Click here to see how to contribute 

  • Click here to see details of agenda themes and topics for this period.
  • For more information about each Strategic Objective, select from the links below:
4A 4B 4C 4D 4E 4F 4G 4H 4I 4J

Strategic Objective 4A

Compile an audit of radiocarbon, dendrochronological and other scientific dates

Summary:

A black and white photograph of a large archaeological excavation showing a clearly defined wooden structures extending across the trench. Wooden uprights extend in two parallel rows, with extensive wooden debris between them.
Fiskerton, Lincolnshire: tree-ring dating of the timbers in this causeway across the Witham Valley provided evidence for construction and rebuilding from at least 456 to 321 BC (Field and Parker-Pearson 2003, 24-37; photograph: Naomi Field)

There is a pressing need for the compilation of a database of radiocarbon, dendrochronological, luminescence and archaeomagnetic dates from Late Bronze Age and Iron Age sites in the East Midlands, incorporating details such as material type, context and artefact associations. This could provide the basis for a review aimed at assessing the relative reliability of dates, identifying particular lacunae and problems, and highlighting priorities for future dating. A particular concern for this period, which should be central to the development of a scientific dating strategy, is the flattening of the calibration curve from around 800 to 400 cal BC and the particular problem of dating Early Iron Age sites[1]. This baseline study would provide a secure basis for a regional guidelines document, building upon current recommendations for the scientific dating of first millennium BC sites[2] and the results of dating programmes at sites such as Rainsborough Camp in Northamptonshire[3] and Market Deeping[4] and Fiskerton[5] in Lincolnshire. It would also permit the identification of sites offering a series of radiocarbon dates appropriate for Bayesian modelling[6].

Agenda topics addressed: 4.1.1; 4.1.2; 4.3.1; 4.10.3

Archaeology of the East Midlands: 116, 128-29

Other research frameworks:
EH Research Strategy for Prehistory 2011: Theme PR3, Topic 19 (Prehistoric material culture in context); Theme PR4, Topic 24 (Building chronologies for prehistory); Theme PR5, Topic 26 (Developing dating techniques for prehistory)
Understanding the British Iron Age 2001: B2.1 (Dating audit)
EH National Heritage Science Strategy Report 2, 2009: Section 3.2.1 (Chronology).
Prehistoric Ceramics Research Group 2010 The Study of Later Prehistoric Pottery: General Policies and Guidelines for Analysis and Publication, 4

References:

[1] Baillie, M G L. and Pilcher, J R 1983 ‘Some observations on the high-precision calibration of routine dates’ in Ottoway, B S (ed) Archaeology, Dendrochronology and the Radiocarbon Curve (Department of Archaeology Occasional Paper 9). Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh
[2] Haselgrove, C, Armit, I, Champion, T et al 2001 Understanding the British Iron Age: An Agenda for Action. Salisbury: Trust for Wessex Archaeology, 4-5
[3] Clelland, S and Batt, C 2010 ‘A re-investigation of the scientific dating evidence from the hillfort at Rainsborough’. Northamptonshire Archaeology 36, 1-7
[4] Bayliss, A Lane, T, Bronk Ramsey, C et al 2010 ‘Radiocarbon dating’ in Lane, T and Trimble, D (eds) Fluid Landscapes and Human Adaptation: Excavations on Prehistoric Sites on the Lincolnshire Fen Edge 1991-1994. Heckington: Heritage Trust of Lincolnshire, 291-295
[5]Field, N and Parker-Pearson, M 2003 Fiskerton: an Iron Age Timber Causeway with Iron Age and Roman Votive Offerings Oxford: Oxbow Books, 162-4
[6]Buck, C E, Cavanagh, W G and Litton, C D 1996 Bayesian Approach to Interpreting Archaeological Data. Chichester: Wiley

Strategic Objective 4B

Refine first millennium BC ceramic chronology by additional radiocarbon dating and typological analyses

Summary

A photograph of a selection of pottery shards, showing different ornamentation styles and forms.
Gamston, Nottinghamshire: excavations unearthed a wide range of ceramic types, including carinated jars with finger-impressed ornament, Scored Ware (bottom right) and wheel-made ovoid jars (top centre), but the chronology of these types remains hazy (Knight, D 1992 ‘Excavations of an Iron Age settlement at Gamston, Nottinghamshire’, Transactions of the Thoroton Society 96, 16-90; photograph: Philip Dixon)

The synthesis of the East Midlands first millennium BC ceramic sequence published in 2002[7] requires updating to take account of the substantial body of new data that is now available for study. There is also considerable scope for refining the regional ceramic typology and developing an East Midlands ceramic type series as guidance for ceramic specialists, excavators and other researchers. This should be accompanied by a systematic programme of radiocarbon dating, with particular emphasis upon the carbonised residues that occur commonly on the inner and outer faces of first millennium BC domestic pottery[8]. It is recommended that major published assemblages, with well-ordered archives including details of vessels preserving carbonised residues appropriate for radiocarbon dating, should be targeted initially. It is proposed that dating programmes focus upon typologically diagnostic vessels such as Scored Ware[9] and pottery embellished with curvilinear and rectilinear designs inspired by the La Tène ornamental style[10]. In addition, sites with well-stratified ceramic assemblages should be accorded a high priority in future excavation programmes[11].

