Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gq7q9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T20:05:49.918Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Neolithic Trackway within Peat Deposits at Silvertown, London

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 February 2014

A.D. Crockett ,
Michael J. Allen  and
Robert G. Scaife
A.D. Crockett
Affiliation:
Wessex Archaeology, Portway House, Old Sarum Park, Salisbury SP4 6EB
Michael J. Allen
Affiliation:
Wessex Archaeology, Portway House, Old Sarum Park, Salisbury SP4 6EB
Robert G. Scaife
Affiliation:
Department of Geography, University of Southampton, Highfield Southapton SO17 1BJ
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Excavations at Fort Street, Silvertown, London revealed a short length of a prehistoric trackway constructed within the floodplain of the Thames. Two pollen profiles were obtained through peat together with four radiocarbon dates; two from the trackway itself, one from near the bottom and one from near the top of the peat. These dates indicate that the trackway was constructed in the Early Neolithic and that peat formation took place in the Neolithic and Bronze Ages. The trackway is of considerable importance in that it represents the earliest known structure of this kind yet discovered in the London area.

Résumé

Des fouilles à Fort Street, Silvertown, Londres, ont révélé un court tronçon d'une voie préhistorique construite dans la plaine inondable de la Tamise. On a obtenu deux profils polliniques à travers la tourbe ainsi que quatre datations au radiocarbone, deux de la voie elle-même, une près du fond et une autre près du haut de la tourbière. Ces dates indiquent que la voie avait été construite au début du néolithique et que la tourbe s'était formée au néolithique et à l'âge du bronze. Cette voie est d'une importance considérable car elle constitue la plus ancienne structure connue de ce type jamais découverte dans la région londonienne.

Resúmen

Excavaciones en Fort Street, Silvertown, Londres han revelado un corto tramo de un camino prehistórico construido en el valle del rio Támesis. Se obtuvieron dos secuencias de polen de la turba junto con cuatro dataciones al carbono-14; dos procedentes de muestras del camino mismo, otra de cerca del fondo y otra de cerca de la superficie de la turba. Estas fechas indican que el camino fue construido en el Neolítico inicial, y que la formación del depósito de turba ocurrió durante el neolítico y la edad del bronce. La importancia de este descubrimiento es considerable, en cuanto el camino representa el más temprano ejemplo conocido de una estructura de este tipo descubierta en la zona de Londres.

Zusammenfassung

Ausgrabungen in der Fort Street in Silvertown, London, führten zur Entdeckung eines kurzen Abschnitts eines prähistorischen Weges, der in die Schwemmebene der Themse gebaut worden war. Zwei Pollenprofile wurden aus dem Torf gewonnen zusammen mit vier Radiokarbondaten, davon zwei vom Verbindungsweg selbst, eines nahe der Unterkante des Torfs und eines nahe der Oberkante. Diese Daten deuten an, dass der Weg im frühen Neolithikum gebaut worden war und die Torfbildung im Neolithikum und in der Bronzezeit stattfand. Der Verbindungsweg ist von großer Bedeutung, da er die früheste bekannte Konstruktion dieser Art ist, die bisher im Raum London entdeckt wurde.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , Volume 68 , 2002 , pp. 185 - 213
Copyright
Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 2002

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

Adkins, R. & Jackson, R. 1978. Neolithic Stone and Flint Axes from the River Thames: an illustrated corpus. London: British Museum Occasional Paper 1Google Scholar
Andersen, S.Th. 1970. The differential pollen productivity of trees and its significance for the interpretation of a pollen diagram from a forested region. In Birks, H.J.B. & West, R.G. (eds), Quaternary Plant Ecology, 109–15. Oxford: BlackwellGoogle Scholar
Baker, C.A., Moxey, P.A. & Oxford, P.M. 1978. Woodland continuity and change in Epping Forest. Field Studies 4, 645–69Google Scholar
Barrett, J.C. 1980. The pottery of the Later Bronze Age in lowland England. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 46, 297–319Google Scholar
Barrett, J.C. & Bond, D. 1988. The pottery. In Bond, D., Excavation at the North Ring, Mucking, Essex: a Late Bronze Age enclosure, Chelmsford: East Anglian Archaeology 43, 25–37Google Scholar
Bates, M.R. & Barham, A.J. 1995. Holocene alluvial stratigraphic architecture and archaeology in the Lower Thames area. In Bridgland, D.R., Allen, P. & Haggart, B.A. (eds), The Quaternary of the Lower Reaches of the Thames; field guide, 85–98. Durham, Quaternary Research AssociationGoogle Scholar
Birks, H.J.B., Deacon, J. & Peglar, S. 1975. Pollen maps for the British Isles 5000 years ago. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B189, 87–105Google Scholar
Bridgland, D.R. 1994. The Quaternary of the Thames. London, Chapman & HallCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, N. & Scaife, R.G. 1988. The pollen record. In Cox P., Excavation and survey on Furzey Island, Poole Harbour, Dorset, 1985. Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 110, 49–72Google Scholar
Clapham, A.R., Turin, T.G. & Moore, D.M. 1987. Flora of the British Isles (3rd edn). Cambridge: University PressGoogle Scholar
Coles, B. 1990. Anthropomorphic figurines from Britain and Ireland. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 56, 315–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coles, B. & Coles, J. 1986. Sweet Track to Glastonbury. London: Thames & HudsonGoogle Scholar
Crone, A. & Barber, J. 1981. Analytical techniques for the investigation of non-artefactual wood from prehistoric and medieval sites. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 111, 510–15Google Scholar
Davis, A., Scaife, R.G., Sidell, J. & Tyers, I. 1995. Assessment of the Environmental Material from Ferndale Street, North Woolwich (HW-FE95). London: unpublished archival report for Environmental Archaeology Section, Museum of London Archaeology ServiceGoogle Scholar
Devoy, R.J.N. 1979. Flandrian sea level changes and vegetational history of the lower Thames Estuary. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B285, 355–407Google Scholar
Edlin, H.L. 1949. Woodland Crafts in Britain. Cambridge: BatsfordGoogle Scholar
Ellison, A. & Harriss, J. 1972. Settlement and land use in the prehistory and early history of southern England: a case study based on locational models. In Clarke, D.L. (ed.), Models in Archaeology, 911–62. Cambridge: University PressGoogle Scholar
Gibbard, P.L. 1994. Pleistocene History of the Middle Thames Valley. Cambridge: University PressGoogle Scholar
Girling, M.A. 1988. The bark beetle Scolytus scolytus (Fabricius) and the possible role of elm disease in the early Neolithic. In Jones, M. (ed.), Archaeology and the Flora of the British Isles, 34–8. Oxford, Oxford University Committee for Archaeology 14Google Scholar
Godwin, H. 1975. History of the natural forests of Britain: establishment, dominance and destruction, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B271, 47–61Google Scholar
Greig, J.R.A. 1982. Past and present lime woods of Europe. In Bell, M.G. & Limbrey, S. (eds), Archaeological Aspects of Woodland Ecology, 23–55. Oxford: British Archaeological Report S146Google Scholar
Long, A.J., Scaife, R.G. & Edwards, R.J. 2000. Stratigraphic architecture, relative sea-level and models of estuary development in southern England: new data from Southampton Water. In Pye, K. & Allen, J.R.L. (eds), Coastal and Estuary Environments: sedimentology, geomorphology and geoarchaeology, 253–79. London: Geological Society Special Publication 175Google Scholar
Meddens, F.M. 1996. Sites from the Thames estuary wetlands, England, and their Bronze Age use. Antquity 70, 325–34Google Scholar
Meddens, F.M. & Sidell, J. 1995. Bronze Age trackways in east London. Current Archaeology 143, 412–6Google Scholar
Merriman, N. 1992. Predicting the unexpected: prehistoric sites recently discovered under alluvium in central London. In Needham, S. & Macklin, M.G. (eds), Alluvial Archaeology in Britain, 261–7. Oxford: Oxbow Monograph 27Google Scholar
Mook, W.G. 1986. Business meeting: recommendations/resolutions adopted by the twelfth International Radiocarbon Conference. Radiocarbon 28, 799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, P.D. & Webb, J.A. 1978. An Illustrated Guide to Pollen Analysis. London: Hodder & StoughtonGoogle Scholar
Moore, P.D., Webb, J.A. & Collinson, M.E. 1991. Pollen Analysis (2nd edn). Oxford: Blackwell ScientificGoogle Scholar
Pine, C.A., Martin, R.B. & Williamson, V.D. 1994. A Report on the Stratigraphy, Palaeoenvironmental and Archaeological Potential of the Fort Street/Pirie Street/Boxley Street site, Silvertown, Newham, London E16, Geoarchaeological Service Facility unpublished client report 94/11Google Scholar
Prehistoric Ceramic Research Group [PCRG]. 1997. Guidelines for the Analysis and Publication of Later Prehistoric Pottery. Salisbury: Prehistoric Ceramics Research Group Occasional Paper 1/2, revised editionGoogle Scholar
Raftery, B. 1996. Trackway Excavations in the Mountdillon Bogs, Co. Longford, 1985–1991. Dublin, Irish Archaeological Wetland Unit Transactions 3Google Scholar
Scaife, R.G. 1980. Late-Devensian and Flandrian palaeoecological studies in the Isle of Wight. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of LondonGoogle Scholar
Scaife, R.G. 1988. The elm decline in the pollen record of south east England and its relationship to early agriculture. In Jones, M. (ed.), Archaeology and the Flora of the British Isles, 21–33. Oxford, Oxford Univiversity Committee for Archaeology 14Google Scholar
Scaife, R.G. 1991a. Rainham Marshes: pollen analysis. Unpublished archival report for the Archaeology and Local History Centre, Passmore Edwards MuseumGoogle Scholar
Scaife, R.G. 1991b. Pollen investigation and vegetational history. In Cox, P.W. & Hearne, C.M., Redeemed from the Heath; the archaeology of the Wytch Farm oilfield 1987–90, 180–97. Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society Monograph 9Google Scholar
Scaife, R.G. 1994. Pollen Analysis and Biostratigraphy at Beckton Sewage Farm. Unpublished archival report for Environmental Archaeology Section, Museum of London Archaeology ServiceGoogle Scholar
Sidell, J., Scaife, R.G., Tucker, S. & Wilkinson, K. 1995. Palaeoenvironmental investigations at Bryan Road, Rotherhithe. London Archaeologist 7, 279–85Google Scholar
Sidell, J., Wilkinson, K., Scaife, R. & Cameron, N. 2000. Holocene Evolution of the London Thames; archaeological excavations (1991–1998) for the London Underground Limited jubilee Line Extension Project. London: Museum of London Monograph 5Google Scholar
Simmons, I.G. & Tooley, M.J. 1981. The Environment in British Prehistory. London: DuckworthGoogle Scholar
Smith, A.G. 1970. The influence of Mesolithic and Neolithic man on British vegetation: a discussion. In Walker, D. & West, R.G. (eds), Studies in the Vegetational History of the British Isles, 81–96. Cambridge: University PressGoogle Scholar
Tauber, H. 1965. Differential pollen dispersion and the interpretation of pollen diagrams. Danm. geol. Unders. II 89, 1–69Google Scholar
Thomas, C. & Rackham, J. 1996. Bramcote Green, Bermondsey: a Bronze Age trackway and palaeoenvironmental sequence. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 61, 221–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, J. 1962. The Tilia decline: an anthropogenic interpretation. New Phytologist 61, 328–41Google Scholar
Waller, M. 1994. Paludification and pollen representation: the influence of wetland size on Tilia representation in oollen diagrams. The Holocene 4, 430–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkinson, K.N., Scaife, R.G. & Sidell, E.J. 2000. Environmental and sea-level changes in London from 10,500 BP to the present: a case study from Silvertown. Proceedings of the Geologists' Association 111, 41–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittle, A. R., 1978. Resources and population in the British Neolithic. Antiquity 52, 34–42Google Scholar