Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T15:33:49.061Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Marlborough Mound, Wiltshire. A Further Neolithic Monumental Mound by the River Kennet

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2013

Jim Leary ,
Matthew Canti ,
David Field ,
Peter Fowler ,
Peter Marshall  and
Gill Campbell
Jim Leary
Affiliation:
English Heritage, Fort Cumberland, Fort Cumberland Road, Eastney, Portsmouth Email: Jim.Leary@english-heritage.org.uk
Matthew Canti
Affiliation:
English Heritage, Fort Cumberland, Fort Cumberland Road, Eastney, Portsmouth Email: Jim.Leary@english-heritage.org.uk
Peter Marshall
Affiliation:
English Heritage, 1 Waterhouse Square, Holborn, London
Gill Campbell
Affiliation:
English Heritage, Fort Cumberland, Fort Cumberland Road, Eastney, Portsmouth Email: Jim.Leary@english-heritage.org.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recent radiocarbon dates obtained from two soil cores taken through the Marlborough Castle mound, Wiltshire, show the main body of it to be a contemporaneous monument to Silbury Hill, dating to the second half of the 3rd millennium cal bc. In light of these dates, this paper considers the sequence identified within the cores, which includes two possible flood events early in the construction of the mound. It also describes four cores taken through the surrounding ditch, as well as small-scale work to the north-east of the mound. The topographic location of the mound in a low-lying area and close to rivers and springs is discussed, and the potential for Late Neolithic sites nearby is set out, with the land to the south of the mound identified as an area for future research. The paper ends with the prospect that other apparent mottes in Wiltshire and beyond may well also have prehistoric origins

Résumé

Le tertre de Marlborough, Wiltshire. Un autre tertre monumental néolithique le long de la rivière Kennet, de Jim Leary, Matthew Canti, David Field, Peter Fowler, Peter Marshall et Gill Campbell

De récentes datations au carbone 14 provenant de deux carottes de sol prélevées à travers le tertre du château de Marlborough, Wiltshire, montrent que le corps principal était un monument contemporain de Silbury Hill, datant de la seconde moitié du IIIe millénaire av.J.-C. en années calibrées. A la lumière de ces dates, cet article considère la séquence identifiée dans ces carottes qui comprend deux épisodes possibles d'inondation au début de la construction du tertre. Il décrit également quatre carottes prélevées dans le fossé qui l'entoure, ainsi que dans les levées de terre de petite envergure au nord-est du tertre. Nous discutons de la situation topographique du tertre qui se trouve dans une zone de basses terres et proche de cours d'eau et de sources, et nous évoquons la présence éventuelle de sites du néolithique final à proximité, les terres au sud du tertre étant identifiées comme zone pour de futures recherches. L'article se termine sur la perspective que ce qui semble être d'autres mottes dans le Wiltshire et au-delà pourrait bien avoir également des origines préhistoriques

Zussamenfassung

Der Marlborough Mound, Wiltshire. Ein weiterer neolithischer Monumentalhügel am River Kennet, von Jim Leary, Matthew Canti, David Field, Peter Fowler, Peter Marshall und Gill Campbell

Jüngst wurden Radiokarbondaten aus zwei Bohrkernen gewonnen, die am Marlborough Burghügel, Wiltshire, genommen worden waren; sie zeigen, dass der größte Teil des Hügels eine Anlage aus der zweiten Hälfte des 3. Jahrtausends cal bc und damit zeitgleich mit dem Silbury Hill ist. Im Licht dieser Daten erörtert dieser Beitrag die in den Bohrkernen erkennbare Sequenz, die zwei mögliche Überflutungsereignisse in der Frühzeit der Errichtung des Hügels einschließt. Ebenso werden vier weitere Bohrkerne besprochen, die aus dem umgebenden Graben genommen wurden, sowie kleinere Arbeiten im Nordosten des Hügels. Die topographische Lage des Hügels in einer Niederung und nahe an Flüssen und Quellen wird diskutiert und die Möglichkeit spätneolithischer Fundplätze in der näheren Umgebung wird angesprochen, wobei das Land im Süden des Hügels als Areal für zukünftige Forschungen identifiziert wird. Der Beitrag endet mit der Aussicht, dass weitere scheinbare Motten in Wiltshire und darüber hinaus ebenfalls bereits prähistorischen Ursprungs sein könnten

Resumen

El túmulo de Marlborough, Wiltshire. Otro túmulo monumental neolítico en el río Kennet, por Jim Leary, Matthew Canti, David Field, Peter Fowler, Peter Marshall y Gill Campbell

