Every step in the line of enquiry we have been following, from whatever
point of view we have regarded the evidence, has forced upon us the
conclusion that a long interval elapsed between the Areniferous and
Turbiferous series as seen in the Fens; and yet, having regard to the
geographical history of the area with which we commenced, we cannot but
feel that the various deposits represent only episodes in a continuous
slow development due to changes of level both here and further afield
and the accidents incidental to denudation.
But the particular deposits which we are examining happen to have been
laid down near sea level where small changes produce great effects. We
may feel assured that over the adjoining higher ground the changes
would have been imperceptible when they were occurring and the results
hardly noticeable.
If the Fen Beds include nearly the whole of the Neolithic stage the
idea that glacial conditions then prevailed over the adjoining higher
ground is quite untenable.
So far everything has taught us that the Fens occupy a well-defined
position in the evolution of the geographical features of East Anglia
and also that the fauna is distinctive, and, having regard to the whole
facies, quite different from that of the sands and gravels which occur
at various levels all round and pass under the Turbiferous Series of
the Fens.
We will now enquire what is the place of these deposits in the
"hierarchy" based upon the remains of man and his handiwork.
No Palaeolithic remains have ever been found in the Fen deposits. We
must not infer from this that there is everywhere evidence of a similar
break or long interval of time between the Palaeolithic and Neolithic
ages. There are elsewhere remains of man and his handiwork which we
must refer to later Palaeolithic than anything found in the Areniferous
Series just near the Fen Beds, and there are, not far off, remains of
man's handiwork which appear to belong to the Neolithic age, but to an
earlier part of it than anything yet found in association with the Fen
Beds.
The newer Palaeolithic remains referred to occur chiefly in caves and
the older Neolithic objects are for the most part transitional forms of
implement found on the surface in various places around but outside the
Fens and in the great manufactures of implements at Cissbury and Grimes
Graves, in which we can study the embryology of Neolithic implements
and observe the development of forms suggested by those of Palaeolithic
age or by nature. The sequence and classification adopted in these
groups, both those of later Palaeolithic and those of earlier Neolithic
age, are confirmed by an examination of the contemporary fauna; the
Areniferous facies prevailing in the caves and the Turbiferous facies
characterising the pits and refuse-heaps of Cissbury and Grimes Graves.
It is interesting to note that these ancient flint workings, in which
we find the best examples of transitional forms, have both of them
some suggestion of remote age. The pits from which the flint was
procured at Cissbury are covered by the ramparts of an ancient British
camp and the ground near Grimes Graves has yielded Palaeolithic
implements _in situ_ in small rain-wash hollows close by--as seen near
"Botany Bay." Palaeolithic man came into this area sometime after the
uplift of East Anglia out of the Glacial Sea and was here through the
period of denudation and formation of river terraces which ensued and
the age of depression which followed. But Neolithic man belongs to the
later part of that period of depression when the ends of some of the
river gravels were again depressed below sea level and the valleys had
scarcely sufficient fall for the rivers to flow freely to the sea. In
the stagnant swamps and meres thus caused the Fen deposits grew, and
in this time the Shippea man met his death mired in the watery peat of
the then undrained fens.
Human bones have not been very often found in the Fen, and when they do
occur it is not always easy to say whether they really belong to the
age of the peat in which they are found or may not be the remains of
someone mired in the bog or drowned in one of the later filled up
ditches. That they have long been buried in the peat is often obvious
from the colour and condition of the bone. By the kindness of our
friends Mr and Mrs Luddington my wife and I received early information
of the discovery of human bones in trenching on some of their property
in the Fen close to Shippea Hill near Littleport and we were able to
examine the section and get some of the bones out of the peat ourselves
(Fig. 6). A deposit of about 4' 6" of peat with small thin lenticular
beds of shell marl here rested on lead colored alluvial clay. In the
base of the peat about four inches above the Buttery Clay a human
skeleton was found bunched up and crowded into a small space, less than
two feet square, as if the body had settled down vertically.
_b_
+-----+
/ \ [Greek: ph]
--------------/ \--------------
_c_ ···_d_ / \ _d´_··· _c_
/ \ +
-----------/ _a_ \-----------
_e_ / \ _e´_
---------+-------------------+---------
_a._ Kimmeridge Clay forming Shippea Hill, on which monastic
buildings in connection with Ely Cathedral formerly stood.
_b._ Patches of rusty flint gravel.
_c._ Peat with bones of beaver, boar, urus, etc.
_d._ Shell Marl, occurring in lenticular beds of limited extent in
the upper part of the peat, sometimes in one bed as at _d_ and
sometimes in several distinct beds as at _d´_.
_e._ "Buttery Clay"; full of cockleshells etc. at _e_, but at
_e´_ containing only freshwater shells and pieces of wood.
+ Position of skeleton.
[Greek: ph] Dressed flint flake on surface.
[Illustration: Fig. 6. Diagram Section across Shippea Hill.]
Some of the bones were broken and much decayed, while others, when
carefully extracted, dried and helped out with a little thin glue,
became very sound and showed by the surface markings that they had
suffered only from the moisture and not from any wear in transport.
The most interesting point about them is the protuberant brow, which,
when first seen on the detached frontal bone, before the skull had been
restored, suggested comparison with that of the Neanderthal man.
Much greater importance was attached to that character when the
Neanderthal skull was found.
When I announced the discovery of the Shippea man the point on which I
laid most stress was that, notwithstanding his protuberant brow, he
could not possibly be of the _age_ of the deposits to which the
Neanderthal man was referred. I stated "my own conviction that the peat
in which the Shippea man was found cannot be older than Neolithic times
and may be much newer" and, believing that similar prominent brow
ridges are not uncommon to-day, I suggested that he might be even as
late as the time of the monks of Ely who had a Retreat on Shippea Hill.
The best authorities who have seen the skull since it has been restored
by Mr C. E. Gray, our skilful First Attendant in the Sedgwick Museum,
refer it to the Bronze Age which falls well within the limits which I
assigned.
This skull is unique among the few that I have obtained from the Fens.
Dr Duckworth has described[9] most of these, and I subjoin a
description of the Shippea man by Professor Alexander Macalister.
[9] Duckworth and Shore, _Man_, No. 85, 1911, pp. 134, 139.