Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T16:13:55.484Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Flag Fen: the wood

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Maisie Taylor
Maisie Taylor*
Affiliation:
Fenland Archaeological Trust, Flag Fen Excavations, Fourth Drove, Fengate, Peterborough PE1 5UR, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The method of excavating the platform is ostensibly simple, but every stage must be completed to a consistently high standard, particularly the maintenance of records. The amount of data generated every season is vast. For every level the procedure is the same: the wood is exposed and the surrounding peat removed so that the individual pieces are as clearly defined as possibIe whilst still in situ. The cleaned level is photographed from fixed positions in the roof of the excavation shelter. A plan is drawn, partly using the vertical photographs, but it is finished in the excavation, and amended where necessary during the lifting process. The wood is then lifted using teams of two or three excavators, at least one of whom needs to be very experienced. The wood is either allocated a number as it is lifted, or is sampled by metre square and spot height (O.D.). Provenance data, including grid reference, height O.D., and provisional measurements and description are noted on the field sheets.

Type
Special section
Information
Antiquity , Volume 66 , Issue 251 , June 1992 , pp. 476 - 498
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Boddy, L. & Ainsworth, A.M. 1984. Decomposition of Neolithic wood from the Sweet Track, Somerset Levels Papers 10: 92–6.Google Scholar
BS 565.1972. Glossary of terms relating to timber and woodwork. London: British Standards Institution.Google Scholar
Bulleid, A. & Gray, H. ST G. 1911. The Glastonbury Lake Village. Glastonbury: Glastonbury Antiquarian Society.Google Scholar
Coles, J.M. & Coles, B.J. 1989. People of the wetlands. London: Thames & Hudson Google Scholar
Coles, J.M. & Orme, B.J. 1982. Beaver in the Somerset Levels: some new evidence, Somerset Levels Papers 8: 67–72.Google Scholar
Corkhill, T. 1979. A glossary of wood. London: Stobart & Son. Google Scholar
Earwood, C. 1988. Wooden containers and other wooden artefacts from the Glastonbury Lake Village, Somerset Levels Papers 14: 83–90.Google Scholar
Petrequin, P. 1986. Les sites littoraux Néolithiques de Clairvaux-les-Lacs (Jura). Paris: Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme.Google Scholar
Pryor, F.M.M. 1991. English Heritage book of Flag Fen, Prehistoric Fenland centre. London: Batsford.Google Scholar
Pryor, F.M.M., French, C.A.I. & Taylor, M. 1986. Flag Fen, Fengate, Peterborough I: Discovery, reconnaissance and initial excavation (1982–85), Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 52: 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pryor, F.M.M. & Taylor, M. 1990. Bronze Age building techniques at Flag Fen, Peterborough, England, World Archaeology 21: 425–34.Google Scholar
Rackham, O. 1977. Neolithic woodland management in the Somerset Levels: Garvin’s, Walton Heath and Rowland’s Tracks, Somerset Levels Papers 3 : 65–72.Google Scholar
Wilson, K. & White, D.J.B. 1986. The anatomy of wood: its diversity and variability. London: Stobart.Google Scholar