Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T17:06:03.877Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Early Neolithic Grave and Occupation, and an Early Bronze Age Hearth on the Thames Foreshore at Yabsley Street, Blackwall, London

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 February 2014

Sarah Coles ,
Steve Ford ,
Andy Taylor ,
Sian Anthony ,
Rowena Gale ,
Michael Keith-Lucas ,
Frances Raymond ,
Mark Robinson  and
Alan Vince
Sarah Coles
Affiliation:
Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd, 47–9 De Beauvoir Road, Reading, RG1 5NR
Steve Ford
Affiliation:
Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd, 47–9 De Beauvoir Road, Reading, RG1 5NR
Andy Taylor
Affiliation:
Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd, 47–9 De Beauvoir Road, Reading, RG1 5NR
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Excavation on the Thames floodplain in London revealed traces of Early Neolithic occupation and burial on a sand and gravel bar beneath alluvium. A large expanse of peat also buried by alluvium was recorded between these finds and the modern river Thames suggesting that the occupation was situated on or close to the foreshore. A single grave cut into the natural sand contained a poorly preserved crouched inhumation, possibly of a woman. The burial was accompanied by a fragment of carinated bowl, a flint knife, and other struck flints. A radiocarbon date from an oak retaining plank within the grave of 5252±28 BP (4220–3970 cal BC: KIA20157) makes this burial one of the earliest from the British Isles and the earliest known for London. A scatter of struck flint and pottery predominantly of Early Neolithic date was recovered from adjacent areas of the sand. A nearby hearth contained fragments of Early Bronze Age pottery pointing to later prehistoric activity nearby.

Charred plant remains indicate both the collection of wild plant foods and cultivated cereals in the Early Neolithic. Radiocarbon dating of the adjacent peat deposits indicated their rapid growth within the Middle Bronze Age with a marked decline in woodland cover at the start of the sequence and a rise in grassland and herb species. Cereal pollen then briefly became a significant component of the sequence before declining to more modest levels.

Résumé

Des fouilles sur la plaine inondable de la Tamise à Londres ont révélé des traces d'occupation et d'inhumation du néolithique primitif sur une bande de sable et de gravier sous les alluvions. On a répertorié une vaste étendue de tourbe également enterrée sous les alluvions entre ces trouvailles et le cours actuel de la Tamise, ce qui donne à penser que cette occupation se situait sur ou près de la grève. Une seule tombe taillée dans le sable naturel contenait une inhumation accroupie mal préservée, peut-être une femme. L'inhumation s'accompagnait d'un fragment de bol caréné, d'un poignard de silex et d'autres silex martelés. Une datation au carbone 14 à partir d'une planche de rétention en chêne à l'intérieur de la tombe de 5252±28 BP (4220–3970 av.J.-C.cal: KIA20157) situe cette inhumation parmi les plus anciennes des îles britanniques et la plus ancienne connue à Londres. On a recouvré des silex martelés et des céramiques éparpillés datant du néolithique primitif dans des zones adjacentes du sable. Un foyer proche contenait pour la plus grande partie des tessons de céramique de l'âge du bronze ancien indiquant la proximité d'une activité préhistorique plus tardive.

Des restes de plantes carbonisés témoignent à la fois de la collecte de plantes sauvages pour se nourrir et de la culture de céréales au néolithique primitif. La datation au carbone 14 des dépôts de tourbe adjacents démontra leur rapide expansion au cours de l'âge du bronze moyen associée à un déclin notoire de la couverture forestière au début de la séquence et une augmentation des prés et des espèces herbeuses. Puis le pollen de céréales est devenu, pour une brève période, un élément important de la séquence avant de revenir à des niveaux plus modestes.

Zusammenfassung

Ausgrabungen eines unter Alluvium liegenden Sand-und Kiesstreifens in der Themseaue in London erbrachten Spuren Frühneolithischer Besiedlung und Gräber. Eine große, ebenfalls unter Alluvium und zwischen diesen Befunden und dem modernen Flusslauf der Themse liegende Torffläche weist darauf hin, dass sich die Besiedlung entweder bis direkt ans Ufer oder mindestens bis in die Nähe des Flussufers erstreckte. Ein Einzelgrab, das in den anstehenden Sand eingegraben war, enthielt eine schlecht erhaltene, wahrscheinlich weibliche Körperbestattung in Hockerlage. Die Beigaben bestanden aus einem Fragment einer knickwandigen Schale, einem Feuersteinmesser und anderen Feuersteinabschlägen. Ein Radiokarbondatum von 5252±28 BP (4220–3970 cal BC: KIA20157), das von einem Eichen-Halterungsbretts aus diesem Grab stammt, macht dieses Grab zu einem der ältesten Gräber auf den Britischen Inseln und zum Ältesten in London. Weiterhin wurde eine Streuung von Feuersteinabschlägen und vornehmlich frühneolithischen Scherben in der unmittelbaren Umgebung dokumentiert. Aus diesem Bereich stammt auch ein Herd mit frühbronzezeitlichen Scherben, was auch eine spätere Nutzung des Platzes nahe legt. Verkohlte Pflanzenreste deuten auf das Sammeln von Wildpflanzen und die Nutzung von domestiziertem Getreide im frühen Neolithikum hin. Die Radiokarbondatierung der nahe gelegenen Torfdeponierungen zeigen ihren raschen Anstieg in der Mittleren Bronzezeit, die am Beginn der Abfolge mit einem merklichen Rückgang der Waldgebiete und gleichzeitigem Zuwachs an Weideland und Kräuterarten einhergeht. Danach lässt sich ein kurzzeitiges, aber starkes Ansteigen der Getreidepollen in der Abfolge verzeichnen, bevor sie wieder zu einem geringen Anteil zurückkehren.

Résumen

La excavación de la planicie aluvial del Támesis en Londres ha revelado indicios de ocupación y enterramiento en el Neolítico Inicial en un banco de arena y gravilla bajo el aluvión. Entre estos hallazgos y el río Támesis moderno se registró una amplia extensión de turba también enterrada por aluvión, lo que sugiere que la ocupación estaba emplazada en o cerca de la zona de mareas. Una única tumba cavada en la arena natural contenía una inhumación en posición fetal pobremente preservada, posiblemente de una mujer. El enterramiento estaba acompañado de un fragmento de un cuenco carinado, un cuchillo de sílex, y otras muescas de sílex. La fecha del carbono-14 de una plancha de sujeción de roble de dentro del enterramiento es de 5252±28 BP (4220–3970 cal BC: KIA20157) y hace de esta tumba una de las más tempranas en la Islas Británicas y la más temprana conocida en Londres. De las zonas adyacentes de la arena se recuperó una dispersión de restos de sílex trabajado y de cerámica predominantemente del Primer Neolítico. Un hogar cercano contenía fragmentos de cerámica de la Primera Edad del Bronce indicando actividad prehistórica tardía en las cercanías.

Restos carbonizados de plantas indican tanto la recolección de plantas salvajes comestibles como la presencia de cereales cultivados en el Primer Neolítico. La datación al carbono-14 de los depósitos de turba adyacentes indica su rápido desarrollo en el Bronce Medio con un marcado descenso de la población de árboles al comienzo de la secuencia y un aumento de las especies de pradera y herbáceas. El polen de cereales se convierte brevemente en un componente significativo de la secuencia antes de reducirse a niveles más modestos.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , Volume 74 , 2008 , pp. 215 - 234
Copyright
Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Annable, R. 1987. The Later Prehistory of Northern England. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 160Google Scholar
Anthony, S. & Ford, S. 2003. An early Roman occupation site and prehistoric finds at Westferry Road, Isle of Dogs, Tower Hamlets. Transactions of the London & Middlesex Archaeological Society 54, 1–7 Google Scholar
Barrett, J.C. & Kinnes, I.A. (eds). 1988. The Archaeology of Context in the Neolithic and Bronze Age: recent trends, 9–29. Sheffield: University of Sheffield Department of Archaeology & Prehistory Google Scholar
Bell, M. 1977. Excavations at Bishopstone. Sussex Archaeological Collections 115 Google Scholar
BGS. 1981. British Geological Survey, 1:50000, Sheet 271, Solid & Drift Edition, Keyworth Google Scholar
Bristow, P.H.W. 1998. Attitudes to Disposal of the Dead in Southern Britain 3500BC–AD43. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 274Google Scholar
Brown, K. 2000. Ancient DNA applications in human osteoarchaeology. In Cox, M. & Mays, S. (eds), Human Osteology in Archaeology and Forensic Science, 455–74. London: Greenwich Medical Media Google Scholar
Buikstra, J. & Ubelaker, D. (eds). 1994. Standards for Data Collection in Human Skeletal Assemblages. Fayetteville: Arkansas Archaeological Survey Research Series 44Google Scholar
Brewster, T.C.M. 1984. Whitegrounds Barrow 1, Burythorpe, North Yorkshire. Malton: East Yorkshire Archaeological Committee Google Scholar
Case, H.J. 1969. Neolithic explanations. Antiquity 43, 176–86Google Scholar
Chappell, S. 1987. Stone Axe Morphology and Distribution in Neolithic Britain. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cotton, J. & Field, D. 2004. Towards a New Stone Age: aspects of the Neolithic in south-east England. York: Council for British Archaeology Research Report 137Google Scholar
Crockett, A.D., Allen, M.J. & Scaife, R.G. 2002. A Neolithic trackway within peat deposits at Silvertown, London. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 68, 185–213 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickson, J.A.D. 1965. A modified staining technique for carbonates in thin section. Nature 205, 587 Google Scholar
Donaldson, P. 1977. The excavation of a multiple round barrow at Barnack, Cambridgeshire, 1974–6, Antiquaries Journal 57, 197–231 Google Scholar
Ford, S., Entwistle, R. & Taylor, K. 2003. Excavations at Cippenham, Slough, Berkshire 1995–7. Reading: Thames Valley Archaeological Services Monograph 3Google Scholar
Gale, R. & Cutler, D. 2000, Plants in Archaeology. Kew: Westbury & Royal Botanic Gardens Google Scholar
Green, H.S. 1980. The Flint Arrowheads of the British Isles. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 75Google Scholar
Green, H.S. & Sofranoff, S. 1985. A Neolithic settlement at Stacey Bushes, Milton Keynes. Records of Buckinghamshire 27, 10–37 Google Scholar
Hachem, L., Guichard, Y., Farruggia, J.-P., Dubouloz, J. & Ilett, M. 1998. Enclosure and burials in the earliest Neolithic of the Aisne Valley. In Edmonds, M. & Richards, C. (eds), Understanding the Neolithic of North West Europe. Glasgow: Cruithne Google Scholar
Healey, E. & Robertson–Mackay, R. 1983. The lithic industries from Staines causewayed enclosure and their relationship to other earlier Neolithic industries in southern Britain. Lithics 4, 1–27 Google Scholar
Hearne, A. 1988. A time and a place for the Grimston bowl. In Barrett, &. Kinnes, (eds), 1988, 9–29 Google Scholar
Hedges, J. & Buckley, D. 1978. Excavations at a Neolithic causewayed enclosure, Orsett, Essex, 1975. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 44, 219–308 Google Scholar
Holden, E.W. & Bradley, R.J. 1975. A Late Neolithic site at Rackham, Sussex Archaeological Collections 113, 85–103 Google Scholar
Holgate, R. 1988. Neolithic Settlement of the Thames Basin. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holgate, R. & Start, D. 1985. A Neolithic pit at Remenham, near Henley on Thames, Berkshire. Berkshire Archaeological Journal 72, 1–8 Google Scholar
Kinnes, I. 1979. Round Barrows and Ring-ditches in the British Neolithic. London: British Museum Occasional Paper 7Google Scholar
Koot, H. 2005. Stone Age farmers along the North Sea; The Rijswijk-Ypenburg cemetery. In Kooijmans, L.P. Kouwe, van den Broeke, P.W., Fokkens, H., and van Gijn, A.L. (eds), The Prehistory of the Netherlands, 273–5. Amsterdam: University Press Google Scholar
Lyman, R.L. 1994. Vertebrae Taphonomy. Cambridge: University Press Google Scholar
Manby, T.G. 1976. The excavation of the Kilham long barrow, East Riding of Yorkshire. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 42, 111–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meddens, F.M. 1996. Sites from the Thames Estuary, England and their Bronze Age use. Antiquity 70, 325–34Google Scholar
Moffett, L., Robinson, M. & Straker, V. 1989. Cereals, fruits and nuts: charred plant remains from Neolithic sites in England and Wales and the Neolithic economy. In Milles, A., Williams, D. & Gardener, N. (eds), The Beginnings of Agriculture, 243–61. Oxford: British Archaeological Report S 496Google Scholar
MoLAS. 2000. The Archaeology of Greater London, London: Museum of London Archaeology Service Google Scholar
Needham, S. & Stig-Sorensen, M.L. 1988. Runnymede refuse tip: A consideration of midden deposits and their formation. In Barrett, & Kinnes, (eds) 1988, 113–26Google Scholar
PCRG. 1997. The Study of Later Prehistoric Pottery: general policies and guidelines for analysis and publication. Oxford: Prehistoric Ceramics Research Group, Occasional Papers 1 & 2 (revised)Google Scholar
Piggott, S. 1929. Neolithic pottery and other remains from Pangbourne, Berkshire and Caversham, Oxon. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society of East Anglia 6, 30–9Google Scholar
Pollard, J. 2002. The nature of archaeological deposits and finds assemblages. In Woodward, A. & Hill, J.D. (eds), Prehistoric Britain: the ceramic basis, 22–33. Oxford: Oxbow Google Scholar
Robertson-Mackay, R. 1987. The Neolithic causewayed enclosure at Staines, Surrey: excavations 1961–63, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 53, 23–128 Google Scholar
Robinson, M.A. 2000. Further considerations of Neolithic charred cereals, fruit and nuts, in Fairbairn, A. (ed.), Plants in Neolithic Britain and Beyond, 85–90. Oxford: Oxbow.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidell, J., Wilkinson, K., Scaife, R. & Cameron, N. 2000. Holocene Evolution of the London Thames; archaeological excavations (1991–1998) for the London Underground Limited Jubilee Line Extension Project. London: Museum of London Archaeology Service Monograph 5Google Scholar
Sidell, J., Cotton, J., Rayner, L. & Wheeler, L. 2002. The Prehistory and Topography of Southwark and Lambeth. London: Museum of London Archaeology Service Monograph 14Google Scholar
Smith, I.F. 1974. The Neolithic. In Renfrew, C. (ed.), British Prehistory: a new outline, 100–36. London: Duckworth Google Scholar
Stuiver, M., Reimer, P.J., Bard, E., Beck, J.W., Burr, G.S., Hughen, K.A., Kromer, B., McCormac, G., Plicht, J. van der & Spurk, M. 1998. INTCAL98 radiocarbon age calibration. Radiocarbon 40(3), 1041–84Google Scholar
Thomas, J. 1988. Neolithic explanations revisited, the Mesolithic–Neolithic transition in Britain and South Scandinavia. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 54, 59–66 Google Scholar
Thomas, J. 1991. Rethinking the Neolithic, Cambridge: University Press Google Scholar
Vince, A. 2002. Phase IIIa pottery. In Hull, G., Barkingwic? Saxon and medieval features adjacent to Barking Abbey. Essex Archaeology & History 33, 157–90Google Scholar
Wainwright, G.J. 1972. The excavation of a Neolithic settlement on Broome Heath, Ditchingham, Norfolk. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 38, 1–97 Google Scholar
Whittle, A.W.R. 1977. The Earlier Neolithic of Southern England and its Continental Background. Oxford: British Archaeological Report S35Google Scholar
Whittle, A. 1985. Neolithic Europe: a survey. Cambridge: University Press Google Scholar
Wymer, J.J. (ed.). 1977. Gazetteer of Mesolithic Sites in England and Wales, London: Council for British Archaeology Research Report 20Google Scholar
Young, T. 1908. On the occurrence of human remains of Neolithic Age near Croyde. Reports of the Transactions of the Devonshire Association 40, 260–3Google Scholar