Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-hfldf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-02T07:46:00.762Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Archaeological Discoveries in the Raised Bogs of the Somerset Levels, England

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 May 2014

H. S. L. Dewar  and
H. Godwin
H. S. L. Dewar
Affiliation:
52 Bridport Road, Dorchester
H. Godwin
Affiliation:
Sub-department of Quaternary Research, Botany School, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

When C. E. Moss (1907) first described the vegetation of the peat areas of the Somerset Levels, he referred to them as ‘moors’, a term offering no distinction from upland peats such as those of the Pennines or Dartmoor. It was not until much later that they were recognized as the remnants, much degraded and dissected by peat-cutting, of an extensive complex of raised bogs (Godwin 1941). This was a conclusion of considerable significance since raised bogs belong to the category of ombrogenous mires, that is to say, of peat structures built up in almost total dependence on rain and snow falling directly upon them, and drawing not at all upon ground water. Such bogs receive very little mineral supply and become very acidic and poor in plant nutrients, so that their vegetation is highly specialized and most characteristic, consisting very largely of species of the moss genus Sphagnum, various flowering plants of the order Ericales, cotton-grass, deer-grass (Trichophorum caespitosum) and a restricted number of other species of equally restricted range. It is the various assemblages of the remains of these plants that allow us to identify given peat samples as having formed in raised bog, and often permit us to relate them to given communities characteristic of different aspects of the vegetation of still-active raised bogs.

This is a very helpful circumstance, since the raised bogs are entities in such close dependence upon annual precipitation that they respond quickly to phases of increased or decreased wetness by altered surface vegetation. Thus in periods of dryness they become covered with ling (Calluna vulgaris), cotton-grass (Eriophorum vaginatum) and sometimes trees, chiefly birch (Betula verrucosa), and the peat then formed is very colloidal, dark and fully humified. By contrast, when it is continuously wet the bog surface is covered with actively-growing Sphagna (which form a matrix for the associated higher plants), and the peat formed in these conditions is pale, fibrous, and undecayed. An abrupt transition from the one peat type to the other, if consistent across a bog, is referred to as a recurrence-surface (RY is the familiar contraction from the Swedish word).

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , Volume 29 , December 1963 , pp. 17 - 49
Copyright
Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 1963

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bulleid, A., 1906. ‘Prehistoric boat found at Shapwick, 1906’, Proc. Somerset Arch. Soc., LII, p. 51.Google Scholar
Bulleid, A. and St. George Gray, H., 1948. The Meare Lake Village, I and II. Taunton.Google Scholar
Clark, J. G. D., 1933. ‘Mesolithic sites on the Burtle Beds, near Bridgwater, Somerset’, Man, vol. 33, no. 65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, G. and Godwin, H., 1962. ‘Neolithic Long-bows of 4,500 years ago, found in the Somersetshire Peat’, Illustrated London News, 10 Feb., 1962, pp. 219–21.Google Scholar
Clapham, A. R. and Godwin, H., 1948. ‘Studies of the Post-glacial history of British vegetation. VIII. Swamping surfaces in peats of the Somerset Levels; IX. Prehistoric trackways in the Somerset Levels’, Phil. Tr. R.S., vol. 233, B599, p. 233.Google Scholar
Godwin, H., 1936. ‘Preliminary note on bog-stratigraphy, Shapwick Heath on site of late Roman coin hoard’, Proc. Somerset Arch, and N.H. Soc., LXXXII, p. 169.Google Scholar
Godwin, H., 1940. ‘Studies of the Post-glacial history of British vegetation. III. Fenland pollen diagrams’, Phil. Tr. R.S., vol. 230, B570, p. 239.Google Scholar
Godwin, H., 1941. ‘Studies of the Post-glacial history of British vegetation. VI. Correlations in the Somerset Levels’, New Phytol, XL, p. 108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godwin, H., 1948. ‘Studies of the Post-glacial history of British vegetation. X. Correlation between climate, forest composition, prehistoric agriculture and peat stratigraphy in Sub-boreal and Sub-atlantic peats of the Somerset Levels’, Phil. Tr. R.S., vol. 233, B600, p. 275.Google Scholar
Godwin, H., 1955a. ‘Botanical and geological history of the Somerset Levels’, Advancement of Science, XII, P. 310.Google Scholar
Godwin, H., 1955b. ‘Studies of the Post-glacial history of British vegetation. XIII. The Meare Pool region of the Somerset Levels’, Phil. Tr. R.S., vol. 239, B662, p. 161.Google Scholar
Godwin, H., 1960a. ‘Prehistoric wooden trackways of the Somerset Levels: their construction, age and relation to climatic change’, PPS, XXVI, p. 1.Google Scholar
Godwin, H., 1960b. ‘Radiocarbon dating and Quaternary history in Britain’, Proc. R.S.B., vol. 153, p. 287.Google Scholar
Godwin, H. and Willis, E. H., 1959a. ‘Radiocarbon dating of prehistoric wooden trackways’, Nature, 184, p. 490.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Godwin, H. and Willis, E. H., 1959b. ‘Cambridge University Natural Radiocarbon Measurements’, I, American J. Sci.: Radiocarbon Supplement, no. 1, p. 63.Google Scholar
Godwin, H. and Willis, E. H., 1960. ‘Cambridge University Natural Radiocarbon Measurements. II’, American J. Sci.: Radiocarbon Supplement, no. 2, p. 62.Google Scholar
Iversen, J., 1941. ‘Landnam i Danmarks Stenalder’, Danm. geol. Unders., 11 R, no. 66; i.Google Scholar
Moss, C. E., 1907. ‘Geographical distribution of vegetation in Somerset: Bath and Bridgwater district’, Roy. Geog. Soc.Google Scholar
Piggott, S., 1950. ‘Swords and Scabbards of the British Early Iron Age’, PPS, XVI, p. 1.Google Scholar
Piggott, S., 1954. Neolithic cultures of the British Isles. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Radford, C. A. R., 1947. ‘The Roman villa at Low Ham’, Somerset and Dorset N. and Q., XXV, 235; p. 62.Google Scholar
St. George Gray, H., 1930. ‘Bronze Scabbard found at Meare, Somerset’, Ant. J., X, pp. 154–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
St. George Gray, H., 1936. (1) ‘Discovery of Neolithic pottery on Meare Heath: (2) A hoard of Late Roman coins from Shapwick Heath’, Proc. Somerset Arch. Soc., LXXII, p. 163.Google Scholar
St. George Gray, H., 1937. ‘A second hoard of Late Roman coins from Shapwick Heath, Somerset’, Proc. Somerset Arch Soc., LXXXIII, p. 148.Google Scholar
St. George Gray, H., 1939. ‘Metal vessels found on Shapwick Heath, Somerset’, Proc. Somerset Arch. Soc., LXXXV, p. 191.Google Scholar
Smith, M. A., 1959. ‘Some Somerset Hoards and their place in the Bronze Age of Southern Britain’, PPS, XXV, p. 144.Google Scholar
Stone, J. F. S. and Wallis, F. S., 1951. ‘Third report of the Sub-committee of the south-western group of Museums and Art Galleries on the petrological determination of stone axes’, PPS, XVII, p. 99.Google Scholar
Troels-Smith, J., 1953. ‘Ertebøllekultur-Bondekultur’, Aarb. Nord. oldkynd. Hist., 1953, 5.Google Scholar
Troels-Smith, J., 1955. ‘Pollenanalytische Untersuchungen zu einigen schweizerischen Pfahlbauproblemen’, In Das Pfahlbauproblem, Bask.Google Scholar
Troels-Smith, J., 1959. ‘En Elmetraes-bue fra Aamosen’, Saertr. af Aarbøger f. Nord. Oldkyndighed og Historie, 1959, p. 91.Google Scholar
Troels-Smith, J., 1960. ‘Ivy, Mistletoe and Elm, climatic indicators—fodder plants’, Danm. geol. Unders., IV, R. 4:4, p. 1.Google Scholar
Turner, J., 1962. ‘The Tilia decline: an anthropogenic interpretation,’ New Phytol, 61, pp. 328–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar