Prehistoric Pottery: People pattern and purpose. Prehistoric Pottery Research Group: Occasional Publication No. 4 9781841715261, 9781407325606

Table of contents :
Blank Page
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Table of Contents
LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS
INTRODUCTION. PREHISTORIC POTTERY: PEOPLE, PATTERN AND PURPOSE: SOME OBSERVATIONS, QUESTIONS AND SPECULATIONS
CHAPTER 1. THE COMING OF THE EARLIER NEOLITHIC, POTTERY AND PEOPLE IN THE SOMERSET LEVELS
CHAPTER 2. CERAMIC IN THE UPPER PALAEOLITHIC
CHAPTER 3. BOILING OIL: THE POTENTIAL ROLE OF CERAMICS IN RECOGNISING DIRECT EVIDENCE FOR THE EXPLOITATION OF FISH
CHAPTER 4. THE USE OF POTTERY IN DUTCH HUNEBEDDEN
CHAPTER 5. CONTINUITY AND CHANGE IN THE LATE NEOLITHIC IN SOUTHERN FRANCE. A TECHNOLOGICAL POINT OF VIEW
CHAPTER 6. PROTO-COMMON WARE: DEFINING A CERAMIC TRADITION IN POMPEII
CHAPTER 7. LITTLE PAXTON POTTERY
CHAPTER 8. LOCAL OR NON-LOCAL? PREHISTORIC GRANODIORITE-TEMPERED POTTERY IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
CHAPTER 9. THE POTTERY FROM MINEHOWE, ORKNEY: ASPECTS OF CONTEXTUAL INTERPRETATION
CHAPTER 10. NEW POTS OR NEW PEOPLE? -- ARCHAEOCERAMOLOGICAL STUDY OF LA TÈNE AND “PRZEWORSK”- LIKE POTTERY IN THE CELTIC GERMAN HIGHLAND ZONE
CHAPTER 11. PATTERNS OF SPATIAL REGULARITY IN LATE PREHISTORIC MATERIAL CULTURE STYLES OF THE NW IBERIAN PENINSULA
CHAPTER 12. ORGANIC RESIDUES IN STORAGE VESSELS FROM THE TOUMBA THESSALONIKIS
CHAPTER 13. NEW DATES FOR SCOTTISH BRONZE AGE CINERARY URNS: RESULTS FROM THE NATIONAL MUSEUMS OF SCOTLAND DATING CREMATED BONES PROJECT

Citation preview

BAR S1156

Prehistoric Ceramics Research Group: Occasional Publication No. 4

2003

Prehistoric Pottery

GIBSON (Ed.) PREHISTORIC POTTERY

B A R

People, pattern and purpose

Edited by

Alex Gibson

BAR International Series 1156 2003

ISBN 9781841715261 paperback ISBN 9781407325606 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781841715261 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR

PUBLISHING

CONTENTS Title

Authors

List of contributors

Page ii

Introduction

Prehistoric Pottery: People, Pattern and Purpose: Some Observations, Questions and Speculations

Alex Gibson

v

Chapter 1

The Coming of the Earlier Neolithic, Pottery and People in the Somerset Levels

Clive Jonathon Bond

1

Chapter 2

Ceramic in the Upper Palaeolithic

Estelle Bougard

29

Chapter 3

Boiling Oil: The Potential Role of Ceramics in Recognising Direct Evidence for the Exploitation of Fish

Louise D. Brown & Carl Heron

35

Chapter 4

The Use of Pottery in Dutch Hunebedden

A. L. Brindley

43

Chapter 5

Continuity and Change in the Late Neolithic in Southern France. A Technological Point of View

Gilles Durrenmath

53

Chapter 6

Proto-Common Ware: Defining a Ceramic Tradition in Pompeii

Louise A. Ford & Eric C. De Sena

65

Chapter 7

Little Paxton Pottery

Annette Hancocks

71

Chapter 8

Local or Non-Local? Prehistoric Granodiorite-Tempered Pottery in the East Midlands

David Knight, Patrick Marsden & John Carney

111

Chapter 9

The Pottery from Minehowe, Orkney: Aspects of Contextual Interpretation

Ann Macsween

127

Chapter 10

New Pots or New People? Archaeoceramological Study of La Tène and "Przeworsk"-Like Pottery in the Celtic German Highland Zone

Maágorzata Daszkiewicz & Michael Meyer

135

Chapter 11

Patterns of Spatial Regularity in Late Prehistoric Material Culture Styles of the NW Iberian Peninsula

M. Pilar Prieto-Martínez, Isabel Cobas-Fernández & Felipe Criado-Boado

147

Chapter 12

Organic Residues in Storage Vessels from the Toumba Thessalonikis

Maria Roumpou, Carl Heron, Stelios Andreou & Kostas Kotsakis

189

Chapter 13

New Dates for Scottish Bronze Age Cinerary Urns: Results from the National Museums of Scotland Dating Cremated Bones Project

Alison Sheridan

201

i

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS Stelios Andreou Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Thessaloniki Greece

Maágorzata Daszkiewicz ARCHEA – archaeometric analysis and research Warsaw Poland

Clive Jonathan Bond College research Centre for Archaeology and History School of Social Sciences King Alfred’s College Winchester SO22 4NR UK

Gilles Durrenmath UMR6636-ESEP Aix-en-Provence France Louise Ford Dept of Archaeological Sciences University of Bradford Bradford BD7 1DP UK

Estelle Bougard Dept of Archaeology University of Liverpool Liverpool L69 3GS UK

Alex Gibson Department of Archaeological Sciences University of Bradford Bradford BD7 1DP UK

Anna Brindley Archaologisch-Biologisch Instituut Universiteit te Groningen Poststraat 6 Groningen Netherlands

Annette Hancocks University of Birmingham Field Archaeology Unit Edgbaston Birmingham B15 2TT UK

Louise Brown Dept of Archaeological Sciences University of Bradford Bradford BD7 1DP UK

Carl Heron Dept of Archaeological Sciences University of Bradford Bradford BD7 1DP UK

John Carney British Geological Survey Kingsley Dunnham Centre Keyworth Nottinham NG12 5GG UK

David Knight Trent & Peak Archaeological Unit University of Nottingham Nottingham NG 2RD UK

Isabel Cobas-Fernández Laboratorio de Arqueología Instituto de Estudios Gallegos -(CSIC-XuGa) Santiago de Compostela Spain

Kostas Kotsakis Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Thessaloniki Greece

Felipe Criado-Boado Laboratorio de Arqueología Instituto de Estudios Gallegos -(CSIC-XuGa) Santiago de Compostela Spain

ii

Maria Roumpou Department of Archaeological Sciences University of Bradford Bradford BD7 1DP U.K.

Ann MacSween Historic Scotland Longmore House Salisbury Place Edinburgh EH9 1SH P.L. Marsden University of Leicester Archaeological Services Leicester LE1 7RH UK

Eric de Sena American Academy in Rome Via Angelo Masina 5 00153 Rome Italy

Michael Meyer Lehrstuhl für Ur- und Frühgeschichte Humboldt University Berlin Germany

Alison Sheridan Department of Archaeology National Museum of Scotland Chambers Street Edinburgh EH1 1JF

M. Pilar Prieto-Martínez Laboratorio de Arqueología Instituto de Estudios Gallegos -(CSIC-XuGa) Santiago de Compostela Spain

iii

iv

INTRODUCTION PREHISTORIC POTTERY: PEOPLE, PATTERN AND PURPOSE: SOME OBSERVATIONS, QUESTIONS AND SPECULATIONS Alex Gibson Hon Chairman, PCRG ‘people = pots’. By this I mean that it is people who are responsible for pottery: they dig the clay, they grind and add the opening agents, they form the vessels, they decorate them, they dry the wet clay and transform the leather-hard vessels to a ceramic state through the medium of fire. They use pottery, they break it they discard it and they deposit it. Several thousand years later, it is people who find it and study it. Pottery, more than any other prehistoric artefact, puts me in touch with the people of the past. We can even detect millennia-old fingerprints, very tangible traces of real prehistoric people, in the vessels’ walls.

This volume represents the proceedings of a conference organised by the Prehistoric Ceramics Research Group (PCRG) in conjunction with its sister organisation, the Ceramics Petrology Group. The conference was hosted by the Department of Archaeological Sciences of the University of Bradford in October 2002. Over 60 delegates attended the conference and heard almost 30 papers devoted to the study of prehistoric ceramics from France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Scandinavia, Southeast Asia, Spain as well as the UK. The subjects ranged from technological studies to ethnographies, associations and chronologies, deposition, theory and the scientific analysis of tempers and residues. Many of these papers are presented here and the title of the conference very much reflected the weekend. Devoted to prehistoric pottery, we did indeed look at patterns on the pots as well as in the data. We looked at the purpose of pottery from the point of view of their ‘palaeo-contents’ and ancient uses. Throughout this, we were ever mindful that archaeology is the study of past human societies through their material remains and therefore we never lost sight of the people behind the pots. From at least a personal viewpoint the conference was a great success for a number of reasons. Firstly there was the social networking and informal information exchanges so common, essential, expected and enjoyed at such meetings of like-minded people. Secondly there was the wide-ranging nature of the lectures in which the contributors highlighted varying and complimentary approaches by different scholars in diverse regions. Thirdly, the papers veered away from the all too common excavation reports and turgid lists of sherds common to many earlier specialist analyses and instead adopted a more holistic or elevated view of the material culture. Fourthly the mixture of archaeology and archaeological science was truly educational. Fifthly, and to me most importantly, the international mix of delegates and the resulting healthy discussions demonstrated unquestionably that the study of prehistoric ceramics was not dead: there was much new and dynamic activity, there were hidden avenues being explored and questions still to be posed and answered.

Fig.1: Modern linear clay extraction pits in the Danube Valley, Romania.

Fig.2: A Romanian potter extracting clay. The clay below the root line is extracted and the resulting overhang-ing material allowed to collapse. It is then shovelled to the rear of the extrac-tion pit and the process begins again.

‘Pots = People’ is an often quoted equation and this is certainly how the chronologically changing styles, shapes and traditions within prehistoric ceramics were regarded in past years. Populations may still be identified by the ceramics they made and used, however I personally would prefer to reverse the equation and claim that

Clays, particularly in a glacial or alluvial environment may be common and easily obtainable. It would often

v

Prehistoric Pottery: People, Pattern and Purpose

A. Gibson

escape as steam to ensure the survival of the pot in the rigours of an open bonfire. But we use science and scientific instruments to deduce this and we cannot possibly translate this knowledge to the past. Prehistoric potters would have known that pots were at risk in a bonfire. Experience would have told them that there was a risk of the pots exploding. They may have seen steam escaping during the water-smoking stage but they would not, indeed could not, have been aware of the water of chemical composition. Equally, they would have known that non-clay additions to the clay would have helped ensure the survival of the pot. What they would not have known is why. They would have been unable to see the microscopic voids between the inclusions and the clay. As a result there were doubtless mythologies to explain the need for inclusions. They may have been said to ‘strengthen’ the clay but this begs the question ‘why?’ To answer this question myths may have been constructed to explain what properties were perceived as being transferred from the hard rock to the soft clay to give it strength and different mythologies may have pertained to different materials.

involve the extraction of clay below the root-line of the surface vegetation to ensure that the organic content was minimised. The rootless clay would be easier to work than that containing fibrous vegetable remains. (Figs. 1 & 2) Once fired, rootlets and fibres may have created voids in the fabric, some visible on the surface, which may have been considered to detract from the appearance of the pot: it would certainly have increased the vessels’ porosity. Also, organics contain water and therefore may have been considered to have posed a threat to the firing process. Organic-tempered pottery is, of course, known in prehistoric contexts so again we are seeing an element of choice, a conscious human decision. At its basic level, the very extraction of clay involves human evaluation. Clay extraction pits (Fig.1) have not really been sought in British prehistory and indeed, apart from confirming clay sources, I am not entirely sure what they would tell us if they were recognised. Once redundant, they may have been used as middens – prehistoric landfill sites – in which case they may be most valuable as a resource for studying the past, or they may have been filled by detritus from subsequent floodings in which case they are less so. But generally clay pits may have simply been abandoned, the unwanted ‘root-rich’ clay dumped into the back of the quarry as the extraction face progressed. Such activity is unlikely to result in the accumulation of cultural debris.

We cannot reconstruct these mythologies but let us consider some possibilities; possibilities which might act as springboards for ethnographic studies. Food is sustaining. It gives us strength. It’s presence in pottery may therefore be symbolically strengthening. It is a valuable food resource and therefore its presence in pottery may be almost sacrificial or dedicatory, certainly symbolic. Very often single seed impressions may be found in pottery and these may well be accidental inclusions particularly if the pot was made in a domestic, agricultural environment. Occasionally the grain is abundant as in a Bronze Age Food Vessel from Wether Hill, Northumberland (inf. Peter Topping). In this pot, over 20 grain impressions, including carbonised seeds, represent the largest cache of Bronze Age grain so far discovered in north Northumberland. In such cases we must assume that the addition of the grain is intentional.

Some clays may be sufficiently coarse to enable them to be worked immediately and fired successfully. Indeed some clays are so coarse that they can often be fired wet though these clays often result in coarse sandy pots, often extremely friable unless fired to a high temperature. Generally opening agents need to be added to clay to ensure a pot’s survival in the fire. Once again we have a demonstrable human choice. The deliberately added opening materials encountered within prehistoric pottery are varied. Seeds, chaff, quartz, flint, grog, igneous rock, shell, sand, calcite and fragments from the local drift geology are just some examples of the materials used. Some of these tempers are more suitable than others. Organic materials, for example, may contain their own water which would undoubtedly convert to steam in the firing process. Flint too contains chemical water which converts to steam when heated. This conversion may be violent and spalls of hot flint can explode and travel several meters from the fire. It does not seem logical that such an unstable material should be used to ensure the successful firing of ceramics. Grog is the best substance to use as this comprises pottery which has already gone through the ceramic change and therefore its chemical water has been expelled. It also produces a smooth, soft fabric. Igneous rock fragments may have been preferred in cooking pots as they prevent the spread of the thermally generated cracks that can result from repeated heating.

Grog is crushed up pottery. Its use in prehistoric ceramics is logical for, as mentioned above, it is pottery which has already survived the fire and it creates a smooth fabric. But its use is not as common in prehistory as might be expected. Some Grooved Ware and Beakers are grog tempered as is some later Belgic pottery but much Neolithic and Bronze Age pottery generally contains other types of material. It seems that even this most logical material may be a conscientious choice and therefore there may have been a reason for its use or a meaning attached to it. Perhaps it is an ancestral mythology; fragments of pots belonging to a specific type (or person) being regenerated by their incorporation into new forms. Even third generation grog (grog within grog) has been recognised in thin section. Is the significance of the old pot being transferred to the new vessel, or is it personal? Is it the former owner that carries the significance or is it purely the firing of the earlier vessel that is important and thus the physical properties of the grog?

Today we talk in an enlightened way about the water of plasticity and the water of chemical composition. We talk of firing temperatures in degrees Celcius or Farenheit and we talk about temperatures needed to achieve the ceramic change. We know that opening materials allow water to vi

Prehistoric Pottery: People, Pattern and Purpose

A. Gibson

In Wales in the earlier Bronze Age, dolorite and rhyolitic (mafic igneous) inclusions are often found in Bronze Age pottery (Williams & Jenkins 1999). This is the same material from which battle axes are made. Once again is there a mythology of strength or prestige or some other symbolism involved in the selection of this material? Might it even be the waste from the manufacture of battle axes that is being crushed up? Quartz is often found on ritual sites and its gleaming white colour, perhaps connected with the moon, may well have been important, perhaps magical, to prehistoric populations. Its presence at sites such as Newgrange or the recumbent stone circles of Northeast Scotland may have a lunar connotation. White vein quartz appears to be a frequent inclusion in Welsh Peterborough Ware (Gibson 1995) and often there appears to have been no attempt to hide the inclusions. Is the whiteness of the quartz symbolic and full of meaning? We can but speculate but the deliberate choice of opening materials seems to be more than just utilitarian.

Fig.3: Kiln fodder. A collection of pots made by Romanian school children. These pots were used to fill our replica kilns.

Flint is one of the most common opening agents throughout prehistory, particularly in southern England. It was a popular but not a logical choice. As mentioned above, flint contains water of chemical composition and can explode when heated. The edges of crushed flint can be razor sharp. The mixing of the clay and the flint might have been a painful experience for prehistoric potters even acknowledging that their hands were doubtless tougher than ours (one wonders whether human blood can be detected in organic residues?). But prehistoric pottery can be fired in a few minutes at temperatures of little more than 500OC and so this might not have been long or hot enough to cause the flint to spall. In which case, the potential danger of firing flint might not have been realised by prehistoric potters. They may have not perceived any danger but it must still have been uncomfortable when working the clay. So why use it? There may be a very simple reason and that is simply the abundance of flint debitage. It is a plentiful by-product and of use for little else. But there may also have been symbolism involved. Flint contains fire and striking flint allows the fire within to be released. Fire is the very medium by which clay is transformed permanently to ceramic. Flint itself, despite being a utilitarian rock, may have had mythologies attached to it.

Fig.4: Experimental works. It is not just younger children that make artefacts like this. People of all ages, when unfamiliar with potting processes, experiment in similar ways. There are small, simple pinched pots throughout prehistory and some of the small pigmy cups of the Bronze Age may well be training pieces, but we do not see the crude, poorly-bonded pots, the ‘ashtrays’ or the toys. We do not see the learning process in the archaeological record. Were these poor attempts taboo? Was the firing so special that only ‘perfect’ pots could be fired?

The clay, once mixed with crushed temper, then has to be fashioned. Pots are built with coils, rings or straps, by people. They are not moulded but built. Potting is not difficult. Some people have a greater talent for it than others, but anyone can do it given a little practice (Fig.3). School children in Vadastra in southern Romania became quite accomplished potters in a matter of weeks. But where are the practice pieces in prehistoric assemblages? Rarely can one visit an antiques fair without seeing some small ‘apprentice piece’. Not so in the study of prehistoric ceramics. Students and school children alike often end up making, as their first attempt, a collection of ‘ashtrays’ as they struggle to bond coil to coil and raise the wall of the pot. Some even give up on coiling and make small toys (Fig. 4). This ‘learning’ is not seen in the archaeological record.

Well certainly some pots are of a better quality than others (Fig.5) Some Beakers, for example, are certainly not the well-made prestige goods that some of the archaeological literature suggests. (This is because much of the literature is based on published reconstruction drawings rather than the pots themselves). But nevertheless most are serviceable. Of course, we do not always know what lies within sherd evidence and amongst non-reconstructable sherd groups. One clear fact, however, is that we do not have the ‘toys’. Students, school-children and extra-mural students alike, vii

Prehistoric Pottery: People, Pattern and Purpose

A. Gibson

Fig.6: Highly decorated Food Vessel Northumberland (from Greenwell 1877).

from

identified mainly as a result of the very elaborate and unusual decoration of the pots (two Food Vessels and two Food Vessel Urns). However, at least one of the vessels is poorly made, the coils have been very inadequately bonded and the vessel has fragmented along the coils (Gibson 2002, figs 16 & 33). Does this represent a poor potter and a talented artist? Is it the same person with two very different levels of skill? Or was the pot specifically made for burial with no intention of ever being used and it was therefore hastily and carelessly built?

Fig.5: Prestige or mundane? Not all Beakers are good quality, expertly-made pots. when experimenting with clay for the first time, often end up with a collection of anthropomorphic or zoomorphic statuettes. Across Europe we have ceramic figurative art. There are paintings of octopi and other marine life on Minoan vases. There are the figurines of the Balkan Neolithic. There are representations of bulls in LBK contexts as near to us as the Netherlands. This art does not cross the North Sea. Once again are we dealing with taboo?

Certainly potters do not always seem to have taken pride in their craft. On the earlier Neolithic pottery from Lyles Hill, for example, rim forms can differ in profile around the circumference of a single pot. One carinated bowl has a T-sectioned rim which gradually changes into a sectioned rim. This must teach us a salutary lesson when trying to identify individual vessels amongst sherd assemblages and we must not become over-reliant on typologies.

Once built, pots may be decorated. We have no figurative art as already mentioned, at least not until later prehistory and even then rarely. But we have a rich heritage of complex geometric patterns. Beakers are usually hailed as being the epitome of this tradition but some Food Vessels and Food Vessel Urns may rival them (Fig.6) and, as already mentioned, some Beakers are far from ‘fine’. Some of the more elaborately decorated pots of prehistory may well have taken longer to decorate than to make and the decoration or surface finish might have been regarded as more important than the vessel shape. Were pots made and decorated by the same people or were there potters and decorators? I admit that this is once again an unanswerable question and both scenarios may well have co-existed.

Firing the finished vessel is an industrial transformative process. It chemically changes clay to ceramic using fire. The chemical change is irreversible and thanks to this, in this country and over most of the world ceramics are the most frequent finds on post-Neolithic sites. Firing is often described as a delicate process. We must first raise the temperature slowly to around 200OC and some potters prefer to hold the temperature there for an hour or so to ensure that the water of plasticity is completely driven off. We must then gradually raise the temperature to around 600 OC or higher to drive off the water of chemical composition and ensure the ceramic change. Once again, some potters may like to hold this temperature for a while to ensure that the pots are evenly

There are some hints however. A very talented decorator was at work in Northumberland in the Early Bronze Age. Several examples of the potter’s work have been viii

Prehistoric Pottery: People, Pattern and Purpose

A. Gibson

raises interesting questions regarding the interpretation of the results of lipid residue analysis in archaeological ceramics.

fired. Both the water-smoking and ceramic change stages are critical points within the firing process and pots are most in danger of exploding as these stages are reached. In a British prehistoric environment, the observations above are almost totally irrelevant. They are relevant to only fine fractioned kiln-fired pottery. True, both waters have to be driven off in order to render any clay ceramic, but how can prehistoric populations possibly have judged when 200 OC had been attained or have held that temperature within a bonfire environment? They most probably had no concept of graduated temperature beyond freezing, cold, warm, hot and red-hot. What they would have had was knowledge of the firing process from an audio-visual point of view. They would have seen the steam escape at the water-smoking stage. They would have seen vessels change colour when the ceramic change had been passed. They would have probably been disappointed but, perhaps resigned, when they heard pots explode in the fire. Even within primitive (but effective) kilns, they may have heard the pots ‘speaking’ when they were done as often they can be heard to ‘tinkle’ as the ceramic change is reached. Traditional kiln-using potters in contemporary southern Romania often say that they can judge the firing stages by the ‘colour’ of the fire and for that reason firing is often carried out at night. In kilns, temperatures can be controlled and raised or lowered as quickly or as slowly as necessary. In bonfires, the method used throughout British prehistory, this is impossible. Depending on variables such as the dryness or dampness of the fuel, the wind, temperature, the dampness of the ambient environment, bonfires can be ferocious. Pots can be taken from leather-hard to 800OC in minutes. (Fig.7) Such ferocity means that the firing can be very quick and economical or, on the other hand, disastrous. The black cores of many prehistoric pottery fabrics clearly indicate the brevity of the firing. (Fig.8)

Fig.7: Firing graph from an experimental bonfire firing at Vadastra, Romania. Note how the temperature flares. The pots were probably ceramic after 10-15 minutes.

Temperatures can vary considerably within the fire itself as a result of changing wind direction, wind gusts, collapsing fuel; the firing environment is neither stable nor controllable. British prehistoric potters had to rely on the robustness of their pots to withstand the ferocity and rigours of open firing and hence the coarseness of their pottery. This is just as true for contemporary traditional bonfire-using potters. These pots are often very robust. They can withstand rapid temperature rises and often dramatic temperature fluctuations within the fire. They can be removed from the fire while still hot and plunged into cold liquid to ‘quench’ them, and prove them (Fig.9.)

Fig.8: Light surfaces and black core of an experimental bonfire-fired pot. This type of section, common to much British prehistoric pottery, indicates a short firing time, in this case only 15 minutes.

Studies into thermal shock, very relevant to fine fractioned kiln-fired pottery or ‘oven-to-table ware’, seem inappropriate to material as strong as this. Liquids used for quenching may often be designed to seal porous vessels and therefore fatty liquids such as milk or a flour and water mix may be used (inf Richard Carlton). This

Traditional bonfire-using potters would know their clay, know their opening materials and be disappointed with less than a 100% success rate. This is not to deny that accidents did happen and firing wasters have been recognised in the archaeological record (Fig.10). ix

Prehistoric Pottery: People, Pattern and Purpose

A. Gibson

of pottery, stemming from our use of refined clay and kiln technologies, we think that the transformation of clay to ceramic in prehistory must have been imbued with mysticism and magic. Were there mythologies attached to the fire, the firing process and the material transformation? Possibly, but not necessarily because the process is a simple one. Mundane. Mechanical. It works and it is done. It may not have been as fascinating to prehistoric potters as it is to we who have lost touch with and are only rediscovering traditional methods and techniques. While talking (through an interpreter) with traditional kiln-using potters in southern Romania I got the distinct feeling that we ‘academics’ were regarded as somewhat quaint and puzzling, even comical. (Figs.11&12) The potters were warm and welcoming and keen to talk to us and tell us about their craft but I also felt that they couldn’t really understand our fascination with, what was to them, their everyday lives.

Fig.9: Richard Carlton quenching a pot in a mixture of flour and water. The pot is 500O-600OC. when it is plunged into the cold liquid.

Fig.11: Romanian potter holding one of his samples. This potter uses a simple ground level double flue up-draught kiln. Fig.10: Firing waster. A Bronze Age pigmy cup from Ireland with 2 firing spalls.

I have no doubt that there were mysteries and mythologies circulating within prehistoric communities to explain the science of ceramic technology that we take for granted. Our own culture is full of mythologies to explain the inexplicable; we now call it folklore. Many of these myths are to be found within religious or supernatural contexts and many are doubtless of great antiquity. But not every ‘life-action’ needs to be explained and many may be taken for granted. We may be in danger of over-interpreting the past and seeing

Sometimes these wasters may be regarded as ‘seconds’ – damaged but still usable. At other times they may be ‘catastrophic’ wasters - spalled throughout their thickness (eg Gibson 2002 fig 21) and unusable as a container (but not as a source of grog). Because of the difficulties that we perceive in the firing

x

Prehistoric Pottery: People, Pattern and Purpose

A. Gibson

dangers in this assumption.

indeed inventing, deep meanings, metaphors or mythologies where none existed. We may be in danger of seeing as mystical some processes that were regarded by past potters as mundane.

Beakers, particularly the lock necked variety, are not best suited for drinking. They have bulbous bodies and flaring necks. Beer tankards tend to have straight sides or even be barrel-shaped with closed mouths. Even in ornate tankards with everted rims, the rim diameters are comparatively narrow – well suited to human mouths. The wide rims of Beakers must have made spilling and dribbling an everyday occurrence. Furthermore the bulbous bellies would mean that liquid would become trapped, the pot would have to have been tilted more to drain it, and the risk of spillage would have been even greater. They are not ideal drinking vessels. These arguments against (at least some) Beakers not being drinking vessels, however, is open to counter arguments. The Greek kylix, like a two-handled pedestalled fruit bowl, is not an ideal shape for drinking out of. In Germany, they have glasses shaped like boots, the Stiefel, which sends a tidal wave of beer towards the drinker when the toe of the glass is reached. In Britain we have the Yard, perhaps the least suited shape for a drinking vessel. With all three of these containers we know their function. We also know that there was and is a certain kudos awarded to those who can meet the challenge of draining those vessels with minimum spillage. Form need not always reflect function.

Fig.12: This Romanian potter and his family are more concerned with sales than academic ethnographic studies. The finished products may be used for a variety of purposes: drinking vessels, ‘table wares’ cooking pots and storage vessels. The analysis of absorbed residues is starting to shed light on some of the uses of prehistoric pottery. Form and function have, for a considerable period, been inter-related. The Beaker/Food Vessel division was just such a form = function split as the early antiquaries thought that the Beakers contained drink and the Food Vessels food. Beakers, with their generally fine fabric and rim forms were ideally suited to drinking, especially the handled variants. Food Vessels, however, with their thick and heavy rims were more suited to hold food. This is now regarded as old fashioned and simplistic but form and function are often still linked and our current fascination with Beakers and beer drinking cults shows that old ideas die hard. It cannot be denied that form and function do often go together but there are

In conclusion, people make and use pots. I am reminded of a story told to me by Ann Woods when she returned from Namibia where she had been working with Kavango potters. She requested that a potter make her a traditional water storage vessel and she recorded the process. These pots are large, bulbous, round-based vessels with upright narrow necks. The vessel that she was presented with was just this but with a flat base. When she questioned this unusual form, the potter explained that yes, they normally had round bases but he had made this for her and added words to the effect that ‘in Britain you have tables’. People make pots and we who study them must always be mindful of this. Prehistoric people must have been capable of art, carelessness, perfectionism, mistakes, adaptation, modification and even whim. Just like us.

Fig.13: A Yard-of-Ale and a German Stiefel. Neither shape is logically suited to its function. xi

Prehistoric Pottery: People, Pattern and Purpose

A. Gibson

Bibliography Gibson, A.M. 1995. First Impressions: A Review of Peterborough Ware in Wales. In I. Kinnes & G. Varndell (eds) Unbaked Urns of Rudely Shape. Essays on British and Irish Pottery for Ian Longworth, 23-39. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Gibson, A.M. 2002. Prehistoric Pottery in Britain and Ireland. Stroud: Tempus. Greenwell, W. & Rolleston, G. 1877. British Barrows. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Williams, J. & Jenkins, D. 1999. A Petrographic Investigation of a Corpus of Bronze Age Cinerary Urns from the Isle of Anglesey. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 65, 189-230.

xii

CHAPTER 1 THE COMING OF THE EARLIER NEOLITHIC, POTTERY AND PEOPLE IN THE SOMERSET LEVELS Clive Jonathon Bond Abstract This paper will discuss the reinterpretation of the pottery assemblages excavated by the Somerset Levels Project and associated with the wooden tracks, for example the Sweet Track and an unpublished assemblage from a track at Burtle Bridge. Previous research produced limited statements on the motives behind individual discard events. Pottery assemblages are discussed with other material culture to highlight the character of the earlier Neolithic settlement in the Brue Valley in central Somerset during the first part of the fourth millennium Cal BC. Attention is drawn to the part played in pottery production, exchange and purposeful discard in a wet landscape. The concept of domestic activity, as inferred by pottery distributions is questioned.

Introduction In 1970 the Sweet Track was located in the Somerset Levels in central Somerset by a peat worker, Mr. Sweet (Fig. 1.1 and Fig 1.2). Beyond the wooden planks, poles and pegs a substantial artifact assemblage was recorded (Coles and Orme 1976, 1979, 1980; Coles et al. 1973): wooden artifacts, a jadeite axe, a chipped flint axe, flint waste and other retouched pieces, together with pottery sherds (Coles and Coles 1986, 57-62). The subsequent excavation of this wooden structure by the Somerset Levels Project led to the recovery of several complete vessels and sherds of the carinated plain bowl type (Coles and Orme 1984, 43-44; Kinnes 1979, 52, 52; Smith 1976, 63-64). Despite their unique context, embedded in, or found in close proximity to this structure and sherds conjoining to make whole vessels this material has remained in the background to the story of the excavation.

To address this lack of interest in the pottery assemblage this paper focuses on a reconsideration of this pottery with regard to an alternative interpretation that emphasizes the purposeful deposition of pottery and the evidence for discard events along the north-south axis of the Sweet Track (Fig. 1.2). Recently a further assemblage of plain bowl ware has also come to light during doctoral work at the Somerset County Museum, Taunton (Bond forthcoming a.). This assemblage and its excavated context from the Burtle Bridge Track, Edington is at present unpublished save a note recording the discovery in 1971 (Clements 1972). This assemblage constitutes a new assemblage that can be directly compared in terms of context, typology, condition and date, to the Sweet Track assemblage (for the broader importance of these plain bowl assemblages see Herne 1988, 16-26; Whittle 1977, chapter 5). The final part of this paper will evaluate the contribution these assemblages can give when taken together with the broader evidence in the landscape for the onset of the earlier Neolithic (cf. Coles 1989).

Fig. 1:1: Location, South-West England and the Somerset Levels. Inset, the Brue Valley and the Somerset Levels in a box c.15square Km. Line with dots – upland, c.15m contour. Diagonal lines – Built-up areas, Cheddar and Glastonbury. SW –The excavation of the Sweet Track. 1

Prehistoric Pottery: People, Pattern & Purpose

C. J. Bond

date to 3806 BC and the Post-Track as dating to 3838 BC (Hillam et al. 1990, 216-217). Sapwood from the Sweet Track demonstrated a felling date in the winter of 3807 BC (Hillam et al. 1990, 214-215). With this tree-ring date together the earlier clustering of radiocarbon dates (Table 1.1) it was taken to confirm that the Sweet Track was only in use over as little as 10-15 years (Coles 1999, 165166; Coles and Coles 1998, 5-6; Coles and Orme 1979, 64; Coles in Hillam et al. 1990, 218).

In this paper discussion will draw out the agency of people with their choice in materials, manufacture, use and their intentional selection of vessels for discard at two very specific wetland localities. It is suggested this body of evidence gives ground for reassessing the use of pottery find spots as plots on the two-dimensional maps of the Brue Valley (Coles 1975, fig. 1.1; Coles 1990, fig. 13; Coles and Coles 1989, 23). Traditionally these find spots have been taken to indicate the location of domestic debris and by inference a ‘settlement’ locale (cf. Coles 1989, fig. 13). Instead, it is argued that pottery was bound into the use of these wooden structures and tied to a distinctive set of ritual practices. As such the pottery used perhaps attained a particular cultural meaning with each vessel having an attendant biography which added to the sense of a ‘special deposit’ in this wetland setting (Pollard 2001, 322-325; Thomas 1996, 150-177, 1999, 85, 111, 124). Perhaps connotations of the pottery style, knowledge of those people or social connections, origin of manufacture, signaled by these pots may have combined to demarcate these vessels as ‘special’ and worthy as a votive offering.

After thirteen separate excavations and a campaign extending from 1970 to 1984 (and recent evaluations, Brunning 1996) the Sweet Track structure is seen to extend 1.5 kilometers. Its course is confirmed to be northsouth between the island of Westhay and Shapwick Burtle. Of that length, c.368.50 meters or 24.5% of the track has been excavated. This makes this structure the most investigated track in the Levels and perhaps even elsewhere (Coles and Coles 1986). The wooden structure and its environmental data; beetles; pollen, evidence for wood working all play a key role in the narrative tied to the track (Parker Pearson 1993, 15-16). However, from the outset of excavations artifacts were also excavated beside the Sweet Track, on top of the planks, hidden below wood; wooden artifacts; a flint axe, arrowheads, flint waste; a jadeite axe, pottery (Coles and Coles 1986, 57-62; Coles et al. 1973, 278-292, fig. 2). The main finds to attract attention beyond the wood has been the highly polished jadeite axe (Coles et al. 1974, 216), the flint chipped axe and arrowheads (Coles and Orme 1976, fig. 37), two of which retained their shafts and a third with birch resin (Coles et al. 1973, 291). Emphasis has been drawn to the organic remains and the artifacts that reflect that interest, or other analytical techniques, such as the attempt to gain trace element signatures for the flint axe (Coles and Coles 1986, 59; Coles et al. 1973, 289-290; Craddock et al. 1983, 153, table 3). Within this context the quantity of pottery excavated beside the Sweet Track has remained in the background.

The Sweet Track and its pottery assemblage This track was located by Mr. Ray Sweet of the Eclipse Peat Works during the cutting of ditches on Shapwick Heath in 1970 (Fig. 1.2). There had been the presence of the Cambridge archaeologist, Dr. J. M. Coles working in the Somerset Levels since 1964 (Coles 1975, 7). The news of this discovery was quickly communicated and a preliminary excavation commenced. Initial observations demonstrated a wooden structure, of timbers, poles, pegs extending in a linear fashion north-south between the Limestone island of Westhay and the sand island of Shapwick Burtle (Fig.1.3). The trackway was named after its discoverer, ‘The Sweet Track’. As it was under threat of peat extraction several excavations commenced, along its line and a trench at its southern terminal (Coles et al. 1973, 257).

Some 113 separate find spots (consisting of wood, pottery, lithics) were excavated along the line of the Sweet Track. Thus an average of 1 find spot for every 3031 meters excavated was recovered. Coles noticed during excavation the difference with the Sweet Track compared to other tracks in the Levels, that there was a high yield of artifacts along the track line (Coles and Orme 1976, 65, 1979, 61; Coles et al. 1973, 278). However this was not commented on further. A closer consideration of the context of the pottery, spatial patterning either side and along the Sweet Track will develop this aspect here.

The structure was found to be rather like a ‘catwalk’ (Fig. 1.3). This consisted of pegs that were driven into the phragmites swamp, with peat ‘packing’ underneath. The peat packing lay on ‘rails’ that were placed on the contemporary surface of the swamp and acted as a foundation. A single line of planks was then wedged between the pegs and posts to act as a walkway (Coles et al. 1973, 265; Coles and Orme 1976, 34, fig. 20). A great variety of wood was used; lime, oak, ash, hazel, alder and holly (ibid., 1973, 66). As excavation proceeded at different locations, at Site R, along the track it was realized there was a second line of posts that was a parallel track (Coles and Orme 1976, 39). Wooden planks were associated with posts and it was observed that the second track was crossed by the Sweet Track and was thus confirmed stratigraphically to be earlier. This track was called the Post-Track and whilst radiocarbon dates confirmed both tracks to be earlier Neolithic, later dendrochronology work suggested the Sweet Track to

From 9 trenches 2 yielded only pottery, but a total of 5 gave pottery to be the main type of artifact excavated (Fig. 1.4). The published account of the pottery assemblage derived from the Sweet Track is mainly focused on the typology, technology and cultural affinities of the sherds (Kinnes 1979; Smith 1976), with only limited discussion on the spatial distribution within the track, or between trenches (Coles and Orme 1984,

2

∃∃ ∃ ∃∃ ∃

#

0 0 0 0 0

#

∃,,∃ ∃,, ∃,,∃ ∃ ∃ ∃ ∃

#

#

,,,,,, ,,,,∃ ∃,,∃ ∃,,∃ ∃,,,,, ,,,,∃,,,∃,,,∃, #

Wedmore

#

#

Walton Heath structures, including the Bisgrove Track

#

#

Westhay island

Blakeway Track

Site W A Site SA Site R, Jadeite A xe

Site D Site C

∃∃ ∃∃ ,,,

#

#

#

0 0

#

Glastonbury Tor 3 Km

#

Fig.1.2: The Brue Valley in the Earlier Neolithic. Key:Site codes mentioned are those excavations that yielded pottery along the line of the Sweet Track. The location of the jadeite axe and flint chipped axe are shown. Vertical lines - earlier Neolithic ‘Trackways’ and wooden structures from the Somerset County Sites and Monuments Record (1998); Star (closed) - pottery excavated at the Sweet Track and the Burtle Bridge Track; South Triangle (open) - lithics excavated along the line of the Sweet Track; Dots (closed) - lithic find spots dated to the earlier Neolithic based on data from the Somerset County Sites and Monuments Record (1998), reassessed lithics from the Somerset Levels Project and lithics from the Shapwick Project (Bond forthcoming a.). Lines: white - water; black - contours; grey - Drift Geology (reproduced from Ordnance Survey data, Licence Number: LA07683X and British Geological data, Licence Number 2001/55).

#

#

,,,

Honeygore Complex

0

Site F, Flint Chipped A xe

Burtle Bridge Track

Polden Hills

0

Chilton Tracks

0

Edington Burtle

0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0

3 0 0 0 0 0 00 0

North

Prehistoric Pottery: People, Pattern & Purpose C. J. Bond

Fig.1.3: The Sweet Track The photograph to the left is of the Sweet Track as excavated at Site D. This photograph is facing south, near the southern terminal in the distance at Shapwick Burtle (After Coles and Coles 1990, 26). The photograph to the right is of the excavation of the Sweet Track at the abandoned Walkway Farm, Site WA. This photograph is facing south showing “dislodged” planks either side the central line of timbers. In the foreground in this trench to the north at between 8 and 10m a cluster of sherds that conjoined was excavated towards the west of the line of timbers (After Coles 1989, fig. 14; Coles and Orme 1984, fig. 50).

Prehistoric Pottery: People, Pattern & Purpose C. J. Bond

4

Prehistoric Pottery: People, Pattern & Purpose

Laboratory Number

Material

Date (BP)

Q-963

Hazel peg 325

Q-966

Hazel slat 180

Q-962

C. J. Bond

5218 ± 75

1 Sigma 68.2% probability (Cal BC) 4220 to 3955

2 Sigma 95.4% probability (Cal BC) 4250 to 3800

Structure

5159 ± 70

4045 to 3800

4220 to 3780

Sweet Track

Hazel peg 303

5150 ± 65

4040 to 3800

4220 to 3775

Sweet Track

Q-991

Hazel and ash pegs

4887 ± 90

3785 to 3535

3940 to 3380

Sweet Track

Q-1102

Peat beneath rails

5140 ± 100

4045 to 3795

4225 to 3705

Sweet Track

Q-1103

Peat packing

5103 ± 100

4035 to 3775

4220 to 3655

Sweet Track

Q-968

Peat on plank

5224 ± 75

4220 to 3960

4250 to 3800

Sweet Track

Q-967

Peat on plank

5108 ± 65

3975 to 3800

4045 to 3710

Sweet Track

Lu-327

Chilton 4 track wood

4760 ± 65

3640 to 3380

3655 to 3370

Chilton Tracks

HAR-649

Chilton 1-2 track wood

4760 ± 80

3640 to 3380

3695 to 3365

Chilton Tracks

Q-1035

Birch bottom layer

4355 ± 60

3080 to 2895

3315 to 2875

Burtle Bridge Track

Q-1036

Birch middle layer

4231 ± 60

2910 to 2695

2925 to 2620

Burtle Bridge Track

Q-1037

Birch

4370 ± 60

3085 to 2900

3330 to 2880

Burtle Bridge Track

Q-1038

Birch top layer

4327 ± 60

3020 to 2880

3265 to 2755

Burtle Bridge Track

HAR-4078

Brushwood

4880 ± 100

4078 to 3790

3520 to 3945

Bisgrove Track

Sweet Track

Table 1.1: Calibrated radiocarbon dates for the earlier Neolithic trackways in the Brue Valley Notes: i]. The details of contexts, materials and BP dates with error derive from the original publication, Coles and Coles (1975, 54) and Coles and Dobson (1989, 65-66), ii]. Re-calibration was achieved by using OxCal 3.5 (Bronk Ramsey 2000) and the INTCAL98 calibration curve (Stuvier et al. 1998). The probability method was selected with round off by 5 years and at a single resolution.

on the exterior and interior surfaces of vessels (Smith 1976, 64) and suggested to be the coating of crushed tree bark to aid waterproofing (Coles and Orme 1984, 44). In hindsight Coles’ reports the total assemblage from the structure would perhaps be equal to 10-15 vessels (Coles in Hillam et al. 1990, 218).

44). This was perhaps not intentional by the excavators and may simply be that the emphasis was on the speedy reporting of the structure with the artifacts only having a limited role at that stage of publication. It is also surprising that a fuller comment has not been forthcoming as the Sweet Track carinated wares remain the most securely dated assemblage for carinated bowls in the British Isles (Herne 1988, 17-18, 23-24, tables 2.3 and 2.4). Pottery forms were dominated by carinated wares with everted rims (Fig. 1.5). This was only deviated from with a single example of a simple upright bowl (S6 in Smith 1976, see Fig. 1.4). This upright form is seen as a local adaptation from the regional carinated forms (Herne 1988, 17; Thomas 1999, 103). The sherds from Site R were subjected to thin-section analysis by Williams (1979) indicating a group composed of grog temper and quartz and a second group with quartz and crushed flint temper. The form of vessel present are both carinated and the single simple bowl, all burnished and comparable to a south-western style as with Hembury wares (Gibson and Woods, 1997, 178; Herne 1988, 17; Whittle 1977, 77-82). Unlike the burnished plain bowls from Hembury and Carn Brea (Smith 1981) the clays used were not of gabbroic clay (cf. Peacock 1969). But, despite the clay not being of Lizard origin the emphasis on form has been argued to mimic the south-western plain bowl tradition (Coles and Coles 1986, 60; Kinnes 1979, 52; Smith 1976; Thomas 1999, 85). All sherds were of a fine-grained sandy clay fabric and were well made and finished (Coles and Orme 1984; Kinnes 1979; Smith 1976). A further observation was a shinny coating

Reference to the pottery in the reporting of the Sweet Track did draw attention to the unusual recovery of only fine wares from the track (Coles and Orme 1984, 44; Smith 1976, 64), but further comment was resisted. It was perhaps then assumed as excavation progressed other rough wares would be encountered giving a more rounded picture of an earlier Neolithic and assumed domestic tradition (Coles and Orme 1984, 44; Smith 1976, 64). Briefly the excavated context was also mentioned, but the assumption was always that pottery had been ‘dropped’ by accident, as people used the track, slippery to the foot, to cross the wetland (compare Coles et al. 1973, 278 and Coles and Orme 1976, 65). Despite an early report of Coles and Orme suggesting the potential for the pottery, as with the flint and jadeite axe excavated as being “deliberately dropped” (1976, 65) this avenue for interpretation was not extended. Thereafter, the context of pottery when discussed was recorded as accidental loss, as with Site C, “the pot broke and fell into the marsh. Other adjoining sherds were found up to 120cm away… perhaps deflected by a peg as the pot fell and smashed” (Coles and Orme 1984, 45, caption to fig. 58).

5

Prehistoric Pottery: People, Pattern & Purpose

C. J. Bond

North West

East Westhay, Limestone island

Type of discard and artifacts excavated:

Site of excavation and % of artifacts:

Clustered and Dispersed Pottery

Dispersed Lithics

Clustered Pottery

Clustered and Dispersed Pottery

Dispersed Lithics

Clustered and Dispersed Lithics

Clustered Pottery and Dispersed Lithics Clustered Pottery and Dispersed Lithics Dispersed Lithics

WA

–

Pottery 100%

TG

–

Lithics 75%, Wood 25%

SA

–

Pottery 100%

R

–

Pottery 90.9%, Lithics 9.0% (Jadeite Axe)

KD

–

Lithics 100%,

F

–

Lithics 14.4%, Wood 85.5% (Flint Chipped Axe)

D

–

C

–

Pottery 28.5%, Lithics 57.1%, Wood 14.2% Pottery 88.2%, Lithics 11.7%

B

–

Lithics 100% (Charcoal present)

Shapwick Burtle, sand island

Fig.1:4: a schematic diagram showing the different types of artifact findspots excavated along the line of the Sweet Track (Artefactbased data as published in Coles and Orme 1976, 1979, 1984; Coles et al. 1973).

6

Prehistoric Pottery: People, Pattern & Purpose

C. J. Bond

Above left, a simple plain bowl, S6, with the hazel spurtle excavated at Site R. Profile and reconstruction illustrated. Above right, an everted rim carinated bowl. Profile and rebuilt upper part. Illustrated at the scale 1:25 (After Smith 1976, fig. 41).

Above left, an everted carinated bowl excavated at Site D. Profile and reconstruction illustrated. Illustrated at the Scale 1:25 (After Kinnes 1979, fig. 39).

Above left, two everted rim carinated bowls. The bowl in the top was excavated from Site C and was lifted en bloc. The bowl in the bottom was excavated from Site WA. Profile and reconstruction illustrated. Illustrated at the scale 1:25 (After Coles and Orme 1984, fig. 56).

Fig.1.5: Pottery from the Sweet Track.

7

Prehistoric Pottery: People, Pattern & Purpose

C. J. Bond

Arguably, the most significant symbolically of the lithics are deposited to the west and in the mid-section of the track line between the islands of Westhay and Shapwick Burtle (core/nodule, jadeite axe, the chipped flint axe in Fig. 1.6). From the southern trench, Site C, to the northern trench, Site WA pottery was recovered in both north and south sections of the track, yet not at each terminal (Fig. 1.4). But, there is a reduction in pottery recovery in the middle sections at Sites F and KD, but a presence again at Site WA. This contrasts with lithics as they are recorded almost throughout (Fig. 1.4).

Moreover, Coles and Orme asserted, “the sherds had clearly come to rest where the pot had been dropped” (1984, 24). The reason for this, symbolic, purposeful or not is not explored. This sentiment on the lack of human intention on the discard of pottery continued with the dendro dating of all artifacts recovered in the track excavations, to 3806 BC with a span of 10-15 years of use, “Many potsherds have been found alongside the Sweet Track, some underneath planks and others representing complete pots dropped upon the track or into the swamp with their contexts scattered. A pot with hazelnuts, and one with a spurtle or stirring-stick, were dropped upon wood and smashed. Another fell into reeds and subsided more gently. Other sherds are from broken pots dispersed by floodwaters, or kicked in annoyance…” (Coles in Hillam et al. 1990, 218).

To study the direction of recovery measurements in bands of 0.10m intervals were then extracted from the point where lithics, pottery and certain wooden objects were recorded on the plans from trenches (Table 1.2). Five trends emerged;

A closer reading of the published data on the pottery and other artifacts has illuminated some patterning on spatial distribution and discard recorded through excavation (Fig. 1.4 and Fig 1.6, Tables 1.2 and 1.3). A review of the accounts of Sweet Track excavations showed that nine of the thirteen excavations yielded an artifactual assemblage. The artifact-based assemblage was composed of wooden artifacts; cut wood, wedges, bows, sticks, pins, a bowl, with lithics and pottery (Coles et al. 1973; Coles and Orme 1976, 1979, 1984). Some 7 out of the 9 trenches yielded lithics, 5 out of 9 pottery and 2 out of 9 only pottery (Fig. 1.4). A broad spatial patterning in the frequency of material culture indicated lithics tended to commonly be dispersed along the line of the track (Fig. 1.6). The rare exception to this was what may be interpreted as a ‘cache’ of flakes recovered beneath planking at Site F (Coles et al. 1973, fig. 2). Pottery however tended to be clustered with few occurrences of dispersed sherds. To underlie this trend sherds were conjoined and whole vessels reconstructed (Coles and Orme 1984; Kinnes 1979; Smith 1976). This may well have been taken by the excavator to imply, that with sherd conjoined and deposited close to each other pottery was always dropped by accident as vessels were easily reconstructed. Therefore, with this broad pattern it is possible to indicate that pottery was often excavated within a cluster while lithics, the jadeite axe, the flint chipped axe, arrowheads and flakes were recovered in a more isolated setting (all be it near other wooden objects). Comment can extend further to consider the direction of pottery being recovered, on top of the track line or west and east of the central line of timbers (Fig. 1.7). It is observed that both in the west and east there is more pottery recovered than lithics (Fig. 1.6). Moreover, as a percentage of pottery either side the track line there is more pottery recovered from the west than the east. Alternatively, the values for the eastern side suggest a balance in the proportions of lithics and pottery recovered (Fig. 1.6).

i].

The number of pottery and lithic find spots decreased from the central point, west and east (taken as the centre timbers laying approximately north-south),

ii].

The number of pottery finds decreased >0.40m at greater distance, compared to lithics that decreased >0.30m,

iii].

The highest number of pottery find spots grouped between 0-0.20m and the second highest value at 0.20-0.30m. This can be interpreted as perhaps two zones of discard, directly on or beside the structure,

iv].

The highest number of lithic find spots grouped between 0.10-0.30m, a broader span than pottery, with a second high at 0.30-0.50m and a third high at 0.60-0.70m. Such distribution of material west, east can also be interpreted as two zones of discard, near to and far away,

v].

The highest number of wooden artifacts was grouped at 0.10-0.40, with a second more diffuse value between 0.40-0.80m. This distribution can be interpreted as beside and near to the structure and material grading at distance away from the structure. But, only 3, from 33, or 9% of the artifacts were beyond a meter away from the central line of timbers.

A further variable that was recorded by the excavator was the type of context that an artifact was recovered in, such as in peat, above wood, or beneath wood (Table 1.3). Excluded from this were the two sherds that were recovered at a central point beneath wood and a single wooden point from also a central location was also recorded beneath wood (Coles and Orme 1984, figs. 20, 49; Coles et al. 1973, fig. 2). Two observations were made;

8

Prehistoric Pottery: People, Pattern & Purpose

West

C. J. Bond

North

East

Westhay, Limestone island % total of artifact find spots: 63.7%

% total of artifact find spots: 36.2%

Lithics:

Pottery:

Site:

Pottery:

Lithics:

_

17

WA

1

_

_

TG

_

2

5

SA

2

_

_

4

R

4

1 (the Jadeite Axe)

1

_

KD

_

1

F

_

D

1

4 (including the core/nodule) _

7 _ (including the Flint Chipped Axe and Arrowheads) 2 1

8 (including a Arrowhead) 2

1

8

C

6

1

_

_

B

_

_

15 (29.4%)

36 (70.5%)

14 (48.2%)

15 (51.7%)

Shapwick Burtle, sand island

Fig.1.6: A schematic diagram showing the distribution, number and type of find spots excavated along the Sweet Track. (Included under the values for lithics are some wooden artifacts all taken to have functioned as implements; 1 knife, 2 arrowshafts (Coles et al. 1973 fig.2). No data was plotted or discussed in detail in the publication of the Sweet Track terminal excavation at site B (Coles et al. 1973, 276-292, fig.11) therefore a quantative assessment was not possible). (Artifact-based data collated from the publication in Coles and Orme, 1976, 1979, 1984; Coles et al. 1973).

9

Prehistoric Pottery: People, Pattern & Purpose

0-0.10

C. J. Bond

Pottery

4

0.100.20 16

0.200.30 11

0.300.40 11

0.400.50 4

0.500.60 3

0.600.70 2

0.700.80 1

0.800.90 1

0.90-1.00

Wood

1

4

5

5

3

4

3

4

_

1

Lithics

_

8

7

3

3

1

4

_

_

_

1.101.20 _

1.201.30 _

1.301.40 _

1.401.50 _

1.501.60 _

1.601.70 _

1.701.80 _

1.801.90 _

1.90-2.00

Pottery

1.001.10 1

Wood

2

_

_

_

1

_

_

_

_

_

Lithics

1

1

_

1

_

_

_

_

_

_

1

_

Table 1.2: The grouping of find spots along the Sweet Track and their distance in meters away from the centre line of timbers. (Measurements were taken from the published plans in Coles and Orme 1976, 1979, 1984; Coles et al. 1973)

West Peat 28 14 12

Above Wood 6 _ _

Beneath Wood 2 3 _

54

6

5

Pottery Wood Lithics

13 16 8

_ _ 1

1 2 5

Total

37

1

8

Pottery Wood Lithics Total East

Table 1.3. The grouping of find spots as different types of deposition excavated along the line of the Sweet Track. Notes: i]. ii]. iii].

2 sherds that were recovered from beneath wood and 1 wood point excavated in peat, but all are from a central location and therefore not included in the above table, The jadeite axe was excavated from beneath wood on the east and is included in the value 5 (beneath wood), The chipped flint axe was excavated from an area of peat on the west and is included in the value 12 (peat).

10

Fig 1.7: Excavation plans of the Sweet Track (After Coles and Orme 1984, fig. 20 and fig. 49). Left: The line of timbers along the Sweet Track between 4-9m at Site C. Pottery was conjoined and reconstructed to build the everted rim, carinated bowl in Figure 4. Right: The line of timbers along the Sweet Track between 7-9m at Site WA. Some timbers and planks are “dislodged” to the west and east as shown in Plate 1. However, the structure was excavated in situ. Notice in both trenches the distribution of pottery find spots west and east of the central line of timbers. North Triangle (closed) - Pottery above wood, South Triangle (closed) - Pottery below wood

orth N

Prehistoric Pottery: People, Pattern & Purpose C. J. Bond

11

Prehistoric Pottery: People, Pattern & Purpose

•

•

C. J. Bond

The majority of pottery was recovered and thus discarded in peat with some sherds recorded above wood, on the surface of timbers and planks and very rarely sherds recorded below wood The majority of artifacts of all types, from 91 find spots 113, 80.5%, were excavated and therefore discarded in peat

No post-depositional factors were thought at the time of excavation to have acted in redistributing horizontally or vertically artifacts. There was a comment on potential movement of wood planking via flooding (see Coles et al. 1973, 278, 280-281). But, later this issue is not continued in reports and instead the integrity of the structure, together with the deposited artifact is stressed (Coles and Orme 1976, 1979, 1984).

•

in close proximity on, or near to the track structure, c.0.10-c.0.30m

•

in a state of near proximity to the track structure, c.0.30-c.0.60m

•

in the broad proximity to the track structure, c.0.601m or >1m

Hence material culture, and more specifically the pottery is argued here to be tied into the evidence for what can be termed distinct ‘discard events’ at a particular setting, for example a wet location (Thomas 1999, 85). These events as recorded in the distribution of artifacts; rarely on the surface of timbers or in the collapse or foundations, more commonly beside the track, or further away, related to an individual or perhaps a group entering the wetland using the track line. Individuals may have paused at particularly auspicious points along the line of the track and purposefully thrown, perhaps breaking, or placed pottery vessels either side, west or east of the timber line. This type of ritual practice would accord well with recovery of whole vessels, of fine quality, similar in form but different in size, mostly carinated wares (Fig. 1.5). The technology, quality of finish (smooth and “coated” as in Smith 1976) was similar, as was the emphasis on fabric types and inclusions (Fig. 1.8). The exclusive use of fine wares as containers used in a practice of veneration for votive offering along the track is consistent with this reassessment of the excavated evidence. Thus the reason the Sweet Track is untypical when compared to other tracks and platforms in the Somerset Levels by having a rich artifact-based assemblage is that it is unique, offering insight into a rather different way of using trackways compared to later structures. The intentional use, walking of this track, was beyond getting from A to B.

This point raises the question if artifacts were “dropped” onto the surface of the track (Coles in Hillman et al. 1990, 218) why were they not located in excavation on the track surface. Only 6, from 113, or 11.5% of pottery find spots were recovered on a wooden surface. Moreover, only 1, from 26, or 3.8% lithic find spots denoted recovery on a wood surface (Table 1.2). A higher value is offered however for lithics excavated from beneath wood at 5, from 26, or 19.2%. This value can be attributed to the jadeite axe covered by wood and the collection of flakes recorded at Site F. Wooden artifacts were also rarely recovered from beneath wood or on a wood surface (Table 1.3). The pattern observed in the distribution, frequency and direction of artifacts recovered along the approximate north-south line of the Sweet Track is argued here to be highly significant in indicating past movement and pause along the timber line. With excavation it was demonstrated how the track and its artifacts had not been moved through post-depositional disturbances (for example, see Coles and Orme 1976, 42-43, 51, 56, 5859). Some timber planking had been recorded as dislodged or broken, as at Site WA (Coles and Orme 1984, 27-28). The line of the track and subsequent debris was interpreted as being a result of decisions made in antiquity, not a result of post-deposition processes (compare the alignment of timbers at Site D and WA in Fig.1.3). Therefore this pattern of recovery and discard forms an integral unit, recording past choreography. If we consider the artifact assemblage, the micro-stratigraphy observed in the excavated trenches and the limited time span of use asserted for the track, it is possible to see the dispersal and clustering of material culture associated with this track as indicating different distinctive discard events. Timbers, planking, artifacts and peat can be interpreted as a complex palimpsest, denoting episodes of repair (Coles in Hillam et al. 1990, 219), maintenance, use and modification. The artifacts recovered in the excavations have been taken to be part of this process of use. Their significance is made clear with a deeper consideration of the emphasis in direction, frequency and density of artifacts, all of which can be taken to imply artifacts were purposefully deposited;

The Burtle Bridge Track, Edington and its pottery assemblage Some four kilometers to the west of the Sweet Track in May 1971 a second track structure was located by Mr. C Clements, an amateur field archaeologist working independently in the Somerset Levels (Clements 1972). In May 1971 to the south of Edington Burtle, a drainage channel was to be widened by the River Authority, the South Drain. Initial work by dredging, dragline and trenching machines revealed a series of timbers and planking extending southwards from the edge of the sand island into the moors. One of these timber exposures became known as the ‘Burtle Bridge Track’ as it was only 45.50m east of Burtle Bridge (Clements undated., 109). As a result of this salvage work other tracks were excavated by Clements and Coles, some of which were published as part of the Chilton tracks and three yielded earlier Neolithic radiocarbon dates (Coles 1975; Coles and Coles 1975, 54; Coles and Dobson 1989, 65; Coles et al. 1970, 126-127). The Burtle Bridge Track excavated by Clements also yielded radiocarbon dates, but of a later

12

Prehistoric Pottery: People, Pattern & Purpose

C. J. Bond

North

Westhay, Limestone island

Site

Pottery Number Pottery Type Conjoins of vessels

Pottery Forms Surface Fabric and Inclusions Treatment

WA

Yes

4

Carinated bowl

Upright neck, everted rim, body with round base

Smooth, burnished and 'coated'

Fine grained without clear inclusions, compact (comparable to S6 from Site R)

TG

_

_

_

_

_

_

SA

No data

4

No data

No data

No data

No data

(From the report of the excavation of Site SA only the poor condition of sherds as “soggy potsherds” was mentioned (Coles and Orme 1984, 24). This suggests no further analysis was attempted in postexcavation and therefore no detailed data is recorded here).

R

Yes

7-8

Carinated bowl/ Simple upright bowl

Upright neck, everted rim, body with round base

Smooth, burnished and 'coated'

Fine grained without clear inclusions, compact (as in simple bowl vessel, S6); crushed quartz; angular white quartz and translucent crystals; fractured flint; grog temper; calcareous - shell (as in carinated vessel, E3)

KD

_

_

_

_

_

_

F

_

_

_

_

_

_

D

Yes

4

Carinated bowl

Upright neck, everted rim, body with round base

Smooth, Fine grained with crushed burnished quartz (?) and micaceous sand and 'coated'

C

Yes

4

Carinated bowl

Upright neck, everted rim, body with round base

Smooth, Fine grained with crushed burnished quartz and sand and 'coated'

B

_

_

_

_

_

_

Shapwick Burtle, sand island Fig. 1.8: Schematic diagram showing the distribution of pottery types excavated along the line of the Sweet Track. (After Coles and Orme 1976, 1979, 1984; Coles et al. 1973).

13

Prehistoric Pottery: People, Pattern & Purpose

C. J. Bond

Fig.1.9: The Burtle Bridge Track during excavation (After Clements 1971, W8 from archive). Photograph W8 is taken facing the north-east. The photograph shows an area that is in the southern end of the structure and has been excavated in ‘steps’. This shows the layers, from the upper left corner to the bottom right corner as follows; the peg layer, medium sized birch layer and hazel layer are taken as layer 1 (top layer). Two layers of birch timbers are taken to be layer 2 (bottom layer).

intentional deposition. At a more general level pottery was excavated in a set zone, within 1.5-2m in the centre and specifically to the east of the central line of the track.

date and perhaps questionable association (Coles 1975, 1989). This point will be returned to below. The track was excavated between May and August 1971. The track was excavated over 20 m (Fig.1.9). An assemblage of earlier Neolithic plain bowl pottery was excavated from the track structure. This structure and its pottery assemblage remain unpublished. A preliminary analysis of this data is given below. Analysis of this assemblage followed the procedures for quantification and fabric description as set out by the Prehistoric Ceramics Research Group (PCRG 1997).

A total of 157 sherds were recorded together with some organic material. Clements has commented that many of the sherds were friable, more “crumbs” (Clements pers. comm., 2002). From the excavation diary it is clear that during excavation and post-excavation pottery had to be treated with PVA to enable consolidation (Clements 1971). Therefore, at present only an assemblage of 68 sherds has been made available for analysis constituting approximately 50% of the total assemblage (Fig.1.12). This assemblage is suggested by Clements to be those sherds that were consolidated in post-excavation analysis, thus worthy of further study and illustration (Clements pers. comm., 2002).

The structure of the track was argued by the excavator to be of two phases (Fig. 1.10a-e and Fig.1.9). The first phase was of straight stems of hazel and birch that formed longitudinal sections. Underneath this hazel and birch mat was heavier timbers laid to reinforce this structure with lateral timbers. Pegs were excavated and appeared to pin the structure in place. A second and later phase was observed by longitudinal timbers laid less carefully on top of the earlier hazel and birch structure. This later material was seen by Clements as a “later addition or reinforcement” of the track (Clement undated., 109).

From the site diary the number of pottery sherds recovered is listed and the details of the excavation of each is recorded (Clements 1971). This has enabled the pottery and other organic substances excavated to be plotted across the track structure in the trench (Fig. 1.10ac). The distribution of sherds across and within the track is focused towards the centre and east of the central line of timbers. Most of these sherds are body sherds. However, there is also rim sherds within this distribution that have been refitted. A sketch plan was made of a specific area to the east, prior to pottery being lifted en bloc (Fig. 1.11), as with the Sweet Track Site C (Coles and Orme 1984, fig. 58). What can be termed vessel 1, consisting of 8 sherds (numbers 40, 41, 42 in Clements 1971) with some rim sherds, appears to have been deposited in situ within the earliest layer of the track to the centre and east of the central line (Fig. 1.10b). This vessel is represented by three rim sherds and several conjoined body sherds. All reconstruct to a straight necked, plain bowl form (Fig.1.12). This is of a soft fabric with voids (Oolite or Limestone inclusions missing, as noted in PCRG 1997, Appendix 2). These sherds were excavated and lifted after the later timbers

Working through this site plan, the site diary and the pottery assemblage several points have been raised. The majority of pottery was excavated from within the track structure, rather than from peat surrounding the structure (Fig. 1.10-a-e). Few sherds were excavated in peat at a distance from the timber spread. A monolith was lifted to one side and some pottery was recovered within this monolith but the main spread of pottery was located; lying on top of, or in peat between, or below timbers. Often sherds were recovered in close proximity to each other, on top of each other within centimeters horizontally or vertically of other sherds. The case of a group of sherds recovered to the east and centre from a discrete zone in the bottom layer and revealed once the hazel brush was removed is of importance (Fig 1.10a, b-c and Fig. 1.11). This is interpreted as a single act of

14

Prehistoric Pottery: People, Pattern & Purpose

C. J. Bond

Fig 1.10a-c: Plan of Burtle Bridge Track during excavation, May to August 1971

15

Prehistoric Pottery: People, Pattern & Purpose

C. J. Bond

North

3

2 Fig. 8d, Burtle Bridge Track, 1971: track timbers in trench, the bottom layer after hazel was removed with pottery from the upper layer. Triangle (open) - monolith, dot (closed) - central line (plan based on Clements, drawing 9).

R135

3

R100 B157a

B155 and

R86 and

R69, d

2 Fig. 8e, Burtle Bridge Track, 1971: track timbers in trench, the bottom layer after hazel was removed with pottery that are conjoined with organic material. Triangle (open) - monolith, dot (closed) - central line (plan based on Clements 1971, drawing 9). Star (open) - Individual sherds that conjoin, Grey dashed line - line demonstrating conjoins, Grey diamond - Hazelnut. Sherd numbers are shown with B - body sherd, or R - rim sherd. Notes: Vertical line with dots – excavation trench, doted lines – timbers excavated under planking and poles (longitudinal and laterals), grey banded circle – area of sherds clustering, 2 and 3 represent 2-3 meters in the north-south trench. Scale 1:80.

Fig.1.10d-e: Plan of Burtle Bridge Track during excavation, May to August 1971

16

Prehistoric Pottery: People, Pattern & Purpose

C. J. Bond

North

3

2 Fig. 8f, Burtle Bridge Track, 1971: track timbers in trench, the bottom layer after hazel was removed with distribution of pottery in the bottom layer - clustered, centre and east. Triangle (open) -monolith, dot (closed) - central line (plan based on Clements 1971, drawing 9).

3

2 Fig. 8g, Burtle Bridge Track, 1971: track timbers in trench, the bottom layer after hazel was removed with distribution of pottery in the top layer - dispersed, centre and east. Triangle (open) -monolith, dot (closed) central line (plan based on Clements 1971, drawing 9). Notes: Vertical line with dots – excavation trench, doted lines – timbers excavated under planking and poles (longitudinal and laterals), 2 and 3 representing 2-3 meters in the north-south trench. Scale 1:80.

Fig.1.10f-g: Plan of Burtle Bridge Track during excavation, May to August 1971

17

Prehistoric Pottery: People, Pattern & Purpose

C. J. Bond

Fig.1.11: Sketch plan of the excavated Burtle Bridge Track and the area where pottery sherds were lifted in a peat block. From Clements’ Fieldwork Note Book, 1971 (After Clements 1971, inside cover).

18

Prehistoric Pottery: People, Pattern & Purpose

C. J. Bond

Fig.1.12: The pottery excavated from the Burtle Bridge Track. Left, rim sherds 1a, 2, 3, body sherds 1 and 4 (voids, missing Oolite or Limestone inclusions, conjoined - vessel 1). Middle, rim sherds 86 and 99 (Quartz and voids, missing Oolite or Limestone inclusions, conjoined – vessel 2). Right, rim sherd 99 (Quartz sand and voids, missing Oolite or Limestone inclusions, profile). and Limestone missing) and fine quartz sand inclusions. An outlying rim sherd of this group is perhaps sherd 100, also of the same soft fabric and inclusions. These sherds are distributed more to the centre and west of the central line of timbers (Fig. 1.10e).

that were placed above this layer had been removed (Fig. 1.10c-d). The covering of sherds, that conjoin to make a vessel could be interpreted as an act of purposeful concealment of previous debris, or simply reflect the rebuilding of the structure over the time of use, as this material was either forgotten or incorporated into the structure. However sherds seemed to respect the location of the previous vessel, as four sherds, said by the excavator to be most probably of the same vessel were excavated nearby but to the north (Fig. 1.10b-c). This groups location was higher above the timbers and therefore later in the sequence (sherds 31, 19, 20, 19 resting beside timber 303 in Clements 1971, 129, 131).

From the site record for Burtle Bridge Track it is possible to discern a pattern of deposition for pottery that, as with the Sweet Track, can be termed ‘discard events’. That is, as opposed to the accidental dropping of vessels in a wet locations whilst traversing the swamp, it is argued here an intention to deposit pottery at a particular location and section of a track is demonstrated. Discard patterns can be grouped as follows for the Burtle Bridge Track;

A second vessel can also be denoted by three sherds (69, 135, 118) all in the later layer above vessel 1 (Fig. 1.10de). This can be termed vessel 2, a simple form, straightnecked, plain bowl form but with a soft fabric with voids (Oolite and Limestone missing) and fine quartz sand inclusions present. With this vessel sherds that conjoin are spaced some distance apart, with rim 135 conjoining with rim 118 some 0.60m to the west (Fig. 1.10e). Furthermore, rim 69 is extended south, c.0.30m and excavated under sherd 65. Of interest is the group of four body sherds (numbers 157a-d) that are weathered, but most conjoin and appear to be deposited along the line of travel between rim sherds 135 and 118 (Fig. 1.10e). These sherds were made of the same fabric as the rim sherds 135 and 118. Given their proximity, all may be part of the same vessel. Of interest is, that despite the shift in sherds west and south, a key locus for the activity that led to the deposit of this vessel may centre around sherd 135. This may also be confirmed by the similar fabrics with the nearby the body sherds (157a-d). This would indicate a centre and eastern focus as with vessel 1 (Fig. 1.10b-e).

i].

With the building of this birch track the focus of initial activity was clustered towards the centre and east of the line of timbers (Fig. 1.10f). As time passed it appears this emphasis on activity, shown by the spread of body sherds and conjoin of rim sherds shifted to a more dispersed pattern (Fig. 1.10g),

ii].

Into the later layers of the track a more dispersed pattern of pottery discard is developed as denoted by the conjoining of rim sherds and spread of body sherds (Fig. 1.10e). This pattern moves the focus away from the centre and east of the track to a more central and western distribution (Fig. 1.10e-g).

An interpretation of this changing pattern of pottery discard may be that it reflects individuals or groups of people visiting this location, some c.10-30m south of the sand burtle, and purposefully choosing to leave votive offerings in the form of pottery vessels to the eastern side of the track. This ritual practice would perhaps take place just before the individual, or party left the confines of the track structure and also insight of the dry land. The close proximity of this assemblage, most pottery was excavated within 0.80-1m and the change in emphasis through time

A potential third vessel is also located in this later layer (Fig. 1.10e). In this case the two rim sherds that are present both conjoin and lie in close proximity. Rim sherds 99 and 86 are of a soft fabric with voids (Oolite

19

Prehistoric Pottery: People, Pattern & Purpose

C. J. Bond

inclusions are similarly recorded with vessel 2 and 3 in the later layer of the Bridge Burtle Track and are more comparable to the carinated wares of the Sweet Track. The approximate diameters of pottery is also comparable with vessel 1 giving an external rim diameter of c.221mm, mirroring the Sweet Track vessel, S6 at 220mm (Smith 1976, 64). The other two vessels are somewhat smaller, but with their limited rims, more open to question, yielding external rim diameters of, c.125mm and c.148mm. The Burtle Bridge pottery appeared to be better fired than the finer wares of the Sweet Track, but external and internal surfaces were consistent in colour. Pottery thickness is also consistent, if not slightly thicker than the Sweet Track assemblage (thickness in body and rim sherds, c.9-10mm).

(between what are interpreted by Clements’ as layers 1 and 2) would accord with this part of the track structure to be perceived as more than simply a set of timbers. This section of the birch track and its east side is interpreted here as demonstrating evidence for the re-use of a confined space for making offerings; bringing and placing offerings perhaps within pottery at this setting. Some 38 of the 68 sherds examined also have soot on their surfaces and organic residue. Is it therefore not impossible to imagine that a votive brew was drunk, or left for the spirits to consume at this location? Pottery may have been broken, placed here. This debris thus documented the travels and ritual practices of people over perhaps a few generations. It may then be as people came and went people forgot parts of their local tradition and rites. Where the offerings were once made was forgotten and gradually pottery accumulated as time passed. Only, with time it was discarded away from the initial focus of this ritual practice (see what is interpreted as the process of remembrance as elements of a post and pit alignment at Holm Farm, Dumfries was rebuilt in Thomas 2000, 86).

When considering the evidence for burnishing and “coating” for waterproofing the mostly fine carinated wares from the Sweet Track compared with the thicker, more coarser and soot covered ware from the Burtle Bridge Track, it may be taken to imply two very different types of assemblage (cf. Cleal 1992). The difference between the assemblages can be seen as encompassing the issue of the range of pottery fabrics and forms that is expected to have occurred within a domestic assemblage and has been commented on by Smith (1976) and Coles and Orme (1984). The Sweet Track material is a fine ware with elaborate forms, save the single simple bowl. Whereas the Burtle Bridge Track assemblage, despite the limited number of rims present, but with many larger body sherds (the body sherds give an upright profile and a similar fabric) was exclusively composed of medium wares of simple straight-necked plain bowls. Both assemblages appear to have been entangled in a form of ritual practice at each track with what are termed here distinctive ‘discard events’ occurring at set points along each north-south track. However, both assemblages are from very different spectrums of the idealistic earlier Neolithic pottery assemblage, from fine to coarse wares, elaborate to simple forms. The fine carinated wares could be argued to fit a requirement for pottery that would be used in ritual practices, but the plain bowl, with the spurtle, or wooden stir at the Sweet Track Site R and the Burtle Bridge Track assemblage remains to be explained. A possible explanation may be that some vessels were used in cooking prior to their journey along the track. Pottery function as with cooking, preparation and containment of foods has recently been argued to be tied to a set way of seeing the world with rituals and routine tasks for the earlier Neolithic (Jones 1999). At the Sweet Track a complete vessel (E3, carinated bowl, see Smith 1976) was found with hazelnuts remaining in it and nearby (Coles and Orme 1976, fig. 39). A single hazelnut was also recorded near the pottery spread at the Burtle Bridge Track together with other organic material (Fig. 1.10d). With the Burtle Bridge Track assemblage some 50-60% of sherds analyzed were covered in soot and with organic residue.

Discussion Pottery, it seems from a deeper consideration of the artifact-based assemblage derived from the Sweet Track and the unpublished Burtle Bridge Track is central to understanding the function and unique nature of these structures. There are similarities and differences between each assemblage. The pottery from the Sweet Track was of a fine ware, mostly of a carinated form with everted rims (Fig. 1.5). Alternatively, the rim sherds and conjoined body sherds from the Burtle Bridge Track suggest a straight-necked, simple bowl form and a more medium fabric (Fig. 1.12). One example of a similar form of simple bowl pottery was excavated at the Sweet Track Site R with a wooden spurtle nearby (Fig. 1.5). This vessel from the Sweet Track is the only form that is comparable between the tracks. But, these upright forms have also been seen as a local variation to the regional style (Herne 1988, 17). These simple neutral forms perhaps reflect the interplay of local pragmatic needs and cultural traditions more indelible in the potter’s minds than those broader attributes given by the archaeologist to Hembury ware (Cleal 1992, 302-304). However, comparisons can be made in that all the pottery is well-made, with smoothed external and internal surfaces. The fabric of pottery from the Sweet Track is a fine-grained sandy clay with some vessels with no inclusions or with Limestone (or Oolite) inclusions, quartz, shell or crushed flint (cf. Kinnes 1979; Smith 1976). The Limestone (or Oolite) inclusions is continued with the evidence in the shape of voids and the odd fragment observed from the earliest rim and body sherds of vessel 1 at Burtle Bridge. Once again, this fabric in vessel 1 also is comparable to the plain bowl S6 with inclusions weathered out, but being fine, in Smith 1976, 63-64). The soft fabric with Limestone (or Oolite) inclusions that are missing and fine quartz sand

So, if we accept there is a ritual context to the pottery recorded at each track it is possible that such rites may have involved food preparation and cooking, perhaps one 20

Prehistoric Pottery: People, Pattern & Purpose

C. J. Bond

ingredient being hazelnuts (as part of a local food gathering regime, see Richards 2000, 132). This foodstuff in turn would then be carried along the line of the track, in a suitable container and then either consumed by participants or left as an offering at that auspicious juncture in the path. Such a process would explain the emphasis and selection of certain pottery forms, their size and open-mouthed or more neutral pottery forms for involvement in this practice. Hence, between the Sweet Track and the Burtle Bridge Track the use of elaborate carinated forms and simple bowl forms of mostly fine and less refined fabrics is demonstrated and also support the interpretation of these structures as being more than mundane pathways. These vessels would have been embedded in a web of social meanings tied to the significance of eating food, even perhaps preparation of an offering, or food for a feast, all of which was indicative of an earlier Neolithic way of being (Thomas 1996, 98, 1999, 87, 98-99; Whittle 1996). This is beyond simply the dietary factors and moves from the analysis of pottery form, fabrics and assumed function to a social context for the consumption of food and pottery use (Fairbairn 2000, 118-121; Jones 1999, 72; Richards 2000, 132- 135; Richards and Hedges 1999, 893-896). Procurement of plants, including the wild as illustrated with the excavation of pottery together with scatters of hazelnuts, at the Sweet Track and perhaps the Burtle Bridge Track demonstrate how within a mobile economy substances could be bought to and used in a place (Edmonds 1997; Whittle 1997, 2000). In this wetland, two wooden structures, with the coming together of pottery and gathered plants and the catalyst of the movement of people north-south, or vice versa, would perhaps form the props of a set ritual. A ritual denoting as Whittle has asserted, that the Sweet Track was a place perceived as retaining some type of “spiritual significance” (1996, 236).

southern terminal of the Sweet Track, Site B, on the Shapwick Burtle. Here a bog oak is located in the lowest levels abutting the sand island and directly below the timbers for the track (Coles et al. 1973, fig. 11). In both cases what may have been a very simple and natural ‘bridge’ device, an upturned bog oak formed the basis on which to build a more substantial structure. The Sweet Track was composed of various types of wood, hazel, oak, lime, ash and some birch. However, the Burtle Bridge Track favoured almost exclusively birch timbers (save some hazel timbers recorded in Clements 1971), as is the case with the adjacent Chilton Tracks (Coles et al. 1970). Four birch timbers were submitted for radiocarbon dating from the Burtle Bridge Track to date the upper, middle and lower layers of the structure (Clements 1971, 127). These four dates emerged but oddly in comparison to the adjacent Chilton Tracks, or Honeygore Complex the series grouped to 3040-2870 Cal BC (Coles and Coles 1975, 54; Coles and Dobson 1989, 64). Given this anomaly this series of radiocarbon dates have been recalibrated using OxCal 3.5 and the INCAL98 calibration curve (Bronk Ramsey 2000; Stuiver et al. 1998). The radiocarbon dates are presented at 1 sigma, 68.2% and 2 sigma, 95.4% confidence following the probability method and rounding off ranges by 5 years (Fig. 1.13 and Table 1.1). We can compare the latest radiocarbon dated element of the Sweet Track with the earliest radiocarbon dated element of the Burtle Bridge Track. The latest radiocarbon date from the Sweet Track made on a hazel and an ash peg gives at 1 sigma 3785-3535 Cal BC or at 2 sigma 3940-3380 Cal BC (Q-991, 4887±90 BP). This can be compared with the birch from the bottom layer of the Burtle Bridge Track giving at 1 sigma 3080-2895 Cal BC or at 2 sigma 3315-2875 Cal BC (Q-1035 4355±60 BP). The original young estimates as published for the Burtle Bridge Track remain apparent (Coles and Coles 1975, 54; Coles and Dobson 1989, 65). This calculation gives a time distance between each structure at 1 sigma between 705-640 radiocarbon year or at 2 sigma between 625-660 radiocarbon years. Or, some 26 to 28 human generations, all, if the association between radiocarbon date, structure and pottery is correct, falling within the earlier Neolithic! Following the analysis above, the Burtle Bridge Track pottery is of earlier Neolithic type and of plain bowl cultural affinity (cf. Herne 1988). The Burtle Bridge Track structure also is comparable to other earlier Neolithic wooden tracks excavated in the Somerset Levels, for example the Honeygore Complex and the Bisgrove Track (Coles 1989; Coles and Coles 1986; Coles et al. 1970).

Now, to return to the track structures, patterns of deposition and a question of chronology. The Sweet Track when taken with the Post-Track can be seen as a multi-period track and setting (Hillam et al. 1990). This reuse of the setting of a trackway is also demonstrated with the Burtle Bridge Track, with later less regular timbers used (Clements 1971). Within the structure, the deposition of material culture, arguably in both cases suggest reuse, of routine use, tasks being carried out at particular points along each track. Some of these points were, it appears foci of continued discard, as clusters emerge of material culture (Fig. 1.7 and Fig. 1.10f-g). Clusters of pottery, wooden objects and some lithics along the Sweet Track were excavated yet others would be more probably a single ‘discard event’, for example the jadeite axe and the chipped flint axe were set spatially apart (Coles and Orme 1976, 24b; Coles et al. 1973, fig. 2).

This track was excavated at a similar depth to the Chilton Tracks and in a fen wood ecology (Clements u. d., 109). All the pottery recovered from the lower layer of the track and upper layer is of simple plain bowl type and typologically earlier Neolithic in date (Herne 1988, tables2.3 and 2.4). Therefore, in terms of the material culture the Burtle Bridge Track appears contemporary with the other earlier Neolithic tracks in the Somerset

At the Burtle Bridge Track Clements saw the origin of the track to be linked with initial use of a bog oak, that was laid across the area of damp soils, a “wet lag” between the swamp and the Burtle sand island (Clements pers. comm., 2002). This situation is also recorded at the 21

Prehistoric Pottery: People, Pattern & Purpose

C. J. Bond

Atmospheric data from Stuiver et al. (1998); OxCal v3.5 Bronk Ramsey (2000); cub r:1 sd:12 prob usp[chron]

Q-963 5218±75BP Q-966 5159±70BP Q-962 5150±65BP Q-991 4887±90BP Q-1102 5140±100BP Q-1103 5103±100BP Q-968 5224±75BP Q-967 5108±65BP Lu-327 4760±65BP HAR-649 4760±80BP Q-1035 4355±60BP Q-1036 4231±60BP Q-1037 4370±60BP Q-1038 4327±60BP HAR-4078 4880±100BP 5000CalBC 4500CalBC 4000CalBC 3500CalBC 3000CalBC 2500CalBC Calibrated date

Fig.1.13: Calibrated age ranges for the Sweet Track, Chilton Tracks, Burtle Bridge Track and the Bisgrove Track Notes: i]. ii].

Re-calibration was achieved by using OxCal 3.5 (Bronk Ramsey 2000) and the INTCAL98 calibration curve (Stuvier et al.1998). The probability method was selected with round off by 5 years and at a single resolution, See Table 1 for details of radiocarbon samples. For ease of reference the following laboratory numbers relate to the listed wooden structures, working from top to bottom in the above multiple plot; Q-963, Q-966, Q-962, Q-991, Q-1102, Q-1103, Q-968, Q-967 = The Sweet Track Lu-326 = Chilton Track 4 HAR-649 = Chilton Tracks 1-2 Q-1035, Q-1036, Q-1037, Q-1038 = Burtle Bridge Track HAR-4078 = Bisgrove Track.

Levels. But, given the radiocarbon date it remains some 600-700 radiocarbon years later than other radiocarbon dated earlier Neolithic structures, such as the Sweet Track and Bisgrove Track (Table 1.1). This problem in radiocarbon dates offers three potential interpretations; i].

ii].

reuse of the track this is unusual for the trackways in the Somerset Levels (Coles 1989, fig. 12). This reused area of the track would perhaps be some 4-5m to the north away from the area of pottery deposition and higher up in the sequence. Most track structures have been argued to be only in use over short periods of time. Coles and Coles assert a “maximum period of use” of 25 years (1998, 6, fig. 5). The Burtle Bridge Track would be the only track being used, perhaps not continuously, over some years. That would be at 1 sigma over c.60-15 radiocarbon years or at 2 sigma c.120-50 radiocarbon years if the c.3000 Cal BC radiocarbon arrays is accepted. This estimate is taken by comparing radiocarbon dates of the birch bottom layer (Q-1035) to that of the birch top layer (Q-1038) (Table 1.1). However, the point of conflict is in the presence of earlier

If the series of radiocarbon dates are correct they may actually offer a date for the latest use of the diagnostic earlier Neolithic plain bowl pottery (Herne 1988, tables 2.3 and 2.4) on the cusp locally of the move from the earlier Neolithic to the later Neolithic pottery manufacture. The onset of the Grooved ware tradition would be overlapped regionally, for ‘South Wessex’, by as much as 100-200 radiocarbon years (Garwood 1994, 152, 154, illustrations 15.1. and 15.3.), If the series of radiocarbon dates are correct, as is demonstrated in their close range (Table 1.1), but do in fact date only a much later stage of 22

Prehistoric Pottery: People, Pattern & Purpose

C. J. Bond

Neolithic pottery. The earlier Neolithic pottery excavated in this track is directly comparable to that of the Sweet Track. That assemblage, as determined in tree-ring analysis is dated to 3806 BC (Hillam et al. 1990, 215; Coles 1999, table 19.1, fig. 19.3). This pottery may well represent the first use of the Burtle Bridge Track some 400-500 years before the last episode of use which yielded the four radiocarbon dates, iii].

The analysis of the Burtle Bridge pottery assemblage and a preliminary evaluation of the excavation of the Burtle Bridge Track has facilitated a reconsideration of the role that pottery played with the coming of the earlier Neolithic in the Brue Valley (Coles 1989, 1999; Coles and Coles 1998). Pottery is argued to have taken a central role in ushering in a Neolithic way of life into this landscape; pottery and other types of artifact were taken beyond the domestic sphere and discarded purposefully into a wetland, a less humanly controlled domain than the dry land. This can be argued to constitute taking of elements of the domestic (domus) principle away from the dry land where human settlement pervaded into the less tamed natural (agros) setting of the wetlands (cf. Hodder 1990, 255-256). With the building and maintenance of the trackway, the deposition of pottery, lithics and wooden objects, including wooden “boards” (interpreted as derived from domestic buildings) were recorded either side the length of the Sweet Track (Coles et al. 1973, 280-281). This material culture can easily be thought of as the “Neolithic package” (Thomas 1991, 1999). In this situation the highly symbolically charged combination of pottery, lithics, wood and organic materials would serve to signal the onset of this new way of being in both the wet and dry land. The wetlands were in the process of being enculturated by a different way of seeing and interpreting the landscape by the use of a linear order (Hodder 1990, 245), manifested in the northsouth track alignments. Fresh ways of interpreting this world were made available to local communities (Thomas 1996). The landscape, its ecological resources and meaning would be thought afresh and past social meanings ascribed to aspects of this land manipulated (Bond 1999, 2002).

The series of radiocarbon dates are incorrect and represent an unreliable date for the birch timbers sampled (Clements 1971, 127). This is unlikely given the sampling technique employed and the close range in dates (Table 1.1).

Either one of above points may be the case. However, recently Clements has conceded that this series of radiocarbon dates, although taken at a level in order to sample the layers and date the structure, may well only have dated a later section that was reused (Clements pers. comm., 2002). Therefore any relationship between the position of the earlier Neolithic pottery in the track, the dating of that context and the timbers that were radiocarbon dated is not beyond reasonable doubt. But, if the track was reused around c.3000 Cal BC as the radiocarbon dates at face value may suggest this would be sometime after its use by people who discarded the earlier Neolithic pottery analyzed in this paper. This date still remains well after the use of the Sweet Track, the Chilton Tracks, the Bisgrove or even the Honeygore Complex (Coles 1989, fig. 12; Coles and Coles 1998, fig. 4 and fig. 5). If this is established this would imply the Burtle Bridge Track was the only structure in the Somerset Levels that was initially used and then later reused over such an extensive period of time (Table 1.1). At that later time and higher in the sequence no pottery appears to have been deposited. Perhaps the function and meaning of the track had changed for local communities.

Although the Sweet Track and Burtle Bridge Track were north-south trackways, they both consisted of very different construction techniques. Both tracks had material culture deposited within, on the surface of, or beside each. In both tracks material culture appears to have been discarded in clusters, and as a more dispersed pattern. Pottery in both cases was excavated, and conjoined within discrete zones or clusters. Lithics, recovered from the Sweet Track were mainly recorded at dispersed points along the track line. As stated above there are differences in the patterning of the material culture. In the deposition of artifacts with the tracks the Sweet Track yielded pottery, lithics and wooden artifacts, whereas the section excavated of Burtle Bridge Track only produced pottery (Fig. 1.4 and Fig. 1.10a-e). The Sweet Track tended to yield more artifacts from the western side (Fig. 1.6), whereas the Burtle Bridge Track gave most sherds from a more central and eastern direction (Fig. 1.10f-g). The recovery of pottery from the Sweet Track, as with other artifacts, was mainly from the surface of the peat (Table 1.3). Few artifacts were recovered from beneath or lying on the surface of timbers. However, with the Burtle Bridge Track pottery was recorded from above, below wood and from areas of peat between timbers (Fig. 1.10a-e). Sherds were often excavated below a cluster of sherds recovered higher up in the sequence of timbers; planks, poles placed

Conclusion This paper has aimed to raise the profile of both the Sweet Track and unpublished Burtle Bridge Track and their unique pottery assemblages. With the Sweet Track pottery had been recorded but its deposition not called into question and its function assumed to be domestic. Deposition was traditionally argued to be solely a result of loss and accident. It is asserted here that this assumption, together with the plotting of lithics and wooden structures across the wetlands of the Brue Valley has led to Sweet Track pottery assemblage to be viewed as originating from a settlement (cf. Coles 1989, fig. 13; Coles and Coles 1986, 59-60; Hillam et al. 1990, 218). These settlement locations were then conjectured to be nearby the terminals of the track (Coles 1975, fig. 1.1, 1989, fig. 13). In the case of the Burtle Bridge Track pottery assemblage it appears to be seen to represent a specific locale for ‘settlement’ on the southern edge of the Edington Burtle island (cf. Coles 1989, fig. 13).

23

Prehistoric Pottery: People, Pattern & Purpose

C. J. Bond

longitudinally and laterally (for example, see Fig. 1.11). Differences in the specific way artifacts were deposited may belie differences in set rites, or the tempo of those rites.

wet locality. This was a place beyond the normal domestic sphere of the hearth and family needs where other pottery was made, used and broken. Instead a special significance is suggested and a unique context for these two pottery assemblages (cf. Thomas 1999, 85; Whittle 1996, 236).

At first glance the location of ‘discard events’ appears to be more confined at the Burtle Bridge Track in a set diameter of no more than 0.80-1m for most sherds (Fig. 1.10f-g). This appears rather different to the broader zones of artifact deposition of up to 1.20m at the Sweet Track (for example, as in Fig. 1.7). However, this is not the case with pottery at the Sweet Track Sites C, SA or WA which are recorded as clustering in zones ranging from 0.25-1mm). GRMM – Moderate, medium, well sorted and angular grog (>0.25-1mm). GRCF – Common, very fine to fine, well sorted and angular grog (0.25-1mm). GRCM/SHRM – Common, medium, well sorted, angular grog (>0.25-1mm) with rare, medium, ill-sorted platy/angular shell (>0.25-1mm). GRCC – Very common, very coarse, well sorted, angular grog (>3mm). = E02 and E06 GRCC/ROMC – Common, coarse, well sorted, angular grog (>1-3mm) with moderate, coarse, poorly sorted angular rock (>13mm).cf. E23 GRVV – Very common, very coarse, well sorted, angular grog (>3mm) O04 - see Jerry Evan’s fabric description O016 - see Jerry Evan’s fabric description P41 - see Jerry Evan’s fabric description QUCF – Common, very fine to fine, well sorted and well rounded quartz (0.25-1mm). =P02 QUCM/FLRV – Common, medium, well-sorted and rounded quartz (>0.25-1mm) with rare, very coarse, poorly sorted and angular flint (>3mm). QUCM/SHCF – Common, medium, well sorted and rounded quartz (0.25-1mm) with common, very fine to fine, poorly sorted, angular and platy shell (1-3mm) with rare, coarse, poorly sorted, angular grog (>13mm). SHCF – Common, very fine to fine, ill-sorted and angular shell (