Las recientes dataciones de radiocarbono obtenidas de dos muestras de suelo tomadas en el túmulo del castillo de Marlborough, Wiltshire, reflejan que su cuerpo principal es un monumento contemporáneo a Silbury Hill, datado en la segunda mitad del III milenio cal bc. En función de estas dataciones, este artículo analiza la secuencia identificada en las columnas sedimentarias, que incluyen dos posibles eventos de inundación iniciales en la construcción del túmulo. También se describen cuatro columnas tomadas del foso perimetral, al igual que unos trabajos de menor escala realizados en la zona noreste del túmulo. Se discute la localización topográfica del túmulo en un área baja y cercana a los ríos y arroyos, y se pone de relieve su potencial para los yacimientos del Neolítico Final del entorno, identificando las tierras situadas al sur del túmulo como un área a investigar en el futuro. El artículo finaliza con la expectativa de que otras motas similares en Wiltshire y sus alrededores puedan tener también orígenes prehistóricos

Keywords

Late NeolithicmoundWessexradiocarbon datesriverspringsfloodingmottes
Type
Articles
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , Volume 79 , December 2013 , pp. 137 - 163
Copyright
Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 2013 

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

Anon. 1943. Additions to museum and library. Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Society Magazine 50, 203–204Google Scholar
Atkinson, R.J.C. 1978. Silbury Hill. In R. Sutcliffe (ed.), Chronicle: essays from ten years of television archaeology, 159–173. London: British Broadcasting CorporationGoogle Scholar
Barber, M., Winton, H., Stoertz, C., Carpenter, E., Martin, L. 2010. The brood of Silbury? A remote look at some other sizeable Wessex mounds. In Leary et al. (eds) 2010, 153–73Google Scholar
Bayliss, A. 2009. Rolling out revolution: using radiocarbon dating in archaeology. Radiocarbon 51, 123–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayliss, A., Whittle, A., Healy, F. 2008. Timing, tempo and temporalities in the early Neolithic of southern Britain. In H. Fokkens, B.J. Coles, A.L. van Gijn, J.P. Kleijne, H.H. Ponjee & C.G. Slappendel (eds), Between Foraging and Farming: an extended broad spectrum of papers presented to Leendert Louwe Kooijmans, 26–42. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 40Google Scholar
Best, J. 1997. Appendix: the Marlborough Mound. In A. Whittle, Sacred Mound, Holy Rings. Silbury Hill and the West Kennet Palisade Enclosures: a later Neolithic complex in north Wiltshire, 169–170. Oxford: Oxbow BooksGoogle Scholar
Bonney, D.J., Dunn, C.J. 1989. Earthwork castles and settlement at Hampstead Marshall, Berkshire. In M. Bowden, D. Mackay & P. Topping (eds), From Cornwall to Caithness: some aspects of British field archaeology, 173–182. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 209Google Scholar
Bowden, M.C.B. 2005. The Malvern Hills: an ancient landscape. Swindon: English HeritageGoogle Scholar
Brentnall, H.C. 1912. The Mound. Report of Marlborough College Natural History Society 61, 23–29Google Scholar
Brentnall, H.C. 1914. The Marlborough Castle Mound. Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Society Magazine 38, 112Google Scholar
Brentnall, H.C. 1933. Castellum Merlebergae. Report of Marlborough College Natural History Society 82, 60–104Google Scholar
Brentnall, H.C. 1935. Marlborough Castle. Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Society Magazine 47, 543Google Scholar
Brentnall, H.C. 1936. The curtain wall. Report of Marlborough College Natural History Society 85, 42–47Google Scholar
Brentnall, H.C. 1938. Marlborough Castle. Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Society Magazine 48, 11–12Google Scholar
Brock, F., Higham, T., Ditchfield, P., Bronk Ramsey, C. 2010. Current pretreatment methods for AMS radiocarbon dating at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU). Radiocarbon 52, 103–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooke, J.W. 1890. Notes on the finding of Neolithic flints. Reports of the Marlborough College Natural History Society for 1889, 104–105Google Scholar
Brooke, J.W. 1891. Notes on Neolithic flints. Reports of the Marlborough College Natural History Society for 1890, 103Google Scholar
