The Bronze Age Landscape of the Northern English Midlands 9781841715117, 9781407319926

Citation preview

BAR  351  2003   MULLIN  

The Bronze Age Landscape of the Northern English Midlands

THE BRONZE AGE LANDSCAPE OF THE NORTHERN ENGLISH MIDLANDS

David Mullin

BAR British Series 351 B A R

2003

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR British Series 351 The Bronze Age Landscape of the Northern English Midlands © D Mullin and the Publisher 2003 The author's moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9781841715117 paperback ISBN 9781407319926 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781841715117 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Archaeopress in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd / Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2003. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR

PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from:

E MAIL P HONE F AX

BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310431 +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

Acknowledgements This book is the result of study for an MPhil at the University of Bristol which was submitted in September 2001. The thesis would have been impossible to compile without the data provided by the various SMR officers from the counties covered. These included Jill Collens in Cheshire, Penelope Ward in Shropshire and Chris Wardle in Staffordshire, all of whom were extremely helpful and provided information and advice as well as raw SMR data. The ever-helpful staff in the NMR in Swindon provided aerial photographs and historic mapping as well as access to their comprehensive library. Staff at the Cheshire records office in Chester are also thanked for their advice and for pointing me in the right direction when I needed it. Winston Hollins and Gary Lock provided information and unpublished reports from the excavations at Kings and Queens Lows in Staffordshire and Peter Carrington from Chester Archaeology helped with access to the archive from Abbey Green. Keith Matthews, also from Chester Archaeology, shared information from excavations at Carden Park and Dan Garner from Giffords in Chester provided prepublication data on the site at Oversley Farm. Jeremy Miln, the National Trust archaeologist at Alderley Edge, and Paul Budd also provided much information on the Alderley Edge Landscape Project as well as helpful and obscure references. Francis Healy, University of Newcastle, also provided references for sites in Norfolk used in Chapter 2. This MPhil research was supervised by Mr Mark Corney at the University of Bristol, who kept it on track and on target and provided lively debate, comment and advice. Jenni Hamley and Sue Grice from the Department are also thanked for their help with the preparation of the final text. Funding for this research came from an AHRB studentship, to whom many thanks. Finally, Dr Jodie Lewis put up with a year of discussions on metalwork and round barrows, as well as acting as chauffeur, confidant and maintaining a steady supply of sustenance. Thanks for sticking up for me, even when I knew I was wrong: this research wouldn’t have even started without you.

i

ii

Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction

1

Chapter 2: Burial

10

Chapter 3: Lithics

54

Chapter 4: Settlement

72

Chapter 5: Environment

88

Chapter 6: Metalwork

93

Chapter 7: Metal Production

117

Chapter 8: Discussion and Conclusions

124

Bibliography

131

iii

List of Figures Figure 1.1: Location of the Study Area Figure 2.1: Round barrow altitudes Figure 2.2: Round barrow soil types Figure 2.3 Barrow Cemeteries in the Study Area Figure 2.4: Bryn y Wystyn and Broadlands Barrow Cemeteries Figure 3.1: Perforated implements from the study area Figure 3.2: Material of perforated implements from the study area. Figure 3.3: The battle axe from Church Lawton Figure 3.4: A selection of perforated implements from Cheshire Figure 4.1: Features at Oversley Farm, Cheshire Figure 4.2: Late Bronze Age pottery from Beeston Castle Figure 4.3: Grooved Ware from Eddisbury Hill Figure 4.4: Burnt Mounds from Baggy Moor and The Weald Moors, Shropshire Figure 6.1: Metalwork finds from the study area Figure 6.2: Metalwork classification Figure 6.3: The Bridgemere Hoard Figure 6.4: The Congleton Hoard Figure 6.5: The Ebnall Hoard Figure 6.6: Tool Patterns for the British Isles Figure 7.1: Copper Sources in NW England Figure 7.2: Grooved hammerstone classification (after Pickin 1990)

2 11 12 17 18 58 59 60 60 73 74 75 79 94 95 97 98 99 102 107 108

List of Tables Table 1.1: Bronze Age chronology used in this study Table 2.1: Altitude of Round Barrows Table 2.2: Soil Types: expected and actual frequencies. Table 2.3: Early Bronze Age Pottery Types from Burial Contexts Table 3.1: Dated perforated implements (based on Leahy 1986) Table 5.1: Radiocarbon Dates for the Lime decline in the study area. Table 6.1: Metalwork finds from the study area. Table 6.2: Metalwork classification Table 6.3: Content of hoards from the study area

8 11 12 13 56 89 94 95 103

List of Maps Map 1: Topography and hydrology Map 2: Round barrow distribution Map 3: Perforated implement distribution Map 4: Settlement and burnt mound distribution Map 5: Environmental sampling locations Map 6: Metalwork distribution

9 25 62 82 92 104

iv

Chapter 1: Introduction “Throughout the successive phases of the Old Stone Age, Middle Stone Age, New Stone Age and Bronze Age the county appears to have been to all intents and purposes an uninhabited wilderness. From the point of view of the archaeologist it can claim to be one of the least interesting localities in the whole of the British Isles” Pevsner 1968:13 "It so often happens that where no one has previously discovered anything noteworthy no one else ever seeks for it." Hazledine Warren 1922:2 reasonably homogenous landscape unit: that of the Cheshire Basin, a low-lying region including parts of Cheshire, Shropshire and Staffordshire, and by bringing together all aspects of the archaeological record in a contextual, landscape-based study.

Introduction: Studies of Bronze Age archaeology in Britain have predominantly focussed on areas with highly visible remains dating from this period. Typically the Early Bronze Age is dominated by the rise of funerary monuments concerned with the burial of single individuals and this concern passes to the organisation and division of the land during the Middle and Late Bronze Age. Throughout the latter periods the deposition of metalwork in watery places seems to replace an interest with the dead and settlement becomes visible with the origins of hillforts stretching back to the end of the Bronze Age. This study has deliberately chosen an area which has been little studied in the past, largely due to the absence of highly visible prehistoric archaeological remains. The Northern Midlands of England are a lowlying landscape, formed after the retreat of ice during the last glaciation. The soils of the region are heavy and damp and the archaeological evidence is dominated by Roman period sites such as the towns of Chester and Wroxeter. The high visibility of the Roman archaeology, coupled with assumptions about the prehistoric period, has led to the periods up to the Iron Age being ignored and the formulation of out-dated models for prehistory as a whole. These are firmly grounded in the culture historic approach, and, despite a good data-set from the region, very little modern synthesis has been attempted. A poor understanding of this data and a lack of willingness to engage with modern theoretical movements and debates has led to the under-development of the prehistory of the region in general and of the Neolithic and Bronze Age periods in particular.

NOTE: During the course of this study only limited fieldwork was carried out due to the very wet winter of 2000/2001, when most of the study area was underwater. This was followed by the foot and mouth outbreak of 2001, during which no fieldwork was possible. Much of the “practical” work was thus map and air photograph based and it is hoped that the study has not suffered as a result.

The Study Area Boundaries: The study area comprises the county of Cheshire and the northern parts of Shropshire and Staffordshire. The boundaries of this area are formed by the estuaries of the Dee and Mersey in the north and the Clwydonian hills and the Welsh Marcher highlands to the west. The southern boundary is formed by the River Severn from its confluence with the Vyrnwy to the Ironbridge Gorge and then by the northern outskirts of Wolverhampton. The eastern boundary runs north along the River Penk/M6 corridor as far as Stafford, then follows the Trent to Stoke on Trent. The foot of the Staffordshire Hills is defined further north by the Macclesfield Canal and this forms the rest of the eastern boundary as far as the Mersey at Stockport. Although these boundaries are somewhat artificial, they delineate an area which is fairly homogenous: a low-lying, formerly glaciated landscape, largely corresponding to the area of “Newer Drift” (Worsley 1970: 84). It is not implied that the boundaries selected here had significance during prehistory, however, merely that the landscape unit within them shares more characteristics than that beyond.

Since the introduction of PPG 16, new prehistoric sites have been discovered in the region, usually by accident. This is also true of the pre-PPG 16 landscape with Bronze Age and Neolithic material recovered from the excavation of Roman and Medieval sites. It has been difficult for those working in the field to assimilate these chance discoveries into a broader framework, as none is available for the region as a whole, and the county-based studies of the Victoria County Histories outdated. The county-based approach also tends to adhere to arbitrary boundaries, rather than landscape units. This study will try to remedy some of these faults by drawing data from a

Soils, geology, drainage and relief: All of the area inside the chosen boundary is predominantly lowland, forming the Cheshire Gap, and is dominated by boulder clay soils formed after the last Ice Age. The area rises gradually from sea level in the 1

Figure 1.1: Location of the Study Area The predominant solid geology of the study area is Keuper and Upper Coal Measures marls and sandstones of the Bunter beds (Mackney & Burnham 1964: 2-5), but glacial drift covers these and forms the most important soil parent material. Soils on the tills tend to be gleys and are distinctively wet and heavy, today usually used for dairying. Areas of glacial sand and gravel do occur throughout the study area and these tend to produce fertile brown soils, amongst the most productive in the region. A very general survey of the soils of the region was published by Mackney and Burnham in 1964 but more detailed mapping is only available for Cheshire (Furness 1978), Shropshire (Burnham & Mackney 1964) and the Wem district of Shropshire (Crompton & Osmond 1954). Information about soils in Staffordshire is severely limited as only a single 1:25,000 soil map is available for the county, covering only 10 x 10 km (Jones 1975). Nationally important peat deposits are found throughout the area and formed the basis of the North West Wetlands Survey (NWWS), an ongoing survey funded by English Heritage and carried out by Lancaster

north to 100-150 metres in the south, but is generally undulating country. Low sandstone hills run south through the centre of the study area from Helsby and Frodsham in the north, through Delamere, Peckforton and down to Nesscliffe in the south. Alderley Edge, Hawkstone, Grinshill and Pim Hill also rise out of the plain. The isolated rhyolite plug of the Wrekin, rising to 407m represents the only igneous outcrop in a landscape otherwise composed of sedimentary geology masked by deep deposits of glacial till. The sedimentary rocks that bound the study area formed an important source of copper ore in prehistory, with mines located at Alderley Edge and deposits occurring at Bickerton in Cheshire, Grinshill, Clive and Eardiston in Shropshire (Rohl & Needham 1998: 19-32). Just outside the study area are the important ore-fields on Halkyn Mountain, Clwyd and Shelve in west Shropshire (ibid). Also just outside the study area is the source of Group XII (picrite) at Hyssington, Powys, used mainly for the production of axe hammers (Shotton et al 1951).

2

archaeological sites and monuments. The nature of the soils makes geophysical survey difficult. Magnetometery has generally very poor response over boulder clay and responses over sands and gravels is very variable (English Heritage 1995). Resistivity shows better results from these soils, but the detection of ditches and pits is more difficult using this method. During evaluation work in the Wroxeter Hinterlands (Ellis et al 1994: 112) magnetometer survey was used with mixed results. In general major enclosure ditches and some internal features were detected, but this was sometimes difficult to distinguish from geological responses. Carver (1991: 8), however, has pointed out that performance of geophysics in the region has been insufficiently tested and positive results remain a possibility

University. The contrasting soil types in the region have played a major part in the interpretation of the archaeology of the region, and will be discussed below. For the purposes of this study, the soils of the region will be divided into five main classes. These comprise: Brown Soils are generally very fertile, well drained soils usually used for cereals or grass. This is the most common soil type in the West Midlands (Mackney & Burnham 1964: 34) but only make up c.39% of the study area, being more common in Shropshire than Cheshire. Surface water gleys are poorly drained soils mainly formed on glacial tills. Often waterlogged in autumn and winter with water occurring close to the surface of the soil and typically low in nutrients. These soils make up c.41% of the study area.

Surface collection is hampered in the region, as much of the study area is under pasture. Recovery rates from surface scatters also tend to be low due to the poor visibility of material in the soil and the special conditions presented by these soils means that pottery and other material is often rapidly destroyed after deposition (Limbrey 1987, Carver 1991: 6).

Ground water gleys are typically wet and infertile and often used for grazing or potatoes. Often occur in river flood plains and make up c.8% of the study area. Podzols can be fairly fertile, but prone to waterlogging. Often formed on heathland and generally not of high agricultural potential. This soil type forms c.3% of the study area.

There are some methodological advantages to problematical areas, such as that considered here, however. Firstly, lithic scatters should not suffer from the “background noise” experienced in the dense scatters of southern England. Scatters in the study area (see Chapter 3) tend to be diffuse with concentrations easy to identify. Indeed, Nevell (1991: 19) suggests that the presence of even a few pieces of worked flint is enough to establish the presence of an archaeological site. Second, areas of peat are valuable “archives” of paleoenvironmental data: data that is not readily available in other areas and which can be used not only to identify humanly created changes to the landscape but also to place these within an environmental and climatic framework. The wetland resource also preserves classes of data unavailable from dry-land sites, allowing a more complete picture of human activity to be built up. Indeed, the potential of large scale field survey was illustrated by the NWWS who, as well as identifying prehistoric activity from the pollen record and surface scatters, recognised a concentration of burnt mounds around certain wetlands (see Chapter 4), interpreted here as a central part of ritual activity focussed on wet places during the Mid to Late Bronze Age.

Peats can be either raw peat which hasnot developed an earthy topsoil or earthy peat which has. Can be brought into agricultural production by reclamation. Peat soils form c.9% of the study area. Rivers form a major part of the boundaries of the study area and an ill-defined watershed is formed by the Ellsmere/Whitchurch moraine which runs east-west through the middle of the region. To the north the Dee, Weaver, Gowy and Mersey flow north into the Irish Sea while the Severn, Trent, Rodden, Perry and Tern flow south, draining the southern part of the area. The basins of these rivers are generally poorly drained and many basin mires, mosses and wetland areas can be found on the heavy soils. These wetlands, and the peat deposits which they contain, have been surveyed by the NWWS and form the basis of two volumes: The Wetlands of Cheshire (Leah et al 1997) and The Wetlands of Shropshire and Staffordshire (Leah et al 1998). The study area also contains as its northern boundary part of the Irish Sea coast, an area identified by English Heritage (1996) as being of high archaeological potential. Some work has been carried out on sea-level change during the Holocene within the study area, and it is thought that sea-level was c.5m lower than at present (Huddart et al 1999). Archaeological finds are known from the inter-tidal zone and these include a Mesolithic skull as well as Bronze Age flintwork (ibid).

Previous Research The earliest of the antiquaries active within the study area was Robert Plot, who wrote his ‘Natural History of Staffordshire’ in 1686. Chapter 10 of this volume was concerned with antiquities and formed an inventory of sites recorded from fieldwork not superseded until the publication of the Victoria County History (VCH) in 1908. The region was also visited by Leland in the 17th century, who saw and recorded several of the monuments. Records from the eighteenth century survive and provide vital records of several monuments before

Discussion The soil conditions within the region certainly pose some problems to the discovery, recovery and interpretation of

3

Field Archaeology Unit have also carried out excavations in the study area.

their truncation or destruction, but the main period of antiquarian activity in the study area was the nineteenth century.

It was during the 1970s and 80s that many of the research excavations at round barrows were undertaken, including those at Withington, Twemlow, Woodhouse End and Church Lawton. Much of this work was carried out by David Wilson of Keele University, but remains unpublished. Beeston Castle was excavated from 1968-85 (Ellis 1993) and rescue excavations were carried out at the Wrekin hillfort in 1973 (Stanford 1984). The Tameside Archaeological Survey was undertaken in the NE part of the study area and was a long term landscape research project funded by Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council. The results of some of this survey were published by Nevell (1991b, 1992). Trial excavations were carried out by the University of Bradford in 1991 at Alderley Edge and the Bronze Age workings at the site were recorded by Gale (1986 and 1989). The Alderley Edge Landscape Project has recently concluded work at the site, and the final report is in the process of publication (J.Miln, pers comm).

Urban development accounted for many finds of prehistoric material in the study area during the nineteenth century but antiquarian "excavation" of monuments is also recorded from this period, such as that at the round barrows at Winwick, by Robson (1860). Boyd Dawkins, the Professor of Geology at Manchester University carried out fieldwork at Alderley Edge in 1874 and Dr Sainter recorded finds from the site in 1878. Ormerod wrote The History of the County Palatine and City of Chester in 1882 and in this were noted many prehistoric earthworks, sometimes mis-identified as Roman. The Cheshire Archaeological Society was established in 1849, and published its first Journal in 1850, reflecting a period of growth for local archaeological societies with the formation of the Chester and North Wales Architectural, Archaeological and Historical Society; the Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire and the Lancashire and Cheshire Antiquarian Society. The North Staffordshire Field Club was established in 1865 and published a journal until 1955 and the Shropshire Archaeological and Historical Society was formed in 1878 and continues to publish its Transactions.

Much aerial reconnaissance has taken place over the study area, leading to the recognition of many ring ditches and enclosures not visible on the ground. Three major studies of the aerial photographs have been undertaken: that by Whimster (1989) and by Watson (1991) as well as a PhD by Baker (1992). There is also a ‘popular’ book by Watson and Musson (1993) ‘Shropshire from the Air’ which features some prehistoric sites. The Victoria County History for Shropshire was published in 1908 (Page 1908) and that for Staffordshire in 1958 (Page 1958). Both have gazetteers, but do not use the OS National Grid and are therefore difficult to use. An Archaeological Gazetteer for Staffordshire was published by Gunstone in 1964-5 and this included all of the stray finds from all periods up to c.650AD as well as all of the round barrows within the county. Introductions to Shropshire and Staffordshire archaeology were written by Chitty (1955) and Thomas & Gunstone (1963) for field visits by the Royal Archaeological Institute and were published in the Archaeological Journal. The VCH for Cheshire was published in 1987 (Harris 1987) and provides a useful synthesis of the data extant at that date. Shropshire and Staffordshire were covered in Hodder and Stoughton’s ‘Landscape’ series in the 1970s (Rowley 1972 and Palliser 1976 respectively) but prehistory is accorded only five pages in Rowley and four in Palliser, the largest section on prehistory in both books being the Iron Age. Cheshire was supposed to have been covered in the Longman series A Regional History of Britain but although the volume ‘Lancashire and Cheshire Region from AD 1540’ has been published, the Editor of the series (Heather McCallum at Pearson Education), does not hold high hopes for ‘Lancashire and Cheshire Region to AD 1550’ ever seeing the light of day (pers comm).

The twentieth century saw the emergence of archaeology as a discipline in its own right and one of the earliest archaeologists active in the region was W.J Varley. He excavated at the hillforts at Eddisbury and Old Oswestry and was the co-author of one of the earliest syntheses of prehistoric data for the region: ‘Prehistoric Cheshire’, published in 1940. The distribution maps in this volume were contributed by Lilly Chitty, an extremely active and diligent fieldworker from the 1930s into the 1960s. Chitty recorded prehistoric finds from Shropshire and Staffordshire as well as acting as the Archaeological Correspondent for the Ancient Monuments Department, recording bronze finds for the British Association and contributing the distribution maps to Fox’s ‘Personality of Britain’ (Grimes 1972). The views of Chitty and Varley continue to dominate the interpretation of the archaeology of the study area (see below). Research excavations were carried out from the 1940s, but ‘rescue’ excavations in the face of ongoing urban development provided the context for many of the archaeological discoveries. The Cheshire Archaeological Bulletin started life in 1973, largely as a result of rescue excavations taking place within the city and county of Chester, and continued to be published until 1985. Chester Archaeology was established in 1973, and is still the major contractor for evaluation and excavation of archaeological sites in the county. Shropshire is covered by the Clwyd Powis Archaeological Trust and by the Shropshire Archaeology Service and the Staffordshire Archaeology Service operates within Staffordshire. The region is covered by an office of Gifford and Partners, who carried out excavations at Manchester Airport during 1998 (Thompson 1998) and the Birmingham University

In the last ten years the major focus of research in the study area has been the North West Wetlands Survey (NWWS), funded by English Heritage and carried out by 4

dependence on pigs and cattle, which are happy in a wooded environment. Longley replied to these speculations in an article the following year (Longley 1979). Here, the non-random nature of the distribution of Bronze Age monuments was pointed out and this was accounted for not as a result of differential survival and collection, but as reflecting the main areas of sands and gravels within the county. In Longley's words "an old contention- that the drift geology of the county largely conditions the majority areas of prehistoric settlementmay yet be true" (1979: 87). This attitude was carried through into the prehistoric section of the VCH for Cheshire, also written by Longley (1987), but this was a work of synthesis with little theoretical discussion. This is fairly typical of much of the literature, which present “overviews” of the data, which is seen as of poor information value and little time is spent on interpretation. Carver (1991) blamed the lack of development of interest in the prehistoric archaeology of lowland Shropshire on the lack of applied survey and the underdevelopment of techniques. It is suggested here that this, coupled with a theoretical naïveté, has led to the later prehistoric landscape of the region being overlooked and its potentials ignored.

Lancaster University. This survey involved assessing the archaeological and environmental records from the wetlands in the north west of England (an area of c.37,000 ha) as well as carrying out small scale paleoenvironmental work at some sites. A picture of the prehistoric environment in much of the study area was thus established as well as the nature of anthropogenic disturbance to this environment. This work drew upon previous paleoenvironmental work by Hardy (1939), Schonwetter (1982) and Twigger (1988), amongst others. As can be seen, there has been intermittent interest in the prehistoric archaeology of the study area for the last 300 years. There has, however, been no modern synthesis of the data and no real attempt at interpretation. The interpretations of Chitty and Varley are still used to explain the prehistory of the region, despite being over fifty years out of date and firmly grounded in the culturehistoric approach. These ideas will be examined below in more detail.

Previous Models for the Prehistory of the Northern Midlands The predominant model for the prehistory of the Northern Midlands is still that put forward by Chitty and by Varley in the 1950s and 60s. This “traditional” model was heavily influenced by Fox (1925) and suggested that the Cheshire Basin was wet and wooded with heavy glacial soils which would have been unattractive to “early farmers” and therefore ignored. Settlement would have taken place on the higher land or on the sand and gravel terraces and ridges left behind with the retreat of the ice c.10,000 years BP, but the low-lying plain would have been ignored until invention of the iron plough made cultivation possible. The distribution of prehistoric metalwork and other artefacts was either explained as being the result of chance losses of peoples moving across the area, using “natural routeways” between core areas such as NE Wales and the Peak District, or as reflecting locations which were favourable for agriculture. The area of the Cheshire Basin was seen by Varley (1964) as so unattractive to prehistoric populations that in “Cheshire Before the Romans” the archaeology of Derbyshire and Wales is discussed more than that of Cheshire. Even in very recent work (such as Cowell 2000a, 2000b), this traditional model is upheld with site location explained in terms of good farmland and access to metal-rich core areas.

A singular exception to the outlook outlined above is the work by Buteux and Hughes (1995) in their discussion of the excavations at Meole Brace and Bromfield in Shropshire. Emphasising the important role of aerial photography in the transformation of our understanding of the regions prehistory, Buteux and Hughes (ibid: 162) go on to argue that the data being recovered from Shropshire during the late 1980s/early 1990s can be used to define some of the characteristics of the Neolithic and Bronze Age of the region. Indeed, the authors argue that: “While it is unlikely that the [region] will ever, for these periods, provide the rich material provided by, for example, Wessex, Orkney or the Boyne Valley, it is already clear that its earlier prehistory is not simply a pale reflection of developments in these ‘core areas’ but that it has a character of its own” (ibid: 162). This marks an important turning point in the study of the prehistory of the region, with the recognition of the importance of regional sequences and their interrelationship rather than a search for parallels in Wessex, Derbyshire or Wales. This was also pointed out by Cowell (2000a: 127) who suggested that the lack of finds from the North West as a whole is the key to the areas identity, reflecting a low population density, lack of artefactual wealth and loose social structure throughout prehistory. Cowell (ibid) also suggests that the landscape was suited to successful exploitation using a mobile strategy, which lasted from the Mesolithic through to the Late Bronze Age. This is in contrast to the south of England, which has dominated the interpretation and research strategies for much of the rest of the country. Although extraordinarily rich in archaeological sites and monuments, the prehistoric landscape of Wessex (and

These dominant ideas were questioned by Mary Alexander in the pages of the Cheshire Archaeological Bulletin (Alexander 1977). Informed by a reading of Evans' "Environment of Early Man in the British Isles" (Evans 1975), Alexander posited the idea that thin soils overlying the boulder clays of the Cheshire Plain could have been utilised in prehistory and, as a result, destroyed. The relative absence of prehistoric sites was suggested as being due to the result of a more mobile lifestyle than previously appreciated, and the lack of evidence for woodland clearance accounted for through 5

other ‘core areas’) has been seen as a “type fossil” for other landscapes: if a region does not have the full compliment of settlement, burial and ritual sites it is seen as somehow lacking and therefore unworthy of study. These differences are often taken at face value and “poor” landscapes overlooked. This has led to a “vicious circle” whereby landscapes apparently lacking in monuments are ignored and thus do not produce sites from excavation and non-intrusive techniques, while “rich” landscapes yield ever-more evidence as the result of intensive survey. This situation is not helped by the nature of the soils in the study area, which not only often mask archaeological features but can also actively destroy artefacts in the ploughsoil (Carver 1991: 6). Artefacts are all too often overlooked in landscape studies, which frequently see upstanding earthworks and the relationship between them as of fundamental importance and surface finds as chance losses of little importance. This situation has not been helped by finds specialists who often have a narrow, object centred focus with little concern as to how artefacts and their deposition can define and make meaningful the landscape. In Bradley’s words: “landscape....is not simply an extent of ground containing a number of monuments. It is an area in which many different activities took place….The record of Bronze Age activity is ultimately indivisible, and when we portion it out between specialist interests we very soon loose our bearings” (Bradley 1996: 43-4).

Bronze Age Chronology and Background Various, often complex, chronologies have been built for the Bronze Age, based on detailed artefact studies and typologies. There is not space here to enter into a detailed discussion of the relative merits and demerits of the various schemes and it is not the purpose of this study to analyse metalwork in detail. Rather, the production, consumption and disposal of metal and how this relates to other social practices such as burial and settlement will be examined. The chronology used here (Table 1.1) will be a broad one, based on the radiocarbon dating of organic matter associated with metalwork undertaken by Needham (1997), which goes some way in bridging the gap between the dependence of metalwork studies on typology and that of settlement and burial on radiocarbon dating and pottery styles. In common with the rest of the country, the evidence from the study area is split between Early Bronze Age burial and Later Bronze Age settlement, with metalwork often floating between the two. As outlined above, the traditional model for the region is one based upon suitability of land for farming and the presence of mobile tradesmen distributing metalwork. This, and subsequent models, have been based on the importation of those from southern England, particularly Wessex, to a region which is unlike them both in terms of landscape and monument types. Harding (1991) has pointed out that there are elements of regionality even within the English Chalklands, with different areas containing different monumental complexes or repertoires. Indeed, Harding (ibid: 146) argues that the unique Wessex region has been seen as typical for the Neolithic and Bronze Age of England and that “whereas the ‘typical’ has become an over-stretched term, we have failed to identify the ‘unique’”.

Given the difficulties involved when studying the prehistory of the region, this thesis will try and evolve new ways of looking at the archaeology which will involve both contextual and landscape-based approaches. An attempt will be made to bring together the evidence from sites such as ring ditches, round barrows and settlements; surface finds such as lithic scatters and metalwork finds and environmental data collected by the NWWS and others, to build a picture not only of landscape utilisation and change but also of the meanings these may have held. This will be attempted by considering each of these classes of evidence in turn, bringing together the threads linking them in discussions at the end of each chapter and in a discursive chapter at the end of the thesis. Whilst chapters will be thematic, this is not to suggest that areas such as burial, ritual and settlement did not overlap, but is merely a device for handling a large set of data. Indeed, the difficulties of defining the “domestic” and the “ritual” spheres and their overlap is one of the major problems in Bronze Age research, eloquently summarised by Bradley (1998: 150):

This ‘typical’ model is dominated by the burial record from the Early Bronze Age, which gives way to a more settled landscape in the Middle Bronze Age, ultimately giving way to the first hilltop enclosures, precursors to Iron Age hillforts. The Early Bronze Age, then, is seen as a time when attention was paid to personal lineage and social position, as reflected in the rich “Wessex” burials from southern England. This is the first time that wide attention is paid to the burial of the individual, in contrast and opposed to the focus on an undifferentiated body of ancestors during the Neolithic. During the Middle Bronze Age, burial drops out of the picture and is replaced by a settled landscape of farmsteads and associated field systems. This is the first time large scale clearance and cultivation is apparent in the archaeological record and there is an apparent move away from burial ritual to a concern with natural fertility and agricultural reproduction. Ritual appears to have taken place in and around the home, as well as in special locations such as rivers and bogs where metals were deposited, perhaps as offerings to the gods or as part of competitive consumption, tied to struggles for social and political status. The Late Bronze Age is seen as a period of

"....archaeologists have made an unwarranted distinction between domestic landscapes, with their evidence of food production, and what they call ritual landscapes, with their more specialised monuments. In fact, both were built out of the very same elements. Instead of basing our analysis on the positions of different monuments in the landscape we should have begun by recognising the fundamental importance of cosmology." 6

This first chapter has dealt with the introductory aspects of the study including an outline of the physical nature of the study area, previous research and models in the region and the background to the Bronze Age and its chronology.

increasing stress and political tension, as metal supplies start to dry up and the first “defended” settlements are constructed on hilltops. Throughout the Bronze Age there is an element of continuity, as metalwork is deposited across the period in watery locations, as well as on dry land: a practice with antecedents in the Neolithic.

Chapter 2 will deal with burial, looking at round barrows and flat cemeteries and their geographic location and landscape positioning. The relationship between cemeteries and single barrows will be explored, as will other methods of disposal of the dead in the Middle and Late Bronze Age.

This outline of the Bronze Age has been deliberately glib, as problems are beginning to be identified with the “traditional” views of the period (for a more detailed discussion of the approaches to Bronze Age studies, see Morris (1992) and Bradley (1996)). Not least, the “settling down” of the Middle Bronze Age has been criticised, with Bruck (2000: 288) suggesting that Middle Bronze Age settlement was apparently stable and monumental, but this permanence is possibly illusory. Barrett & Needham (1988: 135) suggest that chalkland communities would have been relatively mobile, as this would be needed to maintain communal obligations of labour and social reproduction and that labour and resources would be drawn from a number of different settlement foci. Settlement sites in Wessex, it has been argued (Barrett & Corney 1991: 236-7), were unlikely to be self-sustaining units of production and there would have been movement between sites, which varied around the agricultural cycle (ibid). It is becoming apparent that, far from being settled, sensible farmers intent on agricultural intensification, the Middle Bronze Age population were perhaps more mobile and more concerned with ritual than has previously been appreciated.

Chapter 3 will discuss the lithic evidence from the study area, concentrating on axe hammers, maceheads, battle axes and barbed and tanged arrowheads. The currency of the former through the period of early metal production is noted, as is the almost exclusive use of glacial erratics for perforated implements despite there being a source for Group XII close by. Chapters 4 and 5 look at different aspects of the settlement evidence: the different types of settlement recognised archaeologically and the results of that settlement and agricultural activity detected in the pollen record. The difficulties of identifying settlement evidence and apparent lack of “Wessex” style settlement and associated field systems is noted, but the presence of burnt mounds and their significance is discussed. Previously unrecorded pottery finds of Late Bronze Age date are also commented upon. The palynological evidence from the study area is useful for assessing the nature of settlement during the Bronze Age and how this changed through time, with notable periods of interference with the natural vegetation in the Early Bronze Age and again at the very end of the Late Bronze Age.

The organisation of metalworking and its distribution have also come under attack recently, the dependence on models which are closely associated with a modern, industrial outlook is being overturned in favour of ones based more closely on pre-industrial societies. Rowlands (1971: 212) has suggested from the ethnographic evidence that full time specialisation or agricultural surpluses are not necessary for development of metalworking or social stratification and that there is no evidence in the Middle Bronze Age for social stratification from burials or settlements. Likewise, the presence of itinerant smiths postulated by Childe (1958) is beginning to be replaced by an appreciation of the complex relationship between smith and client (Rowlands 1971) and the multiple levels on which small scale, parttime specialism can operate (Bradley 1998b: 26-7, Rowlands 1971: 218).

Chapter 6 documents the metalwork finds from the study area and explores the range of contexts of deposition of both single finds and hoards, as well as how these changed through time. The culmination of the deposition of axes in the Middle Bronze Age is remarked upon and the relationships between metalwork deposits and other sites is explored. The study area is central to a region with many copper ore deposits, some of which were exploited in prehistory. The evidence for metal exploitation and its relationship with settlement sites is dealt with in Chapter 7, as is the other evidence for “industrial” processes such as casting and smelting. Some possible ritual aspects of this material are also discussed.

Structure and Approach of the Study: This study will take a thematic approach, dealing with the different categories of evidence throughout the Bronze Age in turn. This is not meant to imply any separation of these categories existed in the past, but is merely a heuristic device to handle a large dataset. Wherever possible, links between the categories selected will be made and these themes developed for discussion in Chapter 8.

Chapter 8 will be the discussion and conclusion of this research, where theoretical arguments will be worked through and a new approach for looking at the Bronze Age in the Northern English Midlands developed. This will involve drawing out themes running through the data: the relationship of people to the landscape; the changing foci of concern throughout the Bronze Age and an integrated approach to settlement and metalwork,

7

between different categories of evidence is of central importance, as is their relationship to the landscape and how these links evolved, were manipulated and changed over time. It is also a central tenet of this thesis that regions thought of as marginal, both in prehistory and by the modern archaeologist, can yield data that can contribute to new ways of thinking about prehistoric societies not only on a regional but also national level.

looking at production, circulation, consumption and how this changed through time. The central role of food and its production will be explored and the connections between the different aspects of material culture and social practice examined. Throughout this study a contextual, landscape approach will be maintained: one in which sites are seen within their setting, both cultural and natural. The relationships

Bronze Age Chronology: Date/Phase Early: 2500-2150: Copper Age 2150-2000: Brithdir 2000-1900: Mile Cross 1900-1700: Willerby 1700-1500: Arreton

Pottery/Material Culture

Metalwork

Early/Mid Beaker Late Beaker Food Vessels/Early Urns Wessex 1 Wessex 2/Camerton-Snowshill

Axes, halberds, knife/dagger armlets decorated axes flanged axes tanged spearheads, razors

Middle: 1500-1400: Acton

Deverel-Rimbury & Associated

Shield pattern palstaves, dirks, socketed spearheads Looped/trident palstaves, rapiers, small tools, ornaments, sickles Swords, shields, cauldrons, flesh hooks, socketed axes

use of lead in bronze alloy

Chapes, horse gear, lunate opening spearheads, slotted swords, gouges Regional axes, diversity of types incl. Socketed gouges, sickles swords, ribbed socketed axes

1400-1275: Taunton 1275-1140: Penard Late: 1140-1020: Wilburton 1020-800: Ewart 800-650: Llyn Fawr

use of iron

Table 1.1: Bronze Age chronology used in this study

8

9

Chapter 2: Burial crop marks, introducing an element of bias into the pattern of monuments discovered from the air. Further, the record from air photography is biased towards ritual monuments, as settlements are difficult to identify from the air alone. Watson (1991) noted that ring ditches also tended to occur in groups of 2-4 with the largest group of 12 spread over 1.5 km at Cross Houses, Shropshire (just to the south of the study area at SJ 545 068). A tendency for location on river gravels was noted, but some sites on boulder clays were noticed from the air. Ring ditches were absent from some gravel areas, however, whilst other crop marks were not, suggesting that they reflected a representative sample. Watson (ibid) suggested that ring ditches were located in marginal areas, away from settlement and that it was in the apparently “blank” areas that such settlements should be searched for. It has been argued that ring ditches may never have had an associated mound and thus may represent a different monument class to round barrows (Hughes 1995: 89). However, when excavated, ring ditches usually yield Early Bronze Age burial deposits, although some may have a construction date in the Late Neolithic (ibid).

Introduction: N.B: throughout this and later chapters, names of sites in capitals refer to the relevant county tables, presented at the end of this chapter. There are a total of 212 round barrows in the entire study area with Cheshire having the highest frequency (109) followed by Shropshire (86), and Staffordshire (19). Of the 86 round barrows in the Shropshire part of the study area the majority (68%) occur only as ring ditches. Watson (1991) studied the ring ditches of the Severn and Tern valleys in this region and noted that most cluster in the 15-20m diameter range. A concentration of ring ditches in the lower reaches of the Tern, around Crudgington and Upton Forge (c. SJ 63 18) was noted, along with two groups at Berwick and Ford (SJ 41 13). Other noticeable concentrations in this area are those around Morton (SJ 29 24 with 12 barrows), Knockin (SJ 33 22 with 20 barrows) and Baschurch (SJ 42 23 with 9 barrows) in the NW and a diffuse scatter of 9 barrows around Withington (SJ 56 13) in the south. Indeed, nearly a quarter of the barrows in the study area belong to the first three concentrations, but this may merely reflect the fact that the free draining nature of the soils in this part of the region are sensitive to soil and crop mark formation.

Several excavations have taken place at round barrows within Cheshire, mainly by David Wilson of Keele University, but most of these remain unpublished beyond interim notes. The round barrows of Cheshire and Staffordshire remain poorly understood, but barrow lists for these counties have been drawn up by Longley (1987) and by Gunstone (1965) respectively. The discussion of barrows and their significance in the region has moved little beyond noting their distribution and the soil types on which they occur and equating this to the needs of Bronze Age agriculturalists (see Previous Research, Chapter 1). This section will assess the nature of the evidence, the landscape position of round barrows and the soil types on which they occur, then move on to a more in depth discussion of the possible meanings this may have held for Bronze Age populations.

Of the 109 round barrows within the Cheshire part of the study area 26 (24%) form six cemeteries but the majority occur in ones or twos. The most notable concentrations of barrows are those around Withington; to the west of Oakmere and to the west of Macclesfield. None of the 19 round barrows in the Staffordshire part of the study area form cemeteries, although there is a noticeable concentration on the ridge to the west of the Trent in the region of Bury Bank hillfort (SJ 882 359), where six barrows form a very dispersed linear cemetery running NW/SE. The barrow cemeteries in the study area will be discussed in greater detail below. The ring ditches of Shropshire are the most well known Bronze Age monument type within the region and have been studied by Whimster (1989), Watson (1991) and Baker (1992). Several examples outside the study area have also been excavated, for example at Meole Brace, Shropshire (Hughes 1995), Bromfield, Shropshire (Hughes, Leach & Stanford 1995) and Four Crosses, Powys (Warrilow et al 1986). Whimster (1989: 64) points out that most Bronze Age monuments in SW Shropshire are confined to the river valleys, but that large numbers of monuments are found on the unploughed uplands and it is a possibility that many more may occur on the intermediate altitudes but are beneath soils which do not reveal crop marks. Whimster (1989: 17) summarises over 50 sites of all periods known from cropmarks within the south west of the study area, none of which occur on the gleyed soils. However, heavy, wet soils tend not to develop a moisture deficit and thus do not produce soil or

Altitude The height AOD of round barrows was assessed from 1:25 000 scale OS maps and rounded to the nearest 10 metres. Each barrow was then placed in an altitude band of 25m separation. The average round barrow altitude is 86m AOD with the majority clustering around 51 to 125m. 75% of the distribution is located under 100m, the most common altitude being between 76-100m with 38% (n=63) of all barrows in this region. According to Burnham and Mackney (1964) under 120m AOD is considered a low altitude, and is today associated with relatively low rainfall. Approximately 75% of the study area lies between 50-100m, however, and the distribution of barrows may merely reflect the topography of the study 10

area. It is interesting to note, however, that 49% of all sites in the Mersey Basin, studied by Nevell (1992: 47)

were also located below 100m AOD.

Altitude

No. of barrows

% of barrows

0-25 m 26-50 m 51-75 m 76-100 m 101-125 m 126-150 m 151-175 m 176-200m Over 200m

8 14 41 63 23 11 2 1 3

5 8 25 38 14 7 1 1 2

Table 2.1: Altitude of Round Barrows

Round Barrow Altitudes 70 60

metres

50 40 30 20 10 0 0-25 m 26-50 m 51-75 m 76-100 101-125 126-150 151-175 176m m m m 200m

Over 200m

Figure 2.1: Round barrow altitudes

Soils Osmond (1954) for the Wem district of Shropshire. No detailed soil mapping was available for Staffordshire so no analysis was attempted for this part of the study area.

The soil types upon which barrows are located was obtained from Furness (1978) for Cheshire, Burnham & Mackney (1964) for Shropshire and Crompton &

11

Soil Type Brown soils Surface water gley Ground water gley Podzol Peat Total

No. of barrows

% of barrows

78 25 7 16 1 127

61 20 6 12 1 100

% of Study Area 39 41 8 3 9 100

Expected Frequency 49 53 10 4 11 127

Table 2.2: Soil Types: expected and actual frequencies.

Actual and Expected Frequencies 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

actual expected

Brown soils

Surface water gley

Ground water gley

Podzol

Peat

Figure 2.2: Round barrow soil types From Table 2.2 it can be seen that there are more than expected on brown soils and podzols, and less than expected on gleys and peats. This is interesting as it holds true even in Cheshire, where the commonest soil type are gleys yet the highest number of barrows are located on brown soils.

•

valley, Cheshire which has much ridge and furrow), resulting in fewer identifiable sites in areas now used for pasture. The difficulties of digging heavy soils, and their susceptibility to waterlogging, making the construction of barrows difficult and impractical on these soils. Ritual removal of good, productive land for the dead during the Bronze Age.

Factors influencing this distribution may include the following:

•

•

The evidence from this study shows that ideas such as those of Watson (1991) are not correct and that round barrows and ring ditches tend to be located on good soils, not on “marginal” land. Hallam (1993) plotted finds of Early Bronze Age pottery in the North West (basically covering the area from Cumbria to north east Wales) and found that well drained, deep soils over coarse till were preferred and that slowly permeable soils, suitable for stock rearing, were avoided. The relevance of soil type to the distribution pattern is somewhat suspect, however.

•

•

The soils in Shropshire being more susceptible to moisture deficit (i.e. dominated by brown soils) and therefore producing more evidence, especially of ring ditches. More flying over Shropshire in greater range of conditions (by Chris Musson & CPAT, amongst others over at least 30 years), resulting in more sites being identified on these soils. Medieval and later agriculture removing upstanding earthworks (especially in areas such as the Weaver 12

fact, a barrow) and in Staffordshire a total of four round barrows have been excavated, two in the 19th century and two in the last ten years.

Limbrey (1987) suggests that different soil types can produce patterns rather than reflect the actual distribution. In addition, alluviation and colluviation, past and present land use and vegetation can all affect the perceived distribution pattern. The differences in numbers of barrows on the Cheshire glacial tills and on the Shropshire sands and gravels may entirely be a product of the nature of the soils rather than a genuine reflection of the archaeological record or locational preferences of the Bronze Age population. Indeed, Ragg et al (1984: 21-25) mapped the soils of the region according to their potential soil moisture deficit (PSMD) and it is clear from this map that soils likely to produce a moisture deficit (and therefore develop cropmarks) occur only in the area around Chester and around Shrewsbury: exactly the areas in which most cropmarks have been noted.

Of the excavated examples, only three (MANLEY 1, LITTLE BOLLINGTON 1 and WILMSLOW 1, all in Cheshire) have produced metal grave goods (a bronze pin and a bronze dagger each, respectively). A bone dagger pommel was recovered from WILMSLOW 3, Cheshire, suggesting that a dagger accompanied this burial (Longley 1987) and at Bignall Hill in Staffordshire (AUDLEY RURAL 1) a bronze dagger was ploughed from the mound of a barrow (Gunstone 1965: 32, Pape 1927: 145). Other grave goods are few with only eight burials being accompanied. These grave goods include a barbed and tanged arrowhead, a flint knife and other flint tools. A battle axe, a bone pin and a possible quern are also known to have accompanied cremation deposits as are a pottery “stud” and a “mouth bellows” (Longley 1987). Although many primary burials are accompanied by or contained in a pottery vessel, there are as many unurned cremations as there are with Collared Urns (the most popular pottery type:see Table 2.3). Four burials were also contained in sacks or leather containers. Only a single Beaker burial is known from the study area and Hallam (1993) has noted the paucity of Beaker pottery finds from the region, in contrast to the many finds from Cumbria. There are a total of four burials with Food Vessels and a total of 13 with either “urns” or cinerary urns. Two “Pygmy” vessels have also been recovered from different barrows (Longley 1987). There is no apparent difference in the provision of pottery with primary and secondary burials, both may or may not have a pot with them, and in some cases the primary may be unurned and the secondaries urned.

No statistical tests have been carried out on the data presented here, for two reasons. First, the data set is partial (there is no data for just under one third of the study area), but more importantly statistical tests cannot prove a causal link between aspects of the data. The distribution of sites on soils can be proved to be nonrandom, for example, but this does not prove that soils were the determinant factor in the location of barrows. A fundamental problem with the use of soil maps for archaeological purposes is that the nature of the soils in prehistory is not known. Soils under Neolithic woodland would have been fundamentally different than those of today, offering different opportunities and potentials. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to know the distribution and nature of soil types in prehistory and the simplistic mapping of sites onto present day soil distributions is misleading and ultimately unhelpful, resulting in the construction of models that could not possibly apply to conditions in the past. For these reasons this approach has been abandoned for the rest of this thesis.

Primary inhumations are not well known from the study area, with reports of “several” from APPLETON 1, Cheshire and a possible in DELAMERE 8, Cheshire (Longley 1987). Cremation appears to have been the “normal” rite for burials under round barrows and of the seven definite primary deposits known, four appear to have been accompanied by or contained in pottery vessels. A similar pattern was noted in the Mersey Basin (Nevell 1992: 47), where 83 of 88 burials from 44 sites

Excavations 35 (32%) of the barrows in the Cheshire part of the study area have been excavated, but few under modern conditions and even fewer published. A single barrow was excavated in the Shropshire part of the study area in 1840 (and this suggested that the earthwork was not, in

Pottery Type Collared Urn Food Vessel Beaker Pygmy Vessel “urn” Cinerary Urn Sack or bag Unurned

Number 17 4 1 2 9 4 4 17

Table 2.3: Early Bronze Age Pottery Types from Burial Contexts

13

see below) and ten to twelve “urns” were found at MANLEY 2, Cheshire suggesting a secondary deposit (Longley 1987).

were cremations with a total of only five inhumations apparent. In the study area, DELAMERE 9 and PRESTBURY 1a, both in Cheshire, produced cremations in “urns” while the cremation from GRAPPENHALL 2 was contained in a Food Vessel and that from HENBURY CUM PEXALL 4, Cheshire was contained in a Collared Urn with another accessory vessel (ibid). GOOSTRY 1, Cheshire (Jodrell Bank (i), Wilson 1988) contained a primary cremation pit filled with a thick deposit of cremated bone. This deposit contained the rim of a Collared Urn, the rest of which overlay the pit fill, suggesting it was deliberately broken and included with the burial. An unurned primary burial came from OLD WITHINGTON 1, Cheshire (Withington Hall (i) Wilson 1979, 1981), where the cremated remains of an adult female, c.18 years old, probably contained in a leather bag were excavated (see below). At Fairy Brow, Little Bollington, Cheshire (Nevell 1988b & c), the primary cremation of a young male, also in a leather bag, was accompanied by a single riveted tanged dagger and yielded a radiocarbon date of 1880-1630 cal BC (3435+ 35 BP, no sample number given). The only other unurned primary cremation burial comes from OAKMERE 1, Cheshire, excavated by Forde-Johnson (1960). A primary cremation burial of a young man was found at the centre of the barrow, but there were no sign of any pottery or grave goods (ibid). Evidence of fire pits or pyres has been found at CHURCH LAWTON 2, OAKMERE 1 and GAWSWORTH 1, all in Cheshire, as well as at Kings and Queens Low, Staffordshire (TIXALL 1 and 2, see below). Evidence interpreted as a mortuary house was found at CHURCH LAWTON 1, Cheshire (McNeil 1982). This consisted of a roughly rectangular turf and daub structure at the centre of a setting of large glacial erratic boulders c.25m in diameter. Charcoal from this structure was radiocarbon dated to 2300-1650 cal BC (3600 + 100 BP, HAR 5533). The mortuary house was subsequently sealed below a mound of sand from the local subsoil but no burials were associated with the structure and the monument was interpreted as being a cenotaph barrow (ibid). Another “primary structure” was found at Jodrell Bank (i), where a crescent shaped feature of sand c.1 metre wide appears to have represented a prebarrow, free-standing turf stack on which the primary burial was orientated (Wilson 1988).

CHURCH LAWTON 2, Cheshire, has perhaps the most complex burial record in the study area and is worth considering in greater depth. Only an interim note has been published on the excavations (McNeil 1982) but some details of the construction of the monument are clear. The barrow was constructed in two phases: Phase 1 consisted of an empty central rectangular pit covered by a wooden lid. This pit had been cut into the subsoil, which had been deturfed. Over this was constructed a barrow of sand from the immediate area, 16m in diameter and surrounded by an irregular circular ditch. The wooden lid was radiocarbon dated to 2040-1600 cal BC (3490 + 80 BP, HAR 5537) and charcoal from the ditch was dated to 2140-1730 cal BC (3560 + 80 BP, HAR 5538). The apparent discrepancy between these dates may be due to an “old wood” error from the wooden lid. Into the mound were placed eighteen cremations, with a cluster in the south west quadrant of the barrow. These included adults, children and infants, most having no accompanying grave goods. Two of the cremations were placed in sacks and one of these was accompanied by a battle axe. Two pits contained small Food Vessels but none of these contained cremations and a complete Biconical Urn containing cremated bones was found upright in a pit in the north west quadrant. A plano convex knife which had been burnt and broken was deposited in another cremation pit. Phase 2 of construction at CHURCH LAWTON 2 involved the enlargement of the mound to c.30m diameter by dumping more sand on the barrow and capping this with turf. One possible cremation was associated with this phase, but the main activity was found to be the construction of three bowl shaped pits with stakes set into the bottom and sides, filled with charcoal and ash. These features were interpreted as fire pits, used for the cremation of defleshed, disarticulated bones which were buried elsewhere. Two of these pits were radiocarbon dated to 1890-1510 cal BC (3400 + 80 BP, HAR 5535) and 1770-1400 cal BC (3300 + 80 BP, HAR 5536). Similar pits were excavated from beneath Cairn I at Carneddau, Powys (Gibson 1993), likewise interpreted as being used for the in-situ cremation of disrticulated human remains.

Many barrows acted as foci for subsequent burials with 9 barrows yielding a total of 49 secondary burials. DELAMERE 8 and OAKMERE 1¸both in Cheshire, contained only single secondary cremations (Longley 1987, Forde-Johnstone 1960: 81-3) with OLD WITHINGTON 1, Cheshire (Withington Hall (i) Wilson 1979, 1981) containing two unurned secondary deposits (see below). GRAPPENHALL 1 and 2, Cheshire, are described as containing “several” secondary cremations and also appear to have formed the focus of a flat cemetery containing Collared Urns and Food Vessels (Archaeological Surveys 1976). A total of five cremations including a single Food Vessel, two Collared Urns and two unurned cremations formed the secondary deposits at GAWSWORTH 1, Cheshire (Rowley 1977,

At OLD WITHINGTON 1, Cheshire (Withington Hall (i), Wilson 1979, 1981), a primary cremation of a woman, c.18 years old and apparently killed by a blow to the head, was placed in a leather container and buried in a Dshaped pit on a ground surface which had been stripped of turf. A square of turf was laid over the filled pit and a layer of sand with gravel, then a layer of charcoal, both 34cm thick, were placed above this. The mound was then constructed of a turf stack, covered by a layer of sand and revetted by turf around the perimeter of the barrow. This turf stack contained Late Neolithic flint scrapers, transverse arrowheads, blades and utilised flint pieces. The primary cremation was radiocarbon dated to 20501500 cal BC (3440 + 100 BP, HAR 3252). Two 14

During Phase 3 of the barrow, a final, fifth cremation burial was placed in the backfill of the quarry ditch, then the barrow mound was enlarged with material derived from a further, outer quarry ditch. The mound thus covered all of the previous ditches and burials and was capped by cobbles. The cremation burial was contained in an inverted pottery vessel and consisted of a few fragments of bone and some ash. The mound material of the barrow contained the largest collection of Peterborough Ware (a mixture of Ebbsfleet and Mortlake styles) in the North Midlands, probably representing the accidental incorporation of Neolithic domestic refuse into the mound.

secondary unurned cremations were found in the mound and a pit containing an inhumation of a child under 10 years old was discovered just outside the perimeter of the barrow in the south east quadrant. This was unable to be radiocarbon dated due to the poor preservation of bone, but one secondary cremation yielded a date of 1900-1300 cal BC (3300 + 100 BP, HAR 3259). Pollen analysis from the pre-barrow soil and from the turf stack at OLD WITHINGTON 1 showed low tree pollen and high proportions of plantain and fern, suggesting regeneration of agricultural land. It was proposed by Wilson (1981: 157) that both pastoral and arable farming had taken place close to the barrow and that a settlement site might be located nearby.

A further, recent, find of Beaker material was made by Keith Matthews and his team at Carden Park in Cheshire. Here fragments of possible rusticated Beaker were found in mid-eighteenth century deposits in front of a small cave (Matthews n.d). A few scraps of eroded burnt human bone were found nearby, including the distal end of a radius. These could be interpreted as a disturbed Beaker burial, although Beakers more usually accompany unburnt burials. Further comment must await full publication of this site.

The only Beaker burial from the study area is that from GAWSWORTH 1, Cheshire (Rowley 1977). Here a pit was dug into ground stripped of turf and topsoil and into this pit a complete long necked Beaker of Clarke’s Developed Southern British Beaker class (S2) and a flint knife were deposited. No human bone was recovered, due to acid soil conditions. The pit was lined with compacted black ash c.10mm thick. Over the Beaker and within the pit, a stone cairn was constructed and this was covered in a sand mound c.13 metres in diameter, derived from a quarry ditch consisting of a series of pits in concentric arcs. Two of these pits contained unfinished axe hammers and the upper fills of these features contained bone fragments, pieces of flint and potsherds, some of which had been thrown into the ditch segments and shattered.

Unpublished excavations at Grappenhall, Cheshire (Archaeological Surveys 1976) revealed a burial in a stone cist at the centre of a stone revetted cairn c.12m in diameter which had a possible entrance gap. A number of secondary burials were inserted into the cairn and urned and unurned cremations were found around the base of the mound. A second cairn produced a small cinerary urn and a possible saddle quern (although it is not certain if this is a primary deposit) and five cremation burials, two cinerary urns and fragments of Food Vessel were noted from the area around the mound (ibid).

Phase 2 of the barrow consisted of a roughly circular pit which had been dug through the fabric of the Beaker barrow and a deposit of heavily blackened cobbles placed in the bottom. The pit was filled with charcoal and the deposits surrounding it heavily burned, suggesting its use as a fire pit or pyre. A further, oval, pit was also excavated through the mound during this phase and a small stone erected at one end. Four cremation burials were made during this phase, three of which were contained in urns. “Inurned Cremation 1” was on the floor of the quarry ditch and had been subsequently damaged. The deposit consisted of burned bones mixed with ash and charcoal, two flints and a clay object identified as an ear or nose stud. These were contained in an undecorated Collared Urn, of which only the cordon to base survived. The human bone report by C.B Denston of Cambridge University (in Rowley 1977: 19-21) suggests that two individuals are represented in this burial: an adult, possibly female and an immature individual. “Inurned Cremation 2” consisted of cremated bones, charcoal and ash within an undecorated Collared Urn, accompanied by an accessory vessel and a pottery object interpreted as a mouth bellows, possibly for metalworking. The bone report suggests two individuals are represented in this burial: a male and a female. “Unurned Cremation 1” was in a pit dug into the base of the quarry ditch and accompanied by a flint tool and apparently of a male aged c.39-45. “Unurned Cremation 2” consisted of a disturbed pit with black ash and bone fragments.

In 1859 two barrows in the Staffordshire part of the study area were excavated: one at Monument Hill (SWYNNERTON 5), the other at Northwood Farm (The Trentham Barrow, SWYNNERTON 1). The barrow at Monument Hill was a gravel mound over a stone cist, c.30cm deep, which was filled with burnt bone (Molyneux 1878: 9). A flint arrowhead and more human bone was found in the mound. At Northwood Farm, a stone built cist cut into the old ground surface was filled with human bone and ash, the cremation burial representing two individuals. In different parts of the mound were three or four other inurned cremations. A leaf shaped arrowhead and other flint was found in the mound (ibid: 10). Kings Low and Queens Low (TIXALL 1 & 2) were excavated in the 1990s by the Stoke on Trent Museum Archaeological Society (information from Winston Hollins and Gary Lock). Although unpublished, preliminary data suggests that Kings Low contained a primary cremation of a child c. 9-11 years old with the remains of a pyre represented by oak charcoal. A secondary cremation was found in the mound, which was largely destroyed by animal burrowing, tree roots and podzolisation. From the mound itself came Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age flints including two barbed and tanged arrowheads. Grooved Ware is also reported to 15

altitude is 78m AOD, the cemeteries at Grappenhall and Knowl Plantation being the only very low lying examples.

have been excavated from the barrow (Gibson, unpublished report). At Queens Low (Staffordshire SMR 855), three burials were recovered, thought to be a child, an adult and an older adult, but the positioning of these is unrecorded. Flint is also reported from the mound. Charcoal from Kings Low returned radiocarbon dates of 1750-1520 cal BC and 1740-1520 cal BC (3370 + 35 BP and 3365 + 40 BP, Winston Hollins, pers com).

Barrow cemeteries were classified by Ashbee (1960) as falling into either nucleated, linear and dispersed cemeteries. Cemeteries are defined as groups of three or more barrows in close proximity. Nucleated cemeteries occur where barrows occur in a group, often clustering around one particular barrow (frequently referred to as a “founders grave”). Linear cemeteries consist of barrows arranged in either a straight or curving line and dispersed cemeteries can have elements of both nucleated and linear cemeteries but with no overall strict pattern. Flemming (1971) refined these classifications stating that in linear and nucleated cemeteries the distance between barrows is usually less than 100 metres. He also added area cemeteries to the classification, defined as barrows in twos and threes between 200-400 metres apart and suggested that dispersed linear and nucleated cemeteries existed where spacing between barrows extended up to 150 metres.

From the excavated examples, a few commonalities can be observed. • Usually the area on which the barrow was to be constructed was deturfed. • A primary burial of a single, usually cremated, individual was placed in a pit cutting the old ground surface. • A mound was constructed over the primary burial and into this were inserted secondary cremation burials, often over a lengthy period. This may also have been associated with the construction of funeral pyres. • A final phase of enlargement ends the active life of the barrow. This enlargement material may also incorporate domestic material such as flint, pottery and charcoal. • Secondary cremation burials take place around the mound or in the ditch.

There is an interesting contrast between the northern and southern parts of the study area. In Cheshire cemeteries tend to be linear and located close to streams, whereas in the southern part of the study area there is a tendency to nucleation, often on the sides of hills. Each cemetery will be discussed individually below

This sequence of activities is broadly in line with that observed from across the British Isles in the Early Bronze Age (Ashbee 1960) and the significance of these practices will be discussed below.

Seven Lows: Seven round barrows clustered around a dry valley, c.75m AOD. Two further barrows occur nearby. First noticed by Leland in 16th Century, who named them the "vii Loos". One barrow was destroyed in the 19th Century for the road and another opened in 1845 to reveal inverted Collared Urn on a flat stone (Fig 12.2 in Longley 1987). The site in now severely damaged by gardens, quarries and ploughing. See figure 2.3.

Barrow Cemeteries There are a total of eleven barrow cemeteries within the study area. Most are nucleated cemeteries and are often located close to or overlooking streams. The average

Name: Seven Lows: Old Withington (Chesh) Jodrell Bank Church Lawton Grappenhall Lower Pexhill Broadlands Bryn y Wystyn (West) Bryn y Wystyn (East) Withington (Shrops) Knowl Plantation

NGR

No. of Barrows

SJ 567 670 SJ 807 724 SJ 791 704 SJ 809 559 SJ 637 866 SJ 872 713 SJ 415 219 SJ 326 233 SJ 334 233 SJ 572 130 SJ 410 561

7 4 6 3 3 3 5 6 3 3 4

16

Type nucleated linear linear linear nucleated n/a nucleated nucleated nucleated nucleated nucleated

Figure 2.3 Barrow Cemeteries in the Study Area (after Longley 1987)

17

Figure 2.4: Bryn y Wystyn and Broadlands Barrow Cemeteries

GRAPPENHALL 1 had a central cist and several secondary cremations, while GRAPPENHALL 2 had a Food Vessel with a primary burial and an uncertain number of secondary cremations. A further Food Vessel came from the outer margin of the cairn from the original ground surface. A cremation cemetery was also noted adjacent to these two cairns, with two Collared Urns and an Enlarged Food Vessel recovered. A third cairn of sandstone blocks was discovered in 1927, but all three sites now lie under a housing estate (Archaeological Surveys 1976).

Old Withington (Cheshire) Four barrows in a linear cemetery by the side of Dingle Brook, c.60m AOD. The cemetery was the focus of (unpublished) excavations by Wilson of Keele University, who excavated both OLD WITHINGTON 1 and 3. See figure 2.3. Jodrell Bank Six barrows in a linear cemetery alongside Red Lion Brook, c.75m AOD. The site is badly ploughed and a cremation was uncovered in GOOSTREY 2 (Jodrell Bank ii) during potato planting in 1977 (Cheshire SMR 1037). One of the mounds was opened in 1867 to reveal an urned cremation and was bulldozed flat in 1950. A further mound has also been destroyed by "landscaping". GOOSTRY 1 (Jodrell Bank i) was excavated by Wilson (1988 and see above). See figure 2.3.

Lower Pexhill Three earthen mounds c.150m AOD, close to several small streams. One of these barrows was excavated by D. Bethell in 1967 and revealed five cremations and a carbonised piece of wood at the centre of the mound (Petch 1976a). The site of all three has been destroyed by mineral extraction and so the type of cemetery is impossible to assess.

Church Lawton Three barrows by the side of Hooze Hollow, c.90m AOD. The northernmost is destroyed and the other two were excavated in the 1980s (McNeil 1982). The sequence and significance of these excavations is discussed above. See figure 2.3.

Broadlands Five ring ditches c.80m AOD. On the east side of a small hill, overlooking the River Perry. See figure 2.4. Bryn y Wystyn (West) Six ring ditches on the south side of a hill which rises to 92mAOD. All of the ring ditches cluster on the south side

Grappenhall Three cairns c.20m AOD, close to the River Mersey. GRAPPENHALL 1 and 2 were excavated in 1931-4. 18

date of 1770-1400 cal BC (HAR 5536) also suggests a long chronology for this site. Further, although possibly accidental, incorporation of Neolithic material into barrow mound material is evident from GAWSWORTH 1 and OLD WITHINGTON 1, as well as from Kings Low (TIXALL 1) and HORTON 1. Gosden and Lock (1998) have recently stressed the importance of memory and history to site location in prehistory. The memory of the events that occurred at a certain site may have been central to group identity, with the construction of monuments a way of commemorating or formalising these events (Bradley 2000, Edmonds 1999).

of the hill c.80-85mAOD. See figure 2.4. Bryn y Wystyn (East) Three ring ditches clustering around the summit of a small hill c.87m AOD. See figure 2.4. Withington (Shropshire) Three ring ditches on the south side of the road opposite Laburnam Cottage. On ground gently sloping to the south east, c.55mAOD. Knowl Plantation Four ring ditches on the east side of the River Dee, c.15mAOD.

The landscape positioning of many round barrows in the study area is also interesting. In contrast to the highly visible location of barrow cemeteries in the other parts of England, most of the barrows in the study area are located in generally low-lying positions on the side of hills, in valleys or close to water. Although high locations were utilised (such as the summit of the Wrekin and Beeston Crag), these are the exception rather than the rule. There are also numerous opportunities in the landscape for the utilisation of “false crests” but these seem not to have been exploited to any great extent. It would appear that visibility was not an important factor in the location of Early Bronze Age burial monuments in the study area. This could merely reflect the undulating nature of the terrain, but highly visible locations do seem to have been ignored. The nucleated nature of many cemeteries may offer a clue as to why this was so. It is argued here that association with particular people or groups was a more important concern than association with a particular place during the Early Bronze Age. Thus barrows were constructed close to others as a way of drawing on association with a particular individual or group: being next to someone may have been more important than being seen by lots of people. The actual construction of barrow cemeteries was rare, however, and the more common form of drawing on these associations may have been by the insertion of cremated remains into existing monuments. Thus, the concept of a cemetery is incorporated into a single monument by the repeated deposition of human remains. That this did not occur in highly visible locations may reflect the importance of a known locale over a highly visible one. Very few of the round barrows in the study area are intervisible and perhaps the role of visual networks (the concept of being linked by being intervisible) were replaced in the study area by actual physical proximity.

Discussion Less than a quarter (23% n=47) of the barrows in the study area occur in cemeteries; barrows most frequently occurring singly or in twos (a pattern also noted by Barnatt (1999: 47) in the Peak District). This, combined with the high number of secondary burials from barrows in the study area, suggests that instead of the construction of barrow cemeteries, there was a concentration on single barrows which were used for burial activity over extended periods of time. Lynch (1993), in her excavations at Brenig Valley, identified “cemetery barrows” where exactly this happened: a primary burial under a mound was used as a focus for many secondary cremations spanning a long period. Petersen (1972) discusses at length the examples from Yorkshire where multiple burials were made in Early Bronze Age barrows and suggests that this may have been a form of “collective” burial. Some “empty” barrows (without a primary burial) appear to have been deliberately built to receive only “secondary” burials in the mound and an explanation of these barrows as cenotaphs was rejected. Barnatt (1999: 39-40) states that all barrows over 12m in diameter in the Peak District contain at least five burials and Lynch (2000: 126-7) suggests that “cemetery mounds”, common in the west of Britain, became the standard form of burial in Wales by c.2000 cal BC. Woodward (2000: 22-28) discusses other examples of “cemetery barrows” from the south of England. The use of round barrows for “collective” burial is now beginning to become more widely recognised, and the concept of round barrows equating with single burial is beginning to break down.

The importance of proximity and the possible myths that may have been built up around burial monuments is transparent at sites such as Anc’s Hill (Chitty 1929, Leah et al 1998: 96-7) where a natural mound was the focus for deposition of a unique “twin” food vessel and human remains. The reason for this could be argued in terms of a ritually charged natural landform having special spiritual significance (Tilley 1994, Bradley 2000), but it is argued here that it may have been the mis-identification of the mound as a round barrow during the Early Bronze Age that led to its association with death and burial. The importance of association can be seen here, even with a

Sites used for round barrows were often ones with a history: at Meole Brace, just to the south of the study area, the excavation of a ring ditch revealed a Late Neolithic inhumation dated to 3600-2920 cal BC (OxA4204) which then formed the focus for Early Bronze Age cremation deposits and a Late Bronze Age pit containing burnt bone and charcoal (Hughes 1995). The dates from Church Lawton iii suggest Late Neolithic activity on the site dated to 3100-2100 cal BC (HAR 5534) with Phase 1 of the round barrow dating to 23001650 cal BC (HAR 5533). A secondary cremation with a 19

monument which has been invented. Very similar burials next to and in natural mounds that look like barrows are recorded from Birtles Hall in Cheshire (SJ 8563 7453, SMR 1364) where urned cremations were found in the 19th century. Prehistoric deposits have also been found in natural mounds elsewhere in the country. At Hill Close, Feltwell, Norfolk (Healy 1996: 30-42. Site 5188/c1), into the top of the mound (which measured c.20m in diameter), proved by excavation to be natural, were inserted at least thirty inhumations, mainly of women, juveniles and infants, one of which was accompanied by late-style Beaker sherds. Early Bronze Age pottery was also inserted into the mound and areas of burning underlay some of the burials. Two of the burials from this site were radiocarbon dated and calibrate to 1520-1190 cal BC (3100 + 70BP, OxA 3069) and 1880-1510 cal BC (3380 + 70 BP, OxA 2885: ibid, 39). A Penard phase cauldron containing a fleshhook were also recovered from the mound during ploughing in 1961 (ibid: 30). Other burials inserted into natural mounds are known from Waterhall Farm, Chippenham, Cambridgeshire (Martin 1976) and Langham, Norfolk (Clarke 1940). At the Longham Mound, a natural sand mound which had been mistaken for a round barrow by archaeologists was excavated in 1984 (Wymer & Healy 1996: 32-36: Site 7239). A pit containing a complete, empty Beaker was found to have been dug into the mound, and two partially complete Beakers were also found within the body of the mound. No other artefacts or burials appeared to be associated with these, but a small pit containing a bifacially flaked flint knife was also excavated. Charcoal from the pit containing the complete Beaker was radiocarbon dated to 2500-2130 cal BC (3870 + 70BP, HAR 8520). The excavators were puzzled by the presence of prehistoric pottery within the mound and offered only this explanation:

One important strand of the relationship between burials and natural features is the importance of memory. Secondary deposits at round barrows, it is argued (Bradley 2000: 157-8), form part of a way of remembering the individuals buried within, the monument acting as a memorial whose significance is obvious, even if no longer understood. A second way of preserving memory is by telling stories, or other acts which leave no trace, but ensure the longevity of the memory of the person or place. Bradley eloquently summarises this argument in the following quote:

“All that can be surmised is that the actual mound had some significance which prompted the deliberate burial of one virtually complete and two broken Beakers close to the centre of the mound….but some mystic motivation seems more likely than any other reason for burying these Beakers”

Forgetting, like remembering, may have taken an active role in the way sites were used, allowing new associations to be formulated, new meanings to be articulated. If memory is an active force: stories need to be remembered and passed on, then forgetting too can be active. A story which falls out of favour is no longer remembered; a piece of landscape loses its significance, or is perhaps “rediscovered”. Changes in ritual and/or political power may require a different interpretation of certain events or places and the memories which are attached to these are manipulated, changed, forgotten.

“The distinction between monuments and natural places may have been that between two ways of remembering the past and two ways of thinking about time” (Bradley 2000: 158) The importance of memory to burial practices has recently been stressed (Gosden & Lock 1998, Bradley 2000: 155-158) and similarities between burial rites at round barrows, often separated by tens of years, have been interpreted as reflecting the memory and genealogical history of the group buried (Last 1998). The deposits within natural mounds, however, seem to contradict this. It is possible that natural mounds were mistaken for barrows in prehistory and used as such, allowing importance and association to be invented, perhaps as a way of negotiating power relationships. If this is the case, the identification of natural mounds as barrows involved the forgetting of associations of a particular feature and the invention of new ones. This interpretation allows for the insertion of “secondary” burials within natural features, and may also account for the deposition of some of the metalwork within the region, discussed in Chapter 6.

(Wymer & Healy 1996: 53) Closer to home, at Hendre, Flintshire, a “well defined and well preserved round barrow”, on excavation, proved to be totally natural (Brassil & Gibson 1999). Disarticulated and fragmented human bone, representing an adult male aged 25 years or over and three children aged between 3 to 9 years, was recovered from a pit in the top of this mound and yielded a radiocarbon date of 1890-1680 cal BC (3480 + 40 BP, BM 2922). Neolithic pits containing Grooved Ware, lithics and charred plant remains were also found at the site.

The long chronology, lack of intervisibility, landscape positioning and varied nature of deposits at round barrows in the study area may thus be explained in terms of the importance of close physical ties between individuals and the importance of known, familiar locales within the landscape. This may also reflect a more human-scale landscape; perhaps one of localised clearance and short range views as opposed to the (assumed) sweeping vistas of Wessex. The absence of grave goods may also have implications for this interpretation: few objects are known from burial deposits and this may perhaps reflect the fact that proximity, rather than the conspicuous consumption of objects, was

Richard Bradley has recently explored the relationship between archaeological monuments, deliberate deposits and natural places within the landscape (Bradley 2000). 20

an over-riding factor and an indicator of social status or importance.

Nonetheless, the body seems to be Early to Middle Bronze Age in date.

The link between the disposal of Early Bronze Age metalwork and burials will be explored in a later chapter, but it is suggested here that the disposal of metalwork in wet places may have formed part of ‘rites of liminality’ concerning the dead. Liminality is a concept increasingly becoming incorporated into the study of funerary archaeology (see Van Gennep 1960, Parker Pearson 1999: 25). The basic premise is that upon death, the body goes through a number of physical and ritual phases before becoming “fully dead”. The newly dead can often be viewed as not really dead until a certain time period has elapsed, sometimes associated with the escape of the “soul” or similar concept. After this period a body can receive a primary burial, usually being exhumed after the flesh has decayed. After this a final, secondary burial may take place, often associated with the cremation of the bones. The transformation of the bones by fire and their subsequent burial is a final “act of incorporation” when the person becomes fully dead and passes into the realm of the ancestors. Disturbance of the burial after the act of incorporation is often frowned upon and seen as an unnecessary disturbance of the ancestors who should be left in peace lest they cause trouble for the community. These rituals may take place over a relatively large spatial area with the cremation and burial of the dead forming only the ultimate conclusion to these rites. The fact that some round barrow cemeteries are located close to wetlands which have also had metalwork deposited in them (eg Whixall Moss, Boreatton Moss, see Chapter 6) as well as associated clearance may indicate such rites, where emphasis is placed on an extended and complex liminal period with the disposal of objects away from the grave rather than on the burial act or rite of incorporation. This concept has been explored by Barrett and Needham (1988: 133) and will be returned to later.

A palstave is also known from the Moss (Chitty 1933), apparently found eight feet down. A study by Hardy (1939) attempted to place the palstave within a vegetational phase of Moss development and it was found to correspond with a layer of pine stumps, subsequently known as the ‘Hardy Pine Stump Layer’ (Leah et al 1998: 16). This layer was radiocarbon dated to 800–100 cal BC (2307 + 110 BP, Q383), suggesting a Late Bronze/Iron Age date for the find. A reinterpretation by Chambers et al (cited in Leah et al 1998: 16) suggested that this date is misleading, however, and that it did not come from the Hardy Stump Layer, but a layer above it and that the Layer and the axe are both Middle Bronze Age in date. The pine layer was rapidly engulfed by renewed mire regrowth dated to 390-100 cal BC (2180 + 50 BP, SRR 3074), suggesting an environmental downturn associated with the extinction of pine (Leah et al 1998: 16). Turner (1962) recorded a decline in lime (tillia) pollen at Whixall Moss coincident with the depth of the bog body and associated with a decrease in tree pollen and the gradual increase of clearance indicators such as Plantago and Graminae. This was interpreted as fairly low level human interference with the vegetation, which was maintained until the Late Bronze Age, when a more stable episode, lasting 400 to 700 years occurred. After this period tree species began to increase and cultural indicators and grasses decreased. The whole sequence at the Moss was interpreted as resulting from a mixture of landuse patterns including pastoralism, arable agriculture and coppicing, and is generally supported by the analysis of O’Sullivan (1975). It is interesting to note the correspondence between the lime decline and the deposition of the bog body: even if these are only broadly contemporary, the beginning of vegetational clearance appears to have been marked by the deposition of a human body in the Moss.

Bog Bodies Two bog bodies dating to the Early/Middle Bronze Age have been discovered in the study area, one at Whixall Moss in Shropshire (Turner & Penney 1996) and one from Ashton Moss in Greater Manchester (Nevell 1997a). These unusual finds are somewhat enigmatic as few bog bodies are known from this date in the UK, most dating to the Iron Age or Roman periods. The only other finds of a similar date from the UK are a group of fourteen from around the Methwold in Norfolk (Healy & Housley 1992) and from the River Thames (Bradley & Gordon 1988).

Ashton Moss, Greater Manchester SJ 910 980 A skull was recovered from Ashton Moss in the late 19th/early 20th century and kept in the collections of the Department of Biological Anthropology at the University of Cambridge. This was re-discovered in 1992 during research for the Tameside Archaeological Survey and work in advance of the construction of the M66 (Nevell 1997a). The skull probably belonged to a male, aged under 50 years and a radiocarbon date of 1320-970 cal BC (2950 + 60 BP, Beta 97721) was obtained for one of the molars from the upper mandible. Paleoenvironmental work at the Moss, undertaken by the University of Manchester (ibid), suggested that the date of the bog body coincided with a drier period in the history of the Moss, dating to c.1500-900 cal BC. This layer also contained charcoal. A bronze socketed axehead was also found on the north west fringes of the Moss in the 19th century, in the region of the skull, but not associated with it. This still had part of the wooden shaft still attached but is unfortunately now lost (ibid). There are also two ring

Whixall Moss, Shropshire SJ 494 363 A body was dug out of the Moss in 1889, about five feet deep in the peat. This apparently lay at full length, naked and face down and there was some preservation of soft tissue. The body was found between the lower two levels of peat in the Moss which yielded a radiocarbon date of 1900-1200 cal BC (3238 + 115 BP, Q 467). Experience with the bodies at Lindow Moss suggested to Turner and Penney (1996) that the body may have died a few centuries later and sunk slightly through the peat. 21

Ripper 2000). The deposition of bodies in watery places may have formed part of a larger ritual use of wet places, intimately tied up with rites of liminality (see above) and the consumption of objects. This is a theme that will be returned to in the discussion in Chapter 8.

ditches at the northern edge of the Moss (Nevell 1992: 42).

Discussion The nature of Middle/Late Bronze Age burial in the northern Midlands of England is poorly understood, but the discovery of a pit containing burnt bone and charcoal and Late Bronze Age pottery at Meole Brace (Hughes 1995) is suggestive of the re-use of earlier monuments. Certainly, there is little evidence of formal disposal of the dead in an archaeologically detectable manner.

This chapter has dealt with the archaeologically visible ways in which the dead were disposed of during the Bronze Age in the study area. This record is necessarily biased towards the Early Bronze Age as it was during this period that highly visible modes of disposal were used. A single Middle/Late Bronze Age burial is known, but this is somewhat insignificant when compared to the probable size of the population during this period. However, just because burial “drops out” of the archaeological record, this does not mean that large funerals did not take place and that the mortuary rites and disposal of the dead became less important: we are dealing, perhaps, with issues of archaeological visibility rather than actual practice in the past. For example, cremations near rivers, into which the remains were swept, would leave very little archaeological trace, especially if the river subsequently changed it course or frequently flooded. Similarly the practice of excarnation, where the body is left to decay in the open, would leave little trace. A monument which was apparently used for this purpose was excavated at Wigber Low in the Peak District (Collis 1983). This consisted of a low, irregular cairn, on and around which was a scatter of human bone, mainly teeth and phalanges (ibid: 96). This was interpreted as the remains of a platform on which bodies were left to decay, the larger bones being removed for burial elsewhere after the flesh had rotted. No parallels were apparent for this mound, but it is a possibility that excarnation was a function of round barrow mounds elsewhere but is undetected due to the small number of remains involved and their apparent “unstratified” nature in the body of the mound. Gibson (1993: 34-5) gives examples of burials from under round barrows which lack skeletal elements, suggesting that this too is evidence of excarnation. The pits at CHURCH LAWTON 2 are also suggestive of the cremation of disarticulated, defleshed bone on the mound of a barrow (see above). The location of round barrows next to streams may indicate the importance of these natural features to burial practice/ritual and it is attractive to speculate that perhaps, during the Middle/Late Bronze Age, the rivers and streams themselves became the repository for the “special” dead, replacing monuments as a focus, as appears to have been the case in the River Thames. The incorporation of small amounts of cremated bone in “domestic” contexts seems to have begun during the Middle Bronze Age (Bruck 1995), perhaps this reflects the cremation of the entire body, only a small part of which was kept, the rest being disposed of in an “invisible” way. Certainly, the lack of evidence for formal modes of disposal of the dead during the Middle/Late Bronze Age should not be taken at face value to reflect a lack of concern over the dead, their treatment and disposal. Indeed it could even represent greater care to deposit the dead in contexts where they were unlikely to be disturbed.

The bog bodies from the study area do, however, shed a little light on burial rites other than those involving the construction of monuments. The disposal of the dead under or in round barrows was not the norm during the Early Bronze Age (if this were the case, the population over this 1500 year period in the whole study area would have been c.60 people), but other burial rites are archaeologically invisible. Whilst the body from Whixall Moss compliments the Early Bronze Age evidence, the example from Ashton Moss (which is more securely dated) is the only example of a Middle/Late Bronze Age burial from the study area. During this period the method of disposal of the dead drops out of the archaeological record and may have involved deposition with “rubbish” deposits or may have taken place on and amongst domestic sites (for a detailed discussion of the evidence from southern England see Bruck 1995). The deposition of single skulls (mainly of young males) in the Thames during the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age was noted by Bradley and Gordon (1988), and this appears to compliment the deposition of metalwork. Indeed, one of the skulls from between Vauxhall and Battersea bridges has the same radiocarbon date as that from Ashton Moss (2950 + 60 BP, OxA 1198. Bradley & Gordon 1988: 508). The deposition of skulls, mainly without lower mandibles, is suggestive of excarnation of bodies and is perhaps further evidence of Late Bronze Age funerary practice. Similar evidence has also been recently found in a palaeochannel of the River Soar in Birstall, Leicestershire (Beamish & Ripper 2000). Here, the remains of at least two adult males were recovered, the skull of one with sharp cut-marks on the posterior of the atlas vertebrae. These cut-marks had not healed by the time of death, suggesting they were inflicted just before or just after death, possibly associated with decapitation or defleshing (ibid: 37). This skull was also Late Bronze Age, with a radiocarbon date of 1040-810 cal BC (OxA 6831). The certain status of the bog body from Ashton Moss as a deliberate burial is difficult to assess, but the use of the Moss for the deposition of metalwork suggests a ritual use of the site at about the same time the body came to be deposited. The Moss was also drying out during this phase, so an accidental death seems unlikely. The recovery of a head only, with no lower mandible or other bones is also similar to deliberate deposits in the Rivers Thames and Soar (Bradley & Gordon 1988, Beamish & 22

The nature of Early Bronze Age burial deposits has been discussed at some length and a new way of explaining the patterning observed in the study area advanced. This has involved the rejection of simplistic mapping of barrows onto soil types and has instead taken a contextual, landscape based approach to suggest that round barrows were the focus for lengthy periods of deposition of human remains. This appears to have been tied up with the importance of association with particular individuals and/or known locales within the landscape. This is in contrast to the model for southern England where highly visible monuments are often seen as “claiming” the landscape or imposing a visual ideology or dominance upon it (Tilley 1994). The lack of grave goods in many barrows has been used to support this argument, and has hopefully drawn attention to the fact that the rich “Wessex” burials of southern England are exceptional and should not necessarily be expected outside of that region. The lack of such “rich” burials should not be seen as reflecting societies that are not structurally complex, as this chapter has endeavoured to illustrate. The lack of grave goods in barrows has also been tied into rites of liminality, where mortuary and funerary rituals may have taken place over a variety of locales and involved a transfer of authority (either political, ritual or both), associated with deposition of grave goods, away from the area of burial. Barrett and Needham (1988: 130) have argued that the growing concentration on rites of liminality in the Early Bronze Age explains why there is a tailing off of “rich” grave goods at a time when more prestige goods, and especially metalwork, were in circulation and this focus may well explain the association of round barrows, wetland areas and metalwork finds in the study area. The simplistic mapping of barrow distributions onto modern soil maps has been heavily criticised during this chapter, and because of the fundamental flaws in the technique it will not be attempted for the remaining part of this study. This chapter has hopefully added to the understanding of burial practices outside of the atypical Wessex region and has taken up the suggestion of Barrett and Needham (1988: 132) that: “understanding the transition from Early to Middle Bronze Age practices should be less Wessex-orientated and should pay more attention to long-term trajectories” Some of the themes covered in this chapter will be returned to, especially when considering the deposition of metalwork. Many of the factors governing burial and ritual use of the landscape overlap and can be used to analyse in greater depth the possible reasons for the change in focus away from formal burial and towards the consumption of objects, especially ones made of metal, in the Mid to Late Bronze Age.

23

Radiocarbon Dates from Burial Contexts

Atmospheric data from Stuiver et al. (1998); OxCal v3.5 Bronk Ramsey (2000); cub r:4 sd:12 prob usp[chron]

Church Lawton 4100±160BP Jodrell Bank (i) 3730±100BP Church Lawton (iii) 3600±100BP Church Lawton (ii) 3560±80BP SOMERFORD 1 3520±90BP Church Lawton (ii) 3500±100BP Church Lawton (ii) 3500±80BP Church Lawton (ii) 3490±80BP OLD WITHINGTON 1 3440±100BP LITTLE BOLLINGTON 1 3435±35BP Church Lawton (ii) 3400±80BP Kings Low 3370±35BP Kings Low 3365±40BP OLD WITHINGTON 1 3300±100BP Church Lawton (ii) 3300±80BP Ashton Moss 2950±60BP 4000CalBC

3000CalBC

2000CalBC

Calibrated date

24

1000CalBC

25

26 SJ 538 592

SJ 7922 5910

SJ 5105 5270

BEESTON 1a

BETCHTON 1

BICKERTON 1

Banky Field

SJ 6252 8590

APPLETON 3

SJ 6138 8544

APPLETON 2

SJ 5747 5993

SJ 6171 8400

Robin Hood's Tump

ALPHRAM 1

NGR

APPLETON 1

Name

Parish

Cheshire Round Barrows

20 m

23 m

17 m

Diameter

0.5 m

1.5 m

2m

Height

(26) Surface water

(32) Ground water

(19) Brown soil

n/a

(26) Surface water

(21) Brown soil

Soil Type

125

10

100

50

90

65

Notes

296

SMR

493

In ploughed field

Excavated 1928: Cremation with Collared Urn, Pygmy Cup and perforated calcined bone pin (GM 390/30/507-28). Worked flint also. Pin and flint lost. Site in private garden. No sign of mound.

337

1116

1732/1 The existence of a round barrow on the hill suggested by Ann Woodward from remains excavated 1975-85 (Beeston Castle, Keen & Hough, 1993)

Possible barrow shown on 1842 OS map.

2 inhumations in cists found 1829. Amongst bones:2 437 small urns containing ashes and bones. Other urns found outside cists. Pygmy cup with burnt bone, charcoal and flint. 3rd burial found 1848, to N of these. Site now housing estate and golf course. 492 Ploughed out in 1964 and built over.

Excavated in 1940 but no trace of burial. Mound of sand and turf. 2 post holes and pits at N margin interpreted as pre-mound occupation. Mound contained flints.

Height AOD

27 SJ 8092 5591

SJ 8082 5581

CHURCH LAWTON 1 Church Lawton (i)

CHURCH LAWTON 2 Church Lawton (ii)

SJ 8110 7380

SJ 858 885

CHEADLE 1

Astle Hall

SJ 4634 5353

CARDEN 1

CHELFORD 1

SJ 4890 5270

BROXTON 2

NGR SJ 4860 5260

Name

BROXTON 1

Parish

25 m

29 m

Diameter

1m

1m

Height

n/a

n/a

(21) Brown soil

n/a

Soil Type

80

80

70

n/a

Notes

2170

2254/1

SMR

Phase 1: 15m diam ditch, rectangular pit in centre, but no burial. Cremation in Collared Urn, empty Collared Urn, empty Food Vessel, 10 unurned cremations,cremation in sack with flint knife & cremation in sack with battle axe.

Destroyed

Several urns and calcined bones found during landscaping in 18th century.

3 Cineray Urns found during house building. Urns unlocated and site covered by housing.

133/1/2

133/1/1

1331/1

Identified by T. Clare in 1973. Oval sand and earthen 1762/1/2 mound, possibly mentioned by Omerod in 1882.

Pennanular ring ditch

Ring ditch noted in 1976.

Height AOD

28

Knowl Plantation (iv)

CHURTON BY FARNDON 4

CODDINGTON 1

Knowl Plantation (iii)

CHURTON BY FARNDON 3

Knowl Plantation (ii)

CHURTON BY FARNDON 2

SJ 4527 5526

SJ 4110 5620

SJ 4113 5619

SJ 4102 5614

SJ 4100 5615

Knowl Plantation (i)

CHURTON BY FARNDON 1

NGR

SJ 8085 5573

Name

CHURCH LAWTON 3 Church Lawton (iii)

Church Lawton 2 (cont)

Parish

32 m

37-58 m

Diameter

3m

1m

Height

(26) Surface water

n/a

Soil Type

15

80

Notes

1824

1807/1/7

1807/1/6

1807/1/5

1807/1/4

133/1/3

SMR

Round mound from which bones and "articles of some sort" were found in 19th century. Surrounded by a mound and scheduled as a barrow, but OS consider it possible motte.

Ring ditch noted in 1994

Ring ditch noted in 1994

Ring ditch noted in 1994

Ring ditch noted in 1994

Phase 1: circle of boulders 23 m diam enclosing rectangular turf and daub structure. Phase 2: low mound covering central feature but using stone setting as curbing.

Phase 2: pyres and fire pits on margin of greatly enlarged mound 32m diam.

Height AOD

29

Seven Lows (iii)

Seven Lows (iv)

Seven Lows (v)

DELEMERE 3

DELEMERE 4

DELEMERE 5

Seven Lows (ii)

DELEMERE 2

SJ 566 670

SJ 5659 6708

SJ 5667 6711

SJ 5671 6702

SJ 5661 6699

Seven Lows (i)

DELEMERE 1

SJ 5765 7567

SJ 5659 6708

Oakhill Farm

CROWTON 1

NGR

DELAMERE 10

Name

Parish

25 m

10 m

20m

18 m

24 m

Diameter

1.3 m

0.2 m

1m

0.2 m

0.4 m

Height

(23) Podzol

(23) Podzol

(23) Podzol

(23) Podzol

(23) Podzol

(23) Podzol

Soil Type

75

70

80

70

80

80

Notes

840/1/3

840/1/5

Trial trenched by Giffords in 1992. Stake holes and ditch located as well as post-med. building. Report No.2022.

840/1/4

On crest of slope down to dry valley. Mound crossed 840/1/1 by path and distrubed by animals.

Reported by Omerod in 1882, but now nearly levelled. Descheduled 1994.

Reported by Omerod in 1882.

840/1/7

840/1/1

2446

SMR

Linear cemetery denuded by ploughing, quarrying, fencing and gardening. Cremation in Collared Urn found in one mound during quarrying in 1845. The cemetery was noted by Leland in the 16th century. This barrow levelled in 1812.

Ring ditch noticed in 1994.

Height AOD

30 SJ 414 628

SJ 4110 5575

ECCLESTON 1

FARNDON 1

Bowling Alley Plantati

SJ 734 876

DUNHAM MASSEY 1

SJ 5476 6901

SJ 5665 6712

DELEMERE 9

Seven Lows (vii)

DELEMERE 7

SJ 5671 6699

SJ 536 688

Seven Lows (vi)

DELEMERE 6

NGR

DELEMERE 8

Name

Parish

20 m

60 m

Diameter

3m

2m

Height

(20) Brown soil

(32) Ground water

(19) Brown soil

10

50

145

115

70

(23) Podzol

(20) Brown soil

75

Notes

SMR

Ring ditch noted in 1994

Round mound containing many human bones and coins in late 18th century.

18th century records of barrows and urns in Dunham Park, but not located.

Cist with cremation and urn, now lost. A number of other cremations in this area, including one in a Grooved Ware vessel, in WM (RA 28-30).

? cist and burial within a 7ft diam stone setting. 3 external pits, one containing cremation, bronze fragment and Collared Urn. Urn in GM (30.P.52)

Barely perceptable barrow. Desceduled in 1994.

1807/1/3

832

840/1/2

Quarried in 1845. Collared Urn containing cremation, 840/1/6 inverted on flat stone on NE side of mound.

Height AOD

(23) Podzol

Soil Type

31

Grappenhall (ii)

GRAPPENHALL 2

Jodrell Bank (iii)

GOOSTREY 3

Grappenhall (i)

Jodrell Bank (ii)

GOOSTREY 2

GRAPPENHALL 1

Jodrell Bank (i)

GOOSTREY 1

Jodrell Bank (iv)

Woodhouse End

GAWSWORTH 1

GOOSTREY 4

Name

Parish

SJ 638 865

SJ 637 866

SJ 7973 6987

SJ 7962 7008

SJ 7939 7030

SJ 7907 7037

SJ 914 695

NGR

11 m

35 m

0.6 m

1.2 m

0.9 m

45 m

42 m

1m

Height

20 m

Diameter

n/a

n/a

(21) Brown soil

(21) Brown soil

(21) Brown soil

(21) Brown soil

(26) Surface water

Soil Type

25

25

75

75

75

75

170

Notes

Excavated 1931-4. Cairn with primary: Food Vessel and cremation and several secondaries. Several cremations from area adjacent to this and GRAPPENHALL 1, including 2x Collared Urns and Enlarged Food Vessel. WM 45.33/1-5.

Excavated 1931-4. Cairn with central cist and several secondary cremations.

Opened in 1867, revealing cremation in urn that "soon crumbled away". Bulldozed 1950.

Destroyed by landscaping.

Under the plough and cremations revealed after potato planting in 1977. Farmer claims to have lowered mound by 5ft in 20 years.

Cemetery noted by Omerod in 1882: 5 barrows "along the banks of a small brook". SMR No. 1037/1/0 for the cemetery. This barrow excavated in 1987-8. Primary in pit with Collared Urn. 4 unurned secondaries, one dated 2500-1850 cal BC.

494/1/2

494/1/1

1037/1/4

1037/1/3

1037/1/2

1037/1/1

1511

SMR

Excavated 1966-8. Sand and cobble mound containing primary: Step 6 Beaker, secondary: 2 x Collared Urns, one with food vessel and two unurned cremations. Body of mound contained 162 sherds of Peterborough Ware and a leaf shaped arrowhead.

Height AOD

32

Lower Pexhill (i)

Lower Pexhill (ii)

Lower Pexhill (iii)

HENBURY CUM PEXALL 1

HENBURY CUM PEXALL 2

HENBURY CUM PEXALL 3

SJ 872 713

SJ 872 713

SJ 872 713

SJ 628 727

HARTFORD 1

Gibbet Hill

SJ 6623 7780

GREAT BUDWORTH Robin Hoods Butts 1

SJ 640 867

SJ 6510 8670

Grappenhall (iii)

GRAPPENHALL 3

NGR

GRAPPENHALL 4

Name

Parish

6m

Diameter

0.5 m

Height

(23) Podzol

(23) Podzol

(23) Podzol

(26) Surface water

n/a

Soil Type

130

130

130

45

25

Notes

See above

See above.

1370/1/3

1370/1/2

1370/1/1

698

808

2169/1

496

SMR

Three earthen mounds, one of which was excavated in 1967. Five cremations, horizontal plank of carbonised wood at centre of mound. All three barrows destroyed by mineral extraction.

Said in c.1661 to contain the "armes of a man in upright posture".

Ring ditch

? Cairn. Sandstone blocks uncovered in 1927. Site now a housing estate.

Height AOD

33 SJ 4545 4834

SJ 5074 5178

SJ 7307 8650

HORTON 1

LARKTON 1

LITTLE BOLLINGTON 1

Fairy Brow

SJ 408 534

HOLT 1

Holt

SJ 4770 6560

HOCKENHULL 1

SJ 7050 8463

Boundary Farm

HIGH LEGH 1

NGR SJ 874 720

Name

HENBURY CUM PEXALL 4

Parish

20 m

15 m

22 m

Diameter

1.5 m

1.5 m

Height

(26) Surface water

(26) Surface water

n/a

(26) Surface water

(25) Surface water

(23) Podzol

Soil Type

100

40

10

20

65

150

Notes

2735

1307 Cremation with single rivited tanged dagger excavated by South Trafford Archaeological Group in 1983. 3 radiocarbon dates of c.1880-1630 cal BC.

Noticed from Aps

Oak plank at base of mound. Damaged and dug into. 1676

ring ditch (Longley 1979)

Noticed from Aps

Possible ring ditch identified from APs by K. Matthews of the Cheshire Archaeological Service.

1369

SMR

Excavated 1965-6. Ash filled pit in centre of mound with cremation with Collared Urn capped by round based vessel. Leaf shaped arrowhead in mound material. Finds in GM.

Height AOD

34

Glead Hill Cob

Bucklow Hill

MANLEY 2

MERE 1

SJ 7300 8290

SJ 5382 7263

SJ 534 734

SJ 53 46

MALPAS 1

Castle Cob

SJ 9141 7473

MACCLESFIELD 3

MANLEY 1

SJ 9138 7484

MACCLESFIELD 2

NGR SJ 9070 7449

Name

MACCLESFIELD 1

Parish

4m

1m

15 m

25 m

1m

Height

4m

Diameter

(19) Brown soil

(19) Brown soil

n/a

(21) Brown soil

Soil Type

95

120

75

145

Notes

1687

2 possible ring ditches

2164

Also known as "Houndslow". Levelled in 1879. 10-12 902 urns with cremations, including 3 Collared Urns. Pygmy Cup, 2 barbed and tanged arrowheads and bronze pin.

Excavated in early 19th century without result. In garden surmounted by water tank and summer house.

Unlocated tumulus yielding the "usual evidence of prehistoric burial" in 1892.

1552/1/1

1552/1/2

1551/0/1

SMR

Collared Urn containing cremation found whilst excavating swimming pool in 1960. Bones possibly of female.

Cremation burial, 19 frags of pottery and small quantity of clacined bones recovered from spoil of Home Guard tranch in 1973. Site now in a housing estate.

Cairn with possible cist levelled in 19th century. Calcined bone, large and small urn and flint saw. Now in modern cemetery.

Height AOD

35

ODD RODE 1

SJ 8120 5930

SJ 570 713

OAKMERE 1

Gallowsclough Cob

SJ 8740 6665

SJ 8432 6160

NEWBOLD ASTBURY 1

NORTH RODE 1

SJ 756 785

NETHER KNUTSFORD 1

SJ 842 739

Sodjer's Hump

NETHER ALDERLEY 1

NGR SJ 653 694

Name

MOULTON 1

Parish

22 m

0.5 m

0.5 m

2m

65 m

20 m

1.5 m

Height

35 m

Diameter

(23) Podzol

n/a

(23) Podzol

(26) Surface water

Soil Type

80

70

95

52

Notes

Ring ditch noted by D. Longley

Excavated in 1960.Primary male cremation with no urn or gravegoods. Incomplete secondary of adult.

174/0/1

923

1647

1129

1337

791

SMR

Possible barrow reported by RC Turner. In the wood at Rode Heath, North Rode.

Cinerary Urn found whilst digging the grave of Elizabeth Clift in 1941 (section C row 11 no.2). Contained calcined bones (?female), 4 teeth and charcoal. Further calcined bones found 5ft away.

On large natural knoll

Described by Ormerod in 1882. Previously surmounted by water tower.

Height AOD

36

Name

SJ 8234 7320

SJ 8563 7453

OLD WITHINGTON 5

OVER ALDERLEY 1

Birtles Hall (i)

SJ 8066 7212

OLD WITHINGTON 4 Withington Hall (iv)

24

40 m

30 m

27 m

1.2

2m

0.5 m

0.7 m

(21) Brown sand

(32) Ground water

(32) Ground water

(32) Ground water

110

80

70

70

70

1340/1/4

1340/1/3

1340/1/2

Large ?natural rise. Collared Urn found nearby.

1364/1/1

Excavations by BUAFU in 1990 proved the mound to 1343 be natural.

Now destroyed

An urn recorded coming from this barrow. Reexcavated by Wilson in 1982/3. Barrow of turf with stakeholes. Radiocarbon date of 1450 - 750 calBC from one stakehole.

SJ 8070 7221

(32) Ground water

1340/1/1

SMR

Excavated 1976-7. One primary and two secondary unurned cremations and inhumation outside perimeter of mound. Primary cremation of 18 yr female with blow to the head ?contained in leather container.

Notes

OLD WITHINGTON 3 Withington Hall (iii)

0.6 m

70

Height AOD

Foote Gower refers to a "line of imprefect barrows", Ormerod records 3 tumuli and T. Clare found a fourth in 1972. SMR for cemetery 1340/1/0

35 m

(32) Ground water

Soil Type

SJ 8069 7234

1m

Height

OLD WITHINGTON 2 Withington Hall (ii)

20 m

Diameter

Layers of turf, sand, gravel and charcoal in mound and flints including transverse arrowheads. C14 date 1775 calBC from primary and1600 calBC from one of the secondaries.

SJ 8067 7240

NGR

OLD WITHINGTON 1 (cont)

OLD WITHINGTON 1 Withington Hall (i)

Parish

37 SJ 5415 5343

SJ 7430 8330

SJ 5702 6291

RIDLEY 1

ROTHSERNE 1&2

RUSHTON 1

SJ 9072 7833

SJ 543 567

PRESTBURY 1a

Peckforton

PECKFORTON 1

SJ 856 746

SJ 907 784

Birtles Hall (ii)

OVER ALDERLEY 2

NGR

PRESTBURY 1

Name

Parish

34 m

24 m

Diameter

1m

1.2 m

Height

(21) Brown soil

n/a

90

100

100

100

(23) Podzol

(21) Brown soil

115

Notes

Round mound found by field survey 1978.

Two possible ring ditches.

Noticed from Aps

Cairn cemetery excavated 1808. Cist containing inurned cremation (in Food Vessel), human bones and fragments of "copper". Not located.

Ploughed.

round mound visible on Aps CPE/UK/1935 2341

876

2165

1557/1

1364/1/3

SMR

On top of natural rise. Omerod reported that several urns, bones and ashes had been discovered from tumuli in the grounds of Birtles Hall in 1882.

Height AOD

(21) Brown sand

Soil Type

38

Higher Smallwood

SMALLWOOD 1

SOMERFORD 1

Capersthorne Hall (ii)

Capersthorne Hall (i)

SIDDINGTON 1

SIDDINGTON 2

The Hill

SANDBATCH 1

SJ 8115 6450

SJ 812 593

SJ 8451 7257

SJ 8430 7290

SJ 7673 6053

SJ 5821 6375

Dogmore Cottages

RUSHTON 3

NGR SJ 5770 6520

Name

RUSHTON 2

Parish

17 m

25 m

Diameter

1.5 m

1.5 m

Height

(23) Podzol

(26) Surface water

(23) Podzol

(23) Podzol

Soil Type

80

100

95

100

Notes

1349

Earthen mound now destroyed. Excavated by Wilson 1131 in 1984: mound prob. Removed in 19th century. 1 urned cremation dated 2150-1600 calBC. Pottery of 7 fabrics and flint also recovered.

ring ditch from 106G/UK/645 (Longley 1979)

? Recent landscaping.

1352

2444

2447/1/2

1570

SMR

Surmounted by pedestal. ?Recent landscaping. Sainter mentions two tumuli in Caperthorne Park: ? This and SIDDINGTON 2?

Ring ditch noted in 1990.

Ring ditch discovered in 1994.

Possible barrow

Height AOD

39 SJ 7981 6975

TWEMLOW 1

Jodrell Bank (v)

SJ 8138 6670

SJ 7985 6967

SWETTENHAM 2

Jodrell Bank (vi)

SJ 9248 7132

SUTTON 2

SWETTENHAM 1

SJ 923 701

SUTTON 1

SJ 7150 6707

SJ 614 864

Kinderton Hall

SPROSTON 1,2&3

NGR

STOCKTON HEATH 1

Name

Parish

35 m

26 m

35 m

24 m

Diameter

1.7 m

0.7 m

0.5 m

1.4 m

Height

(21) Brown soil

(22) Brown soil

(26) Surface water

(32) Ground water

(26) Surface water

n/a

Soil Type

75

80

75

160

185

Notes 2445

SMR

1138

1037/1/6

1037/1/5 Described by Omerod in 1882 as unusually large and said to have been "dug" without result pre-1940.

Spread by ploughing.

Disturbed by animal burrows and ploughing.

Cairn, excavated 1962. Secondary cremations found 1539 but not the primary.

? Artificial mound.

Cinerary Urn reported in 19th century. Site ? built over.

Two ring ditches and possible third noted in 1990.

Height AOD

40 SJ 61 75

SJ 6160 7470

SJ 189 875

WEAVERHAM 1 c

WEST KIRKBY 1

SJ 562 667

WEAVERHAM 1 a&b

UTKINTON 2

SJ 5546 6621

UTKINTON 1

High Billinge

SJ 914 749

TYTHERINGTON 2

NGR SJ 914 747

Name

TYTHERINGTON 1

Parish

22 m

30 m

Diameter

2m

1.8 m

Height

n/a

n/a

n/a

(20) Brown soil

0

n/a

10

105

175

130

(21) Brown soil

(19) Brown soil

125

Notes

Inverted, damaged urn in pit uncovered by sea erosionon Little Hilbre Island in 1965. No trace of cremation. GM 5.P.65

"Large mound" not located.

Two considerable tumuli, mentioned by Omerod in 1882. Not located.

Ploughed, possibly natural mound.

Oval cairn, located on top of a low hillock.

Mound from which plain pottery sherds and bone fragments. GM 64.P.73.

Cremation with inverted Collared Urn. No record of mound. GM 150.P.60.

Height AOD

(21) Brown soil

Soil Type

684

705

857

858

SMR

41

SJ 8507 8122

SJ 8545 8097

SJ 851 810

WILMSLOW 1

WILMSLOW 2

WILMSLOW 3

NGR SJ 6171 7936

Name

WHITLEY 1

Parish 15 m

Diameter 0.5 m

Height

n/a

n/a

n/a

Soil Type

80

n/a

85

Notes

Collared Urn over cremation and bone dagger pommel discovered 1859. Teeth from urn said to be from 14 year old.

Collared Urn over a cremation in Manchester Museum (6941). Said to have been covered by coarse cloth that fell to powder when touched. Site now a housing estate.

1493/0/2

1493/0/3

1493/0/1

1028

SMR

Urn containing cremation and bronze dagger found while making railway cutting in 1859.

Small mound from which flint (incl. Scraper) and calcined bone have been recovered.

Height AOD

42

Broadlands (iv)

Broadlands (v)

Boreatton Moss (i)

Boreatton Moss (ii)

Boreatton Moss (iii)

BASCHURCH 5

BASCHURCH 6

BASCHURCH 7

BASCHURCH 8

Broadlands (iii)

BASCHURCH 3

BASCHURCH 4

Broadlands (ii)

BASCHURCH 2

SJ 4232 2258

SJ 4197 2267

SJ 4194 2277

SJ 4170 2190

SJ 4151 2193

SJ 4151 2192

SJ 4152 2191

SJ 4151 2191

Broadlands (i)

BASCHURCH 1

NGR

SJ 5501 1142

Name

ATCHAM 1

Parish

90

(9)Brown soil

(9)Brown soil

90

90

90

(9)Brown soil

(9)Brown soil

90

(9)Brown soil

90

90

(9)Brown soil

(9)Brown soil

90

50

ring ditch

ring ditch

ring ditch

Shown in Watson & Musson 1993, p.18 (Photo 19)

ring ditch. Shown in Watson & Musson 1993, p.18 (Photo 19).

ring ditch. Shown in Watson & Musson 1993, p.18 (Photo 19).

ring ditch. Shown in Watson & Musson 1993, p.18 (Photo 19)

ring ditch. Shown in Watson & Musson 1993, p.18 (Photo 19).

ring ditch

mAOD Notes

(9)Brown soil

(3) Surface water gley

Soil Type

Shropshire Round Barrows

2398

2397

2396

2451

2451

2451

2451

2239

SMR

43

Boreatton Moss (iv)

Boreatton Moss (v)

BASCHURCH 9

BASCHURCH 10

SJ 6235 1870

SJ 4108 1338

SJ 3812 1910

SJ 3765 2025

ERCALL MAGNA 1

FORD 1

GREAT NESS 1

GREAT NESS 2

SJ 8323 0787

SJ 7320 2470

The Mount

BOSCOBEL 1

SJ 76 01

SJ 4015 2338

SJ 4220 2240

SJ 4233 2223

NGR

CHETWYND 1

Windmill Hill

BECKBURY 1

BASCHURCH 11

Name

Parish

70

(3) Surface water gley

(9)Brown soil

80

90

50

(9)Brown soil

(9)Brown soil

90

140

110

90

80

ring ditch

ring ditch

ring ditch

small ring ditch

Barrow reported by OS but ploughed down and now no trace.

Flat topped, circular mound levelled in 1968.

Excavated in 1840 and found to contain stones (?primary cairn), black earth and "small portions of bones" but no urn.

ring ditch

ring ditch. Shown in Watson & Musson 1993, p.19 (Photo 20)

ring ditch. Shown in Watson & Musson 1993, p.19 (Photo 20)

mAOD Notes

(9)Brown soil

(3) Surface water gley

(9)Brown soil

(9)Brown soil

(9)Brown soil

(9)Brown soil

Soil Type

4211

4030

3718

2357

1711

1846

2831

2217

4086

4038

SMR

44

Knockin (iii)

KNOCKIN 8

KNOCKIN 9

Knockin (ii)

KNOCKIN 7

SJ 3416 2285

SJ 3375 2238

SJ 3330 2331

SJ 3330 2330

Knockin (i)

KNOCKIN 6

SJ 3580 2151

KNOCKIN 4

SJ 3416 2343

SJ 3581 2185

KNOCKIN 3

KNOCKIN 5

SJ 3490 2220

KNOCKIN 2

SJ 3511 2259

Gamesters Lane

KNOCKIN 1

NGR

SJ 4080 2619

Name

HORDLEY 1

Parish

70

(9)Brown soil

(9)Brown soil

70

70

70

(9)Brown soil

(9)Brown soil

80

(9)Brown soil

70

90

(8) Podzol

(9)Brown soil

90

90

80

ring ditch

ring ditch

ring ditch

ring ditch

ring ditch

doubtful ring ditch

ring ditch

double concentric ring ditch

ring ditch with entrance to the N and internal feature.

possible ring ditch

mAOD Notes

(9)Brown soil

(8) Podzol

(9) Brown soil

Soil Type

4022

2170

4027

4027

2484

2277

4047

2182

2183

4344

SMR

45

Knockinheath Farm

Bryn y Wystyn (iii)

KNOCKIN 13

KNOCKIN 14

SJ 6568 1657

SJ 6410 0840

SJ 6280 0809

LITTLE WENLOCK Willow Moor a-k 1

LITTLE WENLOCK The Wrekin (i) 1

SJ 3231 2312

SJ 3260 2314

SJ 3260 2314

SJ 3562 2218

SJ 3665 2365

SJ 3607 2375

SJ 3607 2374

NGR

KYNNERSLEY 1

Bryn y Wystyn (v)

Shelvock Coppice

KNOCKIN 12

KNOCKIN 16

Hanley Hall (ii)

KNOCKIN 11

Bryn y Wystyn (iv)

Hanley Hall (i)

KNOCKIN 10

KNOCKIN 15

Name

Parish

50

(10) Peat

(9)Brown soil

407

90

(9)Brown soil

(5) Podzol

80

(9)Brown soil

80

100

(8) Podzol

(9)Brown soil

110

90

90

Cairn on top of the Wrekin, within the SW entrance of the hillfort. Trig point and toposcope constructed on top.

Twelve mounds thought to be round barrows but in fact all natural. Some opened in 1851 after the discovery of the Willow Moor hoard but no finds.

ring ditch

ring ditch

double, intercutting ring ditches

double, intercutting ring ditches

ring ditch

Circular enclosure ?ring ditch

ring ditch

ring ditch

mAOD Notes

(9) Brown soil

(9)Brown soil

(9)Brown soil

Soil Type

1782

1781

3350

1402

4447

4447

4048

2005

4035

4035

SMR

46

Crumpwell (i)

Crumpwell (ii)

Crumpwell (iii)

Maesbury Marsh

Maesbury

OSWESTRY 2

OSWESTRY 3

OSWESTRY 4

OSWESTRY 5

SJ 3063 2557

SJ 3190 2519

SJ 3142 2649

SJ 3133 2643

SJ 3132 2643

(9)Brown soil

SJ 5560 2305

90

(9)Brown soil

(9)Brown soil

80

70

90

(9)Brown soil

(9)Brown soil

90

(9)Brown soil

70

80

(2) Brown soil

SJ 5440 2728

MORETON CORBET AND LEE BROCKHURST 1 MORETON CORBET AND LEE BROCKHURST 2 OSWESTRY 1

60

300

ring ditch

ring ditch

ring ditch

ring ditch

ring ditch

ring ditch with gap on S side.

ring ditch

ring ditch

ring ditch

Round barrow between Hells Gate and Heavens Gate described in 1895.

mAOD Notes

80

SJ 4276 1625

MONTFORD 1

(11) Ground water gley

(5) Podzol

Soil Type

(9)Brown soil

SJ 2789 2070

LLANYMYNECH AND PANT 1

NGR

SJ 6310 0830

Name

LITTLE WENLOCK The Wrekin (ii) 2

Parish

4104

4051

1553

1553

1553

2261

4473

2108

4143

2812

SMR

47

The Hill (ii)

RODDINGTON 2

RODDINGTON 3

SJ 6112 1473

The Hill (i)

RODDINGTON 1

SJ 6010 1520

SJ 6113 1473

SJ 2984 2410

OSWESTRY RURAL 6

SJ 2979 2391

SJ 3038 2410

OSWESTRY RURAL 4

OSWESTRY RURAL 5

SJ 2886 2344

OSWESTRY RURAL 3

Canal House

Morton Common (ii)

OSWESTRY RURAL 2

SJ 2976 2486

SJ 2958 2490

Morton Common (i)

OSWESTRY RURAL 1

NGR

SJ 3082 2635

Name

OSWESTRY 6

Parish

50

(9)Brown soil

(9)Brown soil

60

50

80

(9)Brown soil

(9)Brown soil

70

(9)Brown soil

50

80

(9)Brown soil

(9)Brown soil

80

80

80

ring ditch

ring ditch: subcircular ditches

ring ditch: subcircular ditches

ring ditch with entrance on NW side

ring ditch with entrance on NW side

ring ditch. Trench excavated by CPAT to NW in 1996 but no features found.

ring ditch

ring ditch

ring ditch

ring ditch

mAOD Notes

(9)Brown soil

(9)Brown soil

(9)Brown soil

Soil Type

473

40

40

4066

4026

1416

1406

2155

1301

4127

SMR

48

WEST FELTON 2

SJ 3423 2614

SJ 3660 2630

Quarry Wood

WEST FELTON 1

SJ 4359 3498

SJ 5420 3130

Welshampton (ii)

WELSHAMPTON AND LYNEAL 2

SJ 4361 3500

SJ 4758 1435

WEM RURAL 1

Welshampton (i)

Powis Copse (iii)

SHREWSBURY 3

WELSHAMPTON AND LYNEAL 1

Powis Copse (ii)

SHREWSBURY 2

SJ 4750 1420

SJ 4770 1390

Powis Copse (i)

SHREWSBURY 1

SJ 3691 2156

SJ 7820 1040

Low Bank

RUYTON XI TOWNS 1

NGR

SHIFNAL 1

Name

Parish

70

(3) Surface water gley

(9)Brown soil

80

100

90

(9)Brown soil

(9)Brown soil

90

(9)Brown soil

60

60

(9)Brown soil

(9)Brown soil

60

90

103

ring ditch

ring ditch

ring ditch

Ditched mound, reduced by the plough. Shown on OS map.

Mound removed in 1873 to make way for a house. No finds.

ring ditch, apparent entrance on SW side

ring ditch

ring ditch

possible ring ditch

also site of gibbet

mAOD Notes

(9)Brown soil

(9)Brown soil

(8) Podzol

Soil Type

2285

2402

3716

1008

883

11

13

10

2364

857 and 862

SMR

49

SJ 2965 3457

SJ 5740 1220

SJ 5725 1300

Withington (i)

Withington (ii)

WHITTINGTON 2

WITHINGTON 1

WITHINGTON 2

WITHINGTON 3

SJ 5725 1301

SJ 3210 3340

SJ 3696 2725

WEST FELTON 7

WHITTINGTON 1

SJ 3340 2322

SJ 3262 2342

WEST FELTON 6

Bryn y Wystyn (ii)

WEST FELTON 4

SJ 3278 2332

SJ 3641 2728

Bryn y Wystyn (i)

WEST FELTON 3

NGR

WEST FELTON 5

Name

Parish

50

(11) Ground water gley

(3) Surface water gley

60

60

110

(3) Surface water gley

(3) Surface water gley

90

(9)Brown soil

90

80

(9) Brown soil

(9)Brown soil

90

90

90

ring ditch

ring ditch

ring ditch

ring ditch or possible henge as is apparently pennanular

ring ditch

ring ditch

Noted by Whimster (1989, p.37 No.18) but apparently not on SMR. Ring ditch with entrance to SE.

ring ditch

ring ditch

ring ditch

mAOD Notes

(9)Brown soil

(9)Brown soil

(9)Brown soil

Soil Type

491

491

100

2366

2158

4034

no

2410

2096

1399

SMR

50

SJ 5990 1225

SJ 5991 1225

SJ 5720 0834

WROCKWARDINE Walcot (i) 1

WROCKWARDINE Walcot (ii) 2

WROXETER AND UPPINGTON 1

Wroxeter (ii)

Beslow

WROXETER AND UPPINGTON 2

WROXETER AND UPPINGTON 3

Wroxeter (i)

SJ 7355 4037

Pipe Gate

WOORE 1

SJ 5843 0884

SJ 5734 0821

SJ 5726 1300

Withington (iii)

WITHINGTON 4

NGR

Name

Parish

70

90

(3) Surface water gley

(3) Surface water gley

70

50

(3) Surface water gley

(3) Surface water gley

50

120

60

Upstanding earthwork

ring ditch

ring ditch

ring ditch

ring ditch

Barrow beside road. Shown on OS map

ring ditch

mAOD Notes

(3) Surface water gley

(9)Brown soil

(3) Surface water gley

Soil Type

1754

89

88

2242

2242

1594

491

SMR

51

Spring Hill

BASWICH 1

110

110

150

110

100

220

Height AOD

SJ 7922 2418

Soil Type

NORBURY 3

c.25 m

Height

110

SJ 7885 2384

20 m

Diameter

SJ 7922 2417

The Roundabout

NORBURY 1

SJ 7618 4434

SJ 7055 3755

SJ 8925 2599

SJ 9766 2079

SJ 8222 5102

NGR

NORBURY 2

Bar Hill

MADELEY 1

LOGGERHEADS 1

Oakley Park

Bignall Hill

AUDLEY RURAL 1

CRESSWELL 1

Name

Parish

Staffordshire Round Barrows

Ring ditch

Ring ditch

With ditch and outer bank.

possible barrow

A natural gravel mound: NOT AN ANTIQUITY

Ditch and external bank. ? Saucer barrow

Bronze ogival dagger ploughed out of mound along with bones.

Notes

00839

00838

00135

00491

00488

00810

00863

00445

SMR

52

SJ 9180 3280

SJ 8595 4171

SJ 8474 3510

Stoke Lane

Trentham Barrow

Swynnerton Park

STONE 1

SWYNNERTON 1

SWYNNERTON 2

SJ 8702 3865

SJ 8655 3955

Grounds Low

Monument Hill

Trentham Park

SWYNNERTON 4

SWYNNERTON 5

SWYNNERTON 6

SJ 8673 3733

Round Low

SWYNNERTON 3

SJ 8733 3581

SJ 8920 4550

Fenton Low

STOKE ON TRENT 2

NGR SJ 8750 4443

Name

STOKE ON TRENT 1

Parish

c.24m

c.25m

Diameter

Height Soil Type

120

150

150

150

120

120

110

130

Height AOD

Urn found in destroyed mound. C.1820.

Excavated 1859. Stone cist filled with bone in gravel mound. Mound contained

ploughed

Damaged during ploughing: stone cairn with bones and charcoal and ?cist with

Excavated 1859. Primary: 2 cremations in cist filled with burnt human bone and ash.

Inurned cremation found in gravel pit

?destroyed in 19th century.

Pygmy cup

Notes

01835

00595

00590

00589

00501

00055

00669

00532

01983

SMR

53

SJ 8824 3686

Bury Bank

Kings Low

Queens Low

SWYNNERTON 7

TIXALL 1

TIXALL 2

SJ 9634 2389

SJ 9545 2373

NGR

Name

Parish

c.40m

c.28m

Diameter

0.5m

1m

Height Soil Type

100

100

150

Height AOD

unsheduled

Excavated by local arch soc. Cinery Urn containing child & oak charcoal. Grooved ware

3 barrows mentioned as inside hillfort. Two excavated 1859, 1 contained charcoal

Notes

00855

00851

SMR

Chapter 3: Lithics of one episode or many. It is also difficult to be sure of the meaning of lithic scatters as they could result from chance loss, deliberate discard, ritual activity or settlement, or any combination of these.

Introduction: The Bronze Age lithics from the study area can be divided into two main classes of evidence: flint scatters and perforated implements. Flint scatters are usually found during fieldwalking and may represent activity areas or possible settlement sites. Chronological resolution is generally poor and scatters are frequently of mixed date, however. Perforated implements are typically given a Bronze Age date, although dated associations and secure contexts are few. An attempt will be made in this chapter to use a contextual, landscape-based approach (in contrast to an artefact-based study) to build a picture of both landscape utilisation and the social importance of these classes of evidence.

Raw materials available locally in Cheshire consist of flint and chert from the glacial till deposits but this tends to be of poor quality. Chalk flint is available from the Yorkshire and Lincolnshire Wolds, over 150km to the east and on the other side of the Pennines, and chert is available from the Flintshire highlands to the west and from Derbyshire. It has been suggested that the flint found at Beeston Castle was being imported from some distance away, in the form of pre-prepared nodules (Ellis 1993: 56) and this is usually the explanation given for any finds of high quality raw materials in the study area. Flint certainly seems to have been carefully curated with a high incidence of re-flaking of flint axes and care taken over the preparation of good flaking surfaces. Barfield (1997) noted that as well as flint, other stone was used for the production of stone tools in Shropshire. At Meole Brace, fine grained meta-siltstone and altered alkali dolerite, probably local glacial erratics, were used to produce flake tools, interpreted as expedient and opportunistic use of local stone to supplement scarce flint resources (ibid: 67). A major problem with many of the lithics in museum collections and in the literature is the lack of provenance. Only lithic scatters with a six figure grid reference will be used in this study and a scatter will be considered to be any area where three or more artefacts have been recovered in close proximity. Finds from excavated “settlement” sites will be dealt with in Chapter 4.

Flint Scatters Systematic fieldwalking has rarely been attempted within the study area, mainly due to the high incidence of pasture. The largest intensive fieldwalking campaign in the region was undertaken by the North West Wetland Survey during 1993-5, but this concentrated on wetland and wetland edge sites and little is known from other areas. Fieldwalking has otherwise played a very minor role in archaeological studies in the area and there has been little focus on the role of lithics, the availability of raw materials, their relationship with subsurface features, and their date. Poor chronological resolution is a problem which affects all studies of lithics. By their very nature lithic artefacts are virtually indestructible and easily find their way into secondary contexts. The lack of well dated associations hinders attempts to formulate a chronology for lithic artefacts, even if these associations could be proven to be genuine. The most diagnostic artefact type from the Early Bronze Age remains the barbed and tanged arrowhead, which appears in Beaker assemblage graves, along side thumbnail scrapers and flint daggers. The general change in lithic industries has been discussed by Ford et al (1984), who recognised a progressive loss of control over raw material and a dramatic reduction in the range of implement types produced between the Neolithic and Bronze Age. Likewise, Pitts (1978a) recognised a change away from blade-based technologies during the Neolithic to flake-based ones during the Bronze Age, with increasingly thicker, broader waste flakes being produced during the later periods. Young and Humphries (1999) have argued that the use of flint continued throughout the Bronze Age and into the Iron Age, mainly with the production of low quality, undiagnostic material such as scrapers and awls on highly localised raw material.

The North West Wetland Survey of Shropshire and Staffordshire (Leah et al 1998) failed to locate any significant scatters of Bronze Age lithic material from the wetlands of these counties, but did locate a very diffuse, general scatter around the area of the Weald Moors (centred on SJ 680 170), composed of scattered finds of mainly undiagnostic single artefacts. Seven pieces of possible Early Bronze Age flint were recovered from fieldwalking at Newport (SJ 754 196, Leah et al 1998: 195), on elevated ground between the Weald Moors and Aqualate Mere (ibid: 121). Single finds of barbed and tanged arrowheads are known from Hordley (SJ 4008 2678, Leah et al 1998: SH106), Cockshutt (SJ 412 275, SMR 3601) and Boreatton Park school (SJ 3981 2409, SMR 855), all in Shropshire. In Cheshire, the NWWS again were unable to locate dense Bronze Age flint scatters, but Longley (1987: 9091) records the following finds of single barbed and tanged arrowheads (12 in total): Danes Moss (SJ 9050 7150, SMR 1536), Eastham (SJ 352 784), 3 from West Kirby (SJ 200 888 and SJ 225 862), Bickerton (SJ 503 553), Hoole (SJ 419 677), Macclesfield (SJ 906 704),

The potential re-use of favoured locations over many years also presents problems to analyses as it is impossible to be certain if a particular scatter is the result 54

have related to subsurface features was at High Legh (Nevell 1988a), discussed fully in Chapter 4. This site did, however, illustrate the importance of very small scale lithic scatters in locating and dating sub-surface features.

Bramhall (SJ 889 869), Thurstaston (SJ 243 848), Wallasey (SJ 315 940) and Marton (SJ 592 693). At least two barbed and tanged arrowheads were found in the submerged forest off Leasowe/Dove Point (SJ 230 905), but these have yet to be accurately recorded (Huddart et al 1999: 570).

The flint daggers from the study area suggest interesting possibilities, especially as these date from the period of transition between the Neolithic and Bronze Age (Stafford 1998: 338). Indeed, the daggers appear to imitate metal examples and, on the Continent, Bell Beaker copper daggers are generally considered to be both the stylistic and the ideological templates for their flint counterparts (ibid). The example from Acton Bridge appears to have been deposited with bones, and as such may represent a burial deposit, similar to that from Green Low, Derbyshire (Barnatt 1999: 42). If this is the case, it may illustrate the importance placed on novel objects during the Early Bronze Age. Whilst metal daggers were novel objects in themselves, a flint dagger, imitating a metal one, is in a way, even more novel. Perhaps, rather than imitating a metal template, the use of flint was a deliberate choice, drawing attention to the object and its novel form. This may have been a way of inverting the way in which objects were seen: a dagger should be made from metal, but here is one made from flint. Indeed, flint daggers may even have been seen not so much as an imitation, but as competing with metal examples. Flint daggers are not necessarily easier to make than metal ones, but are products of quite different technologies, one old, the other new. The old technology of flint knapping appears to have reached something of a flourit at the beginning of the Bronze Age with increasingly complex items involving invasive retouch and specialist techniques being manufactured. This could be seen simply in terms of the evolution of flint working techniques reaching their logical conclusion, but it could well be the case that the introduction of metallurgy drove these changes, as flint and bronze competed in similar social spheres. Indeed, it is possible that the introduction of metals allowed the development of lithic industries, with metal tipped knapping tools enabling far more detailed and invasive retouching (Lord 1993: 45).

The only potential Bronze Age flint scatter from the Cheshire part of the study area was recorded by Leach (1942) and came from the garden of Smithy House, Ashton (SJ 5070 6920). 15 flints were recovered from this site, including a barbed and tanged arrowhead, four scrapers, two utilised flakes, two miscellaneous retouched flakes and waste flakes. This formed part of a larger, mixed date assemblage from the immediate area. A barbed and tanged arrowhead, a discoidal scraper and a thumbnail scraper were also recovered from excavations at Beeston Castle, but were all from secondary contexts (Ellis 1993: 56). Mention should also be made here of two flint dagger finds from Cheshire. A bifacially worked flint dagger of very high quality was found at Acton Bridge (SJ 594 756) in 1974 (Longley 1987: 79) and bones are reported to have been found at the same time, but are now lost. From the illustration in Longley (1987: 80), this appears to be an early, Type I dagger (Stafford 1998: 339). A further example comes from Basford (SJ 727 515) and is held in the Grosvenor Museum (accession number 29.P.1963). These daggers are similar in form to examples from Scandinavia and are predominantly found with late Beaker associations (Clark 1932, Grimes 1931). The main distribution of these finely made daggers is in the south and east of Britain, but there is a cluster of finds in the Peak District (Grimes 1931). Both of the daggers from Cheshire are made on mottled grey flint, and the quality of this raw material suggests importation (either of raw material or of the finished product) from outside the area.

Discussion

During the Early Bronze Age, metal may have been breaking into existing exchange mechanisms of “prestige” objects which had their own internal logic, perhaps based on the long term biographies of material and object and the ways in which these were manipulated (Appadurai 1986). Flint daggers can only be made on good quality raw materials and it has been suggested that they would have been made close to mined flint sources (Stafford 1998: 348). As no source of good quality flint exists within the study area, it seems likely that the daggers arrived in the region as finished artefacts. Thus, the circulation of flint daggers, created at the raw material source, may have been just as exotic and in direct competition with metal objects, also from outside the region (see Chapter 6). Flint daggers, alongside other finely made implements such as barbed and tanged arrowheads, reflected an older technology and may have been produced as a rival to metal daggers. The importance of existing networks of raw material

The interpretation of surface scatters has always been problematical, either from the point of view of identifying activity areas within large lithic scatters (Schofield 1991) or, as in the case of the study area, discerning meaning from very diffuse scatters, affected by soil conditions, agricultural activity and natural processes. Chronology is also problematical, with scatters often being of mixed dates, perhaps representing favoured locations or areas to which repeated visits were made as part of the “annual round” (Edmonds 1999). The main type of flint material recovered from the study area is waste flakes, which present another problem as they are usually not diagnostic, especially in the small amounts found (Pitts 1978a, 1978b). The most diagnostic Bronze Age artefact, the barbed and tanged arrowhead, is found in contexts ranging from burials to settlement to chance losses (Green 1980) and thus reveals little about possible land use. The only site in the region where surface scatters 55

procurement and exchange may have thereby been reinforced.

implements, as are Groups XIX (greywacke) and XII (pictrite from Hyssington, Powys).

The continuing importance of flint objects into the metal age has recently been stressed (Ford et al 1984, Young & Humphrey 1999), and this can also be seen in the use of other stone objects during the Bronze Age, especially perforated implements, to which this discussion will now turn.

Barrett and Needham (1988: 130) noted the differing contextual patterning of axe hammers and battle axes. No axe hammers are found with burials, yet approximately a sixth of all battle axes are from graves. This suggests the possibility of different rules governing the treatment of these objects: axe hammers perhaps being inadmissible as grave goods. This reflected work by Pierpoint (1980: 163-4) which suggested that battle axes tended to be better finished and therefore were ‘socially important’ as opposed to the larger, often ill-made axe hammers. Roe (1967: 69) noted the relationship between the distribution of axe hammers, Bronze Age metalwork and copper ores and suggested that axe hammers played a part in the preparation of metal ores. Leahy (1986) argues that axe hammers may well have been used as the tip of an ard, being drawn through the soil, an interpretation supported by the tendency for axe hammers to be found in isolation, often in lowland arable areas (Bradley 1972).

Perforated Implements There are five types of perforated or shafthole implements that begin to appear during the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age. These types were first identified by Evans (1897) and comprise battle axes, axe hammers, mace heads, shafthole adzes and pebble hammers. Two recent surveys of these classes of objects were carried out by Roe (1979) and by Smith (1979), the most obvious difference from the preceding Neolithic stone axeheads being the presence of perforations through the body of the implement. The study of perforated implements is plagued by a lack of good associations and the construction of a chronology is therefore difficult. Attention has tended to focus on typology, but without good chronology and an understanding of contextual patterning, it is difficult to “move away from typology, and think more in terms of people” (Roe 1979: 36).

Mace heads have been found in association with Grooved Ware, but secure contexts are few (Roe 1979: 30). These artefacts can be classified as Ovoid, Pestle and Cushion with a distinctive group of flat-ended mace heads known as the Largs group (ibid). This latter group have been found in association with Collared Urns and with Cordoned Urns, and their general lack of damage suggests a ritual or ceremonial function. The distribution of mace heads is rather sparse, but with concentrations in NE Scotland, along the east coast of England and along the Thames. Banded stones, and other visually attractive stone types, were popular raw material for this type of implement and Groups I (Cornish gabbro), VI (intermediate tuff from the Lake District), VII (augite granophyre from Penmaenmawr) and XX (epidotised ashy grit from Charnwood Forest) are common (ibid).

The earliest form of perforated implement appears to be the battle axe, associated with Long Necked/Southern Beakers. These developed from Early convex, nonexpanded types associated with Beakers to Developed long, slender, expanded types, associated with Food Vessels (Roe 1979, 23). Group XII stone (pictrite from Hyssington, Powys) was used for many later battle axes with Groups XVIII (quartz dolerite from Whin Sill) and XIV (camptonite from Nuneaton, Warwickshire) also fairly common. Battle axes are distributed across the country, with small concentrations in Yorkshire and along the Thames. This class of shafthole implement are the best provenanced, as they are occasionally found as grave goods or associated with pottery.

Shafthole adzes are relatively uncommon (Roe 1979: 36) and tend to be twice as long as they are broad and carry an hour-glass shaped hole near the centre. They differ from axes in that their cutting edges are at right angles to their hafts. One or both ends are narrowed to form a blade, but Roe (ibid) suggests that they were unlikely to have been capable of cutting. Favoured materials appear to have been Groups XV (micaceous sub greywacke from the Lake District) and XVIII (quartz dolerite from Whin Sill), similar to axe hammers. The distribution of shafthole adzes is a general one across the country, with no appreciable concentrations (ibid).

Axe hammers are more common than battle axes and appear to be of slightly later date. Few axe hammers have been recovered from secure contexts, however, and dating is mainly based on analogy with battle axes. An exception to this is the example from Cleethorpes (Leahy 1986), the wooden haft from which produced radiocarbon dates of between 1690-1645 cal BC (3390 + 100 BP (OxA 130) and 3330 + 100 BP (OxA 131), see table 3.1). Axe hammers tend to be larger and more crudely made than battle axes (Roe 1966) and can be divided into two classes: Class I being convex in profile and Class II concave (Roe 1979: 29). The distribution of axe hammers differs from that of battle axes as there are greater numbers from the west coast of Britain, especially around Cumbria, Lancashire and SW Scotland (Leahy 1986: 145). Group XV (micaceous sub greywacke from the Lake District) is a common raw material for these

Pebble hammers tend to be formed on otherwise unadapted pebbles and have had an hourglass shaped hole made in their centres. These implements are often battered at the ends and are characteristically worn in the middle (Roe 1979: 36). There is no classification for these implements and they have been found in contexts dating from the Mesolithic to the Early Bronze Age and may have performed a variety of tasks. The majority of pebble hammers are made from quartzite but half of the grouped implements are of Group XV (micaceous sub56

Type Battle axe, Wetwang Slack Battle axe, Shetland Axe hammer, Cleethorpes (i) Axe hammer, Cleethorpes (ii) Axe hammer, Gwithian

Date BP 3780 + 70bp 3514 + 120bp 3390 + 100bp 3330 + 100bp 3070 + 130bp

Cal BC 2460-1980 cal BC 2150-1500 cal BC 1940-1440 cal BC 1880-1410 cal BC 1650-900 cal BC

Central date 2220 1825 1690 1645 1275

Table 3.1: Dated perforated implements (based on Leahy 1986) have provided raw materials for the production of perforated implements. The use of greywacke in preference to other stone may reflect the relative softness of this stone, and therefore the ease with which it can be perforated. The use of such soft rocks is in contrast to the use of Neolithic raw materials which, although again probably from the locally occurring glacial erattics, are dominated by flint and Groups VI (intermediate tuff from Great Langdale) and VII (augite granophyre from Penmaenmawr) (Mullin 2000). Fenton (1984) suggested that the majority of battle axes and axe hammers in Scotland were made from glacial cobbles and that this material was used preferentially to that from primary sources. The argument was also made (ibid: 214) that the distribution of Group XV axe hammers and shafthole adzes corresponded to the main areas of glacial drift, suggesting that the blanks for the implements were derived from local glacial cobble deposits.

greywacke from the Lake District). Like shafthole adzes, there are no real concentrations in the distribution of pebble hammers (ibid).

Perforated Implements from the Study Area Raw materials used for perforated implements are dominated by Group XV (micaceous sub-greywacke from the southern Lake District) with 38% of implements made from this material (see Figure 3.2). Group XII (pictrite from Hyssington, Powys) is the only other grouped stone to be utilised to any extent, making up 19% of the sample. Greywacke (ungrouped) is also a very commonly used material, making up 14% of the sample, although this rises to 52% when Group XV (a form of greywacke) is taken into account. There are also a large number of ungrouped materials in the sample, accounting for 27% of the implements. This large scale utilisation of greywacke is interesting as the source of Group XII (pictrite) lies close to the SW boundary of the study area. This material is used exclusively for battle axes and axe hammers (Shotton et al 1951) but seems to have been largely overlooked in the study area. This may have been as a result of the use of suitable locally occurring erratic stone for the production of stone tools.

One of the few perforated implements found in any archaeological context from the study area was a battle axe from CHURCH LAWTON 2 which was found with a secondary cremation in a sack, inserted into a round barrow, the construction of which dated to 2140-1730 cal BC (3560 + 80 BP, HAR 5538, see Chapter 2). Three implements from Cheshire (an axe hammer an adze and a mace head) come from findspots in rivers and a further two have been recovered from wetland contexts (Leah et al 1997: 151). In Staffordshire, a sandstone mace head, two axe hammers and a shafthole adze have been recovered from wetland contexts (Leah et al 1998: 95). Although this is a fairly small sample (9% of the total), it is interesting to note the absence of battle axes from wetland locations, perhaps reflecting their suitability as grave goods but not for other forms of deposition.

There are a total of 112 perforated implements from the study area (see Table 3.2). The majority of these are axe hammers (59% n=67), the next most frequent being maces (14% n=16) then battle axes (9% n=11). Assorted other types of implement make up the remaining 18%. As can be seen, there is an overwhelming preponderance of axe hammers from the study area. Although axe hammers tend to be the most commonly found perforated implement nationally (Roe 1979: 26) the proportions in the study area are different with a far higher proportion of axe hammers (see figure 3.1).

Although it has been suggested that perforated implements are found close to copper sources and are associated with ore production, only 8 perforated implements come from close to copper sources in the study area. Four come from the area around Beeston, where copper deposits are known, but no prehistoric exploitation has been proven. A similar situation pertains at Grinshill, where a single battle axe has been found, and at Alderley Edge, where there is proven Bronze Age copper mining, only two axe hammers have been found. The lack of perforated implements in the region of copper mining in the study area may, however, be a product of the use of specialist mining tools: grooved stone hammers in this area. These tools will be discussed in depth in Chapter 7.

The glacial tills of the study area are rich in glacial erratic cobbles from the north of England. Studies by the British Association Erratic Committee during late 19th century recorded thousands of erratics from Yorkshire and beyond in the region (Fenton 1984) and Harmer’s boulder map of 1928 recorded many of the large erratics (over 30cm) in the region as being of Lake District origin (Harmer 1928). The content of tills in Liverpool and Cheshire was examined by Wedd et al (1923) and 69% of all glacial erratics within the tills were found to originate in the Lake District, Scotland and northern Ireland. This abundance of suitable, locally occurring stone seems to 57

Perforated Implements 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10

pe rf er ,

ha m m

cu sh io n

f

er ,

pe r pa rt

ha m m

er ,

ha m m

m ac e/ sh af t

ho le

ad ze

m ac e

m er

pe bb le

ha m

ad ze

pe bb le

sh af t

ho le

ad ze

ax e

ac e m

ba ttl e

ax e

ha m

m er

0

Perforated Implements 80 70 60

%

50 Study area

40

nationally

30 20 10 0 axe hammers

battle axes

axe hammers

Figure 3.1: Perforated implements from the study area

58

Perforated Implements

16%

2% 2%

38%

3%

4% 14% 1%

19%

1%

XV XVIII XII XXI greywacke quartzite dolerite sandstone grit other

Figure 3.2: Material of perforated implements from the study area.

way of displaying or manipulating status. Needham (1998: 245-6) suggests that display was important throughout the Early Bronze Age with copper and bronze axes possibly being used unhafted and in association with other types of metalwork such as lunulae, spearheads and halberds. The circulation and manipulation of stone objects, however, may have been a new expression of well known practices from the Neolithic and may even have operated in competition or opposition to metal objects.

Discussion Nationally, perforated implements appear to have a chronology that lasts throughout the Early Bronze Age, tailing off at the end of the Taunton phase (c.1400 to 1300 cal BC). The contexts of axe hammers and battle axes appear to differ, with battle axes tending to be used a grave goods and axe hammers having a more general distribution, and, although the two overlap to some extent, axe hammers are only rarely found in burial contexts. This pattern appears to hold true for the study area, although there is a paucity of well contexted finds. Further patterning is apparent in that maceheads and axe hammers are found in wetland contexts, but battle axes are not. In general, then, it appears that battle axes were suitable for deposition with the dead, whereas other forms of perforated implement were not. Battle axes tend to be better finished than other forms of perforated implement, perhaps reflecting their “social importance” (Pierpoint 1980). Such a notion of “high quality” objects equating with social status may be overly simplistic, however. Renfrew (1986) argues that high status can be achieved through the manipulation of resources and therefore may be gained by ownership of objects, rather than ownership merely reflecting status. Furthermore, it is possible that the “life history” of an object was more important than its finish or outward appearance (ibid).

It appears that there may have been conceptual differences about types of object and the contexts in which they could be deposited. Perforated implements, as well as objects like flint daggers, illustrate the fact that, despite the introduction of metal, stone was of continuing importance well into the Bronze Age. It is clear that whilst the form of objects was an important consideration, the material from which they were made was also important. Indeed, the unique combination of material and form, and the possibilities which these offered, seems to have been explored and exploited during the Early Bronze Age. This may also explain why local glacial erratics were suitable material for the manufacture of perforated implements. If objects, their form and material from which they were made became important, the apparent neglect of a suitable quarried stone source just outside the area at Hyssington (the source of Group XII) may mark a turning away from “traditional” stone resources to more localised, expedient use of raw materials. A concern with novelty seems also to have been of prime importance and, although there may have been certain prescribed ways of carrying out certain acts and manufacturing certain objects, variation within these frameworks also seems to have been important. It is suggested here that early in the Bronze Age, metal was another novel item which, deployed

During the Early Bronze Age, the production of battle axes and axe hammers overlaps with the production of metals. The new forms of stone implement, based on old objects (stone axes), but bigger and more ornate, perhaps indicates their deployment for display. Certainly, large axe hammers would make unwieldy weapons. That stone objects are tied up in activities concerned with display in the Early Bronze Age might seem surprising as surely the new medium of metal would be a more exotic, unusual 59

Figure 3.3: The battle axe from Church Lawton. (after Longley 1987)

Figure 3.4: A selection of perforated implements from Cheshire (after Longley 1987).

60

amongst other materials such as stone and pottery, was used as a way of manipulating concepts about status, power, the individual and their place in society. The possible use of perforated implements for display, coupled with the tailing off of burial monuments later in the Early Bronze Age may also reflect changing ideas about individuals and “social space”. It seems apparent from the construction of burial monuments during the Early Bronze Age and their subsequent re-use and continued importance that mortuary and funerary ritual were conceptually important and a way of articulating and mediating social relations. This disappears from the archaeological record late in the Early Bronze Age and seems to be coupled with a rise in the production of perforated implements. Perhaps this change reflects an increasing focus on object-centred display and a move away from a concern with burial and funerary rituals concerned with the body, the individual and their lineage. These concerns may have been shifted onto objects rather than people and the apparent end of production of perforated implements, at the beginning of the Taunton phase, a period during which a wider range of bronze artefacts begin to be produced on a larger scale, may also reflect this concern with objects, especially novel ones, and a concern with outward display. The themes raised in this discussion, and their connections with other aspects of material culture and social practice will be more fully explored in Chapter 8. In the meantime, discussion will turn to the “domestic” landscape and the evidence for settlement, agriculture and industry.

61

62

63

axe hammer

axe hammer

axe hammer

axe hammer

axe hammer

Shaft hole adze

5

6

7

13

21

22

23

24

25

27

Cheshire

Cheshire

Cheshire

Cheshire

Cheshire

Cheshire

Cheshire

Cheshire

Cheshire

Cheshire

Pebble hammer

hammer, perf

axe hammer

Battle axe

Battle axe

4

Cheshire

axe hammer

3

County No Implement

Cheshire

County CBA

Perforated implements

Appleton, Hill Cliffe

Stockport, High Lane

Bexton

Frodsham

Beeston

Alderley Edge

Coddington

Macclesfield, Tytherington

Macclesfield

Norbury/Bickley: Steer Brook

Tarporley, Peckforton Farm

Pinsley Green, Wrenbury

Locality

6150

89

752

51

5300

86

452

915

914

542

540

5875

NGR northing

8480

89

777

77

5900

78

553

755

757

474

565

4638

NGR easting

XV (fine)

XV (medium)

greywacke

XV ? (fine)

XV (fine)

XV (medium-fine)

XV (medium)

XV (fine)

XV ?

XV

greenstone

XV

Group

64

axe hammer

Shropshire

Northwood

Fair Oak, Broughton

axe hammer

56

Cheshire

Congleton area

Staffordshire

axe hammer

55

Cheshire

Tranmere, Tranmere Pool

Withington

axe hammer

51

Cheshire

Chelford

Macclesfield

Gatley

Timperley

Runcorn, Weston Point

Edge Hall, Malpas

Lawton

Middlewich, River Croco

Brinnington, nr Stockport

Locality

axe hammer

axe hammer

axe hammer

42

Cheshire

44

Shaft hole adze

41

Cheshire

Cheshire

axe hammer

35

Cheshire

axe hammer

axe hammer

31

Cheshire

43

adze, pt perf

30

Cheshire

Cheshire

axe hammer

29

Cheshire

axe hammer

28

County No Implement

Cheshire

County CBA

462

7591

826

85

31

82

911

84

797

500

482

820

70

906

NGR northing

325

3881

718

62

87

74

710

88

875

812

503

555

66

915

NGR easting

XXI

XV (fine)

XV (very fine)

XVIII

XV (fine)

XV ? (medium)

XV (fine)

XV (medium)

greywacke

greywacke

tremolite schist

XV (medium)

XV (fine)

Group

65

axe hammer

Staffordshire

Norton Green

Oulton

axe hammer

Staffordshire

Bicton, Onslow Hill Chebsey

axe hammer

26

Shropshire

Montford Bridge, R Severn

axe hammer

Battle axe

25

Shropshire

Wroxeter

Moreton Corbett

Prees, The Willows

Shrewsbury

Alderley Edge

Staffordshire

pebble mace

10

axe hammer

8

Shropshire

Shropshire

axe hammer

1

Shropshire

Battle axe

axe hammer

62

Cheshire

9

axe hammer

57

Cheshire

Shropshire

Newcastle Under Lyme

axe hammer

Staffordshire Wilmslow or unlocated

Stafford, Barlaston

axe hammer

Staffordshire

Newcastle Under Lyme

Locality

axe hammer

County No Implement

Staffordshire

County CBA

8980

9143

8760

43

432

56

54

5533

491

84

8460

8855

8055

NGR northing

5200

3575

3230

13

152

08

23

3337

125

78

4610

3855

5061

NGR easting

dolerite (ns)

XII

ashy quartzite pebble

XII

greywacke

XII

XV

XV ?

Group

66

Stockton Heath Weaverham, River Weaver High Legh, Swineyard Farm

axe hammer

adze

shafthole axe

Cheshire

Cheshire

Cheshire

Battle axe

mace or s-h adze

mace or s-h adze

39

46

49

50

Shropshire

Shropshire

Shropshire

Shropshire

Battle axe

axe hammer

37

Shropshire

axe hammer

36

Shropshire

Newport, Sambrook

Whitchurch, Sandfield

Stanton on Hine Heath

Wroxeter, Brompton Ford

Aston Gravel Pit

Aston Gravel Pit

Chester, Police HQ

Holmes Chapel

axe hammer

Cheshire

macehead

Penkridge

macehead

Staffordshire

Cheshire

Stoke on Trent

macehead

Staffordshire

Newcastle Under Lyme

Locality

stone hammer

County No Implement

Staffordshire

County CBA

7138

546

6166

5420

3382

3382

4030

6640

6100

6200

7680

9220

8640

8555

NGR northing

2455

409

2384

0830

2691

2691

6580

8370

7400

8600

6710

1450

4252

4855

NGR easting

basaltic andesite (drift pebble ?)

granodiorite

metamorphosed shale

XV

unidentified (ns)

unidentified (ns)

?XVIII

Group

67

Haslington Peckforton Wrenbury Faddiley

axe hammer

axe hammer

axe hammer

shafthole axe

Cheshire

Cheshire

Cheshire

Cheshire

Delamere Manley Delamere High Street, Frodsham Holmes Chapel

axe hammer

macehead

macehead

axe hammer

axe hammer

axe hammer

Cheshire

Cheshire

Cheshire

Cheshire

Cheshire

Shropshire

West Felton

Old Hall, Coole Pilate

shafthole adze

Cheshire

59

Little Moreton Hall

axe hammer

Cheshire

Sambrook/Fauls Farm Stanton on Hine Heath

56

Shropshire

mace

Locality

Pebble hammer

53

County No Implement

Shropshire

County CBA

34

769

519

549

525

555

648

580

599

540

730

832

614

71

NGR northing

25

670

781

701

734

679

470

520

477

560

550

589

237

24

NGR easting

ophitic dolerite

ophitic dolerite

XV

greywacke

Group

68

axe hammer

axe hammer

axe hammer

axe hammer

11

14

17

18

19

Staffordshire

Staffordshire

Staffordshire

Staffordshire

Staffordshire

pebble mace

axe hammer

axe hammer

80

Shropshire

2

hammer, pt

78

Shropshire

Staffordshire

axe hammer

77

Shropshire

axe hammer

mace

74

Shropshire

1

Axe hammer

72

Shropshire

Staffordshire

axe hammer

70

Shropshire

Battle axe

62

County No Implement

Shropshire

County CBA

Stafford, Rowley Bank

Bloxwich

Swynnerton

Chebsey, Cold Norton Farm

Eccleshall, Fair Oak, Broughton

Hopton

Stone

Whitchurch, Dearnford Hall

Brompton, Cross Houses

Market Drayton, Linstock

Sambrook

?Whitchurch, Brown Moss

Calverhall

St Alkmund, Shrewsbury

Locality

918

996

85

8780

76

94

9055

54

555

6880

715

5410

6056

520

NGR northing

216

41

33

3230

32

26

3455

37

071

2765

245

3925

3709

155

NGR easting

quartzite

XV ?

XII

coarse arkose

XII

XV

epidotised porphyrite

XV

dolerite

XV

grit

XV

XV

XV

Group

69

Pebble hammer

hammer, cushion

Shaft hole adze

mace or hammer

28

33

36

38

39

Staffordshire

Staffordshire

Staffordshire

Staffordshire

Staffordshire

Battle axe

axe hammer

27

Alderley Edge

axe hammer

Cheshire

Staffordshire

Alderley Edge

axe hammer

Cheshire

Trentham, Northwood Barrow

Norton le Moors

Cheddleton

Swynnerton, Hanchurch Hill

Eccleshall

Eccleshall, Baden Hall

Chebsey, Cold Norton Farm

Mottram St Andrew

perforated hammer

Cheshire

mace, cushion

Blackshaw Farm, Nether Alderley

perforated hammer

Cheshire

26

Tatton

perforated adze

Cheshire

Staffordshire

Pickmere

axe hammer

Cheshire

Padgbury Farm, Congleton

Locality

axe hammer

County No Implement

Cheshire

County CBA

8655

8955

97

8400

842

842

8800

850

850

880

840

753

680

842

NGR northing

4155

5201

52

4100

314

314

3220

770

780

780

760

804

770

624

NGR easting

XV

basaltic crystal tuff

XV

quartzite

XV

XII

sericitic grit

millstone grit

sandstone

Group

70

axe hammer

Battle axe

Battle axe

axe hammer

47

48

50

53

Staffordshire

Staffordshire

Staffordshire

Staffordshire

Alderley Edge River Bollin, Newton Hall Farm, Motram St Andrew Larkton Hall, Hampton, Maloas Edge Hall, Chester Town Fields, Tiverton

axe hammer

axe hammer

axe hammer

axe hammer

axe hammer

axe hammer

Cheshire

Cheshire

Cheshire

Cheshire

Cheshire

Cheshire

Playing fields of Sir John Deanes School, Northwich

Swynnerton, Common Lane

Bagnall, Moor Hall Farm

Whitmore, Shutlane Head

Hanley, Charles Street

Forsbrook, Blythe Marsh

Tittensore

Talke, Bumkers Hill

Betley Hall

Locality

mace

55

axe hammer

45

Staffordshire

Staffordshire

axe hammer

44

Staffordshire

Battle axe

40

County No Implement

Staffordshire

County CBA

658

551

480

506

879

860

8555

942

823

884

963

8755

82

755

NGR northing

727

610

501

515

805

780

3555

505

421

475

412

3855

53

490

NGR easting

medium textured greywacke

Group XV

quartzite

hard micaceous gritstone

fine grained greywacke

XII

XII

dolerite

XII

XV

Group

71

shafthole axe

shafthole axe

Cheshire

County No Implement

Cheshire

County CBA

Manor Farm, Marston

Millgate Farm, Allostock

Locality

674

720

NGR northing

757

731

NGR easting

Group

Chapter 4: Settlement

pits were categorised as having a variety of functions from cooking to waste disposal and appear to have continued in use until the Late Bronze Age. Up to 2,000 sherds of Bronze Age pottery were recovered from the site, much of it Early Bronze Age and including Beakers, Cordoned and Collared Urns, incense/pygmy cups and Food Vessels. A small amount of later Bronze Age pottery is also represented in the assemblage. A similar quantity of lithic artefacts was recovered from Mesolithic and Bronze Age contexts and included blades, scrapers and a barbed-and-tanged arrowhead. The Bronze Age lithics provide corroboration of the pottery dating and provide a valuable type series of dateable Early Bronze Age lithics for the North West.

Introduction In common with many other regions in Britain, the Early Bronze Age evidence from the study area is dominated by funerary monuments, with little evidence for settlement. These monuments appear to go out of use during the Middle Bronze Age but, unlike other areas, there is slender evidence for large scale “settling down” and the construction of settlements and associated field systems in the study area. This may reflect recent land use practises and the destruction of much evidence, but the existence of Roman and post-Roman field systems in the region suggests this may not be the case. There is, however, evidence for Late Bronze Age hilltop enclosures, often the precursors to hillforts, and a number of burnt mounds in the study area. The use of burnt mounds is poorly understood but will be discussed in this chapter as they have been interpreted in some quarters as representing settlement or specialist activity areas.

In comparison to Oversley Farm, the other Bronze Age settlement sites in the study area are embarrassingly poor. A single cropmark site has been ascribed a Bronze Age date in the study area. This is at Rawhead Farm, Bickerton, where circular and rectangular cropmarks were visible from the air (Robinson 1979). The circles were c.9m in diameter, smaller than average for a ring ditch, but as they have not been excavated they cannot be accurately dated. There is but a single fragment of field system reported from Tatton Park, Cheshire (Higham 1985) where a Bronze Age “field” represented by a buried lynchet was excavated. The north west corner of the lynchet was sealed by loam radiocarbon dated to 410 cal BC to 30 cal AD (2190 + 100 BP, HAR 5715), giving a terminus ante quem of the Late Iron Age period (ibid: 79). No other dating evidence was found for this lynchet, and a date in the Iron Age may be more in keeping with other evidence from the region. To the north of this lynchet an undated roundhouse (“Hut” in Higham 1985: 78), associated with stakeholes which probably represented fences, was excavated (ibid). A further possible roundhouse (Roundhouse II), c.3m in diameter, was excavated 18m to the south and the fill of a posthole from this feature was radiocarbon dated to 2200-1500 cal BC (3530 + 120 BP, HAR 5716).

Unfortunately there are some fundamental problems with the (re) interpretation of all of the Bronze Age “settlement” sites in the study area. Primarily, stratigraphy is poor and relationships between features difficult to be certain of. Second, radiocarbon dating is problematical due to the plateau on the calibration curve between c.800 and 400 cal BC, making the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age appear contemporary. Finally, the quality of excavation reports for sites in the region is generally poor, making reinterpretation, or in some cases verification, of the data impossible. Some attempt will be made here to reinterpret sites, where necessary, in the hope of drawing a fuller picture of Bronze Age settlement than has previously been available. Unenclosed, lowland settlements and field systems Unlike many other regions of Britain, the evidence for settlements and field systems in the study area is very sparse. Fragments of settlements are often preserved on higher ground or under subsequent activity (see “enclosed settlements”, below), but unenclosed settlements on the lowland are difficult to identify and very few excavations have been carried out. The exception to this is the recent excavation of a large settlement site at Oversley Farm, Cheshire (SJ 816 835), during the construction of the Manchester Airport Second Runway (Thompson 1998, Garner 1999 and pers com). Here, a pit containing 30 sherds of Beaker pottery was excavated close to an associated settlement. A hollow way, close to the Beaker pit and running parallel to the present Altringham Road, was also excavated. This may have forded the River Bollin and was possibly associated with disturbance and exploitation of the river. The site is currently being written up for publication, but the available evidence suggests a settlement of at least two circular buildings, associated with pits filled with “midden” deposits. These

It was suggested by Ellis et al (1994) that the field system at Duncote Farm, Shropshire (SJ 578 113) may have had origins in the Bronze Age, but this was supported by a single, unstratified sherd from either a Bronze Age urn, or a sandy VCP salt container (ibid). The main phases of the field systems here proved to be Iron Age and Roman, however and the possible presence of Bronze Age pottery may be accounted for by the presence of a ring ditch to the south (ibid: 57). Other field systems have been identified within the study area, but these are usually assigned an Iron Age or Roman date (Longley 1987: 1045, Collens 1994). Few have been excavated, however, and so it remains a possibility that a proportion may be earlier in date, although Jill Collens (pers comm) is

72

Figure 4.1: Features at Oversley Farm, Cheshire (after Thompson 1998) prehistory, which was explained as a result of a landscape which is ideally suited to a mobile model of exploitation (ibid). However, Barnatt (1999: 28) has argued that field boundaries are not functionally necessary and it may remain a possibility that cultivation was carried out within unenclosed plots in the study area.

reluctant to ascribe even a general prehistoric date to many of these features. The closest Bronze Age field system to the study area lies some distance to the north east, at Harrop Edge (SJ 9844 9615, Nevell 1992: 42). Here a series of banks and ditches covering an area of 110m by 70m appears to be associated with small clearance cairns and platforms (ibid). This site has been dated only by analogy with similar field systems in the Peak District. There are also a series of field systems outside of the study area, on the Long Mynd and in southern Shropshire (Watson & Musson 1993: 23) and field systems are known from the Peak District of Derbyshire (Barnatt 1999).

Enclosed settlement and hilltop enclosures Two lowland enclosed settlements have been excavated in the region in recent years, but the excavations have been small scale and piecemeal. At High Legh, Cheshire (SJ 6900 8328) a pair of enclosures were noted from aerial survey by Higham in 1981 (Nevell 1991a: 18). The northernmost enclosure, Enclosure B, was subrectangular and measured 15m by 30m and fieldwork in 1985/6 revealed a concentration of 12 chert objects in the area of this enclosure. These comprised of 8 waste flakes, 2 cores, a blade, a thumbnail scraper and another scraper. Subsequent excavation of Enclosure B revealed a ditched enclosure within which was a small circular stone structure, but this could not be dated securely (Nevell 1987). The evidence from fieldwalking led Nevell (1991a: 19) to assign a Late Prehistoric,

Cowell (2000a: 127) has suggested that the apparent lack of large scale field systems and associated settlements within the North West as a whole can be explained by the poor agricultural potential of the soils in the region. This, it was argued, meant that there was little stress on resources and competition for land which resulted in freedom from coercion and the late development of territories and boundaries. This argument was further supported by the lack of settlement evidence throughout

73

Figure 4.2: Late Bronze Age pottery from Beeston Castle (after Ellis 1993)

possibly 2nd millennium BC, date to Enclosure B. At Arthill Heath Farm, Cheshire (SJ 727 858) fieldwork by the South Trafford Archaeological Group located a subrectangular enclosure on the third terrace above the River Bollin. Excavation of c.5% of the interior in 1987/8 revealed the enclosure to be a ditch 6m wide and 1.5 m deep. Behind this was a two phase palisade and in the interior a number of buildings of different dates were located (Nevell 1988a). Four circular structures were excavated from the interior, two of which yielded radiocarbon dates of 2790 to 2570 cal BC (4120 + 35 BP, GrN 15905) and 2210 to 2020 cal BC (3730 + 35 BP, GrN 15906). These structures were interpreted as Early Bronze Age, but the radiocarbon dates, which are the only dating evidence from the whole site, are contemporary with Late Neolithic sites at Tatton (Higham & Cane 1999) and Lindow Moss (Turner & Scaife 1995). Two rectangular structures were also excavated at Arthill, one 10m by 5m, the other 8m by 5m. These could not be dated and the relationship of the palisaded enclosure to any of the internal features could not be verified due to a lack of stratigraphy across the site (Nevell 1988a). The rectangular buildings were assigned a Late Bronze Age or Early Iron Age date by the excavators, but no reason for this is given in the excavation report (ibid: 12). The existence of a field system close to the Arthill enclosure and evidence for clearances dated to between 366 cal BC to 60 AD (Leah et al 1997: 97-99) might suggest a possible Romano British date for the enclosure, however.

Farm enclosure have been firmly dated to the Bronze Age and cannot supply reliable data about enclosed, lowland settlements during this period. More securely dated sites do exist within the study area, however, and these tend to be located on hill tops overlooking the lowland and are often the sites of later Iron Age hillforts. One of these sites is Beeston Castle, Cheshire (SJ 539 593), where evidence of occupation from the Early Neolithic through to the Iron Age was recovered during excavations between 1968 and 1985 (Ellis 1993). The Early Bronze Age evidence from the Castle consisted of a spread of Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age flint and pottery, all from residual contexts across the site (ibid: 20-21). The Late Bronze Age evidence is more informative, and consists of a sand dump rampart, which was probably timber laced, with a scatter of pits and postholes representing contemporary settlement behind this. Timber from the rampart was radiocarbon dated to 1270 to 830 cal BC (2860 + 80 BP, HAR 4405) and a deliberate deposit of two Ewart Park phase socketed axes, placed 4m apart, was recovered from under the rampart (ibid: 47). These axes appear to have been newly cast and never used and probably represent a votive, foundation deposit (ibid: 48). Two shale rings and a quantity of Late Bronze Age pottery were also recovered from within the rampart. The settlement at Beeston appears to have been a specialist Late Bronze Age metalworking site with crucibles, moulds and refractory debris being recovered from the site and, although the evidence is equivocal, swords and ferrules seem to have been amongst the objects manufactured. A local source of copper was

Neither High Legh Enclosure B nor the Arthill Heath

74

Figure 4.3: Grooved Ware from Eddisbury Hill (after Varley 1950). Bronze Age and 12 Late Bronze Age fabrics represented (ibid: 64). All of the evidence suggests substantial activity during the Late Bronze Age at the site and the preferred interpretation is that of a specialist bronze working site enclosed within a timber laced earth rampart with some associated settlement (ibid: 90). Local resources appear to have been exploited for manufacture of pottery and metalworking equipment as well as possibly for metal ore. Atomic absorption spectrophotometry carried out on the bronze artefacts from the site suggested the all the pieces in the group could have been made of metal from one source or from a regional pool of metal in circulation (ibid: 47). Wider contacts are suggested by the presence of pottery fabric types identical to those at the Wrekin, represented at Beeston by only one or two vessels, perhaps used for the transportation of a special substance (ibid: 73).

available, located at Bickerton, but there is no firm evidence that these deposits were exploited in the Bronze Age (S. Timberlake, pers com). Certainly local glacial deposits were used for the manufacture of crucibles and pottery but there is also evidence of wider links, as pottery Fabric 6 from Beeston is identical to Fabric 2 from the Wrekin (ibid: 73, see below). The buildings within the enclosure are more difficult to interpret, due to thin stratigraphy and truncation by Iron Age, medieval and modern deposits. A total of four circular buildings (Buildings 1, 2, 4 and 5), up to 10m in diameter, were assigned a Late Bronze Age date based on parallels from southern England (ibid: 39). Buildings 3, 6 and 9 were also assigned a Late Bronze Age/Iron Age date, but analysis of pottery distributions from the postholes proved inconclusive, both in proving that the postholes formed structures and in providing a sequence or date for them (ibid: 74). The only securely dated posthole belonging to the Late Bronze Age is F25, described as stone packed. This does not, however, form part of a circular structure but rather belongs to a scatter of postpits within Building 6, to which its relationship is uncertain. Charcoal from this feature was radiocarbon dated to 1000 to 400 cal BC (2620 + 90 BP, HAR 4401). Posthole F29, described as forming the porch of Building 6 (ibid: 39), was also radiocarbon dated, yielding a somewhat later date of 550 to 100 cal BC (2280 + 80 BP, HAR 4406). A socketed axe appears to have been deliberately buried in posthole F50, but unfortunately this feature does not appear on any of the published plans or sections and therefore this evidence for Ewart Park period occupation, contemporary with the deposit of the axes under the rampart, is meaningless.

The general sequence at Beeston is closely paralleled by that from the Breiddin, Montgomery, to the south west of the study area (Musson 1991). Here Early Neolithic pits, Early Bronze Age pottery and flint and a Late Bronze Age defended enclosure with settlement and metal working evidence were all excavated, in a sequence almost identical to that at Beeston Castle. The Late Bronze Age rampart at the Breiddin was slightly later than that at Beeston, timber from within yielding radiocarbon dates of between 1130 to 790 Cal BC (BM 879, HAR 1616, BM 878). Metalworking hearths yielded dates of 840 to 400 cal BC (2560 + 90 BP, HAR 1224), again slightly later than Beeston Castle. The pottery from the site was igneous tempered barrel shaped or conical jars, very similar in appearance to the Beeston material, but locally made (ibid: 177). An exception to this were a few sherds possibly from the Cheshire Plain (ibid). One important difference between Beeston Castle and the Breiddin is that the bronze objects from the latter included personal ornaments such as pins, tweezers and bracelets (Musson 1991: 133) whereas Beeston had none,

The pottery from Beeston Castle provides some insight into the level of occupation during the Bronze Age, as the greatest quantity of pottery is Late Bronze Age (see figure 4.2) with a total of 3 Early Bronze Age, 1 Middle 75

100 cal BC (2470 + 180 BP, Birm 531). Bronze fragments were also found within these postholes. The postholes of Huts 6, 4 and 3 also contained some Late Bronze Age pottery, but all of these finds probably represent residual material which became incorporated into later features, probably Iron Age “four posters”. As noted above, Fabric 2 from the Wrekin is rhyolite tempered (ibid: 76) and probably from an immediately local source (ibid).

reinforcing the specialist nature of the settlement there. Further, the source of the metal at the Breiddin seems to have been ultimately Ireland, rather than local (ibid: 133). Other sites in the study area which have been identified as Late Bronze Age palisaded enclosures include Old Oswestry, Shropshire (SJ 295 310), where a palisade and box rampart, which predated the Iron Age defences, was associated with a fragment of furrowed carinated bowl (Varley 1948: 56). In a recent re-interpretation of the material from the site (Hughes 1994) these carinated bowls were, however, identified as classic examples of Wessex furrowed, carinated bowls dating from the seventh century BC (ibid: 69) and therefore Early Iron Age. The only other dating material from this phase was a handled crucible, identified as not belonging to the Late Bronze Age, and again probably Early Iron Age (Northover 1994). This early phase at Old Oswestry cannot therefore be assigned with confidence to the Late Bronze Age. A palisade and a pit, assigned to a “prerampart” phase, were also reported to have been recovered during excavations at Castle Ditch, Eddisbury, Cheshire (SJ 554 695, Varley 1950). The dating of this palisade, however, seems to rest on an association with a fragment of “encrusted urn” found close to the site (Varley 1948: 52). This sherd was not in association with any of the features of the palisaded enclosure, however, but rather was found in a sand quarry in the side of Eddisbury Hill (c.SJ 547 690). This sherd is on display at Warrington Museum and is clearly Durrington Walls substyle Grooved Ware, dating to the Late Neolithic (see also Longley 1987: 52 and figure 4.3 below). The remaining primary material for Castle Ditch is unavailable for study, however, and further verification of the data collected, or analysis of the finds made by Varley is impossible and the published data should probably not be taken at face value (Cocroft et al 1989). The enclosed sites within the study area are complimented by sites such as Llwyn Bryn Dinas, Clwyd (Musson et al 1992), where a stone faced revetment was associated with Late Bronze Age pottery similar to that from the Breiddin and radiocarbon dated to between 1080 to 790 cal BC (2750 + 70 BP (CAR 803) and 2710 + 60 BP (CAR 802) respectively). Although no dating material was recovered from the defences at Mam Tor, Derbyshire (Coombs & Thompson 1980) early dates of 1700–1000 cal BC and 1650–1000 cal BC (3130 + 132 BP: Birm 202 and 3080 + 115 BP: Birm 192, respectively) were recovered from two house platforms at the site, as well as a socketed axe fragment and Late Bronze Age pottery, apparently made from local raw materials (Guilbert & Vince 1996).

A final site from which Late Bronze Age pottery was recovered is Abbey Green, Chester (McPeake & Bulmer 1980). Here Neolithic pottery and flintwork, initially thought to be Iron Age, was excavated (for a reinterpretation see Mullin forthcoming), as well as a small collection of Iron Age and Late Bronze Age sherds. This assemblage was examined by the author in December 2000 and the Late Bronze Age material was found to consist of four sherds of coarse, dark brown/black pottery. One sherd had been petrologically examined in 1979 by Elaine Morris of the University of Southampton (unpublished report in Grosvenor Museum, Chester) and the fabric was described as having inclusions of rhyolite in an anistropic clay matrix with a natural background texture of sub-angular quartz. Rhyolite made up 50-70% of the matrix and was described as devitrified and frequently porphyritic with large phenocrysts of quartz. Three possible sources were identified for this fabric: the volcanic rocks of the Wrekin; the Conwy region in NW Wales and local glacial drift deposits. The Wrekin and local sources were seen as less likely than the Conwy region as in both of these areas rhyolite was not the only igneous rock to occur and careful selection would have been needed to select only this stone. At Conwy, however, rhyolites and rhyolitic tuffs are the only rocks to outcrop in the area. Conwy lies some 40 miles west of Chester, however, over two substantial mountain ranges. Morris did not draw any firm conclusions as to the source of the rhyolite in the pottery at Abbey Green but, in her report on the petrographic analysis of pottery from Beeston Castle (in Ellis 1993), drew attention to the similarities between the fabrics from Beeston and the Wrekin, assigning a local source to the Beeston material. Given the evidence from these sites and the Breiddin (the pottery from which was also examined by Morris), a source either at the Wrekin itself or from local drift deposits is favoured here.

A few other sites in the study area have produced Late Bronze Age pottery, but there is little further evidence for definite settlement. At the Wrekin, Shropshire (Stanford 1984) six four poster structures were excavated (interpreted by the excavator as huts and therefore described as Huts 1 to 6), yielding radiocarbon dates within the range of 1000 to 50 cal BC (ibid: 83). Late Bronze Age pottery was found in the fills of postholes of Hut 2 (ibid: 69) which was radiocarbon dated to 1000 to

A rather enigmatic feature, dated stratigraphically to the Bronze Age, was located by Keith Matthews at Carden Park, Cheshire (Matthews n.d). Here, a deposit of large stones running along a break of slope 4-5 metres outside of a cave mouth was interpreted as a deliberate placement, perhaps revetting a small level area in front of the cave. Beaker pottery was found within the cave itself (see Chapter 2), but a fuller interpretation must await the publication of this site.

Rhyolite gritted pottery is also reported from Bury Walls, Shropshire (Stanford 1984: 85) but this has not, as yet, been published.

76

A further factor which may have contributed to greater relative stability in the region is that, being generally low lying, it was less affected by changes in climate in the later Bronze Age. The movement out of highland areas such as the Peak District and Pennines during the Middle/Late Bronze Age is often attributed to deteriorating weather conditions (Cowell 1992a: 49, Tinsley 1981), but to settlements in a lowland area these conditions might have proved less drastic: being unable to grow crops above 110m AOD is hardly relevant to an area which barely rises above 100m. Indeed, increasing wetness in the lowlands may have had the effect of increasing the range and variety of wild resources as wetlands expanded. Hallam (1993: 7) suggests that Late Bronze Age in the North West was aceramic, blaming the weather or a semi-sedentary life style. Although wrong about the lack of pottery, she may yet be right about the semi-sedentary nature of society. The evidence from the Wrekin, the Breiddin, Beeston Castle and Abbey Green suggests movement of pottery and its contents across the study area and this again may indicate a certain amount of mobility and the importance of maintaining a wide network of connections.

Discussion Although the settlement evidence from the study area is somewhat thin, some broad patterns can be brought out. The ‘typical’ settlement in the region seems to be very different to that of Wessex, described recently by Bruck (1999b: 329) as consisting of several roundhouses, a few pits and a pond, often set within an enclosure and associated field system. As noted above, this difference has been explained by Cowell (2000b) as largely being due to the different opportunities offered by the different landscape, with a higher dependence on wild resources and less social and political stress. This is an attractive model, as the Bronze Age lowland settlement sites have much in common with the lowland Neolithic settlement sites (such as that at Tatton: Higham & Cane 1999), being almost indistinguishable apart from the radiocarbon dates that they have returned. There thus appears to have been a long tradition of roundhouse building in the region, perhaps reflecting relative stability. That these buildings seem not to have been associated with field systems during the Bronze Age may reflect poor survival of the evidence but there are a number of Romano-British and later field systems in the region (see Longley 1987: 104-5, Collens 1994). Barnatt (1999) has demonstrated that field systems belonging to the Iron Age and Romano British periods in the Peak District often have origins in the Bronze Age, and it is possible that a similar situation pertains in the study area. None of the field systems in the region are associated with field clearance cairns or other diagnostic Bronze Age sites, however. Dating of field systems is notoriously difficult, and the dates of many of those in the study area should perhaps remain open.

During the Late Bronze Age, large scale, intensive and often specialist activities set within fairly large enclosures becomes apparent in the region, and this perhaps represents the major shift of focus seen elsewhere in the construction of fields systems and settlements. That this change is somewhat later and qualitatively different in the study area may also support a continuity/mobility mode. The site at Beeston Castle appears to have been a place where specialist metalworking took place, perhaps located in an area with a long history and away from lowland settlements. The special nature of the site may have been referred to in the placement of bronze axes, probably one of the first products of the site, on the area in which the rampart was to be built. Some of the evidence from Beeston, such as this deposit and the burial of another axe in F50, are suggestive of other Middle/Late Bronze Age deposits within “domestic” sites (see Bruck 1995, 1999b), but generally the data from sites in the study area is not good enough to allow a close examination of possible “ritual” deposits on settlement sites (Bruck 1995, 2000). Bradley (1998: xix) suggests that metalworking perhaps involved an amount of ritual (see also Budd & Taylor 1995) but was also dangerous and that this might be a reason why it took place “on, or even beyond, the boundaries of the domestic sphere” (Bradley: ibid). This might explain why Beeston was used for metalworking, as it was high up and out of the way. If so, this implies that the “norm” was for lowland settlement with high spots possibly seen as in some way “marginal”, well away from the domestic, lowland, sphere.

If, however, the apparent lack of Bronze Age field systems is indeed true, this may have important implications. Bruck (1999b: 335) has pointed out that the appearance of settlements and field systems in the Middle Bronze Age in southern England has often been explained in terms of a drive to maximise agricultural production. This can be seen in terms of a functionalist mode of archaeological explanation, in which modern economic models are projected upon a seemingly familiar past. Bruck points to the problems with this mode of explanation and argues that people in the Middle Bronze Age (and throughout prehistory) did not share our standards of functionalist behaviour (ibid: 324). This is a convincing argument, but does not adequately explain why these sites appear in the archaeological record at this time. Further, it follows the assumption that field systems and settlements were a universal phenomena across all regions of the country. This kind of assumption has led to areas such the one considered in this study to be ignored and, more significantly, assumed to be “empty” or marginal during the Bronze Age. That this is not the case is illustrated by the evidence outlined above and a model which allows for a higher degree of mobility and/or a greater degree of continuity between the Neolithic and Early/Middle Bronze Age perhaps suits this evidence better.

Although the evidence for Bronze Age settlement in the region is relatively thin, it is hoped that this chapter has shown that it is possible to form a different model for settlement during this period than the one which is usually applied: that for Wessex. Although the “Wessex model” of intensification of agricultural production, 77

In the study area burnt mounds were noted by Cantrill (1908), and subsequently mapped by the NWWS (Bayliss 1991, Welch 1991, Leah et al 1997, 1998). It was noted that many burnt mounds in the study area were located on the wetland fringe, often in stream and river valleys (Leah et al 1998: 122) with a concentration around Baggy Moor and the Weald Moors in Shropshire (ibid: 39-44, 69-75, 121-2, Bayliss 1991). Interestingly, both of these wetland areas were the locales for the deposition of metalwork (see Chapter 6). In total 62 burnt mounds are recorded by the SMR and NWWS, most occurring in Shropshire with single examples known from the Cheshire (Leah et al 1997: 141, 151) and the Staffordshire part of the study area (Staffordshire SMR 1850, Welch 1991).

resulting in small scale settlement set within field systems, appears to work in its own regional context, it has rapidly become a universal applied to and searched for throughout Britain. This is also tied to a very generalistic model for the Bronze Age, which has been seen as a period of “domestication” and settling down, little changed from the attitude of the Hawkes’, nearly 60 years ago: "It is, in fact, more realistic to see the Bronze Age as opening with a time of slow movement, change and diversity which passes into one of slow settling-down, assimilation and uniformity" Hakwes & Hawkes (1943: 74) This, coupled with a feeling of familiarity with the material and its small scale rurality (Bruck 1999b) has led to a dearth of new attempts at interpretation and a glossing over of regional differences. This has been further exacerbated by a major class of evidence being overlooked, largely due to it occurrence outside of the south of England. Burnt mounds form a major part of the evidence in the study area for this period, and provide a fertile ground to explore the relationship between “domestic” and “ritual” spheres and how these intercut, as well as possibly contextualising the use of wetland and wetland edge locations during the Bronze Age.

Around Baggy Moor, several small groups of burnt mounds were noted by the NWWS (Leah et al 1998: 423). At Gravelpits Wood (SJ 376 279) two spreads of burnt stone and charcoal were noted, with a smaller, third example some 100m away. Three similar mounds were noted near Buildings Farm (SJ 370 282), a few hundred meters to the north west. A further group of three burnt mounds was noted c.1.5km to the north of this group, just beyond the confluence of the Tetchill Brook and the River Perry (SJ 383 294, ibid). All three of these sites contain mounds 10 to 20m in diameter and form a discreet cluster on the north west side of Baggy Moor. A greater concentration of burnt mounds was found around the Weald Moors (centred on SJ 665 175), where the 12 recorded by Cantrill were complimented by a further 17 recorded by the NWWS (Leah et al 1998: 70). A preference for location on land close to the present peat/mineral soil boundary was noted, with many burnt mounds emerging from shrinking peat. A mound at Wall Camp (SJ 6745 1796) was found to have a residual cover of peat, the examination of which suggested that fen-carr was the dominant vegetation until the post-Roman period, indicating the mound was constructed in such an environment (ibid: 75). The only grouping of burnt mounds in the Weald Moors is located at Kynnersley Island (SJ 657 171), where two mounds, 4m and 10m in diameter were found close to a more diffuse spread c.50m square (ibid).

Burnt Mounds Burnt mounds have been noted from across the north and west of the British Isles since at least the 19th century (Barfield & Hodder 1987: 370). Although their distribution is fairly well known (Hedges 1975: 62), their function remains the subject of some debate (see Barfield & Hodder 1987 and O’Drisceoil 1988 for some of the arguments). Burnt mounds are defined by large, kidney shaped mounds of heat cracked and burnt stone and charcoal, often located close to water (Barfield & Hodder 1987: 370). On excavation, many have contained a rectangular trough or basin lined with stone or clay, designed to hold water (ibid). The interpretation of these mounds has ranged from temporary cooking sites associated with hunting expeditions; cooking sites associated with stable, agricultural settlements; saunas or sweat lodges; industrial sites, or a combination of any of these (Barfield & Hodder 1987, O’Drisceoil 1988). Barfield and Hodder (1989) surveyed burnt mounds in the West Midlands and radiocarbon dates suggested a cluster around 1400 to 1200 cal BC (ibid: 11) and a Middle/Late Bronze Age date is generally accepted for this class of monument (Ehreneburg 1991: 41). Although interpretation has varied, the singular commonality between burnt mounds is their location close to water, often in boggy or marshy ground or on its margin with dry land. This has been interpreted as providing a useful supply of cold water, but if this was for cooking (O’Drisceoil 1988) or for bathing (Barfield & Hodder 1987), or other purposes remains unclear.

A burnt mound, not recorded by the NWWS, has recently been excavated at Rodway (SJ 6698 1883) on the Weald Moors near Telford (Hannaford 1999). Here a spread of burnt material 16.5m in diameter covered an inner core of black, sooty soil and stones 12.4m in diameter, lying directly on the sandy subsoil (ibid: 68). A pit measuring 3.2m by 2.5 m and 0.65m deep, filled with wet brown sand and successive layers of yellow to dark grey sand was located under the mound material. This pit appears to have been re-lined with clay, in which a sandstone rubbing stone or grinder was found. Another feature lay just outside of the excavated area and may have represented a second pit or perhaps a stream channel (ibid). The burnt mound is comparable to other excavated examples in the West Midlands, some of which have also shown signs of re-lining of the central pit (Barfield & 78

Figure 4.4: Burnt Mounds from Baggy Moor and The Weald Moors, Shropshire (after Leah et al 1998)

79

Bruck (1999b) has pointed to the difficulties with unravelling the “domestic” from the “ritual” during the Middle/Late Bronze Age. Often “domestic” sites contain “odd” deposits of unusual materials, perhaps indicating a blurring of the distinction between the ritual and the secular. A similar situation might apply to the interpretation of burnt mounds. While it is tempting to see these mounds in practical terms as cooking, industrial or bathing sites, or as a combination of these, such activities may have also contained a ritual element. The use of wetlands for funerary ritual and the deposition of metalwork and human remains has been outlined in Chapters 2 and 6, but there is also ethnographic evidence for the importance of bathing to many societies (see Barfield & Hodder 1987 for some examples). The preparation of ritual meals and feasting is also well known ethnographically (O’Drisceoil 1988: 675). Some burnt mounds have been found to have deposits of metalwork either in the mound, or under the central trough (O’Drisceoil 1988: 679), a practise reminiscent of those at settlement sites such as at Beeston Castle (see above). The sandstone rubber from the trough within the burnt mound at Rodway (see above) may also represent such a deposit. Similar deposits of querns and rubbers are known from round barrows in southern England and Yorkshire where they appear to have had symbolic significance (Allen et al 1995: 183-4). In the study area, a metalwork hoard from Preston on the Weald Moors (Chitty 1953) was found close to the three burnt mounds on Preston Moor and a bracelet hoard from Egerton Hall (Leah et al 1997: 137) is also close to the only burnt mound in Cheshire. Metalwork has also been found from the same area as burnt mound at Petton, Shropshire (see Chapter 6). The deliberate deposition of metalwork with food remains is also known from some settlement sites. At Grimes Graves Shaft X (Needham 1991a) a tanged spearhead of the Arreton phase was deposited with the bones of red and roe deer, domestic animals, potboilers and charcoal, interpreted by Needham (ibid: 172) as a deliberate deposit associated with the cooking/eating of hunted animals. It could well be the case, then, that the preparation of food and its consumption held an important place in Middle Bronze Age society. A simplistic interpretation of burnt mounds, based merely on practical functionalism may be misleading, with the sites perhaps straddling the ritual/domestic divide. Indeed, Bruck (1999b) has argued that such a divide is entirely a product of post-enlightenment logic and has no place in prehistory.

Hodder 1982: 56). A number of samples were taken from the mound material and from the trough, one from the sooty material at the base of the mound returning a radiocarbon date of 1312-1168 cal BC (dated by QUB but sample reference or method of calibration not supplied).

Discussion A locational preference for wetland fringe or river valleys has been noted for burnt mounds in the study area. This may be related to the function of the mounds, to which a supply of fresh water seems to have been important (O’Drisceoil 1988). Alternatively, the burnt mounds may be situated in areas in which activities relating to rites of passage and burial were already taking place (see Chapter 2), or might even relate to, and fill in the gaps of, local settlement patterns. O’Drisceoil (1988: 677) has argued strongly in favour of the distribution of burnt mounds reflecting the contemporary settlement pattern with the mounds occupying wet areas close to settlement located on dry land (ibid: 679). Ehrenburg (1991: 53-5) has also argued that settlement sites would be located in river valleys and that burnt mounds have often been found close to structures. It should be noted that these structure may, however have had specific roles related to the use of the burnt mound and may not have represented “settlement” structures. As no such evidence is available for the study area, these interpretations remain open. A further locational preference can be noted from the available evidence, however. Burnt mounds tend to be located in areas away from round barrows, often in locations also used for the deposition of metalwork. This might be entirely coincidental, but may also be tied up with funerary rituals, as outlined in Chapter 2. Ehrenburg (1991: 42) points out that the factors leading to the discovery of metalwork and burnt mounds are different, and therefore any patterning between the two may indeed reflect a genuine distribution. Indeed, Ehrenburg (ibid: 47) goes on to note the coincidence of burnt mounds and metalwork finds from the Weald Moors. Groups of three burnt mounds, two large and one small, in these locations might also be significant, but the contemporanity, or otherwise, of these groupings has not been proven. Other groupings of burnt mounds are known elsewhere, however, such as in southern Staffordshire (Hodder and Welch 1987), and SW and NW Wales (James 1986, Kelly 1990) and this is an aspect of burnt mounds which warrants further investigation. Geophysics has also shown good responses over burnt mounds, and is a technique which can be used not only to identify the form of the monument itself, but also the location of paleochannels and potential settlement sites (Jones 1991, Dockrill 1991). The poor preservation and destruction of burnt mounds was noted by Leah et al (1998: 76) and there is a need for excavation of sites which are threatened by peat shrinkage, some of which may retain waterlogged organic remains, as well as the examination of the immediate areas around these sites, to assess any possible contemporary settlement.

Although the settlement evidence form the study area is patchy at best, it is suggested here that settlement remained relatively stable throughout the Early and Middle Bronze Age, with broad continuity (in form rather than location) from the Neolithic. This is a model in which mobility was important and settlement was small scale and ephemeral. There are certainly no traces of the “settling down” apparent in the south of England during this period in the study area. This settlement continuity was set against a background of dramatic changes in material culture, burial practice and stone and metal

80

technologies and appears to have altered during the Late Bronze Age, with the emergence of hilltop, enclosed settlements, some of which had specialist functions. The reasons for change in the Late Bronze Age are unclear, but may represent a “filtering through” of social and political tensions elsewhere in the country, or a late uptake of ideas about territoriality and land tenure. This is a tentative model for this region only, and should not be seen as an attempt to deconstruct the entire Bronze Age settlement archaeology of Britain. Rather, a contingent, regional model is suggested, in contrast to the dominant, over applied model from Wessex into which many regional patterns are often forced to fit. Further work is certainly needed on the “domestic” sites of the Bronze Age in the study area, including attempts to verify the apparent lack of field systems and small scale settlement. Further fabric analysis of Bronze Age pottery might yield interesting results, as might reinterpretation of pottery previously identified as Iron Age. Certainly Hallam’s (1993) ideas of an aceramic Late Bronze Age in the north west have been shown to be false, rather reflecting mis-identification and poor understanding of the pottery produced during this period. At least four sites (Beeston Castle, the Wrekin, Abbey Green and the Breiddin) have produced pottery of this date and a type series for the Late Bronze Age of the region is beginning to emerge. Burnt mounds offer another strand of evidence which illustrate the poor suitability of the Wessex model to the region. Burnt mounds are rare in the south of England, and have a western distribution (Hedges 1975: 62). Thus the model for regions outside of Wessex have to take into account their own, regional, patterning and monument types. Burnt mounds also perhaps offer another way of examining how different parts of the landscape were linked by the activities which went on in certain locales. Wetlands seem to have been used as part of a spectrum of activities, from subsistence to ritual, and their use also indicates that sometimes this distinction can be unhelpful as it may not have been apparent to prehistoric populations. The use of such areas may have been intrinsically linked to other areas, such as those containing round barrows for example, and formed part of the utilisation of a wide range of landscape types and locations for specific activities. Wetland areas seems to have formed a central focus to the Bronze Age population of the region and were heavily utilised throughout this period. One highly visible use of these areas was for the, apparently formal, disposal of metalwork, which fits into a spectrum of use of wetland sites. Chapter 6 will deal with this phenomena in detail. Further, indirect, evidence of the human exploitation of these wet places, and by implication the wider landscape, comes from the pollen and other evidence preserved in peat deposits studied by the North West Wetland Survey and others. It is to this evidence that the discussion will now turn.

81

82

83

4112 2963

4152 2969

4155 3088

4160 2935

Cockshutt

Cockshutt

Cockshutt

Cockshutt

6679 1842

Cherrington

4080 3100

4275 2578

Baschurch

Cockshutt

4140 2565

Baschurch

6701 1885

4125 2506

Baschurch

Cherrington

4010 2600

5185 5004

NGR

Baschurch

Location

Burnt mounds

NWWS SH147

NWWS SH140

10 15

NWWS SH152

NWWS SH151

NWWS SH148

NWWS SH64

NWWS SH65

NWWS SH61

NWWS SH63

NWWS SH60

NWWS SH68

NWWS CH94

Notes

20

10

15

10

10

20

10

10

10

Diameter

On edge of Smithy Moor

On edge of Weald Moors

On edge of Weald Moors

not entirely convincing

Weston Wharf Island, Baggy Moor

on gravel ridge, surrounded by peat

Close to stream

Landscape

SMR

84

3828 2977

3936 2816

4008 2678

6514 1527

Hordley

Hordley

Kynnersley

5940 1637

Ercall Magna

Hordley

5930 1650

Ercall Magna

6468 1400

4178 3181

Ellesmere Rural

Eyton on the Weald Moor

6944 1907

Edgmond

6178 1766

6938 1748

Edgmond

Ercall Magna

6878 1756

Edgmond

5977 1599

6859 1764

Edgmond

Ercall Magna

NGR

Location

20

30

19

17

20

10

20

Diameter

NWWS SH157

NWWS SH 107

NWWS SH62

NWWS SH84

Two hearths

NWWS SH 123

NWWS SH 102

NWWS SH 101

Notes

Small patch of burnt stone ?still partially buried burnt mound

burnt sandstone on small hillock E of Baggy Moor

On edge of Baggy Moor

close to stream

On peaty ground

On edge of Smithy Moor

Surrounded by wasted peats

Landscape

Shrops 717

Shrops 1380

Shrops 1558

Shrops 1557

Shrops 1556

Shrops 774

Shrops 779

SMR

85

6837 1770

6197 1045

7012 1750

4445 2626

Little Wenlock

Longford

Petton

6660 1618

Kynnersley

Kynnersley

6642 1773

Kynnersley

6773 1674

6638 1624

Kynnersley

Kynnersley

6590 1775

Kynnersley

6745 1795

6587 1688

Kynnersley

Kynnersley

6579 1716

Kynnersley

6661 1767

6565 1702

Kynnersley

Kynnersley

NGR

Location

10

Probable ploghed out burnt mound

NWWS SH6

Hearth on peat

NWWS SH3

NWWS SH2

NWWS SH 103

NWWS SH 98

50

5

NWWS SH 97

NWWS SH 96

Notes

10

4

Diameter

Close to relict stream

Possible burnt mound

Southern Weald Moors

On NW edge of Kynnersley Island

On N edge of Kynnersley Island

On edge of Kynnersley Island

Landscape

Shrops 4121

Shrops 716

Shrops 784

Shrops 781

Shrops 783

Shrops 780

Shrops 783

Shrops 782

SMR

86

3342 2422

3696 2833

3707 2825

3757 2799

West Felton

West Felton

West Felton

6752 1899

Tibberton

West Felton

6746 1909

Tibberton

6901 1860

7638 1484

Sheriffhales

Tibberton

6698 1883

Rodway

6876 1843

6788 1569

Preston on the Weald Mo

Tibberton

6734 1569

Preston on the Weald Mo

6783 1858

6731 1559

Preston on the Weald Mo

Tibberton

NGR

Location

NWWS SH50

NWWS SH67

20 7

NWWS SH66

NWWS SH34

NWWS SH33

7

30

30

Seen by Cantrill

Excavated 1999. C14 date of 1312-1168 cal BC

NWWS SH82

15 16

NWWS SH83

Notes

10

Diameter

on gravel ridge, surrounded by peat

On NW fringe of Baggy Moor, on gravel ridge, surrounded by peat

On NW fringe of Baggy Moor, on gravel ridge, surrounded by peat

300m NE of SH33

Beside stream & peat

Largest burnt mound on the Weald Moors

Close to small natural pool

on the Weald Moors

On S edge of the Weald Moors

On S edge of the Weald Moors

Landscape

Shrops 1568

Shrops 777

Shrops 773

Shrops 772

Shrops 1724

Shrops 786

SMR

87

3766 2794

3835 2942

3853 2923

7964 1238

5752 1261

5901 1072

West Felton

West Felton

West Felton

Weston Under Lizard

Withington

Wrockwardine

6308 1148

3765 2811

West Felton

Wrockwardine

NGR

Location

NWWS SH 86

NWWS SH 85

10 20

NWWS SH49

NWWS SH48

Notes

15

15

Diameter

Close to stream

On edge of Baggy Moor

On edge of Baggy Moor

on gravel ridge, surrounded by peat

on gravel ridge, surrounded by peat

Landscape

Shrops 714

Shrops 1612

Shrops 1610

Staffs 1850

SMR

Chapter 5: Environmental Evidence episode of forest clearance, cultivation and recovery c.2000 to 1500 BC. This is followed by major, perhaps selective, clearance of oak, lasting until c.1200 BC. The final episode lasts until the Roman period and is defined by cultivation and high levels of soil erosion. The conclusions made by Schoenwetter suggest that during the Bronze and Iron Ages the area was cleared of a significant amount of oak forest which was replaced with cropland and pasture (ibid: 11).

Introduction: As outlined elsewhere, the wetlands of the study area were subject to intensive survey by the North West Wetland Survey during the period from 1990, continuing to the present. All of the “County” volumes for the Survey have now been published, and a synthesis is in production. As well as carrying out fieldwalking at many sites, the Survey also undertook environmental sampling wherever possible. Although much of this was designed to assess the extent and nature of the environmental archive preserved in the peat, and was not therefore closely dated, radiocarbon assessments were carried out at several sites. Shropshire has been the focus of more paleoenvironmental work than any other part of the study area, although Cheshire can claim the most spectacular archaeological find, that of Lindow Man. Long sequences of vegetational history and anthroprogenic disturbance have been recovered from many of the wetlands in the region, but those dating to the Bronze Age will be the sole concern of the following text. Although somewhat artificial, for convenience this chapter will retain the topographical divisions of the NWWS.

At Tatton Park (Higham & Cane 1999: 39) pollen evidence indicates the appearance of woodland clearance and agriculture c. 1770-1370 cal BC (3270 + 90 BP: HAR 9206) with cereal pollen dated to c.15301250 cal BC (3150 + 60 BP: HAR 8409). Clearance and cultivation appear to have continued at the site into the Iron Age, by which point grassland is dominant (ibid). This was interpreted by the excavators as a result of a wetter and cooler climate in the late second millennium BC making more permeable lowland soils more attractive. Some environmental samples were taken during the excavation of round barrows in the 1980s, but many of these remain unpublished or allow only minimal interpretation. Further, the constructional sequence outlined in Chapter 2 creates fundamental problems with this data. Topsoil appears to have been stripped as part of the construction of many round barrows, and thus environmental remains would have been displaced or destroyed. Few buried land surfaces have been encountered during excavations and thus analyses should be approached with caution. At OLD WITHINGTON 1 (Wilson 1979) the pollen from the turf stack and buried subsoil suggested that there was localised forest regeneration in the area, with evidence of both arable and pastoral farming. The area was interpreted as “losing its fertility and slipping back into wilderness” (Wilson 1981: 156). Similar evidence of an open environment was collected at GOOSTRY 1 (Wilson 1988), where there was some evidence of arable farming in the form of pollen from wheat and weed species. The only other environmental data from an excavated site comes from Beeston Castle (Ellis 1993: 83-5). Here the soil and pollen samples were not closely dated, but the general interpretation was that the soils at the site had formed under mixed oak woodland, which was still present in the Late Bronze Age (ibid: 85). The site became increasingly open during later prehistory, with local cultivation and clearance in the Iron Age.

The Wetlands of Cheshire The Cheshire portion of the study area was reported on for the NWWS by Leah et al 1997. Some environmental work was also carried out by Schoenwetter (1982) and by Higham and Cane (1999). Perhaps the best studied wetland in the region is Lindow Moss, the findspot of a well preserved human body, dated to the Romano-British period (Turner & Scaife 1995). Other human remains dating to this period have also been recovered from the site. As a result of these discoveries, much environmental work has been undertaken, recovering a vegetational history of the Moss as far back as at least 6000 cal BC (Leah et al 1997: 49). Branch and Scaife (1995) examined the upper 1.9m of the Moss and recovered evidence of Early Bronze Age woodland with some signs of clearance and regeneration. There was increased disturbance at the site from the Iron Age, which was also suggested by Oldfield et al (1986). The NWWS detected a tree-dominated phase of the Moss ending c.770-400 cal BC (2447 + 43 BP, UB3240), which was coupled by an increase in wetness at the site. This was possibly ascribed to climatic deterioration at the very end of the Bronze Age (Leah et al 1997: 61). Schoenwetter (1982) examined the sediments from Bar Mere (SJ 536 480) for Bronze Age or Iron Age environmental evidence, contemporary with the hillforts at Beeston Castle and Maiden Castle. It is not clear if the dates given in the published text are calibrated or not, but from the concluding remarks it appears that they must be. This assumption is the basis for including the site here. Schoenwetter details an

The Wetlands of Shropshire and Staffordshire Rather more work has been carried out in these wetlands, although very little is known about the North Staffordshire wetland areas. The NWWS surveyed 11 sites in north Staffordshire, but detailed pollen analysis was available for only one site, Aqualate Mere (Leah et 88

Site Boreatton Moss New Pool Whixall Moss Top Moss Boreatton Moss

Uncalibrated Date 3660 + 50 BP 3550 + 50 BP 3238 + 115 BP 3220 + 50 BP 3190 + 60 BP

Calibrated Date 2150-1880 1980-1740 1900-1200 1620-1400 1620-1310

Central Date 2015 1860 1550 1510 1465

Table 5.1: Radiocarbon Dates for the Lime decline in the study area. al 1998: 199). Unfortunately there are no radiocarbon dates available for this site and the vegetational succession cannot be related to human activity in the area. A single, as yet unpublished, round barrow excavation has yielded environmental evidence, however. Samples were taken from beneath King’s Low and analysed by F.M Chambers and I. Wilshaw of the University of Keele (Chambers & Wilshaw, unpublished report). Pollen was sparse in the samples, but the results obtained were interpreted as representing a local disturbed damp grassland environment with some hazel and alder in the vicinity.

as resulting from pastoral landuse (ibid: 152). Subsequent regeneration was followed by a radical opening up of the landscape, dated to 260-70 cal BC (2086 + 75 BP, Q1232). The presence of open land led to increased soil erosion during this period. The lime decline in Shropshire has been fairly well dated, with a date of 1620-1400 cal BC (3220 + 50 BP, OxA 6639) from Top Moss (Leah et al 1998: 67) and slightly earlier, 1980-1740 cal BC (3550 + 50 BP, SRR 2833) at New Pool (ibid: 53). The lime decline at Top Moss was associated with cereals and increasing agricultural indicators after 390-110 cal BC (2195 + 50 BP, OxA 6640). The lime decline at Boreatton Moss was dated to 2150-1880 cal BC (3660 + 50 BP, SRR 2831), slightly earlier than at other sites in the region, interpreted as perhaps resulting from the selective felling of lime (Leah et al 1998: 153). Another collapse in lime at Boreatton Moss was dated to 1620-1310 cal BC (3190 + 60 BP, SRR 2923), this time associated with cereal cultivation and possible rotation of landuse (Leah et al 1998: 154). A low intensity of landuse appears to have dominated through the Middle to Late Bronze Age, with evidence for rye cultivation in the Early Iron Age (ibid).

Shropshire has faired rather better in paleoecological work, with detailed analysis available for five sites. Initial work at many of these sites has been as a result of archaeological finds, for example the palstave found at Whixall Moss (Chitty 1933, Hardy 1939, Turner 1964) provided the impetus for several studies of the peats in the Moss, summarised by Leah et al (1998: 1617) and by Berry et al (1996). The palstave was associated with a layer of pine stumps, which were investigated by Hardy (1939) and subsequently given the name the “Hardy Stump Layer”. Wood from this layer was dated to 800-100 cal BC (2307 + 110 BP, Q383), rather later than the evidence of the palstave. The latest work carried out by Berry et al (1996: 36) has re-dated this layer to c.2050 to 1250 cal BC (no sample number given), a more suitable date for the deposition of the palstave. Hardy (1939) noted a decline in lime (tillia) pollen prior to this, at 1900-1200 cal BC (3238 + 115 BP, Q467), interpreted as the result of anthroprogenic clearance as it was associated with a fall in other tree pollen and a rise in clearance indicator species. During the Mid to Late Bronze Age woodland was thought to have persisted as the dominant vegetation in the region (ibid), until rapid mire regrowth c.390-90 cal BC (2180 + 50 BP, SRR 3074), interpreted as a reaction to a climatic deterioration (Leah et al 1998: 16). Further work by O’Sulivan (1975), however, suggested that increasingly clear conditions were prevalent at the Mere following an initial phase of regeneration after the lime decline of 1900-1200 cal BC. These conditions appear to have continued to c. 800-100 cal BC (2307 + 110 BP, Q467), presumably until the mire regrowth phase.

Decline in lime is a national phenomena, but the reasons for it are unclear and debated, explanations ranging from climatic deterioration, selective felling and disease (Iversen 1941, Tinsley 1981, Godwin 1975). Nationally the lime decline usually dates to the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age, but appears to be a metachronous phenomena varying between regions depending on the amount of environmental exploitation (Tinsley 1981: 238). Beales (1980: 155) noted the concurrence of dates for the lime decline in Shropshire and the widespread use and deposition of metal axes, postulating a link between the two. Dates for the lime decline in the region certainly cluster between 1900 and 1200 cal BC (see Table 5.1) but a direct link between the felling of trees with metal axes and these events is yet to be proven. The main period for the deposition of bronze metalwork in the study area is somewhat later in any case with the highest rate if deposition occurring in the Middle to Late Bronze Age (see Chapter 6).

Work by Beales (1980), at Crose Mere dated an initial clearance phase to 2500-1700 cal BC (3714 + 129 BP, Q.1234). This was accompanied by reduced tree cover with cereals and open land species present, interpreted

Discussion The environmental evidence from the study area falls into three chronological phases during the Bronze Age.

89

study area and seems to have been readily and rapidly adopted, as were methods for use and disposal of some items of material culture (see Chapter 6). The burial record is generally in correspondence with the rest of the country in that it becomes less visible, and burnt mounds appear for the first time during this period, again in common with other areas. Why then is the agricultural intensification seen in other parts of the country invisible in the study area?

Initially a Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age lime decline can be detected at Crose Mere, Boreatton Moss and New Pool. These dates cluster around 2000 cal BC and possibly represent the very first deliberate opening up of the area. An open environment is recorded from pollen sealed below the mound of GOOSTREY 1, the primary phase of which was radiocarbon dated to 2500 to 1850 cal BC (Wilson 1988, see Chapter 2). Between c.1900 and 1200 cal BC a decline in lime can be seen at Whixall Moss, Top Moss and Boreatton Moss, along with selective felling of oak at Bar Mere. The genesis of this decline is difficult to be certain of, but anthroprogenic selection could certainly have been a factor. Cereals are present at Tatton Park during this phase and cultivation is suggested at Boreatton Moss. Apart from continued suggestions of cultivation at Bar Mere, little seems to happen in the environmental record between c.1200 to 900 cal BC but this phase of apparent inactivity is followed by intensive periods of cultivation at Lindow Moss, Crose Mere and Whixall Moss, with the first evidence of cultivation appearing at Beeston Castle. At all of these sites this last phase can be attributed to the Early Iron Age rather than the Late Bronze Age, this period being associated with the construction of the first hillforts in the region.

It could be argued that there is simply not enough evidence from the region to be certain that there was in fact no agricultural intensification during this period and that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This may be the case, but every site sampled by the NWWS showed a similar pattern with a gap between Early Bronze Age and Early Iron Age exploitation. Admittedly this is a sample biased towards the wetlands and may rather reflect a move away from the exploitation of these regions during this period. The evidence from burnt mounds (Chapter 4) and metalwork (Chapter 6) suggests that wetland areas were still visited and used, but the nature of this use may have changed. Although it may remain the case that many of the field systems identified as Romano-British and later may indeed be earlier, the archaeological visibility of field systems does not seem to be a problem in the study area. The apparent lack of Bronze Age fields may, therefore, be real.

The general pattern from the environmental data for the region supports the pattern from the monumental and settlement evidence discussed in Chapters 2 and 4. The period which shows the highest level of interference with the natural environment in the study area is the Early Bronze Age where it appears to be associated with the construction of round barrows and perhaps also the provision of wood for funeral pyres. Some cereal cultivation seems to have taken place during this period, but the evidence is suggestive of small scale agriculture. Very few sites have any environmental evidence dating to the Middle/Late Bronze Age and so the level of human impact on the environment is difficult to gauge. This period is one associated with climatic downturn (see Chapter 4) but the agricultural intensification seen in other regions is almost completely absent from the study area. Even at Beeston Castle, the site of a Late Bronze Age hilltop enclosure, there is very little evidence of human environmental impact until the Early Iron Age. The lack of environmental evidence is also supported by the field evidence with an almost total lack of field systems and associated settlements. This is in contrast to other regions of the country, where the Middle/Late Bronze Age is seen as the period when the landscape becomes cleared on a large scale for the first time. In the study area then, the accepted order of landscape development is inverted with early landscape clearance for monuments more evident than that of a later date for agriculture. This might again support the continuity/mobility model suggested in Chapter 4, with patterns of landscape exploitation and utilisation persisting from the Late Neolithic through to the Early Iron Age. This is not necessarily to suggest that the region was a “backwater” during this period, but merely that its inhabitants reacted in different ways to different phenomena. The full repertoire of Middle and Late Bronze Age material culture is found throughout the

It is suggested here that the apparent lack of settlement and landscape exploitation during the Middle to Late Bronze Age in the region is in fact real and that this reflects a long term continuity of use of the region from at least the Late Neolithic onwards. There is little evidence of the wide-scale opening up of the landscape, rather the evidence suggests small scale exploitation with special attention paid to wetland areas for certain activities. This may represent a slow movement of ideas into the region during the Middle/Late Bronze Age, but the presence of other material culture from this period suggests often wide ranging contacts. Perhaps the lack of wide scale agricultural intensification during this period is best seen as a deliberate choice, or as part of a social/political milieu in which intensification simply wasn’t important. The apparent agricultural intensification in southern England during the Middle Bronze Age has recently been criticised by Bruck (2000) and the reasons for the appearance of large scale field systems attributed not to agricultural production methods and climatic deterioration, but to social and political factors. A combination of all of these factors may have resulted in the appearance of this phenomena, and it has been argued in Chapter 4 that during this period the climate may have had little influence in the region. Just as social and political motivations may have resulted in the emergence of field systems in southern England, these very same factors may also have resulted in their absence from the study area. It is difficult to prove, but perhaps society was articulated in relationships to things rather than land during this period, with the 90

prehistoric woodland (Evans et al 1999, Brown 1997, Brown 2000) and that these clearances may have held significance in and of themselves, being used as natural arenas for social gatherings, astronomic observation or activities other than agriculture, the role normally ascribed to them. It may in fact be the case that round barrows, rather than having land cleared for their construction, utilised natural clearances in woodland, the creation of which may have been “in the hands of the ancestors” (Brown 2000). It is interesting to speculate about such ideas, but there is very little evidence for natural clearance in the Middle and Late Bronze Age in the study area. Thus it may indeed be the case that natural clearances were phenomenologically significant, but this is impossible to prove from the environmental evidence as it stands.

production, circulation and disposal of metal objects taking precedence over the ownership and tenure of land. This may reflect the long term structures of exchange and trade, continuing from the Late Neolithic and the production of new and novel types of pottery and tools, into the Bronze Age with metal objects taking over as a medium for negotiation and social mediation. These are themes which will be dealt with in the next chapter, where the metalwork finds from the region, and their possible significance, will be discussed. One final point should be made about the interpretation of the environmental data from the study area. Recent work has suggested that natural agencies may have been responsible for the creation of many clearances in

Radiocarbon Dates for Environmental Data from Study Area

Atmospheric data from Stuiver et al. (1998); OxCal v3. 5 Bronk Ramsey (2000); cub r:4 sd:12 prob usp[chron]

Crose Mere 3714±129BP Boreatton Moss 1 (lime) 3660±50BP New Pool (lime) 3550±50BP Tatton Park 3270±90BP Whixall Moss (lime decline) 3238±115BP Top Moss (lime) 3220±50BP Boreatton Moss 2 (lime) 3190±60BP Tatton Park 2 3150±60BP Lindow Moss 2447±43BP Whixall Moss (pine) 2307±110BP Whixall Moss (regrowth) 2180±50BP Top Moss (cereal) 2195±50BP Crose Mere (open) 2086±75BP 4000CalBC

3000CalBC

2000CalBC Calibrated date

91

1000CalBC

CalBC/CalAD

92

Chapter 6: Metalwork 113) give a good background and introduction to the phasing and types of metalwork for the entire Bronze Age and this is the chronology used here (with amendments from Needham et al 1997).

Introduction: From the very earliest work of Thomsen, metalwork has been used to define the Bronze Age. The development of the chronology for the Bronze Age can be seen as a classic case of the use of typological classification (O’Connor 1980), and one which has, despite its critics, largely been reinforced by modern analytical techniques (Needham et al 1997). In Britain, the analysis of metal hoards enabled a typological classification and chronology to be built, but one which was over dependent on an evolutionary, “progressive” model, with each new metal type seen as an almost inevitable development and improvement on the last. This led to the definition of “stages” of metalwork development, sometimes even seen as “industrial stages” (Needham et al 1997: 56). These stages were re-interpreted in the 1970s and 1980s with a shift to the analysis of artefacts and their role in structuring society (Rowlands 1976) and the recognition that hoards were selected from a wider range of material culture and metalworking, reflecting specific social practices which could not be assumed to be constant throughout the Bronze Age (Needham et al 1997: 57). Hoards and other associations, it was becoming realised, were not a reflection of the production stage or of “industries”, but representative of the “termination of varied and often individualistic life cycles” of the metalwork involved (Needham et al 1997: 58, Taylor 1993). Continental research was also suggesting that much metal was deposited in contexts which were permanent, and not the result of chance losses or unretrieved hoards intended for later use. As a result, the idea of metalwork “assemblages”, where recurrent patterns were grouped together was developed, in a way which did not necessarily prejudice the degree to which they were defined in chronological, technological or social terms. This meant that each assemblage had its own internal logic with spatial and temporal limits independent of the “shape” of the distribution and the degree of overlap with other assemblages (ibid).

Approaches to metalwork: A division has traditionally been made between isolated single finds and hoards of metalwork. This has been largely due to an assumption that hoards represented deliberate deposits, hidden for recovery at a later date (utilitarian hoards) or offerings to the gods (votive hoards), whereas single finds represented chance losses. This distinction has recently began to break down, however, with Bradley (1988: 258) pointing out the problems with the concept of hoards as an archaeological category and Barrett & Needham (1988: 136) arguing that most Early Bronze Age single finds and hoards are different aspects of deliberate deposition, which continues into the later Bronze Age. Barrett & Needham (ibid) also argue that the inconsistency between finds of moulds and metalwork suggests that the bronze record does not reflect casual losses as, if this were the case, there would be no inconsistency. Needham (1988) has identified two separate Early Bronze Age contexts for deposition of certain classes of metalwork with small tools, daggers and ornaments in graves and halberds, spearheads and axes in hoards. This echoes somewhat the differing contextual patterning of axe hammers and battle axes noted by Barrett and Needham (1988: 130), also see Chapter 3). Barrett and Needham (ibid) also pointed out the differences between “domestic” deposits from settlements and “votive” deposits. The former usually consist of ornaments and tools such as tweezers and pins which are not found in hoards and are frequently interpreted as chance losses. Bruck (1999b) and Barrett & Needham (1988: 136) have drawn attention to the “ritual” aspects of settlement, however, which sometimes involve the deposition of metalwork and the special treatment of other objects. Although the distinction between “secular/settlement” and “religious/ritual” deposits is not as straightforward as might be anticipated, this seems a more satisfactory way of classifying metalwork finds, and takes into account context as well as artefact type. In this study, hoards and single finds will be kept separate, but only for convenience of handling the data and this does not necessarily imply differences in function or meaning between the two categories. Finds from settlement sites were considered in Chapter 4, and mines and metalworking sites will be considered in the next chapter, which is concerned with production rather than circulation and consumption of metal.

The use of various chronologies and assemblages can be confusing and a desire to refine these by specialists has led to a number of various ways of referring to basically the same material and range of dates. A further problem is that the use of typology for the dating of metalwork has meant the separation of this chronology from that of settlement and burial, dated by radiocarbon and pottery styles. A bridge between the two chronologies has recently been put forward by Needham et al (1997), where organic material in direct association with metalwork was dated using high precision AMS radiocarbon dating. Ironically, this largely supported the typological metalwork chronology. There is not the space here to discuss the various intricacies and merits (or otherwise) of British Bronze Age chronologies and the approach taken here is discussed in Chapter 1. Rohl & Needham (1998: 83-

Within the study area, the work of Lilly Chitty has been central to any study of metalwork. Chitty recorded bronze finds for the British Association and catalogued all of the finds known in Shropshire, as well as working 93

Difficulties with the available data should be pointed out here, however. Many metalwork finds are poorly recorded and thus often difficult to date or phase. Where possible material has been given a phase within the Early, Middle or Late Bronze Age. Where this has not been possible, a very general approach has been adopted, leading to a degree of coarseness of chronology: palstaves, for example, have been given a Middle Bronze Age date, socketed axes assigned to the Late Bronze Age. Problems with landscape location are also apparent in the data: many finds lack detailed provenance, and for those that do not it is often difficult to be certain of the original conditions of deposition. Drainage of wetlands, peat shrinkage and a lowering of the water table have all contributed to a general “drying out” of many wetlands in the study area. Thus, unless finds are recorded from peat or surviving wetlands, it is difficult to be certain of wetland as opposed to dry land find spots. These limitations should be borne in mind throughout the following discussion.

in Staffordshire and the Welsh Marches (CHH 1980). The publication of metalwork finds often required a certain amount of detective work and was always diligently and professionally published (see for example Chitty 1928, 1940b, 1950a, 1953). Chitty was a product of her era (the 1930s to 60s), however, and interpretation of such finds were usually in terms of tracing the movement of “axe traders” across the country, apparently dropping axes as they went (also see Chapter 1). Little further work has been carried out on the regions metalwork, with the exceptions of Davey & Forster (1975) and Davey (1976), who analysed finds from both Lancashire and Cheshire, concentrating on the former county. Rohl & Needham (1998) sampled the Bridgemere Hoard for lead isotope analysis and a looped palstave from Ollerton, Childs Ercall, Shropshire was examined by Northover (in Bennison 1984), but no other artefacts have undergone detailed scientific analysis. The aim of this chapter will not be to analyze metalwork forms in detail, but rather to look for patterning in the use of the landscape, how this relates to other aspects of landscape utilisation such as settlement and burial, and how these change over time. Ideas about the consumption and circulation of metalwork, and its relationship with production and raw material exploitation, will be discussed in Chapter 8.

Single Finds There are a total of 102 single metalwork finds from the study area. These occur from a variety of contexts and landscape locations. Single finds make up the majority of metalwork finds, with only a small number of hoards known from the study area (see below).

Overall: Tools: 80 in total Flat Axe: 10 Flanged Axe: 4 Palstave: 48 Socketed Axe: 17 Chisel: 1

Weapons: 20 in total Rapier: 2 Swords: 2 Dirk: 1 Shield: 1 Spearhead: 14

Ornaments: 2 in total Bracelet: 1 Pin: 1

Table 6.1: Metalwork finds from the study area.

Metalwork Finds

1% 1%

1%

Flanged Axe Palstave Socketed Axe Chisel Rapier Swords Dagger Dirk

1%

3% 13%

2%

Flat Axe 10%

4%

2% 1%

16%

45%

Figure 6.1: Metalwork finds from the study area

94

Shield Spearhead Bracelet Pin

By Date: Type Weapon Ornament Tool Total

Early 0 2 14 16

Middle 1 0 49 50

Late 19 0 17 36

Table 6.2: Metalwork classification

Metalwork Finds 60 50 40 Tool Ornament Weapon

30 20 10 0

Early

Middle

Late

Figure 6.2: Metalwork classification Cheshire part of the study area. Eight of these are from within or close to rivers: 3 were recovered during the construction of the Manchester Ship Canal, which runs close to the River Mersey, and there is a general distribution within Weaver valley which includes the finds of a rapier from Dutton and a sword from Nantwich. Finds from the Weaver valley range from flat axes to palstaves and socketed axes, reflecting most periods within the Bronze Age. This area has a relatively low barrow distribution, perhaps associated with the destruction of monuments by medieval and later agriculture (see Chapter 2). The processes leading to the destruction of round barrows would, however, result in higher occurrence of surface finds, perhaps explaining part of the reason for a high discovery rate. Other finds from within or close to rivers include a spearhead from near the River Dane at Twemlow; a palstave from near the River Bollin at Prestbury and a flat axe from a streambed at Mottram St Andrew, this may have eroded from the sides or from higher upstream, however. A socketed axe was also found close to the area in which the Ashton Moss bog body was recovered (see Chapter 2) and, although the two appear to have been deposited separately, they are both broadly contemporary. There is no significant spatial patterning regarding tools, weapons or ornaments. There is, however, a concentration of metalwork finds from around the Beeston/Peckforton Hills. This includes 3 flat axes, 3 socketed axes and 2 spearheads

The most common find type are tools, predominately palstaves. In total 75% of the single finds are of axes, 45% of all single finds (and 55% of all axes) are palstaves. This probably reflects greater rates of deposition in the Middle Bronze Age (see below) but could also reflect the differential recycling of swords and spearheads as opposed to axes and palstaves. Different methods and contexts of disposal for different types of artefact may have applied, with palstaves and tools being suitable for wetland or individual deposition and swords and other weapons being recycled. The lack of ornaments and tools other than axes may represent the lack of excavated settlement sites in the region, introducing a bias towards deliberately deposited material over chance losses (see Chapter 4). Ornaments occur as single finds only in the Early Bronze Age, and this is a single, isolated find. The highest rate of deposition of metalwork occurs in the Middle Bronze Age (if deposition was equal over all phases, a value of 34 finds per phase would be expected), when nearly all the single finds are of tools, predominately palstaves. More weapons are deposited in Late Bronze Age than in any other period, but there is still a high rate of tool deposition, both weapons and tools being roughly equal. Single find locations: There are a total of 72 single metalwork finds from the 95

from a 10km square around the hills. One explanation for this might be the presence of a metal source in the area, but the distribution at Alderley Edge, also a metal source, is different: there being some metalwork finds but not as dense a concentration as at Beeston/Peckforton. Metalwork from the Cheshire part of the study area generally occurs in areas with few or no barrows, the exception being the Beeston/Peckforton area, where metalwork occurs alongside a diffuse scatter of round barrows.

from cremated remains found at NEWBOLD ASTBURY 1. This patterning is notable as Needham (1988) suggests that axes are only found as hoards and single finds and are not represented among grave assemblages. The location of flat axes close to round barrows (89% of all flat axes occur within 4km of barrows) is suggestive of an extended burial rite which involved the deposition of axes away from the area of the burial of the body, supporting the arguments outlined in Chapter 2.

There are a total of 28 single finds from the Shropshire part of the study area. Three of these are from within or close to rivers. A flat axe from Ironbridge was recovered from the River Severn and a palstave is recorded from the River Rodden at Northwood. A socketed axe is also recorded from river gravel in Greenfields Allotments, Shrewsbury.

There are no single finds of daggers from the study area: all are from burial contexts or hoards. This only partly agrees with Needham (1988), who states daggers occur in graves only, yet the Ebnall and Bridgemere hoards both contain daggers (Ebnall contained two). This will be discussed in detail below.

Hoards

Six single finds and at least 2 hoards come from wetland areas in Shropshire: a socketed axe from the fringes of The Mere at Ellesmere; a palstave from Whixall Moss and hoards from Preston on the Weald Moors and Willowmoor. A shield and a socketed axe were recovered in close proximity from Bagley Marsh and socketed axes are recorded from Broomhall Grange Farm and Stockfield, both in peaty ground. Leah et al (1998: 122) noted that the largest concentration of metalwork from the county came from around Baggy Moor and its subsidiary wetlands. This is also a region with high numbers of burnt mounds (see Chapter 4). The spearhead from Petton Moat is also from close proximity to a burnt mound. It is interesting to note that with the exception of the shield from Bagley Marsh, only axes have been recovered from wetland areas, the one from Whixall Moss coming from close to the find of a bog body (see Chapter 2). There is a lack of finds from areas with high barrow concentrations, notably around Knockin and Maesbury.

