A Research Framework for the Archaeology of Wales
National Seminar Paper, 4th
September 2004 – Neolithic and early
Bronze Age
A draft research agenda for the Neolithic and
early Bronze Age of Wales
1
- The study of later Mesolithic –Earlier Neolithic transitions
Did
farming substitute or supplement the economy of later Mesolithic communities?
What
was the environmental context for transition?
·
Reassessment
of lithics assemblages (eg ‘flint working floors’) especially those with recorded
Meso and Neo artefacts
·
Examination
of locations with mixed date assemblages (eg cave sites) including sub-surface
investigation linked with comprehensive dating programme and
palaeoenvironmental sampling
·
Examination
of submerged forests and coastal wetlands that may have deposits spanning this
crucial period for forager-farming transition – linked to dendro programme
·
Use
of isotope analysis and C14 dating
2
- The introduction, character and development of agricultural practices
How
significant was arable farming during the earlier Neolithic?
Were
non-intensive farming practices (with long fallow agriculture) added to
activities already being undertaken by Meso groups?
Were
early Neol populations of SW Wales essentially pastoralists?
What
is the evidence for the co-existence of different socio-economic groups?
Do
we see a change in farming practice during late 3rd M early 2nd
M with more intensive farming and shorter fallow periods?
What
was the attitude toward land ownership? Was there a change in concept from one
of right of access to land (by essentially mobile communities) to one of
ownership and family tenure (by essentially settled communities)?
·
Essential
to undertake comprehensive palynological and other palaeoenvirnomental.
Sampling programmes from all excavated Neo and EBA sites and other programmes
of archaeological work.
·
Examination
of buried land surfaces beneath funerary and ritual monuments. Also under later
prehistoric earthworks and enclosure banks.
·
The
application of new scientific techniques such as lipid analysis. A potential
dataset exists in museum collections and other archives.
·
Examination
of known field systems (with regard to date and nature) and prospection
(through Aps etc) for others.
3
– The identification of settlement
Why
is the settlement evidence at variance with the data from Ireland and the
continent?
Was
the earlier Neolithic landscape and settlement characterized by its mobility?
Was
there a change to more permanent settlement during the later Neol/earlier Bronze
Age?
·
Early
sites are rarely found using existing fieldwork strategies. This may in part
reflect the nature of early settlement in which permanent places were
rare/special. There is a need to test this by more innovative locational strategies
– eg greater use of remote sensing (phosphate surveys, magnetic susceptibility
surveys) and perhaps closer investigation of apparent blank zones in areas of
known activity (eg during topsoil stripping of developments).
·
There
is a need for better training for field staff in likely nature of artefacts and
features.
·
Review
of known artefact distributions as established by lithics surveys to examine
pattering and landscape zones, followed by targeted fieldwalking transects to
provide reliable quantitative comparanda and to define spatial extent of
clusters.
·
Reassessment
of the locations of known artefact scatters, using targeted and close interval
remote sensing techniques.
4
- The study of how different landscape zones were exploited from the 5th
to the 2nd millennium BC
Were
earlier Neol farmers essentially confined to lowland environments as suggested
by distribution of chambered tombs?
Was
there only a move into the uplands following population pressures during later
Neol?
Were
there more complex arrangements with different responses to different landscape
zones?
Was
there greater agricultural diversification during the later Neolithic?
What
is the evidence for seasonal variations in the exploitation of upland zones?
·
Consolidation
of existing landscape evidence to examine different zones through time
·
Development
of survey and fieldwork techniques to undertake comparative mapping of
different landscape zones
5 - The development, role and use of ceremonial and
funerary monuments and their environs
What
can monuments tell us about the nature of society?
What
was the relationship between different monuments and between monuments and the
wider landscape?
What
can the immediate environs tell us about the development, role and use of
monuments? – this is particularly pertinent in the light of an ongoing threat
to the non-visible elements of monument complexes.
·
The
development of terrain modelling, examining visual relationships between
individual and groups of monuments and between monuments and their topographic
settings.
·
Analysis
of the use of space to consider monument complexes from the literal and
figurative viewpoint of users.
·
Identification
of landscapes that were re-used or avoided (due to the ‘historical knowledge of
past communities’) though an examination of monument complexes with evidence
for multi-period use.
·
Fieldwork
should include examination of the spaces between individual monuments and
monument complexes and not simply focus on the monuments themselves.
·
Site
archives need to be assessed so that the integrity of the data can be
evaluated. Any unpublished excavation archives need to be studied and brought
to publication.
·
Dating – the examination of existing archives
and/or archaeological intervention to obtain dating material for intra-site
sequences. The development
of new techniques (eg the dating of cremations) and a review of existing C14
dating and key sequences using modern calibration techniques (eg Bayesian
algorithms) may allow a developed absolute chronology to be constructed from
archive material.
6
- Industrial processes and access to resources and trade connections
Where
were the stone axe production sites/quarries (if formal quarries existed)?
Was
the exploitation of quarries for stone axe production formalised or ritualised
with working restricted to certain groups and times or was it more casual with
people making axes whenever they needed them?
Did
this change during the EBA – both for stone and metal ores?
Is
the evidence for the exploitation of metal ores confined to north Ceredigion?
What
were the mechanisms for dispersal? Was the raw material or finished products
formally traded (by merchant class) or passed hand to hand by neighbours?
Was
there a seaborne trade?
What
was the nature of the contact with the east (flint, axes and pottery) and with
the west (styles of tomb architecture)? Was there a change in emphasis during
the later Neolithic?
What
is the evidence for routeways across mountains or coast?
·
Systematic
programme of fieldwork and rock outcrop characterisation linked to existing
petrographic data is needed to identify stone axe production sites.
·
Improved
provenancing of Bronze Age metal artefacts linked to geochemical fingerprinting
of Welsh ore deposits – as a means to identify sources of raw material.
·
Review
of excavated evidence for metal ore processing.
·
Review
of evidence for marine/estuarine exploitation
7
- The distribution and context of material culture deposition
What
can we understand about the nature and use of material culture through its
depositional context?
What
was the nature of Neolithic stone axe and BA metalwork deposition?
·
Re-assessment
of distribution and context of artefact locations – both hoards and individual
finds
·
Examination
of the context of deposition of artefacts within sites
·
Re-assessment
of existing archives – examining potential for further analysis (eg
microwear, radiocarbon dating, lipid
and other residue analysis etc). As first stage the development to f
comprehensive review of all major excavated sites.
·
Examination
of threatened wetland sites
·
The
need to integrate research programmes with agri-environment schemes – eg to
protect vulnerable sites from ploughing
·
Identification
of rich period landscapes for future study, evaluation and protection
·
Continued
maintenance and enhancement of the SMRs/HERs to reflect fieldwork undertaken by
field workers and the development and enhancement of the SMRs/HERs as a tool
that can be queried by researchers, and to which they can contribute.
·
Maintain
and develop links between those active in research through meetings/email
newsgroup.
Paper prepared by:Gwilym Hughes (Cambria Archaeology) with the support of Alex Gibson and
Martin Locock, 26th August 2004
This
document’s copyright is held by contributors and sponsors of the Research
Framework for the Archaeology of Wales.