A Route Well Travelled. The archaeology of the A14 Huntingdon to Cambridge Road Improvement Scheme

Introduction

The route of the A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon Road Improvement Scheme provides a spatial and chronological slice through the landscape affording a rare opportunity to explore the diversity and density of earlier prehistoric activity (Fig. 2.1). The archaeology of the A14 begins in the lower Palaeolithic with the Pleistocene river terrace deposits, investigated to the south of Fenstanton Gravels, containing vertebrate remains associated with a small assemblage of lithics of this date (Boismier 2021; Boismier et al. 2021; Boismier 2024). Mesolithic to Bronze Age activity was identified to varying degrees, from composite arrays of features, including significant monumental complexes and cremation cemeteries, to residual material (Table 2.1). The distribution of evidence is not uniform, with Mesolithic activity focused along the western reaches of the River Great Ouse within the landscape blocks of Brampton West, West of Ouse and River Great Ouse. Neolithic occupation evidence was scarce, with scattered features and lithics recovered from across the scheme with concentrated activity identified at Conington. The scarcity of earlier prehistoric settlement evidence is in contrast to the diversity of monuments and ceremonial complexes developing during the Neolithic and Bronze Age. The monuments of the A14 include a henge, ring-ditches, a timber circle and barrows. The emergence of burial monuments and their continued significance throughout the Bronze Age is exemplified by the middle Bronze Age cremation cemetery at the West of Ouse barrow. Detailed examination, including osteological and Bayesian analysis, of the exceptionally large cremation cemeteries uncovered at West of Ouse and Fenstanton Gravels offers insights into both populations and practices. The identification and chronological distinction of rare Bronze Age settled landscapes provide a firmer foundation for exploring the rapid expansion of settlement in the Iron Age presented in Chapter 3.

This chapter is presented chronologically, opening with an examination of the limited evidence for Mesolithic activity. This is followed by a consideration of the nature of settlement in the Neolithic and the emergence of monuments. The scale of the A14 excavations has offered an excellent opportunity to consider activity at a landscape level with a detailed overview of the evidence for Bronze Age settlement, monumental and funerary activity provided. The aim of this chapter is to present a synthetic overview of inhabitation along the A14, with wider contextualisation and consideration of the Bronze Age landscapes revealed presented in the print monograph (Christie forthcoming).

The Mesolithic: Movement and Microliths

During the Mesolithic (10,000-4000 BC) the River Great Ouse flowed through a changing landscape, with climatic shifts prompting the expansion of woodland across the once open grassland (Scaife 2000, 19-20; Wiltshire 1997). The Mesolithic worked flint assemblage from the A14 excavations totalled 1685 lithics comprising cores and a wide range of tools with debitage from blade production recovered from all landscape blocks (Devaney 2024i; Table 2.2). The identification of Mesolithic activity across the A14 was not uniform, with higher concentrations of flint recovered from landscape blocks located along the gravel river terraces namely Brampton West, West of Ouse and River Great Ouse (Fig. 2.2; Devaney 2024a-i). This matches the distribution noted during the earlier A14 investigations, with fieldwalking conducted in 2009 revealing evidence of Mesolithic/early Neolithic activity primarily on the gravel terraces (Anderson et al. 2009). A greater range of cores were recovered from Brampton West, West of Ouse and River Great Ouse showing varying levels of working from fully utilised to partial working with retained cortex (Devaney 2024c-e; 2024i). A small number of backed bladelets associated with microlith production were also recovered from West of Ouse (Devaney 2024i). The tools, comprising blades, microliths and scrapers, indicate use on diverse tasks including hunting, food preparation and those involving cutting, piercing and scraping, such as hide working. While the assemblages are comparable, the higher concentration of lithics at West of Ouse, Brampton West, River Great Ouse, and Conington potentially indicates longer term activity rather than sporadic or temporary visitations (Devaney 2024i; Butler 2005, 115-16). No cut features, hearths or deposits of Mesolithic date were identified, with the lithics largely recovered from later features. In addition, the dearth of animal bone and plant remains confidently assigned to the Mesolithic means all interpretations rely solely on the flint assemblage. The chronological limits and mixing of the assemblage only allows us to discuss a 'Mesolithic population' in the broadest chronological terms, although a small number of chronologically diagnostic microliths were identified, including earlier Mesolithic examples found exclusively at West of Ouse potentially indicating an early focus of activity. The comparative analysis of the flint assemblage from across the scheme provides some insights into the development of preferred and persistent places (Devaney 2024i).

The differential or favoured occupation of specific topographic and environmental contexts throughout early prehistory is well established (see Billington 2016a; 2021a and Evans et al. 2016). Mesolithic evidence in the wider environs of the A14 ranges from single find spots noted in the Cambridgeshire HER, to small lithic assemblages and more substantial scatters, highlighting the diversity of Mesolithic signatures and their interpretations (Fig. 2.3). Towards the west of the scheme, several finds include a Mesolithic axe fragment uncovered at Watersmeet, Huntingdon (Nicholson 2004), and small assemblages such as at Brampton Hut (Slater 2016; MCB19582) and the A14/A604 Junction, Godmanchester (Holgate 1991, 43; Wait 1992, 81; MCB16075). At a comparable scale to the A14 and to its east, fieldwalking at Striplands Farm, Longstanton, recovered a low-density chronologically mixed assemblage that included late Mesolithic-early Neolithic material, characteristic of discarded flint-working waste and likely representing sporadic or seasonal activity (Evans and Mackay 2004). Substantial assemblages were also uncovered at Slate Hall Farm and Godwin Ridge, Over (Gerrard 1989; Evans and Vander Linden 2008). The large Mesolithic flint assemblage from Godwin Ridge, Over, paints a varied pattern of activity duration and character with all stages of the chaîne opératoire represented (Evans and Vander Linden 2008, 51; Billington 2016c). The landscape surrounding the A14 therefore displays evidence of both fleeting and more sustained Mesolithic activity with concentrations at seemingly preferred locations, such as along ridges and river crossings. These flint assemblages likely resulted from repeated visitations, potentially encompassing a diverse range of interactions, practices, and occupational patterns.

The identification of 'persistent places' in the Mesolithic has become a key research theme, with the term encompassing both functional and social factors for the seemingly long-term importance of certain locations (Barton et al. 1995; Evans et al. 2016; Billington 2016a; 2016c). The importance of specific locations, established in the Mesolithic, in some instances continued to hold significance into the Neolithic and Bronze Age. At a site scale this pattern can most clearly be identified at West of Ouse, where higher concentrations of lithics, including from the Mesolithic, were recovered from TEA 16, the area closest to the river. This area became the focus of subsequent Neolithic and Bronze Age activity with the development of West of Ouse Monuments 1 and 2. The presence of single-period assemblages, such as the exceptional later Mesolithic assemblage comprising 22,128 worked and burnt flints from Bartlow Road, Linton (Billington 2021b, 75), is rare, with many being chronologically mixed. The assemblages from the A14 contained lithics dating from the Mesolithic to the early Bronze Age, indicating long histories of human activity (Devaney 2024i). While general observations can be made based on the evidence from the A14 it is important to keep in mind that the totality of the evidence, reliant on a single material type, represents over 5000 years of human history. This presents challenges in establishing the nuances of chronological and cultural change, particularly moving from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic.

The Neolithic

The transition to the Neolithic is often difficult to define owing to the paucity of features and the difficulty of distinguishing between late Mesolithic and early Neolithic flint industries (Evans and Vander Linden 2008; Devaney 2024i; Fig. 2.4). This is further complicated by issues surrounding the conceptualisation, understanding and identification of distinctly 'Neolithic' lifeways, particularly in the earliest Neolithic (Thomas 1999; 2007, 428). The advent of the early Neolithic in Cambridgeshire is marked by the construction of causewayed enclosures from around 3700 cal BC, such as at Etton near Peterborough, representing a significant shift in cultural, social and economic aspects of inhabitation (Whittle et al. 2011, 324-5; Last et al. 2022; White et al. 2024).

The evidence from the A14 has offered the opportunity to explore and trace continuity and change in activity patterns from the earliest to latest Neolithic (Table 2.3). The discussion is divided into the earlier (4000-2900 BC) and later Neolithic (2900-2000 BC), as a distinctly middle Neolithic signature is hard to identify. The lithic assemblage included a limited number of chronologically diagnostic tools including earlier Neolithic leaf-shaped arrowheads and later Neolithic chisel and oblique arrowheads commonly associated with Grooved Ware pottery (Devaney 2024i). The middle Neolithic was represented in the ceramic assemblage by only 106 sherds of Peterborough Ware, 103 of which were recovered from Conington (Percival 2024g). The pits and artefact scatters at Conington represent the greatest concentration of earlier Neolithic occupation evidence with scattered features and residual finds identified across the scheme. Later Neolithic evidence was concentrated towards the western end of the scheme with pits, associated with palaeochannels, uncovered at Brampton West and River Great Ouse (Table 2.3). Adjacent to the River Great Ouse is also where we see the emergence of monuments that would develop throughout the later Neolithic-earlier Bronze Age.

Earlier Neolithic settlement and subsistence

The earlier Neolithic activity of the A14 appears to have been highly mobile. Evidence of transient settlement and associated activity is represented by a range of features, including artefact scatters, stray finds, pits and utilised tree-throws (Table 2.3). A particularly evocative picture of this activity is painted by the contents of a single pit excavated at West of Ouse (TEA 16). Pit 160018, located at the edge of the gravel ridge overlooking the river Great Ouse, contained an assemblage of early Neolithic flint, pottery, and antler in the very early stages of working. The antler was still attached to the skull of a red deer stag, at least five years old, killed in autumn or winter; cut marks on the skull potentially indicating skinning (Ewens 2024a). The inclusion of the antler may suggest ritualised deposition as antler was a valued material in prehistoric Britain and the burial of an unfinished example with no evidence of reworking/recycling was potentially significant (Legge 1981; Worley and Serjeantson 2014). The role of hunting in the earlier Neolithic is reinforced by the lithic assemblage from across the scheme, which included nine leaf-shaped arrowheads all recovered from later features (Devaney 2024i).

The greatest concentration of early-middle Neolithic activity was uncovered at Conington and comprised flint scatters, pits, possible post-holes and utilised tree-throws focused across the gravel ridge at the western end of the site (Fig. 2.5). Three distinct artefact scatters (322320, 322321 and 322322) were identified from which a mixed assemblage of worked flint, including a high proportion of earlier Neolithic blades and middle Neolithic bird-bone impressed Peterborough Ware, was recovered (Devaney 2024g; Percival 2024h; Fig. 2.6). The flint assemblage included blades displaying characteristics associated with Mesolithic or earlier Neolithic soft-hammer blade production (Devaney 2024g). The presence of flint waste, chips and rejuvenation flakes suggests knapping was taking place in the area. The assemblage from the scatters matches that recovered from the surrounding pits where the retouched pieces appear to have been informally worked to create expedient tools. The pits also contained dumps of occupation debris, matching the depositional character of pits found across the country, with pottery sherds, worked and struck flint and broken artefacts recovered from the fills (Garrow 2007, 12; Table 2.4). The ceramic assemblage from the pits included sherds of early Neolithic Plain Bowl and Mildenhall Ware and middle Neolithic Peterborough Ware (Mortlake sub-style; Percival 2024g). Carbonised material indicated the presence of local scrubby taxa including blackthorn and hazel, with rare charred barley and wheat grains (Bailey 2024i; Fosberry 2024); a hazelnut shell from Pit 323667 was dated to 3350-3090 cal BC (SUERC-92413; note unless otherwise stated all radiocarbon dates in this chapter are provided at 95% probability). A saddle quern fragment (F32897), recovered from one of the early Neolithic pits, may imply processing of plant remains. The pits all contained single fills, perhaps representing short-term or rapid events, in some cases linked to in situ burning, with no evidence for the layering of deposits or the accumulation of sterile silting lenses.

The extent to which pits represent 'settlement' has been widely debated, with pits often viewed as proxy evidence or repositories for the debris of a variety of activities (Garrow 2007). The pits at Conington do not exhibit a close or clear relationship with surrounding features and so did not form part of a wider landscape complex (Garrow 2006, 34). Rather, these features appear to represent sporadic but persistent activity at the site from the early to middle Neolithic (White et al. 2024). The limited environmental evidence precludes full discussion of the role of agriculture and the development of subsistence strategies, but all represent a level of 'domestic' activity. The positioning of the pits at Conington reflects a broad pattern observed across East Anglia with sites located close to rivers, 98% within 3km, but locally situated at elevated positions (Garrow 2006, 16). The pits at Conington are located on a ridge, c. 12.9m above Ordnance Datum (AOD) at its highest, c. 2.5km to the south of the River Great Ouse, with tributaries bracketing the site in an area of free-draining soils on river terrace deposits. The focus of the activity at Conington may reflect semi-permanent settlement, seasonal occupation, or its role as a key location providing access to surrounding economic resources and culturally significant monumentalised landscapes.

The concentration of features at Conington lies to the south of several sites with evidence for early and middle Neolithic activity. A small assemblage of middle Neolithic Peterborough Ware was recovered from a ditch terminus at Fen Drayton along with residual flint (Slater 2016). Excavations at Barleycroft Paddocks uncovered early Neolithic pottery and flint from tree-throws, and a distinct group of Mildenhall Ware pits (Evans et al. 2016, 15). Further north in Cambridgeshire, little evidence for early Neolithic activity was uncovered at Godwin Ridge and O'Connell Ridge, where extensive excavations in the Over landscape revealed a highly variable pattern of prehistoric activity including early Neolithic flint scatters situated further away from rivers (Evans et al. 2016, 136; 2023). The results of the A14 fieldwalking, discussed previously in a Mesolithic context, also highlight the presence of activity 'inland' with Mesolithic/early Neolithic blade assemblages recovered from non-gravel areas including adjacent to the Bar Hill Landscape Block (FD 72a; Anderson et al. 2009, 39). Regionally, the quantities of earlier Neolithic pottery per hectare from across the A14 were comparable to those at Over but low when compared to sites to the south of Cambridge such as Glebe Farm, Trumpington Park and Ride (Knight 2018) and North Fen, Sutton Gault (Knight 2016). Over 50% of the earlier Neolithic ceramic assemblage from the A14 excavations was recovered from later features, potentially indicating a more variable and widespread pattern of activity concentrated at key locations (Percival 2024h). The distinctly limited early Neolithic evidence, relying principally on scatters and residual evidence, raises questions surrounding the potential nature of this activity and its implications in understanding population densities and occupation patterns.

Later Neolithic pits and practices

Later Neolithic settlement activity along the A14 is equally varied and transient, comprising pit groups and activity in the vicinity of palaeochannels (Table 2.3). The former riverbank of the River Great Ouse lay at the western extent of the River Great Ouse Landscape Block, with a sequence of peats and alluvial deposits identified during the evaluation works (Area C2 and N1; Patten et al. 2010, 92-3). The basal peat deposits, first appearing at a depth of -3m around 20-25m east of the present riverbank, likely formed during the late Neolithic and early Bronze Age. The lower peat deposits contained a small lithic assemblage along with a considerable quantity of burnt and fire-cracked stones and a wooden post, dated to 2190-1940 cal BC (Beta-270667), indicating activity at the river edge (Patten et al. 2010, 92). An area of buried soil (190196) extending over 60m ² was identified c. 150m to the east of the former riverbank (Atkins and Douthwaite 2024), and an assemblage of Neolithic flint, including flakes, bladelets, two end-scrapers and a burin, was recovered from a pit associated with this soil (Devaney 2024e). Elsewhere across the River Great Ouse Landscape Block, the lithics retrieved included Neolithic forms such as a flaked axe (F70571), scrapers and later Neolithic chiselled arrowheads. Although largely recovered from later features, these worked flints highlight the presence of a range of activities undertaken in this landscape, including knapping. In sum, the evidence recovered at River Great Ouse points to continuity in prehistoric activity along the riverbanks, the surrounding channels and on the gravel terraces.

At Brampton West, activity was also concentrated around a palaeochannel and a possible occupation deposit of burnt clay, charcoal and burnt stones. A small assemblage of worked flint, a single sherd of Grooved Ware, 25 sherds of undiagnostic prehistoric pottery and faunal remains were recovered from this deposit (Percival 2024c). The faunal remains comprised solely butchered cattle and ovicaprid long bone and rib fragments (Faine 2024b). The assemblage was comparable to that of Pit Group 7BC.274, located c. 230m to the south-west, which contained several burnt ovicaprid long bone fragments, 205 sherds of late Neolithic Grooved Ware from 24 vessels, and 25 pieces of worked flint (Devaney 2024c; Percival 2024c). The worked flint assemblage contained cores and tools including three scrapers, a backed knife and a retouched flake (Devaney 2024c). The pit fills may represent curated and deliberately deposited material potentially resulting from feasting activity, with tentative evidence for the deliberate placement of the Grooved Ware sherds within one of the pits (Pit 765141). This pit contained sherds from 15 vessels including large sherds from seven Durrington Walls tub-shaped vessels with vertical pinched cordons defining panels in-filled with incised decoration (Percival 2024c; Fig. 2.7). The sherds were arranged in layers around the sides of the pit and placed carefully within the single fill, as opposed to forming part of an incidental dump of material within a soil matrix. This conforms to a more widely recognised pattern at sites such as Over, Cambridgeshire, indicative of the increased structured 'formality' of Grooved Ware pit deposits (Thomas 1999; Pollard 2001; Garrow 2006, 89; Noble et al. 2016).

A total of c. 24 Grooved Ware vessels were recovered from three landscape blocks: Brampton West, West of Ouse and River Great Ouse, with that from a pit at Brampton West forming the largest assemblage (Percival 2024h). The Grooved Ware is predominantly grog-tempered with forms and decorations characteristic of the Durrington Walls substyle. A comparable pit at Longstanton contained a large assemblage of 165 sherds of Grooved Ware, also of Durrington Walls substyle, from two charcoal-rich fills (Paul and Cuttler 2008, 4). This feature was associated with further pits, post-holes, ditches and gullies suggesting wider activity but with limited clustering of features (Paul and Cuttler 2008, 5-7). The pattern of Grooved Ware distribution across the region typically indicates a preference for riverside locations with the A14 largely conforming to this (Cleal 1999; Knight 2016, 161; Chris Evans pers. comm.). Contrasting with these specific concentrations of activity, recent comparative studies have also highlighted the absence of Grooved Ware from many extensively excavated riverine locations, potentially indicating areas that were uninhabited or rarely utilised (Evans et al. 2023). The complexities of Grooved Ware distributions have been highlighted with the suggestion at Over, Cambridgeshire, that the Durrington Walls substyle was focused around the palaeochannel at Godwin Ridge. Grooved Ware was recovered from a limited number of dispersed pits and tree-throws at Godwin Ridge with a higher density of later Neolithic pits uncovered at O'Connell Ridge adjacent to a palaeochannel (Evans et al. 2016, 237). It has been suggested that Grooved Ware of the Durrington Walls substyle is more typically associated with dispersed pits and pit groups; a pattern also seen at sites such as Linton Village College, Margetts Farm, and now across the A14 (Pollard 1998; Percival 2012; 2024h; Knight 2016, 220; Ingham and Oetgen 2016). Ongoing excavations at Needingworth Quarry (Over) in the lower reaches of the Great Ouse, where the river entered the low-lying land of what became the fen basin, are revealing an extensive Neolithic landscape. This includes pits with Mildenhall and Grooved Ware associations, structural remains, oval barrows and a linear series of long rectangular monuments (Tabor and Barker 2022; Brudenell et al. 2023). These were located south of the causewayed enclosure in Haddenham's Upper Delphs (MCB7035) and the Foulmire Fen long barrow (MCB9398; Evans and Hodder 2006). The distribution of activities reveals a focus on the tributaries and main channels of the Great Ouse river system, where later prehistoric communities also settled and farmed prior to the submergence of the basin by Fen deposits in the late Bronze Age.

Agriculture and environment

Evidence for Neolithic subsistence strategies across the A14, indicated by the cultivation of cereals and animal husbandry, was limited. The remains from the A14 offer few insights into this debate with poorly preserved grains only indicating the presence of glume wheats and barley (see Environmental Overview in Wallace and Ewens 2024). The presence of a single fragment of a saddle quern from an early Neolithic pit at Conington provides tentative evidence for cereal processing. The continued use of wild resources is reflected in the archaeobotanical samples, with hazelnut shells and shrubby fruit-producing taxa represented. The archaeozoological assemblage from Neolithic features across the A14 also comprised both wild and domesticated species including red deer from the pit at West of Ouse, predominantly antler likely used for tool production, and domesticated sheep (adult and infant) from the early-middle Neolithic pits at Conington. The A14 Neolithic flint assemblage contained a variety of tools including those potentially associated with hunting, animal butchery and hide-processing. Diagnostically later Neolithic lithics included chisel and oblique arrowheads, often associated with Grooved Ware, with the most complete examples recovered from Fenstanton Gravels (Devaney 2024i).

The impact of Neolithic inhabitation on the environment has often been explored through woodland clearance, with many of the 46 samples analysed from the A14 indicating the presence of scrubby woodland with wood charcoal (Wallace and Ewens 2024). The clearance of woodland was identified by tree-throws associated with Neolithic artefacts or activity at West of Ouse and Conington. This mirrors the evidence from neighbouring sites with over 300 tree-throws dating to the Neolithic uncovered during excavations at Huntingdon Racecourse (Macaulay 1993). The pollen records indicate that woodland clearance was variable across the region, ranging from minimal to intensive deforestation at different locations during prehistory (Smith et al. 1989; Scaife 2000). Extensive palaeoenvironmental and drainage studies at Over, Cambridgeshire, identified mixed-oak woodland until the late Neolithic (Evans et al. 2016, 80). This pattern was also seen in the palynological record from the palaeochannels at River Great Ouse (Grant 2024e). The occurrence of localised management of woodland, while more difficult to recognise, was likely and may have opened up landscapes to provide space for growing crops, grazing, hunting and the construction of monuments (Evans and Hodder 2006; Lyons 2019). Neolithic populations along the A14 appear to have been moving within a diverse environment, potentially exploiting both wild and domestic resources and leaving only sllight traces of settlement evidence and subsistence activities.

The emergence of monuments

The paucity of later Neolithic settlement evidence on the A14 is juxtaposed against the proliferation of monuments along the River Great Ouse during the Neolithic-Bronze Age. Several monumental complexes with their origins in the Neolithic have been identified along the River Great Ouse including at Buckden-Diddington (Malim 2000), Eynesbury, St Neots (Malim 2000; Ellis 2004), Margetts Farm, Buckden (Ingham and Oetgen 2016) and Rectory Farm, Godmanchester (Lyons 2019). Recent excavations have revealed extensive Neolithic activity across the river's eastern terrace within the Over landscape including four Neolithic barrows, enclosures and henges (Evans et al. 2023). This is in addition to the cremation burials at O'Connell Ridge (Evans et al. 2016) and the Haddenham causewayed enclosure (Evans and Hodder 2006). The broad distribution of monuments appears to focus on the river, with the Over landscape extending into this to accentuate the meeting point of river and Fenland (Evans et al. 2023). The Neolithic monuments of the A14 may also reflect an emphasis on riverside settings, with Neolithic activity concentrated within the western portion of the scheme at Alconbury and West of Ouse.

The Neolithic enclosure (Monument 1) uncovered under the Bronze Age barrow at West of Ouse was constructed following a phase of clearance indicated by a series of pits and tree-throws across the interior of the enclosure. The clearance of trees prior to the creation of monuments has been identified at sites across the Ouse Valley, with the act of construction serving both a practical and symbolic function in modifying the landscape (Evans and Hodder 2006; Lyons 2019, 399). West of Ouse Monument 1 was aligned north-east to south-west and was defined by an elongated C-shaped ditch enclosing an area of c. 31.5m by 14.5m with an entrance to the north-west. There was no evidence to indicate that the enclosure continued to the north, with the later barrow likely matching its extent. The monument was distinctly elongated in shape, contrasting with the circular form of many of the ring-ditches and henge-type monuments, and is in some respects reminiscent of an early Neolithic oval barrow such as that defined by a U-shaped ditch at Horton in the Middle Thames Valley, Berkshire (Ford and Pine 2003). The lack of evidence for funerary activities, coupled with the presence of an entranceway, however, invites closer parallels with Neolithic enclosures that may have fulfilled a range of ceremonial functions (Bradley 1998; 2003; Gibson 2012a). The enclosure is similar to the 'paper-clip' shaped enclosure identified, but unfortunately not investigated further, at Buckden-Diddington and the enclosure that forms part of the ceremonial complex at Octagon Farm, Cardington-Cople, Bedfordshire (Malim 2000, 72; Fig. 2.8). At Needingworth Quarry, Over, a narrow ditch, devoid of artefacts, defined an elongated enclosure c. 30m in length (Tabor and Barker 2022, 31). Three oval enclosures were identified at Biddenham Loop, Bedfordshire, of comparable dimensions to that at West of Ouse, measuring 25-40m in length and 14-16m in width (Luke 2008, 81). The limited material culture, including a small lithic assemblage and no pottery, recovered from West of Ouse Monument 1 provides few insights into the activities that may have taken place there and whether they were of a quotidian, ceremonial or mortuary nature. While different in form, the unusual trapezoidal enclosure excavated at Rectory Farm, Godmanchester, to the north of the West of Ouse Landscape Block, provides a framework in which to consider the role of enclosure (Lyons 2019). As at Rectory Farm, the monument may best be understood as a demarcation of an important space, invested in by a community and potentially representing a fixed point and transformed 'space' within the landscape (Bradley 1998; Brück 2000; Lyons 2019). Perhaps the most revealing insight into the significance of the enclosure is the development of the Bronze Age barrow directly on top.

The challenges in interpreting circular or oval enclosures and henge monuments pervade our understanding of the ditched monument at Alconbury (Fig. 2.9). This monument comprised two opposing ditch arcs encircling an area 20m in diameter with entrances to the east and west. The ditches measured 2.2-2.4m in width and 0.55-0.56m in depth with fills accumulated through natural silting. The presence of slumped gravel and stone fills may have accumulated from the erosion of an outer bank. The monument at Alconbury displays characteristics central to the early classification of henges, namely an external bank, wide ditch and two entrances (Atkinson 1951, 85; Wainwright 1969; Gibson 2012b; Cummings 2019). The term 'henge' encompasses a broad range of monumental forms with debates often focusing on the diversity of forms as opposed to explaining function (Younger 2016, 119). Henge monuments have been interpreted as potentially commemorative, constructed as ceremonial spaces placed at key points in the landscape perhaps associated with rivers and routeways (Bradley 1998; Younger 2016). The henge at Alconbury is located at the edge of a river terrace at the confluence of two tributaries of the River Great Ouse surrounded by what was likely a seasonally flooded landscape.

The dating of henges can be problematic with the monument at Alconbury presenting a familiar set of challenges with mixed material recovered, potentially resulting from later surrounding activity rather than relating to the construction of the monument. Moreover, the ditch may have been open and kept clean for a considerable period before the initial fill accumulated (Gibson 2012b, 13). Charcoal from the basal fill was radiocarbon dated to 1880-1620 cal BC (SUERC-85531) providing a broad date for ditch silting. A comparative radiocarbon date of 1900-1690 cal BC (SUERC-75283) was obtained from charcoal within a pit truncating the northern terminus. Additionally, a mixed ceramic assemblage was recovered from the ditches including sherds of early Neolithic wares and a larger assemblage of early Bronze Age Collared Urn fragments, highlighting the potential longevity of this monument. A cremation burial located 4m south-east of the monument was also dated 2030-1880 cal BC (SUERC-91510) hinting at the range of activities potentially taking place around the henge during this period. On balance, the henge appears to have been constructed prior to the early Bronze Age with the dearth of cultural material and interior features matching the depositional patterns observed at other sites. The henge ditch began silting in the early Bronze Age, possibly coinciding with the 'reactivation' of the monument as a funerary site. This trend is observed at other locations along the A14, principally at Brampton West, and regionally, such as at Needingworth Quarry (Evans and Vander Linden 2008; Cooper et al. 2022).

The Bronze Age

The Bronze Age evidence is a tale of two scales, with the scattered evidence of settlement contrasting with the proliferation of monuments (Table 2.5). The pattern of early Bronze Age (2300-1500 BC) activity is characterised by dispersed occupation evidence, in contrast to the proliferation of monuments and burial activity. Early Bronze Age settlement can be compared to sites across the region, with pits continuing to provide a key resource for exploring occupation patterns. Regionally, the scale and intensity of activity in the middle Bronze Age (1500-1150 BC) actively transforms the landscape by extensive boundary construction through the development of enclosures and field systems. Despite the scale of the A14 excavations, the construction of enclosures and field systems was only evident at a single location - Conington. The creation of boundaries at Conington is comparable to sites to the north of the A14, such as Fenstanton, Northstowe and Over, extending activity from the Fen to the river's edge. The elusive evidence of later Bronze Age (1150-800 BC) activity on the A14 paints an increasingly complex regional picture of settlement extent, distribution and intensity that extends into the early Iron Age.

In contrast, extensive evidence of Bronze Age monumental and burial activity was identified including ring-ditch monuments and barrows, often associated with later large cremation cemeteries and inhumation burials spatially referencing them. The monuments of the A14 developed in the late Neolithic-early Bronze Age, with extensive evidence of middle Bronze Age modification and reuse. Late Neolithic-early Bronze Age monuments include ceremonial spaces, timber circles, henges, and barrows, the latter generally associated with funerary concerns. Bronze Age monuments were principally focused within the western portion of the scheme at Brampton West, West of Ouse and River Great Ouse. Several of the monuments were linked to burial activity, such as the barrow at West of Ouse, with a range of mortuary rites and funerary practices including inhumation burials, smaller groups of cremations, and large cremation cemeteries uncovered across the scheme. The cemeteries and individual burials uncovered at Brampton West, West of Ouse and Fenstanton Gravels provide a focus for discussion and offer valuable insights into Bronze Age funerary practices.

Settlement, agriculture and environment

The Bronze Age witnessed significant environmental change, with the drainage studies conducted at Over, Cambridgeshire, highlighting its impact on the actual river itself; the once well-defined braided plains transformed into silt-choked channels in the Bronze Age (Evans et al. 2016, 61). The impact of marine transgression was also evident during this period, with intertidal mudflats developing followed by freshwater conditions allowing for the development of peats, wet woodland and the deposition of clay silts in the late Bronze Age (French and Heathcote 2003; Evans et al. 2016, 62; Evans 2022, 132). Palaeoenvironmental investigations at Over also revealed a complex pattern of woodland decline in the early Bronze Age potentially reflecting the impact of marine transgression, increasingly high groundwater conditions and human action (Evans et al. 2016, 80). As mentioned earlier, the pollen records from across the region indicate that woodland clearance shows much variation in intensity across different landscape locales throughout prehistory (Smith et al. 1989; Scaife 2000; Scaife and French 2020, 33-36). At River Great Ouse, pollen preserved in the palaeochannels indicated the presence of woodland and scrub (comprising oak, alder, and ash) during the early Bronze Age (Grant 2024e). Evidence of disturbance from pastoral activities and clearance is not evident until later in the Bronze Age, with widespread deforestation and the transition to open grassland only occurring well into the Iron Age.

As more nuanced understandings of Neolithic agricultural adoption have come to the fore, highlighting themes of regionality, variability and mobility, the development of agricultural practices in the Bronze Age has also been subject to discussion (see Stevens and Fuller 2012; 2015; Bishop 2015; Rowley-Conwy et al. 2020). The evidence from Bronze Age features across the A14 indicates a greater presence of domesticated species, alongside the continued use of wild resources, with the extent of cereal cultivation highly debatable. The relatively small animal bone assemblage, 2670 fragments, primarily comprised cattle and sheep with limited evidence for other domesticated animals including horse and dog (Wallace and Ewens 2024; Table 2.6). In some instances the largest assemblages were recovered from monuments such as the ring-ditch (Monument 200) at Brampton West from which 95% of the assemblage from Brampton West derived. The animal bone assemblages from the monuments are potentially from feasting rather than reflecting everyday domestic life, but when viewed collectively contribute to a clear picture of Bronze Age husbandry, with a focus on maintaining herds of cattle and flocks of sheep/goat (Table 2.6). Metrical analysis indicated that late Bronze Age cattle had a stature of 108-110cm, falling within the range expected for domesticated animals. The importance of cattle in the Bronze Age is noted at sites across the region including Godwin Ridge and O'Connell Ridge, Over (Evans et al. 2016, 184). The potential exploitation of wild resources was also evident in the assemblages from the A14 with deer, bird and fish identified, including a single vertebra from a marine fish of the cod family (Gadidae) at Alconbury (Cussans 2024).

The palaeobotanical evidence for arable agriculture is far more uncertain, with the assessment of 245 samples from Bronze Age contexts, associated with both settlement and monuments, revealing limited plant remains. It is striking that across the A14 fewer than 100 cereal grains were recovered from features of this date, with the species represented including emmer and spelt wheat and barley (Wallace and Ewens 2024). The charred plant remains from Godwin Ridge, Over, provide a similar picture with cereals, including wheat, barley and flax, present along with charred wild seeds (Evans et al. 2016, 185). While the importance of cereal cultivation in the Bronze Age is debated it is worth noting that over half the Bronze Age cereals from the scheme were recovered from the urned cremations at West of Ouse. The inclusion of potentially economically significant cereals as grave goods (explored in the proceeding sections) may foreshadow the investment in and impact of landscape division later in the Bronze Age.

Early Bronze Age: suggestions of subsistence

The evidence for early Bronze Age settlement and subsistence is limited to dispersed pits found across the A14, with examples at Brampton West and Fenstanton. The earliest Bronze Age evidence at Brampton West was limited to a single ditch and a post-hole containing Beaker pottery. The pottery from the ditch was recovered from a burnt deposit and was decorated in a style typical of domestic Beaker, with rusticated fingertip impressions (Percival 2024c). Further early Bronze Age evidence comprised a possible structure and small pits located within the north-eastern area of the landscape block, with middle Bronze Age pottery recovered from pits to the west. A similar picture is presented at Fenstanton Gravels, where dispersed pits contained flints and pottery of early Bronze Age date. A small range of tools from across the A14 could also be attributed to the early Bronze Age including barbed and tanged arrowheads and plano-convex knives (Devaney 2024i). The pattern of early Bronze Age activity identified through scattered pits is mirrored regionally at sites such as Church Farm, Fenstanton, located c. 2km NNW of Conington (Chapman et al. 2005). Here, Beaker pottery was recovered from a group of seven intercutting pits representing five sequential episodes of deposition. The pits were charcoal-rich containing hearth debris, flint waste, cattle bone, and carbonised seeds of cereals including spelt, bread wheat and barley (Chapman et al. 2005, 18).

The evidence from Brampton West and Fenstanton Gravels contrasts with that from Conington where evidence for an early Bronze Age enclosure was uncovered (Fig. 2.10). The rectangular enclosure (Enclosure 1), measuring c. 66m long by 64m wide and orientated NNW-SSE, was uncovered on the southern edge of the gravel ridge and continued beyond the excavated area. Two possible post-holes and four clay-lined pits lay within the enclosure, the latter containing Collared Urn pottery. The enclosure was reactivated in the middle Bronze Age through the recutting of its ditches, and together the features appear to represent small-scale settlement activity focused on pastoralism. The early Bronze Age features at Conington are significant in marking the commencement of more intensive agriculture at the site, which would develop further in the middle Bronze Age. Beaker pits potentially associated with a three-sided enclosure, surrounding an area c. 40m in width, were also uncovered at Margetts Farm, Buckden, located to the south of the A14. A pit situated to the east of the enclosure contained an assemblage of seven fine ware and two domestic-style Beakers with burnt residues (Ingham and Oetgen 2016, 15). Studies of the distribution of Beaker sites across East Anglia have highlighted their close spatial connections with rivers and their heterogeneous characters in terms of features and finds present (Bamford 1982; Garrow 2006). Beaker settlements of varying size and complexity have been excavated across the region, with many indicative of relatively low levels of activity (Evans et al. 2016, 203). Significant late Neolithic-early Bronze Age activity comprising three dwellings, multiple monuments and four burnt mounds was uncovered at Kings Dyke/Bradley Fen, but even here the impression is one of episodic or short-term occupation (Knight and Brudenell 2020, 140). The evidence from the A14 contributes to this interpretation, with the scattered evidence potentially resulting from intermittent or peripheral activity.

Middle to late Bronze Age: agriculture and enclosure

The increased archaeological visibility of features from the middle Bronze Age onwards on the A14, comprising pits, wells, enclosures and animal burials, contrasts with the more limited distribution of evidence. Middle Bronze Age activity on the A14 was again confined to two landscape blocks: Fenstanton Gravels and Conington. The middle Bronze Age (1500-1150 BC) activity at Fenstanton Gravels comprised cremation cemeteries and settlement evidence concentrated at a significance distance (c. 0.7km) away from the largest cemetery (cemetery 3) and dispersed throughout the landscape block (Fig. 2.11). Settlement evidence comprised scattered pits, with the animal bone assemblage indicating evidence of cattle, sheep/goat and pig husbandry and butchery; bone and horn working was also noted (Ewens and Cussans 2024). Significant 'domestic' activity was potentially denoted by the presence of two middle Bronze Age pits or wells located towards the centre/northern edge of the main TEA 28 excavated area. A total of 835g of pottery from three Deverel Rimbury vessels and a Bucket Urn was recovered from the largest pit (Pit 280917) along with a worked sheep metapodial (F78670), possibly a pin (Fig. 2.11a). The large animal bone assemblage from the pits included cattle, mainly mandibles and teeth, but also fore- and hind-leg bones. Marks on these bones were indicative of all stages of processing from primary butchery to dismemberment into joints, representing the consumption of prime and moderate quality beef.

Middle Bronze Age activity at Conington included the recutting of the earlier Bronze Age enclosure, the establishment of a large enclosure, co-axial field systems (Field Systems 3 and 5), several waterholes/wells and three small ring-ditched monuments (Fig. 2.12). The expansion of rectilinear field systems and enclosures in southern England in the second and early first millennium BC, potentially linked to social, cultural and economic changes, is widely recognised (Brück 2000; Yates 2007). The enclosures and field systems at Conington represent the sole example of the creation of Bronze Age bounded landscape blocks across the entirety of the A14. The earlier Bronze Age ditches of Enclosure 1 were recut in the middle Bronze Age with an assemblage of shell-tempered pottery from an undecorated straight-sided urn recovered from the ditch defining the northern edge of the enclosure (Percival 2024g). Contemporary Field System 1 was located c. 45m to the north of Enclosure 1 and comprised two ditches aligned north to south and east to west, with other sides of the field block probably truncated. A small animal bone assemblage was recovered from the ditches, comprising cattle, sheep/goat, horse and fragments of large and medium-sized mammals (Ewens 2024c). A more extensive field system, Field System 3, was located to the east enclosing an area of at least 330m by 120m divided into four or more field blocks (Fig. 2.12). This comprised 12 ditches, principally aligned NNW-SSE, with its role in cattle husbandry highlighted by the presence of a cattle burial adjacent to the northern ditch terminus. A second cattle burial was uncovered within a large sub-circular pit at the north-western edge of Field System 5, c. 100m to the east of Field System 3. This articulated cattle skeleton exhibited evidence of butchery around its neck and rump.

The alignment of the field systems and particularly the connection between Enclosure 9 and Field System 5 immediately to its east suggests the enclosure may have formed the primary focus or 'spine', with the field systems developing on the same alignment and building out from these. Enclosure 9 measured c. 100m in length and c. 95m in width on an NNW-SSE alignment (Fig. 2.13). The earliest phase comprised three ditches from which a hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna) seed provided a radiocarbon date of 1220-1010 cal BC (SUERC-92420). An adjoining enclosure may have extended south beyond the limit of excavation and was cut by the later remodelling. The enclosure was augmented and enlarged through the additions of Ditch 33.102 along the northern and western edge and Ditch 33.103 to the south. The southern entrance was maintained, suggesting the earlier adjoining enclosure may still have been in use. Four wells surrounded the north-western portion of Enclosure 9, in some cases cutting the earlier enclosure ditch, from which a limited environmental and artefactual assemblage was recovered. Well 33.114 cut the earlier enclosure ditch and a fragment of blackthorn charcoal (Prunus spinosa) from its primary fill was radiocarbon dated to 1520-1420 cal BC (SUERC-92416). Based upon the stratigraphic relationships this charcoal appears to represent residual Bronze Age activity rather than providing a date for the construction of the well. The wells contained waterlogged deposits from which an abundance of hedgerow taxa was identified, suggesting that several of the boundaries may have been delineated by hedgerows (Fosberry 2024). The placement of the wells indicates they formed important components of a wider enclosure system that developed during the middle-late Bronze Age (1500-800 BC) and may have included Field System 5. This field system extended to the north-east on the same alignment as Enclosure 9, with the narrow ditches dividing four field blocks associated with a possible trackway.

The development of enclosures is often linked to an emphasis on pastoralism and the increased importance of livestock, with cattle dominating assemblages from the Fen region including from Conington (Evans et al. 2011, 35; Ewens 2024c). The placement of the boundaries at Conington, primarily across low-lying areas associated with palaeochannels, likely provided access to damp grassland pasture as reflected in the palaeobotanical assemblages from the wells (White et al. 2024; Fosberry 2024). The boundaries uncovered at Conington, potentially extending for considerable distances beyond the excavated areas, present an incomplete picture, with several key features missing usually ascribed to 'typical' middle Bronze Age settlement, namely post-built roundhouses and storage pits (Brück 1999; 2000). The complexities of settlement, population and seasonality is exemplified by the analysis of the later Bronze Age evidence at Godwin Ridge, Over, where evidence for between only three and five roundhouses contrasts markedly with the 85,000 pottery sherds recovered from surface spreads (Evans et al. 2016, 202). It has been proposed that this settlement may have included a small resident population with additional seasonal activity including trade, fishing, and gatherings, developing a well-connected enhanced community occupying a key ridge top location (Evans et al. 2016, 203). This is not to suggest the same model for Conington but the features at this site potentially represent a peripheral or transitional landscape with the role of movement and seasonal activities often overshadowed by the seeming permanence of settlement when compared to earlier periods (Brück 2000; 2007). The importance of settlement and field boundaries in the Bronze Age has been explored not only in terms of transformations in agriculture but also in changing expressions of tenure, connectivity and separation, and the functional and symbolic significance of divided and bounded landscapes (Brück 2000; 2007; 2019; Johnston 2001). At Conington, three ring-ditches (Monuments 1-3) of comparable size, measuring 8-10.5m in diameter, were located within the field systems (Figs 2.13, 2.16). Their forms were suggestive of small early Bronze Age barrows and the placement of Monuments 2 and 3 in relation to Enclosure 9 is striking and reminiscent of the relationship identified at Barleycroft, Over (Evans and Knight 2000). Although these 'barrows' were undated, the field systems appear to reference/respect the earlier monuments, harnessing them within their boundaries, perhaps linked to the marking of place.

Late Bronze Age-early Iron Age: absence

The duration of activity at Conington is uncertain as the field systems and enclosures produced few finds. The small ceramic assemblage contained no distinctly late Bronze Age wares, suggesting that the site may have largely gone out of use by the end of the second millennium BC. This raises questions surrounding developments in the late Bronze Age-early Iron Age where evidence is distinctly limited from the A14 (Table 2.5). The key features that have been assigned to this period, admittedly based on comparative analysis as opposed to the recovery of chronologically diagnostic material, comprise three pit alignments (Fig. 2.14). At West of Ouse, two pit alignments (Linear Boundary 1 and 2) appear to respect the position of the Bronze Age barrow (Monument 2). The extensive pit alignment (Linear Boundary 1) comprised 103 closely spaced pits extending for c. 270m. The pits were circular (c. 1m in diameter) to oval (c. 2-2.5m × 0.5m) in shape and contained single fills. Pits of comparative form defined a further pit alignment to the south of the barrow (Linear Boundary 2). The alignment comprised 14 ovoid pits from one of which worked flint and seven sherds from the base of an early to middle Bronze Age urn were recovered (Pit 161596). The pit alignment at Brampton South comprised 60 circular and sub-circular pits, of which 54 were hand excavated, with the geophysical survey indicating the alignment continued for c. 400m. The eastern end of the alignment was formed by a double row of pits spaced c. 4.5m apart with the northern row visible for c. 20m. The pit alignment at Brampton South seemingly continued to exert an influence over the orientation of the Iron Age settlement boundaries (see Chapter 3), indicating that its significance endured over a lengthy time-frame. A similar suggestion has been made for the influence of a c. 116m long pit alignment, comprising 35 pits, on the development of Iron Age boundaries at Bearscroft Farm, Godmanchester (Patten 2016, 22). Pit alignments within the Great Ouse Valley generally date to the late Bronze Age-early Iron Age (Pryor 1993; Pollard 1996, 110; Walker 2011, 5). In several cases, as at West of Ouse, they appear to reference earlier monuments or natural features potentially accentuating and linking significant areas. At Haddenham, Bedfordshire, a large pit alignment connected the two sides of a bank along a river bend (Dawson 2000) and at St Ives, Cambridgeshire, two pit alignments ran parallel to a former course of the Ouse (Pollard 1996, 99). At West of Ouse there is a clearer association between the pit alignments and the barrow. At Brampton a 'ceremonial complex' lies c. 2.5km north of the site, with the pit alignment potentially designating a key routeway between areas.

The limited evidence of late Bronze Age activity along the A14 raises several questions surrounding settlement distribution and identification. To the north of the A14, late Bronze Age-early Iron Age activity was identified during the peripheral works at Northstowe including pits, ditches and pit clusters; many of these contained rich artefactual and environmental assemblages (Collins 2016, 20). At Cambridge Road, Fenstanton, evidence of late Bronze Age-early Iron Age activity was uncovered comprising two large intercutting pits, a trackway, a possible four-post-structure and cremation burials (Ingham 2022, 16). While more limited in area, this concentration of features is greater than that uncovered from other sites along the A14. The lack of evidence may be partially explained by a shift in activity as witnessed at Godwin Ridge, Over, where the development of enclosures during the middle Bronze Age was superseded by large late Bronze Age surface middens (Evans et al. 2016, 144). This may simply be disguised by the significant later settlement from the middle Iron Age onwards perhaps truncating or recutting late Bronze Age-early Iron Age features, but across the A14 there does appear to be a demonstrable lack of later Bronze Age activity.

Round in circles: the Bronze Age monuments of the A14

The paucity of Bronze Age settlement evidence contrasts with the extensive evidence of monumental and burial activity (Fig. 2.15). Circular and sub-circular ditched monuments form an integral part of a monumental tradition that spans the Neolithic and Bronze Age transcending other social, cultural and economic developments and divisions (Bradley 1998; Fig. 2.16). The classification of such sites is more than a semantic issue as at its core lies a distinction between a monument for the living or a monument for the dead. The debate provides a focus on the primary purpose of monuments, yet few remain static with many displaying evidence for the changing nature of activity over extensive time-frames, through remodelling and reuse. The monuments of the A14 arguably formed part of a busy monumental landscape marked throughout prehistory by sites often with long histories of significance.

The longevity of activity at particular locations in the landscape is demonstrated by the development of the Bronze Age barrow at West of Ouse (Figs 2.17 and 2.18). The Neolithic enclosure previously described (Monument 1) was overlain by a large early Bronze Age barrow (Monument 2). The circular barrow had an internal diameter of c. 38m and comprised a central mound with surviving deposits up to 0.8m high, resulting in a slight rise visible prior to excavation, surrounded by a deep ditch. The barrow mound capped the Neolithic enclosure ditch and its internal features, and a buried soil horizon with evidence of human activity and trampling (MacPhail and Carey 2024a). The base of the mound was constructed from layers of dumped soil with silt loams, gravel material, waterlogged soils and some turf inclusions. The surrounding ditch measured 2.94-4.9m in width and 0.84-1.7m in depth. The sequential relationship of the ditch to the mound is uncertain as it may have formed part of the original construction or a later elaboration. The ditch appears to have been key to the overall barrow design, with the iron staining in the basal fills suggesting the presence of periodic standing water. The ditch gradually infilled during the life of the barrow, with the fills tracking its various phases of use, modification and disuse. The fills contained evidence of discrete charcoal deposits reflecting the first early-middle Bronze Age cremation cemetery (Cemetery 1) placed into the south-west quadrant of the mound (cemeteries are discussed in greater detail in the next section). The recutting of the ditch appears to coincide with the development of the large middle Bronze Age cremation cemetery (Cemetery 2) situated across the eastern portion of the mound. Silting of this ditch continued during this period with some of the later burials cut into its upper fill, potentially signifying the final change in significance beyond its original barrow form. The barrow appears to have been a visible landscape feature into the Iron Age and potentially later, with a Roman cremation burial (Cremation Burial 16.103) placed at its eastern edge.

The siting of the barrow at West of Ouse over an earlier monument is a trend witnessed across the region with examples from Barnack (Donaldson et al. 1977) and Barleycroft/Over, Cambridgeshire (Yates 2007; Evans et al. 2016). The placement of barrows overlying earlier monuments may have created a link to place and past as opposed to strictly or only serving a funerary purpose (Garwood 2007, 46). There was no evidence that the West of Ouse barrow included a primary interment, with the lack of a central burial also noted at other sites including Roxton, Bedfordshire (Taylor et al. 1985), and in the Upper Severn Valley (Havard et al. 2017). The construction of barrows, associated with funerary activity or not, may have served as an expression of developing land tenure with monuments placed in visible locations, at boundaries or along routeways (Barrett 1989; 1990; Barrett et al. 1991; Johnston 2001). The series of small ring-ditch monuments at Conington discussed earlier in this chapter were located adjacent to field systems, displaying a strong link between boundaries and monuments. The barrow at West of Ouse, located on a ridge overlooking the River Great Ouse, is reminiscent of Barrow 17 at Over, Cambridgeshire. Barrow 17 measured c. 35m in diameter and comprised a central mound surrounded by a ring-ditch (Evans et al. 2016, 303). As at West of Ouse, the Over barrow displayed evidence for multiple phases of development, remaining a key landscape feature into later periods (Evans et al. 2016, 320). This was also evident at the large, c. 32m wide, barrow uncovered at Horseheath Road, Linton, where sherds of late Bronze Age pottery were recovered from the barrow ditch (Blackbourn 2021). The role of barrows in the later Bronze Age has been debated, with burial practices for this time arguably less well-understood than those of the earlier Bronze Age (Cooper 2016). The continued use of monuments such as barrows for depositing material and burying the dead may have allowed them to act as anchor points within a changing landscape (Brück 2019; 2000).

The placement of monuments following an initial phase of clearance, as observed at West of Ouse Monument 1, was also witnessed at River Great Ouse on the eastern side of the river. An unusual timber circle or henge was uncovered at River Great Ouse (TEA 20) composed of eight groups of five post-holes in an X-shaped arrangement surrounding an area c. 28m in diameter (Fig. 2.19; see artist's reconstruction in Fig. 2.20). A mix of both intrusive and residual pottery was recovered from the post-holes with one post-hole radiocarbon dated to 1870-1620 cal BC (SUERC-85548). The monument is comparable to the late Neolithic-early Bronze Age timber circles of the Thames Valley including at Gravelly Guy (Lambrick and Allen 2004), Spring Road, Abingdon (Allen and Kamash 2008), and Cotswold Community (Powell et al. 2010). While no direct parallels have been identified, the Ouse Valley is known for a diversity of monumental forms and it may be that the River Great Ouse monument falls into this broad category. Monuments such as this may have acted as ceremonial gathering places located at the transition from the river valley to higher ground (Bradley 2007, 132). The pollen analysis from a series of nearby palaeochannels revealed that the timber circle would have been constructed within a landscape of extant woodland, with localised pastoral and arable activity. The use of timber to construct the henge may reflect its local environment, with tree-throws surrounding the monument highlighting the role of clearance in prehistoric place-making. Often overlooked, however, the presence of trees, and the transformation from woodland to thickets, would have equally impacted the experience and staging of the monument (Fyfe 2012; Davies et al. 2005). The monument showed no evidence for later remodelling or significance with the pattern observed elsewhere, and its citation by early and middle Bronze Age funerary activity was notably absent.

A large number of earlier to middle Bronze Age circular ditched monuments of varying form and function have been identified and excavated across Cambridgeshire and neighbouring regions (Cooper 2016, 9; Malim 2000). The interpretation of the large circular monument (Monument 200) uncovered at Brampton West exemplifies the difficulties in classification, being, uncomfortably, termed at various points of the project a henge, a ring-ditch, and a ploughed-out barrow (Figs 2.21 and 2.22). The monument's deceptively simple form masks a subtle developmental sequence and complex set of funerary practices. Monument 200 at Brampton West comprised an unbroken ring-ditch 3.5-5.2m wide and 1.2-1.4m deep enclosing an area 37.2m in diameter with a total external diameter of 45.5m. The ditch had a pronounced V-shaped profile with a distinctive step identified on the outside edge of the ditch. The sequence of ditch fills indicated gradual infilling, with charcoal from the basal fill radiocarbon dated to 1960-1770 cal BC (SUERC-85541). A similar date of 1890-1700 cal BC (SUERC-91540) was provided by the single un-urned cremation burial excavated within the northern quadrant of the monument. The placement of the cremation burial is reminiscent of the arrangement witnessed at the henge monument at Margetts Farm (Ingham and Oetgen 2016). The Margetts Farm monument was defined by a ring-ditch encircling an area measuring 26 × 23m with eight post-holes spaced 5.6-8.6m apart located around the inner circuit. A cremation burial placed within one of the northern post-holes was radiocarbon dated to 2020-1770 cal BC (Ua-40865). A thin black mineral layer within the henge interior was interpreted as potential evidence for the presence of a mound, indicating the development of the henge into a barrow at some point during its lifespan (Ingham and Oetgen 2016, 11). At Brampton West, several pits and post-holes were identified across the interior that did not form a coherent pattern and may not be contemporary, and no evidence of a positive mound was recognised prior to excavation. The presence of a mound at Brampton West is debatable, with the search for this potentially overshadowing the significance of the ditch.

The focus of funerary activity throughout the life of the monument, beyond the early cremation, is the deep steep-sided ditch. The initial infilling of the ditch appears to have resulted from the erosion of the ditch edges, with a Bronze Age bronze double-edged knife with a riveted tang recovered from the basal fill. The secondary phase of development is marked by the gradual infilling of the ditch into which two inhumation burials, an adult male and a sub-adult, were cut in the middle Bronze Age. The adult male (Burial 12.7), aged 26-35 with an estimated stature of 167.6cm, was placed in a crouched position with the legs tightly flexed in a grave on the south-eastern side of the monument (Fig. 2.23). The radiocarbon dating of the skeleton provided a date of 1540-1410 cal BC (SUERC-75948) with isotope analysis suggesting the individual was raised locally. An infant, aged c. 5 months, was buried in a similar stratigraphic position on the western side of the monument and radiocarbon dated to 1420-1260 cal BC (SUERC-91534), placing both burials within the middle Bronze Age. A shale armlet fragment with a perforated terminal was recovered from the final phase of infilling; this may be of Bronze Age date, although Iron Age and Roman examples are also known. The final funerary activity was the deposition of part of an adult right femur shaft in a pit that truncated the western side of the ditch. The ditch became the focus of funerary activity, with the artefacts deposited through the fills, but not within a grave, considered to function as grave goods. The deposition of artefacts is a key tenet of the earlier Bronze Age, with 'grave goods' expressing relationships between people, objects and places (Cooper et al. 2022, 50). In the case of Brampton West, this demonstrates a lasting relationship with the date from the basal fill of the ring-ditch providing a terminus ante quem for the construction of the monument in the earlier Bronze Age, with funerary activity beginning early in the life of the monument, even if this was not its primary purpose.

Death and burial

The Bronze Age burials of the A14 displayed a range of mortuary rites and funerary practices, with inhumation burials, smaller groups of cremations and large cremation cemeteries uncovered (Fig. 2.24; Table 2.7). The A14 Bronze Age osteological analysis identified a minimum number of 160 individuals with only nine inhumation burials (Henderson and Walker 2024g). The total weight of cremated bone recovered from Bronze Age features was 5.7kg (57,418.4g). In recent years, genome projects have highlighted the role of migration, with movement and continental connections explored in the Neolithic and Bronze Age (Booth et al. 2020; Patterson et al. 2022). The results of the genetic analysis of five Bronze Age skeletons from the A14 were consistent with the typical range for Bronze Age Britain, displaying local ancestries derived from the distant integration of local Neolithic and continental populations (Silva et al. 2024). Bronze Age mortuary rites include both inhumation and cremation, with cremation burials beginning to dominate from c. 1700 BC and throughout the middle Bronze Age (Ellison 1980; Caswell and Roberts 2018; Brück 2014, 119; Brück and Booth 2022). The following discussion will focus on key examples from Brampton West, West of Ouse and Fenstanton Gravels where the relationship, number or date of burials offer greater insights into Bronze Age funerary practices.

Early Bronze Age cremations

The monuments of the A14 are intrinsically linked to funerary activity with many providing the focus for later burials, including early and middle Bronze Age cremation cemeteries. Interestingly, as explored earlier, the focus on funerary rites at such locations often occurs as a secondary significance. The early Bronze Age cemeteries uncovered at Brampton West have offered the opportunity to explore both rites and their connections to monuments. These cemeteries comprised a group of 12 cremations and one inhumation (Brampton West Cemetery 103; Fig. 2.25) and a smaller group of five cremations (Brampton West Cemetery 200). The crouched inhumation burial (10.545) in Brampton West Cemetery 103 was placed within a shallow pit 2.5m north-east of the cremation burials. The individual, aged 18-25 years and of undetermined sex, showed evidence of a fracture in the right lateral clavicle shaft that may have resulted from a direct blow or fall onto the shoulder (Henderson et al. 2024). Isotope analysis indicates that the individual spent their childhood on the local geology. Radiocarbon dating of the remains provided a date of 1890-1680 cal BC (SUERC-91520), indicating that the inhumation was broadly contemporary with the cremations. The relationship between inhumation and cremation burials has been explored in terms of status, with traditional narratives highlighting the richness of accompanying grave goods for inhumations and the non-destructive treatment of the body (Brück 2014, 120). The interpretation of inhumation as a marker of status is contested, with the cemeteries at Brampton West providing a direct challenge to this narrative.

The 12 cremations at Brampton West Cemetery 103, located to the south of the inhumation burial, largely contained single adult individuals, with only one cremation burial found to contain the remains of two individuals: an adult and a sub-adult. Brampton West Cemetery 103 was located to the south of a penannular ring-ditch (Ring-ditch 10.433) of uncertain date and character. The weight of the burnt bone from the cremations varied, with few containing more than the expected weight from an individual adult cremation of over 1400g (McKinley 1993; Henderson et al. 2024). This may in part be the result of truncation or the inclusion of 'token' deposits, with the remaining bone subject to additional rites such as circulation among mourners or burial at a different location (McKinley 1997, 131; Brück 2006, 80; Brück 2021, 48; Caswell and Roberts 2018, 345). Three of the cremations were contained within Collared Urns and two of these urns were burnt, suggesting they were placed on the funeral pyre (Fig. 2.26). The two plano-convex knives from Cremation Burial 10.544 were also heavily burnt, indicating they were pyre goods. The inclusion of objects within the pyre may have different symbolic attachments than those of grave goods, with the objects being modified or destroyed in the process (Brück 2006, 77). The death of the person may have been accompanied by the death of objects they were connected to in life. The inclusion of pyre or grave goods within cremations was also noted at Cemetery 200 located 0.5km to the south.

Brampton West Cemetery 200 comprised a total of five early Bronze Age cremation burials and associated pits surrounding a shallow hollow within the southern portion of the Brampton West Landscape Block (Fig. 2.27). Three of the cremations were urned, with Cremation Burial 12.15 of particular interest containing 1703.5kg of calcined bone from an adult and a sub-adult c. 17 years of age. The large tripartite Collared Urn, placed inverted within the pit, was block lifted and CT scanned revealing that the cremated bone was concentrated within the middle of the vessel (Fig. 2.28). The cremated remains may have been sealed within the urn with pyre material or placed in a bag, to prevent the bone from spilling out (Henderson et al. 2024). The inversion of the cremation vessels is more frequently witnessed with Collared Urns than in previous cremation traditions with Food Vessels (Wiseman et al. 2021a, 721). At least three amber pendants and five beads, possibly from a necklace, were found within the fill of the urn (Fig. 2.29). As amber is flammable and would not have survived the pyre the items must have been included as a grave good. The beads were found together in a distinct cluster, perhaps suggesting some of the beads were still strung or placed as a discrete handful. The inclusion and careful placement of objects, in this case potentially personal objects, given as gifts to the deceased, may have acted to continue the link between the living and the dead (Brück 2006, 77).

The Collared Urns may also be considered within the same framework as grave or pyre goods, with three unusual examples from the Brampton West Cemetery 200: Burial 12.12, Pit 121637 and Pit 121695. The urn associated with Burial 12.12 did not hold human remains, with the cremated bone instead scattered within the surrounding fills. Two further vessels, possibly cremation urns, were deposited within pits that lacked cremated bone but lay in close proximity to burials. The phenomenon of 'cenotaph' or empty graves has been identified elsewhere, with various explanations posed including symbolic deposition when the body was missing or the remains removed, and the potential for seemingly empty (body-less) graves to indicate neonate or infant graves (Evans et al. 2016, 419; O'Donnell 2016; Cooper et al. 2020, 142). The expected bone recovery rate from neonate and infant cremations would be low but arguably detectable, making it unlikely the examples at Brampton West are of infants or neonates (Henderson et al. 2024; O'Donnell 2016). Perhaps these vessels formed part of later votive offerings, or commemorations for individuals whose bodies could not be recovered and buried locally. The deposition of pyre material within pits highlights the symbolic importance of the enactment of the cremation process even when a body was absent (O'Donnell 2016; Quinn et al. 2014). The identification of pits with evidence for in situ burning and charcoal-rich deposits at the base of the hollow at the centre of Brampton West Cemetery 200 may indicate pyres and burials occurring in close proximity, heightening this connection.

The placement of the cremation burials at Brampton West Cemetery 200 surrounding the hollow, which measured 9m by 6m, is reminiscent of the pond barrows excavated at Over, Cambridgeshire. Two pond barrows were excavated at Barleycroft Farm/Over, Cambridgeshire, both comprising a central pond or hollow surrounded by an upcast bank (Evans et al. 2016). The pond of Barrow 14 measured c. 8-9m in diameter, with the cremations placed around the hollow, although their relationship to the surrounding bank was unclear (Evans et al. 2016, 358). At Cemetery 200, there was no evidence for a bank but the cremations were placed surrounding the hollow, some encroaching on its edges, but not within it. The form of the hollow is unclear but the conversation surrounding pond barrows may still provide insights into how the space may have functioned. The development of pond barrows has been linked to the increase in the practice of inverted cremation urns, potentially representing the concept of an underworld (Wiseman et al. 2021a, 725-6). The extent to which the 'ponds' were waterlogged is difficult to ascertain but connections to watery places is a theme explored at length for the Bronze Age, with rivers and watery places playing a central role in metalwork deposition (Evans et al. 2016, 478). The exploration of the barrows at Over highlighted the complex relationship between pond barrows and surrounding features, with the observation that they appeared to be paired.

The complex role of barrows in relation to later cremation burials is exemplified by the large barrow at West of Ouse (Monument 2), where a small cluster of early-middle Bronze Age cremations and a larger middle Bronze Age cremation cemetery both referenced two spatially discrete zones within the barrow's mound. Six early-middle Bronze Age cremation burials were cut into the south-west quadrant of the mound (West of Ouse Cemetery 1; Figs 2.30 and 2.31). The cremation burials all contained single individuals, with an adult and two subadults identified (Henderson and Walker 2024b). These cremations appear to represent selective burials but all lacked surviving grave goods to provide potential indicators of identity or status (Brück 2014, 124). The Bayesian modelling of four cremations in West of Ouse Cemetery 1 indicates that burial began in 2365-1750 cal BC (95% probability) and 1975-1780 cal BC (68% probability) and ended in 1725-1065 cal BC (95% probability) and 1615-1420 cal BC (68% probability). The duration of activity within West of Ouse Cemetery 1 may have lasted several centuries, spanning 100-555 years (95% probability) and probably 200-555 years (68% probability; Hamilton 2024). The time-span of activity is consistent with that revealed through the detailed programme of radiocarbon dating conducted at the early Bronze Age barrow cemetery at Over, Cambridgeshire, with burial spanning a 300-400 year time-frame (Garrow et al. 2014, 232). The grouping of cremations in West of Ouse Cemetery 1 is comparable to other earlier Bronze Age cemeteries explored across the A14 (Table 2.7). The scale of burial is markedly different from the expansion of large cremation cemeteries characteristic of the middle Bronze Age (Caswell and Roberts 2018).

Middle Bronze Age cemeteries

The middle Bronze Age cremation burials of West of Ouse Cemetery 2 were clustered in the south-eastern quadrant of the barrow (Figs 2.32 and 2.33). The positioning of burial in the southern and south-eastern quadrants of monuments is a recognised pattern thought to symbolically link with domestic architecture and light (Bradley 2007; T. Phillips 2015; Brück 2021). The osteological analysis revealed a minimum number of 55 individuals at Cemetery 2, from 49 burials, with six cremations containing at least two individuals (adult and a sub-adult; Henderson and Walker 2024b). The inclusion of multiple individuals in a single burial in this cemetery is intriguing as the burial of two or more individuals together is uncommon in the middle Bronze Age (McKinley 1997; Caswell and Roberts 2018; Brück 2021). As in the early Bronze Age at Brampton West, a limited number of pyre goods were recovered including bar or rod-like bronze objects from two of the cremation burials (16.40 and 16.62). The objects may represent the remains of pins or awls with similar better-preserved examples recovered from other sites on the A14 including Alconbury and Fenstanton Gravels (Marshall 2024g). The inclusion of fragmented metal objects, and indeed ceramics, may have been of particular significance given that the process of creation is similar to that of cremation involving transformation by fire (Brück 2014, 136). The palaeobotanical assemblage also indicated the inclusion of economically significant or decorative plants including spelt and decorative hawkweed. The identification of fragments of animal bone within the cremations may hint at their inclusion as pyre goods, offerings or remnants of funeral feasts (McKinley 2000, 416; Cooper et al. 2022; Wallace and Ewens 2024).

The comparative analysis of the cremated bone, charcoal and palaeobotanical assemblages at West of Ouse Cemetery 2 provides insights into the cremation process. The majority of the cremated bone was white/off-white in colour indicating full oxidation at high temperatures, achieving an efficient uniform cremation process. The selection of wood species enabled this with the charcoal assemblage dominated by oak with a mix of species potentially to exploit specific properties such as the greater combustion of pomaceous fruitwood or burn quality of ash (Bailey 2024f). Flowering pomaceous fruitwood may have also been selected for its aesthetic, fragrant and decorative properties (O'Donnell 2016). The palaeobotanical assemblage also provides some insights into the rhythm of activity. One burial contained seeds of grey sedge and melilots/medicks/clovers which set seed in summer while several included seeds of black bindweed and golden docks which set seed in autumn (Wallace 2024). Black bindweed was unlikely to have been used as fuel with climbing plants potentially quickly growing on structures, such as pyres, indicating there may have been a delay between the construction and use of the pyre. The cremation process may have involved an element of exhumation on platforms, however, the characteristics of the cremated bone from West of Ouse is more consistent with soft tissue (flesh) being present at the time of cremation (Henderson and Walker 2024b). The weight of cremated bone recovered from the burials varied, ranging from 0.1g to 3,684.5g (average 343.5g), potentially indicating that in some instances the cremations involved partial bodies or that the cremations represent curation or 'token' deposits.

The Bayesian modelling of the 17 radiocarbon dates from West of Ouse Cemetery 2 indicates estimated activity to have begun at 1610-1465 cal BC (95% probability) and 1560-1515 cal BC (68% probability; Hamilton 2024). The activity is modelled to have ended in 1375-1245 cal BC (95% probability), 1335-1270 cal BC (68% probability) with the dated activity spanning 140-345 years (95% probability), and probably 190-280 years (68% probability). This time-span suggests a different tempo of activity than witnessed at West of Ouse Cemetery 1 with a burial potentially occurring every six to seven years. A similar estimate was made for the 35 cremation burials at Over, Cambridgeshire, where the burials were deposited over a period of 110-260 years (at 95% probability) equating to a burial every five to six years (Garrow et al. 2014, 232). The traditional interpretation of middle Bronze Age cremation cemeteries focuses on their role as burial places for nearby communities or kin groups although this is not without challenge (see Caswell and Roberts 2018). While a connection between the individuals, burials and the wider community is difficult to establish, the burial activity at West of Ouse was clearly occurring relatively frequently, within a human lifetime, not as temporally disparate events separated by generations or hundreds of years. If a community cemetery model is accepted, the simplistic calculation of tempo allows for the possibility that individuals witnessed several cremation events during their lifetime. Despite the high number of cremations, duration of the activity, and subsequent estimations of burial tempo, at a national scale cremations and burials represent only a small and archaeologically visible portion of the middle Bronze Age population (Caswell and Roberts 2018, 324). At locations such as West of Ouse with pre-existing monuments still visible in the landscape, the cemetery need not have been restricted to a specific community. Perhaps this particular location was known more widely, and visited and used for burial by other groups, thus maintaining and reinforcing its significance.

The middle Bronze Age cremation cemetery in West of Ouse is significant for the high number of burials. A further large cremation cemetery was uncovered at Fenstanton Gravels comprising three inhumation burials and 53 cremation burials. The cemeteries at West of Ouse and Fenstanton Gravels are two of the largest middle Bronze Age cemeteries yet excavated in Cambridgeshire. The Huntingdon area of Cambridgeshire appears to have been a focal point for such large middle Bronze Age cemeteries with examples excavated at Buckden (50 cremations; pers comm. Aileen Connor, OA East), Papworth Everard (33 cremations; Gilmour et al. 2010) and Butcher's Rise, Barleycroft Farm (31 cremations; Evans and Knight 1998; Fig. 2.34). Further afield, large cemeteries have also been excavated at Fawcett Primary School, Cambridge (27 cremations; T. Phillips 2015) and Field End, Witchford (Blackbourn 2017). The high number of cremations is striking when compared to the results of Caswell and Roberts' 2018 study of 378 middle Bronze Age cremation sites across Britain which found the average number of burials to be 12 with few sites containing over 50 burials (Caswell and Roberts 2018, 4).

The large cemetery at Fenstanton Gravels (Cemetery 3) covered an area of c.22m by 20m located on a slight rise overlooking a neighbouring palaeochannel (Fig. 2.35). Two smaller cemeteries were also uncovered next to palaeochannels at Fenstanton Gravels comprising five (Cemetery 1; TEA 27) and two (TEA 29) cremation burials respectively. The placement of middle Bronze Age burials adjacent to water courses is a pattern seen across the A14 and regionally such as at Papworth Everard located next to a stream (Gilmour et al. 2010). The large cemetery appears to extend north-west to south-east with no discernible chronological clustering of burials. The radiocarbon dating and Bayesian modelling of 20 samples indicated that burial activity began in 1530-1425 cal BC (95% probability), and in 1495-1440 cal BC (68% probability) with activity ending in 1215-1085 cal BC (95% probability), and probably in 1200-1140 cal BC (68% probability; Hamilton 2024). The overall span of activity is estimated to be 230-415 years (95% probability), and probably 255-345 years (68% probability). The timespan of activity is comparable to the previously discussed modelling of barrow associated cemeteries at West of Ouse and at Over, Cambridgeshire. A shorter timespan was estimated at Papworth Everard where the modelling of 15 radiocarbon dates estimated a duration of between 1-140 years (95% probability) and probably 1-80 years (68% probability; Gilmour et al. 2010, 20). The duration of activity for the number of burials suggests that cremation rites were occurring relatively frequently. At Fenstanton Gravels, the evidence points to a burial occurring every four to eight years, allowing for a similar conversation to West of Ouse regarding the significance of specific locations and who was chosen for burial at these places. The high resolution dating and modelling of middle Bronze Age cemeteries is beginning to illuminate aspects of duration and tempo aiding in a clearer understanding of the sequence of burial, aspects of memory and its implications within a human timeframe.

At Fenstanton Gravels, burial activity seems to have commenced during the middle Bronze Age, with no discernible evidence for a preceding early Bronze Age funerary phase. The juxtaposition between some of the inhumations and the cremation burials suggests an intriguing relationship between the two funerary traditions. The southernmost inhumation burial was truncated by two cremations indicating the inhumation was slightly earlier in the sequence. However, the radiocarbon dates suggest that both inhumation and cremation burial was potentially contemporaneous. Three inhumation burials were placed in two graves spaced c.2.5m apart located at the southeastern extent of the cemetery. The northern grave, Burial 28.41, was oriented north-east to south-west and contained a double inhumation of two adults both of female genetic sex (Fig. 2.36). They were placed alongside each other, in a crouched east-facing position on their left sides (Henderson and Walker 2024d). The individuals both displayed evidence of enamel hypoplasia with the isotopic analysis of incremental dentine from one skeleton (Skeleton 280494) indicating two periods of elevated δ15N values during childhood potentially related to physiological stress such as disease, rather than a change in diet. An amber bead of middle or late Bronze Age date was recovered from the grave (Fig. 2.37). The second north-east to south-west aligned grave (28.46) was located immediately to the south and contained the remains of a single individual placed in a tightly crouched position on their right side aligned north-east to south-west. The individual was an adult of probable male sex with evidence for pitted lesions in the orbital roofs (cribra orbitalia) and linear hypoplastic defects affecting at least one tooth (Henderson and Walker 2024d). Plaques of bone growth were also identified on several bones indicating healed infections possibly related to trauma or other conditions.

Later Bronze Age mysteries

When compared to the large cremation cemeteries of the middle Bronze Age, there is a distinct lack of visible or formal later Bronze Age burials throughout Britain. Nonetheless, in the middle-later Bronze Age, cremation appears to continue to be the dominant burial rite, with several cremation burials at Fenstanton Gravels dated to this period (Table 2.7). Activity at the West of Ouse barrow appears to cease towards the end of the middle Bronze Age with no cremations dated to the late Bronze Age. Several sites along the A14, however, indicate that burial sporadically occurred during the middle and late Bronze Age. At Alconbury an isolated inhumation burial (5.276) was dated to 1200-930 cal BC (SUERC-91511), and isolated inhumation burials of a similar date were also identified at Brampton West and Fenstanton Gravels. In addition an isolated cremation burial uncovered at West of Ouse was radiocarbon dated to 1380-1120 cal BC (SUERC-92257) and 1210-930 cal BC (SUERC-92258). The role of earlier barrows in the later Bronze Age has been debated, with some evidence suggesting the continued importance of such locations (Cooper et al. 2022). Along the A14 no dated later Bronze Age funerary activity was found closely associated with the pre-existing monuments but this need not indicate that they no longer held relevance in the landscape. The placement of the pit alignment at West of Ouse may reference the location of the barrow while the deposition of an early Iron Age cremation at the barrow (West of Ouse Cemetery 3) may indicate a continued or renewed importance. The lack of later Bronze Age burials is a pattern witnessed across Britain, highlighting changes towards less archaeologically visible burial rites. Funerary practices during this time may have involved exposure and excarnation, fragmentation, circulation and deposition of human remains in settlement contexts or at natural places, including rivers (Brück 1995; 2017).

Conclusion

The Mesolithic to Bronze Age archaeology of the A14 presents a complex pattern of preferred and seemingly peripheral places. Mesolithic activity was limited, its identification restricted to lithics, and seemingly concentrated towards the western end of the scheme close to the River Great Ouse. These locations also witnessed occupation and activity in the Neolithic, with evidence focused on pits that were often dispersed and situated close to water. The pits and artefact scatters uncovered at Conington provide the only evidence for concentrated activity. The material residues from these features likely reflect repeated visitations, potentially on a seasonal basis, to exploit the wide range of resources available at this site. These activities occurred alongside the creation of a monumentalised landscape. The earliest Neolithic monuments identified on the A14 comprise an elongated enclosure uncovered beneath the Bronze Age barrow at West of Ouse and a henge at Alconbury. From the later Neolithic onwards further monument construction and development emerged at Brampton West, West of Ouse, and River Great Ouse, placed within a rich prehistoric landscape with several burial monuments identified along the River Great Ouse. The long-term significance of such locations is demonstrated by the continued use of the monuments for funerary activities, as exemplified by the barrow at West of Ouse and ring-ditch monument at Brampton West. The middle Bronze Age cemeteries at West of Ouse and Fenstanton Gravels represent two of the largest excavated in the region, providing a wealth of information on population and practices. The richness of the monumental and burial record is in contrast to the relatively sparse evidence for Bronze Age settlement, with the excavations at Conington again providing the only evidence for enclosure and field systems. The development of boundaries in the Bronze Age reflects changes in subsistence strategies and settlement but also tenure, connectivity, and landscape division (Brück 2000; 2007; 2019; Johnston 2001). The limited evidence for Bronze Age boundaries and the dearth of structures from the A14 contrasts with the extensive and widespread Bronze Age coaxial field systems and roundhouses found further north (e.g. Daniel 2009; Evans and Knight 2000; Cooper 2016). In some locations, these may have been masked/truncated as a result of intensive activity during the Iron Age and Roman periods through the creation of extensive enclosure systems. However, the overall impression is one of limited middle Bronze Age settlement, which does not appear to extend into the latest Bronze Age. Bronze Age settlement evidence is conspicuous by its absence, as overall the presence of encompassing enclosures, field systems, pits, monuments and burials, presents a complex pattern of Bronze Age activity across the A14.

← Previous chapter | Next chapter →