Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T05:13:41.283Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pit Clusters and the Temporality of Occupation: an Earlier Neolithic Site at Kilverstone, Thetford, Norfolk

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 February 2014

Duncan Garrow ,
Emma Beadsmoore  and
Mark Knight
Mark Knight
Affiliation:
Cambridge Archaeological Unit, Department of Archaeology, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3Z
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper discusses 226 earlier Neolithic pits found at Kilverstone in Norfolk. In particular, it focuses on the dynamics involved in the site's creation, investigating what had happened to the material found in the pits prior to deposition, and exploring the material connections (refitting sherds and flints) across the site. As a result of these material insights, it proved possible to shed important light on the character of that place in particular, and on the temporality of Neolithic deposition and occupation in general.

Résumé

Cet article examine 226 fosses du néolithique ancien découvertes à Kilverstone dans le Norfolk. Il se concentre en particulier sur la dynamique impliquée dans la création du site, nous examinons ce qui était arrivé aux matériaux trouvés dans les fosses avant qu'ils y soient déposés.et nous explorons les liens entre les matériaux (réassemblant éclats et silex) sur l'ensemble du site. A la suite de cette observation des matériaux, il s'est avéré possible d'apporter une importante lumière au caractère de cet endroit en particulier, et à la nature temporaire des dépôts et des occupations néolithiques en général.

Zusammenfassung

Dieser Beitrag diskutiert 226 frühneolithische Gruben, die in Kilverstone in Norfolk gefunden worden sind. Der Artikel widmet sich im besonderen der Dynamik der Entstehung einer Fundstelle, indem untersucht wird, was mit dem Material vor seiner Deponierung passierte, das in den Gruben gefunden wurde, und indem die materiellen Verbindungen (Wiederanpassung von Scherbenmaterial und Feuerstein) der gesamten Fundstelle erforscht werden. Durch diese Analysen hat sich gezeigt, dass sowohl neue Erkenntnisse zur Bedeutung und Art des Platzes als auch zur temporären Dauer Neolithischer Ablagerungen und Besiedlung gewonnen werden konnten.

Résumen

Este trabajo estudia 226 fosos del primer Neolítico hallados en Kilverstone en Norfolk. En particular, se centra en la dinámica de la creación del yacimiento, investigando lo que le ocurrió al material encontrado en los fosos antes de su deposición, y explorando las conexiones materiales (ensamblaje de fragmentos de cerámica y sílex) a través del yacimiento. Como resultado de la interpretación de los materiales ha sido posible clarificar el carácter de este lugar en particular, y de la temporalidad de las deposiciones y ocupación en el neolítico en general.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , Volume 71 , 2005 , pp. 139 - 157
Copyright
Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 2005

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

Chapman, J. 2000a. Fragmentation in Archaeology. London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Chapman, J. 2000b. Pit digging and structured deposition in the Neolithic and Copper Age. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 66, 61–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, J.G.D., Higgs, E., & Longworth, I. 1960. Excavations at the Neolithic site at Hurst Fen, Mildenhall, Suffolk (1954, 1957 and 1958). Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 26, 202–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darvill, T. 1996. Neolithic buildings in England, Wales and the Isle of Man. In Darvill, T. & Thomas, J. (eds), Neolithic Houses in Northwest Europe and Beyond, 77–112. Oxford: OxbowGoogle Scholar
Edmonds, M. 1997. Taskscape, technology and tradition. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 29, 99–110Google Scholar
Edmonds, M. 1999. Ancestral Geographies of the Neolithic: landscapes, monuments and memory. London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Evans, C. & Knight, M. 1997. The Barleycroft Paddocks Excavations, Cambridgeshire. Cambridge: unpublished Cambridge Archaeological Unit Report 218Google Scholar
Evans, C., Pollard, J. & Knight, M. 1999. Life in woods: tree-throws, ‘settlement’ and forest cognition. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 18, 241–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrow, D., Lucy, S. & Gibson, D. forthcoming. Excavations at Kilverstone, Norfolk: the Neolithic pits, later prehistoric, Romano-British and Anglo-Saxon occupation and later activity. Cambridge: East Anglian ArchaeologyGoogle Scholar
Healy, F. 1988. The Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Spong Hill, North Elmham, Part VI: occupation during the seventh to second millennia BC. East Dereham: East Anglian Archaeology 39Google Scholar
Jones, G. 2000. Evaluating the importance of cultivation and collecting in Neolithic Britain. In Fairbairn, A. (ed.), Plants in Neolithic Britain and Beyond, 79–84. Oxford: Oxbow/Neolithic Studies Group Seminar Paper 5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mook, W.G. 1986. Business meeting: recommendations/resolutions adopted by the twelfth International Radiocarbon Conference. Radiocarbon 28, 799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Needham, S. & Spence, T. 1997. Refuse and the formation of middens. Antiquity 71, 77–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollard, J. 1999. ‘These places have their moments’: thoughts on settlement practices in the British Neolithic. In Brück, J. & Goodman, M. (eds), Making Places in the Prehistoric World: themes in settlement archaeology, 76–93. London: University CollegeGoogle Scholar
Pollard, J. 2000. Neolithic occupation practices and social ecologies from Rinyo to Clacton. In Ritchie, A. (ed.), Neolithic Orkney in its European Context, 363–9. Cambridge: McDonald InstituteGoogle Scholar
Pollard, J. 2001. The aesthetics of depositional practice. World Archaeology 33, 315–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowley-Conwy, P. 2000. Through a taphonomic glass, darkly: the importance of cereal cultivation in prehistoric Britain. In Huntley, J. & Stallibrass, S. (eds), Taphonomy and Interpretation, 43–53. Oxford: OxbowGoogle Scholar
Rowley-Conwy, P. 2003. No fixed abode? Nomadism in the northwest European Neolithic. In Burenhult, G. & Westergaard, S. (eds), Stones and Bones: formal disposal of the dead in Atlantic Europe during the Mesolithic–Neolithic interface 6000–3000 BC, 115–44. Oxford: British Archaeological Report S1201Google Scholar
Stuiver, M., Reimer, P., Bard, J., Beck, J., Burr, G., Hughen, K., McCormac, F., van der Plicht, J. & Spurk, M. 1998. INTCAL98 radiocarbon age calibration, 24,000–0 cal BP. Radiocarbon 40, 1041–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, J. 1999. Understanding the Neolithic. London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Wainwright, G. 1972. The excavation of a Neolithic settlement on Broome Heath, Ditchingham, Norfolk. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 38, 1–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittle, A. 1997. Moving on and moving around: Neolithic settlement mobility. In Topping, P. (ed.), Neolithic Landscapes, 15–22. Oxford: Oxbow monograph 86/Neolithic Studies Group Seminar Paper 2Google Scholar
Whittle, A. 1999. The Neolithic period. In Hunter, J. & Ralston, I. (eds), The Archaeology of Britain: an introduction from the Upper Paleolithic to the Industrial Revolution, 58–76. London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar