Neolithic and Early to Middle Bronze Age

Click here to see how to contribute

3. NEOLITHIC AND EARLY TO MIDDLE BRONZE AGE (c.4000–c.1150 cal BC): RESEARCH AGENDA

Click here to see the recommended strategic objectives for this period.

3.1 Dating

3.1.1: How may radiocarbon and other scientific dating methods be applied most effectively to refining the period’s imprecise chronological framework?

More information on this question
URI:
https://researchframeworks.org/emherf/researchframework/v1/question/question-5d9b458a691fc
Linked Strategy(s):
3H – Recover and analyse human remains
More information:
Status:
Active
Authority to change status:
East Midlands RF question 5.1.1
Date accepted:
07/10/2019
Date of next review:
07/10/2024

3.1.2: How can we date more precisely the various regional styles of Neolithic and earlier Bronze Age pottery?

More information on this question
URI:
https://researchframeworks.org/emherf/researchframework/v1/question/question-5d9b458a6ae64
Linked Strategy(s):
3J – Foster relevant artefact studies
More information:
Status:
Active
Authority to change status:
East Midlands RF question 5.1.2
Date accepted:
07/10/2019
Date of next review:
07/10/2024

3.1.3: Can we further refine lithic artefact chronologies within the region?

More information on this question
URI:
https://researchframeworks.org/emherf/researchframework/v1/question/question-5d9b458a6b4c5
Linked Strategy(s):
3B – Assess the fieldwalking resource
More information:
Status:
Active
Authority to change status:
East Midlands RF question 5.1.3
Date accepted:
07/10/2019
Date of next review:
07/10/2024

3.1.4: Can we define more precisely the chronology of the major monument classes (causewayed enclosures, barrows and cairns etc), and how might this have varied spatially?

More information on this question
URI:
https://researchframeworks.org/emherf/researchframework/v1/question/question-5d9b458a6ba4f
Linked Strategy(s):
3H – Recover and analyse human remains
More information:
Status:
Active
Authority to change status:
East Midlands RF question 5.1.4
Date accepted:
07/10/2019
Date of next review:
07/10/2024

3.2 Continuity of hunter-gatherer traditions

3.2.1: To what extent may hunter-gatherer subsistence traditions have continued into the Neolithic?

More information on this question
URI:
https://researchframeworks.org/emherf/researchframework/v1/question/question-5d9b458a6c013
Linked Strategy(s):
3I – Investigate the development and intensification of agriculture
More information:
Status:
Active
Authority to change status:
East Midlands RF question 5.1.5
Date accepted:
07/10/2019
Date of next review:
07/10/2024

3.2.2: Can we discern continuities or discontinuities in the distributions of later Mesolithic and earlier Neolithic lithic scatters?

More information on this question
URI:
https://researchframeworks.org/emherf/researchframework/v1/question/question-5d9b458a6c530
Linked Strategy(s):
3C – Develop fieldwalking strategies and guidelines for landscape zones
More information:
Status:
Active
Authority to change status:
East Midlands RF question 5.2.1
Date accepted:
07/10/2019
Date of next review:
07/10/2024

3.2.3: How may environmental sampling strategies assist in elucidating the transition from later Mesolithic to earlier Neolithic economies?

More information on this question
URI:
https://researchframeworks.org/emherf/researchframework/v1/question/question-5d9b458a6cad4
Linked Strategy(s):
3E – Target sites with Late Mesolithic and Early Neolithic organic remains
More information:
Status:
Active
Authority to change status:
East Midlands RF question 5.2.2
Date accepted:
07/10/2019
Date of next review:
07/10/2024

3.2.4: What light is thrown by isotope analysis on dietary change in the Neolithic?

More information on this question
URI:
https://researchframeworks.org/emherf/researchframework/v1/question/question-5d9b458a6d0da
Linked Strategy(s):
3H – Recover and analyse human remains
More information:
Status:
Active
Authority to change status:
East Midlands RF question 5.2.3
Date accepted:
07/10/2019
Date of next review:
07/10/2024

3.3 Introduction, character and development of agriculture

3.3.1: When was the transition from nomadic to semi-sedentary and sedentary communities and to what extent did this vary in different landscapes?

More information on this question
URI:
https://researchframeworks.org/emherf/researchframework/v1/question/question-5d9b458a6d5e7
Linked Strategy(s):
3I – Investigate the development and intensification of agriculture
More information:
Status:
Active
Authority to change status:
East Midlands RF question 5.2.4
Date accepted:
07/10/2019
Date of next review:
07/10/2024

3.3.2: Can we clarify the range of new crops, regional variations in the introduction of species such as spelt wheat, the relative importance of cultivated and gathered food and changes in diet?