Agenda topics addressed: 4.1.1; 4.1.2; 4.3.1; 4.10.3

Archaeology of the East Midlands: 116

Other research frameworks:
EH Research Strategy for Prehistory 2011: Theme PR3, Topic 18 (Prehistoric material culture in context); Theme PR4, Topic 24 (Building chronologies for prehistory); Theme PR5, Topic 27 (Developing scientific techniques for prehistory)
Prehistoric Ceramics Research Group 2010 The Study of Later Prehistoric Pottery: General Policies and Guidelines for Analysis and Publication, 4
Understanding the British Iron Age 2001: B.2.2 (Scientific dating strategies for fieldwork).
EH National Heritage Science Strategy Report 2, 2009: Section 3.2.1 (Chronology)

References:
[7] Knight, D 2002 ‘A regional ceramic sequence: pottery of the first millennium BC between the Humber and the Nene’ in Woodward, A and Hill, J D (eds) Prehistoric Britain: The Ceramic Basis. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 118-142.
[8] Willis, S 2002 ‘A date with the past: Late Bronze Age and Iron Age pottery and chronology’ in Woodward, A and Hill, J D (eds) Prehistoric Britain: The Ceramic Basis. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 5-21
[9] Elsdon, S M 1992 ‘East Midlands Scored Ware’.Transactions of the Leicestershire Archaeological and Historical Society 66, 83-91
[10] Elsdon, S M 1975 Stamp and Roulette Decorated Pottery of the La Tène Period in Eastern England (British Archaeological Reports British Series 10). Oxford: B.A.R
[11] eg Market Deeping, Lincolnshire: Knight, D 2010 ‘Iron Age pottery’ in Lane, T and Trimble, D Fluid Landscapes and Human Adaptation; Excavations on Prehistoric Sites on the Lincolnshire Fen Edge 1991-1994. Heckington: Heritage Trust of Lincolnshire, 244-282

Strategic Objective 4C

Characterise the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age settlement resource and investigate intra-regional variability

Summary:

A photograph of a grassy mound which has been cut into to reveal a layer of stones underneath the surface.
Rainsborough Camp, Northamptonshire: Iron Age stone-faced rampart, viewed from the interior of the hillfort. The rampart sealed scattered post-holes and occupation debris deriving from early first millennium BC settlement of uncertain character (Avery et al 1967, 212, Plate XXV; reproduced by courtesy of Michael Avery and the Prehistoric Society)

Further research is recommended to investigate the morphology and functions of settlements dating from this crucial transition period and to investigate the environmental evidence for seasonal or permanent settlement. Settlements of this period are represented over much of the region by extensive and seemingly random spreads of unenclosed roundhouses, pits, post-holes and other features[12]. The picture is clouded by the difficulty of locating such ephemeral remains prior to large-scale excavation and by the growing evidence for significant intra-regional variability. Baseline surveys are recommended to define more precisely the distribution of enclosed settlements, which are known to have been constructed in this early period along the Lincolnshire Fen Edge and some other parts of the region[13], and their relationship to unenclosed settlements. It would also be useful to review the range of contemporary monument types, which in parts of the region may include ringforts[14] hillforts[15], palisaded enclosures[16], middens[17] and burnt mounds[18]. Many settlements of this period have been found by chance, often stratified beneath later settlements, suggesting protracted but not necessarily continuous use of preferred locations. It would be useful to review unpublished archive data with the aim of identifying hitherto undetected activity foci of this period[19] and the resource for further analysis and publication. From the management perspective, such work would also assist determination of the most appropriate evaluation techniques for locating settlements of this period.

Agenda topics addressed: 4.2.1-4.2.3; 4.3.1-4.3.3; 4.6.1-4.6.3; 4.8.1-4.8.4; 4.9.1; 4.9.3; 4.10.1-4.10.3

Archaeology of the East Midlands: 130

Other research frameworks:
EH Research Strategy for Prehistory 2011: Theme PR1, Topics 2 (Political and ritual landscapes in prehistory), 6 (Regional diversity in prehistory) and 7 (Mobility and sedentism in prehistoric agricultural societies)
Understanding the British Iron Age 2001: C2.1 (settlements)

References:

[12] eg Knight, D 2007 ‘From open to enclosed: Iron Age landscapes of the Trent Valley’ in Haselgrove, C and Moore, T (eds) The Later Iron Age in Britain and Beyond. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 190-218
[13] Chowne, P, Cleal, R M J and Fitzpatrick, A P with Andrews, P 2001 Excavations at Billingborough, Lincolnshire, 1975-8: A Bronze-Iron Age Settlement and Salt-working Site. East Anglian Archaeology 94.
[14] Hull, G 2001 ‘A Late Bronze Age ringwork, pits and later features at Thrapston, Northamptonshire’. Northamptonshire Archaeology 29, 73-92
[15] Avery, D M E, Sutton, J E G and Banks, J W 1967 ‘Rainsborough, Northants: excavations 1961-65’. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 33, 207-306
[16] Hart, C 1981 The North Derbyshire Archaeological Survey. Chesterfield: North Derbyshire Archaeological Trust, 77-78
[17],[18] Knight 2007, 196
[19] Gwilt, A 1997 ‘Popular practices from material culture: A case study of the Iron Age settlement at Wakerley, Northamptonshire’ in Gwilt, A and Haselgrove, C (eds) Reconstructing Iron Age Societies: New Approaches to the British Iron Age. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 153-166

Strategic Objective 4D

Assess the regional resource of hillforts and analogous sites 

Summary:

A photograph of a distant hill fort in a green landscape, seen through the gap between two trees. The edges and flat top of the fort are clearly visible.
Burrough Hill, Leicestershire: view from the south, showing the ramparts of the Iron Age hillfort silhouetted against the sky (photograph: D. Knight)

It is proposed that resources be focused upon characterising the heterogeneous group of defensible sites of the region[20], including hillforts[21], ringworks[22], possible ‘marsh forts'[23] and other defensible lowland enclosures such as Aslockton in Nottinghamshire[24], with a view to identifying further sites, examining their relationship to other settlements of the period and investigating sub-regional patterning. Comparatively few hillforts or analogous enclosures within the region have been excavated to modern standards, among them Mam Tor[25] and Fin Cop[26] in Derbyshire and Rainsborough[27] and Thrapston[28] in Northamptonshire, and many questions remain regarding their origins, functions and interrelationships. Further investigations, following the examples of on-going excavations at Burrough Hill in Leicestershire[29] and Fin Cop in Derbyshire[30], should include geophysical survey, excavation and detailed studies of the associated pottery, other artefacts and environmental data. These sites may also provide appropriate foci for community projects, with opportunities for involvement in a broad range of fieldwork and post-excavation activities, as demonstrated by the Heritage Lottery Fund-supported investigations at Fin Cop (by the Longstone Local History Group in partnership with Archaeological Research Services Ltd).

Agenda topics addressed: 4.2.2; 4.3.3; 4.4.1; 4.4.2; 4.9.1; 4.9.3

Archaeology of the East Midlands: 92-95

Other research frameworks:
EH Research Strategy for Prehistory 2011: Theme PR1, Topic 2 (Political and ritual landscapes in prehistory); Theme PR2, Topic 12 (Characterising and classifying prehistoric sites and monuments).
Understanding the British Iron Age 2001: C2.1 (settlements)
Prehistoric Ceramics Research Group 2010 The Study of Later Prehistoric Pottery: General Policies and Guidelines for Analysis and Publication, 5

References:
[20] Willis, S 2006 ‘The Later Bronze and Iron Age’ in The Archaeology of the East Midlands, 117-121
[21] eg Fell, C I 1936 ‘The Hunsbury hillfort, Northants: a new survey of the material’. Archaeological Journal 93, 57-100
[22] eg Hull, G 2001 ‘A Late Bronze Age ringwork, pits and later features at Thrapston, Northamptonshire’. Northamptonshire Archaeology 29, 73-92
[23] eg Chowne, P, Girling, M and Greig, J 1986 ‘Excavations of an Iron Age defended enclosure at Tattershall Thorpe, Lincolnshire’. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 52, 159-188
[24] Palmer-Brown, C and Knight, D 1993 ‘Excavations of an Iron Age and Romano-British settlement at Aslockton, Nottinghamshire: interim report’. Transactions of the Thoroton Society 97, 146-47; Willis 2006, 131
[25] Coombs, D G and Thompson, F H 1979 ‘Excavation of the hillfort of Mam Tor, Derbyshire, 1965-69’. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal 99, 7-51
[26] http://www.archaeologicalresearchservices.com/projects/fincop.html
[27] Avery, D M E, Sutton, J E G. and Banks, J W 1967 ‘Rainsborough, Northants; excavations 1961-5’. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 33, 207-306
[28] Hull 2001
[29] http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/archaeology/research/projects/burrough-hill-iron-age-hillfort.
[30] http://www.archaeologicalresearchservices.com/projects/fincop.html.

Strategic Objective 4E

Assess the evidence for the evolution of settlement hierarchies

Summary:

A diagram of a large site (circa 500 metres across), showing enclosures and other structures as they appear on a geophysical survey.
Humberstone, Leicester: plan of aggregated Middle to Late Iron Age settlement (Thomas 2011, Fig 5; reproduced by permission of University of Leicester Archaeological Services)

It is recommended that the character of Late Bronze Age and Iron Age settlement be assessed to identify sites that on the basis of landscape situation, structural remains or finds may represent sites of higher socio-economic status, and to investigate sub-regional variability. Potential higher status settlements include the Late Iron Age ‘nucleated settlements’ of Lincolnshire[31], many of which have yielded large quantities of metalwork, coins, mint debris and high quality pottery[32], ‘aggregated’ settlements in Northamptonshire (e.g. Crick and Stanwick[33]), Leicestershire[34][35] and Nottinghamshire (e.g. Rampton and Collingham[36]), and some hillforts[37] and analogous lowland enclosures[38]. Cropmark studies, combined with analyses of surface scatters of metalwork, coins and other artefacts recorded during fieldwalking and metal detecting may highlight high status settlement foci[39]. This may guide further targeted investigation by detailed geophysical survey and excavation, perhaps involving community groups. Coins and other metal objects recorded by the Portable Antiquities Scheme have particular potential as evidence for hitherto undetected high status sites.

Agenda topics addressed: 4.4.3; 4.5.1-4.5.3; 4.9.3; 4.10.1

Archaeology of the East Midlands: 109-110

Other research frameworks:
EH Research Strategy for Prehistory 2011: Theme PR1, Topic 2 (Political and ritual landscapes in prehistory); Theme PR2, Topics 10 (Setting prehistoric sites in context) and 12 (Characterising and classifying prehistoric sites and monuments)
Understanding the British Iron Age 2001: F2.2 (Settlement expansion)
Prehistoric Ceramics Research Group 2010 The Study of Later Prehistoric Pottery: General Policies and Guidelines for Analysis and Publication, 5

References:
[31] May, J 1984 ‘The major settlements of later Iron Age Lincolnshire’ in Field, N and White, A (eds), A Prospect of Lincolnshire. Lincoln: N. Field and A. White, 18-22
[32] eg Elsdon, S M 1997 Old Sleaford Revealed. Oxford: Oxbow Books
[33] Willis, S 2006 The Later Bronze and Iron Age in The Archaeology of the East Midlands, 110
[34] Clay, P 1985 ‘A survey of two cropmark sites at Lockington-Hemington, Leicestershire’. Transactions of the Leicestershire Archaeological and Historical Society 59, 17-26
[35] Thomas, J 2011 Two Iron Age ‘Aggregated’ Settlements in the Environs of Leicester. Excavations at Beaumont Leys and Humberstone (University of Leicester Archaeology Monograph 19). Leicester: University of Leicester
[36] Knight, D and Howard, A J 2004 ‘The later Bronze Age and Iron Ages: towards an enclosed landscape’ in Knight, D and Howard, A J Trent Valley Landscapes. Kings Lynn: Heritage Marketing and Publications, 99-100
[37] eg Fell, C I 1936 ‘The Hunsbury hillfort, Northants: A new survey of the material’. Archaeological Journal 93, 57-100
[38] eg Palmer-Brown, C and Knight, D 1993 ‘Excavations of an Iron Age and Romano-British settlement at Aslockton, Nottinghamshire: interim report’. Transactions of the Thoroton Society 97, 146-147; Willis 2006, 131
[39] eg Parry, S 2006 Raunds Area Survey. An Archaeological Study of the Landscape of Raunds, Northamptonshire, 1985-94. Oxford: Oxbow Books

Strategic Objective 4F

Investigate intra-regional variations in the development of fields and linear boundary systems

Summary:

Extensive Bronze Age field systems are known in some upland and lowland areas of the region, including the Derbyshire gritstone moors[40] and the Lincolnshire Fen Edge[41], but these are very unevenly distributed. In the Trent Valley, for example, field systems are currently unknown before the mid-first millennium BC[42][43], whereas rectilinear ditched field systems appear to have developed in parts of the Middle Nene Valley from the Middle Bronze Age[44][45]. These contrasts may reflect intra-regional variations in the agricultural economy and/or variable pressures upon land resources, and further investigations into the origins of field systems, developments over time, and intra-regional variations in landscape organisation remain priorities for research. Linear land divisions are a particularly distinctive feature of the East Midlands[46], and further research on the origins, functions and interrelationships of pit alignments[47] and linear ditched boundaries and the relationship of these boundaries to field systems is a major priority. Work is also recommended to investigate the uses to which the fields were put, variations within the region and their relationship to contemporary settlements. Further information on the spatial extent of these boundary systems should be recovered from air photography, lidar and other remote sensing techniques, but only targeted excavation can hope to unravel the development of field systems and their relationship to other linear boundaries. Particular attention should also be focused upon the impact of topography, which in Nottinghamshire, for example, could explain the contrasting spatial organisation of the Late Iron Age to Roman coaxial field systems around Newark[48][49] and the broadly contemporary ‘brickwork plan’ systems of the Sherwood Sandstones[50][51].

Agenda topics addressed: 4.2.2; 4.6.1-4.6.3; 4.7.1; 4.7.3; 4.8.1-4.8.4; 4.10.3

Archaeology of the East Midlands: 121-125, 132, 268, 272

Other research frameworks:
EH Research Strategy for Prehistory 2011: Theme PR1, Topics 1 (Moving beyond the site: landscape themes in prehistory), 6 (Regional diversity in prehistory) and 7 (Mobility and sedentism in prehistoric agricultural societies)
Understanding the British Iron Age 2001: C2.2 (Landscapes)

References:

[40] Barnatt, J 1987 ‘Bronze Age settlement on the East Moors of the Peak District of Derbyshire and South Yorkshire’. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 53, 393-418
[41] Yates, D 2007 Land, Power and Prestige: Bronze Age Field Systems in Southern England. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 110-112
[42] Knight, D and Howard, A J 2004 ‘The later Bronze Age and Iron Ages: towards an enclosed landscape’ in Knight, D and Howard, A J Trent Valley Landscapes. Kings Lynn: Heritage Marketing and Publications, 100-106
[43] Knight, D and Elliott, L 2008 ‘Towards a bounded landscape: excavations at Gonalston, Nottinghamshire, and the development of the earliest field systems in the Trent Valley’ in Chadwick, A M (ed) Recent Approaches to the Archaeology of Land Allotment (British Archaeological Reports International Series 1875). Oxford: B.A.R, 160-83
[44] Parry, S 2006 Raunds Area Survey. An Archaeological Study of the Landscape of Raunds, Northamptonshire, 1985-94. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 272
[45] Harding, J and Healy, F 2007 The Raunds Area Project: A Neolithic and Bronze Age Landscape in Northamptonshire. Swindon: English Heritage
[46] Willis, S 2006 ‘The Later Bronze and Iron Age’ in The Archaeology of the East Midlands, 121-125
[47] Thomas, J 2003 ‘Prehistoric pit alignments and their significance in the archaeological landscape’ in Humphrey, J (ed) Re-searching the Iron Age (Leicester Archaeology Monograph 11). Leicester: University of Leicester, 79-86
[48] Whimster, R P 1989 The Emerging Past: Air Photography and the Buried Landscape London: RCHME
[49] Garton, D 2002 ‘Walking fields in South Muskham and its implications for Romano-British cropmark- landscapes in Nottinghamshire’. Transactions of the Thoroton Society 106, 17-39
[50] Riley, D N 1980 Early Landscape from the Air: Studies of Cropmarks in South Yorkshire and North Nottinghamshire. University of Sheffield: Department of Prehistory and Archaeology
[51] Garton, D 2008 ‘The Romano-British landscape of the Sherwood Sandstone of Nottinghamshire: Fieldwalking the brickwork-plan field-systems’. Transactions of the Thoroton Society 112, 15-110

Strategic Objective 4G

Study the production, distribution and use of artefacts

Summary:

A photograph of two people working in a field. Hills, trees and buildings can be seen in the distance. One person uses a tool to collect a sample from the ground while another holds a bag open for the sample to be collected.
Mountsorrel, Leicestershire: augering of alluvial clays in the Soar floodplain. This was conducted as part of an on-going project to investigate the raw material sources of granitoid-tempered prehistoric pottery from the East Midlands (Knight et al 2003; photograph: D. Knight)

Further petrographic and other scientific analyses are recommended to elucidate the production and distribution of artefacts that may be tied to specific raw material sources. Examples of closely provenanced finds include prehistoric pottery tempered with granitoid inclusions derived from Mountsorrel granodiorite and quartzdiorite sources in Charnwood Forest[52], ceramic salt containers originating from production centres in the Droitwich area or in the Cheshire Plain[53], and querns of Millstone Grit, granite, greensand and other materials that may be tied to specific raw material sources[54]. Typological analyses of artefacts may also elucidate medium to long distance exchange networks, as demonstrated by studies of Glastonbury Ware pottery from Weekley, Northamptonshire[55], coins attributed to the Corieltauvi[56] and metalwork deriving from other regions of Britain and the Continent[57]. Further systematic study of the residues occurring on Late Bronze Age and Iron Age pottery should also be encouraged as an aid to understanding their use[58].

