West Midlands Regional Research Framework for Archaeology, Seminar 1: Barber
Neolithic Enclosures and Landscapes in the West Midlands
Martyn Barber
Aerial Survey, English Heritage, National Monuments Record Centre,
Kemble Drive, Swindon, Wiltshire SN2 2GZ
Introduction
Monuments, including various classes of enclosure, comprise a small proportion of the total number of Neolithic sites recorded in the British Isles - over 75% of Neolithic entries in the NMR database comprise findspots, surface scatters and isolated pits - yet they have tended to dominate discussion of the period. The distinguishing characteristics of the key monument types - causewayed enclosures, henges, cursuses, long barrows, flint mines, and so on - are often regarded as being distinctively Neolithic in character. When excavated, such monuments have tended to produce a variety of artefactual and environmental data, sometimes in considerable quantity. Discussions of their distribution, morphology and topographic position have all contributed to interpretations of their function. In other words, monuments have been of vital importance in shaping our understanding of how people lived their lives in the Neolithic.
However, the central position occupied by monuments is equally a result of long-standing traditions of archaeological fieldwork and research. Until the 1920s, the Neolithic period in Britain was populated solely by numerous upstanding earthen and megalithic tombs, a couple of flint mines and an awful lot of axes. Pre-Beaker pottery styles were barely known, and lithic technology a source of considerable disagreement. The recognition of causewayed enclosures in the 1920s and the invention of henges in the early 1930s prompted a major revision of perceptions of the Neolithic as well as a search for additional comparable constructions across the country. Consequently the monuments effectively became central places both for archaeologists and for the Neolithic farming communities believed to have built and used them.
The way these monuments - and indeed the period itself - are understood has changed considerably since the 1930s. Moreover, the significance of the non-monumental remains of the Neolithic, notably lithic scatters and pit groups, has been recognised, elevating them far beyond mere dots on maps. This move away from treating monuments in isolation is also evident in a greater emphasis on understanding individual sites within their local or regional settings, both physical and cultural, as well as recognising their real complexity in terms of both the nature of activities undertaken at them and the often considerable time depth apparent in their histories of construction and use.
Monuments and Survey
An important distinction between monumental and non-monumental sites lies in the methods of discovery. Since the 1930s, the principal means of discovering monuments and particularly enclosures has been via aerial reconnaissance. In contrast, other site categories tend to be discovered during fieldwalking or in the course of excavation. In the latter case, Neolithic features and finds are usually encountered during the excavation of sites of later date rather than themselves being the focus of investigation.
Aerial reconnaissance has been of key importance in identifying potentially Neolithic enclosures in the West Midlands. No surviving earthwork sites, other than tombs, have been dated to the period, though one or two possibilities exist. Instead, almost all enclosures have been identified from the air, with something less than a handful discovered during excavation. However, aerial survey carries with it a number of biases and problems that mean that it cannot by itself be expected to produce a realistic distribution of Neolithic activity in the region.
Most of the Neolithic enclosures, whether definite or possible, listed in the region’s SMRs and in the NMR are located on the better-drained soils of the major river valleys and their tributaries, i.e. the soils most conducive to cropmark formation. This pattern of site distribution has been a feature of British prehistory since the 1950s and owes much to theories about likely prehistoric settlement patterns, assumptions about the likelihood of heavier soils producing cropmarks, and a tendency for further aerial reconnaissance to focus on areas where results can be expected. However, the contribution of aerial survey should not be underestimated.
In his landmark publication Neolithic Cultures of the British Isles (1954), Stuart Piggott devoted little space to the West Midlands, or indeed anywhere compared to the number of pages allotted to southern England: “in the regions into which we now enter, any reconstruction of unwritten history can no longer be based on several aspects of a culture, but must rely almost entirely on the evidence of tomb architecture and grave-goods” (Piggott 1954, 122). The real impact of aerial survey in the West Midlands began in the years after Piggott’s book was published, a notable milestone being Webster and Hobley’s (1964) paper ‘Aerial Reconnaissance over the Warwickshire Avon’. Based on the cropmark evidence photographed by Arnold Baker and Jim Pickering, they were able for the first time to show the density and complexity of prehistoric activity in the Avon valley, even if many of the cropmarks could only be tentatively dated. In the last 40 years, many more sites have been discovered, and more detail recorded for those already known, but the general distribution remains predominantly tied to the valleys and their lighter soils.
In their 1964 paper, Webster and Hobley included a distribution map of the lighter, more permeable soils in the West Midlands, in an attempt to show the potential of the region for further aerial reconnaissance. However, they also believed that these soils represented the areas that would have been cultivable in prehistory. As for the remainder of the region, “The heavy subsoils of Keuper marl and boulder clay occupy considerable patches, and these areas of thick natural woodlands would have been avoided by the early settlers, while remaining a valuable source of food for the hunters of wild life”. Such an interpretation is no longer tenable, and aerial reconnaissance has shown that given the right conditions, cropmarks can form on these heavier soils and, of course, on grassland. The challenge now is for all forms of survey, including aerial survey, to look beyond the most productive areas in the search for traces of prehistoric activity.
Understanding enclosures in the West Midlands and beyond
The classification and dating of both cropmark and earthwork enclosures, in the absence of excavated evidence, is heavily reliant on morphological criteria. Almost all of the definite or possible Neolithic enclosures - causewayed enclosures, cursus monuments, henges - recognised in the West Midlands remain unexcavated and are therefore identified on their degree of resemblance to the main recognised categories of Neolithic enclosure. Essentially this means arcs or circuits of interrupted ditch, elongated rectangular enclosures, and circular enclosures with one entrance or two opposed entrances tend to be singled out for attention. Other forms of enclosure are assigned to later periods where a resemblance with known monument types can be identified, or they are left essentially undated (e.g. “prehistoric”).
However, our existing classification schemes for monuments, including those of Neolithic date, are coming under increasing strain. For example, a recent review of causewayed enclosures on a national scale (Oswald et al 2001) demonstrated considerable variability among the sites accepted as being of Early Neolithic date in terms of, for example, morphology, construction, topographic location, history of development and possible functions, while evidence from the few sites to have been excavated to any great extent has only added to the complexity of the situation (and see also the remarkable range of enclosures featured in Darvill & Thomas 2001). Moreover, the study also raised the question of how to deal with contemporary but morphologically different enclosures. It is clear, for example, that not all Early Neolithic enclosures are causewayed. If so, how can we recognise them? At the same time, not all enclosures breached by multiple causeways need date to the Early Neolithic.
Similar problems beset our understanding of cursuses (see Barclay & Harding 1999 for a recent overview) and henges (Harding & Lee 1987), both monument classes that superficially at least can appear well-defined and understood. However, assigning a cropmark site to either class, particularly henges, can in the absence of supporting evidence be a quite arbitrary process. Identification rests on preconceptions derived from the study of a small number of well-known sites, as well as the assumption that clear and observable distinctions really do exist between different types of Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age circular monuments.
As well as the problem of understanding sites in the West Midlands that appear to belong to well-known, nationally- or internationally-recognised monument classes, there is a more pressing concern. Many of the cropmark sites recorded in the region (and beyond) simply do not fall neatly into any accepted interpretative categories. They are effectively undated until excavated. A case in point is the sub-circular enclosure at Wasperton, excavated in the early 1980s (Hughes & Crawford 1995). As a cropmark, there was little about it to indicate a Neolithic date, yet excavation recovered sherds of Peterborough Ware from its primary ditch fills, something that places the enclosure’s creation to the period between the use of causewayed enclosures and the construction of the major henge monuments. The site is morphologically unlike the “classic” henges and causewayed enclosures, but is not unlike any number of undated cropmark enclosures dotting the countryside. Few may be Neolithic, but some may well be.
Neolithic Enclosures in the West Midlands
For the West Midlands, the SMRs and NMR record a generally sparse scatter of enclosures identified with varying degrees of uncertainty as Neolithic. For the Early Neolithic, only two sites can be accepted on present evidence as causewayed enclosures. Located just a few kilometres apart at Alrewas and Mavesyn Ridware in Staffordshire, they were for many years regarded as the most northerly occurrences of what was viewed as a primarily southern phenomenon. However, identification of definite and possible sites in Anglesey, the Isle of Man, Northern Ireland, the Lake District and Scotland (Oswald et al 2001) has raised serious questions about the extent to which the current distribution is influenced by factors affecting site visibility.
The isolation of the two Staffordshire sites, in relation to the general distribution of causewayed enclosures, may therefore be more apparent than real. There are many questions that can be asked about these sites. There has been a tendency to treat all causewayed enclosures as essentially the same - performing similar functions wherever they are located. However, considerable complexity and diversity is evident among such enclosures despite the broadly similar constructional technique, highlighting a real need to examine more of these sites in their local and regional context. We simply do not know enough about the Early Neolithic in the West Midlands, let alone in the immediate environs of these enclosures, to talk in anything more than general terms about their likely functions and significance. Moreover, like almost all definite or possible Neolithic enclosures in the West Midlands, they remain under the plough.
A few other sites within the region offer the possibility of being Earlier Neolithic causewayed enclosures, chief among them the partly excavated Dorstone Hill, Herefordshire, and the cropmark site at Woolston, Shropshire. Both clearly need further investigation before they can be interpreted with any confidence.
More than 20 sites in the West Midlands have been identified with varying degrees of confidence as cursus monuments. Of the few that have seen any excavation, little of value was recovered. For example, the excavation report on the cursus at Barford, Warwickshire, contains the following statement: “It is a pity to have to record…that extensive excavation of the site revealed nothing that materially advances our knowledge of the date or purpose of these monuments” (Loveday 1989, 64). In addition, shorter or less rectangular enclosures - often arbitrarily distinguished as “long mortuary enclosures” - are also known.
Around 25 sites in the region have been identified over the years as possible henges. They display considerable variety in form, size and location but generally share a lack of excavation. Many fit the established criteria for henges loosely at best, but can look equally uncomfortable in other monument classes, underlining the need for a fresh look at the whole phenomenon of Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age circular monuments. Some can be discounted quite quickly - the site at Wiggerland Wood, Warwickshire, for example, where air photographs recorded a circular cropmark enclosure with opposing entrances plus three smaller ring ditches and a rectangular feature (compare e.g. Harding & Lee 1987, 282-3, with Wilson 2000, 197, fig.111). The site is, in fact, a levelled World War Two searchlight battery. However, others present greater problems of interpretation, even after excavation (e.g. Barford site 83A; Oswald 1966-7).
Conclusions
The problems and priorities identified above for the West Midlands are hardly unique to the region. However, it is clear that in order to gain a better framework of understanding for the Neolithic in the region, much needs to be done in terms of survey and reconnaissance as well as research and targeted excavation. Key requirements include greater attention being paid to areas currently lacking Neolithic sites, monuments or otherwise. In addition, an assessment is needed of all forms of enclosure, particularly the cropmarks, and not just those that conform most closely to accepted categories of Neolithic monuments. Too many sites are effectively undated, and even those that we can label ‘Neolithic’ with some confidence are interpreted largely by analogy to morphologically similar enclosures elsewhere in the country. Moreover, it is essential that monuments are not viewed in isolation - the quantity and quality of information on the contemporary landscape, both cultural and environmental, is extremely limited.
Publications cited:
Barclay, A & Harding, J (eds), 1999 Pathways and Ceremonies: the cursus monuments of Britain and Ireland (Neolithic Studies Group Sem Papers 4. Oxford: Oxbow Books)
Darvill, T & Thomas, J (eds.), 2001 Neolithic Enclosures in Atlantic Northwest Europe (Neolithic Studies Group Sem Papers 6. Oxford: Oxbow Books).
Harding, AF & Lee, GE, 1987 Henge Monuments and related sites of Great Britain (Oxford: British Arch Rep, Brit Ser 175)
Hughes, G & Crawford, G, 1995 Excavations at Wasperton, Warwickshire, 1980-1985, Trans Birmingham Warwickshire Arch Soc, 99, 9-45
Loveday, R, 1989 The Barford Ritual Complex: further excavations (1972) and a regional perspective. In Gibson, A (ed), Midlands Prehistory: some recent and current researches into the prehistory of central England (Oxford: British Arch Rep, Brit Ser 204), 51-84