Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T03:12:02.569Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Catholme Ceremonial Complex, Staffordshire, UK

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 March 2013

Henry P. Chapman ,
Mark Hewson ,
Margaret S. Watters ,
Lawrence Barfield ,
Christopher Bronk Ramsey ,
Gordon Cook ,
Rowena Gale ,
Pam Grinter ,
Derek Hamilton  and
Rob Ixer
...Show all authors
Henry P. Chapman
Affiliation:
IBM Visual & Spatial Technology Centre, Birmingham Archaeology, Institute of Archaeology and Antiquity, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK, B15 2TT
Mark Hewson
Affiliation:
Atkins Heritage Water & Environment, The Axis, 10 Holliday Street, Birmingham, UK, B1 1TF
Margaret S. Watters
Affiliation:
IBM Visual & Spatial Technology Centre, Birmingham Archaeology, Institute of Archaeology and Antiquity, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK, B15 2TT
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

During the 1960s and 1970s, aerial reconnaissance on the northern side of the confluence of the Rivers Trent, Tame, and Mease in Staffordshire revealed a cluster of features indicative of prehistoric ceremonial activity. Some of the features within the cluster are morphologically unique, but a lack of previous investigation meant that their dating, phasing, and function were unknown. This paper details the results of a multi-disciplinary approach to addressing these questions about the complex and to place it into its contemporary landscape context. The results indicate that the complex represents numerous phases of symbolic and ceremonial activity extending from the late Neolithic and into the early Bronze Age. Furthermore, it has shown how these structures fit within a wider landscape of ceremonial activity extending back to the earlier Neolithic and continuing into the Bronze Age.

Résumé

Au cours des années 1960 et 1970, des reconnaissances aériennes du côté nord du confluent des rivières Trent, Tame, et Mease dans le Staffordshire ont révélé un groupe de vestiges témoignant d'une activité cérémonielle préhistorique. Certains des vestiges de ce groupe se sont avérés uniques par leur morphologie, mais l'absence d'investigation antérieure signifiait que leur datation, leur évolution et leur fonction nous restaient inconnues. Cette étude détaillée relate les résultats d'une approche multidisciplinaire pour trouver la solution aux questions soulevées par ce complexe et le placer dans le contexte du paysage contemporain. Les résultats indiquent que le complexe représente de nombreuses phases d'activité symbolique et cérémonielle qui s'étendent du néolithique final jusqu'au début de l'âge du bronze. De plus, ils ont montré comment ces structures se positionnaient dans le cadre du paysage plus étendu d'activités cérémonielles remontant au néolithique ancien et se prolongeant à l'âge du bronze.

Résumen

Durante los años 60 y 70, el reconocimiento aéreo del lado norte de la confluencia de los ríos Trent, Tame y Mease en Staffordshire reveló un grupo de estructuras indicativas de actividad ceremonial prehistórica. Algunas de las estructuras del grupo son morfológicamente únicas, pero la falta de investigación previa significó que su datación, sus fases, y su función eran desconocidas. Este trabajo detalla los resultados de un enfoque multidisciplinario para tratar de estas preguntas acerca del complejo y ponerlo en el contexto contemporáneo de su paisaje. Los resultados indican que el complejo representa numerosas fases de actividad simbólica y ceremonial que se extienden desde el Neolítico tardío hasta la Primera Edad del Bronce. Además, se ha demostrado cómo estas estructuras encajan en un paisaje más amplio de actividad ceremonial que se remonta al Primer Neolítico y continúa hasta comenzada la Edad del Bronce.

Zusammenfassung

Bei Lufterkundungen wurde in den 1960er und 1970er Jahren eine Gruppe von Befunden nördlich des Zusammenflusses der Flüsse Trent, Tame und Mease in Staffordshire erkannt, die auf prähistorische kultische Praktiken hinwiesen. Einige der Befunde sind morphologisch einzigartig, doch durch den bisherigen Mangel an Untersuchungen waren ihre Datierung, Epochenstellung und Funktion unbekannt. In diesem Beitrag werden die Ergebnisse einer multidisziplinären Untersuchung vorgestellt, mit denen Antworten auf diese Fragen gesucht wurden und der Zeremonialkomplex in seinen räumlichen und zeitlichen Kontext gestellt wurde. Die Resultate lassen den Schluss zu, dass der Komplex zahlreiche Phasen symbolischer und zeremonieller Aktivitäten repräsentiert, die vom späten Neolithikum bis in die frühe Bronzezeit reichen. Darüber hinaus kann gezeigt werden, wie die Befunde in eine ausgedehnte Landschaft zeremonieller Aktivitäten eingebunden sind, die bis in das frühe Neolithikum zurück reichen und sich in die Bronzezeit hinein fortsetzen.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , Volume 76 , 2010 , pp. 135 - 163
Copyright
Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 2010

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

Ashmore, P. 1999. Radiocarbon dating: avoiding errors by avoiding mixed samples. Antiquity 73, 124–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barclay, G.J. 1983. Sites of the third millennium bc to the first millennium ad at North Mains, Strathallan, Perhshire. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 113, 122–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barclay, G. & Bayliss, A. 1999. Cursus monuments and the radiocarbon problem. In Barclay, A. & Harding, J. (eds), Pathways and Ceremonies – the Cursus Monuments of Britain and Ireland, 11–29. Oxford: Neolithic Studies Group Seminar Paper 4/OxbowGoogle Scholar
Barclay, G.J. & Maxwell, G.S. 1998. The Cleaven Dyke and Littletour: monuments in the Neolithic of Tayside. Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland Monograph 13Google Scholar
Barfield, L.H. 1997. Caught short in Shropshire. Lithics 17/18, 66–9Google Scholar
Bartlett, A.D.H. 1999. Catholme Farm, Staffordshire, Report on Archaeogeophysical survey. Bartlett-Clark Consultancy, unpublished reportGoogle Scholar
Bartley, D.D. & Morgan, A.V. 1990. The palynological record of the King's Pool, Stafford, England. New Phytologist 74, 375–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, P. 1999. The worked flint. In Gibson, A., The Walton Basin Project: excavation and survey in a prehistoric landscape, 49–79. York: Council for British Archaeology Research Report 118Google Scholar
Bradley, R. & Chambers, R. 1988. A new study of the cursus complex at Dorchester upon Thames. Oxford Archaeological Journal 7, 271–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C. 1995. Radiocarbon calibration and analysis of stratigraphy. Radiocarbon 36, 425–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C. 1998. Probability and dating. Radiocarbon 40, 461–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C. 2001. Development of the radiocarbon calibration program. Radiocarbon 43, 355–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C., Higham, T. & Leach, P. 2004. Towards high precision AMS: progress and limitations. Radiocarbon 46, 17–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buck, C.E., Cavanagh, W.G. & Litton, C.D. 1996. Bayesian Approach to Interpreting Archaeological Data. Chichester: WileyGoogle Scholar
Buckley, D.G., Hedges, J.D. & Brown, N. 2001. Excavations at a Neolithic Cursus, Springfield, Essex, 1979–85. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 67, 101–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buteux, S., Brooks, S., Candy, I., Coates, G., Coope, R., Currant, A., Field, M., Greig, J., Howard, A., Limbrey, S., Paddock, E., Schreve, D., Smith, D. & Toms, P. 2003. The Whitemoor Haye Woolly Rhino Site, Whitemoore Haye Quarry, Staffordshire (SK173127): assessment report on scientific investigations funded by the ALSF through a grant administered by English Nature. Unpublished Report, Birmingham University Field Archaeology Unit 1116Google Scholar
Case, H. 1993. Beakers: deconstruction and after. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 59, 241–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, H.P. 2005. Re-thinking the ‘Cursus Problem’ – Investigating the Neolithic landscape archaeology of Rudston, East Yorkshire, UK, using GIS. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 71, 159–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, H.P. & Gearey, B.R. 2000. Palaeoecology and the perception of prehistoric landscapes: some comments on visual approaches to phenomenology. Antiquity 74, 316–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, D.L. 1970. Beaker Pottery of Great Britain and Ireland. Cambridge: University PressGoogle Scholar
Coates, G. 2002. A Prehistoric and Romano-British Landscape: excavations at Whitemoor Haye Quarry, Staffordshire, 1997–1999. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, J.C. 1978. Illustrated Encyclopaedia of Traditional Symbols. London: Thames & HudsonGoogle Scholar
Cornish, V. 1946. The Churchyard Yew and Immortality. London: F. MullerGoogle Scholar
Cummings, V. & Whittle, A. 2003. Tombs with a view: landscape, monuments and trees. Antiquity 77, 255–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cunnington, M.E. 1929. Woodhenge. Devizes: SimpsonGoogle Scholar
Davies, N.S. & Sambrook Smith, G.H. 2006. Signatures of Quaternary fluvial response, Upper River Trent, Staffordshire, UK: a synthesis of outcrop, documentary, and GPR data. Zeitschrift fur Geomorphologie 50, 347–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furestier, R. 2004. Bell Beaker lithic industry: a rediscovered paradise? In Czebreszuk, J. (ed.), Similar but Different. Bell Beakers in Europe, 77–98. Poznan: Adam Mickiewicz UniversityGoogle Scholar
Gale, R. & Cutler, D. 2000. Plants in Archaeology. Kew & Westbury: Kew Botanical GardensGoogle Scholar
Garwood, P. 2003. Round barrows and funerary traditions in Late Neolithic and Bronze Age Sussex. In Rudling, D. (ed.), The Archaeology of Sussex to AD 2000, 47–68. Great Dunham: Heritage Marketing & PublicationsGoogle Scholar
Garwood, P. 2010. The earlier prehistory of the West Midlands. In Watt, S. (ed), The Archaeology of the West Midlands: an agenda for research, 7–100. Oxford: Heritage Marketing & Publishing/OxbowGoogle Scholar
Gelfand, A.E. & Smith, A.F.M. 1990. Sampling approaches to calculating marginal densities. Journal of the American Statistical Association 85, 398–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, A. 1998. Stonehenge and Timber Circles. Stroud: TempusGoogle Scholar
Gibson, A. & Loveday, R. 1989. Excavations at the cursus monument of Aston on Trent, Derbyshire. In Gibson, A. (ed.) Midlands Prehistory, 27–50. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 204Google Scholar
Gilks, W.R., Richardson, S. & Spiegelhalther, D.J. 1996. Markov Chain Monte Carlo in practice. London. Chapman & HallGoogle Scholar
Guilbert, G. 1996. Findern is dead, long live Potlock – the story of a cursus on the Trent gravels. PAST 24, 10–12Google Scholar
Harding, J. & Johnson, B. 2003. The Mesolithic, Neolithic, Neolithic and Bronze Age Archaeology of the Ure-Swale catchment. University of Newcastle: Unpublished report on the Thornborough Prehistoric Project, North YorkshireGoogle Scholar
Hedges, J.D. & Buckley, D.G. 1981. Springfield Cursus and the Cursus Problem. Chelmsford: Essex County Council Occasional Paper 1Google Scholar
Hedges, R.E.M., Bronk, C.R. & Housley, R.A. 1989. The Oxford Accelerator Mass Spectrometry facility: technical developments in routine dating. Archaeometry 31, 99–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodder, M. 1982. The prehistory of the Lichfield area. Transactions of the South Staffordshire Archaeological & Historical Society 12, 13–23Google Scholar
Hughes, E.G. & Hovey, J. 2002. National Memorial Arboretum site, Alrewas. In Coates 2002, 9–12Google Scholar
Jones, A.E. 1992. Catholme, Staffordshire: an archaeological evaluation 1992. Birmingham University Field Archaeology Unit, unpublished report 209Google Scholar
Knight, D. & Howard, A. 2004. From Neolithic to Early Bronze Age: the first agricultural landscapes. In Knight, D. & Howard, A. (eds), Trent Valley Landscapes, 47–77. Great Dunham: Heritage Marketing & PublicationsGoogle Scholar
Limbrey, S. 2000. The buried soil and mound materials. In Hughes, G., The Lockington Gold Hoard: an early Bronze Age barrow cemetery at Lockington, Leicestershire, 82–92. Oxford: OxbowGoogle Scholar
Losco-Bradley, S. 1984. Fatholme. Excavations 1983–84. Unpublished reportGoogle Scholar
Loveday, R. 2004. Contextualising monuments. The exceptional potential of the middle Trent valley. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal 124, 1–12Google Scholar
Loveday, R. 2006. Inscribed Across the Landscape. The cursus Enigma. Stroud: TempusGoogle Scholar
Martin, A. L. 1998: Report on an Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment of land at Fatholme, Staffordshire, Gifford & Partners Ltd, unpublished report 1488A.02R.Google Scholar
Mook, W.G., 1986 Business meeting: recommendations/resolutions adopted by the twelfth international radiocarbon conference. Radiocarbon 28, 799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Needham, S. 2005. Transforming Beaker culture in north-west Europe: processes of fusion and fission. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 66, 151–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oswald, A., Dyer, C. & Barber, M. 2001. The Creation of Monuments. Neolithic Causewayed Enclosures in the British Isles. Swindon: English HeritageGoogle Scholar
Palmer, R. 1976. Interrupted ditched enclosures in Britain: the use of aerial photography for comparative studies. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 42, 161–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearson, M.C. 1956. A pollen analytical investigation of a Bronze Age barrow at Swarkeston, in M. Posnansky, The Bronze Age round barrow at Swarkeston. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal 75, 123–39Google Scholar
Piggott, S. 1955: Neolithic Cultures of the British Isles. Cambridge: University PressGoogle Scholar
Pollard, J. 1992. The Sanctuary, Overton Hill, Wiltshire: a re-examination. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 58, 213–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollard, J. & Robinson, D. 2007. A return to Woodhenge: the results and implications of the 2006 excavations. In Larsson, M. & Pearson, M. Parker (eds), From Stonehenge to the Baltic. Living with Cultural Diversity in the Third Millennium BC, 159–68. Oxford: British Archaeological Report S1692Google Scholar
Reimer, P.J., Baillie, M.G.L., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J.W., Bertrand, C.J.H., Blackwell, P.G., Buck, C.E., Burr, G.S., Cutler, K.B., Damon, P.E., Edwards, R.L., Fairbanks, R.G., Friedrich, M., Guilderson, T.P., Hogg, A.G., Hughen, K.A., Kromer, B., McCormac, G., Manning, S., Bronk Ramsey, C., Reimer, R.W., Remmele, S., Southon, J.R., Stuiver, M., Talamo, S., Taylor, F.W., Plicht, J. van der & Weyhenmeyer, C.E., 2004. IntCal04 Terrestrial radiocarbon age calibration, 0–26 Cal Kyr BP. Radiocarbon 46, 1029–58Google Scholar
Richards, J. 1990. The Stonehenge Environs Project. London: English Heritage Archaeological Report 16Google Scholar
Saville, A. 1982. Carrying cores to Gloucestershire. Lithics 2, 25–8Google Scholar
Saville, A. 2006. The early Neolithic lithic assemblages in Britain: some chronological considerations. In Allard, P., Bostyn, F. & Zimmermann, A. (eds), Contribution des matériaux lithiques dans la chronologie du néolithique ancient et moyen en France et dans les regions limitrophes, 1–14. Oxford: British Archaeological Report S1494Google Scholar
Slota, P.J., Jull, A.J.T., Linick, T.W. & Toolin, L.J. 1987. Preparation of small samples for 14C accelerator targets by catalytic reduction of CO. Radiocarbon 29, 303–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuiver, M. & Reimer, P.J. 1986. A computer program for radiocarbon age calculation. Radiocarbon 28, 1022–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuiver, M. & Reimer, P.J. 1993. Extended 14C data base and revised CALIB 3.0 14C age calibration program. Radiocarbon 35, 215–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taverner, N. 1996. Evidence for Neolithic activity near Marton-le-Moor, North Yorkshire. In Frodsham, P. (ed.), Neolithic Studies in No Man's Land, 183–7. Northern Archaeology 13/14Google Scholar
Thomas, J. 2007. The internal features at Durrington Walls: investigations in the Southern Circle and Western Enclosures 2005–6. In Larsson, M. & Pearson, M. Parker (eds), From Stonehenge to the Baltic. Living with Cultural Diversity in the Third millennium BC, 145–57. Oxford: British Archaeological Report S1692Google Scholar
Wainwright, G.J. & Longworth, I.H. 1971. Durrington Walls: excavations 1966–1968. London: Report of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London 29Google Scholar
Watters, M. 2007. New Methods for Advanced Archaeogeophysical Data Visualisation. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of BirminghamGoogle Scholar
Whimster, R. 1989. The Emerging Past: air photography and the buried landscape. London: Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of EnglandGoogle Scholar
Woodward, A. 2000. British Barrows: a matter of life and death. Stroud: TempusGoogle Scholar
Woodward, A. 2002. The prehistoric pottery. In Coates 2002, 43–52Google Scholar
Vine, P. 1982. The Neolithic and Bronze Age Cultures of the Middle and Upper Trent Basin. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, G.K. & Wilson, S.R. 1978. Procedures for comparing and combining radiocarbon age determinations: a critique. Archaeometry 20, 19–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodward, A. 2003. Pots, pits and monuments. West Midlands Regional Research Framework for Archaeology, Seminar 1, http://www.archant.bham.ac.uk/wmrrfa/sem1.htmGoogle Scholar
Xu, S., Anderson, R., Bryant, D., Cook, G.T., Dougans, A., Freeman, S., Naysmith, P., Schnabel, C. & Scott, E.M. 2004. Capabilities of the new SUERC 5MV AMS facility for 14C dating. Radiocarbon 46, 59–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar