Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gvh9x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T04:49:04.511Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Placing pits: Landscape Occupation and Depositional Practice During the Neolithic in East Anglia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 February 2014

Duncan Garrow
Duncan Garrow*
Affiliation:
School of Archaeology, Classics & Egyptology, University of Liverpool, 12–14 Abercromby Square, Liverpool L69 7WZ
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper takes Neolithic pits as a starting point from which to investigate the broader issues of settlement and deposition in Britain at that time. It suggests that while sites made up primarily, and often only, of pits have recently been incorporated much more readily into accounts of the period, they are still not well understood. It is only by investigating the character of occupation across the landscape as a whole, and the nature of deposits in a variety of different contexts, that we will be able to understand pits, settlement, or deposition fully. On the basis of a study of this kind, it is suggested that pits were sited in specific locations which might be considered suitable for ‘settlement’; it is also demonstrated that deposition varied considerably between contexts and over time. By including large numbers of sites known only through ‘grey’ reports and Historic Environment Records, the study draws on an important body of work which has been under-used in the past. The paper focuses primarily on East Anglia, a region well-known for its pit sites but not well-known for its monuments; in doing so, it aims to counterbalance the weight of previous narratives which have tended to focus on other parts of Britain.

Résumé

Cette étude choisit comme point de départ les fosses néolithiques et à partir de là explore le sujet plus général des occupations et des dépôts en Grande-Bretagne à cette époque. Elle propose que, tandis que des sites constitués essentiellement, et quelquefois uniquement, de fosses ont récemment été incorporés beaucoup plus facilement dans les comptes rendus de l'époque, ils ne sont pas encore bien compris. Ce n'est qu'en examinant le caractère spécifique des occupations sur le territoire dans son ensemble, et la nature des dépôts dans une variété de contextes différents, que nous serons en mesure de pleinement comprendre les fosses, occupations et dépôts. Sur la base d'une étude de ce type, on émet l'hypothèse que les fosses étaient situées à des endroits particuliers qu'on pourrait qualifier d'appropriés à une ‘occupation’; on démontre également que les dépôts variaient énormément d'un contexte à l'autre et au fil du temps. En incluant un grand nombre de sites qu'on ne connait que par des comptes rendus peu clairs et les Archives de l'Environnement Historique, l'étude s'appuie sur une importante masse de travaux qui a été sous-utilisée jusqu'à présent. L'étude se concentre essentiellement sur l'East Anglia, une région bien connue pour ses sites de fosses, mais moins connue pour ses monuments; ce faisant son but est de contrebalancer le poids des récits précédents qui ont eu tendance à se concentrer sur d'autres parties de la Grande-Bretagne.

Résumen

Este trabajo tiene como punto de arranque los pozos neolíticos a partir de los cuales se investiga los temas más amplios del asentamiento y de la deposición en Gran Bretaña durante ese periodo. El trabajo sugiere que, mientras que los sitos compuestos primariamente (y a menudo únicamente) de pozos han sido recientemente incorporados con más facilidad a la interpretación del periodo, son aún sin embargo poco entendidos. Es únicamente a través de la investigación del tipo de ocupación a lo largo del paisaje en su totalidad, y de la naturaleza de los depósitos en una variedad de contextos, que seremos capaces de entender completamente los pozos, asentamientos o deposición. En base a un estudio de este tipo, sugerimos que los pozos eran emplazados en localidades específicas que podrían considerarse aceptables para el asentamiento; también se demuestra que la deposición varió considerablemente entre contextos y a través del tiempo. Gracias a la inclusión de un gran número de yacimientos conocidos sólo a través de “vagas” noticias y del Registro Histórico Medioambiental, este estudio se apoya en un importante “corpus” de datos que ha sido infrautilizado en el pasado. Este trabajo se centra primariamente en East Anglia, una región bien conocida por sus yacimientos con pozos pero no por sus monumentos, lo que ofrece a su vez un contrapeso a la importancia que interpretaciones previas han otorgado a otras zonas de Gran Bretaña.

Zusammenfassung

Dieser Artikel nimmt die Neolithischen Gruben als Ausgangspunkt zur Untersuchung weiter führender Fragen zu Siedlungen und Deponierungen im Neolithischen Großbritannien. Im Artikel wird behauptet, dass trotz der Tatsache, dass Fundstellen größtenteils und oft sogar ausschließlich aus Gruben bestehen, und neuerdings mehr in die Untersuchungen zum Neolithikum einbezogen werden, Gruben immer noch nicht ausreichend verstanden werden. Es wird dementsprechend betont, dass wir Gruben, Siedlungen und Deponierungen nur dann verstehen können, wenn wir die Besiedlungs- und Deponierung-sstrukturen und ihre unterschiedlichen Kontexte innerhalb einer gesamten Landschaft untersuchen. Auf der Grundlage einer solchen Untersuchung wird gezeigt, dass Gruben nur an für, Siedlungen' passenden Stellen angelegt wurden, aber von Kontext zu Kontext und Zeitperiode zu Zeitperiode beträchtlich variieren. Diese Studie stützt sich auf eine große Anzahl von nur aus der, grauen' Literatur und historischen Umweltakten bekannten Fundstellen, die bisher nicht entsprechend genutzt worden sind. Dabei konzentriert sich der Artikel hauptsächlich auf East Anglia. Diese Region ist zwar für ihre Fundstellen mit Gruben sehr gut bekannt, jedoch weniger für ihre Monumente. Es wird somit versucht, die bisherigen Bearbeitungen, die sich vor allem auf andere Regionen Großbritanniens konzentriert haben, in ihrer Bedeutung auszugleichen.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , Volume 73 , 2007 , pp. 1 - 24
Copyright
Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 2007

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

Armit, I., Murphy, P., Nelis, E. & Simpson, D. (eds). 2003. Neolithic Settlement in Ireland and Western Britain. Oxford: OxbowGoogle Scholar
Ashbee, P., Smith, I. & Evans, J. 1979. Excavation of three long barrows near Avebury, Wiltshire. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 45, 207–300Google Scholar
Ashwin, T. 1996. Neolithic and Bronze Age Norfolk. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 62, 41–6210.1017/S0079497X00002735Google Scholar
Ashwin, T. 1998. Excavations at Salter's Lane, Longham, 1990: Neolithic and Bronze Age features and artefacts. Norfolk Archaeology 43, 1–30Google Scholar
Ashwin, T. 2001. Exploring Bronze Age Norfolk: Longham and Bittering. In Brück, J. (ed.), Bronze Age Landscapes: tradition and transformation, 23–32. Oxford: OxbowGoogle Scholar
Ashwin, T. & Bates, S. 2000. Norwich Southern Bypass. Norwich: East Anglian Archaeology 91Google Scholar
Bales, E. 2002. Land off Lowestoft Road, Worlingham, WGM 007 & WGM 008. Unpublished Suffolk County Council Archaeology Service Report 2002/19Google Scholar
Barclay, G. 2000. Between Orkney and Wessex: the search for the regional Neolithics of Britain. In Ritchie, A. (ed.), Neolithic Orkney in its European context, 275–85. Cambridge: McDonald InstituteGoogle Scholar
Barrett, J. 1994. Fragments from Antiquity. Oxford: BlackwellGoogle Scholar
Beadsmoore, E. 2005. Edgerley Drain Road, Fengate, Peterborough – Archaeological excavations. Unpublished Cambridge Archaeological Unit Report 686Google Scholar
Birks, C. 2000. Report on an archaeological watching brief at Hall Farm Reservoir, Croxton. Unpublished Norfolk Archaeology Unit Report 518Google Scholar
Boulter, S. 1996. Flixton Park, Flixton (FLN 013): an assessment of the archaeological deposits identified during topsoil stripping of Area 4b. Unpublished Suffolk County Council Archaeology Service Report 96/65Google Scholar
Boulter, S. 2000. Flixton Park Quarry (FLN 056 & FLN 057) Interim report of archaeological monitoring of topsoil stripping (Phase 5). Unpublished Suffolk County Council Archaeology Service Report 99/75Google Scholar
