Sutton Common Updated project design - University of Exeter

Iron Age of eastern England. The importance of Sutton Common to the understanding of Iron
Age society of Northern England (as a whole) has also been previously recognised (e.g.
Haselgrove 1999).
On a local level, it is nearly impossible to overstate the importance of the Sutton Common
site. Sutton Common is the only surviving prehistoric earthwork site, and the proposed analysis
will contribute greatly to our understanding of the area in later prehistory. Linking it to the
extensive field systems identified by Derek Riley (e.g. 1980), and the more recent fieldwork
on these field systems (e.g. Cumberpatch 1995) may provide a completely new and integrated
landscape archaeology. Furthermore, it will address issues of modes of subsistence and
environmental exploitation not previously studied.
As such, the research will benefit considerably from integrating information from the many
studies of hillforts elsewhere, and the English Heritage ‘hill fort project’.
C) Define the temporal development of Sutton Common and the features inside the larger
enclosure
We have little doubt that one of the most important contribution Sutton Common can make at
a national level lies with its potential to date (relatively if not absolutely) the different phases
of activity on the site. The broad date ranges obtained from radiocarbon dates for the Iron
Age period in England have resulted in an imprecise understanding of temporality and the
dynamics of processes of change (Haselgrove et al. 2001: 2-7: chronology and 25-31:
processes of change). The Sutton Common site, where dendrochronology is expected to
produce either floating or absolute dates for the main activities such as the construction of the
defences, gateways and four-post structures, will be entirely without parallel in England in
terms of its potential to study the dynamics of the processes observed. We could find, for
example, that the construction phasing on the site should be expressed in years, rather than
decades and centuries, providing a significant new insight into and understanding of the
dynamics of the Iron Age. If dendrochronological analysis on its own will not produce absolute
dates, absolute dates can be obtained through ‘wiggle-matching’ of radiocarbon dates.
On a regional and local level, a clearer understanding of the temporal development of the site
would be the first step towards building a ‘genuine Iron Age’ (cf. Haselgrove 1999); none of
the field systems identified through aerial reconnaissance in the lowlands of the Humberhead
Levels have to date been dated, principally because of the absence of pottery of Iron Age
date in the region, and such sites are typically described as ‘late prehistoric/Roman’ (e.g.
Cumberpatch 1995).
An important wider contribution of this work would be the provision of replicate dates which
would strengthen, and possibly lengthen, the dendrochronological master curve for this part
of England.
E) Define the social dimensions of the site and its place in the wider landscape
On a national level, the social dimensions of the Iron Age is currently one of the main themes
of debate (Haselgrove et al. 2001: 22), with on the one hand concept of hillforts as residences
of elite groups and as proto-urban centres with redistributive functions (e.g. Cunliffe 1995),
and on the other hillforts being seen as groups of enclosed farmsteads (e.g. Hill 1995). Much
of this debate is based on the evidence from Wessex and southern England, as already
argued above, and the excavations of Sutton Common will provide an important ‘northern’
perspective to this debate (Haselgrove et al. 2001: 14). ‘All regions are important to
reconstructing the complex social mosaic of the period, and need to be understood in their
own right’ (ibid: 23). The full analysis of the archaeological features and their dating will provide
an important contribution to this debate.
21