The Residue of Ritualised Action: Neolithic Deposition Practices in the Middle Thames Valley 9781407303239, 9781407321264

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Table of Contents
List of Figures
List of Plates
List of Tables
Acknowledgements
Abstract
Part I
Chapter 1: The residue of ritualised action: an introduction
Part II
Chapter 3: Natural places – unaltered landscapes
Chapter 4: Beneath the surface
Chapter 5: Monuments: form, structure and material culture
Chapter 6: Chronological summaries of deposition practices
Part III
Chapter 7: Themes in the Neolithic of the Middle Thames Valley
Chapter 8: On the horizon: regional perspectives
Appendix 1: Archaeological features and monuments in the Middle Thames Valley
Bibliography

Citation preview

BAR 466 2008 LAMDIN-WHYMARK

The Residue of Ritualised Action: Neolithic Deposition Practices in the Middle Thames Valley Hugo Lamdin-Whymark

THE RESIDUE OF RITUALISED ACTION

B A R

BAR British Series 466 2008

The Residue of Ritualised Action: Neolithic Deposition Practices in the Middle Thames Valley Hugo Lamdin-Whymark

BAR British Series 466 2008

ISBN 9781407303239 paperback ISBN 9781407321264 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407303239 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR

PUBLISHING

Contents Contents .....................................................................................................................................................................i Figures ....................................................................................................................................................................v Plates ...................................................................................................................................................................vi Tables ...................................................................................................................................................................vi Acknowledgements..................................................................................................................................................ix Abstract ...................................................................................................................................................................xi Part I

..........................................................................................................................................................1

Chapter 1:

The residue of ritualised action: an introduction .........................................................................3

1.1. 1.2. 1.3. 1.4. 1.5. 1.6. Chapter 2:

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................3 The study area.............................................................................................................................................3 Geology and topography.............................................................................................................................7 The environment and environmental change..............................................................................................8 Chronology ...............................................................................................................................................12 The Middle Thames Valley dataset ..........................................................................................................15 Ritual and the archaeological record ..........................................................................................19

2.1. 2.2. 2.3. 2.4.

Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................19 Ritual and archaeology .............................................................................................................................19 Identifying ritual in the archaeological record..........................................................................................21 New directions..........................................................................................................................................24

Part II

........................................................................................................................................................25

Chapter 3:

Natural places – unaltered landscapes ........................................................................................27

3.1. Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................27 3.2. Deposition in rivers ..................................................................................................................................27 3.2.1. Artefacts and investigations ............................................................................................................30 3.2.2. Chronological summary of deposition practices .............................................................................35 3.2.3. Discussion .......................................................................................................................................44 3.3. Middens and finds spreads........................................................................................................................46 3.3.1. Midden assemblages .......................................................................................................................46 3.3.2. Middens beyond the Middle Thames Valley ..................................................................................54 3.3.3. Summary .........................................................................................................................................55 3.3.4. Discussion .......................................................................................................................................56 3.4. In situ flint scatters ...................................................................................................................................58 3.4.1. Eton Rowing Course, EX1-3: A detailed case study.......................................................................58 3.4.2. Eton Rowing Course, Areas 5 and 3 ...............................................................................................69 3.4.3. Amerden Lane West........................................................................................................................69 3.4.4. Discussion .......................................................................................................................................70 3.5. Conclusions ..............................................................................................................................................72 3.5.1. Summary of deposition practices at natural locations.....................................................................72 Chapter 4:

Beneath the surface .......................................................................................................................73

4.1. Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................73 4.2. Tree-throw holes.......................................................................................................................................73 4.2.1. Terminology....................................................................................................................................73 4.2.2. Formation processes........................................................................................................................76 4.2.3. Deposits and artefact incorporation.................................................................................................80 4.2.4. The archaeological dataset ..............................................................................................................80 4.2.5. The artefactual and ecofactual assemblages....................................................................................82 4.2.6. Summary of deposition practices in tree-throw holes .....................................................................93 4.2.7. Discussion .......................................................................................................................................96 4.3. Pits ..........................................................................................................................................................100 4.3.1. Introduction...................................................................................................................................100 4.3.2. The archaeological dataset ............................................................................................................101 4.3.3. The artefactual and ecofactual assemblages..................................................................................102 4.3.4. Isolated pits ...................................................................................................................................116 4.3.5. Summary of deposition practices in pits .......................................................................................123 4.3.6. Discussion .....................................................................................................................................126 4.4. Other below ground contexts..................................................................................................................134 -i-

4.4.1. Natural shafts ................................................................................................................................134 4.4.2. Natural hollows .............................................................................................................................134 4.4.3. Structures ......................................................................................................................................135 4.4.4. Hoards ...........................................................................................................................................136 4.4.5. Flint mines ....................................................................................................................................136 4.5. Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................136 Chapter 5:

Monuments: form, structure and material culture ..................................................................139

5.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................139 5.1.1. Archaeological research into the monuments of the Middle Thames ...........................................139 5.2. Causewayed enclosures ..........................................................................................................................141 5.2.1. Location and morphology .............................................................................................................141 5.2.2. Deposition practices at causewayed enclosures: the example of Staines causewayed enclosure..145 5.2.3. Overview of deposition at Staines causewayed enclosure ............................................................147 5.3. Cursus monuments and bank barrows ....................................................................................................152 5.3.1. Sonning cursus and monument complex.......................................................................................152 5.3.2. The Stanwell bank barrow and associated monuments .................................................................154 5.3.3. Conclusions...................................................................................................................................157 5.4. Long enclosures, U-shaped enclosures and long barrows ......................................................................161 5.4.1. Long enclosures ............................................................................................................................161 5.4.2. Long barrows ................................................................................................................................161 5.4.3. U-shaped enclosures .....................................................................................................................162 5.5. Oval barrows, segmented ring ditches and Neolithic barrows................................................................165 5.5.1. Oval barrows .................................................................................................................................165 5.5.2. Segmented ring ditches .................................................................................................................166 5.5.3. Penannular gullies and barrows.....................................................................................................169 5.6. Flat graves ..............................................................................................................................................170 5.7. Henge monuments ..................................................................................................................................172 5.8. Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................172 Chapter 6:

Chronological summaries of deposition practices ....................................................................175

6.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................175 6.2. Scales of formality..................................................................................................................................175 6.3. Chronological Summaries ......................................................................................................................178 6.3.1. Later Mesolithic ............................................................................................................................178 Earliest Neolithic...........................................................................................................................178 6.3.2. 6.3.3. Early Neolithic ..............................................................................................................................179 6.3.4. Middle Neolithic ...........................................................................................................................179 6.3.5. Late Neolithic................................................................................................................................180 6.3.6. Early Bronze Age..........................................................................................................................180 6.4. Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................181 Part III

......................................................................................................................................................183

Chapter 7:

Themes in the Neolithic of the Middle Thames Valley.............................................................185

7.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................185 7.2. Temporal rhythms of occupation and mobility.......................................................................................185 7.2.1. Late Mesolithic .............................................................................................................................185 7.2.2. Early Neolithic ..............................................................................................................................186 7.2.3. Middle Neolithic ...........................................................................................................................189 7.2.4. Late Neolithic and early Bronze Age ............................................................................................190 7.3. Death and the dark water: mortuary and funerary practice during the late Mesolithic and Neolithic ....191 7.3.1. Human skeletal remains: context and association .........................................................................191 7.3.2. Population and skeletal data..........................................................................................................191 7.3.3. Patterns in mortuary practice.........................................................................................................195 7.3.4. The river, monuments and artefacts ..............................................................................................197 7.3.5. Concluding comments...................................................................................................................197 7.4. Interaction with the landscapes and environments of the Middle Thames Valley..................................198 7.4.1. Dry-land environments..................................................................................................................198 7.4.2. The river and wet-land environments............................................................................................200 7.4.3. Natural events and disasters ..........................................................................................................201 7.5. Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................204

- ii -

On the horizon: regional perspectives .......................................................................................207

Chapter 8: 8.1. 8.2. 8.3.

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................207 A different Neolithic: regional perspectives ...........................................................................................207 Concluding statement .............................................................................................................................211

Appendix 1: Archaeological features and monuments in the Middle Thames Valley .......................................213 Bibliography

......................................................................................................................................................227

- iii -

List of Figures (NB These are in abbreviated form here)

Figure 1: The location of the study area and extension for river finds from the Thames ................................................... 4 Figure 2: The study area with topography and location of key monument complexes....................................................... 5 Figure 3: Sites referred to in the text beyond the study area............................................................................................... 6 Figure 4: The solid and drift geology in the Middle Thames Valley.................................................................................. 9 Figure 5: The location of sites with environmental evidence discussed in the text. ......................................................... 11 Figure 6: The chronological sequences of monuments and artefacts in the Neolithic and early Bronze Age .................. 14 Figure 7: Key excavations and sites in the Middle Thames Valley .................................................................................. 16 Figure 8: Detail of key excavations in the Maidenhead to Windsor area. ........................................................................ 17 Figure 9: Bloch’s continuum in communication............................................................................................................... 20 Figure 10: The continuum of ritual action ........................................................................................................................ 21 Figure 11: Examples of flint axes from the Thames......................................................................................................... 32 Figure 12: Distribution of Neolithic axes recovered from the Thames............................................................................. 36 Figure 13: A schematic representation of the distribution of skulls in the Thames .......................................................... 37 Figure 14: Distribution of later Neolithic antler mace-heads............................................................................................ 38 Figure 15: Distribution of later Neolithic flint and stone mace-heads .............................................................................. 39 Figure 16: Distribution of later Neolithic polished discoidal knives ................................................................................ 40 Figure 17: Distribution of early Bronze Age flint daggers ............................................................................................... 41 Figure 18: Distribution of early Bronze Age stone battle axes ......................................................................................... 42 Figure 19: Plan of the Eton Rowing Course, Area 6 surface midden ............................................................................... 48 Figure 20: Plan of the Neolithic midden and features on Eton Rowing Course, Area 10................................................. 52 Figure 21: Plan of Neolithic flint scatters on the floodplain at Eton Rowing Course, Dorney, Excavation Areas 1-3..... 61 Figure 22: Plan of Eton Rowing Course flint scatters 678, 720 and the surrounding area ............................................... 63 Figure 23: The early to middle Neolithic scatters by size and scatter type....................................................................... 65 Figure 24: The late Neolithic and early Bronze Age scatters by size and type................................................................. 66 Figure 25: Combined use-wear graphs for activity areas.................................................................................................. 67 Figure 26: Binary oppositions of floodplain and gravel terrace environments................................................................. 72 Figure 27: The distribution of tree-throw holes, pits and other ‘below ground’ contexts in the Middle Thames Valley. 74 Figure 28: The distribution of tree-throw holes, pits and other ‘below ground’ contexts in the Windsor-Maidenhead district ............................................................................................................................................................................... 75 Figure 29: Tree-throw hole formation processes (Moore and Jennings 1992, 10: fig. 6)................................................. 78 Figure 30: Main types of soil structures within tree-throw holes (Langohr 1993, 42: fig. 1) ........................................... 79 Figure 31: Schematic views of a tree-throw hole in plan and section (Langohr 1993, 44: fig. 2). ................................... 81 Figure 32: Plan of Eton Rowing Course Area 6 tree-throw holes .................................................................................... 85 Figure 33: A diagrammatic conceptualisation of the purposive and opportunistic models of deforestation (Brown 1997, 140: fig. 2) ........................................................................................................................................................................ 99 Figure 34: The dimensions of Plain Bowl, Peterborough Ware and Grooved Ware-associated pits.............................. 102 Figure 35: Plan of the early Neolithic pits at South Stoke.............................................................................................. 105 Figure 36: Plan of the Peterborough Ware-associated pit groups at Lake End Road West, near Dorney ...................... 110 Figure 37: Two groups of pits at Mansion Lane, Iver (after Lacaille 1937, 290) ........................................................... 116 Figure 38: Quantification of pits by ceramic association................................................................................................ 123 Figure 39: Graph illustrating the size of flint assemblages associated with Neolithic ceramics..................................... 125 Figure 40: The orientation of paired pits ........................................................................................................................ 127 Figure 41: A possible late Neolithic Grooved Ware associated structure at Prospect Park, Harmondsworth ................ 136 Figure 42: The transition from deposition in tree-throw holes to pits as represented by dated features......................... 137 Figure 43: The distribution of monuments in the Middle Thames Valley...................................................................... 140 Figure 44: The form of causewayed enclosures in the Middle Thames Valley .............................................................. 142 Figure 45: The form of the causewayed enclosure at Dorney ........................................................................................ 143 Figure 46: The form of the causewayed enclosure at Eton Wick ................................................................................... 144 Figure 47: A diagrammatic representation of deposition in Staines causewayed enclosure........................................... 149 Figure 48: A diagrammatic representation of the distribution selected materials and artefacts displaying specific patterning at Staines causewayed enclosure ................................................................................................................... 150 Figure 49: The location of cursus monuments in the Middle and Upper Thames Valley............................................... 153 Figure 50: The Sonning cursus and related monument complex .................................................................................... 155 Figure 51: The Stanwell bank barrow and related monument complex ......................................................................... 156 Figure 52: The wider landscape of the Sonning cursus and associated monument complex.......................................... 159 Figure 53: The wider landscape of the Stanwell bank barrow and associated monument complex ............................... 160 Figure 54: Comparative plans of long enclosures, U-shaped ditches and long barrows in the Middle Thames Valley . 164

-v-

Figure 55: Comparative plans of oval barrows, barrows, penannular gullies, segmented ring-ditches, a horseshoe shaped enclosure at Heathrow and penannular gully/U-shaped enclosure at Marlow................................................................ 167 Figure 56: Results of a resistivity survey over an oval barrow at Dorney Reach, Buckinghamshire ............................. 168 Figure 57: Flat graves on Eton Rowing Course, Area 6 ................................................................................................. 171 Figure 58: Chronological patterns in the use of depositional contexts and monuments in relation to selected items of material culture ............................................................................................................................................................... 176 Figure 59: The relative formality of depositional contexts in the Middle Thames Valley during the earliest, early, middle and late Neolithic............................................................................................................................................................ 177 Figure 60: The distribution of human remains in the Middle Thames Valley ................................................................ 194 Figure 61: The architecture of Staines causewayed enclosure in relationship to elements of the natural environment and the living, newly dead and ancestors .............................................................................................................................. 202 Figure 62: Schematic representation of different realms of perception in relation to the landscape in the Neolithic..... 203

List of Plates Plate 1: An alder carr landscape ....................................................................................................................................... 44 Plate 2: Eton Rowing Course, Area 6, midden 11421 partly excavated, note the dark deposit defining the scatter......... 47 Plate 3: Eton Rowing Course, Area 10, midden deposits and tree-throw hole 6881 ........................................................ 51 Plate 4: Eton Rowing Course, Area 10, square 6615. A discrete deposit of pottery and flint at the base of the ‘midden’ deposit............................................................................................................................................................................... 51 Plate 5: Eton Rowing Course, Area 10, deposit 6915. Deposit of semi-articulated cattle bone ....................................... 53 Plate 6: Eton Rowing Course, EX 1, finds spread 131. .................................................................................................... 54 Plate 7: View across the excavation of scatter 678 and 720 on Eton Rowing Course, EX1............................................. 62 Plate 8: Two refitting leaf arrowheads, from Eton Rowing Course, scatter 720 .............................................................. 65 Plate 9: The tree-throw hole created by a fallen beech at Whiteleaf Hill, Buckinghamshire ........................................... 76 Plate 10: The tree-throw hole of an oak at Denny Wood in the New Forest, Hampshire................................................. 76 Plate 11: The gradual erosion and infilling of a beech tree-throw hole over four years from 2003 to 2007 .................... 77 Plate 12: Eton Rowing Course, Area 6, tree-throw holes 11352 and 11424..................................................................... 84 Plate 13: A Mortlake Ware bowl as found in pit F.597 at Lake End Road West, Dorney.............................................. 115 Plate 14: The reconstructed bowl from pit F.597 at Lake End Road West, Dorney ....................................................... 115 Plate 15: A late Neolithic Grooved Ware structure within Durrington Walls ................................................................ 135 Plate 16: The site of the Sonning cursus looking east from the western end of the cropmark........................................ 152 Plate 17: The ditch of the Stanwell bank barrow at Perry Oaks ..................................................................................... 154 Plate 18: The horseshoe shaped segmented ditch at Perry Oaks..................................................................................... 157

List of Tables Table 1: Neolithic terminology......................................................................................................................................... 12 Table 2: Quantification of archaeological features/contexts in the Middle Thames Valley ............................................. 15 Table 3: Dimensions, surface area and volume of midden deposits on Eton Rowing Course, Area 6 ............................. 47 Table 4: Finds recovered from the middens on Eton Rowing Course, Area 6.................................................................. 47 Table 5: Density of finds recovered from the middens on Eton Rowing Course, Area 6, calculated per cubic metre of deposit............................................................................................................................................................................... 47 Table 6: The flint assemblages from the midden deposits on Eton Rowing Course, Area 6 ............................................ 49 Table 7: Animal bone from the middens on Eton Rowing Course, Area 6 ...................................................................... 50 Table 8: The assemblage of the early to middle Neolithic knapping scatters ................................................................... 60 Table 9: The assemblage of the early to middle Neolithic deposits of utilised material................................................... 60 Table 10: The assemblage of the early to middle Neolithic activity areas........................................................................ 64 Table 11: The assemblage of the late Neolithic to early Bronze Age knapping scatters .................................................. 67 Table 12: The assemblages of the late Neolithic to early Bronze Age activity areas, dump of utilised material and finds spread 131......................................................................................................................................................................... 68 Table 13: The flint assemblage from scatters on Eton Rowing Course, Areas 3 and 5 .................................................... 70 Table 14:The flint assemblage from scatters at Amerden Lane West............................................................................... 70 Table 15: Animal bone from the earlier Neolithic scatters on Eton Rowing Course, EX1-3 ........................................... 71 Table 16: The size of the tree-throw holes........................................................................................................................ 82 Table 17: The minimum, maximum and average number of fills per tree-throw hole in each size group ....................... 82 Table 18: Flint assemblages recovered from Mesolithic tree-throw holes ....................................................................... 83 Table 19: Animal bone recovered from early Neolithic tree-throw holes on Eton Rowing Course, Area 6..................... 86 - vi -

Table 20: Flint assemblages from Plain Bowl-associated tree-throw holes...................................................................... 88 Table 21: Flint assemblages from earlier Neolithic non-ceramic associated tree-throw holes. ........................................ 89 Table 22: Flint assemblages from tree-throw holes associated with Peterborough Ware................................................. 90 Table 23: Flint assemblages from later Neolithic features................................................................................................ 91 Table 24: Flint assemblages from non-ceramic associated tree-throw holes dating from the late Neolithic/early Bronze Age ................................................................................................................................................................................... 92 Table 25: Flint assemblages from Neolithic and Neolithic? Phase features ..................................................................... 92 Table 26: Tree-throw holes by phase and confidence....................................................................................................... 93 Table 27: Artefact assemblages from tree-throw holes at Hinxton and Barleycroft, Cambridgeshire.............................. 95 Table 28: Summary of finds from tree-throw holes in the Middle Thames Valley. ......................................................... 97 Table 29: The relative size of pits by ceramic style........................................................................................................ 101 Table 30: The number of pit fills by period.................................................................................................................... 102 Table 31: The number of pit fills by ceramic association............................................................................................... 102 Table 32: The flint assemblage from the early Neolithic pit group near South Stoke. ................................................... 106 Table 33: South Stoke; finds recovered from paired pits................................................................................................ 107 Table 34: South Stoke; additional details of selected artefacts from paired pits ............................................................ 108 Table 35: Lake End Road West: finds recovered from paired pits. ................................................................................ 111 Table 36: Lake End Road West: additional details of selected artefacts from paired pits .............................................. 113 Table 37: The flint assemblage from the pit groups at Lake End Road West by category ............................................. 114 Table 38: Isolated pits by date ........................................................................................................................................ 117 Table 39: Isolated pits by ceramic association................................................................................................................ 117 Table 40: Earlier and early Neolithic flint assemblages from Cippenham and Costain’s pit ......................................... 118 Table 41: Earlier and early Neolithic phase pits from Eton Rowing Course and the Flood Alleviation Scheme........... 118 Table 42: Flint assemblages from pits at Wall Garden Farm, Sipson and Heathrow) .................................................... 119 Table 43: Flint assemblages from Mortlake Ware-associated pits at Taplow Mill Site 1, Lake End Road West and unclassified Peterborough Ware pit F.720 from Green Park, Reading ........................................................................... 120 Table 44: Flint assemblages from Grooved Ware-associated pits .................................................................................. 122 Table 45: The association of flint and Neolithic ceramic styles ..................................................................................... 125 Table 46: Summary of finds from pit groups and pairs in the Middle Thames Valley................................................... 129 Table 47: Summary of finds from isolated pits in the Middle Thames Valley. .............................................................. 131 Table 48: The composition of deposits associated with human remains at Staines causewayed enclosure ................... 147 Table 49: Pottery and flint in from a selection of 16 earlier Neolithic pits in the interior of Staines causewayed enclosure ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 147 Table 50: The flint assemblage from the ditches and interior of Staines causewayed enclosure.................................... 148 Table 51: The location of materials and artefacts with distinctive distribution patterns at Staines causewayed enclosure ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 148 Table 52: The flint assemblage from the inner and outer ditches at Horton ................................................................... 163 Table 53: The flint assemblage from the inner mound of the Whiteleaf barrow ............................................................ 166 Table 54: The animal bone assemblage from the Whiteleaf barrow............................................................................... 166 Table 55: The flint assemblage from the segmented ring ditch at Green Park Reading ................................................. 169 Table 56: Neolithic human remains from the Middle Thames Valley............................................................................ 192 Table 57: Skeletal completeness and element representation by period and archaeological context ............................. 196 Table 58: Sexed individuals in the Middle Thames Valley ............................................................................................ 197

- vii -

Acknowledgements I am gratefully indebted to many people who have made this study possible and provided inspiration and encouragement during the preparation of this document. This study was formulated whilst examining the extensive lithic assemblages from the Eton Rowing Course and Maidenhead, Eton and Windsor Flood Alleviation Scheme and was initially written as a doctoral thesis for the University of Reading. Oxford Archaeology, Eton College and the Environment Agency are thanked for access to the archives of these projects and permission to publish figures and images, in advance of full publication. I would especially like to thank Tim Allen and Alistair Barclay for their assistance and numerous engaging discussions on the Neolithic of the Thames Valley. Thanks are also due to Stuart Foreman (Oxford Archaeology) for discussions of the archaeology on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, Lorraine Mepham and John Lewis (Wessex Archaeology) for information on Imperial College Sports Ground, Hillingdon, and John Lewis and Ken Welsh (Oxford Archaeology) for information on the Perry Oaks and Terminal 5 excavations. Duncan Coe (Berkshire Archaeology Service), Jon Cotton (Museum of London), Mike Farley, Sandy Kidd (Buckinghamshire County Council) and Dave Thomason (formerly of Berkshire Archaeology Service) are thanked for information and discussion of the Neolithic in Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and west London. Tess Miller (nee. Durden), Pippa Bradley, Kate Cramp, Martin Tingle, Andy Brown, Rebecca Devaney and Barry Bishop are thanked for many interesting discussions of Neolithic flintwork. I am also grateful to numerous members of Oxford Archaeology for stimulating discussions frequently held over a pint in The Kite, particular thanks must go to: Paul Booth, Ben Ford, Stuart Forman, Chris Hayden, Gill Hey, Emily Glass, Seren Griffiths, Darko Maricevic, Liz Stafford, Dan Stansbie and Dave Wilkinson. I am particularly grateful to my supervisor, Richard Bradley, for his insight into the Neolithic and encouragement during the course of this research. Tim Allen, Duncan Garrow and Gill Hey are thanked for reading and commenting on chapters, but special thanks are due to Zena Kamash for the Herculean effort involved in editing my dyslexic English into something coherent. My parents, Sally and Frank, and my girlfriend, Liz Anderson, have provided unwavering support, but all will welcome less talk of trees in the Neolithic.

- ix -

Abstract This study characterises deposition practices in the Middle Thames Valley from the late Mesolithic to early Bronze Age. All available in situ contexts of deposition are considered, such as pits, tree-throw holes, middens, rivers and various monument forms. The study highlights variations in the formality of deposition within contemporary contexts and considers how this relates to ritual activity. Developments in deposition practices are also considered through time from the late Mesolithic to early Bronze Age and processes of ritualisation are explored. This contextual analysis is used as a basis to explore several pertinent issues in Neolithic studies. Deposition practices are used to explore chronological changes in the temporal rhythms of occupation and economy and also variation and developments in funerary and mortuary activity. The use and perception of landscapes in the Middle Thames Valley during the Neolithic are also considered and distinct conceptual changes in relation to these landscapes are highlighted. Deposition practices in the Middle Thames Valley are contrasted with surrounding regions to demonstrate distinct regional patterns. It is argued that differences in deposition practices reflect how aspects of the environment were perceived and the role they held in achieving social reproduction.

- xi -

Part I

-1-

Chapter 1:

The residue of ritualised action: an introduction

‘Time which antiquates antiquities, and hath an art to make dust of all things, hath yet spared these minor monuments’ Sir Thomas Browne. Hydriotaphia, Urne Buriall (1658)

1.1.

Introduction

The discovery of cremation urns in the fertile soils of Norfolk moved Sir Thomas Browne to pen these words some 350 years ago. The eloquence of his script aptly captures the fragility of the archaeological record, but also expresses that what survives is fragmentary and disarticulated. The quote is particularly appropriate for the Neolithic of the Middle Thames Valley that lacks the dramatic upstanding monuments of adjacent regions, such as Wessex and the Upper Thames Valley, but contains numerous ‘minor monuments’: pits, tree-throw holes, in situ scatters and river finds. In comparison to adjacent regions there has been limited research into the Neolithic of the Middle Thames Valley and, with the exception of reference to a few of the better known monuments such as the Staines causewayed enclosure or Stanwell bank barrow, the region is under represented in synthetic discussions of the British Neolithic. In Robin Holgate’s 1988 synthesis ‘Neolithic Settlement of the Thames Basin’ the Middle Thames Valley was represented by only 55 individual archaeological features, such as pits, flint scatters and monuments. The work of commercial archaeological contractors since the introduction of the Planning Policy Guidance 16 (PPG 16) in 1990 has significantly altered this picture, with nearly a six-fold increase in the number of known archaeological features in the region to in excess of 312 features and 28 monuments. Excavations in advance of the Eton Rowing Course and Maidenhead, Eton and Windsor Flood Alleviation Scheme (Flood Alleviation Scheme) are particularly prominent as they alone account for over half of the known Neolithic features in the region. It is this substantial, new and high quality dataset that has formed the basis for this study. This study represents a detailed characterisation of deposition practices associated with specific contexts of deposition, such as pits, tree-throw holes, middens, rivers and various monument forms. The study addresses the question of variability in the formality of ritual or ritualised behaviour in deposition both within contemporary contexts and through time from the late Mesolithic to early Bronze Age. This contextual analysis is used as a basis to explore several pertinent issues in Neolithic studies, including temporal rhythms of occupation, economic variation and funerary and mortuary activity. The use and perception of landscapes in the Middle Thames Valley during the Neolithic are also explored and distinct conceptual changes in relation to these landscapes are highlighted. The study is divided into three parts. Part I of this study establishes the theoretical framework employed and nature of the analysis. Part II of the study presents detailed analyses and characterisations of individual -3-

contexts of deposition. These are considered over three chapters. The first of these (Chapter 3) considers deposition in natural contexts and locations such as deposits on land surfaces (for example middens and in situ scatters) and rivers. Chapter 4 considers deposition within sub-surface contexts, such as pits and tree-throw holes, whilst Chapter 5 is concerned with deposition at monuments. Part II concludes with a chronological overview of deposition practices and patterns of ritualised behaviour (Chapter 6). In Part III the study explores three broader themes; occupation and temporal patterns, funerary and mortuary practice and perception of the natural environment (Chapter 7). The concluding Chapter (8) explores the relationship of deposition practices in the Middle Thames Valley to surrounding regions and explores aspects of local identity.

1.2.

The study area

The study area, defined as the Middle Thames Valley, covers the catchment of the River Thames between the Goring Gap, where the Thames cuts through the Berkshire Downs/Chilterns to the Heathrow Terrace and west London suburbs in the east. The area is bounded to the north by the Chilterns and to the south by the Hogs Back and North Downs (Figures 1 and 2). The area spans some 50 km west to east, 40 km north to south and incorporates some 90 km of the River Thames. The defined area is intentionally limited both spatially and in terms of geological and environmental variation, as further outlined below, to reduce the effects of differential access to resources or inter-regional patterns on assemblage variation. The study area is effectively defined by geology and geography, but broadly relates to known Neolithic archaeology and encompasses two monument complexes. The Sonning monument complex lies to the west of the study region, whilst the Heathrow monument complex lies to the east. Further monument complexes at Dorchester-on-Thames and North Stoke are located to the north west of the study area in the lower reaches of the Upper Thames Valley (Figure 2). The study area is extended into the Lower Thames Valley to allow wider consideration of river deposition in the Thames Valley. Sites beyond the study area referred to in the text are shown on Figure 3.

THE RESIDUE OF RITUALISED ACTION: NEOLITHIC DEPOSITION PRACTICES IN THE MIDDLE THAMES VALLEY

Figure 1: The location of the study area and extension for river finds from the Thames

-4-

CHAPTER 1: THE RESIDUE OF RITUALISED ACTION: AN INTRODUCTION

Figure 2: The study area with topography and location of key monument complexes.

-5-

THE RESIDUE OF RITUALISED ACTION: NEOLITHIC DEPOSITION PRACTICES IN THE MIDDLE THAMES VALLEY

Figure 3: Sites referred to in the text beyond the study area

-6-

CHAPTER 1: THE RESIDUE OF RITUALISED ACTION: AN INTRODUCTION

1.3.

Geology and topography

The study area lies in the western half of the London Basin, a syncline bounded by the Cretaceous chalk of the Chilterns to the north, the Hogs Back and North Downs to the south and the Berkshire Downs to the west, but opens to the Lower Thames Valley and North Sea to the east (Sumbler 1996, 1). The Chalk Downs rise up to 250 m above sea level. Due to the syncline the chalk gentle dips into the study area but is surrounded by steep escarpments around its edge. An undulating chalk landscape punctuated by dry valleys dominates the study area north of the Thames at Henley and around High Wycombe. To the south and east of the Thames basin, younger Palaeocene and Eocene deposits outcrop. The Palaeocene deposits, which are primarily clays, including London Clay, extend from Reading, through Windsor to London. These deposits are overlain by interbedded sands and clays of the Bagshot Beds which outcrop extensively to the south of the study area centred on Bagshot (ibid. 92-109). The Quaternary development of the Thames left significant terrace gravel deposits in many parts of the region (Figure 4). The Pleistocene gravel terraces are elevated up to 170 m above the level of the modern river in the Middle Thames and cap many of the elevated plateaus in the region, including the Taplow and Heathrow Terraces (Gibbard 1985; Sumbler 1996, 115). Many of these terraces, including extensive areas of the Heathrow Terrace, are overlain by a reddish silty loam, commonly termed ‘brickearth’, which partly formed as a loess soil, but may have further developed as a result of over-bank flooding contemporary with the terraces (ibid.). The extensive lower gravel terraces and the river floodplain represent a distinctive element of the Middle Thames landscape. The lower gravel terraces are constricted as they pass through the Goring Gap, but open to form level terraces up to several kilometres wide around Marlow and Eton. The river gravels of the Thames downstream of the Goring Gap are primarily composed of poorly sorted flint pebbles and cobbles, with a small component of quartzite pebbles. The Thames was a network of braided streams running over the current floodplain gravels by the end of the Quaternary. Relic channels of this early braded network have been identified in the Middle Thames between Maidenhead to Windsor on the Eton Rowing Course Areas 6 and 10 and also at Lake End Road West where these shallow hollows preserved in situ earlier Neolithic deposits from plough truncation (Allen et al. forthcoming-a). The current course of the Thames was established by the final glacial melt waters at the end of the Ice Age, which incised the most substantial channels of the braded stream network leaving fewer, but larger channels. The flow of the Thames reduced with the retreat of the ice sheet and the river lost the power to significantly change course, although minor lateral changes have occurred (Robinson and Lambrick 1984; Needham 2000). The form of the Thames has, however, altered in the Holocene from a shallow broad river, even -7-

fordable in parts, with many secondary channels and backwaters to the single deep channel of the river today (Needham 2000, 238). The modern form of the river is largely the product of dredging and canalisation for communications, but many of the secondary channels had begun to silt prior to this date primarily due to increased alluviation resulting from intensive agriculture from the late Iron Age onwards (Robinson and Lambrick 1984 see below). Numerous secondary channels are visible on aerial photographs in the Middle Thames Valley, and channels have been excavated at Runnymede (Needham 2000) and at Eton Rowing Course (Allen et al. forthcoming-a). The secondary channel at Runnymede included phases from the Mesolithic to its final silting in the post-medieval period (Needham 2000), whilst the secondary channel at Eton was a substantial channel which eventually silted in the Roman and Saxon periods (Allen et al. forthcoming-a). The form of the river in the Lower Thames and the surrounding landscape was also significantly affected by the rising sea levels of the Holocene and lowering of the river’s gradient. Since the end of the last Ice Age 10,000 years ago, the high water mark has risen by over 25 m through a combination of rising sea-levels from the melting ice sheet and downwards isostatic readjustment in southern England (Devoy 1979). These changes were most dramatic between 7950-5900 cal BC (8500-7000 BP), with sea levels rising some 13 mm per year (ibid.), but continue at a slower rate to the present day. The rise in the sea-level was punctuated by a series of regressions which significantly effected the environment of the Lower Thames floodplain (see Chapter 1.5); one regression spanned 6000-4000 BP, peaking at c 5000 BP (c 3750 cal BP) when the mean high tide level had dropped by over 1 m (Sumbler 1996, 127 fig. 33). The rising sea level and lessening gradient of the fresh-water river during the period 5000-2500 BC led to the accumulation of sandbanks in the river and created the Thames estuary further downstream through the deposition of marine and fluvial mud over the former land surface (Rackham 1994, 191; Sidell and Wilkinson 2004, 40). The tidal reaches of the Thames today extend to Teddington Lock, but in the Roman period only extended to London Bridge and in the Neolithic would have been further to the east again, possibly as far east as Erith (Sidell and Wilkinson 2004). This of particular significance for river deposition as the majority of Neolithic discoveries made in the tidal reaches downstream of Teddington lock would have been deposited in the non-tidal river (see Chapter 3.2). Alluvium, which is generally composed of fine silts and clays, is the most common Holocene deposit in the Middle Thames Valley and results from over-bank flooding and deposition of the river’s sediment load. Alluvium sequences began to form in the early Mesolithic, but the rate of accumulation was slow and virtually ceased in the late Mesolithic with maximum forest cover limiting both run off and soil erosion (KeithLucas 1997). The rate of alluvium deposition increased through the Neolithic as the forest canopy was opened by

THE RESIDUE OF RITUALISED ACTION: NEOLITHIC DEPOSITION PRACTICES IN THE MIDDLE THAMES VALLEY the elm decline and purposeful clearance. The rate of accumulation was, however, still not rapid, for example, on the floodplain at Dorney only 0.20 m of alluvium accumulated between the late Mesolithic and early Bronze Age (c 6500-1800 BC) (Lamdin-Whymark 2001). The rate of alluviation in the Thames Valley significantly increased in the late Iron Age following extensive clearance and an intensification of agriculture which encouraged rapid run off and soil erosion; this process continues in the present day (Robinson and Lambrick 1984).

(Needham 1992; Scaife 2000) and Moor Farm (KeithLucas 2000) suggest that between 8000 and 5800 BP (c 7000 to 4300 cal BC) Quercus (oak), Ulmus (elm), Tilia (lime) and Corylus (hazel) dominated dry land environments (Branch and Green 2004). These species formed a mosaic of mixed deciduous woodland representing the post-glacial Atlantic climax forest or ‘wildwood’ resulting from approximately 4000 years of stable environmental conditions (Rackham 1988). The degree to which Mesolithic climax woodland may be perceived as natural ‘wildwood’ has been the subject of recent debate, as it is probable that to some degree Mesolithic communities managed the woodland and clearings (Brown 1997b; Davies et al. 2005). Evidence from Meadlake Place, Staines provides direct evidence for the interference of late Mesolithic populations in the local environment resulting in the expansion of hazel, perhaps reflecting the encouragement of species valuable as a wild food resource (Branch and Green 2004, 13). The wetter landscapes, such as river floodplains, were dominated by Alnus (alder) forming extensive alder carr.

The depth of alluvium recorded across the Thames Valley varies significantly, increasing downstream from the Upper Thames Valley. In the Upper Thames Valley the total depth of alluvium is frequently less than 0.50 m, with for example, the Neolithic long enclosure at Yarnton sealed by only 0.30 m of alluvium (G. Hey pers. comm.) whilst in the Middle Thames Valley on the Eton Rowing Course extensive areas of the floodplain and Neolithic surface were sealed by c 1 m to c 1.5 m of alluvium (T. Allen pers. comm.). The depth of alluvium in the Lower Thames Valley is significantly deeper as the rising sea level lowered the gradient of the Thames, encouraging deposition (Sumbler 1996, 126). In the Ebbsfleet Valley Neolithic deposits are sealed by over 4 m of alluvium (S. Foreman pers. comm.) whilst further into the mouth of the Thames at Canvey Island alluvial deposits are 30 m thick (Sumbler 1996, 126).

1.4. The environment and environmental change The corpus of palaeoenvironmental data for the Middle Thames Valley is relatively limited and disjointed. The most complete published sequences are focussed along the Thames at the east of the study area around Windsor and Staines, including the Eton Rowing Course (Allen et al. forthcoming-a), Runnymede (Needham 2000) and Moor Farm, Staines (Keith-Lucas 2000). These data may be set in a broader framework of surrounding regions which have received further research, for example, Surrey (Branch and Green 2004) and London and the Lower Thames (Rackham and Sidell 2000; Sidell and Wilkinson 2004). Further evidence of the riverside and gravel terrace environments has been recorded in the Kennet Valley (Lobb et al. 1996) and specifically at Thames Valley Park, Reading (Keith-Lucas 1997). Palaeoenvironmental evidence from chalklands bounding the study area is particularly sparse and is largely confined to early observations on snails and charcoal at Badshot long barrow (Keiller and Piggott 1939) and Whiteleaf barrow (Childe and Smith 1954). However, more recently environmental evidence from snails, charred plant remains and charcoal has been obtained from an early Neolithic pit group at South Stoke (Timby et al. 2005) (Figure 5). River and gravel terrace environs to the east of the study area The palaeoenvironmental data from around Staines at Meadlake Place (Branch and Green 2001), Runnymede -8-

Evidence for the impact of Neolithic communities on the environment in the Middle Thames Valley is relatively slight. The early and middle Neolithic pollen records from Meadlake Place and Runnymede (Needham 1992; Scaife 2000) provide little evidence for human impact on the woodland succession during the period (Branch and Green 2004, 13). Woodland dominated the Neolithic landscape at Runnymede, but it is noteworthy that cereal pollen was found and that the diversity of herbaceous species also expanded during the period. The cereal indicates the presence of some cultivation, whilst the herbaceous species reflect the presence of pasture and clearings (Scaife 2000, 184-5). The middle-late Neolithic insect assemblage at Runnymede also contains numerous dung beetles indicating the presence of herbivores, although it is not possible to determine if the dung was produced by domesticated cattle and pig or their wild counterparts (Robinson 2000, 151). The pollen record from the Eton Rowing Course presents a similar picture to Runnymede. The late Mesolithic woodland was a mosaic of oak, elm and lime, with alder with stands of hazel on the floodplain. This environment did not significantly change in the earlier Neolithic, although there was some indication of localised openings in the woodland (Parker forthcoming). Cereal was not identified in pollen record, but charred cereal grains were found in the nearby middens on Area 6 (Robinson forthcoming), perhaps highlighting the small scale of Neolithic cereal production. By contrast, recent excavations in the Lower Thames Valley around Southwark and Lambeth indicate that following the elm decline, dated to c 3800 cal BC (5000 BP), the landscape was relatively open with significant evidence for cereal cultivation (Sidell et al. 2002). The pollen record is however, slightly contradictory and indicates the landscape was still dominated by oak, lime and hazel woodland with closed alder carr on the floodplain (Branch and Green 2004, 13). Branch and

CHAPTER 1: THE RESIDUE OF RITUALISED ACTION: AN INTRODUCTION

Figure 4: The solid and drift geology in the Middle Thames Valley

-9-

THE RESIDUE OF RITUALISED ACTION: NEOLITHIC DEPOSITION PRACTICES IN THE MIDDLE THAMES VALLEY Green suggest these data indicate ‘…an ever changing landscape of open and closed woodland, temporarily cultivated land, grazing land and meadows interrupted by tributaries and streams, small ponds and lakes’ (2004, 13). At the Eton Rowing Course the first palaeoenvironmental evidence for extensive woodland clearance has been dated to the later Neolithic, c 2800 cal BC (4200 BP) (Parker forthcoming). At Runnymede, the insect evidence also suggests a partly cleared landscape by the Beaker period (Robinson 2000, 152) whilst the pollen data from Meadlake Place indicate a gradual decline in oak and lime woodland between c 4650 cal BC and 100 AD (5800 and 1900 BP). At Meadlake place, it is notable that cereals also decline over this period (Branch and Green 2004, 14) indicating the creation of pasture rather than cultivation plots, perhaps reflecting an increasing reliance on pastoralism in the later Neolithic. Environs of the Upper Kennet Valley and Thames confluence In the Kennet Valley, to the west of the study area, the floodplain was dominated by alder carr from c 7500 BC onwards whilst higher ground was most probably heavily wooded with elm and lime (Healy et al. 1992). A pollen sequence from a palaeochannel containing a late Mesolithic flint scatter at Thames Valley Park, Reading suggested that little clearance had occurred by this date. Higher in the sequence the elm decline was recorded, which although undated, probably represents the start of the Neolithic. Following the elm decline the local palaeochannel woodland of Alnus, Corylus and Salix was cleared and replaced by a wide range of herbaceous species with some evidence for cereals. The continued presence of oak and lime in the pollen record, however, suggests that woodland persisted in the surrounding landscape. It was also noted that the rate of alluviation increased post-elm decline, perhaps reflecting the opening of the woodland and increased erosion from early agriculture (Keith-Lucas 1997, 103). Green Park, Reading, produced indirect evidence for the later Neolithic environment. Charcoal from a series of later Neolithic pits included oak, ash, hazel and alder and also Pomoideae Sp. (hawthorn, apple, whitebeam, wild service and rowan) (Gale 2004, 142), whilst the charred remains comprised hazelnuts, wheat (Triticum compactum) and a single seed of elder (Campbell 2004, 110). In addition, a single grain of emmer wheat was also found in riverine sediments of the Kennet at Crane Wharf, Reading and a 5th millennium date is proposed by the radiocarbon dating of associated sediment to 39603630 cal BC (HAR-7028 4950±80 BP); 3950-3650 cal BC (HAR-7027 4990±60 BP); 3650-3360 cal BC (HAR7020 4740±70 BP) (Lobb et al. 1996).

preservation of pollen on the chalk (Waton 1982). The environmental evidence in the region has therefore been obtained from the analysis of mollusca and charred remains. Excavations at the Badshot long barrow produced fragments of hazel charcoal in the primary early Neolithic fills, whilst the charcoal of hawthorn, plum or cherry (Prunus sp.), oak, yew and elm was recovered from Peterborough Ware-associated fills. Dr. A. S. Kennard examined the mollusca and suggested those from both the primary and secondary silts indicated damp scrub and noted grassland species were absent (Keiller and Piggott 1939, 149). Kennard also examined the mollusca from the Whiteleaf Barrow and suggested a damp woodland environment, again without evidence of grassland. They further suggested that the woodland was not beech, which currently covers the hilltop (Childe and Smith 1954). Kennard’s suggestion of a largely wooded environment in the earlier Neolithic is, however, questionable as in general his samples were hand-picked and, as such, favoured the collection of large woodland species over smaller grassland species; these interpretations should be treated with caution and the presence of clearings cannot be ruled out (Evans 1972). The recent excavation of an early Neolithic pit group at South Stoke and analysis of charred plant remains, charcoal and snails presents a different image of chalkland environments (Timby et al. 2005). The charcoal, which probably derived from a hearth, was dominated by shrubby species including Pomoideae and Prunus sp., with fewer pieces of Corylus and Quercus. This pattern may represent selection for firewood, but may reflect a fairly open woodland environment with shrubby trees (Gale in Timby et al. 2005). This assertion is further supported by the presence of hazelnuts, cereal grains (Triticum sp. including Emmer) and an Oat (Aventa) among the charred plant remains as the former do not fruit in a closed environment (ibid.). Analysis of the land snails presented a similar picture suggesting a partly open environment, possibly grassland, with some form of wooded environment close by. It is also notable that the presence of one species (Pomatias elegans) indicated the possible presence of disturbed ground (Stafford in Timby et al. 2005). Further afield, molluscan evidence from contemporary early Neolithic chalk landscapes in Wessex indicate a largely wooded landscape, for example, around the causewayed enclosures at Windmill Hill and Maiden Castle, although some long barrows were constructed in open grassland, for example, at Millbarrow and South Street (Evans 1990; Evans 1993, 153). In the later Neolithic chalk landscape of Wessex many molluscan assemblages indicate extensive woodland regeneration prior to more extensive clearance and agricultural activity in the late Neolithic/early Bronze Age (Evans 1990).

Chalkland environments Environmental evidence for the chalk in the region is particularly scant, primarily due to the generally poor - 10 -

CHAPTER 1: THE RESIDUE OF RITUALISED ACTION: AN INTRODUCTION

Figure 5: The location of sites with environmental evidence discussed in the text.

- 11 -

THE RESIDUE OF RITUALISED ACTION: NEOLITHIC DEPOSITION PRACTICES IN THE MIDDLE THAMES VALLEY

1.5.

Chronology

This study is concerned with the periods traditionally defined as the late Mesolithic, Neolithic and early Bronze Age; a period spanning five millennia from c 6500 BC to c 1750 BC. The start of the late Mesolithic is defined as the point where rising sea levels cut the land bridge to Europe and Britain became an island (Jacobi 1976, 73). By contrast the Neolithic is defined by distinct cultural change, including the adoption of domesticated plants and animals and the introduction of new forms of material culture including pottery, leaf arrowheads and polished flint axes. The early Bronze Age is defined by the introduction of metalwork, which is broadly paralleled with the introduction of Beaker pottery. This study considers only the first part of the early Bronze Age and does not consider deposition practices associated with later ceramic styles, such as collared urns. The Mesolithic/Neolithic transition occurred around 4100-4000 BC seemingly as a rapid change occurring broadly simultaneously across the Britain (Thomas 2003). There are no known transitional assemblages in the archaeological record, containing elements of both Mesolithic and Neolithic repertoire (e.g. pottery and microliths) and a recent review of scientific dating has highlighted that that Mesolithic and Neolithic sites do not overlap, suggesting there was not a period when ‘Mesolithic’ and ‘Neolithic’ communities lived alongside one another (Schulting 2000). The broad debate regarding the origins of Neolithic and introduction of the ‘Neolithic package’ will be further explored in Part III. The Neolithic has been traditionally subdivided into either three phases (early, middle and late) or two phases

(earlier and later). The latter two fold division, proposed by Isobel Smith in 1974, argued for the removal of the middle Neolithic and is still preferentially used today (Smith 1974, 100) (see Table 1). These divisions are, however, simplistic and mask considerable complexity in the Neolithic sequence. This complexity was first highlighted by Ian Kinnes’ analysis of Neolithic burial practices which considered six stages of development (Kinnes 1979); more recent analysis of stratigraphic and relative chronologies in monument complexes has also revealed considerable complexity in the Neolithic record. In a review of the monument complex at Dorchester-onThames Bradley and Chambers proposed a five phase division (Bradley and Chambers 1988); a sequence subsequently followed with minor modification in the final publication (Whittle et al. 1992). In a similar approach to the Avebury region Alistair Whittle proposed six main phases could be determined (Whittle 1993). Alistair Barclay developed this sequence for central southern England, reviewing 325 radiocarbon dates and the chronological sequences of monuments over the study area. The resulting six phase sequence is shown in Table 1 and the relationship of monuments and material culture to this sequence is reproduced as Figure 6 (Barclay 2000, Chapter 2). It is, however, not possible to place many of the features considered in this study in elaborate monument sequences, and dating has been derived from artefactual assemblages and, where available, radiocarbon dates. The resolution of dating provided by material culture varies from material to material, as highlighted below, providing a two or three fold division for the Neolithic.

Table 1: Neolithic terminology (after Barclay 2000, 14: table 2.1) Stage

Date Range cal BC 6500-4100?

Nomenclature for various sub-divisions of the period Late Mesolithic --------------------------------------------Final Mesolithic/ Early Neolithic Earlier Neolithic Early Neolithic

1a

?4100-3700

1b

3700-3350

Early Neolithic

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

2a

3350-3050

Early/middle Neolithic

Middle Neolithic

2b

3050-2800

Mid/Late Neolithic

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

----------------------Late Neolithic

Later Neolithic

Early Beaker

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

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

Late Beaker/EBA

Early Bronze Age

3a

2800-2600

Late Neolithic

3b

2600-2400

Final Neolithic/?Beaker

4a

2400-2100

4b

2100-1750

- 12 -

CHAPTER 1: THE RESIDUE OF RITUALISED ACTION: AN INTRODUCTION Neolithic ceramics define three main phases (Bowl, Peterborough Ware and Grooved Ware) which represent overlapping sequences of some 700 years (Barclay 2000, 14). These ceramic forms may be further sub-divided; Bowl can be divided between earlier carinated forms and later Plain and decorated forms (ibid.). Peterborough Wares consist of three main sub-styles, Ebbsfleet, Mortlake, and Fengate, which are considered to represent a broad sequential development. There is however little clarity in the sequence due to a ‘wiggle’ in the radiocarbon curve, creating considerable overlap in dates available for these styles (Gibson and Kinnes 1997), but Barclay argues convincingly for an early Ebbsfleet Ware, due to the association with tree-clearance and the construction of the Drayton Cursus (Barclay 2000, 35; Barclay et al. 2003). Grooved Ware also consists of three sub-styles in the region (Clacton, Woodlands and Durrington Walls), although Paul Garwood argues for a two-fold typo-chronological division between Clacton/Woodlands and Durrington Walls styles. The latter style spans the third millennium BC, whilst the former broadly divide into an earlier Clacton and later Woodlands style (Garwood 1999). At the end of the sequence Beaker pottery overlaps with Grooved Ware and continues into the early Bronze Age.

stone implements are recovered in a variety of forms, including axes, adzes and chisels. In the early Neolithic axes and adzes are commonly fully polished, but partially polished edge ground forms also exist; the latter forms are more commonly found in the later Neolithic. Waisted ‘Seamer’ style axe forms develop in the later Neolithic; these forms are usually finely finished and may represent the product of specialist workshops (Edmonds 1995). Polished flint chisels are uncommon, but are generally considered to date from the later Neolithic (Butler 2005). Single piece sickles are also primarily recovered from earlier Neolithic contexts and may solely date to this period (Healy 1982), although some consider them as later Neolithic-early Bronze Age (Butler 2005): a view which can be questioned. The arrowheads of the Neolithic-early Bronze Age consist of four main forms (leaf, chisel/petit tranchet, oblique and barbed and tanged) (Green 1980), which overlap chronologically in a similar manner to the ceramic styles of the period (Figure 6). Other diagnostic artefacts include polished discoidal knives, which are characteristic of the later Neolithic, and scale flaked knives and flint daggers which are found in late Neolithic/early Bronze Age contexts.

Flint assemblages also act as good dating indicators, both through the presence of typologically distinct artefacts and through broad technological attributes of the assemblage as a whole. The broad form of waste flakes changes through the Mesolithic and Neolithic from blades to broad flakes, allowing distinctions to be drawn between Mesolithic, early Neolithic and later Neolithic assemblages (Pitts 1978; Pitts and Jacobi 1979; Ford 1987a). Individual flint implements also represent a valuable dating tool, with specific forms lasting for varying durations (Figure 6). Microliths are strictly confined to Mesolithic assemblages and no associations with diagnostic Neolithic lithics or pottery can be demonstrated. Later Mesolithic microlith forms include various geometric and rod forms, and in the sixth millennium additional specialised forms emerge including micro-lunates (Jacobi 1978). Other Mesolithic forms persist into Neolithic and later assemblages, for example, burins are occasionally recovered in earlier Neolithic assemblages (e.g. Horton and Imperial College Sports Ground) and serrated flakes persist into the earlier Bronze Age, but are most prolific in the earlier Neolithic. The tranchet axe is largely a Mesolithic form, but it is noteworthy that a small number of crude adze tools from the early Neolithic Sussex flint mines exhibited tranchet removals (Gardiner 1990). The scraper represents the most ubiquitous tool type, occurring in Palaeolithic to Bronze Age assemblages, although some distinct changes in form are apparent in the study period, such as elongated scrapers in the earlier Neolithic and thumbnail scrapers in the early Bronze Age (Richards 1990, Figure 15). At the inception of the Neolithic a distinctive range of new tools emerge, including polished flint and stone implements, leaf arrowheads and laurel leaves. Polished - 13 -

THE RESIDUE OF RITUALISED ACTION: NEOLITHIC DEPOSITION PRACTICES IN THE MIDDLE THAMES VALLEY

Figure 6: The chronological sequences of monuments and artefacts in the Neolithic and early Bronze Age (based on and extended from Barclay 2000, 20: fig. 2.2)

- 14 -

CHAPTER 1: THE RESIDUE OF RITUALISED ACTION: AN INTRODUCTION

1.6.

Table 2: Quantification of archaeological features/contexts in the Middle Thames Valley

The Middle Thames Valley dataset

The dataset collated for this study spans the late Mesolithic to early Bronze Age Beaker-associated contexts. In general, only stratified deposits such as pits, tree-throw holes and in situ flint scatters, are considered in this study, but a number of exceptions have been made. Surface collections of Mesolithic flint and spreads of Beaker finds are considered, but Neolithic surface scatters are generally excluded as these have been subject to detailed consideration by Robin Holgate (1988). Findspots of selected artefacts, such as axes, polished discoidal knives, flint daggers, stone and antler maceheads and other river finds are also given consideration, particularly in relation to river deposition. Data for distributions presented below are derived from various publications, with the addition of a small number of more recent finds (Clark 1928; Grimes 1931; Adkins and Jackson 1978; Roe 1979; Holgate 1988; Simpson 1996).

Feature type Tree-throw hole Natural hollow Natural shaft Pit Hoard (pit) Burnt mound Flat grave Find-spot (selected artefacts) River find-spot (selected artefacts) River find (archaeological) Structure Finds spread/scatter (stratified) In situ flint scatter Midden Preserved land surface Occupation layer Uncertain/other

In total 312 stratified archaeological contexts are considered, including various pits, tree-throw holes, natural features, middens and in situ flint scatters (see Table 2). These data primarily derive from the Sites and Monuments Record, published excavations and forthcoming publications on the Eton Rowing Course and Maidenhead to Windsor Flood Alleviation Channel. The dataset used for this analysis is presented in Appendix 1. Further Neolithic features are considered only in discussion as sufficient data was not available for their inclusion in the study when data was collected between 2002 and 2005. These sites include the Perry Oaks (Terminal 5) excavations on the Heathrow Terrace (Lewis et al. 2006) and other sites forming part of the MoLAS West London Gravels Project (J. Cotton pers. comm.). Moreover, insufficient data was available for the inclusion of certain features, such as, pits within Staines causewayed enclosure, whilst other features, such as 200 pits from excavations at Reading Business Park (Moore and Jennings 1992), have been excluded due to questions over the reliability of interpretation and phasing. A small number of features have also been re-interpreted, for example, pits as tree-throw holes; these are referred to in Part II below and original interpretations are presented in Appendix 1.

- 15 -

No. Features 85 4 7 135 1 1 5 171 166 5 3 9 38 7 6 3 3

THE RESIDUE OF RITUALISED ACTION: NEOLITHIC DEPOSITION PRACTICES IN THE MIDDLE THAMES VALLEY

Figure 7: Key excavations and sites in the Middle Thames Valley.

- 16 -

Figure 8: Detail of key excavations in the Maidenhead to Windsor area.

- 17 -

Chapter 2: 2.1.

Ritual and the archaeological record

Introduction

In characterising deposition practices this study engages with physical and human processes involved in the formation of the archaeological record. This chapter will explore the historical and theoretical frameworks behind this study and present a methodology for further analysis. The rigorous study of the formation of the archaeological record is rooted in New or Processual Archaeology of the 1960s and 1970s which sought to document processes in a manner to allow the archaeological record to be read and interpreted (Binford and Binford 1968). The works of Michael Schiffer in this field, considered further below, exemplify this methodological approach (Schiffer 1972;1976;1987). From the 1980s protagonists of PostProcessual archaeology have criticised these approaches for homogenising the archaeological record and lacking human agency. The study of ritual is intimately associated with accounts of Post-Processual archaeology, but considerable debate has been raised over the definition of the term and its identification in the archaeological record (Levy 1982; Richards and Thomas 1984; Renfrew 1985; Hill 1995; Brück 1999a; Bradley 2005). There is, however, little consensus on the definition of ritual in archaeological or anthropological literature and while most archaeologists claim a broad understanding of the subject of ritual, considerable inconsistency is demonstrated in identifying ritual action in the archaeological record (Brück 1999a, 314). J D Hill (1995, 163) has shown that archaeological literature is littered with terms such as ‘non-domestic’, ‘unusual’ (Whittle 1985, 220, 233), ‘purposeful’ (Richards and Thomas 1984, 214) and ‘intentionally symbolic’ (Evans 1988, 89). These terms are intended to draw attention to practices, but ultimately segregate and marginalise their study. Furthermore, it will be argued that the deployment of the term ‘ritual’ has a similar effect, to the above terms, in generating an artificial division. This chapter will argue for a consideration of the ritualisation of action, rather than the classification of actions as ritual or non-ritual.

2.2.

The differentiation of the sacred from the profane and dualist thought processes are, however, not universal phenomena common to all social systems (Bell 1992, 123). Leach suggests that people in most societies have only the ‘haziest’ distinction between the sacred and profane (1968, 253). Furthermore, Brück highlights cultures with no sharp distinction between the sacred and profane modes of thought (1999a, 319), such as the Atoni of Timor who have or no concept of the ‘profane’, or even a word to describe the term (Schulte Nordholt and Herman 1980, 247 cited in Brück 1999, 319) and the LoDagga of Burkino and Faso of Ghana who do not differentiate between the sacred and profane (Goody 1961, 151 cited in Brück 1999, 319). Furthermore, even within cultures that differentiate between the sacred and profane, ritual is not solely confined to the sacred realm, as civil ceremonies and secular rites also constitute formalised ritual (Bell 1992, 38). The influence of the sacred:profane dichotomy is apparent in many early archaeological interpretations of ritual. Wainwright’s changing interpretations of the structures at Durrington Walls henge, demonstrate the polar influences of the dichotomy and the hindrance to rational interpretation of the ritual aspects of the site. The critique of Wainwright’s interpretations was originally presented by Richards and Thomas (1984, 189), but is paraphrased below due to the particular saliency of the example. Wainwright’s initial interpretation of Durrington Walls, subsequent to his excavations, followed, but considerably elaborated, the view of the site as a ceremonial or ritual centre, as Stone, Piggott and Booth had previously suggested (1954): “The valley and land surrounding it [Durrington Walls] must have been a sacred precinct, of which Woodhenge formed a part, within which were built temples to house rituals, the nature of which we cannot even guess at. The presence of roofed buildings, however, implies the existence of custodians or a class of priests to supervise the rituals and maintain the temples” (Wainwright 1969, 120).

Ritual and archaeology

The archaeologist’s understanding of ritual originates in 20th century ethnographic research. The common threads present in definitions of ritual action are formality, fixity and repetition, but few explicit traits that can be identified as actions are culturally specific (Bell 1992, 89). These loosely defined attributes of ritual are present in everyday tasks as much as prescribed, formalised ceremonies. This presented a significant problem for 20th century anthropologists who sought to differentiate sacred from profane activities, considering ritual only present in the former. The sacred:profane dualism was first articulated by Durkheim in 1912 (1965), but has been replicated in subsequent definitions of ritual (Turner 1967; Bloch 1985;1989).

The published excavation report further asserted the ritual function of the site: “the evidence seems to confirm the special nature of these structures and deny a purely domestic function” (Wainwright and Longworth 1971, 233). Wainwright’s position was, however, to reverse with his assertion that he “would not now regard the late Neolithic earthworks as anything other than secular” (Wainwright 1975, 67). The reversal of Wainwright’s stance was grounded in the material culture associated with the structures:

- 19 -

THE RESIDUE OF RITUALISED ACTION: NEOLITHIC DEPOSITION PRACTICES IN THE MIDDLE THAMES VALLEY “A characteristic peculiar to these buildings and their surrounding earthworks is the great quantity of human refuse – sherds, stone and bone artefacts and animal bones. In this respect these sites differ from those with an overtly ritual function and superficially this should be strong evidence for a domestic usage” (Wainwright 1975, 67).

those types of communication labelled ritual…the aesthetic and communicative aspect is particularly prominent.” (Leach 1966, 410)

The influence of the sacred:profane dichotomy is clear in Wainwright’s arguments. Wainwright was, however, not alone in this mindset and his approach betrays the limited ability of many archaeologists to consider material culture in a non-utilitarian context (Richards and Thomas 1984, 189). Wainwright was to later return to his original interpretation of Durrington Walls as a ceremonial centre (1989), and whilst one may argue that Wainwright’s return to his original interpretation was due to the critique of Richard and Thomas, not all are convinced (Bradley 2005). This swing may once again reflect the polarised interpretations presented by the sacred:profane dichotomy. The sacred:profane dichotomy has further served to generate a false association between ritual and nonpractical action. In many societies, ritual action is not only spatially and temporally integrated with everyday ‘mundane’ activities, but also has a practical role (Brück 1999a, 319). For example, the Azande encourage termites from their mounds by burning bark-cloth and blowing smoke into an opening while holding a magical plant in the other hand (Evans-Pritchard 1937, 464 cited in Brück 1999, 320). An anthropologist may observe this as two actions, one practical and the other ritual, however, the Azande perceive both actions as practical, intended to ensure a successful outcome, and do not distinguish between the two in a manner a dualist society would (Brück 1999a, 320). Ritual and non-ritual action is, however, still the focus of considerable debate in anthropological and archaeological circles. Hill’s recent examination of ritual practice in the British Iron Age opts to distinguish between ritual and non-ritual practice, considering “ritual as a particular form of practice distinct from everyday practices which typify the ordinary, the commonplace, the mundane” (1995, 167). The social practices Hill wishes to consider as ritual are exemplified by the Merina ceremony of the royal bath (Bloch 1987), a Nuer cattle sacrifice (EvansPritchard 1956) or a Nembu Isoma ceremony (Turner 1967; Hill 1995, 166). J D Hill’s approach is contrary to that of Leach (1966) who argues that ritual does not represent a distinct category, but represents expressive, symbolic and communicative aspects of human behaviour, suggesting that: “almost every human action has a technical aspect which does something and an aesthetic aspect which says something. In

Leach’s definition has been criticised for encompassing too broad a range of activities, many of which are mundane and secular, such as eating a meal, attending a board meeting and going to football matches (Brück 1999a, 315); moreover the broad definition has been accused of stripping the term ‘ritual’ of its analytical value (Goody 1977, 26). Leach has, however, raised a valid point, regarding the degree of formality present in ritual action; an issue which has been addressed by authors wishing to consider the categories of ritual and non-ritual action. Bloch in his study of ritual communication argues for a continuum from repetitive (formalised) communication to generative (everyday) communication, with ritual communication at the repetitive (formalised) end of the continuum (1989, 213 see Figure 9). In Bloch’s consideration aspects of ‘ritual’ communication, such as greetings, avoidance and politeness lie clearly at the repetitive end of the scale, with few forms of communication lying in the middle ground; so presenting little difficulty in distinguishing between ritual and non-ritual communication (ibid.). John Barrett’s consideration of ritual communication (1991) follows Bloch’s framework suggesting that ritual represents a distinct ‘field of discourse’. The arena of ritual action can perhaps be less clearly defined than that of ritual communication, but in the continuum between ritual and non-ritual action it has been argued that, as for ritual communication: “there is a central area of general agreement, it is the periphery and boundaries that are disputed” (Lewis 1980, 7). Figure 9: Bloch’s continuum in communication (1989, 213) Generative communication Æ Repetitive formalised communication Non ritual-----------------------------------------------------------Æ Ritual

Rather than further pursuing the debate as to where the ‘boundaries’ lie on the continuum between ritual and non-ritual, it is necessary to consider recent trends in the anthropological investigation of ritual, namely the study of the process of ritualisation. Ritualisation Recent anthropological studies have sought to argue that rather than considering ritual as a distinct type of event we should consider ritualisation, a modification of action (Bell 1992; Humphrey and Laidlaw 1994). Ritualisation, unlike ritual, is a dynamic process; actions become ritualised through the repeated re-enactment of these actions, and, as such, the ritualised behaviour is often socially and culturally institutionalised (Humphrey and Laidlaw 1994, 97), and can therefore only be characterised ‘in general’ (Bell 1992, 93). As a process ritualisation is a relatively ‘mute’ form of activity that does what it is doing, without crossing into the realms of systematic thinking (ibid.). The process of ritualisation

- 20 -

CHAPTER 2: RITUAL AND THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD may be present in many, or all, aspects of life from the mundane to organised ceremony. This is not to suggest that all ritualised behaviour is all of the same character, as there are significant differences in the performance of everyday mundane rituals and ceremonial ritual. Perhaps most distinct is the formality with which it operates. A continuum exists, but rather than attempting to distinguish ritual from non-ritual activity in parallel to formal and informal activity, as Bloch suggested for ritual communication (Bloch 1989, 213), the process of ritualisation may occur in any action, but the performance of these rituals may be considered to operate on a continuum between informal and formal. Thus, while everyday tasks may be ritualised in their performance they are performed in an informal manner, whereas secular or religious ceremonies are highly formalised, but still become ritualised over time (Figure 10). The process of ritualisation has dynamics which are particularly advantageous to archaeologists as firstly, it removes the artificial segregation of ritual from practical action, and secondly, ritualisation has the dynamic of time. The integration of ritual and practical action in ritualised behaviour is particularly significant as it has previously been highlighted how the artificial segregation of ritual alienates and marginalises its study. Secondly, the presence of the dynamic of time in ritualisation allows for the consideration of the origins of ritual and opens the possibility of tracing practices and their development over time (Bradley 2005, 34).

archaeological research and specifically consider how ritual has been identified in archaeological deposits.

2.3. Identifying ritual archaeological record

in

the

Early investigations of ritual in the archaeological record developed rigorous methodologies for research, such as Janet Levy’s study of ritual hoards in Denmark (1982) and Colin Renfrew’s investigation of cult activity at the sanctuary at Phylakopi (1985). It is, however, noteworthy that these studies focus on distinct aspects of the archaeological record that are united, perhaps most significantly, in one characteristic: their exclusive location away from the focus of domestic activity. The ‘odd’ deposits regularly encountered on prehistoric ‘domestic’ sites received considerably less attention, despite their regular occurrence. Indeed, one may argue that archaeologists failed to address the issue of ritual in the domestic sphere until the closing years of the 20th century (For example Hill 1995; Brück 1999a;b), so progressing little from the observations of the earlier 20th century, such as Maud Cunnington’s comments in 1933 regarding the haphazard incorporation of human remains in Iron Age pits as a ‘persistent and interesting feature’ (Cunnington 1933, 207). Attempts were, however, made to develop analytical tools, such as Colin Richards’s and Julian Thomas’s study of structured deposition at Durrington Walls (1984). Before considering issues of structured deposition, it is perhaps informative to consider the earlier approaches of ‘New Archaeology’ to the archaeological record.

Before considering how the theory of ritualisation has been applied to archaeology and how it will be considered in this study, it is necessary to return to Figure 10: The continuum of ritual action

- 21 -

THE RESIDUE OF RITUALISED ACTION: NEOLITHIC DEPOSITION PRACTICES IN THE MIDDLE THAMES VALLEY ‘New’ or ‘Processual Archaeology’ of the 1960s and 1970s aimed to provide analytical classification schemes to allow the archaeological record to be read as a direct record of past behaviour and social organisation. Schiffer has considered the formation of the archaeological record at length, and represents a prime example of this approach (Schiffer 1972; 1976; 1987). Schiffer classified archaeological formation processes into two key groups ‘n-transforms’ and ‘c-transforms’. ‘n-transforms’ represent natural processes, whilst ‘c-transforms’ result from human action on cultural material (Schiffer 1976, 14-15). The ‘c-transforms’ essentially represents a catalogue of refuse types and formation processes. As such, we are led to a consideration of rubbish in functional terms of primary, secondary and de facto refuse, et cetera. Indeed, Schiffer’s classifications extend to cover a board umbrella of cultural transformations, to the extreme of classifying material as ‘child’s play’ refuse (1987, 75). Ritual, or ritualised behaviour, is not considered a rationale behind any cultural patterning observed by Schiffer, with the exception of ‘ritual caches’ that are considered as a ‘residual category’ of deposition (1987, 79). The simplistic ‘functionalist’ patterning of refuse supported by proponents of ‘New Archaeology’, such as Schiffer, Binford (1978) and Murray (1980), was challenged by Hodder in 1982: “Attitudes to refuse vary from society to society, and from group to group within societies…There can be no simple functional links between refuse and types of site, lengths of occupation or forms of society, because attitudes intervene.” (1982, 24) Thus, Hodder argued from his work in Baringo that material culture was not a direct reflection of human behaviour; rather it was a transformation of that behaviour (Hodder and Hutson 2003, 2). Moreover, it has been demonstrated that concepts of ‘rubbish’ and ‘dirt’ differ significantly between cultures and that a universal, or absolute, category does not exist (Douglas 1966; Moore 1982); this point will be explored further below.

a high level of structure clearly reflected ritual activity. To this end the authors considered: “Throughout the Neolithic in Britain, the deposition of valued items – in isolated pits, in pits inside causewayed enclosures, in henges and in long barrow ditches – seems to have been an important practice. This leaves us in an uncomfortable position, in that several of the pits which have been taken as evidence for settlement may have had no domestic function whatsoever.” (Richards and Thomas 1984, 214) Therefore whilst the authors succeed in considering the role of material culture in activities of a ‘non-utilitarian’ character, their interpretation remains dualist, suggesting the most formal deposits cannot reflect settlement. As considered earlier, dualist concepts are not universal (Brück 1999a), and furthermore structuring is present in ritualised aspects of everyday life (Bradley 2005). The presence of structured deposition may, therefore, not be taken to demonstrate overt ritual activity, but serves to signal the presence of underlying formality (Hill 1995, 163). Julian Thomas further addressed conceptual issues of ‘rubbish’ and ‘dirt’ in his ‘genealogy of deposition practices’ (1999, 63), highlighting the arbitrary conceptual schemes encountered in the ethnographic record. For example there are categories of material which may be discarded or deposited without being considered as ‘rubbish’ (Moore 1986, 102), or certain materials may be segregated when deposited depending on their place within a conceptual scheme (Moore 1986). Thomas draws particular focus to the fact that deposition practices appear to be guided by the classification of items or materials: “The disposal of animal bones, for instance, frequently depends upon the way in which animals are classified (Bulmer 1976). Thus different patterns of bone deposition might result according to whether animals were principally classified in terms of their habitat (Bulmer 1967), their domestic or wild status (Tambiah 1969), their conceptual distance from being ‘men’ (Buxton 1968), in terms of homologies with particular types of human beings (Levi-Strauss 1964), or according to their physical characteristics (Douglas 1957). The classification of animals may even result in their being totally avoided; thus fish may not be eaten if they are considered to be the same as snakes (Kesby 1979, 46).” (Thomas 1999, 63)

Structured deposition Archaeological studies of the British Neolithic were among the first to address conceptual aspects of deposition practices and develop analytical methods to identify these patterns. Colin Richards and Julian Thomas coined the term ‘structured deposition’ in 1984 whilst characterising deposits at Durrington Walls henge monument. The term provides a mechanism to describe ‘odd’, ‘unusual’ or ‘peculiar’ deposits often encountered on prehistoric sites. Structuring results from formalised and repetitive behaviour, and may be preserved in the archaeological record within deposits created by these actions by examining broad associations, disassociations, and spatial patterning (Richards and Thomas 1984, 191). It was, however, also implied that deposits which exhibit

Symbolism The symbolic meaning of material culture has been highlighted in anthropological and archaeological circles

- 22 -

CHAPTER 2: RITUAL AND THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD and represents a significant aspect of ritual behaviour (Leach 1966; Hodder 1982; Richards and Thomas 1984). Aspects of material culture may be used as symbols to articulate ideas and contain meanings significant to a particular group, but as with speech, the relationship between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary. The symbolic statements made within material culture are not, however, impenetrable to archaeological investigation as their deployment requires a degree of formality. Moreover, symbols are vulnerable to manipulation (Shanks and Tilley 1982, 132), allowing chronological and spatial analysis. Clearly it will not be possible to identify all symbolism, but some examples are distinct due to the symbols deployed. For example, arrowhead forms, such as leaf-shaped, chisel and oblique, are manufactured to mental templates of a specific time, culture and place. Their form often goes beyond the practical, where a simple sharp point will function, and are clearly of symbolic significance to the cultures using them. This is perhaps difficult to demonstrate among ‘practical’ examples, but a group of chisel and oblique arrowheads recovered from the fills of pits at Wyke Down Henge exhibited the form of arrowheads, but from their haphazard and irregular manufacture had no practical application. Andrew Brown argues that these represent ‘symbolic arrowheads’ which, whilst not appropriate for hafting, were still symbolically potent and conveyed symbolic meaning in their deposition (1991, 130).

The theoretical basis for interpreting ritual has changed fundamentally over recent decades. Trends in archaeological ritual theory have a tendency to follow those in anthropology, albeit with a significant time lag (Bradley 2005, 31). The concepts of ritualisation were drawn by Bell (1992) and Humphrey and Laidlaw (1994) and have gradually filtered into, and influenced, archaeological literature (for example, Parker Pearson and Richards 1994; Hill 1995; Brück 1999a). The archaeological fraternity, however, appear reluctant to fully indulge the concepts of ritualisation. For example, J D Hill’s study of ritual in Iron Age Wessex considers that: “…we should expect that the boundaries between ritual and non-ritual in a situation where ritual takes place on settlements, and uses elements of daily life would be blurred and open to negotiation by Iron Age peoples themselves.” (Hill 1995, 101) The ritualisation of daily life is explicit in this statement, but Hill still seeks to distinguish ritual and non-ritual actions in the same context. Hill acknowledges that many non-ritual deposits are also structured (1995, 101), so is it not possible that these deposits are all guided by ritualised actions and that what is being detected is degree of formality with which the actions are made? Johanna Brück vocalises a common concern regarding ritualisation, suggesting that such studies:

Moving from ritual to ritualisation It is perhaps beneficial to return to Janet Levy’s research into ritual hoards in Denmark (1982) and trace the thread of this argument through the archaeological literature, to highlight how the theoretical standpoint of archaeologists has developed from the early 1980s. Levy’s framework for distinguishing between ritual and non-ritual deposits was widely acclaimed and for many presented a sound methodology for the identification of ritual in the archaeological record. A similar approach was followed by Richard Bradley, in his analysis of prehistoric hoards and votive deposits distinguishing between ritual and non-ritual hoards (termed votive and utilitarian), although difficulties were noted in applying Levy’s scheme to the archaeological record (1990, 10). The scheme was criticised when the book was reviewed (Champion 1990) and in the preface to the second edition, Richard Bradley had significantly changed his theoretical viewpoint, no longer wishing to draw the distinction between ritual and non-ritual hoards (Bradley 1998, xviii-xix). Bradley has recently further elaborated on his position in his study of Ritual and Domestic Life in Prehistoric Europe (2005), highlighting that in the majority of cases there is no difference in the manufacture or use of objects deposited in different contexts and emphasising that each situation is ritualised (ibid. 148-149). In the case of Bronze Age hoards perhaps the process of metallurgy was ritualised (ibid. 164).

“…Attempt to breakdown the disjuncture between ritual and secular practice by arguing that ritual becomes incorporated into all aspects of daily life. The danger of this approach is that everything becomes subsumed within the category of ritual.” (Brück 1999a, 325) Johanna Brück proposes that rather than attempting to identify ritual practice in the archaeological record, we should examine what past actions can tell us about the nature of prehistoric rationality (ibid. 327). The approach rejects the analytical value of ritual (ibid.), so removing the segregation of ‘ritual’ from ‘non-ritual’ acts and allowing a consideration of prehistoric causality. One may, however, question how this approach differs from a consideration of ritualisation, which, rather than focussing on segregating ritual, identifies ritualisation as an integral element of practical action? The concerns raised in both these studies is losing, in Lewis’ terminology, the ‘alerting quality’ of ritual (1980, 20). This is not to suggest that such studies seek merely to identify ritual, but that to identify ritual then allows, as a starting point, the nature and meaning of the actions to be questioned.

- 23 -

THE RESIDUE OF RITUALISED ACTION: NEOLITHIC DEPOSITION PRACTICES IN THE MIDDLE THAMES VALLEY

2.4.

New directions

The study of ritual in archaeology clearly represents a challenge and has to draw on different resources than those available to anthropologists. It may be argued that archaeology is in an unenviable position when it comes to considering ritual, as, unlike anthropologists, one cannot observe the rites and culture being considered and has to rely on the preserved residues of ritual action. Conversely, archaeology may in fact be in a strong position to analyse ritual action as structure and order can be readily be identified in space and material culture, but, most importantly, archaeologists have the dynamic of time to trace the origins and changes of specific practices. It is the development and changes in these practices and deployment of symbols that may reveal some of the statements that were being articulated by the actions (Bradley 2005, 34). The difficulties encountered by archaeologists in identifying and interpreting ritual represent a direct reflection of the problems in much of ritual theory. Early problems arose through the desire to segregate sacred from profane aspects of life. This line of enquiry may now be considered extinct and efforts have focused on the re-integration of ritual into everyday life. Aspects of ritual and non ritual action do not sit easily with this integration as, by implication, ritual represents a distinct form of practice. The process of ritualisation functions in a manner whereby actions become ritualised through their performance, not necessarily resulting from a conscious process. Ritualisation may, therefore, be present in many or all aspects of life, but this is not to suggest that all ritual is the same, as although various tasks may be ritualised, the formality in the acting can differ and provide a continuum with analytical potential, as the process of ritualisation may be viewed on one axis (parallel with time) and formality on a second. It is therefore important to question how can we identify formality in the archaeological record? Formality may manifest itself in a variety of manners. Firstly, deposits may be constructed with different degrees of formality that can be observed in the deposit’s structuring. Likewise, increasing formality may be paralleled by the power of the symbols deployed, such as the incorporation of significant artefacts. These may be apparent as ‘valued’ items, identifiable by establishing a broad scale of value based on ‘rarity’ and effort expended in acquiring or creating specific items, for example more effort is expended in the creation of a scraper than a flake and considerably more effort is expended on a polished axe. The value of artefacts may, however, rest in their histories and biographies, rather than form (Gosden 1994); alternatively symbolic representation of artefacts may suffice for incorporation. The identification of these aspects in the archaeological record is challenging, but not impossible. Studies of material culture can reveal skeuomorphic representations, such as the non-functional Wyke Down henge arrowheads (Brown 1991) or chalk axes at Woodhenge (Pollard 1995). The significance of artefact biographies may be accessed indirectly through a

consideration of ‘value’, but studies of function, use-wear and fragmentation may also be revealing. John Chapman (2000; Chapman et al. 2007) raised the significance of fragmentation in the archaeological record in his study of material culture in the Balkan Mesolithic, Neolithic and Copper Age. Chapman considers that objects contain within them an aspect of personhood and that through processes of exchange inalienable artefacts develop both biographies and enchained relations which relate to places as much as people (Chapman 2000, 5). The enchainment of relations need, however, not just involve whole artefacts but may also be achieved through the fragmentation of artefacts. The artefact is broken, with different individuals retaining parts of the artefact as a token of their relationship, until an appropriate time for deposition in a structured manner (ibid. 6). Fragmentation theory has yet to be applied to the British Neolithic, but the ‘identity triad’ of people, places and things is applicable, although it has yet to be proven whether similar patterns to the Balkans will be identified, as all practices will be culturally specific (Chapman et al. 2007, 203). This study seeks to characterise deposition practices in light of these modern theoretical frameworks, identifying patterns of ritualised action in datasets, rather than focussing on the identification of ‘ritual’ and segregating its analysis. Ritualised behaviour may be apparent not only through the repeated structuring within a context, such as pits, but it should be possible to trace the process of ritualisation over time, due to the chronological depth of this study. Variations in the formality of practices may also be identified between contexts of deposition, such as tree-throw holes, pits and land surfaces, allowing consideration of the relationship of different contexts to be drawn. Likewise, spatial variations within individual contexts of deposition may be apparent, highlighting increased formality in practices in relation to certain aspects of landscape, or through association with monuments. As such, this study represents more than an investigation of patterning in material culture; it is an integrated landscape approach to the Middle Thames Valley.

- 24 -

Part II

- 25 -

Chapter 3: 3.1.

Natural places – unaltered landscapes

The following three chapters review and characterise deposition practices associated with specific archaeological contexts in the Middle Thames Valley. The three chapters consider deposition at unaltered elements of the landscape (Chapter 3), below ground contexts (Chapter 4) and deposition at monuments (Chapter 5). It is not intended that these chapters represent rigid divisions between depositional contexts as they artificially separate archaeologically associated features, such as middens and tree-throw holes. Moreover, it can be argued that many deposition contexts have characteristics which cross these chapter headings, for example, rivers may be considered a ‘below ground’ context as well as natural context whilst tree-throw holes are ‘below ground’ and natural features of the landscape. Part II may therefore be considered as a process of deconstruction to allow the characterisation of individual deposition contexts to enable the reconstruction of wider patterns considered in Part III. Chapter 3, ‘natural places – unaltered landscapes’, specifically considers deposition in a broad range of natural environments, such as rivers and on land surfaces. Rivers represent self-explanatory loci of deposition, but due to the nature of artefact recovery we often know little of the character of the deposits from which finds were recovered. The deposits recovered from land surfaces include a variety of in situ knapping or specific task scatters, finds spreads and middens. Disturbed surface scatters, such as plough soil assemblages, are not considered in this chapter as their archaeological context has been lost; these scatters are, however, further considered in Part III particularly in relation to the spatial distribution of Mesolithic and Neolithic activity. An analysis of the deposition practices associated with each depositional context is presented below. The concluding comments will present deposition patterns associated with natural places in the Middle Thames Valley and establish the context of these practices in relation to regional trends. The concluding chapters will further explore the relationship of deposition in the natural environment (Chapter 7.4) and establish the significance of deposition at natural locations, within subsurface contexts and at monuments in relation to topography, landscape and environment.

3.2.

of the river… In the river bank, on the Berks side, a vast quantity of bones and horns, etc., was found (perhaps a cartload), consisting of those of ox, bison, red deer, horse, pig, etc…” Dr Joseph Stevens (1883, 345)

Introduction

Deposition in rivers “In April 1882 [at Taplow] the dredgers brought up two axes… Three human skulls were found at the same point. Of these, one was retained, and the other two thrown back into the water. At this point the men found some difficulty in their operations, and ascertained that they had struck upon the heads of several piles which had been driven into the bed

The River Thames, and to a lesser extent its tributaries, have since the 19th century surrendered numerous artefacts to dredgers, antiquaries and mudlarks alike. The ‘Golden Age’ of these discoveries, as called by George F. Lawrence, a collector and dealer in Thames antiquities (1929, 71), spanned the 1820s to the end of the 19th century (Cotton 1999, 59). Discoveries in the Thames and its tributaries continue to be made to this day by dredgers or as chance finds (Cotton and Merriman 1991; Cotton et al. 1996) and occasionally by controlled excavation (for example Allen et al. 2000). Artefacts recovered from the Thames span the Palaeolithic to the post-medieval periods and include many notable discoveries, several of which now reside in the British Museum, such as the Iron Age Battersea Shield and Waterloo Helmet, a life-size bronze head of Hadrian, and numerous other items such as Saxon spears and medieval pilgrim’s badges. The discoveries of particular relevance to this study include many objects of flint, such as: Mesolithic ‘Thames picks’, Neolithic flint and stone axes, mace-heads and early Bronze Age daggers. Many other materials and objects of the Mesolithic to early Bronze Age are also represented, including: pottery vessels, antler mace-heads, human bone, animal bone and other objects rarely preserved on land, such as those of wood. A detailed reappraisal of deposition in the River Thames, with a holistic approach to all materials from the earliest times to the present day, is long overdue, but is beyond the limits of this study. This chapter will consider only Mesolithic to early Bronze Age discoveries, but in addition to the normal Middle Thames focus of this study, finds from the lower stretches of the Thames will also be considered. The approach to this chapter differs from others, as the material from the Thames often lacks secure provenance due to the nature of its recovery, often by dredging, and the role of antiquaries in the collection and curation of objects. These issues are considered below, before reviewing previous research into finds from the Thames and ultimately characterising the deposition practices associated with rivers. Dredging, collection and provenance The opening quote from Dr Joseph Stevens not only highlights the diversity of materials and prolific artefacts recovered from the River Thames, but also illustrates several issues that arise in the dataset. As indicated, not all materials were retained, locations of finds were not accurately recorded and little is known of the context of recovery.

- 27 -

THE RESIDUE OF RITUALISED ACTION: NEOLITHIC DEPOSITION PRACTICES IN THE MIDDLE THAMES VALLEY The majority of artefacts recovered from the Thames were found during dredging operations and ultimately passed into the hand of antiquaries and collectors, often via dealers. The discovery, dealing and collection of these artefacts raise many serious issues regarding the representation of objects and the reliability of their provenance. The key issues are outlined below. Dredging Dredging in the Thames served two main purposes: firstly, the maintenance of a channel clear from obstructions and, secondly, in the lower reaches of the Thames, the supply of ballast to the colliers returning to the Tyne having delivered their loads of sea-coal (Cotton 1999, 62). Dredging works were also required for many construction projects, such as the New London Bridge, and construction of sea walls. Early dredging works along the Thames were rather piecemeal until the Thames Conservancy Act of 1894, and even after that date no clear records were made of dredging programmes and areas cleared (Adkins and Jackson 1978). Indeed, systematic dredging of the river upstream of Reading only began in the 1950s, presenting another significant variable in the finds distributions (York 2002, 78). The differential identification, recovery and retention of finds by the dredgers is a significant issue. The introduction of steam dredgers ‘Hercules’, ‘Sampson’ and ‘Goliath’ in 1827, capable of lifting 4000 tons of ballast a week, clearly offered fewer opportunities for discoveries to be made than the traditional ‘spoon and bag’ technique that required six men to heave 20 cwt of gravel aboard (Cotton 1999, 63). The identification of finds by the dredgers is impossible to quantify, but it was clearly in their favour to make discoveries. At around 1900, the Thames Conservancy Board paid ten shillings for any artefact that entered its collections (York 2002, 79), but has only kept systematic records of discoveries since 1932 (Ehrenberg 1980, 4). A commercial market for Thames antiquities also existed; a theme that will be explored further below. The Thames Conservancy Board policy represents another variable in the distribution of recorded artefacts, as it was only responsible for the upper and lower stretches of the Thames between 1866 and 1909. In 1909, the London Port Authority was founded and responsibility for the tidal reaches of the Thames downstream of Teddington Lock passed into their hands. As the London Port Authority did not operate a payment scheme to encourage the recovery and recording of artefacts, it is therefore likely that after 1909 many of the discoveries downstream of Teddington Lock were ignored or passed into the hands of private collectors; certainly fewer artefacts were recorded downstream of Teddington Lock in the first half of the 20th century than above it (Noèl Hume 1956, 246). This observation is particularly pertinent in relation to the distribution patterns considered further below. A question also remains over the accuracy with which recorded finds have been referenced. Jill York notes that is commonplace to reference artefacts to a place-name or

‘reach’, that may cover several miles of a river (2002, 79). Artefacts were also often referenced to the closest lock or river confluence, so generating artificial concentrations at these points (Ehrenberg 1980, 5). A final note of caution regarding the provenance of river finds is raised by George F. Lawrence as a ‘word of warning… in regard to finds from certain stretches of foreshore’ (1929, 72). Lawrence notes that during the dredging at London Pool, for the construction of London Bridge, material from this work was deposited onto the foreshore in various places, such as Hammersmith and Wandsworth, and was also used to fill holes on Barnes Common. Furthermore, Lawrence records that the Port of London Authority frequently placed gravel against newly constructed walls on the foreshore (1929, 72). In a similar vein, the movement of ballast from the bed of the Thames to the Tyne was almost certainly responsible for the recovery of an antler mattock at Willington Quay, Newcastle, and possibly other artefacts from the area (Smith and Bonsall 1985; Cotton 1999, 62). Dealers and deception The Victorian fad for cabinet collections of antiquities and curios generated a profitable market in Thames finds. This buoyant market attracted numerous dealers; with a profit to be made, many were often unscrupulous in their practices. Numerous fakes were sold with Thames provenances, but of more concern is the practice of giving genuine imported antiquities a false provenance to increase their value as unusual local finds. It is necessary to explore these themes a little further to highlight their full impact. The vulnerability of both dealers and leading antiquaries of the period to deception by fake antiquities is exemplified by the activities of William Smith and Charles Eaton. The two, known as Billie and Charlie, were in 1857 working on the construction of the Shadwell Dock and like many of the workman made extra money selling antiquities found whilst digging to passing antiquaries. The excavations at Shadwell Dock were, however, failing to produce many antiquities and to remedy this situation Billie and Charlie set about producing cast lead medallions, often with Latin inscriptions and dates in Arabic numerals. These objects were raked from the mud and directly sold to by-standing antiquaries, but as these objects gained popularity Billie and Charlie dropped the charade of finding the objects and sold them to dealers by the thousand (Noèl Hume 1956, 237). At a meeting of the British Archaeological Association in 1858, Mr Syer Cummings, Vice-President of the society, exposed the fraud and alleged a dealer named Mr Eastwood was selling fake antiquities. A report of the meeting was subsequently published in the Athenaeum newspaper on the 8th May 1858 and the dealer sued the paper for libel (Noèl Hume 1956, 237). The dealer and respectable antiquaries, such as Charles Roach Smith F.S.A., stepped forward in defence of the artefacts. The

- 28 -

CHAPTER 3: NATURAL PLACES – UNALTERED LANDSCAPES antiquaries remained divided and collections continued to be amassed, such as those of Rev Thomas Hugo, a key member of the London and Middlesex Archaeological Society (Cotton and Johnson 2004). Conclusive proof of the fraud was finally exposed in 1860 when a Mr Charles Reed convinced a workman to steal some of the moulds and promptly exhibited them to the Society of Antiquaries (Evans 1893, 12; Noèl Hume 1956, 238). The production of these fakes continued, fulfilling market demand, and in 1869 Mr Syer Cummings again spoke to the British Archaeological Association on new forms and objects being produced by Billie and Charlie (Munro 1905, 121). Faking was by no means limited to simple lead trinkets and it is of particular relevance that flint artefacts were in the repertoire of many fakers. The most notorious flint forger was Edward Simpson, better known by his alias Flint Jack. Flint Jack was an itinerant man who made a living producing fake flint artefacts, stone tools and pottery vessels in the middle decades of the 19th century (Stevens 1894). In his later years Flint Jack made ‘a somewhat more honest penny by publicly exhibiting his process of manufacture’ (Evans 1893, 15), such as at a meeting of the Geologists Association on the 7th January 1862, where he produced various arrowheads selling them to the audience for six-pence a piece (Stevens 1894, 12). It was these knapping demonstrations that secured his notoriety as a forger. Flint Jack’s replicas, or ‘dooplicates’ as he is said to have referred to them, are relatively crude having been manufactured using a steel hammer and iron rod, with only basic skills acquired from gun-flint knappers (ibid. 9). The crudeness of the replicas did not hinder them entering museum collections including the British Museum (Rieth 1970, 78). Other museums also possess items manufactured by Flint Jack, for example, the Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh (Munro 1905) and the Salisbury (Blackmore) Museum (Stevens 1870; Stevens 1894, 15), but these seem to have been acquired as curios from a notorious forger. There are no known examples of fake axes attributed as Thames finds, but this is not to say that they do not exist. Flint Jack worked in London and by all accounts had a productive time: “For during quite a year he found the demand for celts and other flint implements fully up to his measure to manufacture them. Of course they were all disposed of as genuine…. But even the London dealers began to be overstocked…” (Stevens 1894, 10) Whilst in London, Flint Jack was also employed by Professor Tennant, a fossil dealer in the Strand, to search ballast bought in by foreign ships for geological specimens (Stevens 1894, 15). Is it also a possibility that this employment was used to pass fake antiquities attributed to the Thames? It is perhaps also an ironic twist that Flint Jack was himself once duped into purchasing

fake flints manufactured in Amiens, northern France (Rieth 1970, 78). Flint Jack and Billie and Charlie are notorious forgers as their activities in the antiquities trade of Victorian London were exposed. They should not be considered as exceptions in an honest industry, but rather as only the most apparent of nefarious characters operating in the trade. The dealers were equally unscrupulous and the practice of providing genuine antiquities with a false provenance to deceive the unwitting collector and increase the value of antiquities is particularly troubling and difficult to identify. Such practices have been exposed by Geoff Marsh’s review of Arretine Ware in London (1979). In one example, the wear on a complete Samian Ware vessel, attributed as a find from Lombard Street, indicated the find was actually from a wreck. Moreover, all the known examples from London had passed through the hands of 19th- and early 20th-century dealers prior to entering collections; none have been recovered from modern excavations (Marsh 1979, 125: 128). Marsh therefore argues that it is likely that all of the known examples have been provided with a false provenance (1979). The practice of providing a false provenance for genuine antiquities has been directly noted on material from the Thames. For example, two axes recorded by Roy Adkins and Ralph Jackson in the British Museum corpus of flint and stone axes from the Thames probably originate from New Zealand (1978, 56). It is clearly not possible for axes from New Zealand to represent a prehistoric introduction to the Thames and it seems most likely that they were not recovered from the river at all, but represent mis-attributed finds. It is perhaps justified to treat some of the imported finds in the Thames, including Scandinavian (Danish) axes (considered further below), with some degree of caution although it is likely many are genuine Thames finds. The antiquarian collectors and the curio cabinet The vast majority of finds from the Thames now residing in museums derive from the donation or purchase of private antiquaries’ collections. These collections vary enormously in their size and composition depending on the means and interests of the individual collectors. Likewise, the quality of provenance and catalogues also differ. These factors may clearly influence the distribution and range of materials recorded, but this issue is further compounded as many of the wealthier collectors, such as Thomas Layton, often held virtual monopolies on finds made in certain stretches of the river, whilst few collectors existed to generate collections in other areas. Few antiquaries collected their finds from source; most relied on dealers to act as middlemen, so allowing false antiquities and provenances to enter collections. The Rev. Thomas Hugo expressed caution at collecting from dealers in a paper entitled ‘Frauds of antiquities dealers,

- 29 -

THE RESIDUE OF RITUALISED ACTION: NEOLITHIC DEPOSITION PRACTICES IN THE MIDDLE THAMES VALLEY and especially the dealers in so-called London antiquities’ in which he advised against collecting ‘by deputy’ or paying over the odds. Ironically, Thomas Hugo clearly failed to follow his own sound advice and was deceived into purchasing numerous products of Billie and Charlie as genuine antiquities (Cotton 1999, 67). No account of antiquities from the River Thames is complete without reference to the collections of Thomas Layton F.S.A. (1819-1911). Layton had by his death amassed an unrivalled collection of antiquities alongside collections of prints, coins and an extensive library. In total he possessed some 2,600 antiquities of prehistoric to medieval date many of which were found in the Thames with other artefacts recovered from London and some from foreign shores (Whipp and Blackmore 1977, 90). Layton’s antiquities collection includes a bias towards prehistoric objects, particularly Neolithic artefacts (Smith 1920, 1). The collection includes some 600 Neolithic and Mesolithic flint tools, of which over half were axes and adzes (Whipp and Blackmore 1977, 93). The antiquities from the Thames in Layton’s collection were largely from the stretch of river between Richmond and Wandsworth, with few from further afield. Layton paid well for artefacts and was invariably the first to be offered new discoveries. As such he held a virtual monopoly on finds made in this stretch of the river; a model George F. Lawrence later followed successfully to obtain artefacts (Noèl Hume 1956, 23). The scale of Layton’s collection was not appreciated until his death, as few were allowed to see the collection and items were rarely displayed or loaned. His collections filled every corner of his house and many items were stored in tea chests in some 30 sheds erected in the garden to hold the overflow (Noèl Hume 1956; Whipp and Blackmore 1977). Layton kept few records of his collection and only a few items had labels recording a provenance; most of these had become illegible due to storage in often damp conditions (Noèl Hume 1956, 25). Thomas Layton had intended that his house would be turned into a museum and his collections displayed, but for various reasons this never happened and his antiquities were moved to the Brentford Library in 1913 and subsequently in 1963 were moved to London Museum (Whipp and Blackmore 1977). The legacy Thomas Layton has left is not quite what he intended. His obsessive collecting with little regard for provenance has been widely criticised. Ivor Noèl Hume commented that the display in Brentford Library was ‘a pathetic memorial to a misguided antiquary’ and warns ‘against the evils of collecting merely for the sake of collecting’ (1956, 25). Furthermore, the collections bias towards Neolithic stone tools in a short stretch of the river illustrates the spatial and chronological biases that are generated by the collection policy of an individual antiquary. This should be taken as a note of caution in attributing too much significance to distribution patterns generated by plotting material from antiquarian collections.

Archaeological excavation Archaeological excavation of the Thames riverbed, clearly presents many logistic problems and no excavation of the current course of the Thames has been attempted although it has long been desired by authors such as Ivor Noèl Hume (1956, 243) and George F. Lawrence (1929). On noting the number of finds made close to many of the islands in the Thames, George F. Lawrence comments that “perhaps some public-spirited antiquary will find the means for temporarily filling up the two ends of one of these channels, and then some serious digging could be done.” (1929, 73). During the construction of the Eton Rowing Course at Dorney, near Windsor, an alternative opportunity for excavation emerged in the form of a fully-silted former channel of the Thames, one of many in the middle reaches of the river. The former channel contained deposits dating from the early Neolithic onwards and had fully silted by the Roman period. A portion of this channel that contained timber structures, dating from the late Bronze Age and Iron Age, was excavated, and a further 550 m of channel was monitored under a watching brief (Allen et al. 2000, 86). The excavations produced many significant discoveries. The earliest find was a perforated pebble hammer, probably of Mesolithic date, discovered on the channel’s edge (F. Roe pers. comm.). Many Neolithic finds were also made, including disarticulated human bone, one articulated skeleton and deliberate arrangement of an ox skull and antler on the river bank. The Neolithic discoveries are considered further below. Although beyond the realms of this study, it is noteworthy that post-Neolithic discoveries were also made including Bronze Age, Iron Age and Roman pottery, a pair of Roman querns and a Roman scythe (ibid.). 3.2.1. Artefacts and investigations A wealth of articles and books has been produced on artefacts from the Thames. Generic overviews of discoveries have been presented at regular intervals (Smith 1920; Lawrence 1929; Noèl Hume 1956; Lacaille 1961) and in recent years Jon Cotton has published many new discoveries from the Thames (Cotton and Merriman 1991; Cotton et al. 1996) and championed new research (Cotton 1999; Cotton and Johnson 2004). Many investigations have focussed on individual materials, or even specific artefact forms, such as: flint and stone axes (excluding adzes and chisels) (Adkins and Jackson 1978), crown antler mace-heads (Simpson 1996), human remains (Bradley and Gordon 1988) and Bronze Age metalwork (Ehrenberg 1980; York 2002). Other studies have focused on incorporating the corpus into larger artefact typologies, for example flint and stone mace-heads (Roe 1979), polished discoidal knives (Clark 1928), early Bronze Age flint daggers (Grimes 1931), early Bronze Age metal daggers (Gerloff 1975) and Bronze Age spearheads (Ehrenberg 1977). It is particularly noteworthy that due to the vast quantity and

- 30 -

CHAPTER 3: NATURAL PLACES – UNALTERED LANDSCAPES chronological range of artefacts, no attempt has ever been made to produce an overall synthesis of the discoveries. This study will review materials and artefacts dating from the Mesolithic to early Bronze Age, but makes no claim to produce a comprehensive catalogue. As discussed above, due to the nature of the recovery and curation of the majority of the artefacts, the focus of this review is generic chronological trends and ranges of materials rather than specifics. Mesolithic Mesolithic artefacts are well represented in collections of Thames antiquities. Flints include numerous ‘Thames picks’, a generic term commonly applied to core tools including what are now known as tranchet axes (Field 1989, 1). The vast majority of these tools are likely to date from the Mesolithic, although similar tranchet tools have been noted in assemblages of the later Neolithic. George F. Lawrence indicates that he had over 100 ‘Thames picks’ in his collection, recovered from various stretches of the Thames. Thomas Layton also has several in his collection, including an exceptionally finely manufactured example measuring nearly 30 cm (Smith 1920, 3). In a recent study, Dave Field examined a random sample of core tools and tranchet axes from the Thames, demonstrating considerable variety in the size and quality of the artefacts, typical of many ‘dry-land’ assemblages, suggesting that the presence of large artefacts from the Thames is over-emphasised in early literature (1989). In more recent years several axes and adzes have been recovered from the tidal stretches of the Thames foreshore and a core was also recovered (Cotton and Merriman 1991; Cotton et al. 1996). Flakes, cores and small flake tools are under represented in collections from the Thames, and the occurrence of few are noted, although Lawrence records the recovery of ‘pigmies’ (microliths or small flakes/blades) from Eel Pie Island (1929, 74) and Putney Bridge (ibid. 90). A few perforated pebble hammers are recorded from the Thames (Roe 1979) including an example from the excavated channel on the Eton Rowing Course (F. Roe pers. comm.). The tool form has predominately Mesolithic associations, although Neolithic examples are known (Roe 1979, 36); it is, however, noteworthy that relatively few pebble hammers have been recovered for the Thames, in relation to the number of later perforated forms such as the maceheads and battle-axes. Numerous antler mattocks have also been recovered, predominantly from the lower reaches of the river (Lacaille 1961, 134-137; Smith 1989). The chronology of these tools is however vague and whilst some have known Mesolithic associations and have been dated to the Mesolithic, others have been dated to the Neolithic (Bonsall and Smith 1989; Smith 1989). A perforated antler was also recently discovered in the early Neolithic midden deposits on Eton Rowing Course, Area 6 (Jones forthcoming). No human remains from the river have been dated to the Mesolithic, but nor are any known from dry-land contexts. The absence of human remains from the river may represent a genuine pattern, but as

only 25 human bones from the Thames have been dated it is not possible to assert this with confidence (Bradley and Gordon 1988; 9 dates: Allen et al. 2000; 16 dates). Mesolithic funerary and mortuary practice is considered further in Chapter 7.3. Neolithic During the Neolithic there is a notable increase in the number of artefacts deposited from the preceding period. Artefacts recovered include pottery, flint and stone tools (such as axes, adzes, chisels and mace-heads), human bone, animal bone and wooden implements. Holgate records 25 complete or partial Neolithic vessels from ‘watery’ contexts in the Thames Valley; all are from the Thames (1988, 283). The early Neolithic is represented by fragments of a carinated ‘Plain Bowl’ at Hammersmith, parts of Plain Bowls at Syon Reach and Mortlake and a Plain Bowl cup from Kew Bridge (ibid.). In addition, in recent years systematic collection on the Thames foreshore and excavation at the Eton Rowing Course have recovered further small Plain Bowl sherds (Cotton et al. 1996, 10; Allen et al. 2000, 88). All styles of Peterborough Ware are well represented, but Mortlake Ware is most prolific. Ebbsfleet Ware has been recovered from Mortlake (four vessels) and Hammersmith (three vessels). At least 11 Mortlake Ware vessels are known from the Thames; significantly, 6 of these vessels occur upstream of the main distribution in the tidal reaches of the Thames. At Crowmarsh two intact vessels, and one broken only by dredging, were recovered (Abbott and Smith 1910, 341 and 344 Plate 38; Smith 1924b, 128). A complete Mortlake Ware vessel and fragments of a second were also found at Hedsor, near Cookham (Baynes 1921, 316; Head 1955, 37) and part of a vessel was found at Weybridge (Anon. 1925, 431). Further downstream four vessels were found at Mortlake, including the complete ‘Mortlake’ bowl in the British Museum (Cotton and Johnson 2004, 131), and a further example was found at Putney (Curle 1924, 149). Only two Fengate Ware vessels are known from the Thames, one was found at Mortlake and part of a second vessel was found at Wandsworth (Smith 1920, 11). In addition, to the vessels listed be Holgate (1988), Lawrence lists that large fragments of a ‘Mortlake vessel’ were found at Hammersmith and that a complete decorated ‘pre-Beaker’ vessel was found at Barns Elm (Lawrence 1929, 86). The recovery of Ebbsfleet Ware pottery from the bed of the Ebbsfleet provides a note of caution regarding the context of river finds in the Lower Thames Valley (Burchell and Piggott 1939). The pottery and associated flints were not recovered from the riverine deposits, but from a land surface preserved beneath some 4-5 m of alluvial deposits. Recent works by Oxford Archaeology have again revealed this sequence, recovering a near complete vessel from this surface and identifying in situ flint knapping and deposits of flintwork within tree-throw holes (S. Foreman pers. comm.). It is possible that the

- 31 -

THE RESIDUE OF RITUALISED ACTION: NEOLITHIC DEPOSITION PRACTICES IN THE MIDDLE THAMES VALLEY material dredged from Mortlake and other locations in the tidal reaches of the Thames may originate from similar deposits. The vessel from Hedsor, near Cookham was found ‘lying on the peat which underlies the ballast, the latter being about six feet (1.8 m) in depth. Cracks in the side of the vessel were apparently full of peat’ (Baynes 1921), but it is likely this vessel was always within a riverine context. Grooved Ware is notably absent from rivers, particularly considering that other decorated forms, such as Peterborough Ware and Beaker, are well represented. A reference is made to possible Grooved Ware sherds from Thames at Strand-on-the-Green (Macdonald 1976), but this identification has not been confirmed. It is therefore possible that the exclusion of Grooved Ware from river contexts is intentional (see below). Numerous axes have been recovered from the Thames and its tributaries, but due to the nature of the collection and curation an accurate figure will never be known. Adkins and Jackson recorded a total of 376 axes from the Thames, excluding adzes and chisels and also axes labelled only ‘Thames’ or ‘Thames, London’ (1978, 5). Lawrence, however, thoughtfully noted that polished adzes are rare and that he was only aware of ‘about six’ chisels (1929, 96). Accurate figures are, however, less pertinent than the general trends that may be observed. A large number of axes from the Thames are complete, rather than broken, and that their condition varies from apparently unused to heavily worn (ibid. 10). It has also been demonstrated that many of the axes from the Thames are larger than dry land examples (Chappell 1987, 339). The trend towards the recovery from river contexts is further demonstrated by Robin Holgate’s study (1988). Holgate recorded a total of 486 compete axes in the Thames Valley, of which 306 axes (62%) were recovered from rivers (Holgate 1988, 104-5). The proportion of axes recovered from rivers is clearly significant. Holgate considers that axes probably represent ‘votive’ offerings as complete axes are rarely found on domestic sites and therefore cannot be explained by the erosion and incorporation of finds from ‘habitation’ sites into rivers (1988, 105). Holgate drew further patterning from a chronological division of axe forms, which placed thinbutted forms in the later Neolithic. This typology is, however, unreliable as it uncritically applies Northern European typologies and is not employed in this study (Gardiner 1988, 19). A small number of axes recovered exhibited variable surface cortication, indicating that they entered the river with their haft. Three examples exhibit a lighter band where the haft was present (Lawrence 1929, plate 2 No.3; Adkins and Jackson 1978: No. 314 and No.215), and a further example where the entire butt exhibits a lighter cortication, indicating it may have been entirely encased in a haft (Adkins and Jackson 1978, 11 No. 158 and see Figure 12).

A number of ‘exotic’ axes are also known from the Thames, including Scandinavian (Danish) forms, waisted ‘Seamer’ style forms, jadeite axes from central Europe and also a high proportion of British axes from distant sources including Cornwall, the Lake District and North Wales (Cummins 1979, 12). Many of these exotic pieces should be treated with caution, as they passed through the hands of antiquity dealers, however, the recovery of British axes from distant sources is not unusual and imported jadeite axes are know from, for example, archaeological excavation on the Sweet Track, Somerset (Coles and Coles 1986) and at Wroot in the Humberhead Levels (Van de Noort 2004, 95 and fig 43). The Scandinavian ‘Danish’ forms should be considered with a little caution as the two examples from the Thames originate from the Layton and Lloyd Collections and both are recorded as found in ‘Old England, Brentford’, a location that several artefacts of dubious provenance were said to have been recovered from (Adkins and Jackson 1978, 13). Scandinavian axes represent a common form, readily available on the continent and it is possible that dealers may have passed a common continental form as a rare Neolithic import. It is, however, possible that these axes are genuine finds, as Scandinavian axes and daggers are found along the North Sea coast, particularly in Kent, East Anglia and the Thames (Piggott 1938, 80-81; Sheridan 1992). A stratified example is also known from the primary turf mound of Julliberrie’s Grave, an oval barrow in Chilham, Kent (Jessup 1939, 267-269). Figure 11: Examples of flint axes from the Thames. 1. Scandinavian form from Brentford, Old England. 2. Polished axe from Harmondsworth. 3. Seamer forms from Waterloo Bridge (after Adkins and Jackson 1978)

The distribution of axes in the Thames was considered by Adkins and Jackson who highlighted a general trend towards an increasing number of finds moving downstream from Lechlade to London. Moreover, distinct concentrations were noted at Reading, Maidenhead, between Windsor and Staines, in the lower Thames between Kingston and Battersea and at Erith (1978, 8 and fig. 3). The significance of these distributions has been challenged by Margaret Ehrenberg who examined the distribution of Neolithic axes against late Bronze Age spearheads and pagan Saxon spearheads (Ehrenberg 1980, 6: fig. 4). The distribution pattern of Neolithic axes and late Bronze Age spearheads was noted as remarkably similar, perhaps indicating a general level

- 32 -

CHAPTER 3: NATURAL PLACES – UNALTERED LANDSCAPES of increased activity downstream throughout prehistory, although the pattern may simply reflect increased dredging in the middle and lower reaches of the Thames (Ehrenberg 1980, 7). Julian Thomas suggests this correlation may represent continuity of practice and place over a prolonged period (1999, 85), but as an alternative it is possible that some of the Neolithic axes entered the river in the Bronze Age as curated objects. Such a suggestion is not entirely beyond possibility as, for example, a later Neolithic polished chisel and Beaker knife were recovered from an occupation deposit in a later Bronze Age ditch on the Maidenhead to Windsor Flood Alleviation Scheme (Allen et al. forthcoming-a) . In addition to axes, adzes and chisels, a significant number of flint and stone mace-heads have also been recovered from the Thames. The stone forms, as defined by Fiona Roe, are most commonly associated with Grooved Ware contexts (Roe 1979, 30). The stone maceheads, particularly of ovoid form, exhibit a very strong concentration in the lower reaches of the Thames (ibid. and 35: fig. 11); pestle forms of mace-head are also known form the lower Thames. Roe observed that a trait largely peculiar to the Thames among flint ovoid maceheads was the use of naturally perforated flint pebbles. Some of these pebbles exhibited little modification, whilst others had been polished or flaked to shape (Roe 1968, 149). A number of the flint mace-heads are reminiscent of antler mace-heads and may be considered skeuomorphic. For example, Lawrence illustrated a fine faceted example from Syon Reach (1929, 87: plate 8 A.2). A further example of a naturally perforated flint mace-head that exhibits polished scoops, apparently in imitation of antler, has recently been deposited at the River and Rowing Museum in Henley having for many years been used as a gavel at committee meetings of the Thames Conservancy Board. ‘Crown’ antler mace-heads represent a particularly interesting implement as the vast majority of known examples from the United Kingdom (41 of 58) have been recovered from the Thames (Simpson 1996, 295). The distribution of antler mace-heads in the Thames is also particularly tight. All examples from the Thames are recorded downstream of Windsor, with a significant increase in concentration in the tidal reaches of the Thames between Teddington and Battersea (Simpson 1996, 296: fig. 3). Where recovered from stratified contexts (i.e. not from the Thames), these implements have later Neolithic associations (Simpson 1996), and are considered to take chronological precedence over flint and stone forms (Smith 1926; Roe 1968). These artefacts are worked from the lower burr end of an antler beam, that is cut and commonly polished; the central circular perforation commonly appears to have been made with a drill (Simpson 1996, 295). Five examples from the Thames are decorated; two exhibit large polished facets, whilst three exhibit fine lozenge-shaped facets arranged in a lattice. The decoration on the latter examples is characteristic of Fiona Roe’s distinctive, but widely dispersed, Maesmore (Maesmawr) group of stone maceheads (Roe 1968; Simpson 1996, 299). Three of the

decorated examples were recorded as ‘Windmill Lane, Brentford’, a location Lacaille considers to refer to a ‘Windmill Road’ (1961, 138). Two of these, from the Layton Collection, are further recorded as ‘found at a depth of 13 feet (c 4 m) together with 11 other antler mace-heads’ (Simpson 1996, 297). Simpson notes that a further four examples in the Museum of London are labelled ‘Windmill Lane’, and seven from the Layton Collection are labelled ‘Brentford’, perhaps representing the original group (ibid.). The possibility that this group may represent a hoard is an interesting suggestion, but no more than speculation. Several other flint and stone implements from rivers have been published, including leaf arrowheads and various knives (see for example, Lawrence 1929). In defining the typology and distribution of polished discoidal knives, J D G Clark identified 13 examples from the Thames Basin, of which at least seven were recovered from the Thames (at Strand-on-the Green, Windsor, Benson Lock, Woolwich, Putney Bridge and Barns Elms) (Clark 1928).Flakes and simple flake tools are, however, notably under-represented in published collections, a pattern probably reflecting the collection bias of both dredgers and antiquaries. The flakes recovered from excavations in the Neolithic channels on the Eton Rowing Course go some way in demonstrating that quantities of smaller flake material was also present in the channel (Allen et al. 2000). One unusual item is a tribrach, a three-pointed bifacial retouched tool, recovered from Southall (Smith 1920, 3: fig. 3). Three parallels are known for this artefact, but none have been recovered from secure context and the form remains undated although a Neolithic to early Bronze Age date is most probably (Field and Lamdin-Whymark 2007). A large number of human bones, particularly skulls, have been recovered from the Thames and, whilst not all were retained, some 299 have been identified in museum collections (Bradley and Gordon 1988). Bradley and Gordon dated 12 of these skulls, of which one from Battersea dated to the Neolithic (OxA-1199 4880±80 BP, 3950-3500 (93%) or 3450-3350 (2.4%) cal BC Bradley et al. 1988, 508). More recent work at Eton Rowing Course has demonstrated that a far wider range of bones may be recovered from the river under archaeological conditions, although skulls are still over represented in the assemblage. The excavations produced the skull of an adult male aged over 45 from an early Neolithic phase of channel radiocarbon dated to 3660-3370 cal BC (OxA8820 4795±50 BP) (Allen et al. 2000, 88 ). Among the remains of a beaver lodge on EX1, radiocarbon dated to 3640-3360 cal BC (BM-3185 4700±50 BP), a finger bone was found associated with flints and sherds of Plain Bowl pottery (ibid.). Further along the channel, the skull of an adult male aged around 35 dated to the middle Neolithic (OxA-8821 4155±45 BP, 3330-2920 cal BC) and a complete skeleton recovered from the river channel close to Area 6, was dated to the later Neolithic (OxA-8817 4155±45, 2890-2580 cal BC) (ibid.). Many other human bones were recovered from the channel. Indeed, of 16

- 33 -

THE RESIDUE OF RITUALISED ACTION: NEOLITHIC DEPOSITION PRACTICES IN THE MIDDLE THAMES VALLEY bones dated only 3 were Neolithic; the others dated from the Bronze Age and Iron Age. The excavation in the channel at Eton Rowing Course also demonstrates the presence of carefully deposited animal bone, such as an ox skull placed on the river bank that was overlain by an antler (Skull- OxA-8815 4500±50 BP, 3370-3020 cal BC, Antler- OxA-8752 4425±40 BP, 3330-2910 cal BC). A cattle skeleton dated to 3640-3370 cal BC (BM-3177 4750±50 BP) was also recovered from the river close to the bank on EX 3, but beside evidence that the animal probably entered the river as an articulated body, it is not possible to determine the agency which introduced the animal to the river. Although vast quantities of animal bone have been recovered from the river (see for example the opening quote from Stevens (1883)), no other examples of placed animal bone deposits have been recorded. Further systematic excavation will no doubt identify additional examples and the absence from antiquarian records purely reflects recovery methods and collection bias. Late Neolithic/early Bronze Age (Beaker) A diverse range of material of Beaker date has been recovered from the Thames. Beaker pottery has been recovered from several localities mainly in the Lower Thames Valley. A total of 14 Beakers is recorded from the Thames. The Layton Collection included at least four beakers, of which three have Thames provenances: Brentford (Old England), Hammersmith and Kew (Smith 1920, 11). Lawrence illustrates two Beakers found at Mortlake, (one is complete and the second fragmentary (Lawrence 1929, 84 and Plate 7 b)) and lists a further two examples (ibid. 82 and 84). A further complete Beaker from Mortlake was illustrated by Abbott and Smith (1910, 340 Plate 37). Another unpublished Beaker is known from Hammersmith and two other examples from Mortlake (Clarke 1970, Nos. 500, 578 and 579). Clarke also lists two bowls from Mortlake and Putney as Beaker vessels (Curle 1924; Clarke 1970, Nos. 981 and 982).More recently in 1976, a significant portion of a handled Beaker was found off the downstream tip of the Isleworth Eyot on the Middlesex foreshore (TQ 1682 7596) (Cotton et al. 1996, 12). A concentration of flint daggers has also been recorded in the Lower Thames Valley (Grimes 1931, 343 fig 2) and most of these are river finds. Of the 19 recorded by Grimes in the London area, 16 were from the Thames (ibid. 345). In addition, flint daggers from the Thames at Kingston and Wandsworth can be added (Field 1983), and a further example from ‘near London, digging on the shore of the Thames’ was recently published (Cotton and Merriman 1991, 43). An example has also been found in the River Wey at Weybridge (ibid. 45). The distribution of daggers is quite limited with the vast majority found between Teddington Lock and the City of London. In addition to the flint daggers, six examples of bone daggers have been recovered from the Thames. These were found at Windsor, Staines, Twickenham and two

examples from Thomas Layton’s collection are simply labelled ‘west of London’ (Smith 1920; Gerloff 1975, 175); a further example was found at Hensor, near Cookham (Baynes 1921, 316). The distribution of bone daggers is largely restricted to the Thames, with only two other examples recorded elsewhere. An example from Ystradyfodwg, Glamorganshire, Wales was found in a cairn on the summit of Craig y Park, Cwympark. It represents a miniature of a Camerton-Snowshill dagger (ibid.). The second example, from Bawburgh, Norfolk in the Arreton style, was recovered from peat deposits, possibly in a former river-bed (Kinnes 1978). As with flint daggers, bone daggers are seen as copies of early Bronze Age metal forms (Gerloff 1975, 175), but it is less apparent if they were manufactured as functional objects. It is significant that two of the examples from the Thames are modelled in their sheaths, perhaps indicating that they were used in costume or display rather than as functional objects (Kinnes 1978). Bone daggers are associated with deposition in wet places, primarily the lower reaches of the Thames, but the association with a burial cairn is also noteworthy. Barbed and tanged arrowheads and the occasional flaked knife have also been recovered from the Thames, although comparatively few are known in relation to the number of other flint artefacts (for examples, see Lawrence 1929; Cotton et al. 1996). A detailed consideration of these finds will not be made. Stone battle-axes form a well defined group, commonly associated with Beaker pottery, but in Yorkshire they are also associated with Food Vessels and Primary Series Urns (Roe 1966; Roe 1979, 23-26). These artefacts are relatively scarce in south-east England, except for a distinct concentration in the lower reaches of the Thames and a few isolated examples recovered from further upstream (Roe 1979, 27 fig 4); a pattern very similar to that of mace-heads (ibid. 35 fig 11). An elaborate hammerhead-shaped stone battle-axe from Syon Reach (Lawrence 1929, 85 Plate 6b No.3), is probably not of British origin; such examples have been recorded from Germany (F. Roe pers. comm.). A second stone axe also from Syon Reach, illustrated by Lawrence, appears to have been modelled on an early copper or bronze flat axe (Lawrence 1929, 79-80 Plate 4 b). Lawrence notes that metal axes of this form are ‘extremely rare’ from the Thames (Ibid), although early Bronze Age axes are present, as a recent find of a copper alloy cast-flanged axe of the Arreton tradition of the final Early Bronze Age (16th-15th Century BC) demonstrates (Cotton and Merriman 1991, 45).Bronze Age metalwork from the Thames has been considered by several authors (Gerloff 1975; Ehrenberg 1980; Needham 1988; York 2002); a detailed review is therefore not warranted here. The Beaker artefacts recovered from the river are similar to assemblages recovered from other ‘wet’ places, such as bogs, and have strong funerary associations. Finely decorated Beakers, stone battle-axes and flint, bone and metal daggers are commonly associated with funerary contexts when encountered on ‘dry’ land. No human

- 34 -

CHAPTER 3: NATURAL PLACES – UNALTERED LANDSCAPES remains from the Thames have, however, been dated to the early Bronze Age, but this should not be taken to suggest the absence of early Bronze Age human remains from the Thames. The absence may simply reflect the limited number of dates obtained on bone, or the existence of a differing burial practice; for example cremated remains would be very difficult to detect or recover in a riverine context. The link between burial and wet places is provided by a series of early Bronze Age burials on the margins of the East Anglian Fens that must have been made under waterlogged conditions (Healy and Housley 1992). This pattern will be explored further in the overview of deposition practices presented below. 3.2.2. Chronological summary of deposition practices This review of river deposits has inevitably focussed on the Thames due to the wealth of data resulting from extensive dredging and collection from the foreshore. Finds have been recovered from many tributaries of the Thames, such as the Wey, Kennet, Blackwater and Colne, and may indicate that further discoveries remain to be made in these rivers. However, the quantity and range of artefacts recovered from the Thames may suggest that the focus is not unwarranted. The distribution of artefacts from the Thames is striking, with the vast majority recovered from the lower tidal reaches of the river between Teddington Lock and Battersea. The concentration of artefacts in this area is not chronologically specific, with vast numbers of Mesolithic core tools recovered (Field 1989) and antler mattocks (Smith 1989; Simpson 1996, 295) found alongside numerous Neolithic axes (Adkins and Jackson 1978), flint and stone mace-heads (Roe 1979, 35), antler mace-heads (Simpson 1996, 296, fig. 3), later Neolithic polished discoidal knives (Clark 1928), Beaker pottery and flint daggers (Grimes 1931). There can be little doubt that this pattern is partly a reflection of increased levels of dredging downstream of Teddington Lock, particularly for the supply of ballast to colliers returning to the Tyne (Cotton 1999). A further factor that enhances the recovery of finds is the erosion and exposure of deposits by the tidal action of the river, see for example the distribution of recent reported discoveries (Cotton and Merriman 1991; Cotton et al. 1996) or results of the Thames Foreshore Survey (Milne et al. 1997; Webber and Ganiaris 2004). Another factor in the distribution of artefacts in the lower reaches of the Thames is the proximity of the area to London, the city’s antiquities dealers and also the ready market of learned gentlemen wishing to stock their private collections. Demand for these finds was high and good prices were paid. Many dealers, such as Roach and Lawrence, visited the dredgers and brought directly from them. Although these items were still desired in the upper and middle reaches of the Thames, the market and competition was less readily available. The concentration of finds around Reading is of note, as enthusiastic

antiquaries, such as Dr Joseph Stevens, operated in this area and readily reported discoveries in local journals. Therefore, arguably, the concentration of finds at Reading simply reflects local archaeological interest. It is, however, improbable that the observed distribution is entirely the product of collection biases, and one recent study demonstrates this well. Jill York’s study of Bronze Age metalwork from the Middle Thames successfully demonstrates that, despite problems with the dataset, significant patterns may be observed. York took a broad approach dividing the Middle Thames into 20 mile zones, whilst retaining the distribution of well attributed finds (York 2002, 80). Beyond the patterning observed in the 20 mile zones, a pattern was also revealed in the well attributed finds. A substantial concentration of middle and late Bronze Age metalwork was recorded at Taplow (York 2002, 81 fig.2), a concentration perhaps explained by the late Bronze Age and Iron Age hillfort above this find-spot (Allen et al. forthcoming-b), whilst a concentration of Bronze Age metalwork in the river below the outlier on which Windsor Castle was later constructed perhaps relates to another late Bronze Age hilltop site. Patterns will be considered with caution, but some are certainly worthy of comment. The pattern of a general increase in the number of finds from the source of the Thames to its mouth, first observed among the Neolithic axes by Adkins and Jackson (1978), appears genuine. It is also noteworthy that, like the upper reaches of the Thames, low numbers of finds have been recovered from tributaries, such as the Wey, Kennet, Blackwater and Colne. Certain categories of finds also serve to highlight that the concentration of artefacts in the lower reaches of the Thames is also a genuine pattern, albeit somewhat distorted by dredging. For example, polished discoidal knives, flint daggers, stone battle-axes, stone mace-heads and antler mace-heads are largely confined to the lower reaches of the Thames, with only the occasional find from the Middle Thames. The distribution of human remains and selected artefact types which highlight this pattern are shown in Figures 14 to 20. At a broader level of patterning, many of the finds from the Thames can be seen as ‘North Sea-type finds’ most commonly occurring along Britain’s eastern coast. For example, polished discoidal knives and daggers are mainly found in the Thames and East Anglia (Clark 1928; Grimes 1931), whilst ‘Scandinavian’ axes focus on Kent and the Essex coast (Piggott 1938, 80-81). The distribution of antler mace-heads (Simpson 1996), stone mace-heads and battle-axes (Roe 1979) is broader, but in each case the pattern favours the eastern side of Britain. The significance of the lower reaches of the Thames, particularly in relation to the Neolithic sea-levels and tidal zone will be explored further in the discussion below.

- 35 -

THE RESIDUE OF RITUALISED ACTION: NEOLITHIC DEPOSITION PRACTICES IN THE MIDDLE THAMES VALLEY

Figure 12: Distribution of Neolithic axes recovered from the Thames (after Adkins and Jackson 1978)

- 36 -

CHAPTER 3: NATURAL PLACES – UNALTERED LANDSCAPES

Figure 13: A schematic representation of the distribution of skulls in the Thames within each zone defined by Bradley and Gordon 1988

- 37 -

THE RESIDUE OF RITUALISED ACTION: NEOLITHIC DEPOSITION PRACTICES IN THE MIDDLE THAMES VALLEY

Figure 14: Distribution of later Neolithic antler mace-heads (after Simpson 1996)

- 38 -

CHAPTER 3: NATURAL PLACES – UNALTERED LANDSCAPES

Figure 15: Distribution of later Neolithic flint and stone mace-heads (after Roe 1979)

- 39 -

THE RESIDUE OF RITUALISED ACTION: NEOLITHIC DEPOSITION PRACTICES IN THE MIDDLE THAMES VALLEY

Figure 16: Distribution of later Neolithic polished discoidal knives (after Clarke 1928)

- 40 -

CHAPTER 3: NATURAL PLACES – UNALTERED LANDSCAPES

Figure 17: Distribution of early Bronze Age flint daggers (after Grimes 1931)

- 41 -

THE RESIDUE OF RITUALISED ACTION: NEOLITHIC DEPOSITION PRACTICES IN THE MIDDLE THAMES VALLEY

Figure 18: Distribution of early Bronze Age stone battle axes (after Roe 1979)

- 42 -

CHAPTER 3: NATURAL PLACES – UNALTERED LANDSCAPES Mesolithic It is difficult to characterise Mesolithic practices as the form of the Thames and its tributaries changed significantly during and since the period. The main changes are in the lower reaches of the Thames, where the rising sea level inundated the Mesolithic land surface and led to significant changes in the form and flow of the river itself (see Chapter 1.4). In the Lower Thames, dredging is likely to have incorporated numerous implements from presumed riverside early Mesolithic settlements similar in character to those of the Kennet Valley (e.g. Lobb et al. 1996) and in the middle reaches of the Thames at Dorney (Allen et al. forthcoming-a), Bray and Maidenhead (Wymer 1977, 4-5 and 8). Mesolithic artefacts, particularly ‘Thames picks’ and antler mattocks, are well represented in the lower reaches of the Thames, although the latter may simply reflect good conditions for preservation in the river, as opposed to the soils on the local terrace gravels. It is, however, noteworthy that in relation to later artefacts from the Thames, the Mesolithic flint implements are relatively common and their condition (such as completeness) is not unusual in relation to dry-land sites. Moreover, it has been suggested that the occurrence of antler mattocks in riverine and costal locations suggests they were used for specific activities related to these loci (Smith 1989).It is also clear that the few pebble mace-heads recovered do not form a distinct cluster in the river and are more commonly recovered from dry-land contexts (Roe 1979). This is not to suggest that Mesolithic finds are all accidental, but rather it is not possible to distinguish a significant contrast between the river and other depositional contexts with the available data. The evidence of intentional deposition in the river during the Mesolithic is somewhat enigmatic, but it is possible the origins of river deposition may lie in the traditions of the Mesolithic (Bradley 1998, xvii-xviii). Early Neolithic Deposition in the Thames during the early Neolithic begins to develop traits that can be traced into the later Neolithic, Bronze Age and beyond. One of these aspects is the occurrence of human remains in rivers. The earlier Neolithic human bone includes two skulls and a finger bone excavated at Dorney (Allen et al. 2000); a third skull from Battersea may also fall in the early Neolithic range (Bradley and Gordon 1988). Further consideration of human remains in the river will be made Chapter 7.3. It is likely that a proportion of the axes from the river are earlier Neolithic in date, although it is not possible to sub-divide forms accurately between the earlier and later Neolithic. It is significant that a large proportion of axes recovered from the river are intact and that complete axes are more common in river contexts than on ‘dry’ land, whilst axes are exceptionally rare on ‘domestic’ sites (Holgate 1988, 105).

The corpus of early Neolithic pottery from the Thames is relatively small compared to the middle Neolithic, consisting of three complete and partial Plain Bowls, a fragment of carinated bowl and small sherds from recent excavations (Cotton et al. 1996, 10; Allen et al. 2000, 88). Middle and late Neolithic The middle Neolithic is represented by few diagnostic artefacts, so specific practices are difficult to characterise, except for the distribution of a few artefacts. The recovery of complete and partially complete Peterborough Ware vessels is quite distinctive. The few vessels recovered upstream of Teddington Lock are certainly likely to have been deposited directly into the river, but the context of the numerous vessels recovered downstream is less clear. It is possible that some vessels were deposited in the river, but equally they may have existed on submerged land surfaces, as has been demonstrated in the Ebbsfleet valley. The completeness of recovered vessels is of interest as on ‘dry’ land only two nearly complete vessels have been recovered from pits, and reconstructable sherds were found in another pit (see Chapter 4.3). It therefore seems that vessels deposited in the river, or on the ‘wet’ middle Neolithic land surface, were more complete than those deposited in pits and other ‘dry’ contexts. Grooved Ware is conspicuously absent from the river. No obvious preservation bias can be suggested, as these vessels are no more fragile or less decorated than Peterborough Ware or Beaker. It therefore seems probable that Grooved Ware was not deposited in the river, or on the lower reaches of the Thames floodplain that were becoming increasingly inundated by the marine transgression. It is also relevant that Grooved Ware is predominantly associated with pits and monuments and rarely with mortuary contexts (Barclay 1999), perhaps precluding its association with rivers containing human remains. A single skull possibly falls in the middle Neolithic date range (Bradley and Gordon 1988) and a complete skeleton from Dorney dates to the late Neolithic (Allen et al. 2000). Among the axes the waisted ‘Seamer’ forms can be considered to date from the later Neolithic. The form is commonly associated with hoards and burials (Manby 1974; Edmonds 1995, 106). Recovery from the Thames provides an interesting context due to the existence of significant numbers of axes and the discovery of human remains. The association with burial practices will be considered further below in Chapter 7.3. Flint and antler mace-heads, which are generally considered to date from the later Neolithic, exhibit a very distinct distribution in southern Britain virtually confining them to the lower reaches of the Thames. The Maesmore-style decoration on three of the antler maceheads has been compared with decoration on Woodlandsstyle Grooved Ware (Barclay 1999), but despite this feature Grooved Ware and antler mace-heads are

- 43 -

THE RESIDUE OF RITUALISED ACTION: NEOLITHIC DEPOSITION PRACTICES IN THE MIDDLE THAMES VALLEY deposited in mutually exclusive contexts; only the latter being deposited in rivers. Late Neolithic/early Bronze Age (Beaker) The Beaker material from the river forms a particularly distinct group, consisting of complete and largely complete Beaker vessels, flint and bone daggers, battleaxes, a few arrowheads and occasional items of metalwork; essentially items with strong associations with mortuary practice. As discussed above, Beaker finds are largely concentrated in the lower reaches of the Thames, and certain locations, such as Syon Reach, are particularly prolific. Stuart Needham has demonstrated patterning among the metalwork, highlighting a linear trend along the course of the Thames for mutually exclusive locations of deposition for Arreton flanged axes verses spearheads and Camerton-Snowshill daggers (Needham 1988, 242 fig 8). Needham suggests that this reflects ‘different communities along the valley choosing, or being constrained, to discard different types of objects’ (1988, 241). Alternatively, one may see this distinct pattern as reflecting different meanings in deliberate deposits as in Britain daggers form a distinct part of the Beaker grave package, whilst axes are often found in hoards or as isolated finds (ibid. 230, table 1). 3.2.3. Discussion The wealth of artefacts and human remains recovered particularly from the lower reaches of the Thames reflect the emergence and development of a local deposition practice. The nature of both riverine deposits and artefact recovery presents specific problems for the interpretation of these acts. This is a particular concern in the lower tidal reaches of the Thames where it is necessary to consider if artefacts were deposited in a riverine context, or have been disturbed from another depositional context by dredging or erosion. The significant rise in sea level from the Neolithic has inundated much of the Neolithic land surface, often sealing it beneath deep layers of alluvium. For example, excavations at Ebbsfleet have demonstrated in situ deposits of pottery and flintwork on an eroded peat surface (S. Foreman pers. comm.) and it is possible other vessels from the Lower Thames derive from similar contexts. Moreover, recent investigations, as part of the Thames Foreshore Survey, have demonstrated the erosion of prehistoric land surfaces exposed at low tide (Milne et al. 1997). For example, the ‘Chelsea Club’, a Neolithic wooden artefact, was recovered from organic clays overlying peat and preserved trees, that were being actively eroded on the Thames foreshore (Webber and Ganiaris 2004). The object had not been deposited in the river, but on marshy ground, in a period of increased levels of over-bank flooding; that surface was ultimately encroached upon by rising sea levels (ibid. 126). The context of artefacts recovered from the lower reaches of the river should therefore be considered and interpreted with particular caution.

significant regression in prehistory peaked at c 3750 cal BC when mean sea-level dropped by over one metre, leading to significant peat formation (Sidell and Wilkinson 2004). The presence of objects in peat, or on the surface of the peat immediately prior to inundation by the sea, is significant as it indicates that some finds are not deposited in riverine contexts, but were deposited in ‘wet’ landscapes. The marine regression would have created a distinct liminal ‘wet’ zone between dryland and the sea covered by thick alder carr (Plate 1). Moreover, the renewed onset of the marine transgression gradually encroached and scoured this landscape, before proceeding to inundate fresh land. This inundation of an alder carr landscape by the marine transgression can be paralleled in the Humber wetlands (Van de Noort 2004, Ch. 2). The Humber wetlands are also associated with the deposition of Neolithic axes (including a jadeite example) and later finds of Bronze Age and Iron Age metalwork and bog bodies (ibid. Ch. 6), although the degree to which deposition is directly associated with the transgression is unclear. There is some evidence in the Humber Wetlands that the pre-Iron Age deposits were associated with the onset of mire development, rather than the wetland environment itself (Van de Noort 2004, 99). This situation is paralleled in the East Anglian Fens, where Francis Healy observed that many finds were in peat, but resting on the pre-peat surface (Healy 1996). In a similar vein, an increase in the deposition of metalwork at Flag Fen broadly correlates with inundation resulting from the marine transgression (Pryor 1991; Hall and Coles 1994).

Peat deposits formed on the Thames floodplain at intervals when the general trend of a marine transgression temporarily reversed and become a regression. The most - 44 -

Plate 1: An alder carr landscape (© English Nature)

CHAPTER 3: NATURAL PLACES – UNALTERED LANDSCAPES Robert van de Noort suggests that ‘the dynamic nature of the expanding mires may have triggered the selection of these landscapes for ritualised behaviour’ (Van de Noort 2004, 99). Deposition in the Thames can be said to follow this general trend, although the landscape change and transformation to mire are initiated by a marine regression, with further change in the early Neolithic as marine inundation resumed. The recent discovery of a crouched burial, associated with a fragmentary early Neolithic Plain Bowl vessel, sealed beneath peat on the Isle of Dogs is a good case in point. The burial, considered further in Chapter 5.6, was deposited in a wet alder carr landscape at the beginning of the marine regression (Anon. 2004). This burial highlights the significance of the environmental change in creating a focus for mortuary rites and votive deposition, much as the onset of burial and votive deposition in the Norfolk Fens in the early Bronze Age was associated with the onset of similar environmental conditions (Healy and Housley 1992). The distinctive character of the tidal reaches of the Thames and landscapes created by marine transgression and regression may, as with other landscapes, have served to trigger deposition practices in this distinctive landscape zone. The practice of deposition in the River Thames and other rivers may therefore have features in common with deposition in other ‘wet’ places. Accident or intention? A pattern of loss or a votive tradition “It has frequently occurred to me that the presence of so many fine implements in the beds of rivers and lakes is not easy to explain. The great intrinsic value of many of these to primitive man, able presumably to swim and dive, makes it difficult to account for all of these by the theory of accidental loss. May some of them have been thrown in as offerings…?” Lawrence (1929, 71) George F. Lawrence makes a good case for votive offerings at a time when many contemporaries considered the finds to be accidental losses at fords or from overturned boats (e.g. Grimes 1931, 345). The traditional explanation of accidental loss has persisted in studies of river finds until quite recently (for example Adkins and Jackson 1978), but more recent studies have focused on the interpretation of river deposits as ‘votive’, although not always fully engaging with the implication of this interpretation (for example Holgate 1988, 105). Votive deposition in rivers and other ‘wet’ places has been the focus of several studies, although these have often focussed on assemblages of Bronze Age and Iron Age metalwork (Ehrenberg 1980; Needham 1988; York 2002). Richard Bradley in The Passage of Arms (1990) explored the possibility that Bronze Age and Iron Age deposition practices evolved from Neolithic practices and possibly Mesolithic practice (ibid. Chapter 2). This idea

was further elaborated in the preface of the paperback edition (Bradley 1998, xvii), which highlighted recent research in Scandinavia. For example in Sweden during the Mesolithic, human and animal remains were deposited in water before the adoption of agriculture (Larsson et al. 1981, In Bradley 1998, xvii). The quantity of Mesolithic finds from the Thames may suggest they were deliberately deposited, although artefacts and materials from the river differ little from those found on dry land (for example Field 1989; Smith 1989). It is possible that the origin of deposition in rivers lies in ritualisation of Mesolithic action, such as the deposition of everyday tools, or in thought processes formalised or reworked by later acts. It can be argued that through the Neolithic to the early Bronze Age there is considerable continuity in the materials and objects incorporated in the river, but also that increased formality and focus can be observed in the practices over time. For example, complete objects are favoured for deposition in rivers and many of these, particularly the late Neolithic and early Bronze Age forms (e.g. polished discoidal knives and flint daggers), are rare in dry-land locations. Moreover, many of the specific late Neolithic and Bronze Age artefacts have strong mortuary associations in other regions of the country; this point is also directly made by the presence of human remains in the river. This association is further emphasised by the exclusion of Grooved Ware from the river. Grooved Ware is rarely associated with burials or funerary contexts, most commonly being associated with pits and monuments (Barclay 1999). The themes associated with river deposition in the Neolithic and early Bronze Age are very distinct and can have only persisted through the repeated re-enactment of ritualised acts. The Neolithic tradition established the context for later prehistoric river deposits of metalwork and human remains, although invariably the meaning of these acts may have changed considerably over time. The incorporation of human remains represents an important part of deposition practices associated with rivers from the early Neolithic onwards. The interpretation of these remains is, however, complicated by specific taphonomic issues associated with the dispersal of human (and animal) remains in rivers. Skulls dominate the assemblage of human bones recovered from rivers with concentrations in certain stretches of the river, and whilst to some degree this may reflect selective collection by dredgers, it had been interpreted as culturally selected incorporation (Bradley and Gordon 1988). Recent research has, however, highlighted that in rivers skeletal elements disperse at different rates and will ultimately be deposited in different locations. Skulls are particularly vulnerable to transportation, such as rolling along the river-bed, and may be deposited in backwaters (such as estuaries) creating natural rather than culturally selected concentrations (Knusel and Carr 1995, 165-166). Moreover, the absence of many other bones may be explained as the head can be easily detached from a decaying corpse, whilst the rest of the body may travel

- 45 -

THE RESIDUE OF RITUALISED ACTION: NEOLITHIC DEPOSITION PRACTICES IN THE MIDDLE THAMES VALLEY further downstream, i.e. to the sea (Turner et al. 2002, 431). The proportion and concentration of skulls in the Thames may, therefore, be influenced to some degree by natural processes, but certain aspects, such as the high proportion of male skulls, require further explanation. Knusel and Carr sought to explain the pattern through suicide, highlighting the high proportion of young males who today commit suicide (Knusel and Carr 1995, 167), but this is to assume that a modern culturally specific practice is analogous to the past; unfortunately it is not (Bradley 1995). The proposal that the human remains in rivers result from accidental drowning (Turner et al. 2002) requires further consideration against the archaeological data. It is, however, exceptionally difficult to justify the explanation of natural drowning, when one considers that the distribution pattern of human remains is not random, but focused upon the Lower Thames Valley and also correlates with the distribution of various artefacts from the late Neolithic and Beaker periods which have distinct funerary associations when encountered on dry-land. The artefacts and human remains in the river, therefore, appear to have been deposited in funerary rites or as acts of votive offering commemorating the dead. The chronological patterns of river deposition also correlate with regional patterns of monumentality and funerary practice considered further in Chapter 5 and Part III.

3.3.

Middens and finds spreads

This chapter considers four midden deposits and a finds spread on the preserved Neolithic land surface at Eton Rowing Course, Area 6, as well as finds spreads on preserved surfaces, such as those on Area 10, Excavation Area 1 (EX1), and Finds Scatter 2 at Lake End Road West, Dorney (Allen et al. forthcoming-a). Terminology The term ‘midden’ has been used to describe a broad range of ‘rubbish’ and ‘occupation’ deposits from a host of different periods and cultures. The haphazard deployment of the term has been challenged by Stuart Needham and Tony Spence in their analysis of refuse deposits from Runnymede Bridge (1996; 1997). Needham and Spence formulated the definition of ‘midden’ as: ‘an occupation deposit relatively rich in refuse, including archaeologically less tangible elements – notably decayed organics and comminuted structural clay – and with evidence for the deliberate and sequential accumulation of refuse at one location’ (Needham and Spence 1997, 80) In Neolithic studies the term ‘midden’ has been used to describe the original context of material later deposited in negative archaeological features such as pits or tree-throw holes. For example at Spong Hill, Francis Healy suggests that the deposits in Neolithic pits represent ‘accumulated

midden material’ (1988, 108), although no middens were actually found. The interpretation that the deposits in the pits derive from middens is purely based upon the poor condition of artefacts (in terms of fragmentation and abrasion) that are entering the features. The use of the term ‘midden’ in this context is rather presumptive and in a recent study of pit deposits Duncan Garrow choose to term these accumulations simply as ‘pre-pit contexts’ (Garrow 2005, 76); the question of the origin of deposits in pits and tree-throws will be explored in the discussion below. The deposits considered as ‘middens’ in this study would not qualify as middens using Needham and Spence’s definition as they do not contain structural clay (which is at best rare in Neolithic deposits). They also provide minimal evidence for deliberate or sequential accumulation. It is argued that Neolithic middens should be considered on their own terms, as their form and structure result from specific Neolithic practice. For the purpose of this study a broader definition of the term ‘midden’ is preferred: a discrete high density scatter of artefacts of various materials, re-deposited from another area of production or use, usually contained in a matrix that may include charcoal, faeces and decayed vegetal material. Finds spreads are distinguished from middens as, whilst they may contain a high density of artefacts, they are not, or are less clearly, defined by a distinctive dark soil matrix, but, most significantly, have not been concentrated into a midden by re-deposition. Find spreads are distinguished from scatters as the latter represent distinct areas of in situ knapping, in situ tasks or a combination of the two (see Chapter 3.5). 3.3.1. Midden assemblages The following section will consider the form and composition of the middens on the Eton Rowing Course and other finds spreads. Eton Rowing Course, Area 6 - The ‘middens’ The four midden deposits on Eton Rowing Course, Area 6 are closely associated with a finds spread on a preserved land surface, considered below, and deposits in tree-throw holes (Figure 19 and see Chapter 4.2). Treating these elements of the site as individual entities is an artificial procedure as they clearly form part of a sequence of interrelated deposition processes: this will be explored further in the concluding chapters (Part III). The midden deposits vary significantly in scale (see Table 3). Three of the middens were circular or sub circular in plan; 11421 and 11422 measured c 2.5 m diameter, whilst 11423 was smaller at 1.8 m diameter. All three of these deposits were relatively insubstantial, being in the region of only 0.075 m thick. Midden 11426 was oval in plan and was considerably more substantial covering an area of 12.3 m by 4.4 m by 0.22 m thick. The deposits contained flint, pottery, animal bone (except 11423) and burnt flint. Middens 11421 and 11422 also

- 46 -

CHAPTER 3: NATURAL PLACES – UNALTERED LANDSCAPES contained a few small fragments of burnt and broken quernstone (see Table 4). An examination of the density of finds per cubic metre of midden deposit reveals a broad pattern that the larger the deposit, the lower the density of finds (see Table 5). This perhaps indicates a difference in the composition of the middens, with the small middens containing a higher proportion of artefactual debris, whilst the larger midden 11426 contains a high ‘soil’ component perhaps deriving from hearth debris, faeces and vegetal matter. Table 3: Dimensions, surface area and volume of midden deposits on Eton Rowing Course, Area 6 Midden

Dimensions

11421

3.5 x 2.2 x 0.075 m 2.3 x 2.5 x 0.075 m 1.8 x 1.8 x 0.075 m 12.3 x 4.4 0.22 m

11422 11423 11426

Surface Area

Volume of Deposit

c

6.3 m²

0.47 m³

c

4.4 m²

0.33 m³

c

2.3 m²

0.17 m³

x

45.1 m²

9.90 m³

Area excavated (%) 6.3 m² (100 %) 4.4 m² (100 %) 2.3 m² (100 %) 11.8 m² (26 %)

Table 4: Finds recovered from the middens on Eton Rowing Course, Area 6 Midden

Flint

Pottery

Animal bone

Burnt flint

11421 11422 11423 11426

1168 377 566 2485

324/2087g 95/426g 168/492g 676/3094g

118 24 211

197g 653g 267g 308g

Stone (?small fragments of quern) 2 3

Midden

Flint

Pottery

Animal bone

Burnt flint

11421 11422 11423 11426

2485 1142 3329 956

689/4440g 288/1290g 988/2894 260/1190

251 73 81

419g 1979g 1571g 119g

Stone (?small fragments of quern) 4 9

The animal bone assemblage was relatively poorly preserved, as demonstrated by the high proportion of teeth in the assemblage (Jones forthcoming). Cattle was dominant among the identifiable fragments (68 fragments, 72%), but is likely to be over-represented due to a preservation bias. Sheep/goat (22 fragments) and pig (4 fragments) were also present. No wild species were identified (Table7). Plate 2: Eton Rowing Course, Area 6, midden 11421 partly excavated, note the dark deposit defining the scatter. (© Oxford Archaeology, with kind permission of Eton College)

The pottery recovered from the middens includes Carinated Bowl, of earliest Neolithic date, and early Neolithic Plain Bowl. A large portion of a Carinated Bowl (c 50%) was found crushed in situ in midden 11421. The vast majority of vessels were represented by only one or two sherds, and in general the majority of sherds were in abraded, weathered or very weathered condition, making the single large vessel crushed in situ an exception to the rule. A large number of vessels were represented (44, 17, 19 and 92 for middens 11421, 11422, 11423 and 11426 respectively), some of which conjoined between middens. Vessels conjoined between adjacent middens 11421 and 11422, and also between middens 11421 and 11426. Table 5: Density of finds recovered from the middens on Eton Rowing Course, Area 6, calculated per cubic metre of deposit

The flint assemblage, being less susceptible to weathering than pottery, was in relatively fresh condition with only slight post-depositional edge-damage. The assemblage (see Table 6) included a considerable quantity of knapping waste, as indicated by the presence of chips, cores, irregular waste and a hammerstone, but there was no evidence that this material was in situ, deriving from a single knapping event. A refitting exercise on midden 11421, revealed only two knapping refits – the last two flakes removed from an exhausted core. Refitting was not attempted on the other midden deposits. Further evidence of production is attested to by the presence of unfinished arrowheads in middens 11421 and 11426. The proportion of retouched tools in each was variable, but averaged 4.1% of the assemblage. A broad range of retouched tools was present including simple edge retouched flakes, scrapers, piercing tools and the occasional serrated flake. Low-powered use-wear techniques were employed on 519 flints from middens 11421 and 11426, revealing that in the region of 55.4% of the flints in the deposits were utilised.

Analysis of charred plant remains from the middens revealed charred cereal grains including Emmer Wheat and Rivet or Bread Style wheat. The charred assemblage on Eton Rowing Course was rather unusual for the Neolithic, with a high number of cereal grains (93 from Area 6) outnumbering hazelnut shell fragments by 2:1 (Robinson forthcoming). The middens also contained considerable quantities of charcoal, probably from hearths, that derive from a mixed deciduous woodland of Quercus with Ulmus and Fraxinus, with a shrubby under storey of Corylus, Prunus and Maloideae (Challinor forthcoming).

- 47 -

THE RESIDUE OF RITUALISED ACTION: NEOLITHIC DEPOSITION PRACTICES IN THE MIDDLE THAMES VALLEY

Figure 19: Plan of the Eton Rowing Lake, Area 6 surface midden; A. the distribution of artefacts; B. the relationship of tree-throw holes to midden deposits (after Allen et al. 2004, 88: fig. 9.4)

- 48 -

CHAPTER 3: NATURAL PLACES – UNALTERED LANDSCAPES Table 6: The flint assemblages from the midden deposits Eton A6 Middens

CATEGORY TYPE Flake Blade Bladelet Blade-like Irregular waste Chip Sieved chips 10-4 mm Sieved chips 4-2 mm Sieved chips