"Surveying a Lovely Prospect": phenomenology and the antecedent

landscape at Honington Hillfort, Lincolnshire

Abstract

The Iron Age hillfort at Honington, Lincolnshire is one of the county's best preserved

prehistoric monuments. The monument lies on the plateau of the Limestone Upland

bordering the Ancaster Gap – a long sinuous route through the Uplands linking the Trent

Valley in the west to the Fens in the East. This paper presents a new reading of the

monument based on the observation of its relationship to features in the antecedent

landscape, and to features in the natural world. It is suggested that the collision of these

elements provided the crucial impetus for persistent ritual use of the place into the Roman

period. A recent discovery of an object inscribed with creation prayer might provide

evidence for the perception of the wider landscape as somehow sacred continuing into the

ninth century.

Keywords

Honington, Hillfort, Winter Solstice, Persistent Places, Hoarding

Introduction

On the limestone uplands of South Lincolnshire lies one of the county's most enigmatic

monuments: Honington Iron Age 'hillfort' (Figure 1). The monument was given protected

status by English Heritage in 1982, and this has of course meant that no professional

excavation has been undertaken in recent years. Within the scheduling document the

monument is described as an Iron Age multivallate hillfort, though antiquarian sources

thought of it as a Roman summer camp (Allen 1834: 290; Stukeley 1776: 87). Antiquarian

sources tell us of numerous finds from the monument and its surrounding landscape

(discussed later), but apart from these casual finds the hillfort appears to have largely

escaped the antiquarian's spade.

In spite of it being one of the best preserved prehistoric monuments in the county, it has

attracted very little scholarly attention. Stukeley went some way in recognising the

landscape setting of what he called a 'castrum exploratorum', but his attention was quickly

drawn to the layout of the monument:

A mile and a half off the west, in the parish of Honington, upon a hill surveying

a lovely prospect, both towards the sea-coast, and into Nottinghamshire, is a

summer camp of the Romans, or a castrum exploratorum, of a square form and

doubly trenched, but of no great bulk: the entrance seems to have been on the

east side (Stukeley 1776: 87).

Figure 1: Honington Hillfort looking south-west. This is the only surviving photograph that shows three circular ditched mounds to the west (right) of the monument (Published by the Ministry of Defence. © Crown copyright 2015. Reproduced under the terms of the Open Government Licence http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/2/).

Over two centuries of discovery since Stukeley wrote about the camp has revealed a

landscape rich in archaeology, containing evidence for all traditionally defined

archaeological periods from the Neolithic to the present day. More recent writers on the

monument have explored it in fairly functional terms, however, and little has been made of

the way it relates to natural and cultural features in the landscape (Trollope 1870; May

1976: 141ff; Umpleby 2003).

Accordingly, this paper makes some initial steps to document a series of what might best be

thought of as phenomenological observations. As is often the case with observations that

concern natural phenomenon and archaeological features that span multiple periods of

time, those presented here are speculative; they are possibilities which will hopefully

provoke discussion of the monument from new angles.

The deep sense of longer-term use of the landscape in and around the hillfort was initially

identified though an experimental form of temporal heat-mapping utilising open-source GIS,

developed by the author for his PhD research on 'Persistent Places' (e.g. Schlanger 1992). In

short, the technique involves plotting all archaeological data recorded on the Historic

Environment Record and the Portable Antiquities Scheme by broad period, and then heat-

mapping the raw data. This provides a crude, coarse-grained overview of temporal diversity

across the landscape, which can then be used as a 'way-in' to explore the various

palimpsests that form each persistent place. The methodology is, of course, simply a way of

thinking about the longer-term use of the landscape; it is not an interpretation in itself, nor

can it be used to comment on the duration of persistence – that is, how often and for how

long it was punctuated by periods of absence. These are questions for micro-scale analysis

of landscapes selected through temporal heat-mapping.

This approach does, however, provide a base-map from which we can begin to ask the kind

of fundamental questions that that are arguably best explored by taking the longer-term

view of the landscape: first, to what extent are natural places key to the creation and

maintenance of persistent places, and second, how is memory – albeit often in a corrupted

form – drawn from monuments embedded into the historic landscape, and how do these

influence the pattern of longer term activity? These questions are approached in this

present paper from a view rooted in 'Time Perspectivism', which essentially suggests that

what we see very much depends on what scale of time we are looking (Bailey 1981, 1987,

2007; 2008). Memory, for example, is not confined to traditional scales of time such as

environmental or calendrical time (Willey 2008: 80), but instead operates in a non-linear

way. Arguably then, it is by viewing the evidence on multiple scales of time that certain

trends may become more apparent. It is this understanding of time and landscape-use that

is projected onto the case study of Honington hillfort and its environs.

The Ancaster Gap

Honington hillfort lies on the edge of the Ancaster Gap – a large sinuous gap cutting east-

west through the Limestone uplands that run broadly north-south through the county

(Figure 2). The limestone uplands are defined by a steep scarp on its western edge

overlooking the Trent Valley, and on its eastern side by slopes that gently drop to meet the

flat expanse of the Fens (Windrum 1997: 11).

The date at which the Ancaster Gap was carved is unclear, though it is argued to have been

part of the Cromerian landscape through which the Proto-Trent flowed (McNabb 2006: 20).

The limestone upland is cut only in one other place; at Lincoln. Similarly, the Lincoln Gap is

thought to have been carved by the course of the Proto-Witham; the Witham continues to

flows through the Lincoln Gap today, emptying into the North Sea through the Wash.

Figure 2. The Ancaster Gap and wider landscape, annotated with key places mentioned in

the text.

Today, the Ancaster Gap crosses several parishes, with Honington being located at its

western entrance. At both ends the entrance is wide with gently rising sides; towards the

centre the gap becomes increasingly narrow with steep sides that give a growing sense of

concealment when passing through (Figure 3). This is an experience that can only be found

at a select number of places in the region. The gap is densely wooded in places, adding to

the sense of concealment, and this reflects the historic character of landscape which until

relatively recently was densely forested (Windrum 1997: 19). Indeed, the name of the

district in which Honington is located – Kesteven – is thought to be a hybrid name

combining the proto-Welsh cēd ('a wood') with the Old Norse stefna ('administrative

district') (Gelling and Cole 2000: 221).

Figure 3. Oblique view through the western entrance to the Ancaster Gap. A = Ancaster

Roman Marching Camp; H = Honington Iron Age Hillfort.

The northern and southern slopes of the Ancaster Gap are easily defined. To the south the

land rises to form the Kesteven Plateau, where it reaches a height of 123m OD. To the north

the land rises to form the Lincoln Heath, where it reaches a height of 100m OD. The valley

floor lies around 30m OD, and since the last glaciation this channel has acted as a natural

route between to the Trent Valley in the west and the Fen Edge in the east.

The River Slea has its origins on the southern slopes, draining north into the valley and then

following eastwards, winding its way towards the modern settlement of Sleaford – a

settlement which was of regional importance in the Late Iron Age (Elsdon 1997). Indeed, it is

from the name of the river that the settlement derives its early place-name, the 'ford over

the Sliowa' (Cameron 1998: 112).

Honington hillfort

The hillfort lies on the plateau of the limestone uplands at the south-western end of the gap

(SK954423). The monument is sub-rectangular in plan and originally comprised three banks

with external ditches. An entrance-way is located in the south-east corner, and a V-shaped

notch is visible across part of the western bank (Figure 4). The function and date of the V-

shaped notch is uncertain, but has been suggested to be an original feature (Umpleby

2003).

Figure 4. V-shaped notch in the inner and central bank, looking west.

The monument is just one of five others in the county tentatively identified as an Iron Age

hillfort – Colsterworth, Ingoldsby, Careby, Yarborough, and Honington. To this broad

category might be added another monument at Tattershall Thorpe, and possibly one other

at Burgh Banks at Old Somerby (Chowne pers. com.). With the exceptions of Ingoldsby and

Tattershall Thorpe these are, however, univallate. Honington does, then, stand out against

all other broadly comparable monuments in the region.

Honington does, of course, lie at the edge of Cunliffe's 'hillfort zone' (Cunliffe 1991), but in

spite of this the monument would not be out of place in Sussex or Wessex (Chowne 1986:

186). While there appears to be no reason to reject the identification of Honington as a

hillfort, there are, however, a number of features that are somewhat anomalous and which

suggest the purposeful construction of the monument according to concerns other than

primarily defensive ones. First, the hillfort is not on the cliff-edge, but rather some 500m in

from the western edge, and around 1km from the Ancaster Gap to the north. The hillfort,

therefore, is not visible from any part of the valley floor. The sense that one gets from being

'in' the landscape of the hillfort is one of concealment, not exposure, especially when

approached from the west and the north. Second, the hillfort was not constructed at the

highest-point on the plateau. This point lies at 123m OD some 800m to the south-west of

the hillfort – a position that would have brought it much closer to the cliff-edge and which

would have provided much greater exposure.

There is no evidence for prehistoric activity of any form within 500m radius of the highest-

point (Figure 2). This is in contrast to the land immediately surrounding the hillfort. The

contrast is stark; indeed, while at present the exact date of construction of the hillfort is

unclear, it is certain is that it was constructed within an inherited landscape in which the

evidence for previous episodes of occupation was likely to be extant.

Three round-barrow crop-marks lie immediately to the west of the monument, the closest

being some 10m from the outermost ditch and bank. The way that the western banks

appear to respect these monuments suggests that they were still visible during the initial

construction of the hillfort, and moreover that they were key reference points. The hillfort

extends a short way beyond the cropmarks both to the north and the south, before curving

eastwards to form the shorter sides to the monument. To the south-east of the monument

lies a prehistoric trackway running broadly parallel to the cliff-edge (Figure 5). This trackway

is thought to be a section of the 'Jurassic Way' – a prehistoric trackway which broadly

followed the western cliff edge right the way up to the Humber Estuary in the north of the

county (May 1976: 141). The entrance way to the monument also lies in the south-east and

opens directly onto the trackway. It is, of course, difficult to know whether the hillfort or the

trackway came first, but the direction of the track leads down to the valley floor past

another Bronze Age round-barrow (Lincoln Historic Environment Record no.30308).

Figure 5. Looking north along the ditches and banks. The prehistoric trackway runs parallel

to the monument to the right of the fence.

There appears, then, to be a very intentional referencing of earlier monuments within the

positioning of the hillfort, particularly on its western side. No further barrows are known to

the east of the monument; rather, this viewshed takes in two natural features that may be

of phenomenological significance (Figures 6 and 7). First, the landscape to the east gently

drops down to a coombe within which is a small, seemingly insignificant spring. This is, in

fact, the source of the River Slea – one of the county's major rivers. While the spring is not

directly visible or audible when stood in the monument, the imagery of life-giving source-

waters constantly rising from the earth nearby is not hard to picture in the mind.

The same sense of 'life' rising from the earth is also gained by the journey of the Winter

Solstice Sun – a feature which has apparently been hitherto unnoticed by previous writers.

The author visited the monument early on the 21st December 2013, during which a broad

symmetry between the entrance way and the sunrise was noted. The view does of course

depend on where one stands within the monument, but a roughly central position within

the opening allowed a decent viewshed.

Figure 6. Looking into the hillfort through the South-East entrance.

Figure 7. View of the interior of the hillfort, looking across to the south-east entrance (left of

the tree). The spring is located in coombe beyond and to the right of the copse of trees. The

sunrise on the 21st December 2013 was largely obscured by cloud, but the more intense

glow seen above the tree indicates the position of the sun about 30 minutes after sunrise.

These different elements combined, one begins to get a sense of the natural and historic

features that may have brought some influence to the layout and construction of the

hillfort. Together, these may be suggestive of a cosmology that associated death with the

barrows in the west, and which associated life with the spring and the Winter Solstice

Sunrise in the east. The collision of the antecedent landscape and the natural world in this

particular part of the landscape appears to have provided favourable conditions for the

construction of the hillfort.

The cosmology suggested for Honington Hillfort is not out of place for the period in

question. Many roundhouses appear to have been organised around sun-based

cosmologies, and examples are known that appear to have been rebuilt on a number

occasions perhaps as a visual statement of inheritance (Haselgrove and Pope 2007: 9).

Following this, it is very possible that Honington – like many other hillforts in England – was

imposed upon, or adapted from a Neolithic or Bronze Age hilltop enclosure (Tilley 2010:

286). Neolithic and Bronze Age flints have been recovered from the fields surrounding the

monument, but professional investigation is required to explore this suggestion further.

Finds in the landscape

The persistence of ritual and ceremonial activity at the hillfort is further elaborated by single

finds, assemblages and hoards discovered both in antiquarian times and also more recently.

The evidence from antiquarian records is tantalising, but at the same time frustrating

through a lack of detail. In his Itinerarium Curiosum (1724) the antiquary William Stukeley

mentions some remarkable discoveries of coin hoards at the 'camp', which appear to

suggest a ritual use well beyond the date at which most hillforts were abandoned:

Not long ago in this place [i.e. the Roman 'Camp' at Honington] have been dug

up in plowing, bits of spears, bridles and swords, and two urns full of coyns. I

saw a large brass one of Agrippa and Julia daughter to Augustus, with many

more (Stukeley 1724: 81).

The 'two urns of coins' are poorly documented, but they are also mentioned by Gough, in

addition to a few other finds, in his 1789 edition of Camden's Britannia (Gough 1789, II:

250). Gough informs us that the coins were found in 1691, shortly after the discovery of an

urn containing a 'peck of Roman coins' (Gough 1789: 359). Only one further coin is known;

in 1968 a pupil from Plymouth Secondary Modern School discovered a radiate of Victorinus

(AD268-70) in the North West corner of the camp (Lincolnshire Historic Environment Record

no.30372).

Beyond the hillfort, a further antiquarian find of Roman coins is mentioned in a letter dated

1685, which describes '20 pieces of Roman coin, lately found at Honington not far from their

regular camp there' (Lincoln Historic Environment Record no.30371). Unfortunately the

exact location of the discovery is not known; it may be in the immediate vicinity, but it is

prudent to note the presence of a Roman settlement some 500m to the south-east of the

monument, close to the spring. This settlement appears to have been rather sizeable and of

some status; evidence for a stone built structure is known, and metal-detecting has

recovered a large quantity of coins and artefacts.

While the numismatic compositions of coin hoards that relate to the hillfort are unclear,

Stukeley's comments on the discovery of bridle fittings may be noteworthy in the light of

the recent excavations at Burrough Hill Iron Age hillfort in Leicestershire. Excavations by the

University of Leicester in 2014 uncovered a hoard of bronze fittings from a second or third

century BC chariot. The items were apparently placed in a wooden box as a religious

offering, and then burnt. Iron tools were also placed around the box before burning, two of

which were curved blades (University of Leicester 2014). One might speculate as to whether

the 'bits of spears…and swords' mentioned by Stukeley formed part of the same deposit as

the bridle bits.

The significance of the Burrough Hill hoard is unclear, but it has been suggested it could

have been done to mark a new season, or perhaps even the final closure of the fort

(University of Leicester 2014). The bridle fittings from Honington can of course only be

broadly dated in the absence of further information, but they do appear to broadly mirror

the closest Iron Age settlement, located on the southern side of the valley floor within the

Ancaster Gap (May 1976: 133). Excavations here suggested that the main occupation

occurred in the third century BC, going out of use from about 100 BC. The hoard of coins of

'Agrippa and Julia daughter of Augustus' does, however, provide some evidence for ritual

activity persisting into the conquest period at the hillfort. De Jersey has recently noted that

many places where deposition took place over long periods of time appear to have had a

religious or cult function (De Jersey 2015). The distribution of such sites concentrates in East

Anglia, with two sites known to the north in Lincolnshire, at Partney and at Nettleton (De

Jersey 2015). It is possible, then, that Honington fits into this wider pattern of persistent

ritual activity.

There is little evidence for continued use of the hillfort beyond the conquest period, other

than is what little might be surmised from the radiate of Victorinus. The metal-detector

assemblage from the Roman site 500m to the east of the monument does, however,

provide clear evidence for activity into the late Roman period. The major Roman settlement

in the area was of course at Ancaster, nestled within the heart of the Ancaster Gap. The

Roman town was situated in the valley, but the original conquest-period marching camp

was situated on the slopes to the north. The slope offered a good vantage point over the

British settlement that existed at the time, and its presence is well away from Honington

hillfort furthermore suggests that the fort had long been abandoned, or had long ceased to

be seen as a threat. In addition to the strategic advantage that the slope on which the

marching camp was constructed could offer, it might be possible to also read a degree of

symbolic significance into the choice of slope, which opposes the location of Honington on

the southern side. This provides a sense of the Roman army having conquered the southern

cliff and 'gone beyond' in a landscape-sense; the fort now establishing a foundation on the

northern stretch of the limestone uplands for the advance to Lincoln. Curiously, the same

sense of the northwards advance is seen in the positioning of the Roman fort at Lincoln,

which occupies the limestone uplands to the north of the Lincoln Gap.

Towards a longer-term view of the landscape

The teleological way in which observations have been made at Honington allows us to

speculate over a range of features and finds embedded within the landscape. The

advantages that the longer-term view brings does, however, also bring with it particular

risks. There is always the risk of unintentional mishandling of the evidence, and particularly

of drawing inferences between features that have spatial synchrony, but which are

unrelated in any other way. Moreover, one cannot hope to be a specialist in all the areas

that the longer-term view requires:

One needs to be a botanist, a physical geographer, and a naturalist, as well as

an historian, to be able to feel certain that one has all the facts right before

allowing the imagination to play over the small details of a scene (Hoskins 1955:

18).

These are not suitable reasons for avoiding the longer-term view, however. It is with these

caveats in place that this paper concludes with a note on several discoveries that may attest

to a much longer-term use of the Ancaster Gap for ritual activity. Neolithic flint scatters are

widespread across the Gap, both on the valley floor and on the limestone uplands. The

distribution of polished axes is, however, somewhat different. Few are known from the

heart of the Gap around Ancaster; rather, axes tend to cluster at either end of the Gap, with

five examples having come from one field close to the valley floor entrance near Honington

(PAS reference LIN-3FDF87). Rather than being seen simply as casual losses or discard, it is

widely accepted that many axes were placed as structured deposits within landscapes

(Bradley and Edmonds 2005). In this context, the axes at both entrances might lead us to

wonder if they marked a specific form of activity that occurred across a transitional

landscape; one in which a natural phenomenon linked one resource-rich world to another

by way of a narrow channel. Perhaps these axes were deposited on each seasonal journey

into or out of the valley, as various natural and animal resources were hunted and gathered.

A similar interpretation has been placed on a hoard of axes found in 2006 in a prehistoric pit

at Clifton, Worcestershire. Six axes and other flint tools were found with pottery, barley

grains and crab apple remains, dating to around 2900-2600 BC. This assemblage is through

to have been ritually deposited by a semi-nomadic community to signify the end of a period

of occupation, and to perhaps to petition the gods to guarantee their return. Indeed, the

'entrance' deposits at either end of the Ancaster Gap might be thought of as marking the

junction between wet and dryer land – the Trent Valley and the Fens to the west and east

respectively (e.g. David et al 2007: 79). We might, therefore, see the deposition of these

axes in the context of season journeys into the Ancaster Gap and its environs, perhaps as

'closing' deposits, or as markers of transition. Indeed, the use of the Ancaster Gap as a

routeway through the landscape in prehistory is hinted at the by the Neolithic Long Barrow

located at the eastern end at South Rauceby, and also by ten or so Round Barrows of Late

Neolithic or Early Bronze Age date that spread out across the Gap. Several cluster around

the Long Barrow at South Rauceby. One of the barrows at the South Rauceby complex –

situated at the eastern end of the Gap – enclosed a sub-circular burial platform cut by a

series pits containing cremated human bone (Field Archaeology Specialists 2006). The

barrow contained thirteen adults and two juveniles, and radiocarbon dates suggested

activity between 4410 BP – 4270 BP (Field Archaeology Specialists 2006). Residual pottery

dating to the Iron Age was also recovered from the surface of the ring ditch, indicating that

it was still a feature in the landscape over a millennium later (Lincoln Historic Environment

Record no.63705).

Early Bronze Age settlement clusters in the valley floor in the centre of the Gap near

Sudbrook, and this has produced late Neolithic grooved ware, dating approximately c. 2900-

2400 cal. BC (Manby 1974). Grooved ware is often seen as a special type of vessel, being

often found at Henge monuments and in burials. Similarly, these types of vessels are often

seen in the context of feasting (Dudd et al 1999; Rowley-Conwy and Owen 2011), and

increasingly, with brewing (Dineley 1997). A complete gold bar-torc was also found close by

to the settlement (Varndell 1997). It's find spot on the edge of a band of peat may suggest

ostentatious display and ceremonial deposition.

The Iron Age and Roman evidence for ritual activity has already been discussed, but one

final discovery is suggestive of ritual activity extending into – or perhaps re-emerging – in

the late eight or early ninth century. In 2012 a metal-detector user searching the valley floor

of the Ancaster Gap, some 1.5km to the north of Honington Hillfort, discovered what might

be an arm of a pair of tweezers (Figure 8). The exact function of the object is uncertain,

although it may possibly have had an ecclesiastical purpose, perhaps as tweezers or candle-

snuffers used in church rituals. The object bears a runic inscription that contains a focus on

the natural elements as being to the Glory of God. John Hines has commented that the text

is remarkably close to a passage of three lines of verse in the Old English poem known as

Azarias, which in turn represent a vernacular paraphrase of part of the Book of Daniel,

3:51ff about the three youths in the fiery furnace.

'Let the glories of the created world and everything made, the heavens and the angels, and

the pure water, [and all the power of creation upon Earth], bless Thee, kind Father.'

The inscription, while remarkable in itself, is even more curious given its position in a

landscape that contains the source of the River Slea, in addition to a 'lovely prospect' of

creation.

Figure 8. Anglo-Saxon 'tweezers' inscribed with runes (Portable Antiquities Scheme ref. PAS-

6F2DA2).

Bibliography

Allen, T. 1834. The History of the County of Lincoln, Vol. II. London: John Saunders.

Bailey, G. 1981. 'Concepts, time-scales and explanations in economic prehistory' in Economic

Archaeology, (eds.) A. Sheridan & G. Bailey. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports

International Series 96, 97-117.

Bailey, G. 1987. 'Breaking the time barrier'. Archaeological Review from Cambridge. 6: 5-20.

Bailey, G. 2007. 'Time perspectives, palimpsests, and the archaeology of time'. Journal of

Anthropological Archaeology. 26: 198-223.