Boulter, S. 2001. Flixton Park Quarry (FLN 059) Interim report of archaeological monitoring of topsoil stripping (New Phase 6). Unpublished Suffolk County Council Archaeology Service Report 00/94Google Scholar
Bowden, M., Ford, S., Gaffney, V. & Tingle, M. 1991. Skimming the surface or scraping the barrel: a few observations on the nature of surface and sub-surface archaeology. In Schofield, A. (ed.), Interpreting Artefact Scatters, 107–113. Oxford: OxbowGoogle Scholar
Bradley, R. 1993. Where is East Anglia? Themes in regional prehistory. In Gardiner, J. (ed.), Flatlands and Wetlands, 5–13. Norwich: East Anglian Archaeology 50Google Scholar
Bradley, R. 2007. The Prehistory of Britain and Ireland. Cambridge: University PressGoogle Scholar
Brossler, A., Early, R. & Allen, C. 2004. Green Park (Reading Business Park) Phase 2 Excavations 1995 – Neolithic and Bronze Age sites. Oxford: Oxford ArchaeologyGoogle Scholar
Brown, N. & Murphy, P. 1997. Neolithic and Bronze Age. In Glazebrook, J. (ed). Research and Archaeology: a framework for the eastern counties. 1 Resource assessment, 12–22. Norwich: East Anglian Archaeology Occasional Paper 3Google Scholar
Brown, N. & Murphy, P. 2000. Neolithic and Bronze Age. In Brown, N. & Glazebrook, J. (eds), Research and Archaeology: a framework for the eastern counties. 2 Research agenda and strategy, 9–13. Norwich: East Anglian Archaeology Occasional Paper 8Google Scholar
Clark, G. 1936. The timber monument at Arminghall and its affinities. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 2, 1–51Google Scholar
Clark, J.G.D., Higgs, E. & Longworth, I. 1960. Excavations at the Neolithic site at Hurst Fen, Mildenhall, Suffolk (1954, 1957 and 1958). Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 26, 202–45Google 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
Cleal, R. & MacSween, A. (eds). 1999. Grooved Ware in Britain and Ireland. Oxford: OxbowGoogle Scholar
Cooney, G. 1997. Images of settlement and the landscape in the Neolithic. In Topping, P. (ed.), Neolithic Landscapes, 23–31. Oxford: Oxbow Monograph 86Google Scholar
Edmonds, M. 1995. Stone Tools and Society. London: BatsfordGoogle 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, 47–82Google Scholar
Edmonds, M., Gdaniec, K. & Wiltshire, P. in press. A Line across the Land. Fieldwork along the Isleham to Ely pipeline. Cambridge: East Anglian ArchaeologyGoogle Scholar
Ellis, C. 2004. A Prehistoric Ritual Complex at Eynesbury, Cambridgeshire. Norwich: East Anglian Archaeology Occasional Paper 17Google Scholar
Evans, C. & Hodder, I. 2006. A Woodland Archaeology. The Haddenham Project: volume 1. Cambridge: McDonald InstituteGoogle Scholar
Evans, C. & Knight, M. 1997. The Barleycroft Paddocks Excavations, Cambridgeshire. Unpublished Cambridge Archaeological Unit Report 218Google Scholar
Evans, C. & Knight, M. 1998. The Butcher's Rise Ringditches. Excavations at Barleycroft Farm, Cambridgeshire 1996. Unpublished Cambridge Archaeological Unit Report 283Google Scholar
Evans, C. & Knight, M. 2004. Excavations at Over: Chain Bridge Terrace investigations (Site 2). Unpublished Cambridge Archaeological Unit Report 650Google Scholar
Ford, S. 1987. Flint scatters and prehistoric settlement patterns in south Oxfordshire and east Berkshire. In Brown, A. & Edmonds, M. (eds), Lithic Analysis and Later British prehistory, 101–35. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 162Google Scholar
French, C. & Pryor, F. 2005. Archaeology and Environment of the Etton Landscape. Peterborough: East Anglian Archaeology 109Google Scholar
Gardiner, J. 1984. Lithic distributions and Neolithic settlement patterns in central southern England. In Bradley, R. & Gardiner, J. (eds), Neolithic Studies: a review of some recent research, 15–40. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 133Google Scholar
Garrow, D. 2006. Pits, Settlement and Deposition during the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age in East Anglia. Oxford: Hedges/British Archaeological Report 414Google 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. Oxford: OxbowGoogle 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 72, 139–57Google Scholar
Garrow, D., Lucy, S. & Gibson, D. 2006. Excavations at Kilverstone, Norfolk: an episodic landscape history. Cambridge: East Anglian Archaeology 113Google Scholar
Gibson, A. 1982. Beaker Domestic Sites. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 107Google Scholar
Gibson, A. 1999. Grooved Ware and timber circles. In Cleal, & MacSween, (eds) 1999, 78–82Google Scholar
Gibson, D. 1998. Archaeological Excavations at the Co-opsite, Fengate. Unpublished Cambridge Archaeological Unit Report 264Google Scholar
Gibson, D. & Knight, M. 2000. Prehistoric and Roman Archaeology at Stonald Field, King's Dyke West, Whittlesey. Unpublished Cambridge Archaeological Unit Report 393Google Scholar
Gregory, T. 1991. Excavations in Thetford, 1980–82, Fison Way Vol. 1. Norwich: East Anglian Archaeology 53Google Scholar
Healey, E. & Robertson-Mackay, R. 1983. The lithic industries from Staines causewayed enclosure and their relationship to other Earlier Neolithic industries in southern Britain. Lithics 4, 1–27Google Scholar
Healy, F. 1988. The Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Spong Hill, North Elmham, Part VI: occupation during the seventh to second millennia BC. Gressenhall: East Anglian Archaeology 39Google Scholar
Healy, F. 1995. Pots, pits and peat: ceramics and settlement in East Anglia. In Kinnes, I. & Varndell, G. (eds), Unbaked Urns of Rudely Shape: essays on British and Irish pottery for Ian Longworth, 173–84. Oxford: Oxbow Monograph 55Google Scholar
Healy, F. 1996. The Fenland Project, No. 11: the Wissey Embayment: evidence for Pre-Iron Age occupation accumulated prior to the Fenland Project. Gressenhall: East Anglian Archaeology 78Google Scholar
Healy, F., Cleal, R. & Kinnes, I. 1993. Excavations at Redgate Hill, Hunstanton, 1970 and 1971. Gressenhall: East Anglian Archaeology 57, 1–80Google Scholar
Hinchliffe, J & Sparey Green, C. 1985. Excavations at Brancaster 1974 and 1977. Norwich: East Anglian Archaeology 23Google Scholar
Hogg, A. 1940. A long barrow at West Rudham, Norfolk. Norfolk Archaeology 27, 315–31Google Scholar
Holgate, R. 1988. A review of Neolithic domestic activity in southern Britain. In Barrett, J. & Kinnes, I. (eds), The Archaeology of Context in the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age: recent trends, 104–13. Sheffield: Department of Archaeology & PrehistoryGoogle Scholar
Lamdin-Whymark, H. 2001. Neolithic activity on the flood plain of the River Thames at Dorney. Lithics 22, 22–36Google Scholar
Lucas, G. & Whittaker, P. 2001. The Roman Settlement at Vicar's Farm, Cambridge. Unpublished Cambridge Archaeological Unit reportGoogle Scholar
Malim, T. 1990. Brampton 1990: A1–M1 link road. Unpublished Cambridgeshire County Council Archaeology Field Unit Report 16.Google Scholar
Martin, E. 1975. The Excavation of Barrow 1, Martlesham Heath. Norwich: East Anglian Archaeology 1Google Scholar
Martin, E. 1993. Settlements on hill-tops: seven prehistoric sites in Suffolk. Ipswich: East Anglian Archaeology 65Google Scholar
McAvoy, F. 2000. The development of a Neolithic monument complex at Godmanchester, Cambridgeshire. In Dawson, M. (ed.), Prehistoric, Roman and Post-Roman landscapes of the Great Ouse Valley, 51–6. York: Council for British Archaeology Research Report 119Google Scholar
McFadyen, L. 2007. Architecture and participation – practices of making in early Neolithic Britain. In Last, J. (ed.), Beyond the Grave: new perspectives on barrows. Oxford: OxbowGoogle Scholar
Mercer, R. 1981. Grimes Graves, Norfolk: excavations 1971–72, Vol. 1. London: HMSO/Department of the Environment Archaeology Report 11Google Scholar
Mortimer, R. & Evans, C. 1996. Archaeological Excavations at Hinxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire – the North field. Unpublished Cambridge Archaeological Unit Report 168Google Scholar
Mortimer, R., Regan, R. & Lucy, S. 2005. The Saxon and Medieval Settlement at West Fen Road, Ely: the Ashwell Site. Cambridge: East Anglian Archaeology 110Google Scholar
Petersen, F. & Healy, F. 1986. The excavation of two round barrows and a ditched enclosure on Weasenham Lyngs 1972. In Lawson, A., Bown, J., Healy, F., Le Hegart, R. & Petersen, F., Barrow Excavations in Norfolk, 1950–82, 70–103. Gressenhall: East Anglian Archaeology 29Google Scholar
Pollard, J. 1993. Traditions of Deposition in the Neolithic of Wessex. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Wales College CardiffGoogle Scholar
Pollard, J. 1995. Inscribing space: formal deposition at the later Neolithic monument of Woodhenge, Wiltshire. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 61, 137–56Google Scholar
Pollard, J. 1998. Excavations at Over – Late Neolithic occupation (Sites 3 and 4). Unpublished Cambridge Archaeological Unit Report 281Google Scholar
Pollard, J. 1999. ‘These places have their moments’: thoughts on settlement practices in the British Neolithic. In Bruck, J. & Goodman, M. (eds), Making Places in the Prehistoric World: themes in settlement archaeology, 76–93. London: University College PressGoogle Scholar
Pollard, J. 2000. Neolithic occupation practices and social ecologies from Rinyo to Clacton. In Ritchie, A. (ed.), Neolithic Orkney in its European context, 363–9. Cambridge: McDonald InstituteGoogle Scholar
Pollard, J. 2001. The aesthetics of depositional practice. World Archaeology 33(2), 315–3310.1080/00438240120079316Google Scholar
Pollard, J. 2002. The nature of archaeological deposits and finds assemblages. In Woodward, A. & Hill, J.D. (eds), Prehistoric Britain: the ceramic basis, 22–33. Oxford: Oxbow/Prehistoric Ceramics Research Group Occasional Publication 3Google Scholar
Pryor, F. 1974. Excavations at Fengate, Peterborough, England: the first report. Royal Ontario Museum Archaeology Monograph 3Google Scholar
Pryor, F. 1978. Excavations at Fengate, Peterborough, England: the second report. Royal Ontario Museum Archaeology Monograph 5Google Scholar
Pryor, F. 1998. Etton – Excavations of a Neolithic Causewayed Enclosure near Maxey, Cambridgeshire 1982–7. London: English Heritage Archaeological Report 18Google Scholar
Pryor, F. 2001. The Flag Fen Basin. Archaeology and Environment of a Fenland Landscape. London: English HeritageGoogle Scholar
Pryor, F., French, C., Crowther, D. Gurney, Simpson, G. & Taylor, M. 1985. The Fenland Project, No. 1: archaeology and environment in the lower Welland valley. Cambridge: East Anglian Archaeology 27Google Scholar
Richards, J. 1990. The Stonehenge Environs Project. London: English HeritageGoogle Scholar
Richards, C. & Thomas, J. 1984. Ritual activity and structured deposition in Later Neolithic Wessex. In Bradley, R. & Gardiner, J. (eds), Neolithic Studies: a review of some current research, 189–218. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 133Google Scholar
Robertson, D. 2002. Excavations at Yarmouth Road Quarry, Broome 2001. Unpublished Norfolk Archaeology Unit Report 668Google Scholar
Robertson, D. 2003. A Neolithic enclosure and early Saxon settlement at Yarmouth Road, Broome, 2001. Norfolk Archaeology 48, 222–50Google Scholar
Rogerson, A. 1995. A Late Neolithic, Saxon and Medieval site at Middle Harling, Norfolk. Gressenhall: East Anglian Archaeology 74Google Scholar
Rowley-Conwy, P. 2003. No fixed abode? Nomadism in the northwest European Neolithic. In Burenhult, G. & Westergaard, S. (eds), Stones and Bones: formal disposal of the dead in Atlantic Europe during the Mesolithic–Neolithic interface 6000–3000 BC, 115–44. Oxford: British Archaeological Report S1201Google Scholar
Shanks, M. & Tilley, C. 1982. Ideology, symbolic power and ritual communication: a reinterpretation of Neolithic mortuary practices. In Hodder, I. (ed.), Symbolic and Structural Archaeology, 129–54. Cambridge: University PressGoogle Scholar
Sturt, F. 2006. Landscape and Land-use Change during the Mesolithic and Neolithic of the Fen edge. PhD thesis, University of CambridgeGoogle Scholar
Tavener, N. 1996. Evidence of Neolithic activity near Marton-Le-Moor, North Yorkshire. In Frodsham, P. (ed.), Neolithic Studies in No-man's Land. Papers on the Neolithic of Northern England from the Trent to the Tweed. Northern Archaeology 13/14, 183–7Google Scholar
Thomas, J. 1991. Rethinking the Neolithic. Cambridge: University PressGoogle Scholar
Thomas, J. 1996a. Neolithic houses in mainland Britain and beyond – a sceptical view. In Darvill, T. & Thomas, J. (eds), Neolithic Houses in Northwest Europe and Beyond, 1–12. Oxford: OxbowGoogle Scholar
Thomas, J. 1996b. Time, Culture and Identity. London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Thomas, J. 1998. Towards a regional geography of the Neolithic. In Edmonds, M. & Richards, C. (eds), Understanding the Neolithic of North-western Europe, 37–60. Glasgow: CruithneGoogle Scholar
Thomas, J. 1999. Understanding the Neolithic. London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Tilley, C. 1994. A Phenomenology of Landscape. Oxford: BergGoogle Scholar
Topping, P. 2003. Grime's Graves. London: English HeritageGoogle Scholar
Wainwright, G. 1972. The excavation of a Neolithic settlement on Broome Heath, Ditchingham, Norfolk. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 38, 1–97Google Scholar
Wainwright, G. 1973. The excavation of prehistoric and Romano-British settlements at Eaton Heath, Norwich. Archaeological Journal 130, 1–43Google Scholar
Wainwright, G. & Longworth, I. 1971. Durrington Walls: excavations 1966–1968. Report of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries 29Google Scholar
Waller, M. 1994. The Fenland Project, No. 9: flandrian environmental change in Fenland. Cambridge: East Anglian Archaeology 70Google Scholar
White, L. 1998. Excavations at the Cherry Hinton Ring Ditches, Fulbourn Road, Cambridge. Unpublished Cambridge Archaeological Unit Report 247Google Scholar
Whittle, A. 1997. Moving on and moving around: Neolithic settlement mobility. In Topping, P. (ed.), Neolithic Landscapes, 15–22. Oxford: Oxbow Monograph 86/Neolithic Studies Group Seminar Paper 2Google Scholar
Whittle, A. 1999. The Neolithic period. In Hunter, J. & Ralston, I. (eds), The Archaeology of Britain: an introduction from the Upper Palaeolithic to the Industrial Revolution, 58–76. London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Whittle, A. Pollard, J., & Grigson, C. 1999. The Harmony of Symbols: the Windmill Hill causewayed enclosure, Wiltshire. Oxford: OxbowGoogle Scholar
Wymer, J. 1996. Barrow Excavations in Norfolk. Gressenhall: East Anglian Archaeology 77Google Scholar
Wymer, J. & Healy, F. 1996. Neolithic and Bronze Age activity and settlement at Longham and Beeston with Bittering. In Wymer, 1996, 28–53Google Scholar