Brophy, K. 2010. ‘… a place where they tried their criminals’: Neolithic round mounds in Perth and Kinross. In Leary et al. (eds) 2010, 10–27Google Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C. 1995. Radiocarbon calibration and analysis of stratigraphy. Radiocarbon 36, 425–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C. 1998. Probability and dating. Radiocarbon 40, 461–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C. 2001. Development of the radiocarbon calibration program. Radiocarbon 43, 355–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C., Higham, T., Leach, P. 2004. Towards high precision AMS: progress and limitations. Radiocarbon 46, 17–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C. 2009. Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon 51, 337–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camden, W. 1610. Brittannia. Trans R. Gough 1806. London: John StockdaleGoogle Scholar
Canti, M.G., Meddens, F.M. 1998. Mechanical coring as an aid to archaeological projects. Journal of Field Archaeology 25, 97–105Google Scholar
Clark, J.G.D. 1924. Notes on the flint implements on Granham Hill and around Pantawick. Report of the Marlborough College Natural History Society 72, 84–89Google Scholar
Cleal, R., Montague, R. 2001. Neolithic and Early Bronze Age. In AAHRG, Archaeological Research Agenda for the Avebury World Heritage Site, 8–19. Salisbury: Wessex ArchaeologyGoogle Scholar
Creighton, O.H. 2000. Early castles in the medieval landscape of Wiltshire. Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Society Magazine 93, 105–119Google Scholar
Darvill, T., Marshall, P., Parker Pearson, M., Wainwright, G. 2012. Stonehenge remodelled. Antiquity 86 (334), 1021–1040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eve, A.S. 1892. On recent excavations at Marlborough College. Report of Marlborough College Natural History Society 41, 65–69Google Scholar
Field, D. 1999. Field Survey of the Marlborough Mount: an earthen mound at Marlborough College, Wiltshire. Swindon: English Heritage. Unpublished field survey reportGoogle Scholar
Field, D., Martin, L., Winton, H. 2009. The Hatfield Earthworks, Marden, Wiltshire: survey and investigation. Swindon: English Heritage Research Department Report 96-2009Google Scholar
Field, D., Brown, G., Crockett, A. 2001. The Marlborough Mound revisited. Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Society Magazine 94, 195–204Google Scholar
Gale, R., Cutler, D. 2000. Plants in Archaeology: identification manual of vegetative plant materials used in Europe and the south Mediterranean to c. 1500. Kew: Westbury Publishing & Royal Botanic GardensGoogle Scholar
Grinsell, L.V. 1958. The Archaeology of Wessex. London: MethuenGoogle Scholar
Hale, D., Platell, A., Millard, A. 2009. A Late Neolithic palisaded enclosure at Marne Barracks, Catterick, North Yorkshire. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 75, 265–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harding, J. 2012. Henges, rivers and exchange in Neolithic Yorkshire. In A.M. Jones, J. Pollard, M.J. Allen & J. Gardiner (eds), Image, Memory and Monumentality. Archaeological Engagements with the Material World, 43–51. Oxford: Oxbow Books/Prehistoric Society Research Paper 5Google Scholar
Harrison, E. 2001. Neolithic activity in Ducks Meadow, Marlborough. Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Society Magazine 94, 219–223Google Scholar
Hather, J. 2000. The Identification of the Northern European Woods: a guide for archaeologists and conservators. London: ArchetypeGoogle Scholar
Hayman, P.E.C. 1956. The mound. Report of Marlborough College Natural History Society 97, 13–20Google Scholar
Higham, R.A., Barker, P. 1992. Timber Castles. London: BatsfordGoogle Scholar
Hoare, R.C. 1821. The Ancient History of Wiltshire. Vol 2. London: Maver & LepardGoogle Scholar
Kinnes, I. 1979. Round Barrows and Ring Ditches in the British Neolithic. London: British Museum Occasional paper 7Google Scholar
Lacaille, A.D. 1971. Wiltshire palaeoliths. British Museum Quarterly 35(1/4), 69–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leary, J. 2010. Silbury Hill: a monument in motion. In Leary et al. (eds) 2010, 139–52Google Scholar
Leary, J., Field, D. 2010. The Story of Silbury Hill. Swindon: English HeritageGoogle Scholar
Leary, J., Field, D. 2012. Journeys and juxtapositions. Marden henge and the view from the Vale. In A. Gibson (ed.), Enclosing the Neolithic: recent studies in Britain and Europe, 55–65. Oxford: British Archaeological Report S2440Google Scholar
Leary, J., Darvill, T., Field, D. (eds). 2010. Round Mounds and Monumentality in the British Neolithic and Beyond. Oxford: Oxbow Books/Neolithic Studies Group Seminar Papers 10Google Scholar
Leary, J., Field, D., Campbell, G. in press. Silbury Hill: the largest prehistoric mound in Europe. Swindon: English HeritageGoogle Scholar
Leatherdale, J.D. 1958. Survey of the Preshute watermeadows. Report of Marlborough College Natural History Society for 1957, 17–23Google Scholar
Margary, I.D. 1973. Roman Roads in Britain, 3rd edn. London: John BakerGoogle Scholar
