by Chris Fowler
Manfredini, A. 1972. Il villaggio trincerato di Monte Aquilone nel quadro del Neolitico dell’Italia meridionale. Origini 6, 29–154.
Manfredini, A. 1987.’ Fontanarosa Uliveto. In S.M. Cassano, A. Cazzella, A. Manfredini, and M. Moscoloni (eds), Coppa Nevigata e il suo territorio: testimonianze archeologiche dal VII al II millennio a.C., 81–84. Rome: Edizioni Quasar.
Morter, J. 1990. The excavations at Capo Alfiere: 1987–present. In J. Carter (ed.), The Chora of Croton: 1983–1989, 14–28. Austin: University of Texas.
Morter, J. 1999. A ‘social’ structure and ‘social structure’. In R.H. Tykot, J. Morter, and J. Robb (eds), Social dynamics of the prehistoric central Mediterranean, 83–96. London: Accordia Research Institute.
Orsi, P. 1890. Stazione Neolitica di Stentinello (Siracusa). Bullettino di Paletnologia Italiana 16, 177–200.
Orsi, P. 1921. Megara Hyblaea 1917–1921. Villaggio Neolitico e tempio greco arcaico, e di taluni singolarissimi vasi di Paternò. Monumenti Antichi 27, 109–150.
Patroni, G. 1898. Un villaggio siculo presso Matera nell’antica Puglia. Monumenti Antichi 8, 417–520.
Radina, F. 2002. Le ricerche archeologiche nell’insediamento Neolitico del Pulo di Molfetta. In F. Radina (ed.), La preistoria della Puglia: paesaggi, uomini e tradizioni di 8,000 anni fa, 101–112. Bari: Mario Adda.
Rellini, U. 1925. Matera: scavi preistorici a Serra d’Alto. Notizie degli Scavi di Antichità 50, 257–295.
Rellini, U. 1929. Nuove osservazioni sull’età Eneolitica ed Enea nel territorio di Matera. Atti e Memorie della Società Magna Grecia 1929, 129–147.
Ridola, D. 1926. Le grande trincee preistoriche di Matera. Bullettino di Paletnologia Italiana 46, 134–174.
Robb, J. 2007. The early Mediterranean village: agency, material culture, and social change in Neolithic Italy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Robb, J., Mallegni, F., and Ronco, D. 1991. New human remains from the southern Italian Neolithic: Ripa Tetta and Latronico. Rivista di Antropologia 69, 125–144.
Salvadei, L. and Macchiarelli, R. 1983. Studi antropologici. In S.M. Cassano and A. Manfredini (eds), Studi sul Neolitico del Tavoliere della Puglia: indagine territoriale in un’area-campione, 253–268. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Skeates, R. 2000. The social dynamics of enclosure in the Neolithic of the Tavoliere, south-east Italy. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 13, 155–188.
Skeates, R. 2005. Visual culture and archaeology: art and social life in prehistoric south-east Italy. London: Duckworth.
Tinè, S. 1961. Notizie preliminare su recenti scavi nel villaggio Neolitico di Stentinello. Archivio Storico Siracusano 7, 113–117.
Trump, D.H. 1987. Excavations in 1949–63. In G.D.B. Jones (ed.), Apulia, volume I: Neolithic settlement in the Tavoliere, 117–136. London: Society of Antiquaries of London.
Venturo, D. 1996. Rassegna archeologica. Altamura: Rivista Storica 37, 247–264.
CHAPTER 42
CAUSEWAYED ENCLOSURES IN NORTHERN AND WESTERN EUROPE
NIELS H. ANDERSEN
INTRODUCTION
CAUSEWAYED enclosures, also referred to as causewayed camps, Erdanlagen, enceintes interrompues, and Sarupanlæg, are one of the most widely distributed types of Neolithic monument, dating from the second half of the fifth millennium and the fourth millennium BC. They are characterized by a system of ditches or segmented ditches which, like oblong pearls on a string, enclose areas of up to several hectares. One or more palisade trenches, located concentric with or parallel to the ditches and banks (and also often segmented), are also occasionally found. Causewayed enclosures are typical of the Chasséen, Matignon, Peu-Richard, and Noyen cultures of northern France and adjacent countries (from the late fifth millennium), the Michelsberg culture of western Germany and eastern France (late fifth and beginning fourth millennium BC), the Windmill Hill culture of southern England (first part of the fourth millennium BC), the Wartberg culture of central eastern Germany (the middle of the fourth millennium BC), and the Funnel Beaker culture of the north European plain (the second part of the fourth millennium BC).