More information on this question
URI:
https://researchframeworks.org/emherf/researchframework/v1/question/question-5d9b458a6daf5
Linked Strategy(s):
3H – Recover and analyse human remains
More information:
Status:
Active
Authority to change status:
East Midlands RF question 5.2.5
Date accepted:
07/10/2019
Date of next review:
07/10/2024

3.3.3: What was the balance between domesticated animals and cultivated crops and how might this have varied within the region and over time?

More information on this question
URI:
https://researchframeworks.org/emherf/researchframework/v1/question/question-5d9b458a6e06b
Linked Strategy(s):
3I – Investigate the development and intensification of agriculture
More information:
Status:
Active
Authority to change status:
Date accepted:
07/10/2019
Date of next review:
07/10/2024

3.3.4: When did the first field and boundary systems develop, how did this vary regionally and what processes may underlie their development?

More information on this question
URI:
https://researchframeworks.org/emherf/researchframework/v1/question/question-5d9b458a6e55b
Linked Strategy(s):
3D – Assess the regional air photographic and lidar resource
More information:
Status:
Active
Authority to change status:
Date accepted:
07/10/2019
Date of next review:
07/10/2024

3.4 Exploitation of different landscape zones

3.4.1: How may the region’s remarkable variety of upland, lowland and coastal landscapes be surveyed in ways that would permit recognition of significant intra-regional variations in land use?

More information on this question
URI:
https://researchframeworks.org/emherf/researchframework/v1/question/question-5d9b458a6ea93
Linked Strategy(s):
3E – Target sites with Late Mesolithic and Early Neolithic organic remains
More information:
Status:
Active
Authority to change status:
Date accepted:
07/10/2019
Date of next review:
07/10/2024

3.4.2: Can we identify locations with a high potential for elucidating variations in arable, pasture and woodland cover between ecological zones (e.g. palaeochannels; upland peats)?

More information on this question
URI:
https://researchframeworks.org/emherf/researchframework/v1/question/question-5d9b458a6f314
Linked Strategy(s):
3I – Investigate the development and intensification of agriculture
More information:
Status:
Active
Authority to change status:
Date accepted:
07/10/2019
Date of next review:
07/10/2024

3.4.3: Can we further refine our knowledge of the selective use of particular landscapes for ritual, agriculture and other activities?

More information on this question
URI:
https://researchframeworks.org/emherf/researchframework/v1/question/question-5d9b458a6f902
Linked Strategy(s):
3G – Conduct additional investigations of earlier Neolithic funerary traditions
More information:
Status:
Active
Authority to change status:
Date accepted:
07/10/2019
Date of next review:
07/10/2024

3.5 Settlement patterns

3.5.1: How may we characterise more effectively the frequently ephemeral structural traces that might relate to settlement activity?

More information on this question
URI:
https://researchframeworks.org/emherf/researchframework/v1/question/question-5d9b458a6fe55
More information:
Status:
Active
Authority to change status:
Date accepted:
07/10/2019
Date of next review:
07/10/2024

3.5.2: Can we obtain a clearer understanding of temporal and spatial variability in the duration of settlement activity?

More information on this question
URI:
https://researchframeworks.org/emherf/researchframework/v1/question/question-5d9b458a7046a
Linked Strategy(s):
3B – Assess the fieldwalking resource
More information:
Status:
Active
Authority to change status:
Date accepted:
07/10/2019
Date of next review:
07/10/2024

3.5.3: How might settlement morphology and functions have varied regionally and over time, and in particular when, where and why may the first enclosed settlements have developed?

More information on this question
URI:
https://researchframeworks.org/emherf/researchframework/v1/question/question-5d9b458a708fc
Linked Strategy(s):
3I – Investigate the development and intensification of agriculture
More information:
Status:
Active
Authority to change status:
Date accepted:
07/10/2019
Date of next review:
07/10/2024

3.5.4: What may analyses of surface lithic scatters teach us about developing settlement patterns in the region?

More information on this question
URI:
https://researchframeworks.org/emherf/researchframework/v1/question/question-5d9b458a71028
Linked Strategy(s):
3C – Develop fieldwalking strategies and guidelines for landscape zones
More information:
Status:
Active
Authority to change status:
Date accepted:
07/10/2019
Date of next review:
07/10/2024

3.6 Ceremonial and burial monuments

3.6.1: Why may monument complexes have developed, why were some short-lived and others of longer duration, and why do these incorporate such a wide variety of monument types?

More information on this question
URI:
https://researchframeworks.org/emherf/researchframework/v1/question/question-5d9b458a71685
Linked Strategy(s):
3F – Identify monument complexes and prioritise for curatorial action
More information:
Status:
Active
Authority to change status:
Date accepted:
07/10/2019
Date of next review:
07/10/2024

3.6.2: Why were some monument types, such as causewayed enclosures, long cairns and henges, constructed in some areas but not others?

More information on this question
URI:
https://researchframeworks.org/emherf/researchframework/v1/question/question-5d9b458a71cc2
Linked Strategy(s):
3G – Conduct additional investigations of earlier Neolithic funerary traditions
More information:
Status:
Active
Authority to change status:
Date accepted:
07/10/2019
Date of next review:
07/10/2024

3.6.3: What roles may henges, causewayed enclosures, cursuses and other monument classes have performed in contemporary society?

More information on this question
URI:
https://researchframeworks.org/emherf/researchframework/v1/question/question-5d9b458a72328
Linked Strategy(s):
3G – Conduct additional investigations of earlier Neolithic funerary traditions
More information:
Status:
Active
Authority to change status:
Date accepted:
07/10/2019
Date of next review:
07/10/2024

3.6.4: To what extent can we relate monument types to particular artefact suites, and can such information usefully inform fieldwork strategies?

More information on this question
URI:
https://researchframeworks.org/emherf/researchframework/v1/question/question-5d9b458a7295b
Linked Strategy(s):
3G – Conduct additional investigations of earlier Neolithic funerary traditions
More information:
Status:
Active
Authority to change status:
Date accepted:
07/10/2019
Date of next review:
07/10/2024

3.7 Riverine monuments and ritual foci

3.7.1: When did burnt mounds develop, what functions may they have performed and how might they relate to contemporary settlements?

More information on this question

3.7.2: What ceremonial or ritual roles may rivers or other watery locations have performed and how may this have varied regionally and over time?

More information on this question

3.7.3: How significant were river-crossing or confluence zones as foci for monument complexes?

More information on this question

3.8 Neolithic and Bronze Age societies

3.8.1: Can we identify intra-regional variations in the character of sites and artefacts and what might these signify in social or economic terms?

More information on this question
URI:
https://researchframeworks.org/emherf/researchframework/v1/question/question-5d9b458a74470
Linked Strategy(s):
3J – Foster relevant artefact studies
More information:
Status:
Active
Authority to change status:
Date accepted:
07/10/2019
Date of next review:
07/10/2024

3.8.2: How far can studies of burials, grave goods, house and barrow/cairn structures contribute to studies of status variations within and between communities?

More information on this question
URI:
https://researchframeworks.org/emherf/researchframework/v1/question/question-5d9b458a74bb6
Linked Strategy(s):
3H – Recover and analyse human remains
More information:
Status:
Active
Authority to change status:
Date accepted:
07/10/2019
Date of next review:
07/10/2024

3.8.3: How far may DNA or isotope analysis of human bone shed light upon population mobility and in particular the Beaker population?

More information on this question
URI:
https://researchframeworks.org/emherf/researchframework/v1/question/question-5d9b458a752ec
Linked Strategy(s):
3H – Recover and analyse human remains
More information:
Status:
Active
Authority to change status:
Date accepted:
07/10/2019
Date of next review:
07/10/2024

3.9 Raw material resources and exchange networks

3.9.1: Can we locate flint, chert, igneous rock and other lithic raw material sources and identify exchange networks (e.g. Group XX Charnwood axes)?

More information on this question
URI:
https://researchframeworks.org/emherf/researchframework/v1/question/question-5d9b458a75ab3
Linked Strategy(s):
3J – Foster relevant artefact studies
More information:
Status:
Active
Authority to change status:
Date accepted:
07/10/2019
Date of next review:
07/10/2024

3.9.2: How far may petrographic and other scientific analyses contribute to our understanding of systems of ceramic production and distribution?

More information on this question
URI:
https://researchframeworks.org/emherf/researchframework/v1/question/question-5d9b458a761a3
Linked Strategy(s):
3J – Foster relevant artefact studies
More information:
Status:
Active
Authority to change status:
Date accepted:
07/10/2019
Date of next review:
07/10/2024

3.9.3: How far may studies of grave goods from barrows and other burial monuments contribute to studies of trade and exchange within and beyond the region?

More information on this question
URI:
https://researchframeworks.org/emherf/researchframework/v1/question/question-5d9b458a7678d
Linked Strategy(s):
3J – Foster relevant artefact studies
More information:
Status:
Active
Authority to change status:
Date accepted:
07/10/2019
Date of next review:
07/10/2024

3.9.4: How can we further refine our understanding of the production and distribution of copper, bronze and gold items?

More information on this question
URI:
https://researchframeworks.org/emherf/researchframework/v1/question/question-5d9b458a76e5a
Linked Strategy(s):
3J – Foster relevant artefact studies
More information:
Status:
Active
Authority to change status:
Date accepted:
07/10/2019
Date of next review:
07/10/2024

4 thoughts on "Neolithic and Early to Middle Bronze Age"

  1. vowen2 vowen2 says:

    Site/Project Name
    Clifton Park and Ride
    Parish
    Clifton
    County/Unitary Authority
    Nottinghamshire
    NGR
    454282 333495
    OASIS ID
    trentpea1-225112
    Report and Web Link
    http://www.yorkarchaeology.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/NAT5-web.pdf; http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archiveDS/archiveDownload?t=arch-1123-1/dissemination/pdf/trentpea1-225112_1.pdf
    Agenda Topic(s)

    3.1.1 How may radiocarbon and other scientific dating methods be applied most effectively to refining the period’s imprecise chronological framework?
    3.4.3 Can we further refine our knowledge of the selective use of particular landscapes for ritual, agriculture and other activities?
    3.9.1 Can we locate flint, chert, igneous rock and other lithic raw material sources and identify exchange networks (e.g. Group XX Charnwood axes)?
    How has this work addressed the Research Agenda and Strategy?

    A Neolithic date is suggested for a large oval ditched enclosure investigated at Clifton Park and Ride during excavations conducted in advance of the Nottingham tram extension, on behalf of Vinci Construction UK. The enclosure contained material of Neolithic to Iron Age date and thermoluminescence dating of the basal fill gave a result of 4320±700 years BC. However, it has been suggested that this may date the formation of ancient colluvium on the site and the limited quantity of secure Neolithic dating evidence means the provenance of the feature remains to some extent uncertain. The site therefore highlights challenges relevant to Agenda Topic 3.1.1. If indeed Neolithic, the feature may represent a ’causewayed enclosure’ and possible seasonal meeting place, although its morphology is not entirely typical of such monuments.

    A rectilinear enclosure of possible Neolithic date and a Bronze Age ring ditch were also identified. The ring ditch was situated on a plateau and such a prominent topographic position is typical of features of this type. However, in contrast, Bronze Age barrows previously identified and excavated in Clifton further to the northeast occupy much lower-lying positions close to the course of the River Trent. This contrast, as well as the location of the (possible) Neolithic and Bronze Age features within a small dry valley facing the floodplain, is of interest in respect to landscape organisation as raised by Agenda Topic 3.4.3 and also the issue of monument distribution as highlighted in Agenda Topic 3.6.2.

    Neolithic activity was also represented by a small amount of, probably residual, worked flints and pottery within later prehistoric features. Of particular interest are some pieces of (and flakes from) Neolithic polished stone axe heads of Langdale type from Cumbria. Further specialist analysis may give insight into trade networks as raised in Agenda Topic 3.9.1.

  2. vowen2 vowen2 says:

    Organisation
    Archaeology South East
    Site/Project Name
    Shardlow Quarry
    County/Unitary Authority
    Derbyshire
    NGR
    SK 423286
    Report and Web Link
    https://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeologyse/publications/monographs; Krawiek, C, Howard, A J, Gearey, B 2017 Beside the River Trent: Archaeological Investigations at Shardlow Quarry, Derbyshire (Spoilheap Monograph 14). Archaeology South-East & Trent and Peak Archaeology
    Agenda Topic(s)

    3.7.3 How significant were river-crossing or confluence zones as foci for monument complexes?
    3.5.1 How may we characterise more effectively the frequently ephemeral structural traces that might relate to settlement activity?
    3.2.3 How may environmental sampling strategies assist in elucidating the transition from later Mesolithic to earlier Neolithic economies?
    Research Objective(s)

    3E Target sites with Late Mesolithic and Early Neolithic organic remains
    How has this work addressed the Research Agenda and Strategy?

    Human activity at Shardlow peaks during the middle Bronze Age evidenced by a range of material cultural remains. During the removal of alluvial sediments from across the site, 16 bronze items were recovered, including palstaves, axes and rapiers. In addition, the sands and gravels and finer palaeochannel sediments preserved two logboats, a wooden platform and two possible fishing structures. These remains provide real insights into the close relationship that local prehistoric peoples had with the river, using it for transport and trade, exploiting its food resources, and as a place of ritual significance. The environmental deposits recorded in conjunction with these finds demonstrate significant landscape change with the main channel of the Trent moving position on at least two occasions

  3. These contributions to the Early Bronze Age research questions relate to the results of the excavation by Wessex Archaeology of the barrow at Derby Road, Doveridge (NGR 412230, 334045) in 2017–8. The publication of the site is anticipated in the 2022 edition of the Derbyshire Archaeological Journal.
    3.1.2: How can we date more precisely the various regional styles of Neolithic and earlier Bronze Age pottery?
    The use period of the complete inverted Collared Urn found on the site was dated by paired radiocarbon dates (subsequently modelled using the Bayesian method) on the cremated human bone it was found to contain. Two radiocarbon dates of 1930–1740 cal. BC (SUERC-93890) and 1890–1680 cal. BC (SUERC-93889) were obtained on bone samples from two of the individuals contained within the urn; when modelled these span the range of 1900–1750 BC. The Collared Urn probably belonging to Longworth’s Secondary Series.

    3.1.4: Can we define more precisely the chronology of the major monument classes (causewayed enclosures, barrows and cairns etc), and how might this have varied spatially?
    3.4.3: Can we further refine our knowledge of the selective use of particular landscapes for ritual, agriculture and other activities?
    3.6.1: Why may monument complexes have developed, why were some short-lived and others of longer duration, and why do these incorporate such a wide variety of monument types?
    Eight radiocarbon dating samples were submitted. The results indicate burials were made at the site over a period of up to around 140 years in the later part of the Early Bronze Age.

    3.6.2: Why were some monument types, such as causewayed enclosures, long cairns and henges, constructed in some areas but not others?
    3.6.3: What roles may henges, causewayed enclosures, cursuses and other monument classes have performed in contemporary society?
    Data from the Doveridge site is relevant to a synthesis/overview covering these issues. Only a minority of the population were buried in barrows, and the utilization of this example is unusual, being relatively restricted, with a marked preponderance of immature individuals, suggesting a specialised social function.

    3.7.2: What ceremonial or ritual roles may rivers or other watery locations have performed and how may this have varied regionally and over time?
    3.7.3: How significant were river-crossing or confluence zones as foci for monument complexes?
    The proximity of the Dove was considered to be important in interpreting the presence of the Doveridge barrow, especially when considered in tandem with the presence of the nearby contemporary barrow remains at Uttoxeter quarry, on the other of the river. The choice of this location for building the barrow appears to conform with the regional characteristic of barrows being sited close to rivers.

    3.8.1: Can we identify intra-regional variations in the character of sites and artefacts and what might these signify in social or economic terms?
    3.8.2: How far can studies of burials, grave goods, house and barrow/cairn structures contribute to studies of status variations within and between communities?
    Data from the Doveridge site is relevant to a synthesis/overview covering these issues. Whilst remaining critical of the assumption that a lack of rich grave goods equates to an impoverished society/community of users, it appears that the Doveridge barrow conforms to regional norms with a fairly constrained and modest suite of pyre and grave goods in comparison with other parts of the country. This might suggest a fairly decentralised society.

    3.9.3: How far may studies of grave goods from barrows and other burial monuments contribute to studies of trade and exchange within and beyond the region?
    3.9.4: How can we further refine our understanding of the production and distribution of copper, bronze and gold items?
    Limited information. Few grave/pyre goods were found at the site, but the assemblage includes a copper pin. The former existence of a copper knife can be assumed from the bone/antler knife pommel recovered from within the inverted urn.

    6.2.5: What was the relationship between pagan temples and other contemporary or later sites?
    A possible well or waterhole lay just 17m to the east of the barrow, and contained a broken, scorched Roman disc quern and wood radiocarbon dated to the eighth–tenth century cal AD. The publication suggests that the association of well or waterhole with the barrow may be rooted in the preoccupation later (RB/Early Med) populations had with prehistoric monuments.Reference

  4. danmiles2 danmiles2 says:

    3.7.2: What ceremonial or ritual roles may rivers or other watery locations have performed and how may this have varied regionally and over time?
    3.7.3: How significant were river-crossing or confluence zones as foci for monument complexes?

    The proximity of the Dove was considered to be important in interpreting the presence of the Doveridge barrow, especially when considered in tandem with the presence of the nearby contemporary barrow remains at Uttoxeter quarry, on the other of the river. The choice of this location for building the barrow appears to conform with the regional characteristic of barrows being sited close to rivers.Reference

Leave a Reply