Northern Pasts: Interpretations of the Later Prehistory of Northern England and Southern Scotland 9781841710662, 9781407319377

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Table of Contents
List of Contributors
Foreword
From coast to vale, moor to dale: patterns in later prehistory
Worlds without ends: towards a new prehistory for central Britain
The Neolithic that never happened?
Wet Drybridge: a cursus in Ayrshire
Dying, becoming, and being the field: prehistoric cairnfields in Northumberland
Continuity and change: marginality and later prehistoric settlement in the northern uplands
The Foulness Valley -- investigation of an Iron Age landscape in lowland East Yorkshire
Late prehistoric settlement and society: recent research in the central Tweed valley
Lost horizons: the location of activity in the later Neolithic and early Bronze Age in north-east England
The Neolithic and Bronze Age in the lowlands of North West England
Prehistoric settlement in northern Cumbria
Peak practice: whatever happened to the iron age in the southern Pennines?
Later prehistoric settlement in west central Scotland
Site morphology and regional variation in the later prehistoric settlement of south-west Scotland

Citation preview

BAR 302 2000  HARDING & JOHNSTON (Eds)  NORTHERN PASTS

Northern Pasts Interpretations of the Later Prehistory of Northern England and Southern Scotland

Edited by

Jan Harding Robert Johnston

BAR British Series 302 B A R

2000

N orthem Pasts Interpretations of the Later Prehistory of Northern England and Southern Scotland

Edited by

Jan Harding Robert Johnston

BAR British Series 302 2000

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR British Series 302 Northern Pasts © The editors and contributors severally and the Publisher 2000 The authors' moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9781841710662 paperback ISBN 9781407319377 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781841710662 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Archaeopress in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd / Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2000. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR

PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from:

E MAIL P HONE F AX

BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310431 +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

Contents List of Contributors .........................................................................................................................

n

Foreword .....................................................................................................................................

.iii

PART I Introduction: the past, present and future of later prehistory in northern England and southern Scotland

Jan Harding From coast to vale, moor to dale: patterns in later prehistory ........................................................ Paul Frodsham Worlds without ends: towards a new prehistory for Central Britain ...........................................

1 15

PART II New perspectives on the later prehistory of northern England and southern Scotland

Clive Waddington The Neolithic that never happened? .............................................................................

33

Kenneth Brophy Wet Drybridge: a cursus in Ayrshire .............................................................................

.45

Robert Johnston Dying, becoming and being the field: prehistoric cairnfields in Northumberland ..........................

57

Robert Young Continuity and change: marginality and later prehistoric settlement ............................................ in the northern uplands

71

Peter Halkon & Martin Millett The Foulness Valley- investigation of an Iron Age landscape ................................ in lowland East Yorkshire

81

Alicia Wise Late prehistoric settlement and society: recent research in the central ............................................. Tweed valley

93

PART III Regional approaches to the later prehistory of northern England and southern Scotland

Blaise Vyner Lost horizons: the location of activity in the later Neolithic and ................................................ early Bronze Age in north-east England

101

Ron Cowell The Neolithic and Bronze Age in the lowlands ofN orth West England .........................................

111

Mike McCarthy Prehistoric settlement in northern Cumbria .....................................................................

131

Bill Bevan Peak Practice: whatever happened to the Iron Age in the southern Pennines? ...................................

141

Derek Alexander Later prehistoric settlement in west central Scotland ........................................................

157

Dave Cowley Site morphology and regional variation in the later prehistoric settlement ................................... of south-west Scotland

167

List of Contributors Derek Alexander Centre for Field Archaeology Old High School 12 Infirmary Street Edinburgh EHl lLT

Robert Johnston Department of Archaeology University of Newcastle Newcastle upon Tyne NEl 7RU

Bill Bevan Peak District National Park Authority AldernHouse Bakewell Derbyshire DE451AE

Mike McCarthy Carlisle Archaeological Unit Department of Leisure & Community Development Carlisle City Council Civic Centre Carlisle CA38QG

Kenneth Brophy RCAHMS John Sinclair House 16 Bernard Terrace Edinburgh EH8 9NX

Martin Millett Department of Archaeology University of Southampton Highfield Southampton S09 5NH

Ron Cowell Liverpool Museum William Brown Street Liverpool L38EN

Clive Waddington Department of Archaeology University of Newcastle Newcastle upon Tyne NEI 7RU

Dave Cowley RCAHMS John Sinclair House 16 Bernard Terrace Edinburgh EH8 9NX

Alicia Wise Department of Archaeology University of York King's Manor York YOl 7EP

Paul Frodsham Northumberland National Park Authority Eastburn South Park Hexham Northumberland NE46 lBS

Blaise Vyner 69 The Village Hartbum Stockton-on-Tees Cleveland TS18 5DY Robert Young School of Archaeological Studies University of Leicester University Road Leicester LEI 7RH

Peter Halkon Department of History University of Hull Hull HU67RX Jan Harding Department of Archaeology University of Newcastle Newcastle upon Tyne NEl 7RU

ii

Foreword It is frustrating that while northern England and southern Scotland has such a long and distinguished tradition of later prehistoric study it is those areas elsewhere which continue to dominate prevailing interpretations of the Neolithic, Bronze Age and Iron Age. There are complex reasons for such a bias, including the long-term development of the archaeological infrastructure across the British Isles. However, it is an irony that the greatest strength of existing research into northern England and southern Scotland is also perhaps the most enduring of the reasons for this present situation. For a brief perusal of the many published volumes on the later prehistory of the region is enough to emphasise the geographically selective nature of these accounts. They focus almost exclusively upon specific landscapes, such as the Yorkshire Wolds or North York Moors, a reflection perhaps of the local loyalties of those amateur archaeologists who have made such an essential contribution to the later prehistory of northern England and southern Scotland. Yet there has often been a reluctance, certainly on the part of research-active professional archaeologists, to complement these detailed accounts with more wideranging discussions. There are a lack of published syntheses which interpret the remarkable wealth and diversity of the Neolithic, Bronze Age or pre-Roman Iron Age from across this region. As a consequence, the important contrasts and comparisons between northern England and southern Scotland, on the one hand, and those so-called 'core' areas upon which our models of these periods rely, are not sufficiently emphasised. Hence, the later prehistory of the British Isles is characterised by interpretations which do not necessarily reflect the evidence from northern England and southern Scotland. And while there has been a growing awareness of the importance of this variation, it is often portrayed as reflecting the region's assumed location on the 'periphery' of these 'core' areas: in other words, the archaeological record which lies between the Trent and the Forth is considered to have resulted from spatially emasculated variants of the same socio-political processes evident elsewhere. Debate about the suitability of such an approach is fundamental to the future development of later prehistory and must be addressed within a national, and indeed international, context. This volume, the product of a weekend conference hosted by the Department of Archaeology at the University of Newcastle in 1998, represents an attempt to further this debate. Its composition reveals much about the present state of later prehistoric research across northern England and southern Scotland. The opening Introduction: the past, present and future of later prehistory in northern England and southern Scotland not only highlights the particular character of the archaeological record across this region, but also outlines the tremendous opportunities which exist for innovative research projects. It is apparent from these contributions that the examination of the distinct long-term processes and social histories which were responsible for this evidence constitutes an exciting agenda essential to the future development of later prehistoric studies. The various contributions to New perspectives on the later prehistory of northern England and southern Scotland, on the other hand, can be divided into those who either consider the field monuments or the settlement evidence of this period. While the former evidence has been thoroughly researched in southern England, and as such constitutes the empirical backdrop for many influential interpretations of later prehistory over the last two decades, the rarity of comparable discussions for northern England and southern Scotland neatly illustrates the present geographical dichotomy of later prehistory. Yet the papers in this volume which do discuss the field monuments of this region aptly illustrate that they can not be simply considered as smaller and less impressive versions of apparently similar sites in southern England. The other contributions in this section represent a continuation of the tradition of settlement archaeology which has been such an integral part of later prehistoric research in this region. They demonstrate both the quantity and quality of occupation evidence from particular landscapes, and highlight future challenges, such as the need to rethink the role of the uplands or more fully appreciate the development of field systems. The papers in the final section, Regional approaches to the later prehistory of northern England and southern Scotland, emphasise the significant variation to be found on either side of the Pennines and include useful overviews of long neglected areas such as the lowlands of north west England and much of southern Scotland. These regional syntheses highlight the importance of identifying the dynamics of local socio-political cycles from across this topographically varied region.

Jan Harding & Robert Johnston Newcastle upon Tyne April2000

iii

From coast to vale, moor to dale: patterns in later prehistory Jan Harding

chronology is considered. A continuing belief in the pivotal importance of those contrasts or divisions which separate the Neolithic, the Bronze Age, and the Iron Age, inevitably emphasises the concept of sequential and formulaic change above all other social processes. The outcome is a series of static images or 'snapshots', such as those already described, which are disconnected from one another by episodes of radical upheaval. But this is an approach which excludes the possibility of gradual social transformation or oscillation, while also denying the importance of variation and difference over geographical areas. It is an archaeology of pseudo-definition, as opposed to explanation, whose overall framework makes it impossible to grasp the relationship between the social processes of different chronological periods. What results, then, is an interpretive account which misunderstands social development and is only able to selectively consider the available range of evidence for each period.

Images of later prehistory The last two decades of interpretation has resulted in a series of enduring images for the later prehistory of the British Isles. These are seen to capture the 'spirit of the age' and are taken as representative of major stages in social development. Interpretations of the Neolithic, for instance, have commonly promoted the image of smallscale farming groups who practised complex ritual at communal monuments. These societies are considered to be generally egalitarian during the first half of this period, with inequality and power becoming more embedded throughout the later Neolithic as leaders mobilised increased amounts of labour to build large-scale ceremonial centres. This image is superseded by that of a more stratified society, emerging during the early Bronze Age, in which individual status was overtly displayed by the deposition of prestige goods with burials. The result of such practices was apparently ever-more social competition and the development, by the later Bronze Age, of a warrior elite whose wealth was based upon the acquisition of metalwork and the control of agrarian intensification. Such an image, which echoes the heroes of the Homeric texts, draws upon sophisticated models of votive rites, conspicuous consumption and exchange to explain the ebb-and-flow of power within society. The series of images culminate with the complex and highly stratified communities or chiefdoms, each with their large defended centres and defined territories, which developed during the Iron Age. The inspiration for such a model is a curious mixture of historical sources, which describe the feudalism of the Medieval period, and those recorded anthropological 'chiefdoms' to whom hereditary power was so important.

If this suggests that these 'snapshots' oflater prehistory are largely based on what are simplistic assumptions then there are other problems with such images. It should be emphasised that they largely result from the investigation of just small parts of the British Isles. Not surprisingly, these are the best researched areas, of which the Wessex chalkland is undoubtedly the most celebrated example. But implicit to such an interpretive bias is the assumption that later prehistory can in fact be characterised by processes which were geographically uniform across space and time. This is, therefore, a prehistory of integration and extrapolation. A focus on the so-called 'core areas' is clearly illustrated by two recent publications which have played a major role in developing Neolithic studies'Rethinking the Neolithic' by Julian Thomas (1991) and 'Fragments from Antiquity' by John Barrett (1994). Intrinsic to the detailed arguments contained within these books is high quality evidence. As a consequence, they both refer more or less exclusively to the Wessex chalkland and adjoining areas. The same limitation is evident with the interpretation of the Bronze Age although these studies have seemingly moved at a very much slower pace than with the preceding Neolithic. Depictions of Bronze Age society continue to revolve around the ideas and concepts proposed by Richard Bradley in his watershed publication 'The Social Foundations of Prehistoric Britain' (1984). The book has a different theoretical starting-point than the work of Julian Thomas and John Barrett, yet continues the emphasis upon southern

The enduring quality of these interpretations is somewhat surprising when both the theoretical and empirical problems associated with each of the images are considered. Standing back from the detail of the argument it is certainly difficult to escape the conclusion that they are often based on a belief in a developmental sequence, which proceeds from simple to complex, for the entire chronological span of later prehistory. In this sense, it seems as though we are yet to escape the influence of evolutionary social anthropology. That this is a generalised model of later prehistory, which equates the passage of time to a roll-call of increasingly elaborate social types, is hardly surprising when the impact of traditional 1

Northern Pasts

England, and in particular the Wessex chalklands and Thames Valley. This interpretive bias is similarly evident with the Iron Age. The few accounts which have attempted to reconstruct society during this period commonly refer more or less exclusively to the evidence from the best studied landscapes. The most influential worker is undoubtedly Barry Cunliffe whose interpretation of social organisation is based upon the same chalkland which is so prominent in descriptions of earlier periods (Cunliffe 1984a & 1984b). A similar problem continues with those more recent discussions of Iron Age society. These often rethink the models proposed by Cunliffe but do so by revisiting the data from the same geographical area (Hill 1995 & 1996; Sharples 1991).

A later prehistory of alternative images

which differs from elsewhere. The distinctive personality of northern England and southern Scotland can be clearly illustrated if we return to the prevailing image of the Neolithic which I mentioned earlier. Take the belief that the period is synonymous with a reliance upon mixed farming. In these models the emphasis is upon a standard economic package of practices and resources which spread rapidly across the British Isles (Burgess 1980, 28-29; Case 1969; Clarke et al. 1985, 15-16; Darvill 1987, chapter 3). While there is certainly a need to reassess the assumption that when plant and animal domesticates are found in the archaeological record of this period they must have necessarily been a significant part of dietary practices (c£ Entwistle & Grant 1989; Moffett et al. 1989), it is clear that such resources would have been far from consistently represented across northern England and southern Scotland. Local-based studies have repeatedly identified a contrast between those areas which readily adopted the new economic regime associated with the Neolithic, and those which seem to have continued what is perhaps a more traditional way-of-life. These accounts propose a number of 'core zones' which have a relatively high agricultural potential and produce evidence for extensive plant and animal domestication in association with Neolithic settlement. This is particularly demonstrated by the settlement evidence, monuments and pollen diagrams from eastern Yorkshire (Dymond 1966; Manby 1974 & 1988; Spratt 1982, 27ff, figs. 12, 28 & 29) and the limestone plateau of the Peak District (Barnatt 1990; 1996; Bradley & Hart 1983; Hawke-Smith 1979; Garton 1991; Tallis 1991; Taylor et al. 1994). Here the presence of more populous groups is seen to have led to the relatively extensive utilisation of the landscape. These 'core zones' may also include the coastal plain of south west Cumbria, the limestone hills to the east of the Lake District Mountains, the coast and river valleys of Co. Durham and Tyne and Wear, and the basins and fells of Northumberland (Annable 1987, 30, 44; Burgess 1984, 129ff; Cherry & Cherry 1987; 1992; 1996; Cummins & Harding 1988, 78-9; Harding 1981; Haselgrove & Healey 1992; Miket 1976; 1985, Newman 1976; Tolan-Smith 1996; Waddington 1996; Weyman 1984, 40ff; Young 1984; 1987). On the other hand, it is equally noticeable that these particular landscapes are commonly surrounded by expanses of upland which are considered to have been economically peripheral to any agricultural system. These areas of high altitude are either thought to be sources of grazing or localities across which hunting and gathering dominated (Barker 1981, 6; Hawke-Smith 1979, 177-8; Hicks 1971, 662; Higham 1986, 48; Spratt 1982, 125-6; Young 1987, 114). It seems, in other words, that rather than a standard farming package spread evenly across the region there are marked geographical contrasts in the importance of arable staples, animal husbandry, and more traditional economic resources.

But such an approach is curious, for even a brief examination of the available evidence will demonstrate that the region does indeed possess a character or identity

The available evidence from northern England and southern Scotland indicates that our conventional image of the Neolithic farmer is in need of urgent reassessment. A

It is strikingly evident that the reader of such prominent

accounts would be hard pressed to find detailed discussion which is of direct relevance to other regions. Most noticeable by its absence is northern England and southern Scotland, a large and varied expanse which lies between the Trent and the Forth. This is a region which has been regarded for many decades as part of the Highland Zone, to adopt the well-known terminology of Cyril Fox (1932), and has accordingly suffered for such a definition. For this reason it has been readily seen as 'peripheral' or 'secondary' to those 'core areas' upon which the prevailing interpretations of later prehistory are dependent. At the same time, the archaeological investigation undertaken across the region has seemingly contributed little to undoing such a perception. This certainly does not reflect the quality of the resulting evidence, but simply the fact that much of this work has been concentrated in specific areas, of which the Yorkshire Wolds and the Peak District, to the south of the region, are the most noticeable examples. These archaeologically wealthy landscapes have often been regarded as continuations of the southern half of England, and thus to be without a character or identity of their own, with the rest of the region accordingly maintaining its less than flattering status. The reality is, however, that until fairly recently there were vast tracts of the region- including historically pivotal landscapes such as the lowlands of the Lancashire Plain, the vales of North Yorkshire, and the coastal hinterland of southern Scotlandwhich were completely destitute of systematic programmes of archaeological investigation. It has accordingly been far too easy to classify northern England and southern Scotland as no more than an additional geographical backdrop for those processes recognised to the south, or in the worst scenarios, as a 'backwater' of only limited value for the prehistorian interpreting the Neolithic, Bronze Age and Iron Age.

2

Harding: From coast to vale, moor to dale

similar observation can be made if we consider the ceremonial lifestyle of communities during this period. Recent accounts have seen the Neolithic as characterised by a shared package of ritual practices and material symbols (Hodder 1990, 244ff; Thomas 1991, 181-2). They assume the development of a homogeneous set of ideas which resulted in fundamental changes in the way the world was perceived. The most striking attribute of this transformation was monument building, but in the context of northern England and southern Scotland the distribution of these sites is extremely discontinuous. As such, they suggest anything but the adoption of a standard cultural repertoire. This is certainly illustrated by the distribution of long barrows and cairns, communal monuments closely associated with early Neolithic ideology. While generally located throughout the region they are not always found in areas which have produced evidence for contemporary settlement. The greatest number of known sites is from the Peak District and eastern Yorkshire (Kinnes 1992, lA.18 & 20; Stoertz 1997, fig. 32), and both these hilly landscapes, to the south of the region, were extensively exploited during this period. It is striking, on the other hand, that despite the levels of intensive settlement documented for both south west and north east Cumbria there are few known long barrows or cairns from this area. While on the other side of the Pennines- across the coastal plains and low hills which extend from the north of Cleveland to the Scottish border- there may be a complete absence of such monuments in areas from which Neolithic axes have been recorded (Annable 1987, map 25 & 80, 501; Bradley & Edmonds 1993, 150, fig. 7.9; Burgess 1984, 132-6; Higham 1986, 65-71; Masters 1984, fig. 4.1). A similar dichotomy is evident across southern Scotland. There is a striking contrast between the large number of early Neolithic burial monuments known from both Galloway and eastern Dumfriesshire with the few long barrows presently recorded from the Tweed Basin and Lothian lowlands of south east Scotland (RCAHMS 1997, 113-4 & fig. 109). Yet both these areas have produced equally abundant quantities of stone axes (ibid., fig. 107).

also been common across the gritstone uplands of the Peak District (Barnatt 1996a, 50; Hart 1981, fig. 6.3). There is now some debate as to the chronology of these petroglyphs, and if they do indeed date from the first half of the Neolithic, as recently suggested (Waddington 1998), then they may be considered to have served the ritual needs of those upland communities who perhaps maintained a more traditional lifestyle in which hunting, gathering and pastoralism assumed greater importance than elsewhere. This may account for the common location of the art "around the edges of restricted areas of productive land" where ''we would expect territorial arrangements to be defined more explicitly" (Bradley 1996, 88). But rather than the art being an intrinsic part of the spatial organisation of an agricultural system, distinguishing between defined areas of arable and pastoral farming (ibid.: Waddington 1996, 165-6), it may actually represent a boundary which was established by communities with a contrasting upland way-of-life. These surface rock carvings demonstrate the importance that should be attached to local developments. For this is a form of material culture that could have been associated with practices and beliefs distinct from those commonly ascribed to this period. The value of a regionally contextual approach is also illustrated by the concentration of excavated round barrows known from eastern Yorkshire and the Peak District which have been dated to the early Neolithic, and the smaller number of such monuments, again with some evidence for an early origin, which are recorded at Hasting Hill, Tyne and Wear, and the Milfield basin (Annable 1987, 99-100; Burgess 1984, 138-9; Harding 1996; Kinnes 1992, fig. lA.2; Manby 1958; 1970, 14-8). While it is possible that the relatively high number of known early Neolithic round barrows in eastern Yorkshire and the Peak District result from the intense levels of antiquarian excavation undertaken across these landscapes, it seems more likely that this is in fact a meaningful distribution, with the tradition in both areas culminating in the construction of the so-called 'Great Barrows' (Barnatt 1990, 26-7, 29; Manby 1988, 64-5). It is also of considerable significance that the few Neolithic round barrows known to the south tend to be later in date (Harding 1997, 284-5). These monuments can therefore be seen as the local manifestation of a phenomenon which had its origins in northern England. If the long barrows, and their distinctive deposits of human bone, represent an overarching Neolithic world view, then those that piled these round mounds over what were articulated singlegrave burials clearly did not subscribe to "an assertion of the collective, a denial of the individual and of differences between individuals" (Shanks & Tilley 1982, 150).

The distribution of these long barrows and cairns accordingly demonstrates that they were concentrated across particular areas, and while this may presently overstate the 'real' pattern, it does suggest important contrasts in the social strategies which were developing across the region during the early Neolithic. The popular image of communities whose relationship to the landscape was embedded by these ancestral sites therefore appears to breakdown. What is evident is that the Neolithic developed in a different manner on either side of the Pennines, and there are also important variations between the north and south of the region. Interestingly, many of the areas without these monuments are landscapes which possess concentrations of surface rock carvings (Bradley 1991). The most notable examples include the uplands of the Yorkshire Dales, Teesdale and the sandstone hills of eastern Northumberland (Beckensall & Laurie 1998; Bradley 1996; Waddington 1996), although they may have

The development of distinctive trajectories across northern England and southern Scotland is similarly evident for the later Neolithic. This period has been characterised by the emergence of powerful groups or individuals who were able to mobilise labour to construct large ceremonial complexes or henge monuments (Burgess 1980, 166; 3

Northern Pasts

Clarke et al. 1985, 37; Earle 1991; Renfrew 1973). About fifteen years ago the term 'ritual authority structure' was promoted as an explanatory phrase for the power strategies employed across the Wessex chalklands during this period (Thorpe & Richards 1984), and it does capture the essence of our prevailing interpretations. However, in the light of my comments about the early Neolithic it must be asked whether the term is applicable to the context of northern England and southern Scotland. Clusters of henge monuments, including some of the most spectacular examples from the British Isles, are certainly known from across the low-lying landscapes immediately to the east of the Yorkshire Dales, the lower Eden Valley of Cumbria, the limestone plateau of the Peak District, and the Milfield basin of Northumberland (Annable 1987, 109-12; Bamatt 1989, fig. 60 & 61; Burl 1976, fig. 3). But they are also absent from many other parts of northern England and much of southern Scotland (Higham 1986, fig.2.4; RCAHMS 1997, fig.111, 114-5). This is particularly apparent with the northern half of the region- although a number of possible examples may exist as cropmarks in the valleys of the Tyne and Tees (Vyner, this volume)- and it should be noted that the only concentration of henge monuments from this area, in the Milfield basin, can be characterised by the relatively small size of each site (Annable 1986, 111; Higham 1986, 108). What is considered to be an essential part of ceremonial life during the later Neolithic actually has, in other words, a highly discontinuous distribution.

construction of either stone circles or henges was not just solely dependent on the availability of building material. It seems, in other words, that particular landscapes during the later Neolithic may have also been deliberately linked with specific ceremonial places, practices and meanings (Bradley 1998, chapter 8), an observation which is reiterated by the possible concentration of grooved ware across those parts of the region from which henge monuments and other contemporary ceremonial enclosures are known (Burgess 1984, 136-7; Manby 1974 & 1999). It is apparent from my comments that evidence can be

easily cited to demonstrate that the British Neolithic should not be seen as an entity or process of fixed meaning. However, the problems associated with extrapolating from 'core areas' such as the Wessex chalkland also continue with the subsequent early Bronze Age. As mentioned, this period is characterised by a shift from communal power structures to strategies which celebrate the individual. Particular emphasis in these interpretations is placed upon the development of a new elite who replaced traditional authoritative structures and were hungry for symbols of power. Accounts constantly refer to the central importance of a 'prestige goods economy' and a quick-moving process of emulation by which objects were acquired for their status until such time as they became too common and were then replaced by other items (Bradley 1984, 72; Burgess 1980, 63; Darvill 1987, chapter 4; Thorpe & Richards 1984). The archaeological manifestation of this process is a relatively rapid succession of material culture associated with the burial of individuals under covering round mounds. This is a dynamic which begins with the appearance of early beakers, intensifies with the development of a distinctive package of items which are connected with later forms of this pottery, and in southern England, culminates with the so-called 'Wessex Culture', or more accurately, a small series of remarkably wealthy graves located at particular round barrow cemeteries.

It is significant that it is those landscapes without henge monuments in which the stone circles of the region are generally located. The majority of these sites are commonly found across the central Eden Valley of Cumbria, the more elevated fells which surround the Lake District mountains, the gritstone moors of the Peak District and central Pennines, and the hilly terrain of northern Northumberland and Dumfries and Galloway (Annable 1987, map 26, 106; Barnatt 1989, fig. 1; 1990; Higham 1986, 72, fig. 2.4). The chronology of these sites is far from determined but many, particularly the larger 'open' circles, could indeed be contemporary with the henge monuments (Barnatt 1989, 155-60; Burl 1988, 176 & 184; Crone 1983, 18). The later Neolithic evidence may therefore indicate a heterogeneous set of cultural symbols spread across the lowlands and uplands of northern England and southern Scotland. These differences are often considered to reflect the practical realities of constructing earthen and stone-built monuments (Burl 1976, 24-7). But the likelihood that their distribution is actually far more meaningful is suggested by the evidence from the eastern Yorkshire Dales whose fell tops could be expected to be associated with stone circles. It is therefore surprising to note that these sites have not generally been recorded from these uplands. Rather, there are the two known henge monuments of Castle Dykes and Y arnbury, near Aysgarth and Grassington respectively (Harding & Lee 1987, 306-7 & 316-8). These are both sited on elevated plateaux, and as such, may suggest that the

It is difficult to envisage that these social strategies were so

central to the early Bronze Age of northern England and southern Scotland. The characteristic prestige items of this period are far from widely distributed across the region. Beaker, food vessel and collared um burials are generally concentrated to the east of the region across the Peak District, the chalkland and hills of eastern Yorkshire, the Northumberland coastal plain and rivers which penetrate the northern Pennines, and finally, south east Scotland (Annable 1987, chapter 3; Barnatt 1996b; Brewster 1973; 1980; Brewster & Finney 1995; Burgess 1980, chapter iii & vii; Crawford 1980; Dent 1979; Kinnes & Longworth 1985; Mortimer 1905; Peterson 1969 & 1972; Powlesland 1986; Smith 1994). This tradition was most firmly entrenched in eastern Yorkshire, as clearly demonstrated by the series of wealthy inhumation burials known from the Wolds and Tabular Hills (Pierpoint 1980). Elsewhere, however, the number of grave-goods associated with these pottery wares is generally low (Annable 1987, 148, 209 & 245-6, table 15; Crawford 1980, 16). Certainly in the Peak 4

Harding: From coast to vale, moor to dale

District, where there has been a systematic attempt to 'score' these deposits, the number and quality of items fails to "conform with the commonly held belief that elite groups increased their capacity to display wealth in the Earlier Bronze Age" (Barnatt 1996b, 42, table 1.6). The pivotal importance of a 'prestige goods economy' during the early Bronze Age is even less apparent for Lancashire, Cumbria and south west Scotland, for here burials without grave goods represent an even higher percentage of the total than on the other side of the Pennines (Cowell, this volume; Annable 1987, 209ft). Of those that do occur there are few inhumation burials accompanied by beaker and food vessel pottery (ibid., map 38 & 44). Rather, the funerary record is dominated by urned cremations, the majority of which are found in either flat graves, enclosed cemeteries of various forms, or are associated with barrows and cairns (ibid., table 12 & 15.1, 140-1, 152, 158 & 164ff; Burgess 1980, 317-20; RCAHMS 1997, 105-7). It seems, in other words, that objects of wealth, and the social strategies they represent, played a less important role across these landscapes.

the Peak District "contain burials that reflect the place of local people in the world, rather than being an imposed statement of dominance by individuals of an elite group". The assumed importance of a 'prestige goods economy' during the early Bronze Age, which was associated with an apparent shift from communal to individual based ritual and ceremony, may therefore be misplaced. As such, conspicuous consumption and emulation are not the dominant social processes they are so commonly perceived to be. While the competitive acquisition and disposition of a variety of fine goods is little apparent in the northern and western parts of the region, there is also an apparent longevity of beaker and food vessel burials in the areas where they do occur across northern England and southern Scotland (Burgess 1980, chapter 3). Hence, these objects may have actually been associated with what were altogether different meanings, and interestingly, such a suggestion reiterates recent accounts of beaker pottery (Boast 1995; Case 1995). These argue that the vessels possessed a substantial role in daily domestic life and that "like many mundane material objects, are appropriated and made special by their association with the burial ritual rather than being inherently special" (Boast 1995, 79). Other strategies for the negotiation of power may have therefore been pre-eminent to social discourse across northern England and southern Scotland, and these could have, by the end of this period, resulted in the development of major contrasts between Yorkshire, the area which extends north from the river Tees through Durham, Northumberland, and along the east coast of Scotland, and most markedly, with north west England and Dumfries and Galloway (Annable 1987, 200-1 & 219-21). The appearance of these distinctive trajectories is partly emphasised by other variations in material culture. The difference between east and west is reflected in the relative predominance of food vessel and collared urn on either side of the Pennines respectively (ibid., map 43 & 49; Burgess 1980, 85). At the same time, the distinctive character of eastern Yorkshire is emphasised by the collared urn zones which emerged, with a south-eastern style concentrated in this area, as opposed to a northwestern style found across the central Pennines, the Peak District, the Lake District and the North York Moors (Brewster & Finney 1995, 50-1; Burgess 1980, 89; Longworth 1984, 30-40, fig.23 & 29; Manby 1986, 69).

These contrasts clearly suggest that for a large part of the region less attention should indeed be placed on the prevailing image of the early Bronze Age. Even across the southern Pennines and north east England, an area with the most pronounced concentration of wealthy burials, it is apparent that the social reality may have been more complex. In the Peak District, for example, there is no indication of the large nucleated clusters of round barrows found across the Wessex chalkland. Instead, they either occur singly or form small cemeteries (Barnatt 1996b, 3 & 67). At the same time, a relatively large number of these sites contain multiple rather than single inhumation deposits: these usually consist of five or more burials (ibid., 38-9). The real complexity of this period is even more apparent with the well studied Yorkshire Wolds (Peterson 1972). Here the numerous examples of early Bronze Age multiple inhumations under round barrows, for which the average number of burials was again calculated as five, indicate that such practices ''were the rule rather than the exception" (ibid., 26). In addition, there are many instances of cremations being placed alongside an articulated body, while remarkably, there are multiple interments which resulted from the opening of a grave to insert more inhumations. Elsewhere across north east England and south east Scotland the majority of beaker and food vessel burials usually consist of single inhumations found in cist graves, which are either covered by mounds, or more usually, are without any such marker (Annable 1987, map 29, table 12 & 15.1, 200-1; Burgess 1980, 82 & 308). However, these cists are often found in close proximity to one another forming possible 'cemeteries' (Annable 1987, 136-7). The implication of all this variation is that funerary practice- particularly the inclusion of grave goods and the type of allied burial structure- was not only locally mediated but also associated with different forms of social identity. A similar observation was made by Barnatt (1996b, 80) when he stated that the barrows of

A major consequence of rethinking the traditional image of early Bronze Age society is that the transformations which are seen to have occurred between this period and the preceding later Neolithic may no longer be so archaeologically visible. This would certainly provide a more suitable framework for the evidence from northern England and southern Scotland which suggests that 'grouporientated' strategies, usually taken to characterise the phase of monument building during the preceding later Neolithic, may have actually continued into the early Bronze Age. This conventional distinction certainly makes little sense when we consider the chronology of those 5

Northern Pasts

excavated henges from the Milfield basin. These have been radiocarbon dated to the final Neolithic or early Bronze Age and Milfield North has yielded both beaker and food vessel pottery (Harding 1981). A sense of continuity across this chronological divide is also demonstrated by the crossridge boundaries now known from the spurs and promontories of the Cleveland Hills and North York Moors (Vyner 1994 & 1995; this volume). The limited chronological evidence suggests that they may also date to the final Neolithic and early Bronze Age, but it is apparent that the labour invested in their construction was many times greater than even the largest of the local Bronze Age round barrows (Vyner 1994, 33). As such, they are perhaps the product of group-orientated strategies which emphasised the enclosure or demarcation of prominent places or locations. A similar observation is possible for the spectacular site of Meldon Bridge in the Tweed Basin (Burgess 1976). While its massive timber palisade has been dated to the later Neolithic, its interior contained abundant early Bronze Age evidence including beaker and urn pottery, cremated burials, settings of upright posts, and a number of other associated features. The site clearly continued to be used, in other words, as an arena for largescale activity.

the innovations and transformations in style which occurred during this period are not generally evident north of either the Tees, prior to the end of the first millennium BC, or the Humber, in the last centuries of the later Bronze Age (Annable 1987, 227ff, maps 62-3, 66 & 70; Burgess 1980, chapter iii; Higham 1986, 101-2). If less significance was attached to the accumulation and deposition of fine metalwork then serious doubt must be cast on the actual relevance of our prevailing image of later Bronze Age society. This again suggests that the process of extrapolating from one region to another should be deconstructed and replaced by a framework which moves beyond existing interpretations. Such a reorientation would enable the agrarian lifestyles of later Bronze Age communities, surely the most characteristic aspect of this period, to be considered over and above what are elite histories, or the socio-political compet1t10n and centralisation which is suggested for southern England by the appearance of large defended enclosures which controlled exchange (Ellison 1980; Rowlands 1980). What would now be emphasised are the unenclosed platform settlements or hut circles, the palisaded enclosures and promontory forts, or field systems, linear earthworks, cairnfields, burial cairns and burnt mounds which dominate the archaeological record from the uplands of northern England and southern Scotland (Annable 1987, chapter 5; Barnatt 1987; Barnatt & Smith 1991; Burgess 1984, 14356; Coggins 1985; Halliday 1985; Hart 1981, 59-65; Gates 1983; Jobey 1980 & 1985; King 1985; Laurie 1985; Manby 1980; 1986, 64; RCAHMS 1997, 118-67; Spratt 1982 & 1989; Stoertz 1997, 62-5; White 1997, 26-30). While this bewildering array of evidence is firmly embedded within traditions of research across the region, an interpretive framework for this period is still lacking. There certainly remains much needed clarification on crucial empirical issues including the chronology of landscape enclosure, the development of individual settlement, the relationship between the different types of occupation site, and finally, the connection between the uplands, with its range of evidence, and the less well researched lowlands (Burgess 1984, 149, 215-6; Jobey 1980; Stoertz 1997, 85). But it is also important to consider the wider social framework for the large-scale landscape reorganisation which occurred during the later Bronze Age. To achieve such an understanding it is essential to address a series of fundamental problems. The most significant of these are the strategies of ownership or tenure associated with the construction of field boundaries, dykes and cairnfields, and the relationship between the expression of social identity and the character of individual settlement.

A similar point can be made if we reconsider the next major image which I identified in the introduction. I noted that the later Bronze Age is commonly associated with the development of a social system whereby prestige was no longer articulated by the deposition of high status items with burials. Rather, the period is characterised by the circulation and exchange of fine bronze work, and in particular ornaments and weapons, which were then deliberately placed in a range of non-funerary contexts, of which rivers, lakes and bogs are the most notable examples (Bradley 1984, chapter 5; 1990; Darvill 1987, chapter 5). As with the early Bronze Age, these practices are taken as an indication of conspicuous consumption and the negotiation of relations of dominance and hierarchy. However, it is evident that such an interpretation is again centred upon southern Britain. While later Bronze Age metalwork is certainly much in evidence across northern England and southern Scotland its relative scarcity when compared with elsewhere does appear to indicate generally low levels of production and consumption. This is particularly apparent for Lancashire, Cumbria and the Borders (Cowell, this volume; Annable 1987, 247-9, maps 56a & 58; Higham 1986, 100-1). There are certainly exceptions to this general impression, as indicated by the amount of metalwork recorded on settlements or as stray finds in the Lothian lowlands and eastern Yorkshire (Manby 1980, 328-32), but is does appear that much of the region was not part of a vigorous exchange network in which these items were circulated and subsequently discarded (Higham 1986, 139). This conclusion certainly accounts for the limited number of continental bronzes known from the region. Furthermore, it would explain the archaic nature of much of the metalwork from northern England and southern Scotland. It is apparent that many of

The necessity for such a framework is all the more apparent when we consider the scale and lengthy chronology of the landscape reorganisation which occurred across certain parts of northern England and southern Scotland. This can be best demonstrated by referring to the south of the region. The spectacular dyke systems and pit 6

Harding: From coast to vale, moor to dale

alignments of eastern Yorkshire appear to have established complex territorial divisions across much of its hilly terrain (Manby 1980, 327-8; Powlesland 1988, 101-3; Spratt 1989; Stoertz 1997, 40-2 & 62-5). The construction of this network began in the later Bronze Age, although the creation of individual boundaries may actually have earlier origins, with some of the larger dykes associated with Beaker pottery- perhaps of little surprise given the proposed date, noted above, for the cross-ridge boundaries of the Cleveland Hills and North York Moors. Yet the creation of these 'estates', with their associated enclosures, droveways and field systems, was clearly only the beginning of a long and complex process. Across the Tabular Hills, for instance, they appear to have been superseded by the immense multiple dykes which marked out important political boundaries (Spratt 1989, 14-6). These later transformations may have been broadly contemporary with the construction elsewhere in eastern Yorkshire of a number of small promontory forts and defended enclosures during the early centuries of the first millennium BC (Bevan 1997, 184-5; Manby 1980, fig.3, 320-4; Stoertz 1997, 69 & fig. 33). Taken together, this evidence- from an area which has produced abundant quantities of bronze weapons, tools, and to a lesser extent, ornaments- clearly indicates the development of a stratified society for which the control and circulation of metalwork was only one concern. It is apparent, however, that the system of landscape organisation "was not designed and executed according to a single plan, but that it was developed piecemeal over a long time" (ibid., 67). Indeed, across the Yorkshire Wolds these linear boundaries provided focal alignments for the construction of Iron Age square barrows, settlement enclosures, trackways and field systems (ibid., 65 & fig. 34).

by the emergence of a hillfort-based society of increasingly complex political groupings held together by kinship, patronage and alliance. It has been suggested that the hillforts themselves, which are particularly well represented across central southern England, may have operated as 'central places' for these communities- perhaps even as the seat of local chiefs and their entourage- which were surrounded by dependent farmsteads (Cunliffe 1984a, 559-62; 1984b, 25-8; 1991, 354). As such, the hillforts were engaged in redistribution, and perhaps most importantly, were monumental symbols for the network of social relations (Bradley 1984, 137-8; Collis 1996, 91). It is the evidence from the southern chalkland which provides the rationale for considering the later Bronze Age and Iron Age as markedly different. But a brief consideration of the archaeological record from across northern England and southern Scotland suggests that the problems which communities may have faced at the outset of the Iron Age were resolved in different ways than apparent elsewhere. As with earlier periods, it is unwise to assume a process which is equally applicable to the entire region, or indeed, a dynamic which is similar to that from southern Britain. The hillforts, which have been pivotal to the interpretation of the Iron Age, are generally absent from all but the northern part of the region (cf. below), with a few scattered examples known from the Peak District, Lancashire, the Yorkshire Dales and possibly the Vale of York (Beswick & Coombs 1986; Cunliffe 1991, 277-8; Hart 1981, 73-5; Higham 1986, 127-9, fig. 3.7; Ramm 1980, 28-31; White 1997, 30-2). Instead, the archaeological record from the uplands of Derbyshire, eastern Yorkshire, Cumbria, and as far northwards as the Cheviots, is dominated by small unenclosed settlements and defended enclosures (Cunliffe 1991, 277-9; Hart 1981, chapter 7; Gates 1983; Heslop 1987; Higham 1986, 11935; Jobey 1980 & 1985; Stoertz 1997, 46-9). The Iron Age of this area, in other words, is characterised by sites which are not generally well defended and which usually contained just a few huts at any point in their use. Even the so-called 'Arras Culture' of eastern Yorkshire, considered by many to be an example of a complex and hierarchical early Iron Age society, is not characterised by its hillforts but by a number of open settlements (Dent 1982, 449-50; 1988, 96-8). Despite the large number ofround houses and pits concentrated at these sites, it seems that power was not articulated via the creation of an imposing place of occupation, but rather through the distinctive mortuary practices of this area (cf. Cunliffe 1991, 77-9, 499-504; Johnson 1993; Mytum 1995; Stead 1991; Stoertz 1997, 349). A similar point can perhaps be made for the adjacent Tabular Hills. Its spectacular double and triple dyke systems could have been the equivalent of hillfort building elsewhere for "they were symbols, often with religious associations, of the societies who built them, both of the living and the dead, they were the means of minimising friction between neighbours and barriers against straying or raiding of cattle" (Spratt 1989, 15).

But such a long-term biography of landscape does not fit so comfortably within a chronological framework which emphasises the differing characteristics of each period. A significant cornerstone for research into the first millennium BC has always been the distinctive developments which characterise the onset of the Iron Age. The prevailing image, which is again dependent upon the concentration of research undertaken across the chalklands of Wessex, as well as the Upper Thames Valley and south east England (Bevan, this volume; Gwilt & Haselgrove 1997, 1; Hill 1996, 95), emphasise the appearance ofa new social dynamic from the seventh century BC. The transformations which characterise the beginning of the Tron Age are often regarded as a response to the process of climatic deterioration and the availability of fewer resources which began during the last few centuries of the second millennium BC. These factors are considered to have led to a gradual but widespread collapse of existing political, social and economic systems, particularly across the fells and higher foothills of the region, which were either abandoned or drastically reorganised (Burgess 1980, 155-9; 1984, 152-3; 1985, 201ff; 1995, 154-5; Darvill 1987, chapter 6; Higham 1986, 117-9). The result was the social competition and conflict which is best characterised 7

Northern Pasts

The differences which separate the later Bronze Age from the early Iron Age accordingly appear less striking, and this may well provide a more appropriate framework for rethinking the proposed retreat from the upland reaches of the region in the earlier of these two periods. Instead of a discrete phase of abandonment- acting as a chronological 'marker' between two distinctive parts of the first millennium BC- it should be regarded as just one possible element in the complex development of agricultural settlement throughout this period (Young, this volume). The emphasis, in other words, is upon a heterogeneous process as opposed to an all-changing event. Less attention on the chronological separation of the later Bronze Age and early Iron Age would also enable a more considered understanding of the apparent continuity that does exist during the first millennium BC. The defended enclosures which occur across the more elevated reaches of north east England and southern Scotland actually represent a tradition of settlement with its origins in the later Bronze Age. This is certainly the case with the larger and best known examples of these sites, from the Yorkshire Wolds and Peak District, which date from the late second millennium to the 5th century BC (Bevan, this volume; Hart 1981, 73-5; Manby 1986, 66-7; Stoertz 1997, 46-7). Similarly, the impressive series of palisaded enclosures known from across the Cheviots and Borders, as well as their more low-lying hinterland, date to both the later Bronze Age and early Iron Age, indicating a clear element of continuity through time (Annable 1987, 254-5; Cunliffe 1991, 281-5; Higham 1986, 120; Miket & Burgess 1986; RCAHMS 1997, 154; Rideout et al. 1992, 139; Triscott 1982). This includes some sites which were intermittently occupied throughout this considerable period of time (RCAHMS 1997, 122-3). It is therefore of importance to regard the development of enclosed sites not as an Iron Age phenomenon, or part of a chronologically distinctive "change of attitude" (Cunliffe 1995, 54; cf. also Burgess 1984, 152, 158-9; 1995, 154), but as something which characterises the long-span of the first millennium BC. A more extended chronology is also apparent for the large number of unenclosed sites which occur widely across the fells of southern Scotland and northern Northumberland, the Lothian coast, and to a lesser extent, Cumbria (Annable 1987, 252-4; Cowley, this volume; Gates 1983; Halliday 1985; Higham 1986, 86-9; Jobey 1985; Macinnes 1982, fig. 2; RCAHMS 1997, 118-26, 141-150). These date from at least the later Bronze Age, to the 5th century BC, and as such, indicate the complex patchwork of settlement which developed irrespective of modern chronological divisions.

and southern Tayside. These hillforts are known to occur alongside large numbers of often superbly preserved unenclosed settlements and palisaded enclosures, or more commonly, smaller 'scooped settlements' and ditched enclosures (Alexander, this volume; Cowley, this volume; Halliday 1985; Jobey 1985; RCAHMS 1997, 118-26, 141150; Wise, this volume). It seems increasingly likely that this diverse array of site-types, which are all characterised by the presence of timber-built structures, should be considered as broadly contemporary, and if so, this would indicate the emergence of a settlement hierarchy across the Tyne-Forth province during the first millennium BC (Cunliffe 1991, 286; Higham 1986, 123-4, 131-2; Hill 1982; RCAHMS 1997, 151-4, 161-4). At the apex were perhaps the small number of hillforts in eastern Scotland and the Borders which possessed complex multivallate defences and attained considerable size (Cunliffe 1991, 289, 365-6; Halliday 1985, 238; RCAHMS 1997, 80-1, 129-30). These larger sites or 'minor oppidum', as they have sometimes been described, may have also been densely occupied and surely played a crucial sociopolitical role in the development of settlement across the surrounding landscape or what could even be described as their 'estate' (ibid., 78-82, 164-5; Rideout et al. 1992, 143). Yet across this Tyne-Forth province important contrasts are apparent with the 'hillfort-dominated zone' of the Wessex chalkland. It is apparent that with the exception of the 'minor oppidum' the majority of these hillforts are generally small in size with no evidence that any of them were ever extensively used. At the same time, the earthworks themselves often appear anything but defensive (Ferrell 1995, 132; Higham 1986, 124-5; Rideout et al. 1992, 140-1). These characteristics have led to the conclusion that "the picture is one of highly autonomous, isolated groups with a low level of interdependence and integration" (Ferrell 1995, 133), or put another way, a "territory of fortified housesteads and not a hillfortdominated zone" (Cunliffe 1995, 53). It is apparent that while the general literature often equates the Iron Age with the trend of increasing social complexity and centralisation (ibid., 49, 69-70; Collis 1996, 90-2; Hill 1996, 95) there may in fact be no one single social trajectory for this period. Certainly some of the hillforts in the Tyne-Forth province, which often started life as small palisaded enclosures, indicate a "dispersed population concentrated into progressively fewer, but larger, protected settlement" (Burgess 1984, 161). But if such a sequence is reminiscent of the development from hillfort, to 'developed' or 'planned' hillfort, and finally to large unenclosed settlement or oppida, then it should be recalled that a few of the sites in southern Scotland may have actually achieved greater prominence during the later Bronze Age than in the pre-Roman Iron Age (Rideout et al. 1992, 139ft). If this evidence does not so much suggest a trend of increasing political centralisation, as hint at complex local social cycles, then the latter is even more perceptible to the south of the region. It is apparent that eastern Yorkshire, characterised by its Arras Culture

There is some evidence from the region for a pattern of settlement reminiscent to that of the Wes sex chalkland. A dense distribution of hillforts is certainly recorded across northern Northumberland, the Borders, and from Annandale as far westwards as the Mull of Galloway (Burgess 1984, 152, 156-64; RCAHMS 1997, 126-141; Rideout et al. 1992, 3). This 'core zone' is surrounded by a more dispersed distribution in southern Northumberland, the west coast of Strathclyde, the upper Forth Valley, Fife 8

Harding: From coast to vale, moor to dale

burials and large open settlements, supported high population levels and the development of a hierarchical society from the early 4th century BC. This was a system, however, which had transformed itself by the later Iron Age as a rising population resulted in increasing pressure on land resources (Stead 1991, 180). The large burial cemeteries had generally been abandoned, a new and rarer rite of sword burial had appeared, and settlement was more nucleated and associated with linear arrangements of small rectilinear enclosures (Bevan 1997, 188-9; Dent 1983, 6-9; Haselgrove 1984, 14-5; Stead 1991, 83-4; Stoertz 1997, 53 & 69). The evidence has been described as illustrating a "greater emphasis upon individual families at the expense of the wider community" (Collis 1996, 92). Different again are the surrounding hills and vales which lie immediately to the west and north. At a time when the Wolds was becoming more politically fragmented it is possible to document the rise of Stanwick, near to the Stainmore Gap, as a prominent 'tribal centre' or oppida for an area which may have extended across the Tyne-Tees lowlands and even beyond (Cunliffe 1991, 189-93; Haselgrove 1984, 21; Higham 1986, 131). Greater social centralisation is seen to account for the lack of small defended sites and it is certainly possible that a highly integrated settlement system had developed across this area by the later Iron Age (Ferrell 1995, 133-4; Haselgrove 1984, 12-3).

the Milfield basin, its surrounding sandstone hills, and the valley of the Tweed, the population may have been more dispersed until at least the early Iron Age. There are similar differences on the other side of the Pennines, with much of the known evidence concentrated across the Lancashire Plain, the central Eden Valley and Dumfriesshire. It is certainly intriguing that many of these inter-regional variations are reflected in the socio-political geography postulated for the later Iron Age (Cunliffe 1991, fig. 9.4 & 9.6; Haselgrove 1984, 22; Higham 1986, 145-8). The possible existence of 'tribal' communities, or what are better described as "powerful lineages to whom the widelyspread population owed some degree of allegiance" (Cunliffe 1995, 57), may simply express the long-term development of contrasting traditions. It is therefore likely that the marked opposition between upland and lowland landscapes, which so characterises the topography of northern England and southern Scotland, would have played a crucial role in structuring the longterm history of social groups during later prehistory. The economic qualities intrinsic to each micro-region would have certainly framed the subsistence experience of communities. But such physical realities were also, through the act of socialisation, closely bound into local tradition, mythology and belie£ Perhaps the best example is the way in which the character of the landscape must have partly determined the social exclusivity of individual areas or homeworlds. These topographic differences structured the region into naturally defined boundaries and pathways, into landscapes which were either 'open' or 'closed' in terms of potential mobility and immobility. As such, these physical qualities provided a network of constraints and opportunities which strongly determined the extent of contact between communities, and in tum, the development of long-term differences or similarities in social identity. This variation would also effect the degree of sociopolitical centralisation or fragmentation that emerged. What is evident, in other words, is a rationale for many of the patterns noted above and the way in which the rate of change varied from area to area. The implication of these simple observations is that our accounts of later prehistory must consider the distinct physical character of northern England and southern Scotland as providing a unique framework for social history since such striking topographic differences are certainly not evident across southern Britain.

The mosaic of place It is evident that the later prehistory of northern England

and southern Scotland does indeed possess a character or identity of its own. The archaeological record for the Neolithic, Bronze Age and Iron Age repeatedly suggest interpretations which diverge from those documented images or 'snapshots' to which I referred in the introduction. One of the themes which constantly reoccurs is the manner by which the character of each period appears to be at least partly framed by the distinct topography of the region. The contrasts between large expanses of upland, low-lying vales each with an impressive network of rivers, and the coastal estuaries and basins (Barker 1981, 2; Higham 1986, 7-8), serve to fragment northern England and southern Scotland into a complex patchwork of what could be interpreted archaeologically as partly self-contained traditions or local sequences. I have repeatedly referred to the differences evident between the east and west of the region, on either side of the Pennine massif, but more local patterns are apparent as you move south to north through the region. This is most striking if the high limestone plateau of the Peak District, and the chalkland, hills and moors of eastern Yorkshire, are compared with elsewhere. Both areas possess a particularly impressive range of evidence, and as such, this may reflect higher population levels which resulted in greater social complexity and the relatively extensive utilisation of the landscape (ibid., 22ft). This certainly contrasts with much of north east England and south east Scotland where, with the possible exception of

The existence of key landscapes which are separated by dramatic topography might also account for the traditions of later prehistoric research to be found throughout the region. A sense of local identity has led to the development of strong relationships between specific areas and the work of individual researchers. This is, of course, as it should be, yet with the exception of Annable's (1987) The Later Prehistory of Northern England such a tradition of prehistoric research has not been recently complemented by a more general conceptualisation of the shared characteristics or differences of the archaeological record 9

Northern Pasts

between areas. I believe that this is an important limitation: the general absence of research for northern England and southern Scotland which tacks between the local and more regional scales of investigation may actually reinforce the continuing emphasis upon those intensively studied areas to the south. After all, the key themes, potentials and problems of the archaeological record from the Wessex chalkland has certainly been considered in the literature, thereby providing individual programmes of study with a well developed and dynamic backdrop. It may therefore be that the most effective manner by which to further interest in the later prehistory of northern England and southern Scotland, and consequently enhance the status of the region, is to complement the local sequences of specific areas with an improved understanding of those processes which 'stretched' across wide spans of space and time. This would be to develop a new perspective on the study of later prehistory which includes a comparative examination of the relationship between distinctive local sequences and the association between types of topographic zones and different categories of evidence. By providing a more complete picture of social history it may finally be possible to move beyond the existing models of integration and extrapolation which dominate the study oflater prehistory.

Bibliography Annable, R. 1987. The Later Prehistory of Northern England: Cumbria, Northumberland and Durham from the Neolithic to the Late Bronze Age. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports British Series l 60(i-iii). Barker, G. 1981. Approaches to prehistoric man in northern England. In Barker, G. (ed.) Prehistoric Communities in Northern England. Sheffield: Department of Prehistory and Archaeology, University of Sheffield, 1-10. Bamatt, J. 1987. Bronze Age settlement on the gritstone East Moors of the Peak District of Derbyshire and South Yorkshire. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 53, 393-418. Bamatt, J. 1989. Stone Circles of Britain. Taxonomic and distributional analysis and a catalogue of sites in England, Scotland and Wales. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports British Series 215 (i & ii). Bamatt, J. 1990. The Henges, Stone Circles and Ringcairns of the Peak District. Sheffield: University of Sheffield Archaeological Monograph 1. Barnatt, J. 1996a. Moving beyond the monuments: paths and people in the Neolithic landscapes of the peak District. In P. Frodsham (ed.) Neolithic Studies in No-Man's Land: papers on the Neolithic of Northern England from the Trent to the Tweed. Newcastle upon Tyne: Northern Archaeology 13/14, 43-60.

Barnatt, J. 1996b. Barrows in the Peak District: a review and interpretation of extant sites and past excavations. In J. Barnatt & J. Collis (eds.) Barrows in the Peak District: recent research. Sheffield: J.R. Collis Publications, 3-94. Bamatt, J. & Smith, K. 1991. The Peak District in the Bronze Age: recent research and changes in interpretation. In R. Hodges & K. Smith (eds.) Recent Developments in the Archaeology of the Peak District. Sheffield: JR Collis Publications, 23-36. Barrett, J.C. 1994. Fragments from Antiquity. An Archaeology of Social Life in Britain, 2900-1200 BC. Oxford: Blackwell. Beckensall, S. & Laurie, T. 1998. Prehistoric Rock Art of County Durham, Swaledale and Wensleydale. Durham: County Durham Books. Beswick, P. & Coombs, D.G. 1986. Excavations at Portfield Hillfort, 1960, 1970 & 1972. In T.G. Manby & P. Turnbull (eds.) Archaeology in the Pennines: studies in honour of Arthur Raistrick. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports British Series 158, 137-80. Bevan, B. 1997. Bounding the landscape: place and identity during the Yorkshire Wolds Iron Age. In A. Gwilt & C. Haselgrove (eds.) Reconstructing Iron Age Societies. Oxford: Oxbow Monograph 71. Boast, R. 1995. Fine pots, pure pots, Beaker pots. In I. Kinnes & G. Varndell (eds.) 'Unbaked Urns of Rudely Shape': essays on British and Irish pottery for Jan Longworth. Oxford: Oxbow Monograph 55, 69-80. Bradley, R. 1984. The Social Foundations of Prehistoric Britain. London: Longman. Bradley, R. 1990. The Passage of Arms. An archaeological analysis of prehistoric hoards and votive deposits. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bradley, R. 1991. Rock art and the perception of landscape. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 1, 77-101. Bradley, R. 1996. Leaming from places- topographical analysis of northern British rock art. In P. Frodsham (ed.) Neolithic Studies in No-Man's Land: papers on the Neolithic of Northern England from the Trent to the Tweed. Newcastle upon Tyne: Northern Archaeology 13/14, 87-100. Bradley, R. 1998. The Significance of Monuments: on the shaping of human experience in Neolithic and Bronze Age Europe. London: Routledge. Bradley, R. & Edmonds, M. 1993. Interpreting the Axe Trade: production and exchange in Neolithic Britain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bradley, R. & Hart, C.R. 1983. Prehistoric settlement in the Peak District during the third and second millennia BC; a preliminary analysis in the light of recent fieldwork. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 49, 177-94.

Harding: From coast to vale, moor to dale

to the Tweed. Newcastle upon Tyne: Northern Archaeology 13/14, 61-6. Clarke, D.V., Cowie, T.G. & Foxon, A. 1985. Symbols of Power at the Time of Stonehenge. Edinburgh: National Museum of Antiquaries of Scotland. Coggins, D. 1985. Settlement and farming in upper Teesdale. In D. Spratt & C. Burgess (eds.) Upland Settlement in Britain: the second millennium BC and after. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports British Series 143, 16376. Collis, J. 1996. Hill-forts, enclosures and boundaries. In T.C. Champion & J.R. Collis (eds.) The Iron Age in Britain and Ireland: recent trends. Sheffield: J.R. Collis Publications, 87-94. Crawford, G.M. 1980. Bronze Age Burial Mounds in Cleveland. Middlesbrough: Cleveland County Council. Crone, A. 1983. The Clochmabenestane, Gretna. Transactions of the Dumfries and Galloway Natural History and Antiquarian Society 58, 1620. Cummins, W. & Harding, A. 1988. The petrological identification of stone implements from north-east England. In T. Clough & W. Cummins (eds.) Stone Axe Studies, Volume 2. London: Council for British Archaeology (Research Report 23). Cunliffe, B. 1984a. Danebury: anatomy of an Iron Age hill-fort. London: Batsford Ltd. Cunliffe, B. 1984b. Iron Age Wessex: continuity and change. In B. Cunliffe & D. Miles (eds.) Aspects of the Iron Age in Central Southern Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology Monograph 2, 12-45. Cunliffe, B. 1991 (3 rd ed.). Iron Age Communities in Britain. London: Routledge. Cunliffe, B. 1995. Iron Age Britain. London: Batsford Ltd. Darvill, T. 1987. Prehistoric Britain. London: Batsford Ltd. Dent, J.S. 1979. Bronze Age burials from Wetwang Slack. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 51, 23-30. Dent, J.S. 1982. Cemeteries and settlement patterns of the Iron Age on the Yorkshire Wolds. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 48, 437-57. Dent, J.S. 1983. The impact of Roman rule on native society in the territory of the Parisi. Britannia 14, 35-44. Dent, J.S. 1988. Some problems of continuity in rural settlement. In T.G. Manby (ed.) Archaeology in Eastern Yorkshire: essays in honour of T.C.M Brewster. Sheffield: Department of Archaeology & Prehistory, University of Sheffield, 94-100. Dymond, D.P. 1966. Ritual monuments at Rudston, E. Yorkshire, England. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 32, 86-95. Earle, T.K. 1991. Property rights and the evolution of chiefdoms. In T.K. Earle (ed.) Chiefdoms: Power, Economy and Ideology. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 71-99.

Brewster, T.C.M. 1973. Two Bronze Age barrows in the North Riding of Yorkshire. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 45, 55-95. Brewster, T.C.M. 1980. The Excavations of Garton and Wetwang Slacks. London: RCHME. Brewster, T.C.M. & Finney, A.E. 1995. The Excavation of Seven Bronze Age Barrows on the Moorlands of North-East Yorkshire. Leeds: Yorkshire Archaeological Series Reports No.I. Burgess, C. 1976. Meldon Bridge: a Neolithic defended promontory complex near Peebles. In C. Burgess & R. Miket (eds.) Settlement and Economy in the Third and Second Millennia BC. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports British Series 33, 151-80. Burgess, C. 1980. The Age of Stonehenge. London: Dent. Burgess, C. 1984. The prehistoric settlement of Northumberland: a speculative survey. In R. Miket & C. Burgess (eds.) Between and Beyond the Walls. Edinburgh: John Donald, 126-7 5. Burgess, C. 1985. Population, climate and upland settlement. In D. Spratt & C. Burgess (eds.) Upland Settlement in Britain: the second millennium BC and after. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports British Series 143, 195230. Burgess, C. 1995. Bronze Age settlements and domestic pottery in northern Britain: some suggestions. In I. Kinnes & G. Varndell (eds.) 'Unbaked Urns of Rudely Shape': essays on British and Irish pottery for Jan Longworth. Oxford: Oxbow Monograph 55, 145-58. Burl, H.A.W. 1976. The Stone Circles of the British Isles. N ewhaven & London: Yale University Press. Burl, H.A.W. 1988. "Without Sharp North ..." Alexander Thom and the great stone circles of Cumbria. In C.L.N. Ruggles (ed.) Records in Stone: papers in memory of Alexander Thom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 175-205. Case, H.J. 1969. Neolithic explanations. Antiquity 43, 17686. Case, H. 1995. Beakers: loosening a stereotype. In I. Kinnes & G. Varndell (eds.) 'Unbaked Urns of Rudely Shape': essays on British and Irish pottery for Ian Longworth. Oxford: Oxbow Monograph 55, 55-68. Cherry, J. & Cherry, P.J. 1987. Prehistoric Habitation Sites on the Limestone Uplands of Eastern Cumbria. Kendal: Cumberland and Westmorland Archaeological Society (Research Volume 2). Cherry, J. & Cherry, P.J. 1992. Further research on the prehistory of the Cumbrian limestone uplands: the ceramic evidence. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society 42, 13-22. Cherry, P. & Cherry, J. 1996. Coastline and upland in the Cumbrian Neolithic. In P. Frodsham (ed.) Neolithic Studies in No-Man's Land: papers on the Neolithic of Northern England from the Trent

11

Northern Pasts

Ellison, A 1980. Settlements and regional exchange: a case study. In J. Barrett & R. Bradley (eds.) Settlement and Society in the British Later Bronze Age. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports British Series, 127-40. Entwistle, R. & Grant, A 1989. The evidence for cereal cultivation and animal husbandry in the southern British Neolithic and Bronze Age. In A Milles, D. Williams & N. Gardner (eds.) The Beginnings of Agriculture. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports International Series 496, 203-16. Ferrell, G. 1995. Space and society: new perspectives on the Iron Age of north-east England. In J.D. Hill & C.G. Cumberpatch (eds.) Different Iron Ages: studies on the Iron age in Temperate Europe. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports International Series 602, 129-48. Fox, C.F. 1932. The Personality of Britain: its influences on inhabitant and invader in prehistoric and historic times. Cardiff: National Museum of Wales. Garton, D. 1991. Neolithic settlement in the Peak District: perspectives and prospects. In R. Hodges & Smith, K. (eds.) Recent Developments in the Archaeology of the Peak District. Sheffield: University of Sheffield (Archaeological Monographs 2), 3-22. Gates, T. 1983. Unenclosed settlements in Northumberland. In J.C. Chapman & H.C. Mytum (eds.) Settlement in North Britain 1000 BC- AD 1000: papers presented to George Jobey, Newcastle upon Tyne, December 1982. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports British Series 118, 103-48. Gwilt, A & Haselgrove, C. 1997. Approaching the Iron Age. In A Gwilt & C. Haselgrove (eds.) Reconstructing Iron Age Societies. Oxford: Oxbow Monograph 71, 11-8. Halliday, S.P. 1985. Unenclosed upland settlement in the east and south-east of Scotland. In D. Spratt & C. Burgess (eds.) Upland Settlement in Britain: the second millennium BC and after. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports British Series 143, 23152. Harding, AF. 1981. Excavations in the prehistoric ritual complex near Milfield, Northumberland. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 47, 87135. Harding, A.F. & LEE, G.E. 1987. Henge Monuments and Related Sites of Great Britain. Air Photographic Evidence and Catalogue. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports British Series 175. Harding, J. 1996. Reconsidering the Neolithic round barrows of eastern Yorkshire. In P. Frodsham (ed.) Neolithic Studies in No-Man's Land: papers on the Neolithic of Northern England from the Trent to the Tweed. Newcastle upon Tyne: Northern Archaeology 13/14, 67-78.

Harding,

J. 1997. Interpreting the Neolithic: the monuments of North Yorkshire. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 16(3), 279-95. Hart, C.R. 1981. The North Derbyshire Archaeological Survey to AD 1500. Chesterfield: Derbyshire Archaeological Society. Haselgrove, C. 1984. The later pre-Roman Iron Age between the Humber and the Tyne. In P.R. Wilson, R.F.J. Jones & D.M. Evans (eds.) Settlement and Society in the Roman North. Bradford/Leeds: School of Archaeological Sciences, University of Bradford & Yorkshire Archaeological Society, 9-26. Haselgrove, C.H. & Healey, E. 1992. The prehistory of the Tyne-Tees lowlands: some recent finds. Durham Archaeological Journal 8. Hawke-Smith, C.F. 1979. Man-Land Relations in Prehistoric Britain: the Dove-Derwent Interfluve, Derbyshire; a Study in Human Ecology. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports 64. Heslop, D.H. 1987. The Excavation of an Iron AgeSettlement at Thorpe Thew/es, Cleveland, 1980-1982. London: Council for British Archaeology Research Report 65. Hicks, S.P. 1971. Pollen analytical evidence for the effect of prehistoric agriculture on the vegetation of N. Derbyshire. New Phytologist 70, 647-67. Higham, N. 1986. The Northern Counties to AD 1000. Harlow: Longman. Hill, J.D. 1995. How should we understand Iron Age societies and hillforts? A contextual study from southern Britain. In J.D. Hill & C.G. Cumberpatch (eds.) Different Iron Ages: studies on the Iron age in Temperate Europe. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports International Series 602, 45-66. Hill, J.D. 1996. Hill-forts and the Iron Age of Wessex. In T.C. Champion & J.R. Collis (eds.) The Iron Age in Britain and Ireland: recent trends. Sheffield: J.R. Collis Publications, 95-116. Hill, P.H. 1982. Settlement and chronology. In D.W. Harding (ed.) Later Prehistoric Settlement in South-East Scotland. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Occasional paper 8, 4-43. Hodder, I. 1990. The Domestication of Europe. Structure and Contingency in Neolithic Societies. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Jobey, G. 1980. Settlement potential in northern Britain in the later second millennium BC. In J. Barrett & R. Bradley (eds.) The British Later Bronze Age. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports British Series 83(ii), 371-6. Jobey, G. 1985. The unenclosed settlements of Tyne-Forth: a summary. In D. Spratt & C. Burgess (eds.) Upland Settlement in Britain: the second millennium BC and after. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports British Series 143, 17794.

12

Harding: From coast to vale, moor to dale

(eds.) Between and Beyond the Walls. Edinburgh: John Donald, 52-73. Miket, R. 1976. The evidence for Neolithic activity in the Milfield basin, Northumberland. In C.B. Burgess & R. Miket (eds.) Settlement and Economy in the Third and Second Millennium BC. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports British Series 33, 113-33. Miket, R. 1985. Ritual enclosures at Whitton Hill, Northumberland. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 51, 137-48. Miket, R. & Burgess, C. 1986. The excavation ofa circular enclosure at Horsedean Plantation, near Chatton, Northumberland: interim report. Northern Archaeology 7(2), 39-42. Moffett, L., Robinson, M.A. & Straker, V. 1989. Cereals, fruits and nuts: charred plant remains from Neolithic sites in England and Wales and the Neolithic economy. In A. Milles, D. Williams & N. Gardner (eds.) The Beginnings of Agriculture. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports International Series 496, 243-61. Mortimer, J.R. 1905. Forty Years' Researches in British and Saxon Burial Mounds of East Yorkshire. London: A. Brown & Sons. Mytum, H. 1995. Iron Age square barrows on the North York Moors. In B. Vyner (ed.) Moorland Monuments: studies in the archaeology of northeast Yorkshire in honour of Raymond Hayes and Don Spratt. York: Council for British Archaeology Research Report 101, 31-7. Newman, T.G. 1976. A crop-mark site at Hasting Hill, Tyne and Wear, NZ 355541. Archaeologia Aeliana 4, 183-4. Peterson, F. 1969. Early Bronze Age timber graves and coffin burials on the Yorkshire Wolds. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 42, 262-7. Peterson, F. 1972. Traditions of multiple burial in later Neolithic and early Bronze Age England. Archaeological Journal 129, 22-55. Pierpoint, S. 1980. Social Patterns in Yorkshire Prehistory. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports British Series 74. Powlesland, D. 1986. Excavations at Heslerton, North Yorkshire, 1978-1982. Archaeological Journal 143, 53-173. Powlesland, D. 1988. Staple Howe in its landscape. In T.G. Manby (ed.) Archaeology in Eastern Yorkshire:essays in honour of T.C.M Brewster. Sheffield: Department of Archaeology & Prehistory, University of Sheffield, 101-7. Ramm, H. 1980. Native settlement east of the Pennines. In K. Branigan (ed.) Rome and the Brigantes: the impact of Rome on Northern England. Sheffield: Department of Archaeology and Prehistory, University of Sheffield, 28-40. RCAHMS. 1997. Eastern Dumfriesshire: an archaeological landscape. Edinburgh: HMSO. Renfrew, C. 1973. Monuments, mobilisation and social organisation in Neolithic Wessex. In C.

Johnson,

M. 1993. Investigations of a multi-period landscape, Potter Brompton, North Yorkshire. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 65, 1-9. King, A. 1985. Prehistoric settlement and land use in Craven, North Yorkshire. In D. Spratt & C. Burgess (eds.) Upland Settlement in Britain: the second millennium BC and after. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports British Series 143, 11734. Kinnes, I.A. 1992. Non-Megalithic Long Barrows and Allied Structures in the British Neolithic. London: British Museum Occasional Paper 52. Kinnes, I.A. & Longworth, I.H. 1985. Catalogue of the Excavated Prehistoric and Romano-British Material in the Greenwell Collection. London: British Museum Publications Ltd. Laurie, T.C. 1985. Early land division and settlement in Swaledale and on the eastern approaches to the Stainmore Pass over the north Pennines. In D. Spratt & C. Burgess (eds.) Upland Settlement in Britain: the second millennium BC and after. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports British Series 143, 135-62. Longworth, I.H. 1984. Collared Urns of the Bronze Age in Great Britain and Ireland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Macinnes, L. 1982. Pattern and purpose: the settlement evidence. In D.W. Harding (ed.) Later Prehistoric Settlement in South-East Scotland. Edinburgh: Department of Archaeology, University of Edinburgh Occasional Paper 8, 57-73. Manby, T.G. 1958. Chambered tombs of Derbyshire. Archaeological Journal 78, 25-39. Manby, T.G. 1970. Long barrows of northern England; structural and dating evidence. Scottish Archaeological Forum 2, 1-27. Manby, T.G. 1974. Grooved Ware Sites in the North of England. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports British Series 9. Manby, T.G. 1980. Bronze Age settlement in eastern Yorkshire. In J. Barrett & R. Bradley (eds.) The British Later Bronze Age. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports British Series 83(ii), 30770. Manby, T.G. 1986. The Bronze Age in western Yorkshire. In T.G. Manby & P. Turnbull (eds.) Archaeology in the Pennines: studies in honour of Arthur Raistrick. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports British Series 158, 55-126. Manby, T.G. 1988. The Neolithic period in Eastern Yorkshire. In T.G. Manby (ed.) Archaeology in Eastern Yorkshire. Sheffield: Department of Archaeology and Prehistory, 35-75. Manby, T.G. 1999. Grooved ware sites in Yorkshire and northern England 1974-1994. In R. Cleal & A. MacSween (eds.) Grooved Ware in Britain and Ireland. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 57-75. Masters, L. 1984. The Neolithic long cairns of Cumbria and Northumberland. In R. Miket & C. Burgess 13

Northern Pasts

Renfrew (ed.) The Explanation of Cultural Change. London: Gerald Duckworth, 539-58. Rideout, J.S., Owen, O.A. & Halpin, E. 1992. Hillforts of Southern Scotland. Edinburgh: AOC (Scotland) Ltd & Historic Scotland. Rowlands, M.J. 1980. Kinship, alliance and exchange in the European Bronze Age. In J.C. Barrett & R.J. Bradley (eds.) The British Later Bronze Age. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports British Series 83(i), 15-55. Shanks, M. & Tilley, C. 1982. Ideology, symbolic power and ritual communication: a reinterpretation of Neolithic mortuary practices. In Hodder, I. (ed.) Symbolic and Structural Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 129-54. Sharples, N.M. 1991. Maiden Castle: excavation and field survey 1985-6. London: English Heritage Archaeological Report N o.19. Smith, M.J.B. 1994. Excavated Bronze Age Burial Mounds of North-East Yorkshire. Durham: Architectural and Archaeological Society of Durham and Northumberland Research Report No.3. Stead, I.M. 1991. Iron Age Cemeteries in East Yorkshire. London: English Heritage Archaeological Reports 22. Spratt, D.A. (ed.). 1982. Prehistoric and Roman Archaeology of North-East Yorkshire. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports 104. Spratt, D. 1989. Linear Earthworks of the Tabular Hills of Northeast Yorkshire. Sheffield: J.R. Collis Publications. Stoertz, C. 1997. Ancient Landscapes of the Yorkshire Wolds. Swindon: Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England. Tallis, J.H. 1991. Forest and moorland in the southern Pennine uplands in the mid-Flandrian period. III. The spread of moorland- local, regional and national. Journal of Ecology 79, 401-15. Taylor, D.M., Griffiths, H.I, Pedley, H.M. & Prince, I. 1994. Radiocarbon-dated Holocene pollen and ostracod sequences from barrage tufa-dammed fluvial systems in the White Peak, Derbyshire, UK. The Holocene 4, 356-64. Thomas, J.S. 1991. Rethinking the Neolithic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Thorpe, I.J. & Richards, C. 1984. The decline of ritual authority and the introduction of Beakers into

Britain. In R.J. Bradley & J. Gardiner (eds.) Neolithic Studies. A Review of Some Current Research. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports British Series 133, 67-84. Tolan-Smith, C. 1996. The Mesolithic/Neolithic transition in the lower Tyne valley: a landscape approach. In P. Frodsham (ed.) Neolithic Studies in No-Man's Land: papers on the Neolithic of Northern England from the Trent to the Tweed. Newcastle upon Tyne: Northern Archaeology 13/14, 7-16. Triscott, J. 1982. Excavations at Drybum Bridge, East Lothian. In D.W. Harding (ed.) Later Prehistoric Settlement in South-East Scotland. Edinburgh: Department of Archaeology, University of Edinburgh Occasional Paper 8, 117-24. Vyner, B. 1994. The territory of ritual: cross-ridge boundaries and the prehistoric landscape of the Cleveland Hills, northeast England. Antiquity 68(258), 27-38. Vyner, B. 1995. The brides of place: cross-ridge boundaries reviewed. In B. Vyner (ed.) Moorland Monuments: studies in the archaeology of northeast Yorkshire in honour of Raymond Hayes and Don Spratt. York: Council for British Archaeology Research Report 101, 16-30. Waddington, C. 1996. Putting rock art to use. A model of early Neolithic transhumance in north Northumberland. In P. Frodsham (ed.) Neolithic Studies in No-Man's Land: papers on the Neolithic of Northern England from the Trent to the Tweed. Newcastle upon Tyne: Northern Archaeology 13/14, 147-78. Waddington, C. 1998. Cup and ring marks in context. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 8(1), 29-54. Weyman, J. 1984. The Mesolithic in north-east England. In R. Miket & C. Burgess (eds.) Between and Beyond the Walls. Edinburgh: John Donald, 3851. White, R. 1997. The Yorkshire Dales: landscapes through time. London: B.T. Batsford & English Heritage. Young, R. 1984. Aspects of the Prehistoric Archaeology of the Wear Valley, Co. Durham. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Durham. Young, R. 1987. Lithics and Subsistence in North-Eastern England. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports British Series 161.

14

Worlds without ends: towards a new prehistory for central Britain Paul Frodsham

All Britain is divided into two parts- a South and a North. The South has pottery, storage pits, good preservation of animal bones, lots of archaeologists, and so lots of archaeology. The North is typified by a lack of pottery, a poverty of metalwork, stone structures with poor stratigraphy, acid soils in which bone is poorly preserved, and a poorly developed archaeology .... Of course there are exceptions. (John Collis 1996, 1). Since the fourteenth century AD it has been possible to talk of 'Border Society' as a unifying concept equally applicable west and east of the Pennine ridge. However, in a wider context the political frontier is a comparatively modern phenomenon, the result of a series of historical accidents and strategies predominantly in the period ADJ I 00-1330. Certainly, before the Norman Conquest no such frontier line existed, and the further back we look, the more irrelevant this line becomes .... Therefore .... it would be improper to ignore, for example, the history of settlement in Dumfriesshire when dealing with north Cumberland, or of Lothian when speaking of Northumberland. (Nick Higham 1986, 1).

unity which I am seeking to achieve. Let me stress at the outset that I am not attempting to provide a research agenda for the region - it would be extremely arrogant of me to think that I would be capable of such a production on my own. However, I hope to provide some leads which might, with luck, represent the first few faltering steps towards the production of such a document. An agenda of this type would provide a useful framework, binding together many important projects including several which are discussed elsewhere in this volume. However, its main aim, without wishing to be in any way restrictive, would be to help considerably with the acquisition of funds for further research priorities identified within it. Such funds should be available from London and Edinburgh as well as from more local sources, but also, and perhaps most crucially, from Europe and from the National Lottery.

Introduction It is a fact well known to students of Northumbrian prehistory that the real reason for the construction of Hadrian's Wall was to preclude the passing of any archaeological funding to the north of it. This original objective has met with considerable success, as millions are spent on the recording and management of the Wall while literally hundreds of sites, which many would agree are of greater importance to the study of archaeology than the Wall, remain unrecorded. This situation would perhaps be a little easier to bare if the presentation of the Wall was of an acceptable standard, but the profusion of ugly suburban display panels along the most atmospheric stretches of the Wall landscape advertising English Heritage in a variety of languages and looking as though they have landed from outer space, coupled with the complete lack of practical research or conservation agendas for the Wall, suggests that even unlimited resources need not necessarily result in good practice. However, while it would be easy to present a depressing analysis of the allocation of resources to prehistoric archaeology in northern England, this is not what I propose to do here. Rather, the paper was designed as a positive and forward looking introduction to the Northern Pasts conference. It discusses a number of recent projects and sets out what I hope will be a series of useful avenues for future research into the prehistory of an area which I am calling (for the want of a more appealing yet still relevant label) 'Central Britain': I have chosen not to adopt the term 'Tyne-Forth Province', as this is essentially a Scottish phenomenon with a bit of Northumberland thrown in and doesn't suggest the degree of cross-border

A recent special edition of the journal Northern Archaeology, on the Neolithic of Northern England (but inevitably containing many references to southern Scotland), was entitled 'Neolithic Studies in No-Man's Land' (Frodsham 1996a), reflecting the observation of Graeme Barker back in 1981 that "the prehistoric archaeology of Britain has invariably been divided into two major regions, southern and northern, but there has tended to be a rather uncomfortable No Man's Land between the two" (Barker 1981, 1). It seems to me that this No-man's land has arisen due largely to three factors: firstly, from being sliced in two by a national boundary; secondly, from the absence of a relevant academic institution anywhere between Newcastle and Edinburgh; and thirdly, from the historical emphasis on Roman studies throughout much of

15

Northern Pasts

the region. None of these should be problems in this day and age. Indeed, given the right attitudes on both sides of the border the national boundary problem could easily be transformed into something of an advantage- at least with regard to the provision of research funds.

independent in many respects with boundary zones effectively creating a number of different 'worlds', these would never have been entirely independent of each other: hence 'Worlds Without Ends'. Of course, "there is no possibility of describing the world as a totality in the present, much less in the past, and all we can do is sketch bits of it which are of interest to us and available in the present through the nature of the evidence" (ibid.). However, we must be wary of studying particular periods or areas in isolation: while there will always be a need for specialised studies of particular subjects, there must also be up to date syntheses into which these studies can be readily incorporated.

This paper stems from the realisation that the main research pnontles relating to my particular patch, the Northumberland National Park (for which a research strategy is currently under preparation) are also relevant to a much wider area, and that we must stop thinking in terms of northern England as a peripheral region three hundred miles from London and somehow less important than archaeological 'core' areas such as Wessex, the Orkneys or the Yorkshire Wolds. Rather, we must realise that in addition to having some of the best archaeological landscapes to be seen anywhere in Europe, Central Britain is literally central to British archaeology and must be treated as such. I have no desire to start a futile debate about exactly where the boundaries of this loosely defined region should be, nor to create a new region to be studied without reference to others, but following Higham's observations quoted at the beginning of this paper there can be no doubt that the counties of Northumberland and Cumbria, coupled with the Scottish Borders and Dumfriesshire, should be studied together within a region which we could reasonably refer to as Central Britain. Surely it makes more sense to consider such a central zone rather than the artificial concepts of a Scottish north and an English south? The region I have defined could perhaps be extended: for example, to Lothian in the north, south to Durham, and possibly also to Galloway in the west, but for the purposes of this paper I intend to be quite restrictive. Most of my examples are taken from within the Northumberland National Park, but I hope that my observations are not wholly irrelevant to those without a particular interest in this region.

I will now present a personal, and necessarily very selective, view of some research priorities for our region. As a word of caution, there are inevitably many problems involved in the chronological framework which I am using, not the least of which is that interpretative accounts, for which there is vast potential in the existing archaeological record, should no longer concern themselves unduly with our conventional three age system. I suspect that we will never rid ourselves entirely of this system, itself now getting on for 200 years of age, and in the absence of any better ideas I have used it for the purposes of this discussion. It is important to note, though, that many themes are equally applicable to all periods of prehistory. Examples of research priorities which cut across conventional chronological divisions include the need for further palaeoenvironmental work on both a regional and a site-specific level; the requirement for more comprehensive basic survey projects and local 'landscape case studies' such as those presented in the Scottish Royal Commission's excellent East Dumfriesshire volume (RCHAMS 1997)- these will enable us to compare and contrast different areas within our region; and the need for detailed but basic artefact studies (eg. flints and pottery) which are absolutely essential to an understanding of the region as a whole throughout prehistory. It is also essential that we keep pushing the cause of excavation in the face of the once trendy but fundamentally anti-academic 'preserve in situ at all costs' mentality, which I think may at last be in gradual (and hopefully tenninal) decline (Frodsham 1995). It goes without saying that all excavations must be fully justified on research grounds and impeccably planned, but the relevant authorities must be seen to be actively encouraging, supporting and funding such initiatives, which has not always been the case in northern England over recent years. After all, one cannot hope to conserve archaeological landscapes efficiently without at least a basic knowledge of their formation.

My title, which was originally intended only as a draft, seemed odd when I read it in the original programme for this conference. Southern Scotland, yes; northern England, fine; north-east England, even better. But 'Central Britain'? One doesn't hear of this very often in an archaeological context. Even the title of this conference reflects this point: the subject matter is supposed to be the prehistory of northern England and southern Scotland, yet the conference is entitled 'Northern Pasts'! As should become clear from the following pages, the first element of my title reflects the interaction between different 'worlds', both in time and in space, throughout the region under consideration. Chris Gosden has recently noted that "The World is .... the most general of all generalities and escapes definition". He then offers a general description of the human world as "composed of the sum total of human actions, skills and experiences, together with the material consequences created by past human actions, which in turn structure future human action" (Gosden 1997, 304). It follows from this that the 'Neolithic World' never ended, it simply evolved into that of the Bronze Age, and while different areas within our region may have been

The Palaeolithic and Mesolithic The Mesolithic was recently defined by Peter Rowley Conwy (1994, 75) as "post-glacial but pre-agricultural". This is obviously a very general definition which will suffice for now, although the question of how much of the

16

Frodsham: Worlds without ends

earlier Neolithic may also have been 'pre-agricultural' is one which we could spend much time discussing. The question of the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition is one which has received much attention recently, most of which I think it is fair to say has been through Neolithic researchers looking for the origins of their particular period rather than Mesolithic scholars searching for the end of theirs. However, the origins of the Mesolithic way of life are surely also worthy of more investigation. The effect of rising sea levels and ever-expanding woodland must have had profound effects on the attitude of people to their world, as well as on basic activities such as the techniques of food procurement. It may well have been during the Mesolithic, possibly quite early on within it, that particular places within the landscape became significant, perhaps through being visually unusual and/or through occupying a particular place within the seasonal cycle of movement around the landscape. These places would soon have been given names and incorporated into the mythologies of the local people, and one only has to consider the cosmologies of Australian Aborigines to appreciate the complexity of the type of social landscape that probably developed in Central Britain at this time. Many of these special places were undoubtedly later embellished through the addition of monuments, while others probably remain in their natural state. Whatever the details of individual Mesolithic sites, it would be nice to see some attempts to identify and interpret significant places within the Mesolithic landscape of our region along the lines that Tilley (eg. 1994) has attempted for parts of Wales and Wessex. Such studies would add real value to the essential but rather uninspiring accounts of flint distributions which dominate most Mesolithic syntheses, while also providing a base on which to attempt interpretations of the early Neolithic.

could uncover datable, stratified Mesolithic deposits which may cast some light on seasonal patterns of movement around the landscape. In the absence of such datable deposits, the interpretation of the Mesolithic on the basis of flint scatters and palaeoenvironmental evidence will always be difficult. These difficulties of interpretation lie behind Richard Bradley's (1984, 11) memorable observation that "in the literature as a whole, successful farmers have social relations with each other, while hunter-gatherers have ecological relations with hazelnuts". If we are to make progress here then we must start interpreting our data in a rather more adventurous manner than hitherto. It is tempting, for example, to think in terms of a Mesolithic cosmology based on an understanding of humanity as an integral part of the natural world, as opposed to a Neolithic world view which increasingly thought of humankind as separate (witness the importance associated with activities that transformed raw materials into completely artificial objects- pottery from clay; polished axes from rough stone; and eventually copper objects, also effectively from 'stone'). However, the application of such a model to our region is difficult given the lack of Mesolithic burials and well-understood settlement sites. The lack of such sites should not, however, prevent us from developing such lines of enquiry and attempting to integrate them with the available archaeological record. In a preliminary interpretation of his fieldwork in the Tyne Valley, Christopher Tolan-Smith (1996) suggests that the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition was marked by an increase in population and an increase in sedentism, and that the transition may have been more abrupt than gradual. This is an interesting observation, and Chris is correct in stating that it requires further investigation, especially as studies elsewhere have emphasised the gradual nature of the transition. Indeed, what we term a transition may initially have been little more than a change in attitude towards long established practices which continued largely unaltered well into the earlier Neolithic; for example, Neolithic farmers may have herded 'domestic' cattle around the landscape rather than following 'wild' herds as their predecessors had done, but the actual cycle of movement around the landscape may have been identical. The amount of control actually exercised over resources may have been minimal, but the attitudes towards this control, and the increasing awareness of man's ability to influence change, may have been a crucial element of the transition to the Neolithic. Of course, this transition may not have occurred in the same manner throughout the region, and what we need is more data from projects such as the Tyne Valley Survey and Clive Waddington's Milfield Basin project (this volume) ifwe are to make progress here.

Numerous Mesolithic 'sites' have been discovered throughout Central Britain, the vast majority of which are known only through the recovery of flints, either from freshly ploughed fields in the lowlands or from upland moors following ploughing in advance of afforestation. Peter and Jim Cherry (1996) have recovered Mesolithic assemblages from the Cumbrian coast and from the limestone uplands of eastern Cumbria; in both cases considerable overlap with early Neolithic settlement foci is suggested. Joan Weyman (1984) has described the coastal, riverine and upland distribution of Mesolithic sites in north-east England, and Max Adams (1996, 2) has recently commented on the presence of Mesolithic material at a substantial proportion of sites investigated for other reasons, ranging from Turf Knowe in the Cheviots to Darlington Market Place. North of the Border a similar pattern is visible, with coastal, riverine and upland activity all well attested. The uplands of Dumfriesshire seem to have been extensively exploited by small bands of huntergatherers throughout the Mesolithic although the accurate dating of artefact scatters is problematic (RCAHMS 1997, 94-6). Further information relating to the Mesolithic will no doubt result from future campaigns of fieldwalking and from high-resolution palaeoenvironmental research. In addition, a campaign of trial excavations at rock shelters

The Neolithic The Neolithic is now generally accepted as something rather more complex than the period which saw the

17

Northern Pasts

introduction of polished stone axes, pottery, monuments and fanning. Alistair Whittle (1996, 335) has recently stated that "The Neolithic way of life in Europe was based above all on a set of beliefs, values and ideals, about the place of people in the scheme of things, about descent, origins and time, and about relations between people". Julian Thomas (1993, 390) describes the Neolithic as "fragmentary and dispersed, localised in its effects, with no overall direction or intention behind it". Certainly there is much regional variation during the British Neolithic, but as long as resources continue to pour into the betterunderstood regions such as Wessex and Orkney at the expense of the so-called marginal areas the nature of this regional variation will continue to elude us. It is essential that more fieldwork is undertaken in Central Britain to investigate various aspects of the Neolithic, but this fieldwork must be carefully designed to fit within an overall investigative framework which identifies a few key themes, opportunities and problems in the existing archaeological record, thus providing a more developed and dynamic backdrop to individual studies as is the case in Wessex (Harding et al. 1996). Only then will we be able to build on work such as Peter Topping's recent valiant attempt "to contextualise the scant Neolithic evidence (from the Cheviot Hills) into what must have been perceived as a living and vibrant landscape heavily imbued with a dense structure of cultural symbols, images and beliefs" (Topping 1997, 121).

than many might expect. Evidently, there is a need to investigate a series of carefully identified such sites with a view to identifying those, which could conceivably be our equivalents of the southern causewayed enclosures. This is not to say that we shouldn't still be searching for more conventional causewayed enclosures as well, as the example from Hastings Hill demonstrates (Miket 1984, 125). A further point to bear in mind in the consideration of early Neolithic ceremonial monuments is that the nature of the landscape, which offers a large number of natural 'special places' (mountains, unusual rock formations, waterfalls, lakes etc), may have removed the need to 'create' special places such as may have been necessary in the relatively homogenous landscape of Wessex. In addition to the identification of new Neolithic sites, there are some long-known ones, which are crying out for investigation. Perhaps paramount amongst these is the Long Meg complex, including the well known stone circle and the adjacent but only recently recognised earthwork enclosure, which potentially contains a wealth of information relating to the Neolithic of the Eden Valley and its relationship to that of Yorkshire where similar large earthwork enclosures have been recognised but not yet investigated. There are practical problems here, not the least of which is the lack of regularly ploughed land in the vicinity of Long Meg for fieldwalking, but these are all surmountable and could be addressed within a well constructed project design. Long Meg also holds clues to the seemingly impenetrable issue of rock art chronology, to which I will return shortly.

The influence of the landscape, with marked contrasts between extensive uplands, lowland plains with impressive river networks and coastal regions must have done much to frame the everyday experience of groups and individuals, and must have been firmly embedded in local mythology and belief throughout prehistory (Harding et al. 1996, 190). It would also have dictated to a large extent the geographical variations in the importance of arable crops, animal husbandry and hunting, fishing and gathering which must have existed during the Neolithic. The form and location of monuments throughout the Neolithic must have been related to both the cosmologies and the everyday activities of the people who built and used them, and the regional variation between these monuments provides a good starting-point for an investigation into the Central British Neolithic.

Aubrey Burl's definitive guide to the stone circles of the British Isles (Burl 1976) was published nearly a quarter of a century ago. In this, Burl describes a distinction between an eastern 'henge zone' which includes approximately half of the region under consideration here, and a western 'stone circle zone' into which the western half of Central Britain falls. Between the two is an intermediate 'central zone', "in which it is possible to see the gradual transition from henge to stone circle as the geology alters from the soft chalks of the east amenable to the quarrying of ditches and the building of banks into the more intractable limestones and sandstones of the west where it would have been easier to transport and erect monoliths than to dig a ditch or even scrape together material for a bank" (ibid., 28). Evidently, Burl's 'highland natives' were prepared to scrape together sufficient material for a bank where required, as is amply demonstrated at Mayburgh, but this apparently logical explanation, accounting for the difference between henge and stone circle as a function of geology but assuming that the monuments were simply equivalents of each other has remained largely unquestioned until very recently. In fact, henges and stone circles are very different types of monument, the former offering a restricted view into and out of the interior which is effectively restricted to the entrances, while the latter offer open views into and out of the centre (Bradley 1998, chapter 8). Henges may have their entrances aligned on landscape features and/or astronomical events, but stone

The recognition of Neolithic monuments is therefore a key issue. It is only very recently that the possibility of early Neolithic enclosures in the Lake District and Cheviot Hills has received any attention. Upland enclosures have always been assumed to be Iron Age hillforts (about which more later), but recent work at Harehaugh Camp (Coquetdale), Humbleton Hill (Cheviots) and Carrock Fell (Lake District) amongst others suggests that some such enclosures may have much older origins than hitherto accepted (Waddington et al. 1998, 101-2). There may be lowland equivalents, as at Plasketlands on the Solway Plain (Bewley 1993; 1994, 77), and other unusual sites such as the enclosure at Roughting Linn, adjacent to the largest panel of rock art in the region, may also prove rather older 18

Frodsham: Worlds without ends circles could include any number of such alignments between individual stones and skyline or other features. It is due to an interest in these possible alignments that most of our large stone circles have been very accurately surveyed over the years, resulting in a complex classificatory system, while the poor old henges are all lumped together as either Class I or Class II simply on the basis of the number of their entrances. Oddly, the stone circles have seen no excavations in modem times, while a number of henges, such a those on the Milfield Plain in Northumberland, have been subject to excavation (Harding 1981). This is an anomaly which must be addressed if we are to hope to understand the relationship between stone circles and henges, and the wider implications of this relationship. To further complicate the issue, the area around Dumfries appears to suffer from a surfeit of cursuses at this time (RCAHMS 1997, fig. 110), providing yet another aspect to this question of regionalism. We must also consider the possible existence of other forms of contemporary monuments such as Meldon Bridge, many of which may await discovery, perhaps in similar, predictable, landscape contexts, throughout Colin Burgess's (1976b, 178) unexplored "virgin territory, occupying thousands of square miles between Newcastle and Edinburgh". The most likely method of discovery for such sites has to be exploratory air photography, far too little of which is currently being undertaken.

investment. Obviously, we must not fall into the trap of allocating all our efforts to the study of monuments. Clive Waddington (1996b) has clearly demonstrated the potential value of an integrated landscape approach with his recent work in the Milfield Basin, combining the investigation of the Coupland enclosure and 'avenue' with studies of rock art and the identification of settlement zones through intensive fieldwalking. Similarly John Davies' recent spectacular discovery of an early Neolithic settlement near Bolam Lake, Northumberland, through a programme of fieldwalking over several years, demonstrates that quality evidence is out there if resources can be made available to look for it on a systematic basis (Waddington & Davies 1998). Increasingly the Neolithic is appearing where we may not have expected it. The National Park/University of Durham/Northumberland Archaeological Group initiative at Ingram in the Breamish Valley has uncovered Neolithic remains on sites presumed to be Bronze Age or Iron Age. In addition, two charcoal fragments, one from a probable Iron Age structure and one from within a sealed context beneath an agricultural terrace have given C14 dates of c. 4000 BC (ASUD 1997, 2). It begins to look very much as though Neolithic settlement and activity throughout the Cheviot Hills may have been more extensive than previously thought, a suggestion supported by Richard Tipping's (1996) recent palaeoenvironmental work at a number of Cheviot sites. However, the nature of this activity and the relationship between it and the more traditional Neolithic sites of the lowlands remains very much a matter for conjecture. The question of mobility versus permanent settlement throughout the Neolithic is also one requiring further work, although it may not be easy to demonstrate on sites without organic remains. The distribution of known Neolithic axes in the lowlands probably represents a crude guide to the location of activity, but as yet it offers little clue to the question of seasonal versus permanent occupation.

While not wishing to divorce the study of mortuary practice from that of monuments, there are a number of issues relating to burial monuments throughout our region which must be addressed before we can hope to undertake the same level of interpretative analysis as has been achieved elsewhere. The nature of our long cairns is one such issue (Masters 1984). Recent survey work has suggested that at least one of Northumberland's apparently rather sorry collection of half a dozen long cairns is in fact a chambered cairn of extremely complex construction (Waddington, 1996a). How this may relate to other sites to north or south is a question that can only be resolved through excavation, something that is currently under serious consideration. While a programme of investigation into our long cairns would undoubtedly be very rewarding, we must not discount the possibility that the low numbers of such monuments could be due in part to the early adoption of round cairns of which many hundreds exist throughout the region although as yet hardly any have been proved to be Neolithic. Single Neolithic inhumations with grave goods beneath round barrows have long been recognised in Yorkshire. The concept of single burial with grave goods may well have originated in eastern Yorkshire (Harding 1996), but the extent to which this may have influenced burial practice in Central Britain is not well understood. Could it be that a number of our massive hilltop round cairns, none of which have been investigated within living memory, are in fact Neolithic in date? A long term, integrated study of burial practices throughout the Neolithic and early Bronze Age, including the investigation of a sample of long cairns and round cairns throughout our region, could certainly justify a considerable level of

Perhaps linked to the issue of mobility is the question of long distance exchange networks, in particular the Langdale axe 'trade'. The recent work of Bradley and Edmonds (1993) at Langdale has demonstrated how detailed survey work at a carefully chosen location can lead to a better understanding of processes at work over a much wider area, but there is still much work to be done if we are ever to begin to understand the real significance of the stone axe throughout Central Britain. There are also other as yet unidentified axe quarries in our region, and the relationship between axes from these and those from Langdale would form the basis for an interesting project. The relationship between the large stone circles of the Lake District and the Langdale axe quarries would justify further work, as would the possible relationship between other stone circles and axe quarries, for example the Threestonebum circle in the Cheviots and a possible, as yet unlocated, andesite axe quarry (Clive Waddington pers. 19

Northern Pasts comm.). The location of major monument foci on what are

options some of which may not be far wide of the mark with regard to the original thinking behind some of our rock art. Leaving aside the issue of interpretation, perhaps the two most pressing issues still to be resolved in rock art studies are those of chronology and re-use. The motifs at Long Meg, for example, were probably originally produced on decorated river cliffs above the Eden where they may have remained for several centuries before being quarried and transported to their present location. Some light could doubtless be thrown on this issue if the Long Meg project suggested earlier could be instituted.

still the major communication routes through northern England is obvious (eg. the Penrith and Peak District henges on the A6, the Gunnerkeld stone circle sitting virtually on top of the M6 south of Penrith, the North Yorkshire and Milfield henge complexes along the Al/A697 corridor), but the application of some thought to the implications of this distribution for Neolithic mobility and exchange networks might prove worthwhile. The sourcing of flint throughout Central Britain, if possible, would be of immense value to the understanding of Neolithic exchange networks. Did flint find its way from Yorkshire to Cumbria as Langdale tuff made its way in the opposite direction? And where did all the Northumbrian flint originate? Could more than we think be from local glacial deposits, or is this also from Yorkshire? If the latter, what, if anything, went the other way? Even though they may never be satisfactorily resolved, these are issues about which we could attempt some informed speculation on the basis of the available evidence.

The Bronze Age A conventional, if simplistic, view of the early Bronze Age is that it saw the development of a system whereby rare commodities could be controlled and distributed by specific individuals, who thus became powerful in their own right without any need to invoke the power of the ancestors which had been so crucial during the Neolithic. This may well be true, and the initial impact of bronzeworking on society must have been spectacular, but the origins of such a new social system may lie in the later Neolithic rather than in any sort ofrevolution.

For those few of us who have for many years risked being written off as members of the lunatic fringe through our particular interest in prehistoric rock art, it has been interesting to watch our subject become increasingly 'trendy' over the last two or three years. No doubt, had cup-and ring marks existed in Wessex they would have become an acceptable subject of study by 'proper' archaeologists long ago, but in fact the subject remains understudied and now offers a huge range of research possibilities if it can be properly integrated into mainstream studies. Back in 1979, the late Ronald Morris listed 104 explanations of cup and ring marks that had come to his attention over the years (Morris 1979, 15-28). It is probably safe to dismiss most of these, such as illustrations of sperms entering eggs, messages from outer space, sacred cow pats or (my personal favourite) marks of sexual prowess, whereby the chief carved a motif to celebrate each female conquest he made (though we are not told why certain such conquests necessitated the production of a complex motif including half a dozen rings while the vast majority were deserving only of a humble little cup mark!). While it is easy to dismiss such silly ideas, it is interesting to note that some of the most recent studies (eg. Bradley 1997), employing the latest scientific and statistical techniques, differ little in their basic conclusions from some of the suggestions of George Tate ( 1865) and others in the middle of the last century.

Traditionally, the onset of the Bronze Age has been linked to the appearance of beakers and their attendant 'Beaker Folk'. By virtue of its aesthetic appeal, most beaker pottery has been adequately recorded (eg. Tait 1965), but the influence of 'Beaker objects' on subsequent styles of artefacts, and of the 'Beaker Folk' on subsequent styles of people, is still a matter of heated debate. Most current thinking sees the adoption of Beaker assemblages by native populations as the result of diffusion, with the Beakers themselves functioning as prestige items, status symbols or primitive valuables. In contrast, the old and much maligned view of 'Beaker Folk' as immigrants, bringing with them their Beakers (for new alcoholic drinks of some type?), and possibly other novelties such as copper technology and new ceremonial and ritual customs, sits uncomfortably with much modem archaeological theory but does nevertheless seem to fit the data better in several respects (Brodie 1994). Alex Gibson (1984, 11) in a discussion of north British beakers notes that "the spread of beakers can be likened to the advance of Rome in a later period". While he is certainly not suggesting an invasion by waves of 'Beaker warriors', this is an important observation which could reflect the initial introduction of beakers into Central Britain by migrants, be they traders, missionaries, bands of warriors, or simply bands of pioneers in search of new homelands for a variety of possible reasons. In fact, the adoption of beakers throughout our region probably resulted from a combination of immigration and emulation, and alternative theories should not necessarily be seen as mutually exclusive. The Neolithic-Bronze Age transition (the 'Copper Age' or the 'Beaker Period') is an important but currently understudied area: detailed regional studies outside of Wessex and eastern Yorkshire will be essential

Basic analyses of various aspects of rock art will surely lead to some interesting revelations, such as the recently recognised and extraordinary relationship between the rare spiral motif and red coloured rock at a variety of sites (examples include Morwick Mill in Northumberland, Ancrum in the Scottish Borders, the Calderstones in Liverpool, Hawthomden near Edinburgh, Long Meg and perhaps Castlerigg in Cumbria (Frodsham 1996b). Once made, such observations offer intriguing possibilities for interpretation, and ethnographic studies offer a range of 20

Frodsham: Worlds without ends

ifwe are to reach a better understanding ofit.

the later Neolithic, despite the fact that the Neolithic sites often acted as foci for Bronze Age ceremonial activity. This relationship between Neolithic and Bronze Age ritual practices certainly demands further study, with a key question being the extent to which the transition between the two periods was a gradual development rather than anything cataclysmic. We should remember that the final form of Bronze Age cairns can mask a complex development, and must be wary of interpreting monuments on the basis of surface evidence alone. However, some characteristics of early Bronze Age monuments are undoubtedly rooted firmly in the Neolithic. For example, in addition to the modification of Neolithic monuments (such as several of the great Cumbrian stone circles) to incorporate burials, the basic circular form of newly constructed cairns, incorporating a ring ofkerbstones, must recall the earlier tradition of open circular ceremonial monuments. It might be a useful exercise to re-examine a selection of Bronze Age cairns excavated in antiquity to assess the extent to which the form, and indeed the distribution, of such monuments might relate to local Neolithic sites.

Regardless of the functions of beakers, it is very difficult to incorporate them into a sequential development of native pottery traditions. They appear 'out of the blue' with no local origins, and do not seem to greatly influence subsequent styles. It is now generally accepted that "the two major sepulchral pottery styles of the early second millennium, Food Vessels and Collared Urns, both developed out of the Peterborough tradition with little external influence" and that "the main domestic pottery of this period, Cordoned Urns and associated pottery, which later develop into the regional bucket um traditions, were developed out of the Grooved Ware tradition" (ibid., 87-8). In contrast "the Beaker phenomenon disappears as suddenly and as mysteriously as it arrives" (ibid., 94). Leaving aside the Beaker conundrum, it seems to me that our so-called Bronze Age is increasingly struggling for an identity, which is odd considering that the period offers us our most 'complete' prehistoric landscapes (in terms of visible settlements, agricultural systems, and ceremonial monuments). It is clear that throughout most of the Bronze Age little effort was applied to the construction of massive new ceremonial monuments (although many earlier ones were modified and re-used), and similarly no large settlement sites such as the later hillforts were constructed. It could be argued that the main characteristic of the period is the transition from a 'Neolithic ceremonial landscape' dominated by ritual monuments to an 'Iron Age agricultural landscape' dominated by hillforts and enclosed settlements. Indeed, the later Bronze Age is so very different from the early Bronze Age that their classification as part of the same Age must be regarded as extremely dubious. This is by no means a new observation. Over 20 years ago Colin Burgess (1976a, 1) wrote that "while the perils of the conventional three age terminology are widely appreciated, its complete abandonment has for long been frustrated because of the difficulty of writing anything without reference to it .... So the traditional expressions linger on, and while they survive they exert an insidious influence on the researcher and his pattern of thought". Burgess goes on to observe that this pattern is particularly acute during the third and second millennia BC, and I would add that it is becoming increasingly difficult to justify the presence of an independent Bronze Age within this outmoded framework. Nevertheless, I am retaining the conventional chronological system for the purposes of this paper, so will now highlight what I think could be some profitable avenues of enquiry into the Bronze Age of Central Britain.

With regard to Bronze Age cairns, it is worth pointing out the potential of those which on the surface may appear as far from spectacular examples. Recent investigation of Bronze Age cairns at Ingram in the Breamish Valley has demonstrated that a very prominent cairn on W ether Hill had been robbed in antiquity, while another example, so ephemeral in the landscape that it was completely missed by the extremely thorough RCHME South-East Cheviots Survey, has proved to be an exceptionally interesting monument (ASUD 1994-98). There is certainly a lesson here for devotees of the Monuments Protection Programme: the potential importance of a cairn cannot be ascertained from its surface form alone. There must be more to Bronze Age religion than cairns and barrows, however complex these monuments may have become, and the nature of ritual activity once burial beneath round mounds had become unfashionable remains a mystery. There is as yet little evidence from our region for the deposition of votive offerings in the form of metal objects and hoards in wet places. This would perhaps be a topic worthy of study, perhaps starting with a reassessment of the circumstance of discovery of metal artefacts throughout the region, but its resolution may lie largely on chance discovery. Nick Higham (1986, 102) has observed that "throughout the second millennium, the introduction of bronze artefacts and bronze working to the northern counties was small in scale and retarded when compared to developments in southern Britain especially". In spite of this, the initial impact of copper and bronze working must have been immense to those who had access to the resulting objects, even if the new technology didn't actually result in any great advances in agricultural production such as those which followed the introduction of iron working. The introduction of metalworking must have been linked in

We are used to talking in terms of early Bronze Age burial mounds containing one or more single burials, of which there are many hundreds throughout our region, and their associated ceramic traditions are well known, if understudied. It is interesting to observe the apparent general uniformity of early Bronze Age monuments (cairns, cremation cemeteries, cist burials etc, and the artefacts contained within them) in comparison to those of 21

Northern Pasts

some way to the decline in stone axe production, and consequently to the breakdown of long established exchange networks, although stone and flint working may have endured well into the later Bronze Age in some areas. We know nothing about copper or lead mining in the region despite the presence of natural resources in, for example, the Lake District and North Pennines. Given the scale of later workings in these areas it may be that any physical evidence for prehistoric mining has been obliterated, although detailed work on the sourcing of bronze artefacts may prove worthwhile in this context. The development of 'prestige' items, notably weapons, in the later Bronze Age suggests an emphasis on status and display, and this may be closely linked to the genesis of the fortified hilltop settlements many of which were eventually to develop into the hillforts of the Iron Age. Clearly, there is still much scope for studies of the nature and social implications of Bronze Age metallurgy throughout Central Britain.

the uplands throughout this time is poorly understood" (ibid.). As noted above, this is odd given that this period "has left the richest and most varied archaeological record of settlement for any period of prehistory, in which life and death are extensively represented in surviving remains" (RCAHMS 1997, 117). It is only within the last quarter of a century that we have begun to recognise the extent and quality of our surviving Bronze Age upland landscapes, many of which remain largely unsurveyed. "In some areas of the Cheviots one can walk through cairnfields, field systems and unenclosed settlements for kilometre after kilometre, and one is dealing with hundreds if not thousands of hectares of exploited land" (Burgess 1995, 156), most of which appears to date from the early to middle Bronze Age, although much work remains to be done with regard to the detailed chronology of these landscapes. Similarly complex Bronze Age landscapes are present west of the Pennines, for example on Burnmoor, Eskdale (Higham 1986, 89) where extensive cairnfields incorporate a number of roundhouses and at least five stone circles. Evidently, there is much potential here for further fieldwork and for speculative interpretation. It may have been during this period that certain symbolic considerations became increasingly embodied within domestic structures with considerably less effort expended on the construction and maintenance of specifically 'ritual' monuments. For example, the entrances of roundhouses throughout the region tend to face south- east, and while this may have been for practical reasons it seems perhaps more likely that a large degree of symbolism, drawing on the monuments of previous millennia, may have been involved.

Further work could be targeted towards the investigation of burnt mounds, which appear to date from the later Neolithic through until the late Bronze Age (2500-800 BC). The recent Northumberland Archaeological Group excavations at Titlington Mount have demonstrated the potential of such sites, uncovering within one such mound a complex structural sequence featuring hearths, troughs and stone-built fixtures, with C14 dates suggesting use from about 2000 through until at least 1400 BC (Topping 1998). Palaeoenvironmental evidence from the site suggested a change from scrub woodland to moorland during this time. Although the burnt mounds may have functioned as saunas, the most likely explanation is that they were cooking places, possibly in some cases associated with temporary hunting camps, but if so the nature of the diners, and of the settlements to which they returned after dinner, requires much further investigation.

The issue of later Bronze Age settlement in our upland landscapes, and consequently the background to the origin of our hillforts, still provides us with something of a headache for which the remedy can only be sought in fresh fieldwork. Colin Burgess, in his now ageing but nevertheless still extremely influential 'speculative survey' of prehistoric settlement in Northumberland, cites a ''widespread collapse of existing political, social and economic systems" in the period 1200-1000 BC which seems to have gone hand-in-hand with the "wholesale abandonment of upland settlements as deteriorating climate added to all the other pressures that had been building up: too many people, insufficient land, and fragile upland soils stressed to breaking point" (Burgess 1984, 153). He suggests population losses at this time may have been a great as the 30-50% which resulted from plague in the middle ages. More recently, Burgess (1995, 154) has noted that "none of the upland settlements excavated, in Scotland or England, continued in use beyond the late second millennium and into the late Bronze Age". He believes that settlement at this time retreated into the lowlands, and that the uplands were given over to grazing, hunting and woodcutting, arguing that settlement only returned to the uplands in about the seventh century BC in the form of unenclosed farmsteads and, before long, the palisaded sites many of which evolved into hillforts. The availability of timber to construct the palisaded sites is cited by Burgess as

A consideration of Bronze Age settlement brings us to the bewildering array of late prehistoric roundhouse settlements recorded throughout the region. The Scottish Commission's East Dumfriesshire volume (RCAHMS 1997) includes a comprehensive discussion of the multitude of sites falling into this category, dating from early Bronze Age to the Romano-British period, and I would refer you to this volume if you wish to bring yourselves up to date with current thinking on these sites. There are a number of surviving unenclosed settlements in the uplands which may date from as early as the middle of the third millennium BC (though most may have originated closer to 1800 BC) through until the late second or early first millennium, and the occupation of some of these presumably equates with the earliest evidence for arable clearances on the hills which Richard Tipping (1997a, 20) dates to the centuries after 2500 BC. Tipping has recently written that "any understanding of anthropogenic activity in southern Scotland over the period of almost 2000 years covering most of the bronze age and the iron age is difficult to come by; in comparison with the preceding and succeeding periods the utilisation of the valleys and hills of 22

Frodsham: Worlds without ends evidence for woodland regeneration in the uplands as such quantities of timber could not have been available in the extensively cleared landscapes of the earlier Bronze Age. Burgess's model may appear convincing, but we must be wary of accepting it without recourse to further fieldwork. It may be, for example, that occupation of some unenclosed settlements extends into the first millennium, while evidence from Scotland suggests that some hillfort sites may have been occupied very soon after 1000 BC, if not slightly earlier. In Medieval times the uplands of the Border region witnessed the decline and abandonment of many once prosperous villages with extensive field systems, and the eventual establishment of defensible bastles, providing secure accommodation for man and beast during the infamous era of the Border Reivers. Could we perhaps be seeing something similar in the abandonment of Bronze Age open settlements (and largely arable field systems?) in favour of the enclosed settlements (and largely pastoral economy?) of the early Iron Age? There is clearly a need for more evidence relating to the chronology of these sites, and also for more detailed palaeoenvironmental fieldwork, if we are to approach an understanding of the Bronze Age-Iron Age transition in our uplands.

can be seen in the recent volumes edited by Gwilt and Haselgrove (1997), Champion and Collis (1996) and Bevan (1999). Colin Haselgrove (in press) has recently completed an important overview of Iron Age studies in Central Britain, including a much more comprehensive consideration of future research priorities than it is possible to present here. Haselgrove notes that "putting people back into Iron Age settlement studies requires an integrated approach to the various categories of evidence- structural, depositional, artefactual and environmental- at both site and landscape level" (ibid.). This integrated approach should also apply to our theoretical frameworks: it is worth echoing John Collis' warning that "research and interpretation must be multi-faceted: we must view our subject from as many stances as possible, and we must allow as many different approaches to collide and interact. There should be no politically correct approach (except of course the politically correct approach of anarchism!) ... .Interpretation of data should not be approached from just one position" (Collis 1997, 300). Certainly, we should encourage a variety of approaches to the available data, but in seeking to construct new models we should perhaps stop to remind ourselves on a regular basis that "Iron Age societies were far more messy than our models of them"! (Hill 1996, 113).

The Iron Age

A quarter of a century ago Barry Cunliffe (1974, 251) observed that "one essential preliminary to the reconstruction of Iron Age society is the need to understand the meaning of hill-forts". More recently, Collis has reviewed the development of Iron Age studies over the past 50 years, during which hillforts have been interpreted as responses to invasion, internal stresses, central foci for communities, defences, industrial centres, redistributive centres, residences for social elites, status symbols, storage centres for agricultural surpluses and centres for trading networks (Collis 1994, 131). He also pointed out the shift in excavation strategy, away from concentrating on cultural affinity by examining rampart and entrance-way types (regardless of variations in raw materials) to examining hillfort interiors and the socio-economic lifestyles of the inhabitants. In this important paper there is not a single mention of a Cheviot hillfort, nor of the wider context of the Borders in general, yet the paper ends with a plea for a way forward: "the future must lie in regional studies ....to understand patterns of settlement, land use, industrial production, exchange and social organisation" (ibid., 143).

The Iron Age section of this paper is based largely on the results of a recent Strategic Study of the fifty or so hillforts in the Northumberland National Park, commissioned by the National Park Authority from Steve Speak of Tyne and Wear Museums (Speak 1997). The latter forms a basis for the proposed £0.7 million European and Lottery funded 'Discovering our Hillfort Heritage' project, covering the research and conservation of prehistoric landscapes throughout the Northumberland Cheviots. There are of course many aspects of Iron Age life worthy of study which are not covered here (not the least of which is the nature of iron working), and there are large areas of Central Britain which are devoid of hillforts, but nevertheless the hillforts do provide a sound theme through which to address many aspects of Iron Age society and must figure in a research agenda such as that under discussion here. By way of introduction to a discussion of hillforts, we should briefly consider the concept of the 'Iron Age'. This period has often been described as in a pivotal position between "a very alien Neolithic and Bronze Age" and a "historic, commonsensical Roman Britain" (Johnson 1997, 309). However, this is something of a dangerous approach as many elements of the Iron Age and Romano-British worlds were no less alien to us than those of preceding periods, and we should certainly be wary of an overreliance on 'commonsensical' interpretations. Indeed, the realisation that things in the Iron Age were not necessarily 'boring', and that the period offers vast potential for novel interpretative accounts, has led to a "new vitality and interest ... .in Iron Age studies" (ibid., 310), much of which

It is likely that most hillforts saw a variety of functions throughout their individual histories, ranging from their initial construction, perhaps in the face of a climatic deterioration leading to the abandonment of the unenclosed Bronze Age settlements and to greater pressure on agricultural land, through until their eventual (if, in some cases, only temporary) abandonment in the late Iron Age or Romano-British period. The general applicability of the Hownam sequence, from palisade to 'proper' hillfort to open settlement, still remains unproven. While this 23

Northern Pasts

sequence does seem to apply to a large number of sites, it may over-simplify a period which saw the complex development of many sites over several centuries, with each individual site developing according to local circumstances. It may be that the various monuments we lump together as hillforts in fact include a number of different site types, perhaps ranging in function and in time. It goes without saying that much fieldwork will be required over many decades before anything approaching a full understanding of our hillforts can be expected, but some avenues of enquiry for hillfort studies in Central Britain could include the following.

Haselgrove 1997, 3), are as much symbolic as functional provides fascinating opportunities for new interpretative accounts. The study of natural features and artificial earthworks such as cross-ridge dykes has the potential to tell us much about the occupants of the hillforts that we couldn't hope to learn from the excavation of the forts themselves. Recent investigation of the W ether Hill crossridge dyke at Ingram has suggested that it was constructed in 250 BC and only finally abandoned in about 500 AD. Similar work at adjacent sites would confirm to what extent these were in use simultaneously, and in conjunction with the investigation of undefended settlements could help us to understand the settlement patterns within each fort's immediate environs as well as studying the development of the concept of territoriality. On a wider scale, an insight into the relative territories of central British Iron Age 'tribes' such as the Votadini, Selgovae and Brigantes might be possible through the detailed examination of sites on the ground, although for now it remains true that "no distinctive Votadinian or Selgovian traits are recognisable in the somewhat lean harvest of relics so far recovered from Early Iron Age sites in the Tyne-Forth province, while the forts do not fall into two broad groups corresponding to the tribal territories" (Steer 1964, 14).

Hillfort origins still provide much opportunity for research. At least some of the larger examples (such as Burnswark, and Eildon Hill North) appear to date from the early first millennium BC, and at Burnswark the hillfort was apparently preceded by a palisade. Could it be that the earliest hillforts were the largest, with later, smaller hillforts following as regional foci for a more divided society, perhaps in a similar way to that whereby small Bronze Age monuments followed the great Neolithic enclosures? There may be other relationships between the development of Iron Age monuments and those of the Neolithic (for example, hillforts replaced timber palisades, as stone circles replaced timber circles) and the actual functions of the hillforts may relate quite closely to those of some Neolithic enclosures. Richard Bradley (1998, 162), in a recent discussion of Neolithic monuments, observes that "the stability of stone and earthwork monuments stands in total contrast to the flux of daily life and even transcends the passing of the generations": hillfort studies might well benefit from some of the ideas currently in vogue amongst students of the Neolithic. There undoubtedly exists a complex relationship between hillforts and a variety of non-defensive roundhouse settlements which may be contemporary, but without a campaign of fieldwork this will be impossible to prove. It fact, it would surprise me if the relationship between the hillforts and native settlements of say the Bowmont or College Valleys were any less complex that those of the much better known landscape of Danebury and its hinterland (Palmer 1984). Gill Ferrell has analysed the "extensive, but dull" Iron Age settlement record of northeast England in an attempt to "open up a discourse in which the past may be viewed not in terms of settlement or artefact typologies, but in terms of social organisation" (Ferrell 1997, 228), and she has certainly succeeded in demonstrating the "possibility of extracting much more information from the existing data" (ibid., 236). Much more work of this kind could be profitably undertaken using the existing data, although the case for further fieldwork (eg. to examine the relative dating of different types of site, and to clarify the development of individual sites through time) becomes even clearer as such work progresses. The recognition that boundaries, as "liminal ent1t1es between different categories of space and being" (Gwilt & 24

Richard Tipping has reviewed the palynological evidence for Iron Age agriculture throughout Central Britain and concludes that "a marked shift in the intensity with which agriculture was practised took place in the later Iron Age, post 350 cal BC .... This expansion has its roots securely within the native economy of the Iron Age, and Roman intervention of influence is not required or recognised" (Tipping 1997b, 245). This expansion in Iron Age agriculture now seems irrefutable, but the relationship between hillforts and field systems, and between arable farming and stock rearing throughout the Iron Age, requires much further work. A decade ago, in the face of increasing evidence for Iron Age agricultural systems throughout Central Britain, Peter Topping (1989, 175) felt able to announce that the footloose Celtic Cowboy had finally met his High Noon. We know that cord rigg can be prehistoric, and many agricultural terraces must be likewise. Personally, I think there is a very good case to be made for some (although probably only a small percentage) of our so-called 'Medieval' rigg and furrow to be prehistoric, but this must await the necessary investigation in the field. Stock-rearing, most probably cattle ranching, may account for the large outer enclosures surrounding some hillforts (eg. Lordenshaws and Prendwick Chesters) and the distinctive walled trackways associated with others (eg. Greaves Ash). The current excavations on Wether Hill, already referred to above, have uncovered extensive and complex remains, most probably of enclosures for stock control, with absolutely no surface trace whatsoever in the immediate vicinity of the hillfort, and this serves to remind us that the hillforts must not be studied or managed in isolation. It is now clear that hillforts were associated with complex pastoral and arable regimes, and I sometimes wonder whether the economy and social structure of the Iron Age may have been rather similar in many respects to

Frodsham: Worlds without ends that of the Border Reivers of the 17th century AD.

have been obvious to those working the fields that their ancestors must at some time have constructed the first field, and it may be that cremations were scattered in the fields or placed in or beneath field walls rather than being interred in specifically 'ritual' monuments as had been the case in earlier times. Such activity need not necessarily represent a clean break with what had happened previously: Bronze Age burials within 'clearance' cairns have been recorded at a number of sites. In addition to possible direct links between burial and agriculture, it may even be that the apparently routine building and maintenance of field walls included an element of 'ritual', as has been suggested for Iron Age ditch systems elsewhere. We must also be aware of the possibility of Iron Age ceremonial monuments masquerading in the archaeological record as something else, such as the recently excavated and apparently unique earthwork at Over Rig in Dumfries (RCAHMS 1997, 846).

There was much regional variation throughout the Iron Age of Central Britain, and in addition to studying the hillfort dominated landscapes which do exist we must address the reasons for the virtual absence of hillforts from some parts of the region, for example the Lake District and Hadrian's Wall corridor. ''New approaches to hill-forts must attempt to answer why the majority of societies in Iron Age England could do without them" (Hill 1996, 101). Evidently, there were a number of different 'Iron Age worlds' throughout the region, and we must now seek to "characterise these differences- as reflected in depositional practices, artefact distributions, subsistence strategies or settlement patterns- in more detail, and determine the scale at which they apply, from localised anomalies to subregional patterns" (Haselgrove, in press). In this context it worth noting Higham's (1986,141) observation, made on the basis of a lack of iron implements but perhaps also of relevance to the lack of hillforts, that "the very existence of a pre-Roman 'Iron Age' is in doubt for Cumbria".

John Collis (1997, 298) reminds us that "Ritual can no longer be viewed simply as a means of explaining (or rather labelling) the funny bits that we do not understand; it is an integral part of all interpretation". Bearing this in mind, the issue of symbolic or 'ritual' architecture within hillforts, which are usually regarded primarily as functional defensive structures, would surely repay investigation. For example, why are so many hillforts and all the houses within them circular in plan? And why do so many roundhouses within hillforts have eastward facing entrances? Mike Parker-Pearson observes that "Just why houses were round and why this design was so popular (when rectangular houses were being constructed on the continent) has never been explained. We should bear in mind the extent to which vernacular architecture all over the world incorporates cosmological referents when considering this question. Perhaps, as in so may other places, the house acted as a microcosm of the universe, with the passing of time measured around the walls of the house. The entrance to the east might be related to the sunrise and the daily rebirth of the cycle of light and darkness which revolved around the house" (ParkerPearson 1996, 119). Of course, many of our hillforts are far from circular in plan, and these offer equally tantalising questions of interpretation. For example, is there any significance in the location and orientation of hillfort entrances? Why was Y eavering Bell apparently given an original entrance in its northern side, passing out over a precipitous drop, and is it significant that this site's main entrance is aligned almost due south towards the massive and distinctive profile of Hedgehope? What, if anything, was the symbolic significance of the pink andesite (which weathers to a dull grey within a few decades of exposure to the elements, but is bright pink when freshly quarried) used for the construction of many Cheviot hillforts? These issues, which I suspect would already have been much studied had the hillforts been from the same era as the henges, certainly offer vast potential for exciting new research projects.

The relationship between different structures within hillforts, in particular the differences between scooped platforms, ring-groove and stone-founded structures, all of varying sizes, must be addressed, as must the evaluation of the apparent absence of any structures from the interiors of some of our most complex forts. The latter issue may be partially resolved through a programme of geophysical survey currently being explored by the Northumberland National Park Authority in association with English Heritage, although the ability of conventional geophysical techniques to function effectively on Cheviot geology has yet to be demonstrated. What happened to the dead during the Iron Age? "As robust and active as these Celtic tribesmen appear to have been in life, they remain as yet most elusive in death" (Jobey 1974, 16). One or two Iron Age burials in supposedly Bronze Age burial cairns have come to light over the years, but it would appear as though virtually all the individuals who would have lived in or otherwise experienced hillforts during this period were disposed of in ways not visible to us in the archaeological record. (Just as in the Neolithic, things were of course different in Yorkshire, where some wealthy 'Arras Culture' folk were interred with their chariots, and even peasants took a few of their favourite pots with them to their graves). Ethnographic studies may throw some light on the possibilities relating to Iron Age death and religion, but one aspect which may be of considerable interest is the extent to which the Iron Age mythological landscape was influenced by those of earlier periods. It may be no accident that several hillforts are located immediately adjacent to, if not directly on top of, panels of much older rock art, while others apparently contain earlier burial cairns within their interiors. Some field systems appear to have been laid out around earlier burial monuments, and it may well be that these fields acted in some way as ceremonial or ritual monuments in their own right. It would

Finally, the dynamics ofhillfort abandonment, and possible 25

Northern Pasts

re-occupation at a much later date, require further work. George Jobey (1974, 16) notes that "In the middle decades of the first century AD these upland folk, secure within their defences and following a way of life not vastly changed over centuries, must have been made aware of an Imperial power already established in territories to the south, even if the news came only at second hand from escaping refugees or venturesome traders. And in the long run, they themselves were not to escape the new Roman order". Could it be that some hillfort defences were effectively pulled down by order of the Roman military, or was there simply no need for such defensive sites due to changes in the nature of society? The fact that so-called Romano-British settlements sit directly on top of flattened ramparts at some sites suggests that the idea of direct Roman involvement in the abandonment of hillfort defences may not be entirely fanciful, although in at least some cases the construction of stone-founded roundhouse settlements on top of abandoned hillforts apparently occurred in the pre-Roman Iron Age (Armit 1997, 65). Careful excavation, such as that planned by the Northumberland Archaeological Group at Wether Hill over the next few summers, will almost certainly throw light on this issue. However, we must be wary of constructing general models from a handful of partially excavated sitessome forts may have been abandoned while others thrived, and we simply do not know how many hillforts were still occupied or defended when the Roman military machine arrived in our region.

the adjacent River Glen by Paulinus, who visited Gefrin in 627 AD at the invitation of King Edwin to preach to the local population. It is tempting to see the locals leaving their homesteads and farms in the hills, some of which we can still visit today, to hear Paulinus, and possibly also King Edwin, lecture on the new religion at Gefrin. The Anglo-Saxon complex of Gefrin, with its great hall, auditorium, temple, massive defended enclosure and other structures, must have been lent considerable authority by the towering and immediate presence of the old hillfort, which presumably acted as a similar political and ritual centre throughout previous centuries. Indeed, the relationship between hillfort, palace and other sites at Y eavering is one which demands much future work (Frodsham & Anderson, in press), and which could conceivably tell us a great deal about the possible significance of Cheviot hillforts during the Romano-British era and the Dark Ages. While the detailed study and classification of the archaeological remains at Y eavering is important, the quest for hard facts in no way detracts from the sheer magic of the place. A place where ancient remains stretching back five millennia survive within an exquisite landscape including vast, open tracts of heather moorland and ancient semi-natural woodland. Yeavering, perhaps more than any other spot throughout the whole of Northumberland, allows the visitor to truly experience history in the landscape.

I cannot conclude this brief consideration of hillforts in Central Britain without a further visit to Y eavering Bell, one of the most impressive and atmospheric of archaeological landscapes: "its old written history, beginning with the Venerable Bede, and its older unwritten history, as seen in its great stone walls, its hut circles, and mounds have given rise to much speculation among antiquaries" (Tate 1862, 431 ). While Yeavering Bell is special in being by far the largest of Northumberland's hillforts, containing the visible remains of some 125 roundhouses (RCHME 1998), it also clearly demonstrates the manner in which most N orthumbrian hillforts represent just one element of their surrounding archaeological landscapes and must be managed accordingly. The AngloSaxon Royal Palace of Gefrin, just to the north of the hillfort, lends the whole area an almost mythical aura (Hope-Taylor 1977). In its prime, during the seventh century AD, Gefrin contained a great hall which must have been very similar in appearance to Beowulfs 'Heurot' ("the greatest banqueting hall ever known ....tall and widegabled, the hall towered overhead: yet it was to endure terrible and leaping flames"). Indeed, the palace at Gefrin was destroyed by fire on more than one occasion, almost certainly as the result of conflict between the new AngloSaxon elite and native British communities to the south and west, and was eventually abandoned in favour of nearby Maelmin (now Milfield). Prior to its abandonment, however, the site must have borne witness to many important historical events, one of which is known to us through the writings of Bede: the baptism of many locals in

The Romano-British period It has long been a problem in Central Britain that Roman military archaeologists and prehistorians have worked away at their chosen subjects with little reference to each other. In some cases this may be because they don't like each other, but I prefer to think of it simply as an accident of history. Either way, the result of this has been that readers of current textbooks on Hadrian's Wall are still told that ''Normal Roman practice was to establish an empty zone in front of the frontier, five or even ten miles deep; the native settlements are no nearer to the Wall on the north, and in the area of the Wall itself there is only one, the second century site at Milking Gap near Housesteads" (Breeze & Dobson 1978, 199). Students of the Wall may, therefore, be surprised to learn that recent air photography by Tim Gates has resulted in the discovery of a dozen stone-built native settlements, which from surface evidence could be Romano-British in date, some in association with extensive contemporary field systems and all within 5km of the Wall. Yet, while vast resources are continually ploughed into the recording of every little stone on the Wall, these settlements, along with possibly many others, remain unrecorded and very much unprotected and unstudied. The Northumberland National Park Authority has recently commissioned Tim Gates to undertake a baselevel survey of the historic landscape, including all visible prehistoric and medieval remains, throughout that part of

26

Frodsham: Worlds without ends

the Wall corridor within the National Park (Gates n.d.), but due to the lack of available grant aid this is in many ways inadequate. Surely, much of the interest in the Roman period lies in the study of the relationships between Roman and native, and this applies throughout Britain as much as it does to Hadrian's Wall. However, I would suggest that given the level of world-wide interest in the World Heritage Site it is here, above all, that we should be seeking to get this balance right. There is an urgent need for a research project into later prehistoric settlement in the Wall corridor, and until this has been completed it would be advisable to regard most accounts of Romano-British settlement in Central Britain with some scepticism.

settlements in at least some areas continued largely unaffected by the advent of the 'Romano-British' period. This, coupled with the recognition that a great deal of Romano-British agricultural land was already in production by the late first millennium BC, serves to remind us that there was much continuity throughout late Iron Age Romano-British times. However, the extent to which the residents of these native settlements eventually came into contact with the Roman military must have varied from region to region, and in areas such as Redesdale, where Romano-British homesteads with extensive cord rigg field systems are strung out along Dere Street like beads on a string, it seems impossible that there could have been anything other than a close working relationship between the two. Indeed, the Roman fort of Bremenium would have represented a ready market for any surplus produce generated by these settlements for those periods during which a garrison was in residence. Recent geophysical work undertaken by Mark Noel, as part of a long-term project led by Jim Crow, for the Northumberland National Park Authority (Crow 1992-98), has suggested that this Roman fort overlies a large rectilinear enclosure which it is hoped to investigate in the future. Whether or not this apparently native site was forcibly taken by the Romans, or whether they simply used an abandoned site, may not be resolved for some time. It is worth noting, if only in passing, that while Romans could occupy abandoned native sites (as may have happened at High Rochester), the reverse is equally possible: the two scooped hut platforms within the Roman fort at Burnswark in Dumfriesshire suggest that the natives here were prepared to occupy abandoned Roman sites when the opportunity arose, and this may have occurred more widely in some areas than has hitherto been appreciated.

Bill Hanson and David Breeze in a paper entitled 'The Future of Roman Scotland'- which incidentally includes the observation that "Roman Scotland is .... taken to mean Britain north of the Tyne-Solway isthmus since this is a more sensible geographical unit" (1991, 57)- have noted that "there seems little value in further large scale excavation within auxiliary forts" (ibid., 69), but that future detailed investigation of fort annexes could tell us a great deal about logistics and supply, including the nature of local involvement in these processes. Hanson and Breeze stress the need to consider Roman forts as merely foci of activity, and highlight the need to move away from sitebased research projects to more regional perspectives and attempts to consider contemporary landscapes. Such approaches should, in my view, take as their starting point the late Iron Age landscape and should seek to explain developments throughout the Romano-British period in the light of what had gone on before: the imposition of Roman authority and the associated appearance of Roman military structures being but one of many influences affecting developments to varying degrees throughout our region during this period.

Nick Higham has noted that "the artefact-discard rates on military/vicus sites and adjacent farm sites are as different as those of a Western city compared with a Third World village community" (1986, 224), and that generally in northern England "town and country did not share an economy but belonged to separate economic systems with only limited points of contact" (ibid., 226). Higham also observes that "to the extent to which the archaeologist is competent to judge, the military interfered little with the farming community in Northumberland, but this could eventually prove to be a rash oversimplification" (ibid., 180). Progress here is most likely to come from further studies of native sites, with a view to a better understanding of Higham's "limited points of contact". I have already alluded to the possibility of native farmsteads providing resources for the Roman military, and few would now question a prehistoric origin for some of the cultivation terraces in the Cheviots. Further evidence for a possible link between Roman and Native may be represented by the date of c. 150 AD recently obtained from a ditch fill containing a large quantity of barley at the Ingram South enclosure in the Breamish valley, which is only a couple of miles from the Roman road known to us as the Devil's Causeway (ASUD 1996, 8-9; 1997, 6). I have asked Roman scholars whether the natives of Votadinian areas

Central Britain contains a wealth of settlements apparently dating from the Romano-British period, although it is certainly true that we are currently unable to distinguish from surface evidence alone between settlements dating from this period and the pre-Roman Iron Age (Jobey 1970). The variety of settlement forms dating from this general period is in itself worthy of much study (Jobey 1982). For example, in Northumberland the relationship between the rectilinear settlements of the lowlands and the irregular Cheviot settlements may "reflect nothing more than the topographical irregularities of the Cheviot Hills" (Burgess 1984, 166), but it is also possible that the form of these settlements reflects cultural differences for which explanations should be sought in the preceding Iron Age. Regardless of this, it would appear that throughout much of Central Britain the majority of the population was living in small homesteads or villages prior to the coming of the Romans, and palaeoenvironmental evidence from a number of sites suggests that a massive episode of clearance coincided with the advent of these new settlements. George Jobey's work at a number ofNorthumbrian sites (eg. those excavated in advance of the Kielder Reservoir in North Tynedale: Jobey 1978) demonstrates that the occupation of 27

Northern Pasts

such as the Breamish valley may have effectively bought peace through the provision of crops to the Romans, and have been told that this is quite likely, but (not surprisingly) that insufficient work has been done on the relationship between Roman and native in this part of the world to say any more at present. We have attempted to obtain dates for some of the terrace systems in the Breamish Valley, but, despite reports to the contrary, results to date have been inconclusive and further fieldwork is still required. Clearly there is a desperate need for a carefully co-ordinated, long-term programme of fieldwork throughout the region to examine the relationship between Roman and native throughout the years of the Roman occupation, and it would not be umeasonable, I would suggest, for some of the resources currently being expended on the Wall to be redirected towards such an initiative. This should be of no less interest to Roman scholars than it would be to those of us with a more general interest in the archaeology of the region.

so-called Romano-British settlements were abandoned during the second century, and if so these abandonment's may have been associated with the umest that led eventually to the campaigns of Severan and the recommissioning of Hadrian's Wall in around 210 AD. However, the fact that some Romano-British settlements survive relatively intact might suggest that these were occupied, and maintained, for much longer than others, and in my view any search for Dark Age settlement in the Cheviots could do a lot worse than to start with an investigation of some of these well preserved RomanoBritish settlements. The recent date of 500 AD obtained from a fire pit in a Bronze Age cairn at Ingram would suggest that people were living somewhere in this landscape at this time, and there are no better contenders visible in the immediate area than the 'Romano-British' village of Haystack Hill, although it is of course equally possible that some form of re-occupation may have occurred within the hillforts. George Jobey notes that "there can be little doubt that, in some upland areas of Northumberland, the enclosed settlements of round stone houses are the last form of small settlement observable on the ground before the establishment of farmsteads of mush more recent date" (Jobey 1964, 62). The chronological relationship between the founding of these "much more recent" farmsteads and the final abandonment of the round stone houses is one that requires much investigation in the field, although it falls well beyond the confines of this paper.

John Barrett and Sally Foster have stressed the importance of considering not just the relationships between the separate, developed economic and social systems represented by 'Roman' and 'native', but also the "conditions under which such a historical dichotomy may have been created ... .Instead of starting from such accepted and seemingly unproblematic categories as 'Roman' and 'native' by which to investigate the historical conditions of the period, we must recognise the formation of these categories as a product of history, and as such it is this which demands investigation" (Barrett & Foster 1991, 47). To this end, we must consider the effects of "localised face-to face exchanges", and not simply to explain the impact of Rome by reference to "the modelling of large scale political systems" (ibid.). The impact of Roman military occupation would have varied from place to place, as well as through time, throughout Central Britain. Hadrian's Wall "may have fragmented the assumptions of an agricultural community dependent upon seasonal movement, whilst at the same time providing moments when an indigenous population could have been subjected to the intense scrutiny of a military authority" (ibid., 48). In contrast, to the north and south of the Wall its existence may have meant very little and here "an intervening presence by the military will only have been effective through the extensive deployment of troops, represented not so much by the archaeological distribution of the forts and temporary camps as by the regular movement of men in the countryside between and beyond them" (ibid.). Ifwe hope to move beyond discussions of dates and distribution patterns to approach an understanding of the practices which created the complex human societies of Central Britain at this time then we must seek to consider the changing relationships between 'natives' and 'Romans' on a number of local levels as well as that of the Empire as a whole. In other words, we should apply equal weight to the study of the world of the individual native farmer as to the study of the World of Rome.

Conclusions Anyone present at the 'Northern Pasts' conference would be in no doubt that the archaeological landscapes of central Britain are second to none. Our region would undoubtedly justify the allocation of greater resources to its study, but it is pointless to sit back and moan about the need for more money. It is up to us, as archaeologists interested in the prehistory of Central Britain, to make the case and acquire the necessary resources for the levels of research demanded by our subject. If we are sufficiently positive and inventive, and stress the wider public benefits of the research that we are proposing, then the necessary resources will become available. There is a groundswell of public interest in archaeology to which we must respond in the short term, but great advances in our knowledge will not happen overnight. Indeed, many decades of fieldwork will be required before some of the questions posed in this paper can be adequately addressed. For now, we must focus the available resources on what we perceive to be the most important questions, and I believe that the most effective way of achieving this is through the adoption of a comprehensive research agenda for Central Britain. Such an agenda must "provide a framework within which questions can be asked rather than ending up with descriptive studies which become a sterile end in themselves" (Collis 1996, 1). It must seek to strike and

A number of excavations have suggested that many of our 28

Frodsham: Worlds without ends maintain sensible balances between the sometimes conflicting demands of research and conservation, and between regional and local priorities which may not always coincide. It will require much cross-border co-operation amongst organisations such as Historic Scotland, English Heritage, the Royal Commissions, academic institutions, local authority archaeologists and amateur organisations. Securing the agreement of so many authorities about anything may require a small miracle, but perhaps the Institute of Field Archaeologists and Council for British Archaeology could set the ball rolling by setting up crossborder Regional Groups with the stated aim of greater Anglo-Scottish co-operation within Central Britain. Should the proposed research agenda eventually emerge then it would provide a much needed framework for future projects, ranging from undergraduate dissertations to largescale professionally funded ventures. It should also help with the acquisition of funds, and would hopefully attract many new researchers into the region. It must stress the need to combine new investigative fieldwork with novel and exciting interpretative syntheses, while seeking to break down the rigid and increasingly irrelevant barriers between our conventional chronological and spatial 'worlds'. With luck, such a document could begin to pave the way towards a new prehistory for Central Britain.

Barker,

G. 1981. Approaches to prehistoric man in northern England. In G. Barker, (ed.) Prehistoric Communities in Northern England: essays in economic and social reconstruction. Sheffield: University of Sheffield. Barrett, J.C. & Foster, S.M. 1991. Passing the Time in Iron Age Scotland. In W.S. Hanson & E.A. Slater (eds.) Scottish Archaeology: new perspectives. Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press. Bevan, W. 1999. Northern Exposure: interpretative devolution and the Iron Ages in Britain. Leicester: Leicester Archaeology Monographs no. 4. Bewley, R. 1993. Survey and Excavation at a crop-mark enclosure, Plasketlands, Cumbria. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society 93. Bewley, R. 1994. Prehistoric and Romano-British Settlement in the Solway Plain, Cumbria. Oxford: Oxbow Monograph 36. Bradley, R. 1984. The Social Foundations of Prehistoric Britain. Harlow: Longman. Bradley, R. 1997. Rock Art and the Prehistory of Atlantic Europe: signing the land. London: Routledge. Bradley, R. 1998. The Significance of Monuments. London: Routledge. Bradley, R. & Edmonds, M. 1993. Interpreting the Axe Trade: production and exchange in Neolithic Britain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Breeze, D. & Dobson, B, 1978. Hadrian's Wall. London: Penguin. Brodie, N. 1994. The Neolithic-Bronze Age Transition in Britain: a critical review of some archaeological and craniological concepts. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports 238. Burgess, C. 1976a. Britain and Ireland in the third and second millennia BC: a preface. In C. Burgess & R. Miket (eds.) Settlement and Economy in the Third and Second Millennia BC. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports 33. Burgess, C. 1976b. Meldon Bridge: a Neolithic defended promontory complex near Peebles. In C. Burgess & R. Miket (eds.) Settlement and Economy in the Third and Second Millennia BC. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports 33. Burgess, C. 1984. The Prehistoric Settlement of Northumberland: A Speculative Survey. In R. Miket & C. Burgess (eds) Between and Beyond the Walls: essays on the prehistory and history of north Britain in honour of George Jobey. Edinburgh: John Donald. Burgess, C. 1995. Bronze Age settlements and domestic pottery in Northern Britain. In I. Kinnes & G. Varndell (eds.) Unbaked Urns of Rudely Shape: essays on British and Irish Pottery for Ian Longworth. Oxford: Oxbow monograph 55. Burl, H. AW. 1976. The Stone Circles of the British Isles. London: Yale University Press. Champion T. C. & Collis, J.R. (eds.) 1996. The Iron Age in Britain and Ireland: recent trends. Sheffield: J R Collis Publications.

Acknowledgements This paper was originally intended as a visually stimulating introduction to the Northern Pasts conference: I am unsure as to how successfully it has survived the transition to published manuscript without its pretty pictures. Nevertheless, thanks are due to everyone who took the trouble to discuss with me particular aspects of this paper (either at the conference or subsequently), to the editors of this volume for their patience, and to Colin Haselgrove for allowing me access to his thoughts on the future of the Iron Age prior to publication. I would also like to thank all those friends and colleagues who have had an involvement, however small, in any of the projects featured in the above discussion. Special thanks to Sandra Melia for commenting on the final draft, and to Katie and Claire for being so patient while Daddy was 'busy'.

References Adams, M. 1996. Setting the Scene: the Mesolithic in Northern England. In P. Frodsham (ed.) Neolithic Studies in No-Man's Land: papers on the Neolithic of Northern England, from the Trent to the Tweed. (= Northern Archaeology vol. 13/14). Newcastle: Northumberland Archaeological Group, 1-6. Armit, I. 1997. Celtic Scotland. Batsford/Historic Scotland. ASUD (Archaeological Services, University of Durham) 1994-98. The Ingram and Upper Breamish Valley Landscape Project. Unpublished annual interim reports for the Northumberland National Park Authority.

29

Northern Pasts Cherry, P. & Cherry, J. 1996. Coastline and upland in the Cumbrian Neolithic. In P. Frodsham (ed.)

Hanson,

Oxford: Oxbow Monograph 71. W.S. & Slater, E.A. (eds.)

Archaeology:

Neolithic Studies in No-Man's Land: papers on the Neolithic of Northern England, from the Trent to the Tweed. (= Northern Archaeology vol.

new

1991. Scottish Aberdeen:

perspectives.

Aberdeen University Press. Hanson, W.S. & Breeze, D. J. 1991. The Future of Roman Scotland. In W.S. Hanson & E.A. Slater (eds.)

13/14). Newcastle: Northumberland Archaeological Group, 61-6. Collis, J.R. 1994. The Iron Age. In B. Vyner (ed.) Building

Scottish

Archaeology:

new

perspectives.

Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press. Harding, J. 1996. Reconsidering the Neolithic round barrows of eastern Yorkshire. In P. Frodsham (ed.) Neolithic Studies in No-Man's Land: Papers

on the Past: papers celebrating 150 years of the Royal Archaeological Institute. London: Royal Archaeological Institute. Collis, J. R. 1996 Across the Great Divide. In T. C. Champion & J. R. Collis (eds.) The Iron Age in Britain and Ireland: recent trends. Sheffield: J R Collis Publications. Collis, J. R. 1997. Dynamic, descriptive and dead-end models: views of an ageing revolutionary. In A. Gwilt & C. Haselgrove (eds.) Reconstructing Iron

on the Neolithic of Northern England, From the Trent to the Tweed.(= Northern Archaeology vol. 13/14). Newcastle: Northumberland Archaeological Group, 67-78. Harding, J., Frodsham, P. & Durden, T. 1996. Towards an agenda for the Neolithic of Northern England. In P. Frodsham (ed.) Neolithic Studies in No-Man's

Land: Papers on the Neolithic of Northern England, From the Trent to the Tweed. (=

Age Societies: new approaches to the British Iron Age. Oxford: Oxbow Monograph 71, 297-302. Crow, J. 1992-98. Bremenium, High Rochester. Annual

Northern Archaeology vol. 13/14). Newcastle: Northumberland Archaeological Group, 189-201. Haselgrove, C. in press. Iron Age societies in central Britain: retrospect and prospect'. In W. Bevan (ed.) Northern Exposure: interpretative devolution and the Iron Ages in Britain. Leicester: Leicester Archaeology Monographs No. 4. Higham, N. 1986. The Northern Counties to AD 1000. London: Longman. Hill, J.D. 1996. Hill-forts and the Iron Age of Wessex. In T.C. Champion & J.R. Collis (eds.) The Iron Age in Britain and Ireland: recent trends. Sheffield: J R Collis Publications, 95-116. Hope-Taylor, B. 1977. Yeavering: an Anglo-British centre of early Northumbria. London: HMSO. Jobey, G. 1964. Enclosed stone built settlements in North Northumberland. Archaeologia Aeliana XLII, 4162. Jobey, G. 1970. Early Settlement and Topography in the Border Counties. Scottish Archaeological Forum 1970, 73-84. Jobey, G. 1974 A Field Guide to Prehistoric Northumberland, Part 2. Newcastle upon Tyne: Frank Graham. Jobey, G. 1978. Iron Age and Romano-British settlements on Kennel Hall Knowe, North Tynedale, Northumberland. Archaeologia Aeliana VI, 1-28. Jobey, G. 1982. Between Tyne and Forth: some problems. In P. Clack and S. Haselgrove (eds.) Rural Settlement in the Roman North. Council for British Archaeology 3, Durham University. Johnson, M. 1997. Ironies. In A. Gwilt & C. Haselgrove (eds.) Reconstructing Iron Age Societies: new approaches to the British Iron Age. Oxford: Oxbow Monograph 71, 308-11. Masters, L. 1984. The Neolithic long cairns of Cumbria and Northumberland. In R. Miket & C. Burgess (eds.) Between and Beyond the Walls: essays on

unpublished interim reports for the Northumberland National Park Authority. Cunliffe, B. 1974. Iron Age Communities in Britain. London: Routledge. Ferrell, G. 1997. Space and society in the Iron Age of north-east England. In A. Gwilt & C. Haselgrove (eds.) Reconstructing Iron Age Societies: new approaches to the British Iron Age. Oxford: Oxbow Monograph 71, 228-238. Frodsham, P. 1995. Monuments in the landscape: some thoughts on the practical management of the historic environment. Northern Archaeology 12, 79-89. Frodsham, P. (ed.) 1996a. Neolithic Studies in No-Man's

Land: Papers on the Neolithic of Northern England, From the Trent to the Tweed. (= Northern Archaeology vol. 13/14). Newcastle: Northumberland Archaeological Group. Frodsham, P. 1996b. Spirals in Time: Morwick Mill and the spiral motif in the British Neolithic. In P. Frodsham (ed.) Neolithic Studies in No-Man's

Land: Papers on the Neolithic of Northern England, From the Trent to the Tweed. (= Northern Archaeology vol. 13/14). Newcastle: Northumberland Archaeological Group, 101-38. Frodsham, P. & Anderson, D. in press. Forgetting Gefrin: the past in the past at Yeavering. To be published in Northern Archaeology 17/18. Gates, T. no date. The Hadrian's Wall Landscape Project (Air Photography and Archaeology). Unpublished report for the Northumberland National Park Authority. Gosden, C. 1997. Iron Age landscape and cultural biographies. In A. Gwilt & C. Haselgrove (eds.)

Reconstructing Iron Age Societies: new approaches to the British Iron Age. Oxford: Oxbow Monograph 71, 303-307. Gwilt A. & Haselgrove, C. 1997. Reconstructing Iron Age

the prehistory and history of north Britain in honour of George Jobey. Edinburgh: John

Societies: new approaches to the British Iron Age. 30

Frodsham: Worlds without ends Donald. Miket, R. 1984. The Prehistory of Tyne and Wear. Newcastle upon Tyne: Northumberland Archaeological Group. Miket, R. & Burgess, C. (eds.) 1984. Between and Beyond the Walls: essays on the prehistory and history of north Britain in honour of George Jobey. Edinburgh: John Donald. Morris, R. 1979. The Prehistoric Rock Art of Galloway and the Isle of Man. Poole: Blandford Press. Palmer, R. 1984. Danebury: an Iron Age hillfort in Hampshire. London: RCHME. Parker-Pearson, M. 1996. Food, fertility and front doors in the first millennium BC. In T.C. Champion & J.R. Collis (eds.) The Iron Age in Britain and Ireland: recent trends. Sheffield: J R Collis Publications, 117-32. RCAHMS. 1997. Eastern Dunifriesshire: an archaeological landscape. Edinburgh: the Stationery Office. RCHME. 1998. Yeavering Bell. Unpublished survey for Northumberland National Park Authority. RCHME, Swindon. Rowley Conwy, P. 1994. Palaeolithic and Mesolithic: from culture to behaviour. In B. Vyner (ed.) Building on the Past: papers celebrating 150 years of the Royal Archaeological Institute. London: Royal Archaeological Institute. Speak, S. 1997. Iron Age Hillforts in the Northumberland National Park: A strategic study. Unpublished report by Tyne & Wear Museums for the Northumberland National Park Authority. Steer, K. A. 1964. John Horsley and the Antonine Wall. Archaeologia Aeliana XLII, 1-39. Tait, J. 1965. Beakers from Northumberland. Newcastle upon Tyne: Oriel Press. Tate, G. 1862. On the antiquities of Yevering Bell and Three Stone Burn, among The Cheviots in Northumberland, with an account of excavations made into Celtic forts, hut dwellings, barrows and stone circles. History of the Berwickshire Naturalists' Club 4, 431-53. Tate, G. 1865. The Ancient British Sculptured Rocks of Northumberland and the Eastern Borders. Alnwick: Hunter-Blair. Thomas, J. 1993. Discourse, totalization and the 'Neolithic'. In C. Tilley (ed.) Interpretative Archaeology. Oxford: Berg. Tilley, C. 1994. A Phenomenology of Landscape. Oxford: Berg. Tipping, R. 1996. The Neolithic landscapes of the Cheviot Hills and hinterland: palaeoenvironmental evidence. In P. Frodsham (ed.) Neolithic Studies in No-Man's Land: Papers on the Neolithic of Northern England, From the Trent to the Tweed. (= Northern Archaeology vol. 13/14). Newcastle: Northumberland Archaeological Group, 17-34. Tipping, R. 1997a. The environmental history of the landscape. In RCAHMS, Eastern Dumfriesshire, An Archaeological Landscape. Edinburgh: The

Stationery Office. Tipping, R. 1997b. Pollen analysis and the impact of Rome on native agriculture around Hadrian's Wall. In A. Gwilt & C. Haselgrove (eds.) Reconstructing Iron Age Societies: new approaches to the British Iron Age. Oxford: Oxbow Monograph 71, 239-47. Tolan-Smith, C. 1996. The Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in the Lower Tyne Valley: a landscape approach. In P. Frodsham (ed.) Neolithic Studies in NoMan's Land: Papers on the Neolithic of Northern England, From the Trent to the Tweed. (= Northern Archaeology vol. 13/14). Newcastle: Northumberland Archaeological Group, 7-16. Topping, P. 1989. Early cultivation in Northumberland and the Borders. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 55, 161-79. Topping, P. 1997. Different realities: the Neolithic in the Northumberland Cheviots. In P. Topping (ed.) Neolithic Landscapes. Oxford: Oxbow Monograph 86. Topping, P. 1998. The excavation of burnt mounds at Titlington Mount, North Northumberland, 19923. Northern Archaeology 15/16, 3-25. Vyner, B. (ed.) 1994. Building on the Past: papers celebrating 150 years of the Royal Archaeological Institute. London: Royal Archaeological Institute. Waddington, C. 1996a. Archaeological Reassessment of the Dour Hill 'Long' Cairn and nearby Round Cairn, Upper Redesdale, Northumberland. Unpublished report by the Archaeological Practice (University of Newcastle) for the Northumberland National Park Authority. Waddington C. 1996b. Putting rock art to use: a model of early Neolithic transhumance in North Northumberland. In P. Frodsham (ed.) Neolithic Studies in No-Man's Land: Papers on the Neolithic of Northern England, From the Trent to the Tweed. (= Northern Archaeology vol. 13/14). Newcastle: Northumberland Archaeological Group, 147-78. Waddington, C. Blood, K. & Crow, J. 1998. Survey and excavation at Harehaugh Hillfort and possible Neolithic enclosure. Northern Archaeology 15/16, 87-103. Waddington, C. & Davies, J. 1998. Excavation of an early Neolithic settlement and adjacent cairn at Sandyford Quarry Field: an interim report. Northern Archaeology 15/16, 45-50. Weyman, J. 1984. The Mesolithic in north-east England. In R. Miket & C. Burgess (eds.) Between and Beyond the Walls: essays on the prehistory and history of north Britain in honour of George Jobey. Edinburgh: John Donald. Whittle, A. 1996. Europe in the Neolithic: the creation of new worlds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

31

The Neolithic that never happened? Clive Waddington discussions (eg. Thomas 1991; Barrett 1994; Tilley 1994) view the Neolithic as being ideologically defined; a sense of 'being Neolithic' which is culturally and not necessarily economically constituted and which finds expression in new forms of material culture and living. Thomas explains that: "Owning a cow, or an axe, living in a house, or burying one's kin in a particular way does not make a person Neolithic. It is the recognition of the symbolic potential of these elements to express a fundamental division of the universe into the wild and the tame which creates the Neolithic world" (Thomas 1991, 13). This corresponds with Whittle's view of the Neolithic as a period of categorisations and separations, not least of which is that between wild (non-cultural) and tame (cultural) (Whittle 1996, 360).

Introduction This paper was intended as a prompt for discussion and so it is deliberately polemical with a view to stimulating debate rather than providing any definitive statement. Hence, the title for this contribution is a question and not an assertion. This paper stands really as a provisional idea that requires further examination. Another contribution to the conference (to be published elsewhere) interpreted the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in an adjacent study area from a diametrically opposed set of assumptions than those adopted here. That is, they assumed incoming farming communities from the continent colonised the Tyne valley during the Neolithic. However, this is welcome given that it will serve to open up rather than close down much needed discussion on this subject. This account draws on recent works by Thomas (1988; 1991; 1996), Tilley (1994), Edmonds (1995), Zvelebil (1992; 1994) and Zvelebil and Dolukhanov (1991). It develops several themes with respect to the question of the MesolithicN eolithic transition

The crux of the argument with regard to definitions would, therefore, seem to be between whether we understand the 'Neolithic' as a set of economic practices or whether we define the 'Neolithic' as a distinctive form of cultural values. I suggest, however, that the 'Neolithic' was both an economic and ideological phenomenon with each of these elements intrinsically related. This does not mean that these two elements always occurred in the same way or in a homogenous fashion. The problem is rather to disentangle how different societies adopted, assimilated, transformed or rejected each of these two ingredients of what we term the 'Neolithic'.

The Mesolithic-Neolithic transition is a critical area of debate that has remained relatively under-studied. Too frequently scholars have entrenched their interests in one period or the other and this has further encouraged the conceptual separation of the Late Mesolithic and Early Neolithic periods (Thomas 1988, 59). Moreover, this division has been accentuated by the theoretical polarisation which has taken place, with the Mesolithic being dominated by processual/ecological approaches and the Neolithic dominated by post-processual/social approaches (ibid.). As a consequence, this intellectual faultline serves to reaffirm the view that these periods were separate and distinct entities with few continuities- an assumption that is being increasingly called into question (eg. Thomas 1991; Edmonds 1995; Bradley 1998). Discussion of the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition, therefore, requires us to start off by examining the issue of definitions.

Although the value of an economic definition is not denied, as it aptly describes the day-to-day practice of a new way of extracting from 'nature' - a way, that is, which is recognisable in the archaeological record- this paper will take as its starting-point the view that 'Neolithisation' as an ideological thing does not necessarily have to accompany the adoption of the economic aspects ofNeolithisation in a direct X=Y relationship. Instead, it is suggested that aspects of the new 'economic' way of living could be selectively adopted/assimilated by indigenous Mesolithic communities while selectively adjusting their own ideologies to cope with these changes. Although ideological transformation undoubtedly occurred during the Early Neolithic, the selective adoption of ideological aspects of Neolithisation would not necessarily mean that people thought 'Neolithic' or thought of themselves as 'being Neolithic. Indeed, while adopting certain new ideological and economic components some groups may still have considered themselves as hunters rather than farmers, thus retaining their 'Mesolithic' ethnicity/identity.

The Neolithic has been defined in different ways over the past century. Originally it was identified on the basis of technology (Lubbock 1872), with the adoption of a new type of stone tool-kit defining the advent of the 'New Stone-Age'. Traditionally, however, it has been viewed as an economic change whereby hunter-gathering gave way to farming (eg. Childe 1925; Piggott 1954; Zvelebil & Rowley-Conwy 1986; Zvelebil 1992). However, recent

33

Northern Pasts

Sandstone Escarpment

Fieldwalkingtransect Land over 100 metres 2 4 km iiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil

Figure 1. Location map of Milfield basin showing position of fieldwalking transect

34

Waddington: The Neolithic that never happenend?

The intention of this paper is to explore a scenario in which ideological 'Neolithisation' is thought not to have taken place in the British Isles as an imported set of fixed values, but rather that the 4th and 3rd millennia BC were a period of hybrid 'Mesolithicness'. By this I mean communities who transformed their own pre-existing ideologies so that new physical ways of living and extracting from the 'natural' world could be ideologically sanctioned and accommodated within existing, albeit modified, ideological frameworks. In this way, the new forms of ideology which are manifest in the Neolithic of the British Isles (as represented by new kinds of elaborate funerary structures, rock art and, later, megaliths) are seen as mutations of preexisting concepts of 'Mesolithicness' rather than the importation of new belief systems and identities ultimately stemming from south-east and Central Europe. Could the so-called 'Neolithic' of North-West Europe then be seen as a relatively successful attempt by indigenous Mesolithic groups to come to terms with the challenge to their identity posed by incoming farming communities who settled along the river valleys of South-Eastern and Central Europe and the ethnic implications of being considered a 'farmer'? The case study I am going to use to explore this idea is the Milfield basin, Northumberland.

recovered from the 7km long fieldwalking transect across the basin which have been attributed to the Late Mesolithic period were made from locally available non-flint raw materials which includes predominantly agate, chert and quartz. A wide range of flint types make up the remainder suggesting that localised sources of flint derived from glacial deposits were being exploited. In short, stone tool manufacture was structured at a local level with relatively little imported material. The Early Neolithic also displays evidence for manufacture structured at a local level. Again, local raw materials are still utilised as an important component of the stone tool-kit, but additionally, stone axes are also made from rough local materials. Axes recovered from the basin include examples made from locally occurring limestone, Fellsandstone, Whinstone and Cheviot andesite (Miket 1987, 68; Waddington & Schofield in press). Furthermore, Gibson's study (1983) of diatoms in Early Neolithic pottery from the site at Thirlings was able to demonstrate that the clay used for making a pot had come from the banks of the adjacent river Till. Again, this indicates the structuring of manufacture at the localscale. By comparing the structuring of manufacture during the two periods it appears that, at this simplistic level at least, there is considerable continuity between the Late Mesolithic and Early Neolithic in the Milfield basin with manufacture organised at a local-scale.

Case Study The Milfield basin is a name often used to refer to the catchment of the Till valley which consists of a broad fertile plain encircled by high ground to form a naturally contained landscape focus (Fig. 1). The area is well known for its wealth of archaeological remains (Burgess 1984) dating from the Neolithic (eg. Harding 1981; Miket 1981; 1985; 1987; Waddington 1996; 1997) through to Medieval (Hope-Taylor 1977; Gates & O'Brien 1988) periods. However, it is only with the implementation of a recent systematic fieldwalking programme (Waddington 1998c) that the question of Mesolithic activity in this area has been addressed. Combined with recent palaeoenvironmental studies (Tipping 1992; 1994; 1996; 1998; Passmore et al. 1998), this new dataset has allowed the broad characterisation of Mesolithic activity in the basin to be made (Waddington 1998c; in press). It is the aim of this paper to compare and contrast aspects of behaviour for the Late Mesolithic and Early Neolithic periods in this region. Six areas of behaviour have been selected for comparison between periods (Fig. 2): these include manufacture, toolkit, land-use, subsistence, residence and symbolism. Although linked, these realms of behaviour have been separated out to allow for ease of discussion. Manufacture Analysis of the raw materials used for stone tool manufacture provides a useful way into the question of manufacture. Figure 3 demonstrates that over 50% of tools

Realm of Behaviour

Late Mesolithic

Early Neolithic

Manufacture

Local

Local

Tool Kit

Parallel blade technology

Parallel blade technology

Land-use

Extensive

Extensive Increased specificity

Subsistence

Hunting (inc. fish & fowl) Plant promotion strategies

Hunting (inc. fish & fowl) Plant promotion strategies Herding Horticulture

Residence

Valley-wide-mobility Concentrated on gravel terraces

Valley-wide-mobility Concentrated on gravel terraces Some permanent 'places'

Symbolism

Rock Art (zoomorphic) on natural landscape features

Rock Art (abstract) on natural landscape features

Figure 2. Realms of behaviour compared

35

Northern Pasts

250

20{)

"'

150

" £ :::,

..

c ~

E

"

:z 100

0 LN-EBA

LM-EN

Mesdi!hic

Undassilied

Figure 3. Lithic raw material by period 5cm

0

Figure 4. Parallel blade based lithics from an Early Neolithic pit (radiocarbon dated to c. 3 700 BC) at a settlement site near Bolam Lake, Northumberland 36

Waddington: The Neolithic that never happenend?

Cd-HJ!

2

2

0

4 Kilometers

Cheviotslope Sandstone slope Gravelterrace L " "JBoulderclay

Alluvial Plantation

Figure 5. Map of the fieldwalking transect showing the different ecological zones and location of Late Mesolithic findspots

37

Northern Pasts

2

0

2

4 Kilometers

1111 Cheviotslope 11111 Sandstone slope 1111Gravelterrace I-

Boulderclay Alluvial Plantation

1111

Figure 6. Map of the fieldwalking transect showing the different ecological zones and location of Early Neolithic findspots

38

Waddington: The Neolithic that never happenend?

Tool-kit Although the differences between Late Mesolithic and Early Neolithic stone tool types have been widely accepted (eg. microliths to leaf-shaped arrowheads), these differences have probably been somewhat over-played (see Pitts & Jacobi 1979; Bradley 1987; Edmonds 1995). An important point to consider is that the basic manufacturing technique stays the same, that is, stone tool forms are still oriented around a narrow parallel-sided blade technology (Edmonds 1995). Consequently, many tool types such as core forms, end scrapers and blade tools show little if any difference between each period. It is probably significant that the only forms which demonstrate a particularly marked change are those which were almost certainly important symbolic signifiers. More specifically arrowheads, which are known from ethnography to have important symbolic connotations (Taell

o,... Uo

•

=·- 0 µ....c:

• • • • •

•

•

•

?

• •

• •

•

?

•

• •

•

• •

•

8 bll

«ii>'

"' ·u--= .~ Q)

Q

p. s:l

rl'.lV

-= ;.:3

• • •

s

~

0 11..

•

•

• •

"' 1§

"' 0. (I.)

"O

~

;:l

•

•

;:l

= 0

..i::

0"'

= 0

"O

C

High Knowes

,...__

"O

0

• • • • •

]~ .c ;:, ~B

~ell

•

•

•

•

•

• •

•

•

Table 3. A summary of the structural attributes of the cairns excavated at Chatton Sandyford, High Knowes and Millstone Hill

Figure 7. The cairnfield at High Knowes: one of the cairns is visible as a dark mound in the foreground; the hill in the background, to the north west, is Hogdon Law

67

Northern Pasts

The majority of the cairns discussed in this paper are small and when excavated did not produce evidence for 'complete' burials. It most cases they were created when stones were cleared from the surrounding area either during cultivation or in order to improve pasture. Such sites are bound up in agricultural practice, they are constructed as a matter of everyday routine- that is to say the clearing of stone from a 'field'. Despite this (or because of this?) functional role, the construction of the cairns was clearly imbued with some value. Take for example the flint and charcoal found beneath cairn A at Chatton Sandyford and compare it to the deposit of unburnt flint among the charcoal in cairn 1 at High Knowes. Depositional activities which clearly had particular meaning in the context of burial cairns are also present in cairns which have no structural complexity and no evidence for burial. Similarly the presence of penannular ditches at the enclosures in cairnfields A and B at High Knowes can be seen to reproduce the liminal area which was apparently of vital importance at the cairns which had burials. Furthermore, it is not unimportant that the ditched enclosure at High Knowes was tentatively re-interpreted by later surveyors as a possible hut circle, just as the enclosure at Kellah Bum was at first similarly misinterpreted (Johnston & Pollard 1997). Although these enclosures, later elaborated (or reused) as cairns, do introduce structural aspects of mortuary monuments, they also have strong similarities with domestic structures.

dynamic process, not a short term impact"), identified with the establishment of the cairn and the presence of token deposits and structural elements which in many cases relate the cairn within longer term structures such as kinship and genealogy. In order to understand why this inscription is important we need to move beyond the context of the individual cairn and consider the spaces which lie between them (Fig. 7). In this case, the combination of the words cairn and field within 'cairnfield' is interesting. It not only expresses the way in which the monuments are clustered together, it also emphasises the importance of the area between the cairnsthat is to say, the field. In such a way there is an emphasis upon the biographies of the individual cairns and the area in which they are situated. This relationship is created and reproduced through day-to-day practice undertaken in the fields. The individuals and communities who clear, cultivate or tend animals in the fields are, by inscribing their initial attachment to a locale through special acts of clearance, reproducing their obligation by continuing to add stones to the cairns or by establishing more cairns, possibly around pre-existing features. This concern to provide a materiality with which to express the creation of an obligation to a particular field involves time, such that "during each present the past we have already lived and the future we still expect to live play a central role in the way we experience, plan and act" (Adam 1994, 511; cf Gell 1992, 221-228). Tenure is one way in which the interplay of obligation and time can be expressed: "Tenure is about the ways in which a resource locale is worked or bound into the biography of the subject, or into the developmental trajectory of those groups, domestic or otherwise, of which he is a member"; furthermore, "Every claim is part of a continuous process, expressing an intention or promise for the future through the fulfilment of past obligation" (Ingold 1986, 137). By taking this approach, in which tenure is conceptualised as the human appropriation of the land for its inherent creative potential, we are reminded of the importance of clearance- it exposes, in other words, the creative potential of the land. Clearance cairns, and to a lesser extent field boundaries, are the temporal markers for this initial act of clearance and are, as such, almost immediately bound up in tenurial relations and associated with the intensive working of an area of land. The cairns, therefore, have a role in the process of tenure.

There are no clear indications as to what these associations represent, though we can offer some explanation as to how they work. In using parts (structural aspects) of burial cairns and houses within 'clearance' features the builders are representing the whole (the presence or mein of the burial or the house). In such a way the small cairns are constructed in order to incorporate metaphors drawn from the construction and use of other monuments. The charcoal found beneath some of the cairns can act as a useful example. In the context of the burials, the charcoal deposit is often interpreted as the remains of the pyre, or maybe the result of clearing the area prior to the construction of the cairn. By sealing the charcoal deposit this act of cleansing becomes an important component in the ritual associated with the cairn's construction. The incorporation of similar deposits in cairns constructed through the clearance of stone has the potential to express a similar idea, possibly forming a foundation deposit marking the inception of the 'monument'. As a further example, the presence of lithics as individual pieces with 'complete' burials and scatters in other types of cairn may reveal their role as a powerful offering. In the context of the examples discussed from Sweden and Dalmatia, the lithics may also have domestic associations, possibly originating as refuse. Such specificity may be misplaced, however important such explanations may have been in the past. Instead, we might suggest that such practices are used to inscribe temporalities onto the lived environment, the most important of these being a celebration of the process of clearance (cf Moore 1997, 40: clearance as "a social

It is not possible to explore in any detail how the role of tenure may have developed in the context of the cairnfields under examination in this paper. The sites were not selected by George Jobey with such questions in mind. The results of other studies may be more fruitful in this regard (e.g. Barber 1997). Nevertheless, it is possible to contextualise the interpretations within wider social processes recognised elsewhere in Britain. The dating of the cairnfields under discussion to the first half of the second millennium BC means that their appearance coincided with various changes taking place in other regions of Britain. Among these changes were the 68

Johnston: Dying, becoming, and being the field continued widespread adoption of funerary practices associated with the burial of individuals, the construction of more substantial houses, and the use of intensified agricultural regimes, in part associated with field systems. The culmination of these changes is seen to separate the earlier and the later Bronze Age, the latter occurring during the second half of the second millennium BC. Recent interpretative accounts of the period have recognised the gradual character of these developments, associating them with a change in the role and importance of monuments whereby the focus of ritual shifted from the burial to the house (Bradley 1998, 147-58). Despite the gradual character of the process, its social context has been interpreted in terms of a relatively dramatic transformation between two temporalities: becoming and being (Barrett 1994). The second millennium, the time of cairnfields, is a time of being in which time and space are understood in very different ways to previously. So space is conceptualised through a form of two-dimensional tenure, that is to say associated with "bounded areas of land surface" (Barrett 1994, 147)- the fields. While time is conceptualised as a place-bound sense of being in which observers "watch the cyclical renewal of the seasons working themselves out upon that portion of land to which they belong" (ibid.). The evidence from the cairnfields discussed in this paper supports these interpretations. The blurring of categories, represented by the incorporation of metaphors taken from burial monuments and houses in the context of cairns which have a specific agricultural function, supports the idea of a gradual shift in the visible context for ritual from locales strictly for burial to locales more closely associated with everyday practice. As has been argued earlier, the explanation for this shift seems to be an increased concern with tenure, which is specifically linked with the space between cairns, or in other words, the field. In such a context the dead may enter a process of becoming which is associated with establishing the productivity of a locale during the process of clearance, and so bringing a field into being- into the lived-world of the everyday. Subsequently, the link between field boundaries and cairns is that they undertake similar roles, not only functionally as has long been recognised, but also metaphorically as they act as embodiers and agents for the ongoing process of human tenurial relations. That is to say, they emphasis a developed attachment to bounded spaces best expressed as ownership. The 'why' can now be answered. The earlier Bronze Age cairnfields are important because they are among the first archaeologically visible expressions of the gradual process by which the social world was understood in terms of being. They represent not just a concern with establishing the ownership of an area of land but also a concern to express the obligation visibly and in relation to established traditions, particularly those of burial.

an earlier draft of the text. The research for this paper was carried out while the author was in receipt of funding from the Arts and Humanities Research Board.

References Adam, B. 1994. Perceptions of time. In T. Ingold (ed.).Companion Encyclopedia of Anthropology: humanity, culture and social life. London: Routledge, 503-26. Ashbee, P. 1957. Excavations on Kildale Moor, North Riding of Yorkshire, 1953. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 39, 179-92. Barber, J. (ed.). 1997. The Archaeological Investigation of a Prehistoric Landscape: excavations on Arran 1978-1981. Edinburgh: Scottish Trust for Archaeological Research. Barrett, J. 1994. Fragments from Antiquity: an archaeology of social life, 2900-1200 BC. Oxford: Blackwell. Bradley, R. 1978. The Prehistoric Settlement of Britain. London: Routledge and Keegan Paul. Bradley, R. 1998. The Significance of Monuments: on the shaping of human experience in Neolithic and Bronze Age Europe. London: Routledge. Briick, J. 1999. Ritual and rationality: some problems of interpretation in European archaeology. To appear in European Journal of Archaeology 2(3). Chapman, J., Shiel, R., & Batovic, S. 1996. The Changing Face of Dalmatia: archaeological and ecological studies in a Mediterranean landscape. London: Leicester University Press. Davis, G. & Turner, J. 1979. Pollen diagrams from Northumberland. New Phytologist 82, 783-804. Feachem, R. W. 1973. Ancient agriculture in the highland of Britain. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 39, 332-53. Gell, A. 1992. The Anthropology of Time: cultural constructions of temporal maps and images. Oxford: Berg. Greenwell, W. 1877. British Barrows: a record of the examination of sepulchral mounds in various parts of England. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Hewitt, I. & Beckensall, S. 1996. The excavation of cairns at Blawearie, Old Bewick, Northumberland. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 62, 25574. Ingold, T. 1986. The Appropriation of Nature: essays on human ecology and social relations. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Joass, J.M. 1866. Notes on some northern antiquities. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 6, 386-8. Jobey, G. 1968. Excavations of cairns at Chatton Sandyford, Northumberland. Archaeologia Aeliana 4th Ser. 46, 5-50. Jobey, G. 1981. Groups of small cairns and the excavation of a cairnfield on Millstone Hill, Northumberland.

Acknowledgements I am grateful to Lindsay Allason Jones at the Museum of Antiquities in Newcastle upon Tyne for allowing access to archive material. Louise Barker and Jan Harding kindly read and commented upon

69

Northern Pasts

Archaeologia Aeliana 5th Ser. 9, 23-43. Jobey, G. 1981. Groups of small cairns and the excavation of a caimfield on Millstone Hill, Northumberland. Archaeologia Aeliana 5th Ser. 9, 23-43. Johnston, R. & Pollard, J. 1997. Excavation and survey at Kellah Bum, Northumberland Universities of Durham and Newcastle upon Tyne Archaeological Reports 20, 25-8. Johnston, R. & Pollard, J. 1998. Excavations at Kellah Bum, Northumberland, June 1997. Universities of Durham and Newcastle upon Tyne Archaeological Reports 21, 33-7. Moore, J. 1997. The infernal cycle of fire ecology. In P. Topping (ed.). Neolithic Landscapes. Oxford: Oxbow, 33-40. RCAHMS 1920. Seventh Report with Inventory of Monuments and Constructions in the County of Dumfries. Edinburgh: HMSO.

Stuiver, M. & Kra, R.S. (eds) 1986. Special Calibration Issue. Radiocarbon 28 (2B), 805-1030. Tipping, R. 1996. The Neolithic landscape of the Cheviot Hills and hinterland: palaeoenvironmental evidence. Northern Archaeology 13/14, 17-33. Wainwright, G., Fleming, A., & Smith, K. 1979. The Shaugh Moor Project: first report. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 45, 1-33. Weiler, E., & Mattsson-Hoglund, P. n.d. Southern Swedish Uplands and the Rostorp Project. Unpublished Report distributed at the 4th Annual Meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists. Yates, M.J. 1984. Groups of small cairns in northern Britain: a view from SW Scotland. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 114, 21734.

70

Continuity and change: marginality and later prehistoric settlement in the northern uplands Robert Young In this contribution I want to tackle the thorny problem of settlement desertion and continuity in the uplands of Northern Britain at the end of the Bronze Age and into the Iron Age (Fig. 1). I hope to show that the accepted view of large scale desertion is a fallacy and that we need to develop much more sophisticated models for understanding landscape and settlement development in the period. Before I do that, however, I want to begin with a consideration of the term 'marginality' because archaeologists often use it without fully considering the implications of its use.

Parry in the Lammermuir Hills of Scotland. This research has direct relevance for my later discussion of the northern settlement pattern in prehistory, and it has had a significant impact on archaeological thinking about marginality in general (Parry 1975; 1985). Parry developed an ecological/environmental definition of marginality when he employed the combined criteria of altitude and temperature to draw up limits beyond which the maintenance of an arable agricultural regime became a marginal activity. Long-term climatic trends were identified between AD 1000 and 1700 in the Lammermuirs and Parry associated these with the gradual abandonment of the uplands. He assumed that the economic threshold of the area was based solely on the growth requirements of particular crops, and he ignored any economic strategy other than arable farming. He discussed only one method of coping with changing local environmental conditions, and that was a retreat to the next limit of cereal cultivation (Figs. 2-3).

In 1987 the geographers Blaikie and Brookfield isolated three broad categories of marginality: socio-political, ecological or environmental, and economic marginality (Blaikie & Brookfield 1987, 20). It has struck the present writer quite forcibly that most archaeological discussions of 'marginality' have followed these divisions, often privileging one category above the others. I have discussed these issues in detail elsewhere (Young & Simmonds, 1995; Young and Simmonds in press). Here I want to deal with ecological and economic marginality, and by way of a corrective to received attitudes, I will suggest that archaeologists need to consider the 'total' environmentwith its rich interplay of political, social, economic and ecological elements- if they want to develop a nuanced understanding of the multifarious aspects of 'marginality' and of potential human responses to them.

As a general observation, I have no problem with the notion that societies, like crops, have their own environmental/ecological thresholds, but these are neither absolute nor universal because, unlike crops, human societies possess the ability to bring about more complex or specialized and adapted economies if they so desire. Any threshold effect is thus dependent, in reality, on the particular socio-economic form dominant at any one point in time. As a result, archaeologists should be aware that regions of poor or degrading soil which became difficult for cereal growth may have developed specialized economies to complement the requirements of the wider economic nexus.

Ecological/environmental marginality This form of marginality can be defined very simply in terms of the overall distribution of a species within a landscape zone. The onset of marginal conditions occurs when, for example, a plant or an animal approaches the limits of a habitat in which its reproduction is possible. Beyond that limit the ripening of particular plants is impossible and certain animals may not be able to obtain enough food for self maintenance. The definition assumes, explicitly, that the subjects do not possess the technological knowledge and/or ability to alter the material conditions of existence to their advantage.

The general point raised above should make us wary of the ready acceptance of the kind of 'sustainable threshold' approach to marginality (embodied in much archaeological writing), which is central to ecologically prescribed notions of the concept. In this approach both core and threshold, in ecological terms, are seen in isolation and the possible social and economic links between the two are largely unexplored. We need to be clear about what constitutes the ecological core of an economy and how it articulates with other aspects of economic and social activity, before making hard and fast statements about its margins (Bailey 1989; Campbell 1990, 83).

This approach has been widely used by archaeologists and others, and one might highlight, as a clear example of its application, the work of the historical geographer M. L.

71

Northern Pasts

Braeraddoch Loch

•

Carn Dubh

•

Black Loch

•

Cul a Bh

LAMMERMUIR HILLS

An Sithean' •

• Fenton Hill

IS

CHEVIOT HILLS

Trows Law

•

~

• • Steng Moss Camp Hill Moss

... ,,,I", \

Burnmoor Tarn ""'• \ , • • Seathwaite Tarn Devoke Water •

0

KMS

Figure 1. Location of major sites and areas mentioned in the text

72

• Cow Green

Young: Continuity and change

Frequency of crop failure Non Marginal 1200

4

•

Marginal

Marginal

20.0 10.0

Sub-marginal

1150 (..)

5.0

11100

...

-81050 I

1000

>- 975 -! 950

1856-95 normal

3.0

----------------------------·--AD1400

AO 1200

2.5

... i>, (/)

>-

...

.!:

2.0 AD 1800

AD1600

ACCUMULATED TEMPERATURE

Non-Marginal

..

Marginal Marginal • • Sub- Margina I

0

Sub-Marginal

---------------

20

40 60

1856-95 normal

80 100

AD 1200

AD 1600

AD ~400

AD1800

Figure 2. Estimated trend of accumulated temperature and potential water surplus AD 1000-1500 at sites on the climatic limit to cereal cultivation in south-east Scotland in 1856-95 based on 50 year averages of temperature (after Parry 1985, 43)

mode of production and ex1stmg levels of demand, yet there is often little discussion of the importance of social relations of production (eg. labour, social capital, communal decision making and exchange). Nor is there any acknowledgement of the possibility that societies may radically alter the means of production in relation to either changes in the material conditions of production or the social relations of such a system. The same soils and environments can hold very different economic potentials, depending on the social and technological capacity of a society.

Economic marginality Archaeological discussions of economic marginality usually focus on the relative economic potential of a given piece of land and its capacity to provide sufficient yields (invariably of grain) to meet a group's food requirements. The basic principle of diminishing returns, with the emphasis on inputs of labour and social capital, has been seen by many as a useful criterion for assessing marginality. The point at which subsistence yields from a region barely match the labour input into that region is the 'economic margin'. This is another conceptualisation with which most practising archaeologists and economic historians would readily identify.

The dialectical nature of the relations of production should encourage us to examine the effects of environmentally and economically related stress on the position of producers in marginal areas within the wider socio-economic framework. By drawing on the relations of this wider nexus, groups can counter changes in the material base in order to maintain and reproduce existing socioeconomic structures within their localities- a point to which I will return below.

But, again, I would suggest that this sort of definition of marginality, based on economic formalism, embodies all of the difficulties discussed above with reference to the ecological paradigm. It rarely considers the flexibility of economic systems. The identification of marginality in economic terms is dependent, again, on both the dominant 73

Northern Pasts

NORTH SEA

AD 1600

D 0

km

Figure 3. Shift of theoretical limits to cultivation in south-east Scotland AD 1300-1600 (after Parry 1985, 43)

In this brief discussion I hope that I have pointed out some of the problems which traditional approaches to, and understandings of, the 'margin' have raised. I want to turn now to some alternative conceptualisations of marginality and then move on to examine the settlement history of parts of northern Britain at the end of the Bronze Age and into the early Iron Age in the light of these suggestions.

organization of a society, but as a potential map of its cultural landscape. In effect, 'places' are locations where culture has humanized 'nature' (Evans 1985, 81). At this level, approaches to the logic of social space developed by behavioural geographers may help provide a fuller understanding of the way in which societies perceive marginality. Such approaches may also form a valuable accompaniment to any discussion of economic organization. Often, human groups only recognise environmental stress or economic re-organization in retrospect; they are not necessarily identified as such at the time. Similarly, collective or individual perceptions of environmental change might be restricted to the experience of a generation. As Blaikie and Brookfield point out (1987, 36), ignorance of environmental change is widespread, and indeed, some processes of environmental degradation show little significant effect until a resilience threshold is passed or the sensitivity of an area is increased. We only have to consider our own responses to contemporary phenomena like global warming to comprehend this fact.

Human perceptions of environment Communities invariably identify those areas of land which will best serve the subsistence needs of the group in the light of existing cultural knowledge, in terms of varied maintenance strategies, and the available technology. These are all facets of a learned cultural repertoire, and progress is made through time by the gradual accretion of new experiences (Young & Simmonds 1995). In this context, the landscape may be seen as a series of activity-related areas or places which are exploited to satisfy both the social and subsistence needs of a community. Evans has discussed the role of 'places' in landscape archaeology, suggesting that the landscape should not be seen merely as a reflection of the subsistence

These observations are important as they may provide a different insight into why particular groups might continue to use, and even to intensify their use of, sensitive areas of 74

Young: Continuity and change

the landscape in the face of difficult circumstances. The idea that a group might be oblivious to environmental change would be a useful adjunct to demographicallydriven models of marginal land-use, suggesting that population pressure on resources does not wholly explain the continued use of economically marginal areas. In this context, the continued use of an increasingly less productive environment may be indicative of the 'maintenance of tradition', a manifestation of a group's increasing sense of attachment to a particular locale, and the growth of a sense of 'place'.

marginality. He has raised issues that archaeologists and historical geographers of all periods should consider, through linking social, spatial, economic and environmental aspects of settlement and land-use. Armed with his observations, and the lessons drawn from the discussion above, we can now offer a re-interpretation of the settlement and subsistence record of the Borders region and areas further north in the later Bronze Age.

Seen in this light it becomes obvious that perceptions of marginality are culturally determined. Spatial organization, therefore, is also a reflection of attitudes towards, and perceptions of, environment and other people, rather than a simple index of population pressure, resource distribution or core-periphery relationships.

Three major settlement forms have been identified in this region of northern Northumberland and southern Scotland: unenclosed settlements, palisaded settlements or 'stockaded farms', and hillforts. Traditionally, it was accepted that unenclosed settlements preceded the development of enclosures, and Burgess believed that the development of palisades was indicative "of a period in which a dispersed population concentrated into progressively fewer but larger protected settlements" (1984, 161). Regarding the general distribution of these settlements in the Borders area, Gates (1983, 119) has shown that the palisades and hillforts usually occupy positions better suited for defence than unenclosed settlements, and sometimes they occupy areas of higher absolute altitudes.

Re-interpreting the 'margin'

As I have argued elsewhere (Young & Simmonds 1995), concepts such as quality of life and cultural development may play a large part in the way societies (and in particular, social elites) organize themselves in areas of restricted economic potential. An awareness of this point allows us to suggest possible relationships between social organization, economic strategies and the environment of an area. Fleming (1985) has discussed the types of social organization we might envisage in later prehistory in various parts of Britain, relating settlement evidence to land tenure and patterns of collective organization. His fieldwork on Dartmoor identified scattered houses, small hamlets and field systems of second millennium BC date. Fleming suggested a socio-economic model for these communities in which the 'household' was the main unit of labour. Kinship structures, he argued, linked these households into wider groups. Thus what appears at first sight to have been a dispersed settlement pattern of isolated units, possibly reflecting the physical marginalisation of families within the landscape, might in fact have been a closely linked society made up of localized groupings (Fleming 1985, 131). Significantly, he suggested that the settlement pattern would still appear as dispersed in terms of its distribution over the land, but social relationships within the system would have promoted a much closer association of individuals in terms of action.

These settlement data can be interpreted in two ways. Traditionally they are seen to reflect settlement dislocation and discontinuity as a result of increasingly marginal economic and environmental conditions at the end of the Bronze Age. On the other hand, I would argue that they should be regarded as clear evidence for continued occupation of the area, reflecting local adaptive strategies in relation to the changing situation. Colin Burgess has been one of the main proponents of the 'discontinuity/abandonment' argument. In three contributions (1984; 1985; 1989) he has suggested that the Borders region and indeed most of upland Britain was deserted towards the end of the second millennium, as a result of an economic/population/environmental catastrophe brought about by changing climatic conditions. He argued that in the early part of the second millennium, population increase, linked to ameliorating climate, resulted in the extension of settlement areas beyond the lowlands of Britain on to upland 'marginal' soils. This expansion is confirmed by other researchers, and I have no problem with accepting it.

Fleming suggested that if the household is seen as a primary level of social organization, then secondary levels of organization were represented by economic co-operation between households. Groups in marginal areas were likely to foster and maintain such contacts, particularly under conditions of either restricted economic potential or social and environmental stress, in effect increasing the soc10economic capacity of the community (ibid., 132-3).

However, the mild climatic episode came to an end in the late second millennium (Burgess's Penard period, c.12501000 BC). Again, we cannot dispute this climatic decline but this is when the problems start in terms of our archaeological interpretations. Burgess attempted to assess the implications of this climatic down-tum, arguing that it would have had the effect of reducing the growing season for crops by more than five weeks. The altitudinal levels at

Fleming's work offers a refreshing insight into alternative approaches to the study, conceptualisation and analysis of 75

Northern Pasts

which crops would have ripened may have fallen by as much as 50m, and Burgess (1985, 200) suggested an overall decline of about 150m between the twelfth and seventh centuries BC. Using the highly deterministic and formalistic reasoning embodied in Parry's research, highlighted earlier, Burgess argued that the result of this process was a "dramatic retreat and dislocation of settlement and agriculture" (ibid., 205) in both uplands and lowlands in the late second to early first millennium BC.

the Cheviots (1996), in tandem with earlier data from Camp Hill Moss in north-east Northumberland and Steng Moss in central Northumberland (Davies & Turner 1979), shows that small-scale clearances occurred throughout the second millennium BC. Burgess (1985, 208-9) argued that there was sizeable forest regeneration at both these last two sites which seemed to tie in with his suggested period of upland abandonment. A re-examination of Davies and Turner's original report would suggest, however, that this interpretation is somewhat exaggerated, and that clearance (and therefore regeneration) on a large scale is never represented on these two diagrams throughout the Bronze Age. Indeed, at Steng Moss there is an episode of clearance (with its maximum dated to c. 1000 cal. BC; SRR-1044) which seems to have lasted for some 250 years, precisely at the time when Burgess would have us believe that our unenclosed settlements were being deserted (Davies & Turner 1979, 793). In addition, van der Veen (1992, 13) has shown that large scale clearances do not occur at these two pollen sites until the period around the first century BC to the first century AD. At the present time, then, it does not seem likely that the available pollen data can support the contention of large scale upland desertion in Northumberland at the end of the second millennium BC.

In a 1989 paper, Burgess developed the desertion theme even further when he attempted to link changes in population numbers and settlement patterns with known natural events, in this case volcanic eruption. Here he was building on Baillie's (1989; 1991a; 1991b) work on the adverse climatic impact of known volcanic eruption episodes. Burgess argued that as a result of the climatic changes brought about by the volcanic activity documented by Baillie's research, supposedly the eruption of Heckla 3 in 1159 BC, there was a 300 year hiatus between the demise of upland open settlements and the emergence of palisaded sites in the first millennium BC. The supposed impact of volcanic activity on climatic history and change has recently been debated at length both in the pages of the journal The Holocene and elsewhere (Buckland et al. 1997 & references therein; Young & Simmonds 1995). Many climatologists are now of the opinion that the scale of influence of volcanoes on climate is likely to have been relatively slight. Similarly we can also probably dismiss the long term effects of short term acid rain and sulphuric aerosol impacts on upland landscapes. While, as Grattan and Charman (1994, 104) have argued, these phenomena may have had a slight effect on crop ripening in the short term (perhaps in one season), they can hardly be invoked as a mechanism for supposed upland desertion. So what now are the major planks in the argument in favour of upland desertion in northern Britain during the period under study?

Palynological data from the rest of northern Britain also tends to confirm the picture from Northumberland and along with increasingly well documented settlement data it highlights how complex the upland situation probably was at the end of the Bronze Age. It may be perhaps surprising to find that, against the background of climatic deterioration, we have clearances occurring in some areas for the first time. At Cow Green, for example, at the top of Teesdale (Co. Durham), Turner et al. have demonstrated high levels of grass and grassland herb pollen (Turner et al. 1973, 327-408). In Cumbria, upland woodland was cleared in the south-west uplands around Devoke Water, Seathwaite Tam and Burnmoor Tam and there is also evidence for similar activity in the Lake District (Pennington 1970).

It was argued that the chronology of the excavated

In his general survey of the form and fate of Scotland's woodlands published in 1994, Richard Tipping discussed palaeoecological change at the Bronze Age/Iron Age transition. He stated that "Evidence for further climatic deterioration at the end of the bronze age around 800BC is not in doubt, but the widespread dereliction of marginal land .... has not been confirmed for. ... areas of the Cheviots. It is not currently possible to identify land abandonment at around this time anywhere in Scotland and in fact there are a significant number of sites which seem to show increases in the amount ofland cleared" (Tipping 1994b, 1-54).

settlement sites in the Borders and other regions clearly backed up the desertion hypothesis. The current range of available dates, however, does not support the idea of a settlement hiatus and I have argued elsewhere that Burgess's use of the available radio-carbon dates was selective. There is, in reality, clear evidence for a marked chronological overlap in the development and decline of unenclosed settlements and the emergence of palisades (Young & Simmonds 1995; Young & Simmonds in press). Another point put forward to support the upland desertion model is the supposed evidence for forest regeneration in the pollen record. An analysis of the available data from Northumberland, the Borders and elsewhere in upland northern Britain does not, however, substantiate such an argument (Young & Simmonds 1995). Tipping's recent work on the causes of sedimentary infilling in some northern river and stream valleys (Tipping 1992; 1994a; Mercer & Tipping 1994), and his further pollen analysis in

Tipping's research in Dumfriesshire (1995a; 1995b; 1997) also shows that around 950 cal. BC there is little evidence from pollen analysis for the disruption of settlement and agricultural activities. Similarly, at Black Loch, located at around 300m OD in the Ochil Hills of north Fife, Whittington and Edwards (1994) have shown that from the 76

Young: Continuity and change

Later Bronze Age onwards the scale of clearance in the region of the site was greatly extended. From 1170 cal BC, woodland reduction and mixed agricultural activity actually expanded (Whittington & Edwards 1994, 63).

that probably covers the contentious period under discussion above (Young & Simmonds 1995). He has highlighted the association of cord rig with both timber and stone-built unenclosed settlements in Northumberland and with timber-built palisades and later stone-built enclosed settlements. At at least one palisade, the site of Trows Law (Northumberland, NT 857135) located at 420m OD, cord rig overlies the stances of timber built, ring-ditch, houses and a section of palisade trench (Topping 1989a, 148-9; 1989b, 168, fig.4). There is also the possibility that it is associated with some Northumberland hillforts (Topping 1989a, 148-9; 1989b, 171). In terms of available C14 chronology, the earliest dated associations of cord rig are with the Phase I rampart of the palisade at Fenton Hill (690+/-100 be; HAR-825) and the latest dated context so far comes from the rectilinear palisade at Belling Law (160+/-80 be; HAR-1394) (Topping 1989a, 148-9; 1989b, 171). I would suggest that the results of Topping's survey work support the argument for settlement continuity and organised social and economic adaptation in the light of changing circumstances in the Borders.

At Braeroddach Loch in Deeside in the NE of Scotland, Edwards and Rowntree (1980) have shown a cyclical use of the landscape with a sustained period of clearance and land-use around 1400-400 BC, featuring the earliest evidence for cereal cultivation in the region and ultimately leading to severe soil erosion. Still in the north-east of Scotland, the recently published site of Cam Dubh, Perthshire (Rideout 1995, 139-95), located around 400m OD above Pitlochry, shows a similarly complex situation. In the period from around 1000-600 cal. BC Tipping's (1995, 183) pollen work highlights a greater frequency of burning around the area, coupled with intensive grazing and sustained cereal growth, and with soil in-wash stripes visible at the sample bog site after 1000 BC. Rideout (1995, 184-6) has suggested that this is clear evidence for Later Bronze Age cultivation, tying in with evidence for barley, oats and flax from excavated and radio-carbon dated houses at the site.

All the evidence from the unenclosed settlements would seem to fall into a similar pattern to that suggested by Fleming's work on Dartmoor. There appears to be no rigid system of land division associated with these settlements (Gates 1983; Topping 1989a; 1989b), but there is an emphasis on irregular plots. It might certainly be the case that the 'household' was the main centre of economic and social activities in the Borders at this time. The spacing of some of the unenclosed settlement sites within the landscape is also of interest, given Fleming's observations about co-operation and labour pooling (see above). Even if only a third of those unenclosed sites known in areas such as the Till/Breamish Valleys and the Upper Tweed were contemporary (Fig. 4; cf. Jobey 1985, 185, fig.10.5, 188, fig. 10.7), their distribution would still allow for the kinds of reciprocal labour exchanges and collective decision making processes hypothesized by Fleming. The complex series of developments leading to the construction of palisades might well be seen as the response of groups of people with a developed sense of 'place' to changes in the material conditions of their existence.

Later Bronze Age activity in the form of settlement development, field systems and clearance episodes, also comes from recent work at Tulloch Wood in Moray (ibid., 185), possibly from An Sithean on Islay (Barber & Brown 1984), and from Cul a Bhaille on Jura (Stevenson 1984). Space precludes a detailed discussion of Arran, but suffice it to say that here the archaeology and palaeoenvironmental evidence further underlines the complex and multivariate nature of landscape and settlement activity at the end of the Bronze Age and into the Iron Age (Haggarty 1991; Barber 1982). In summary, it may be suggested that at the end of the Bronze Age we are faced with a very complex situation as regards our upland archaeology. Running away and deserting these upland regions in the face of climatic deterioration seems to be only one possible, and highly unlikely, solution to the difficulties that farming groups may have gradually encountered at the end of the period.

Far from being an indicator of a decline in living standards, as implied by Burgess, it may be that with the development of palisades we are seeing a complex social and economic response to climatic change, which involves the wider integration of different landscape zones into the economic system. It may be interesting that we see the development of the first clearly recorded formalised fields and field systems, at the same time as the palisades (Topping 1989a; 1989b). The boundaries around the fields are, I would suggest, best seen as a method of keeping a higher number of animals than was grazed in the earlier phases of upland settlement, off the still prized crops.

I would certainly suggest that the settlement and economic pattern of upland Northumberland and the Borders region at the Bronze Age/Iron Age transition might be reinterpreted in the light of the ideas set out above. The Borders region may well provide a clear example of people with a developed sense of place and well established rights to land, radically re-organising their approach to production in the light of changing circumstances. Topping has recently published the results of survey work which has an important bearing on this debate (1989a; 1989b). He has shown that 'cord rig'- the narrow ridged remains of early cultivation, which is being increasingly discovered in the Borders region- spans a broad time-scale

The switch to an intensified 'mixed ranching' style of economy, which shows an overlap in the use of palisades

77

Northern Pasts

TILL VALLEY

/'

I I

1'

✓

I

l , )

f

...

i t

)

/'

I✓

FELL SANDSTONES

/ A• A \AJt. I

\

.

l

l I

I (',,.

,._ 500, ..,_~' \

\

I

'-,

-,

I

'V

,.

c-...

1

,,J

,,.-

=~ & sand patches

Scale

□ Area of main survey

a

e Humber'

5

~

~

Estuarine clay

Figure 9. Distribution map of iron working sites in the Foulness Valley

Clogg of the University of Durham Department of Archaeology.

discovered at Warren Hill Farm near South Cliffe, when the writer carried out an intensive gridded survey of a crop mark site consisting of superimposed enclosures and a drove way.

At W elhambridge West, on the opposite side of the Foulness from Moore's Farm, a grassy bank over 50m in length, on the edge of the peat and alluvium associated with the river, was found to contain many furnace bottoms and other waste. The clustering of such sites around W elhambridge suggests a specialist industrial zone.

The majority of specialist iron manufacturing sites were close to the River Foulness (Fig. 9). A possible reason for this was the use of water for the transportation of finished products, as ready access to the Humber basin was given by the dendritic estuarine creek system. The coincidence of sites and waterways would also be explained if bog ores were utilised. The discovery of thick deposits of bog ore at Spen Farm, Holme-on-Spalding Moor, and North Cliffe in 1991-3 shows that a large amount of ore was available along the River Foulness. In April 1996, samples of this

On the opposite side of the Walling Fen at North Cave (SE 880380), 3km to the east of the Holme study area, furnaces and a large amount of iron slag were excavated by John Dent (1989). These remains were associated with Iron Age round houses. Further iron working sites have also been

88

Halkon and Millett: The Foulness Valley

Figure 10a. The Hasholme log boat

Figure 10b. South Carr Farm boat (photo: Mr. R. Acklam)

89

Northern Pasts

ore from Glebe Farm, North Cliffe, were successfully smelted by Peter and Susan Crew at Plas Tan Y Bwlch, Snowdonia, in a tower furnace based on examples excavated at Crawcwellt and Bryn Y Castell.Crew's work has shown conclusively that iron was a much more precious commodity at this period than hitherto supposed for "each kilogram of finished bar iron needed 100kg of charcoal or about 1 tonne of wood, and a total of some 25 man days work" (Crew & Musson 1996, 18). Clogg has estimated that the total of iron bloom produced at Moore's Farm alone was around 2000 kg, which in turn could be converted into 800 large sword shaped bars of trade iron (Crew 1991, 34). There is little doubt about the importance of iron in the Iron Age society of East Yorkshire. The chariot burials of Garton Slack, W etwang Slack (Dent 1985) and Kirkburn (Stead 1991) with their swords, iron tyres, mirrors and mail shirt bear witness to this. It should be noted that a Arras Square barrow cemetery, the type site of this East Yorkshire culture, lies at the head of Sancton Dale, a prominent dry valley, which provided the natural route down to the estuarine tidal inlet of the Humber (Fig. 9). Was some of their wealth and prestige based on control of the creek system associated with the Foulness, and the iron working sites situated along the river? It is interesting to note that Dr C. Loveluck has recognised the importance of bog ore near Elmswell in the upper Hull valley, during the Anglo-Saxon period. Evidence for Romano-British and perhaps Iron Age smelting is recorded there as well (Congreve 1938, 15), and it is tempting to consider a relationship between this iron industry and the well-known chariot burials at Garton and W etwang Slacks.

wheel-thrown cordoned bowls are examples from Dragonby (Ceramic Stages 10 and 11). Elsdon herself (1996, 5) observes that the presence of pottery forms close to Aylesford-Swarling types may suggest maritime links with the south-east of England. The growing number of finds of Iron Age coins in East Yorkshire (Cunliffe 1991, 176, fig. 8.13) notably those of the Corieltauvi, also suggests cross-Humber contact. A Corieltauvian gold stater inscribed VEP CORF (van Arsdell 1989, type 930) was found in the northern part of Holme-on-Spalding Moor. Corieltauvian coins have also been discovered at Brantingham (K. Oliver pers. comm.) and at Redcliff, North Ferriby, on the banks of the Humber. These locations may have served as points of entry for imports, both from the south bank of the Humber and the continent (Crowther et al. 1990). Outside the area covered by this report, but close to the Humber in the Lower Hull Valley, pottery of Aylesford-Swarling type has also been found at Fishpond Wood, Risby (Didsbury 1988), and more recently during excavations by Northern Archaeological Associates at Creyke Beck, Cottingham in late 1997 (P. Didsbury pers. comm.). This pre-Roman Conquest connection between the north and south banks is of great interest and appears to extend well into the Roman period, as the kilns of the later Romano-British pottery industry of Holme-on-Spalding Moor have close affinities with those excavated at Linwood and Swanpool in Lincolnshire (Swan 1984). The Holme Romano-British potteries provide a further strand of continuity with the Iron Age in the Foulness Valley, as in both periods woodland management for furnace-based industries was of paramount importance, as was the positioning of sites close to the river.

Although the 12.5m Hasholme log boat (Fig. 10a), discovered by the authors of this paper in 1984, was seen as primarily a cargo vessel (Millett & McGrail 1987), its large size and decorative features would also have made it an item of some prestige. The overlap between the felling date of the parent log of the Hasholme Boat and the C14 dates from the iron slag excavated at Moore's Farm shows that they were contemporary. It is interesting to note that a second, now destroyed log boat from South Carr Farm, Newport (Halkon 1997)- which was similar to the Hasholme Boat, but longer and possessing an integral prow (Fig. 10b)- was found c. 1km from the Iron Age settlement and iron manufacturing site at North Cave. These large vessels remind us of the importance of water transport in these areas.

Conclusion As with most landscape studies of this type many questions remain to be resolved, for example why are there no large cemeteries of square barrows in the lowland areas around Holme-on-Spalding Moor? Did the Arras cemetery serve as a folk burial area in a similar way as the Anglian cemetery further down Sancton Dale appears to have done (Timby 1993)? What is the chronological relationship between the iron working sites? If all of the iron working sites along the Foulness are contemporary, this means that there was an industry here of some scale. Strabo does list iron as one of the major exports of Iron Age Britain, and the Foulness Valley, with its easy access to the Humber and beyond, is well placed to contribute to such a trade. Perhaps the Mediterranean coral that adorns the lavish grave goods from Wetwang and Arras are evidence of some reciprocation of goods. There is also a need for comparative analysis and dating of finished products, especially the Arras culture grave goods and slag from production sites and ores. In the later Iron Age, do Corieltauvian coins and imported wheel-thrown pottery imply that there was a zone of acculturation on the north bank of the Humber as Didsbury (1990) has suggested, or

The later Iron Age We do not know how extensive the iron industry in the HLB was in the later Iron Age, though some smelting continued into the Roman period. What is fairly certain is that the creek systems remained important, and evidence for trade with the south bank of the Humber has been recognised in the finds of late Iron Age fine ware pottery (Elsdon 1996, 27 & chapter 13) at Bursea House, Holmeon-Spalding Moor (Halkon & Millett in press), and Brantingham (Dent 1988, 98). The closest parallel to these 90

Halkon and Millett: The Foulness Valley

do these artefacts simply highlight the importance of the river for trade?

a handbook. Department of Archaeology, University ofNottingham. Fasham, P.J., Schadla-Hall, R.T., Shennan, S.J. & Bates, P.J. 1980. Field walking for Archaeologists. Winchester: Hampshire Field Club and Archaeological Society. Furness, R.R. & King, S.J. 1978. Soils in North Yorkshire IV. Sheet SE 63/73 Selby. Harpenden: Soil Survey Record 56. Halkon, P. 1983. Investigations into the Romano-British Landscape around Holme-on-Spalding Moor, East Yorkshire. East Riding Archaeologist 7, 15-24. Halkon, P. 1987. Aspects of the Romano-British Landscape around Holme-on-Spalding Moor, East Yorkshire. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, University of Durham. Halkon, P. 1989. Iron Age and Romano-British settlement and Industry around Holme-on-Spalding Moor. In P. Halkon (ed.) New Light on the Parisi. East Riding Archaeological Society and School of Adult and Continuing Education, Hull University. Halkon, P. 1990. The Holme-on-Spalding Moor Landscape. In S. Ellis and D. Crowther (eds.) Humber Perspectives. Hull: Hull University Press, 147-57. Halkon, P. 1997. An Iron Age log boat from, South Carr Farm, Newport, East Yorkshire. East Riding Archaeologist 9, 7-10. Halkon, P. 1998. The Foulness valley in the Iron Age and Roman periods. In P. Halkon (ed.) Further Light on the Parisi. Recent Research in Iron Age and Roman East Yorkshire. ERAS, Department of History, University of Hull: East Riding Archaeological Research Trust, 14-3. Halkon P. & Millett, M. 1996. Fieldwork and Excavation at Hayton, East Yorks. 1995. Universities of Durham and Newcastle upon Tyne Archaeological Reports 19, 62-8. Halkon P. Millett, M. & Taylor, J. 1997. Fieldwork and Excavation at Hayton, East Yorks. 1996. Universities of Durham and Newcastle upon Tyne Archaeological Reports 20, 39-41. Halkon, P & Millett, M. in press. Rural Settlement and Industry: Studies in the Iron Age and Roman Archaeology of Lowland East Yorkshire. Yorkshire Archaeological Society Monograph 4. Halkon, P. et al. in prep. Change and Continuity within the Prehistoric Landscape of the Foulness Valley, East Yorkshire. Heath, A. & Wagner, P. in prep. Coleopteran evidence from the Foulness valley. In P. Halkon et al. (eds.) Change and Continuity within the Prehistoric Landscape of the Foulness valley, East Yorkshire. Hicks, J.D. & Wilson, J.A. 1975. Romano-British Kilns at Hasholme. East Riding Archaeologist 2, 49-70. Innes J., Long, A. & Shennan I. in prep. Stratigraphic and pollen analyses in the lower Foulness valley. In P. Halkon et al. (eds.) Change and Continuity within the Prehistoric Landscape of the Foulness Valley, East Yorkshire.

There is no doubt that this area, which in the past was relatively neglected by antiquarians and archaeologists whose main concern was with burials on the Wolds, provides a fascinating opportunity for the examination of a lowland landscape of the living.

References Brewster, T.C.M. 1963. The Excavation of Staple Howe. East Riding Archaeological Research Committee. Congreve, A.L. 1938. A Roman and Saxon Site at Elmswell, East Yorkshire. Hull Museums Publications 198, 15. Crowther, D., Creighton, J. & Willis, S. 1990. The topography and archaeology of the Redclif£ In S. Ellis & D. Crowther (eds.) Humber Perspectives. Hull: Hull University Press, 178. Crew, P. 1991. The experimental production of prehistoric bar iron. Historical Metallurgy 25(1), 21-36. Crew, P. & Musson C, 1996. Snowdonia from the Airpatterns in the landscape. Snowdonia National Park Authority /RCHM (Wales). Cunliffe, B. 1991. Iron Age Communities in Britain. London: Routledge. Dent, J.S. 1983. A summary of Excavations carried out in Garton and Wetwang Slack 1964-80. East Riding Archaeologist 7. Hull: East Riding Archaeological Society, 1-16. Dent, J.S. 1985. Three cart burials from Wetwang, East Yorkshire. Antiquity 59, 85-92. Dent, J.S. 1988. Some problems of continuity in rural settlement. In T. Manby (ed.) Archaeology in Eastern Yorkshire: essays in honour of TCM Brewster. Sheffield: Department of Archaeology and prehistory, University of Sheffield, 94-100. Dent, J.S. 1989. Settlements at North Cave and Brantingham. In P. Halkon (ed.) New Light on the Parisi- recent discoveries in Roman and Iron Age East Yorkshire. University of Hull: East Riding Archaeological Society and Department of Adult and Continuing Education, 15-22. Dent, J.S. 1995. Aspects of Iron Age Settlement in East Yorkshire. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Sheffield. Didsbury, P. 1988. Evidence for Romano-British settlement in Hull and the Lower Hull Valley. In J. Price et al. (eds.) Recent Research in Roman Yorkshire. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports British Series 193, 21-35. Didsbury, P. 1990. Exploitation of the alluvium of the Lower Hull valley in the Later Roman period. In S. Ellis and D. Crowther (eds) Humber Perspectives. Hull: Hull University Press, 199213. Elsdon, S.M. 1986. Iron Age pottery in the East Midlands-

91

Northern Pasts

Lambrick, G. 1990. Farmers and shepherds in the Bronze Age and Iron Age. Current Archaeology 121, 14 9. Millett, M. 1990. Iron Age and Romano-British Settlement in the southern Vale of York and beyond: some problems in perspective. In S. Ellis & D. Crowther (eds.) Humber Perspectives- a region through the ages. Hull: Hull University Press, 347-56. Millett, M. 1992. Excavations and survey at Shiptonthorpe, East Yorkshire 1991. Universities of Durham and Newcastle upon Tyne Archaeological Reports 15, 29-33. Millett, M. & Halkon, P. 1988. Landscape and economy: recent fieldwork and excavation around Holmeon-Spalding Moor. In J. Price & P.R. Wilson (eds.) Recent Research in Roman Yorkshire. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports 193, 3747. Millett, M. & McGrail, S. 1987. The archaeology of the Hasholme logboat. Archaeological Journal 144, 69-155. Ramm, H. 1978. The Parisi. London: Duckworth. Riley, D. N. 1982. Aerial Archaeology in Britain. Aylesbury: Shire. Spratt, D. 1981. Prehistoric boundaries in the North Yorkshire Moors. In G. Barker (ed.) Prehistoric Communities in Northern England. 87-105. Sheffield: University of Sheffield.

Spratt, D. 1989. The linear earthworks of the Tabular Hills, North-East Yorkshire. Sheffield: University of Sheffield. Stallibrass, S. 1987. The animal bone. In M. Millett & S. McGrail. The Archaeology of the Hasholme logboat. Archaeological Journal 144, 69-155. Stead, I.M. 1979. The Arras Culture. York: Yorkshire Philosophical Society. Stead, I.M. 1991. Iron Age Cemeteries in East Yorkshire. London: English Heritage. Stoertz, C. 1997. Ancient Landscapes of the Yorkshire Wolds: Aerial photographic transcription and analysis. RCHME. Swan, V.G. 1984. The pottery kilns of Roman Britain. London: RCHME supplementary series 5, 122-3. Taylor, J. in press. Air photography and the Holme-onSpalding Landscape. In P. Halkon & M. Millett (eds.) Rural Settlement and Industry: Studies in the Iron Age and Roman Archaeology of lowland East Yorkshire. Yorkshire Archaeological Society Monograph 4. Timby, J. 1993. Sancton 1 Anglo-Saxon Cemetery. Archaeological Journal 150, 243-365. Turner, J. 1987. The pollen analysis. In M. Millett and S. McGrail (eds.) The archaeology of the Hasholme logboat. Archaeological Journal 144, 69-155. van Arsdell, RD. 1989. The Celtic Coinage of Britain. London: Spink.

92

Late prehistoric settlement and society: recent research in the central Tweed valley Alicia L. Wise

in this region is the meaning of the dramatic settlement evidence which is apparent from all across the landscape.

Introduction This paper is based on research into the nature of settlement, society and landscape undertaken in the Anthropology Department at the University of North Carolina. Desktop assessment of previous research and targeted data collection from geophysical survey and excavation has formed the basis for reassessment of prehistoric and proto-historic settlements. The region for this study (Fig. 1) centres on a 20 x 15km area roughly centred on St. Boswells in the central Tweed valley. Data from this area has been compared to surrounding settlement patterns in the immediate region, and to settlements patterns further west in the Scottish Borders, east and south in Northumberland, and north in East Lothian.

A strong research programme from antiquarian times, and early adoption of the three-age system, means that a great deal of evidence has been collected within temporallydefined research frameworks. The way overarching archaeological studies of change and settlement have been addressed has often differed dramatically depending on the temporal period which most interested the archaeologist. Furthermore, additional geographic divisions in the practice of archaeology (Armit & Ralston 1997) mean that research on these over-arching questions has been carried out separately north and south of the border between England and Scotland, and differently in the four regions of Scotland outlined by Stuart Piggott (1966). Fortunately, research money has become available for diachronic regional studies in the last ten years (Jones 1990).

The research on which this paper is based examines the study of social responses to change using the archaeological and palaeoenvironmental record. The study region and time period were chosen because almost 2,000 years ago the people living in this area experienced quite a lot of change- both cultural and environmental. Northwards expansion of the Roman Empire brought a changing sphere of socio-political interaction, and widespread deforestation reshaped the landscape. The primary research question is the extent to which native society itself changed in the face of these destabilizing factors, and what, if any, stabilizing mechanisms were available to people. Rather than adopt either a processual or post-processual theoretical perspective, a gentle blending of the two lends interpretive power given the limitations and strengths of the archaeological record in the central Tweed Valley. This paper presents the interesting evidence for social stability that stems from close analysis of settlement patterning.

Challenges face archaeologists who work in the region. The majority of evidence comes from cropmarks recorded by aerial photography. This means that for hundreds of settlements we are uncertain of exact dimensions and morphology, and have no information to assess site phasing or occupation dates. It also means that whole classes of potential settlements, for example unenclosed settlements, may have been missed. Geophysical survey is more helpful, and has been carried out on many sites. This sometimes produces evidence about phasing, and often clarifies site dimensions and morphology. Dates are still unknown for sites that have only been photographed and surveyed. Another challenging aspect of regional archaeology is that excavation does not seem to be a certain way of achieving secure dates for settlements either. The almost total absence of artefacts from many settlements makes seriation difficult, and the late prehistoric period falls at a 'flat section' on the radiocarbon calibration curves. More misleading in some ways is the fact that Roman sites have abundant artefacts that can be fairly closely dated, and this benefit has sometimes diverted attention away from the study of native settlements.

Archaeological Background General Background For at least a hundred and fifty years the prehistoric and Roman archaeology of the Scottish Borders has commanded attention (Christison 1895; Craw 1921; Curle 1911; Jeffrey 1855; Tait 1885). One of the most enduring questions that has been asked of the archaeological record

It is also interesting that there is a complete absence of

some classes of settlement that are relatively common in neighbouring regions. Most notable amongst these 93

Northern Pasts

N

0

50km

Figure 1. The study region

'missing classes of settlement evidence' are unenclosed platform settlements which are common to the east, south, and west. Also missing is the evidence for field systems so common in the Cheviots to the south. The absence of these site types may be due to the intensive cultivation of land in this study region, and the subsequent ploughing of many archaeological sites. As there is a fair degree of non-arable land set aside for permanent pasture, however, it is likely that the absence of these forms of evidence is a real feature of the archaeological record.

collections of material reside m museum and private collections. Even less information is available about the Neolithic period in the Borders (Barclay 1997). There appears to be some continuation of flint industries from the Mesolithic period, and construction of ceremonial sites such as henge monuments, cairns, cists, and standing stones (Scottish Borders Council 1997). Artefacts also play an important role in the archaeological record for the Neolithic, and include pottery vessels and jet objects. Hillforts in this region first appear in the Bronze Age (Rideout et al. 1992). Some of these adorn the tops of very steep and high hills, and are marked by impressive ranks of concentric ditches and banks. The best known is the large hillfort on Eildon Hill North on which more than 200 hut circles have been identified through aerial photography. Another closely related class of defensive hillforts are the promontory forts. Ditches and banks mark their defensive perimeters on one or two sides. Cliffs, streams or rivers generally mark the remaining boundaries. These hillfort classes seem to be occupied at the same time that some smaller, defended homestead sites are occupied for the

Archaeological Background of the Study Region Hundreds of sites have been identified in this study area (RCAHMS 1956). Much more scope exists for research in the prehistory of the area, particularly the early prehistory. Relatively little attention has been paid to the Mesolithic period in the Borders (Finlayson & Edwards 1997). The evidence we have largely consists of flint scatters (Lacaille 1940) though interpretation of these scatters is made easier by the excavation of three sites by Mulholland (1970). Local amateur archaeologists have been especially active in collecting evidence from this period, and large

94

Wise: Late prehistoric settlement and society

latter appears to have been in use from the Bronze Age to the Medieval period (Wise in prep.).

classes of settlement. These include those recorded in the National Monuments Record of Scotland with the following keywords:

The majority of Iron Age sites in the study region have been identified through cropmarks recorded by aerial photography, and conform to the class broadly known as homesteads (Freer 1892). Homesteads are generally characterised by 1-5 round hut circles enclosed by one or more curvilinear or, more rarely, rectilinear ditches and banks. In the past these sites were defined as small hill forts, and the presumed function of the ditches and banks were as defensive features. A variety of functions have subsequently been attributed to these ditches and banksranging from enclosures for cattle to symbolic markers of social prestige (Hansen & Slater 1991; Harding 1982; Hill 1989; Ringley 1990 & 1992; Macinnes 1982). Additionally, three brochs have also been found in the Scottish Borders, and these are believed to date to the Late Roman Iron Age (Macinnes 1984). Settlement classes like crannogs and scooped enclosures have not been found in the study region.

settlement enclosure enclosure (possible) fort enclosures enclosures (possible) earthwork linear cropmarks ring-ditch timber building timber building (possible) linear feature homestead hut circle ring-ditch (possible) burial mounds fort, broch

There are a small number of Roman sites in the study region, and in some ways these are the most prominent features of the remnant archaeological landscape. The best known Roman site is the fort at Newstead, named Trimontium by the Romans for its proximity to the three Eildon Hills (Curle 1911). Newstead is a large fort surrounded by extensive annexes on every side (Clarke & Wise in press; Jones et al. 1990; 1991; 1992; 1993) and noted for its deep wells filled with ritual deposits (Jones & Clarke 1994a; 1994b). Dere Street, the major Roman thoroughfare, runs through Newstead, and the fort was probably sited to control crossing of the Tweed river. Occupied in the 1st and 2nd centuries AD, and perhaps later as well, Newstead was abandoned at several points in its history and was probably never occupied for longer than 40 years at a time (Richmond 1950). Extensive evidence for metalworking and other industrial activities has been recovered from Newstead (Jones et al. 1991). Evidence has also been collected which suggests that the fort may have hosted markets in its annexes, particularly the south annexe (Jones et al. 1993), and may thus have served as a focus for interactions with native groups in the region.

Broad settlement patterns in the core region were assessed in the following ways: 1. Settlement locations known through aerial photography and geophysical survey were plotted on 1:25,000 base map sheets as points. 2. Settlements were then plotted against this 1:25,000 map base and represented not by points but by a sketch of settlement morphology as identified through aerial photograph interpretation. 3. Next a settlement classification by morphology was attempted. In the end an attempt to classify site morphology in finer detail than the general classes 'curvilinear' and 'rectilinear' was abandoned. These two broad classes do seem to hold generally, although considerable internal variation exists in the curvilinear category. It is of course likely that a great deal of social symbolism is reflected in, and perhaps was constructed around, site morphology but without closer dating of curvilinear sites it will be difficult to detect or convincingly interpret potential patterns.

Methods 4. The next stage was to classify settlements by their landscape position with a special eye toward variation by morphological class. Some settlement characteristics were highlighted as a result. Settlements hereafter referred to as hillforts are curvilinear settlements located on the tops of prominent peaks (eg. Eildon Hill North, Black Hill) and are characterised by impressive looking boundaries. Of the 4 hillforts in the study area, Eildon Hill North is alone in having produced aerial photographic evidence for a large number of house platforms. Settlements hereafter referred to as promontory forts are also curvilinear and are often demarcated by multiple boundaries most of which are

The research on which this paper is based, examined social responses to change in the archaeological and palaeoenvironmental record. Two thousand years ago the inhabitants of this region experienced enormous changeboth cultural and environmental- with the northwards expansion of the Roman Empire and widespread deforestation. A surprising amount of stability marks the settlement evidence from this region, allowing new insight into the social strategies developed by the prehistoric inhabitants of the region. This conclusion results from detailed examination of some

95

Northern Pasts

convincingly defensive in location and scale. The vast majority of settlements cluster into the homestead category. These settlements are generally located between 100-300m OD. on the slopes or shoulders of hills. Homesteads occur in both curvilinear and rectilinear forms.

settlement boundaries and multiple construction phases. As far as can be ascertained from aerial photography and geophysical survey, the two excavated Iron Age homesteads around Bemersyde Loch are similar to the other twelve curvilinear homesteads in the cluster. No other archaeological sites have been found for several kilometres northwards and eastwards, and while one site has been discovered to the south it is almost 3km away and on the other side of the Tweed. To the north-west a few sites are arranged linearly along the banks of the Leader water, and to the west there are no sites until Trimontium which is approximately 4km away.

5. The relationships between these three broad settlement types were examined. Hillforts are relatively rare in the study region. Promontory forts are largely located in positions overlooking waterways (eg. the Tweed river and its main tributaries) in locations subsequently used for tower houses or other defensive structures. Homestead patterning falls into two categories. Some homesteads are strung out along water courses where they could command views. The majority of homesteads, however, are clustered into 2km2 groups. Furthermore, these clusters generally have multiple curvilinear homesteads and one rectilinear homestead.

The settlement classes present in this cluster are characteristic of other clusters in the region. Taking the study area discussed in this paper as a whole, the clustering around Bemersyde Loch is broadly representative: 2km2 clusters of seven or more curvilinear homesteads, one rectilinear homestead, and a hillfort and/or promontory fort characterise this landscape.

6. Homestead clustering was then compared to background landscape features including topography and suitability of soil for agriculture. No strong correlation between site locations and these features were found, but there are relationships between site locations and bodies of water such as rivers and lochs. Along the Tweed river and its major tributaries, sites appear to be arranged in a linear fashion along the waterway rather than clustered. These linear settlement patterns are predominantly characterised by curvilinear homesteads and promontory forts. No rectilinear homesteads occupy such positions. While the relationship between site location and water is important, it is beyond the scope of the current discussion and will be considered elsewhere.

Two exceptions are notable, however. The first is a general tendency for curvilinear homesteads and promontory forts to be arranged in a linear fashion along major waterways. The second exception is the arrangement of settlements around the three Eildon Hills and the Roman fort of Trimontium. Here there are fewer homesteads than are found in other clusters, and settlements are more widely spaced. There is also a great diversity of site types around the Eildon Hills: this includes one hill fort, 12 curvilinear homesteads, one rectilinear homestead, two souterrains, a variety of standing stones, a large Roman fort with annexes, and a vicus. There appears to be a tension in the area between the clustered settlement patterning observed elsewhere and the linear patterning following rivers. It is also possible that proximity to the large Roman fort at Trimontium had an effect on native settlement patterns.

7. At the time of writing a geographic information system (GIS) is being constructed and it is hoped that this will facilitate the further quantified exploration of the settlement distributions described above. The present results are based on qualitative analysis alone.

Discussion

The clustering of homesteads turned out to be one of the most interesting outcomes of this settlement analysis, and one of the least expected. To illustrate this point the details of one cluster are presented in the next section.

An obvious issue is to what extent gaps in the settlement record reflect past human practices or bias in archaeological practice and recovery rates. Two factors suggest that the observed settlement clustering reflects past behaviour. Firstly, this region has been extensively photographed from the air, and generally produces good results except for the heavy alluvial soils immediately adjacent to the Tweed. Secondly, there is no correlation between settlement location and landscape features such as soil type which strongly influence susceptibility to aerial photography.

Results Within 2km of Bemersyde Loch are 14 curvilinear enclosures, one rectilinear enclosure, one hillfort, and one promontory fort (Fig. 2). Two homesteads around Bemersyde Loch, Bemersyde and Whitrighill, have been excavated and both date to the Iron Age (Jones et al. 1991). Evidence from excavation suggests that Bemersyde may also have been occupied in the Roman period.

The clustering of settlements is interesting and provides evidence for past occupation of, and social organisation in, the area. Given the lack of firm dating evidence mentioned above, it might at first appear impossible to make an interpretation of the social behaviour lying behind the settlement patterns. What can be argued, however, is that

Geophysical survey of sites in the area, particularly Bemersyde and Third, provides evidence of complex 96

Wise: Late prehistoric settlement and society

0

0

;,

0 0" ©

"'

0

/J, 0

0

0

0

(

i

~

)

( /v1 L_

\..-~'--'

J

~

(_

< ~~ c._'"') (

~') -............

J

~

Figure 1. The distribution of Neolithic monuments mentioned in the text: tinted area shows principal distribution of long barrows; •round barrow; =cursus; Ohenge

102

Vyner: Lost horizons

between Neolithic long barrows or cairns and distinctive landscape features such as rivers, streams, or significant contours. In part this may be because of the relatively small numbers of such monuments: there are no confirmed Neolithic long barrows listed for County Durham (Young 1980), while only nine long cairns can be identified in Northumberland (Masters 1984). In north and east Yorkshire there are more long barrows and cairns, and locations in proximity to valleys have been noted (Manby 1970, 5), but this is no means a recurrent feature. For the present all that may be said is that earlier and middle Neolithic mortuary monuments in the region are characterised by their unobtrusiveness as landscape features, a trait which appears to be continued by later Neolithic monuments.

as earthworks set on the eastern side of the valley of the River Ure (SE 285795, Thomas 1955), and the nearby henges at Hutton and Cana (SE 355725), currently the focus of research by J. Harding. There is increasing evidence that such complexes are not atypical, but were a feature of most, if not all, the major river valleys of the region. The Tyne is built-up in its lower reaches, but a substantial mound with concentric cropmark ditch at Dewley Hill, Throckley (NZ 160680), is evidence that it was a focus for Neolithic interest which may also have been expressed in other monuments. At Chester-le-Street, on the River Wear, there is an interesting cropmark monument complex which includes a substantial henge (NZ 280533), while at Hasting Hill, above the River Wear to the east, there is a group (NZ 355540) which includes a cursus, a D-shaped enclosure and a round mound which makes use of a natural hillock to magnify its stature. In the valley of the River Tees, the recent discovery of early Bronze Age burials at Ingleby Barwick (NZ 447124) in the lower Tees valley is close to Round Hill (NZ 431129), a substantial round mound situated at the confluence of the River Leven with the Tees which may yet prove to have a Neolithic date. In the middle Tees valley air photography reveals cropmarks of two substantial circular ditched monuments, poorly defined and potentially either henges or middle Bronze Age Thwing-style enclosures, at Aldbrough (NZ 205130) and Manfield (NZ 222124), with the earthwork remains of a possible cursus and round mound further up the river valley, near Romaldkirk (NZ 000217). The complex of cursus monuments at Rudston, in the valley of the Gipsey Race (TA 099670, Manby 1988, 65-6), is not matched by other cursus or henge monuments elsewhere in North and East Yorkshire. The one exception in terms not only of an eastern location, but also in lacking a river valley setting, is a cursus revealed as a cropmark at Bamby (NZ 842143), set on a well defined area of rising ground within 2km of the North Sea coast.

The later Neolithic round barrows can also be very substantial mounds (Manby 1988, 64-5), considerably larger than the majority of Bronze Age round barrows across the region. Even the largest of these later barrows seldom reaches the proportions of the Neolithic monuments, but the distinction is not so much one of size as of location. A prime example is the later Neolithic mound at Duggleby Howe (SE 880669), which is 38m in diameter and 6m high but is placed so as to be hardly visible from any distance. Only excavation can prove the point, but the substantial mound at Danby Low Moor (NZ 715109), set low in a landscape dominated by smaller crest-set Bronze Age barrows, can by analogy be considered a potential Neolithic mound. Neolithic mounds, both long and round, often appear to be isolated monuments- at least, during their main period of construction and use- in contrast to the Bronze Age burial mounds which often occur in close-set groups of two or three, or in larger groupings spread over a wider area. Busier early landscapes are suggested by the massive cropmark ditch surrounding Duggleby Howe, where there are also cropmarks of two adjacent ring ditches (Riley 1980), or by the cropmarks of ring ditches adjacent to the Neolithic mound at Copt Hill, County Durham (NZ 353492). However, surviving Bronze Age round barrows around the location of isolated earlier sites at, for example, the Hutton henge, suggests that much of this activity took place some time after the establishment of the early monument. The concentric ditch at Duggleby must be at least partly contemporaneous with the mound, but without excavation it is uncertain what the relationship was between these mounds and the other cropmark features.

Bronze Age burial mounds Bronze Age mounds are widespread, but their distribution is markedly variable (Fig. 2). In the upland areas this variability appears to reflect their original distribution, but this is less certain in respect of lower ground which has continued under arable agriculture. The arguments concerning the Bronze Age barrows presented here are based on the evidence from the North Yorkshire Moors and adjacent areas (Fig. 3), and, it has to be said, do not always find support from the much more sparsely distributed mounds of, for example, County Durham (Young 1980). A distinction may be made between isolated or small clusters of between two and five Bronze Age burial mounds and larger groups of mounds.

Cursus and henge monuments The preferred location for these sites appears largely to lie away from the uplands, and instead, to have a clear relationship with the major rivers of the region (Fig. 1). The cropmark henge monuments and pit alignment in the Milfield Basin, Northumberland (NT 950325, Harding 1981), within the confluence of the rivers Glen and Till, are well-known, as now are the massive henges surviving

Isolated and small clusters of Bronze Age barrows To risk a series of generalisations: isolated and small clusters of mounds tend to be among the larger mounds, are prominent in the landscape relative to their size, occupy hill top or ridge locations, and are intervisible with

103

Northern Pasts

0

50km

______________

Fig.3

oerwent

~-

Figure 2. The distribution of Bronze Age monuments in north-east Yorkshire showing principle concentrations of barrows: • burial mounds; - cross ridge boundary; also showing the location of Figures 3, 4 and 5

104

Vyner: Lost horizons

[J

61m

[]

122m 305m

0

10

20

Figure 3. Findspots of collared urns as an indicator of burial mound distribution in north-east and eastern Yorkshire with larger symbols indicating multiple finds (base map courtesy of T.G. Manby)

other mounds over long distances. These mounds appear to have few associations.

seen from Rockcliffe, where the Boulby barrow group is located, distance of 10km.

The larger Bronze Age monuments, and, indeed, many of the smaller ones, are sometimes placed where they can be seen from considerable distances. The settings for isolated and clustered barrows often seem to have been chosen so that relatively small monuments are given a landscape status out of all proportion to their size, as, for example, the Black Howes (NZ 665125; Fig. 4) or Swarth Howe (NZ 843088). The monuments sometimes claim attention across long distances: Danby Beacon, for example, can be

Isolated and clustered mounds appear to perform a territorial function, seemingly marking ridges over distances of several kilometres. To follow a route from barrows on North Ings Moor (NZ 634124) past the Three Howes on Guisborough Moor (NZ 625133) and northwards is to follow a series of ridges which are marked by mounds which have been carefully placed so that they can overlook both sides of the ridge. Contrivance is evident, since in some cases the ability to see into the

105

Northern Pasts

I

•

• Figure 4. The Black Howes and other ridge top Bronze Age burial mounds in their vicinity adjacent valley can be achieved only at the spot where the mound has been placed.

only visible marker on the way to Lilla Howe. The route runs on to Louven Howe, Ann Howe, and Foster Howes. Then the substantial but low-lying Robbed Howe and, a little further on, an unnamed small mound become the intermediate markers for the path to Breckon Howe. Walking this route it is hard to avoid the conclusion that, while the mounds may have been significant burial places, they must have played a part in marking a route, whether sacred or profane.

That a progress was intended to be achieved by following some of the ridge top barrows is clearly seen on the Goathland-Fylingdales watershed. A track still links most of these burial mounds, but that is probably neither here nor there, what is significant is that while some of the mounds are prominent from either side of the watershed ridge, others are not. Similarly, in moving along the watershed itself some of the more distant burial mounds are obvious features in the landscape, while others are not. The function of this chain of burial mounds in marking out the line of a track appears to be confirmed when, in walking between them, stretches which are 'blind' to the more prominent mounds by intervening valleys become clearly marked by, usually smaller, intermediate mounds.

Isolated and clustered mounds appear to have few associations, and they tend to occur at heights above those occupied by the vestigial field systems and other putative Bronze Age remains; the single recurrent association 1s with cross ridge boundaries, discussed below. Groups of Bronze Age burial mounds Larger groups of Bronze Age burial mounds tend to include mounds of varying size, although these are generally smaller mounds, and they tend to be less conspicuously placed on lower lying and, if modem land use is an indicator, better quality land. It is noticeable that

Thus, walking between Jugger Howe in the east (SE 941998) to Breckon Howe in the west (NZ 854034) and heading for Lilla Howe, ascending first the western side of the Bum Howe Beck the small Bum Howe becomes the 106

Vyner: Lost horizons

e•

Burial mound (certain)

O Burial mound (probable) •

0

Cairn

o Enclosure

• 0

~

tu: 0

~------

1km

Figure 5. Group of Bronze Age burial mounds on the Eston Hills, Cleveland

some barrow groups appear to have been established in areas which had been the focus of earlier activity, as, for example the Hutton and Cana henges, the Street House cairn at Rockcliffe, or the cursus at Bamby. Although some mounds within groups can be more substantial and more conspicuous than others, and there is thus an implicit suggestion of hierarchies, attempts to establish the degree of intervisibility between mounds in groups have been only partly successful due to the extensive attrition which has taken place (Crawford 1980, 69). Similarly, inadequate records preclude the identification of relative status and chronology through excavated finds. Although there may be outlying mounds, core groups seem fairly readily identifiable, as for example at Rockcliffe (NZ 745194, Hornsby & Laverick 1920), Bamby (NZ 831147, Ashbee & ApSimon 1920), or the Eston Hills (NZ 580185; Fig. 5; Vyner 1991). Such groups may represent the preferred burial area of a tribal group, or families within a tribe, or they may represent a burial area for different groups - such questions are potentially still answerable despite the extensive excavations which have been undertaken in the past. The chronology and development

of the barrow groups, and the existence or otherwise of mortuary and ritual structures as well as the vexed question of the location of settlement and subsistence have also still to be addressed. Not all the Bronze Age burial mounds fall conveniently into the groupings suggested above, but they seldom occur completely in isolation. A common factor is the lack of evidence for original accompaniment by other kinds of monument. Although field systems and smaller cairns, usually referred to as clearance cairns, do occur in juxtaposition with Bronze Age burial mounds, as for example on Danby Rigg (NZ 709065, Harding & OstojaZag6rski 1994), Great Ayton Moor (NZ 595115, Vyner 1993) or Wheatbeck (SE 503947, Browarska 1998), there is currently no evidence from the North Yorks Moors that there was any particularly close chronological link between these various kinds of monument, and it is at least arguable that such assemblages accrued over lengthy periods of time. Although Spratt (1993, 116-9) followed Elgee (1930, 129-60) in identifying such groupings of monuments with individual communities, it remains the case that the majority of Bronze Age round barrows are not associated

107

Northern Pasts

I 0.___.___.

_ _..__.,_500m _,

Figure 6. Area defined by the Gerrick Moor cross ridge boundary, Lockwood, Cleveland

with clearance cairns, field systems, or (notably) houses, although the correlation is suggested for the Peak District (Bamatt 1994, 359).

earthwork is a single Bronze Age burial mound. Recent examination after heather burning reveals the boundary to be causewayed at semi-regular intervals. The Hom Nab is convincing in the scale of earthwork and the physical delineation of the ridge; other boundaries are less substantial and refer to more subtly delineated areas. At Girrick Moor, Lockwood, a low bank and associated ditch mark off the end of a low promontory defined by the 245 and 250m contours (Fig. 6). The western end of the bank is set above the western edge of the well defined part of the promontory, but on the east, where the slope is less pronounced, the bank runs out into an area of boggy ground. The promontory is occupied by the prominent Bronze Age round barrow, Herd Howe (NZ 705118), or the nearby, and its less prominent, but still substantial neighbour, Robin Hood's Butts. The areas defined can be identified by considering the relationship between boundary and topography, and by the plan of these linear monuments, whose terminals sometimes make a slight return to embrace the defined area. This is most clearly seen at the northern Levisham Moor boundary (TA 833934), where the eastern terminal of this causewayed boundary is carried southwards for some distance.

Cross-ridge boundaries The cross-ridge boundaries of the North Yorkshire Moors have been the subject of recent analysis (Vyner 1994; 1995). I have been hesitant in ascribing a date earlier than the early Bronze Age for these features, but their relationship with local, frequently downslope, situations recalls the position taken by many Neolithic causewayed enclosures. This, coupled with the realisation that a number are actually causewayed or otherwise intermittent boundaries, strengthens a growing suspicion that these places were originally the focus of Neolithic activity, and continued in use during the Bronze Age. The earthworks, variously comprised simply of earth or with composite and potentially complex earth and stone construction, seem also to relate to very specific areas of the landscape. The boundaries were constructed to work in conjunction with natural features such as streams, contours and marshy areas, and, I suggest, the then existing tree-cover.

While these boundaries are important for the evidence they exhibit for constructional complexity and chronological depth, it is also important to understand more of the activities that took place in the defined areas. If the suggestion that these places were first demarcated in the

The Hom Nab, Famdale (NZ 661963), is a sharply defined ridge end marked out by a bank and ditch boundary; in the centre of the area defined by the ridge sides and the

108

Vyner: Lost horizons

Neolithic, the Bronze Age burial mounds which now occupy these locations were established late in their history. The relative prominence of the mounds contrasts with the boundary constructions, which are seldom obvious features in the landscape.

This brief discussion offers some tentative suggestions for the monumental use of the landscape. Further work is needed to confirm or deny them. For the present it can be claimed that there are, in the north-east, landscapes with particular characteristics offering specific locational opportunities which have been exploited in the Neolithic and Bronze Age in ways which are becoming predictable.

Although cross ridge boundaries can be found in the region outside the North Yorkshire Moors, they are infrequent and it is unclear whether the concentration in this area is simply a reflection of topographical opportunity or tribal preference, or a coincidence of both. A comparison may be drawn with Sussex, where the topography has encouraged a similar concentration of cross ridge boundaries, while a contrast may be drawn with Shropshire and the Welsh Marches, where topographical opportunity exists but has not been exploited on such a widespread scale.

Acknowledgements The inspiration for the title and at least some of the content of this paper was provided by my local off-licence: 'Lost Horizons: 1997 Sauvignon Blanc/Chardonnay. Wine of the Western Cape from the area of the majestic Cape of Good Hope, where premium vines have grown for over three hundred years'. For company and comment on the landscape archaeology of the north-east I must thank Gillian Cobb, Stuart Graham, Graeme Guilbert, Anthony Harding, and Terry Manby.

Conclusion References

It is suggested that there are distinctive landscape preferences for the setting of monuments in the north-east during the Neolithic and Bronze Age. The chosen settings vary depending to some extent on period, but perhaps as much on monument type. For the Cheviots of Northumberland it has been suggested that stone circles and carved stones were set in relation to prominent landscape features (Topping 1997, 127), although the extent to which intervisibility was available at the time of their establishment is unclear. Prominent landscape features, however, are not always to be found in the region, while substantial landscape features like rivers are not always prominent far beyond their banks.

Ashbee, P. & ApSimon, A.M. 1956. Bamby Howes, East Cleveland, Yorkshire. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 39, 9-31. Barnatt, J. 1994. The excavation of a Bronze Age unenclosed cemetery, cairns, and field boundaries at Eaglestone Flat, Curbar, Derbyshire, 1984, 1989-90. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 60, 287-370. Browarska, P. 1998. Wheatbeck, North Yorkshire: a survey of a Bronze Age field system on the North Yorkshire Moors. Durham Archaeological Journal 13, 35-42. Crawford, G.M. 1980. Bronze Age Burial Mounds in Cleveland. Middlesborough: Cleveland County Council. Elgee, F. 1930. Early Man in North-East Yorkshire. Gloucester: John Bellows. Harding, A.F. 1981. Excavations in the prehistoric ritual complex near Milfield, Northumberland. Proceedings Prehistoric Society 47, 87-135. Harding, A.F. & Ostoja-Zag6rski, J. 1994. Prehistoric and early medieval activity on Danby Rigg, North Yorkshire. Archaeological Journal 151, 16-97. Hornsby, W. & Laverick, J.D. 1920. British barrows around Boulby. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 25, 48-52. Manby, T.G. 1970. Long barrows of northern England; structural and dating evidence. Scottish Archaeological Forum 2, 1-27. Manby, T.G. 1988. The Neolithic period in eastern Yorkshire. In T.G. Manby (ed.) Archaeology in Eastern Yorkshire. Sheffield: Department of Archaeology and Prehistory, University of Sheffield, 35-88. Masters, L. 1984. The Neolithic long cairns of Cumbria and Northumberland. In R. Miket (ed.) Between and Beyond the Walls: essays on the prehistory of north Britain in honour of George Jobey.

On the present evidence it is suggested that Neolithic barrows and cairns are not placed so as to be prominent in the landscape, nor do they appear to relate to significant topographical features, instead they refer to much smaller areas, as might be expected if substantial amounts of tree cover were still in existence. By contrast, cursus and henge monuments have a clear preference for river valley settings, although the presence of the river itself seems more important than the clarity with which the topography is defined. Cross ridge boundaries which may be later Neolithic in inception were carefully placed to take advantage of specific landscape features, although, like the henges and cursus monuments, their visibility within the wider landscape seems not to have been important. During the Bronze Age the predominant monument type, the burial mound, seems often to have been used as a way of outwardly modifying the landscape, in contrast with the former inward preoccupations of the Neolithic. The increased clearance of tree cover no doubt provided new opportunities for visibility over longer distances, suggested by the ridge top settings of mounds and their possible territorial function. More local landscapes were also constructed, in which mounds of various sizes were placed with varying intervisibility which may have reflected status.

109

Northern Pasts

Edinburgh: John Donald, 52-73. Riley, D.N. 1980. Recent air photographs of Duggleby Howe and Ferrybridge Henge. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 52,174-8. Simmons, LG., Atherden, M., Cloutman, E.W., Cundill, P.R., Innes, J.B. & Jones, R.L. 1993. Prehistoric environments. In D.A. Spratt (ed.) Prehistoric and Roman Archaeology of North-East Yorkshire. CBA Research Report 87, 15-50. Thomas, N. 1955. The Thornborough Circles, near Ripon, North Riding Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 38, 425-45. Topping, P. 1997. Different realities: the Neolithic in the Northumberland Cheviots. In P. Topping (ed.) Neolithic Landscapes. Oxford: Oxbow Books, Neolithic Studies Group Seminar Papers 2, 113-23. Vyner, B.E. 1991. Bronze Age activity on the Eston Hills, Cleveland. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 63, 25-49.

Vyner, B.E. 1993. Field survey of Great Ayton Moor, North Yorkshire. Yorkshire Archaeological Society Prehistory Research Section Bulletin 31, 7-11. Vyner, B.E. 1994. The territory of ritual. Antiquity 68, 2738 Vyner, B.E. 1995. The brides of place: cross-ridge boundaries reviewed. In B.E. Vyner (ed.) Moorland Monuments: Studies in the Archaeology of North-east Yorkshire in Honour of Raymond Hayes and Don Spratt. CBA Research Report 101, 16-30. Young, R. 1980. An inventory of barrows in County Durham. Transactions of the Architectural and Archaeological Society of Durham and Northumberland 5, 1-16.

110

The Neolithic and Bronze Age in the lowlands of North West England Ron Cowell North West England, for the purposes of this paper, includes the counties of Lancashire, Merseyside/Greater Manchester and Cheshire. It therefore artificially cuts out the fringes of the uplands of north Wales and Cumbria, areas that may have played some part in the disposition and nature of the prehistoric settlement dealt with in this account. The North West has traditionally been an area overlooked within the north, seemingly little researched and potentially unproductive. Recent survey, however, has begun to highlight the nature of the evidence in the region (Cowell in prep. a; Cowell 1991a; Cowell & Innes 1994; Middleton et al. 1995; Hall et al. 1995, Leah et al. 1997) and this paper offers the opportunity to provide for the first time a synthesised narrative of the evidence. It inevitably offers much speculation, but it is hoped that this can provide theories for discussion and testing through future research.

although these differ in their nature. North of the Mersey they are found in relatively extensive deposits, whilst being confined generally to small basins in Cheshire. The latter area does not have access to the wetland deposits flanking the coastal zone which are a strong feature north of the Mersey.

The region can be divided into three main blocks of land, defined by the major river systems (Fig. 1). These lie between the Lune and the Ribble, the Ribble and the Mersey, and the area of Cheshire south of the Mersey served by the Weaver/Mersey river basin. Each of these areas incorporates, in general terms, the three major topographical divisions which serve to unify the region, but within which local conditions provide a distinctive character for each of the three blocks (Fig. 2). The three major topographic zones comprise: in the east, the Pennine slopes and areas of flanking glacial sands and gravels adjacent to the foothills, particularly in Cheshire; westwards is essentially an undulating boulder clay plain running to the sea, against which lies the third zone or coastal plain. In north Lancashire, the extent of these three zones is more restricted, as the north Pennines extend closer to the coastal fringe. The area south of the Mersey only has access to the coastal zone via the major river estuaries of the Mersey and Dee.

Late Mesolithic background

The limited archaeological tradition in the region means that there is a lack of dated excavations to provide chronological controls for assessing the nature of changing artefactual, particularly lithic, styles and the function and nature of surface sites on which so much of the interpretation is based. This means that the process of change cannot be defined in detail, but the evidence as it is, does produce certain trends, albeit seen over a long period of time and with imprecise chronological boundaries.

An integrated view of the region for this period is to be treated in detail elsewhere (Cowell in prep. b ). This account, therefore, will only summarise the main arguments of relevance to providing a context out of which the settlement and landuse oflater periods developed.

The lithic evidence for the Pennines is well enough known (Wymer & Bonsall 1977; Mellars 1976; Jacobi et al. 1976; Williams 1985). The basic interpretation of this material suggests seasonal movement from the lowlands into the uplands, mainly in summer, associated with small hunting camps, although Williams suggests a greater degree of permanence in some parts of the uplands. In the lowlands, there are three basic patterns, although the evidence is more limited north of the Ribble (Fig. 3). On the coast, lithic concentrations are found, particularly on North Wirral and the Alt/Mersey estuary in Merseyside (Cowell & Innes 1994). The assemblages from these surface sites indicate that they may have been associated with 'extractive' activities such as raw material collection and processing, or perhaps specialist task sites, while slightly further up the Alt valley and possibly on the north Wirral coast, potential residential camps are present.

The western part of the boulder clay plain, and especially across its central area, is overlain by patches of glacially derived wind blown sand. It is broken by outcrops of sandstone which form low hills, particularly south of the Ribble, which range between 60 to 100m OD. It is also overlain everywhere with Holocene deposits of peat,

111

Northern Pasts

Figure 1. The topography of north west England

112

Cowell: The Neolithic and Bronze Age in the lowlands of North West England

8Bill] Shirdley Hill Sand

Millstone Grit

-

River Terrace

~

Peat

D

Boulder Clay

~

Limestone

Blown Sand

~

-

Alluvium

Glacial sand & gravel

■' I Sandstones

Coal Measures

Figure 2. The geology of north west England

113

Mudstones

Northern Pasts

o

Flintconcentration-Mesolithic Singleflint find- Mesolithic • Singleflint find- undiagnostic o Flintconcentration-undlagnostic Cil Neolithicburials

+

1 2 3 4

5

Pollensttes BidstonMoss SniggeryWood FleaMossWood MartinMere SoyiandMoor

4

Figure 3. The late Mesolithic-earliest Neolithic of north west England

114

Cowell: The Neolithic and Bronze Age in the lowlands of North West England

In the areas away from the coast, essentially the central part of the boulder clay zone, Mesolithic landuse differed from that in the coastal strip. Even when undiagnostic material is included, the same coastal/inland dichotomy is seen. Inland, the density of lithic material decreases with distance from the coast and is found in two forms. On the boulder clay there is a thin and widespread scatter of isolated finds, most of which are blades. The second element, that may be confined to the Mesolithic and possibly early Neolithic, consists of small concentrations, typically of between 4 and c. 20 surface pieces. These sites are mainly confined to river valleys and some mossland fringes, although the occurrence of these small sites falls off eastwards, even around the mosslands. They are interpreted as small specialist task sites associated with relatively high proportions of retouched flakes or blades and small debitage (Cowell & Philpott in press).

Late Mesolithic/earliest Neolithic The rate at which Neolithic culture was introduced into the region is unclear, as is the process leading to the adoption of Neolithic cultural artefacts and economic practices. Public monuments are few and none are independently dated. The earliest dates for Neolithic cultural artefacts are from Beeston Castle in Cheshire (Fig. 4), where Grimston ware and leaf arrowheads were found- but not directly associated with charcoal which produced late 6th millennium BP dates (Keen & Hough 1993)- and in North Lancashire, at St. Michaels on Wyre, where similar dates were associated with an in situ plain sherd of pottery and leaf arrowhead found in peat (Middleton et al. 1995). There are no indications of the economic practices at either of these sites. At one pollen site, Bidston Moss on the north coast of Wirral (Fig. 3), significant changes are apparent throughout the late Mesolithic. Here, during the 6th millennium BP, clearances are temporary, but in relation to other occurrences in the area they are quite significant in nature with a successive reduction in the density of woodland regeneration so that by the elm decline tree pollen formed only c. 30% of total pollen, with grasses and ruderals prevalent and cereal type pollen present in each clearance phase (Cowell & Innes 1994, 37). This might suggest that hunter gatherers were becoming more sedentary here, where a mosaic of coastal, estuarine and wetland resources in close proximity to well drained and relatively low sandstone ridges running down to the coast, provided the conditions for less frequent moves, with consequent residential stays lasting longer. A similar pattern of sedentary occupation is put forward for the coastal plain in west Cumbria (Bonsall et al. 1981). Although there is a good deal of evidence for Mesolithic occupation along the north Wirral coast, its circumstances of recovery means that it cannot confidently be used in a way that might bear on this interpretation.

The central part of Cheshire includes elements similar to this (Leah et al. 1997), but on the main central sandstone ridge, two sites near Frodsham (Longley 1987) at a height of c. 150m OD, may represent a different function. Larger concentrations of surface material are spread over wider areas of the landscape, and potentially include a stronger microlithic element than north of the Mersey. Furthermore, to the east, on the glacial sands and gravels flanking the foothills, there is a hint from sites for which the author has seen the lithic evidence, such as Manchester Airport and at Mawdsley in Lancashire, that functionally different types of sites also existed in this zone. As yet, there is little to link the different lowland parts of the region into related cycles of human movement or to their relationship with the uplands. From a lithic point of view, this is largely because the raw material used is dominantly boulder clay flint pebbles, which could probably have been collected within very short distances of the discard sites. Some sites though, in the central Pennines, use boulder clay flint from the lowlands (Stonehouse 1989), as do sites in the northern Peak District (D. Hindpers. comm.).

To the east of the Mersey estuary a similar landuse pattern is evidenced a little later, towards the end of the 6th millennium BP, at Sniggery Wood, also with significant clearances dating to just before the elm decline. In this instance, some of the nearby Alt valley surface lithic assemblages could be interpreted as longer term residential sites (Cowell & Innes 1994).

The pattern therefore appears to be one of residential areas, with sites occupied for the longest periods occurring in the coastal/estuarine areas. Inland, small task sites and even less intensively used activity loci are widespread. Burning the woodland may have been an important part of landuse in the lowlands as in the uplands (Middleton et al. 1995). The Pennine slopes were also heavily used by task groups and there are hints that the foothills and sands and gravels on the lower ground may also have operated as residential areas. The mid-Cheshire ridge may have been seen as an 'upland' environment for the coastal locations, although there are significant differences in raw material exploitation in the two areas, implying that parts of Cheshire may have been used on an annual or lifetime basis by different groups from those on the coast.

Additionally, cereal type pollen is present at Flea Moss Wood and at Bidston Moss, with dates centring on about 5900 BP (Cowell & Innes 1994). Similar occurrences are seen in pollen Zone VIia, and thus likely to be of similar age, in the west Lancashire plain, at Martin Mere and Hillhouse (Tooley 1978), and in the Pennines (Williams 1985; Edwards & Hirons 1984). If cereal type pollen can be taken as indicating the cultivation of cereals, which is disputed (Kinnes 1988), one facet of Neolithic culture may have been available to people living as hunter gatherers over 500 years before the adoption of other aspects of 115

Northern Pasts

material culture associated with farming communities. This may be linked to other changes seen during the late Mesolithic of the coastal areas.

Hatchmere, Cheshire- where the activity associated with the elm decline is fairly transient (Howard-Davis et al. 1988)- and at Bidston Moss in the coastal zone, the effects on the woodland continued for several centuries into the middle Neolithic.

Here, conditions may have been most suitable for the early adoption of at least some aspects of farming culture, so that small plots of cereals could have been tended as part of the annual mobile round of hunting and collecting of wild resources. This may reflect the early stages of Zvelebil and Rowley-Conwy's (1984) availability model, where the transition to farming progresses through several types of frontier situations, the different stages of which can exist simultaneously across an area. Elsewhere in Merseyside, in an area with widespread evidence for late Mesolithic sites, small temporary clearances within fairly closed woodland are the norm at inland sites and in some areas of the coast, and there is a similar pattern in north Lancashire throughout the 6th millennium BP (Cowell & Innes 1984; Middleton et al. 1995), suggesting areas in which earlier patterns of landuse continued for longer.

Whittle ( 1997, 21) outlines a number of possible different types of mobility which he suggests might provide models for the nature of Neolithic landscape use. Although it is unlikely that clear-cut differences will always have operated between the various models, nor been always confined to specific areas, in very general terms certain patterns may be seen in different zones across the North West. Although the archaeological evidence is not yet good enough to test these models, the surface evidence for the central coastal areas and possibly the central ridge in Cheshire suggests that Whittle's short term sedentism model, either within an overall pattern of dispersal or perhaps linked to logistical mobility (see below), may be most likely. This is a pattern that may have been a feature of these areas, during both the late Mesolithic and early Neolithic, while elsewhere in the region other kinds of mobility may have operated during the Neolithic.

Early Neolithic

Away from these potential 'core' areas, other patterns of landuse may have been more dominant, perhaps associated with Whittle's (1997) logistical or radiating mobility. In Merseyside, this may have been partially linked to the coastal areas where the smaller lithic concentrations, interpreted as task sites, have been assigned to the Mesolithic (Fig. 3). But without better chronological control there can be no certainty that some of them are not Neolithic.

The archaeological evidence for this period argues for a large measure of continuity from the Mesolithic in site location and lithic distributions in north Lancashire (Middleton et al. 1995) and in Merseyside (Cowell & Innes 1994). The identification ofNeolithic lithic sites is difficult because of typological similarities between the two periods. It is possible that such material has been included in assemblages characterised as Mesolithic. In Merseyside, where the most systematic coverage of all topographical units has taken place, when the distribution of all lithics is taken into account, the coastal and estuarine zone contains most of the small to medium concentrations, while inland material tends to consist mainly of single finds (Cowell in prep. a). This suggests that the manner in which the landscape was exploited remained broadly similar in this part of the region until the Bronze Age.

More common in inland areas is a pattern of isolated struck lithics suggesting that early Neolithic activity here differed little from Mesolithic landuse, with the area largely being used for off-site activity in peripheral woodlands and valleys. In addition to the struck flint, single stone axe finds are common across the region, but are of limited importance in that they need not be as significant in their distribution as the more systematically collected evidence. They also need not relate solely to the early to mid Neolithic period. Particular concentrations are seen in the coastal belt of north Lancashire and north Wirral, and might reflect settlement activity. But some of the axes here, and perhaps more commonly those inland, may represent off-site activities. Hayden (1978) documents their use in modem aboriginal contexts where they are found peripheral to the settlements, in outlying woodland mainly associated with occasional, site specific low density artefact wood processing sites, which are spread widely across the landscape. In this context they might complement the pattern of landuse interpreted from the incidence of single flint finds.

The lithic concentrations assigned a general early prehistoric or specifically Neolithic date are found around the coasts and estuaries, with the most important area being the Fylde in north Lancashire (Fig. 4). This regional disparity, however, could just as much reflect the relevant confidence levels of the different workers in identifying such material as early Neolithic. In the southern coastal areas, the pattern of relatively significant clearance during the later 6th millennium BP continues into the elm decline horizon, traditionally thought to mark the beginning of 'Neolithic' farming. In addition, significant but temporary phenomena are also apparent at this horizon at inland sites such as Hoscar Moss (Cundill 1981), and where the boulder clay is more prevalent, at Knowsley Park (Cowell & Innes 1994). In Cheshire, similar effects to those in the coastal zone are evident during the elm decline at Lindow Moss. At

The pollen evidence also suggests a degree of continuity in these areas between the 6th and 5th millennia BP. At a number of north Lancashire sites the pattern of small scale 116

Cowell: The Neolithic and Bronze Age in the lowlands of North West England

Neolit til

□

•

., +

• T

0

Burials Settlementsites Flintconcentrations Singlefinds Flintconcentrations-early prehistoric Stoneaxeheads Leafarrowheads Undiagnosticsingle finds Undiagnosticflint concentrations Pollensites

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12

WybunburyMoss Hatchmere LindowMoss Chat Moss Red Moss PrescotMoss BidstonMoss KnowsleyPar1< Moss Hoscar Moss LythamMoss CockerhamMoss StorrsMoss

Figure 4. The Neolithic of north west England

117

Northern Pasts

clearances continues with the appearance of the elm decline (Oldfield & Statham 1965). This is evident at sites such as Storrs Moss and Hawes Water (Middleton et al. 1995, 194). In association with the lithic evidence from the area, such a pattern could be interpreted as indicating essentially similar landuse to that in the Mesolithic, with the exception that at many sites potential cereal cultivation is indicated by the presence of cereal type pollen.

limited for this period. For inland central areas, the uplands, and possibly parts of north Lancashire, Whittle's (1997) models of logistical or radiating mobility may in general be appropriate. Here, a variety of types of short-stay settlements are found with outlying visits to other areas for herding, hunting or raw material collection. The local lithic evidence suggests that this may have been over relatively large distances, as in the Mesolithic. Although even in this zone, it is expected that certain favoured areas may have supported sites that might have been more sedentary even if only on a yearly basis. One such location may be at Prescot in Merseyside (Cowell & Innes, 1994), which, while lacking archaeological evidence, does possess in a peat bog a phase of soil erosion and possible cereal growing in the middle Neolithic. It is situated on a topographically attractive low sandstone ridge with a good range of environments, and may be the type of area in which to expect the potential development of a limited degree of sedentism within a more mobile system. The central ridge in Cheshire and the Pennine foothill gravels may be other areas in which to expect such sites.

The development of farming in north Lancashire may have been less significant than in some coastal areas to the south. The basic mobile hunter gatherer way of life seems to have persisted with only the limited substitution by farming practice taking place. Middleton et al. (1995) sees this as a response to stress caused by marine inundation in the late Mesolithic, leading to the adoption of new techniques. An interesting development in north Lancashire, is the number of stone axes in the north Fylde deliberately associated with deposition in wet environments (Middleton et al. 1995), which might lead to speculation as to whether such stress might also result in developments in symbolic activity. In other parts of the region- at sites such as Red Moss (Hibbert et al. 1971) and Chat Moss (Birks 1964) in Greater Manchester, and adjoining areas of Cheshire such as Holcroft Moss (Birks 1965)- similar limited changes are seen with the elm decline, although without the potential use of cereals (Howard-Davis et al. 1988). At Chat Moss this is part of a continuing pattern of minor episodes. In parts of Cheshire to the south of the Mersey, as at Wybunbury Moss, similar effects are seen at the elm decline. In the uplands to the east, little effect is seen to the forest cover which lay up to c. 400m OD throughout the early Neolithic (Barnes 1982).

It appears, therefore, as if much of the region, with its

attractive range and close juxtaposition of coastal, wetland and dryland environments, was primarily used for hunting and gathering into the period after which Neolithic culture and economy was available in Britain. Within this pattern, there may have been variations between different parts of the region in the frequency of cereal use as an adjunct to wild resources, which could conceivably have influenced the tendency for development at different rates. Although interpretation based on the absence of cereal pollen is fraught with difficulties, there does appear to be a degree of patterning in the evidence which could have archaeological implications. After an initial cereal phase in north Lancashire at the time of the elm decline, subsequent woodland reduction episodes provide no hint of their presence (Middleton et al. 1995), and there is no evidence for cereals in the Pennine fringe areas, nor across most of the interior. It would perhaps be surprising if cereals played no part in these areas as the Neolithic progressed, but circumstantially it seems as if they were characterised by a focus on either wild or husbanded animal exploitation.

The lack of possibilities for survey in the Greater Manchester embayment means that the archaeological picture is less clear here. The main evidence for the Neolithic is the axe distribution which suggests the existence of Neolithic groups in the Irwell/lower Mersey basin with an extension northwards along the Pennine slopes (Fig. 4). It seems likely that hunting remained important, as illustrated by the incidence of sites with leaf arrowheads dominating on the Pennine slopes, and the axes may represent peripheral activities on the wooded slopes, found mainly at or above the 200m contour. Although the full range of environments likely to have been used within a mobile pattern is not available for study in this area because of present-day landuse, it seems likely that mobility was dominant, with the pollen evidence suggesting that landuse did not differ much from the Mesolithic in either the lowland or upland part of the embayment north of the Mersey (Barnes 1982). To the south of the Mersey, there are hints in the Mesolithic and in the Bronze age that conditions on the river gravels and the flanking foothills may have provided more opportunity for a degree of sedentism, and it may be that such a situation is hidden in the Neolithic because evidence is so

Meanwhile, coastal areas may have relied on a greater mix of wild and domesticated resources. It might be speculated that such conditions may have to some extent fostered a degree of economic, social, and cultural identity within these areas which could have played a role in the subsequent development oflanduse and settlement. Even though there is a good deal of continuity with Mesolithic landuse and settlement patterns, new elements were adopted. Neolithic public and ritual monuments are poorly represented in the North West, but there are a number of chambered burial mounds. They are found in the Pennine foothills below the level of spreading blanket bog 118

Cowell: The Neolithic and Bronze Age in the lowlands of North West England

(Fig. 4). Such sites represent the idea of fixed places in the landscape and provide meanings to communities about ancestry and social identification (Barnatt 1996). The construction of these communal burial monuments may have fulfilled local supra-regional functions, acting on the larger tribal or kinship groupings (Bradley & Hodder 1979, 95), particularly as causewayed camps are absent from the area (Palmer 1976). Such sites do not necessarily assume that the communities for whom they have meaning were fixed in place and they could function as part of a system for widely dispersed and mobile groups (Thomas 1991).

to each other, or to what extent the apparent extension in the lowlands in the late Neolithic is not a factor of later landuse and survival patterns. The dated pollen record from across the region for this period is not extensive. The coastal sites in Merseyside do not relate to the late Neolithic, but in other pollen diagrams in the region there is no evidence for a change in the landscape of the period, with lowland and upland sites either not dated well enough or showing little change in the scale or scope of clearance from the general pattern of the earlier periods (Howard-Davis et al. 1988; Barnes 1982).

A further group of sites may also be relevant in this context (Fig. 4). Whalley, Lancashire (Beswick & Coombs 1986), and Norton, Cheshire (Greene & Hough 1977), have produced pits, without associated C14 dates, but with Grimston Ware pottery, which is common to the early Neolithic. A third site, at Beeston Castle, Cheshire, has good late 6th millennium BP associations (see above). These sites lie between c. 65m at Norton to c. 130m OD at Whalley, and all of them are found on precipitous slopes with strategic views over low lying land. Much more evidence is needed before the function of these types of sites can be understood, but they at least draw attention to the possibility that there may be other forms of special sites in the region performing a more than local role, perhaps associated with the main communication routes into the region as in the Ribble and the Mersey, and providing a seasonal role for widely dispersed and mobile groups.

Settlement evidence is scanty, being confined to Tatton, Cheshire, where a rectangular structure and barley and oats from a pit are dated to around the mid-5th millennium BP (Higham 1983; 1985). Elsewhere, the pottery, which is mainly of the Peterborough tradition with the exception of Grooved Ware from Eddisbury on the central Cheshire ridge, provides little useful evidence, with the finds being few and un-associated. Much of the lithic evidence is difficult to distinguish from that of the early Bronze Age and is treated in more detail in the next section, but there is likely to be some chronological mixing which serves to underline the potential continuity of landuse between various areas. One possible new development is seen at the late Neolithic site at Aston, Cheshire (Fig. 5). This may represent a different type of lithic site from those recognised for earlier periods. It includes arrowheads, flint axes, and a relatively wide range of tools spread over a large area (Cowell in prep. a). The site lies close to one of the henges discovered in the area and the intention is to investigate whether these two features may be linked.

Late Neolithic In other parts of northern England there is a pattern whereby distinctive regional characteristics became apparent during the late Neolithic (Harding et al. 1996). In the North West, such developments are difficult to identify given the limited evidence. The late Neolithic has therefore to be viewed as a period in which there are hints of social and economic development, which have to be based on national chronology, but the links between these and the type of landscape seen in the early Bronze age are as yet unclear.

Early Bronze Age By the beginning of the 4th millennium BP the pattern is a little clearer. Metalwork distribution and density is generally quite limited (Davey 1976). There is no strong regional tradition and the finds are biased towards tools, with early and middle Bronze Age weapons being relatively scarce (Davey & Foster 1975) compared to other areas of the country. Ehrenberg (1989, 86) would see areas with low densities of finds, and a lack of clear-cut types, as representing a low or a less wealthy population. In addition, she links the incidence of weapons to the existence of social elites. The relatively few weapons from the region might suggest that social stratification was not as marked here as in other areas.

One of the most important new forms of evidence has come from recent aerial photography which has identified the first potential henge monuments in the region (R. Philpott pers. comm.) with four new lowland sites from the southern part of the region (Fig. 5). The two burial sites of the Calderstones, Liverpool (Forde-Johnston 1957; Cowell & Warhurst 1984) and Peel, near Lytham (Middleton et al. 1995)- and possibly the timber circle from Bleasdale (Dawkins 1900)- complement this pattern. These monuments are the best guide to the emergence of centres for social groupings based on defined areas of land. They contrast in their lowland distribution with the potential supra-local sites of the earlier Neolithic. For the North West, the evidence is too fragmentary to be able to identify to what extent monuments of the two periods relate

A certain social conservatism may reflect the nature of Bronze Age society in the region. This is reflected in other categories of evidence. For example, traditions of Bronze Age burial found in north east Wales are noteworthy for the continuity of later Neolithic traits (Lynch 1975). Features found in the less well recorded burial monuments 119

Northern Pasts

Cil Burials IZI Settlementsite ◊ Flint concentration + Singleflint find T Arrowhead • Stoneaxehead ■ Henge ♦ EarlyNeolithicburial o Flint concentration undiagnostic • Singleflint undiagnostic

Figure 5. The late Neolithic of north west England

120

Cowell: The Neolithic and Bronze Age in the lowlands of North West England

of the North West can also be seen as part of this tradition,the most notable being the multiple burials in 'ringwork' type structures and the concentric circles of stake holes beneath mounds (Bu'lock 1963; Freke & Holgate 1990). The late Neolithic burial site of the Calderstones, Liverpool, may have continued in use into the 2nd millennium (Herdman 1896, 9; Cowell & Warhurst 1984; Forde-Johnston 1957).

within a series of large undated rectilinear enclosures. A small 'field' of about this date is also recorded at the settlement at Tatton (Higham 1985). It is uncertain at the moment how widespread arable farming was in this zone, and therefore a potential association with the development of sedentary settlement must remain speculation. It is not yet clear if these settlements represent permanent

farmsteads, or areas where repeated semi-permanent settlement took place. Within this area, mobility also seems to have been a feature of the settlement pattern. The site of Piethom Brook near Rochdale, at a height of 300m OD, produced a stake-built structure with a hearth, a small amount of flintwork, jet and shale ornaments, and collared urns and Beakers (Poole 1986). A further probable settlement context, associated with four Beakers, lies at Castleshaw, east of Manchester (Thompson 1974), at a height of 275m OD. There are also three separate knife finds of Beaker type on the Pennine fringes (Barnes 1982, 49), suggesting that potentially high status, and presumably seasonal sites, were located in the uplands.

But beyond this general, underlying characterisation, different areas continued to exhibit sub-regional characteristics of economic and presumably social development, although the extent to which this is a Bronze Age phenomenon or a development from the late Neolithic is not clear. Perhaps the area in which the early Bronze Age sees the greatest development is in the foothill zone of the Pennines in Cheshire and, to a lesser extent, to the north of Manchester. In the former area, there are early Bronze Age sites with circular buildings at Arthill (Nevell 1988), Tatton Park (Higham 1985), and Manchester Airport (Thompson 1998). The latter includes a Beaker element to the settlement (D. Garner, pers. comm.). These sites all exploit the intermittent belt of glacial sands and gravels skirting the Pennines. When taking the lithic evidence into account (see below) this appears to be a core area for sedentary settlement. The two former sites have evidence of late Neolithic occupation which may suggest that the Bronze Age pattern has earlier origins.

Overlapping with this settlement distribution are a number of burial sites in this zone (Fig. 7). It is generally accepted that the larger burials under mounds reflect prestige and landholding. In the Peak District, Bamatt (1987) has suggested that the barrows existed in close relationship to agricultural areas as defined by localised field systems on the gritstone moors. This might represent local family groups, with local leaders being placed in the barrows. On the limestone areas there is debate as to whether the pattern may be different, with the burial areas peripheral to the core settlement area, possibly representing a more centralised socio-political situation. The burial areas may have had economic, territorial and social functions other than the purely religious or ritual, and may have operated as part of a mobile system associated with an elite (Fleming 1971). This could have been based on the management of stock so that burial areas were visited on a seasonal basis when burials and associated rites would be carried out.

Although the distribution of perforated stone implements is prone to some of the same limitations as the stone axes in interpreting the nature of settlement, and little fieldwalking has taken place in this area, their distribution does seem significant. The axe hammers are generally found in many of the same areas as the Neolithic axes in the region (Figs. 5-6). The main exception is in the foothill zone around Macclesfield, where a concentration of axe hammers occurs in an area not particularly noted for Neolithic axes. It has been suggested that such implements might have a closer association with arable land than Neolithic axes (Bradley 1972), and the sands and gravels are quite extensive in this area. If the axe hammers can be interpreted as reflecting settlement areas, then this distribution may reflect expansion or major intensification of landuse of which sedentism was a part in this particular topographic zone in the early Bronze Age.

In the North West the form of burial is mainly multiple cremation, which is often associated with Collared Urns or local Pennine urns. In comparison, the single grave tradition- largely associated with inhumation and stone cairns or earthen barrows, and Food Vessels and Beakerswhich is more common to the east and south (Hart 1981), is represented by only a few examples in the Pennines (Bu'lock 1963, 14). Such sites appear to have been used later as the focus for secondary multiple burials associated with cremation, and one of the Beakers from the site at Castleshaw shows antecedent traits to the Collared Um series of pottery in this area (Longworth 1984). Of those that do occur, several, such as Appleton, associated with Food Vessels (Longley 1987), and Gawsworth, associated with Beakers (Rowley 1977), are in the Macclesfield area of Cheshire.

Direct evidence for cereal farming in this zone is very slight. The only relevant site, at Lindow Moss, has some evidence for local clearance in secondary woodland during the early Bronze Age (Branch & Scaife 1995), but this is little different from the typical effects which are widespread across the region in earlier periods. Environmental evidence is scarce from the sites themselves, other than for the presence of charred grain at Arthill (Nevell 1988) and Manchester airport (Thompson 1998). There is no aerial photographic evidence for large scale field systems in the area, although Arthill does lie

121

Northern Pasts

EarlyB □ T

x

Settlement site Flint concentration EBA Flint concentration LN/EBA Single flint find Barbed & tanged arrowhead Ax.ehammer Other perforated implement Undiagnostic single flint

1 2 3

Pollen sites Parr Moss, Burtonwood Simonswood Moss Lindow Moss

v + T

o 0

~·~

,D

. 111 t'.I

-

\

fl

'':.t

Q

"\.,--

"

'--

-

,/

I

0

10km

-

RENFREWSHIR

"

I

--\

E.

y N. AYRSHIRE

\

I /

I

I

- WEST-CENTRAL SCOTLAND

•

Forts

■

Homesteads

♦

Roundhouses

.....Crannogs

..

Cropmark enclosures

I. Craigmarloch 2. Dunwan 3. Marshal Moor 4. Duncarnock S. Walls Hill 6. Barochan Cross Hill 7. Langbank

8. Erskine Ferry Land over 400 fee1

: LandO'Ver1,000feet

-

Landover l,400feet

-

Built-up areas

9. Knockrnade I O.Dunconnel II. Knapps 12. Shiels 5

10km

RENFREWSHIRE

_,,..___Approx.limitof studyarea

Figure 1. Location of later prehistoric sites in west central Scotland

158

Alexander: Later prehistoric settlement in west central Scotland

0

0

3cm

Figure 2. The Langbank crannog, brooch and comb

Figure 3. Duncarnock

159

, 2cm

Northern Pasts

through to the Early Historic period. It was from a rocky knoll at the northern end of the fort that a sherd of coarse pottery and a fragment of worked shale were recovered.

I

/-

!/11;;, ·-.~

1=

Excavation t,e

··.,

I

r,,

~

1'

ii ,1

~ ,",

ri'"'1

)

1•

~~~p

:::,:''~/ t

t==- '

if~

:

..

f~,---,

~ "§ff ~?

, •

~ [N'-

~~\''

,,

,-t2 .:: - f /.'·~··

0';"'""-~~~~~~~~5o·ott

.:::::, , ,. ,• "'

-::,,,,

l....r.::::::::::-""I