Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T15:44:42.668Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Refitting Etton: Space, Time, and Material Culture Within a Causewayed Enclosure in Cambridgeshire

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 March 2013

Emma Beadsmoore ,
Duncan Garrow  and
Mark Knight
Emma Beadsmoore
Affiliation:
Cambridge Archaeological Unit, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3DZ
Duncan Garrow
Affiliation:
School of Archaeology, Classics, and Egyptology, University of Liverpool, Hartley Building, Brownlow Street, Liverpool L69 3GS
Mark Knight
Affiliation:
Cambridge Archaeological Unit, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3DZ
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper considers the dynamics of deposition around and across the causewayed enclosure at Etton, Cambridgeshire. As a result of detailed re-analysis (particularly refitting) of the pottery and flint assemblages from the site, it proved possible to shed new light both on the temporality of occupation and the character of deposition there. Certain aspects of our work challenge previous interpretations of the site, and of causewayed enclosures in general; but, just as importantly, others confirm materially what has previously been suggested. The quantities of material deposited at Etton reveal that the enclosure was occupied only very intermittently and certainly less regularly than other contemporary sites in the region. The spatial distribution of material suggests that the enclosure ditch lay open for the entirety of the monument's life, but that acts of deposition generally focused on a specific part of the monument at any one time. As well as enhancing our knowledge of one particular causewayed enclosure, it is hoped that this paper – in combination with our earlier analysis of the pit site at Kilverstone – makes clear the potential that detailed material analysis has to offer in relation to our understanding of the temporality of occupation on prehistoric sites in general.

Résumé

Cette étude examine la dynamique de dépôts aux alentours et dans l'enclos d'Etton, Cambridgeshire. Elle résulte d'une nouvelle analyse (en particulier d'une re-situation) des assemblages de poterie et de silex du site, il s'est avéré possible d'apporter de nouveaux éléments à la fois à la temporalité de l'occupation et aux caractéristiques des dépôts à.cet endroit. Certains aspects de nos travaux remettent en cause des interprétations antérieures du site et des enclos à chaussée empierrée en général; mais, et c'est tout aussi important, d'autres apportent une confirmation matérielle à ce qui avait été envisagé jusqu'alors. La quantité de matériaux déposés à Etton révèle que l'enclos ne fut occupé que par intermittence et certainement moins régulièrement que d'autres sites contemporains de la région. La répartition des matériaux dans l'espace donne à penser que le fossé de l'enclos est resté ouvert pendant toute la durée de la vie du monument, mais ces actes de dépôts se concentraient en général sur une partie particulière du monument à quelque moment que ce soit. Aussi bien que renforcer notre connaissance d'un enclos à chaussée empierrée particulier, nous espérons que cette étude – en association avec notre analyse antérieure du site de fosses de Kilverstone – met en évidence le potentiel qu'offre une analyse détaillée des matériaux en ce qui concerne notre compréhension du caractère temporaire de l'occupation des sites préhistoriques en général.

Résumen

Este trabajo considera la dinámica de la deposición alrededor de y en el recinto de tipo causeway en Etton, Cambridgeshire. Como resultado de un detallado reanálisis (particularmente el remontado) de los conjuntos de cerámica y líticos del yacimiento, ha sido posible aportar nuevas luces acerca de la temporalidad de la ocupación y del carácter de la deposición. Ciertos aspectos de nuestro trabajo desafían anteriores interpretaciones del yacimiento y de los recintos tipo causeway en general; pero, y es igualmente importante, otros confirman materialmente sugerencias previas. Las cantidades de material depositadas en Etton revelan que el recinto fue ocupado sólo de modo muy intermitente y ciertamente con menos regularidad que otros yacimientos contemporáneos en la región. La distribución espacial del material sugiere que el foso del recinto permaneció abierto durante todo el periodo de vida del monumento, pero que los actos de deposición generalmente se centraron en una parte específica del monumento en cada momento. Además de mejorar nuestro conocimiento de un recinto tipo causeway específico, este trabajo – conjuntamente con nuestro anterior análisis del yacimiento del pozo en Kilverstone – demuestra claramente el potencial que un análisis material detallado ofrece para nuestra interpretación de la temporalidad de ocupación de los yacimientos prehistóricos en general.

Zusammenfassung

Dieser Beitrag erörtert die Dynamik von Deponierungsvorgängen an und in der Kreisgrabenanlage von Etton, Cambridgeshire. Die detaillierte Neuuntersuchung von Ensembles von Keramik und Feuerstein – insbesondere das Anpassen von Fragmenten – ermöglichte neue Einsichten sowohl in die zeitlichen Abläufe der Nutzung des Fundplatzes als auch in den Charakter der Deponierungsvorgänge. Bestimmte Aspekte unserer Arbeit stellen bisherige Interpretationen der Kreisgrabenanlage von Etton und von Kreisgrabenanlagen generell in Frage; andere Aspekte wiederum, und dies ist ebenso bedeutsam, bestätigen bestimmte bislang vorgeschlagene Interpretationen. Die in Etton deponierten Fundmengen lassen erkennen, dass die Kreisgrabenanlage nur periodisch und sicherlich weniger regelmäßig benutzt wurde als zeitgleiche Fundplätze in der Region. Die räumliche Verteilung der Funde weist zum einen darauf hin, dass der Kreisgraben während der gesamten Nutzungszeit des Monuments offen lag, zum anderen, dass Deponierungshandlungen sich grundsätzlich zu bestimmten Zeiten auf bestimmte Abschnitte des Monuments konzentrierten. Ziel dieses Beitrages ist es, nicht nur unsere Kenntnis dieser einen Kreisgrabenanlage zu verbessern, sondern auch – gemeinsam mit unserer früheren Analyse des Grubenfundplatzes von Kilverstone – das Potenzial zu verdeutlichen, das eine derartige detaillierte Analyse des Fundmaterials bietet in Bezug auf unser Verständnis von Zeitabläufen der Nutzung prähistorischer Orte generell.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , Volume 76 , 2010 , pp. 115 - 134
Copyright
Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 2010

