The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe: The Evidence of Development-Led Fieldwork 9780191634710, 9780199659777

Citation preview

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/9/2015, SPi

T H E LA T E R P R E H I S T O R Y O F N O R T H - W E S T EU R O P E

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/9/2015, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe The Evidence of Development-Led Fieldwork

R I C H A R D B R A D L E Y , CO L I N H A S E L G R O V E , M A R C V A N D E R L I N D E N , A N D L E O WE B L E Y

1

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/9/2015, SPi

3

Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, United Kingdom Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries # Richard Bradley, Colin Haselgrove, Marc Vander Linden, and Leo Webley 2016 The moral rights of the authors have been asserted First Edition published in 2016 Impression: 1 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Control Number: 2015933889 ISBN 978–0–19–965977–7 Printed and bound by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third party website referenced in this work.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/9/2015, SPi

Preface The title of the book sets out its geographical and chronological focus, but the subtitle is important, too. This account of the later prehistory of north-west Europe makes particular use of the results of fieldwork carried out since the Valletta Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage which was signed in 1992. Its implementation led to a rapid escalation in the number and scale of archaeological field projects, most of them undertaken in advance of commercial development. Although their character differs from one region to another, they share the common feature that they allow the archaeological record to be studied on a scale that had only rarely been possible before. Paradoxically, the increasing scale of this activity has meant that the outcomes of these projects remain largely unpublished and much of the new information is little known. At the same time the use of this new source of evidence sets certain constraints on the character of any work of synthesis. Much more information is available on settlements, monuments, and the ancient landscape than ever before, but it means that less attention has been devoted to such established fields of study as the chronology and classification of artefacts. That is why they do not figure prominently here. The amount of new material varies between different regions and often between different periods. For that reason some of the later chapters are longer than the others—recent fieldwork has uncovered more sites of later Bronze Age and Iron Age dates than those of earlier periods. The same limitation applies to the choice of illustrations, which are not divided equally between successive chapters. Although the book seeks to integrate the findings of recent projects with established chronologies in the study area, particular use has been made of absolute dating methods. Wherever possible, the time scale employed in the text is expressed in calibrated radiocarbon years BC. Research for the project involved systematically collating information on excavations of prehistoric sites in Continental north-west Europe carried out since the late 1990s. This information was recorded in a simple database, which can be accessed online via the Archaeology Data Service (). In the text, sites recorded in the database are denoted by italics. These are also listed in the Appendix at the end of the book, which provides bibliographic references and the database record number for each site.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/9/2015, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/9/2015, SPi

Acknowledgements Thanks are due to the Leverhulme Trust which funded the project and the preparation of the book, and Hilary O’Shea and her colleagues at Oxford University Press for their help with its publication. We must also thank Nathan Schlanger and Mark Guillon of Inrap for their contribution to a meeting setting up the project. We are grateful to the administrative staff of Reading and Leicester Universities for ensuring its smooth running. Leo Webley and Marc Vander Linden, who collected the material drawn on in the text, wish to thank the following people for providing access to data and discussing the prehistory of north-west Europe: Michael Rind, Christoph Grünewald, and staff of Archäologie für Westfalen; Jürgen Kunow, Udo Geilenbrügge, and staff of the Amt für Bodendenkmalpflege im Rheinland; Henning Haßmann and staff of the Niedersächsische Landesamt für Denkmalpflege; Dieter Bischop and staff of Landesarchäologie Bremen; Jochen Brandt and staff of the Helms-Museum, Harburg; Hans Nortmann and staff of the Landesamt für Denkmalpflege Rheinland-Pfalz, Trier; Axel von Berg and staff of the Landesamt für Denkmalpflege Rheinland-Pfalz, Koblenz; Sabine Schade-Lindig and staff of the Landesamt für Denkmalpflege Hessen, Wiesbaden; Christa Meiborg and staff of the Landesamt für Denkmalpflege Hessen, Außenstelle Marburg; Sönke Hartz and staff of the SchleswigHolsteinische Landesmuseum; staff of the Archäologische Landesamt Schleswig-Holstein; Friedrich Lüth, David Wigg-Wolf, and staff of the Römisch-Germanische Kommission, Frankfurt; Mads Kähler Holst and Mette Løvschal, Aarhus University; Jos Deeben, Liesbeth Theunissen, and staff of the Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed, Amersfoort; Harry Fokkens, Quentin Bourgeois, David Fontijn, Karsten Wentink, and colleagues, Universiteit Leiden; Wilfried Hessing, Vestigia; Stijn Arnoldussen, Universiteit Groningen; Werner Wouters, Raf Ribbens, Marc Debie, and staff of the Vlaamse Instituut for Onroerend Erfgoed; Eugène Warmenbol, Université Libre de Bruxelles; staff of the Vakgroep Archeologie, Universiteit Gent; François Valotteau and staff of the Musée National d’Histoire et d’Art, Luxembourg; Mark Guillon, Cyril Marcigny, and colleagues at Inrap; Mike Ilett and colleagues, CNRS; Stéphane Deschamps and staff of the Service Régional d’Archéologie, Rennes; staff of the Service Régional d’Archéologie, Poitiers; Emmanuelle Leroy-Langevin, Direction Archéologique du Douaisis; Alison Sheridan, National Museum of Scotland; Tim Phillips, formerly of the Archaeology Department of Reading University. We would also like to thank the participants in a workshop held at Leicester University to discuss the scope of the project and the character of development-led archaeology in different parts of the study area. They

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/9/2015, SPi

viii

Acknowledgements

are: Jos Bazelmans, Tim Champion, Jean-Luc Collart, Wim De Clercq, Andrew Fitzpatrick, Mark Guillon, Susanne Heun, Jonathan Last, Martin Mikkelsen, Nathan Schlanger, Deirdre O’Sullivan, Thomas Otten, John Pind, Andrea Smith, Timothy Taylor, Roger Thomas, and Sally Worrell. Lastly, we are very grateful to Courtney Nimura for checking the text and references, which she did with great efficiency. Further contributions were made by Pam Lowther. The index was compiled by Pam Scholefield. All the illustrations were designed and drawn especially for this volume by Aaron Watson and we must thank him for his customary efficiency and eye for detail.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/9/2015, SPi

Contents List of Figures List of Tables

xiii xix

1. Setting the Scene An Archaeology of Europe? The Changing Scale of European Archaeology The Question of Scale in British and Irish Archaeology The Impact of Development-Led Archaeology Introducing the Project The Dataset Contemporary Archaeological Practice in North-West Europe and the Constitution of the Archaeological Record Development Pressures The Organization of Development-Led Archaeology Funding Fieldwork and Post-Excavation Practice Conclusion

1 1 5 7 10 12 17

2. Late Foragers and First Farmers (8000–3700 BC) Mesolithic Studies and Neolithic Studies The Last Foragers Inland Areas On the Coast Integration The Introduction of Farming: The Linearbandkeramik Culture New Configurations in Germany and France (4900–3700 BC) The First Monumental Cemeteries in the Paris Basin The Development of Enclosures The Development of Flint Mines The Adoption of Agriculture in North-West France The Adoption of Agriculture in Northern Germany, the Low Countries, and Denmark The Adoption of Agriculture in the British Isles The Direction of Change

39 39 45 46 48 52 55 58 62 64 66 67

3. Regional Monumental Landscapes (3700–2500 BC) A Second Generation of Neolithic Monuments The Histories of Funerary Monuments Long Mounds in Denmark and the British Isles Passage Graves in Ireland and Britain Passage Graves and Other Mortuary Monuments in Northern Europe

84 84 86 87 92 93

26 26 27 29 30 37

71 74 81

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/9/2015, SPi

x

Contents Later Chambered Tombs in France Later Chambered Tombs in Western Germany and the Low Countries The Demise of Megalithic Tombs and the Development of New Burial Rites The Histories of Enclosures Causewayed Enclosures in Britain and Ireland Causewayed Enclosures in Northern Europe Causewayed Enclosures in France Stone Circles and Henge Monuments in the British Isles Settlements Settlements and Great Houses in France and Belgium Settlements and Great Houses in the British Isles The Development of Long-Distance Networks Overview: Themes with Variations Entering a New World Corded Ware Settlements Corded Ware Burials

4. Barrow Landscapes Across the Channel (2500–1600 Introduction: Lives and Deaths The Bell Beaker Phase Mobility Metallurgy Bell Beaker Settlements Monuments and the Past Bell Beaker Mortuary Practices Overview Early Bronze Age Networks Mobility, Metallurgy, and Exchange Settlement Evidence Summary Early Bronze Age Funerary Practices Round Barrows and Ring-Ditches Round Barrows and Flat Graves Flat Cemeteries Summary The Shape of Things to Come

BC)

5. Changes in the Pattern of Settlement (1600–1100 BC) Introduction Settlement Settlement in the Low Countries and Northern Europe Settlement in Britain and Ireland Settlement in the Maritime Regions of Northern and Western France Settlement: An Overview

93 95 96 98 98 99 101 104 107 108 112 115 117 121 122 123 126 126 131 133 134 135 141 143 150 151 152 155 157 158 160 162 164 164 167 171 171 175 175 182 188 192

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/9/2015, SPi

Contents Treatment of the Dead Germany and Northern Europe The Low Countries and Neighbouring Areas Britain and Ireland North-Western and Western France The Dead: An Overview The Deposition of Metalwork Summary A New Attachment to Place

xi 195 195 198 199 201 203 205 209 210

6. The Expansion of Settlement (1100–250 BC) Introduction Settlement Hillforts Lines across the Landscape Living off the Land Production and Exchange Middens, Feasting, and Conspicuous Consumption Artefact Deposition Dealings with the Dead Late Bronze Age Cemeteries Earlier Iron Age Cemeteries Social Distinctions in Funerary Rites Human Remains in Settlements Human Remains in Natural Places Death and Personhood Material Culture and Regional Interactions Social Forms During the Early to Mid-First Millennium BC

213 213 216 227 233 236 238 239 241 246 246 250 252 254 255 257 258 259

7. Total Landscapes (250 BC to the Early Roman Period) Introduction Households and Rural Settlement Northern and North-Western France Western Germany and Southern Belgium The Longhouse Region of the North European Plain Britain and Ireland A More Ordered Landscape Central Places Summary Objects and Connections Ritual and Deposition Treatment of the Dead Social and Regional Trends in Burial Practices Summary The End of Prehistory

261 261 264 265 272 276 278 283 285 297 299 305 312 316 324 324

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/9/2015, SPi

xii

Contents

8. The Research in Retrospect Potentials and Limitations Is There a Prehistory of North-West Europe? Housing the Living and the Dead Demography and Climate The Prehistory of European Society

328 328 331 334 336 340

Appendix: List of sites from the database cited in the text References Index

343 357 443

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/9/2015, SPi

List of Figures Figure 1.1. Large-scale development-led excavation: fieldwork to the south of Caen, Lower Normandy.

12

Figure 1.2. Map showing the area covered by the Later Prehistory of North-West Europe project, and its predecessor, the Prehistory of Britain and Ireland project.

14

Figure 1.3. Topography of north-west Europe.

15

Figure 1.4. Distribution of prehistoric sites recorded in the database. Sites recorded for the Prehistory of Britain and Ireland project are also shown.

18

Figure 1.5. Late Neolithic and early Bronze Age sites in the Netherlands recorded in the database, shown against registered barrows, and palaeotopography c.1500 BC.

19

Figure 1.6. Chronological distribution of sites in the database. Data are presented for all sites, settlement sites, and funerary sites respectively.

20

Figure 1.7. The chronological distribution of settlement sites in the database from different regions of north-west Europe.

22

Figure 1.8. Chronological distribution of funerary sites in the database from different regions of north-west Europe.

24

Figure 2.1. Sites recorded in the project database, 5500–4300/4000 BC. (A) Mesolithic and Linearbandkeramik sites. (B) Mesolithic and post-Linearbandkeramik sites.

40

Figure 2.2. Sites recorded in the project database and for the Prehistory of Britain and Ireland project, 4300/4000–3500 BC.

42

Figure 2.3. Palaeogeographic models for the changing coastlines of Britain and Ireland at 9000, 7000, and 5000 BC.

46

Figure 2.4. The relationship between Mesolithic sites in the Meuse valley and those at the sources of its tributaries.

48

Figure 2.5. A shell midden on the island of Oronsay, Scotland, associated with deposits of human bone.

51

Figure 2.6. LBK settlement, Bucy-le-Long–La Fosselle, Picardy.

57

Figure 2.7. Circular buildings from the Paris Basin, c.4600–4200 BC.

61

Figure 2.8. Middle Neolithic cemetery at Passy–La Sablonnière/Richebourg, Burgundy.

62

Figure 2.9. Middle Neolithic grave at Gurgy–Les Noisats, Burgundy.

63

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/9/2015, SPi

xiv

List of Figures

Figure 2.10. Settlement of the late fifth millennium BC at Betton–Pluvignon, Brittany.

68

Figure 2.11. Chambered tombs, a stone alignment, and le Grand Menhir Brisé at Locmariaquer, Brittany.

69

Figure 2.12. The four phases of Neolithic settlement of Britain and Ireland suggested by Alison Sheridan.

78

Figure 2.13. The settlement of Britain and Ireland according to Alasdair Whittle and colleagues.

79

Figure 3.1. Sites recorded in the database and for the Prehistory of Britain and Ireland project, 3500–2500 BC.

85

Figure 3.2. The structural sequence at Wayland’s Smithy long barrow, southern England.

90

Figure 3.3. Schematic plan showing the development of the burial monument at Rastorf, Schleswig-Holstein, during the late fourth millennium BC.

90

Figure 3.4. The causewayed enclosure at Maiden Castle crossed by a later bank barrow and similar enclosures at Etton and Fornham All Saints in relation to later cursus monuments.

91

Figure 3.5. Collective tomb at Remlingen, Lower Saxony, built c.3300–2900 BC.

96

Figure 3.6. Funerary pit at Reichstett–Rue Ampère, Alsace, containing a pig skeleton and the cremated remains of eleven people. Late fourth millennium BC.

98

Figure 3.7. Landscape setting of the Neolithic causewayed enclosure at Albersdorf, Schleswig-Holstein.

100

Figure 3.8. Late Neolithic enclosure at Basly–La Campagne, Lower Normandy.

102

Figure 3.9. Late Neolithic enclosure of Chenommet–Bellevue, Poitou-Charentes.

103

Figure 3.10. The structural sequence at Bryn Celli Ddu, Anglesey, Wales.

105

Figure 3.11. Outline plan of the Ring of Brodgar, Orkney, Scotland, showing groups of stones obtained from the same geological sources.

106

Figure 3.12. Comparative plans of the megalithic tomb at Kerlescan and two palisaded enclosures and associated buildings at Pléchâtel–La Hersonnais, Brittany.

110

Figure 3.13. Late Neolithic houses from northern France and Belgium.

111

Figure 3.14. Outline plans of timber circles in Britain and Ireland associated with Grooved Ware.

114

Figure 3.15. The timber halls at Crathes and Claish, Scotland.

115

Figure 3.16. Brande–Sjællandsvej, Jutland.

124

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/9/2015, SPi

List of Figures

xv

Figure 4.1. Sites recorded in the database and for the Prehistory of Britain and Ireland project, 2500–1500 BC.

127

Figure 4.2. The clusters of round barrows and ring-ditches on either side of the Strait of Dover.

128

Figure 4.3. Outline plans of an Irish wedge tomb (Clogherny Meenerrigal) and a Scottish Clava cairn.

130

Figure 4.4. The main distribution of Bell Beakers.

132

Figure 4.5. Settlement at Bejsebakken, Jutland, dated to c.2350–2000 BC.

137

Figure 4.6. Outline plan of the Beaker settlement associated with the Ross Island copper mines, Ireland.

138

Figure 4.7. Houses from Bell Beaker settlements at Beg ar Loued, Molène, Brittany, and Northton, Harris, Scotland.

139

Figure 4.8. Early Bronze Age settlement at Beauvoir-sur-Mer–Le Pontreau 2, Pays de la Loire.

141

Figure 4.9. Late Neolithic to early Bronze Age fish-weirs at Emmeloord, Netherlands.

142

Figure 4.10. Bell Beaker grave at Poitiers–La Folie, Poitou-Charentes.

146

Figure 4.11. Outline plans of the Beaker burials at Radley Barrow Hills, southern England, in relation to two earlier monuments on the same site.

147

Figure 4.12. Bell Beaker burial at Niersen, Netherlands.

149

Figure 4.13. Early Bronze Age ditched enclosures at Étaples–Mont Bagarre, Nord-Pas-de-Calais, and Lannion–Bel Air, Brittany.

157

Figure 4.14. Early Bronze Age building and pit-wells at Grossoeuvre–Viancourt, Upper Normandy. 158 Figure 4.15. Outline plan of the Gayhurst barrow in the English Midlands, and section of the central grave showing the evidence for successive deposits.

162

Figure 4.16. The Devil’s Jumps, a linear barrow cemetery on the South Downs, southern England.

163

Figure 4.17. Marolles-sur-Seine–Croix de la Mission, Île-de-France. Early and middle Bronze Age burials identified by radiocarbon dating.

165

Figure 4.18. Early Bronze Age burials in the Rhine valley in Alsace, with schematic representation of orientation and posture.

166

Figure 4.19. Bronze Age mortuary monuments around the Devil’s Quoits henge monument, Stanton Harcourt, upper Thames valley, southern England.

168

Figure 4.20. Field system, ring-ditch, and settlement, Saint-Vigor d’Ymonville–Les Sapinettes, Lower Normandy.

170

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/9/2015, SPi

xvi

List of Figures

Figure 5.1. Sites recorded in the database and for the Prehistory of Britain and Ireland project, 1600–1200/1100 BC.

172

Figure 5.2. House plans from different regions of north-west Europe.

176

Figure 5.3. Open settlement, Malt–Kongehøj, Jutland.

177

Figure 5.4. Settlement and fenced enclosure system at Zijderveld, Netherlands.

179

Figure 5.5. Part of the settlement and ditch system at Bovenkarspel–Het Valkje, Netherlands.

180

Figure 5.6. Part of the field system at Heathrow Airport, southern England.

183

Figure 5.7. Enclosed settlement, Knockhouse Lower, Ireland.

186

Figure 5.8. Large unenclosed settlement, Corrstown, Northern Ireland.

187

Figure 5.9. Enclosed settlement, Nonant–La Bergerie, Lower Normandy.

190

Figure 5.10. Relationship between enclosed settlements and funerary ring-ditches at Mondeville, Lower Normandy.

191

Figure 5.11. Distributions of field systems, roundhouses, and longhouses across north-west Europe.

193

Figure 5.12. Skelhøj barrow, Jutland, showing radial construction of mound.

197

Figure 5.13. Ritual site, Nijmegen–Waalsprong, southern Netherlands.

206

Figure 5.14. Deposition of metal artefacts in the Rhine at Roxheim, western Germany, during the Bronze Age and Iron Age.

207

Figure 6.1. Sites recorded in the database and for the Prehistory of Britain and Ireland project, 1200/1100–800 BC.

214

Figure 6.2. Sites recorded in the database and for the Prehistory of Britain and Ireland project, 800–250 BC.

215

Figure 6.3. Predominant house types in the late Bronze Age and Iron Age.

217

Figure 6.4. Malleville-sur-le-Bec–Buisson du Roui, Lower Normandy. Late Bronze Age landscape.

218

Figure 6.5. Top: Sainte-Croix-en-Plaine–Holzackerfeld, Alsace. Late Bronze Age settlement. Bottom: Sierentz–ZAC Hoell, Alsace. Settlement of the late sixth/early fifth centuries BC.

220

Figure 6.6. Late Bronze Age ringworks from Britain (top), northern France and Ireland (centre), and comparable enclosures from Germany and Jutland (bottom).

222

Figure 6.7. Early Iron Age palisaded enclosures in Champagne.

224

Figure 6.8. Enclosed settlement with roundhouse and rectangular buildings, sixth–fifth century BC, Courseulles-sur-Mer–La Fosse Touzé, Lower Normandy.

226

Figure 6.9. Main distributions of three different kinds of storage structures at Iron Age sites.

227

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/9/2015, SPi

List of Figures

xvii

Figure 6.10. Main distribution of hillforts during the Iron Age.

228

Figure 6.11. Late Bronze Age landscape around the hillfort at Watenstedt–Hünenburg, Lower Saxony.

229

Figure 6.12. Landscape around the Glauberg hillfort, Hesse, showing surrounding settlements, linear earthworks, and funerary sites.

232

Figure 6.13. Bronze Age landscape of the Hague peninsula, Lower Normandy.

234

Figure 6.14. Areas of salt production during the Iron Age.

237

Figure 6.15. Predominant patterns of metalwork deposition during the eighth–seventh centuries BC.

243

Figure 6.16. Agneaux–Bellevue, Lower Normandy. Two axe-head hoards of the seventh century BC at the periphery of a cemetery founded in the middle Bronze Age.

244

Figure 6.17. Circular enclosure at Lismullin, Co. Meath, Ireland, fifth–fourth centuries BC.

245

Figure 6.18. Cemeteries and settlement at Sittard–Hoogveld, Netherlands.

248

Figure 6.19. Late Bronze Age cemetery at Saumeray–Les Pâtures/Moulin de l’Aulne, Centre.

249

Figure 6.20. Main distributions of bog bodies and storage-pit burials.

256

Figure 7.1. Sites recorded in the database and for the Prehistory of Britain and Ireland project, 250–1 BC.

263

Figure 7.2. Variations in tree pollen during the Iron Age in northern France.

264

Figure 7.3. Rural settlement densities in different regions of northern France from Hallstatt D to the start of the Gallo-Roman period.

266

Figure 7.4. (A) Complex of late Iron Age and Gallo-Roman settlements, field boundaries, and trackways around Croixrault–l’Aérodrome, Picardy. (B) Interpretation of La Tène C2/D1 settlement layout.

269

Figure 7.5. Plans of late Iron Age bipartite enclosures in Pays de la Loire and Brittany.

271

Figure 7.6. Plan of La Tène D ‘aristocratic’ residential complex at Batilly-en-Gâtinais, Centre.

273

Figure 7.7. Plan of late Iron Age settlement and polygonal enclosure at Vilich–Müldorf, Rhineland.

275

Figure 7.8. Weert–Kampershoek, Laarderweg subsite, Netherlands. Plan of enclosure (c.200–50 BC) and settlement (c.50 BC–AD 250).

277

Figure 7.9. Late Iron Age enclosed settlement at Lyngsmose, Jutland, in its later phase.

279

Figure 7.10. Late Iron Age brick-work fields at Rossington, South Yorkshire, northern England, with overlying Roman roads and fort.

282

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/9/2015, SPi

xviii

List of Figures

Figure 7.11. Plan of the agglomerated settlement at Nanterre, Île-de-France.

288

Figure 7.12. Plan of the enclosed agglomerated settlement at Ymonville–Les Hyèbles, Centre.

290

Figure 7.13. Plan of the Titelberg, Luxembourg.

293

Figure 7.14. Proportions of Dressel 1A and 1B amphora finds from different regions of western and eastern France.

302

Figure 7.15. Plan of late Iron Age compound with roundhouses on the coast at Urville-Nacqueville, Lower Normandy.

304

Figure 7.16. Plans of the enclosed sanctuaries at Fesques, Upper Normandy, and Nanteuil-sur-Aisne, Champagne-Ardenne.

306

Figure 7.17. Plan of the circular shine at Reinheim–Horres, Saarland, showing postholes containing Iron Age potin coin finds.

308

Figure 7.18. Plans of later Iron Age rectilinear cult enclosures at Kontich–Alfsberg and Hannut–Trommeveld, Belgium.

310

Figure 7.19. Map showing the main distributions of cremation and inhumation burial practices during the first century BC.

313

Figure 7.20. Brisley Farm, Kent, southern England. Plan of part of the settlement during the early first century AD, showing ‘warrior’ inhumation burial BC2.

315

Figure 7.21. Chronological development of monuments and cremation grave types in western Picardy.

318

Figure 7.22. Plan of the late Iron Age cemetery at Hordain–La Fosse à Loups, Nord-Pas-de-Calais.

319

Figure 7.23. Selected late Iron Age cemetery enclosures in Champagne-Ardenne.

321

Figure 8.1. House sizes in the loess belt of western Continental Europe during different periods of prehistory.

336

Figure 8.2. Numbers of crop plants cultivated in the loess belt of western Continental Europe during different periods of prehistory.

338

Figure 8.3. Demoule’s interpretation of variations in social hierarchy through prehistory in Continental north-west Europe.

340

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/9/2015, SPi

List of Tables Table 1.1. Summary of models for delivering development-led archaeology in north-west Europe.

28

Table 1.2. Summary of conventional chronological schemes used in different regions of north-west Europe, c.5500–1500 BC (corresponding to Chapters 2–4).

34

Table 1.3. Summary of conventional chronological schemes used in different regions of north-west Europe, c.1500–1 BC (corresponding to Chapters 5–7).

36

Table 7.1. Chronology of the later Iron Age in different regions of north-west Europe.

262

Table 7.2. Features of different kinds of ‘central place’ in late Iron Age north-west Europe.

298

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/9/2015, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 31/8/2015, SPi

1 Setting the Scene AN A RC HAEOLOGY OF E UROPE? In 2008, the Danish prehistorian Kristian Kristiansen considered the need for an ‘archaeology of Europe’. The article was one of a series in which he discussed intellectual developments in the discipline. His argument is directly relevant to our project. Kristiansen (2008) identified a series of changes in the practice of archaeology and, in particular, in the scale at which research has been conducted. Such changes reflected broader theoretical trends in the discipline. There was the alternation between ‘rational’ and ‘romantic’ approaches that had been identified by Andrew Sherratt (1997). It operated on a twenty-five to thirtyyear cycle and extended from the nineteenth century to the present day. There was a political cycle in which prehistoric archaeology was influenced to varying extents by broader developments in contemporary society. In particular, it was coloured by different conceptions of cultural heritage, beginning with the rise of the nation-state. Finally, there was a funding cycle to which these features were closely related. At different times research was confined within modern borders, or scholars were encouraged to work in larger teams and over a more extensive area. All these trends could be illustrated by the scope of regional, national, and international journals and by the languages in which the results of the research were published. Such issues were particularly relevant to intellectual history. Kristiansen suggested that the adoption of particular theoretical perspectives was closely related to that question of scale. Approaches which looked for general patterns among prehistoric societies tended to discuss large regions, as might be expected of projects which adopted a comparative approach. They were characterized by rationalism, and in Britain, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia were influenced by American processual archaeology. At the same time the emphasis on large-scale regularities existed in a certain tension with approaches coloured by romanticism. They showed a greater concern with the practices and beliefs of individual communities and are sometimes described as post-processual. Because these different approaches were favoured at different times, it was hard

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 31/8/2015, SPi

2

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

to bring them into alignment, so that the work of one generation might be geographically extensive, while its successors would focus on a single region. In Kristiansen’s opinion such changes in the scale and ambition of research also illustrate an oscillation between periods of innovation and phases of consolidation in the development of the discipline. These variations had more than one source and were not simply the outcome of exchanges between archaeologists and scholars in other fields. Two of the dominant trends in European archaeology were influenced by communism and National Socialism respectively. Both had profound consequences for the scale on which research was conducted, and for the contacts between prehistorians working in different countries. In one sense Nazi archaeology was profoundly theoretical, for its adherents were seeking evidence for an Indo-Aryan people who had settled large parts of the Continent (Legendre et al. 2007). That approach was not confined to Germany but extended into central and northern Europe as well as France (Olivier 2012). Archaeology provided an intellectual justification for conquest, and prehistorians found themselves caught up in the process. Those employed in the Soviet bloc faced similar pressures. Although their work was not as closely supervised, for the most part it was constrained by Marxist ideology. For Heinrich Härke (2002), the emphasis on cataloguing and description that characterizes much contemporary research in Middle Europe was a reaction against theories with such drastic political implications. In that case it is ironic that the most influential prehistorian of the twentieth century—Gordon Childe—began as a follower of Gustav Kossinna whose work was to influence Nazi archaeology. In later life Childe disowned his early book The Aryans (1926) and adopted a Marxist framework for his studies of the ancient world. Indeed, his mature work was an attempt to assert European unity as it came under threat before and after the Second World War. A less explicit change happened in British archaeology and provides the starting point for the project presented here. Until the 1960s many prehistorians shared an international outlook. From the time of pioneers like John Lubbock and John Evans they had travelled widely and contributed to meetings of scholars who came from most parts of Europe. Their successors, who were among the first prehistorians employed by universities in Britain— people such as Gordon Childe, Stuart Piggott, Grahame Clark, and Christopher Hawkes—studied the prehistory of an entire continent, and wrote books with such titles as The Dawn of European Civilization, Ancient Europe, Prehistoric Europe: the Economic Basis, and The Prehistoric Foundations of Europe. They cited research in many different languages. Not all their articles were written in English, and some of these scholars became involved in fieldwork outside the British Isles. That was not so true of their successors. Of course, there were researchers who continued to work in the same ways as before, but many more focused on

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 31/8/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

3

Britain or Ireland and paid less attention to the archaeology of Continental Europe. From the 1970s they wrote almost exclusively in English and made fewer attempts to acquaint themselves with the publications of colleagues in other countries. Their increasing insularity reflects the politics of the post-war period. The fact that Britain was not invaded between 1939 and 1945 made it seem different from other nations. Today the same ambivalence affects its attitude to the European Union. The perspectives of British researchers were also influenced by the increasing use of English as an international language. This change of scale illustrates the cycle described by Kristiansen. It can be identified in other European countries and was accompanied by the concern with description and documentation that Anthony Harding (2009) identifies as one of the characteristics of archaeology in Middle Europe. The best illustration is the prestigious German series Prähistorische Bronzefunde which has the aim of cataloguing and illustrating all the metalwork of the Bronze Age. The individual volumes are organized regionally and also by artefact type, but only when hoards are considered as a source of chronological information are different types of object treated together. The result is that the archaeological record is broken up and the relevant material is reviewed according to national boundaries. Having said this, it is right to acknowledge that some of the most recent volumes have been more ambitious. The publication of archaeological research is fragmented in other ways. There is an increasing number of local journals. Kristiansen’s review suggests that approximately 400 periodicals are concerned with aspects of European archaeology, but only thirty of them feature research that transcends the individual region. Just forty-seven are truly international in their scope. To some extent their quantity reflects the pace of discovery during recent years, but it also illustrates the discrepancy between the limited scale on which most projects are conceived and the larger ambitions of contemporary archaeology. This distinction is reflected by the choice of language in which to publish. It reveals both the ambitions and the limitations of individual projects. A good example is a review article that appeared in 2005 in the American Journal of Archaeological Research. Its title was ‘European Regional Studies: A Coming of Age?’ (Galaty 2005). The paper discussed the evidence for early settlement throughout the Continent. At first sight it seemed to be comprehensive, for its bibliography listed no fewer than 390 publications. On closer examination, however, just five of them were written in French, and three more were in Hungarian. All the others (98 per cent) were in English. It meant that many potential contributions were ignored. This problem was discussed in Kristiansen’s article. On one hand, archaeologists working in smaller nations may feel obliged to write in an international language so they can reach a wider audience. On the other, they may be encouraged to publish in their native tongue to emphasize the distinctiveness of local research traditions or to acknowledge the role of government agencies

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 31/8/2015, SPi

4

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

in promoting the work. The language in which research appears provides a subtle index of changing political and intellectual alignments. In Spain, for example, the importance of local loyalties means that the results of certain projects are published in Catalan or Galician rather than the national language. In Scandinavia research appears in Danish, Swedish, or Norwegian, but other publications are in English where a generation ago they might have been written in German. In this case the change of language reflects a growing identification with Anglo-American theoretical archaeology. These issues have led to some debate. Kristiansen draws on a study published in the regional journal Fennoscandia Archaeologica (Lang 2000). The author explains how archaeologists in the Baltic states feel obliged to write in English if they are to attract an international readership. His own paper was translated for this reason. It was followed by a series of commentaries by other people and then a summing up. All but one of these contributions were in English. The sole exception was a piece by a senior German scholar which he had written in his own language. It was not translated and was never mentioned in the final discussion. The same tensions are apparent in journals with a wider remit. Until ten years ago it was rare for the abstracts of individual papers to be provided in more than one language. Today the choice of which to use differs from one publication to another. Sometimes an additional procedure is adopted, and even the captions for the illustrations are translated. This is a useful aid to communication, yet in most cases such practices were adopted comparatively recently. The fragmentation of European archaeology is apparent in yet another way, for some of the research of prehistorians has influenced contemporary politics. Of course this was a feature of the work undertaken under National Socialism, but it is just as obvious on a smaller scale. The results of research have been used to emphasize local identities, sometimes at the expense of the nationstate. Alternatively, they have suggested that connections existed in the past between regions which are now in separate countries. Examples of these conflicts abound. Chris Scarre (1992) has shown how discussions about the origins of the earliest farmers in north-west France follow similar lines to modern debates concerning Breton identity. Did Neolithic communities settle there from a region close to Paris (the seat of the government today), or were they largely autonomous? Might they have been more closely related to people who had travelled along the Atlantic coastline? There have been some sharp disagreements. In the same way, there was a time when the design of Irish megalithic tombs assumed an even more explicit political dimension. One school of thought associated these structures with stone monuments in Britain—the source of the Protestant settlement of Ulster—whilst their opponents favoured an origin in western France which avoided any link with the neighbouring island. It is no accident that the chief proponent of the first theory was Estyn Evans, who believed in the autonomy of Northern Ireland,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 31/8/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

5

while his main opponent was Rúaidhri De Valera, the son of the prime minister and later president of the Irish Republic (De Valera 1960; Stout 1996).

THE CHANGING SCALE OF EUROPEAN A R C H A EOLOG Y If the fragmentation of European archaeology is a feature of recent years, there have been attempts to redress it. They have gathered pace since the collapse of the communist bloc and the reunification of Germany. One was the formation in 1994 of the European Association of Archaeologists, which allowed scholars to meet to discuss themes of common interest in the same way as they had during the nineteenth and earlier twentieth centuries. Another was a series of exhibitions that emphasized the links between different parts of ancient Europe. One of the first was held in Venice in 1991. Its title could not have been more explicit: The Celts: The First Europe (Moscati et al. 1991). The same kind of thinking lay behind The Bronze Age: The First Golden Age of Europe, a sequence of thematic conferences which took place between 1994 and 1997 and sought to demonstrate the essential unity of societies in the past. It was accompanied by another exhibition, Gods and Heroes of the Bronze Age: Europe at the Time of Ulysses, which illustrated the connections between prehistoric communities across large parts of the Continent (Jensen 1999). In each case contemporary societies were expected to learn lessons from the past. Michael Dietler provides one of the best examples of this process in action. In 1994 he considered modern attitudes to the Celts (or the Gauls, as they are sometimes known in France). The available evidence is extremely limited, combining an unstable mixture of literary sources, artefacts, and linguistic evidence, but precisely the same features have supported three completely different perspectives on the past. For Breton nationalists, the Gauls were the original population of the country: the surviving members of a larger ethnic group in Atlantic Europe whose identities were suppressed by incursions of Romans and Franks. For the national government of France from the time of Napoleon III, the Gauls were the people who, led by Vercingetorix, resisted the Roman army. Their defiance provided an origin myth for the nation-state. For the founders of the European Economic Community, however, the Celts were the first people known by name to have occupied large areas of the Continent. That was the argument proposed by the exhibition in Venice. Virtually the same evidence was employed to support each of these incompatible claims. Recent research in Britain, and to some extent in Ireland, has taken a different

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 31/8/2015, SPi

6

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

course. Some writers have questioned whether the inhabitants of these islands shared a common ‘Celtic’ identity in the past (James 1999; Collis 2003). Their argument was not intended to emphasize the separateness of Britain from Continental Europe, but it may have discouraged insular researchers from engaging with the Iron Age archaeology of the mainland. There have been other attempts to create a distinctively European culture in modern times, through schemes which allow students and academics to move between universities and also through new programmes of research. Here an important development is the creation of the European Research Council, whose brief is to support ‘projects that cross disciplinary boundaries, pioneering ideas that address new and emerging fields and applications that introduce unconventional, innovative approaches’ (). So far the largest number of grants has been awarded for projects in the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and the Netherlands. Two of them illustrate the scale of this kind of research in archaeology. Both share a concern with the same period. One is called The Cultural Evolution of Neolithic Europe (). It applies evolutionary theory to the prehistory of Germany, France, the Alps, the Low Countries, Britain, and southern Scandinavia. It focuses on the relationship between population, climate, subsistence, and social interaction and extends from the period of the last hunter-gatherers to the beginning of the Bronze Age. The other has the title The Times of Their Lives and applies new statistical techniques for the treatment of radiocarbon dates to stratified sequences in Hungary, Serbia, Poland, Austria, Switzerland, Germany, France, Spain, and Malta (). Its aim is to provide a more accurate chronology. Both these projects are still in progress, but a recent publication, Organizing Bronze Age Societies (Earle and Kristiansen 2010), provides a model for international ventures of this kind. It compares the results of four different field projects, in Sweden, Denmark, Hungary, and Sicily, and looks at the similarities and differences between them in relation to a general model for the development of Bronze Age society. The project brought together participants from sixteen institutions and eight different countries. Together they considered the natural environment of the study areas, the evidence for settlement patterns, the structure of living sites, the character of households, subsistence, technology, and craft production. A development of a different kind was the Valletta Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage, a treaty of the Council of Europe signed in 1992 and subsequently ratified by most European nations (). This explicitly set out to establish common principles for the recording and preservation of cultural heritage. The result has been some convergence in the ways that archaeology is dealt with by planners in different countries across Europe, although significant variations remain even now.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 31/8/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

7

THE QUESTION OF S CALE IN BRITISH AND IRI S H ARCHAEOLOGY Until comparatively recently most of the prehistorians working in Britain and Ireland were content to investigate local material. They were encouraged to do so by the emphasis on the small scale advocated by post-processual archaeologists. Although they espoused a new theoretical framework, they were also influenced by the long-established idea that the British Isles would provide a self-contained study area. These islands were located on the outer margin of prehistoric Europe and cut off from the archaeology of the mainland. It was a theme that had influenced most twentieth-century prehistorians, whatever the scale on which they worked. They made other assumptions, too. The archaeology of these islands paid little attention to the importance of maritime transport. Rather than considering the sea routes connecting Britain and Ireland to the Continent, their work highlighted the movement of people over land. For example, Gordon Childe’s early account of prehistoric Europe emphasized the importance of the Danube and the Rhine (Childe 1925). The main contacts between Britain and the Continent were accordingly across the Strait of Dover and the southern part of the North Sea. That view has proved tenacious and features in a new account of the adoption of farming in the British Isles (Whittle et al. 2011). Irish archaeologists, on the other hand, paid more attention to contacts along the Atlantic coast. In a review of Christopher Hawkes’ book The Prehistoric Foundations of Europe to the Mycenaean Age published in 1940 Childe conceded that this element had been underemphasized in his own research, but his point was largely overlooked until Barry Cunliffe (2001) published Facing the Ocean sixty years later. Jon Henderson takes a similar approach to a later period in his book The Atlantic Iron Age: Settlement and Identity in the First Millennium BC (Henderson 2007). The dominance of terrestrial models is surprising as one of the most influential books written in the earlier twentieth century, Cyril Fox’s (1932) The Personality of Britain, had already considered the importance of prehistoric navigation. The source of the problem is an idea that has dominated British culture since the Elizabethan period: the island is a kind of fortress defending itself against the outer world. While prehistoric communities may have migrated from one part of the Continent to another, their arrival in Britain was usually described as an invasion. The assumption that Britain was settled by successive waves of immigrants characterized insular archaeology from Arthur Evans’ 1890 study of the Belgae whose migration was documented by Julius Caesar, to the various groups of Bell Beaker settlers postulated by David Clarke (1970) exactly eighty years later. It was easy to confuse the creation of a chronology with the process of writing history. Before the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 31/8/2015, SPi

8

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

adoption of radiocarbon dating, both depended on comparing insular material culture with artefacts and monuments in Continental Europe. By extension, their dates were estimated by comparison with the Mediterranean and ultimately with Egypt. These were perfectly proper procedures but the assumption that the British Isles were located on the outer edge of the Continent led insular prehistorians to modify this method to an unjustified extent. They assumed that developments which began on the mainland took a considerable time to be adopted here. To some extent that happened because ideas were slow to travel, but it was also because insular communities were reluctant to countenance new developments. A good illustration of the changing scale of research is a paper written by the Swedish scholar Oscar Montelius in 1908. His study of the chronology of the British Bronze Age was published in English by the Society of Antiquaries. Its scope was truly international, for it was just one of a series of chronological reviews that were to extend to Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, France, Italy, Greece, and Egypt. By comparing the metalwork found in hoards and graves he devised an absolute chronology based on the evidence of contacts between different regions. His account of the British and Irish material had three principal elements. Montelius proposed a new starting date for metalworking around 2400 BC and suggested that insular researchers should follow Continental usage in describing this phase as the ‘Copper Age’. He also suggested a date of 800 BC for the first appearance of iron and divided the insular sequence into five separate periods. All but one were of similar duration and lasted between 250 and 300 years. Within a few years his views had been rejected by British prehistorians, after which they were ignored. As a result his study is little known today. By the middle of the twentieth century a very different chronology had been devised. It was based on exactly the same method, but in this case the age of the earliest metallurgy had been lowered by 600 years and the adoption of iron was dated to 500 BC. The same discrepancy is evident between the dates proposed in 1908 and those favoured by two leading prehistorians, Jacquetta and Christopher Hawkes (1943), writing four decades later. Whilst they identified many of the same phenomena as their predecessor, the ages they assigned to them were between three and seven centuries later than Montelius’ estimates (Bradley 2013b). The use of radiocarbon shows that the 1908 version was substantially correct. The dates suggested for particular phases were never more than fifty to one hundred years adrift. It is clear that British scholars were unduly influenced by the notion that ideas took a long time to reach the offshore islands. In fact both Britain and Ireland must have been fully integrated into Bronze Age Europe. Insular chronologies were based on direct comparisons between the artefacts and structures found in different parts of Europe, but how should those

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 31/8/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

9

similarities be explained? Childe had emphasized the ways in which innovations might spread from one region to another, but British scholars were too often committed to a chronology based on sudden events. That was when communities in these islands came into contact with those on the mainland. According to Hawkes and his contemporaries the insular sequence was punctuated by a series of invasions. In 1948 the Council for British Archaeology published a synthesis of what was known at the time (Hawkes and Piggott 1948). It was intended not only as a definitive statement but also as a basis for research. The narrative is punctuated by waves of immigrants bringing new kinds of metalwork and pottery. The process started in the Neolithic period and soon gathered pace. In the eight pages devoted to the Bronze Age the reader encounters four different groups of ‘Beaker folk’, and ‘invaders centred in Wessex’. They are followed by still more incomers: ‘settlers from northern France’; ‘invaders from Holland and . . . the Lower Rhine’; invaders ‘from the West Alpine region’; . . . [and others] ‘from the north-western fringe of the Hallstatt civilization’. The same applies to the chapter on Iron Age archaeology. Again it was structured around a pseudo-historical narrative, which was taken as given from the outset. Many of the excavations undertaken in the 1930s and 1940s took place on the defences of hillforts, for here it was possible to recover a stratified sequence of artefacts. This was a perfectly sensible procedure, and one that achieved some of its aims, but it happened at a price, for it was assumed that the successive phases identified in hillfort architecture registered specific historical events—they were the defences built against invaders. As a result the new chronology became entangled in a specific interpretation, which postulated a series of incursions from Continental Europe, or from one part of Britain to another. The accepted account of this period was based on a circular argument. In the end the ‘invasion hypothesis’ was questioned by Grahame Clark (1966) who was unhappy with the logic by which some of the invasions had been postulated. In other cases he called into question the empirical basis for this interpretation. His paper had an enormous influence, but it has proved to be both positive and negative. The positive feature is that he called for a more disciplined interpretation of contacts between the offshore islands and the Continent. The negative aspect is that British scholars felt less inclined to consider evidence from other parts of Europe. What resulted was a new insularity. When Clark was writing in 1966 he accepted without any argument that Britain was settled from overseas at the beginning of the Neolithic period and again when the first metalwork appeared. By the 1990s both these ideas had been questioned and researchers were encouraged to think in terms of cultural continuity and local developments. To a large extent interpretations of the past were contained within national boundaries.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 31/8/2015, SPi

10

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

THE IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT-LED ARCHAEOLOGY Shifting theoretical trends and ideological and political contexts have not been the only factors shaping perspectives on European prehistory. Changes in the evidence base have also had a crucial impact. One of the most important developments of the past few decades has been the massive growth in data produced by ‘development-led’ or ‘preventive’ fieldwork across much of Europe. In some respects this has improved the prospects for a ‘prehistory of Europe’, as it provides new possibilities for comparing the evidence from different regions. On the other hand, the organization of development-led archaeology requires those involved in it to take a national or more local perspective (Kristiansen 2008). The sheer quantities of new data—and difficulties in accessing them—can also discourage wider ranging syntheses. Modern European development-led archaeology has its roots in earlier traditions of ‘rescue’ excavation. Isolated examples of rescue fieldwork occurred as early as the nineteenth century, for example an Iron Age and GalloRoman cemetery excavated in 1878 at Nogent-sur-Seine in eastern France, due to railway construction (Vanmoerkerke 2011). An important breakthrough was the large-scale excavation of the early Neolithic settlement at KölnLindenthal in western Germany, executed in 1929–1934, initially due to the threat posed by the landscaping of a park (Buttler and Haberey 1936). A further innovation in Germany during the late 1930s was the application of trial trench evaluation along the routes of new motorways. This led to the discovery of many new sites such as a late Neolithic settlement with small timber houses at Ochtendung (Vanmoerkerke 2011, 6–7). Unfortunately, it would be decades before similar practices were applied elsewhere. In Britain, the building of military sites just before and during the Second World War led to a series of early state-funded rescue excavations led by W. F. Grimes and others (O’Neil 1948; Grimes 1960; Butcher and Garwood 1994). Reconstruction and development in the post-war decades drove a growth in rescue excavation across much of north-west Europe, variously carried out by national or local heritage bodies, museums, universities, or amateur groups. While much useful evidence was recovered, the shortcomings of the ‘rescue’ approach soon became plain. A reliance on limited public funds or voluntary donations meant that resources were insufficient to keep up with the pace of development. Excavations were often hasty and carried out in difficult working conditions, taking place in a brief window before the start of the development work or even during the groundworks themselves. Furthermore, only those sites already known to exist, or recognized and reported during the development work, could be investigated; the far greater numbers of threatened but unrecognized sites were destroyed without

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 31/8/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

11

record. There was also often no provision for funding post-excavation analysis and publication. The first concerted moves away from purely reactive rescue archaeology and towards modern forms of development-led archaeology took place during the 1980s in some countries, including Britain and France. This involved greater integration of archaeology into the planning process, so that the presence of archaeological remains within a proposed development area could be identified at an early stage—usually through some form of field evaluation—and steps taken either to preserve them in situ or mitigate their loss through excavation and recording. It also involved increasing application of the ‘polluter pays’ principle, with the developer, whether a private company or a branch of the state, held responsible for funding any necessary archaeological work. These principles spread more widely following their inclusion in the 1992 Valletta Convention. As a result of these changes, development-led archaeology has expanded rapidly over the past two decades and now accounts for the large majority of field projects in north-west Europe (Bozóki-Ernyey 2007; Demoule 2007; 2012; Webley et al. 2012). While there has been some reduction in activity since 2007 due to the global economic crisis (Schlanger and Aitchison 2010), levels of work remain much higher than they were before the 1990s. The massive growth in the amount of fieldwork taking place has resulted in dramatic changes to the character of the archaeological record. Although prehistoric archaeology developed over about 150 years, most of the available material has been acquired during the last twenty-five years. This has had an unprecedented impact on understandings of the past. Such developments have been both exciting and troubling. The excitement comes from the fact that new kinds of ancient features have been discovered, and structures of kinds that were already familiar can be set in a wider context. Excavation has taken place in regions in which little had been done before, helping to free archaeologists from some of the biases inherent in the work of earlier generations of researchers, who often focused disproportionately on particular regions, periods, or site types. Even more importantly, largescale excavations in advance of major construction projects or quarrying have allowed ancient landscapes to be revealed on an unprecedented scale (Fig. 1.1). The sheer quantity of work means that for the first time it is possible to discern broad trends in the frequency of settlements and cemeteries and to compare them between different periods and regions. The recent expansion of field archaeology has also led to dismay. Few of the orthodoxies on which twentieth-century syntheses had been based have passed the test of time, and most need reappraisal. It posed a special problem because responsibility for major projects has often shifted from academic institutions to field archaeologists and heritage managers, with the result that those charged with teaching and research have found it difficult to keep abreast of the new developments. In some cases they have not attempted to do

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 31/8/2015, SPi

12

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

Fig. 1.1. Large-scale development-led excavation: fieldwork to the south of Caen, Lower Normandy. Information from Van den Bossche and Marcigny 2011.

so, taking the view that fieldwork undertaken with commercial funding must necessarily be of a low standard, even though the publications arising from the new regime do not support that contention.

IN TRODUCING THE PROJECT By the 1990s, if not before, research in Britain and Ireland was losing touch with the results of new excavations. It was obvious that the only way of preparing an up-to-date synthesis of the prehistoric archaeology of these islands would be to consult the people responsible for development-led fieldwork and to use the results of their projects. That meant that the research had to be based on some unfamiliar sources, in particular the internal ‘grey literature’ reports prepared for the organizations funding the excavations, and for the managers responsible for implementing the principles of the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 31/8/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

13

Valetta Convention. The results of this enquiry were published seven years ago (Bradley 2007) and already need to be revised. To some extent a new version is offered here, but the process of preparing the 2007 book raised a problem of much greater significance. Just as the archaeologies of Britain and Ireland showed unexpected similarities and contrasts, they needed to be placed in a wider geographical setting. That was not possible at the time, but even then it was apparent that the results of Continental fieldwork were resulting in equally significant changes to the character of the archaeological record. As more was discovered about the prehistory of northern France, the Low Countries, and north-western Germany it was no longer possible to maintain that insular archaeology could be studied on its own terms. The results of the new work meant that any notion that Britain and Ireland were isolated from wider developments had to be abandoned. Unfortunately, that work was little known and its results were comparatively inaccessible. As a result the Continental background to British and Irish prehistory was discussed on the basis of books and articles which were often out of date. The problem was difficult to remedy because in many parts of Continental Europe projects had become much too large for conventional publication to be feasible. Commercial pressures also dictated that new fieldwork often took precedence over the analysis of older projects. It meant that the results of this activity remained virtually unknown to researchers working in other regions and had little influence on their understandings of the past. It was particularly worrying as the scale of this fieldwork meant that entire settlements and landscapes were being examined in a way that had rarely happened before. That problem was shared with archaeology in the British Isles. In order to overcome that obstacle, a new project was necessary to study the results of development-led archaeology on the near Continent alongside those already obtained in Britain and Ireland. How large a region should be studied for this purpose, and which periods should be considered? The second question was the easier one to answer. The starting point for this account is the sixth millennium BC when the first farming communities were established in parts of Continental north-west Europe, and Britain had been separated from the mainland for at least a millennium. The book concludes with the Roman conquests of the first century BC to first century AD that brought much of north-west Europe into a new kind of super-regional system. The same time span was considered in the Prehistory of Britain and Ireland. The research set out to investigate the relationship between the British Isles and the area described as the ‘near Continent’. For the purposes of this account it can be characterized as the region running from the Loire to the lower Elbe, extending south-eastwards as far as Alsace (Figs. 1.2 and 1.3). It incorporates some, or all, of the modern countries of France, Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands, and takes in the entire area within a

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 31/8/2015, SPi

14

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

Fig. 1.2. Map showing the area covered by the Later Prehistory of North-West Europe project, and its predecessor, the Prehistory of Britain and Ireland project.

radius of approximately 400 kilometres from the coastlines of southern and eastern England. This particular area was selected because it was already known that its archaeology shared certain features with that of Britain and Ireland, although the character of such relationships was rarely well defined

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 31/8/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

15

Fig. 1.3. Topography of north-west Europe.

and often depended on similarities between the artefacts found there. It has not been chosen on any grounds of geographical determinism or because its components form ‘natural regions’. Beyond this core area, account has also been taken of the results of recent investigations in Jutland. They provide an important point of comparison with other areas. The same is true of the archaeology of south-west France, which is included to ensure that the Atlantic coastline receives sufficient emphasis. Certain questions were important from the outset. The first was to investigate the changing economic, cultural, and social contexts of prehistoric Britain and Ireland within the wider framework of Continental Europe.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 31/8/2015, SPi

16

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

Which were the main axes of contact between these islands and the mainland during the later prehistoric period? How, when, and why did they change over time? Would scientific studies of human bones suggest that people really had travelled from one part of the study area to another? How important was the movement of portable artefacts? Do they provide evidence for the distribution of valuable commodities, or were they associated with alliances which involved the exchange of marriage partners? Were there periods in which one or both islands were more closely integrated with the mainland than at other times, and were there phases in which they maintained their isolation? To what extent was the sea a barrier between these different areas, and how far was it really a link? Such questions can be asked for the first time because of the number of new excavations taking place. Conversely, artefacts of similar kinds may have been used and deposited in quite different ways from one region to another. The wider setting of Britain and Ireland has been studied through the evidence of portable objects— pottery and metalwork in particular—but little was known about the contexts from which they were recovered. That is no longer true as large-scale excavations on either side of the Channel and the North Sea are producing evidence of settlements, cemeteries, production sites, and votive deposits on a scale that was never envisaged a generation ago. Now that the British and Irish evidence has been assimilated, it is time to compare it directly with its counterpart in Continental Europe. When this project began its working title was The Continental Background to British and Irish Prehistory. That emphasis remains important, but, as the work developed, it became obvious that the initial scope of the project was still too limited. There are two reasons for saying so. The first is that it implies that the offshore islands had a distinctive identity of their own, when that was one of the questions that needed to be investigated. The distinction between insular and Continental archaeology invokes too many of the dualities on which twentieth-century research had been based. In the light of this experience it is more appropriate to think in terms of a prehistory of north-west Europe: a larger geographical entity in which Britain and Ireland form comparatively small parts. The second reason for a change of emphasis is even simpler. Any attempt to set insular developments against a wider background would be poorly equipped to take account of phenomena which are not represented in Britain and Ireland but do play a role in other parts of the study area. Rather than insisting on the absence of comparative material in the British Isles, a more ambitious approach allows such evidence to be interpreted on its own terms. That is especially important as the investigation extends into areas such as Jutland where the archaeological sequence is very different from that in neighbouring regions.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 31/8/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

17

THE DATASET Data have been systematically collated on reported excavations and trialtrench evaluations carried out within the study region since the late 1990s (generally since 1998), where features of late Mesolithic to pre-Roman Iron Age date were encountered. As well as published sources, unpublished grey literature reports were consulted where these were available. Data collection took place region-by-region between 2009 and 2011; the final database and a description of the sources consulted are available via the Archaeology Data Service (). Information could be collected on 5768 investigations, of which 94 per cent were development-led. This dataset provides a fairly comprehensive overview of recent developmentled investigations into the prehistory of north-west Europe, with the caveat that any fieldwork lacking an accessible report will not be represented. The earlier project on the Prehistory of Britain and Ireland involved a similar systematic survey of grey literature reports, albeit covering a different period (mainly 1990–2003: Phillips and Bradley 2004; Bradley 2007). This recorded 3379 investigations. While the data produced by recent development-led archaeology are very extensive, they are also uneven, both in terms of the types of sites represented and their geographical distribution. Taking only the database for Continental north-west Europe, 81 per cent of recorded sites have settlement evidence from one or more periods and 24 per cent have funerary evidence (with some sites recorded in both categories). Other types of evidence such as hillforts, field systems, or metalwork hoards occur at only a very small percentage of recorded sites. Chronologically, sites of the late Bronze Age and Iron Age tend to be much more commonly encountered than those of earlier periods, although the strength of this trend varies by region. Across Continental north-west Europe as a whole, features dating to after c.1200 BC were found in 74 per cent of the investigations recorded in the database, while earlier features were found in only 34 per cent of cases. This may partly reflect genuine processes of settlement expansion and population growth in late prehistory. Nevertheless, the possibility that the practices of developmentled archaeology are creating a systematic bias towards later sites must also be considered. The geographical distribution of sites shows high densities in some regions contrasting with a near absence in others (Fig. 1.4). Again, these patterns probably reflect some real variations in prehistoric activity. Some areas would have been effectively unavailable for permanent settlement during much or all of later prehistory, such as marshes and bogs, which were much more extensive across lowland north-west Europe before the drainage works of recent centuries. Thus the absence of prehistoric sites from some parts of the Netherlands can be understood by reference to

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 31/8/2015, SPi

18

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

Fig. 1.4. Distribution of prehistoric sites recorded in the database. Sites recorded for the Prehistory of Britain and Ireland project are also shown.

palaeotopographical maps (Fig. 1.5). However, most of the geographical variation in the data cannot be explained in this way. Notably, some of the most striking disparities in site densities correspond with modern administrative boundaries, suggesting that they have more to do with the activities of presentday archaeologists than those of prehistoric people. There are also marked disparities in the chronological distribution of the sites. Figure 1.6 shows the number of recorded sites per century across north-west Europe as a whole, while Figures 1.7 and 1.8 show the relative

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 31/8/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

19

Fig. 1.5. Late Neolithic and early Bronze Age sites in the Netherlands recorded in the database, shown against registered barrows, and palaeotopography c.1500 BC. Barrows data courtesy of Quentin Bourgeois, University of Leiden; palaeotopographical map courtesy of the Netherlands Nationale Onderzoeksagenda Archeologie.

frequencies of settlements and funerary sites per century in different areas. The detail varies by region, but the overall trend is one of increasing numbers over time. Very low numbers of sites are recorded for the hunter-gatherer communities of the late Mesolithic, who occupied the whole of north-west Europe until

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 31/8/2015, SPi

20

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 100 BC

400 BC

700 BC

1000 BC

1300 BC

1600 BC

1900 BC

2200 BC

2500 BC

2800 BC

3100 BC

3400 BC

3700 BC

4000 BC

4300 BC

4600 BC

4900 BC

5200 BC

5500 BC

0

All sites Settlement Funerary

Fig. 1.6. Chronological distribution of sites in the database. Data are presented for all sites, settlement sites, and funerary sites respectively. In each case the data has been scaled to represent the number of sites per century. Each site has a value of 1 which has been distributed according to its ascribed date range. For example, a site dated to 600–400 BC would have a value of 0.5 allocated to both the sixth and fifth centuries BC. Note that some sites are recorded as both settlements and funerary sites.

c.5500 BC and some regions into the fourth millennium BC. This contrasts with the higher numbers of settlements of the earliest Neolithic (Linearbandkeramik) communities dating to the late sixth to early fifth millennia BC in western and middle Germany, the Paris Basin, and parts of Belgium and the south-east Netherlands. A reduction in sites followed around 4900 BC in Germany, Belgium, and Netherlands, though in Germany this was only temporary with a recovery from c.4750 BC. In contrast, c.4900 BC marks the extension of the Neolithic across much of northern and north-western France, leading to an increase in recorded sites. Farming was adopted across the remainder of north-west Europe during the late fifth and early fourth millennia BC, but this did not lead to great increases in site numbers. Rather, recorded settlement frequencies are generally modest, and remained so into the third millennium BC. In some regions settlements are outnumbered by funerary sites for at least part of this period. A notable peak in funerary evidence can be seen c.2800–2400 BC in Jutland. An increase in recorded site numbers can be seen in some areas from c.2000 BC onwards, followed by a substantial rise almost everywhere in the late Bronze Age, after 1200/1100 BC. A further rise in site numbers took place across

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 31/8/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

21

north-west Europe during the Iron Age. Most of this rise is accounted for by settlements, which now far outnumbered funerary sites. The exact stage at which the peak in the occurrence of settlements was reached varies regionally: the sixth century BC in the southern Netherlands, north-east France, and much of western and north-western Germany; the fifth to early third centuries BC in Belgium, much of the Netherlands, and Jutland; or after 150 BC in northern France. In some areas the picture during the late Iron Age is complicated by processes of settlement nucleation, meaning that a reduction in the number of settlement sites may not imply a fall in population (see Chapters 6 and 7). The data from Continental north-west Europe can be compared with the information collected by Tim Phillips for the Prehistory of Britain and Ireland project. This suggests a similar dramatic rise in site frequencies from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age to the Iron Age across most of England. The same pattern can be seen in the more extensive data from England collected by the Archaeological Investigations Project, based at Bournemouth University (). The pattern is less clear in Phillips’ data for Scotland and Wales, while Ireland is different entirely. Here a large peak of sites in the Bronze Age—many of them being the ubiquitous ‘burnt mounds’ (see Chapter 5)—was followed by a dramatic fall in the Iron Age to a level similar to that for the Neolithic. Here we are faced with a problem: how far do the patterns outlined above reflect genuine processes of demographic change through prehistory, and how far are they influenced by issues of site visibility and recovery? Over six millennia of later prehistory, communities across north-west Europe lived in very different ways, and their practices created very different archaeological records. This could lead to an under-representation of some periods. For example, although it is likely that the early farmers of the Linearbandkeramik lived at higher population densities than Mesolithic huntergathers, the disparity in site numbers could be exaggerated by factors of visibility. Mesolithic occupation sites are ephemeral, often consisting of flint scatters. By contrast, early Neolithic communities used substantial houses and enclosures—which are highly visible in aerial photographs and trial trenches—and easily recognizable decorated pottery (Chapter 2). Similarly, the generally low numbers of sites in the later Neolithic and early Bronze Age reflect a return to ephemeral forms of settlement with few recognizable structures. The two regions with slightly higher settlement numbers from this period—Jutland and early third millennium Nord-Pasde-Calais—are effectively the only ones in which a normative house form has been identified (Chapters 3 and 4). While the huge increase in site numbers during the late Bronze Age and Iron Age must surely reflect settlement expansion and demographic growth, the relatively high visibility of sites from these periods must also be considered. During this time settlements in many regions were robustly built—sometimes incorporating

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 31/8/2015, SPi

22

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe 20 18

% of settlement sites

16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 5500 BC 5300 BC 5100 BC 4900 BC 4700 BC 4500 BC 4300 BC 4100 BC 3900 BC 3700 BC 3500 BC 3300 BC 3100 BC 2900 BC 2700 BC 2500 BC 2300 BC 2100 BC 1900 BC 1700 BC 1500 BC 1300 BC 1100 BC 900 BC 700 BC 500 BC 300 BC 100 BC

0

Nord-Pas-de-Calais Paris Basin NW France 20 18 % of settlement sites

16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 5500 BC 5300 BC 5100 BC 4900 BC 4700 BC 4500 BC 4300 BC 4100 BC 3900 BC 3700 BC 3500 BC 3300 BC 3100 BC 2900 BC 2700 BC 2500 BC 2300 BC 2100 BC 1900 BC 1700 BC 1500 BC 1300 BC 1100 BC 900 BC 700 BC 500 BC 300 BC 100 BC

0

Netherlands Flanders Wallonia

Fig. 1.7. The chronological distribution of settlement sites in the database from different regions of north-west Europe. The data have been scaled to represent the number of sites per century (as in Fig. 1.6), and then converted to a percentage of all settlement sites from that region. For example, a value of 10 for a given century indicates that 10 per cent of recorded settlement sites in that region were occupied during that century. Paris Basin = Picardy, Upper Normandy, Île-de-France, Champagne-Ardenne; northeast France = Lorraine, Alsace; north-west France = Lower Normandy, Brittany, Pays de la Loire; western Germany = Rhineland, Rhineland-Palatinate, Saarland, Hesse; north-west Germany = Lower Saxony, Westphalia, Bremen, Hamburg.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 31/8/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

23

20 18 % of settlement sites

16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 5500 BC 5300 BC 5100 BC 4900 BC 4700 BC 4500 BC 4300 BC 4100 BC 3900 BC 3700 BC 3500 BC 3300 BC 3100 BC 2900 BC 2700 BC 2500 BC 2300 BC 2100 BC 1900 BC 1700 BC 1500 BC 1300 BC 1100 BC 900 BC 700 BC 500 BC 300 BC 100 BC

0

NE France W Germany 20 18 % of settlement sites

16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 100 BC

400 BC

700 BC

1000 BC

1300 BC

1600 BC

1900 BC

2200 BC

2500 BC

2800 BC

3100 BC

3400 BC

3700 BC

4000 BC

4300 BC

4600 BC

4900 BC

5200 BC

5500 BC

0

NW Germany Jutland

Fig. 1.7. Continued.

enclosures—and contained significant accumulations of material culture. The one region that differs is Ireland, where the absence of pottery and other diagnostic artefacts seriously hinders the recognition of Iron Age sites (Chapter 6). This brief survey of the distribution of the data suggests that they do not perfectly mirror levels of prehistoric activity; some regions, periods,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 31/8/2015, SPi

24

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe 16

% of funerary sites

14 12 10 8 6 4 2 5500 BC 5300 BC 5100 BC 4900 BC 4700 BC 4500 BC 4300 BC 4100 BC 3900 BC 3700 BC 3500 BC 3300 BC 3100 BC 2900 BC 2700 BC 2500 BC 2300 BC 2100 BC 1900 BC 1700 BC 1500 BC 1300 BC 1100 BC 900 BC 700 BC 500 BC 300 BC 100 BC

0

Netherlands & Belgium 16

% of funerary sites

14 12 10 8 6 4 2 5500 BC 5300 BC 5100 BC 4900 BC 4700 BC 4500 BC 4300 BC 4100 BC 3900 BC 3700 BC 3500 BC 3300 BC 3100 BC 2900 BC 2700 BC 2500 BC 2300 BC 2100 BC 1900 BC 1700 BC 1500 BC 1300 BC 1100 BC 900 BC 700 BC 500 BC 300 BC 100 BC

0

Paris Basin & Nord-Pas-de-Calais NW France

Fig. 1.8. Chronological distribution of funerary sites in the database from different regions of north-west Europe. Methodology as Figure 1.7.

and site types are likely to be under-represented compared to others. This can be partly explained by the fact that certain kinds of site have a higher archaeological visibility. It may also be linked to variations in the organization and practices of contemporary archaeology across north-west Europe, as different ways of working may favour the recovery of different kinds of evidence. Clearly then, in order to understand the data produced by development-led archaeology we must examine the ways in which it was created. How do the organization and practices of contemporary archaeology affect the character

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 31/8/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

25

12

% of funerary sites

10 8 6 4 2

5500 BC 5300 BC 5100 BC 4900 BC 4700 BC 4500 BC 4300 BC 4100 BC 3900 BC 3700 BC 3500 BC 3300 BC 3100 BC 2900 BC 2700 BC 2500 BC 2300 BC 2100 BC 1900 BC 1700 BC 1500 BC 1300 BC 1100 BC 900 BC 700 BC 500 BC 300 BC 100 BC

0

W Germany NW France 16

% of funerary sites

14 12 10 8 6 4 2 5500 BC 5300 BC 5100 BC 4900 BC 4700 BC 4500 BC 4300 BC 4100 BC 3900 BC 3700 BC 3500 BC 3300 BC 3100 BC 2900 BC 2700 BC 2500 BC 2300 BC 2100 BC 1900 BC 1700 BC 1500 BC 1300 BC 1100 BC 900 BC 700 BC 500 BC 300 BC 100 BC

0

NW Germany Jutland

Fig. 1.8. Continued.

of the archaeological record in different regions across north-west Europe? Factors that must be considered include: the intensity and nature of the development pressure on archaeological sites; the organization and funding of the archaeological response to development; the methods used in fieldwork and post-excavation analysis; and the arrangements for the production and dissemination of reports (see also Webley et al. 2012 and Haselgrove et al. forthcoming).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 31/8/2015, SPi

26

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

CONTEMPORARY ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRACTICE I N NORTH-WEST E UROPE AND THE CONSTITUTION OF TH E ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD

Development Pressures The level of development pressure is obviously one of the most important conditions determining the amount of development-led fieldwork carried out. It is therefore unsurprising that many of the greatest concentrations of fieldwork shown by Figure 1.4 correspond with regions with a high population density and high levels of economic activity, such as south-east England and the southern Netherlands. At a more local level, development pressures are often concentrated in lowlands and valleys rather than in upland areas. This reflects the distribution of population, and also the fact that valleys are a focus for gravel quarrying and often serve as transport corridors. This lowland and valley bias influences the kinds of sites uncovered. Late Bronze Age and Iron Age hillforts, for example, are not often investigated in a development-led context. Protected areas such as national parks may be entirely out of bounds to development and hence to development-led archaeology. Similarly, legal protection of certain classes of monuments such as upstanding megaliths and barrows means that they rarely fall within the remit of development-led work. This is strikingly illustrated in the Netherlands, where registered barrows have a quite different distribution to development-led investigations of late Neolithic and early Bronze Age sites (Fig. 1.5). This is because upstanding barrows are usually protected monuments, and also tend to be located in upland and heathland areas that are largely shielded from development. The types of development leading to the investigation of prehistoric sites were recorded in the project database. For north-west Continental Europe as a whole, housing or commercial development was the most important cause (41 per cent of recent investigations), followed by road and railway construction (20 per cent) and quarrying (8 per cent). Forestry, agriculture, pipelines, and airport construction are of more minor importance. Their geographical distribution is variable. Quarrying, for example, is concentrated in areas such as the river valleys of northern France and is largely absent from the Low Countries. Large-scale opencast lignite mining, along with associated development such as the relocation of villages, has created a major concentration of investigations in the Rhineland to the west of Cologne. In several regions, long-distance projects such as motorways, railways, and gas pipelines have had a major impact on site distributions, by producing linear strings of investigations. These variations are important as different types of development can produce different kinds of archaeological evidence. The largest contiguous excavated areas are often associated with quarries, airports, and large

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 31/8/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

27

industrial estates or housing schemes. Such large-scale excavations can provide good insights into the development of ancient micro-landscapes, and are often the only projects to reveal dispersed, low-density prehistoric sites. Gravel quarry excavations in particular often produce a wealth of evidence as gravel terraces were frequently a preferred locale for prehistoric occupation. In contrast, linear projects—and pipelines in particular—generally allow only a narrow slice of individual sites to be uncovered. However, long-distance linear projects can play an important role in providing a transect through the landscape, revealing variations in the use of different topographical zones.

The Organization of Development-Led Archaeology While the Valletta Convention has to some degree achieved its aim of bringing about greater convergence in systems of development-led archaeology, in practice the broad recommendations of the convention have been interpreted in differing ways across north-west Europe, reflecting the different political discourses in each country. Wide variations can also exist within federal countries such as Belgium and Germany, where control of heritage matters has been devolved to a regional level (Table 1.1). Nowhere in north-west Europe is it considered feasible or desirable to evaluate all development sites. Systems are therefore required to monitor planning applications and advise the local planning authorities on which developments require archaeological work. This stage of the archaeological process is always carried out by state employees, attached to local government or to other locally based public bodies, such as the ‘monument offices’ in the German Länder or designated local museums in Denmark. However, the criteria used to assess which development sites require archaeological work can vary significantly, even between different local authorities within a single country. Such variations will clearly have an impact on the numbers and types of sites investigated. Decisions will usually be informed by some form of historic environment record or archaeological map, maintained at local or national level. Some administrations require prior indications that archaeology is expected within the development area before any fieldwork is undertaken. This is generally the case in western Germany, where most information comes from the Landesaufnahme surveys (Kuna and Dreslerova 2007, 152–3). This creates a danger that work is disproportionately focused on upstanding monuments and other types of site that leave clear surface traces, such as cropmarks or scatters of diagnostic artefacts. Elsewhere, systematic field evaluation (most often trial trenching) is routinely called for in development areas judged to have the potential to contain archaeological remains. In some cases this is based on a standard surface area threshold, as in France where there is a national legal requirement that all development areas above three hectares

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 31/8/2015, SPi

28

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

Table 1.1. Summary of models for delivering development-led archaeology in northwest Europe Country

Funding model

Delivery of fieldwork

References

Belgium— Flemish Region

Mainly developer funding (gradually introduced in 2000s); public funding for e.g. ‘strategic’ industrial areas

Excavation firms competing in market system. The regional archaeological service has a monopoly for public infrastructure projects

De Clercq et al. 2012; Wouters 2012

Belgium— Walloon Region

Public funding

Regional government

Plumier 2007

Denmark

Developer funding (since 2003)

Local museums with monopoly within their designated area

Mikkelsen 2012

France

Developer funding gradually introduced from 1980s. Since 2002 a general development tax funds evaluations and subsidizes some excavations; direct developer funding for most excavations since 2004

Mainly public bodies (INRAP and local collectivities); licensed excavation firms allowed to compete for excavations (but not evaluations) since 2004

Collart 2012

Germany

Varies by federal state. Developer funding fairly well established in some regions (e.g. Landschaftsverband Rheinland), mainly public funding in others

Mainly public bodies (the ‘monument offices’ of each federal state, and archaeologists from local authorities). In some states (e.g. Hessen, Landschaftsverband Rheinland) excavation firms also work under contract from the monument offices

AndrikopoulouStrack 2007

Luxembourg

Public funding

Musée National d’Histoire et d’Art

Bis-Worch 2007

Netherlands

Developer funding (since late 1990s)

Licensed excavation firms competing in market system (since c.2001)

Bazelmans 2012

Republic of Ireland

Developer funding (since 1980s)

Excavation firms competing in market system

Gowen 2012

United Kingdom

Developer funding (formalized by planning guidance in 1990 in England, 1991 in Wales, 1994 in Scotland, 1999 in Northern Ireland)

Excavation firms competing in market system

Hunter and Ralston 2006; Fitzpatrick 2012

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 31/8/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

29

must be evaluated. Where the evaluation reveals significant archaeological remains, a full excavation will normally be required before the development can go ahead. In a few places, the same public-sector bodies that advise the local planning authorities on archaeology also carry out any necessary fieldwork. This is the case, for example, with the Danish local museums and many of the German state monument offices. More usually, these functions are separated to avoid any actual or perceived conflict of interest. In other countries such as the UK, Ireland, and the Netherlands there is a well-established market in archaeology, with developers free to choose a contractor from a range of competing organizations.

Funding In line with the Valletta Convention, the principle of developer funding is now established across most of north-west Europe (Table 1.1). Nonetheless, there is much variation in the level of financial commitment actually required of developers. At a minimum, there is agreement that developers are responsible for funding excavation where the presence of archaeological remains has been established, but differences emerge over who pays for other stages of archaeological work. In some jurisdictions, such as the UK and the Netherlands, developers are routinely required to pay for evaluation fieldwork as well as any subsequent excavations. They should also fund post-excavation analysis and reporting, even if some projects receive only limited work in practice. The market in archaeological services is intended to ensure a fair deal for developers, although concerns have sometimes been expressed by archaeologists that the downward pressure on costs could negatively affect the quality of the work. A similar framework has now emerged in Flanders, although here public money is still used for work relating to certain kinds of developments, such as ‘strategic’ industrial areas. The situation in France is slightly different in that evaluations are not funded by individual developers, but rather by a general development tax. The funds raised by this tax are also used to subsidize some excavations, for example in the case of public social housing schemes. This arrangement has some advantages, but in practice the tax has consistently failed to generate funds sufficient to cover all the necessary work (Collart 2012). Also in Denmark, there are special arrangements for evaluations. Developers are obliged to fund large evaluations (covering more than 5000 m2), but many smaller evaluations must be paid for by public funds. In the absence of any market mechanism, budgets for developer-funded evaluations and excavations are set by the local museums that carry out the work but must be approved by the national Heritage Agency to ensure that they are

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 31/8/2015, SPi

30

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

reasonable. In western Germany, debates still rage over the proper interpretation of the developer-funding principle (e.g. Möller 2010). While the principle is relatively well established through practice in some areas, as in the Rhineland, elsewhere there has been less success and there is still a reliance on the public purse. Even under the best circumstances developers are generally only required to pay for test trenching and excavation where there are prior grounds to suspect the presence of significant archaeology. They may pay for a basic excavation report, but are rarely required to fund detailed post-excavation work or publication. Special contractual arrangements apply to the vast lignite quarries in the Rhineland, where the mining company pays a set annual sum towards fieldwork, research, and publication. An impressive amount of evidence has been generated as a result, although the funding allows only around 5 per cent of the area consumed by the quarries to be investigated. The finite funds are allocated according to a research strategy that favours investigation of earlier Neolithic, late Bronze Age, and Iron Age sites over those of other prehistoric periods, thus skewing the dataset. In Luxembourg and the Walloon Region of Belgium, meanwhile, no formalized system of developer funding has yet developed. Developers have, however, provided resources for fieldwork in the case of a few major infrastructure projects such as gas pipelines and high-speed railways (Le Brun-Ricalens et al. 2002; Plumier 2007; Fock and Remy 2012). The availability of funding is a key factor in determining the amount of archaeological activity in a given region, both in terms of the number of field investigations and the levels of post-excavation analysis. Comparison of Table 1.1 and Figure 1.4 clearly shows that the numbers of investigated prehistoric sites tend to be lower in regions in which developer funding is poorly established or absent and there is a reliance on limited public funds. That said, archaeologists working within a developer-funded framework are not immune from financial pressures either. In market systems competitive tendering provides a check on the costs allocated to individual projects, while in situations where a public body sets the amounts that developers must pay there will inevitably be political pressure to keep these sums ‘reasonable’, as has occurred in France (Collart 2012).

Fieldwork and Post-Excavation Practice Further important factors influencing the kinds of data generated by development-led archaeology are the methods used for fieldwork and postexcavation analysis. In some places these methods are closely regulated, as in the Netherlands where they must follow a national set of quality standards (Willems and Brandt 2004). Elsewhere norms have been established through practice.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 31/8/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

31

Across north-west Europe, the organizations involved in development-led archaeology are required to complete large numbers of projects rapidly and cost-effectively. Concerns have been raised that these pressures may mean that fieldwork follows set routines and may not be tailored to any specific research questions. In some countries, there have also been concerns that the administrative regimes for development-led archaeology tend to emphasize the recording of archaeological remains as an end in itself. The notion that ‘preservation by record’ is the goal of development-led archaeology has been extensively critiqued in recent years, and it is now widely recognized that practice should be focused on increasing understanding of the past (e.g. R. M. Thomas 2010). Recent initiatives to improve the research focus of development-led archaeology have included the development of research agendas for the Netherlands, (), Flanders () and various regions of the UK (e.g. Last 2012), generally written by committees with representatives from across the archaeological sector. The existence of such research agendas has not of course prevented individual organizations maintaining their own research priorities or interests, often relating to a particular local region. The first phase of fieldwork will often be some form of evaluation. The purpose of such evaluations is to detect the presence of archaeological remains within a development area, and to assess their character and preservation. The methods used in each region have tended to become increasingly standardized—or are even laid down by law, as they are in France. Arguably, however, important evidence can be missed unless evaluation techniques are tailored to the specific context of each site. This context includes the landscape and soil characteristics, and the research questions—in other words, what is being looked for. The initial stage of evaluation may be non-intrusive. Surface survey (fieldwalking) is sometimes used, for example in the lignite mining areas of the Rhineland. It is only effective on ploughed farmland, and produces best results for those site types that produce abundant diagnostic artefacts. Geophysical survey is used fairly often in Britain and parts of Germany but is less common elsewhere. Its effectiveness varies according to soil type, and it can only identify sites with fairly robust structural features. In most cases evaluation is synonymous with trial trenching. Systematic trial trenching of large development sites has become routine across most of north-west Europe, making up the bulk of development-led fieldwork and significantly outnumbering full excavations. Exceptions include western Germany and the Walloon Region of Belgium, where large-scale trial trenching rarely occurs. There is much variation across north-west Europe in the standards used for trial trench evaluations, in terms of the sample percentage and the arrangement of the trenches. Samples of at least 10–12 per cent are either required or established by practice in France, Flanders, the Netherlands,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 31/8/2015, SPi

32

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

and Denmark, while in Britain smaller samples of around 1–5 per cent are typical, with no official standard. This is a crucial issue, as several studies have shown that the density, size, and arrangement of trenches have a major impact on the character of the archaeology found (Blancquaert and Medlycott 2006; Hey and Lacey 2001; Klitgaard 2002; Verhagen and Borsboom 2009; De Clercq et al. 2011). The sparse features that characterize many prehistoric sites can often be missed in trench evaluations, especially when the level of sampling is too low. For prehistoric sites where most of the evidence consists of artefact scatters in the plough-soil, as is often the case for pre-Iron Age settlements located on arable land, fieldwalking may in fact be more effective than trial trenching (Hey and Lacey 2001). Systematic test pitting with sieving of the topsoil can also be very useful in these circumstances, but is rarely practiced. The potential of an approach combining fieldwalking and test pitting is shown by the work carried out by the Cambridge Archaeological Unit on lithic scatter sites in East Anglia (Edmonds et al. 1999). A different set of challenges is posed by sites covered by thick alluvial or peat overburden, making trenching impractical. The method of systematic coring with an auger has become common in recent years in the Netherlands and Flanders, especially in such ‘buried’ landscapes. This has allowed important, deeply buried Mesolithic and Neolithic complexes to be discovered at sites such as Verrebroek ‘Dok’ (De Clercq et al. 2011) and Hardinxveld-Giessendam (Louwe Kooijmans 2001a; 2001b). Such examples show how the prehistoric evidence generated by development-led archaeology in certain areas can be enhanced by the use of innovative evaluation methods that go beyond standardized trial trenching. At the stage of ‘full’ excavation, in some regions of north-west Europe it is commonplace for extensive areas of topsoil to be stripped, while elsewhere investigations tend to be more narrowly targeted. This again has implications for the kinds of prehistoric evidence encountered. In the gravel quarries of northern France, it was formerly standard practice entirely to strip threatened areas, but since 2001 trial trenching followed by targeted excavation has been the rule. The result has been a reduction in the recovery of small and ‘lowdensity’ prehistoric sites (Dubouloz et al. 2005). Data collection for the Prehistory of Britain and Ireland project showed that the distributions of Neolithic houses, Beaker flat graves, and late Bronze Age cremation burials are almost entirely restricted to projects in which large areas were stripped (Bradley 2007; 2012a). Some forms of ‘off-site’ activity may in fact be drastically under-represented wherever stripping is less than total. Bronze Age metalwork deposits are a case in point. These often occur in isolated locations in the landscape, away from contemporary settlements. In such cases they are likely to lie outside the areas selected for full excavation, except in rare cases where a deposit is actually struck by a trial trench. As a result, the recovery of metalwork in development-led archaeology across north-west Europe has been modest when compared with the much greater numbers of finds made

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 31/8/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

33

by amateurs. For example, a recent study of Bronze Age gold from England and Wales showed that only seven artefacts have been recovered from modern excavations, compared to well over one hundred reported metal detector finds in the period 1997–2010 alone (Murgia and Roberts forthcoming). Many of the methodological issues concerning excavation techniques are similar to those relating to evaluations. Do methodologies follow set procedures, or are they adapted to each site? And given that total excavation of every site is not feasible, what sample of each site should be investigated? In the UK, for example, one formula often followed is that at least 50 per cent of all ‘discrete’ features and 10 per cent of linear features (such as ditches) should be excavated. Concerns have been raised that this approach leads to a mechanistic ‘digging by numbers’ which adds little to our knowledge about the past. Better insights can be gained where resources are focused on deposits with particular potential to address specific research questions (Fitzpatrick 2012). There are also other variations in excavation methods. British archaeology places an emphasis on single-context recording and on excavations that dissect ancient deposits according to the sequence in which those deposits formed. Subsoil features such as pits and postholes are sectioned or excavated in their entirety. On many parts of the Continent, however, there is more emphasis on horizontal excavation and deposits are removed in a series of carefully recorded spits. Both methods produce worthwhile results, but they are not exactly comparable, a point which is made by Martin Carver (2009) in his book Archaeological Investigation. Many archaeologists assume that there is only one right way to excavate and yet they are happy to bring together the results of projects which employ very different techniques from one another. Similarly, different regional styles of fieldwork take distinctive approaches to the question of chronology (Tables 1.2 and 1.3). Greater numbers of samples are dated in some areas than in others, and where this is done the results may, or may not, be subjected to statistical analyses. To some degree these variations relate to the levels of funding available for post-excavation work, but they are also partly cultural, as in some regions prehistorians put their confidence in artefact typology or rely on seriation. Both are true of the parts of Germany considered here. As a result, monuments such as Neolithic enclosures and tombs are more precisely dated in Scandinavia and the British Isles than they are in Germany or France. In regions where radiocarbon dating is routine, whole new categories of features and sites have been identified in recent years. Thus in northern France and southern Britain the recent realization that flat, unaccompanied cremation burials (or small deposits of cremated human bone) were fairly common in the later Bronze Age has come about through the use of radiocarbon dating in development-led projects (Baray 2001; Bradley 2007). Evidence for a previously overlooked Iron Age tradition of inhumation burial in southern Britain has emerged in the same way (Hey et al. 1999).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 31/8/2015, SPi

34

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

Table 1.2. Summary of conventional chronological schemes used in different regions of north-west Europe, c.5500–1500 BC (corresponding to Chapters 2–4)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 31/8/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

35

There is an important factor affecting the contribution of development-led archaeology to our knowledge of prehistory in different parts of north-west Europe. As we have seen, there is wide variation in the extent to which developers are held responsible for funding post-excavation analysis and publication. Patchy resources and the sheer volume of fieldwork have meant that the traditional ideal of detailed analysis leading to a journal article or monograph has only been achieved for a small minority of development-led excavations. In some regions, an overview of recent fieldwork can be gained from annual ‘round-up’ volumes, which provide a short note on each project. Such volumes may not be comprehensive in their coverage, and are in some cases running several years behind schedule. Meanwhile, the production of unpublished ‘grey literature’ reports has mushroomed in many countries. Deposition of such a report in a national or regional archive is often a legal requirement or a condition of planning permission. Grey literature reports are normally in the public realm, yet they remain an underused resource. The problem is particularly acute in regions such as England where reports are dispersed between numerous local archives, a situation hardly conducive to synthetic work (Bradley 2006). Fortunately, access to data is now improving in several countries through initiatives using the internet to provide access to grey literature reports. Examples include the Archaeology Data Service in Britain (), DOLIA in France () and DANS in

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 31/8/2015, SPi

36

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

Table 1.3. Summary of conventional chronological schemes used in different regions of north-west Europe, c.1500–1 BC (corresponding to Chapters 5–7)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 31/8/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

37

the Netherlands (). DANS alone contained over 21,000 archaeological datasets in December 2013, most of which are grey literature reports. The availability of data is poorer in many parts of Germany, where developers are frequently not required to fund any detailed postexcavation work. As a result, many investigations receive no proper report at all, beyond perhaps a brief preliminary note in a local journal or ‘round-up’ volume. When full publication does occur, it is often the result of a postgraduate student ‘adopting’ the site as a thesis topic.

CO NCLUSION The variations in practice outlined above reflect fundamental disagreements about the purpose of all this activity. Is it to document the remains of the past before they are destroyed, or is the main motivation to undertake research? If the main aim is descriptive, to what extent do their findings need to be interpreted, and is there any reason why those observations should be presented in a definitive report? If, on the other hand, developer funding provides a means to an end—the investigation of prehistoric settlements, cemeteries, and landscapes on a scale which has never happened before—is the project of any value unless its results contribute to public understanding of the past? If so, then many projects fail along the way, for across large parts of the study area the excavated material has not been sufficiently analyzed and little information is available in printed or digital form. This book has been written in the belief that the only justification for development-led archaeology is to provide the raw material for writing human history. If so, then any project has a potential part to play, and it is essential that that its results should be made accessible. They cannot be confined to small groups of professional excavators, planning authorities, and managers of the cultural heritage. None of them is in a good position to study the wider significance of the new fieldwork as their time is too often taken up with other responsibilities. It seems ironic that the number of worthwhile projects has grown during a period when the appetite for new research seems to have diminished, for the new work offers exactly the kinds of information that had been sought in vain by previous generations of prehistorians. There is a crisis of confidence in contemporary archaeology, and it reflects badly on a discipline in which increasing amounts of money are devoted to collecting new data. It is impossible to overemphasize the contrast with what was available before. The material collected during this project involved the findings of over 5700 field projects, and earlier work employing the results of development-led archaeology in Britain and Ireland accounts for a further 3300 investigations. Research on the latter project ended over ten years ago, but this book refers

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 31/8/2015, SPi

38

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

selectively to more recent findings. In combination, it draws on the outcome of well over 9000 commercially-funded excavations and evaluations. Given the large amount of information that is presently available, it is only right that it should range widely across space and time. Even so, many problems remain. The results of development-led fieldwork have a huge contribution to make, but it is clear that their potential is not evenly shared across all the regions, periods, and issues considered here. Taken in isolation, they cannot provide a balanced picture of the past, and for that reason they must be set alongside other sources of information, including the work of academic and amateur research projects. The archaeological literature extending back to the nineteenth century still retains its importance, and the same is certainly true of museum and private collections. Field survey of undamaged monuments can also lead to new discoveries. If traditional kinds of evidence make a smaller contribution than they have done in the past, it is only because they are overshadowed by the sheer number of new observations coming from development-led archaeology. Just how significant that new information can be—and the ways in which it can be combined with more familiar sources—will be apparent in the following pages.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

2 Late Foragers and First Farmers (8000–3700 BC) MESOLITHIC STUDIES AND NEOLITHIC STUDIES This chapter spans an important period division. It considers both the ‘Mesolithic’ hunter-gatherers of the study area, and the first ‘Neolithic’ farmers. The relationship between them is one of the most important issues to be investigated by prehistoric archaeology, but it is also one of the most contentious. The period between 8000 and 3700 BC saw the change from a reliance on wild resources to a new subsistence economy based on the ownership of domesticated plants and animals. It must have involved completely new forms of social organization. The transition between these phases occurred at different times in different parts of north-west Europe, but in all instances it is where two distinctive kinds of scholarship impinge on one another. To some extent the distinction between these kinds of research is determined by the kinds of evidence that are available. For the most part Mesolithic activity is characterized by hearths, scatters of stone tools, shell middens, and other food remains. In some regions there are graves, but traces of domestic buildings are comparatively rare. There is little sign of more monumental structures. The Neolithic period, on the other hand, is characterized by durable wooden houses, enclosures, mounds, and stone-built tombs, and by a much wider range of artefacts. This contrast has implications for the kinds of research that can be undertaken. With notable exceptions, students of the Mesolithic are most concerned with food production, settlement patterns, and lithic technology and place a particular emphasis on ecology and adaptation. Specialists on the Neolithic period do not neglect these fields, but they are also able to consider monumental architecture. Because they can draw on a wider range of data, their studies extend to ritual and social organization in a way that is more difficult to achieve in the archaeology of foragers. That contrast has become even wider with recent increases in the scale of fieldwork (Figs. 2.1 and 2.2). Mesolithic sites contain comparatively few subsoil features and are difficult to detect by remote sensing or sample excavation.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

40

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

Fig. 2.1. Sites recorded in the project database, 5500–4300/4000 BC. (A) Mesolithic and Linearbandkeramik sites. Opposite (B) Mesolithic and post-Linearbandkeramik sites. Note that the Mesolithic period was not studied in the Prehistory of Britain and Ireland.

In most cases the only diagnostic artefacts are in the topsoil, which is commonly stripped by machine. The best way of acquiring this evidence is by systematic field survey, but there are striking differences in the extent to which it is practised from one part of the study area to another. Of course there are exceptions. Because some sites may be concealed beneath later deposits, augering is widely employed in the marshy areas of the Low Countries. Artefacts can also be found in caves or rock shelters, or they are discovered

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

41

Fig. 2.1. Continued

by marine archaeologists in parts of Denmark and northern Germany which were inundated by the sea. At first sight Neolithic archaeology presents fewer problems. In some regions the foundations of timber buildings are easy to detect but, even where these structures are absent, there are pits. There are also earthwork monuments and flat cemeteries. The evidence extends to megalithic tombs and arrangements of standing stones, although they are usually protected from modern disturbance. This results in a certain bias. Above-ground monuments are best known from the results of research excavations, some of them

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

42

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

Fig. 2.2. Sites recorded in the project database and for the Prehistory of Britain and Ireland project, 4300/4000–3500 BC.

undertaken many years ago, whilst levelled structures of the same kind have been documented in growing numbers as a result of development-led fieldwork. Such contrasts between Mesolithic and Neolithic archaeology are obvious but they can be misleading. One problem concerns the character of Mesolithic studies. Although there are many projects that are sensitive to the distinctive character of the field evidence, a review of recent conference proceedings identifies some common trends.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

43

Accounts of the late Mesolithic period can be teleological. They look for evidence of growing social complexity to explain why hunter-gatherers should have turned to farming. Here the evidence of burials plays an important role. It is true that during this period there are groups of graves containing distinctive artefacts in northern Europe and Brittany. They were usually located within settlements where they have a lengthy history. Most of those in Scandinavia predate about 4500 BC and are uncommon during the period of transition itself (Blankholm 2008, 122; Meiklejohn et al. 2009); that may not be the case in France (Meiklejohn et al. 2010). Specialists on the period cannot agree whether they indicate growing social diversity. The problem is still more obvious in Britain and Ireland where similar evidence is found towards the beginning of the Mesolithic period. Only then is there any evidence of substantial houses (Conneller et al. 2012). The same phase around 8000 BC provides almost all the evidence of cemeteries (Schulting 2013), and the equally meagre evidence for the production of ornaments and portable art (Bradley 2007, 32). The clearest indication of rituals is provided by the famous site of Star Carr, which is of similar age (Conneller 2004). A second characteristic practice is to look for evidence of a crisis that would have upset the relationship between people and the environment. Such a crisis might have encouraged Mesolithic foragers to take up farming. The argument assumes several forms, but there has been a special emphasis on climate and environmental change. An influential paper by Simmons and Innes (1987) suggests that the British landscape was invaded by trees as it became warmer during the postglacial period. People attempted to maintain open conditions by burning the vegetation. This kind of land management had its limitations and, where it failed, local foragers might have experimented with new ways of producing food. For Bonsall and his colleagues, fluctuations in the climate could have been even more important (Bonsall et al. 2002). They suggest that Britain, Ireland, and south Scandinavia would not have been attractive to farmers until local temperatures increased early in the fourth millennium BC. Until then people found it easier to depend on natural resources. Changes of sea level have also been important in accounts of the Mesolithic period. Three very different studies have identified developments that might have jeopardized the livelihood of foragers. The first concerns south Scandinavia where at one time it seemed that changes of sea level had a serious effect on the availability of coastal resources, in particular oysters (Rowley-Conwy 1984). Now this appears to have been a local development (Milner and Laurie 2009). Of much greater significance was the loss of an enormous area of productive but low-lying land between Britain and northern Europe (Coles 2000; Weninger et al. 2008; Gaffney et al. 2009; Sturt et al. 2013). It resulted in a massive reduction of the area that could be exploited by foragers, but this process was complete a long time before the adoption of agriculture in the study area. That

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

44

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

may not have been so true in the south of Brittany where the first signs of agriculture appeared as a series of late Mesolithic settlements and cemeteries were threatened by the rising sea (Scarre 2011, 40–1). The proceedings of recent meetings concerned with Mesolithic Europe have another characteristic—they are strongly weighted towards work in Fennoscandia and contain significantly fewer contributions concerned with the area investigated in this project. In the proceedings of a conference published in 2003 no fewer than 51 per cent of the papers were concerned with this region (Larsson et al. 2003). That might be because the conference was held in Stockholm, but in the publication of a subsequent meeting in Belfast the figure remained high, at 37 per cent (McCartan et al. 2009). Both these collections were published after the expansion of public archaeology and development-led fieldwork. Moreover, the papers on northern Europe could be more ambitious than the others and featured a series of sophisticated field projects, some of them undertaken in the wake of commercial development. Among the topics considered were the social organization of Mesolithic foragers, ethnicity, exchange, settlement plans, mortuary rites, votive deposits, and art. To some extent these papers benefited from the variety of material available for study, but they also drew on a wider range of ideas than most accounts of this period. Why was this? An easy answer might be that the empirical evidence from northern Europe is especially well preserved, but this does not seem to be the only reason. Perhaps it is that the Mesolithic phase is studied in most depth in those regions where it cannot be regarded as the direct precursor of farming. In contrast to other parts of Europe, it is investigated largely for its own sake and not as the ‘Mesolithic Prelude’ of Grahame Clark’s 1980 book. One reason why this is possible is because parts of the north were occupied by hunters until a later time than many other parts of Europe. Another is the continued importance of fishing in the local economy. A further problem is peculiar to Neolithic studies. This is the assumption that early farmers necessarily built monuments. There are regions like south-west Ireland in which it rarely happened (O’Brien 2012a, 41–9). In some cases enormous longhouses could have played similar roles, but in other areas most of the enclosures and tombs were built several centuries after the period of change. Within the time span of this chapter such structures are found mainly in north-west and western France (and, beyond the study area, in the Iberian Peninsula). Most of the monuments in the British Isles, and along the Channel and the southern North Sea coasts were a subsequent development. For that reason they must be considered in Chapter 3. In fact there are dangers in seeking a single explanation of the Mesolithic– Neolithic transition. The most persuasive models follow regional lines and have to be considered separately. It is obvious that farming cannot have been introduced from a single source, although much of the detailed evidence

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

45

remains controversial. The Channel coast and the southern North Sea represent one important region in which people, crops, animals, and unfamiliar technologies seem to have moved across a considerable area. They were in close contact with inland areas, extending along rivers like the Rhine into the heart of Europe (Lüning et al. 1989). The west of France, on the other hand, was linked to a different network which extended south along the Atlantic coast to the Iberian Peninsula and the Mediterranean (Scarre 2011, 53–7). Both these traditions overlapped in Brittany and possibly in Ireland, although the relationships between them are not clear in either case. In what follows it is important to study these transitions on their own terms, accepting the significance of regional variation. This account begins with what is known about the indigenous population, paying special attention to recent discoveries in the course of development-led fieldwork. It goes on to investigate their relationship to the first farmers and considers to what extent those people were migrants from other areas. Finally, it discusses the earliest forms of monumental architecture in the study area, with a special emphasis on the construction of long barrows, enclosures, and the earliest megalithic tombs.

T H E L A S T FO RA G E R S One of the objectives of this book is to consider late-prehistoric interactions between the British Isles and the European mainland. For that reason it is important to begin by establishing when they became islands in the first place. Ireland was separated from Britain by 12,000 BC. This had two important consequences. It meant that it was separated from the Continent long before it was colonized by hunter-gatherers, so that it had to be settled by boat. That option was not available to a variety of wild animals which migrated northwards as the climate improved. Because Ireland had been cut off from Scotland by the end of the Ice Age, fewer sources of meat were available to the first inhabitants (Woodman 2012). By contrast, Britain was separated from the European mainland between about 8000 and 6000 BC (Fig. 2.3). That separation resulted in a period of comparative isolation that lasted for another two millennia (Sturt et al. 2013). From the end of the Late Glacial period onwards, the landscape of Europe underwent a series of dramatic modifications as the ice cover retreated and sea levels rose. Parts of the continental shelf were inundated, most obviously the North Sea Basin, but, as the temperature increased, large areas of productive land became suitable for settlement. Steppe conditions gradually shifted northwards and, once forested conditions developed, new game animals migrated into the study area, including elk, red deer, roe deer, cattle, and wild boar. The same period is associated with the reshaping of the coastline

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

46

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

Fig. 2.3. Palaeogeographic models for the changing coastlines of Britain and Ireland at 9000, 7000, and 5000 BC. Information from Sturt et al. 2013.

and the creation of islands. The new ecosystem favoured the use of marine resources. As a result, human groups occupied parts of Europe that were previously inhospitable, and settlement expanded into a series of different environments (Bailey and Spikins 2008). Various episodes of climatic change occurred during the Mesolithic period. There were sudden events as well as more gradual developments, in particular the onset of the Climatic Optimum from 7000 BC. The latter is associated with a stabilization of the coastlines and river systems, and the transition from coniferous to deciduous forests (Bailey and Spikins 2008; Terberger et al. 2009). The result was an increasing contrast between coastal environments that supported a rich and varied ecosystem, and closed woodland that presented more challenges for human settlement. Zvelebil (2000) emphasizes the importance of three components of the settlement pattern: a ‘maritime shoreline zone’; a ‘lacustrine zone’; and a ‘riparian zone’. In the following discussion lakes and wetlands close to the sea are considered together with the coastal sites, whilst those along major rivers are considered as inland sites. To some extent this division is artificial, and the relationships between these different areas are considered in a later section.

Inland Areas The contrast between densely populated coasts and less intensively used inland areas is a familiar feature of Mesolithic studies and assumed a greater importance with the development of climax forest. It plays an important part in several different interpretations. Perhaps social groups became smaller as

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

47

long-distance communication was impeded, and this may be reflected by the decreasing areas over which particular styles of artefacts were distributed. It may also explain why sites in inland regions of France and Germany were scattered or even absent, whilst they became increasingly common along coasts and estuaries. For example, the proportion of inland finds fell during the later Mesolithic period in north-west Belgium and the northern Netherlands (Sergant et al. 2009). On the other hand, it may be a mistake to overemphasize this change because earlier sites along the shoreline could have been drowned by the sea. Such contrasts have been documented by development-led archaeology (Ducrocq 2005; Kayser 2007; Cliquet and Ghesquière 2010), but the evidence should not be taken literally, as sites of this period are difficult to identify without carefully targeted field survey of the kind that has been so successful in the southern Netherlands, Brittany, and the British Isles. Even so, enough new discoveries have been made to identify some striking trends. In England and Wales, where the distribution of Mesolithic artefacts was mapped some time ago, they occur in many inland regions, with important foci along the river valleys (Wymer 1977). In upland areas they may have followed the tree-line where open conditions still prevailed. In Ireland, where it once seemed that sites were concentrated along the coast and estuaries, new finds also extend further inland (Woodman 2009). In the southern Netherlands, Verhart (2008) has recognized a striking contrast between one group of late Mesolithic sites along the edge of the Meuse valley and another series around the sources of the streams that discharged into the lower ground (Fig. 2.4). In the Paris Basin and adjacent areas, where late Mesolithic sites seemed to be comparatively rare, recent work has identified what may be the remains of huts and a significant number of pits (Verhart and Arts 2005; Dujardin 2009). Even so, Valdeyron observes that in France ‘knowledge still remains rather patchy, at least by comparison with neighbouring countries’ (Valdeyron 2008, 202). Inland sites have also been investigated in Jutland. In most cases they consist of thin ‘culture layers’ or flint scatters, associated with a few pits or hearths. Examples include Bølling Sø Vest which was interpreted as a hunting station because little debitage was present in the flint assemblage compared to the number of finished arrowheads and flakes. This does not apply to other sites interpreted as temporary camps, such as Brande–Bøgevænget and Overgård. Several were located alongside streams or lakes and were involved in freshwater fishing. At Kayhude in Schleswig Holstein wooden posts in one such lake probably represent a fish-weir dating from about 5000 BC. Refuse deposited in the water included the bones of fish, waterfowl, beaver, and turtle, and a wide range of terrestrial animals, predominantly wild pig and deer. Older excavations around the Dümmer See in Lower Saxony have found Mesolithic sites associated with pottery and the remains of houses (Kampffmeyer 1983).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

48

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

Fig. 2.4. The relationship between Mesolithic sites in the Meuse valley and those at the sources of its tributaries. Information from Verhart 2008.

Inland areas provide evidence of funerary practices (Meiklejohn et al. 2010). Inhumation burials have been known for some time, but Mesolithic cremations are a more recent discovery. They have been identified in County Limerick in Ireland where they date from the late eighth millennium BC, and also on the mainland of northern and north-western Europe (Meiklejohn and Babb 2009). Re-examination of a rock shelter excavated in the 1930s at Heffingen–Loschbour in Luxembourg (Toussaint et al. 2009) has identified a Mesolithic cremation dated to 7050–6690 BC, as well as an unburnt burial with a date of 6220–5990 BC. Another Mesolithic cremation was discovered during work undertaken prior to quarrying at Concevreux–Les Jombras (Aisne). This find is particularly notable as it dates from 5470 to 5380 BC, and precedes the introduction of farming in the area by a comparatively short period.

On the Coast The evidence from coastal regions is very different. Here the archaeological sequence shows that hunting, gathering, and fishing continued for several hundred years after the introduction of domesticates to neighbouring regions.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

49

Late Mesolithic sites are more common and are routinely found during development-led investigations. In order to compensate for the deep Holocene cover of these regions, augering is commonly employed in the Netherlands and Flanders (Willems and Brandt 2004, 63–4; see also De Clercq et al. 2012, 43–5). The exceptional funding provided by large infrastructure projects has offered unique opportunities to investigate deeply buried sites where the remains are well preserved, like those at Hardinxveld–Giessendam De Bruin and Hardinxveld–Giessendam Polderweg (Zuid-Holland, Netherlands), excavated prior to the construction of the railway linking Amsterdam to the Dutch-German border. These places are not far apart and are located on river dunes, four to five metres below the modern surface. In the late Mesolithic period both were islands in an area of wetland. Several elements point to a long period of use. Large shallow flat-bottomed pits, associated with small postholes, are probably the remains of huts, while the inhabitants spent long enough there to bury the remains of their dead. There were several graves, as well as dog burials and scattered human bones. Both sites are interpreted as base camps. This is confirmed by the range, quality, and quantity of the artefacts, including worked antler, flint implements, and pottery that had been used for processing terrestrial food (Smits and van der Plicht 2009). The most spectacular finds are the waterlogged remains of an ash paddle, wooden bows, and a canoe made out of a lime trunk. These extraordinary artefacts indicate that the local population was taking advantage of the surrounding wetland, hunting beavers and a variety of birds, and fishing, particularly for pike. Stable isotope analysis of the human remains from both De Bruin and Polderweg confirms that aquatic resources formed a major component of the diet (Smits and van der Plicht 2009). The sequence at De Bruin spans three phases, dated between 5500 and 4500 BC, while the two phases of settlement at Polderweg belong to the second half of the sixth millennium BC. They belong to the Swifterbant Culture, which extended across the coastal Netherlands and the sandy areas of northern Belgium (Raemaekers 2005; Crombé 2010). Swifterbant sites exhibit strong similarities with the contemporary Ertebølle-Ellerbek Culture, distributed along the Baltic coast and in central Jutland between about 5500 and 3500 BC. Best known are the ‘kitchen middens’, found in coastal northern and eastern Jutland. Few have been identified along the North Sea coast, although it is possible that some have been lost to the sea. Shell-fish were particularly abundant. The sites can extend for hundreds of metres along the former coastline, and were often used for long periods. Some may have been occupied continuously, while others were used on many separate occasions. Recently excavated examples include Vængesø, which included the remains of shell-fish and the bones of marine fish, seals, and whales. Among the flint artefacts were arrowheads, axes, and knives. The midden also contained an inhumation burial, placed on a layer of organic

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

50

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

material such as bark or skin. The head and right arm had apparently been removed. Accompanying the burial were a flint arrowhead and blade, a pot, and a piece of amber. The burial has been radiocarbon dated to about 4300–4250 BC, but the highly ‘marine’ isotopic signature of the bone must be taken into account. It is the only Mesolithic grave found in the region since 1998, but groups of burials are known from earlier excavations. Beneath part of the Vængesø midden was a circular depression, measuring 11 m by 7 m. In the middle there were stone-built hearths, and postholes were identified along its outer limit. This may have been the site of a house or shelter. Other buildings have been found on coastal sites where shell middens are absent. A recent example comes from Egehøj, and takes the form of a depression, measuring 3 m by 5 m (Jensen 2002). It was floored with layers of bark, and postholes were identified around its edge and in the interior. The structure seems to have been rebuilt or repaired several times. There were further postholes, pits, and a stone-built hearth nearby. The dimensions and forms of the buildings at Vængesø and Egehøj resemble those of Ertebølle houses elsewhere (Grøn 2003). Flint artefacts, hazelnut shells, and a few sherds of pottery were recovered. Pottery is often found at late Mesolithic sites in southern Scandinavia and along the continental shores of the North Sea. Chemical analyses of charred residues from Danish and Belgian sites indicate that, in many instances, these vessels were used to process fish (Craig et al. 2007). As well as the large middens, there were more specialized sites. Beside a fjord at Dyngby, a culture layer has been investigated. It was near to several kitchen middens but contained a completely different assemblage, with relatively small amounts of shell and a very restricted range of flint artefacts. While blades had been produced in large quantities, few other types of tool were found there. Oysters were collected at Dyngby during a short period in late March/early April. For that reason the site is interpreted in terms of brief visits for a specialized purpose. Similarly, sediment layers in a former fjord at Grube–Rosenhof contained the remains of a fish-weir along with worked flint, pottery, and wooden artefacts including paddles, fish-spears, and part of a bow. The food that was consumed there came from both land and water, as there were the remains of hazelnuts, wild pig, cattle, horse, and deer, as well as otter, seal, and marine fish. Finally, at Neustadt refuse deposits from a submerged coastal settlement occupied across the Mesolithic–Neolithic transition (4600–3800 BC) have been excavated by divers as part of a research project. Again wooden artefacts including part of a log boat, paddles, fish-spears, and a bow were found. Many fish were eaten on the site. More were caught at sea than in fresh or brackish water. Seal and dolphin/porpoise dominated the mammal bones, although land species such as deer, boar, and aurochs also occurred, along with hazelnut shell. Small amounts of domestic animal bone were deposited

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

51

after 4100/4000 BC. At both Grube–Rosenhof and Neustadt the evidence points to permanent occupation, or at least to repeated visits for lengthy periods. Coastal sites were also important in the British Isles, and shell middens played a special role in the Mesolithic period in Scotland (Fig. 2.5). They have not been investigated to the same extent as those in Jutland, but their archaeology raises some of the same issues. In recent years the most extensively investigated examples have been on the north-west coast. They are associated not only with animal bones and fish bones but also with a distinctive range of bone tools. Recent work has shown that this is a case in which a specialized artefact assemblage was associated with a restricted range of sites; other places in the same area are associated with microliths (Mithen 2000). The second point of comparison concerns the periods of occupation. In this case a study of the fish bones suggests that individual middens may have been used at different times of year and that the periods of occupation complemented

Fig. 2.5. A shell midden on the island of Oronsay, Scotland, associated with deposits of human bone. Deposits of human bone are indicated in dark tone. Information from Meiklejohn et al. 2005.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

52

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

one another even in the same small area (Mellars and Wilkinson 1980). At the same time, they formed part of a more extensive maritime network, evidenced by the distribution of different activities and the movement of distinctive raw materials. Another parallel with the Danish evidence is the presence of human remains in these shell middens. There is some evidence of disarticulated bones which had been laid out with some formality (Meiklejohn et al. 2005). The latest dates from Mesolithic sites off the west coast of Scotland overlap with those for Neolithic settlement on the mainland. The same is true of a recently excavated shell midden at Sumburgh in the Shetland Islands which is dated to 4200–3600 BC (Melton 2009). A third area with late Mesolithic shell middens is Brittany. It raises the same chronological problems. Although recent projects at Beg-an-Dorchenn and Beg-er-Vil have added to the existing documentation, the sites of Téviec and Hoëdic, excavated during the 1920s and 1930s, still attract most attention (Marchand 2007a and 2007b). Both Téviec and Hoëdic are shell middens. Today they are located on small islands, but at the time of occupation Téviec may have been attached to the mainland. Recent analysis of the food remains suggests that they could have been used all year round. Téviec and Hoëdic are famous for the discovery of burials which seem to have been covered by the middens. Radiocarbon dating of the human remains suggests that they were deposited during the late sixth and early fifth millennia BC. The precise calibration of these dates is impeded by the high ä13C ratio of the bone collagen, which also indicates that fishing made a significant contribution to the diet of several of these individuals (Schulting and Richards 2001). Despite this uncertainty, both sites are chronologically close to the evidence of farming in inland Brittany. There were different ä13C values between males and females, and this could suggest that fish was less important in the women’s diet. Schulting and Richards (2001) have interpreted this pattern either as the outcome of a gender-based food taboo, or as evidence that local men were marrying women from the mainland.

Integration Such evidence raises three important questions. The first is to consider whether coastal and inland settlements were occupied by the same people, or whether they were inhabited by separate communities. This has important implications for the degree of mobility during the later Mesolithic period when there may be little evidence of marine contacts between Britain, Ireland, and Continental Europe. Two methods have been used to address this question: isotopic studies of human and animal bones; and investigations of the characteristic styles of lithic artefacts and the ways of making them.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

53

It is clear that there is no single answer to this question. There are regions in which studies of human bone suggest that people passed much of their lives close to the sea, whilst there are other instances in which they may have spent long periods in inland parts of the study area. As the Breton example showed, there are also cases in which the human remains from a single site suggest a population that was drawn from both these regions. The same approach has been taken to the bones of dogs, which were not regarded as a source of meat and seem to have accompanied their owners from place to place (Eriksson and Zagorska 2003). Among the regions where such evidence indicates that people spent most of their time on, or close to, the shoreline are the west of Scotland, parts of Denmark, northern Germany, and north-west France (Schulting 2009). There are other areas in which human remains suggest that people were drawn both from the coast and inland regions. As well as Brittany, such evidence has been recognized in Wales and Ireland and again during the Ertebølle period in Denmark where both humans and dogs have been described as ‘isotopic commuters’ (Fischer 2003). In Jutland, stable isotope evidence indicates a very high marine component to the diet, even on inland sites. It certainly suggests the importance of seasonal mobility (Fischer et al. 2007). There is a long tradition of looking for regional differences in the styles of lithic artefacts, and they have often been considered as evidence of distinctive regional identities. It may be as informative to treat these patterns as evidence of long-distance communications. It is interesting that some of these local groups extend from the shoreline into inland areas, weakening any argument that those regions were occupied by separate groups of people. For example, five of the social territories postulated by Kozłowski for the later seventh millennium BC extend between both these regions (Kozłowski 2009, Chapter 1). Similarly, five of the six Mesolithic traditions identified by Marchand (2007b) in north-west France include sections of the coast as well as inland areas. The two styles of lithic artefacts that have been recognized in Brittany extend up to 60 kilometres from the sea. There is comparable evidence beyond the study area in central Scandinavia (Falkenström 2003). Here there may have been eight social territories, each of them between 150 and 200 kilometres across. Six of these include sections of the coast as well as inland territories. Another question concerns the structure of Mesolithic activity across the wider landscape. Although some sites may have been used over long periods, it has been difficult to decide whether any were occupied by sedentary communities. Two concepts have had a particular influence on recent research: there may have been ‘aggregation sites’ where dispersed groups met together on special occasions; and there were ‘persistent places’. The distinction between these categories depends on several features: the quantity of different occupations (a feature which is hard to study on sites

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

54

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

without stratified sequences); the number and diversity of excavated artefacts and food remains; and the size and spacing of individual sites. Only occasionally is the evidence especially clear. For example, at Staosnaig off the west coast of Scotland a single pit contained the remains of about 300,000 hazelnuts (Mithen 2000, Chapter 5.2). They must surely have been meant for consumption by a considerable number of people. Similarly, Ertebølle shell middens contain an abundance of artefacts and food remains. They have been interpreted as refuse heaps, but, like their counterparts in Brittany, they may have provided the setting for episodes of communal feasting and ritual. The largest Mesolithic sites in Jutland are roughly equally spaced at intervals of about 20 kilometres. They can cover an area of 7 hectares, compared with inland sites where the equivalent figure is roughly 15 per cent of that size (Andersen 1995). Even so, Zvelebil (2008) argues that the largest examples in both these areas may have been aggregation sites—public events need not have been restricted to the shoreline. This may be confirmed by the increasingly frequent discovery of burials away from the coast. In one sense all these sites can be described as ‘persistent places’ but the term is more appropriate to lithic scatters which seem to represent a palimpsest resulting from separate occupations over a long period of time. They are best identified by the systematic application of radiocarbon dating. For example, excavations of the final Mesolithic site of Lhéry–La Presle in the Marne revealed several distinct flint concentrations. The radiocarbon dates from this site span the late seventh millennium and the whole of the sixth millennium BC. Another well-documented instance is Verrebroek ‘Dok’ in Flanders where what appeared to be a large concentration of Mesolithic material resulted from a series of repeated occupations, each of them associated with a small number of artefacts (Crombé et al. 2003). In this case sixty-eight radiocarbon dates were obtained, suggesting that activity took place there between 8710 and 7570 BC; there were another three late Mesolithic dates from the site. Presumably certain environments were so well suited to prehistoric foragers that they were often reused, although there may also have been social reasons for returning to places that had been inhabited in the past. A third question is much more difficult to answer. It is clear that there were significant contrasts between coastal and inland occupations. Are they sufficient to postulate the existence of more complex societies living along the coastline? One way of thinking about this problem is to consider their outside contacts. It is clear that coastal foragers in north Germany, the Low Countries and Denmark were in touch with farmers living in regions further to the south. Their neighbours were the source of the exotic artefacts and domesticates imported to these sites (Verhart 2009). They may also have provided the inspiration for local pottery production. There is much less information from other parts of the study area. The bones of domestic cattle were found in a Mesolithic shell midden at Ferriter’s Cove in south-west Ireland, but they

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

55

are an isolated discovery (Woodman et al. 1999, 570–5), and there is only slightly more information from western France, where it seems possible that one kind of Mesolithic arrowhead was of Neolithic inspiration (Pailler 2007). None of this evidence is sufficient to prove that late Mesolithic foragers living on the coast developed particularly complex social institutions, although it remains a possibility. To a great extent the case depends on comparisons with coastal communities in other parts of the world (Price and Brown 1985), and for that reason it cannot be entirely convincing. A contrast with the first farmers still remains important.

T H E IN T R O D U C T I O N OF F A R M I N G : TH E LINEARBANDKERAMIK CULTURE For the most part the introduction of farming followed two distinct axes, one of them maritime and the other inland (Mazurié de Kéroualin 2003). The British Isles were connected to both these networks. The maritime stream is associated with the Impressed Ware complex in the Adriatic and Tyrrhenian Seas and Mediterranean France, and with Cardial Ware and its associations in the west Mediterranean and Portugal. In time this network extended northwards up the Atlantic coastline. The inland stream began as the Starčevo-Körös-Criş complex, found in Bulgaria, Serbia, Hungary, and Romania. Around 5600 BC the Linearbandkeramik culture (hereafter LBK) first appeared, although its origins are still debated (Bánffy 2006). It extended northwards from the Hungarian basin and eastwards as far as the edges of the Ukraine. To the west, it is represented throughout central Europe, and by 5400 BC it featured in both the Rhine and Meuse valleys. Its distribution extended to the Aisne and Oise about 200 years later. Although this may seem a rapid development, the radiocarbon record indicates that the average rate of expansion of the LBK was slower than it was in the Impressed Ware and Cardial Ware complexes. The contrast may be due to ecological and economic factors, for the LBK expansion happened in a closed environment of mixed forest and was characterized by an agricultural system favouring the most fertile soils (Bocquet-Appel et al. 2012). In fact the settlement pattern of the LBK is well known for its emphasis on the loess and river valleys. Both trends have been confirmed by development-led work in north-west Europe, where the LBK features prominently in the inventory of newly discovered sites. Two examples can be highlighted here. In Belgium, early work by antiquarians and archaeologists suggested that the LBK distribution was confined to two distinct clusters, one in Hainaut, close to the French border, and the other to the east around Liège (Jadin 2003).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

56

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

Development-led archaeological work prior to the building of two high-speed railways linking France and Germany has confirmed this patterning. It located many new sites, including two enclosures, but no LBK material was identified outside these core areas, suggesting that the discontinuous distribution of finds reflects a past reality. A similar situation is encountered in Picardy, where sites belonging to the local LBK group are always located in river valleys, especially along the Aisne. In most cases they were found prior to quarrying. While there is a long-standing tradition of archaeological monitoring in this region, it is noticeable that sites of the same date are absent at other locations (Dubouloz et al. 2005). The same pattern is represented in other areas, including the Dutch Limburg (Amkreutz 2010) and the lignite quarries of western Germany. In fact development-led archaeology in the study area has not changed the overall distribution of the LBK culture. Rather, it provides evidence for a greater density and variety of occupation within already known areas of settlement. On the other hand, this pattern is subject to certain biases among archaeologists themselves. The ‘typical’ LBK house is long and rectangular and was built of massive posts. This structure remains the same from Ukraine to the Paris Basin and is easily recognized, even during trial-trenching. This might explain why LBK sites are so often found in north-west Europe. The settlements extend from isolated buildings to larger villages comprising tens of houses occupied over several phases (Fig. 2.6). Some of them show signs of obvious spatial organization (for instance Remicourt-Momalle–Fond de Momalle where several houses share the same alignment). In some cases (for example Fexhe-le–Haut-Clocher–Voroux-Goreux, Remicourt-Momalle–En Bia Flo II), these clusters of buildings are associated with ditched enclosures, although the relationship between them is disputed. Based on the excavations at the site of Darion, Keeley and Cahen suggested a defensive function (Keeley and Cahen 1989; see also Keeley et al. 2007), but this interpretation has been challenged as it is impossible to prove that the houses and enclosures were contemporary with one another (Pechtl 2009). Another area that has benefited from development-led fieldwork is the study of LBK funerary practices. It has confirmed the existence of regional variations within this tradition. For instance, large cemeteries containing several dozen individuals are found in the Rhine valley, including both western Germany and Alsace; a good example is the site of Vendenheim–Le Haut du Coteau, with 112 graves. In the Paris Basin, however, there is more evidence that isolated burials or small groups of burials were placed amongst the houses. The same is true in Germany. Through careful excavation French archaeologists have also identified some unfamiliar funerary practices, including the re-opening of graves, as at Ensisheim–Les Octrois. Perhaps the most important advances in LBK research are not due to development-led archaeology, but to the application of new scientific

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

57

Fig. 2.6. LBK settlement, Bucy-le-Long–La Fosselle, Picardy. Information from Hachem et al. 1997.

techniques such as the extraction and analysis of ancient DNA directly from bone, and the use of strontium isotopes. The LBK culture played a significant part in the development of these techniques. The ethnic and biological identity of LBK communities has been discussed for a long time. On one hand, earlier theories identified them with the migration of people ultimately of Near Eastern origin across most of Europe; on the other, several researchers suggested that the diffusion of LBK traits could be explained as the outcome of interactions between local foragers. Early results of ancient DNA studies on sites distributed across the entire LBK area support the first model and highlight the difference between the genomes of LBK populations and those of late Palaeolithic and Mesolithic people (Haak et al. 2010). More surprisingly, the same work has also shown that some of the LBK individuals shared a haplotype which is very rare among modern Europeans. If the LBK culture was related to the introduction of a new

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

58

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

population in Europe, its bearers had only a limited impact on modern genetic variability. Other, later demographic events must also be invoked. Strontium isotopes make it possible to investigate the movement of individuals during their lifetimes and to distinguish between local and non-local members of the community (Bentley 2006). This methodology has now been successfully applied in several areas of LBK settlement and the existence of incomers has been demonstrated in almost every case (Bickle and Whittle 2013). An even more interesting pattern is starting to emerge. A recent project has shown that there was less mobility among men, especially those buried with higher quality goods, such as finely made adzes (Bentley et al. 2012; Bentley 2013). This suggests that ‘wealthy’ males were closely associated with local areas. They could have maintained their access to productive land over a longer period of time than other people. Both results depend upon the development and application of new scientific techniques, but they echo more traditional arguments. For a long time researchers have looked for signs of interaction between local foraging groups and incoming farmers, but the evidence for such contacts remains very limited. There is little to suggest a prolonged period of overlap between foragers and farmers in inland areas. There may have been a certain convergence between late Mesolithic and LBK lithic tool kits in the Paris Basin and neighbouring areas, but even this suggestion is controversial (Robinson et al. 2013). The same applies to the suggestion that two distinctive styles of pottery in north-west Europe (the La Hoguette and Limburg groups) were associated with Mesolithic hunter-gatherers who adopted ceramic technology from their neighbours (Crombé 2010). It is true that ceramics were made beyond the agricultural frontier in northern Europe, but in this case the argument is more tenuous. In fact the distribution of LBK settlements on the loess hardly overlapped with the areas favoured by the last foragers (Vanmontfort 2008). All these studies show that the LBK world was composed of farming communities who were attached to their local territories, but connected to one another through a constant flow of individuals, goods, and ideas. Their social system, and the economy that supported it, seems to have been sustained over a considerable period.

NEW CONFIGURATIONS IN GERMANY A N D FR A N C E (4 9 0 0 – 37 0 0 B C ) Towards the end of the sixth millennium BC that uniformity was lost and there is evidence of increasingly diversified ceramic and architectural styles (ZeebLanz 2009). There was also a preference for the use of local raw materials.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

59

Several authors have postulated a LBK ‘crisis’. In Gronenborn’s view it could have been caused by an episode of climatic degradation which would have impacted on food production, leading to uncertainty and low returns (Gronenborn 2007). Direct evidence for climatic change is scarce, although Berger (2005) has pointed to disturbances in the local hydrological regimes during the late LBK. Such disturbances would have raised the energy flows of rivers, and made them less predictable. Flooding could have affected settlers who lived in valleys. Another factor is the evidence of interpersonal violence from late LBK sites. The most impressive examples come from Germany. At Herxheim an enclosure was constructed at the site of a long-established settlement. Excavation of roughly 30 per cent of its ditch found the bones of at least 450 individuals; scientific evidence shows that some of them were not native to the area. Many of their remains showed signs of damage, butchery, or even cannibalism (Boulestin et al. 2009b; Orschiedt and Noël Haidle 2012). Something similar may have happened at Schöneck–Kilianstädten where recent excavation has unearthed the remains of at least twenty-seven corpses which had been dumped together in another enclosure ditch. A third site is Talheim where a single pit contained the bodies of eighteen adults and sixteen children. They must have been the victims of a single attack (Wahl and Trautmann 2012). Several of them had sustained deadly blows to their heads, and others were perhaps shot by arrows as they were trying to escape. Radiocarbon determinations date this deposit to the very end of the LBK period (4900–4800 BC). Bioanthropological investigation suggests that these individuals belonged to a coherent genetic group, perhaps the same family (Bentley et al. 2008). The significance of such conflicts is difficult to judge, and it would be unwise to make too much of a few examples. The same is true of climatic variations when little environmental evidence is available at the regional level. Nonetheless the archaeological record did undergo a dramatic transformation at this time and several regions saw a marked decrease in the number of sites. This is clear from the results of development-led fieldwork in the Netherlands and western Germany. There might have been a fall in population (Shennan and Edinborough 2007), but it would be unwise to link it directly with an increased level of interpersonal violence (Shennan et al. 2013). Whatever the cause, new regional differences first appear at this time. While this is true of Dutch Limburg and western Germany, the French sequence follows a different trajectory. Later communities used new kinds of houses and have been labelled by French archaeologists as the Blicquy/Villeneuve-Saint-Germain (BVSG) Culture. Its pottery, lithic artefacts, and domestic buildings all had antecedents in the LBK, although there was a growing preference for trapezoidal longhouses. In contrast to contemporary developments in the Rhine valley for instance, the BVSG settlement pattern underwent

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

60

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

rapid changes as farming was introduced into regions further to the west. By 4900–4800 BC the process extended as far as Brittany. At the same time, new environments were settled, including the first use of plateaus (Chartier 2005) and the settlements themselves were smaller than their predecessors. BVSG sites contain a limited number of houses and were used over shorter periods than the villages of the LBK. In fact the BVSG settlement pattern owes more to a process of fragmentation, as smaller, scattered communities looked for new land to colonize. One of these areas was Normandy where significant discoveries have been made during recent fieldwork. Here the BVSG sites are widely distributed and are found on the coastal plain, along major river valleys, or on low plateaus. They include a number of settlements containing a small number of houses— one only at Ecouché–Carrière MEAC, Bernières-sur-Mer–Rue du Maréchal Montgomery, Fontenay-le-Marmion–Le Grand Champ, and Mondeville–HautSaint-Martin (Chancerel and Ghesquière 2006); two at Bosrobert–La Métairie site A; and small villages at Guichainville–Le Long Buisson and Aubevoye–La Chartreuse where a poorly preserved faunal assemblage was analyzed. It was dominated by domestic species (c.80 per cent), and cattle (45 per cent) were more important than sheep/goats (23 per cent) and pigs (11 per cent). The wild animals included red and roe deer, aurochs, and wild boar. In the case of red deer, the over-representation of long bones suggests that these animals were butchered away from the site. This period of expansion saw a great demand for slate. Indeed, several BVSG occupation sites provide evidence for the production of slate bracelets on a remarkably large scale. For example, an important extraction site was discovered at Saint-Germain-du-Corbéis–L’Ermitage, and another at Brillevast–Le Douetty, both in Normandy. These artefacts feature prominently in the burials of this period. Slate does not occur in the western Paris Basin, where many BVSG sites are found, and so these artefacts were imported from a newly settled area. Fromont (2006) has argued that the circulation of these objects and their exchange for other commodities helped to maintain social relationships over considerable distances. The BVSG culture was comparatively short-lived and spanned three centuries at most. From about 4600 to 4200 BC the archaeological record of continental north-west Europe is more diverse. There were fewer sites in western Germany, but there were small clusters of longhouses, occasionally associated with enclosures. Burials were virtually unknown until the recent discovery of a cemetery of seventeen inhumations near a longhouse at Soest. By contrast, there is a total absence of information from Belgium. The same period saw the development of the first monumental landscapes in the Paris Basin. In French terminology, this period represents the first stage of the middle Neolithic period, and, in particular, the Cerny Culture which has a comparable distribution to the preceding BVSG culture.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

61

The greatest density of finds is in the valley of the Yonne which contains no fewer than fifteen Cerny cemeteries, yet there are other areas where this phase is not represented. In some regions—west of the Seine and north of the Loire—sites may have been destroyed by quarrying before the advent of development-led archaeology. In other cases the absence of discoveries may be more significant, for instance in the Oise valley and Nord-Pas-de-Calais (Chambon et al. 2007). The character of settlements changed, too. Several Cerny sites contain a few pits and lack any clear organization, but in other cases long trapezoidal houses are recorded, whose forms echo the older LBK and BVSG traditions. In recent years excavations have identified a completely new type of settlement which is composed of large roundhouses; one example at Auneau–Parc du Château was 12 m in diameter (Fig. 2.7). The outer walls

Fig. 2.7. Circular buildings from the Paris Basin, c.4600–4200 BC. Information from Verjux 2007.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

62

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

of such structures were set in a continuous trench, with a single entrance to the west. Such buildings were subdivided by a central partition, and it seems as if most activities took place in the eastern half.

The First Monumental Cemeteries in the Paris Basin Several features of the westward expansion of farming call for discussion in their own right. The first is the appearance of monumental cemeteries. The most remarkable innovation of this period was the development of ‘Passy-type’ monuments (Fig. 2.8). They are defined by two parallel ditches in an arrangement which recalls the form of the post-LBK longhouse. These structures may have been mounds or enclosures and were associated with single graves. They are often grouped in cemeteries, containing a dozen or more monuments, built over several phases. They are quite widely distributed in the Paris Basin and beyond it in regions like Normandy, but they occur in

Fig. 2.8. Middle Neolithic cemetery at Passy–La Sablonnière/Richebourg, Burgundy. Information from Chambon 2003.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

63

exceptional numbers in the valley of the Yonne (Chambon et al. 2007) and there is a possible example at Friedberg in Hesse. Despite their reference to house plans, these distinctive structures were a completely new development. Moreover, they vanished as abruptly as they appeared, for the entire phenomenon lasted for no more than the two centuries, between 4700 and 4500 BC (Chambon 2003). The remaining part of the Cerny period was characterized by a greater variety of monumental architecture. It is best exemplified by the site of Passy– La Truie Pendue, a small island in the Yonne valley in between two palaeochannels. It included further structures featuring parallel ditches and a central pit, a circular structure of the kind mentioned earlier, as well as quadrangular and oval buildings. It seems as though the Yonne played a special role in the beliefs of Neolithic communities. This impression is reinforced by the site of Gurgy–Les Noisats, where over one hundred middle Neolithic graves were discovered over an area of approximately 500 m2 (Fig. 2.9). Excavations revealed thirty-three single graves (including six children less than ten years

Fig. 2.9. Middle Neolithic grave at Gurgy–Les Noisats, Burgundy. Information from Rodier 2006.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

64

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

old), and five double graves (two for young children, one for adults, and two for both adults and children).

The Development of Enclosures For a long time Neolithic enclosures were regarded as a unitary phenomenon, with the result that the same interpretations were favoured from one region to another. Although later examples showed more diversity, there seemed little doubt that all these monuments could be studied together. One outcome of development-led fieldwork has been to establish their discontinuous distribution over time and space (Müller 2010). Perhaps that is not surprising as their history may have extended over 2000 years (Whittle et al. 2011, Chapter 14). For that reason this account is organized chronologically. The first examples date from the later sixth and earlier fifth millennia BC and were built in Belgium and western Germany during the LBK phase. In some cases they enclosed groups of longhouses. The same happened at Menneville in the Aisne valley, in France (Coudart and Demoule 1982). Although it is difficult to establish whether all these earthworks and palisades were contemporary with the buildings inside them, it is clear that they should be dated to the end of the local sequence. Some of them did not have the interrupted perimeter that became such a feature of causewayed enclosures. Other examples in Belgium and western Germany shared virtually the same layout as one another (van Berg 1991). They had the same proportions, and their plans are so similar that they can sometimes be superimposed. It seems as if a set of architectural rules was widely shared. It is not clear how these places were used since some of these structures were empty. It is unlikely that every example was a defended settlement, although this would surely apply to the site at Herxheim with deposits of human bodies in its ditch. Between about 4900 and 4300 BC two different kinds of enclosure are found. The first is circular and belongs to a type described as a roundel that is much more common in central Europe (Melichar and Neubauer 2010). In the study area there are occasional examples in the Rhineland and Westphalia. Like their counterparts further south, they were built over a restricted period and in this case they date from about 4900 BC. Structures of this kind can be found in the vicinity of settlements, but do not appear to enclose any houses of the same date. Instead they seem to have been employed in public rituals that involved observations of the sun and perhaps the moon, and the commemoration of the dead whose bones have been found in excavation. In the eastern part of the study area there were also causewayed enclosures. The recently excavated site of Spiere–De Hel in Belgium is typical. It was located on a small ridge overlooking a river and defined by two main palisades, divided into seven sections. The site was occupied during the second half of

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

65

the fifth millennium BC and is thought to have hosted both domestic and ceremonial activities, for instance an intentional deposit of a complete pot at the bottom of a ditch. Other enclosures with interrupted perimeters were built in northern France. A particularly informative example is at Balloy, a site which also includes a cemetery of Passy-type monuments of the kind considered earlier (cf. Chambon and Mordant 1996). Here the enclosure ditch had been broken into sixty segments and contained ceramic vessels, animal bones, and human skulls. This typifies a wider pattern, for these earthworks no longer defined the boundaries of settlements. To some extent they can be considered as the northern and western counterpart of the roundels, but they had a much longer history than those monuments. Between about 4300 and 3700 BC the distribution of enclosures became even wider and many more examples from this period have been found. As Müller (2010) has demonstrated, their centre of gravity appears to have shifted westwards. Within the study area their distribution extends from Hesse as far as Normandy, and there are further examples along the Atlantic coastline. As Chapter 3 will show, in time it would become even wider. Such enclosures have featured prominently in development-led archaeology. The information gained is difficult to summarize, but several features stand out: the association of these enclosures with non-local artefacts; the presence of large numbers of animal and human bones; and evidence that these deposits had been placed in the ground with some formality. A few particularly striking examples are cited below, but they exemplify a wider pattern. Research in Hesse and Lower Saxony has suggested that many enclosures were readily accessible but were peripheral to settled areas. They were used for multiple purposes. The exchange of livestock may have been important, but even more significant was the role these places played in mortuary rituals. A newly discovered enclosure, roughly circular and 200 m in diameter, is located in a river valley at Bad Nauheim–Siechenhaus. It was defined by a broad outer ditch and two inner ditches or palisades. Pottery, ceramic ‘baking plates’, and animal bone were recovered from the ditch, and a child inhumation had been placed at the base of the innermost palisade trench. Pits of the same date were scattered both inside and outside the enclosure. Further examples come from the valleys of the Yonne and the Marne. Excavation at Monéteau–Sous Macherin revealed a palisaded enclosure extending over 3.5 hectares. It is estimated that 5000 mature trees were needed to build it. Thirty burials dating from the late fifth millennium BC were discovered on the site, twenty of them organized in two groups. Another enclosure at Vignely–La Noue Fenard consisted of two interrupted ditches and a palisade. The breaks in the perimeter of the enclosure seem to have been a focus for intentional deposits which were covered over as the earthwork was refilled. A crouched burial, placed on top of a ceramic vessel, was found in one of the ditches, as well as other human remains.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

66

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

Lastly, there are enclosures with concentrations of material which had been brought there from other regions. A site at Banville–La Burette in Normandy typifies a wider pattern. Surface finds provide an indication of the complexity of exchange networks at this time. They include a jadeite axe whose ultimate source was in the southern Alps, and various raw materials introduced from Brittany such as dolerite, fibrolite, and metadolerite. Such instances are by no means unusual and all of them make the same point. After an initial phase in which enclosures were closely integrated with occupation sites, they assumed an increasingly specialized role. They required a considerable investment of labour and may have been used for feasting, the exchange and sacrifice of livestock, the movement of unfamiliar artefacts and raw materials, and the celebration of the dead. As this happened, their numbers increased and their distribution became much wider. At the same time they were increasingly separate from the domestic domain which is generally represented by scatters of artefacts, pits, and the possible remains of domestic dwellings.

The Development of Flint Mines Like the enclosures, flint mines had an extended history and were employed at different times in different regions. Some were in use over a longer period than others. An example at Soumont-Saint-Quentin–Les Longrais in northern France dates from the early fifth millennium BC, but those at Rijckholt– St. Geertruid in the southern Netherlands seem to have been established some centuries afterwards and remained in use for roughly fifteen hundred years (Deeben et al. 2011). Another important group of mines, which commenced operation about 4000 BC, was at Spiennes in Belgium and was close to a Neolithic enclosure. Large-scale flint extraction was a feature of the same period in Normandy, and there are other flint mines of this date in Picardy. They include Ressons-sur-Matz–Le Fond Madelon Duriez which contained as many as thirty-eight shafts, each of them between a metre and four metres in diameter. They were 2.75 m deep. To judge from radiocarbon dates, another group of flint mines at Jablines in the Paris basin may be of slightly later date (Bostyn and Lanchon 1992). At Ri et Rônai–Le Fresne, in Normandy, activity began during the second half of the fifth millennium BC, but in this case it was in the early part of the fourth millennium BC that it developed on an unprecedented scale. Over 550 shafts are documented, and the total extent of this complex is estimated at 30 hectares. The depths of the shafts depended on the natural slope and ranged from simple extraction pits to mines up to 4 m deep. The excavators of this site envisage a total output of about 1.5 million tools. It is interesting that occupation sites of the same date only five kilometres from the mines used

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

67

axes of yet more locally available raw material. The products of Ri et Rônai could have been employed in long-distance exchange.

THE ADOPTION OF AGRICULTURE IN N O R T H -W ES T FRANC E It was in the north-west of France and neighbouring regions that many of the elements considered so far first came into contact: the westward expansion of farming communities, and a separate axis extending up the Atlantic seaways; late hunter-gatherers established on the coast of Brittany, and new settlers who arrived from further east. Their relationships with one another found expression in a mixture of architectural styles which are remarkable for their diversity. There were monoliths (plain or decorated, single or forming alignments), long mounds as well as round mounds, simple stone-lined cists, and complex passage graves. Their relationships to one another are controversial, and only a few points can be considered here. There is general agreement that by the later fifth millennium BC the westward expansion of agriculture had extended as far as Brittany. A key discovery is a trapezoidal longhouse at Le Haut Mée which was apparently associated with a standing stone (Cassen et al. 1998). Another site has been excavated at Betton–Pluvignon and included between three and six rectangular houses (Fig. 2.10; Blanchet et al. 2010). At the same time, some of the material equipment of this period has been related to the Impressed Ware tradition which originated in the Mediterranean and had been introduced to the Iberian Peninsula and then the western coast of France. There is no doubt that, like the BSVG and Cerny groups, it was associated with cereals and domesticated animals, but the relationships between the people who exploited them are much more difficult to assess (Scarre 2011, 53–7). It is no easier to interpret the relationships between the first farmers and the last foragers living on the coast at sites like Beg-anDorchenn, Beg-er-Vil, Téviec, and Hoëdic. Radiocarbon dating suggests that local hunter-gatherers adopted farming without the long delay that occurred in northern Europe, but their characteristic cemeteries, which employed large stones to build cists, could have offered one source of inspiration for the monumental architecture of the Neolithic phase. It is true that the use of standing stones may have been the earliest development, and one that happened locally. A discovery of special importance was on the island of Hoëdic where the Douet alignment is only 750 m from the Mesolithic cemetery (Large and Mens 2009). One of the monoliths had been modified to resemble the human form and is not unlike that

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

68

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

Fig. 2.10. Settlement of the late fifth millennium BC at Betton–Pluvignon, Brittany. Information from Blanchet et al. 2010.

associated with the house at Le Haut Mée 25 km inland from the coast. A hearth beside the Douet alignment has a date of 4708–4536 BC. There were larger settings of monoliths, and in some cases their decoration was far more varied. Some may have been anthropomorphic and featured elements that appear to be associated with the new way of life, including drawings of cattle, axes, and bows (e.g. Mens 2004), but the sea remained important and there were also depictions of whales. The most impressive setting of such stones was at Locmariaquer and included La Grand Menhir Brisé (Fig. 2.11). Had it remained intact, it would have been the tallest monolith in Europe. It seems to have been shaped to resemble an enormous axe-head. It was accompanied by an alignment of smaller stones which is believed to date between 4750 and 4250 BC (Cassen 2009). Other monoliths whose forms suggest the human figure could have stood beside early long mounds like Petit-Mont and were reused in the fabric of monumental tombs (Lecornec 1994).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

69

Fig. 2.11. Chambered tombs, a stone alignment, and le Grand Menhir Brisé at Locmariaquer, Brittany. Information from Scarre 2011.

The longest alignments, however, may be of rather later date, and at Le Manio a series of parallel stone rows cut across an existing mound but respected its alignment (Mens 2008). In this case it may have happened in the later fifth millennium BC. Such structures must have had a lengthy history. The major stone rows at Carnac led between great megalithic enclosures which may be of similar age. They could have played similar roles to causewayed enclosures, which are comparatively uncommon in this region. There were also earthwork monuments. There seems little doubt that long mounds, like that at Le Manio, are another feature of the period when farming was first introduced. They have been compared with the Passy-type monuments considered earlier and, like them, they can be associated with burials inside small cists. Their distribution extends eastwards from Brittany along the Channel to Normandy and to the south along the Atlantic coast (Joussaume and Laporte 2006). They have a special characteristic. Some of them were rebuilt on a massive scale until they were among the most impressive barrows anywhere in Europe. The largest monuments are known as ‘Carnac tumuli’, which implies that they are restricted to the Morbihan, but in fact their distribution is wider and extends into Poitou (Scarre 2011, 110–17). The burials found with them can contain large numbers of attractive artefacts, including jadeite axes which were imported from the Italian Alps (Cassen et al.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

70

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

2011). Some had been perforated for use as personal ornaments (Pétrequin et al. 2012). The chronology of the mounds is poorly understood, but their construction seems to have started in the mid-fifth millennium BC. It is likely that they were originally smaller and had been rebuilt. It is not clear how long this process took. It may be unsatisfactory to attribute the creation of so many enormous monuments to the interplay between farmers from inland regions and coastal foragers whose archaeology remains little known. There may be more merit in thinking about north-west France as the region in which two of the main currents in the agricultural settlement of Europe converged: colonists from the east who were descended from the settlers of the LBK, and a second group who had introduced domesticates to coastal areas around the western rim of Europe. Perhaps the efflorescence of monument building happened where those streams converged. They were the communities whose political relations were played out through great building projects. Here there is a crucial contrast to observe. In their various manifestations long mounds are a feature of north-west and northern Europe, but circular structures typify the Atlantic coastline and the Mediterranean. It seems possible that there was a similar distinction between the forms of domestic buildings, but the evidence of early roundhouses is too limited for this to be established (Laporte and Tinévez 2004). Even so, the difference between long mounds and round mounds was significant, for it mirrors the two main axes along which farming was introduced to the study area. This may be more than a coincidence as recent excavations in western and northern France have identified a common pattern in the crucial period of contact during the late fifth millennium BC. Small passage graves associated with circular mounds or cairns have been discovered encased in the fabric of long barrows, whose sizes range from relatively modest structures to the enormous ‘Carnac tumuli’ that characterize southern Brittany and western France (Scarre 2011, 88–95). There is little indication of the opposite pattern, and it does not seem likely that any of the long mounds were buried beneath circular cairns. Since the early passage graves appear to have been free-standing structures, it seems as if the architecture of these buildings enshrined different beliefs about the appropriate ways in which to commemorate the dead. Not only that: if the rectilinear template prevailed, it was emphasized by constructing some of the monuments on an unprecedented scale. Competition between the adherents of different beliefs was expressed by great construction projects. At the same time, it is clear that these conflicts left their mark over a protracted period. Recent work at sites like Table des Marchands and PetitMont have shown that decorated standing stones were associated with the mounds and long cairns (Lecornec 1994; Cassen 2009). Another example is the triangular mound of Les Fouaillages in the Channel Islands, where a

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

71

sequence of small chambers had a ‘shouldered menhir’ at one end. The original monument was associated with Cerny ceramics (Kinnes 1982). By the late fifth and early fourth millennia BC passage graves in larger circular cairns were built in many places along the Atlantic coast and the western part of the Channel. One feature that has attracted interest is the way in which their structures incorporate broken fragments of older standing stones. Many interpretations of this phenomenon are possible, and one might understand the destruction of these statues in terms of clashes between incoming farmers and local foragers. The view is taken here that these practices might have been the outcome of competition between farming communities who had different histories and separate traditions of commemorating their dead. It is unfortunate that this hypothesis will be difficult to test by laboratory analysis, because human bones seldom survive in the soils of north-west France. Finally, the importance of megalithic architecture can easily overshadow what little is known about the settlements and enclosures of the late fifth and early fourth millennia BC. Most of the evidence from development-led fieldwork consists of groups of pits, but there are a few traces of buildings. A small rectangular structure with six posts was found at Saint-Aubin-d’Aubigné–ZAC de Chêne Romé, and a larger rectangular construction, 16 m long, was recorded at Douarnenez–Le Drevers, together with a sub-circular building. There was a more extensive settlement on an island at Lillemer. It was enclosed by a palisaded bank and linked to the mainland by a trackway. Causewayed enclosures have been recognized in Brittany but have not been excavated recently, and those in areas further to the south are mostly later than the sites considered in this chapter. In Normandy, on the other hand, there have been excavations at Goulet–Le Mont where one of these monuments was built between about 4500 and 4000 BC and refurbished between 4000 and 3800 BC. Another example was at Saint-Martin-de-Fontenay–Le Diguet. It was located on a plateau overlooking the River Orne. It is important because it was close to the megalithic long mounds of La Hogue and La Hoguette and near the outcrop of red sandstone that provided material for their construction.

T H E AD O P TI O N O F AG R I CU LTU RE I N NORTHE RN GERMANY, THE L OW COUNTRIES, AND DENMARK If the westward expansion of farming led to the Atlantic coast of France, its extension to the north reached as far as Denmark and the south of Sweden. After a standstill that had lasted for centuries, in the late fifth to early fourth millennia BC farming was adopted in coastal regions of the Netherlands,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

72

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

northern Germany, and southern Scandinavia. It also extended to Britain and Ireland, which are treated separately. There was a long history of contacts between foragers and farmers across the agricultural frontier. Stone artefacts of Neolithic type were widely distributed and there are occasional finds of domesticates in Swifterbant sites (Raemaekers 2005; van Gijn 2008; Louwe Kooijmans 2009). As a result of these contacts local hunter-gatherers developed their own styles of pottery. Their way of life did not change immediately, and, in contrast to the evidence from others parts of the study area, farming was adopted only gradually. The transformation was not complete until the fourth millennium BC (Louwe Kooijmans 2005; 2009). Claims that agriculture and livestock husbandry had begun any earlier have not been supported by recent work. The domestic cattle claimed from late Mesolithic contexts in Schleswig-Holstein have been reclassified as aurochs (Scheu et al. 2008), and the pollen evidence for precocious cereal cultivation has also been questioned (Behre 2007). Research on stable isotopes indicates a very high marine component in the diet, even on inland sites (Fischer et al. 2007). In Holstein, the transition to the Neolithic period is thought to have begun around 4100 BC and occurred 100–200 years later in areas further to the north. Whether this was a sudden process is still a matter of debate (Hartz et al. 2007; Larsson 2007). Early Neolithic sites have a wider distribution than those of the late Mesolithic period, extending into west and north-west Jutland. Some coastal sites were occupied during this phase. As noted earlier, the submerged site at Neustadt LA 156 spans the Mesolithic–Neolithic transition and was used between about 4600 and 3800 BC. Early Neolithic radiocarbon dates have been obtained from domestic cattle and sheep/goat bone, but, other than the introduction of livestock, the character of the occupation changed very little. Some of the middens in northern and eastern Jutland also remained in use during in the early Neolithic. In fact most of the shell deposits at sites such as Krabbesholm and Visborg actually date from this period. Pits and hearths were cut into the layers of shell, and at Visborg a sunken feature (measuring 4 m by 5 m) has been interpreted as a house. There was a stonebuilt hearth at its base. Botanical samples from this site produced cereals and apple/pear, while the faunal assemblage contained some domestic bone (mainly cattle) but was still dominated by wild animals, birds, and fish. As well as shell middens, other settlements have been investigated. The project database includes certain or possible houses at eight sites in Jutland. They were similar to contemporary houses elsewhere in northern Continental Europe: roughly rectangular, two-aisled structures with a central row of posts. At most sites only a single example was uncovered, but three buildings were present at Kildevang and Lisbjerg Skole, and there were five at Alstedgård. The site at Kildevang can be taken as an example. It was located on a low rise

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

73

overlooking a former fjord. Two large houses and a smaller building (4.9 m long) were represented, the latter being dated to around 3700 BC. Other features included two possible wells and a series of pits. Botanical samples produced cereals and hazelnut shells. At Rastorf a large house (17 m long) was discovered, overlain by a later megalithic tomb. There was a concentration of polished axe flakes in the north-east corner of the building. More settlements are characterized by culture layers or scatters of pits, and some of the most extensive sites have not produced any evidence of buildings. This was the case at Kobberup–Skivevej where eighty-seven small pits were spread over an area of 6000 m2. Pottery, flint artefacts, and hazelnuts were recovered from these features. A recurring feature of many of the settlements is the presence of placed deposits of artefacts, such as axes or ceramic vessels buried in pits. For example, at Engholm a group of several thousand amber beads was associated with a settlement. At Kildevang eight ‘offering pits’ were identified, including one which contained an inverted vessel set on a layer of burnt stones, a flint sickle, and the blade of a late Mesolithic axe. A natural spring on the edge of the settlement of Aldersro I was a focus for deposits of axes, pottery, and arrowheads. The same kinds of artefacts were buried at other domestic sites, but they were also deposited in bogs away from any settlements, as happened at Bølling Sø Vest. A problem with organizing the chapter divisions in this book according to absolute dates is that sometimes they do not conform to significant changes in the archaeological record. A case in point is the development of nonmegalithic long barrows in northern Europe. The first appear about 4100 BC and are best known from well-preserved cemeteries in Poland. The dates of those in Denmark are younger, and here they seem to have been established between about 3900 BC (or rather later) and 3500 BC (Kossian 2005). It means that their currency extends across the phase considered in this account and into the period discussed in the following chapter. In the circumstances these structures are best considered in Chapter 3 where they can be compared with similar monuments in the British Isles, almost of all of which were constructed after 3700 BC. Finally the finds of stone axes from settlements and votive deposits in north-west Europe suggest that the production and exchange of distinctive artefacts was assuming a special importance. There were flint mines in the earlier Neolithic landscape of northern Jutland. Today they are protected monuments, but a recent programme of geophysical survey and limited excavation at Hov has shown that the shafts were more extensive than previously thought. This sheds light on the intensity of Neolithic activities. Their development illustrates the special importance of tools designed for working the land.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

74

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

THE ADOPTION OF AGRICULTURE IN T H E BR I T I S H I S L E S This chapter continues with a particularly controversial issue: the first appearance of farming in Britain and Ireland. Here discussion has polarized between advocates of a model that favours the adoption of agriculture by huntergatherers (Thomas 1999; 2013; Cummings and Harris 2011), and prehistorians who envisage a period of settlement from Continental Europe (Rowley-Conwy 2004; Sheridan 2010). Many of the problems arose because the late fifth and early fourth millennia BC lacked an accurate chronology. As a result it seemed likely that stone and earthwork monuments were created as soon as Neolithic material culture first appeared, around 4000 BC (Bradley 1998a, Chapters 1–5). Mortuary mounds, some of them with stone chambers, appeared to be present from the beginning of the sequence, and the same applied to causewayed enclosures and flint mines. They were created at a time when there is evidence of forest clearance. The difficulties became more severe when fieldworkers looked for the settlement sites of this period. Before the development-led archaeology of the last two decades, very few Neolithic houses had been identified. Instead small flint scatters were recognized in field survey, together with clusters of pits. Because so few living-sites had been investigated, the largest collections of plant remains and animal bones came from specialized monuments. This picture was at odds with the expectations raised by Neolithic studies on the Continent, but to some extent it was because insular prehistorians were misled by analogies with Linearbandkeramik settlements which had gone out of use long before the introduction of domesticates to Britain and Ireland. The rarity of houses posed a special problem, particularly as some of those that had been found were quite ephemeral structures. In the same way, the pits that were more frequent discoveries contained limited numbers of artefacts and only small quantities of plants. Analysis indicated that wild resources such as hazelnuts were at least as common as cereals in the early part of the Neolithic (Stevens and Fuller 2012). Taken together, these different sources of information suggested to Julian Thomas (1999) that the Neolithic pattern of settlement was mobile and that wheat and barley played only a limited role in food production. Cattle bones, on the other hand, were found in many different contexts. These animals were obviously domesticates as they were much smaller than their counterparts among the native fauna (Tresset 2003). It was all too easy to combine these observations and to suggest that the first years of the Neolithic period were characterized by mobile pastoralism. In that case the monuments of the same period could also be explained. The long mounds and chambered cairns provided territorial markers in a landscape with few obvious boundaries,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

75

while the enclosures were aggregation sites where dispersed communities came together to exchange artefacts, personnel, and livestock. It was only a short step to compare this evidence with what was known about the settlement pattern of the late Mesolithic. In each case mobility was important, settlements were occupied discontinuously or for very short periods, and wild plants provided much of the food supply. This approach faced two fundamental problems. The first is that all the main domesticates would have been introduced to Britain and Ireland by sea. Cattle, sheep, goats, wheat, and barley must have come from farming communities on the Continent. At the same time there is a fundamental difference between the management of farm animals, whether or not they were herded from place to place, and the hunting of wild species. Domestication involves more than control over livestock: it implies that they are owned (Ingold 1980). That is very different from the ethic of sharing associated with hunter-gatherers. In any case the bones of red deer, wild pig, and wild cattle were not particularly common. Similarly, more recent work has shown that the excavated plant remains of this phase contain no more wild species than the settlements of the LBK (Bogaard and Jones 2007). The approach favoured by Julian Thomas faced the problem that there was little continuity between the material culture of the insular late Mesolithic and that of the Neolithic period. Most of the characteristic artefacts of the fourth millennium BC are related to prototypes in Continental Europe rather than the equipment of indigenous foragers. They include ceramics, arrowheads, polished axes, and antler combs. They have little in common with the microliths, burins, and tranchet axes of the previous period. There was one local exception, for a distinctive feature of the Irish Mesolithic was the making of ground stone axes (Costa et al. 2005). It also happened on a smaller scale in the west of Wales and is almost the only development that anticipated the material equipment of the Neolithic period. Another problem is posed by Mesolithic chronology. In most parts of Britain and Ireland it is difficult to be sure when the distinctive material culture of the native population went out of use. The most diagnostic artefact is probably the smallest—the rod microlith. It began as one of a series of miniature tools used in the later Mesolithic, most of which took geometric forms, but radiocarbon dates associated with three sites where this form predominates—one in Wessex (French et al. 2007, 280–306) and two in the Pennines (Spikins 2002)—take their history into the earliest fourth millennium BC, but no later (Griffiths 2014). That slender evidence suggests that at least one part of the native tool kit may have lapsed at a very early stage in the Neolithic period. As a later part of this chapter shows, Neolithic material culture was adopted in different regions between about 4000 and 3700 BC. A premise of the continuity model is that Neolithic artefacts and domesticated resources should be discovered in Mesolithic contexts. That situation is

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

76

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

extremely rare in Britain and Ireland and is only evidenced in remote locations where rapid changes might be unexpected. The main region was the west coast of Scotland where a series of small islands include considerable shell middens (Wickham-Jones 1990; Mithen 2000). Two practices associated with Mesolithic settlement ended quite abruptly. A long tradition of forest burning ceased at the beginning of the Neolithic period. The evidence is so well defined that Edwards (1998) has identified this phenomenon as the ‘charcoal decline’. The other is a change of diet identified by isotopic analysis of human bones. Although the Mesolithic sample is limited, it seems as if there was a significant reduction in the consumption of marine resources from the beginning of the Neolithic period (Richards 2003). A similar change has been identified in other areas, from Portugal to Scandinavia. For a long time it was hard to bring these different observations into their correct alignment. Were considerable monuments established in Britain and Ireland before agriculture played a significant role? Why was there so much evidence of land clearance if people were following their herds across the terrain? And why was early Neolithic material culture so widely distributed if it was taken up only gradually by native communities? Two new developments have shed some light on these problems. The first is the rapid growth of commercial archaeology. Although it has led to the identification of new monuments, its main effect has been to reveal a significant number of Neolithic houses in Ireland, and in parts of Scotland and Wales. Fewer examples have been found in England, but none of these structures closely resembles those on the Continent (Darvill and Thomas 1996; Smyth 2006; 2010; 2013a). There is also evidence of extensive middens dating from the beginning of this period (Allen et al. 2013). The second crucial development has been the systematic application of radiocarbon dating. Of course this method had already been used for a long time, but the dates obtained more recently were on small samples, such as individual seeds, twigs, or bones, and were more precise than previous estimates. There was a closer relationship between the sample selected for analysis and the event being studied. Moreover, the use of Bayesian statistics allowed samples in stratigraphic relationship to one another to be dated with even greater accuracy. In ideal cases the chronology could operate at intervals as short as a human generation. So far these approaches have focused on particular kinds of monument—chambered tombs (Whittle and Bayliss 2007) and causewayed enclosures (Whittle et al. 2011)—but they are also extending to the chronology of Neolithic houses in Ireland (Whitehouse et al. 2013). As a result of these processes it is possible to resolve some of the problems mentioned earlier. The beginning of the Neolithic period both in Britain and Ireland saw the regular use of cereals and the construction of houses. Only a few monuments may have been built at this time. Between about 4000 and

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

77

3700 BC farming began in both islands. There was a period of sustained forest clearance and for a while a sedentary settlement pattern was established. The anomalous features identified by Julian Thomas and other writers still seem to have been connected with one another, but all of them belong to a later phase (Bradley 2008). For that reason, it is no longer credible to postulate much continuity with Mesolithic practices (McClatchie et al. 2012). If the ‘continuity hypothesis’ is inconsistent with the new chronology, the advocates of settlement from mainland Europe do not agree about the sources of the new population (Figs. 2.12 and 2.13). Nor is there much consensus on the precise timing of the change. To some extent the differences of opinion are between those who study monuments and material culture, and specialists on the use of radiocarbon. The traditional approach has been to compare the portable artefacts of the near Continent with those introduced to Neolithic Britain and Ireland. The same method applies to traditions of monumental architecture (Piggott 1954; Case 1969). The mounds and cairns associated with the dead have obvious counterparts on the European mainland, and that is even more obvious in the case of causewayed enclosures. The flint mines on either side of the English Channel also share features in common. There are problems with such comparisons. One is that they postulate links between different parts of Britain and Ireland and separate areas along the coastline of Continental Europe, extending as far as Denmark to the east and Brittany to the west. If those connections are genuine and document axes of communication at the beginning of the Neolithic period, it seems most unlikely that there was only one source for the introduction of agriculture to these islands (Thomas 2013, 155–7). A difficulty is that so few structures are closely dated in either area. Another is that most portable artefacts suggest more specific links which do not extend any further than north-east France, Belgium, and the southern Netherlands (Sheridan 2007; 2010). Only occasionally are other connections suggested. Thus the two methods give different results and it is not yet clear whether they relate to different geographical axes around the start of the fourth millennium BC or to different stages in a more protracted process. One subject which is rarely considered is the relative geographical position of Ireland and Britain in relation to the Continental land-mass. In principle these two islands were accessible from sections of the European coastline that were only rarely in contact with one another. That may be why it has been to so difficult to pinpoint a single area of origin for the first farmers to cross the water. The detailed study of radiocarbon dates suggests another approach and results in a different interpretation of the evidence. As an extension to their investigation of early enclosures in Britain and Ireland, Whittle, Healy, and Bayliss (2011) have reviewed the oldest radiocarbon determinations from secure Neolithic contexts. They identify a consistent geographical trend in

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

78

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

Fig. 2.12. The four phases of Neolithic settlement of Britain and Ireland suggested by Alison Sheridan. The arrows indicate the main axes of contact. (A) ‘False start’ in south-west Ireland c.4300 cal BC. (B) ‘Brittany’ episode along the Atlantic coast, c.4300/ 4200–4000 cal BC. (C) ‘Eastern Cross-Channel’ episode, Carinated Bowl Neolithic 4000/3900 cal BC. (D) ‘Western Cross-Channel’ episode, probably during the first quarter of the fourth millennium cal BC. Information from Sheridan 2010.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

79

Fig. 2.13. The settlement of Britain and Ireland according to Alasdair Whittle and colleagues. Information from Whittle et al. 2011.

the distribution of these dates (Fig. 2.13). In doing so, they place a special emphasis on samples in stratigraphic relationship to one another, and on dates with small standard deviations. Composite samples, such as mixtures of bones or seeds, play little part in their study, nor do charcoal samples taken from long-lived species such as oak. A result of this work was to establish the credentials of an early phase of activity associated with crop cultivation,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

80

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

domesticated animals, and well-preserved residential buildings. Another was to suggest that most, but not all, of the monuments discussed by previous writers were a secondary development. The dates that are currently available suggest that the Neolithic period began in southern England between 4075–3975 BC and 3855–3735 BC. In southern and north-eastern Scotland, it started between 3950–3765 BC and 3835–3760 BC, and in Ireland between 3850 and 3740 BC ; a new study of Irish houses provides an estimate of 3700–3620 BC (Whitehouse et al. 2013). The new tradition was first represented in south-east England and the Thames estuary, and then in the middle and upper Thames, Wessex, and much of East Anglia. Perhaps unexpectedly, the next area to experience the change was the north-east of Scotland, after which Neolithic culture is evidenced in southwest England, south Wales, the English midlands, southern Scotland, and Ireland. Other regions have still to be studied in enough detail to complete the pattern, but what is already known suggests that the first contacts with the Continent involved the area with the shortest sea crossing and that the new developments extended to the north and west over a period of no more than two hundred years. There are some exceptions. The Neolithic began exceptionally early in the north-east of Scotland, but that area was connected to lowland England by sea. The other anomaly is Ireland, which must have been settled by boat, and in this model that happened at the same time as parallel changes in southern Scotland and south Wales. Too little is known about Neolithic chronology along the east coast of the Irish Sea. This scheme presents what seems to be a coherent pattern, but it is subject to certain limitations. It is not based on systematic sampling of suitable sites in the way that Neolithic enclosures were studied by the same team; an important exception is a new analysis of Irish Neolithic houses (Smyth 2006; 2010; 2013a; Whitehouse et al. 2013). Such projects rely on dates that, with certain exceptions, are a by-product of development-led excavations, and for that reason their distribution is biased by factors that have little to do with prehistoric archaeology. Some sites have produced few radiocarbon dates, meaning that the scheme is more securely based where the largest number of projects has taken place. A second difficulty is that such a scheme implies that Neolithic developments spread across country in an orderly manner and from a single source, yet it is equally possible that they resulted from a sequence of different phases of contact between regions in Britain and Ireland and parts of Continental Europe. Alternatively, the initial contacts may have been with south-east England as this model suggests, but they may have continued and even intensified over a significant period of time. This model is only concerned with their beginnings. One reason for taking this view is the relationship between stone and earthwork monuments in these islands and similar structures on the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

81

Continent. Their chronology is not always secure, as the statistical procedures employed by Whittle, Healy, and Bayliss (2011) have yet to be adopted in other countries. Even so, they are usually dated to an earlier period than these estimates would permit. The main source of contention is megalithic architecture, although the same disagreement extends to an Irish enclosure. To take these questions in turn, Sheridan (2003a; 2007; 2010) has argued that a number of simple chambered tombs, whose distribution includes the west of Ireland and western Scotland, are of the same type as monuments in Atlantic Europe which are usually dated to 4000 BC, or a little earlier. They include the Irish cemetery at Carrowmore, which has produced radiocarbon dates of about this age, although their contexts are not always clear and their relationship with these buildings is disputed (Sheridan 2003b; Bergh and Hensey 2013). In the same vein Sheridan has compared the Scottish chambered tomb at Achnacreebeag with examples in Brittany. In this case the comparison extends to the pottery associated with this monument which resembles vessels in the Castellic style of north-west France which are usually dated to the late fifth millennium BC. It will require a similar project on the exact dating of Continental monuments for this question to be resolved. Because bones so rarely survive too many estimates are based on samples of wood charcoal. The model preferred by Whittle, Healy, and Bayliss (2011) would account for the first non-megalithic monuments in lowland Britain, but it does not explain the appearance of small chambered tombs built of stone, for such structures are better matched in regions further to the west. Of course the knowledge of how and why to build them could have been introduced to these islands during a subsequent phase, but that requires a precise chronology for their use on the European mainland. It leaves open the possibility that the insular Neolithic had at least two different sources—and perhaps more. One was across the narrowest part of the English Channel and the southern North Sea. Another was along the Atlantic coast. Ironically, it was this second axis that was to prove more significant during the middle and late Neolithic periods.

THE D IRECTION OF CHANGE Although these local sequences provide an impression of growing diversity, they illustrate some developments that transcend these regional divisions. It is possible that they happened because early farmers shared some of the same concerns. For that reason it is unnecessary to envisage the diffusion of ideas from a single source. It is particularly true when the regions investigated in this account are studied in their wider contexts.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

82

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

The development of long mounds illustrates some of these issues. On the eastern and northern limits of the study area it may have happened in the later fourth millennium BC, but in Poland it had begun even earlier. The chronological relationship between the earliest long barrows and the last longhouses has yet to be resolved, but in north-east Europe both are dated to the later fifth millennium (Midgley 2005; 2008). Earthworks of this kind were associated with the dead, and it is a familiar idea that their forms were modelled on those of dwellings occupied in the past. There was a comparable sequence in Britain and Ireland, for here too substantial timber houses disappeared at about the time that long barrows were built with any frequency. Further to the west, there was a similar transformation, and once again the forms of the last longhouses were perpetuated by the appearance of long mounds, the first of which were constructed not long afterwards. This development is well documented in Normandy (Marcigny et al. 2010a). What is striking is that both these sequences shared features in common, yet they seem to have been largely independent of one another. The distribution of the first group of long mounds extended as far as northern Germany and Denmark, whilst the second tradition, exemplified by Passy-type monuments, was adopted over large parts of northern and western France. Thus the first groups of long barrows were over a thousand kilometres apart and seem to have been constructed at different times. At present the earliest monuments in France appear to be older than those in north-east Europe and there is little evidence of contacts between the people who built them. Something similar applies to enclosures. Here there was a single source of origin in the LBK, but the nature and associations of these structures certainly changed over time. There were two main developments, although each was subject to local exceptions. For the most part, the first enclosures were associated with substantial houses. They may have defined the outer boundary of a settlement; they could have been built nearby; and in a few cases their earthworks need not have been constructed until those dwellings had gone out of use. Even so, the first enclosures shared very similar plans, and only a few were defined by the interrupted ditches that became so typical of later examples. As the distribution of ditched or palisaded enclosures widened, so did their associations. Some were still connected with settlements, but others were entirely isolated; on the margin of the study area the same was true of roundels. As this happened, their forms became increasingly stereotyped and their contents more diverse. Few features have been found inside them, but their ditches were filled with deposits of artefacts, animal bones, and human remains—occasionally on a lavish scale. Again this development is puzzling. Whilst there is a continuous sequence of enclosures, comparatively few were built between the end of the LBK and the second half of the fifth millennium BC. In fact most examples were constructed from 4300 BC onwards. By that time the link with occupation sites had largely lapsed.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

83

One feature that these developments share is that both long barrows and causewayed enclosures were built at a time when settlements were increasingly ephemeral and were more widely distributed across the landscape. No longer did the domestic dwelling provide a focus for monumental architecture, as it had with the longhouse. At the same time, funerary monuments could have evoked the forms taken by dwellings in the past. In a similar fashion the enclosures might have replaced the settlements in which large numbers of people had lived together (Bradley 1998a, Chapters 3 and 5). Now that was no longer possible as communities were more dispersed. It may be no accident that the some of the last villages containing substantial dwellings had been bounded by interrupted ditches or palisades. The newly built monuments illustrate another feature that had originally been associated with the settlement. This was an explicit concern with the remains of the dead. Some of the LBK settlements were accompanied by formal cemeteries, and in other cases there were graves amongst the houses. At later occupation sites burials and isolated bones can be found in pits, but many more come from mounds and enclosures set apart from the everyday world. Here they were often associated with the remains of domesticated cattle. Specialized monuments became more important at a time when longdistance exchange played a greater role. Artefacts and raw materials were distributed over larger areas, as happened in the case of jadeite axes (Pétrequin et al. 2012). Again it was in the late fifth millennium BC, when such earthworks assumed a new importance, that the main groups of flint mines were established in Belgium and France. The movement of non-local objects could have accompanied the exchange of marriage partners, and for a while it appears to have offset the dispersal of communities across the landscape. In time even that was to change, and towards 3700 BC the process was renewed on a greater scale. Its distinctive course is traced in Chapter 3.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

3 Regional Monumental Landscapes (3700–2500 BC) A S ECOND GENERATION OF NEOLITHIC MONUMENTS By about 3700 BC every region of the study area had been settled by farmers (Fig. 3.1), although there must have been local differences between the areas that were colonized by immigrants and those where the indigenous population had changed its way of life. The expansion of agriculture would extend little further and, when it did so, it would be mainly a feature of Fennoscandia. In some of the regions discussed here farming had already been practiced for between a thousand and fifteen hundred years. That was certainly true in the Rhineland, the southern Netherlands, and parts of France, but in other areas it had been adopted only recently. Such was the case in the northern Netherlands, Jutland, Britain, and Ireland, but by the period considered in this chapter the process was virtually complete. Not only did these parts of the study area have different histories, there were significant contrasts in the roles played by local monuments. For the most part such structures were not a feature of the earliest Neolithic period, although even here there were significant contrasts. In the Rhineland, the earthwork enclosures of the LBK were associated with the last settlements in that tradition, and in certain cases may even have taken the place of houses that had been abandoned. In Brittany, on the other hand, the first stone monuments seem to be closely related to the oldest evidence of farming. There was a significant difference between developments in those two regions. From the beginning, the LBK had been associated with enormous longhouses, but on the Atlantic coast of France early settlers may not have occupied such impressive structures. Here stone monuments, especially menhirs, could have been erected from the outset. A similar contrast was found in other regions studied in Chapter 2, but it is even more apparent in the phase considered now, for this was a time when enclosures and mounds were built at an increasing pace. There is little evidence

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

85

Fig. 3.1. Sites recorded in the database and for the Prehistory of Britain and Ireland project, 3500–2500 BC.

of houses except in Scandinavia, Ireland, and the Northern Isles of Scotland. In most areas settlements seem to have been occupied over shorter periods but extended across more parts of the landscape. 3700 BC represents a significant threshold in Britain, Ireland, and Scandinavia. It was not when farming was adopted in any of these areas, but it was the time when monuments first appeared with any frequency. The forms of these structures were well established in regions with a longer history of Neolithic settlement. Now mortuary mounds and cairns, some of them with stone chambers, were constructed in growing numbers. There were earthwork enclosures, too.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

86

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

One of the distinctive features of the fourth millennium BC is that forms of architecture which had remained the same for generations were gradually transformed. Eventually they were joined by new kinds of structure—cursus monuments in England, Scotland, and Wales; stone circles and henges throughout the British Isles—with the result that the information from this period seems even more diverse. Such developments were not limited to the areas that had recently been settled, and in northern France, for instance, the same phase saw the development of subterranean tombs and huge timber structures. As well as differences of this kind, the period witnessed the emergence of three distinct traditions of material culture, domestic buildings, public architecture, and burial mounds. One tradition had its centre of gravity in France, Germany, the Low Countries, and south Scandinavia. Here many of the practices considered in Chapter 2 continued in a modified form. They were associated mainly with elongated mounds, cairns, or burial chambers, and with a series of earthwork enclosures. Another was a mainly western phenomenon and involved the building of passage graves: tombs of this kind were later adopted in the British Isles where some of these buildings provided a source of inspiration for insular henges and stone circles. Passage tombs appear in a rather different form in northern Europe. The third development was the appearance of an entirely new tradition in the eastern part of the study area, characterized by the ceramic style known as Corded Ware. It was associated with round barrows and what is called the ‘Single Grave’ tradition. It happened towards the end of the period considered here and is evidenced from about 2800 BC. This chapter discusses the nature and significance of each of these traditions and the relationships between them. It is organized according to the major types of monument and emphasizes their changing histories from one region to another. A further section draws this information together and considers some of the wider trends that cut across these local differences.

THE HISTORIES OF FUNERARY MONUMENTS Chapter 2 considered the important contrast between the long mounds associated with the dead, and circular barrows and cairns containing passage graves. They first developed in separate parts of Europe, and that account discussed the changing relationship between both kinds of structure in northwest France. This section traces their subsequent histories. The first topic to consider is the interplay between unchambered or ‘earthen’ long barrows and those associated with megalithic tombs. Later sections trace the development of passage graves.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

87

Long Mounds in Denmark and the British Isles The earliest funerary monuments in Jutland were non-megalithic long barrows, dating to 3900–3500 BC (Kossian 2005). Their construction cuts across the division between this chapter and its predecessor. These earthworks were generally rectangular or trapezoidal, and were associated with one or more inhumation graves. Examples include Rokær where a 25 m-long mound had a façade defined by a palisade at its eastern end; the long sides were flanked by a double row of posts, forming a wattle or plank revetment. A central grave had a layer of charcoal at its base, on which were two polished axes, a flint dagger, and over 200 amber beads. There were massive postholes at either end of the mortuary chamber. It seems that the timbers had been withdrawn before the mound was built. A very similar monument at Bøgholt was 30 m in length and had a façade at its eastern end. Here a wooden mortuary chamber had been burned down before the mound was erected. It contained pottery, an amber bead, a flint axe, and a knife. At Malle a still larger barrow (70 m long) was surrounded by a ditch. Two flint knives and a decorated pot were recovered from the barrow, but no grave was located. Structures of similar kinds were built in the British Isles. There were important regional developments among Neolithic mortuary monuments and only a few widespread patterns can be considered here. The earlier examples were built between about 3800 and 3500 BC and shared some of the structural components just described. Although there were exceptions, inhumation burials were favoured in lowland England, the burning of mortuary structures in the north and along the east coast of Scotland, and cremation burial was practised in Ireland, although its prevalence may have been exaggerated (Kinnes 1992). In all these areas multiple deposits were more common than single burials, and grave goods were rarely provided for the dead. It is sometimes suggested that corpses had been exposed before their bones were deposited in the tomb and that relics might also have been taken away, but most of the evidence can be explained by the differential survival of body parts and by the practice of moving the remains to accommodate new deposits. In some cases this process may have happened over a long period of time, but, in others, the monuments were rapidly closed (Whittle and Bayliss 2007). It is a moot point whether they were conceived as a unitary conception, and there are cases in which timber chambers existed as free-standing structures before any mound was built. In such instances the construction of an earthwork closed the monument and divided the dead from the living (Bradley 2007, 55–9). In northern Britain, the distinction was emphasized because the structure was set on fire. A distinctive feature which is shared between monuments in Britain and Denmark is the use of split tree-trunks to define the space occupied by the burials. They may have been supplemented by a wooden chamber with a roof

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

88

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

that that could be opened to admit more bodies. In some cases it seems possible that the uprights had perished before any corpses were introduced to the site. It was not until both processes had been accomplished that the barrow was built (Noble 2006, Chapter 4). Rassmann has drawn attention to some striking similarities and differences between the monuments on either side of the North Sea (Rassmann 2011). The sizes and shapes of these mounds were much the same and there was often a monumental forecourt or façade at one end. There were other links between the forms taken by the chambers underneath them, but there the similarities run out. The Danish monuments appear to have covered individual graves and were equipped with a variety of funeral offerings, but their British counterparts were rarely associated with any artefacts and generally held the remains of several individuals. The greatest number on a recently excavated site was probably thirty-four, at Fussell’s Lodge long barrow in Wessex (Wysocki et al. 2007). Long mounds in both regions could be provided with stone chambers. In Britain and to some extent in Ireland, the mounds or cairns assumed a similar form, but there was a greater variety of stone chambers. In some cases they were arranged end to end in a similar manner to the timber structures just described, but in other cases several different chambers might be arranged in a cruciform pattern that has no obvious counterpart among those built of wood (Scarre 2007). It is a moot point whether any of them had been free-standing structures before they were covered by a mound. Otherwise three observations are important. The use of stone as a building material made it easier to close off access to the dead, and some of the entrances seem to have been deliberately blocked. It also made it possible to build an impressive forecourt in front of the chamber or chambers, and this feature became one of the defining characteristics of the Irish ‘court tombs’. Finally, the use of readily identifiable types of rock in the finished structure allowed people to create composite monuments using stones brought from separate parts of the landscape—the work may have involved different communities, and it was important to show it. Of course something similar may have happened with timber structures, but that would not be so apparent once the wood started to decay. Few British or Irish tombs are closely dated, but there seems no reason to suppose that stone monuments were of different dates from those built of wood. They were versions of the same architectural scheme and were built from the most accessible material. On the other hand, there are a few monuments at which an earth and timber structure was reconstructed in stone, but there are no examples in which the opposite sequence occurred. Just as the split tree-trunks used in wooden monuments would have decayed in the same manner as the human body, stone structures might have been expected to endure. Their strength and durability can be compared with that of unfleshed bone. At Wayland’s Smithy in southern England a mound with stone

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

89

chambers and a monumental façade was directly superimposed on the remains of a smaller barrow with a single chamber made of wood (Fig. 3.2; Whittle et al. 2007). In other cases small circular monuments containing a megalithic chamber were incorporated into the fabric of a larger long cairn (Darvill 2004). This recalls developments in north-west France many years before. By contrast, the earliest megalithic architecture in northern Europe postdates the construction of earthen long barrows. From 3500 BC onwards, the plains of northern Europe contain hundreds of megalithic buildings. They occur in the northern Netherlands, where they are called Hunebedden (Bakker 1992), Schleswig-Holstein (Müller 2011), and Jutland (Ebbesen 2007). The simplest examples are described as dolmens and had round or polygonal chambers. Occasionally they were free-standing but such structures are more commonly associated with a mound defined by a kerb. They were used for the interment of one or a few individuals together with grave goods. A good example is Breinholdtgård Golfbane where the chamber contained pottery, arrowheads, and 250 amber beads. Numerous dolmens date from the late fourth millennium BC, although many of those excavated in recent years had been damaged by stone robbing and the plough. A few were inserted into earlier long barrows, like that at Malle, but others were constructed on new sites. Examples include Klakring where three of these structures have been excavated. In common with many similar structures, a layer of smashed pottery was found outside the entrances of the monuments. Some sites show a more complex sequence of development, in which a round barrow or cairn was extended to form a long mound containing further burials. This happened at Måde Slammineraliseringsanlæg, Idstedt, and at Rastorf where one of a group of ten megalithic monuments showed a particularly striking sequence (Fig. 3.3). Around 3300 BC, a dolmen set within a circular mound was built over the site of an older wooden house. The mound was augmented on three occasions, each of these extensions containing an inhumation grave associated with a timber coffin. The barrow was then lengthened to form a mound 40 m long which covered further burials. In Britain, the process of enlarging existing long barrows went one stage further. It resulted in the development of two kinds of earthwork monument which lack any counterparts in Continental Europe. Bank barrows are essentially elongated long barrows. In some cases free-standing mounds were extended, and at Cleaven Dyke in the centre of Scotland this process continued, perhaps in stages, until the final monument was two kilometres long (Barclay 1998). In this case the original barrow formed the point of origin of the earthwork, but at Maiden Castle in southern England it seems likely that a similar structure was lengthened at both ends (Fig. 3.4; Bradley 1983). The other novelty was a kind of elongated enclosure known as a cursus (Fig. 3.4)—the term applied to it in the eighteenth century when it was

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

90

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

Fig. 3.2. The structural sequence at Wayland’s Smithy long barrow, southern England. An oval mound with a wooden mortuary structure underlies a megalithic chambered tomb. Information from Whittle 1991.

Fig. 3.3. Schematic plan showing the development of the burial monument at Rastorf, Schleswig-Holstein, during the late fourth millennium BC. Information from Steffens 2009.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

91

Fig. 3.4. The causewayed enclosure at Maiden Castle crossed by a later bank barrow and similar enclosures at Etton and Fornham All Saints in relation to later cursus monuments. Information from Bradley 2007.

compared with a Roman racetrack. Again the original prototype was probably a rectangular barrow. Cursuses most probably originated in Scotland where some of them were defined by timber settings rather than earthworks (Thomas 2006). A note of caution is necessary here. As many of these monuments were built of wood, it provided some of the samples used for dating, and the use of mature timber may have increased their apparent age. Other Scottish cursuses were defined by a bank and ditch, and the same applies to the English sites, which generally date from a period between about 3600 BC and the development of new kinds of monuments around 3300 BC (Barclay and Harding 1999). Cursuses could be aligned on older structures and often established orientations which remained significant during later phases. It is difficult to work out how they were used. They are not associated with many artefacts but do include finds of human bone—as do some of the small enclosures in their paths. They have been interpreted as processional ways, but this cannot be demonstrated by any archaeological evidence. What is clear is that several cursuses can be found together. They may share the same alignment; they can cut across one another; and in rare cases they could be built incrementally so that a new construction might be tacked onto the end of an existing earthwork. These patterns are best illustrated by the five examples in the Rudston complex in north-east England, and by the composite structure known as the Dorset Cursus, in Wessex. Taken together, each of these groups runs for 10 kilometres (Bradley 2007, fig. 2.15). The earliest section of the Dorset monument was aligned on the midwinter sun as it set behind an older long barrow.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

92

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

Passage Graves in Ireland and Britain It is difficult to tell when the first passage graves were built in the British Isles, but there seems little doubt that these monuments achieved their greatest prominence at a time when their equivalents in north-west France were no longer constructed (although they were reused for later burials). Particular problems are posed by the cemetery at Carrowmore in the west of Ireland. The tombs here have been hard to characterize and most of them may never have been covered by a cairn. They were originally above-ground chambers enclosed by a ring of boulders, and there is little sign of an entrance passage. Because of these features, the structures are far more permeable than the monuments with which they are compared. The artefacts associated with them date to the mid-fourth millennium BC (Bergh and Hensey 2013). At the same time, other radiocarbon dates from Carrowmore are on samples of charcoal which may be older than the tombs. Only one diagnostic monument has both a cairn and an entrance passage. It is dated to about 3550 BC and is the only structure with pecked decoration. It is not clear whether this was the latest tomb in the cemetery or simply the most convincing passage grave. On the other hand, it is known that similar monuments, some of them decorated in the same style, are found elsewhere in Ireland where they are associated with circular mounds or cairns. A number occur in isolation, but just as often they form part of larger groups, as they do at Carrowkeel, Loughcrew, and in the Boyne valley. The largest tombs are on the summit of Knocknarea on the west coast, and at Newgrange, Knowth, and Dowth in the Boyne valley. Each may have been the dominant structure within a more extensive cemetery (Cooney 2000, Chapter 5). Like the monuments mentioned already, they were associated with cremation burials. A recent study suggests that passage graves are a little later than the chambered tombs with long mounds and are commonly associated with a different style of pottery (Schulting et al. 2012). Such structures were not peculiar to Ireland. They are also found in Britain, where they are best represented in the Hebrides and Orkney off the Scottish coast, and on Anglesey in north-west Wales. The Orcadian monuments are especially impressive and the largest examples are usually compared with the evidence from the Boyne valley. Although their exact chronological relationship remains to be resolved, they seem to have been built at the end of the fourth millennium BC. In contrast to their Irish counterparts, the monuments in Orkney are associated with unburnt human bones (Davidson and Henshall 1989). They were decorated with incised geometric designs which are similar to the earliest images at Knowth (Bradley et al. 2001). Megalithic art which can be compared with the pecked designs in the Boyne valley has also been recognized on Anglesey, although in this case the tombs themselves are smaller (Lynch et al. 2000, 73–6).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

93

The sequence of development of passage tombs remains to be resolved, as only a few sites are adequately dated. It seems possible that they were first built close to the west coast of Ireland and that increasingly elaborate monuments were constructed as the same ideas were adopted by communities further to the east (Hensey et al. 2014). The latest examples in Ireland are in the Boyne valley, and not far away on the Hill of Tara where the structural sequence could extend as late as 2900 BC (O’Sullivan 2005). That would be consistent with the dates from the principal tomb in Wales, Bryn Celli Ddu, which was built about 3000 BC (Burrow 2010).

Passage Graves and Other Mortuary Monuments in Northern Europe Northern Europe is another region in which passage graves were adopted after they had gone out of fashion in western France. These structures differed from dolmens in having a central chamber with sub-chambers, reached by a long passageway. They were also different from the structures described as passage graves in Ireland and on the Atlantic coastline. Here the term is used to characterize monuments in which the passage leads into one side of an elongated chamber, forming a T-shaped plan. Where conditions of preservation are favourable, they contain the bones of several individuals. Again there is often evidence for rituals taking place outside the entrance and these monuments can be associated with large amounts of decorated pottery. Recently excavated examples include Mønsted–Toftumvej where the chamber produced over 200 amber beads along with pottery, flint flakes, and arrowheads. At Tviehøj a pair of passage graves have been excavated, both with layers of broken pottery outside them. Such deposits are usually interpreted as offerings and these vessels may have contained food and drink. A recent study suggests that many of these monuments in Denmark were built around 3300 BC (Scarre 2010). That would make them contemporary with those in Ireland, yet their plans are very different. What they do share is the principle of separating the chambers containing human remains from the outside world. The only way of reaching them was along a specially constructed passage.

Later Chambered Tombs in France During the late fourth millennium BC the Paris Basin was characterized by the Seine-Oise-Marne culture. Originally defined by Childe and Sandars in 1950, the existence of this entity has been questioned by French prehistorians, although the term remains in use and is applied to a distinctive style of monumental architecture (Salanova 2004; Salanova et al. 2011). Knowledge

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

94

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

of the period depends on a large number of funerary monuments which were built and used during the last centuries of the fourth millennium BC and the very beginning of the third (Chambon and Salanova 1996). French archaeologists recognize several kinds: elongated rectangular structures built in stone (allées couvertes), their equivalents in wood (allées en bois), and hypogea, which are large chambers cut into the chalk bedrock. Most of the evidence comes from the Paris Basin and Picardy, and there were fewer sites in outlying areas such as Nord-Pas-de-Calais (Vallin 2009), southern Belgium (Jadin et al. 1998), and Lorraine (Margarit et al. 2007). Two important developments distinguish these structures from the architecture of the previous period. The monuments were less visible in the landscape, as their chambers were covered by low mounds or excavated into the subsoil. Champagne-Ardenne is well-known for its hypogea, although megalithic monuments also exist. Certain of the underground structures were decorated with drawings of axes and other artefacts and their entrances were sometimes enhanced by designs that referred to the female body (Villes 1997). Allées couvertes and related monuments contained the remains of more people than their predecessors. It is clear that they had complex histories and were used over several generations, but few have been affected by development-led archaeology and for that reason the most useful information comes from older excavations. There have been exceptional cases. At Masnières –Les Hauts de Masnières (Nord-Pas-de-Calais), a group of burials was delineated by a stone wall made of flint nodules and fragments of querns. Again at Passy–La Truie Pendue in the Yonne valley, a quadrangular building (11 m long and 3 m wide) was recognized among a series of older monuments. It was divided in half and dated from 3350 to 3100 BC. Its western section contained a single burial pit, while the eastern part enclosed a deposit containing sixty individuals. French archaeologists have paid special attention to discoveries of this kind. The history of research was initiated by the publication of fieldwork at the hypogeum of Les Mornouards II (Leroi-Gourhan et al. 1962). This work demonstrated that intact corpses were brought to the tomb, perhaps wrapped in a shroud. Their remains were later displaced to make room for more bodies. The monuments could also be reused during later phases. A good example of a recently excavated site is Porte-Joie where five collective graves were identified (Billard et al. 2010, fig. 2). One was a non-megalithic burial (13 m long and 2 m wide) with the remains of seventy-three individuals. Another structure, at Butte-Saint-Cyr, was a megalithic monument of about the same size and contained at least 109 people, whose remains were deposited during three periods of use, each of which was associated with modifications to the building. The chronological evidence suggests that all these monuments were built around 3300–3100 BC but remained important during the early

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

95

third millennium. The remains included roughly equal proportions of men and women, but children under five years old were excluded. It is possible that the individuals buried in megalithic tombs enjoyed a better quality of life than the people whose remains are found on other sites (Masset and Valentin 1999). Careful studies of the human remains have demonstrated that, in several instances, individuals buried in the same monument shared biological features and may have been members of the same kin group (Scarre 1984). Brittany was another region in which chambered tombs underwent a transformation, but here human remains rarely survive in the acid soil. The new generation of monuments had a different distribution from the earlier passage graves which were generally towards the coast. In contrast, these structures extend across inland areas. They take several different forms, but the most widely distributed type, the allée couverte, has a similar plan to the monuments in the Paris Basin. Although they show considerable variety, they do share common elements. Access to the chambers was restricted, sometimes by perforated slabs, the apertures in which could be opened or closed. Some of the tombs had their chambers set at right angles to the entrance, and in other cases they were approached by passages which changed direction. That would have meant that the interior would always be in shadow. In some instances the main chamber was separated from the entrance by an antechamber and, in common with the chalk-cut tombs in the Paris Basin, certain of these buildings were decorated with carvings of axes, ‘daggers’, and anthropomorphic images including pairs of breasts connected by a kind of necklace. In common with the structures erected around 4000 BC, some of which were reused for later burials, these tombs were at their most elaborate in the Morbihan. They should be the same date as those in other regions and for that reason they must have been constructed long after the large passage tombs in the same region.

Later Chambered Tombs in Western Germany and the Low Countries The same period saw the construction of comparable tombs in Westphalia and northern Hesse (Günther 1997; Hinz 2007). Here there was just as much variety, with flat graves (Kossian 2005), and the use of caves (Orschiedt et al. 2008). Similar funerary monuments appear in the south of Lower Saxony from about 3500 BC. They consist of rectangular chambers with dry-stone walls or stone footings and a timber superstructure (Dirks 2000). An example has recently been excavated at Remlingen (Fig. 3.5). In this case a 12 m long chamber was excavated into the subsoil. It may have been roofed by planks covered with earth and stones, and had its entrance to the east. As often happened, the chamber was set on fire when it went out of use. Radiocarbon

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

96

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

Fig. 3.5. Collective tomb at Remlingen, Lower Saxony, built c.3300–2900 BC. In the early third millennium BC the eastern half of the chamber was re-floored with stone paving and used for a burial accompanied by a pair of cattle. Information from Dirks 2001.

dates suggest that the timber employed to build it was felled between 3300 and 2900 BC. Two phases of activity could be identified. In the first, the chamber had a wooden floor. Large numbers of disarticulated, fragmented bones were recovered from this level. Although it was not possible to calculate the number of individuals represented, the deposit included people of all ages. Some of their bodies had been cremated before they were brought to the tomb, and in one case burnt bone had been placed inside a pot. The disarticulated remains of a young dog were also found in the chamber. A second phase dated from the early third millennium BC. Something similar was discovered at Stein in the southern Netherlands where excavation in the 1960s discovered a long wooden chamber like those associated with the Seine-Oise-Marne Culture (Modderman 1970). Meanwhile in the Lahn valley and around the confluence of the Rhine and the Moselle there was a group of small trapezoidal or oval cists, in which the cremated remains of a number of individuals were interred (von Berg 1994; Wegner 2007). A striking feature of all these groups of monuments is that they are separated by regions in which tombs are rare or absent.

The Demise of Megalithic Tombs and the Development of New Burial Rites In the Paris Basin and neighbouring areas, the construction of megaliths ended by 3000–2900 BC. Until recently, little was known about what happened

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

97

afterwards. Development-led archaeology provides a new perspective on the treatment of the dead. Now successive burials might be placed in an unmarked grave. For example, a stone cist at Monéteau–Sous Macherin contained three inhumations placed on top of one another. They date from 2900–2700 BC. Something similar occurred at Lesches–Prés du Refuge where the first individual was a young person, probably buried in a coffin. The body had largely decayed when the corpse of an adult woman was introduced. Radiocarbon dates place this grave between 2850 and 2580 BC. Perhaps the most exceptional site is Valenciennes–Rue Jean Bernier in Nord-Pas-de-Calais. Here French archaeologists have found pits and postholes from a settlement beside a river. On its bank was a series of small mounds. Intact bodies, exclusively those of men, had been placed on top of these earthworks, but disarticulated bones were discovered nearer to the water. This may have been where human bodies were left to decompose. Cremation was also practised in Normandy where individual burials without any grave goods have been discovered and have radiocarbon dates in this period. At Buchères-Prés Longuerois–Les Bordes a large pit included the burnt bones of five individuals. It seems as if this feature was used on several occasions, and three radiocarbon dates suggest that it happened between 3340 and 3100 BC. There is similar evidence from Reichstett–Rue Ampère in Alsace where a single pit with evidence of burning contained the body of a pig and the cremated remains of eleven people (Fig. 3.6). These burials date from the end of the fourth millennium BC. Flat inhumations and cremation graves of the same period are found in Lower Saxony. In most cases they appear singly or in small groups, although cemeteries of twenty to thirty burials are found in the north of this region. By then the main period of tomb construction was over (Dirks 2000; Kossian 2005). Quite different developments took place in the British Isles. The first was a fairly short-lived phase of individual burials associated with grave goods in circular or oval mounds. Examples include the ‘great barrows’ of north-east England (Gibson and Bayliss 2010), although similar evidence has come from development-led fieldwork in other parts of Britain. In Ireland, the equivalent period between about 3300 and 3000 BC saw the use of Linkardstown cists which differ from other stone tombs because the remains of the dead were buried beneath a cairn and entirely inaccessible (Brindley and Lanting 1990). After 3000 BC there is little evidence for the treatment of the dead, but a number of cremations are recorded. Three sites seem to be especially significant. The first is the large round barrow of Duggleby Howe where a series of inhumation graves associated with single burials was overlain by deposits of cremated human bone (Gibson and Bayliss 2009). Another was Forteviot in central Scotland (Noble and Brophy 2011). At Stonehenge the direct dating of cremation burials found during early excavations shows that they date between about 2900 and 2500 BC (Parker Pearson et al. 2009). Similar deposits have been

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

98

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

Fig. 3.6. Funerary pit at Reichstett–Rue Ampère, Alsace, containing a pig skeleton and the cremated remains of eleven people. Late fourth millennium BC. Information from Blaizot et al. 2001.

recognized at other monuments. On the Isle of Man, cremation cemeteries were used in the earlier third millennium BC (Burrow and Darvill 1997).

THE HISTORIES OF ENCLOSURES

Causewayed Enclosures in Britain and Ireland When the Neolithic period was first defined in England it was on the basis of excavation at the Windmill Hill causewayed enclosure in Wessex. Similar sites were unknown in Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. The situation has changed through aerial reconnaissance, development-led excavation, and a campaign of radiocarbon dating. With the possible exception of Magheraboy in the west of Ireland (Danagher 2007), almost all the directly dated enclosures were built more or

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

99

less simultaneously during the thirty-seventh century BC (Whittle et al. 2011). They were used, and sometimes reused, for different lengths of time, but enough is known to show that they are not a feature of the earliest Neolithic period. Their chronology overlaps with that of long mounds and long cairns, but the mortuary monuments were established first. Even though the distribution of these enclosures has expanded since the early phase of research, it is densest in lowland England, where a few examples were built in pairs, and sites are difficult to identify in northern Britain and Ireland. New research suggests that examples in south Wales are more numerous than was previously believed. To a certain extent the gaps in the distribution of these monuments may be filled by walled enclosures, not all of which had discontinuous circuits. They are clearly documented in south-west England and individual examples have been claimed in Wales, Cumbria, and the west of Ireland (Bradley 2007, 70–1). Despite this development, causewayed enclosures remain a largely southern phenomenon whose most common forms are closely allied with those considered in Chapter 2. It is not surprising as both groups of monuments seem to have been used in similar ways. They have similar contents, including human remains, finds of non-local artefacts, animal burials, and the residues of feasts. The quantity of material recovered in excavation far outstrips that from the settlements of the early fourth millennium BC in Britain and Ireland. Isotopic analysis of human remains from Hambledon Hill shows that they belonged to people who had lived in a variety of different environments (Mercer and Healy 2008). Perhaps the enclosures provided aggregation sites for a dispersed population. It is obvious that artefacts were brought there from distant sources. That is not to say that all the enclosures were employed in the same ways. There is evidence that a few of these sites contained houses, although it is not clear where they belong in the sequence. Others were near to important sources of raw material—flint or other stone suitable for making axeheads—and certain sites are associated with long barrows and contain large numbers of human bones (especially those of young people). There are enclosures with few finds of any kind. At a late stage in their history several of the monuments in southern England were rebuilt as defensive structures similar to Iron Age hillforts. There is evidence that they were attacked and destroyed (Mercer and Healy 2008).

Causewayed Enclosures in Northern Europe Causewayed enclosures were still built in Germany where a typical example is the excavated site at Calden (Raetzel-Fabian 2000). Others were constructed

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

100

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

from 3500 to 3300 BC in Schleswig-Holstein and eastern Jutland (a few enclosures dating to as late as 3150 BC occur on the Danish islands). Seven examples have been investigated since 1998, mostly on a small scale. The majority were located in prominent locations overlooking river valleys or fjords. Examples include the enclosure at Albersdorf which was 170 m in diameter and located on a rise in between two river valleys (Fig. 3.7). It had a single discontinuous ditch and an inner palisade. Investigation showed that the ditch segments had undergone at least three episodes of cutting and rapid back-filling, and that fires were lit at the base of the later cuts. Finds included pottery, flint debitage, and quern fragments. Part of the enclosure interior was uncovered but no contemporary features were found there. At Rastorf the enclosure had three circuits of segmented ditches. The primary ditch cuts produced few finds, but a series of recuts (or pits cut into the ditches) contained large amounts of lithic artefacts and pottery, particularly from the innermost circuit. The assemblage included much waste from axe production. Charcoal from one of the ditch recuts has been radiocarbon dated to 3628–3371 BC. Again only a small area of the enclosure interior could be investigated, revealing part of a culture layer containing a considerable amount of worked flint and pottery. At Aalstrup close to the former coastline, a small part of a causewayed enclosure with numerous intercutting ditch segments has been uncovered. Once a ditch segment had been dug, there was often activity at its base such as the lighting of fires, the construction of

Fig. 3.7. Landscape setting of the Neolithic causewayed enclosure at Albersdorf, Schleswig-Holstein. Information from Müller et al. 2013.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

101

clay and stone features, or the deposition of artefacts. The ditch segments were back-filled shortly afterwards. It is argued that no ‘enclosure’ as such existed, as these features were constructed and used at different times. Even so, there must have been some way of showing where new segments should be dug. Posts and large stones found at the ditch terminals may have played this role. The early phases predate 3500 BC, making it the earliest causewayed site in the region. A few pits containing early Neolithic pottery were also found within or close to the enclosure. In Danish archaeology it is widely accepted that these enclosures were employed in rituals, with a particular focus on mortuary rites (though bone does not survive at most sites in the region due to the unfavourable soil conditions). Niels H. Andersen’s (1997) interpretation of the well-known site at Sarup as a demarcated zone for the souls of the dead has been most influential. At Aalstrup the excavator argues that the digging of a ditch segment and the rites carried out within it allowed the passage of the souls of the dead to the underworld.

Causewayed Enclosures in France There were fewer monuments of this kind than during the previous phase, and the Paris Basin which had contained so many examples now had very few. Among those investigated recently is the site of Basly–La Campagne where a bend in the River Mue was cut off by a palisade (Fig. 3.8). By one of its entrances were two rectangular buildings. Radiocarbon dates indicate that the enclosure was built during the late fourth or early third millennium BC and was destroyed during a violent attack around 2800 BC. Another palisaded enclosure of the same date was excavated at Mondeville–MIR, in Normandy (Chancerel et al. 2006a). It was built on a slightly raised ground and was roughly trapezoidal, measuring 45 m by 35 m. It had two opposed entrances. No features were found in the interior and finds were rare on any part of the site. Another example was at Château-Landon–Le Camp in the Yonne valley. This enclosure overlooked the confluence of two rivers and was defined by nine ditch segments and an internal palisade. Radiocarbon dates suggest that the palisade was built between 3400 and 3000 BC, and that the site went out of use between 2900 and 2600 BC. As enclosures lost their importance in the Paris Basin, they became a significant feature of the west coast of France from the Marais Poitevin to the Gironde (Scarre 1998; Burnez and Louboutin 1999; Ollivier 1999; Peridy 1999). This development ran in parallel with the construction of similar monuments in northern Europe. More than a hundred sites are documented, almost all of them characterized by unusually elaborate entrances (Scarre 1998). Although most examples are known through aerial photography and

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

102

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

Fig. 3.8. Late Neolithic enclosure at Basly–La Campagne, Lower Normandy. Information from San Juan et al. 2007.

research excavations, some have also been also investigated in the course of development-led fieldwork. They were often located on high ground, overlooking rivers or marshes, but an important exception was the site of Jaunay-Clan–Grands Champs, which was located on a valley floor. This enclosure was defined by two ditches and three concentric palisades. The inner earthwork contained animal bones and human remains. Few features have been recorded within these enclosures, although some have been observed; a good example is at Chenommet–Bellevue (Fig. 3.9). Another is the site of Préguillac–Les Arnoux. Here the enclosure was formed by three ditches with a complex entrance and a palisade. These ditches contained a number of intentional deposits, including groups of ceramic vessels and an auroch’s skull, as well as three human bodies. One of the ditches was associated with a stone wall incorporating a megalithic stele which had been brought there from at least four kilometres away. Human remains are often found in the ditches of these enclosures. They may consist of individual bones, but occasionally there are formal burials. For instance, one section of an enclosure ditch at Vieil-Auzay–Les Châtelliers was used as a kind of cemetery (Birocheau et al. 1999). It included three double

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

103

Fig. 3.9. Late Neolithic enclosure of Chenommet–Bellevue, Poitou-Charentes. Information from Ard 2010.

burials within a low mound. Each grave contained the bodies of two men, whose skulls showed signs of injuries that must have been the cause of death. There were indications of other wounds caused by arrows. All six corpses were buried simultaneously, suggesting that these people were the victims of the same violent encounter.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

104

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

Stone Circles and Henge Monuments in the British Isles The stone structures at Carrowmore were enclosed by a circle of boulders, but many of the diagnostic passage tombs in Ireland had corbelled chambers concealed beneath a mound or cairn. The only means of access was by a lengthy passage, which was sometimes aligned on the rising or setting sun. That meant that the centre of the monument was illuminated at special times of year, usually the midsummer and midwinter solstices. The passages could not accommodate many people; nor could the central chambers. On those rare occasions when they were lit, many visitors must have remained outside (Eogan 1986). That contrast is important as there are indications that the area around these monuments assumed an increasing importance in the course of the Neolithic period. The Irish evidence takes several forms. Only the later monuments seem to have had decorated kerbs, and the motifs applied to the exterior are very different from those in the passage or the chamber (Robin 2010). Similarly, it seems as if pieces of quartz were deposited inside the earlier structures where very few people could have seen them (Bergh 1995, 156). By contrast, they were exhibited on the exteriors of the main cairns at Loughcrew and in the Boyne valley. In the same way, Bergh (1995) has shown that platforms were erected against the perimeter of some of the monuments in the mountaintop cemetery at Knocknarea. A comparable structure is recorded at the decorated passage tomb of Knockroe (O’Sullivan 2004). Similar observations have been made in Orkney, where two of the most imposing passage graves, Maeshowe and Quoyness, have external platforms (Davidson and Henshall 1989). It is clear that the example at Maeshowe was built at the same time as the mound. It has not been investigated on a large scale, but its counterpart at Quoyness was associated with a rich array of artefacts and animal bones. Exactly the same was found at the decorated tomb of Pierowall where the area outside the entrance seems to have assumed an increasing importance over time. Indeed, the excavator has suggested that in the earlier tombs of Orkney the main focus was on the interior. It changed to the exterior during a later phase (Sharples 1985). A striking variant is seen at the passage grave of Bryn Celli Ddu on Anglesey. Here a small tomb was built around 3000 BC and was surrounded by a ring of monoliths and a circular ditched enclosure (Fig. 3.10). These features were buried when the mound was enlarged during a secondary phase, but, until that happened, it had occupied only half the space inside that earthwork (Burrow 2010). How should these developments be interpreted? They take many different forms, but nearly all these examples share a common feature. They suggest that more people would have been able to participate in the rituals taking place at passage graves. The very structure of these monuments meant that few

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

105

Fig. 3.10. The structural sequence at Bryn Celli Ddu, Anglesey, Wales, where a stone circle, a ditched enclosure, and a small megalithic tomb associated with cremation burials was replaced by a larger passage grave. Information from Burrow 2010.

individuals could have entered the chamber together, but the growing emphasis on the exterior implies that large congregations assembled outside the tombs and participated in ceremonies there. In time such large gatherings were accommodated in new kinds of monuments. There were free-standing rings of monoliths like that at Balbirnie in central Scotland (Gibson 2010), but the crucial change may have happened in Orkney and could also have extended to Ireland. Perhaps the most informative monument is Maeshowe, where a major passage grave was flanked by an earthwork platform bounded by an enclosure. Although it had been modified during the first millennium AD, its bank was outside the ditch (Richards 2005, Chapter 9). That is the defining characteristic of the peculiarly insular kind of monument called a henge. The term has led to confusion, as it was coined in the 1930s to describe a series of circular enclosures which were compared with the earthwork perimeter at Stonehenge. It was an unfortunate choice, as that particular monument had an external bank only in a secondary phase. Moreover the stone settings that now survive there belong to a later period than the structures discussed in this section, although they may have replaced a ring of monoliths of the same date as the original enclosure. Another problem has become apparent in recent years. Whilst some henges were free-standing structures, others had timber circles, rings of standing stones (Fig. 3.11), and burials inside them. New fieldwork suggests that in certain cases the earthwork was not a primary feature and may even have been

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

106

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

Fig. 3.11. Outline plan of the Ring of Brodgar, Orkney, Scotland, showing groups of stones obtained from the same geological sources. Information from Richards 2013.

constructed around an older monument as its period of use was coming to an end. It follows that such enclosures may not be contemporary with these features. Only where suitable material is associated directly with the bank and ditch can they be accurately dated (Gibson 2012). One such site is the Stones of Stenness, not far from Maeshowe (Ritchie 1976). Here a ring of monoliths was enclosed by a circular earthwork with a single entrance. Animal bones discovered in the ditch terminal provide a date of about 2900 BC (Richards 2013, Chapter 11). This is the same time as the last passage graves in Wales and Ireland and roughly contemporary with the early stone circles at Bryn Celli Ddu and Balbirnie. That suggests an important change was taking place in Neolithic architecture. Henges were not the only monuments to be used during this period. There were similar enclosures with internal banks, although they are rare, and recent fieldwork has identified a series of massive palisaded enclosures in Britain and Ireland. Well-documented examples include those in the Walton Basin in Wales (Gibson 1999) or another at Forteviot in Scotland (Noble and Brophy 2011). Such structures were first built about 2800 BC, although they continued to be constructed and used for a long time. They do not appear to have been

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

107

settlements but include the positions of smaller circular enclosures and post settings. As was the case with henges, there is little evidence that they were related to any Neolithic structures on the Continent.

SETTLEMENTS Little can be said about the settlements in most parts of the study area because not much survives apart from pits and scatters of artefacts. Circular buildings are recorded in Britain and Ireland from about 3000 BC (Bradley 2007, 94–5), and there was a boat-shaped house at Lamballe–Tourelle in north-west France which dates from the earlier third millennium BC. There are no convincing house plans in the Netherlands (Raemaekers 2013), but in other countries there are occasional records of small rectangular structures which are discovered on their own or in groups. They are better known from Germany and Denmark. Here settlements are evidenced throughout the fourth millennium BC, but are represented in smaller numbers than in earlier phases. In western Germany only a few houses are known. Among the most convincing structures are small rectangular dwellings within an enclosure at Wittelsberg (Fiedler 1991), and a trapezoidal structure at Warburg–Menne. Other settlements consist of culture layers and pits. Greater numbers of houses are known in northern Germany and Jutland. In Jutland two-aisled houses have been identified on at least six sites in the course of development-led fieldwork. Most occur singly, although there are exceptions, such as Aldersro II where up to six building plans could be discerned, some of them overlapping. Certain settlements could be quite large, for example at Lisbjerg Skole which extended over an area of 2 hectares. Several of these sites may have been related to megalithic monuments of the same date. For example, that at Albæk was 150 m from a dolmen, and at Skalborg–Ikea a house was found 100 m from a possible passage grave. At Aalstrup a charcoal-rich midden, pits, and hearths were very close to a contemporary dolmen. Similarly, at Lønt a culture layer and pits were located at the site of an earlier causewayed enclosure and only 200 m from a group of dolmens and passage graves. This settlement produced large quantities of charred grain and pottery, hundreds of arrowheads, and numerous fragments of stone axes, mace-heads and battle-axes, some of them unfinished. The excavators could not decide whether it was a settlement involved in artefact production, or a ritual site. A similar quantity of finds comes from other excavations. For example, at Albæk investigation of pits and a culture layer produced enormous quantities of pottery and worked flint. At Sundstrup st a settlement with a probable

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

108

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

house included several pits with large amounts of flint-work. One of them produced around 1500 pieces, among them a group of twenty-eight scrapers. Notable deposits from other pits included: thirty-one scrapers placed under a quern; two querns which had been deposited together; and a smashed pot placed beneath a large stone. At Bad Segeberg a large tub-shaped pit contained over 3800 pottery sherds and 1600 pieces of flint, mostly debitage but also cores, blades, scrapers, and polished axe fragments. There is similar evidence from Lower Saxony. At Rullstorf occupation spread across an area of 7 hectares, and over 30,000 pottery sherds and a large amount of flint-work were recovered from a buried soil. There was a substantial longhouse, 23 m in length, radiocarbon dated to the late fourth millennium BC. It is argued that the settlement had an emphasis in livestock husbandry, based on the large amount of scrapers in the flint assemblage, the high phosphate values around the houses, and a lack of evidence for arable farming. At Lavenstedt a 0.9 m thick culture layer has been dated to the same period. A two-aisled house and a well were also found. Although the excavations were on a small scale, large amounts of pottery and worked flints were recovered. Test trenches and geophysical survey suggest that settlement extended over an area of 2–3 hectares (Gerken 2010; Jöns 2013). Such finds raise the question whether these were ordinary settlements or whether they provided foci for larger communal gatherings.

Settlements and Great Houses in France and Belgium Other sites raise a similar issue. In this case timber buildings are well preserved, but it is not clear whether they represent the remains of settlements or whether they had played a more specialized role in Neolithic society. Perhaps different structures at the same site performed each of these functions. Although most of them date from the late fourth and early third millennia BC, the problem first arises at an even earlier date. There is a remarkable enclosure at Les Hautes Chanvières in the Ardennes (Marolle 1998). It seems to have been occupied from the late fifth millennium BC, although one of the posts used to define its perimeter has a tree-ring date of 3662 BC which would fall into the period discussed in this chapter. The enclosure was unusual because the excavated area includes the remains of twenty-three well-preserved buildings. The largest was 60 m long and 10 m wide, and others attained lengths of between 42 and 45 m. They stand out during a period in which domestic dwellings are comparatively rare, and they appear to be massively enlarged versions of ordinary houses. The excavated area contained over 200 pits, some of them with placed deposits of artefacts and animal remains, and the entire complex was defined by a substantial ditch and four or five palisades. It is hard to resist the view that it was a public

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

109

monument. Its perimeter was like that of other enclosures built at the time, but the enormous structures inside it are most unusual. It is tempting to compare them to the ‘Great Houses’ associated with ceremonial centres in the New World which are regarded as the symbolic dwellings of entire communities (DeBoer 1997). It is because such evidence is so difficult to interpret that the remains of public buildings and domestic dwellings are treated together in this section. In north-west Europe there are no obvious criteria for distinguishing between them. The main contrasts are those of size. Between 3400 and 2700 BC, a series of rectangular longhouses was built from the Dordogne to Flanders. This phenomenon transcends the local groups that feature in the archaeological record. A good example is at Dampierre Le Château–Liévaux in Champagne where excavation revealed a trapezoidal building nearly 20 m long. In this case radiocarbon dates suggest that it was erected during the late fourth millennium BC. Another exceptional site was at Pont-sur-Seine–Haut de Launoy. Here there were two overlapping timber enclosures which contained a series of rectangular structures between 5 and 20 m in length. It is the largest concentration of such buildings known so far. The special character of Haut de Launoy is emphasized by the discovery of two unusual trapezoidal monuments. Their construction made considerable demands on human labour, for nineteen tons of stone were needed to pack the posts in the ground. Radiocarbon dates suggests that the structures on this site were built between 3100 and 2900 BC. Buildings of comparable size were built during the earlier third millennium BC. One example in the centre of France is the site of Moulins-sur-Céphons–Les Vaux where excavations have focused upon an immense rectangular building about 100 m long associated with a palisade, as well as two smaller structures (20 m and 12 m long respectively). Geophysical survey has located further examples, set within a fenced enclosure. In this case they date from about 2900 to 2500 BC. The same association between rectangular buildings and palisades is recorded at the extraordinary site of Pléchâtel–La Hersonnais in Brittany (Fig. 3.12; Tinévez 2004). It comprised four longhouses (the largest 104 m in length), two of them with a lateral annexe, and three of them with a palisaded enclosure whose main entrance faced east. There were two phases of use, separated by a period of abandonment. A combination of radiocarbon and dendrochronology assigns the site to the twenty-eighth and twenty-seventh centuries BC. Comparable structures are recorded in Picardy and the Somme (Fig. 3.13; Joseph et al. 2011). Eighteen complete buildings are now known, distributed over eight sites. All have rectangular or apsidal ground plans. In most cases, they are between 17 and 26 m long, but there were smaller examples at Méaulte–Plateforme aéro-industrielle and Lauwin-Planque, and a colossal building at Houplin-Ancoisne–Le Marais de Santes which was 43.5 m in length. There seem to have been functional differences between the entrance

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

110

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

Fig. 3.12. Comparative plans of the megalithic tomb at Kerlescan and two palisaded enclosures and associated buildings at Pléchâtel–La Hersonnais, Brittany. Information from Laporte and Tinévez 2004.

area, the interior, and the rear section of these buildings. The presence of loom-weights and spindle-whorls points to the importance of weaving at these sites (Martial et al. 2011). Finally, a single example of this tradition comes from Oostkamp–Waardamme in Flanders (Fig. 3.13). Here excavation revealed another timber building, with two aisles and a trapezoidal ground plan. Like the French sites, it included a number of ceramic spindle-whorls.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

111

Fig. 3.13. Late Neolithic houses from northern France and Belgium. Information from Joseph et al. 2011.

In several instances these structures were enclosed by palisades. The example at Houplin-Ancoisne–Le Marais de Santes was in a marshy environment, so wood was well preserved. Tree-ring dating shows that it was built in the twenty-ninth century BC. That is consistent with the radiocarbon dates from this and comparable sites (Joseph et al. 2011). Less than a kilometre away was Houplin-Ancoisne–Rue Marx Dormoy. It is remarkable for its extensive faunal assemblage, 97 per cent of which came from a single pit that also contained part of a human skull. There was a deposit of pig bones, but cattle dominated the assemblage from the excavation. This site included a dagger and two other artefacts of Grand-Pressigny flint. On the alluvial plain of the River Seine, the site of La Saulsotte–Le Bois Baudin featured another long apsidal building, associated with pottery dating from the first half of the third millennium BC. Although a number of these sites have been excavated, it is too soon to be sure whether they represent a unitary phenomenon. It seems possible that one group dates from the fourth millennium BC and might represent a similar phenomenon to Les Hautes Chanvières. The other sites were significantly later in date and most of them seem to have been built in the earlier third

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

112

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

millennium BC. Both groups include some structures that appear to have been domestic dwellings, but the later sites also contain buildings of such exceptional proportions that they may have fulfilled a more specialized role. That is why their characteristic ground plans have been compared with those of chambered tombs (Laporte and Tivénez 2004).

Settlements and Great Houses in the British Isles Until recently much of the evidence from these islands was provided by the scatters of artefacts identified in field survey and by the groups of pits encountered by excavation. That remains the case across most of lowland Britain, but in Ireland, Scotland, and the west of Wales the remains of wooden houses are increasingly often discovered. The evidence of surface finds and pits has its limitations, and much of the published information comes from southern and eastern England. Here several observations have been made (Bradley 2007, 38–46 and 94–8). The first concerns the size and frequency of surface scatters. It is clear that those associated with pottery dating from the fourth millennium BC were of limited extent. They do not contain many artefacts, as much of the material was buried in pits when these places went out of use. The only exceptions are extensive middens close to the River Thames (Allen et al. 2013). By contrast, later artefact scatters are more prolific and much more extensive. They also contain a wider range of artefact types. They can be accompanied by pits, but a smaller part of the assemblage was buried. In East Anglia, where Neolithic pits have been studied in detail, their distribution became more extensive during the course of this period, so that by the mid-third millennium BC it extended from the gravel and chalk to clays and other soils (Garrow 2007). The earlier artefact scatters are sometimes accompanied by the remains of rectilinear timber buildings, although they may not have been the only form of domestic architecture at the beginning of the Neolithic period; the excavated examples have been found because their walls were set in the ground, but other structures need not have required the use of earth-fast posts—the distribution of pits sometimes includes open spaces of the right size to accommodate such houses (Bradley 2007, fig. 2.5). The surviving buildings show a considerable variety, from large rectangular examples to smaller square constructions. Their remains are most often found in Ireland where there is evidence to suggest that they did not occur in isolation; they can occur in pairs or as parts of a larger dispersed settlement. In some cases they were replaced on the same spot (Smyth 2013a). Those in Ireland and Scotland seem to have been burnt down, but even here there is a contrast, for Irish Neolithic houses are associated with a rich material culture, whilst those in Britain contain little but pottery and grain.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

113

These structures had a limited currency and date from a period of expansion at the start of the Neolithic period. They disappear as that phase came to an end, and after about 3600 BC there is not much evidence of the forms of domestic buildings (Whitehouse et al. 2013). Their remains have been more difficult to identify, and it seems possible that lighter curvilinear structures gradually became more important. The new forms of dwelling are best illustrated by the stone houses built in Orkney from about 3200 BC (Richards 2005, Chapters 7 and 21). These buildings generally have oval or circular exteriors, but the interior is sometimes rectilinear, with a series of recesses in the inner wall. At the centre of these buildings there was often a square hearth. In the case of timber structures found in other parts of Britain its place was occupied by a setting of four posts (Fig. 3.14; Noble et al. 2012). Just as Les Hautes Chanvières shared many of the same characteristics as the large wooden buildings in late Neolithic France, there was a precedent for the construction of Great Houses in Britain. These were the enormous timber ‘halls’ in Scotland whose chronology extends between about 3800 and 3600 BC. They are characterized by the recently excavated examples at Crathes and Claish (Fig. 3.15; Murray et al. 2009, Chapter 3). Although they have been interpreted as domestic buildings, they may have played a more specialized role than the smaller dwellings of the same period. The interior is subdivided in a way that would have made them difficult to use, and the main finds from fieldwork consist of fine pottery and grain. Several of these structures seem to have been burnt down, and it may be no coincidence that their size and layout are so similar to those of long barrows. Like the Carnac tumuli discussed in Chapter 2, the construction of the Scottish ‘halls’ may have been an attempt to assert the power of a new way of life at a time when it was first established and potentially vulnerable. In time their characteristic layout was copied by a series of timber enclosures which seem to have been open to the sky (Brophy 2007). A similar development may have happened again more than a thousand years later. Between about 3200 and 2500 BC most of the stone and timber houses in the British Isles conformed to the same layout: at its simplest, a square within a circle. The identical organization of space extends to a group of much larger buildings, some of them associated with palisaded enclosures or henges. They were built on an extraordinary scale and were found with a distinctive style of Neolithic pottery—Grooved Ware. In southern England, they were built around the beginning of the Copper Age, but, because they enshrined an older tradition, they are relevant here. The timber circles at Mount Pleasant (Fig. 3.14 above; Wainwright 1979) and the Southern Circle at Durrington Walls (Wainwright and Longworth 1971) are both 38 m in diameter, and the structure at Woodhenge has a maximum dimension of 44 m (Pollard and Robinson 2007). Each took in an area of ground roughly twentyfive times as large as the domestic dwellings of the same period. Like earlier passage graves, some of these monuments could be aligned on the solstices

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

114

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

Fig. 3.14. Outline plans of timber circles in Britain and Ireland associated with Grooved Ware. Information from Bradley 2007 and Noble et al. 2012.

(Parker Pearson 2012, 79–81). Many of them conformed to the same organization of space, suggesting that, whether or not they were roofed, their architecture referred to the layout of a domestic dwelling (Noble et al. 2012). Again it seems appropriate to describe these buildings as Great Houses. A number of timber circles were replaced by rings of monoliths, but this usually happened during the period considered in Chapter 4. Something rather different occurred in Orkney where fieldwork at the Ness of Brodgar has identified a walled enclosure containing enormous stone buildings which seem to represent monumentalized versions of the houses

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

115

Fig. 3.15. The timber halls at Crathes and Claish, Scotland. Information from Barclay et al. 2002 and Murray et al. 2009.

on other sites (Richards 2013, 94–6). According to an interim account, the walls of those at Brodgar had been painted and the structures had stone roofs (Card 2010). So far nothing similar has been found in other regions.

THE DEVELOPMEN T OF LONG-DISTANCE N ETWORKS Many of the henges, timber circles, and stone circles were associated with artefacts of kinds that circulated from Orkney and the Hebrides in the north, as far as the Channel coast in the south. They are also found on both sides of the Irish Sea. They include numerous axes made of non-local stone, as well as a variety of more specialized flint artefacts, some of which were produced at mines and quarries close to the North Sea coast—the deep shafts at Grimes Graves were one source of these objects (Saville 1981). Still more important, these areas are connected by a style of decorated pottery (Grooved Ware) which seems to have originated in Orkney and possibly in Ireland where it was

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

116

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

associated with a recently excavated henge monument at Balregan on the east coast (Smyth 2013b). Ceramics of this kind are particularly significant because a few of the motifs associated with these vessels occur in megalithic art (J. Thomas 2010). They are also represented on a series of portable artefacts—‘plaques’—and on the walls of houses and public buildings in Orkney. Such pecked designs are not peculiar to passage graves, for some of them are found on natural outcrops in Britain and Ireland where their distribution extends well beyond that of the chambered tombs (Bradley 2009a, 112–22). Their chronology is controversial; the earliest examples obviously date from this period, although the practice of making them continued into the early Bronze Age. In rare cases, in western Scotland and north-west England, the same motifs are recorded at stone circles. A comparable process took place in Continental Europe. The French Atlantic façade was characterized by the use of large enclosures, but it was also integrated into a long-distance network reaching far inland. Grand-Pressigny flint was extracted in Touraine, before being moved across north-west Europe, most often in the form of daggers. Their distribution extends from the Jura to the east, to Morbihan and the Channel Islands. It reaches as far north as the Netherlands and Germany, but no Grand-Pressigny artefact has been identified in the British Isles. Little is known about the circumstances in which these items were produced, although there have been detailed studies of the techniques of working the stone (Millet-Richard 2000; Villes 2007). Stone artefacts from other sources could also travel long distances. For example Aachen flint was moved up to 240 kilometres (Schyle 2006) and Helgoland flint was distributed from the Netherlands to Denmark (Beuker 1988). The earliest copper objects also belong to this phase and were moved over considerable distances, although sometimes in very small quantities (e.g. Mille and Bouquet 2004). There seem to have been other links between communities on the west coast of France and those along the Channel and the southern North Sea. They have recently been suggested by Laporte and seem to belong to the same period (Laporte 2011). They include a distinctive type of ceramic vessel—the collared flask (see also Huysecom 1986)—and specialized techniques of pottery decoration which date from the beginning of the third millennium BC. Exchanges of this kind established a network of contacts that would assume even greater importance with the use of Bell Beakers, which is considered in Chapter 4. Flint mining remained important in some of the regions discussed in Chapter 2. In Belgium several extraction shafts at Spiennes and Petit-Spiennes have been dated to 3500 to 2700 BC (Collet et al. 2008). Antler picks discovered at the bottom of a shaft have dates of 3490–3090 BC, while a comparable date was obtained for a human skeleton discovered in the filling of the mine (3370–3020 BC). On a smaller scale, flint mining is attested at Voeren–Rullen, and there may have been other mines in Normandy where a network of galleries and shafts has been discovered at Falaise–Zone d’activités Expansia.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

117

In north-west England the scale of stone axe production at the Cumbrian quarries seems to have increased significantly between about 3700–3500 BC and 3400–3100 BC (Bradley and Edmonds 1993). That development spanned the period which saw the construction of causewayed enclosures, cursus monuments, and the first stone circles. In this case there is evidence of long distance exchange, and the products of these sources were distributed throughout Britain and Ireland. Like other artefacts of insular origin, their distribution does not extend to the Continent. Similarly, there is no evidence that objects were imported from the European mainland. This is particularly striking because in other regions items moved long distances by sea.

OVERVIEW: THEMES WITH VARIATIONS There were some striking developments between 3700 BC and the early third millennium. Some of them concerned the funerary architecture of this period, but others involved an overlap between different kinds of monument and the settlements of the same date. The chambered tombs of this period were employed in a variety of ways. Some still housed the remains of a restricted number of people, and in such cases may have been used by the members of a single family, but there are other instances where the quantity of corpses increased considerably, so that tombs in the Paris Basin, western Germany and Orkney might contain more than a hundred bodies. It seems possible that, except for the very young, entire communities were represented. Perhaps the changing architecture of Irish and Scottish passage graves reflects a similar trend, for the increasing emphasis on their exterior suggest that a greater number of people engaged in ceremonies there. The argument is supported by the architectural sequence in the British Isles where the closed spaces of the tomb were replaced by open arenas. Mortuary monuments show other signs of diversity. Some became more conspicuous—in Britain long mounds were extended on an unprecedented scale, and the same happened to their counterparts in northern Europe—yet allées couvertes in Continental Europe could be hidden from view and the hypogea of Champagne-Ardenne were entirely subterranean structures. There were similar variations in the treatment of the dead. Some bodies were left intact, others were rearranged, and in a few cases they were burnt. More than one rite could be associated with an individual monument, and, like earlier chambered tombs, many of these structures were reused. Cremation was practiced more widely. It was associated with court cairns and passage tombs in Ireland and extended to individual burials and cemeteries in Britain, Normandy, Lower Saxony, and Alsace.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

118

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

During the period considered in Chapter 2, the distinction between circular monuments and long mounds had a special role. Now it was emphasized in a wider range of structures, whose distribution extended into Britain, Ireland, Germany, and Denmark, where the interplay between passage graves and other buildings remained important. The distinction extended to their artefact associations, the treatment of the dead, and the presence of decoration inside the tombs themselves. Although passage graves and round cairns were widely distributed, the designs known as ‘megalithic art’ were restricted to the Atlantic coastline where the earliest monuments of this kind had been built. Perhaps the displays of decorated pottery at the entrances of north European tombs played an equivalent role. At the same time, new research has encountered a chronological problem. Only rarely are many radiocarbon dates available, but where they do exist in sufficient numbers they show that certain phases of monument building were relatively brief. The same applies to the length of use of those structures (Scarre 2010). These points can be illustrated by two recent projects in Britain. The first studied five megalithic and non-megalithic long barrows in the south and showed that each of them was employed over an unexpectedly short period (Whittle and Bayliss 2007). These structures were not built simultaneously, but this does seem to have been the case with causewayed enclosures. In this case they may have been maintained for different durations, but their initial construction was assigned to the thirty-seventh century BC (Whittle et al. 2011). It seems possible that other episodes of monumental construction occurred during the period considered in this chapter. Scarre has suggested that this may apply to a group of distinctive passage graves in Denmark, and the same may be true of the allées couvertes of the Paris Basin. It could be equally relevant to the Great Houses constructed in northern France during the early third millennium BC, and the enormous timber circles found at southern English henges. In every case it would be wrong to assume that monument building proceeded at an even pace. The archaeology of the tomb was echoed in other media. It is a familiar argument that the characteristic forms of long cairns referred to the layout of the longhouse, and it seems possible that the shape of circular monuments recalled the plans of roundhouses. New elements entered this equation. The spatial relationship between settlements and tombs varied between different areas. They were closely associated with one another in Ireland, SchleswigHolstein, and Jutland. It is clear that in Germany and Denmark both round mounds and long mounds might be built over settlements of small rectangular houses. In Britain it was rarely the case, yet there was one place where the footprints of chambered tombs became increasingly like those of domestic buildings. This was Orkney where some of the long cairns had similar plans to older houses, while large circular tombs were contemporary with oval or circular dwellings (Richards 2005). In certain cases passage graves were built

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

119

on top of abandoned settlements. A number of writers have suggested a similar connection between great timber buildings in northern France and the layout of chambered tombs. That is particularly true of allées couvertes, but the same argument applies to other kinds of megalithic structure along the Atlantic coastline. Enormous wooden structures like those at HouplinAncoisne and Pléchâtel–La Hersonnais may have played a specialized role. Several examples were located inside palisaded enclosures and were destroyed by fire. This last example has wider implications, as Scarre has pointed out that the tombs in question were significantly older than the massive wooden buildings that shared the same ground plan (2011, 262–5). That is not to deny that some megalithic structures were reused during a later phase, but it may be that timber structures (the simplest of which probably were dwellings) were modelled on the forms of mortuary monuments. It is conceivable that something similar happened in Ireland where the earliest roundhouses recorded at present are later than the first circular cairns. The stone monuments are known from about 3550 BC, but the oldest roundhouses in the country are those beneath the principal monument at Knowth which was built about 3000 BC (Bradley 2007, 94–5). Chambered tombs provided a template for more specialized kinds of monuments. That would appear to be the case in Britain and Ireland where passage tombs can be associated with stone circles of a kind that occur as monuments in their own right. The same applies to the earthwork enclosures— henges—that are occasionally associated with passage graves. It is no surprise that some of them should be associated with human remains. A possible link is the presence of cremation burials. In this case the clearest connection was at Bryn Celli Ddu where a small tomb was enclosed by a ring of monoliths and a ditched enclosure. The standing stones were associated with deposits of cremated bone which date from about 3000 BC (Burrow 2010). Other kinds of monumental architecture were modelled on the forms of domestic buildings, but, when this happened, the structure was built on an enormous scale. It could be associated with artefacts and other deposits that suggest a special role. This is true of the timber halls which were built in Scotland towards the beginning of the fourth millennium BC. Over a thousand years later gigantic circular structures were associated with henge monuments in the British Isles. They have the same ground plans as the roundhouses of the same date. The main difference is their size, for in some cases they are so large that it would have been difficult to roof them. Indeed, their characteristic layout could be copied by rings of monoliths which were left open to the sky (Gibson 2005). The best-known example is Stonehenge where it happened on an enormous scale. The gigantic rectangular buildings recognized from excavation and aerial photography in northern France also appear to be massively enlarged versions of the dwellings inhabited at the time (Bradley 2013a).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

120

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

Even where monuments shared similar forms, they may have been used in different ways. That was particularly true of long barrows and enclosures. The long mounds of northern Europe were associated with individual burials containing grave goods, whilst their British counterparts contained the bones of several people and rarely included artefacts. Similarly, the causewayed enclosures of Jutland are thought to have played a role in the commemoration of the dead and could be located close to megalithic tombs, yet their British counterparts were more diverse. Among them are small monuments like those in Denmark, but there were also enormous constructions such as the monuments on Hambledon Hill in southern England. That site epitomizes a more general problem, for at different stages in its history it seems to have been used for exposing and displaying the remains of the dead and as a defended hillfort which appears to have been attacked and destroyed (Mercer and Healy 2008). Still more confusing, the enclosures that look so similar to one another in Britain and northern Europe were not used at the same times. The earliest examples in Schleswig-Holstein and Jutland are more than 200 years later than their counterparts in England. Both groups were different again from the last enclosures in France whose history extended into the third millennium BC. What was new about the period between 3700 BC and the start of the third millennium was a greater interplay between the kinds of structure that characterize the Neolithic period. The forms of houses, tombs, and other monuments show a certain overlap, and yet their architecture was conceived on regional lines. In that sense there was a greater fluidity than before. The period from about 3000 BC saw the growth of long-distance networks which would transcend many of these local variations. Perhaps they provided the media through which unfamiliar beliefs were transmitted from one region to another. At the same time they were associated with the production of new kinds of artefacts. It may be no coincidence that the largest group of flint mines in eastern England dates from the same period as the construction of major henges and that it produced artefacts of the kind deposited around those earthworks. In the same way, Grand-Pressigny flint from western France was distributed across large parts of the study area. In fact it has been found with some of the largest timber buildings excavated during recent years. This raw material shares the same distribution as these structures. The clearest connections of this kind are between a western axis towards the Atlantic coastline and an eastern axis that extended from Germany though the Netherlands to Denmark. They developed towards the close of the period considered here and links may have been formed through public events associated with Great Houses in France. Long-established traditions seem to have lapsed at about this time, and it is striking that so few monuments of the kinds considered in this chapter can be identified after 2800 BC. By the early third millennium BC the archaeology of north-west Europe had changed.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

121

ENTERING A NEW WORLD Between 3100 and 2800 BC a striking development occurred in northern and western Jutland. It is important because it illustrates the emergence of a new regional network. Megalithic structures no longer appeared and their place was taken by ‘stone heap graves’ (stendyngegrave). These enigmatic constructions consist of two burial pits which were laid out parallel to one another and associated with a ‘mortuary house’. These separate elements were covered by a layer of stones to form a mound. Such structures were often laid out in rows which could extend for up to 1700 m. They have recently been reinterpreted by Johannsen and Laursen (2010), who point to finds of bovine teeth at sites like Torup Høje. They suggest that the features identified as graves contained the corpses of cattle; it was the ‘mortuary houses’ with their sunken floors that held human bodies. They may have lain on carts drawn by two draught animals. In northern Germany there were other burials associated with pairs of cattle, for example at the Remlingen tomb which predates the Corded Ware horizon (Fig. 3.5). They are also depicted in the carvings associated with megalithic gallery graves in Hesse and Westphalia (Schierhold 2012, 119–21). These features are important because they prefigure some of the new practices associated with the period between 2900 and 2600 BC. They provide the earliest evidence of contacts between northern and central Europe where the burial of cattle, and sometimes of vehicles, played a role in the Baden Culture. Those connections were expressed more directly by the adoption of Corded Ware and its associations in the early third millennium BC. Corded Ware is more often associated with burials than with the remains of settlements or houses. This phenomenon appears so suddenly that Kristiansen uses it as evidence for a phase of immigration that brought people from central Europe into the eastern margin of the study area, where Corded Ware is found in the Rhineland, Flanders, the Netherlands, and south Scandinavia (Kristiansen 1989 and 2012). He suggests this for several reasons. The first is that in Denmark the Single Grave Culture appeared fully formed; there is no evidence that its component parts had taken shape over time. Secondly, it was documented in parts of the country that had not been heavily occupied before; and, lastly, its material culture, settlements, and burials did not share any features with what was known there previously. In his view these elements provide a widely applicable model of how a prehistoric migration can be identified by archaeologists. His views have not been universally accepted—he suggests that the immigrants were mounted nomads, but there is little evidence of their horses (Hänsel and Zimmer 1994); he places an emphasis on pastoralism, but there are sites associated with Corded Ware which include plough marks and carbonized cereals (Robinson and Kempfner 1987); in Denmark, the main change affected burial rites and material culture, but the few houses dated to this phase were similar to their predecessors. Nonetheless the sudden

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

122

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

replacement of existing practices does require an explanation, and it is true that largely new geographical alignments are identified at just the time when older traditions lapsed. Unfortunately, the available evidence provides more information on the dead than the living. Even so, some important clues come from recent fieldwork.

Corded Ware Settlements One of the problems of studying settlements associated with Corded Ware is the assumption that this style of pottery was used by pastoralists who lived in impermanent dwellings and moved across large parts of the landscape. This view has been supported by recent research on burials in the Tauber valley just south-east of the study area. Examination of human bones suggests a diet dominated by meat and/or dairy products and a pattern of degenerative changes characteristic of mobile herdsmen rather than settled farmers (Menninger 2008). By contrast, excavations in Jutland have produced finds of querns and charred grain. The idea that this period was characterized by pastoralism have been challenged by finds from recent excavations (Klassen 2008). The macrofossil evidence is synthesized by Andreasen (2007; 2009), who shows that barley was the dominant crop at this time, whilst emmer was widely grown. Wild plant foods also played a role, as indicated by finds of charred acorns and hazelnuts. In Holstein, the river valley site of Bad Oldesloe–Wolkenwehe has produced a varied assemblage of crops and wild plant foods, including barley, emmer, millet, peas, flax, water lilies, and hazelnuts. The wetland conditions allowed a faunal assemblage to survive. It was dominated by domestic species (65 per cent), especially cattle and pig. Wild animals were also represented, including deer, wild pig, and beaver. In the same region the coastal settlement at Wangels produced a mixed botanical assemblage including cereals, wild fruits, and nuts. It is dated to 2900–2600 BC. In this case 56 per cent of the animals belonged to domestic species (mainly cattle and pig), while the others included land mammals, beaver, seal, and waterfowl. Fish were also important. Most of them had been taken from brackish or fresh water. There is a little evidence of the houses associated with Corded Ware. As so often, most settlement sites are reduced to scatters of artefacts, some of them quite extensive, but at Ochtendung in the south-east of the study area, wooden buildings have been dated to this period. The best preserved example was a rectangular sunken-floored structure, 4.5 by 3.5 m in size, with a central hearth. Numerous postholes in the corners and interior of the structure suggest repairs or rebuilding over time. More have been found at other sites around the confluence of the Rhine and Moselle (Hecht 2008). They were

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

123

associated with Corded Ware. Others have been identified during recent fieldwork in Jutland where two-aisled rectangular or trapeze-shaped buildings were the norm. By the later part of the Single Grave Culture they had sunken floors—a feature that makes them easier to recognize in excavation. Here Siemen suggests that ‘settlements were small, single farmsteads probably inhabited by [one] family’ (Siemen 2008, 80). Some of the best recent evidence for the organization of such settlements comes from a series of excavations near the town of Brande, along a low ridge between two river valleys (Fig. 3.16). At Brande–Sjællandsvej, three or four houses, between 7.5 and 16.5 m in length, were distributed over a distance of about 250 m. The finds from the excavation included pottery, flint-work, querns, charred grain, and acorns. Two more houses were found 900 m away at Brande–Bøgevænget. There was a contemporary barrow cemetery 350 m from the Sjællandsvej settlement.

Corded Ware Burials Much more is known about the burials associated with Corded Ware. That is why Danish archaeologists refer to a ‘Single Grave Culture’. It is typified by the construction of round barrows, some of them organized into cemeteries, and by the provision of a restricted number of funeral offerings. In male burials they include battle-axes, flint axes, arrowheads, and pairs of perforated amber discs. Pots and amber beads accompany both men and women, although necklaces with large numbers of amber beads were restricted to female graves (Case 2004). There is a problem in studying this evidence. Although the graves survive, the mounds have often been levelled, and those that do remain intact may be protected by law so that they fall outside the remit of development-led archaeology. In fact few have been excavated during recent years, and the results of this work are very limited compared with those of earlier research. These discoveries do little more than emphasize the wide distribution of burials of this kind. More is known about the results of older projects, in particular in Jutland, Schleswig-Holstein, and the Netherlands where many standing mounds survive. The Dutch examples have recently been studied by Quentin Bourgeois (2013) whose monograph provides some useful statistics. Here one hundred barrows associated with the Corded Ware phase have been excavated and are dated between 2850 and 2500 BC. They were rarely more than a metre high and, where the excavation record is of high quality, it seems if these structures were bounded by a palisade. A number of these monuments occur in groups, and the linear barrow cemeteries that are so familiar in later phases first developed at this time. Some Corded Ware round barrows were reused or modified during subsequent periods.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

124

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

Fig. 3.16. Brande–Sjællandsvej, Jutland. Left: landscape setting of barrow cemetery and houses; right: excavation plan of part of barrow cemetery. Information from Rostholm 1999; 2009.

The burials in Jutland and Schleswig-Holstein have been analyzed by Hübner (2005). Here most of the inhumations followed an east–west alignment. A few were in flat graves, but more were associated with low round barrows or cairns. Most were in simple earth graves or coffins, although more elaborate stone cists and wooden chambers have been found, for example at Tinghøj. Some of these graves were located within temporary structures such as mortuary houses, post-circles, or ring-ditches before they were covered by a mound. Traces of burning or ploughing are often found beneath the mounds and these activities may have played a role in the funerary rite. The barrows themselves could be bounded by kerbstones, ditches, or palisades. Sometimes the lower part of a mound was capped with stones. In their

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

125

primary phases, the barrows were between 4 m and 30 m in diameter and, like those in the Netherlands, were up to a metre high. Their monumentality would have been enhanced by the choice of raised ground for their construction. In many cases, further burials were added, but this happened during later phases. The results of recent excavations confirm the picture presented by Hübner. The largest group of burials is at Brande–Sjællandsvej II where thirteen monuments—some incorporating ring-ditches or post-rings—formed a roughly linear arrangement 350 m across (Fig. 3.16). The biggest monument was 25 m in diameter and had five central graves. They included a female burial with amber beads and a male burial associated with two battle-axes. The other three graves were smaller and may have been for children. Of the remaining monuments, one barrow covered a row of five postholes, possibly the remains of an earlier house (although its north–south alignment would be unusual). Elsewhere, a barrow at Torup Høje overlay earlier ‘stone heap graves’—an association that had been observed in earlier excavations. Other burials were placed in the chambers of older megalithic monuments, as shown by finds of pottery or axes in the dolmens at Klakring and Måde Slammineraliseringsanlæg. Pottery from this period can also be found in the ‘offering layers’ outside megaliths, for instance at Breinholdtgård Golfbane. One recently excavated site epitomizes the paradoxical status of the Single Grave Culture. This is Refshøjgård in the east of Jutland where two superimposed burials were enclosed by a ring-ditch. The first contained a coffin which held a body that was possibly wrapped in hide. It was associated with a flint axe. The later burial was another inhumation, accompanied by a stone battleaxe and a ceramic vessel thought to have contained beer. There are two dates for the site (2865–2705 BC and 2835–2680 BC), but it is the details of these deposits that draw attention to the difficulties of understanding this period. In one corner of the earlier grave there was a carefully placed quern, whilst the burials were associated with traces of threshed barley—a feature that is found at other barrows of the same date. Settlement evidence once appeared so limited that scholars connected the Single Grave Culture with mobile pastoralism. Finds like those from Refshøjgård suggest another possibility. It was the raising of crops that people emphasized in the funeral rite (Klassen 2005). There is a final observation to make concerning the burials associated with Corded Ware. Those that fall within the boundary of the study area conformed to more widely distributed traditions that extended further to the south and east. At the same time, some of the artefacts that are found with them are made of Grand-Pressigny flint which must have been acquired from communities who lived in western France. It is difficult to comprehend the processes that led to their deposition in graves such a long way from the source, but this evidence prefigures some of the connections that become a dominant theme in studies of Copper Age and early Bronze Age Europe. Their significance is considered in Chapter 4.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/9/2015, SPi

4 Barrow Landscapes Across the Channel (2500–1600 BC) INTRODUCTION: LIVES AND DEATHS It was easy to choose the title of this chapter. Over a span of almost a thousand years, which embraces the late Neolithic, Chalcolithic, and early Bronze Age periods in local chronologies (Fig. 4.1), the archaeological record of northwest Europe takes a distinctive form. Round barrows are widely distributed and are found on both sides of the English Channel and the North Sea. At the same time there are few regions in which the dwellings of the living population can be identified and studied in any detail. There is good evidence for longdistance contacts illustrated by the movement of artefacts and raw materials, and analysis of human bones suggests that certain individuals travelled in the course of their lives. Even so, the best indications of these networks are provided by the contents of the graves. There is a danger of taking this state of affairs literally. Any account that summarizes the distribution of funerary monuments is subject to certain biases. Although barrows play a prominent part in the archaeology of the later third and earlier second millennia BC, there were many burials without mounds. There are also regions in which earthworks are preserved and others where they have been destroyed. For example, in lowland England major concentrations of round barrows have been documented on the chalk of Wessex and Sussex, but it has taken aerial photography, supplemented by development-led excavations, to show that they occurred in equally high densities on the Isle of Thanet which commands the entrance to the Thames estuary. On the opposite shore of the Channel there is a great concentration of round barrows in Flanders and another on the gravels of the Somme (Fig. 4.2; De Reu et al. 2011). Again they have been discovered from the air, but in this case comparatively few have been excavated and dated. There is a striking contrast with the situation across the border in the southern Netherlands where round barrows still survive. Even there research has shown that many examples were levelled in the nineteenth century (Bourgeois 2013).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

127

Fig. 4.1. Sites recorded in the database and for the Prehistory of Britain and Ireland project, 2500–1500 BC.

In other cases barrows may be comparatively rare, and flat graves and entire cemeteries seem to have taken their place. That is certainly the case towards the southern limit of the study area, but it is also true in Ireland where large mounds are comparatively uncommon and only a few have been excavated (Eogan 2004). Instead development-led archaeology has revealed a large number of flat cemeteries in which the positions of the burials do not appear to have been marked. Some of the graves were provided with stone coffins or cists. The same is true over large areas of Scotland, but in this case the evidence is more ambiguous. Here there are groups of flat graves, but ring-ditches have also been identified from the air and round cairns sometimes survive. There is

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/9/2015, SPi

128

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

Fig. 4.2. The clusters of round barrows and ring-ditches on either side of the Strait of Dover. Information from De Reu et al. 2012.

a special problem as it is known that in the north-east of the country arable land was systematically trenched in the nineteenth century, when any stones found in the plough-soil were collected to build walls. Perhaps some of the cists were originally covered by monuments. On the other hand, the graves were often located on glacial mounds, which may have done service as round barrows or even have been mistaken for older structures (Shepherd 1986). The same argument may apply to natural mounds in north-west England which were used for later deposits of metalwork (Mullin 2001). It is commonly assumed that most of the portable wealth associated with this period was deposited in barrows, and, in particular, in the large concentrations of intact mounds excavated in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Again that is an over-simplification. Many of the most elaborate artefacts discovered in recent years have come from excavations in areas where earthworks no longer survive. In England almost all the finest objects found by commercial excavations have been discovered outside the regions known for their burial mounds (Champion 2004): a pattern which is emphasized by the work of the Portable Antiquities Scheme. In any case a better appreciation of chronology shows that the first ‘rich’ burials—those associated with the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

129

earliest Bell Beakers—were not necessarily covered by any kind of earthwork. One result of development-led excavation has been to emphasize the importance of unmarked graves and cemeteries. Another qualification is suggested by the evidence from Atlantic Europe. Here conspicuous mounds and cairns were built—the rich barrows of early Bronze Age Brittany provide the obvious example—but there is also evidence that Neolithic tombs were reused. The same is true in northern Scotland and at a few monuments in Ireland, the Netherlands, northern Germany, and Denmark. In such cases the burials themselves can be contemporary with those in newly built barrows, but they were deliberately placed in structures whose chambers or passages remained accessible. French passage graves and allées couvertes were reused over a long period, and in Ireland a new kind of megalithic monument, the wedge tomb, was built to house human remains, some of which were associated with Beaker pottery (Fig. 4.3; Carlin and Brück 2012). At about the same time further groups of tombs, a number of them echoing the traditional form of the passage grave, were constructed in southwestern England, northern Scotland, and possibly in the south-west of that country. Their chronology seems to extend into the early Bronze Age (Jones and Thomas 2010, 290–3). Even where round barrows survive in large numbers, as they do in Jutland, the southern Netherlands, parts of lowland England, and Brittany, there are problems in using them to write an account of prehistoric archaeology. Long before settlement sites were recognized or excavated, standing mounds provided an obvious target for antiquarian excavation. Many of them were investigated, but as a source of relics. This meant that, until the advent of radiocarbon dating, chronologies were based on the associations between artefacts in graves: a method that underlies the chronology established by Montelius for northern Europe and extended to other regions considered in this chapter. It was a significant advance, but only occasionally was much discovered about the histories of individual monuments, their spatial organization, or the practices that took place when they were built. By the time that those questions were asked so many monuments had been damaged that it was difficult to justify further fieldwork. The result was paradoxical. Monuments were given legal protection despite the fact that little was known about them. At the same time, new excavations were limited to examples that were more or less destroyed. Either they had been truncated by ploughing to such an extent that only a few features remained, or they were reduced to ringditches and produced little information of any kind. As a result too much of the archaeological literature is based on the results of poorly documented excavations and few intact structures have been investigated to modern standards. The contrast is especially obvious from the monographs published over the last half century. The contents of many of the barrows on the chalk of central

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/9/2015, SPi

130

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

Fig. 4.3. Outline plans of an Irish wedge tomb (Clogherny Meenerrigal) and a Scottish Clava cairn. Information from Bradley 2009b.

southern England have been published in a museum catalogue, but there was little to say about the associated monuments (Annable and Simpson 1964). By contrast, a continuing series provides an inventory of the barrows of Denmark, Schleswig-Holstein, and Lower Saxony. It began in 1973 and devotes as much attention to the mounds as it does to the grave goods associated with them (Aner and Kersten 1973). Briard’s account of Breton tumulus graves takes the same approach, but in this case less information is available (Briard 1984). Of course, there are exceptions to this unhappy picture. Some older projects were ahead of their time, for example Van Giffen’s, Glasbergen’s, and Modderman’s barrow excavations in the Netherlands. Despite the current reluctance to investigate intact mounds, there have been a few exceptionally informative projects during recent years. Some already-excavated monuments have been reopened to recover radiocarbon samples and environmental evidence (Fontijn 2010). Much of this work has been undertaken in the Netherlands and Denmark and has shed light on the ways in which their construction was organized, and the character of the monuments. In other cases intact barrows were partly or completely concealed by later sediments. This ensured their survival, for they were not discovered until recently. A good example is the cemetery of mounds and related structures buried beneath the flood-plain at Raunds in the English Midlands (Harding and Healy 2007). Another is the recognition of similar structures beneath later deposits in eastern England. The well-preserved cemetery at Over in the Fenland has now been excavated (Evans et al. 2009). Not only does such

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

131

work change the overall distribution of round barrows, it gives some indication of what must have been lost to early investigation.

THE BE LL BE AKE R P H ASE Barrows may be the commonest feature during this period, but in some respects they remain a neglected resource. On the other hand, the contents of the different graves—whether or not they were associated with mounds— raise questions of exceptional interest. The third millennium BC is marked by the creation of supra-regional networks connecting people across large parts of Europe: a process whose archaeological signature takes the form of such geographically extensive complexes as the Bell Beaker Culture, and the Corded Ware (or Single Grave) Culture discussed in Chapter 3. Both Britain and Ireland were included in this process and it is obvious that links between these islands and mainland Europe resumed after a period of isolation. The available evidence suggests contacts across long distances and the establishment of similar lifestyles among the local populations. The cultural division between regions north and south of the Rhine–Meuse delta ended with the adoption of Bell Beakers during the second half of the third millennium BC (Fig. 4.4). The precise chronology and location of the earliest examples are debated, and, rather than advocating a single source for the new developments, there is more to gain by considering multiple origins for their various components. In fact there is little consensus on where Bell Beakers originated or the relationship between that style of pottery and the existing tradition associated with Corded Ware which is found further to the east. One model favours an origin in south-west Europe, and the other emphasizes the importance of northern and north-central Europe. A widely quoted paper is by Müller and van Willingen (2001) who consider that the earliest Bell Beakers developed in the Iberian Peninsula, and, specifically, the Tagus estuary. There are problems with their account, for they hardly discuss the difficulty of calibrating radiocarbon dates for the third millennium BC, which makes it problematical to establish an exact chronology for the period. In any case the analysis focuses on samples of bone which are considered more accurate than charcoal samples because of the old-wood effect. Since bone seldom survives from burials in the north, their data are biased towards the samples from southern Europe. In fact several different regions (the Iberian Peninsula, southern France, and the Netherlands) provide dates suggesting the existence of Bell Beaker groups around 2500 BC. In some ways the quest for a Bell Beaker homeland is deeply engrained in the history of research (Vander Linden 2013), but there seems to be a willingness to interpret the appearance of Bell Beakers and their associations

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/9/2015, SPi

132

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

Fig. 4.4. The main distribution of Bell Beakers. Map courtesy of Robin Furestier.

in relation to already existing networks along the Atlantic façade. By the midthird millennium the axes represented by Bell Beakers and Corded Ware respectively seem to have been linked together through the exchange system characterized by the movement of Grand-Pressigny flint from western France. At an even larger scale Sherratt (1987) suggested that the fine pottery found in both Bell Beaker and Corded Ware graves complemented the distribution of ceramic vessels whose forms were copies of sheet-metal containers in southern Europe. All these groups may have been associated with similar social practices, including the consumption of fermented drinks. Recent years have seen a renewed interest in Beaker material culture. Although the evolution of the fine pottery remains controversial, from an

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

133

early stage, Beaker production was typified by a mixture of local and foreign characteristics (Prieto-Martinez and Salanova 2009). In any event the process of change was rapid but quite short-lived, and the first signs of regional variation appeared by 2300 BC (Needham 2005). One result of current research is to show that the impact of the Bell Beaker phenomenon was not limited to a few iconic artefacts. Maritime Bell Beakers may be widely distributed, but regional ceramic styles changed during this period. On the Continent, Besse (2003) has shown the existence of several potting traditions, with an important division between central and western Europe (a third tradition, not considered here, is associated with the southern part of the continent). In one case, ceramic assemblages were dominated by forms such as jugs and handled cups whose origins can be traced back to third millennium BC styles, principally Corded Ware. In western Europe, and especially in France, the Bell Beaker period saw new developments which owed little to Neolithic artefacts in the same areas. Cases of mutual influence between local and Beaker pottery have been identified in the Centre-Ouest and along the Mediterranean coast, but these examples are confined to areas where the Bell Beaker tradition occupied a marginal position in the local geography. The situation in Britain is more difficult to assess. Despite the growing number of finds from development-led archaeology, there have been no studies of Beaker domestic ceramics since Gibson’s important work thirty years ago (Gibson 1982). Even so, it is clear that the pottery associated with fine Bell Beakers is different from that in settlements containing Grooved Ware. The same is true of the flint artefacts on domestic sites. Despite these long-distance connections, Bell Beakers were not used in the same contexts in every region. Most striking is a fundamental contrast between the evidence from Ireland and that from Britain. In Ireland, where the first use of Beakers had elements in common with practice in Atlantic Europe, very few graves contain this kind of pottery. The artefacts associated with Beaker burials in other regions are discovered in isolation and were apparently deposited in ‘natural’ places like springs and bogs (Carlin and Brück 2012). In that respect they continued an established practice illustrated by Neolithic axes.

Mobility The application of isotope analyses provides unambiguous evidence of human mobility during this period. From the pioneering work of Price and colleagues in central Europe (Price et al. 1998; 2004) to the survey of British Beaker material directed by Parker Pearson, Chamberlain, and Richards (Jay et al. 2012b), studies in various parts of Europe have demonstrated that individuals moved from one region to another during the course of their lives.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/9/2015, SPi

134

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

This work reveals a variety of different patterns. In central Europe, men, women, and children all moved between different areas; the evidence does not show any patterning according to age or gender. Given the complexity of the local geology, it was not possible to specify the distances involved (Price et al. 2004). Similarly, a study of lead isotopes associated with individuals from a collective grave at Sion in Switzerland identified the presence of non-local individuals, but shed no light on their origins (Chiaradia et al. 2003). The most famous example comes from the British Isles. This is the ‘Amesbury Archer’ (Fitzpatrick 2011). Strontium and oxygen isotope analyses were conducted on this burial and on the bones from a neighbouring grave. The results suggest that neither individual was born in England. Instead they suggested an origin towards the foothills of the Alps. Fitzpatrick interprets the burial as the grave of a migrant to Britain who owed his special status to his knowledge of metallurgy. Tempting as this hypothesis might be, the precise identification of the birth place of the Amesbury Archer is controversial. The important point is that these people did not grow up in the areas where they were buried. A comparable example of such movement, albeit on a more limited geographical scale, has been demonstrated for the ‘Boscombe Bowmen’, a collective burial excavated on the same site (Evans et al. 2006). Another case is a man who may have been raised in the Netherlands but was buried at Sorisdale in the Hebrides (Sheridan 2012, 43). Other methods have shed light on Beaker population history. Using nonmetric traits of teeth as a starting point, Desideri and Besse (2010) suggest population continuity between the pre-Bell Beaker and Bell Beaker periods in Bohemia and the Spanish Meseta, whilst in Switzerland, they point to an influx of genetic traits from the west Mediterranean. Unfortunately their analysis did not extend to the study area. More will probably be learnt from ancient DNA, and Ricaut and colleagues have already raised the possibility of gene flow between northern and southern Europe during the Bell Beaker period (Ricaut et al. 2012).

Metallurgy In the study area Beakers are commonly associated with metalwork. Indeed, Gordon Childe suggested that their presence across such a large area could be explained by the movement of migrant smiths, looking for sources of raw material and distributing the products of their craft (Childe 1957, Chapter 12). In fact copper-smelting long predates the Beaker period, but the diffusion of metallurgy was hampered by the availability of ores and took at least two to three millennia to spread across Europe (Roberts et al. 2009). By the late fourth/early third millennium BC metalworking, using ores from outside the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

135

study area, was practised in many of the regions in which Bell Beakers would appear. Parts of north-west Europe show a different sequence, especially the British Isles. Copper was not used before 2400 BC. The earliest and largest production site was at Ross Island in south-west Ireland. Between 2400 and 2100 BC people extracted copper and smelted it locally (O’Brien 2004). This activity was associated with Beaker ceramics. In the light of what was said earlier, it is interesting that the techniques used to transform the metal were most like those employed in the north and west of France and the Iberian Peninsula. The scale of the operation was impressive, as Ross Island was the main source of copper artefacts for both Ireland and Britain, supplying up to 70 per cent of the earliest metalwork until the end of third millennium BC (Bray and Pollard 2012). There were important contacts with northern Britain and it is known that copper was exported across the Irish Sea. There is a particular concentration of finished objects in north-east Scotland, where moulds for working the metal have been discovered (Needham 2004). Close to an obvious landfall on the Scottish coast was Kilmartin Glen, the site of one of the principal groups of stone and earthwork monuments in Britain (Cook et al. 2010).

Bell Beaker Settlements The use of this term can raise problems. For the purposes of the discussion Beaker settlements are considered as occupation sites where a significant proportion of the associated pottery belongs to that ceramic tradition. For many years that would have been difficult to establish as so much attention had been devoted to the finest vessels. More recently researchers have studied the entire assemblage found at living sites. The results of this research have been surprising. It has shown that there are parts of western and central Europe in which the Bell Beaker domestic assemblage was quite distinct from existing traditions in the same regions. At the same time the structures with which they are associated are extraordinarily diverse. In many cases they are difficult to recognize, but, where they can be defined, the domestic buildings do not conform to a single style. Instead an important study by Besse and Desideri (2005) showed that they adhered to architectural traditions that were already well established in the same areas. Thus curvilinear dwellings could be identified in the British Isles, where such buildings were used by 3000 BC, whilst in Denmark they were two-aisled longhouses of a type already present in the Neolithic period. In some ways these examples are unusual simply because structural evidence is preserved. That is not the case everywhere, and Bell Beaker settlements more often consist of artefact scatters, hearths, and pits. Isolated postholes or stakeholes may be identified, but only rarely are they of much

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/9/2015, SPi

136

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

assistance in defining the plans of individual buildings. On the Atlantic coasts of France and Scotland the situation is rather clearer because houses were constructed of stone, but even these are rare. Perhaps the best way of defining the range of variation is to begin with the two regions where domestic sites have been easiest to recognize. The contrasts between them have wider implications. There is most information on the settlements towards the northern limit of the distribution of Bell Beakers. In Denmark these sites date from the final centuries of the third millennium BC. Sarauw (2007a and 2007b) lists sixty-two examples with Bell Beaker pottery (see also Prieto-Martinez 2010). They are characterized by rectangular sunken houses, sometimes grouped together to form small villages, for instance the twenty-three examples recorded at Bejsebakken. One section of the floor was excavated into the subsoil. It has been suggested that this was a stable, but phosphate analysis has not supported the idea (Sarauw 2007a). Although this feature makes the houses easier to recognize than their counterparts in other areas, the increased frequency of sites during the third millennium BC may also be associated with a rising population (Vandkilde 2005; Vander Linden 2012). Of the seventy-six settlements dated to c.2300–1700 BC in the project database, fifty-one have provided house plans. A further twenty-one sites dated more broadly to the late Neolithic/early Bronze Age (c.2300–1500 BC) include two-aisled houses which are likely to belong to this period. As was the case in the middle Neolithic period, domestic buildings were aligned roughly east–west, and often had the sunken section of floor at the eastern end or, occasionally, in the centre of the building (Ethelberg 2000; Artursson 2009). They were often larger than those of the preceding period, typically ranging from 8 to 25 m in length, but a recently excavated example at Nørre Uttrup measured 36 m by 7 m. The biggest and most extensively analyzed settlement is at Bejsebakken which is radiocarbon dated to 2350–2000 BC (Fig. 4.5). Here twenty-three buildings were found across an area of 80,300 m2. They included some houses with a sunken floor, and four smaller structures that are interpreted as outbuildings. The hollowed floors contained large amounts of pottery, flintwork, and other finds which had been deposited after the dwellings went out of use. The houses were in three groups, and the excavator suggests that they represented farmsteads that shifted short distances over time. Other settlements with several houses have been interpreted in the same way. They may have represented one or two farms shifting around a restricted area, as for example at Mejrup Syd where six buildings were dispersed across four locations 70–200 metres apart. Recent excavations have shed light on the use of space inside these houses. Hearths occur at ground level in the western end, in the sunken eastern end, or sometimes in both locations. At Petersborg/Birkholmvej three storage pits were

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

Fig. 4.5. Settlement at Bejsebakken, Jutland, dated to c.2350–2000 overlies one house in the south-eastern part of the site.

137

BC.

A later barrow

Information from Sarauw 2006.

discovered beneath a sunken house floor and contained 50 litres of charred cereals and the remains of wooden vessels. Finds of burnt grain in postholes in the eastern ends of houses suggest that this area was used for food storage (Andreasen 2009). Examples of deliberate deposition include four flint sickles from the postholes of a house at Bejsebakken, a flint sickle and half a pot from a posthole at Gildbjerg, and loom weights from a similar context at Nørre Uttrup. Evidence from Bejsebakken suggests that the sunken house floors were filled in fairly rapidly after the abandonment of the building. While the excavator viewed the finds from these deposits as ‘waste’, complete artefacts such as flint daggers and querns from the sunken-floored houses at other sites could have been deliberately placed there. In two houses at the neighbouring settlements of Malt–Kongehøj and Malt–Mannehøjgård, a small stone cairn (about 2 m in diameter) was erected over the centre of the building when it was abandoned. Although there was no trace of bone, these structures may have referred to the forms of funerary monuments, since late Neolithic burials were interred in a larger (middle Neolithic) cairn 100 m from Kongehøj. Ard-marks have also been observed at a number of these sites. Many of them were at the base of sunken house floors, and in at least one case (Hostrup Strand) they ran parallel to the alignment of the building. This suggests that house sites were brought under cultivation soon after they were abandoned.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/9/2015, SPi

138

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

The excavated evidence from Britain and Ireland shows some striking similarities and differences. Again much of the evidence is provided by scatters of artefacts, hearths, and the contents of pits, but there are occasional signs of domestic structures (Gibson 1982). Although few buildings survive, the majority were circular or oval, like those associated with a settlement near the copper mines at Ross Island (Fig. 4.6; O’Brien 2004, Chapter 6) or a recently excavated structure at Porthcurno in Cornwall (Jones et al. 2012, 10–18 and 52–7). Their positions can be marked by stakeholes rather than postholes, making them especially difficult to recognize in excavation. It seems that most of them were lightly built and often replaced. The evidence is best preserved where it was buried under blanket peat or protected from damage by later earthworks such as barrows. The Wessex site of Snail Down provides a typical example, and here a substantial assemblage of pottery and worked flint was associated with a hearth and several arcs of stakeholes (Thomas 2005, 73–6). Similar evidence has also been preserved beneath round barrows in eastern England (Gibson 1982, 27–48). In the Burren on the west coast of Ireland the remains of field walls, roundhouses, and enclosures still survive above ground (Jones 1998). Something similar may have happened at Belle Tout in southern

Fig. 4.6. Outline plan of the Beaker settlement associated with the Ross Island copper mines, Ireland. The plan distinguishes between structures defined by continuous trenches and those identified from alignments of postholes and stakeholes. Information from O’Brien 2004.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

139

England where slight oval and rectilinear structures were associated with two earthwork enclosures (Bradley 1970). Better preserved evidence comes from other environments. As well as structures buried by peat, a few examples are preserved in sand dunes. At Northton in the Outer Hebrides, it seems that an oval stone-walled building had been roofed with an upturned boat (Fig. 4.7; Simpson et al. 2006, Chapter 3). There are more examples of this practice in the same part of Scotland (Parker Pearson et al. 2004, 45–8). Other evidence of settlements has been identified beneath deposits of colluvium in south-east England where ard-marks often survive (Allen 2005). The botanical evidence from these sites suggests an emphasis on growing barley. There are several reasons why these structures have been difficult to identify. One is that stake-built structures are easy to eradicate by ploughing, but another explanation comes from excavations in the west of Scotland where traces of roundhouses were discovered, buried under peat. On the island of Arran fieldwork has identified the remains of circular dwellings and evidence of cultivation. It showed that once a domestic building had been abandoned it was usual to plough around its remains, perhaps because the ground was exceptionally fertile (Barber 1997, Chapter 2). In this way domestic sites could have been erased, even during the prehistoric period. The same kind of sequence might apply to those Beaker houses in Denmark which are cut by ard-marks. The contrasts between these two regions are especially striking. In both cases the buildings associated with Bell Beaker pottery conform to essentially local architectural traditions: two-aisled longhouses in the north, and circular or oval structures in the west—it is obvious that there was no Beaker ‘house type’. It is hard to extend the argument to neighbouring areas because so few of the sites include clearly defined features. Even so, it is worth drawing attention to finds of two-aisled buildings in the Netherlands, the best known

Fig. 4.7. Houses from Bell Beaker settlements at Beg ar Loued, Molène, Brittany, and Northton, Harris, Scotland. Information from Pailler et al. 2010 and Simpson et al. 2006.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/9/2015, SPi

140

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

of which is the apsidal longhouse excavated in the 1970s at Molenaarsgraf (Louwe Kooijmans 1974). In the same way, recent work in north-west France has found evidence of what appear to be oval structures, not unlike the excavated dwellings in the Western Isles of Scotland. A stone-built settlement has been excavated as part of a research project on the island of Molène (Pailler et al. 2010). This site contained a building which was first constructed in the Bell Beaker period and remained in use during the early Bronze Age (Fig. 4.7). Comparable features, dated to the Bell Beaker period, were recorded on the sites at ChâtellaillonPlage–Port-Punay and Dolus d’Oléron–Passe de l’Ecuissière, on the Ile de Ré. Houses of this kind are discussed in detail by Jones et al. (2012) and Blanchet et al. (2012). This was not the only kind of settlement to be found in recent years. In Brittany, isolated buildings have been excavated at Plédéliac–Nord du Bourg and Laniscat–Pontdorniol, and there was a palisade associated with two fourpost granaries at Pont-L’Abbé–Kérathur. Similar finds were made in the Loire, and palisades or ditches have been identified at Ancenis–RD 464 and Beauvoirsur-Mer–Le Pontreau 2 (Fig. 4.8). At Saintes-Malabry I in Poitou-Charentes a Bell Beaker settlement extended over 23,400 m2 and included two rectangular buildings measuring 3.7 by 2.7 m and 5 m by 2.8 m respectively. At Tirepied in Lower Normandy, an apsidal post-built building measuring 13 by 6.5 m has been found (Flotté et al. 2012). In other parts of the study area the evidence of Beaker settlements is even more limited. In the Netherlands, for example, numerous domestic sites have been identified on river terraces, riverbanks, and sand dunes, but they are represented by only a few diagnostic sherds. Otherwise they are marked by scatters of artefacts, or, at best, by clusters of pits. Here a few recent discoveries do stand out. Rhenen–Fietspad N225, for example, yielded a pit with an intentional deposit of at least four Bell Beakers, and Hengelo–Elderinkweg contained a pit with a rare set of metalworking tools. Another striking discovery was at Emmeloord–Rijksweg A6-J97. In this case the site was on a slightly raised island in the middle of a flooded area. A series of small fences were built in order to channel the water of a nearby stream as a kind of fishtrap (Fig. 4.9). The oldest date from the late fourth millennium BC, but activity resumed during the late third millennium when similar structures were built. After that, the site was used continuously during the early Bronze Age and the first half of the middle Bronze Age. Elsewhere information on the settlement pattern is even more limited. That is particularly true in northern Germany, Belgium, Nord-Pas-de-Calais, and Picardy. In Champagne, Lorraine, and Alsace, domestic sites are equally exceptional. Development-led work has led to several discoveries of Bell Beaker sites in the Seine estuary, but in most cases they consist of surface finds or scattered features such as pits.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

141

Fig. 4.8. Early Bronze Age settlement at Beauvoir-sur-Mer–Le Pontreau 2, Pays de la Loire, with ditches, pits, and buildings. Information from Viau 2007.

Monuments and the Past Some Beaker sites pose a problem because they resemble domestic settlements but were associated with monuments built during an earlier period. This problem is especially severe in the Boyne valley, in Ireland. The Neolithic cemeteries at Newgrange and Knowth contain deposits of Bell Beaker pottery and worked flint. It is difficult to distinguish between these collections and the finds from an ordinary settlement. The Beaker level at Newgrange includes a row of stone-lined hearths which were built on a platform by the entrance to the main passage tomb. They were associated with large numbers of animal bones and may have been used in feasts (Cooney 2006). In the same way, the scatters of artefacts, hearths, and other features within the cemetery at Knowth have counterparts on ordinary domestic sites, but again they possess some unusual characteristics. Bell Beaker pottery was associated with a burial inside

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/9/2015, SPi

142

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

Fig. 4.9. Late Neolithic to early Bronze Age fish-weirs at Emmeloord, Netherlands. Rows 7–8 and 10 are dated to the Neolithic (Funnel Beaker) phase, and rows 1–6 and 9 to the Bell Beaker and early/middle Bronze Age phase. Information from Bulten et al. 2002.

one of the tombs, and there is quite a high proportion of fine vessels among the other ceramics on the site (Eogan and Roche 1997, 253–8). The structural evidence from Newgrange is ambiguous for another reason. Outside the principal tomb there was a massive circular monument composed of several concentric rings of pits and post sockets. It produced sherds of Grooved Ware and has been interpreted as a henge (Sweetman 1985). What is less often appreciated is that a second but smaller monument existed to the west of the same tomb, but in this case it was associated with Beaker ceramics (Sweetman 1987). The two structures have so much in common that it is illogical to interpret one as a ceremonial monument and the other as part of a settlement. The same problem arises elsewhere in the Boyne valley where an earthwork henge at Monknewtown contained a structure which has been identified as the remains of an oval Beaker house (Sweetman 1976). Similar associations are more common in Britain but with one important difference, for in this region local kinds of monument were constructed or rebuilt during the Beaker phase. That applies to great circular mounds like Silbury Hill, the earthworks of some of the largest henges, the stone circles associated with those enclosures, and even the main setting of monoliths at Stonehenge where the monument remained in use in the early Bronze Age (Parker Pearson 2012, 117–18). Such developments were of two kinds. It is easy to identify cases where an existing structure was renewed, as happened when late Neolithic timber circles were replaced by arrangements of upright stones associated with Beaker

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

143

pottery. Well-excavated examples include Mount Pleasant in the south of Britain (Wainwright 1979) and Machrie Moor in the north (Haggarty 1991). The second case is where particular monuments were built on an unusually large scale at about the time when Bell Beakers and their associations first appeared. That would apply to several of the largest henge monuments in southern England, even though they produce finds of Grooved Ware rather than vessels in the new style. The greatest earthwork monuments belong to a restricted period centred on 2400 BC, and Durrington Walls—the most extensively investigated of all—may have been used for only forty years (Parker Pearson 2012, 110). Perhaps they were built to a traditional design as local communities were exposed to unfamiliar people, technologies, and beliefs. They could have been conceived as a restatement of established tradition, but the ultimate outcome was to be a new accommodation between familiar practices and fresh ideas about the world. In some cases that involved an increasing concern with the dead. The reuse of older tombs for burial is considered in a later section of this chapter. So are the clusters of burial mounds that were built around Neolithic monuments.

Bell Beaker Mortuary Practices It is surprising that after many years of research so little is known about Bell Beaker mortuary practices. In some ways that is due to the emphasis on graves as a source of chronological information. It is also explained by the fact that a number of the more informative deposits were recorded a long time ago. Even though intact barrows are rarely investigated today, the expansion of development-led fieldwork has resulted in unexpected discoveries. The most important is the realization that flat graves—some of them isolated and others forming parts of larger cemeteries—may have been more widespread, and possibly more significant, than mounds. It is difficult to work out the distribution of Beaker round barrows. The evidence of well-preserved mounds shows that certain of them were never bounded by a ditch. It follows that examples which have been levelled by the plough will be impossible to identify, even where a grave survives. Another problem is that the sites of Bell Beaker burials often remained in use during the second millennium BC. Without adequate excavation it is difficult to tell whether the first deposits were covered by a barrow or whether that earthwork was built afterwards. There is also a tendency to treat any feature that surrounds a Bell Beaker grave as some kind of quarry for a mound. There are sites when there is more evidence of an enclosure. For all these reasons it is difficult to work out the proportions of mounds and flat graves.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/9/2015, SPi

144

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

As was the case with the settlements, there are some striking regional patterns. Although there is considerable overlap, there is an important difference between the regions that were originally associated with Corded Ware and those in which Bell Beakers were introduced into another cultural context. In one case round barrows were already well established. In the other, they represented a largely new development. There is also a contrast between regions like the Atlantic coast where older collective tombs were brought back into use, and the sites associated with single graves. The principal contrast concerns the forms of mortuary monuments and the choice of artefacts for deposition with the dead. Here the distinction between the Bell Beaker and Corded Ware networks is particularly important. In the period in which these traditions came into contact around 2500 BC there may have been a difference between the use of barrow burial in the east and a preference for flat graves in the west. There was also a distinction between a preference for lithic artefacts in Corded Ware burials and the selection of metal objects in the graves associated with Bell Beakers. As Chapter 3 has shown, Single Grave/Corded Ware deposits contained ceramic vessels, stone axe hammers or battle-axes, flint arrowheads, and daggers (some of GrandPressigny flint). Beaker burials more commonly included metal daggers and knives, arrowheads, wrist guards, and personal ornaments made of gold and jet. Women in Corded Ware graves often lay on their left and men on their right, but in the Beaker phase this convention was reversed (Case 2004). In any event elements of both traditions were soon combined, although traces of these distinctions still remained. Thus Beaker burials in northern Britain contain battle-axes which recall the artefacts associated with Corded Ware on the continent (Needham 2005). In the same way, some of the Bell Beaker graves in England and Scotland were covered by round barrows, despite the fact that circular mounds had gone out of fashion there many years before. A second contrast involves the contexts in which Beakers occur. They can either be associated with graves, or they may feature in secondary deposits within older, Neolithic tombs. The contrast is particularly apparent in northwest France, Ireland, and northern Scotland, although it occurs elsewhere. Briard’s study of Breton tumuli provides an indication of the importance of this connection (Briard 1984). He records no fewer than eleven allées couvertes with Beaker ceramics. For passage tombs the number is fifty. Because bones rarely survive in the acid soil it is difficult to establish whether these sherds were deposited in burials, but there is similar evidence from other regions where human remains associated with allées couvertes and allées sépulchrales have been dated by radiocarbon. A particular feature of the evidence from this region is that it was often the older monuments—the passage graves—that were brought back into commission, rather than tombs that had been built more recently.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

145

There is similar evidence from Ireland. In the north and west a new kind of megalithic tomb developed around 2400 BC and continued in use until the early Bronze Age: a period of 500 years (Carlin and Brück 2012). Again the evidence is confusing. In this case the monuments include human bones, and this makes them easier to date. It shows that Beaker burials were deposited as well as diagnostic pottery. At the same time, many of those bones had been burnt, suggesting that the mortuary practices associated with Irish passage tombs still retained their significance. Even more important, the distribution of wedge tombs complements that of the first single burials in cists and larger cemeteries which are found in the eastern part of the island. Although these graves were associated with a local style of ceramic (the Irish Bowl), its decoration was inspired by Beaker designs. Outside the distribution of Corded Ware, Bell Beaker burials are remarkably stereotyped. Several observations crosscut any regional trends and seem to apply to graves across much of the study area. They share the same configuration—a flexed or crouched inhumation, accompanied by a limited range of artefacts—but a small number of examples stand out because of the sheer number of objects or the distances over which they had been acquired. The obvious example is the burial of the Amesbury Archer in southern England which included five Bell Beakers, fourteen flint arrowheads, two wrist guards, a copper dagger and two knives, two gold ornaments, four boars’ tusks, a shale belt-ring, and equipment for making fire and for working metal (Fitzpatrick 2011). Another example is a burial at Arenberg–Wallers in Nord-Pas-de-Calais (Salanova and Tchérémissinoff 2011, Chapter 7). It represents a rare instance of the entire ‘Bell Beaker package’, and contains two Beaker vessels, a copper dagger, a stone wrist guard, and six arrowheads. The metalwork from Arenberg–Wallers had come from a variety of different sources; the same applies to its counterparts in the burial at Amesbury. A rather different case is a recently excavated site of Poitiers–La Folie in western France which included the burial of a young man (Fig. 4.10). His grave goods comprised a Bell Beaker which resembles a Corded Ware vessel, and a Grand-Pressigny flint blade of local origin. In this case the site is of interest because this raw material is associated with a pot that can be compared with ceramics in the Netherlands which is one of the regions where artefacts from this part of France are found. This observation emphasizes the importance of long-distance networks in the Beaker period. A number of richly furnished burials were inside wooden chambers or coffins. Again their remains are widely distributed. They include a recently excavated burial at Ciry-Salsogne–La Bouche à Vesle in the Paris basin. It contained a young adult male, and analysis of the human remains suggests that his body was inside some kind of wooden container with posts at the corners. Radiocarbon dating places the grave between 2600 and 2400 BC (Salanova 2011).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/9/2015, SPi

146

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

Fig. 4.10. Bell Beaker grave at Poitiers–La Folie, Poitou-Charentes, showing the palisade trench marking the edge of the monument, the positions of surviving post-sockets, and the central grave. Information from Tchérémissinoff et al. 2011.

Similar structures have been recognized in Lorraine (Lefebvre 2010). At Mondelange–La Sente eight Bell Beaker burials have been found. In almost every instance the bodies decayed in an open space, probably a wooden chamber. Another ten have been discovered at Pouilly–ZAC Chèvre Haie. One included a chamber covered by a small cairn and contained the remains of two individuals: a child buried in a primary position and the disarticulated remains of an adult woman which may have been stored in a small wooden box. The British evidence can take a comparable form. Among the best excavated examples are inhumations with coffins or wooden chambers at sites like Amesbury Barrow 51 (Ashbee 1978), Chilbolton (Russell 1990), and Gravelly Guy (Lambrick and Allen 2004, 52–61) in southern England, and at Irthlingborough in the Midlands (Harding and Healy 2007, fig. 3.98) where the structure seems to have been burnt. The structure at Amesbury had four corner-posts like that at Ciry-Salsogne, mentioned earlier. It is not clear how many of these graves had been covered by a mound, or, indeed, whether some of the round barrows associated with inhumation burials were a secondary development. At all events those earthworks that do seem to have been built during this phase were considerably smaller than their successors. A particular problem is posed by a Bell Beaker cemetery like that at Radley in the Thames valley (Fig. 4.11; Barclay and Halpin 2000, Chapter 9). Here there was an obvious alignment of four inhumation burials,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

147

Fig. 4.11. Outline plans of the Beaker burials at Radley Barrow Hills, southern England, in relation to two earlier monuments on the same site. Information from Barclay and Halpin 2000.

but two of them were enclosed by ring-ditches and must have been covered by inconspicuous earthworks, while the others appear to have been entirely unmarked. Were they really ‘flat’ graves or had they been covered by mounds of turf or topsoil which did not require the excavation of a ditch? This particular site had been cultivated since the Middle Ages, so no trace of any monuments survived above ground. There is sometimes a distinction between sites with isolated graves, round barrows, and inhumation cemeteries. To some extent the proportions in which they have been discovered depend on the methods used in the field. For example, a combination of air photography, trial trenching, and geophysical survey usually results in the discovery of barrow ditches, but only largescale stripping of the plough-soil is likely to encounter flat graves of the same period. There is also a regional bias. In those areas where a stone cist was provided instead of a wooden chamber the capstone covering the grave is often struck by the plough, making these graves easier to discover. That is particularly true in northern Britain. Some of the most thoroughly analyzed cemeteries in the study area have been found in Lorraine (Lefebvre 2010; Lefebvre et al. 2011) where fifty-seven sites and 156 graves have been documented. Here the first group of flat graves developed between 2700 and 2450 BC. By 2200/2100 BC there are signs of a more formal arrangement and the burials were organized in rows. Such cemeteries could also include above-ground monuments. Flat graves coexisted with monumental structures in Lower Saxony, and a similar mixture of flat graves and round mounds has been identified at Bernières-sur-Mer–Le Grand Parc in Normandy where a single cemetery extended across the Bell Beaker and early Bronze Age periods. In southern England, the same

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/9/2015, SPi

148

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

combination of different elements is recorded at sites in the Thames valley (Hey et al. 2011, Chapter 15). If round barrows were a new development in some regions, in others they already played a significant role. Here the building of mounds continued and older earthworks were reused during the Bell Beaker phase. All that seems to have changed was the composition of the grave assemblage. That was the case in the Low Countries where single graves associated with circular mounds were already established before the adoption of Bell Beakers (Bourgeois 2013). Like later examples, their structure often involved the building of a circular palisade and the provision of a wooden coffin. At Niersen an inhumation burial was associated with a small timber chamber (Bourgeois et al. 2009). In this case it contained the disarticulated remains of at least one individual, plus a supernumerary tibia, and the articulated body of a woman (Fig. 4.12). Once they had been deposited, the chamber was sealed. In Belgium and the Netherlands the bulk of the funerary evidence for the Bell Beaker period takes the form of barrows, some of which were newly built whilst others were older monuments that were modified or reused. Like those of the Corded Ware Culture, the grave could be enclosed by a palisade before any barrow was erected; the relationship between these fences and the mounds remains an unresolved problem (Bourgeois 2013). Such structures were built between about 2750 and 2200 BC. Not all the burial chambers were of wood and in the northern Netherlands Beaker barrows could be associated with cists similar to those in upland Britain. They contain few grave goods, but discoveries of battle-axes and flint knives recall the characteristic assemblage associated with barrows of the Single Grave Culture. If the idea of building round barrows was adopted across the distribution of Bell Beakers, so was the construction of palisaded enclosures around inhumation graves. Again this has been recorded over a wider area. In France it happened at Poitiers–La Folie where a grave with a wooden coffin was located within a small fenced enclosure (Fig. 4.10). Comparable monuments have been recorded during recent excavations in Britain. Last has compared a small structure of this kind at Brampton in the English Midlands with Continental examples (Last 2007, 166–73), and the same applies to the inhumation grave at Gravelly Guy on the Thames gravels (Lambrick and Allen 2004, 52–61). Fieldwork in a larger group of monuments at Kilmartin in the west of Scotland has identified an example which has been compared directly with structures in the Netherlands (Cook et al. 2010, 175–82). Finally, there is an important contrast to note. In Denmark, the tradition of mound-building diminished after the Single Grave period and did not resume on a large scale until 1500 BC. Although finds of Beaker pottery are rare in funerary contexts, a small group of burials containing flint daggers and/or archery equipment seems to mirror some of the trends found in central and western Europe (Sarauw 2007b). Most examples were in northern Jutland

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

149

Fig. 4.12. Bell Beaker burial at Niersen, Netherlands, showing complete inhumation, disarticulated human bones, and animal bones. Information from Bourgeois et al. 2009.

where they were associated with barrows; there were also a few flat graves and cremation burials. Certain graves show elements of the European Bell Beaker tradition in their contents and funerary rite, but they were selectively adopted, and existing practices remained important (Vandkilde 2005; Sarauw 2007b). Some burials with particularly large daggers and/or sets of arrowheads have been termed ‘warrior graves’, but the rich or elaborate Beaker graves seen in other parts of Europe are absent. Inhumations on an approximate east–west alignment continued to dominate, in simple earth graves, wooden coffins, or, occasionally, stone cists. Barrows were raised over burials at Baunehøj, Rakkeby Hede, and Voel Vestergård, where the central burials are presumed to be male. At Næsby Østergård, however, the primary burial was a six-month-old child. A multi-phase barrow at Groß Rönnau (Schleswig-Holstein) contained several central and off-centre burials, one of the latter radiocarbon dated to the twentieth century BC. In other cases, Neolithic round barrows were reused for burial, as happened at Hvinningdal, Vester Egebjerg, and at Fredshavn where an existing mound was expanded from 11–12 m to 18–20 m in diameter when a burial with a flint dagger and arrowhead was deposited at the end of the third millennium BC. In the same way earlier megalithic monuments could be reused, as at Skalborg–Ikea where fourteen cist burials had been interred at the edge of a passage-grave mound.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/9/2015, SPi

150

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

Specific to the period 2300–1700 BC are large rectangular cists built of flat stone slabs (hellekister). They are associated with small barrows, and were used for multiple interments. A few are known from northern Jutland, but the main concentration is on the Danish islands and in western Sweden. Only one example in the study area has been excavated in recent years. This is at Kainsbakke, where the 2.5 by 2 m cist had been inserted into the mound of an earlier dolmen. The remains of three adults and a child lay within the cist, along with three amber buttons and a bone pin. Flat graves also occur on some sites. At Solbakkegård five graves assigned to the end of the third millennium BC were close to a house, possibly of the same date. They comprised a child inhumation with a Beaker, two inhumations without grave goods, a cremation with amber beads, and another cremation with a flint knife, seven arrowheads, a strike-a-light, and four amber buttons. Of similar age is a burial inside a wooden coffin at Nøvling Plantage. It was accompanied by a flint dagger and three arrowheads. The burial lay close to a shallow depression containing flintwork of about the same date.

Overview The beginning of the Beaker period was one of the turning points in European prehistory, but it has never been easy to understand. Perhaps too much time has been spent looking for a single area of origin, and too little attention has been devoted to working out what kind of phenomenon it represents. There can be no question that it saw the long-distance movement of particular individuals, just as it witnessed an expansion in the movement of artefacts and raw materials. The main problem is in bringing these observations together. There were regional differences within the distribution of Bell Beakers. One is between Besse’s central and western traditions of domestic pottery (Besse 2003). Another involves the settlements. Whereas new ceramic styles developed at this time, the domestic buildings associated with Bell Beakers conformed to established architectural traditions, with a preference for rectilinear buildings to the east and curvilinear structures further to the west. Another set of contrasts concerns the mortuary rituals. Bell Beakers are represented in megalithic tombs along the Atlantic coastline and especially in Ireland, but flat graves are more common in other areas. Although there is a large area of overlap, there may have been a difference between an eastern zone in which round barrows were familiar, and other areas in which they were a novelty. It is a moot point how many of the flat graves discovered by development-led archaeology in Germany, France, and the British Isles were originally covered by mounds, and this point requires more research.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

151

Some of these contrasts distinguish between a western axis and an eastern one and recall the long-standing discussion about Bell Beaker origins—did this tradition first appear on the Atlantic coast in south-west Europe, or did it develop in the north? At the same time, there are other features that transcend such regional differences. The most important are the stereotyped assemblage associated with Bell Beaker graves, the treatment of the corpse, and the structural evidence that connects burials found far apart. In one sense they echo the long-distance movement of artefacts and raw materials, and, in another, they emphasize the scientific evidence that certain people moved from one area to another in the course of their lives. The character of the most conspicuous burials has another implication. The dead could not bury themselves, yet the consistency of Bell Beaker funerary rituals suggests that they were conducted by communities who must have shared the same values. It means that certain groups may well have migrated from their homelands, retaining their beliefs in their new surroundings. That process might have been facilitated by the contacts made in obtaining raw materials and could have been reinforced by the exchange of marriage partners. The most complex Bell Beaker burials have another dimention. They represent the dead—mainly men but also women—according to a set of conventions that hardly vary from one area to another. A useful comparison is with the statues of the same period in southern Europe (de Saulieu 2004). They represent individuals who were equipped with weapons, ornaments, and distinctive costumes and seem to have been associated with the commemoration of the dead. The Beaker graves in the study area did much the same, although the corpse cannot have been displayed to the mourners over a lengthy period. They represent the dead in an exemplary form that seems to have been accepted by the inhabitants of different regions. One comparison would be with the modern practice of dressing a dead man in a suit and tie before he is buried or cremated. It is the sharing of similar values over an extensive area that best characterizes the early Beaker period. During the following phase this was to change.

EARLY BRONZE AGE NETWORKS Needham (2005) has discussed the reception of Bell Beakers in Britain and the changing relationship between the people who used them and communities with different traditions. His model provides a useful framework for discussing the equivalent change in Continental Europe. In his view the process began with ‘strategic intermarriage’ between members of the indigenous population and immigrants bringing an unfamiliar technology and set of beliefs. It

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/9/2015, SPi

152

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

gathered pace as these features attracted more adherents, and in time two developments occurred. Beaker groups grew in numbers and their ideas about the world were gradually taken up by native people. Although the construction of large henges and other monuments in Britain around 2400 BC has no obvious parallel on the Continent, similar processes may have been followed in other areas. Where round barrows and single graves were already familiar the adjustment may have been less abrupt. Elsewhere it is difficult to interpret the transition in any detail, but in every case the advent of metalworking must have been important. If it took several millennia for copper metallurgy to reach Britain and Ireland, these two islands were soon at the forefront of innovations in bronze-working. As early as 2300 or 2200 BC local developments can be identified, and in the early second millennium BC new copper mines were established in Ireland. At about the same time there were the first mines in Wales and north-west England. It is clear that Cornish tin was being extracted by then, but in this case the crucial evidence is provided by metal analysis (Rohl and Needham 1998). It seems likely that finished objects were exchanged across the Channel in both directions and that an increasing proportion of the raw material originated beyond the limits of the study area. In both Britain and Ireland the new metal was used for making axe-heads and weapons—both daggers and halberds. Many of the objects were included in graves, but others occur as hoards or single finds. Like certain of the artefacts associated with the Beaker tradition in Ireland, they may have been deposited according to conventions that were already established during the Neolithic period. Thus the find-spots include conspicuous natural landmarks, and the remains of older monuments such as henges and chambered tombs. They are best documented in the north of Britain, and similar deposits extended only gradually to other areas (Needham 1988). On the Continent, the same period saw the development of local Beaker styles, the onset of the late Bell Beaker group in Denmark, and the first early Bronze Age cultures of central Europe, of which the Únětice Culture is the most fully researched. In many cases it is difficult to separate the end of the Beaker phase from the beginning of the early Bronze Age as both periods share an undeniable continuity. It is evidenced by material culture, especially pottery, and by the use of funerary mounds in Britain and along the Atlantic and North Sea coasts. By comparison, settlement evidence remains extremely limited.

Mobility, Metallurgy, and Exchange Scholars have been keen to characterize the Bronze Age as a period of intense contacts, not least because copper and tin had to be brought together for the production of the new alloy. The last decade has seen direct evidence for the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

153

movement of artefacts. For instance, new studies of the chemical composition of the first bronze objects in Ireland and Britain have allowed Bray and Pollard to trace the routes along which material from Ross Island was exported by way of Scotland to eastern England (Bray and Pollard 2012). Artefacts were recycled with increasing distance from the source. The same technique allowed researchers to suggest longer-distance exchange, and another alloy employed in Britain could have originated in the Iberian Peninsula. Metal artefacts demonstrate the existence of more local networks during the early Bronze Age. A recent study has identified a series of vessels made of precious metals on either side of the English Channel. In Britain their distribution extends from Rillaton in Cornwall to Ringlemere in Kent, and on the Continent it reaches from Brittany to the Rhine (Needham et al. 2006). It is interesting that in England these artefacts were buried on or close to the coast, and not in the concentrations of round barrows further inland. If there is evidence for the exchange of goods during the early Bronze Age, was this paralleled by the movement of people? Isotope analysis of human remains provides remarkably varied results. A recent study of the early Bronze Age of Singen, in south-west Germany, did not find any evidence of mobility, despite the use of a large sample (Oelze et al. 2012); the same applies to bones from the English Midlands. But studies of a large number of Beaker and early Bronze Age burials in other parts of Britain show that nearly half the people whose remains are represented had lived in a different environment from the places where their bones were found (M. Parker Pearson pers. comm.). This result can be interpreted in several ways. Some of these people may have been migrants; others could have been taken to special sites for burial. Another possibility is that they were mobile pastoralists who had crossed large parts of the landscape in the course of their lives. It is likely that settlement in the early Bronze Age involved frequent changes of location. Other evidence of long-distance communication comes from a comparison between the burials found in Britain and groups of similar graves in Continental Europe. For many years research has focused on a few areas with an unusually high density of excavated monuments. They produced many of the most distinctive artefacts buried with the dead. There were essentially local products such as pottery, but there were also ornaments made of exotic or unusual materials including amber, gold, faience, and jet. Moreover the metalwork that accompanied the dead was in styles that bore a close resemblance to those used in Continental Europe. The material from which it was made must have been exchanged over long distances. It seemed possible that control over the movement of these resources was a significant factor in the growth of certain regions. Thus the richness of the grave goods on the Yorkshire Wolds might have been influenced by their proximity to the Humber estuary where the remains of early Bronze Age boats have been discovered on the foreshore (Van de Noort 2006).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/9/2015, SPi

154

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

The main comparisons were between three regions: the chalk of Wessex and particularly the area around Stonehenge (Exon et al. 2000), the tumulus graves of Brittany (Briard 1984), and those of the Únětice Culture with its emphasis on Thuringia and Poland (Steffen 2010). Such connections have been reassessed in recent years. Needham accepts that developments in Brittany ran in parallel with those in southern England and even extended to the exchange of a few characteristic artefacts. Steffen’s study of the Únětice and Wessex Cultures is more sceptical about a direct connection between those traditions. In this case he argues that they share features in common because local societies were organized in similar ways. That is consistent with the views of Kristiansen and Larsson who argue that there were two main axes in the Europe of the early second millennium BC (2005, fig. 96). One connected Britain, northern and western France, Belgium, and most parts of the Netherlands. The other aligned the north-eastern Netherlands with Denmark, Sweden, and central Europe. In this scheme Brittany and Wessex would have formed part of the same network, but the Únětice Culture belonged to another one. Despite the large number of round barrows in the study area, no single model explains why so many were built or why some of the most complex burials occur in such concentrations. Within the Únětice Culture the Leubingen group is in an area with copper ore, and in this case the grave goods include metalworking tools. Brittany is different again. Here copper is scarcer and may not have been worked at the time. Tin, however, is found on the south coast; this was where Neolithic activity had been concentrated. It also occurs in the north-west, but the first of the early Bronze Age burials (those containing daggers of Needham’s Series 1 and 2) avoid both these areas and focus on a region where metals could not be discovered (Needham 2000). The evidence from Wessex raises another possibility. It is sometimes suggested that local communities controlled the movement of raw materials between the Channel, the Severn estuary, and the Irish Sea (Sherratt 1996). This is plausible, but it may be too ingenious, as the main concentration of barrows developed around the ceremonial centres of the Neolithic period: a phase in which metal had played no part. Instead the siting of these cemeteries seems to have acknowledged the continuing significance of the past. All three groups of rich burials may have certain characteristics in common, but they developed for local reasons. There are other connections that remain to be explored. Just as the tumuli on the north coast of Brittany have been linked with those in southern England, the great concentration of round barrows in Kent and on the Isle of Thanet may be paired with similar concentrations in Flanders and the valley of the Somme (De Reu et al. 2011). Less is known about the contents of these mounds, most of which have been discovered from the air, but, taken together, they flank the passage leading from the Channel to the North Sea: two of the routes that must have been important during this period.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

155

Other connections took place over shorter distances. It is evident that certain areas with concentrations of non-local artefacts or raw materials were closely related to one another: Kent, Suffolk, Yorkshire, and the east of Scotland were all connected by the North Sea, and the extent of that network can be illustrated by the distribution of jet which was obtained on the coast (Shepherd 1985; 2009). The same approach can be taken to connections between Ireland, Scotland, north Wales, and north-east England. There seem to be some similarities between the forms and contents of early Bronze Age graves on either side of the water. Such networks may have been as significant as the connections between the Continent and the British Isles.

Settlement Evidence The evidence of domestic sites shows the same limitations as it did during the Bell Beaker phase and there are regions in which it is difficult to distinguish between the settlements of these two periods. This is true of Denmark—the only region with any number of well-preserved houses. Here buildings of the same type can be associated with the Bell Beaker and early Bronze Age periods. They have been discussed already. Two-aisled houses retained their importance until about 1500 BC when more substantial three-aisled structures appeared. What of other areas? Again it is useful to distinguish between the eastern and western parts of the study area. There is little evidence from the Netherlands or Belgium where domestic sites are represented mainly by pits. The same applies to western Germany. In Lower Saxony the settlement evidence is limited to scattered pits, postholes, or ‘culture layers’, and there are no remains of any houses. Examples include Rosdorf site 19 where a buried soil contained pottery dating to 2000 to 1600 BC, a barbed arrowhead, a bronze arm-ring, and bones from cattle, pig, and sheep or goat. Botanical samples produced charred wheat, barley, and sloe stones. At Reinsdorf a single pit contained pottery dated between 2200 and 1500 BC, a cylindrical loom weight, flint-work, and domestic animal bones. Settlements are equally uncommon in the Rhineland, but older excavations in northern Rhineland-Palatinate have found pits associated with ‘Hilversum’type pottery, cylindrical loom weights, cereals, and domestic and wild animal bones (Joachim 2006). On the other hand, settlements have been identified at five sites in Westphalia. At Bocholt–B 67 the first securely-dated house of this period has been excavated. It was 14 m long and appears to have had four aisles. Two sherds of pottery dated to the late Neolithic/early Bronze Age were recovered from one posthole, and a radiocarbon date of 2140–1770 BC was obtained on charred grain from another. Three pits close to the house

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/9/2015, SPi

156

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

contained quern fragments and Barbed Wire Beaker pottery, including a complete vessel deposited upside down. Radiocarbon dates from the pits correspond to that from the house. The other sites in this region conform to the normal pattern and lack identifiable buildings. Another thirty settlements have been discovered during development-led fieldwork in Alsace (Denaire and Croutsch 2010; Denaire et al. 2010). Again most of them contain few features, but at Vandières–Les Grandes Corvées a three-aisled rectangular building was found alongside the incomplete remains of a similar structure, and a two-aisled building. Settlements have been equally difficult to identify in other parts of France. An exception is the site of Étaples– Mont Bagarre, in Nord-Pas-de-Calais, where an oval enclosure over 100 m in diameter has been dated to c.1950–1700 BC (Fig. 4.13; Desfossés and Lefebvre 2000). Outside the enclosure was a settlement area including a possible roundhouse. At a later stage of the Bronze Age there was a shift a short distance upslope to an even larger circular enclosure (Chapter 5). The enclosures overlooked the estuary of the River Canche, and the excavator argues that the ceramics show close links to Britain. A further large early Bronze Age enclosure (200 m across) in a similar location has been found at Lannion in Brittany (Fig. 4.13). Here the enclosure was subdivided into two halves, and lay close to a pair of barrows. Further down the coast in the Abbeville area another three small enclosures appear to belong to the same chronological horizon but lack any evidence of internal structures, leading to speculation that they were for animal husbandry or assembly rather than settlement (Buchez 2011a, 158–9). In Normandy, the remains of possible oval or circular buildings have been excavated at Alizay–La Cour Carel and at Grossoeuvre– Viancourt 1, where a nearby group of fourteen pits located in a natural depression may have been used for controlling water (Fig. 4.14). This site dates from about 1900 to 1700 BC. At the south-western limit of the study area in Poitou-Charentes, an early Bronze Age boat-shaped building 10 m long is recorded from the site of Buxerolles–Terre qui fume and was associated with some storage pits. In Britain and Ireland settlements of this period are almost as hard to recognize. The remains of houses are rarely discovered, but most of those that are known were small circular buildings. Like their Beaker predecessors, they were insubstantial; they produce comparatively few finds and show little or no sign of repair. Typical examples were identified beneath the flood-plain of the upper Thames (Hey et al. 2011, 321–30) or buried beneath round barrows on the Wessex chalk, as at Shrewton in Wiltshire (Green and Rollo-Smith 1984). The bones of domestic animals are represented, but these sites do not produce much carbonized grain. More robust dwellings have been found but are uncommon. They occurred at West Row Fen in East Anglia where an entire settlement of circular buildings has been investigated, although only a summary of the results is available (Martin and Murphy 1988).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

157

Fig. 4.13. Early Bronze Age ditched enclosures at Étaples–Mont Bagarre, NordPas-de-Calais, and Lannion–Bel Air, Brittany. Note pair of barrows outside the Lannion enclosure. Information from Desfossés and Lefebvre 2000; Escats 2011.

It is in upland areas that more evidence survives, and even this poses problems. In some cases it takes the form of house platforms excavated into sloping ground. In southern Scotland, they are associated with both stone and timber roundhouses and date from the first half of the second millennium BC (Ashmore 2004, 132–4). Again they are more durable structures than the majority in lowland England and it may be that in the north domestic architecture changed its character at an earlier date than it did elsewhere. There is a further complication. The distribution of burials suggests that in England areas of marginal land which are now heathland and moorland were settled for the first time in the centuries leading up to 1600 BC. Large areas of high ground contain clearance cairns, lengths of walling and the remains of stone roundhouses, but their chronology is problematic as few of these features have any dates. It is assumed that they were created during this period because such locations would have been adversely affected when the climate deteriorated during the later Bronze Age, but that hypothesis has still to be tested (Burgess 1985; Tipping and Tisdall 2004, 76–7).

Summary Except for those in Denmark, early Bronze Age settlements are few and far between, and it may be that their rarity reflects the evidence for a mobile pattern of settlement suggested by scientific analyses of human remains. That cannot be the only explanation. At the same time the few excavated houses do conform to the broad geographical division suggested for domestic buildings

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/9/2015, SPi

158

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

Fig. 4.14. Early Bronze Age building and pit-wells at Grossoeuvre–Viancourt, Upper Normandy. Information from Billard and Paez-Rezende 2000.

of the Beaker phase. To the east, a small number of aisled structures have been recorded, although too little is known about them to say whether they constitute a single style. To the west, there are indications of another kind of architecture, with roundhouses in Britain and Ireland and oval or circular dwellings in northern and western France. Unfortunately, there are too few examples to justify a fuller discussion.

EARLY BRONZE AGE FUNERARY PRACTICES Although the early Bronze Age can be described as an age of round barrows, it is important to recognize the extent of regional variation. Before reviewing the outcome of recent fieldwork, three points must be made.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

159

The first is that round barrows were not built simultaneously in every area. There are regions in which they were well established long before the Bell Beaker period. In northern Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, and, to a smaller extent, in Denmark, the round barrows of the Corded Ware/Single Grave Culture remained important and their characteristic forms had been adopted and enhanced by people who used Bell Beakers. On the other hand, such monuments were not constructed at a constant rate and in the Netherlands and Denmark their numbers fell sharply around 2200 BC. Mound-building resumed at different times in northern Europe, but here it was not a major feature of the early Bronze Age. By contrast, the number of comparable monuments in Britain, France, Belgium, and western Germany increased after the Beaker phase and individual mounds were associated with more graves than before. These barrows were larger than their predecessors. In north-west France, yet another sequence can be traced. In this case megalithic tombs had been associated with secondary deposits containing Bell Beakers, but the tumuli marking the positions of dagger graves avoided the areas with these older burials. At the same time there were contacts between the people who built and used Breton round barrows and communities who buried their dead on the Wessex chalk. In spite of that connection, many of the English graves were associated with existing mounds containing Beakers. Their counterparts in Brittany were a new development (Needham 2000). One important change occurred in the north and west of the study area but did not extend as far as central Europe, where the same transition took place over a longer period and at a later date. During the course of the early Bronze Age, cremation burials became more common, until in some regions they outnumbered inhumation graves. This has important implications for archaeology. Although both rites would have required similar amounts of preparation, the remains that survived the process would have been very different. Unless grave offerings were removed from the pyre before it was ignited, the only surviving artefacts might be fragmentary and incomplete. Sometimes the burnt bones were recovered from the pyre and taken to another location, but it seems possible that they were only a selection. Others may have been left behind or distributed among the mourners. In the light of these observed variations, the results of recent fieldwork are considered both by region and according to the prevailing mortuary rite. It is ironic that the parts of the study area with most potential for interpreting Bronze Age funerary ritual can play little part in this account. The rate of barrow-building in the Netherlands and Denmark decreased sharply during this phase, and the best-preserved monuments date from a later time. There are other areas in which similar mounds were constructed but few have been excavated recently. For instance, those in Britain have rarely been affected by development-led fieldwork, so it has been essential to re-examine the records of older projects. That is also true in France. New fieldwork in north-west Europe

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/9/2015, SPi

160

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

has focused on structures that had been levelled by the plough and on circular ditched enclosures which could have provided material for a mound. Such structures are often identified from the air. They are found very widely and need to be discussed before this account considers other kinds of cemetery.

Round Barrows and Ring-Ditches Discussion begins with northern Germany, where burial mounds were established in the Corded Ware Culture, and then extends to Belgium, France, and the British Isles, where round barrows probably originated in the Bell Beaker phase. In most parts of Lower Saxony, the remains of round barrows dominate the funerary record of the second millennium BC. They tend to be larger than those of the late Neolithic period, and contain inhumation or cremation burials. Burials inside burnt wooden ‘mortuary houses’ are known from the lower Elbe region (Laux 1996). Only rarely were the dead provided with elaborate grave goods, but a notable exception is a barrow at Neustadt am Rübenberge which formed part of a larger group. The central grave—an inhumation—contained a bronze sword, a bronze pin, a flint dagger, iron pyrites, and seven flint arrowheads which may have been inside a quiver. They should date to 1800–1600 BC. Larger concentrations of round barrows are widely distributed. That is particularly true in Belgium where many monuments survive as ring-ditches. Numerous examples have been observed through systematic aerial reconnaissance led by the University of Ghent (De Reu et al. 2011; 2012). Their distribution focuses on the sandy regions of Flanders. Comparatively few have been excavated and only occasional examples still have a central grave. There is a little evidence that this phenomenon was restricted to the first half of the second millennium BC. Ring-ditches are often found in multiples, and double or even triple examples are recorded. Outside Flanders, where work has been concentrated, there are similar sites at Manage–Bellecourt and Ghislenghien, in Hainaut. The situation is the same in Nord-Pas-de-Calais and Picardy. Again ringditches are well documented by aerial photography. Several development-led projects have shed light on these monuments. At Fresnes-lès-Montauban– Motel, five ring-ditches, part of a larger group, were excavated prior to the construction of a railway (Desfossés and Masson 1992). Their diameters ranged from 6 to 25 m, and the monuments enclosed inhumation and cremation burials; none was at the exact centre of the monument. Radiocarbon dates suggest that the cemetery began with the largest monument which was associated with an inhumation burial and dates from the third millennium BC. Others are dated between 1850 and 1500 BC. Fieldwork at Fréthun

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

161

examined a triple ring-ditch. At its centre was a stone structure disturbed during the Middle Ages, but the grave of an old woman was also found and dated to 1700–1400 BC. At Lauwin-Planque–ZAC Les Hussards, another cemetery of seven ring-ditches has been excavated. Three contained central cremations, one of them in an inverted urn. In this case the cemetery was in use from 2000 to 1300 BC, and probably during the late Bronze Age. Burial mounds are a normal feature of the early Bronze Age in Normandy. At Bénouville–Les Hautes Coutures, a circular enclosure, 14 m in diameter, contained a central pit. There were three more graves in the filling of the ditch, two them in cists. Radiocarbon indicates that a pair of burials dates from the early/middle Bronze Age, and a third to the middle/late Bronze Age. Given the amount of destruction they have sustained, the overall distribution of mounds is difficult to assess, but a quite high density of mounds can be observed on the La Hague peninsula where monuments still survive (Marcigny 2010a; 2012; see Fig. 6.13). Several have been tested. At Jobourg–Tumulus de Calais, excavations revealed an early/middle Bronze Age barrow with a cist burial at its centre. At Vauville–Tumulus de la Lande des Cottes, another mound was dated to the same period. It was built immediately after the turf had been stripped and covered several graves. Much has been written about the barrows of the Breton early Bronze Age (Briard 1984). Recent projects show that these mounds generally cover several graves, often in stone cists. Bones are rarely preserved, although a crouched burial has recently been unearthed at Paule–Kergroas (Fily et al. 2012). Further south, mounds are widely distributed in Pays de la Loire and PoitouCharentes. Examples include the site of L’Isle d’Espagnac–Bel-Air where six ring-ditches were used between the early Bronze Age and the early La Tène period. Many more barrows have been lost. In Aquitaine, Marembert and Seigne (2000) estimate that no less than 200 have been discovered and/or excavated since the middle of the nineteenth century. The evidence from Britain and Ireland is equally diverse. Again developmentled fieldwork has concentrated on badly damaged sites, but one important development has been identified by new research (Garwood 2007). In an earlier phase, dated between approximately 2000 BC and 1850 BC, barrows were essentially permeable; new burials were added to these mounds and existing graves were reopened (Fig. 4.15). This not only extended the range of deposits associated with any monument, it allowed existing remains to be inspected and relics to be removed. In some cases this seems to have been done with knowledge of who had been buried there and the positions of their graves. Something similar may have happened in Brittany where there is comparable evidence that older graves were reopened, disturbed, and reused. After 1850 BC, however, practice in lowland Britain changed and now it seems that individuals were interred one to a mound. Although barrows had been constructed in groups since the Beaker period, it was only at this stage that

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/9/2015, SPi

162

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

Fig. 4.15. Outline plan of the Gayhurst barrow in the English Midlands, and section of the central grave showing the evidence for successive deposits. The ditch contained a large deposit of cattle bones which is shown schematically. Information from Chapman 2007.

complex linear cemeteries developed, some of them orientated on the midsummer sunset (Fig. 4.16; Garwood 2003).

Round Barrows and Flat Graves There are also cases in which round barrows have been identified together with flat graves. In western Germany burials are poorly documented. At OberErlenbach (Hesse) a group of five ring-ditches between 4.5 m and 17 m in diameter was discovered, close to which were the unurned cremation burials of a young child and young adult respectively. One of the ring-ditches was radiocarbon dated to 2130–1920 BC, and one of the burials to 1930–1760 BC.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

163

Fig. 4.16. The Devil’s Jumps, a linear-barrow cemetery on the South Downs, southern England. Information from Garwood 2003.

Round barrows or ring-ditches of the period 2000 to 1200 BC have recently been found at ten sites in Westphalia. Closer dating is hampered by the paucity of grave goods and a lack of radiocarbon dating. A monument complex at Rheine–Altenrheine developed into a linear cemetery. Each barrow was surrounded by a ring-ditch and approached by a double row of posts. The two largest monuments contained several inhumation burials arranged around the inner edge of the ring-ditch; some of the graves showed traces of wooden coffins, but none included any artefacts. No bone survived in the acid soil. An isolated grave containing a bronze arm-ring was also found at the site. Other examples of complex funerary monuments include Münster–Handorf, where a pair of neighbouring barrows was found. One had a ring-ditch and outer postring and again it was approached by another alignment of timbers. Again, the burials themselves did not survive. Similar evidence is found in Atlantic Europe, although it is rather less common. At Lannilis–Prat ar Simon Pella in Brittany, an early Bronze Age burial

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/9/2015, SPi

164

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

covered by a small stone structure was identified. Although this grave was not marked by a conspicuous monument, it contained a very rich assemblage, including a bronze axe, twenty-five flint arrowheads, and two bronze daggers, one of them with a partly preserved handle containing gold nails. This technique is also evidenced in Breton tumuli and in the Wessex Culture (Needham 2000). Flat graves and round barrows are found together in other regions of France. For instance, two inhumations without any associated grave goods were recorded at Changis-sur-Marne–Les Pétreaux (Île-de-France). The site provided radiocarbon dates in the early Bronze Age. Another example is the cemetery at Marolles-sur-Seine–La Croix de la Mission where the oldest graves seem to be an inhumation and an isolated cremation dated by radiocarbon to the late third/early second millennium BC (Fig. 4.17). Similarly, in the British Isles mounds and cairns seem to have co-existed with flat cemeteries containing cremation burials. In the north human remains were still deposited in groups of cists, but in southern England it was commoner for urned cremations to be located in between the barrows. A good example is Radley Barrow Hills in the Thames valley (Barclay and Halpin 2000).

Flat Cemeteries In the eastern part of the study area in Lorraine and Alsace, the tradition of barrows is absent and the funerary landscape is characterized by flat graves organized in rows (Fig. 4.18). Cemeteries with crouched inhumations are also found in neighbouring areas of south-west Germany and the middle Rhine (Lißner 2004). In Alsace, examples of such cemeteries include Rixheim–ZAC du Petit Prince, with six graves, and Eckbolsheim–Zénith, with fifteen graves organized in three such rows. As happened at Rixheim, all the bodies were placed on an east–west axis, and lay on either their left or right sides. The use of flat graves extends further east. In the Únětice tradition of central Europe the dominant funerary rite involved crouched inhumations in flat graves. This tradition extended to the eastern fringes of Lower Saxony. Excavations at Schöningen Site 15 uncovered a cemetery with at least fifteen such burials. Most of the graves were orientated north–south; usually the head was at the southern end. Grave goods were generally limited to pots, although one double burial also contained a flint dagger.

Summary It is difficult to summarize such varied and badly preserved evidence, but in some respects the results of recent fieldwork simply emphasize the extent of regional diversity across the study area.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

165

Fig. 4.17. Marolles-sur-Seine–Croix de la Mission, Île-de-France. Early and middle Bronze Age burials identified by radiocarbon dating. Information from Peake and Delattre 2005.

Although the early Bronze Age is commonly characterized as an age of barrows, this is only partly true. In fact the evidence is more complicated. In those regions in which funerary mounds were well established before the adoption of Bell Beakers—the Netherlands and Denmark—such earthworks were rarely built, although a new campaign of earthwork construction occurred in the following period. Where such structures had been rare or absent before the introduction of metalwork, they were constructed in great numbers. There were places where round barrows coexisted with flat graves and areas where entire cemeteries of unmarked burials seem to have been the norm. That certainly happened towards the limit of the Únětice tradition, but it was also the case in northern Britain and Ireland. One reason why the evidence is so confusing is that inhumation graves took similar forms across the whole study area and were accompanied by a similar range of artefacts. Inhumations

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/9/2015, SPi

166

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

Fig. 4.18. Early Bronze Age burials in the Rhine valley in Alsace, with schematic representation of orientation and posture. Information from Lefranc et al. 2010.

were often destroyed by acid soil, and the adoption of cremation burial needs more investigation. The other feature that unites the different parts of the study area is the paucity of evidence for domestic settlement. There are very few areas in which houses have been easy to find and they are not necessarily in the same regions as concentrations of graves. For that reason it is difficult to relate the living to the dead. This question has been investigated in the Netherlands (Fontijn

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

167

2010) and also in parts of southern England, but the results of such work do not suggest a uniform pattern. In Wessex, it seems possible that the smaller barrows of this date were built in valleys where the ground had been cleared for cultivation, whilst the larger monuments occupied more conspicuous positions in areas of grassland close to older monuments (Peters 2000). In the Thames valley, however, the situation was different, and here evidence of domestic activity can be preserved beneath the flood-plain, whilst the burial mounds of the same date were situated on the higher river terraces (Hey et al. 2011, Chapter 14). Again that need not represent a general pattern, for in the English Midlands fieldwalking undertaken for the Raunds Area Project suggested the opposite relationship. In this case barrows were located on low ground and it was the higher land that was settled—it is clear that the locations of round barrows varied from one area to another (Harding and Healy 2007, Chapter 5). At the same time the new evidence of mobility provided by archaeological scientists adds another complication, suggesting that people were not always buried close to where they had lived. It is all too easy to regard all the burials as those of an elite, but this is not consistent with their distribution on the ground in Britain and, quite possibly, in Continental Europe. For the most part they occur in clusters distributed along ridges and river valleys. They are rarely far apart, and, if they are regarded as the cemeteries of individual communities, they were spaced no further from one another than the villages of the Middle Ages. The exceptions usually occur in the vicinity of large monuments (Fig. 4.19). Around Stonehenge there were some exceptional burials, and it seems possible that a small group of individuals may have been buried there because of the special history and associations of such structures. For the most part it is these graves that contain the largest proportion of non-local artefacts. As in the Beaker period, any signs of long-distance networks must be integrated with the results of fieldwork which suggest that house types may have followed regional lines, with longhouses to the north and east, roundhouses in Britain and Ireland, and some circular and boat-shaped buildings along the Atlantic coastline. The expansion of development-led archaeology has made only a limited contribution, because settlements survive better in some regions than in others. As a result many of the problems of this period remain unresolved.

THE S HAPE OF THINGS TO COME Two developments towards the end of the early Bronze Age anticipate features that would become important during later periods. One was the deliberate

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/9/2015, SPi

168

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

Fig. 4.19. Bronze Age mortuary monuments around the Devil’s Quoits henge monument, Stanton Harcourt, upper Thames valley, southern England. Information from Lambrick and Allen 2004.

deposition of metalwork, particularly in hoards, and the other was the creation of field systems. In some respect the metalwork deposits recall the situation in Ireland during the Bell Beaker phase when distinctive artefacts were deposited in natural places following conventions that had already been established during the Neolithic period. The same is true across large parts of northern and north-western Europe. One custom assumed a growing importance towards the end of the early Bronze Age. The practice of depositing axes in water was gradually transformed as weapons began to take their place. That was to become one of the defining features of the later second and earlier first millennia BC. The character of dry-land hoards was also changing. From early on there is evidence that raw materials were recycled and that artefacts which had gone out of use were melted down, but this interpretation is based on the results of metal analysis. It is unusual to discover accumulations of worn or broken objects which had been brought together as scrap metal. This contrasts with the situation in the late Bronze Age. Beyond the limits of the study area,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

169

however, there are many hoards that include ingots in the shape of personal ornaments (Ringbarren), together with broken artefacts (Innerhofer 1997). The number of these deposits increases with distance from the copper mines of this period. Only occasionally are similar collections discovered in northwest Europe, but that was soon to change. In parallel with the placing of weapons in rivers, dry-land hoards contain accumulations of broken objects which are thought to have been buried by a smith. The interpretation of these collections is considered in later chapters, but the first hoards of this kind mark a development that was to assume a growing importance. A particularly striking discovery is a hoard of Ringbarren of central European type well outside their normal distribution at Saint-Valery-sur-Somme in France (Lehoërff 2012, 80). Another feature was to assume a similar significance. Until comparatively recently, the earliest regular field systems were dated to the period studied in Chapter 5, but new work on both sides of the Channel suggests that the process may have begun rather sooner. As a result, the reorganization of agricultural land may have been under way whilst large round barrows were still being constructed (Bradley and Fraser 2010). The best-known evidence comes from excavation and field survey on Dartmoor in south-west England where extensive systems of co-axial fields were probably established before 1600 BC (Fleming 2008). This evidence is reinforced by discoveries at Bestwall Quarry in the south of Wessex where ditched fields of similar character were first created between 1740 and 1500 BC and were associated with pottery assigned to the later part of the early Bronze Age (Ladle and Woodward 2009). A comparable field system on the Isle of Thanet is associated with dates on carbonized cereals of 1910–1750 BC and 1860–1690 BC (Martin et al. 2012). Another was at Sutton Hoo in East Anglia (Carver 2005). These areas are near to the Channel coast or the Thames estuary and it is no surprise that similar evidence has been identified in coastal areas of Normandy. In several instances, ditch systems dated to the early Bronze Age have been discovered, often associated with earlier or contemporary funerary monuments. At Saint-Vigor d’Ymonville, a ditch system was established on a site that had already been occupied around the end of the third millennium BC (Fig. 4.20). The system incorporated double-ditched trackways or droveways, hinting that livestock may have played an important role. Two adjacent rectangular enclosures may have had a domestic function; one contained a pair of roundhouses, the other a rectangular building. A ring-ditch lay at the edge of the system. At Tatihou, a well-ordered field system has been traced across an area of about 20 hectares. Scattered around this field system were several small buildings—including a possible roundhouse—and storage pits. At the edge of the settled area was a series of ring-ditches, at least two of which belong to this period. At Bernières-sur-Mer–Le Grand Parc an early or middle Bronze Age field system was associated with a pair of ring-ditches and a series

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/9/2015, SPi

170

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

Fig. 4.20. Field system, ring-ditch, and settlement, Saint-Vigor d’Ymonville–Les Sapinettes, Lower Normandy. Information from Lepaumier et al. 2005.

of inhumation burials, one radiocarbon dated to around 2200–1900 BC. At Cairon, two successive field systems can be seen. The corner ditch of one field from the later system curved around an earlier Beaker burial, suggesting that a barrow was present here (Giazzon 2012a). Other field or enclosure systems have been excavated at Luc-sur-Mer, Bayeux–Bellefontaine, and Banville. These observations anticipate the better-known evidence on both sides of the English Channel which dates from the mid-second millennium and will be considered further in the following chapter.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

5 Changes in the Pattern of Settlement (1600–1100 BC) I N T R O D U C TI O N The Three Age Model has outlived its usefulness, but even now it is difficult to see how it can be replaced. The beginning of the Bronze Age is sometimes termed the Chalcolithic, and the transition to the Iron Age has also been treated as distinct phase, but a still greater problem is how to acknowledge the changes that came about during the later second millennium BC. Some of those developments are considered here. When Coles and Harding wrote The Bronze Age in Europe over thirty years ago, there seemed to be a solution to the problem. They divided this phase into an ‘earlier’ and a ‘later’ Bronze Age (Coles and Harding 1979), acknowledging the important developments that happened part way through the period. These concerned settlements, houses, food production, mortuary rituals, and metalwork, although the significance of these elements differed from place to place. In their view the important division happened at about 1300 BC. They may have been influenced by Eogan’s review of Irish Bronze Age metalwork, which adopted a similar terminology, although he dated the transition to 1200 BC (Eogan 1964). In 1990 a similar division was proposed for the British Bronze Age, but that was based on developments in the pattern of settlement that began around 1500 BC (Barrett and Bradley 1980). It is revealing that subsequent accounts of Irish prehistory have reverted to a more complex chronological scheme based on successive styles of metalwork, whilst British researchers who used the terms favoured by Coles and Harding were unable to agree when a change from an ‘earlier’ to a ‘later’ phase occurred. Different versions favour starting dates of 1500 BC (or a little before) or 1100 BC (Bradley 2007, 178–81). Anthony Harding published a more recent account of the European Bronze Age in 2000 and it is revealing that the two-fold division of this period no longer plays a part. The chronology is based on the typological schemes

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

172

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

worked out by Montelius, Reinecke, and their successors, and on radiocarbon and tree-ring dating (Harding 2000). It is clear that more precise sequences can be discussed today, but does this mean that the changes identified by researchers in the late twentieth century no longer seem important? In some ways the fieldwork that provides the main focus of this book (Fig. 5.1) only emphasizes the trends identified by Coles and Harding. In several parts of the study area houses were more robust after c.1600 BC, and may have been occupied over longer periods. Settlements are easier to discover and excavate, and the artefact assemblages associated with them are larger and increasingly diverse. Some of these sites are associated with field systems and

Fig. 5.1. Sites recorded in the database and for the Prehistory of Britain and Ireland project, 1600–1200/1100 BC.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

173

provide evidence for more intensive farming of crops and animals. They also provide indications of craft production, in particular the making of bronze artefacts. A few of these places were enclosed in a way that had rarely happened before in the Bronze Age of north-west Europe. Other changes could be identified with rather less confidence. The treatment of the dead saw certain changes, as cremation became more important than it had been during the early Bronze Age, and in many areas burials and funerary monuments became less ostentatious. Individual cemeteries were located close to living areas. In parallel with all these changes, offerings of metalwork as hoards or single finds seem to have increased in frequency, and it is possible that some of the material placed in dry land or water was deposited close to the limits of the settlement or its fields. Such changes happened widely, but there were other important contrasts with the archaeology of the previous phase. In that period there are signs of regular contacts between distant areas, evidenced by the contents of excavated graves. Thus there were important links between Brittany and southern England, between communities living on either side of the Irish Sea, and between people who buried their dead along both shores of the Channel. Other connections may have linked the inhabitants of south-east England with those of Belgium and the southern Netherlands, or communities in Denmark and north-east Germany with people in central Europe. These connections are suggested by details of the burial rite, but they are evidenced mainly by nonlocal artefacts (Chapter 4). The important point is that this material suggests long-distance links between widely separated areas. They are less apparent from the settlement record. Between 1600 and 1100 BC that changed, and settlements, houses, and domestic artefacts provide the main evidence for regional traditions. Now it seems as if similar material was shared across entire regions and that those regions linked communities who lived on opposite sides of the Channel and the southern North Sea. For example, pottery assemblages in many areas are dominated by large, coarse, bucket- or barrel-shaped vessels with simple decoration of finger-tip impressions or cordons. Particularly close stylistic similarities can be seen between pottery from the Low Countries, northern France, and southern Britain (Marcigny et al. 2007a; Bourgeois and Talon 2009), and some of the techniques used to make these vessels were also shared (Kleijne 2010). The emphasis on large vessels could suggest that meals were eaten communally. Pottery with broadly similar forms and fabrics is also found in northern Germany and Denmark (Rasmussen 1993; Lolk 2009). These patterns identified through recent fieldwork add weight to the close connections already postulated on the basis of metalwork typology. In fact the significance of metal increased at this time. It was used to create a wider range of objects and was deposited in the landscape in greater quantities than before. As a consequence, flint lost much of its significance and was used

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

174

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

mainly for the ad hoc production of simple implements. Paradoxically, there is little evidence for copper mining in north-west Europe after 1400 BC, exceptions being the ‘trench mine’ at Derrycarhoon in south-west Ireland, radiocarbon dated to the thirteenth century BC (O’Brien 2012b), and Great Orme in north Wales, which remained in use until the late Bronze Age. Other mining sites may have evaded detection because they have been obliterated by more recent workings. Prehistoric use of copper ores has been suggested in the Harz Mountains in northern Germany and on Helgoland in the North Sea. Nevertheless, imports from outside the region are likely to have been the main source of metal, reflected in scientific evidence for increased recycling and mixing of material. Residues of bronze artefact production such as crucibles, moulds, or casting waste have only sporadically been found at settlements of this date. In most cases this seems to relate to small-scale activity or a single episode of casting, and there is little evidence for sites engaged in particularly intensive or specialized work. Thus it is difficult to verify claims that metalworkers were full-time specialists working under elite patronage and control (Kristiansen 1987), and it is possible that simple bronze objects were produced for the local community by ‘farmer[s] with some basic metalworking skills’ (Kuijpers 2008, 51). This may well be true of tools, but it is not clear whether the same argument would apply to more complex weapons and personal ornaments. While there are significant regional differences in the types of artefacts produced, some shared trends can be seen in the ways that metalwork was deposited. Metal objects were rarely discarded in settlements, and those that were left there tend to be small and simple. In the Low Countries, as in Britain, most metal artefacts occur in hoards or as single items in the wider landscape, and wet places were often favoured. Hoards and river finds are also recorded in Germany and Denmark where there was a greater emphasis on placing metalwork in graves. Such observations raise a problem. It may be possible to identify a dominant pattern in the available evidence—a pattern that was already apparent to Coles and Harding in 1979—but it had obvious geographical limits. In fact the evidence varies from one region to the next in a way that would not have been so apparent before the increase in development-led excavation. The issues are of four kinds. Firstly, there are areas in which developments followed an independent trajectory. In Jutland, for example, houses and round barrows were erected on a monumental scale (Holst et al. 2013) and inhumation burial may have assumed a new importance. Enormous numbers of new mounds were constructed, after an interval when very few monuments had been built. This activity consumed large areas of farmland and drew on the labour of a considerable number of people. It was then that the famous oak coffins were buried. By contrast, in other regions round barrows were becoming smaller and less significant.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

175

Secondly, where houses and burials can be found together their relationships to one another need not be the same. A few mounds in Jutland and northern Germany were built over the remains of houses or their fields. In southern England and the Netherlands, settlements are found beside round barrows, but again their connections to one another were very different. The British examples were directly linked to the settlements of the same age and seem to be where their inhabitants were buried. Recent work in the Low Countries has shown that here the monuments were older than the houses and that settlements were located beside earthworks built during an earlier period. Thirdly, landscapes in much of Germany were very different from those in Britain and the Low Countries where houses and field systems have been discovered. In this case evidence for settlements and land divisions remains elusive despite the recent increase in fieldwork. Here the treatment of the dead did not follow the general trend and barrow-building continued to be important. Fields and houses have been equally difficult to identify in inland regions of France, but are represented along parts of the Channel coast. Finally, there are regions that did not conform to the general trend, even within a finite geographical area. This is most apparent in the British Isles. In England there were field systems, enclosures, and roundhouses, accompanied by cremation cemeteries, but these elements do not characterize the country as a whole. Rather they were confined to lowland areas. Houses and cemeteries have a wide distribution, but in this case land divisions are virtually absent. Along the south coast the reorganization of settlement around more durable dwellings may already have commenced during the earlier second millennium BC. In Ireland there were similar changes in the pattern of settlement from about 1500 BC, but regular field systems of this date have not been identified. Perhaps it is because so much variation has been apparent from recent fieldwork that a simple two-fold division of the Bronze Age no longer seems satisfactory, and for that reason this period is divided between three separate chapters of this book. Although important changes happened between the seventeenth and twelfth centuries BC, it is necessary to review them thematically and to compare the principal developments in different parts of the study area. Settlements and land divisions are considered first, followed by the treatment of the dead, and, finally, the deposition of metalwork.

SETTLEMENT

Settlement in the Low Countries and Northern Europe There is considerable settlement evidence from the North European Plain. A shared feature across the region is the appearance of a new house form

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

176

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

around 1500 BC: the three-aisled longhouse, which often incorporated a room for livestock (Fig. 5.2; Ethelberg et al. 2000; Arnoldussen and Fokkens 2008; Waterbolk 2008; Artursson 2009). At the same time, there is evidence for greater structuring and bounding of settlement space with fences and ditches. Those settlements tend to be small, with no more than a handful of houses, not all of which need have been contemporary with one another. As most houses show no evidence of repair, it is often assumed that they were occupied for little more than a few decades. The settlement pattern has generally been seen in terms of ‘wandering farmsteads’; individual micro-regions

Fig. 5.2. House plans from different regions of north-west Europe. From top: Malt– Kongehøj, Jutland, longhouse with byre in middle section of building; Maldegem– Burkel, Belgium, longhouse; Nonant–La Bergerie, Lower Normandy, apsidal house; Stansted, eastern England, roundhouse; Cloghabreedy, Ireland, roundhouse. Information from Crombé et al. 2005; Marcigny et al. 2007b; Framework Archaeology 2008; McQuade et al. 2009; Poulsen 2010.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

177

were inhabited by one or a few households, which shifted location at intervals of a generation or so. This idea has become deeply ingrained, although its universal applicability is open to question (Arnoldussen 2009). In Jutland, numerous settlements with one or more longhouses have been excavated (Holst et al. 2013, 277–86). These buildings were usually aligned east–west and some were accompanied by smaller outbuildings or clusters of ‘cooking pits’ containing burnt stones. The sites are unenclosed, but in northern Jutland they sometimes incorporate small fenced or ditched compounds that may have been used for livestock (Bech and Mikkelsen 1999). Artefact distributions provide further evidence for settlement structuring, with midden accumulations at the periphery of some sites (Rasmussen 1995). While places such as Malt–Kongehøj include half a dozen or more house plans, they have been interpreted as the remains of one or two shifting farmsteads (Fig. 5.3). Survey work for the Thy Archaeological Project in north-west Jutland has suggested overall densities of one to three households per square kilometre (Earle and Kolb 2010). Recent excavations have greatly increased our knowledge of settlements and houses in the Netherlands and Flanders. To some extent the same is true of adjacent areas of lowland north-west Germany. Again a dramatic contrast in the character of settlement before and after 1500 BC has become clear. While no convincing house plans can be identified in the Low Countries between 1800 and 1500 BC, over 300 are known for the following five centuries (Arnoldussen 2008). Variations in settlement forms between different landscape zones have also become much clearer. The sandy areas in the south and east of the Low Countries show a pattern of small, dispersed settlements, similar to that in Jutland. For example,

Fig. 5.3. Open settlement, Malt–Kongehøj, Jutland. Information from Poulsen 2010.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

178

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

extensive recent excavations around Breda have uncovered four settlement areas a few hundred metres apart, located on sand-ridges separated by streams or wet ground (Berkvens 2008). The largest had three longhouses, perhaps successively occupied. In the eastern Netherlands, van Beek (2009) has proposed a model in which the more extensive sand-ridges were occupied by one or a few farmsteads, periodically shifting over short distances, while the smaller ridges had shorter or more intermittent sequences of settlement. The ‘wandering farmstead’ model may not apply everywhere, however. For instance, in Drenthe in the north-east Netherlands, individual farmstead plots often seem to have been occupied for several generations, as houses were repeatedly extended over time. In this way composite house plans were created with enormous lengths of up to 70 m, although it is doubtful whether the older parts of these buildings remained in use once the new sections had been added (Kooi 2008). Different settlement patterns can also be seen in the central river area of the Netherlands. This region had a dynamic topography caused by the constant shifting of river channels, and settlement was only possible on narrow areas of raised ground such as natural levees. Some of these farms were set within systems of fenced or ditched plots extending over a few hundred metres. At Zijderveld, up to seven house sites lay within a multiphase system of fences, suggesting a more sustained occupation (Fig. 5.4). Cattle hoof-prints were found in low-lying areas of the site. At Eigenblok, five fenced farmstead sites lying 50–350 m apart and dating to the fifteenth–fourteenth century BC have been excavated. In one case a water-hole surrounded by hoof-prints lay just outside the fenced yard. Coring in the wider environs located several other settlements, and it is suggested that during the 200 years of occupation there were three or four contemporary farms in an area of 70 hectares. The coastal region of West Friesland shows a different pattern again. Here settlements were located on ridges formed by infilled former tidal creeks. Classic excavations at Bovenkarspel (Fig. 5.5) and Hoogkarspel, and recent work at sites such as Enkhuizen–Kadijken and Medemblik–Schepenwijk have uncovered complexes of ditched house plots and fields, in some cases extending over hundreds of metres. Digging such ditches in the heavy clay soil would have required a considerable investment of labour. Sometimes the boundaries incorporated older barrows, as at Hoogkarspel (Roessingh and van Zijverden 2011), perhaps suggesting that pre-existing tenurial arrangements were respected. The settlements were often occupied over a significant period. The ditches were repeatedly recut and realigned, and the houses were often rebuilt on the same plot (Arnoldussen 2008). At Kadijken, eleven houses were identified in the excavated area, of which two or three may have stood at any one time. They were normally located in yards about 2500 m2 in extent. There were also numerous pit-wells, but in contrast to sites elsewhere in the Netherlands, no obvious granaries. The incorporation of

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

179

Fig. 5.4. Settlement and fenced enclosure system at Zijderveld, Netherlands. Information from Knippenberg and Jongste 2005.

several contemporary farmsteads within these Dutch enclosure systems suggests co-operation between households to negotiate land tenure, and perhaps to share agricultural tasks. There may be parallels with contemporary developments in southern England and Normandy, although the scale and regularity of land division does not match that of the larger British co-axial field systems. The bulk of the evidence from Belgium comes from ring-ditches and settlement evidence remains conspicuously lacking until the same time as longhouses appeared in the Netherlands. In some cases, information is confined to a few pits, but three sites require more attention. Maldegem–Burkel is located on a late glacial sand-ridge close to a small river. It is situated close to a barrow and contains between two and four longhouses, as well as several pits. The larger excavated building was 24 m long (Fig. 5.2). The longhouses could have been used simultaneously with the burial mound. There was the same relationship between a ring-ditch and a settlement at Ravels–Weelde. The settlement contained three, or possibly four overlapping longhouses, but in this case it is possible that the barrow was there first. It enclosed a central cremation, dated to 1690–1520 BC. Further south, the site of Ghislenghien

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

180

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

Fig. 5.5. Part of the settlement and ditch system at Bovenkarspel–Het Valkje, Netherlands. Information from Fokkens 2005.

contained a few pits as well as part of a three-aisled longhouse that is not closely dated. Field systems have yet to be discovered in Belgium. The size and internal organization of the household group seems to have varied across the North European Plain. In Jutland, house size increased markedly after 1500 BC. A length of 20–25 m is typical, with some over 50 m, although very large houses disappear after 1300 BC. The few houses known from north-west Germany also tend to be large. These monumental buildings have been seen as evidence for a chiefly elite (Kristiansen and Larsson 2005; Artursson 2009), engaged in an ultimately unsustainable outburst of monumental energy (Holst et al. 2013), but the increase in house size in part reflects the fact that livestock as well as people now formed part of the household. There are several cases in which large houses seem to be paired with a smaller neighbouring building, as at Måde where two houses over 30 m long were each accompanied by one only half the size. This could imply a dependent relationship between high- and low-status households, but it could also be that the two structures together formed a single residential unit. In Jutland room partitions and other evidence shed light on the ways in which these buildings were organized. The largest houses were usually divided into three or four rooms. Hearths or cooking pits are often found at one end of the building—generally to the west—but sometimes at both ends (leading to suggestions of ‘two-family houses’). Box partitions and the results of phosphate analysis show that the eastern or central room was frequently used for

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

181

housing livestock. The east end may also have been used for storing or processing cereals, as it was in earlier periods (Chapter 4). Botanical analysis shows that charred grain was concentrated here (Andreasen 2009), and detailed study of artefact distributions from a house at Bjerre suggested that the same part of the building was marked by a concentration of querns, while the western room was used for a wider range of domestic tasks (Bech and Mikkelsen 1999). Houses in the Low Countries tend to be slightly smaller in size, typically around 20 m by 6 m (Arnoldussen 2008). Evidence for the ordering of internal space is limited, although hearths are most often found in the west end. Animal stalling can be seen in houses in the northern Netherlands but is less clearly attested further south. Compared to Jutland, the impression is that domestic groups tended to be smaller and their activities less clearly divided. Even so, houses in both areas were much larger than those elsewhere in northwest Europe at this time. By this period, food production across these regions was strongly based on cereals and domestic livestock (Clason 1999; Ethelberg et al. 2000; Brinkkemper and van Wijngaarden-Bakker 2005; Andreasen 2009; Vretemark 2010). The appearance of enclosures and byres suggests that the control of livestock had become more important, and cattle consistently dominate faunal assemblages. Pollen evidence from Jutland suggests a shift to a greater emphasis on grazing than cultivation in the mid-second millennium BC (Holst et al. 2013). Fishing was also carried out by the inhabitants of West Friesland. At Bovenkarspel mainly freshwater fish were caught (Ijzereef 1981), while at other sites such as Opmeer–Hoogwoud-Oost there is more evidence for fish from brackish water and the sea. At Enkhuizen–Kadijken a wicker fish-trap was found. It has been difficult to characterize settlement further to the east, in the Rhineland and northern Mittelgebirge, in part due to poor understanding of the ceramic sequence. Most of the few investigated sites consist of clusters of pits; convincing house plans were unknown until recently. Excavations over the last decade have improved the situation a little, with a number of sites in the lowlands and river valleys. The best evidence is from Inden–Altdorf in the Rhineland, where a cluster of rectangular four- and six-post buildings (up to four metres long) has been uncovered beside a palaeochannel of the River Inde. In Hesse, small post-built buildings have been claimed at Ennerich and Hain-Gründau, although their forms are uncertain. If these sites are representative, we are dealing with a mode of dwelling very different from the longhouses of the North European Plain. Other sites in Hesse, such as Wirbelau, have produced storage pits containing large quantities of burnt daub and charcoal, providing indirect evidence of buildings. Perhaps there was a custom of burning down houses at the end of their occupation, and burying the remains. There is no evidence of land allotment in these regions,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

182

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

though the limited faunal and botanical evidence shows a reliance on cereals and domestic livestock (Meurers-Balke and Kalis 2006; Kreuz and Schäfer 2008b). Away from the coastal zone, which is considered separately below, the picture for north-east France is very similar, despite the far greater intensity of fieldwork. Relatively few settlements of this date are known and even fewer domestic buildings. Apsidal structures have been found in Île-de-France at Lesches–Prés du Refuge and possibly Changis-sur-Marne–Les Pétreaux, and a rectangular building at La Saulsotte–Les Haies in Champagne-Ardenne. Different types of structure are recorded in Lorraine: a three-aisled building measuring 12 m by 7 m at Vignot–Les Auges, and a boat-shaped building 18 m long associated with a palisade and two six-post buildings at HettangeGrande–Les Hauts de Chambourg. Again, little can be said about the local contexts of these sites that might shed light on this apparent diversity of structural traditions or on settlement organization in general.

Settlement in Britain and Ireland It is worth comparing the evidence discussed in the previous section with that from the British Isles where there have also been important excavations and field surveys. Again the archaeological record can be interpreted in some detail, but in this case the contrasts between these parts of the study area are the most striking feature. The middle of the second millennium BC saw important changes in the landscapes of Britain and Ireland. Their characteristics are easy to define— they include field systems, robust circular houses, and enclosures. Most of these developments commenced about 1600/1500 BC, but they may have accelerated a process that had started even earlier (Chapter 4). Other changes are shown by botanical assemblages from settlements. From the mid-second millennium BC, new crops appear and cereal remains decisively outnumber wild food plants for the first time (Stevens and Fuller 2012). The identification of Bronze Age field systems in Britain has gone through two stages. From the early years of the twentieth century they were identified as earthworks in upland areas, although it was rarely possible to date them. They became known as ‘Celtic’ fields to distinguish these square or rectilinear plots from the strip-lynchets of the Middle Ages (Bowen 1961). The earlier fields were widely distributed in England and Wales, with a smaller number in Scotland and Ireland. The problem with this work is that it was largely confined to surface evidence. The field boundaries might be marked by earthworks or low walls, but it was not until large-scale excavation took place in lowland areas that the full extent of this phenomenon became apparent. From the 1970s extensive tracts of ditched land divisions were

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

183

Fig. 5.6. Part of the field system at Heathrow Airport, southern England. Information from Framework Archaeology 2010.

identified, many of them on the river gravels where they were first recognized from the air (Fig. 5.6). Although some examples had been attributed to the Roman period, it was only the upsurge in fieldwork in the Fenland that established their Bronze Age origin. For a while the same interpretation was extended to other sets of crop-marks, but that idea was never convincing (for a useful discussion of the question see Fleming 1987). The results of this work have posed some problems. It is clear that co-axial ditched field systems can date from more than one period. Indeed, it now seems likely that most of the earlier examples originated in the Bronze Age, and that rather similar land divisions were established in the late Iron Age and Roman periods (Bradley and Fulford 2008). Sometimes they were superimposed on the boundaries created during the earlier phase. Once these superficially similar phenomena had been disentangled it became clear that almost all the Bronze Age examples were in southern and eastern England (Yates 2007) and that those created in later phases were distributed over a much larger area. The Irish field systems had even more diverse histories. Major co-axial systems seem to be absent in Ireland during the Bronze Age, but field boundaries and cultivation ridges have been found at sites such as Belderg Beg

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

184

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

on the west coast. Here the middle Bronze Age features overlay Neolithic fields (Caulfield et al. 2009). How the fields were used remains unclear. On the chalk plough-marks have been identified together with field boundaries, and another field system associated with similar evidence is known beneath blown sand at Gwithian in south-west England (Nowakowski et al. 2007, 23–32). Fields on the river gravels are commonly associated with water-holes and can include paired ditches that have been interpreted as droveways for animals. A few groups of fields produce samples of carbonized cereals, but environmental evidence suggests that many were used as grazing land. Most of the Bronze Age examples were in areas that had already been settled, but there is nothing to show whether they had been subdivided during earlier phases; if hurdle-fences were used, they would have left little trace. On the other hand, the banks associated with Bronze Age fields may have been planted with hedges. Once established, they could have continued to grow for a long time, even if the ditches were no longer maintained (Framework Archaeology 2010, 135–210). As was seen in West Friesland, the earthworks of lowland field systems often extended up to the remains of older round barrows. There may be two explanations for this practice. A functional approach would suggest that they provided landmarks that could be used in dividing up the landscape: it would be easier to establish the axis of a field system if it could be aligned on one of these monuments. That was not always true, and there are cases in which the structures incorporated in field divisions could not be seen from any distance. It is possible that particular barrows had a special importance. Indeed, they might have been located on an earlier boundary, as Spratt (1982) inferred from his study of the early Bronze Age landscape of north-east England, where conspicuous cairns were distributed along the upper edges of valleys with evidence of settlement. In some cases the newly established field systems impinged on older barrow cemeteries. It seems as if the principal monuments were generally respected, but this did not apply to their immediate surroundings, which were brought under cultivation. Other earthworks that had enjoyed a particular importance in the past were treated in much the same way. Some were incorporated in field edges, but occasionally their surviving remains were damaged or even destroyed. For instance, the Dorset Cursus, once the largest monument of its kind, provided one of the boundaries of a newly established field system, and in time its bank and ditch were ploughed out. An early Bronze Age cemetery beside this monument was entirely levelled by cultivation (Barrett et al. 1991, 138 and 184). In the same way, Bronze Age fields cut straight across the Neolithic cursus at Dorchester-on-Thames (Whittle et al. 1992). In other cases the evidence of change is less direct. Much can be learnt from environmental evidence. The area just north of Stonehenge was separated from the megalithic monument by a palisade and was used as arable land. The

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

185

site was effectively abandoned and the hollows left by earlier structures were filled with wind-blown plough-soil (Parker Pearson 2012, 311). The same may have happened at the henge monument of Mount Pleasant and a nearby Neolithic enclosure beneath the modern town of Dorchester (Woodward et al. 1993, 30). In southern England there are deposits of alluvium dating from this phase. Colluvium also began to fill the dry valleys on the chalk. The formation of these deposits suggests that cultivation was having an increasing impact on the landscape of southern England (Bell 1983; Allen 1992; Wilkinson 2002), though there is much local variation (French et al. 2007, 223–6). During this phase domestic dwellings were built on a substantial scale (Fig. 5.2). Whether of timber or stone, they were sufficiently robust for their remains to be identified by excavation. With very few exceptions, these buildings were roundhouses, but there are two main differences between these structures and those used before 1600 BC. The new dwellings were often larger than their predecessors and their roofs were supported by timbers that had been deeply bedded in the ground. A number of the buildings were also provided with porches. One reason that their remains survive more often than those of older dwellings is that they were built to last. The other is that when they did go out of use their positions were respected; they were not levelled by the plough, as happened at some of the excavated sites in Scotland, for example Tormore on the Isle of Arran (Barber 1997, Chapters 2 and 3). Nor did successive buildings occupy exactly the same positions—abandoned structures were commonly replaced close to the site of the original dwelling. This process may have been attended by a certain formality as artefacts were incorporated in their foundations, whilst other deposits may have been placed inside these buildings when they went out of use. They include animal remains, human cremations, or metal artefacts (Brück 1999; Nowakowski 2001; Cleary 2006). Though few of these are common, they have been recognized more often than in contemporary houses in many parts of the Continent (e.g. Gerritsen 2003, 63–102). The roundhouses were often organized in clusters and in some cases were laid out in pairs. When this occurred, one building was typically more elaborate than its neighbour. It was unusual for both to be provided with a porch. They can be associated with evidence of different activities from one another—weaving, cooking, grain storage, and flint-working—but there is considerable variation between the excavated sites (Ellison 1981). The principal house commonly had a hearth, and in some cases there were storage pits under the eaves. A few groups of circular buildings were accompanied by rectilinear structures, the largest and most regular of which have been interpreted as longhouses. They bear a general similarity to those in northern Europe, but do not provide any convincing evidence of a byre, although higher phosphate values

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

186

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

were associated with the end of one such building at Woodcutts in Wessex (Barrett et al. 1991, 208). Their distribution is revealing. None is far from the Channel or North Sea coasts (Bradley 2007, 194–5). In some areas, small groups of domestic buildings were established inside ditched, embanked, or fenced enclosures (Fig. 5.7), but there is little to suggest a significant difference between these sites and the open settlements of the same date. Both can be associated with similar features: water-holes, wells, ponds, small square structures interpreted as raised granaries, and fence-lines linking individual dwellings or separating them from one another. Enclosures are not restricted to the areas with field systems, but where they do occur together it seems as if the fields were already established. That explains why some of the enclosures were square or rectangular—they had been fitted into the existing land divisions (Bradley 2007, 193). It also explains why their outlines can appear incomplete. The missing sections of the perimeter might have been marked by field boundaries that no longer survive as standing earthworks. Other enclosures had a more irregular plan, but the sequence may have been the same. This could also apply to open settlements, as individual house platforms sometimes followed field edges and even cut into their boundaries. At one time it seemed likely that several small compounds coexisted on English sites, so that a settlement like Itford Hill on the Sussex chalk was interpreted as a small village. Subsequent research has shown these enclosures moved to new locations as particular buildings went out of use (Ellison 1978).

Fig. 5.7. Enclosed settlement, Knockhouse Lower, Ireland. Information from Richardson and Johnson 2007.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

187

Not only were the sites of older houses respected, so were the earthworks that had enclosed them. It means that that fewer dwellings were used concurrently than was once supposed. There are parallels here with the patterns of ‘wandering’ settlement seen in northern Europe. One site that can certainly be considered a village is Corrstown on the coast of Northern Ireland, which was occupied over two centuries around 1500–1300 BC (Ginn and Rathbone 2012). Here seventy-four roundhouses of varying sizes were present, many of which had been rebuilt on the same plot (Fig. 5.8). The excavators argue that the majority of houses were occupied simultaneously when the settlement was at its peak. Other interpretations may be possible, but it is clear that this was a substantial community, unparalleled in north-west Europe at this period. Why such a large agglomeration developed here is not obvious. The settlement was undefended and its material assemblage unexceptional. Stone moulds for simple bronze tools were found, but there were no other indications of metalworking or specialized crafts. At a larger scale, no consistent relationship is apparent in Britain between the placing of circular dwellings and the overall organization of the land. Perhaps the more regular field systems were established before most of these houses were built, in which case the people responsible for re-planning the landscape may have lived somewhere else. Alternatively, the pattern of ephemeral settlement associated with the early Bronze Age may have retained its

Fig. 5.8. Large unenclosed settlement, Corrstown, Northern Ireland. Information from Ginn and Rathbone 2012.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

188

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

importance while these field systems were being established. The problem applies to both the stone roundhouses of Dartmoor and the timber buildings on the chalk and river gravels (Field 2001). It is a question that requires more investigation. Early excavators in southern England were puzzled by the discovery of quantities of fire-cracked flint in the settlements of this period. Similar deposits are more often found in isolation and are described as ‘burnt mounds’. They are usually beside a stream where they are associated with a trough suitable for boiling large amounts of water. Although they may have been used to cook meat, they can also be compared with the sweat-lodges found in traditional societies. Some examples predate this phase (Ripper and Beamish 2012), but in recent years many of them have been identified just outside a series of Bronze Age settlements (Hodder and Barfield 1991). If they had been used as saunas, it is possible that they were visited by a restricted section of the population. Once considered peculiar to Ireland and upland Britain, development-led fieldwork has shown that burnt mounds were ubiquitous in southern England. There may be some evidence of economic specialization at this time, but it is very limited. On the chalk of southern England individual settlements contain a high proportion of sheep bones, whilst cattle played a greater part at other sites. The proportion of pigs and wild animals is consistently low. Carbonized cereals are well represented, and both barley and wheat were important at individual settlements, but there is little sign of regional patterning. On the other hand, there are areas like the South Downs where settlements include the artefacts conventionally classified as loom weights, and other regions, like Cranborne Chase, in which they are rare or absent. It is not clear whether certain regions specialized in making textiles.

Settlement in the Maritime Regions of Northern and Western France As noted earlier, domestic settlement evidence remains elusive across much of northern France, but in recent years there have been several significant discoveries in the regions closer to the Channel coast. Many sites include little except for pits (Buchez 2011a, 157–8), but an increasing number of small post-built roundhouses are being recognized in Nord-Pas-de-Calais, as at Lauwin-Planque–ZAC Les Hussards. At Escaudain–Erre, a similar structure is associated with pits and a radiocarbon date between 1520 and 1260 BC (Sys and Langelin-Leroy 2005). Two more buildings were found in an earlier excavation at Roeux–Château d’Eau, where pollen analysis shows that the site was located in an open environment with fields and an area of pasture (Desfossés et al. 1992). One of the structures was a further roundhouse 5.5 m

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

189

in diameter, with its entrance to the south. The other was partly destroyed, but was either apsidal or circular in plan. The associated pottery resembles domestic ceramics from southern England, and radiocarbon suggests a date between 1900 and 1270 BC. The bone assemblage (which included a human skull fragment) was dominated by cattle, followed by sheep and pigs in equal proportions. There is another point to consider. These settlements were open sites, but near the coast at Étaples–Mont Bagarre, a double enclosure over a hundred metres in diameter has been found a short distance upslope from the early Bronze Age enclosure mentioned in Chapter 4 (Desfossés 2000). Radiocarbon dates suggest that the internal circuit was built between 1860 and 1500 BC, and the outer between 1600 and 1400 BC. The excavators suggest that this site can be compared with English ringforts, but they were built in the late Bronze Age. The most widespread evidence of enclosure at this period comes from coastal Normandy, especially around Caen, where fieldwork has identified field systems which have been compared with those in southern England. Several early Bronze Age field systems discussed in Chapter 4 probably continued in use during this phase, as at Bernières-sur-Mer–Le Grand Parc, Lucsur-Mer, and Saint-Vigor d’Ymonville (Fig. 4.20). The most important site is Tatihou, located on the shoreline in an area now partly covered by the sea. The extensive early Bronze Age co-axial field system was reorganized in this phase, and settlement shifted to two discrete areas, marked by clusters of small rectangular and circular buildings. Other field systems were first established during this phase, as at Nonant/Vaux-sur-Seulles, where a rectilinear ditch complex linked two domestic compounds 350 m apart. The southern enclosure (Nonant–La Bergerie) was subdivided by a palisade (Fig. 5.9). The outer part, nearer the entrance, included the remains of a granary and a possible small barn, whilst the inner compound contained three buildings, including an apsidal house (Fig. 5.2). A different situation is seen at Cairon, where a rectangular domestic enclosure was inserted into the grid of an early Bronze Age field system, at the same time as the latter was abandoned (Giazzon 2012a). How these field systems were used is not yet clear, as there is little associated environmental evidence. As in Britain, some incorporated double-ditched trackways or drove-ways, seen most clearly at Saint-Vigor d’Ymonville. This could imply that livestock management was important. However, the waterholes and pit-wells that are so common in the southern British field systems and Dutch ditch complexes are not a regular feature of those in Normandy. Domestic enclosures not integrated into any visible field system have also been found on the Caen plain. The best evidence is from two potentially contemporary sites at Mondeville excavated during the 1990s and located 1.25 kilometres apart (Fig. 5.10; Chancerel et al. 2006b). At Mondeville–Étoile an oval enclosure covers about 4000 m2, with its entrance opening to the south; animal skulls and long bones were deposited in the ditch together with human

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

190

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

Fig. 5.9. Enclosed settlement, Nonant–La Bergerie, Lower Normandy. Information from Marcigny et al. 2007b.

remains. The ceramics and radiocarbon dates suggest that the site was occupied around the fourteenth to twelfth century BC. The second site, at Mondeville–ZI Sud, comprised two adjoining sub-rectangular enclosures, both with entrances facing east. The northern enclosure was built first and covered about 2500 m2. The slightly larger southern enclosure was added later, cutting a small ringditch. Again, the ditches contained what seem to have been deliberate deposits, including human bones and a bronze axe, spear-head, and pin (dated on typological grounds to the fourteenth or thirteenth century BC). At both sites the presence of querns and loom weights suggests domestic occupation, although like those in Picardy the enclosure interiors were devoid of contemporary features. The faunal assemblages were dominated by domesticates, with a high proportion of cattle, followed by horse and a few pigs and sheep/goats. At Mondeville–Étoile the majority of animals were killed aged two to four years old, a pattern indicating meat production. Until recently, contemporary settlements in Brittany were known only from isolated discoveries of features like hearths and pits, but new work has revealed roundhouses at a few sites, such as Pluguffan–Ti Lipig. At Quimper–Moustoir, posthole clusters imply two or three successive phases of activity, with one group of features tentatively interpreted as the remains of rectilinear buildings. At the island site of Mez-Notariou on Ouessant several successive occupation horizons were identified, dating to between the sixteenth and thirteenth

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

191

Fig. 5.10. Relationship between enclosed settlements and funerary ring-ditches at Mondeville, Lower Normandy. Information from Marcigny 2012.

centuries BC. Posthole clusters and stone alignments indicate the presence of numerous buildings, although their plans are again difficult to reconstruct. Bronze casting and textile production were carried out. A midden at the edge of the site was composed mainly of cockle shells, but also yielded large assemblages of artefacts, marine fish bone, and animal bone (mainly sheep). The excavators argue that the midden accumulated through acts of ritualized deposition (Le Bihan and Villard 2001; 2010; Le Bihan et al. 2007). Ditched enclosures or field systems have also recently been discovered in trial-trench evaluations at Plouédern–Leslouc’h and Ploulec’h–Bel-Air. Only further excavation will reveal how similar these were to the field systems in Normandy and southern Britain. There is less evidence from further down the French Atlantic coast. The sites of Soulac-sur-Mer–L’Amélie and Vendays-Montalivet–Lapartens in Aquitaine include rectilinear and trapezoidal wooden structures of unknown

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

192

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

purpose, but otherwise the data are largely limited to scattered features, occupation layers or stray finds. Until recently, the same was true of the inland regions of western France, but the situation is improving. The most notable discovery has been at Ancenis–ZAC de la Savinière on the lower Loire, where two apsidal buildings (15–20 m long) were uncovered, recalling examples in Île-de-France. Smaller rectangular buildings also occur in the Loire basin, as at Saint-Varent–Les Entes in Poitou-Charentes and Sublaines–Le Grand Ormeau in Centre.

Settlement: An Overview The opening section of this chapter drew attention to a number of changes in the pattern of settlement that occurred during this period. Others were prefigured towards the end of the early Bronze Age but did not become a major feature until now. They included the construction of robust wooden houses, the building of enclosures, and the provision of regular field systems. With these developments there came important changes in food production, with a major emphasis on cereal growing and animal husbandry. Communities may have become less mobile than before. One of the most striking features of nearly all these changes is that they happened in regions that were linked to one another by sea (Fig. 5.11). Thus the field systems of southern England were on the opposite side of the Channel to those on the coast of Normandy. It may be no coincidence that they are associated with similar pottery (Lehoërff 2012, 27 and 158). In the same way, the land divisions in the Low Countries can be considered as the counterparts of those along the English side of the North Sea. Again the people who built them used artefacts of the same kinds. Moreover it has long been accepted that bronze objects—tools as well as more specialized ornaments and weapons—were being carried across the water in increasing numbers. In these terms it is better to consider the sea not as a barrier but a link between Britain and the European mainland. That seems increasingly likely now that the remains of sophisticated wooden boats have been discovered. The well-preserved sea-going vessel from Dover was built between 1575 and 1520 BC (Clark 2002). At the same time, it would be wrong to overemphasize these connections, for they did not extend to every component of the settlement pattern. Moreover there is evidence that some of the features identified in this account had deeper roots in the past. Field systems may be shared between England, Normandy, and the Low Countries, with a smaller number of examples farther afield, but the settlements with which they were associated were not the same. No convincing roundhouses have been identified in northern Europe in spite of attempts to do so, and very few rectangular buildings of this period have

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

193

Fig. 5.11. Distributions of field systems, roundhouses, and longhouses across northwest Europe.

been recognized in Britain. Almost without exception, they were accompanied by circular dwellings. In the same way, the ditched field systems in Normandy may have been associated with similar ceramics to those in Britain, but the domestic buildings found with them were predominantly rectilinear, with only a few roundhouses of British type. Many of the French roundhouses of this date have been found further north in the interior of Nord-Pas-de-Calais. Whilst they are associated with artefacts similar to those in the south of England, field systems have rarely

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

194

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

been recognized on these sites. Indeed the relationship between excavated sites on either side of the Channel can easily be exaggerated. The same applies to the enclosures recently identified in Nord-Pas-de-Calais, Normandy, and Brittany. While some may have formed part of larger field systems, others appear to have been important monuments in their own right. They did not have close counterparts in lowland England. These patterns illustrate the growing connections between communities on the mainland and those in Britain, but to some extent they had their roots in the past. The previous chapter showed that ditched field systems first developed on both sides of the water towards the end of the early Bronze Age. In the same way, the distinction between circular domestic buildings in Britain and Ireland and rectilinear domestic architecture on the Continent was already well established and is documented in the Bell Beaker period and before. Important changes certainly appeared between 1600 and 1100 BC but they did not depart far from the traditional pattern. Perhaps there was a sharper division between longhouses in northern Europe and the Low Counties, and smaller rectilinear structures further to the south and west. Similarly, roundhouses began to be built in regions of northern France in close contact with southern Britain, but it was the existence of substantial dwellings that was the new development rather than their spatial organization. If there were long-distance connections during this phase they had their limits, and some of the trends considered here certainly did not extend across large parts of the study area. Settlements containing roundhouses have been identified in upland Britain, but there is no sign of the regular land divisions that characterize the south and east. The same is true in Ireland. There may have been significant changes in land use at this time, but they were less farreaching. That could be because the changes in domestic architecture had already begun there during the early Bronze Age. In contrast, there were parts of Continental Europe in which the adoption of robust domestic dwellings need not have happened at this time. Instead domestic sites produce little but pits and concentrations of artefacts, as they had done during the previous period. Little is known about these places, but their existence sets obvious limits on any attempt to postulate a general reorganization of settlement extending across the whole of north-west Europe. Lastly, the archaeological sequence in Jutland is quite distinct from these developments, for in this case considerable longhouses were constructed in conjunction with enormous round barrows (Holst et al. 2013). Perhaps that is not surprising, for communities in what is now Denmark were more closely linked to those in central Europe than their counterparts elsewhere in the study area. That had been the case for a long time, and even before this period developments in Denmark were quite different from those in other regions. Again this sets limits on any general statement about the changes in the landscape between 1600 and 1100 BC. They were important and sometimes

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

195

dramatic, but they were not universal, and in some cases, as in coastal parts of northern France, they were actually quite local. The same applies to mortuary rituals.

TREATMENT OF THE DEAD

Germany and Northern Europe In north Germany and Jutland, large numbers of barrows survive from this period, particularly in heathland or forests. Tens of thousands are thought to have been constructed in Jutland alone. In the Mittelgebirge, they are typically found in groups of up to fifteen monuments, arranged in clusters or roughly linear patterns on ridges or slopes, although recent work has shown that at least some funerary monuments were also on lower ground, as at Worms– Herrnsheim on a terrace of the Rhine valley. Linearity is most striking in Jutland, where barrow rows stretching intermittently for many tens of kilometres can be seen. In some areas these alignments correspond to hollow ways, and it seems likely that they follow ancient corridors of communication (Egebjerg 2004; Johansen et al. 2004). Environmental evidence suggests that many barrows were located in pasture or heathland, and contemporary settlements often lay within a few hundred metres (Holst et al. 2013). Examples include a row of mounds along a ridge at Bjerre, which overlooked a series of contemporary settlements on lower ground (Bech 2003). The relationship between barrows and living sites goes even further, as several mounds in Jutland and Schleswig-Holstein were precisely superimposed on an abandoned house (Svanberg 2005). A small number of flat cemeteries are also known. A new example has been found at Lustrupholm, where twenty-three urned and unurned cremation burials occur in a loose cluster. Young children and adult women and men were all present. Simple grave goods were present in several burials, including simple ornaments, pots, and animal bone, suggesting a date of 1300–1100 BC. The demographic range and modest grave goods provide a contrast to many of the barrow cemeteries. As such graves are found so rarely in large-scale excavations they cannot account for more than a small fraction of the population. The German and Danish barrows show a bewildering diversity in their forms and constructional sequences (Görner 2002; Herring 2009a; Holst et al. 2013). In some cases, the site was prepared before the burial by levelling the ground or burning the vegetation. It would sometimes be ploughed with an ard. In some cases, as at Bevtoft–Hans Peters Høj, the ploughing formed a circular pattern beneath the mound, leaving no doubt that it was part of the funeral rite. Inhumation burials predominate, often in a coffin or cist,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

196

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

although cremation became increasingly common over time. Burials were often accompanied by grave goods, in some cases being richly outfitted with metal objects such as ornaments or weapons. Some of the most spectacular burials are from barrows associated with oak trunk coffins in southern Jutland and Schleswig. Dendrochronology indicates that most of these fall within a narrow horizon of 1391–1344 BC (Randsborg and Christensen 2006). The metal grave goods are accompanied by a wealth of preserved organic items such as clothing, wooden vessels, or folding stools. The wet cores of these mounds were formed as a result of the deliberate watering of the grave, leading to the formation of an iron pan that protected the coffin (Holst et al. 2001). A few barrows are also known with burials in timber ‘mortuary houses’ that were burned down before the erection of the mound. This happened at Borchen–Etteln in Westphalia and at several sites in the Lower Elbe area (Laux 1996). The covering mounds were constructed of earth or stone rubble in the Mittelgebirge, and of sand or turf in north Germany and Jutland. They were typically 10–15 m in diameter but sometimes reached 30 m or more. They were often surrounded by a kerb, ring-ditches, or a post-ring; in the Mittelgebirge there were dry-stone walls. The largest barrows represent an enormous investment of labour and—where turf was used—the sacrifice of grazing land (Holst et al. 2013). Careful excavation and recording of the large turf barrow at Skelhøj in Jutland, dating to the fifteenth century BC, has revealed details of the process of construction (Fig. 5.12). The work had clearly been planned. The monument was divided into radial segments, each of which seems to have been built by a different gang, and botanical analysis suggests that the turf used in the separate segments came from distinct areas of the landscape. This collective labour not only commemorated the dead, it reaffirmed relationships among the living. Further burials were added to most barrows, often being inserted at the edge of the mound. In some cases the mound would be heightened when these burials were interred, although some seem to have been enlarged without the addition of any further burials. At Hüsby in Schleswig-Holstein, for example, a barrow 15.5 m in diameter was enlarged on three occasions until it attained a maximum dimension of 36 m. It was approached by a 40 m long multiple post row. Alternatively, in the Mittelgebirge a smaller annexe was often added to the side of the barrow. Excavation of a monument at Maberzell-Trätzhof has shown how such mounds were progressively added over time, each one bounded by a stone wall. Neolithic barrows were also reused and enlarged in this period. Such successive acts of burial and monument elaboration may have made statements about real or fictive genealogical relationships, but, as few radiocarbon dates are available, it is not clear how long elapsed between the interments. The poor conditions for bone preservation across much of the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

197

Fig. 5.12. Skelhøj barrow, Jutland, showing radial construction of mound. Information from Holst and Rasmussen 2013.

region further hinder our understanding of who was selected for barrow burial and the relationships that may have existed between the people buried in a single mound or cemetery. In the absence of human remains, grave goods have long provided a focus for research into the identity of the deceased. Weapons, razors, and tweezers are normally viewed as ‘male’ objects, and many ornament types as ‘female’. These propositions should be treated critically, not least because ‘male’ and ‘female’ objects can occur together in the same grave, suggesting that gender categories were less rigid than is often assumed. Nonetheless, men clearly outnumbered women and children in barrow burials, particularly in the central, ‘primary’ burials. Other identities may have been signalled by the objects in the grave. In a survey of barrow burials across central and southern Germany, Wels-Weyrauch (1989) has shown that two distinct types of female dress-set recur, characterized by waist ornaments and neck ornaments respectively. This distinction could perhaps relate to marital status or some other difference in social role. The most richly outfitted burials of either gender are often identified as members of a ‘chiefly’ elite (Kristiansen and Larsson 2005), although other readings of the evidence are possible. It is notable that grave ‘wealth’ does not seem to relate to barrow size and that primary burials tend to be no richer than secondary interments (Görner 2002; Johansen et al. 2004). Associations between rich burials and supposed ‘chiefly settlements’ have yet to be

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

198

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

demonstrated. The multiple interments in most barrows, and the collective nature of barrow-building, imply that these were not just monuments to powerful individuals but held a more complex significance (Johansen et al. 2004). Grave equipment and dress styles from barrow burials have also provided the basis for studies of regionality and interaction. For example, WelsWeyrauch (1989) has highlighted the local distributions of ‘female’ ornament styles in Germany. In an influential paper, Jockenhövel (1991) discusses a small number of female graves that are outliers of these regional groups, located 50–200 kilometres from the main focus of the relevant ornament style. He argues that these ‘foreign women’ were exchanged in marriage to another community, but retained the dress style of their homeland. A problem with this argument is that it presupposes that dress styles passively reflect ‘culture groups’, and that such groups were geographically discrete and remained static over time. Fuzzy and overlapping distributions of ornament types might evidence a rather fluid conception of group identity in the Bronze Age, also reflected by the occurrence of burials that combine elements of ‘local’ and ‘foreign’ dress (Brather 2004). One can also question why non-local women are denied agency in Jockenhövel’s account—being seen as exchanged by others—while male mobility in the Bronze Age is typically seen in terms of travelling craft-workers, warriors, or chiefs (Bergerbrant 2007).

The Low Countries and Neighbouring Areas In complete contrast, recent assessment of the radiocarbon dating evidence from the Netherlands and Flanders has shown that the changes in settlement from around 1500/1400 BC corresponded with a dramatic reduction in barrow construction (Bourgeois and Arnoldussen 2006; Bourgeois and Fontijn 2008; Bourgeois 2013). Barrows that were built after this time tend to have an elongated form quite different from earlier monuments, echoing contemporary longhouses. The emphasis shifted to the reuse of existing barrows for cremation and inhumation burials. Grave goods are generally sparse or absent. A remarkable example of the reuse of an earlier burial site has recently been found at Geldermalsen–De Bogen. Here a crouched inhumation was interred around 1600–1400 BC, close to an earlier deposit of human remains from the Beaker period. Both lay within the area enclosed by a ring-ditch, though the chronological relationship of this monument to the burials is uncertain. Most notable of all are the postholes of a house dated to the same period, lying neatly within the ring-ditch and centred on the inhumation burial. It seems that either the house was built over the burial, or the burial was deliberately placed in the centre of the house, paralleling the Nordic ‘house barrows’ mentioned above (Bourgeois and Fontijn 2008). Recent fieldwork and routine

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

199

use of radiocarbon dating has also brought to light examples of flat cremation burials, either within settlements or apparently isolated, as at Tilburg–Surfplas Zuid. In the coastal and riverine areas of the Netherlands, where conditions of preservation are favourable, human skeletons and disarticulated bones are found in settlement features such as postholes, pits, and ditches (Arnoldussen 2008, 271–2), as for example at Tiel–Medel. In neighbouring areas of lowland north-west Germany, on the other hand, numerous barrows have been ascribed to this period (Herring 2009a), albeit mainly on the basis of typological arguments that may require reassessment in the light of the radiocarbon evidence from the Low Countries. These include large barrows surrounded by ring-ditches or post-rings, or approached by rows of posts, as happened at Münster–Handorf and Rheine–Altenrheine. Since chronologically diagnostic grave goods are largely lacking, construction during the early Bronze Age seems equally plausible. The one directly dated funerary structure from a recent excavation is much more modest. This is at Schatteburg, where a cremation dated to the fifteenth–fourteenth century BC was interred close to an earlier Bell Beaker grave. The burial was subsequently surrounded by a small post-ring. In Nord-Pas-de-Calais and Picardy it seems likely that, as in the Low Countries, only a few new barrows were constructed after 1500/1400 BC (Toron 2006; De Reu et al. 2012). The example at Argoeuves–Le Moulin d’Argoeuves contained a cremation in an urn of a kind known in southern England. More usually, emphasis was now on the reuse of existing monuments for both inhumation and cremation burial. This has been observed in earlier excavations at sites such as Waben–Le Sémaphore, where a cremation radiocarbon dated to about 1300–1200 BC was inserted into the fill of a partly siltedup ring-ditch (Desfossés 2000), and Coquelles–RN1 where an inhumation dated to 1450–1270 BC was placed in the fill of a ring-ditch within a cemetery established during the early Bronze Age (Bostyn et al. 1992). An unusual recent discovery is a group of flat cremations radiocarbon dated to around the fourteenth–thirteenth century BC at Maizy–Le Bois Gobert.

Britain and Ireland In lowland Britain, a number of older barrows were reused for cremation burials. Often groups of cremations formed flat cemeteries outside an existing barrow. Other mounds were entirely new constructions. The round barrows of this phase were small and inconspicuous and were often located within a few hundred metres of living sites, as at Stansted (Framework Archaeology 2008, fig. 4.6). Some examples in Wessex are distinguished from their predecessors because the quarry ditch was broken by a causeway providing access to the mound (Bradley and Fraser 2010). In southern England a common practice

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

200

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

was to cover the barrow and the cremations with a layer of flint, much of which had been flaked. A variant is found at the site of Kimpton in Wessex where the place of the mounds was taken by a sequence of circular cairns, which gradually coalesced to create a rubble platform (Dacre and Ellison 1981). Other cemeteries could be elaborated in a different way, and it seems likely that a few examples were made more visible by the erection of post-settings in the ditch. In size and layout these mounds are of similar dimensions to a roundhouse. In fact the position of the ‘entrance’ is comparable to that in a domestic dwelling and is often directed towards the south or south-east (Bradley 1998a). The connection between the living and dead was emphasized by the use of the same types of pottery in both these contexts. Human remains were also deposited inside the living area. The link with the domestic sphere is equally apparent from the burial rite. Although there are a few flexed inhumations and other finds of unburnt bone, most of the deposits are cremations. Some were in ceramic vessels and other human remains were in pits. In some cases only a token amount of bone was interred (Grogan 2004; Brück 2006). Grave goods were rare. The cremations were those of men, women, and children, and in certain cases the bones of more than one person were found in the same deposit. The burials were usually in groups, and only occasionally do their positions seem to have been marked. A single cemetery, or ‘urnfield’, might contain one or more clusters of burials, but it is not clear whether they belonged to separate households or other social units (Ellison 1980). A single cemetery might include several mounds, each associated with its own group, or groups, of cremations. Although some of these deposits were in pots, very few artefacts of other kinds are associated with these sites, and the ceramic vessels are indistinguishable from those used in the settlements. At Itford Hill on the South Downs, parts of the same vessel were found in a roundhouse and a nearby cemetery (Holden 1972). Where metalwork occurs on these sites, it consists of small objects or even fragments similar to the items associated with the dwellings. To judge from their distribution, they might be associated with a particular cluster of burials but not with one individual. Such cemeteries are a feature of southern England and the English Midlands and have few equivalents further to the north and west. That is probably because existing traditions of circular monuments associated with cremation burials were maintained or even renewed. In Ireland it even seems possible that the use of circular ditched enclosures for this purpose originated in the previous period and continued throughout much of the first millennium BC (McGarry 2009). Such monuments (ring barrows) made a direct reference to the past, for their external banks and internal ditches recall the layout of a henge.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

201

Most of the developments described so far happened in the south of England. In the north, and probably in Wales and Ireland, people took a different attitude to the past. In some cases older monuments were reused. They include small stone circles, a number of ring cairns and passage graves, henge monuments, and standing stones. The same interpretation may extend to the rows of monoliths in the north and west of Scotland. Many of the finds consist of burnt human bone, but there is a suggestion that certain of these places were employed as cremation pyres (Bradley 2011, 169–70). In Scotland ceramics and radiocarbon dates afford the best evidence, but the same pattern may extend to monuments in Wales and the north of England. Only the smaller Scottish monuments were reused. Larger constructions, including the main henges and stone circles, appear to have gone out of commission; where any activity did continue, it took place just outside them (Bradley 2011, 170). In a few instances, new structures possibly were built at this time, but in a style that referred to the buildings of an earlier period. The evidence is less clear-cut, but may apply to small circular or oval stone settings, the last henge monuments, and a few timber circles. How long this activity lasted and whether it extended into the first millennium BC is difficult to tell; the problem arises because the style of pottery associated with this phase had a long history. In north-east England a key site is Thwing on the Yorkshire Wolds, where a large circular enclosure similar in appearance to a henge may have been built at the end of this period or the very beginning of the first millennium BC (Manby et al. 2003, 70–8). In Northumberland, some of the henges in the Milfield Basin could have been reused at this time (Gibson 2002).

North-Western and Western France If the use of round barrows diminished in the Low Countries, parts of the British Isles, and the north of France, it continued across much of the northwest and west of France, both in the maritime regions and further inland. Many of these monuments have been levelled by the plough and are difficult to interpret or date. In Brittany and Normandy, it had been uncertain whether the early Bronze Age tradition of barrow burial continued into this period. Recent fieldwork has confirmed that monuments did continue to be built, although they were often smaller than earlier mounds, and grave goods were modest or absent. A further change was that cremation became increasingly common over time. For instance, the barrow at Saint-Martin-de-Fontenay–La Grande Chasse in lower Normandy was built to cover a central urn. In a second stage, another urn was placed in the mound and the earthwork was enlarged. At Courseullessur-Mer–La Fosse Touzé three small ring-ditches (3.5–8.75 m in diameter)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

202

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

were found, two of which were unusual in that the ditch contained a post-ring. One had a central urned cremation. These monuments are undated, but one of two satellite cremation burials has been radiocarbon dated to the fourteenth– twelfth centuries BC. Such mounds may not have been isolated. At Mondeville– ZI Sud, an example associated with three inhumation burials lay near the double enclosure considered earlier (Fig. 5.10; Chancerel et al. 2006b). A second example had actually been cut by its ditch. The enclosure at Mondeville–Étoile lay a few hundred metres from a contemporary ring-ditch cemetery, while each of the two settlements within the Tatihou field system lay 125–150 m from a ring-ditch, at least one of which is dated to this phase. In Brittany, Paule–Kergroas represents the first complete excavation of a barrow cemetery under modern conditions (Fily et al. 2012). A pair of mounds was found. Each was around 12 m in diameter in its initial phase and there was a primary inhumation in a log coffin. The mounds were later enlarged and further burials in stone cists added, one of which has been radiocarbon dated to the fifteenth–thirteenth centuries BC. Further south, along the Atlantic coastline, several ring-ditches have been investigated, but have only been broadly ascribed to the early or middle Bronze Age. Away from the coast, in the Paris Basin, there are few upstanding barrows. Recent fieldwork has however transformed our knowledge with the discovery of several cemeteries comprising flat burials or modestly sized monuments in the Seine and Yonne valleys south-east of Paris. The largest of these cemeteries is at Cesson–Plaine du Moulin à Vent where 170 cremation burials have been found, mostly without any visible monument. At the centre of the site were twenty small mounds, each with stone rings around their base and containing one to three burials. Most burials were unurned and grave goods were very scarce. Radiocarbon dates centre on the fifteenth–fourteenth centuries BC. Similar if smaller cemeteries of simple cremation graves have been found at sites such as Jaulnes–Le Bas de Hauts Champs. At Changis-sur-Marne–Les Pétreaux, two cremation burials lay a short distance from a house that may belong to this period. Inhumation burials also occur, as at Marolles-sur-Seine– La Croix de la Mission, where at least four interments—one within a ring ditch—were added to a cemetery founded in the early Bronze Age (Fig. 4.17). At Migennes–Le Petit Moulin in Yonne a cemetery with over fifty burials and three undated ring-ditches was divided into two discrete areas (Roscio 2009). In one zone cremation burials were dominant while inhumations were more common in the other. Grave goods were more abundant than in the Île-deFrance cemeteries, and included weapons and craft-working tools. Radiocarbon dates focus on the fourteenth–twelfth centuries BC. Fewer burials are known from Champagne-Ardenne and Lorraine, and most belong to the latter stages of the period (Koenig et al. 2012). Examples include Jâlons–La Grande Pâture in Marne, where a linear cemetery of five barrows aligned on a nearby river was founded around the seventeenth–

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

203

sixteenth centuries BC and reused around the fourteenth–thirteenth centuries BC. Two more monuments were built at this time, and cremation burials were added to existing monuments. In Alsace, the Haguenau Forest is known for its upstanding barrow cemeteries (Plouin 2007; Koenig et al. 2012), but none has been excavated in recent years.

The Dead: An Overview The previous sections have been of very different lengths. This not only represents the importance of mortuary monuments during this period, but also emphasizes the difficulties of investigating them. In some regions their construction was curtailed, but in others it resumed after an apparent hiatus and happened on a significantly increased scale. At the same time, there are areas in which mounds survive intact, and entire regions where they have been destroyed, leaving little but a quarry ditch behind. In one case they can be investigated by field survey; but, in the other, excavation provides the only source of information. In certain respects differences in the treatment of the dead observe the same regional distinctions as the settlements. The Danish evidence once more stands out, although it shows similar patterning to the round barrows of northern and north-eastern Germany. The distribution of these monuments conforms to a broader corridor of interaction defined by Kristiansen and Larsson (2005, fig. 96). To the south, it extends beyond the study area to the Tumulus Culture of central Europe. In Jutland it is clear that this period saw a considerable expansion in the construction of particularly massive barrows and longhouses; this is all the more striking because so few burial mounds had been constructed during the previous phase. Further to the south, domestic sites are less well known and it is unclear whether the distinctive relationship between barrow-building and the construction of longhouses observed in Jutland extended across a larger area. If barrow-building in Denmark resumed, in the Low Countries it seems to have diminished. In the Netherlands this observation is especially important because until recently it was assumed that the construction of burial mounds and houses ran in parallel. It is true that they are often found on the same sites, but new work has shown that these structures were not contemporary with one another. The round barrows were built during one phase, between 1800 and 1500 BC, and the first settlements appear between 1500 and 1100 BC. It means that the earthworks were created in a landscape in which domestic sites were inconspicuous and may have been occupied only briefly. This is the pattern that had typified much of the study area in the early Bronze Age. When substantial longhouses were built in the Netherlands they could be located close to these older mounds. The barrows might be reused for

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

204

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

cremation burials, but in this case these characteristic structures belong to different phases. In fact there is very little evidence that additional barrows were constructed whilst these settlements were occupied. That is the exact opposite of the situation in Denmark and it seems possible that the pattern identified in the Netherlands extended into Belgium and perhaps into northwest Germany. To some extent it corresponds to one of the traditions of domestic architecture defined in an earlier section of this chapter. The British evidence is different again. The construction of round barrows proceeded without the breaks identified at different times in Denmark and the Low Countries, but that is not to deny that they were affected by changes in the pattern of settlement. There was considerable diversity. Older barrows were reused for secondary burials and new mounds were constructed which were significantly smaller than their predecessors. Both groups of earthworks could be found together or might occur singly. At the same time, more cremation burials were placed in flat cemeteries, some of which were located outside existing round barrows, whilst others were apparently unmarked. Their numbers may have decreased during this period, to the extent that in lowland England very few burial mounds were constructed or used by the onset of the late Bronze Age. In some ways the English evidence differs from its counterpart in the Low Countries. In both areas round barrows are found close to settlement sites, but in the Netherlands these earthworks were already old when the longhouses were built. In lowland England there are cases in which earlier barrows were reused at this time, but also sites where mounds were newly constructed. In some cases they had similar proportions and ground plans to the dwellings of the same period and were associated with the same range of artefacts. That relationship is most apparent within the distribution of co-axial field systems. Further north and west, cremation burials were possibly more commonly associated with traditional forms of monument. The same applies to Ireland. It is difficult to say whether the cross-Channel connections illustrated by roundhouses and field systems extended to the treatment of the dead during this period. That is because so many monuments have been destroyed. On the other hand, there is sufficient evidence to show that round barrows were still being built in northern and western France and were less elaborate structures than their counterparts in parts of northern Europe. More important, they were associated with cremation burials, a few of which were in urns similar in style to those in southern England. At present it is impossible to say whether mortuary rites on either side of the Channel had more than that in common. Different parts of the study area again show distinctive regional patterning. To some extent this cuts across the broader zones defined by the settlements and artefacts of the same period. Connections across the southern North Sea are less clearly marked. Those between communities on either side of the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

205

Channel may be slightly stronger, although the available evidence is very limited. The treatment of the dead in northern England and Ireland had a distinctive character; this is consistent with the individual character of the local settlement pattern. It was only in Denmark and regions further to the south that more distinctive practices can be inferred. The areas over which they were adopted may not correspond to the distribution of any one kind of settlement. Some of these variations are easier to understand by comparing the grave goods of this period with the artefacts found in hoards and votive deposits.

T H E D EP O S I T I O N OF ME T A L W O R K The reduction in the building of barrows seems to be reflected in another sphere. So does the provision of grave goods. In different parts of the study area, the relationship between mortuary ritual and the deposition of artefacts changed. That is most apparent in northern Europe and the Low Countries where barrow burials are well known and well investigated. It is also true in the British Isles, but in other parts of the study area most funerary mounds have been destroyed. It remains to be seen whether similar developments affected these areas. In the Low Countries, the reduction of investment in funerary monuments and grave goods after 1500/1400 BC corresponds with a marked increase in metalwork deposition in the landscape; rivers and other wet places were often selected (Hendrix et al. 1996; Essink and Hielkema 1998; Fontijn 2002; De Mulder and Bourgeois 2011). Types of objects that previously had been associated with burials were deposited in watery places. New kinds of artefacts were excluded from graves and placed in rivers and hoards. Fontijn’s (2007) study of deposits from the southern Netherlands showed that, while simple objects such as sickles and local ornaments were sometimes discarded in settlements, spear-heads and axes are more common in or close to streams and marshes. Most swords and foreign ornaments were placed in major rivers. While some of these practices were already occurring before 1500 BC, a key change is the evidence for repeated deposition at particular locations. The same is true in Belgium where the hafts of a series of bronze artefacts have been radiocarbon dated. The earliest finds from Flemish rivers appear about 1500 BC and others were deposited during the late Bronze Age and early Iron Age (Hendrix et al. 1996). Although most of the evidence from the Low Countries comes from old finds, recent development-led fieldwork has provided important new information on the depositional context of metal objects. At Baexem–Haelensche Beek, for example, an axe was placed at the base of a small pit close to a stream. The most interesting case is Nijmegen–Waalsprong,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

206

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

where a dagger typologically dated to around the sixteenth century BC was found at the edge of a palaeochannel (Fig. 5.13). It lay close to an extensive layer of charcoal, burnt clay, and broken stones that ran down to the water’s edge, and a rectangular pit with a pavement of burnt cobbles. The excavators compare this to the burnt mounds found in Britain and Ireland. Beneath the burnt layer were the foundation trenches of two circular buildings or screens. The association between metal deposition and structures of this kind recalls contemporary practices in Britain. A similar process is apparent in Germany and Denmark. While graves were favoured for the deposition of metalwork, the placing of hoards and single bronze artefacts in the wider landscape seems to have become increasingly common. The process began about 1500 BC and intensified from 1300 BC. By the period discussed in Chapter 6, grave goods were largely replaced by hoards or water finds. Artefacts from bogs and rivers again feature strongly. Thus fine objects such as swords and large dress pins were repeatedly placed in certain stretches of the Rhine (Fig. 5.14; Sperber 2001; 2006), while the River Guden in midJutland was used for the deposition of weaponry throughout the Bronze Age

Fig. 5.13. Ritual site, Nijmegen–Waalsprong, southern Netherlands. Information from van den Broeke and Ball 2012.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

207

30%

20%

10%

15 0

0

0

30

45

0 60

0 75

0

0

90

0

10 5

0

12 0

0

13 5

0

15 0

0

16 5

0

18 0

19 5

21 00

0% BC

Fig. 5.14. Deposition of metal artefacts in the Rhine at Roxheim, western Germany, during the Bronze Age and Iron Age. Information from Sperber 2006.

(Frost 2010). One of the most impressive metal artefacts from the region is the Schifferstadt gold ‘hat’, found with three bronze axes in the nineteenth century on a terrace island in a river valley, surrounded on three sides by wet ground. Recent excavation has shown that the find spot lay adjacent to a ‘culture layer’ containing pottery and animal bone, extending along the edge of the island. While very little fine metalwork had been found in settlements, a bronze hoard was placed within a large longhouse at Store Tyrrestrup in Jutland (Nilsson 1996). While the hoard and house date to broadly the same period, their precise chronological relationship is uncertain. The British and Irish evidence is different again, and river finds have sometimes been studied separately from those in metalwork hoards. Again a striking change has been observed at about 1600/1500 BC. Although round barrows continued to be used and new ones were still built, they are rarely associated with metalwork. At about the same time the number of artefacts deposited in watery environments grew dramatically (Bradley 1998b; Becker 2013). Not only did finds from water increase in frequency as the provision of grave goods ended, this development involved a greater consumption of metalwork. The weapons of the middle Bronze Age required considerably more raw material than earlier daggers (Bradley 1998b, fig. 20). Moreover, the deposition of weapons in watery locations happened in regions where burials in round barrows had never played a prominent role: the lower and middle Thames, the Trent, and the Shannon.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

208

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

Whether all these deposits of weapons should be regarded as funeral offerings remains unclear. Like those in other regions of the study area, they could have been gifts to the dead that were excluded from cemeteries. The same period also saw a new integration of watery environments into the pattern of settlement. There are finds of Bronze Age log boats close to the deposits of weapons, and it seems likely that some of these vessels had been deliberately sunk (Gibson et al. 2012). There were also the first wooden bridges; trackways and causeways were constructed leading into marginal environments; and there is evidence that timber platforms were built in areas of wetland. All these structures saw the deposition of metalwork, but it is by no means clear whether that was their only purpose (Brunning 2013, 146–50). A connection with mortuary practices remains plausible but entirely unproven. A new study of the metalwork from the Fenland in eastern England has features in common with Fontijn’s analysis of patterns of deposition in the southern Netherlands (Yates and Bradley 2010a). Again bronze artefacts are not common in excavated settlements, although they can be discovered just outside them. Fragmentary tools, weapons, and ornaments occur as hoards or single finds, sometimes in the vicinity of mounds of fire-cracked flint. They are associated with dry ground but are usually close to streams, rivers, or pools. A second group of hoards consists of intact objects that are associated with bogs or areas of still water. They may contain sets of personal ornaments that are rarely found anywhere else. Unbroken weapons, on the other hand, are commonest in the principal river channels. They can also be found beside causeways leading through the wetland. Tools and ornaments may also be found in those places. For many years it was customary to treat the artefacts found on dry land in a different way from the river finds. To some extent this was because these collections had different contents. The majority consisted of either tools or ornaments, but there were others in which these artefacts were buried together with weapons. A systematic study of hoard find-spots in south-east England suggests that once again their deposition followed certain conventions (Yates and Bradley 2010b). Like the finds of weaponry, they were commonly associated with water. In this case they were buried close to rivers, streams, and springs, but normally in dry ground. There was a preference for local eminences overlooking water sources or confluences where streams or rivers met. These sites were often beside tributaries rather than the major rivers and were usually associated with the edges of freshwater channels. They shared this characteristic with a number of burnt mounds, and both the hoards and deposits of fire-cracked flint could be close together. Occasionally there were cremation burials, too. These observations have a wider application. They suggest that in Britain most of the metalwork of this period was deposited according to strict norms.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

209

The usual definition of a hoard is that it consists of a specific combination of metal types that were buried together on a single occasion. The British evidence suggests a rider, for there was also a link between the composition of these collections and the places in which it was considered appropriate to deposit them. In Britain and Ireland the same rules were observed during the late Bronze Age (Becker 2013). Less can be said about the deposition of metalwork in France. This is for two reasons. Until comparatively recently it was not a subject that had aroused much interest and collections of bronze artefacts were explained in anecdotal terms. At the same time, metal-detecting is illegal in the country, meaning that few hoards can be recorded by archaeologists whilst the artefacts remain in the ground. Nevertheless, it is clear that metalwork deposition increased in this period (Gabillot 2003), and there have been some informative individual discoveries in recent years. Perhaps the most useful is a hoard found in an evaluation at Lannilis–Keravel in Brittany. The hoard was recovered towards the bottom of a south-facing slope, approximately 20 m from a river. The finds comprised a decorated spear-head, pieces of a flanged axe, and a fragment of a large Breton palstave that can be dated to the fifteenth century BC. The location of this hoard so close to a river recalls collections of the same date in England that are interpreted as votive deposits.

Summary This material is more difficult to discuss because the interpretation of similar finds has followed regional traditions. Scholars working in northern Europe have always been prepared to envisage the practice of votive deposition. To some extent that is because they are influenced by early literary sources that tell of the purposeful destruction of wealth. German scholars have formed a similar opinion but for a different reason. They have studied the artefacts themselves in detail and concluded that the condition and associations of many of these objects are incompatible with an entirely mundane interpretation. Until the later twentieth century opinion in Britain and France was more diverse and researchers had often proposed essentially anecdotal explanations for these collections of artefacts: concealment in times of crisis, stores of valuable raw material waiting to be recycled, the results of battles at fords, or the cargoes of overturning boats. More recently they have shown a greater willingness to countenance a similar interpretation to their colleagues in other countries. Problems still remain. It is easier to suggest that these deposits were intended as deliberate offerings than it is to define the occasions on which that happened, and it would be wrong to suppose that only one explanation will suffice. For example, the tool hoards of this date may have been deposited

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

210

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

by the people responsible for working bronze. As the anthropologist Mary Helms has suggested, they may represent a fraction of the metal that had to be returned to the earth when the raw material was transformed (Helms 2009). That might however have nothing to do with mortuary ritual; certainly the main items found in the tool hoards—axes and sickles—rarely appeared in earlier graves. Nor were all these hoards found in the same areas as the river finds. What was true of tools such as axes or sickles need not apply to personal ornaments which might be deposited in isolated locations or in bogs. Few collections of metalwork of any kind have been found with human bones. If their deposition took place during mortuary rituals, they must have been separated from the body before it was cremated, as comparatively few of them were burnt. It would be wrong to insist on one interpretation. The most that can be said with any confidence is that where metalwork was no longer buried in the grave—or where barrow-building was going out of fashion—bronze artefacts, especially weapons, were deposited in watery locations. This happened mainly in western Europe. Offerings of other kinds were made on dry land close to rivers, streams, and springs. Where older mortuary rituals retained their importance, as was the case in the north, metalwork was still buried with the dead and this practice did not change until the late Bronze Age. To that extent deposits of fine metalwork observe the same regional distinctions as the construction of mortuary monuments.

A NEW ATTACHMENT TO PLACE The evidence considered in this chapter is extremely varied and much of it comes from a few intensively researched parts of the study area. In other regions so little information is available that it is by no means clear whether the same processes happened there. The relationship between settlements, field systems, enclosures, burials, and hoards has already been considered. So have the broad regional alignments present in the archaeology of this phase. Some developed out of existing networks, like the links between Jutland, northern Germany, and central Europe, or those between the communities who lived on both sides of the Channel. Others were largely new, for instance the very different histories of burial mounds between separate parts of the study area, or the changing relationship between votive deposits and grave goods between one local tradition and another. What is more apparent is a new attachment to place that cuts across nearly all these regional distinctions. To a certain extent that was achieved by

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

211

monumental architecture during earlier periods, but there is little to suggest that older settlements were equally stable; indeed, there is circumstantial evidence that implies a considerable degree of mobility. As so often, the prehistory of Jutland provides the exception that proves the rule. In other regions, it was during the period between 1600 and 1100 BC that changes first occurred. Only then were houses built to last and this may have been the first time that they were replaced on a regular basis. In some cases their relocation may have been constrained by the existence of land divisions of the kinds found in the Netherlands, northern France, and southern Britain. These boundaries sometimes incorporated the remains of older burial mounds, but the fact that their construction required so much effort suggests that they were occupied over significant periods of time. Not only were the houses and fields fixed at specific places in the landscape, so too were agricultural facilities of kinds that were rare or absent during earlier periods. They include specialized structures for storing crops and fodder above ground, together with ponds and water-holes. It is not clear how often such settlements lay near to the burials of the dead, although a few of the houses produce finds of human remains. In the Low Countries the new structures were sometimes paired with older round barrows. The same happened in England, but in this case new monuments were built nearby, and both burials and domestic buildings were associated with similar kinds of artefacts. It is not clear whether the same pattern could have extended to northern France where the evidence is even more limited. If certain types of objects—ceramic vessels and small items of metalwork— were shared between cemeteries and settlements in England, others obviously were excluded. That applies to the more elaborate weapons and ornaments which are commonly found in rivers, bogs, or lakes. It is also true of the tools, in particular axes, which are most frequent in hoards on dry land. Most discussions of such finds have been based on the artefacts themselves, their treatment, associations, and configuration in the ground. In many parts of the study area it is virtually all the information that is available, but, where particular landscapes have been investigated in more detail, as they have in the south of England and the southern Netherlands, it seems as if their placing was guided by certain conventions. One factor was distance from the settlement—in the Dutch example the most complex artefacts were further away than the simpler ones—but another common element was proximity to fresh water. These features are so consistent that metal detectorists in Britain have used them to work out where collections of bronze objects will be discovered. Again it seems as if the use of the landscape, even for ritual deposits, was increasingly constrained. What is fascinating is that at the same time there is evidence for the sharing of certain artefacts, technologies, and beliefs across enormous areas. Those

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

212

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

larger regions included land on opposite shores of the Channel and the southern North Sea. It was a very different social geography from that of the previous phase, and its characteristic features appear in still sharper focus in the period that followed. The late Bronze Age and early Iron Age are considered in Chapter 6.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

6 The Expansion of Settlement (1100–250 BC) I N T R O D U C TI O N The previous chapter addressed an important period of change, but this would not have been apparent to the scholars who devised the Three Age Model. The most important developments between 1600 and 1100 BC were most clearly evidenced in the ancient landscape and registered to a smaller extent by the metalwork finds on which the traditional scheme depends. The same is true of the evidence considered in this chapter, for it cuts across the conventional distinction between the Bronze and Iron Ages. It begins in a period when bronze was still the main metal, but also considers a time when a new kind of raw material was employed. Similarly, it ends part way through the phase usually characterized as ‘Iron Age’, so that the drastic economic and political transformations that communities experienced in the late first millennium BC can be considered separately. These provide the subject of Chapter 7. By the late Bronze Age, evidence for settlements and houses is fairly abundant, and some sparsely used parts of the landscape were occupied for the first time (Fig. 6.1). This expansion—which continued into the Iron Age— is associated with new agricultural techniques and a wider range of crops. The nature of settlements suggests an emphasis on small household groups as the basic unit of society. New kinds of focal sites also appeared, which may have been used for assemblies and public ceremony. They include hillforts in upland regions, while other communal centres may have played the same role in lowland areas. Meanwhile, the trend towards less elaborate burial practices that had begun during the middle Bronze Age spread increasingly widely. Investment in funerary monuments was generally modest, and mortuary rituals displayed social distinctions in relatively subtle ways. While prestige objects were rarely placed with the dead, the deposition of metalwork in rivers and other places in the landscape increased. These metal artefacts have provided the basis for studies of long-distance interaction, and their

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

214

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

Fig. 6.1. Sites recorded in the database and for the Prehistory of Britain and Ireland project, 1200/1100–800 BC.

styles have been used to define three geographically extensive traditions, in Atlantic, Nordic, and central Europe. Other ritual practices that developed during this time involved feasting and cooking. While there was much continuity into the early Iron Age, there were some significant changes after 800 BC. Long-distance exchange networks underwent major disruption. In most areas there was a radical reduction in metalwork deposition, and the large regional blocs defined by late Bronze Age artefacts broke down. Long-distance contacts continued and supra-regional identities did become important at certain times and places, but elsewhere there was a greater emphasis on local craft traditions and beliefs. Regional differences in

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

215

treatment of the dead also became more obvious. In some cases, burial practices provided a focus for the display of status, but, in others, the dead seem entirely anonymous. From the mid-first millennium BC, there are signs that the landscape was becoming increasingly ‘full’ (Fig. 6.2), with growing evidence for settlement agglomeration and land division. There are signs of more intensive production of iron and other goods. After 250 BC, these developments became more widespread and strongly expressed, and influence from the Mediterranean increasingly became a factor.

Fig. 6.2. Sites recorded in the database and for the Prehistory of Britain and Ireland project, 800–250 BC.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

216

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

S E T TL E M EN T The first millennium BC was marked by dramatic increases in the density of known settlements across Continental north-west Europe, as well as much of Britain. The peak in settlement numbers was reached at varying times in different regions. Data from recent excavations suggest a maximum around the sixth century BC in the southern Netherlands and much of western and north-western Germany, and between the fifth to the early third centuries BC in Belgium, the rest of the Netherlands and Jutland (Fig. 1.7). In the northern half of France, a study of 700 Iron Age settlements across nine regions (Malrain et al. 2013) shows a consistent peak in settlement numbers around 500 BC, after which numbers fell back, before once again climbing rapidly after 250 BC to their late Iron Age maximum (see Fig. 7.3 below). While issues of archaeological visibility and site size and longevity all play a role here, it is clear that this was a time of significant demographic growth. Environmental evidence from much of north-west Europe supports the picture of more intensive settlement and land use. In particular, pollen studies show that landscapes were increasingly clear of tree cover (e.g. Dark 2006; MeurersBalke and Kalis 2006; Leroyer et al. 2009; Blancquaert et al. 2012, 236–8). At the same time, some landscapes that had been little used before were colonized for settlement, such as the Argonne uplands of north-eastern France, settled during the late Bronze Age (Vanmoerkerke 2009). Colonization could be a lengthy process, as shown by recent fieldwork in the coastal marshes between the IJsselmeer and Elbe. Parts of this area were occupied as early as the tenth–ninth centuries BC, as at Rodenkirchen in Lower Saxony where a small settlement was established on the bank of a tidal channel. In the marshes of the northern Netherlands, settlements did not appear until several centuries later. At Groningen–Eemspoort, the marsh seems to have been initially used as summer pasture during the earliest Iron Age, before the higher levées were colonized for settlement around the sixth–fifth centuries BC. This pioneer settlement may have been occupied only seasonally. From at least the fifth century BC onwards, permanently occupied settlements began to be built in the marshes on raised mounds (Dutch terp, German Wurt), some of which continued in use into the Middle Ages (Boersma 2005; Strahl 2010). Not all regions followed the general pattern. In parts of northern and western Britain, relatively few settlements of this period have been found. Many sites in north-west England in particular lack pottery or other diagnostic artefacts, making them difficult to identify. In Ireland, where pottery is entirely absent after c.800 BC, the problem is even more acute. Until recently, virtually no Irish Iron Age settlements were known, although a number have now been found in development-led excavations, thanks to the routine application of radiocarbon dating. Nonetheless, despite the massive increase in fieldwork the numbers remain far lower than for the late Bronze Age, and most of those that

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

217

have been found date to after c.400 BC (Becker et al. 2008; Corlett and Potterton 2012). The issue may not simply be one of site visibility, as pollen evidence suggests a decline in human activity in at least some parts of Ireland around the sixth to fourth centuries BC (McDermott et al. 2009). Settlement forms varied widely across north-west Europe (Fig. 6.3). From northern France and the southern Low Countries to western Germany, clusters of fairly small rectangular timber buildings are typical, although larger structures do occur on some sites (e.g. Haselgrove 2007a, fig. 3). Small sunken structures (Grubenhäuser) are found on many German sites, and may have been used for craft-work. In Britain and Ireland, by contrast, roundhouses

Fig. 6.3. Predominant house types in the late Bronze Age and Iron Age.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

218

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

continued to dominate. They are also now known from a number of late Bronze Age and Iron Age settlements across the Channel in maritime northern France, from the Loire to Nord-Pas-de-Calais, continuing the pattern of the middle Bronze Age. Often these are found alongside rectangular buildings, but in Lower Normandy larger groups of late Bronze Age roundhouses have been excavated at sites such as Cahagnes (Jahier 2005) and Malleville-sur-leBec (Fig. 6.4). On the North European Plain, longhouses were typical. In contrast to the large buildings of the middle Bronze Age, those of the late

Fig. 6.4. Malleville-sur-le-Bec–Buisson du Roui, Lower Normandy. Late Bronze Age landscape, with ringwork, open roundhouse settlement, and cemetery of flat cremation burials grouped around five ring-ditches. Information from Mare and Le Goff 2006.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

219

Bronze Age and pre-Roman Iron Age tended to be smaller and simpler. They usually had two rooms; the main dwelling area was at the western end, while the east end was normally used to shelter livestock. The reduction in house size suggests changed residence patterns, possibly a shift from extended to nuclear family units (Fokkens 1997). During the late Bronze Age and early Iron Age (1100–500 BC), most of the settlements in Continental north-west Europe were unenclosed. Many were rather small and were probably either single household units or hamlets consisting of a few households. Some larger agglomerations that might be ‘villages’ do occur—such as Sainte-Croix-en-Plaine or Sierentz–ZAC Hoell in Alsace, the first of late Bronze Age date, the second occupied in Hallstatt D3 (Fig. 6.5; Malrain et al. 2013, fig. 19)—but it is difficult to tell how many dwellings were contemporary with one another. In the longhouse regions of Northern Europe, the pattern established in the previous period apparently continued. Settlement was dominated by dispersed farmsteads or small groups of buildings, which shifted their positions over time. Gerritsen’s influential model for the southern Netherlands suggests that they were normally occupied for no more than a generation or so, being replaced by new dwellings not far away (Gerritsen 2003). Cemeteries, on the other hand, were often large and longer-lived, providing focal points for communities distributed across the local landscape. This pattern is exemplified by the area around Weert, where large-scale excavations have uncovered at least eight late Bronze Age and/or early Iron Age settlements within a onekilometre radius of a large cemetery. A pattern of more stable settlement developed after 500 BC, corresponding with the abandonment of collective burial grounds. How widely this specific model of single-generation houses can be applied in the Low Countries is open to question (Arnoldussen 2009; van Beek 2009), and longer term continuity of place can certainly be seen in some areas. In Drenthe in the north-eastern Netherlands, for example, late Bronze Age houses at sites such as Angelslo–Emmerhout were repeatedly rebuilt and extended on the same plot, a pattern that began in the middle Bronze Age but had ended by the beginning of the Iron Age (Kooi 2008). North-west Germany and Jutland have not been studied in the same detail. It is clear that unenclosed farms were the main form of settlement, although a few sites can be described as small villages (Webley 2008). ‘Wandering’ settlements characterize other parts of north-west Europe at this time. For the loess district of the Rhineland, Simons (1989) has proposed a very similar model of small, periodically shifting sites. Similarly, shifting settlements occur in the Paris Basin and north-eastern France, although certain sites were enclosed (Haselgrove 2007a). A diverse picture of open and enclosed settlements can also be seen in Britain and Ireland. Some were short-lived, while others show several phases of rebuilding (Brück 2007). The dominance of open, shifting hamlets in parts of eastern England is especially

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

220

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

Fig. 6.5. Top: Sainte-Croix-en-Plaine–Holzackerfeld, Alsace. Late Bronze Age settlement. Bottom: Sierentz–ZAC Hoell, Alsace. Settlement of the late sixth/early fifth centuries BC. Information from Landolt et al. 2010a; Malrain et al. 2013.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

221

notable, as this resonates with the situation on the other side of the North Sea. This contrasts with Wessex in the early to middle Iron Age, where enclosures are more common and many sites show longer sequences of occupation (Hill 1999), as also seen in north-west France, especially Brittany (Blancquaert et al. 2012), and in south-east Scotland (Haselgrove 2009). While settlement patterns in the late Bronze Age and earlier Iron Age share recurring features across much of north-west Europe, the underlying dynamics remain difficult to grasp. The notion of ‘shifting’ or ‘wandering’ settlement may disguise quite different rhythms of occupation and abandonment that cannot always be discerned due to the imprecise dating of most domestic buildings. In the eastern Paris Basin, for example, three different types of settlement are found in the same areas in the sixth and fifth centuries BC; the first were probably occupied seasonally; the second for a generation or two, after which the inhabitants moved to an adjacent site; the third for a more prolonged period, but probably still not much more than a century (Haselgrove 2007a, 410–11). The latter group of settlements also displays more evidence of a structured layout and internal subdivisions, but what their relationship was—if any—to the settlements of the second group is unclear. In most regions, the archaeology is much less susceptible to such characterization. Against this background of ‘ordinary’ agrarian settlements, first the late Bronze Age and then the Iron Age saw the emergence of new kinds of site that may have had a special role or status. In some areas, the result was a more diverse and perhaps more hierarchical settlement pattern than in the previous phase. The new sites included hillforts, which are discussed below. In eastern Britain, circular ringworks were constructed in the tenth–ninth centuries BC. Many were fairly small, with room for one or a few roundhouses, while others were conceived on a larger scale (Fig 6.6). A number were accompanied by larger open settlements and at sites such as Thwing in north-east England the earthwork enclosed a large circular building (Manby et al. 2003). A few ringworks, such as Springfield Lyons (Brown and Medlycott 2013), Rams Hill (Bradley and Ellison 1975), and Thwing itself, were enclosed by timberframed ramparts of the kind found at hillforts of the same period. Rather similar enclosures have been identified along the east coast of Ireland, where they vary in scale from small, enclosed roundhouses such as those at Lough Gur (Grogan and Eogan 1987) to multivallate constructions such as Rathgall with its wide range of imports from Continental Europe (Raftery 1994; Becker 2010). Sites on timber platforms, crannogs, or natural islands also appeared in Britain and Ireland. These include the spectacularly well-preserved platform at Must Farm in the East Anglian Fenlands, which was destroyed by fire in the ninth century BC (Knight 2009). They can perhaps be seen as analogous to the ringworks, since surrounding a site with a rampart or with water were both

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

222

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

Fig. 6.6. Late Bronze Age ringworks from Britain (top), northern France, and Ireland (centre), and comparable enclosures from Germany and Jutland (bottom). Information from Guttmann and Last 2000; Manby et al. 2003; Mare and Le Goff 2006; Nebelsick 2007; Becker 2010; Geilenbrügge and Schürmann 2010; Marcigny et al. 2010b; Giazzon 2012b; Larsen 2012; 2013; Brown and Medlycott 2013.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

223

ways of marking it as distinct. Extensive midden sites are a further element of the settlement record at the late Bronze Age to early Iron Age transition (see below). The ringworks, water-surrounded sites, and middens all tend to yield a wider range of artefact types than other settlements, and, in particular, they were often associated with metalworking and deposits of distinctive objects. As Brück (2007) has argued, such distinctions between sites suggest an increasing concern to define different categories of person. Similar developments may have occurred in parts of Continental northwest Europe. Ringworks like those in south-east England have been excavated in Lower Normandy at Cagny (Marcigny et al. 2010b), Mathieu (Giazzon 2012b), and Malleville-sur-le-Bec (Fig. 6.6), with further examples suggested by aerial photography on the Caen plain and in the Somme valley (Marcigny and Talon 2009). The ringwork at Malleville-sur-le-Bec lay at the edge of a large group of late Bronze Age roundhouses, and a short distance from a contemporary cemetery (Fig. 6.4). As at some British ringworks, deliberate deposits were placed in the enclosure ditch on either side of the entrances, in this case consisting of dumps of pottery and charcoal. The Mathieu ringwork was defined by a ditch on the southern side of the circuit and a palisade on the northern side. There was much evidence for bronze casting, including sword moulds. In Brittany, a more irregular enclosure at Lamballe–Tourelle has been linked by its excavators to the ringwork phenomenon. The site contained a roundhouse and overlooked a river valley where a bronze hoard has been found. In the Paris Basin, fortified enclosures are found at river confluences (Peake et al. 2011, 327). At Villiers-sur-Seine, dating to the ninth–eighth centuries BC, an area of 2 hectares was enclosed in its final phase by a double rampart, surrounding two large rectangular buildings and many storage pits. A diverse range of artefacts and an unusual faunal assemblage dominated by wild species further distinguishes the site. Small late Bronze Age enclosures possibly with a special role have been found further afield. At Inden–Altdorf in the Rhineland, two subcircular palisaded enclosures dated to 1000–800 BC have been discovered about 300 m apart beside a palaeochannel of the River Inde (Fig. 6.6). Each contained an unusually large house and a few smaller buildings. A further 300 m to the north was an unenclosed settlement with nine large houses arranged in a row. A series of metalwork deposits were found close to these settlements (see below). Settlement enclosures are very rare in the longhouse regions of the North European Plain, although an oval palisaded enclosure has now been found at Løgstrup in Jutland. It contained a small group of buildings and much metalworking debris. The site lay close to a so-called ‘gathering place’. Circular concentric ditched enclosures have also been found outside the study area at sites such as Schkölen and Preußlitz in eastern Germany, both of which date between 1000 and 800 BC and were associated with metalwork deposits (Nebelsick 2007). While superficially similar to the ringworks of Britain and

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

224

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

Normandy, there may be no direct connection between them, as a broad tradition of ‘roundel’-type enclosures can be traced back to the Neolithic in eastern Germany. By 800 BC or a little later, this horizon of ‘special’ enclosures was over. Recognizing distinctions between settlements during the earlier pre-Roman Iron Age is difficult in many parts of north-west Europe. In the eastern Paris Basin, however, in addition to different types of unenclosed nuclei (above), recent excavation has revealed a number of settlements dated to the eighth– fifth centuries BC that were bounded by or incorporated palisaded enclosures (Fig. 6.7). Some had aggrandized gateways—as at Bazancourt/Pomacle—and others contained larger than average houses. These have been claimed to be

Fig. 6.7. Early Iron Age palisaded enclosures in Champagne. Information from Haselgrove 2007a.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

225

high-status residences, though this is open to question (Haselgrove 2007a; Desbrosse and Riquier 2012). At Beaurieux, several palisaded enclosures occur in close proximity beside the Aisne, perhaps implying a link with the exploitation of the river terrace for pastoral agriculture. Other examples of investment in monumental architecture can be seen in southern England, where a number of very large roundhouses were built during the eighth–sixth centuries BC. In some cases these buildings received special treatment when they were abandoned. For instance at Longbridge Deverill Cow Down, three successive houses were burned down and artefacts were placed in the postsockets (Hawkes 2012). It has been claimed that these were the homes of an elite, although a communal role also seems possible (Webley 2007a). Changes took place in some areas from around 500 BC onwards, foreshadowing the developments of the late Iron Age explored in Chapter 7. In many parts of northern France and southern Britain, settlements were increasingly associated with ditched enclosures. The earthworks can be quite impressive, and perhaps had a defensive aspect, leading Karl (2007) to regard them as the homes of an elite. Examples include Courseulles-sur-Mer in Lower Normandy, where a large roundhouse and several rectangular buildings dating to the fifth century BC occupied a ditched enclosure with a monumental gateway (Fig. 6.8). At Paule–Saint-Symphorien in Brittany a late-sixth to fourth century BC enclosure with a massive house developed into a major centre in the late Iron Age (Menez and Arramond 1997; Menez 2012). Otherwise there are few contrasts among the sizes of dwellings, artefact types, or the range of activities attested at different settlements of this period. Links between Brittany and south-west Britain are apparent in the kind of coastal enclosures known as ‘cliff castles’ (Arbousse Bastide 2000). Such links are also implied by the appearance of souterrains—underground chambers used for storage and other purposes—in settlements in Brittany, Lower Normandy, and Cornwall (Fig. 6.9). A further development across much of southern and eastern Britain, northern France, and western Germany is the use of large storage pits in greater numbers than before. Dense clusters of these pits occur in some settlements and hillforts, and in the Aisne valley such clusters can also be found in apparent isolation (Gransar 2002; Haselgrove 2007a). Communal storage of grain or seed corn offers a possible explanation. After their use, storage pits often became foci for ritualized deposits such as human remains, animal carcasses, or layers of charred grain (Cunliffe 1992; Hill 1995a; Baray and Boulestin 2010; Zech-Matterne 2011). Change is less apparent in other regions. In Ireland, the few settlements known from the mid-first millennium BC are unenclosed and ephemeral (Corlett and Potterton 2012). In the longhouse areas of Northern Europe, open farmsteads remained the principal kind of occupation site, but more stable and less dispersed settlement can be identified at some sites in the southern Netherlands (Gerritsen 2003). More radical changes occurred from

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

226

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

Fig. 6.8. Enclosed settlement with roundhouse and rectangular buildings, sixth–fifth century BC, Courseulles-sur-Mer–La Fosse Touzé, Lower Normandy. Information from Jahier 2011.

the fifth/fourth century BC onwards in parts of north Jutland, where small villages appeared. Some of these sites were soon abandoned, but others such as Nørre Tranders remained in use into the early centuries AD, and individual houses were repeatedly rebuilt on the same plots. The resulting build-up of culture layers created mounds that formed a visible expression of long-term attachment to place (Webley 2008). The site at Borremose in north Jutland, dating to the fourth to second century BC, stands out as different, as it was not only located on a small island in a bog, but also surrounded by a moat. The defensive value of the moat is questionable, but might indicate a special role

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

227

Fig. 6.9. Main distributions of three different kinds of storage structures at Iron Age sites.

for this site, as the surrounding bogs were a focus for ritual deposits throughout later prehistory (Martens 1994).

HILLFORTS Hillforts with earth, timber, or stone ramparts were built during the late Bronze Age and Iron Age across a swathe of north-west Europe stretching

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

228

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

from mid-Germany through northern France and the Belgian Ardennes to Britain (Fig. 6.10). During the late Bronze Age they were also used in Ireland. The concept was adopted later than in central Europe, where the use of fortified hill-top sites goes back to the early Bronze Age. A key problem in understanding these sites is that relatively few have been extensively excavated under modern conditions; this is particularly acute in France. There is, however, enough evidence to show that hillforts were not a single class of site—their roles varied over time and across the region studied here. Some of the earliest hillforts have produced only sparse traces of occupation, but others seem to have been foci for specialized craft-work and ritual

Fig. 6.10. Main distribution of hillforts during the Iron Age.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

229

practices. In Ireland, late Bronze Age sites such as Dún Aonghasa were associated with the manufacture of bronze weaponry (Cotter 2012). At Haughey’s Fort, an artificial pool outside the defences at the base of the hill contained mould fragments for making swords, along with animal bones and a human skull (Mallory 1995). In northern France, hillforts at Boulancourt and Fort Harrouard were associated with metalworking and imported artefacts, forming a counterpart to the contemporary riverside enclosures discussed above (Peake et al. 2011, 327). Some of the best evidence is from the Hünenburg near Watenstedt in Lower Saxony, where new work has shed light on the use of the landscape around the hillfort (Fig. 6.11). The defences show a complex construction sequence, beginning in the thirteenth/twelfth centuries BC and continuing into the earliest Iron

Fig. 6.11. Late Bronze Age landscape around the hillfort at Watenstedt–Hünenburg, Lower Saxony. Information from Heske et al. 2012.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

230

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

Age. Little of the interior has been explored, but directly beneath the hillfort was a contemporary settlement extending over at least 5.5 hectares, with houses, storage pits, and much debris from bronze-working. This included the manufacture of elaborate objects such as cast vessels and swords. Ritual activity is shown by deposits of human remains, some with cut-marks or other evidence of deliberate manipulation. Metalwork deposits are also known nearby, including a pair of hoards found 500 m away in a palaeochannel close to a series of parallel rows of cooking pits. A cast bronze vessel from one of these hoards exactly matches a mould from the settlement. A contemporary cemetery with some unusual non-local ornaments is also known 750 m away at Beierstedt. Based on the evidence from its surrounding landscape, the Hünenburg has been interpreted as a centre of political power, specialist craft-production, and ritual. In many areas the use of hillforts declined after 800 BC, although some new sites were founded around this time. A new wave of hillfort construction followed in the sixth to fifth centuries BC. This involved large areas of Britain and the Continent, but not Ireland (Becker 2012). The traditional image of the late Hallstatt period is dominated by the major fortified hill-top sites at the fringes of the study area in south-west Germany, eastern France, and Switzerland (Krausse 2008; 2010; Brun and Chaume 2013). The presence of rich burials with Mediterranean imports in the immediate hinterland has led to the labelling of these sites as Fürstensitze or ‘princely seats’. Many were densely occupied and had extramural settlements. The combination of an upper ‘acropolis’ and a lower ‘town’ has long suggested analogies with contemporary sites in Italy and Greece, and it is now clear that the largest sites were not so very different in scale or complexity from many Classical cities of the day, a point that boundaries between the disciplines have done much to obscure. Unlike their counterparts in the south, the heyday of these late Hallstatt centres was brief, in most cases no longer than two or three generations. New research programmes at some of the best-known sites have shed much needed new light on their organization and setting in the wider landscape, as well as revealing both differences in their character and histories and some recurring patterns. The Heuneburg in south-west Germany is famous for its mud-brick wall inspired by Mediterranean prototypes, but this was just one of several phases in the defence of the hill-top in the early to mid-sixth century BC. The interior was densely occupied and the new investigations have revealed a fortified ‘lower town’ and extensive external settlement covering several hectares beneath the hill (Kurz 2010; Fernández-Götz and Krausse 2013). The outer settlement was subdivided into quarters by banks and ditches. The population is estimated to have been in the thousands. Mediterranean imports such as amphorae and other ceramics occur in some numbers at the site, but mostly post-date the phase with the mud-brick wall.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

231

At Mont Lassois in eastern France, overlooking the celebrated Vix burial with its imports and other lavish grave goods, geophysical survey of the hillfort interior has revealed an ordered layout, with enclosures and buildings arranged around a central open space. Within one of the enclosures, a monumental apsidal building has been excavated (Chaume and Mordant 2011). As at the Heuneburg, a system of outer earthworks surrounded the hill. At Bourges in central France, the occupation of the hill-top is less well understood as it is crowned by the modern town, but recent work has identified extensive suburbs at Port Sec and Saint-Martin-des-Champs associated with intensive craftworking and imported goods (Augier et al. 2007; 2012; Milcent 2007a). The presence of Mediterranean imports at these sites contrasts with their virtual absence from the smaller settlements in the same regions. The most northerly of the sites generally identified as Fürstensitze is the Glauberg in Hesse, famous for two barrows with rich fifth century BC burials at the base of the hill on which the hillfort stands. The larger mound would have been nearly 50 m in diameter and 6 m high, and was crowned by the statue of a warrior. Leading to the barrow was a ‘processional way’, flanked by ditches that formed part of a larger complex of linear earthworks surrounding the hill (Fig. 6.12) and built on a massive scale. One bank was 20 m wide and 5 m high and a ditch was 14 m wide and 4.5 m deep. It served no obvious defensive function. The earthwork system seems to have referenced earlier features. One bank overlay an early Iron Age barrow, while the ‘processional way’ was aligned on a late Bronze Age cemetery 900 m away. The area was dotted with buildings and storage pits, although occupation was less intense than in the external settlements at the Heuneburg or Bourges. Less is known about the hillfort interior, as the documentation from the 1930s excavations on the Glauberg is mostly lost, but no Mediterranean imports were found, nor evidence of intensive craft activity. Its connections and role may thus have differed significantly from the Fürstensitze to the south. The same applies to the hillforts in the regions to the north and west. In those areas where both hillforts and rich burials occur—such as the HünsruckEifel region of western Germany—spatial associations between the two are lacking, and exotic imports are generally absent. Far too much has been made of a single Attic sherd from the Kemmelberg in western Belgium (Van Doorselaer et al. 1987). This hillfort was a manufacturing site for painted pottery, but the sherd itself is more likely to be part of a secondary diaspora of Greek and Etruscan exotica beyond the Fürstensitze zone that reached as far as southern Britain (below) than indicative of direct contact. The size and topographical situation of Iron Age hillforts varies widely across north-west Europe, as does the defensive capability of their ramparts. Where the interiors have been investigated, it seems clear that they were used in varying ways. In Britain, some hillforts were densely occupied with houses, granaries, and storage pits, while others were almost empty. It is possible that

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

232

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

Fig. 6.12. Landscape around the Glauberg hillfort, Hesse, showing surrounding settlements, linear earthworks, and funerary sites. Information from Baitinger et al. 2010.

certain sites were inhabited on a temporary or seasonal basis. Structures and finds assemblages from British hillforts often differ little from other settlements (Hill 1995b). The same can be seen at many sites in western Germany, where a lack of marked differences in the cereal assemblages recovered from hillforts and unenclosed settlements has confounded expectations of a producer–consumer relationship (Kreuz and Schäfer 2008a; 2008b). Key sites include the Castellberg near Wallendorf, which contained a late fifth to early fourth century BC settlement including post-built buildings and Grubenhäuser. The finds were unexceptional, and only the size of the settlement sets it apart, for it extended over about 5 hectares. Quite different in character is the Schnippenburg near Ostercappeln, on the edge of the hillfort zone in north-west Germany. This was in use for a short

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

233

period around the end of this phase, during the early third century BC; timber from the ramparts was dated by dendrochronology to 268 10 BC. A metaldetector survey of the interior produced an impressive assemblage of 1700 iron and bronze objects, including tools, weapons, and ornaments. Small-scale excavation revealed a number of pits that had been back-filled soon after they were dug. Many of these contained deliberately placed artefacts such as pots, glass beads, or bronze rings. There were, however, few indications of intensive settlement, an impression supported by geophysical survey and phosphate mapping. The excavator argues that the hillfort was neither permanently occupied nor primarily defensive, but had a range of social functions including serving as a ritual focus (Möllers 2009). While some north-west European hillforts were substantial permanent settlements, it seems that others may have been employed for periodic gatherings, whether for livestock management or festivities and rituals. The common thread may be that these sites acted as foci for and symbols of the communities who lived in and around them. The construction of the ramparts may have helped to bind these people together and provided a physical expression of group identity (Sharples 2010, 116–24). There is little evidence that hillforts in this zone were elite residences or centres of coercive power, in contrast to the Fürstensitze further south. Towards the end of the period there are signs of changes, notably in southern Britain, where certain hillforts were rebuilt or enlarged from the fourth century BC onward. Many more, however, were abandoned, as were lesser settlements in the environs of some hillforts such as Danebury that remained in use (Cunliffe 2009, 178–85).

LINES ACROSS THE LANDSCAPE In parts of southern Britain, ditched fields continued to be developed into the earliest stages of this period. In the course of the late Bronze Age, these field systems fell out of use, and there was a new emphasis on linear boundaries that divided the land into larger blocks. These divisions could take the form of ditched and embanked earthworks, or pit alignments. Their chronology is poorly understood but individual examples cut across the co-axial fields of the late second millennium BC and others are directly associated with enclosed farmsteads dating from the late Bronze Age until about 400 BC (Bradley 2007, 240–6). The field systems of north-western France were also abandoned by an early stage of the late Bronze Age, though later linear boundaries are less evident here. An exception is the Hague Dike in Lower Normandy, a massive rampart 2.7 kilometres long that links two deep valleys to cut off a peninsula facing southern Britain (Fig. 6.13). The dyke had three phases of construction, the latest radiocarbon dated to the ninth century BC. The enclosed area of 3500

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

234

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

Fig. 6.13. Bronze Age landscape of the Hague peninsula, Lower Normandy, with linear earthwork (the Hague Dike), burial monuments, and metalwork deposits. Information from Marcigny 2012.

hectares includes three natural harbours. The dyke seems to mark a division in the ritual use of the landscape, with many middle to late Bronze Age burial sites within the enclosed area, and several metalwork deposits outside it (Marcigny 2012). On the North European Plain, so-called ‘Celtic field’ systems are found in the sandy areas of Flanders and the Netherlands, in lowland north-west Germany and south Scandinavia. These are formed of small rectangular plots separated by raised banks. Surviving earthworks are largely restricted

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

235

to woodlands or heaths. On arable land they have generally been erased, meaning that they are rarely identified in development-led excavations. As a result, the chronology of Celtic fields remains poorly understood. In the Netherlands and Jutland it seems likely that use of the fields peaked in the early to mid-first millennium BC (Gerritsen 2003; Webley 2008), although superficially similar systems in other areas were later in date. Also uncertain is the amount of planning that lay behind their creation. Excavations at some sites suggest piecemeal development, and field boundaries were altered over time. At Grøntoft in Jutland, plots within the field system were used cyclically for houses and for cultivation. As individual farmsteads shifted—at intervals of a generation or two—so did the fields. This implies an association between Celtic fields and the contemporary pattern of ‘wandering’ settlement (Webley 2008). A unique form of linear boundary has recently been identified in Jutland: the so-called ‘pit belts’. These consist of small pits in multiple rows of 3–5 m wide, which seem to date between 500 and 250 BC. At Brændgaards Hede pit belts enclosed a settlement, but most run in fairly straight lines across the landscape for distances of up to a kilometre. Some appear to cut off necks of land between bogs or other obstacles, and for that reason have been interpreted as defensive features. Perhaps the pits held short sharpened stakes or taller posts forming a wooden chevaux-de-frise (Olesen 2009), or were for planting brushwood hedges to control livestock (Martens 2007). More recently Mauritsen (2010) has argued that the pits were left open after they had been dug. If so, these features can be compared to similar features in England, which demarcated boundaries without forming an impermeable obstacle. Their relationship with Celtic fields has yet to be established. The Celtic field system at Grøntoft is crossed by a pit belt on a different axis and it is argued that the linear boundary was the later development, although no stratigraphic relationship has been proven (Løvschal forthcoming). This implies a similar sequence to Britain, even if the date of this change and the scale on which it happened was not the same. The closest parallels for the British linear boundary systems come from outside the study area. In Saxony and Saxony-Anhalt, remarkably similar complexes of pit alignments and linear ditches dating to the late Bronze Age and earlier Iron Age have been revealed by aerial survey. These systems could extend over several kilometres, demarcating blocks of land containing contemporary settlements or cemeteries (Stäuble 2002; Nebelsick 2007). The absence of recognizable landscape boundaries or field systems from other parts of north-west Europe is striking. Clearly this does not imply a lack of agriculture. Rather, fields were unenclosed or were bounded in archaeologically invisible ways. This is supported by evidence from the coastal and riverine areas of the Netherlands, where favourable conditions at several sites have preserved areas of ard-marks or hoof-prints dating to the late Bronze Age

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

236

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

and earlier Iron Age. Examples include Broekpolder, where a 30–40 m wide strip along a ridge in an estuarine landscape was cultivated during the early Iron Age. The ploughed areas seem to have been unenclosed, apart from a shallow gully bordering one of the plots. Under normal conditions of preservation, little or nothing would remain.

LIVING OFF THE LAN D The increase in settlement evidence has shed new light on the economy of late Bronze Age and early Iron Age communities. In many areas, this period is marked by an increasing diversity of crop plants, seen both at a regional level and at individual sites (de Hingh 2000; Robinson 2000; Kreuz and Schäfer 2008a; Bakels 2009; Behre 2010). New varieties of cereals, pulses, and oilseeds were introduced for the first time or spread more widely. Growing a wider range of crops may have allowed a broader range of soils to be brought into cultivation, and also reduced the risk posed by failed harvests. This may have underpinned the population growth and settlement expansion that characterizes this period—although how far agricultural innovation was a cause or a consequence of demographic change requires further investigation. Diversified agricultural regimes have further social implications, as they would have required a more complex organization of time and tasks, and perhaps more co-operation between separate communities (de Hingh 2000). The adoption of the rotary quern in some areas towards the end of this period was another important innovation, one that allowed large quantities of grain to be processed much more rapidly than before (see Chapter 7). Whether comparable changes occurred in livestock husbandry is less clearcut. Cattle remained the most important livestock animal across much of the region, although sheep were more common during the Iron Age in a few areas such as Wessex and northern Jutland (Hambleton 2008; Kveiborg 2008). In parts of northern France there were wide variations in husbandry regimes (Auxiette 1997), with pig the most frequent species at some earlier Iron Age sites (Auxiette and Méniel 2005). Hunting and the gathering of wild foodstuffs played a minimal role. Fish and shell-fish supplemented the diet along the Continental coastline but only very rarely in Britain, hinting at taboos against their consumption (Dobney and Ervynck 2007). Storage of agricultural produce became an increasingly important concern as populations grew. As we have seen, grain storage pits were used extensively by the mid-first millennium BC. Their significance is emphasized by the fact that they were often a focus for ritual once they had gone out of use. Salt was presumably important for preserving meat and dairy produce. Its production began in the middle Bronze Age in parts of the region, but became noticeably

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

237

Fig. 6.14. Areas of salt production during the Iron Age (dates of individual locations vary).

more widespread and intensive during the first millennium BC, both along coasts and estuaries and at inland brine springs (Fig. 6.14; Harding 2013a). In the Seille valley in north-eastern France alone, it has been claimed that hundreds of tons of salt were produced per year during the eighth to sixth century BC (Olivier and Kovacik 2006). Where ceramic vessels used for transporting salt can be recognized, it is clear that they could be exchanged over long distances. Salt containers from the coast around the Lower Rhine estuary travelled almost 300 kilometres upriver during the earlier Iron Age (Fries-Knoblach 2001).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

238

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

PRODUCTION A ND E XCHANGE Most artefacts were probably produced and distributed at a household or local level, but the skills and resources needed to make some types of object would have been restricted to certain people and places. Bronze-working is a case in point. As in the previous period, late Bronze Age settlements with evidence for metalworking typically produce only small amounts of waste, suggesting low-level production or perhaps only a single casting (Kuijpers 2008). More intensive or specialized production does however occur at some types of site such as hillforts and ringworks, suggesting that different levels of craft-working may have emerged, with more specialized production restricted to these ‘special’ places. Such patterns are less obvious after c.800 BC, when the range of objects made from bronze declined markedly. Iron did not ‘replace’ bronze in a straightforward way. Only in rare cases did iron objects mimic earlier prototypes in bronze. Artefacts made from both materials were rarely deposited together and in many areas iron artefacts were only occasionally incorporated in hoards or placed in rivers, although the latter practice resumed in the late Iron Age (Bradley 1998b; see Chapter 7). Very probably, bronze and iron were considered as different kinds of substances. Bronze-working was a kind of magic through which a heated liquid was transformed into a solid object. Iron artefacts were made by a completely different process (Garrow and Gosden 2012, 89–111). The availability of their raw materials has often been seen as another key difference between the two crafts. Bronze-working relied on cross-regional exchange networks, as copper and tin ores have a very restricted distribution within Europe, whereas iron production could be organized locally as it used raw materials that are found more widely. This contrast may have been overstated. High-quality, easily accessible iron ore was not present everywhere, and the evidence suggests that primary production of iron was in fact concentrated in particular places. Whilst experiments with iron certainly began in the late second millennium BC and its use became more widespread after 800 BC, evidence of its production remains sparse for the following two or three centuries. Early Iron Age smelting sites have been identified in a few areas, notably north-west France (Cabboi et al. 2007; Vivet 2007), but they are the exceptions; dissemination of the knowledge and skills needed to smelt iron may have remained quite restricted. Initially, iron was used above all to make weapons. Around 500 BC, the range of iron objects found in settlements (Dubreucq 2007) and in cemeteries expanded significantly and centres of more intensive production emerged. Sites of large-scale iron-working during the fifth century BC in France include La Bazoge in Pays-de-La-Loire, Saint-Martin-des-Champs at Bourges, and Bragny-sur-Saône in Burgundy (Cabboi et al. 2007; Flouest 2007; Milcent 2007a). In middle Germany, recent work in the Siegerland, Eifel, and Lahn

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

239

valley has uncovered iron-smelting sites with furnaces and slag heaps dating between the sixth/fifth and third centuries BC (Kronz and Eggers 2003; Schäfer 2004; Stöllner 2010; Kuhnen and Trojan 2012). In Britain too, an upsurge in production is attested from around this time, and the earliest reliable radiocarbon dates for iron-working in Ireland are fifth/fourth century BC (Wallace and Anguilano 2010). The introduction of bipyramidal ingots and hooked billets in the sixth century BC and of the other forms including the so-called ‘currency bars’ from the third century BC provided a way of distributing the metal in standard units across France, Germany, and southern Britain (Berranger and Fluzin 2012; Berranger 2014). Distinct regional forms of ingot have distributions extending over several hundred kilometres. Whilst smelting may have been a specialist craft, small-scale blacksmithing is fairly common on settlements in these regions by the mid-first millennium, showing that the skills needed to make and repair simple iron objects were widespread (Ehrenreich 1991; Milcent 2007b). The situation was different on the North European Plain. In Denmark conclusive evidence for iron-smelting is elusive throughout this period, and it has been suggested that blacksmiths were reliant on metal imported from other regions (Nørbach 1998; Jöns 2007). There are hints of more intensive and centralized production of other goods from the mid-first millennium BC. The wheel was adopted for producing some types of fine pottery during the fifth–fourth centuries BC in parts of western Germany and north-eastern France, implying an increased level of specialization. There is also some evidence for greater centralization in the manufacture of hand-formed pottery in parts of southern Britain at this time (Morris 1996). Querns were distributed increasingly widely from major quarry sites such as those in the Eifel, at La Salle in Lorraine, and Lodsworth in southern England (Morris 1996; Lagadec 2008). These developments do not seem to have extended to northern Britain or the areas north of the Rhine delta and Mittelgebirge, where the emphasis remained firmly on domestic-level production.

MIDDENS, FEASTING, AND CONSPICUOUS CONSUMPTION The discovery of extensive midden sites in southern Britain dating to the ninth to eighth century BC is an important result of recent fieldwork. They can occur in comparative isolation, as at Potterne (Lawson 2000), or be associated with early hillforts, as at Balksbury (Ellis and Rawlings 2001), or with islands in major rivers as at Wallingford and Runnymede Bridge on the Thames (Needham 1991; Needham and Spence 1996; Cromarty et al. 2005). They are

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

240

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

associated with exceptional concentrations of artefacts and large numbers of animal bones. Some of the middens formed prominent mounds, which were largely composed of manure. A number of them have yielded evidence of craft production, leading to the suggestion that they hosted occasional assemblies similar to medieval fairs where artefacts and livestock were exchanged. While these middens have been seen as an insular phenomenon, they share features with sites across the Channel. They include Mez-Notariou on the island of Ouessant, where a substantial midden deposit that originated in the middle Bronze Age (see Chapter 5) continued to accumulate in this phase. The midden lay close to an early Iron Age settlement and contained large amounts of sea-shells, animal bone—dominated by sheep—and a few human remains (Le Bihan and Villard 2001; 2010; Le Bihan et al. 2007). For all animal species, bones from the right forequarter predominate. This selective pattern is mirrored by the midden at Llanmaes in south Wales (Madgwick et al. 2012), where Armorican axe-heads were found. Another unusual feature at MezNotariou—the deposition of miniature bronze axe-heads, some with deliberate perforations—is paralleled at other British middens (Sharples and Waddington 2011, 35). The enigmatic site at Les Huguettes on Alderney may be similar in character (Milcent 2009). These midden sites share certain features with contemporary crannogs in Ireland. These were quite different from their well-known medieval counterparts. Both can be described as artificial islands, but the prehistoric examples do not feature domestic buildings (Fredengren 2002). Some were submerged during the winter months and the main activities associated with them seem to have been the production of bronze metalwork, feasting, and possibly the deposition of fine artefacts. Human remains of Bronze Age and Iron Age date were deposited in the water nearby. The same applies to some timber platforms built in similar environments in Britain, such as Flag Fen in eastern England (Pryor 2001). Feasting was important in other parts of north-west Europe. In northern Germany and southern Scandinavia, large complexes of ‘cooking pits’ have been identified, dating from the late Bronze Age and early pre-Roman Iron Age (Henriksen 2005; Kristensen 2008c; Honeck 2009; Hüser 2011). These pits contain few finds other than burnt stones, and it is thought they were used for cooking meat during feasts or rituals. Burnt bone fragments from some pits may support this interpretation; little else would survive on such acidic soil. In some cases, these pits were arranged in rows aligned on older barrows. Elsewhere, they occur in large clusters or swathes with no apparent structure. These places have been interpreted as ‘assembly sites’, in the belief that they were venues for gatherings of people from a wide area. At Brokbakken in Jutland three groups of pits a few hundred metres apart have been found; there were more than 225 in total. They lay on a promontory at the edge of a plateau overlooking a river valley with a concentration of metalwork deposits on one

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

241

side, and with settlements and barrows on the plateau to the south (Kristensen 2008c). Evidence of metalworking has been recovered close to some ‘assembly sites’ in Jutland. In the absence of hillforts, such places may well have played a role as social and ritual foci. Outside the study area, sites with clusters or rows of pits filled with burnt stone occur at the late Bronze Age/early Iron Age transition in central France and southern Germany (Milcent 2009; Honeck 2009). These Continental sites recall the burnt mounds of Britain and Ireland (Chapter 5), which continued to be frequented into the late Bronze Age. Whether there is any connection between the two phenomena is another matter. The importance of feasting and cooking at this period may also be reflected in material culture. There were marked changes in ceramic forms during the transition from the middle to late Bronze Age, with large barrel- and bucketshaped containers replaced by a wider range of vessels, including open dishes and small cups. Distinctions between fine and coarse wares became clearer, and new kinds of decoration were employed (Barrett 1980; van den Broeke 2005; Lolk 2009). Feasting gear such as metal cauldrons, spits, and flesh-hooks were adopted in Atlantic Europe at the same time (Needham and Bowman 2005). This suggests that the social significance of eating, drinking, and hospitality had changed.

ARTEFACT DEPOSITION The deposition of hoards or single items of metalwork in the landscape increased markedly in the late Bronze Age, peaking in many areas around the tenth/ninth centuries BC (Fig. 5.14; Hansen 1991; Bradley 1998b; Essink and Hielkema 1998; Bourke 2001; Warmenbol 2001; Fontijn 2002; Falkenstein 2005; Sperber 2006; Maraszek 2006; Frost 2008; Milcent 2009; 2012; Endrigkeit 2010; Boddum et al. 2011). This corresponds with a time when few bronzes were placed in graves. There is much regional and chronological variation in the types of object deposited and their landscape contexts, but certain patterns recur. Wet places such as rivers, lakes, bogs, and springs figure strongly, as do dry sites close to watercourses. It is even possible that some deposits were made in the sea (Samson 2006), although this has been disputed (Needham et al. 2013). Major rivers such as the Rhine, Seine, Shannon, and Thames were a particular focus for the deposition of swords and other weapons, with concentrations of finds in particular stretches, often at confluences or fords. Ornaments are less strongly associated with rivers and occur in a wider range of wet and dry environments. The few metal objects from settlements tend to be small and include simple tools and dress accessories, or broken fragments.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

242

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

The life histories of metal objects before deposition also varied. Some had been used extensively or were repaired, while others seem pristine. In certain places, objects were often damaged or burnt before deposition, as for example were many weapons recovered from the Rhine. This has led to the suggestion that these deposits are the remains of funerary rituals in which the possessions of the deceased were destroyed (Sperber 2006). Much of our knowledge of metalwork comes from old finds or from the activities of metal-detectorists, but development-led excavations have made an important contribution by showing that the deposits referenced not only natural features, but also the cultural landscape. Whilst metalwork is rare at settlements, finds nearby are quite frequent. At Inden–Altdorf, contemporary living sites and metalwork deposits have been found along a palaeochannel of the River Inde. Around 1000 BC a hoard containing ornaments and an axehead was placed in a small pit on the opposite side of the river from a palisaded settlement. A few hundred metres to the north, three late Bronze Age sickles had been placed in the river channel as it flowed past another occupation site. Similarly, at Bradley Fen in eastern England a series of spear-heads were deposited along the boundary between a ditched field system and the edge of a wetland. A number of burnt mounds were found here, too. Beyond that boundary, outside the limits of the occupied area, there was a hoard of weapons (Bradley 2007, fig. 4.14). In other areas, deposits can be found in and around hillforts (Maraszek 2006; Hansen 2008), including some spectacular objects such as the hoards with cast vessels from a marshy area close to the Hünenburg (Heske et al. 2012) or the hoard with central European vessels discovered in a bog 500 m from Haughey’s Fort in northern Ireland (Macdonald and O’Neill 2009). In Britain, deposits can occur at field boundaries or close to burnt mounds (Yates and Bradley 2010a; 2010b), while in northern Germany and Jutland some hoards lay at the margins of cooking pit ‘assembly sites’ (Mikkelsen 2011). At Nijmegen–Waalsprong in the Netherlands, two spear-heads and a pin lay within and close to a palaeochannel on the edge of a contemporary cemetery. Two cattle skulls had been placed in a pit at the water’s edge. After 800 BC, bronze deposition in the landscape reduced dramatically (Figs. 5.14 and 6.15). In some areas of the near Continent—such as Wallonia, central France, and the middle Rhine—weapons and other fine metal items were more often placed in graves (Sperber 2001, fig. 245; Fontijn and Fokkens 2007; Milcent 2009, fig. 13), but the change was not complete. Swords made of bronze or later of iron were still placed in major rivers during the early Iron Age, including the Seine, the lower Rhine, and the Thames (O’Connor 2007, fig. 5; Milcent 2009, fig. 12). In Atlantic France and to a lesser extent southwest Britain, hoards of bronze axe-heads take the place of riverine sword deposits in the early Iron Age, as with two hoards associated with a contemporary ring-ditch cemetery at Agneaux–Belleville in Lower Normandy

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

243

Fig. 6.15. Predominant patterns of metalwork deposition during the eighth–seventh centuries BC.

(Fig. 6.16). These axes often seem functionally useless and may have been made specifically for deposition. The French axe hoards almost all date to the seventh century BC, following a hiatus of a century when metal deposits of any kind had almost ceased (Milcent 2012); the same may have happened in Britain. In north Germany and Jutland, metal deposits in rivers, bogs, and dry-land continued through the pre-Roman Iron Age, albeit on a reduced scale and with a new emphasis on ornaments such as neck-rings rather than weapons (Tuitjer 1987; Hedeager 1992).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

244

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

Fig. 6.16. Agneaux–Bellevue, Lower Normandy. Two axe-head hoards of the seventh century BC at the periphery of a cemetery founded in the middle Bronze Age. Information from Marcigny 2012.

Other Iron Age deposits from wet places in north-west Europe include objects such as pots, ploughshares, or animal remains (e.g. van Hoof 2007). These mirror the kinds of structured or ritual deposits of quotidian objects that are common in settlements, in features such as house postholes, enclosure ditches, and storage pits. This could imply a greater ideological concern with agricultural fertility and the daily round at this time (Bradley 2005). From the mid-first millennium BC, there are signs of a resurgence of fine metalwork deposits in some areas. Wet places often continued to be chosen, as

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

245

at Fiskerton in eastern England where a timber causeway dated to the late fifth to fourth centuries BC was associated with metalwork, bone spear-heads, and human remains (Field and Parker Pearson 2003). Another development was the appearance of enclosures that may have formally bounded ritual spaces, such as the remarkable circular palisaded example at Lismullen in Ireland, dated to the late fifth to fourth centuries BC. An avenue of posts led from the east-facing entrance to a smaller inner enclosure (Fig. 6.17). This site has been described as a ‘temple’ (O’Connell 2013), although it is difficult to understand its purpose in the absence of any associated material culture. In contrast, the ‘sanctuary’ enclosures found in northern France from the fourth century BC onwards were foci for offerings of weapons and other artefacts. These changes in ritual practice gathered pace in the late Iron Age, and will be explored in Chapter 7.

Fig. 6.17. Circular enclosure at Lismullin, Co. Meath, Ireland, fifth–fourth centuries BC. Information from O’Connell 2013.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

246

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

DEALINGS WITH TH E DEAD From 1100 BC onward, there were significant changes in the treatment of the dead across much of the region. Cremation was the dominant rite almost everywhere. The decline in the construction of major funerary monuments, which had begun in the middle Bronze Age, became far more widespread. Most graves were now flat or had relatively small monuments; others were placed in older barrows. Grave goods were generally limited. In the early and middle Iron Age, mortuary practices became more diverse. In some areas there was a greater investment in burial as a means of expressing social distinctions, but in others funeral offerings were modest. Elsewhere cemeteries were rare or absent, suggesting that most of the dead were disposed of in ways that left no archaeological trace. Discussions of the period often distinguish ‘formal’ burials in cemeteries from the ‘special’ or ‘deviant’ burials—or deposits of disarticulated bones— placed in settlements or natural places such as bogs or caves. This distinction is not always helpful, but for convenience cemeteries are considered first.

Late Bronze Age Cemeteries Cremation was the dominant funerary rite in north-west Europe during the late Bronze Age, and remained so throughout the pre-Roman Iron Age on the North European Plain. Following the burning of the body, its remains could be dealt with in various ways. In some cases the bone was carefully collected from the pyre before being buried, often in a pot or organic container. In others, only a few ‘token’ fragments of bone and pyre debris were interred. Such token burials are particularly characteristic of the late Bronze Age in Ireland and parts of Britain and northern France, where they have been recognized through the use of radiocarbon dating in development-led excavations (Brun et al. 2005; Bradley 2007, 212–14; Cooney 2009). In some other areas there are examples of in situ cremations, where the pyre was left intact and covered by a monument. In Britain and Ireland, the assumption that late Bronze Age cemeteries were largely absent has been disproved by the finding of cremation burials in many areas, both singly and in small groups. Few burials were marked, although small ring-ditches occasionally accompanied them. They could also be associated with earlier monuments. Grave goods are generally absent. Many burials were placed close to settlements, and fragments of cremated bone can also be found on those sites. They were probably removed from a pyre and brought into the domestic area, but thereafter they do not appear to have been deposited according to any strict conventions. In most cases

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

247

human remains were mixed together with domestic refuse. A good example of this practice has been identified at Broom in lowland England (Brudenell and Cooper 2008). Late Bronze Age ‘urnfield’ cemeteries are a prominent feature of the period across much of northern France, western Germany, and the southern Low Countries. Whilst many burial sites are small, there are some much larger cemeteries, such as Presles-et-Boves in Picardy where 200 burials have been uncovered. Certain cemeteries in the Lower Rhine region continued in use into the early Iron Age and ultimately encompassed thousands of deposits. Some cemeteries were entirely flat, others included burials interred beneath a small round mound, often surrounded by a ring-ditch or a circle of posts. In some areas, various forms of elongated monuments occur (Hessing and Kooi 2005; Wilbertz 2009). These were generally amongst the earliest structures within a cemetery and radiocarbon dating suggests that in Flanders at least they were built from about 1300 BC (De Mulder et al. 2007). The ditches surrounding funerary monuments often contain smashed pottery, animal bone, or charcoal, perhaps deposited during the funeral rite. At Geldrop–Genoenhuis in the Netherlands, parts of the same pot were deposited in the grave and the surrounding ring-ditch. At Breda-West, the ring-ditches were apparently back-filled soon after they had been dug. Even in the cemeteries where monuments were built, not every burial had its own mound— many were secondary interments at the edge of existing barrows, or flat graves located in between them. A gradual process of expansion can be traced at many cemeteries with a lengthy history. At Vreden in Westphalia and Sittard– Hoogveld in the Netherlands, for example, the largest and most complex monuments lay at the core of the burial ground, with simpler burials surrounding them (Fig. 6.18). Another feature of some Lower Rhine cemeteries, including Vreden, is that burials were aligned along an empty strip of ground that could have been a road or processional way. In these regions, the location of late Bronze Age cemeteries shows some recurring trends. Often they were focused around earlier barrows or lay close to contemporary settlements, as at Malleville-sur-le-Bec in Normandy (Fig. 6.4 above). Others overlooked settlements from higher ground (Fig. 6.18). This can be seen at Changis-sur-Marne (Île-de-France), where large-scale excavations have shown how both settlements and cemeteries shifted over time through the late Bronze Age and early Iron Age. Other burial sites were located in a different manner, such as the late Bronze Age to early Iron Age ring-ditch cemetery at Saumeray–Les Pâtures/Moulin de l’Aulne (Centre), which lay on a valley terrace dissected by river channels (Fig. 6.19). In northern Germany to the east of the Weser mortuary practices were no less diverse. Cemeteries ranged in size from a handful of burials to several hundred. Burials were interred flat, beneath small round mounds, in older barrows, or in natural hillocks. Stone settings or walls surrounded some

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

248

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

Fig. 6.18. Cemeteries and settlement at Sittard–Hoogveld, Netherlands. The urnfield (A) was used from c.650–425 BC; a group of ring-ditch monuments are surrounded by flat graves. Burial activity then shifted to a smaller cemetery to the south-east (B), with two rectangular enclosures. The earlier cemetery was subsequently reused for burial around the third century BC. A settlement dated to the late Bronze Age to early Iron Age (C) lay on lower ground. Information from Tol and Schabbink 2004.

mounds and flat graves, whilst other burials were interred beneath circular or rectangular areas of paving. Most burials in Jutland were interred in small groups in, or next to, earlier barrows. In north Jutland, so-called ‘cult houses’ of various forms were sometimes built next to the mound and are presumed to

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

249

Fig. 6.19. Late Bronze Age cemetery at Saumeray–Les Pâtures/Moulin de l’Aulne, Centre. Top: Cropmarks. Bottom: Excavated features and palaeochannels. Information from Hamon 2003; Georges and Hamon 2004.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

250

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

have had a role in the funeral rites (Nielsen and Bech 2004). The example at Vestervig–Grydehøj contained fine pottery that hints at rituals involving eating or drinking.

Earlier Iron Age Cemeteries In the early and middle pre-Roman Iron Age, funerary practices became more diverse. In Ireland, the construction of small circular monuments (ring barrows) associated with cremation burials probably continued unchanged throughout the first millennium BC, although few have been radiocarbon dated to the earlier Iron Age (McGarry 2009). By contrast, in Britain cremation burial had almost totally ceased by the early Iron Age and normative burial practices are hard to recognize. Towards the end of the period, inhumation burials appeared in some areas, notably East Yorkshire where the practice continued into the final centuries BC (Chapter 7), whilst crouched inhumation cemeteries of this date have been identified at the peripheries of a few settlements in southern England (Sharples 2010) and Scotland (Armit et al. 2013a). Across much of the rest of Britain, recognizable ‘formal’ cemeteries remain rare or absent for most of the Iron Age, although human remains are found in settlements, as they are elsewhere in north-west Europe. A lack of cemeteries is often seen as an insular phenomenon, but in fact corresponds to the situation in many parts of the near Continent. In coastal areas of the Netherlands formal burials are essentially absent throughout the Iron Age (Hessing 1993). In parts of northern France too, they are unusual during particular stages of the period. This is particularly the case in Picardy from 800 to 500 BC and for Nord-Pas-de-Calais, Somme, and Seine-Maritime between 500 and 250 BC (Brun et al. 2005; Desenne et al. 2009; Oudry-Braillon 2009; Villard-Le Tiec et al. 2010). Arguments that cemeteries have somehow been missed are now untenable given the huge amount of new fieldwork in these areas. Rather, we are seeing the outcome of particular attitudes to the dead that were shared by many (but not all) communities on either side of the Channel and southern North Sea. In Britain, the most common explanation for the lack of burials is that excarnation was the normative rite. After exposure of the body, individual bones could be recovered and ultimately deposited in settlements or elsewhere. However, studies of bones from settlements have produced mixed results on the evidence for excarnation; in any case such deposits are not limited to the regions lacking formal cemeteries. The situation was quite different in most of Continental north-west Europe, where there was greater investment in funerary rites. Across much of northern and western France, as well as Wallonia, Luxembourg, and the middle Rhine, cremation burial was still practiced, but inhumation became dominant in

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

251

most areas by 500 BC, if not before. In France, burials were not marked, or were associated with monuments marked by ring-ditches or square enclosures. Many of the latter contained several graves but no obvious ‘primary’ interment. As in the late Bronze Age, most cemeteries were small but some were far bigger, as at Bucy-le-Long–La Herronière in Picardy with 200 deposits dating from the mid-fifth to fourth century BC (Pommepuy et al. 1998), or Éterville–Le Clos des Lilas in Lower Normandy with over 130. Small burial grounds were often located close to individual settlements, while larger cemeteries tend to lie further away and may have been used by a larger community (Chanson et al. 2010). Similar burial practices were followed in the Channel Islands, where an inhumation cemetery dating from the fifth century BC onwards has been uncovered at St Peter Port on Guernsey. In Brittany and Mayenne, a feature of some cemeteries from at least 500 BC onwards is the presence of stone stelae, some with carved geometric decoration (Daire 2005). At Roz-an-Trémen the stelae acted as foci for inhumation and cremation burials and deposits of skulls, rather than marking individual graves. Round barrow cemeteries dominate the picture in Wallonia, Luxembourg, and western Germany. The barrows may be surrounded by ring-ditches, circles of posts, or rings of stones. Many groups of upstanding barrows still survive in upland and forested areas. Numbers vary from a few examples to over one hundred mounds, often organized in groups or along alignments following ridges for up to two kilometres. An increasing number of lowland cemeteries have now been excavated, as at Worms–Herrnsheim on a terrace of the River Rhine, where more than sixty inhumations were interred between 650 and 250 BC. They were arranged in concentrations scattered across a distance of a kilometre. Many lay within single, double, or triple ring-ditches, although any mounds had been ploughed flat. In the Lower Rhine, the urnfield cemetery tradition continued into the early Iron Age and most of the largest cemeteries belong to this period. From the fifth century BC, major changes are apparent. Many older cemeteries were abandoned and burials rarely occur in large groups. It was increasingly common for burials to contain pyre debris, with just a few fragments of cremated bone. Mounds surrounded by ring-ditches continued to be raised, but most graves were never marked or were located inside a small square monument, in some cases conjoined to form a brick-work pattern. Larger enclosures of the same form are found from the fourth century BC onwards in a few cemeteries in the southern Netherlands, as at Sittard–Hoogveld (Fig. 6.18), Zundert, and Lomm (Chapter 7). Late Bronze Age cremation traditions also continued into the Iron Age in north Germany and Jutland. At Wittorf in Lower Saxony, over 200 flat burials were interred between 800 and 300 BC. Beside the cemetery lay an enclosure c.130 m in diameter, bounded by a ditch and a burnt palisade with

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

252

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

radiocarbon dates in the fifth century BC, contemporary with the main period of burial. The enclosure interior was almost devoid of features, but could have played a role in mortuary ritual. Large cemeteries with hundreds of burials are also a feature of Schleswig and southern Jutland from 500–250 BC. Each burial was placed under a diminutive mound bounded by a ditch (Ethelberg 2003; Jensen 2003). By contrast, small cemeteries focused on older monuments continued to be the rule in northern Jutland. A flat cemetery at Hellegård, dating to around 500 BC, was laid out on either side of a stone row that extended up to a barrow. To summarize, treatment of the dead during the late Bronze Age and earlier Iron Age in north-west Europe shows wide variation. There were local contrasts in the sizes of cemeteries, their monumentality, and their relationships to settlements, suggesting that they represented group identity in many different ways. In some societies, burial grounds were associated with individual households, but in others they probably provided a focus for a wider community. This is explicitly suggested for the long-lived urnfields on the Lower Rhine, yet even in this region smaller, shorter-lived cemeteries are also found. Examining the specific histories of settlement and burial in particular local areas exposes the limits of any general model (van Beek 2009).

Social Distinctions in Funerary Rites During the late Bronze Age, social distinctions are only dimly evident in the treatment of the dead. This is particularly the case for the ‘token’ cremation burials found in Britain, Ireland, and neighbouring parts of northern France, which normally lack grave goods and often any form of monument. Across the rest of north-west Europe, objects do occur in some burials, but usually just a few modest artefacts such as pots or simple dress accessories. These were either burnt on the pyre with the body, or added afterwards. There is a clear contrast with the quantity of metalwork deposited in the landscape, whilst the few metal objects in graves tend to be types that are uncommon in other deposits. For example, knives and razors occur in some burials on the North European Plain but are rare in hoards in the same region. Exceptional cases of ‘rich’ burials are limited to the southern and eastern fringes of the study area, where the influence of Central European customs is visible. An example is offered by a female inhumation burial found at Bad Kreuznach in the Rhine valley, which was accompanied by an impressive set of bronze, gold, and amber ornaments and pottery dating to 1200–1000 BC. During the tenth– ninth centuries BC, several well-furnished cremation burials in large barrows are known from the German Mittelgebirge (Pare 2003). In most areas there is little to suggest that burial practices expressed a social hierarchy, but distinctions of age and gender were marked in subtle ways.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

253

Grave goods associated with men included razors and tweezers, while spindlewhorls and certain ornaments are found with women. Children have the simplest graves and the smallest burial urns. In the urnfields of the lower Rhine, the larger and more elaborate monuments often contained adult men. The placing of burials within such cemeteries and the decision whether to commemorate the person with a monument or deposit their remains in an existing mound perhaps expressed social or genealogical relationships (Roymans and Kortlang 1999), as they had in the previous period. During the earlier Iron Age, social distinctions in funerary rites became more evident in some areas, led by the extremely rich sixth century BC barrow burials containing wagons and imported Mediterranean goods of south-west Germany and east-central France, many of them from the immediate vicinity of Fürstensitze. Less spectacular but nonetheless richly outfitted burials occur across a wider area of France and middle Germany. In the southern Netherlands too, a few early Iron Age burials with horse gear, wagon parts, weaponry, or drinking equipment stand out from the norm (Fontijn and Fokkens 2007). The most impressive is Oss–Vorstengrafdonk, where a man was buried in the sixth century BC with objects including an imported bronze situla, horse gear, and a sword. He was interred in an exceptionally large mound (53 m in diameter), raised directly over a Bronze Age barrow. Small clusters of burials with imported objects are found in Drenthe in the eastern Netherlands and between 650–400 BC around the River Weser in north-west Germany (de Wit 2000). In the fifth century BC, the focus of rich burial shifted to the middle Rhine– Moselle and Aisne–Marne areas (Diepeveen-Jansen 2001). High-status burials were distinguished by barrow size and by grave goods such as wheel-thrown pottery, weapons, toilet sets, gold ornaments, and imported or imitated Mediterranean objects such as amphorae and metal drinking or serving vessels. The richest burials were predominantly male, but include women and children. The funerary assemblages express an ideology emphasizing values of martiality and hospitality. Another feature of some rich burials is that the body was interred in a chariot. Such burials were often in prominent positions in the landscape. Similar vehicle burials—albeit with less elaborate goods—are known in Wallonia (Cahen-Delhaye 2001) and from new finds in Lower Normandy at Ri–Le Moulin Foulon and Orval, as well as the outlier at Newbridge in southern Scotland (Hunter et al. 2010). Some burials in middle Germany were further distinguished by stone stelae, most famously at the Glauberg where the ‘warrior’ statue was recovered from the ditch around a large barrow containing two rich burials. By the mid-fourth century BC, the peak of ostentatious burial had passed. Now the mounds tended to be smaller and less elaborate, and grave goods were simpler and locally produced. The rich burials of the sixth and fifth centuries BC have dominated many narratives of Iron Age Europe, but they were a short-lived and geographically

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

254

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

restricted phenomenon. The emphasis on status display and supra-regional ideologies exemplified by these burials is not typical of the practices followed by most early to middle Iron Age communities in north-west Europe. Expression of social hierarchy through funerary practices was particularly muted across large parts of Britain, Ireland, and the North European Plain. It does not follow that societies in these areas were more egalitarian, as status differences may have been articulated in other spheres. Furthermore, a fixation on identifying elites should not lead us to ignore ways in which funerary rites could express other forms of identity, such as gender, age, and community affiliation.

Human Remains in Settlements Away from formal cemeteries, human skeletons, partial skeletons, or individual bones can be found in settlements and hillforts across north-west Europe (e.g. Hessing 1993; Brück 1995; Balfanz and Jarecki 2004; Armit and Ginn 2007; Zavadil 2007). While similar deposits are known from earlier periods, they seem to have become more common during the first millennium BC. Such deposits are rare in the sandy areas of the North European plain, where bone of any kind is uncommon due to poor conditions of preservation. Human remains occur in a variety of occupation contexts. Around the Bronze Age to Iron Age transition, the extensive middens of southern Britain and Brittany often contained fragmented human remains. Later, burials or human bones are represented in disused grain storage pits across a swathe of north-west Europe from southern Britain through northern France to western Germany (Cunliffe 1992; Hill 1995a; Hansen and Meyer 2006; Baray and Boulestin 2010). These pit deposits were particularly common between the sixth and second centuries BC. Boundary ditches around settlements also often contain human remains, in some cases forming part of a closure deposit. By contrast, infant burials were placed in and around houses in some areas. These should be viewed as one aspect of wider practices of structured deposition inside settlements. In fact, many of the features that contained human remains also contained deliberately placed artefacts or animal carcasses. But this does not explain why some individuals were selected for burial in the domestic domain rather than receiving the ‘normative’ funerary rite. The remains of men, women, and children are all found, and, while some sites and regions do show an age or gender bias, there is no consistent pattern. Complete interments on settlements are often assumed to represent careless or opportunistic burials, and it has sometimes been suggested that they were captured enemies, or deviant or subordinate individuals. However, many people were buried with care, and those from France and Germany often

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

255

wore ornaments such as torcs or brooches, mirroring those found in cemeteries. The osteological evidence for stature and health from pit burials in northern France does not suggest these people belonged to a subordinate group (Bonnabel 2010). Another possibility is that the individuals were treated differently due to an inauspicious death (Sharples 2010). Where burials are found as closure deposits in ditches, it is even possible that the abandonment of the enclosure or settlement was linked to a ‘bad’ death. The deposits of disarticulated bone further complicate the picture. Skulls, and to a lesser extent long bones, were clearly favoured for these deposits. Some bear cut-marks or other evidence of deliberate manipulation. Crania were sometimes perforated by drilled holes, which can contain iron spikes or nails: an example was recently found in a fifth–third century BC settlement pit at Trimbs in western Germany. The implication is that these skulls were displayed for a period before they were buried. This has encouraged notions of ‘Celtic headhunting’ (Armit 2012), influenced by classical literary references such as the famous description of Gaulish customs provided in the first century BC by the Greek historian Diodorus Siculus. In fact there is little evidence for the over-representation of adult males that might be expected if these skulls were war trophies. In Britain, the commonest explanation for the origin of disarticulated bones is that they were recovered from the excarnated remains of members of the community. Another possibility is that bones were retrieved from older burials. Graves were certainly disturbed in many Iron Age cemeteries in the Marne–Moselle region (Diepeveen-Jansen 2001), and this can also be seen with some storage-pit burials, including one from the late Bronze Age site at Framerville–Rainecourt in Picardy. Similar practices in southern Britain have been highlighted by Sharples (2010). At a few settlements in southern Britain, placed deposits of human bone have produced radiocarbon dates showing that they were significantly older than the artefacts found with them. This suggests that the remains had either been obtained from older burials or had been curated for a long period before they were buried (Webley 2007b, 63; Champion 2011).

Human Remains in Natural Places Interments in natural places are another category of burial often seen as ‘special’ or ‘deviant’. Best known are the bog bodies found across a region stretching from southern Scandinavia, across northern Germany and the Netherlands, to northern Britain and Ireland—a complementary distribution to that of storage-pit burials (Fig. 6.20). They belong to various periods, but most of the dated examples are from the pre-Roman Iron Age. Some bodies show evidence for excessively violent killing or had been pinned down in the bog, and so have been interpreted in terms of sacrifice or ritualized

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

256

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

Fig. 6.20. Main distributions of bog bodies and storage-pit burials.

punishment. Human skulls and bones of late Bronze Age and Iron Age date are found in rivers and lakes in other parts of north-west Europe (Bradley and Gordon 1988; Schulting and Bradley 2014). Sometimes caves were used for burial. During the late Bronze Age this took place at a number of sites in middle Germany and Wallonia (Balfanz and Jarecki 2004; Warmenbol 2007) and in a sea cliff at Covesea in north-east Scotland (Armit et al. 2011). Iron Age examples include Le Trou Qui Fume at La Rochette in Poitou-Charentes. One of the most spectacular finds is from the Lichtensteinhöhle in the Harz Mountains at the eastern edge of the study area.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

257

During the late Bronze Age, the partially articulated and disarticulated bones of at least seventy individuals—including men, women, and children over the age of five—were placed in a series of narrow, interconnected chambers. The damp conditions permitted DNA analysis, which showed that twenty-four of the forty individuals were directly related to one another. It is argued that this was a burial place for selected members of an extended family or clan. In the outermost cave chamber the human remains overlay a series of burnt layers and hearths which were associated with much animal bone, smashed pottery, and food remains including charred millet porridge. This supports the idea that the outer chamber was used for ritual meals and other ceremonies, before it was given over to the burial of the dead.

Death and Personhood Burials in cemeteries and those in settlements and natural places are often treated as separate phenomena, but in certain respects they are linked. One is the divisibility of the human body. Bones were probably removed from corpses in a variety of ways, including excarnation and the reopening of graves. The bones could be curated, manipulated, displayed, and ultimately deposited in a variety of different contexts, including cemeteries, settlements, and natural places. Cremation can also be seen as a way of fragmenting the body. The ‘token’ deposits of burnt bone that are characteristic of Britain, Ireland, and northern France during the late Bronze Age raise the question of what happened to the rest of the remains. Could they have been retained by or circulated among the living? Such observations have led researchers to suggest that later prehistoric concepts of personhood were relational rather than individual (Brück 2006; Rebay-Salisbury 2010). By contrast, cremations in other regions imply a concern with maintaining the identity and integrity of the deceased. For example, work on an early Iron Age burial at Coevorden– Dalen in the Netherlands indicated that the remains of an adult male were placed in the urn in approximate anatomical order, with the lower body parts towards the bottom of the pot, the upper parts towards the top. The same practice has also been observed at this period in eastern Germany (Gramsch 2007); it may well have been more widespread, since detailed recording of this kind is rarely carried out. A common thread that might link such diverse phenomena as the recurrent reuse of older funerary monuments, the reopening and manipulation of graves, and the curation of body parts is the idea that the dead remained important to the world of the living. They may even have been credited with agency, and an ability to influence events.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

258

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

MATERIAL CULTURE AND REGIONAL INTERACTIONS Discussions of long-distance contacts in the late Bronze Age and Iron Age have traditionally been dominated by the exchange and emulation of fine metalwork and other elaborate or ‘high-status’ artefacts. There is a danger that this focus skews our perspective towards certain kinds of interaction at the expense of others. During the late Bronze Age, societies across north-west Europe were linked by metal-exchange networks, allowing broader Atlantic, Nordic, and central European zones to be defined from shared metalwork styles. As we have seen, connections between Britain and the facing near Continent are reflected not only in material culture but also in features such as ringworks, roundhouses, and middens which occur in both areas. In contrast, the earlier Iron Age has often been seen as a period of local diversity in material culture and social forms. The breakdown of the large metalwork style zones has been taken to imply that long-distance interaction diminished. Britain and Ireland are generally seen as less closely integrated with the near Continent than during the Bronze Age. This may have been overstated. Continued contacts across the Channel throughout the Iron Age are evident in the parallel development of ‘everyday’ artefact types, settlement forms, and ritual practices, with innovations probably moving in both directions (Webley 2015). Narratives from the sixth century BC onwards are often based on core– periphery models. These focus on the (direct and indirect) contacts between temperate Europe and the states of the Mediterranean world, manifested in the appearance of imported wine amphorae and fine metal, ceramic, and glass vessels. The selective adoption of these objects demonstrates the ideological importance of feasting and hospitality. During the sixth century BC imports were concentrated in the hillforts and cemeteries at the southern edge of our region, but in the fifth century BC their focus shifted to the rich burials of the Marne and Moselle. Imports are sparser elsewhere, though a scatter reached as far as the southern Low Countries and Britain. Here their significance was probably different. In Britain, most were placed in rivers and none are found in graves (Bradley and Smith 2007). The fifth century BC also saw the appearance of metalwork and other artefacts with La Tène (‘Celtic art’) style decoration. The long established notion of a ‘La Tène culture’ spreading from a core in the Marne–Moselle area to embrace much of western and central Europe remains pervasive in the literature (see Collis 2003 for critical discussion). However, Milcent (2006) has shown that the various traits attributed to the La Tène culture appear in western France no later than in the supposed core, or in some cases perhaps even earlier. Radiocarbon dating shows that La Tène metalwork was already present in Britain by the start of the fourth century BC (Garrow et al. 2009).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

259

Changes in material culture and social organization at this time can perhaps better be explained through multipolar interaction across a wide area of temperate Europe, including Britain and Ireland (Milcent 2006). A key question is how such developments related to patterns of human mobility. Population movement has traditionally played an important role in narratives of the Iron Age (e.g. Kristiansen 1998), encouraged by Classical literary references to ‘Celtic’ migrations, though these sources are very difficult to interpret (Collis 2003). Isotopic studies can help address this issue, but as yet little work has been done. A study of human remains from the coastal site of Cliffs End Farm in south-east England is argued to show that some individuals migrated here from both Scandinavia and Iberia or the Mediterranean during the eleventh–ninth centuries BC, and again between the fifth–third centuries BC (McKinley et al. 2013). Such a recurring pattern of migration would be remarkable, so it will be interesting to see if further work verifies these claims. Isotopic analysis has also been carried out on a group of early to middle Iron Age inhumation burials in the southern Netherlands. These attracted interest as they diverge from the normal custom of cremation and in a few cases the grave goods or placement of the body echo customs from northern France or the middle Rhine. The isotopic analysis suggests that the individuals were in fact mostly local, but two of sixth–fifth century BC date with northern French affinities had non-local signatures (Geerdink 2012). This implies that practices changed through a combination of acculturation and small-scale migration.

SOCIAL FORMS DURIN G THE EARLY TO MID-FIRST MILLENNIUM B C Discussions of social forms during the first millennium BC have often been based on the premise that there was a broad trend over time of increasing complexity. This needs to be viewed critically. The image of the late Bronze Age as a time of powerful ‘chiefs’ (e.g. Kristiansen and Larsson 2005) is largely based on the impressive investment in the production of elaborate metal objects, and the accumulation of such objects in large hoards. Hillforts and other new forms of enclosure appeared at this time, and these have been seen as ‘central places’ or elite residences. Different readings of the evidence are possible, however. The use and deposition of metal objects was clearly important to social reproduction at this time, but the roles that these objects played or the identities that they embodied need not have been the same everywhere. For one thing, the kinds of artefacts selected for deposition in particular contexts varied between regions, with differing emphases on martial ideologies, feasting, or female appearance.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

260

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

How far hoards or river deposits expressed the prestige of particular individuals rather than that of a wider community is another moot point. In contrast to the early Bronze Age, funerary rites were rarely used to display marked social differences between individuals. Our picture of the period from 1100 BC onwards has been further complicated by the discovery of new categories of site such as ringworks, vast middens, and ‘assembly sites’ in various parts of north-west Europe. These are difficult to categorize; labels such as ‘(high-status) settlements’ or ‘ritual sites’ do not seem adequately to describe the combinations of activities that occurred in these places. Their implications for our understanding of late Bronze Age social relations have yet to be fully understood. In contrast, the societies of sixth–fifth century BC south-west Germany and east-central France were undeniably hallmarked by social inequalities (Brun and Chaume 2013). Densely populated centres existed, with functionally and socially distinct quarters. The elite displayed their status in death through large barrows and elaborate mortuary goods. Contact with and emulation of Mediterranean societies was important to social reproduction, seen in the monumental architecture of Mont Lassois and the Heuneburg, and in elite lifestyle such as the consumption of wine. The early La Tène communities of the middle Rhine–Moselle and Aisne–Marne are often seen as the successors of the Fürstensitze ‘chiefdoms’, since they too show an emphasis on status display through rich grave goods including exotic imports, and on ideologies of martiality and hospitality. But otherwise they seem different, with no sign of major central places like the Fürstensitze; the mostly unenclosed settlements found in the Aisne–Marne area do not stand out from those in other areas of north-eastern France. The key point, however, is that most early to middle Iron Age societies in north-west Europe were very different from either case. In many areas, we are probably dealing with broadly heterarchical societies (e.g. Hill 2011). There are few overt indications of status distinctions between households, and little display of social difference through burial. The ‘wandering’ settlement patterns seen in many areas may reflect a situation in which households could not accumulate property, or pass down rights over land through the generations. Although the production of some artefacts and importantly iron-working shows increasing centralization and specialization over time, the picture is very mixed. Wider communities were created and sustained through varying practices, such as shared participation in the construction and use of hillforts, linear boundary-works, or cemeteries. These forms of social organization came increasingly under strain in the late Iron Age. The dramatic changes of that period will be explored in the following chapter.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

7 Total Landscapes (250 BC to the Early Roman Period) I N T R O D U C TI O N By the late first century BC, most of north-west Europe had been incorporated into the Roman Empire or had fallen under its shadow. This has profoundly affected how the late Iron Age is perceived and studied. Being able to view peoples and places through written sources and coin inscriptions means that the archaeology of the period is often approached very differently to those discussed in previous chapters, with greater emphasis on historical events and causality. The chronology encourages this. Late La Tène sites on the Continent can now be dated to within a generation or so (Table 7.1), anchored by a growing number of dendrochronological fixed points (Kaenel 2006; Durost and Lambert 2007), although similar precision is rarely attainable in northern Europe or in Ireland and northern Britain, which rely largely on radiocarbon dating. The prevailing narrative for the late Iron Age in central Europe, Gaul, and southern Britain—essentially the areas that later became part of the Roman empire—is one of increasing hierarchy, social complexity, political centralization, urbanization, and economic development. These changes are seen as bound up with increasing contact with the Mediterranean world, leading up to the Roman conquests of the first centuries BC and AD. This is contrasted with the situation in northern Britain, Ireland, and ‘Germanic’ northern Europe, which are assumed to have been more tradition-bound and resistant to change. As we shall see, recent excavations do not necessarily contradict this narrative, but they do suggest that the picture is far more complex. Not all developments can be fitted into the story of growing social complexity, whilst to assume that Roman expansion was the most important factor at work at this period is to see events through the eyes of Classical writers (Bradley 2007). It is important to understand late Iron Age societies in their own terms, rather than just as precursors to provincial Roman societies. Many influential

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

262

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

Table 7.1. Chronology of the later Iron Age in different regions of north-west Europe Gaul

Britain

Northern Europe

Roman campaigns

250 BC

La Tène C1 Middle Iron Age

200 BC

La Tène C2

150 BC La Tène D1a

100 BC

Late Pre-Roman Iron Age War with Cimbri and Teutones 113–101 BC

La Tène D1b

La Tène D2a 50 BC

Late Iron Age

Caesar's Gallic wars 58–50 BC Caesar's expeditions to Britain 55 and 54 BC

La Tène D2b

Invasions of Germany east of Rhine 12 BC–AD 9

BC/AD Roman Period

AD 50

Early Roman Iron Age Roman period

Conquest of Britain begins AD 43

approaches to the period—from core–periphery models to the current emphasis on the agency of client rulers (Creighton 2000)—suffer from teleology as a result of having been constructed with half an eye to explaining the pattern of Roman expansion. Late Iron Age developments are viewed more in terms of what followed than what caused them, or came before. On the Continent, this is compounded by the difficulty of shaking off the model of Gaulish society created by Julius Caesar, to which consideration of the archaeological evidence is still largely subordinated (e.g. Fichtl 2004). Conversely, we would benefit from more systematic research into how the Roman conquest or the earlier incursions of the Cimbri and Teutones (Fichtl 2005, 26–7)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

263

affected existing settlement trajectories; it is clear, for example, that many native fortified sites were either built or redefended during the 50s BC (Haselgrove 2007b). A huge quantity of late Iron Age sites has been excavated in recent years across the study area (Fig. 7.1), but lack of synthesis and of an archaeologically-driven agenda has so far prevented these data from delivering an equivalent increase in understanding. All told, late Iron Age activity was recorded at 2724 of the sites in the database nearly half the total (47.4 per cent). Given that the period spanned less than three centuries, the enormity of

Fig. 7.1. Sites recorded in the database and for the Prehistory of Britain and Ireland project, 250–1 BC.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

264

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

this increase—from around one site per year over the previous five millennia to about eight sites per year—is remarkable. Increased archaeological visibility of sites is certainly a contributory factor, with more sites enclosed and a higher incidence of diagnostic finds at this period, but is not enough on its own to explain the increase. Four-fifths of the late Iron Age sites recorded during the project have evidence of occupation (80.6 per cent), as against rather less than a fifth with funerary remains (15.1 per cent).

H OUSEHOLDS AND RURAL SETTLEMENT Population levels continued to rise during the later Iron Age across much of north-west Europe. Alongside the dramatic rise in settlements, pollen analyses show increasingly open and intensively used landscapes in many areas. In northern France, river valleys and adjacent slopes had been substantially cleared of woodland by the first century BC (Fig. 7.2; Leroyer et al. 2009; Blancquaert et al. 2012, 236–8). Samples indicative of significant tree cover are confined to Brittany and the west. At the same time, there was further colonization of parts of the landscape that had previously been little used such as wetlands and coastal marshes. On the Champagne chalk-lands, more use was made of damper alluvial plains from the second century BC onwards and fields were laid out (Vanmoerkerke 2009). In the uplands of north-central

No of pollen diagrams (%)

60 50 40 C (50%)

20 10 0

480

350 BC

120

10

Fig. 7.2. Variations in tree pollen during the Iron Age in northern France, based on the division of pollen spectra into three classes: (A) Pollen spectra with more than 50% tree pollen; (B) Pollen spectra with 25–50% tree pollen; (C) Pollen spectra with less than 25% tree pollen. Information from Blancquaert et al. 2012.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

265

Britain, an unprecedented series of clearances during the second and first centuries BC saw nearly all the remaining substantial blocks of woodland removed and replaced by organized agricultural landscapes (Tipping 1997). These developments may have been linked to agricultural intensification and the warming of the climate, although other social factors may also have played a role. As we saw in Chapter 6, the settlement patterns of the earlier Iron Age in many parts of north-west Europe are characterized by unenclosed, loosely structured sites that frequently shifted location. In the final centuries of the Iron Age, this began to change, with shifts towards more stable, nucleated, and ordered settlements apparent in many regions. It is often also argued that the period saw increasing differentiation between settlements, with ‘high-status’ sites becoming more visible, although this focus on hierarchy may oversimplify the changes taking place. The French evidence is considered first.

Northern and North-Western France Vast numbers of La Tène C–D sites have been excavated across the northern half of France. In some areas at least, there was a high density of contemporary settlements, as revealed by landscape-scale excavations such as those at Arras– Actiparc and Onnaing–Toyota (both Nord-Pas-de-Calais) and on the Caen plain in Lower Normandy (Le Goff 2009). At Onnaing–Toyota, three or four contemporary enclosed farmsteads were uncovered, 800–1500 m from each other, each with a territory of 60–80 hectares. Some of these were long-lived, but others shifted after one or two generations. Often new farms were built close to a predecessor, as at Colmar-Houssen–Gravière/Base de Loisirs in Alsace, Ennery–Landrevenne in Lorraine or Glisy–La ZAC de la Croix de Fer in Picardy. At Glisy, up to ten farms in an area of c.150 hectares allow the occupation of an area of plateau between the Somme and Avre rivers to be traced continuously over six centuries from the end of the fourth century BC to the third century AD. It is not unusual to find a hiatus of a generation or so between the abandonment of one farm and the building of its replacement, as at Bazoches-lès-Bray in Île-de-France (Nouvel et al. 2009, fig. 8) or Ploisy on the plateau above the River Aisne. While the general trend in the late Iron Age is for greater site densities, there was a major episode of disruption in the settlement pattern in the first century BC in many areas, which may be linked to the rapid multiplication of oppida (Haselgrove and Guichard 2013). As more sites are excavated and chronologies further refined, it has become evident that throughout the northern half of France—from Alsace to Poitou-Charentes—the number of occupied rural settlements peaked between 150–100 BC, only to fall back sharply in the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

266

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe Lorraine Picardy Champagne-Ardenne Nord-Pas-de-Calais Alsace

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 –600

–500

–400

–300 BC

–200

–100

0

Pays-de-la-Loire Brittany Upper Normandy Lower Normandy

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 –600

–500

–400

–300 BC

–200

–100

0

Fig. 7.3. Rural settlement densities in different regions of northern France from Hallstatt D to the start of the Gallo-Roman period, based on numbers of sites per 50 km2. Information from Malrain et al. 2013, pl. I.

following century (Fig. 7.3; Nouvel et al. 2009; Malrain et al. 2013, pl. I). Some river valleys in the Paris Basin were almost devoid of rural sites for two or three decades and the extent of pasture also increased (Leroyer et al. 2009). The timing of the downturn, however, differs between regions and its effects

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

267

were less pronounced in plateau areas, many of which were not colonized extensively until the late Iron Age (Haselgrove 2011). It thus seems likely that a number of factors were involved. Movement of population into newly founded fortified oppida and other larger centres was surely one, but this merely begs further questions, such as why the shift was apparently rapid in some areas, but less so in others. This explanation is of even less value for regions like Brittany and Nord-Pas-de-Calais, where large oppida are rare, but which nevertheless show a similar drop in site numbers (Malrain et al. 2013, pl. I). The Gallic war may well have accelerated the downturn (and undoubtedly had some demographic consequences), but the changes began too early for Roman intervention to be the main cause. Given the high level of connectivity between different parts of late La Tène Europe, it is possible that what began as local crises—for example due to repeated crop failures, an epidemic, or enforced migration—gradually engulfed most of Gaul and southern Germany (Haselgrove and Guichard 2013). A fault with the ceramic chronology is another possibility, since most rural sites are dated mainly by pottery, but seems unlikely. Whatever the ultimate causes, the reversal was temporary, as site numbers rose again rapidly during the first century AD. There must in any case have been people in the countryside throughout the first century BC, however invisible they may be to us, in order for the inhabitants of oppida and other large sites to have been fed. Fewer grain silos and other crop storage facilities are found at rural sites than in earlier centuries. Gransar (2000) suggests this was due to centralization of grain storage at oppida, either for consumption or export. The character of crop husbandry also changed. Across the northern half of France, monoculture became the rule, whereas before other species were often grown alongside the main crop. Rotary querns were introduced, spreading so rapidly that by La Tène D they had completely supplanted saddle querns (Jaccottey et al. 2013). Throughout the Paris Basin, a strategy of extensive cultivation was adopted, alternating winter-sown cereals and periods of fallow. The latter became increasingly necessary as soil quality deteriorated. In regions further west, a more intensive regime was practiced, perhaps involving rotation of winter cereals with spring-sown oats and legumes (Zech-Matterne et al. 2009). This changed, however, in La Tène D. Legumes virtually disappear in the west, their place taken by cereals, especially barley, whilst wheat became more important than barley in the Paris Basin. A similar geographical split is apparent in animal husbandry, with cattle and pig gaining ground at the expense of sheep in the Paris Basin and more emphasis on cattle in the west (Zech-Matterne et al. 2013). In Nord-Pas-de-Calais and Picardy, enclosed sites predominated after 250 BC, becoming increasingly rectilinear with time. Most of these probably represent household units or small hamlets, with typical surface areas of around 1500–6000 m2. Occasionally the ditches can reach monumental

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

268

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

proportions and some sites had porched entrances, often viewed as a sign of status (Gaudefroy 2011). Others had complex entrances to assist the management of stock. Patterns can be seen in the internal layout, with buildings often arranged around the edges of the enclosure (Haselgrove 2007b). Sometimes an enclosure was divided into two, or had a residential compound within a larger enclosure of presumed agro-pastoral use (e.g. Beauvais–Le Brin de Glaine; Venette–ZAC du Bois de Plaisance; Habermehl 2011, 45). Density plots of artefacts, and animal and plant remains from ditches, pits, and postholes have been used to identify specific areas for storage, living, and craft activity (e.g. Gransar et al. 1997; Gaudefroy 2011), but insufficient attention is arguably paid to formation processes, with the possibility of selective or ‘structured’ deposition of material culture ignored. At some sites, an area on the edge of the enclosure was set aside for ironworking (e.g. Bazoches-sur-Vesle–Les Chantraines; Ronchères–Le Bois de la Forge), salt-making (e.g Arras–Actiparc), or burial (e.g. Cizancourt–La Sole des Galets). A farm at Pont-Rémy–Le Fond Baraquin/La Queute had three separate funerary plots, each used at different stages during its lifetime (La Tène C1–early Roman), whilst the enclosure occupied in La Tène D2 was divided into a dwelling area and an outer yard used for salt production (Prilaux 2000). By the first century BC, some enclosed sites were embedded in complexes of field boundaries and trackways, as at Croixrault–l’Aérodrome (Fig. 7.4) or Le Translay (Bayard 1996; Gaudefroy 2011). The proportion of farms in plateau locations increased steadily at the expense of valley bottoms, although numbers fell back in both zones in the first century BC (Malrain et al. 2013, fig. 73). At Fricamps–La Cramaillère, near Croixrault, a La Tène D1 enclosure overlay a dense spread of tree throw holes, indicating that a wooded area of plateau had been cleared, perhaps to make way for the new farm. Open settlements still existed in La Tène D (e.g. Abbeville–Mont à Cailloux Sud and another, with circular buildings, at Amiens–Jardins d’Intercampus), but were very much the exception. The development of enclosed farmsteads during the second and first century BC has also been traced in Alsace-Lorraine and parts of ChampagneArdenne. Again, many settlements had ordered layouts, with distinctions between domestic and storage areas suggested at sites such as Kerprich-auxBois–Le Haut du Stock. In Lorraine, enclosures occupied during La Tène C1 were defined by palisades, but mostly with ditches from La Tène C2 onwards. Some sites have associated field systems, as at Vendresse–Les Longues Fauchées in the Bar valley, where the chronology benefits from dendrochronological dates on waterlogged wood. The field system, with associated buildings and granaries, was laid out in the second century BC (196 to 114 BC). It was then reordered during the first century BC, when a domestic enclosure was also constructed (77 BC to AD 7). On the Champagne plain itself, late Iron Age enclosures are rarer than in other regions, for reasons that are unclear

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

269

Fig. 7.4. (A) Complex of late Iron Age and Gallo-Roman settlements, field boundaries, and trackways around Croixrault–l’Aérodrome, Picardy. (B) Interpretation of La Tène C2/D1 settlement layout. Information from Malrain et al. 2013, fig. 77. Information from Gaudefroy 2011.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

270

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

(Malrain et al. 2013, 72–4); instead open settlements continued to predominate (e.g. Bussy-Lettrée–Le Petit Vau Bourdin and Bussy-Lettrée–En Haut des Gravelles; Lagatie and Vanmoerkerke 2005), some of them exceptionally large (e.g. Acy-Romance, below). In western France, a similar shift from open to predominantly rectilinear enclosed settlements is seen after c.250 BC. This is especially clear in the south of Pays-de-la-Loire, where most excavations have taken place (Maguer and Lusson 2009). Many enclosures were subdivided into front and back areas, the latter forming the main living area, the outer yard mainly for agricultural purposes, echoing similar divisions in northern and eastern France. Bipartite enclosures of this kind account for one-third of sites in this region occupied after 150 BC, such as La Chaize-le-Vicomte–La Chapellière, Beaucouzé–La Corbinière, or Marcé–Hélouine (Fig. 7.5). As in the north, many sites near the coast engaged in salt-making, especially at the mouth of the Loire. Away from the low-lying Vendée and in neighbouring Brittany, most late Iron Age farms occupy hill-slope or plateau sites, but unlike Picardy, this tendency can be traced back to the earlier Iron Age in both regions (Maguer and Lusson 2009, 426; Malrain et al. 2013). In Brittany and Normandy, enclosed sites formed a significant component of the settlement pattern from the sixth or fifth century BC, as we have seen, and continued to dominate the late Iron Age record. Enclosed settlements embedded in systems of fields and trackways like Guichainville–Le Long Buisson (Eure) resemble those in Picardy. Lengthy sequences are a feature of several sites, notably Ifs–ZAC Object’Ifs Sud in Lower Normandy. Here a dense pattern of enclosed farms within a grid of trackways and field boundaries established in the late sixth century BC displays a continuous sequence of development up to La Tène D2, although none of the sites survived into the Augustan period (Le Goff 2009). Despite the greater longevity of enclosures, the same tendency to rectilinearity over time is evident in these regions of north-west France. Many Breton farms with late Iron Age origins have the same bipartite or courtyard layout as in other parts of northern France (Malrain et al. 2013, figs 117–19). Coastal ‘cliff castles’ or promontory enclosures are a further element of the settlement pattern in north-west France, but remain poorly understood as they are rarely investigated in development-led fieldwork. Research excavation at the promontory enclosure at Le Yaudet in Brittany has however implicated this site in cross-Channel exchange (Cunliffe and Galliou 2005). Yet again salt production was a common activity at late Iron Age sites in coastal areas. Analysis of late Iron Age farms in northern France has often focused on distinguishing status differences between them. Malrain’s four-tier model for site hierarchy in the Oise valley has been particularly influential (Malrain et al. 2002, 137–58). Settlements are ranked on the basis of the labour expended in their construction (absence/presence and elaborateness of enclosure), the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

271

Fig. 7.5. Plans of late Iron Age bipartite enclosures in Pays de la Loire and Brittany: Beaucouzé–La Corbinière; Lamballe–La Tourelle La Chaize-Vicomte–La Chapellière; Marcé-Hélouine. Information from Maguer and Lusson 2009 and Malrain et al. 2013.

‘wealth’ of their artefact assemblages (including Mediterranean imports such as Dressel 1 wine amphorae), and faunal assemblages (best meat cuts). Malrain et al. (2002) argue that the basis for social hierarchy was control of agrarian production, evinced by the abundant grain storage capacity of some farmsteads. Longueil-Sainte-Marie–Le Vivier des Grès, where the dwelling lay in its own enclosure, is so far the only site in the Oise valley to meet the criteria for the top rank, as against the numerous small enclosed farms and open sites that form the bottom two tiers (Malrain and Pinard 2006, 244–52). In Pays-de-laLoire, some sites have similarly been identified as ‘aristocratic’ due to their combining monumental enclosures and buildings with extensive material assemblages and imports (Maguer and Lusson 2009). Examples include Fontenay-le-Comte–Les Genâts, where high numbers of deer and wild boar bones suggest that hunting was an important activity (Germinet 2009).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

272

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

‘Aristocratic’ farmsteads have also been identified in Brittany at Kerven Teignouze and Paule, where earlier enclosed farmsteads were remodelled in the third century BC with massive ditches, palisades, and gateways (Menez 2012). Paule is also distinguished by its monumental buildings and the four anthropomorphic stone statues of late second–first century BC date found in the ditches and a souterrain fill (Ménez et al. 1999). Another impressive site is Batilly-en-Gâtinais (Centre) dating to La Tène D1–D2a (Fig. 7.6). A trapezoidal enclosure 670 m long and 390 m across at the wider end contained a sub-compound of 150 m by 130 m at one end, delimited by a ditch 6.5 m wide and 3.5 m deep, and entered via a monumental towergateway with multiple construction phases. The interior contained several complex buildings and was subdivided by palisades that had been plastered with daub and painted. One colour corresponds to Egyptian blue and is viewed as a Mediterranean import. Large quantities of amphorae were also recovered. Further buildings lined the long sides of the bigger enclosure (Fichtl 2013a). A similar bipartite plan, comprising an ‘aristocratic’ residential compound within, or attached to, a larger enclosure is observed at other sites such as Herblay (Val d’Oise) and Varennes–La Justice (Seine-et-Marne). It has been argued that this arrangement developed into the classic Gallo-Roman courtyard villa after the conquest (Haselgrove 1995; Fichtl 2009). It is clear that greater differentiation between settlements—in terms of size, architecture, and material assemblages—developed during the late Iron Age across the northern half of France. Whether all of this variation can be explained by the narrative of increasing hierarchy is less clear. Often a rather simplistic equation is made between ‘rich’ assemblages and aristocratic inhabitants, with little consideration of the (potentially selective) depositional practices occurring at these sites. It is worth considering whether some large rural sites with impressive finds assemblages played some kind of public or collective role instead of—or as well as—being elite residences. Others may not be settlements at all (Malrain et al. 2007a; Haselgrove 2011).

Western Germany and Southern Belgium Late Iron Age settlement data remain poor in the middle Rhine–Moselle region, where the focus of work has been on oppida. The only significant site excavated in recent years is Borg (Saarland), where a complex of four postbuilt rectangular buildings of first century BC date was overlain in the first century AD by a palatial Roman villa. The two largest buildings were each 13 m long, with wide-set posts, and lay within rectangular enclosures defined by ditches or palisades. However, given the later developments here, the site can hardly be regarded as typical.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

273

Fig. 7.6. Plan of La Tène D ‘aristocratic’ residential complex at Batilly-en-Gâtinais, Centre. Inset: Detail of Building D. Information from Fichtl et al. 2013c.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

274

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

More is known about settlement on the loess west of Cologne. Small postbuilt buildings were the rule, although after c.150 BC rectangular buildings with a wall-slot construction appear at a few sites. The evidence suggests a broad trend after 250 BC for individual farmstead plots to be occupied for longer, shown archaeologically by overlapping house plans, and settlement tended to contract to larger sites (Simons 1989; Nehren 2001). By the first century BC, if not before, palisaded or ditched enclosures were constructed around some settlements. Some of these were on a ‘farmstead’ scale, as at Elsdorf–Etzweiler where five small buildings were placed within a 0.3 hectare oval palisaded compound. At Vilich–Müldorf on the east bank of the Rhine, an extensive settlement occupied from c.300 BC to AD 50 incorporated a 0.9 hectare polygonal enclosure defined by a ditch 2 m deep. Within the interior, the dwelling houses seem to be primarily arranged around the perimeter, with smaller storehouses and rubbish pits in the centre (Fig. 7.7). Another site on the east bank of the Rhine is Rees–Haldern, where five buildings lay within a 1.3 hectare subrectangular ditched compound, thought to be defensive. Other enclosed sites were larger, as at Elsdorf–Heppendorf (2.5 hectares). Here a complete iron sword dating to the late first century BC or early first century AD was found in an upper ditch fill (Kempken 2012). An earlier excavation at Hambach uncovered a 2.7 hectare bivallate enclosure densely packed with 266 buildings from at least two phases of occupation, from La Tène C2 to D1/D2a. Buried in a pit within the enclosure was a pot containing one and a half gold torcs, an armlet and forty-six coins of La Tène D1 date. This has been interpreted as an offering marking the abandonment of the settlement (Joachim 2007), but other possibilities exist. Two large deposits of iron bars were also buried there. The enclosed sites of the Rhineland differ from those in France in lacking complex internal subdivision, or associated field systems. Nor do their finds assemblages lend themselves easily to ranking sites, although the enclosed site at Rees– Haldern is viewed as ‘high status’ on the evidence of an amphora sherd and non-ferrous metalworking. The evidence from Hambach and some other Rhineland sites for a break in occupation around the mid-first century BC has traditionally been linked to Caesar’s brutal campaigns in the area, but this is questionable, given the similar fall in rural site numbers during La Tène D2 across northern France and southern Germany (above). Moreover, a number of recently explored sites show no obvious hiatus from the late Iron Age to the Roman period. Both enclosed (e.g. Elsdorf–Etzweiler) and unenclosed settlements (e.g. Jüchen– Neuholz) west of the Rhine developed into villas after the Roman conquest. Few sites have been excavated in the uplands to the east of the Rhine. Exceptions include Haiger, where small-scale investigations uncovered stone-paved ‘house platforms’.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

275

Fig. 7.7. Plan of late Iron Age settlement and polygonal enclosure at Vilich–Müldorf, Rhineland. Information from Gechter-Jones and Kempken 2007.

Settlement in the loess belt of Belgium was dominated by enclosed sites similar to those across the German border. Good examples were uncovered in advance of TGV railway construction in the 1990s at Brugelette–Bois d’Attre, Chièvres–Ladeuze, and Orp-Jauche–Le Tierceau, all of them extensive settlements (Remy and Soumoy 1996; Bourgeois et al. 2003). At Ladeuze, at least two large houses and a number of smaller buildings lay within a doubleditched enclosure c.120 m in diameter, reminiscent of Hambach in the Rhineland. At Brugelette, oak samples from a deep timber-lined well outside the enclosure were radiocarbon dated to the late fourth or third century BC. Both this site and the orthogonal enclosure complex at Oedelem– Wulfsberge on the sandy plain of West Flanders are readily compared to late Iron Age enclosed sites in northern France (Bourgeois et al. 2003, 185).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

276

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

No rural settlements of the period have so far been explored in Luxembourg, although their existence can be inferred from rich first-century BC burials like those at Clémency and Goeblange/Goeblingen–Nospelt (Metzler and Gaeng 2009).

The Longhouse Region of the North European Plain Longhouses in the northern lowlands took a similar form to those of the earlier Iron Age, but there was a broad trend towards increased house size, with a few buildings reaching a length of 30 m or more during the first centuries BC and AD. In some areas, increases can also be seen in the size of the settlement plot and in the number of associated structures and outbuildings. Domestic groups may thus have been larger on average than before. What this meant for the social structure of households is largely unexplored, although research into settlements in Jutland suggests increasing spatial separation of tasks and roles within the domestic group by the first two centuries AD (Webley 2008). Other developments in the longhouse region mirror changes elsewhere in north-west Europe. The intensively studied sandy areas of Flanders and the southern Netherlands display a gradual shift from the pattern of wandering, dispersed farmsteads that characterized the earlier Iron Age to a more fixed structure. Farmsteads were now displaced over shorter distances or sometimes were rebuilt on the same plot. There are also hints of more clustering of contemporary farms and a few multi-household settlements were surrounded by enclosure ditches (Gerritsen 2003), although this was less common than in regions further south. The excavations around Oss (Noord-Brabant) clearly demonstrate these changes from c.150 BC (Jansen and van As 2012). At Weert, the earlier Iron Age pattern of dispersed farmsteads was replaced by four larger late Iron Age to Roman period settlements within a radius of one kilometre. At the Laarderweg subsite, the sequence began with a sizeable ditched double enclosure (c.6.5 hectares) constructed in the second or early first century BC. The enclosure was largely empty, however, and by the late first century BC the ditches had mostly silted up and the site was used for settlement (Fig. 7.8). This took the form of a cluster of five contemporary farms. Similar trends to a more fixed settlement pattern are attested in the sandy areas of the eastern Netherlands, although here evidence of enclosure is far scarcer (van Beek 2009). In Drenthe in the north-east Netherlands, excavations at Noordbarge, Peelo, and Zeijen demonstrate that by the first centuries BC and AD settlements with two to three contemporary farms had developed, which then remained fixed in the landscape for significant periods. Some of these were surrounded by ‘defensive’ enclosures of rectangular or irregular form, defined by earthworks and palisades (Waterbolk 1995; 2009).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

277

Fig. 7.8. Weert–Kampershoek, Laarderweg subsite, Netherlands. Plan of enclosure (c.200–50 BC) and settlement (c.50 BC–AD 250). Information from Roymans et al. 1998.

Enclosure is also a feature of late Iron Age settlements in the central river district of the Netherlands. A relatively ‘ordered’ settlement layout can be seen at Tiel–Passewaaij, where three longhouses were arranged in a row on one side of a palaeochannel, each associated with ditched plot boundaries. A rectangular plot on the opposite bank probably marks the location of a fourth house. In the dune areas of the west coast, the late Iron Age saw the development of grid-like rectilinear enclosure complexes and field systems at sites like Den Haag–World Forum and Den Haag–Monsterseweg. These were complemented by seasonal or temporary sites such as Rotterdam–Poldervaart, where sparse evidence for activity in the form of pottery concentrations, wooden stakes, and a pit is best interpreted in terms of short-term visits, since the area lay too close to a river for permanent settlement.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

278

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

In the coastal marshes of the north Netherlands and north-west Germany, raised mound settlements persisted. Away from the coast, settlement patterns in north-west Germany remain poorly understood. Clusters of houses are found at some sites, but the duration of settlement and the number of contemporary buildings is generally unclear. During the first centuries BC and AD, fences began to appear around farmsteads such as Hamburg– Marmstorf. The use of longhouses had been adopted further south in the Mittelgebirge by the first century BC, as at Niederweimar and Mardorf in Hesse. The large number of excavated sites in Jutland provides a good basis for analysis. The late pre-Roman Iron Age saw a trend away from the pattern of dispersed, ‘wandering’ farmsteads to more nucleated hamlets or villages that remained fixed in the landscape for longer, a process that had begun before 250 BC in north Jutland (Chapter 6). In many places, settlement nucleation appears to have involved processes of contraction of previously dispersed household units, as at Lysgård in mid-Jutland. The increase in settlement stability meant that the individual farmstead was occupied for much longer than before. Farmsteads were now ‘built to last’, with a more robust construction, and could undergo many phases of rebuilding on the same plot (Webley 2008). Concurrent with these changes, fenced or ditched enclosures around individual farmstead units became far more common, and in west Jutland we find some hamlet- or village-sized settlements enclosed by a shared fence. At first the boundaries were curvilinear, but by the early centuries AD they had become increasingly rectilinear. The enclosures around settlements and individual farms were not normally defensive. A unique exception has been found at Lyngsmose, where a small open site dated to c.250–150 BC eventually grew to fifteen farmsteads and was enclosed within a large ditch with wooden spikes set into its base (Fig. 7.9). The lack of any obvious settlement ‘hierarchy’ is a recurrent feature of the longhouse region as a whole. It is often assumed that the size of the byre within a longhouse reflects the size of the herd controlled by the household, and hence its ‘wealth’, but the case for any marked differences in power or prestige is weak (Brandt 2010). The late pre-Roman Iron Age ‘village’ at Hodde in Jutland, where the largest farmstead was marked by a concentration of fine pottery (Hvass 1985), has often been held up as a model but remains unique despite the huge amount of recent excavation.

Britain and Ireland Fieldwork over the last decade has continued to enhance our understanding of later Iron Age settlement expansion and complexity in different parts in Britain. Among the most conspicuous developments was the intensified colonization and exploitation of many previously thinly inhabited environments,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

279

Fig. 7.9. Late Iron Age enclosed settlement at Lyngsmose, Jutland, in its later phase. Information from Eriksen and Rindel 2005.

from coastal areas and wetlands to the Midlands Boulder Clays. The Avon levels were used in the second and first centuries BC for grazing, following inundation during the earlier Iron Age (Gardiner et al. 2002). Often settlement expansion went hand in hand with increasing specialization focused on local resources such as iron in the Weald and the Vale of York; clay and shale in Purbeck; and even the specialist taking of wild animals like beaver in the wetlands of East Anglia (Evans et al. 2013, 209). By the late Iron Age, many of these may have become full-time enterprises. For a long time, artefact-rich wetland sites like Glastonbury or Meare seemed to be exceptional, but large-scale excavations are starting to reveal possible counterparts in other areas that were not occupied continuously or where large numbers of people gathered for part of the year. Complexes like Colne Fen/Over on the East Anglian Fen edge (Evans et al. 2013) could have

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

280

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

been both a base for transhumant groups exploiting the wetlands during summer and a place where people from nearby sites like Haddenham Delphs came periodically to exchange goods and for social and ritual transactions. Salt-production sites proliferated around the coasts of southern and eastern Britain. In the south, many of the installations were seasonal, as at London Gateway on the Thames estuary (Biddulph 2012); further north they are often associated with permanent settlements, as at Street House on the Cleveland coast (Sherlock and Vyner 2013) or Needles Eye at the mouth of the Tweed (Proctor 2012). Colonization of the heavier clay-lands proceeded at different rates, influenced no doubt by the local availability of more easily worked soils. From the Midlands to southern Scotland, many Boulder Clay areas show rapid increases in settlements between the fourth to second centuries BC (Parry 2004; Haselgrove 2009), whereas some parts of south-east England remained sparsely populated until the first century BC (Hill 2007; Booth et al. 2011). At Brisley Farm on the Weald clay, a network of fields and tracks laid out in the late Bronze Age was not reoccupied until the first century BC, after which the complex grew rapidly (Stevenson 2013). In Essex, however, a rapid expansion of settlement on the Boulder Clay in the fourth to second centuries BC was followed by a sharp decline after c.100 BC (Sealey forthcoming), just as we see throughout northern France. Another area to defy the general tendency for increased site numbers was Wessex, but developments on the chalk took a different course. Most hillforts went out of use before the period. Around the few that were left, smaller sites mostly disappeared in the third and second centuries BC, implying that the occupants moved into the hillforts, since further afield numbers were largely unaffected (Cunliffe 2009). In the first century BC, the remaining ‘developed’ hillforts like Danebury were abandoned in turn and older enclosures reoccupied, along with new forms of site like banjo enclosures. Both in Wessex and Essex, roundhouses became less visible (Sharples 2010; Sealey forthcoming), but whether this has social or demographic implications or was linked to increased use of rectangular sill-beam structures, of which there are signs in south-east England, is uncertain. In most of Britain, the roundhouse remained the dominant architectural form not only up to the end of the Iron Age, but in many areas in the Roman period as well (Bradley 2012b). Enclosed sites with long sequences of occupation going back to the earlier Iron Age are widespread in many upland areas of western and northern Britain. In contrast, development-led investigations indicate that the settlement pattern in many lowland areas in eastern and north-east England was still dominated by open sites in the third century BC (e.g. Hodgson et al. 2012; Zant and Howard-Davis 2013). Many of these unenclosed sites were extensive and integrated into well-developed landscapes, but chronologies are generally

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

281

too imprecise for us to reconstruct their dynamics or know how many households were contemporary. Between 300 and 100 BC, a trend towards the enclosure of settlements and individual houses is evident virtually everywhere. In Wessex, this is manifested in constant refurbishment of hillfort ramparts. In north-west Scotland, the building of the stone tower-houses known as brochs, with its emphasis on defining and monumentalizing the domestic unit, may resonate with trends to enclosure seen elsewhere. A parallel development in parts of eastern England was the emergence of larger ‘aggregated’ settlements like Beaumont Leys and Humberstone in Leicestershire (Thomas 2011). These exhibit more obvious zoning than earlier open sites. Some of them may have been partly seasonal, notably Crick (Northamptonshire), which lay at a point where several major routes meet and perhaps acted as a periodic meeting places for an extended community (Woodward and Hughes 2007). Many of the new enclosed sites lay within wider complexes of fields and trackways. As on the Continent, there was a growing emphasis on rectilinear enclosures, sometimes almost to the point of exclusivity. Their layout varied from simple quadrangular compounds with a single central house to more complex. In south-east Scotland, where many curvilinear enclosures like Broxmouth (Armit and McKenzie 2013) exhibit long occupation histories, rectilinear enclosures tend to occupy vacant sites, suggesting that their plan was suited to infilling gaps in a well-occupied landscape (Bradley 2007; Haselgrove 2009), whereas in north-east England, they were often constructed over earlier open settlements, as at East and West Brunton (Hodgson et al. 2012). Radiocarbon dating indicates a surge in the digging of rectilinear enclosures around 200 BC across the region, followed in the first century BC by a rapid return to more open settlement forms in the Tees valley and East Lothian, although not the Tyne valley (Hamilton 2010). Many enclosed sites display greater longevity, however, with the ditched areas being redefined or enlarged from time to time. Others grew incrementally into larger ditched complexes. This form of evolution is seen at Wattle Syke and other sites on the Magnesian Limestone and Coal Measures fringing the Vale of York (Martin et al. 2013), although, on present evidence, the ladder settlements of East Yorkshire were primarily a Roman development (e.g. at Melton; Fenton-Thomas 2011). On the other hand, there can no longer be much doubt that the extensive ‘brick-work’ field systems in the Yorkshire area (Fig. 7.10) were laid out in the Iron Age (Roberts 2010, 71–2), whilst widespread evidence for the building or remodelling of major linear earthworks at this period shows the extent to which the landscape was now divided up. Linear dykes were also a feature of the new foci that emerged in south-east England in the first century BC and their more nebulous counterparts in the south-west. Many of the latter incorporate banjo enclosures (Moore 2012), which were common in a zone extending from Sussex into Wales. Their

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

282

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

Fig. 7.10. Late Iron Age brick-work fields at Rossington, South Yorkshire, northern England, with overlying Roman roads and fort (black). Information from Roberts 2010.

function remains a matter of debate, but many were probably used for seasonal rounding up of sheep and other animals. In Ireland, the existing pattern of mainly small unenclosed roundhouse settlements with few or no artefacts continued (Corlett and Potterton 2012). Recently excavated examples include Carrickmines Great in County Dublin with a roundhouse and iron-smelting furnace, dated between 380 BC and AD 70

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

283

(Ó Drisceoil 2007). Since 1994, the number of known occupation sites has risen to 200 (Becker 2009), but most consist of features like pits, hearths, or postholes; buildings are far scarcer and the overall total still tiny compared to elsewhere. Nevertheless, a recent audit of later prehistoric radiocarbon dates revealed a sharp rise in settlement activity in Ireland around 400 BC, which was maintained up to the first century BC (Armit et al. 2013b), mirroring the basic pattern observed across most of north-west Europe. More unexpectedly, activity in Ireland fell back again in the early centuries AD to even lower levels than in the earlier Iron Age. Whilst later Iron Age settlements in Ireland remain elusive, this was not due, then, to a lack of people in the landscape. The scarcity of houses might imply that a larger element of the population was mobile (Becker 2009). Apart from monumental complexes like Navan (below), the best proxy for settlement is the network of roads, tracks, and platforms in the midlands (McDermott et al. 2009). As Barry Raftery noted, building the entire two kilometre-long Corlea track in 146 BC must have involved a significant number of people, who presumably lived in the area (Raftery 1994, 103–4). In Britain, several wellmade roads and tracks have been found in recent fieldwork, not just within or close to settlements where one might most expect them, but also in remoter locations. They range from a triple-post alignment, perhaps for a trackway, built in 75 BC near Beccles in Suffolk (Geary et al. 2011) to the metalled road at Sharpstone (Shropshire), built in the second or first century BC on a route used by cattle and repaired or resurfaced two or three times before the Roman conquest (Malim and Hayes 2011). Roads and bridges on the Continent also show evidence of regular repairs and maintenance. In Hesse, a bridge built in 211 BC across a watercourse and marshy area at Kirchhain–Niederwald was reconstructed in 194–92 BC. Not all such structures had utilitarian purposes (Chapter 6), but we have allowed Roman road-building to blind us to the sophistication of existing land transport infrastructure in late Iron Age Europe, which we should have deduced from the scale of long-distance movement of people and objects, or the speed with which Caesar and his army were able to move through Gaul (Salač 2013). A few settlements in Jutland could conceivably have been built beside roads, as at Askov, where twenty-four farms were organized in two rows, with a blank strip in between.

A More Ordered Landscape Broadly comparable changes in settlement patterns occurred in the later Iron Age across a zone encompassing the northern half of France, the Low Countries, north-west Germany, and southern Scandinavia, as well as much of

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

284

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

Britain. These developments began during the mid-first millennium BC in some areas, but accelerated everywhere in the last three centuries of the Iron Age. Many areas display a trend towards greater settlement stability. Settlements and individual houses were both rebuilt on the same plot much more frequently than before. Where farmsteads did move, it was often only a short distance. In some regions, this tendency was associated with increased settlement nucleation and the appearance of recognizable hamlets or villages. Increased settlement stability may be linked to greater population densities and an increasingly full landscape—despite intensive woodland clearance, there was no longer the same latitude to shift across the landscape—but has other implications. As the domestic group was now reproducing itself in the same place for several generations, it had become a longer-lived institution that maintained an attachment to place. This implies altered systems of land tenure and inheritance. Whereas the ‘wandering’ settlement patterns of the earlier Iron Age may indicate situations in which use rights to land and resources were held in common or periodically reallocated to households, the later Iron Age perhaps saw more emphasis on the rights of individual households or kin groups, which were passed down through the generations. A further development is that enclosure became more common and settlements were more ordered. The forms that enclosure took varied from substantial ramparts to slighter fences or ditches, and their scale also varied between regions. In much of northern France, the accent was on defining small domestic units and demarcating separate functional or social areas within them. In the Rhineland and southern Low Countries, it was more on defining larger groups made up of several households. These differences are important, implying a varying emphasis on individual households or larger communities. A common thread may be that the increased ordering, bounding, and partitioning of inhabited space helped to mediate or make more explicit relationships between different groups at community, household, or even sub-household level, thereby also more clearly defining their respective rights and obligations. At a time when people were often living closer together than before, defining such relationships may well have become more important. Enclosure boundaries could have emphasized household or collective rights to, or control over, particular resources, such as livestock penned in the yard. Palisades and hedges would have screened particular spaces and deeds from view, creating a more rigid distinction between public and private realms, or between activities and areas associated with certain groups based on gender or status. Such partitions would also have guided and constrained movement and provided clues to correct behaviour—for example requiring people to take a particular route, or use a specific entrance, when travelling from one farmstead or household to another. The significance of settlement boundaries

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

285

is emphasized by the frequency with which they were the foci for deliberate deposits (below). In many areas, there was a pronounced trend from curvilinear to rectilinear enclosures. One explanation may be that new farmsteads increasingly had to fit within networks of existing boundaries and rights. In parts of northern France and southern Britain, such grids become visible archaeologically towards the end of the Iron Age in the form of extensive complexes of field systems and trackways defined by ditches, or can be inferred from the presence of three or four contemporary farms clustered within an area of 150–250 hectares. Distinct areas within these systems were set aside for settlement, agriculture, and ritual. As yet, no consensus has emerged regarding the causes of the fall in rural settlement numbers during the first century BC in northern France and other parts of north-west Europe. Some areas show signs of soil exhaustion towards the end of the Iron Age, but not to an extent that could explain the abandonment of sites on this scale. In any case, the disruption was short-lived, as within decades, numbers almost everywhere resumed an upward trajectory, eventually peaking in the second to third centuries AD at the zenith of the Roman Empire. Since the downturn was underway before Caesar’s invasion of Gaul, this can be ruled out as the primary cause, although it probably exacerbated the process in many areas. We are left therefore to consider other social, economic, or political processes that might have led to farms being abandoned at this time. By far the most obvious change visible in the archaeological record is the contemporary emergence of oppida and other new centres across much of the relevant zone.

CENTRAL P LA CES A dominant theme in the archaeology of late Iron Age Europe is the emergence of new kinds of site that are widely viewed as having had urban or protourban characteristics. Across large parts of the Continent, undefended ‘agglomerated settlements’ developed from the later third century BC onward, followed in La Tène D by the major fortified sites usually known as oppida, the term used by Caesar for defended sites he encountered in Gaul. New types of focal site also emerged in Britain and Ireland, but they are quite different from most Continental sites. The traditional image of late Iron Age ‘urbanism’ has largely been formed from classic oppida such as Mont Beuvray (Burgundy) and Manching (Bavaria) outside our area. From early on, possession of imposing defences came to be seen not only as a defining trait, but also implicitly as an urban feature that can be identified by archaeology (Wendling 2013). Undefended

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

286

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

agglomerations were meanwhile excluded from debate, partly due to our poor knowledge of these sites until recently and partly due to Caesar distinguishing between oppida and vici (villages) on several occasions. Today the distinction seems unhelpful. Many agglomerations that were originally unfortified later acquired ramparts or moved en bloc to a more defensible location nearby. Conversely at least one oppidum held against Caesar (Gergovia in Auvergne) seems to have been a fortified refuge and otherwise unoccupied at this period (Poux 2012). While ‘urbanism’ is notoriously difficult to define, key criteria for defining Iron Age oppida as urban, apart from fortification, have included a large resident population; an ordered or planned layout; indications of intensive or specialized industrial production; and a role as a social or political focus for the hinterland and as a node in long-distance exchange networks (Collis 1984; Fichtl 2005). Nevertheless, it has been clear for some time that this model, largely derived from parallels with classical and medieval towns, is problematic. By viewing Iron Age sites through this lens we may lose sight of their unique, culturally specific features. As Greg Woolf noted (2006), the monumentality of oppida, with their ostentatious defences, was essentially outwardfacing, whereas Roman towns had a more elaborate interior monumentality, to be experienced from within. Late Iron Age foci in Britain and Ireland display elements of both. Applying a single model of urbanism also seems to deny the significant variations apparent between different sites and regions (Woolf 1993; Kaenel 2006). Attempts to develop quantifiable archaeological criteria for assessing late Iron Age settlement complexity (Wendling 2013), whilst facilitating more rigorous comparisons within a given region, seem most unlikely to yield a workable framework for temperate Europe as a whole. The impact of development-led archaeology on oppida and other major sites has been mixed, favouring those in lowland locations, particularly the less visible aggregated settlements. Large parts of the low-lying oppida at Condé-sur-Suippe and Villeneuve-Saint-Germain in Picardy were explored in the 1980s as a result of development pressures (Debord 1982; 1990; Pion 1987), but most fortified sites have escaped major interventions due to their elevated locations. At Moulay-le-Mesnil (Pays-de-la-Loire) a road scheme has drastically altered our knowledge of an oppidum at the Mayenne-Aron confluence known since the nineteenth century. The work revealed a large outer enclosure, giving the site a total area of 135 hectares instead of 12 hectares. Late La Tène occupation was traced over one kilometre and two known sites, one a bronze workshop, the other for querns, turned out to lie within the oppidum. This, however, is a rarity. Most new data for oppida come from research projects, like those at Boviolles and the Fossé des Pandours in eastern France (Hamm 2003; Fichtl and Pierrevelcin 2005; Dechezleprêtre et al. 2007). The one significant exception is where oppida lie beneath modern towns or cities. Many of these sites exhibit an unbroken sequence of occupation from

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

287

the Iron Age to the present day, so that their early phases are largely hidden from view. The pattern of interventions on urban sites inevitably tends to be somewhat piecemeal and is often impeded by later remains, but cumulatively these have provided valuable insights into the occupation and topography of important oppida beneath modern towns such as Besançon and Orléans (Fichtl 2007; Jesset et al. 2009). Also significant is the negative evidence for late Iron Age activity revealed by development-led work at other places named by Caesar such as Samarobriva (Amiens) and Lutetia (Paris). Viewed over the spectrum of major late Iron Age sites, new fieldwork has enhanced our understanding in two main ways. First, it has further underlined the extent of inter-site variation. The traits used to define urbanism occur in a range of combinations and are not always restricted to sites with large permanent populations. Arguably we would do better to abandon altogether the debate over whether sites should be labelled as urban and instead investigate the emergence during the late Iron Age of various different kinds of ‘central place’ (Gerritsen and Roymans 2006). Second, whereas older accounts tended to emphasize the role of manufacturing and long-distance trade as drivers of urbanism, it is increasingly clear that ritual was often important in bringing people together and allowing new social relationships to be formed. The distribution of late Iron Age agglomerated settlements is fairly similar to that of oppida (compare Fichtl 2005, 22–3; and 2013b, 21, fig. 1), extending from Aquitaine (e.g. Lacoste: Sireix 2013) across central and eastern France into southern Germany (e.g. Berching-Pollanten: Schäfer 2010; Manching: Sievers 2003) and beyond. Within this zone, they tend to be in lowland areas with particular concentrations along the Seine and other major river valleys. The distribution thins out north of Paris—an area where oppida abound—and agglomerated sites of this kind are absent from the longhouse region of the North European Plain. Like the oppida, they are a fairly diverse group, but most yield evidence of metalworking—which can include minting coins (e.g. Sainte-Gence: Lintz 2009)—and other craft activities (e.g. glass, pottery production), and where excavation has been extensive, show signs of zoning. The existence of grids of dwelling units, interspersed with open spaces and streets, as at Gandaillat/La Grand Borne in Auvergne (Deberge et al. 2007) or Manching, implies that parts of some settlements were deliberately laid out (Fichtl 2013b). Several agglomerated settlements have been explored in the Paris Basin. The most comprehensively investigated is Acy-Romance on the chalk plain north of Reims, where a 15 hectare site was intensively occupied from c.180–80 BC, incorporating a Bronze Age barrow. Over 200 buildings plans, some with multiple construction phases, were recorded, ordered around a series of open spaces. From analysis of the structures, animal bones, and other finds, Lambot (1999) and Méniel (1999) argue that three courtyards provided separate ‘quarters’ for different socio-economic groups (craft-workers, arable

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

288

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

farmers, pastoralists). In the south-west part of the site was a D-shaped enclosure interpreted as a ‘place of assembly’, with shrine structures and burials placed around its edge. At Bobigny in the Île-de-France, a large cemetery in use during the third century BC and a smaller burial ground nearby were succeeded in the second century BC by a polyfocal settlement dominated by craft activity. Occupation became sparser during La Tène D1b– D2 and certain sectors of the site were abandoned, although activity in the others was still intensive. In a bend of the Seine just outside central Paris, fieldwork at Nanterre has revealed another extensive settlement on the site of a slightly earlier cemetery, which its layout respected (Fig. 7.11). The agglomeration covered 20–25 hectares, and it too had plentiful evidence of craft activity (Viand 2008). Another important site existed near the Seine-Yonne confluence at Varennessur-Seine–Le Marais du Pont, very close to the courtyard settlement at Varennes–La Justice (above). A similar range of craft activities is attested at both sites (Gouge and Griffisch 2008; Séguier 2008). What this might mean in social terms is far from clear, but it echoes the distinction apparent at Manching

Fig. 7.11. Plan of the agglomerated settlement at Nanterre, Île-de-France. Information from Viand 2004 and Fichtl 2013b.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

289

after it was fortified in La Tène D1 between specialist producer zones and individual compounds engaged in craft activity (Haselgrove 2011). Smaller in scale than the Seine valley sites, but claimed nonetheless by its excavators to have ‘proto-urban’ characteristics, is Tomblaine–Le Pré Chenu in the Meurthe valley in Lorraine. Excavation of c.1 hectare uncovered more than forty post-built buildings dated to La Tène D1 on the site of a Bronze Age cemetery. The buildings had an ordered arrangement, aligned on the earlier funerary monuments. The western part of the site appears to have been residential, while the south-eastern part produced evidence for working iron and copper alloy. The north-eastern area is seen as a commercial or religious quarter (or both) due to the presence of two larger buildings there, along with coins, amphora sherds, and pits containing deliberate deposits of complete pots (Deffressigne and Tikonoff 2012, fig. 7). East of the Rhine and at the northern edge of the distribution, the lowland salt-producing site at Bad Nauheim in Hesse has similarities to these French ‘industrial’ agglomerations. Salt production took place in two areas 500 m apart, around the brine springs in a minor river valley. Culture layers containing briquetage survive up to 5 m deep. Excavations uncovered an extensive complex, including stone-paved evaporation basins and boiling ovens, suggestive of industrial-scale production. Dendrochronology shows that activity spanned the late third to first centuries BC. Extensive settlements lay upslope from both salt-working areas, but are poorly understood as they lie beneath the modern town. The working of iron, copper alloy, and glass was also carried out, and there are more ‘domestic’ finds such as loom weights and querns. Long-distance contacts are indicated by exotic foods such as coriander and plum. Fortified oppida developed from the late second century BC onwards, some of them on the sites of earlier sanctuaries or hillforts. Many are elevated, but others lay in river valleys, in meanders or at confluences. Often fortified sites lay close to earlier agglomerations, which they replaced. Wholesale shifts of this kind were first identified at Levroux (Centre) and Basel on the Swiss border (Fichtl 2013b), but many more have been recognized since through excavation and survey, particularly in east-central France (Barral and Nouvel 2012; Moore et al. 2013). Most of these sites lie beyond our area, but there are plausible examples in Champagne-Ardenne at Acy-Romance/Château-Porcien and Champigny-lès-Langres/Langres, and in Lorraine, where the plateau-edge oppidum of Essey-lès-Nancy–La Butte-Sainte-Geneviève (occupied La Tène D1b–D2) may follow on from Tomblaine–Le Pré Chenu, four kilometres away (Deffressigne and Tikonoff 2012). The relationship between ‘open’ and fortified settlements was not always one of simple replacement, although fieldwalking data may be blurring some of the relationships. At Champigny-lès-Langres/Langres and Sens/Villeneuvesur-Yonne, low-lying agglomerations continued to develop even after oppida

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

290

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

were established nearby. Others were fortified in situ (Mâcon, Manching) or never enclosed (Mâlain, Mandeure). Sometimes, too, it was the newly fortified sites that emerged as the Roman centre of the region (Langres, Metz), but many others were short-lived and quickly abandoned for a more accessible location in the vicinity (Barral and Nouvel 2012). Exceptionally, agglomerations were enclosed at the outset, as at Ymonville–Les Hyèbles on the plain south-east of Chartres, which was occupied from the third to first centuries BC. In the northern part of this 30 hectare enclosure was a smaller D-shaped compound with numerous storage pits, ranged around an empty space (Fig. 7.12). This compound appears to have had religious or mortuary purposes; an earlier warrior burial lay in the entranceway and several deliberately

Fig. 7.12. Plan of the enclosed agglomerated settlement at Ymonville–Les Hyèbles, Centre, showing the smaller D-shaped enclosure in the northern part of the complex. Information from Bailleux and Josset 2010.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

291

damaged weapons of La Tène C1–D1 date were deposited in the area (Bailleux and Josset 2010). Both in the parts of central-eastern France where aggregated settlements are commonest and further to the north and west, the majority of oppida were established over a short period at the turn of the second and first centuries BC. In the Aisne valley, Condé-sur-Suippe and Villeneuve-Saint-Germain both had planned layouts, with separate ‘quarters’ for different socio-economic groups and public areas, rather reminiscent of Acy-Romance. In their case, settlement contraction played a part, since many nearby farmsteads were abandoned when they were founded, Condé-sur-Suippe at the start of La Tène D1b, Villeneuve-Saint-Germain at the end of the phase. Both oppida yielded evidence of metalworking (including coin-minting at the later site), other intensive craft activity, and imported wine amphorae and Campanian ware. Neither was inhabited for much more than a generation and both were followed by new oppida on the nearby plateau (St-Thomas; Pommiers), which also had organized plans and were just as short-lived (Haselgrove 2007b; 2011). Superficially these Aisne valley sites meet all the usual criteria for urbanism, but simply declaring them urban does nothing to enhance our understanding of the social and economic processes at work. In the case of Condé-sur-Suippe, interpretation is complicated by the presence of yet another lowland oppidum at Reims (Durocortorum), 16 kilometres to the south-east. Recent excavations indicate that its defences date to c.80/70 BC and sealed buildings belonging to an extensive open settlement, coeval with Condé-sur-Suippe (Chossenot et al. 2010). The oppidum at Reims was larger than once thought (c.90 hectares) and was reorganized on a grid plan at the time that the defences were built, with each plot delimited by a palisade. There are traces of La Tène D2 occupation outside the circuit, which might resonate with the use of Reims as a place of assembly; in 53 BC, Caesar convened a Gallic council there (De Bello Gallico 6.44). At Gournay-sur-Aronde, the oppidum incorporated the emplacement of a religious sanctuary destroyed before the ramparts were built. Other oppida in Picardy were not founded until the midfirst century BC and have Roman military associations (e.g. La ChausséeTirancourt; Bayard 2007) and even Roman-style defences (e.g. St-Pierre-enChastres; Hugonnier and Rassat 2013). Hill-top oppida and hillforts occupied during La Tène D are widespread in Normandy, but little is known of their interiors. Small-scale work at Exmes and Le Castillon has uncovered buildings, with the latter claimed as ‘a true agglomeration covering dozens of hectares’ (Giraud et al. 2010, 93). Developments in Brittany were of rather different character. Menez (2012) argues for a model of agglomerations with ‘aristocratic’ farmsteads at their core. This is based primarily on Paule (see Chapter 6), which developed after c.170 BC into a larger fortified site with the ‘aristocratic’ residence at its core and

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

.

292

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

sub-enclosures for granaries and iron-working. Another possible example is the late second to first century BC site at Trégueux–La Porte Alain; here an area of open settlement lay to the east of a monumental building 35 m across, possibly on a classical model, set within a ditched enclosure. Nearby was a second enclosure, 80 m long, with a ditch up to 5 m deep and 10 m wide. In the lower Moselle region in western Germany and Luxembourg, there has been intensive research on the hill-top oppida that developed after c.150 BC. All of these had ritual foci at their core, but understanding of their role as central places is hindered by the lack of work on rural settlements in the environs. The best known is the Titelberg in Luxembourg, an earlier hillfort refortified at the end of the second century BC (Metzler 1995; 2008). The ramparts enclosed 43 hectares, but only parts of the plateau were densely settled (Fig. 7.13). In the centre was a series of rectangular buildings packed along a street, where iron- and bronze-working and minting took place. At the eastern end of the plateau, a ditch 500 m long cut off a 10 hectare ‘public’ area from rest of the interior. Within this enclosed space was a complex of parallel palisades, interpreted as voting corridors (Metzler et al. 2006), which were replaced during La Tène D2a by two monumental post-built ‘halls’. At the western end of the plateau, excavations have revealed another zone of intensive occupation, cut off by a rectilinear palisade. Large amounts of Dressel 1 amphorae and other imports were recovered, but also more unusual finds such as thirty-eight bone styli, nine seal-boxes, and fragments of opis spicatum flooring and painted wall-plaster. The latter plausibly derive from the postand sill-beam buildings of non-local type that appeared part way through the occupation of this sector. A significant amount of Roman military equipment was also found, but apparently only at a later stage in the sequence. Analysis is still in progress, but there must be a strong possibility that this was a Roman trading post established before the Gallic war (Metzler and Gaeng 2009, 519–28), like the one at Orléans (Cenabum), whose inhabitants were massacred in 52 BC at the outbreak of the Gaulish revolt (De bello Gallico 7.3). Another indication of the special role of the Titelberg is provided by the large cemetery at Lamadelaine at the foot of the plateau beneath the western entrance (Metzler-Zens et al. 1999). Major excavations at the Martberg bei Pommern and the Castellberg at Wallendorf have revealed intense occupation in their interiors and evidence of minting and metalworking, although there are fewer imports than at the Titelberg. The Martberg occupied a 70-hectare plateau overlooking the Moselle. The stone rampart had three phases, but was fairly low and of limited defensive use. At the centre of the site was a ‘shrine’ defined by a palisaded enclosure laid out in the mid-first century BC. Dense occupation around the shrine included post-built structures, granaries, and storage pits. The settlement extended to a smaller, neighbouring plateau (the Hüttenberg), although this was of different character, with several sunken-featured buildings.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

293

Fig. 7.13. Plan of the Titelberg, Luxembourg, showing the main area of occupation (grey), the ditch surrounding public and ritual area (1), Gallo-Roman temple (2), cemeteries (3), and putative Roman fort of the mid-first century BC (4). Inset: ‘Voting corridors’ dated to the early first century BC, beneath later Gallo-Roman temple. Information from Metzler-Zens et al. 1999 and Metzler 2008.

At the Castellberg, an earlier hillfort was reoccupied, with an area of 41 hectares being enclosed by a Murus Gallicus rampart. Internal settlement was extensive, with post-built and sunken-featured buildings, ovens, and a timberlined well. The settlement was abandoned in the mid-first century BC, although

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

294

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

a Gallo-Roman temple was later built at the centre of the site in an area that had been kept free of occupation and was probably already used for assembly and ritual during the late Iron Age. Another smaller hillfort reoccupied during the late Iron Age was the Hunnenring near Otzenhausen, where the final rampart phase was of early first century BC date. Limited investigations uncovered post-built buildings in the interior, but as at the Castellberg, occupation did not outlast the Roman conquest. Coins and other objects were deposited at the centre of the site, where a Gallo-Roman temple later stood. In contrast to the larger oppida in the region, there was no sign of minting and fewer exotic imports. Hillforts or hill-top ‘oppida’ were also a feature of the late Iron Age east of the Rhine in Hesse, but few have been explored in recent years. An exception is the multivallate site on the Dünsberg. The outermost rampart, at least, dates to the start of the first century BC, and enclosed 90 hectares. This took in two springs, one of which was used to create a small reservoir. This was made using timber felled in 134 BC, and later rebuilt and enlarged between 100 and 96 BC, possibly coinciding with the building of the outer rampart. Numerous ‘house platforms’ visible on the surface imply that the interior was densely occupied. Small-scale excavation uncovered post-built and sunken-featured buildings, along with a range of artefacts including querns and evidence for iron-working and textile production. A pit containing large amounts of charred grain was radiocarbon dated to the earlier first century BC. The most striking find at the Dünsberg was a series of metalwork deposits, including a dense spread of objects just outside the ramparts (see below). Some of these are as early as the third century BC, but most date to the first century BC. Similar late Iron Age ironwork deposits occur outside or just within other hillfort ramparts in north Hesse and Westphalia (Söder and Zeiler 2007), implying that these sites had an important role in communal ritual. As Buchsenschutz and Ralston (2007) note, deposition of ironwork around enclosure boundaries east of the Rhine—echoed in southern Britain during the third to first centuries BC—is geographically mutually exclusive with the building of Murus Gallicus ramparts, which apart from Manching, only occur west of the Rhine. This type of rampart consumed enormous quantities of iron in the form of fixings inserted in the rampart, implying there might be an underlying conceptual link between these superficially very different practices (Buchsenschutz and Ralston 2007). The lower Rhine region is traditionally seen as outside the zone of late Iron Age urbanization. However, Gerritsen and Roymans (2006) argue that major shrines or cult sites in the southern Netherlands served as ‘central places’ that were foci for a supra-local community and important in the formation of tribal identity. At Kessel-Lith, large amounts of ‘high-status’ metalwork, coinage, and human and animal bone were deposited in a stretch of the River Meuse during the late second and first centuries BC. An extensive spread

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

295

of surface finds along the riverbank may represent a major settlement, though this has not been confirmed by excavation. Other major shrines such as Empel and Elst did not have associated settlements. Central sites of this and any other kind seem to be entirely absent from the North European Plain. In Britain, hillforts continued in use during the late Iron Age in some areas, but ceased to be population centres in others, although they sometimes remained a focus for symbolically-charged activities like metalworking and burial after the inhabitants left (e.g. Maiden Castle), or were occasionally used for refuge. In addition, new kinds of central place started to appear from the late second century BC onwards in southern and eastern England, mostly in or flanking river valleys. Whilst often referred to as ‘oppida’, they were mostly rather different to Continental examples. Hengistbury Head on the Channel coast is one of the British sites regularly but perhaps misleadingly cited alongside Continental oppida (Collis 1984; Fichtl 2005). It is of similar date and combined fortification, long-distance exchange, and specialized production. There was probably a grid of rectilinear compounds similar to those on Gaulish sites, as there also was at nearby Cleaval Point in Poole Harbour, which succeeded it as a Channel port (Sunter and Woodward 1987). Against this is a lack of evidence for permanent settlement at Hengistbury Head during the main period of cross-Channel contact (up to the mid-first century BC). The headland might have been a seasonal emporium (Fitzpatrick 2001). Other low-lying enclosures like Oram’s Arbour, Winchester (Qualmann et al. 2004), can be compared to Continental sites in terms of form and extent, but are poorly dated and their interiors reveal little to set them apart from hillforts. The linear dyke complexes of south-east England are distinctively British. They date from the late first century BC onward, so any connections with developments over the Channel were primarily with the Roman world and its new Gaulish provinces. Like oppida, some were probably deliberate foundations and several display evidence of zoning, but dispersed over a larger area, giving them a polyfocal character. Sites such as St Albans (Bryant 2007) also resemble many Continental settlements in having developed from ritual foci, and at Chichester, a Gaulish-style cremation cemetery at Westhampnett predated the dyke system. There is less evidence, however, for large resident populations. Smaller broadly similar complexes existed throughout southern Britain (Moore 2012), but are less obvious to archaeologists, because unlike the leading sites, they did not become Roman towns after the mid-first century AD and their Iron Age rulers were not named on coins or in Classical sources. At Mucking in Essex, a rectilinear space lined by late Iron Age funerary structures has recently been identified (Evans et al. 2014). This is rather reminiscent of Acy-Romance and, like it, was presumably a place for the community to gather. It lay near a late Bronze Age enclosure thought to have begun as an aristocratic residence and developed into a public

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

296

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

monument (Bradley 2012b, 132); like the earlier mortuary monuments at the French site, this could well still have commanded significance. New interventions at Colchester have located an earlier focus to the east of Sheepen, with Dressel 1 amphorae and early Gallo-Belgic wares (Gascoyne and Radford 2013, 44), and dumps of baked clay trays for making coins have been found at Bath Lane, Leicester (Kipling 2008). At Silchester, where the initial layout dated to the later first century BC, the site was reorganized early in the first century AD, conceivably under the influence of Gallo-Roman towns. Among the structures predating the new grid was a timber hall over 40 m long, one of three large rectilinear buildings built on this spot in little more than a generation (Fulford et al. 2013). The rectilinear buildings are more easily paralleled on the near Continent at this date than in Britain. The combination of linear earthworks and a rapid succession of imposing internal structures is also found at major sites in northern England and Ireland. At Stanwick (North Yorkshire), a large unroofed timber structure was replaced within twenty years by a roofed building of similar dimensions, which lasted for rather less time (Haselgrove 2015). They stood in an area massively enclosed at the time the first structure was built, overlooking a boggy valley and not far from a linear earthwork called Scots Dike, which was extended at this period. Small quantities of Roman imports were already reaching Stanwick when these changes took place in the late first century BC, as early as most sites in southern England. This might indicate that the imports came via a southern centre such as Colchester or Silchester, where the large hall was similarly built shortly after Roman goods began arriving. Across the Irish Sea at Navan, tree-ring dating shows that the hengiform ‘fort’, the monumental ‘40-metre’ timber structure within it, and the nearby Dorsey linear earthwork were all constructed in the 90s BC (Lynn 2003). The complex sits in a landscape of earlier monuments and wet places. Not long after it was built, the ‘40-metre’ structure was filled with stone rubble, burnt, and then covered beneath a large mound, a clear indication of its specialized purpose (Bradley 2012b). As the well-known Barbary ape skull shows, the occupants of Navan had access to long-distance contacts along the Atlantic coast anticipating the networks that connected British sites to the Roman world a century later. Other later pre-Roman Iron Age structures at Navan included a series of successive circular enclosures or buildings of different sizes joined to form a ‘figure-of-eight’ and a much larger example nearer the centre of the earthwork. Immense timber structures of this form and hengiform enclosures recur at other Irish ‘royal’ centres of the period like Knockaulin and Rathcroghan (Johnston and Wailes 2007; Waddell et al. 2009). There are few finds to indicate what activities took place at these sites, but they were presumably primarily of a ceremonial or ritual character. At Knockaulin, they included feasting and metalworking. Some structures may be on astronomical

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

297

alignments, but the clearest evidence of this is from the earlier enclosure at Lismullin (Chapter 6). There is nothing to indicate what led to this sudden burst of monumentalization along such very standardized lines around 100 BC in Ireland, but the coincidence with the peak period of oppidum-building on the Continent is intriguing.

Summary Whilst the late Iron Age saw the emergence of new kinds of central place with a super-local significance across much of north-west Europe, the ways in which these developed and their roles in the local region varied (Table 7.2). Often, ritual played an important role in bringing people together. In Gaul, Fichtl (2004; 2005) has argued that the emergence of major sanctuaries like Gournay-sur-Aronde from the fourth century BC onwards was key to the formation of the polities that Caesar labelled civitates. At some sites, a sanctuary or shrine itself became the focus of settlement and economic activity, as can also be seen outside our region at places like Manching. At Bobigny, a large cemetery complex became the site of an agglomerated settlement. Other sites like Acy-Romance and Tomblaine were associated with much older funerary monuments, which were perhaps accorded significance by the local community and used as gathering places. In other cases, oppida were established on the site of a long abandoned hillfort, as at the Titelberg. This may simply represent the reuse of a strategic location, but it could also be that these older monuments retained some significance. A different trajectory is found in Brittany, where agglomerated sites developed around so-called ‘aristocratic farmsteads’. This may suggest that leading individuals or households were gaining dependents or a retinue, although we should consider the possibility that the ‘aristocratic farmsteads’ were not merely elite residences but also played some kind of public or ritual roles for the wider community. What after all was the function and significance of the stone statues at Paule? It is often suggested that many British polyfocal sites started out as neutral meeting places, but the Breton model might offer a plausible alternative. The Irish centres, on the other hand, were at locations that had been venerated continuously since the Bronze Age and possibly for millennia. In their case, the question is rather why the sudden monumentalization of these special places should have taken place along similar lines in different regions of Ireland. While some ‘central places’ developed fairly organically, others were planned foundations, with smaller sites in the hinterland being abandoned. Along with the vast labour and timber resources required to construct their monumental fortifications, this raises important questions about social organization and the exercise of authority and power at the end of the Iron Age.

Examples Manching (La Tène D) Martberg-bei-Pommern Titelberg Villeneuve-St-Germain Manching(La Tène C2) Hunnenring, Dünsberg Paule Fesques Bad Nauheim Acy-Romance Bobigny Kessel-Lith St Albans Hengistbury Head Navan

Large nucleated settlement

· · · · · · · ?

Fortification or major earthworks

· · · · · · ·

· · ?

· · ·

Long-distance exchange

· · · · · ?

· · · ?

Specialized/ intensive industry

· · · · · · · · · ?

Coin-minting

· · · · · · ·

Ritual focus/ assembly

· · · · · · · · · · · ?

?

·

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

Table 7.2. Features of different kinds of ‘central place’ in late Iron Age north-west Europe

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

299

Many fortified sites were occupied for very short periods that seem completely at odds with the effort involved in moving to them. Ease of access, more settled conditions, and links with specific individuals and groups help to explain why certain oppida developed into Roman towns after the conquest, but others were soon abandoned. This instability of settlement clearly antedated Roman expansion, for reasons we have still to grasp. It is likely that, as well as the forms of late Iron Age ‘central places’ that we can identify from archaeology, others will have existed below the radar, perhaps even in the North European Plain.

O B J E C T S AN D C O N N E C T I O N S Across Gaul, western Germany, and southern Britain, the closing centuries of the first millennium BC saw a progressive increase in the quantity and variety of material culture. This affected society in several ways. New and better iron tools gave an impetus to agricultural production and settlement expansion. Novel forms of dress accessories and personal equipment provided new possibilities for self-presentation (e.g. cosmetic palettes) and for marking social distinctions, with objects like brooches and jewellery being more widely worn in many areas than previously. Coins were minted from the third century BC onwards, and had a range of ritual, economic, social, and political functions. Production of several different kinds of artefact became more intense, and also in some cases more specialized and centralized. Some areas became major foci for iron mining and smelting, including La Bazoge in Pays-de-la-Loire, the Corby area in eastern England, and the uplands of northern Hesse and southern Westphalia (Chapter 6). In the latter region, several stages of the production process are in evidence at the third century BC site of Siegen– Niederschelden, including a charcoal-making kiln, an ore-roasting hearth, several ore-crushing sites, and four smelting ovens, one of them inside a small shelter formed of eight postholes. Other sites are characterized by slag heaps. Prior to the development of this industry, the area was only sparsely settled (Verse 2008a). At La Bazoge–Les Petites-Rouilles and La Bazoge–Les Hauts du Lac in the Sarthe valley north of Le Mans, iron was extracted in mines containing up to thirty shafts. Increased iron output is reflected in the much greater quantities of objects found on settlements despite intensive recycling (e.g. Malrain and Pinard 2006, fig. 109), although depositional factors played a role in this. Smelting, purification, and forging of iron into finished objects were now often undertaken separately in specialist workshops located in the agglomerations and oppida, arguably under centralized control in the case of smelting,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

300

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

purification, and making weapons (Berranger 2014). Manufacture and repair of iron objects at rural settlements also increased. A few had their own workshops (above), but most depended on iron purified elsewhere (Bauvais et al. 2007). Sites in Wessex show a similar shift from low-quality local products to imported iron from the third century BC onwards (Sharples 2010). Quern manufacture became more centralized in parts of southern Britain, France, and west Germany and the finished products achieved wider distributions (e.g. querns from the Eifel). The potter’s wheel spread across northern France and into southern Britain, where a number of specialist production centres are inferred (Morris 1994). Lathe-turning was introduced for working shale. Everyday objects from rural sites attest to a wider range of activities than earlier in the Iron Age, when a high proportion of such finds were linked to textile production (e.g. Nillesse 2009; Vauterin et al. 2010). Such changes are less apparent in the longhouse regions of the North European Plain, although the first evidence for ironsmelting appears at this time, as at Tjørring–Rosenholmvej in Jutland, where a furnace was placed in the corner of a fenced farmstead within a larger settlement. Overall levels of iron production remained fairly limited, however. In the second to first centuries BC, some kinds of material culture, especially those perceived as of ‘high status’, show evidence for increased interregional contact—in terms both of actual imports and emulation of styles. The remarkable similarities, first highlighted a century ago by Joseph Déchelette, between late La Tène assemblages from oppida hundreds of kilometres apart, have been nuanced by new studies using specific artefact markers to trace the strength and direction of contacts between regions (Pierrevelcin 2013) and the connections of individual settlements. The site of the earliest known glass workshop in temperate Europe (La Tène C1) at Nĕmčice in Moravia has coins from eastern and southern Gaul, the Balkans, many Italian cities, and even Cyrenaica and Egypt (Čižmár et al. 2008). It is usually assumed that longdistance trade within Europe was mediated through the oppida and agglomerated settlements, but whilst these have most finds, the actual exchanges could have taken place elsewhere. Most attention has focused on Mediterranean imports to Gaul, Germany, and Britain, but the visibility of contacts between the La Tène core area and the ‘Germanic’ zone to the north also rose (Brandt 2001; Roymans 2007). In both cases the import and emulation of non-local material culture and customs was a selective and creative process. Not only new objects were introduced, but also different ideas and values, providing the possibility of altered social relationships. In Gaul and Britain, the foreign objects selected show that customs of feasting, drinking, and hospitality played an important role in the ways that (some) people presented themselves and their relationships to others. In ‘Germanic’ areas there was more emphasis on

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

301

warrior identities in the form of La Tène-style swords and belt hooks, but items ranging from brooches to cauldrons also exhibit influences from the south. The production of glass bracelets in the lower Rhine region from La Tène C1 onwards was probably triggered by the arrival of skilled workers from an existing centre elsewhere. So popular did bracelets become in this region that all women—an association confirmed by burials—who attained a certain age might have worn them. Two stages of exchange have been inferred, the first between producer sites (e.g. Bunnik–Odijk) and local communities in return for items like querns, iron tools, or salt, the second within the community, this time involving ritualized gift exchanges, perhaps in the context of specific rites of passage for women (Roymans and Verniers 2010). The raw glass required for the bracelets continued to be imported throughout their period of use, which lasted until the first century BC, but no later. Analysis of Republican amphorae, bronze jugs, basins, pans, ladles and strainers, and Campanian-ware pottery from late Iron Age sites has provided new insights into the flow of Italian goods into Gaul and adjacent regions during the second and first centuries BC (Olmer et al. 2013). Dressel 1 amphorae (122,895 NMI) are recorded from nearly all the 1660 sites examined (91 per cent); wine was the only import at over half of them (54 per cent). Settlements provide most find-spots (78 per cent), albeit many of them rural sites with few vessels. Setting aside the two exceptionally prolific oppida of Mont Beuvray and Corent (Auvergne), three-quarters of Dressel 1 amphorae are from agglomerated settlements and oppida, in a ratio of 2:1. Cemeteries (8 per cent) and sanctuaries (7 per cent) make up most of the remaining findspots (Olmer et al. 2013). The distribution thins out rapidly in the Low Countries and there is no sign of imports before the Roman Iron Age in northern Germany or Jutland. Italian wine export began earlier to western than to eastern Gaul, as the inverse ratios of (earlier) Dressel 1A to (later) 1B forms in the two zones shows (Fig. 7.14). Wine export to western Gaul peaked in the later second century BC and declined rapidly after c.80–70 BC. In eastern Gaul, Italian amphorae did not appear until the 130s BC; numbers then grew steadily until the second quarter of the first century BC, but gradually fell back as new types of amphora with different sources began to appear alongside them. This west–east divide is reflected in the contents; most of the wine reaching the Atlantic regions via the Carcassonne gap was produced in Campania or Latium, whereas wine imported to eastern and north-eastern Gaul was above all from southern Etruria (Olmer et al. 2013). Fewer amphorae are found in areas north of the Loire and only around a dozen sites with over one hundred vessels are recorded. On the other hand, at least in Île-de-France and Picardy, even rural sites usually yield some sherds of Dressel 1. By the mid-first century BC, anyone who counted in Gaulish society

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

302

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

Fig. 7.14. Proportions of Dressel 1A and 1B amphora finds from different regions of western and eastern France. Information from Olmer et al. 2013.

apart from in the far north must have been familiar with Italian wine, even if they consumed it only on special occasions. Other Italian imports were also rarer north of the Loire. Campanian ware occurs on a few leading sites in north-east France, but is absent in the maritime areas of north-west France. Metal vessels are a little commoner, but are also largely confined to Belgic Gaul, with most finds coming from burials. This distribution suggests that these other imports arrived via the same, marginally later networks that brought wine to north-eastern Gaul, although it is likely that the metal objects were not just for serving and drinking wine as was once thought, but had also other functions, some of which might have been transmitted to their new cultural context (Loughton 2009). Two distinct axes of cross-Channel exchange are visible in the late Iron Age, one from north-west France to Wessex and south-west England, the other from northern France to south-east England. Imports via these networks included small numbers of Dressel 1A–1B amphorae, transported in proportions that mirror the circulation pool in the half of Gaul from which they derived. Republican amphorae from central-southern England are nearly always Dressel 1A, whereas Dressel 1B predominates in south-east

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

303

England (Fitzpatrick 2013). Whilst there is little reason to doubt that, as in Atlantic France, the import of amphorae to Britain (and presumably their contents) via the south-western seaways started earlier, their arrival has misled us in two distinct ways: first, into mistaking their transport as evidence for direct contact with the Roman world, and second, into seeing late Iron Age connections across the western Channel as being of greater antiquity than those focused on the shorter eastern crossing. Neither is likely to be the case. The amphorae were surely passed on through indigenous networks, rather than involving Italian traders; even the largest early group of Dressel 1, from Hengistbury Head, comprises only thirty-six vessels, whilst the influx of Gaulish gold coins into south-east England from the third century BC onward, followed by the adoption of potin coinage in Kent in the second century BC are proof of the strength of interaction across the eastern Channel throughout this period. Contacts in the west involved longer sea-crossings and were preferentially focused on specific harbour sites, notably Hengistbury Head and Cleaval Point, but also Mount Batten in Plymouth Sound, and potentially the Isle of Portland and the Isle of Wight, where there are several Dressel 1A amphora finds (Trott and Tomalin 2003). Although these places are often described as ‘ports-of-trade’ and assumed to have acted as centres for the exchange and redistribution of imports, few of the amphorae and other goods travelled further than the harbour sites or their immediate hinterlands. In fact, over 90 per cent of late Iron Age Armorican pottery found in Britain comes from Hengistbury Head alone. It is possible that wine and foodstuffs were decanted at the port into other containers for distribution inland, but implausible that fine, decorated Armorican bowls were transported across the Channel merely as packaging. By implication, these harbours were not so much intermediate nodes in exchange networks, but destinations in their own right, circumscribed locales where contacts between communities on either side of the Channel took place, accompanied by activities or festivities involving deployment of exotic goods. The sites may have been selected for their geographically and socially liminal positions. Hengistbury Head lay at a cultural boundary (Sharples 1990), while the other sites all occupied insular or virtually insular locations. From the late second century BC onwards, the flow of imports into southeast England was augmented by new types of coins, metalwork, and the first Dressel 1 amphorae. There is little evidence that this exchange was mediated through ports-of-trade similar to Hengistbury Head, though a recently investigated site at Folkestone may be a candidate (Parfitt 2012). Imports more often reached inland areas and the context of deposition altered, with grave finds becoming prominent. This implies that the mechanisms and social context for exchange had also changed. After the conquest of Gaul and especially from the 20s BC onwards, the quantity and diversity of Roman imports rose sharply, and probably increasingly involved specialist traders.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

304

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

There is less evidence for objects travelling in the other direction, although analysis has shown that Kimmeridge shale was imported into north-west France (Baron 2012). Excavations at the harbour site at Urville-Nacqueville on the Cotentin peninsular—close to the earlier Hague Dike (Chapter 6)— have yielded roughouts for shale arm-rings, along with some roundhouses (Fig. 7.15) and a small cemetery, mixing cremations and inhumations (Lefort 2011). It is conceivable that the rotary quern was introduced into northern France from southern Britain, where they appeared between the fifth and third centuries BC, the earliest occurrence in Europe after eastern Iberia (Wefers 2011; Webley 2015). North French types are closer to insular forms than to the flatter querns of Mediterranean France (Boyer and Buchsenschutz 1998; Pommepuy 1999). If so, querns moved both ways, since puddingstone querns from Normandy were transported to southern Britain in the late Iron Age (Webley 2015). A scatter of insular first-century BC coins and metalwork finds from sites in northern France are part of a diaspora of objects and people caused by the Gallic war (Gruel and Haselgrove 2007), reflected in southern England by finds such as the North Bersted burial and the Bridge helmet (below).

Fig. 7.15. Plan of late Iron Age compound with roundhouses on the coast at Urville-Nacqueville, Lower Normandy, as reconstructed by the excavator. Information from Lefort 2011.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

305

RITUAL AND DEPOSITION Across much of the region, the quantity and range of metal artefacts deposited in the landscape increased during the late Iron Age. The artefacts selected included weaponry, elaborate decorated objects, and coins, but also simpler iron tools and ‘currency bars’. Clear regional patterning can be seen in the varieties of objects placed in specific kinds of landscape contexts (Kurz 1995; Haselgrove and Hingley 2006; Garrow and Gosden 2012). As in earlier periods, wet places such as rivers, lakes, and bogs were a focus, particularly for weapon deposits (Roymans 1990; Schönfelder 2007; Bringemeier 2010). Settlement boundaries and hillfort ramparts were another important context (Buchsenschutz and Ralston 2007; von Nicolai 2009a; 2014). A broad regional contrast can be seen between the use of rivers and other wet places for deposition in Ireland, eastern Britain, and much of the near Continent, and the emphasis on dry sites in central-southern Britain and western France, continuing a pattern laid down in the Bronze Age and early Iron Age (Chapter 6). In south-east England and on the near Continent as far north as the Lower Rhine, sites that became foci for repeated ritual deposits are variously described as shrines, temples, sanctuaries, or cult places. More often than not, such foci are viewed through a Classical lens, generating an expectation that they will be characterized by a formal, ordered arrangement of built space and separated from the profane world by a clear precinct boundary. This desire to formalize and separate sacred space is also seen as linked to the emergence of a discrete class of ritual specialists. This model does apply to some late Iron Age cult sites, many of which were indeed enclosed and had internal structures, but elsewhere there were less formal arrangements, or rituals were simply carried out in the open air at a significant place in the landscape. Finds suggest that formal sanctuaries emerged during the fourth century BC in northern France, although structural evidence is unusual until the third century BC (Buchsenschutz et al. 2012). The timing of this development might imply a link to the changes in burial practice over much of this area in La Tène B2–C1 (below). Some sanctuaries were situated within agglomerated settlements and oppida (which they sometimes preceded) and occasionally at ‘aristocratic’ residences (such as an enclosure outside the farm at Fontenay-le-Comte–Les Genâts, which yielded a bent spear-head, spindle-whorls, and wine amphorae; Poux and Nilesse 2003). Many others were solitary. A significant proportion became Gallo-Roman temples and are identifiable from artefact scatters or pits beneath later buildings. The spectacular finds at Tintignac (Limousin), including a pit crammed full of weapons and war trumpets, are a case in point (Maniquet 2009). Without Gallo-Roman reuse of many locales, the corpus of late Iron Age ritual sites would be far smaller, although the balance is changing as a result of development-led interventions.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

306

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

Where the plan is known, sanctuaries mostly take the form of rectangular enclosures bounded by a ditch or palisade, but some are curvilinear. Up to the mid-second century BC, weaponry (often originally displayed as trophies), human remains, and animal sacrifices were the principal finds, but during La Tène D1, the nature of activity changed significantly, with offerings of objects like brooches, coins, iron tools, miniature wheels, and pottery rapidly supplanting weapon deposits. It is not unusual for objects of all kinds to be broken or bent before deposition, as if to put them beyond use, or for only part of an item to be present, as at Tintignac and Fontenay-le-Comte. A few well-known sanctuaries such as Gournay-sur-Aronde continue to dominate discussion, reflecting the early focus of research on Picardy (Arcelin and Brunaux 2003). Under this influence, some authors distinguish ‘warrior sanctuaries’, marked by weaponry deposits and male corpses from cult sites with more emphasis on residues of feasting and drinking (e.g. Poux 2006). If there is a useful distinction to be made, it is rather between early and later sanctuaries. Gournay-sur-Aronde and Ribemont-sur-Ancre had their floruits between c.300 and 150 BC, followed by a hiatus until La Tène D2. Activity at most other sanctuaries was greatest during the late second and first centuries BC—even though they often had earlier origins—and involved a plurality of deposits. Fesques in Upper Normandy is a good example (Fig. 7.16). This was frequented from the fourth century BC, but its main period of use came after structures were erected in the second century BC. About 100 BC, weapon deposits, display of human remains, and animal sacrifices ceased, and were replaced by a wider range of offerings (Mantel 1997). On present evidence, sanctuaries of the ‘Gournay’ type may be largely confined to Picardy. The greater density of solitary cult places in this area

Fig. 7.16. Plans of the enclosed sanctuaries at Fesques, Upper Normandy, and Nanteuilsur-Aisne, Champagne-Ardenne. Information from Haselgrove 2007b.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

307

also seems likely to be real and not just a product of the longer history of research. As aggregated settlements are uncommon north of the Seine, this has given rise to the view that in this zone sanctuaries played an equivalent role as regional foci and performed many of the same functions until the appearance of oppida (e.g. Fichtl 2004). This seems plausible, particularly for sites like Fesques, where the outer enclosure could have accommodated large gatherings, and Nanteuil-sur-Aisne, near Acy-Romance, which may have taken on some of the functions of the latter site as it was abandoned (Haselgrove 2007b). Coins were minted at a number of sanctuaries in Picardy and elsewhere. The picture that emerges from other parts of France and in neighbouring areas is one of considerable regional diversity. Built sanctuaries still seem all but absent prior to the Roman period in the far north of France, and apart from Acy-Romance and Nanteuil-sur-Aisne only a handful are known in Champagne-Ardenne (Arcelin and Brunaux 2003). To these can now be added Semoine–Voie Palon, an enclosure with a central building and two lines of large posts, identified as a sanctuary from weapons found in the ditch on both sides of the entrance. Newly found examples in regions closer to the Loire include Saumeray–Le Bas des Touches (Centre), Écouflant–La Planche (Pays-de-la-Loire), and Bessines–Le Grand Champ Est (PoitouCharentes), all associated with weapon deposits. At Saumeray, two small enclosures associated with an agglomerated settlement have been explored, 70 m apart on a slight ridge, one square and the other circular. Both enclosures yielded large quantities of finds, especially spear-heads and shields. Whilst the metalwork is mostly attributable to La Tène C2, the pottery points to a La Tène D1 date, implying that the weaponry, which was also corroded, was exposed for a period before being placed in the ditch. At Bessines, warrior panoplies were deposited on either side of the enclosure entrance, as at Semoine. There have also been significant finds in Lower Normandy, another area with few examples. At Aunou-sur-Orne–Le Pré Mesnil, an assemblage of metalwork, including middle La Tène weapons (e.g. spear-heads) and brooches found during surface survey, suggests the presence of a sanctuary. Another possible example identified from finds of coins and weapons at Exmes lies within a putative hillfort and unusually has stone buildings of La Tène D2a date. As we have seen, several ritual foci have been explored within oppida in the Moselle region. The mid-first-century BC shrine at the Martberg bei Pommern took the form of a palisaded enclosure with an east-facing entrance, renewed at least three times. There was a square-ditched compound at its centre and small post-built buildings in three of the corners. The deposits included pottery, coins, brooches, weapons, and belt fittings. Many metal objects had been deliberately destroyed. The coins were mainly placed in the front half of the enclosure and some were defaced with chop-marks. Along the northern edge of the enclosure were two pits each containing a boar skeleton.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

308

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

Shrines were also built away from oppida. At Wederath, excavations near a cemetery used from 400 BC onwards dated the first phase of an enclosure surrounding a Gallo-Roman temple to 250–150 BC, whilst postholes in the temple area—one with late Iron Age pottery—imply earlier timber structures in the interior. A group of large quartzite boulders could have been the original focus of veneration. Another new find is a circular shrine built in the late second century BC at Reinheim–Horres (Saarland), in a part of the Blies valley known for its rich burials of both earlier and late Iron Age date (Fig. 7.17). The building lay close to a group of Iron Age barrows. In its postholes were sixteen potin coins, interpreted as foundation offerings, whilst another fourteen were found in a circular ditch between the posthole arcs. The potins are nearly all foreign to the area, originating in areas to the east. The ditch was infilled during the Augustan period and later symmetrically overlain by a GalloRoman villa. Built sanctuaries seem to be absent east of the Rhine and in the North European Plain, but were replaced in some areas by other kinds of depositional foci. As we have seen, several late Iron Age hillforts in the Mittelgebirge east of the Rhine were foci for the deposition of weaponry and other metalwork, often placed close to the outer ramparts (Söder and Zeiler 2007). At the Dünsberg, the spread of metalwork outside one of the southern gates included

Fig. 7.17. Plan of the circular shine at Reinheim–Horres, Saarland, showing postholes containing Iron Age potin coin finds. The southern part of the ditch circuit has been cut away by a Gallo-Roman cistern, removing some of the postholes. Information from Reinhard 2010.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

309

large amounts of horse gear and weaponry, some of it intentionally broken or bent. There were also numerous horse teeth, the only faunal remains to survive the soil conditions. Other finds included dress accessories, coins, and miniature pots. Few of the objects derived from recognizable features, although several swords and spear-heads had been stuck vertically into the ground. As some of the weaponry is of Roman origin, the deposit has been linked to Roman campaigns in the region in 10/9 BC, but it is not clear whether it represents a single episode or a more gradual accumulation. In the southern Netherlands, several open-air riverine cult sites have been identified. At Kessel–Lith, where a temple was built in the Gallo-Roman period, numerous late Iron Age swords, belt hooks, and coins have been dredged from the River Meuse. Human bones have also been found, dominated by adult males, with some showing traces of violence (Roymans 2004). Excavations at another Gallo-Roman temple at Elst–Sint Maartenstraat uncovered late Iron Age deposits including a sword, coins, and animal bone. At Oss–Hertogswetering, a palaeochannel produced an artefact concentration that seems more modest in character: the emphasis was on dress accessories, pottery, and animal bone, with few weapons and no coins. A number of rectangular enclosures in the Oss area, dating from the third century BC onwards and with few finds, may also be cult places (van der Sanden 1998). These include Oss–Brabantstraat, where a palisaded compound of late first-century BC date was later rebuilt with three concentric palisades. Cremated bone came from one of the palisade slots and Roman coins of the first to second century AD were found nearby. Similar solitary enclosures occur in the sand and loess areas of Belgium and, in the absence of internal features, are seen as communal gathering places (Fig. 7.18). The enclosure overlying an earlier Iron Age settlement at Kontich–Alfsberg is of late La Tène date, but the larger example at Hannut–Trommeveld was earlier to judge from the pottery (fourth–third century BC) found in the upper ditch-fill. Despite the lack of finds, there may be an analogy between these Low Countries sites and French enclosures like Braine–La Grange des Moines thought to have been used for feasting and drinking from the quantities of pig and sheep bone, metalwork, pottery, and amphorae found in the ditches and interiors. On the other hand, the well-known Viereckschanzen (square enclosures) of southern Germany are now seen primarily as farms and not cult sites at all (von Nicolai 2009b). There are also hints from the southern Netherlands that, towards the end of the Iron Age, ritual practices within settlements were increasingly segregated within specific areas. At Geldermalsen–Hondsgemet, an area at the edge of the farm by a boundary ditch seems to have been a focus for ritual deposition. Finds included an animal burial, a horse skull, a deposit of charred grain, a Neolithic axe, a complete pot, and brooches. In the interior of Tiel–Passewaaij was an oval ditched enclosure, within which pottery, charcoal, and burnt bone were deposited. Such features may have been simple domestic-level

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

310

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

Fig. 7.18. Plans of later Iron Age rectilinear cult enclosures at Kontich–Alfsberg and Hannut–Trommeveld, Belgium. Information from Bourgeois et al. 2003.

counterparts of the more formal shrines that appeared at this time. Another example of this is the rectangular structure in the centre of the settlement at the Stansted Airport Catering Site, which was the scene of votive offerings in the early Roman period before it was finally dismantled (Havis and Brooks 2004). In southern Britain, open-air cult sites such as Springhead and Hallaton (Andrews et al. 2011; Score 2011) very probably outnumbered built shrines like Hayling Island and Harlow. In northern Britain, the emphasis was on unmarked natural places, although at Blair Drummond a hoard of four gold torcs was found within a circular building identified as a possible shrine, overlooking a wet area (Hunter 2010). Evidence from Ireland is limited to the monumental complexes like Navan, which differ from major sanctuaries on the Continent and most built shrines in Britain in their almost complete lack of accompanying deposits. On present evidence, open-air sites with multiple coin hoards like Hallaton were primarily an insular phenomenon, but Continental examples do occur and more have probably escaped recognition. At Thuin in Belgium, two gold hoards were found on the plateau over the stream from the oppidum and a third outside the defences (Roymans et al. 2012). On Jersey, more than 50,000 coins were unearthed in 2011 at Grouville–Le Câtillon, in a pit close to the find-spot of the 1957 hoard (which included British coins). Most hoards were buried in the open landscape, however, often in elevated positions just

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

311

off the tops of hills—implying perhaps that as with other acts of conspicuous consumption, their deposition was intended to be witnessed—but also in bogs, caves, cliffs, springs, and sometimes at earlier prehistoric monuments (Haselgrove 2008). At Echt–Hamveld in the Netherlands, a silver coin hoard was found in an area used earlier in the first millennium BC for burials. At Le Vaurocque on Sark, coins and a metalwork hoard were deposited in an area of intensive earlier activity. Conversely, whilst coin hoards are rare on settlements, metaldetecting and excavation have brought more to light both in Britain (e.g. Pershore; Hurst and Leins 2013) and on the Continent (e.g. Hambach, above). A number have been found recently in north-west France, from eight staters in the enclosure ditch at La Chaize-le-Vicomte to much larger hoards at Ifs–ZAC Object’Ifs Sud and Laniscat–Le Haut Kerrault. It is possible however that some enclosures with coin hoards, such as Rannée in Brittany (Gruel et al. 2003) and Saint-Denis-lès-Sens in Burgundy were not (solely) elite residences as is generally assumed, but had some kind of collective or cult function (Haselgrove 2011). The sequence at Saint-Denis-lès-Sens—an ‘aristocratic’ phase with unusual deposits followed by another enclosure with further deposits, but a distinct lack of internal structures—is reminiscent of Braine–La Grange des Moines. Across virtually the entire study area, from Atlantic France to northern Britain and Jutland, increasing numbers of coins (where used), personal items such as brooches, weapons, and iron tools, other domestic objects like querns and pottery, and parts of animals and birds were intentionally deposited singly or in small groups on settlements (e.g. Gerritsen 2003; Nillesse 2006; Gransar et al. 2007; Le Goff et al. 2007). Where such practices are not recorded, this is mainly due either to a want of looking, as in parts of Germany, or a lack of settlements, in the case of Ireland. Various regional patterns are apparent. In Jutland, deposits in houses became more frequent, particularly in postholes and beneath hearths; objects placed in these contexts included pots, iron tools, and Neolithic axes (Webley 2008). At Nørre Tranders, where the use of chalk for floors and paving provided good conditions for bone preservation, numerous ‘special deposits’ of animal skeletons or bones (especially of sheep) were identified, along with human skull fragments, a male skeleton beneath one house, and an infant in the gable-wall of another. This hints at what may be missing elsewhere on the North European Plain where soil conditions are less conducive to preserving bone. Similar deposits occur in western Germany. A belt hook in the posthole of a late Iron Age longhouse at Borken–Südwest was perhaps a deposit to mark its decommissioning, whilst a pit in the centre of the house contained four storage pots stacked within each other. Deposits of heavily burned pottery are a particular feature of this region, as for example in a pit at Oelde–Weitkamp that also contained thirteen loom weights. As in other regions, rivers were

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

312

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

another focus of ritual offerings, although such activity is not always easily distinguished from domestic refuse disposal. The best evidence is from Ahlen– Dolberg, a settlement with forty buildings occupied from the sixth to the first century BC. Finds from an adjacent palaeochannel included miniature pots, a ring-headed pin, amber and glass beads, spindle-whorls, and human skull and teeth fragments from an adult and a child, along with large quantities of burnt pottery and animal bone, which been heated to at least 600ºC. In upland regions, cult deposits (and human remains) occur regularly in caves, although as these were often used for ritual and burial at other periods as well (Chapter 6), it can be difficult to disentangle the different phases. Recently excavated examples include the Hohlstein at Hilgershausen (Hesse), where a hearth, charcoal, late Iron Age pottery, and animal bones, some with cut-marks, from two discrete horizons are seen as the remains of repeated ritual meals, and the Grotte des Perrats (Poitou-Charentes), which yielded La Tène C–D pottery and metalwork. The elaborate fourth-century BC helmet might have been a foundation deposit. At the Trou de l’Ambre in the Belgian Ardennes, three human femurs have been radiocarbon dated to the late Iron Age and two to the Roman period, out of fifty-five individuals represented—once seen as victims of a massacre. Bones of twenty-five sheep, ten cattle, twenty pigs, seven horses, and ten dogs were also found, but could be of any date. At the Galerie des Petites Fontaines, two of seven human mandibles are late Iron Age, the rest Roman (Warmenbol 2007). Both caves yielded late Iron Age pottery. Particularly in more northerly regions, bogs became a recurrent focus for the deposition of prestige objects. In Jutland, a shift can be seen in the late Iron Age from items like neck-rings favoured earlier in the period to objects such as swords, cauldrons, and wagons. More everyday items included pots, animal bone, and ploughshares. Bog deposits are rarely encountered in developmentled archaeology, an exception being Fuglsøgård Mose, where excavation revealed forty peat-extraction pits cut into the bog. ‘Offering’ deposits had been placed in the majority of the pits, but only after regrowth of turf. The deposits included over one hundred pots—many containing food remains—horse skulls, and wooden implements.

T R E A T M E N T O F T H E DE A D As in earlier centuries, the distribution of ‘formal’ burials was patchy (Roymans 2007, fig. 1). In certain parts of north-west Europe, such as the maritime regions of northern France from Normandy to Nord-Pas-de-Calais, and in southern England, burials became distinctly more visible than before. In others like Champagne and north-west Germany, the reverse was the case.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

313

These shifts were accompanied by a much greater emphasis on cremation. Already dominant in the longhouse region of the North European Plain, cremation replaced inhumation across much of northern France in the third to second centuries BC. Inhumation continued in central and western France, however, and by the first century BC had superseded the earlier practice of cremation in Brittany (Villard-Le Tiec et al. 2010). The east–west divide between cremation and inhumation on the near Continent is mirrored in southern Britain (Fig. 7.19). Cremation burials similar to

Fig. 7.19. Map showing the main distributions of cremation and inhumation burial practices during the first century BC.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

314

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

northern France became widespread in the first century BC in south-east England, while inhumation cemeteries appeared in Dorset and cist burials continued in south-west England and south-east Scotland. Inhumations were more sporadically represented elsewhere in Britain, apart from a concentration in East Yorkshire, where a few graves contained dismantled chariots, broadly contemporary with a resurgence of chariot burial in the third century BC across the Channel (below). In Ireland, the tradition of unurned cremation continued, often associated with ring-ditches or older monuments (McGarry 2007; 2009; Corlett and Potterton 2012). Most cemeteries were small, with no more than a couple of dozen interments, suggesting that they served local groups. On the Continent, the burial grounds were often close to settlements, or integrated into enclosure or field systems. Where larger cemeteries do occur, they were often associated with focal sites of different kinds. Wetwang Slack in Yorkshire, where most of the 446 graves date to the third or earlier second centuries BC (Jay et al. 2012a), was a long-lived settlement focus, whilst the Wederath cemetery in the middle Rhine–Moselle region (around 550 burials dated to the fourth to first centuries BC) lay near a religious complex with La Tène C origins. The cemetery that preceded the agglomerated site at Bobigny–Hôpital Avicenne had 499 inhumations and fifteen cremations, whilst Acy-Romance was ringed by seven funerary enclosures housing a total of 130 cremations (Friboulet 2013). The only two large cremation cemeteries in Britain (King Harry Lane, St Albans, and Westhampnett, near Chichester) are associated with linear dyke complexes, as are smaller but rich burial grounds at Colchester (Lexden and Stanway). The Lamadelaine cemetery in Luxembourg with sixty-nine burials of first-century BC date lay immediately outside the oppidum at the Titelberg (Metzler-Zens et al. 1999). Many other oppida, however, seem to lack substantial cemeteries. Most burials were not monumentalized to any great degree. Rectangular enclosures, square-ditched barrows, and rectangular structures are, however, a feature of many cemeteries from northern France and the Rhineland to the Low Countries and East Yorkshire. Apart from occasional chariot burials (e.g. Le Plessis Gassot–Le Bois Bouchard, where other finds included decorated fabrics and two pottery vessels from Etruria), goods tended to be modest in the third and second centuries BC. By the first century BC, there were more finds and a greater expression of social distinctions in some regions. Rich La Tène D2 burials in Belgic Gaul and south-east England show an emphasis on eating and drinking equipment, both imported (amphorae, metal jugs and pans, tablewares) and indigenous (buckets, cauldrons, firedogs, grills), reiterating the key role of hospitality in forming social relationships. Weaponry and horse gear are less common, although weapon burials occur sporadically in south-east England, almost all inhumations (Adanac Park, Brisley Farm [Fig. 7.20], Kelvedon, North Bersted)—and often probably founder-burials—

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

315

Fig. 7.20. Brisley Farm, Kent, southern England. Plan of part of the settlement during the early first century AD, showing ‘warrior’ inhumation burial BC2. At a later stage (c.40–50 AD) a second ‘warrior’ burial was interred close to the first. Insets: (A) Plan of the burial enclosure; (B) Detail of the grave. Information from Stevenson 2013.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

316

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

but including a cremation with a helmet from Bridge in Kent (Sealey 2007; Leivers and Gibson 2011; Stevenson 2013; Farley et al. 2014). Weapons feature relatively more prominently in the middle Rhine–Moselle region and in parts of central France, although many of these graves were post-conquest—when inclusion of weapons may have served both as a symbol of the individual’s place in the new order and as a reference back to an earlier status that had been rendered largely irrelevant. As we have seen, some sanctuaries were important places for deposition of male remains in the third and second centuries BC, with the number of individuals represented running into dozens (Fesques; Gournay-sur-Aronde) or even hundreds (Ribemont-sur-Ancre). Where they existed, caves and bogs were also used. In addition, practices involving the deposition of bodies and bones within settlements are still attested across much of north-west Europe; indeed, in Champagne burials in storage pits were particularly prevalent in the third century BC, when cemeteries partly fell out of use. By the first century BC, placing of human remains in storage pits seems to have markedly reduced or ceased in many regions (e.g. Britain: Cunliffe 1992; central France: Marion et al. 2010; Alsace: Landolt et al. 2010b), although this may be a side effect of the changes in storage practice at this time (above).

Social and Regional Trends in Burial Practices Development-led excavations have greatly enhanced our understanding of the adoption of cremation in the maritime regions of northern France, from Normandy to Flanders (Oudry-Braillon 2009; Desenne et al. 2009; Chanson et al. 2010). In western Picardy, 416 cremation burials were excavated between 1989 and 2004, 86 per cent of them in linear operations, compared to just three before 1989 (Buchez 2011b). Cremation was already widespread in this area by 300 BC (La Tène B2) and rapidly became the exclusive rite, with the number of burials rising steadily until La Tène D1, but then falling back again, echoing the decline in rural sites in La Tène D2. A similar rise in cremation is seen in Nord-Pas-de-Calais from La Tène C onwards, although here inhumations continued in tiny numbers up to the end of the period (Oudry-Braillon 2009). Cemeteries in the maritime region were generally small. Over two-fifths of burials from western Picardy are isolated (21.2 per cent) or in pairs (24.2 per cent), whilst twenty-nine of the thirty-six remaining cemeteries (80.6 per cent) had fifteen burials at most (Buchez 2011b). Bigger cemeteries seem to be restricted to the second century BC, such as Bois-Guillaume–Les Bocquets (Lower Normandy), where the vast majority of seventy-five burials were cremations. At La Calotterie–La Fontaine aux Linottes (Pas-de-Calais), twelve cremations were found within the quadrangular enclosure and twenty-seven outside. Many cemeteries were located at the farms they served, either in

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

317

their own plot (e.g. Bernay-en-Ponthieu–Tirancourt), or just beyond the site boundary (e.g. Estrées-Deniécourt–Derrière le Jardin du Berger). Others were approached by tracks leading from a settlement (e.g. Arras–Actiparc; Glisy–La ZAC de la Croix de Fer) or lay next to, or within, routes (e.g. Grand-Laviers–Le Mont Henry). The close links between settlement and cemetery in western Picardy has led to the view that they were family plots, but this may be too trite a reading. Like the farms themselves, most cemeteries occupied elevated positions, on the plateau-tops or the adjacent slopes, with a minority in valley-bottoms, or near the coast (Desenne et al. 2009). Urned and unurned cremations occur, the latter commoner further inland. Pots were the commonest goods, and items like brooches, toilet instruments, or knives occur regularly. A minority of graves were marked out by richer goods, or by four- or eight-post structures (e.g. Barenton-Bugny–Griffon; Villers-Bocage–ZAC de la Montignette) or ditched enclosures around the burial pit (Fig. 7.21), sometimes both (e.g. Vignacourt–Le Collège). These, too, may be isolated or grouped. The majority of burials with monuments or enclosures were early (La Tène B2–C1), although a few later examples occur (e.g. Poulainville–Pôle Logistique; Saint-Sauveur–Au Chemin de Saint-Vaast). Another feature of richer early burials is the presence of a ‘central hearth’, represented by charcoal and clay spreads (Buchez 2011b), as at Boves–Forêt de Boves and Salouël–Hôpital. At the start of La Tène C2, contemporary with the adoption of cremation in eastern Picardy (below), changes occurred in the form of richer burials. These were now mostly in simple square pits and the token ‘hearths’ were replaced with actual cooking equipment in the form of fire dogs and gridirons—often laid centrally in the grave—and bronze cauldrons (e.g. Estrées-Deniécourt– Derrière le Jardin du Berge; Marcelcave–Le Chemin d’Ignaucourt). Food offerings—mostly pork, but including domestic fowl, sheep, and exceptionally deer—whilst found in some earlier graves, were more prominent in these later rich burials. Brooches and toilet implements also occur more often, whilst buckets having been very rare, occur in several La Tène D1 graves (e.g. two in separate burials at Marcelcave, associated with hearth furniture in one, and shears in the other). In this part of Gaul, Italian imports were absent from even the richest burials until after the conquest (Haselgrove 2007b). Around the edge of the maritime cremation zone, occasional chariot burial continued. Around thirty-five are known, concentrated in the lower Seine valley and to the north-east of Paris as far as the Belgian Ardennes and the rivers Escaut and Sambre, usually in small cemeteries. An outlier at Orval–Les Pleines on the west side of the Cotentin in Normandy contained part of a stone stele. They divide into inhumations accompanied by an intact or dismantled chariot, nearly all of third-century BC date, and cremations containing horsegear or chariot-related material, which span the third to first centuries BC (Ginoux et al. 2009). The former include two male chariot burials with

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

318

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

Fig. 7.21. Chronological development of monuments and cremation grave types in western Picardy. Information from Buchez 2011b.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

319

Fig. 7.22. Plan of the late Iron Age cemetery at Hordain–La Fosse à Loups, NordPas-de-Calais. Information from Duvivier et al. 2006.

weapons at Roissy–La Fosse Cotheret (Île-de-France) and two at Attichy–Le Buissonet (Oise). Unusually for the Aisne–Marne region, five of eleven inhumations at Attichy were of children; there was also a cremation. The second category is exemplified by Hordain–La Fosse à Loups, where the central cremation in one of two conjoining enclosures (Fig. 7.22) was furnished with horse and chariot fittings of later third-century BC date, including a yoke. One of eighteen nearby burials was in a storage pit. Chariots or fittings occur with women and children as well as men. Apart from weapons, goods included brooches, toilet implements, pottery, and meat joints. Imports are restricted to the Le Plessis Gassot pots, two glass vessels from La Mailleraye-sur-Seine, and a Dressel 1 amphora from Hannogne

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

320

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

(Ginoux et al. 2009). As might be expected from their date (c.200 BC), the East Yorkshire chariot burials have more affinity with this late horizon in northern France than with their early La Tène predecessors in the Aisne–Marne and middle Rhine–Moselle regions (Chapter 6), notably the form of the iron tyres and lack of nails for fixing. The use of five terrets, viewed as an exclusively insular feature, is matched at Le Plessis Gassot and Roissy (Anthoons 2013). Nevertheless, the manner in which the insular chariot burials combine features paralleled in various parts of Gaul with indigenous elements implies that the short-lived horizon in East Yorkshire is not to be explained by migration. West and south of the River Seine, inhumation largely continued, mixed to some extent with cremation. Several small cemeteries dating from the third to first centuries BC have been excavated in Lower Normandy, particularly in the Caen plain, some of them all inhumations, others entirely cremations (Chanson et al. 2010). In most of the rest of this zone, late Iron Age burials are fairly scarce. In Brittany, breaking with the earlier practice of cremation here, only inhumations occur in the first century BC, preserved in sand dunes by the sea (Villard-le Tiec et al. 2010). In Poitou-Charentes, the much older tradition of ring-ditches continued, as at Magnac-sur-Touvre–Monregner, where a ring-ditch with a La Tène C cremation was found next to two of Bronze Age date. New finds include a young man buried in La Tène D1 in a wooden coffin at Saint-Georges-les-Baillargeaux–Les Varennes, accompanied by goods including an amphora, a spear-head, three razors, a knife, and a sharpening stone. At Esvres-sur-Indre–Vaugrignon in central France, a small cemetery (twenty-nine inhumations, one cremation) used from La Tène D1 to the Augustan period is of interest for three late graves mixing weapons and amphorae. These are interpreted as burials of local men who had joined the Roman army. They can be compared to a cluster of rich male graves of La Tène D2–Augustan date in the same region, such as Antran, Châtillon-surIndre, and Fléré-la-Rivière (Ferdière and Villard 1993; Pautreau 1999), which contained both weapons and feasting equipment (Italian bronze vessels and amphorae, ceramic cooking and dinner services, iron utensils). As well as its chariot burials such as Le Plessis-Gassot, the Île-de-France is exceptional for its large third-century BC inhumation cemeteries like Bobigny– Hôpital Avicenne, Saint-Maur-des-Fossés–Adamville, and Courtenay–Les Quatre Croix (Marion 2009; Marion et al. 2010). Inhumation also persisted during the third century BC in the Aisne–Marne region, although burial grounds here are smaller than before, contrasting with the early dominance of cremation in western Picardy (Pinard et al. 2010). However, at the start of the second century BC, a rapid shift to cremation took place throughout this region as well, exemplified by the cemetery at Bucy-le-Long–Le Fond du Petit Marais (Aisne), where the La Tène C1 graves are inhumations, whereas the La Tène C2 burials are all cremations, as are a cluster of La Tène D1 burials 50 m to the south (Haselgrove 2007b).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

321

Fig. 7.23. Selected late Iron Age cemetery enclosures in Champagne-Ardenne. Information from Stead et al. 2006; Le Goff et al. 2010; Friboulet 2013.

As in the maritime zone, late Iron Age cremations in Champagne-Ardenne and eastern Picardy occur both in isolation and in smallish cemeteries (Fig. 7.23), often associated with post-built monuments and sometimes within substantial ditched enclosures (e.g. Auberive, Sommesous; Le Goff et al. 2010) or overlapping enclosure complexes (e.g. Ménil-Annelles; Ville-sur-Retourne; Stead et al. 2006). Grave contents were also fairly similar, with pottery again by far the commonest form of goods, sometimes consisting of entire ‘services’ for

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

322

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

eating and drinking (Friboulet 2009). Richer burials start to occur in La Tène D, notably in the middle Aisne valley around Château-Porcien, where a cluster of graves—some in timber chambers—are marked out by the inclusion of both imports (Italian amphorae, bronze vessels) and indigenous status objects such as weapons (e.g. Hannogne) or buckets (e.g. Vieux-lès-Asfeld; Lambot et al. 1994). One rich grave at Thugny-Trugny–Le Mayet not only contained the largest spear-head found in Gaul, but also a bucket with three bronze bands and decorated tripod feet best paralleled in the Aylesford cemetery in southeast England (Lambot 2011). In the zone east of Champagne-Ardenne, cremation was the sole funerary practice. Burials in Alsace-Lorraine and the middle Rhine–Moselle region could be flat, marked by barrows or ring-ditches, or set within rectangular enclosures. Again, with exceptions like Wederath, most burial grounds were small. Continued use of some earlier cemeteries is attested. At Worms– Herrnsheim (Chapter 6), most of the fifteen late Iron Age burials clustered around a rectilinear ditched feature, 500 m from a farmstead established during the first century BC in an abandoned area of the cemetery. One grave contained intentionally damaged weapons. Burials were sometimes added to earlier Iron Age barrow groups, as at Reinheim–Furtweg, where one was set inside a square ditched enclosure filled on two sides with rubble. It too included damaged weapons. At the Lamadeleine cemetery, some weapons and brooches were broken or damaged, and one shield-boss was even divided between two graves. Parts of pigs (mainly left sides) were replaced in the burials in their correct anatomical position (or very rarely fowl or other animals). The dominance of pork in the graves is in marked contrast to the faunal assemblage from the Titelberg, where pig and cattle are represented in equal proportions, with cattle far ahead by meat weight. An overall deficit of cremated human bone implies that bodies were exposed prior to being cremated and some of the bone was scattered elsewhere, whilst a few graves contained remains from more than one individual (Metzler-Zens et al. 1999). Grave goods were generally fairly modest at first, but after 150 BC richer burials became commoner again, as at Hermeskeil, where one burial contained a wine amphora along with a sword, axe, shield, and twelve pots. The richest cemetery in the region is Goeblange/Goeblingen–Nospelt, some 20 kilometres from the Titelberg, used for a few decades in the later first century BC. The cemetery contained six funerary chambers beneath barrows (the three latest within square enclosures), as well as six flat graves, a pyre area, and a mass of smashed amphorae from funeral feasts (paralleled in the rich La Tène D2a burial at Clémency). The funerary chambers were packed with goods linked to eating and drinking (often imports) and three included swords (Metzler and Gaeng 2009). The tombs closely resemble late rich burials in central France like Fléré-la-Rivière and, like them, must have been of individuals who

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

323

successfully consolidated their high standing in Gaulish society in the decades following the Roman conquest. Further down the Rhine, late Iron Age burials are rare in the area west of Cologne, contrasting with the wealth of settlement evidence. New finds include a trapezoidal enclosure 50 m long at Inden–Altdorf containing four unurned cremations, dated to 250–150 BC by the sparse pyre goods (two brooches and a glass arm-ring). The enclosure cut an earlier Iron Age ‘longbed’ (Geilenbrügge and Schürmann 2012). In the Netherlands, flat cremation burials dominate the picture, unaccompanied or with modest grave or pyre goods. A rare larger burial ground at Nederweert–Rosveld had two discrete zones, one with 116 burials dating between c.275 BC and AD 50, the other with only fifty-two, but continuing in use for another 175 years until c. AD 225. A burial within a ring-ditch in the larger cluster might be a founder-grave. As at other cemeteries in the Lower Rhine, sheep/goat and pork dominated the meat placed on the pyre, contrasting with the dominance of cattle in settlements. Overt signs of possible status differences are rare in the Netherlands, but a few cemeteries had rectilinear enclosures. At Itteren–Emmaus, six burials dating between c.250 and 150 BC were found within a pair of enclosures integrated within a larger ditch, only 150 m from a cemetery used from 500–200 BC. Another enclosure beside the River Meuse at Lomm had no fewer than sixty-one cremations, the earliest dating to the fourth or third century BC. Burial continued into the first century AD, although the enclosure ditch had filled up by the first century BC. Post-built buildings and a smaller compound were also found in the interior, and yet again, an earlier cemetery lay nearby. There is clearly overlap in form—and perhaps function—between these funerary enclosures and cult places such as Oss. The picture in Belgium is similar; some barrows still occur early in the period, but thereafter cremation cemeteries became the rule, along with a few trapezoidal or quadrangular enclosures with central burials of late Iron Age to early Roman date, such as Bilzen–Kleine-Spouwen in Limburg. North-east of the Rhine, there were fewer burials than before. Small cemeteries were the rule, in some cases associated with rectangular enclosures or monuments. Examples include Loga in Lower Saxony, where a square barrow surrounded by a ditch contained six cremations, three of which were radiocarbon dated between 175 BC and AD 110. At Gümmer, a larger cemetery with seventy-eight urned and unurned cremations was investigated on a rise overlooking the River Leine. Although no traces of monuments survived, the graves were presumably marked in some way, as despite being closely clustered they did not intercut. At least some of the sparse grave goods had passed through the pyre. In Jutland, too, small cemeteries or isolated graves were the norm, with reuse of older barrows remaining common. Grave goods generally continued to be modest, but weapons and imports from central Europe appeared in a few graves, a trend that accelerated in the early Roman Iron

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

324

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

Age. Weapons from these later high-status (male) burials often consisted of a spear-head and an iron sword bent back on itself, as in the case of a firstcentury BC urned burial at Åparken Syd.

Summary In some regions of north-west Europe (e.g. parts of north-west France and south-east England), burial numbers rose to unprecedented levels in the late Iron Age—albeit from a very low base—matching the sharp increase in settlements, even to the extent that they sometimes fell back again in the first century BC (western Picardy). In others, formal burials were or became less common than before (e.g. western France, Champagne-Ardenne, the entire longhouse region) or remained as rare as in previous centuries (the rest of Britain, Ireland). With some exceptions (central and western France, western Britain) cremation was the dominant burial rite throughout the period or had become so by the end. For much of the late Iron Age, overt signs of social differentiation in death in terms of grave goods were limited. In the North European Plain, this matches the settlement record, but in areas where other aspects of the archaeology point to some degree of hierarchy, it may be that the status of the dead was articulated in ways that are not easy for us to read. For a start, even in areas with plenty of graves (and allowing for the under-representation of the many people whose cremated remains were interred without a durable container or goods), those given formal burial were probably a minority. Social differences may have been inherent in the form of funerary monuments, which exhibited considerable variability in some areas. In addition, when remains entered the ground, this was often only after elaborate rites that could have provided the principal means of signifying a person’s status or achievements in life. By the first century BC, we do begin to see greater expression of social distinctions in the nature and range of grave goods— many of them linked to the new power that was Rome—included in burials in parts of Gaul and southern Britain, although never quite reaching the same scale as in the richest late Hallstatt and early La Tène tombs in eastern France and southern Germany.

THE E ND OF PREHISTORY The two centuries leading up to Julius Caesar’s conquest of Gaul saw settlement and population densities reaching unprecedented levels over most of

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

325

temperate Europe. Landscapes that had been thinly inhabited were now largely filled up, from the loess-covered plateaus of northern France to the uplands of central Britain. Environments unsuited to all-year occupation were exploited seasonally and for specific needs like salt production. Underpinning this expansion was an increasingly secure agricultural base, capable of generating ample surpluses in all but the most difficult years, and the greater availability and efficiency of iron tools. An intensified attachment to place is another feature of the period, manifested in a marked reduction in settlement mobility in areas previously characterized by fluidity, and the emergence in Gaul and southern Germany of ordered nucleated settlements and other types of ‘central places’, from ceremonial centres and sanctuaries to fortified oppida. Some of these sites had important economic functions, but at many of them ritual was the overriding factor bringing people together. Despite their different forms and origins, many of these new centres probably became increasingly instrumental in the management of power and status between hitherto distinct communities (Moore 2012), as population levels rose and larger polities formed. Almost as striking as the increase in settlements is the explosion in site finds compared to earlier periods, thanks to the increasingly specialist production of many existing categories of personal and everyday objects such as brooches, pottery, querns, and tools, and new ones like coins—which rapidly acquired multiple uses—or glass bracelets. This growth in materiality was accentuated by a rise in deliberate deposition on sites and in the landscape, and by the increasing exposure of late Iron Age societies to organized commercial interests as Roman power grew, leading to an influx of highly visible Mediterranean imports. An unfortunate consequence of this abundance of finds is that much artefact data from development-led excavations is never fully analyzed (and far more is lost without record). Inevitably publication tends to privilege unusual and exotic items, which further limits the input of material culture in writing new narratives for the late Iron Age, including this one. The earlier part of the period is characterized by almost uninterrupted growth, but after 150 BC there were signs of increasing instability in many areas. Many long-lived sites were abandoned, from developed hillforts in southern Britain to the warrior sanctuaries of Picardy, whilst a significant proportion of the agglomerations that developed between 250 and 150 BC towards the southern fringes of the study area were replaced by oppida or were fortified themselves. It would be a mistake, however, to see this development as a simple evolution from one form to another. Some agglomerated settlements continued to be inhabited despite the presence of nearby oppida, whilst fortified sites occur over a much wider zone and do not adhere to a single model of development (e.g. Brittany, Picardy), the one constant being the sharp fall in rural sites everywhere in the first century BC. A similar decline may have occurred in parts of Britain, but both there and in Ireland the focal sites that emerged in the late Iron Age were of different

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

326

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

character to those on the Continent, united only in their monumentality and long-distance connections. The extent to which Roman expansion was a factor in developments prior to the 50s BC remains difficult to assess. Martin (2013) has recently argued for palpable Roman influence over the peoples of central and eastern Gaul from as early as the mid-second century BC, drawing on coinage and other evidence. Nevertheless, the proliferation of fortified sites in this zone was no earlier than elsewhere. The same applies to western Gaul, despite the early influx of Italian wine into this region. The decline in rural settlements also began too early and affected too large a zone for Roman expansion to have been the primary cause, and whilst Caesar’s campaigns probably did exacerbate the process, ironically the one region not to show a new surge in settlement numbers in the early centuries AD was Ireland, where activity instead declined. Only after Gaul was conquered did Roman influence become manifest across the study area, with the funerary and numismatic record providing many examples of individuals who seized the opportunities that Roman rule and patronage afforded. Roman involvement after Caesar’s invasions played a major role in the formation of larger polities in southern Britain (Creighton 2000). A similar trend is apparent during the early centuries AD in other areas beyond the imperial frontiers such as Jutland and Scotland (Hedeager 1992; Hunter 2007), although the Irish evidence is more equivocal (Soderberg 2013). Roman goods were a prominent feature of the richer burials found in parts of Gaul and south-east England soon after the conquest, and in the North European Plain a little later. Prior to this, imports occurred only sporadically in graves, although this echoes the fairly modest nature of goods throughout the study area. This lack of obvious social variation is among the more notable features of late Iron Age societies. In the longhouse zone, equally few hints of marked distinctions in power or prestige between groups are apparent in the settlement record. In the La Tène zone, however, social hierarchies could have been expressed in many other ways: in death through specific rites or grave markers (and even in the smaller numbers accorded cemetery burial); in life, through the form and layout of dwelling places; the control of land and material wealth; the capacity to sacrifice valuable objects and animals; and the ability to mobilize the resources and people required to construct large monuments. Britain appears similar, but again Ireland is possibly different, although the dating of the different elements of the Navan–Dorsey complex to within a few years of each other hints at the existence of a guiding hand. Throughout the late Iron Age, the peoples of temperate Europe maintained close contacts with each another and with their neighbours to the south and north. The existence of well-developed routes on land and over water allowed for the more effective transmission of new ideas and designs than at any previous period, evidenced by the often remarkable similarities between assemblages from widely separated sites—although sometimes the overlay of

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

327

objects with a single source (amphorae) or model (coins) adds to an impression of greater uniformity than was in fact the case. Despite this high degree of connectivity, the longhouse region of the North European Plain, and northern Britain and Ireland, whilst sharing in some wider developments, maintained their distinctive character, and were beyond the effective reach of Mediterranean imports and ideas until after the Roman conquest of Gaul. Not that the La Tène core area was itself homogenous; the Rhine formed a significant divide, with features like Murus Gallicus ramparts and bipartite farm enclosures found all over Gaul, but rare or non-existent east of the river. In this geographical and cultural perspective, the German Mittelgebirge, southern Netherlands, and southern Britain can all be seen as having attributes intermediate between La Tène Europe on the one hand and the ‘Germanic’ zone, Ireland, and northern Britain on the other. It is surely more than coincidence that it was in these ‘borderlands’ that Roman expansion reached its limits in the first century AD, at the same time bringing their prehistories to an end.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

8 The Research in Retrospect POTENTIALS AND L IMITATIONS In some respects this project was the successor to the research published in 2007 as The Prehistory of Britain and Ireland, but there are significant contrasts between the books. The results of development-led archaeology have played a central role in both, but they have influenced their contents in different ways. When the earlier book was published it was among the first to draw extensively on fieldwork undertaken as part of the planning process. To some extent the course of that research was unpredictable, for it was not clear how far the results of the new excavations and surveys would diverge from what was already known. All that was certain from the outset was that a large amount of new information had been collected and that very little of it had entered the public domain. There was a disparity between the conventional archaeological literature—journal articles, monographs, and regional syntheses—and the great majority of reports, which were prepared for planning authorities and commercial clients. Those documents were difficult to trace and sometimes difficult to access. What the project showed was that such sources were vital to any understanding of the past. It also demonstrated that at least some of the orthodoxies on which public policy depended were inconsistent with the results of work that had already taken place. The same problem affected teaching and research, for they rarely took account of the new sources of information. In retrospect, the earlier project may have influenced later research in a way that had not been foreseen. It did not, and could not, offer a completely new version of British and Irish prehistory, as it was written at a time when many excavations were still in progress—the fieldwork associated with road-building in Ireland is a good example. In any case the dissemination of information in the archaeology of these islands was so inefficient that particularly in England it was difficult to find out what had been done. Tracing the results was an even harder task, and it was not completely successful. The situation has improved since then, and the results of more excavations are available through the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

329

internet. There was also a realization that the findings of commercial archaeology have a vital role to play in new approaches to antiquity, and other research has drawn on that material. The work published in 2007 has at least one direct successor in an initiative drawing together what is known about the rural landscape of Roman Britain (). In Ireland, there have been attempts to assimilate the results of developer-funded work through collaborations between universities and professional field archaeologists (). Seven years after The Prehistory of Britain and Ireland was published, it is generally accepted that the results of commercial archaeology have an important role to play in interpreting the past. One of the lessons learned in the course of that project was that it would be impossible to compare the new information on British and Irish prehistory with what was known about the same period on the Continent. Since the Valletta Convention other countries have seen a similar increase in the pace and scale of fieldwork. It meant that it would be misleading to consider insular prehistory without undertaking a similar review of the results of excavations on the European mainland. Otherwise researchers would not be comparing like with like. That was the initial reason why a further project was planned, but it soon became apparent that the new information was so extensive and unexpected that it was not sufficient to investigate the Continental background to British and Irish prehistory. What was needed was a more rounded account of this period that covered a large part of Europe. Its findings have been presented here. What began as a companion volume to The Prehistory of Britain and Ireland has become its sequel. This book has taken advantage of the increasing amount of information that became available during the last fifteen years and has been written at a time when more of this material is accessible than ever before. Even so, it is right to acknowledge the problems that still remain. In particular, there are differences of opinion concerning the status of development-led archaeology. In French law it is defined as a scientific practice aimed at studying the past. A similar view obtains in the Netherlands, but here some scholars have debated whether the results of this work match the level of expenditure on particular projects. In the United Kingdom doubts are also expressed because the importance of research depends on the contractual relationship between the developers and the private firms undertaking the work. Here consultants and heritage managers have an important part to play in ensuring that work is satisfactory. Chapter 1 showed that the dataset generated by development-led fieldwork is vast but unevenly distributed, and some regions and site types still remain seriously under-represented. In fact there is a direct relationship between the number of sites excavated and the nature of the planning laws in force in different regions. This is especially clear in France and Belgian Flanders, where

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

330

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

the adoption of minimum size thresholds for archaeological investigations has encouraged more use of trial-trenching. The result is a wider variety of archaeological projects, compared to earlier work which focused on extensive developments like the construction of pipelines, motorways, and railways. The new fieldwork has led to a greater change of perspective in some periods than in others. Outside the Low Countries and the Baltic coast, important Mesolithic sites are rarely discovered and excavated and the record remains sparse even now. On the other hand, the need to test areas prior to construction has encouraged the use of novel sampling techniques such as coring. Although the number of field projects is limited, this method has offered fresh opportunities for investigating deeply buried landscapes. It is harder to assess the impact of development-led archaeology on the Neolithic period. It has certainly increased the sample of LBK sites, but in this case new knowledge has come mainly from laboratory research not funded by developers. On the other hand, the amount of information on other phases has changed considerably. They include the Villeneuve-Saint-Germain period in northern France, the earliest Neolithic in Britain and Ireland, and the late Neolithic on the Atlantic façade where longhouses and megalithic tombs are represented but ordinary settlements are rare. In this case research excavations supply some of the missing material. By contrast, recent work has led to the identification of completely new categories of early, middle, and late Bronze Age sites on the Continent. They include roundhouses, domestic enclosures, fortifications, and field systems. Their discovery reveals some interesting regional similarities and contrasts. For the Iron Age there is an embarrassment of riches. Vast numbers of settlements have been excavated, but in most cases analysis and synthesis have not kept pace with the results of fieldwork. In other areas, it has been possible to study large parts of the landscape for the first time so that researchers can consider the relationship between settlements of different kinds. They can also investigate the links between them and their cemeteries. That is particularly true in a series of river valleys in northern France, but even here there are limitations; few of the largest sites have been investigated on a systematic basis and some are covered by modern cities. The window is often a narrow one, with the result that neighbouring landscapes with differing settlement histories are all but ignored (Haselgrove 2011). Research can shed light on how the excavated areas fit into a wider picture, but certain kinds of monuments (such as hill-top enclosures) have received less attention. In any case the large scale of settlement excavations can be deceptive, for in most cases only a small proportion of the subsoil features exposed by topsoil stripping is examined in any detail, with the result that certain categories of material can easily be missed. That could apply to finds of Bronze Age metalwork. In the same way late Iron Age coin hoards are rarely discovered at settlements in northern France (Chapter 7). This may be because they were

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

331

not within the samples chosen for investigation. Under those circumstances they could only be found by metal-detector survey, and, unless that work is undertaken as a matter of routine, there is a risk that other artefacts will be lost when the surface deposits are removed (Dobay 2013). What is true of deposits inside settlements applies to any features outside them. They can include inhumation and cremation burials, and in the later Bronze Age they extend to deposits of metalwork which are commonly found by amateur archaeologists. The obvious exceptions are Irish burnt mounds, many of which have been excavated during recent years. Most of them occur in isolation, and they are difficult to interpret in a wider context (Hawkes 2013). Even with the expansion of fieldwork, sources of bias remain.

IS THERE A PREHISTORY OF NORTH-WEST EUROPE? If there are chronological problems, there are also disparities between the records from different regions. Chapter 1 discussed different approaches to the question of scale in European archaeology. Over time there have been some changes between research projects that examine prehistory at a national or local level, and those that adopt a supra-regional or continental scale. There are even schemes that set Europe within a still larger perspective; one recent paper describes an ‘Afro-Eurasian world system’ extending from Britain to India in the later first millennium BC (Beaujard 2010). Each of these levels of analysis has a place, and clearly it would be misleading to focus entirely either on interregional connections or the evidence of local variability. The challenge is to understand the relationship between them. This book set out to address some specific questions. How meaningful is it to speak of a prehistory of north-west Europe? How strongly integrated were its various parts, and, in particular, how closely were Britain and Ireland connected to the Continent at different times in the past? What were the main axes of interaction, and how, if at all, did they change? These questions are hard to answer, as different results are reached depending on which kinds of evidence are considered. Since the work of Gordon Childe archaeologists have privileged certain indications of culture contact at the expense of others. They have looked at the movement of artefacts, and at shared styles of portable objects, burials, monuments, and houses. But why should common practices—agricultural regimes or the deposition of offerings—be any less relevant? And can the intensity of contact be measured by the frequency of imported artefacts or the sharing of material traits? Ethnographic accounts show that contacts need not leave any physical evidence behind them, and in some cases regional diversity in styles of artefacts or dress can be a response to interaction rather than isolation (Hodder 1982).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

332

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

Where did the regional divisions fall, and how did they change over time? During the sixth to fifth millennia BC, there was a clear distinction between early Neolithic communities, and the Mesolithic groups who lived along the coast in Britain, Ireland, and northern Europe. While some contacts are documented between central European farmers and northern hunter-gatherer-fishers, there is virtually no evidence for exchanges across the Channel or the Irish Sea. In many areas the adoption of Neolithic ways of life was accomplished through new kinds of interaction. The British and Irish Neolithic did not originate from a single source but shows a variety of influences—both a southeastern and a south-western/Irish Sea axis can be seen, and there were even some practices that were shared with Scandinavia. This particular period provides a perfect example of the importance of working on an extensive scale: to a large extent, debates on the Neolithization of these islands focus on local evidence and fail to address the point that this was a period of change throughout north-west Europe. Although different processes affected different regions, a wider perspective is essential. That is clearly illustrated by the panEuropean distribution of jadeite axes from the Alps. By contrast, the late fourth and early third millennia BC saw the development of essentially regional traditions. Now there is little evidence of contacts between the offshore islands and the Continent. Britain and Ireland were linked together by the movement of axe-heads and by local styles of monuments and decorated pottery. On the European mainland, however, both western and eastern networks can be recognized. One extended along the Atlantic coastline, whilst the other connected Germany to the Netherlands and Denmark. That remained the case until the movement of GrandPressigny flint first linked these areas together, but it was never introduced to the British Isles. It was not until the Bell Beaker phase that similar practices were shared over large parts of western Europe. That is most apparent from burial rites and from a series of distinctive artefacts including fine pottery and metalwork. On the other hand, settlements and houses adhered to existing regional traditions, with a clear distinction between the eastern and western parts of the study area as well as more local preferences. During this period Britain still followed its own path and monuments were constructed of kinds which lack any parallels on the Continent. From about 2300 BC any apparent unity was lost, and regional differences in burial rites and material culture became increasingly marked. At the same time there is more evidence for the exchange of finely made objects between different areas. That remained the case throughout the early Bronze Age when an Atlantic axis connected the British Isles, northern and western France, and the southern Low Countries, whilst a separate network joined central Europe with the Nordic area. It was then that the long-distance movement of metal became especially important, and a growing proportion of raw material was

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

333

introduced from sources outside the region considered in this book. The construction of funerary barrows was another common feature in most parts of north-west Europe, but these burial mounds were used in many different ways. Settlements, on the other hand, conformed to the same regional alignments as before. Other changes happened towards the end of the early Bronze Age and during the middle Bronze Age. Now there were stronger similarities in settlement types, landscape organization, mortuary rituals, and domestic artefacts on either side of the Channel and the southern North Sea, yet such connections affected only a small part of north-west Europe and their significance can be exaggerated. Regional traditions remained important, but the really new development is that these traditions brought together parts of England, France, and the Low Countries that were connected by sea. The water was no longer a barrier—if it ever had been. The evidence from inland regions shows a quite different pattern. Here settlement sites are rare, there are no recognizable field systems, and burial mounds retained their importance when it diminished in other parts of north-west Europe. The archaeology of Jutland is different again, as it is the only region with monumental houses and elaborate barrow burials. Other distinctions are illustrated by the circulation of metalwork during the late Bronze Age. It is customary to distinguish between the Atlantic, Nordic, and central European or North Alpine traditions, as defined by distinctive styles of artefacts, but to some extent their distributions cross-cut the patterns defined by settlements and funeral rites. There is evidence of land enclosure around the shores of the Channel and the southern North Sea, but it takes different forms. Field systems are more evident in the middle Bronze Age, whilst linear ditches or pit alignments appear in the late Bronze Age in Britain and are hardly represented on the Continent. Continued links between southern Britain and northern France are illustrated by the presence of roundhouses and the construction of ring-works. Hillforts were another important development at this time and are identified in increasing numbers in Ireland. The exchange of metalwork declined after 800 BC, and the early to middle pre-Roman Iron Age is sometimes seen as a time of greater diversity. Interregional contacts continued, including those across the Channel, but they may have involved the movement of fewer high-quality artefacts. Certain practices were shared between Britain and the Continent, for burials and structured deposits of artefacts or animal remains are found in abandoned storage pits in southern England, northern France, and north-west Germany. On the other hand, connections between Ireland and the rest of the study area are harder to recognize at this time, but that is not surprising given the small number of sites found by excavation. During the closing stages of the pre-Roman Iron Age, new long-distance networks were established. Connections with the Mediterranean world became

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

334

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

increasingly significant, although interaction between other regions of Europe also increased. Exotic goods were imported and (Gallo-) Roman customs were adopted in southern Britain—that had happened during the previous century in Gaul and was to happen again in the following centuries in northern Germany and Jutland. Large parts of north-west Europe were absorbed into the Roman Empire, but that did not happen in Ireland, in Scotland, or on the North European Plain. In the light of such developments it would be wrong to suggest that northwest Europe formed a coherent region throughout the five millennia studied in the book. Very different networks extended across this area and beyond. Regional patterns varied and their character changed over time. For example, there were two periods in which the British Isles had little contact with the Continent: the late Mesolithic when they were cut off by sea, and the late fourth to early third millennia BC when some extraordinary monuments of purely insular kinds were built. At other times long-distance connections are clearly documented in north-west Europe. From the Beaker period onwards there seems to have been a constant interchange between communities around the Channel and the southern North Sea—although the character of these connections was modified over time and parts of this region forged additional links with other areas. Meanwhile, there were equally close contacts between communities along the Atlantic coast. The southern and eastern fringes of the study area are different again, as they had more in common with central Europe. Although it is possible to recognize such alignments, there are few periods in which it would make much sense to divide north-west Europe into a series of bounded units. It is only possible to define such blocs by emphasizing some parts of the archaeological record at the expense of others. It may be more important to combine the evidence of long-distance networks with the new information provided by scientific analysis of human and animal bone, for there are indications that these too were regularly moved over long distances. Although some techniques are in their infancy, they hold out the prospect of mapping the relationships between individuals and communities across prehistoric Europe without resorting to the untestable assumptions that characterized twentieth-century archaeology.

H OUSING TH E LIVING AND THE DEAD The archaeological record of north-west Europe underwent some striking changes over time. Certain periods—for instance the LBK and the first millennium BC—provide abundant evidence for houses, settlements, and enclosures. In other phases living sites and dwellings are much more difficult to identify. That was the case in most areas between the fourth and early second

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

335

millennia BC. A lavish investment in funerary monuments or ritual structures contrasts with the limited attention paid to the domestic sphere. Jutland stands out as a rare exception where houses and barrows of the same dates coexisted. Why should domestic buildings be so difficult to discover during certain periods of prehistory? Were they lightly built, and could this be linked to a mobile pattern of settlement? Or is it that houses took so many forms that it is difficult to recognize their outlines amidst a palimpsest of excavated features? What is clear it that the same problems arise across large parts of the study area, and for that reason the rarity of domestic buildings cannot be blamed on the quality of modern fieldwork. Another possibility is that the choice between emphasizing domestic architecture and investing in monuments to the dead shows how people understood their place in the world. In the first case membership of a particular household—and the relationship of that household to others—may have been important in establishing their social identity. In the second case they may have defined themselves in terms of genealogical links to (real or fictive) ancestors. That is probably too simple. While the remains of houses are rarely found in the later Neolithic and early Bronze Age, other buildings of the same date can be exceptionally large. At times they conform to the same organization of space as the few small dwellings that have been recorded. Examples include the Late Neolithic ‘longhouses’ of western and northern France. Conversely, during the first millennium BC when settlement evidence is most abundant, many regions saw little variety in the scales of domestic buildings, and comparatively few of them can be described as monumental; exceptions include the stone roundhouses of Atlantic Scotland. The point is made in Figure 8.1 which illustrates the variations in house size on the loess of western Europe. It suggests an inverse relationship between the quantity of settlement evidence and the dimensions of the buildings occupied during the same periods. This finding is difficult to explain. Perhaps the largest constructions show that several households lived together under the same roof. It seems as likely that these structures were considered as ‘great houses’ and played a more specialized role. That is especially true in the Neolithic period when a similar argument applies to tombs in the form of a longhouse and the timber circles of the British Isles. It is striking that the idiom of domestic architecture was employed at a time when settlement sites were so ephemeral. Perhaps the largest buildings provided the focal points for a dispersed community. They could have been where social transactions of many different kinds took place. A further point is worth noting here. In regions in which rectangular houses were the norm, they could assume a monumental aspect because it was possible to extend them to almost any length. That may be why there were comparatively few rectilinear enclosures or mounds apart from long barrows. The same process could not apply to a roundhouse. Beyond a certain size additional structures had to be built, or the same form might be reproduced in a different

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

336

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

m2 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100

50

0 –5 11 00

–1 10 0

0 26

43

00

–2

65

0 30 –4 00 49

53

00

–4

90

0

0

Years BC

Fig. 8.1. House sizes in the loess belt of western Continental Europe during different periods of prehistory. Information from Bakels 2009.

medium. Well-documented examples include henges, circular enclosures, and possibly some hillforts (Bradley 2013a).

DEMOGRAPHY AND CLIMATE Demography is important for understanding the archaeological sequence, but until recently the subject has been neglected (Shennan 2012). Most of the work that has been done relates to the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods, or to the Iron Age. Chapter 1 commented on striking differences in the number of sites recorded for different phases. An initial peak in the early Neolithic was followed by a long period in which they occurred less often. That remained the case into the second millennium BC. The first millennium, on the other hand, saw a dramatic increase in their frequency, and this happened almost everywhere. While demographic changes may underlie these trends, they are unlikely to be the only factor. There are the differences in the archaeological visibility of sites that have already been discussed, and they may be exacerbated by the policies of heritage managers who encourage the investigation of certain phenomena at the expense of others. The average extent of Iron Age settlement investigations for northern France is 2.6 hectares, but regional averages range from 7 hectares in Île-de-France and 5.3 hectares in Picardy—both areas where there is a high level of interest in this period—to 1.3 hectares in Lorraine and Brittany (Malrain et al. 2013, fig. 139).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

337

Recent studies have taken a slightly different approach, using summed probability distributions of radiocarbon dates as a proxy for population size in Mesolithic and Neolithic Europe (Shennan and Edinborough 2007; Hinz et al. 2012; Shennan et al. 2013). In regions like western Germany, the rise and fall in these distributions matches the evidence in the project database, but there are other areas where the correspondence is weaker. In several regions these studies suggest a peak in the early Neolithic population when farming was first adopted, followed by a fall and then a period in which the population remained significantly lower. That could help to explain the difficulty of finding later Neolithic settlements. On the other hand, the proportion of excavated sites subjected to radiocarbon dating may not be the same for every phase. Given these difficulties, it is impossible to estimate population sizes with any accuracy. Different methods are required. It may be possible to identify periods of relative growth or decline by combining data from different sources, and comparing these trends with the human impact on the landscape documented by environmental archaeology. For example, in Britain and Ireland a reduction in radiocarbon dates in the late fourth millennium BC has been identified by Shennan et al. (2013). This corresponds to other evidence of less intensive clearance and agriculture (Stevens and Fuller 2012; Woodbridge et al. 2012; Whitehouse et al. 2013). It could result from a fall in population, but the possibility remains that changes of land-use were responsible for this pattern. On the Continent the picture is much more mixed. Schleswig-Holstein illustrates a similar sequence to the British Isles, as there are fewer radiocarbon dates in the late fourth millennium BC and pollen analysis suggests a smaller impact on the landscape (Hinz et al. 2012). On the other hand, the same method produces the opposite result in the Paris Basin. Despite the—arguably limited—environmental evidence, archaeological sites are uncommon in the late fourth to early third millennia BC and there are not many radiocarbon dates (Leroyer 2003; 2006). It seems unlikely that population levels fell across all parts of the study area. The growth in site numbers during the first millennium BC is too dramatic to be explained solely by changes in archaeological visibility, but even here there are other factors to consider. Individual settlements may have increased in size, and the pattern would be distorted if these sites were abandoned and replaced every generation, as may have happened in the Low Countries. Some regions like Brittany show a tendency to settlement longevity, but over half of Iron Age farms in northern France were occupied for no more than two to four generations (Malrain et al. 2013, pl. II). This rapid turnover has certainly contributed to filling up the landscape, but it is difficult to know to what extent the first millennium BC differs from earlier periods, for which the chronological precision is much less. During the late Iron Age there is yet another difficulty, for the numerical peaks observed in La Tène D may hide shorter periods when there were hardly any small domestic sites in parts of northern

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

338

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

France. One explanation is the nucleation of settlement at a few locations, but the pattern might also reflect episodes of migration and the impact of the Gallic War (Haselgrove and Guichard 2013). At the same time demographic expansion is confirmed by environmental evidence from most parts of north-west Europe. Pollen analysis and studies of alluviation provide evidence of forest clearance and farming. The development of new agricultural technologies was important during the later Bronze Age and Iron Age, for new landscapes could be colonized and more people could settle there. A wider variety of food crops became available (Fig. 8.2), yet the evidence is remarkably uneven. For example, spelt was cultivated throughout the east and south of England but was rarely grown in northern France. Agricultural tools such as axes and sickles appeared in greater numbers, and bronze artefacts were followed by iron implements such as ploughshares. The introduction of new fodder crops and the use of scythes for haymaking made it easier to support livestock through the winter (Bakels 2009). This is not to follow the traditional argument that numbers rose to the level allowed by the subsistence economy. Social factors could encourage or hold back population growth. Kinship systems and rules of inheritance might have played a role by making it more or less attractive to have large families, or for offspring to found new households in other places. Demographic changes will have had further consequences. Living in larger numbers requires the negotiation of social relations long before any notional ‘carrying capacity’ has been reached. On the other hand, it must be no accident that the major social

16 12 8

50

11 00 80 0

0 26 5

0 43 0

49 0

53 0

0

4

0

Number of species

20

Years BC Oil seeds Pulses Cereals

Fig. 8.2. Numbers of crop plants cultivated in the loess belt of western Continental Europe during different periods of prehistory. Information from Bakels 2009.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

339

changes of the later Iron Age took place at a time when population densities were surely higher than they had been before. Just as the effects of population growth were influenced by social factors, they were also affected by climate change. Studies of this phenomenon are important for prehistorians, but have yet to fulfil their potential. Certain events happened so quickly that they are hard to relate to an archaeological timescale. Developments that occurred in one region may not be recognizable in another, and even patterns that can be identified with some confidence may have more than one explanation. There is even a danger of circular arguments when a change of climate is postulated to explain developments in the archaeological record. A good example is the retreat of settlement from English heathlands and moorlands during the later Bronze Age and Iron Age. It is thought that this was due to deteriorating conditions, but it is by no means clear whether the reason was increased rainfall or impeded drainage caused by over-exploitation of the soil. In a recent paper Tipping and his co-authors define a series of ‘moments of crisis’ in prehistoric Scotland and consider the methods by which they can be related to the climatic record (Tipping et al. 2013). They observe that natural changes must be interpreted in terms of peoples’ perceptions in the past, rather than the concerns of modern scientists. Ancient communities might have been resilient rather than passive and could have been prepared to experiment. Environmental changes might have positive or negative consequences. Two examples illustrate these observations. One relates a fairly short-lived period of more favourable conditions to the rapid expansion of agriculture into Scandinavia and the British Isles (Bonsall et al. 2002). It has the merit of suggesting why this process happened simultaneously in regions that had little contact with one another. A second study identifies deteriorating conditions along the Atlantic coastline during the earlier first millennium BC (Plunkett 2007). It is unlikely that they disrupted the movement of people by sea, but they could have slowed the expansion of settlement in Ireland or brought it to an end. This would help to explain the paucity of pre-Roman Iron Age settlements and the ephemeral character of those that have been found. Lastly, environmental change could be a stimulus to innovation. Tipping and his colleagues suggest that this is one reason for the widespread adoption of field systems in the Bronze Age of lowland England (Tipping et al. 2013, 17–18). The same might be true of comparable developments on the Continent, especially when they took place in different environments and at different times. New kinds of tenure may have been important, but the argument that co-axial fields and land boundaries were the work of people who were facing difficulties would explain why similar features have not been found in many regions and why they had such a punctuated history. Regular field systems in southern England were often abandoned in the early Iron Age and were not reused until the prehistoric period was coming to an end. Only then were they established in other parts of Britain.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

340

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

THE P REHISTORY OF E UROPEAN S OCIETY Lastly there is a topic which requires more investigation. Despite the recent increase in fieldwork, it remains as intractable as it has always been. Studies of social evolution were pioneered by Gordon Childe, but today they are less fashionable in Britain than they are on the Continent. Thus for Demoule (1993; 1999) western European prehistory went through cycles of increasing social complexity, culminating in the ‘proto-urban’ polities of the late Iron Age (Fig. 8.3). A difficulty is this focus on ‘complexity’: a feature which is usually taken to imply the existence of a hierarchy. On the contrary, one of the main characteristics of prehistory in north-west Europe is the lack of clear evidence for any marked social divisions before the late Iron Age, which the late Andrew Sherratt aptly described as ‘Europe’s stubborn failure to organize itself ’ (Sherratt 1984, 123). Perhaps the problem is not why such complexity developed, but why it was resisted so widely and for such a long time. To some extent the problem is one of scale. This chapter has considered how far north-west Europe formed a distinctive entity during the prehistoric period, but another way of thinking about the question is to ask to what extent the fortunes of local communities depended on a wider world. That is the premise of core–periphery theory, and opinions differ on whether it is of any

Roman Empire

Empire

State La Tène D Protourbanisation Passage graves

Princely tombs

Hallstatt D

Wessex Armorica Leubingen

La Tène A

Beginning of social differentiation Egalitarian Neolithic

La Tène B2-C1

Middle Bronze Age

Allées couvertes

La Tène B1

Huntergatherers BC

4000

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

Fig. 8.3. Demoule’s interpretation of variations in social hierarchy through prehistory in Continental north-west Europe. Information from Demoule 1993.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe

341

relevance in the study area. Kristiansen and Larsson (2005) regard the Nordic Bronze Age as dependent on central Europe as its source of raw materials, ideology, and social institutions, but their interpretation is controversial (Harding 2013b). Similarly, Cunliffe has suggested that local societies in the early Iron Age were influenced by the development of major settlements in areas further to the south, which had important contacts with the Mediterranean (1997, 51–67). Recent work at the Heuneburg, Mont Lassois, and Bourges does suggest that for a short period during the sixth century BC, these sites were almost as large as their counterparts in Greece or Etruria (see Chapter 6), but there is an important difference. Those in temperate Europe were not used for long, while their Mediterranean counterparts became the centres of literate civilizations. Why they were abandoned—or grew so rapidly in the first place— is quite unclear (Fernández-Götz and Krausse 2013), but any period of contact was short-lived and probably had little impact on the population of north-west Europe. That was not to happen until the expansion of the Roman world brought the prehistoric sequence to an end. This is not to assume that local societies were entirely self-contained. It would be inconsistent with the evidence discussed in Chapters 6 and 7. Rather, it seems likely that developments outside north-west Europe had a limited impact until the late pre-Roman Iron Age. It was peripheral in the sense that it stood apart from the dramatic changes that happened in other places, but it was not a periphery in the sense employed by advocates of World Systems Theory. There is no reason to suppose that north-west Europe became increasingly dependent on its neighbours, or that local developments were driven by its marginal status in the political economy of a larger region. Instead its archaeology has its own distinctive character and owes less than might be supposed to other societies or other parts of the Continent. That is why the study area has turned out to be so distinctive and why it has been rewarding to write about its prehistory.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

APPENDIX

List of sites from the database cited in the text

Country

Region*

Database No. References

Aalstrup Abbeville–Mont à Cailloux sud Acy-Romance Agneaux–Bellevue Ahlen–Dolberg Albersdorf LA 68 Albæk Aldersro I Aldersro II Alizay–La Cour Carel Alstedgård Amiens–Jardins d’Intercampus Ancenis–RD 464 Ancenis–ZAC de la Savinière Åparken Syd Argoeuves–Le Moulin d’Argoeuves Arras–Actiparc Askov–Øster Havgård/Askov Præstegård Attichy–Le Buissonet Aubevoye–La Chartreuse Auneau–Parc du Château Aunou-sur-Orne–Le Pré Mesnil Bad Kreuznach

Denmark France France France Germany Germany Denmark Denmark Denmark France Denmark France France France Denmark France France Denmark

Midtjylland Somme Ardennes Manche Nordrhein-Westfalen Schleswig-Holstein Midtjylland Midtjylland Midtjylland Eure Syddanmark Somme Loire-Atlantique Loire-Atlantique Midtjylland Somme Pas-de-Calais Syddanmark

15378 20464 21673 21294 10293 11208 15055 15383 15372 21255 15421 22522 22469 22493 15442 22639 20972 16200

Madsen 2009 Le Guen 2006; Lemaire 2003 Lambot 1999; Lambot and Méniel 1992; 2000; Lambot et al. 1994 Marcigny 2012 Brieske 2005 Dibbern and Hage 2010 Arkæologiske Udgravninger i Danmark 1998 Rasmussen 2004 Arkæologiske Udgravninger i Danmark 2000–3 Mare 2008 Arkæologiske Udgravninger i Danmark 2000–2 Blondiau 2009 Viau 2009 Pétorin 2008; Viau 2010 Olesen 2005 Soupart 2009 Jacques and Prilaux 2003 Eisenschmidt 2006

France France France France Germany

Oise Eure Eure-et-Loir Orne Rheinland-Pfalz

22539 21195 23353 21341 10914

Inrap 2009 Riche et al. 2010 Agogué et al. 2007 Lejars and Pernet 2004; 2005; San Juan and Couanon 2003 Zylmann 2009 (continued )

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 3/9/2015, SPi

Site Name

Country

Region*

Database No. References

Bad Nauheim–Kurstraße/Parkstraße Bad Nauheim–Siechenhaus Bad Oldesloe–Wolkenwehe LA 154 Bad Segeberg LA 93 Baexem–Haelensche Beek Banville Banville–La Burette Barenton-Bugny–Griffon Basly–La Campagne Baunehøj Bayeux–Bellefontaine Bazancourt/Pomacle–La Large Eau Bazoches-sur-Vesle–Les Chantraines Beaucouzé La Corbinière Beauvais–Le Brin de Glaine Beauvoir-sur-Mer–Le Pontreau 2 Beierstedt Bejsebakken Bénouville–Les Hautes Coutures Bernières-sur-Mer–Le Grand Parc Bernières-sur-Mer–Rue du Maréchal Montgomery Bessines–Le Grand Champ Est Betton–Pluvignon Bevtoft–Hans Peters Høj Bilzen–Kleine-Spouwen Bobigny–Hôpital Avicenne Bocholt–B 67/Südostring Bois-Guillaume–Les Bocquets

Germany Germany Germany Germany Netherlands France France France France Denmark France France France France France France Germany Denmark France France France

Hessen Hessen Schleswig-Holstein Schleswig-Holstein Limburg Calvados Calvados Aisne Calvados Nordjylland Calvados Marne Aisne Maine-et-Loire Oise Vendée Niedersachsen Nordjylland Calvados Calvados Calvados

10938 11086 11185 11209 10177 21426 21400 20333 21281 15930 21358 21889 20603 22388 20452 22414 10821 15017 21335 21321 21401

Kull 2003; Kreuz 2003 Boenke et al. 2009 Mischka et al. 2007 Guldin 2010 Verhoeven 2003 Ghesquière 2007 Kerdivel and Hamon 2010 Audebert 2007; 2009; 2010 San Juan et al. 2007 Clemmensen and Terkildsen 2005 Giazzon 2009; Flotté et al. 2012 Desbrosse 2008 Gransar and Pommepuy 2005 Maguer 2005b Fémolant 2006 Viau 2007 Heske 2010 Sarauw 2006 Marcigny et al. 2004 Marcigny and Ghesquiere 2003a; Noël 2011 Marcigny 2006

France France Denmark Belgium France Germany France

Deux-Sèvres Ille-et-Vilaine Syddanmark Limburg Seine-Saint-Denis Nordrhein-Westfalen Seine-Maritime

23441 22952 15294 21765 22240 10302 21162

Maguer et al. 2009 Blanchet et al. 2010 Eisenschmidt 2000 Fath and Wesemael 2008 Le Forestier 2009; Marion et al. 2007 Deiters 2004 Merleau 2002

Appendix

Site Name

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 3/9/2015, SPi

344

Continued

10307 10955 10314 21211 22643 20683 16169 15418 16170 10172 15282 23290 10852 15390 16167 21870 10019 21706 23409 15389 15484 22321 22183 22184 23459 23230 20330 20718 20526 20078 23565

Bérenger 1996; 1997; Herring 2009a Frey 2000; 2007 Dickmann 2005; Dickmann and Kiltz 2010 Riche 2005 Buchez 2011b Auxiette et al. 2000 Møbjerg 2008 Møbjerg 2008 Rostholm 2009 Koot and Berkvens 2004 Arkæologiske Udgravninger i Danmark 1999–2000 Jeanne et al. 2010 Therkorn et al. 2009 Mikkelsen and Nielsen 2004 Schlosser-Mauritsen 2010 Desbrosse et al. 2010 Schurmans et al. 2007 Gourgousse 2000; Violot 2000; 2003 Maguer 2004 Arkæologiske Udgravninger i Danmark 2000 Arkæologiske Udgravninger i Danmark 2001–4 Legriel et al. 2010 Lafage et al. 2006; 2007 Augereau 1998 Rousseau et al. 2005 Ard 2010 Frébutte 1996–1997 Lefèvre 2000 Hachem et al. 2011 de Wit 2003 Denaire et al. 2010 (continued )

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 3/9/2015, SPi

Nordrhein-Westfalen Saarland Nordrhein-Westfalen Eure Somme Aisne Midtjylland Midtjylland Midtjylland Noord-Brabant Syddanmark Manche Noord-Holland Midtjylland Midtjylland Aube Utrecht Marne Vienne Midtjylland Midtjylland Seine-et-Marne Seine-et-Marne Seine-et-Marne Charente-Maritime Charente Hainaut Somme Aisne Drenthe Haut-Rhin

345

Germany Germany Germany France France France Denmark Denmark Denmark Netherlands Denmark France Netherlands Denmark Denmark France Netherlands France France Denmark Denmark France France France France France Belgium France France Netherlands France

Appendix

Borchen–Etteln Borg Borken–Südwest Bosrobert–La Métairie site A Boves–Forêt de Boves Braine–La Grange des Moines Brande–Bøgevænget Brande–Sjællandsvej Brande–Sjællandsvej II–III Breda-West Breinholdtgård Golfbane I Brillevast–Le Douetty Broekpolder Brokbakken Brændgaards Hede Buchères–Prés Longuerois/Les Bordes Bunnik–Odijk Bussy-Lettrée–Le Petit Vau Bourdin Buxerolles–Terre Qui Fume Bøgholt Bølling Sø Vest I–IV Cesson–Plaine du Moulin à Vent Changis-sur-Marne–Les Pétreaux Château-Landon–Le Camp Châtellaillon-Plage–Port-Punay Chenommet–Bellevue Chièvres–Ladeuze Cizancourt–La Sole des Galets Ciry-Salsogne–La Bouche à Vesle Coevorden–Dalen Colmar-Houssen–Gravière/Base de Loisirs

Country

Region*

Database No. References

Concevreux–Les Jombras Courseulles-sur-Mer–La Fosse Touzé Courtenay–Les Quatre Croix Croixrault–L’Aérodrome Dampierre Le Château–Liévaux Den Haag–Monsterseweg Den Haag–World Forum Dolus–d’Oléron–Passe de l’Ecuissière Douarnenez–Le Drevers Dünsberg Dyngby III Echt–Hamveld Eckbolsheim–Zénith Ecouché–Carrière MEAC Ecouflant–La Planche Egehøj Eigenblok Elsdorf–Etzweiler Elst–Sint Maartenstraat Emmeloord–Rijksweg A6-J97 Engholm Enkhuizen–Kadijken Ennerich Ennery–Landrevenne/Garolor Ensisheim–Les Octrois Estrées-Deniécourt–Derrière le Jardin du Berger Esvres-sur-Indre–Vaugrignon Éterville–Le Clos des Lilas

France France France France France Netherlands Netherlands France France Germany Denmark Netherlands France France France Denmark Netherlands Germany Netherlands Netherlands Denmark Netherlands Germany France France France

Aisne Calvados Loiret Somme Marne Zuid-Holland Zuid-Holland Charente-Maritime Finistère Hessen Midtjylland Limburg Bas-Rhin Orne Maine-et-Loire Midtjylland Gelderland Nordrhein-Westfalen Gelderland Flevoland Nordjylland Noord-Holland Hessen Moselle Haut-Rhin Somme

20338 21286 23108 20555 23555 10194 21496 23422 22917 10929 15415 10029 23570 21425 22849 15711 10164 10528 10712 20209 15809 21619 11014 22668 23308 20720

Robert 2008 Jahier 2011 Frénée 2009 Gaudefroy 2003a Dugois et al. 2004 Houkes et al. 2008 Meurkens and Hamburg 2007 Bougeant 2002 Sicard 2009 Rittershofer 2004; Nickel 2010 Andersen 2004 Roymans and Hiddink 2006 Lefranc et al. 2010 Marcigny 2009 Pétorin 2003; Nillesse 2005 Jensen 2002 Jongste and van Wijngaarden 2002 Gaitzsch and Janssens 2009 Derks et al. 2008 Bulten et al. 2002 Arkæologiske Udgravninger i Danmark 2003–2005 Roessingh and Lohof 2011 Nickel 2000; Pinsker 2001; Kreuz and Pinsker 2005 Faye 1999; Deffressigne 2001; Malrain et al. 2013 Boës et al. 1998 Bayard 2000

France France

Indre-et-Loire Calvados

23647 21363

Riquier 2004 Jahier 2004; 2005; 2008

Appendix

Site Name

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 3/9/2015, SPi

346

Continued

21443 21380

Giraud et al. 2010 Fromont et al. 2009

Fexhe-le-Haut-Clocher–VorouxGoreux Fontenay-le-Marmion–Le Grand Champ Fossé des Pandours Framerville-Rainecourt–Le Fond d’Herleville Fredshavn Fréthun–Les Arguillières Fricamps–La Cramaillère Friedberg–B 3a Fuglsøgård Mose Geldermalsen–De Bogen Geldermalsen–Hondsgamet Geldrop–Genoenhuis Ghislenghien Gildbjerg Glauberg

Belgium

Liège

20306

Goffioul et al. 1999

France

Calvados

21364

Giraud 2005

France France

Bas-Rhin Somme

21515 20723

Hamm 2003; Fichtl and Pierrevelcin 2005 Rougier 2000; Rougier and Watel 2003

Denmark France France Germany Denmark Netherlands Netherlands Netherlands Belgium Denmark Germany

Midtjylland Pas-de-Calais Somme Hessen Midtjylland Gelderland Gelderland Noord-Brabant Hainaut Midtjylland Hessen

16161 22803 20556 11093 15703 10163 10047 10913 20922 15565 10956

Glisy–La ZAC de la Croix de Fer

France

Somme

20726

Goulet–Le Mont Groningen–Eemspoort Groß Rönnau Grossoeuvre–Viancourt 1 Grotte des Perrats Grube–Rosenhof LA 58 Guichainville–Le Long Buisson Gümmer–Krähenberg

France Netherlands Germany France France Germany France Germany

Orne Groningen Schleswig-Holstein Eure Charente Schleswig-Holstein Eure Niedersachsen

21389 10212 11187 21154 23210 11189 21232 10664

Siemen 2005 Maréchal 2001 Gaudefroy 2003b; 2011 Schade-Lindig 2008 Christensen and Fiedel 2003 Meijlink 2002; 2008; Meijlink and Kranendonk 2002 van Renswoude and van Kerckhove 2009 Hissel et al. 2007 Deramaix 2009 Arkæologiske Udgravninger i Danmark 2001 Baitinger and Pinsker 2002; Hansen and Pare 2008; Schwitalla 2008; Baitinger et al. 2010 Prilaux 1998; Blondiau 2000; Gaudefroy 2009; Gaudefroy and Pinard 2009; Malrain et al. 2013 Ghesquière et al. 2011 Kortekaas et al. 2007 Lütjens 2008 Billard and Paez-Rezende 2000 Boulestin et al. 2009a Goldhammer 2008 Marcigny 2007; Lourdeau and Marcigny 2007 Cosack and Kullig 2004 (continued )

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 3/9/2015, SPi

Orne Calvados

347

France France

Appendix

Exmes–Place de l’Eglise Falaise–Zone d’activités Expansia

Country

Region*

Database No. References

Gurgy–Les Noisats Hague Dike Haiger–Kalteiche Hain-Gründau Hamburg–Marmstorf Hannut–Trommeveld Hardinxveld–Giessendam De Bruin Hardinxveld–Giessendam Polderweg Hellegård Hengelo–Elderinkweg Hermeskeil Herxheim Hettange-Grande–Les Hauts de Chambourg Hilgershausen–Hohlstein Hordain–La Fosse à Loups Hostrup Strand Houplin-Ancoisne–Le Marais de Santes Houplin-Ancoisne–Rue Marx Dormoy Hov Hüsby Hvinningdal Idstedt Ifs–ZAC Object’Ifs Sud Inden–Altdorf Itteren–Emmaus Jâlons–La Grande Pâture

France France Germany Germany Germany Belgium Netherlands Netherlands Denmark Netherlands Germany Germany France

Yonne Manche Nordrhein-Westfalen Hessen Hamburg Liège Zuid-Holland Zuid-Holland Midtjylland Gelderland Rheinland-Pfalz Rheinland-Pfalz Moselle

23641 21384 10939 11067 11181 20307 10161 10162 15037 10897 11025 10974 22723

Rodier 2006 Marcigny 2005 Verse 2008b Piffko and Schwitalla 2009 Hüser 2010 Bosquet and Preud’homme 2000a; 2000b Louwe Kooijmans 2001b; 2005 Louwe Kooijmans 2001a; 2005 Hornstrup et al. 2002 Williams 2009 Fritsch 2010a Boulestin et al. 2009b; Zeeb-Lanz et al. 2009 Antoine 2003

Germany France Denmark France

Hessen Nord Midtjylland Nord

10937 21033 16222 20976

Sippel 2003 Duvivier et al. 2006 Kristensen 2008a Praud et al. 2007

France

Nord

20869

Martial and Praud 2007

Denmark Germany Denmark Germany France Germany Netherlands France

Nordjylland Schleswig-Holstein Midtjylland Schleswig-Holstein Calvados Nordrhein-Westfalen Limburg Marne

15153 11191 15336 11192 21307 10451 20157 21790

Arkæologiske Udgravninger i Danmark 1999–2001 Freudenberg 2008a–b; 2012 Arkæologiske Udgravninger i Danmark 2000 Zich 1999 Le Goff 2009 Geilenbrügge 2009; Geilenbrügge and Schürmann 2010 Meurkens and Tol 2011 Lenda et al. 2012

Appendix

Site Name

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 3/9/2015, SPi

348

Continued

Seine-et-Marne Vienne Manche Nordrhein-Westfalen Midtjylland Schleswig-Holstein Moselle Midtjylland Hessen Midtjylland Midtjylland Midtjylland Sarthe Sarthe Sarthe Sarthe Sarthe Sarthe Sarthe Vendée

22248 23247 21469 10291 15053 11193 22365 15385 11017 15090 16219 15337 22813 22814 22815 22831 23615 22816 22817 22861

Peake and Delattre 2010 Pouponnot 2011 Delrieu 2009a Frank and Keller 2007 Arkæologiske Udgravninger i Danmark 1998–2002 Clausen 2008 Tikonoff and Deffressigne 2012 Ravn 2011 Meiborg 2012 Arkæologiske Udgravninger i Danmark 1997–1998 Kristensen 2008b Andersen 2005 Cabboi 1999 Dunikowski 1999a Gallien and Aubry 1999 Cabboi 2001 Valais 2003 Langlois 1999 Dunikowski 1999b Maguer et al. 2005

France France France France France France France France France France Germany

Côtes-d’Armor Côtes-d’Armor Côtes-d’Armor Finistère Finistère Côtes-d’Armor Charente Aube Aube Nord Niedersachsen

22904 22997 22905 22924 22923 22906 23231 21685 21686 22602 10602

Blanchet 2010 Roy 2009 Hinguant 2007 Villard 2007 Le Goffic 2006 Escats 2007; 2011 Boulestin 2010 Jourdain and Villes 1998 Piette 2000 Julien and Leroy 2008; Leroy-Langevin and Collette 2011 Gerken 2010

349

(continued )

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 3/9/2015, SPi

France France France Germany Denmark Germany France Denmark Germany Denmark Denmark Denmark France France France France France France France France

Appendix

Jaulnes–Le Bas de Hauts Champs Jaunay-Clan–Grands Champs Jobourg–Tumulus de Calais Jüchen–Neuholz Kainsbakke Kayhude LA 8 Kerprich-aux-Bois–Le Haut du Stock Kildevang Kirchhain–Niederwald Klakring Kobberup–Skivevej 3 Krabbesholm La Bazoge–L’Aulnay-Truchet La Bazoge–La Jousserie La Bazoge–La Maison-Neuve La Bazoge–Les Barres La Bazoge–Les Hauts du Lac La Bazoge–Les Petites-Rouilles La Bazoge–Les Trois-Couleurs La Chaize-le-Vicomte–La Haute Chevillonière Lamballe–Tourelle Laniscat–Le Haut Kerrault Laniscat–Pontdorniol Lannilis–Keravel Lannilis–Prat ar Simon Pella Lannion–Bel Air La Rochette–Le Trou qui fume La Saulsotte–Le Bois Baudin La Saulsotte–Les Haies Lauwin-Planque–ZAC Les Hussards Lavenstedt site 178

Country

Region*

Database No. References

Le Plessis Gassot–Le Bois Bouchard Le Vaurocque Lesches–Prés du Refuge Lhéry–La Presle Lichtensteinhöhle Lillemer Lisbjerg Skole L’Isle d’Espagnac–Bel-Air Loga Lomm Longueil-Sainte-Marie–Le Vivier des Grès Luc-sur-Mer Lustrupholm Lyngsmose Lysgård Løgstrup SØ II Lønt Maberzell-Trätzhof Magnac-sur-Touvre–Monregner Maizy–Le Bois Gobert Maldegem–Burkel Malle–Malle Langhøj (Piletoftegård) Malleville-sur-le-Bec–Buisson du Roui Malt–Kongehøj I–II Malt–Mannehøjgård Manage–Bellecourt Marcé–Hélouine Marcelcave–Le Chemin d’Ignaucourt

France Guernsey France France Germany France Denmark France Germany Netherlands France

Val-d’Oise Sark Seine-et-Marne Marne Niedersachsen Ille-et-Vilaine Midtjylland Charente Niedersachsen Limburg Oise

22233 17006 23330 23558 10562 21484 15387 23144 10675 20000 20796

Ginoux 2009 Sebire 2006; 2007; Walls and de Jersey 2008; 2009 Pariat et al. 2006; Brunet et al. 2011 Séara and Bostyn 2009 Flindt 2010; 2009 Laporte et al. 2007 Arkæologiske Udgravninger i Danmark 2000–2002 Maguer 2005a Haßmann 2010; 2011 Prangsma 2008; Gerrets and de Leeuw 2011 Malrain et al. 1998; Malrain and Pinard 2006

France Denmark Denmark Denmark Denmark Denmark Germany France France Belgium Denmark France Denmark Denmark Belgium France France

Calvados Syddanmark Midtjylland Midtjylland Midtjylland Syddanmark Hessen Charente Aisne Oost-Vlaanderen Nordjylland Eure Syddanmark Syddanmark Hainaut Maine-et-Loire Somme

22097 15138 15268 16171 16252 15152 11081 23471 20483 21490 15196 21213 16229 16228 20915 22810 20770

Ghesquière 2010; Flotté et al. 2012 Feveile and Bennike 2002 Eriksen and Rindel 2003; 2005 Olesen 2006 Larsen 2012; 2013 Jørgensen 2003 Pramme de Alva and Verse 2010 Galtié 2007 Pinard 2006 Crombé et al. 2005 Arkæologiske Udgravninger i Danmark 1997–2001 Mare 2006; Mare and Le Goff 2006 Poulsen 2010 Poulsen 2008 Henton and Dewert 1997 Nillesse 2003 Buchez 1999

Appendix

Site Name

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 3/9/2015, SPi

350

Continued

Hessen Seine-et-Marne

11055 22194

Meyer 2008 Peake et al. 1999; Peake and Delattre 2005; Peake 2007

Germany France France Netherlands Denmark France France France France Germany Denmark Denmark Netherlands Germany

Rheinland-Pfalz Nord Somme Noord-Holland Midtjylland Moselle Yonne Mayenne Indre Nordrhein-Westfalen Midtjylland Syddanmark Limburg Niedersachsen

10953 21000 20429 11037 15271 23335 23003 22408 23318 10352 16263 15776 10021 10670

Nickel et al. 2008; Nickel 2013 Gaillard 2004 Joseph et al. 2006 Schurmans 2010 Olesen 2002 Lefebvre et al. 2008; Lefebvre 2010 Augereau et al. 2005; Tristan 2009 Valais 2004 Hamon and Hulin 2011 Dickers 2008; Holtfester 2010 Terkildsen 2009 Siemen 2003 Hiddink 2005; 2006 Bartelt et al. 2008

Germany Germany Netherlands France Denmark Denmark Denmark Denmark Germany Germany Germany France Belgium Netherlands

Schleswig-Holstein Hessen Gelderland Calvados Nordjylland Nordjylland Nordjylland Midtjylland Hessen Rheinland-Pfalz Nordrhein-Westfalen Pas-de-Calais West-Vlaanderen Noord-Holland

11198 10933 20243 21310 15473 15325 16195 15267 10927 10951 10355 20846 20845 20014

Hartz 2001; 2005; Hartz and Glykou 2008 Gütter et al. 2003; Gütter and Meiborg 2004; 2005 van den Broeke 2004; van den Broeke and Ball 2012 Marcigny and Lepaumier 2003; Marcigny et al. 2007b Arkæologiske Udgravninger i Danmark 2001 Nielsen 2002 Geertz 2006 Pedersen and Rostholm 2009 Lüning and von Kaenel 2006 Jost 2012; Wegner 2003 Grünewald et al. 2004 Bretagne 1998; Mathiot 2005 Demeyere et al. 2004 Lohof and Vaars 2005

351

(continued )

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 3/9/2015, SPi

Germany France

Appendix

Mardorf 23 Marolles-sur-Seine–La Croix de la Mission Martberg bei Pommern Masnières–Les Hauts de Masnières Méaulte–Plateforme aéro-industrielle Medemblik–Schepenwijk II Mejrup Syd Mondelange–La Sente Monéteau–Sous Macherin Moulay–Le Mesnil Moulins-sur-Céphons–Les Vaux Münster–Handorf Mønsted–Toftumvej Måde Slammineraliseringsanlæg Nederweert–Rosveld Neustadt am Rübenberge–Eilvese site 1 Neustadt LA 156 Niederweimar Nijmegen–Waalsprong Nonant–La Bergerie Næsby Østergård Nørre Tranders Nørre Uttrup Nøvling Plantage Ober-Erlenbach Ochtendung–Emminger Höfe Oelde–Weitkamp Onnaing–Toyota Oostkamp–Waardamme Opmeer–Hoogwoud-Oost

Country

Region*

Database No. References

Orp-Jauche–Le Tierceau Orval–Les Pleines Oss–Brabantstraat Oss–Hertogswetering Oss–Vorstengrafdonk Ostercappeln–Schnippenburg Otzenhausen–Hunnenring Overgård Passy–La Truie Pendue Petersborg/Birkholmvej Plédéliac–Nord du Bourg Ploisy–Le Bras de Fer Plouédern–Leslouc’h Ploulec’h–Bel-Air Pluguffan–Ti Lipig Poitiers–La Folie Pont-L’Abbé–Kérathur Pont-sur-Seine–Haut de Launoy Pouilly–ZAC Chèvre Haie Poulainville–Pôle Logistique Préguillac–Les Arnoux Presles-et-Boves–Les Bois Plantés Quimper–Moustoir 2 Rakkeby Hede Rastorf Ravels–Weelde Rees–Haldern Refshøjgård I–II Reichstett–Rue Ampère

Belgium France Netherlands Netherlands Netherlands Germany Germany Denmark France Denmark France France France France France France France France France France France France France Denmark Germany Belgium Germany Denmark France

Brabant Wallon Manche Noord-Brabant Noord-Brabant Noord-Brabant Niedersachsen Saarland Nordjylland Yonne Midtjylland Côtes-d’Armor Aisne Finistère Côtes-d’Armor Finistère Vienne Finistère Aube Moselle Somme Charente-Maritime Aisne Finistère Nordjylland Schleswig-Holstein Antwerp Nordrhein-Westfalen Midtjylland Bas-Rhin

20912 21441 11044 20250 20112 10535 10982 15318 23343 15088 22907 20485 22903 22109 22941 23319 22930 21781 23561 20432 23431 20404 22932 15011 11200 21489 11225 15380 21528

Preud’homme et al. 1999 Giazzon and Lepaumier 2007; Lepaumier et al. 2010 de Leeuwe 2007 Jansen et al. 2002 Jansen and Fokkens 2007 Möllers and Zehm 2007; Möllers 2009 Fritsch 2010b Arkæologiske Udgravninger i Danmark 2000 Lecornué 2010 Arkæologiske Udgravninger i Danmark 1997–2004 Ferrette 2008 Gransar and Flucher 2003; Gransar 2004; Malrain et al. 2013 Mentele 2006 Escats 2009 Villard 2008 Tchérémissinoff et al. 2000; 2011 Roy 2000 Desbrosse and Peltier 2010 Franck 2010; Lefebvre et al. 2011 Malrain et al. 2007b Perrin 2004 Colas and Thouvenot 2001; Colas et al. 2002; Le Guen 2007 Le Bihan and Villard 2003 Arkæologiske Udgravninger i Danmark 1998 Steffens 2009 Annaert 2006; 2008 Schletter 2011 Klassen 2005 Blaizot et al. 2001

Appendix

Site Name

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 3/9/2015, SPi

352

Continued

Reinheim–Furtweg Reinheim–Horres Reinsdorf site 13 Remicourt-Momalle–En Bia Flo II Remicourt-Momalle–Fond de Momalle Remlingen–Hohberg site 6 Ressons-sur-Matz–Le Fond Madelon Duriez Rheine–Altenrheine Rhenen–Fietspad N225 vindplaats 5 Ri–Le Moulin Foulon

Saarland Saarland Niedersachsen Liège Liège

10993 10994 10628 20313 20314

Reinhard 2009 Reinhard 2010 Haßmann 2004, 55 Bosquet and Preud’homme 1998 Fock et al. 1998

Germany France

Niedersachsen Oise

10550 20420

Dirks 2001 Beaujard and Bostyn 2007

France France Germany

Orne Haut-Rhin Niedersachsen

21420 23569 10540

Marcigny 2010b Lefranc et al. 2010 Strahl 2002; 2005

France Denmark France Germany Netherlands Germany France

Val-d’Oise Midtjylland Aisne Niedersachsen Zuid-Holland Niedersachsen Ille-et-Vilaine

22234 15083 20533 10629 10205 10551 22967

Lejars 2005 Kristiansen 2000 Malrain 2003; Malrain et al. 2004 Haßmann 2005, 52–3 Meirsman and Moree 2004 Gebers 2009 Hamon 2010

France

Vienne

23387

Pétorin 1999

France

Orne

21394

Fromont 2006

France

Calvados

21383

Germain-Vallée 2005; 2007

France

Calvados

21369

Clément-Sauleau et al. 2010 (continued )

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 3/9/2015, SPi

Herring 2009a Schute 2009 Villarégut 2008

353

Germany Nordrhein-Westfalen 10373 Netherlands Utrecht 21666 France Orne 21392

Appendix

Ri et Rônai–Le Fresne Rixheim–ZAC du Petit Prince Rodenkirchen–Hahnenknooper Mühle Roissy–La Fosse Cotheret Rokær Ronchères–Le Bois de la Forge Rosdorf site 19 Rotterdam–Poldervaart Rullstorf site 8 Saint-Aubin-d’Aubigné–ZAC du Chêne Romé Saint-Georges-les-Baillargeaux–Les Varennes Saint-Germain-du-Corbéis– L’Ermitage Saint-Martin-de-Fontenay–La Grande Chasse Saint-Martin-de-Fontenay–Le Diguet

Germany Germany Germany Belgium Belgium

Site Name

Country

Database No. References

Saint-Varent–Les Entes France Saint-Vigor d’Ymonville–Les France Sapinettes Sainte-Croix-en-Plaine–Holzackerfeld France

Deux-Sèvres Seine-Maritime

23391 21184

Sandoz et al. 1999 Aubry and Lepinay 2003; Lepaumier et al. 2005; Marcigny 2012

Haut-Rhin

21586

Saintes–Malabry I Salouël–Hôpital Saumeray–Le Bas des Touches Saumeray–Les Pâtures Saumeray–Moulin de l’Aulne Schatteburg site 2811/1:34 Schifferstadt Schöneck–Kilianstädten Schöningen site 15 Semoine–Voie Palon Siegen–Niederschelden Sierentz–ZAC Hoell Sittard–Hoogveld Skalborg–Ikea Skelhøj Soest–Rüenstert Solbakkegård IV Soulac-sur-Mer–L’Amélie Soumont-Saint-Quentin–Les Longrais Spiennes–Petit Spiennes Spiere–De Hel St Peter Port–King’s Road Sublaines–Le Grand Ormeau Sundstrup st

Charente-Maritime Somme Indre-et-Loire Eure-et-Loir Eure-et-Loir Niedersachsen Rheinland-Pfalz Hessen Niedersachsen Aube Nordrhein-Westfalen Haut-Rhin Limburg Nordjylland Syddanmark Nordrhein-Westfalen Syddanmark Dordogne Calvados Hainaut West-Vlaanderen Guernsey Indre-et-Loire Midtjylland

23178 20434 23644 23646 22137 10671 11027 11068 10760 21729 10381 21616 10025 16177 15770 10386 15140 21905 21464 20310 21506 17011 23068 16107

Roth-Zehner 2005; Roth-Zehner and Rougier 2005; Landolt et al. 2010a Sergent 2007 Buchez 2011b Hamon et al. 2002 Georges and Hamon 2004 Hamon 2003 Helms and Schwarz 2008 Falkenstein 2006 Schwitalla and Schmitt 2007 Möller 2001; 2002 Durost et al. 2012 Garner and Stöllner 2005 Malrain et al. 2013 Tol et al. 2000; Tol and Schabbink 2004 Nielsen 2009 Holst and Rasmussen 2013 Melzer 2005 Arkæologiske Udgravninger i Danmark 1998–1999 Roussot-Laroque 1998 Ghesquière et al. 2008 Collet et al. 2008 Vanmontfort et al. 2001/2002 de Jersey 2010 Frénée 2008 Mikkelsen 2006

France France France France France Germany Germany Germany Germany France Germany France Netherlands Denmark Denmark Germany Denmark France France Belgium Belgium Guernsey France Denmark

Appendix

Region*

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 3/9/2015, SPi

354

Continued

21292 21718 20114 10020 10891 16094 15124 15675 22912 11028 16175 21079 23201 21470

Marcigny and Ghesquière 2003b; Marcigny 2012 Lambot 2005 van Hoof and Jongste 2005 Heeren 2006 van Putten and ter Wal 2006 Christensen 2005 Møller-Jensen 2006 Arkæologiske Udgravninger i Danmark 2002–2003 Oxford Archaeology forthcoming von Berg 2006 Christiansen 2008 Leroy et al. 2006 Koenig 2001 Delrieu 2009b

France France France France Denmark Denmark France France Germany France France Denmark Denmark Belgium Germany Denmark

Gironde Bas-Rhin Ardennes Oise Midtjylland Nordjylland Seine-et-Marne Meuse Nordrhein-Westfalen Somme Seine-et-Marne Midtjylland Midtjylland Limburg (B) Nordrhein-Westfalen Midtjylland

21906 21535 21678 20424 15105 15012 23349 22741 10225 20390 23576 15016 15554 21491 10392 15062

Roussot-Laroque 2000 Boës et al. 2007 Laurelut et al. 2002 Maréchal et al. 2006 Olesen 1999 Nielsen and Bech 2004 Lanchon et al. 2006 Véber 2005 Gechter-Jones and Kempken 2007 Blondiau and Buchez 2009 Peake et al. 2009 Arkæologiske Udgravninger i Danmark 1995–2001 Arkæologiske Udgravninger i Danmark 2000–2002 Vermeersch et al. 2005 Gaffrey 2004; 2005; Herring 2009b Arkæologiske Udgravninger i Danmark 1998–2002 (continued )

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 3/9/2015, SPi

Manche Ardennes Gelderland Gelderland Noord-Brabant Midtjylland Midtjylland Midtjylland Côtes-d’Armor Rheinland-Pfalz Nordjylland Nord Meurthe-et-Moselle Manche

355

France France Netherlands Netherlands Netherlands Denmark Denmark Denmark France Germany Denmark France France France

Appendix

Tatihou Thugny-Trugny–Le Mayet Tiel–Medel Bredesteeg Tiel–Passewaaij Tilburg–Surfplas-Zuid Tinghøj I–II Tjørring–Rosenholmvej Torup Høje Trégueux–La Porte Alain Trimbs Tviehøj II Valenciennes–Rue Jean Bernier Vandières–Les Grandes Corvées Vauville–Tumulus de la Lande des Cottes Vendays-Montalivet–Lapartens Vendenheim–Le Haut du Coteau Vendresse–Les Longues Fauchées Venette–ZAC du Bois de Plaisance Vester Egebjerg Vestervig–Grydehøj Vignely–La Noue Fenard Vignot–Les Auges Vilich–Müldorf Villers-Bocage–ZAC de la Montignette Villiers-sur-Seine–Le Gros Buisson Visborg Voel Vestergård Voeren–Rullen Vreden–Zwillbrocker Straße Vængesø I

Country

Region*

Database No. References

Wallendorf–Castellberg Wangels LA 505 Warburg–Menne Watenstedt–Hünenburg Wederath (Belginum) Weert–Kampershoek Wirbelau Wittorf Worms–Herrnsheim Zijderveld afrit A2 Zundert–Mencia Sandrode/ Akkermolenweg

Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Netherlands Germany Germany Germany Netherlands Netherlands

Rheinland-Pfalz Schleswig-Holstein Nordrhein-Westfalen Niedersachsen Rheinland-Pfalz Limburg (NL) Hessen Niedersachsen Rheinland-Pfalz Utrecht Noord-Brabant

10954 11204 10393 10589 10978 10035 11095 10532 11012 20262 10082

Krausse 2006 Klooß 2008 Pollmann 2007 Heske 2006; Heske et al. 2010; 2012 Cordie and Teegen 2007; Lukas et al. 2012 Roymans et al. 1998 Steinbring et al. 2008 Hesse and Hofmann 2006; Hesse 2010 Zylmann 2006 Knippenberg and Jongste 2005 Krist 2005

* ‘Region’ denotes département in France, province in Belgium and the Netherlands, federal state in Germany, and region in Denmark. Local spellings are used here.

Appendix

Site Name

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 3/9/2015, SPi

356

Continued

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

References Agogué, O., Dubois, J.-P. and Verjux, C. (2007) ‘L’organisation spatiale du bâtiment circulaire d’Auneau (Eure-et-Loir). Premiers résultats’. In: O. Agogué, D. Leroy and C. Verjux (eds) Camps, enceintes et structures d’habitat néolithiques en France septentrionale. Actes du 24e colloque interrégional sur le Néolithique. Orléans 19–21 novembre 1999: 189–200. Tours: Revue Archéologique du Centre de la France supplément 24. Allen, M. J. (1992) ‘Products of erosion and the prehistoric land-use of the Wessex chalk’. In: M. Bell and J. Boardman (eds) Past and present soil erosion: 37–52. Oxford: Oxbow. Allen, M. J. (2005) ‘Beaker settlement and environment on the chalk Downs of southern England’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 71: 219–45. Allen, T., Barclay, A., Cromerty, A. M., Anderson-Whymark, H., Parker, A., Robinson, M. and Jones, G. (2013) Opening the wood, making the land: the archaeology of a Middle Thames landscape. Oxford: Oxford Archaeology. Amkreutz, L. W. S. W. (2010) ‘ “All quiet on the northwestern front?” An overview and preliminary analysis of the past decade of LBK-research in the Netherlands’. In: D. Gronenborn and J. Petrasch (eds) Die Neolithisierung Mitteleuropas. Internationale Tagung, Mainz, 24. bis 26. Juni 2005: 535–50. Mainz: Verlag des RömischGermanischen Zentralmuzeums. Andersen, N. H. (1997) Sarup, Volume 1: the Sarup enclosures. Moesgaard: Jysk Arkæologisk Selskab. Andersen, S. H. (1995) ‘Coastal adaption and marine exploitation in Late Mesolithic Denmark – with special emphasis on the Limfjord region’. In: A. Fischer (ed.) Man and sea in the Mesolithic: coastal settlement above and below present sea level: 41–66. Oxford: Oxbow. Andersen, S. H. (2004) ‘Aktivitetspladser fra Ertebølletid. Dyngby III og Sindholt Nord’, Kuml 2004: 9–43. Andersen, S. H. (2005) ‘Køkkenmøddingerne ved Krabbesholm. Ny forskning i stenalderens kystbopladser’, Nationalmuseets Arbejdsmark 2005: 151–71. Andreasen, M. H. (2007) Agerbrug i enkeltgravskultur, senneolitikum og ældre bronzealder i Jylland belyst ud fra makrofossilanalyser. PhD thesis, Aarhus University. Andreasen, M. H. (2009) ‘Agerbruget i enkeltgravskultur, senneolitikum og ældre bronzealder i Jylland belyst ud fra plantemakrofossiler’, Kuml 2009: 9–55. Andrews, P., Biddulph, E., Hardy, A. and Brown, R. (2011) Settling the Ebbsfleet Valley: high speed 1 excavations at Springhead and Northfleet. The late Iron Age, Roman, Saxon and medieval landscape, Vol. 1: the sites. Oxford and Salisbury: Oxford Wessex Archaeology. Andrikopoulou-Strack, N. (2007) ‘Archaeology and heritage management in Germany’. In: W. J. H. Willems and M. H. v. d. Dries (eds) Quality management in archaeology: 13–21. Oxford: Oxbow.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

358

References

Aner, E. and Kersten, K. (1973) Die Funde der älteren Bronzezeit des nordischen Kreises in Dänemark, Schleswig-Holstein und Niedersachden, 1. Copenhagen: National Museum. Annable, K. and Simpson, D. (1964) Guide catalogue to the Neolithic and Bronze Age collections in Devizes Museum. Devizes: Wiltshire Archaeological Society. Annaert, R. (2006) ‘Een woonerf uit de midden-bronstijd te Weelde ontdekt tijdens de ruilverkalevingswerken Poppel (gem. Ravels prov. Antwerpen)’, Relicta 1: 49–80. Annaert, R. (2008) ‘The living and the dead: a Bronze Age barrow and farmyard from Weelde’. In: S. Arnoldussen and H. Fokkens (eds) Bronze Age settlements in the Low Countries: 189–200. Oxford: Oxbow. Anthoons, G. (2013) ‘La mobilité des druides et la diffusion de gestes funéraires’. In: A. Colin and F. Verdin (eds) L’âge du Fer en Aquitaine et sur ses marges. Mobilité des hommes, diffusion des idées, circulation des biens dans l’espace européen à l’âge du Fer. Actes du XXXVe colloque de l’Association française pour l’étude de l’âge du Fer II: 417–28. Bordeaux: Aquitania Supplément 30. Antoine, X. (2003) ‘Hettange-Grande Lotissement Les Hauts de Chambourg’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Lorraine 1999: 72. Arbousse Bastide, T. (2000) Les structures de l’habitat rural protohistorique dans le sud-ouest de l’Angleterre et le nord-ouest de la France. British Archaeological Reports International Series 847. Oxford: Archaeopress. Arcelin, P. and Brunaux, J.-L. (2003) ‘Cultes et sanctuaires en France à l’âge du fer’, Gallia 60: 1–268. Ard, V. ed. (2010) Chenommet, Bellevue ‘Les Grands Champs’ (Charente): une enceinte du Néolithique récent. Fouille programmée tri-annuelle 2009–2011, Rapport intermédiaire 2010. Poitiers: DRAC-SRA Poitou-Charentes. Arkæologiske Udgravninger i Danmark (Available at: ). Armit, I. (2012) Headhunting and the body in Iron Age Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Armit, I. and Ginn, V. (2007) ‘Beyond the grave: human remains from domestic contexts in Iron Age Atlantic Scotland’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 73: 113–34. Armit, I. and McKenzie, J. (2013) An inherited place: Broxmouth hillfort and the southeast Scottish Iron Age. Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. Armit, I., Schulting, R., Knüsel, C. J. and Shepherd, I. A. G. (2011) ‘Death, decapitation and display? The Bronze and Iron Age human remains from the Sculptor’s Cave, Covesea, north-east Scotland’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 77: 251–78. Armit, I., Neale, N., Shapland, F., Bosworth, H., Hamilton, D. and McKenzie, J. (2013a) ‘The ins and outs of death in the Iron Age: complex funerary treatments at Broxmouth hillfort, East Lothian’, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 32: 73–100. Armit, I., Swindles, G. T. and Becker, K. (2013b) ‘From dates to demography in later prehistoric Ireland? Experimental approaches to the meta-analysis of large 14C data-sets’, Journal of Archaeological Science 40: 433–8. Arnoldussen, S. (2008) A living landscape: Bronze Age settlement sites in the Dutch river area (c.2000–800 BC). Leiden: Sidestone Press.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

References

359

Arnoldussen, S. (2009) ‘Dutch Bronze Age residential mobility: a commentary on the “wandering farmstead” model’. In: A. Krenn-Leeb, H.-J. Beier, E. Claßen, F. Falkenstein and S. Schwenzer (eds) Varia neolithica V. Mobilität, Migration und Kommunikation in Europa während des Neolithikums und der Bronzezeit: 147–59. Langenweißbach: Beier und Beran. Arnoldussen, S. and Fokkens, H. (2008) ‘Bronze Age settlements in the Low Countries: an overview’. In: S. Arnoldussen and H. Fokkens (eds) Bronze Age settlements in the Low Countries: 17–40. Oxford: Oxbow. Artursson, M. (2009) Bebyggelse och samhällsstruktur. Södra och mellersta Skandinavien under senneolitikum och bronsålder 2300–500 f. Kr. GOTARC Serie B. Gothenburg Archaeological Thesis 52. Gothenburg: Riksantikvarieämbetet Arkeologiska Undersökningar Skrifter 73. Ashbee, P. (1978) ‘Amesbury barrow 51: excavations, 1960’, Wiltshire Archaeological Magazine 71: 1–60. Ashmore, P. (2004) ‘Absolute chronology’. In: I. Shepherd and G. Barclay (eds) Scotland in ancient Europe: 125–36. Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. Aubry, B. and Lepinay, D. (2003) ‘Saint-Vigor d’Ymonville. Les Sapinettes’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Haute-Normandie 2000: 63–4. Audebert, A. (2007) ‘Barenton-Bugny. Pôle d’activité du Griffon’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Picardie 2006: 15–16. Audebert, A. (2009) ‘Barenton-Bugny. Pôle d’activité du Griffon’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Picardie 2007: 16–17. Audebert, A. (2010) ‘Barenton-Bugny. Pôle d’activité du Griffon - tranche 2-2A’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Picardie 2008: 16–18. Augereau, A. (1998) ‘L’enceinte du Néolithique récent de Château-Landon “Le Camp” (Seine-et-Marne)’, Internéo 2: 125–37. Augereau, A., Chambon, P. and Sidéra, I. (2005) ‘Les occupations néolithiques de Monéteau « Sur Macherin » (Yonne): données préliminaires’, Revue Archéologique de l’Est 54: 51–70. Augier, L., Buchsenschutz, O. and Ralston, I. eds (2007) Un complexe princier de l’âge du Fer, l’habitat du promontoire de Bourges (Cher) (VIe–IVe s. avant J.-C.), Supplément à la Revue Archéologique du Centre de la France 32. Bourges/Tours: Édition de Bourges Plus, Service d’archéologie préventive/FERACF. Augier, L., Buchsenschutz, O., Durand, R., Filippini, A., Germinet, D., Maçon, P., Pauly, S., Ralston, I., Roure, R., Salin, M., Tichit, A. and Vannière, B. (2012) Un complexe princier de l’âge du Fer: le quartier artisanal de Port Sec à Bourges (Cher). Supplément à la Revue Archéologique du Centre de la France 41. Bourges/Tours: Édition de Bourges Plus, Service d’archéologie préventive/FERACF. Auxiette, G. (1997) ‘La faune des établissements ruraux du Bronze final au Hallstatt final/La Tène ancienne dans la vallée de l’Aisne’, Revue archéologique de Picardie 1997 (3–4): 29–71. Auxiette, G. and Méniel, P. (2005) ‘Les études de faunes de la Protohistoire ancienne’, Revue archéologique de Picardie 2005 (3–4): 121–6. Auxiette, G., Desenne, S., Gransar, F. and Pommepuy, C. (2000) ‘Structuration générale du site de Braine “La Grange des Moines” (Aisne) à La Tène finale et

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

360

References

particularités: présentation préliminaire’, Revue archéologique de Picardie 2000 (1–2): 97–103. Bailey, G. N. and Spikins, P. (2008) ‘Mesolithic Europe: overview and new problems’. In: G. N. Bailey and P. Spikins (eds) Mesolithic Europe: 361–76. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bailleux, G. and Josset, D. (2010) ‘Contexte et perspective autour des sites de Prasville “Vers Chenay” et Ymonville “Les Hyèbles” ’, Bulletin de l’Association française pour l’étude de l’âge du Fer 28: 5–10. Baitinger, H. and Pinsker, B. eds (2002) Das Rätsel der Kelten vom Glauberg. Frankfurt am Main: Theiss. Baitinger, H., Hansen, L., Kalis, A. J., Kreuz, A., Pare, C. F. E., Schäfer, E., Schatz, K. and Stobbe, A. (2010) ‘Der Glauberg. Ergebnisse der Forschungen in den Jahren 2004 bis 2009’. In: D. Krausse (ed.) ‘Fürstensitze’ und Zentralorte der frühen Kelten, Vol. 1: 289–318. Stuttgart: Konrad Theiss. Bakels, C. (2009) The western European Loess belt: agrarian history 5300 BC–AD 1000. Dordrecht: Springer. Bakker, J. A. (1992) The Dutch Hunebedden: megalithic tombs of the Funnel Beaker Culture. Ann Arbor: Prehistory Press. Balfanz, K. and Jarecki, H. (2004) ‘Jung- und spätbronzezeitliche Sonderbestattungen in Mitteldeutschland’, Jahresschrift für mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte 88: 339–78. Bánffy, E. (2006) ‘Eastern, central and western Hungary – variations of Neolithisation models’, Documenta Praehistorica 33: 125–42. Baray, L. (2001) ‘Archéologie funéraire du Bronze ancien au Bronze final en Bourgogne, Franche-Comté, Alsace, Lorraine, Champagne-Ardenne, Île-de-France, Picardie, Pas-de-Calais et Haute-Normandie’, Documents d’Archéologie Méridionale 24: 253–8. Baray, L. and Boulestin, B. eds (2010) Morts anormaux et sépultures bizarres: les dépôts en fosses circulaires ou en silos du Néolithique à l’âge du Fer. Actes de la IIe table ronde interdisciplinaire ‘Morts anormaux et sépultures bizarres: questions d’interprétation en archéologie funéraire’ 29 mars–1er avril 2006, Sens. Dijon: Éditions Universitaires de Dijon. Barber, J. (1997) The archaeological investigation of a prehistoric landscape: excavations on Arran 1978–81. Leith: Scottish Trust for Archaeological Research. Barclay, A. and Halpin, C. (2000) Excavations at Barrow Hills, Radley, Oxfordshire, Volume 1: the Neolithic and Bronze Age monument complex. Oxford: Oxford Archaeological Unit. Barclay, A. and Harding, J. eds (1999) Pathways and ceremonies: the cursus monuments of Britain and Ireland. Oxford: Oxbow. Barclay, G. (1998) Cleaven Dyke and Littleour: monuments in the Neolithic of Tayside. Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. Barclay, G., Brophy, K. and McGregor, G. (2002) ‘Claish, Stirling: an early Neolithic structure in its context’, Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 132: 65–137. Baron, A. (2012) Provenance et circulation des objets en roches noires (« lignite ») à l’âge du Fer en Europe celtique (VIIIème–Ier s. av. J.-C.). Oxford: BAR International Series 2453.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

References

361

Barral, P. and Nouvel, P. (2012) ‘La dynamique d’urbanisation à la fin de l’âge du Fer dans le centre-est de la France’. In: S. Sievers and M. Schönfelder (eds) Die Frage der Protourbanisierung in der Eisenzeit: 139–64. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt. Barrett, J. (1980) ‘The pottery of the later Bronze Age in lowland England’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 46: 297–319. Barrett, J. and Bradley, R. (1980) Settlement and society in the British Later Bronze Age. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Barrett, J., Bradley, R. and Green, M. (1991) Landscape, monuments and society: the prehistory of Cranborne Chase. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bartelt, U., Meier, M., Michel, T., Scheschkewitz, J. and Tröller-Reimer, A. (2008) ‘Ein Krieger aus der Frühbronzezeit’, Archäologie in Niedersachsen 11: 124–7. Bauvais, S., Gaudefroy, S., Gransar, F., Malrain, F. and Fluzin, P. (2007) ‘Premières réflexions sur l’organisation des activités de forge en contexte rural à La Tène finale en Picardie’. In: P.-Y. Milcent (ed.) L’économie du fer protohistorique: de la production à la consommation du métal, XXVIIIe colloque de l’Association française pour l’étude de l’âge du Fer, Toulouse, 20–23 mai 2004: 239–61. Bordeaux: Aquitania supplément 14/2. Bayard, D. (1996) ‘La romanisation des campagnes en Picardie à la lumière des fouilles récentes: problèmes d’échelles et de critères’. In: D. Bayard and J.-L. Collart (eds) De la ferme indigène à la villa romaine. Actes du II Colloque de l’association AGER à Amiens 1993: 157–84, Numéro Spécial 11. Amiens: Revue archéologique de Picardie. Bayard, D. (2000) ‘Estrées-Deniécourt. Derrière le Jardin du Berger’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Picardie 1998: 114. Bayard, D. (2007) ‘Amiens 1983–2003, un bilan de vingt ans après Amiens Romain’. In: R. Hanoune (ed.) Les villes romaines du nord de la Gaule: 11–42. Lille: Revue du Nord hors séries art et archéologie 10. Bazelmans, J. (2012) ‘Serving two masters: Dutch archaeology since the Valletta Convention’. In: L. Webley, M. Vander Linden, C. Haselgrove and R. Bradley (eds) Development-led archaeology in North-West Europe: proceedings of a round table at the University of Leicester 19th–21st November 2009: 9–21. Oxford: Oxbow. Beaujard, P. (2010) ‘From three possible Iron-Age world-systems to a single AfroEurasian world-system’, Journal of World History 21: 1–43. Beaujard, S. and Bostyn, F. (2007) ‘Ressons-sur-Matz. Le Fond Madelon Duriez’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Picardie 2005: 76–80. Bech, J.-H. (2003) ‘The Thy Archaeological Project: results and reflections from a multinational archaeological project’. In: H. Thrane (ed.) Diachronic settlement studies in the Metal Ages: 45–60. Højbjerg: Jysk Arkæologisk Selskab. Bech, J.-H. and Mikkelsen, M. (1999) ‘Landscapes, settlement and subsistence in Bronze Age Thy, NW Denmark’. In: C. Fabech and J. Ringtved (eds) Settlement and landscape: 69–77. Højbjerg: Jysk Arkæologisk Selskab. Becker, K. (2009) ‘Iron Age Ireland – finding an invisible people’. In: G. Cooney, K. Beckers, J. Coles, M. Ryan and S. Sievers (eds) Relics of old decency: archaeological studies of later prehistory: 353–61. Dublin: Wordwell. Becker, K. (2010) Rathgall, County Wicklow. Archaeology Ireland Heritage Guide 51 Dublin: Wordwell.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

362

References

Becker, K. (2012) ‘Redefining the Irish Iron Age’. In: C. Corlett and M. Potterton (eds) Life and Death in Iron Age Ireland: 1–14. Dublin: Wordwell. Becker, K. (2013) ‘Transforming identities – new approaches to Bronze Age deposition in Ireland’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 79: 225–63. Becker, K., Ó Néill, J. and O’Flynn, L. (2008) Iron Age Ireland: finding an invisible people. Dublin: Final Report to the Heritage Council Project 16365. Behre, K.-E. (2007) ‘Evidence for Mesolithic agriculture in and around central Europe?’, Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 16: 203–19. Behre, K.-E. (2010) ‘Vegetation und Landwirtschaft während der vorrömischen Eisenzeit im Norddeutschen Tiefland’. In: M. Meyer (ed.) Haus—Gehöft—Weiler— Dorf. Siedlungen der vorrömischen Eisenzeit im nördlichen Mitteleuropa: 49–60. Rahden: Marie Leidorf. Bell, M. (1983) ‘Valley sediments as evidence of prehistoric land-use on the South Downs’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 49: 119–50. Bentley, R. A. (2006) ‘Strontium isotopes from the earth to the archaeological skeleton: a review’, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 13(3): 135–87. Bentley, R. A. (2013) ‘Mobility and the diversity of Early Neolithic lives: isotopic evidence from skeletons’, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 32(3): 303–12. Bentley, R. A., Bickle, P., Fibiger, L., Nowell, G. F., Dale, C. W., Hedges, R. E. M., Hamilton, J., Wahle, J., Francken, M., Grupe, G., Lenneish, E., Teschler-Nicolah, M., Arbogast, R.M., Hofmann, D. and Whittle, A. (2012) ‘Community differentiation and kinship among Europe’s first farmers’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109: 9326–30. Bentley, R. A., Wahl, J., Price, T. D. and Atkinson, T. C. (2008) ‘Isotopic signatures and hereditary traits: snapshot of a Neolithic community in Germany’, Antiquity 82: 290–304. Bérenger, D. (1996) ‘Archäologische Ausgrabungen zur Erforschung der Mittelbronzezeit im Kreis Paderborn (Ostwestfalen)’, Die Kunde, Neue Folge 47: 127–42. Bérenger, D. (1997) ‘Ausgrabungen 1996 in Borchen-Etteln, Kr. Paderborn’, Archäologie in Ostwestfalen 1: 16–20. Berger, J.-F. (2005) ‘Sédiments, dynamique du peuplement et climat au Néolithique ancien’. In: J. Guilaine (ed.) Populations néolithiques et environnements. Séminaire du Collège de France: 155–212. Paris: Errance. Bergerbrant, S. (2007) Bronze Age identities: costume, conflict and contact in northern Europe 1600–1300 BC. Stockholm Studies in Archaeology 43. Lindome: Bricoleur Press. Bergh, S. (1995) Landscape of the monuments. Stockholm: Riksantiqvarieämbetet. Bergh, S. and Hensey, R. (2013) ‘Unpicking the chronology of Carrowmore’, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 32: 343–66. Berkvens, R. (2008) ‘Bronze Age neighbours: occupation of three parallel covers and ridges near Breda’. In: S. Arnoldussen and H. Fokkens (eds) Bronze Age settlements in the Low Countries: 175–87. Oxford: Oxbow. Berranger, M. (2014) Le fer, entre matière première et moyen d’échange, en France du VIIe au Ier siècle avant J.-C. Approches interdisciplinaires. Dijon: Éditions Universitaires de Dijon. Berranger, M. and Fluzin, P. (2012) ‘From raw iron to semi-product: quality and circulation of materials during the Iron Age in France’, Archaeometry 54(4): 664–84.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

References

363

Besse, M. (2003) ‘Les céramiques communes des Campaniformes européens’, Gallia préhistoire 45: 205–58. Besse, M. and Desideri, J. (2005) ‘Bell Beaker diversity: settlements, burials and ceramics-La diversidad Campaniforme: Hábitats, sepulturas y cerámicas’. In: M. A. Rojo Guerra, R. Garrido Pena and I. Garcia Martinez De Lagran (eds) El Campaniforme en la Peninsula Ibérica y su contexto europeo—Bell Beakers in the Iberian Peninsula and their European context: 61–106, Arte y Arqueologia 21. Valladolid: Universidad de Valladolid. Beuker, J. R. (1988) ‘Die Verwendung von Helgoländer Flint in der Stein- und Bronzezeit’, Die Kunde, Neue Folge 39: 93–116. Bickle, P. and Whittle, A. eds (2013) The first farmers in Central Europe: diversity in LBK Lifeways. Oxford: Oxbow. Biddulph, E. ed. (2012) London Gateway: Iron Age and Roman saltmaking in the Thames Estuary. Oxford: Oxford Archaeology. Billard, C. and Paez-Rezende, L. (2000) ‘Un habitat du Bronze ancien à Grossoeuvre “Viancourt” (Eure)’, Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française 97(2): 275–89. Billard, C., Guillon, M. and Verron, G. eds (2010) Les sépultures collectives du Néolithique récent-final de Val-de-Reuil et Porte-Joie (Eure—France). Liège: Université de Liège ERAUL 123. Birocheau, P., Convertini, F., Cros, J.-P., Duday, H. and Large, J.-M. (1999) ‘Fossé et sépultures du Néolithique récent aux Châtelliers du Vieil-Auzay (Vendée); aspects structuraux et anthropologiques’, Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française 96(3): 375–90. Bis-Worch, C. (2007) ‘Preventive archaeology in Luxembourg: legislation and reality’. In: K. Bozóki-Ernyey (ed.) European Preventive Archaeology: papers of the EPAC Meeting, Vilnius 2004: 155–60. Budapest: National Office of Cultural Heritage, Hungary/Council of Europe. Blaizot, F., Boës, X., Lalaï, D., Le Meur, N. and Maigrot, Y. (2001) ‘Premières données sur le traitement des corps humains à la transition du Néolithique récent et du Néolithique final dans le Bas-Rhin: dimensions culturelles’, Gallia préhistoire 43: 175–235. Blanchet, S. ed. (2010) Lamballe Côtes-d’Armor ZAC de la Tourelle. Une occupation de longue durée sur le plateau de la Tourelle. Cesson-Sévigné: INRAP GO. Blanchet, S., Forré, P., Fromont, N., Hamon, C. and Hamon, G. (2010) ‘Un habitat du Néolithique ancien à Betton Pluvignon (Ille-et-Vilaine)’. In: C. Billard and M. Legris (eds) Premiers Néolithiques de l’Ouest: 15–39. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes. Blanchet, S., Nicolas, T. and Toron, S. (2012) ‘Des constructions inédites à la transition Néolithique final–Bronze ancien en Bretagne: premier bilan’, Internéo 9: 135–45. Blancquaert, G. and Medlycott, M. (2006) Archaeological evaluation of rural areas in the Planarch area of north west Europe. Maidstone: Kent County Council. Blancquaert, G., Leroyer, C., Lorho, T., Malrain, F. and Zech-Matterne, V. (2012) ‘Rythmes de créations et d’abandons des établissements ruraux du second âge du Fer et interactions environnementales’. In: F. Bertoncello and F. Braemer (eds) Variabilités environnementales, mutations sociales: nature, intensités, échelles et temporalités des changements: 233–45. Antibes: Association pour la Promotion et la Diffusion des Connaissances Archéologiques.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

364

References

Blankholm, H. P. (2008) ‘Southern Scandinavia’. In: G. N. Bailey and P. Spikins (eds) Mesolithic Europe: 107–31. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Blondiau, L. (2000) ‘Glisy. ZAC de la Croix de Fer “But” ’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Picardie 1998: 118. Blondiau, L. (2009) Amiens, Les Jardins d’Intercampus, deuxième tranche: rapport de diagnostic. Amiens: INRAP NP. Blondiau, L. and Buchez, N. (2009) ‘Les chambres funéraires et les aménagements de surface des tombes de Villers-Bocage (Somme) dans leur contexte régional’, Revue Archéologique de Picardie 2009 (3–4): 157–69. Bocquet-Appel, J.-P., Naji, S., Vander Linden, M. and Kozłowski, J. (2012) ‘Understanding the rates of expansion of the farming system in Europe’, Journal of Archaeological Science 39(2): 531–46. Boddum, S., Mikkelsen, M. and Terkildsen, K. eds (2011) Depotfund i yngre bronzealderens lokale kulturlandskab. Viborg/Holstebro: Viborg Stiftsmuseum/Holstebro Museum. Boenke, N., Lindenthal, J. and Schade-Lindig, S. (2009) ‘Ein Michelsberger Erdwerk bei Bad Nauheim, Wetteraukreis’, Hessen Archäologie 2008: 36–40. Boersma, J. (2005) ‘Colonists on the clay: the occupation of the northern coastal region’. In: L. P. Louwe Kooijmans, P. W. van den Broeke, H. Fokkens and A. L. van Gijn (eds) The prehistory of the Netherlands, Volume 1: 561–76. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Boës, E., Jeunesse, C. and Alt, K. W. (1998) ‘Deux interventions anthropiques dans une sépulture du Néolithique ancien à Ensisheim’, Internéo 2: 29–38. Boës, E., Jeunesse, C., Arbogast, R.-M., Lefranc, P., Mauvilly, M., Schneikert, F. and Sidéra, I. (2007) ‘Vendenheim “Le Haut du Coteau” (Bas-Rhin): remarques sur l’organisation interne d’une nécropole du Néolithique ancien danubien’. In: M. Besse (ed.) Sociétés néolithiques. Des faits archéologiques aux fonctionnements socio-économiques. Actes du 27e colloque interrégional sur le Néolithique (Neuchâtel 1 et 2 octobre 2005): 341–9. Lausanne: Cahiers d’archéologie romande 108. Bogaard, A. and Jones, G. (2007) ‘Neolithic farming in Britain and central Europe: contrast or continuity?’. In: A. Whittle and V. Cummings (eds) Going over: the MesolithicNeolithic transition in North-West Europe: 357–75. London: British Academy. Bonnabel, L. (2010) ‘Dépôt de corps humain en structures réutilisées (ou détournées?) durant la Protohistoire en Champagne-Ardenne: approche comparative avec les sépultures en éléments d’interprétation’. In: L. Baray and B. Boulestin (eds) Morts anormaux et sépultures bizarres: les dépôts en fosses circulaires ou en silos du Néolithique à l’âge du Fer. Actes de la IIe table ronde interdisciplinaire ‘Morts anormaux et sépultures bizarres: questions d’interprétation en archéologie funéraire’ 29 mars–1er avril 2006, Sens: 99–112. Dijon: Éditions Universitaires de Dijon. Bonsall, C., Macklin, M., Anderson, E. and Payton, R. (2002) ‘Climate change and the adoption of agriculture in north-west Europe’, European Journal of Archaeology 5(1): 9–23. Booth, P., Champion, T., Foreman, S., Garwood, P., Glass, H., Munby, J. and Reynolds, A. (2011) On track: the archaeology of High Speed 1 Section 1 in Kent. Oxford Wessex Archaeology Monograph 4. Oxford: Oxford Archaeology.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

References

365

Bosquet, D. and Preud’homme, D. (1998) ‘Dernière campagne de fouille sur le village rubané de Remicourt au lieu-dit En Bia Flo II (TGV oriental)’, Notae Praehistoricae 18: 119–22. Bosquet, D. and Preud’homme, D. (2000a) ‘Hannut: quatre fosses Michelsberg et une enceinte quadrangulaire laténienne au lieu-dit “Trommelveld” II, à Cras Avernas’, Chronique de l’Archéologie Wallonne 8: 131–6. Bosquet, D. and Preud’homme, D. (2000b) ‘Découverte d’une enceinte laténienne à Hannut, au lieu-dit “Trommelveld” ’, Lunula 8: 79–87. Bostyn, F. and Lanchon, Y. eds (1992) Jablines ‘Le Haut Château’ (Seine-et-Marne). Une minière de silex au Néolithique, Documents d’Archéologie Française 35. Paris: Éditions de la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme. Bostyn, F., Blancquaert, G. and Lanchon, Y. (1992) ‘Les enclos funéraires de l’Âge du Bronze de Coquelles « RN 1 » (Pas-de-Calais)’, Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française 89 (10–12): 413–28. Bougeant, P. (2002) L’Ecuissière (Dolus-Ile d’Oléron). Site d’habitat campaniforme. Rapport de fouille 2002. Poitiers: SRA Poitou-Charentes. Boulestin, B. (2010) ‘La Rochette. Le Trou qui fume’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Poitou-Charentes 2009: 40. Boulestin, B., Ducongé, S. and Gomez de Soto, J. (2009a) ‘Le sanctuaire laténien de la grotte des Perrats à Agris (Charente). Nouvelles recherches 2002–2007’. In: I. Bertrand, A. Duval, J. Gomez De Soto and P. Maguer (eds) Les Gaulois entre Loire et Dordogne. Actes du XXXI colloque international de l’Association Française pour l’Étude de l’Âge du Fer: 1–12. Chauvigny: Association des publications chauvinoises Mémoire 34. Boulestin, B., Zeeb-Lanz, A., Jeunesse, C., Haack, F., Arbogast, R.-M. and Denaire, A. (2009b) ‘Mass cannibalism in the Linear Pottery Culture at Herxheim (Palatinate, Germany)’, Antiquity 83: 968–82. Bourgeois, I., Cherretté, B. and Bourgeois, J. (2003) ‘Bronze Age and Iron Age settlements in Belgium: an overview’. In: J. Bourgeois, I. Bourgeois and B. Cherretté (eds) Bronze and Iron Age communities in north-western Europe: 175–297. Brussels: Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie van Belgie voor Wetenschappen en Kunsten. Bourgeois, J. and Talon, M. (2009) ‘From Picardy to Flanders: Transmanche connections in the Bronze Age’. In: P. Clark (ed.) Bronze Age connections: cultural contact in prehistoric Europe: 38–59. Oxford: Oxbow. Bourgeois, Q. (2013) Monuments on the horizon: the formation of the barrow landscape throughout the 3rd and 2nd millennium BC. Leiden: Sidestone Press. Bourgeois, Q. and Arnoldussen, S. (2006) ‘Expressing monumentality: some observations on the dating of Dutch Bronze Age barrows and houses’, Lunula. Archaeologia Protohistorica 14: 13–25. Bourgeois, Q. and Fontijn, D. (2008) ‘Bronze Age houses and barrows in the Low Countries’. In: S. Arnoldussen and H. Fokkens (eds) Bronze Age settlements in the Low Countries: 41–58. Oxford: Oxbow. Bourgeois, Q., Amkreutz, L. and Panhuyzen, R. (2009) ‘The Niersen Beaker burial: a renewed study of a century-old excavation’, Journal of Archaeology of the Low Countries 1(2): 83–105. Bourke, L. (2001) Bronze Age metalwork from Irish rivers. Galway: NUI Galway.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

366

References

Bowen, H. C. (1961) Ancient fields: a tentative analysis of vanishing earthworks and landscapes. London: British Association for the Advancement of Science. Boyer, F. and Buchsenschutz, O. (1998) ‘Les conditions d’une interprétation fonctionnelle des moulins “celtiques” rotatifs à mains sont-elles réunies?’, Revue Archéologique du Centre de la France 37: 197–206. Bozóki-Ernyey, K. ed. (2007) European preventive archaeology: papers of the EPAC Meeting, Vilnius 2004. Budapest: National Office of Cultural Heritage, Hungary/ Council of Europe. Bradley, R. (1970) ‘The Excavation of a Beaker Settlement at Belle Tout, East Sussex’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 36: 312–79. Bradley, R. (1983) ‘The bank barrows and related monuments of Dorset in the light of recent fieldwork’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society 105: 15–20. Bradley, R. (1998a) The significance of monuments. London: Routledge. Bradley, R. (1998b) The passage of arms. 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxbow. Bradley, R. (2005) Ritual and domestic life in prehistoric Europe. London: Routledge. Bradley, R. (2006) ‘Bridging the two cultures – commercial archaeology and the study of prehistoric Britain’, Antiquaries Journal 86: 1–13. Bradley, R. (2007) The prehistory of Britain and Ireland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bradley, R. (2008) ‘The end of the beginning: changing configurations in the British and Irish Neolithic’, Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 40: 43–9. Bradley, R. (2009a) Image and audience: rethinking prehistoric art. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bradley, R. (2009b) ‘Missing links and false equations: architecture and ideas in Bronze Age Scotland and Ireland’. In: G. Cooney, K. Beckers, J. Coles, M. Ryan and S. Sievers (eds) Relics of old decency: archaeological studies of later prehistory: 221–32. Dublin: Wordwell. Bradley, R. (2011) Stages and screens: an investigation of four henge monuments in northern and north-eastern Scotland. Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. Bradley, R. (2012a) ‘Postscript: recorded time’. In: L. Webley, M. Vander Linden, C. Haselgrove and R. Bradley (eds) Development-led archaeology in North-West Europe: proceedings of a round table at the University of Leicester 19th–21st November 2009: 173–5. Oxford: Oxbow. Bradley, R. (2012b) The idea of order: the circular archetype in prehistoric Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bradley, R. (2013a) ‘Houses of Commons, Houses of Lords: domestic dwellings and monumental architecture in prehistoric Europe’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 79: 1–17. Bradley, R. (2013b) ‘Time traveller: Montelius and the British Bronze Age after a hundred years’. In: S. Bergerbrant and S. Sabatini (eds) Counterpoint: essays in archaeology and heritage studies in honour of Professor Kristian Kristiansen: 649–52. Oxford: Archaeopress. Bradley, R. and Edmonds, M. (1993) Interpreting the axe trade: production and exchange in Neolithic Britain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bradley, R. and Ellison, A. (1975) Rams Hill: a Bronze Age defended enclosure and its landscape. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

References

367

Bradley, R. and Fraser, E. (2010) ‘Bronze Age barrows on the heathlands of southern England: construction, forms and interpretations’, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 29(1): 15–33. Bradley, R. and Fulford, M. (2008) ‘The chronology of co-axial field systems’. In: P. Rainbird (ed.) Monuments in the landscape: 114–22. Stroud: Tempus. Bradley, R. and Gordon, K. (1988) ‘Human skulls from the River Thames, their dating and significance’, Antiquity 62: 503–9. Bradley, R. and Smith, A. (2007) ‘Questions of context: a Greek cup from the River Thames’. In: C. Gosden, H. Hamerow, P. de Jersey and G. Lock (eds) Communities and Connections: essays in honour of Barry Cunliffe: 30–42. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bradley, R., Phillips, T., Richards, C. and Webb, M. (2001) ‘Decorating the houses of the dead: incised and pecked motifs in Orkney chambered tombs’, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 11: 45–67. Brandt, J. (2001) Jastorf und Latène. Kultureller Austausch und seine Auswirkungen auf soziopolitische Entwicklungen in der vorrömischen Eisenzeit. Rahden: Internationale Archäologie 66. Brandt, J. (2010) ‘Haus, Gehöft, Weiler, Dorf – Siedlungsstrukturen der vorrömischen Eisenzeit aus sozialanthropologischer Sicht’. In: M. Meyer (ed.) Haus—Gehöft— Weiler—Dorf. Siedlungen der vorrömischen Eisenzeit im nördlichen Mitteleuropa: 17–30, Berliner Archäologische Forschungen 6. Rahden: Marie Leidorf. Brather, S. (2004) Ethnische Interpretationen in der frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Bray, P. J. and Pollard, A. M. (2012) ‘A new interpretive approach to the chemistry of copper-alloy objects: source, recycling and technology’, Antiquity 86: 853–67. Bretagne, P. (1998) ‘Onnaing, L’opération Toyota’, Bilan Scientifique Régional NordPas-de-Calais 1998: 71–100. Briard, J. (1984) Les Tumulus d’Armorique. L’Âge du Bronze en France, 3. Paris: Picard. Brieske, V. (2005) ‘Verbrannt, vergraben und versenkt. Hinweise auf eisenzeitliche Kultriten in Ahlen-Dolberg, Kr. Warendorf ’. In: H. Eilbracht, V. Brieske and B. Grodde (eds) Itinera Archaeologica. Vom Neolithikum bis in die frühe Neuzeit: 35–53, Internationale Archäologie Studia Honoraria 22. Rahden: Verlag Marie Leidorf. Brindley, A. and Lanting, J. (1990) ‘Radiocarbon dates for Neolithic single burials’, Journal of Irish Archaeology 5: 1–7. Bringemeier, L. (2010) ‘Flussfunde der jüngeren Eisenzeit im Rhein-Main-Gebiet’. In: M. Marquart (ed.) KeltenLand am Fluss. Die Kelten im Rhein-Main-Gebiet: 71–3. Rahden: Marie Leidorf. Brinkkemper, O. and van Wijngaarden-Bakker, L. (2005) ‘All-round farming: food production in the Bronze Age and the Iron Age’. In: L. P. Louwe Kooijmans, P. W. van den Broeke, H. Fokkens and A. L. van Gijn (eds) The prehistory of the Netherlands, Volume 1: 491–512. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Brophy, K. (2007) ‘From big houses to cult houses: early Neolithic timber halls in Scotland’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 73: 75–96. Brown, N. and Medlycott, M. (2013) The Neolithic and Bronze Age enclosures at Springfield Lyons, Essex: excavations 1981–91. East Anglian Archaeology 149 Norwich: Essex County Council. Brück, J. (1995) ‘A place for the dead: the role of human remains in late Bronze Age Britain’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 61: 245–77.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

368

References

Brück, J. (1999) ‘Houses, life cycles and deposition on Middle Bronze Age settlements in Southern England’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 65: 145–66. Brück, J. (2006) ‘Death, exchange and reproduction in the British Bronze Age’, European Journal of Archaeology 9: 73–101. Brück, J. (2007) ‘The character of late Bronze Age settlement in southern Britain’. In: C. Haselgrove and R. Pope (eds) The earlier Iron Age in Britain and beyond: 24–38. Oxford: Oxbow. Brudenell, M. and Cooper, A. (2008) ‘Post-middenism: depositional histories on later Bronze Age settlements at Broom, Bedfordshire’, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 27: 15–36. Brun, P. and Chaume, B. (2013) ‘Une éphémère tentative d’urbanisation en Europe centre-occidentale durant les VIe et Ve siècles av. J.-C.?’, Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française 110(2): 319–49. Brun, P., Buchez, N., Gaudefroy, S. and Talon, M. (2005) ‘Bilan de la protohistoire ancienne en Picardie’, Revue archéologique de Picardie 2005 (3–4): 99–127. Brunet, P., Convertini, F. and Salanova, L. (2011) ‘Un vase épicordé aux Prés du Refuge Lesches (Seine-et-Marne)’. In: L. Salanova and Y. Tchérémissinoff (eds) Les sépultures individuelles campaniformes en France: 57–62, Gallia Préhistoire XLIe supplément. Paris: CNRS. Brunning, R. (2013) Somerset’s peatland archaeology. Oxford: Oxbow. Bryant, S. (2007) ‘Central places or special places? The origins and development of “oppida” in Herfortshire’. In: C. Haselgrove and T. Moore (eds) The later Iron Age in Britain and beyond: 62–80. Oxford: Oxbow. Buchez, N. (1999) ‘Marcelcave. Le Chemin d’Ignaucourt’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Picardie 1997: 100–1. Buchez, N. (2011a) ‘La protohistoire ancienne. Recherche et fouille de sites de l’âge du Bronze à La Tène ancienne sur les grands tracés linéaires en Picardie occidentale: questions méthodologiques et résultats scientifiques’, Revue archéologique de Picardie 2011 (3–4): 121–99. Buchez, N. (2011b) ‘La protohistoire récente – état de la documentation et principaux résultats issus de la fouille de sites funéraires de La Tène moyenne à La Tène finale sur les grands tracés linéaires en Picardie occidentale’, Revue archéologique de Picardie 2011 (3–4): 267–340. Buchsenschutz, O. and Ralston, I. B. M. (2007) ‘Dépôts et fortifications de l’âge du fer’. In: P. Barral, A. Daubigny, C. Dunning, G. Kaenel and M.-J. Roulière-Lambert (eds) L’âge du Fer dans l’arc jurassien et ses marges. Dépôts, lieux sacrés et territorialité à l’âge du Fer. Actes du XXIXe colloque international de l’Association française pour l’étude de l’âge du Fer (Bienne (Suisse), 5–8 mai 2005): 757–76, Annales Littéraires de l’Université de Franche-Comté 826. Besançon: Presses universitaires de FrancheComté. Buchsenschutz, O., Gruel, K. and Lejars, T. (2012) ‘L’âge d’or de l’aristocratie celtique, IVe et IIIe siècles av. J.-C.’ Annales: Histoire, Sciences Sociales 67: 295–324. Bulten, E. E. B., van der Heijden, F. J. G. and Hamburg, T. (2002) Emmeloord: prehistorische visweren en fuiken. ADC Rapport 140. Amersfoort: Archeologisch Diensten Centrum. Burgess, C. (1985) ‘Population, climate and upland settlement’. In: D. Spratt and C. Burgess (eds) Upland settlement in Britain: the second millennium BC and after: 195–230. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

References

369

Burnez, C. and Louboutin, C. (1999) ‘Les enceintes fossoyées néolithiques: architecture et fonction. L’exemple du Bassin inférieur et moyen de la Charente’, Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française 96(3): 329–52. Burrow, S. (2010) ‘Bryn Celli Ddu passage tomb, Anglesey: alignment, construction, date and ritual’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 76: 249–70. Burrow, S. and Darvill, T. (1997) ‘AMS dating of the Ronaldsway Culture of the Isle of Man’, Antiquity 71: 412–19. Butcher, S. and Garwood, P. (1994) Rescue excavation, 1938 to 1972: a report for the Backlog Working Party of the Ancient Monuments Advisory Committee of English Heritage. London: English Heritage. Buttler, W. and Haberey, W. (1936) Die bandkeramische Ansiedlung bei KölnLindenthal, Römisch-germanische Forschungen 11. Berlin: Gruyter. Cabboi, S. (1999) ‘La Bazoge. L’Aulnay-Truchet’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Paysde-la-Loire 1997: 56–7. Cabboi, S. (2001) ‘La Bazoge. Les Barres’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Pays-de-la-Loire 1998: 61. Cabboi, S., Dunikowski, C., Leroy, M. and Merluzzo, P. (2007) ‘Les systèmes de production sidérurgique chez les Celtes du Nord de la France’. In: P.-Y. Milcent (ed.) L’économie du fer protohistorique: de la production à la consommation du métal, XXVIIIe colloque de l’Association française pour l’étude de l’âge du Fer, Toulouse, 20–23 mai 2004: 35–62. Bordeaux: Aquitania supplément 14/2. Cahen-Delhaye, A. (2001) ‘L’âge du Fer’, Anthropologica et Praehistorica 112: 121–33. Card, N. (2010) ‘Neolithic temples of the Northern Isles’, Current Archaeology 241: 12–19. Carlin, N. and Brück, J. (2012) ‘Searching for the Chalcolithic: continuity and change in the Irish Final Neolithic/Early Bronze Age’. In: M. Allen, A. Sheridan and D. McOmish (eds) Is there a British Chalcolithic: people, place and polity in the later third millennium: 193–210. Oxford: Prehistoric Society/Oxbow. Carver, M. (2005) Sutton Hoo: a seventh-century princely burial ground and its context. London: British Museum Press. Carver, M. (2009) Archaeological investigation. London: Routledge. Case, H. (1969) ‘Neolithic explanations’, Antiquity 43: 176–86. Case, H. (2004) ‘Bell Beaker and Corded Ware burial associations: a bottom-up rather than top-down approach’. In: A. Gibson and A. Sheridan (eds) From sickles to circles: Britain and Ireland at the time of Stonehenge: 201–14. Stroud: Tempus. Cassen, S. (2009) Autour de la table. Explorations archéologiques et discours savants sur des architectures néolithiques à Locmariaquer, Morbihan. Nantes: Université de Nantes. Cassen, S., Audren, C., Huinguant, S., Lannuzel, G. and Marchand, G. (1998) ‘L’habitat Villeneuve-Saint-Germain du Haut-Mée’, Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française 99: 41–75. Cassen, S., Pétrequin, P., Boujot, C., Domínguez-Bella, S., Guiavarc’h, M. and Querré, G. (2011) ‘Measuring distinction in the megalithic architecture of the Carnac region: from sign to material’. In: M. Furholt, F. Lüth and J. Müller (eds) Megaliths and identities: early monuments and Neolithic societies from the Atlantic to the Baltic: 3rd European Megalithic Studies Group Meeting, 13th–15th May 2010 at Kiel University: 225–48. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

370

References

Caulfield, S., Byrne, G., Downes, M., Dunne, N., Warren, G., Rathbone, S., McIlreavy, D. and Walsh, P. (2009) Archaeological excavations at Belderg Beg (E109): stratigraphic report. Dublin: UCD School of Archaeology. Chambon, P. (2003) ‘Revoir Passy à la lumière de Balloy: les nécropoles monumentales Cerny du bassin Seine-Yonne’, Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française 100(3): 505–15. Chambon, P. and Mordant, D. (1996) ‘Monumentalisme et sépultures collectives à Balloy (Seine-et-Marne)’, Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française 93(3): 396–402. Chambon, P. and Salanova, L. (1996) ‘Chronologie des sépultures du IIIe millénaire dans le bassin de la Seine’, Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française 93(1): 103–18. Chambon, P., Mordant, D. and Pariat, J.-G. (2007) ‘Sépultures du Néolithique moyen en Bassin parisien. Le cas des architectures sépulcrales’. In: F. Le Brun-Ricalens, F. Valotteau and A. Hauzeur (eds) Relations interrégionales au Néolithique entre Bassin parisien et Bassin rhénan. Actes du 26e colloque interrégional sur le Néolithique. Luxembourg, 8 et 9 novembre 2003: 445–67, Archeologia Mosellana 7. Luxembourg: Musée National d’Histoire et d’Art. Champion, T. (2004) ‘Exotic materials in the Early Bronze Age of south eastern Britain’. In: H. Roche, E. Grogan, J. Bradley, J. Coles and B. Raftery (eds) From megaliths to metals: essays in honour of George Eogan: 51–5. Oxford: Oxbow. Champion, T. (2011) ‘Later prehistory’. In: P. Booth, T. Champion, S. Foreman, P. Garwood, H. Glass, J. Munby and A. Reynolds (eds) On track: the archaeology of High Speed 1 Section 1 in Kent: 151–241. Oxford: Oxford Wessex Archaeology. Chancerel, A. and Ghesquière, E. (2006) ‘La maison danubienne du Haut-SaintMartin’. In: A. Chancerel, C. Marcigny and E. Ghesquière (eds) Le plateau de Mondeville (Calvados) du Néolithique à l’Âge du Bronze: 26–53, Documents d’Archéologie française 99. Paris: Maison des Sciences de l’Homme. Chancerel, A., Ghesquière, E. and Marcigny, C. (2006a) ‘L’enclos du Néolithique récent/ Bronze ancien du MIR (Mondeville)’. In: A. Chancerel, C. Marcigny and E. Ghesquière (eds) Le plateau de Mondeville (Calvados) du Néolithique à l’Âge du Bronze: 100–10, Documents d’Archéologie française 99. Paris: Maison des Sciences de l’Homme. Chancerel, A., Marcigny, C. and Ghesquière, E. eds (2006b) Le plateau de Mondeville (Calvados) du Néolithique à l’âge du Bronze, Documents d’Archéologie Française 99. Paris: Maison des Sciences de l’Homme. Chanson, K., Delalande, A., Jahier, I., Le Goff, I., Léon, G., Texier, M., Ropars, A. and Vauterin, C.-C. (2010) ‘Les pratiques funéraires à l’âge du Fer en Basse-Normandie: premiers éléments de réflexion’. In: P. Barral, B. Dedet, F. Delrieu, P. Giraud, I. Le Goff, S. Marion and A. Villard-Le Tiec (eds) Gestes funéraires en Gaule au second âge du Fer. Actes du XXXIIIe colloque de l’Association française pour l’étude de l’âge du Fer II: 51–83, Annales Littéraires de l’Université de Franche-Comté 883. Besançon: Presses universitaires de Franche-Comté. Chapman, A. (2007) ‘A Bronze Age barrow cemetery and later boundaries, pit alignments and enclosures at Gayhurst Quarry, Newport Pagnell, Buckinghamshire’, Records of Buckinghamshire 47.2: 83–211. Chartier, M. (2005) ‘L’analyse statistique des implantations des sites du Néolithique ancien et moyen dans le Bassin parisien: l'apport de quelques critères spatiaux’, Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française 102(2): 269–80.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

References

371

Chaume, B. and Mordant, C. (2011) Le complexe aristocratique de Vix. Nouvelles recherches sur l’habitat, le système de fortification et l’environnement du mont Lassois. Dijon: Éditions Universitaires de Dijon. Chiaradia, M., Gally, A. and Todt, W. (2003) ‘Different contamination styles of prehistoric human teeth at a Swiss necropolis (Sion, Valais) inferred from lead and strontium isotopes’, Applied Geochemistry 18: 353–70. Childe, V. G. (1925) The dawn of European civilization. London: Paul, Trench and Tubner. Childe, V. G. (1926) The Aryans: a study of Indo-European origins. London: Kegan Paul. Childe, V. G. (1940) ‘Review of The prehistoric foundations of Europe to the Mycenaean age by C. F. C. Hawkes’, Antiquaries Journal 20: 394–8. Childe, V. G. (1957) The dawn of European civilization. 6th revised edition. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Childe, V. G. and Sandars, N. (1950) ‘La civilisation de Seine-Oise-Marne’, L’anthropologie 54: 1–18. Chossenot, R., Estéban, A. and Neiss, R. (2010) Reims. Carte Archéologique de la Gaule 51/2. Paris: Académie des inscriptions et Belles Lettres. Christensen, C. and Fiedel, R. (2003) ‘Tørvegravning i forhistorisk tid’, Nationalmuseets Arbejdsmark 2003: 85–99. Christensen, M. (2005) Bygherrerapport SMS 928A Tinghøj II Stednr. 13.01.03 Feldingbjerg Sogn Fjends Herred Viborg Amt. Skive: Skive Museum. Christiansen, T. (2008) ‘Udgravning af 5000 år gamle jættestuer sydøst for Aalborg’, Nordjyllands Historiske Museum Årsberetning 2008: 71–4. Čižmář, M., Kolníková, E. and Noeske, H.-C. (2008) ‘Nĕmčice-Vicemĕřice - ein neues Handels- und Industriezentrum der Latènezeit in Mahren’, Germania 86: 655–700. Clark, J. G. D. (1966) ‘The invasion hypothesis in British archaeology’, Antiquity 40: 172–89. Clark, J. G. D. (1980) Mesolithic prelude. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Clark, P. (2002) The Dover Bronze Age boat. Swindon: English Heritage. Clarke, D. L. (1970) Beaker pottery of Great Britain and Ireland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Clason, A. T. (1999) ‘What’s new in the Bronze Age? The livestock and gamebag of the Bronze Age farmers in the western and central Netherlands’. In: H. Sarfatij, W. J. H. Verwers and P. J. Woltering (eds) In discussion with the past: archaeological studies presented to W.A. van Es: 35–40. Zwolle: Stichting Promotie Archeologie. Clausen, I. (2008) ‘Von späten Jägern und frühen Bauern . . . Binnenländische ErtebølleKultur bei Kayhude Kreis Segeberg’, Archäologische Nachrichten aus SchleswigHolstein 14: 14–16. Cleary, K. (2006) ‘Irish Bronze Age settlements: more than meets the eye?’, Archaeology Ireland 20(2): 18–21. Clément-Sauleau, S., Ghesquière, E., Giazzon, D., Marcigny, C., Palluau, J.-M. and Vipard, L. (2010) ‘L’enceinte néolithique moyen de St-Martin-de-Fontenay “Le Diguet” (Calvados): présentation liminaire’, Internéo 8: 71–9. Clemmensen, B. and Terkildsen, N. (2005) Bygherrerapport for VMÅ 2400 og 2533 Aggersundvej. Aars: Vesthimmerlands Museum. Cliquet, D. and Ghesquière, E. (2010) ‘Le Paléolithique et le Mésolithique en BasseNormandie (-350.000 à -5100 av. J.-C.)’ Bilan de la recherche archéologique

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

372

References

1984–2004. Quoi de neuf? 2004–2010. Volume I Préhistoire–Protohistoire: 11–54. Caen: Service Régional de l’Archéologie Basse-Normandie. Colas, C. and Thouvenot, S. (2001) ‘Presles-et-Boves. Les Bois Plantés’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Picardie 2000: 35–6. Colas, C., Ilett, M., Le Guen, P., Naze, Y. and Pinard, E. (2002) ‘Presles-et-Boves. Les Bois Plantés’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Picardie 2001: 42–3. Coles, B. J. (2000) ‘Doggerland: the cultural dynamics of a shifting coastline’, Geological Society, London, Special Publications 175: 393–401. Coles, J. and Harding, A. (1979) The Bronze Age in Europe: an introduction to the prehistory of Europe, c.2000–700 B.C. London: Methuen & Co. Collart, J.-L. (2012) ‘L’archéologie préventive en France: le cadre réglementaire et son application’. In: L. Webley, M. Vander Linden, C. Haselgrove and R. Bradley (eds) Development-led archaeology in North-West Europe: proceedings of a round table at the University of Leicester 19th–21st November 2009: 56–99. Oxford: Oxbow. Collet, H., Jadin, I. and Woodbury, M. (2008) ‘Apport à la chronologie absolue des minières néolithiques de Spiennes’, Notae Praehistoricae 28: 97–9. Collis, J. R. (1984) Oppida: earliest towns north of the Alps. Sheffield: Department of Archaeology, University of Sheffield. Collis, J. R. (2003) The Celts: origins, myths and inventions. Stroud: The History Press. Conneller, C. (2004) ‘Becoming deer: corporeal transformations at Star Carr’, Archaeological Dialogues 11: 37–56. Conneller, C., Milner, N., Taylor, B. and Taylor, M. (2012) ‘Substantial settlement in the European Early Mesolithic: new research at Starr Carr’, Antiquity 86: 1004–20. Cook, M., Ellis, C. and Sheridan, A. (2010) ‘Excavations at Upper Largie quarry, Argyll and Bute, Scotland: new light on the prehistoric ritual landscape of the Kilmartin Glen’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 76: 165–212. Cooney, G. (2000) Landscapes of Neolithic Ireland. London: Routledge. Cooney, G. (2006) ‘Newgrange – a view from the platform’, Antiquity 80: 697–710. Cooney, G. (2009) ‘Tracing lines across landscapes: corporality and history in later prehistoric Ireland’. In: G. Cooney, K. Beckers, J. Coles, M. Ryan and S. Sievers (eds) Relics of old decency: archaeological studies of later prehistory: 375–88. Dublin: Wordwell. Cordie, R. and Teegen, W.-R. (2007) ‘Neue Untersuchungen im Tempelbezirk 2 von Wederath-Belginum, Kreis Bernkastel-Wittlich’, Archäologie in Rheinland-Pfalz 2005: 56–9. Corlett, C. and Potterton, M. eds (2012) Life and death in Iron Age Ireland in the light of recent archaeological excavations. Dublin: Wordwell. Cosack, E. and Kullig, C. (2004) ‘Ein Urnengräberfeld der jüngeren Eisenzeit auf dem “Krähenberg” bei Gümmer, Region Hannover’, Nachrichten aus Niedersachsens Urgeschichte 73: 77–104. Costa, L. J., Sternke, F. and Woodman, P. C. (2005) ‘Microlith to macrolith: the reasons behind the transformation of production in the Irish Mesolithic’, Antiquity 79: 19–33. Cotter, C. (2012) The western stone forts project: excavations at Dun Aonghasa and Dun Eoghanachta. Dublin: Wordwell. Coudart, A. and Demoule, J.-P. (1982) ‘Le site néolithique et chalcolithique de Menneville’. Vallée de l’Aisne: cinq années de fouilles protohistoriques: 129–47, Numéro Spécial 1. Amiens: Revue archéologique de Picardie.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

References

373

Craig, O. E., Forster, M., Andersen, S. H., Koch, E., Crombé, P., Milner, N. J., Stern, B., Bailey, G. N. and Heron, C. P. (2007) ‘Molecular and isotopic demonstration of the processing of aquatic products in Northern European prehistoric pottery’, Archaeometry 49(1): 135–52. Creighton, J. (2000) Coins and power in late Iron Age Britain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cromarty, A. M., Barclay, A., Lambrick, G. and Robinson, M. (2005) Late Bronze Age ritual and habitation on a Thames eyot at Whitecross Farm, Wallingford. Oxford: Oxford Archaeology. Crombé, P. (2010) ‘Contact and interaction between early farmers and late huntergatherers in Belgium during the 6th and 5th millennium cal. BC’. In: D. Gronenborn and J. Petrasch (eds) Die Neolithisierung Mitteleuropas. Internationale Tagung, Mainz 24. bis 26. Juni 2005: 551–66. Mainz: Verlag des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums. Crombé, P., De Clercq, W., Meganck, M. and Bourgeois, I. (2005) ‘Een meerperiodensite bij de vallei van de Ede te Maldegem-Burkel (gem. Maldegem). Menselijke aanwezigheid uit de Steentijd een nederzetting en grafheuvel uit de Bronstijd en een nederzetting uit de Romeinse tijd’. In: I. In’t Ven and W. De Clercq (eds) Een lijn door het landschaap. Archeologie en het vTn-project 1997–1998: 93–117, Archeologie in Vlaanderen Monografie 5. Brussels: Vlaams Instituut for het Onroerend Erfgoed. Crombé, P., Perdaen, Y. and Sergant, J. (2003) ‘The site of Verrebrok “Dok”, Flanders, Belgium: spatial organisation of an extensive early Mesolithic settlement’. In: L. Larsson, H. Kindgren, K. Knutsson, D. Leoffler and A. Åkerlund (eds) Mesolithic on the move: papers presented at the Sixth International Conference on the Mesolithic in Europe, Stockholm 2000: 205–15. Oxford: Oxbow. Cummings, V. and Harris, O. (2011) ‘Animals, people and places: the continuity of hunting and gathering practices across the Mesolithic – Neolithic transition in Britain’, European Journal of Archaeology 14: 361–82. Cunliffe, B. (1992) ‘Pits, preconceptions and propitiation in the British Iron Age’, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 11: 69–83. Cunliffe, B. (1997) The ancient Celts. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cunliffe, B. (2001) Facing the ocean: the Atlantic and its peoples, 8000 BC–AD 1500. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cunliffe, B. (2009) ‘Continuity and change in a Wessex landscape’, Proceedings of the British Academy 162: 161–210. Cunliffe, B. and Galliou, P. (2005) Les fouilles du Yaudet en Ploulec’h, Côtes-d’Armor. Volume 2: Le site de la préhistoire à la fin de l’Empire gaulois. Oxford: Oxford University School of Archaeology. Dacre, M. and Ellison, A. (1981) ‘A Bronze Age urn cemetery at Kimpton, Hampshire’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 47: 147–203. Daire, M.-Y. (2005) Les stèles de l’âge du fer dans l’ouest de la Gaule: Réflexions sur le monde des morts et le monde des vivants. Saint-Malo: Centre Régional d’archéologie d’Alet. Danagher, E. (2007) Monumental beginnings: the archaeology of the N4 Sligo Inner Relief Road. Dublin: National Roads Authority. Dark, P. (2006) ‘Climate deterioration and land-use change in the first millennium BC: perspectives from the British palynological record’, Journal of Archaeological Science 33: 1381–95.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

374

References

Darvill, T. (2004) Long barrows of the Cotswolds and surrounding areas. Stroud: Tempus. Darvill, T. and Thomas, J. eds (1996) Neolithic houses in northwest Europe and beyond. Oxford: Oxbow. Davidson, J. and Henshall, A. (1989) The chambered cairns of Orkney. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. De Clercq, W., Bats, M., Bourgeois, J., Crombé, P., De Mulder, G., De Reu, J., Herremans, D., Laloo, P., Lombaert, L., Plets, G., Sergant, J. and Stichelbaut, B. (2012) ‘Development-led archaeology in Flanders: an overview of practices and results in the period 1990–2010’. In: L. Webley, M. Vander Linden, C. Haselgrove and R. Bradley (eds) Development-led archaeology in North-West Europe: proceedings of a round table at the University of Leicester 19th–21st November 2009: 29–55. Oxford: Oxbow. De Clercq, W., Bats, M., Laloo, P., Sergant, J. and Crombé, P. (2011) ‘Beware of the known: methodological issues in the detection of low density rural occupation in large-surface archaeological landscape-assessment in northern Flanders (Belgium)’. In: G. Blancquaert (ed.) Understanding the past: a matter of surface-area, Acts of the XIIIth session of the EAA Congress, Zadar 2007: 73–89, British Archaeological Reports International Series 2194. Oxford: Archaeopress. de Hingh, A. E. (2000) Food production and food procurement in the Bronze Age and Early Iron Age (2000–500 BC): the organisation of a diversified and intensified agrarian system in the Meuse-Demer-Scheldt region (The Netherlands and Belgium) and the region of the river Moselle (Luxemburg and France). Leiden: Leiden University Archaeological Studies 7. de Jersey, P. (2010) ‘L’habitat et la nécropole de King’s Road, Guernesey, et l’Âge du fer dans les îles anglo-normandes’. In: P. Barral, B. Dedet, F. Delrieu, P. Giraud, I. Le Goff, S. Marion and A. Villard-Le Tiec (eds) L’Âge du fer en Basse-Normandie. Actes du XXXIIIe colloque de l’Association française pour l’étude de l’âge du Fer I: 287–300. Besançon: Presses universitaires de Franche-Comté. de Leeuwe, R. (2007) Archeologisch Inventariserend Veld Onderzoek (IVO) langs de Brabantstraat te Oss. Archol Rapport 78. Leiden: Archol. De Mulder, G. and Bourgeois, J. (2011) ‘Shifting centres of power and changing elite symbolism in the Scheldt fluvial basin during the late Bronze Age and the Iron Age’. In: T. Moore and X.-L. Armada (eds) Atlantic Europe in the first millennium BC: crossing the divide: 302–18. Oxford: Oxford University Press. De Mulder, G., Van Strydonk, M., Boudin, M., Leclercq, W., Paridaens, N. and Warmenbol, E. (2007) ‘Re-evaluation of the late Bronze Age and early Iron Age chronology of the western Belgian urnfields based on 14C dating of cremated bones’, Radiocarbon 49: 499–514. De Reu, J., Bourgeois, J., De Smedt, P., Zwertvaegher, A., Antrop, M., Bats, M., De Maeyer, P., Finke, P., Van Meirvenne, M., Verniers, J. and Crombé, P. (2011) ‘Measuring the relative topographic position of archaeological sites in the landscape, a case study on the Bronze Age barrows in northwest Belgium’, Journal of Archaeological Science 38: 3435–46. De Reu, J., Hammond, J., Toron, S. and Bourgeois, J. (2012) ‘Spatial and chronological continuities of Bronze Age cemeteries of north-western Europe’. In: D. Bérenger,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

References

375

J. Bourgeois, M. Talon and S. Wirth (eds) Gräberlandschaften der Bronzezeit: 265–82, Bodenaltertümer Westfalens 51. Darmstadt: Philipp von Zabern. de Saulieu, G. (2004) Art rupestre et statues-menhirs dans les Alpes: des pierres et des pouvoirs, 3000–2000 av. J.-C. Paris: Errance. De Valera, R. (1960) ‘The court cairns of Ireland’, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 60C: 9–140. de Wit, M. J. M. (2000) ‘Elite in Drenthe? Een analyse van twaalf opmerkelijke Drentse grafinventarissen uit de vroege en het begin van de midden-ijzertijd’, Palaeohistoria 39/40: 323–73. de Wit, M. J. M. (2003) Een aanvullend archeologisch onderzoek op ‘De Spil’ te Dalen, gemeente Coevorden (Dr.). ARC-Publicaties 72. Groningen: Archaeological Research & Consultancy. Deberge, Y., Vermeulen, C. and Collis, J. (2007) ‘Le complexe de Gandaillat/La Grande Borne: un état de la question’. In: C. Mennessier-Jouannet and Y. Deberge (eds) L’archéologie de l’âge du fer en Auvergne. Actes du XXVIIe colloque international de l’Association française pour l’étude de l’âge du Fer, Clermont-Ferrand 2003: 267–90. Lattes: Monographies de l’Archéologie Méditerranéenne. DeBoer, W. (1997) ‘Ceremonial centres from Cayapas (Esmeraldas, Ecuador) to Chillicothie (Ohio, USA)’, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 7: 225–53. Debord, J. (1982) ‘Premier bilan de huit années de fouilles à Villeneuve-Saint-Germain (1973–1980)’. Vallée de l’Aisne: cinq années de fouilles protohistoriques: 213–64. Amiens: Revue archéologique de Picardie Numéro Spécial 1. Debord, J. (1990) ‘Les fouilles du site gaulois tardif de Villeneuve-Saint-Germain (Aisne)’, Mémoires de la Fédération des Sociétés d’histoire et de l’archéologie de l’Aisne 35: 137–70. Dechezleprêtre, T., Méniel, P. and Bonaventure, B. (2007) ‘L’oppidum de Nasium à Boviolles (Meuse): état des recherches actuelles’. In: P. Barral, A. Daubigny, C. Dunning, G. Kaenel and M.-J. Roulière-Lambert (eds) L’âge du Fer dans l’arc jurassien et ses marges. Dépôts, lieux sacrés et territorialité à l’âge du Fer. Actes du XXIXe colloque international de l’Association française pour l’étude de l’âge du Fer (Bienne (Suisse), 5–8 mai 2005): 45–54, Annales Littéraires de l’Université de Franche-Comté 826. Besançon: Presses universitaires de Franche-Comté. Deeben, J., de Grooth, M. E. T., de Kort, J. W., Lauwerier, R. C. G. M. and ter Schegget, M. E. (2011) Het archeologische onderzoek in de omgeving van het prehistorische vuursteenmijnveld te Rijckholt-St. Geertruid: de resultaten van 2008 en 2009. Rapportage Archeologische Monumentenzorg 202. Amersfoort: Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed. Deffressigne, S. (2001) ‘Ennery. Landrevenne, pole industriel Garolor, zone D, site 33’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Lorraine 1998: 59–60. Deffressigne, S. and Tikonoff, N. (2012) ‘La proto-urbanisation dans le bassin de Nancy (Lorraine) de la fin du VIe au Ier siècle av. J.-C.’. In: S. Sievers and M. Schönfelder (eds) Die Frage der Protourbanisierung in der Eisenzeit: 127–37. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt. Deiters, S. (2004) ‘Ein frühbronzezeitlicher Hausgrundriss bei Bocholt Kr. Borken’, Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 34: 499–506. Delrieu, F. (2009a) ‘Jobourg. Tumulus de Calais’, Bilan Scientifique Régional BasseNormandie 2008: 82–3.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

376

References

Delrieu, F. (2009b) ‘Vauville. Tumulus de La Lande des Cottes’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Basse-Normandie 2008: 93. Demeyere, F., Bourgeois, J. and Crombé, P. (2004) ‘Plan d’une maison du groupe de Deûle-Escaut à Waardamme (Oostkamp, Flandre occidentale)’, Notae Praehistoricae 24: 167–73. Demoule, J.-P. (1993) ‘L’archéologie du pouvoir: oscillations et résistances dans l’Europe protohistorique’. In: A. Daubigney (ed.) Fonctionnement social de l’âge du Fer. Opérateurs et hypothèses pour la France: 259–73. Lons-le-Saunier: Centre Jurassien du Patrimoine. Demoule, J.-P. (1999) Chronologie et société des nécropoles celtiques de la culture AisneMarne du VIe au IIIe siècle avant notre ère. Amiens: Revue archéologique de Picardie Numéro Spécial 15. Demoule, J.-P. ed. (2007) L’archéologie préventive dans le monde: apports de l’archéologie préventive à la connaissance du passé. Paris: Coéditions La Découverte. Demoule, J.-P. (2012) ‘Rescue archaeology: a European view’, Annual Review of Anthropology 41: 611–26. Denaire, A. and Croutsch, C. (2010) ‘Du Campaniforme à la fin du Bronze Ancien en Alsace: essai de synthèse chronologique’. In: C. Jeunesse and A. Denaire (eds) Du Néolithique final au Bronze ancien dans le Nord-Est de la France. Actualité de la recherche: 165–86. Strasbourg: Association pour la Promotion de la Recherche Archéologique en Alsace. Denaire, A., Zehneret, M. and Mamie, A. (2010) ‘Les habitats de Colmar/Houssen «Base de Loisirs/Gravière», Didenheim «Zac des Collines» et Houssen «Le Château» (Haut-Rhin): trois nouveaux sites de la fin du Néolithique final et du Bronze ancien’. In: C. Jeunesse and A. Denaire (eds) Du Néolithique final au Bronze ancien dans le Nord-Est de la France. Actualité de la recherche: 73–102. Strasbourg: Association pour la Promotion de la Recherche Archéologique en Alsace. Deramaix, I. (2009) ‘Les occupations protohistoriques de la ZAE de Ghislenghien (province de Hainaut Belgique). Bilan des recherches’, Lunula. Archaeologia Protohistorica 19: 41–6. Derks, T., van Kerckhove, J. and Hoff, P. (2008) Nieuw archeologisch onderzoek rond de Grote Kerk van Elst, gemeente Overbetuwe (2002–2003). Zuidnederlandse Archeologische Rapporten 31. Amsterdam: ACVU-HBS. Desbrosse, V. (2008) ‘Bazancourt-Pomacle. “Distillerie Cristanol” ’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Champagne-Ardenne 2004: 93–5. Desbrosse, V. and Peltier, V. (2010) ‘Pont-sur-Seine Le Haut de Launoy: premier aperçu des fouilles 2009 et 2010’, Internéo 8: 111–16. Desbrosse, V. and Riquier, V. (2012) ‘Les établissements ruraux palissadés Hallstattiens en Champagne’. In: M. Schönfelder and S. Sievers (eds) L’âge du Fer entre le Champagne et la vallée du Rhin. 34e colloque international de l’Association française pour l’étude de l’âge du Fer du 13 au 16 mai 2010 à Aschaffenburg: 3–27. Mainz: Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum. Desbrosse, V., Degobertière, S., Riquier, V., Wattez, J., Langry-François, F. and Wiethold, J. (2010) ‘Un cas de crémation au Néolithique récent. Le bûcher de Buchères (Aube)’. In: C. Billard and M. Legris (eds) Premiers Néolithiques de l’Ouest: 441–52. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

References

377

Desenne, S., Blancquaert, G., Gaudefroy, S., Gransar, M., Hénon, B. and Soupart, N. (2009) ‘Implantation et occupation des espaces funéraires au second âge du Fer en Picardie’, Revue archéologique de Picardie 2009 (3–4): 25–45. Desfossés, Y. ed. (2000) Archéologie préventive en vallée de Canche. Les sites protohistoriques fouillés dans le cadre de la réalisation de l’autoroute A16. Berck-sur-Mer: CDRAC. Desfossés, Y. and Lefebvre, P. (2000) ‘L’enclos ovalaire du Bronze ancien d’Etaples’. In: Y. Desfossés (ed.) Archéologie préventive en vallée de Canche. Les sites protohistoriques fouillés dans le cadre de la réalisation de l’autoroute A16: 60–105. Berck-sur-Mer: CDRAC. Desfossés, Y. and Masson, B. (1992) ‘Les enclos funéraires du « Motel » à Fresnes-lèsMontauban (Pas-de-Calais)’, Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française 89 (10–12): 303–42. Desfossés, Y., Martial, E. and Vallin, L. (1992) ‘Le site d’habitat du Bronze Moyen du « Château d’eau » à Roeux (Pas-de-Calais)’, Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française 89(10–12): 343–92. Desideri, J. and Besse, M. (2010) ‘Swiss Bell Beaker population dynamics: eastern or southern influences’, Archaeological and anthropological sciences 2: 157–73. Dibbern, H. and Hage, F. (2010) ‘Erdwerk und Megalithgräber in der Region Albersdorf. Vorbericht zu den Grabungskampagnen am Dieksknöll und am Brutkamp’, Archäologische Nachrichten aus Schleswig-Holstein 16: 34–7. Dickers, A. (2008) ‘Der letzte Weg: von Pfosten gesäumt’. In: D. Bérenger and C. Grünewald (eds) Westfalen in der Bronzezeit: 131–2. Münster: Landschaftsverband Westfalen-Lippe. Dickmann, E. (2005) ‘4000 Jahre Siedlungsgeschichte in Borken-Hovesath. Die archäologische Ausgrabung “Borken-Südwest” 1998 bis 2004’, Westmünsterland. Jahrbuch des Kreises Borken 2005: 91–7. Dickmann, E. and Kiltz, S. (2010) ‘10 Jahre Ausgrabungen in Borken-Südwest’, Archäologie in Westfalen-Lippe 2009: 162–5. Diepeveen-Jansen, M. (2001) People, goods and ideas: new perspectives on ‘Celtic barbarians’ in western and central Europe (500–250 BC). Amsterdam Archaeological Studies 7. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Dietler, M. (1994) ‘“Our ancestors the Gauls”: archaeology, ethnic nationalism, and the manipulation of Celtic identity in modern Europe’, American Anthropologist 96: 584–605. Dirks, U. (2000) Die Bernburger Kultur in Niedersachsen. Beiträge zur Archäologie in Niedersachsen 1. Rahden: Marie Leidorf. Dirks, U. (2001) ‘Ein Mauerkammergrab der jungneolithischen Bernburger Kultur auf dem Hohberg bei Remlingen Ldkr. Wolfenbüttel’, Nachrichten aus Niedersachsens Urgeschichte 70: 105–39. Dobay, A. (2013) ‘Between rescue and research: an evaluation after 30 years of liberal metal detecting in archaeological research and heritage practice in Denmark’, European Journal of Archaeology 16: 704–25. Dobney, K. and Ervynck, A. (2007) ‘To fish or not to fish? Evidence for the possible avoidance of fish consumption during the Iron Age around the North Sea’. In: C. Haselgrove and R. Pope (eds) The earlier Iron Age in Britain and beyond: 403–18. Oxford: Oxbow.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

378

References

Dubouloz, J., Bostyn, F., Chartier, M., Cottiaux, R. and Le Bolloch, M. (2005) ‘La préhistoire récente’, Revue archéologique de Picardie 2005: 63–98. Dubreucq, E. (2007) ‘Le petit mobilier en fer des habitats du Hallstatt D-La Tène A: un mobilier sous-exploité’. In: P.-Y. Milcent (ed.) L’économie du fer protohistorique: de la production à la consommation du métal, XXVIIIe colloque de l’Association française pour l’étude de l’âge du Fer, Toulouse, 20–23 mai 2004: 329–54. Bordeaux: Aquitania supplément 14/2. Ducrocq, T. (2005) ‘Le Mésolithique’, Revue archéologique de Picardie 2005: 40–9; 57–61. Dugois, F., Fechner, K. and Raynaud, K. (2004) ‘Dampierre le Château “Liévaux”: un bâtiment trapézoïdal de la 2ème moitié du quatrième millénaire découvert dans l’Argonne marnaise: premiers résultats’, Internéo 4: 9–11. Dujardin, V. (2009) ‘Mesolithic of Poitou-Charentes (France): review of 15 research years’. In: P. Crombé, M. Van Strydonck, J. Sergant, M. Boudin and M. Bats (eds) Chronology and evolution within the Mesolithic of north-west Europe: proceedings of an international meeting, Brussels, May 30th–June 1st 2007: 325–44. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars. Dunikowski, C. (1999a) ‘La Bazoge. La Jousserie’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Paysde-la-Loire 1997: 57. Dunikowski, C. (1999b) ‘La Bazoge. Les Trois-Couleurs’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Pays-de-la-Loire 1997: 61–2. Durost, S. and Lambert, G. (2007) ‘Révision dendrochronologique de la datation du Nord de la France à l’âge du fer et au début de l’époque romaine’. In: P. Barral, A. Daubigny, C. Dunning, G. Kaenel and M.-J. Roulière-Lambert (eds) L’âge du Fer dans l’arc jurassien et ses marges. Dépôts, lieux sacrés et territorialité à l’âge du Fer. Actes du XXIXe colloque international de l’Association française pour l’étude de l’âge du Fer (Bienne (Suisse), 5–8 mai 2005): 19–36, Annales Littéraires de l’Université de Franche-Comté 826. Besançon: Presses universitaires de Franche-Comté. Durost, R., Bataille, G., Saurel, M. and Méniel, P. (2012) ‘Le sanctuaire laténien de Semoine, « Voie Palon » (Aube)’, Revue Archéologique de l’Est 61: 55–96. Duvivier, H., Sergent, A., Severin, C. and Gaillard, D. (2006) Hordain ‘La Fosse à Loups’. Rapport final de synthèse. Douai: Communauté d’Agglomération du Douaisis. Earle, T. K. and Kolb, M. J. (2010) ‘Regional settlement patterns’. In: T. K. Earle and K. Kristiansen (eds) Organizing Bronze Age societies: the Mediterranean, Central Europe, and Scandinavia compared: 57–86. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Earle, T. K. and Kristiansen, K. eds (2010) Organizing Bronze Age societies: the Mediterranean, Central Europe, and Scandinavia compared. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ebbesen, K. (2007) Danske dysser. Copenhagen: Attika. Edmonds, M., Evans, C. and Gibson, D. (1999) ‘Assembly and collection – lithic complexes in the Cambridgeshire Fenlands’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 65: 47–87. Edwards, K. (1998) ‘Detection of human impact on the natural environment’. In: J. Bayley (ed.) Science in archaeology: an agenda for the future: 69–88. London: English Heritage. Egebjerg, T. (2004) ‘Høje og hjulspor i tusindvis – færdsel i det vestjyske landskab’, Fra Ringkøbing Amts Museer 2004: 44–51.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

References

379

Ehrenreich, R. M. (1991) ‘Metalworking in Iron Age Britain: hierarchy or heterarchy?’. In: R. M. Ehrenreich (ed.) Metals in society: theory beyond analysis: 21–94. Philadelphia: MASCA Research Papers in Science and Archaeology 8.2. Eisenschmidt, S. (2000) ‘Ein Grabhügel des Spätneolithikums und der frühen Bronzezeit bei Bevtoft’, Archäologie in Schleswig/Arkæologi i Slesvig 8: 43–54. Eisenschmidt, S. (2006) ‘Die Ergebnisse einer größeren Siedlungsgrabung in Askov bei Vejen’, Archäologie in Schleswig/Arkæologi i Slesvig 11: 59–66. Ellis, C. and Rawlings, M. (2001) ‘Excavations at Balksbury Camp, Andover, 1995–97’, Proceedings of the Hampshire Field Club and Archaeological Society 56: 21–94. Ellison, A. (1978) ‘The Bronze Age of Sussex’. In: P. Drewett (ed.) The archaeology of Sussex to AD 1500: 30–7. London: Council for British Archaeology. Ellison, A. (1980) ‘Deveral Rimbury urn cemeteries – the evidence for social organisation’. In: J. Barrett and R. Bradley (eds) Settlement and society in the British Later Bronze Age: 115–26. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Ellison, A. (1981) ‘Towards a socio-economic model for the Middle Bronze Age in southern England’. In: I. Hodder, G. Isaac and N. Hammond (eds) Pattern of the past: 413–36. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Endrigkeit, A. (2010) Bronzezeitliche Depotfunde in Schleswig-Holstein. Universitätsforschungen Prähistorischer Archäologie 178. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt. Eogan, G. (1964) ‘The Later Bronze Age in Ireland in the light of recent research’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 30: 268–351. Eogan, G. (1986) Knowth and the passage tombs of Ireland. London: Thames and Hudson. Eogan, G. and Roche, H. (1997) Excavations at Knowth, 2. Dublin: Royal Irish Academy. Eogan, J. (2004) ‘The construction of funerary mounds in the Irish Early Bronze Age: a review of the evidence’. In: H. Roche, E. Grogan, J. Bradley, J. Coles and B. Raftery (eds) From megaliths to metals: essays in honour of George Eogan: 56–60. Oxford: Oxbow. Eriksen, P. and Rindel, P. (2003) ‘Eine befestigte Siedlung der jüngeren vorrömischen Eisenzeit bei Lyngsmose’, Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 33: 123–43. Eriksen, P. and Rindel, P. (2005) ‘Den vestjyske borg’, Skalk 2005(1): 5–10. Eriksson, G. and Zagorska, I. (2003) ‘Do dogs eat like humans: marine stable isotope signals in dog teeth from inland Zvejnieki’. In: L. Larsson, H. Kindgren, K. Knutsson, D. Leoffler and A. Åkerlund (eds) Mesolithic on the move: papers presented at the Sixth International Conference on the Mesolithic in Europe, Stockholm 2000: 160–8. Oxford: Oxbow. Escats, Y. ed. (2007) Lannion ‘Zone artisanale de Bel Air’ (Côtes d’Armor—Bretagne). Mise en évidence d’une occupation de l’âge du Bronze ancien/moyen. CessonSévigné: INRAP GO. Escats, Y. (2009) Ploulec’h, zone artisanale de Bel Air: rapport de diagnostic. Cesson-Sévigné: INRAP GO. Escats, Y. (2011) ‘Une enceinte et une nécropole de l’âge du Bronze à Lannion’, Archéopages 33: 26–7. Essink, M. and Hielkema, J. (1998) ‘Rituele depositie van bronzen voorwerpen in Noord-Nederland’, Palaeohistoria 39/40: 277–321. Ethelberg, P. (2000) ‘Bronzealder’. In: P. Ethelberg, E. Jørgensen, D. Meier and D. Robinson (eds) Det Sønderjyske landbrugs historie. Sten- og Bronzealder: 135–280. Haderslev: Haderslev Museum.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

380

References

Ethelberg, P. (2003) ‘Gården og landsbyen i jernalder og vikingetid (500 f.Kr.–1000 e.Kr.)’. In: P. Ethelberg, N. Hardt, B. Poulsen and A. B. Sørensen (eds) Det Sønderjyske landbrugs historie. Jernalder, vikingetid og middelalder: 123–373. Haderslev: Haderslev Museum. Ethelberg, P., Jørgensen, E., Meier, D. and Robinson, D. (2000) Det Sønderjyske landbrugs historie. Sten- og Bronzealder. Haderslev: Haderslev Museum. Evans, A. (1890) ‘On a late-Celtic urn-field at Aylesford, Kent’, Archaeologia 52: 315–88. Evans, C., Appleby, G. and Lucy, S. (2014) Lives in land—Mucking excavations by Margaret and Tom Jones 1965–78: prehistory, context and summary. Cambridge: Cambridge Archaeological Unit. Evans, C., Brudenell, M., Patten, R. and Regan, R. (2013) Process and history: Prehistoric communities at Colne Fen, Earith. Cambridge: Cambridge Archaeological Unit. Evans, C., Tabor, J. and Vander Linden, M. (2009) ‘The Over Narrows – Bronze and Iron Age settlement at Over, Cambridgeshire: an interim appraisal’, Lunula. Archaeologia Protohistorica 17: 7–13. Evans, J. A., Chenery, A. and Fitzpatrick, A. P. (2006) ‘Bronze Age childhood migration of individuals near Stonehenge, revealed by strontium and isotope tooth enamel analysis’, Archaeometry 48: 309–21. Exon, S., Gaffney, V., Woodward, A. and Yorston, R. (2000) Stonehenge landscapes. Oxford: Archaeopress. Falkenstein, F. (2005) ‘Zu den Gewässerfunden der älteren Urnenfelderzeit in Süddeutschland’. In: B. Horejs, R. Jung, E. Kaiser and B. Teržan (eds) Interpretationsraum Bronzezeit. Bernhard Hänsel von seinen Schülern gewidmet: 491–504. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt. Falkenstein, F. (2006) ‘Neues zum Goldhut von Schifferstadt’, Archäologie in Deutschland 2006(6): 53. Falkenström, P. (2003) ‘Mesolithic territorial behaviours in Central Sweden and adjacent regions’. In: L. Larsson, H. Kindgren, K. Knutsson, D. Leoffler and A. Åkerlund (eds) Mesolithic on the move: papers presented at the Sixth International Conference on the Mesolithic in Europe, Stockholm 2000: 316–22. Oxford: Oxbow. Farley, J., Parfitt, K. and Richardson, A. (2014) ‘An Iron Age helmet burial from Bridge, near Canterbury, Kent’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 80, 1–10. Fath, B. and Wesemael, E. (2008) Archeologische opgraving aan de Schildstraat te Kleine-Spouwen. Onderzoek uitgevoerd in opdracht van Vandersanden Steenfabriek nv. Aron-rapport 37. Sint-Truiden: Aron. Faye, O. (1999) ‘Ennery. Garolor’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Lorraine 1997: 69. Fémolant, J.-M. (2006) ‘Beauvais. Le Brin de Glaine - ZAC du Haut-Villé 2ème tranche’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Picardie 2004: 59–60. Fenton-Thomas, C. (2011) Where sky and Yorkshire and water meet: the story of the Melton landscape from prehistory to the present. York: On-Site Archaeology Monograph 2. Ferdière, A. and Villard, A. eds (1993) La tombe augustéenne de Fléré-la-Rivière (Indre) et les sépultures aristocratiques de la cité des Bituriges. Tours: Revue Archéologique du Centre de la France 7ème supplément. Fernández-Götz, M. and Krausse, D. (2013) ‘Rethinking early Iron Age urbanisation in Central Europe: the Heuneburg site and its archaeological environment’, Antiquity 87: 473–87.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

References

381

Ferrette, R. ed. (2008) Plédéliac (22) Nord du Bourg (parcelle 116 section AI). CessonSévigné: INRAP GO. Feveile, C. and Bennike, P. (2002) ‘Lustrupholm. Et brandgravfelt fra ældre bronzealder under flad mark’, Kuml 2002: 109–41. Fichtl, S. (2004) Les peuples Gaulois. IIIe–Ie siècles av. J.-C. Paris: Éditions Errance. Fichtl, S. (2005) La ville celtique. Les oppida de 150 av. J.-C. à 15 ap. J.-C. 2nd edition. Paris: Éditions Errance. Fichtl, S. (2007) ‘Le murus gallicus de Vesontio (Besançon, Doubs): topographie et architecture’. In: P. Barral, A. Daubigny, C. Dunning, G. Kaenel and M.-J. RoulièreLambert (eds) L’âge du Fer dans l’arc jurassien et ses marges. Dépôts, lieux sacrés et territorialité à l’âge du Fer. Actes du XXIXe colloque international de l’Association française pour l’étude de l’âge du Fer (Bienne (Suisse), 5–8 mai 2005): 161–8, Annales Littéraires de l’Université de Franche-Comté 826. Besançon: Presses universitaires de Franche-Comté. Fichtl, S. (2009) ‘La villa gallo-romaine, un modèle gaulois? Réflexions sur un plan canonique’. In: S. Grunwald, J. K. Koch, D. Mölders, U. Sommer and S. Wolfram (eds) Artefact. Festschrift für Sabine Rieckhoff zum 65. Geburtstag: 439–48. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt. Fichtl, S. (2013a) ‘À propos des résidences aristocratiques de la fin de l’âge du fer’. In: S. Krausz, A. Colin, K. Gruel, I. Ralston and T. Dechezleprêtre (eds) L’Âge du Fer en Europe: Mélanges offerts à Olivier Buchsenschutz: 329–43. Bordeaux: Ausonius Éditions Mémoires 32. Fichtl, S. (2013b) ‘Les agglomérations gauloises de la fin de l’âge du fer en Europe celtique (IIIe–Ier siècles av. J.-C.)’. In: D. Garcia (ed.) L’habitat en Europe celtique et en méditerranée préclassique: 19–43. Paris: Éditions Errance. Fichtl, S. and Pierrevelcin, G. (2005) ‘Nouvelles éléments pour une chronologie de l’oppidum du fossé des Pandours au col de Saverne (Bas-Rhin)’. In: S. Fichtl (ed.) Hiérarchie de l’habitat rural dans le Nord-Est de la Gaule à La Tène moyenne et finale: 417–38. Metz: Archaeologia Mosellana 6. Fichtl, S., Cony, A., Forget, C. and Wassong, R. (2013c) ‘Un nouveau bâtiment dans la villa gauloise de Batilly-en-Gâtinais (Loiret)’, Bulletin de l’Association française pour l’étude de l’âge du Fer 31: 61–3. Fiedler, L. (1991) ‘Eine befestigte Siedlung der Jungsteinzeit bei Wittelsberg, Kreis Marburg-Biedenkopf. Zur Archaologie des 4. und 3. Jahrtausends vor Christus’, Denkmalpflege in Hessen 1991(2): 23–7. Field, D. (2001) ‘Place and memory in Bronze Age Wessex’. In: J. Brück (ed.) Bronze Age landscapes: tradition and transformation: 157–65. Oxford: Oxbow. Field, N. and Parker Pearson, M. (2003) Fiskerton: An Iron Age timber causeway with Iron Age and Roman votive offerings. Oxford: Oxbow. Fily, M., Villard-Le Tiec, A., Ménez, Y. and Lorho, T. (2012) ‘Paysages funéraires de l’âge du Bronze dans le centre-ouest de la Bretagne: approches multiscalaires’. In: D. Bérenger, J. Bourgeois, M. Talon and S. Wirth (eds) Gräberlandschaften der Bronzezeit: 59–76, Bodenaltertümer Westfalens 51. Darmstadt: Philipp von Zabern. Fischer, A. (2003) ‘Trapping up rivers and trading across the sea – a step towards the Neolithicisation of Denmark’. In: L. Larsson, H. Kindgren, K. Knutsson, D. Leoffler and A. Åkerlund (eds) Mesolithic on the move: papers presented at the Sixth

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

382

References

International Conference on the Mesolithic in Europe, Stockholm 2000: 405–13. Oxford: Oxbow. Fischer, A., Richards, M., Olsen, J., Robinson, D. E., Bennike, P., Kubiak-Martens, L. and Heinemeier, J. (2007) ‘The composition of Mesolithic food: evidence from the submerged settlement on Argus bank, Denmark’, Acta Archaeologica 78(2): 163–78. Fitzpatrick, A. (2001) ‘Cross-Channel exchange, Hengistbury Head and the end of hillforts’. In: J. R. Collis (ed.) Society and settlement in Iron Age Europe. Actes du XVIIIe colloque de l’Association française pour l’étude de l’âge du Fer, Winchester: 82–97. Sheffield: Sheffield Archaeological Monograph. Fitzpatrick, A. (2011) The Amesbury archer and the Boscombe bowmen—Bell Beaker burials at Boscombe Down, Amesbury, Wiltshire. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Fitzpatrick, A. (2012) ‘Development-led archaeology in the United Kingdom: a view from AD 2010’. In: L. Webley, M. Vander Linden, C. Haselgrove and R. Bradley (eds) Development-led archaeology in North-West Europe: proceedings of a round table at the University of Leicester 19th–21st November 2009: 139–56. Oxford: Oxbow. Fitzpatrick, A. (2013) ‘Republican amphorae in Iron Age Britain’. In: F. Olmer (ed.) Itinéraires des vins Romains en Gaule IIIe–Ier siècles avant J.-C. Confrontation de faciès: 327–43. Lattes: Monographies d’Archéologie Méditerranéenne Hors-Série 5. Fleming, A. (1987) ‘Coaxial field systems: some questions of time and space’, Antiquity 61: 188–202. Fleming, A. (2008) The Dartmoor Reaves: investigating prehistoric land divisions. 2nd edition. Oxford: Windgather. Flindt, S. (2009) ‘Gefunden an einem besonderen Ort. Die Toten aus der Lichtensteinhöhle bei Osterode am Harz’, Archäologie in Niedersachsen 12: 41–5. Flindt, S. (2010) ‘Die Menschen aus der Lichtensteinhöhle’. In: M. Knaut and R. Schwab (eds) Archäologie im 21. Jahrhundert: 22–9. Stuttgart: Archäologie in Deutschland Sonderheft Plus 2010. Flotté, D., Ghesquière, E., Giazzon, D., Marcigny, C., Ménager, L. and Vipard, L. (2012) ‘Nouveaux parcellaires et habitats du Bronze ancien/moyen en BasseNormandie: les fouilles de 2010’, Bulletin de l’Association pour la Promotion des Recherches sur l’Âge du Bronze 10: 82–90. Flouest, J.-L. (2007) ‘Approches quantitatives de la production de fer sur le site hallstattien de Bragny-sur-Saône’. In: P.-Y. Milcent (ed.) L’économie du fer protohistorique: de la production à la consommation du métal, XXVIIIe colloque de l’Association française pour l’étude de l’âge du Fer, Toulouse, 20–23 mai 2004: 265–70. Bordeaux: Aquitania supplément 14/2. Fock, H. and Remy, H. (2012) ‘L’opération archéologique sur le tracé de la ligne à grande vitesse en Wallonie et plus particulièrement entre Hélécine et la frontière allemande. Premiers apports et interprétations’. In: J. Bofinger and D. Krausse (eds) Large-scale excavations in Europe: fieldwork strategies and scientific outcome: 103–13. Brussels: Europae Archaeologia Consilium. Fock, H., Goffioul, C. and Cornélusse, F. (1998) ‘Fouille d’un habitat rubané à Remicourt au lieu-dit Fond de Momalle secteur III’, Notae Praehistoricae 1998: 121–9. Fokkens, H. (1997) ‘The genesis of urnfields: economic or ideological change?’, Antiquity 71: 360–73.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

References

383

Fokkens, H. (2005) ‘Longhouses in unsettled settlements: settlements in Beaker period and Bronze Age’. In: L. P. Louwe Kooijmans, P. W. van den Broeke, H. Fokkens and A. L. van Gijn (eds) The prehistory of the Netherlands, Volume 1: 407–28. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Fontijn, D. (2002) Sacrificial landscapes: cultural biographies of persons, objects and ‘natural’ places in the Bronze Age of the southern Netherlands. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 33/34. Leiden: University of Leiden. Fontijn, D. (2007) ‘The significance of “invisible” places’, World Archaeology 39: 70–83. Fontijn, D. ed. (2010) Living near the dead: the barrow excavations at Rhenen-Elst: two millennia of burial and habitation on the Utrechste Heuvelrug. Leiden: Sidestone Press. Fontijn, D. and Fokkens, H. (2007) ‘The emergence of Early Iron Age “chieftains’ graves” in the southern Netherlands: reconsidering transformations in burial and depositional practices’. In: C. Haselgrove and R. Pope (eds) The earlier Iron Age in Britain and beyond: 354–73. Oxford: Oxbow. Fox, C. (1932) The personality of Britain: its influence on inhabitant and invader in prehistoric and early historic times. Cardiff: National Museum of Wales. Framework Archaeology (2008) From hunter gatherers to huntsmen: a history of the Stansted landscape. Oxford and Salisbury: Framework Archaeology. Framework Archaeology (2010) Lansdcape evolution in the middle Thames Valley: Heathrow Terminal 5 excavations, Volume 2. Oxford/Salisbury: Oxford Archaeology/Wessex Archaeology. Franck, J. (2010) ‘Les sépultures campaniformes de Pouilly “ZAC Chèvre Haie” (Moselle)’. In: C. Jeunesse and A. Denaire (eds) Du Néolithique final au Bronze ancien dans le Nord-Est de la France. Actualité de la recherche: 5–30. Strasbourg: Association pour la Promotion de la Recherche Archéologique en Alsace. Frank, K. and Keller, C. (2007) ‘Jüchen-Neuholz. Vom eisenzeitlichen Gehöft zur Villa rustica’. In: G. Uelsberg (ed.) Krieg und Frieden: Kelter-Römer-Germanen: 316–24. Bonn/Darmstadt: Primus. Frébutte, C. (1996–7) ‘Chièvres/Ladeuze: hameau laténien et vestiges gallo-romains’, Chronique de l’Archéologie Wallonne 4–5: 60. Fredengren, C. (2002) Crannogs. Bray: Wordwell. French, C., Lewis, H., Allen, M., Green, M., Scaife, R. and Gardiner, J. (2007) Prehistoric landscape development and human impact in the upper Allen Valley, Cranborne Chase, Dorset. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Frénée, E. (2008) A85 (Indre-et-Loire), Sublaines, Le Grand Orneau: rapport de fouilles. Pantin: INRAP CIF. Frénée, E. (2009) La nécropole laténienne de Courtenay: ‘Les Quatre Croix’ (LoiretCentre): rapport de fouilles. Pantin: INRAP CIF. Freudenberg, M. (2008a) ‘Grab und Kultanlage der älteren Bronzezeit von Hüsby, Kr. Schleswig-Flensburg, und erste Überlegungen zu überregionalen Beziehungen’, Archäologie in Schleswig/Arkæologi i Slesvig 12: 53–68. Freudenberg, M. (2008b) ‘Grabhügel und Kultanlage der Älteren Bronzezeit von Hüsby, Kreis Schleswig-Flensburg’, Archäologische Nachrichten aus SchleswigHolstein 14: 30–2. Freudenberg, M. (2012) ‘Grab und Kultanlage der älteren Bronzezeit von Hüsby, Kreis Schleswig-Flensburg – rituelle Landschaft oder eine Demonstration der Macht am

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

384

References

Verbindungsweg zwischen Jütischer Halbinsel und Norddeutschland?’. In: D. Bérenger, J. Bourgeois, M. Talon and S. Wirth (eds) Gräberlandschaften der Bronzezeit: 619–39, Bodenaltertümer Westfalens 51. Darmstadt: Philipp von Zabern. Frey, M. (2000) ‘Die Römische villa von Borg. Ein reiches Landgut mit vorrömischer Tradition’. In: A. Haffner and S. von Schnurbein (eds) Kelten, Germanen, Römer im Mittelgebirgsraum zwischen Luxemburg und Thüringen: 41–50. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt. Frey, M. (2007) ‘Die spätkeltische Vorgängersiedlung der Villa von Borg’. In: R. Gleser (ed.) Zwischen Mosel und Morava—Neue Grabungen un Forschungen zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte Mitteleuropas: 285–325, Saarbrücker Studien und Materialien zur Altertumskunde 11. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt. Friboulet, M. (2009) ‘La céramique des cimetières d’Acy-Romance (Ardennes): choix, assemblages et usages’, Revue archéologique de Picardie 2009 (3–4): 223–32. Friboulet, M. (2013) Le Site Protohistorique d’Acy-Romance (Ardennes)—V. Les cimetières du village Gauloise. Reims: Mémoire de la Société archéologique champenoise 21. Fries-Knoblach, J. (2001) Gerätschaften, Verfahren und Bedeutung der eisenzeitlichen Salzsiederei in Mitel- und Nordwesteuropa. Leipzig: Leipziger Forschungen zur urund frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie 2. Fritsch, T. (2010a) ‘Ein spätlatènezeitliches Waffengrab aus dem Gräberfeld “Ringgraben” bei Hermeskeil, Lkr. Trier-Saarburg’. In: S. Hornung (ed.) Mensch und Umwelt I. Archäologische und naturwissenschaftliche Forschungen zum Wandel der Kulturlandschaft um den ‘Hunnenring’ bei Otzenhausen, Gem. Nonnweiler, Lkr. St. Wendel: 133–54, Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 192. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt. Fritsch, T. (2010b) ‘Zehn Jahre archäologische Forschungen am keltischen Ringwall Otzenhausen – die neuesten Ergebnisse im Überblick’. Kelten und Römer im Sankt Wendeler Land: 27–79, TERREX gGmbH. Marpingen: Edition Schaumberg. Fromont, N. (2006) ‘Un site d’acquisition du schiste pour la fabrication des anneaux au Néolithique ancien à Saint-Germain-du-Corbéis “l’Ermitage” (Orne)’, Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française 103(1): 49–70. Fromont, N., Hérard, A. and Hérard, B. (2009) ‘Falaise. Expansia II - Lot 2’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Basse-Normandie 2008: 41–3. Frost, L. (2008) Depotfundene i Himmerlands yngre bronzealder i et landskabsarkæologisk perspektiv. PhD thesis, Aarhus University. Frost, L. (2010) ‘Flod-fund’, Skalk 2010(2): 11–15. Fulford, M., Clarke, A., Pankhurst, N. and Lucas, S. (2013) Silchester Insula IX. The ‘Town Life’ project 2012. Reading: University of Reading, Department of Archaeology. Gabillot, M. (2003) Dépôts et production métallique du Bronze moyen en France nordoccidentale. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1174. Oxford: Archaeopress. Gaffney, V., Fitch, L. and Smith, D. (2009) Europe’s lost world: the rediscovery of Doggerland. York: Council for British Archaeology. Gaffrey, J. (2004) ‘Ein Brandgräberfeld der jüngeren Bronze-/älteren vorrömischen Eisenzeit in Vreden, Westmünsterland’, Jahrbuch des Kreises Borken 2004: 91–6. Gaffrey, J. (2005) ‘Ein Brandgräberfeld der Bronze- und Eisenzeit in Vreden’. In: H. Horn, H. Hellenkemper, G. Isenberg and J. Kunow (eds) Von Anfang an. Archäologie in Nordrhein-Westfalen: 342–5. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

References

385

Gaillard, D. (2004) ‘Masnières. Les Hauts de Masnières’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Nord-Pas-de-Calais 2003: 72. Gaitzsch, W. and Janssens, J. (2009) ‘Eine späteisenzeitliche Befestigung in AltEtzweiler’, Archäologie im Rheinland 2008: 68–70. Galaty, M. (2005) ‘European regional studies: a coming of age?’, Journal of Archaeological Research 13: 291–336. Gallien, V. and Aubry, B. (1999) ‘La Bazoge. La Maison-Neuve – La Grande Arrachée’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Pays-de-la-Loire 1997: 58. Galtié, E. (2007) Les enclos circulaires de Monregner. Magnac-sur-Touvre (Charente—16). Rapport de fouille. Pessac: INRAP GSO. Gardiner, J., Allen, M. J., Hamilton-Dyer, S., Laidlaw, M. and Scaife, R. G. (2002) ‘Making the most of it: late prehistoric pastoralism in the Avon Levels, Severn Estuary’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 68: 1–40. Garner, J. and Stöllner, T. (2005) ‘Eisen im Siegerland - Das latènezeitliche Produktionsensemble von Siegen-Niederschelden’. In: H. Horn, H. Hellenkemper, G. Isenberg and J. Kunow (eds) Von Anfang an. Archäologie in NordrheinWestfalen: 355–8. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Garrow, D. (2007) ‘Placing pits: landscape, occupation and depositional practice during the Neolithic in East Anglia’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 73: 1–24. Garrow, D. and Gosden, C. (2012) Technologies of enchantment? Exploring Celtic art 400 BC to AD 100. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Garrow, D., Gosden, C., Hill, J. D. and Bronk Ramsey, C. (2009) ‘Dating Celtic art: a major radiocarbon dating programme of Iron Age and early Roman metalwork in Britain’, Archaeological Journal 166: 79–123. Garwood, P. (2003) ‘Round barrows and funerary traditions in Late Neolithic and Bronze Sussex’. In: D. Rudling (ed.) The archaeology of Sussex to AD 2000: 47–68. Great Dunham: Heritage Marketing and Publications. Garwood, P. (2007) ‘Before the hills in order stood: chronology, time and history in the interpretation of Early Bronze Age round barrows’. In: J. Last (ed.) Beyond the grave: new perspectives on barrows: 30–52. Oxford: Oxbow. Gascoyne, A. and Radford, D. (2013) Colchester, fortress of the war god: an archaeological assessment. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Gaudefroy, S. (2003a) ‘Croixrault – A.29. L’Aérodrome’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Picardie 2002: 107–8. Gaudefroy, S. (2003b) ‘Fricamps – A. 29. La Cramaillère’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Picardie 2002: 110–11. Gaudefroy, S. (2009) ‘Glisy. ZAC de La Croix de Fer – Les Quatre’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Picardie 2007: 136. Gaudefroy, S. (2011) ‘Les sites de La Tène moyenne à La Tène finale sur les tracés linéaires en Picardie: questions métholodiques et résultats scientifiques’, Revue archéologique de Picardie 2011 (3–4): 201–66. Gaudefroy, S. and Pinard, E. (2009) ‘Glisy ZAC de la Croix de Fer - secteur Est – Les Quatre - secteur H, D, E et F’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Picardie 2007: 133–6. Geary, B. R., Chapman, H. P., Howard, A. J., Krawiec, K., Bamforth, M., Fletcher, W. G., Hill, T. C. B., Marshall, P., Tetlow, E. and Tyers, I. (2011) ‘Beccles triple post

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

386

References

alignment, Beccles Marshes, Suffolk: excavation and palaeoenvironmental analyses of an Iron Age wetland site’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 77: 231–50. Gebers, W. (2009) ‘Rullstorf - Abschluss der langjährigen und erfolgreichen Grabungen’, Berichte zur Denkmalpflege in Niedersachsen 2009(4): 126–31. Gechter-Jones, J. and Kempken, F. (2007) ‘Kelten-Römer-Germanen. Die Besiedlung des Fundplatzes Bonn, Vilich-Müldorf ’, Archäologie im Rheinland 2006: 79–82. Geerdink, C. (2012) Multi-isotope analysis on Iron Age populations in the Netherlands. MSc thesis, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Geertz, N. (2006) ‘Nr. Uttrup - et langhus fra senneolitikum’, Nordjyllands Historiske Museum Årsberetning 2006: 32–4. Geilenbrügge, U. (2009) ‘Siedlungen der Bronzezeit und ein Hortfund im Indetal’, Archäologie im Rheinland 2008: 58–60. Geilenbrügge, U. and Schürmann, W. (2010) ‘Ein zweiter bronzezeitlicher Herrenhof im Indetal bei Altdorf ’, Archäologie im Rheinland 2009: 52–4. Geilenbrügge, U. and Schürmann, W. (2012) ‘Erste metallzeitliche Gräber im Indetal’, Archäologie im Rheinland: 81–3. Georges, P. and Hamon, T. (2004) ‘La nécropole de l’âge du Bronze des Pâtures à Saumeray (Eure-et-Loir): mise en évidence de gestes funéraires originaux’, Revue archéologique du Centre de la France 43: 5–20. Gerken, K. (2010) ‘Steinzeit im Wald’, Archäologie in Deutschland 2010(5): 46–7. Germain-Vallée, C. (2005) ‘RD 562. Saint-Martin-de-Fontenay. La Grande Chasse’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Basse-Normandie 2004: 57–9. Germain-Vallée, C. (2007) ‘L’enclos funéraire de l’Âge du Bronze de Saint-Martin-deFontenay (Calvados, Basse-Normandie)’, Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française 104(3): 565–81. Germinet, D. (2009) ‘Apport de la faune sauvage dans la caractérisation de l’établissement rural latènien des Genâts à Fontenay-le-Comte (Vendée)’. In: I. Bertrand, A. Duval, J. Gomez De Soto and P. Maguer (eds) Les Gaulois entre Loire et Dordogne. Actes du XXXI colloque international de l’Association Française pour l’Étude de l’Âge du Fer: 181–97. Chauvigny: Association des publications chauvinoises Mémoire 34. Gerrets, D. A. and de Leeuw, R. (2011) Rituelen aan de Maas. Een archeologische opgraving te Lomm, Hoogwatergeul fase II. ADC Rapport 2333. Amersfoort: ADC ArcheoProjecten. Gerritsen, F. (2003) Local identities: landscape and community in the late prehistoric Meuse-Demer-Scheldt region. Amsterdam Archaeological Studies 9. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Gerritsen, F. and Roymans, N. (2006) ‘Central places and the construction of tribal identities: the case of the late Iron Age Lower Rhine region’. In: C. Haselgrove (ed.) Les mutations de la fin de l’âge du Fer: 251–66. Glux-en-Glenne: Collection Bibracte 12/4. Ghesquière, E. (2007) ‘Banville. CD no 112a de Crépon à Banville’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Basse-Normandie 2006: 23–4. Ghesquière, E. (2010) Luc-sur-Mer, un système d’enclos de l’âge du Bronze: rapport de diagnostic. Cesson-Sévigné: INRAP GO. Ghesquière, E., Giazzon, D. and Marcigny, C. (2011) ‘L’enceinte Néolithique Moyen de Goulet “Le Mont” (Orne) dans son contexte environnemental’. In: F. Bostyn, E. Martial and I. Praud (eds) Le Néolithique du Nord de la France dans son contexte

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

References

387

européen: habitat et économie aux 4e et 3e millénaires avant notre ère. Actes du 29e colloque interrégional sur le Néolithique, Villeneuve-d’Ascq 2–3 octobre 2009: 183–205. Senlis: Revue Archéologique de Picardie Numéro Spécial 28. Ghesquière, E., Marcigny, C., Desloges, J. and Charraud, F. (2008) ‘La production de lames en silex bathonien dans la plaine de Caen: redécouverte de la minière des Longrais à Soumont-Saint-Quentin (Calvados)’, Internéo 7: 103–19. Giazzon, D. (2009) ‘Bayeux. Lotissement Bellefontaine’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Basse-Normandie 2008: 26–7. Giazzon, D. (2012a) Evolution d’un parcellaire à l’âge du Bronze ancien, Cairon. Calvados): rapport de fouille. Cesson-Sévigné: INRAP GO. Giazzon, D. (2012b) ‘Mathieu, Le Clos des Châtaigners’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Basse-Normandie 2011: 66–7. Giazzon, D. and Lepaumier, H. (2007) ‘Orval. Les Pleines’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Basse-Normandie 2006: 99–102. Gibson, A. (1982) Beaker domestic sites. British Archaeological Reports British Series 107. Oxford: Archaeopress. Gibson, A. (1999) The Walton Basin project: excavation and survey in the prehistoric landscape. York: Council for British Archaeology. Gibson, A. (2002) ‘A matter of pegs and labels: a review of some prehistoric pottery from the Milfield Basin’, Archaeologia Aeliana 30: 175–80. Gibson, A. (2005) Stonehenge and timber circles. Stroud: Tempus. Gibson, A. (2010) ‘Dating Balbirnie: recent radiocarbon dates from the stone circle at Balbirnie, Fife, and a review of its place in the Balfarg/Balbirnie site sequence’, Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 140: 51–77. Gibson, A. (2012) ‘An introduction to the study of henges: time for a change?’. In: A. Gibson (ed.) Enclosing the Neolithic: recent studies in Britain and Europe: 1–20. Oxford: Archaeopress. Gibson, A. and Bayliss, A. (2009) ‘Recent research at Duggleby Howe, North Yorkshire’, Archaeological Journal 166: 39–78. Gibson, A. and Bayliss, A. (2010) ‘Recent work on the round barrows of the upper Great Wolds Valley, Yorkshire’. In: J. Leary, T. Darvill and D. Field (eds) Round barrows and monumentality in the British Neolithic and beyond: 72–107. Oxford: Oxbow. Gibson, D., Knight, M. and Murrell, K. (2012) ‘Waterworld: Must Farm’s Bronze Age boats’, Current Archaeology 263: 13–19. Ginn, V. and Rathbone, S. (2012) Corrstown: a coast community: excavations of a Bronze Age village in Northern Ireland. Oxford: Oxbow. Ginoux, N. (2009) Élites guerrières au nord de la Seine au début du IIIe siècle av. J.-C. La nécropole celtique du Plessis-Gassot (Val-d’Oise). Revue du Nord, Hors série, Art et Archéologie no 15. Lille: Université Charles-de-Gaulle. Ginoux, N., Leman-Delerive, G. and Severin, C. (2009) ‘Le dépôt de pièces de char dans les tombes de Gaule Belgique entre le IIIe et le Ier s. avant J.-C.’, Revue archéologique de Picardie 2009 (3–4): 211–22. Giraud, P. (2005) ‘RD 562. Fontenay-le-Marmion. Le Grand Champ et le Chemin Haussé’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Basse-Normandie 2004: 55–6. Giraud, P., Marcigny, C., Lefort, A., Coupard, F. and Bernardeau, X. (2010) ‘Les sites fortifiés de hauteur de La Tène finale en Basse-Normandie’. In: P. Barral, B. Dedet,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

388

References

F. Delrieu, P. Giraud, I. Le Goff, S. Marion and A. Villard-Le Tiec (eds) L’Âge du fer en Basse-Normandie. Actes du XXXIIIe colloque de l’Association française pour l’étude de l’âge du Fer, I: 73–94. Besançon: Presses universitaires de Franche-Comté. Goffioul, C., Fock, H., Cornélusse, F., Bosquet, D. and Preud’homme, D. (1999) ‘Découverte d’un village rubané fossoyé à Voroux-Goreux (comm. de Fexhe-leHaut-Clocher) sur le tracé oriental du TGV’, Notae Praehistoricae 19: 101–6. Goldhammer, J. (2008) Untersuchungen zur Stratigraphie, Fundverteilung und zum Fundspektrum der mittleren Ertebøllekultur in Ostholstein: die Nachgrabungen in Grube-Rosenhof aus den Jahren 2001 und 2002. Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 163. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt. Görner, I. (2002) Bestattungssitten der Hügelgräberbronzezeit in Nord- und Osthessen. Marburger Studien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte 20. Rahden: Marie Leidorf. Gouge, G. and Griffisch, J.-N. (2008) ‘Varennes-sur-Seine’. In: J.-N. Griffisch, D. Madnan and D. Mordant (eds) Seine-et-Marne. Carte Archéologique de la Gaule 77/2. Paris: Académie des inscriptions et Belles Lettres. Gourgousse, Y. (2000) ‘Bussy-Lettrée. “Le Petit Vau Bourdin, Europort Vatry” ’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Champagne-Ardenne 1998: 68. Gowen, M. (2012) ‘Frameworks for development-led archaeology in Ireland’. In: L. Webley, M. Vander Linden, C. Haselgrove and R. Bradley (eds) Developmentled archaeology in North-West Europe: proceedings of a round table at the University of Leicester 19th–21st November 2009: 157–64. Oxford: Oxbow. Gramsch, A. (2007) ‘A microarchaeological approach to the social significance of late Bronze Age burial practices: age and gender at the Lusatian urnfield of Cottbus Alversleben-Kaserne (Germany)’. In: P. Cornell and F. Fahlander (eds) Encounters | Materialities | Confrontations: archaeologies of social space and interaction: 83–99. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Press. Gransar, F. (2000) ‘Le stockage alimentaire sur les établissements ruraux de l’Âge du Fer en France septentrionale: complémentarité des structures et tendances évolutives’. In: S. Marion and G. Blanquaert (eds) Les installations agricoles de l’Âge du Fer en France septentrionale: 277–97. Paris: Etudes d’Histoire et d’Archéologie 6. Gransar, F. (2002). ‘La batterie de silos de Soupir “Le Champ Grand Jacques” (Aisne): contribution à l’identification d’une centralisation du stockage à La Tène B dans le nord de la France’. In: P. Méniel and B. Lambot (eds) Découvertes récentes de l'âge du Fer dans le massif des Ardennes et ses marges. Repas des vivants et nourriture pour les morts en Gaule. Actes du XXVe colloque international de l’Association française pour l’étude de l’âge du Fer: 67–80, Bulletin de la Société archéologique champenoise 16. Reims: Société archéologique champenoise. Gransar, F. (2004) ‘Ploisy. Le Bras de Fer – Zones 1 et 17’, Bilan Scientfique Régional Picardie 2003: 40–2. Gransar, F. and Flucher, G. (2003) ‘Ploisy. Le Bras de Fer – Zones 2, 4, 8 et 9’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Picardie 2002: 41. Gransar, F. and Pommepuy, C. (2005) ‘Bazoches-sur-Vesle “Les Chantraines” (Aisne). Présentation préliminaire de l’établissement rural aristocratique de La Tène D1’. In: G. Auxiette, M. Malrain, S. Desenne and B. Robert (eds) Hommage à Claudine Pommepuy: 193–216. Amiens: Revue Archéologique de Picardie Numéro Spécial 22.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

References

389

Gransar, F., Auxiette, G., Desenne, S., Henon, B., Malrain, F., Materne, V. and Pinard, E. (2007) ‘Expressions symboliques, manifestations rituelles et culturelles en contexte domestique au Ier millénaire avant notre ère dans le nord de la France’. In: P. Barral, A. Daubigny, C. Dunning, G. Kaenel and M.-J. Roulière-Lambert (eds) L’âge du Fer dans l’arc jurassien et ses marges. Dépôts, lieux sacrés et territorialité à l’âge du Fer. Actes du XXIXe colloque international de l’Association française pour l’étude de l’âge du Fer (Bienne (Suisse), 5–8 mai 2005): 549–64, Annales Littéraires de l’Université de Franche-Comté 826. Besançon: Presses universitaires de Franche-Comté. Gransar, F., Malrain, F. and Matterne, V. (1997) ‘Analyse spatiale d’un établissement rural à enclos fossoyés du début de La Tène finale: Jaux « Le Camp du Roi » (Oise)’. In: A. Bocquet (ed.) Espaces physiques espaces sociaux dans l’analyse interne des sites du Néolithique à l’âge du Fer: 159–81. Paris: Éditions du CTHS. Green, C. and Rollo-Smith, S. (1984) ‘The excavation of eighteen round barrows near Shrewton, Wiltshire’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 50: 255–318. Griffiths, S. (2014) ‘Points in time: the Mesolithic – Neolithic transition and the chronology of late rod microliths in Britain’, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 33: 221–43. Grimes, W. F. (1960) Excavations on defence sites, 1939–1945, 1: mainly Neolithic– Bronze Age. London: HMSO. Grogan, E. (2004) ‘Middle Bronze Age burial traditions in Ireland’. In: H. Roche, E. Grogan, J. Bradley, J. Coles and B. Raftery (eds) From megaliths to metals: essays in honour of George Eogan: 61–71. Oxford: Oxbow. Grogan, E. and Eogan, G. (1987) ‘Lough Gur excavations by Seán P. O’Riordáin’, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 87C: 299–506. Grøn, O. (2003) ‘Mesolithic dwelling places in south Scandinavia: their definition and social interpretation’, Antiquity 77(298): 685–708. Gronenborn, D. (2007) ‘Climate change and socio-political crises: some cases from Neolithic Europe’. In: T. Pollard and I. Banks (eds) War and sacrifice: studies in the archaeology of conflict: 13–32. Leiden: Brill. Gruel, K. and Haselgrove, C. (2007) ‘British potins abroad: a new find from central France and the Iron Age in south-east England’. In: C. Gosden, H. Hamerow, P. de Jersey and G. Lock (eds) Communities and Connections: essays in honour of Barry Cunliffe: 240–62. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gruel, K., Matterne, V. and Villard, A. (2003) ‘Contextes archéologiques et restes carpologiques associés à des dépôts monétaires armoricains’. In: B. Mandy and A. de Saulce (eds) Les marges de l’Armorique à l’âge du Fer. Archéologie et histoire: culture matérielle et sources écrites. Actes du XXIIIe colloque de l’Association française pour l’étude de l’âge du Fer: 37–42. Rennes: Revue Archéologique de l’Ouest Supplément 10. Grünewald, C., Rudnick, B., Stapel, B. and Speckmann, A. (2004) Zu allen Zeiten bel(i)ebt. Von der Mittelsteinzeit in die Gegenwart—Oelder Gechichte(n) im Boden. (Oelde, Stadt Oelde. Guldin, A. (2010) ‘Viele Funde - Kein Haus! Ausgrabung einer Grube der Jungsteinzeit (LA 93) im Trassenbereich der Bundesautobahn 20 in Bad Segeberg’, Archäologische Nachrichten aus Schleswig-Holstein 16: 38–40. Günther, K. (1997) Die Kollektivgräber-Nekropole Warburg I–V. Bodenaltertümer Westfalens 34. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

390

References

Gütter, S. and Meiborg, C. (2004) ‘Neues aus der Kiesgrube: Ausgrabungen 2003 in Niederweimar’, Hessen Archäologie 2003: 71–3. Gütter, S. and Meiborg, C. (2005) ‘Niederweimar - Besiedlung ohne Grenze?’, Hessen Archäologie 2004: 74–7. Gütter, S., Meiborg, C. and Thiedmann, A. (2003) ‘Siedlungen auf dem Kies in Weimar-Niederweimar’, Hessen Archäologie 2002: 46–8. Guttmann, E. and Last, J. (2000) ‘A Late Bronze Age landscape at South Hornchurch, Essex’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 66: 319–59. Haak, W., Balanovsky, O., Sanchez, J. J., Koshel, S., Zaporozhchenko, V., Adler, C. J., Der Sarkissian, C. S., Brandt, G., Schwarz, C., Nicklisch, N., Dresely, V., Fritsch, B., Balanovska, E., Villems, R., Meller, H., Alt, K. W. and Cooper, A. (2010) ‘Ancient DNA from European Early Neolithic farmers reveals their Near Eastern affinities’, PLoS Biol 8(11): e1000536. Habermehl, D. (2011) Settling in a changing world: villa development in the northern provinces of the Roman empire. PhD thesis, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Hachem, L., Allard, P., Constantin, C., Dubouloz, J., Farruggia, J.-P., Guichard, Y. and Ilett, M. (1997) ‘Bucy-le-long. La Fossette’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Picardie 1997: 20–2. Hachem, L., Allard, P., Convertini, F., Robert, B., Salanova, L., Sidéra, I. and Thevenet, C. (2011) ‘La sépulture campaniforme de Ciry-Salsogne “La Bouche à Vesle” (Aisne)’. In: L. Salanova and Y. Tchérémissinoff (eds) Les sépultures individuelles campaniformes en France: 21–35, Gallia Préhistoire XLIe supplément. Paris: CNRS. Haggarty, A. (1991) ‘Machrie Moor, Arran: recent excavations of two stone circles’, Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 58: 51–94. Hambleton, E. (2008) Review of middle Bronze Age—late Iron Age faunal assemblages from southern Britain. Swindon: English Heritage. Hamilton, W. D. (2010) The use of radiocarbon and Bayesian modelling to (re)write later Iron Age settlement histories in east-central Britain. PhD thesis, University of Leicester. Hamm, G. (2003) ‘La fabrication de la fibule de Nauheim au Fossé des Pandours’. In: S. Fichtl (ed.) Les oppida du Nord-Est de la Gaule à La Tène finale: 161–78. Metz: Archaeologia Mosellana 5. Hamon, A.-L. ed. (2010) Saint-Aubin-d’Aubigné Ille-et-Vilaine ZAC du Chêne Romé. Trois occupations du Néolithique moyen de l’âge du Bronze final/Hallstatt et du Haut Empire. Rapport final d’opération. Diagnostic archéologique. Cesson-Sévigné: INRAP GO. Hamon, T. ed. (2003) Saumeray: le Moulin de l’Aulne (Eure-et-Loir). Document final de synthèse. Orléans: SRA Centre. Hamon, T. and Hulin, G. (2011) ‘Les bâtiments du Néolithique final des Vaux à Moulins-sur-Céphons (Indre) et les apports de la prospection géophysique’. In: F. Bostyn, E. Martial and I. Praud (eds) Le Néolithique du Nord de la France dans son contexte européen: habitat et économie aux 4e et 3e millénaires avant notre ère. Actes du 29e colloque interrégional sur le Néolitique, Villeneuve-d’Ascq 2–3 octobre 2009: 437–49. Senlis: Revue archéologique de Picardie Numéro Spécial 28. Hamon, T., Lejars, T. and Josset, D. (2002) ‘Saumeray, lieu-dit “Le Bas des Touches” (Eure-et-Loir). Les enclos cultuels d’époque gauloise’, Revue Archéologique du Centre de la France 41: 111–27.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

References

391

Hänsel, B. and Zimmer, S. eds (1994) Die Indogermanen und das Pferd. Akten des Internationalen interdisziplinären Kolloquiums Freie Universität Berlin, 1.–3. Juli 1992. Budapest: Archaeolingua. Hansen, L. and Meyer, C. (2006) ‘Leichen im Kornsilo – nicht nur Fürstengräber am Glauberg’, Hessen Archäologie 2005: 65–8. Hansen, L. and Pare, C. (2008) ‘Der Glauberg in seinem mikro- und makroregionalen Kontext’. In: D. Krausse (ed.) Frühe Zentralisierungs- und Urbanisierungsprozesse: 57–96. Stuttgart: Konrad Theiss. Hansen, S. (1991) Studien zu den Metalldeponierungen während der Urnenfelderzeit im Rhein-Main-Gebiet. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 5. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt. Hansen, S. (2008) ‘Bronzezeitliche Horte als Indikatoren für “andere Orte” ’, Das Altertum 53: 291–314. Harding, A. (2000) European societies in the Bronze Age. Cambridge world archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Harding, A. (2009) ‘Towards a European archaeology’, World Archaeology 41: 629–40. Harding, A. (2013a) Salt in prehistoric Europe. Leiden: Sidestone Press. Harding, A. (2013b) ‘World systems: cores and peripheries in prehistoric Europe’, European Journal of Archaeology 16: 378–400. Harding, J. and Healy, F. (2007) The Raunds Area Project: a Neolithic and Bronze Age landscape in Northamptonshire. Swindon: English Heritage. Härke, H. (2002) ‘Introduction: the German experience’. In: H. Härke (ed.) Archaeology, ideology and society: the German experience: 13–40. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Hartz, S. (2001) ‘Neustadt-Marienbad wieder entdeckt - Jäger und Fischer der Erteböllekultur an der Ostholsteinischen Ostseeküste’, Archäologie in Schleswig/Arkæologi i Slesvig 12: 7–26. Hartz, S. (2005) ‘Aktuelle Forschungen zur Chronologie und Siedlungsweise der Ertebølle- und frühesten Trichterbecherkultur in Schleswig-Holstein’, Bodendenkmalpflege in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 52: 61–81. Hartz, S. and Glykou, A. (2008) ‘Neues aus Neustadt: Ausgrabungen zur Ertebølle- und frühen Trichterbecher-Kultur in Schleswig-Holstein’, Archäologische Nachrichten aus Schleswig-Holstein 14: 17–20. Hartz, S., Lübke, H. and Terberger, T. (2007) ‘From fish and seal to sheep and cattle: new research into the process of neolithisation in northern Germany’. In: A. Whittle and V. Cummings (eds) Going over: the Mesolithic—Neolithic transition in northwest Europe: 567–94. London: British Academy. Haselgrove, C. (1995) ‘Social and symbolic order in the layout of Roman villas in northern Gaul’. In: J. Metzler, M. Millett, N. Roymans and J. Sloftstra (eds) Integration in the early Roman West: 65–76. Luxembourg: Dossiers d’Archéologie du Musée National d’Histoire et d’Art IV. Haselgrove, C. (2007a) ‘Rethinking earlier Iron Age settlement in the eastern Paris Basin’. In: C. Haselgrove and R. Pope (eds) The earlier Iron Age in Britain and beyond: 400–28. Oxford: Oxbow. Haselgrove, C. (2007b) ‘The age of enclosure: later Iron Age settlement and society in northern France’. In: C. Haselgrove and T. Moore (eds) The later Iron Age in Britain and beyond: 492–522. Oxford: Oxbow.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

392

References

Haselgrove, C. (2008) ‘Iron Age coin finds from religious sites and contexts in northern Gaul’. In: R. Haussler and A. King (eds) Continuity and innovation in religion in the Roman west, II: numismatic, linguistic and epigraphic studies: 7–23. Portsmouth (RI): JRA Supplementary Series 67.2. Haselgrove, C. (2009) The Traprain Law Environs Project: excavations and fieldwork 2000–2004. Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. Haselgrove, C. (2011) ‘Reflections on the Iron Age background to the emergence of villa landscapes in northern France’. In: N. Roymans and T. Derks (eds) Villa landscapes in the Roman North: economy, cultures and lifestyles: 45–60. Amsterdam Archaeological Studies 17. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Haselgrove, C. (2015) Cartimandua’s capital? The late Iron Age royal site at Stanwick, North Yorkshire, fieldwork and analysis 1981–2011. York: CBA Monograph. Haselgrove, C. and Guichard, V. (2013) ‘Les Gaulois sont-ils dans la plaine? Reflections on settlement patterns in Gaul in the 1st century BC’. In: S. Krausz, A. Colin, K. Gruel, A. Ralston and T. Dechezleprêtre (eds) L’Âge du Fer en Europe: Mélanges offerts à Olivier Buchsenschutz: 317–27. Bordeaux: Ausonius Éditions Mémoires 32. Haselgrove, C. and Hingley, R. (2006) ‘Iron deposition and its significance in preRoman Britain’. In: G. Bataille and J.-P. Guillaumet (eds) Les dépôts d’objets métalliques aux âges du fer: 147–63. Glux-en-Glenne: Collection Bibracte 11. Haselgrove, C., Vander Linden, M. and Webley, L. (forthcoming) ‘Modern borders and the later prehistory of northwest Europe’. In: R. Crellin, C. Fowler and R. Tipping (eds) Prehistory without borders. The Prehistoric Archaeology of the Tyne–Forth Region. Oxford: Oxbow. Haßmann, H. ed. (2004) Fundchronik Niedersachsen 2003, Nachrichten aus Niedersachsens Urgeschichte Beiheft 10. Stuttgart: Konrad Theiss. Haßmann, H. ed. (2005) Fundchronik Niedersachsen 2004, Nachrichten aus Niedersachsens Urgeschichte Beiheft 11. Stuttgart: Konrad Theiss. Haßmann, H. (2010) Fundchronik Niedersachsen 2006–2007. Nachrichten aus Niedersachsens Urgeschichte Beiheft 13. Stuttgart: Konrad Theiss. Haßmann, H. ed. (2011) Fundchronik Niedersachsen 2008/2009, Nachrichten aus Niedersachsens Urgeschichte Beiheft 14. Stuttgart: Konrad Theiss. Havis, R. and Brooks, H. (2004) Excavations at Stansted Airport 1986–91. East Anglian Archaeology 107. Chelmsford: Essex County Council. Hawkes, A. (2013) ‘The beginnings and evolution of the fulacht fia tradition in early prehistoric Ireland’, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 114C: 21–51. Hawkes, C. and Piggott, S. eds (1948) Survey and policy of field research in the archaeology of Great Britain, I: the prehistoric and early historic ages to the 7th Century AD, CBA Occasional Paper 1. London: Council for British Archaeology. Hawkes, J. and Hawkes, C. (1943) Prehistoric Britain. Harmondsworth, Penguin Books. Hawkes, S. (2012) Longbridge Deverill Cow Down: an early Iron Age settlement in west Wiltshire. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology. Hecht, D. (2008) ‘Siedlungen der Schnurkeramik im südlichen Mitteleuropa. Siedlungsverteilung und Hausbau’. In: W. Dörfler and J. Müller (eds) Umwelt— Wirtschaft—Siedlungen im dritten vorchristlichen Jahrtausend Mitteleuropas und Südskandinaviens: 253–63, Offa-Bücher 84. Neumünster: Wachholz.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

References

393

Hedeager, L. (1992) Iron Age societies: from tribe to state in northern Europe, 500 BC to AD 700. Oxford: Blackwell. Heeren, S. (2006) Opgravingen bij Tiel-Passewaaij 1. De Nederzetting aan de Passewaaijse Hogeweg. Zuidnederlandse Archeologische Rapporten 29. Amsterdam: ACVU. Helms, M. (2009) ‘The master(y) of hard materials: thought on technology, materiality and ideology occasioned by the Dover Boat’. In: P. Clark (ed.) Bronze Age connections: cultural contact in prehistoric Europe: 149–58. Oxford: Oxbow. Helms, T. and Schwarz, W. (2008) ‘Vier urgeschichtliche Siedlungsareale im Overledingerland, Landkreis Leer’, Nachrichten aus Niedersachsens Urgeschichte 77: 21–89. Henderson, J. (2007) The Atlantic Iron Age: settlement and identity in the first millennium BC. London: Routledge. Hendrix, V., Van Strydonck, M., Vynckier, J. and Bourgeois, J. (1996) ‘14C-dateringen en determinaties van de houtenrestanten uit bronzen rivier-vondsten’, Lunula. Archaeologia Protohistorica 4: 18–22. Henriksen, M. B. (2005) ‘Danske kogegruber og kogegrubefelter fra yngre bronzealder og ældre jernalder’. In: L. Gustafson, T. Heibreen and J. Martens (eds) De gåtefulle kokegroper. Kokegropseminaret 31. November 2001: 77–102. Oslo: Kulturhistorisk Museum. Hensey, R., Meehan, P., Dowd, M. and Moore, S. (2014) ‘A century of archaeology: historical excavation and modern research at the Carrowkeel passage tombs, County Sligo’, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 114C: 1–31. Henton, A. and Dewert, J.-P. (1997) ‘Fouille d’un fossé circulaire à Manage/Bellecourt (Ht)’, Lunula. Archaeologia Protohistorica 5: 4–5. Herring, B. (2009a) Die Gräber der frühen bis mittleren Bronzezeit in Westfalen. Bodenaltertümer Westfalens 48. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Herring, B. (2009b) ‘Nordrhein-Westfalen’. In: O. Wilbertz (ed.) Langgräben und Schlüssellochgräben der jüngeren Bronze und frühen Eisenzeit zwischen Aller und Dordogne: 56–155, Materialhefte zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte Niedersachsens 38. Rahden: Marie Leidorf. Heske, I. (2006) Die Hünenburg bei Watenstedt, Ldkr. Helmstedt—Eine ur- und frühgeschichtliche Befestigung und ihr Umfeld. Göttinger Schriften zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte 29. Neumünster: Wachholtz. Heske, I. (2010) ‘Das Gräberfeld von Beierstedt, Ldkr. Helmstedt. Bericht über die Ausgrabungen auf einem jungbronze- und früheisenzeitlichen Bestattungsplatz der Hausurnenkultur in den Jahren 2007 und 2008’, Nachrichten aus Niedersachsens Urgeschichte (79): 85–111. Heske, I., Grefen-Peters, S., Posselt, M. and Wiethold, J. (2010) ‘Die jungbronzezeitliche Außensiedlung der “Hünenburg” bei Watenstedt, Lkr. Helmstedt. Vorbericht über die Ausgrabungen 2005–2007’, Praehistorische Zeitschrift 85: 159–90. Heske, I., Lüth, P. and Posselt, M. (2012) ‘Deponierung, Gargruben und ein verfüllter Wasserlauf ’, Praehistorische Zeitschrift 87: 308–37. Hesse, S. (2010) ‘Die eisenzeitliche Befestigung von Wittorf, Ldkr. Rotenburg (Wümme)’. In: M. Meyer (ed.) Haus—Gehöft—Weiler—Dorf. Siedlungen der vorrömischen Eisenzeit im nördlichen Mitteleuropa: 327–41. Rahden: Marie Leidorf.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

394

References

Hesse, S. and Hofmann, K. (2006) ‘Der mehrperiodige Fundplatz Wittorf, Stadt Visselhövede’, Archäologische Berichte des Landkreises Rotenburg (Wümme) 13: 91–105. Hessing, W. (1993) ‘Ondeugende Bataven en verdwaalde Friezinnen? Enkele gedachten over de onverbrande menselijke resten uit de ijzertijd en de Romeinse tijd in West- en Noord-Nederland’. In: E. Drenth, W. Hessing and E. Knol (eds) Het tweede leven van onze doden: 17–40. Amersfoort: Nederlandse Archeologische Rapporten 15. Hessing, W. and Kooi, P. (2005) ‘Urnfields and cinerary barrows: funerary and burial ritual in the late Bronze and Iron Ages’. In: L. P. Louwe Kooijmans, P. W. van den Broeke, H. Fokkens and A. L. van Gijn (eds) The prehistory of the Netherlands, Volume 1: 631–54. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Hey, G. and Lacey, M. (2001) Evaluation of archaeological decision-making processes and sampling strategies. Maidstone: Kent County Council. Hey, G., Bayliss, A. and Boyle, A. (1999) ‘Iron Age inhumation burials at Yarnton, Oxfordshire’, Antiquity 73: 551–62. Hey, G., Garwood, P., Robinson, M., Barclay, A. and Bradley, P. (2011) The Thames though time: early prehistory to 1500 BC, Part 2: Mesolithic to Early Bronze Age. Oxford: Oxford Archaeology. Hiddink, H. (2005) Opgravingen op het Rosveld bij Nederweert 1. Landschap en bewoning in de Ijzertijd, Romeinse tijd en Middeleeuwen. Zuidnederlandse Archeologische Rapporten 22. Amsterdam: ACVU. Hiddink, H. (2006) Opgravingen op het Rosveld bij Nederweert 2. Graven en grafvelden uit de Ijzertijd en Romeinse tijd. Zuidnederlandse Archeologische Rapporten 28. Amsterdam: ACVU. Hill, J. D. (1995a) Ritual and rubbish in the Iron Age of Wessex: a study on the formation of a specific archaeological record. BAR British Series 242. Oxford: Tempus Reparatum. Hill, J. D. (1995b) ‘How should we understand Iron Age societies and hillforts? A contextual study from Southern Britain’. In: J. D. Hill and C. Cumberpatch (eds) Different Iron Ages: studies on the Iron Age in temperate Europe: 45–66, British Archaeological Reports International Series 602. Oxford: Tempus Reparatum. Hill, J. D. (1999) ‘Settlement, landscape and regionality: Norfolk and Suffolk in the pre-Roman Iron Age of Britain and beyond’. In: J. A. Davies and T. Williamson (eds) The land of the Iceni: the Iron Age in northern East Anglia: 185–207. Norwich: Studies in East Anglia History 4. Hill, J. D. (2007) ‘The dynamics of social change in Later Iron Age eastern and southeastern England c.300 BC–AD 43’. In: C. Haselgrove and T. Moore (eds) The later Iron Age in Britain and beyond: 16–40. Oxford: Oxbow. Hill, J. D. (2011) ‘How did British middle and late pre-Roman Iron Age societies work (if they did?)’. In: T. Moore and X.-L. Armada (eds) Atlantic Europe in the first millennium BC: crossing the divide: 242–63. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hinguant, S. (2007) Laniscat (Côtes-d’Armor—Bretagne) ‘Pontdorniol’. Occupations multiples ponctuelles sur le tracé de la RN 164. Cesson-Sévigné: INRAP GO. Hinz, M. (2007) ‘Territorial und soziale Strukturen. Modelle zur Kollectivgrabsitte der Wartberg-Gruppe’, Journal of Neolithic Archaeology 9 (Available at: ).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

References

395

Hinz, M., Feeser, I., Sjögren, K.-G. and Müller, J. (2012) ‘Demography and the intensity of cultural activities: an evaluation of Funnel Beaker societies (4200–2800 cal BC)’, Journal of Archaeological Science 39: 3331–40. Hissel, M., Parlevliet, M. and Verspay, J. (2007) Begraven, bewonen, beakkeren. Archeologisch onderzoek bij de uitbreiding van de woonwijk Genoenhuis, gemeente Geldrop-Mierlo (Noord-Brabant). AAC publicaties 29. Amsterdam: AAC. Hodder, I. (1982) Symbols in action: ethnoarchaeological studies of material culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hodder, M. and Barfield, L. (1991) Burnt mounds and hot stone technology. West Bromwich: Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council. Hodgson, N., McKelvey, J., Muncaster, W. and Bateman, D. (2012) The Iron Age on the Northumberland coastal plain: excavations in advance of development 2002–2010. Archaeological Monograph 3. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Tyne and Wear Archives and Museums. Holden, E. (1972) ‘A Bronze Age cemetery-barrow on Itford Hill, Beddingham, Sussex’, Sussex Archaeological Collections 110: 70–117. Holst, M. and Rasmussen, M. (2013) Skelhøj and the Bronze Age barrows of southern Scandinavia, Volume I: the Bronze Age barrow tradition and the excavation of Skelhøj. Højbjerg: Jysk Arkæologisk Selskab. Holst, M., Breuning-Madsen, H. and Rasmussen, M. (2001) ‘The South Scandinavian barrows with well-preserved oak-log coffins’, Antiquity 75: 126–36. Holst, M., Rasmussen, M., Kristiansen, K. and Bech, J.-H. (2013) ‘Bronze Age “herostrats”: ritual, political and domestic economies in early Bronze Age Denmark’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 79: 1–32. Holtfester, U. (2010) ‘Vom Altpaläolithikum bis in die römische Kaiserzeit - Siedlungsplatz und Gräberfeld von Münster-Handorf ’. In: T. Otten, H. Hellenkemper, J. Kunow and M. Rind (eds) Fundgeschichten. Archäologie in Nordrhein-Westfalen: 87–9. Köln: Römisch-Germanisches Museum. Honeck, M. (2009) Nichts als heiße Steine? Zur Deutung der Brenngruben der späten Bronzezeit und frühen Eisenzeit in Deutschland. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 166. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt. Hornstrup, K., Overgaard, K., Andersen, S., Bennike, P., Mikkelsen, P. and Malmros, C. (2002) ‘Hellegård - en gravplads fra omkring år 500 f.Kr.’, Aarbøger for Nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie 2002: 83–162. Houkes, R., van der Linden, E. and Jongste, P. (2008) Definitief archeologisch onderzoek bij de Monsterseweg 29–37 Gemeente Den Haag. Bewoningssporen uit de ijzertijd en de late middeleeuwen. Den Haag: Gemeente Den Haag. Hübner, E. (2005) Jungneolithische Gräber auf der Jütischen Halbinsel. Typologische und chronologische Studien zur Einzelgrabkultur. Copenhagen: Det Kongelige Nordiske Oldskriftselskab. Hugonnier, L. and Rassat, S. (2013) ‘Prieuré de Saint-Pierre-au-mont-de-Châtre: résultats d’une étude archiviste associé à une campagne de télédétection par laser aéroporté’, Revue archéologique de Picardie 2013 (3–4): 207–20. Hunter, F. (2007) Beyond the edge of the empire—Caledonians, Picts and Romans. Rosemarkie: Groam House Museum. Hunter, F. (2010) ‘A unique Iron Age gold hoard found near Stirling’, Past 65: 3–5.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

396

References

Hunter, J. and Ralston, I. eds (2006) Archaeological resource management in the UK: an introduction, 2nd edition. Stroud: Sutton. Hunter, F., Carter, S. and Smith, A. (2010) ‘A 5th century BC Iron Age chariot burial from Newbridge’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 76(31–74). Hurst, D. and Leins, I. (2013) ‘The Pershore hoards and votive deposition in the Iron Age’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 79: 297–325. Hüser, A. (2010) ‘Neue Ausgrabungen in Hamburg-Marmstorf, Fundplatz 68, Hammaburg’, Neue Folge 15: 63–97. Hüser, A. (2011) ‘Kultische Feuer? Gar- oder Herdgruben im Großraum Hamburg’, Hammaburg 16: 95–121. Huysecom, E. (1986) ‘La question des bouteilles à collerette. Identification et chronologie d’un groupe méridional répandu de l’Ukraine à la Bretagne’. Actes du Xe Colloque interrégional sur le Néolithique. Caen, 30 septembre–2 octobre 1983: 195–215. Rennes: Revue Archéologique de l’Ouest Supplément 1. Hvass, S. (1985) Hodde. Et vestjysk landsbysamfund fra Ældre Jernalder. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag. Ijzereef, G. F. (1981) Bronze Age animal bones from Bovenkarspel; the excavation at Het Valkje, Amsterdam, Nederlandse Oudheden 10. Amersfoort: ROB. Ingold, T. (1980) Hunters, pastoralists and ranchers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Innerhofer, F. (1997) ‘Frühbronzezeitliche Barrenhortfunde – Die Schätze aus dem Boden kehren zurück’. In: A. Hänsel and B. Hänsel (eds) Gabern an die Gotter: 53–9. Berlin: Musuem für Vor- und Frühgestliche. Inrap (2009) ‘Les tombes à char d’Attichy’ (Available at: , accessed 3 June 2014). Jaccottey, L., Alonso, N., Defressigne, S., Hamon, C., Lepareux-Couturier, S., Brisotto, V., Galland-Crety, S., Jodry, F., Lagadec, J.-P., Lepaumier, H., Longepierre, S., Milleville, A., Robin, B. and Zaour, N. (2013) ‘Le passage des meules va-et-vient aux meules rotatives en France’. In: S. Krausz, A. Colin, K. Gruel, I. Ralston and T. Dechezleprêtre (eds) L’ Âge du Fer en Europe: Mélanges offerts à Olivier Buchsenschutz: 405–19. Bordeaux: Ausonius Éditions Mémoires 32. Jacques, A. and Prilaux, G. eds (2003) Dans le sillage de César. Traces de romanisation d’un territoire, les fouilles d’Actiparc à Arras. Arras: Service Archéologique de la Ville d’Arras/INRAP. Jadin, I. (2003) Trois petits tours et puis s’en vont . . . La fin de la présence danubienne en Moyenne Belgique. Liège: E.R.A.U.L. 109. Jadin, I., Toussaint, M., Becker, A., Frébutte, C., Goffioul, C., Hubert, F. and Pirson, S. (1998) ‘Le mégalithisme de Famenne. Approche pluridisciplinaire et perspectives’, Anthropologie et Préhistoire 109: 95–119. Jahier, I. (2004) ‘Eterville. Le Clos des Lilas’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Basse-Normandie 2003: 32. Jahier, I. (2005) ‘Eterville. Le Clos des Lilas’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Basse-Normandie 2004: 39–41. Jahier, I. (2008) ‘Eterville. Le Clos des Lilas’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Basse-Normandie 2007: 38–9.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

References

397

Jahier, I. (2011) L’enceinte des premier et second âges du Fer de la Fosse Touzé (Courseulles-sur-Mer, Calvados). Entre résidence aristocratique et place de collecte monumentale. Paris: Documents d’archéologie Française 104. James, S. (1999) The Atlantic Celts: ancient people or modern invention? London: British Museum Press. Jansen, R. and Fokkens, H. (2007) Het vorstengraf van Oss re-reconsidered. Archeologisch onderzoek Oss-Vorstengrafdonk 1997–2005. Archol Rapport 49. Leiden: Archol. Jansen, R. and van As, S. (2012) ‘Structuring the landscape in Iron Age and Roman period (500 BC–AD 250) – the multi-period site Oss-Horzak’, Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 43/44: 95–111. Jansen, R., van der Linde, C. and Fokkens, H. (2002) Archeologisch onderzoek Hertogswetering. In opdracht van Waterschap de Maaskant. Archol Rapport 7. Leiden: Archol. Jay, M., Haselgrove, C., Hamilton, D., Hill, J. D. and Dent, J. (2012a) ‘Chariots and context: new radiocarbon dates from Wetwang and the chronology of Iron Age burials and brooches in East Yorkshire’, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 31: 161–89. Jay, M., Parker Pearson, M., Richards, M. P., Nehlich, O., Montgomery, J., Chamberlain, A. and Sheridan, A. (2012b) ‘The Beaker People Project: an interim report on the progress of the isotopic analysis of the organic skeletal material’. In: M. Allen, A. Sheridan and D. McOmish (eds) Is there a British Chalcolithic: people, place and polity in the later third millennium: 226–36. Oxford: Prehistoric Society/Oxbow. Jeanne, L., Cliquet, D., Dodeman, C., Duclos, C., Fromont, N. and Paez-Rezende, L. (2010) ‘Brillevast. Le Douetty’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Basse-Normandie 2009: 87–90. Jensen, C. (2002) ‘En 6000 år gammel hyttetomt ved Randers Fjord’, Kulturhistorisk Museum Randers Årbog 2002: 40–6. Jensen, J. ed. (1999) Gods and heroes of the European Bronze Age: Europe at the time of Ulysses. London: Thames and Hudson. Jensen, J. (2003) Danmarks oldtid, 3: Ældre jernalder. Copenhagen: Gyldendal. Jesset, S., Joyeux, P., Lusson, D., Massat, T., Miejac, E., Riquier, S., Robert, G. and Troubady, M. (2009) ‘Orléans gaulois: état des connaissances’. In: O. Buchsenschutz, M.-B. Chardenoux, S. Krausz and M. Vaginay (eds) Les Gaulois sont dans la ville. Actes du XXXIIe colloque de l’Association française pour l’étude de l’âge du Fer: 251–62. Tours: Revue Archéologique du Centre de la France 35ème supplément. Joachim, H.-E. (2006) ‘Von den Anfängen der Metallverarbeitung bis zur mittleren Bronzezeit’. In: J. Kunow and H.-W. Wegner (eds) Urgeschichte im Rheinland: 205–10. Köln: Rheinischen Verein für Denkmalpflege und Landschaftsschutz. Joachim, H.-E. (2007) ‘Die Datierung der jüngerlatènezeitlichen Siedlung von Niederzier-Hambach im Kreis Düren’, Bonner Jahrbücher 207: 33–74. Jockenhövel, A. (1991) ‘Räumliche Mobilität von Personen in der mittleren Bronzezeit im westlichen Mitteleuropa’, Germania 69: 49–62. Johannsen, N. and Laursen, S. (2010) ‘Routes and wheeled transport in late 4th–early 3rd millennium funerary customs of the Jutland Peninsula: regional evidence and European context’, Praehistorische Zeitschrift 85: 15–58. Johansen, K. L., Laursen, S. T. and Holst, M. K. (2004) ‘Spatial patterns of social organization in the early Bronze Age of South Scandinavia’, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23: 33–55.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

398

References

Johnston, S. and Wailes, B. (2007) Dún Ailinne: excavation at an Irish royal site, 1968–1975. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. Jones, A. M. and Thomas, C. (2010) ‘Bosiliack and a reconsideration of entrance graves’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 76: 27–44. Jones, A. M., Taylor, S. and Sturgess, J. (2012) ‘A Beaker structure and other discoveries along the Porthcurno South West Water pipeline’, Cornish Archaeology 51: 1–67. Jones, C. (1998) ‘The discovery and dating of the prehistoric landscape of Roughan Hill in Co. Clare’, Journal of Irish Archaeology 9: 27–44. Jongste, P. and van Wijngaarden, G. (2002) Archeologie in de Betuweroute. Het erfgoed van Eigenblok: Bewoningsporen uit de Bronstijd te Geldermalsen. Rapportage Archeologische Monumentenzorg 86. Amersfoort: ROB. Jöns, H. (2007) ‘Zur ältesten Eisenverhüttung in Norddeutschland und im südlichen Skandinavien’. In: S. Möllers, W. Schlüter and S. Sievers (eds) Keltische Einflüsse im nördlichen Mitteleuropa während der mittleren und jüngeren vorrömischen Eisenzeit: 53–71. Frankfurt am Main: Römisch-Germanische Komission. Jöns, H. (2013) ‘Aktuelle Forschungen zur Besiedlung Nordwestdeutschlands während der Zeit der Trichterbecherkultur’, Siedlungs- und Küstenforschung im südlichen Nordseegebiet 36: 131–8. Jørgensen, E. (2003) ‘Højene ved Lønt’, Skalk 2003 (2): 5–10. Joseph, F., Dietsch-Sellami, M.-F. and Martial, E. (2006) ‘Découvertes du Néolithique final sur “la Plate-forme aéro-industrielle de Haute-Picardie” à Méaulte (Somme) présentation préliminaire’, Internéo 6: 103–10. Joseph, F., Julien, M., Leroy-Langevin, E., Lorin, Y. and Praud, I. (2011) ‘L’architecture domestique des sites du IIIe millénaire avant notre ère dans le Nord de la France’. In: F. Bostyn, E. Martial and I. Praud (eds) Le Néolithique du Nord de la France dans son contexte européen: habitat et économie aux 4e et 3e millénaires avant notre ère. Actes du 29e colloque interrégional sur le Néolitique, Villeneuve-d’Ascq 2–3 octobre 2009: 249–73. Senlis: Revue Archéologique de Picardie Numéro Spécial 28. Jost, C. A. (2012) ‘Hausgrundriss aus endneolithischer Zeit’, Archäologie in Deutschland 2012: 6–52. Jourdain, D. and Villes, A. (1998) ‘Une nouvelle maison présumée du Néolithique final à La Saulsotte (Aube) lieu-dit “Le Bois Baudin” ’, Internéo 2: 165–9. Joussaume, R. and Laporte, L. (2006) ‘Monuments funéraires Néolithiques dans l’ouest de la France’. In: R. Joussaume, L. Laporte and C. Scarre (eds) Origine et développement du mégalithisme de l’ouest de l’Europe: 319–43. Bougon: Musée des Tumulus de Bougon. Julien, M. and Leroy, E. (2008) ‘L’habitat du Néolithique final dans la région de Douai (Nord): résultats préliminaires’, Internéo 7: 143–52. Kaenel, G. (2006) ‘Agglomérations et oppida de la fin de l’âge du fer’. In: C. Haselgrove (ed.) Les mutations de la fin de l’âge du Fer: 17–39. Glux-en-Glenne: Collection Bibracte 12/4. Kampffmeyer, U. (1983) ‘Der neolithische Siedlungsplatz Hüde I am Dümmer’, Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Nordwestdeutschland, Beiheft 1: 119–34. Karl, R. (2007) ‘Der Haushalt des “Landesherrn” Zum Verhältnis von *tegesākos und *mrogirīgs im eisenzeitlichen Wales’. In: P. Trebsche, I. Balzer, C. Eggl, J. K. Koch,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

References

399

H. Nortmann and J. Wiethold (eds) Die unteren Zehntausend—auf der Suche nach den Unterschichten der Eisenzeit: 57–70. Langenweißbach: Beier und Beran. Kayser, O. (2007) ‘Paléolithique et Mésolithique en Alsace’. Bilan scientifique de la région Alsace. Hors série 1/2. Préhistoire et Age des Métaux: 15–17. Strasbourg: Direction Générale des Affaires Culturelles. Keeley, L. H. and Cahen, D. (1989) ‘Early Neolithic forts and villages in NE Europe: a preliminary report’, Journal of Field Archaeology 16(2): 157–76. Keeley, L. H., Fontana, M. and Quick, R. (2007) ‘Baffles and bastions: the universal features of fortifications’, Journal of Archaeological Research 15: 55–95. Kempken, F. (2012) ‘Rom und die Eburonen – neue Befunde, aber keine klaren Verhältnisse’, Archäologie im Rheinland 2011: 84–7. Kerdivel, G. and Hamon, G. (2010) ‘Un site du Néolithique moyen et de l’Âge du Fer à La Burette à Banville (Calvados). Présentation liminaire’. In: C. Billard and M. Legris (eds) Premiers Néolithiques de l’Ouest: 211–35. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes. Kinnes, I. (1982) ‘Les Fouaillages and megalithic origins’, Antiquity 56: 24–30. Kinnes, I. (1992) Non-megalithic long barrows and allied structures in the British Neolithic. London: British Museum. Kipling, R. (2008) ‘Bath Lane (former Merlin Dye works) (SK 580 045)’, Transactions of the Leicestershire Archaeological and Historical Society 82: 275–8. Klassen, L. (2005) ‘Refshøgård. Et bemaerkelsesvaerdigt gravfund fra enkeltgravskulturem’, Kuml 2005: 17–59. Klassen, L. (2008) ‘Zur Bedeutung von Getreide in der Einzelgrabkultur Jütlands’. In: W. Dörfler and J. Müller (eds) Umwelt—Wirtschaft—Siedlungen im dritten vorchristlichen Jahrtausend Mitteleuropas und Südskandinaviens: 49–65, Offa-Bücher 84. Neumünster: Wachholz. Kleijne, J. P. (2010) Approaching high-flux interaction: pottery, identity and overseas contacts in the later early and middle Bronze Age (2000–1000 cal BC) of North West Europe. Masters thesis, Leiden University. Klitgaard, S. (2002) ‘Arkæologiske forundersøgelser – Metode, økonomi og resultat’, Arkæologiske Udgravninger i Danmark 2001: 5–25. Klooß, R. (2008) ‘Ein Fundplatz des Übergangs vom Mittelneolithikum A zum Mittelneolithikum B aus Wangels LA 505 Kreis Ostholstein. Ein Vorbericht’. In: W. Dörfler and J. Müller (eds) Umwelt—Wirtschaft—Siedlungen im dritten vorchristlichen Jahrtausend Mitteleuropas und Südskandinaviens: 127–34, Offa-Bücher 84. Neumünster: Wachholz. Knight, M. (2009) ‘Excavating a Bronze Age timber platform at Must Farm, Whittlesey, near Peterborough’, Past 63: 1–4. Knippenberg, S. and Jongste, P. F. B. (2005) Terug naar Zijderveld. Archeologische opgravingen van een bronstijdnederzetting langs de A2. Archol Rapport 36. Leiden: Archol. Koenig, M.-P. (2001) ‘LGV-Est évaluation no 79. Les Grandes Corvées’, Archéologie de la France informations [Online] (Lorraine) (Available at , accessed 10 March 2015). Koenig, M.-P., Plouin, S., Vanmoerkerke, J. and Véber, C. (2012) ‘Continuité et discontinuité de l’espace funéraire dans le temps: quelques exemples en Alsace, en

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

400

References

Lorraine et en Champagne humide’. In: D. Bérenger, J. Bourgeois, M. Talon and S. Wirth (eds) Gräberlandschaften der Bronzezeit: 317–44, Bodenaltertümer Westfalens 51. Darmstadt: Philipp von Zabern. Kooi, P. (2008) ‘Bronze Age settlements in Drenthe’. In: S. Arnoldussen and H. Fokkens (eds) Bronze Age settlements in the Low Countries: 59–68. Oxford: Oxbow. Koot, C. and Berkvens, R. (2004) Bredase Akkers eeuwenoud. 4000 jaar bewoningsgeschiedenis op de rand van zand en klei. Rapportage Archeologische Monumentenzorg 102. Amersfoort: ROB. Kortekaas, G., Wieringa, A. and Huis in ’t Veld, J. (2007) ‘Doorgaan, én volhouden in de Vroege-IJzertijd, in de Euvelgunner klei’, Westerheem 56: 68–78. Kossian, R. (2005) Nichtmegalithische Grabanlagen der Trichterbecherkultur in Deutschland und den Niederlanden. Halle: Veröffentlichungen des Landesamtes für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt—Landesmuseum für Vorgeschichte 58. Kozłowski, S. K. (2009) Thinking Mesolithic. Oxford: Oxbow. Krausse, D. (2006) Eisenzeitlicher Kulturwandel und Romanisierung im Mosel-EifelRaum. Römisch-Germanische Forschungen 63. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Krausse, D. ed. (2008) Frühe Zentralisierungs- und Urbanisierungsprozesse, Forschungen und Berichte zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte in Baden-Württemberg 101. Stuttgart: Konrad Theiss. Krausse, D. ed. (2010) ‘Fürstensitze’ und Zentralorte der frühen Kelten. Stuttgart: Konrad Theiss. Kreuz, A. (2003) ‘Unerwartete Pflanzenfunde aus der keltischen Saline in Bad Nauheim’, Hessen Archäologie 2002: 66–8. Kreuz, A. and Pinsker, B. (2005) ‘2500 Jahre Wohnen und Wirtschaften am Emsbach’, Denkmalpflege und Kulturgeschichte 2005 (2): 7–12. Kreuz, A. and Schäfer, E. (2008a) ‘Archäobotanische Ergebnisse zur Bronze- und Eisenzeit in Hessen’. In: D. Krausse (ed.) Frühe Zentralisierungs- und Urbanisierungsprozesse: 115–41, Forschungen und Berichte zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte in Baden-Württemberg 101. Stuttgart: Konrad Theiss. Kreuz, A. and Schäfer, E. (2008b) ‘Archaeobotanical consideration of the development of pre-Roman Iron Age crop growing in the region of Hesse, Germany, and the question of agricultural production and consumption at hillfort sites and open settlements’, Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 17 (Suppl. 1): 159–79. Krist, J. (2005) Archeologische opgraving, Mencia Sandrode-Akkermolenweg te Zundert. Een grafveld uit de Late-Bronstijd en Midden-Ijzertijd. Synthegra Archeologie Rapport 173145. Zelhem: Synthegra. Kristensen, I. K. (2008a) Bygherrerapport Hostrup Strand. Udgravning af hustomter fra dolktid og ældre bronzealder. Skive: Museum Salling. Kristensen, I. K. (2008b) Udgravningsrapport Skivevej 3 2006. Højslev: Museum Salling. Kristensen, I. K. (2008c) ‘Kogegruber – i klynger eller på rad og række’, Kuml 2008: 9–57. Kristiansen, K. (1987) ‘From stone to bronze – the evolution of social complexity in northern Europe, 2300–1200 BC’. In: E. M. Brumfiel and T. K. Earle (eds) Specialization, exchange and complex societies: 30–51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kristiansen, K. (1989) ‘Prehistoric migrations – the case of the Single Grave and Corded Ware Cultures’, Journal of Danish Archaeology 8: 211–25.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

References

401

Kristiansen, K. (1998) Europe before history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kristiansen, A. (2000) ‘Langhøjen ved Rokær - variation over et tema’. In: S. Hvass (ed.) Vor skjulte kulturarv. Arkæologi under overfladen: 44–5. Copenhagen: Det Kongelige Nordiske Oldskriftselskab/Jysk Arkæologisk Selskab. Kristiansen, K. (2008) ‘Do we need the “archaeology of Europe”?’, Archaeological Dialogues 15: 5–25. Kristiansen, K. (2012) ‘The Bronze Age expansion of Indo-European languages: an archaeological model’. In: C. Prescott and H. Glørstad (eds) Becoming European: the transformation of third millennium Northern and Western Europe: 165–81. Oxford: Oxbow. Kristiansen, K. and Larsson, T. (2005) The rise of Bronze Age society: travels, transmissions and transformations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kronz, A. and Eggers, T. (2003) ‘Archäometallurgische Untersuchungen eisenzeitlicher Funde aus dem Hügelgräberfeld Hillesheim, Kreis Daun’, Trierer Zeitschrift 64: 69–109. Kuhnen, H.-P. and Trojan, C. (2012) ‘Am Anfang der “Eisengeschichte” von Rheinland-Pfalz. Die frühkeltischen Verhüttungsplätze des 6./5. Jh. v. Chr. von Herdorf im Landkreis Altenkirchen im Licht der Forschungen von Heribert und Otto Kipping’, Zeitschrift zur Geschichte des Berg- und Hüttenwesens 18: 16–40. Kuijpers, M. H. G. (2008) Bronze Age metalworking in the Netherlands (c.2000–800 B.C.). Leiden: Sidestone Press. Kull, B. ed. (2003) Sole und Salz schreiben Geschichte. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Kuna, M. and Dreslerová, D. (2007) ‘Landscape archaeology and “community areas” in the archaeology of central Europe’. In: D. Hicks, L. McAtackney and G. Fairclough (eds) Envisioning landscape: situations and standpoints in archaeology and heritage: 146–71. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press. Kurz, G. (1995) Keltische Hort- und Gewässerfunde in Mitteleuropa—Deponierungen der Latènezeit. Stuttgart: Konrad Theiss. Kurz, S. (2010) ‘Zur Genese und Entwicklung der Heuneburg in der späten Halstattzeit’. In: D. Krausse (ed.) ‘Fürstensitze’ und Zentralorte der frühen Kelten, Vol. 1: 239–56. Stuttgart: Konrad Theiss. Kveiborg, J. (2008) ‘Fårehyrder, kvægbonder eller svineavlere. En revurdering af jernalderens dyrehold’, Kuml 2008: 59–100. Ladle, L. and Woodward, A. (2009) Excavations at Bestwall Quarry, Wareham, 1992–2005, Volume 1: the prehistoric landscape. Dorchester: Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society. Lafage, F., Auxiette, G., Brunet, P., Delattre, V., Le Jeune, Y., Martial, E. and Matterne, V. (2007) ‘Changis-sur-Marne “Les Pétreaux”: trois siècles d’évolution d’établissements ruraux de la fin du Bronze final au début du premier Âge du Fer’, Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française 104(2): 307–41. Lafage, F., Auxiette, G., Brunet, P., Martial, E. and Matterne, V. (2006) ‘Premières tentatives d’interprétation spatiale d’un site rural du Bronze final à Changis-surMarne (Seine-et-Marne)’, Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française 103(2): 323–77. Lagadec, J.-P. (2008) ‘Les meules en rhyolite de La Salle (Vosges): typologie et diffusion’, Antiquités Nationales 39: 129–39.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

402

References

Lagatie, C. and Vanmoerkerke, J. eds (2005) Europort Vatry (Marne): Les pistes de l’archéologie. Langres: Éditions Dominique Guéniot. Lambot, B. (1999) ‘Organisation spatiale et sociale du village gaulois d’Acy-Romance (Ardennes)’. In: F. Braemer, S. Cleuziou and A. Coudart (eds) Habitat et Société. Actes des XIXe rencontres internationales d’archéologie et d’histoire d’Antibes: 383–405. Antibes: Éditions APDCA. Lambot, B. (2005) ‘Thugny-Trugny “Le Mayet” ’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Champagne-Ardenne 2002: 26–7. Lambot, B. (2011) ‘La fin de la période Gauloise dans les Ardennes’. In: D. Nicolas (ed.) Les Ardennes. Carte Archéologique de la Gaule 08: 73–82. Paris: Académie des inscriptions et Belles Lettres. Lambot, B. and Méniel, P. (1992) Le site protohistorique d’Acy-Romance (Ardennes), 1. L’habitat gaulois, fouilles 1988–1990. Mémoires de la Société archéologique champenoise 7. Reims: Société archéologique champenoise. Lambot, B. and Méniel, P. (2000) ‘L’agglomération ouverte d’Acy-Romance’. In: V. Guichard, S. Sievers and O.-H. Urban (eds) Les processus d’urbanisation à l’Âge du Fer. Eisenzeitliche Urbanisationsprozesse: 97–102. Glux-en-Glenne: Centre archéologique européen du Mont Beuvray. Lambot, B., Friboulet, M. and Méniel, P. (1994) Le site protohistorique d’Acy Romance (Ardennes), II. Les nécropoles dans leurs contexte Régional 1986–1988–1989. Mémoires de la Société archéologique champenoise 8. Reims: Société archéologique champenoise. Lambrick, G. and Allen, T. (2004) Gravelly Guy, Stanton Harcourt, Oxfordshire: the development of a prehistoric and Romano-British community. Oxford: Oxford Archaeology. Lanchon, Y., Brunet, P., Brunet, V. and Chambon, P. (2006) ‘Fouille de sauvetage d’un monument funéraire et d’une enceinte néolithiques à Vignely “La Noue Fenard” (Seine-et-Marne): premiers résultats’. In: P. Duhamel (ed.) Impacts interculturels au Néolithique moyen. Du terroir au territoire: sociétés et espaces. Actes du 25e colloque interrégional sur le Néolithique, Dijon, 20–21 octobre 2001: 335–51. Dijon: Revue Archéologique de l’Est Supplément 25. Landolt, M., Gersende, A. and Putelat, O. (2010a) ‘Premiers éléments sur le puits funéraire de la fin du troisième millénaire avant J.-C. de Sainte-Croix-en-Plaine “Holzackerfeld” (Haut-Rhin)’. In: C. Jeunesse and A. Denaire (eds) Du Néolithique final au Bronze ancien dans le Nord-Est de la France. Actualité de la recherche: 57–72. Strasbourg: Association pour la Promotion de la Recherche Archéologique en Alsace. Landolt, M., Millet, E. and Roth-Zehner, M. (2010b) ‘Pratiques funéraires en Alsace du Ve au Ier siècle avant J.-C.’. In: P. Barral, B. Dedet, F. Delrieu, P. Giraud, I. Le Goff, S. Marion and A. Villard-Le Tiec (eds) Gestes funéraires en Gaule au second âge du Fer. Actes du XXXIIIe colloque de l’Association française pour l’étude de l’âge du Fer II: 207–30, Annales Littéraires de l’Université de Franche-Comté 883. Besançon: Presses universitaires de Franche-Comté. Lang, V. (2000) ‘Archaeology and language’, Fennoscandia Archaeologica 17: 103–11. Langlois, J.-Y. (1999) ‘La Bazoge. Les Petites-Rouilles’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Pays-de-la-Loire 1997: 59–60.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

References

403

Laporte, L. (2011) ‘Innate and/or expressed identities: their conceptualization through monumentality, funerary practices and grave goods? Some examples from the megalithic tradition of western France’. In: M. Furholt, F. Lüth and J. Müller (eds) Megaliths and identities: early monuments and Neolithic societies from the Atlantic to the Baltic: 3rd European Megalithic Studies Meeting, 13th–15th May 2010 at Kiel University: 199–224. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt. Laporte, L., Guyodo, J.-N., Bizien-Jaglin, C., Bernard, V., Bertin, F., Blanchet, S., Dietsch-Sellami, M.-F., Guitton, V., Hamon, A.-L., Hamon, G., Lemouland, Q., Lucquin, A., Noslier, A. and Quesnel, L. (2007) ‘Nouvelles découvertes en milieu humide autour de l’habitat ceinturé du Néolithique moyen à Lillemer (Ille-et-Villaine France)’. In: M. Besse (ed.) Sociétés néolithiques. Des faits archéologiques aux fonctionnement socio-économiques. Actes du 27e colloque interrégional sur le Néolithique (Neuchâtel 1 et 2 octobre 2005): 341–9. Lausanne: Cahiers d’archéologie romande 108. Laporte, L. and Tinévez, J.-Y. (2004) ‘Neolithic houses and chambered tombs of western France’, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 14(2): 217–34. Large, J.-M. and Mens, E. (2009) ‘The Douet alignment on the island of Hoëdic (Morbihan): new insights into standing stone alignments in Brittany’, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 28: 239–54. Larsen, L. A. (2012) VSM 09398 Løgstrup SØ II—etape II, Fiskbæk sogn, Nørlyng herred, Viborg amt. Beretning for supplerende udgravning af bronzestøbergård. Viborg: Viborg Stiftsmuseum. Larsen, L. A. (2013) VSM 09398 Løgstrup SØ II—etape I, Fiskbæk sogn, Nørlyng herred, Viborg amt. Beretning for udgravning af byggemodningsområde. Viborg: Viborg Stiftsmuseum. Larsson, L. (2007) ‘Mistrust traditions, consider innovations? The MesolithicNeolithic transition in southern Scandinavia’. In: A. Whittle and V. Cummings (eds) Going over: the Mesolithic—Neolithic transition in north-west Europe: 595–616. London: British Academy. Larsson, L., Kindgren, H., Knutsson, K., Leoffler, D. and Åkerlund, A. eds (2003) Mesolithic on the move: papers presented at the Sixth International Conference on the Mesolithic in Europe, Stockholm 2000. Oxford: Oxbow. Last, J. (2007) ‘Covering old ground: barrows as closures’. In: J. Last (ed.) Beyond the grave: new perspectives on barrows: 156–75. Oxford: Oxbow. Last, J. (2012) ‘Frameworks for development-led archaeology in England’. In: L. Webley, M. Vander Linden, C. Haselgrove and R. Bradley (eds) Developmentled archaeology in North-West Europe: proceedings of a round table at the University of Leicester 19th–21st November 2009: 128–38. Oxford: Oxbow. Laurelut, C., Tegel, W. and Vanmoerkerke, J. (2002) ‘Vendresse (Ardennes): une agglomération de la fin de l’âge du Fer et du début de l’époque romaine en zone humide’. In: P. Méniel and B. Lambot (eds) Découvertes récentes de l’âge du Fer dans le massif des Ardennes et ses marges. Repas des vivants et nourriture pour les morts en Gaule. Actes du XXVe colloque international de l’Association française pour l’étude de l’âge du Fer: 105–13, Bulletin de la Société archéologique champenoise 16. Reims: Société archéologique champenoise. Laux, F. (1996) ‘Tod und Bestattung’. In: G. Wegner (ed.) Leben—Glauben—Sterben vor 3000 Jahren. Bronzezeit in Niedersachsen: 173–94. Oldenburg: Isensee.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

404

References

Lawson, A. (2000) Potterne 1982–5: animal husbandry in later prehistoric Wessex. Salisbury: Trust for Wessex Archaeology. Le Bihan, J.-P. and Villard, J.-F. (2001) Archéologie d’une île à la pointe de l’Europe: Ouessant. 1: Le site archéologique de Mez-Notariou et le village du premier âge du fer. Quimper: Centre de recherche archéologique du Finistère. Le Bihan, J.-P. and Villard, J.-F. (2003) Habitats de l’âge du Bronze au moyen âge au Moustoir 2 à Quimper (Finistère). Document final de synthèse. 2 volumes. Rennes: SRA Bretagne. Le Bihan, J.-P. and Villard, J.-F. (2010) Archéologie d’une île à la pointe de l’Europe: Ouessant. 2: L’habitat de Mez-Notariou des origines à l’âge du bronze. Quimper: Centre de recherche archéologique du Finistère. Le Bihan, J.-P., Guillaumet, J.-P., Méniel, P., Roussot-Larroque, J. and Villard, J.-F. (2007) ‘Du Bronze moyen à l’Antiquité, un lieu de culte inscrit dans la longue durée: Mez-Notariou – Ouessant’. In: P. Barral, A. Daubigny, C. Dunning, G. Kaenel and M.-J. Roulière-Lambert (eds) L’âge du Fer dans l’arc jurassien et ses marges. Dépôts, lieux sacrés et territorialité à l’âge du Fer. Actes du XXIXe colloque international de l’Association française pour l’étude de l’âge du Fer (Bienne (Suisse), 5–8 mai 2005): 629–52, Annales Littéraires de l’Université de Franche-Comté 826. Besançon: Presses universitaires de Franche-Comté. Le Brun-Ricalens, F., Rippert, J. and Schoellen, A. (2002) ‘Archéologie et grande voirie. Le “projet pilote” de Liaison avec la Sarre: un exemple à suivre de politique de gestion du Patrimoine archéologique luxembourgeois’, Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Luxembourgeoise 23–24: 131–43. Le Forestier, C. (2009) ‘Pluralité des gestes funéraires pendant la période de La Tène à Bobigny (Seine-Saint-Denis)’, Revue archéologique de Picardie 2009 (3–4): 129–37. Le Goff, E. (2009) ‘Habitats, terroir et paysage rural: Aménagement et structuration du territoire et de la campagne gauloise. Ifs ZAC “Object’Ifs Sud” (Calvados)’. In: I. Bertrand, A. Duval, J. Gomez De Soto and P. Maguer (eds) Habitats et paysages ruraux en Gaule et regards sur d’autres régions du monde celtique. Actes du XXXIe colloque de l’Association française pour l’étude de l’âge du Fer: 93–107. Chauvigny: Association des publications chauvinoises Mémoire 35. Le Goff, E., Auxiette, G. and Le Goff, I. (2007) ‘Manifestations et pratiques cultuelles au sein des habitats et du territoire agraire laténien de la ZAC “Object’Ifs Sud” à Ifs (Calvados)’. In: P. Barral, A. Daubigny, C. Dunning, G. Kaenel and M.-J. RoulièreLambert (eds) L’âge du Fer dans l’arc jurassien et ses marges. Dépôts, lieux sacrés et territorialité à l’âge du Fer. Actes du XXIXe colloque international de l’Association française pour l’étude de l’âge du Fer (Bienne (Suisse), 5–8 mai 2005): 579–84, Annales Littéraires de l’Université de Franche-Comté 826. Besançon: Presses universitaires de Franche-Comté. Le Goff, I., Achard-Corompt, N., Desbrosse, V., Friboulet, M., Garenaux, V., Moreau, C., Paresys, C., Saurel, M., Vauquelin, E. and Verbrugghe, G. (2010) ‘Pratiques funéraires en Champagne-Ardenne à La Tène Finale’. In: P. Barral, B. Dedet, F. Delrieu, P. Giraud, I. Le Goff, S. Marion and A. Villard-Le Tiec (eds) Gestes funéraires en Gaule au second âge du Fer. Actes du XXXIIIe colloque de l’Association française pour l’étude de l’âge du Fer, II: 163–87, Annales Littéraires de l’Université de Franche-Comté 883. Besançon: Presses universitaires de Franche-Comté.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

References

405

Le Goffic, M. (2006) Le caveau de l’Âge du Bronze de Prat ar Simon Pella. Lannilis (Finistère). DFS de sondage. Rennes: SRA Bretagne. Le Guen, P. (2006) ‘Abbeville. Mont à Cailloux Sud’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Picardie 2004: 90–1. Le Guen, P. (2007) ‘Presles-et-Boves. Les Bois Plantés’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Picardie 2005: 34. Lecornec, J. (1994) Le Petit Mont, Arzon, Morbihan. Rennes: Association pour la Diffusion de Recherches archéologiques dans l’Ouest de la France. Lecornué, J. (2010) ‘L’occupation néolithique du site de Passy “La Truie Pendue” (Yonne)’, Internéo 8: 117–28. Lefebvre, A. (2010) ‘Les sépultures du Néolithique final/Bronze ancien en Lorraine: vers l’émergence de nouvelles problématiques’. In: C. Jeunesse and A. Denaire (eds) Du Néolithique final au Bronze ancien dans le Nord-Est de la France. Actualité de la recherche: 103–18. Strasbourg: Association pour la Promotion de la Recherche Archéologique en Alsace. Lefebvre, A., Franck, J. and Veber, C. (2011) ‘Les sépultures individuelles campaniformes en Lorraine: l’exemple de Pouilly (Moselle) et d’Hatrize (Meurthe-et-Moselle)’. In: L. Salanova and Y. Tchérémissinoff (eds) Les sépultures individuelles campaniformes en France: 97–113, Gallia Préhistoire XLIe supplément. Paris: CNRS. Lefebvre, A., Gazenbeek, M. and Pernot, P. (2008) ‘Les sépultures campaniformes du site de Mondelange “La Sente” (Moselle). Résultats préliminaires’, Internéo 7: 187–201. Lefèvre, P. (2000) ‘Cinzancourt et Licourt/A29. La Sole des Galets’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Picardie 1998: 110–12. Lefort, A. (2011) Opération de fouilles archéologiques sur l’estran d’Urville-Nacqueville. Rapport final d’opération 2011. Dijon: Université de Bourgogne. Lefranc, P., Boës, P. and Murer, A. (2010) ‘Nouvelles données sur les rites funéraires du Bronze ancien évolué en Alsace’. In: C. Jeunesse and A. Denaire (eds) Du Néolithique final au Bronze ancien dans le Nord-Est de la France. Actualité de la recherche: 129–48. Strasbourg: Association pour la Promotion de la Recherche Archéologique en Alsace. Legendre, J. P., Olivier, L. and Schnitzler, B. (2007) L’archéologie nazie en Europe de l’Ouest. Gollion: Infolio. Legriel, J., Granchon, P., Le Goff, I. and De Kepper, A.-G. (2010) ‘La nécropole à incinération de l’âge du bronze moyen de Cesson « Plaine du Moulin à Vent » (Seine-et-Marne): premiers résultats’, Bulletin de l’Association pour la Promotion des Recherches sur l’Âge du Bronze 7: 14–18. Lehoërff, A. ed. (2012) Par-delà l’horizon. Sociétés en Manche et mer du Nord, il y a 3500 ans. Paris: Somology éditions d’art. Leivers, M. and Gibson, C. (2011) ‘A Later Bronze Age settlement and Iron Age cemetery: excavations at Adanac Park, Nursling, Hampshire 2008’, Proceedings of the Hampshire Field Club and Archaeological Society 66: 1–30. Lejars, T. (2005) ‘Le cimetière celtique de La Fosse Cotheret, à Roissy (Val-d’Oise) et les usages funéraires aristocratiques dans le nord du Bassin parisien à l’aube du IIIe siècle avant J.-C.’. In: O. Buchsenschutz, A. Bulard and T. Lejars (eds) L’Âge du Fer en Île-de-France: Actes du XXVIe colloque de l’Association française pour l’étude de l’âge du Fer, Paris et Saint-Denis, 2002: 73–83, Supplément à la Revue

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

406

References

Archéologique du Centre de la France 26. Tours: Revue Archéologique du Centre de la France FERACF. Lejars, T. and Pernet, L. (2004) ‘Aunou-sur-Orne. Le Pré du Mesnil’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Basse-Normandie 2003: 93. Lejars, T. and Pernet, L. (2005) ‘Aunou-sur-Orne. Le Pré du Mesnil’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Basse-Normandie 2004: 102–3. Lemaire, P. (2003) ‘Abbeville. Mont à Cailloux Sud’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Picardie 2002: 91. Lenda, S., Deborde, G., Depierre, G. and Turé, I. (2012) ‘Évolution de la nécropole de Jâlons (lieu-dit La Grande Pâture, Marne) du Bronze ancien au premier âge du Fer’. In: D. Bérenger, J. Bourgeois, M. Talon and S. Wirth (eds) Gräberlandschaften der Bronzezeit: 283–93, Bodenaltertümer Westfalens 51. Darmstadt: Philipp von Zabern. Lepaumier, H., Giazzon, D. and Chanson, K. (2010) ‘Orval “les Pleines” (Manche). Habitats enclos et tombe à char en Cotentin’. In: P. Barral, B. Dedet, F. Delrieu, P. Giraud, I. Le Goff, S. Marion and A. Villard-Le Tiec (eds) L’Âge du fer en BasseNormandie. Actes du XXXIIIe colloque de l’Association française pour l’étude de l’âge du Fer, I: 315–33, Annales Littéraires de l’Université de Franche-Comté 883. Besançon: Presses universitaires de Franche-Comté. Lepaumier, H., Marcigny, C. and Ghesquière, E. (2005) ‘L’architecture des habitats protohistoriques de Normandie: Quelques exemples de la fin du IIIe millénaire au début du second âge du Fer’. In: O. Buchsenschutz and C. Mordant (eds) Architectures protohistoriques en Europe occidentale du Néolithique final à l’âge du Fer: 231–64. Paris: Comité des Travaux Historiques et Scientifiques. Leroi-Gourhan, A., Bailloud, G. and Brézillon, M. (1962) ‘L’hypogée II des Mournouards (Mesnil-sur-Goer, Marne)’, Gallia Préhistoire. Fouilles et monuments archéologiques en France métropolitaine 5: 23–133. Leroy, G., Deckers, M. and Collette, O. (2006) ‘La fouille d’un site de Néolithique final en contexte de vallée à Valenciennes – Rue Bernier (Nord)’, Internéo 6: 87–94. Leroy-Langevin, E. and Collette, O. (2011) ‘La fouille des enclos circulaires de l’âge du Bronze: une nouvelle approche? Contribution géopédologique à l’étude des monuments arasés sur substrat limoneux de Lauwin-Planque (Nord)’, Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française 108(1): 127–38. Leroyer, C. (2003) ‘Environnement végétal des structures funéraires et anthropisation du milieu durant le Néolithique récent/final dans le Bassin parisien’. In: J. Leclerc and C. Masset (eds) Sans dessus dessous—La recherché du sens en préhistoire: 83–92. Amiens: Revue Archéologique de Picardie Numéro Spécial 21. Leroyer, C. (2006) ‘L’impact des groupes néolithiques du Bassin parisien sur le milieu végétal: évolution et approche territoriale d’après les données polliniques’. In: P. Duhamel (ed.) Impacts interculturels au Néolithique moyen. Du terroir au territoire: sociétés et espaces. Actes du 25e colloque interrégional sur le Néolithique, Dijon, 20–21 octobre 2001: 131–49. Dijon: Revue Archéologique de l’Est Supplément 25. Leroyer, C., Boulen, M., Marguerie, D., Lorho, T., Prat, B., Argant, J., Allenet de Ribemeont, G., Aoustin, D., Diot, M. F., Gaudin, L., Guenet, P., Latour-Argant, C., Marembat, L., Perrière, J., Tixier, C. and Vivent, D. (2009) ‘Base de données et SIG palynologiques sur l’âge du Fer en France: une autre approche du paysage végétal et de son anthropisation’. In: I. Bertrand, A. Duval, J. Gomez De Soto and

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

References

407

P. Maguer (eds) Habitats et paysages ruraux en Gaule et regards sur d’autres régions du monde celtique. Actes du XXXIe colloque de l’Association française pour l’étude de l’âge du Fer: 447–68. Chauvigny: Association des publications chauvinoises Mémoire 35. Lintz, G. (2009) ‘Saint-Gence (Haut-Vienne), le village Gaulois’. In: I. Bertrand, A. Duval, J. Gomez De Soto and P. Maguer (eds) Les Gaulois entre Loire et Dordogne. Actes du XXXI colloque international de l’Association Française pour l’Étude de l’Âge du Fer: 155–80. Chauvigny: Association des publications chauvinoises Mémoire 34. Lißner, B. (2004) Zu den frühbronzezeitlichen Gruppen in Süddeutschland. Leipziger online-Beiträge zur Ur- und Frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie 13. Leipzig: Universität Leipzig. Lohof, E. and Vaars, J. (2005) Een nederzetting uit de Bronstijd te Hoogwoud, gemeente Opmeer. ADC ArcheoProjecten Rapport 401. Amersfoort: ADC ArcheoProjecten. Lolk, J. (2009) ‘Bronzealderens keramik – En kilde til forståelse af kommunikation og social interaktion i bronzealderen’, Kuml 2009: 57–98. Loughton, M. E. (2009) ‘Getting smashed: the deposition of amphorae and the drinking of wine in Gaul during the late Iron Age’, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 28: 77–110. Lourdeau, C. and Marcigny, C. (2007) ‘Guichainville. CD 52 – Le Long Buisson 3–4’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Haute-Normandie 2004: 34. Louwe Kooijmans, L. P. (1974) The Rhine-Meuse delta: four studies on its prehistoric occupation and Holocene geology. Analecta Praehistoria Leidensia 7. Leiden: Leiden University Press. Louwe Kooijmans, L. P. ed. (2001a) Archeologie in de Betuweroute. HardinxveldGiessendam Polderweg. Een mesolithisch jachtkamp in het rivierengebied (5500–5000 v. Chr.), Rapportage Archeologische Monumentenzorg 83. Amersfoort: ROB. Louwe Kooijmans, L. P. ed. (2001b) Archeologie in de Betuweroute: HardinxveldGiessendam De Bruin. Een kampplaats uit het Laat-Mesolithicum en het begin van de Swifterbantcultuur (5500–4450 v. Chr.) Rapportage Archeologische Monumentenzorg 88. Amersfoort: ROB. Louwe Kooijmans, L. P. (2005) ‘Hunting camps in the swamps: the river dunes near Hardinxveld’. In: L. P. Louwe Kooijmans, P. W. van den Broeke, H. Fokkens and A. L. van Gijn (eds) The prehistory of the Netherlands, Volume 1: 183–6. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Louwe Kooijmans, L. P. (2009) ‘The agency factor in the process of Neolithisation – a Dutch case-study’, Journal of Archaeology in the Low Countries 1(1): 27–54. Lukas, D., Teegen, W.-R., Cordie, R., Schrickel, M., König, M. and Fleischer, F. (2012) ‘Auf der Suche nach den Kelten - systematische Prospektionen im Umkreis von Belginum’. In: M. Schönfelder and S. Sievers (eds) L’âge du Fer entre le Champagne et la vallée du Rhin. 34e colloque international de l’Association française pour l’étude de l’âge du Fer du 13 au 16 mai 2010 à Aschaffenburg: 263–90. Mainz: RömischGermanisches Zentralmuseum. Lüning, J. and von Kaenel, H.-M. (2006) Ausgrabungen zur Bandkeramik Bronze- und Römerzeit in Bad Homburg v.d.H.—Ober-Erlenbach 2001–2002. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 136. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt. Lüning, J., Kloos, U. and Albert, S. (1989) ‘Westliche Nachbarn der bandkeramischer Kultur: Die Keramikgruppen La Hoguette und Limburg’, Germania 67: 355–421.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

408

References

Lütjens, I. (2008) ‘Grabhügel und Kiesabbau. Die Ausgrabungen in Bornhöved und Groß Rönnau’, Archäologische Nachrichten aus Schleswig-Holstein 14: 30–2. Lynch, F., Aldhouse-Green, S. and Davies, J. (2000) Prehistoric Wales. Stroud: Sutton. Lynn, C. (2003) Navan Fort: archaeology and myth. Bray: Wordwell. Macdonald, P. and O’Neill, J. (2009) ‘Investigation of the find-spot of the Tamlaght hoard, Co. Armagh’. In: G. Cooney, K. Beckers, J. Coles, M. Ryan and S. Sievers (eds) Relics of old decency: archaeological studies of later prehistory: 167–79. Dublin: Wordwell. Madgwick, R., Mulville, J. and Stevens, R. E. (2012) ‘Diversity in foddering strategy and herd management in late Bronze Age Britain: an isotope investigation of pigs and other fauna from two midden sites’, Environmental Archaeology 17: 126–40. Madsen, T. (2009) ‘Aalstrup - en boplads en systemgravsanlæg ved Horsens Fjord’. In: A. Schülke (ed.) Plads og rum i tragtbægerkulturen: 105–38. Copenhagen: Det Kongelige Nordiske Oldskriftselskab. Maguer, P. ed. (2004) Buxerolles. Terre qui fume. Vienne (86). Rapport final d’opération. Pessac: INRAP GSO. Maguer, P. (2005a) L’Isle d’Espagnac ‘Bel-Air’ (Charente): rapport de fouilles. Pessac: INRAP GSO. Maguer, P. (2005b) La Corbinière, Beaucouzé (Maine-et-Loire): rapport de fouilles. Cesson-Sévigné: INRAP GO. Maguer, P. and Lusson, D. (2009) ‘Fermes, hameaux et résidences aristocratiques entre Loire et Dordogne’. In: I. Bertrand, A. Duval, J. Gomez De Soto and P. Maguer (eds) Les Gaulois entre Loire et Dordogne. Actes du XXXI colloque international de l’Association Française pour l’Étude de l’Âge du Fer: 423–57. Chauvigny: Association des publications chauvinoises Mémoire 34. Maguer, P., Artuis, R. and Hiernard, J. (2005) ‘L’établissement rural de la Chapellière à la Chaize-le-Vicomte (Vendée): une ferme gauloise de la fin du deuxième âge du Fer (IIe siècle–Ier siècle a. C.)’, Aquitania 21: 21–72. Maguer, P., Ferrié, J.-G., Landreau, G. and Lemaître, S. (2009) ‘Bessines. Le Grand Champ Est’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Poitou-Charentes 2008: 104–6. Malim, T. and Hayes, L. (2011) ‘The road’, British Archaeology 120, September/ October 2011: 124–40. Mallory, J. (1995) ‘Haughey’s Fort in the Navan complex of the Late Bronze Age’. In: J. Waddell and E. Shee Twohig (eds) Ireland in the Bronze Age: 73–86. Dublin: Stationery Office. Malrain, F. (2003) ‘La site du La Tène finale de Ronchères “Le Bois de la Forge” (Aisne)’, Bulletin de l’Association française pour l’étude de l’âge du Fer 2003: 34–5. Malrain, F. and Pinard, E. (2006) Les sites laténiens de la moyenne vallée de l’Oise du Ve au Ier s. avant notre ère. Amiens: Revue archéologique de Picardie Numéro Spécial 23. Malrain, F., Bauvais, S., Boulen, M., Fechner, K., Hénon, B., Legros, V., Saurel, M. and Pissot, V. (2004) Ronchères (Aisne) ‘Le Bois de la Forge’: site artisanal de La Tène finale du Gallo-Romain. Documents finaux de synthèse de fouilles preventives. Amiens: SRA Picardie. Malrain, F., Blancquaert, G. and Lorho, T. eds (2013) L’habitat rural du second âge du Fer. Rythmes de création et d’abandon au nord de la Loire, Recherches archéologiques 7. Paris: INRAP/Éditions CNRS.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

References

409

Malrain, F., Blondiau, L. and Chaidron, C. (2007a) ‘Les enclos laténiens sont-ils toujours les fermes?’, Revue archéologique de Picardie 2007 (3–4): 17–55. Malrain, F., Gaudefroy, S. and Pinard, E. (2007b) ‘Poulainville. Pôle logistique Zones B et C’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Picardie 2005: 117–19. Malrain, F., Maréchal, D. and Pinard, E. (1998) ‘Longueil-Sainte-Marie. Le Vivier des Grès’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Picardie 1996: 69–70. Malrain, F., Matterne, V. and Méniel, P. (2002) Les paysans Gaulois (IIIe siècle–52 av. J.-C.). Paris: Éditions Errance. Manby, T., King, A. and Vyner, B. (2003) ‘The Neolithic and Early Bronze Age: a time of early agriculture’. In: T. Manby, S. Moorhouse and P. Ottaway (eds) The Archaeology of Yorkshire: 35–116. Leeds: Yorkshire Archaeological Society. Maniquet, C. (2009) ‘Le sanctuaire Gaulois de Tintignac’. In: I. Bertrand, A. Duval, J. Gomez De Soto and P. Maguer (eds) Les Gaulois entre Loire et Dordogne. Actes du XXXI colloque international de l’Association Française pour l’Étude de l’Âge du Fer: 121–48. Chauvigny: Association des publications chauvinoises Mémoire 34. Mantel, E. ed. (1997) Le sanctuaire de Fesques ‘Le Mont du Val aux Moines’, Seine Maritime. Nord-Ouest Archéologie 8. Berck-sur-Mer: CDRAC. Maraszek, R. (2006) Spätbronzezeitliche Hortfundlandschaften in atlantischer und nordischer Metalltradition. Veröffentlichungen des Landesamtes für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt. Halle (Saale): Landesmuseum für Vorgeschichte 60. Marchand, G. (2007a) ‘Et maintenant, qu’est-ce qu’on fait? Le Mésolithique de l’Ouest, 80 ans après M. et S.-J. Péquart’, Melvan. La revue des deux îles 4: 199–214. Marchand, G. (2007b) ‘Neolithic fragrances: Mesolithic – Neolithic interactions in western France’. In: A. Whittle and V. Cummings (eds) Going over: the Mesolithic– Neolithic transition in north-west Europe: 225–42. London: British Academy. Marcigny, C. (2005) ‘Habitats et occupation du territoire à l’âge du Bronze et au début du premier âge du Fer en Basse-Normandie. Le Hague Dike à Beaumont-Hague (Manche)’, Archéopages 15: 36–7. Marcigny, C. (2006) ‘Bernières-sur-Mer. Rue du Maréchal Montgomery’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Basse-Normandie 2005: 35. Marcigny, C. (2007) ‘Guichainville. Le Vieil-Evreux, Le Long Buisson 1 à 3’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Haute-Normandie 2004: 35–9. Marcigny, C. ed. (2009) Ecouché carrière Méac: rapport de fouilles. Cesson-Sévigné: INRAP GO. Marcigny, C. (2010a) La Hague dans tous ses états. Archéologie/histoire/anthropologie. Cully: OREP éditions. Marcigny, C. ed. (2010b) Ri et Ronai ‘Le Fresne’ (Orne). Une minière de silex du Néolithique. Cesson-Sévigné: INRAP GO. Marcigny, C. (2012) ‘Lieux funéraires, paysages et territoires de l’âge du Bronze en Normandie’. In: D. Bérenger, J. Bourgeois, M. Talon and S. Wirth (eds) Gräberlandschaften der Bronzezeit: 595–617, Bodenaltertümer Westfalens 51. Darmstadt: Philipp von Zabern. Marcigny, C. and Ghesquière, E. (2003a) ‘Parcellaire et nécropoles de l’Âge du Bronze ancien à Bernières-sur-Mer (Calvados)’, Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française 100(1): 117–34.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

410

References

Marcigny, C. and Ghesquière, E. (2003b) L’Ile de Tahitou (Manche) à l’Âge du Bronze. Habitats et occupation du sol. Documents d’Archéologie Française 96. Paris: Maison des Sciences de l’Homme. Marcigny, C. and Lepaumier, H. (2003) ‘Nonant. La Bergerie II’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Basse-Normandie 2001: 41–3. Marcigny, C. and Talon, M. (2009) ‘Sur les rives de la Manche. Qu’en est-il du passage de l’âge du Bronze à l’âge du Fer à partir des découvertes récentes’. In: M.-J. Roulière-Lambert (ed.) De l’âge du Bronze à l’âge du Fer en France et en Europe occidentale (Xe–VIIe siècle av. J.-C.)—La moyenne vallée du Rhône aux âges du Fer. Actes du XXXe colloque international de l’A.F.E.A.F., co-organisé avec l’A.P.R.A.B. (SaintRomain-en-Gal, 26–28 mai 2006): 385–403. Dijon: Revue Archéologique de l’Est supplément 27. Marcigny, C., Carpentier, V., Ghesquière, E., Leborgne, G., Gallouin, E. and Ménager, L. (2004) ‘Sépultures de “pêcheurs” de l’Âge du Bronze ancien à Bénouville “les Hautes Coutures” (Calvados)’, Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française 101(2): 305–23. Marcigny, C., Ghesquière, E., Juel, L. and Charraud, F. (2010a) ‘Entre Néolithique ancien et Néolithique moyen en Normandie et dans les Iles anglo-normandes: parcours chronologique’. In: C. Billard and M. Legris (eds) Premiers Néolithiques de l’Ouest: 117–62. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes. Marcigny, C., Ghesquière, E. and Kinnes, I. A. (2007a) ‘Bronze Age cross-Channel relations: the Lower Normandy (France) example: ceramic chronology and first reflections’. In: C. G. P. Burgess, P. Topping and F. Lynch (eds) Beyond Stonehenge: essays on the Bronze Age in honour of Colin Burgess: 255–67. Oxford: Oxbow. Marcigny, C., Ghesquière, E., Lespez, L. and Clet-Pellerin, M. (2007b) ‘Emprise ou déprise agricole à l’Âge du Bronze moyen sur le littoral de la Manche? Une lecture du phénomène grâce aux sites normands’. In: H. Richard, M. Magny and C. Mordant (eds) Environnements et cultures à l’Âge du Bronze en Europe occidentale: 311–26. Besançon: CTHS. Marcigny, C., Savary, X., Verney, A. and Verron, G. (2010b) ‘L’âge du Bronze en Basse-Normandie’. Bilan de la recherche archéologique 1984–2004. Quoi de neuf? 2004–2010, Volume I Préhistoire—Protohistoire: 93–142. Caen, Service Régional de l’Archéologie Basse-Normandie. Mare, E. (2006) ‘Malleville-sur-le-Bec A28 Nord. Buisson du Roui’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Haute-Normandie 2003: 54–5. Mare, E. (2008) ‘Alizay/Le Manoir-sur-Seine. Carrière la Sentelle La Cour Carel’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Haute-Normandie 2006: 15. Mare, E. and Le Goff, I. (2006) ‘Mallevile-sur-le-Bec/Bonneville-Aptot (Eure), organisation et chronologie de l’habitat du Bronze final’, Bulletin de l’Association pour la Promotion des Recherches sur l’âge du Bronze 3: 37–41. Maréchal, D. (2001) ‘Fréthun. Les Arguillères RD 304’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Nord-Pas-de-Calais 2000: 147–50. Maréchal, D., Alexandre, S., Boucneau, N., Hébert, P., Macquet, P. and Pissot, V. (2006) ‘Venette. Bois de Plaisance - Zone 1’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Picardie 2004: 83–5. Marembert, F. and Seigne, J. (2000) ‘Un faciès original: le groupe du Pont-Long au cours des phases anciennes de l’Âge du Bronze dans les Pyrénées nord-occidentales’, Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française 97(4): 521–38.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

References

411

Margarit, X., Adam, F. and Lefebvre, A. (2007) ‘Les sépultures mégalithiques de Lorraine. Bilan documentaire et nouvelles données’. In: F. Le Brun-Ricalens, F. Valotteau and A. Hauzeur (eds) Relations interrégionales au Néolithique entre Bassin parisien et Bassin rhénan. Actes du 26e colloque interrégional sur le Néolithique. Luxembourg, 8 et 9 novembre 2003: 551–65, Archeologia Mosellana 7. Luxembourg: Musée National d’Histoire et d’Art. Marion, S. (2009) ‘Des objets dans les tombes: éléments d’interprétation des assemblages funéraires du IIIe siècle avant J.-C. dans les sépultures des environs de Paris’, Revue archéologique de Picardie 2009 (3–4): 233–44. Marion, S., Gaultier, M., Villenave, C. and Chimier, J.-P. (2010) ‘Sépultures et ensembles funéraires du second âge du Fer en Île-de-France et en Région Centre’. In: P. Barral, B. Dedet, F. Delrieu, P. Giraud, I. Le Goff, S. Marion and A. Villard-Le Tiec (eds) Gestes funéraires en Gaule au second âge du Fer. Actes du XXXIIIe colloque de l’Association française pour l’étude de l’âge du Fer, II: 107–28, Annales Littéraires de l’Université de Franche-Comté 883. Besançon: Presses universitaires de Franche-Comté. Marion, S., Le Bechennec, Y. and Le Forestier, C. (2007) ‘Nécropole et bourgade d’artisans: l’évolution des sites de Bobigny (Seine-Saint-Denis), entre La Tène B et La Tène D’, Revue Archéologique du Centre de la France 45–6: 6–50. Marolle, C. (1998) ‘Le site Michelsberg des Hautes-Chanvières avec bâtiments et enceinte à Mairy, Ardennes – France’. In: J. Biel, H. Schlichtherle, M. Strobel and A. Zeeb (eds) Die Michelsberger Kultur und ihre Randgebiet—Probleme der Entstehung, Chronologie und des Siedlungswesen: 21–8. Stuttgart: Konrad Theiss. Martens, J. (1994) ‘Refuge – fortified settlement – central place?’, EthnographischArchäologische Zeitschrift 35: 241–76. Martens, J. (2007) ‘Fortified places in lowland northern Europe during the pre-Roman Iron Age’. In: S. Möllers, W. Schlüter and S. Sievers (eds) Keltische Einflüsse im nördlichen Mitteleuropa während der mittleren und jüngeren vorrömischen Eisenzeit: 87–105. Frankfurt am Main: Römisch-Germanische Komission. Martial, E. and Praud, I. (2007) ‘Un site palissadé du Néolithique final à HouplinAncoisne (Nord, France)’. In: F. Le Brun-Ricalens, F. Valotteau and A. Hauzeur (eds) Relations interrégionales au Néolithique entre Bassin parisien et Bassin rhénan. Actes du 26e colloque interrégional sur le Néolithique. Luxembourg, 8 et 9 novembre 2003: 403–43, Archeologia Mosellana 7. Luxembourg: Musée National d’Histoire et d’Art. Martial, E., Cayol, N., Hamon, C., Maigrot, Y., Medard, F. and Monchablon, C. (2011) ‘Production et fonction des outillages au Néolithique final dans la vallée de la Deûle (Nord-Pas-de-Calais, France)’. In: F. Bostyn, E. Martial and I. Praud (eds) Le Néolithique du Nord de la France dans son contexte européen: habitat et économie aux 4e et 3e millénaires avant notre ère. Actes du 29e colloque interrégional sur le Néolithique, Villeneuve-d’Ascq 2–3 octobre 2009: 365–90. Senlis: Revue Archéologique de Picardie Numéro Spécial 28. Martin, E. and Murphy, P. (1988) ‘West Row Fen, Suffolk: a Bronze Age fen-edge settlement’, Antiquity 62: 353–8. Martin, J., Schuster, J. and Barclay, A. (2012) ‘Evidence of an early Bronze Age field system and spelt growing, together with an Anglo-Saxon sunken featured building, at Monkton Road, Minster in Thanet’, Archaeologia Cantiana 132: 43–52.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

412

References

Martin, L., Richardson, J. and Roberts, I. eds (2013) Iron Age and Roman settlements at Wattle Syke: archaeological investigations during the A1 Bramham to Wetherby upgrading scheme. Wakefield: Yorkshire Archaeology 11. Martin, S. (2013) Du statère au sesterce. Rome et la Gaule septentrionale et orientale (150 av. J.-C–50 ap. J.-C). PhD thesis, Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, Paris. Masset, C. and Valentin, F. (1999) ‘Deux sous-populations dans une allée couverte “Seine-Oise-Marne” (Guiry-en-Vexin, Val d’Oise)’, Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française 96(2): 221–4. Mathiot, D. (2005) ‘Deux établissements ruraux laténiens découverts à Onnaing “Toyota” (France, Nord): chronologie et organisation spatiale’, Lunula 13: 55–65. Mauritsen, E. (2010) ‘Brændgaards Hede: a settlement surrounded by pit zone fortifications from the early pre-Roman Iron Age in Denmark’. In: M. Meyer (ed.) Haus—Gehöft—Weiler—Dorf. Siedlungen der vorrömischen Eisenzeit im nördlichen Mitteleuropa: 262–79. Rahden: Marie Leidorf. Mazurié de Kéroualin, K. (2003) Genèse et diffusion de l’agriculture en Europe: agriculteurs, chasseurs, pasteurs. Paris: Errance. McCartan, S., Schulting, R., Warren, G. and Woodman, P. eds (2009) Mesolithic Horizons. Oxford: Oxbow. McClatchie, M., Bogaard, A., Colledge, S., Whitehouse, N., Schulting, R., Barratt, R. and McLaughlin, T. R. (2012) ‘Neolithic farming in north-western Europe: archaeobotanical evidence from Ireland’, Journal of Archaeological Science (Available at ). McDermott, C., Moore, C., Murray, C., Plunkett, G. and Stanley, M. (2009) ‘A colossus of roads: the Iron Age archaeology of Ireland’s peatlands’. In: G. Cooney, K. Beckers, J. Coles, M. Ryan and S. Sievers (eds) Relics of old decency: archaeological studies of later prehistory: 49–64. Dublin: Wordwell. McGarry, T. (2007) ‘Irish late prehistoric burial practices: continuity, developments and influences’, Trowel 11: 1–25. McGarry, T. (2009) ‘Irish late prehistoric burial ring-ditches’. In: G. Cooney, K. Beckers, J. Coles, M. Ryan and S. Sievers (eds) Relics of old decency: archaeological studies of later prehistory: 413–23. Dublin: Wordwell. McKinley, J., Schuster, J. and Millard, A. (2013) ‘Dead-sea connections: a Bronze Age and Iron Age ritual site on the Isle of Thanet’. In: J. T. Koch and B. Cunliffe (eds) Celtic from the West 2: rethinking the Bronze Age and the arrival of Indo-Europeans in Atlantic Europe: 157–83. Oxford: Oxbow. McQuade, M., Molloy, B. and Moriarty, C. (2009) In the shadow of the Galtees: archaeological excavations along the N8 Cashel to Mitchelstown road scheme. Dublin: National Roads Authority. Meiborg, C. (2012) ‘Fundort Kiesgrube: Die keltische Brücke von KirchhainNiederwald, Hessen. Die Ergebnisse der dendrochronologischen Untersuchungen und der 14C-Datierung’. In: C. Tappert, C. Later, J. Fries-Knoblach, P. Ramsl, P. Trebsche, S. Wefers and J. Wiethold (eds) Wege und Transport: 49–59, Beiträge zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte Mitteleuropas 69. Langenweissbach: Beier und Beran. Meijlink, B. (2002) ‘Ouderwets puzzelen: een gecompliceerde grafheuvel op “de Bogen”’. In: H. Fokkens and R. Jansen (eds) 2000 jaar bewoningsdynamiek. Brons- en ijzertijdbewoning in het Maas-Demer-Scheldegebied: 207–32. Leiden: Universiteit Leiden.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

References

413

Meijlink, B. (2008) ‘The Bronze Age cultural landscape of De Bogen’. In: S. Arnoldussen and H. Fokkens (eds) Bronze Age settlements in the Low Countries: 137–50. Oxford: Oxbow. Meijlink, B. and Kranendonk, P. (2002) Archeologie in de Betuweroute. Boeren, erven, graven: De boerengemeenschap van De Bogen bij Meteren (2450–1250 v. chr.). Rapportage Archeologische Monumentenzorg 87. Amersfoort: ROB. Meiklejohn, C. and Babb, J. (2009) ‘Issues in burial chronology in the Mesolithic of Northwestern Europe’. In: P. Crombé, M. Van Strydonck, J. Sergant, M. Boudin and M. Bats (eds) Chronology and evolution within the Mesolithic of north-west Europe: proceedings of an international meeting, Brussels, May 30th–June 1st 2007: 217–38. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars. Meiklejohn, C., Bosset, G. and Valentin, F. (2010) ‘Radiocarbon dating of Mesolithic human remains in France’, Mesolithic Miscellany 21(1): 10–56. Meiklejohn, C., Brinch Petersen, E. and Babb, J. (2009) ‘From single graves to cemeteries: an initial look at chronology in Mesolithic burial practice’. In: S. McCartan, R. Schulting, G. Warren and P. Woodman (eds) Mesolithic Horizons: 639–49. Oxford: Oxbow. Meiklejohn, C., Merrett, D., Nolan, R., Richards, M. and Mellars, P. (2005) ‘Spatial relationships, dating and taphonomy of the human bone from the Mesolithic site of Cnoc Coig, Oronsay, Argyll, Scotland’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 71: 85–105. Meirsman, E. and Moree, J. (2004) Rotterdam Kandelaarweg; Verslag van de Archeologische Begeleiding van de Aanleg van het Recreatiegebied Poldervaart 1 in de Gemeente Rotterdam. BOOR Rapporten 111. Rotterdam: BOOR. Melichar, P. and Neubauer, W. eds (2010) Mittleneolithische Kreisgrabenanlagen in Niederösterreich. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Mellars, P. and Wilkinson, M. (1980) ‘Fish otoliths as indications of seasonality in prehistoric shell middens: the evidence from Oronsay’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 46: 19–44. Melton, N. (2009) ‘Shells, seals and ceramics: an evaluation of a midden at West Voe, Sumburgh, Shetland’. In: S. McCartan, R. Schulting, G. Warren and P. Woodman (eds) Mesolithic Horizons: 184–9. Oxford: Oxbow. Melzer, W. (2005) ‘Soest-“Am Ardey” und kein Ende?’. In: H. Eilbracht, V. Brieske and B. Grodde (eds) Itinera Archaeologica. Vom Neolithikum bis in die frühe Neuzeit: 171–9, Studia Honoraria 22. Rahden: Marie Leidorf. Menez, Y. (2012) ‘Die Entstehung städtischer Siedlungen bei befestigten Adelssitzen der jüngeren Eisenzeit in Gallien: Das Beispiel von Paule (Côtes d’Armor)’. In: S. Sievers and M. Schönfelder (eds) Die Frage der Protourbanisierung in der Eisenzeit: 289–301. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt. Menez, Y. and Arramond, J.-C. (1997) ‘L’habitat aristocratique fortifié de Paule (Côtes-d’Armor)’, Gallia 54: 119–55. Ménez, Y., Giot, P.-R., Laubenheimer, F., Le Goff, E. and Vendries, C. (1999) ‘Les sculptures Gauloises de Paule (Côtes d’Armor)’, Gallia 56: 357–414. Méniel, P. (1999) ‘Histoire de l’alimentation carnée et de l’organisation sociale du village gaulois d’Acy-Romance (Ardennes, France)’. In: F. Braemer, S. Cleuziou and A. Coudart (eds) Habitat et Société (XIXe Rencontres Internationales d’Archéologie et d’Histoire d’Antibes): 405–18. Antibes: Éditions APDCA.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

414

References

Menninger, M. (2008) Die schnurkeramischen Bestattungen von Lauda-Königshofen. Steinzeitliche Hirtennomaden im Taubertal? PhD thesis, Tübingen University. Mens, E. (2004) ‘Étude technologique des gravures de Mané er Hroëk (Locqmariaquer, Morbihan): un nouveau cas de crosse transformée en hache’, Internéo 4: 33–6. Mens, E. (2008) ‘Refitting megaliths in western France’, Antiquity 82: 25–36. Mentele, S. (2006) Plouédern. Leslouc’h (Finistère—Bretagne). Un site d’habitat du Bronze ancien-moyen. Cesson-Sévigné: INRAP GO. Mercer, R. and Healy, F. (2008) Hambledon Hill Dorset: excavation and survey of a Neolithic monument complex and its surrounding landscape. Swindon: English Heritage. Merleau, M.-L. (2002) ‘La mort à Bois-Guillaume (Seine-Maritime) du IIIe au Ier siècle avant J.-C. Découvertes archéologiques sur la rocade nord de Rouen, déviation de la RD 43’. In: G. Dilly (ed.) Six nécropoles du Second Âge du fer en Haute-Normandie: 41–330, Nord-Ouest Archéologie 13. Berck-sur-Mer: CRADC. Metzler, J. (1995) Das Treverische Oppidum auf dem Titelberg. Luxembourg. Luxembourg: Dossiers d’Archéologie du Musée Nationale d’Histoire et d’Art 3. Metzler, J. (2008) ‘Du Titelberg à Trèves. De l’oppidum gaulois à la ville romaine’. In: D. Castella and M.-F. Meylan Krause (eds) Topographie sacrée et rituels. Le cas d’Aventicum, capitale des Helvètes: 155–65. Basel: Archéologie Suisse. Metzler, J. and Gaeng, C. (2009) Goeblange-Nospelt. Une nécropole aristocratique trévire. Luxembourg: Dossiers d’Archéologie du Musée National d’Histoire et d’Art 13. Metzler, J., Méniel, P. and Gaeng, C. (2006) ‘Oppida et espaces publics’. In: C. Haselgrove (ed.) Les mutations de la fin de l’âge du Fer: 201–24. Glux-en-Glenne: Collection Bibracte 12/4. Metzler-Zens, N., Metzler, J. and Méniel, P. (1999) Lamadeleine, une nécropole de l’oppidum du Titelberg. Luxembourg: Dossiers d’Archéologie du Musée National d’Histoire et d’Art VI. Meurers-Balke, J. and Kalis, A. (2006) ‘Landwirtschaft und Landnutzung in der Bronzeund Eisenzeit’. In: J. Kunow and H.-W. Wegner (eds) Urgeschichte im Rheinland: 267–76. Köln: Rheinischer Verein für Denkmalpflege und Landschaftsschutz. Meurkens, L. and Hamburg, T. (2007) Prehistorische bewoning op het World Forum gebied—Den Haag. Archol Rapport 83. Leiden: Archol. Meurkens, L. and Tol, A. J. (2011) Grafvelden en greppelstructuren uit de ijzertijd en Romeinse tijd bij Itteren (gemeente Maastricht). Opgraving Itteren-Emmaus vindplaatsen 1 en 2. Archol Rapport 144. Leiden: Archol. Meyer, M. (2008) Mardorf 23, Ldkr. Marburg-Biedenkopf. Archäologische Studien zur Besiedlung des deutschen Mittelgebirgsraumes in den Jahrhunderten um Christi Geburt. Berliner Archäologische Forschungen 5. Rahden: Marie Leidorf. Midgley, M. (2005) The monumental cemeteries of prehistoric Europe. Stroud: Tempus. Midgley, M. (2008) The megaliths of Northern Europe. London: Routledge. Mikkelsen, M. (2006) Sundstrup Øst—en boplads fra yngre stenalder. Viborg: Viborg Stiftsmuseum. Mikkelsen, M. (2011) ‘Fårdalfundet i yngre bronzealders kulturlandskab – fra periferi til centrum?’. In: S. Boddum, M. Mikkelsen and K. Terkildsen (eds) Depotfund i yngre bronzealderens lokale kulturlandskab: 37–61. Viborg/Holstebro: Viborg Stiftsmuseum/Holstebro Museum.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

References

415

Mikkelsen, M. (2012) ‘Development-led archaeology in Denmark’. In: L. Webley, M. Vander Linden, C. Haselgrove and R. Bradley (eds) Development-led archaeology in North-West Europe: proceedings of a round table at the University of Leicester 19th–21st November 2009: 117–27. Oxford: Oxbow. Mikkelsen, M. and Nielsen, M. (2004) Brokbakken—en samlingsplads? fra bronzealder og en gravplads fra ældre jernalder. Viborg: Viborg Stiftsmuseum. Milcent, P.-Y. (2006) ‘Premier âge du Fer médio-atlantique et genèse multipolaire des cultures matérielles laténiennes’. In: D. Vitali (ed.) Celtes et Gaulois, l’Archéologie face à l’Histoire, 2: la Préhistoire des Celtes. Actes de la table ronde de BologneMonterenzio, 28–29 mai 2005: 81–105. Glux-en-Glenne: Bibracte, Centre Archéologique Européen. Milcent, P.-Y. (2007a) Bourges-Avaricum. Un centre proto-urbain celtique du Ve siècle avant J.-C. Les fouilles du quartier de Saint-Martin-des-Champs et les découvertes des établissements militaires. Bourges: Service d’Archéologie Municipal. Milcent, P.-Y. ed. (2007b) L’économie du fer protohistorique: De la production à la consommation du métal. Bordeaux: Aquitania supplément 14/2. Milcent, P.-Y. (2009) ‘Le passage de l’âge du Bronze à l’âge du Fer en Gaule au miroir des élites sociales: une crise au VIIIe siècle av. J.-C.?’. In: M.-J. Roulière-Lambert (ed.) De l’âge du Bronze à l’âge du Fer en France et en Europe occidentale (Xe–VIIe siècle av. J.-C.)—La moyenne vallée du Rhône aux âges du Fer. Actes du XXXe colloque international de l’A.F.E.A.F., co-organisé avec l’A.P.R.A.B. (Saint-Romain-en-Gal, 26–28 mai 2006): 435–76. Dijon: Revue Archéologique de l’Est supplément 27. Milcent, P.-Y. (2012) Le temps des élites en Gaule Atlantique. Chronologie des mobiliers et rythmes de constitution des dépôts métalliques dans le contexte Européen. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes. Mille, B. and Bouquet, L. (2004) ‘Le métal au 3e millénaire avant notre ère dans le Centre-Nord de la France’, Anthropologica et Praehistorica 115: 197–215. Millet-Richard, L.-A. (2000) ‘Exploitation du silex dans la région pressignienne au Néolithique final. Problématique et évaluation d’un site’, Internéo 3: 111–17. Milner, N. and Laurie, E. (2009) ‘Coastal perspectives on the Mesolithic–Neolithic transition’. In: S. McCartan, R. Schulting, G. Warren and P. Woodman (eds) Mesolithic Horizons: 184–9. Oxford: Oxbow. Mischka, D., Dörfler, W., Grootes, P., Heinrich, D., Müller, J. and Nelle, O. (2007) ‘Die neolithische Feuchtbodensiedlung Bad Oldesloe-Wolkenwehe LA 154. Vorbericht zu den Untersuchungen 2006’, Offa 61/62: 25–63. Mithen, S. (2000) Hunter gatherer landscape archaeology: the Southern Hebrides Mesolithic Project 1988–1998. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Møbjerg, T. (2008) ‘Nye bopladsfund fra Brande’, Midtjyske Fortællinger 2008: 85–102. Modderman, P. (1970) Linearbandkeramik aus Elsloo und Stein. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 3. Leiden: Leiden University Press. Möller, C. A. (2010) ‘Kostenverteilung und Prävention nach der Malta-Konvention – vom Unverständnis und möglichen Missbrauch des Verursacherprinzips in der Archäologie. Anmerkungen zur Problematik und Entwicklung der Denkmalpflege’, Archäologische Informationen 33: 83–97. Möller, J. ed. (2001) Fundchronik Niedersachsen 2000, Nachrichten aus Niedersachsens Urgeschichte Beiheft 6. Stuttgart: Konrad Theiss.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

416

References

Möller, J. ed. (2002) Fundchronik Niedersachsen 2001, Nachrichten aus Niedersachsens Urgeschichte Beiheft 8. Stuttgart: Konrad Theiss. Møller-Jensen, E. (2006) ‘Den romerske villa og fyrsten ved Tjørring. konomiske, sociale og politiske forhold i ældre jernalder ved Herning’, Midtjyske Fortællinger 2006: 67–106. Möllers, S. (2009) Die Schnippenburg bei Ostercappeln, Landkreis Osnabrück, in ihren regionalen und chronologischen Bezügen. Rahden: Marie Leidorf. Möllers, S. and Zehm, B. eds (2007) Rätsel Schnippenburg. Sagenhafte Funde aus der Keltenzeit. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt. Montelius, O. (1908) ‘The chronology of the British Bronze Age’, Archaeologia 61: 97–162. Moore, T. (2012) ‘Beyond the oppida: polyfocal complexes and late Iron Age societies in southern Britain’, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 31: 391–417. Moore, T., Braun, A., Creighton, J., Cripps, L., Haupt, P., Klenner, I., Nouvel, P., Ponroy, C. and Schonfelder, M. (2013) ‘Oppida, agglomerations and surburbia: the Bibracte environs and new perspectives on late Iron Age urbanism in centraleastern France’, European Journal of Archaeology 16: 491–517. Morris, E. L. (1994) ‘Production and distribution of pottery and salt in Iron Age Britain: a review’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 60: 371–93. Morris, E. L. (1996) ‘Artefact production and exchange in the British Iron Age’. In: T. C. Champion and J. R. Collis (eds) The Iron Age in Britain and Ireland: recent trends: 41–65. Sheffield: J. R. Collis Publications. Moscati, S., Frey, O. H., Kruta, V., Raftery, B. and Szabo, M. eds (1991) The Celts. Milan: Bompiani. Müller, J. (2010) ‘Dorfanlagen, Siedlungssysteme - Die europäische Perspektive: Südosteuropa und Mitteleuropa’. In: C. Lichter (ed.) Aufbruch in eine neue Zeit: Europas Mitte um 4000 v. Chr. (Ausstellungskatalog) 250–7. Karlsruhe: Primus Verlag. Müller, J. (2011) Megaliths and Funnel Beakers: societies in change 4100–2700 BC. Drieendertigste Kroon-Voordracht. Amsterdam: Stichting Nederlands Museum voor Anthropologie en Praehistorie. Müller, J. and van Willingen, S. (2001) ‘New radiocarbon evidence for European Bell Beakers and the consequences for the diffusion of the Bell Beaker phenomenon’. In: F. Nicolis (ed.) Bell Beakers today: pottery, people, culture, symbols in prehistoric Europe: proceedings of the international colloquium Riva del Garda (Trento, Italy) 11–16 May 1998: 59–80. Trento: Ufficio Beni Archeologici. Müller, J., Bork, H. R., Brozio, J. P., Demnick, D., Diers, S., Dibbern, H., Dörfler, W., Feeser, I., Fritsch, B., Furholt, M., Hage, F., Hinz, M., Kirleis, W., Klooß, S., Kroll, H., Lindemann, M., Lorenz, L., Mischka, D. and Rinne, C. (2013) ‘Landscapes as social spaces and ritual meaning: some new results on TRB in northern Germany’. In: J. A. Bakker, S. B. C. Bloo and M. K. Dütting (eds) From funeral monuments to household pottery: current advances in Funnel Beaker culture (TRB/TBK) research: 51–80, British Archaeological Reports International Series 2474. Oxford: Archaeopress. Mullin, D. (2001) ‘Remembering, forgetting and the invention of tradition: burial and natural places in England’s Early Bronze Age’, Antiquity 75: 533–7. Murgia, A. and Roberts, B. W. (Forthcoming) ‘What have metal-detectorists ever done for us? Discovering Bronze Age gold in England and Wales’.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

References

417

Murray, H., Murray, C. and Fraser, S. (2009) A tale of unknown unknowns: a Mesolithic pit alignment and a Neolithic timber hall at Warren Field, Crathes, Aberdeenshire. Oxford: Oxbow. Nebelsick, L. D. (2007) ‘Die Grenze. Rituell denotierte Grabenstrukturen der späten Bronzezeit im Mittelelbe-Saale-Gebiet’. In: M. Blečić, M. Črešnar, B. Hänsel, A. Hellmuth, E. Kaiser and C. Metzner-Nebelsick (eds) Scripta praehistorica in honorem Biba Teržan: 267–300, Situla 44. Ljubljana: Narodni Muzej Slovenije. Needham, S. (1988) ‘Selective deposition in the British Early Bronze Age’, World Archaeology 20: 229–48. Needham, S. (1991) Excavation and salvage at Runnymede Bridge, 1978: the Late Bronze Age waterfront site. London: British Museum Press. Needham, S. (2000) ‘Power pulses across a cultural divide: cosmologically driven acquisition between Armorica and Wessex’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 66: 151–207. Needham, S. (2004) ‘Migdale-Marnoch: sunburst of Scottish metallurgy’. In: I. Shepherd and G. Barclay (eds) Scotland in ancient Europe: 217–45. Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. Needham, S. (2005) ‘Transforming Beaker Culture in north-west Europe: processes of fusion and fission’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 71: 171–217. Needham, S. and Bowman, S. (2005) ‘Flesh-hooks, technological complexity and the Atlantic feasting complex’, Journal of European Archaeology 8.2: 93–136. Needham, S. and Spence, A. J. (1996) Refuse and Disposal at Area 16 East, Runnymede: Runnymede Bridge Research Excavations, Volume 2. London: British Museum Press. Needham, S., Parfitt, K. and Varndell, G. (2006) The Ringlemere Cup: precious cups and the beginning of the Channel Bronze Age. London: British Museum Press. Needham, S., Parham, D. and Frieman, C. (2013) Claimed by the sea: Salcombe, Langdon Bay and other marine finds of the Bronze Age. York: Council for British Archaeology. Nehren, R. (2001) ‘Die vorrömischen Metallzeiten im Schlangengraben und im Indetal’. Archäologische Talauenforschungen: 127–92, Rheinische Ausgrabungen 52. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Nickel, C. (2000) ‘Kaiserzeitliche Befunde sowie weitere vor- und frühgeschichtliche Siedlungsstrukturen aus Runkel-Ennerich, Kreis Limburg-Weilburg. Vorbericht über die Grabung 1998’, Berichte der Kommission für Archäologische Landesforschung in Hessen 5: 123–35. Nickel, C. (2010) ‘10 Jahre neuere Grabungen am Dünsberg – Überblick und Perspektiven’, Berichte der Kommission für Archäologische Landesforschung in Hessen 10: 173–88. Nickel, C. (2013) Martberg. Heiligtum und Oppidum der Treverer. III. Die Siedlung. Berichte zur Archäologie an Mittelrhein und Mosel 19. Koblenz: Gesellschaft für Archäologie an Mittelrhein und Mosel. Nickel, C., Thoma, M. and Wigg-Wolf, D. (2008) Martberg. Heiligtum und Oppidum der Treverer. I. Der Kultbezirk. Die Grabungen 1994–2004. Berichte zur Archäologie an Mittelrhein und Mosel 14. Koblenz: Gesellschaft für Archäologie an Mittelrhein und Mosel. Nielsen, B. and Bech, J.-H. (2004) ‘Bronzealderens kulthuse i Thy. Anlæg med relation til gravkulten’, Kuml 2004: 129–59.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

418

References

Nielsen, J. (2002) ‘Flammernes bytte’, Skalk 2002(6): 5–10. Nielsen, L. (2009) ‘Ikeagrundens forhistorie’, Nordjyllands Historiske Museum Årsberetning 2009: 45–50. Nillesse, O. (2003) ‘Les établissements ruraux gaulois de Marcé (Maine-et-Loire) et la hiérarchisation des aedificia’, Revue Archéologique de l’Ouest Supplément 10: 149–72. Nillesse, O. (2005) ‘Ecouflant. La Planche, La Reculière’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Pays-de-la-Loire 2001: 37–8. Nillesse, O. (2006) ‘Les dépôts d’objets en fer dans les établissements ruraux gaulois de l’ouest de la France: le rituel est-il au fond de la poubelle?’. In: G. Bataille and J.-P. Guillaumet (eds) Les dépôts d’objets métalliques aux âges du fer: 221–46. Gluxen-Glenne: Collection Bibracte 11. Nillesse, O. (2009) ‘Activités, métiers, vie quotidienne dans les établissements ruraux de l’ouest de la France à travers l’instrumentum (Hallstatt D/début du HautEmpire)’. In: I. Bertrand, A. Duval, J. Gomez De Soto and P. Maguer (eds) Habitats et paysages ruraux en Gaule et regards sur d’autres régions du monde celtique. Actes du XXXIe colloque de l’Association française pour l’étude de l’âge du Fer: 45–83. Chauvigny: Association des publications chauvinoises Mémoire 35. Nilsson, T. (1996) ‘Store Tyrrestrup. En vendsysselsk storgård med bronzedepot fra ældre bronzealder’, Kuml 1993–94: 147–54. Noble, G. (2006) Neolithic Scotland: timber, stone, earth and fire. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Noble, G. and Brophy, K. (2011) ‘Ritual and remembrance at a prehistoric ceremonial complex in central Scotland: excavations at Forteviot, Perth and Kinross’, Antiquity 85: 787–804. Noble, G., Greig, M. and Millican, K. (2012) ‘Excavations at a multi-period site at Greenbogs, Aberdeenshire, Scotland and the four-post timber architecture tradition of Late Neolithic Britain and Ireland’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 78: 135–71. Noël, J.-Y. (2011) ‘Les sépultures individuelles de Bernières-sur-Mer (Calvados): une nécropole du début des âges des métaux?’. In: L. Salanova and Y. Tchérémissinoff (eds) Les sépultures individuelles campaniformes en France: 47–55, Gallia Préhistoire XLIe supplément. Paris: CNRS. Nørbach, L. C. (1998) ‘Ironworking in Denmark from the late Bronze Age to the early Roman Iron Age’, Acta Archaeologica 69: 53–75. Nouvel, P., Barral, P., Deffressignes, S., Riquier, V., Séguier, J.-M., Tikonoff, N. and Zehner, M. (2009) ‘Rhythmes de création, fonctionnement et abandon des établissements ruraux de la fin de l’âge du Fer dans l’Est de la France’. In: I. Bertrand, A. Duval, J. Gomez De Soto and P. Maguer (eds) Habitats et paysages ruraux en Gaule et regards sur d’autres régions du monde celtique. Actes du XXXIe colloque de l’Association française pour l’étude de l’âge du Fer: 109–51. Chauvigny: Association des publications chauvinoises Mémoire 35. Nowakowski, J. (2001) ‘Leaving home in the Cornish Bronze Age: insights into planned abandonment behaviour’. In: J. Brück (ed.) Bronze Age landscapes: tradition and transformation: 139–48. Oxford: Oxbow. Nowakowski, J., Quinnell, H., Sturgess, J. H., Thomas, C. and Thorpe, C. (2007) ‘Return to Gwithian: shifting the sands of time’, Cornish Archaeology 46: 13–76.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

References

419

O’Brien, W. (2004) Ross Island: mining, metal and society in Early Ireland. Bronze Age Studies 6. Galway: National University of Ireland, Galway. O’Brien, W. (2012a) Iverni: a prehistory of Cork. Cork: The Collins Press. O’Brien, W. (2012b) ‘Derrycarhoon: a Bronze Age copper mine in West Cork’, Archaeology Ireland 26(1): 12–15. O’Connell, A. (2013) Harvesting the stars: a pagan temple at Lismullin, Co. Meath. Dublin: National Roads Authority. O’Connor, B. (2007) ‘Llyn Fawr metalwork in Britain: a review’. In: C. Haselgrove and R. Pope (eds) The earlier Iron Age in Britain and beyond: 64–79. Oxford: Oxbow. Ó Drisceoil, C. (2007) ‘Life and death in the Iron Age at Carrickmines Great, County Dublin’, Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 137: 5–28. O’Neil, B. H. S. J. (1948) ‘War and archaeology in Britain’, Antiquaries Journal 28: 20–44. O’Sullivan, M. (2004) ‘Little and large: comparing Knockroe and Knowth’. In: H. Roche, E. Grogan, J. Bradley, J. Coles and B. Raftery (eds) From megaliths to metals: essays in honour of George Eogan: 44–50. Oxford: Oxbow. O’Sullivan, M. (2005) Duma na nGiall: the Mound of the Hostages, Tara. Bray: Wordwell. Oelze, V. M., Nehlich, O. and Richards, M. P. (2012) ‘ “There is no place like home” – no isotopic evidence for mobility at the Early Bronze Age cemetery of Singen, Germany’, Archaeometry 54(4): 752–78. Olesen, L. (1999) ‘Årsberetning 1998’, Arkæologisk Afdeling Holstebro Museums Årsskrift 1999: 63–70. Olesen, L. (2002) ‘Årsberetning 2001’, Arkæologisk afdeling Holstebro Museums Årsskrift 2002: 65–72. Olesen, M. (2005) ‘9000 års bebyggelse ved Sdr. Felding. Rapport fra en undersøgelse ved Skjern Å’, Midtjyske Fortællinger 2005: 73–82. Olesen, M. (2006) ‘Lysgård - en landsby fra ældre jernalder ved Vildbjerg’, Midtjyske Fortællinger 2006: 53–66. Olesen, M. (2009) ‘ “Hulbælter” – forsvarsanlæg fra ældre jernalder?’, Midtjyske Fortællinger 2009: 75–92. Olivier, L. (2012) Nos ancêtres les Germains. Les archéologues au service du nazisme. Paris: Tallandier. Olivier, L. and Kovacik, J. (2006) ‘The “Briquetage de la Seille” (Lorraine, France): proto-industrial salt production in the European Iron Age’, Antiquity 80: 558–66. Ollivier, A. (1999) ‘Quelques enceintes repérées par prospection aérienne dans la moitié nord du département de la Vienne’, Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française 96(3): 367–74. Olmer, F., Girard, B., Verrier, G. and Bohbot, H. (2013) ‘Voies, acteurs et modalités du grand commerce en Europe occidentale’. In: A. Colin and F. Verdin (eds) L’âge du Fer en Aquitaine et sur ses marges. Mobilité des hommes, diffusion des idées, circulation des biens dans l’espace européen à l’âge du Fer. Actes du XXXVe colloque de l’Association française pour l’étude de l’âge du Fer, II: 665–91. Bordeaux: Aquitania Supplément 30. Orschiedt, J. and Noël Haidle, M. (2012) ‘Violence against the living: violence against the dead on the human remains from Herxheim, Germany: evidence of a crisis and

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

420

References

mass cannibalism?’. In: R. Schulting and L. Fibiger (eds) Sticks, stones and broken bones: Neolithic violence in a European perspective: 121–37. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Orschiedt, J., Kegler, J. K., Gehlen, B., Schön, W. and Gröning, F. (2008) ‘Die Blätterhöhle in Hagen (Westfalen). Vorbericht über die ersten archäologischen Untersuchungen’, Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 38(1): 13–32. Oudry-Braillon, S. (2009) ‘Vers une géographie des gestes funéraires au second âge du Fer dans le Nord-Pas-de-Calais?’, Revue Archéologique de Picardie 2009 (3–4): 61–70. Pailler, Y. (2007) Des dernières industries à trapezes à l’affirmation du Néolithique en Bretagne Occidental. Oxford: Archaeopress. Pailler, Y., Gandois, H., Ihuel, E., Nicolas, C. and Sparfel, Y. (2010) ‘Le bâtiment en pierres sèches de Beg ar Loued, île Molène (Finistère). Evolution d’une construction du Campaniforme à l’Âge du Bronze ancien’. In: C. Billard and M. Legris (eds) Premiers Néolithiques de l’ouest: 415–39. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes. Pare, C. (2003) ‘Tumulus burial and the question of the start of the Hallstatt culture’. In: J. Bourgeois, I. Bourgeois and B. Cherretté (eds) Bronze and Iron Age communities in north-western Europe: 75–110. Brussels: Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie van Belgie voor Wetenschappen en Kunsten. Parfitt, K. (2012) ‘Folkestone: Roman villa or Iron Age oppidum?’, Current Archaeology 262: 22–9. Pariat, J.-G., Brunet, P. and Cottiaux, R. (2006) ‘La sépulture néolithique final des “Prés du Refuge” au pied des marais de Lesches (Seine-et-Marne)’, Internéo 6: 111–22. Parker Pearson, M. (2012) Stonehenge. London: Simon and Schuster. Parker Pearson, M., Chamberlain, A., Jay, M., Marshall, P., Pollard, J., Richards, C., Thomas, J., Tilley, C. and Welham, K. (2009) ‘Who was buried at Stonehenge?’, Antiquity 8: 23–39. Parker Pearson, M., Sharples, N. and Symonds, J. (2004) South Uist: archaeology and history of a Hebridean island. Stroud: Tempus. Parry, S. (2004) Raunds Area survey: an archaeological study of the landscape of Raunds, Northamptonshire 1985–94. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Pautreau, J.-P. ed. (1999) Antran. Une ensemble aristocratique du premier siècle. Poitiers: Musées de la ville de Poitiers. Peake, R. (2007) ‘Contextes funéraires et domestiques de l’Âge du Bronze à Marollessur-Seine (Seine-et-Marne): un bilan des connaissances’. In: J. Évin (ed.) Un siècle de construction du discours scientifique en préhistoire, Volume III: ‘Aux conceptions d’aujord’hui’: 561–72. Paris: Société préhistorique française. Peake, R. and Delattre, V. (2005) ‘L’apport des analyses 14 C à l’étude de la nécropole de l’âge du Bronze de “La Croix de la Mission” à Marolles-sur-Seine’, Revue Archéologique du Centre de la France 44: 5–25. Peake, R. and Delattre, V. (2010) ‘Monumentalité de la mort: la nécropole diachronique de Jaulnes « Le Bas des Hauts Champs » (Seine-et-Marne)’, Bulletin de l’Association pour la Promotion des Recherches sur l’Âge du Bronze 7: 19–22. Peake, R., Allenet, G., Auxiette, G., Boisseau, F., Chaussé, C., Coubray, S., Leroyer, C., Pautret-Homerville, C., Perrière, J. and Toulemonde, F. (2009) ‘Villiers-sur-Seine Le Gros Buisson: un habitat aristocratique de la fin de l’âge du Bronze et du début du premier âge du Fer’. In: M.-J. Roulière-Lambert (ed.) De l’âge du Bronze à l’âge du

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

References

421

Fer en France et en Europe occidentale (Xe–VIIe siècle av. J.-C.)—La moyenne vallée du Rhône aux âges du Fer. Actes du XXXe colloque international de l’A.F.E.A.F., co-organisé avec l’A.P.R.A.B. (Saint-Romain-en-Gal, 26–28 mai 2006): 559–64. Dijon: Revue Archéologique de l’Est supplément 27. Peake, R., Delattre, V. and Pihuit, P. (1999) ‘La Nécropole de l’Âge du Bronze de “La Croix de la Mission” à Marolles-sur-Seine (Seine-et-Marne)’, Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française 96(4): 581–605. Peake, R., Issenmann, R. and Delattre, V. (2011) ‘Examples of social modelling in the Seine valley during the late Bronze Age and early Iron Age’. In: T. Moore and X.L. Armada (eds) Atlantic Europe in the first millennium BC: crossing the divide: 319–35. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pechtl, J. (2009) ‘A monumental prestige patchwork’. In: D. Hofmann and P. Bickle (eds) Creating communities: new advances in central European Neolithic research: 186–201. Oxford: Oxbow. Pedersen, V. and Rostholm, H. (2009) ‘Nøvling Plantage. Udgravning på landvej 520 Vildbjerg-Tjørring’, Midtjyske Fortællinger 2009: 59–74. Peridy, P. (1999) ‘Les enceintes néolithiques à fossés interrompus entre Loire et Marais poitevin’, Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française 96(3): 421–6. Perrin, S. (2004) Préguillac ‘Les Arnoux’ (17). Rapport de diagnostic archéologique. Pessac: INRAP GSO. Peters, F. (2000) ‘Two traditions of Bronze Age burial in the Stonehenge landscape’, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 19: 343–58. Pétorin, N. ed. (1999) Fouille de sauvetage urgent. St-Georges-les-Baillargeaux ‘Les Varennes’. Document final de synthèse. Poitiers: SRA Poitou-Charentes. Pétorin, N. (2003) ‘Ecouflant. ZAC de Beuzon - La Chaîne’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Pays-de-la-Loire 2000: 36–7. Pétorin, N. (2008) ‘Ancenis. ZAC de La Savinière 1-2’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Pays-de-la-Loire 2008: 18–19. Pétrequin, P., Cassen, S., Klassen, K., Sheridan, A. and Pétrequin, A.-M. eds (2012) Jade. Grandes haches alpines du Néolithique européen. Ve et IVe millénaires av. J.-C.. Besançon: Presses Universitaires de Franche-Comté. Phillips, T. and Bradley, R. (2004) ‘Developer-funded field work in Scotland, 1990–2003: an overview of the prehistoric evidence’, Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 134: 17–51. Pierrevelcin, G. (2013) ‘La Bohême et la Gaule du IVe au Ier s. a.C.: étude de cas pour les relations à longue distance’. In: A. Colin and F. Verdin (eds) L’âge du Fer en Aquitaine et sur ses marges. Mobilité des hommes, diffusion des idées, circulation des biens dans l’espace européen à l’âge du Fer. Actes du XXXVe colloque de l’Association française pour l’étude de l’âge du Fer, II: 513–30. Bordeaux: Aquitania Supplément 30. Piette, J. (2000) ‘La Saulsotte. “Le Bois Haudin les Haies” ’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Champagne-Ardenne 1997: 53–5. Piffko, S. and Schwitalla, G. (2009) ‘Ein klarer mittelbronzezeitlicher Hausgrundriss bei Hain-Gründau (Gde. Gründau, Main-Kinzig-Kreis)’, Denkmalpflege und Kulturgeschichte 2009(1): 31–5. Piggott, S. (1954) The Neolithic Cultures of the British Isles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

422

References

Pinard, E. (2006) ‘Maizy « le Bois Gobert » (Aisne). Présentation des incinérations du Bronze final: approche des gestuelles funéraires’, Bulletin de l’Association pour la Promotion des Recherches sur l’âge du Bronze 3: 9–10. Pinard, E., Desenne, S., Gaudefroy, S. and Gransar, F. (2010) ‘Les gestuelles funéraires au second âge du Fer en Picardie’. In: P. Barral, B. Dedet, F. Delrieu, P. Giraud, I. Le Goff, S. Marion and A. Villard-Le Tiec (eds) Gestes funéraires en Gaule au second âge du Fer. Actes du XXXIIIe colloque de l’Association française pour l’étude de l’âge du Fer, II: 37–50, Annales Littéraires de l’Université de Franche-Comté 883. Besançon: Presses universitaires de Franche-Comté. Pinsker, B. (2001) ‘Eine Siedlung der mittleren Bronzezeit aus Runkel-Ennerich, Kreis Limburg-Weilburg, mit Hinweisen auf lokale Metallverarbeitung’. In: S. Hansen and V. Pingel (eds) Archäologie in Hessen. Neue Funde und Befunde. Festschrift für Fritz-Rudolf Herrmann zum 65. Geburtstag: 69–76, Internationale Archäologie, Studia Honoraria 13. Rahden: Marie Leidorf. Pion, P. (1987) ‘L’oppidum celtique du “Vieux-Reims” de Condé-sur-Suippe/Variscourt’, Fouilles Protohistoriques de la Vallée de l’Aisne 15: 257–333. Plouin, S. (2007) ‘Le Bronze ancien et le Bronze moyen en Alsace’. Bilan scientifique de la région Alsace. Hors série 1/2. Préhistoire et Âge des Métaux: 125–31. Strasbourg: Direction Générale des Affaires Culturelles. Plumier, J. (2007) ‘Vingt années d’archéologie préventive en Belgique francophone’. In: J.-P. Demoule (ed.) L’archéologie préventive dans le monde: apports de l’archéologie préventive à la connaissance du passé: 176–88. Paris: Coéditions La Découverte. Plunkett, G. (2007) ‘Pollen analysis and archaeology in Ireland’. In: E. Murphy and N. Whitehouse (eds) Environmental Archaeology in Ireland: 221–40. Oxford: Oxbow. Pollard, J. and Robinson, D. (2007) ‘A return to Woodhenge: the results and implications of the 2006 excavation’. In: M. Parker Pearson and M. Larsson (eds) From Stonehenge to the Baltic: living with cultural diversity in the third millennium BC: 159–68. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Pollmann, H.-O. (2007) ‘Ein Siedlungsplatz mit Hausgrundrissen der Wartbergkultur in Warburg-Menne Kr. Höxter’, Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 37: 37–50. Pommepuy, C. (1999) ‘Le matériel de mouture de la vallée de l’Aisne de l’âge du Bronze à La Tène finale: formes et matériaux’, Revue archéologique de Picardie 1999 (3–4): 115–41. Pommepuy, C., Auxiette, G. and Desenne, S. (1998) ‘Rupture et continuité dans les pratiques funéraires de La Tène ancienne et moyenne/finale à Bucy-le-Long (Aisne)’, Revue archéologique de Picardie 1998 (1–2): 85–98. Poulsen, M. (2008) Bygherrerapport for HBV j.nr. 1212 Mannehøjgård Etape IV. Arkæologiske undersøgelser af bebyggelse fra bondestenalder og bronzealder. Brorup: Museet på Sønderskov. Poulsen, M. (2010) Bygherrerapport for HBV j.nr. 1302 Kongehøje I SB nr. 23 Malt sogn. Brorup: Museet på Sønderskov. Pouponnot, G. (2011) ‘Jaunay-Clan. ZAC Les Grands Champs. Phase 2’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Poitou-Charentes 2010: 183–4. Poux, M. (2006) ‘Religion et société à la fin de l’âge du fer, entre histoire et archéologie’. In: C. Haselgrove (ed.) Les mutations de la fin de l’âge du Fer: 181–99. Glux-en-Glenne: Collection Bibracte 12/4.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

References

423

Poux, M. ed. (2012) Corent. Voyage au coeur d’une ville gauloise, 2nd edition. Paris: Éditions Errance. Poux, M. and Nilesse, O. (2003) ‘Le vin, le fer et le sang. Un texte de Polybe (II, 19) et le rôle du vin importé dans les cultes indigènes de la fin de l’âge du fer’. In: B. Mandy and A. de Saulce (eds) Les marges de l’Armorique à l’âge du Fer. Archéologie et histoire: culture matérielle et sources écrites. Actes du XXIIIe colloque de l’Association française pour l’étude de l’âge du Fer: 293–308. Rennes: Revue Archéologique de l’Ouest Supplément 10. Pramme de Alva, E. and Verse, F. (2010) ‘Ausgrabungen in einem Grabhügelfeld der Mittelbronzezeit bei Fulda-Maberzell-Trätzhof ’, Hessen Archäologie 2009: 46–50. Prangsma, N. M. ed. (2008) Lomm Hoogwatergeul fase 1 (gemeente Arcen en Velden), ADC ArcheoProjecten rapport 1344. Amersfoort: ADC ArcheoProjecten. Praud, I., Bernard, V., Martial, E. and Palau, R. (2007) ‘Un grand bâtiment du Néolithique final à Ancoisne “Le Marais de Santes” (Nord France)’. In: M. Besse (ed.) Sociétés néolithiques. Des faits archéologiques aux fonctionnement socio-économiques. Actes du 27e colloque interrégional sur le Néolithique (Neuchâtel 1 et 2 octobre 2005): 445–60. Lausanne: Cahiers d’archéologie romande 108. Preud’homme, D., Fock, H., Bosquet, D. and Goffioul, C. (1999) ‘Fouille d’un site d’habitat de l’Âge du Fer à Orp-Jauche, au lieu-dit Le Tierceau (Bt W)’, Lunula 7: 62–7. Price, T. D. and Brown, J. A. (1985) Prehistoric hunter gatherers: the emergence of cultural complexity. Orlando: Academic Press. Price, T. D., Grupe, G. and Schröter, P. (1998) ‘Migration in the Bell Beaker period of central Europe’, Antiquity 72: 405–11. Price, T. D., Knipper, C., Grupe, G. and Smrcka, V. (2004) ‘Strontium isotopes and prehistoric human migration: the Bell Beaker period in central Europe’, European Journal of Archaeology 71(1): 9–40. Prieto-Martínez, M. (2010) ‘Bell Beaker communities in Thy: the first Bronze Age society in Denmark’, Norwegian Archaeological Review 41(2): 115–58. Prieto-Martínez, M. and Salanova, L. (2009) ‘Coquilles et Campaniforme en Galice et en Bretagne: mécanismes de circulation et stratégies identitaires’, Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française 106(1): 73–93. Prilaux, G. (1998) ‘Glisy. La Croix de Fer’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Picardie 1996: 102. Prilaux, G. (2000) ‘Une ferme gauloise spécialisée dans le travail du sel à Pont-Rémy “La Queute” et “Le Fond de Baraquin” (Somme). Évolution et particularités de l’espace enclos’, Revue archéologique de Picardie 2000 (1–2): 233–54. Proctor, J. (2012) ‘The Needles Eye enclosure, Berwick-upon-Tweed’, Archaeologia Aeliana 41 (Ser 5): 19–122. Pryor, F. (2001) The Flag Fen Basin: archaeology and environment of a fenland landscape. London: English Heritage. Qualmann, K., Rees, H., Scobie, G. D. and Whinney, R. (2004) Oram’s Arbour: the Iron Age enclosure at Winchester, Volume 1: investigations 1950–1999. Winchester: Winchester Museums Service. Raemaekers, D. C. M. (2005) ‘Het Vroeg- and Midden-Neolithicum in Noord-, Midden- en West-Nederland’. In: J. Deeben, E. Drenth, M.-F. Van Oorsouw and L. Verhart (eds) De Steentijd van Nederland: 261–82. Meppel: Archeologie 11/12.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

424

References

Raemaekers, D. C. M. (2013) ‘Looking for a place to stay – Swifterbant and Funnel Beaker settlements in the northern Netherlands and Lower Saxony’, Siedlungs- und Küstenforschung im südlichen Nordseegebiet 36: 111–29. Raetzel-Fabian, D. (2000) Calden. Erdwerk und Bestattungsplatz des Jungneolithikums. Architektur—Ritual—Chronologie. Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 70. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt. Raftery, B. (1994) Pagan Celtic Ireland. London: Thames and Hudson. Randsborg, K. and Christensen, K. (2006) Bronze Age oak-coffin graves: archaeology and dendro-dating. Copenhagen: Acta Archaeologica Supplementum 7. Rasmussen, M. (1993) Bopladskeramik i ældre bronzealder. Højbjerg: Jysk Arkæologisk Selskab. Rasmussen, M. (1995) ‘Settlement structure and economic variation in the early Bronze Age’, Journal of Danish Archaeology 11: 77–107. Rasmussen, U. (2004) ‘Kildeofre’, Skalk 2004(3): 28–32. Rassmann, C. (2011) ‘Identities overseas? The long barrows in Denmark and Britain’. In: M. Furholt, F. Lüth and J. Müller (eds) Megaliths and identities: early monuments and Neolithic societies from the Atlantic to the Baltic: 3rd European Megalithic Studies Meeting, 13th–15th May 2010 at Kiel University: 167–76. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt. Ravn, M. (2011) ‘The early Neolithic Volling site of Kildevang - its chronology and intra-spatial organisation’, Germania 89: 135–63. Rebay-Salisbury, K. (2010) ‘Cremations: fragmented bodies in the Bronze and Iron Ages’. In: K. Rebay-Salisbury, M.-L. Stig Sørensen and J. Hughes (eds) Body parts and bodies whole: changing relations and meanings: 64–71. Oxford: Oxbow. Reinhard, W. (2009) ‘Keltisches Kriegergrab der Mittellatènezeit aus Reinheim’, Denkmalpflege im Saarland Jahresbericht 2008: 40–3. Reinhard, W. (2010) Kelten, Römer und Germanen im Bliesgau. Denkmalpflege in Saarland 3. Reinheim: Europäischer Kulturpark Bliesbruck-Reinheim. Remy, H. and Soumoy, M. eds (1996) Sur la voie de l’histoire. Archéologie et TGV, Etudes et Documents, Fouilles 2. Namur: Ministère de la Région Wallonne, Division du Patrimoine. Ricaut, F.-X., Cox, M. P., Lacan, M., Keyser, C., Duranthon, F., Ludes, B., Guilaine, J. and Crubézy, E. (2012) ‘A time series of prehistoric mitochondrial DNA reveals western European genetic diversity was largely established by the Bronze Age’, Advances in Anthropology 2(1): 14–23. Richards, C. (2005) Dwelling among the monuments. Cambridge: McDonald Institute. Richards, C. (2013) Building the great stone circles of the north. Oxford: Windgather Press. Richards, M. (2003) ‘Exploring the dietary isotope evidence for the rapid adoption of the Neolithic in Britain’. In: M. Parker Pearson (ed.) Food, culture and identity in the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age: 31–6. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Richardson, A. and Johnson, P. (2007) ‘Excavation of a middle Bronze Age settlement site at Knockhouse Lower, Co. Waterford’, Decies 63: 1–17. Riche, C. (2005) Bosrobert La Métairie site A (27): rapport de fouilles. Cesson-Sévigné: INRAP GO. Riche, C., Ravon, E. and Bedault, L. (2010) ‘Le site Villeneuve-Saint-Germain d’ Aubevoye “La Chartreuse” (Eure). Premiers résultats (campagnes de fouilles

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

References

425

2003–2007)’. In: C. Billard and M. Legris (eds) Premiers Néolithiques de l’Ouest: 41–63. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes. Ripper, S. and Beamish, M. (2012) ‘Bogs, bodies and burnt mounds: visits to the Soar wetlands in the Neolithic and Bronze Age’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 78: 173–206. Riquier, S. (2004) ‘La nécropole gauloise de “Vaugrignon” à Esvres-sur-Indre (Indreet-Loire)’, Revue Archéologique du Centre de la France 43: 21–113. Ritchie, J. N. G. (1976) ‘The Stones of Stenness, Orkney’, Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 107: 1–60. Rittershofer, K.-F. (2004) ‘Ausgrabungen 1999 bis 2003 am keltischen Oppidum auf dem Dünsberg bei Gießen’, Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 85: 7–36. Robert, B. (2008) Concevreux (Aisne) ‘les Jombras’, ‘les Rambles’, ‘les Russembaux’. Rapport de diagnostic. Amiens: INRAP. Roberts, B. W., Thornton, C. P. and Pigott, V. C. (2009) ‘Development of metallurgy in Eurasia’, Antiquity 83: 1012–22. Roberts, I. (2010) Understanding the cropmark landscapes of the Magnesian limestone. Wakefield: Archaeology Services WYAS. Robin, G. (2010) ‘Spatial structure in Irish and British passage tombs: the organisation of architectural elements, parietal carved signs and funerary deposits’, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 20: 373–418. Robinson, D. (2000) ‘Det slesvigske agerbrug i yngre stenalder og bronzealder. Arkæobotanikkens udsagn’. In: P. Ethelberg, E. Jørgensen, D. Meier and D. Robinson (eds) Det Sønderjyske landbrugs historie. Sten- og Bronzealder: 281–98. Haderslev: Haderslev Museum. Robinson, D. and Kempfner, D. (1987) ‘Carbonized grains from Mortens Sande 2 – a single grave site in Northwest Jutland’, Journal of Danish Archaeology 6: 125–9. Robinson, E., Sergant, J. and Crombé, P. (2013) ‘Late Mesolithic armature variability in the southern North Sea basin: implications for forager-Linearbankeramik contact models of the transition to agriculture in Belgium and the southern Netherlands’, European Journal of Archaeology 16(1): 3–20. Rodier, S. (2006) ‘Observations préliminaires à l’étude des remplissages des tombes du Néolithique moyen I de Gurgy “Les Noisats” (Yonne)’, Revue Archéologique de l’Est 55: 279–85. Roessingh, W. and Lohof, E. (2011) Bronstijdboeren op de kwelders. Archeologisch onderzoek in Enkhuizen-Kadijken. ADC-rapport 2200. Amersfoort: Archeologisch Diensten Centrum. Roessingh, W. and van Zijverden, W. (2011) ‘Begraven in het Westfriese land’. In: H. M. van der Velde, N. L. Jaspers, E. Drenth and H. B. G. Scholte Lubberink (eds) Van graven in de prehistorie en dingen die voorbijgaan. Studies aangeboden aan Eric Lohof bij zijn pensionering in de archeologie: 115–30. Leiden: Sidestone Press. Rohl, B. and Needham, S. (1998) The circulation of metal in the British Bronze Age: the application of lead isotope analysis. London: British Museum. Roscio, M. (2009) ‘Migennes «Le Petit Moulin» (Yonne): une nécropole de l’étape ancienne du Bronze final’, Bulletin de l’Association pour la Promotion des Recherches sur l’Âge du Bronze 6: 13–6.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

426

References

Rostholm, H. (1999) ‘Arkæologiske undersøgelser på Brande Omfartsvej’, Fra Ringkøbing Amts Museer 1999: 58–86. Rostholm, H. (2009) ‘Tre gravhøje fra enkeltgravskulturen. Et familiegravsted og andre fund fra Sjællandsvej i Brande’, Midtjyske Fortællinger 2009: 45–58. Roth-Zehner, M. (2005) ‘Sainte-Croix-en-Plaine. Zone d’activité II, lieu-dit Holzackerfeld’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Alsace 2001: 75–6. Roth-Zehner, M. and Rougier, V. (2005) ‘Sainte-Croix-en-Plaine. Zone d’activité II, lieu-dit Holzackerfeld’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Alsace 2001: 73–5. Rougier, R. (2000) ‘Framerville-Rainecourt/A29. Le Fond d’Herleville’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Picardie 1998: 116. Rougier, R. and Watel, F. (2003) ‘Blondiaux Joël. Deux inhumations en silo sur le tracé de l’autoroute A29 à Fresnes-Mazancourt et Framerville-Rainecourt (Somme)’, Revue archéologique de Picardie 2003: 67–76. Rousseau, J., Allenet de Ribemeont, G., Bertran, G., Braguier, S., Dupont, C. and Fouéré, P. (2005) Port-Punay. Châtellaillon-Plage (Charente-Maritime—17). Rapport de fouille. Pessac: INRAP GSO. Roussot-Laroque, J. (1998) ‘Soulac-sur-Mer. L’Amélie’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Aquitaine 1997: 44–5. Roussot-Laroque, J. (2000) ‘Vendays-Montalivet. Lapartens’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Aquitaine 1999: 57–8. Rowley-Conwy, P. (1984) ‘The laziness of the short-distance hunter: the origins of agriculture in western Denmark’, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 3: 300–24. Rowley-Conwy, P. (2004) ‘How the West was lost: a reconsideration of the agricultural origins in Britain, Ireland, and southern Scandinavia’, Current Anthropology 45: 83–113. Roy, E. (2000) Pont-L’Abbé (Finistère). Fouille archéologique avant l’aménagement d’un lotissement au lieu-dit Kérathur. Le Mans: AFAN. Roy, E. (2009) Stockage lié à des productions meunières et dépôt monétaire Osisme découverts à Laniscat (Côtes d’Armor). Cesson-Sévigné: INRAP GO. Roymans, N. (1990) Tribal societies in northern Gaul: an anthropological perspective. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam. Roymans, N. (2004) Ethnic identity and imperial power. Amsterdam Archaeological Studies 10. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Roymans, N. (2007) ‘On the latènisation of Late Iron Age material culture in the Lower Rhine/Meuse area’. In: S. Möllers, W. Schlüter and S. Sievers (eds) Keltische Einflüsse im nördlichen Mitteleuropa während der mittleren und jüngeren vorrömischen Eisenzeit: 311–25. Frankfurt am Main: Römisch-Germanische Komission. Roymans, N. and Hiddink, H. (2006) ‘Ein Hortfund spätlatènezeitlicher »Regenbogenschüsselchen« der Nordgruppe aus Echt (Niederlande)’, Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 36: 225–36. Roymans, N. and Kortlang, F. (1999) ‘Urnfield symbolism, ancestors and the land in the Lower Rhine region’. In: F. Theuws and N. Roymans (eds) Land and ancestors: cultural dynamics in the Urnfield period and the Middle Ages in the southern Netherlands: 33–61. Amsterdam Archaeological Studies 4. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Roymans, N. and Verniers, L. (2010) ‘Glass La Tène Bracelets in the Lower Rhine Region: typology, chronology and social interpretation’, Germania 88: 195–220.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

References

427

Roymans, N., Creemers, G. and Scheers, S. (2012) Late Iron Age Gold Hoards from the Low Countries and the Caesarian Conquest. Amsterdam Archaeological Studies 18. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Roymans, N., Tol, A. and Hiddink, H. (1998) Opgravingen in Kampershoek en de Molenakker te Weert. Campagne 1996–1998. Zuidnederlandse Archeologische Rapporten 5. Amsterdam: ACVU. Russell, A. (1990) ‘Two Beaker burials from Chilbolton, Hampshire’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 56: 153–72. Salač, V. (2013) ‘De la vitesse des transports à l’âge du Fer’. In: A. Colin and F. Verdin (eds) L’âge du Fer en Aquitaine et sur ses marges. Mobilité des hommes, diffusion des idées, circulation des biens dans l’espace européen à l’âge du Fer. Actes du XXXVe colloque de l’Association française pour l’étude de l’âge du Fer, II: 489–512. Bordeaux: Aquitania Supplément 30. Salanova, L. (2004) ‘La fin du Néolithique dans le Bassin parisien: historique des recherches’, Anthropologica et Praehistorica 115: 77–81. Salanova, L. (2011) ‘Chronologie et facteurs d’évolution des sépultures individuelles campaniformes dans le Nord de la France’. In: L. Salanova and Y. Tchérémissinoff (eds) Les sépultures individuelles campaniformes en France: 125–42, Gallia Préhistoire XLIe supplément. Paris: CNRS. Salanova, L. and Tchérémissinoff, Y. eds (2011) Les sépultures individuelles campaniformes en France, Gallia Préhistoire XLIe supplément. Paris: CNRS. Salanova, L., Renard, C. and Mille, B. (2011) ‘Réexamen du mobilier de la sépulture campaniforme d’Arenberg, Wallers (Nord)’. In: L. Salanova and Y. Tchérémissinoff (eds) Les sépultures individuelles campaniformes en France: 79–96, Gallia Préhistoire XLIe supplément. Paris: CNRS. Samson, A. V. M. (2006) ‘Offshore finds from the Bronze Age in north-western Europe: the shipwreck scenario revisited’, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 25: 371–88. San Juan, G. and Couanon, P. (2003) ‘Aunou-sur-Orne. La Bouverie II’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Basse-Normandie 2001: 84–5. San Juan, G., Ghesquière, E., Fontugne, M., Fromont, N. and Gallouin, E. (2007) ‘Une occupation fortifiée du Néolithique final/Bronze ancien à Basly (Calvados)’. In: O. Agogué, D. Leroy and C. Verjux (eds) Camps, enceintes et structures d’habitat néolithiques en France septentrionale. Actes du 24e colloque interrégional sur le Néolithique. Orléans 19–21 novembre 1999: 327–48. Tours: Revue Archéologique du Centre de la France supplément 24. Sandoz, G., Martineau, R. and Fouéré, R. (1999) R.D. 938. Saint-Varent ‘Les Entes’. Document final de synthèse (sauvetage urgent). Poitiers: SRA Poitou-Charentes. Sarauw, T. (2006) Bejsebakken: Late Neolithic houses and settlement structure. Nordiske Fortidsminder Series C 4. Copenhagen: Kongelige Nordiske Oldskriftselskab. Sarauw, T. (2007a) ‘On the outskirts of the European Bell Beaker Phenomenon – the Danish case’, Journal of Neolithic Archaeology (Available at: ). Sarauw, T. (2007b) ‘Male symbols or warrior identities? The “archery burials” of the Danish Bell Beaker culture’, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26: 65–87. Saville, A. (1981) Grimes Graves, Norfolk: excavations 1971–72, Volume 2: the flint assemblage. London: HMSO.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

428

References

Scarre, C. (1984) ‘Kin-groups in megalithic burials’, Nature 311: 512–13. Scarre, C. (1992) ‘The early Neolithic of western France and megalithic origins in Atlantic Europe’, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 11: 121–54. Scarre, C. (1998) ‘Arenas of action? Enclosure entrances in Neolithic Western France c.3500–2500 BC’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 64: 115–37. Scarre, C. (2007) The megalithic monuments of Britain and Ireland. London: Thames and Hudson. Scarre, C. (2010) ‘Rocks of ages: tempo and time in megalithic monuments’, European Journal of Archaeology 13: 175–93. Scarre, C. (2011) Landscapes of Neolithic Brittany. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Schade-Lindig, S. (2008) ‘Ein Grabmonument aus mittelneolithischer Zeit?’, Hessen Archäologie 2007: 31–4. Schäfer, A. (2004) ‘Produktionsstandort Wetzlar-Dalheim. 2000 Jahre Eisengewinnung am Ostrand des Rheinischen Schiefergebirges’, Berichte der Kommission für archäologische Landesforschung in Hessen 7: 194–207. Schäfer, A. (2010) Die Kleinfunde der jüngerlatènezeitlichen Siedlung von BerchingPollanten. Rahden: Marie Leidorf. Scheu, A., Hartz, S., Schmölcke, U., Tresset, A., Burger, J. and Bollongino, R. (2008) ‘Ancient DNA provides no evidence for independent domestication of cattle in Mesolithic Rosenhof, northern Germany’, Journal of Archaeological Science 35: 1257–64. Schierhold, K. (2012) Studien zur hessisch- westfälischen Megalithik. Rahden: Marie Leidorf. Schlanger, N. and Aitchison, K. eds (2010) Archaeology and the global economic crisis: multiple impacts, possible solutions. Tervuren: Culture Lab Editions. Schletter, H.-P. (2011) ‘Eine befestigte Siedlung des 1. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. in ReesHaldern’, Archäologie im Rheinland 2010: 87–9. Schlosser-Mauritsen, E. (2010) ‘Brændgaards Hede: a settlement surrounded by pit zone fortifications from the early Pre-Roman Iron Age in Denmark’. In: M. Meyer (ed.) Haus—Gehöft—Weiler—Dorf. Siedlungen der vorrömischen Eisenzeit im nördlichen Mitteleuropa: 262–79, Berliner Archäologische Forschungen 6. Rahden: Marie Leidorf. Schönfelder, M. (2007) ‘Einige Überlegungen zu Flussfunden der Latènezeit’. In: P. Barral, A. Daubigny, C. Dunning, G. Kaenel and M.-J. Roulière-Lambert (eds) L’âge du Fer dans l’arc jurassien et ses marges. Dépôts, lieux sacrés et territorialité à l’âge du Fer. Actes du XXIXe colloque international de l’Association française pour l’étude de l’âge du Fer (Bienne (Suisse), 5–8 mai 2005): 463–72, Annales Littéraires de l’Université de Franche-Comté 826. Besançon: Presses universitaires de FrancheComté. Schulting, R. (2009) ‘Worm’s Head and Caldey Island (South Wales, UK) and the question of Mesolithic territories’. In: S. McCartan, R. Schulting, G. Warren and P. Woodman (eds) Mesolithic Horizons: 354–61. Oxford: Oxbow. Schulting, R. (2013) ‘ “Tilbury Man”: a Mesolithic skeleton from the lower Thames’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 79: 19–37. Schulting, R. and Bradley, R. (2014) ‘ “Of human remains and weapons in the neighbourhood of London”: New AMS 14C dates on Thames “river skulls” exhibiting injuries’, Archaeological Journal 170: 31–77.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

References

429

Schulting, R. and Richards, M. P. (2001) ‘Dating women and becoming farmers: new palaeodietary and AMS dating evidence from the Breton cemeteries of Téviec and Hoëdic’, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 20: 314–44. Schulting, R., Murphy, E., Jones, C. and Warren, G. (2012) ‘New dates from the north, and a proposed chronology for Irish court tombs’, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 112C: 1–60. Schurmans, M. (2010) Een nederzetting uit de Midden en Late Bronstijd te Medemblik Schepenwijk II, gemeente Medemblik. Zuid Nederlandse Archeologische Rapporten 40. Amsterdam: ACVU. Schurmans, M., Boreel, G. and Verhelst, E. (2007) Oudheden uit Odijk. Bewoningssporen uit de Late Ijzertijd, Romeinse Tijd en Merovingische Tijd aan de Singel West/Schoudermantel. Zuidnederlandse Archeologische Rapporten 30. Amsterdam: ACVU. Schute, I. A. (2009) Plangebied fietspad N225. Gemeente Rhenen. Archeologisch voordonderzoek: een inventariserend veldonderzoek (kartering en waardering). RAAPrapport 1864. Weesp: RAAP Archeologisch Adviesbureau. Schwitalla, G. ed. (2008) Der Glauberg in keltischer Zeit. Zum neuesten Stand der Forschung. Akten des Symposium Darmstadt 14.–16. Sept. 2006, Fundberichte aus Hessen Beiheft 6. Wiesbaden: Landesamt für Denkmalpflege Hessen. Schwitalla, G. and Schmitt, K. (2007) ‘Ein Massengrab aus der Umgehungstraße oder “Aus der Linearbandkeramik ist alles bekannt” ’, Hessen Archäologie 2006: 31–2. Schyle, D. (2006) ‘Die spätneolithische Beilproduktion auf dem Lousberg in Aachen. Eine Hochrechnung von Angebot und Nachfrage und Rückschlüsse auf die spätneolithische Bevölkerungsdichte’, Archäologische Informationen 29: 35–50. Score, V. (2011) Hoards, Hounds and Helmets: A conquest-period ritual site at Hallaton, Leicestershire. Leicester; Leicester Archaeology Monograph 21. Sealey, P. (2007) A late Iron Age warrior burial from Kelvedon, Essex. Chelmsford: East Anglian Archaeology Report 118. Sealey, P. (forthcoming) ‘Where have all the people gone? A puzzle from middle and late Iron Age Essex’, Archaeological Journal 172. Séara, F. and Bostyn, F. (2009) ‘L’occupation Mésolithique final de Lhéry dans la Marne’. In: P. Crombé, M. Van Strydonck, J. Sergant, M. Boudin and M. Bats (eds) Chronology and evolution within the Mesolithic of north-west Europe: proceedings of an international meeting, Brussels, May 30th–June 1st 2007: 767–84. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars. Sebire, H. (2006) ‘Archaeological excavations in Guernsey 2005’, La Société Guernesiaise Report and Transactions 25(5): 768–73. Sebire, H. (2007) ‘Archaeological excavations in Guernsey 2006’, La Société Guernesiaise Report and Transactions 26(1): 9–10. Séguier, J.-M. (2008) ‘Établissement aristocratique et nécropole de la Tène finale à Varennes-sur-Seine (Seine-et-Marne)’, Bulletin de l’Association française pour l’étude de l’âge du Fer 26: 55–6. Sergant, J., Crombé, P. and Perdaen, Y. (2009) ‘Mobile territories and land-use in north-western Belgium’. In: S. McCartan, R. Schulting, G. Warren and P. Woodman (eds) Mesolithic Horizons: 277–81. Oxford: Oxbow. Sergent, F. (2007) Saintes ‘Malabry’, Volume 1: études générales. 2 x 2 voies SaujonSaintes. Rapport final d’opération. Pessac: INRAP GO.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

430

References

Sharples, N. (1985) ‘Individual and community: the changing role of megaliths in the Orcadian Neolithic’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 51: 59–74. Sharples, N. (1990) ‘Late Iron Age society and continental trade in Dorset’. In: A. Duval, J.-P. Le Bihan and Y. Menez (eds) Les Gaulois d’Armorique. Actes du XIIe colloque de l’Association française pour l’étude de l’âge du Fer: 299–304. Rennes: Revue Archéologique de l’Ouest Supplément 3. Sharples, N. (2010) Social relations in later prehistory: Wessex in the first millennium BC. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sharples, N. and Waddington, K. (2011) The excavations at Whitchurch 2006–2009: an interim report. (Cardiff, Cardiff Studies in Archaeology Specialist Report 31. Shennan, S. (2012) ‘Demographic continuities and discontinuities in Neolithic Europe: evidence, methods and implications’, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 20(2): 300–11. Shennan, S. and Edinborough, K. (2007) ‘Prehistoric population history: from the Late Glacial to the Late Neolithic in central and northern Europe’, Journal of Archaeological Science 34: 1339–45. Shennan, S., Downey, S., Timpson, A., Edinborough, K., Colledge, S., Kerig, T., Manning, K. and Thomas, M. (2013) ‘Regional population collapse followed initial agriculture booms in mid-Holocene Europe’, Nature Communications 4: 2486. Shepherd, I. (1985) ‘Jet and amber’. In: D. Clarke, T. Cowie and A. Foxon (eds) Symbols of power at the time of Stonehenge: 204–16. Edinburgh: HMSO. Shepherd, I. (1986) Powerful pots. Aberdeen: Aberdeen University. Shepherd, I. (2009) ‘The v-bored buttons of Great Britain and Ireland’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 75: 335–69. Sheridan, A. (2003a) ‘French Connection 1: spreading the marmites thinly’. In: I. Armit, E. Murphy, E. Nelis and D. Simpson (eds) Neolithic settlement in Ireland and western Britain: 3–17. Oxford: Oxbow. Sheridan, A. (2003b) ‘Ireland’s earliest passage tombs: a French connection?’. In: G. Burenhult and S. Westergaard (eds) Stone and bones: formal disposal of the dead in Atlantic Europe during the Mesolithic—Neolithic interface: 9–26. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Sheridan, A. (2007) ‘From Picardie to Pickering and Pencraig Hill? New information on “Carinated Bowl Neolithic” in northern Britain’. In: A. Whittle and V. Cummings (eds) Going over: the Mesolithic—Neolithic transition in north-west Europe: 441–92. London: British Academy. Sheridan, A. (2010) ‘The Neolithicisation of Britain and Ireland: the “big picture”’. In: B. Finlayson and G. Warren (eds) Landscapes in Transition: 89–105. Oxford: Oxbow. Sheridan, A. (2012) ‘A Rumsfeld reality check: what we know, what we don’t know and what we don’t know we don’t know about the Chalcolithic in Britain and Ireland’. In: M. Allen, A. Sheridan and D. McOmish (eds) Is there a British Chalcolithic: people, place and polity in the later third millennium: 40–55. Oxford: Prehistoric Society/Oxbow. Sherlock, S. J. and Vyner, B. (2013) ‘Iron Age saltworking on the Yorkshire coast at Street House, Loftus, Cleveland’, Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 85: 46–67. Sherratt, A. (1984) ‘Social evolution: Europe in the Later Neolithic and Copper Ages’. In: J. Bintliff (ed.) European social evolution: archaeological perspectives: 123–34. Bradford, University of Bradford.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

References

431

Sherratt, A. (1987) ‘Cups that cheered’. In: W. H. Waldren and R. C. Kennard (eds) Bell Beakers of the Western Mediterranean: 81–114, British Archaeological Reports International Series 331. Oxford: Archaeopress. Sherratt, A. (1996) ‘Why Wessex? The Avon route and the river transport in British prehistory’, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 15: 211–34. Sherratt, A. (1997) ‘Changing perspectives on European prehistory’. In: A. Sherratt (ed.) Economy and society in prehistoric Europe: 1–34. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Sicard, S. ed. (2009) Douarnenez ‘Le Drevers’ (Finistère—Bretagne). Les occupations archéologiques néolithiques et protohistoriques. Cesson-Sévigné: INRAP GO. Siemen, P. (2003) Bebyggelsesspor fra stenalder til middelalder og en langdysse fra yngre stenalder i Måde. Arkæologisk Kalejdoskop Esbjerg Museum 3. Esbjerg: Esbjerg Museum. Siemen, P. (2005) Gravhøjen ved Fredshavn—grave fra enkeltgravstid og dolktid. Arkæologisk Kalejdoskop Esbjerg Museum 8. Esbjerg: Esbjerg Museum. Siemen, P. (2008) ‘Settlements from the 3rd millennium BC in southwest Jutland’. In: W. Dörfler and J. Müller (eds) Umwelt—Wirtschaft—Siedlungen im dritten vorchristlichen Jahrtausend Mitteleuropas und Südskandinaviens: 67–82, Offa-Bücher 84. Neumünster: Wachholz. Sievers, S. (2003) Manching—Die Keltenstadt. Stuttgart: Konrad Theiss. Simmons, I. and Innes, J. (1987) ‘Mid-Holocene and later Mesolithic forest disturbance in Northern England’, Journal of Archaeological Science 14: 385–403. Simons, A. (1989) Bronze- und eisenzeitliche Besiedlung in den Rheinischen Lössbörden. Oxford: BAR International Series 467. Simpson, D., Murphy, E. and Gregory, R. (2006) Excavations at Northton, Isle of Harris. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Sippel, K. (2003) ‘Ein eisenzeitlicher Höhlenkultplatz im Hohlstein bei Hilgershausen’, Hessen Archäologie 2002: 61–5. Sireix, C. (2013) ‘L’agglomération artisanale de Lacoste à Mouliets-et-Villemartin (Gironde)’. In: A. Colin and F. Verdin (eds) L’âge du Fer en Aquitaine et sur ses marges. Mobilité des hommes, diffusion des idées, circulation des biens dans l’espace européen à l’âge du Fer. Actes du XXXVe colloque de l’Association française pour l’étude de l’âge du Fer, II: 103–46. Bordeaux: Aquitania Supplément 30. Smits, E. and van der Plicht, J. (2009) ‘Mesolithic and Neolithic human remains in the Netherlands: physical anthropological and stable isotope investigations’, Journal of the Archaeology of the Low Countries 1(1): 55–85. Smyth, J. (2006) ‘The role of the house in Neolithic Ireland’, European Journal of Archaeology 9: 229–57. Smyth, J. (2010) ‘The house and group identity in the Irish Neolithic’, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 111(2011): 1–31. Smyth, J. (2013a) Settlement in the Irish Neolithic. Prehistoric Society Research Papers. Oxford: Oxbow. Smyth, J. (2013b) ‘Tara in pieces – change and continuity at the turn of the third millennium BC’. In: M. O’Sullivan, C. Scarre and M. Doyle (eds) Tara from the past to the future: 408–16. Dublin: Wordwell.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

432

References

Söder, U. and Zeiler, M. (2007) ‘Die Eisenzeitliche Besiedlung der Altenburg bei NeuentalRömersberg (Schwalm-Eder-Kreis)’, Fundberichte aus Hessen 44/45: 53–139. Soderberg, J. (2013) ‘ “Between Britain and Spain”: Ireland in Roman-period Europe’. In: P. Wells (ed.) Rome beyond its frontiers: imports, attitudes and practices: 71–86. Portsmouth (RI): JRA Supplementary Series 94. Soupart, N. (2009) ‘Argoeuves - Saint-Sauveur. Le Moulin d’Argoeuves’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Picardie 2007: 117–19. Sperber, L. (2001) ‘Bronzezeitliche Flussdeponierungen von Roxheim, Kreis Ludwigshafen’, Archäologie in der Pfalz 2001: 278–96. Sperber, L. (2006) ‘Bronzezeitliche Flussdeponierungen aus dem Altrhein bei Roxheim, Gde. Bobenheim-Roxheim, Lkr. Ludwigshafen – ein Vorbericht’, Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 36: 195–214. Spikins, P. (2002) Prehistoric people of the Pennines. Morley: West Yorkshire Archaeology Service. Spratt, D. (1982) Prehistoric and Romano-British archaeology of north-east Yorkshire. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Stäuble, H. (2002) ‘Lineare Gräben und Grubenreihen in Nordwestsachsen. Eine Übersicht’, Arbeits- und Forschungsberichte zur Sächsischen Bodendenkmalpflege 44: 9–49. Stead, I. M., Flouest, J.-L. and Rigby, V. (2006) Iron Age and Roman burials in Champagne. Oxford: Oxbow. Steffen, C. (2010) Die Prunkgräber der Wessex- und der Aunjetitz-Kultur: ein Vergleich der Refräsentationssitten von sozialen Status. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Steffens, J. (2009) Die neolithischen Fundplätze von Rastorf Kreis Plön. Eine Fallstudie zur Trichterbecherkultur im nördlichen Mitteleuropa am Beispiel eines Siedlungsraumes. Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 170. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt. Steinbring, B., Köhler, J. and Obst, M. (2008) ‘Mittelbronzezeitliche Siedlungsspuren bei Runkel-Wirbelau’, Hessen Archäologie 2007: 39–41. Stevens, C. and Fuller, D. (2012) ‘Did Neolithic farming fail? The case for a Bronze Age agricultural revolution in the British Isles’, Antiquity 86: 707–22. Stevenson, J. (2013) Living by the sword: the archaeology of Brisley Farm, Ashford, Kent. Portslade: Spoilheap Monograph 6. Stöllner, T. (2010) ‘Rohstoffgewinnung im rechtsrheinischen Mittelgebirge – Forschungen zum frühen Eisen’, Siegerland 87(2): 101–32. Stout, M. (1996) ‘Emyr Estyn Evans and Northern Ireland: the archaeology and geography of a new state’. In: J. Atkinson, I. Banks and J. O’Sullivan (eds) Nationalism in archaeology: 111–27. Glasgow: Cruithne Press. Strahl, E. (2002) ‘Erste Bauern in der deutschen Marsch. Die jungbronzezeitliche Siedlung Rodenkirchen-Hahnenknooper Mühle, Ldkr. Wesermarsch’, Berichte zur Denkmalpflege in Niedersachsen 22: 79–82. Strahl, E. (2005) ‘Die jungbronzezeitliche Siedlung Rodenkirchen-Hahnenknooper Mühle, Ldkr. Wesermarsch – Erste Bauern in der deutschen Marsch’. In: C. Endlich and P. Kremer (eds) Kulturlandschaft Marsch. Natur, Geschichte, Gegenwart: 52–9, Schriftenreihe des Landesmuseums für Natur und Mensch 33. Oldenburg: Landesmuseums für Natur und Mensch.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

References

433

Strahl, E. (2010) ‘Siedlungen der vorrömischen Eisenzeit an der niedersächsischen Nordseeküste’. In: M. Meyer (ed.) Haus—Gehöft—Weiler—Dorf. Siedlungen der vorrömischen Eisenzeit im nördlichen Mitteleuropa: 357–79. Rahden: Marie Leidorf. Sturt, F., Garrow, D. and Bradley, S. (2013) ‘New models of North Western Holocene palaeogeography and inundation’, Journal of Archaeological Science 40(11): 3963–76. Sunter, N. and Woodward, P. (1987) Romano-British industries in Purbeck. Dorchester: Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society. Svanberg, F. (2005) ‘House symbolism in aristocratic death rituals of the Bronze Age’. In: T. Artelius and F. Svanberg (eds) Dealing with the dead: archaeological perspectives on prehistoric Scandinavian burial ritual: 73–98. Stockholm: Riksantikvarieämbetet Arkeologiska Undersökningar Skrifter 65. Sweetman, D. (1976) ‘Excavations at Monknewtown, Co. Meath’, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 76C: 25–72. Sweetman, D. (1985) ‘A Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age pit circle at Newgrange, Co. Meath’, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 81C: 195–221. Sweetman, D. (1987) ‘Excavation of a Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age site at Newgrange, Co. Meath’, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 87C: 283–98. Sys, D. and Langelin-Leroy, E. (2005) Escaudain-Erre (Nord). Fouilles préventives. Douai: Direction Archéologique du Douaisis. Tchérémissinoff, Y., Convertini, F., Fouéré, P. and Salanova, L. (2011) ‘La sépulture campaniforme de La Folie, Poitiers (Vienne)’. In: L. Salanova and Y. Tchérémissinoff (eds) Les sépultures individuelles campaniformes en France: 11–19, Gallia Préhistoire XLIe supplément. Paris: CNRS. Tchérémissinoff, Y., Fouéré, P. and Salanova, L. (2000) ‘La sépulture campaniforme de La Folie - Poitiers (Poitiers, Vienne): présentation préliminaire’, Internéo 3: 161–7. Terberger, T., Barton, N. and Street, M. (2009) ‘The Late Glacial reconsidered: recent progress and interpretations’. In: M. Street, N. Barton and T. Terberger (eds) Humans, environment and chronology of the Late Glacial of the North European Plain: proceedings of Workshop 14 of the 15th UISPP Congress, Lisbon, September 2006: 189–207. Mainz: RGZM Tagungen 6. Terkildsen, K. (2009) Toftumvej Mønsted—jættestuetomt fra yngre stenalder samt boplads fra romersk jernalder. Viborg: Viborg Stiftsmuseum. Therkorn, L., Besselsen, E., Diepeveen-Jansen, M., Gerritsen, S., Kaarsemaker, J., Kok, M., Kubiak-Martens, L., Slopsma, J. and Vos, P. (2009) Landscapes in the Broekpolder: excavations around a monument with aspects of the Bronze Age to the Modern (Beverwijk & Heemskerk, Noord-Holland). Themata 2. Amsterdam: AAC/ Projectenbureau, University of Amsterdam. Thomas, J. (1999) Understanding the Neolithic. London: Routledge. Thomas, J. (2006) ‘On the origin and development of cursus monuments in Britain’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 72: 229–41. Thomas, J. (2010) ‘The return of the Rinyo-Claction Folk: the significance of the Grooved Ware complex in later Neolithic Britain’, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 20: 1–15. Thomas, J. (2011) Two Iron Age ‘aggregated’ settlements in the environs of Leicester: excavations at Beaumont Leys and Humberstone. Leicester: Leicester Archaeology Monograph 19.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

434

References

Thomas, J. (2013) The birth of Neolithic Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Thomas, N. (2005) Snail Down, Wiltshire. Devizes: Wiltshire Archaeological Society. Thomas, R. M. (2010) ‘Rethinking development-led archaeology’. FAME Open Meeting ‘2020 Vision: a new era in British archaeology’, York. Tikonoff, N. and Deffressigne, S. (2012) ‘Un habitat rural de La Tène D à Kerprichaux-Bois (Moselle)’, Archaeologia Mosellana 8: 59–80. Tinévez, J.-Y. ed. (2004) Le site de La Hersonnais Plechâtel (Ille-et-Vilaine): un ensemble de bâtiments collectives du Néolithique final. Paris: Société préhistorique française. Tipping, R. (1997) ‘Pollen analysis and the impact of Rome on native agriculture around Hadrian’s Wall’. In: A. Gwilt and C. Haselgrove (eds) Reconstructing Iron Age Societies: new approaches to the British Iron Age: 239–47. Oxford: Oxbow Monograph 71. Tipping, R. and Tisdall, E. (2004) ‘Continuity, crisis and climate change in the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age periods of north-west Europe’. In: I. Shepherd and G. Barclay (eds) Scotland in ancient Europe: 71–81. Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. Tipping, R., Bradley, R., Sanders, J., McCulloch, R. and Wilson, R. (2013) ‘Moments of crisis: climate change in Scottish prehistory’, Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 147: 9–25. Tol, A. and Schabbink, M. (2004) Opgravingen op vindplaatsen uit de Bronstijd, Ijzertijd, Romeinse Tijd en Volle Middeleeuwen op het Hoogveld te Sittard, campagne 1999. Zuidnederlandse Archeologische Rapporten 14. Amsterdam: ACVU. Tol, A., Roymans, N., Hiddink, H. and Kortlang, F. (2000) Twee urnenvelden in Limburg. Een opslag van opgravingen te Roermond en Sittard, 1997–1998. Zuidnederlandse Archeologische Rapporten 6. Amsterdam: ACVU. Toron, S. (2006) ‘De la Picardie aux Flandres belges: une approche comparative des enclos circulaires de l’âge du Bronze ancien et moyen’, Lunula. Archaeologia Protohistorica 14: 71–6. Toussaint, M., Brou, L., Le Brun-Ricalens, F. and Spier, F. (2009) ‘The Mesolithic site of Heffingen-Loschbour (Grand Duchy of Luxembourg). A yet undescribed human cremation possibly from the Rhine-Meuse-Scheldt culture: anthropological, radiometric, and archaeological implications’. In: P. Crombé, M. Van Strydonck, J. Sergant, M. Boudin and M. Bats (eds) Chronology and evolution within the Mesolithic of northwest Europe: proceedings of an international meeting, Brussels, May 30th–June 1st 2007: 239–60. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars. Tresset, A. (2003) ‘French Connection 2: of cows and men’. In: I. Armit, E. Murphy, E. Nelis and D. Simpson (eds) Neolithic settlement in Ireland and western Britain: 18–30. Oxford: Oxbow. Tristan, C. (2009) Monéteau ‘Sur Macherin, rue de Bonn’ (Yonne-Bourgogne): une occupation aurignacienne, un village VSG, une nécropole et une enceinte chasséennes (?): rapport de fouilles. Dijon: INRAP GES. Trott, K. and Tomalin, D. (2003) ‘The maritime role of the island of Vectis in the British pre-Roman Iron Age’, International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 32: 158–81. Tuitjer, H.-G. (1987) Hallstättische Einflüsse in der Nienburger Gruppe. Hildesheim: Veröffentlichungen der urgeschichtlichen Sammlung des Landesmuseums zu Hannover 32.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

References

435

Valais, A. (2003) La Bazoge (Sarthe), Les Hauts du Lac: rapport de diagnostic. CessonSévigné: INRAP GO. Valais, A. (2004) RN 162 Déviation Moulay-Mayenne (53): rapport intermédiaire: rapport de diagnostic. Cesson-Sévigné: INRAP GO. Valdeyron, N. (2008) ‘The Mesolithic in France’. In: G. Bailey and P. Spikins (eds) Mesolithic Europe: 203–20. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Vallin, L. (2009) Répertoire des sites néolithiques en Nord-Pas-de-Calais. Villeneuved’Ascq: Les Cahiers de Préhistoire du Nord 23. van Beek, R. (2009) Reliëf in tijd en ruimte. Interdisciplinair onderzoek naar bewoning en landschap van Oost-Nederland tussen vroege prehistorie en middeleeuwen. PhD thesis, Wageningen University. van Berg, P.-L. (1991) ‘Géométrie de quelques enceintes fossoyées du Rubané récent rhéno-mosan’. Actes du XVe colloque interrégional sur le Néolithique, Châlons-surMarne, 1988: 25–32. Voipreux: Association régionale pour la promotion du patrimoine préhistorique et protohistorique. Van de Noort, R. (2006) ‘Argonauts of the North Sea – a social maritime archaeology for the second millennium BC’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 72: 267–88. Van den Bossche, B. and Marcigny, C. (2011) ‘The pattern of agricultural activities in the Norman countryside (2500–30 BC) as seen through preventive excavations on the south side of Caen’. In: G. Blancquaert (ed.) Understanding the past: a matter of surface-area: acts of the XIIIth session of the EAA Congress, Zadar 2007: 49–71, British Archaeological Reports International Series 2194. Oxford: Archaeopress. van den Broeke, P. W. (2004) ‘Rituelen in de Waalsprong’, Ulpia Noviomagus 9. Nijmegen: Gemeente Nijmegen. van den Broeke, P. W. (2005) ‘Hunting camps in the swamps: the river dunes near Hardinxveld’. In: L. P. Louwe Kooijmans, P. W. van den Broeke, H. Fokkens and A. L. van Gijn (eds) The prehistory of the Netherlands, Volume 1: 603–25. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. van den Broeke, P. W. and Ball, E. A. G. (2012) ‘Unveiling Bronze Age, Iron Age and native Roman communities in lower Nijmegen (the Netherlands) – twelve years of excavations in a fluvial area’. In: J. Bofinger and D. Krausse (eds) Large-scale excavations in Europe: fieldwork strategies and scientific outcome: 65–83. Brussels: Europae Archaeologia Consilium. van der Sanden, W. (1998) ‘Funerary and related structures at Oss-Ussen’. In: H. Fokkens (ed.) The Ussen project: the first decade of excavation at Oss. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 30: 307–36. Leiden: Leiden University Press. Van Doorselaer, A., Putman, R., Van der Gucht, K. and Janssens, F. (1987) De Kemmelberg, een Keltische bergvesting. Westvlaamse Archaeologica Monografieën 3 Kortrijk: Vereniging voor Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek in West-Vlaanderen. van Gijn, A. (2008) ‘Exotic flint and the negotiation of a new identity in the “margins” of the agricultural world: the case of the Rhine-Meuse delta’, Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 40: 193–202. van Hoof, L. (2007) ‘Daily rituals: depositions in the Dutch river Meuse Basin’. In: P. Barral, A. Daubigny, C. Dunning, G. Kaenel and M.-J. Roulière-Lambert (eds) L’âge du Fer dans l’arc jurassien et ses marges. Dépôts, lieux sacrés et territorialité à l’âge du Fer. Actes du XXIXe colloque international de l’Association française pour l’étude de l’âge du Fer (Bienne (Suisse), 5–8 mai 2005): 433–8, Annales Littéraires de

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

436

References

l’Université de Franche-Comté 826. Besançon: Presses universitaires de FrancheComté. van Hoof, L. G. L. and Jongste, P. F. B. (2005) Een nederzettingsterrein uit de midden- en late bronstijd te Tiel-Medel Bredesteeg. Archol Rapport 64. Leiden: Archol. van Putten, M. and ter Wal, A. (2006) Tilburg Surfplas-zuid, definitief archeologisch onderzoek. BAAC Rapport 05.209. ’s-Hertogenbosch: BAAC. van Renswoude, J. and van Kerckhove, J. (2009) Opgravingen in GeldermalsenHondsgemet. Een inheemse nederzetting uit de late IJzertijd en Romense tijd. Zuidnederlandse Archeologische Rapporten 35. Amsterdam: ACVU-HBS. Vander Linden, M. (2012) ‘Demography and mobility in North-Western Europe during the third millennium cal. BC’. In: C. Prescott and H. Gløstad (eds) Becoming European: the transformations of third millennium northern and western Europe: 19–29. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Vander Linden, M. (2013) ‘A little bit of history repeating itself: theories of the Bell Beaker phenomenon’. In: A. Harding and H. Fokkens (eds) The Oxford Handbook of European Bronze Age: 68–81. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Vandkilde, H. (2005) ‘A review of early Late Neolithic period in Denmark: practice, identity and connectivity’, Journal of Neolithic Archaeology (Available at: ). Vanmoerkerke, J. ed. (2009) Le bassin de la Vesle du Bronze final au Moyen Age à travers les fouilles du TGV Est, Bulletin de la Société archéologique champenoise 102 (2). Reims: Société archéologique champenoise. Vanmoerkerke, J. (2011) ‘Large surface-area archaeological operations in north western Europe: a historical overview through eastern France examples’. In: G. Blancquaert (ed.) Understanding the past: a matter of surface-area: acts of the XIIIth session of the EAA Congress, Zadar 2007: 1–15, British Archaeological Reports International Series 2194. Oxford: Archaeopress. Vanmontfort, B. (2008) ‘Forager-farmer connections in an “unoccupied” land: first contact on the western edge of the LBK territory’, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 27: 149–60. Vanmontfort, B., Geerts, A.-I., Casseyas, C., Bakels, C., Buydens, C., Damblon, F., Langohr, R., Van Neer, W. and Vermeersch, P. M. (2001/2002) ‘De Hel in de tweede helft van het 5de millennium v.Chr. Een midden-Neolithische enclosure te Spiere (West-Vlaanderen)’, Archeologie in Vlaanderen 8: 9–77. Vauterin, C.-C., Chanson, K., Zaour, N., Féret, L. and Le Forestier, S. (2010) ‘La culture matérielle de l’Âge du fer: un outil de réflexion sur les sites d’habitat de BasseNormandie’. In: P. Barral, B. Dedet, F. Delrieu, P. Giraud, I. Le Goff, S. Marion and A. Villard-Le Tiec (eds) L’Âge du fer en Basse-Normandie. Actes du XXXIIIe colloque de l’Association française pour l’étude de l’âge du Fer, I: 203–29. Besançon: Presses universitaires de Franche-Comté. Véber, C. (2005) ‘Vignot. Lotissement Chapalor les Auges’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Lorraine 2000: 49–51. Verhagen, P. and Borsboom, A. (2009) ‘The design of effective and efficient trial trenching strategies for discovering archaeological sites’, Journal of Archaeological Science 36: 1807–15.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

References

437

Verhart, L. (2008) ‘New developments in the study of the Mesolithic of the Low Countries’. In: G. Bailey and P. Spikins (eds) Mesolithic Europe: 158–81. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Verhart, L. (2009) ‘Interaction, exchange and mutation: some short and preliminary notes on the distribution of Breitkeile in Belgium and the Netherlands and its implications for the transition from Mesolithic to Neolithic’. In: S. McCartan, R. Schulting, G. Warren and P. Woodman (eds) Mesolithic Horizons: 570–5. Oxford: Oxbow. Verhart, L. and Arts, N. (2005) ‘Het Mesolithicum in Zuid-Nederland’. In: J. Deeben, E. Drenth, M.-F. Van Oorsouw and L. Verhart (eds) De Steentijd van Nederland: 235–60. Meppel: Archeologie 11/12. Verhoeven, M. (2003) Ruilverkavelingsgebied Land van Thorn; een archeologische begeleiding. RAAP-Rapport 917. Weesp: RAAP Archeologisch Adviesbureau. Verjux, C. (2007) ‘Les bâtiments circulaires du Néolithique moyen dans le Bassin parisien’. In: O. Agogué, D. Leroy and C. Verjux (eds) Camps, enceintes et structures d’habitat néolithiques en France septentrionale. Actes du 24e colloque interrégional sur le Néolithique. Orléans, 19–21 novembre 1999: 209–16. Tours: Revue Archéologique du Centre de la France Supplément 24. Vermeersch, P. M., Chow, J., Creemers, G., Masson-Loodts, I., Groenendijk, A. J. and De Bie, M. (2005) ‘Neolitische vuursteenontginning op de site van Rullen (Voeren prov. Limburg)’. In: I. In’t Ven and W. De Clercq (eds) Een lijn door het landschaap. Archeologie en het vTn-project 1997–1998: 313–28, Archeologie in Vlaanderen Monografie 5. Brussels: Vlaams Instituut for het Onroerend Erfgoed. Verse, F. (2008a) ‘Zur Siedlungsentwicklung im Hessisch-Westfälischen Bergland während der Eisenzeit’. In: F. Verse, B. Knoche, J. Graefe, M. Hohlbein, K. Schierhold, C. Siemann, M. Uckelmann and G. Woltermann (eds) Durch die Zeiten . . . Festschrift für Albrecht Jockenhövel zum 65. Geburtstag: 395–415. Rahden: Marie Leidorf. Verse, F. (2008b) Archäologie auf Waldeshöhen. Eisenzeit, Mittelalter und Neuzeit auf der ‘Kalteiche’ bei Haiger, Lahn-Dill-Kreis. Münstersche Beiträge zur Ur- und Frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie 4. Rahden: Marie Leidorf. Viand, A. (2004) ‘Nanterre (92): un habitat groupé de La Tène finale sur une nécropole du IIIe siècle avant notre ère’, Bulletin de l’Association française pour l’étude de l’âge du Fer 22 5–8. Viand, A. (2008) ‘Nanterre et les Parisii’, Archéologia 455: 10–19. Viau, Y. (2007) Beauvoir-sur-Mer (Vendée) Le Pontreau 2: rapport de fouilles. CessonSévigné: INRAP GO. Viau, Y. (2009) RD 464/RD 164 déviation nord et ouest Ancenis (Loire-Atlantique): rapport de diagnostic. Cesson-Sévigné: INRAP GO. Viau, Y. (2010) Ancenis, ZAC de la Avinière zone 5 (Loire-Atlantique): un village ligérien du Bronze à la Tène: rapport de fouilles. Cesson-Sévigné: INRAP GO. Villard, J.-F. (2007) Le dépôt du Bronze moyen et les vestiges parcellaires anciens et récents de Keravel en Lannilis Finistère. Document final de synthèse de diagnostic archéologique. Rennes: SRA Bretagne. Villard, J.-F. (2008) Occupations rurales du Bronze moyen, du second âge du fer, de l’antiquité précoce, du bas moyen âge et de l’époque moderne à Ti Lipig 2 en

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

438

References

Pluguffan, Finistère. Document final de synthèse de diagnostic archéologique. Rennes: SRA Bretagne. Villard-Le Tiec, A., Gomez de Soto, J. and Bouvet, J.-P. (2010) ‘Pratiques funéraires du second âge du Fer en Gaule de l’Ouest (Bretagne, Pays de la Loire, PoitouCharentes)’. In: P. Barral, B. Dedet, F. Delrieu, P. Giraud, I. Le Goff, S. Marion and A. Villard-Le Tiec (eds) Gestes funéraires en Gaule au second âge du Fer. Actes du XXXIIIe colloque de l’Association française pour l’étude de l’âge du Fer, II: 85–106, Annales Littéraires de l’Université de Franche-Comté 883. Besançon: Presses universitaires de Franche-Comté. Villarégut, J. (2008) ‘Ri. A88 - Le Moulin Foulon’, Bilan Scientifique Régional BasseNormandie 2007: 119–20. Villes, A. (1997) ‘Les figurations dans les sépultures collectives Néolithiques dans la Marne, dans le context du Bassin Parisien’, Brigantium 10: 149–77. Villes, A. (2007) ‘Où en sommes-nous des recherches au Grand-Pressigny (Indre-etLoire)?’. In: F. Le Brun-Ricalens, F. Valotteau and A. Hauzeur (eds) Relations interrégionales au Néolithique entre Bassin parisien et Bassin rhénan. Actes du 26e colloque interrégional sur le Néolithique. Luxembourg, 8 et 9 novembre 2003: 383–99, Archeologia Mosellana 7. Luxembourg; Musée National d’Histoire et d’Art. Violot, J.-M. (2000) ‘Bussy-Lettrée. “Le Petit Vau Bourdin, Europort Vatry” ’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Champagne-Ardenne 1998: 68–9. Violot, J.-M. (2003) ‘Bussy-Lettrée. “Le Petit Vau Bourdin” ’, Bilan Scientifique Régional Champagne-Ardenne 2000: 84–6. Vivet, J.-B. (2007) ‘La production du fer protohistorique en haute Bretagne d’après les résultats des prospections, des fouilles d’ateliers et des analyses archéométriques’. In: P.-Y. Milcent (ed.) L’économie du fer protohistorique: de la production à la consommation du métal, XXVIIIe colloque de l’Association française pour l’étude de l’âge du Fer, Toulouse, 20–23 mai 2004: 63–84. Bordeaux: Aquitania supplément 14/2. von Berg, A. (1994) ‘Ein neolithische Steinkistengrab bei Kruft, Kr. Mayen-Koblenz’. In: C. Dobiat (ed.) Festschrift für Otto-Herman Frey zum 65 Geburtstag: 53–68. Marburg: Marburger Studien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte 16. von Berg, A. (2006) ‘Loch im Kopf ’, Archäologie in Deutschland 2006 (3): 51. von Nicolai, C. (2009a) ‘ “Eiserne Reserven”? Depotfunde im Umfeld spätlatènezeitlicher Gehöfte’. In: S. Grunwald, J. K. Koch, D. Mölders, U. Sommer and S. Wolfram (eds) Artefact. Festschrift für Sabine Rieckhoff zum 65. Geburtstag: 525–43. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt. von Nicolai, C. (2009b) ‘La question des “Viereckschanzen” d’Allemagne du Sud revisitée’. In: I. Bertrand, A. Duval, J. Gomez De Soto and P. Maguer (eds) Les Gaulois entre Loire et Dordogne. Actes du XXXI colloque international de l’Association Française pour l’Étude de l’Âge du Fer: 245–80. Chauvigny: Association des publications chauvinoises Mémoire 34. von Nicolai, C. (2014) Sichtbare und unsichtbare Grenzen. Deponierungen an eisenzeitlichen Befestigungen in Mittel- und Westeuropa. Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 247. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt. Vretemark, M. (2010) ‘Subsistence strategies’. In: T. K. Earle and K. Kristiansen (eds) Organizing Bronze Age societies: 155–84. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

References

439

Waddell, J., Fenwick, J. and Barton, K. (2009) Rathcroghan: archaeological and geophysical survey in a ritual landscape. Dublin: Wordwell. Wahl, J. and Trautmann, I. (2012) ‘The Neolithic massacre at Talheim: a pivotal find in conflict archaeology’. In: R. Schulting and L. Fibiger (eds) Sticks, stones and broken bones: Neolithic violence in a European perspective: 77–100. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wainwright, G. (1979) Mount Pleasant. London: Society of Antiquaries. Wainwright, G. and Longworth, I. (1971) Durrington Walls: Excavations 1966–1968. London: Society of Antiquaries. Wallace, A. and Anguilano, L. (2010) ‘Iron smelting and smithing: new evidence emerging on Irish Road Schemes’. In M. Stanley, E. Danher and J. Eogan (eds) Creative minds: production, manufacturing and invention in ancient Ireland: 69–84, National Roads Authority Monograph 7. Dublin: National Roads Authority. Walls, T. and de Jersey, P. (2008) ‘Archaeology section report for 2007’, La Société Guernesiaise Report and Transactions 26(2): 163–8. Walls, T. and de Jersey, P. (2009) ‘Archaeology section report for 2008’, La Société Guernesiaise Report and Transactions 26(3): 302–9. Warmenbol, E. (2001) ‘L’âge du Bronze’, Anthropologica et Praehistorica 112: 107–19. Warmenbol, E. (2007) ‘Le dépot d’ossements humains en grotte aux âges des Métaux en Belgique. Nouvelles questions’. In: P. Barral, A. Daubigny, C. Dunning, G. Kaenel and M.-J. Roulière-Lambert (eds) L’âge du Fer dans l’arc jurassien et ses marges. Dépôts, lieux sacrés et territorialité à l’âge du Fer. Actes du XXIXe colloque international de l’Association française pour l’étude de l’âge du Fer (Bienne (Suisse), 5–8 mai 2005): 537–48, Annales Littéraires de l’Université de Franche-Comté 826. Besançon: Presses universitaires de Franche-Comté. Waterbolk, H. T. (1995) ‘Patterns of the peasant landscape’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 61: 1–36. Waterbolk, H. T. (2008) Getimmerd verleden: sporen van voor- en vroeghistorische houtbouw op de zand- en kleigronden tussen Eems en IJssel. Groningen: Barkhuis. Waterbolk, H. T. (2009) Getimmerd verleden. Sporen van voor- en vroeg-historische houtbouw op de zand- en kleigronden tussen Eems en IJssel. Groningen Archaeological Studies 8. Groningen: Barkhuis. Webley, L. (2007a) ‘Using and abandoning roundhouses: a reinterpretation of the evidence from Late Bronze Age-Early Iron Age southern England’, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 26: 127–44. Webley, L. (2007b) ‘The first settlers: overview of the prehistoric evidence’. In: J. Timby, R. Brown, A. Hardy, S. Leech, C. Poole and L. Webley (eds) Settlement on the Bedfordshire claylands: archaeology along the A421 Great Barford Bypass: 51–65. Oxford: Oxford Archaeology. Webley, L. (2008) Iron Age households: structure and practice in western Denmark, 500 BC–AD 200. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. Webley, L. (2015) ‘Rethinking Iron Age connections across the Channel and North Sea’. In H. Anderson-Whymark, D. Garrow and F. Sturt (eds) Continental Connections: Exploring Cross-Channel Relationships from the Mesolithic to the Iron Age, 122–44. Oxford: Oxbow.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

440

References

Webley, L., Vander Linden, M., Haselgrove, C. and Bradley, R. eds (2012) Development-led archaeology in North-West Europe: proceedings of a round table at the University of Leicester 19th–21st November 2009. Oxford: Oxbow. Wefers, S. (2011) ‘Still using your saddle quern? A compilation of the oldest known rotary querns in western Europe’. In: D. Williams and D. Peacock (eds) Bread for the people: the archaeology of mills and milling: 67–76. Oxford: BAR International Series 2274. Wegner, H.-H. (2003) ‘Besiedlung von der Jungsteinzeit bis heute. Ausgrabungen am Emminger Hof bei Ochtendung Kreis Mayen-Koblenz’, Archäologie in RheinlandPfalz 2002: 26–8. Wegner, H.-H. (2007) ‘Die neolithische Siedlung an “Eisweiher” und “Conconesser Pfädchen” in Mayen, Kreis Mayen-Koblenz’, Berichte zur Archäologie an Mittelrhein und Mosel 12: 9–33. Wels-Weyrauch, U. (1989) ‘Mittelbronzezeitlich Frauentrachten in Süddeutschland (Beziehungen zur Hagenauer Gruppierung)’. Dynamique du Bronze moyen en Europe occidentale: 117–34. Paris: CTHS. Wendling, H. (2013) ‘Manching reconsidered: new perspectives on settlement dynamics and urbanisation in Iron Age central Europe’, European Journal of Archaeology 16: 459–90. Weninger, B., Schulting, R., Bradtmöller, M., Clare, L., Collard, M., Edinborough, K., Hilpert, J., Jöris, O., Niekus, M., Rohling, E. J. and Wagner, B. (2008) ‘The catastrophic final flooding of Doggerland by the Storegga slide tsunami’, Documenta Praehistorica 35: 1–24. Whitehouse, N., Schulting, R., McClatchie, M., Barratt, P., McLaughlin, T. R., Bogaard, A., Colledge, S., Marchant, R., Gaffrey, J. and Bunting, M. (2013) ‘Neolithic farming on the western European frontier: the boom and bust of early farming in Ireland’, Journal of Archaeological Science (Available at: ). Whittle, A. (1991) ‘Wayland’s Smithy, Oxfordshire: excavations at the Neolithic tomb in 1962–3’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 57: 61–102. Whittle, A. and Bayliss, A. eds (2007) Histories of the dead: building chronologies for five southern British long barrows. Cambridge: Cambridge Archaeological Journal Supplement 17(1). Whittle, A., Atkinson, R., Chambers, R. and Thomas, N. (1992) ‘Excavations in the Neolithic and Bronze Age complex at Dorchester-on-Thames, Oxfordshire, 1947–52 and 1981’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 58: 143–201. Whittle, A., Bayliss, A. and Wysocki, M. (2007) ‘Once in a lifetime: the date of the Wayland’s Smithy long barrow’, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 17(1): 103–21. Whittle, A., Healy, F. and Bayliss, A. (2011) Gathering time: dating the early Neolithic enclosures of southern Britain and Ireland. Oxford: Oxbow. Wickham-Jones, C. (1990) Rhum: Mesolithic and later sites at Kinloch. Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. Wilbertz, O. (2009) ‘Langgräben und Schlüssellochgräben der jüngeren Bronze und frühen Eisenzeit zwischen Aller und Dordogne’. Materialhefte zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte Niedersachsens 38. Rahden: Marie Leidorf. Wilkinson, K. (2002) ‘Sweetpatch valley bottom’. In: D. Rudling (ed.) Downland Settlement and Land-use: 259–66. London: Archetype Press.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

References

441

Willems, W. J. H. and Brandt, R. W. (2004) Dutch archaeology quality standard. Den Haag, Rijksinspectie voor de Archeologie. Williams, G. (2009) Van onder de es. Een archeologische opgraving aan de Elderinkweg te Hengelo gemeente Bronckhorst. ADC Rapport 1576. Amersfoort: Archeologisch Diensten Centrum. Woodbridge, J., Fyfe, R. M., Roberts, N., Downey, S., Edinborough, K. and Shennan, S. (2012) ‘The impact of the Neolithic agricultural transition in Britain: a comparison of pollen-based land-cover and archaeological 14C date-inferred population change’, Journal of Archaeological Science (Available at: ). Woodman, P. (2009) ‘Ireland’s place in the European Mesolithic: why it’s ok to be different’. In: S. McCartan, R. Schulting, G. Warren and P. Woodman (eds) Mesolithic Horizons: xxxvi–xlvi. Oxford: Oxbow. Woodman, P. (2012) ‘Making yourself at home on an island: the first 1000 years of the Irish Mesolithic’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 78: 1–34. Woodman, P., Anderson, E. and Finlay, N. (1999) Excavations at Ferriter’s Cove 1983–95. Bray: Wordwell. Woodward, A. and Hughes, G. (2007) ‘Deposits and doorways: patterns within the Iron Age settlement at Crick Covert Farm, Northamptonshire’. In: C. Haselgrove and R. Pope (eds) The earlier Iron Age in Britain and beyond: 185–203. Oxford: Oxbow. Woodward, P., Davies, S. and Graham, A. (1993) Excavations at Greyhound Yard, Dorchester 1981–4. Dorchester: Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society. Woolf, G. (1993) ‘Rethinking the oppida’, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 12: 223–34. Woolf, G. (2006) ‘The end of “the end of the Iron Age”’. In: C. Haselgrove (ed.) Les mutations de la fin de l’âge du fer: 267–76. Glux-en-Glenne: Collection Bibracte 12/4. Wouters, W. (2012) ‘Development-led archaeology in Flanders: the legal framework’. In: L. Webley, M. Vander Linden, C. Haselgrove and R. Bradley (eds) Developmentled archaeology in North-West Europe: proceedings of a round table at the University of Leicester 19th–21st November 2009: 22–8. Oxford: Oxbow. Wymer, J. (1977) A gazeteer of Mesolithic sites in England and Wales. London: Council for British Archaeology. Wysocki, M., Bayliss, A. and Whittle, A. (2007) ‘Serious mortality: the date of the Fussell’s Lodge long barrow’. In: A. Whittle and A. Bayliss (eds) Histories of the dead: building chronologies for five southern British long barrows: 65–84. Cambridge: Cambridge Archaeological Journal Supplement 17(1). Yates, D. (2007) Land, power and prestige: Bronze Age field systems in southern England. Oxford: Oxbow. Yates, D. and Bradley, R. (2010a) ‘Still water, hidden depths: the deposition of Bronze Age metalwork in the English Fenland’, Antiquity 84: 405–15. Yates, D. and Bradley, R. (2010b) ‘The siting of metalwork hoards in the Bronze Age of south-east England’, Antiquaries Journal 90: 405–15. Zant, J. and Howard-Davis, C. (2013) Scots Dyke to Turnpike: the archaeology of the A66, Greta Bridge to Scotch Corner. Lancaster: Lancaster Imprints 18. Zavadil, V. (2007) ‘Funde von menschlichen Knochen in urnenfelderzeitlichen Siedlungen – Bestattungen oder Abfall?’. In: J. Bemmann, U. Brosseder and H.-E. Joachim (eds) Vom Steinbeil zum Latènegehöft: 149–88, Bonner Beiträge zur

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/9/2015, SPi

442

References

Vor- und Frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie. Bonn: Vor- und Frühgeschichtliche Archäologie, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität. Zech-Matterne, V. (2011) ‘Rejet domestique ou dépôt intentionnel? Interprétations des récoltes carbonisées découvertes en contexte de stockage laténien, dans le nord de la Gaule’. In: J. Wiethold (ed.) Carpologia. Articles réunis à la mémoire de Karen Lundström-Baudais: 63–74. Glux en Glenne: Centre Archéologique Européen Bibracte. Zech-Matterne, V., Auxiette, G. and Malrain, F. (2013) ‘Essai d’approche des systèmes agricoles laténiens dans le Nord-Ouest de la France: données carpologiques, archéozoologiques et archéologiques’. In: S. Krausz, A. Colin, K. Gruel, I. Ralston and T. Dechezleprêtre (eds) L’Âge du Fer en Europe: Mélanges offerts à Olivier Buchsenschutz: 397–404. Bordeaux: Ausonius Éditions Mémoires 32. Zech-Matterne, V., Bouby, L., Bouchette, A., Cabanis, M., Derreumaux, M., Durand, F., Marinval, P., Pradat, B., Dietsch-Sellami, M.-F. and Wiethold, J. (2009) ‘L’agriculture du VIe au Ier siècle av. J.-C. en France: état de recherche carpologiques sur les établissements ruraux’. In: I. Bertrand, A. Duval, J. Gomez De Soto and P. Maguer (eds) Habitats et paysages ruraux en Gaule et regards sur d’autres régions du monde celtique. Actes du XXXIe colloque de l’Association française pour l’étude de l’âge du Fer: 383–416. Chauvigny: Association des publications chauvinoises Mémoire 35. Zeeb-Lanz, A. (2009) Krisis—Kulturwandel—Kontinuitäten. Zum ende der Bandkeramik in Mitteleuropa. Beiträge der Internationalen Tagung in Herxheim bei Landau (Pfalz) vom 14.17-6-2007. Rahden: Verlag Marie Gerdorf. Zeeb-Lanz, A., Arbogast, R.-M., Haack, F., Haidle, M., Jeunesse, C., Orschiedt, J., Schimmelpfennig, D. and van Willigen, S. (2009) ‘The LBK settlement with pit enclosure at Herxheim near Landau (Palatinate)’. In: D. Hofmann and P. Bickle (eds) Creating communities: new advances in central European Neolithic research: 201–19. Oxford: Oxbow. Zich, B. (1999) ‘Vom Tumulus zum Langbett’, Archäologie in Deutschland 1999(3): 52. Zvelebil, M. (2000) ‘Les derniers chasseurs-collecteurs d’Europe tempérée’. In: A. Richard, C. Cupillard, H. Richard and A. Thévenin (eds) Les derniers chasseurscueilleurs d’Europe occidentale (13,000–5,500 av. J.-C.): 379–406. Besançon: Université de Franche-Comté. Zvelebil, M. (2008) ‘Innovating hunter gatherers: the Mesolithic in the Baltic’. In: G. Bailey and P. Spikins (eds) Mesolithic Europe: 18–59. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Zylmann, D. (2006) Die frühen Kelten in Worms-Herrnsheim. Worms: Worms Verlag. Zylmann, D. (2009) ‘Ein reiches Frauengrab der Urnenfelderkultur aus Bad Kreuznach, Rheinland-Pfalz’, Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 39: 471–88.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/9/2015, SPi

Index Page numbers in italics are figures; with ‘t’ are tables. Aachen flint 116 Aalstrup (Denmark) 100–1, 107 Abbeville–Mont à Cailloux sud (France) 268, 289 Achnacreebeag (Britain) 81 Acy-Romance (France) 287–8, 289, 297, 298t, 314, 321 ‘agglomerated settlements’ 215, 219, 285–6, 287–91, 288, 290, 297, 299, 301, 305, 307, 314, 325 aggregated settlements 281, 286, 291, 307 Agneaux–Bellevue (France) 242–3, 244 agriculture 39, 44, 324 4900–3700 BC 58–62, 67–71, 68–9, 71–3 3700–2500 BC 84 1100–250 BC 213, 235–7 250 BC–Early Roman 265, 267 and climate 339 Ahlen–Dolberg (Germany) 312 aisled buildings 158 three- 155, 156, 176, 176, 180, 182 two- 72, 107, 108, 123, 135, 136, 137, 139–40, 155, 156 Aisne (river) 225, 265 Aisne–Marne region 253, 260, 319, 320 Albæk (Denmark) 107 Albersdorf LA 68 (Germany) 100, 100 Aldersro I (Denmark) 73, 107 Aldersro II (Denmark) 107 Alizay–La Cour Carel (France) 156 allées couvertes 94, 95, 117, 129, 144, 340 allées en bois 94 allés sépulcrales 144 Alstedgård (Denmark) 72 amber/amber beads 50, 73, 87, 89, 93, 123, 125, 150, 153, 252, 312 ‘Amesbury Archer’ 134, 145 Amesbury Barrow 51 (Britain) 146 Amiens–Jardins d’Intercampus (France) 268 amphorae 291, 292, 301, 302–3, 302, 312, 319–20, 322 Ancenis–RD 464 (France) 140 Ancenis–ZAC de la Savinière (France) 192 Angelslo-Emmerhout (Netherlands) 219 animals 122, 307, 311, 312 animal burials 121, 242, 322 see also livestock husbandry

antler picks 116 Åparken Syd (Denmark) 324, 343 apsidal buildings 109, 111, 140, 176, 182, 189, 192, 231 archaeology: commercial 76 development in Europe 1–5, 329–30 techniques of excavation 31–2 see also development-led archaeology ard-marks 137, 139, 235 Arenberg-Wallers (France) 145 Argoeuves–Le Moulin d’Argoeuves (France) 199, 343 ‘aristocratic’ farmsteads/residences 222, 291–2, 295–6, 297, 305, 311 arm-rings, bronze 163 Armorica 240, 303, 340 Arras–Actiparc (France) 265, 268, 317 art 68, 94, 95, 121 La Tène 258 megalithic 92, 116, 118 artefacts: 8000–3700 BC 49, 50–1, 83 4900–3700 BC 69–70, 73, 75, 77 3700–2500 BC 120 Belgium 116 Britain 112 Denmark 93, 101, 108, 122–3, 125 France 110, 111 Germany 100, 108 2500–1600 BC 128, 152, 153 Bell Beaker 133, 137, 138, 141–2, 144, 145, 148, 149, 150 Early Bronze Age 160, 163, 164, 167 1600–1100 BC 174, 177, 185, 205–10, 211 Belgium 205 Britain 200, 205 Denmark 196 France 189, 190, 202, 209 Germany 197 Netherlands 205 1100–250 BC 223, 230, 233, 238, 240, 241–6, 243, 247, 252, 253, 257 250 BC–Early Roman 274, 290–1, 292, 294, 299–304, 305–12, 317, 319–20, 321–2, 323–4, 325 see also individual object types

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/9/2015, SPi

444

Index

Askov–Øster Havgård/Askov Præstegård (Denmark) 283 ‘assembly sites’ 260 attachment to place 210–12, 226, 325 Attichy–Le Buissonet (France) 319 Auberive (France) 321, 321 Aubevoye–La Chartreuse (France) 60 Auneau–Parc du Château (France) 61–2, 61 Aunou-sur-Orne–Le Pré Mesnil (France) 307 axes 152, 332 Armorican 240 battle 125 bronze 190, 207, 242 deposition of 168, 205, 210, 243, 243, 244 stone 73, 75, 107, 117, 144 Bad Kreuznach (Germany) 252 Bad Nauheim (Germany) 65, 298t Bad Oldesloe–Wolkenwehe LA 154 (Germany) 122 Bad Segeberg LA 93 (Germany) 108 Baden Culture 121 Baexem–Haelensche Beek (Netherlands) 205 Balbirnie (Britain) Balksbury (Britain) 239 banjo enclosures 281 Banville (France) 170 Banville–La Burette (France) 66 Barbed Wire Beaker pottery 156 Barenton-Bugny–Griffon (France) 317, 344 barrows 333 bank 89, 91 cemeteries 202 ring 200, 250 round 86, 89, 128, 129, 148 Belgium 126 and Bell Beaker period 143–4, 148, 150 Britain 97, 126–7, 129, 131, 138, 144, 146, 154, 175, 199, 201, 207 Bronze Age 158–64, 167 and Corded Ware 123 Denmark 89, 124, 149, 174, 194, 203 and field systems 169 and flat graves 162–4, 165 France 129, 148, 201, 204 Germany 184, 203, 251 Ireland 199, 207 Luxembourg 251 Netherlands 123, 126, 129, 175, 201, 211 Basel (Switzerland) 289 Basly–La Campagne (France) 101, 102 Batilly-en-Gâtinais (France) 272, 273 Baunehøj (Denmark) 149 Bayeux–Bellefontaine (France) 170 Bayliss, A. 77, 81

Bazancourt/Pomacle–La Large Eau (France) 224, 224 Bazoches-lès-Bray (France) 265 Bazoches-sur-Vesle–Les Chantraines (France) 224, 268 Beaucouzé–La Corbinière (France) 270, 271 Beaumont Leys (Britain) 281 Beaurieux (France) 225 Beauvais–Le Brin de Glaine (France) 268 Beauvoir-sur-Mer–Le Pontreau 2 (France) 140, 141 Beg ar Loued (France) 139 Beg-an-Dorchenn (France) 52, 67 Beg-er-Vil (France) 52, 67 Beierstedt (Germany) 230 Bejsebakken (Denmark) 136, 137, 137 Belderg Beg (Ireland) 183–4 Belgae 7 Bell Beaker phase 129, 131, 132, 150–1 long-distance networks 332 metallurgy 134–5 mobility 133–4 monuments/mortuary practices 141–50, 151 and round barrows 143–4, 148, 150 settlements 135–41, 332 Belle Tout (Britain) 138–9 belt hooks 311 Bénouville–Les Hautes Coutures (France) 161 Bernay-en-Ponthieu–Tirancourt (France) 317 Bernières-sur-Mer–Le Grand Parc (France) 147, 169, 189 Bernières-sur-Mer–Rue du Maréchal Montgomery (France) 60 Besse, M. 133, 134, 135, 150 Bessines–Le Grand Champ Est (France) 307 Bestwall Quarry (Britain) 169 Betton–Pluvignon (France) 67, 68, 344 Bevtoft–Hans Peters Hj (Denmark) 195, 344 Bilzen–Kleine-Spouwen (Belgium) 323 Bjerre (Denmark) 181, 195 Blair Drummond (Britain) 310 Blicquy/Villeneuve-Saint-Germain (BVSG) Culture 59–60 Bobigny–Hôpital Avicenne (France) 288, 297, 298t, 314, 320 Bocholt–B 67/Südostring (Germany) 155–6 Bøgholt (Denmark) 87 bogs 311, 312, 316 bog bodies 255–6, 256 Bois-Guillaume–Les Bocquets (France) 316 Bølling Sø Vest I–IV (Denmark) 47, 73 Borchen–Etteln (Germany) 196 Borg (Germany) 272 Borken–Südwest (Germany) 311

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/9/2015, SPi

Index Borremose (Denmark) 226 ‘Boscombe Bowmen’ 134 Bosrobert–La Métairie site A (France) 60 botanical evidence 139, 181 boundaries: 1100–250 BC 233–6, 254 250 BC–Early Roman 268, 269, 284–5, 305 see also enclosed sites Bourges (France) 231, 341 Bovenkarspel (Netherlands) 178, 180, 181 Boves–Forêt de Boves (France) 317, 318 Bradley Fen (Britain) 242 Brændgaards Hede (Denmark) 235 Bragny-sur-Saône (France) 238 Braine–La Grange des Moines (France) 309 Brampton (Britain) 148 Brande–Bøgevænget (Denmark) 47, 123 Brande–Sjællandsvej (Denmark) 123 Brande–Sjællandsvej II–III (Denmark) 124, 125 Breda-West (Netherlands) 178, 247 Breinholdtgård Golfbane I (Denmark) 89, 125 bridges 208, 283 Brillevast–Le Douetty (France) 60 Brisley Farm (Britain) 280, 315 Broekpolder (Netherlands) 236 Brokbakken (Denmark) 240–1 broken/bent artefacts 309, 322 bronze 8–9 2500–1600 BC 153, 163 1600–1100 BC 174, 206, 208 1100–250 BC 229, 242 250 BC–Early Roman 286 Bronze Age 9, 330–4 Broom (Britain) 247 Broxmouth (Britain) 281 Brugelette–Bois d’Attre (Belgium) 275 Bryn Celli Ddu (Britain) 104, 105, 119 Buchères–Prés Longuerois/Les Bordes (France) 97 Bucy-le-Long–La Fosselle (France) 57, 251, 320 Bunnik–Odijk (Netherlands) 301 burials see mortuary practices burnt mounds 21, 188, 206, 241, 331 Bussy-Lettré–En Haut des Gravelles (France) 270 Bussy-Lettrée–Le Petit Vau Bourdin (France) 270 Butte-Saint-Cyr (France) 94 Buxerolles–Terre Qui Fume (France) 156 BVSG (Blicquy/Villeneuve-Saint-Germain) Culture 59–60 Caesar, Julius 285, 286, 287, 291, 297, 324 Cagny (France) 223 cairns 74, 137, 184, 201 Cairon (France) 170, 189

445

Calden (Germany) 99 Campanian Ware 291, 302 Cannes-Écluses (France) 61 Cardial Ware 55 Carnac (France) 69, 70, 113 Carrickmines Great (Ireland) 282 Carrowkeel (Ireland) 92 Carrowmore (Ireland) 81, 92 causewayed enclosures 83 Belgium 64 Britain 74, 76, 91, 98–9, 117, 118, 147 Denmark 100–1, 107, 120 France 69, 71, 101–3, 102, 103 Germany 100 causeways 208, 245 caves 95, 256–7, 311, 312, 316 ‘Celtic fields’ 182, 234–5 cemeteries: 4900–3700 BC 61, 62–4, 62–3, 65 3700–2500 BC 123–5 2500–1600 BC 127, 163, 164, 166, 184 1600–1100 BC 175, 199, 202–3 1100–250 BC 219, 230, 246–50, 248–9, 250–2 250 BC–Early Roman 293, 295, 314, 316–17, 320, 323 central places 285–99, 298t cereals 338 4900–3700 BC 72 1100–250 BC 232, 236, 257 250 BC–Early Roman 267 Cerny Culture 60–3 Cesson–Plaine du Moulin à Vent (France) 202 Chalcolithic 8, 171 chambered tombs 117, 118, 119 Britain/Ireland 76, 81, 90, 118, 119, 152 France 68, 69, 93–5, 119 Germany 95–6, 96 Low Countries 95–6, 96 see also passage graves Champigny-lès-Langres/Langres (France) 289 Changis-sur-Marne–Les Pétreaux (France) 164, 202, 247 Channel Islands 70–1, 240, 251 charcoal decline 76 chariot burials 314, 317–20 Château-Landon–Le Camp (France) 101 Château-Porcien (France) 322 Châtellaillon-Plage–Port-Punay (France) 140 Chenommet–Bellevue (France) 102, 103 Chièvres–Ladeuze (Belgium) 275 Chilbolton (Britain) 146 Childe, V. Gordon 2, 7, 93, 134, 340 children: 4900–3700 BC 59, 63, 64, 65

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/9/2015, SPi

446

Index

children: (cont.) 3700–2500 BC 95, 125 2500–1600 BC 134, 146, 149, 150, 162 1600–1100 BC 195, 197, 200 1100–250 BC 253, 254, 257 250 BC–Early Roman 312, 319 chronologies 8–9, 34–5t, 36t, 171, 262t Cimbri 262t, 262 circles, timber 113–14, 114, 115, 118 see also stone circles circular buildings: Britain/Ireland 107, 156, 185, 221, 310 France 61, 156, 189, 268 Netherlands 206 see also roundhouses circular mounds, 4900–3700 BC 70 Ciry-Salsogne–La Bouche à Vesle (France) 145 cists: Britain 127, 314 Denmark 149–50 Ireland 97 Netherlands 148 Cizancourt–La Sole des Galets (France) 268, 318 Claish (Britain) 113, 115 Clark, Grahame 2, 9, 44 Cleaval Point (Britain) 295, 303 Cleaven Dyke (Britain) 89 ‘cliff castles’ 225, 270 climate 339–40 8000–3700 BC 43, 45–6 4900–3700 BC 59 2500–1600 BC 157 250 BC–Early Roman 265 Climatic Optimum 46 Cloghabreedy (Ireland) 176 co-axial fields/field systems 169, 183–4, 189 coastal sites 46, 333 8000–3700 BC 48–52, 51, 52 1100–250 BC 216 250 BC–Early Roman, mortuary practices 316–17 Coevorden–Dalen (Netherlands) 257 coins 274, 300, 303, 304, 307, 309, 311 minting 291, 292, 298t, 299 potins 308, 308 Roman 309 Coles, J. 171, 172, 174 collared flasks 116 Colmar-Houssen–Gravière/Base de Loisirs (France) 265 Colne Fen/Over (Britain) 279–80 communism 2, 5 Concevreux–Les Jombras (France) 48 Condé-sur-Suippe (France) 286, 291

cooking 214, 240, 241, 318 copper: 2500–1600 BC 134–5, 152, 154 1600–1100 BC 174 250 BC–Early Roman 289 ‘Copper Age’ 8, 171 Corded Ware (Single Grave) Culture 86, 121, 144 burials 123–5 Denmark 121, 123, 125, 159 Netherlands 148 networks, and axes 132 and round barrows 123 settlements 122–3 Corrstown (Ireland) 187, 187 Council for British Archaeology 9 Council of Europe, Valletta Convention 6, 11, 27 Courseulles-sur-Mer–La Fosse Touzé (France) 201, 225, 226 court cairns 117 ‘court tombs’ 88 Courtenay–Les Quatre Croix (France) 320 craft-working/industry 240, 287, 288–9, 295, 298t bronze-working 238 glass 289, 300 lathe-turning 300 textiles 110, 300 see also metalwork/metalworking; pottery crannogs 240 Crathes (Britain) 113, 115 cremation burials: 3700–2500 BC 117 Britain 97, 105, 119 France 97, 316 Germany 96 Ireland 87, 92 2500–1600 BC 159 1600–1100 173 Britain 175, 200, 201, 208 Denmark 196, 199 France 202 Netherlands 203–4 1100–250 BC 246–7, 250, 251, 252, 257 250 BC–Early Roman 295, 313–14, 313, 316, 318, 319, 320, 322–3, 324 Crick (Britain) 281 Croixrault–L’Aérodrome (France) 268, 269 crouched burials 65, 198, 250 ‘cult houses’ 248–9 Cultural Evolution of Neolithic Europe, The (European Research Council) 6 Cunliffe, B. 7, 341 cursus monuments 86, 89, 91, 91, 117, 184 curvilinear enclosures 278, 281, 285, 306

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/9/2015, SPi

Index dagger graves 159 daggers 144, 206 Dampierre Le Château–Liévaux (France) 109 Danebury (Britain) 233, 280 Darion (Belgium) 56 dataset 17–25, 18–20, 22–25, 38, 329 defences 226, 276, 285, 289–90, 295, 298t, 325, 326 Murus Gallicus ramparts 293, 294 demography 216, 236, 263, 267, 284, 336–9 Den Haag–Monsterseweg (Netherlands) 277 Den Haag–World Forum (Netherlands) 277 deposition 223, 225 bone 189–90, 191 metalwork 128, 168–9, 174, 205–10, 207 1100–250 BC 159, 213–14, 223, 230, 234, 234, 240, 242–5, 333 250 BC–Early Roman 294 and ritual 305–12, 325 see also watery places, deposition of artefacts in Derrycarhoon (Ireland) 174 Desideri, J. 134, 135 development-led archaeology 10–12, 12, 26–7, 37–8, 328, 329–30 dataset 24–5 fieldwork/post-excavation practice 30–3, 35, 37 organization/funding of 27, 28t, 29–30 and the study of oppida 286 Devil’s Jumps (Britain) 162–3, 163 Devil’s Quoits (Britain) 168 diet 338 8000–3700 BC 53 4900–3700 BC 74–5, 76 3700–2500 BC 122 1600–1100 BC 181, 190 1100–250 BC 257 Diodorus Siculus 255 DNA 57 dogs 49, 53 dolmens 89, 100, 107, 125, 150 Dolus d’Oléron–Passe de l’Ecuissière (France) 140 Dorchester (Britain) 185 Dorchester-on-Thames (Britain) 184 Dorset Cursus (Britain) 91, 184 Douarnenez–Le Drevers (France) 71 Douet (France) 67–8 Drenthe (Netherlands) 178, 253, 276 drove ways 189 Duggleby Howe (Britain) 97 Dümmer See (Germany) 47 Dún Aonghasa (Ireland) 229 Dünsberg (Germany) 294, 298t, 308 Durrington Walls (Britain) 113, 143 dykes 281

447

Dyngby III (Denmark) 50 Early Bronze Age 151–2 metallurgy 152–5 mobility/exchange 152–5 monuments/mortuary practices 158–62 settlements 155–8 East/West Brunton (Britain) 281 Echt–Hamveld (Netherlands) 311 Eckbolsheim–Zénith (France) 164 economic specialization 188 Ecouché–Carrière MEAC (France) 60 Ecouflant–La Planche (France) 307 Egehøj (Denmark) 50 Eigenblok (Netherlands) 178 Elsdorf–Heppendorf (Germany) 274 Elsdorf–Etzweiler (Germany) 274 Elst–Sint Maartenstraat (Netherlands) 295, 309 Emmeloord–Rijksweg A6-J97 (Netherlands) 140, 142 enclosed sites: 4900–3700 BC 64–6, 71, 75, 77–8, 82 3700–2500 BC 84–5, 108–9 1100–250 BC 221, 223, 225, 259 250 BC–Early Roman 267–72, 274, 275–7, 280–2, 284, 285 see also causewayed enclosures; henges; stone circles enclosure systems 170, 179, 179 see also field systems enclosures, banjo 281 Engholm (Denmark) 73 Enkhuizen–Kadijken (Netherlands) 178, 181 Ennerich (Germany) 181 Ennery–Landrevenne/Garolor (France) 265 Ensisheim–Les Octrois (France) 56 Ertebølle-Ellerbek Culture 49, 53, 54 Escaudain–Erre (France) 188 Essey-les-Nancy—La Butte-Sainte-Geneviève (France) 289 Estrées-Deniécourt–Derrière le Jardin du Berger (France) 317, 318 Esvres-sur-Indre–Vaugrignon (France) 320 Étaples–Mont Bagarre (France) 156, 157, 189 Éterville–Le Clos des Lilas (France) 251 ethnicity, LBK communities 57 ethnography 331 Etton (Britain) 91 European archaeology, development of 1–5 European Research Council 6 excarnation 250, 255, 257 Exmes–Place de l’Eglise (France) 291, 307 faience 153 Falaise–Zone d’activités Expansia (France) 116

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/9/2015, SPi

448

Index

farming see agriculture feasting 214, 240–1, 241, 258, 296, 309, 318 fences 278 Fennoscandia 4, 44, 84 Ferriter’s Cove (Ireland) 54 Fesques (France) 298t, 306, 306, 307 Fexhe-le-Haut-Clocher–Voroux-Goreux (Belgium) 56 field systems 168, 169, 170, 175, 186, 189, 191–2, 193, 204, 268, 270 ‘brickwork’ 281, 282 ‘Celtic’ 182 and climate 339 coaxial 169, 183–4, 189 fish-weirs 47, 50, 142 fishing 181 Fiskerton (Britain) 245 Flag Fen (Britain) 240 flat burials: 2500–1600 BC 127, 150, 162–4, 165, 166 1100–250 BC 251 250 BC–Early Roman 322 flat cremation burials 199 Fléré-la-Rivière (France) 322 flint: Aachen 116 daggers 164 decline in significance 173–4 Denmark 108 fire-cracked 188 Grand-Pressigny 116, 120, 125, 132, 332 Helgoland 116 Mesolithic 50 mines 66–7, 73, 83, 116–17, 120 Fontenay-le-Comte–Les Genâts (France) 305 Fontenay-le-Marmion–Le Grand Champ (France) 60 forest burning 76, 77 Fornham All Saints (Britain) 91 Forteviot (Britain) 97, 106 Fossé des Pandours (France) 286 founder burials 314, 323 fragmentation of the body 257 Framerville-Rainecourt–Le Fond d’Herleville (France) 255 Fredshavn (Denmark) 149 Fresnes-lès-Montauban–Motel (France) 160 Fréthun–Les Arguillières (France) 160–1 Fricamps–La Cramaillère (France) 268 Friedberg–B 3a (Germany) 63 Fuglsøgård Mose (Denmark) 312 funerary practices see mortuary practices Fürstensitze (‘princely seats’) 230, 231, 233, 253, 260 Fussell’s Lodge (Britain) 88

Galerie des Petites Fontaines (Belgium) 312 Gallic war 262t, 267 gathering places 105, 108, 223, 233, 240, 297, 307, 309, 310 Gayhurst (Britain) 162 Geldermalsen–De Bogen (Netherlands) 198 Geldermalsen–Hondsgamet (Netherlands) 309 Geldrop–Genoenhuis (Netherlands) 247 gender: and artefacts 197, 198 and distinction in burial 252–3 geology, of settlements, Britain 280 geophysical surveys 31 Gergovia (France) 286 Ghislenghien (Belgium) 179 Gildbjerg (Denmark) 137 glass/glass-making 289, 300, 301, 325 Glastonbury (Britain) 279 Glauberg (Germany) 231, 232, 253 Glisy–La ZAC de la Croix de Fer (France) 265, 317 gold 33, 144, 153, 252 coins 303 hoards 310 Schifferstadt gold ‘hat’ 207 torcs 274, 310 Goulet–Le Mont (France) 71 Gournay-sur-Aronde (France) 291, 297, 306 Grand Menhir Brisé (France) 68, 69 Grand-Laviers–Le Mont Henry (France) 317, 318, 318 Grand-Pressigny flint 116, 120, 125, 132, 145, 332 Gravelly Guy (Britain) 146, 148 ‘Great Houses’ 109, 113, 335 Great Orme (Britain) 174 grey literature 12–13, 17, 35, 37 Grimes Graves (Britain) 115 Grob Rönnau (Germany) 149 Groningen–Eemspoort (Netherlands) 216 Grøntoft (Denmark) 235 Grooved Ware 113, 115, 142, 143 Grossoeuvre–Viancourt 1 (Germany) 156, 158 Grotte des Perrats (France) 312 Grubenhäuser (sunken structures) 217, 232 Grube–Rosenhof LA 58 (Germany) 50–1 Guden (river) 206 Guichainville–Le Long Buisson (France) 60, 270 Gümmer–Krähenberg (Germany) 323 Gurgy–Les Noisats (France) 63–4, 63 Gwithian (Britain) 184 Haddenham Delphs (Britain) 280 Hague Dike (France) 233, 234

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/9/2015, SPi

Index Haiger–Kalteiche (Germany) 274 Hain-Gründau (Germany) 181 Hainaut (Belgium) 55 Hallaton (Britain) 310 Hallstatt period 219, 230, 266, 340 Hambach (Germany) 274 Hambledon Hill (Britain) 99, 120 Hamburg–Marmstorf (Germany) 278 Hannut–Trommeveld (Belgium) 309, 310 Harding, Anthony 3, 171–2, 174 Hardinxveld–Giessendam De Bruin (Netherlands) 49 Hardinxveld–Giessendam Polderweg (Netherlands) 49 Harlow (Britain) 310 Haughey’s Fort (Ireland) 229, 242 Hawkes, Christopher 2, 7, 8, 9 Hayling Island (Britain) 310 Healy, F. 77, 81 Heathrow Airport (Britain) 183, 183 Heffingen-Loschbour (Luxembourg) 48 Helgoland flint 116 Hellegård (Denmark) 252 helmets 304, 312, 316 Hengelo–Elderinkweg (Netherlands) 140 henges 105–6, 106, 115, 116, 118, 119, 143, 201 Hengistbury Head (Britain) 295, 298t, 303 Herblay (France) 272 Hermeskeil (Germany) 322 Herxheim (Germany) 59, 64 Hettange-Grande–Les Hauts de Chambourg (France) 182 Heuneburg (Germany) 230, 341 Hilgershausen–Hohlstein (Germany) 312 hillforts 9, 213, 221, 227–33, 228, 229, 232, 258, 259, 280, 291, 294, 295 deposits in 242, 305 and middens 239 hoards 168–9, 174, 206, 207, 208–9, 211, 230, 238, 242, 260, 310–11, 330–1 Hodde (Denmark) 278 Hoëdic (France) 52, 67 Hoogkarspel (Netherlands) 178 hooked billets 239 Hordain–La Fosse à Loups (France) 319, 319 Hostrup Strand (Denmark) 137 Houplin-Ancoisne–Le Marais de Santes (France) 109, 111 Houplin-Ancoisne–Rue Marx Dormoy (France) houses see longhouses; roundhouses; settlements Hov (Denmark) 73 Hübner, E. 124, 125 Humberstone (Britain) 281

449

hunter-gatherer communities 19–20, 43 see also Mesolithic hunting 271 Hüsby (Germany) 196 Hvinningdal (Denmark) 149 hypogea 94, 117 Idstedt (Germany) 89 Ifs–ZAC Object’Ifs Sud (France) 270, 311 immigrants 7, 121, 259 Impressed Ware 55, 67 Inde (river) 223, 242 Inden–Altdorf (Germany) 181, 222, 223, 242, 323 ingots, iron 239 inhumation burials: Bell Beaker 149 Britain 87, 165, 250, 313, 314, 315 Channel Islands 251 crouched 198 Denmark 174 France 170, 202, 317, 320 internet data services 17, 35, 37 interpersonal violence, Germany, 4900–3700 BC 59 invasion hypothesis, see also immigrants Iron Age 171, 213, 330, 336 iron/iron-working 238–9, 260, 299–300 Britain 279 France 267, 292 Germany 289 Ireland 282 Irthlingborough (Britain) 146 isotopic analysis 259 see also strontium isotopes Itford Hill (Britain) 186–7, 200 Itteren–Emmaus (Netherlands) 323 jadeite axes 66, 69, 83, 332 Jâlons–La Grande Pâture (France) 202 Jaulnes–Le Bas de Hauts Champs (France) 202 Jaunay-Clan–Grands Champs (France) 102 jet 144, 153 jewellery 60, 299, 301, 307, 325 Jobourg–Tumulus de Calais (France) 161 journals, local 3, 37 Jüchen–Neuholz (Germany) 274–5 Kainsbakke (Denmark) 150 Kayhude LA 8 (Germany) 47 Kerlescan (France) 110 Kerprich-aux-Bois–Le Haut du Stock (France) 268 Kerven Teignouze (France) 272 Kessel-Lith (Netherlands) 295–6, 298t, 309

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/9/2015, SPi

450

Index

Kildevang (Denmark) 72, 73 Kilmartin (Britain) 135, 148 Kimpton (Britain) 200 Kirchhain–Niederwald (Germany) 283 Klakring (Denmark) 89, 125 Knockaulin (Ireland) 296 Knocknarea (Ireland) 92, 104 Knockroe (Ireland) 104 Knowth (Ireland) 92, 141 Kobberup–Skivevej 3 (Denmark) 73 Köln-Lindenthal (Germany) 10 Kontich–Alfsberg (Belgium) 309, 310 Krabbesholm (Denmark) 72 Kristiansen, Kristian 1–4, 121, 154, 203, 341 La Bazoge (France) 238, 299 La Calotterie–La Fontaine aux Linottes (France) 316 La Chaize-le-Vicomte–La Haute Chevillonière (France) 270, 271, 311 La Hogue (France) 71 La Hoguette pottery 58 La Mailleraye-sur-Seine (France) 319–20 La Rochette–Le Trou qui fume (France) 256 La Saulsotte–Le Bois Baudin (France) 111, 224 La Saulsotte–Les Haies (France) 182 La Tène period 258–9, 260, 261, 262t, 265–72, 340 Lamadelaine (Luxembourg) 314, 322 Lamballe–Tourelle (France) 107, 271 Laniscat– Le Haut Kerrault (France) 311 Laniscat–Pontdorniol (France) 140 Lannilis–Keravel (France) 209 Lannilis–Prat ar Simon Pella (France) 163–4 Lannion–Bel Air (France) 156, 157 Larsson, T. 154, 203, 341 Lauwin-Planque–ZAC Les Hussards (France) 109, 111, 161, 188 Lavenstedt site 178 (France) 108 Le Haut Mée (France) 67, 68 Le Manio (France) 69 Le Plessis Gassot–Le Bois Bouchard (France) 314, 319, 320 Le Translay (France) 268 Le Vaurocque (Channel Islands) 311 Le Yaudet (France) 270 Les Fouaillages (France) 70 Les Hautes Chanvières (France) 108–9 Les Huguettes (Channel Islands) 240 Les Mornouards II (France) 94 Lesches–Prés du Refuge (France) 97 Leubingen Group 154, 340 Lhéry–La Presle (France) 54 Lichtensteinhöhle (Germany) 256–7 Liège (Belgium) 55

Lillemer (France) 71 Limburg (Belgium) 323 Limburg (Netherlands) 56, 59 Limburg pottery 58 linear boundaries 233–6, 234, 296 linear dyke complexes 295, 314 Linearbandkeramik (LBK) 21, 55–8, 82, 330 Linkardstown cists 97 Lisbjerg Skole (Denmark) 72, 107 L’Isle d’Espagnac–Bel-Air (France) 161 Lismullin (Ireland) 245, 245, 297, 397 livestock husbandry: 4900–3700 BC 72, 74–5 3700–2500 BC 108 1600–1100 BC 176, 178, 180, 181, 185, 188, 189 1100–250 BC 236 Locmariaquer (France) 68, 69 Loga (Germany) 323 Løgstrup S II (Denmark) 222 Lomm (Netherlands) 251, 323 long cairns 70, 89, 99, 118 long mounds 69–70, 73, 74, 82, 87–91, 117, 118 long-distance networks 331–4 3700–2500 BC 115–17, 120 2500–1600 BC 167 1600–1100 BC 173 1100–250 BC 258–9, 333 250 BC–Early Roman 289, 295, 296, 299–304, 326, 326–7 Longbridge Deverill Cow Down (Britain) 225 longhouses 82, 118, 193 Belgium 3700–2500 BC 109 1600–1100 BC 176, 179 1100–250 BC 217 250 BC–Early Roman 276 Britain 185–6 Denmark 177, 217 France 4900–3700 BC 59, 67 3700–2500 BC 109, 110, 111 1100–250 BC 218 Germany 4900–3700 BC 64 3700–2500 BC 108 1100–250 BC 217, 218 Netherlands 2500–1600 BC 140 1600–1100 BC 178 1100–250 BC 217, 218, 219 250 BC–Early Roman 276–7 Longueil-Sainte-Marie–Le Vivier des Grès (France) 271 Lønt (Denmark) 107

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/9/2015, SPi

Index loom weights 110, 137, 155, 188, 190, 289, 311 Lough Gur (Ireland) 221 Loughcrew (Ireland) 104 Luc-sur-Mer (France) 170 Lustrupholm (Denmark) 195 Lyngsmose (Denmark) 278, 279 Lysgård (Denmark) 278 Maberzell-Trätzhof (Germany) 196 Machrie Moor (Britain) 143 Måde Slammineraliseringsanlæg (Denmark) 125, 180 Maeshowe (Britain) 104, 105 Magheraboy (Ireland) 98 Magnac-sur-Touvre–Monregner (France) 320 Maiden Castle (Britain) 89, 91, 295 Maizy–Le Bois Gobert (France) 199 Maldegem–Burkel (Belgium) 176, 179 Malleville-sur-le-Bec–Buisson du Roui (France) 218, 218, 222, 223, 247 Malle–Malle Langhøj (Piletoftegård) (Denmark) 87, 89 Malt–Kongehøj I–II (Denmark) 137, 176, 177, 177 Malt–Mannehøjgård (Denmark) 137 Manage–Bellecourt (Belgium) 160 Manching (Germany) 285, 288–9, 290, 298t Marcelcave–Le Chemin d’Ignaucourt (France) 318 Marcé–Hélouine (France) 270, 271 Mardorf 23 (Germany) 278 Marne (river) 65 Marne–Moselle region 255, 258 Marolles-sur-Seine–La Croix de la Mission (France) 164, 165 Martberg bei Pommern (Germany) 292, 298t, 307 Masnières–Les Hauts de Masnières (France) 94 Mathieu (France) 222, 223 Meare (Britain) 279 Méaulte–Plateforme aéro-industrielle (France) 109 Medemblik–Schepenwijk II (Netherlands) 178 Mediterranean imports/influence 215, 230, 231, 260, 261, 272, 300, 325, 333–4 megalithic art 92, 116, 118 megalithic tombs/monuments 4, 41, 67–71 Mejrup Syd (Denmark) 136 menhirs 68, 69, 71 Menneville (France) 64 Mesolithic 21, 39–46, 40–1, 330, 332 Britain/Ireland 75 coastal sites 48–52, 51 inland areas 46–8, 48 mobility 52–5

451

metalwork/metalworking 8–9, 16, 32–3, 238 2500–1600 BC 134–5, 152, 332 1600–1100 BC 173–4 1100–250 BC 213–14, 226, 229, 234, 234, 238–9, 241–2, 258–9, 260, 333 250 BC–Early Roman 286, 287, 291, 292, 296 deposition of 128, 168–9, 174, 205–10, 242, 294 see also bronze; copper; iron Meuse (river) 47, 48, 323 Mez-Notariou (France) 190–1, 240 middens 223, 260 Britain 51, 51, 76, 112, 238–9, 254 Denmark 49, 50, 54, 72 France 52, 191 Germany 289 Ireland 54–5 mines: copper 169 tin 152 see also flint, mines mobility: 8000–3700 BC 52–5 4900–3700 BC 75 2600–1600 BC 133–4, 153, 167 1600–1100 BC 192, 198 Molenaarsgraf (Netherlands) 140 Mondelange–La Sente (France) 146 Mondeville–Étoile (France) 189–90, 202 Mondeville–ZI Sud (France) 190, 191, 202 Mondeville-MIR (France) 101 Mondeville–Haut-Saint-Martin (France) 60 Monéteau–Sous Macherin (France) 65, 97 Monknewtown (Ireland) 142 monoliths see standing stones Mønsted–Toftumvej (Denmark) 93 Mont Beuvray (France) 285 Mont Lassois (France) 231, 341 Montelius, Oscar 8, 129, 172 monumental architecture see henges; monoliths; standing stones; stone circles; timber circles monumentalization 296–7 ‘mortuary houses’ 121, 124, 196 mortuary practices: 8000–3700 BC 43, 48, 49–50, 52, 56 4900–3700 BC 73, 74, 76 3700–2500 BC 117 2500–1600 BC 141–50, 151 1600–1100 BC 195–205, 208 1100–250 BC 213, 215, 230, 242, 246 cemeteries 246–52, 248, 249 and personhood 257 remains in natural places 255–7, 256 remains in settlements 254–5 social distinctions 252–4

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/9/2015, SPi

452

Index

mortuary practices: (cont.) 250 BC–Early Roman 312–24 Moselle (region): burials 96, 253, 255, 258, 314, 316, 320, 322 Corded Ware settlements 122–3 and hill-top oppida 292, 307 and La Tène 258, 260 Late Iron Age 272 Moulay–Le Mesnil (France) 286 Moulins-sur-Céphons–Les Vaux (France) 109 Mount Batten (Britain) 303 Mount Pleasant (Britain) 113, 114, 143, 185 Mucking (Britain) 295 Münster–Handorf (Germany) 163, 199 Murus Gallicus ramparts 293, 294, 327 Must Farm (Britain) 221 Næsby Østergård (Denmark) 149 Nanterre (France) 288, 288 Nanteuil-sur-Aisne (France) 306, 307 National Socialism (Nazis) 2, 4 natural places, burials in 133, 255–7, 256 Navan (Ireland) 283, 296, 298t, 310 Nederweert–Rosveld (Netherlands) 323 Needham, S. 151, 154 Needles Eye (Britain) 280 Němčice (Czech Republic) 300 Neolithic 9, 21, 39–45, 330, 332 Linearbandkeramik 40 Ness of Brodgar (Britain) 114–15 Neustadt am Rübenberge–Eilvese site 1 (Germany) 160 Neustadt LA 156 (Germany) 50–1 Newbridge (Britain) 253 Newgrange (Ireland) 92, 141–2 Niederweimar (Germany) 278 Niersen (Netherlands) 148, 149 Nijmegen–Waalsprong (Netherlands) 205–6, 242 Nogent-sur-Seine (France) 10 Nonant–La Bergerie (France) 176, 189, 190 Noordbarge (Netherlands) 276 Nørre Tranders (Denmark) 226 Nørre Uttrup (Denmark) 136, 137 Northern Ireland, politics and archaeology 4–5 Northton (Britain) 139 Nøvling Plantage (Denmark) 150 nucleation/contraction of settlements 278, 291, 298t, 337–8 oak coffins 174, 196 Ober-Erlenbach (Germany) 162 Ochtendung (Germany) 10, 122 Ochtendung–Emminger Höfe (Germany) 10 Oedelem–Wulfsberge (Belgium) 275

Oelde–Weitkamp (Germany) 311 Onnaing–Toyota (France) 265 Oostkamp–Waardamme (Belgium) 110, 111 open settlements 268, 270 Opmeer–Hoogwoud-Oost (Netherlands) 181 oppida 265, 267, 285–7, 289–91, 297, 305, 325 and cemeteries 314 Oram’s Arbour (Britain) 295 Orp-Jauche–Le Tierceau (Belgium) 275 Orval–Les Pleines (France) 61, 253, 317 Oss–Brabantstraat (Netherlands) 309 Oss–Hertogswetering (Netherlands) 309 Oss–Vorstengrafdonk (Netherlands) 253 Ostercappeln–Schnippenburg (Germany) 232–3 Otzenhausen–Hunnenring (Germany) 294 Over (Britain) 130 Overgård (Denmark) 47 passage graves 86, 104–5, 118–19, 201, 340 Britain/Ireland 92–3, 104, 117 Denmark 118 France 70, 71, 129, 144 Passy–La Sablonnière/Richebourg (France) 62 Passy–La Truie Pendue (France) 63, 94 Passy-type monuments 62–3, 62, 65 Paule (France) 272, 291, 297, 298t Paule–Kergroas (France) 161, 202 Paule–Saint-Symphorien (France) 225 Peelo (Netherlands) 276 ‘persistent places’ 54 personhood 257 Petersborg/Birkholmvej (Denmark) 136–7 Petit-Mont (France) 68, 70 Pierowall (Britain) 104 pit alignments 235 plant foods 122 ‘plaques’ 116 Pléchâtel–La Hersonnais (France) 109, 110 Plédéliac–Nord du Bourg (France) 140 Ploisy–Le Bras de Fer (France) 265 Plouédern–Leslouc’h (France) 191 Ploulec’h–Bel-Air (France) 191 Pluguffan–Ti Lipig (France) 190 Poitiers–La Folie (France) 145, 146, 148 pollen analysis 181, 188, 216, 217, 264, 264, 337, 338, 338 Pont-L’Abbé–Kérathur (France) 140 Pont-Rémy–Le Fond Baraquin/La Oeute 268 Pont-sur-Seine–Haut de Launoy (France) 109 Port Sec (France) 231 Portable Antiquities Scheme 128 Porte-Joie (France) 94 Porthcurno (Britain) 138 Portland, Isle of (Britain) 303 Potterne (Britain) 239

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/9/2015, SPi

Index pottery 16 8000–3700 BC 50 4900–3700 BC Cardial Ware 75 Cerny 71 Impressed Ware 67 La Hoguette 58 Limburg 58 3700–2500 BC collared flasks 116 Corded Ware 123 2500–1600 BC Bell Beaker 129, 133, 141–2, 156 ‘Hilversum’ 155 1600–1100 BC 173 1100–250 BC 239 250 BC–Early Roman amphorae 291, 292, 301, 302–3, 302, 312, 319–20, 322 Campanian Ware 291, 302 Pouilly–ZAC Chèvre Haie (France) 146 Poulainville–Pôle Logistique (France) 317, 318 Préguillac–Les Arnoux (France) 102 ‘preservation by record’ 31 Presles-et-Boves–Les Bois Plantés (France) 247 Preuâlitz (Germany) 223 ‘preventive’ archaeology see development-led archaeology private/public areas 284–5 public architecture 86 publication of archaeology 3–4, 35, 37, 328 quartz, depositions of 104 querns 236, 239, 311, 325 Britain 300 Denmark 108, 122, 123, 125, 137, 181 France 94, 190, 267, 286, 300, 304 Germany 100, 156, 289, 294, 300 Netherlands 206 Quimper–Moustoir 2 (France) 190 Quoyness (Britain) 104 radiocarbon dating 337 Radley (Britain) 146–7, 147 Rakkeby Hede (Denmark) 149 Rams Hill (Britain) 221 Rannée (France) 311 Rastorf (Germany) 73, 90 Rathgall (Ireland) 221, 222 rationalism 1 Raunds Area Project 167 Raunds (Britain) 130 Ravels–Weelde (Belgium) 179 recycling of raw materials 168

453

Rees–Haldern (Germany) 274 Refshøjgård I–II (Denmark) 125 Reichstett–Rue Ampère (France) 97, 98 Reims (Durocortorum) 291 Reinheim–Furtweg (Germany) 322 Reinheim–Horres (Germany) 308, 308 Reinsdorf site 13 (Germany) 155 Remicourt-Momalle–En Bia Flo II (Belgium) 56 Remicourt-Momalle–Fond de Momalle (Belgium) 56 Remlingen–Hohberg site 6 (Germany) 95–6, 96, 121 rescue excavation 10–11 Ressons-sur-Matz–Le Fond Madelon Duriez (France) 66 reuse of monuments: 8000–3700 BC 54 4900–3700 BC 69, 94, 95, 99, 117, 123 2500–1600 BC 129, 148–9, 161 1600–1100 BC 196, 198, 199, 201, 203–4 1100–250 BC 246, 248, 257 250 BC–Early Roman 323 Rheine–Altenrheine (Germany) 163, 199 Rhenen–Fietspad N225 vindplaats 5 (Netherlands) 140 Rhine (region): burials 164, 166, 195, 247, 250, 251, 252–3, 314, 316, 322, 323 La Tène communities 260 Late Iron Age 272, 274–5, 294, 323 Roman campaigns 262t Rhine (river) 7, 9, 45, 55, 56, 96, 122, 327 artefacts/deposition 206, 207, 241–2, 301, 316 Ri et Rônai–Le Fresne (France) 66–7 Ri–Le Moulin Foulon (France) 253 Ribemont-sur-Ancre (France) 306 rich burials 230 2500–1600 BC 128, 154 1600–1100 BC 197 1100–250 BC 230, 252–4, 258, 260 250 BC–Early Roman 317, 322, 326 Richards, M. P. 52, 133 Ring of Brodgar (Britain) 106 ring-ditches: 2500–1600 BC 127, 128, 160–3, 169–70 1600–1100 BC 179, 191, 201–2 1100–250 BC 226, 246, 247, 248, 251 250 BC–Early Roman 323 ringworks 218, 221, 222, 223, 258, 260 ritual 252–4, 295, 298t 1100–250 BC 230, 233, 234, 236, 245, 245, 255–6, 257, 260 250 BC–Early Roman 305–12 rivers see individual rivers; watery places

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/9/2015, SPi

454

Index

Rixheim–ZAC du Petit Prince (France) 164 rod microliths 75 Rodenkirchen–Hahnenknooper Mühle (Germany) 216 Roeux–Château d’Eau (France) 188–9 Roissy–La Fosse Cotheret (France) 320 Rokær (Denmark) 87 Roman period 261, 262t, 292, 309, 326, 334 imports 296 villas 274 romanticism 1 Ronchères–Le Bois de la Forge (France) 268 Rosdorf site 19 (Germany) 155 Ross Island (Ireland) 135, 138, 138, 153 Rossington (Britain) 281, 282 Rotterdam–Poldervaart (Netherlands) 277 round cairns see barrows, round roundhouses 70, 118, 335 Britain 2500–1600 BC 139, 157, 158, 167 1600–1100 BC 175, 176, 185, 187, 187, 188, 193 1100–250 BC 217–18, 225 250 BC–Early Roman 280 France 4900–3700 BC 61–2, 61 2500–1600 BC 169, 170 1600–1100 BC 188–9, 193, 194 1100–250 BC 217, 226 250 BC–Early Roman 304 Ireland 3700–2500 BC 119 2500–1600 BC 138, 167 250 BC–Early Roman 282 Roz-an-Trémen (France) 251 Rudston (Britain) 91 Rullstorf site 8 (Germany) 108 Runnymede Bridge (Britain) 239 St Albans (Britain) 298t St Peter Port–King’s Road (Channel Islands) 251 Saint-Aubin-d’Aubigné–ZAC du Chêne Romé (France) 71 Saint-Denis-lès-Sens (France) 311 Saint-Georges-les-Baillargeaux–Les Varennes (France) 320 Saint-Germain-du-Corbéis–L’Ermitage (France) 60 Saint-Martin-de-Fontenay–La Grande Chasse (France) 201 Saint-Martin-de-Fontenay–Le Diguet (France) 71 Saint-Martin-des-Champs (France) 231, 238 Saint-Maur-des-Fossés–Adamville (France) 320

Saint-Sauveur–Au Chemin de Saint-Vaast (France) 317, 318 Saint-Valery-sur-Somme (France) 169 Saint-Varent–Les Entes (France) 192 Saint-Vigor d’Ymonville–Les Sapinettes (France) 169, 170, 189 Sainte-Croix-en-Plaine–Holzackerfeld (France) 219, 220 Saintes–Malabry I (France) 140 Salouël–Hôpital (France) 317, 318 salt 236–7, 237, 268, 270, 280, 289, 325 sanctuaries 245, 289, 291, 297, 301, 305–7, 306, 308, 316, 325 Sarup (Denmark) 101 Saumeray–Le Bas des Touches (France) 307 Saumeray–Les Pâtures/Moulin de l’Aulne (France) 247, 249 Scarre, Chris 4, 118 Schatteburg site 2811/1:34 (Germany) 199 Schifferstadt (Germany) 207 Schkölen (Germany) 222, 223 Schöneck–Kilianstädten (Germany) 59 Schöningen Site 15 (Germany) 164 Schulting, R. 52 sea level 43–4, 47 sea-going vessels 45, 192, 208 Seine (river) 241, 242, 288 Seine-Oise-Marne culture 93, 96 Semoine–Voie Palon (France) 307 Sens/Villeneuve-sur-Yonne (France) 289 settlements 21 4900–3700 BC 61, 72–3, 74, 77 3700–2500 BC 107–17, 114, 115, 118, 119 2500–1600 BC 135–41, 155–8, 166 1600–1100 BC 171–5, 192–5, 193, 211 Britain/Ireland 182–8, 185 France 188–92, 190, 191 Low Countries/Northern Europe 175–82 1100–250 BC 213, 214, 216–27, 217–18, 220, 222, 224, 226–7, 254–5, 337–8 250 BC–Early Roman 283–5 Belgium 275 Britain/Ireland 278–83, 282 Denmark 276, 278 France 265–72, 266 Germany 272–6, 275, 278 Netherlands 276–8, 277 see also hillforts Shannon (river) 207, 241 Sharpstone (Britain) 283 Sheridan, A. 79, 81 Sherratt, Andrew 1, 132, 340 shields 307 Shrewton (Britain) 156 shrines 294, 307–8 sickles 152, 205, 242

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/9/2015, SPi

Index Siegen–Niederschelden (Germany) 299 Sierentz–ZAC Hoell (France) 219, 220 Silbury Hill (Britain) 142 Singen (Germany) 153 Single Grave Culture see Corded Ware (Single Grave) Culture Sion (Switzerland) 134 Sittard–Hoogveld (Netherlands) 248, 251 Sjællandsvej (Denmark) Skalborg–Ikea (Denmark) 107, 149 Skelhøj (Denmark) 196, 197 slate 60 Snail Down (Britain) 138 social distinctions 246, 252–4, 299, 323, 324 see also rich burials social organization 259–60, 271, 316–24, 326, 340–1 Soest–Rüenstert (Germany) 60 Solbakkegård IV (Denmark) 150 solstices 104, 114 Somme (river) 265 Sommesous (France) 321, 321 Soulac-sur-Mer–L’Amélie (France) 191 Soumont-Saint-Quentin–Les Longrais (France) 66 souterrains 225, 227 South Hornchurch (Britain) 222 spear-heads 205, 242, 305, 307 Spiennes–Petit Spiennes (Belgium) 116 Spiere–De Hel (Belgium) 64–5 spindle-whorls 110, 253, 305, 312 Springfield Lyons (Britain) 221, 222 standing stones 41 France 67–8, 70, 71 Stansted (Britain) 176, 199, 310 Stanton Harcourt (Britain) 168 Stanwick (Britain) 296 Staosnaig (Britain) 54 Star Carr (Britain) 43 Stein (Netherlands) 96 stelae 251, 253 stone axes, Britain 117 stone circles 86, 105, 117, 119, 142, 201 ‘stone heap graves’ (stendyngegrave) 121, 125 Stonehenge (Britain) 97, 119, 167, 184–5 Stones of Stenness (Britain) 106 storage structures 225, 227, 236, 254, 267, 268, 271, 292, 316 Street House (Britain) 280 strontium isotopes 57, 58, 134, 259 Sublaines–Le Grand Ormeau (France) 192 Sundstrup st (Denmark) 107–8 Sutton Hoo (Britain) 169 Swifterbant Culture 49 swords: 2500–1600 BC 160

455 1600–1100 BC 205–6 1100–250 BC 223, 229, 230, 241, 242, 243, 253 250 BC–Early Roman 274, 300, 301, 309, 312, 324

Table des Marchands (France) 69, 70 Talheim (Germany) 59 Tara, Hill of (Ireland) 93 Tatihou (France) 169, 202 temples 245, 245, 293, 309 terrets 320 Teutones 262t, 262 Téviec (France) 52 textiles 110, 300 Thames (river) 126, 156, 207, 239, 241, 242 Thanet, Isle of (Britain) 126, 154, 169 Thomas, Julian 75, 77 Three Age Model 171, 213 three-aisled buildings 155, 156, 176, 176, 180, 182 Thugny-Trugny–Le Mayet (France) 322 Thuin (Belgium) 310 Thwing (Britain) 201, 221, 222 Thy Archaeological Project 177 Tiel–Medel Bredesteeg (Netherlands) 199 Tiel–Passewaaij (Netherlands) 277, 309 Tilburg–Surfplas-Zuid (Netherlands) 199 timber circles 113–14, 114, 115, 118, 142, 201, 335 timber platforms 208, 221, 240 Times of Their Lives, The (European Research Council) 6 tin, mines 152 Tinghøj I–II (Denmark) 124 Tintignac (France) 305 Tirepied (France) 140 Titelberg (Luxembourg) 292, 293, 297, 298t Tjørring–Rosenholmvej (Denmark) 300 Tomblaine–Le Pré Chenu (France) 289, 297 Tormore (Britain) 185 Torup Høje (Denmark) 121, 125 trackways 183, 189, 208, 268, 269, 270, 283, 285 transport, maritime 7 Trégueux–La Porte Alain (France) 292 trench mines 174 Trent (river) 207 triangular mounds 70–1 Trimbs (Germany) 255 Trou de l’Ambre (Belgium) 312 Tviehøj II (Denmark) 93 two-aisled houses/buildings 72, 107, 108, 123, 135, 136, 137, 139–40, 155, 156 Únětice Culture 152, 154, 164 urbanism 286, 287, 291

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/9/2015, SPi

456

Index

urnfield cemeteries 247, 248, 251, 252, 253 urns, cremation 199, 200, 317 Urville-Nacqueville (France) 304, 304 Vængesø I (Denmark) 49–50 Valenciennes–Rue Jean Bernier (France) 97 Valletta Convention (1992) (Council of Europe) 6, 11, 12, 28, 329 Vandières–Les Grandes Corvées (France) 156 Varennes–La Justice (France) 272 Vauville–Tumulus de la Lande des Cottes (France) 161 vehicle burials 253 Vendays–Montalivet–Lapartens (France) 191–2 Vendenheim–Le Haut du Coteau (France) 56 Vendresse–Les Longues Fauchées (France) 268 Venette–ZAC du Bois de Plaisance (France) 268 Verrebroek ‘Dok’ (Belgium) 32, 54 Vester Egebjerg (Denmark) 149 Vestervig–Grydehøj (Denmark) 250 Vieil-Auzay–Les Châtelliers (France) 102–3 Vignely–La Noue Fenard (France) 65 Vignot–Les Auges (France) 182 Vilich–Müldorf (Germany) 274, 275 villas 272, 274 Ville-sur-Retourne (France) 321, 321 Villeneuve-Saint-Germain (France) 286, 291, 298t Villers-Bocage–ZAC de la Montignette (France) 317, 318 Villiers-sur-Seine–Le Gros Buisson (France) 223 Visborg (Denmark) 72 visibility, archaeological 21, 24, 216, 217, 264, 336, 337 Vix burial (France) 231 Voel Vestergård (Denmark) 149 Voeren–Rullen (Belgium) 116 voting corridors 292, 293 votive deposition 209–10 Vreden–Zwillbrocker Strabe (Germany) 247 Waben–Le Sémaphore (France) 199 walled enclosures 99, 114 Wallendorf–Castellberg (Germany) 232, 292–4

Wallingford (Britain) 239 Walton Basin (Britain) 106 wandering farmsteads/settlements 176–7, 178, 219, 221, 260, 284 Wangels LA 505 (Germany) 122 Warburg–Menne (Germany) 107 ‘warrior graves’ 149, 315 ‘warrior sanctuaries’ 306 Watenstedt–Hünenburg (Germany) 229–30, 229 watery places, deposition of artefacts in: 2500–1600 BC 133 1600–1100 BC 168, 205–10, 211 1100–250 BC 238, 241–2, 243, 244–5, 255–6, 256, 258, 260 250 BC–Early Roman 305, 310, 312 Wattle Syke (Britain) 281 Wayland’s Smithy (Britain) 88–9, 90 weaving, France 110 Wederath (Belginum) (Germany) 308, 314, 322 wedge tombs 129, 130 Weert–Kampershoek (Netherlands) 219, 276, 277 Wels-Weyrauch, U. 197, 198 Weser (river) 253 Wessex Culture 154, 340 West Row Fen (Britain) 156 Wetwang Slack (Britain) 314 Whittle, Alasdair 77, 79, 80, 81 Wight, Isle of (Britain) 303 Windmill Hill (Britain) 98 wine 260, 301–2 Wirbelau (Germany) 181 Wittelsberg (Germany) 107 Wittorf (Germany) 251 Woodcuts (Britain) 186 Woodhenge (Britain) 113 woodland clearance 264–5, 268, 284, 337, 338 World Systems Theory 331, 341 Worms–Herrnsheim (Germany) 195, 251 Ymonville–Les Hyèbles (France) 290, 290 Yonne (river) 61, 63, 65, 94, 101, 202, 288 Zeijen (Netherlands) 276 Zijderveld afrit A2 (Netherlands) 178, 179 Zundert–Mencia Sandrode/Akkermolenweg (Netherlands) 251 Zvelebil, M. 46, 54