Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-hfldf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-09T00:44:59.588Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Excavations at the Neolithic Site at Hurst Fen, Mildenhall, Suffolk (1954, 1957 and 1958)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 May 2014

J. G. D. Clark ,
E. S. Higgs  and
I. H. Longworth
J. G. D. Clark
Affiliation:
Disney Professor of Archaeology in theUniversity of Cambridge
E. S. Higgs
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology and Anthropology, Cambridge
I. H. Longworth
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology and Anthropology, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The site at Hurst Fen in the parish of Mildenhall, Suffolk, was first brought within the cognizance of prehistorians by Lady Grace Briscoe, F.S.A., whose investigations, published in 1954, were sufficient to make it a type site of the East Anglian group of the British primary Neolithic settlement. Thanks are due to Lady Briscoe for most generously encouraging more extensive excavations and to the Crowther-Benyon Fund administered by the University Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology at Cambridge for providing the necessary funds. The assistance is also gratefully acknowledged of undergraduate and other members of the Department of Archaeology and Anthropology at Cambridge and of a number of friends without whose combined labours the fine and repeated scraping of some 20,000 square feet of sub-soil could hardly have been accomplished. Mr E. S. Higgs, Assistant in Research in the Department, undertook much of the supervisory work during the last two seasons, as well as contributing an arduous metrical analysis of the flints and most notably of the scrapers from this and other sites. Mr I. H. Longworth has contributed the description of the pottery and in so doing has devised means for demonstrating its character quantitatively as well as qualitatively, a task too infrequently attempted in this field. To the Curator of the University Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology and his assistant staff a deep debt is owed for a number of essential services, both in connection with the field-work, but principally in the treatment of the finds, notably in the reconstruction and photography of the pottery. Finally, thanks are returned to all those who offered advice about the archaeological material or who contributed the expert identifications incorporated in the following report.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , Volume 26 , December 1960 , pp. 202 - 245
Copyright
Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 1960

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

page 202 note 1 Proc. Comb. Ant. Soc., XLVII (1954), 13–24Google Scholar.

page 202 note 2 Piggott, Stuart, The Neolithic Cultures of the British Isles, 72–4Google Scholar. DrSmith, Isobel (PPS, XX (1954), 224–6)Google Scholar first referred to the ware specifically as Mildenhall ware.

page 203 note 1 Important as the site where undecorated primary neolithic ware was located in deposits dating from the transition from VII a to b of Dr H. Godwin's pollen zonation. See Ant. J., XV (1935), 284–319Google Scholar.

page 203 note 2 See PCAS, XLVII, 13.

page 206 note 1 The only ones not shown on the plan were three in the eastern extension (AA–AB 37, AB–AC 38 and Z–AA 38–9; remains of a buried pot in square AA–38) each of which were around 21 inches in diameter; and three each with a brownish fill, in the extension west of datum (S —2, T/U —3/—4, and M —3/—4) with diameters of approx. 18 inches and depths ranging between 11 and 15 inches.

page 207 note 1 Hollow AH 4–5 (fig. 2) was isolated, apart from a single small hole, and differed in profile being asymmetrical and more conical than basin-shaped with a downward extension at the bottom. Charcoals were noted adhering to the walls, which however showed no clear evidence of having been fired.

page 209 note 1 Letter dated 4.2.60.

page 210 note 1 Maiden Castle, Dorset, 81–8. Research Report of the Society of Antiquaries of London (1943)Google Scholar.

page 210 note 2 Proc. Devon Arch. Explor. Soc., I, 108–10; 172–4Google Scholar.

page 210 note 3 Archaeological Newsletter (April, 1951), 165–6Google Scholar.

page 210 note 4 PPS (1957), 40–4Google Scholar and fig. 2.

page 210 note 5 Proc. Camb. Ant. Soc., XLV, 30–43Google Scholar.

page 210 note 6 Waterbolk, H. T., Nieuwe Drentse Volksalmanak, 77th year (1959), 187–206Google Scholar.

page 211 note 1 Caton-Thompson, G. and Gardner, E. W., The Desert Fayum, 41–3 and pls. xxiv–xxvii. London (1934)Google Scholar.

page 211 note 2 H. Junker, Anz d.Akad. d.Wiss. Wien, phil.-hist. Kl.

page 211 note 3 Menghin, O. and Amer, M., The Excavations of the Egyptian University in the Neolithic site at Maadi, 19–20; pl. iv. Cairo (1932)Google Scholar.

page 212 note 1 Trial cuttings, one 115 feet from the eastern end of Square XXVII, the other at right-angles across the eastern end of Square XXVI, failed to reveal any trace.

page 213 note 1 Numbers of pots given by Case, H. J., Ant. J., XXXVI, 19Google Scholar, no. 1.

page 213 note 2 Estimate by Dr Isobel Smith.

page 216 note 1 These leave out of account 15 specimens the unflaked surface of which was too small or for other reasons undetermined.

page 216 note 2 In point of fact some of the unpatinated breaks may represent shattering in course of knapping rather than thermal fractures.

page 217 note 1 i.e. the length is more than 1½ times the breadth.

page 217 note 2 Scrapers are described as end scrapers when the secondary flaking has been made across the axis and side scrapers when it has been carried along the main axis.

page 225 note 1 ‘The curved flint sickle blades of Britain’, see PPSEA, VII, 67–81.

page 226 note 1 Mistaken by Leeds, E. T., Ant. J., VII, 448Google Scholar, for the forepart of a flint dagger.

page 226 note 2 Proc. DAES, I, 178Google Scholar and nos. 754, 855.

page 226 note 3 Maiden Castle Report, 175.

page 226 note 4 Proc. Dorset N.H. and Arch. Soc., 69, 29–32Google Scholar.

page 226 note 5 Information Dr Isobel Smith.

page 226 note 6 Mortimer, J. R., Forty Years Researches, 122–3Google Scholar, fig. 302.

page 226 note 7 PPS, II (1936)Google Scholar, fig. 12, nos. 21–2.

page 226 note 8 E. Estyn Evans, Lyles Hill, fig. 20, nos. 22, 23, 27.

page 226 note 9 Clark, J. G. D., ‘The curved flint sickle blades of Britain’, PPSEA, VII (1932), 67–81Google Scholar.

page 226 note 10 Ant. J., VIII, pl. lxxii, n.

page 226 note 11 Arch. Cant., XIII, 122–6Google Scholar.

page 226 note 12 Proc. CAS, XLV, 37Google Scholar, fig. 7.

page 228 note 1 Smith, I. F., PPS, XX (1954), 224Google Scholar.

page 228 note 2 Case, H., Ant. J., XXXVI (1956), 20Google Scholar. None of the sherds of this ware from Hurst Fen show a vesicular structure.

page 228 note 3 These figures are based largely upon an analysis of the rims.

page 230 note 1 Based on the percentage figures given by H. Case, op. cit.

page 230 note 2 I. F. Smith, op. cit.

page 230 note 3 Analysis based on the rims figured in the report cited.

page 230 note 4 It should be noted, however, that the figures given by Case (op. cit.) for the Non-Shell Gritted Ware at Abingdon show that of the 52 rims of this ware, no less than 63 per cent are simple.

page 230 note 5 Smith emphasized (op. cit.) that this high inturned rim content reflected a recognizable contribution of Ebbsfleet traditions to the apparently hybrid group represented at Whiteleaf.

page 239 note 1 Experiments suggested the distal end of a tibia belonging to a bird the size of a fowl.

page 239 note 2 Both methods give almost identical results, though the bone is by far the easier method.

page 239 note 3 Cf. also G. Briscoe, op. cit., fig. 3, o and 4, a, c, m.

page 239 note 4 Smith (op. cit.) fig. 6, no. 22 and pp. 227–8 for a discussion of its significance.

page 239 note 5 E.g. Leeds, E. T. (1927), Ant. J., VIIGoogle Scholar, pl. liii, fig. 1.

page 240 note 1 Cf. at Leeds, Abingdon E. T. (1928), Ant. J., VIIIGoogle Scholar, pl. lxxiv, fig. 2a.

page 240 note 2 Cf. Piggott, S. (1954), Neolithic CulturesGoogle Scholar, fig. 11, no. 4, a typical decorated carinated bowl from Hayland House. This particular variety of peaked lug, however, is not represented.

page 240 note 3 For the external decoration of this vessel, cf. Whitehawk, R. P. Ross Williamson (1930), Sussex Arch. Coll., LXXI, 64Google Scholar, pl. V, no. 3.

page 242 note 1 Leaf, C. S., ‘Report on the excavation of two sites in Mildenhall Fen’, Proc. Camb. Ant. Soc., XXXV (1935), 106–27Google Scholar.

page 242 note 2 Briscoe, Lady G., Proc. Camb. Ant. Soc., L (1957), 101–12Google Scholar.

page 242 note 3 Cf. DrSmith, Isobel, PPS, XX, 228Google Scholar.

page 242 note 4 Dr Smith has recently shown that typical Abingdon ware underlay the outermost bank and also occurred on the bottom of the outermost ditch of the Windmill Hill site. Wilts. Arch. Mag., LVII, 149–62Google Scholar.

page 242 note 5 See no. 220 and nos. 2, 10, 22, 38 and 136 of the list published in PPS, XVII (1951), 139 ff.Google Scholar

page 242 note 6 Proc. Camb. Ant. Soc., XLV, 30–43Google Scholar.

page 243 note 1 Godwin, H., Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London, ser. B, no. 570, vol. 230, 360–2Google Scholar.

page 243 note 2 Ibid, 252–3.

page 245 note 1 Proc. Camb. Ant. Soc., XLVI, 20Google Scholar.