Recent Work on the Neolithic and Bronze Age in Warwickshire: a structured landscape straddling Church Lawford and King’s Newnham
Stuart C. Palmer
Archaeology Projects Group, Museum Field Services,
Warwickshire County Council, The Butts, Warwick CV 34 4SS
Introduction
The Neolithic and Early Bronze Age in Warwickshire has recently been summarised by Richard Hingley (1996, 7-11), but otherwise there has been little systematic or research-led work to provide a useful synthesis. Detailed work at Barford (Oswald 1969; Loveday 1989) and Wasperton (Hughes & Crawford 1995), whilst providing significant contributions to understanding those particular monuments, have added little to our understanding of wider issues such as the way the sites served their respective communities and how they inhabited their landscapes.
Recent episodes of fieldwork undertaken within an earlier prehistoric structured landscape astride the River Avon in eastern-central Warwickshire, have brought to light many of the ongoing problems faced by researchers in this field.
King’s Newnham 1968 and 1990
At King’s Newnham (SP 436 773), on a relatively flat gravel terrace on the north side of the river Avon, a complex of cropmark ring-ditches including an unusual, linked group form a ‘scheduled’ barrow cemetery (SAM no. Warwicks 163). This complex was published as site 104 by Webster and Hobley in their landmark survey (1965). The linked group has a linear arrangement of two or three ring-ditches of different diameters enclosed within a trapezoidal ditch with a smaller double ring-ditch attached to the south-western side. There are three other widely spaced ring-ditches nearby, one double ditched and two others with apparent entrances, although they have been rejected as henges by Harding & Lee (1987, 280).
Parts of the linked group were extensively sampled in 1968 by the Avon-Severn Valleys Research Project and a brief note on the works was published (Simpson 1969; Palmer), although unfortunately the archive has long-since been lost. In 1968 three distinct mounds were visible as earthworks and trenches were positioned accordingly. The southernmost mound was apparently entirely of turf, ditchless and undated, although a small length of gully that terminated adjacent to the mound on its west side contained a rim sherd of possible Middle Neolithic date (perhaps a decorated bowl and therefore later Early Neolithic; Ann Woodward pers comm). In the trenches to the north were double concentric ring ditches, the inner supporting a revetment of posts and stakes and the outer a conventional ditch. Dug into the old land surface between them were two cremations covered with inverted cordoned urns. A Group VI polished axe fragment and backed blades and cores of a microlithic industry were recovered from the ‘fossil soil’. The northernmost trench examined the relationship between the northernmost ring-ditch and the linear ditches, establishing that the former antedated the latter, but again no finds were recovered.
The excavator concluded that the northern and southern rings represented ‘henge type’ monuments and that the linear ditches were the long sides of a cursus, despite the fact that both putative henges were cut by the alleged cursus.
In 1990, eleventh-hour rescue excavations in advance of gas pipeline construction were expedited within a restricted 10m easement through the site without the benefit of a specific research design or an appreciation of the shortcomings of the earlier work. Fragmentary snapshots of a considerable range of archaeological activity were recorded through the ‘cemetery,’ although the nature of much of it remains ambiguous.
In essence three main features were identified that relate to the earlier work: the large ring-ditch, the oblong enclosure ditch, and a trapezoidal enclosure ditch. The first two are Simpson’s northern ‘henge type’ feature and cursus. However, the trapezoidal ditch we can now deduce was either not recognised or ignored. A thin layer of relic soil that survived in the centre of the ring produced Mesolithic flintwork and - combined with the 1968 evidence - suggests that the locale may have been significant before the mounds were created. Otherwise, datable finds were particularly scarce from both seasons excavations and the overlying construction sequence remains a matter for much speculation.
The north side of the northern ring-ditch was 4.5-5m wide x 1.1m deep and of numerous cuts, whilst on the south side its single cut was only 0.75m wide x 0.30m deep in 1968. This discrepancy seems plausibly explained by the northern side having originally been penannular, repetitively recut as an inverted C-shape and then later cut as a complete ring. In this model the initial C-shaped cuts could have been aligned on a pre-existing mound perhaps similar to the ditchless turf mound at the southern end of the complex. It would not be too difficult to posit a linear arrangement of such features on the Wessex model (Loveday 1985), albeit without any local parallels, with the individual mounds subsequently being altered and adjusted. For the northern mound (including the C-shaped ditch), the relative shallowness of the southern side of the annular ditch is thus explained by it being cut through an existing mound. We could also assume, as Simpson suggests, that the southern double ring-ditch initially comprised an internal revetted mound, overlaid by a gravel capping from the outer ditch.
The timeframe within which this composite was created is now clearer. The Mesolithic ground surface which was cut by cordoned urn associated cremations, and earlier Neolithic activity was found close by in 1990 in the form of a posthole and banana-shaped gully associated with Grimston Ware. The turf mounds probably date from at least the Middle Neolithic, as at West Cotton (Windell 1989, 91-2) and the rim sherd of probable later Early Neolithic date from Simpson’s gully adjacent to the southernmost turf mound may perhaps be regarded as confirmation of this despite the lack of stratigraphic association.
The oblong enclosure seems most likely (Loveday pers comm) to be related to the post-medieval field system as its alignment to the south is continued by a modern hedge line. The trapezoidal enclosure was dated by post-medieval tile at its base and was probably constructed to enclose a rabbit warren much like a pillow mound, its field name ‘Coneybury’ providing adequate confirmation for this.
King’s Newnham and Church Lawford 1999
In 1999 another gas pipeline cut across the river to the east of the barrow cemetery (Palmer 2000). This pipeline was a long time in planning and some mitigation was achieved beforehand such as re-routing it around an Iron Age cropmark site. Some elementary field observation work had been undertaken on behalf of Transco by an outside contractor, although this work had no discernible impact on either the route or the methodology of the pipeline constructors.
On the south bank of the Avon in Church Lawford parish (SP 4375 7650) the pipeline cut past the eastern end of a large open ended cropmark enclosure some 135m long by 70m at its widest, with an unusual interrupted ditch. An oblong enclosure c.20m wide extends c.100m from its narrower, western end, which seems to post-date a ring-ditch attached to its southern arm. A further ring-ditch lying to the north of the large enclosure was just missed by the pipeline.
The cropmark oblong enclosure appears to abut the large enclosure and given the likely Middle Neolithic date of the oblong enclosure an Earlier Neolithic date seems plausible. A plain sherd in a course fabric from the primary ditch fill may be Early or Middle Neolithic and a spread of pottery in the upper fill includes Peterborough ware in the Mortlake style (Ann Woodward pers comm). The enclosure is very similar in shape to an example with a wide ‘horned’ entrance at Godmanchester that has recently been dated to the Early and Middle Neolithic (McAvoy 2000). I would also suggest possible parallels with the enigmatic large enclosure at Wasperton (Hughes & Crawford 1995). The Church Lawford enclosure straddles the edge of a hill slope overlooking the valley, a position reminiscent of many causewayed enclosures (Edmonds 1999).
A group of pits, located mostly inside the enclosure produced particular and distinct assemblages of flintwork, pottery, cremated bones and charred plant remains (including wheat seeds). The ceramic assemblage spans the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age, including carinated bowls, Peterborough Ware, Grooved Ware, Beakers and Urns. These structured deposits have yet to be fully analysed but they clearly represent activity focussed on the enclosure over a considerable period of time.
On the northern side of the river on the 2nd terrace (SP 4440 7750) the pipeline diverted around the Iron Age site and passed through what turned out to be a significant pit group scattered over a large area. Naturally this pit group had not previously been visible in cropmark form. The pit group produced pottery assemblages very similar to those across the river, including carinated bowls, Peterborough Ware and various Urns. The absence of Grooved Ware and Beakers on this side of the river may reflect the restricted nature of the areas examined but may also be a reflection of the type of deposits in which they were structured.
Work on these latter two sites has at the moment been suspended as the developer has apparently reneged on a commitment to provide appropriate funds for detailed analysis and the production of a report. The combined work should allow for a unique glimpse of a significant prehistoric landscape divided by a major river.
It is temping to view these monuments as two communities expressing themselves across a mutual divide, but this may be an overly simplistic view. The timeframe within which the complex was in use may have witnessed considerable changes in socio-political geographies. This part of the upper Warwickshire Avon is not a big or wide river, its fordability is attested by the many medieval settlements along its length with the appellative ‘ford’ and indeed Bretford can be seen from the Church Lawford enclosure and the opposite complex.
Our work by necessity has been a prosaic response to development with no regard to wider issues of landscape utilisation, though a small group of amateurs have been steadily fieldwalking this part of the Avon Valley (Deakin & Deakin 2000). Their work is starting to put flesh on the bones of these cropmarks and detailed analysis of their results could significantly enhance our understanding of this particular geography. Presently they are restricted in their survey as parts of the landscape are scheduled, a restriction that only momentarily hindered the pipeline constructors.
In conclusion
There is then in eastern-central Warwickshire a monument complex that by some measures could be considered typical of the Midland complexes. To the south-west the well known Barford, Charlecote, Wasperton and Longbridge complexes are all apparently grouped closely around a cursus or oblong enclosure, as are many of the midland complexes, which, generally include a hengiform or irregular multiple ring-ditches (Loveday 1989, 72). The King’s Newnham/Church Lawford complex seems on current evidence to have a different focus, that of a Neolithic enclosure. It is also worth reiterating that the locale could have been significant even before the monuments were built, as evidenced by the Mesolithic material recovered from buried soils beneath the mounds on the north side of the river.
At present the complex resists definitive interpretation and this may be exacerbated by our expectation and indeed requirement that it should have absolute parallels at other sites in other regions. Recent work in the East Midlands (Last 1999) has shown that complexes there are far from standard and there is reason to accept each site as unique and special.
This work, whilst providing few clear answers, has encouraged many new questions. It has illustrated the dynamism and flux of one of these complexes and clearly shows that the cropmarks tell but a part of the story. The disparate and discrete features and finds that exist between and around the major features provide essential contextual. They are an intrinsic part of the landscape we wish to understand, and our reliance on aerial photograph plots to establish presence/absence and indeed limits to such complexes is not tenable.
Research issues
The gravel terraces on which these complexes are presently found are notoriously difficult to ‘read’. They have been heavily ploughed over the preceding millennia and only cut features are likely to survive. Such features may not easily be defined or even identified during controlled excavation. Mitigation strategies therefore need to accommodate these difficulties and it seems clear that the implications of cost, both financial and cultural, need to be weighed carefully.
In common with the majority of gravel terrace sites in Warwickshire this complex has not yielded much constructive palaeo-environmental data. We know very little about the contemporary environment, despite the presence of a (very) few cultigens and we have no idea if the landscape was organised (cf. Pryor 1988). We desperately need pollen and macrofossil (even perhaps molluscan) evidence if we are to place these sites in context and on current evidence these must be sought off-site. The chronological basis for the development of such complexes is unlikely on present knowledge to be calculated by the ceramic evidence, hence it is a prerequisite that suites of radiocarbon dates are sought and that these are subject to thorough statistical analyses.
At present we have no evidence that other earlier prehistoric complexes exist outside the major river valleys. However, this is most definitely a result of a bias in research priorities, whereby geologies that are not conducive to cropmarks seem likewise not conducive to any other form of survey, presumably a case of diminishing returns, but inevitably a major flaw in any distribution plot.
References
Deakin, M & Deakin, T, 2000 Recent flint finds in the upper Avon Valley, Warwickshire: an interim report, West Midlands Arch, 43, 41-5
Edmonds, M, 1999 Ancestral Geographies of the Neolithic: landscapes, monuments and memory (Routledge: London)
Gibson, A & Loveday, RE, 1989 Excavations at the Cursus monument of Aston on Trent, Derbyshire. In Gibson, A (ed), Midlands Prehistory. Some recent and current researches into the prehistory of central England (Oxford: Brit Arch Rep, Brit Ser 204), 27-50
Harding, AF & Lee, GE, 1987 Henge Monuments and Related Sites of Great Britain (Oxford: Brit Arch Rep, Brit Ser 175),
Hingley, R, 1996 Prehistoric Warwickshire: a review of the evidence, Trans Birm Warwicks Arch Soc, 100, 1-24
Hughes, G & Crawford, G, 1995 Excavations at Wasperton, Warwickshire, 1980-1985: introduction and part 1: the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age, Trans Birm Warwicks Arch Soc, 99, 9-46
Last, J, 1999 Out of line: cursuses and monument typology in eastern England. In Barclay, A & Harding, J (eds), Pathways and Ceremonies: the cursus monuments of Britain and Ireland (Neolithic Studies Group Sem Papers 4), 86-97
Loveday, RE, 1985 Cursuses and related monuments of the British Neolithic. Unpublished PhD thesis, Univ of Leicester
Loveday, RE, 1989The 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: Brit Arch Rep, Brit Ser 204), 51-84
Malim, T, 2000 The ritual landscape of the Neolithic and Bronze Age along the middle and lower Ouse Valley. In Dawson, M (ed), Prehistoric, Roman, and Post-Roman Landscapes of the Great Ouse Valley (CBA Res Rep 119), 57-88
McAvoy, F, 2000 The development of a Neolithic monument complex at Godmanchester, Cambridgeshire. In Dawson, M (ed), Prehistoric, Roman, and Post-Roman Landscapes of the Great Ouse Valley (CBA Res Rep 119), 51-56
Oswald, A, 1969 Excavations for the Avon/Severn Research Committee at Barford, Warwickshire, Trans Birm Warwicks Arch Soc, 83, 1-64
Palmer, SC, 2000 Excavations on the Churchover to Newbold Pacey gas pipeline for Transco: Interim report and post excavation proposal, Warwicks Mus
Palmer, SC, King’s Newnham, Warwickshire: Neolithic, Bronze Age and Iron Age excavations along a gas pipeline in 1990, Trans Birm and WarwicksArchSoc
Pryor, F, 1988 Earlier Neolithic organised landscapes and ceremonial in lowland Britain. In Barrett, JC & Kinnes, IA (eds), The Archaeology of Context in the Neolithic and Bronze Age: recent trends (John R Collis, University of Sheffield)
Simpson, DDA, 1969 King’s Newnham, site no 104, Avon - Severn Valleys Research Project, Rep No 5 for 1968-1969, CBA 8
Webster, G & Hobley, B, 1964 Aerial reconnaissance over the Warwickshire Avon, Arch J, 121, 1-22
Windell, D, 1989 A late Neolithic ‘ritual focus’ at West Cotton, Northamptonshire. In Gibson, A (ed), Midlands Prehistory. Some recent and current researches into the prehistory of central England (Oxford: Brit Arch Rep, Brit Ser 204), 85-94