Agenda topics addressed: 4.9.1-4.9.3; 4.10.1; 4.10.3

Archaeology of the East Midlands: 134

Other research frameworks:
EH Research Strategy for Prehistory 2011: Theme PR3, Topic 17 (Technology and society in prehistory); Theme PR 5, Topic 27 (Developing scientific techniques for prehistory); Theme PR8, Topic 37 (Realising the potential of prehistoric archives and collections)
Prehistoric Ceramics Research Group 2010 The Study of Later Prehistoric Pottery: General Policies and Guidelines for Analysis and Publication, 4-5
Understanding the British Iron Age 2001: D2.1 (production and distribution)
Lithic Studies Society 2004. Research Frameworks for Holocene Lithics in Britain, 4
EH National Heritage Science Strategy Report 2, 2009: Section 3.4.1 (Understanding materials)

References:
[52] Knight, D, Marsden, P and Carney, J 2003 ‘Local or non-local? Prehistoric granodiorite-tempered pottery in the East Midlands’ in Gibson, A (ed) Prehistoric Pottery: People, Pattern and Purpose (British Archaeological Reports International Series 1156). Oxford: B.A.R, 111-25
[53] Morris, E L 1994 ‘Production and distribution of pottery and salt in Iron Age Britain: a review’. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 60, 371-393
[54] Wright, M E and Firman, R J 1992 ‘The quernstones and rubbing stones’ in Knight, D ‘Excavations of an Iron Age settlement at Gamston, Nottinghamshire’. Transactions of the Thoroton Society 96, 70-74; Wright, M E 1996 ‘Querns’ in May, J Dragonby: Report on Excavations at an Iron Age and Romano-British Settlement in North Lincolnshire. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 365-76
[55] Williams, D F 1987 ‘Weekley, Northamptonshire: Petrological examination of Iron Age pottery’ in Jackson, D and Dix, B ‘Late Iron Age and Roman settlement at Weekley, Northants’. Northamptonshire Archaeology 21, microfiche 124-126
[56] May, J 1994 ‘Coinage and the Settlements of the Corieltauvi in East Midland Britain’. British Numismatic Journal 64, 1-21; Daubney, A 2010 ‘The use of gold in Late Iron Age and Roman Lincolnshire’ in Malone, S and Williams, M (eds) Rumours of Roman Finds: Recent Work in Roman Lincolnshire. Heckington: Heritage Trust of Lincolnshire, 64-74
[57] eg Fiskerton, Lincolnshire: Field, N and Parker Pearson, M 2003 Fiskerton. An Iron Age Timber Causeway with Iron Age and Roman Votive Offerings. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 49-85, 171-78
[58] Morris, E L 2002 ‘Staying alive: the function and use of prehistoric ceramics’ in Woodward, A and Hill, J D (eds) Prehistoric Britain: The Ceramic Basis. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 54-61

Strategic Objective 4H

Characterise placed deposits and sites of shrines or temples

Summary:

A golden-coloured torc, in excellent condition, very finely decorated with knots and flowers.
Iron Age torc of electrum (an alloy of gold and silver), deposited in a pit on a settlement near Newark, Nottinghamshire; internal diameter 130mm (© The Trustees of the British Museum)

A wide range of ritual activities may be implied by discoveries of metalwork and other artefacts that appear to have been deliberately deposited in riverside and other watery locations[59], notably along the Trent and at such remarkable sites as the timber causeway at Fiskerton in the Witham Valley[60]. Further evidence for ritual activity may be provided by the discovery in pits and other occupation features of human and animal remains[61] and artefacts such as pots or querns[62] that appear to have been deliberately placed. Further work is required to characterise the variety of placed deposits, analyse their spatial and chronological distribution and review their relationship to settlements and other sites. The relatively common discoveries of metalwork in watery contexts contrast with the apparent paucity of deliberately placed human and animal remains and may suggest specific regional characteristics. Research may usefully be extended to the rare examples of possible shrines or temples, among them a probable late Roman temple at Red Hill, Nottinghamshire, which is thought to have had an Iron Age predecessor[63]. Little is known of the landscape setting of placed deposits and possible shrines or temples, or of their relationship to settlement features. There is a strong likelihood that some shrines were sited, without associated buildings, at significant locations in the landscape, as postulated at the nationally important site of Hallaton in Leicestershire[64], and hence may be significantly underrepresented in the archaeological record.

