

128-218

0.16

Pollen core characteristics Slightly humified and stratified, Bryophytic peat with a herbaceous component increasingly woody to base. Slightly humified herbaceous peat with intermittent bands of silty peat containing more organic matter and charcoal flecks. A unit of banded bryophytic peat containing charcoal fragments from 38-74cm. Slightly humified silty herbaceous peat to a depth of 132cm. Silty clay with herbaceous organics and large wood fragments from 132cm. Band of sand between 152-164cm. Slightly humified herbaceous peat containing grass, phragmities and calluna. As above until 60cm then moderately decomposed moss peat with charcoal flecks and small wood fragments. Slighty humified herbaceous peat with charcoal flecks and calluna. Fibrous moss and herb peat with silt and clay components to a depth of 20cm. Silty clay with fine organic matter 20-28cm. Silty clay organic peat with increasingly large wood fragments to a depth of 105cm. Diverse range of aquatics in significantly high proportions to a depth of 161cm. Increasingly clay rich with depth with a high degree of humification.

Appendix 6.2. Radiocarbon determinations and details of peat accumulation rates used to date episodes identified in pollen cores from eastern Cumbria. From Skinner (2000).

241

242

Site

Bart's shelter Monk Moors Sizergh Tumulus 2 Oddendale timber circle Oddendale timber circle Oddendale timber circle Hardendale Nab Ewanrigg Ewanrigg Ewanrigg Allithwaite Allithwaite Allithwaite Drigg Drigg Birrel Sike Birrel Sike Sizergh Thorn Crag Stake Beck Harrison Stickle Top Butress Stickle Pike Top Butress Stickle Pike Thunacarr Knott

Date

6100-5883 cal BC 5970-5360 cal BC 3770-3670 cal BC 2853-2466 cal BC 2583-2483 cal BC 2859-2579 cal BC 3030-2500 cal BC 3350-2920 cal BC 2450-1830 cal BC 2290-1750 cal BC 2107-1747 cal BC 1922-1637 cal BC 2027-1741 cal BC 2900-2507 cal BC 2456-2039 cal BC 1720±100 b.c 1690±100 b.c. 520-400 cal BC 4209-3709 cal BC 3730-3410 cal BC 3780-3530 cal BC 3690-3370 cal BC 3500-3100 cal BC 3250-2850 cal BC

Context/notes

Appendix 6.3. Radiocarbon dates mentioned in the text.

Bone point. Site 2 hearth. Bone collagen from 'pavement' cairn Inner ring of timber circle; charcoal on floor of infilled post pit. Inner ring of timber circle; charcoal on floor of post pit. Outer ring of timber circle; charcoal on floor of post pit. Charcoal in limestone chippings covering phase 1 cist. Dates also derived from cremations. Material from disturbed beaker pit, context 84. Material from cremation pit; burial 18, context 18. Dates also derived from other cremations. Material from cremation pit; burial 5, context 55. Dates also derived from other cremations. Material from burial 115, urn 1023. Material from burial 115, urn 1023. Material from burial 119, urn 1049. Material from burnt mound. Material from burnt mound. Hut circle' No. 1; charcoal from 'Hole A' in central area. Cairn No.13; charcoal beneath stone slab in central area. Bone collagen from 'pavement' cairn Charcoal associated with an axe working deposit. Carbon from pollen sample appendix 6.1. Charcoal from an axe working floor. Charcoal from an axe working floor. Charcoal associated with axe working debitage from a depth of 130-140cm, site 95. Charcoal associated with axe working debitage from a depth of 40-50cm, site 95. Charcoal from an axe working floor. OxA-2181 BM 2625 BM 2628 BM 2627 BM 676

Hodgkinson et al. (2000). Tipping (1994); Hodgkinson et al. (2000). Edmonds & Evans (2007). Turnbull & Walsh (1997). Turnbull & Walsh (1997). Turnbull & Walsh (1997). Williams & Howard Davies (forthcoming). Bewley et al. (1992). Bewley et al. (1992). Bewley et al. (1992). Wild (2003). Wild (2003). Wild (2003). Cherry (1982); Hodgkinson et al . (2000). Cherry (1982); Hodgkinson et al . (2000). Richardson (1982). Richardson (1982). Edmonds & Evans (2007). Jamie Quartermaine pers. comm. Bradley & Edmonds (1993) Bradley & Edmonds (1993) Bradley & Edmonds (1993) Bradley & Edmonds (1993) Clough (1973); Bradley & Edmonds (1993)

Lab Ref. References OxA-8069 BM-1216 212113 UB-3421 UB-3399 UB-3400 OXA 1836 HAR-8788 HAR-5961 HAR-7077 AA-43419 AA-43420 AA-43418 UB-906 UB-905 Birm-1018 Birm-1063 212112