118
Documenta Praehistorica XLVIII (2021)
Introduction
The prevailing view concerning the ‘Neolithisation’
of Britain involves an influx of migrants from con-
tinental Europe towards the end of the 5th millenni-
um cal BC (Cummings, Morris, 2018; Brace et al.
2019), who brought with them a developed agro-pas-
toral regime, potting traditions, and an advanced
know-how for extracting lithic raw materials and
their exchange over great distances (Miles 2016;
Sheridan 2010; see also Edinborough et al. 2020;
Schauer et al. 2020). While evidence for pre-Neoli-
thic contact between continental farmers and Bri-
tish hunter-gatherers suggested to some that farm-
ing spread through the island via processes of accul-
turation, genetic studies indicate that ultimately the
The Freston causewayed enclosure> new research on the
Early Neolithic of Eastern England (Suffolk)
Tristan Carter 1,2, Nathaniel Jackson3, Rose Moir 1, Dana Challinor 5, and Charlotte Diffey4
1 Department of Anthropology, McMaster University, Hamilton, CA
stringy@mcmaster.ca
2 School of Earth, Environment & Society, McMaster University, Hamilton, CA
3 DigVentures, Barnard Castle, Durham, UK
4 School of Archaeology, Geography and Environmental Science, University of Reading, UK
5 High Ellermire Farm, Chop Gate, North Yorkshire, UK
ABSTRACT – Current models view southeast England as where Neolithic lifeways were first intro-
duced to Britain from continental Europe c. 4000 cal BC, however, there has been little work detail-
ing this process in coastal East Anglia. In 2019, work at the Freston causewayed enclosure provid-
ed the first view of a major gathering space associated with semi-mobile farming communities of
the Early Neolithic in the county of Suffolk and located on a major estuary close to the North Sea.
Excavation produced a rich assemblage of worked flint and Mildenhall Ware pottery (potentially for
feasting), plus evidence for the consumption of cereals and hazelnuts.
IZVLE∞EK – S trenutnimi modeli vidimo jugovzhodno Anglijo kot prostor, kamor je ok. 4000 pr. n.
∏t. prvi≠ prispel neolitski na≠in ∫ivljenja v Veliko Britanijo iz kontinentalne Evrope. Do sedaj je bilo
znanih le malo podatkov o tem, kako je ta proces potekal na priobalnem obmo≠ju vzhodne Anglije.
Leta 2019 so nam raziskave ograde z nasipi v Frestonu omogo≠ile prvi vpogled na velik prostor za
zbiranje, ki je vezan na delno mobilne poljedelske skupnosti iz zgodnjega neolitika v okro∫ju Suffolk
in se nahaja ob glavnem izlivu blizu Severnega morja. Z izkopavanji smo pridobili bogat zbir obdela-
nih kamnitih orodij in lon≠enino tipa Mildenhall (morda uporabljena za pogostitve) ter dokaze o
u∫ivanju ∫it in le∏nikov.
KEY WORDS – Britain; East Anglia; Neolithisation; Early Neolithic; causewayed enclosure; social gath-
ering
KLJU∞NE BESEDE – Velika Britanija; vzhodna Anglija; neolitizacija; zgodnji neolitik; ograda z nasi-
pom; dru∫abno sre≠anje
Frestonska ograda z nasipi>
nova raziskava zgodnjega neolitika v vzhodni Angliji (Suffolk)
DOI> 10.4312\dp.48.6
The Freston causewayed enclosure> new research on the Early Neolithic of Eastern England (Suffolk)
119
sites made-up of clusters of round or oval pits con-
taining pottery, worked and burnt flint, and charred
plant remains inter alia (Garrow 2006). These fea-
tures are interpreted as the remnants of what were
short-term seasonal settlements of particular places
that were likely (re)occupied over time by small-
scale mobile agro-pastoral family groups, with little
evidence for the construction of permanent struc-
tures. The current wisdom would not associate these
sites with the Earliest Neolithic, i.e. the phase of co-
lonisation, but rather the subsequent Early Neolithic
[EN] period of the later 38th century cal BC onwards
(Whittle et al. 2011.875–878).
The most well-known pit cluster site in Suffolk is
Hurst Fen, Mildenhall at the western end of the coun-
ty on a tributary of the River Great Ouse (Clark et
al. 1960). The excavation of this site gave us ‘Milden-
hall Ware’, a primarily East Anglian iteration (Healy
2013.14–16) of a wider EN Decorated Bowl tradi-
tion that appeared across southern Britain begin-
ning in the 38th to 37th centuries cal BC (Gibson
indigenous population was largely replaced over
time (cf. Thomas 2008).
A major synthesis and Bayesian analysis of radio-
carbon dates from Neolithic sites in Britain and Ire-
land has generated a robust model concerning the
introduction and spread of Neolithic activity through-
out the British Isles (Whittle et al. 2011). Perhaps
unsurprisingly, given its proximity to the mainland,
the initial colonisation (‘Earliest Neolithic’) appears
to have entered southeast England around 4050 cal
BC (Fig. 1). Neolithic subsistence and other practices
thereafter moved into south central England (‘Early
Neolithic’) by the second half of the 38th century cal
BC (Whittle et al. 2011.848–861, Fig. 15.8). This pa-
per engages with some of these issues, with specific
reference to that region of southeast Britain referred
to as ‘East Anglia’ (here defined as the counties of
Suffolk, (north) Essex, Norfolk, and Cambridgeshire).
Our specific focus is the Early Neolithic [EN] ‘cause-
wayed enclosure’ at Freston, on the Shotley penin-
sula in southeast Suffolk (Fig. 2).
It is not unreasonable to suggest that
the introduction of domesticated
plants and animals into the East
Anglia area was partly achieved by
waterborne movement, considering
the cross-channel seafaring capabil-
ities of the original farming popula-
tions and the proximity of East An-
glian Neolithic sites to rivers (Gar-
row 2006.20, Figs. 3.9–3.11; Healy
et al. 2011.263–265, Fig. 6.1; Mar-
tin 1999). Whether we are dealing
with the budding-off of initial colo-
nist populations from the south, or
a direct influx of farmers from across
the North Sea to the east, we suggest
that their settlement of Suffolk was
achieved via the major river courses
(Garrow 2006.16, Fig. 3.5). These
major rivers comprise the Orwell,
Deben and Alde, with the Stour on
Suffolk’s southern boundary, and the
Waveney to the north (Fig. 2). While
this constitutes an obvious area to
research the processes involved in
the ‘Neolithisation’ of Britain, there
has hitherto been little dedicated
fieldwork in this part of East Anglia.
Thus far, only a handful of Neolithic
sites have been excavated in Suffolk,
mainly in the form of occupation
Fig. 1. Interpretive map of suggested dates, source areas and direc-
tions in the spread of Neolithic objects and practices across Britain
and Ireland (modified from Whittle et al. 2011.Fig. 15.8 and repro-
duced with permission). 
Tristan Carter, Nathaniel Jackson, Rose Moir, Charlotte Diffey, and Dana Challinor
120
2012.73–74, Fig. 34; Smith 1956; Whittle et
al. 2011.875). There is also Reydon Farm in
northeast Suffolk, close to the River Blyth that
runs into the North Sea, which is the only site
in the county with published radiocarbon
dates for the EN (Harding et al. 2017). EN pit
clusters have also been excavated at Sutton
Hoo, situated above the River Deben, a few
kilometres inland from the coast (Hummler
2005). More broadly, pit cluster sites are now
appreciated as a ’particularly prevalent’ phe-
nomenon in East Anglia compared to else-
where in EN southern Britain (Garrow 2012.
4). The largest numbers are known from the
Fen edge in Cambridgeshire and Norfolk (Fig.
2), most notably the well-published examples
of Sutton Gault North Fen, Broome Heath,
Kilverstone, and Spong Hill (Wainwright
1972; Garrow et al. 2006; Healy 2013; Tabor
2016).
While EN British society is typified by dis-
persed, small-scale communities, there were
times when these populations came together
in formal settings to initiate and maintain so-
cial relations between groups (Edmonds 1999.80–
108). From the 38th century cal BC onwards, these
social gatherings began to take place at a type of mo-
nument referred to as a ‘causewayed enclosure’
(Whittle et al. 2011.xi). These earthworks represent
Britain’s earliest known enclosures of open space.
Comprised largely of interrupted bank and ditch
systems (often rounded in shape), the numerous
causewayed entrances suggesting that their primary
purpose was neither defensive, nor for corralling
livestock (Oswald et al. 2001). Ranging in size from
0.4 to 26ha, the monuments’ construction likely re-
quired a workforce drawn from several communities
(cf. Ashbee, Cornwall 1961), whereby their very
creation would have served to cement inter-group
connectivity.
The past 20 years have witnessed the publication of
several major works on these EN monuments, de-
tailing their chronology, location, form, and the acti-
vities performed within them. These events included
gathering, feasting, exchange, marriage, burial, and
conflict (Allen et al. 2008; Clark et al. 2019; Evans,
Hodder 2006; Evans et al. 2006; Mercer, Healy
2008; Neil et al. 2018; Oswald et al. 2001; Whittle
et al. 2011, inter alia).
An early discussion of British causewayed enclo-
sures claimed regional distinctions in where these
monuments were situated. Those located in south-
east and southwest England were conceptualized as
related to the hill ’folk’, while those in the east were
the peoples of the rivers and coast (Piggott 1934.
375). It remains true today that in East Anglia the
pit cluster sites and causewayed enclosures of the
EN are associated strongly with lowland river val-
leys on lighter soils lower than 50m OD (Ordnance
Datum). While these are low-lying compared to south-
ern British EN sites, most occupied positions that
would have been elevated by local standards, usual-
ly above the floodplains of rivers (Garrow 2006.16,
26).
Compared to most of southern Britain, causewayed
enclosures and other Neolithic monuments are rel-
atively rare throughout most of Suffolk and Norfolk
(Healy et al. 2011.265, Fig. 6.1). In Suffolk there are
only a handful of causewayed enclosures recognised
by aerial photography (Fig. 2). Two have been re-
cognised at Fornham All Saints, then individual mo-
numents at Freston and Kedington, plus a possible
fourth at Bentley (Martin 1999; Oswald et al. 2001.
154–155). We began the Freston Archaeological Re-
search Mission [FARM] in 2018 in part to redress the
regional research bias that had hitherto seen no ex-
cavations of the Suffolk monuments, and to initiate a
longer-term project that could engage the larger de-
bates concerning the processes of ‘Neolithisation’.
Fig. 2. Location map showing the main sites mentioned
in the text. 
The Freston causewayed enclosure> new research on the Early Neolithic of Eastern England (Suffolk)
121
Background to the site
The Freston interrupted ditch system is located 3km
south of Ipswich, the modern county-town of Suffolk
in eastern England (Fig. 2). The site was discovered
by aerial photography in the 1960s and from the
outset was believed to be a Neolithic causewayed
enclosure (Palmer 1976.175; Wilson 1975.180–
181). At 8.55ha, Freston is one of the largest known
British causewayed enclosures (with large being de-
fined as 6ha and above), second only to Hadden-
ham, Cambridgeshire (8.75ha) within an East Anglian
context (Evans, Hodder 2006.239, Fig. 5.1). Fres-
ton is also one of the closest of these monuments to
the North Sea. Today it is located some 13km from
the modern coastline, though due to intervening
sea-level rises this is likely to have been c. 5km fur-
ther away in the EN (Burningham, French 2011.
105–106, Figs. 1–2).
The site plan produced from the aerial photographs
(Dyer 1995) indicated that the perimeter of the
roughly circular monument is defined by two close-
ly spaced, concentric and interrupted ditches (Fig.
3). The cropmarks further revealed traces of what
has been interpreted as a palisade trench running
between the two circuits. This feature is discontinu-
ously traced, and best detailed in the north and
northeastern part of the site, and only partly visible
to the west. Just within the perimeter of the enclo-
sure’s northeast quadrant is the outline of a very
large rectangular structure, measuring c. 37 × 9m,
with the long sides and two internal cross-partitions
defined by postholes, and the short-ends delineated
by trenches (Hegarty, Newsome 2004.65; Martin
2007.1). This building has been interpreted as a pos-
sible Neolithic longhouse (Oswald et al. 2001.126),
or an Anglo-Saxon hall. Either case “would make it
of potentially national importance” given the rari-
ty of such structures in Britain (Martin 2007.1),
while the size of the Freston building would make
it one of the largest examples of either category
(Marshall, Marshall 1991; Sheridan 2013). If it
were a Neolithic longhouse then it would likely re-
late to a pre-enclosure period of occupation at the
site, given that these timber structures relate to the
Earliest Neolithic in Britain, typically dating to the
first two or three centuries of the fourth millennium
BC (Bayliss et al. 2011.719–724; Last 2013.273–
278; Sheridan 2013).
Between the structure and the enclosure ditches to
the north are the outlines of what appear to be two
round-cornered roughly rectangular pits which, fol-
lowing the above discussion, could be Saxon Sun-
ken Featured Buildings (SFBs) as these are often
found in association with Anglo-Saxon halls. That
said, at c. 6.5 × 3m and 4.5 × 2.5m they are quite
large for SFBs, and thus might instead date to the
Neolithic and relate to the nearby ditch system, given
they are not dissimilar in width (Hegarty, Newsome
2004.66).
The site at Freston is located on the Shotley penin-
sula, between two large estuaries: the Orwell less
than 2km to the northeast, and the Stour c. 3.5km
to the south (Fig. 2), and occupies a relatively ele-
vated position – by Suffolk standards – around 31m
OD. While Rog Palmer (1976.164) originally de-
scribed the site as having a controlling position re-
garding movement along the estuaries, the location
is much more in keeping with other British low-lying
causewayed enclosures (Oswald et al. 2001.96–97).
We suggest an alternative reason as to why the site
was created in this locale, namely that the enclosure
was centred on a spring (Fig. 3). While the signifi-
cance of the spring to the monuments’ construction
could be viewed in functional terms, regarding the
provision of fresh water to people and livestock, we
suggest that this feature also had symbolic impor-
tance. There is good evidence to suggest that springs
had ritual importance in the British Neolithic (Ri-
Fig. 3. The Freston causewayed enclosure showing
the location of Trench 1 (modified after Dyer 1995).
Tristan Carter, Nathaniel Jackson, Rose Moir, Charlotte Diffey, and Dana Challinor
122
chard 1996), a significance that may have derived
from indigenous Mesolithic hunter-gatherer ontolo-
gies (cf. Tilley 1996.65). More generally, an associa-
tion with water, in the form of rivers, has been made
for several other British causewayed enclosures (Os-
wald et al. 2001.91–94). East Anglian examples in-
clude Fornham-All-Saints and Kedington, while at
Etton local hydrological conditions likely ensured
that some of the circuit ditches would have con-
tained standing water for part of the year.
Today there is nothing to see of the Freston enclo-
sure at ground level. The 2019 excavation suggests
that the ditches were largely infilled during prehis-
tory and their banks eventually levelled by plough-
ing possibly during the Iron Age or Roman period,
the impact of which is documented at nearby Sut-
ton Hoo (Hummler 2005.391–393). There is also
evidence for the monument being disturbed in the
early modern period. The enclosure is bisected by a
road, while a farm was built atop the southwest
quadrant’s ditches in the 16th century, and two cot-
tages were constructed inside the enclosure in 1875.
Currently the site is located on private land, much
of which has been intensively farmed, though the
monument’s eastern half has been left as grassland
in recent years. Despite being accorded protected
status in 1976, the site has only received limited for-
mal archaeological investigation (Meredith 2007;
Wightman 2011). The most important work was
conducted in 2007, during which c. 2.9ha of the
monument’s northeast quadrant underwent a geo-
physical survey. This work largely substantiated
what could be seen from aerial photography, while
also identifying a trackway entering the enclosure
through a causeway and over the corner of the long-
house (Martin 2007.4).
In 2018, we initiated work at Freston in order to
characterize and date the site. Our larger research
aims are to contribute to a dynamic field of research
dedicated to causewayed enclosures (cf. Oswald et
al. 2001; Whittle et al. 2011), and to fulfil the team’s
more general research interests in processes of ‘Neo-
lithisation’ (Carter 2019a; Carter et al. 2013) and
‘the archaeology of social gathering’ (Carter et al.
2016). The first stage of fieldwork comprised the
systematic survey of Latimer Field due south of the
enclosure’s eastern half, which produced a low den-
sity of diagnostic EN flaked stone artefacts plus a
consistent distribution of Victorian pottery tile and
glass that had been introduced via manuring (Car-
ter, Aubert in prep; Carter 2019b). With permission
from Historic England and local landowners, we
then shifted from survey to excavation the follow-
ing year.
Aims of the excavation
The first excavation season was conceptualised as a
pilot study for a larger project, with a relatively
modest budget, team, and research objectives. Our
main aim was to ground the claim that Freston was
an EN causewayed enclosure, and to recover short-
life organic material for AMS radiocarbon dating so
we could begin producing an absolute chronology
for the monument’s construction and abandonment
(Bayliss et al. 2011. 38–42). These data would fur-
ther contribute to a larger model for the establish-
ment of such monuments throughout Britain (Whit-
tle et al. 2011), while expanding the number of
absolute dates for EN Suffolk specifically. These aims
were to be achieved by targeting ditch termini, as
these are typically artefact-rich contexts at cause-
wayed enclosures (Oswald et al. 2001.120–124).
Theoretically, any pottery and stone tools would
help to typologically date the site and provide an
insight to the activities that took place there (cf.
Beadsmoore et al. 2010; Bye-Jensen 2019; Copley
et al. 2005; Garrow 2012; Saville 2002), while fau-
nal or archaeobotanical material would reflect both
subsistence strategies and the local environment (cf.
Jones, Rowley-Conway 2007.407–408; Serjeantson
2011).
The project was developed in consultation with
Historic England, the site’s legal custodians. This
relationship raised another project aim, which was
to detail any damage to the site by modern farm-
ing to help update the monument’s management
plan (cf. Department for Culture, Media and Sport
2013). A final objective was to dialogically engage
with the various groups who are personally, econo-
mically and/or intellectually invested in the site (cf.
Bartu 2000; Carter 2017; Merriman 2004), a pro-
cess that has involved in-person and online talks, a
site tour, volunteer fieldworkers, and the creation of
a non-academic website (FARM 2021).
The 2019 fieldwork season
In 2019 a small team undertook the first research
excavation at Freston. The fieldwork began with a
geophysical survey of the southeast quadrant, the
results of which are published elsewhere (Schofield
et al. 2021). Here we focused on the excavation of
a 10 × 35m trench that, with the guidance of the
geophysical survey, was established over two sets of
The Freston causewayed enclosure> new research on the Early Neolithic of Eastern England (Suffolk)
123
ditch termini, encompassing an area both directly
within and outside of the enclosure (Fig. 3).
The Freston site was constructed on an extensive
sheet of loamy soil overlaying glacial outwash gra-
vels characterised by flint content and impeded
drainage, due to the underlying London Clay (Bri-
tish Geological Survey 2020; Wymer 1999a). In the
northwestern part of the trench, the archaeology
was exposed directly beneath these loamy soils,
while in the southeastern half there was an inter-
vening fine-grained windblown sand, or loess, that
overlayed the archaeological deposits. The trench
was stripped mechanically to the natural sands and
gravels at a depth of 0.4–0.5m, after which manual
cleaning and excavation defined 14 anthropogenic
and natural features (Fig. 4, Tab. 1). These features
include our four target ditch termini (F#001–F#004),
a palisade trench (F#011), as well as pits, hollows,
and a curvilinear feature (F#014). All soil was sieved,
and its volume tallied to quantify the relative abun-
dance of material culture, while ≥40 litres of soil
were taken per context for flotation and the retrieval
of charred plant remains and micro-debitage (for
sampling protocols see Bogaard et al. 2013.93). De-
spite concerns that modern farming had impacted
the site, only a few shallow plough scars were re-
corded, with the uppermost deposits of ditch F#001
producing a small amount of modern glass and iron.
The excavation focused on the two ditch termini of
the enclosure’s inner circuit. Feature #001 (F#001)
was the western terminus, of which a quadrant was
dug to natural at c. 2.4m, while the opposite eastern
ditch Feature #002 (F#002) was excavated fully in
section to c. 2.2m deep (Fig. 5). The slightly different
depth may relate to the undulating nature of the
London Clay deposits that seem to mark the base of
these ditches, the material likely proving far more
resistant to the Neolithic digging tools than the sands
and gravels. The stratigraphic sequences of the ditch-
es were broadly similar. The upper fills with their
relatively fine-grained sandy loam and low-density
finds suggest the ditches gradually silted-up after the
site had fallen out of use. The subsequent layers
were more compact, indicating that these deposits
had sat for a longer period, with clay lenses and iron
staining indicating occasional waterlogging; these
strata likely represent the initial post-abandonment
phase. The lowest fills comprised relatively thick
accumulations of anthropogenic dumping events
with clear tip-lines and artefact-rich deposits, includ-
ing semi-complete ceramic vessels. The basal layers
were formed of natural sand that had slumped back
into the ditch, probably not long after it had been
dug. In F#001, this stratum [011.06] produced sig-
nificant amounts of pottery (Tab. 1) suggesting that
the intentional deposition of material culture into
these ditches began almost as soon as the monu-
ment was created. Work also commenced on the
eastern ditch terminus of the outer circuit (F#004),
wherein the upper fill produced a small amount of
EN lithics and pottery. Unfortunately, the excavation
of this feature could not be completed because of
time limitations. Within an East Anglian context,
these Freston ditches are notable for their depth,
some 2.2–2.4m below the buried soil, in contrast to
the shallower examples from Etton, 0.65–1.25m
deep (Pryor 1998.16, Tab. 1), Great Wilbraham,
0.7–1.5m deep (Evans et al. 2006.125, Tab. 2), Had-
denham, 1.1–1.9m deep (Evans, Hodder 2006.245–
265), Kingsborough, a maximum of 1.7 and 1.3m
deep (enclosures K1 and K2 respectively [Allen et al.
2008.239–244, Figs. 4, 6]), and St. Osyth, 0.4–1.6m
deep (Germany 2007.Fig. 15).
Linear feature #011 (F#011) was situated due south
and parallel to F#002 (Fig. 4), running 2.75m in
length into the side of the trench where it was cut
by a small pit (F#015). Measuring 0.4m wide andFig. 4. Trench 1 features.
Tristan Carter, Nathaniel Jackson, Rose Moir, Charlotte Diffey, and Dana Challinor
124
0.32m deep, (F#011) produced small quantities of
EN ceramics and lithics and is believed to form part
of the palisade trench. This section of the palisade
had neither been visible in the crop marks nor pro-
spected by the geophysics.
The excavation investigated a further ten cut fea-
tures, four of which were roughly circular in form
(F#005, F#006, F#008, F#015) and contained vary-
ing quantities of pottery, lithics, burnt flint, charred
plant remains and wood charcoal (Tabs. 1–2). The
two largest features measured 1.11m wide × 0.41m
deep (F#005), and 0.80m wide × 0.25m deep (F#
006). These measurements are entirely in keeping
with the size of pits at other East Anglian EN sites,
such as the settlements of Kilverstone (average width
0.7m), Hurst Fen (≤1.21m wide), and Reydon Farm
(average 0.94m wide), and the causewayed enclo-
sure at St. Osyth (typically 0.77–1.16m wide) (Clark
et al. 1960.206; Garrow et al. 2005.141; Germany
2007.25; Harding et al. 2017.3–5, Tab. 1). While the
scale of the two smaller features (F#008, F#015)
might suggest that they could be viewed as ‘post-
holes’ (the latter being only 0.35m wide × 0.32m
deep), they lack the vertical sides and flat base usu-
ally attributed to such features in the region (Gar-
row 2006.33). Ultimately, we feel that any inference
that these Freston examples relate to upright tim-
bers and/or architecture is an interpretation that
can only be put forward when we have more con-
textual information.
Between the ditches there were two cut features (F#
012, F#013) that were deemed natural due their un-
even form and lack of finds. These may represent the
depression left in the ground where a tree was up-
rooted during land-clearance, or felled by natural
processes or, where the roots had rotted away in
situ, a ‘tree-throw hole/-bole’ (Evans et al. 1999;
Lamdin-Whymark 2008.73–82, Figs. 29–30). Ano-
ther two somewhat irregular pits containing small
amounts of EN artefacts were cut into the end of ditch
terminus F#001 (F#009, F#010, the former cutting
the latter). Given that the stratigraphy of F#001 (Fig.
5) suggests the ditch was largely infilled by the Late
Chalcolithic/Early Bronze Age (see below), it is high-
ly unlikely that these two features are of EN date.
Instead, their contents are likely to be residual, hav-
ing been disturbed from the lower strata that these
pits dug into. If these features are cultural then they
should relate to the late 3rd/earlier 2nd millennium
cal BC, or later. However, they might be tree-holes.
Pottery Flaked Flint Burnt Flint
Feature Context Description Vol. (L) Weight (g) g\L Weight (g) g\L Weight (g) g\L
F#001 11.01 ditch terminus 5630 73 0.01 347 0.06 1890 0.34
F#001 11.02 ditch terminus 2055 30 0.01 123 0.06 913 0.44
F#001 11.03 ditch terminus 879 318 0.36 173 0.20 362 0.41
F#001 11.04 ditch terminus 775 4048 5.22 622 0.80 1286 1.66
F#001 11.05 ditch terminus 1490 2453 1.65 449 0.30 850 0.57
F#001 11.06 ditch terminus 1050 950 0.90 377 0.36 912 0.87
F#002 5 ditch terminus 2826 105 0.04 349 0.12 589 0.21
F#002 6.01 ditch terminus 5331 0 0 432 0.08 867 0.16
F#002 6.02 ditch terminus 1370 2946 2.15 965 0.70 0 0.00
F#002 6.03 ditch terminus 540.8 3423 6.33 1001 1.85 974 1.80
F#002 6.04 ditch terminus 2990 24 0.01 51 0.02 665 0.22
F#004 016 ditch terminus 1590 18 0.01 87 0.05 243 0.15
F#004 017.1 ditch terminus 336 7 0.02 0 0.00 119 0.35
F#005 7.01 pit 130 0 0 12 0.09 209 1.61
F#005 7.02 pit 315 0 0 12 0.04 131 0.42
F#006 13.01 pit 180 0 0 41 0.23 6 0.03
F#008 8.01 pit 109 22 0.20 1 0.01 0 0.00
F#009 9.01 tree hole\pit| 319 7 0.02 9 0.03 34 0.11
F#010 10.01 tree hole\pit| 75 0 0 4 0.05 2 0.03
F#011 19.01 palisade trench 501 33 0.07 107 0.21 452 0.90
F#014 22.01 ditch 1500 0 0 22 0.01 25 0.02
F#015 23.01 pit 50.6 0 0 4 0.08 8 0.16
Totals 14 446 g 5188 g 10 537 g
Tab. 1. Quantification of pottery, flaked and burnt stone by context and feature from the 2019 Freston
excavation.
The Freston causewayed enclosure> new research on the Early Neolithic of Eastern England (Suffolk)
125
Finally, the excavation sectioned a relatively shallow
curvilinear ditch (F#014) that ran diagonally (SW-
NE) across the bottom half of Trench 1. While only
2.1m wide and 0.12m deep, the geophysical survey
detailed that it ran for around 70m in length (Scho-
field et al. 2021.114, 116, Figs. 5–7). The small area
investigated produced only a handful of worked and
burnt flint (Tab. 1). Stratigraphically, the geophysics
suggests that this feature precedes and is cut by the
outer ditch system of the causewayed enclosure. We
tentatively suggest that this represents the flanking
ditch of a long barrow (burial mound), an argument
we return to below.
The pottery
The pottery from Freston has yet to be studied fully,
and thus the following details and discussion are
preliminary in nature. While the excavation was lim-
ited in size, it nonetheless produced a very rich cera-
mic assemblage of 14.5kg. To appreciate the scale of
this dataset we have calculated figures of relative
pottery abundance from other East Anglian cause-
wayed enclosure ditches. This was achieved in a
crude manner by dividing the mass of ceramic sherds
by cumulative ditch-length excavated. Given that the
two fully dug Freston ditches (total 6.26m long) are
deeper than those at the other sites, the following
figures will be somewhat inflated for this site. Simi-
larly, the Freston sample – in terms of ditch length
excavated – is relatively small, with no guarantee
that the abundance of pottery recovered from the
2019 excavation will be replicated in other ditches,
or even the remainder of those part-dug. Nonethe-
less, these broad-stroke comparisons do allow us to
suggest that the Freston pottery assemblage is signi-
ficantly (≥100×) richer than those from Hadden-
ham, and St. Osyth, and twice as abundant as the
largest dataset from Kingsborough (Tab. 3).
Perhaps unsurprisingly, given the volume of soil
removed from these features, most of the pottery
(99%) came from the two ditch termini of the inner
circuit (Tab. 1), while the limited investigation of the
outer circuit’s terminus (F#004) generated a further
25g. The remaining 62g of pottery came from the
palisade trench (F#011), and the two pits F#008 and
F#009, though this latter material might be residual
from the ditch terminus (F#001) that it cut into.
While the pits at Freston have thus far produced
only small quantities of sherds, this is not always the
pattern documented elsewhere. For example, at St
Osyth, 70.5% of the EN pottery (33.3kg) came from
such features within the monument rather than the
ditches, some of which appear to have been dug spe-
cifically for pottery deposits and immediately back-
filled thereafter (Lavender 2007.68, Tab, 17).
Upon excavation, the pottery was soft and friable,
with some sherds having the consistency of wet
cardboard. This may be due to the imperfect atmos-
pheric conditions associated with the short, open fir-
ings (pits, or bonfires) of EN pottery production in
Britain, where the interior of some pots may have re-
verted to their plastic state (Gibson 2012.45). There
is also evidence of iron staining on the sides of the
ditches, which indicates that the site was periodical-
ly waterlogged, so the pottery may have been sub-
merged for significant periods of time. Firing re-
gimes, vessel fragility and post-depositional proces-
ses cannot, however, explain the assemblage’s over-
all fragmentation, as it was clear that many of the
sherds had been broken prior to their inclusion in
the ditch fill.
The pottery from Freston (Figs. 6–7) comprises both
plain and decorated vessels consistent with the re-
gional tradition of Mildenhall Ware (Smith 1956;
Clark et al. 1960). Typical characteristics of this ce-
ramic style observed within the Freston assemblage
are round-based open bowls, simple straight-sided
or neutral vessels (‘bag-shaped’ vessels), ‘S’-profiled
vessels with or without carinated shoulders, and
Remains F#001 F#002 F#005 F#011
Charcoal (ml) 6.8 2.1 1680 10.05
Triticum sp. 1 1
Cereal grain
3 3 1
indeterminate
Corylus sp. 4 3
Vicia sp. 1
Veronica sp. 1 5
Galium sp. 4
Large grass
1
indeterminate
Weed indeterminate 3 1 2
Tab. 2. Overview of all plant remains recovered
from the 2019 Freston excavation.
Site Ditch Pottery Richness
Length (m) (kg) (kg\m)
Freston 6.3 13.63 2.2
Haddenham 230 3.2 0.01
Kingsborough (K1) 34 35.6 1.05
Kingsborough (K2) 29 7.1 0.24
St. Osyth 180.4 13.7 0.08
Tab. 3. Contrasting relative abundance of pottery
from Freston (F#001–F#002) and other East An-
glian causewayed enclosure ditches.
Tristan Carter, Nathaniel Jackson, Rose Moir, Charlotte Diffey, and Dana Challinor
126
small open forms described as cups (Knight 2006a.
136, Figs. 14–16). Rim types are simple, heavy, ex-
ternally thickened, expanded, and ‘T’-shaped, while
decorations (Fig. 6.A) – mainly restricted to the rim,
neck, shoulder, and upper body – include finger flut-
ing, incised lines (with vertical, diagonal, chevrons
and herringbone patterns), and impressed dots
(Clark et al. 1960.238, Fig. 27). Construction tech-
niques consist of coiling methods and clay addition
to the rims, while surfaces were typically smoothed
or burnished (Pioffet, Ard 2017.13). At Kilverstone,
Mildenhall Ware bowls are reported to range be-
tween 11 to 28cm in diameter, with cups defined as
c. 7cm in diameter; unfortunately, the highly frag-
mented state of most of these assemblages means
that vessel sizes and profiles are often difficult to re-
construct (Knight 2006b.30).
While no whole vessels were found, F#002 [006.02]
did produce the lower portion of a round-based
bowl. It is currently unclear as to whether this ves-
sel was complete when deposited into the ditch; it
was placed at the interior edge and the very top of
the primary artefact-rich fill [006.03], making it per-
haps a closure deposit after the last EN use of F#002.
Rim sherds seem to be particularly well-represented
in the assemblage; however, further study will see if
they were being deliberately selected for inclusion
in these ditch fills, a practice previously suggested at
the Etton and St Osyth causewayed enclosures (La-
vender 2007.69; Beadsmoore et al. 2010.121).
Some sherds have perforations beneath their rims
(Fig. 6.B), which are features previously recorded in
Mildenhall Ware assemblages (e.g., Allen et al. 2008.
Fig. 5. Sections of ditch termini F#001 and F#002.
The Freston causewayed enclosure> new research on the Early Neolithic of Eastern England (Suffolk)
127
69, Figs. 46.29, 47.38; Clark et al. 1960.239–240,
Figs. 21, 24; Knight 2006b.37–45, Figs. 2.16, 2.18;
Gibson, Leivers 2008.246, Fig. 7). In cases where
the perforations are found in pairs they are inter-
preted as repair holes (Cleal 1988.141), while rows
of perforations – as seen on the Freston vessels – are
believed to have been used to strain the pot’s con-
tents (PCRG 2010.34), which in the British EN might
relate to dairying practices (Copley et al. 2005). Re-
garding colour, most sherds are various shades of
brown (light reddish to dark brown [Fig. 7]); some
have fire-clouded surfaces of soot from being direct-
ly exposed to fire. This could indicate that some ves-
sels were used for cooking, though it could also have
resulted from the pot directly touching the fuel dur-
ing its firing (Gibson 2012.45; Hall 1983.7–10; Or-
ton, Hughes 2013.253).
The EN pottery of East Anglia was initially grouped
with the ceramic traditions of the greater southeast-
ern region of England, referred to broadly as the
Windmill Hill Complex, after the eponymous cause-
wayed enclosure in Wiltshire (Smith 1956.7). Stuart
E. Piggott (1954.74) argued that it was possible to
observe three regional sub-groups of this tradition,
which he referred to as Abingdon Ware
(Upper Thames Valley), Whitehawk Ware
(South Downs and Sussex coast), and East
Anglian Ware (within the Ouse and Colne
rivers). Smith (1954.224) then proposed
the alternate term of ‘Mildenhall Ware’ for
the East Anglian style, named after the type-
site at Hurst Fen in West Suffolk, where an
abundance of this material was recovered
(Clark et al. 1960). Radiocarbon dates asso-
ciated with Mildenhall Ware assemblages
indicate that this pottery style was in use
for roughly 230–345 years (68% probabili-
ty) beginning around 3730–3665 cal BC
and ending around 3450–3355 cal BC (68%
probability) (Healy 2013.15, Figs. 1.10,
1.11).
Those sites that provide Freston with the
largest and most comparable assemblages
include Hurst Fen, Mildenhall (Clark et al.
1960), Kilverstone (Knight 2006b), Reydon
Farm (Harding et al. 2017), Spong Hill
(Healy 1988), as well as Etton, Haddenham
and Sutton Gault in Cambridgeshire (Pryor
1998; Gdaniec 2006; Tabor 2016). While it
remains true that this pottery is associated
primarily with the EN sites of East Anglia
(including Northamptonshire to the west),
ceramic vessels of this type have also been found as
far south as Kent (Allen et al. 2008.239; Clark et al.
2019), plus Derbyshire and the Nottinghamshire/
Lincolnshire border to the north (Healy 1993.114).
As to the uses of these vessels, Emilie Sibbesson
(2014.286) argues that most EN pots were used for
cooking both plants and animals, and that the types
of meals consumed differed by context. Cattle typi-
cally dominate the faunal assemblages of cause-
wayed enclosures, with lesser amounts of pig and
sheep (Darvil 1987.89, Tab. E). The author suggest-
ed that larger animals were preferred for feasting
events at these gathering places, while conversely,
at pit cluster sites one tends to find the remains of
smaller domesticated and wild animals (Sibbesson
2014.286). Similarly, vessels of different sizes are
believed to have served different purposes. The lipid
residues of larger vessels showed evidence for the
cooking of animal carcasses (possibly in stews), while
the residues from smaller vessels contained traces
for the making, storing and/or cooking of dairy fats,
such as butter (Copley et al. 2005.906). Ultimately,
given the various activities performed in different
causewayed enclosures, any functional attribution to
Fig. 6. A Mildenhall Ware vessel with characteristic decora-
tion of incised lines and impressed dots from F#001 (011.04);
B Mildenhall Ware vessel with continuous perforations be-
neath the rim from F#001 (011.04) (Cotswold Archaeology).
Tristan Carter, Nathaniel Jackson, Rose Moir, Charlotte Diffey, and Dana Challinor
128
the Freston ceramic vessels should be based upon
our own residue and contextual analyses.
The flaked stone
The flaked stone assemblage comprised 854 arte-
facts weighing 5290g, not including the heavy re-
sidue component from the water-sieve. As with the
pottery, the richest assemblages came from the ditch
termini of F#001 and F#002, both in terms of abso-
lute quantity and with reference to the average
number of artefacts per litre of soil (Tab. 1, Fig. 9).
These artefacts were made almost entirely from
flint, the sole exceptions being two quartzite flakes,
and two part-cortical pieces of sandstone. The flint
ranges in colour from dark grey to black, brown,
orange, and honey-coloured, varying from opaque
to translucent. The raw material is believed to be
primarily local, with rounded flint cobbles a recur-
rent component of the Lowestoft Formation sands
and gravels that underlay the topsoil at the site (Bri-
tish Geological Society 2020; Rose et al. 1999).
While most artefacts were quite fresh in appearance,
just under a quarter of the assemblage had patinat-
ed surfaces (n=204, 24%). This patination may re-
late to micro-environmental differences in deposi-
tion (Hochella, Banfield 1995), rather than differ-
ences in age, with staining potentially due to some
the material having been deposited in standing
water within the acidic, iron-rich sands and gravels.
In turn, 42 pieces (4.9%) had traces of burning, as
evidenced by their reddened colour, pot-lid fractures
(Fig. 8.L), and/or crazed surfaces.
The Freston lithics are typical for a southern British
EN assemblage in terms of how the flint was worked,
the tool-types produced and the blanks they were
manufactured upon, with broadly comparable ma-
terial from both causewayed enclosures, and do-
mestic sites (Edmonds 1995.35–48, Figs. 15, 19,
23–24; Saville 2002). The assemblage was blade-ba-
sed, the blanks percussion knapped on-site, as evi-
denced by the cores, cortical debris, rejuvenation
pieces, and numerous end-products. Of the 54 cores,
17 related to the production of bladelets/blades,
most of which were unipolar, though one had a
more curved/carinated flaking surface (‘Aurignacian-
like’). There were also 37 multi-directional flake
cores, three of which had originally been used to
make bladelets. Rejuvenation pieces from blade/bla-
delet cores included three core-tablets, plus 31 flakes
removed from the working face.
Some 12.5% of the artefacts were deliberately modi-
fied (n=107; Tab. 4) using direct and inverse retouch.
The dominant forms were those pieces with simple
linear retouch (n=58, 54%), followed by: scrapers
(n=13, 12% [Fig. 8.L]), notched pieces (n=12, 11%),
denticulates/serrated pieces (n=11, 10%), piercers
(n=6, 6% [Fig. 8.J]), leaf-shaped arrowheads (n=4,
4% [Fig. 8.A-D]) plus single examples of a backed
blade (1%), and a knife (1%). Just over two-thirds of
these implements were made on flakes (n=72, 67%),
followed by lesser quantities of modified blade-like
flakes (n=18), blades (n=10), and bladelets (n=2).
There was also a single end-scraper made on a bla-
delet core. The distribution of blanks by tool-type is
detailed in Table 4, which shows that flakes were
preferentially selected to make the piercers and all
but one of the scrapers. Conversely, most denticu-
lates were formed on blades, or blade-like flakes.
The Freston formal tool-types and their relative pro-
portion is broadly comparable to the patterns seen
at other causewayed enclosures (Saville 2002.Tab.
10.1), where the dominant forms are
(in descending order): scrapers, ser-
rated pieces, edge-trimmed flakes,
piercers, leaf-shaped arrowheads, and
knives (see also Bye-Jensen 2019.
Fig. 215).
While the flint recovered from the
pit and ditch fills clearly indicates
that stone tools were being made and
used at the site, we cannot be certain
that this all took place within the
causewayed enclosure, as some of
the material could be residual and
relate to a pre-monument phase of
activity (Saville 2002.91). As to these
implements’ functions, recent use-
Fig. 7. Mildenhall Ware rim sherds showing various colours and
rim types from F#002 (006.03) (Cotswold Archaeology).
The Freston causewayed enclosure> new research on the Early Neolithic of Eastern England (Suffolk)
129
wear analyses indicates that various tasks
relating to the preparation of foodstuffs
and craft-working were being undertaken
at causewayed enclosures (Bye-Jensen 2019;
Hurcombe 2000). Scrapers seem to have
been multi-purpose tools, employed for
working hides, wood, and bone/antler (Bye-
Jensen 2019.261–272, Fig. 212), while the
function of the serrated implements re-
mains uncertain, as the British examples do
not display the ‘sickle gloss’ (Meeks et al.
1982) that one often associates with Neoli-
thic denticulates in continental Eurasia (cf.
Jensen 1988; Unger-Hamilton 1985). In-
stead, it has been suggested that they were
used for cutting fibrous plants, potentially
for making rope, which could have been
employed in raising a timber palisade, for
example (Bye-Jensen 2019.59, 261–272,
Fig. 212).
Particularly distinctive are the four leaf-
shaped arrowheads with covering bifacial
retouch (Fig. 8.A-D), projectiles long asso-
ciated with bow and arrow technology
(Clark 1963). While these weapons were
no doubt often employed to hunt wild ani-
mals such as deer, aurochs and boar (Ser-
jeantson 2011.37–47), there is also good
evidence for inter-personal violence in the
British EN (Smith 2013), with skilled ar-
chery likely an emblem of status (Edmonds
1995.46), and good evidence for several
causewayed enclosures having been attack-
ed by archers. These include Carn Brea (Cornwall),
Hembury (Devon), and Hambledon Hill (Dorset),
with over 400 leaf-shaped arrowheads associated
with the destruction of Crickley Hill (Gloucester-
shire), while projectiles have been found embedded
in human bone at Hambledon Hill, Ascott-under-
Wychwood (Oxfordshire), and Fengate (Cambridge-
shire), amongst other sites (Dixon 1979.188; Ed-
monds 1995.46; Smith 2013.115, 119).
The Freston worked flint finds good comparanda
from East Anglian causewayed enclosures, and pit
cluster sites alike. The former includes Etton, Great
Wilbraham and Haddenham in Cambridgeshire
(Evans et al. 2006.130–134, Figs. 12–13; Middleton
1998; 2006), plus St. Osyth and Orsett in Essex
(Hedges et al. 1978.255–259; Martingell 2007), the
latter comprising Hurst Fen and Reydon Farm, Suf-
folk (Clark et al. 1960.214–224, Figs. 7–16; Harding
et al. 2017.9–11, Fig. 4), Kilverstone, and Spong Hill
Norfolk (Beadsmoore 2006; Healy 1988), and the
Stumble, Essex (Holgate 2012). When one contrasts
the average number of flaked flints per metre of ex-
cavated ditch from the 2019 excavations with the
figures from Haddenham and the two Kingsborough
causewayed enclosures (Tab. 5), we gain the impres-
sion – highly provisional – that the Freston termini
are much richer, to the factor of at least six times.
While most of the flaked stone dates to the EN, the
uppermost fill of F#001 (011.01) produced a com-
plete barbed-and-tanged arrowhead (Fig. 8.E), a type
associated with the Chalcolithic – Early Bronze Age
in southern Britain (Edmonds 1995.143–145; Green
1980.117–144). This projectile most closely resem-
bles earlier variants, being under 3cm long, and
with short barbs (≤7mm long), arguably closest to
Type 32 in the recent typo-chronology of Nicolas
(2017.257–259, Fig. 11, 257), which are generally
dated to Period 2 as defined by Needham (2012),
Fig. 8. Worked flint implements from F#001 and F#002: A-D
leaf-shaped arrowheads; E barbed-and-tanged arrowhead;
F serrated blade; G-I blades; J piercer; K retouched knife; L
burnt scraper (Cotswold Archaeology).
Tristan Carter, Nathaniel Jackson, Rose Moir, Charlotte Diffey, and Dana Challinor
130
c. 2300–1950 cal BC. That
said, one can also find slight-
ly earlier (Period 1, c. 2450–
2300 cal BC) parallels from
the well-known Chalcolithic
‘Amesbury Archer’ burial near
Stonehenge in Wiltshire (Har-
ding 2011.90–91, 99–101,
Fig. 30 [e.g., 6712]). Closer to
Freston, a comparable arrow-
head is reported from West
Row Fen (Martin, Murphy
1988), an Early Bronze Age
settlement on Suffolk’s fen-
edge, a site that has produced both Beakers and later
Collard Urns (E. Martin pers. comm.).
Alongside the 42 flaked stone artefacts with traces
of burning, the excavation also generated 1004 pie-
ces of unworked burnt flint weighing 10.73kg, the
bulk of which again came from the ditch termini,
albeit with a significant bias towards F#001 (Tab. 1,
Fig. 9). Such material is recurrently documented at
EN sites in the region (e.g., Evans et al. 2006.Tab. 3;
Harding et al. 2017.9), not least the pit cluster site
of Kilverstone which produced 46.88kg of burnt flint
(Garrow et al. 2005.145, Tabs. 1–2). Flint may have
been collected to be heated on fires for use as pot-
boilers for cooking (cf. Thoms 2008), the material
then being swept up with other burnt debris and
dumped into the ditch termini or pits. One such
example is F#005, which produced 49 pieces plus
notable quantities of charcoal (Tabs. 1–2). Although
the excavation produced no polished stone artefacts,
axes made of both local and exotic raw materials
have been recovered as surface finds from the site
(J. Marriot and S. Plowman pers. comms.), and with-
in the parish (FRT 058 2020).
Subsistence and environmental data
No animal or human remains were recovered from
the 2019 excavations. While in theory the lack of
bones might be due to differential depositional prac-
tices (cf. Evans, Hodder 2006.325–329), i.e. they
were being buried elsewhere, it is more likely that
such material simply did not survive due to the
high soil acidity. Alas, this is an all too common
problem for sites in this sandy region (cf. Bethell,
Carver 1986; Harding et al. 2017.3). Indeed, a re-
cent survey of animal exploitation in Early-Middle
Neolithic Britain included no faunal assemblages
from east of the East Anglian Chalk ridge (Serjeant-
son 2011.Fig. 1.1). As such, we can currently say
nothing about on-site meat consumption or the pa-
storal regimes of those visiting the monument. Ulti-
mately, it might be necessary to analyse residues
from the pottery (Copley et al. 2005; Reber et al.
2019) or try to extract ancient DNA from the soil
(Smith et al. 2015).
The archaeobotanical remains recovered from the
2019 season comprise four main categories, namely:
(i) cereal grain material, (ii) Corylus sp. (hazelnut)
shells, plus (iii-iv) the remains of several weed/wild
taxa (Tab. 2). Overall, the densities of plant material
were low with an average of 0.31 items/litre of soil.
This is not unusual for British Neolithic sites (Jones,
Rowley-Conwy 2007.399–400) and may be due to
various taphonomic issues, not least the soil acidity.
The identification of Triticum sp. (wheat) grains
and Corylus sp. (hazelnut) remains are typical for
a site of this period, with both clearly important
components of human diet throughout EN Britain
(Treasure et al. 2019; Wilkinson et al. 2012), with
the latter being one of several wild resources that
continued to have been exploited from the Mesoli-
thic (Ray, Thomas 2018.59–60). Hazelnut shells do-
minate many British EN assemblages (Stevens 2007.
377; Treasure et al. 2019.199), likely due to their
durability, especially when charred, which they often
seem to have been either from intentional actions
(cooking, kindling) or through accidental exposure
to fire (Jones, Rowley-Conwy 2007.400–401).
It has long been debated as to why so few cereal re-
mains have been recovered from these sites. Some
suggest that to all intents and purposes the subsis-
tence practices of the British EN were “still formal-
ly Mesolithic”, with cereals initially having more of
a symbolic significance than economic, being that
they were consumed in primarily ritual contexts –
such as causewayed enclosures – rather than domes-
tic spaces (Thomas 1993.388). This view has since
Blade-
Tool Total % Flake Like Blade Bladelet Core Unknown
Flake
Retouched piece 59 55 42 12 4 1
Scraper 13 12 12 1
Notched piece 12 11 9 2 1
Denticulate 11 10 2 4 5
Piercer 6 6 6
Leaf-shaped point 5 5 1 4
Backed piece 1 1 1
Totals 107 100
Tab. 4. Flaked stone retouched tool types and blank choices from the 2019
Freston excavation.
The Freston causewayed enclosure> new research on the Early Neolithic of Eastern England (Suffolk)
131
been challenged by Jones and Rowley-Conwy (2007.
399–407, Tab. 23.1), who argue that (a) the rarity
has been over-stated (see also Treasure et al. 2019.
213), (b) cereals will be underrepresented in EN as-
semblages because people would have avoided char-
ring them thus decreasing their survival in the
archaeological record, and (c) proxy isotopic data
from human remains clearly indicates regular cere-
al consumption. Overall, the evidence suggests that
while cereal cultivation and consumption were rel-
atively widespread in Britain from the Earliest Neo-
lithic, it was only in the Middle Bronze Age (mid-2nd
millennium cal BC) that agriculture came to play a
major subsistence role (Stevens, Fuller 2012).
While cereals are now attested from various EN do-
mestic contexts, it remains the case that their con-
sumption formed part of the activities taking place
at causewayed enclosures, some of which may be
more special or ritual in character (Jones, Rowley-
Conwy 2007.407–408). At Freston the material thus
far derives primarily from the two ditches (n=7/9
samples), with the palisade trench (F#011) produc-
ing the only other two cereal grain remains (Tab. 2).
Concentrations of cereal re-
mains – along with pottery,
bone and lithics – from ditch-
es at Windmill Hill are sug-
gestive of deliberate deposi-
tion (Fairbairn 1999.149,
Fig. 107), as are the notable
quantities of charred cereal
grains from pits dug into the
enclosure ditches at Hadden-
ham (Jones 2006.314–315,
Tab. 5.28). Unfortunately, the
meagre quantities of materi-
al documented in Table 2 do
not allow us to currently put
forward a similar hypothesis
for the Freston charred plant
assemblage. In turn, it is quite
apparent that cereals can be
recovered from a variety of contexts at these sites,
with the character of assemblages attesting various-
ly to bulk processing, food preparation and discard
(Jones, Rowley-Conwy 2007.407–408). Hazelnut
shells were also recovered from the ditch termini at
Freston (Tab. 2), for which we have contextual par-
allels from Etton, Haddenham and Hambledon Hill,
though notable concentrations of Corylus avellana
are also recorded from hearth and pit contexts at
the same sites (Jones 2006.314, Tab. 5.28; Jones,
Legge 2008; Nye, Scaife 1998.292–293, Tabs. 66–
67).
Focusing on the charred plant remains recovered
from EN sites closest to Freston (Fig. 2), we again
see clear evidence for mixed economies of cultivat-
ed and wild resources. The Kilverstone pit clusters
produced Triticum dicoccum (emmer wheat) and
Hordeum sp. (barley) alongside potential weeds of
arable cultivation, and significant quantities of hazel-
nuts (Ballantyne, Roberts 2006.71). Meanwhile at
The Stumble, identified crop remains are dominated
by emmer wheat, with small quantities of Triticum
aestivum/durum (free-threshing wheat) and Triti-
cum monococcum (einkorn wheat), along with
abundant hazelnut remains and smaller quantities
of fruits, roots, rhizomes and tubers (Wilkinson et
al. 2012.70–91). At Spong Hill, impressions of grain
and spikelet fragments of wheats, including emmer
(Triticum dicoccum), plus a single example of bar-
ley, were documented on sherds of Mildenhall Ware,
while flotation yielded wheat chaff and hazelnut
shells (Murphy 1988.103). At Hurst Fen and Reydon
Farm the archaeobotanical remains were almost ex-
clusively composed of charred hazelnut shells, though
Site Ditch Worked Richness
Length (m) Flint (n) (n\m)
Freston 6.3 720 114
Haddenham 230 474 2
Kingsborough (K1) 34 588 17
Kingsborough (K2) 29 144 5
Tab. 5. Contrasting relative abundance of worked
flint from Freston (F#001–F#002) and other East
Anglian causewayed enclosure ditches.
Fig. 9. Quantification of the main artefact types from the two Freston
ditch termini (F#001, F#002) by stratigraphic layer (data from Table 1).
Tristan Carter, Nathaniel Jackson, Rose Moir, Charlotte Diffey, and Dana Challinor
132
grain imprints on pottery attest to the presence of
emmer and barley at the former site, while the lat-
ter produced evidence for emmer and/or Triticum
spelta (spelt) (Clark et al. 1960.213, Pl. XXV; Wyles
2017.11–12).
Whether the plant remains from the Freston cause-
wayed enclosure are the result of ritual burning, the
deliberate deposition of domestic waste, or aeolian
transported material, remains an open question for
now. Ideally, further work will produce greater quan-
tities of archaeobotanical material allowing it to be
more securely situated within the British Neolithic
agricultural economy and the exploration of ques-
tions regarding ‘ceremonial’ vs. ‘domestic’ plant use.
Of the weed/wild taxa recovered, Veronica sp. (spe-
edwell) and Galium sp. (bedstraw) are typical of cul-
tivated or waste ground habitats (Stace 2010); the
low numbers recovered, however, prevent species
identification. Wood charcoal was also recovered
from every Freston sample (Tab. 6) and was present
in variable quantities, ranging from 0.1 to 1680ml
(Tab. 3). Most of the charcoal was identified as
Quercus sp. (oak), with additional identifications of
Alnus glutinosa (alder), Betula sp. (birch), Corylus
avellana (hazel), Maloideae (hawthorn, apple, white-
beams/rowan etc.) and a single fragment of Ulmus
(elm) or Cytisus/Ulex (broom/gorse). The condition
of the charcoal was generally poor, with strong
occlusions of sediment and, in some cases, iron and
vivianite staining, which is characteristic of deposi-
tion in seasonally waterlogged environments. These
conditional elements hampered identification to
species level and the determination of maturity in
oak. Where possible, maturity was assessed by the
presence of roundwood (evidence for bark, pith or
strong ring curvature) and presence or absence of
tyloses in oak, which indicates heartwood or sap-
wood, respectively. A suite of eight short-life sam-
ples – mainly Quercus (sapwood and roundwood)
and Corylus – from the two ditch termini (F#001,
F#002) and the palisade trench (F#011) have been
selected for radiocarbon dating.
While some of the charcoal might represent wind-
blown and waste material accumulated in the ditch-
es during the monument’s lifetime, the >1.5 litres
from pit F#005 (Tab. 2) suggests the deliberate dump-
ing of charred material, perhaps from a hearth. Oak
provides a highly calorific fuelwood that is suitable
for most activities, including cooking, pottery firing
(cf. Ali 2015; Campbell 2007; Murphy 2001), and
cremation (as at Etton [Nye, Scaife 1998.298, Tab.
71]). Oak-based fuelwood was also found to be the
predominant taxon in the charcoal assemblages from
the Kingsborough causewayed enclosure (Gale 2008).
Conclusion
In conclusion, the results of the 2019 excavation
have clearly determined that the Freston interrupt-
ed ditch system is an EN causewayed enclosure, as
evidenced by the chronologically diagnostic ceram-
ic and lithic assemblages. While we await the radio-
carbon determinations, a date for the site can be hy-
pothesized with reference to established chronolo-
gies for the local EN pottery tradition, and the model
for causewayed enclosure development across south-
ern Britain. Mildenhall Ware, which is present in
the basal layers of both ditch termini (almost a kilo
in F#001), is estimated to have been produced in
East Anglia from 3730–3665 cal BC to 3450–3355
cal BC, a range of 230–345 years (all dates expressed
as 68% probability [Healy 2013.14–16, Tabs. 11.
1–11.2]). The only two radiocarbon dates from an
EN context in Suffolk derive from a pit containing
Mildenhall Ware at Reydon Farm, which at 3710–
3640 cal BC (at 95% probability) falls within the
established range of this pottery tradition (Harding
et al. 2017.13, Tab. 6). Further chronological reso-
lution is provided by Whittle, Healy and Bayliss
(2011.263–347, Fig. 6.1) via their evaluation of ra-
diocarbon dates from the causewayed enclosures of
Eastern England closest to Freston (Fig. 2). Their
findings suggest that these monuments may have
all been constructed in the 37th century cal BC, in-
cluding Etton, Haddenham and Northborough in
Cambridgeshire, and St Osyth in Essex.
What is much less clear is how long the monument
at Freston was maintained and used as a formal ga-
thering place. The range of dates for causewayed en-
closures elsewhere in Britain spans from 300 years
to as short as a few decades (Whittle et al. 2011.xi).
Both inner ditch termini appear to contain signifi-
cant amounts of material culture that relate to at
least two depositional events prior to the site’s aban-
donment. Neither of the ditches showed evidence
of recutting, which suggests that they were left open
throughout their use. However, the depth of the
artefact-rich deposits varies between the ditches,
with (F#001) being 2.43m deep and having close to
a metre of material culture, while (F#002) is 2m deep
and has about 50cm of anthropogenic fill. The pot-
tery was concentrated within the lower strata of the
ditch fill, with F#001 [011.04] and F#002 [006.03]
having the richest assemblages (Tab. 1, Fig. 9), po-
The Freston causewayed enclosure> new research on the Early Neolithic of Eastern England (Suffolk)
133
tentially the refuse from group feasting (cf. Smith
1965.19). Conversely, the upper fills of the termini
contained very few artefacts, perhaps due the site
being abandoned at which point the ditches silted
up naturally or were deliberately backfilled and the
banks levelled (cf. Smith 1965.15–18). Alternative-
ly, the lesser quantities of finds in these uppermost
strata might be due to changes in depositional prac-
tice, with material culture being dumped somewhere
else on the site. Ultimately, we hope that the inte-
gration of radiocarbon dates with the micromorpho-
logical studies will detail the temporal depth and
character of these ditch infill sequences (cf. French
2006).
It is suggested tentatively that the Freston enclosure
was abandoned within the EN, or more specifically
the period we associate with the Mildenhall Ware
tradition (before the 35th–34th centuries cal BC
[Healy 2013.15]), as we have yet to recognize any
examples of Peterborough or Grooved Ware vessels,
i.e. products of the Middle and Late Neolithic, res-
pectively (Gibson 2011.78–87; Thomas 2010; Wor-
ley et al. 2019.2). This statement should however
be tempered by an acknowledgement that the 2019
excavation exposed only a tiny area of the monu-
ment, a mere ~2.2% of its ditch system and the pot-
tery has not yet been studied intensively. Indeed,
there is a great deal that remains to be clarified con-
cerning the site’s establishment, development and
abandonment more generally. For instance, it can-
not be assumed that the two ditch systems and pali-
sade were all built at the same time (cf. Oswald et
al. 2001.75–77), with the latter feature potentially
relating to a later, more defensive reconfiguration of
the site. This is something we see at other cause-
wayed enclosures, such as Crickley Hill in Glouces-
tershire (Dixon 1979), and the Stepleton enclosure
on Hambledon Hill (Mercer, Healy 2008.760–761).
Nor is the relative date of the pits clear; they could
be associated with a pre-enclosure phase of settle-
ment and/or pertain to activities that took place dur-
ing or after the monument’s life.
Another major question concerns the existence of
any significant pre-enclosure activity, and the rea-
sons as to why the site was originally established at
this location. Starting with the latter issue, it is sug-
gested above that the spring was the monument’s
central feature, both physically and spiritually.
Planned excavation and palynological coring at the
spring will hopefully provide us with more insight
as to whether the site was established and cleared
by incoming agro-pastoralists or if it represents the
appropriation of a culturally significant place of an
indigenous hunter-gatherer population. In turn, aer-
ial photography and geophysical survey have reveal-
ed traces of two features at the site that might rep-
resent Neolithic activity that pre-dates the cause-
wayed enclosure. These comprise the potential long-
house in the monument’s northeast quadrant (Fig.
3), and a possible long barrow ditch that appears to
be cut by the enclosure ditches of the southeast qua-
drant (Schofield et al. 2021.116, Fig. 7). Aside from
the potential stratigraphic relationship of the latter
feature, both structures are associated primarily
with the first centuries of the 4th millennium cal
BC, i.e. the Earliest Neolithic phase that precedes the
era of causewayed enclosures (Bayliss et al. 2011.
719–724; Ray, Thomas 2018.114–122).
By the Late Chalcolithic/Early Bronze Age (later 3rd-
earlier 2nd millennium cal BC), we believe that the
enclosure had been long-abandoned and the ditches
naturally infilled by silt, hence the fact that the
barbed and tanged arrowhead was recovered from
the uppermost fill of F#001. The nature of this later
activity at the site remains unclear, although another
projectile of the same type
was found in 1985 on the
ground above the ancient di-
tches (HER FRT 005 2021).
We further note the traces of
four ploughed-out round bar-
rows of likely similar date c.
625m east of the monument
suggest that there was a ‘Bea-
ker Culture’ settlement near-
by (Historic England 2015).
With Beaker pottery having
been recovered in the upper
levels of ditches at several
other causewayed enclosures
Context Description Identifications
F#001 (011.03) Ditch terminus Quercus x 1 (cf. sw)
F#001 (011.04) Ditch terminus Quercus ++ (hw)
F#001 (011.06) Ditch terminus Quercus x 4 (hw)< Corylus x 1
F#002 (006.01) Ditch terminus
Ulmus or Ulex\Cytisus x 1, Quercus ++, Alnus\
Corylus+
F#002 (006.02) Ditch terminus
Quercus ++ (cf. sw), Quercus ++ (cf. sw, hw),
Betula sp. +
F#002 (006.03) Ditch terminus Quercus +, Alnus +, Maloideae +
F#002 (006.04) Ditch terminus Alnus\Corylus++, Quercus + (hw), Corylus x 1
F#005 (007.01) Pit Quercus +++ (hw + burr), Alnus\Corylus+
F#011 (019.01) Palisade trench Quercus x 17 (hw), Quercus ++\+ (sw)
Tab. 6. Overview of the charcoal recovered from the 2019 Freston exca-
vation.
Tristan Carter, Nathaniel Jackson, Rose Moir, Charlotte Diffey, and Dana Challinor
134
(including Etton, Hambledon Hill, Maiden Castle and
Windmill Hill), this suggests that the Late Chalcoli-
thic/Early Bronze Age human presence at Freston
formed part of a larger cultural tradition of engag-
ing with these ancient spaces (Oswald et al. 2001.
137–139; see also Kinnes 2006).
Looking ahead, one of the key research interests
concerns how many groups of people gathered here,
and where they came from. With the monument no-
tably larger than some of the East Anglian cause-
wayed enclosures (8.55ha), such as Etton (>3ha) and
Great Wilbraham (2.5ha) (Evans et al. 2006; Pryor
1998), might it follow that Freston was constructed
by a greater number of people who came together
from a wider area? While isotopic studies of faunal
and human remains have been used to help recon-
struct the catchment areas for causewayed enclo-
sures and later Neolithic henges (Evans et al. 2019;
Madgwick et al. 2019; Neil et al. 2018), at Freston
it may be necessary to focus on sourcing the pottery
and lithic assemblages to generate such information,
given what appears to be the poor bone preserva-
tion at the site. The ceramic vessels may also pro-
vide evidence for the plants and animals consumed
on site, by way of the organic residue analysis of the
macroscopic encrustations recorded on the interior
of several sherds on their interiors (Copley et al.
2005), matter that can also be employed for short-
life radiocarbon dating (Berstan et al. 2008; Casa-
nova et al. 2020). In turn, use-wear studies of the
worked flint can help reconstruct other activities
performed at the site, with woodworking, textile
manufacture, and food preparation all documented
previously at such sites (Bye-Jensen 2019).
Ultimately, the project aims to take a long-term per-
spective on the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in Suf-
folk, as a means of contributing to larger debates
regarding the dynamics of ‘Neolithisation.’ Such in-
vestigations would engage with the emergence of
new ontologies involved as much as shifts in subsis-
tence bases and the organization of production (cf.
Thomas 1988.63–64). While Mesolithic activity in
the county is relatively well documented, including
a few surface finds from the Shotley peninsula (Wy-
mer 1999b), we have few absolute dates for this pe-
riod. Furthermore, those sites that do have radiocar-
bon determinations are significantly earlier than the
late 5th/early 4th millennium cal BC (Jacobi 1984;
Wymer et al. 1975), i.e. the period when we might
have the interaction between indigenous hunter-ga-
therers and incoming farmers (Brace et al. 2019).
At Freston it is hypothesized that the causewayed
enclosure’s spring-based location might attest to an
appropriation of indigenous landscape uses and cos-
mologies (cf. Davis 2012; Jacques et al. 2014; Til-
ley 1996.65), while hazelnut consumption and pit-
ting can also be suggested as practices that have
their heritage in local Mesolithic traditions (Milner
2009; Overton, Taylor 2018). In turn, the longhouse
might relate to the phase of Earliest Neolithic colo-
nisation, prior to the construction of the causewayed
enclosure. Overall, there remains much to be clari-
fied, hopefully in the forthcoming excavation sea-
sons.
Funding: Social Sciences & Humanities Research
Council of Canada – Insight Development Grant
(#430-2019-00930), Prehistoric Society – Research
Grant.
Excavation permission: Historic England (Will Flet-
cher), Geoff Mayhew and John Marriot. Thanks to
Alasdair Whittle for permission to reproduce the map
used in Fig. 1, also to Faye Minter (Suffolk County
Council), Stuart Boulter, Linzi Everett (Cotswold Ar-
chaeology), Jezz Meredith & Patience Shone (Shotley
Peninsula Archaeology Research Community), Diane
Ling (Shotley Peninsula Facilitation Group), plus Pe-
ter Allen, Deanna Aubert, Alex Bayliss, Ben Chan, Da-
niel Contreras, Frances Healy, Christine and Francis
Kyle, Edward Martin, Sheila and Rod Plowman, Ro-
yal Hospital School (Holbrook), and Tim Schofield.
Artefact photographs taken by Gemma Bowen (Cots-
wold Archaeology). We are also grateful to the two
anonymous reviewers for their critical insight and
suggestions; any mistakes remain those of the authors. 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Freston causewayed enclosure> new research on the Early Neolithic of Eastern England (Suffolk)
135
References
Ali N. 2015. The human aspect of technology: An ethno-
archaeological study of cooking ware from Jordan. Near
Eastern Archaeology 78(2): 80–87.
https://doi.org/10.5615/neareastarch.78.2.0080
Allen M. J., Leivers M., Ellis C., +10 authors, and Stevens
C. J. 2008. Neolithic causewayed enclosures and later pre-
historic farming: duality, imposition and the role of pre-
decessors at Kingsborough, Isle of Sheppey, Kent, UK.
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 74: 235–322.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0079497X00000207 
Ashbee P., Cornwall I. W. 1961. An experiment in field
archaeology. Antiquity 35(138): 129–134.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00036012 
Ballantyne R., Roberts K. 2006. Environmental remains.
In D. Garrow S. Lucy, and D. Gibson (eds.), Excavations
at Kilverstone, Norfolk, 2000–02. East Anglian Archaeo-
logy Monograph 113. East Anglian Archaeology. Cam-
bridge: 71. http://eaareports.org.uk/publication/report113/
Bartu A. 2000. Where is Çatalhöyük? Multiple sites in the
construction of an archaeological site. In I. Hodder (ed.),
Towards reflexive methodology in archaeology: The
example at Çatalhöyük. MacDonald Institute Monographs.
Cambridge: 101–109.
Bayliss A., van der Plicht J., Bronk Ramsey C., McCormac
G., Healy F., and Whittle A. 2011. Towards generational
time-scales: The quantitative interpretation of archaeolo-
gical chronologies. In A. Whittle, F. Healy, and A. Bayliss
(eds.), Gathering time: Dating the Early Neolithic en-
closures of Southern Britain and Ireland. Oxbow Books.
Oxford: 17–59.
Beadsmoore E. 2006. Earlier Neolithic flint. In D. Garrow,
S. Lucy, and D. Gibson (eds.), Excavations at Kilverstone,
Norfolk, 2000–02. East Anglian Archaeology Monograph
113. East Anglian Archaeology. Cambridge: 53–71.
http://eaareports.org.uk/publication/report113/
Beadsmoore E., Garrow D., and Knight M. 2010. Refitting
Etton: space, time, and material culture within a cause-
wayed enclosure in Cambridgeshire. Proceedings of the
Prehistoric Society 76: 115–134.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0079497X00000475 
Bethell P. H., Carver M. O. H. 1987. Detection and enhan-
cement of decayed inhumations at Sutton Hoo. In A. Bod-
dington, A. N. Garland, and R. C. Janaway (eds.), Death,
decay and reconstruction: approaches to archaeology
and forensic science. Manchester University Press. Man-
chester: 10–21.
Berstan R., Stott A. W., Minnitt S., Bronk Ramsey C., Hed-
ges R. E., and Evershed R. P. 2008. Direct dating of pottery
from its organic residues: new precision using compound-
specific carbon isotopes. Antiquity 82(317): 702–713.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00097325
Bogaard A., Charles M., Livarda A., Ergun M., Filipovic D.,
and Jones G. 2013. The archaeobotany of mid-later occu-
pation levels at Neolithic Çatalhöyük. In I. Hodder (ed.),
Humans and Landscapes of Çatalhöyük. Reports from
the 2000–2008 Seasons. BIAA Monograph No. 47. British
Institute at Ankara. Monumenta Arhcaeologica 30. Cotsen
Institute of Archaeology at UCLA. Oxford, Albuquerque:
93–128.
Brace S., Diekmann Y., Booth T. J., +23 authors, and Bar-
nes I. 2019. Ancient genomes indicate population replace-
ment in Early Neolithic Britain. Nature Ecology & Evolu-
tion 3(5): 765–771.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-019-0871-9 
British Geological Survey 2020. Geological Survey of
Great Britain [England and Wales]. British Geological
Survey. Nottingham. https://www.bgs.ac.uk/data/maps/ab
outHistoricalMaps.html 
Burningham H., French J. 2011. Seabed dynamics in a
large coastal embayment: 180 years of morphological
change in the outer Thames estuary. Hydrobiologia 672
(1): 105–119.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-011-0760-y
Butler C., Leivers M. 2008. Flint. In M. J. Allen, M. Leivers,
and C. Ellis (eds.), Neolithic causewayed enclosures and
later prehistoric farming: Duality, imposition and the role
of predecessors at Kingsborough, Isle of Sheppey, Kent,
UK. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 74: 235–322
[253–262]. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0079497X00000207
Bye-Jensen P. 2019. Causewayed enclosures under the
microscope. PhD thesis. Department of Archaeology. Uni-
versity of Southampton.
Campbell G. 2007. Cremation deposits and the use of
wood in cremation ritual. In J. Harding, F. Healy (eds.),
The Raunds area project: A Neolithic and Bronze Age
landscape in Northamptonshire. English Heritage. Swin-
don: 30–33.
Carter T. 2017. Nothing to see here! The challenges of pub-
lic archaeology at Palaeolithic Stélida, Naxos. Journal of
Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology and Heritage Stu-
dies 5(3–4): 311–333.
https://doi.org/10.5325/jeasmedarcherstu.5.3-4.0311 
Tristan Carter, Nathaniel Jackson, Rose Moir, Charlotte Diffey, and Dana Challinor
136
2019a. The significance of an Aegean insular Mesoli-
thic to processes of Neolithisation. In B. Horejs, M. Bra-
mi (eds.), The Central/Western Anatolian Farming
Frontier. OREA Series 12. Austrian Academy of Scien-
ces Press. Vienna: 85–101.
2019b. Freston. In F. Minter, J. Rolfe, and A. Saunders
(eds.), Archaeology in Suffolk 2018. Proceedings of
the Suffolk Institute of Archaeology and History 44(3):
476.
Carter T., Aubert D. in prep. Of manuring and monuments:
New work around the Freston Early Neolithic cause-
wayed enclosure. Proceedings of the Suffolk Institute of
Archaeology and History [submitted October 2020].
Carter T., Contreras D. A., Doyle S., Mihailovi≤ D. D., and
Skarpelis N. 2016. Early Holocene interaction in the
Aegean Islands: Mesolithic chert exploitation at Stélida
(Naxos, Greece) in context. In M. Ghilardi (ed.), Géoar-
chéologie des îles de Méditerranée. CNRS éditions. Pa-
ris: 275–286.
Carter T., Grant S., Kartal M., Coskun A., and Özkaya V.
2013. Networks and Neolithisation: sourcing obsidian
from Körtik Tepe (SE Anatolia). Journal of Archaeologi-
cal Science 40(1): 556–569.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2012.08.003 
Casanov E., Knowles T. D., Bayliss A., +21 authors, and
Evershed R. P. 2020. Accurate compound-specific 14C dat-
ing of archaeological pottery vessels. Nature 580(7804):
506–510. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2178-z 
Clark G. 1963. Neolithic bows from Somerset: England,
and the prehistory of archery in North-Western Europe.
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 29: 50–98.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0079497X00015358 
Clark J. G. D., Higgs E. S., and Longworth I. H. 1960. Ex-
cavations at the Neolithic site at Hurst Fen, Mildenhall,
Suffolk (1954, 1957 and 1958). Proceedings of the Pre-
historic Society 26: 202–245.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0079497X00016315 
Cleal R. 1988. The occurrence of drilled holes in Later
Neolithic pottery. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 7(2):
139–145.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0092.1988.tb00173.x 
Copley M. S., Berstan R., Dudd S. N., +4 authors, and Ever-
shed R. P. 2005. Processing of milk products in pottery
vessels through British prehistory. Antiquity 79(306):
895–908. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00115029 
Cummings V., Morris J. 2018. Neolithic explanations re-
visited: Modelling the arrival and spread of domesticated
cattle into Neolithic Britain. Environmental Archaeology
23: 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/14614103.2018.1536498
Darvil T. 1987. Prehistoric Britain. Yale University Press.
New Haven.
Davis R. M. 2012. The nature of Mesolithic activity at
selected spring sites in South West England. Unpublished
PhD thesis. University of Worcester. Worcester.
https://eprints.worc.ac.uk/id/eprint/3637
Department for Culture, Media and Sport 2013. Schedul-
ed monuments and nationally important but non-sche-
duled monuments. Department for Culture, Media and
Sport. London.
Dixon P. W. 1979. A Neolithic and Iron Age site on a hill-
top in southern England. Scientific American 241(5):
182–191. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-
neolithic-and-iron-age-site-on-a/ 
Dyer C. 1995. A causewayed enclosure at Freston, Suf-
folk. Unpublished report for The Royal Commission on
the Historical Monuments of England (RCHME). Swindon.
Edinborough K., Shennan S., Teather A., +8 authors, and
Schauer P. 2020. New radiocarbon dates show Early Neo-
lithic date of flint-mining and stone quarrying in Britain.
Radiocarbon 62(1): 75–105.
https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2019.85 
Edmonds M. 1995. Stone tools and society. Working
stone in Neolithic and Bronze Age Britain. Batsford.
London.
1999. Ancestral geographies of the Neolithic. Rout-
ledge. London.
Evans C., Edmonds M., Boreham S., Evans J., Jones G.,
Knight M., and Legge T. 2006. ‘Total archaeology’ and mo-
del landscapes: excavation of the Great Wilbraham cause-
wayed enclosure, Cambridgeshire, 1975–76. Proceedings
of the Prehistoric Society 72: 113–162.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0079497X00000803 
Evans C., Hodder I. 2006. A woodland archaeology: Neo-
lithic sites at Haddenham. McDonald Institute for Ar-
chaeological Research. Cambridge.
Evans C., Pollard J., and Knight M. 1999. Life in the woods:
Tree-throws,‘settlement’and forest cognition. Oxford Jour-
nal of Archaeology 18(3): 241–254.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0092.00081 
Evans J., Pearson M. P., Madgwick R., Sloane H., and Alba-
rella U. 2019. Strontium and oxygen isotope evidence for
the origin and movement of cattle at Late Neolithic Dur-
The Freston causewayed enclosure> new research on the Early Neolithic of Eastern England (Suffolk)
137
rington Walls, UK. Archaeological and Anthropological
Sciences 11(10): 5181–5197.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-019-00849-w 
Fairbairn A. 1999. Charred plant remains. In A. Whittle,
J. Pollard, and C. Grigson (eds.), The harmony of sym-
bols. The Windmill Hill causewayed enclosure, Wilt-
shire. Oxbow Books. Oxford: 139–156.
FARM 2021. Freston archaeological research mission.
https://socialsciences.mcmaster.ca/freston-archaeologi
cal-research-mission-farm 
French C. A. I. 2006. Soils and sediments. In F. Pryor
(ed.), Etton. Excavations at a Neolithic causewayed en-
closure near Maxey Cambridgeshire, 1982–7. English
Heritage. London: 311–331. 
FRT 058 2020. FSF28776. Poorly located monument re-
cord FRT 058 – Find spot of a Neolithic flint axe.
https://heritage.suffolk.gov.uk/Monument/MSF21193 
Gale R. 2008. Charcoal. In M. J. Allen, M. Leivers, and C.
Ellis (eds.), Neolithic causewayed enclosures and later
prehistoric farming: Duality, imposition and the role of
predecessors at Kingsborough, Isle of Sheppey, Kent, UK.
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 74: 235–322 [274–
277]. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0079497X00000207
Garrow D. 2006. Pits, settlement and deposition during
the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age in East Anglia. BAR
International Series 414. Archaeopress. Oxford.
2012. Odd deposits and average practice. A critical hi-
story of the concept of structured deposition. Archaeo-
logical Dialogues 19(2): 85–115.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203812000141 
Garrow D., Beadsmoore E., and Knight M. 2005. Pit clus-
ters and the temporality of occupation: an earlier Neoli-
thic site at Kilverstone, Thetford, Norfolk. Proceedings of
the Prehistoric Society 71: 139–157.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0079497X00000980 
Garrow D., Lucy S., and Gibson D. 2006. Excavations at
Kilverstone, Norfolk: An Episodic Landscape History.
Neolithic pits, later prehistoric, Roman and Anglo-Saxon
occupation, and later activity. East Anglian Archaeology
113. Cambridge Archaeological Unit. Cambridge. http://
eaareports.org.uk/assets/uploads/repository/EAA_REPO
RT_113.pdf
Gdaniec K. 2006. The pottery assemblage. In C. Evans, I.
Hodder (eds.), A woodland archaeology: Neolithic sites
at Haddenham. McDonald Institute Monographs. Cam-
bridge: 299–306.
Germany M. 2007. Neolithic and Bronze Age monu-
ments, Middle Iron Age settlement at Lodge Farm, St
Osyth, Essex. East Anglian Archaeology 117. Historic En-
vironment. Essex County Council. Chelmsford.
Gibson A. 2012. Prehistoric pottery in Britain and Ire-
land [3rd edition]. The History Press. Stroud.
Gibson A., Leivers M. 2008. Neolithic pottery. In M. J. Al-
len, M. Leivers, and C. Ellis (eds.), Neolithic causewayed
enclosures and later prehistoric farming: Duality, impo-
sition and the role of predecessors at Kingsborough, Isle
of Sheppey, Kent, UK. Proceedings of the Prehistoric So-
ciety 74: 235–322 [245–253].
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0079497X00000207 
Green S. 1984. Flint arrowheads: typology and interpre-
tation. Lithics 5: 19–39.
http://journal.lithics.org/index.php/lithics/article/view/657 
Hall D. J. 1983. Use alteration of pottery vessel surfaces:
an important source of evidence for the identification of
vessel function. North American Archaeologist 4(1): 3–
26. https://doi.org/10.2190/AK54-RNE2-9NGY-AHQX 
Harding P. 2013. Flint. In A. P. Fitzpatrick (ed.), The Ames-
bury archer and the Boscombe bowmen: Early Bell
Beaker burials at Boscombe Down, Amesbury, Wiltshire,
Great Britain: Excavations at Boscombe Down, Volume
1. Wessex Archaeology: 88–103.
Harding P., Barclay A. J., Barnett C., Chaffey G., Leivers
M., and Wyles S. F. 2017. Excavations at Reydon Farm:
Early Neolithic pit digging in East Suffolk. Proceedings
of the Suffolk Institute of Archaeology and History 43
(4): 1–18.
Healy F. 1988. The Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Spong Hill,
North Elmham, Part VI: Occupation During the Seventh
to Second Millennia BC. East Anglian Archaeology Report
No. 39. The Norfolk Archaeological Unit. Dereham. 
http://eaareports.org.uk/assets/uploads/repository/EAA
_Report_39.pdf
1993. The prehistoric pottery. In R. Bradley, P. Chowne,
R. M. J., R. Cleal, F. Healy, and I. Kinnes (eds.), Excava-
tions on Redgate Hill, Hunstanton, Norfolk, and at
Tattershall Thorpe, Lincolnshire. East Anglian Archaeo-
logy Report No. 57. Field Archaeology Division. Heritage
Trust of Lincolnshire. Dereham, Sleaford: 111–116.
https://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archiveDS/archi
veDownload?t=arch-2304-1/dissemination/pdf/eaa/
vol_057/EAA_REPORT_57.pdf
2013. In the shadow of hindsight: pre-Iron Age Spong
Hill viewed from 2010. In C. Hills, S. Lucy (eds.), Intro-
duction and background, in Spong Hill, part IX: Chro-
Tristan Carter, Nathaniel Jackson, Rose Moir, Charlotte Diffey, and Dana Challinor
138
nology and Synthesis. McDonald Institute for Archaeo-
logical Research. Cambridge: 12–26.
Healy F., Bayliss A., Whittle A., +6 authors, and Hey J.
2011. Eastern England. In A. Whittle, F. Healy, and A. Bay-
liss (eds.), Gathering time: Dating the early enclosures
of southern Britain and Ireland. Oxbow Books. Oxford:
263–347.
Hedges J., Buckley D., Bonsall C., +7 authors, and Wilkin-
son A. J. 1978. Excavations at a Neolithic causewayed en-
closure, Orsett, Essex, 1975. Proceedings of the Prehisto-
ric Society 44: 219–308.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0079497X0001015X 
Hegarty C., Newsome S. 2005. The archaeology of the
Suffolk coast and inter-tidal zone: A report for the na-
tional mapping programme. Suffolk County Council and
English Heritage. Bury St. Edmunds and Swindon.
Hochella M. F., Banfield J. F. 1995. Chemical weathering
of silicates in nature: A microscopic perspective with theo-
retical considerations. In A. F. White, S. L. Brantley (eds.),
Chemical weathering rates of silicate minerals. DeGruy-
ter. Washington D.C.: 353–406.
Holgate R. 2012. Flint. In T. J. Wilkinson, P. L. Murphy, N.
Brown, and E. M. Heppell (eds.), The archaeology of the
Essex Coast, Volume II: Excavations at the prehistoric
site of the Stumble. East Anglian Archaeology Report
No. 144. Essex County Council. Historic Environment.
Chelmsford: 62–70. https://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/
archiveDS/archiveDownload?t=arch-2304-1/dissemina-
tion/pdf/eaa/vol_144/EAA_144_Hullbridge.pdf
HER FRT 005 2021. Entry for Freston interrupted ditch
system (FRT 005) in the Suffolk County Council Archaeo-
logy Service’s Historic Environment Record. https:// her-
itage.suffolk.gov.uk/hbsmr-web/record.aspx?UID=MSF85
55-Interrupted-Ditch-System-Causewayed-Enclosure-at-
Potash-Farm&pageid=16&mid=9
Historic England 2015. Ipswich and the Shotley Pen-
insula NMP. https://historicengland.org.uk/research/cur
rent/discover-and-understand/landscapes/ipswich-and-
shotley-nmp/ 
Hummler M. 2005. Before Sutton Hoo: The prehistoric
settlement (c. 3000 BC to c. AD 550). In M. Carver (ed.),
Sutton Hoo: A seventh-century princely burial ground
and its context. Reports of the Research Committee of
the Society of Antiquaries of London 69. British Museum
Press. London: 391–458.
Hurcombe L. 2000. Plants as the raw material for crafts.
In A. S. Fairbairn (ed.), Plants in Neolithic Britain and
beyond. Oxbow Books. Oxford: 155–173.
Jacques D., Phillips T., Hoare P., Bishop B., Legge T., and
Parfitt S. 2014. Mesolithic settlement near Stonehenge:
excavations at Blick Mead, Vespasian’s Camp, Amesbury.
Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Maga-
zine 107: 7–27.
Jensen H. J. 1988. Functional analysis of prehistoric flint
tools by high-power microscopy: a review of west Euro-
pean research. Journal of World Prehistory 2: 53–88.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00975122 
Jones G. 2006. Charred plant remains. In C. Evans, I. Hod-
der (eds.), A woodland archaeology: Neolithic sites at
Haddenham. McDonald Institute Monographs. Cambridge:
312–315.
Jones G., Legge A. J. 2008. Evaluating the role of cereal
cultivation in the Neolithic: charred plant remains from
Hambledon Hill, Dorset. In R. Mercer, F. Healy (eds.),
Hambledon Hill, Dorset, excavation and survey of a
Neolithic monument complex and its surrounding land-
scape vol. 2. English Heritage. Swindon: 469–476.
Jones G., Rowley-Conwy P. 2007. On the importance of
cereal cultivation in the British Neolithic. In S. Colledge,
J. Conolly (eds.), The origins and spread of domestic
plants in Southwest Asia and Europe. Routledge. Lon-
don: 391–420.
Kinnes I. 2006. The pottery. In F. Pryor (ed.), Etton. Ex-
cavations at a Neolithic causewayed enclosure near
Maxey Cambridgeshire, 1982–7. English Heritage. Lon-
don: 161–214.
Knight M. 2006a. Prehistoric pottery. In C. Evans, M. Ed-
monds, S. Boreham, J. Evans, G. Jones, M. Knight, and T.
Legge (eds.), ‘Total archaeology’ and model landscapes:
excavation of the Great Wilbraham causewayed enclo-
sure, Cambridgeshire, 1975–76. Proceedings of the Pre-
historic Society 72: 113–162 [134–139].
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0079497X00000803 
2006b. Mildenhall pottery. In D. Garrow, S. Lucy, and
D. Gibson (eds.), Excavations at Kilverstone, Norfolk:
Episodic landscape history. Neolithic pits, later pre-
historic, Roman and Anglo-Saxon occupation, and
later activity. East Anglian Archaeology 113. Cam-
bridge Archaeological Unit. Cambridge: 29–52. http://
eaareports.org.uk/assets/uploads/repository/EAA_RE
PORT_113.pdf
Lamdin-Whymark H. 2008. The residue of ritualised
action: Neolithic deposition practices in the Middle Tha-
mes Valley. BAR International Series 466. Archaeopress.
Oxford.
The Freston causewayed enclosure> new research on the Early Neolithic of Eastern England (Suffolk)
139
Last J. 2013. The end of the longhouse. In D. Hoffman, J.
Smyth (eds.), Tracking the Neolithic house in Europe.
Springer. New York: 261–282.
Lavender N. 2007. Prehistoric pottery. In M. Germany
(ed.), Neolithic and Bronze Age Monuments and Mid-
dle Iron Age settlement at Lodge Farm, St Osyth, Essex:
Excavations 2000–3. East Anglian Archaeology 117. Hi-
storic Environment. Essex County Council. Chelmsford:
62–77.
Madgwick R., Lamb A. L., Sloane H., Nederbragt A. J., Al-
barella U., Pearson M. P., and Evans J. A. 2019. Multi-iso-
tope analysis reveals that feasts in the Stonehenge envi-
rons and across Wessex drew people and animals from
throughout Britain. Science Advances 5(3): eaau6078.
https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aau6078 
Marshall A., Marshall G. 1991. A survey and analysis of
the buildings of Early and Middle Anglo-Saxon England.
Medieval Archaeology 35(1): 29–43.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00766097.1991.11735537 
Martin E. 1989. The Neolithic. In D. Dymond, E. Martin
(eds.), An historical atlas of Suffolk. [3rd edition]. Suffolk
County Council, Environment and Transport/Suffolk In-
stitute of Achaeology and History. Ipswich: 36–37.
Martin E., Murphy P. 1988. West Row Fen, Suffolk: A
Bronze Age fen-edge settlement site. Antiquity 62(235):
353–358. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00074196 
Martin L. 2007. Freston causewayed enclosure, Suffolk.
Report on Geophysical Survey, August 2007. Unpublished
document. English Heritage. Swindon.
Martingell H. 2007. Worked flint. In M. Germany (ed.),
Neolithic and Bronze Age Monuments and Middle Iron
Age settlement at Lodge Farm, St Osyth, Essex: Exca-
vations 2000–3. East Anglian Archaeology 117. Historic
Environment. Essex County Council. Chelmsford: 59–62.
Meeks N. D., Sieveking G. de G., Tite M. S., and Cook J.
1982. Gloss and use-wear traces on flint sickles and simi-
lar phenomena. Journal of Archaeological Science 9:
317–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-4403(82)90038-3
Mercer R., Healy F. 2008. Hambledon Hill, Dorset, Eng-
land: Excavation and survey of a Neolithic monument
complex and its surrounding landscape. English Heri-
tage. Swindon.
Meredith J. 2007. Watching Brief Record, FRT 005. Suf-
folk County Council Archaeological Service.
Merriman N. (ed). 2004. Public archaeology. Routledge.
London.
Middleton H. R. 1998. Flint and chert artefacts. In F. Pryor
(ed.), Etton. Excavations at a Neolithic causewayed en-
closure near Maxey Cambridgeshire, 1982–7. English
Heritage. London: 215–256.
2006. Struck flint. In C. Evans, I. Hodder (eds.), A wood-
land archaeology: Neolithic sites at Haddenham. Mc-
Donald Institute Monographs. Cambridge: 282–298.
Miles D. 2016. The tale of the axe. How the Neolithic
revolution transformed Britain. Thames and Hudson.
London.
Milner N. 2009. Mesolithic consumption practices: Food
for thought. Journal of Nordic Archaeological Science
16: 49–64.
Murphy P. 1988. Botanical evidence (summary). In F.
Healy (ed.), The Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Spong Hill,
North Elmham, Part VI: Occupation During the Seventh
to Second Millennia BC. East Anglian Archaeology Re-
port No. 39. The Norfolk Archaeological Unit. Dereham.
http://eaareports.org.uk/assets/uploads/repository/EAA
_Report_39.pdf
2001. Review of wood and macroscopic wood char-
coal from archaeological sites in the West and East
Midlands regions and the East of England. Centre for
Archaeology Report 23. English Heritage. London.
Needham S. 2012. Case and place for the British Chalco-
lithic. In M. J. Allen, J. Gardiner, and A. Sheridan (eds.),
Is there a British Chalcolithic: People, place and polity
in the late 3rd Millennium. Prehistoric Society Research
Paper 4. Oxbow Books. Oxford: 1–26.
Nicolas C. 2017. Arrows of power from Brittany to Den-
mark (2500–1700 BC). Proceedings of the Prehistoric
Society 83: 247–287. https://doi.org/10.1017/ppr.2017.5 
Nye S., Scaife R. 2006. Plant macrofossil remains. In F.
Pryor (ed.), Etton. Excavations at a Neolithic causeway-
ed enclosure near Maxey Cambridgeshire, 1982–7. En-
glish Heritage. London: 289–300.
Orton C., Hughes M. 2013. Pottery in Archaeology [2nd
edition]. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. 
Oswald A., Dyer C., and Barber M. 2001. The creation of
monuments. Neolithic causewayed enclosures in the
British Isles. English Heritage. Swindon.
Overton N. J., Taylor B. 2018. Humans in the environ-
ment: plants, animals and landscapes in Mesolithic Bri-
tain and Ireland. Journal of World Prehistory 31(3): 385–
402. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10963-018-9116-0 
Tristan Carter, Nathaniel Jackson, Rose Moir, Charlotte Diffey, and Dana Challinor
Palmer R. 1976. Interrupted ditch enclosures in Britain:
the use of aerial photography for comparative studies.
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 42: 161–186.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0079497X00010732 
PCRG 2010. The study of prehistoric pottery: General po-
licies and guidelines for analysis and publication [3rd
edition]. Prehistoric Ceramics Research Group.
https://www.pcrg.org.uk/Publications1-2.htm.
Piggott S. 1934. The mutual relations of the British Neo-
lithic ceramics. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society of
East Anglia 3(7): 373–381.
1954. The Neolithic cultures of the British Isles. Cam-
bridge University Press. Cambridge.
Pioffet H., Ard V. 2017. From sherds to potters: The con-
tribution of techno-morphological approaches to under-
standing the British Neolithic. Archeologicke Rozhledy
LXIX: 281–306.
https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-02440949 
Pryor F. 1998. Etton. Excavations at a Neolithic cause-
wayed enclosure near Maxey, Cambridgeshire, 1982–7.
English Heritage. London.
Ray K., Thomas J. 2018. Neolithic Britain. The transfor-
mation of social worlds. Oxford University Press. Oxford.
Reber E. A., Kerr M. T., Whelton H. L., and Evershed R. P.
2019. Lipid residues from low-fired pottery. Archaeometry
61(1): 131–144. https://doi.org/10.1111/arcm.12403 
Richards C. 1996. Henges and water: towards an elemen-
tal understanding of monumentality and landscape in
late Neolithic Britain. Journal of Material Culture 1(3):
313–336. https://doi.org/10.1177/135918359600100303
Saville A. 2002. Lithic artefacts from Neolithic causewayed
enclosures: Character and meaning. In G. Varndell, P.
Topping (eds.), Enclosures in Neolithic Europe: Essays
on causewayed and non-causewayed sites. Oxbow. Ox-
ford: 91–105.
Schauer P., Bevan A., Shennan S., Edinborough K., Kerig
T., and Parker Pearson M. 2020. British Neolithic axehead
distributions and their implications. Journal of Archaeo-
logical Method and Theory 27: 836–859.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-019-09438-6 
Schofield T., Carter T., Jackson N., and Moir R. 2021. Inte-
grating geophysical survey and excavation at the Freston
Neolithic causewayed enclosure, Suffolk (UK). Archaeo-
logical Prospection 28: 107–119.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ARP.1800
Serjeantson D. 2011. Review of animal remains from
the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age of Southern Britain.
English Heritage. Fort Cumberland.
Sheridan J. A. 2010. The Neolithisation of Britain and Ire-
land: the big picture. In B. Finlayson, G. Warren (eds.),
Landscapes in Transition. Oxbow Books. Oxford: 89–105.
2013. Early Neolithic habitation structures in Britain
and Ireland: A matter of circumstance and context. In
D. Hoffman, J. Smyth (eds.), Tracking the Neolithic
house in Europe. Springer. New York: 283–300.
Shillito L.-M., Matthews W. 2013. Geoarchaeological in-
vestigations of midden-formation processes in the Early
to Late Ceramic Neolithic levels at Çatalhöyük, Turkey
ca. 8550–8370 cal BP. Geoarchaeology 28: 25–49.
https://doi.org/10.1002/gea.21427 
Sibbesson E. 2014a. Transformations in cookery and clay:
The first thousand years of pottery in prehistoric Oxford-
shire. In M. McWilliams (ed.), Food and Material Culture.
Proceedings of the 2013 Oxford Symposium on Food and
Cookery. Prospect Books. London: 281–288.
Smith I. F. 1954. The pottery. In V. G. Childe, Excavation
of a Neolithic Barrow on Whiteleaf Hill, Bucks. Proceed-
ings of the Prehistoric Society 8: 212–230 [221–223].
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0079497X00017680 
1956. The Decorative Art of Neolithic Ceramics in
South-Eastern England and its Relations. PhD disser-
tation. Faculty of Arts. University of London. London.
https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1317617/
1965. Windmill Hill and Avebury. Excavations by Ale-
xander Keiller 1925–1939. Clarendon Press. Oxford.
Smith M. J. 2013. The war to begin all wars? Contextua-
lizing violence in Neolithic Britain. In C. Knüsel, M. Smith
(eds.), The Routledge Handbook of the Bioarchaeology
of Human Conflict. Routledge. Oxford: 155–172.
Smith O., Momber G., Bates R., +4 authors, and Allaby R.
G. 2015. Sedimentary DNA from a submerged site reveals
wheat in the British Isles 8000 years ago. Science 347
(6225): 998–1001.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1261278 
Stace C. 2010. New flora of the British Isles. Third Edi-
tion. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
Stevens C. J. 2007. Reconsidering the evidence: Towards
an understanding of the social contexts of subsistence
production in Neolithic Britain. In S. Colledge, J. Conolly
(eds.), The origins and spread of domestic plants in
Southwest Asia and Europe. Routledge. London: 375–389.
140
The Freston causewayed enclosure> new research on the Early Neolithic of Eastern England (Suffolk)
Stevens C. J., Fuller D. Q. 2012. Did Neolithic farming fail?
The case for a Bronze Age agricultural revolution in the
British Isles. Antiquity 86(333): 707–722.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00047864 
Tabor J. 2016. Early Neolithic pits and artefact scatters at
North Fen, Sutton Gault, Cambridgeshire. Proceedings of
the Prehistoric Society 82: 161–191.
https://doi.org/10.1017/ppr.2016.2 
Thomas J. 1988. Neolithic explanations revisited: The
Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in Britain and South Scan-
dinavia. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 54: 59–
66. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0079497X00005752 
1993. Discourse, totalization, and ‘The Neolithic’. In C.
Tilley (ed.), Interpretative archaeology. Berg. Oxford:
357–394.
2008. The Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in Britain. In
J. Pollard (ed.), Prehistoric Britain. Blackwell. Oxford:
58–89.
2010. The return of the Rinyo-Clacton folk? The cultu-
ral significance of the Grooved Ware complex in later
Neolithic Britain. Cambridge Archaeological Journal
20(1): 1–15.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774310000016 
Thoms A. 2008. The fire stones carry: Ethnographic re-
cords and archaeological expectations of hot-rock cookery
in Western North America. Journal of Anthropological
Archaeology 27: 443–460.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2008.07.002 
Tilley C. 1996. The powers of rocks: topography and mo-
nument construction on Bodmin Moor. World Archaeo-
logy 28: 161–176.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.1996.9980338 
Treasure E. R., Gröcke D. R., Caseldine A. E., and Church
M. J. 2019. Neolithic farming and wild plant exploitation
in Western Britain: Archaeobotanical and crop stable iso-
tope evidence from Wales (c. 4000–2200 cal BC). Proce-
edings of the Prehistoric Society 85: 193–222.
https://doi.org/10.1017/ppr.2019.12 
Unger-Hamilton R. 1985. Microscopic striations on flint
sickle-blades as an indication of plant cultivation: Prelimi-
nary results. World Archaeology 17: 121–126.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.1985.9979955 
Whittle A., Healy F., and Bayliss A. (eds.) 2011. Gathering
time: Dating the early enclosures of southern Britain
and Ireland. Oxbow Books. Oxford.
Wightman A. 2011. Report on the archaeological moni-
toring of EDF cable undergrounding within the Freston
causewayed enclosure at Potash Farm, Holbrook, Suf-
folk. Colchester Archaeological Trust. Colchester.
Wilkinson T., Brown P. L., Brown N., and Heppell E. M.
2012. The Archaeology of the Essex Coast Vol 2: Excava-
tions at the prehistoric site of the Stumble. East Anglian
Archaeology 144. Essex County Council. Chelmsford.
Wilson D. R. 1975. ‘Causewayed camps’ and ‘interrupted
ditch systems’. Antiquity 49(195): 178–186.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00070046 
Worley F., Madgwick R., Pelling R., +8 authors, and Ro-
berts D. 2019. Understanding Middle Neolithic food and
farming in and around the Stonehenge World Heritage
Site: an integrated approach. Journal of Archaeological
Science. Reports 26: 101838.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2019.05.003 
Wyles S. F. 2017. Charred plant remains. In P. Harding,
A. J. Barclay, C. Barnett, G. Chaffey, M. Leivers, and S. F.
Wyles (eds.), Excavations at Reydon Farm: Early Neolithic
pit digging in East Suffolk. Proceedings of the Suffolk In-
stitute of Archaeology and History 43(4): 1–18 [11–12].
Wymer J. 1999a. Surface geology. In D. Dymond, E. Mar-
tin (eds.), An historical atlas of Suffolk [3rd edition]. Suf-
folk County Council, Environment and Transport/Suffolk
Institute of Achaeology and History. Ipswich: 118–119.
1999b. Late glacial and Mesolithic hunters. In D. Dy-
mond, E. Martin (eds.), An historical atlas of Suffolk
[3rd edition]. Suffolk County Council. Environment and
Transport. Suffolk Institute of Achaeology and History.
Ipswich: 34–35.
Wymer J. J., Jacobi R. M., and Rose J. 1975. Late Deven-
sian and Early Flandrian barbed points from Sproughton,
Suffolk. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 41: 235–
241. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0079497X00011014
141