Excavations at a Neolithic Enclosure on The Peak, near Birdlip, Gloucestershire

Abstract

Surveys and excavations in 1980–1 confirmed Peak Camp as a Neolithic enclosure on a flat promontory of the Cotswold escarpment overlooking the Severn Valley just 1 km south of Crickley Hill. Although heavily eroded by quarrying the site can be reconstructed as having two concentric arcs of boundary earthworks forming an oval plan which was probably open to the north where a steep natural slope defined the edge of the site. A section through the outer boundary showed four main phases of ditch construction, at least one causewayed. An extensive series of radiocarbon dates shows construction began in the late 37th century cal bc and probably continued through successive remodellings into the 33rd century cal bc or beyond. An internal ditch or elongated pit situated in the area between the inner and outer boundary earthworks had a similar history. Where sampled, the ditch and internal feature were rich in material culture, including a substantial assemblage of plain bowl pottery; flint implements and working waste; animal remains dominated by cattle but including also the remains of a cat; human foot bones; slight traces of cereal production; a fragment of a Group VI axe; part of a sandstone disc; and a highly unusual shale arc pendant of continental type. It is suggested that the ditch fills represent selectively redeposited midden material from within the site that started to accumulate in the late 5th or early 4th millennium cal bc. The construction and use of Peak Camp is contemporary with activity on Crickley Hill, and the two sites probably formed components of a single complex. Its use was also contemporary with the deposition of burials at local long barrows in the Cotswold-Severn tradition which are linked by common ceramic traditions and the selective deposition of human body parts.

Dating springlines from hydrogeological and archaeological evidence

“…Validation of our predictions could be facilitated by expansive geophysical surveys, and paleochannels and geomorphological deposits could also provide a degree of corroboration. Archaeological investigation into Neolithic sites rarely extends beyond the confines of the site itself, thereby neglecting the understanding of the surrounding landscape (Darvill, 2010). Recent broad-scale work, such as at the Early Mesolithic site of Star Carr, was undertaken using vast coring strategies enabled for the extent of an old lake to be elucidated, as well as to track the hydrological and vegetational change that the landscape experienced (Milner et al, 2018).…”

“…In the Early Neolithic, extensive monumentality began to be constructed, i.e., long barrows and causewayed enclosures, which fundamentally changed the way the landscape was characterized and used. These sites have been considered recurrently in numerous syntheses, often focusing upon the typology and physical form of these sites, with little detail paid to the broader landscape and settings of the sites (e.g., Witts, 1883;Crawford, 1925;O'Neil and Grinsell, 1960;Corcoran, 1969;Darvill, 2010).…”

Real and ideal European maritime transfers along the Atlantic coast during the Neolithic

“…Such phenomenon of delayed chronology could of course be repeated in the British Isles and Ireland. The fragment of a perforated schist bracelet found at Peak Camp (Darvill et al 2011), only 10km from the Severn Estuary facing the Irish Sea, clearly refers to an ornament specific of the Early Neolithic period in northwestern France. It alone testifies to this palimpsest that is so difficult to decipher (of course, the similar 'pendentifs arciformes' of the Paris basin are late Neolithic).…”

Isotopic Evidence for Landscape use and the Role of Causewayed Enclosures During the Earlier Neolithic in Southern Britain

“…The presence of natural silting at several of these sites, interspersed with features that may demonstrate the ditches were intermittently recut, could indicate that visits to causewayed enclosures were episodic and may have been seasonal (eg, Smith 1965, 7, 20; Mercer 1988, 94; Mercer & Healy 2008, 755; Pryor 1998, 364; Legge 2008, 554). Archaeological evidence also suggests that many of the artefacts found within the enclosure ditches were selectively deposited and that the butchered remains of cattle, also frequently found within enclosure ditches, could also be associated with feasting activity (eg, Smith 1971, 100; Whittle et al 1999, 357; Evans & Hodder 2006, 319; Mercer & Healy 2008, 755, 762; Darvill et al 2011, 139, 195; Thomas 2016; although see Parmenter et al 2015). The presence of both articulated formal burials and disarticulated human remains within the enclosure ditches demonstrates that these sites were also associated with mortuary rites and the commemoration of the dead (eg, Drewett et al 1977, 225–6; Pryor 1998, 362; Mercer & Healy 2008, 759–60).…”

“…Analysis of material culture and the derivation of raw materials that were used to manufacture many of the artefacts found at causewayed enclosures, such as pottery and worked stone, has also been employed as a proxy for reconstructing patterns of land use. Causewayed enclosures are frequently located on the slopes of elevated promontories (Oswald et al 2001, 91, 109–10), and are sometimes found in pairs, situated side by side on adjacent spurs of the same hilltop ( ibid ., 112–13; Allen et al 2008; Healy 2008, 3; Darvill et al 2011, 196; Dixon et al 2011, 465). Some researchers suggest that the contrasting form and fabric of artefacts found in adjacent enclosures may indicate that each had a different functional role (Allen et al 2008, 308–12).…”