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

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bradley, R. 2007. The Prehistory of Britain and Ireland. Cambridge: University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, J. & Gaydarska, B. 2007. Parts and Wholes: fragmentation in prehistoric context. Oxford: OxbowGoogle Scholar
Cleal, R. 1984. The later Neolithic in Eastern England. In Bradley, R. & Gardiner, J. (eds), Neolithic Studies: a review of some current research, 135–60. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 133Google Scholar
Cooney, G. 2001. Bringing contemporary baggage to Neolithic landscapes. In Bender, B. & Winer, M. (eds), Contested Landscapes: movement, exile and place, 165–80. Oxford: BergGoogle Scholar
Edmonds, M. 1999. Ancestral Geographies of the Neolithic: landscapes, monuments and memory. London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Evans, C. 1988. Monuments and analogy: the interpretation of causewayed enclosures. In Burgess, C., Topping, P., Mordant, C. & Maddison, M. (eds), Enclosures and Defences in the Neolithic of Western Europe, 47–73. Oxford: British Archaeological Report S403Google Scholar
Evans, C. 2000. Review of Pryor 1998. Antiquity 74, 450–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, C., Edmonds, M. & Boreham, S. 2006. ‘Total’ archaeology and model landscapes: excavation of the Great Wilbraham causewayed enclosure, Cambridgeshire, 1975–6. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 72, 139–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrow, D. 2006. Pits, Settlement and Deposition During the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age in East Anglia. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrow, D. 2007. ‘It's 17km as the crow flies…’. Neolithic journeys seen through the material at either end. In Cummings, V. & Johnston, R. (eds), Prehistoric Journeys, 45–53. Oxford: OxbowGoogle Scholar
Garrow, D. 2010. The temporality of materials: occupation practices in Eastern England during the 5th and 4th millennia BC. In Finlayson, B. & Warren, G. (eds), Landscapes in Transition: understanding hunter-gatherer and farming landscapes in the early holocene of Europe and the Levant, 208–18. Amman: Council for British Research in the LevantGoogle Scholar
Garrow, D., Beadsmoore, E. & Knight, M. 2005. Pit clusters and the temporality of occupation: an earlier Neolithic site at Kilverstone, Thetford, Norfolk. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 71, 139–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrow, D., Lucy, S. & Gibson, D. 2006. Excavations at Kilverstone, Norfolk: an episodic landscape history. Cambridge: East Anglian Archaeology 113Google Scholar
Germany, M. 2007. Neolithic and Bronze Age Monuments and Middle Iron Age Settlement at Lodge Farm, St Osyth. Chelmsford: East Anglian Archaeology 117Google Scholar
Harris, O. 2005. Agents of identity: performance practice at the Etton causewayed enclosure. In Hoffman, D., Mills, J. & Cochrane, A. (eds), Elements of Being: mentalities, identities and movements. Oxford: British Archaeological Report S1437Google Scholar
Healy, F. 2004. Hambledon Hill and its implications. In Cleal, R. & Pollard, J. (eds), Monuments and Material Culture. Shaftesbury: Hobnob PressGoogle Scholar
Meadows, I. 2006. Tarmac Quarry Maxey: assessment report for phases 1–3. Unpublished Northamptonshire Archaeology reportGoogle Scholar
Mercer, R. & Healy, F. 2008. Hambledon Hill, Dorset, England. Excavation and Survey of a Neolithic Monument Complex and its Surrounding Landscape. Swindon: English HeritageGoogle Scholar
Pollard, J. 2001. The aesthetics of depositional practice. World Archaeology 33(2), 315–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pryor, F. 1998. Etton: excavations of a Neolithic causewayed enclosure near Maxey, Cambridgeshire 1982–7. London: English HeritageGoogle Scholar
Smith, I. 1965. Windmill Hill and Avebury: excavations by Alexander Keiller 1925–1939. Oxford: University PressGoogle Scholar
Smith, I. 1971. Causewayed enclosures. In Simpson, D. (ed.), Economy and Settlement in Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Britain and Europe. Leicester: University PressGoogle Scholar
Whittle, A., Bayliss, A. and Healy, F. forthcoming. Gathering Time: dating the early Neolithic enclosures of southern Britain and Ireland. Oxford: OxbowGoogle Scholar
Whittle, A., Pollard, J. & Grigson, C. 1999. The Harmony of Symbols: the Windmill Hill causewayed enclosure, Wiltshire. Oxford: OxbowCrossRefGoogle Scholar