The first example of a causewayed enclosure in western and northern Europe was discovered in 1882, when Baron Eschasseriaux found the Peu-Richard enclosure in western France (Joussaume and Marsac 1977, 21). Two years later, the name-giving enclosure at the hill of Michelsberg near Bruchsal-Untergrombach in Germany was found, followed in 1908 by the first site—Knap Hill—in England. Here Cunnington observed that causeways divided up the ditches into a series of segments. In the late 1920s the English amateur archaeologist Alexander Keiller undertook intensive excavations at Windmill Hill (Smith 1965; Whittle et al. 1999), identifying many of the key aspects of causewayed enclosures, and in 1971 the first Scandinavian enclosure was found at Sarup in Denmark. About one thousand sites are now known—from southern Portugal to Sweden and from western Ireland to Poland (Fig. 42.1; cf. Andersen 1997; Darvill and Thomas 2001; Oswald et al. 2001; Jeunesse and Seidel 2010; Müller 2010; Márquez-Romero and Jiménez-Jáimez 2013)—many discovered by aerial reconnaissance (Braasch 2010). Neolithic enclosures with segmented ditches are also found elsewhere in Europe, for example on the Foggia plain in Italy (Skeates, this volume, ch. 41), and early examples are known from the Linearbandkeramik culture of the sixth millennium BC (Petrasch, this volume; see also Andersen 1997, 172–179). In coming years we can expect many new discoveries, their current distribution being largely accidental.
FIG. 42.1. Extent of late fifth millennium and fourth millennium BC enclosure distribution.
The character of these sites has been debated for decades (Thomas 1991, 33), but the past 25 years have given us better excavation methods, coupled with several large-scale excavations, an improved chronological framework, and, in some areas, intensive studies of contemporary settlements. Within the past decade many key sites have been published. This paper cannot possibly provide a synthesis of all this evidence, but it can offer a selection to demonstrate key characteristics. The most recent excavations and publications from north-west Europe will be relied upon.
ENCLOSURE LAYOUT
Their shape was governed by an aim to enclose, or ‘wrap’, a particular area. They can be entirely enclosed by earthworks or instead be formed with the aid of steep slopes, watercourses, and/or post-built fences. Through a combination of such elements, enclosures could assume the form of a circle, an oval, a spiral, a triangle, a large D-shape, or a keyhole (Fig. 42.2). They seem to have been laid out according to a definite strategy, often resulting in a ground plan which, to our eyes, was not the most practical, such as on a promontory where the ditches do not run across the shortest distance between two slopes (e.g. the northern part of Sarup I in Denmark, Fig. 42.2j). Sites can be on or close to the highest point in the landscape, or conversely, so low they must have flooded for part of the year, as at Etton, England (Pryor 1998, 351). Many sites are located on slopes with a gradient of 5–10%. These are always completely enclosed by ditches and normally do not incorporate the highest point (Fig. 42.2d). An enclosure sited on sloping ground could be more visible, but Neolithic landscapes were often covered with trees. At some sites, for example Bury Hill in England (Bedwin et al. 1981, 76, 85), shade-seeking snails were found in the ditches, indicating surrounding dense forest. We cannot therefore be sure that enclosures could be seen from a great distance. Some sites incorporate or are located by watercourses, but others are located away from drinking water, for instance Robin Hood’s Ball, England, which was some 4km from the nearest source (Barker and Webley 1978, 172).
FIG. 42.2. Selected causewayed enclosures: A. Chez Reine, Matignon and Peu-Richardien culture, France (after Burnez 1993, 74); B. La Coterelle, Matignon and Peu-Richardien culture, France (after Cassen and Boujot 1990, 457); C. Noyen I and II, Noyen culture, France (after Mordant and Mordant 1988, 236, fig. 13.3); D. Mayen, Michelsberg culture, Germany (after Eckert 1990, abb. 3); E. Bruchsal-Aue, Michelsberg culture, Germany (after Behrends 1994, abb. 15); F. Bri
ar Hill, Windmill Hill culture, England (after Bamford 1985, fig. 42.2); G. Haddenham, Windmill Hill culture, England (after Evans and Hodder 2006, fig. 5.49A); H. Freston, Windmill Hill culture, England (after Evans and Hodder 2006, fig. 5.49B); I. Orsett, Windmill Hill culture, England (after Evans and Hodder 2006, fig. 5.49E); J. Sarup I, Funnel Beaker culture (TRB-North), Denmark (after Andersen 1997, fig. 284f); K. Sarup II, Funnel Beaker culture (TRB-North), Denmark (after Andersen 1997, fig. 284g); L. Büdelsdorf, Funnel Beaker culture (TRB-North), Germany (after Andersen 1997, fig. 284g).