Bradley (1998: 1-14) outlines the ways in which hoards have been approached in the past, which have mainly been in the following ways: by context (possible/impossible to retrieve, dryland/wetland); single finds vs. multiple finds; content (tools, weapons and ornaments) and ritual significance (ritual/non-ritual, votive/utilitarian). These classifications mainly depend on binary oppositions, often one aspect defining the other (for example: apparently non-utilitarian hoards must be votive) and are often too general or too limited, disguising patterning in the data. Rather than focus on what the hoards contain, or where they are located, Bradley (ibid) suggests we need to be concerned with the reasons why the deposits were made in the first place. One strong model is the disposal of lavish goods as a way of creating and maintaining status. The circulation and possession of “high status” objects in the form of gift exchange can in itself create systems of prestige and status, but these are susceptible to escalation to unsustainable levels. The ever increasing networks of obligation created through this mechanism have been described as “alternating disequilibrium” (Strathern 1971: 222, cited in Bradley 1998: 39) and advantages from the obligations and alliances thus captured are difficult to maintain over long periods of time (Barrett & Needham 1988: 134). Indeed, such networks of gift exchange create “cobwebs” of obligations and indebtedness which can fluctuate indefinitely (Gregory 1980: 643). A way out of these webs of “gifts to men” (ibid) is by the provisioning of “gifts to the gods” whereby increasingly lavish articles are taken out of circulation, reducing the pool available to ones competitors. Thus exchange is taken out of the equation and possibilities arise for the continuous accumulation of prestige. Alternatively, items that are consumed and destroyed may in fact be special-purpose artefacts, never meant to enter into general circulation (Meillassoux 1968, cited in Bradley 1998: 40). Thus the “potential value” of such items is destroyed and their special role in society preserved. The focus on the special treatment of metalwork has, however, often led to the ways in which other aspects of material culture and social practice interact and compliment the role of

There are a total of 19 finds from the Staffordshire part of the study area. The only find from near a river is the palstave from close to the Coal Brook, Loggerheads. There is otherwise little patterning, but this may be a product of the low sample size. Flat axes and round barrows: There are only single examples of flat axe finds from the Shropshire and Staffordshire parts of the study area, but 9 are recorded from Cheshire. Of these only a single example (from Mottram St Andrew) is from an area with few round barrows (but this is close to copper sources). Of the remaining 8 examples 4 (Malpas, Bickley, Chowley and Burwardsley) are within 4km of the barrow group to the south of Beeston and Peckforton, as is the unprovenanced example from Tattenhall. The example from Bickley was also recovered from a wetland context (Leah et al 1997: 151). The flat axe from Sproston is 1km from three ring ditches (SPROSTON 1-3) and a flat axe from Grappenhall is close to the barrow cemetery there. The find from Weaverham cum Milton is 2km from HARTFORD 1 and the flat axe from Congleton is 1km 96

Figure 6.3: The Bridgemere Hoard (sfter Turner 1985). ambiguous and cannot be regarded as stockpiles of scrap, whilst the stacking of some hoards suggests deliberate placement which was probably intended to be permanent. Thus assigning function to hoards is problematical, but the current consensus would have all hoards as representing deliberate deposits, probably never intended for recovery. The relationship between metal supply and deposition of hoards has also been noted (see Bradley 1998: 144-154): the higher rates of deposition in the Later Bronze Age being seen as reflecting problems in the supply and control of metals. Hodder (1979) has also noted that periods of social or political stress are often associated with higher numbers of deliberate deposits or episodes of monument building.

metalwork within society. For example, Gregory (1980: 646) has pointed out that in some societies the exchange, consumption and destruction of food plays a similar role to metalwork: a point which will be returned to later. The division of hoards into utilitarian and ritual has been outlined above, as have some of the alternative ways in which these have been interpreted. Bradley (1998: xix) prefers to rename utilitarian hoards “metalworking” deposits as it is a neutral term and makes no assumption as to why the material was buried. Indeed, Bradley (ibid: 146) goes as far as to suggest that “metalworking” and “votive” deposits are different aspects of the same phenomena with the same materials being used in different ways. The traditional connection between “utilitarian” hoards and smiths assumes a straightforward connection between metal production and the deposits, akin to modern industrial processes. This almost certainly was not the case (see Chapter 7) and metalworking deposits may have been “as much an offering as the swords found in rivers and lakes” (Bradley 1998: xix). Needham (1988: 232) has also suggested that broken objects from hoards are

A total of 11 hoards are recorded from the study area. Only a single example has been excavated, but no report is yet available. The most common context of discovery of hoards in the study area is during construction work. Bridgemere Hoard County: Cheshire (SMR 202/1) 97

NGR: SJ 7145 4539 Context: ploughsoil assemblage/excavation No. of Objects: 4 Phase: Arreton Description: 3 cast flange axes and a 2 riveted dagger found in 1984. Excavated in 1986 and 4 main features uncovered: a linear clay lined feature (?wall or fence); oval hearth or collapsed furnace filled with charcoal and fire cracked stone; a bowl shaped pit and flue and a pit lined with fired clay. Also ?mould found. Initially interpreted as a bronze smithy, but then discounted and re-interpreted as a votive deposit. No report has been forthcoming, however. One flanged axe and the dagger were sampled by Rohl and Needham (1998) and found to belong to IMP-LI 7, possibly sourced at the Great Orme or Mount Gabrielle. Refs: Turner 1985 Rohl & Needham 1998: 203

Congleton Hoard County: Cheshire (SMR 163) NGR: SJ 864 626 Context: building work No. of Objects: 5 Phase: N/A Description: Lunate opening spearhead, barbed spearhead and Ewart socketed axe with spear shaft ferrule with expanded foot and long tubular spear shaft ferule with dished foot and peg-hole. Discovered in 1925 whilst digging the foundations for the school in New Street. Refs: Anon 1927. Vint 1992.

Figure 6.4: The Congleton Hoard (after Vint 1992).

98

Figure 6.5: The Ebnall Hoard (after Burgess & Cowen 1972) Egerton Hall Hoard County: Cheshire (SMR 1780) NGR: SJ 5100 4900 Context: building work No. of Objects: 2 Phase: N/A Description: Hoard of gold armlets or bracelets, found in the Egerton Hall area in the 19th century. Provenance uncertain, either from the moat of the hall or from the foundations of a cottage between Egerton and Hampton Halls. Taylor (1980: 62), refers to the hoard as being from Hampton, Malpas. Refs: Leah et al 1997: 137. Taylor 1980: 62, plate 38.

Description: 2 looped palstaves, a spearhead and a lugged chisel described as coming from Broxton. Refs: Evans 1881: 91, 169.

Broxton Hoard County: Cheshire (SMR 1756) NGR: SJ 48 54 Context: uncertain No. of Objects: 4 Phase: ?Acton

Ebnall Hoard County: Shropshire (SMR 867) NGR: SJ 308 344 Context: surface find No. of Objects: 8 Phase: Arreton

Preston on the Weald Moors Hoard County: Shropshire (SMR 697) NGR: SJ 6748 1489 Context: wetland No. of Objects: 5 (only one survives) Phase: Acton Description: Found whilst digging in 1882-3. Only a single, Acton, palstave survives. Refs: Chitty 1953.

99

Buildwas Hoard County: Shropshire (SMR 314) NGR: SJ 6452 0440 Context: found whilst building bridge No. of Objects: 2 Phase: N/A Description: Bronze sword and socketed axe found near large piece of oak timber whilst undergoing work on Buildwas Bridge was in 1795. Refs: Page 1908 Shropshire SMR 314

Description: Found 1848/9 and consists of 2 Camerton/Snowshill daggers, an end looped spearhead, a shouldered punch, a lugged tool and an Arreton phase flanged axe. Two other axes lost, assumed also to be flanged. Said by Burgess and Cowen (1972) to show associations with both Southern English and Irish/Scottish traditions and dating close to the transition into the Acton period. Refs: Burgess & Cowen 1972 Chitty 1940 Willow Moor Hoard County: Shropshire (SMR 1779 and 1780) NGR: SJ 6402 0829 Context: from field draining operation (?in peat) No. of Objects: c.150 (of which 27 survive) Phase: Ewart Description: Found during field drainage operations in 1834. 2 spearheads found 3 feet down and further bronze finds in a heap consisting of c.150 (some accounts speak of up to 300) implements. Finds mostly lost and those that survive are scattered between Shrewsbury, Ludlow and the Society of Antiquaries museums as well as Toronto and Gurnsey. Known pieces consist of: socketed axe, Ewart Park sword, sword blade, socketed sword, lunate opening spearhead, 6 elliptic leaf spearheads, 2 ogival leaf spearheads, 3 lancolate leaf spearheads, barbed spearhead, 3 filled defined spearheads, 4 fragments of leaf spearheads, a decorated spearhead and 2 spearhead sockets. Refs: Burgess et al 1972: 242 Chitty 1928 Red Castle Hoard County: Shropshire (SMR 1647) NGR: SJ 57 23 Context: uncertain No. of Objects: 4 Phase: N/A Description: Described in the VCH as 4 socketed celts, 3 palstaves and one spearhead found near Red Castle and by Chitty (1953) as 2 looped palstaves, 4 socketed axes and a possible ingot. Rowlands (1976) describes three 3 ribbed socketed axes, two possibly from the same mould, and a spearhead. Refs: Chitty 1953 Rowlands 1976.

Norbury Hoard County: Staffordshire (SMR 1786) NGR: SJ 7835 2260 Context: N/A No. of Objects: “a number” Phase: N/A Description: Shaw, a 19th century antiquarian, describes a number of bronze implements, apparently looped and unlooped palstaves and fragments of rapiers and swords. Finds now lost. Refs: Gunstone 1964: 31 Hoard contents: Tool dominated: 5 Ornament dominated: 1 Weapon dominated: 2 Equal tool/weapons: 2 All of the datable tool dominated hoards date from the latter part of the Early Bronze Age and its transition into the Middle Bronze Age with the weapon dominated hoards dating to the Late Bronze Age. Daggers are present in two hoards: the Bridgemere hoard, where they were present with axes, and the Ebnall hoard which also contained an axe, a spearhead and tools. Daggers do not make up a major component of hoards and are only otherwise found as grave goods (see Chapter 2). Spearheads are the most numerous find from hoards (see table 6.3), although more hoards contain axes (there are 24 spearheads from 5 hoards, compared with at least 11 axes from 7 hoards). When spearheads are present in a hoard, axes are also present. Swords are rare in hoards, occurring only in the Willow Moor hoard where 3 are present alongside spearheads and axes. Likewise the only ornament hoard is of bracelets from Egerton Hall, and the only tools, other than axes, found in any hoard are the two from the Ebnall hoard.

Childs Ercall Hoard County: Shropshire (SMR 1702) NGR: SJ 6657 2634 Context: on surface of field No. of Objects: 2 Phase: N/A Description: A ribbed bronze socketed axe found on south side of footpath from New House to Sayerfields in 1858, along with a badly damaged spearhead. Refs: Chitty 1953 Shropshire SMR 1702

Hoard locations: The only hoard from a river is the Buildwas hoard from the River Severn. Hoards from Preston on the Weald Moors and Willowmoor are from wetland locations, that from Preston on the Weald Moors being close to three burnt mounds on Preston Moor. The bracelet hoard from Egerton Hall and the unprovenanced hoard from Broxton are close to the concentration of 100

Bronze Age, it was caught up in a net of symbolism. This symbolism was tied up with the relationship of the living with the dead and rituals of legitimation. During the Middle Bronze Age, however, the axe comes to have importance in and of itself. Display is seen as important throughout the Early Bronze Age with the possibility that axes were used unhafted (Needham 1988: 245) and in association with other types of metalwork such as lunulae, spearheads and halberds (the gold “cape” from a barrow near Mold, just outside the study area (Powell 1953), may also have been deployed in this manner, as may have been the gold bracelets from Egerton Hall). Deposition seems to have gradually taken over from display and set the way for Middle Bronze Age wetland deposits (Needham 1988: 246). The highest rate of deposition of metalwork in the study area is during the Middle Bronze Age and the record is dominated by palstaves, which constitute 45% of all metalwork finds and 55% of all axe finds. As noted above, axes dominate the finds from wet locations. During the Middle Bronze Age there is but one weapon find from the study area and the only datable hoard is of palstaves. This may represent a very localised pattern of utilisation, the palstave becoming a popular and relevant symbol in the region, well suited to display and rituals of consumption. Although weapon finds become important during the Late Bronze Age, in a way similar to elsewhere in the country (Bradley 1998: 97), these compliment the axe finds rather than replace them. During the later period weapon and axe finds are roughly equal, perhaps indicating the continuing relevance of the axe as a symbol. Continuity is also suggested by the location of the finds throughout the Middle and Late Bronze Age. Although the finds from wetland areas are dominated by axes, perhaps indicating a move to deposition in these areas in the Middle Bronze Age, deposits in rivers remain fairly constant throughout. It is easy to overplay the wetland finds, however, as most finds come from single, dry land contexts: a pattern constant throughout the Bronze Age. Although the study area is shown as a blank by Ehrenburg (1991: 46), the metalwork finds fit well with her “Tool Pattern 2” group, in which one or two tool types are dominant, weapons are rare, hoards are small and there is a high degree of homogeneity in the tool types present. The distribution for this pattern is SW and NE England and the data from the study area forms a link between the distributions centred on the Severn and Humber valleys. Tool Pattern 2 can thus be seen to have a general distribution throughout the English Midlands.

metalwork around Beeston/Peckforton, noted above, the Egerton Hall hoard is also close to the only burnt mound in Cheshire. The Norbury hoard is 1km from the round barrow known as the Roundabout (NORBURY 1).

Discussion Bradley (1998: 98-9) outlines the high degree of regional variation in metalwork finds in Europe during the Later Bronze Age, but suggests that in Northern Europe finds came from bogs, with a high proportion of ornaments compared to Western Europe, where finds of weapons are common in rivers. There is certainly a change from tools to weapons in the single finds from the Middle to Late Bronze Age in the study area, which also holds true, but to a lesser extent, for the hoards. Less than 1/5 (18%) of single finds are from rivers, which is roughly the same as those from wetlands, making “wet” finds less than 50% of the total. There is some apparent difference between finds from these two contexts, however with finds from within or close to rivers tending to be more diverse, and wetland finds dominated by axes. The main context for deposition within the study area, it would appear, was on dry land as single deposits. Bradley (1998: 133-4) states that areas with a preponderance of “wet” deposits are those that do not have suitable deposits of metal ore, with the distribution of finds from watery locations being less pronounced in the areas in which metal could be obtained. This, it is argued, reflects the importance of non-local sources of metal and the increasing importance of continental metal in the Later British Bronze Age. Exotic metal was more “valuable”, and therefore more suitable for conspicuous consumption, than local products. If this is true it may explain the relatively low levels of wet deposits from the study area, which is close to ore sources (see Chapter 7). There is, however, only a single date available for copper exploitation at Alderley Edge: 1980 to 1520 cal BC (3470 + 90 BP, OxA 4050), contemporary with the construction of round barrows in the region (see Chapters 2 and 7) and earlier than the main phase of deposition of metalwork in the Middle Bronze Age. There are no single finds of daggers from the study area: all are from burial contexts or hoards. This only partly agrees with Needham’s (1988) observations that daggers occur only in graves. The Ebnall and Bridgemere hoards both contain daggers (the Ebnall hoard contained two, but in a tool dominated hoard) and both of these hoards contained axes. This might represent the downgrading of the dagger as a symbol, coupled with a move towards deposition of metalwork, rather than the provision of grave goods and formal burial, as a method of social negotiation. During the Early Bronze Age, daggers may have been associated with bodies and burial, and axes with rites of liminality (see Chapter 2): the deposition of human remains and metalwork, as well as other aspects of material culture such a pottery, were intimately linked. Although the axe appears to have played an important role in the Early

The concentration of finds from around Baggy Moor and its subsidiary wetlands noted by Leah et al (1998: 122) is an area with a high number of burnt mounds. Metalwork has also been found from the same area as the burnt mound at Petton and the hoard from Preston on Weald Moors is close to three burnt mounds on Preston Moor. It has been argued in Chapter 4 that the use of burnt mounds is not straightforward and perhaps tied into rituals of consumption and/or display. That metalwork is also found in areas with high numbers of burnt mounds may be entirely coincidental, the two 101

surrounding hills certainly seem to have been an important focus throughout prehistory, the area which seeing activity from the Neolithic through to the Iron Age (see Chapter 4 and Ellis 1993), monuments in the area including a cluster of round barrows and the only burnt mound in Cheshire (see Chapters 2 and 4).

often being found in wetland locations, but this pattern may also reflect two aspects of the practice of ritual consumption, which will be discussed in detail in Chapter 8. The other major concentration of metalwork finds in the study area is the area immediately around the Beeston/Peckforton Hills. Beeston Crag and the

Figure 6.6: Tool Patterns for the British Isles (after Ehernburg 1991).

102

a focus on metalwork and its exchange, display and disposal. This may have entailed an upgrading of the axe as a symbol at the expense of the dagger and a move away from established methods of exchange towards competitive and destructive practices concerned with maneuvering for social status. These maneuvers may also have included the consumption of food and other aspects of material culture and may also reflect changing attitudes to the body and social space. These ideas will be fully discussed in Chapter 8. Changes in these practices are discernable in the Late Bronze Age, when the disposal of swords compliments that of axes and aspects of settlement become visible. There is also evidence for the manufacture of metalwork in the region during this period. The evidence for the extraction of copper and its conversion into metal objects in the study area is discussed in detail in the following chapter.

The metalwork finds from the study area fill the gap left by the apparent lack of field monuments and settlement sites during the Middle Bronze Age. During this period a high level of activity is detectable in the region but, in common with the Early Bronze Age, settlement sites are difficult to locate. This is in contrast to other parts of north west England where Middle Bronze Age settlements are apparent, but there are fewer metalwork finds (W. Kichen pers comm). Cowell (2000a: 119) has also suggested that the low number of weapon finds from the north west of England reflects a less marked social stratification than in other areas. The suggestions raised in Chapters 4 and 5: that there was perhaps a higher degree of mobility during this period, may also thus be supported by the metalwork evidence. This period appears to have been one where there was a shift of focus away from special treatment of the dead (although this may have continued in an archaeologically invisible form, see Chapter 2) towards

Bronze Hoards from the Study Area Name

Bridgemere Congleton Egerton Hall Broxton Preston on Weald Moors Ebnall Willow Moor Red Castle Buildwas Norbury Ercall

Daggers

Axes

1

3 1

Spearheads

Swords

Ornaments

Tools

Phase

Arreton Ewart

2 2

2

2 Only 1 survives 1 1 3 1 Present 1

1

1 19 1

3 1 Present

1

Table 6.3: Content of hoards from the study area

103

1

Acton Acton

2

Arreton

104

105

NGR

SJ 533 502

SJ 7145 453

SJ 7145 453

SJ 7145 453

SJ 7145 453

SJ 841 623

SJ 642 868

SJ 488 479

SJ 538 726

Location

Bickley

Bridgemere

Bridgemere

Bridgemere

Bridgemere

Congelton

Grappenhall

Malpas

Manley

no

from cremation under barrow

Bronze pin

no

no

yes

yes

WM RA.6

CSMR 2044

CSMR 495

CSMR 1157/0/1

CSMR 202/1

CSMR 202/1

CSMR 202/1

yes

CSMR 2309

SMR

CSMR 202/1

no

Brithdir

Museum

yes

no

Hoard?

flat axe

Expanded blade

slender with transverse bevel

flat axe

flat axe

with grooved decoration on blade and 2 small rivet holes in arched butt

dagger

flanged axe

Willerby

flanged axe

Phase

Willerby

with weak curved bar-stop and less pronounced flanges

Description

flanged axe

flat axe

Type

Cheshire Metalwork

106

SJ 882 780

SJ 618 464

SJ 721 663

SJ 557 573

SJ 48 58

Mottram St Andrew

Newhall

Sproston

Spurstow

Tattenhall

SJ 850 810

SJ 634 539

SJ 864 626

SJ 864 626

SJ 864 626

Wilmslow

Henhull

Congleton

Congleton

Congleton

Weaverham cum Milton SJ 612 724

NGR

Location

probably 2 rivetted, found with cremation in urn

dagger

with dished foot and peg-hole

barbed

spearhead

ferrule

with lunate opening

spearhead

Gold Bracelet

miniature axe, found in ploughsoil by metal detector

flat axe

flat axe

Wilberton

Ewart

Wilburton

Aylesford

yes

yes

yes

no

no

no

no

no

expanded blade, curved transverse furrowing on body, diagonal furrowing on flanges

flanged axe

no

no

Hoard?

no

Arreton

Phase

flat axe

similar to Bridgemere axes

found in stream bed

flat axe

flanged axe

Description

Type

lost

Weaver Hall

Weaver Hall

GM 164.P.67

Nantwich Museum

Museum

CSMR 2378

CSMR 1820

CSMR 2149

CSMR 2059

CSMR 381

CSMR 1417

SMR

107

SJ 602 743

SJ 679 673

Acton Bridge

Winsford

SJ 767 645

Brereton

SJ 378 755

SJ 571 455

Marbury cum Quoisley

Ellesmere Port

SJ 648 534

Henhull

SJ 856 783

SJ 506 556

Burwardsley

Alderley Edge

SJ 478 561

Chowley

SJ 905 766

SJ 864 626

Congleton

Prestbury

NGR

Location

palstave

palstave

palstave

palstave

palstave

palstave

palstave

from wet ground known as "the willows"

low flanged, single midrib. Single loop

very fragmentary

Unlooped trident pattern palstave

Acton

Taunton

no

no

no

no

no

no

no

no

palstave

no

yes

Hoard?

no

Acton Park

Ewart

Phase

flat axe

Cutting edge of flat axe, ?deliberately broken in antiquity.

three ribbed

socketed Axe

flat axe fragment

Description

Type

Grosvenor

Grosvenor

Museum

CSMR 827

CSMR 2140

CSMR 14

CSMR 2313

CSMR 2407

CSMR 2637/0/1

CSMR 2311

CSMR 2293

CSMR 2312

CSMR2381

CSMR 163

SMR

108

SJ 454 468

SJ 537 598

SJ 519 546

SJ 451 772

SJ 638 697

Cuddington

Beeston

Bickerton

Ellesmere Port

Winsford

socketed axe

3 ribbed

no

no

looped and socketed ax

no

no

no

no

5 ribs and pellets on each face. Found whilst digging Manchester Ship Canal 1897.

3 ribs

trident decoration, looped

no

socketed axe

socketed axe

socketed axe

palstave

Ewart

SJ 640 689

Whitegate and Marton

found 1ft down in dense clay

SJ 693 705

Rudheath

palstave

butt end only

palstave

SJ 732 648

Sproston

no

no

mid section only, with stop ridge and flanges

palstave

SJ 756 727

no

Hoard?

Allostock

Taunton

Phase

no

looped palstaves x2

Description

palstave

SJ 850 807

Wilmslow

Type

Shavington cum Gresty SJ 706 528

NGR

Location

Norton Priory

Grosvenor 0213

Stockport

Museum

CSMR 2807

CSMR 20

CSMR 2416

CSMR 1731

CSMR 2322

CSMR 772

CSMR 2421

CSMR 2803

CSMR 2630

CSMR 1470

SMR

109

SJ 440 770

SJ 566 568

SJ 491 787

Spurstow

Frodsham

SJ 860 770

Nether Alderley

Ellesmere Port

SJ 48 54

Broxton

SJ 527 559

SJ 654 542

Nantwich

Peckforton

SJ 862 663

Somerford Booths

SJ 488 452

SJ 805 715

Withington

Wychough

NGR

Location

hoard mentioned in Evans 1881.2 looped palstaves, basal looped spearhead and chisel

hoard

no

socketed and looped spearheads from alluvim in Frodsham Marsh, excavated during Manchester Ship Canal construction

looped spearheads x2

no

tip only

spearhead

no

no

from Ince Marshes

badly worn

no

Wilberton

no

yes

no

no

no

Hoard?

? Acton

Ewart Park

Phase

looped spearhead

spearhead

spearhead

leaf shaped blade and slotted flanged hilt. 5 rivetts in hilt. Alloy of 85% copper, 8% tin and 5% lead fragment of tanged spearhead

?sword

blade

sword

cutting edge only

3 ribbed

socketed axe

socketed axe

Description

Type

CSMR 2788

CSMR 39

CSMR 317

CSMR 2401

CSMR 1440/0/13

CSMR 1756

CSMR 2500

CSMR 2812

CSMR 2587

SMR

Grosvenor & Warrington CSMR 1013

Unlocated

Museum

110

SJ 655 875

SJ 189 875

Grappenhall

Little Meols

SJ 405 664

Chester

SJ 554 738

SJ 405 666

Chester

Kingsley

SJ 579 768

Dutton

SJ 378 755

SJ 309 889

Birkenhead

Great Sutton

SJ 314 845

Storeton

SJ 531 675

SJ 850 660

Hulme Wakefield

Delamere

NGR

Location

possibly a sword

rapier

fragmentary

half flanged

axe

socketed axe

fragment of bronze sword

looped with low flanged single midrib

unlooped

looped with slight midrib

sword

palstave

palstave

palstave

?north Italian

unlooped

palstave

palstave

Group II

unlooped

palstave

rapier

Description

Type

Acton

Taunton

Taunton

Phase

no

no

no

no

no

no

no

no

no

no

no

Hoard?

Liverpool, but destroyed

Warrington 27/61

Grosvenor 596.50

Grosvenor 76.P.51

Manchester o 7874

Liverpool

Grosvenor 166.P.67

Williamson 2491

Liverpool 25.126

Weaver Hall

Museum

CSMR 911

CSMR 3021

CSMR 940

SMR

111

SJ 404 666

Chester

SJ 309 928

Wallasey

SJ 419 623

SJ 773 680

Twemlow

Huntington

SJ 499 824

Runcorn

SJ 539 631

SJ 641 689

Winsford

Iddinshall

SJ 696 675

Byley

SJ 830 786

SJ 502 533

Bickerton

Alderley Edge

NGR

Location

looped with plain low flange

palstave

palstave

palstave

flanged axe

palstave

flanged axe

? North Italian

found in ploughsoil after ploughing match.

unlooped

half flanged with stop ridge

side looped, lozenge shaped loops, ribbed

looped with trident decoration

palstave

spearhead

three ribbed

lunate opening

spearhead

socketed Axe

Description

Type

Acton

Acton

Taunton

Ewart

Wilburton

Phase

no

no

no

no

no

no

no

no

no

no

Hoard?

Taunton Museum

Wallasey public library

Grosvenor 119.P.53

Weaver Hall 3538.1981

Grosvenor 432-49

Museum

CSMR 3017

CSMR 2323

CSMR 2258

CSMR 1054

CSMR 77

CSMR 799

SMR

112

SJ 6567 1882

SJ 4027 3536

SJ 6454 1011

Ellesmere

Ercall Quarry

SJ 6452 0440

Buildwas

Dayhouse Moor

SJ 6877 3462

Broomhall Grange Farm

SJ 6657 2643

SJ 4575 1375

Bicton Heath

Childs Ercall

SJ 395 275

Bagley Marsh

SJ 695 215

SJ 3956 2727

Bagley Marsh

Caynton Manor

NGR

Location

looped palstave

socketed axe

spearhead

hoard

socketed axe

hoard

socketed axe

palstave

socketed axe

shield

Type

Shropshire Metalwork

found 2ft down in gravel.

found at 3 Swan Hill c.1890.

found in boulder clay

palstave and spearhead

found by potato harvester

bronze sword, socketed axe

found whilst draining land

found by metal detector

found close to find spot of shield.

3-4ft deep in drain. In upright position

Description

Penard

Ewart

Acton

Yetholm

Phase

1570

718

no

775

no

no

1702

no

2760

314

yes

no

1671

3796

902

900

SMR

no

no

no

no

Hoard?

113

SJ 5667 3271

SJ 6748 1489

SJ 57 29

Preeswood Farm

Preston on the Weald Moo

Red Castle

SJ 4600 3265

Northwood

SJ 540 329

SJ 477 323

New House

Pits Field

SJ 6723 0338

Ironbridge

SJ 4427 2648

SJ 566 136

Hunkington

Petton Moat

SJ 5387 1462

Haughmond Fields

SJ 297 290

SJ 496 140

Greenfields Allotments

Oswestry

NGR

Location

hoard

palstave

palstave

palstave

spearhead

palstave

palstave

palstave

flat axe

spearhead

palstave

socketed axe

Type

2 looped palstaves, 3 socketed axes, spearhead

five in a hoard, only one extant

found 6ft deep in sand. Shield pattern

early midribbed type

leafshaped, looped

shield pattern

possibly derived from the River Rodden

broad butted

found in garden of farm

shield pattern. Found by metal detectors

found in river gravel

Description

Acton

Acton

1647

697

yes

yes

1660

no

2684

844

no

no

337

2660

3422

no

no

Acton

Acton

no

Taunton

669

2599

no

no

2663

2619

SMR

no

no

Ewart

Acton

Hoard?

Phase

114

NGR

SJ 3460 2606

SJ 3903 3131

SJ 721 265

SJ 4924 3603

SJ 6402 0829

Location

Rowley Orchard

Stockfield

Thornypits Lane

Whixall Moss

Willow Moor

hoard

palstave

palstave

socketed axe

flanged chisel

Type

at least 1 socketed axe, 3 swords and 14 spearhead

found 8ft deep in peat

found in peaty ground, 10-12 ins deep

Description

Phase

yes

1780

1572

1715

no

no

3600

898

SMR

no

no

Hoard?

115

SJ 7965 2247

SJ 7835 2260

SJ 9434 0672

Norbury

Norbury

Shareshill

SJ 9070 2570

Creswell

SJ 7049 3348

SJ 9070 0510

Brewood

Loggerheads

SJ 9250 0710

Brewood

SJ 8183 4443

SJ 8770 2110

Bradley

Keele

SJ 9132 4143

Barlaston

SJ 7608 3100

SJ 8186 5081

Audley Rural

Eccleshall

NGR

Location

palstave

No

Yes

palstaves and sword frags discovered 1800

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

Hoard?

hoard

Phase

No

looped

Ogival dagger ?with burial in cist.

Description

palstave

palstave

palstave

spearhead

flat axe

palstave

palstave

spearhead

palstave

dagger

Type

Staffordshire Metalwork

01814

01786

01994

01847

01707

04093

04948

04993

01076

01787

03937

00506

SMR

116

NGR

SJ 8875 1143

SJ 8530 4055

SJ 8555 4055

SJ 7049 3348

SJ 9055 2955

SJ 8295 4329

SJ 8555 0068

Location

Stretton

Swynnerton

Swynnerton

Tyrley

Whitgreave

Whitmore

Wrottesley

No

palstave

No

No

No

No

No

Hoard?

No

Phase

dirk

spearhead

looped

looped

palstave palstave

found in Trantham Gravel Pit, 1884

Description

socketed axe

palstave

Type

02139

01870

00762

01188

???

01833

SMR

Chapter 7: Metal Production 1988). The use of grooved stone hammers in early mining has been debated (Warrington 1981: 51) and it has been variously suggested that they were in use until fairly recent times or that they were used as rope weights for tents or loom weights (Roeder 1901). The discovery of these implements at the Great Orme, Gwynnedd, in layers containing charcoal radiocarbon dated to 1390-920 cal BC (2940 + 80 BP HAR 4845) would suggest that they were indeed used in prehistory, however (O’Brien 1996: 47). Most of the hammers used at Alderley Edge are derived from the local glacial deposits and two regionally specific groups have been identified. These consist of tools with a single, continuous pecked groove around the implements circumference, corresponding to its centre of gravity, and multiple grooved hammers, often with notched butts (Pickin 1990: 40). These implements were classified by Pickin (ibid) as Class 5 and Class 6 hammers, mainly restricted to Alderley Edge and Mottram St Andrew. Class 6 hammers are only found at the Brynlow site at Alderley Edge, suggesting a possible chronological difference in exploitation at the sites (ibid: 41).

The area selected for this study is one with access to a wide range of metal resources. Perhaps the most famous of these is Alderley Edge in Cheshire, but copper deposits are known at Bickerton, also in Cheshire and at Hawkstone, Grinshill, Clive and Eardiston, in Shropshire (Rohl & Needham 1998: 32). There is little direct evidence for prehistoric working at most of these sites, however. Outside the study area copper deposits are found to the west at the Great Orme and in the Llanwrst area, to the south in west Shropshire and to the east in the Pennines and Staffordshire (ibid: 17). At Alderley Edge copper, lead and colbalt mining in the 17th century resulted in the discovery of evidence for earlier mining and mining tools (Ixer & Budd 1998: 21) and the site was amongst the first prehistoric mines to be recognised in the country. During a visit to Bryndlow Levels in May 1874, Boyd Dawkins noticed grooved hammer stones in the spoil of recent workings (Dawkins 1875). He returned with General Pitt Rivers and excavated over 100 grooved hammers to which he gave the following categorisation: hammers with a transverse groove; same but with lateral groove and wedges with a flat head and groove (ibid: 75). Dawkins was not able to find direct evidence of a date for the tools, but suggested a prehistoric one based on the lack of metal tools (ibid: 77). Sainter (1878) examined the Bryndlow site and recovered more hammers from pits 3-4m deep as well as an oak shovel. This shovel was recently re-discovered (Garner 1994) and yielded a radiocarbon date of 19801520 cal BC (3470 + 90 BP, OxA 4050). Roeder (1901) and Roeder and Graves (1905) undertook a more systematic survey at the Edge, finding stone hammers at Windmill Wood, Dickens Wood (Stormy Point), Mottram St Andrew and Engine Vein, mainly in recent spoilheaps. The details of 29 of these are recorded in Roeder 1901. Five mining pits which survived in the section of a later open-work at Engine Vein were also recorded as well as a similar pit at Dickens Wood Mine. Roeder gave the “ancient” mines a Roman date, however (ibid). The pits at Engine Vein are still visible and were recorded by Gale (1986, 1989, 1993) who outlined a probable sequence of working as:

Alderley Edge has recently been the focus of research by the University of Bradford whose excavations at Bryndlow, Wood Mine and along the Engine Vein fault produced no further evidence of prehistoric mining, mainly due to modern disturbance (Gale 1993: 54). The Alderley Edge Landscape Project has also recently finished work at the site and limited excavations uncovered an undisturbed prospecting pit dated to c.1900 cal BC which was re-used as a hearth c.1700 cal BC, but there was no evidence of roasting or smelting of ore, suggesting this hearth was not used to process metals (S. Timberlake pers comm). There are references to smelting debris at Alderley Edge and a lump of copper supposedly found there is in the geological collections at Manchester Museum. Simon Timberlake (pers com) thinks this a mistake as slag finds above Stormy Point in the recent survey all came from disturbed contexts and are very unlikely to be Bronze Age. Copper ore at Alderley Edge occurs in the Triassic Helsby Sandstone Series and comprises of lead and copper sulfides (galena and chalcopyrite). Secondary copper mineralisation is also present, mainly as carbonates and silicates (malachite and chrysocolla) (Ixer & Budd 1998: 21-23). Ore grades are low with sulfides ranging from 2 to 40% by volume and massive ores are rare. Fahlerz ore is not present, with minerals of the fahlerz group only present in microscopic amounts (ibid: 23). Arsenic is a very minor component of the ore and Alderley Edge therefore could not have been a potential ore source for arsenic baring copper artefacts (contra Budd et al 1992). The main minerals at Alderley Edge are

Phase 1a: pitting technique of mining using stone hammers, dated using parallels from other Bronze Age mine sites. Phases 1b and 1c: reworking of the pits using metal tools. Phase 2: Late 17th/early 18th century extraction. Phase 3: Late 19th century clearance of rubble-filled levels and blasting. The Phase 1a tool marks are still clearly visible and appear to correspond to tools found at the site as well as to those created in replication experiments at Cwmystwyth (Gale 1989: 269, Pickin & Timberlake

117

the main lode at Engine Vein is a deposit of clay containing small balls of azurite, which also appear to have been worked in the Bronze Age.

malachite, chalcocite and azurite, chalcopyrite and chrysocolla, all of which are free of significant metal impurities (ibid). Gale (1988: 174) suggests that beneath

Figure 7.1: Copper Sources in NW England (after Rohl & Needham 1998).

118

Figure 7.2: Grooved hammerstone classification (after Pickin 1990)

0984 5821) (Staffs SMR 364) and prehistoric working has often been suspected, but never proven, at Bickerton, Cheshire (SJ 505 525). A single find of a grooved stone hammer is recorded from Marple, Stockport (SJ 981 907) where a “waisted stone hammer” is described as being found in a streambed in 1930 (Longley 1987: 90).

Warrington (1981: 47) has pointed out that the nearby workings at Mottram St Andrew are partly flooded and largely inaccessible, accounting for the poor state of knowledge about this site in comparison to Alderley Edge. Roeder & Graves (1905: 24) noted that the surface of the mines had been worked off recently, and a house has now been built on the site of the mine with parts of the old quarry face being built into an ornamental garden (Cheshire SMR 1418/1). Grooved hammer stones have been found in the locality, however, at Kirkleyditch (SJ 875 784) a location at which it has been suggested that ore dressing or washing may have taken place (Longley 1987: 78).

There is some indirect evidence for the conversion of ore into metal from the study area. The clay object from the secondary burial at Woodhouse End (see Chapter 2), described as a “mouth bellows” or blowpipe end, may in fact be a tuyere from the end of a bellows. This is paralleled by similar object from Ewanrigg, Cumbria, associated with a Secondary Series Collared Urn and human remains dated to 2300 to 1700 cal BC (3640 + 90 HAR 5959: Bewley et al 1992). There are also examples from Mucking, Essex from a Late Bronze Age/Iron Age context and a possible example from the Breiddin (a full

Less well explored ore sources occur within the study area, but there is very little direct evidence for Bronze Age exploitation. Grooved hammer stones have been found at the copper mines at Ecton, Staffordshire (SK

119

It is interesting to note that whenever metalworking/casting debris is found on a site the metalwork from any contemporary settlement is rarely, if ever, the same as the objects being cast. Moulds tend to be for swords and spears, whereas objects recovered tend to be axes, ornaments and small tools. The use of locally occurring raw materials for the matricies and wraps should also be noted.

list has been complied by Howard 1983). Only metallurgy needs the high temperatures associated with a bellows-bed fire (Bewley et al 1992: 345), suggesting a close link between tuyeres and ore smelting or metalworking. Evidence for metalworking in the Late Bronze Age comes from Beeston Castle, where 20 fragments of bivalve clay moulds and five crucible sherds were recovered from excavations (Ellis 1993). The mould fragments were generally poorly preserved but parts of matrices for casting swords and ferrule were tentatively identified (ibid: 55). Metalwork from the site comprised of 6 socketed axes, a socketed knife, an axe fragment, a sword fragment and spearhead (ibid: 41-50), all of the Ewart phase and probably contemporary with the moulds. There was a total lack of personal implements, small tools or ornaments from the site (ibid: 47-8) and local clays and sands appear to have been utilised for the moulds and also for pottery production. This is the only site in the region at which Bronze Age metalworking has definitely been identified and is one of few nationally from which clay moulds have been recovered. These objects are extremely delicate and are usually found in very fragmentary condition. At Dainton, Devon (Needham 1980) at least 43 fragments of crucibles and double layer mould units consisting of inner valves and outer wraps were recovered from excavations. These were found in a pit within a series of field banks and cairns and matrices included spearheads with basal loops (Pennard phase), lunate opening spearheads (Wilburton phase), ferrules, swords (Pennard and Wilburton phases) and possible rings. At least two casting episodes were present and locally occurring materials were utilised for moulds and crucibles. Metalworking deposits in a pit were also found at Norton Fitzwarren, Somerset (Ellis 1989), where 70 pieces of clay mould were recovered, all the identifiable fragments of which were from Ewart phase sword moulds (ibid: 28). There was no evidence for more than one mould and possibly only a single casting episode was represented. The whole deposit was placed in pit with two large pots, and may represent a deliberate deposit. Apparently deliberate deposits of metalworking debris were also found in the ditch terminals of the enclosure at Springfield Lyons, Essex (Buckley & Hedges 1987) and a similar enclosure at Mucking North Ring, also in Essex, produced moulds and wraps for the casting of blades, also from the ditch (Bond 1988). Two gold rings and a fragment of a socketed axe were recovered from these contexts at Mucking. At Grimes Graves, Norfolk (Needham 1991b), 156 pieces of clay refractories were recovered, mainly moulds from the Middle Bronze Age midden in the top of Shaft X (ibid: 154). Only one type of spearhead was represented: a channel bladed, basal-looped Pennard phase type. Only two or three mould units were present, probably representing a limited casting episode (ibid: 158). Contemporary metalwork from the site consisted of pins, rings, a bracelet, tweezers, awls, a knife and other small tools as well as metalworking debris (ibid: 172). A miscast spearhead of a side-looped type (not basal looped: cf. the moulds) was also present.

Discussion Despite the many aspersions cast on the existence of prehistoric mining at Alderley Edge, there does appear to have been Early Bronze Age exploitation of the copper resources there, dated to the centuries around 1900 to 1700 cal BC. The radiocarbon date from the oak shovel from Brynlow, the many hammer stones and the, as yet unpublished, dates from excavations by the Alderley Edge Landscape Project all place activity there firmly within the Bronze Age. It is noteworthy that the radiocarbon date from the shovel sits within the range of dates obtained locally from round barrow excavations, which likewise correspond to an episode of intensive interference with the natural environment (see Chapters 2 and 5). The date from Alderley Edge is also contemporary with other sites in western Britain, such as Parys Mountain and the early phase at the Great Orme (Craddock 1990: 57). Ixer & Budd (1998: 17) have stated that most dated sites for copper exploitation in Britain are from the Early to Middle Bronze Age (c.1900-1200 cal BC) but that none are known from the Late Bronze Age or Iron Age. This early exploitation of copper sources is an intriguing phenomenon, as this is a period during which a relatively low amount of metal was in circulation (Craddock 1990: 59). This is in contrast to the Late Bronze Age where metalwork is abundant, but mining sites scarce: a contrast similar to the one perceived between burial and settlement evidence in these two periods. Bradley (1988: 252) has suggested that the increase in alloying (including the addition of lead to the alloy) during the Late Bronze Age is indicative of problems with sustaining the flow of metals during this period, whereas Northover (1980b) suggests a long trajectory for metal supplies starting with Copper Age importation of metal from SW Ireland, giving way to utilisation of many localised sources in Britain, exploited and used locally. In the Late Bronze Age, Britain appears to rely on imports from mainland Europe and becomes part of a panEuropean metal pool (ibid: 176). These ideas are not mutually exclusive, and will be returned to later. One area which has shed some light on the patterning in the use of metal sources has been provenancing studies, either using impurity patterns or isotope analysis. The assumption in the use of impurity patterns in metal artefacts is that a single ore source was exploited during a specific period with little mixing of metal beyond the ‘hinterland’ of the supply (Ixer & Budd 1998). Thus the composition of the trace elements (principally nickel, 120

source of much Ewart phase metal: both copper and lead, or that Mendip lead was added to Alderley Edge copper. It may also be a possibility that an as yet untested source (such as that at Bickerton) was exploited. Metal of IMPLI 21 was found as far afield as County Durham, Kent and Surrey, yet the only metalwork from Cheshire was sourced to North Wales or Ireland. Thus, the isotopic results raise more questions than they answer: the archaeological evidence for the exploitation of copper at Alderley Edge is too early for the isotopic evidence, yet artefacts contemporary with the radiocarbon dates from the site seem to have a source outside the region. It is a possibility that the copper exploitation assigned to IMPLI 21 may correspond to Gales (1989) phase 1b exploitation, although this is difficult to prove. The date within the Ewart phase would, however, be contemporary with the metalworking episode(s) at Beeston Castle.

silver, arsenic, zinc, cobalt and lead) in the artefact would be similar to those in the ore. As most analysed metalwork has displayed varying levels of impurity, this was seen as reflecting polymetalltic ore sources which changed over time. A study by Ixer & Budd (1998) has shown, however, that the majority of mine sites in the UK were producing copper that was essentially impurity free. The Great Orme, Cwmystwyth, Alderley Edge and Mount Gabrielle and probably Parys Mountain all produced ores which did not contain significant impurity elements (ibid: 34), and only Ross Island, Ireland showed unambiguous evidence for the production of polymetallic ores, where it is likely sulfide ores were exploited. The ores at Ross Island have a level of arsenic but do not contain antimony or silver, found in many analysed artefacts. It would appear then, that the ore from Ross Island was not used on its own. Nickel is also absent from all of the mines investigated (ibid: 35), so this impurity cannot be used to account for a change in focus away from Ireland to upland Wales early in the exploitation of tin-bronze, as suggested by Northover (1980b). Considerable mixing of copper from relatively pure sources with that from polymetallic sources such as Ross Island must have therefore taken place. Ixer & Budd (ibid: 35) even go as far as to state that it is unlikely that any compositional group detected in metal artefacts would be directly related to any single metal source. Further doubts about the usefulness of trace elements were also cast by Pollard et al (1990) who stated that arsenic content of metal is a product of temperature during smelting and that arsenic is an unreliable indicator of provenance, apart from the fact that it indicates the smelting of secondary copper arsenite minerals using low temperatures.

The study by Rohl and Needham (1998: 177-183) concluded that each new metalworking assemblage showed a shift in dominant metals used, either a radical shift in sources or modification due to new inputs from new sources. It was also pointed out that very few objects will have isotope compositions that relate directly to any ore source but that distinct “circulation stocks” might be identifiable within relatively homogenous metal compositions. In general, however, regional metal compositions appear to have been important until the Penard phase, when a rather homogenous composition appears across England and Wales. Metal sources change again in the Wilburton phase, with sources possibly focussed on central Wales. This also corresponds with the addition of lead to bronze, probably from a single source, possibly the Mendip Hills. The transition between periods was seen as one of continuity with modification between Copper and Brithdir, Acton and Taunton and the Taunton and Pennard phases, whereas the transitions into the Willerby, Arreton, Acton and Wilburton phases were more abrupt, with apparent wholesale changes in metal supply (ibid). This is largely in line with Northover’s analysis (1980a) with the Middle Bronze Age as a period of relative stability in metal supply (and by implication society) bracketed by periods of change and dislocation in the late Early Bronze Age and early Late Bronze Age.

Rohl and Needham (1998) combined the analysis of trace elements with that of lead isotopes in metal artefacts and produced and index called IMP-LI (IMPurity and Lead Isotope composition) based on distinct groups of temporally related metal objects with similar chemical and lead isotope characteristics (Rohl & Needham 1998: 84). A total of 23 IMP-LI groups were identified for the entire Bronze Age, each potentially reflecting a number of variables such as the number of sources in operation; their relative contribution to the metal pool in circulation; the degree of mixing and recycling and the amount of inherited metal from the previous phase (ibid: v). The only artefacts analysed from the study area were a flanged axe and the dagger from the Bridgemere hoard, which were found to belong to IMP-LI 7, possibly sourced to the Great Orme or Mount Gabrielle (ibid: 92). Intriguingly, the copper source at Alderley Edge was assigned to IMP-LI 21, dating to the Ewart period (ibid: 107-8). This does not correspond to the archaeological evidence for copper exploitation, but does suit the evidence of Late Bronze Age metalworking from Beeston Castle (unfortunately none of the implements from this site were tested). The composition of the galenas and malachites from Alderley Edge corresponded very well to the metalwork tested by Rohl and Needham, but lead isotopes also corresponded to the Mendip/Bristol region (ibid). This could mean that Alderley Edge was the

It is notable that it is during the period of apparent stability in the Middle Bronze Age that there is the highest rate of deposition of metalwork in the study area, showing a three-fold increase from the previous period (see Chapter 6). It is difficult to relate this to a downturn in production at Alderley Edge: as the source went out of production deposition would become more difficult as a response, as already dwindling metal resources would be depleted even further by increased deposition, perpetuating a crisis in metal supply. The growing importance of other metal sources during this period may, however, hold part of the explanation. As Bradley (1998: 133-4) has pointed out, continental and “exotic” sources of metal became important later in the Bronze Age. This metal may have held more “value” and may have been more suitable for conspicuous consumption, which may have been especially true in areas with access to metal 121

sphere.

resources, such as the one under study. It may have been the case, then, that as more “exotic” materials became available (for example from Wales or Continental Europe), these were used in preference to local products, resulting in the decline of the local copper industry. This of course assumes that the mines at Alderley Edge could not supply an external “market”, or alternatively, that their metal became so well assimilated into a regional metal pool that they are undetectable. The latter may indeed account for the invisibility of the source during this period, as the metals from Alderley Edge are relatively free of impurities and the metal pool during the Middle Bronze Age is fairly homogenous throughout Britain. The mixing of exotic metals with local material may have been a significant act, especially if the biography of objects was an important factor in their “value”. The acquisition of these objects may have been important in itself, but their subsequent assimilation, by melting down along with local products and recasting, may have imbued the mundane local products with some of the “exotic” qualities of the acquired objects. Thus the “value” of the stock would have been raised and its suitability for exchange and deposition also increased.

The relationship between settlement and the various stages of metal production is a relatively unexplored one in the British Bronze Age, but this is not surprising due to the almost total lack of evidence for smelting from British sites. Craddock (1990: 69) states that most smelting would have taken place close to mines, as it reduced transport problems and that there would be a more plentiful supply of timber at these sites. However no bronze slag has ever found at mine sites, possibly due to the method of smelting employed. Craddock & Gale (1988) have illustrated how ephemeral furnaces from this period were and this, combined with the fact that they were probably only used for a single smelt, has hampered their identification. The deposition of moulds in pits or other significant locations such as ditch terminals at some sites (Dainton, Norton Fitzwarren, Springfield Lyons, Mucking North Ring) suggests that they were deliberate deposits and therefore held a special significance, but the very context of their deposition has aided their recovery and we may be missing entirely moulds from settlement sites due to their delicate nature. It is difficult therefore to draw any firm conclusions about the relationships between ore mining, smelting, metal production and settlement as the data is poor and unfortunately does not allow close analysis. There is, however, one commonality between many of the moulds analysed: the use of locally occurring materials for their manufacture. At Beeston Castle, local drift deposits were also exploited for pottery production, suggesting a good knowledge of the local soils and their potentials and Needham (1980: 214) commented that at Dainton “….the use of a distinct clay in the manufacture of the crucibles suggests not only the selection on the basis of particular inherent refractory properties, but also well organised exploitation of resources, implying good knowledge of the local environment, and conceivably engaging specialist personnel”. The arguments regarding the need for specialisation are outlined below, but it would appear that metalworkers, even those far away from sources of metal, understood well the qualities of the materials needed for the production of metalwork and knew where to find them.

This recycling of exotic items may also account for the discrepancies between casting debris, such as moulds, and contemporary metalwork finds in the Late Bronze Age. As noted above, nearly all clay mould finds from the Late Bronze Age are matricies for swords and spears, whereas axes, ornaments and small tools are recovered from settlement sites, often at the same location. Such an example is Beeston Castle, where a sword mould was found at a site alongside a metalwork assemblage consisting predominantly of axes. It is a possibility that “domestic” and “ritual” objects moved in different spheres with different rules for their deposition. It may also be the case that some of the “missing” objects were in continuous circulation via recycling (Barrett & Needham 1988: 136-7), perhaps with the addition of “exotic” items during this process. A further possibility is that a two-tier system of production was in operation (Rowlands 1972: 218) with tools and weapons separately produced, different workshops producing different goods, possibly with different social status. Needham (1980: 212) has also suggested specialist production of weapons, especially Pennard phase spearheads, which may have been used as “ceremonial” or “parade” weapons (ibid: 158). If such a two-tier system operated, this implies specialisation, which may be further supported by the apparent “formalisation” of metalworking areas in the Late Bronze Age. One such area may have been the enclosure at Beeston Castle, which appears to have been used primarily for the production of metal objects (Ellis 1993). Another reason for the isolation of metalworking sites from areas used for settlement may be the fact that metalworking is dangerous and may have perhaps involved a certain amount of ritual (Bradley 1998: xix, Budd & Taylor 1995). This may account for it taking place “on, or even beyond, the boundaries of the domestic sphere” (Bradley 1998: xix) and may even account for the location of such activities at Beeston: it is high up and out of the way, well away from the domestic, lowland,

The previous chapter hinted that there need not be a simplistic relationship between “utilitarian” hoards and smiths and this holds true for the supply of raw materials in general. Rowlands (1971) has described many of the complex relationships between miners, smiths and clients visible in the ethnographic record and has suggested that there need not be full time specialisation of smiths; that production is often punctuated and seasonal (ibid: 212) and that settlement pattern, population density and economy all influence the form of craft organisation found in society (ibid: 218). Thus, even on a relatively small scale, it might be expected that there would be a degree of regionality and variation in the ways in which metals were mined and manufactured. Craddock (1990) has also criticised the approach to mining and metal production as reflecting capitalist values, saying that we know little about the organisation and social context of 122

copper mining or about the incentives which drove the “industry” (ibid 57-8). Such an “industrial” mode of explanation if firmly rooted in the Childean interpretation of economy, and is in need of revision. An attempt to do so will be made in the following chapter.

123

Chapter 8: Discussion and Conclusions barrows appear to have been used for successive burials over extended periods of time. These barrows also appear to have often been constructed in places with a history, stretching back at least to the Middle/Late Neolithic.

Although the approach of this study so far has been thematic, it will be the purpose of this chapter to bring together the data presented and explore the links between the categories of burial, settlement, metalworking and landscape and how these changed over time. To enable this, each period will be discussed separately and the threads between them drawn out in the final conclusions.

From the foregoing, and the discussion in Chapter 2, it appears that intervisibility between barrows was not an important factor in their location and siting. Rather, significant locales, or known places within the landscape may have been more important and physical proximity to these places and subsequent monuments may have been an over-riding factor in the location of round barrows. It is a possibility that the small scale opening up of the landscape detectable from the palynological record during the Early Bronze Age may have opened up the “closed forest”, making longer range visibility possible for the first time, thus facilitating the construction of barrows in newly visible locations. The scale of this clearance appears to be localised and short lived, however, perhaps associated with the actual construction of the monuments themselves rather than large-scale agricultural clearance. It is clear that the highest level of environmental disturbance in the study area is during the Early Bronze Age and coincides with the highest level of monumental construction in the region.

The Early Bronze Age In common with the rest of England, burial monuments are the most visible aspect of the archaeology of the Early Bronze Age. In the study area, round barrows are accompanied by episodes of forest clearance, although it is not certain that this was for agriculture, and metal production is also carried out at Alderley Edge during this period. Although burial monuments are highly visible, there is a single, artefact rich, settlement at Oversley Farm, Cheshire. This site was only discovered by large scale open area excavation as part of a large scale commercial development, and was not visible from any surface indications. It remains a possibility therefore that many other Early Bronze Age (and later) settlement sites lie undiscovered on the boulder clay deposits which are particularly insensitive to cropmark formation. The excavation of cropmark sites has, however, yielded a single possible Bronze Age settlement, although this has not been securely dated.

There is a high incidence of the re-use of burial monuments in the study area and this, combined with the lack of grave goods with burials, may be a regional trait. Certainly “rich” Wessex type burials do not occur in the region and it has even been suggested that such burials are an abnormal representation of Early Bronze Age burial rites throughout the country (Barnatt 1999: 49). The lack of grave goods should not be used as an indicator of status of the dead, however, as such offerings may have been disposed of on the funeral pyre, or elsewhere (Barrett 1988). This may have been the case in the study area, as finds of flat axes are known only from areas close to round barrows. Needham (1988) has suggested that flat axes are not found among grave assemblages and it has been suggested here that although not found in graves, flat axes may have been disposed of as part of the funerary ritual which may have taken place away from the final burial site and included the disposal of certain aspects of material culture. The disposal of “grave goods” away from the grave, and sometimes in wetland areas, may have underlined the spiritual inaccessibility of the deposited materials, and indeed the dead.

The discovery of the settlement site at Oversley Farm also illustrates the difficulties of using present day soils as an indicator of prehistoric activity. In Chapter 2, this approach was tested and found to be problematical, not least because we simply do not understand the nature of the soils in the region during prehistory. In the claylands of Northamptonshire and Leicestershire and the Coal Measures of Derbyshire, areas which are similarly low lying and dominated by “poor” soils, Clay (2001: 11) has concluded that there was no deliberate avoidance “poor” soils during the Neolithic and Bronze Age and that factors such as slope or proximity to water may have been more important (ibid: 19). It may yet be that Mary Alexander was correct and thin forest soils were present above the boulder clays in the region, making soil differences less marked and therefore a relatively unimportant factor (Alexander 1977). The round barrows in the study area seem to be fairly evenly distributed throughout the range of altitudes present: most are fairly low lying, but high land was also utilised. It is unusual for round barrows to be constructed on hilltop locations, and there is a preference for location on valley sides and close to water. It is also unusual for barrows to be constructed in cemeteries, rather, individual

This deployment of metalwork only in certain contexts appears to reflect the importance of categorisation within the Early Bronze Age: certain items appear to have been treated in different ways and the contexts in which they were suitable for disposal appear to have been highly structured. Objects such as metalwork, battle axes, axe

124

more important as they offered opportunities to create unique artefacts of diverse form and material. The concern with novel items is also tied into the importance of display and it is striking that the apparent end of production of perforated implements occurs at the beginning of the Taunton phase, a period during which a wider range of bronze artefacts begin to be produced on a larger scale. This is also the phase which marks the beginning of high levels of deposition of metalwork throughout the study area, suggesting a further shift in emphasis: this time towards the disposal rather than the possession and circulation of novel material goods. A “gifts to men” system may have been replaced by one of “gifts to gods”.

hammers and maceheads may all have circulated as display objects, perhaps tied into networks of gift-giving or other forms of social exchange, which had their roots in the Neolithic. Objects appear to have existed in a social sphere during their “life” but could only be disposed of in “death” in certain ways. Metalwork and lithics were thus linked in this scheme, governed by rules of disposal. The structured deposition of artefacts in the Early Bronze Age certainly sets the scene for the increased rates of metalwork deposition in the Middle Bronze Age. Some of the ways in which it may have been permissible to dispose of material are outlined below: Metalwork:

Lithics:

Axes, spearheads and halberds only in hoards. Daggers, small tools and ornaments only in graves.

Pottery may also have played an important role in display during the Early Bronze Age, and again reflects the concern with novelty apparent from the forms of metalwork and lithics in circulation. Early Bronze Age pottery has only been found in funerary contexts in the study area and, although apparently of local manufacture, is highly decorated and of different form from that of the Late Neolithic period. Pottery appears to have been specifically manufactured for funerary use, but it is difficult to see patterning between the individuals who were buried with or in such vessels and those who were not. Nevertheless, Early Bronze Age pottery is novel, and this novelty disappears in the Middle to Late Bronze Age, when plain barrel shaped and conical jars were produced. It may be that metal replaced pottery as a focus during these periods, when pottery is found on domestic sites and appears to have moved over long distances.

Battle axes as grave goods but not in wetland contexts. Axe hammers not in graves but in wetlands. Maceheads in ?graves and wetlands.

There are exceptions to these cases, and it has already been outlined (in Chapter 6) that daggers are also found in hoards in the study area. However, these hoards belong to axe dominant mixed hoards of the Arreton phase, when the axe-dominated assemblages from earlier phases begin to break down (Needham 1988: 236-9) and may have been actively used as a way of downgrading the dagger as a symbol in favour of the axe. Axes seem to have had an important role in the study area: the overwhelming preponderance of axe hammers during the Early Bronze Age echoing the high number of palstaves from the succeeding period.

The adoption of metals in the Early Bronze Age may have slotted into existing exchange mechanisms: metal is in some ways similar to stone as it can be polished and can be made into axes, for example. Metal is also very different as it is transformed from stone to metal, is malleable and can be recycled. It is thus a possibility that stone and metal circulated initially in conflicting social and economic networks, illustrated by the production of fine stone objects. Flint daggers, stone maceheads and battle axes may have been produced to compete against metal daggers and axes. This competition may have been technologically driven, as invasive retouching of stone became easier with metal-tipped tools, allowing the production of finer objects. Alternatively, social and political reasons may be the explanation for these competing spheres, as emerging polities and lineages struggled for superiority. Whatever the reasons for the increase in diversity and quality of lithic objects during the Early Bronze Age, metal and the networks it represented became dominant by the Middle Bronze Age.

The structured disposal of material culture may also have been tied up with the growing importance of display. Large, well made items such as battle axes, maceheads and flint daggers, as well as metalwork, may have been of limited functional value, used instead as display objects which reflected or conferred status on their owner. This seems to have been coupled with a move away from a focus on burial and funerary rituals concerned with the body, the individual and their lineage and a shift towards the possession and biography of objects. Thus objects, and the stories attached to them, replaced relationships to people as the focus for social negotiation: the ancestry of objects became more important than the ancestry of social groups. The ancestry of things became more important than the ancestry of people. Alongside the importance of biography and display, novelty also appears to have emerged as a further focus. One instance where this is clear is the production of perforated implements in the study area. The source of Group XII lies just outside the region, but appears to have been ignored as a source for stone tools during the Early Bronze Age. This may reflect a number of factors, but it is suggested here that highly localised resources were

Middle Bronze Age Although burial appears to drop out of the archaeological record during this period, there is some evidence for Middle Bronze Age burial practices within the study area. This seems to have taken the form of the deposition of 125

bodies, or more specifically skulls, in wetland areas and can be paralleled in Norfolk, Leicestershire and the River Thames (see Chapter 2). Such practices may have been more common than previously thought, with the archaeological exploration of natural features such as paleochannels traditionally taking an inferior role to the examination of “formal” burial monuments. The absence of such monuments during this period should not be taken to indicate a lack of concern with the dead and “token” cremation deposits within settlements are becoming recognised as another method of formal disposal. The pit containing burnt bone, charcoal and Late Bronze Age pottery at Meole Brace may, indeed, be just such a deposit.

the consumed item into the personal and social identity of the consumer. It is not difficult to imagine such consumption-events resulting in the deposition of artefacts, especially ones such as axes, which may have circulated as tokens of prestige. It may also be a possibility that objects were ranked according to material or form, with high quality objects of unusual form and material being accorded higher status. This might account for the dominant role of the palstave in the study area, especially if they were made from “exotic” metals from outside of the region. Such “exotic” metal may have been more “valuable”, and therefore more suitable for conspicuous consumption, than local products (Bradley 1998b: 133-4).

Although care seems to have been taken over the disposal of the dead, it is the treatment of metalwork during the Middle Bronze Age that is one of the most striking aspects of the archaeological record. It is during this period that there is the highest deposition of metalwork in the study area, the record being dominated by palstaves recovered mainly from dryland contexts. Metalwork certainly appears to take over from human remains as a focus for concern and special treatment which may reflect the increasing attention paid to things rather than people during this period. Bruck (1995: 251) suggests that human remains found with metalwork hoards did not represent just the deposition of grave goods without a body, but that bone made “suitable accompaniments for the hoards…strengthening or adding subtlety of meaning to the symbolism of the metalwork”. In other words, the metal became more important than people, as human remains accompanied the metal, rather than the other way around.

Gell (1986) points out that consumption rituals are central to the mediation of social life in many societies. During the Bronze Age in Britain such rituals may have developed from the disposal of “grave goods” either away from the burial site, on the pyre or with the body, to more elaborate modes of deposition. Metalwork may only represent a small part of these consumption rituals and exchange networks in general, as Gregory (1980: 646) points out that animals are used in gift exchange systems, ultimately resulting in their disposal by being eaten. Sherratt (1976: 559) states that luxury goods can often act as the “flywheel” for the exchange of mundane/subsistence goods: areas with poor access to farmland can produce luxury goods for exchange and therefore guarantee a source of food. Thus more ephemeral aspects of material culture may have played fundamental roles in society, but these remain archaeologically invisible. The role of food in Bronze Age society is an area which has been underplayed in recent analyses, often being assigned an “economic” rather than social role. The emergence of field systems is seen as a drive to maximise food production, presumably to feed a growing population. Food may, however, have played a fundamental role in the structuring of society, reflecting that of metalwork and other aspects of material culture. Barrett & Corney (1991: 239) have argued that archaeologists have been slow to understand the importance of food as a means of social discourse. The preparation and consumption of food could be seen as a transformation of the preparation and storage of agricultural resources and this may have had a role in the transformation of social practices. A recent edition of World Archaeology (Thomas 1999) attempted to rectify this neglect, focussing on food technology in its social context, but was mainly concerned with areas outside of Britain, from a variety of periods. Hamilakis (1999: 39) discusses the social importance of food, in particular a need to move away from a quantitative approach to one where embodiment and social practice are central. Food, it is argued, is socially defined as is its cultural and social meaning and importance. Food production and consumption is socially meaningful and intimately connected with the human body and transformative technologies of food (such as cooking) could be seen as acts of purification before food is incorporated into the

Certainly, it appears that traditional models which account for metalwork finds as chance losses are coming to be seen as “an adventure story of lost treasure, enigmatic strangers and overturning boats” (Bradley 1985: 28) and new models need to be explored. An attractive alternative is that of gift exchange, which has been explored by Barrett & Needham (1988) and Bradley (1998). The mechanism of regular gift exchange (Mauss 1954) would not, in itself, account for the deposition of large quantities of metalwork during the Bronze Age. Such deposition may, however, have its roots in such a system which, according to Strathern (1971: 222) would be inherently unstable. Such instability may lead to the transformation of a “gifts to men” system into a “gifts to the gods” system (Gregory 1980: 643), whereby “wealth” is destroyed in “tournaments of value” (Appadurai 1986: 21). Such tournaments have been described as complex, periodic events in which rank, status and fame are worked out, as is the “value” of the central tokens in the society in question. These events usually result in the large scale destruction of certain classes of object. The consumption of material culture may not have necessarily destroyed the social obligations invested in such objects, however. Gell (1986: 112) states that “..even quite ephemeral items, such as the comestibles served at a feast, live on in the form of the social relations they produce…”: consumption involves the incorporation of 126

by fire cracked stones, located close to a paleochannel. The function of burnt mounds has been debated, but the preparation of food does appear to have been at least one of their roles and items relating to food preparation are occasionally found in the mound or trough. It may be a possibility that the activities described by Barrett (1989: 312) as occurring within settlements in the southern part of Britain took place at burnt mounds in the west and north. This would mean that food took on an additional, or other, role which was outside of the “domestic” sphere of the house and instead located outside, in the social realm. That burnt mounds are located in precisely the same locations that other activities took place, such as deposition of metalwork and bodies, suggests that these were ideologically or conceptually linked and perhaps tied into tournaments of value and competitive destruction, as noted above. Barrett (1989: 307) states that all (social/political) discourse requires the exercise of power by effecting control over people and/or materials. Authority is sustained by the mobilisation of symbols of domination, but this also requires choice on behalf of the participants and demonstrates their power over some part of the human or cultural universe. Burnt mounds are a symbol of domination on several levels: the large scale consumption of food illustrates the ability not only to gather and then dispose of food, but also to mobilise the resources to effect this. The transformation of animals and grain into food is also a manipulation of the natural realm. The burnt mound itself is a symbol as its very material form represents repeated consumption episodes over time. The placing of burnt mounds in areas already used for deposition may also have drawn upon the associations of these areas as significant places.

body. The taste, smell and sight of food have a role in the generation of memories and the periodicity of food consumption is a way of generating and marking time (ibid: 40). Food also has a role in the generation, maintenance, legitimisation and deconstruction of authority and power. One way this may occur is through the ritual or conspicuous consumption of food, but this can be “expensive”, as the ritual destruction requires the generation of the necessary resources. The ritual consumption of food is therefore linked to power and feasting is not only a way of accumulating wealth, but also of transforming material wealth into power (ibid). Barrett & Needham (1988: 136) have discussed the “deliberate deposits” of burnt grain within pits inside houses at Black Patch and Itford Hill during the Deverel Rimbury period. One such deposit included a bronze razor and it was suggested that abandoned buildings formed the focus for votive deposits (ibid). Thus a link between votive deposits of burnt grain and metalwork and its relationship with domestic sites was established. The deliberate deposition of metalwork with food remains is also known from Grimes Graves Shaft X (Needham 1991a: 172), where a tanged spearhead was deposited with the bones of red and roe deer, domestic animals, pot-boilers and charcoal. This deposit was interpreted as a deliberate deposit associated with the cooking and/or eating of hunted animals. Food was seen by Barrett (1989: 310) as tied into cycles of human and agricultural fertility and the exchange and transformation of agricultural products, not just their possession, as a means of securing social position. The preparation and service of food could be seen as structuring age and gender relations and the arena in which this happened was the settlement site (ibid: 312).

Burnt mounds also illustrate the lack of differentiation between the “social” and the “economic” as “economic” activities (the production, processing and consumption of food) were deployed as symbolic and structuring principles, transformed by social action. Metalwork might not be a “source of authority” (Barrett 1989: 314), but rather be a signifier of authority: an authority which control of food resources may have instigated, as the control of food supply, and therefore the wellbeing and survival of a social group, is dependent on food.

Most of the discussions of the social role of food during the British Bronze Age have concentrated on the south of England, an area rich in the remains of settlements and their associated field systems dating from this period. Thus the importance of settlement sites and agricultural production has come to dominate discussions of the period in Britain, in turn leading to a blurring of regional distinctiveness to the extent where field systems and settlement have come to be the expected archaeological signature of the Middle/Late Bronze Age. As a result, a major class of evidence has been ignored, largely due to its occurrence outside of the south of England. Burnt mounds form a major part of the Middle/Late Bronze Age landscape in the north and west of Britain and may have played a fundamental role in the structuring of certain aspects of social life. Although mounds of burnt stones (so-called pot-boiler mounds), formed of mounds of heat shattered flint, do occur in the south and east (Barber 1990), these are poorly incorporated into archaeological narratives of the region.

It is interesting to note that, although food may have held a central position in the maintenance and control of social networks, there is no evidence for land division in the study area during the Middle Bronze Age. This may be a result of poor visibility, but the paleoenvironmental evidence suggests a very low level of interference with the “natural” environment during this phase. It may well be the case that wide-scale farming was not taking place either within enclosed plots or otherwise (contra Barnatt 1999) and that wild resources may have continued to play an important role in subsistence strategies. The region certainly offered a high variety of wild resources from a range of ecological zones and it remains a possibility that the act of hunting wild animals may have incorporated aspects of display. This might also better explain the apparent use of weapons in conflict: that they were used against animals rather than people (contra Osgood 2000).

Burnt mounds in the study area occur away from round barrows, in areas also used for the deposition of metalwork. Although only a single example has been excavated from the region, this showed common features of burnt mound architecture: a central trough surrounded 127

foundation offering. Bradley (1998: xx) has suggested that the social significance of certain objects may have been fixed when they were first made by the smith, noting that “At times it seems as if the history of particular artefacts was preordained, from the moment they were made to the time they were removed from circulation”. This certainly seems to have been the case here, the two freshly cast axes being made for deposition before the timber rampart could be constructed. This is the closest it is possible to get to a “biographical” approach to the material from the study area, as lack of provenance is a major difficulty. This approach, suggested by Bradley (ibid) and Kopytoff (1986: 66-7), of charting the moments in an artefacts lifecycle: where it comes from and who made it; what its career has been so far and what the “ideal” career for such an object might be; the “ages” of the objects life; how its use changes with age and what happens at the end of its life, may better explain the dominant form of disposal of metalwork throughout the Bronze Age in the study area: that of single finds on dry land. The mechanism of competitive consumption rituals outlined above would lead to the mass deposition of objects: a phenomenon which is not visible in the study area as there are few hoards and those that do occur are small. Barrett & Needham (1988: 136) have explored the concept of “distance” between production and deposition: the typical course an object follows in its circulation and/or the extent to which an object was made with its final deposition in mind. This can be coupled with an understanding that material culture structures social life and that objects may have had their own individual life cycles and social lives (Appadurai 1986, Hoskins 1998). As such, items such as metalwork may have had a “typical” lifecycle of a few exchanges before having to be disposed of. Objects may have become socially dead, especially if the associations between them and their owners became disrupted or lost. This is possibly best illustrated by a quote from V.S Naipaul, reflecting on the gift of a walking stick from an old man:

Wild animal remains have been found with those of domestic animals at sites such as Grimes Graves (Needham 1991a) and at burnt mounds in East Midlands (Beamish & Ripper 2000) and hunting appears to have formed at least part of the subsistence strategies at these Middle and Late Bronze Age sites. The importance of wild resources, the lack of field systems and associated settlement sites may all indicate a degree of continuity from the Late Neolithic well into the Bronze Age. Although material culture appears to have been readily adopted, sedentism does not. The image of Middle/Late Bronze Age farmers as settled and domestic has recently (Bruck 1999b) been criticised, and a certain amount of mobility has even been argued for “classic” settlement sites in Wessex. It has been pointed out that the “typical” Bronze Age farm was unlikely to have been a self-sustaining unit of production, with labour and resources being drawn from a number of different settlement foci (Barrett & Corney 1991: 236-7). Movement between sites would have varied around the agricultural cycle, and the organisation of labour may have been central to the establishment of age and gender structures. Thus even the large-scale intensive agricultural landscapes of Wessex, and their supporting social structures, may have been dependent on a degree of mobility. Although the Middle Bronze Age in the study area appears to be a period in which very little happens, this quiet is illusory and perhaps reflects the traditional split between archaeologists in the field, concerned with sites and monuments, environmental archaeologists and museum-based specialists who deal with stray finds and their typological classification. Hopefully this study has shown that by incorporating all of these aspects within a landscape-based approach, it is possible to formulate models for the period which would otherwise be incomplete.

Late Bronze Age

“….just as certain memories of down and river, chalk and moss, were to die with the old man, be untransmittable, so, even if I could bequeath the stick to some considerate inheritor, I could not pass on its associations. Without these associations, the stick…..would become no more than an object.” Naipaul 1987: 303.

The high rates of deposition of metalwork noted for the Middle Bronze Age continue into this period, but there is a change of focus from the deposition of axes and other tools to the deposition of weapons. Weapon finds are extremely rare until this period, when they rise to form nearly half of all metalwork finds. Cowell (2000a: 119) suggests that the low number of weapon finds from North West England reflects a less marked social stratification than in other areas, but other factors such as efficient recycling or a high degree of curation of these objects in the preceding periods may also be responsible for their apparent invisibility. It is only during the Late Bronze Age, however, that there is evidence for the manufacture of weapons in the study area: from the clay moulds from Beeston Castle.

The breakage of such associations may well have resulted in the disposal of objects, which could no longer tell their story. It is during the Late Bronze Age that some settlement becomes visible in the study area, dominated by the site at Beeston Castle. This appears to have been a specialist metalworking area, illustrated by the finds of clay moulds and casting debris from the site. The location for this specialist activity was on a hilltop, isolated from the plain below. This may have been significant, especially if

The axe finds from Beeston are also important discoveries. The two axes from beneath the rampart appear to have been a deliberate deposit, perhaps a

128

no relation to soils under the primary woodland which would have existed prior to forest clearance. The instance on farming as a subsistence strategy has led to the region being overlooked as it lacks field systems and associated settlement sites, leading to a circularity of argument. It has been argued in this thesis that the archaeological signature of the region is, in fact, very different than previously thought. A degree of mobility seems to have been central to the way of life during the Bronze Age, and this may have resulted in the absence of large-scale field systems in the region. Long term structures of exchange and trade, established in the Neolithic, also remained important and continued with the production of new and novel types of pottery and stone tools and metal objects. Throughout the Bronze Age, although the foci change, certain aspects remain important. Memory plays a fundamental role as associations of people with things and places can be traced from burial practices in the Early Bronze Age to the exchange and deposition of metal artefacts during the later periods. This may have been tied up with the importance of place: burial in certain, often not highly visible, locations was important and the spatial organisation of burnt mounds, metalwork deposition and burial appear to have been linked.

metalworking was associated with magical or ritual properties and tended to be located away from other settlement sites. Needham & Ambers (1994: 240) have drawn analogies between the lowland, southern English enclosures such as Rams Hill and Mucking and the enclosures in upland areas such as Beeston and the Breiddin, as both types appear to have performed a special role within their local societies. The evidence from the Wrekin, the Breiddin, Beeston Castle and Abbey Green suggests movement of pottery and its contents across the study area, indicating a certain amount of mobility and the importance of maintaining a wide network of connections. In common with other Late Bronze Age sites, these materials sit alongside locally produced objects, suggesting a familiarity with the local landscape. It is not until the very end of the Bronze Age and the opening of the Iron Age that wide-scale clearance is visible in the paleoenvironmental record from the region. It is during this period that hillforts start to develop, often on the sites of earlier enclosures, and the salt industry also gains in importance. Again, a degree of continuity may be detected here, as hillforts may have played a role in the circulation of salt which in turn may have exploited networks of exchange established in the Late Bronze Age.

These changing foci may have also played a role in the particular trajectory of the study area. During the Middle Bronze Age the circulation and deposition of metal axes seems to have been a central concern and this may even have led to developments taking place elsewhere, such as the beginnings of field systems, being overlooked. The role which these fields played in the mediation and negotiation of social and power relations may have been replaced by a different focus on food: that of the consumption, rather than production, of both wild and domestic resources at burnt mounds. Such conspicuous consumption may have been linked to the deposition of metalwork in similar locations, forming part of tournaments of value during which social position and status were renegotiated.

Conclusions The region studied in this thesis was chosen due to its geographical and archaeological difference from the archetypal landscape of Wessex and the south of England, a landscape which dominates narratives and explanations of the British Bronze Age. Regions such as the one studied here are often neglected by archaeologists who are drawn to highly visible archaeological remains in areas which have a long history of research. Often the reasoning behind the choice of study area is based on the presence of monument types, itself leading to further discoveries, and the neglect of apparently “empty” areas. These areas are usually explained away as being unsuitable for occupation in prehistory, despite a poor understanding of pedological processes and past environments. Post PPG 16 archaeology has led to some discoveries in these “empty” areas, but these usually lack regional context due to the dearth of previous interest in those very areas. Fortunately, archaeological understanding of processes affecting river valleys and colluvilated landscapes is increasing but research is some way behind that from the well studied “core areas”.

During the Late Bronze Age, social networks continue to be important, as can be seen in the movement of pottery across the study area. These networks appear to have utilised hilltop enclosures, often for specialist activities, but these may have been located away from the more usual, lowland sites. Throughout the Bronze Age in the region mobility, the maintenance and reproduction of social networks, and a familiarity with the landscape and the possibilities which it offered seem to have played a continuing and fundamental role, producing a distinct archaeological signature. One aspect of the Bronze Age of the study area which needs further work is that of the lowland settlement sites. Only one certain example has been excavated, at Oversley Farm, and this was located by accident, as part of a large-scale developer-funded project. Some cropmark sites have been excavated as part of the Wroxeter Hinterland Project, but these, in common with the excavated field systems, have all returned post-Bronze Age dates. Locating settlement sites is difficult, but

The “traditional” model of explanation for the region studied here has been one based on models for other regions, such as Wessex and the Peak District, despite the absence of the distinct archaeological signatures of these regions. This has been seen as reflecting a low population density, itself a product of low quality agricultural land, unsuitable for farming. This study has examined the soil types available in the region and suggested that they bear

129

elsewhere in the country some sites have been associated with burnt mounds (Ehrenburg 1991). The excavation of the areas surrounding these sites could be productive and also provide data regarding the use of burnt mounds themselves. The excavation of paleochannels close to burnt mounds should also be a priority as elsewhere these have provided information vital to the interpretation of these sites (Beamish & Ripper 2000). It is hoped that this study has shown that apparently empty areas on archaeological distribution maps can provide fertile ground for new work, especially that which incorporates and unifies all aspects of the archaeological record and relates this to contextual and landscape aspects of the material and region under study. It is also hoped that this thesis illuminates some of the regional diversity during the Bronze Age, illustrating that perhaps the rich and complex record from Wessex is coupled with a less visible, but no less complex, record from elsewhere. In these regions we should beware of overlooking the evidence and what it can tell us, as well as being careful not to try to fit it into models which apply to fundamentally different landscapes and trajectories. Indeed, to more fully understand the archaeology of the Bronze Age across Britain as a whole, we must begin from an understanding of the regional responses to phenomena such as the introduction of metals and intensive farming and how these varied across both space and time.

130

Bibliography Bronze Age, pp.77-100. Barrett, J 1988. ‘The Living, the Dead and the Ancestors: Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Mortuary Practices’ in Barrett, J & Kinnes, I The Archaeology of Context in the Neolithic and Bronze Age: Recent Trends. University of Sheffield. Barrett, J 1989. ‘Food, Gender and Metal: Questions of Social Reproduction’ in Sorensen, M & Thomas, R The Bronze Age-Iron Age Transition in Europe. BAR International Series 483, pp.304-320. Barrett, J 1991. ‘The Middle Bronze Age: Introduction’ in Barrett, J, Bradley, R & Green, M. Landscape, Monuments and Society. The prehistory of Cranborne Chase. Cambridge University Press, pp.143-145. Barrett, J & Bradley, R 1980. Settlement and Society in the British Later Bronze Age. BAR British Series 83. Barrett, J & Needham, S 1988. ‘Production, Circulation and Exchange: Problems in the Interpretation of Bronze Age Bronzework’ in Barrett, J & Kinnes, I The Archaeology of Context in the Neolithic and Bronze Age: Recent Trends. University of Sheffield, pp.127-140. Barrett, J & Kinnes, I 1988. The Archaeology of Context in the Neolithic and Bronze Age: Recent Trends. University of Sheffield. Barrett, J, Bradley, R & Green, M 1991. Landscape, Monuments and Society. The prehistory of Cranborne Chase. Cambridge University Press. Barrett, J & Corney, M 1991. ‘The Late Bronze and Iron Age: Synthesis’ in Barrett, J, Bradley, R & Green, M. Landscape, Monuments and Society. The prehistory of Cranborne Chase. Cambridge University Press, pp.236-242. Barnatt, J 1999. ‘Taming the Land: Peak District Farming and Ritual in the Bronze Age’ Derbyshire Archaeological Journal 119, pp.1978. Bayliss, P 1991. ‘Some Shropshire Burnt Stone Sites’ in Hodder, M & Barfield, L (eds) Burnt Mounds and Hot Stone Technology Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council, pp.21-26. Beales, P 1980. ‘The Late Devensian and Flandrian Vegetational History of Crose Mere, Shropshire’ New Phytologist 85, pp.133-161. Beamish, M & Ripper, S 2000. ‘Burnt Mounds in the East Midlands’ Antiquity 74, pp.37-8. Bedwin, D (ed) 1996. The Archaeology of Essex: Proceedings of the 1993 Writtle Conference. Essex County Council Planning Department. Bender, B, Hamilton, S & Tilley, C 1997. ‘Leskernick: Stone Worlds; Alternative Narratives; Nested Landscapes’ Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 63, pp.147-178.

Alexander, M 1977. ‘Notes on the Prehistory of Cheshire’ Cheshire Archaeological Bulletin pp.7-9. Allen, M, Morris, M & Clark, R 1995. ‘Food for the Living: a reassessment of a Bronze Age barrow at Buckskin, Basingstoke, Hampshire’ Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 61, pp.157-189. Anon 1927. ‘Bronze Age Find in Cheshire’ The Antiquaries Journal VII, pp.62-4. Appadurai, A 1986. The Social Life of Things. Cambridge University Press. Archaeological Surveys 1976. The Archaeology of Warrington’s Past. Warrington Development Corporation. Ashbee, P 1960. The Bronze Age Round Barrow in Britain. Phoenix House. Auden, T 1908. ‘Early Man’ in Page, W A History of Shropshire: Volume I, pp.195-203. Avery, B 1990. Soils of the British Isles. CAB International. Bailey, M 1989. ‘The Concept of the Margin in the Medieval English Economy’ Economic History Review XLII, 1-17. Baker, A 1992. Air Archaeology in the Valley of the River Severn. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Southampton. Barber, J 1990. ‘Variations on a Theme’ in Buckley, V Burnt Offerings: International Contributions to Burnt Mound Archaeology, Wordwell, pp.98101. Barfield, L 1997. ‘Caught Short in Shropshire’ Lithics 17/18, pp.66-69. Barfield, L & Hodder, M 1982. ‘Excavations on a Burnt Mound at Cob Lane (second season’ West Midlands Archaeology 24, pp.56-9. Barfield, L & Hodder, M 1987. ‘Burnt Mounds as Saunas, and the Prehistory of Bathing’ Antiquity 61, pp.370-379. Barfield, L & Hodder, M 1989. ‘Burnt Mounds in the West Midlands: Surveys and Excavations’ in Gibson, A Midlands Prehistory BAR British Series 204, pp.5-13 Barker, G 1981. ‘Approaches to Prehistoric Man in Northern England’ in Barker, G (ed) Prehistoric Communities in Northern England, University of Sheffield pp.1-10. Barnatt, J 1999. ‘Taming the Land: Peak District Farming and Ritual in the Bronze Age’ Derbyshire Archaeological Journal 119, pp.1978. Barnes, B 1982. Man and the Changing Landscape. Merseyside County Council/Merseyside County Museums. Barrett, J 1980. ‘The Evolution of Later Bronze Age Settlement’ in Barrett, J & Bradley, R Settlement and Society in the British Later 131

MacSween, A Grooved Ware in Britain and Ireland. Neolithic Studies Group Seminar Papers 3, pp.89-97. Brown, A 1988. ‘The Paleoecology of Alnus and the Postglacial History of Floodplain Vegetation. Pollen percentage and influx data from the West Midlands, United Kingdom’ New Phytologist 110, pp.425-436. Brown, A 2000. ‘Floodplain Vegetation History: Clearings as Potential Ritual Spaces?’ in Fairburn, A (ed) Plants in Neolithic Britain and Beyond. Neolithic Studies Group Seminar Papers 5. Brown, T 1997. ‘Clearances and Clearings: Deforestation in Mesolithic/Neolithic Britain’ Oxford Journal of Archaeology 16(2), pp.133146. Bruck, J 1995. ‘A Place for the Dead: the role of human remains in Late Bronze Age Britain’ Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 61, pp.245-277. Bruck, J 1999a. ‘What’s in a Settlement?’ in Bruck & Goodman Making Places in the Prehistoric World. UCL Press, pp.52-75. Bruck, J 1999b. ‘Ritual and Rationality: Some Problems of Interpretation in European Archaeology’ European Journal of Archaeology 2(3), pp.313-344. Bruck, J 2000. ‘Settlement, Landscape and Social Identity: the Early-Middle Bronze Age transition in Wessex, Sussex and the Thames Valley’ Oxford Journal of Archaeology 19(3), pp.273300. Bruck, J & Goodman, M 1999. Making Places in the Prehistoric World. UCL Press. Bu’lock, J 1956. ‘The Hillfort at Helsby, Cheshire’ Transactions of the Lancashire and Cheshire Antiquarian Society LXXVI, pp.107-110. Buckley, D & Hedges, J 1987. The Bronze Age and Saxon Settlements at Springfield Lyons, Essex: An interim report. Essex County Council Occasional Paper 5. Buckley, V 1990. Burnt Offerings: International Contributions to Burnt Mound Archaeology. Wordwell. Budd, P 2000. ‘Meet the Metal Makers’ British Archaeology 56, pp.12-17. Budd, P, Gale, D, Pollard, A, Thomas, R & Williams, P 1992. ‘The Early Development of Metallurgy in the British Isles’ Antiquity 66, pp.677-86. Budd, P & Taylor, T 1995. ‘The Faerie Smith Meets the Bronze Industry: magic versus science in the interpretation of prehistoric metal-making’ World Archaeology 27(1), pp.133-43. Burgess, C & Cowen, J 1972. ‘The Ebnall Hoard and Early Bronze Age Metal-working Traditions’ in Lynch, F & Burgess, C Prehistoric Man in Wales and the West, pp.167-181. Burgess, C, Coombs, D & Davies, D 1972. ‘The Broadward Complex and Barbed Spearheads’ in Lynch, F & Burgess, C Prehistoric Man in Wales and the West, pp.211-283.

Bennison, B 1984. ‘A Middle Bronze Age Looped Palstave from Ollerton, Childs Ercall, Shropshire’ Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 50, pp.386-388. Berry, A, Gale, F, Daniels, J & Allmark, B (eds) 1996. Fenns and Whixall Mosses. Clwyd County Council. Bewley, R, Longworth, I, Browne, S, Huntley, J & Varndell, G 1992. ‘Excavation of a Bronze Age Cemetery at Ewanrigg, Maryport, Cumbria’ Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 58, pp.325-354. Bibby, J & Mackney, D 1969. Land Use Capability and Classification. Soil Survey of England and Wales Technical Monograph No. 1. Bond, D 1988. Excavations at the North Ring, Mucking, Essex. East Anglian Archaeological Report 43. Bourdillon, M& Fortes, M 1979. Sacrifice. Academic Press. Bowden, M, Mackay, D & Topping, P 1989. From Cornwall to Caithness: Some Aspects of British Field Archaeology. BAR British Series 209. Bradley, R 1972. ‘Prehistorians and Pastoralists in Neolithic and Bronze Age England’ World Archaeology 4 pp.192-204. Bradley, R 1980. ‘Subsistence, Exchange and Technology: A Social Framework for the Bronze Age in Southern England c. 1400-700bc’ in Barrett, J & Bradley, R Settlement and Society in the British Later Bronze Age, pp.5775. Bradley, R 1982. ‘Position and Possession: Assemblage Variation in the British Neolithic’ Oxford Journal of Archaeology 1(1) pp.27-38. Bradley, R 1985. Consumption, Change and the Archaeological Record. The Archaeology of Monuments and Deliberate Deposits. University of Edinburgh Occasional Paper No. 13. Bradley, R 1988. ‘Hoarding, Recycling and the Consumption of Prehistoric Metalwork: technological change in Western Europe’ World Archaeology 20(2), pp.249-260. Bradley, R 1996. ‘Rethinking the Later Bronze Age’ in Bedwin, D (ed) The Archaeology of Essex: Proceedings of the 1993 Writtle Conference, Essex County Council Planning Department, pp.38-45. Bradley, R 1998. The Passage of Arms, Second Edition. Oxbow Books. Bradley, R 2000. An Archaeology of Natural Places. Routledge. Bradley, R & Gordon, K 1988. ‘Human Skulls from the River Thames, their dating and significance’ Antiquity, 62, pp.503-9. Branch, N & Scaife, R 1995. ‘The Stratigraphy and pollen analysis of peat sequences associated with the Lindow III bog body’ in Turner, R & Scaife, R Bog Bodies. New Discoveries and New Perspectives. British Museum Press. Brassil, K & Gibson, A 1999. ‘A Grooved Ware Pit Group and Bronze Age Multiple Inhumation at Hendre, Rhydymwyn, Flintshire’ in Cleal, R & 132

CXII, pp.178-185. Chitty, L 1968. ‘A Bronze Looped Palstave from New House Farm, Wolverley, Near Wem, Shropshire’ Transactions of the Shropshire Archaeology and History Society LVIII, pp.101110. Clare, T 1995. ‘Before the First Woodland Clearings’ British Archaeology 8 p.6. Clark, J 1931. ‘Note on some flint daggers of Scandinavian type in the British Isles’ Man XXXII, pp.186-190. Clarke, G 1965. ‘The Traffic in Stone Axe and Adze Blades’ Economic History Review 18, pp.1-28. Clarke, R 1940. ‘Norfolk in the Dark Ages 400800AD, Part II’ Norfolk Archaeology 27(2), pp.215-49. Clay, P 2001. ‘An Archaeological Resource Assessment and Research Agenda of the Neolithic and Early-Middle Bronze Age of the East Midlands’ available at: http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/ knowledge/archaeology/frameworks.asp Cleal, R & MacSween, A 1999. Grooved Ware in Britain and Ireland. Neolithic Studies Group Seminar Papers 3, Oxbow Books. Clinch, G 1958. ‘Early Man’ in Page, W A History of Staffordshire, Volume I, pp.169-181. Clough, T & Cummins, W 1988. Stone Axe Studies Volume 2. CBA Research Report No. 67. Cocroft, W, Everson, P, Jecock, M & Wilson North, W 1989. ‘Castle Ditch Hillfort, Eddisbury, Cheshire, Reconsidered: The excavations of 1935-38 in the light of recent field survey’ in Bowden, M, Mackay, D & Topping, P From Cornwall to Caithness: Some Aspects of British Field Archaeology. BAR British Series 209, pp.129-135. Collens, J 1994. ‘Recent discoveries from the Air in Cheshire’ in Carrington, P From Flints to Flower Pots. Current Research in the DeeMersey Region, pp.19-25. Collis, J 1983. Wigber Low, Derbyshire: A Bronze Age and Anglian Burial Site in the White Peak. Department of Prehistory and Archaeology, University of Sheffield. Coombs, D & Thompson, F 1980. ‘Excavation of the Hilllfort of Mam Tor, Derbyshire 1965-69’ Derbyshire Archaeological Journal 99, pp.7-51. Coones, P 1985. ‘One Landscape or Many? A Geographical Perspective’ Landscape History 7, 5-12. Coope, G, Robinson, D & Roe, F 1988. ‘The Petrological Identification of Stone Implements from Lancashire and Cheshire’ in Clough & Cummins Stone Axe Studies Volume 2. CBA Research Report No. 67, pp.60-66. Cowell, R 1987. ‘The Prehistory of Merseyside’ in Journal of the Merseyside Archaeology Society 7, pp.21-60. Cowell, R 1992a. ‘Wetland Survey in Merseyside 1991/92: aspects of Mesolithic and Neolithic settlement’ North West Wetlands Survey Annual

Burnham, C& Mackney, D 1964. ‘Soils of Shropshire’ Field Studies 2(1), pp.83-113. Buteux, S & Hughes, G 1995. ‘Reclaiming the Wilderness: The Prehistory of Lowland Shropshire’ Transactions of the Shropshire Archaeology and History Society LXX, pp.160164. Cantrill, T 1908. ‘Geology’ in Page, W A History of Staffordshire Volume I. The Victoria History of the Counties of England, pp.1-46. Carrington, P 1994. From Flints to Flower Pots. Current Research in the Dee-Mersey Region. Chester City Council. Carver, M 1991. ‘A Strategy For Lowland Shropshire’ Transactions of the Shropshire Archaeology and History Society LXVII, pp.1-8. “CHH” 1980. ‘Obituary: Lilly Frances Chitty, OBE, Hon MA, FSA 1893-1979’ Archaeologia Cambrensis CXXIX, pp.166-7. Childe, V 1958. The Prehistory of European Society. Penguin. Chitty, L 1925. ‘Three Bronze Implements from the Edgebold Brickyard, Meole Brace, Shropshire’ Transactions of the Shropshire Archaeology and History Society V, pp.409-414. Chitty, L 1927. ‘Dug-Out Canoes from Shropshire’ Transactions of the Shropshire Archaeology and History Society XLIV, pp.113-133. Chitty, L 1928. ‘The Willow Moor Bronze Hoard, Little Wenlock, Shropshire’ Transactions of the Shropshire Archaeology and History Society VIII, pp.30-47. Chitty, L 1929a. ‘Twin Food Vessels preserved at Aqualate Hall, Staffordshire’ The Antiquaries Journal IX, pp.137-140. Chitty, L 1929b. ‘Bronze Palstave from Shropshire’ The Antiquaries Journal IX, pp.253-255. Chitty, L 1933. ‘Bronze Looped Palstave from Whixall Moss, North Shropshire’ Transactions of the Shropshire Archaeology and History Society XLVII (1), pp.73-75. Chitty, L 1940a. ‘Bronze Implements and other objects from Shropshire in the National Museum of Wales, Cardiff’ Transactions of the Shropshire Archaeology and History Society L, pp.143-155. Chitty, L 1940b. ‘Bronze Implements from the Oswestry Region of Shropshire’ Archaeologia Cambrensis XCV, pp.27-35. Chitty, L 1950a. ‘Prehistoric and other early finds in the Borough of Shrewsbury’ Transactions of the Shropshire Archaeology and History Society LIII, pp.105-144. Chitty, L 1950b. ‘Bronze Palstave found at Pontesbury Shropshire’ Transactions of the Shropshire Archaeology and History Society LIII, pp.145152. Chitty, L 1953. ‘Bronze Hoard from Preston on the Weald Moors, Shropshire’ Transactions of the Shropshire Archaeology and History Society LIV, pp.240-254. Chitty, L 1955. ‘An Introduction to Shropshire Archaeology’ The Archaeological Journal 133

Transactions of the Shropshire Archaeology and History Society LVI’ pp.213-217. Dutton, A & Fasham, P 1994. ‘Prehistoric Copper Mining on the Great Orme, Llandudno, Gwynedd’ Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 60, pp.245-286. Edmonds, M 1995. Stone Tools and Society. Batsford. Edmonds, M 1999. Ancestral Geographies of the Neolithic. Routledge. Ehrenburg, M 1991. ‘Some Aspects of the Distribution of Burnt Mounds’ in Hodder, M & Barfield, L (eds) Burnt Mounds and Hot Stone Technology Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council, pp.4158. Ellis, P 1989. ‘Norton Fitzwarren Hillfort: a report on the excavations by Nancy and Philip Langmaid between 1968 and 1971’ Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeology and Natural History Society 133, pp.1-74. Ellis, P (ed) 1993. Beeston Castle, Cheshire. English Heritage Archaeological Report No.23. HBMC(E). Ellis, P, Evans, J, Hannaford, H, Hughes, G, Jones, A 1994. ‘Excavations in the Wroxeter Hinterland 1988-1990: The Archaeology of the A5/A49 Shrewsbury Bypass’ Transactions of the Shropshire Archaeological and Historical Society 69, pp.7-119. English Heritage 1995. Geophysical Survey in Archaeological Field Evaluation. Ancient Monuments Laboratory. English Heritage 1996. England’s Coastal Heritage. English Heritage. Evans, J 1881. The Ancient Bronze Implements, Weapons and Ornaments of Great Britain and Ireland. Longmans, London. Evans, J 1897. The Ancient Stone Implements, Weapons and Ornaments of Great Britain. London. Evans, J 1975. The Environment of Early Man in the British Isles. Book Club Associates. Evans, C, Pollard, J & Knight, M 1999. ‘Life in Woods: Tree Throws, ‘Settlement’ and Forest Cognition’ The Oxford Journal of Archaeology 18(3) pp.241-254. Fairburn, A (ed) Plants in Neolithic Britain and Beyond. Neolithic Studies Group Seminar Papers 5, Oxbow Books. Febvre, L 1932. A Geographical Introduction to History. Paul, Trench, Trubner & co. Fenton, M 1984. ‘The Nature of the Source and the Manufacture of Scottish Battle-axes and Axehammers’ Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 50 pp.217-243. Fleming, A 1971a. ‘Territorial Patterns in Bronze Age Wessex’ Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 37, pp.138-166. Fleming, A 1971b. ‘Bronze Age Agriculture on the Marginal Lands of North East Yorkshire’ Agricultural History Review 19 pp.1-24. Ford, S, Bradley, R, Hawkes, J & Fisher, P 1984. ‘Flint Working in the Metal Age’ The Oxford Journal of Archaeology 3(2), pp.157-173.

Report 1992, pp.29-36. Cowell, R 1992b. ‘Prehistoric Survey in North Cheshire’ Cheshire Past 1, pp.6-7. Cowell, R 1995. ‘Some Neolithic and Bronze Age Finds from Merseyside and the North West’ Journal of the Merseyside Archaeology Society 9, pp.25-44. Cowell, R 2000a. ‘The Neolithic and Bronze Age in the lowlands of North West England’ in Harding, J & Johnston, R Northern Pasts: Interpretations of the Later Prehistory of Northern England and Southern Scotland BAR British Series 302, pp.111-130. Cowell, R 2000b. ‘The Late Prehistoric Period in the North West’ in Cowell, R & Philpott, R Prehistoric, Romano-British and Medieval Settlement in North West England National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside, pp.169174. Craddock, P 1990. ‘Copper Smelting in Bronze Age Britain: problems and possibilities’ in Crew, P & Crew, S Early Mining in the British Isles. Plas Tan y Bwlch, pp.69-71. Craddock, P & Gale, D 1988. ‘Evidence for Early Mining and Extractive Metallurgy in the British Isles: Problems and Potentials’ in Slater, E & Tate, J Science and Archaeology, Glasgow 1987. BAR British Series 196, pp.167-185. Crampton, C & Webley, D 1960. ‘The Correlation of Prehistoric Settlement and Soils in the Vale of Glamorgan’ The Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies 18(iv) pp. 387-396. Crew, P & Crew, S 1990. Early Mining in the British Isles. Plas Tan y Bwlch. Cromarty, R 1997. ‘A Further Report on the 1867 ‘Bog Body’ from Whixall Moss’ Transactions of the Shropshire Archaeology and History Society LXXII, pp.5. Crompton, E & Osmond, D 1954. The Soils of the Wem District of Shropshire. Memoirs of the Soil Survey of Great Britain. HMSO. Darvill, T 1989. ‘The Circulation of Neolithic Stone and Flint Axes: A Case Study from Wales and the Mid-West of England’ Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 55 pp.27-43. Davey, P 1976. ‘The Distribution of Bronze Age Metalwork from Lancashire and Cheshire’ Journal of the Chester Archaeological Society 59 pp.1-13. Davey, P & Forster, E 1975. Bronze Age Metalwork from Lancashire and Cheshire. University of Liverpool Prehistoric Archaeology Worknotes 1. Dawkins, W. Boyd 1875. ‘On the Stone Mining Tools from Alderley Edge’ Proceedings of the Literary and Philosophical Society of Manchester 14, pp.74-79. Dockrill, S 1991. ‘Geophysical Survey of Burnt Mounds in the Northern Isles: the magnetic response’ in Hodder, M & Barfield, L (eds) Burnt Mounds and Hot Stone Technology Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council, pp.3540. Dodd, P 1960. ‘The Eardington Bronze Hoard’ 134

Contemporary Papua’ Man 15, pp.626-652. Gregory, K, Lewin, J & Thornes, J 1987. Paleohydrology in Practise. Wiley & Sons. Grimes, W 1931. ‘The Early Bronze Age Flint Dagger in England and Wales’ Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society of East Anglia VI, pp.340355. Grimes, W 1945. ‘Early Man and the Soils of Anglesey’ Antiquity XIX pp. 169-174. Grimes, W 1951. The Prehistory of Wales. National Museum of Wales, Cardiff. Grimes, W 1972. ‘Lily Frances Chitty’ in Lynch, F & Burgess, C Prehistoric Man in Wales and the West, pp.1-3. Guilbert, G & Vince, A 1996. ‘Petrology of Some Prehistoric Pottery from Mam Tor” Derbyshire Archaeological Journal 116, pp.49-59. Gunstone, A 1962. ‘Notes on Some Prehistoric Implements’ North Staffordshire Journal of Field Studies 2, pp.26-32. Gunstone, A 1964. ‘An Archaeological Gazeteer of Staffordshire Part I: Chance Find Sites, Excluding Barrows and Their Contents’ North Staffordshire Journal of Field Studies 4, pp.1145. Gunstone, A 1965. ‘An Archaeological Gazeteer of Staffordshire: Part 2: The Barrows’ North Staffordshire Journal of Field Studies 5, pp.2063. Hallam, A 1993. ‘A Survey of North Western Bronze Age Pottery’ Archaeology North West 5, pp.3-9. Hamilakis, Y 1999. ‘Food Technologies/Technologies of the Body: the social context of wine and oil production and consumption in Bronze Age Crete’ World Archaeology 31(1), pp.38-54. Hannaford, H 1999. ‘A Bronze Age Burnt Mound at Rodway, Telford’ Transactions of the Shropshire Archaeology and History Society LXXIV, pp.67-74. Harding, J 1991. ‘Using the Unique as the Typical: Monuments and the Ritual Landscape’ in Garwood, P, Jennings, D, Skeates, R & Toms, J Sacred and Profane Oxford University Committee for Archaeology Monograph No. 32, pp.141-151. Hardy, E 1939. ‘Studies of the Post Glacial History of British Vegetation. V. The Shropshire and Flint Maelor Marshes’ New Phytologist 38, pp.364396. Harmer, F 1928. ‘The Distribution of Erratics and Drift’ Proceedings of the Yorkshire Geological Society XXI (2) pp.79-105. Harris, B (ed) 1987. A History of the County of Chester. Volume 1. Oxford University Press. Harrison, L 1994. ‘Paleoenvironmental Work in West Cheshire’ in Carrington, P From Flints to Flower Pots. Current Research in the DeeMersey Region pp.4-12. Hakwes, C & Hawkes, J 1943. Prehistoric Britain. Pelican Books. Hazeldine-Warren, S 1922. ‘The Neolithic Stone Axes of Graig Lwyd, Penmaenmawr’ Archaeologica

Forde-Johnston, J 1960. ‘The Excavation of a Round Barrow at Gallowsclough Hill, Delamere Forest, Cheshire’ Transactions of the Lancashire and Cheshire Antiquarian Society LXX, pp.74-83. Fox, C 1925. The Personality of Britain. National Museum of Wales. Freke, D & Holgate, R 1988. ‘Excavations at Winwick, Cheshire in 1980. 1. Excavation of Two Second Millenium BC Mounds’ Journal of the Chester Archaeological Association 70, pp.9-30. Furness, R 1978. The Soils of Cheshire. Soil Survey Bulletin No.6. Harpenden. Gale, D 1986. Recording an Elevation of a Copper Mining Face at Engine Vein, Alderley Edge. Undergraduate Dissertation, Department of Archaeological Sciences, University of Bradford. Gale, D 1989. ‘Evidence of Ancient Copper Mining at Engine Vein, Alderley Edge, Cheshire’ Bulletin of the Peak District Mines Historical Society 10(5), pp.266-273. Gale, D 1990. ‘Prehistoric Stone Mining Tools from Alderley Edge’ in Crew, P & Crew, S Early Mining in the British Isles pp. 47-8. Gale, D 1993. ‘Prehistoric Mining at Alderley Edge’ Cheshire Past 2, pp.6-7. Gardiner, J 1980. ‘Land and Social Status: A Case Study from Eastern England’ in Barrett, J & Bradley, R Settlement and Society in the British Later Bronze Age, pp.101-114. Garner, A 1994. ‘The Alderley Edge Shovel: The Finders Story’ Current Archaeology 137, pp.172-3. Garner, D 1999. ‘Results of the Excavations at Oversley Farm (Manchester Airport Second Runway’. Paper given to “Place and Space in the British Bronze Age”, Cambridge 25th April 1999. Gell, A 1986. ‘Newcomers to the World of Goods: consumption among the Muria Gonds’ in Appadurai, A The Social Life of Things. Cambridge University Press, pp.110-140. Gibson, A 1989. Midlands Prehistory. BAR British Series 204. Gibson, A 1993. ‘The Excavation of Two Cairns and Associated Features at Carneddau, Carno, Powys, 1989-90’ Archaeological Journal 150, pp.1-45. Gibson, A 1998. Stonehenge and Timber Circles. Tempus Godwin, H 1975. History of the British Flora. Second Edition, Cambridge University Press. Gosden, C & Lock, G 1998. ‘Prehistoric Histories’ World Archaeology 30(1), pp.2-12. Gosden, C & Marshall, Y 1999. ‘The Cultural Biography of Objects’ World Archaeology 30(2), pp.169-178. Green, H 1980. The Flint Arrowheads of the British Isles. British Archaeological Reports 75. Gregory, C 1980. ‘Gifts to Men and Gifts to God: Gift Exchange and Capital Accumulation in 135

Hume, C & Jones, G 1960. ‘Excavations on Nescliff Hill’ Transactions of the Shropshire Archaeology and History Society LVI, pp.129132. Iversen, J 1941. ‘Landnam I Danmarks Stenalder’. Danmarks Geologiske Undersogelse, Ser II, 66, pp.1-68. Ixer, R & Budd, P 1998. ‘The Mineralogy of Bronze Age Copper Ores from The British Isles: Implications for the Composition of Early Metalwork’ Oxford Journal of Archaeology 17(1) pp.15-41. James, H 1986. ‘Excavations of Burnt Mounds at Carne, Nr. Fishguard, 1979 and 1981’ Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies XXXIII, pp.245265. Jones, A 1991. ‘The Geophysical Survey of Burnt Mounds: a study from Acocks Green, Birmingham’ in Hodder, M & Barfield, L (eds) Burnt Mounds and Hot Stone Technology Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council, pp.3134. Kelly, R 1990. ‘Recent Work in North-West Wales: the excavation of a burnt mound at Graeanog, Clynnog, Gwynedd, in 1983’ in Buckley, V Burnt Offerings: International Contributions to Burnt Mound Archaeology. Wordwell, pp.116125. Kopytoff, I 1986. ‘The Cultural Biography of Things: commoditization as process’ in Appadurai, A The Social Life of Things. Cambridge University Press, pp.64-94. Last, J 1998. ‘Books of Life: Biography and Memory in a Bronze Age Barrow’ Oxford Journal of Archaeology 17(1) pp.43-53. Leah, M 1994. ‘The North West Wetlands Survey, Cheshire’ in Carrington, P From Flints to Flower Pots. Current Research in the DeeMersey Region, pp.13-18. Leah, M, Wells, C, Appleby, C& Huckerby E 1997. The Wetlands of Cheshire. Lancaster Imprints 5. Leah, M, Wells, C, Stamper, P, Huckerby, E & Welch, C 1998. The Wetlands of Shropshire and Staffordshire. Lancaster Imprints 7. Leach, G 1942. ‘Some Surface Finds of Prehistoric and Roman Periods from Ashton, near Chester’ Journal of the Chester and North Wales Architectural, Archaeological and Historical Society XXXV (I) pp.53-62. Leahy, K 1986. ‘A Dated Stone Axe-hammer from Cleethorpes, South Humberside’ Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 52 pp.143-52. Limbrey, S & Evans, J (eds) 1978. The Effect of Man on the Landscape: the Lowland Zone. CBA Research Report No.21. Limbrey, S 1978. ‘Changes in Quality and Distribution of the Soils of Lowland Britain’ in Limbrey & Evans, The Effect of Man on the Landscape: the Lowland Zone pp.21-27. Limbrey, S 1987. ‘Farmers and Farmland: Aspects of Prehistoric Land Use in the Severn Basin’ in

Cambrensis LXXVII pp. 1-32. Healy, F & Housley, R 1992. ‘Nancy Was Not Alone: human skeletons of the Early Bronze Age from the Norfolk peat Fen’ Antiquity 66, pp.948-55. Healy, F 1996. The Fenland Project Number 11: The Wissey Embayment: Evidence for Pre-Iron Age Occupation Accumulated Prior to the Fenland Project. East Anglian Archaeology Report No.78. Hedges, J 1975. ‘Excavation of Two Orcadian Burnt Mounds at Liddle and Beaquoy’ Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 106, pp.39-98. Higham, N 1985. ‘Tatton Park: Interim report on the 7th season of excavation of the deserted village’ Cheshire Archaeological Bulletin 10, pp.75-83. Higham, N 1993. The Origins of Cheshire. Manchester University Press. Higham, N & Cane, T 1999. ‘The Tatton Park Project, Part I: Prehistoric to Sub-Roman’. Journal of the Chester Archaeological Society 74 for 1996-7, pp.1-62. Hodder, I 1979. ‘Social and Economic Stress and Material Culture Patterning’ American Antiquity 44, pp.446-454 Hodder, M 1990. ‘Burnt Mounds in the English West Midlands’ in Buckley, V Burnt Offerings: International Contributions to Burnt Mound Archaeology. Wordwell, pp.106-111. Hodder, M & Welch, C 1987. ‘Burnt Mounds in the South Staffordshire Area’ Staffordshire Studies. Museum Archaeological Society Report (new series) 4, pp.15-24. Hodder, M & Barfield, L (eds) 1991. Burnt Mounds and Hot Stone Technology. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council. Hoskins, J 1998. Biographical Objects. How Things Tell the Stories of People’s Lives. Routledge. Housley, R 1994. ‘The Alderley Edge Shovel: The Scientists Story’ Current Archaeology 137, pp.175. Howard, H 1983. The Bronze Casting Industry in Later Prehistoric Southern Britain. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Southampton. Huddart, D, Gonzalez, S & Roberts, G 1999. The Archaeological Record and Mid Holocene Marginal Coastal Paleoenvironments Around Liverpool Bay. Quaternary Proceedings 7, pp.563-574. Hughes, G 1994. ‘Old Oswestry Hillfort: Excavations by W.J. Varley 1939-1940’ Archaeologia Cambrensis CXLIII, pp.46-91. Hughes, G & Woodward, A 1995. ‘A Ring Ditch and Neolithic Pit Complex at Meole Brace, Shrewsbury’ Transactions of the Shropshire Archaeology and History Society LXX, pp.1-22. Hughes, G, Leach, P & Stanford, S 1995. ‘Excavations at Bromfield, Shropshire 1981-91. Part 2’ Transactions of the Shropshire Archaeology and History Society LXX, pp.2394. 136

Society XLVI, pp.85-89. Morris, M 1992. ‘The Rise and fall of Bronze Age Studies in England 1840-1960’ Antiquity 66, pp.419-426. Molyneux, W 1878. History of Trentham. Newcastle Under Lyme. Mullin, D 2000. The Neolithic of Cheshire 4000-1800 BC. Unpublished undergraduate dissertation, University of Bristol. Mullin, D forthcoming. ‘Neolithic Pottery from Cheshire’ Journal of the Chester Archaeological Society 77. Musson, C 1991. The Breiddin Hillfort. CBA Research Report 76. Musson, C, Britnell, W, Northover, P & Salter, C 1992. ‘Excavations and Metal Working at Llwyn Bryn Dinas Hillfort, Llanedwyn, Clwyd’ in Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 58, pp. 265-283. Naipaul, V 1987. The Enigma of Arrival. Penguin Needham, S 1978. ‘The Extent of Foreign Influence on Early Bronze Age Axe Development in Southern Britain’ in Ryan, M (ed) The Origins of Metallurgy in Atlantic Europe, Dublin, pp.265-293. Needham, S 1980. ‘An Assemblage of Late Bronze Age Metalworking Debris from Dainton, Devon’ in Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 46, pp. 177-215. Needham, S 1988. ‘Selective Deposition in the British Early Bronze Age’ World Archaeology 20(2), pp.229-248. Needham, S 1991a. ‘Middle Bronze Age Spearhead Casting at Grimes Graves’ in Longworth, I, Herne, A, Varndell, G & Needham, S Excavations at Grimes Graves Norfolk 19721976. British Museum Fascicule 3, pp.154-171. Needham, S 1991b. ‘The Grimes Graves Metalwork in the Context of other Middle Bronze Age Assemblages’ in Longworth, I, Herne, A, Varndell, G & Needham, S Excavations at Grimes Graves Norfolk 1972-1976. British Museum Fascicule 3, pp.171-180. Needham, S & Hook, D 1988. ‘Lead and Lead Alloys in the Bronze Age: recent finds from Runnymede Bridge’ in Slater, E & Tate, J Science and Archaeology, Glasgow 1987. BAR British Series 196, pp.259-275 Needham, S, Leese, M, Hook, D & Hughes, M 1989. ‘Developments in the Early Bronze Age metallurgy of Southern Britain’ World Archaeology 20(3), pp.383-402. Needham, S & Ambers, J 1994. ‘Redating Rams Hill and reconsidering Bronze Age enclosure’ Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 60, pp.225-243. Needham, S, Ramsey, C, Coombs, D, Cartwright, C & Pettit, P 1997. ‘An Independent Chronology for British Bronze Age Metalwork: the Results of the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Programme’ in Archaeological Journal 154, pp.55-107.

Gregory, Lewin & Thornes Paleohydrology in Practise, pp.251-267. Longworth, I 1984. Collared Urns of the Bronze Age in Great Britain and Ireland. Cambridge University Press. Longley, D 1979a. ‘Stray Finds, Prehistoric Settlement and Land Use in Cheshire’ Cheshire Archaeological Bulletin 6, 84-87. Longley, D 1979b. ‘Aerial Archaeology in Cheshire’ Cheshire Archaeological Bulletin 6, pp.4-9. Longley, D 1987. ‘Prehistory’ in Harris, B (ed) A History of the County of Chester. Volume 1 pp.36-92. Lord, J 1993. The Nature and Subsequent Uses of Flint. Volume 1: the basics of lithic technology. Private publication. Lynch, F 1993. Excavations in the Brenig Valley. Cambrian Archaeological Monographs 5. Lynch, F & Burgess, C 1972. Prehistoric Man in Wales and the West. Adams & Dart, Bath. Lynch, F 2000. ‘The Later Neolithic and Earlier Bronze Age’ in Lynch, F, Aldhouse Green, S & Davies, G Prehistoric Wales, pp.79-138. Sutton. McNeil, R 1982. ‘Burial Mound (Church Lawton North) and (Church Lawton South). Cheshire Archaeological Bulletin 8, p.46-50. McPeake, J & Bulmer, M 1980. ‘Excavations in the Garden of No.1 Abbey Green, Chester 1975-77’ Journal of the Chester Archaeology Society 63, pp.14-37. Mackney, D & Burnham, C 1964. The Soils of the West Midlands. Soil Survey of Great Britain Bulletin Number 2. Harpenden. Martin, E 1976. ‘The Excavation of Two Tumuli on Waterhall Farm, Chippenham, Cambridgeshire, 1973’ Proceedings of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society 66, pp.1-21. Matthews, K 1993. High Legh Golf Course: An Archaeological Desk Based Assessment. Chester Archaeological Service Evaluation Report No.27. Matthews, K n.d. The Bronze Age at Carden. Available at: http://www.setea.freeserve.co.uk/carden5.html Mauss, M 1954. The Gift. Norton. Mayer, A 1990. ‘Fieldwalking in Cheshire’ Lithics 4 pp.48-50. Middleton, R 1993. ‘Landscape Archaeology in the North West and the Definition of Surface Lithic Scatter Sites’ North West Wetlands Survey Annual Report 1993, pp.1-7. Middleton, R & Wells, C 1993. ‘Prehistory of the Shropshire and Staffordshire Wetlands’ North West Wetlands Survey Annual Report 1990, pp.13-25. Middleton, T 1988. ‘The Cliffs: Quarry and Caves, Little Haywood, Staffs’ Bulletin of the Peak District Mines Historical Society 10(3), pp.168173. Morris, J 1932. ‘Bury Walls, Hawkstone’ Transactions of the Shropshire Archaeology and History 137

Staffordshire Field Club LXI, pp.140-148. Parker Pearson, M 1999. The Archaeology of Death and Buial. Sutton. Patterson, O 1982. Slavery and Social Death. A comparative study. Harvard University Press. Petch, D 1976a. ‘Henbury’ Cheshire Archaeological Bulletin 4, p.27-8. Petch, D 1976b. ‘Horton’ in Cheshire Archaeological Bulletin 4, p.28. Peters, F 2000. ‘Two Traditions of Bronze Age Burial in the Stonehenge Landscape’ Oxford Journal of Archaeology 19(4), pp.343-358. Peterson, F 1972. ‘Traditions of Multiple Burial in Later Neolithic and Early Bronze Age England’ Antiquaries Journal 129, pp.22-55. Pevsner , N 1958. The Buildings of England: Shropshire. Penguin. Pickin, J & Timberlake, S 1988. ‘Stone Hammers and Fire Setting: a preliminary experiment at Cwmystwyth mine, Dyfed’ Bulletin of the Peak District Mines Historical Society 10(3), pp.165167. Pickin, J 1990. ‘Stone Tools and Early Metal Mining in England and Wales’ in Crew, P & Crew, S Early Mining in the British Isles pp. 39-42. Pierpoint, S 1980. Social Patterns in Yorkshire Prehistory 3500-750 BC. BAR British Series 74. Pitts, M 1978a. ‘On the Shape of Waste Flakes as an Index of Technological Change in Lithic Industries’ Journal of Archaeological Science 5, pp.17-37. Pitts, M 1978b. ‘Towards an Understanding of Flint Industries in Post Glacial England’ Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology 15, pp.179-197. Pollard, A, Thomas, R & Williams, P 1990. ‘Experimental Smelting of Arsenical Copper Ores: Implications for Early Bronze Age Copper Production’ in Crew, P & Crew, S Early Mining in the British Isles. Plas Tan y Bwlch, pp.72-74. Powell, T 1953. ‘The Gold Ornament fro Mold, Flintshire, North Wales’ in Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 19, pp.161-179. Prag, J 1994. ‘The Alderley Edge Shovel: The Curators Story’ Current Archaeology 137, pp.174-5. Pryor, F 1991. Flag Fen. Batsford/English Heritage. Ragg, J, Beard, G, George, H, Heaven, F, Hollis, J, Jones, R, Palmer, R, Reeve, J, Robson, J & Whitfield, W. 1984. Soils and their Use in Midland and Western England. Harpenden. Renfrew, C 1986. ‘Varna and the emergence of Wealth in Prehistoric Europe’ in Appadurai, A The Social Life of Things. Cambridge University Press, pp.141-168. Robson, J 1860. ‘Tumuli at Winwick’ Transactions of the Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire XII pp.189-192. Robinson, D 1976. ‘Implement Petrology in Cheshire’ Cheshire Archaeological Bulletin 4, pp.6. Robinson, D 1979. ‘Rawhead Farm, Bickerton’ in Cheshire Archaeological Bulletin 6, p.58.

Nevell, M 1987. ‘Legh Oaks Farm: an investigation of two cropmark sites 1985-1986’ Manchester Archaeological Bulletin 4, pp.24-9. Nevell, M 1988a. ‘Arthill Heath Farm, trial excavations on a prehistoric settlement site 1987-88’ Manchester Archaeological Bulletin 3, pp.4-13. Nevell, M 1988b. ‘Early Settlement in Northern Cheshire’ CBA Group 5 Newsletter 56, pp.1012. Nevell, M 1991a. ‘A Field Survey of High Legh Parish. Part One, Prehistoric and Roman Evidence’ Archaeology North West 2, pp.16-19. Nevell, M 1991b. A History and Archaeology of Tameside. Volume 2: Tameside 1066-1700. Tameside Metropolitan Borough with the Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit. Nevell, M 1992. A History and Archaeology of Tameside. Volume 1: Tameside Before 1066. Tameside Metropolitan Borough with the Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit. Nevell, M 1997a. ‘A Bronze Age Bog Body from Ashton Moss’ Archaeology North West 12, pp.150-153. Nevell, M 1997b. The Archaeology of Trafford. A Study of the Origins of Community in North West England Before 1900. Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council. Northover, P 1980a. ‘Analysis of Welsh Bronze Age Metalwork’ in Savory H Guide Catalogue of the Bronze Age Collections National Museum of Wales, pp.229-243. Northover, P 1980b. ‘Bronze in the British Bronze Age’ in Oddy, W (ed) Aspects of Early Metallurgy. British Museum Occasional Paper 17, pp.63-70. Northover, P 1994. ‘The Crucible’ in Hughes, G ‘Old Oswestry Hillfort: Excavations by W.J. Varley 1939-1940’ Archaeologia Cambrensis CXLIII, pp.75-79. O’Brien, W 1996. Bronze Age Copper Mining in Britain and Ireland. Shire Archaeology. O’Connor, B 1980. Cross Channel Relations in the Later Bronze Age. British Archaeological Reports International Series 91. O’Drisceoil, D 1988. ‘Burnt Mounds: Cooking or Bathing’ in Antiquity 62, pp.671-80. O’Sullivan 1975. ‘On the Age and Origin of Whixall Moss, Shropshire’ North Staffordshire Journal of Field Studies 15, pp.19-25. Oldfield, F, Higgit, S, Richardson, N & Yates, G 1986. ‘Pollen, charcoal, rhizopod and radiometric analyses’ in Stead, I, Bourke, J & Brothwell, D Lindow Man, the body in the bog. London, pp.82-5. Osgood, R 2000. Bronze Age Warfare. Sutton. Page, W 1908. A History of Shropshire Volume I. The Victoria History of the Counties of England. Page, W 1958. A History of Staffordshire Volume I. The Victoria History of the Counties of England. Palliser, D 1976. The Staffordshire Landscape. Hodder and Stoughton. Pape, T 1927. ‘History’ in Transactions of the North 138

Sherratt, A 1982. ‘Mobile Resources: settlement and exchange in early agricultural Europe’ in Renfrew, C & Shennan, S (eds) Ranking, Resource and Exchange Cambridge University Press, pp.13-26. Shell, C 1978. ‘The Early Exploitation of Tin Deposits in South West England’ in Ryan, M (ed) The Origins of Metallurgy in Atlantic Europe, Dublin, pp.251-263. Shotton, F, Chitty, L & Seaby, W 1951. ‘A New Centre of Stone Axe Dispersal on the Welsh Border’ Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society XVII (2), pp.159-167. Slater, E & Tate, J 1988. Science and Archaeology, Glasgow 1987. BAR British Series 196. Smith, I 1979. ‘The Chronology of British Stone Implements’ in Clough & Cummins, Stone Axe Studies Volume 2 pp.13-22. Stafford, M 1998. ‘In Search of Hindsgavl: experiments in the production of Neolithic Danish flint daggers’ Antiquity 72, pp.338-49. Stanford, S 1980. The Archaeology of the Welsh Marches. Collins. Stanford, S 1984. ‘The Wrekin Hillfort Excavations 1973’ The Archaeological Journal 141, pp.6190. Stead, I 1998. The Salisbury Hoard. Tempus. Strathern, A 1971. The Rope of Moka. Cambridge University Press. Taylor, J 1980. Bronze Age Goldwork of the British Isles. Cambridge University Press. Taylor, R 1993. Hoards of the Bronze Age in Southern Britain. British Archaeological Reports 228. Thom, D 1852. ‘Miscellaneous Communications’ Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire Session IV, pp.99-100. Thomas, J 1991. Rethinking the Neolithic. Cambridge University Press. Thomas, J 1990. Understanding the Neolithic. Routledge. Thomas, K 1999. Food Technology in its Social Context: Production, Processing and Storage. World Archaeology 31(1). Thomas, N 1972. ‘An Early Bronze Age Stone AxeMould from the Walleybourne below Longden Common, Shropshire’ in Lynch, F & Burgess, C Prehistoric Man in Wales and the West, pp.161-166. Thomas, N 1976. A Guide to Prehistoric England. Batsford. Thomas, N & Gunstone, A 1963. ‘An Introduction to the Prehistory of Staffordshire’ The Archaeological Journal CXX, pp.256-263. Thompson, A 1998. ‘To Here from Eternity: Manchester Airport Second Runway’ Rescue News 75, pp.1-2. Tilley, C 1994. A Phenomenology of Landscape. Berg. Tinsley, H 1981 ‘The Bronze Age’ in Simmons, I & Tooley, M The Environment in British Prehistory Duckworth, pp.210-249. Turner, J 1962. ‘The Tillia Decline: An Anthropogenic Interpretation’ New Phytologist 61, pp.328-341.

Roe, F

1966. ‘The Battle Axe Series in Britain’ in Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 32, pp.199-245. Roe, F 1967. ‘The Battle Axes, Mace Heads and Axe Hammers of South West Scotland’ in Transactions of the Dumfriesshire Galloway Natural History and Antiquarian Society 44, pp.57-80. Roe, F 1979. ‘Typology of Stone Implements with Shaftholes’ in Clough & Cummins, Stone Axe Studies Volume 2 pp.23-48. Roeder, C 1901. ‘Prehistoric and Subsequent Mining at Alderley Edge’ Transactions of the Lancashire and Cheshire Antiquarian Society 19, pp.77118. Roeder, C & Graves, F 1905. ‘Recent Archaeological Discoveries at Alderley Edge’ Transactions of the Lancashire and Cheshire Antiquarian Society 23, pp.17-19. Rohl, B & Needham, S 1998. The Circulation of Metal in the British Bronze Age: the application of lead isotope analysis. British Museum Occasional Paper Number 102. Rowlands, M 1971. ‘The Archaeological Interpretation of Prehistoric Metalworking’ in World Archaeology 3, pp.210-224. Rowlands, M 1976. The Production and Distribution of Metalwork in the Middle Bronze Age in Southern Britain. British Archaeological Reports 31. Rowley, G 1974. ‘Barrow at Gawsworth’ Cheshire Archaeological Bulletin 2, pp.25-26. Rowley, G 1977. ‘The Excavation of a Barrow at Woodhouse End, Gawsworth, Macclesfield’ Journal of the Chester Archaeological Society 60, pp. 1-34. Rowley, T 1972. The Shropshire Landscape. Hodder and Stoughton. Sahlins, M 1963. ‘Poor Man, Rich Man, Big Man, Chief: political types in Melanesia and Polynesia’ Comparative Studies in Society and History 5, pp.285-303. Sainter, J 1878 (1999). “Scientific Rambles Around Macclesfield”. The Silk Press. Savory, H 1960. ‘Beaker Cist near Brymbo (Denb)’ Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies XVIII, pp.191-3. Schoenwetter, J 1982. ‘Environmental Archaeology of the Peckforton Hills’ Cheshire Archaeological Bulletin 8 pp.10-11. Schofield, A 1991. Interpreting Artefact Scatters: contributions to ploughzone archaeology. Oxbow Monograph 4. Skeates, R 1995. ‘Animate Objects: a biography of prehistoric ‘axe-amulets’ in the central Mediterranean region’ Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 61, pp.279-301. Sherratt, A 1976. ‘Resources, Technology and Trade: an essay in early European metallurgy’ in Sieveking, G, Longworth, I & Wilson, K (eds) Problems in Economic and Social Archaeology Duckworth, pp.557-581. 139

and Hot Stone Technology Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council, pp.27-30. Whimster, R 1989. The Emerging Past: Air Photography and the Buried Landscape. RCHM(E). Williams, R 1985. ‘Aerial Archaeology in Cheshire during 1984’ Chester Archaeological Bulletin 10, pp.11-18. Willies, L & Willies, S 1989. ‘A Grooved Stone Hammer from Alderley Edge’ Bulletin of the Peak District Mines Historical Society 10(5), pp.289-290. Wilson, D 1979. ‘Lower Withington’ Cheshire Archaeological Bulletin 6 , pp.66-68. Wilson, D 1981. ‘Withington’ Current Archaeology 76 pp.155-157. Wilson, D 1988. ‘Excavation of a Round Barrow at Twemlow, Cheshire’ Archaeological Journal 145, pp.397-8 Woodward, A 2000. British Barrows: a matter of life and death. Tempus. Wymer, J 1966. Barrow Excavations in Norfolk 198488. East Anglian Archaeology Report No. 77. Wymer, J & Healy, F 1996. ‘Neolithic and Bronze Age Activity and Settlement at Longham and Beeston with Wittering’ in Wymer, J. Barrow Excavations in Norfolk 1984-88. East Anglian Archaeology Report No. 77, pp.28-53. Young, R 1987. ‘Barrows, Clearance and Land use: some suggestions from the north-east of England’ Landscape History 9 pp.27-33. Young, R & Humphries, J 1999. ‘Flint Use in England After the Bronze Age: time for a re-evaluation?’ Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 65, pp.231-242. Young, R & Simmonds, T 1995. ‘Marginality and the Nature of Later Prehistoric Upland Settlement in the North of England’ Landscape History 17 pp.5-16. Young, R & Simmonds, T 1999. ‘Debating Marginality: Archaeologists on the Edge?’ in Bruck & Goodman (eds), Making Places in the Prehistoric World pp.198-213.

Turner, J 1964. ‘The Anthropogenic Factor in Vegetational History. I. Tregaron and Whixall Mosses’ New Phytologist 63, pp.73-90. Turner, R 1983. ‘Standing Stone’ Cheshire Archaeological Bulletin 9, p.75. Turner, R 1985. ‘The Bridgemere Bronze Hoard’ Cheshire Archaeological Bulletin 10, pp.7-10. Turner, R & Scaife, R 1995. Bog Bodies. New Discoveries and New Perspectives. British Museum Press. Turner, R & Penney, S 1996. ‘Three Bog Bodies from Whixall Moss, Shropshire’ Transactions of the Shropshire Archaeology and History Society LXXI, pp.1-9. Twigger, S 1988. Late Holocene Paleoecology and Environmental Archaeology of Six Lowland Lakes and Bogs in North Shropshire. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Southampton. Tylecote, R 1986. The Prehistory of Metallurgy in the British Isles’ The Institute of Metals, London. Van Gennep, A 1960. The Rites of Passage. University of Chicago Press. Varley, W 1932. ‘Early Man in the Cheshire Plain’ Transactions of Chester and North Wales Architectural, Archaeological and Historic Society XXIX pp.50-65. Varley, W 1948. ‘Hillforts of the Welsh Marches’ Archaeological Journal CV Varley, W 1950. ‘Excavations of the Castle Ditch, Eddisbury 1935-1938’ Transactions of the Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire 102 pp.1-62. Varley, W 1964. Cheshire Before the Romans. Cheshire Community Council. Varley, W& Jackson, J 1940. Prehistoric Cheshire. Cheshire Rural Community Council. Vint, J 1992. ‘The Congleton Late Bronze Age Hoard’ Cheshire Past 1, pp.9. Watson, M 1991. ‘Ring Ditches of the Upper Severn Valley’ Transactions of the Shropshire Archaeology and History Society LXVII, pp.914. Watson, M 1996. ‘A Stone Axe Hammer from Bearstone, Shropshire’ Transactions of the Shropshire Archaeology and History Society LXXI, pp.144-146. Watson, M & Musson, C 1993. Shropshire from the Air: Man and the Landscape. Shropshire Books. Warrilow, W, Owen, G & Britnell, W 1986. ‘Eight Ring Ditches at Four Crosses, Llandisilio, Powys, 1981-85’ Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 52, pp.31-87. Warrington, G 1981. ‘The Copper Mines of Alderley Edge and Mottram St Andrew, Cheshire’ Journal of the Chester Archaeological Society 64, pp.47-73. Wedd, C, Smith, B, Simmonds, W& Wray, D 1923. The Geology of Liverpool. Memoir of the Geological Survey of the United Kingdom. Welch, C 1991. ‘Burnt Mounds in Staffordshire’ in Hodder, M & Barfield, L (eds) Burnt Mounds 140