Marshall, P., Darvill, T., Parker Pearson, M., Wainwright, G. 2012. Stonehenge, Amesbury, Wiltshire: chronological modelling. English Heritage Research Report Series 1/2012Google Scholar
Marshall, P., Bayliss, A., Leary, J., Campbell, G., Worley, F., Bronk Ramsey, C., Cook, G. in press. The Silbury chronology. In Leary et al. (eds), in pressGoogle Scholar
Maurice, G.K. 1947. [untitled passage] Blackwoods Magazine January 1947 reprinted. In E.G.H. Kempson & G.W. Murray (eds) Marlborough Town and Countryside. Andoversford: WhittingtonGoogle Scholar
McOmish, D., Field, D., Brown, G. 2002. The Field Archaeology of Salisbury Plain Training Area. Swindon: English HeritageGoogle Scholar
Mook, W.G. 1986. Business meeting: recommendations/resolutions adopted by the Twelfth International Radiocarbon Conference. Radiocarbon 28, 799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myres, J.N.L. 1932. Three unrecognised mounds at Hampstead Marshall. Transactions of the Newbury District Field Club 6, 114–126Google Scholar
Peake, H.T.E. 1906. Ancient earthworks. In W. Page (ed.), The Victoria History of Berkshire 1, 251–284. London: St Catherines PressGoogle Scholar
Reimer, P.J., Baillie, M.G.L., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J.W., Blackwell, P.G., Bronk Ramsey, C., Buck, C.E., Burr, G.S., Edwards, R.L., Friedrich, M., Grootes, P.M., Guilderson, T.P., Hajdas, I., Heaton, T.J., Hogg, A.G., Hughen, K.A., Kaiser, K.F., Kromer, B., McCormac, G., Manning, S., Reimer, R.W., Remmele, S., Richards, D.A., Southon, J.R., Talamo, S., Taylor, F.W., Turney, C.S.M., Plicht, J., van der, , Weyhenmeyer, C.E. 2009. INTCAL09 and MARINE09 radiocarbon age calibration curves, 0–50,000 years cal bp. Radiocarbon 51(4), 1111–1150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schweingruber, F. 1982. Microscopic Wood Anatomy: structural variability of stems and twigs in recent and subfossil woods from central Europe. Birmensdorf: Swiss Federal Institute of Forestry ResearchGoogle Scholar
Scott, E.M. 2003. The third international radiocarbon intercomparison (TIRI) and the fourth international radiocarbon intercomparison (FIRI) 1990–2002: results, analyses, and conclusions. Radiocarbon 45, 135–408Google Scholar
Scott, E.M., Cook, G., Naysmith, P. 2010. The fifth international radiocarbon intercomparison (VIRI): an assessment of laboratory performance in stage 3. Radiocarbon 53, 859–865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slota, P.J. Jr, 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, 303–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stenhouse, M.J., Baxter, M.S. 1983. 14C dating reproducibility: evidence from routine dating of archaeological samples. PACT 8, 147–161Google Scholar
Stevenson, J.H. 1983. Preshute. In C.R. Elrington (ed.), Victoria County History: Wiltshire, 12, 160–183. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Stukeley, W. 1776. Itinerarium Curiosum. Facsimile edn 1989. Gregg: FarnboroughGoogle Scholar
Stuiver, M., Kra, R.S 1986. Editorial comment. Radiocarbon 28(2B), iiCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuiver, M., Polach, H.A. 1977. Reporting of 14C data. Radiocarbon 19, 355–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuiver, M., Reimer, P.J. 1986. A computer program for radiocarbon age calculation. Radiocarbon 28, 1022–1030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuiver, M., Reimer, P.J. 1993. Extended 14C data base and revised CALIB 3.0 14C age calibration program. Radiocarbon 35, 215–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, J. 2004. The Later Neolithic architectural repertoire: the case of Dunragit. In R. Cleal & J. Pollard (eds), Monuments and Material Culture: papers in honour of an Avebury archaeologist Isobel Smith, 98–108. Salisbury: HobnobGoogle Scholar
Toulmin-Smith, L. (ed.). 1964. Leland's Itinerary in England and Wales. London: CentaurGoogle Scholar
Vandeputte, K., Moens, L., Dams, R. 1996. Improved sealed-tube combustion of organic samples to CO2 for stable isotope analysis, radiocarbon dating and percent carbon determinations. Analytical Letters 29(15), 2761–2773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, G.K., Wilson, S.R. 1978. Procedures for comparing and combining radiocarbon age determinations: a critique. Archaeometry 20, 19–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitehead, P.G., Edmunds, W.M. 2012. Modelling and reconstruction of the River Kennet palaeohydrology and hydrogeology: Silbury Hill and Avebury in 4,400 bp. Hydrology Research 43(5), 551–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wymer, J. (ed.). 1977. Gazetteer of Mesolithic sites in England and Wales. London: Council for British Archaeology Research Report 20Google Scholar
Xu, S., Anderson, R., Bryant, C., 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