Agenda topics addressed: 4.7.1-4.7.3

Archaeology of the East Midlands: 132

Other research frameworks:
EH Research Strategy for Prehistory 2011: Theme PR1, Topics 5 (Addressing gaps in our knowledge of prehistoric landscapes) and 11 (Intra-site studies in prehistory); Theme PR3, Topics 18 (Prehistoric material culture in context) and 20 (The place and role of the dead in prehistory)
Understanding the British Iron Age 2001: D2.3 (Deposition)
Prehistoric Ceramics Research Group 2010 The Study of Later Prehistoric Pottery: General Policies and Guidelines for Analysis and Publication, 4

References:
[59] Willis, S 2006 ‘The Later Bronze and Iron Age’ in The Archaeology of the East Midlands, 126
[60] Field, N and Parker Pearson, M 2003 Fiskerton: An Iron Age Timber Causeway with Iron Age and Roman Votive Offerings. Oxford: Oxbow Books
[61] eg Chowne, P Cleal, R M J and Fitzpatrick, A P with Andrews, P 2001 Excavations at Billingborough, Lincolnshire, 1975-8: A Bronze-Iron Age Settlement and Salt-working Site. East Anglian Archaeology 94, 94-95
[62] Marsden, P 1998 ‘The querns’ in Beamish, M ‘A Middle Iron Age site at Wanlip, Leicestershire’. Transactions of the Leicestershire Archaeological and Historical Society 72, 62-63.
[63] Elsdon, S 1982 ‘Iron Age and Roman sites at Red Hill, Ratcliffe-on-Soar, Nottinghamshire: Excavations by E. Greenfield, 1963, and previous finds’. Transactions of the Thoroton Society 86, 31
[64] Score, V 2006 ‘Rituals, hoards and helmets: a ceremonial meeting place of the Corieltauvi’. Transactions of the Leicestershire Archaeological and Historical Society 80, 197-207; Hargrave, F 2009 ‘The Hallaton Treasure’. Current Archaeology 236, 36-41

Strategic Objective 4I

Prospect for Iron Age settlement in upland areas of the Peak District 

Summary:

A map showing Romano-British, Medieval and modern sites in close proximity to each other.
How many of the numerous earthwork sites in the Peak District that are thought to date from the Roman period might have earlier origins? This plan shows the well preserved earthworks of a Romano-British settlement and field system at Chee Tor, Blackwell, Derbyshire, which survive either side of the village`s medieval common field (Bevan 2005, Fig 4; reproduced by courtesy of Bill Bevan and the Derbyshire Archaeological Society)

How many of the numerous earthwork sites in the Peak District that are thought to date from the Roman period might have earlier origins? This plan shows the well preserved earthworks of a Romano-British settlement and field system at Chee Tor, Blackwell, Derbyshire, which survive either side of the village`s medieval common field (Bevan 2005, Fig 4; reproduced by courtesy of Bill Bevan and the Derbyshire Archaeological Society)
Plan showing well preserved earthworks of a Romano-British settlement and field system at Chee Tor, Blackwell, Derbyshire.
Iron Age settlement in upland areas of the East Midlands is poorly known, especially across the gritstone and limestone moors of the Peak District[65]. Recent discoveries of first millennium BC buildings on Gardoms Edge[66], together with finds of first millennium BC pottery and structural remains during investigations on other sites in the Peak[67], suggest that this absence of activity may in fact be more apparent than real. This would fit better with the growing environmental evidence that many of the densely distributed earlier Bronze Age settlements and field systems of the eastern gritstone moors had continued in use into the first millennium BC[68], and further research on the chronology of the many Bronze Age sites that have been identified in these areas may be flagged as a research priority. We may speculate also on how many of the well-preserved Romano-British earthworks that have been recorded in the Dark and White Peak might have earlier ancestries[69]. There is a need, therefore, to review the field evidence across the Peak District and to encourage further field survey, airborne remote sensing and excavation, with particular emphasis upon the retrieval of environmental evidence. This should extend to the use of caves, which in the White Peak have yielded important collections of pottery and other finds[70]. Much of this material seems to date from the later Iron Age, but reassessment of the range and variety of artefacts and their dating is long overdue.

Agenda topics addressed:4.2.1-4.2.3; 4.3.1-4.3.3; 4.4.1; 4.4.2; 4.8.4; 4.10.2; 4.10.3

Archaeology of the East Midlands: 132, 272

Other research frameworks:
EH Research Strategy for Prehistory 2011: Theme PR1, Topics 1 (Moving beyond the site: landscape themes in prehistory), 5 (Addressing gaps in our knowledge of prehistoric landscapes) and 6 (Regional diversity in prehistory)
Understanding the British Iron Age 2001: E2.3 (Areas without a framework)
EH National Heritage Science Strategy Report 2 2009: Section 3.5.1 (Detecting and imaging)

References:
[65] Bevan, B 2000 ‘Peak practice: Whatever happened to the Iron Age in the southern Pennines?’ in Harding,J R and Johnston, R (eds) Northern Pasts (British Archaeological Reports British Series 302). Oxford: B.A.R, 141-155
[66] Bevan, B 2007 ‘The Early Iron Age of the Peak District: Re-reading the evidence’ in Haselgrove, C and Pope, R The Earlier Iron Age in Britain and the Near Continent. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 254-256
[67] eg Coombs, D G and Thompson, F H 1979 ‘Excavation of the hillfort of Mam Tor, Derbyshire, 1965-69’. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal 99, 7-51; Fin Cop, Derbyshire: http://www.archaeologicalresearchservices.com/projects/fincop.html
[68] Long, D J, Chambers, F M and Barnatt, J 1998 ‘The palaeoenvironment and the vegetation of a later prehistoric field system at Stoke Flat, on the gritstone uplands of the Peak District’. Journal of Archaeological Science 25, 505-519
[69] Bevan, B 2005 ‘Peaks Romana: The Peak District Romano-British rural upland settlement survey, 1998-2000’. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal 125, 36-37
[70] eg Storrs-Fox, W 1909 ‘Harborough Cave, near Brassington’ Derbyshire Archaeological Journal 31, 89-114

Strategic Objective 4J

Investigate the settlement and environmental resource of the Witham Valley

Summary:

A photo of an archaeological excavation showing a layer of debris overlaying a layer of well-preserved timber.
Washingborough, Lincolnshire: remnants of finds-rich layer of heat-shattered stones, burnt animal bones and Late Bronze Age pottery overlying timber-lined tank. The latter may have held water heated by hot stones and could have been used for purposes such as cooking, leather-working or brewing (Allen 2009, Fig 3.6; reproduced by permission of Colin Palmer-Brown)

The Witham Valley is well-known as a focus of activity from Mesolithic and Neolithic times, but has yielded an especially impressive battery of evidence for the exploitation of this wetland zone during the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age periods[71]. An exceptional collection of riverine metalwork[72] is rivalled in quantity only by finds from the Thames. The region has also yielded logboats[73], later Bronze Age ritual and ceremonial sites such as Washingborough[74] and, most remarkable of all, the Iron Age timber causeway with associated votive finds at Fiskerton[75]. A valley-wide palaeoenvironmental research design has been published by the Witham Valley Archaeology Research Committee and provides a valuable springboard for studies of landscape change during the first millennium BC and beyond[76][77]. Other key themes include the development of later Bronze Age and Iron Age rural settlement, the changing agricultural economy, the role of the river as a focus for ritual activity, trade and transport and, in view particularly of the proximity of Roman Lincoln[78], the impact of the Roman Conquest upon the rural landscape.

Agenda topics addressed: 4.3.2; 4.7.1; 4.7.2; 4.8.1-4.8.3; 4.9.1; 4.10.3.

Archaeology of the East Midlands: 268, 272, 285-286.

Other research frameworks: EH Research Strategy for Prehistory 2011: Theme PR 1, Topics 1 (Moving beyond the site: landscape themes in prehistory) and 6 (Regional diversity in prehistory); Theme PR6, Topic 31 (Human interactions with plants and animals in prehistory).
Jones, M J, Stocker, D and Vince, A 2003 The City by the Pool: Assessing the Archaeology of the City of Lincoln: Archaeological Research Agenda Zones 5.8 and 5.9
Catney, S and Start, D (eds) 2003 Time and Tide: the Archaeology of the Witham Valley, 33-42

References:

[71] Catney, S and Start, D (eds) 2003 Time and Tide: the Archaeology of the Witham Valley. Heckington: Witham Valley Archaeology Research Committee
[72] Field, N and Parker-Pearson, M 2003. Fiskerton: an Iron Age Timber Causeway with Iron Age and Roman Votive Offerings. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 162-164
[73] Field and Parker-Pearson 2003, 158-59
[74] Allen, C S M 2009 Exchange and Ritual at the Riverside: Late Bronze Age Life in the Lower Witham Valley at Washingborough, Lincolnshire (Pre-Construct Archaeology Monographs 1). Lincoln: Pre-Construct Archaeology
[75] Field, N, Parker-Pearson, M and Rylatt, J 2003 ‘The Fiskerton Causeway: Research- past, present and future’ in Catney and Start (eds), 16-32
[76] French, C and Rackham, J 2003 ‘Palaeoenvironmental research design for the Witham Valley’ in Catney and Start (eds), 33-42
[77] Stocker, D A and Everson, P 2003 ‘The straight and narrow way: Fenland causeways and the conversion of the landscape in the Witham Valley, Lincolnshire’ in Carver, M (ed) The Cross Goes North: Processes of Conversion in Northern Europe, AD 300-1300. York: York Medieval Press, 271-88
[78] Jones, M J, Stocker, D and Vince, A 2003 The City by the Pool: Assessing the Archaeology of the City of Lincoln. Oxford: Oxbow Books

Leave a Comment