Work on the Neolithic in the East of England since 2011 has comprised some further synthesis, new discoveries in development-led projects, the publication of a number of key excavations \u2013 some dating back to the 1980s \u2013 and new studies of previously known sites. The latter include work undertaken for the Bayesian chronological modelling project published as Gathering Time <\/em>(Whittle et al. 2011), just after the last framework revision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although the focus of that project was on causewayed enclosures it has changed the way we understand the chronology of the Early Neolithic in general. The publication includes an overview of this period in the east of England, and provides new dates for several enclosures and more refined modelling of existing dates for a number of other sites. The work suggests that the first causewayed enclosure in eastern England was probably constructed in 3780-3685 cal BC (68% probability)<\/em>, while the primary use of the last enclosure in the region probably ended in 3265-3085 cal BC<\/em> (64% probability<\/em>; Whittle et al. 2011, 339). The Neolithic probably did not begin in this area before 3800 cal BC so enclosures may have been part of the earliest Neolithic practices here, although this excludes the Thames estuary, where earlier sites are known.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Individually, however,\nthe causewayed enclosures in the east of England remain less precisely dated\nthan those in some other regions. Etton<\/strong>, near\nPeterborough, is one of the best dated and perhaps the earliest; it seems to\nhave been in use for 400-500 years from around 3700 cal BC (Whittle et al. 2011,\n324\u20135). A complementary study has looked at the dynamics of pottery and flint\ndeposition at Etton, indicating that activity and deposition were intermittent\nthroughout this long period and at any given time were generally focused on a\nspecific part of the monument (Beadsmoore et al. 2010).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Of the other Welland\nvalley enclosures assessed for Gathering\nTime<\/em>, both Etton Woodgate<\/strong> and\nNorthborough<\/strong> appear to originate about\na century later than Etton; the latter seems relatively short-lived, probably\ngoing out of use before 3500 cal BC (Whittle et al. 2011, 327). The duration of\noccupation at Etton contrasts most sharply, however, with the enclosure at St Osyth<\/strong>, Essex, which was probably constructed in the\nmid-37th century cal BC but used for only a single generation, probably no more\nthan 20 years. The other dated Essex enclosure, at Orsett<\/strong>,\nhas a less precise chronology but the first ditch circuit was probably built in\nthe later 35th or early 34th century, almost certainly after St Osyth had\nalready been abandoned. Elsewhere in the region, only rather vague chronologies\ncould be determined for Maiden Bower<\/strong> in\nBedfordshire and Haddenham<\/strong> in Cambridgeshire,\nthough it is evident that the latter remained in use until around 3000 cal BC, well\ninto the Middle Neolithic. There was clearly no single horizon of enclosure\nconstruction or abandonment in the region, so the onus is on understanding\nlocal sequences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Since the publication\nof Gathering Time<\/em>, previously\nunknown causewayed enclosures have been excavated near Harlow<\/strong>,\nEssex, and Woodbridge<\/strong>, Suffolk (which was\nsucceeded by unusual Late Neolithic enclosures), while aerial survey has\nrecorded new sites at Great Shelford<\/strong>,\nnear Cambridge (Small 2017) and possibly at Thrift Hill<\/strong>,\nNorth Hertfordshire (Fitzpatrick-Matthews and Fitzpatrick-Matthews 2016). The\nexcavation of part of the enclosure at Springfield Lyons<\/strong>,\nnear Chelmsford, which took place in the 1980s, has recently been published\n(Brown and Medlycott 2013): several pit-like ditch segments were excavated,\nwith evidence for complex fills and multiple recuts, along with a scatter of\nNeolithic pits both within and outside the enclosure. The monument had an\ninteresting afterlife and appears to have influenced the location and form of a\nsignificant Late Bronze Age enclosure on the same site.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Also composed of\nsegmented ditches but perhaps rather later in date is the enigmatic circular\nenclosure at Melbourn<\/strong>, Cambridgeshire, which\nrecalls monuments of the Middle\/Late Neolithic transition, like Stonehenge I.