In a number of areas enclosures are spaced regularly and some researchers have tried to create territories to demonstrate their function as higher order sites in a settlement hierarchy (Renfrew 1983, 132). Elsewhere, sites occur close together: La Chasse and Chez Reine in France lie only 0.8km apart; Sarup I and Sarup Gamle Skole XII are only 0.5 km from each other (Andersen 2008, fig. 5); and at Niedersickte, a little south of Braunschweig in Germany, three sites are located only c. 70m apart (Geschwinde and Raetzel-Fabian 2009, abb. 84). Of course, we cannot be sure they were in use at the same time, but the people who used them must have known of each other’s existence. Burial mounds, such as longbarrows or megalithic graves, are often located close by (Andersen 1997, 282; 2011). Normally, it seems as if enclosures were placed 5km from one another (Mordant 1992, 77; Boas 2001, 8).
Whilst everywhere the intention was to enclose an area with system-ditches—a term which, unlike ‘segmented ditches’, stresses that the ditches are separate units within a system and not one long ditch broken by causeways—there were nonetheless regional differences. In England, we often find sites with shorter ditches all the way round, often joined by even smaller ones, as at Windmill Hill (Whittle et al. 1999, fig. 22). In western France we find the same, but also with a ‘crab’s claw’ placed outside a break in the row of ditches (Fig. 42.2b) (Joussaume 1988, fig. 16.10–16.12). In Germany many shorter ditches are often united into larger segments and placed in up to five concentric rows (Günther 1991, 19).
The form of the ditches can vary greatly. Normally they were originally about 1m deep, 2–4m wide, and 5–7m long, but some are only 0.16m deep, whilst others reach more than 2m in depth. Through re-cutting, ditches can be united into longer sections (Andersen 1997, fig. 46; Mercer and Healy 2008, 54); a ditch produced in this way will often have an irregular outline and careful excavation can distinguish its individual phases (Fig. 42.3) (Andersen 1997, 46, fig. 46; Evans and Hodder 2006, fig. 5.40). As a rule, the base of the ditch is horizontal, flat, and about 1m wide. However, those of the Kleiner Heldenberg enclosure in Germany have a flat but sloping base (Heege et al. 1990, abb. 3), and at Hambledon Hill, in England, the Main Enclosure has the same (Mercer and Healy 2008, fig. 3.25). At several sites the ditches have pits, specially dug shafts, or platforms along their bottoms which may be associated with special finds like chisels, axes, deliberately fragmented pottery, animal bones, and inhumations (Andersen 1997, 284; see below). Platforms were found at Sarup I (Andersen 1997, 44, fig. 44), and at Haddenham and Briar Hill in England, where an axe fragment and cremated human bone respectively were placed on top (Bamford 1980, 363; Evans and Hodder 2006, 253–255).
FIG. 42.3. Re-cutting of ditch A610, Sarup II, Denmark. All the re-cuts were within a fenced enclosure of large posts.
Often, artefacts left on the base of ditches were covered rapidly, but in some cases ditches remained open for a while, providing an opportunity for woodland snails to accumulate or for small bushes to grow, as at Etton (Pryor 1998, 127). Stone-set hearths and fireplaces, along with associated activities, were often located here. Human skulls have been found among their stone spreads, as at Gravon in northern France (Tarrête 1983, 224), and at Motagan I, also in France, human bones were covered by a slab (Boujot et al. 1985, 7). Elsewhere, there are large stones, and at Sarup Gamle Skole XII a very small dolmen typical of the Funnel Beaker culture was found, with an inner chamber measuring 1.1m by 0.7m. About a third of a funnel beaker had been deliberately broken into 148 pieces, each about 2cm by 3cm, and placed in front of the dolmen (Andersen 2000, 27, 54).
It is uncertain for how long ditches remained open and accessible. In some the lowest 10 to 20cm could be filled with a layer of fine-grained silt blown or washed in from the side walls. It could accumulate in just a few days (Andersen 1997, fig. 49), and during excavations at Sarup, strong wind or heavy rain produced such a layer in only a few hours. Heavy rain at the German site of Klingenberg gave the same results (Seidel 2008, abb. 176). Of the 80 or so ditch segments at Sarup only one profile has these rapidly formed layers, all the others being without silt! These ditches must either have been rapidly backfilled after their original cutting or the silt was removed before refilling. The same can be said of many other sites, like Diesknöll in northern Germany (Müller 2010, 256) or the enclosures of the German Braunschweiger region (Geschwinde and Raetzel-Fabian 2009, 245). Elsewhere, ditches seem to have been left open, as at Etton, where shrubs grew (Pryor 1998, 356).
Above the bottom or primary fill of the ditches there are often layers from systematic backfilling, as if the earth had been thrown in from both sides, a process whereby cultural remains could be incorporated into the ditch. Afterwards ditches were often re-cut. This was usually confined to the original outline of the ditch, but as mentioned, it could join together pairs of ditches into one larger feature (Whittle et al. 1999, fig. 33). Traces of re-cutting have been observed at nearly all sites, and must be regarded as an important and recurrent activity. It often occurred three to four times in each ditch and at Etton up to eight re-cutting events were observed (Pryor 1998, 352). Some re-cutting took place hundreds of years after the original digging of the ditch, with activity confined precisely to the outline of the former ditch (Andersen 1997, 326, n. 127; Raetzel-Fabian 2000, 66, Tafel 41 and 23; Wincentz 1994). Memory of the ditches and the activities within them was very long-lived! The detailed excavations and post-excavation analysis at Windmill Hill revealed a style or grammar dictating how depositions took place within the lifetime of a single ditch (Whittle et al. 1999, 368). That ditches were a place for continued cutting and refilling could recall work in the fields where the ard is drawing the furrow, followed by deliberately placing the seed corn and covering it again (Geschwinde and Raetzel-Fabian 2009, 245).
Banks have been identified at some sites. At Windmill Hill and Knap Hill, England, there are still slight rises on the inner side of the ditches (Oswald 2001, fig. 5.29; Smith 1965, 5–7; Whittle et al. 1999, 73ff), and at the early Funnel Beaker site of Beusterburg in northern Germany, banks are located on both the outer and the inner side of the ditches (Tackenberg 1951). On the other hand, some sites, like Sarup I and II (Fig. 42.4), do not have enough room for large banks along the ditches due to the presence of fenced enclosures. At the English site of Crickley Hill the banks look more like platforms placed inside the ditches (Dixon 1988, fig. 4.4). Calculations of spoil from ditches always indicate the availability of material for only a small bank or heaps of soil (Andersen 1997, 51; Mercer and Healy 2008, fig. 11.1), and the desire to see enclosures as fortifications is not supported by the existence of substantial enough earthworks. Burials were found in one of the banks at Catenoy in France (Blanchet and Martinez 1988, 157).
FIG. 42.4. Fenced enclosures close to palisades: A. Sarup I, Funnel Beaker culture (TRB-North), Denmark (after Andersen 1997, 35–37); B. Langelandsvej-Starup, Funnel Beaker culture (TRB-North), Denmark (after Witte 2009); C. Urmitz, Michelsberg culture, Germany (after Lehner 1910, abb. 6); D. Sarup II, Funnel Beaker culture (TRB-North), Denmark (after Andersen 1997, 66–67); E. Calden Enclosures 5 and 2, Wartberg culture, Germany (after Raetzel-Fabian 2000, abb. 12).
Many sites have palisades, and sometimes this was the main structure that the other features referenced (Dubouloz et al. 1989, 22). In general, palisades vary greatly, consisting of either postholes about 1m apart (e.g. Catenoy, Blanchet et al. 1984, 182), posts placed in a trench around 1m wide and 1m deep (e.g.
Sarup I), or closely-spaced rows of small posts (e.g. Sarup II, Andersen 1997, figs. 29 and 77). Some sites have cross-cutting palisades, others have parallel rows laid out in such a way that they must be contemporary, as at Bazoches in France (Dubouloz et al. 1997, fig. 42.2) and the northern part of Sarup I (Andersen 1997, fig. 36c). The deepest trenches were found at Catenoy, extending down to 2.2m (Blanchet et al. 1984, 182), but most are about 1m deep. At some sites, small hollows were made in their bases which could result from posts of different length being given a level upper edge. We must reckon on posts two or three times the depth of the trench, so between 2–6m high. To construct the palisade at Sarup I about 1,300 posts, each 5m long, were brought to the site, with a total weight of more than 400 tons. Few axes were found on site, suggesting the posts were manufactured elsewhere, and their absence would also account for the levelling of the palisade by digging deeper postholes. Here the palisade remained vertically intact for only a very short period and the remains of rotten posts and sloping postholes indicate they were not removed from the trenches (Andersen 1997, fig. 24, 320, n. 9).
Palisade trenches also contained interesting finds, such as pottery and human bone (see below). In fact, concentrations of finds could be much higher here than in the system-ditches. At Sarup I, only 20% of the palisade trench was excavated, producing a total of 2,261 finds. Of these, 85% were ceramics, representing 278 pots, with sherds from 14 pots in one cluster (Andersen 1997, fig. 60). At Noyen I (Tarrête 1983, fig. 21) and Sarup I (Andersen 1997, fig. 266), objects had originally been placed against the palisade’s outer face, whilst the inner face was emphasized elsewhere, as at the Michelsberg site of Thieusies in Belgium, where 6,400 pieces of flint per m2 were found (Vermeersch and Walter, 1980, 10). Palisades were clearly an important element of these sites.
