Sutton Common Updated project design - University of Exeter

of beam slots and other features could suggest no more than ambiguous posted
structures. On top of one of the banks however, within trench E, a four-post structure
was found which was considered by the excavators to be part of a granary rather
than a box rampart. This conclusion could not be further substantiated due to the
narrow widths of the trenches. Further work included environmental assessments
(including Buckland 1987, Hale 1987) which were published with the results from
much of the earlier work in 1997 (Parker Pearson & Sydes 1997 see below). The
overall conclusions of this work indicated that the smaller enclosure acted as an
annex or gateway entrance to the larger enclosure and that a route through the site
could be postulated.
1996 Humber Wetlands Project assessed the site and its landscape through field walking
and aerial photographic analysis (Head et al. 1997, 233 and 236-8). Previously
discovered scatters of worked lithics had been found on two raised ‘islands’ (SUT1
and SUT2 – Sydes & Symonds 1987) to the northwest of the enclosures adjacent to
the Hampole Beck, although a third island (SUT3) to the northeast revealed no
worked material. A row of stakes was also recorded in the drain section between
SUT1 and SUT2. Field walking by the Humber Wetlands Survey revealed worked
flint in this area, particularly from the area of SUT2 (Askern-7), dating from the later
Mesolithic to the early Bronze Age (Head et al. 1997, 233 and 236-8), indicating
that the palaeochannel might have been flowing at this time (cf. Lillie 1997, 73).
1997 Mike Parker Pearson and Bob Sydes publish their paper on Sutton Common in the
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society. The paper summarizes most previous
research, and a summary of findings within a wider geographical context.
The paper provides a phasing for the site, which was adjusted for the excavations
in 2002/03:
PHASE 0: All activity pre-dating the construction of the palisade including Parker Pearson &
Sydes’ (1997) phases 1 and 2. Activity on the Common, and particularly on the island later
occupied by the larger enclosure, includes Neolithic and Bronze Age material, mostly flint,
which has to date not been associated with any in situ features. The Mesolithic sites to the
north of the Iron Age enclosures are outside the physical boundaries of this project.
PHASE 1: The construction of the palisade beneath the earthworks of the larger enclosure
and activities associated with the palisaded enclosure up to the construction of the earthworks,
similar to Parker Pearson & Sydes’ (1997) phase 3. Although the stake alignment across the
Hampole Beck palaeochannel may belong to this phase, no hard evidence exists for this.
Material of this phase is referred to as primary.
PHASE 2: The construction of the earthworks of both enclosures, which on the basis of
morphology are considered to be approximately contemporary, and activities associated
with the earthwork enclosures, included in Parker Pearson & Sydes’ (1997) phase 4. The
accumulation in the ditches of the deposits containing worked wood also belongs to this
phase. The 9 m wide causeway is also tentatively considered to have been constructed in
PHASE 2, albeit without dated evidence. Material of this phase is referred to as primary.
PHASE 3: Initial deposition of sand in ditches, slumping of bank material, and the deposition
of stones in the entranceway of the larger enclosure in antiquity. Material of this phase is
referred to as secondary.
PHASE 4: Peat development in the ditches and the palaeochannel, included in Parker Pearson
& Sydes’ (1997) phase 4. Later use and activity on the enclosures is included in this phase,
corresponding to Parker Pearson & Sydes’ (1997) phase 5. Material of this phase is referred
to as tertiary.
41