\nIt remains unexcavated but has been subject to geophysical survey (Brittain et\nal. 2014). Interestingly, this monument may be one of a pair, based on another\nrecent aerial discovery (Knight et al. 2018, 29).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Another 4th millennium\nmonument analysed for Gathering Time <\/em>was\nthe trapezoidal enclosure at Rectory Farm, Godmanchester<\/strong>,\nCambridgeshire, which is about to be published (Lyons forthcoming). Although\npoorly dated, with a terminus post quem <\/em>around\n3500 cal BC, it could be broadly contemporary with causewayed enclosures in the\nregion. This unique monument, which was associated with a later cursus,\ncomprised 24 timber posts surrounded by a bank and ditch which enclosed an area\nof 6.3 ha. Associated with it were a sub-square enclosure within the main\nmonument and a small ring-ditch that may have enclosed a viewing platform. The\nmain enclosure’s demonstrable solsticial alignments are unique for the Early\nNeolithic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In her reconsideration of the Neolithic in Essex, Frances Healy (2012, 11) has argued that whereas the causewayed enclosures of the chalklands were constructed away from areas of settlement, in eastern England people \u2018chose to build theirs in inhabited landscapes.\u2019 She also suggests that the three Essex enclosures at Springfield, Orsett and St Osyth may have served as \u2018founder monuments\u2019 in their local landscapes, which subsequently accrued other types of Neolithic monument (ibid., 15). Some of these are among the 35 Neolithic sites in Essex that have been mapped from the air (Ingle and Saunders 2011, table 2.1), such as a possible \u2018mortuary enclosure\u2019 west of the Orsett causewayed enclosure (ibid., fig 2.5; note that the \u2018possible Neolithic settlement enclosure\u2019 nearby seems more likely to be a later site that happens to coincide with a flint scatter).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Several of the later\nmonuments associated with enclosures in the region are cursuses. That at Godmanchester,\nwhich ran south-westwards from one end of the trapezoidal enclosure for over\n500m, is poorly dated but could be relatively late, like the cursus at Etton, which\npost-dates part of the causewayed enclosure that was recut in the late 4th\nmillennium cal BC. Other cursus monuments in the region may be older, but the\nwork on enclosures emphasises, by contrast, how imprecisely dated this class of\nmonuments remains, which is in part a result of the very limited assemblages\nrecovered in many cases. However, it is worth noting that Gathering Time<\/em> offers a possible\nexplanation for the anomalously early OSL dates from two cursus monuments at Eynesbury<\/strong>, Cambridgeshire, by suggesting that the wetness of\nthe area in the Neolithic may have been overestimated (Whittle et al. 2011, 285).<\/p>\n\n\n\n The most recent published investigation of a cursus monument in the region was at Biggleswade<\/strong>, Bedfordshire (Abrams 2010). The monument was shown to be longer than previously suggested (at least 750m) with stretches of ditch apparently constructed at different times, which recalls Pryor\u2019s description of the Maxey cursus as \u2018a chronologically extended series of quite separate, short-lived\u2026 episodes\u2019 (Pryor and French 1985, 301). Meanwhile, the suggested cursus at Fenstanton<\/strong>, Cambridgeshire, can probably be dismissed as part of a later field and trackway system (Knight et al. 2018, 124\u20135).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Turning to mortuary\nsites, also included in Gathering Time <\/em>is\nthe Haddenham<\/strong> long barrow, where\nconstruction of the plank-built mortuary chamber probably dates to around 3600\ncal BC (Whittle <\/em>et al. 2011, 290). The Norfolk\nlong barrows at West Rudham<\/strong>, Harpley<\/strong>\nand Ditchingham<\/strong> have all seen geophysical\nsurvey (Carey and Ashby 2016a and b; Carey 2017), as has that at Therfield Heath<\/strong>, Hertfordshire (R. Loveday, pers. comm.).\nElsewhere in the region classic long barrows are rare and so-called \u2018long\nmortuary enclosures\u2019 may be found instead. However, Healy (2012) has suggested\nthat many of these are likely to be of later 4th millennium date and more\nclosely linked to cursuses rather than being the remains of funerary monuments.\nThe same may go for the \u2018long barrow\u2019 at Eynesbury that is associated with the\ncursus monuments mentioned above, although that did contain human remains\n(Whittle et al. 2011, 285). Also in this time frame is the square enclosure at Baldock<\/strong>, Hertfordshire, which although termed Late Neolithic\nin the publication, produced a Middle Neolithic radiocarbon date (pre-dating\n2900 cal BC) for its central burial (Phillips et al. 2009, 13).<\/p>\n\n\n\n A key theme of recent\nwork is the growing recognition of the diversity of Neolithic burial practice, primarily\nbecause of the excavation of a number of circular monuments with surprisingly\nearly dates. At Trumpington Meadows<\/strong>, overlooking\nthe river Cam near Cambridge, two adjacent ring-ditches, with internal\ndiameters of 23m and 16m, were excavated (Evans et al. 2018, 36\u201347). One of\nthese comprised a multiple burial in a timber chamber that was subsequently\nsealed by a round barrow, while the other was a simple ring-ditch enclosing a\ntruncated burial pit. Radiocarbon dates for both monuments centre on the first\nhalf of the 37th century cal BC, though one skeleton in the multiple burial\nappears to be a century or two younger. Much later, the monuments became a\nfocus for some Early Bronze Age burials. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Similar monuments were\nrevealed during further work at the Biddenham Loop<\/strong>,\nnext to the Great Ouse near Bedford, where four sub-circular Neolithic\nenclosures were investigated, two of which were associated with burials that\nprobably span at least 400 years, from before 3700 to after 3350 cal BC (Luke\n2016). It has also been suggested that the henge at Norton<\/strong>\nin north Hertfordshire, which has an unusual double-ditched form, may have originated\nas a Middle Neolithic ring-ditch that was subsequently converted into a classic\nhenge (Fitzpatrick-Matthews 2015).<\/p>\n\n\n\n At Flixton Park\nQuarry<\/strong> in Suffolk (Boulter and Walton Rogers 2012) a number of\npossible mortuary features were found, including a long barrow or mortuary\nenclosure and a small Early Neolithic ring-ditch. In addition there was a Late\nNeolithic timber \u2018circle\u2019 (actually sub-square) which enclosed a small\nrectangular structure and was associated with a number of Grooved Ware pits; it\nwas subsequently partly overlain by an Early Bronze Age round barrow. Similarly,\nat Langford Hall<\/strong> in Essex, two small later\nNeolithic ring-ditches were found, one of which was remodelled and enlarged in\nthe Middle Bronze Age (Roy and Heppell 2014).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Some of the small\nhenges (c 20m in diameter) that have been found in recent years were also\nsucceeded by Early Bronze Age barrows and burials. They include an example with\ntwo opposed entrances from Ashwell<\/strong>, north\nHertfordshire (Greef 2015), which was associated with a number of pits. Finds\nwere scarce but a cremation burial from a terminal of the henge ditch has\nreportedly been dated to the Bronze Age, suggesting the monument remained\nsignificant for a lengthy period. A henge of similar form and size was found at\nBarleycroft Farm\/Over<\/strong>, Cambridgeshire,\noverlain by an Early Bronze Age round barrow (Evans et al. 2015). Another henge\nof similar size with two entrances is reported from recent fieldwork on the A14<\/strong> near Huntingdon (Sherlock 2018), though claims of\nmultiple henges from this project should be treated with caution, given the potentially\nwide date range for penannular ring-ditches.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The extent of the influence of what may have been quite small or slight Neolithic monuments on later landscapes and activity, especially their relationship to Bronze Age round barrows, is certainly an emerging theme. As Healy (2012) astutely notes, there seems to be more continuity in these small monuments, which potentially span most of the Neolithic, than in the different types of large enclosure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Discoveries of\nNeolithic pits in larger or smaller numbers have continued apace in the region.\nThe well-known pit site at Kilverstone<\/strong>,\nNorfolk, was analysed for the Gathering Time<\/em>\nproject, which showed that it was occupied for around 150 years between the\nmid-37th and mid-35th centuries (Whittle et al. 2011, 333\u20136). The authors\nsuggest that in areas lacking causewayed enclosures, like Norfolk, extensive\npit complexes could have served as equivalent aggregation sites. While for ease\nof discussion we can retain a heuristic distinction between ‘settlements’ and\n‘monuments’, any real distinction is elided by the comparable nature of\ndeposition at sites of different type and the similarity of the features that\nwere excavated, particularly evident at enclosures like Springfield Lyons which\nare composed of pit-like segments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Early Neolithic pits\nalso feature at the inter-tidal site on the Essex coast known as the Stumble<\/strong>, but significantly they were augmented here by the\npreservation of an old land surface. The fieldwork mentioned in previous\niterations of the RRF and now fully published (Wilkinson et al. 2012) was\nundertaken in the 1980s but harks back to an even earlier era of coastal exploration\nassociated with Hazzeldine Warren and other pioneers. Dense Early Neolithic\nartefact scatters are suggestive of the former presence of buildings as well as\nexternal areas, though no ground plans could be ascertained. A few pits were\nalso encountered, similar to those at dryland sites. Middle and Late Neolithic\nevidence was rather different in character, comprising a number of burnt flint\nmounds; by this time the site was already probably in a shoreline or saltmarsh\nenvironment. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The important assemblage\nof plant macrofossils includes the first Neolithic cereal remains to have been\ndirectly radiocarbon-dated in the region, from both the Early (mid-4th\nmillennium cal BC) and Late Neolithic (earlier 3rd millennium). The authors\nsuggest that the site is a corrective to \u2018the general experience that charred\ncrop remains are rare at British Neolithic sites’ (Wilkinson et al. 2012, 90; cf.\nStevens and Fuller 2012). The Stumble shows both the potential of the\nintertidal zone for Neolithic remains of a type and quality rarely found on\ndryland sites, and its vulnerability to erosion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Cambridgeshire Fens\nare another area where old land surfaces may be preserved alongside cut\nfeatures. At North Fen<\/strong>, Sutton, both Early\nNeolithic pit clusters and artefact scatters preserved within buried soil\nhorizons were found (Tabor et al. 2016). The site was probably occupied over\njust two or three generations within the 35th century cal BC and there were\ninteresting differences between the ceramic assemblages associated with the\npits and scatters, though they belong to the same Mildenhall tradition.\nDiffering from sites like Kilverstone in the morphology of the pit clusters,\ndepositional practices and the tempo of occupation, the North Fen evidence\nshows there is no single model of activity that fits all Neolithic pit sites.\nIt also provides an interesting contrast between Early and Late Neolithic\nactivity, since the latter period was characterised by an extensive flint\nscatter, but with little pottery and just one pit. Evidence for arrowhead\nmanufacture might indicate a specialised site, perhaps associated with hunting\n(Tabor 2015).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Further south, one can\nfollow the Great Ouse upstream past the Haddenham monuments to the Barleycroft\nFarm\/Over landscape, where another important recent project has shed light on\nNeolithic activity in the southern Fens (Evans et al. 2016). This work focussed\non the gravel ridges within the floodplain, revealing, amongst multi-period\noccupation, some further contrasts between Early\/Middle and Late Neolithic\nactivity. In this case, while the earlier pottery nearly all derived from\nsurface contexts, the Grooved Ware was largely contained in features, which\nalso showed some continuity of activity into the Beaker phase of the Early\nBronze Age. On the other hand there was a contrast between the lack of evidence\nfor arable production from the Grooved Ware pits and its presence in the Early\nBronze Age features.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There is generally little\nevidence of an association between pit clusters and mortuary practice but the\nburial of an adult female with a neonate was found amongst a dispersed group of\nEarly Neolithic pits near Sawston<\/strong>,\nCambridgeshire, and dated to the end of this period, probably between 3520 and\n3380 cal BC; there was no evidence that the grave was marked in any way (Newton\n2018).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Pit clusters elsewhere\nin the region include Early Neolithic groups from Watton-at-Stone<\/strong>,\nHertfordshire (Boyer et al. 2015), Reydon<\/strong>, Suffolk\n(Harding et al. 2016) and Takeley<\/strong>, Essex\n(Germany et al. 2015). While most of these sites do not directly reference\nearlier monuments, an exception is the cluster of Late Neolithic and Early\nBronze Age pits that were dug into the Godmanchester Neolithic enclosure (Lyons\nforthcoming). Though (just) predating our period, it is also worth noting the\ngroup of very late Mesolithic (late 5th millennium cal BC) pits from M1 Junction 9<\/strong> near St Albans, which demonstrate that the\npractice of pit-digging in the region originated before the Neolithic (Stansbie\net al. <\/em>2012).<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the context of revisiting her earlier work on the Neolithic pits at Spong Hill<\/strong>, Norfolk, Healy (in Hills and Lucy 2013, 12\u201321) has reviewed the relatively sparse evidence for earliest Neolithic Carinated Bowl pottery in East Anglia, and set out a new dating model for Mildenhall ware, suggesting it had a currency of around 300 years from c. <\/em>3700 to 3400 cal BC. In this regard it is interesting that the Mildenhall ware pits at Reydon and Takeley have been dated to the very start of that period, the latter probably in fact predating 3700 cal BC, and both are probably earlier than the region\u2019s causewayed enclosures, with the possible exception of Etton.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Healy also reiterates the\ncontrast between Mildenhall ware pits, which were rapidly backfilled with\noccupation material, and later Neolithic features which contained selected\nobjects, such as semi-complete pots, while lithic material was predominantly\ndiscarded on the surface, leading to greater visibility in the modern\nploughsoil. Elsewhere, she has noted sub-regional differences in the relative\nfrequency of later pottery styles, notably Peterborough and Grooved Ware, which\ncould be indicative of different territories covering Norfolk and north\nSuffolk, Essex and south Suffolk, and the London\/Thames area (Healy 2012).<\/p>\n\n\n\n While the Late Neolithic is generally less well dated than the period covered by Gathering Time<\/em>, a new chronological model for the Grime’s Graves<\/strong> flint mines has addressed key questions about the origins and duration of mining at the site as well as its spatial development (Healy et al. 2014; 2018). The model suggests that mining at the site probably began in 2650-2620 cal BC (68% probability) <\/em>and the main phase of extraction in the galleried shafts probably lasted for over 200 years, until 2420\u20132385 cal BC <\/em>(68% probability<\/em>; Healy et al. 2014, 55), implying that on average one or two mines were excavated per year. The analysis also showed that mining continued into the Early Bronze Age in some areas, though the end of the main phase of Neolithic mining may have coincided with the arrival of Beakers in the region (Healy et al. 2018, 291).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Studies of Neolithic landscapes\nand environments have been less prominent but there is enough evidence to\nindicate considerable spatial and temporal variation. At the Stumble, pollen\nevidence suggests lime, oak and ash woodland covered most of the local area in\nthe Early and Middle Neolithic with only limited clearance (Wilkinson et al.\n2012, 135). At Biddenham there is evidence of an opening up of the landscape\nfor pasture and cereal cultivation by the Early Neolithic, which is maintained\nthrough the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age (Luke 2016, 28), while at\nGodmanchester, in contrast, the enclosure and cursus appear to have been\nconstructed in a locally cleared landscape but woodland regenerated in the\nlater Neolithic (Lyons forthcoming). At Trumpington, molluscan evidence also\nsuggests local clearance for the monuments and later regeneration of woodland\n(Evans et al. 2018, 79). Additional integrated studies are needed to place the\nexisting information from specific sites into a broader context.<\/p>\n\n\n\nCausewayed Enclosures<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Cursuses<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Mortuary Sites<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Pits and Pit Clusters<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Landscape and Environment<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Bibliography<\/h2>\n\n\n\n