Bailey, G. 2008. 'Time perspectivism: Origins and consequences' in Time Perspectivism

Revisited, (eds.) S. Holdaway & L. Wandsnider. Salt Lake City: Utah University Press, 13-30.

Cameron, K. 1998. A Dictionary of Lincolnshire Place Names. Nottingham: English Place-

Name Society.

Chowne, P. 1986. 'Excavations at an Iron Age Defended Enclosure at Tattershall Thorpe,

Lincolnshire', Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 52, 159-188.

Cunliffe, B. (1991) Iron Age Communities in Britain. London and New York. Routledge.

De Jersey, P. 2015. Coin Hoards in Iron Age Britain. London: Spink and Son.

Dineley, M. 1997. 'News Item: Beer Brewing formed part of Neolithic Ceremonies', British

Archaeology, No. 5, vol. 27, York, Council for British Archaeology (CBA).

Dudd S.N., Evershed R.P., Gibson A.M. 1999. Evidence for varying patterns of exploitation of

animal products in different prehistoric pottery traditions based on lipids preserved in

surface and absorbed residues. Journal of Archaeological Science 26, 1473–1482.

Elsdon, S. 1997. Old Sleaford Revealed. Oxbow: Oxbow Books.

Field Archaeology Specialists. 2006. Excavation and Watching Brief, Silk Willoughby to

Staythorpe Gas Pipeline. Unpublished Grey Literature Report.

Gelling, M. and Cole, A. 2000. The Landscape of Place-Names. Stamford: Shaun Tyas.

Haselgrove, C. & Pope, R. 2007. 'Characterising the earlier Iron Age' in the Earlier Iron Age in

Britain and the Near Continent, (eds.) C. Haselgrove & R. Pope. Oxford: Oxbow, 1-23.

Hoskins, W.G. 1955. The Making of the English Landscape. London: Hodder and Stoughton.

Manby, T.G. 1974. Grooved Ware Sites in the North of England. Oxford: British

Archaeological Reports.

May, J. 1976. Prehistoric Lincolnshire. (History of Lincolnshire Vol. 1). Lincoln: History of

Lincolnshire Committee

McNabb, J. 2006. 'The Palaeolithic', in The Archaeology of the East Midlands: An

Archaeological Resource Assessment and Research Agenda, ed. N. Cooper. Leicester:

University of Leicester, 11-50.

Rowley-Conwy, PA & Owen, AC. 2011. 'Grooved Ware Feasting in Yorkshire: Late Neolithic

Animal Consumption at Rudston Wold'. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 30(4), 325-367.

Schlanger, S. 1992. 'Recognising persistent places in Anasazi settlement systems' in Space,

Time and Archaeological Landscapes, (eds.) J. Rossignol & L. Wandsnider. New York: Plenum

Press, 91-112.

Stukeley, W. 1776. Itinerarium Curiosum: Or, An Account of the Antiquities and Remarkable

Curiosities in Nature or Art, Observed in Travels Through Great Britain. Second Edition.

London: Baker and Leigh.

Tilley, C. 2010. Interpreting Landscapes: Geologies, Topographies, Identities. Explorations in

Landscape Phenomenology 3. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.

Trollope, E. 1870. 'Ancaster, the Roman Causennae', Archaeological Journal, Vol. 27, 10-11

Umpleby, G. 2003. 'A Chronology and Interpretation of Honington Camp, Kesteven'.

Unpublished dissertation in Lincolnshire Historic Environment Record.

University of Leicester. 2014. ' University of Leicester archaeologists discover bronze

remains of Iron Age chariot'. http://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/press/press-

releases/2014/october/

Wiley, C.J. 2008. 'Collective Memory of the Prehistoric Past and the Archaeological

Landscape'. Nebraska Anthropologist. 43: 80-93

Windrum, A. 1997. 'Natural Area 38: Lincolnshire and Rutland Limestone'.

www.naturalareas.naturalengland.org.uk/