Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2xdlg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-05T08:38:50.640Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘Total Archaeology’ and Model Landscapes: Excavation of the Great Wilbraham Causewayed Enclosure, Cambridgeshire, 1975–76

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 February 2014

Christopher Evans ,
Mark Edmonds ,
Steve Boreham ,
John Evans ,
Glynis Jones ,
Mark Knight  and
Tony Legge
Christopher Evans
Affiliation:
Cambridge Archaeological Unit, Dept of Archaeology, University of Cambridge
Mark Edmonds
Affiliation:
Dept of Archaeology, Kings Manor, University of York
Steve Boreham
Affiliation:
Dept of Geography, University of Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper presents the results of fieldwork and archive ‘excavation’ relating to the causewayed enclosure at Great Wilbraham near Cambridge. Initiated in 1975 by David Clarke and John Alexander, the project effectively ceased after one further season following Clarke's untimely death. Combining original data with new results from geophysical and environmental surveys, a reappraisal of the site and its landscape context is offered. ‘The archive provides a context in which to ask how the project might have developed had it not come to such an abrupt end. It also serves as a platform from which to review the assumptions that underpinned the formal approaches to landscape modelling that were so popular in the 1970s and the methodological principles which informed New Archaeology ‘in the field’.

Résumé

Cette étude présente les résultats d'une prospection et d'une excavation d'‘archives’ de l'enceinte à chaussée empierrée de Great Wilbraham près de Cambridge. Entreprise sur l'initiative de David Clarke et de John Alexander en 1975, le projet a en fait pris fin après une seule autre saison à la suite du décès prématuré de Clarke. Alliant données originales et nouveaux résultats des prospections géophysiques et environnementales, nous proposons une réévaluation du site et de son contexte paysager. Les archives fournissent un contexte dans lequel on peut se poser la question de savoir comment le projet aurait évolué s'il n'avait pas été si brutalement interrompu. Elles servent également de base de départ à partir de laquelle on peut réviser les théories sur lesquelles repose l'approche conventionnelle de modelage du paysage qui était si populaire dans les années 1970 et les principes méthodologiques qui animaient la Nouvelle Archéologie ‘de terrain’.

Zusammenfassung

In diesem Beitrag werden die Ergebnisse der Feldarbeit und der ,Archivausgrabung’ zur unterbrochenen Grabenanlage von Great Wilbraham, in der Nähe von Cambridge, vorgestellt. Das Projekt wurde 1975 von David Clarke und John Alexander initiiert und schließlich nach einer zweiten Feldkampagne nach Clarkes verfrühtem Tod eingestellt. Auf der Grundlage von Originaldaten der früheren Ausgrabung und neuen Ergebnissen geophysikalischer und umweltanalytischer Surveys, wird die Fundstelle und ihr Landschaftskontext neu bewertet. Dabei können auf der Grundlage des Archivs Fragen gestellt werden, wie sich z.B. das Projekt entwickelt haben könnte, wenn es nicht zu einem so abrupten Ende gekommen wäre. Das Archiv dient dabei auch als eine Art Plattform, von der aus die Hypothesen nachgeprüft werden können, die sowohl den formalen Ansätzen zu Landschaftsmodellen, die in den 1970ger Jahren so populär waren, als auch den methodischen Prinzipien, auf die sich die New Archaeology ,im Feld’ bezog, zugrunde lagen.

Résumen

Este artículo es el resultado del trabajo de campo y ‘excavación’ de los archivos sobre el recinto de tipo Causeway de Great Wilbraham cerca de Cambridge. El proyecto, iniciado en 1975 por David Clarke y John Alexander, cesó efectivamente después de otra temporada de excavación tras la prematura muerte de Clarke. A través de la combinación de los datos originales con nuevas prospecciones geofísicas y medioambientales, ofrecemos una reevaluación del yacimiento y el contexto de su paisaje. El archivo ofrece un contexto desde el que preguntarnos cuál pudiera haber sido el desarrollo del proyecto de no haber terminado de manera tan abrupta. También sirve como una plataforma desde la cual revisar las suposiciones que apuntalan los enfoques formales a la construcción de modelos sobre el paisaje que tan populares fueron en los años 70, y los principios metodológicos que informaron la Nueva Arqueología ‘en el campo’.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , Volume 72 , 2006 , pp. 113 - 162
Copyright
Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 2006

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

Alexander, J. 1970. The Directing of Archaeological Excavations. London: John BakerGoogle Scholar
Avery, M. 1982. The Neolithic causewayed enclosure, Abingdon. In Case, & Whittle, (eds) 1982, 10–50Google Scholar
Barker, G. & Webley, D. 1978. Causewayed camps and Early Neolithic economies in central southern England. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 44, 161–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, R. 1998. Interpreting enclosures. In Edmonds, M.. & Richards, C. (eds), Understanding the Neolithic of North-Western Europe, 188–203. Glasgow: Cruithne PressGoogle Scholar
Bradley, R. forthcoming. Discovery and Excavation (Dalrymple Lectures). Scottish Archaeological JournalGoogle Scholar
Cain, A.J. 1971. Colour and banding morphs in subfossil samples of the snail Cepaea. In Creed, R. (ed.), Ecological Genetics and Evolution, 65–92. Oxford: BlackwellCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cain, A.J. & Sheppard, P.M. 1950. Selection in the polymorphic land snail Cepaea nemoralis. Heredity 4, 275–94CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Case, H. 1956. The Neolithic causewayed camp at Abingdon, Berks. Archaeological Journal 36, 11–30Google Scholar
Case, H.J. & Whittle, A.W.R. 1982. Settlement Patterns in the Oxford Region: excavations at the Abingdon Enclosure and Other Sites. Oxford/London: Council for British Archaeology Research Report 44Google Scholar
Cherry, J.F., Gamble, C. & Shennan, S. 1978. Sampling in Contemporary British Archaeology. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 50Google Scholar
Clark, J.G.D. 1989. Prehistory at Cambridge and Beyond. Cambridge: University PressGoogle Scholar
Clark, J.G.D., Godwin, H. & Clifford, M.H. 1935. Report on excavations at Peacock's Farm, Shippea Hill, Cambridgeshire. Antiquaries journal 15, 283–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, J.G.D. & Godwin, H. 1962. The Neolithic in the Cambridgeshire fens. Antiquity 36, 10–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, J.G.D., Higgs, E.S. & Longworth, I.H. 1960. Excavations at the Neolithic site at Hurst Fen, Mildenhall, Suffolk, 1954, 1957 and 1958. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 26, 202–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, D.L. 1968. Analytical Archaeology. London: MethuenGoogle Scholar
Clarke, D.L. 1970. Beaker Pottery of Great Britain and Ireland. Cambridge: University PressGoogle Scholar
Clarke, D.L. 1972. A provisional model of an Iron Age society and its settlement system. In Clarke, D.L. (ed.), Models in Archaeology, 801–85. London: MethuenGoogle Scholar
Clarke, D.L. 1973. Archaeology: The loss of Innocence. Antiquity 47, 6–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, D.L. 1976. Mesolithic Europe: the economic basis. In Sieveking, G. de G., Longworth, I.H. & Wilson, K.E. (eds), Problems in Economic and Social Archaeology, 449–81. London: DuckworthGoogle Scholar
Clough, T.H.McK & Cummins, W.A. 1988. Stone Axe Studies 2. London: Council for British Archaeology Research Report 67Google Scholar
Coles, J.M. 1978. The Somerset Levels: A concave landscape. In Bown, H.C. & Fowler, P.J. (eds), Early Land Allotment in the British Isles, 147–4. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 48Google Scholar
Coles, J. & Minnitt, S. 1995. ‘Industrious and Fairly Civilized’: The Glastonbury Lake Village. Taunton: Somerset Levels ProjectGoogle Scholar
Cooney, G. 2000. Landscapes of Neolithic Ireland. London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Currey, J.D. & Cain, A.J. 1968. Climate and selection of banding morphs in Cepaea from the climatic optimum to the present day. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 253, 483–98Google Scholar
Darbishire, R. 1873. Notes on discoveries at Ehenside Tarn, Cumberland. Archaeologia 44, 273–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darby, H.C. 1940. The Medieval Fenland. Cambridge: University PressGoogle Scholar
Degerbøl, M. 1970. The Urus (Bos primigenius Boj.) and Neolithic domesticated cattle (Bos taurus domesticus Linne) in Denmark. Det Kongelige Danske Vildenskabernes Selskab, Biologiske Skrifter 17, 1–177Google Scholar
Edmonds, M. 1993. Interpreting causewayed enclosures in the past and the present. In Tilley, C. (ed.), Interpretative Archaeology, 99–142. Oxford: BergGoogle Scholar
Edmonds, M. 1999. Ancestral Geographies of the Neolithic: landscapes, monuments and memory. London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Edmonds, M., Evans, C. & Gibson, D. 1999. Assembly and collection: lithic complexes in the Cambridgeshire fenlands. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 65, 47–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, C. 1987. ‘Nomads in Waterland’? – prehistoric transhumance and fenland archaeology. Proceedings of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society 76, 27–39Google Scholar
Evans, C. 1988a. 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. 1988b. Acts of enclosure: a consideration of concentrically-organised causewayed enclosures. In Barrett, J.C. & Kinnes, I. (eds), The Archaeology of Context in the Neolithic and Bronze Age: recent trends, 85–96. Sheffield: J.R. Collis & University of Sheffield, Dept of Archaeology & PrehistoryGoogle Scholar
Evans, C. 1998. Constructing houses and building context: Bersu's Manx roundhouse campaign. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 64, 183–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, C. & Hodder, I. 2006a. A Woodland Archaeology: the Haddenham Project (I). Cambridge: McDonald Institute Research SeriesGoogle Scholar
Evans, C. & Hodder, I. 2006b. Marshland Communities and Cultural Landscape: the Haddenham Project (II). Cambridge: McDonald Institute Research SeriesGoogle Scholar
Evans, J.G. 1974. Land snails. In Green, H.S., Early Bronze Age burial, territory and population in Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire, and the Great Ouse Valley, 97–100. Archaeological journal 131, 75–139Google Scholar
Evans, J.G. 1976. Land snails. In Everson, P., Iron Age enclosures at the Queensway Health Centre site, Hardwick Park, Wellingborough, 97–8. Northamptonshire Archaeology 11, 89–99Google Scholar
Evans, J.G. 1979. The land mollusca. In Williams, J.H., St Peter's Street, Northampton, Excavations 1973–1976, 338–9. Northampton: Northampton Development CorporationGoogle Scholar
Evans, J.G. 1985. Land Mollusca. In Green, H.S. & Sofranoff, S., A Neolithic settlement at Stacey Bushes, Milton Keynes, 17–19. Records of Buckinghamshire, 10–37Google Scholar
Evans, J.G. 1991. An approach to the interpretation of dryground and wet-ground molluscan taxocenes from central-southern England. In Harris, D.R. & Thomas, K.D. (eds), Modelling Ecological Change, 75–89. London: Institute of Archaeology, University College LondonGoogle Scholar
Evans-Pritchard, E.E., 1940. The Nuer. London: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Fletcher, R. 1999. David Clarke. In Murray, T. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Archaeology: the great archaeologists (II), 855–68. Oxford: ABC-CLOGoogle Scholar
Garrow, D., Lucy, S. & Gibson, D. forthcoming. Excavations at Kilverstone, Norfolk: the Neolithic pits, later prehistoric, Romano-British and Anglo-Saxon occupation and later activity. East Anglian ArchaeologyGoogle Scholar
Grigson, C. 2000. The mammalian remains. In Whittle, A., Pollard, J. & Grigson, C., The Harmony of Symbols: the Windmill Hill causewayed enclosure, Wiltshire, 164–252. Oxford: Oxbow Books/Cardiff Studies in ArchaeologyGoogle Scholar
Hammond, N. 1979. David Clarke: a biographical sketch. In Analytical Archaeologist: Collected Papers of David L. Clarke, 1–13. London: Academic PressGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, T.D. 2000. The Drainage of Wilbraham, Fulbourn and Teversham Fens. Little Wilbrahmam: GreyfriarsGoogle Scholar
Healy, F. 1987. Prediction or prejudice? The relationship between field survey and excavation. In Brown, A.G. & Edmonds, M. (eds), Lithic Analysis and Later British Prehistory, 9–17. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 133Google Scholar
Healy, F. 1988. The Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Spong Hill, North Elmham, Part VI: occupation during the seventh–second millennia BC. East Dereham: East Anglian Archaeology 39Google Scholar
Hodder, I., 1978. The Archaeology of the M11: Excavations at Wendon Ambo. London: Passmore Edwards MuseumGoogle Scholar
Hodder, I. (ed.). 2000. Towards Reflexive Method in Archaeology: the example at Catalhöyük. Cambridge: McDonald Institute Monographs/British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara Monograph 28Google Scholar
Jarman, M.R. 1972. A territorial model for archaeology: a behavioural and geographical approach. In Clarke, D.L. (ed.), Models in Archaeology, 705–34. London: MethuenGoogle Scholar
Jochim, M.A. 1976. Hunter-Gatherer Subsistence and Settlement: a predictive model. London: Academic PressGoogle Scholar
Kerney, M. 1999. Atlas of the Land and Freshwater Molluscs of Britain and Ireland. Colchester: Harley Books/Conchological Society of Great Britain & IrelandCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinnes, I. 1995. An innovation backed by great prestige: The instance of the spiral and twenty centuries of stony sleep. In Kinnes, I. & Varndell, G. (ed.), ‘Unbaked urns of rudely shape’: essays on British and Irish pottery for Ian Longworth, 49–53. Oxford: Oxbow Monograph 55Google Scholar
Legge, A.J. 1981. Aspects of cattle husbandry, In Mercer, R. (ed.), Farming Practice in British Prehistory, 169–81. Edinburgh: University PressGoogle Scholar
Legge, A.J. 1989. Milking the evidence; a reply to Entwhistle and Grant. In Milles, A., Williams, D. & Gardner, N. (eds), The Beginnings of Agriculture, 217–42. Oxford: British Archaeological Report S496Google Scholar
Legge, A.J. in press. Animal remains. In Mecer & Healy in pressGoogle Scholar
Mercer, R. 1980. Hambledon Hill: A Neolithic Landscape. Edinburgh: University PressGoogle Scholar
Mercer, R. & Healy, F. in press. Hambledon Hill, Dorset, England. Excavation and Survey of a Neolithic Monument Complex and its Surrounding Landscape. London. English Heritage Archaeological ReportGoogle Scholar
Oswald, A., Dyer, C. & Barber, M. 2001. The Creation of Monuments: Neolithic causewayed enclosures in the British Isles. London: English HeritageGoogle Scholar
Oxford Archaeotechnics Ltd. 2005. Great Wilbraham, Cambridgeshire: Topsoil Magnetic Susceptibility and Magnetometer (Gradiometer) SurveyGoogle Scholar
Palmer, R. 1976. Interrupted ditch enclosure in Britain: the use of aerial photographs for comparative studies. Proceedings of Prehistoric Society 42, 161–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker Pearson, M. 1998. The beginning of wisdom. Antiquity 72, 680–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollard, J. 1999. These places have their moments: occupation practices in the British Neolithic. In Briick, J. & Goodman, M. (eds), Making Places in the Prehistoric World, 76–93. London: LongmansGoogle Scholar
Potts, W. 2004. Quy Water, Little Wilbraham River and the Fleam Dyke. Proceedings of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society 93, 47–50Google Scholar
Preece, R.C. 1980. The biostratigraphy and dating of the tufa deposit at the Mesolithic site at Blashenwell, Dorset, England. Journal of Archaeological Science 7, 345–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pryor, F.M.M. 1978. Excavation at Fengate, Peterborough, England: The Second Report Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum Archaeology Monograph 5Google Scholar
Pryor, F.M.M. 1998. Etton: excavations at a Neolithic causewayed enclosure near Maxey, Cambridgeshire, 1982–1987. London: English Heritage Archaeological Report 18Google Scholar
Renfrew, C. 1973. Monuments, mobilization and social organization in Neolithic Wessex. In Renfrew, C. (ed.), The Explanation of Culture Change: models in prehistory, 539–58. London: DuckworthGoogle Scholar
Robinson, M. 1988. Molluscan evidence for pasture and meadowland on the floodplain of the upper Thames basin. In Murphy, P. & French, C. (eds), The Exploitation of Wetland, 101–12. Oxford: British Archaeological ReportGoogle Scholar
Rowley-Conwy, P. 2003. No fixed abode: nomadism in the northwest European Neolithic. In Burenhult, G. & Westergaard, S. (eds), Formal Disposal of the Dead in Atlantic Europe during the Mesolithic-Neolithic Interface, 6000–3000BC, 115–44. Oxford: British Archaeological Report SI201Google Scholar
Silver, I.A. 1969. The ageing of domestic mammals. In Brothwell, D. & Higgs, E. (eds), Science in Archaeology, 283–302. London: Thames & Hudson (2nd edn)Google Scholar
Smith, I.F. 1966. Windmill Hill and its implications. Palaeohistoria 12, 469–81Google Scholar
Stuiver, M. & Reimer, P.J. 1986. A computer program for radiocarbon age calculation. Radiocarbon 28, 1022–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, J. 1999. Understanding the Neolithic. Cambridge: University PressGoogle Scholar
Tilley, C., 1979. Post-glacial Communities in the Cambridge Region. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 66Google Scholar
Tilley, C., 1994. A Phenomenology of Landscape. Oxford: BergGoogle Scholar
Tilley, C. 1998. Archaeology: the loss of isolation. Antiquity 72, 691–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vita Finzi, C. & Higgs, E.S. 1970. Prehistoric economies in the Mount Carmel area of Palestine: Site Catchment analysis. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 36, 1–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waller, M. 1994. The Fenland Project Number 9: Flandrian Environmental Change. Cambridge: East Anglian Archaeology 70Google Scholar
Wilson, D.R. 1975. ‘Causewayed camps’ and ‘interrupted ditch systems’. Antiquity 49, 178–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar