Deconstructing the Durotriges: A definition of Iron Age communities within the Dorset environs 9781407302218, 9781407321226
198 52 237MB
English Pages [455] Year 2008
Polecaj historie
Table of contents :
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Deconstructing the Durotriges
Acknowledgements
Table of Contents
List of Figures
List of Tables
Introduction
Preface
Chapter 1: Iron Age Studies – Current debates and themes
Chapter 2: The ‘Durotriges’ as an historic entity (the Roman civitas)
Chapter 3: The development of Iron Age studies within the Dorset environs
Chapter 4: The Durotriges as an archaeological creation
Chapter 5: Survey of the Durotrigan Zone
Chapter 6: Conclusion
Appendix 1. The New Zealand Maori, an ethnographic parallel
Index
A3 Fold-out distribution maps
Citation preview
l na tio ne di nli ad l o ith ria W ate m
BAR 462 2008 PAPWORTH DECONSTRUCTING THE DUROTRIGES
Deconstructing the Durotriges A definition of Iron Age communities within the Dorset environs
Martin Papworth
BAR British Series 462 B A R
2008
Deconstructing the Durotriges
Deconstructing the Durotriges A definition of Iron Age communities within the Dorset environs
Martin Papworth
BAR British Series 462 2008
ISBN 9781407302218 paperback ISBN 9781407321226 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407302218 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
BAR
PUBLISHING
Deconstructing the Durotriges (A definition of Late Iron Age communities within the Dorset environs)
Abstract
This dissertation considers the evidence for the Durotriges, one of the groups of people listed by the Greek geographer Ptolemy in the 2nd century AD. Traditionally it has been believed that the Durotrigans formed a tribe whose territory included Dorset and parts of neighbouring Somerset, Wiltshire and Hampshire. More recent commentators identify significant differences between the communities living within this Durotrigan area. This thesis brings together the evidence gathered by archaeologists working across the Durotrigan zone and combines it with new survey and excavation.
East Dorset was the principal study area, and the original research was concentrated here. The whole area of the Dorset environs was considered, but seven 10km by 8km study boxes were looked at in detail and compared. A common set of criteria was applied to each and community signatures were defined. Using this method and by linking the range of settlement types with ceramic petrology and coin distribution, it is proposed that the Durotrigan people resulted from a gradual linking of disparate groups between c.200BC- AD 40. This may have been no more than a fragile alliance forming a convenient economic and military association. The high tide of its influence was reached with the inclusion of the communities of south Somerset shortly before the Roman Conquest.
i
ii
Acknowledgements This survey would not have been possible without the help and advice of many people. Particular thanks to my supervisors at Reading University, Professor Michael Fulford, Professor Richard Bradley and Dr John Creighton for their help and advice and for suggesting that I shift the focus of the thesis from the Badbury environs to the Durotriges.
Many thanks to Peter and Ann Woodward for introducing me to a range of published and unpublished sources and for access to the ceramic assemblages held at Dorset County Museum, Dorchester. Thanks also to local authority archaeologists in providing information from the various sites and monuments records, Claire Pinder at Dorchester, Chris Webster at Taunton and Lesley Freak at Trowbridge. Many thanks to the following archaeologists for information on sites before publication, Keith Jarvis, Poole Museum archaeologist for access to the Lake Farm legionary fortress archive. To Peter Bellamy for information on the excavations at Maiden Castle School and Hamworthy, Ian Barnes for information on the Battlesbury Bowl and Beach’s Barn sites and Peter Cox for information on the Heron Grove, East Knoyle settlements and Shillingstone villa. Particular thanks to Richard Tabor of the Cadbury Environs Project for discussing his research with me and providing copies of the field reports. Martin Green for information on his latest research on Cranborne Chase, Mark Corney for his guidance on the sites of south Wiltshire and directing me to published and unpublished research. Thanks also to Andy Payne of English Heritage who provided information on the Castle Ditches geophysical survey before publication of the Wessex Hillforts Project and to Barry Cunliffe for editorial advice.
My thanks to Ann Garvey for her excellent analysis of the pottery from the Iron Age sites around Badbury and to Lorraine Mepham of Wessex Archaeology for coordinating the specialist reports from the various excavations around Badbury Rings. Many thanks also for the generous help provided by Melinda Mays and Philip de Jersey for answering my questions about Iron Age coins and providing access to unpublished information. Melinda has also kindly read and edited the text for this publication. Thanks also to Lisa Brown of Oxford Archaeology for her advice on
iii
Poole Harbour pottery. I must also thank Jim Gunter for allowing me to use some of the illustrations from his valuable thesis on the Wylye Valley.
Many thanks to David Thackray Head of Archaeology and David Bett Wessex Regional Director of the National Trust for their support and encouragement to enable the funding of the research. Thanks also to my colleague Nancy Grace for her careful and friendly guidance of the many volunteers who kindly helped with the excavation and post-excavation work. Georgina Stevens, Guy Salkeld and Will Clayton for their patient and generous assistance with preparing maps and illustrations and Gail GreyNewton for preparing the text for publication.
My special thanks to John and Della Day for their leadership of the marvellous East Dorset Antiquarian Society and to the many members who have assisted us over the years. Thanks to Dave Stewart, for his wonderful geophysical surveys of Hod Hill, Norden Iron Age temple and at Shapwick. He kindly brought together these and other surveys to create some of the excellent geophysical images for this thesis
I must particularly acknowledge Geoff Brown’s help and support over the past ten years. His geophysical surveys of Bradford Down, Sweetbriar Drove, Badbury hillfort, Badbury temple and particularly the Crab Farm settlement at Shapwick have achieved excellent results and have been the result of an enormous investment of time.
Lastly I must thank my wife Janet for her love, patience and support and our children Kate, Emma and Simon who I have neglected for too long while I have been conducting this research.
iv
Table of Contents Introduction 1 Preface 5 Chapter 1:
Iron Age studies – current debates and themes 6 22
Chapter 2:
The Durotriges as an historic entity (the Roman civitas
Chapter 3:
33
Chapter 4:
The development of Iron Age studies within the Dorset environs The Durotriges as an archaeological creation
Chapter 5:
Survey of the Durotrigan zone
96
5.1 Poole Harbour and Purbeck
102
5.2 South Dorset
123
5.3 West Dorset
146
5.4 North West Dorset and South Somerset
164
5.5 Central Dorset
189
5.6 South Wiltshire and Cranborne Chase
228
5.7 East Dorset
277
Conclusion
338
Bibliography
383
The New Zealand Maori, an ethnographic parallel.
412
Index
421
A3 Fold-out distribution maps
424
Chapter 6:
Appendix 1
54
Geology; Coin Distribution; Site Distributions 5.1-5.7
Please note that the fold-out distribution maps are now available to download from www.barpublishing.com/additional-downloads.html i
v
vi
List of Figures 1
Kingston Lacy Estate plot of aerial photograph sites (RCHM 1992)
2
2
Poole Harbour ware jar excavated at Badbury Rings Sept. 2005
4
3
Map of Kingston Lacy 1774 (DCRO D/BKL Woodward)
5
4
Storage pit sections Allard’s Quarry, Marnhull (Williams 1950, 28)
11
5
Line of four post structures Hod Hill (Stewart 2006, 58)
12
6
Map of Late Iron Age named groups (Cunliffe 1991, 160)
22
7
1774 plan of Badbury Rings (DCRO D/BKL Woodward plan P)
33
8
Earthwork plan of Winkelbury Camp hillfort (Pitt-Rivers 1888)
36
9
Plan of hillfort showing the locations of excavations carried out by Professor BoydDawkins (Boyd-Dawkins 1900)
37
10
Plan of excavated hut sites Hod Hill from left to right Boyd-Dawkins 2, 4, 6 (BoydDawkins 1900, 57)
38
11
Decorated wooden objects from Glastonbury Lake Village (Bulleid and Gray 1917, Plate L
39
12
Aerial photograph of Buzbury Rings concentric enclosures (Crawford & Keiller 1928, 64)
40
13
Earthwork plan of Chalbury, Bincombe 486 (Whitley 1943, 100)
42
14
Plans of Little and Great Woodbury settlements and excavated features within Little Woodbury (VCH 1973, 441)
47
15
Plan of Hengisbury Head showing cross-dykes and settlement area (Cunliffe 1987, 5)
48
16
Suggested boundaries of ‘periphery’ groups dividing the ‘core’ from ‘beyond’ (Cunliffe 1991, 161)
55
17
Distribution of coins attributed to Atrebates, Dobunni and Durotriges (Sellwood 1984, 192)
56
18
Suggested boundaries between Atrebates, Dobunni and Durotriges from coin distributions (Sellwood 1984, 202)
57
19
Suggested boundaries between named Armorican groups (Cunliffe and de Jersey 1997, 52)
59
20
Ceramic and coin distribution map with suggested boundaries (Cunliffe 1982, 60)
60
21
Map to show extent of distributions of Savernake and Durotrigan pottery (Gunter 2004, 31)
64
22
Distribution of Durotrigan cons in the Avon and Wylye valley environs (Gunter 2004, 24)
65
23
Distribution of Dobunnic coins in the Avon and Wylye valley environs (Gunter 2004, 23)
66
vii
24
Finds distribution, ‘massacre deposit’ west guard chamber South Cadbury (Barrett, Freeman & Woodward 2000, 107)
71
25
Examples of Durotrigan pottery, Cleaval Point and Hengistbury Head (Sharples 1991, 124)
74
26
Latest Iron Age fibulae from South Cadbury (Barrett, Freeman & Woodward 2000, 198)
74
27
Proposed development of south-west uninscribed/Durotrigan coin types (Allen 1961, 106
75
28
Examples of Durotrigan pottery, Maiden Castle (Wheeler 1943, 237)
77
29
Examples of Durotrigan pottery, South Cadbury (Barrett, Freeman & Woodward 2000, 41)
78
30
Examples of Durotrigan farmsteads, Berwick Down, (Wainwright 1968, 105)
80
31
Examples of Durotrigan farmsteads, Tolpuddle Ball (Hearne 1999, 24 )
81
32
Examples of Durotrigan farmsteads and enclosures central Dorset & Cranborne Chase (Bowen 1990, 92)
82
33
Examples of Durotrigan burial, Allington Avenue (Davies 2002, 123)
83
34
Distribution map of Durotrigan burials (Fitzpatrick 1996, 52)
85
35
Examples of Durotrigan coinage, Hod Hill (Richmond 1968, Plate 16)
87
36
Distribution map phase I Durotrigan coinage (Mays unpublished)
88
37
Distribution map phase II Durotrigan coinage (Mays unpublished)
88
38
Map of coin hoards Dorset environs (Haselgrove and Mays 2000, 249)
90
39
Examples of bone weaving combs (Barrett, Freeman & Woodward, 2000, 182)
92
40
Examples of shale products (Cox & Hearne 1991, 171)
93
41
Map of the Durotrigan zone showing geology and the seven study boxes and other prominent locales
425
42
Map of the Isle of Purbeck showing topographic zones (Sunter & Woodward 1987, 7)
103
43
Bucknowle plan of excavated Iron Age features (Light unpublished)
106
44
Map of sites within the Purbeck study box 5.1
427
45
Church Knowle 54 ridge top settlement (RCHM 1970a, 509)
110
46
Rope Lake Hole, Kimmeridge settlement features (Sunter & Woodward 1987, 126)
112
47
Furzey Island, earthworks and excavations (Cox & Hearne 1991, 48)
113
48
Cleaval Point plan of geophysical anomalies (Cox & Hearne 1991, 71)
114
49
Causeway Cleaval Point to Green Island (Markey, Wilkes and Darvill, 2002, 8)
115
viii
50
East of Corfe River plan of settlement features (Cox & Hearne 1991, 43)
116
51
Norden Iron Age temple gradiometer survey plot (Woodward & Papworth forthcoming 2006)
117
52
Norden Iron Age temple resistivity survey plot (Woodward & Papworth forthcoming 2006)
117
53
Aerial photograph of Corfe gap (National Trust)
119
54
SW/ Durotrigan coins in the Purbeck study area in relation to rivers. Contours at 10m intervals.
120
55
Earthwork plan of Flowers Barrow, East Lulworth 40 (RCHM 1970a 489)
121
56
Earthwork plan of Bindon Hill, West Lulworth 53 (RCHM 1970a, 492)
122
57
Beehive chambers, Portland 101 (RCHM 1970a, 606)
123
58
South Dorset recorded SW/Durotrigan coins with rivers and contours at 10m intervals
126
59
Map of sites within the south Dorset study box 5.2
428
60
Plan of Poundbury, Dorchester 172 showing sites of three round barrows and group of round houses (Sharples 1991b, 71)
130
61
Poundbury plan showing excavated areas on the east side of the hillfort (Sparey-Green 1987,39)
130
62
Iron Age settlement features outside east of Poundbury hillfort (Sparey-Green 1987, 39)
131
63
Maiden Castle, Winterborne St Martin 142 earthwork plan showing excavated areas 1930s (RCHM 1970a, 498).
133
64
Maiden Castle diagram showing phased development (Sharples 1991b, 16)
134
65
Maiden Castle detail of excavated round houses (Sharples 1991, 67)
135
66
Maiden Castle School plan of archaeological features (Bellamy unpublished)
136
67
Distribution of Iron Age ditches around Dorchester (Sparey-Green 1986, 194)
138
68
Durotrigan burial with mirror Portesham (Fitzpatrick 1996, 53)
142
69
Durotrigan burial with sword Whitcombe (Aitken 1990, 65)
142
70
Durotrigan burial with iron projectile head in the spine Maiden Castle (Wheeler 1943, Plate XVIII)
142
71
Durotrigan burial at Poundbury pottery vessels and joints of meat (Woodward 1993, 7)
142
72
Earthwork plan of Weatherby Castle, Milborne St Andrew 18 (RCHM 1970b, 180)
143
73
Earthwork plan of Woodbury, Bere Regis 118 (RCHM 1970a 484)
143
74
Earthwork plan of Eggardon hillfort Askerwell 12 (RCHM 1952, 14)
144
ix
75
Earthwork plan of Abbotsbury Castle, Abbotsbury 31 (RCHM 1952, 12)
144
76
Earthwork plan of Shipton Hill, Shipton Gorge 11 (RCHM 1952, 222)
145
77
West Dorset terrain, height in metres
148
78
Map of sites within west Dorset study box 5.3
429
79
Earthwork plan of Coney’s Castle, Whitchurch Canonicorum 18 (RCHM 1952, 264)
149
80
Earthwork plan of Lambert’s Castle, Hawkchurch (Thackray 1979)
150
81
Earthwork plan of Lewesdon Hill, Broadwindsor 44 (RCHM 1952, 56)
151
82
Earthwork plan Pilsdon Pen (RCHM 1995 unpublished)
152
83
Resistivity survey plot north-west interior Pilsdon Pen (Papworth 2000b)
153
84
Plan of Pilsdon interior showing excavation locations (Gelling, 1977, 265)
154
85
Plan of Pilsdon round houses site F (Gelling 1977, 269)
155
86
Pottery South Western Decorated, Poole Harbour and Fine Sandy Wares (Gelling 1977, 285)
156
87
Section through the north-west side of Lambert’s Castle (Papworth unpublished)
157
88
Plan of archaeological features Waddon Hill, Stoke Abbott (Webster 1979, 52)
159
89
Plan showing occupation phases Perrot Hill School (Hollinrake 1997, unpublished)
165
90
Earthwork plan of Ham Hill (RCHME 1997, 6)
166
91
Geophysical survey rectilinear enclosures north-west sector (RCHME 1997, 35)
167
92
Distribution of hut sites Glastonbury, Somerset (Coles and Coles 1986 reproduced in Cunliffe 1991, 241)
168
93
Iron Age and Roman sites in the Ilchester environs (Leach 1982, 4)
169
94
Location plan of Ilchester ‘oppidum’ and walled town (Leach 1993, 165)
170
95
Survey area South Cadbury Environs project (Tabor 2004, 2)
173
96
Map of sites within south Somerset study box 5.4
430
97
Earthwork plan of South Cadbury showing sites of excavations 1966-73 (Barrett, Freeman & Woodward 2000, 156)
176
98
Plan of excavated features within South Cadbury Plateau sites E-G (Barrett, Freeman and Woodward 2000, 156)
177
99
Plan of archaeological features at Sigwells (Tabor 2004, 29)
180
100
Late Bronze Age-Early Iron Age pottery distribution (Tabor 2004, 88)
181
101
Early to Middle Iron Age pottery distribution (Tabor 2004, 88)
181
102
Middle to Late Iron Age pottery distribution (Tabor 2004, 89)
182
x
103
Latest Iron Age pottery distribution (Tabor 2004, 89)
182
104
SW/Durotrigan coin distribution related to rivers and contours at 10m intervals
185
105
Settlement earthworks Giant Hill, Cerne Abbas 31 (RCHM 1952, 82)
189
106
Earthwork plan of Nettlecombe Tout hillfort (RCHM 1970b, 174)
190
107
Earthwork plan of Rawlsbury hillfort (RCHM 1970b, 258)
191
108
Earthwork plan of Whitsheet Hill hillfort, Stourhead Estate (RCHME 1988)
192
109
Objects found on Cold Kitchen Hill (VCH 1957, 415; Nan Kivell 1926, Plate IV)
193
110
Plan of excavated features Allards Quarry, Marnhull (Williams 1950, 22-3)
194
111
Earthwork plan of Banbury hillfort (RCHM 1972, 206)
195
112
Rivers and contours at 10m intervals with SW/Durotrigan coin distribution
198
113
Earthwork plan of Hod Hill hillfort (RCHM 1970b, 262)
199
114
RCHM earthwork survey of round houses within the south-east quadrant of Hod Hill (Richmond 1968 fig. 2)
200
115
Plan of earlier prehistoric features within and around Hambledon hillfort (RCHME 1996, 4)
201
116
Plan of the earthworks of round house sites observed within Hambledon hillfort (RCHME 1996, 36)
203
117 118
Earthwork plan of Pimperne Early Iron Age enclosure (RCHM 1972,54) Photograph of excavated Early Iron Age round house Pimperne (RCHM 1972, 41)
207 208
119
Ian Richmond’s diagram to date the finds and ramparts excavated at Hod Hill (Richmond 1968, fig.37)
209
120
Fluxgate gradiometer survey Hod Hill, total survey area (Stewart 2006, 51)
210
121
Fluxgate gradiometer survey Hod Hill north-west quarter (Stewart 2006, 52)
211
122
Fluxgate gradiometer survey Hod Hill north-east quarter (Stewart 2006, 54)
212
123
Fluxgate gradiometer survey Hod Hill south-west quarter (Stewart 2006, 53)
213
124
Fluxgate gradiometer survey Hod Hill south-east quarter (Stewart 2006, 55)
214
125
Metal detector finds along the Iwerne Valley reported by Ian Darke and to D.C.C. SMR
219
126
Chissel Farm Hanford: part of the diplay of finds from the Iwerne Valley Iron Age coins
220
127
Earthwork plan of Ringmoor, Turnworth 7 (RCHM 1970b, 291)
221
128
Earthwork plan of Meriden Down, Winterborne Houghton (RCHM 1970b, 298)
222
129
Plan of excavated features of at Park Farm, Iwerne Minster (RCHM 1972, 40)
222
xi
130
Hod Hill gradiometer survey (Stewart 2007)
227
131
Map of sites within central Dorset study box 5.5
431
132
Location map showing Wylye Valley (Gunter 2004)
432
132 133
Map of OS 1:50000 showing four hillforts and at Wylye valley entrance at Warminster Cley Hill looking north away from Warminster (West Air photo BU1746 9)
228 229
134
Site of Early Iron Age settlement north of Battlesbury (Chadwick & Thompson 1956, 264)
230
135
Earthwork plan of the Bury, Warminster (Colt Hoare 1821)
231
136 137
Cow Down enclosures, Longbridge Deverill (Powlesland 2004, 68) Aerial photographic plot Iron Age settlement west of Cow Down, Hill Deverill (Powlesland 2004, 68)
232 232
138
Aerial photographic plot Iron Age settlement south of Corton (Powlesland 2004, 99)
232
139
Earthwork plan Hamshill Ditches settlement (Corney 1989, 115)
233
140
Stockton Late Iron Age and Romano-British settlement features (Corney 1989,116)
234
141
Geophysical survey plot Castle Ditches (Payne, Corney & Cunliffe 2006, 104)
235
142
Plan of cross-ridge dykes, field systems and settlemens along the Ebble-Nadder Ridge (VCH 1973, 456)
236
143
Location map of cross-ridge dykes along the Oxdrove Ridge (Rahtz 1990, 9)
238
144
Hampshire large polygon enclosures, Whitsbury 17 hillfort, Rockbounre 54, Damerham 19 (Bowen 1990, 94)
240
145
Plan of Bokerley Dyke and associated features (Bowen 1990, 16)
241
146
Cranborne rivers and contours (10m intervals) with SW/Durotrigan coin distribution. Rivers from left to right Tarrant, Crichel, Gussage, Allen and Crane (top right).
243
147
Plan of archaeological features Down Farm and South Lodge Bronze Age enclosures (Barrett, Bradley & Green 1991, 208
249
148
Earthwork plan of Penbury Knoll hillfort (RCHM 1975, 56)
251
149
Earthwork plan of Bussey Stool Farm hillfort (RCHM 1972, 96)
251
150
Plan of archaeological features Oakley Down settlement (Brown, Corney & Woodward 1995, 68)
252
151
Plan of archaeological features Gussage All Saints settlement for three phase (Wainwright 1979, 185)
255
152
Plan of a group of farmstead enclosures near Gussage All Saints (Bowen 1990 fig.1)
258
153
Earthwork plan of Berwick Down farmstead (Wainwright 1968, 104)
260
154
Earthwork plan of Rotherley farmstead (VCH 1973, 443)
261
xii
155
Cordoned ware pottery excavated in Rushmore Park (Pitt-Rivers 1888, Plate LXXII)
262
156
Phased development of Woodcutts settlement (RCHM 1975, 69)
263
157
Group of farmstead enclosures north-west of Gussage Hill (Bowen 1990 fig.1)
266
158
The Gussage Hill and Launceston Down group of ditch systems and enclosures (Bowen 1990 fig. 1)
268
159
Detail of the Gussage Hill group of archaeological features (Bowen 1990 area plan 2)
269
160
Distribution of Iron Age monuments on Cranborne Chase (Barrett, Bradley & Green 1991, 231)
271
161
Map of sites within Cranborne study box 5.6
433
162
Rivers and contours (10m intervals) with SW/Durotrigan coins central and east Dorset
278
163
Map of sites within east Dorset study box 5.7
434
164
Aerial photograph of Badbury Rings hillfort (Crawford & Keiller 1928, 58)
281
165
Earthwork plan of the enclosure in High Wood, Pamphill (Papworth 1992, 70)
285
166
Linear boundaries south of Badbury Rings (Bowen 1990, 43)
286
167
Plot of geophysical anomalies and excavated features Sweetbriar Drove (Gater 1988)
288
168
Plan of archaeological features Heron Grove (Valentin forthcoming)
290
169
Location plan of excavation trenches Bradford Down (Field 1982, 72)
292
170
Geophysical survey plot of anomalies Bradford Down (Papworth 2004)
296
171
Aerial photograph Barnsley settlement enclosures (NMR ST9804/3)
298
172
Geophysical survey concentric enclosure settlement High Lea Farm (Gale 2004, 165)
299
173
Earthwork plan of Buzbury Ring settlement (RCHM 1972, 103)
301
174
Earthwork plan of Spettisbury Ring hillfort (RCHM, 1975, 247)
302
175
Earthwork survey of Badbury Rings hillfort (RCHME 1998)
305
176
Fluxgate gradiometer survey plot Badbury Rings (Brown, Papworth & Stewart 2007)
306
177
Trench I excavated against the inner rampart of Badbury Rings in September 2004.
307
178
Badbury gradiometer survey details (Papworth 2006)
309
179
Coins from the Badbury/Shapwick hoard (Van Arsdell 1989, 348)
311
180
Area of geophysical survey marked onto plan of earthworks (RCHM 1975, 61)
314
181
Geophysical survey plot showing anomalies Badbury temple
315
182
Earthwork survey of Badbury temple and location of excavation trenches (Papworth 2002b)
316
xiii
183
Total plan of geophysical survey anomalies at Crab Farm, Shapwick (Papworth 2002a)
317
184
Detail of fluxgate gradiometer plot Crab Field, Crab Farm settlement, to show Iron Age enclosure and linear links to Shapwick 35 (Papworth 2002a)
319
185
Detail of fluxgate gradiometer plot of Long Field, Crab Farm settlement, to show the late Roman road cutting across earlier settlement features (Papworth 2002a)
320
186
Cross section of intercutting latest Iron Age-earliest Roman boundary ditches below Roman road ( Dean Hind)
321
187
Crab Farm, Shapwick settlement total gradiometer survey
323
188
Geophysical survey plan of Lake Farm Roman fortress surveyed and drawn by Ancient Monuments Laboratory (Field 1992, 44)
324
189
Rivers and contours (10m intervals) with SW/Durotrigan coin distribution East Dorset
329
190
335
193
Earthwork plan of Cole Barrow, Holt Forest (DRO D/BKL c.1600 map by Rychard Hardinge) Earthwork plan of Bulbury hillfort (Cunnington 1884, 116) Distribution of banjo enclosures in Hampshire, Dorset and Wiltshire (Barrett, Bradley & Green 1991, 238) Earthwork plan of Battlesbury hillfort (McOmish, Field & Brown 2002, 78)
194
Earthwork plan of Scratchbury hillfort (McOmish, Field & Brown 2002, 36)
358
195
Observations along a pipe trench within Battlesbury Camp (Manley 1927, 63)
359
196
Location map for Stockton-Ebsbury group of Iron Age settlements (Corney 1989, 111)
360
197
Maps to show distribution of Poole Harbour fabrics with names of key indicator sites. Size of symbols: smallest 5-25% ceramic assemblage and largest 95-100%.
368
198
Distribution of British B coins (Philip de Jersey unpublished)
369
199
Distribution of British A coins (Philip de Jersey unpublished)
369
200
Distribution of British O coins (Philip de Jersey unpublished)
370
201
Distribution map of SW uninscribed/Durotrigan coins southern Britain
426
202
Suggested trade routes along the Wylye and Avon rivers (Gunter 2004, 50)
372
203
Map of the Dorset environs providing an impression of various artefact and burial distributions from nodal centre to periphery
373
204 205
Kaitote pa Taupiri, Waikato, drawn by G.F. Angas 1845 (Fox 1976, 8) Paeroa pa as described by Crozet 1772 (Fox 1976, 48)
412 417
206 207
Storehouse supported on four posts Manga Kahia North Aukland (Fox 1976, 40) Waipoua Valley, Northland kumera storage pit group (Papworth 1980, 23)
417 417
191 192
xiv
336 342 357
List of Tables Table 1:
Study Box 1 Purbeck: definition by six criteria
104
Table 2:
Study Box 1 Purbeck: list of sites
107
Table 3:
Study Box 2 South Dorset: definition by six criteria
124
Table 4:
Study Box 2 South Dorset: list of sites
127
Table 5:
Study Box 3 West Dorset: definition by six criteria
147
Table 6:
Study Box 3 West Dorset: list of sites
149
Table 7:
Study Box 4 South Somerset: definition by six criteria
171
Table 8:
Study Box 4 South Somerset: list of sites
174
Table 9:
Study Box 5 Central Dorset: definition by six criteria
196
Table 10:
Study Box 5 Central Dorset: list of sites
204
Table 11:
Study Box 6 Cranborne Chase: definition by criteria
244
Table 12:
Study Box 6 Cranborne Chase: list of sites
246
Table 13:
Study Box 7 East Dorset: definition by criteria
280
Table 14:
Study Box 7 East Dorset: list of sites
282
Table 15:
Focus of settlement: evidence from seven study boxes
340
Table 16:
Settlement pattern: evidence from seven study boxes
343
Table 17:
Range of settlement elements from seven study boxes
345
Table 18:
Continuity of settlement & sacred association
347
Table 19:
Distinctive artefact types: evidence from seven study boxes 351
Table 20:
Burial rite: evidence from seven study boxes
x
xv
355
xvi
Introduction Traditionally Late Iron Age Britain has been divided into tribal areas using the names of the communities recorded by the 2nd century geographer Ptolemy. This view of the way communities were grouped before the Roman Conquest may be misleading. The classical authors, who wrote about the British, were alien to the societies they were describing. Therefore the names may only have been convenient Roman administrative divisions that masked many sub-groups. They may not have been the names the British people personally identified with.
Dorset and the bordering edges of its neighbours, Devon, Somerset, Wiltshire and Hampshire comprise the area of land that has been attributed to the Durotriges. The distinctive Iron Age pottery found on archaeological sites across this landscape provides evidence for a cultural coherence amongst this area’s communities long before a group name was recorded (Cunliffe 1991, 92).
However, within this area there seem to be distinct clusters of archaeological evidence, which indicate differences between groups. This has led archaeologists to refer to the Durotriges as a confederacy (Cunliffe, 1991, 159; Salway 1993,39; Brown 1997, 40) although they have not attempted to describe in detail what this consisted of.
It has been supposed that the many hillforts in this area were occupied as local political units influencing the surrounding farmsteads and settlements. The effort and manpower required to create the hillforts is strong evidence to support the conclusion that considerable power and authority enabled their construction. During the Iron Age, certain hillforts may have acted as focal points, places that contained a variety of key functions. Considerable controversy still surrounds the interpretation of their changing purpose within the Iron Age landscape.
The author’s contribution to Iron Age studies in Dorset, centres on the hillfort of Badbury Rings which lies in the east of the county at the highest point of a 50 km sq. triangle of land bounded by three rivers. From this prominent location the land slopes away as a series of coombes and spurs north east to the River Allen, south to the River
1
1
dominated communities. Therefore Badbury became the principal but not the only study area of the thesis and the Durotriges and not Badbury became the core subject of the research. The first excavations within Badbury (Papworth 2004c, 181-6 & 2005, 143-5; fig. 2) triggered this change of focus because the trenches uncovered less Iron Age material than had been anticipated from the earthwork and geophysical surveys. This place did not contain the density of settlement evident at other hillforts like South Cadbury, Hod Hill and Maiden Castle. In fact the more each part of the Durotrigan zone was examined the more idiosyncratic each became and the less of a tribal cohesion seemed to exist.
Not one but seven study areas were created by placing a 10km by 8km rectangle over a range of principal places across the Durotrigan zone. These ‘study boxes’ were then examined by using a common set of criteria. The areas were chosen where extensive previous fieldwork had taken place. The work of previous archaeologists was reviewed and where possible additional fieldwork was commissioned and carried out by the author. The Badbury landscape remained the key because it lay at a crossroads between communities and the archaeological information gathered there was new and contrasted with that from neighbouring areas.
This survey of the Durotrigan zone was a considerable undertaking but the author has the advantage of having lived, worked and trained as an archaeologist in Dorset over the last 30years. During that time, while carrying out research within the county and during field trips to various excavations, the idea of Dorset and the Durotriges became firmly established.
The author is now the National Trust’s Regional Archaeologist in Wessex, employed to create archaeological survey reports for National Trust properties. These include Kingston Lacy Estate centred on Badbury Rings (fig. 3) and the Corfe Castle Estate, which covers many of Purbeck’s key Iron Age industrial sites. The Trust also manages Hod Hill and Turnworth in central Dorset, the Golden Cap Estate in west Dorset and the hillforts of Pilsdon, Eggardon, Lambert’s and Coney’s Castle spaced around the northern rim of the Marshwood Vale. The advantages of access to these and other properties and the help of many Wessex archaeologists enabled the work to proceed. 3
3
The aim of the survey was to try to understand what part Badbury Rings and the principal locations within each of the study areas played within their local Iron Age communities and to seek to identify influences that affected them. The core purpose being the evaluation of a cultural signature for each of the study areas and then to make cross comparisons to determine whether there ever was such a thing as a Durotrigan identity.
The thesis examines the period from Late Bronze Age through to the end of the Roman period although the research concentrates on the period 100BC-AD100. During this time, the communities of the Durotrigan zone were producing distinctive material evidence that has been interpreted as a tribal signature (Brailsford 1957, 118121).
Essentially the research focus has changed from fitting a significant part to a whole, to questioning what the whole was. If each significant area within the traditional tribal entity is separated, examined in detail and then reassembled, will the parts fit back together? With this in mind the thesis will begin to deconstruct the Durotriges.
2: Poole Harbour ware jar from Trench I, Badbury Rings, October 2005.
4
4
Preface The first chapter is a review of British Iron Age research. This provides the context for subsequent analysis. In chapter two, the sparse historical sources that depict southern British society will be examined and questioned. Having looked at the written evidence for the Durotriges, chapter three considers the Iron Age archaeology of the Dorset environs. This is a history of past research, demonstrating the way the Durotrigan tag has been attached to the various pre-Roman sites across the region. In chapter four, the individual material elements attributed to a Durotrigan ‘culture’ are analysed, together with the concept of ethnicity. This chapter ends with a series of questions which the survey of the Durotrigan zone seeks to address. This survey is the subject of chapter five. It starts with a description of the survey format used for each of the study areas. Sections 5.1 to 5.7 deal with the seven landscape blocks applying common criteria to each. Chapter six is the conclusion and this brings together the evidence for distinct communities within the Dorset environs and questions whether an overall Durotrigan identity can still be identified.
3: Map of the Kingston Lacy Estate by William Woodward 1774 (DRO D/BKL)
5
5
Chapter 1: Iron Age Studies – Current debates and themes
Difficulties in Understanding Iron Age Communities
A difficulty in writing about the Iron Age from the modern perspective is that ours is an alien society that has no real appreciation of the life and death struggle of subsistence farming. A 21st century urban Englishman’s dependence on agriculture is so distant from his day to day cycle of life that he barely recognises the need to produce food to live.
An archaeologist will adopt the attitudes of his time just as a film director presents history to an audience from a contemporary perspective. For instance, whether intentional or not, films of WWII are very datable and the truth of the society portrayed breaks up in time. The social reality and propaganda of the 1942 film “In Which We Serve” can be contrasted with the heroic 1963 film “633 Squadron” or the glamorous 2001 film “Pearl Harbour”. The costumes, locations and story-lines try to reflect the period but the historic perspective on the war becomes increasingly faded and the attitudes and beliefs of the actors are clearly of their time.
With the Iron Age, it is even more difficult to place our stories about people and places in a context approaching reality. Although there are a few written records for the very end of the British Iron Age, the Middle and Early Iron Age societies were probably very different from those of the Late Iron Age. The written sources demonstrate the British contact with the Roman world and this contact would have caused dramatic social and economic change. John Creighton (2000, 4-21) has argued that the influence of Roman politics and trade on the peoples of southern Britain was profound from before the Gallic Wars (58-50 BC) until the Roman Conquest of (AD 43-44). This influence is reflected in the changing designs on coinage, in a time when exotic agencies such as Roman objects, ideas and people gradually infiltrated later Iron Age society.
Historians and archaeologists have recorded examples of similar dramatic social change resulting from alien contact. One of these would be the way the Plains Indians 6
6
became increasingly dependent on horses after the Spanish Conquistadors introduced these animals to North America (Deuel 1967, 535-7). Another would be the transformation of Maori warfare after the British traded muskets to certain communities (Fox 1976, 29; see Appendix 1). These weapons changed battles from skirmishes to massacres and gun pits were dug as an additional defence within New Zealand hillforts. The pits were used first to protect defenders against attack from other Maori communities and later to serve as a defence against British soldiers.
The surviving Roman documents record only a few British leaders, places, events and tribal names but as these documents are Roman they are written from the perspective of superiority and conquest not from the perspective of the people themselves. Many Late Iron Age beliefs, ways of working and attitudes may have been preserved from earlier generations but it is difficult to distil these from the snapshots of Iron Age society depicted by classical writers such as Julius Caesar (Gallic Wars) and Tacitus (Agricola & Germania). It is useful to acknowledge these difficulties before attempting to understand the evolution of change amongst Iron Age peoples.
Attitudes to Change in Iron Age Studies
Barry Cunliffe (Cunliffe 1991, 1-20) provided a summary of the history of Iron Age studies in Britain and he drew attention to views on invasion as the explanation for change. In 1886, Sir Arthur Evans identified the Belgic cemetery at Aylesford by comparing its grave goods with those from cemeteries in northern France. He concluded that the “Aylesford Culture” was evidence to support the writings of Julius Caesar who stated that the southern parts of Britain had been settled by Belgic invaders. In the early 20th century Late Iron Age archaeological evidence was fitted to the historical sources and Early and Middle Iron Age changes were also linked to waves of invasion. The climax of this way of thinking was the division of the Iron Age into A, B and C (Hawkes 1931, 60-97). Cunliffe suggested that this early 20th century perception that the principal catalyst for Iron Age change resulted from invasion sprang from the imperialist culture of the time.
7
7
At the beginning of the 21st century post-imperialist Britain produces archaeologists who consider that egalitarian individual households may once have formed the fundamental building block of Iron Age society. This type of society, although absorbing outside influences, evolved its own way of doing things without the need for invasion to explain change (Hill 2001, 95-116).
Some academics challenge the whole concept of invasion in an Iron Age context, as the idea of political tribal territories is considered to be a modern interpretation of the evidence. Britain was not a nation in the Iron Age but a disparate group of communities with overlapping zones of interest. For example, boundaries were not defined during the archaeological landscape study of Cranborne Chase, as the communities there were considered to be permeable entities. The local systems of social reproduction within the area were not closed but part of a wider geographical system. According to this way of thinking the assessment of “indigenous” and “foreign” elements within the Iron Age were considered to be obsolete (Barrett, Bradley & Green 1991, 227)
Collis (1977, 1-7) reviewed past approaches to the Iron Age and considered the ways society was transformed over this period. He created a list of catalysts for change. He noted the difficulty of identifying invasions and migrations as the reason for any change in material culture. On his list are commercial trade, that is items bartered for mutual gain, but also social trade, when objects are exchanged to forge alliances, as gifts between friends or as a bride price. The movement of specialist craftsmen or indigenous invention or imitation might also have caused change.
However, British history records the effects of migrations and invasions (the forcible occupation of territory by one group at the expense of another) and it would be difficult to declare that such events could not take place during the prehistoric Iron Age. Burnt gateways and the distribution of sling stones within hillforts such as Danebury in Hampshire (Cunliffe 1993) and Hod Hill in Dorset (Richmond 1968, 9) indicate the likelihood of warfare between groups (see Appendix 1). Clusters of distinctive artefacts and new types of settlement may indicate the movement of alien communities into new areas. The Early Iron Age burials found in Yorkshire, known as the Arras culture, can be linked to similar burials in France. These were thought to 8
8
represent evidence for invasion or migration just as the burials from the Aylsford/Swayling area indicate a similar folk movement from France to south-east England in the Late Iron Age (Haselgrove et al. 2001, 3, 13-14).
Archaeologists’ ideas of the way Iron Age society worked have varied over the last century. However, it is likely that many of the explanations for change were true during this 800 year long period. These were not static communities.
Bronze Age to Iron Age
Cunliffe (2000, 149-196) described the pattern that he saw in the archaeological record from 1500 BC – AD 100, as interpreted from the monuments of the Danebury environs. The social change over time is discussed using the evidence of the commonest site types and these are as plentiful within the landscape surrounding Badbury and the other ‘Durotrigan’ study areas as they are at Danebury.
To summarise: the earlier Bronze Age (2200-1500 BC) landscape of round barrows, field systems and scattered open farmsteads and settlements gradually gave way to the later Bronze Age (1500-800 BC) landscape. This was characterised by long linear boundaries that sometimes incorporated and sometimes cut across earlier field systems. During this period, increasing numbers of farms and settlements became enclosed and burial monuments gradually ceased to be used. This ordered division of the landscape is suggestive of social groups defining and protecting their interests, either through negotiation and mutual agreement or as an imposition from a higher authority on the affected individual farming units. In the Early Iron Age (800-300 BC), hilltop enclosures were transformed into univallate hill-forts. In the Middle Iron Age (300-100 BC) some smaller hillforts were abandoned and others were enlarged with better, more elaborate defences. Field systems are rarely dated to this period. Settlements around Danebury became depopulated and the round houses within the hillfort increased in number.
In the Late Iron Age (100 BC- AD 100), hillforts became depopulated and new types of enclosed settlements of various sizes and types expanded from existing sites or
9
9
reoccupied abandoned places. Large enclosed settlements tended to be located beside rivers and these were usually constructed on new sites. They are termed oppida in southern England but generally are not thought to have been as developed or intensely occupied as the oppida of France.
In the Late Iron Age, field systems were re-established in the landscape, and following the Roman Conquest, farmsteads and settlements continued to occupy the same sites. As the Roman influence took hold in southern England, rectangular buildings replaced circular buildings and timber and daub constructions tended to be replaced by buildings of mortar and stone.
Cunliffe (2000, 194) concluded that the basic motivator for change was the growing importance of land and its productivity. He highlighted two particularly significant changes during the period, the ending of burial mound construction and the decline of hillforts. Round barrows he argued symbolised a claim over a broad territory, and enclosures symbolised a claim over a precise location. The greater agricultural productivity of the Iron Age enabled a greater population density. The division of the landscape by boundary and enclosure enabled each group of people to know what they were entitled to and determine when a trespass had been committed. This interpretation of enclosures and linear banks and ditches contrasts with the fluid social structure proposed for Cranborne Chase as outlined above (Barrett, Bradley & Green 1991,227).
Another change from the Bronze Age was the disappearance from the archaeological record of materials such as gold, amber and faience. These precious materials, sometimes found adorning burials within round barrows, indicate that these individuals were wealthy people of high status. The lack of golden objects or other prestige items in the British Early and Middle Iron Age suggests that either there were no wealthy members of society, or that wealth and prestige were measured in another way. The decline of overseas trade and exchange of durable prestige objects took place between 800-500 BC and this apparent isolation from the continent continued until 2nd century BC when gold objects were found once again on settlement sites in southern England (Cunliffe 1984, 38). Wheeler (1943, 382) noted that even bronze was rarely found in the Early Iron Age levels at Maiden Castle. He concluded that the 10
10
stones supported granaries on farms in the post-medieval period. This concentration within the archaeological record of features devoted to grain production and storage suggests a devotion to agriculture that is not as conspicuous in the Bronze Age record.
5: Line of four-post stuctures between two trackways within Hod Hill (Stewart 2006, 58)
The ‘treatment’ of human remains in the Iron Age contrasts significantly with the funerary activity of the earlier Bronze Age with its apparent pre-occupation with the veneration of the individual within burial mounds. From the Late Bronze Age until the Late Iron Age, human remains, if they are found at all, tend to be concentrated in pits and ditches as though they had been discarded as rubbish. However, there is probably a religious explanation for this disposal. Burials, found as complete skeletons or skeletal fragments, are sometimes included in structured pit fillings suggesting that human bones were precious commodities. It is assumed that above ground funerary rites were the norm and therefore most human remains were disposed of in a way that cannot be interpreted from the archaeological remains (Whimster 1981, 190-196). In an attempt to explain this gap in our understanding it has been suggested that some of the four post structures that are often found on Iron Age sites may have been used as platforms to expose dead bodies (Cunliffe 1993, 89).
The structured filling of some Iron Age grain storage pits included special deposits. These might be human and animal burials, quantities of grain, quern stones and other objects. It has been thought that these were symbols of propitiation to the deities to ensure fertility and good harvests (Cunliffe1992, 69-83). The ideas that link burial, belief and agriculture arise from the careful analysis of the contents of grain storage pits, one of the key sources of artifactual evidence that survives from the British Iron
12
12
Age (Hill 1995a). Although there are few objects of high status found on Early and Middle Iron Age sites, there is considerable evidence for storage of agricultural surplus. At Danebury 2400 storage pits were excavated and an additional 2000 unexcavated examples probably lie within the hillfort (Cunliffe 1993, 87). Aerial photography and excavation have demonstrated that this concentrated storage capacity was normal within the Iron Age farmstead and settlement enclosures across Wessex, including the settlements of the ‘Durotrigan’ zone. This great storage capacity implies that status, particularly in the earlier Iron Age, was measured by agricultural surplus rather than precious objects.
This link between agricultural production, storage, ritual and funerary practice can be seen in other cultures. The example of the New Zealand Maori and their division of all tasks into sacred and profane may provide explanations for the British Iron Age evidence (see Appendix 1). Even during a siege, the Maori would not collect water from the roof of a hut for drinking because the roof was sacred (tapu). The bones of the dead were also tapu and those of revered chiefs were brought to the fields during planting to enable a good crop. It is likely that similar belief systems affected British Iron Age behaviour. Julius Caesar indicated this division between sacred and profane. He noted that the British thought it unlawful to eat hares, fowl and geese although they would rear them ‘for pleasure and amusement’ (The Conquest of Gaul, V.12)
The archaeological record has to depend on the interpretation of the material remains. Therefore it is the evidence from the archaeological features and artefacts that will indicate the shifts in the way certain tasks were achieved over time. The evidence suggests that the attitudes and belief structures of Middle Bronze Age farmers were fundamentally different from those of the Middle Iron Age. This revolution is summarised as the shift from a situation where funerary and ritual monuments dominate to a time where settlements are conspicuous and burials rare. This process has been summarised as a change from “the dead and the living” to the “living and the dead” (Barrett, Bradley and Green, 1991). People continued to live in round houses but increasingly settlements and farmsteads were surrounded by enclosures.
13
13
Enclosures to Hillforts and the Central Place debate
In certain favoured locations, enclosures were developed and became multi-vallate hillforts. Places like Badbury Rings, Maiden Castle and Hambledon Hill are prominent earthworks and seem to surround the most significant settlements within their locale. Therefore were these central places and what would be the functions of an Iron Age central place? Did these differ significantly from the functions of other contemporary settlements in their vicinity? These questions are not easily resolved and have led to disagreement between Iron Age specialists, particularly as many Iron Age communities did not seem to need hillforts in their locality.
The concept of hillforts as central places has been considered by Barry Cunliffe from his work at Danebury (Cunliffe,1984, 559-562; Cunliffe 1995, 91-94). Cunliffe’s ideas have been vigorously challenged by J.D. Hill (Hill 2001, 101) who has questioned the traditional view that hillforts were social pivotal centres and suggested that they represented just another type of settlement enclosure, distinctive, separate but not necessarily superior to other site types.
Central place theory was developed in 1933 by the German geographer Walter Christaller to describe the central goods and services provided by settlements to serve or be served by regional communities (Haggett 1979, 362-71). His basic hierarchy of settlements was defined as hexagonal zones of influence spread out over an ideal level landscape where all other factors, such as soil fertility, water sources and accessibility were equal. This model enabled a simplified understanding of the distribution of levels of settlement function. He then went on to consider traffic optimizing, market optimising and administration optimising situations. His ideal hexagonal distribution of places could be rearranged to demonstrate
•
The hierarchy of roads between ordinary and principal places.
•
The hierarchy of competition between different villages, towns and cities providing different types of specialised goods and services
14
14
•
The hierarchy of administration which can be used to illustrate a network of political and religious power.
In the Iron Age one assumes that communities operated as groups of households that were mutually supportive gaining most of their staple resources from the local environment. They would have had some contact with neighbouring communities and rare contact with larger more distant places. Roads and transport were poorly developed and travel over distance was difficult and therefore less likely to be undertaken by ordinary farmers unless there was good reason to do so. Rivers and the sea acted as corridors for easier distant contact. Undoubtedly communities did migrate but usually they did not and therefore a Christaller-style network of principal places surrounded by lesser places every 10-15km is attractive.
Various assumptions might be put forward at this stage.
•
A household occupying a farmstead would co-operate with households in neighbouring farmsteads and worship at the local shrine.
•
At certain days of the year they would go to a larger place where there was a bigger shrine or a community gathering where many households would come together perhaps to trade and barter their produce.
•
They would dominate or be dominated, as in all societies there is a pecking order.
•
The greater the population density the greater the need for social organisation.
•
This would be controlled from the centres of power, which tend to be concentrated in the larger settlements.
•
Local and regional centres of power compete and shift over time.
The above assumptions for Iron Age Dorset would not meet with universal approval but in surveying the Iron Age archaeology of the Dorset environs it has become clear that many areas were densely occupied. From common experience, in areas of high population, it is difficult for people to co-exist without a hierarchical social structure.
Geographical analysis will assume significance from site and artefact distribution maps. Hodder (1977, 8-16) highlighted the need to understand the mechanisms that
15
15
dictate distribution before drawing tentative conclusions. For example, he questioned whether prehistoric pottery distributions are the result of goods marketed from production centres such as the Iron Age kilns on the Isle of Purbeck or derive from more primitive exchange networks that highlight the positions of social groupings.
Across any landscape there will be social and physical corridors and barriers that affect exchange and distribution. Within an area there may be a single production centre which manufactured objects with a distinctive style. Alternatively each community within the same area may produce the same object in the same style because it demonstrates part of the common inheritance and identity of the area.
While the ordinary every day objects may be used and produced locally, items that are made of non-local materials may be produced using techniques unknown to the locality and imported from outside the community. Goods may be transferred from a higher ranking place within a settlement hierarchy to which skilled craftsmen gravitated or from a similar but more distant community with a geological advantage (e.g. shale objects from Purbeck, greensand querns from the Shaftesbury area).
Hodder listed different kinds of mechanism for distribution within primitive societies that are outside the modern understanding of a market economy. He divided primitive communities into centralised and non-centralised societies.
In the centralised society there is a ranking of individuals. This may operate as English medieval society operated. The commoner may owe goods and services to the chief. The chief may store the goods in granaries and storehouses and redistribute them to his people. In this sort of society a prominent settlement may be a status symbol and residence for the head of the hierarchy and his retinue. . Although distribution patterns would gravitate towards and radiate out from such centres there would still be other levels of exchange including exchange between local farmsteads and between one centre and another.
In the non-centralised society there is no central point to which goods flow. All the various spatial segments of society are equal and equidistant. None is more important
16
16
than any other, and goods do not flow by redistribution but by reciprocity. Reciprocity involves the exchange of gifts between socially defined partners. These will be partnerships forged by kinship groups formed by marriage alliances enabling the flow of goods between families.
In this sort of society a hillfort may be one of many types of settlement in an area. Hill (2001, 112) would support this view and maintain that most hillforts were communal centres for specific activities that served to link disparate individual households.
Each community in the British Iron Age would have been slightly different and may have leaned more towards the centralised or non-centralised system at different times. Therefore how can the archaeologist determine what can be interpreted from distribution patterns? Hodder (1977,10) suggested that settlement type and size should be a good indicator such as a large hillfort surrounded by smaller settlements and farmsteads. The impressive earthwork defences indicated the seat of authority for a hierarchical system. This supported by an accumulation of high status objects at such a place to indicate the presence of occupants of high rank. Hill (2001) uses the lack of evidence for accumulations of high status objects within Middle Iron Age hillforts as evidence of a non-centralised society at this time. However, this interpretation assumes that we know what the symbols of power were within Middle Iron Age societies and that they survive within the archaeological record to be recognised. If wealth and prestige were measured in the size of a herd or the number of granaries then certain hillforts provide evidence for the concentration of these riches.
Archaeological evidence can be used in different ways to form opposing ideas. There are no set answers or firm conclusions that all British Iron Age specialists subscribe to. Each enquirer is left to consider the composite body of data and commentary and to write their own Iron Age.
Hill (2001 95-101) used the archaeological evidence to dismantle each of the claimed central place functions of Danebury. However, at the end of this exercise there is a hierarchical void that is not easy to fill using known historical and ethnographic examples of political and social organisation. Using a historically attested example, Maori communities were often ruled by a chief who occupied the largest hillfort 17
17
within a locale (see Appendix 1). Were massive built structures like Hod Hill and Maiden Castle created, developed and maintained by co-operation amongst equals? Hill admits that there cannot be a general model to cover all hillforts and cites the Dorset area as a special case (Hill 2001, 113). The evidence for large nucleated hillfort communities, particularly at Maiden Castle, implies a dominant class able to restrict occupation to the confines of the hillfort (see section 5.2 below p.129). This process might be compared with Saxon lords who brought together local populations to create nucleated villages and open field systems, for example Shapwick, Somerset (Aston and Costen 1994, 68).
Barry Cunliffe (Payne, Corney & Cunliffe 2006, 151-162) has looked again at the functions of hillforts and has questioned whether they should all be placed within the same settlement category. Some hillforts show signs of significant habitation, others are sparsely settled and others appear empty. Some developed hillforts will have had many functions others would have had one short-term function, or may never have been completed or occupied. This variety of function, status and length of use can be seen in the New Zealand hillforts (pa). Some are documented as being used as places for temporary refuge and others as defended permanent settlements (see Appendix 1).
John Creighton (2000, 21) noted that the more hillforts are interpreted as communal monuments rather than as the focal points of warlike elites, the greater the gap that needs to be filled. The leap of change from Middle Iron Age communities of egalitarian households to the highly ranked historic dynasties of the Latest Iron Age is difficult to explain solely in terms of increased trading contacts. He considered it more likely that the Middle to Late Iron Age transition tended to be a violent power struggle rather than a peaceful adoption of new ideas. Using the Maori example again, the pa or hillforts were certainly centres for groups of warriors and European travellers documented many reasons for hostility between communities that led to attacks on New Zealand hillforts.
While Collis argued that continental oppida had developed to a stage where they had central place functions, he questioned such a status being attributable to British hillforts (1984, 2). He acknowledged the planned layout of streets and houses, evidence of trade and industry and its function as a defensive centre that mark 18
18
Danebury out as a key settlement within its locale. However, he felt that hillforts need more evidence of a commercial centre and a distinctive hierarchy of building types. These would indicate a variety of building functions and perhaps the rank of their occupants. The apparent similarity of the round houses within hillforts makes it difficult to recognise them as towns and therefore central places in the economic sense. However the recent geophysical survey of Hod Hill (section 5.5 below p.210, fig.120; Stewart 2006) provides evidence of a greater variety of buildings, enclosures and outbuildings than has usually been recognised within hillforts.
Excavations within Middle Iron Age settlements do not usually reveal remains that indicate high status housing. The round houses seem similar in plan and diameter and therefore no hierarchy is discernible, but one might argue that the chief person within a settlement was not the man with the largest house but the one who owned the largest herd, or the most storage pits and granaries. In the Late Iron Age, enclosures within settlements, such as Gussage All Saints and Cleavel Point in Dorset, seem to define individual households, but high status buildings are not clearly discernible in the way that mosaics and wall paintings might indicate the wealth and power of the occupants of Roman buildings. However, John Creighton (2000, 21) highlighted gold and horses as two significant changes in the Late Iron Age that symbolise power and prestige.
The comparison of Middle and Late Iron Age animal bone assemblages from sites such as Gussage All Saints (Wainwright, 1979), Bury Hill (Cunliffe 2000, 62) Danebury (Cunliffe 1995) and Maiden Castle (Sharples 1991) revealed a significant increase in the percentage of horse bones. In addition, there are the remains of horse harness found at Bury Hill and Gussage thus indicating that horses were increasingly being used to ride and to pull carts and chariots. This archaeological evidence is supported by Caesar’s description of British war chariots in his account of the Roman invasions of 55BC and 54BC (The Conquest of Gaul IV.33; V.15-16). They had become unfashionable in Gaul by this time and were therefore a novelty to Caesar. Late Iron Age coins appear in Britain from the early 1st century BC and are used as evidence for the emergence of tribes and kingly authority and many include inscriptions of the names of leaders. Caesar recorded the use of gold and bronze coins 19
19
and also iron ingots of fixed weights in 54 BC (The Conquest of Gaul V.12). The iron ingots seem to have taken the form of swords in the Dorset environs before coins were used, ‘spit’ and sickle shaped ingots have also been found in southern Britain (Allen 1968, 139-46). Groups of these currency bars have been found at Hod Hill (see section 5.5 below p.218). Richard Hingley has reviewed the evidence and suggested the social context of currency bars in Iron Age Society (1990, 91-117).
The remains of pottery containers such as amphorae reveal that wine and other exotic commodities were being imported, made possible by increased trade links with the Mediterranean world and the expanding influence of Rome. Internal markets also developed and new decorated styles of pottery replaced the plain ‘saucepan pot styles’.
Oppida like Silchester and Colchester represent the latest and most distinctive high status settlements in Britain at the dawn of the Roman Conquest. They are prototowns but may not have developed the range of functions normally attributed to towns. The continental oppida tend to be much closer to Roman towns in scale and organisation than in the British Isles. Collis (1984) examined the origins and emergence of this new form of settlement in central Europe. He noted that these oppida were not planted as colonies by the Greeks or Romans but developed as key territorial centres with urban genesis stimulated by an internal process encouraged by trade with the Mediterranean. They often adopted the names of the communities of which they were a part, for example Paris of the Parisii.
The excavations on the site of the forum-basilica at Silchester revealed that the Roman town of Calleva Atrebatum originated as a planned oppidum in the Late Iron Age c. 25-15 BC. Two phases of Late Iron Age settlement were identified, consisting of streets of buildings located beside two trackways forming a ‘T’ junction. Less than one per cent of the area within the boundary rampart of the early settlement has been examined but it is likely that an early street grid of town-like proportions lies buried beneath the Roman town. The available evidence suggested that the earlier buildings were round houses but in phase 2 these were replaced by rectilinear structures flanking the streets. Circular and rectilinear structures probably co-existed but preRoman rectilinear buildings are rare in Iron Age Britain. They are a sign of 20
20
continental influence as are the Iron Age wells found on the site, the oyster shells and the numerous Gallic and Roman ceramic imports (Fulford 2000, 545-81).
Cunliffe (1994, 76) noted the chronological link between the decline of hillforts and the emergence of oppida and other new forms of settlement. This change is not clearly understood but the study of the settlement pattern of the Durotrigan zone will provide valuable information. This may be one of the best British regions to study this because of the late dependence of local populations on hillforts and their stage of social development in comparison with their eastern neighbours at the time of the Roman Conquest.
The next chapter looks at the historical sources that refer to the Durotriges and considers the Roman local government structures of pagi and civitates.
21
21
Chapter 2: The ‘Durotriges’ as an historic entity (the Roman civitas)
The name Durotriges begins the history of the Dorset environs. The name implies a grouping, a common identity for the peoples of the area, but the name is only known from three Roman sources. These are analysed below, but first the context of the Durotriges and other documented group names is considered. Historically these names were used to describe the peoples occupying Roman administrative districts. Can these Roman names be used to describe pre-Roman communities?
6: Map of Late Iron Age named groups (Cunliffe 1991, 160)
Our understanding of the tribal boundaries of Late Iron Age southern England is based on the surviving inscriptions naming Romano-British administrative divisions (civitates). These districts, it is thought, were created from the old pre-Conquest tribal
22
22
areas. In this chapter, the evidence from inscriptions is examined and supported using information from classical documentary sources. The archaeological evidence will be considered in the next chapter.
By the 50s BC the tribal division of Gaul was unquestioned by Julius Caesar (The Conquest of Gaul) although it is clear from his accounts that leadership and political organisation varied greatly between ‘tribes’. The same Latin word tribus (originally a third part) was also used to describe divisions within Roman society (chapter four examines the concept of tribe). However, Caesar gave a clear summary of the way he felt Gallic society operated at that time (VI, 13-15).
‘Everywhere in Gaul there are only two classes of men who are of any account or consideration. The common people are treated almost as slaves, never to act on their own initiative and are nor consulted on any subject…The two privileged classes are the Druids and the knights..
..the Gallic states used to fight offensive or defensive wars almost every year – these all take to the field, surrounded by their servants and retainers, of whom each knight has a greater or smaller number according to his birth and fortune”.
Therefore he depicts the Gallic ‘tribes’ as consisting of a variety of belligerent groups and implies that the British ‘tribes’ were no different.
Cornelius Tacitus, writing about 150 years later, also stated that the British were warlike and described the cynical way the Roman governor Julius Agricola ‘civilised’ the population.
‘Agricola had to deal with people living in isolation and ignorance, and therefore prone to fight; and his object was to accustom them to a life of peace and quiet by the provision of amenities. He therefore gave private encouragement and official assistance to the building of temples, public squares, and good houses. He praised the energetic and scolded the slack; and competition for honour proved as effective as compulsion. 23
23
Furthermore he educated the sons of the chiefs in the liberal arts, and expressed a preference for British ability as compared with the trained skills of the Gauls. The result was that instead of loathing the Latin language they became eager to speak it effectively. In the same way, our national dress came into favour and the toga was everywhere to be seen.
And so the population was gradually led into the demoralising temptations of arcades, baths, and sumptuous banquets. The unsuspecting Britons spoke of such novelties as ‘civilisation’, when in fact they were only a feature of their enslavement’ (The Agricola XXI)
Civitates
Therefore, the Romans actively encouraged the adoption of Roman ways to facilitate ease of governance. The administration of local districts in Britain that developed between AD 50 and 80 was based on a pattern already established in Gaul (Wacher 1976, 21). The Romans adapted the communities they found, promoting the development of towns, often near native centres, and granted the local people the right to administer the area around them – the civitas. The authority was given to an ordo or council made up of about 100 decuriones, elected among citizens, who were normally at least 30 years old and who had a certain level of personal wealth and property.
Throughout chapter five, it will be seen that there is considerable archaeological evidence for settlement continuity within the Dorset environs. Excavations have revealed that many Iron Age farmsteads developed into Roman villas (e.g. in Dorset the villas excavated at Bucknowle, Halstock, Dewlish, Tarrant Hinton & Bradford Down). One might conclude that the heads of these higher-ranking households became decuriones and that they benefited financially through the influence they exercised at council meetings. Neil Faulkner (2004, 169-71) has argued that although membership of the ordo was advantageous in the earlier Roman period, from the 3rd century it became increasingly unpopular and councils and urban living began to decline. This is because central government placed the responsibility of demanding 24
24
higher taxes to pay the army on the councils. This financial strain impacted on the ability and desire to invest in public building work (Faulkner 2004, 169-71). Nevertheless, by the 4th century, the Dorset villas had developed to become grand opulent ranges of buildings, demonstrating that the important local families were still wealthy.
Key Texts
Classical documents list the names of many towns, settlements and civitates. Archaeological confirmation of some of the civitas centres has been found on inscriptions excavated from Roman towns (Calleva Atrebatum, Silchester; Corinium Dubonnorum, Cirencester; Isca Dumnoniorum, Exeter). The key texts for the Durotrigan zone are the 2nd century Geography of Ptolemy (Geographia Claudii Ptolemei), the 3rd century road book known as the Antonine Itinerary (Itinerarium Provinciarum Antonini Augusti) and the 7th century list of countries, towns and rivers known as the Ravenna Cosmography (Ravennatis Annonymi Cosmographia).
It has been assumed that the named civitates were based on pre-Roman tribal groups although new boundaries are likely to have been drawn by the Roman administration. Some disparate communities may have been grouped together to form civitates by the occupying power.
The Durotriges
The group name commonly applied to the Late Iron Age communities centred on Dorset is usually written Durotriges although the name is only known from three sources. These are listed by Rivet and Smith (1979, 352). Ptolemy provided one example, and the other two were inscriptions found on stones from Hadrian’s Wall.
The meaning of the word has not been resolved but Rev. John Hutchins suggested:
25
25
‘The name Durotriges is ancient, and though in sound it bears great affinity to the Greek language, it is entirely of British original, derived probably from Dour or Dwr, in British water, and Trig an inhabitant, q.d. dwellers by the water or sea-side.’ (1774, ix)
Rivet and Smith (1979, 352) suggested an alternative and also divided the name into two elements Duro possibly referring to fort and riges being a plural of the word king. However, the temptation to interpret the name as referring to the land of the fort kings is tempered by the realisation that the word Duro was usually used in Britain to describe low lying early Roman forts. This interpretation does not appear to be relevant in an area containing so many hillforts. However, by the Latest Iron Age, there was a trend for the principal enclosed settlements to become established beside rivers.
Ptolemy
The earliest source for the word is Ptolemy, the Greek geographer writing c. AD 140150 AD. Rivet and Smith analysed his Geography and assessed commentaries on his work (ibid 103-147). Although written in the 2nd century he used earlier sources particularly Marinus of Tyre who mapped the whole known world from Britain to the Malay Peninsula at the turn of the 1st and 2nd centuries. Ptolemy and Marinus probably never visited Britain and therefore their information on the peoples and places of the area was derived from travellers, such as soldiers, mariners and merchants.
For southern Britain, Rivet and Smith examined the places recorded by Ptolemy and concluded that the information he used dated to the mid-1st century (ibid 105). Ptolemy recorded each principal named place within an area as a polis. This does not necessarily mean a town but could be no more than a place with a name. However, one assumes that the few named places that Ptolemy chose to include in his Geography were distinctive in relation to any other named places that he chose to exclude or had not heard of.
26
26
Rivet and Smith’s dating of Ptolemy’s information on southern Britain was based on which of the known named settlements were included and which were excluded from the document. For example, although the new town of Noviomagus (which is considered to be Chichester) was recorded as a polis, Durnovaria, the accepted Roman name for Dorchester, was not. Excavations in and around Dorchester indicate that it was established c.AD 65-70. Noviomagus was established early within a client kingdom that did not oppose the Roman Conquest. Dorchester lay within an area hostile to the Romans and was established later (Woodward 1993, 359). Additional evidence for the date of Ptolemy’s information is found in the portion dealing with south Wales. Caerleon and Caerwent were not included but Usk was and excavation has shown that Usk predated Caerleon as a legionary base in south Wales before c.AD 74. (Rivet and Smith 1979, 115)
Therefore it can be argued that Ptolemy listed the names of the peoples of southern Britain within 20 years of the Roman Conquest and included the principal settlements which were in existence at the time. After describing the Belgae, he noted that ‘to the west and south of these are the Durotriges amongst whom is the polis of Dunium.’ Wheeler (1943, 12) believed Dunium to be Maiden Castle because of its size and the later creation of the principal town of Dorchester nearby. Whereas Rivet and Smith (1979, 145) considered Hod Hill to be a better candidate because it lies closer to the latitude and longitude provided by Ptolemy. Hod had an extensive Roman settlement beside the River Iwerne outside its east gate and the evidence for this will be considered below (see section 5.5 p.218).
It is assumed that Dorchester was the administrative centre of the civitas created by the Romans to govern a people known as the Durotriges and the size of Roman Dorchester strongly suggests this. However, the only inscriptions currently known refer to Ilchester not Dorchester.
The Stones from Hadrian’s Wall
The two other sources containing the Durotrigan name are inscriptions on stones from the central section of Hadrian’s Wall. One was found before 1873 ‘somewhere west of Housesteads’ (RIB 1673), inscribed c(ivitas) Dur(o)tr(i)g(um) (L)endin(i)e(n)sis 27
27
‘the canton of the Durotriges of Lendiniae (built this). The other inscription was found in 1882 at the foot of the crags north of the Wall near Cawfields (RIB 1672), ci(vitas) Durotrag(um) Lendinie(n)si(s) ‘the canton of the Durotrages of Lendiniae (built this).
The inscriptions have been interpreted as stones set up to record the work of a group of masons from the Durotrigan area who repaired this section of wall. Alternatively a Durotrigan Roman administrative area (civitas) provided the funds for the work. Lindinis is interpreted as the name of the Roman town at Ilchester, which will be considered in more detail below.
Michael Fulford has brought together the evidence for all the stones from Hadrian’s Wall that record civitates. There are also two that commemorate the work of the Dumnonii (centred on Devon), one of the Catuvellauni (centred on Hertfordshire) and one of the Brigantes (centred on the north Pennines). None were found in a secure archaeological context and previous commentators have suggested that the stones dated to the 3rd or 4th centuries when the wall was extensively repaired. However, Fulford commented that by this time Britannia had been split into more than one province and that the governor who managed Hadrian’s Wall no longer controlled the peoples of southern Britain. He suggested that if the stones dated to the 2nd century the governor would still have had direct influence over the Durotrigan and Dumnonian civitates (Fulford 2006, 65-71).
Place names within the Durotrigan area from classical sources.
The Antonine Itinerary and Ravenna Cosmography name Durnovaria and two other places that probably lay within Dorset. These are Vindocladia, probably Crab Farm near Badbury Rings (see section 5.7 p.315), and Ibernio (see section 5.5 p.218) possibly near Hod Hill (RCHM 1975, xxxi). These surviving names represent principal places along routeways and may give an indication of local power centres within the Romanised Durotriges. If they were names for Hod and Crab Farm, they were already significant places in the Late Iron Age. These settlements may be examples of district administrative centres or pagi. Each civitas would have included a number of these smaller centres (Burnham & Wacher 1990, 39-40). 28
28
The linking of the Antonine Itinerary names of Durnovaria or Durnonovaria with Dorchester is confirmed by later references to the town (Rivet and Smith 1979, 345). In the Anglo-Saxon period, the town was known as Dornwaracaester and a Welsh document refers to it as Durngueir. Rivet and Smith (ibid.) considered that Duriano of the Ravenna list also referred to Dorchester. They noted that Ravenna usually recorded civitas capitals but the expected civitas designation Durotrigum was not added to Duriano. Their explanation was that the Ravenna list contains many errors and that as with Bath (Aquae Sulis), the name may have been placed out of context in amongst a list of places that were generally much further west. It is interesting to note however, that the Antonine Itinerary references also omit the Durotrigan suffix.
The archaeology of Dorchester testifies that it was a significant place. Similar sized nearby towns such as Exeter, Winchester, Cirencester, Chichester and Silchester do have the historical evidence for their civitas status. Therefore, researchers have concluded that Dorchester was also a civitas capital and the location of the Durotrigan ordo (Wacher 1976, 315-326; RCHM 1970a, 531-538).
However, the boundaries of the supposed Durotrigan civitas may not have remained static during almost 400 years of Roman rule. The town name Lindinis, recorded on the Hadrian’s Wall inscriptions, is thought to be the walled Roman town of Ilchester in south Somerset and it is argued (Stevens, 1952, 188-92) that by the 4th century, the Durotrigan civitas had been split into at least two areas. One centred on Ilchester and the other at Dorchester (see 5.4 p.169 & 188). Fulford (2006, 69) has suggested that if the inscriptions from Hadrian’s Wall are early, then the civitas Durotrigum Lendiniensis may already have existed in the 2nd century. It is possible, based on current written evidence, that Dorchester was never a civitas capital. However, this seems unlikely given the size of Roman Dorchester in comparison with Ilchester.
Suetonius Tranquillus, Vespasian and Legio II Augusta
From the above, it can be seen that there is historical evidence for a Durotrigan civitas but did this derive from a pre-Roman group of that name? One historical text that has been associated with the Durotriges is the life of Vespasian by Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus (The Twelve Caesars). 29
29
‘On Claudius’ accession, Vespasian was indebted to Narcissus for command of a legion in Germany; and proceeded to Britain, where he fought thirty battles, subjugated two warlike tribes and captured more than twenty towns (oppida), besides the entire Isle of Vectis. In these campaigns he served under Aulus Plautius, the commander of consular rank, and at times under Claudius, earning triumphal decorations.’ (X.4)
One of the ‘warlike tribes’ is generally considered to be the Durotriges. In Dorset and south Somerset the evidence for this consists of Roman forts and mutilated human remains dating to the latest Iron Age (Frere 1978, 89; Webster & Dudley 1971, 71). The traditional linkage of this historical source with the archaeology makes Vespasian the first named individual within the history of Dorset and the soldiers of Legio II Augusta as the conquerors of the Durotrigan people. However, it has been claimed that an inscription found at Alchester indicates that Vespasian and the second legion were in Oxfordshire and may not have been in Dorset (Sauer 2005, 168-176). The validity of this new information has been disputed, the grave stone had been redeposited and commemorated a veteran of the legion (Fulford pers.comm.2006). Amongst the military remains from sites in Dorset there are no objects that can be ascribed to a particular legion but the evidence still indicates 1st century conflict and this will be considered in more detail in chapter four.
Suetonius implies the ‘tribes’ were large. They were large enough to include many oppida. Therefore they were depicted as unified groups of communities, recognised as significant political powers. Their defeat by Vespasian was worthy of praise. The inclusion of Vectis suggests that Vespasian’s campaign was near the Isle of Wight and this supports the view that one of the ‘warlike tribes’ lay within the Dorset environs. Hampshire does not contain evidence for 1st century Roman forts or conflict and therefore the other tribe may have been a group within the Devon or Somerset areas. However, the tribes are unnamed and the Alchester gravestone demonstrates that reinterpretations are possible and that the Vespasian/Durotriges link is based on little evidence.
30
30
Historical evidence for confederacy or the enlargement of communities.
In 55BC and 54BC, the writings of Julius Caesar indicate that there were more political units than existed in AD 43 (The Conquest of Gaul IV 20-38; V 8-23). By 55 BC, a power centre was emerging north of the Thames in the area later attributed to the Catuvellauni. The leader of this area Cassivellaunus was given command of the united war bands of the other communities ‘by common consent’ against the Roman army. Cassivellaunus had killed the king of the Trinovantes, the people centred on Essex, which Caesar described as ‘about the strongest tribe in south-eastern Britain’. Five other groups are mentioned as surrendering to Caesar during the campaign (Cenimagni, Segontiaci, Ancalites, Bibroci and Cassi) these names are not recorded again (unless the Cenimagni were part of the Iceni). Similarly, the four Kentish kings that were commanded to attack the Roman coastal supply base in 54 BC suggest that smaller political units still existed at that time which had been absorbed into the larger kingdom by AD 43.
Until Ptolemy, there are few references to British named groups but the inscription on the triumphal arch of Claudius in Rome (C.I.L. VI 920) may give an indication of the number of political groups that existed in southern Britain in AD 44. It records that Claudius received the submission of eleven British kings. The purpose of the arch was to celebrate the glory of the emperor and therefore it is likely to exaggerate the number of rulers Claudius had conquered rather than understate his victory (Webster & Dudley 1973, 165-7).
The Boundaries of Civitates
This process of political change, where smaller groups merged, is likely to have been the pattern across southern Britain in the Late Iron Age, including the Dorset environs. The threat from a mutual enemy would tend to encourage alliances as Caesar implies.
Therefore, the boundaries of territories and the units of administration would have been changing in the Late Iron Age, and they are unlikely to have remained static during the Roman period. 31
31
Boundaries are difficult to define but distributions of coins enable some boundaries to be suggested for the pre-Roman period (Sellwood 1984, 192-202). A common currency prevents such definition after the Roman Conquest. Therefore the Roman civitas areas have been defined by using pre-Roman evidence and the Iron Age ‘tribes’ are largely derived from Roman administrative names.
Nevertheless, it is reasonable to assume that the Roman administrative units were guided by a pre-existing group identity. This would enable the Iron Age communities of Britain to be organised through a system of councils based at the new towns and elected from the elite by the local gentry. These towns were built to house Roman ‘civilisation’ and enable pursuits that would act as ‘tender traps’ for the pacification of communities.
Having looked at the historical sources, the next chapter considers the archaeological evidence and how the study of Iron Age communities has developed within the Dorset environs.
32
32
Rev. John Hutchins (1774, ix-xix) reviewed their work and looked at each source for evidence of the Durotriges. The introductory sentence to his great historical description of the county established the link between the Durotriges and Dorset. ‘The county of Dorset was anciently inhabited, according to Ptolemy, by the Durotriges.’ In 1861, when the 3rd edition of the book was published, his analysis of the classical sources remained little altered. Indeed, Charles Warne (1872) attributed all the preRoman earthworks of Dorset to the Durotriges ‘whose hands accomplished works of apparently superhuman power, in an age when the light of civilization had hardly dawned on these benighted shores’.
Sir John Evans first described in detail the various types of British pre-Roman coins and their significance as indicators of tribal areas (1864, 101-2). Charles Warne illustrated some of the coins from Dorset and stated ‘several of which may be accepted as types of the rude unlettered coinage of the Durotriges’ (1872, 154). This established the link, and subsequent researchers analysed the distribution and metallurgy of the coins and classified them into types (see chapter four).
Therefore the idea of a distinct Dorset people with a unique coinage was accepted in the 19th century and maintained into the 20th century. The 16th-19th century descriptions of Iron Age sites tended to be limited to the large hillforts and concentrated on the romance of past associations. In 1542, John Leland noted that South Cadbury was thought to be Camelot, once occupied by Arthur of the Britains. He provided a useful early description. ‘The very Roote of the Hille whereon this Forteress stode is more than a Mile in Cumpace. In the upper Parte of the Toppe of the Hille lie four Diches or Trenches, and a baulky Walle of Yerthe betwixt every one of them. In the very Toppe of the Hille above all the Trenches is a magna area or campus of about twenty acres or more by estimation, where in divers places men may see Fundations, and rudera of Walls. There was much dusky blew stone that the people of the villages thereby hath carried away. The top within the upper wall
34
34
is twenty acres of ground and more, and hath been often plowed and borne very good corne. Much gold, sylver, and copper of the Romaine coins hath been found there in plowing, and likewise in the feldes in the rootes of the hille, with many other antique things and especial by East.’ Some 350 years later, Rev. J.A. Bennett was still presenting a romantic image of the place ‘tradition is not wanting. The air of Cadbury is full of legend and romance’. However, by this time archaeological excavations were taking place to try to fit material evidence with the traditional beliefs. Bennett supervised the cutting of a trench across one of its ramparts, and recorded stories of the place retold by the local labourers he employed to do the work. From the late 18th century, plans of archaeological sites began to be published for places like Eggardon Hill (Hutchins 1774) and Hengisbury Head (Grose 1779). In the early 19th century Richard Colt Hoare of Stourhead commissioned some of the earliest detailed earthwork surveys of Iron Age sites in the area. These included the Gussage Cow Down multiple ditch systems and banjo enclosures on Cranborne Chase (1821, 30) and Ham Hill, south Somerset (1827, 39-42) where he recorded the discovery of human remains by quarrymen in 1816.
In 1880, Augustus Henry Lane Fox inherited the Rushmore estates on Cranborne Chase and took the name Pitt-Rivers. He had been carrying out archaeological and anthropological research since the 1860s and his inheritance enabled him to study the sites on his land. He concentrated his work particularly in and around Rushmore Park and his carefully recorded excavations set the standard for British field archaeology. Beginning at Winkelbury Camp in 1881 (fig.8), his subsequent excavations were on the sites of the Iron Age and Romano-British settlements of Woodcutts in 1884, Rotherley 1886 and Rushmore Park 1888 (Pitt-Rivers 1887; 1888; 1898).
Although many of Charles Warne’s conclusions concerning the Durotriges seem outdated now, his tour of Ancient Dorset is valuable and some of his observations were ahead of their time. At Hod Hill, for example, he noted the circular banks within the hillfort and believed they were hut sites. Charles Warne, like Hutchins, noted the
35
35
Ploughing has since removed the earthwork evidence on the north exterior side of the hillfort. In contrast to Warne’s analytical approach, Henry Durden of Blandford was a collector of objects and left few records. He began his Hod Hill collection in 1841, but most artefacts were recovered after 1858 when the west half of the hillfort was first ploughed, and in 1865 when the interior of the Roman fort began to be cultivated (Longworth & Haith 1992, 151-160). Although he rescued the objects from the ploughsoil, he also dug into the unploughed areas. Professor W. Boyd Dawkins, who in 1897 carried out the first scientific excavations at Hod, was critical of Durden’s work. ‘Nearly the whole of the area of both fortresses had been ransacked by Mr Durden during the last fifty years, and the rich harvest which he obtained of Roman and Pre-Roman age has now for the most part found its home in the British Museum, without any record of the precise circumstances of each discovery’(Boyd-Dawkins 1900, 57)
9: Plan of huts and other sites excavated by Prof. Boyd-Dawkins (Boyd-Dawkins 1900)
37
37
Hengistbury or make a record before the archaeological evidence was lost. J.P-Bushe Fox directed the excavations on behalf of the Society of Antiquaries. Over six months, he investigated almost 20 hectares within the ramparts of the fortified Iron Age harbour. He dug long narrow strip trenches, which caused minimal damage to the archaeological potential of the site. The speed and thoroughness in which the report was produced was impressive, with full ceramic and metallurgical analyses setting the site in context with other known investigations. The report was a model for its time (J.P Bushe-Fox 1915).
The first publication devoted to archaeological aerial photography included several sites in east Dorset and south Wiltshire (Crawford and Keiller 1928). The photographs and descriptions of significant earthworks provided pioneering analytical discussion of the evidence for Hanging Langford and Ebsbury settlements on the Nadder-Wylye Ridge, the Gussage Cow Down Settlement on Cranborne Chase and hillforts such as Hod, Hambledon, Buzbury (fig.12) and Badbury Rings. This synthesis of past discoveries with photographs and plans was a forerunner of similar non-intrusive site surveys carried out by Victoria County History in Wiltshire (1957 & 1973) and the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments across Dorset (1952, 1970a, 1970b, 1972, & 1975).
12: Buzbury Rings concentric enclosures (Crawford & Keiller 1928, 64)
40
40
The ABC of the Iron Age, Maiden Castle and Marnhull
In 1931, Professor Christopher Hawkes wrote a key article on hillforts. This divided the Iron Age into categories that would remain in use during the next forty years (Hawkes 1931, 60-97). Previously British archaeologists had tried to match excavated evidence with finds from continental Europe, the main sites being Hallstatt in south Germany and La Téne in the Rhineland, both excavated in mid-19th century. The distinctive Hallstatt material was dated to c.800-400 BC and the La Téne c.400-100 BC with a third Belgic category applied to the period of ‘Romanisation’ from 100BC until the Roman Conquest (Cunliffe 1991, 1).
Although Hawkes could see links with the Hallstatt, La Téne and Belgic continental influences in the British Iron Age material, he argued that the parallels were not exact and therefore he proposed to divide the British Iron Age using the neutral terms A, B and C. Nevertheless, he still maintained that changes in the archaeological record, particularly changes to the defensive architecture of hillforts, were the result of successive waves of population movement from continental Europe (Payne 2006, 4).
This was the chronological framework used by Mortimer Wheeler during his excavations at Maiden Castle from 1934-7. Wheeler, like Hawkes, explained change in terms of invasion (Wheeler 1943, 381-7). Peoples arriving in Britain from the 6th century BC fused with the native population to form the Iron Age A culture. During this period, it was thought, many of the hillforts were first constructed in southern England. A second wave of invaders arrived in the 4th century BC from Spain and Brittany, initially occupying Dorset and the Cotswolds. The massive multivallate hillforts like Maiden Castle were ascribed to these Iron Age B people. The Iron Age C people were linked to Belgic invaders arriving around 75 BC. These people first occupied the Thames Valley and Kent, later spreading into Essex. A few years later, refugees from northern France landed on the Solent coast and moved into central southern Britain. These invasions were linked to Roman military conquests in Gaul and the assertion by Julius Caesar, in his Conquest of Gaul, that Belgic incursions had taken place in Britain. Wheeler believed that the result of this Belgic influence, in the Iron Age C areas, was the decline of hillforts and the creation of low-lying defended settlements or oppida (Payne 2006, 4). 41
41
the Belgic insurgents introduced distinctive coinage from the north-east. ‘Maiden Castle still owed much to the Iron Age A and B elements in the local tradition. But now for the first time Wessex became a unit in the Belgic complex of south-eastern Britain and forgot much of its westerly orientation’ (ibid. 387).
In 1939, following Wheeler’s work at Maiden Castle, members of his team examined two nearby hillforts. Excavations in Chalbury Camp (Whitley 1943, 98-121) (fig.13) and at Poundbury (Richardson 1940, 429-48) revealed contrasting results. The round houses of Chalbury were found to have been abandoned at the end of the Iron Age A period but at Poundbury, trenching across the hillfort revealed no building remains within its interior. Therefore distinctive differences of occupation within hillforts had been recorded.
Another important archaeological site excavated between 1932-45 was in the Blackmoor Vale parish of Marnhull in north Dorset (Williams 1950, 34-56). An Iron Age settlement was discovered during limestone extraction from Allard’s Quarry near Todber. This open settlement site included remains of round houses, pits, burials and four-post structures. Occupation evidence was assigned to A, B and C culture communities. The extensive pottery assemblage from this site was compared with that from Maiden Castle. This led to the adoption of the Maiden Castle-Marnhull style of pottery to define a group of distinctive Middle Iron Age ceramic forms concentrated within the Dorset environs (Cunliffe 1991, 82-3).
Bernard Calkin published the first distribution map of Iron Age settlement in the Isle of Purbeck (Calkin 1948, 29-59). This was the product of intensive fieldwork from 1931 onwards linked to 18th-19th century discoveries. Since his first map of prehistoric settlement was published, the data-base has been greatly expanded by field survey and small scale excavation by local archaeologists R.A.H. Farrar, John Beavis, Tony Brown and Norman Field (Sunter and Woodward 1987, 6).
43
43
1950s-1960s: Hod Hill and the Durotrigan Culture
Renewed ploughing within Hod Hill led to the first excavation by British Museum staff of a British site. The initial trial trenches (Brailsford 1949, 41-50) were followed by eight seasons of excavation between 1951-8. Ian Richmond directed the work and investigated the earthworks of several round houses and cut sections across the ramparts (Richmond 1968). The publication of the work took place after the death of Professor Richmond and this may have been the reason why the analysis remained with the ABC system and that the pottery report was not as rigorous as it might have been. However, the earthwork surveys and excavated evidence revealed a high level of archaeological survival enabling the settlement pattern within the hillfort to be better understood than any previously investigated.
While working on the material from Hod Hill, John Brailsford wrote the article that defined the Durotrigan ‘culture’. He described the criteria that set these people apart from those in neighbouring areas (Brailford 1957, 118-21). This will be considered in detail in the next chapter.
During the 1960s, two other Dorset hillforts were excavated, but their eventual publication was unsatisfactory. From 1963-6, at Eggardon, on the western edge of the chalk, George Rybot excavated various linear banks, pits and round houses inside the ramparts but he died before writing a report on his work. Caroline Wells, who gathered together the records from various sources, published his results in 1978 (Wells, 54-72). At Pilsdon Pen, in west Dorset, the land owner asked Mortimer Wheeler to find an archaeologist to excavate the site. Peter Gelling was selected and work took place between 1964-71. Gelling undertook area excavations within the ramparts and identified the ring gullies for many round houses. Following a disagreement, he left the site before he had completed his investigations (Gelling 1977, 263-86). The lack of ceramic evidence from Pilsdon in comparison to Hod and Maiden Castle was significant. In Somerset, another campaign of investigation within a hillfort was taking place at South Cadbury. From 1966-73, Leslie Alcock directed excavations on behalf of the Camelot Research Committee. All periods of South Cadbury were examined but the
44
44
Committee had been formed in 1965 particularly to examine the sub-Roman and early medieval aspects of the site (Alcock 1972). Early, Middle and Late Iron Age: South Cadbury and Gussage All Saints Alcock saw the potential of the prehistoric ceramic sequences from South Cadbury and their contribution to the wider understanding of the Iron Age of southern Britain. However, the excavations were taking place as the old ABC cultural hypotheses were breaking down. By 1964, Frank Hodson had demonstrated that associating cultural changes with invasions from the continent could not be sustained. He proposed that the British Iron Age was dominated by indigenous cultural development to which the contribution of continental cultures was limited (Hodson 1964). Therefore Alcock adopted an ‘intrinsic typology’ based on the stratigraphic sequence at South Cadbury. ‘The typological study of the Cadbury material itself without reference to other sites’ (Alcock 1980, 682). The extensive excavations of the interior were a deliberate attempt to reveal the extent and organisation of building activity rather than concentrating efforts on rampart construction. The final publication of the prehistoric and Romano-British phases is a rigorous modern report combining stratigraphic analysis, finds reports with geophysical and earthwork surveys, the chronology was based on 10 Cadbury-specific ceramic phases linked to ‘Early Cadbury’, ‘Middle Cadbury’ and ‘Late Cadbury’ time zones (Barrett, Freeman and Woodward 2000).
Following the abandonment of chronology based on invasion theories and cultures, a new definition of the Iron Age was adopted. Researchers such as Barry Cunliffe (1974) and John Collis (1977, 6-7) advocated the division of the Iron Age simply into Early, Middle and Late. This system is currently in use and often amended by adding two additional categories, one at either end of the period. A Latest Bronze AgeEarliest Iron Age (c.900-700BC), to define the period of initial infiltration of iron into society, and a Latest Iron Age to cover the rapid social changes of the 1st century AD (Cunliffe1984, 12-45).
The important synthesis of information contained in the RCHM Dorset inventory volumes was published in the limbo period when the Iron Age was being redefined. These books retain the ABC system because, although most of the RCHM volumes
45
45
were published in the 1970s, they referred to fieldwork mainly carried out in the 1940-60s (RCHM 1970-75). This work provided a data set of accurate earthwork surveys and location maps enabling the Dorset prehistoric sites to be considered within their landscapes. In addition to this, complementary landscape survey work has been published by RCHM staff for Cranborne Chase and south Wiltshire including the contrasting settlement patterns on the Nadder-Wylye ridge (Corney 1989, 115119), Nadder-Ebble Ridge (Fowler 1964, 46-57), Oxdrove Ridge (Rahtz et al. 1990, 1-49) and Cranborne Chase (Bowen 1990). The ideas relating to the Roman Conquest of the Dorset environs were supported by excavation evidence adding to that from the Hod Hill Roman fort. The Lake Farm fortress near Wimborne Minster was discovered in 1959 and excavations at various times from 1960-81 together with geophysical survey confirmed the 1st century date and plan of the site (Field 1992, 32-44). In west Dorset, the Waddon Hill fort was extensively excavated from 1959-69 and also dated to the mid-1st century (Webster 1979, 51-90).
On Cranborne Chase, complete excavations of two plough damaged Iron Age sites took place in 1968 and 1972. Geoffrey Wainwright, who directed this work, wanted as complete a data set as possible. Previously, only part excavations of settlements outside of hillforts had taken place (Wainwright 1968; 1979).
Berwick Down, Tollard Royal was a ‘kite-shaped’ enclosed settlement, severely affected by ploughing. In 1962, the Ministry of Works employed E. Greenfield to excavate trial trenches across the site. In 1965, the surviving earthworks, including the other enclosed and unenclosed settlement evidence farther north, were surveyed by RCHM (fig.153 p.260). This was followed by ploughsoil stripping of the whole of the kite-shaped enclosure (fig.30 p.80) by JCB and total excavation of features within and around the site. Wainwright commented on the value of this methodology as it enabled the total recovery of available evidence for a farmstead established in the Durotrigan period and abandoned in the early Roman period (Wainwright 1968, 102147)
46
46
In 1978, excavations took place at the coastal industrial site at Cleavel Point (fig.48 p.114) before an oil gathering station was erected. Here, evidence for a Late Iron Age port, comparable with Hengisbury Head was found and was published with a review of industrial sites in the whole Purbeck area (Sunter and Woodward 1987). Further oil exploration in the north Purbeck heathland enabled fieldwork, excavation and a synthesis of past research in the area (Cox and Hearne 1991).
The advent of developer funded archaeology in the 1980s gave rise to numerous new investigations but most significantly in the Dorchester environs. Late Iron Age and Roman cemeteries and settlements were discovered in 1984-7, at Allington Avenue, south of the town (Davies 2002) and in 1986-8, during the development of the Dorchester Bypass (Smith 1997). This body of information could be added to the data from the Poundbury industrial estate excavations. From 1966-82, the work on the east side of the Poundbury hillfort had revealed Iron Age occupation underlying an extensive Roman cemetery (Sparey-Green 1987).
These broader area research strategies led to investigations that placed sites within the context of their landscape. In neighbouring Hampshire, Barry Cunliffe’s extensive excavations within Danebury hillfort were followed by research into the Danebury environs (Cunliffe 2000). This idea of looking beyond the boundaries of the hillfort was also adopted at Maiden Castle, where from 1985-6, some of Mortimer Wheeler’s trenches were reopened and cut back to enable new samples to be taken for analysis. The research design highlighted three areas of enquiry. Primarily it was to increase understanding of the changing environment at Maiden Castle from the Neolithic to the Roman period. Secondly to determine the Iron Age cultural sequence within the hillfort and lastly to concentrate on understanding the development of the east gate where Wheeler had found an Iron Age cemetery. Following on from the excavation was a landscape survey considering all the available evidence of the Maiden Castle environs using field walking aerial photographs and geophysical survey (Sharples 1991).
From 1985-91, Niall Sharples considered the available evidence for the Durotriges. His summary of the distribution of Iron Age burials in Dorset and other indicators for
49
49
Durotrigan identity is particularly significant because it highlighted the differences between areas within the traditional Durotrigan tribal area (1990, 90-3)
In south Somerset, extensive survey work with excavation has taken place at Ilchester (Leach 1982, 1993) and Ham Hill (RCHME 1996; McKinley 1999). These projects have given some consideration to the setting of these places within their landscape but not on the scale of the South Cadbury Environs project. This research programme began in 1993 with the aim of understanding the chronological development of settlement around the hillfort. South Cadbury lies at the centre of the 10km by 10km study area and the research design included field walking, geophysical survey and targeted excavation. The work continues, and regular articles and bulletins have provided information on the progress of the research (Tabor 2000, 2002, 2004). Of particular interest are the ceramic distribution maps that indicate the changing influence of South Cadbury within its landscape.
Work is also continuing on Cranborne Chase where a reappraisal of the prehistoric archaeology took place in the 1980s (Barrett, Bradley & Green 1991) and Chase resident, Martin Green, has continued to involve archaeologists in the investigation of his farm and the surrounding area (Green 2000; Northcott 2004, 181)
The significance of the archaeological resource
The above selection of the significant research within the Dorset environs emphasises how unusual it is in archaeological terms. There is nowhere in Britain that can boast this level of published Iron Age material. The data sets from Gussage All Saints, South Cadbury, Maiden Castle and Hod Hill are frequently referred to in national reviews of the Iron Age. If there is an opportunity to describe a region in the British Isles and to define the communities within it as suggested by Niall Sharples (1990a, 93), then the Dorset environs must surely be the place to start. Previous archaeologists, in writing about their Iron Age sites, have concluded their narratives by linking the new evidence with the accepted regional interpretation. This has usually confirmed previous ideas of the Late Iron Age and particularly the Durotriges. The post-processional approach of South Cadbury (Barrett, Freeman and Woodward
50
50
2000) is an exception to this but the analysis is generally Cadbury specific and only touches on the regional context of the hillfort.
Since the publication of most of the sites listed above, the old tribal labels have been increasingly criticised. Local variations between communities have been considered instead and the concept of ‘regionality’ is now discussed. This is one of the key elements of ‘Understanding the British Iron Age: an Agenda for Action’ (Haselgrove et al. 2001). The ‘Agenda’ encourages the understanding of difference and calls for ‘regional syntheses’ (ibid. 24).
New archaeological research for this thesis and the author’s contribution.
In embarking on this Iron Age research, the author followed the path of many previous researchers into the Dorset environs. This involved looking in detail at a specific geographical area and then considering the settlement pattern in relation to the previously perceived whole. However, as already noted, Badbury now forms one of seven comparative study areas.
The author worked on some of the projects described above but his main contribution to Dorset Iron Age archaeology began in 1986 with a historic landscape survey for the Kingston Lacy and Corfe Castle Estates. Its purpose was to study documents, maps and by carrying out field visits, to record the significance of this archaeological resource. A series of survey reports were completed containing recommendations for conservation management (Papworth 1991-7).
As this work progressed, the prehistoric landscape began to be appreciated in a way that hitherto had not been possible. The Bankes family, who had bequeathed Kingston Lacy to the National Trust in 1983, had not encouraged access to their land and archives for research. For this reason, Badbury Rings, at the centre of the Estate, remained the largest hillfort in Dorset where no excavations or detailed survey had taken place.
There had been some research, including work on the Iron Age and Romano-British settlement at Bradford Down (Field 1982) north of Badbury. Local archaeologist 51
51
Norman Field had also discovered smaller settlements at Barnsley and Lower Barnsley east of Badbury (Field 1966, 116) and had reported the discovery of Roman fort at Crab Farm, south-west of Badbury in 1976 (Field 1976, 280).
In 1988, a BP oil pipeline crossed the Kingston Lacy Estate and unexpectedly cut through a major Iron Age settlement. This lay on the west side of Kingston Lacy Park, south of Sweetbriar Drove.
In 1990, fieldwalking beside the Crab Farm fort site revealed extensive occupation debris and subsequent geophysical survey and targeted excavation (Papworth 1991, 1995, 2004) have revealed the plan of a small Romano-British town overlying an Iron Age settlement.
The National Trust wardening staff cleared the scrub from the interior of Badbury Rings thus uncovering numerous earthworks. This enabled RCHME surveyor Martin Fletcher to plan these settlement remains (1998) and for subsequent geophysical surveys to be carried out.
South-west of Badbury, small scale excavation had taken place in 1900 (Wallace 1932, 87-90) and 1952 (Rudd 1953). At that time no structures were found but parch marks seen in the area during dry summers indicated building footings. Geophysical survey and excavation revealed the site to be a Romano-Celtic temple overlying a Late Iron Age site where numerous Durotrigan type coins have been found (Papworth 2000c, 148-50).
It was at this point, in late 2000, that the National Trust agreed to fund a PhD to link together these pieces of research for eventual publication. Since that time, the three large Iron Age settlements within 2km of Badbury Rings have been surveyed using the Trust’s resistivity meter and fluxgate gradiometer. Geophysical survey also took place within Badbury Rings followed by small-scale excavations (Papworth 2004c, 181-6; 2005, 143-5).
In west Dorset, the National Trust had acquired Pilsdon Pen with its abandoned spoil heaps. David Thackray had supervised the levelling of the area combined with some 52
52
additional excavation before the site was returfed (Thackray 1983, 178-9). In addition RCHME had carried out an earthwork survey there for the Trust (1995) and some geophysical survey had taken place (Papworth 2000b). An excavation had also been carried out at Lambert’s Castle (Lester 1990, 115) and a landscape survey had looked in detail at the Golden Cap Estate (Papworth 2000a). Little information is currently available for the Iron Age archaeology of west Dorset and therefore this information provides a valuable additional resource.
The opportunity was taken to carry out additional work in Purbeck and analyse information gathered during the Corfe Castle Estate historic landscape survey. Most significant was the geophysical survey and excavation at Norden, north of the Corfe gap where an Iron Age temple complex was identified following the discovery of Durotrigan coins (Woodward 2006).
Finally Dave Stewart has surveyed the interior of Hod Hill with a fluxgate gradiometer and created a remarkable plan of the settlement to complement the central Dorset study area (Stewart 2006). This has been combined with survey work along the Iwerne valley to reveal something of the relationship between the valley floor and hilltop settlements.
To summarise, for four of the study areas, significant new fieldwork has been assembled to add to the information that has already been published or lies within developer funded ‘grey’ reports or research dissertations. The task ahead is to bring together this evidence from various sources and seek to determine the similarities and differences between Iron Age communities within the Dorset environs.
Before each area is examined, the next chapter will consider how the Durotriges have been defined in archaeological literature and the types of evidence that have been used to create the ‘tribe’ and its boundaries.
53
53
Chapter 4: The Durotriges as an archaeological creation
In chapter two, it was shown that at least one Civitas Durotrigum existed in the Roman period and that historians and archaeologists have fixed their attention on this named group and created a back-projection. They have attributed the distribution of distinctive, Late Iron Age artefacts to a pre-Roman Durotrigan ‘tribe’ and defined a tribal area.
In this chapter the perceived boundaries of the Durotriges are examined. This perambulation is followed by an evaluation of the concept of ‘tribe’ and ethnicity. Finally the archaeology of the ‘Durotrigan Culture’ (Brailsford 1957, 118-121) is considered and each distinctive element of the Durotriges is examined and evaluated.
The Boundaries of the Durotrigan Zone (see figs. 16-18) Books dealing with Late Iron Age Britain will provide a map showing tribal areas (Frere 1978, 13; Wacher 1976, 28; Cunliffe 1991, 160; Faulkner 2001, 33). These boundaries are supposition based on coin and pottery distributions using the names provided by classical sources. As discussed above, they were Roman civitates, and archaeologists have assumed they were distinct pre-Conquest entities. The ‘tribal’ boundaries tend to be drawn along rivers or other distinct topographical features that are most likely to have acted as borders near the limits of artefact distributions.
Geographically it is probably not surprising that in the late second century BC it was the south-east of England that adopted coinage first and contains the best examples of continental ways of living. Barry Cunliffe suggested a model comprising three zones that illustrated the diminishing effect of Roman contact from south-east to north-west (Cunliffe 1991, 130-198).
The peoples of the south-east corner of England: west to Hampshire, north to Oxfordshire and north-east to Norfolk are described as comprising the ‘core zone’. It is in this area that the highest levels of political and economic development can be demonstrated, particularly in the way coinage was used (Creighton 2000).
54
54
16: Suggested boundaries for the ‘periphery’ group (Cunliffe 1991, 161)
Fringing this area to the north and west from Lincolnshire to Dorset, were groups that produced distinctive coins. They differed from the core area peoples in being less altered in their settlement structure and social organisation, either because of deliberate resistance to change or because distance slowed the effect of change. This second area is known as the ‘periphery’ (fig.16).
The communities further north and west, Cunliffe placed in a zone termed ‘beyond’ and were non-coin producing. This area contains much less archaeological evidence
55
55
to indicate social change to distinguish Late Iron Age communities from those of the Early and Middle Iron Age.
Therefore, according to this model, Dorset and land to the north was part of the ‘periphery’; land east of Dorset was in the ‘core’ zone and the area to the west lay ‘beyond’.
Coin and pottery distribution patterns reflect these areas surrounding the Dorset environs. To the east and north-east are found coins attributed to the Atrebates and
17: Location map showing finds of coins attributed to the Dobunni, Durotriges and Atrebates (Sellwood 1984, 192)
pottery types known as Yarnbury-Highfield and Southern Atrebatic wares. To the north is the coin zone attributed to the Dobunni with pottery types known as SouthWestern Decorated and Savernake excavated from later Iron Age sites there. To the west is an area where coins were not produced and pottery is sparse although East Devon Sandy ware and other types of South-Western Decorated ware are found there. Devon and Cornwall are lumped together to form a Dumnonian tribe based on the
56
56
The western series coinage covers the area of modern Gloucestershire, Worcestershire and North Somerset, extending into parts of Wiltshire and Oxfordshire. This Dobunnic coinage was more static than the Romanised coins of the southern series/Atrebatic area, but from the late first century BC, some were inscribed with named people. It is assumed that these were the names of important individuals, perhaps kings or rulers. The distributions of these inscribed coins indicate a political division within the Dobunnic area. To the south are found coins inscribed Corio and to the north Bodvoc. Comux and Catti succeed these but the following leaders Eisv and Anted produced coins that covered the whole area (de Jersey 2001, 41; Sellwood 1984, 192). The Durotrigan coins are not inscribed with the names of rulers and this has led to speculation that there was no supreme leader in their distribution zone.
Sellwood’s distribution map (1984,192) shows Dobunnic coins within the Durotrigan area and Durotrigan coins within the Dobunnic, but few Atrebatic coins have been found in these zones. This apparent north-south exchange of coinage contrasts with the lack of evidence for exchange from east to west. Although the Dobunnic and Durotrigan issues seem originally to have been influenced by the coins of Atrebatic type, by the Latest Iron Age this influence appears to be minimal (Haselgrove & Mays 2000, 248-252). The north to south trade route is supported by analysis of over 3000 coins from Hengistbury Head (Mays 1987, 136). The majority of coins found on this site are Durotrigan. Of the non-Durotrigan coins, 20 are Dobunnic and 35 are from communities that inhabited the coasts of Normandy and Britanny.
This north to south corridor can be seen to continue into the Roman period (Allen & Fulford, 1996, 226) if a contour map showing Black Burnished pottery distribution is plotted. To the east at Silchester (Atrebatic civitas capital) black burnished ware accounts for 5% of the pottery assemblage during excavations but to the north at Cirencester (Dobunnic civitas capital) it is 40% of the total.
The links with the coastal settlements of Normandy and Brittany are also indicated in the Black Burnished distribution maps, particularly in the areas of the Baiocasses Arbrincatui and Coriosolites (fig.19). The coins from these three groups and possibly the Osismii and Namnetes of Britanny are found at Hengistbury Head. The coins attributed the Coriosolites are most numerous (Sellwood 1987, 138-9). 58
58
The evidence for Iron Age settlement activity is also sparse for north-west Dorset but becomes more concentrated in south Somerset around Ilchester, Ham Hill and South Cadbury. The geography of this area sets it apart from the Marshwood Vale of west Dorset and the chalkland surrounding Dorchester. The rivers Yeo, Parrett, Tone and Brue drain north-west towards the Bristol Channel rather than south-east into Poole and Christchurch harbours. The change between two different watersheds coincides with a change in the archaeological signature of their later Iron Age populations. The Somerset Levels lie north of Ham Hill, bounded by the high ground of the Quantocks to the south-west and the Mendips to the north-east. The river Parrett follows the foot of the Quantocks and the Brue runs beside the Mendips, both converging and flowing into the Bristol Channel near Bridgewater. This corridor of land between the rivers was the subject of a survey of the late pre-Roman Iron Age settlement sites (Miles 1969, 17-55) which highlighted the sudden decline of SouthWestern Decorated ware in this area and its replacement with Durotrigan pottery. Cunliffe (1991, 159) suggested that the pottery evidence indicated that the Durotriges had a narrow outlet to the Bristol Channel in the Latest Iron Age (fig.20). The distribution map of ceramics found in this area supports this (Miles 1969, 52; Cunliffe, 1982, 60) and the results from the excavation at Westonzoyland (ST354348) uncovered later Iron Age pits containing South Western Decorated Ware that predated the Durotrigan pottery from the site. Two areas of settlement, at Meare (ST445420; Gray & Bulleid 1948), and 5km southeast of them, at Glastonbury (ST493407; Gray & Bulleid 1911 & 1917) were found in waterlogged conditions on the Somerset Levels beside the River Brue. The preserved wooden artefacts from these sites include bowls decorated in the same styles as the South-Western Decorated pottery. This ceramic style was found in the latest Glastonbury and Meare deposits but Durotrigan pottery was not found. These sites lie at the northern edge of the traditional Durotrigan zone but the suggestion that they acted as a market centre between the Dobunni and Durotriges (Cunliffe 1991, 159) is unlikely, as there is no evidence for significant Durotrigan influence at the time of their abandonment.
61
61
An analysis of the numerous brooches from these two sites persuaded Haselgrove (1997, 60) to agree with Coles and Minnitt (1995) that the lake villages were abandoned in the 1st century BC. Originally it had been proposed that the increasing wet conditions that led to their abandonment developed during the 1st or 2nd centuries AD (Avery 1968; Coles 1987). This earlier date combined with the lack of Purbeck pottery confirms the lateness of the rapid adoption of Durotrigan pottery in south Somerset. The discovery of generally later issues of Durotrigan coins in the area also tends to place south Somerset outside the Durotrigan zone until the Latest Iron Age. Despite this lack of pottery evidence, shale artefacts found in the lake villages demonstrate that there were trading contacts with Purbeck in the 1st century BC. Nevertheless, this south Somerset area demonstrates that political boundaries probably shifted over short periods of time (see 5.4 below p.184-8). North-east Boundary The landscape between Somerset and Wiltshire, approaching Warminster from the west, provides a clear impression of the topographic changes probably utilised by Iron Age communities as boundaries between groups. The chalk escarpment to the south dominates the lower lying land between Shepton Mallet and Frome. The chalk outlier of Cley Hill (ST838450) can be seen to the north-east, and further along the escarpment the Westbury White Horse reveals the position of Bratton Camp hillfort (ST900516) on the western edge of Salisbury Plain.
Passing through Longleat Forest, overlooked by Cley Hill and Cold Kitchen Hill (ST833367), one has the impression of a natural gateway into the Wylye Valley and at this point an artefact distribution threshold is crossed. Although the Late Iron Age settlements to the north and north-west includes Durotrigan coins and pottery, the finds there are predominantly of Dobunnic type. A good example of this is the Late Iron Age settlement at Camerton (ST691566) where the finds are of typical Dobunnic area pottery and coinage in contrast to the finds on the chalk land beyond Cley Hill (Wedlake 1958, 120-148, 241; Jackson 1990, 9-25). Another important Dobunnic zone complex is located around Mells/Nunney/Frome (ST740465) and may have been
62
62
an oppidum. A large Dobunnic coin hoard and high status finds and enclosures have been recorded there (Gunter 2004, 35) (fig.202, 372) Cold Kitchen Hill with its evidence for occupation from the 7th century BC to the end of the Romano-British period (Nan Kivell 1926, 327-332) can be interpreted as a sacred marker-site north-east of the source of the Stour and north of the source of the Wylye. The upper Wylye is known as the Deverill and meanders north east through the chalk downland for 12km before emerging in the lower lying greensand geology around Warminster. The Wylye then turns south east back into the chalkland carving a 25km long valley before it joins the River Nadder at Wilton and further east joins the rivers Avon, Bourne and Ebble at Salisbury. These united rivers continue south as the Avon for 40km as far as Christchurch Harbour and Hengistbury Head. Jim Gunter (2004, 50) has plotted coins from all groups in south Wiltshire and south Somerset and demonstrated that the main river valleys, such as the Avon, Wylye and Stour, were key trade routes where exotic coin issues from distant groups are most likely to be found (fig. 202).
Desmond Bonney argued that changes in ceramic fabric and style in the earlier Iron Age could be attributed to local production centres, but in the Late Iron Age they might be explained in tribal terms. This was because of the sharp ceramic division north-east and south-west of the Wylye/Avon rivers. These pottery styles covered areas in excess of 80 km. A much broader area compared with the ceramic groups of the Early and Middle Iron Age periods (VCH 1973, 434). An alternative explanation might be that common Late Iron Age pottery styles became established through successful marketing without a specific link to a ‘tribal’ group. It is the coincidence of pottery styles with coinage distributions that has caused archaeologists to forge the bond between tribes, coins and pottery.
North of the Wylye and west of Salisbury and Yarnbury as far as Bath and Camerton, there is little ceramic evidence to indicate a boundary between the Dobunnic and Atrebatic zones. Barry Cunliffe (1982, 61) examined pottery from north Somerset sites (Chew Valley Lake, Herriotts Bridge, Moreton, Butcombe and Camerton) and concluded that the large bead-rimmed bowls and necked jars found there were quite unlike those of the Durotrigan area but closely comparable with the Atrebatic pottery. 63
63
both sides of the dyke but ‘banjo’, multiple ditches and linked paired enclosures or ‘spectacles’ only exist on the Dorset side (ibid. 84-96).
Little excavation has been carried out in this area, but the settlement change either side of Bokerley gives weight to Bowen’s hypothesis that Bokerley formed a long standing boundary between Iron Age communities. This is supported by the similar ‘saucepan pot’ style Late Iron Age pottery from Whitsbury, Highfield (SU133308) and Yarnbury (SU036403) and the lack of Durotrigan coinage known from this area. The coin distribution maps of Melinda Mays (pers. comm.) and Lyn Sellwood both demonstrate this gap in west Hampshire and the south-east corner of Wiltshire. Mark Corney (1991, 246) listed one British B coin from Damerham (SU1016). Otherwise, finds are limited to the important trade route along the Avon valley where Durotrigan coins (1 struck and 1 cast bronze) have been found at Ringwood and within ditches pre-dating the Roman villa at Rockbourne, Fordingbridge (SU12001705, Mays pers. comm. 2006).
However, Bowen placed important health warnings on his settlement form analysis, particularly the general lack of dating evidence for the sites and therefore the means to identify those that were in contemporary use. He also noted that although the enclosures stand out on aerial photographs, the unenclosed settlements remain undiscovered (1990, 84-6).
South of Whitsbury Castle Ditches, the Avon flows through the poorer heathland soils of Damerham, Edmonsham, Alderholt and Verwood. Collin Bowen’s distribution map of prehistoric features (1990 Fig.1) demonstrated the concentration of field systems and settlements on the agriculturally prized chalk compared with the lack of archaeology on the tertiary soils further south. Settlement evidence continues to be sparse down to the coast where the Stour and Avon flow into Christchurch Harbour beside the Iron Age port of Hengistbury Head.
East of Hengistbury and the River Avon is the New Forest, which is also an area of heathland where few coins have been identified. It seems to have acted as buffer zone between the Atrebatic and Durotrigan distribution zones (see fig.9). This area as far
67
67
as the Solent may have been part of a Sub Durotrigan group according to Sellwood (1984, 202) (fig.18 p.57).
This perambulation around the edges of the Durotrigan zone has demonstrated that the archaeological evidence can be interpreted to create differences of definition and that the boundaries were changing during the Latest Iron Age.
Durotrigan Ethnicity
Early historians established the idea of the ethnic root for the people of Dorset. Their traditional romanticised image was of a proud independent race fighting bravely against the Roman invaders (Warne 1872) but was there a distinct community with a clear identity.
In prehistoric archaeology, much has been lost from the original identity of a group of people. The essential definition that was once clear to a visitor, such as the stories the inhabitants told of themselves, their dances, songs and fashions cannot be recovered. With the exception of waterlogged places, like the Meare and Glastonbury lake villages, most of the decorated wooden artefacts have gone, along with the leather objects, wicker work and the clothes the people wore. The archaeologist is forced to rely on ceramics and metalwork.
Using these more durable materials, a sense of identity for Iron Age Dorset has been built around the Durotriges and the review of its supposed boundaries has demonstrated this. The challenge is to examine the archaeological record objectively and to determine local similarities and differences. The Iron Age inhabitants were probably as diverse as the geology of the county (fig.41 p.101), but they may still have considered themselves linked to a communal concept. This could have been no more than a background consciousness, perhaps in the sense that the people of Bournemouth and Lyme Regis consider themselves to be part of Dorset rather than Hampshire or Devon.
68
68
Tribes
The social, religious and political envelope of common beliefs that encloses a community or group is known as the metanarrative. This provides the unique but changing context in which groups define themselves as their history or narrative unfolds (Turner 1998, 1-2)
This linked group identity is often described using the word ‘Tribe’. It has its roots in a latin word tribus, originally used to define the three divisions of the ancient Romans (Latin, Sabine and Etruscan) and subsequently to refer to different ethnic groups within the Roman world.
The modern usage stems from a European imperialist past. The word tends to be used in a context of superiority, normally describing communities in say Africa, or in Britain before the Roman Conquest. We would not generally refer to the people of Yorkshire, for example, as forming a tribe, though Yorkshire people have their own distinct sense of metanarrative and identity.
The word tribe has been rejected by organisations such as the Africa Policy Information Center whose members argue that the word creates an imperialist stereotype. It blankets and obscures the variety amongst ethnic groups in Africa and prevents detailed analysis of particular situations. The large Zulu nation, for example, was forged when a powerful state was created less than two centuries ago. The Kung hunter-gatherers of Botswana and Namibia are also called a tribe but number only a few hundred. The term is applied to Kenya’s nomadic Masai herders as well as the settled Kikuyu farmers, and to members of these groups in cities and towns where they go to live and work. Tribe is also used for millions of Yoruba in Nigeria and Benin, who share a common language but have an 800 year old history of multiple and sometimes warring city states, and of religious diversity even within the same extended families (Lowe 1997). Examples of this range of social groups can be found in various parts of the world. The closest equivalent to the word tribe in New Zealand is iwi but each iwi consisted of several groups known as hapu which included a variety of households whanau (see appendix 1).
69
69
It is clear from classical sources that this community diversity existed in the Iron Age. Julius Caesar’s descriptions of the Gallic ‘tribes’ in the 50s BC in his ‘Conquest of Gaul’ refer to a range of political institutions, customs and alliances between groups. Tacitus provides similar anthropological insights into the peoples of ‘Germania’.
The subject of ethnicity and archaeology has been examined by Sian Jones (1997) who defines an ethnic group as ‘any group of people who set themselves apart and/or are set apart by others with whom they interact or co-exist on their perceptions of cultural differentiation and/or common descent’. Jones examined the political implications of archaeological theoretical constructions citing the case of Nazi Germany. In the 1930s, archaeologists like Gustaf Kossina provided an ethnic justification for Hitler’s invasions of neighbouring countries (ibid. 2).
Jones also carried out a case study of the Romanisation of southern Britain (ibid. 2939) and questioned the convenient framework that divides pre-Roman Iron Age cultural identity from the classical Roman identity. In reality the peoples of the preRoman Iron Age locally assimilated Roman attitudes and customs into their British way of life and created distinctive local Romano-British cultures.
Jones also criticised archaeological interpretation based on stratigraphic deposits of material ultimately linked to classical texts that confirm pre-conceived ideas about the Romanisation of Britain (1997, 38). This does not mean classical historians should be ignored but examined more critically. The assumptions of past historians and archaeologists that created the pre-Roman Durotrigan tribal entity need to be reassessed.
The Dutch archaeologist Nico Roymans has also looked at the issue of ethnic groups and examined the way ancient peoples negotiated their self-image under the shadow of the Roman world. He has examined archaeological and historical sources to consider the role of the Batavians of the Lower Rhineland, elevated by the Romans as an ethnic ‘other’ while the authorities simultaneously ethnically cleansed other groups from the region (Roymans 2005).
70
70
of internecine conflict. The exact moment within the 1st century AD when this stage of stress may have occurred is not only unknowable; it is largely irrelevant’ (Woodward 2000, 116).
The claim that linking such archaeological deposits with a historical event as ‘largely irrelevant’ is a modern way of thinking and controversial. Surely the ideal would still be to gain an exact date for the massacre deposits if it were possible. In rare circumstances it is achievable, for example dendrochronology has recently provided a construction date of AD44 for the first phase Roman fort at Alchester, Oxfordshire (Sauer 2005, 174). However, in the absence of waterlogged timber deposits such fine dating is currently unavailable for South Cadbury and therefore without additional evidence further speculation that links the ‘massacre’ to a historical event is unlikely to advance understanding.
Conflict as evidence for Durotrigan identity
The documentary source referring to Vespasian’s campaign in the west has been quoted in chapter two. This historical evidence for a unified political power that opposed the Roman army in the Dorset environs is supported by archaeological discoveries.
In addition to the ‘massacre deposit’ found at South Cadbury, there are other finds indicating that the Roman army was fighting and subduing elements of the Dorset, Somerset and perhaps Wiltshire populations in the earlier 1st century AD. The people of this area do not seem to have capitulated easily and one might argue that each local leader co-ordinated the defence of his community as the Roman army moved west. The number of 1st century conflicts represented in the archaeology of this area is nationally rare (Whimster 1981,420-425) but this does not mean that all communities within the Durotrigan zone opposed the Romans. The evidence from Poole Harbour may suggest the collaboration or acquiescence of at least one group of people.
Finds from excavations at Maiden Castle (Wheeler 1943), South Cadbury (Barrett 2000) and Hod Hill (Richmond 1968) indicate that 1st century battles were fought at these places. Battle-scarred burials at Spetisbury Rings (Gresham 1939, 114-31) and 72
72
Ham Hill (Colt Hoare 1827, 39-42) and possibly from Battlesbury Camp, Wiltshire (Cunnington 1924, 358-73) may also date to the conquest and subjugation period (AD 43-61). Some of this evidence has been reinterpreted and it is difficult to provide an exact date for the conflicts represented by the remains. The discussion concerning the South Cadbury historical linkage has already been mentioned (Woodward 2000, 115) and in the case of Spetisbury it has been suggested that some of the spear heads found in the 19th century may date to the 6th or 7th century AD (Eagles 1994, 17).
The combined archaeological evidence for community defence within the Dorset environs indicates a cultural cohesiveness that led Sharples (1990b) to suggest that certain industries were established within the territory to act as tribal emblems to unify the various peoples of the confederacy. Can the type and distribution of the material evidence define a Durotrigan homeland?
Traditional Archaeological Definition of the Durotriges. The archaeology of the Durotriges was analysed by J.W. Brailsford (1957, 118-121). He listed the types of evidence that could be used to define the Durotrigan “culture”. •
Pottery: The first of these was the distinctive design of the pottery, continuing the independent tradition of the area that is evident in ceramic assemblages dating back to the Bronze Age. This pottery is an early form of Black Burnished ware largely manufactured around Poole Harbour and the Isle of Purbeck. Brailsford lists the 9 main forms of Durotrigan ware. 1. Bead-rim bowls of Maiden Castle “War Cemetery” type, ribbed or plain, 2. Pedestalled bead-rim bowls, 3.Bowls with a channel round the rim, 4. Bead-rim jars, 5. Upright-rim jars, 6. Countersunk-lug jars, 7. Pear-shaped jars, 8. Tankards, 9. Lids. Brown (1997) provided a review of Durotrigan pottery as an identifying element of the confederacy, comparing subsequent writers’ views on the marketing of the commodity. Although the distribution pattern still helps to define the boundaries of the territory, Durotrigan pottery was traded across frontiers so successfully that it amounted to over a third of some Late Iron Age excavated assemblages (Suddern Farm, Hants 36%; Nettlebank Copse, Hants 34%) (for further discussion see below)
73
73
consisted of ditched enclosures containing storage pits, “working hollows”, fourpost granaries and circular post-supported houses. However, types of enclosure differ across the Wessex area and although there are groupings of types of site within areas like Cranborne Chase, there is no distinctive Durotrigan type of farmstead (see below). •
Defended Sites: He noted the occupation material associated with dwellings and defences within hillforts such as Maiden Castle and Hod Hill. The continuous occupation of hillforts up to the Roman conquest may be a distinctive Durotrigan feature although some areas of Dorset such as the Isle of Purbeck, Cranborne Chase and west Dorset have few hill-forts.
•
Burials: Brailsford highlighted the distribution of crouched burials accompanied by joints of meat and Durotrigan pottery as a distinctive Durotrigan trait. However, although this burial rite is a distinctive feature of the Late Iron Age archaeology of south Dorset it is not found elsewhere and burial practice varies significantly within the Durotrigan zone (see below).
From Brailsford’s identifying characteristics, four have been generally termed Durotrigan in subsequent archaeological publications and therefore before considering any other distinguishing characteristics they deserve a closer examination. Durotrigan Pottery: The ceramic evidence is an important dating tool but it is generally not refined enough to determine the transition from latest pre-Roman to the earliest Roman period. The fabrics and forms of pre-Roman and post-Roman products are indistinguishable. The influence of Poole Harbour pottery moves from its source to the periphery of the Durotrigan zone from the late Middle Iron Age to the latest Iron Age. For example in ceramic phase 6E at Maiden Castle (4th-2nd century BC) Maiden Castle/Marnhull style pottery with Poole Harbour fabrics amounted to 20% of the group. By ceramic phase 7 (1st century AD) these fabrics accounted for 93% of the assemblage (Brown 1991). At South Cadbury, Poole Harbour pottery became dominant later than at Maiden Castle. ‘Late Cadbury’ encompassed both ceramic phases 9 and 10 to include the
76
76
transferred into Durotrigan vessels from Armorican containers at the ports thus explaining the lack of imported pottery at prestigious sites like Maiden Castle and South Cadbury (Sharples pers comm 2004). The 1st century dominance of the Late Iron Age Purbeck pottery industry has been explained by noting the early adoption and use of the products of the industry by the Roman army. The rapid takeover of a successful industry may have been with the compliance of the producers whose experience of Roman market potential and military strength may have persuaded them to capitulate easily. Not all of the Durotrigan style pottery was produced in Purbeck and certainly by the later 1st century petrological analysis has shown that Black Burnished ware was being produced in kilns further west (Holbrook and Bidwell 1991; Seager Smith and Davies, 1993, 251). Brown (1997,41) suggested that the ribbed bowl, Brailsford’s type 1a, may derive mainly from kilns in the Exeter area. To conclude, the Durotrigan pottery was being made mainly around Poole Harbour and imitated Roman and Belgic styles and it in turn was later imitated in kilns further west. It was made within the Durotrigan zone and its market success rather than its ‘emblemic function’ is likely to have enabled it to exclude other ceramic industries from the area and to form a sizeable percentage of ceramic assemblages from sites further north and east. However, its presence reveals political as well as economic contact and therefore implies social significance not only where it is found but where it is not found. Pilsdon Pen, west Dorset is closer to Maiden Castle and Purbeck than South Cadbury, but at Pilsdon very little Poole Harbour ware was recovered (Gelling 1977). Nevertheless, Poole Harbour pottery dominates the Latest Iron Age assemblages from South Cadbury. Therefore, pottery distribution does have the potential, when combined with other material remains, to define a cohesive identity. Durotrigan Farmsteads The total excavation of an enclosed farmstead on Berwick Down, Tollard Royal was described as a ‘complete picture of a Durotrigan farmstead’ (Wainwright 1968, 139) (fig.30). This was because unlike other Durotrigan farmstead sites like those at Woodcutts and Rotherley (Pitt Rivers 1887), the occupation at Tollard had shifted to a new site in the Romano-British period leaving the Late Iron Age farmstead
79
79
forms are found and occasionally imported Samian wares and Gallo-Belgic wares were included (Whimster 1981, 50) (figs.68-71 p.142). The joints of meat were usually pork, mutton or beef and Chambers (1978) stated that while sheep bones have been found equally with both male and female burials, pig bones tend to be placed in female graves and cattle in male. However, at Allington Avenue, Dorchester (Davies et al 2002, 122) a small Durotrigan burial group of 12 inhumations, bones of pig and domestic fowl were included in both male and female graves. Personal items were deposited with some inhumations like the gaming counters found at Pins Knoll, Litton Cheney (Bailey 1967, 147-159). The range of grave goods can indicate ranking and status within society. For example the grave goods of a woman found buried at Portesham included a decorated bronze mirror, three brooches, a toilet set, a bronze strainer, an iron knife, a ribbed bead rim bowl, a high shouldered jar and joints of mutton and pork (Fitzpatrick 1996, 51-70). The grave of a man was excavated within a small Durotrigan grave group of 11 inhumations from Whitcombe (Sharples 1990a, 57-93). The grave goods included a sword, a scabbard mount, iron and copper rings, iron spearhead and iron file and a copper alloy brooch. Warrior burials are found on the Channel Islands (Whimster 1981, 74) but they are rare in Dorset although another may have been found in Dorchester (RCHM 1970, 573). Durotrigan burials are distinctive, but are concentrated in south Dorset. Crouched burials associated with settlements but without grave goods have been found at Tollard Royal, Rotherley and Woodyates. Although Sharples (1990a, 92) included them as part of this group, Whimster (1981, 223) classified them as pit burials typical of this Cranborne Chase area, though a Late Iron Age burial from Tarrant Hinton lay in a shallow oval grave (Graham 2006, 22-5). It is unclear whether the crouched inhumations without grave goods found at Perrott Hill School, south Somerset (Hollinrake 1997, 62) and Tinney’s Lane, Sherborne (McKinley 1999a, 53-68) can also be considered as outliers of the Durotrigan form of burial. Records from Purbeck (Sunter and Woodward 1987, 138) and Tolpuddle (Hearne & Birbeck 1999, 224) indicate changes to the normal Durotrigan burial practice east and north of the core area such as the exclusion of joints of meat from the graves. There were certainly individualised forms of south Dorset burial, for example the body found with an array
84
84
Somerset (Sellwood 1988, 49). The Late Iron Age evidence is reminiscent of finds from the port of Hengistbury Head in Dorset. The surviving records of the cemetery above Mount Batten includes drawings of grave goods such as bronze mirrors and a tankard similar to the type included in Durotrigan burials. There is some evidence for chronological development of this burial tradition around Dorchester. East of the town at Flagstones, pit burials were found to be interspersed with unaccompanied burials in graves and one grave cut a pit containing a burial of possible 1st century BC date. This indicated that in this community, the transition from pit to grave burial occurred in that century. Burials accompanied by Durotrigan pottery and joints of meat were found at Max Gate and Allington Avenue and indicate a later extension of the Flagstones cemetery towards the east (Smith 1997,291-2). Durotrigan Coinage Of all the cohesive ‘tribal’ indicators, mapping the distribution of specific coin types is the most persuasive. It has been noted that by the mid-19th century a link had been made between certain types of pre-Iron Age coinage and the Durotriges (Evans 1864, 101-2; Warne 1872, 154). Following on from this early work, Derek Allen (1968, 4357) brought together the coins found at Hod Hill in the 19th and 20th centuries and used this opportunity to publish a general description and analysis of Durotrigan coinage making comparisons with neighbouring coin producing areas (see also Allen 1958). His work provides a base that has been developed by other specialists as new discoveries are made. In addition to Allen, Durotrigan coinage has been categorised by R.P. Mack (1953), Robert Van Arsdell (1989, 347-51) and Melinda Mays (forthcoming). However, as already noted, Colin Haselgrove (1994) has rejected the ‘tribal’ designation and renamed them ‘south-western series’ coins. Few stratified Durotrigan coins have been found during archaeological excavations and therefore the precise dating of Durotrigan coin types is still difficult. However, the earliest coins contained gold and a high (80%) silver content and the latest were of cast or struck bronze, the latter sometimes with a silver coating (fig.27 p.75). The Durotrigan coins were very conservative in design and were originally based on Greek staters of Philip II of Macedon. The design was imported from the continent and had gradually changed as eastern British groups recast the coin. Gallo-Belgic coin
86
86
types C and D had the most influence on the British coins, which in turn inspired the south-west series. Apart from stray finds, the earliest type of coin from Dorset has
35: Examples of Durotrigan coins from Hod Hill (Richmond 1968 Plate16, 149-52)
been found across Cranborne Chase and is termed British B. Van Arsdell (1989b) categorised the British B coins as Durotrigan (VA 1205) but they have a distribution pattern centred on Wiltshire and Hampshire. He also considered British C (VA 1220), British D (VA 1215) and British O (VA 1225) as Durotrigan issues. Therefore amongst specialists there is disagreement over what a Durotrigan coin is (see figs. 198-200 p.369-370). The earliest generally accepted Durotrigan issues are more closely comparable with British A which also has a distribution centred to the east within Hampshire and Sussex (de Jersey 1996, 22). The British O coins, with a distribution pattern extending from the Solent as far as south-east Dorset, are thought to have been the prototypes for the smaller south-west issues known as quarter staters. Melinda Mays (forthcoming) divided the south-west series into three basic coin types: staters, quarter staters and ‘starfish’ coins. The earliest staters are of very pale gold and silver with more intricate designs than the later struck and cast bronze staters. The quarter staters also appear in several varieties and the earlier pale gold and fine silver
87
87
On the basis of progressive debasement and weight loss of the Durotrigan coinage Haselgrove and Mays (2000, 249) divided the series into earlier and later coins. However, they are uncertain ‘to what extent the later and cruder overlapped chronologically with the earlier and finer’. The current difficulty in providing a close date for the earlier Durotrigan coins is demonstrated from two key groups, one ploughed up at Le Catillon, Jersey in 1957 and the massive find of about 850 coins from near Badbury Rings discovered by metal detectorists in 1983. Both were dispersed without archaeological recording. Fitzpatrick and Megaw (1987, 44) analysed the various types of coins and associated finds and dated Le Catillon from between 56 BC to 20 BC. Van Arsdell (1989, 347351) gathered the available information for the Badbury hoard and compared it with Le Catillon. He created a dated range for various types of early Durotrigan coins of stater, quarter stater and ‘starfish’ varieties and believed that the earliest Durotrigan staters (his Durotrigan A = British B) were produced from 68 BC. The other coins from the hoard (including examples of Van Arsdell Durotrigan E, G, H and I) were, he believed, minted at roughly five year intervals with a declining percentage of silver content (fig.179 p.311) Van Arsdell’s date for the Badbury hoard was 35-30 BC. Mays and Haselgrove (2000, 250) were more cautious stating that while it is possible to place the very earliest coins around 50s-40s BC, there is no evidence to date the later issues. ‘They may have been struck fairly soon after the finer ones or there may have been some gap in time: all that we can say for certain is that they have a wider date distribution than the finer coins, and that they were in circulation longer, occurring in Claudian and later contexts.’ The distribution of the finer earlier coins lies within Cranborne Chase extending as far west as the River Stour, being found both at Hod Hill and Badbury and as far south as Corfe Common, Purbeck. The later issues have a wider circulation but apart from the Dorchester-Maiden Castle area the finds are noticeably sparser (ibid. 249) (fig. 201 p.370). The best excavated groups of Durotrigan coins are from Maiden Castle, South Cadbury and Waddon Hill. However, at Waddon the coins were recovered from a
89
89
Roman fort. The coin distribution in west Dorset and south Somerset, as with the pottery has been affected by the use of this material by the Roman army. The context of coin discoveries generates doubt as to their original use, as many finds occur as
38: Distribution of sites where Durotrigan coins have been found. Below: proportions of Iron Age coins among the excavated assemblages from selected sites (Haselgrove and Mays 2000, 249) ©English Heritage
hoards or as religious offerings at sacred sites like the temples at Corfe Common, Norden (see area 5.1 p.117-9), Badbury (see area 5.7 p.313-6), Bath and Hayling Island.
90
90
Sharples (2004 pers comm) suggested that by the earlier 1st century AD the common late bronze issues, like those found in great quantities at the port site of Hengistbury Head (Mays 1987, 141), were used by the Durotriges like Roman coinage. That is to buy and sell goods, and Sharples believed that their continued use into the Roman period supported this. However, Philip de Jersey (2000, 7) described a coin group found beside the Avon at Downton Wiltshire which included both cast Durotrigan bronze and worn 2nd century Roman coins. He questioned whether similar cast coins were produced in the Iron Age. He suggested, that the evidence from around Hengistbury Head, where they are most commonly found, indicated that they may not have been produced until the late 1st century. He wondered why they were apparently produced with the approval of the Roman authorities and what their use may have been. Mays and Haselgrove suggested a three phase progression of Durotrigan coinage beginning in Cranborne Chase, then its adoption in the Maiden Castle area, and finally its use in the south Somerset area around the time of the Roman invasion (ibid. 252). This can be compared with the gradual dominance of Poole Harbour pottery and supports the case for sub-divisions within the Durotrigan zone and the progressive adoption of Durotrigan coinage and pottery from east to west. Durotrigan? These last four Durotrigan indicators have been described in more detail to highlight the elements of doubt surrounding their Durotrigan title. Farmsteads may contain Durotrigan pottery and perhaps a Durotrigan coin but apart from this they do not have distinctive Durotrigan attributes. Poole Harbour pottery was a successful product that dominated the market but although manufacture was centred around Poole Harbour, on the edge of the Durotrigan zone, it was not an emblem of native design promoted by powerful leaders to create a cohesive tribal identity. The Purbeck potters were not averse to extending their repertoire to include new design influences. Durotrigan burials are distinctive but limited in distribution, and Durotrigan coinage seems only to spread to the traditional limits of the Durotrigan tribal area shortly before the Roman Conquest. The latest Iron Age distribution pattern may in part have been displaced by post-Conquest coin usage by
91
91
Questions 1. Can the archaeological evidence in the Dorset environs add anything to the debate on whether key archaeological sites acted as central places? 2. Do settlement sites cluster around specific locales that appear to act as a focus and do these foci shift, change in function or become redundant over time? 3. Did all similar settlement forms have the same function or group of functions? This is particularly relevant to the debate concerning the function of hillforts and their local importance. The Dorset area is unusual in retaining occupied hillforts up to the time of the Roman Conquest. 4. Following on from whether a key site or sites existed within a study area, is there a distinctive form of settlement or farmstead enclosure within a locale? Do these sites differ from other settlement forms and patterns in the other study areas? 5. Within each settlement, are there distinctive ways of enclosing space and arranging the layout and plan of buildings within enclosures? Is there evidence for pit storage and granaries, metalworking and designated space for activities? Do these arrangements differ between study areas? 6. There may be differences in the amount of time a site was occupied. Are some of the study areas distinct because settlements were occupied for centuries while in other areas settlements were abandoned after short periods of time or occupation shifted to new locations? 7. Is there evidence in areas for places of worship or for ritual? Are there structures or unusual deposits that might be associated with religious belief and does this evidence change between areas? 8. Linked to this is the evidence for the disposal of the dead. Evidence for burial is not common on Iron Age sites but in the Dorset environs different forms of burial rite existed. How do these differences compare and overlap between areas?
94
94
9. Distinct artefact distributions have been used to define the Durotriges. However, are there specific types of artefact that define separate areas within the Durotrigan zone? 10. Using these criteria, can the Durotriges be separated to identify the unique signatures of smaller community groups? How did these originate and finally did a pre-Conquest Durotriges exist?
95
95
Chapter 5: Survey of the Durotrigan Zone This chapter is a comparative analysis of seven landscape units within the Durotrigan zone, each covering 80 square kilometres. The survey starts at Hengistbury Head, continues west to the Devon border and returns via south Somerset and Wiltshire. It then crosses Cranborne Chase to the Stour, then heads south-east, back to Christchurch Harbour and Hengistbury. Methodology The survey was carried out to examine seven blocks of land. For these contrasting areas, data was accumulated using the same methods of literature and archival survey. In some areas additional fieldwork was carried out. The data was collected with attention to a uniform set of questions to represent that data in a uniform way to facilitate direct comparison. The pilot survey area fell within a convenient and apparently significant block of land consisting of Badbury Hill and the surrounding river valleys. The significant sites of the area fitted into a 10km by 8km block of land that could be examined and mapped at a convenient scale. Once the decision had been made to study other areas to a similar level of detail, it became clear that the same sized study boxes should be used. This would enable cross-comparison to determine quantity, density and types of settlement within each selected block of countryside. These rectangular research windows seemed generally to contain the main sites of a locale and they appeared to be large enough to enclose a regional community without significant overlap with neighbouring groups. Choice of Study Areas The study areas were chosen to represent particular landscapes and settlement types within the Dorset environs. There was a deliberate bias towards places where considerable fieldwork had taken place. Seven rectangles cast across random pieces of Dorset countryside would not have produced useful results. Some parts of the
96
96
Durotrigan zone may contain important comparative evidence (e.g. large areas of the central Dorset chalkland) but such potential significance remains hidden due to an absence of dateable archaeological information. The seven detailed study areas are listed below with reasons for their selection (fig.41 p.424) 5.1: The Isle of Purbeck, centred on Corfe, was chosen because this is an area of diverse rock types and landscape with easy access to the coast. These local assets were utilised by prehistoric communities. Extensive fieldwork across Purbeck has demonstrated that this was a major industrial zone in the Iron Age. 5.2: South Dorset centred on Maiden Castle has been a preferred location for settlement since the Neolithic period and contains a massive hillfort near a Roman town. Extensive fieldwork here has provided much information concerning the Iron Age inhabitants of the area. 5.3: In west Dorset, the Pilsdon Pen environs was chosen because recent fieldwork has taken place here that requires publication. This work is particularly valuable because archaeological information is scarce in the locality. This study block lies on the edge of the Durotrigan zone in an area where the landscape and settlement pattern is significantly different from the chalkland to the east. 5.4: The South Cadbury area, in south Somerset, was chosen because of the excavations within the hillfort and the continuing fieldwork on the land surrounding it. This data enables a northern part of the Durotrigan zone to be compared with the other areas. This is a landscape with a different geology and its ceramic tradition is unlike that found within most of Dorset. 5.5: The area of central Dorset around the confluence of the Stour and Iwerne rivers was chosen because two large hillforts were constructed here. Much fieldwork has been carried out in this area and this enables the relationship between Hod Hill and Hambledon Hill to be examined and compared. Why were these two hillforts built so close together and how did they affect the surrounding settlement pattern?
97
97
5.6: Cranborne Chase has been noted as a distinctive area of dense settlement evidence. The land around Gussage Cow Down has been the subject of much excavation and fieldwork and the examination of this area will demonstrate interesting variations in occupation evidence when compared with the other study areas. 5.7: East Dorset, near the confluence of the Stour & Allen rivers, is the study block that includes the Badbury environs. This lies close to the Gussage and Hod study areas but has a distinctive settlement pattern. Once again this is an area where there is a considerable body of archaeological information that contrasts with the other datasets. In addition to these seven study blocks, there are other parts of the Durotrigan zone that contain valuable information for this dissertation. These include the land around Warminster, the settlements on the Nadder/Wylye ridge west of Wilton, and the Ham Hill and Ilchester environs. These significant places will be mentioned in short linking sections of text between each of the study blocks and will be referred to in more detail in the conclusion (chapter 6). Common Criteria Each of the study areas has been examined using a common set of criteria. These have been selected to help define cultural signatures by comparing and contrasting the occupation evidence. The following six categories are listed below with the reason for their inclusion. They have been chosen to answer the questions set out at the end of chapter four. a) Focus of settlement: this questions whether the study area contains one or more places which demonstrate dominance within the local settlement pattern and whether this focus changes over time. b) Settlement pattern and types: this looks at the size and spacing of settlement, describes types of enclosed and unenclosed sites and considers change to the pattern over time.
98
98
c) Range of settlement elements: this considers the way the space is divided within each settlement, as well as the range of buildings, outbuildings, boundaries and functions that can be detected from the available archaeological evidence. d) Continuity of occupation and sacred association: this examines the length of time settlements were occupied and whether settlements represent preferred locations that were also valued in earlier prehistoric periods. Evidence for religion and ritual will also be noted in this category. e) Distinctive artefact types: in this section, the material evidence for each study area will be examined together with similarities and differences in artefact distributions between areas. f) Burial rite: the variety of burial practices in each area will be studied with any evidence for changes to these rites over time. Sources used in the Research Many sources were consulted to gain the maximum comparative information for each of the study areas and for the wider Durotrigan zone. The initial search involved extracting information from the county surveys, particularly RCHM Dorset volumes (1952; 1970-5) and the Wiltshire Victoria County History (1957; 1973). This was followed by a careful examination of the local society journals for Somerset, Wiltshire and Dorset and the published monographs of excavations of the key Iron Age sites within the area. The bibliographies of these enabled new sources to be discovered. Contacting the county sites and monuments records officers enabled unpublished developer funded ‘grey’ reports to be identified. The local authority archaeologists were also able to supply metal detectorists’ lists of finds reported as part of the portable antiquities scheme. Lists of Durotrigan/southwest series coins within the ‘Celtic Coin Index’ were also consulted. Archaeologists who are specialists for the various parts of the Durotrigan zone were contacted and they kindly supplied additional information. The archive of aerial photographs held at the National Monuments Record, Swindon was also studied. Various university research dissertations were also examined and valuable additional
99
99
information and advice was provided by finds specialists particularly for Poole Harbour pottery and Durotrigan/south-west series coins. Searches were also carried out on the internet, in national journals and in local society libraries. The bibliography contains a comprehensive list of sources relating to Late Iron Age research within the Durotrigan zone up to July 2007. Information contained in the tables Each study area description contains two tables. The first summarises the available evidence for the six common criteria (a-f). The second will be an inventory of all the known Iron Age and Romano-British sites. An example of the fields for this table follows.
Site
Zone
NGR
BA
EIA
MIA
LIA
RB
Badbury Rings Multivallate Hillfort
Hill top Shapwick 31 (Excav 2005)
ST946030 RCHM V, 61 (Papworth 2005)
*
…
L*
*
*
The Site field contains the name of the site and a definition of the site (e.g. hillfort, ovoid enclosed farmstead, industrial site etc.).
Important sites are occasionally included in the table if they lie just outside the study box these are marked with an asterisk e.g. *Rope Lake Hole.
Where Iron Age coins have been found on the site they are recorded in this field.
The Zone field is a description of its topographic location (e.g. hill top, spur, valley etc.) below this is the Dorset RCHM parish and inventory number.
The RCHM survey of Dorset is the best summary source of information for the county and its numbering system is used in the local authority SMR. Within Dorset, throughout the survey, these parish numbers are highlighted in bold type e.g.
100
100
Shapwick 31. Sites in Somerset and Wiltshire or discovered after the publication of the various Dorset volumes will not have these numbers.
The nature of the evidence and the date of discovery is given below the parish number e.g. Finds; Earthwork; Aerial photographic (AP) site, Excavation.
The NGR field is the national grid reference followed by the RCHM volume and page number. Sites found since the publication of the Dorset inventories will have a bibliographic reference or aerial photographic reference.
The Bronze Age to Romano-British fields (BA-RB) have been created to sort sites into a comparative chronology. The Iron Age is divided into Early, Middle and Late (EIA, MIA, LIA). This only provides a broad relative chronology because of the variety of information sources that are available. A field is marked * when a significant number of dateable objects for a period have been found and … when few finds are present. Where aerial photographs or other evidence indicates a site, which is otherwise undated, a question mark is inserted (?).
Letters have also been occasionally inserted into these fields L= Late. In the context of Late Middle Iron Age. B= South Dorset/Durotrigan style burials have been found on the site. P= Pit burial found on the site. V= The site developed into a Roman villa.
Having explained the ideas behind the methodology adopted for this examination of the Durotrigan zone, the survey begins in the south-east on the Hampshire/Dorset border.
101
101
5.1 Purbeck and Poole Harbour
South-east Dorset
Towards the south-east edge of the Durotrigan zone is Christchurch Harbour and Hengistbury Head (SZ175905), an important trading port for the area.
East of Hengistbury and the River Avon is the New Forest, which is heathland where comparatively few Iron Age sites have been identified. Similarly the heathland around Bournemouth, west of Hengistbury, contains little settlement evidence. Occupation was concentrated along the Stour corridor and the coast around Poole Harbour (Calkin 1964, 120-130).
The first hillfort along the Stour is at Dudsbury (SZ077979, West Parley 7). It is bivallate and encloses about 3.5 hectares (RCHM 1975, 76). Further along the Stour, to the north and west, settlement increases as the geology changes to chalk.
Poole Harbour
The Hamworthy peninsula, on the north side of Poole Harbour contains much evidence of Iron Age occupation. Excavations by H.P. Smith 1925-32 (RCHM 1975, 603), Keith Jarvis (1993, 101-109) and Peter Bellamy (2003, 156, pers. comm. 2005) revealed Late Iron Age and 1st century Roman coins and pottery on the east side of the peninsula (SZ002904, Poole 402).
The rivers Frome and Piddle enter Poole Harbour from the west and between them is a coastal strip of land, east of Wareham, known as Bestwall. Extensive archaeological excavation in advance of gravel extraction has revealed many phases of occupation across the site but there appears to be an earlier Iron Age hiatus (Ladle 2004, 7).
Further west around Wareham, other Iron Age and Roman pottery productions sites have been found (RCHM 1970a, 614). The rivers provided a route for producers, east to Poole Harbour or west to central Dorset and Maiden Castle. However, more
102
102
Topographic Description (fig.42 & 54)
The first 10km by 8km study area includes parts of Woodward’s zones A-G. Its south-west corner touches the south coast of Purbeck at Kimmeridge Bay and its north-east corner includes Green Island and part of Furzey Island at the south edge of Poole Harbour. Crossing the centre of the area from east to west is the chalk ridge of the Purbeck Hills, which is cut near its centre by two streams, the Byle Brook and Wicken Stream, that flow either side of a natural mound of chalk now occupied by Corfe Castle. On the north side of the ridge, the streams converge to form the Corfe River that meanders across the heathland and flows into Poole Harbour on the south side of the Middlebere peninsula.
Study Box 1 Focus of Settlement
Settlement Pattern and Types
Range of Settlement Elements Continuity of Settlement & Sacred Association
Distinctive Artefact Types
Purbeck EIA limestone plateau contains largest settlements but no clear central place. Colonisation of the harbour edge and Corfe Gap in the late MIA-LIA. The Norden, Corfe and possibly West Hill temple sites indicate a sacred focus around Corfe Castle Hill. Norden had developed into an industrial centre by the end of the 1st century AD. Archaeologically conspicuous dense settlement pattern of farmsteads and groups of households. Occupation sites become increasingly industrial. No hillforts. Settlements of conglomerations of rectilinear enclosures in the LIA. Ditched enclosures. Round houses with limestone footings, storage pits cut into limestone on Purbeck plateau. Timber round houses further north. Continuity on some limestone plateau sites, others sites are abandoned in the MIA but reoccupied in the LIA. New sites established N of Chalk Ridge in the later MIA or LIA. Trend of movement N from the MIA. A distinct concentration of ritual evidence around the Corfe gap indicating the value placed in the landscape there. A MIA sacred site is suggested within the Bucknowle IA settlement below the Roman villa that developed from the site. Durotrigan coins associated with a concentration of Roman finds indicates the site of a Romano-Celtic temple on the summit of Corfe Common and LIA-RB continuity of a sacred site. Similarly at Norden an IA temple building within an enclosure is associated with Durotrigan coins and other metal objects buried in pits. Nearby was found a later Roman well associated with two stone altars. Continuity of EIA pottery styles into MIA may mask
104
104
settlement continuity at some sites. LIA Durotrigan/Poole Harbour to BB pottery production. Earlier IA hand-cut and later IA lathe-turned shale armlets. EIA-LIA salt working (evidenced by briquetage containers) distinctive. Purbeck limestone Industrial scale production, particularly of shale and pottery. These products found on LIA sites across Dorset and neighbouring counties Armorican imported pottery found in LIA at harbourside sites indicates cross-channel trade and Poole Harbour as an important port developing during the later Iron Age probably at the expense of Hengistbury Head and continuing to export products throughout the Roman period. Coins: Celtic Coin Index records only one British A from Corfe Common hoard and a Gallo-Belgic DB from area otherwise all coins SW/Durotrigan issues. Corfe Common hoard has some gold 80% silver indicating earlier phase coinage reaching this area. Bronze hoard from Norden.
Burial Rite
EIA-MIA unknown burial rite. LIA crouched inhumation sometimes in stone cists accompanied by Durotrigan bowls but meat joints not recorded.
The study box includes the north Purbeck coast south and west of Green Island which consists of a series of promontories and bays including part of the Goathorn peninsula, Newton Bay, Cleavel Point, Fitzworth, Middlebere and the south side of the Arne peninsula. The north-west corner includes the section of the River Frome south-west of Wareham.
Many Purbeck farms and settlements have names recorded in Domesday book and lie near Romano-British and Iron Age sites. These places are sited at the harbour edge for example Arne, Slepe, Middlebere, Ower, Wytch and Newton, or beside the rivers across the heath such as Stoborough and Ridge near the Frome and Scotland Farm near the Corfe River. The heathland is characterised by poor agricultural soils and a poor water supply and therefore settlement is sparse.
105
105
Chronological Development The distribution of known Iron Age and Romano-British sites in Dorset indicates that the Isle of Purbeck contains the greatest concentration of occupation in the county. This may partly be due to the conspicuous nature of the archaeological remains but it is also a reflection of the industrial value of the geological diversity of the area.
The salt industry produced enormous quantities of orange-red briquetage, the remnants of rough pottery containers used for evaporating brine. The Durotrigan and Black Burnished Ware potteries are evidenced by numerous sherds many of them half finished and warped waste products of the industry. The hand-cut and lathe cores known as “coal money” and broken armlets, trays and other products of the shale industry are frequently found across Purbeck and particularly around the geological source at Kimmeridge Bay. Evidence of the Purbeck limestone industries is less obvious although Purbeck Marble offcuts and half-finished mortaria are frequently encountered on archaeological sites. Site
Zone
NGR
Furzey Island Industrial site Rectilinear enclosures
Harbour edge Corfe Castle 225 (Excav 1985-9)
Green Island Industrial site Harbour mole 2 SW/Durotrigan Cleavel Point Industrial site Contiguous rectilinear enclosures 1 SW/Durotrigan Fitzworth Industrial site Occupation debris Middlebere Industrial site Occupation debris East Corfe River Industrial site Contiguous rectilinear enclosures West Corfe River Industrial site Occupation debris Redcliff Industrial site Occupation debris
Harbour edge Corfe Castle 224 (Excav 2002)
SZ009869 RCHM II, 597 (Cox & Hearne 1991) SZ006866 RCHM II, 597 (Markey et al 2002) SZ002862 RCHM II, 597 (Sunter & Woodward 1987) SY990868 RCHM II, 597 (Calkin 1948) SY975865 (Papworth 1992b) SY970855 (Cox & Hearne 1991)
Harbour edge Corfe Castle 227 (Excav 1978)
Harbour edge Corfe Castle 226 (Finds 1947) Harbour edge Arne (Finds 1987) Heath/River Corfe Castle (Excav 1989) Heath/River Corfe Castle (Excav 1989) Heath/River Arne 51 (Excav 1954)
SY966854 (Cox & Hearne 1991 SY933866 RCHM II, 593
107
107
BA
EIA
*
…
MIA
LIA
L*
*
…
*
*
*
*
*
*
…
*
*
…
L*
…
L…
RB
*
*
Stoborough Industrial site Occupation debris Worgret Industrial site Occupation debris Norden Industrial site, Temple with Durotrigan coins Rectilinear enclosures 147 SW/Durotrigan West Creech* Domestic site Occupation debris Creech Grange Industrial site Occupation debris Greenspecks Industrial site Occupation debris East Creech Industrial site, building Occupation debris Brenscombe Building Rempstone Industrial site Occupation debris West Hill RB Coins Occupation debris Castle Hill Occupation debris Knowle Hill Settlement Cross ridge dykes Bucknowle Industrial site.Building Ovoid and rectilinear enclosures settlement. Corfe Common Temple 36 SW/Durotrigan Town’s End Occupation debris Sandyhills Copse Occupation debris Blashenwell Industrial site Occupation debris Kingston Barn* Occupation debris Smedmore Hill Occupation debris
Heath/River Arne 50 (Finds 1952) Alluvium Arne 49 (Finds 1915-55) Spring-line Corfe Castle 230 (Excav. 1968-9)
SY924863 RCHM II. 592
*
*
SY912869 RCHM II, 592
*
*
SY956826 RCHM II, 598 Sunter (1987)
*
*
Spring-line Steeple (Excav. 1989) Spring-line Steeple 29 (Finds 1958) Spring-line Church Knowle 58 (Finds 1912) Spring-line Church Knowle 57 (Finds 1869) Spring-line Corfe Castle 229 (Excav 1967) Spring-line Corfe Castle 228 (Finds 1845) Chalk ridge Corfe Castle 232 (Finds 1952) Chalk ridge Corfe Castle 231 (Finds 1948) Chalk ridge Church Knowle 54 (Excav 1957) Wealden Corfe Castle (Excav 1976-91)
SY898827 (Cox & Hearne 1991) SY911822 RCHM II, 608
Wealden Corfe Castle (Finds 1980) Wealden Corfe Castle (Finds 2004) Wealden Corfe Castle 233 (Finds 1962) Wealden Corfe Castle 234 (Excav 1936) Limestone Plat. Corfe Castle 238 (Finds 1952) Limestone Plat. Steeple 30 (F 44)
SY958809 (Papworth 1993a) SY963811 RCHM II, 596 David King SY968814 RCHM II, 599
*
*
*
…
*
SY926827 RCHM II, 596
*
*
SY935827 RCHM II, 595
*
*V
SY978827 RCHM II, 598
*V
SY990824 RCHM II, 598
*
SY954823 RCHM II, 599
*
SY958822 RCHM II, 598
*
SY935822 RCHM II, 509 SY954815 (Collins, Field & Light 1990)
SY951805 RCHM II, 599 (DCM 1936) SY963788 RCHM II, 600 (Brown 1952) SY931795 RCHM II, 608
108
108
*
*
*
*
*
*V
*
*
*
*
*
*
*B
*
*
*
*
*
West Orchard Fm Industrial site Occupation debris Kimmeridge Bay Industrial site Occupation debris Metherhills Industrial site Occupation debris Rope Lake Hole* Industrial site Settlement
Limestone Plat. Church Knowle 62 (Excav 1956) Kimmeridge Bay Kimmeridge 17 Steeple 31 (Finds 1962) Kimmeridge Bay Kimmeridge 16 Limestone Plat. Kimmeridge 18 (Excav. 1979)
Eldon Seat* Industrial site Settlement
Limestone Plat. Corfe Castle 240 (Excav. 1963-4)
Encombe Obelisk Industrial site Building Occupation debris Gallows Gore Industrial site Settlement
Limestone Plat. Corfe Castle 235 (Excav 1954) Limestone Plat. Worth Matravers 39-40 (Exav 1931) Limestone Plat. Worth Matravers 41 (Excav 1991-30
Compact Farm* Industrial site Settlement
Wilkswood Fm Industrial occupation site
Limestone Plat. Langton Matrav. 42 (Finds 1953)
Blacklands* Industrial settlement
Limestone Plat. Langton Matrav. 43 (Finds 2004) Heathland Studland 45 (Finds 1958) Limestone Plat. Langton Matrav. 44 (Finds 1957)
Godlingston Hearth * Industrial occupation site Putlake Fm*
SY936792 RCHM II, 596
*
SY910790 RCHM II, 601, 608
*
*
*
*
SY913792 RCHM II, 601
*B
*
SY932777 RCHM II, 601 (Sunter & Woodward 1987) SY939776 RCHM II, 600 (Cunliffe & Phillipson 1968) SY942790 RCHM II, 599 (Brown 1954) SY978790 RCHM II, 621 (Calkin 1953)
*
*
*B
*
*
*
…
…
SY975778 RCHM II, 621 (Graham, Hinton & Peacock 2002) SY993794 RCHM II, 602
SY994778 RCHM II, 602
*
…
*
*B
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
…
…
*
*B
*
*
SZ01478212 RCHM II, 609 SZ001783 RCHM II, 602
The pattern of change of settlement north of the chalk ridge has been summarised by Cox and Hearne (1991, 226-231) building on the chronological evidence derived from earlier excavations (Sunter and Woodward 1987, 6-8).
Although the heathland north of the ridge was occupied in the earlier Bronze Age (e.g. East of Corfe River SY970855 and Furzey Island SZ009869) there is no 109
109
pottery. However, most of the evidence for Early Iron Age activity is concentrated further to the south.
On the Purbeck limestone plateau within Corfe Castle parish a small amount of Early Iron Age pottery indicates occupation at Kingston Barn (SY963778; Corfe Castle 238) and Kingston Plantation (SY953788; Corfe Castle 237). Evidence from Wilkswood, Langton Matravers (SY993794; Langton Matravers 42) is also limited to a scatter of pottery but at Gallows Gore West, (SY978790; Worth Matravers 39) and West Orchard Farm (SY936792; Church Knowle 62) excavations have taken place which have revealed evidence of a hand-cut shale armlet industry and occupation. At Gallows Gore, of 14 pits examined 6 were dated to the Early Iron Age. In the earlier 20th century descriptions of Iron Age Purbeck sites, the pottery is described as belonging to Iron Age A, B and C cultures. Iron Age B pottery is rarely identified indicating a lack of evidence for settlement in the MIA. However, Calkin (1948, 40) in describing the two Iron Age sites found during Purbeck limestone quarrying at Gallows Gore (Worth Matravers 39, 40) argued for continuity of settlement.
Gallows Gore West covered an area of approximately 200m by 100m and included some storage pits containing A and others containing C pottery. Although B elements were not identified, he believed that the Purbeck potters were conservative and insular and continued using similar styles and red fabric until the later Iron Age. Gallows Gore East lay only 300m away from the western site with ceramic evidence suggesting a similar date range from c.800BC until the Romano-British period.
Another pair of sites lie further south but also on the Purbeck limestone plateau. At Eldons Seat (SY939776; Corfe Castle 240) and Rope Lake Hole (SY932777; Kimmeridge 18) occupation also began c. 8th century BC and was continuous until the Roman Conquest. The ceramic sequences from these sites have been extremely valuable in determining local Iron Age chronologies. Woodward (1987, 146) suggested that the sites with their field systems were organised and managed in tandem. Rope Lake Hole contained more evidence of industrial activity than the primarily agricultural Eldon Seat. Both sites continue to the cliff edge and Eldon Seat 111
111
48: Cleavel Point plan of geophysical survey anomalies (Cox and Hearne 1991,71) ©Dorset County Museum.
Recent geophysical survey and excavation based on these finds have identified the site of a Late Iron Age temple within concentric ditched rectilinear enclosures. A foundation burial of Durotrigan pottery, coins, two spearheads and other iron metalwork was deposited within the construction trench of the central stone temple building (Woodward 2006). It is interesting to note that the Corfe Common temple coins had a high silver content compared with those at Norden which were copper alloy staters. This may suggest a shift of sacred significance from the south to the north side of the Corfe gap in the Latest Iron Age. Nevertheless, concentrations of Roman material on both sites suggest continuity of use. A fluxgate gradiometer survey on Corfe Common failed to produce a plan of a temple to compare with that from Norden (Stewart 2007a) (fig.51-2). The distribution of coins and record of walling (Hobby 1990 pers. comm.) indicates that it is the heathland geology of the site that affected the survey results rather than the lack of buildings.
Opposing causeways extend into the channel between Cleavel Point and Green Island (fig.49). In 2001, the examination of the structure of the longer causeway on the north side of the Cleavel Point settlement revealed an earlier origin for trade here than had previously been considered. The structure was discovered to be a sophisticated construction of timber, gravel, sand and limestone and is now interpreted as a mole to 114
114
49: Causeway Cleavel Point to Green Island (Markey, Wilkes & Darvill 2002, 7-11)
enable boats to shelter behind and unload cargoes onto a quay. It may also have acted as a security barrier guarding access through this channel. The radiocarbon dates from the timber piles for the causeway structure provided an average date of 250-200BC (Markey, Wilkes and Darvill, 2002, 7-11).
Cleavel Point and Green Island with Fitzworth, East of Corfe River and probably also Middlebere and Shipstal Point, produced large quantities of pottery and shale. The influence of the pottery production is indicated when Late Iron Age sites are excavated in the wider Durotrigan area. When the relative proportions of pottery fabrics are analysed it becomes clear that local pottery production declined as a result of the increasing adoption of Poole Harbour products (Brown 1991, 185-205; Garvey 2006, 3-5).
The continued success of the Purbeck industries following the Roman conquest and the lack of evidence for military occupation may suggest that the population embraced the opportunities of expanded economic markets. Purbeck pottery has been found in the Dorset Roman forts at Waddon Hill (Webster 1979, 86) and Hod Hill (Richmond 1968, 112) also Purbeck Marble was used in the temple of Claudius in Colchester
115
115
However, the large settlement north of the Corfe gap at Norden developed after the Conquest and grew as an industrial centre producing objects of shale, mudstone, Purbeck marble, chalk tessarae and pottery. Around Norden, three villas developed which were all about 2km from the settlement and each may have evolved from Late Iron Age sites. This is certainly true of the large Bucknowle villa on the south side of the ridge and probably also for East Creech that lies on the spring line to the west. Brenscombe villa, on the spring-line east of Norden, is only known from the chance discovery of mosaics associated with sherds of pottery that dated the building to the 2nd-4th century. Deeper excavations would be needed to discover the origin of the site.
0m
20m
52: Norden Iron Age temple resistivity survey. The footings of the small square temple building can be seen upper left. The site of the hoard of metalwork is visible in the gradiometer plot as a high magnetic response above this building and against the outer rectangular enclosure visible on both plots
51: Norden Iron Age temple gradiometer survey (Woodward & Papworth forthcoming 2006)
It has been suggested (Cox and Hearne 1991, 232) that the industrial wealth of Purbeck was taken away from the area and therefore it may have been part of an imperial estate with local officials managing production for the emperor. The contract for Purbeck to supply pottery to the Roman army is revealed by the concentration of
117
117
Black Burnished Ware along the northern military frontiers of Britannia. This near monopoly of coarse ware pottery production for the army was surely very lucrative and was perhaps arranged because of imperial ownership of the production centres. It has been argued (ibid) that the size of the villas indicates that their occupiers were not particularly wealthy and therefore they were not gaining significantly from the success of the Purbeck industries. However, the extents of Brenscombe and East Creech villa are not known and subsequent excavations at Bucknowle have revealed the size of this site. Bucknowle was a courtyard villa and its excavated plan compares well with other large villas in Dorset. Finely worked shale furniture was being produced in the villa’s workships and perhaps here a local entrepreneur was profiting substantially from the local industries.
Concluding Remarks
A focus of settlement, large enough to be considered a central place, only emerges at the very end of the Iron Age. This is Norden on the north side of the natural gateway through the Purbeck Hills at Corfe. A range of goods was produced there and the three villas spaced around it indicate its local dominance as a Roman settlement.
Nevertheless, this focus may have developed from a sacred site because of the concentration of ritual evidence around Corfe’s Castle Hill. The topography of this locale is evocative and appears to have appealed to the spiritual sense of the local Iron Age people. Perhaps Castle Hill was the focus and an important shrine lies buried beneath the medieval royal castle. Alternatively it may have been the gaps through the ridge or the confluence of the Byle Brook and Wicken Stream that enhanced the sanctity of this area. The Corfe and Norden temples with their SW/Durotrigan coin hoards (fig.54), the Norden well shrine and the concentration of Roman coins on West Hill indicate a ritual focus here.
A zone of larger industrial settlements lies along the south shore of Poole Harbour, particularly at the Furzey Island/Green Island/Cleavel Point peninsula. This settlement began on Furzey towards the end of the Middle Iron Age and shifted south to Cleavel Point in the later Iron Age when the peninsula was breached and the islands were formed. The Cleavel Point settlement continued into the Roman period although the 118
118
rectilinear Iron Age boundary ditches were abandoned and the settlement shrank in size while further south on the north side of the Corfe gap the Norden industrial settlement grew.
Norden Temple
53: Aerial view of the Corfe gap (National Trust).
There was apparently industrial continuity between the Late Iron Age and Early Romano-British periods. This is a feature of Purbeck and the archaeology does not seem to reflect the conquest and submission of a hostile people. The resources of Purbeck were rapidly exploited with mud stone, shale and Purbeck Marble used at Fishbourne, Chichester and Colchester within twenty years (Allen and Fulford 2004). It seems likely that pre-conquest trade had already alerted Roman businessmen to see the economic potential of the area and local producers would see the value of expanded markets.
119
119
There appears to be a hiatus between the later Bronze Age and earlier Iron Age in some parts of the study area, particularly on the heathland north of the chalk ridge. A lack of evidence for occupation in this period will also be seen in next study area. On the Wealden Beds there is also limited evidence for Early Iron Age settlement. At Bucknowle the earliest pottery dates from around 500BC but occupation then continues.
54: SW/ Durotrigan coins in the Purbeck study area in relation to rivers. Contours at 10m intervals.
120
120
Flowers Barrow (SY864805; East Lulworth 40) is the only true hillfort in Purbeck. Covering 6.3 hectares, it lies at the west end of the chalk ridge and its southern ramparts have eroded into the sea. Further west, beside Lulworth Cove, Bindon Hill (SY82227992-84808021; West Lulworth 53) challenges Ham Hill, Somerset as the largest hillfort in Britain but it is more truly a rampart and ditch using the topography to secure a coastal area of over 162 hectares. Mortimer Wheeler dated the rampart to the Early Iron Age (1953, 6)
56: Earthwork plan of Bindon Hill, West Lulworth 53 (RCHM1970a, 492) ©Crown Copyright
Along the river Frome and on the chalkland south to the coast, a scatter of Iron Age occupation traces and ‘celtic’ field systems have been recorded but the next area with a concentration of evidence is around Dorchester, Weymouth and Portland.
122
122
5.2 South Dorset Weymouth and Portland
There are many sites on Portland. The archaeological records are mainly the result of chance discoveries during quarrying and building work usually in the 19th century (RCHM 1970, 604-8). These include accounts of crouched burials in cists, which probably date to the Late Iron Age but the records are poor. One more definite Durotrigan burial was excavated on the south west side of the island at Verne Common (Keen 1976, 62).
57: Beehive chambers, Portland 101 (RCHM1970a 606) ©Crown Copyright
A distinctive feature of Portland’s 19th century discoveries were the Late Iron Age “beehive chambers” made of corbelled slates of limestone cut into the bedrock then buried and sealed with a flagstone cap. At King Barrow, Verne (SY690735; Portland 100) various items were found within the chambers, including carbonised grain. They are probably a localised type of grain storage pit (RCHM 1970, 606).
123
123
At Weymouth, there was probably an important port from the Iron Age but there are only poor records from the Radipole area (SY66338100; Weymouth 437) to indicate this (RCHM 1970, 614-5). There are reports of pottery and Durotrigan burials from Broadwey (ibid 616, SY66808354; Weymouth 443) and other burials may have been unearthed during clay digging for the Putton Brickworks, Chickerell (ibid 595, SY949800; Chickerell 34).
At Jordan hill above Bowleaze Cove, Preston (SY69898207; Weymouth 445) lies the site of a sacred place. This was probably in use from the Late Iron Age until the 5th century AD. Here, many crouched inhumations associated with Durotrigan pottery were excavated north east of a square building interpreted as a Romano-Celtic temple (ibid. 617; Warne 1872, 230-34).
Chalbury (SY695838; Bincombe 486) Chalbury is the nearest hillfort to Weymouth and Portland, it lies north of Preston and dates from the Early Iron Age (Whitley 1943). It will be considered in more detail in the next study area which lies north across the chalk escarpment of the South Dorset Ridgeway. This divides the varied geology of the Weymouth Anticline from the chalkland around Dorchester and the Winterborne and Frome valleys.
Study Box 2: South Dorset Study Box 2 Focus of Settlement
South Dorset EIA-MIA settlement almost exclusive to Maiden Castle although some evidence from Poundbury. Settlement shift towards Frome valley and Dorchester in the later IA. Maiden Castle EIA-MIA concentration of settlement, rows of round houses decreasing in density and order in LIA.
Settlement Pattern and Types
Poundbury cluster of 10 round houses indicated in SE fort corner and from MIA enclosed farmstead beside river. No other evidence of settlement outside the hillfort until the later Iron Age then increasing pattern of enclosed farmsteads (Maiden Castle School type) towards Frome valley. Round houses, four-post structures, storage pits, enclosure ditches and banks, trackways.
Range of Settlement Elements
124
124
Occupation at Maiden Castle from c.600BC until c.AD60-65 on preferred location significant in earlier Neolithic. Reoccupation of Frome valley from c.100BC to present. At Dorchester Roman town from c.AD60-65 on sacred site used from later Neolithic to earlier Bronze Age.
Continuity of Settlement and Sacred Association
Concentration of burials and settlement may cluster around IA sacred spring at Wollaston Field, Dorchester. Distinctive Dorset pottery EIA Kimmeridge-Caburn; MIA Maiden Castle-Marnhull LIA Durotrigan./Poole Harbour LIA imported pottery is sparse despite apparent significance of Maiden Castle. Coins: SW/Durotrigan recorded of 50% silver (from hoard east end of Maiden Castle Hill) In other parts of the study area: No gold British O or British B coins reported. Greater percentage of base silver and bronze coins here than further east. Celtic Coin index records an Atrebatic and Dobunnic coin from Dorchester. From Maiden Castle a Coriosolite and a Osismian coin together with a coin ascribed to the Trinovantes. EIA-MIA excarnation scattered bones as evidence. Some inhumations in storage pits. LIA crouched inhumations in shallow oval earth graves with Durotrigan bowls and joints of meat occasionally with other grave goods such as Whitcombe burial with sword.
Distinctive Artefact Types
Burial Rite
This study box contains one of the most exciting archaeological landscapes in the country. At its centre lies the modern county town of Dorchester, which was also the principal town in the medieval and Roman periods. Immediately north-west lies Poundbury Camp and 1.5km to the south west lies the massive hillfort of Maiden Castle.
Both Dorchester and Maiden Castle overlie and are surrounded by a grand assemblage of Neolithic and Bronze Age ceremonial monuments and south and west of them hundreds of Bronze Age burial mounds form the vast cemetery of the South Dorset Ridgeway.
125
125
Topographic Description (fig.58)
The valley of the River Frome enters the study box at its north-west corner and meanders south-east between the villages of Stratton and Bradford Peverell and past the northern edge of Dorchester. The river crosses the centre of the east boundary of
58: South Dorset recorded SW/Durotrigan coins with rivers and contours at 10m intervals
126
126
the study area flanked by the villages of Kingston Maurwood on its north and West Stafford on its south bank. The River Cerne joins the Frome from the north passing through Charminster and Wolfeston before its confluence at Frome Whitfield, Dorchester.
The valley of the South Winterborne separates the Maiden Castle hill from the higher land of the South Dorset Ridgeway. The river enters the study area from the west at Winterbourne Steepleton and passes through a string of Winterborne settlements before joining the Frome at West Stafford.
The geology and topography of the area is characterised by a chalkland landscape consisting of a pattern of chalk spurs and coombs sloping towards the Frome valley from the South Dorset Ridgeway to the south-west and the ridge between the Frome and Piddle rivers to the north-east. There are alluvial deposits in the river valleys, and gravel capping on the chalk in the south-west corner of the study box at Bronkham Hill, which is the highest point in the area. There are also heathland soils at the eastern fringes of the area within Puddletown Forest, West Stafford and West Knighton. Chronological Development Site
Zone
NGR
Maiden Castle Multivallate Hillfort 15 SW/Durotrigan
Hill top N of Ridgeway Wint. St Martin 142 (Excav 1934;1986) Hilltop beside Frome Dorchester 172 (Excav. 1939,1980) Hill top S of Ridgeway Bincombe 76 (Excav. 1939) Spur crest Stratton 11 (Earthworks)
SY669885 RCHM II, 493 (Wheeler 1943) (Sharples 1991)
Spur crest Charminster 30 (Finds)
SY694956 RCHM III, 72
Poundbury Multivallate Hillfort & settlement Chalbury* Univallate hillfort
Grimstone Down Rectilinear enclosures, dykes and field system. Charlton Higher Down, Rectilinear enclosures, tracks and field system
BA …
EIA *
MIA LIA *P *B
RB …
SY682911 RCHM II, 487 (Richard. 1940) (Green 1987) SY695838 RCHM II, 486 (Whitley 1943)
*
*
*
*B
*B
…
*
SY645955 RCHM I, 229
?
?
?
?
?
*
*
127
127
Maiden Castle School Enclosed farmstead Maiden Castle Road Settlement Flagstones/Max Gate Settlement Alington Avenue Settlement Crofts Burials 2 SW/Durotrigan West Stafford Bypass Iron Smelting site with Enclosure Mount Pleasant Farmstead Fordington Bottom Farmstead Fordington Hill Burials Frampton * Villa Olga Road Villa Walls Field Villa Stinsford Burials Little Mayne Farm Occupation debris West Knighton Occupation debris Broadmayne Village Settlement Dairy House Farmstead Whitcombe Hill Enclosed Farmstead
S edge Frome valley Dorchester (Excav. 1993) S edge Frome valley Wint. Monkton (Excav. 1987) Frome valley Dorchester 218d (Excav. 1884) Frome valley Dorchester 218a (Excav. 1984) Frome valley West Stafford 25 (Finds 1850 & 2000) South Winterbourne Valley (Excav. 2004) Frome valley West Stafford 24 (Excav. 1970) Frome valley Bradford Peverell (Excav. 1987) Frome valley Dorchester 216 (Finds 1747-1908) Frome valley Maiden Newton 1 (Excav 1796) Frome valley Dorchester 212 (Excav 1899) Cerne valley Charminster 29 (Excav. 1891,1960) Frome valley Stinsford 13 (Finds 1779, 1841) Frome valley West Knighton 26 (Finds 1930-6) Frome valley West Knighton 27 (Finds 1941) Spring line S of Frome Valley Broadmayne (Excav. 1967) S of Frome valley Wint. Herringston (Excav. 1992) S of Frome valley Whitcombe 26 (Excav. 1965-7)
SY689895 (Bellamy 1993)
*
SY675895 RCHM II, 494 (Smith et al 1997) SY704899 RCHM II, 577
…
*B
P*B.
*B
*B
*B
*B
*B
*
*
SY702901 RCHM II, 575 (Davies 2002) SY724890 RCHM II, 608 (Finds liaison officer 2007) SY719891 (Powell 2004)
L… P
SY710899 RCHM II, 504 (Wainwri.1979) SY667907 (Smith 1997)
L… *
SY698905 RCHM II, 573
* *B
*B
*B
*B
SY61609530 RCHM I, 150
V*
SY68709010 RCHM II, 570
V*
SY66729492 RCHM III, 72 (Dewar 1960) SY693916 RCHM III, 257
…
SY72308708 RCHM II, 602
…
*
SY73278735 RCHM II, 602
…
*
SY72668664 (Young 1973)
*B
*
SY690882 (Woodward 1992) SY771880 RCHM II, 619 (Aitken 1990)
128
128
V* *B
* *
*B
*
Pins Knoll* Farmstead
Quarry Lodden* Settlement
Tolpuddle Ball* Enclosed farmstead Muckleford Coin scatter 30 SW/Durotrigan Pen Hill Coins 3 SW/Durotrigan East of Maiden Castle 63 SW/Durotrigan
Scarp edge W end of Ridgeway Litton Cheney (Excav 1959) Scarp edge S of Ridgeway Bincombe (Excav. 1971) E of Dorchester chalk downland (Excav. 1993) Frome Valley Bradford Peverell Finds (1986-2005) Frome Valley Bradford Peverell Finds (1986-2005 Hill top north of Ridgeway Winterbourne Monkton Finds (1986)
SY541904 (Bailey 1967)
*
*
*B
*
SY690839 (Bailey 1971)
*
*
*B
*
…
*
*B
*
SY810948 (Hearne 1999)
*
SY63759335 (Keen 1987) (Finds Liaison Officer 2007) SY648926 (Finds Liaison Officer 2007) SY675882 (Keen 1987)
*
*
The excavations in and around Dorchester and Maiden Castle tend to confirm the pattern of occupation proposed by Sharples (1990, 1991). The later Bronze Age settlements, farmsteads and field systems of the area seem to be abandoned by the Early Iron Age. Very little of Middle Iron Age date has been found beyond the hillforts of Poundbury and Maiden Castle.
Maiden Castle was densely occupied in the Middle Iron Age but the surrounding landscape is archaeologically blank for the period 800BC to 100BC and Sharple’s graph (1990 Table 17 p.91) demonstrates this. Smith (1997, 299) summarised the evidence following the Dorchester By-pass excavations. He writes:
‘the absence of evidence for settlement from the earliest Iron Age through to the 1st century BC adds weight to the view that from c.600BC there was near wholesale occupation of the Maiden Castle and Poundbury hillforts within the study area. The By-pass excavations produced only a handful of unstratified possible Iron Age sherds. At present there is no evidence from c.800-200 cal BC between the Maiden Castle and Poundbury hillforts and this is in contrast to the later Bronze Age, represented by the settlements at Middle Farm, Fordington Bottom, Poundbury and Coburg Road/Middle Farm Poundbury
129
129
cluster of about 10 circular features in the south-east corner of the hillfort that indicate a small settlement in an area sampled by only one of Richardson’s test pits (fig.60).
Sparey-Green (1987, 146) compared Poundbury to Abbotsbury hillfort which lies 13km to the south-west and unlike Poundbury has never been ploughed. Within Abbotsbury, the earthworks of about 6-10 round houses are clustered on its east side. A similar sized hillfort lies 7km south of Poundbury at Chalbury (SY695838) this has evidence for more numerous hut sites within it (Whitley 1943) (fig.13 p.42) but these were abandoned in the Early Iron Age. Sharples (1991, 84) suggested that the abandonment of Chalbury was linked to the expansion of Maiden Castle. Once Maiden Castle had become the dominant settlement, any competing fortified settlements were deliberately closed down.
At Poundbury, the Middle Iron Age evidence came from within a ditched enclosure on the south-east side of the hillfort, beside the river. Here there were several phases of occupation continuing into the Late Iron Age although only two or three huts seem to have been occupied at any one time (fig.62). The hillfort was refurbished in the Late Iron Age when the inner rampart was converted from box rampart to glacis style and an outer rampart and ditch constructed. A hornwork was also added to the south entrance at this time.
The evidence from Poundbury is for a small community that maintained the hillfort as a secure place and insurance against trouble, but which tended to live outside the hillfort beside the river. Although Maiden Castle hillfort began as an enclosure surrounding a similar area to Poundbury, it developed into the principal settlement and to date the only other settlement that has been found within the study area dating to the Early and Middle Iron Age.
Maiden Castle
The Iron Age hillfort of Maiden Castle (SY669885; Winterborne St Martin 142) overlies a 546m long Middle Neolithic bank barrow which in turn covers an Early Neolithic causewayed enclosure. There is also some later Neolithic and Bronze Age activity on the site (fig.64). 132
132
63: Maiden Castle, Winterborne St Martin 142 earthwork plan showing excavated areas 1930s (RCHM 1970a 498) ©Crown Copyright.
The hillfort was built around 600 BC, later than the proposed construction dates for Chalbury (SY695838; Bincombe 76) and possibly Poundbury. It initially enclosed 6.5 hectares occupying the east knoll of the hill and was enlarged to the west to enclose 19 hectares in about 450 BC. Around 300 BC there was a reorganisation of the settlement of the hillfort and the round houses were rebuilt in rows. Sharples suggested that this implied that those who controlled the hillfort had “increasing power over the fundamental structure of social life” (Sharples 1991b, 93).
From about 100 BC the excavated evidence suggests a gradual breakdown of occupation of the hillfort. The rows of houses were replaced by occupation of a more random type. One of the excavated Late Iron Age houses had been constructed over a previously important road within the settlement. The western part of the hillfort was largely abandoned and settlement was concentrated in the eastern half. At the eastern entrance many of the ditches of the outworks were infilled and the settlement spread out through the entrance. An industrial area concerned with ironworking was found
133
133
west (Smith 1997, 211) and at Whitcombe Hill (SY71008803; Whitcombe 26) 2km south of Dorchester (Aitken 1990, 57-94). Concentrations of Durotrigan coins indicate other settlements in the Frome valley at Muckleford (SY63909335) and West Stafford (SY725891)
A ribbon of settlement evidence is visible on aerial photographs1km north of Maiden Castle and 2km south-west of Dorchester. It may have become the interim focus of occupation between the Latest Iron Age and Earliest Roman periods. The Dorchester by-pass cut through the eastern part of this site at Maiden Castle Road and revealed early Roman occupation including a Durotrigan burial (Smith 1997, 65). Fieldwalking across this area revealed pottery evidence that settlement continued and expanded here up to the 4th century.
Further east at Maiden Castle School (SY679895) (fig.66), two enclosures were discovered in 1992. The northern enclosure was excavated in 1993 (Bellamy, Graham and Richards 1993, 152) and consisted of an external ditch 1.5m deep enclosing a sub-rectangular area (0.5 ha) with an entrance on the south side. The former position of the interior bank was apparent in the absence of features in a clear zone of slightly raised protected chalk. Three round houses were found on the west side of the enclosure facing into an open area, partly metalled with flint gravel, interpreted as a courtyard that lay immediately inside the gateway. The north-eastern part of the enclosure appeared to be an open space with evidence of storage pits ranged along the back of the enclosing bank.
The concentration of occupation around Dorchester in the Latest Iron Age suggests that there was a focus there. Perhaps an oppidum pre-dated the Roman foundation but there is very little evidence for pre-Roman settlement from excavations within the town apart from occasional coins and brooches (RCHM 1970, 553) and some pottery (Woodward 1993, 359). A concentration of burials at Fordington, poorly recorded in the 18th and 19th centuries, may have a late Iron Age element. Particularly the horse and human burials found under Fordington church which may indicate a chariot burial (ibid. 554 no.216d). There are also references to burials with swords and at least one crouched burial under Fordington High Street to the north-west of the church (ibid. 573 no 216a-b). One of the swords was described as being over 2 ½ ft (0.8m) long 137
137
and this indicates a warrior burial like the Late Iron Age example found at Whitcombe.
Sacred Spring
Woodward (1993, 361) has suggested that the Durotrigan burials around Dorchester are concentrated around a sacred spring that occupied a coombe leading down to the Frome. This lay under Wollaston Field, within the east part of the later Roman town and west of Fordington. The Roman town baths that were discovered during the excavations of 1977 occupied this site but the excavations did not penetrate below the Roman structures and therefore an Iron Age origin cannot be demonstrated. However, the site may have been like the spring at Bath where the Roman bath was constructed on the shrine to the Iron Age deity Sulis where Dobunnic and Durotrigan coins were found at the lowest excavated level (Davenport pers comm.). Evidence of Late Iron Age continuity of worship into the Roman period is also found locally at Jordan Hill near Weymouth where many burials were found in the 19th century associated with a building thought to be a Romano-Celtic temple (RCHM 1970, 616).
67: Distribution of Iron Age ditches around Dorchester (Sparey-Green 1986, 194) ©Dorset County Museum
138
138
Oppidum?
The possibility of an oppidum at Dorchester was suggested by Sparey-Green (1987, 147) who considered Poundbury and Maiden Castle in a wider defensive context (fig.67). He linked the Late Iron Age refurbishment of the hillforts with lengths of substantial Iron Age ditches found in the Dorchester environs (Sparey-Green 1986, 194-5). He thought that Dorchester might once have had oppidum-like ditch systems like those found around Late Iron Age Chichester and Silchester (Fulford and Timby 2000, 545-7). If the Fordington evidence indicates high status burial at Dorchester it would be another indicator of Late Iron Age oppidum status for the site. For example, rich burials are associated with oppida like Verulamium and Camulodunum.
Concluding Remarks
Maiden Castle and Dorchester represent preferred locations for human activity, the relative importance of each shifting over time. In the Early Neolithic the centre appears to be Maiden Castle with its causewayed enclosure and bank barrow. From the Middle Neolithic to the Early Bronze Age the focus shifted to Dorchester and the construction of a cluster of ceremonial monuments.
Following a later Bronze Age- earliest Iron Age hiatus, from about 600BC Maiden Castle became the exclusive settlement within a hinterland extending from the north side of the Ridgeway to the Frome valley. This area has benefited from a range of well-published modern excavations and they have confirmed the lack of settlement outside the hillfort in the Early-Middle Iron Age. The exception is the settlement beside Poundbury hillfort at the ford across the Frome. The assessment of the functions of this occupation, as an outwork, guard post and secure haven for stock linked to the Maiden Castle settlement, is a persuasive explanation of its continuing existence at this strategic location.
Several other settlements were eventually located beside the Frome but they only become occupied in the later Iron Age when settlement begins to disperse from Maiden Castle.
139
139
Farmsteads have been excavated at Quarry Lodden, near Chalbury (SY69028396; Bailey & Flatters 1971, 135-143), 7km south of Dorchester on the south side of the Ridgeway and at Pins Knoll, Litton Cheney, 14km west of Dorchester (SY54159048; Bailey 1967, 147-159). Both occupation sites, in contrast to those closer to Maiden Castle, contained ceramic assemblages that indicated continuity of settlement from the Early Iron Age to the Roman period. Both farmsteads included examples of Durotrigan burial suggesting that their inhabitants were linked to the Maiden Castle area belief system in the latest Iron Age. However, these farmsteads operated outside Maiden Castle’s zone of depopulation.
Sharples (1990, 92) discussed the depopulation of the Maiden Castle area in the Early-Middle Iron Age and linked it to the lack of field system evidence from the Middle Bronze Age to the Late Iron Age. He suggested a communal land holding centred on Maiden Castle in the Early and Middle Iron Ages. The evidence of the reemergence of farmsteads and the practice of Durotrigan inhumation burial supports the change to individualism, in the Late Iron Age.
Such a model for change would be similar to the abandonment of farmsteads and the concentration of populations in villages that took place in the late Saxon period when open fields were created. The re-establishment of settlement outside of villages took place with the enclosure movement when new farms were created in the 18th and 19th centuries.
The evidence for a change from an insular population to a period of contact, particularly with the Purbeck pottery producers, has been demonstrated by the analysis of pottery assemblages at Maiden Castle (Brown 1991, 185-203). By the 3rd century BC, ‘saucepan pots’ were being imported from the north-east and SouthWestern Decorated Wares were being imported from the west and north-west. However, significant amounts of Maiden Castle/Marnhull style pottery were also being brought to the hillfort and fabric analysis showed that this pottery was produced in the Poole Harbour area. By the late 3rd to early 2nd century Poole Harbour wares accounted for 20% of the Maiden Castle assemblage. The percentage of Poole Harbour pottery fabrics rose to 60% in the late 2nd century assemblage, 77% by the
140
140
mid 1st century BC and 95% by the mid 1st century AD. Therefore the sudden shift of pottery use coincided with the resettlement of the Maiden Castle environs.
The Iron Age coin evidence demonstrates that the area was certainly within the Durotrigan/south-west series distribution. Their silver content suggests coin adoption at a later stage than Cranborne Chase. The 50% silver content of the coins found outside the east gate at Maiden Castle is the highest recorded for the area. The non-Durotrigan find spots indicate the places where contact with traders in the Late Iron Age is most likely to have taken place. The Celtic Coin Index records two Armorican coins and a Trinovantian coin from Maiden Castle. Six non-Durotrigan coins are listed for Dorchester including Atrebatic and Dobunnic issues. Elsewhere within the study area all the reported coins are Durotrigan and mainly base silver and bronze (fig.58).
The Late Iron Age movement of farmsteads toward the Frome valley, apart from the obvious attraction of a more convenient water supply, may also be linked to a sacred spring. The cluster of burials including a possible chariot burial around Fordington and the site of the later bath complex at Wollaston Field might imply a high status cemetery and shrine (for burials in and around Dorchester see Woodward A.1993, 238)
There is currently not enough evidence to support Sparey-Green’s (1987, 147) theory that there was a developing oppidum at Dorchester at the Roman Conquest but Late Iron Age high class burial would provide a stronger case and future excavations in and around Fordington church might add substance to this hypothesis.
The pre-Flavian evidence excavated from Dorchester has been linked to the debate concerning the position of a Roman military site in the Dorchester area. Peter Woodward set out the evidence for a fort beneath the town, occupied from c.AD 4465, and concluded that the establishment of the Durotrigan civitas of Durnovaria took place across the site of the abandoned fort no earlier than AD 65 (1993, 361), presumably after this area of the province had been subdued following the Boudiccan revolt.
141
141
Durotrigan burials and settlements North and East of Dorchester Durotrigan burials associated with settlement features have been found at Broadmayne (Young 1973, 44-49 SY726866) and as far north as Tolpuddle (Hearne & Birbeck 1999, 214-230, SY812949). The distribution pattern indicates that the Piddle valley lay near the edge of the area where this form of burial rite was adopted.
68: Portesham woman buried with bronze mirror (Fitzpatrick 1996, 53) ©Dorset County Museum
69: Whitcombe man with sword (Aitken 1990, 65) ©Copyright Dorset County Museum
70: Maiden Castle cemetery projectile head lodged in the spine of a male inhumation (Wheeler 1943, Plate LVIII)
71: Male burial with joints of meat and pottery vessels from Poundbury settlement (Woodward 1993, 7) ©Dorset County Museum
The Tolpuddle Ball settlement was located during the construction of the Tolpuddle to Puddletown Bypass. This site was occupied in the Middle Bronze Age and a few Early Iron Age sherds were found there but there were very few other finds of this date along the route of the bypass. Hearne (1999, 218) suggested that the local population occupied Weatherby Castle (SY807963; Milborne St Andrew 18) (fig.72), the bivallate hillfort 2km north of Tolpuddle Ball. If this were the case it would be further evidence of a general move into hillforts in southern Dorset at this time
142
142
(Sharples 1991, 257-60). Weatherby Castle has not been excavated and therefore there is no evidence to confirm this hypothesis. Tolpuddle Ball was reoccupied in the 3rd century BC and the settlement continued until the late Roman period.
72: Earthwork plan of Weatherby Castle, Milborne St Andrew 18 (RCHM 1970b, 180)
73: Earthwork plan of Woodbury, Bere Regis 118
©Crown Copyright.
(RCHM 1970a, 484) ©Crown Copyright.
Further east, and astride the Ackling Dyke, lies a large Romano-British settlement at Bagwood Copse (SY851971; Bere Regis 120). Parts of this site were excavated in the 1960s and traces of Late Iron Age occupation were found (Toms 1964, 110; 1966, 117). Metal detector finds from across this site have included over 20 Durotrigan coins (D.C.C. SMR). The univallate Woodbury hillfort (SY856948; Bere Regis 118) (fig.73) lies 2.5km south of this site but like Weatherby it has not been excavated and the relationship between Woodbury and Bagwood has not been determined.
Durotrigan burials and settlements West of Dorchester
The distinctive south Dorset style of Late Iron Age burial can be seen as far west as Burton Bradstock (Farrar 1965, 114-5, SY486895) and West Bay, Bridport (Farrar 1954, 90-95 SY456906) and perhaps the River Brit was the western boundary of the
143
143
distribution. At Pins Knoll, Litton Cheney, on the chalk escarpment above the Marshwood Vale (Bailey 1967, 147-159 SY541905), one of six Durotrigan inhumations within a settlement was of a young man buried with gaming counters and an iron stylus. At Portesham, a richly furnished grave of a woman was found (Fitzpatrick 1996, 51-70, SY611861). The grave goods included a decorated bronze mirror (the handle of a bronze mirror was also found at Bridport), a toilet set and copper alloy pan as well as a Durotrigan jar, bowls and joints of pork and mutton. Other Durotrigan burials at Portesham were found on the north side of the present village in association with a circular structure cautiously interpreted as a temple (Valentin, 2003, 23-69 SY60258596).
74: Eggardon Hillfort, Askerwell 12
75: Abbotsbury 31(RCHM 1952, 12)
(RCHM 1952, 14) ©Crown Copyright
©Crown Copyright
Pins Knoll lies central to four Iron Age hillforts or hilltop enclosures, Eggardon 4km to the north (SY540947; Askerwell 12) (fig.74), Chilcombe 1.5km to the north-west (SY530920; Chilcombe 3), Shipton Hill 3.5km to the west (SY508922; Shipton Gorge 11) (fig.76) and Abbotsbury Castle (fig.75) 4km to the south (SY542947; Abbotsbury 31). Like Pins Knoll, they occupy the west facing chalk escarpment, apart from Shipton, which lies on an outlying ridge of Upper Greensand connected to the escarpment by a neck of land much like Castle Ditches above the Vale of Wardour.
144
144
Only the largest of the four, Eggardon, has been the subject of a well recorded archaeological excavation and this revealed storage pits and ditches containing Middle Iron Age and Late Iron Age pottery (Wells 1978, 54-72) but pottery finds were sparse from the site.
At Shipton Hill, occupation evidence was found in the 1950s (Butcher 1955, 135) which dated from the Bronze Age to the Romano-British periods. Near the escarpment edge, a dump of about 1000 pebbles, presumably sling stones, was found above a dark soil containing Early Iron Age pottery decorated with finger print impressions (Wright 1997, 103-108).
76: Earthwork plan of Shipton Hill. Shipton Gorge 11 (RCHM 1952, 222) ©Crown Copyright.
A further 2km west of Shipton Hill lies ‘Chesils’ (SY484919), on a hilltop east of Bridport. The site lies above a steep escarpment and overlooks the mouth of the River Brit at West Bay. Numerous finds of Durotrigan pottery mixed with Romano-British material were found in the ploughsoil in the 1950s (Butcher 1957, 114-5). The ceramic assemblage included ribbed bead rim bowls and counter-sunk handles. This site may lie on the boundary between two communities divided by the Brit (see section 5.3 below p.163).
145
145
5.3 West Dorset West Dorset This is an area where few archaeological excavations have taken place and few finds have been reported. Once the chalk escarpment is crossed, the number of archaeological sites drops dramatically. Even the route of the Roman road from Dorchester to Exeter becomes unclear after Eggardon Hill. This is an area of Jurassic geology where Lias beds are capped by Upper Greensand. Much of the land is now pasture but it has been heavily ploughed in the past.
From Bridport west to the Devon border lies the Marshwood Vale and in this area four references to occupation during the Iron Age to Romano-British period are recorded. Whitchurch Canonicorum church (SY396956; Whitchurch Canonicorum 1) was found to contain reused Roman brick (Woolner 1961, 83). The other sites are find spots revealed at the cliff edge.
During a salvage excavation of archaeology threatened by coastal erosion at Thorncombe Beacon, Symondsbury (SY43509140), a few sherds of Late Iron Age and Romano-British black burnished pottery were found mixed with earlier prehistoric material (Papworth 2004a).
Similarly at Doghouse Cliff, Chideock (SY428913), occasional Iron Age and Romano-British sherds have been recovered with Middle Bronze Age pottery (Papworth 2000a, 91).
Further west between Ridge and Broom cliffs, Stanton St Gabriel (SY3942926339609251), a thin scatter of abraded Iron Age and Romano-British pottery has been found since the 1970s but geophysical survey of parch marks within the coastal pasture field at SY395926 revealed no significant patterns (Papworth 2001a, 132).
146
146
Inland, to the north along the Devon border and across the Marshwood Vale, the survey enters the next study area.
Study Box 3: West Dorset Study Box 3 Focus of Settlement
West Dorset
Settlement Pattern and Type Range of settlement elements
Continuity of Settlement and Sacred Association Distinctive Artefact Types
The focus is unclear, but probably Pilsdon Pen from the size of site and concentration of settlement evidence. High status is implied from a crucible with gold adhering to it recovered from trench E Small hillforts on escarpment edge otherwise unknown. Round houses (circular drip gulleys with circle of post-holes within), ovens and metal working hearth. No storage pits, four post structures nor property boundaries recorded. Palaeolithic, Mesolithic and Bronze Age finds from Pilsdon. Iron Age dating evidence sparse. Occasional South-Western Decorated, possibly some Durotrigan wares but mainly ‘Fine Sand’ wares but pottery finds sparse. Coins: A single Gallo-Belgic XB from Pilsdon. A scatter of coins from inside Roman fort of Waddon Hill are displaced and not in Iron Age context. Include 8 SW/Durotrigan coins, a W/Dobunnic coin, a Gallo-Belgic AB1 coin and a coin of Cantiaci None recognised: Acid soils, bone rarely found.
Burial Rite Topographic Description (fig.77)
The area is divided by the Upper Greensand escarpment with the south-east half of the area occupied by the small pasture fields and clumps of woodland of the Marshwood Vale and to the north-west by the high ground of the escarpment.
The Marshwood Vale is crossed by small streams, which drain into the River Char. The settlement pattern of the vale consists of hamlets or farmsteads such as Stoke Abbot, Broadoak, Salwayash, Kingsland, Filford, Monkwood, Pilsdon and Bettiscombe. Narrow meandering lanes link these.
147
147
77 West Dorset terrain, height in metres
The larger settlements lie in valleys draining north from the escarpment, these are Broadwindsor in the north-east corner of the study area and Thorncombe to the northwest.
The geology is Lias clays capped by layers of Gault clay and Upper Greensand sand and chert beds. The highest land along the summit of the escarpment is capped with the chert and these high points at Waddon Hill, Lewesdon Hill, Pilsdon Pen, Coney’s and Lambert’s Castle have distinctive level surfaces rather than domed summits. Lewesdon and Pilsdon are the highest hills in Dorset and provide clear views to the coast or inland across Dorset, Somerset and Devon .
Chronological Development
In sharp contast to Study Boxes 5.1 Purbeck and 5.2 south Dorset, this area contains few Iron Age sites that have been recognised. There is very little evidence to suggest that this area fell within the Durotrigan zone because very few artefacts have been recovered. 148
148
Site None Coney’s Castle Univallate hillfort Lambert’s Castle Univallate hillfort Pilsdon Pen Multivallate hillfort Lewesdon Hill Univallate hillfort Waddon Hill Roman fort Waddon Hill north Occupation debris
Zone Marshwood Vale Chert Ridge Whitchurch Canonicorum 18 Chert Ridge Hawkchurch, Devon (Excav. 1990) Chert Ridge Pilsdon 3 (Excav 1964-71) Chert Ridge Broadwindsor 44 Chert Ridge Stoke Abbott 14 (Excav.1959-69) North-west vales Stoke Abbott (Finds 1959)
NGR
BA
EIA
MIA
LIA
SY372975 RCHM I, 275
…
…
…
…
SY372990 (Lester 1990)
…
…
…
…
ST412013 RCHM I, 179 (Gelling 1977) ST447013 RCHM I, 56 ST449015 RCHM I, 226 (Webster 1979) ST448017 (Cobham 1959)
*
…
*
*
…
…
…
RB
--
…
* …
79: Earthwork plan of Coney’s Castle ©Crown Copyright Whitchurch Canonicorum 18 (RCHM 1952, 264)
The character of the few archaeological finds and the terrain and geology are more closely related to east Devon than the areas north and east of the study box. Hembury
149
149
hillfort near Honiton (ST112031) is similar to Pilsdon and the excavation records of the two sites will be compared below. There is evidence of pre-Iron Age occupation on the sites of the hillforts in the study box. At Coney’s Castle two round barrow sized mounds are shown on William Woodward’s map of 1769 (DRO D/11704) but these sites have since been levelled by cultivation (SY37159735) or quarried for chert (SY37209762). A mound within Lambert’s Castle may originally have been a round barrow (SY37189895) before being altered to build a fair house in the 18th century. Two burial mounds survive as
80: Earthwork plan of Lambert’s Castle , Hawkchurch (Thackray 1979) ©Crown Copyright
earthworks within Pilsdon Pen hillfort (ST41330123; ST41330119) and earlier prehistoric occupation is indicated by fragments of chert and flint recovered from the hillfort dated to the Mesolithic and Upper Palaeolithic periods (RCHME 1995). Struck Upper Greensand chert fragments have also been found on the west summit of Lewesdon Hill (Dunkin 2004, ST43500136) and flint flakes have been recovered
150
150
In January 1990, a tree fell and tore up part of the north-west rampart (SY37139916). The disturbed ground was cut back to record a section across the rampart. The phases of rampart were constructed of chert rubble with evidence of a box rampart replaced by a stone revetted glacis rampart. No dateable finds were made apart from 19th century bottle glass found in the field boundary wall built on top of the rampart (Lester 1990, 115) (fig.87). Coney’s Castle At Coney’s Castle, (fig.79 p.149), 1km south of Lambert’s, a minor road runs through the hillfort. This is probably where the original entrance or entrances existed at the north and south ends. It has an enclosed area of about 2.5 hectares which includes a smaller south enclosure which is probably an extension of the original larger enclosure. No dateable finds have been recovered from the site. Coney’s Castle appears to have an association with Lambert’s Castle as they lie on hilltops either side of a lower shoulder of land, which is today a crossroads. They were perhaps built to defend this access point. A number of similar univallate forts lie west of these sites (e.g. Musbury 9km to the south-west; Membury, 10km to the north-west and Blackbury Castle 19km to the west). In 1955, a section through the rampart of Blackbury Castle indicated a construction date of 5th or 4th century BC (Todd 1987, 161). Lewesdon Hill The last of the hillfort sites is Lewesdon Hill, which lies east of Pilsdon. Of the four in this study area, it has the least evidence for prehistoric activity but occupies the highest position. It covers an area of about 1.5 hectares and has an entrance at the narrow west end protected by a cross-ridge dyke. There are traces of an inner rampart on the north side of the flat-topped interior but chert quarrying may have removed much of the evidence. Unlike the Portland and Purbeck limestone quarries, quarrying for chert at Coney’s, Castle, Lewesdon Hill and Pilsdon Pen in the 19th century led to no reports of discoveries at these sites. This despite the vigilance of the antiquarian Charles Warne
158
158
(RCHME 1995). However, quarrying at Waddon Hill 1km east of Lewesdon led to the reporting of Roman finds in 1893 (Webster, 1960, 88). Waddon Hill Graham Webster’s excavations of 1959-69 revealed the plan of a fort occupied from about AD 50-60. The report records no pre-Roman features but there was evidence of tree clearance and levelling before construction (Webster 1979, 55). The evidence for Iron Age occupation was limited to Durotrigan coins and pottery traded or looted from the area. These finds are the best evidence that this study box once lay within the Durotrigan zone of influence but there was also a Dobunnic coin and a coin from Kent found on the site. Many Iron Age coins have been found on Roman military sites and it has been suggested that the distribution pattern they create should be treated with caution rather than be used to define tribal boundaries (Mays and Haselgrove 2000, 251). Most of the other 1st century Roman forts within the Durotrigan zone lie within or close to significant Iron Age forts such as Hod Hill, South Cadbury, Ham Hill and perhaps Maiden Castle. The reason for siting Waddon Hill outside the ready-made fortification of Pilsdon Pen is unclear. It is also sited in an area where the available evidence indicates a low Iron Age population. Perhaps this impression is wrong and for various reasons the Iron Age of west Dorset is difficult to detect. Traces of tesserae found on the north side of Waddon Hill (Cobham 1959, 106), may indicate that a Roman occupation site overlies an earlier settlement here. Such continuity between the Late Iron Age and Romano-British periods is frequently discovered (e.g.see Halstock in 5.4 below). East Devon These west Dorset sites occupy similar geology and the appearance of the hillforts is similar to those of east Devon. One of the largest hillforts in east Devon is Hembury. It is thought to lie within the Dumnonian zone of influence and has three rings of ramparts and ditches enclosing an area of about 3.5 hectares with entrances on the east and west sides. Hembury is similar in plan to Pilsdon Pen. Excavations have been carried out at Hembury in
160
160
1930-35 (Liddell 1935, 135-75) and 1980-83 (Todd 1984, 251-68). This work revealed a causewayed enclosure and other Neolithic features overlain by the hillfort inner rampart. The earliest rampart was clearly of timber framed box construction and this was replaced by a glacis rampart. There were no finds from the earlier rampart but two sherds of South-Western Decorated ware were recovered from the later rampart. Inside the hillfort, traces of only one round house was found and no storage pits. The latest occupation was 1st century Roman. Rectilinear beam slots and associated pottery and coins indicated a fort site contemporary with Waddon Hill AD 50-60. Three Claudian coins but no Iron Age coins were found. The lack of pottery from the earliest phase of construction is similar to Pilsdon. When pottery does reach the area it tends to be occasional fragments of South-Western Decorated Ware. This style of pottery was in production from about 250BC to the earliest years of the 1st century AD. This is ceramic phase 8 at South Cadbury (Woodward 2000, 42) where South-Western Decorated Ware was replaced by Durotrigan pottery in ceramic phase 9 with little overlap (see 5.4 below). Therefore, the survey of the available evidence provides little evidence for a chronological framework for Iron Age west Dorset. The earliest phases are aceramic and from the later Middle Iron Age rare fragments of dateable material reach the area from outside. In the latest Iron Age Durotrigan material is recorded but most of this is found within the Roman fort at Waddon Hill. Concluding Remarks The Purbeck study area contained 31 sites, many with dense concentrations of artefacts. West Dorset has four sites that were probably occupied in the Iron Age, only one of which has produced dateable Iron Age material. However, it is fortunate that so much of the interior of Pilsdon was excavated because it revealed numerous occupation features, despite the lack of artefacts. In contrast to the eastern areas, the Iron Age archaeology of west Dorset is inconspicuous. For example, in the autumn of 2005 the water pipes across the National Trust’s Golden Cap Estate were renewed and an archaeological watching
161
161
brief took place during the work. Despite the inspection of several kilometres of pipeline no dateable Iron Age material was found (Bellamy 2006). This is presumably because organic materials have been destroyed by the acid soils and pottery was generally not in use. The leaching of the sandy soils makes stratigraphic identification difficult. Flint objects would need to be brought from a distance, worked chert is difficult to identify and use of other types of stone or industrial processes have not been recorded. West Dorset has probably always had a lower population than the chalklands to the east. Excavation of the Bronze Age burial mound at Golden Gap produced a pollen sequence that showed that oak woodland existed before the land was cleared and that the barrow had been constructed around 1900BC (Papworth 1993b, 61). The chalkland would have been more open by that time with more land cleared of trees for agriculture. The comparative density of burial mounds on the chalk reveals the apparent difference in population sizes and the land west of Bridport is still a quiet area of small towns, villages and farmsteads. However, although it cannot be claimed that this was a densely occupied area in the Iron Age there are probably many undetected farmstead and settlement sites. Those on the lower ground of the Marshwood Vale to the south and valleys and ridges north of the Upper Greensand escarpment, will be buried by colluvium with few dateable finds to draw the attention of archaeologists. The rare finds by walkers examining the coastal erosion further south, indicate that the evidence is there but difficult to identify. No storage pits have been recorded from these western sites. This may be because the acid soils or type of geology made this form of grain storage impractical but it should be noted that at Pins Knoll (Bailey 1967, 151) on the east edge of the Marshwood Vale, storage pits cut into greensand were recorded. The fort at Waddon Hill indicates that the 1st century Roman military commanders were aware of a significant, potentially hostile population in west Dorset. The Durotrigan finds from this site, (in contrast to the lack of Durotrigan finds from Hembury Roman fort) may indicate that by the latest Iron Age, west Dorset was within the Durotrigan sphere of influence. However, this seems unlikely. There is
162
162
more evidence to support the suggestion that the Iron Age population was more heavily influenced by groups of people further west. The types of hillfort and lack of storage pits, ceramics or other durable material culture in the west Dorset study area is similar to the east Devon sites. It should also be noted that when south Somerset came under Durotrigan influence it became inundated with Poole Harbour pottery, in sharp contrast to the occasional sherds found amongst the round houses of Pilsdon Pen. The boundary of the Durotrigan zone may lie only 2km east of the study area. In August 2003 Brian Darch metal detected a hoard of 160 Durotrigan base silver staters (ST482009). These were found 3km east of Waddon Hill, at Beaminster, near the source of the Brit and at the foot of the conical Coombe Down Hill. They may mark a significant sacred site (Peter Woodward 2006 pers.comm.) perhaps comparable with Cold Kitchen Hill. Near Bridport lies the most westerly settlement site with a conspicuous ceramic presence. This is ‘Chesils’ above West Bay (SY484919) where numerous sherds of Durotrigan pottery have been found (Butcher 1957, 114-5). The current distribution map of known Durotrigan burials also does not continue west of the Brit. The two burials with Durotrigan jar, mirror handle and other bronze objects (Farrar 1954, 905), found after a cliff fall, lay at the mouth of the Iron Age course of the river Brit (SY45609068). Lack of coinage, pottery and the distinctive south Dorset burial rite indicates that in the Late Iron Age west Dorset contained a community that lay outside the Durotrigan sphere of influence.
163
163
5.4 North West Dorset and South Somerset
Travelling north from Pilsdon Pen and into the landscape bordering Somerset and Dorset, Iron Age settlement seems sparse until the hillforts of Ham and South Cadbury are reached. The rivers flow toward the Bristol Channel rather than the south coast and the archaeological evidence seems to indicate a corresponding change in regional affiliation and cultural identity. Halstock Halstock (ST534076) lies on the north slope of the North Dorset Downs. Excavations here between 1967-1985 (Lucas 1993) revealed that the Roman villa overlay a Late Iron Age farmstead. There is a hiatus of occupation on the site from the mid-1st century until the place is reused in the mid-2nd century. Lucas (1993,129) considered whether this was due to the disruption caused by the Roman Conquest. He noted the presence of Roman sites with 1st century occupation evidence along the Yeo river valley between Halstock and Ilchester. These sites may have originated in the Iron Age (ibid.). A similar cluster of Roman sites are found along the River Carey north of Ilchester (Leech 1976, 145-157) including the village of Catsgore (Ralegh Radford 1951, 41-77; Leech 1982) which became established in the later 1st century (ST507265). Catsgore and Halstock therefore are not examples of continuity through the Roman Conquest period in this area. Another site that provides evidence for disruption of occupation is Perrott Hill School, North Perrott (ST46680965). This lies in Somerset close to the border with Dorset, 7km north-west of Halstock and 10km south of Ham Hill. Perrott Hill School and Sherborne The occupation on the site began in the early Middle Iron Age and continued up to the mid 1st century AD. Storage pits, enclosure boundaries and round houses were excavated. In the last phase of the settlement, the buildings were burnt and the excavation report suggested that these were deliberately destroyed (Hollinrake 1997, 47). Three Late Iron Age crouched burials were found in oval earth graves on the
164
164
settlement and it was thought that one of them had been disturbed by ploughing soon after burial as the articulated skeleton had been torn in half and the remains dragged partly out of the grave pit (fig.89). Nancy Hollinrake compared the site with human remains found at Ham Hill and South Cadbury where there is evidence for violence in the mid first century (ibid. 62-68).
Disturbed burial
89: Plan showing occupation phases Perrot Hill School (Hollinrake 1997 unpublished)
Crouched burials without grave goods of Late Iron Age date (see also South Cadbury below) were also found in oval earth graves at Tinney’s Lane, Sherborne (McKinley 1999a, 56-7) associated with some evidence of contemporary occupation (ST64411687). Fieldwork by C.E Bean (1958, 90-100) revealed a cluster of Iron Age
165
165
and Romano-British sites in and around Sherborne, paticularly Pinford Lane which lies 400m east of Tinney’s Lane. Ham Hill
90: Earthwork plan of Ham Hill (RCHM 1997, 6) ©Crown Copyright
Ham Hill (ST487166) can be claimed to be the largest hillfort in the country if Bindon in Purbeck is discounted. The rampart and ditch enclose a plateau of 85 hectares (210 acres), roughly oval in plan with a narrow finger of land projecting north from its north-west side. Early surveys of this part of Ham Hill recorded inturned entrances typical of the Iron Age on its east and west sides. This spur may once have been divided from the main plateau by a rampart and ditch. This would have created a more defensible annexe to the main hillfort, but subsequent quarrying and building construction has removed the evidence for this.
166
166
Study Box 5.4: South Somerset About 18km south-east of the Glastonbury Lake Village and 11km east of Ilchester lies the multivallate hillfort of South Cadbury. The recent publication of the excavations within the hillfort (Barrett, Freeman & Woodward 2000) and the ongoing research into the settlement history and archaeology of the land surrounding it (Tabor 2000b, 25-30; 2004b, 85-97) provides valuable information to enable the comparison of this area with other parts of the Durotrigan zone.
Study Box 4
South Somerset
Focus of Settlement
Occupation evidence is centred on South Cadbury hillfort in the EIA & MIA periods and increasingly moves out into environs in LIA A secondary centre at Sigwells SE of the hillfort develops from late MIA on the limestone escarpment.
Settlement Pattern
Multivallate hillfort with dense occupation within ramparts but also on the land immediately surrounding the hillfort. Settlement around the hillfort not identified in the EIA but it increases from the later MIA when occupation at Cadbury reaches its zenith. Later IA enclosed farmstead excavated at Sigwells. An unenclosed farmstead excavated at West Bampfylde. More evidence of LIA occupation in the wider landscape with dramatic change of ceramics cAD 30-50. A hiatus of settlement from c. AD 60-150.
Range of Settlement Elements
Ditched enclosures linked by trackways. Drip gulleys, stake and post-holes for round houses. Storage pits, ovens and hearths. Four & six post structures.
Continuity of Settlement & Sacred Association
Occupation on Cadbury Hill dating from the earlier Neolithic until the latest Iron Age with evidence of 1st century Roman military occupation. Around Cadbury there are gaps in occupation evidence in the earlier Iron Age and later 1st century AD. A cruciform structure within the hillfort may be a Romano-British temple on a LIA sacred site and a rectilinear enclosure by a trackway at Sigwells may be a mortuary enclosure.
171
171
In addition to structured pit deposits with ritual burial of querns and jaw bones, there are structured ditch deposits with their upper fillings frequently including whole and crushed pots within them. Bones, particularly jaws and long bones are found at ditch terminals e.g. Milsoms Corner.
Distinctive Artefact Types
Good pottery sequence EIA local manufacture, MIA-LIA local and SW decorated ‘Glastonbury’ wares with other imported wares. LIA2 Durotrigan wares, few local ceramic products. Numerous AD 1st century brooches from SW gateway of ‘massacre deposit’ Coins: 11 SW/ Durotrigan series, metal analysis shows that 6 of these have 50-80% silver content. Therefore although this lies in the later phase coin area coin silver content can still be high. No gold British B or O coins. 1 W/Dobunnic series and 1 possibly British A from South Cadbury hillfort excavations. 1 Bronze SW/Durotrigan coin found in shovel pit during the Cadbury environs project. 3 other bronze examples found by metal detectorists.
Burial Rite
Adult burial below the inner rampart on the E side of the hillfort, child inhumation from hillfort interior and the LIA2 massacre deposits at the SW gate. No references to parts of human bodies recovered from the excavated storage pits although a human jaw found in a ditch at Crissels Green. LIA crouched earthen grave burial without grave goods between settlement and stream at Eastcombe Farm, an adult in ‘concertina’ position without legs in another trench 250m from last LIA adult pit burial and infant pit burial with Poole Harbour pottery from Sigwells enclosure.
Topographic Description (figs. 95 & 104 p.185) The land of the study area varies in height from almost 200m to less than 50m OD. Most of the higher land lies on its east side and consists of Inferior Oolite and Fullers Earth overlying Upper Lias sand. This land forms an escarpment with the Middle and
172
172
Lower Lias deposits on the low land to the west. Along the top of the escarpment
95: Survey Area South Cadbury Environs project (Tabor 2004b, 2)
from south to north are Corton Ridge, Corton Hill, Sigwells and Pen Hill. Cadbury hillfort occupies the summit of an isolated remnant of inferior oolite with an 0.5km vale separating it from the escarpment summit of Sigwells. On the north-west side of Cadbury Hill, the River Cam crosses the area from its source in the escarpment near Yarlington flowing south west. It runs between 173
173
Cadbury Hill and an east-west ridge of Rhaetic clay known as Camel Hill before leaving the area via the villages of Queen Camel and West Camel. A network of other springs and streams emerge from the escarpment and meander across the vale of Middle and Lower Lias clays. The area has many farms and settlements, only the lower clay land in the north-west corner of the study box and the higher downs in the south-east are sparsely occupied. The modern villages of Charlton Horethorne and Corton Denham occupy coombes within the downs. To the north-west, Yarlington, Woolston, Blackford, Compton Pauncefoot, South Cadbury and Sutton Montis are spring-line settlements, listed from north to south and located along the foot of the escarpment. Further north-west, North Cadbury, South Barrow, Sparkford, Queen and West Camel, West Bamfylde and Marston Magna, along with other farms and hamlets, lie on the Lower Lias clays. The main route to the south-west, the A303, crosses the centre of the study area from east to west and numerous lesser roads, tracks and paths form a network linking the numerous settlements and farms. Chronological Development The combined fieldwork both within South Cadbury and the land surrounding it provides the data for a more detailed narrative of the occupation of the area than would normally be possible for a hillfort and its environs.
Site
Zone
NGR
BA
EIA
MIA LIA
RB
South Cadbury, Multivallate hillfort 11 SW/Durotrigan 1 W/Dobunnic
Hill top South Cadbury (Excav 1966-73)
ST628251
*
*
*
*BP
*
Sigwells Multi-period enclosed and unenclosed settlement
Escarpment plateau Charlton Horethorne (Excav 1993-2004)
ST640235 Tabor (2004b)
*
*
*P
*
Hicknoll Stait Occupation debris
Escarpment plateau Compton Pauncefoot (Finds)
ST640250 (Tabor 2002)
…
…
174
174
Milsom’s Corner Settlement Rectilinear enclosures
Hill spurs and slopes west South Cadbury (Excav 2000)
ST622252 (Tabor 2002)
*
Castle Farm Settlement
Hill spurs and slopes east South Cadbury (Excav 2003)
ST635250 (Tabor 2004b)
*
Home Ground Occupation debris
Hill spurs and slopes north South Cadbury (Finds)
ST627255 (Tabor 2002)
*
The Moor to Stonehill Occupation debris
Hill spurs and slopes south South Cadbury (Finds)
ST627245 (Tabor 2002)
…
Wembley and Scourlands Occupation debris
Cam Valley North Cadbury (Finds)
ST633265 (Tabor 2002)
…
Weston Bampfylde Occupation debris
Cam Valley Sparkford (Finds)
ST615253 (Tabor 2004b)
*
Sparkford Hill Occupation debris
Cam Valley Sparkford (Finds)
ST605255 (Tabor 2004b)
East of Queen Camel Occupation debris
Cam Valley Queen Camel (Finds)
ST607246 (Tabor 2004b)
NE of Sparkford Bridge Occupation debris
Cam Valley South Cadbury (Excav 1988)
ST62092638 (Adkins 1988)
NE of Little Weston Farm Occupation debris
Cam Valley South Cadbury (Excav 1988)
ST6250262 (Adkins 1988)
Yarlington Mill Farm
Cam Valley Yarlington (Excav 1990)
ST64442864 (Rawlings 1992)
*
Queen Camel Occupation debris
Cam Valley Queen Camel (Excav 1990)
ST60132432 (Rawlings 1992)
*
Camel Hill Occupation debris
Rhaetic clay Queen Camel (Excav 1992)
ST58382551 (Cox 1992)
Englands Occupation debris
Limestone plateau Charlt.Hore.(Finds)
ST67352445 (Tabor2004b)
175
175
*
*
…
*
*B
*
…
*
*
*
…
*
*
…
…
*
*
…
…
…
…
…
…
*
*
…
*
*
*
*
Silver Knap Enclosures and platforms
Limestone plateau Charlton Horethorne (Earthworks)
ST666242 (Tabor 2004b)
?
South Cadbury
l 97: Earthwork plan of South Cadbury showing sites of excavations 1966-73 (Barrett, Freeman and Woodward 2000, 16) ©English Heritage
The 7 hectare South Cadbury hillfort, enclosed by four sets of ramparts and ditches, has been built on a steeply scarped limestone hill. Access to the summit is gained via entrances to the north-east and south-west. A third gateway on the east side was blocked at some stage. The inner rampart is the oldest and the outer ramparts were added between 300BC and AD50.
176
176
98: Plan of excavated features within South Cadbury (Barrett, Freeman and Woodward 2000, 156) ©English Heritage
Fieldwork and excavation have revealed that there was considerable occupation on South Cadbury hill during the Neolithic period but little was found that dated to the earlier Bronze Age. This in contrast to the area around the hill where test pits and excavations have shown dispersed settlement linked to field systems and burial mounds; particularly at Milsoms Corner to the west, Sigwells to the south-east and around South Cadbury village to the east. There is a move towards the top of South Cadbury hill from the later Bronze Age. The Late Bronze Age and Iron Age ceramic assemblage from the hillfort is considerable and, next to the 20 seasons of excavation at Danebury, is the second largest assemblage ever recovered by excavation in Britain (Woodward 2000, 24). The occupation of the hill around 1000BC begins with a cluster of buildings established on the plateau associated with a small number of pits and a spread of occupation debris including finds of Late Bronze Age metalwork. Outside the hillfort the distribution of Late Bronze Age pottery becomes less dispersed and is concentrated on the east and west slopes of the hill. At Milsom’s corner, a Late Bronze Age shield was found in the upper filling of a Middle – Late
177
177
Bronze Age boundary ditch which cut through an Early Bronze Age grave. The burial of the shield on the route up to the hill summit from the south-west gave it a ‘threshold quality’ at a time when the hill top was newly settled. Its burial was unusual in that other shield burials of the period have been found as ritual river or bog deposits (Tabor 1999, 253). The burial of such a valuable item at a key point of access was interpreted as a symbol of the foundation of a significant place. The earliest episodes of enclosure of the hill are slight in comparison to the later massive ramparts. These later Bronze Age features overlay Neolithic deposits and at the south-west gateway consisted of a fence and lynchet bank overlain by a soil bank. The settlement nucleus developed throughout the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age with the establishment of circular buildings and four and six post rectangular buildings flanking the line of an east to west road which probably ran into a hollowway leading down the slope to the north-east entrance. A series of deposits seemingly derived from metalworking but including evidence of other industrial activity, lay north of the road and was built up as a series of cobbled working floors from the Late Bronze Age to the Middle-Late Iron Age. In the Early to Middle Iron Age (c.700-400 BC) (fig101, p.181) the pottery distribution map around South Cadbury is almost blank but with a concentration of excavated pottery from Milsoms Corner at the south-west gate and a few sherds from test pits at Chissell’s Green near South Cadbury village. In sharp contrast, the interior of the hillfort became densely settled. Tabor (2004b, 92) compared this situation with the periods of settlement nucleation demonstrated within Maiden Castle during the Early-Middle Iron Age and Danebury in the Middle Iron Age. Within the hillfort, round houses were built and re-built across the eastern plateau and alongside the developing hollow-way on the northern slope of the hill (fig.98). The geophysical survey revealed that round houses and pits covered most of the interior. It is in the Early and Middle Iron Age period that most of the rock cut storage pits were dug and infilled. Some of these may have been associated with particular residential buildings like those identified at Hod Hill (Richmond 1968, 21), others were dug onto the more exposed and seemingly unoccupied parts of the western plateau.
178
178
Throughout the period, the debris and cobbling associated with industrial activity on the plateau continued to develop and the evidence indicates that this area was fenced off from the settlement. In the later Middle and Late Iron Age the settlement activity becomes visible again outside the hillfort as increasing amounts of pottery indicate more dispersed settlement (fig.102 p.182). Pottery from this period has been found within test pits and from excavated features at Sigwells, West Bampfylde and Hicknoll Stait, Milsom’s Corner and from the fields around South Cadbury village. The excavation at the south-west gate revealed how often the ramparts were repaired and renewed and the amount of traffic that passed through the gateway eroding a deep hollow-way between the guard chambers that flanked the gateway. The excavations within the hillfort indicated that the settlement was beginning to decline during the 1st century AD. The changing character of the site is hinted at by the lack of buildings and fewer pits which belong to the late period and the burial of a number of calf and cattle carcasses in the area of the plateau which had previously been associated with industrial activity. However, the defences of the hillfort were maintained with refurbishment of the ramparts and the south-west gateway during this period (Barrett, Freeman & Woodward, 2000 xv). Cadbury Environs The distribution map of the 1st century pottery around the hillfort (Tabor 2004b, 89) (fig.103 p.182) shows additional sites from the Middle to Late Iron Age. These lie west and east of the hill and at Sigwells where a sequence of Iron Age settlement features excavated in 2003 included Middle and Late Iron Age storage pits and enclosure ditches. Pits at Sigwells containing Poole Harbour pottery of the 1st century AD include ritual deposits with human burials. One pit contained an ox skull with yellow sandstone inserted in the eye sockets, another had a horse skull and mandibles placed on the pit floor, another contained an articulated dog burial. A pit containing an infant burial had four near complete Poole Harbour ware vessels with it, including a jar with counter-sunk lug and a bead rim jar. A crouched inhumation of an adult male had been placed on the floor of another pit (Tabor 2004b).
179
179
Ann Woodward (2000, 42-3) assigns Cadbury ceramic phase 9 (the Poole Harbour ‘Durotrigan’ pottery) to ‘Late Cadbury’ which begins AD 40-50 and the Cadbury ceramic phase 8 pottery (South-Western Decorated or “Glastonbury” ware) to the end of Middle Cadbury 400 BC-AD 50. This was to place ‘Late Cadbury’ within the period of ‘Romanisation’ without assigning pre or post-Conquest pottery assemblages. Richard Tabor (2004b, 92) has become increasingly convinced that the Poole Harbour pottery came to dominate the ceramic assemblages of the area before the Roman Conquest. The problem is that the present archaeological dating is not refined enough to elucidate the rapid social changes of this period. The Poole Harbour ceramic dominance and the Roman Conquest may have taken place within a decade of each other (see below p.184-6). Within the hillfort, in the mid-late 1st century AD, a period of destruction occurred at the south-west gateway associated with a spread of fragmentary and partly burnt human remains, weaponry and dress fittings. All the indications are of a Roman attack against the local inhabitants and the dead included men, women and children, the bones scattered the length of the excavated part of the gateway and remains of at least 22 individuals were present. Another mass grave of ‘men and boys’ was found at a place called Westwoods Field (Bennett 1890, 18) at the foot of the hill beyond the western end of the ramparts. No dating evidence was recorded and therefore the find cannot be reliably linked to this phase of the hillfort’s history. Nevertheless the remains found at the south-west gate when considered with the burials from Ham and Perrott Hill School are evidence for an episode of 1st century conflict that affected the south Somerset area. Richard Tabor (2004b, 92) noted that the 1st century AD began with an intense period of activity around South Cadbury followed by a sudden lull that may have continued well into the 2nd century. Within the hillfort, a roadway was laid over the remains of the dead at the south-west gate, four phases of gateway refurbishment took place and a group of Roman timber barrack blocks was constructed within the interior. Final destruction of the gateway by fire took place probably in the second century. One structure, built on the Cadbury plateau and belonging to the mid-late 1st century, is interpreted as a small timber shrine and there are indications of at least one Roman masonry structure from earlier accounts and from the excavations of 1966-73. This
183
183
may have been a temple erected on the hill in the earlier Roman period (Barrett, Freeman & Woodward 2000, xv). Concluding Remarks The archaeological research in and around South Cadbury tends to confirm its role as a prominent locale to which the local population gravitated in the Neolithic and again from the Late Bronze Age to later Iron Age. In the Early and Middle Bronze Age, settlement was dispersed and not focused on the hill, and in the latest Iron Age Cadbury’s population began to decline. During the Early to early Middle Iron Age, South Cadbury can lay claim to be a central place in the same way that Maiden Castle (Sharples 1991, 259-60) and Danebury (Cunliffe 2000, 182) have been presented as centralised populations. That is, where settlement outside of the hillforts seems to have been severely restricted for a period. At Danebury this settlement concentration is thought to have taken place c.270BC100BC but at Maiden Castle it is from 600-200BC (Smith 1997, 299) compared with South Cadbury where the lack of settlement around the hillfort lasted from c.700BC350BC Cadbury ceramic phases 4-6 (Tabor 2004a, 36). Therefore Danebury is different, as the centralising forces that contained the population began later and lasted for a shorter period. South Cadbury compares more with Maiden Castle but Maiden Castle still stands out as the remarkably contained focus of a controlled social system. At South Cadbury, through most of the Middle Iron Age, significant settlement evidence can be found surrounding the hillfort. The cohesive force of the hillfort settlement was in decline by the start of the 1st century AD, although the hillfort defences were maintained. Was this area part of the Durotrigan zone at this time? Based on the evidence from the sites considered in north-west Dorset and south Somerset the answer must be no. There were trade links with the south evidenced in the form of shale and pottery imports but the distinctive South-Western Decorated Ware was in common use and
184
184
the distribution of this lies across Somerset, Devon and Cornwall. The distinctive ceramic decoration is matched on wooden objects preserved within the waterlogged conditions of the Mere and Glastonbury lake villages. It could be claimed that the decorations are an ethnic expression of a people who identified with each other.
104: SW/Durotrigan coin distribution related to rivers and contours at 10m intervals.
185
185
The sudden ending of the use of this pottery and the swamping of the market with Poole Harbour wares seems more than a change of fashion and probably the result of dominance from the south. This change can be combined with the arrival of coinage in this area. There are some W/Dobunnic issues introduced from the north but nearly all of the remaining coins are SW/Durotrigan. Melinda Mays’ (forthcoming) distribution maps of phase I and phase II Durotrigan issues (fig.36-37 p.88) clearly demonstrate that the south Somerset/north west Dorset area lies within Mays’ latest Iron Age phase II distribution. There are generally fewer coin finds and these tend to be bronze issues. This was true for the four coins from the study area found outside the hillfort (fig.104). However, six of the eleven SW/Durotrigan issues found within the hillfort had up to 79% silver content (Haselgrove and Mays 2000, 250). Therefore one could argue that the hillfort was a higher status settlement, attracting individuals with coins of higher value/silver content than elsewhere. The Crouched burials in oval earth graves have also been found associated with Poole Harbour sherds, indicating an influence of Durotrigan style burial but nothing exactly comparable with the burials of south Dorset. Therefore, is it possible to say whether this was a Durotrigan takeover or a Roman military imposition of imported Poole Harbour ceramics and SW/Durotrigan coinage into the area, as implied by Miles (1969, 51)? The evidence for the imposition of control from the Iron Age people of the south is plausible. It would have enabled the southerners to gain access to the Bristol Channel between the rivers Brue and Parrett, thus opening up, to a greater extent, markets for Purbeck products along the western coast of Britain. Waddon Hill and Pilsdon Pen demonstrate that the presence of the Roman army did not necessarily cause a sudden ceramic change. At Waddon Hill, the Poole Harbour pottery and Durotrigan coinage is contained within the Roman fort. In south Somerset it is found in various levels of settlement across the countryside. Some settlements like that at Halstock begin with a Durotrigan phase. The change is very late and sudden. At Maiden Castle the fabric analysis demonstrated a gradual percentage build-up to dominance of the Poole Harbour pottery over a period of 200 years which became increasingly rapid toward the end of
186
186
the period. At South Cadbury, the change happens so quickly that there were only seven pits of the many excavated within the hillfort; where ceramic phase 8 (SouthWestern Decorated) and phase 9 (Poole Harbour) pottery were found together. A modern comparison may be the way Safeways supermarket was absorbed by Morrisons in Warminster. The process in which the town’s only large supermarket had its brand completely changed took place in under a year. The signs, the carrier bags and the own-brand goods all now bear a different logo. The Cadbury ceramic evidence suggests a similar takeover. Perhaps in south Somerset, at the Roman Conquest, this was a newly annexed area, with a population dissatisfied with its Durotrigan brand. In these circumstances they might not oppose the Romans and in return the new authority might grant them client status and allow them to retain temporary power in the same way that the Iceni maintained independence for a while. Perhaps by AD 60 their remaining independence was removed, their territory was forcibly controlled by Rome and therefore they sympathised with Boudicca, joined her uprising and were defeated. In southern and eastern Dorset the excavated material suggests conflict then peace with the products of Purbeck adopted rapidly by the Roman authorities. The only known massacre deposit is from Spetisbury and this was poorly recorded and may be of more than one period including remains of the 1st century BC and 5th –6th centuries AD (see Badbury study area 5.7 below p.302-4). There is a distinct contrast between the cemetery at the east gate of Maiden Castle and the scattered bones through the south-west gateway at South Cadbury. At Ham Hill, South Cadbury and North Perrott there is evidence of severe measures against the local people by the Roman army. Consistently, south Somerset archaeologists record a hiatus in the third quarter of the 1st century AD (Tabor 2004b, 92; Hollinrake 1997, 65) where the land seems to have been largely abandoned and not reoccupied until the 2nd century AD. Ilchester seems to have been founded later than Dorchester, and Leech (1982, 7-8) speculated about the Boudiccan revolt and the evidence for unrest in the south west that prevented the II Legio Augusta joining the forces of Suetonius (Tacitus, The Annals XIV 34). Dorset archaeologists, with the
187
187
exception of Lucas (1993, 127) at Halstock, generally suggest continuity of settlement from the Iron Age and gradual Romanisation throughout the Roman Conquest period. The apparent difference of treatment by the Romans between the peoples of Dorset and Somerset may be between an enemy that was pacified and an ally that revolted. The continuing separateness of the two areas is supported by the inscriptions from Hadrian’s Wall set up by the Durotriges of Ilchester (Durotrigum Lendiniesis), this leading to the supposition that there was a separate civitas in this area (Stevens 1952, 188-92).
188
188
5.5 Central Dorset The Central Dorset Chalkland The survey has skirted the area of chalk downland north of the River Piddle and south of the Blackmore Vale. Comparatively little excavation has taken place here, although RCHM (1952 & 1972) carried out earthwork surveys of the enclosed farmsteads and extensive field systems of this undulating landscape before many were levelled by ploughing (fig.105). The farmsteads typically consisted of one or two round
105: Giant Hill, Cerne Abbas 31 settlement remains (RCHM 1952, 82) ©Crown Copyright
houses within or around a larger ovoid or rectilinear enclosure containing evidence for storage pits surrounded by trackways and rectilinear fields. The variety of forms can be seen around Cerne Abbas, for example, Giant Hill (ST668023; 31), Black Hill (ST670005; 32), Smacam Down (SY656995; 33) and Dickley Hill (ST656004; 34) (RCHM 1952, 82-84). The evidence suggests that the area was intensively farmed at least from the earlier Bronze Age. Excavations at Shearplace Hill, Sydling St
189
189
Study Box 5.5: Central Dorset and the confluence of the Stour and Iwerne Rivers Study Box 5
Central Dorset
Focus of Settlement
Two developed hillforts within 2km of each other on chalk hills flanked by the Stour and Iwerne rivers. Both contain dense concentrations of round houses.
Settlement Pattern
Concentration of settlement within Hod and Hambledon. At Hod, settlement continues beyond the east entrance beside the Iwerne. Similarly at Hambledon LIA-RB occupation occurs outside the hillfort to the north. Outlying upland farmsteads e.g. Turnworth Down and Pimperne are usually simple ovoid enclosures linked by trackways within ‘celtic’field systems. Evidence for continued use into the RomanoBritish period but they remain much as before Roman Conquest. However, sophisticated Roman buildings develop beside rivers from pre-existing Iron Age sites e.g. Iwerne Minster and perhaps Okeford Fitzpaine.
Range of Settlement Elements
Planned Iron Age round house pattern along roads within hillforts. Roads fan out from entrances. Round houses within rectangular or ovoid enclosures and curving palisade trenches. Fourpost structures associated with round houses, possible stables associated with round houses. Numerous storage pits many associated with buildings. Evidence for iron smelting within Hod.
Continuity of Settlement & Sacred Association
At Hod Hill, little EIA much MIA more LIA dating evidence. Presumed evacuation of hill top at Roman Conquest to site beside Iwerne River to enable Roman army to occupy the summit. At Hambledon the recovered IA material is EIA but little excavation. Much Neolithic and Bronze Age activity. A key centre in the earlier Neolithic and barrow group of EBA date. Later Bronze Age bronzes found. Apparent later IA focus shift to Hod Hill implied, but the earthwork evidence at Hambledon indicates maintenance and development of hillfort defences into the LIA. Continuity of LIA sites into RB period implied from fieldwalking of ploughed upland farmstead enclosures and from excavated evidence of villas beside rivers. Excavated evidence of structured deposits for pits at Pimperne and Hod and sacred enclosure for human burial within Hod Hill
196
196
Distinctive Artefact Types
Some MIA pottery from various sources: SouthWestern Decorated from Somerset and the west, Maiden Castle-Marnhull from south Dorset. Pottery from Wiltshire All Cannings Cross, Woodbury, Fifield Bavant, Swallowcliffe types. LIA dominance of Durotrigan pottery Hod: Hoards of sword shaped ‘currency bars’ found. Hod: Brooches numerous Coins: According to Celtic Coin index 21 from Hod Hill of which 15 SW/Durotrigan (1 inscribed CRAB), 1 British B, 1 Iceni, 2 Coriosolite and 2 uncertain. Other coins recorded from the hillfort include Lemovices, Dobunnic and ‘Kentish’ From Iwerne valley coins are also mainly SW/Durotrigan but 3 British B, a Dobunnic stater and 2 quarter staters of ‘West Sussex’ group have been found. Edge of earlier phase of Mays SW/Durotrigan distribution.
Burial Rite
Pit burials: EIA-LIA fragments of human bone in structured deposits. Later crouched burials within pits. Foundation burial? At Hod NE gate
Topographic Description (fig.112) The meandering River Stour cuts the 10km by 8km study area diagonally in half entering at its north-west corner beside Sturminster Newton and leaving from the south-east where it flows through Blandford Forum. Between these two towns it passes through the villages and hamlets of Hammoon, Fontmell Parva, Child Okeford, Shillingstone, Hanford, Durweston and Stourpaine. Near the centre of the study area, the Stour crosses from the Blackmoor Vale into the chalkland of central Dorset cutting its path into the chalk escarpment and forming a natural gateway. The chalk escarpment is an irregular steep edge, consisting of a series of coombes and spurs generally following a north-east to south-west alignment.
197
197
112: Rivers and contours at 10m intervals with SW/Durotrigan coin distribution
At the centre of the study area are two hills of chalk, separated from the main escarpment by the valley of the River Iwerne. This tributary flows into the Stour from the north passing through the villages of Iwerne Minster, Iwerne Courtenay and Iwerne Steepleton.
198
198
113: Earthwork plan of Hod Hill hillfort (RCHM 1970b, 262) ©Crown Copyright
The southern hill is occupied by the ramparts of Hod Hill which has the Iwerne against its east side and the Stour flowing at foot of its steep western slope. The two rivers converge at Stourpaine 1km south of Hod. Beyond a dry valley on the north side of Hod lies Hambledon. The central summit of the hill is occupied by a Neolithic causewayed enclosure and three fingers of chalk radiate from it, pointing south towards Hod, east towards the village of Iwerne Courteney and north towards the settlements of Fontmell Parva and Child Okeford. Hambledon hillfort lies on this northern spur. Hod and Hambledon are 1.5km apart but are not intervisible. Both hillforts can only be viewed from the Neolithic causewayed enclosure on the central summit of Hambledon Hill.
199
199
114: RCHM earthwork survey of south-east unploughed triangle Hod Hill (Richmond 1968 fig.2) ©Crown Copyright
To the north-west and south-east of the Stour valley, other farms and settlements lie beside streams that feed the river. The largest of these are Pimperne to the east and Okeford Fitzpaine to the west. However, settlement is clearly concentrated along the river valleys of the Iwerne and Stour, only a scattering of farms and barns occupy the coombes and spurs of the chalkland to the north-east and south-west.
200
200
Chronological Development Hambledon Hill For the Neolithic and Bronze Age periods the available evidence clearly indicates that Hambledon Hill was a significant place. Few Neolithic sites are known elsewhere in
115: Plan of earlier prehistoric features within and around Hambledon hillfort (RCHME 1996, 36) ©Crown Copyright
201
201
the study area. But for Hambledon, the central summit causewayed enclosure, the Shroton, Stepleton and Hanford enclosures, and that presumed to lie beneath the hillfort, suggest an Early Neolithic complex more extensive than Whitesheet Hill 20km to the north (fig.115). Associated with the enclosures are two long barrows one on the summit of the hillfort (ST84531265) and one on the south edge of the main causewayed enclosure (ST84891207). Polished stone axes, that have been found on the site, indicate the trade links of the population. In addition to the jade axe from central Europe, others were made from Cornish, Devonian, Welsh and Cumbrian stone. Radiocarbon analysis provided dates of 3,800-3,200 BC for the main period of occupation (RCHME 1996, 11). Later occupation of the central causewayed enclosure was found during the 1951 excavations. Finds included Peterborough and Beaker pottery of Late Neolithic – Early Bronze Age date (ibid. 10). Compared with Cranborne Chase to the east, there are very few Bronze Age burial mounds within the study area. Two lie on Shillingstone Hill (ST81930886), on the chalkland south-west of the Stour, otherwise they are sited on Hod or Hambledon. A single round barrow lies under the Roman fort at Hod and fragments of pottery found in Roman features around the site may derive from this site (Richmond 1968, 34). RCHME (1996, 33) shows six round barrows on Hambledon, five within the hillfort and one within the central causewayed enclosure. Some settlement on Hambledon Hill is likely throughout the Bronze and Iron Age periods. A socketed bronze spear head and a socketed bronze axe of later Bronze Age date have been found (ibid. 35). A univallate hillfort may have been built during the later Bronze Age (ibid. 73) and the earthwork analysis carried out by RCHME clearly demonstrates that there were several phases of expansion and remodelling of the site. The 1959 RCHM survey interpreted the northern hillfort spur enclosure as the earliest phase of the hillfort. However, Roger Mercer (1986) reinterpreted the site following his excavation and suggested that the northern and central thirds comprised the
202
202
original hillfort enclosure of 7 hectares. The circuit of this enclosure is irregular and
116: Plan of earthworks of round houses observed within Hambledon hillfort (RCHM 1996, 36) ©Crown Copyright
RCHME suggested that it included earlier features including the putative Neolithic enclosure (1996,38). The steepness of the hill slopes meant that a large rampart (now 22m wide and 4.5m high) and ditch were only necessary where the defensive circuit crossed the spur where the ground slopes up from the southern third of the fort (fig.116). This early rampart was later modified to accommodate three hut platforms including one 15m in diameter (RCHME Site j see discussion of Pimperne round house below) that is the largest of the c. 365 round houses now identified within the hillfort (ibid.
203
203
77). On the east side of site j was the entrance to the early hillfort. Another entrance probably lay at the north end of the spur but the gap in the ramparts has been mutilated by quarrying. Nearly all the dating evidence derives from the middle and northern thirds of the hillfort. Most of this comprises casual finds collected from erosion scars or rabbit scrapes. The Iron Age pottery found in the late 19th century and early 20th century is described in various ways but not illustrated. From Cunnington’s unlocated excavation on the summit it is ‘badly burnt soft pottery’ (1895,157). Bean described the pottery he found in the north-west hillfort ditches (ST84281280) as ‘Early Iron Age A’ (Bean 1959, 109) while Gardner described his finds as ‘All Cannings Cross ware that can be assigned to the Early Iron Age’. Eric Gardner (1928,54) found
Site Hod Hill Multivallate Hillfort 14 SW/Durotrigan, 1 W/Dobunnic, 1 Icenian,1Coriosolite 1 Lemovices 1 Kentish Hambledon Multivallate Hillfort
Banbury* Univallate Hillfort
Zone
Chalk escarpment crest between rivers Stourpaine 11 (Excav 1897; 1951-8)
NGR
BA
ST856107 RCHM III, 263 (Richmond 1968)
Chalk escarpment crest between rivers Child Okeford 22 (Excav. 1894; 1986)
ST841125 RCHM III, 82
Low hill top Blackmoor Vale Okeford Fitzpaine 38 (Excav 1986)
ST790120 RCHM III, 206 (Pearce & Wood. 1986)
*
EIA MIA LIA
RB
…
*
*P
*
*
*
*
…
?
?
?
(Mercer 1986)
Okeford Fitzpaine Chalk escarpment slope ST808102 Occupation evidence spring line RCHM III, 206 70-80 SW/Durotrigan Okeford Fitzpaine 39
*
*B
Ringmoor Oval enclosure
Chalk escarpment crest Turnworth 7 (Earthworks)
ST80850835 RCHM III, 291
*
*
Ringmoor Turnworth Oval enclosure
Chalk escarpment crest Turnworth 7 (Cropmarks)
ST80900855R RCHM III, 292
*
*
?
*
Ibberton, South Down Chalk spur enclosed settlement Ibberton 11 (Finds )
ST80530692 RCHM III, 125
204
204
?
?
?
*Meriden Down enclosed settlement
Chalk spur Winterborne Houghton 9,10 (Earthworks)
ST801149 RCHM III, 298
North of Hambledon Occupation evidence
Chalk spur Child Okeford (Finds 1933)
ST84261333 (Bean 1959)
*
*
Green Line Farm Occupation evidence 1 SW/Durotrigan
Chalk spur Child Okeford (Finds)
ST843134 (Darke 2002 pers comm)
…
*
Ditchey Coppice Rectilinear enclosure
Ridge top Iwerne Courteney 21 (Earthwork)
ST88701335 RCHM III, 131
?
?
?
?
?
W. of Steepleton Park Iwerne Valley Occupation evidence Hanford (Finds)
ST858112 (Darke 2002 pers comm)
*
*
Chissel, Ash & Lazerton Farms Extensive Settlement 10 SW/Durotrigan 3 British B 1 W/Dobunnic 2 ‘West Sussex’
Iwerne Valley Hanford 5 (Finds 1860, 1980-99)
ST860102 RCHM III, 104 (Darke 2002 pers comm)
*
*B
SE of Hambledon Ovoid enclosure
Chalk spur Hanford 6 (Earthwork)
ST855115 RCHM III, 104
?
?
?
Shillingstone Village Roman villa
Stour valley Shillingstone (Excav. 2003)
ST820120 (Cox pers comm)
…
Shillingstone Hill Enclosed settlement
Hill top Shillingstone 25 (Finds)
ST832093 RCHM III, 241
Bonsley Common Occupation evidence
Chalk spur Shillingstone 25 (Excav. 1860s)
ST821091 RCHM III, 242
SE of Down End Farm Ovoid enclosure
Hill top Stourpaine 13 (AP site)
ST875094 RCHM III, 265
Bryanston School Occupation evidence
Stour valley Bryanston 10 (finds)
ST870075 RCHM III, 48
Park House Farm Settlement SW/Durtotigan coins
Iwerne valley Iwerne Minster 15 (Excav 1897)
ST856137 RCHM IV, 40 (Pitt-Rivers)
Pimperne Down Chalk spur Large ovoid enclosure Pimperne 15 (Excav. 1960-3)
ST891097 RCHM IV, 54 (Harding 1993)
205
205
?
?
*
*
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
*B *
*
*
Pimperne Down Chalk spur Small ovoid enclosure Pimperne 16 (AP site)
ST891095 RCHM IV, 55
Durweston coin finds 3 SW/Durotrigan
Stour valley (Finds pre-2004
ST8508 Finds Liason Officer 2007
W of Pimperne Village Ovoid enclosure
Chalk spur Pimperne 17 (AP site)
ST900094 RCHM IV, 55
?
?
?
?
?
*
?
?
?
?
?
pottery on the west side of the hillfort but most of his collection was from the north rampart (ST843131). Here, deep in an erosion scar he found ‘lying under the parapet, a thick layer of pottery and charcoal: in other words, the parapet has been raised on an old cooking place” (ibid.). Roger Mercer’s excavation of the ditch crossing the northern hillfort spur enclosure took in an Iron Age house platform terraced into the upper silts of the earlier ditch. The house was circular in plan and 6.5m in diameter. Finds included a fragment of a bone weaving comb, glass beads similar to those found at All Cannings Cross, and an iron ‘swan’s neck’ pin suggesting a 6th or early 5th century date (RCHME 1996, 15). The house does not seem to have been rebuilt although there was a single sherd of LIA or RB black burnished ware included in the topsoil. A group of eleven sherds of pottery was found in 1996 in spoil from a rabbit burrow in the southern rampart (ST84601232). The pottery was mixed with burnt flint, two pebbles probably sling stones and animal teeth (sheep or pig). The report (Brown 1996 & 95) gives the date of the pottery as probably Neolithic disturbed in the Iron Age but no later than “8th -7th centuries BC if the red-finished bowl fragment is of All Cannings Cross type”. Although the ceramic evidence indicates an Early Iron Age date for the hillfort, the RCHME survey established a relative chronological framework for the development of the ramparts and ditches (fig.116). These include enclosing the southern third of the hillfort, the building of an outer rampart around the entire hillfort, the building of the east and west gateways, the addition to them of hornworks and in the case of the east entrance, the later addition of a barbican. However, because of the lack of excavated evidence it is unclear whether these changes took place during a short
206
206
period of time or over several centuries (RCHME 1996, 72). It is possible, as indicated at Poundbury, that the hillfort was maintained, upgraded but not widely occupied in the later Iron Age. Pimperne
117: Earthwork plan of Pimperne Early Iron Age enclosure (RCHM 1972, 54) ©Crown Copyright
The 2.5 hectare enclosure near the summit of Pimperne Down (ST891097) reveals that despite the concentration of house sites at Hambledon, settlement was not restricted to the hillfort in the Early Iron Age. Only one house was identified within the enclosure and pottery associated with this and pits and post-holes at the south and east entrances dated the site to the 6th-5th centuries (RCHM 1972, 54). Barry Cunliffe compared the 15m diameter Pimperne round house to that at Cow Down, Longbridge Deverill, Wiltshire and suggested that the size of the enclosure at Pimperne may not
207
207
reflect the size of a settlement but rather the status of the occupants (1991, 27). Large round houses like those at Cow Down, Pimperne and perhaps RCHME Site j at Hambledon are generally of Early Iron Age date (ibid. 227). At the south entrance were found semi-articulated remains of a horse and ox. At the east entrance the ditch terminal contained a human femur and half a skull.
118: Photograph of excavated round house within the Pimperne enclosure (RCHM 1972, 41) ©Crown Copyright
Hod Hill There is some pottery from Hod Hill dated from the latest Bronze Age to earliest Iron Age. Four of the five illustrated sherds were found near the round barrow within the Roman fort. This is the highest point of the hill and may indicate an early focus of occupation here although all the finds were redeposited in Roman features. The fifth sherd was also re-deposited and lay within the filling of the annex ditch to hut 56 in the south-east quadrant of the hillfort. The pottery was decorated with finger impressions typical of the Deverel-Rimbury style. Only one sherd was identified as All Cannings Cross pottery in contrast to the occasional finds from Hambledon which are generally thought to be of this style.
208
208
The pottery from Hod Hill is predominantly of Middle and Late Iron Age date (fig.119). As with Hambledon, although the pottery indicates a shorter period of occupation the development of the hillfort takes place in several phases. These phases if compared with the evidence from Maiden Castle and South Cadbury would be expected to have taken place over several centuries.
119: Ian Richmond’s diagram with his dates for finds and the sequence of ramparts excavated at Hod Hill (1968, fig.37).
The sections through the ramparts and ditches on the north-east side of the Steepleton Gate and mid way along the north side of the hillfort contained similar structural features. Richmond’s stage I was a box rampart which he compares to Maiden Castle and ‘typical of Iron Age A date’ (1968, 10). His section drawing (fig.64) shows the forward post of the box rampart cutting a layer that overlies a scooped hollow in the chalk 2m wide and 0.3m deep. This earlier phase is not mentioned in the stratigraphic description and may be evidence for pre-hillfort occupation. The ditch for the box rampart was altered in subsequent phases. The original dimensions survived where it was buried by the causeways for the later Iron Age north-east (‘Steepleton’) and south-west (‘Water’) gates. The original Iron Age entrances for the stage I hillfort are therefore unknown. Richmond argued that a stage
209
209
I rampart was not built along the west side of the hilltop because the natural defence of the steep slope on that side made it unnecessary. In stage II, the rampart was altered to a ‘glacis’ style rampart of dump construction with a continuous slope from the bottom of the ditch to the top of the rampart where a
120: Fluxgate gradiometer survey Hod Hill area surveyed up to November 2005 (Stewart 2006, 51)
stone wall was constructed. Stage IIA retained the back post of the box rampart and had an additional timber palisade in front of the ditch and in stage IIB this palisade was removed and a rampart was constructed on the site and the ditch between the ramparts was deepened.
210
210
In stage II at the north-east entrance, a twin portal gateway was erected. To this phase belongs a pit burial of a young woman interpreted as a ‘foundation’ burial within the extension of the gateway. Similar burials, but of young men, were found beneath ramparts at Maiden Castle (Wheeler 1943, 39) and South Cadbury (Barret et al. 2000, 67-69). In stage III the inner rampart was heightened and the stone summit wall rebuilt and a flint paved walk constructed behind it. A small outer ditch was constructed with an outer counterscarp bank. Richmond argued that this outer ditch and additional ‘hornwork’ defences at the two Iron Age gateways were incomplete when the Roman army occupied the site (ibid. 32). Stage IV was the Roman demolition of the gate and rampart wall and the erosion of a hollow-way through the gate which was subsequently covered with a Roman roadway of flint.
Settlement Layout
121: Gradiometer survey Hod Hill Roman fort east gate top left (Stewart 2006, 52)
211
211
The fluxgate gradiometer survey of Hod Hill (Stewart 2006a & 2007b, figs.120-4 & 130) demonstrates the density of occupation within the hillfort. Over 200 ring ditches are visible and there are traces of others indicated by part circles, and concentrations of pits and post-holes. The street system fanning out from the north-east gateway is clear. Few geophysical anomalies cross the line of the tracks indicating that the main
122: Gradiometer survey north-east Hod Hill (Stewart 2006, 54)
routes tended to follow the same alignment during the occupation of the hillfort. The main east to west route is prominent and measures over 10m wide broadening out to 50m Y6 as it approaches the Roman fort gateway V 3 (ST85721070) (fig.121). This broad area, which is about 60m long, has very few anomalies within it and from it other tracks branch south, south-west and one continues west to the south side of the Roman fort gate. It is likely that the Roman soldiers utilised this track to the
212
212
Steepleton Gate as there is no geophysical evidence for another track crossing the central concentration of round houses towards the Ashfield Gate.
123: Gradiometer survey Hod Hill south –west (Stewart 2006, 54)
The open area broadening out from the main track appears to be a focal point, a route centre, and perhaps an assembly point and possible site of a market. A similar open area within a crowded settlement can be seen on the geophysical survey plot for the Iron Age/Romano-British settlement at Crab Farm, Shapwick (see 5.7 below).
Near the Steepleton Gate (ST85941074), a track diverges south from the main track and between the two are groups of post-holes that appear to be a line of four post structures K 4 (fig.122). Many of the hut circles have groups of four posts in close
213
213
proximity, particularly those closest to the Steepleton Gate. Perhaps these are
124: Gradiometer survey south-east quadrant Hod Hill (Stewart 2006, 55)
granaries but they may have been built or reused as mortuary platforms for excarnation. Many of the huts on the plot contain pits. These may originally have been for grain storage but a high proportion of the excavated examples had later been backfilled with structured ‘ritual’ deposits including part or complete human burials (see below).
Of the five huts excavated by Ian Richmond (fig.114, p.200), hut 36A lay in the north corner of the roughly square ditched enclosure 36 with sides 22m long and an entrance on the south-west side. The hut had a central hearth and a spear head was
214
214
found beside the south-east facing entrance. Hut 37 lay immediately north-east of 36A, its ring ditch cut into the edge of the enclosure ditch of 36. These three features 36, 36A and 37 had Roman ballista bolts embedded in them all similarly aligned. A single bolt was found in nearby hut 43 but none in 56 or 60 and Richmond concluded that 36 was a significant target (perhaps a chief’s residence) chosen by the Romans to demonstrate the deadly accuracy of their artillery. The lack of other signs of conflict within the hillfort indicated that the inhabitants capitulated without a fight (ibid. 33).
Hut 43 had a small ditched annexe to the north, as did 56, which was larger, and, from a pattern of post-holes, and area of trampling, was interpreted as a stable. Hut 60 was ‘D’-shaped in plan with a palisade trench along its west side. Beside the entrance of this unusual building was a horse terret and a knife, and two currency bars lay on the hut floor. All the huts had south-east entrances and all but 37 had finds on the southwest side of the entrance passage. In hut 56, 117 sling stones were found at the entrance, with a further 218 found in hut 43, as though they were placed there in readiness. These finds within the huts give an impression of sudden departure with no opportunity to return to retrieve valuable items.
The square enclosure (Richmond’s 36) is clearly visible E 14 (ST85821052) (fig.124) on the geophysical survey plot with a minor track leading past its north-west side. However, three other enclosures stand out. One other rectilinear enclosure containing a hut circle lies beside a track in the north-east quadrant H 6 (ST85871068) (fig.122). Its sides are 15m long as opposed to 22m for enclosure 36. An ovoid enclosure 20m long lies 40m south of the smaller square enclosure H 9 (ST85871063) and contains a hut circle 6m in diameter. A similar ovoid enclosure lies 200m west of the last W 8 (ST85651064) (fig.121) and measures 22m long containing a10m diameter hut circle. These variations in size of hut circles and enclosures imply differences of social status for the occupants. Richmond (1968, 23) was sure that the finds within enclosure 36 and hut 36a (spearheads as opposed to sling stones) and neighbouring hut 37(a complete tazza jar, of Durotrigan fabric but continental style, was found on the floor) were associated with this important personage.
The geophysical survey has confirmed that none of the other enclosures are quite as large as 36 although the three listed above have their own private compounds 215
215
apparently in contrast to the others which have no discernible property boundaries. As the survey plot is studied, more huts with attached annexes are apparent and compounds and stable areas attached to round houses may be more frequent (e.g. A 3 ST85721074 & C 7 ST85741060) (fig.121). The grouping of buildings probably reflects relationships, with household/extended family units occupying discrete areas within the settlement.
An area of strong magnetic responses was found beside the track leading to and 60m north-east of Richmond’s enclosure 36 H 11(ST85881060) (fig.124). David Stewart recovered slag from mole hills on this site and also took soil samples for magnetic resonance testing. The samples proved to contain very high levels of iron and the slag was a typical product of iron smelting (Andrews 2006). The high magnetic readings cover an area 60m by 30m and indicate an industrial zone for iron production and smithing within the hillfort.
Pottery
The ceramic dating within the Hod Hill report was divided into four, Early Iron Age ‘A’, Early Iron Age Southern Britain Second ‘B’, Early Iron Age Southern Britain Third ‘B’ and Early Iron Age ‘C’. These divisions are interpreted as: ‘A’ = Early Iron Age; Second ‘B’= Middle Iron Age; Third ‘B’ = Late Middle –Early Late Iron Age and includes ‘Maiden Castle-Marnhull’ type pottery; ‘C’= Late Iron Age and includes ‘Durotrigan’ style pottery. The huts tended to contain some fragments of ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ pottery indicating a long period of occupation, the floors were worn. Some of the post-holes for all of the huts had been replaced on more than one occasion. From the finds within the huts, Richmond suggested that all had been occupied up to the Latest Iron Age apart from hut 241 below the east gate of the Roman fort. The most pot sherds (1267) were recovered from enclosure 36. These included ‘a plain jar and 54 fragments of A-type fabric (eighteen from one pot). In Southern British.Third ‘B’ types, six bead-rims, four flat-rimmed bowls and a countersunk –lugged jar. In C types, four bead-rim forms, twelve upright-rim jars, a cordoned sherd, three ring-feet, a pedestal base and a lid’ (Richmond 1968, 21).
216
216
Burials
Compared with other Iron Age sites, Hod Hill has a high ratio of recorded human pit burials in relation to number of pits excavated. In addition to the crouched ‘foundation burial’ from the north-east (Steepleton) gate and another burial found in 1953 (ibid. 31) eroding from the counter-scarp bank at the south-east breech in the ramparts (Home gate), remains of another twelve individuals have been found in pits. Four were complete adult crouched burials, two were infants and only fragments of skeletons represented the others. Both Boyd-Dawkins and Richmond excavated enclosures that may have been round house sites or mortuary enclosures, both containing three pits.
Boyd-Dawkins’ enclosure 6 (fig.9 &10 p.37) was 13.7m in diameter defined by a bank with no visible ditch. His pit A had human leg bones in one layer and part of a spine in another. The floor of pit B contained a ‘hearth of flints covered in wood ashes’ and pit C contained the burials of a crouched inhumation and the bones of a child and old man which were fragmented and therefore assumed to have been disturbed by the crouched inhumation.
Richmond’s enclosure 15 (fig.114, 200) was a horseshoe shaped scoop measuring 8m by 10m surrounded by a low bank. Pit 15a was small and contained Early and Middle Iron Age pottery and an unusual number of metal objects, a bone weaving comb and chalk loom weight. Pit 15b contained a left tibia and foot interpreted as all that remained of a primary burial dug away by the insertion of a secondary burial. This crouched skeleton of a woman was accompanied by a lock ring, bucket, latch lifter, a bobbin and two loom weights. The accompanying pottery was dated to the Late Middle to Late Iron Age. Pit 15c had a primary filling containing an unusual collection of objects including a sickle or knife, spear head, part of a shale bracelet, lower jaws of horses and bones of ox, sheep and pig. This deposit was cut into by another pit in which the crouched inhumation of a woman was found. Both deposits contained similar pottery of Middle or Late Middle Iron Age date. Richmond suggested that the female crouched burials in pit 15b and 15c were related because of similarity of the skull sutures.
217
217
It is interesting to note the similarities between the burials within enclosures BoydDawkins 6 and Richmond 15 in the south-east quadrant of the hillfort. The earlier phases of two pits were represented by parts of skeletons and the later burials as complete inhumations. The female burial in pit 15b with an infant child between her legs accompanied by objects associated with the home and joints of meat led Richmond to believe that these were grave goods for the after life. This Late Iron Age pit burial was possibly influenced by the belief system that operated in south Dorset.
Currency D.F. Allen (1968, 145-6) reviewed the evidence for sword-shaped ‘currency bars’ within the hillfort. He listed 27 items found on four separate occasions between1856 and 1958. The two found within hut 60 were associated with Iron Age B pottery leading Allen to suggest that the bars were currency immediately before the introduction of coinage (see also Hingley 1990).
His survey of all Iron Age coins recorded from the hillfort revealed that they were mainly later bronze Durotrigan issues but there was one rare silver issue with the word CRAB inscribed on it. Only two more have been found of this type, both in Hampshire. There were also Dobunnic coins and two Icenian coins and two tin coins of Kentish origin. From Gaul, there were two coins of the Coriosolites and one identified as of the Lemovices (ibid. 43-45).
The Iwerne Valley Settlement Other Iron Age coins have since been found during metal detecting on the land either side of the River Iwerne. These are predominantly silver or bronze Durotrigan issues but the finds include at least one silver Dobunnic coin and two others described as quarter silver staters of geometric type of the ‘Sussex Group’. Thirteen of the Iron Age coins, found by the Dorset detector group, are on display in Chissel Farmhouse (fig.126 p.220), Hanford. On the east side of the river, another five have been recovered from Ash and Lazerton Farms by the Stour Valley group (Dorset County Council SMR).
Mays (pers comm.) has reviewed the coins from the area and placed Hod Hill near the north-west boundary of the earlier period Phase I of Durotrigan coinage. 218
218
Big Ground
125: Metal detector finds along the Iwerne Valley reported by Ian Darke
The metal detector plot reveals three clusters of coins along the Iwerne spaced at 1km intervals below the eastern ramparts of the hillfort. Each site has Roman artefacts and coins found in close proximity suggesting continuity of occupation. That to the north (ST858112) has a spread of building debris on its east side that crosses the Child Okeford road. It has been interpreted as a Roman villa by Ian Darke (pers. comm. Dorset Detector Group). Further south (ST863105) he has found Iron Age, Roman and also Saxon coins mixed with building debris. The evidence of the southern site, north-west of Stourpaine village, (ST860100) was enhanced by a gradiometer survey,
219
219
126: Chissel Farm, Hanford part of the display of metal detected coins from the Iwerne Valley
which showed a cluster of small contiguous rectilinear enclosures underlying the Roman and Iron Age coin scatter (Papworth 2002c) (fig.125 p.219). Dave Stewart has surveyed Big Ground and Great Bournes Fields during 2008 and demonstrated that these enclosures continue along the west bank of the Stour. They contain many pits and flank a trackway that follows the contour of the hill. Further survey work is planned for 2009.
The extensive settlement outside the hillfort at Hod along the Iwerne requires targeted excavation and a more detailed examination of the metal detector evidence. The extent of the metal finds indicates that this place developed into a major settlement in the Roman period. Two rare 5th century brooches and 7th-8th century sceattas and a 10th century Viking coin (Eagles 1994, 13) indicate that settlement continued into the Saxon period, the land eventually becoming divided into a series of manors and farms by 1086 (Drew 1948, 45-50).
Wider Landscape
Beyond the hillforts, occupation evidence is divided between the upland and river valley sites. From the available evidence it seems that the upland sites continue to be occupied from the later Iron Age into the Romano-British period but continuity from the earlier to the later Iron Age is less certain. The one excavated site on Pimperne Down was abandoned by the 4th century BC although there may have been a 220
220
settlement shift south into a smaller enclosure in the later Iron Age (ST891095; Pimperne 16).
127: Plan of Ringmoor settlement earthworks, Turnworth (RCHM 1970b, 291) ©Crown Copyright
The ovoid Pimperne enclosures, as with others sited on the crests or spurs of the downs, lie within field systems, for example, Ringmoor, Turnworth (ST809085) (fig.127), South Down, Ibberton 11 (ST805069), Shillingstone Hill 25 (ST832093) and Meriden Down, Winterborne Houghton 9 (ST801049) (fig.128). Pottery found after ploughing on the South Down, Shillingstone Hill and the southern Ringmoor enclosures indicates that they were occupied in the Romano-British period. South Down and Meriden Down contain house platforms. Meriden Down, like Ringmoor, lies at a junction of trackways although it is a larger 2 hectare ovoid enclosure with earthwork evidence of later expansion south across former ‘Celtic’ fields (RCHM 1970, 298).
The available evidence for these sites does not suggest that their occupants were wealthy. Finds of Iron Age and Roman coins tend to be concentrated on lower hill slopes or valleys. In addition to the Iwerne valley finds, Iron Age and Roman coins have been found at Green Line Farm (ST843143), Okeford Fitzpaine (ST808102; RCHM 1972, 206) and Park House Farm, Iwerne Minster 15 (ST856137; ibid. 40). The valley sites of Shillingstone (ST820120; Peter Cox pers.comm.) and Bryanston
221
221
The cluster of villas around Hod Hill, for example, Shillingstone, Hinton St Mary and Fifehead Neville to the west, Park House Farm to the north and Barton Farm, Tarrant Hinton to the east provides further evidence for the significance of the Iwerne valley settlement in the Roman period.
Concluding Remarks
Some time has been spent in weighing up the combined evidence from Hod and Hambledon hills in an attempt to understand why two such large hillforts lie in close proximity.
The simple answer seems to be that the earlier site was Hambledon and from the Early Neolithic period it developed as a key occupation focus with later Neolithic, Bronze Age and Early Iron Age material all found there despite the minimal amount of excavation within the hillfort itself.
In contrast, Hod seems to have developed later as it has only one Early Bronze Age barrow, no later Bronze Age metalwork and a few scraps of earliest Iron Age pottery. However, Charles Warne’s assertion that round house earthworks were cut by the construction of the hillfort’s ramparts and ditches suggests earlier Iron Age occupation. Richmond’s construction phases for the ramparts demonstrate development over several centuries. Richmond also found Iron Age A, B and C pottery in most of the trenches he excavated.
Similarly it is difficult to use the sparse finds of Early Iron Age pottery from Hambledon to suggest that the hillfort was abandoned by the later Iron Age in preference for the more spacious hill top location of Hod. This is because much of the pottery comes from beneath or within the rampart material and like Hod the hillfort earthworks demonstrate defensive development over a long period of time. There is no excavated material from the more sheltered southern third of the hillfort and it is here that the Late Iron Age occupation is likely to be concentrated, suggested by the development of the elaborate east and west gateways which are comparable to those at Hod. 223
223
However, the combined evidence suggests a gradual shift of prominence from Hambledon to Hod during the later Iron Age. The recent geophysical survey shows the interior of Hod packed with round houses and other features. The lines of trackways are generally clear of anomalies and this implies a shorter period of concentrated occupation, suggesting a settlement conforming to a plan that has not altered greatly during its lifetime. This is in contrast to elements of the Crab Farm settlement, Shapwick where tracks and roads can be seen superimposed on earlier features (see Badbury study area 5.7 fig.183 p.317). This process of settlement change between the earlier and later Iron Age may be reflected at Pimperne where the occupation ceases in the earlier Iron Age and local settlement may have continued in the smaller enclosure to the south.
Hod and Hambledon are not intervisible and they command different vantage points. If they worked co-operatively then a signalling site would be required on the central summit of Hambledon, above the causewayed enclosure. One could argue that Hambledon was largely abandoned as a settlement but the earthwork defences continued to be modified in case of attack or as a symbol of prestige. This seems to have been the case at Poundbury, Dorchester where the main settlement lay outside the ramparts beside the river but the hillfort earthworks were maintained and enhanced. However, within Hambledon there are the earthworks of over 300 round houses and without excavation, particularly of the southern third, it is hard not to believe that at least some of these were occupied up to the time of the Roman Conquest. The references to Roman material found at Hambledon by John Aubrey in the 17th century and Edward Cunnington in 1894 provides some evidence for later occupation of the site.
The evidence from the land beside the Iwerne River, below the eastern ramparts of Hod, highlights the importance of looking at the immediate environs of hillforts rather than concentrating investigation within the ramparts. A significant settlement lay within the hillfort but also a string of households or farmsteads occupied the river valley. Another Late Iron Age site lies on the north side of Hambledon. The close proximity of these hillforts to the river made occupation beside the water convenient,
224
224
similar to the situation at Poundbury, although at Poundbury there is no evidence of a large population ever existing within the hillfort (Sparey-Green 1987).
The traditional secure cultural focus of the hillfort as well as its sacred aura, political and economic status and perhaps other valued aspects were retained, but by the Late Iron Age, valley residence was becoming increasingly desirable. Nevertheless, despite the presumed attraction of the valley, settlement drift causing gradual abandonment of the hillfort is not implied in Richmond’s excavation report, unlike the evidence from Maiden Castle and South Cadbury. Perhaps this was because the river lay too close to significantly decrease the population in the latest Iron Age and the occupation along the river and within the hillfort may all be part of one large Hod/Iwerne settlement. This combination of the benefits of the economic route centre of the Stour/Iwerne confluence and the grand defended settlement icon of Hod is likely to have acted as a magnet drawing people from the surrounding countryside rather than from the hillfort to the valley. One might suggest that Hod was reoccupied in the latest Iron Age as a response to the advancing Roman threat. However, this is not confirmed by the excavated evidence which demonstrates long periods of occupation for each of the excavated round house sites and a sudden departure when the hilltop was requisitioned by the Roman army. Unlike many other sites, there is evidence that Iron Age status dwellings occupied the hillfort interiors. The Hod Hill geophysical survey shows several round houses within enclosures, particularly Richmond’s enclosure 36. At Hambledon there are large 15m diameter round house platforms and size suggests status, particularly platform J (fig.116 p.203) which occupies a commanding position beside the rampart dividing the southern and middle thirds of the hillfort. However, the large Hambledon round houses may be early. The 15m diameter round house as at Pimperne was dated to the Early Iron Age, in contrast to Hod where the later Iron age round houses are smaller. However, Hod’s enclosed round houses indicate status for their residents. They may represent an early definition of increased private social space for the occupier, a developing trend for the wealthy throughout the Romano-British period. Another Late Iron Age example of a separate space for a round house is the phase 3 circular enclosure at Gussage All Saints (Wainwright 1979, 185 see study area 5.6 fig.151 p.255).
225
225
The coinage from the area includes occasional gold British B coins and some Durotrigan staters with high silver content. This study area lies on the west edge of Cranborne Chase coin concentration and falls just within Melinda Mays’ earlier phase of SW/Durotrigan issues (Haselgrove & Mays 2000, 250). The reported locations of exotic coins within the study area lie exclusively within the Hod/Iwerne settlement and this supports the hypothesis that trade with neighbouring communities was concentrated there.
The Hod/Iwerne settlement is a strong candidate for a Late Iron Age oppidum or proto-town with trade links to the Gallic tribes to the south and Dobunni to the north along the Stour. Hod is thought to be the location of Ptolemy’s Dunium (Rivet and Smith 1979, 118), the principal place of the Durotriges and in the Roman period may have been the site of Ibernio of the Antonine Itinerary. The geophysical survey creates an impression of order and industry and the open area near the centre may be interpreted as a gathering point for meetings and perhaps a market.
Hod and Hambledon are clearly key locations within their environs and it is difficult not to refer to them other than as central places surrounded by smaller settlements and farmsteads like those at Turnworth, Shillingstone Hill and Meriden Down. The idea that Hod was just another type of settlement and of no great significance compared to others in this study area cannot be supported. In contrast, the surrounding area contains typical upland enclosures for nothing larger than farmsteads or hamlets. It is interesting to note that none of these can be categorised as ‘banjo’ enclosures or farmsteads with antenna entrances despite the proximity of such sites on Cranborne Chase a few kilometres to the east.
More sophisticated sites lie in the valleys and certainly at Park Farm, Iwerne Minster, the Roman settlement developed from a Late Iron Age site which eventually included rectangular stone buildings decorated with plaster (Pitt-Rivers 1898).
226
226
The survey now backtracks along the Stour and returns to Cold Kitchen Hill near the source of the Wylye River.
130: Hod Hill gradiometer survey (Stewart 2007)
227
227
The Wylye Valley The sacred site of Cold Kitchen occupies a chalk ridge near the sources of the Stour and Wylye rivers. 12km to the north-east, the Wylye emerges into an area of Greensand geology at Warminster and then turns east back into the chalkland. Here, a group of four hillforts cluster around this valley entrance. The 7 hectare Cley Hill
133: Cley Hill looking north away from Warminster (West Air BU1746 9) ©West Air Photography
(ST838450) occupies a chalk outlier 2km west of the town. Battlesbury (ST897457) encloses 10 hectares and lies 2km to the east, Scratchbury (ST913443) encloses 17 hectares and lies 3km to the south east and Bratton Castle (ST900516) near Westbury encloses 12 hectares and lies 6km to the north. All are bivallate except Cley Hill which is enclosed by a single low rampart. Only Battlesbury has excavation records. Later Iron Age material was found here during the construction of a reservoir (Cunnington 1924, 368-73; Manley 1927, 64-7) (fig.193-195 p.357-9).
Battlesbury and Scratchbury lie either side of Middle Hill and the gaps between these landscape features give access from the Wylye to a dry valley known as the Battlesbury Bowl where an extensive Earliest Iron Age settlement has been recorded (Chadwick and Thompson 1956, 262-4; Wessex Archaeology 2000, 262-3) (fig.134). Other Early Iron Age sites in close proximity include the 0.4 hectare circular 229
229
homestead enclosure 1km north-west of Battlesbury on Mancombe Down (ST895471, Fowler, Musty & Taylor, 1965, 52-6).
134: Site of Early Iron Age settlement north of Battlesbury (Chadwick and Thompson 1956, 264)
5km east of Scratchbury, above a dry coombe on the north side of the Wylye lies the small 1.7 hectare plateau fort of Knook Camp (ST960444). The 5 hectare circular bank and ditch known as Codford Circle (ST983407) is also undated and lies 5km south-east of Knook. The 13 hectare hillfort of Yarnbury Castle (SU036403) lies 5km east of Codford Circle and has three ramparts and ditches with an elaborate east entrance.
Other hillforts and enclosures further east are sited beside the rivers north of the Salisbury confluence and are thought to be outside the Durotrigan zone. They are the Stapleford Down univallate enclosure on the east side of the River Till (SU090382); 5km to the east, the univallate Ogbury Camp (SU143383) beside the Avon and 6km to the south, also on the east bank of the Avon, the great univallate hillfort of Old Sarum (SU138327). Old Sarum’s pre-Conquest importance is implied by the large
230
230
Romano-British settlement that later developed beside the river at Stratford south of the hillfort, associated with Sorbiodunum of the Antonine Itinerary (SU135320). 5km further east, beyond the River Bourne, lies the circular univallate hillfort of Figsbury Rings (SU199338). Other circular defended enclosures lie 6km north of Salisbury along the Bourne at Boscombe Down West (SU191386) and 3km south-west at Cockey Down (SU170314).
The survey now continues south and crosses three rivers and two ridges before entering the Cranborne Chase.
The Nadder-Wylye Ridge
Area of geophysical survey 2006
135: Earthwork plan of the Bury, Warminster (Colt Hoare 1821)
The wedge of land between the Wylye and the Nadder extends about 20km west of the rivers’ confluence at Wilton. A series of remarkable Iron Age sites are spaced along the crest of the ridge.
231
231
at Fifield Bavant 4km to the east (SU001255 and SU009256) were found to have been occupied c.600-100 BC (Clay 1924, 457-96) (fig.142).
Peter Fowler (1964, 46-57) published a survey of the west part of the Ebble-Nadder ridge and examined in detail the available aerial photographic and earthwork evidence. In addition to the settlements mentioned above he identified a 5 hectare polygonal enclosure at Precombe Down (ST995252) in a similar position overlooking the Ebble and 1km west of the Fifield Bavant sites. One of the prehistoric field systems along the ridge clearly respects this enclosure. Fowler was unsure of two other aerial photographic potential settlement sites west of Swallowcliffe and on the same escarpment above the Nadder (ST95272469; ST95272469). On Buxbury spur above the Nadder 2km north-east of Swallowcliffe and 4km south-west of Chiselbury lies a cross-ridge dyke which isolates the spur perhaps indicating the site of a defended settlement but perhaps it only functioned as secure penning for livestock (Fowler 1965, 47-51).
Little Woodbury
At the east end of the ridge where the Nadder and Ebble join the Avon lie three sites. The best known are the Woodburys, Little Woodbury (SU150259, Bersu 1940, 30111) and 0.5km to the west Great Woodbury (SU144278) (fig.14 p.47).
On Harnham Hill, 0.5km north-west of Great Woodbury, an Iron Age site was recorded during road construction (Piggott 1939, 513-19). It was thought to be very similar to Little Woodbury and was dated to 500-200BC.
Apart from Castle Ditches there is little evidence for Late Iron Age occupation on the Ebble-Nadder Ridge.
The Oxdrove Ridge
Running along the south side of the River Ebble is another ridge of chalk known as the Oxdrove Ridge. This area is about 25km long and 4-5km wide and extends from
237
237
the Avon in the east to Melbury and Fontmell Downs in the west above the Blackmore Vale.
143: Location Map of cross-ridge dyke system on Oxdrove Ridge (Rahtz 1990 et al, 9)
Winkelbury Camp (ST952217) (fig.8, p36)) lies 6km east of Fontmell and 4km south of the Swallowcliffe Down enclosure. This site is a 5 hectare Late Iron Age hillfort built on an Early Iron Age settlement and was excavated by Pitt-Rivers (1888, 24274).
Cross-Ridge Dyke System
The ridge east of Winkelbury was the subject of a detailed RCHM survey in 1959 (fig.143). The subsequent analysis and publication of the results of this work combined with targeted excavation provides a significant insight into the Late Iron Age character of the area (Rahtz et al. 1990, 1-49). The focus of attention were six cross-ridge dykes. These lay at the centre of an area 6km east to west by 3km, where all evidence for prehistoric settlement, burial, boundaries and field systems was mapped. Two of the Oxdrove Ridge Dykes (A ‘Great Ditch Banks’, SU01652125 and
238
238
C ‘Middle Chase Ditch’, SU00202100) were dated to the Late Iron Age by excavation.
Mark Corney (ibid. 7) analysed the RCHM plan of the area, which demonstrated the complexity and extent of land division with many prehistoric field blocks being associated with enclosed and open settlements. These settlements include Chickengrove Bottom (SU031220) and Marleycombe Hill (SU022224) east of dyke A (Sumner 1913, 40) and Woodminton Down East (ST989210) at the south end of dyke F.
On the east side of Knighton Hill, 3km along the ridge from Bower Chalke, there is a settlement known as ‘Wudu-Burh’ (SU058238). The site consists of group of enclosures above a coombe associated with Iron Age and Roman pottery (Sumner 1913, 43-4).
Clearbury Ring
At the east end of the ridge on a spur above the Avon lies Clearbury Ring (SU153244), a 2 hectare univallate enclosure. It is rectilinear in plan with an entrance in the west side (Sumner 1913, 27). On the next spur 1km north-west and within Odstock Copse (SU145252) lie the remains of a circular univallate hillfort, the north part ploughed down and two banks added to the east side. Neither of these sites has been dated by excavation.
The land south of Clearbury slopes down from the Oxdrove ridge into the western incursion of Hampshire, which here extends west of the Avon driving a wedge between Dorset and Wiltshire.
Hampshire west of the Avon north-east of Bokerley Dyke
Whitsbury Castle Ditches lies 4km south-west of Clearbury and is a trivallate hillfort enclosing 7 hectares with the original entrance probably to the west now occupied by Castle Farm buildings. In 1960, an excavation by Philip Rahtz on the site of a new farm building uncovered the plan of a D-shaped Iron Age hut with a rammed chalk 239
239
floor associated with pottery of the Yarnbury-Highfield group of ‘saucepan-pot’ style (Bowen 1990, 77).
Collin Bowen (1990) examined the settlement remains either side of Bokerley Dyke (SU017200-063157), the massive linear earthwork that forms the Dorset-Hampshire border. He concluded that there were significant differences and that Bokerley was a territorial boundary in the Iron Age.
144: Hampshire large polygon enclosures, Whitsbury 17, Rockbourne 54, Damerham 19 and Whitsbury hillfort (Bowen 1990, 94) ©Crown Copyright
Two sites, Soldiers Ring and Rockbourne Down (fig.144), Bowen termed large polygons and are an enclosure type only found on the Hampshire side of the boundary. Soldiers Ring, Damerham (SU082175) is 11 hectares in area, five sided with an entrance between the two parallel enclosure banks on the east side. The Rockbourne Down site is also five sided and the rampart and flanking ditches enclose 36 hectares.
The Romano-British Woodyates settlement (SU034197) lies against the north side of Bokerley Dyke but the Iron Age settlement enclosures lie immediately to the south of
240
240
A line of 1.5-2 hectare ovoid enclosures about 0.5km from the south-west side of Bokerley have been plotted from aerial photos at SU032192; SU032182 and SU062165. A further 0.5km behind these lie the ‘unfinished’ univallate hillforts of Penbury Knoll (SU040171) and Mistleberry Wood (ST996195) which will be considered in the next study area.
Study Box 5.6: Cranborne Chase.
This 10km by 8km area lies at the heart of Cranborne Chase and contains a range of distinctive, well researched Iron Age settlements.
Topographic Description (fig.146)
This block of land varies in height from 200m OD in the north-west to 50m in the south-east. The chalkland terrain consisting of a series of coombes and spurs.
The study area includes the south-east side of the Oxdrove Ridge and from this high point, the trend of slope is downwards towards Knowlton in the valley of the Allen where the river clips the south-east corner of the study area.
Three valleys aligned north-west to south-east contain streams which drain into the Allen. That to the south-west is the Crichel with the villages of Chettle at its source and Long Crichel 3km to the south east. The central valley contains the Gussage stream which has the village of Farnham at its source and meanders through a string of hamlets and villages spaced at 1km-2km intervals along the valley. These are Minchington, Gussage St Andrew, Cashmoor, Gussage St Michael and Gussage All Saints. The north-east valley is the source of the Wimborne or Allen which flows through the villages of Monkton up Wimborne and Wimborne St Giles before turning south-west and after crossing the study area eventually joins the River Stour 14km to the south.
At the south-west corner of the area lies the Tarrant valley and just beyond the northeast boundary lies the valley of the Crane. Therefore the area is characterised by a succession of near parallel ridges and troughs. 242
242
146: Cranborne rivers and contours (10m intervals) with SW/Durotrigan coin distribution. Rivers from left to right Tarrant, Crichel, Gussage, Allen and Crane (top right).
243
243
The village of Tollard Royal lies beside Rushmore Park on the spring-line below the Oxdrove Ridge escarpment in the north-west corner of the study area. The B3081 links Tollard with the village of Sixpenny Handley 6km to the east. Other hamlets along the escarpment foot are Woodcuts, Deanland, Deanend and West Woodyates.
The area is cut diagonally in half from north-east to south-west by the main Salisbury to Blandford Road (A354). This diverges from the line of the Roman road to Badbury Rings, after crossing Bokerley Dyke just east of the study area. The minor roads to the villages branch from the A354 and follow the valleys and ridges north-west towards the escarpment or south-east towards the Allen.
Apart from the large block of woodland on the escarpment near Tollard Royal and Rushmore, the area has been heavily ploughed. This has enabled many of the prehistoric sites to be identified through aerial photography. Study Box 6 Focus of Settlement
Settlement Pattern
Range of Settlement Elements
Continuity of Settlement & Sacred Association
Cranborne Chase & Gussage Hill The Gussage Hill multiple ditch system linked to double ‘banjo’ enclosures and surrounding settlement. Ditch systems probably linked across Gussage and Crichel valleys to Thickthorn and Launceston Downs. A secondary cluster of high status sites may lie around Rushmore in the north-west corner of the study area. A cluster of ovoid, sub-circular or circular enclosures of various types, usually 1-2km apart but sometimes as close as 0.5km. Generally on spur or hillslope locations and 1-2 hectares in area. Enclosure types include ‘banjo’, concentric, ‘spectacle’, antennae entrances, simple ovoid and rectilinear. Round houses, storage pits, four post structures, enclosures within the main enclosure, working hollows. Elaborate and varied gateways and enclosure forms. The Gussage Hill-Thickthorn Down-Launceston Down group of multiple ditches and settlement enclosures lies at the west end of the great Dorset Middle Neolithic Cursus with its associated long barrows, henges and Bronze Age barrow groups. An Iron Age sacred site may lie in this area possibly Mycen Farm or Gussage Hill. Apparent settlement continuity from c.500BC to AD 50 at Gussage All Saints and Oakley Down settlements but elsewhere Late Iron Age farmsteads and settlements appear to occupy ‘green field’ sites.
244
244
Proven earlier Iron Age sites are generally lacking in the area but Down Farm site in use from c.700100 BC. Continuity from Iron Age into the early Roman period is common but some abandonment of sites by 2nd century AD e.g. Gussage All Saints and Berwick Down.
Distinctive Artefact Types
Earlier Iron Age pottery of ‘saucepan’ pot tradition from Gussage All Saints. Increasing use of Durotrigan pottery found across this area in the later IA. Gallo-Belgic copies and some imported pottery more common here than on most of the other inland areas within the Durotrigan zone. Hoard of moulds for bronze chariot fittings Gussage All Saints. Brooches from across area but particularly Gussage Hill.
Burial Rite
Coins: Very numerous compared to other areas, lies at the heart of earlier SW/Durotrigan phase. Gold British B and O comparatively common. High percentage silver content and starfish quarter staters present. Coins of Coriosolites and Cantiaci found in area. Pit burials at Gussage, Rotherley and Woodcutts, whole skeletons in the upper level of pits also individual bones. Numerous infant burials in comparison with adults. Shallow oblong graves with crouched burials two cut into a boundary ditch at Rotherley and one from outside enclosure ditch at Berwick Down. High status square barrow suggested for Gussage Hill settlement complex. Other square enclosures on aerial photographs may be funerary.
Chronological Development
It might be argued that the multiple ditch systems and enclosures extending from Berwick Down to Gussage All Saints were once part of one or two large integrated settlement areas similar to those on the Nadder –Wylye ridge. However, with the exception of the double ‘banjo’ enclosures on Gussage Cow Down, each discrete farmstead or household enclosure has been entered as a separate site on the chronological table below.
245
245
The parish RCHME numbers allocated by Bowen (1990) have been highlighted in bold type and these will be used to describe sites in the following discussion.
Site
Zone
NGR
Chettle Down ‘Spectacles’ Linked enclosures Farnham approx. Hoard 27 SW/Durotrigan Hookswood Farm Ovoid enclosure
Spur slope Chettle a20 (AP site) …. Farnham (Finds) Spur slope Farnham a13 (AP site) Spur slope Farnham a14 (Finds) Spur slope Gussage All Saints 20 (Excav. 1972) Spur slope Gussage All Saints a63 (Finds)
ST943139 Bowen 1990, 24 ST9912 Corney 1991, 246 ST952149 Bowen 1990, 25 ST954154 Bowen 1990, 25 ST998101 RCHM V, 20 (Wainwright 1979a) SU001129 Bowen 1990, 27
Spur slope Gussage All Saints a64 (AP site) Hill top Gussage All Saints a65 (AP site)
SU004110 Bowen 1990, 27
?
?
?
?
?
SU005115 Bowen 1990, 27
?
?
?
?
?
Spur slope Gussage All Saints a66 (AP site) Gussage Valley Gussage All Saints & St Michael a70 (Finds) Hill top Gussage St Michael 7a, 7b (Finds)
SU006104 Bowen 1990, 27
?
?
?
?
?
ST995112 ST984116 Bowen 1990, 27
*
*
ST992142 Bowen 1990, 27
*
*
Hill top Gussage St Michael 7c, 7d (Finds)
ST998133 Bowen 1990, 27
*
*
New Town Irregular concentric enclosures South of All Saints Village Sub-circular with antennae entrance Cow Down East of Ackling Dyke Ovoid enclosure necked entrance 3 SW/Durotrigan North of All Saints Village Sub-circular with antennae entrance Brockington Down Irregular enclosure triple parallel ditched entrance 1 SW/Durotrigan East of All Saints Village Ovoid enclosure West of All Saints Village Pit and finds
Gussage Cow Down North Double ‘banjo’ enclosure 5 SW/Durotrigan Gussage Cow Down South Double ‘banjo’ enclosure 2 SW/Durotrigan
246
246
BA ?
EIA ?
MIA LIA ? ?
RB ?
* ?
?
*
?
*P
?
?
*
*
*P
…
*
Gussage Cow Down Ovoid enclosure
Gussage Cow Down Square enclosure
South west of Down Farmhouse Tombstone enclosure Drive Plantation Ovoid enclosure
Thickthorn Down Large enclosure and linear dykes East of Launceston Down Rectangular enclosure South St Michael Village. Rectangular enclosure * South east of Long Crichel Village necked oval enc West Woodyates Manor. Contiguous enclosures *Penbury Knoll Univallate hillfort ‘unfinished’? North Tarrant Hinton Down ‘Banjo’ enclosure Launceston Down Large enclosure of linear dykes Tollard Royal approx. 20 SW/Durotrigan Berwick Down south Kite-shaped enclosure Berwick Down North settlement features both unenclosed & Within ovoid enclose. Rotherley Linears, ovoid and rectilinear enclosure 2 SW/Durotrigan
Hill top Gussage St Michael 7e (Finds) Hill top Gussage St Michael 7f (Finds) Spur slope Gussage St Michael 7h (excav 2004) Spur slope Gussage St Michael 8 (Finds) Spur slope and valley head Long Crichel 7 (Excav 1958) Spur slope Long Crichel 6 (AP site) Spur slope Long Crichel 32 (AP site) Spur slope Moor Crichel a9 (AP site) Spur slope Pentridge 14 (Finds 1919) Hill top Pentridge 18 (Earthworks) Spur slope Tarrant Hinton 19 (Finds 1960) Valley Head Tarrant Launceston 16 (Earthworks) ….. (Finds)
ST998129 Bowen 1990, 27
*
*
ST999134 Bowen 1990, 27
*CB
*
*
*
ST997146 Bowen 1990, 27
*
*
…
SU006142 RCHM V, 24
ST968125958118 RCHM V, 24
?
?
?
?
?
ST959100 RCHM V, 38
?
?
?
?
?
ST984109 RCHM V, 40
?
?
?
?
?
ST984091 Bowden 1990, 28 SU016195 RCHM V, 54
?
?
?
?
?
SU040171 RCHM V, 56
?
* ?
?
ST945126 RCHM IV, 100
Spur slope Berwick St John (Excav 1965) Spur slope Berwick St John (Earthworks)
ST947113956117 RCHM IV 196 ST9417 Corney (1991,246 ) ST942197 (Wainwright 1968) ST941196 RCHM 1968, 104
Spur slope Berwick St John (Excav 1886)
ST949195 (Pitt-Rivers 1888)
247
247
?
?
?
?
?
*
*
?
?
* *B …
…
…
…
*
*P
*B
Rushmore Park House Pits and ditch Rushmore Sunk fence Pottery North slope Gussage Hill Square Barrow Woodcutts Common ‘Banjo’ enclosure linked enclosures and linears 4 SW/Durotrigan Humby’s Stock Coppice ‘Banjo’ enclosure & linked linears South-west of Oakley Farm Rectangular encl. 2 SW/Durotrigan Handley Hill Occupation debris
Mycen Farm Buildings and enclosures
North of Farnham village Ovoid enclosure
Mistleberry Wood Univallate hillfort ‘unfinished’? Brookes Coppice Ovoid enclosure
Dean Elongated irregular enclosure Chapel Down ‘Banjo’ & associated linears 2 SW/Durotrigan 1 Coriosolite Goldfields Farm Settlement, burials and field system
Spur slope Berwick St John (Excav 1888) Spur slope Berwick St John (Excav 1888) Spur slope Sixpenny Handley (Excav 1969) Spur slope Sixpenny Handley 19 (Excav 1884) Spur slope Sixpenny Handley 20 (Finds, AP site) Spur slope Sixpenny Handley 21 (Finds AP site) Hill top Sixpenny Handley 22 (Excav 1898) Valley head Sixpenny Handley 23 (Excav 19972000) Spur slope Sixpenny Handley 24 (Earthwork. Finds) Spur slope Sixpenny Handley 25 (Earthwork) Spur slope Sixpenny Handley 26 (Earthwork) Spur slope Sixpenny Handley a64 (AP site) Spur slope Sixpenny Handley a65 (AP site. Finds) Valley head Sixpenny Handley (Excav 1998)
ST957189 (Pitt-Rivers 1888) ST954183 (Pitt-Rivers 1888) ST98901443 (White 1970)
*P
…
*
*
*
*
ST963181 RCHM V, 68 (Pitt-Rivers 1887)
*P
*B
ST982168 RCHM V, 69
*
*
SU008181 RCHM V, 69
*
*
SU012163 RCHM V, 69 (Pitt-Rivers 1898) ST973143 RCHM V, 69 (Sparey-Green 2000)
*
ST961160 RCHM V, 69
…
*
*
*
ST996195 RCHM V, 70
?
?
?
?
?
ST961177 RCHM V, 70
?
?
?
?
?
ST980162 RCHM V, 70
?
?
?
?
?
*
*
…
*B
ST988162 (Bowen 1990, 29)
ST968139 (Hewitt 19992000)
248
248
*
South Lodge near Rushmore (ST95401745) and Down Farm (ST00061462) were excavated between 1977-84 (Barrett, Bradley & Green 1991, 143-211). South Lodge was completely enclosed by a bank and ditch, rectilinear in plan with an entrance to the south-west. The other two sites were only enclosed by a ditch on two sides, their enclosures probably completed by fencing. At Down Farm, other post-holes suggested at least five round houses with entrances to the south-east, two pre-dating the construction of the enclosure. In the latest phase a long rectangular building was constructed against the east bank. At South Lodge two round houses were identified. Both settlements lie near later Bronze Age, Deverel-Rimbury barrow cemeteries. The radiocarbon dates for the South Lodge and Down Farm enclosures indicate that they were occupied from c.1200-950 BC (ibid. 222).
A later Bronze Age settlement enclosure, areas of burnt flint, finds of Bronze artefacts and linear ranch boundaries have been plotted along the Gussage valley (Green 2000, 110) and these indicate the division of the land into farms or territories by that time.
Within Cranborne Chase, as elsewhere, there appears to have been significant social change between the Middle and the Latest Bronze Age. During this period, cremation cemeteries cease to be used and settlements move to new locations where storage pits begin to be excavated.
At Down Farm, the recent excavations (Northcott 2004, 181) have demonstrated that settlement moved from the later Bronze Age farmstead to a ‘tombstone’ or ‘D’shaped enclosure 200m to the west (ST99801461). The Late Bronze Age hiatus is demonstrated here, as there is a gap of 200-250 years in the current understanding of the ceramic sequences from both sites. The Down Farm enclosure is thought to have been occupied from 700-200BC although only the interim report is available at this stage.
The Hillforts
This part of Cranborne Chase is distinctive because of its lack of developed hillforts but there are four possibly five univallate enclosures that have been placed in this category, located in and around the study area. Winkelbury (ST952215) on the 250
250
148: Earthwork plan of Penbury Knoll hillfort (RCHM 1975,56) ©Crown Copyright
149: Earthwork plan of Bussey Stool hillfort (RCHM 1972, 96) ©Crown Copyright
Oxdrove Ridge 1km north of Rushmore has already been described. Mistlebury Wood (ST996195, Sixpenny Handley 25) lies on a spur 4km south-east of Winlkelbury on the Oxdrove Ridge escarpment. Penbury Knoll (SU040171, Pentridge 18) (fig.149) lies another 4km south-east on a hill overlooking Bokerley Dyke. All three of these sites are univallate between 1.5-3 hectares in area and described as ‘unfinished’. Dating evidence is lacking apart from at Winkelbury where some Late Iron Age sherds were excavated from the rampart (Pitt-Rivers 1888, 271-4).
The fourth site is Bussey Stool Farm (ST930156 Tarrant Gunville 6) (fig.148) also univallate and of similar size to the other three. It lies 6km south-west of Winkelbury and 1km west of the study area. This has opposing entrances on the south-east and north-west sides and is a complete enclosure. Once again there is no excavated evidence from the site. It lies above the Tarrant valley beyond the known western distribution of the ‘banjo’ enclosures (RCHM 1972, 96; 1975, 56 & 70).
251
251
English Heritage have recently identified another possible hillfort from aerial photographs. This lies on a knoll north-west of Mycen Farm (ST967145) and is of
150: Plan of archaeological features on Oakley Down (Brown, Corney & Woodward 1995, 68)
similar size to the other hillfort sites with traces of a bank and external ditch, the location enabling clear views in all directions (Martin Busby pers. comm. 2006).
Earlier Iron Age evidence is generally lacking within the study area in contrast to the abundant Late Iron Age remains. However, there is evidence from excavated settlement enclosures at Oakley Down (SU116177, Wimborne St Giles 36) in the north-east part of the study area and from Gussage All Saints to the south-east (ST998101, Gussage All Saints 20).
Oakley Down Enclosure (fig.150)
From 1947-51, five trenches were excavated within the 3.7 hectare rectangular enclosure on Oakley Down (Brown, Corney & Woodward 1995, 67-79). Aerial
252
252
photographs show dense settlement evidence across the main enclosure and a 1 hectare annexe on its north side which may be contemporary. The site is associated with up to five trackways. One of these crosses the main enclosure through entrances in its north-west to south-east sides and links it to the Roman Ackling Dyke. Another, branches from the south-east entrance and leaves the enclosure through another entrance in the south-west side. The prehistoric field system that surrounds the site appears to be aligned with it suggesting that it was laid out after the enclosure’s construction.
The excavation of the 3m wide and 1.5m deep enclosure ditch recovered Early Iron Age pottery of c.550-450 BC from the primary silts. The bank of the enclosure overlay post-holes, which contained pottery of similar date suggesting that the site was initially unenclosed. A single sherd of Middle Iron Age pottery from the ploughed down remains of the bank may date the enclosure to this period. However, this is uncertain and there may have been a hiatus between the construction of the enclosure and the Middle Iron Age occupation (Corney in Brown et.al. 1995, 78). Trenches I and V certainly show that the enclosure ditch was allowed to silt up during the Middle Iron Age. The shape of the enclosure is unparalleled in the area and the types of pottery and fibulae found on the site indicate that this was a higher status site in the Early Iron Age than Gussage All Saints 20.
987 sherds of pottery were present in the excavation archive although the high percentage of rims and bases indicated that the original excavators had been selective in what they retained.
The form of the phase 1 Oakley Down sherds compared well with those from phase 1 of Gussage 20. However, in contrast to Gussage, two body sherds decorated with finger-tip impressions and only one haematite-coated sherd were found at Oakley Down. The Early Iron Age pottery fabrics indicated manufacture in the Jurassic Ridge, Upper Greensand and Poole Harbour areas as well as local production. This was a greater Early Iron Age diversity of sources than at Gussage 20. The pottery forms and fabrics suggest that the inhabitants had contacts with the Dorset coast, Wiltshire, Somerset and Hampshire (ibid. 78).
253
253
The Middle Iron Age fabrics also indicate products from various locations but predominantly from Poole Harbour and forms such as ovoid jars, proto-saucepan pots and developed saucepan pots are typical of the Maiden Castle-Marnhull style. Lisa Brown (ibid. 75) notes that the assemblage correlates with Phase 2 at Gussage, Phase 2 & 3 Rope Lake Hole, Purbeck and Phase 6 at Maiden Castle.
Most of the pottery from the site comes from the Late Iron Age-Early Romano-British period; all the excavated pits in the enclosure are of this date. Poole Harbour pottery dominated the assemblage and all the usual developed Durotrigan forms were present. The site continued to be occupied throughout the Roman period.
Gussage All Saints (fig.151)
The best site sequence comes from the Gussage All Saints excavation, which produced over 76,000 sherds of pottery mainly derived from the 477 pits. The nine radiocarbon dates range from 510 BC to AD50 and Dr Wainwright (1979a, 186) estimated from these and the other dating evidence that the site was occupied ‘from a time prior to the middle of the first millenium BC to the latter part of the first century AD’. The occupation evidence was divided into three phases.
128 of the pits (27%) were assigned to phase 1 or Early Iron Age c.550-300 BC. 69 pits (14%) were assigned to phase 2 or Middle Iron Age c.300-100 BC. 184 pits (39%) were assigned to phase 3 or Late Iron Age 100BC to AD 50. The remaining 96 pits (20%) could not be dated.
In phase 1, the settlement consisted of a 1.4 hectare area surrounded by a shallow ditch with an external bank. A main entrance on the east side of the enclosure had a timber gate flanked by antennae ditches. The pits, post-holes and working hollows for this phase occurred some distance from the main enclosure ditch. Seventeen groups of four post-holes, interpreted as ‘granaries’, were concentrated near the centre of the enclosure. Some of these structures had been rebuilt on more than one occasion. No round houses were identified.
254
254
151: Plan of archaeological features Gussage All Saints (Wainwright 1979a, 185) ©Crown Copyright
255
255
In phase 2 continuity is implied. The enclosure ditch was made larger but on the same alignment. The east entrance was retained although reconstructed and ceramic forms continued but new types appeared. The phase 2 pits were less numerous but larger than phase 1 and therefore total storage capacity was similar. There were less barrelshaped pits and more cylindrical and ‘beehive’ pits. One perhaps two round houses were identified from the arrangement of excavated post-holes. The certain hut was 9m in diameter with a south-east entrance, the same orientation as the Middle Bronze Age Down Farm houses. Other houses may have existed but the evidence may have been removed by modern ploughing.
In phase 3 continuity is assumed because the position of the enclosure boundary and east gate were retained. However, the Durotrigan ceramic forms dominate but once again some of the forms such as countersunk handles overlap from phase 2. Many new storage pits were created and three subsidiary enclosures were constructed within the settlement. Of these, a six-sided enclosure with an east facing timber gate was interpreted as a stock enclosure. A near circular 35m diameter ditch which incorporated part of the main enclosure presumably contained the principal domestic buildings. Geoffrey Wainwright considered this enclosure to have been created late in the life of the settlement and only maintained for a short period of time. A timber gate was constructed across its south-east entrance.
A petrological study of the pottery was undertaken (Gale 1979, 49-56) and from this it was concluded that in the earliest phase, nearly all the pottery was made with local clay unlike Oakley Down at this time. This included all of the haematite-coated vessels apart from two which were made of clay which probably came from the Jurassic Ridge area. The nearest outcrop of the clays used to make these vessels was around Milborne Port, Somerset. In the Middle phase, the pottery is made increasingly of fabrics typical of the Poole Harbour area and in phase 3 virtually all the pottery is from this source.
In phase 1 and 2 there were 157 vessels categorised as ‘saucepan’ pots. Of these, 132 were likely to be made of a local type of clay and the other 13 vessels were made with shell temper typical of the Jurassic Ridge area. The ‘saucepan’ pots were found in 256
256
phase 1 (20%) and phase 2 (76%) contexts. The remaining 4% from phase 3 were thought to be residual.
The three phase pattern of ceramic influence, that is, Early Iron Age local production, Middle Iron Age local and other sources, followed by Late Iron Age Poole Harbour dominance (already suggested for the Ham Hill, South Cadbury and Maiden Castle ceramics) seems to work here but to a lesser degree.
There is very little decorated pottery from the middle phase. Yarnbury-Highfield and South-Western Decorated styles are not illustrated or described in the pottery report.
The Hengistbury Class B bowl describes a type of burnished bowl with a hollow neck, rounded shoulder and foot ring or pedestal base considered to be a Gallo-Belgic import. However, petrological analysis showed the Gussage examples to be British copies. Of the 38 examples excavated from phase 3, 20 were made of the Poole Harbour type fabric and 18 may have been made of the local type of clay.
Thirteen amphorae fragments were recovered including Dressel 1 and Spanish Globular type. Gallo-Belgic imports include a few sherds from Terra Rubra butt beakers and a platter (Peacock & Rigby 1979, 72-3). An Arretine sherd and six fragments of samian were also found. However, there were no Iron Age coins found on the site despite its total excavation. This range of finds may be an indicator of the status of the settlement.
This site, Gussage All Saints (RCHM no. 20 ST998101), lies near five enclosures of similar 1-2 hectare area (Bowen, 1990, 88-93 fig. 2) (fig.152). All except Long Crichel 32 (ST984109) are ovoid or sub-circular in plan with evidence of an entrance on the south-east side. Long Crichel 32 lies 1.5km west along the Gussage valley and is a rectangular enclosure. The site is immediately east of a linear feature and may be of later Bronze Age or Earlier Iron Age date from finds made in the vicinity by Martin Green (2000, 110).
257
257
The other sites are closely comparable. Moor Crichel a9 (ST984091) lies on the south-west side, of the Crichel brook in a similar topographic position and 1.5km
152: Plan of a group of farmstead enclosures near Gussage All Saints (Bowen 1990, fig.1) ©Crown Copyright
south-west of All Saints 20. It seems to be a hybrid ‘banjo’/‘antennae’ entrance with short splayed entrance ditches leading to a short 40m long parallel ditched entrance passage. Gussage All Saints a66 (SU006104) is the closest to 20, only 0.5km east and on the opposite side of the Gussage. Its irregular ovoid plan has a parallel additional ditch on the south-west side. The south-east entrance has an ‘L’-shaped external extension and two small ovoid enclosures with a short linear in the interior attached to the gateway. There is also a gap in the north-west side suggesting that the main enclosure had opposing entrances. All Saints a64 (SU004110) is 1km north-west of a66 and 1km north-east of 20 with which it compares very closely. It is the same size with a south-east ‘antennae’ entrance and aerial photographs show numerous storage pits within it. A SW/Durotrigan ‘starfish’ coin has recently been found on the site (Martin Green pers. comm. 2006). This site differs from 20 in having a ditched track and small rectangular enclosures overlying and crossing in front of its south-east side. 258
258
This may be evidence of occupation continuing through the Roman period unlike 20. On the summit of the spur 0.5km north-east of a64 lies an irregular enclosure a65 (SU005115) but with a very regular south-east entrance. This consists of two sets of three parallel ditches linked at right angles to converging ditches forming a short entrance passage into the enclosure (fig.32 p.82). The arrangement would not look out of place on a Roman fort but the aerial photographs show that within the ‘kidneyshaped’ enclosure lie numerous dots indicating storage pits typical of the Iron Age.
This group of settlement enclosures is described here to indicate the pattern of closely spaced discrete settlement units, which are a key feature of this study area. All but Long Crichel 32 are of comparable size and form and are likely to possess a similar chronological development to All Saints 20. They appear to be households/farmsteads of similar rank yet each is idiosyncratic. Their occupiers have left their own mark on their place and in looking at their settlement plans, particularly the entrances, one is reminded of modern instances of neighbourly competition and expressions of status.
Berwick Down and Rushmore
Moving from the south-east to the north-west corner of the study area, the survey will now compare Dr Wainwright’s Berwick Down excavation results (1968, 102-147) (fig.30 p.80; fig.153 p.260) with those from Gussage All Saints 20.
The ‘kite-shaped’ enclosure bank with external ditch (ST942197) surrounded an area about half the size of 20. It had a single entrance on the south side. A bank and ditch surrounded the south, east and west sides about 40m from the main enclosure but there was no occupation evidence recorded between the two banks. Apart from a crouched inhumation on the north-west side, all the pits, post-holes and working hollows lay within the ‘kite’-shaped enclosure. The excavation revealed the plan of a round house, four ‘granaries’ (four or six-post structures), 35 storage pits, four working hollows and an area empty of features interpreted as a stock-holding area. The site was considered to be a typical Durotrigan farmstead (see chapter four p.7982).
259
259
155: Pottery excavated from Rushmore Park including two examples of apparent Black Cordoned ware pottery (Pitt-Rivers 1888 Plate LXXII)
The 1885 excavation (Pitt-Rivers 1888, 51-242) revealed a greater diversity of pottery than that found at Gussage or Berwick. Most of it is Durotrigan including countersunk handles and bead rim bowls but there are also examples of Black Burnished tankards, jars, ‘dog bowls’ and decorated Samian indicating Roman period settlement. There were at least two tazzae (a cordoned type of beaker with a pedestal base) and there are illustrated decorated sherds suggesting Late Iron Age imports (ibid. 160-2 plate CXIV). Two Durotrigan coins were found: a silver stater and struck bronze stater.
Fifteen adult skeletons were found, most buried in the local Iron Age style, crouched within pits and enclosure ditches but two were extended in separate graves and were
262
262
Burials of 13 adults and 22 infants were found in pits, ditches and one of the corn drying ovens. The usual scatter of separate human bones found in various pits was also noted.
Four Durotrigan coins were found, three silver staters and one struck bronze stater. The illustrated pottery includes Late Iron Age pottery predominantly of Durotrigan form and decoration but the punched zig-zag decoration on one sherd (Pitt-Rivers 1887, 107, Plate XXXVI, 8) is similar to the decorated pottery characteristic of the Highfield-Yarnbury style. Two other pots (ibid. 105-6 Plate XXXV 7 & 12) appear to be Gallo-Belgic Black Cordoned ware presumably imported through Hengistbury Head, where the nearest other examples have been recorded (Cunliffe 1987, 310-2 & Cunliffe & de Jersey 1997, 45) (fig.155). A third example was found by Pitt-Rivers 1km north-west of Woodcutts near Park House (Pitt-Rivers 1888, 246 Plate LII) and he remarks on the similarity and distinctiveness of these three items of hard black pottery. Analysis would determine whether or not these are Poole Harbour copies.
The discoveries near Park House (ST957189) included a ditch and bank and four Iron Age pits containing pottery of ‘superior quality’ (ibid. 243-5). One of the estate workers discovered this site while planting an avenue of trees and Pitt-Rivers believed the site to be more extensive. Indeed VCH (1957, 39) notes defensive linear earthworks and settlement evidence from Carrion Tree Rack to Shiftway Coppice (ST952187-961193) a distance of 1km. When plotted on a map, the known enclosures and excavated sites from Berwick to Woodcutts cover a 2km by 1km area occupying the slopes and spurs ringing the coombe above Tollard Royal. The finds indicate a higher status site, perhaps Woodcutts, surrounded by lesser households.
Banjo Enclosures (fig.192 p.342)
Woodcutts is the only banjo-like enclosure that has been excavated within the Durotrigan zone. Single and double ‘banjos’ in this study area and at the east end of the Nadder-Wylye ridge seem to be associated with high status objects (Corney 1989, 122). However, apart from Woodcutts, these finds have not been recovered from stratified deposits but from ploughed fields by metal detection and field walking. 264
264
Bowen (1990, 90) described them as typically small enclosures 50-90m in diameter sometimes appearing in pairs and integral with ditch systems. The necked approach he suggested was functional, perhaps for processing stock.
Peter Fasham excavated an example in Micheldever Wood, Hampshire (1987, 60-5) and using radiocarbon dating, concluded that its main period of occupation was in the last two centuries BC although it continued to be used into the 1st century AD. He thought that the site was lived in and associated with the normal farming practices relating to animal and crop husbandry. He summarised the evidence from the other excavated site in Hampshire, at Bramdean, and thought that the occupants were also a mixed farming community. He also thought that the necked approach was for stock management. The finds from these sites did not suggest that the occupants were of above average status.
A double banjo enclosure was the subject of geophysical survey and excavation in 2001 (Ian Barnes pers. comm. 2005). The site was at Beach’s Barn (SU0183 572) 2km south-west of Everleigh, Wiltshire and on the east edge of Salisbury Plain. The site was dated to the Middle-Late Iron Age and trenches across one enclosure revealed intercutting storage pits and other occupation evidence. Barnes suggested that the other enclosure may have been for stock although further excavation would be needed to confirm this. The entrances faced south-east towards the hillfort of Sidbury. The site developed into a villa in the Roman period continuing in use into the 4th century (Harding 2007, 83-90).
Mark Corney considered the possibility that twin ‘banjos’ may reflect the duality of late Celtic society (Corney 1989, 122). However, perhaps there was a practical division of stock and domestic space. This similar division of space for different uses was demonstrated when the grand twin villas were excavated at St Lawrence School, Bradford on Avon. One building proved to be the domestic accommodation of the villa owner, kept separate from the other building which contained the working and service rooms of the complex. The two buildings were constructed as a mirror image in plan but with very different functions (Corney pers. comm. 2005).
265
265
The Gussage Hill Complex
157: Group of farmstead enclosures north-west of Gussage Hill (Bowen 1990, fig.1) ©Crown Copyright
Moving south-east from Rushmore, enclosures revealed by aerial photography are encountered every 0.5-1.5km. These are of various types and most are thought to be of Iron Age date, many with numerous storage pits visible within them (Bowen 1990, 84-94). The variety is demonstrated if a transect is followed across the landscape from Chettle Down (ST943139) to Humby’s Stock Coppice (ST988162) a distance of about 5km (fig. 157).
The Chettle Down site (Chettle a20) consists of two ovoid enclosures linked by a ditch, a settlement type categorised as a ‘spectacles’ site. The next enclosure, 1km north-east (Farnham a 13, ST952149), is ovoid in plan but has a 100m wide gap on the south-west side of its ditched perimeter. Another enclosure 0.5km to the north-east consists of three concentric ditches with an east entrance (Farnham a 14, ST954154). Within Sixpenny Handley parish, 0.7km north-east of the last, lies a larger 5 hectare ovoid enclosure with a north-west entrance (24, ST961160) where Durotrigan pottery has been found (Bowen 1990, 29) and a further 2km north-east lies the ‘banjo’ enclosure near Humby’s Stock Coppice (Sixpenny Handley a 20, ST988162).
266
266
At this site, the entrance passage faces south-east and ditches fan out in ‘antennae’ style but in extended and irregular courses. That to the north-east curves to accommodate another circular enclosure which like the ‘banjo’ seems to contain storage pits. Continuity of occupation into the Romano-British period is indicated here as immediately north-east of this site is an area of occupation debris 20 (RCHM 1975, 69) dating from 2nd – 4th century AD.
Another ‘banjo site’ is found on Chapel Down, 0.5km to the south-east (a65, ST988162). Here, finds dating from the Late Iron Age include two Durotrigan coins and the only Coriosolite coin known from Cranborne Chase. The numerous objects recovered from the ploughsoil indicate occupation until the 4th century (Bowen 1991, 30). The ‘banjo’ entrance faces south-east and is attached to linears similar to a20.
A further 2km south-east of Chapel Down lies Gussage Cow Down with its two sets of double ‘banjo’ enclosures and attendant square and ovoid enclosures associated with extensive multiple ditch systems. This site has been described by Collin Bowen (1990, 47-51) and Mark Corney (1989, 120-3; 1991, 232-6) who compared Gussage with the Nadder-Wylye ridge sites.
The multiple ditches and banks on Cow Down form an enclosure of over 100 hectares and although there are gaps the ditch system can be traced west for 5km crossing the north-west ends of the Gussage and Crichel valleys via Thickthorn Down towards Launceston Down. Here an array of linear dykes on the high ground above the Crichel Brook appear to form another slightly smaller enclosure of about 100 hectares (fig.158).
Within the Cow Down enclosure there is a prehistoric field system and further east and north there are other traces of fields. However, on Launceston and Thickthorn Downs and down the Gussage and Crichel valleys as far as the five household enclosures described above (i.e. Moor Crichel a9 Gussage All Saints 20, a64, a65, a66) there are no remains of fields. Mark Corney (1991, 233) suggested this area was used for stock management and multiple banks and ditches extending west from the west end of the Cursus on Thickthorn Down may indicate that the Neolithic earthwork was reused to aid this function. However, excavations here in 1958 failed 267
267
to date these features. Although pottery finds from the buried soil beneath the banks and the upper silting of the ditches reveal they were constructed between the Early Bronze Age and the medieval period (Harding 1959, 110-113).
158: The Gussage Hill & Launceston Down group of ditch systems and enclosures (Bowen 1990, fig.1) ©Crown Copyright
Standing back and looking at the arrangement of linears on Collin Bowen’s distribution map (1990, fig.1) and considering duality of function, then Cow Down serves as the occupation area balanced by Launceston’s great enclosure which, on current understanding is devoid of settlement features. Therefore it could be interpreted as a vast stock holding area.
Pit 209 excavated in Gussage All Saints 20 contained thousands of mould fragments for three-link horse bits, terrets and linchpin terminals (Wainwright & Spratling 1973, 121-3). This find confirms the value of horses within the Durotrigan zone, particularly in the Late Iron Age. If the Launceston area of over 700 hectares, defined by linear earthworks and apparently without field systems, was for livestock, then a
268
268
likely key function would be for raising horses. Perhaps the land was used for training chariot teams, but it would be difficult to prove such a hypothesis.
The Gussage Cow Down group of enclosures (fig.159) has yielded finds indicating that some of the residents were of a higher status compared with the people who once lived within Gussage All Saints 20. Mark Corney (1991, 246) listed five Durotrigan coins from the north double ‘banjo’ enclosure (7a , 7b, ST 992142) and two from the south (7c, & 7d, ST998133). At that time thirteen coins had been found across the site with much Durotrigan pottery and fibulae of various types (ibid. 242-3). Finds continue to be made and two more Durotrigan coins have recently been recovered (Martin Green, pers comm 2006).
159: Detail of Gussage Hill group of archaeological features (Bowen 1990, area plan 2) ©Crown Copyright
269
269
The southern double ‘banjo’ may be a triple-enclosure feature as immediately south of 7d is 7e (ST998129), another ovoid enclosure visible on aerial photographs. This site is joined to the bank and ditch that forms the west side of the Gussage Cow Down multiple ditch system enclosure that runs along the top of the slope above the Gussage valley.
Other settlement enclosures on Gussage Hill include the ovoid Drive Plantation site 8 (SU006142) where Late Iron Age pottery including a sherd of Dressel 1 amphora has been found. Occupation here continues to the end of the Roman period and similar continuity is demonstrated from finds from around the north and south double ‘banjos’ (Sparey-Green 2002, 127-8). Another enclosure, with a necked entrance on its west side lies 200m east of 7e (Gussage All Saints a63, SU001129) and also contains abundant occupation debris of the Late Iron Age (Bowen 1990, 27).
In addition to this unique Dorset grouping of multiple ditches and ‘banjo’ enclosures, is another exotic feature excavated 300m north-west of the northern double ‘banjo’ 7a and 7b. This site is a barrow surrounded by a square ditch with sides 16m long (Sixpenny Handley 30, ST98901443). When excavated (White 1970, 26-36), it was found to have been robbed in antiquity but covered the remains of a Late Iron Age cremation pyre. This cremation is unique in Dorset; indeed, Romano-British cremations are rare in the county, yet they have been found at Woodcutts and Oakley Down within the study area. Four Romano-British cremations were found in the ditch of the Iron Age settlement (Wimborne St Giles 36 (ibid. 100) during the 1947-51 excavations (SU01601775) others were found in the nearby Oakley Down barrow group (RCHM 1975, 102).
Small square enclosures, possible burial sites have been identified from aerial photographs in the area (Bowen 1990, 91). One, perhaps two lie immediately north of 7c on Cow Down (ST99901345) another was excavated by Martin Green (pers. comm 2006) in the Gussage valley (ST992114) but contained late Roman burials.
270
270
Finds of ballista heads have been made at Rotherley, Woodcutts and Gussage Hill. Mark Corney (1989, 122) suggested that these objects may indicate that the area was significant during the Roman Conquest and may have witnessed military engagement.
160: Distribution of Iron Age monuments on Cranborne Chase (Barrett, Bradley & Green 1991, 231)
Concluding Remarks
The study area includes nearly all the ‘banjo’ enclosures in Dorset although Bowen (1990, 93) has identified another three to the south-west in the neighbouring Tarrant valley (Tarrant Gunville 35, ST916142; Tarrant Hinton 21, ST925102; Tarrant
271
271
Monkton a36, ST933075). There are none in the Hod Hill and Badbury study areas and they have not been identified further south and west.
This type of enclosure is a settlement feature of the land further north and east (fig.192 p.342). Mark Corney (1991, 238) has plotted their distribution across Hampshire and east Wiltshire. It seems unlikely that they developed independently as a settlement form in Dorset and more likely that the ‘banjo’ was introduced into Cranborne Chase from the east in the same way coinage became adopted and was adapted first in this area. However, it is not possible to say whether the earliest coinage arrived with the fashion for ‘banjo’ building or whether the ‘banjos’ represent a migration or conquest by people from the east.
The sharp contrast between the Cranborne Chase and Stour valley settlement patterns will be commented on here even though there is unlikely to be an archaeological consensus on any particular explanation of the available evidence.
A useful test would be to find whether eastern styles of pottery or other material evidence were associated with the Dorset ‘banjos’ at an early phase and replaced by the Durotrigan ceramics later on. Only the Woodcutts enclosure has been excavated and although the pottery should be examined again, the available drawings do not seem to hold out much hope of proving that an eastern ceramic influence was present in the earliest phase.
Surface finds from ‘banjos’ across the study area seem to be without exception Late Iron Age and Durotrigan. One might suggest that the people who first constructed the ‘banjos’ in Dorset brought in a distinctive settlement type but had no ceramic identity. If, for example, the people of Pilsdon Pen had moved east and occupied the land around Eggardon or Maiden Castle they would be archaeologically invisible.
One could argue that there is evidence for settlement shift and disruption across the Durotrigan area where ‘banjo’ enclosures are known. Within the study area, using the limited information available, the general rule is for rectilinear enclosures to be earlier and ovoid enclosures to be later. Therefore, the rectilinear sites excavated on Down
272
272
Farm and South Lodge have proved to be earlier and similar rectilinear sites at a distance from ovoid enclosures may demonstrate settlement shift.
An example of this would be the ‘tombstone’enclosure, Gussage St Michael 7h, excavated at Down Farm (Northcott 2004) which was abandoned in the Middle Iron Age and lies 0.5km from double ‘banjo’ 7a-7b. A similar settlement shift may be visible in Sixpenny Handley parish where another one of Bowen’s ‘tombstone’ enclosures a64 (ST980162) lies 0.5km from the Chapel Down and Humby’s Stock Coppice ‘banjos’. However, Sixpenny Handley 36 on Oakley Down is an excavated example of a rectilinear earlier Iron Age enclosure which continued to be occupied into the Romano-British period. Nevertheless, this site is not typical as it is larger and squarer in plan than the ‘tombstone’ sites.
The change in the settlement pattern seems to be earlier Iron Age from the latest finds in the abandoned sites and from the absence of developed hillforts. Only four univallate hillforts are known in the vicinity with only the western example, Bussey Stool Park, being a well finished enclosure.
Gussage All Saints 20 should demonstrate disruption, if this can be defined in this area in the Middle and Late Iron Age, but it does not. In fact it is very similar in form to Little Woodbury which lies in the west Hampshire and Salisbury area which Collin Bowen believed had a different settlement morphology to Dorset south-west of Bokerley Dyke. However, Little Woodbury is abandoned in the later Middle Iron Age whereas Gussage continues to be occupied until the 1st century AD.
Looking across the south Wiltshire and north-east Dorset area there are more Iron Age abandoned and shifted settlements than are known further south and west. For example, the Battlesbury bowl extensive settlement that withdraws to the hillfort (Wessex Archaeology 2000), Longbridge Deverill Cow Down (Hawkes 1994), the settlement north of the Stockton enclosure (Saunders 1997), East Knoyle (Peter Cox pers.comm. 2006) and the Swallowcliffe and Fifield Bavant settlements (Clay 1924; 1925) on the Ebble-Nadder ridge . This compared with the number of Late Iron Age sites with minimal earlier material associated with them gives an impression of significant settlement shift which is not so apparent on sites further south and west. 273
273
As previously mentioned, Marnhull is an example of Stour valley continuity, a large, apparently open settlement occupied from the early Iron Age through to the Roman period. This sort of long term occupation on extensive settlement sites outside hillforts will be considered again in the Badbury study area below.
With the exception of Gussage 20, elsewhere in the Cranborne study area the settlement evidence suggests increasing numbers of Late Iron Age farmsteads being newly established in the landscape. Pitt-Rivers’ excavations at Rushmore (1887; 1888) indicate that the storage pits and settlement features found at Woodcutts, Rotherley and Park House begin to be constructed in the Late Iron Age. In addition, although there are other earthworks in the vicinity, the Berwick Down farmstead was a Late Iron Age creation (Wainwright 1968).
There is also a strong argument for settlement hierarchy within the study area with the settlement remains and ceramic evidence from Berwick placed at the lower end of the scale.
The pottery analysis from Gussage All Saints 20 reveals Durotrigan copies of imports but very little exotic material and no coinage. Therefore, presumably they were a middle-ranking extended family group on a par with the similar sized neighbouring four households (a64-66 and Moor Crichel a9) who presumably divided or were allotted the arable, pasture and meadow land to create similar-sized farms.
Above them on Gussage Hill lie the double ‘banjo’ enclosures 7a-d and multiple ditch systems. Here, at Rushmore and on Chapel Down a65, the coins and pottery, the elaborate earthworks and the continuity into the Roman period suggest a higher level of significance and wealth amongst the inhabitants. The Coriosolite coin from Chapel Down and also the three examples of probable Black Cordoned Ware from Woodcutts and Park House suggest trade with Armorican merchants. If these sherds are imports and not Poole Harbour copies then they are rare inland examples of this type of pottery. Black Cordoned Ware is not known from Maiden Castle and Hod Hill (Cunliffe & de Jersey 1997, 44-7).
274
274
The finds from the study area seem to confirm those from the Stockton, Hamshill, Hanging Langford, Ebsbury group of sites, having a cluster of higher status objects noted by Mark Corney (1989, 1991). It could be argued that the ‘banjo’ occupants were incomers from the east who had the power and wealth. Most of the population seems to have continued with the ‘normal’ funerary practices of crouched inhumations in pits and ditches and structured deposits including parts of human skeletons in pits. However, at least one Late Iron Age burial mound within a square ditch existed on Gussage Hill and the interred body or bodies were cremated. This was an alien form of burial in comparison with all that is known for the rest of the Durotrigan zone.
The Thickthorn multiple bank and ditch system continuing the line of the Cursus seems to suggests that the Gussage Hill site was chosen partly because of its extraordinary Neolithic and Bronze Age earthworks. Perhaps the Cursus was seen as a valuable legacy from the past. There is a sense of the sacred in the way long and round barrows are usually left undisturbed within the hillforts of the Durotrigan zone and one would expect a sense of awe in the magnitude of the ditches and banks of the Cursus. It crosses the headwaters of the Allen and Gussage and it appears that in the Late Iron Age the earthwork was extended across the Crichel Brook and up to Launceston Down. Another system of banks and ditches 0.5km north-west lie either side of the source of the Gussage and if Christopher Sparey-Green’s suspicions (1997; 2000) are confirmed, the Mycen Farm Roman buildings mark a sacred site which can be traced back to the Iron Age. His evidence for this is the rectilinear ditch system near a spring site seen on aerial photographs and partly excavated. The use of the linear earthworks to control livestock was probably part of their function but they seem too monumental and intricate to be solely functional boundaries and there is likely to be a sacred as well as a secular element to their construction.
Taking the enclosure and ditch systems, the imported objects and the cremation burial together with the evidence for settlement shift, there is a case to be made for the idea of an immigrant elite controlling the established population. Perhaps not quite like the establishment of a Norman motte and bailey beside a Saxon village or a manorial lord evicting the villagers to expand his park or to create sheep pasture out of open fields, but the ‘banjos’ do seem to represent a new order. Certainly, it is the impression given 275
275
on the Oxdrove Ridge where the land is parcelled up by a series of Late Iron Age cross-ridge dykes (Rahtz et al 1990).
Looking across the whole area examined in this section there are blocks of land with different settlement characteristics suggesting the evolution of different types of community. These will be considered in chapter 6 (p.357-61) but it is clear that the Cranborne study area is a distinctive element in a landscape full of settlement diversity. To the west lies Hod and Hambledon and to the south lies the confluence of the Stour and Allen near Badbury which will be the last study area in the survey of the Durotrigan zone.
276
276
5.7 East Dorset: confluence of the Stour and Allen, the Badbury Environs. The Tarrant and Allen valleys link the Cranborne and Badbury study areas. Only 3km separate them but a marked settlement change takes place. Some of the Cranborne settlement types appear in the upper Tarrant valley but despite excellent aerial photographic cover they are not currently known within 6km of its confluence with the Stour.
A distribution map of SW/Durotrigan coins located by the Stour Valley Detector Group demonstrates that the Tarrant Valley has an unusually high number of finds. There are scattered groups on the chalk spurs above both sides of the river at Tarrant Hinton, Tarrant Monkton, Hogstock, Tarrant Rushton, Tarrant Rawston and Tarrant Crawford (fig.162 p.268; fig.189 p.329)
The southern edge of the ‘banjo’ enclosure distribution lies in the upper Tarrant area. Bowen (1990, 96) also illustrates another example of conjoined ‘spectacles’ enclosures (Tarrant Hinton 18, ST920110), these linked by linear ditches to a ‘concentric’ enclosure with a south-west facing entrance (Pimperne 18, ST916105).
There is one notable piece of research that has taken place between study areas 5.6 and 5.7. This was on a villa site that overlay an Iron Age - Romano British village. The excavations were carried out between 1968-84 in Barton Field (Tarrant Hinton 17, ST926119). There were Bronze Age burials on the site but the earliest Iron Age finds were 6th century. Aerial photographs show that the settlement was extensive and the pottery assemblage from the site includes Early, Middle and Late Iron Age forms increasingly derived from Poole Harbour. As with the Marnhull site, a few sherds of South Western Decorated Ware were found. This site can be compared with Bradford Down (see p. 291) as an extensive Stour Valley settlement that became a courtyard villa in the 4th century. At Barton Field, two flexed Middle Iron Age inhumations and one crouched Late Iron Age burial in a shallow oval grave were excavated (Graham 2006).
277
277
162: Rivers and contours (10m intervals) with SW/Durotrigan coins central and east Dorset
278
278
RCHM
RCHM (1972, 99), notes that two Durotrigan coins in the Pitt-Rivers collection are probably from Barton Field, and during the excavations another two silver Durotrigan staters, a quarter stater and a bronze stater were found. One of the silver staters was found in the upper filling of the 1.5m deep southern boundary ditch of the settlement which ran under the courtyard villa. North of this ditch, Iron Age buildings were excavated, as well as storage pits of Early, Middle and Late Iron Age date. An Early Iron Age 15m diameter round house was found beneath the villa bath house which lay about 100m north-east of the main villa (Tanner 1974, 64-6). Six other hut circles were found (Giles 1983, 145-7).
Study Box 5.7: East Dorset
The land around Badbury was my pilot study area and I have carried out much of the fieldwork and excavation here or commissioned and supervised others to undertake finds analysis and survey work. Twenty years of archaeological research has enabled me to accumulate a considerable body of additional evidence which when added to the existing data has significantly improved the understanding of this landscape.
Topographic Description (fig.189 p.329)
The geology of the study box is predominantly chalk, apart from its south-east corner and the tops of the higher hills, where tertiary sands, clays and gravels are found. The flood plains of the valleys are composed of river alluvium.
The twin peaks of Badbury/High Wood hill are the watershed for the three rivers that surround it. The rivers form a roughly triangular area with sides about 7km long. The River Allen lies east of Badbury, the River Tarrant lies to the north-west and these drain into the River Stour to the south of the hill.
The Allen meanders along the east side of the study area flowing through the village of Witchhampton and the hamlets of Hinton Parva, Stanbridge and Clapgate before
279
279
Study Box 7 Focus of settlement
Settlement pattern and types
Range of settlement elements Continuity of settlement and sacred association
East Dorset In the earlier Iron Age this may have been Badbury Rings although the large settlements of Bradford Down, Sweetbriar and Heron Grove may have been the key settlements in the area and the pottery recovered from the hillfort is predominantly later Iron Age. By the latest Iron Age Crab Farm had become the principal settlement and it developed into a small town from 1st century AD. Multivallate hillfort; Univallate hillfort; Enclosed large settlements; Individual farmsteads; Dispersed settlements within contiguous rectilinear enclosures. Rectilinear property boundaries; Post-holes and drip gullies for timber round houses,; Storage pits with and without structured deposits. Badbury hill: Periods of occupation from all periods Mesolithic to Romano-British. Bradford Down: Continuity likely from Early Iron Age-Romano-British period Sweetbriar Drove: Early Iron Age –Late Iron Age Crab Farm: Middle Iron Age –Romano-British. Iron Age remains associated with Durotrigan coins below the Romano-Celtic temple at Badbury Rings
Distinctive artefact types
Middle Iron Age structured pit deposit found at Crab Farm Coins: SW/Durotrigan coins comparatively numerous in this area. Badbury/Shapwick hoard or hoards containing about 850 mainly high percentage silver including some starfish and occasional gold British B. Exotic coins centred on Badbury include W/Dobunnic, 1 Catuvellauni, 1 Atrebates, Armorican 1 Veneti, 1 Baiocasses. Scatter of other SW/Durotrigan silver, base silver and bronze particularly in clusters along Tarrant valley. A good ceramic sequence from the 8th century BC to 1st century AD. Poole Harbour ceramic domination in the later Iron Age. Late Iron Age Terra Nigra platter Crab Farm Iron torcs Badbury Rings & Spetisbury Sword-shaped currency bars, Spetisbury Greensand and heathstone querns.
Burial Rite
No burials or human bones recorded from the excavated Iron Age sites in this area. Cremation burial in Durotrigan bowl near Lake Roman fortress Mass grave in the ditch of Spetisbury hillfort, perhaps more than one episode of burial. 280
280
joining the Stour at the market town of Wimborne Minster at the south-east corner of the study box. The Tarrant flows through the villages of Tarrant Rawston, Tarrant Rushton, Tarrant Keyneston and joins the Stour south-west of the hamlet of Tarrant Crawford.
The larger villages occupy the banks of the River Stour. These, from north-west to south-east, are Chalton Marshall, Spetisbury, Shapwick and Sturminster Marshall.
Most of the chalkland settlements lie beside the rivers, but on the tertiary beds, the occupation is more dispersed with a cluster of hamlets lying between Kingston Lacy Park and the town of Wimborne, including Hillbutts, Cowgrove, Tadden, Chilbridge and Pamphill.
Tr II
Tr III
Tr I
164: Badbury Rings hillfort (Crawford & Keiller 1928, 58) with 2004 excavation trenches marked.
The chalkland consists of undulating spurs and coombes draining into the river valleys and radiating out from the high points of Buzbury, north-west of the Tarrant; High Lea, north-east of the Allen and Badbury. Each of these vantage points is
281
281
occupied by an Iron Age site. Spetisbury also occupies a high strategic position above a ford south-west of the Stour. Here, the river lies directly below the hillfort.
The spacing of the known sites is between 1.5km and 2km and most spur crests or hill tops were occupied. The pattern is so consistent that it seems likely that fieldwork will eventually reveal Iron Age occupation at key locations where sites are still unknown. Two of these sites, on spur crests above the Stour and Tarrant west of Tarrant Keyneston (ST915045), and between Tarrant Rushton and Hogstock (ST945060), had no recorded occupation evidence until recently. Metal detectorists have now plotted scatters of SW/Durotrigan coins across both sites (Claire Pinder, Dorset County Council pers.comm.). Site
Zone
NGR
Badbury Rings Multivallate hillfort
Hill top Shapwick 31 (Excav.2005) River side spur crest Spetisbury 30 (Excav.1857) Spur Crest Tarrant Keyneston 16 (Excav. 1964) Spur Crest Above Allen Pamphill 70 (Excav. 1968) Stour valley slope Pamphill 123 (Excav. 1989) Spur crest above Stour (Excav. 1992) Stour valley slope Shapwick a85 (Excav. 1995) Spur crest Pamphill (Excav. 1986) Stour Valley Langton Long Blandford (Finds)
ST96400300 RCHM V, 61
Hill slope Shapwick 31 (Excav. 1900, 1952, 2000)
ST96050300 RCHM V, 60 (Papworth 2000c)
Spetisbury Rings Univallate hillfort
Buzbury Rings Concentric enclosures Bradford Down Large dispersed settlement. Sweetbriar Drove Large dispersed settlement Heron Grove Large dispersed settlement Crab Farm Large enclosed settlement Lodge Farm Enclosed farmstead Langton Long Blandford 4 SW/Durotrigan W of Badbury Romano-Celtic temple 25 SW/Durotrigan
BA *
EIA *
ST91500200 RCHM III, 246
MIA *
LIA *
RB *
*
*
*
ST91900590 RCHM IV, 102
*
*
*
*
*
ST97800423 RCHM V, 52
*
*
*
*
*
ST96750090 Maynard pers comm.
…
*
*
…
ST95759777 Valentin 1993
*
*
*
*
ST94900250 Papworth 1995
…
…
*
*
*
…
ST975020 Papworth 1994b ST90500530 RCHM IV, 45
282
282
*
… *
*
*
*
Shapwick/ Badbury Hoard or hoards 850-950 SW/Durotrigan Tarrant Rawston Ovoid enclosure 3 SW/Durotrigan Rushton Airfield Discrete ovoid and rectilinear Enclosures 3 SW/Durotrigan Bishops Court Down Rectangular Enclosures 5 SW/Durotrigan SW Target Wood Sub rectangular Enclosure Tarrant Rushton Oval Enclosure
Barnsley Farm Large oval enclosure approached by long entrance avenue. 3 SW/Durotrigan Lower Barnsley Occupation debris. 4 SW/Durotrigan High Wood ‘D’-shaped enclosure East High Wood Rectilinear enclosure King Down Rectilinear enclosure New Barn Farm Ring ditches; Occupation debris. High Lea Farm Concentric enclosures Newton Peverill Burial
Witchampton 15 SW/Durotrigan
Between Badbury Hill and Shapwick Village (Finds 1982) Spur Crest Tarrant Rawston 4 (AP site) Spur Crest Tarrant Rushton (AP site 1995)
ST9502 (Van Arsdell 1989a)
ST932006 RCHM IV, 111
?
?
?
?
*
ST945055 NMR ST9405/6
?
?
?
?
*
Spur Crest Shapwick (AP site 1995)
ST930030 NMR ST9302/9
?
?
?
?
?
Spur Crest Shapwick (AP site 1995) Spur Crest Tarrant Rushton 16 (AP site) Spur Crest Above Allen Pamphill 71 (Finds; AP site)
ST945041 NMR ST9404/1
?
?
?
?
?
ST939046 RCHM IV 114
?
?
?
?
?
…
…
…
*
Allen Valley slope Pamphill (Finds) Hill top Pamphill (Finds) Hill slope Pamphill 72 (Finds; AP site) Hill slope Pamphill 73 (AP site) Spur crest Shapwick (Finds, AP site 1971) Avon valley Slope Hinton Martell (Excav. 2004) Stour valley Sturminster Marshall (Finds 1963) Allen valley Slope (Finds) Witchampton
ST99100280 Papworth 1997, 132
…
…
*
*
*
*
*
…
*
?
?
?
…
*
*
…
*
ST98750390 RCHM V, 52 NMR ST9804/3
*
ST969032 Papworth 2008 forthcoming ST97300250 RCHM V,52 ST96450365 RCHM V,52 ST95550225 Papworth 1994, 56 NMR ST9504/4 SU00050560 Gale 2004
?
?
ST943 000 ? RCHM II, 611
*
ST9806 Celtic Coin Index
*
283
283
Hemsworth Villa
Stanbridge building
Wimborne Cemetery Pottery Manor House Gardens Temple? Kingston Lacy Park Roman coins
Hogstock, Tarrant Rushton 24 SW/Durotrigan Luton Farm * Tarrant Rawston 10 SW/Durotrigan N. of Crawford Bridge 17 SW/Durotrigan Tarrant Crawford Church Pottery Ashley Wood Rectilinear enclosure Fortlet?
Cogdean Elms Cremation burials
East End Occupation debris
Lake Gates Excavation Fortress
Allen valley Slope Witchampton 22 (Excav. 1905) Allen valley Hinton Parva 32 (Finds 1939) Allen valley Pamphill (Finds 1919) Allen valley Witchampton 23 (Excav. 1923) Stour valley Slope Pamphill (Finds 1736) Tarrant valley slope (Finds 1990s) Tarrant valley Slope (Finds 1990s) Stour valley slope (Finds 1990s) Tarrant valley Tarrant Crawford (Finds 1918) Tarrant valley slope Tarrant Keyneston (AP site ) Stour valley Corfe Mullen 25 (Finds 1865) Stour valley Corfe Mullen 24 (Excav. 1932) Stour valley Pamphill 69 (Excav. 195981)
ST96320587 RCHM V, 110
V*
SU00390387 RCHM V, 32
*
SU005 005 RCHM V, 51
*
ST99060641 RCHM V, 110
*
ST98400099 RCHM V, 51
*
ST950070 DCC SMR
*
ST940080 DCC SMR
*
ST926028 DCC SMR
*
ST92300347 RCHM IV, 88
*
ST92630559 Field 1976,67
?
ST995982 RCHM II, 601
…
*B
ST992983 RCHM II, 600
*
*
SZ99809910 RCHM V, 51
*
Chronological Development
Neolithic flints have been found on the summits of Badbury/High Wood and there are numerous Bronze Age sites within the study area including over 120 round barrows mainly grouped on the chalk spurs around Badbury.
284
284
165: Earthwork plan of a prehistoric enclosure in High Wood east knoll of Badbury Hill RCHME survey (Corney & Riley in Papworth 1992a, 70) ©Crown Copyright
Linear boundaries of the Bronze Age can be seen on aerial photographs. Collin Bowen (1990, 42) considered the Badbury group to be the second largest concentration of such features in Dorset. Excavations along the line of the Blandford Road beech avenue in 1989 crossed various ditches and it became clear that the linears sometimes cut across earlier Bronze Age field ditches (Papworth 1992a, 71-4). This was seen when the ‘D’-shaped enclosure (Shapwick a86; ST95560281) was excavated in 1988. The bank of the enclosure lay above the burial of a sheep which was cut into one of the typical earlier Bronze Age ‘V’ shaped ditches which was 0.7m wide at the top 0.3m deep with a flat bottom 0.2m wide. Radiocarbon samples from this sheep burial and an ox skeleton from the inner ditch of the enclosure, date the site to the Middle Bronze Age 1200-950 BC (ibid.54). The date range is similar to that of the South Lodge and Down Farm enclosures on Cranborne Chase (fig.147 p.249).
This creation of a system of linear boundaries took place in an extensively farmed and occupied landscape. The banks and ditches often took account of existing features and this can be demonstrated using aerial photographic evidence. Some linears used barrows as boundary markers (fig.166 p.286). For example at ST95800255, linear
285
285
sections across this feature were excavated south (ST95520301) and north (ST95580305) of the Blandford Road. Two groups of knapped flint were found with sherds of pottery above the primary ditch filling of frost shattered chalk. This dated the deep phase III ditch to the later Bronze Age (Papworth 1992a, 64-5).
This particular linear is a massive feature probably linked to an earthwork traceable from the south side of the outer rampart at Badbury Rings (ST96140288, Shapwick 31). It can certainly be seen as a soil mark aligned east – west for 0.2km on the south side of the Blandford Road (Shapwick a89). Here it cuts across the Early Bronze Age linear Shapwick a90 and after 100m turns south-west following the line of an identical and parallel linear 124 (both were seen in section in 1989 and measured 0.7m wide, 0.3m deep and ‘V’-shaped with a flat bottom 0.2m wide). Linear 35/a89 follows the course of 124 up the slope for 0.7 km. At the crest of the slope, before it reaches the north side of the Crab Farm Iron Age settlement (ST94860251) (fig.184, p.319) it turns west again for another 0.5km and meets a track known as the Swan Way (ST94400261) beyond which it has not been traced. The scale of this feature compared with the other linears indicates that it may have been a defensive earthwork. Its association with the Badbury and Crab Farm Iron Age settlements will be considered below.
The later Bronze Age significance of Badbury is suggested by finds of a bronze rapier from the west side of the hillfort (ST960030) and a bronze palstave axe from near the south-west side (ST95720289) (Papworth 1994a, 68 & 77).
Sweetbriar Drove (fig.1 p.2)
The Southampton to Purbeck BP pipeline crossed the Sweetbriar Drove settlement (ST968010) in 1988. This lies 1.9km south-east of Badbury Rings. Numerous pits, post-holes and ditches were observed and thirty were excavated but the results were never published. Samples from three pits were radiocarbon dated. Pit [31] provided a date of 890-400 BC at 95% probability and 810-600 BC at 68%. Pit [57] provided a date of 800-400 BC at 95% probability and 710-480 BC at 68%. Pit [91] provided a date of 360-50 BC at 95% probability and 220-60BC at 68%.
287
287
The pottery report (Duncan 1989) states that 1345 sherds were examined from two large ditches, twelve storage pits, nine other pits, six post-holes and two smaller linear gullies.
167: Plot of geophysical and excavated features Sweetbriar Drove (unpublished survey by John Gater with additions)
39% of the pottery was dated to the Early Iron Age and included All Cannings Cross style vessels. Angular vessels and forms with upright rims and gently sloping shoulders typified this phase. 68% of this pottery was burnished with 34% haematite coated. Jars were the most popular form of vessel followed by bowls. Some jars had finger-tip decoration on the shoulder, rim top or just below the rim.
The Middle Iron Age pots of phase 2 made up 58% of the pottery and typically consisted of plain, coil-built, globular jars in coarse sandy fabrics and included examples of counter-sunk handles. A storage pit [51] was cut by the ring gulley of a
288
288
Middle Iron Age round house [35] this in turn was cut by a rectilinear enclosure ditch containing Late Iron Age Durotrigan pottery.
The 20m wide pipeline easement was aligned north to south and crossed 50m of settlement features. The geophysical survey of the area (Gater 1988) (fig.167) demonstrated that the axis of the settlement was north-west to south-east and pits, rectilinear enclosures and ring gulleys continued beyond the 160m long survey area. In 2004 a gradiometer survey by the author on the north side of the Sweetbriar Drove demonstrated that the site did not continue in that direction.
Ann Garvey (2005, 36) analysed the Early Iron Age petrology and concluded that nearly all the pottery was locally produced although 5% of the sherds contained glauconitic fabric found in Upper Greensand deposits. The nearest useable source of Greensand is 22km away at Chaldon Herring in south Dorset. Alternatively, the pottery may have produced in an area north of Badbury, perhaps in the environs of Castle Ditches hillfort, Vale of Wardour, which lies 26km away.
Heron Grove The pottery from Sweetbriar is similar to that from the earliest Iron Age phase of Heron Grove. This site (SY95759777) lies on a spur top above the south bank of the River Stour 3km from the Sweetbriar settlement but on tertiary gravel rather than chalk.
The area was excavated in advance of gravel extraction in the early 1990s and at least 15 ring gulleys for round houses, numerous post-holes and pits and intercutting enclosure ditches and gulleys were found (fig.168). A few Early Neolithic and earlier Bronze Age features were excavated but most of the occupation evidence dated to the earliest Iron Age. Many of the occupation features and six of the round house sites contained exclusively Early Iron Age pottery (Valentin 1993, 63-70; 1994, 126 & forthcoming).
Of the 5273 sherds from the site, 4108 were dated to the period c.800-600 BC. The pottery forms are similar to those found on the Purbeck sites of Eldon Seat II and Kimmeridge II with finger-tip decoration predominantly found on the jars, and 289
289
stabbed decoration on the furrowed bowls and long necked carinated bowls. The fabric analysis indicated 15-20% of the sherds coming from non-local sources. About
168: Plan of archaeological features Heron Grove (Valentin forthcoming 2006)
12% had fabric typical of the Purbeck area and 2% had glauconitic inclusions typical of a production area close to Upper Greensand geology (Raymond forthcoming).
Frances Raymond thought the ceramics indicated that the excavated area was abandoned in the Early Iron Age and reoccupied in the Middle Iron Age. 453 sherds were dated to the period 350-50BC. The high percentage of Poole Harbour type fabics
290
290
(65%), the high shouldered jars and ovoid jars indicated that the reoccupation of the site took place in the late Middle Iron Age, perhaps in the 2nd century BC.
612 sherds from the site were dated to the Late Iron Age. The identifiable forms tended to be bead rimmed jars of typical Durotrigan style. A local copy of a GalloBelgic wheel-turned black cordoned ware jar was identified. The fabric of 98% of the sherds came from Poole Harbour. The other 11 sherds from Late Iron Age features contained flint temper and were thought to be residual Middle Iron Age sherds. This last phase of the site therefore is like other settlements in Dorset in the period 50BCAD 43, where local pottery production disappears in favour of the Poole Harbour wares. Most of the pottery from this phase was found in the rectilinear ditch that was dug across the site and this is similar to that excavated at Sweetbriar. There is no evidence that Sweetbriar and Heron Grove continued to be occupied into the Roman period.
Bradford Down (fig.1 p.2)
Bradford Down (Pamphill 70 ST978043) lies about 1.5km north east of Badbury Rings on a spur 50-60m O.D., projecting north-east towards the River Allen. Badbury Hill is clearly visible and the bedrock is chalk overlain in places by brown clay mixed with round pebbles. The triangular 18 hectare field is framed on the east and southwest by farm roads and on the north-west by an ancient hedge which forms the boundary of the Kingston Lacy Estate.
During the 1960s, each ploughing threw up many flints with occasional Roman roof tile. One of several archaeological test pits dug in 1967 located the floor of a Roman building. Local archaeologist, Norman Field, decided to excavate this site because the building was gradually being ploughed away. During four seasons of excavation (i.e. 1968, 1969, 1970 and 1972) three areas were excavated within the ditched area enclosing the “Twisted Thorn” mound. Four Romano-British buildings were identified which overlay pits and ditches of Iron Age date (Field 1982, 71-82).
291
291
In trench ‘A’ the footings of three Roman buildings were found dating from the 2nd to 4th century AD. These overlay 14 pits: 2 were dated to the earlier Iron Age; 7 to the Late Iron Age; 2 were early Romano-British and 3 were undated. In section, the pits were generally of ‘beehive’ type.
In trench ‘B’ the footings of a small building were found. This probably dated to the 2nd century and overlay a deposit containing a coin of Claudius. A cluster of three intercutting pits was seen in plan underlying the building but only the central pit B28 was excavated. It contained earlier Iron Age pottery. Of the two other excavated storage pits in this area B27 contained Late Iron Age finds and B29 was undated. In the east corner of the trench were two intercutting ditches, the earlier, B32, was traced for 30m aligned south to north and then turning north-east. It was backfilled with chalk rubble and brown clay. B33 seems to have been excavated soon afterwards and followed a similar course along the east side of B32. Both were 2m wide and 1m deep. Like B32, the filling of B33 was not a slow silting and also seemed to have been backfilled deliberately. Sherds of Durotrigan pottery and early Roman flagons from B33 indicated a mid-late 1st century date for the backfilling (ibid. 78).
The smallest trench ‘C’ revealed a group of 7 post-holes scattered around a circular hollow 8m in diameter. The filling of the hollow contained no dateable finds but some of the post-holes contained pottery including a sherd with finger tip decoration. The burial of a headless sheep was found on the south side of the hollow mixed with other animal bones. This group of features was thought to date to the earlier Iron Age. The boundary ditch sectioned in the southern trench extension had two phases, the earlier ditch measured 1.5m wide and 0.9m deep and was aligned north-east to south-west probably curving to enclose the east side of the mound as suggested by the earthwork survey (Chancellor 1939) and geophysical survey (Papworth 2004b). The later ditch converged on the earlier and cut through it from the east. It measured 3m wide and 1.8m deep and three sherds of later Iron Age pottery were found in its primary filling. The ditch silted gradually and was still a clear earthwork with a counterscarp bank in the 1930s.
From 2002-2003 a geophysical survey of this north-west part of Bradford Down field was carried out using a fluxgate gradiometer. The area surveyed comprises about 35% 293
293
of the total area of the field (i.e. about 6 hectares) and remains of settlement activity showed clearly across the plot.
Two parts of the north-west quadrant of this survey area were sampled on the same grid using a resistivity meter. A 60m by 40m area, aligned north-west to south-east was surveyed in the area excavated by Norman Field. This was to test whether the buildings he excavated could be detected and to look for additional features outside his excavated area. High resistance features could be seen aligned with the building footings excavated in Area A, which lay immediately east of the ploughed down remnants of “Twisted Thorn Mound”.
Fieldwalking of this area recovered mainly worked flint and Roman building debris. No Iron Age pottery was found. The Roman debris lay across the areas ‘A’ and ‘B’, where Norman Field excavated four Roman buildings, and continued down the slope to the east where the resistivity survey revealed a ‘U’-shaped area of high resistance 40m wide surrounding a low resistance area. This evidence may represent building foundations around a courtyard.
On the top of the down, in the grids immediately west of the ‘Twisted Thorn’ mound was an area where struck flints were concentrated with many flints showing secondary working. The flint technology indicated a later Bronze Age date.
The pattern that emerges from the geophysical survey, excavation and fieldwalking indicates a multiphase settlement consisting of trackways and enclosures with boundaries being extended and enclosures overlying one another. Excavation and fieldwalking indicate that these features date from the later Bronze Age through to the end of the Roman period but it is unclear from the small number of features excavated whether the prehistoric settlement was continuously occupied.
The geophysical survey (fig.170 p.296) showed that “Twisted Thorn” mound lay at a junction of two main trackways in the later Iron Age, one approached from the northeast and the other from the east. To the east and south of this junction, extending for about 200m, is the main occupation area consisting of about 12 rectilinear and curvilinear enclosures averaging about 30-40m wide and containing pit-like 294
294
anomalies. The enclosures are defined by boundary ditches, sometimes with traces of minor trackways between them.
Field (1982, 78) excavated sections of these boundary ditches and found that they dated to the later Iron Age and compared these ditches to the Late Iron Age inner enclosure ditches at the Gussage All Saints 20 settlement (Wainwright 1979a). These were also backfilled around the time of the Roman Conquest. The enclosures are reminiscent of those excavated at Cleavel Point (Sunter & Woodward 1987, 46) and East of Corfe River (Cox and Hearne 1991, 43), which were also created in the Late Iron Age and abandoned in the mid 1st century AD (see figs.48 p114 & 50 p116).
It is clear from the geophysics that the enclosures developed over time. Some were made larger or smaller. Other enclosures were apparently constructed using part of an existing enclosure.
Some of the linear features are probably earlier than the main rectilinear enclosure phase. It is apparent that many of the clusters of pit-like anomalies do not seem to be related to the Late Iron Age ditched enclosures. Field’s (1982, 81) three excavation trenches uncovered a number of pits containing pottery which dated them to the earlier Iron Age as well as the Late Iron Age.
The main track, aligned east to west, can be seen to continue beyond the limits of the settlement and can be traced on aerial photographs (NMR ST9704/4-5) continuing east. The photographs show that the side ditches of the track turn to north and south to define the boundary of the settlement as the track leaves the settlement area.
On the west side of the settlement this 10m wide central track is defined by linear anomalies. At the centre of the settlement, the track is obscured by an area containing many anomalies corresponding with the zone of the high resistivity readings. This suggests that the later Romano-British buildings ignored the Iron Age track-side boundaries and that this section of the track went out of use at some time in the Roman period.
295
295
Mortuary enclosures ?
170: Geophysical survey plot of anomalies Bradford Down (Papworth 2004b)
On the west edge of the survey area, beyond the clusters of enclosures and most of the pit-like anomalies, lies a clear 12m wide square enclosure with traces of another on its east side. It has an entrance on its north side that would enable access from the central track. There are pit-like anomalies within and around the square enclosure and these may indicate the site of Iron Age or more likely Roman burials associated with the settlement to the east. Similar square mortuary enclosures have been mentioned above for example at Allards Quarry, Marnhull associated with Roman burials with Late Iron Age burials in close proximity (Williams 1950, 22) and Wimborne St Giles, Cranborne Chase (Martin Green pers. comm) also enclosing Romano-British burials.
296
296
The combined archaeological evidence indicates that the summit and south slope of Bradford Down were occupied by a settlement that originated in the Bronze Age and by the end of the Iron Age had grown to become a cluster of households. Each of these was defined by rectilinear boundary ditches in a style also seen in other Late Iron Age settlements in Purbeck and East Dorset.
Lodge Farm
In 1986, remains of an Iron Age settlement were found during building work at Lodge Farm (ST97450215). This medieval lodge lies 1km south-east of Badbury and 2km south of Bradford Down. There was evidence for two phases of prehistoric occupation. In the earlier phase, a 2m wide and 0.3m deep ditch aligned east to west terminated at a 1m diameter post-pit at its west end. In phase 2 the ditch was recut and continued across the post-pit. To the north of this boundary were post-holes and a yard surface. The yard was constructed of flint gravel including numerous burnt flints and had been built over one of the post-holes. These features contained fragments of thin-walled coarse black pottery with a flint temper, which Ann Garvey (2006) has dated to the early Middle Iron Age. One sherd was from a haematite coated bowl one was a PA2.1 pot and another was a JC2.2 jar form. The Iron Age features were only seen within the foundation trenches of Lodge Farm but contemporary boundary ditches have subsequently been seen and recorded in service trenches around the buildings (Papworth 1994b, 81-90).
Barnsley (fig.171 p.298) On similar sites to Bradford Down, on spurs above the west side of the Allen River, lie the settlements of Barnsley (Pamphill 71 ST988039) and Lower Barnsley (ST991028). Barnsley lies 1km south-east of Bradford and 1km north-west of Lower Barnsley.
Barnsley occupies the crest of a spur above the 40m contour. Norman Field walked this area after ploughing in 1966 and found the lower half of a greensand rotary quern and fragments of Roman pottery and tiles (Field 1966, 116). Aerial photographs (NMR ST9804/3; OS/92200 315) show two parallel ditches 300m long and 10m apart
297
297
curving from the south towards the west side of an ovoid enclosure 250m in diameter with the darker marks indicating pits within it. This suggests that the Roman pottery represents a later phase of a settlement overlying the Iron Age enclosure.
171: The Barnsley ovoid enclosure with twin ditched avenue entrance approaching from the left (NMR 9804/3) ©Crown Copyright NMR
The Lower Barnsley settlement lies below the 30m contour 1km south-east of Barnsley and was found by David and Michael Burleigh after deep ploughing in 1991. Using a metal detector they found many Roman coins and the pottery from the site included Iron Age Durotrigan and Black-Burnished Ware. A large greensand rotary quern was found in the hedge beside the field and earlier occupation on the site is indicated by worked flints, including an Early Bronze Age barbed and tanged arrowhead. The site is lower down the valley slope and more deeply buried, therefore the survey of the aerial photographic evidence has not revealed any more detail. Steve Hopkins (pers comm. 2008) has detected Durotrigan coins from both of the Barnsley sites including bronze and silver staters and a silver quarter stater.
High Lea Farm (fig.172 p.299)
On the opposite side of the valley, on a west facing slope above the 40m contour lies a settlement site which is clear on aerial photographs taken in 1982 and 1988
298
298
(OS/88055: 013; OS/82203: 009). Badbury hill is visible from the site which resembles one of Collin Bowen’s concentric enclosure sites (1990, 93) covering about 1.5 hectares. A geophysical survey by Bournemouth University (Gale et al. 2004,165)
172: Gradiometer survey High Lea concentric enclosure settlement (Gale et al 2004, 165)
revealed that the outer rectilinear enclosure measured about 120m across, an inner rectilinear enclosure measured 80m across and within this lay a circular enclosure about 30m in diameter. The plot shows other straight linear features and a scatter of pit-like anomalies but trial trenches in 2003 revealed the footings of walls associated with pottery and fibulae dating to the 1st-3rd centuries AD. John Gale found no indication for an Iron Age origin for the site but subsequent geophysical survey has
299
299
detected ring ditches within the settlement, probably round house gullies (Stewart pers. comm.).
A curvilinear trackway can be seen on the aerial photographs (OS/88055 FR:013) leading from this site to the river at Hinton Mill. It may link up with the track that continues through the Bradford Down settlement and is visible on aerial photographs (NMR ST9704/3).
Buzbury Rings (fig.12 p.40; 173 p.301)
Collin Bowen classified Buzbury (Tarrant Keyneston 16 ST918060) not as a hillfort but a concentric enclosure settlement (1990, 93) similar to High Lea but larger, enclosing about 3 hectares. Recent fieldwork (Shattock 2006) indicates that a Neolithic enclosure underlies Buzbury. The site occupies a strong position on the ridge top above the Tarrant and Stour valleys with Badbury visible 4.5km to the south-east. Like High Lea the inner enclosure is not central to the outer but lies against its south side.
The outer enclosure is kidney shaped and about 250m across. There are traces of a middle enclosure on the south and west sides of the 120m diameter ovoid inner enclosure. A modern road crosses the site and parts of the settlement have been affected by ploughing and the construction of a golf course on the east side.
The RCHM earthwork survey (1972, 102) shows that the site is associated with contemporary trackways and a field system (fig.173). The original entrance probably lay on the south-east side facing Badbury. At least eight hollows within the inner enclosure, visible on an early aerial photograph (Crawford & Keiller 1928, 64) are interpreted as hut circles (fig.12 p.40).
Before 1914 and the construction of the golf course, Crawford mentioned finding hundreds of sherds of reddish flint gritted pottery in molehills dating to the earlier Iron Age (ibid.). He also mentioned perforated lugs or handles, which may be a reference to counter-sunk handles typical of the later Iron Age. Many other fragments of pottery have been found since, mainly from the inner enclosure. The assemblage 300
300
The movement of the Stour in its flood plain has cut into the hill slope here creating a steep drop from the hillfort rampart to the river. Poundbury Camp occupies a similar position in relation to the Frome.
From Spetisbury there are clear views to Badbury 5km to the east and along the Stour Valley to Hod Hill 11km to the north-west. The river is fordable as it flows past the hillfort and the medieval Crawford Bridge now takes advantage of this position.
RCHM commissioned an excavation to discover the depth of the ditch, as in contrast to many hillforts, the surface of the ditch filling was flat rather than concave. The trench was dug in the centre of the ditch on the west side of the hillfort and measured 1.2m square and the ditch was found to be 3m deep (Forde-Johnston 1958, 108). No finds were recorded from this excavation.
The narrow gap between the river and the hillfort meant that in 1857, when the Somerset and Dorset Railway was built between Wimborne and Blandford, a cutting was needed in the hillslope to enable the track to be laid. The cutting removed the east edge of the hillfort and exposed a pit containing 80-90 skeletons ‘laid irregularly’. Later, at least another 40 skeletons were unearthed, but the local antiquarians, Mr Durden and Mr Akerman, who recorded the first exposure, were not given access to this second discovery.
Colin Gresham (1939, 114-131) looked at the notebooks and accounts of Durden and Akerman and compared them with the objects that were donated to the British Museum from the site. He thought that the burial pit was the hillfort ditch and that the burials represented a mass grave following a battle. Fragments of scabbard and shield binding and four ‘javelin-heads’ were thought to be Roman. A long sword with part of its scabbard, fragments of five sword shaped currency bars, two brooches, a bronze cauldron and nine spear heads among other objects were thought to be Iron Age. There was evidence of violence. One skull had been cut with a sword another had a spear lodged in it.
303
303
It is generally believed that these objects are from a battle at the river crossing between the Romans and the local Iron Age people c.AD 43-44. However, Gresham classified the brooches as Late La Tene II and dates them to c.150BC. He also thought two sword chapes from the site were early. The currency bars also suggest a preConquest date. No coins were recovered from the site and only one pottery fragment of unusual form is included in the collection.
Bruce Eagles looked at the spearheads again and suggested that four of them were post Roman and that the shield binding could also be 5th-7th century (1994, 17). Therefore the jumble of bodies in the mass grave or graves may represent more than one conflict. The earlier material may have been disturbed by the later burials. However, whatever the explanation, the evidence does not suggest a mass grave dating to the mid 1st century AD. There is also a possibility that the bodies were interred at various times over many generations and represent a local burial tradition.
The univallate fort may have been abandoned in the later Middle Iron Age in favour of the developed hillfort of Badbury or like Poundbury may have been regularly repaired by a local population living outside the ramparts. This like Battlesbury is a place where modern scientific excavation is needed to determine the date for a massacre site often linked with the Roman Conquest.
Badbury Rings (fig.175 p.305)
The twin peaks of Badbury Hill can be seen from all the settlements described above. The hillfort occupies the west summit and the High Wood enclosure (fig165 p.285) the east. To the north-west, beyond Buzbury, Blandford Down interrupts Badbury’s sight line to Hod. Any signal would need to be relayed via a site like Spetisbury.
The 7 hectare interior of Badbury Rings is covered in earthworks which only became apparent when the site was cleared of scrub in the 1980s. Some earthworks, like the circular tree-ring enclosures around the summit, are not Iron Age. The RCHME survey (1998 see fig.175 p.305) recorded 28 potential hut sites beside the inner rampart. Other hollows and terraces can be seen in the 30-40m wide ring of land between the inner rampart and a pronounced scarp, which defines the geological 304
304
change from chalk to the clay and gravel capping on the hill top. Excavations have shaped this scarp and many of the hollows cut into it are probably round house sites.
175: Earthwork survey of Badbury Rings hillfort (RCHME 1998) ©Crown Copyright
At the top of this slope are traces of a bank and RCHME surveyors suggested that an earlier hillfort may have been built on this upper part of the hill and later levelled when the inner rampart was constructed. A process like that was revealed by excavation at Yarnbury in Wiltshire (Cunnington 1933).
Rectilinear as well as circular earthworks are apparent and some of these may be Romano-British or later (fig.176 p.306; 178 p.309). The geophysical survey showed many pit-like anomalies and some linears. In the south-east quadrant, a group of regularly spaced pits form a rectangular plan 30m by 15m indicating a substantial structure. Other notable anomalies are the concentrations of ferrous material spaced around the inner rampart every 100m or so. These indicate dumps of metal or areas of
305
305
metalworking but whether they represent modern debris or something more archaeologically significant is unclear.
In 2004, three small trenches were excavated within the hillfort to determine a basic chronology for the site (fig. 164 p.281). Trench I was located 20m south of the west entrance against the east side of the inner rampart where there was an oval hollow 12m across. Here, a 6m square trench was excavated to sample the north half of the hollow (ST96260298).
176: Badbury Rings fluxgate gradiometer survey (Brown, Stewart and Papworth 2007).
The Iron Age occupation evidence lay beneath a late Roman chalk floor and included a yard surface, two shallow pits and the ring gulley for a round house with an east facing entrance. The finds from the site were later Iron Age.
Trenches II and III were aligned north-west to south-east and located either side of a path between the pine trees planted on the summit. Trench II, on the south-west side 306
306
of the path, was 43m long and 1.0m wide and extended from the hill top to the plantation edge.
177: Trench I excavated against the inner rampart of Badbury Rings in September 2004.
Tree roots and modern disturbance had damaged the archaeology here. Post-medieval and predominantly 1940s debris lay directly on a layer of early prehistoric flint flakes, cores and burnt Heath stone. The subsoil consisted of compact pebble stones overlying a fine, plastic clay. Trench II revealed a pit and a ditch that contained Mesolithic flint debitage.
The Iron Age occupation evidence was confined to the lower, north-west end of the trench where the clay overlay a compact yellow brown sand. Here, a terrace had been cut through the Mesolithic flint debris into the hill slope and the floor and lower slope of this feature were covered in burnt flint and pebbles mixed with numerous fragments of black pottery and red daub. Three fragments of iron were found and two of these were part of a curved object consisting of two strands of iron twisted together probably a torc or armlet (Mepham et al. 2006a). A similar iron object was found at Spetisbury Rings, which RCHM (1970b, 246) also identified as a torc.
Trench III on the north-east side of the 5m wide path also located this terrace but there were fewer pottery finds from its floor. Trench III demonstrated the same lack of Iron Age stratigraphy on the gravel and clay geology on the summit of the hill. From this
307
307
area came a bar-shaped whet stone which may be Iron Age (for similar type see Cunliffe 1987, 172-3).
It was surprising to find so little Iron Age material at the top of the hill but perhaps the compacted gravel and plastic clays together with the exposed position made this part of the hillfort undesirable as an occupation site. The clay layer makes the upper slope of the hill very wet in winter. The small areas sampled by excavation suggest that the place was not densely occupied but the trenches were on the west side of the hillfort and like Hod Hill, the principal entrance and concentration of buildings may have been to the east. However, the earthwork and geophysical evidence does not indicate this. The pottery assemblage is also surprising as nearly everything from the site is later Iron Age. The current evidence cannot be used to claim that the place was the principal settlement from the earliest Iron Age.
Ann Garvey (2006, 2-7) looked at the petrology of the pottery from Badbury and found that all the rim sherds were of quartz fabric and that 55% were of Q4 the coarse Poole Harbour ware. Fabrics Q7 and Q11 amounted to another 18% of the assemblage and were coarser and finer equivalents of Q4 and therefore over two thirds of the Badbury pottery was of Durotrigan type produced around Poole Harbour. The Badbury ceramic forms correspond with phases 6G and 6H at Maiden Castle, which had about 80% Poole Harbour pottery by this time. Lisa Brown dated these phases to the middle to late 1st century BC.
Other fabrics were present in the Badbury assemblage indicating that grog, shelly, calcareous, flint and sandy tempered pottery were still in use in the Late Iron Age. However, the absence of the latest Iron Age Poole Harbour forms such as bead rim bowls and jars in finer fabrics (phase 7A at Maiden Castle) suggests movement away from the hillfort in the 1st century AD.
The Badbury earthwork evidence indicates that an early hill top enclosure was later replaced by the present inner rampart with its Iron Age east gateway including characteristic inturned entrance banks. The west entrance could be contemporary, as there is a trace of an inturned bank on its south side. The middle
308
308
Buried Fences of 1984 vistas between pine plantations
WWII Beacon mast concrete anchors
West Entrance
A
Ditches and pits probably
Concentrations Of ferrous material
Roman and prehistoric
Rectangular arrangement of pits
A 178: Badbury gradiometer survey.
309
309
High ferrous anomaly
East Entrance
rampart may be an addition, or part of the original design as it exhibits a similar form and is tightly concentric with the inner rampart except on the west. It may originally have continued close to the west entrance and was later diverted west to create the barbican. The two breaches in the barbican are probably later, particularly that in its south-west side, which from cartographic evidence (Woodward 1774), may be only about 200 years old (compare fig.7 p33 with fig.175 p.305). The causeways across these western breaches, both in the barbican and outer rampart, have settled into the ditches, which were backfilled when the entrances were made, demonstrating that they post-date the original design.
The barbican may have been created as a separate stock or stabling enclosure. The slighter outer rampart and ditch may date to the latest Iron Age or latest Roman periods (Papworth 2004c, 185-6).
High Wood Enclosure (fig.165 p.285)
The east summit of Badbury Hill is occupied by a 90m diameter ‘D’shaped enclosure consisting of a bank with an internal ditch. This earthwork within High Wood has been damaged by gravel pits. A trench dug in May 2008 (Papworth forthcoming) indicated that the enclosure was constructed in the Late Iron Age and was built on a Middle Iron Age occupation site. Pottery dated the gravel pits to the Roman period. Earlier prehistoric flint debitage was found in all contexts. High Wood, like Badbury Rings, was valued as a key vantage point.
The Badbury/Shapwick Hoard
Early in 1983, a hoard of over 800 Durotrigan coins was found near Badbury. Ian Darke and Clive Gibb of the Dorset Detector Group spoke of seeing about 900 coins arranged in drawers by type soon after their discovery and before the hoard was broken up and sold through various dealers.
Robert Van Arsdell (1989, 347-51) and Melinda Mays (forthcoming) have examined the available information on the metal-detected finds from the area.
310
310
boundary (ST962034). This information led to a metal detector survey of the area in 2004 combined with a gradiometer survey but both provided no significant information. However, notes made by David Thackray in March-April 1984 recorded ‘considerable digging’ in ploughed fields either side of High Wood north-east of Badbury (ST962030).
Since 1900, excavation and chance discovery have recovered 25 Durotrigan coins from the temple site immediately west of Badbury Rings (fig.180 p.314). This has led Melinda Mays (forthcoming) to tentatively suggest that the hoard came from this site (ST96010300) because deposits of Iron Age coins are frequently associated with sacred sites. However, references to Crab Farm in some of the coin group descriptions may indicate that the find spot lay 1km further south-west (ST949025).
Despite the frustration of not knowing the location of the discovery or series of discoveries, it clearly marks out Badbury, Crab Farm and the land between as significant in the Late Iron Age. Van Arsdell believed that the coins he saw were from a single hoard because they had the same appearance within metal types and seemed to have been cleaned in one lot (1989, 347). He believed that Badbury-Shapwick had parallels with the Le Catillon hoard from Jersey as both bridged the transition from gold to silver coinage. He dated the hoard to around 35BC but Mays and Haselgrove (2000, 250) would consider this too precise a date. Mays would agree that the hoard represents the earlier phase of Durotrigan coinage likely to date to the 1st century BC, particularly because of the presence of gold staters and over 25 starfish design pieces, which were thought to be rare before the Badbury hoard was discovered.
In Melinda Mays’ lists of coins attributed to Badbury/Shapwick there are examples of non- Durotrigan coins. In a list of coins found ‘near Badbury’ there is one British A and one coin attributed to Verica a leader of the Atrebates c.AD 40 (therefore too late for the hoard). In the list of coins reportedly found in ‘Badbury Rings fields’, was a coin of East Midlands type. In the list for the ‘Shapwick/Badbury Rings’ group were four British B and one attributed to Cunobelin who ruled the Catuvellauni in the 1st century AD (this also appears to be too late for the hoard). Other lists are of possible coins attributed to the area including a Dobunnic coin and a coin of the Armorican
312
312
Baiocasses type. The Armorican link to Badbury is strengthened by a coin of the Veneti found at Badbury before 1940 (Cunliffe & de Jersey 1997, 99).
All of these coins may not be from the hoard but they demonstrate contact with other coin producing communities in Armorica and surprisingly with the Atrebates and Catuvellauni, if indeed each of these finds is actually from Badbury.
Recent metal detector surveys by the Stour Valley detector club (Dorset County Council SMR) have revealed clusters of SW/Durotrigan coin finds in the surrounding area, particularly to the north-west, for example at Tarrant Rushton (ST945070); Tarrant Rawston (ST935069) and Tarrant Crawford (ST926029). The surveyors were able to give eight figure grid references for each find, and this accuracy, with the incidence of silver, base silver and bronze issues, indicates scatters of coins across settlements rather than hoards of coins spread by ploughing.
Badbury Romano-Celtic Temple (fig 180-182)
This site lies immediately west of Badbury Rings (ST960030) and consists of a 60m diameter eight-sided boundary bank with an east entrance surrounding a mound 25m square. Earthwork, resistivity and gradiometer surveys combined with excavation have revealed a stone cella surrounded by an ambulatory. Across a gravel courtyard a small rectangular building was constructed against the temenos boundary wall. Coin finds from sealed deposits beneath successive floors of the building indicated that it was in use from the 1st to the 5th century AD and lay close to a Late Iron Age shrine. Only one Durotrigan coin was found in the excavation (Papworth 2000, 148-50) but three have been found in mole hills on the site, six from an excavation in 1900 (Wallace 1932, 87-90) and fifteen from an excavation in 1952 (Rudd 1953, 1-67).
The excavation in September 2000 was a 40m long trench 1.2m wide dug to sample the geophysical survey anomalies. At the south edge of the site, beneath the Roman temenos wall, was a ditch backfilled with early Roman material and the gradiometry plot shows a double-ditched, barrel-shaped enclosure with a small rectangular annexe attached to the east side. This may be Iron Age although most of the Durotrigan coins were found in the triangular area between the hillfort, the agger for the Dorchester 313
313
Further geophysical survey was carried out in Long Field (centred ST947022) east of the Shapwick road. This field is crossed by the Badbury-Dorchester Roman road and includes 60% of the 2.4 hectare fortification. The fluxgate gradiometer survey indicated that the site had been occupied before the construction of the fortification. Two trenches were excavated, one to date the features underlying the fortification (trench C, ST94840231) and one to discover the relative dates of the Dorchester Roman road and fortification (trench D, ST94680223) (fig.183).
Trench C, at the north-east end of the field confirmed that the Roman occupation overlay numerous pits and ditches dating from the Middle and Late Iron Age. Two parallel ditches [165] and [167], set 4.5m apart, had steep ‘V’-shaped profiles. They measured 2.2m wide at the top 1.7m deep with a flat bottom 0.3m wide and their primary fillings contained Middle Iron Age pottery with one sherd of a bowl with a shelly temper perhaps of Early Iron Age date (Seagar-Smith and Mepham, 2004).
A vertical sided pit, 2.6m in diameter and 1.7m deep was half-sectioned and contained a structured deposit. In the bottom layer was the skeleton of a new born puppy and above it the skeleton of a lamb. Overlying this was the skeleton of a mature dog and above this a deposit of carbonised grain and burnt wood mixed with large sherds of pottery. Radiocarbon analysis of the charcoal from this layer produced a date of 2195 BP +_ 35 years, about 300-200 BC. Also in this layer and the one above were found the remains of two frogs, a finch and a piglet. The upper layers contained Late Iron Age and Roman finds indicating subsidence and gradual silting of this part of the pit.
Ann Garvey (2005, 47-8 ) examined the pottery from the pit [109]. There were eleven jars, four saucepan pots and one bowl. All the pottery was undecorated and 81% was made from fabrics that could be obtained locally. The shelly fabric of 6% of the pottery was thought to come from the coast and the fabric of the other 13% was Q4 typical of pottery produced around Poole Harbour. The other Iron Age pits excavated in trench C underlay two 2nd-century smithing hearths. They contained pottery typical of the latest Iron Age or earliest Roman period. Pit [158] contained 100 sherds of Poole Harbour ware with the normal range of late Durotrigan forms, including bead rim bowls and jars with countersunk 318
318
handles. Only nine of the sherds were of the coarse Q4 fabric indicating that by this time the pottery was generally made of a finer fabric. The pit contained part of a Gallo-Belgic Terra Nigra platter and two sherds of a Dressel 20 amphora. Pit [139] contained a similar range of Poole Harbour wares, most commonly the bead rim bowl. Therefore, by this stage, local manufacture of pottery had apparently ceased and the only pottery other than Poole Harbour wares were rare imports from the continent.
The geophysical survey of the Crab Farm settlement revealed that the site covers over 25 hectares (fig 187 p.323). However, many of the storage pits seem to lie within the ditch of a large enclosure, ovoid in plan and interpreted as the boundary of the Iron Age settlement. This was located at the top of a north-east facing slope in view of Badbury Rings. The boundary ditch encloses about 2 hectares and has an inturned east entrance.
184: Detail of fluxgate gradiometer plot Crab Field, Crab Farm settlement to show Iron Age enclosure and linear links to Shapwick 35/a89 (Papworth 2002a)
319
319
The north side of the enclosure lies 40m south of the later Bronze Age linear Shapwick 35/a89 at a point where this significant bank and ditch, after heading up hill from Badbury, turns through ninety degrees and runs north-west, following the contour of the north-east facing slope. The geophysical survey shows that two parallel ditches 5m apart have been dug from the 2 hectare ovoid enclosure towards this corner of the linear (ST94890248), presumably to control access. Another interesting feature lies 50m north-west of the right-angled turn (ST94830253) where a causeway is clearly visible crossing the bank and ditch. This gateway through the linear is protected by a short length of ditch on its south-west side apparently preventing direct access. This suggests that security was important and the Bronze Age linear was still a significant feature in the later Iron Age (fig.184).
The geophysical survey plot indicates two circular enclosures about 30m in diameter. One lies within the 2 hectare ovoid enclosure (ST94800235), the other lies about 300m to the south-west and has been cut by the modern Shapwick road (ST94550216) (fig.185). Both sites contain many pits and may be Iron Age enclosures for significant households. Other circular enclosures 15-20m in diameter (ST944024) may be Iron Age round houses and enclosure sites or Bronze Age ring ditches underlying the later prehistoric and Roman occupation.
Another Late Iron Age-Early Roman occupation site may lie beneath Shapwick village (ST94190190) as the finds made during building work in 1954 included a Claudian coin and early Roman and possible Gallic imports (Leighton 1955, 138-9).
To the south and west of the 2 hectare enclosure are numerous contiguous rectilinear enclosures, 0.2-0.5 hectare in area. It was originally assumed that this layout originated in the Roman period but following the surveys at Bradford Down and Sweetbriar Drove it became more probable that the settlement pattern originated in the Late Iron Age. The main Roman road to Dorchester ignores this ditch system completely.
Before 1990, the analysis of the Shapwick aerial photographs led to the hypothesis that a 1st century Roman fort was located to oversee the hillforts of Spetisbury and Badbury. This military establishment had attracted settlement and provided the 320
320
economic stimulus for growth. A road was built from the fort to Dorchester and after about twenty years, the fort was abandoned but the road to Dorchester was enhanced. The settlement developed along the line of the main road, particularly as it lay near a ford across the Stour and only 2km south-west of the Badbury Roman crossroads.
However, the excavations have shown that the Crab Farm settlement pre-dated the fortification and road, which were not built until the later Roman period. Therefore the rectilinear ditch system may be early.
Tr. E Road side ditches
185: Detail of fluxgate gradiometer plot Long Field, Crab Farm settlement, to show late Roman road cutting across earlier settlement features (Papworth 2002a)
In 2004, trench E was excavated near the south-west end of Long Field (ST94550214), where the Dorchester Roman road crossed one of the significant ditches of the boundary system (fig.185; fig.183 p.317). The excavation showed that the original ditch [428] had been cut, backfilled, then recut [440] and allowed to silt
321
321
up. Both cuts were ‘V’ shaped and 1.4m wide and 0.5m deep. The later ditch filling contained an early hinged brooch of Bagendon type dated to the mid-late 1st century AD. The fillings of both ditches contained consistently early Roman pottery including a samian platter and Poole Harbour pottery of 1st century AD form. The lower filling
186: Trench E, Crab Farm earlier boundary ditch [428] (right) cut by ditch [440] (photo Dean Hind)
of ditch [428] contained only Late Iron Age forms and is likely to have been excavated before the Roman Conquest (Mepham et al. 2006, 2). Therefore given the evidence for similarly dated enclosures at Sweetbriar, Bradford Down and Heron Grove, many of the Crab Farm enclosures may be pre-Roman and hint at a step towards urbanisation in the latest Iron Age. The difference at Crab Farm is that this ditch system continued to be used during the early Roman period.
At the west edge of the settlement is an isolated square enclosure with sides about 12m long and geophysical survey here in 2007 revealed an entrance through its east side. The form is similar to the enclosure found to the west of the Bradford Down settlement and is interpreted as a possible mortuary enclosure (Stewart 2007c) (fig.183 p.317; fig.187).
322
322
The excavated archaeological features have been divided into three phases. Phase 1 was the preliminary construction camp within the fortress. Phase 2 consisted of the occupation period after the barrack blocks had been completed. Phase 3 was the demolition phase when the timbers were deliberately dismantled. The rampart and ditches of the fortress were also deliberately levelled at this time.
Finds from the south-west side of the fort indicated that there had been a military bath house there. Industrial activity such as gravel extraction and iron working was recorded.
There is also evidence of a military cemetery 0.9km south of the site. In 1865, at Cogdean Elms East End (SY995983, Corfe Mullen 25) a cremation in a Durotrigan bowl was found with two glass phials and a Claudian coin. Other cremations in pots had been found in the same gravel pit in 1847.
These burials were found about 300m east of a the settlement at East End (SY992983, Corfe Mullen 24) which contained an early Roman pottery kiln and settlement evidence from the later Iron Age to the 4th century. The distinctive products of the kiln have become known as Corfe Mullen ware and have not been found in preRoman deposits within the study area. This settlement’s early link with the fortress is indicated by the establishment of this kiln, the presence of 1st-century imports such as Belgic platters, amphorae, and south Gaulish Samian and the find of a 1st century donkey-mill indicating that flour was being produced on a commercial or military scale. This millstone is made from an alkali basalt lava from Chaine des Puyes from Central France and is a rare import. This is a fascinating site but it has only been recorded as a series of chance discoveries during quarrying, gardening and building work, mainly in the early 20th century (Smith 1943, 57-9).
The early products of the Corfe Mullen kiln are interesting because they were oxidised, thin-walled Roman versions of Durotrigan cooking jars (RCHM 1970a, 600). The early adoption of Poole Harbour products by the Roman army has already been noted at the Waddon and Hod Hill forts and considerable quantities of this pottery together with sherds of Corfe Mullen ware were found in the fortress.
325
325
There are 34 coins from the fortress site. All were thought to be early Claudian dated to AD 41-54. Norman Sheil who examined the coins concluded that there was a total lack of post-Claudian coins (i.e. later than AD 64). The Samian report by G.B. Dannell also concluded that the site was abandoned c.AD 65 although vessels predating AD 55 were not identified. Francis Grew examined the metalwork from the site which included fragments of Roman military armour and belt and sword fittings typical of the mid 1st century AD.
The Roman road to Hamworthy links Lake Farm to the coast where Peter Bellamy (pers. comm. 2005) has confirmed the location of a 1st century Poole Harbour-side military enclosure. This is thought to be the base from which military supplies, brought by ship, were unloaded and carted the 6.5km to the vexillation fortress beside the Stour.
It has generally been thought that the Lake fortress was the base for the conquest of the Durotrigan zone and that the soldiers within the fort belonged to Legio II Augusta commanded by the future emperor Vespasian. However, no finds bearing an inscription to this legion have been found in Dorset. Keith Jarvis (manuscript notes) compared Lake Gates with similar sized 13-15 hectare fortifications found in the Midlands at Longthorpe and Newton on Trent. These were not full legionary fortresses of about 22 hectares but bases for vexillations or substantial parts of a legion.
Norman Field (1976b, 65-7) described a 0.19 hectare enclosure on Keyneston Down (ST92630559). The site was discovered by aerial photography and was almost square in plan and had been constructed on high ground 0.7km south-east of Buzbury Rings. He argued that this was a Roman fortlet beside his suggested road from Badbury to Hod Hill and functioned as a 1st century military outpost guarding the route between the fortress at Lake and the fort within Hod Hill. However, no 1st century finds have been recovered from the site. Setting aside the mass burial at Spetisbury Rings, the evidence for 1st century AD conflict in the area is sparse. It amounts to a possible ballista bolt from the linear
326
326
Shapwick 35 (Vatcher 1965, 102; ST95650305) and a javelin head from the north side of the Badbury Romano-Celtic temple (Rudd 1953, 30; ST96050305).
The Roman Period
Following the Roman Conquest, some sites ceased to be occupied, some continued as settlements and others were newly established. People were increasingly choosing to live near water in the 1st century AD. At Langton Long Blandford a scatter of Roman occupation debris has been found beside the Stour (ST89710597) and a find of four silver Durotrigan coins along the valley to the south-east (ST90500530) indicates that the trend had already begun in the Late Iron Age (RCHM 1972, 45). This trend has been seen along the Iwerne below Hod Hill (Study Area 5.5) and beside the Frome near Dorchester (Study Area 5.2). Further along the Stour valley Roman pottery was found below Tarrant Crawford church (RCHM 1972, 88) and probable Roman burials have been found at Newton Pevrerill (ST943001; RCHM 1970a, 611).
A similar pattern can be seen along the Allen. Roman building footings have been found at Witchampton (ST99060641; RCHM 1975, 110) and Stanbridge (SU00390387; ibid. 32). Roman pottery has been found in the cemetery at Wimborne Minster (SU005005; ibid. 51) and tesserae have been reported beneath the minster church near the confluence of the Stour and Allen (SZ009999; ibid. 80).
Farmsteads continued to be occupied throughout the Roman period on spurs and valley slopes. The scatter of pottery at New Barn Farm (ST95550225; Papworth 1994a, 56) shows that people lived at this exposed location from the Late Iron Age until the 4th century. The site overlooks the Crab Farm settlement and a cluster of linked stock enclosures (visible on aerial photographs NMR ST9502/12) to the east may link this site to livestock farming on the downs.
Other sites on spurs and valley slopes above the Allen at Lower Barnsley, Barnsley and High Lea continued as farmsteads but Bradford Down (Pamphill 70) condensed from an extensive group of linked households to a villa site. Hemsworth 1.5km to the 327
327
north-west (ST96320587; Witchampton 22) was a villa with mosaic pavements and under floor heating but the excavation records of 1905 are poor and it is not known whether an Iron Age site previously existed there.
The largest settlement in the area was at Crab Farm, arguably a small town ranking second in importance to Dorchester within Dorset. This site developed during the Romano-British period and included buildings with mosaics, painted plaster and underfloor heating. Coins and pottery have been recovered from the site which have been dated to the late 4th- early 5th century (Papworth 1991, 172; Hammerson 1992).
A track linking Crab Farm with Badbury and further north-east to Bradford Down and across the Allen to High Lea is implied. Sections of this trackway are visible on aerial photographs and the Bradford Down geophysical survey supports this evidence. It is probable that this meandering Iron Age route crossed the Stour at Shapwick and continued a further 9km south-west to the next large settlement at Bagwood, Bere Regis 120 (SY85149714; RCHM 1970a 594) and from Bagwood on to Dorchester. However, the main route to Dorchester in the early Roman period was probably from the Lake Farm fortress (Field 1988, 145-6) and the excavated evidence and geophysical survey at Crab Farm has demonstrated that the main road was only constructed through Shapwick in the later Roman period (Papworth 2004c, 181-6).
The later Roman success of the Crab Farm settlement is implied by the construction of a 2.4 hectare fortification with a large building complex occupying its southern quadrant. This may be the site of a mansio and if this were so then it would increase the likelihood that Shapwick was once Vindocladia. This was a place listed in Iter XV of the 3rd century Antonine Itinerary as lying between Old Sarum (Sorbiodunum) and Dorchester (Durnovaria) (Rivet and Smith 1979, 178-80)
The present village of Shapwick is recorded in Domesday Book and it seems likely that the site has been continuously occupied, declining since the 4th century to become a minor settlement, consisting of a few streets beside the River Stour.
328
328
Concluding Remarks
189: Rivers and contours (10m intervals) with SW/Durotrigan coin distribution East Dorset
The settlement pattern of the Badbury environs differs substantially from the Gussage and Hod Hill study areas. In the Latest Iron Age, Badbury hillfort does not appear to draw settlement towards it as at Hod and the Badbury area lacks the range of distinctive discrete enclosure types that are seen around Gussage hill.
329
329
Within the Badbury study area there are many settlements occupying spurs and valley slopes. They are comparable with types seen along the Stour valley or further south in Purbeck but there are also influences from the north and east.
The range of settlement types includes hillforts, concentric enclosures, ovoid enclosures and rectilinear enclosures, either single examples or conjoined in clusters. The elaborate entrances to farmsteads and settlements found at Gussage are not present at Badbury with the exception of Barnsley (Pamphill 71) and Tarrant Rawston 4. However, each of theses enclosures is over 200m in diameter and approached from the south-west by a parallel-ditched avenue several hundred metres long. This type of avenue entrance has not been recorded in the Gussage study area.
The excavations around Badbury have been small incisions into large sites and therefore any conclusions that can be drawn from these sample areas must be treated with caution. To compensate for this aerial photography and geophysical survey have provided settlement plans to back up the excavated material.
A feature of this area is the presence of Early, Middle and Late Iron Age evidence occurring on the same sites and many of these settlements continue to be occupied into the Roman period. For the sites around Badbury, there is less evidence of settlement shift over time in comparison with Gussage. Settlements like Heron Grove and Sweetbriar adapt and change over time but they stay on the same site. It is difficult to say whether they are continually occupied or reoccupied several times over the centuries. However, a ceramic range from a single site 800 BC – AD 50 is not found in the Gussage study area. There is a sense of long term establishment from the sites around Badbury. Pottery collected from Bradford Down, Buzbury and Lower Barnsley also include Early, Middle and Late Iron Age examples. The settlement evidence found below Lodge Farm may be a site abandoned in the earlier Iron Age but this seems to be an exception to the rule.
Bradford Down, Sweetbriar Drove and Heron Grove are also large sprawling sites, communities of linked households rather than discrete farmsteads. These are not the small ovoid downland enclosures amongst the celtic fields that are found surrounding
330
330
Hod Hill. These smaller sites do exist within the Badbury study area but they are spaced at 1-2km intervals around the larger sites.
Ann Garvey has demonstrated the growing influence of the Poole Harbour potteries within the study area. However, it is less surprising here because Poole Harbour only lies 10km south of Badbury. Nevertheless the Early Iron Age assemblage from Sweetbriar had only 5% of its pottery that could be attributed to the Poole Harbour area. The Middle Iron Age assemblage from Crab Farm had 13% Poole Harbour material, Late Iron Age Badbury 77% and Latest Iron Age Crab Farm 98%.
In the earlier phases pottery containing Upper Greensand fabric elements may come from outcrops around Shaftesbury and the Vale of Wardour to the north. In the Latest Iron Age greensand querns were imported from this area. Evidence for contacts with communities in the surrounding districts should not be surprising. A good historical analogy is found in the 14th century manor court rolls for Kingston Lacy where repairs to the manorial buildings were scrupulously itemised. Timber came from the oaks of Holt Forest east of Wimborne and chalk and clay was dug locally for lime, for daub and for cob walling. Hazel rods were cut within Badbury Park for wattles. The greensand building stone came from near Shaftesbury and Simon the Hellier took regular trips to Purbeck to cart back thousands of limestone roofing tiles (DRO D/BKL CG3/1-CG3/3). Iron Age carters bringing products from a similar distance should be expected and annual labour services to repair and enhance the palisades, ramparts and ditches of Badbury Rings are likely. The 13th century account rolls of Corfe Castle (PRO E101/460/27) give a week by week description of works to this great hill top fortress and similarly the ramparts gates and palisades of Badbury Rings would have required regular repairs.
SW/Durotrigan (fig.189 p.329) coinage is well represented in the records from the area although the only excavated examples are from the temple site west of Badbury and these coins were found in disturbed levels. The range of coins from around Badbury shows they were reaching this area in the 1st century BC. The Shapwick/Badbury hoard includes examples of British A and B coins from the east and north. Early silver SW/Durotrigan issues have also been found here including ‘starfish’ coins. A few coin finds reported from the area indicate the contact the 331
331
Badbury area had with the Dobunnic communities to the north, and the Armorican communities to the south.
By the Middle Iron Age, Crab Farm had become established and the development of this settlement appears to cause the decline of Badbury. The two places are linked by the later Bronze Age linear Shapwick 35/a89, which, long after its original construction, became incorporated into the enclosure system at Crab Farm, apparently as a security measure.
The ditch of 35/a89 lies on the north side of the bank and therefore when this 4m wide and 3m deep ditch was first constructed it was to divide the north from the south. Perhaps the population pressure continued to be from the north during the Iron Age. The evidence for differing communities is seen in the change in settlement types from Gussage to Badbury. The evidence for conflict is limited to the bodies thrown into the Spetisbury Rings hillfort ditch and the Badbury/Shapwick coin hoard (which may have been a sacred deposit rather than wealth buried for safe keeping before conflict). However, these conflict indicators are spread over a broad date range. Shapwick 35 was first excavated in the Middle Bronze Age, the brooches, sword chapes from Spetisbury are dated 200-100BC and the coin hoard dates from around 50 BC.
When the trenches were excavated at Badbury Rings it was expected that there would be a ‘Danebury-like’ deep stratigraphic build-up of occupation debris, particularly against the rampart. This was not the case, and the evidence from the excavation indicated that much of the earthwork and geophysical evidence for occupation within the hillfort may be late Roman or earlier prehistoric. Curiously, nearly all the Iron Age ceramic evidence is late Middle or Late Iron Age; there was a lack of earlier Iron Age material.
Therefore it seems that Badbury was not like Hod Hill or Maiden Castle in containing the principal local population centre but lay on a high point in the landscape surrounded by settlements. It is more likely to have been a secure place and a place of status when hillforts were in vogue, but became depopulated towards the end of the Iron Age. The trench across the bank and ditch of the High Wood enclosure 332
332
(Papworth 2008) has indicated the significance of the eastern hilltop of Badbury. This may have been a site paired with the hillfort, the internal ditch of the enclosure dug to corral horses or stock in contrast to the fortification ditches of the hillfort on the west summit.
Ann Garvey (2006) has analysed the pottery from Badbury and concluded that Q4 Poole Harbour fabrics dominate the assemblage. None of the classic latest Poole Harbour ceramic forms and fabrics were found there. At Crab Farm, the latest Iron Age pits contain late Poole Harbour pottery, predominantly BB1 fabric. Therefore, it is suggested that, as the Crab Farm settlement developed and increased its influence, so Badbury declined as a settlement. Badbury may have been maintained as a defensive work but an excavated section through the ramparts would be needed to prove this.
The continuing value placed on Badbury Rings is indicated by the site of the RomanoCeltic temple on its west side. The late Iron Age origin of the site is indicated by 25 Durotrigan coins, found at various times there, together with Late Iron Age pottery including bead rim bowls and jars with countersunk handles (Rudd 1953, 52-60). The range of finds from the site shows that the temple continued to be visited and refurbished up to the 5th century AD. By this time Badbury was occupied again, the late Roman chalk floor in trench I (Papworth 2004c, 182-3) was constructed directly above the Late Iron Age deposits.
Therefore, by the time of the Roman Conquest, Crab Farm had become the population centre of the area but value was still attributed to the hillfort. New influences, however, were becoming accepted. It is in the Latest Iron Age that rectilinear contiguous boundary systems become conspicuous in this area. In Purbeck they have been detected at Cleavel Point and Corfe River East and the geophysical survey of Bradford Down produced a settlement plan very similar to Cleavel. Similar enclosure systems have been found at Sweetbriar and Heron Grove and in both cases they have been proved by excavation to be the latest phase of the site. Barton Field, Tarrant Hinton and Crab Farm, Shapwick are other examples where Latest Iron Age material has been found in the backfilled ditches.
333
333
The geophysical survey of the Crab Farm settlement produced a plan of an extensive rectilinear ditch system and a small excavation across one of these ditches produced a 1st century AD date. This excavated evidence, although across a very small part of the total site, creates the possibility that much of the ditch system is latest Iron Age rather than Roman and deliberately laid out on the south-west side of the 2 hectare ditched settlement enclosure. The excavated ditch is an integral part of the settlement pattern and therefore it is likely that many of the other ditches are of similar date. The preRoman planning of Silchester has been proved by excavation (Fulford 2000, 545-81) and perhaps further work at Crab Farm might establish a proto-urban origin for the settlement. Further geophysical survey in the fields beside Shapwick High Street (Stewart 2007c) (fig.187) have demonstrated that elements of the Iron Age settlement continued to the Stour and the finds from this area (Leighton 1955, 138-9) provide additional evidence for this. The present extent of the survey demonstrates a complex pattern of features including circular and rectilinear enclosures flanking trackways.
The growth of Crab Farm was probably at the expense of other nearby settlements like that at Heron Grove and Sweetbriar to the east as both were abandoned at this time. Other sites like Bradford Down shrank to become villa sites. They may have become depopulated as a result of the presence of the Roman army at Lake Farm, which became the headquarters of upwards of 3000 troops from c.AD 43-65. It is curious to note that the rectilinear ditch systems here, at Tarrant Hinton and in Purbeck are backfilled at this time. The reason for the Latest Iron Age adoption and subsequent rejection of this settlement element is unclear. The geophysical survey of Bradford Down illustrates clearly how these communities of people lived together. The pattern of anomalies can be interpreted as a series of living areas defined by rectangular ditched enclosures linked by paths either side of a central track with each (household?) enclosure containing numerous pits.
The establishment of the fort using a loop in the Stour as an additional defence on its north side implies expected conflict from that direction. The Corfe Mullen cremation burials and the settlement with numerous imported goods lying near to the fortress, suggests an element of the local population that co-operated and took early advantage of the presence of the soldiers. The establishment of the Corfe Mullen kilns using a clay different from the Poole Harbour clay but producing pots similar to the 334
334
distinctive Durotrigan forms may be significant, also perhaps, the use of a Durotrigan bowl for a Roman style cremation burial. The early adoption of the Poole Harbour and Purbeck industries by the Romans has already been noted in study area 5.1. It seems likely that the supply route from Hamworthy to the Lake Farm fortress was secure and this part of the Durotrigan zone had already accepted the new regime.
The significance of the Badbury study area is its position on the southern edge of the highly populated chalk geology at the confluence of the Stour and Allen. It lies in close proximity to both Christchurch and Poole Harbours. The Stour valley gives access to the important nodal centre at Hod Hill and the Allen and Tarrant valleys lead towards the Gussage study area and Cranborne Chase (fig.162). To the east lies the heathland, the Avon and the New Forest. A route implied by a line of Iron Age settlements indicates a pre-Roman track towards the west and the Maiden Castle/Dorchester study area. This apparent crossroads of various influences would explain the range of pottery, coins and settlement types found in the area. The decision to build the legionary vexillation fortress here supports the suggestion that this was a strategic location.
190: 17th-century map section showing the Colebarrow, Holt Forest (DRO D/BKL c. 1600 map by Richard Hardinge)
335
335
The Heathland south and east of Badbury
South of the Stour and east of the Allen lie the parishes of Corfe Mullen, Lytchet Minster, Lytchet Matravers, Poole, Colehill and Holt and this is a heathland area and few Iron Age settlements have been recorded here. Two sites can be noted.
The Colebarrow (SU035058), probably a univallate hillfort, has only recently been discovered on a 17th century map (DRO D/BKL Richard Hardynge) and the site lies in Holt Forest 10km east of Badbury. The site has since been almost levelled but the map shows that the rampart enclosed about 3 hectares and had opposing entrances on its east and west sides.
191: Plan of Bulbury hillfort (Cunnington 1884, 116)
336
336
A similar site lies 10km south-west of Badbury (Lytchett Minster 30). This is Bulbury, a univallate hillfort which had four entrances, the original entrances are probably those on the east and west sides of the site. The rampart encloses about 3 hectares and it is sited on a local rise of ground, which falls away to the south-east towards Lytchett Bay in Poole Harbour 3km to the south-east. In 1882, Edward Cunnington read a paper to the Society of Antiquaries concerning the discovery of a group of unusual Late Iron Age objects dug up within the camp (Cunnington 1884, 115-20). These included chariot fittings, glass beads, a tankard handle, figures of bronze bulls and an anchor. They are on display in Dorset County Museum and have been examined and discussed by Barry Cunliffe (1972, 293-308).
The anchor indicates that this survey has completed the circuit of the Durotrigan zone and has returned to the coast near Hengistbury. The concluding part of this book will bring together the diverse evidence from the seven study areas to determine what these disparate communities represented in the Latest Iron Age.
337
337
Chapter 6: Conclusion
Introduction Two inscriptions and a 2nd century document provide the basis for a Durotrigan culture that has generally been accepted by historians and archaeologists. This book has set out to break down and possibly rebuild the Durotrigan group identity. It has demonstrated differences between the Iron Age communities of the Dorset environs and brought them into sharper focus.
In chapter one, the book charted the development of British Iron Age studies, and considered current debates and themes within the subject. Following this, the written sources were examined, noting the likely existence of a Roman Durotrigan civitas or civitates. It was shown that previous researchers had back-projected this historical evidence to create a pre-Roman Durotrigan ‘tribe’. This concept had been archaeologically justified by plotting distributions of distinctive artefacts, particularly coins and pottery. In chapter four the development of a Durotrigan identity was considered. This had been created and maintained by past attitudes to archaeological investigation and philosophy. Having demonstrated the paucity of evidence for a traditional idea of ‘tribal’ unity, I formulated a set of questions and carried out a survey of the Dorset environs. This survey looked for the pre-Roman communities that made up the presumed Durotrigan civitas, and analysed and described the perceived archaeological differences and similarities between them.
Seven 10km by 8km study areas were chosen, usually with a key group of monuments in mind. Each area had the advantage of containing sites where a significant amount of previous research had been carried out.
To help define an identity for seven of these communities, six criteria (Focus of Settlement; Settlement Pattern; Range of Settlement Elements; Continuity of Settlement and Sacred Association; Distinctive Artefact Types and Burial Rite) were devised. The archaeological evidence for each of the study areas was then examined in the light of these.
338
338
Comparison between data sets was often difficult due to different researchers using various definitions and divisions of the Iron Age. The amount of available archaeological information also varied within and between each study area. Nevertheless, compared to other regions within the British Isles, the level of archaeological investigation of Dorset and environs is high and provides an opportunity for a level of analysis that would not be possible elsewhere.
In chapter six, the entries for each criterion used in the seven study areas will be brought together to highlight the similarities and differences. The study areas will then be compared with other perceived communities within the wider Durotrigan zone. This combined evidence will then be evaluated using the questions set at the end of chapter four.
The final section of the book will examine the Dorset environs in the Roman and SubRoman periods for evidence of a continued group identity. Finally there will be an evaluation to consider whether Iron Age studies have been moved forward by this examination with suggestions for future work.
The Six Criteria
Focus of Settlement This category was chosen to examine how much a particular settlement site dominated the settlement pattern of the area.
The concept of hillforts as central places within the Durotrigan zone is strongly supported by the way settlement is limited to Maiden Castle 600-200BC. To a lesser extent this centralisation can be detected at South Cadbury, at Hambledon/Hod Hill and possibly Pilsdon Pen.
The large settlements around Badbury support the view that hillforts were another form of settlement and not necessarily a central place. Purbeck’s focus of earlier Iron Age settlement was concentrated on the limestone plateau where there were large settlements but no hillforts. Cranborne does not seem to have an earlier Iron Age
339
339
focus but in the later Iron Age Gussage Cow Down develops as a higher status area on a hill top where distinctive enclosure types and coins and other finds are concentrated.
In the later Middle Iron Age there is recognisable change in settlement preferences. The general movement is from centres on hills to centres beside water, although this trend is not apparent within the Cranborne Chase and West Dorset study areas.
Essential differences between areas are clearly demonstrated using this category. 5.1: Isle of Purbeck
800-200BC: Evidence for large communities on the south Purbeck limestone plateau but the northern heathland was apparently empty 200BC-AD50: Settlement expansion north to heathland, islands and promontories around Poole Harbour
5.2: South Dorset
50BC-AD400: Large settlement develops in central Purbeck at Norden north of Corfe gap. 800-600BC: Lack of occupation evidence in the area. 600-200BC: Significant concentration of settlement within Maiden Castle, none recorded outside apart from Poundbury. 200BC-AD65: Shift of settlement to farmsteads along the Frome valley, particularly in the Dorchester area. Maiden Castle population declining.
5.3: West Dorset
AD65-400: The development of the Roman town at Dorchester. This was probably the civitas capital of the area. 800BC-AD44: Earthwork and excavated evidence suggests Pilsdon Pen as the key settlement in the area but dateable material remains sparse. AD44-65: Waddon Hill Roman fort built to supervise a local conquered people. Centre of conquest on a previously unoccupied site.
5.4: South Somerset
AD65-400: Minimal amount of Roman occupation evidence from the area. 800-700BC: Dispersed settlement gravitating towards South Cadbury hillfort 700-350BC: Significant concentration of settlement within South Cadbury. There is little occupation evidence in the wider landscape. 350BC-AD50: Dispersed settlement, Sigwells becomes secondary centre 50BC-AD50: Settlement declines within South Cadbury AD50-120: Lack of occupation evidence in the area.
5.5: Central Dorset
AD70-400: Development of Roman town at Ilchester. Possible civitas capital 800-200BC: Sparse finds indicate Hambledon is the key hillfort in the earlier Iron Age. However, there are settlements in the wider landscape (e.g. Pimperne)
340
340
200BC-AD44: Hod Hill appears the dominant settlement. Finds generally of later Iron Age date. Dense settlement within hillfort but settlement in wider landscape.
5.6: Cranborne Chase
AD44 – 400: Latest Iron Age settlement within hillfort and within Iwerne valley. Iwerne settlement then expands following the establishment of Roman fort within the hillfort. 800-550BC: There is little occupation evidence apart from the recently excavated farmstead at Down Farm with pottery evidence perhaps as early as 700-650BC 550-200BC: Finds from Oakley Down enclosure seem of slightly higher status than other settlements of this period but no clear central place.
5.7: East Dorset
200-400AD: Gussage Cow Down and Tollard Royal contain multiple ditch systems and banjo enclosures with finds of higher status. No significant small town develops after Roman Conquest. 800-200BC: Large settlements, Sweetbriar, Bradford, Heron Grove dispersed around landscape. 200BC-50BC: Excavated evidence indicates that this was the main period of Badbury/High Wood occupation but other large settlements continue within wider landscape. 50BC-AD400: Shift of settlement from Badbury and other settlements towards Stour and Allen valleys, particularly Crab Farm settlement which developed into a small town.
Settlement Pattern and Type This archaeological element was selected to compare forms and distribution of enclosed and unenclosed settlements to determine whether there were distinctive ways communities lived together in the various study areas.
Comparisons were hampered by the variations of types of archaeological evidence. When good aerial photographic cover was available, then a variety of settlement forms could be identified and compared. This was particularly true for the survey areas within the arable chalkland of Cranborne and east Dorset. Others areas, such as south Somerset, west Dorset and Purbeck included geology and forms of land use which tended to yield little aerial photographic information. To some extent, targeted geophysical survey has compensated for this but finding the layout of settlements using this technique is extremely labour intensive and time consuming. It requires a long term research agenda like that devised for the South Cadbury Environs Project.
In Purbeck, the varied and valuable geological resources were utilised by the local Iron Age communities and the evidence for occupation is typically seen as scatters of
341
341
industrial debris. Therefore, although many sites are known, it is difficult to describe typical settlement enclosure types without geophysical survey and excavation.
Beach’s Barn
192: Distribution of banjo enclosures in Hampshire, Dorset and Wiltshire (Barrett, Bradley & Green 1991, 238)
Cranborne Chase has a very distinctive settlement pattern compared with the other areas. Typically, it consists of a variety of 0.5-1.5 hectare enclosed farmsteads with elaborate entrances, and most distinctively, its Late Iron Age ‘banjo’ enclosures and multiple ditch systems (fig.192).
Elsewhere, hillforts are key elements of the settlement pattern. In south Dorset, Maiden Castle and Poundbury are the exclusive settlement form until the late Middle
342
342
Iron Age when enclosed farmsteads become established in the Frome valley. In central Dorset, Hambledon then Hod remain the largest settlements but the hillfort communities here do not seem to exclude settlement in the surrounding area. Farmsteads established on the surrounding downland usually lay within simple ovoid enclosures, and were linked by a network of trackways weaving between rectilinear field systems. Turnworth Down is a typical example of this.
In east Dorset, the hillforts are part of a varied settlement pattern. Extensive open settlements are interspersed by smaller enclosed settlements and farmsteads. In the Late Iron Age, the larger settlements are subdivided into contiguous rectilinear enclosures, closely comparable with examples in Purbeck.
In west Dorset, the only known form of settlement is the hillfort. In the wider landscape no sites were identified from aerial photographic analysis and ditches cut by service trenches have not provided dateable evidence.
5.1: Isle of Purbeck
5.2: South Dorset
5.3: West Dorset 5.4: South Somerset
Earlier Iron Age: There were extensive settlements on the south Purbeck limestone plateau e.g. Gallows Gore, Eldon Seat/Rope Lake Hole. Evidence of industrial scale production of pottery, shale and salt increases. No hillforts are known within the area, the only defended hill settlement is Knowle Hill, on the chalk ridge and this lies between crossridge dykes. Later Iron Age: By this time, numerous industrial farmsteads were becoming established although their settlement form has not generally been established from existing excavated evidence. In the Latest Iron Age, sites with contiguous rectilinear enclosures like those at Corfe River East and Cleavel Point have been identified. Earlier Iron Age: Settlement evidence found exclusively in and around the hillforts of Poundbury and Maiden Castle. Maiden Castle develops from a small univallate to a larger trivallate developed hillfort. Later Iron Age: Reorganisation of settlement layout within Maiden Castle. Farmsteads and settlements established outside hillforts. A typical discrete rectilinear enclosed settlement at Maiden Castle School covers an area of 0.5-1.0 hectare. A possible oppidum developed near Dorchester indicated by linear ditch systems. The evidence is limited to the hillfort earthworks of Pilsdon Pen, Lambert’s Castle, Coney’s Castle and Lewesdon Hill. No lowland settlement sites have been identified in the area. Earlier Iron Age: The settlement evidence is concentrated on South Cadbury hill which was enclosed and the ramparts and ditches were increased until the hillfort became a trivallate enclosure. Later Iron Age: The local population gradually moved from the hillfort into the wider landscape. Farmsteads enclosed by rectilinear enclosures
343
343
5.5: Central Dorset
have been found integrated with field systems. Such sites have been found at Milsom’s Corner to the west of Cadbury, and Sigwells to the south-east. Earlier Iron Age: Extensive settlement evidence within and surrounding Hambledon Hill. Hambledon expanded from a small univallate hillfort to a developed trivallate hillfort. A large (2.5 hectare) ovoid enclosed farmstead was occupied at Pimperne.
5.6: Cranborne Chase
Later Iron Age: The layout of houses within the developed hillfort of Hod Hill, has town-like qualities indicative of oppidum status. There is increasing evidence for new settlement favouring valleys rather than spurs and hilltops e.g. Park Farm, Iwerne Minster and Iwerne valley. Earlier Iron Age: There are examples of hillforts but these are univallate and Mistlebury and Penbury are thought to be unfinished defensive enclosures. Earlier farmsteads when excavated are found to be ‘tomb’-shaped (Down Farm), rectilinear (Oakley Down) and ovoid with antennae entrances (Gussage All Saints).
5.7: East Dorset
Later Iron Age: Multiple ditch systems and ‘necked’ and ‘banjo’ enclosures are the distinctive settlement type found on spurs and hilltops (Gussage Cow Down & Rushmoor Park, Tollard). Berwick Down is a simple enclosed kite-shaped farmstead newly established in the Latest Iron Age. Earlier Iron Age: The area contains extensive unenclosed settlements (Bradford Down; Sweetbriar Drove and Heron Grove also univallate hillforts such as Spetisbury, Buzbury and probably Badbury). Farmsteads may be unenclosed or within ovoid and rectilinear enclosures. Later Iron Age: Developed trivallate hillfort at Badbury and extramural site at High Wood. Adoption of contiguous rectilinear enclosure systems across established extensive settlements (Sweetbriar, Bradford, Heron). Crab Farm 2 hectare ovoid enclosure with extensive contiguous rectilinear enclosure system that develops on its south-west side. Between the large settlements there is evidence for farmsteads, sometimes unenclosed or within ovoid and rectilinear enclosures. The tendency for valley settlement was increasing in Latest Iron Age.
Range of Settlement Elements This category of the survey sought to identify differences of occupation features within settlements. The settlement elements were very similar between study areas and match those generally found across Iron Age sites in southern Britain. Features such as round-houses with drip gulleys, enclosure ditches, storage pits, four and six post structures, ovens, hearths and metalworking evidence should be expected to occur in each of the study areas.
Not all the study areas contained evidence for grain storage pits and four and six post ‘granary’ structures. The lack of identified ‘granaries’ in east Dorset may be because they have not been identified from the numerous post-holes that have been excavated. This is probably due to the size and location of the evaluation trenches that have been
344
344
dug in the area. Excavated evidence has been supplemented by extensive geophysical survey but this has not revealed four-post structures unlike the recent work at Hod Hill (Stewart 2006-2007).
The lack of storage pits and four post ‘granary’ structures at Pilsdon Pen (Gelling 1977) and Halstock (Lucas 1993) is noteworthy and may indicate a regional difference in agricultural practice. Pilsdon’s excavated ring gulleys were sometimes conjoined with others, perhaps indicating a different use of space for domestic accommodation and outhouses. Enhanced survival at Hod Hill enabled Ian Richmond to suggest that curving ditches attached to ring gulleys could be stables and stock enclosures linked to specific round houses (1968, 20). The geophysical survey and excavations at Hod have provided the opportunity to see a detailed settlement plan where a variety of building and enclosure sizes can be seen linked by trackways, centred on a broad open area. This was perhaps a meeting area and market. An industrial iron working and smelting area has also been defined (Andrews 2006).
Size of round house may be an indicator of period. Later round houses tend to be between 6m and 10m in diameter like those surveyed at Hod. Some early round houses are up to 15m in diameter and these have been found at Pimperne, at Longbridge Deverill and perhaps site j on Hambledon, built at a key location overlooking the southern third of the hillfort.
Differing status amongst Hod’s occupants is implied by round houses separated from others by an enclosure. The largest of these being Richmond’s 36 which he argued was selected as a target by the Roman artillery as a leader’s residence and contained higher quality objects (ibid. 21-3). Clusters of round houses at Hod may indicate household clan units grouped within the hillfort settlement.
5.1: Isle of Purbeck
5.2: South Dorset 5.3: West Dorset
Timber-framed round houses surrounded by ring gulleys and generally east entrances. Round houses built with stone footings on the southern Purbeck limestone plateau. Ditched rectilinear enclosures linked by trackways, storage pits found particularly on limestone. Timber-framed round houses surrounded by ring gulleys and generally with east entrances. Ditched enclosures, trackways, ovens, hearths, metalworking hearths, storage pits, four-post structures. Timber-framed round houses surrounded by ring gulleys both separate or conjoined, generally with east entrances, oven and metalworking hearth
345
345
5.4: South Somerset 5.5: Central Dorset
5.6: Cranborne Chase 5.7: East Dorset
Timber framed round houses surrounded by ring gulleys. Ditched enclosures, trackways, storage pits, ovens and hearths, metal working hearth, four and six post structures. Timber framed round houses surrounded by ring gulleys some with conjoined wing ditches perhaps stables or outhouses and generally east entrances. Clustered groups of round houses (households?). Occasional ditched enclosures around buildings sometimes ovoid, sometimes rectilinear. Lines of four, five and six post structures. Working hollows, storage pits, trackways (Hod’s broad way in the centre of the hillfort possible market/meeting place). Hearths and ovens, metalworking smelting and smithing hearths. Timber framed round houses evidence for ring gulleys and east entrances. Ditched enclosures ovoid and rectilinear, particularly within late phases of settlements. Four and six post structures, working hollows, storage pits, trackways. Elaborate and varied gateways and enclosure forms. Timber framed round houses surrounded by ring gulleys evidence for east entrances. Ditched enclosures often forming rectilinear household? Divisions within settlements with trackways between (Crab’s broad way in the centre of the settlement, possible market with Iron Age? origin), storage pits, metal working.
Continuity of Settlement and Sacred Association The hypothesis behind this category was that earlier prehistoric occupation might influence Iron Age use of the site. Therefore, places were special because the ancestors valued them, a form of sacred heritage. The expression of monumental architecture has recently been considered in the light of ‘memory studies’ which attempt to link the otherwise invisible mind-set of prehistoric communities with the material products of societies (Bradley 2002, 17; Loney & Hoaen 2005, 361).
Within the Durotrigan zone such value probably arose after a reoccupation of a preferred location rather than settlement continuity from Neolithic or earlier Bronze Age times. Sites like Maiden Castle, Hambledon and Gussage Cow Down lie above important earlier prehistoric sites but it is uncertain whether the surviving earthworks were sacred or useful to the Iron Age people. Burial mounds are common inside hillforts and generally appear to have been left unmolested in the Iron Age (e.g. Pilsdon, Hod, Hambledon, Poundbury, Maiden Castle).
The archaeological evidence derived from Middle Bronze Age and Latest Bronze Age sites suggests a marked change in belief systems. A settlement hiatus usually takes place between about 1000-800 BC with a general shift of settlement to new locations.
346
346
Within the study areas, the best evidence for established long term settlement is found in Purbeck and the Stour valley, particularly east Dorset. Here, several sites have yielded occupation evidence dating from 800BC- 50AD. In some cases these sites remained occupied throughout the Roman period. These tend to be open settlements like those on the Purbeck limestone plateau or beside the Stour at Sweetbriar and Heron Grove.
The hillforts contain evidence for long periods of occupation but may have been settled later (Hod, Maiden Castle). However, South Cadbury was occupied from the Late Bronze Age and metalwork from this period found at Badbury and Hambledon suggests a similar early period of occupation.
A distinctive difference between the hillforts of the Durotrigan zone and the hillforts north of the Wylye and east of the Avon, is that generally they continued to be occupied until the Roman Conquest. Maiden Castle and South Cadbury were declining in importance but still contained significant populations. Badbury may have been largely abandoned by the 1st century AD. Hod Hill’s occupation apparently remained undiminished until the Roman Conquest.
In the Latest Iron Age, farms and settlements probably occupied most chalkland spurs and hilltops. However, the fashion for valley living, already adopted to the east and north, was encouraging a shift in settlement to new sites closer to the rivers such as Crab Farm in east Dorset and Allington Avenue in south Dorset. The opportunities for economic development enabled by increasing trade opportunities caused numerous new industrial settlements to become established around Poole Harbour and beside the Frome, Piddle and Corfe rivers.
Sacred sites consist of temples like those at Corfe, Badbury and possibly South Cadbury and structured pit deposits are found in all areas except west Dorset. South Somerset has structured ditch deposits dating from the Late Iron Age. 5.1: Isle of Purbeck
No identifiable link with Neolithic or Bronze Age sites. Continuity of settlement likely on southern Purbeck plateau from earliest Iron Age. Break in occupation on the heathland and around Poole Harbour between Middle Bronze Age and later Middle Iron Age.
347
347
5.2: South Dorset
5.3: West Dorset
5.4: South Somerset
5.5: Central Dorset
5.6: Cranborne Chase
5.7: East Dorset
Importance of Corfe Castle Hill and gap through Purbeck Hills as sacred site. Two temple sites associated with coin hoards and pit deposits. Clear preferred location of South Dorset Ridgeway, Maiden Castle Hill and Dorchester area as a monumental landscape in Neolithic and Bronze Age. Establishment and development of major settlement at Maiden Castle after an earliest Iron Age hiatus in the area. Continuity on site for over 600 years. Settlement concentration along Frome valley in the Latest Iron Age perhaps around a sacred spring near Wollaston Field, Dorchester. Structured, presumably sacred, pit deposits recorded. Earlier prehistoric worked flint from Pilsdon, Bronze Age burial mounds at Pilsdon and Coney’s Castles. Sparse finds indicate continuity of settlement at Pilsdon from Early to Late Iron Age. No evidence of sacred association. South Cadbury hill occupied in the Neolithic but abandoned in the Early Bronze Age. Reoccupied from Late Bronze Age until Late Iron Age. Other sites such as Sigwells abandoned in earlier Iron Age and re-occupied in later Iron Age. A cruciform structure on Cadbury Hill may be a Late Iron Age temple. A rectilinear enclosure at Sigwells, a probable mortuary enclosure. Structured, presumably sacred, pit deposits and ditch deposits recorded. Hambledon Hill occupied from the Early Neolithic. Causewayed enclosure complex, long barrows. Groups of Bronze Age burial mounds. One also on Hod Hill. Late Bronze Age metalwork found at Hambledon. Establishment and development of major settlement at Hambledon also at Hod, apparent shift of importance to Hod in the later Iron Age. Surrounding settlements have less archaeological evidence but indications of varied levels of continuity. Sacred sites uncertain but concentrations of burials within pits within certain round houses and enclosures at Hod seem significant. Structured, presumably sacred, pit deposits recorded Pimperne and Hod. Similar to south Dorset, a major Neolithic and Bronze Age ceremonial landscape including Knowlton henge group and Dorset Cursus. Earlier Iron Age settlement found across the area but lack of continuity from 800BC. However, there is continuity from 550BC at Oakley Down and Gussage All Saints. Major domestic/ceremonial complex established in the Late Iron Age across the Dorset Cursus. Settlement continued into the Roman period but this with Rushmoor Park group apparently loses its significance. No high status Roman buildings recorded. Structured, presumably sacred, pit deposits recorded. Mesolithic and Neolithic flint deposits on summit of Badbury hill. Possible Neolithic henge in High Wood immediately east of Badbury. Concentration of Early Bronze Age burial mounds on and around Badbury Hill. Later Bronze Age linears and metalwork found near Badbury. Settlements in the area generally occupied 800BC to AD 50, more continuity than Cranborne. Late Iron Age sacred site below Romano-Celtic temple on the west side of Badbury. Large coin hoard or hoards found around Badbury Structured, presumably sacred pit deposits recorded.
348
348
Distinctive Artefact Types In using this criterion it was thought that various areas might reveal certain community preferences to use and dispose of distinctive objects. This might reveal differing links between communities.
Here, ceramic analysis was key to understanding change over time but comparing ceramics between areas proved difficult because of the way different specialists had described and categorised pottery. For this exercise the terms retained by Barry Cunliffe (2005, 87-124) were used to make the best-fit comparisons between areas.
The sequence of ceramic change in the Durotrigan zone can be simplified to the degree Poole Harbour/Purbeck pottery influenced a locality over time. Petrological analysis in south Dorset (Brown 1991), east Dorset (Garvey 2005), west Dorset (Garvey 2006), Cranborne Chase (Gale 1979; Brown 1995) and south Somerset (Peacock 1969; Morris 1987; Woodward 2000) has generally enabled this to be determined.
The pattern of petrological change noted at Ham Hill (Morris 1987,27-47) can be applied elsewhere within the Durotrigan zone to a greater or lesser degree. First pottery tends to be produced from locally derived temper and clay but in forms generally fashionable in Early Iron Age Wessex. In the Middle Iron Age, the bulk of the fabric remains locally derived but with imported pottery entering settlements by trade and exchange with more distant communities. In the Late Iron Age increasing amounts of Poole Harbour pottery were brought into an area to the eventual exclusion of nearly all other ceramic types.
In west Dorset, very little pottery seems to have been produced locally (the source of the fine sand fabrics identified by Ann Garvey is currently unknown but may be local or from further west). Middle and Late Iron Age pottery from other communities to the north and east was occasionally imported into the area. The small amount of South Western Decorated and Poole Harbour and ‘fine sand’ pottery found amongst the
349
349
round houses of Pilsdon Pen demonstrates that pottery was of minimal importance to this west Dorset community throughout the Iron Age.
In south Somerset a strong reliance on the different forms and decorations of South Western Decorated Ware was rapidly replaced in the Latest Iron Age by Poole Harbour pottery. The suggestion that the Roman army brought most of the Poole Harbour/Durotrigan pottery to south Somerset seems unlikely given that military occupation did not have a similar affect in west Dorset.
The Poole Harbour potters often copied imported forms. Before the Roman Conquest, this is likely to have been true for Roman styles as much as Gallo-Belgic forms. Therefore early Romanised forms of Poole Harbour pottery may not always be postConquest in date. A recent find has been reported from the South Cadbury environs. This appears to be a Poole Harbour fabric sherd with a South Western Decorated design (Del Wiggins pers. comm. 2007). The find may be evidence for a short-term product range created by the south-east Dorset potters to satisfy a perceived south Somerset market demand.
Durotrigan or uninscribed south-west series coinage also arrived in south Somerset in the Latest Iron Age. Within the Durotrigan zone, coinage is seen earliest in the northeast and is distributed to the south through Cranborne Chase, Hengistbury and Poole Harbour. Coinage then seems to have been adopted further west in south Dorset and finally to the north-west in south Somerset. Durotrigan coinage arrived in west Dorset with the Roman army and currently has only been found within the Roman fort at Waddon Hill (fig.201 p.370).
Sword-shaped bars seem to be an earlier form of currency but finds are concentrated in hillforts and Hingley (1990) questions how they may have been used. They have been found along the Stour valley at Spetisbury and Hod Hill but elsewhere there is a single example from South Cadbury.
The other artefacts, which are distinctive to a particular area, are fragments of briquetage and Kimmeridge shale. These reveal the importance of the salt and shale
350
350
industries in Purbeck. They are often found alongside pottery wasters indicating the proximity of the numerous pottery production sites.
Gallo-Belgic imports are found more frequently in Purbeck/Poole Harbour and Hengistbury but rarely inland although copies of continental ceramic styles are more frequently encountered. Niall Sharples (1990) has suggested that there was a deliberate screening of imported items to prevent outside influence, but the copying of imported forms in Poole Harbour fabric (Brown 1997) counters this argument.
A similar harbour-side grouping of exotic items can be seen at the port of Saxon Hamwih, Southampton. The concentration of imported pottery and glass found in the 7th-century rubbish pits of the port is very different from the contemporary finds from the inland settlements (Hodges 1981, 89-94). This process of distribution can be explained simply as rare items becoming thinly dispersed from their source. Similarly, in the Iron Age, exotic items became increasingly rare as they were traded further and further from ports like Hengistbury, Cleavel Point, Radipole and Mount Batten.
Plotting ‘foreign’ coin types highlights not only the economic function of these coastal settlements but also that goods were transported along rivers. Jim Gunter (2004) has shown the importance of the Wylye and Avon rivers for trade. The distribution of Gallic and eastern British coins within the wider region also demonstrates the importance of the Stour, Frome, Allen and Tarrant valleys as trade routes. 5.1: Isle of Purbeck
Key production area for pottery throughout Iron Age. Increasingly significant from the later Iron Age into Romano-British period. Poole Harbour fabrics can be divided into the following styles (Cunliffe 2005). Kimmeridge-Caburn style 800BC-600 BC. All Cannings Cross- Meon Hill Dorset Variant 600BC-400BC. Maiden Castle-Marnhull 400BC-100 BC. Durotrigan 100BC-AD100.. Briquetage salt production. Kimmeridge shale cores and off-cuts, products mainly armlets. EIA Hand cut, LIA lathe turned. Rare Armorican pottery imports found on coastal sites. SW/Durotrigan coins: Some earlier 80% silver (Corfe Common hoard) but predominantly later phase base silver and bronze.
351
351
5.2: South Dorset
Pottery: increasing amounts of Poole Harbour fabrics. All Cannings Cross-Meon Hill Dorset variant 600BC-400BC. Maiden Castle-Marnhull 400BC-100BC. Durotrigan 100BC-AD100. (Maiden Castle: Poole Harbour fabrics of total 20% late 3rd BC; 60% late 2nd BC; 77% mid 1st BC; 95% mid 1st AD). Armorican imports rare.
5.3: West Dorset
SW/Durotrigan coins predominantly later phase 50% silver (east side Maiden Castle) but predominantly base silver and bronze. Pottery sparse. Occasional South Western Decorated Ware 300BC-AD 50. Occasional Poole Harbour fabrics 400BC-50 AD. Fine sand fabric in Late Iron Age forms (100 BC-AD50). 1 Gallo-Belgic XB coin.
5:4: South Somerset
Durotrigan pottery and coins from Waddon Hill Roman fort. Pottery Finger impressed decorated coarse pottery 700BC-450BC Plain saucepan and barrel shaped jars 450BC-150 BC South-Western Decorated Wares 300BC-AD40 Sudden change from SW Decorated to Poole Harbour dominance. Durotrigan/Poole Harbour AD30-AD400 (South Cadbury: Poole Harbour fabrics of total 20% early 1st BC; 95% mid 1st AD) Lack of Armorican imports Numerous fibulae from massacre deposit Cadbury SW Gateway. A sword shaped ‘currency’ bar Durotrigan coins predominantly later phase but within South Cadbury 8 out of 13 coins between 50%-80% silver content.
5.5: Central Dorset
Pottery Kimmeridge-Caburn 800BC-600 BC All Cannings Cross-Meon Hill Dorset Variant 600BC-400BC Maiden Castle-Marnhull 400BC-100BC Durotrigan 100BC-AD100 (no recent site fabric analysis from this area although Poole Harbour pottery well represented and dominant by Late Iron Age) 27 sword shaped ‘currency’ bars
5.6: Cranborne Chase
SW/Durotrigan coins earlier and later phases reasonably numerous and finds include gold British B. Armorican and other British coins most W/Dobunnic present. Pottery All Cannings Cross-Meon Hill Dorset Variant 600BC-400BC Saucepan pot 400BC-300BC Maiden Castle-Marnhull 300BC-100BC Durotrigan 100BC-AD50 (Gussage All Saints: Poole Harbour fabrics of total 10% late 3rd BC; 50% early 1st BC; 95% mid 1st AD. Rare Armorican pottery imports Rushmore Park
352
352
Gussage All Saints deposit of moulds for harness and chariot fittings
5.7: East Dorset
SW/Durotrigan coins more common than elsewhere, earlier and later phases. Earlier phase coins British B gold coins and high silver content starfish quarter staters. Armorican and other British coins present. Pottery Kimmeridge-Caburn 800BC-600 BC All Cannings Cross-Meon Hill Dorset Variant 600BC-400BC Maiden Castle-Marnhull 400BC-100BC Durotrigan 100BC-AD50 (Badbury Environs: Poole Harbour fabrics of total Sweetbriar 17% mid 3rd BC; Heron Grove 65% late 2nd BC; Badbury 77% mid 1st BC;Crab Farm 98% mid 1st AD) 2 sword shaped currency bars Spetisbury Twisted iron torc and armlet Spetisbury and Badbury. Durotrigan coins earlier and later phases. Earlier coins include gold British B and high silver content starfish quarter staters. Armorican and other British coins present.
Burial Rite Forms of burial are generally similar to those found elsewhere, that is pit burial and skeletal fragments found as part of a ‘structured’ pit deposit. Most bodies seem to have been disposed of using methods that cannot be archaeologically detected.
However, south Dorset has the particularly distinctive burial rite of crouched inhumation in a shallow grave often accompanied by grave goods. This rite largely replaced the ‘normal’ pit burial tradition in south Dorset in the Late Iron Age.
The Durotrigan burial rite is so distinctive that one would expect to encounter an expanding distribution pattern as elements of the south Dorset population moved north during the Latest Iron Age. The process of adoption of Poole Harbour pottery from south to north is clear but similar infiltration of burial rite is less certain. Cemeteries and individual Durotrigan burials are concentrated around Dorchester. A few examples have been found in Purbeck, demonstrating perhaps a closer bond between these two areas than elsewhere. However, the Purbeck burials are slightly different, joints of meat have not been recorded there and the graves are usually lined with stone slabs.
353
353
Crouched inhumations in graves have been found in south Somerset but not with whole Durotrigan pots, joints of meat or other items that might be considered as grave goods. Unaccompanied crouched burials in graves have also been found at Suddern Farm, Hampshire (Cunliffe & Poole 2000), and Cockley Down north-east of Salisbury (McOmish, Field and Brown 2002) and therefore the south Somerset examples are not necessarily evidence of an adapted form of the south Dorset burial rite. In the same way the graves found cut into ditch fillings at Rotherley and Woodcutts may not be the burials of people influenced by southern burial rites.
At Hod Hill two groups of pit burials occur as structured deposits possibly cut into the floors of mortuary houses. A group of objects accompanying a woman seem to be personal items deposited as grave goods (Richmond 1968). This might possibly be a combination of beliefs, the southern influence of objects to accompany the dead but in a traditional pit burial. A similar situation may be indicated at Sigwells, south Somerset where a Late Iron Age infant pit burial was accompanied by a Poole Harbour vessel (Tabor 2004b).
In considering the structured pit deposits one is facing a complicated code of belief. The pit fillings include, in various combinations, crouched inhumations, parts of skeletons, various types of animal burials, deposits of charcoal, grain, rotary querns, pottery and other groups of artefacts. The ideas expressed in these deposits are evidence of a belief structure tailored to fit specific circumstances. The archaeologist is never likely to know why a piglet was placed above a dog within a pit filling or when it would be appropriate to introduce a human portion to the deposit. Unique forms of burial reveal non-conformity such as the bent legless burial at Eastcombe, south Somerset and the fan shaped array of animal bones placed around a skull at Portesham, south Dorset.
An exotic cremation burial in a barrow surrounded by a square ditch accompanied the eastern style multiple ditch systems and banjo enclosures of Gussage Hill, Cranborne Chase. Other square enclosures, seen beside settlements in east Dorset and Cranborne Chase may be Iron Age but when excavated they are usually later Roman in date (Allards Quarry, Marnhull, Maiden Castle Road, Dorchester). Other forms of burial rite found in the Cranborne area are generally pit and ditch burials. 354
354
In east Dorset, no Iron Age burials have been recorded apart from the bodies apparently thrown without ceremony into the Spetisbury hillfort ditch. The south Somerset burials at South Cadbury also seemed to provide evidence for careless burial after conflict. The Maiden Castle cemetery also included battle-scarred bodies but these people were given a more dignified burial. However, what we consider as undignified may have been sacred and normal to some Iron Age communities. There is a possibility that the ditch burials of Spetisbury could represent the way the dead were disposed of, the finds of various dates indicating that the burial site had been used for many generations.
The three major developed hillforts, South Cadbury, Maiden Castle and Hod, all included burials of young adults found beneath ramparts. Given that such a small percentage of the total rampart enclosures have been excavated at these sites, one wonders how many other foundation burials lie beneath the ramparts. The descriptions of the burials by the excavators imply that these people may not have died of natural causes.
Therefore, from these examples, the range of human burials recorded within the Durotrigan zone provides glimpses of ritual, care and brutality.
5.1 Isle of Purbeck
5.2: South Dorset
5.3: West Dorset 5.4: South Somerset
5.5: Central Dorset
Earlier Iron Age: Disarticulated human bone occasionally found on archaeological sites. Late Iron Age: Crouched inhumations normally in stone-lined ‘cist’ graves with Durotrigan vessels, one burial accompanied by a local copy of Gallo-Belgic butt beaker. Earlier-Late Iron Age: Inhumation burials in pits below hillfort ramparts. Pit burials normally in disused storage pits. Ditch burials. Late Iron Age: Crouched inhumations singly or in cemeteries normally in shallow graves, some with Durotrigan pottery and joints of meat, sometimes metalwork or other personal items. Maiden Castle cemetery some of the later graves with cuts to the bones and one with a ballista bolt through the spine. No burial rite evidence. Earlier Iron Age: No burial rite evidence. Later Iron Age: Inhumation burial in pit below hillfort rampart Fragments of human bone in pit deposits. Complete inhumations as pit burials normally in disused storage pits. Unaccompanied crouched inhumation in a grave. Earlier Iron Age: Fragments of human bone in pits. Inhumation in pit below hillfort rampart. Later Iron Age: Pit burials normally in disused storage pits complete
355
355
5.6: Cranborne Chase
inhumations and skeletal fragments. Late burials accompanied by personal items. Earlier Iron Age: Pit burials in disused storage pits. Ditch burials. Late Iron Age: Pit burials generally complete adult skeletons but many of the skeletons of infant burials were disarticulated. Ditch burials, some as graves cut into the ditch.
5.7: East Dorset
Cremation burial under barrow mound within square enclosure ditch. Middle-Late Iron Age: Skeletons deposited in hillfort ditch Spetisbury (battle dead or local burial rite). Early Roman: RB Cremation in Durotrigan bowl. Corfe Mullen.
The Other Communities
Significant differences in the origin of communities and the way they lived have been demonstrated. Looking beyond the seven specific study areas it can be seen that this diversity existed within the other communities of the Durotrigan zone.
15km west of Maiden Castle, the developed hillfort at Eggardon appears to have been a prominent place within its locale (Wells 1978) (fig.74 p.144). Similarly, the areas enclosed by the ramparts of Rawlesbury and Nettlecombe Tout hillforts (fig.106 & 107 p.190) , 9km and 12km south-west of Hod Hill, indicate that they would have been important for their local populations. These three occupy strategic locations on the chalk escarpment overlooking the Marshwood and Blackmore vales but little work has been done to understand the chronology and layout of settlements within these hillforts or of the various small settlements occupying the chalk downland between Eggardon and Rawlesbury. Similarly, near Woodbury hillfort in east Dorset, a scatter of Iron Age coins and evidence from smallscale excavation, indicates an extensive settlement and community focus at Bagwood Copse. Further work is required to understand its significance within the local landscape (Toms 1966, 117).
The archaeological evidence from south Somerset and south Wiltshire enables a more detailed consideration.
In Somerset the vast enclosure on Ham Hill contains many features and a range of artefacts comparable with those found within South Cadbury (fig.90 & 91, p. 166167). Various excavations (Gray 1924-1929; McKinley 1999b) and a geophysical survey (RCHME 1997, 7-9) reveal the interior to be covered in occupation features
356
356
and around the developed hillfort of Castle Ditches (Payne et al 2006). The character of the area appears to be a Maiden Castle pattern of settlement concentrated at the hillfort (fig.141 p.235; fig.142 p.236).
In contrast, beyond the Ebble valley, the Oxdrove Ridge has extensive evidence of later Iron Age settlement, the western part divided by large Late Iron Age cross-ridge dykes associated with contemporary occupation evidence (Rahtz et al. 1990). Perhaps the core settlement area was the Rushmore and Berwick group of linears and enclosures on the spur slopes surrounding the Tollard Royal valley on the northern edge of Cranborne Chase (fig.143 p.238; figs.153-156, p.260-263).
The east end of the Oxdrove and Ebble-Nadder ridges and the land north-east of Bokerley Dyke near Salisbury appears to lie outside the Durotrigan zone. Excavated sites like Whitsbury Castle Ditches (Rahtz 1960 in Bowen 1990, 77); Harnham Hill (Piggott 1939), Highfield (Stevens 1934), Yarnbury (Cunnington 1933) and surveys of the area (Bowen 1990; 1991) reveal settlement forms, ceramic evidence and lack of coinage that suggest this. Nevertheless, there was no barrier to trade, people used the Avon valley to take products like Kimmeridge shale and Gallo-Belgic pottery into Wiltshire and Hampshire from Hengistbury Head.
It is in south Wiltshire and north-east Dorset that community diversity is especially apparent, due it seems to influences from the east and north and the influx of new populations into the area.
To the west, hillforts remain an important element of the settlement pattern, to the east farmsteads and villages take various forms and hillforts were less important.
Answering the Questions
Having combined and examined the results from the seven study areas using each of the six criteria and then considered other communities evident within the Dorset environs, it is now time to look again at the ten questions posed at the end of chapter 4. Has this systematic process of reviewing the available evidence enabled these
361
361
questions to be satisfactorily answered? The following is a summary of the evidence based on the information already set out above.
Question 1: Did central places exist in the Dorset environs in the Iron Age?
This all depends on how a central place is defined. There are no places that can be viewed in the modern sense as cities or towns. With the possible exception of the Nadder-Wylye Ridge sites, there appears to be no oppidum-like settlement on the scale of Calleva. Nevertheless it has been shown that there are principal places where occupation is concentrated that are significantly different to the smaller settlements or farmsteads. Some of these places are proto-towns, well organised and extensive. These principal places can be divided into three types.
Exclusive: For periods of time, places like Maiden Castle, Castle Ditches and South Cadbury were the only settlements for their locale. The evidence indicates a deliberate policy amongst their ruling elite of excluding the establishment of settlements outside the settlement enclosure. These exclusive principal places tend to be hillforts.
Inclusive: Other settlements appear dominant within their locales but the ruling authorities did not prevent farms and villages becoming established around them. Hod/Hambledon, Scratchbury/Battlesbury, Gussage Cow Down are examples of this. Hod provides the best evidence for a hillfort acting as a central place with a planned layout of streets, differential use of areas and evidence of social hierarchy.
Multiple: There are areas where large principal places are evident but these sites take various forms and more than one exists in each area. The Badbury environs is the best example of this where large settlements lie within 3km of each other and the hillfort is just another site type within an array of enclosed and unenclosed farmsteads and villages. Purbeck also fits this category.
362
362
Question 2: Did these settlement foci shift, change function or become redundant over time?
Settlement shift is certainly apparent in many of the study areas although generally settlement abandonment is rare. The shift of emphasis from Hambledon to Hod is implied but not proven. The later Iron Age movements from Battlesbury Bowl towards Battlesbury hillfort, from Maiden Castle to the Frome valley and from south Purbeck to the shores of Poole Harbour are good examples.
The north-east part of the Durotrigan zone contains most evidence of settlement abandonment. The principal places on Cranborne Chase and the Nadder/Wylye ridge are not known before Gussage Cow Down and the Stockton settlements became established in the later Iron Age.
Question 3: Did all similar settlement forms have the same function or group of functions?
The question relates principally to hillforts as most other types of settlement form are likely to be domestic farmsteads or villages, except in Purbeck where industrial use is particularly evident.
Regarding hillforts, it has been demonstrated that even large earthworks can contain only a few round house sites. Poundbury is a good example of this. Other sites like South Cadbury, Maiden Castle and Hod Hill were densely occupied, other smaller sites like Lambert’s Castle and Spetisbury may have been sacred enclosures, places of refuge or secure places for stock or other valuables. Therefore hillforts had different uses, each with a unique history having a variety of functions over time. A hillfort may have been built for a single short-term use and reused for something entirely different at a later date (Appendix 1 provides an ethnographic parallel for this kind of diversity of function for Maori hillforts).
Another distinctive settlement form is the ‘banjo’ enclosure but comparison of function between similar sites is not possible because, apart from Woodcutts (PittRivers 1887) none have been excavated in the Dorset environs. However, surface 363
363
finds seem to indicate that they contained domestic farming households of some status.
Question 4: Were there distinctive settlement forms within locales?
This has been demonstrated clearly in the survey. The variety of settlement is remarkable, particularly either side of the River Stour. The multiple ditch systems and banjo enclosures associated with small ovoid univallate hillforts and numerous distinct enclosed farmsteads with necked and antennae entrances fade rapidly towards the Stour valley.
Within the valley and to the south-west, the farmsteads are enclosed by ovoid enclosures without fancy entrances and hillforts predominate. From the Badbury and Hod environs south into Purbeck there is a tendency for large village-like settlements consisting of groups of households defined by contiguous enclosures linked by trackways. Hillforts here are not significant.
None of the study areas compares closely with another. Each has a distinctive settlement pattern.
Question 5: Were there differences in the way people lived and used space within settlements?
The survey found that there were clear similarities within the Dorset environs. As expected, forms of houses and structures were similar to those found across Wessex. In all areas, the basic occupied structure was the round house. These were built of timber in most areas but with limestone footings where stone was plentiful in southern Purbeck.
Where plans exist, round houses seem to be tightly clustered within developed hillforts like Hod, Hambledon, South Cadbury and Maiden Castle. Smaller hillforts, like Poundbury and Abbotsbury may only have a few round houses clustered within a small area of the enclosure. In farmstead enclosures like Gussage All Saints or Maiden Castle Farm, only two or three buildings may be present. 364
364
Without extensive excavation, contemporary occupation of each site is hard to prove. Only a percentage of known houses may have been used at any one time. Hod Hill provides the best evidence within the area of a planned settlement layout that can be compared with that excavated at Danebury and indicated at Maiden Castle and Pilsdon. At Hod, houses and outbuildings, probably including stables, were arranged in groups, sometimes within ditched enclosures.
The use of areas for metal working also occurs across the wider study area. Usually iron smithing waste is found but smelting slag has been identified at Hod, traces of gold working at Pilsdon and evidence for bronze casting at Gussage All Saints.
Other consistent Iron Age settlement attributes seen across the Dorset environs include four, five and six post structures and grain storage pits. These pits were not found in west Dorset. Pilsdon could be compared with Hembury in east Devon in this respect and this seems to be a significant regional difference. This may be linked to the suitability for pit storage of the local geology rather than a cultural preference. Nevertheless, four-post structures were also absent. Therefore stock rearing rather than arable farming may have been preferred as this would explain the lack of granaries and seed corn storage facilities.
Question 6: Were there differences in the amount of time a site was occupied within the Dorset environs?
There are differences relating to continuity of occupation and once again there is a north-east to south-west divide.
Work within Cranborne Chase and south Wiltshire indicates that some sites were abandoned here (Swallowcliffe, Fifield Bavant, Down Farm, East Knoyle) and many settlements occupied ‘green field’ sites in the later Iron Age (Berwick Down, Rotherley, Woodcutts). The pattern emerging is for, open and rectilinear ‘tombstone’ enclosures to be replaced by necked or ‘banjo’ enclosures in the later Iron Age.
365
365
Within the Stour Valley and in Purbeck, large village-like settlements like Allards Quarry, Marnhull, Sweetbriar, Bradford Down, Rope Lake Hole/Eldon Seat and Gallows Gore are typically occupied from the 800BC into the Roman period.
Therefore there is a sense of settlement change in the north-east and relative inertia in the south-west until the later Middle Iron Age when elements of the existing populations establish new settlements like the industrial sites of Cleavel Point and Fitzworth in Purbeck and the Frome Valley settlements in south Dorset. These movements do cause the abandonment of the older settlements however.
Question 7: Is there evidence for places of ritual and worship and does this differ between areas?
There is evidence for sacred places but it is difficult to determine differences of religious worship between areas apart from that implied by the south Dorset burial rites of the Latest Iron Age. There is a sense, as assumed elsewhere within Wessex, that landscape and nature were a source of inspiration and the location of occupation sites, temples and hoards of precious items supports this. Farming was also a sacred activity and structured pit deposits indicate a belief in offering sacrifices to the gods perhaps to ensure good harvests.
The Iron Age people of the Dorset environs positioned their farmsteads, settlements and hillforts on prominent spurs and hilltops to dramatic effect and probably not solely for defensive reasons (Barrett et al 2000, 319-24).
The crests of the natural chalk escarpments were chosen as sites for many of the hillforts with wide views across the Blackmoor and Marshwood Vales. Particularly imposing is Cley Hill, a significant landmark when viewed from the north, defining the entrance to the Wylye and the Durotrigan zone. It is overlooked by the sacred site of Cold Kitchen Hill, positioned on a key promontory above the sources of the Wylye and Stour. The Jordan Hill temple overlooking Portland and Weymouth Bay marks the position of an extensive Late Iron Age cemetery and sacred site. Similar strategic monumentality is indicated by the three hillforts that ring the Stour head. Another example can be found at Corfe where sacred sites like the Corfe Common and Norden 366
366
temples lie either side of the gateway into southern Purbeck through the great natural rampart of the chalk ridge. The continued value placed on hillforts after they were abandoned is indicated by the locations of Romano-Celtic temples at Badbury, Maiden Castle and perhaps South Cadbury.
Duality and paired hillforts and enclosures imply different but related functions often lying either side of a coombe or saddle of land. The functions may be divisions of sacred and temporal space or domestic and livestock accommodation. These sites include Hambledon/Hod, Battlesbury/Scratchbury, Gussage Cow Down/ Launceston Down and perhaps Rawlsbury/Nettlecombe Tout and Badbury/High Wood.
Rivers were probably seen as sources of life and fertility. Coin hoards near rivers may also have been placed as sacred boundary markers implied by the hoard of coins found near the source of the River Brit at the western edge of the Durotrigan zone.
Question 8: What is the evidence for the disposal of the dead and are there differences of burial rite within the Dorset environs?
It has been shown that Iron Age burials are rarely found on archaeological sites across Wessex and when located they are part of a structured deposit occupying old storage pits or boundary ditches. Single bones, articulated limbs or whole skeletons may be present.
A different form of burial emerges in south Dorset and Purbeck in the Latest Iron Age, crouched inhumation with grave goods indicating the belief in an after life. Similar burials but without grave goods have also been found to the north-west at North Perrott (Hollinrake 1997, 47), Sherborne (McKinley 1999a, 56-7) and the South Cadbury environs (Tabor 2004b). A crouched burial in a shallow oval grave has also been found at Tarrant Hinton, east Dorset near two Middle Iron Age flexed burials (Graham 2006, 22-24). In south Somerset pit burial seems to have continued as the principal form of burial. In south Dorset the new form of burial seems to have replaced the old pit burial tradition (Davies 2002, 122).
367
367
The disturbed cremation burial within the square barrow on Gussage Hill (White 1970, 26-36) is presently unique in the region. Other square enclosure ditches like those at Ebsbury on the Nadder-Wylye Ridge (Corney 1989) and Crab Farm and Bradford Down may contain similar interments but there is insufficient evidence to prove that this was a distinctive eastern form of funerary monument.
Question 9: Are there specific artefact types that can be used to define separate areas within the Durotrigan zone?
Oakley Sweetbriar Maiden
Crab
Hengistbury Eldon Seat
A: 600BC
B: 200BC
Blacklands Westonzoyland Battlesbury Suddern
Ham
Badbury
Crab
C: 50BC
D: AD 40
197: Maps to show distribution of Poole Harbour fabrics with names of key indicator sites. Size of symbols: smallest 5-25% of ceramic assemblage and largest 90-100%.
Only the coins and to a lesser extent, the pottery can provide any evidence for separate community identity within the region (figs. 197-201)
368
368
Fabric analysis has shown the gradual and then rapid adoption of Poole Harbour pottery across the Dorset environs. The pottery of south Somerset is significantly different until Poole Harbour pottery is adopted and South Western Decorated Wares cease to be used (fig.197).
198: Distribution of British B coins (Philip de Jersey unpublished)
199: Distribution of British A coins (Philip de Jersey unpublished)
369
369
The maps showing the distribution of coin types can be interpreted as evidence of groups adopting types of coin at different times. The most coins and coin types are found in the north-east across Cranborne and south Wiltshire.
200: Distribution of British O coins (Philip de Jersey unpublished)
Gold British B and silver “Starfish” coins have been found on Cranborne Chase but no further west than the river Stour. British O and British A coins have occasionally been found in south Dorset and Purbeck but rarely in Cranborne. British A coins have been considered to be the model for all south-west uninscribed coins (Allen 1961, 106). Viewed in distribution terms, it could be argued that the coin users influencing south Dorset subsequently took over Cranborne when high silver content staters are introduced to both areas.
The west part of the region lies at the edge of Iron Age coin usage and in west Dorset coins rarely enter the area until after the Roman Conquest. The quantity and base metal content of most coins in south Somerset, except the higher status South Cadbury, indicates a Latest Iron Age adoption of coins in this area.
370
370
Question 10: Can the Dorset environs be separated to identify unique signatures of smaller community groups, how did these originate and did a pre-Conquest Durotriges exist?
The last question is the most important in the context of this book, and, as the answers to the previous questions have demonstrated, marked differences existed between the communities that inhabited this region.
The origin of these communities is difficult to define but from 800BC basic Iron Age distinction is recognised in: forms of pottery; increasing use of iron; pit storage and enclosed settlements. Each community over time was affected by the lifestyle of neighbouring groups in different ways, eventually resulting in pronounced diversity. If conformity over large areas is the result of central control, and this is lacking, then in the Early Iron Age power was dispersed with no community holding the resources to expand significantly.
The definition of exclusive, inclusive and multiple principal places suggests different forms of authority and therefore different rulers across the Dorset environs. These definitions were fading by the time coins were introduced to the area but the coins remained uninscribed. From this, one assumes that no individual gained supremacy over the region.
Principal places may be viewed as centres of authority with zones of influence 1020km in extent. These local centres would have formed and broken alliances and in the later Iron Age combined to form larger groupings.
Site distribution maps show that there were sparsely settled areas fringing the Durotrigan zone. One of these lay across the heathlands north of Bournemouth and Poole and further east in the New Forest area. Other comparatively blank areas include the western part of Salisbury Plain, the area west of the River Brit, and in north Dorset where the western half of the Blackmoor Vale is also virtually empty of Iron Age sites.
371
371
203: Map of the Dorset environs providing an impression of various artefact and burial distributions from source to periphery. Blue = Purbeck products particularly Poole Harbour pottery; Red = coinage originating from north and east and developing as SW series /Durotrigan issues in the Cranborne Chase area; Green= south Dorset burial centred on Dorchester; Yellow = outside material influences such as Gallic coins and pottery introduced via coastal settlements and South-Western Decorated pottery and western issue coinage entering the area from the north and north-west. The thickness of the arrows are drawn to indicate quantity and perceived strength of influence
373
373
were poor and therefore were not sought after as settlement localities. These areas conveniently formed a natural barrier against immigrant groups from the west, north and east.
The principal gateway to change was the confluence of rivers at Salisbury where new influences from the north and east penetrated the Durotrigan zone along the Wylye, Avon and across Cranborne Chase. The evidence for this consists of a higher rate of settlement abandonment, and greater mix of settlement types. The ancient earthwork of Bokerley Dyke may be a prehistoric attempt to check incursions from this direction.
The south coast was the other important contact area. Trade with Armorica and Rome has been demonstrated at Hengistbury and Poole Harbour and this contact would have gradually changed attitudes and lifestyles (fig.202 & 203).
Durotriges?
This summary of the evidence demonstrates that communities co-existed in close proximity with diverse forms of settlement. It is difficult to consider them as elements of a unified tribal group. These communities may all have been using the same sort of pottery by the end of the Iron Age but their belief systems and loyalties appear disunited. How might the ideas behind traditional pit burial at Hod Hill be reconciled with the new burial rites conceived in south Dorset?
Yet by the end of the Iron Age these communities did lie within an area, which used distinctive coinage, and therefore they were apparently linked together. Certainly, the distribution and concentration of these coins (fig. 201) is hard to dismiss or explain away without some common economic and political structure.
In chapter two p.31, it was noted how Roman historical sources indicate the process of smaller groups banding together and forming alliances in the later Iron Age. The 374
374
coin distribution maps (figs. 36-38 p. 88; fig.162 p.278; fig.198-200 p.369) provide evidence for this gradual process of alliance within the Dorset environs and this eventually led to the formation of the Durotrigan zone. It might be compared with the modern Euro zone with its constituent communities protecting their personal interests but grudgingly acknowledging the value of remaining in the ‘club’. The adoption of Poole Harbour pottery seems to have been a necessary part of membership. Whether all members joined freely or were coerced would be difficult to prove (fig.197 p.368).
If forcible annexation took place, it is most likely to have happened in south Somerset in the last decades of pre-Roman Britain. The benefit of free access through south Somerset would have enabled an improved trade route for the Durotrigan communities from the ports of Hengistbury and Poole Harbour along the Brue-Parrett corridor to the Bristol Channel. South Somerset had strong ties with its western and northern neighbours, expressed in the decorative styles of its pottery and carvings. The use of these styles ends abruptly with the adoption of Durotrigan ceramics. Friction between differing communities is likely and it is also likely that the Durotrigan zone was not an entirely peaceful formation.
Decades before the Roman Conquest it has been seen that Romanisation had substantially changed the societies of the Dorset environs. Contact with traders from Rome, Gaul and east Britain had begun to transform them into market economies seen most clearly in the Poole and Christchurch Harbour areas. Therefore it cannot be claimed that the Durotrigan zone was insular although the inland areas lack the range of commodities found on sites to the east.
In what sense these communities considered themselves to be Durotrigan (or whatever the regional group name was) as opposed to being a part of their own group cannot be determined but their feelings are likely to have resembled our own range of perceptions concerning community, identity and loyalty.
The Fading of the Durotriges
The evidence suggests that the communities of the Durotrigan zone formed a vibrant and expanding trading block. They were independent, with the political groups to the 375
375
east and north cushioning them from the powerful and expanding Catuvellauni/Trinovantian nation.
Unlike their eastern neighbours, they disputed the Roman occupation of their land. There is enough evidence of forts and 1st century conflicts to be sure of this, although the determination to oppose conquest may have varied between communities. The people of Purbeck seem to have been rewarded for providing a safe harbour and the bridge-head at Hamworthy. Their economy blossomed after the invasion. Other communities may have fought but soon capitulated.
It has already been noted that the evidence for conflict varies between areas. This evidence is limited to a scatter of ballista bolts at Hod Hill and across Cranborne Chase. The burial of the war dead was carried out with dignity at Maiden Castle but in contrast, the bodies found at Ham Hill and South Cadbury were thrown into ditches or left to rot where they fell. Forts at Hod, Waddon, Lake Farm, South Cadbury, Ham Hill, Ilchester and probably Dorchester were generally occupied until the mid 60s AD.
The subtle indoctrination of Roman culture into the Durotrigan communities is revealed in the archaeological record by the decrease in distinctive Iron Age traits. Continuity of settlement into the Roman period is generally found, although some disruption may have taken place in south Somerset during the late 1st and early 2nd centuries (Tabor 2004b, 92).
The Latest Iron Age riverside settlements at Ilchester, Dorchester, Crab Farm, Iwerne valley and perhaps the Bury all continue to be occupied until the late 4th century. Sometimes settlements and farmsteads became small towns or high status villas while others remained comparatively undeveloped.
Within Dorchester, the evidence from the excavation of numerous graves demonstrates that the Durotrigan burial rite continued well into the 2nd century. Even after this, when extended burials became more common than contracted, black burnished jars rather than more exotic pottery normally accompanied the dead and cremation remained a rare form of burial in the area (RCHM 1970a, 572).
376
376
Iron Age storage pits also continued to be used into the 2nd century. They were gradually phased out once Roman agricultural practices became accepted. At Woodcutts, a 2nd century corn-drying oven installed near backfilled storage pits is one example of Roman farming innovation and change (Pitt Rivers 1897). Durotrigan/south-west uninscribed coins continued in circulation into the 2nd century (Haselgrove & Mays 2000, 248) and many were used by Roman soldiers, examples being found within the forts at Hod Hill and Waddon Hill. The hoard at Downton, Wiltshire strongly suggests that some cast Durotrigan coins continued to be minted into the 2nd century (de Jersey 2000).
Durotrigan/Poole Harbour pottery developed into Black Burnished Ware. Its extensive distribution, particularly across western Britain (Allen & Fulford 1996, 223281) demonstrates its success after its widespread adoption by the Roman army. The army continued to use BBI into the 4th century and it formed the main coarse ware component of ceramic assemblages excavated from Britannia’s northern frontier forts.
Although Romanisation changed the lifestyle of the Durotrigan communities, a sense of identity and aspects of their belief system probably continued. Iron Age sacred sites such at Badbury and Jordan Hill became Romano-Celtic temples and continued to be places of worship until the end of the 4th century.
Each of the Durotrigan communities probably remained distinctive and presumably maintained a degree of autonomy. They became the pagi or districts of the civitas and small towns developed at their principle places. One of these was at Ilchester in south Somerset, which may subsequently have been promoted to civitas status to become the Durotrages Lindiniensis of the Hadrian’s Wall inscriptions. Others can be suggested where imperial taxation points and inns (mansios) may have been established.
The large settlement at Crab Farm was probably Vindocladia of the Antonine Itinerary. Other locally significant settlements developed along the Iwerne valley
377
377
below Hod Hill and beside the Wylye, below Battlesbury, half way between Old Sarum (Sorbiodunum) and Bath (Aquae Sulis).
Boundaries between established groups may have been marked out as linear earthworks before and after the Roman conquest. Combs Ditch (SY8505021788710000; Winterborne Whitechurch 19, RCHM 1970b, 313) may be one of these, crossing the high point of the downs, half way between the settlements of Crab Farm (ST94500210; Shapwick) and Bagwood Copse (SY85149714; Bere Regis 120) In the 4th and 5th centuries, as security within the Roman province declined, Badbury Rings was reoccupied (Papworth 2004c, 182-3). The old refuge was refortified and the Roman road from Old Sarum was cut at the boundary earthwork of Bokerley Dyke (Pitt-Rivers 1892, Plate CLXIII; Rahtz, 1961, 65-99). It has recently been suggested that old feuds and frontiers were revived in the sub-Roman period, as the provinces of Britannia broke up (Laycock 2006, 10-15). However, the distribution of pagan Saxon burials in barrows north-east of Bokerley Dyke and east of the Avon (Winterborne Gunner, Salisbury; Bargates, Christchurch) indicates that the Saxons soon became the principal enemy.
It appears that for a while the Saxons were successfully kept from the core communities of the Durotrigan zone, although finds of 5th and 6th century metalwork between Hod Hill and Bokerley Dyke may suggest a Saxon enclave occupying Cranborne Chase (Bruce Eagles pers. comm 2006).
At places like Ulwell in Purbeck, Tolpuddle Ball and Poundbury near Dorchester, cemeteries of east-west burials without grave goods have been radiocarbon dated to the 5th-7th centuries (Hearne and Birbeck 1999, 226-31). This burial evidence suggests that by this time many people in Dorset had become Christians and that the area became independant for one or two centuries before being absorbed into the Saxon kingdom of Wessex (Eagles 1994, 13-32).
In the same way that the word Durotriges linked diverse communities, the emerging Saxon political powers brought together many other groups. This is best documented in Mercia where in AD 655 Penda formed an alliance of thirty groups to fight the 378
378
Northumbrians. A document, known as the Tribal Hidage, names the peoples of the Mercian kingdom and the taxable land each controlled. Their areas ranged from 300 hides for the Feppingas to 7,000 hides for the Wreocensaeten. Some of these groups like the Elmetsaeten were British in origin and possibly preserved elements of group identity extending back to the Iron Age (Fisher 1973, 108-9). A Tribal Hidage does not survive for Wessex but similar districts existed and hundred meeting places at Badbury and Eggardon remained in use into the medieval period.
Present and Future Work
In the last few years I have re-examined past archaeological research, reviewed archaeological thinking, added significant new fieldwork evidence and the result has been a personal interpretation based on a meticulous collection of information. This has not been a specialist work on pottery or coinage. It has concentrated principally on settlement patterns but used all available sources.
The research has created the impetus for some significant new fieldwork. This has included excavations within Badbury Rings/High Wood and extensive geophysical surveys of the Crab Farm, Bradford Down and Sweetbriar settlements surrounding Badbury. There have also been complete gradiometer surveys of the interiors of Badbury and Hod Hill and a new temple at Norden has been discovered and surveyed. This work has been supplemented by an up to date review of the Iron Age coins. This together with Ann Garvey’s fabric analysis of the pottery from the Badbury environs and Pilsdon Pen has considerably enhanced understanding by comparing her findings with other pottery assemblages from the Dorset area.
Previously, a confederacy of groups had been suggested for the region (e.g. Cunliffe 1991, 159), but these groups had not been described and analysed to any great extent. Each researcher in an area had concluded their work by fitting their results to a perceived whole. In this book I have suggested a process by which discrete communities gradually merged to form a coin-using alliance. Settlement diversity and different forms of control are apparent both in the number of principal places that existed in any area and whether they included or excluded satellite occupation. Regional reviews of this type were advocated in ‘Understanding the British Iron Age 379
379
an Agenda for Action’ (Haselgrove et al. 2001, 24). My work has enabled a wider perspective that has resolved the conflict between central places and non-centralised societies (Cunliffe 1995, 91-4; Hill 2001, 101). Now it can be seen that both existed in relative degrees in various locations during the Iron Age. The recently outlined concept of multi-functional hillforts, their importance waxing and waning through time (Payne, Corney and Cunliffe 2006, 151-162) has been confirmed in this study. General models for the southern British Iron Age are difficult to adhere to. Each area was idiosyncratic and included unique elements.
The region under study lay on the edge of the zone of movement from hillforts to valley settlements. Unlike the areas to the north and east, this process was clearly still taking place at the time of the Roman Conquest. Mine has been a historical approach, that views the Late Iron Age communities as people affected by the same general power stuggles, migrations and cultural absorbtions that have been documented for the historical period. Therefore I have used historical examples as potential explanations for observed trends.
Of course, further work will improve understanding. Fabric and typological analysis of significant assemblages of pottery from past excavations should be carried out, particularly for Marnhull and Hod Hill. More geophysical surveys are required on previously unsurveyed hillforts like Hambledon and Eggardon, also on settlements like the Bury and Bagwood Copse. Research continues around Hod Hill, and Dave Stewart’s Iwerne gradiometer survey (2008) is currently confirming the density of occupation evidence along the west bank of the river. Area ground probing radar surveys are now being piloted and this technique will significantly enhance existing geophysical data. Initial Lidar surveys of the Kingston Lacy Estate and Hod Hill have shown the potential for this technique in defining ploughed down earthwork evidence and sites hidden by trees. Perhaps extensive DNA analysis of burials from across the region will better define the origins of populations, if funding for such research becomes available.
Further excavation is also desirable at many places: the Nadder-Wylye Ridge settlement group and the Iwerne Valley sites for example. The Warminster group of hillforts is important but poorly understood. Trial trenches at Battlesbury, including 380
380
the presumed burial ground at its west entrance, combined with comparative work at Scratchbury and the Bury would build a chronology that can be compared with that for Badbury/Crab Farm.
By expanding the database, improved comparisons can be made. Research has been hampered by gaps in the understanding of certain settlement patterns, particularly in west Dorset. Future survey work (perhaps using Lidar) may locate new sites there.
Social change took place most rapidly from 100 BC-AD 100 and an insufficiently precise chronological framework prevents understanding of the process of social reorganisation in this period. The reliance on the existing coin and pottery typologies inhibits progress. They need to be refined by comparison with alternative dating techniques.
Radiocarbon dating is entering a new era. The results from the revised dating programme for Early Neolithic causewayed enclosures and long barrows have excited new optimism. More precise measurements based on numerous radiocarbon samples and using Bayesian statistics have reduced date ranges from centuries to decades leading to the claim that prehistory can be written as history.
‘The centrality of chronology is being reasserted. Archaeologists, especially prehistorians have tended to downplay the importance of chronology in recent years. They have been preoccupied with landscapes, ritual processes and cultural identities….the new dates allow archaeologists to view what is happening at the same time in different places, they learn that contemporary people were not all acting in the same way.. We can think in terms of generations and individual life-spans, and we have more sensitive means with which to explore social memory’(Bayliss, Meadows and Whittle 2007)
Therefore we can hope for a future programme of radiocarbon dating of sites within the Durotrigan zone. This will enable a more precise chronological framework for the region. Perhaps comparative dates from the Maiden Castle cemetery and the Spetisbury, South Cadbury and Ham Hill massacre deposits may prove whether or not they were contemporary. Linking pottery types with C14 dates derived from 381
381
articulated bone found in the same sealed grave and pit groups will also enable increasingly enhanced dating. From this, more definite assertions can be presented concerning the ways communities developed and merged in the Dorset area during the Late Iron Age. This will bring us closer to the men, women and children who inhabited the land, the people we wish to reach out to across the millennia and understand.
382
382
Bibliography
Addison, P., 1989, ‘Excavation of Neolithic and Bronze Age Pits and a Section of Roman Road on a Pipeline near Lodge Farm, Pamphill, Dorset, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 111, 17-29 Adkins, R. & L., 1988, South Cadbury, King Arthur’s Causeway, Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeological & Natural History Society 139, 215. Aitken, G. & N., 1982, ‘Excavations at the Library Site, Colliton Park, Dorchester, 1961-3, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 104, 93126. Aitken, G. & N., 1990, ‘Excavations at Whitcombe, 1965-1967’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 112, 57-94. Alcock, L., 1972, ‘By South Cadbury is that Camelot..’ Excavations at Cadbury Castle 1966-1970, London. Alcock, L., 1980, ‘The Cadbury Castle sequence in the first millenium BC’, Bulletin Board of Celtic Studies 28, 656-718. Allen, D.F., 1961, ‘The Origins of British Coinage: a Reappraisal’ in S.S. Frere (editor) Problems of the Iron Age in Southern Britain, London, 97-128. Allen, D.F., 1968, ‘The Celtic Coins’ in Richmond I., Hod Hill, Volume II, Trustees of the British Museum, 43-57. Allen, J.R.L. & Fulford, M.G.,1996, ‘The Distribution South-East Dorset Black Burnished Category I Pottery in South-West Britain’, Britannia 27, 223-281 Allen, J.R.L. & Fulford, M.G., 2004, ‘Distribution of Purbeck products in the 1st century AD’, Britannia 35 Allen, M.J., 1998a, ‘Fontmell Down Dorset, Land-use, Landscape and Land Management; the Land Snail Evidence’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 120, 89. Allen, M.J., 1998b, ‘The Fir Tree Field Shaft; the Date and Archaeological and Palaeo-Environmental Potential of a Chalk Swallowhole Feature’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 120, 25-37. Andrews, P., 2006, ‘Ironworking Slag Report, Crab Farm & Hod Hill’, Wessex Archaeology unpublished report for the National Trust. Aubrey, J., c.1670, Monumenta Britannica, Vol II Bodleian Library MS Gough Gen.Top. 25
383
383
Austen, Rev. J.H., 1867, ‘Excavations on Woodcutts Common’, Archaeological Journal 24, 168-9. Aston, M. & Burrow, I., 1982, The Archaeology of Somerset, Somerset County Council. Aston, M and Costen, M. D. (eds) (1994) ‘The Shapwick Project. An Archaeological, Historical and Topographical Study. The Fifth Report’ University of Bristol, Bristol. Aston, M. & Lewis, C., 1994, The Medieval Landscape of Wessex, Oxbow Monograph 46. Avery, M., 1968, ‘Excavations at Meare East, 1966’, Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeological & Natural History Society 112, 21-37 Bailey, J., 1967, ‘An Early Iron Age/Romano-British Site at Pins Knoll, Litton Cheney’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society 89, 147-159. Bailey, J. & Flatters, E., 1971, ‘The Trial Excavation of an Iron Age and RomanoBritish Site at Quarry Lodden, Bincombe, Dorset’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 93, 135-143. Barnes, I, 2005, Beaches Barn Excavation Report on ‘Time Team’ excavation, personal communication. Barrett, J.C. & Corney, M., 1991, ‘The Late Bronze Age & Iron Age’ in Barrett et al. Landscape, Monuments and Society. The Prehistory of Cranborne Chase, Cambridge, 227-242. Barrett, J.C., Bradley, R. & Green, M., 1991, Landscape, Monuments and Society. The Prehistory of Cranborne Chase, Cambridge. Barrett, J.C., Freeman, P.W.M., & Woodward, A., 2000, Cadbury Castle, Somerset. The later prehistoric and early historic archaeology, English Heritage Archaeological Report 20. Batchelor, D.G.F., 1977, ‘Wollaston House, Dorchester’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 99, 121 Batchelor, D.G.F., 1978, ‘Wollaston House, Dorchester’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 100, 114 Bayliss, A., Meadows, J. & Whittle, A., 2007, ‘The New Radio-Carbon Dating Revolution’, Current Archaeology 209, 9-20. Bean, C.E., 1958, ‘Some Roman Sites and Miscellaneous Finds from the Sherborne District’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 80, 90100.
384
384
Bean, C.E., 1959, ‘An Early Iron Age and Romano-British site near Hambledon Hill, Iwerne Courteney’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 81, 108-109 Beavis, J., 1970, ‘Some aspects of Purbeck Marble in Britain’ Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 92, 181-204. Bellamy, P., Graham, A. & Richards, J., 1993, ‘Dorchester First School’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 115, 152. Bellamy, P., 2003, ‘Poole, Shapwick Road, Hamworthy’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 125, 156. Bellamy, P., 2006, ‘Archaeological watching brief during the water supply replacement on the National Trust’s Golden Cap Estate’, unpublished report for the National Trust. Bennett, Rev.J.A., 1890, ‘Camelot’, Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeological & Natural History Society 36, 1-19 Bersu, G., 1940, ‘Excavations at Little Woodbury, Wiltshire, Part 1’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 6, 30-111. Bonney, D., 1967, ‘Hamshill Ditches, Barford St Martin’, Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Magazine 62, 118-121. Bowen, H.C., 1990, The Archaeology of Bokerley Dyke, London: HMSO Bowen, H.C., 1991, The Archaeology of Bokerley Dyke, Inventory, London: HMSO Boyd-Dawkins, 1900, The Exploration of Hod Hill near Blandford Dorset in 1897, Archaeological Journal 57, 52-68 Bradley, R., 1991, ‘Ritual, time and history’, World Archaeology 23, 209-219. Bradley, R., 2002, The Past in Prehistoric Societies, Routledge Brailsford, J.W., 1949, Interim Report on the Preliminary Excavations at Hod Hill 1949, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 71, 41-50 Brailsford, J.W., 1957, ‘The Durotrigan Culture’ Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 79. 118-121 Brailsford, J.W., 1962, Hod Hill Volume One, Antiquities from Hod Hill in the Durden Collection, Trustees of the British Museum, London Brebner, B., 2000, The Eastleigh Miscellany, unpublished report for the National Trust.
385
385
Brown, L., 1991, ‘Later Prehistoric Pottery’ in N. Sharples Maiden Castle excavations and Field Survey 1985-6, English Heritage Archaeological Report 19, London, 185205 Brown, L., 1993, ‘The Durotrigan Pottery’, in R.N. Lucas The Romano-British Villa at Halstock, Dorset, Excavations 1967-1985, DNHAS Monograph 13, 118-120 Brown, L., Corney, M. & Woodward, P.J., 1995, ‘An Iron Age and Romano-British Settlement on Oakley Down, Wimborne St Giles, Dorset’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 117, 67-79. Brown, L., 1996, ‘Pottery Report’ in RCHME Hambledon Hill, Dorset Brown, L., 1997, ‘Marketing and Commerce in Late Age Dorset: the Wareham/Poole Harbour pottery industry’ in Gwilt, A., & Haselgrove, C., Reconstructing Iron Age Societies, Oxbow Monograph 71. Brown, G. & Papworth M., 2004, ‘Geophysical Survey north of Sweetbriar Drove’, unpublished report for the National Trust Bulleid, A. & Gray, H.St.G., 1911, The Glastonbury Lake Village Volume I. Bulleid, A. & Gray, H.St.G., 1917, The Glastonbury Lake Village Volume II. Bulleid, A. & Gray, H.St.G., 1948, The Meare Lake Village Volumes I-III. Bulleid, A. & Gray, H.St.G., 1953, The Meare Lake Village. Burns, R., Cunliffe, B. & Sebire, H., 1996, Guernsey, An Island Community of the Atlantic Iron Age, Oxford University Committee for Archaeology 43 Burnham, B.C. & Wacher, J., 1990, The ‘Small Towns’ of Roman Britain, Batsford Burrow, S. & Gale, J., 1995, ‘Survey and Excavation at Knowlton Rings, Woodland Parish, Dorset 1993-5, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 117, 131-2. Bushe-Fox, J.P., 1915, Excavations at Hengistbury Head, Hampshire in 1911-12, Oxford Society of Antiquaries Res. Report 3. Butcher, W., 1955, ‘A Early Iron Age fort on Shipton Hill, Shipton Gorge’, , Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 77, 135-6. Butcher, W., 1957, ‘Further Examination of the Romano-British site at ‘Chesils’, Shipton Gorge’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 79, 114-5. Calkin, J.B., 1948, ‘The Isle of Purbeck in the Iron Age’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 70, 29-59.
386
386
Calkin, J.B., 1953, ‘Kimmeridge Coal Money, The Romano-British Shale Armlet Industry’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 75, 45-71. Calkin, J.B., 1964, ‘Some Early Iron Age Sites in the Bournemouth Area’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 86, 120-30 Cave-Penney, H., 2006, Talk on the Archaeology of the Warminster Area, Wiltshire County Archaeological Service Chadwick, S.E. & Thompson, 1956, ‘Note on an Iron Age Habitation Site near Battlesbury Camp, Warminster’, The Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine 56, 262-264. Chambers, S.A., 1978, An Analysis of Iron Age Inhumation Burials in the Dorset Area and an Assessment of their Value as Indicators of Social Organisation, Leeds University, Unpublished Certificate Dissertation. Champion, T.C. & Collis, J.R., 2001, The Iron Age in Britain and Ireland: Recent Trends, University of Sheffield. Chancellor, E.C., 1939, ‘A Hitherto Unrecorded Site of Archaeological Interest’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 61, 43-8. Chancellor, E.C., 1944, ‘Badbury Rings Reviewed’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 66, 19-30. Clay, R.C.C., 1924, ‘An Early Iron Age site on Fifield Bavant Down’, The Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine 42, 457-96 Clay, R.C.C., 1925, ‘An inhabited site of La Tene I date on Swallowcliffe Down’, The Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine 43, 59-93 Clay, R.C.C., 1927, ‘Supplementary report of the Early Iron Age village on Swallowcliffe Down, The Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine 43, 540-47. Clifford, E.M., 1961, Bagendon – A Belgic Oppidum, Cambridge. Cobham, A.W.J., 1959, ‘Romano-British Finds below Waddon Hill, Stoke Abbott’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 81, 106. Coles, J., 1987, Meare Village East. The excavation of A. Bulleid and H. St George Gray 1932-1956, Somerset Levels Papers 13. Collins J., Field, N. & Light, A., 1987, ‘Excavations at Bucknowle Farm’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 109, 129.
387
387
Collins J., Field, N. & Light, A., 1990, ‘Bucknowle Farm, Corfe Castle 1990’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 112, 117-9. Collis, J., 1970, ‘Excavations at Owslebury, Hants A Second Interim Report’, Antiquaries Journal 50, 245-61. Collis, J., 1977, ‘The proper study of mankind in pots’ in John Collis (Ed.) The Iron Age in Britain: a review 29-31, Sheffield University Collis, J., 1977, The Iron Age in Britain: a review, Sheffield University Collis, J., 1984, Oppida, Earliest Towns North of the Alps, Sheffield University Collis, J., 1994, ‘The Iron Age’ in B. Vyner (Ed.) Building on the Past, 123-48 London. Colt-Hoare, R., 1816, uncatalogued notes on visit to Ham Hill, M.S. Devizes Museum Box 63A Mss742 Colt-Hoare, R., 1821, The Ancient History of Wiltshire, Volume II pt II. Colt-Hoare, R., 1827, ‘Account of Antiquities found at Hamden Hill, with fragments of British Chariots’, Archaeologia 21, 39-42. Corney, M., 1989, ‘Multiple Ditch Systems and Late Iron Age Settlement in Central Wessex’, in Bowden, M., Mackay, D. & Topping, P. (Eds.) From Cornwall to Caithness, Some Aspects of British Field Archaeology, BAR Series 209 Corney, M., 1991, ‘Iron Age Metalwork, Coins and Imported Pottery from Cranborne Chase’ in John Barrett, Richard Bradley and Melanie Hall (Eds.) Papers on the Prehistoric Archaeology of Cranborne Chase, Oxbow Monograph 11, 242-251. Corney, M., 1997, ‘The Origins and Development of the ‘small’ town of Cunetio, Mildenhall, Wiltshire’, Britannia 28, 335-50. Cox, P.W., 1992, ‘Sparkford to Ilchester Road Improvement archaeological survey carried out in conjunction with geological investigations of proposed route during February-March 1992’ unpublished AC Archaeology report. Cox, P.W. & Hearne, C.M., 1991, Redeemed from the Heath, DNHAS Monograph 9 Crawford O.G.S. & Keiller, A.,1928, Wessex from the Air, Oxford Creighton, J., 2000, Coins and Power in Late Iron Age Britain, Cambridge University Press. Crockett, A., 1996, ‘Archaeological sites along the Ilchester to Odcombe pipeline’, Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeological & Natural History Society 139, 59-88.
388
388
Cunliffe, B.W., & Phillipson, D.W., 1968, ‘Excavations at Eldon’s Seat, Encombe, Dorset, England’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 34, 191-237. Cunliffe, B.W., 1972, ‘The Late Iron Age metalwork from Bulbury, Dorset’, Antiquaries Journal 52, 293-308 Cunliffe, B.W., 1982, ‘Iron Age Settlements and Pottery 650 BC – 60 AD’ in M. Aston & I. Burrow (Eds.) The Archaeology of Somerset, Somerset County Council. Cunliffe, B.W., 1983, Danebury; Anatomy of an Iron Age Hillfort, Batsford, London. Cunliffe, B. & Miles, D., 1984, Aspects of the Iron Age in central southern Britain, Oxford University Committee for Archaeology Monograph 2. Cunliffe, B.W., ‘Iron Age Wessex: Continuity and Change’ in B. Cunliffe & D. Miles, 1984, Aspects of the Iron Age in central southern Britain, Oxford University Committee for Archaeology Monograph 2, 12-45. Cunliffe, B.W., 1987, Hengistbury Head, Dorset, Volume 1: The Prehistoric and Roman Settlement 3500 BC-AD 500, Oxford University Committee for Archaeology Monograph 13 Cunliffe, B.W., 1988, Mount Batten, Plymouth, A Prehistoric and Roman Port, Oxford University Committee for Archaeology Monograph 26. Cunliffe, B.W., 1991, Iron Age Communities in Britain, 3rd Edn, Routledge. Cunliffe, B.W., 1992, ‘Pits, Preconceptions and Propitiation in the British Iron Age’, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 11, 69-82 Cunliffe, B.W., 1993, Danebury, English Heritage Cunliffe, B.W., 1994, ‘After Hillforts’, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 13, 71-84 Cunliffe, B.W., 1995, Danebury an Iron Age hillfort in Hampshire, Volume 6 A hillfort community in perspective, CBA Research Report 102 Cunliffe, B.W. & de Jersey, P., 1997, Armorica and Britain, Cross-Channel relationships in the late first millenium BC, Studies in Celtic Coinage, Number 3, OUCA Monograph 45 Cunliffe, B.W., 2000, The Danebury Environs Programme, the Prehistory of a Wessex Landscape, Volume 1 Introduction, English Heritage and OUCA Monograph 48. Cunliffe, B.W. & Poole, C., 2000, The Danebury Environs Programme, the Prehistory of a Wessex Landscape, Volume 2-part 3 Suddern Farm, Middle Wallop, Hants, 1991 and 1996, English Heritage and OUCA Monograph 49. Cunliffe, B.W., 2005, Iron Age Communities in Britain 4th Edn, Routledge.
389
389
Cunnington, E., 1884, ‘Bulbury Camp, Lynchett Minster, Dorset’, Archaeologia 48, 115-20 Cunnington, E., 1895, ‘Hambledon Hill, Dorset’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History and Antiquarian Field Club 16, 156-7 Cunnington, M.E., 1917, ‘Lidbury Camp’, Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society Magazine 40, 12-36. Cunnington, M.E., 1924, ‘Pits in Battlesbury Camp’, Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society Magazine 42, 368-73. Cunnington, M.E., 1933, ‘Excavations in Yarnbury Castle Camp, 1932’, Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society Magazine 46, 198-213. Daniell, J., 1879, The History of Warminster, Coates and Parker. Davies, S.M., 2002, Excavations at Alington Avenue, Fordington, Dorchester, Dorset, 1984-87, Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society Monograph 15. Davies, S.M.& Farwell, D., 1989, ‘Charles Street, Dorchester, Wessex Court Development, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 111, 107-09. De Jersey, P., 2000, ‘Durotrigan cast bronze’ Chris Rudd Celtic Coin List 49. De Jersey, P., 2001, Celtic Coinage in Britain, Shire De Jersey, P., 2006, Coin distribution maps from data in Celtic Coin Index, unpublished. Dewar, H.S.L., 1952, ‘An Iron Age Farmstead at Podimore’, Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeological & Natural History Society 97, 189 Dixon, P, 1994, Crickley Hill Volume I, the Hillfort Defences, Department of Archaeology University of Nottingham. Drew, C., 1939, ‘The Excavations at Colliton Park, Dorchester, Second Interim Report’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 60, 5165. Drew, C., 1948, ‘The Manors of the Iwerne Valley, Dorset’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 69, 45-50. Duel, L., 1967, Conquistadors without Swords, Archaeologists in the Americas, Macmillan Duncan, D., 1989, ‘The Pottery from Sweetbriar Drove, Pamphill’, unpublished report prepared for BP Purbeck to Southampton pipeline project.
390
390
Dunkin, D., 2004, Chert artefacts from Lewesdon Hill, unpublished note for National Trust. Dymond, C.W., 1882, Dolebury and Cadbury: two Somersetshire camps, Journal of the British Archaeological Association 38, 398-419 Eagles, B., 1994, ‘The Archaeological Evidence for Settlement in the Fifth to Seventh Centuries AD’ in Aston, M. & Lewis, C., (Eds.) The Medieval Landscape of Wessex, Oxbow Monograph 46, 13-32. Eagles, B. & Mortimer, B., 1995, ‘Early Anglo-Saxon artefacts from Hod Hill, Dorset’, Antiquaries Journal 73. Ellison, A. & Pearson, T., 1977, ‘Ham Hill 1975, An Archaeological Watching Brief’, Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeological & Natural History Society 121, 97-100. Evans, Sir J., 1864, Coins of the Ancient Britons, London Farrar, R.A.H., 1954, ‘A Celtic burial with mirror handle at West Bay, near Bridport’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 76, 90-95. Farrar, R.A.H., 1965, ‘Roman Inhumation Burials at Burton Bradstock and Chickerell, Dorset’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 87, 114-118. Farrar, R.A.H., 1977, ‘A Romano-British Black-Burnished ware industry at Ower in the Isle of Purbeck, Dorset’ in Dore, J. and Greene, K., (Eds.), Roman Pottery Industries in Britain and Beyond, BAR Supplementary Series 30, Oxford, 199-228. Fasham, P.J., 1987, A Banjo Enclosure in Micheldever Wood, Hampshire, Hampshire Field Club Monograph 5, Winchester. Faulkner, N., 2004, The Decline and Fall of Roman Britain, Tempus Field, N.H., 1965, ‘Excavations at Lake Gates, Pamphill, near Wimborne, Dorset’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 87, 99-101 Field, N.H., 1966, ‘Two Romano-British Sites near King Down, Pamphill’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 88, 116 Field, N.H., 1973, ‘An Ancient Causeway at Lazerton Farm, Stourpaine’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 95, 87-8 Field, N.H., 1976a, ‘The Discovery of a Roman Fort near Badbury Rings, Dorset’, Britannia 7, 280-3. Field, N.H., 1976b, ‘A Probable Roman Fortlet on Keyneston Down, Dorset’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 98, 65-7.
391
391
Field, N.H., 1982, ‘The Iron Age and Romano-British Settlement on Bradford Down, Pamphill, Dorset’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 104, 71-92. Field, N.H., 1988, ‘The Roman Road from Lake Farm to Dorchester at Stinsford’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 110, 145-6. Field, N.H., 1992, Dorset and the Second Legion, Dorset Books Firth, R., 1927, ‘Maori Hillforts’, Antiquity 1, 66-83. Fisher, D.J.V., 1973, The Anglo-Saxon Age, Longman. Fitzpatrick, A.P., 1991, ‘Poole Harbour and Hengistbury Head’, in Cox, P.W. & Hearne, C.M., Redeemed from the Heath, Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society Monograph 9, 230-31. Fitzpatrick, A.P. & Megaw, J.V.S., 1987, ‘Further Finds from Le Catillon Hoard’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 53, 433-44. Fitzpatrick, A.P. & Morris, E.L., 1994, The Iron Age in Wessex Recent Work, Dorchester. Fitzpatrick, A.P., 1996, ‘A 1st-century AD ‘Durotrigan’ Inhumation Burial with a Decorated Iron Age Mirror from Portesham, Dorset’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 118, 51-70. Forde-Johnston, J., 1958, ‘A note on Excavations at Buzbury Rings & Spetisbury Ring’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 80,107108. Fowler, P.J., 1964, ‘Cross-dykes on the Ebble-Nadder Ridge’, Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society Magazine 59, 46-57. Fowler, P.J., 1965, ‘The Cross-dyke on Buxbury Hill, Sutton Mandeville’, Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society Magazine 60, 47-51. Fowler, P.J., 1971, ‘A Roman port at Crandon Bridge’, Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeological & Natural History Society 115, 53-4. Fowler, P.J., Musty J.W.G, Taylor, C.C., 1965, ‘Some Earthwork Enclosures in Wiltshire, Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society Magazine 60, 52-74. Fox, A., 1976, Prehistoric Maori Fortifications in the North Island of New Zealand, Longman. Freeman, P.W.M., 2000, ‘Antiquarian and archaeological research 1542-1965’ in Barrett et al, Cadbury Castle, Somerset, English Heritage Report 20. Frere, S.S. (ed.), 1961, The Problems of the Iron Age in Southern Britain, London.
392
392
Frere, S.S, 1978, Britannia, A History of Roman Britain, Routledge and Kegan Paul Fulford, M., 2000, ‘Synthesis, The Oppidum-Latest Iron Age and Earliest Roman’ in M. Fulford & J. Timby, Late Iron Age and Roman Silchester, Excavations on the site of the Forum-Basilica 1977, 1980-86, Britannia Monograph Series 15, 545-81. Fulford, M., 2006, ‘Corvees and Civitates’ in R.J.A. Wilson (Ed.) Romanitas, Essays in honour of Sheppard Frere on the occasion of his ninetieth birthday, Oxbow:Oxford. Gale, F.E., 1979, ‘The Ceramic Fabrics’ in Dr G. J. Wainwright, Gussage All Saints: An Iron Age Settlement in Dorset, London, 49-56. Gale, J., 1995, ‘Ringmoor, Turnworth, Dorset. Geophysical Investigation’, unpublished Bournemouth University report. Gale, J., Cheetham, P., Laver, J., 2004, ‘Excavations at High Lea Farm, Hinton Martell, Dorset: An interim report on fieldwork undertaken during 2002-3’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 126, 160-6. Gardner, E., 1928, ‘Hambledon Hill’ in O.G.S. Crawford & A.Keiller (Eds.) Wessex from the Air, Oxford Garvey, A., 2005, Pottery Connections: A comparative study of a selection of East Dorset Iron Age Pottery, unpublished Southampton University MA dissertation. Garvey, A., 2006, ‘The Iron Age Pottery, Badbury Rings, Lodge Farm and Pilsdon Pen’, unpublished report for the National Trust Gater, J., 1988, ‘Report on Geophysical Survey, British Petroleum, Purbeck to Southampton Pipeline’ unpublished report Geophysical Surveys of Bradford. Gater, J., Leech, R.H. & Riley H., 1993, ‘Later Prehistoric & Romano-British settlement sites in South Somerset: some recent work’, Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeological & Natural History Society 137, 41-58. Gelling, P., 1977, ‘Excavations at Pilsdon Pen, Dorset, 1964-71’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 43, 263-86. Giles, A.G., 1981, ‘Interim report on the excavation at Barton Field, Tarrant Hinton 1981, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 103, 1245. Giles, A.G., 1983, ‘Notes on the excavation of the Romano-British site at Barton Field, Tarrant Hinton for 1983’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 105, 146-8. Gingell, C. & Harding, P., 1982, ‘A Fieldwalking Survey in the Vale of Wardour’ Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society Magazine 77, 11-25.
393
393
Gingell, C.J., 1987, ‘An Earthwork near Badbury Rings in Dorset’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 109, 65-78. Graham, A. & Newman, C., 1993, ‘Recent Excavations of Iron Age and RomanoBritish Enclosures in the Avon Valley, Wiltshire’, Proceedings of the Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Society 86, 8-57. Graham, A.H., Hinton, D.A. & Peacock, D.P.S., 2002, ‘The Excavation of an Iron Age & Romano-British Settlement in Quarry Field, South of Compact Farm, Worth Matravers, Dorset’ in Hinton, D.A., (Ed.) Purbeck Papers, University of Southampton Department of Archaeology Monograph 4. Graham, A.H., 2006, Iron Age and Romano-British settlement, Barton Field, Tarrant Hinton, Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society Monograph 17 Graves, R., 1979, Translation of Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars, Penguin Gray, H.St.G., 1913, ‘Trial Excavations at Cadbury, South Cadbury 1913’, Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeological & Natural History Society 59, 1-24 Gray, H.St.G., 1924, ‘Excavations at Ham Hill, Somerset-Part I’, Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeological & Natural History Society 70, 104-116 Gray, H.St.G., 1925, ‘Excavations at Ham Hill, Somerset-Part II’, Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeological & Natural History Society 71, 57-75 Gray, H.St.G., 1926, ‘Excavations at Ham Hill, Somerset-Part III’, Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeological & Natural History Society 72, 55-78. Gray, H.St.G., 1929, ‘Excavations at Ham Hill 1929’, Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeological & Natural History Society 75, 99-100. Green, M., 2000, A Landscape Revealed 10,000 Years on a Chalkland Farm, Tempus Gresham, C.A., 1939, ‘Spetisbury Rings, Dorset’ Archaeological Journal 96, 114-131 Grose, F., 1779, ‘A description of ancient fortifications near Christchurch, Hampshire’, Archaeologia 5, 237-40. Gunter, J., 2004, The Wylye Valley and the Dobunni, The Search for an Iron Age Tribal Boundary, unpublished dissertation, University of Bristol, Diploma in British Prehistory. Gwilt, A. & Haselgrove, C.,1997, Reconstructing Iron Age Societies, Oxbow Monograph 71. Haggett, P., 1979, Geography, a Modern Synthesis, Harper.
394
394
Hammerson, M., 1992, ‘Roman Coins from Crab Farm, Shapwick 1991’ unpublished report for the National Trust. Harding, D.W., 1959, ‘Excavation of Multiple Banks, Thickthorn Down, Dorset’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 81, 110-3. Harding, D.W., Blake, I.M. & Reynolds, P.J., 1993, An Iron Age Settlement in Dorset, Excavation and Reconstruction, University of Edinburgh, Monograph Series 1. Harding, P., 2007, ‘Two possible Iron Age ‘banjo’ enclosures and a Romano-British villa and settlement at Beach’s Barn, Fittleton, Salisbury Plain’, Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society Magazine 100, 83-90. Haselgrove, C, 1994, ‘Social Organisation in Iron Age Wessex’ in A.P. Fitzpatrick & E.L. Morris (eds.) The Iron Age in Wessex Recent Work, Dorchester. Haselgrove, C., 1997, ‘Iron Age brooch deposition and chronology’ in Gwilt, A., & Haselgrove, C., Reconstructing Iron Age Societies, Oxbow Monograph 71. Haselgrove, C. & Mays, M., 2000, ‘Iron Age Coinage’, in Barrett, J.C., et.al. Cadbury Castle, Somerset, English Heritage 20, 248-52. Haselgrove, C., Armit, I., Champion, T., Creighton, J., Gwilt, A., Hill, J.D., Hunter, F. & Woodward, A., 2001, Understanding the British Iron Age: An Agenda for Action, Cromwell Press, Trowbridge. Hawkes, C.F.C., 1931, ‘Hill forts’, Antiquity 5, 60-97. Hawkes, C.F.C., 1947, ‘Britons, Romans and Saxons’, Archaeological Journal, 104, 62-78. Hawkes, C.F.C., 1959, ‘The ABC of the British Iron Age’, Antiquity 33, 170-82. Hawkes, S.C., 1994, ‘Longbridge Deverill, Cow Down, Wiltshire’, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 13, 49-69. Hearne, C.M. & Smith, R.J., 1991, ‘A Late Iron Age Settlement and Black-Burnished Ware (BB1) Production Site at Worgret, near Wareham, Dorset (1986-7)’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 113, 55-105. Hearne, C.M. & Birbeck, V., 1999, A35 Tolpuddle to Puddletown Bypass DBFO, Dorset, 1996-8, Wessex Archaeology Report No.15. Henig, M. & Keen, L., 1984, ‘Figurines from Duncliffe Hill, Motcombe, Dorset’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society, 106, 147-8. Hewitt, I., 1999, ‘Sixpenny Handley, Goldfields Farm: Interim Statement 1999’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 121, 158-9.
395
395
Hewitt, I., 2000, ‘Sixpenny Handley, Goldfields Farm: Interim Statement 2000’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 122, 153. Hill, J.D., 1993, ‘Can we recognise a different European past? A contrastive archaeology of later prehistoric settlements in southern England’, Journal of European Archaeology 1, 57-75 Hill, J.D., 1995a, ‘Ritual and Rubbish in the Iron Age of Wessex’, BAR 242, Oxford. Hill, J.D., 1995b, ‘How should we understand Iron Age societies and hillforts? A contextual study’ in J.D. Hill and C. Cumberpatch (Eds.) Different Iron Ages, 45-66, BAR international series 602, Oxford. Hill, J.D., 2001, ‘Hillforts and the Iron Age of Wessex’ in T.C. Champion & J.R. Collis The Iron Age in Britain and Ireland: Recent Trends, University of Sheffield, 95-116. Hingley, R., 1990, ‘Iron Age Currency Bars, the archaeological and social context’, Archaeological Journal 147, 91-117. Hobby, P., 1990, Correspondence with Martin Papworth concerning the discovery of Iron Age and Roman coins on Corfe Common in 1980, unpublished letters and notes. Hodder, I., 1977, ‘How are we to study Distribution of Iron Age Material’ in J. Collis (Ed.) The Iron Age in Britain- a review, University of Sheffield, 8-16. Hodder, I. & Hedges, J.W., 1977, ‘Weaving Combs:-Their Typology and Distribution with some Introductory Remarks of Date and Function’ in J. Collis (Ed.) The Iron Age in Britain- a review, University of Sheffield, 17-28. Hodges, R., 1981, The Hamwih pottery: the local and imported wares from 30 years’ excavations at Middle Saxon Southampton and their European context, CBA Research Report 37. Hodson, F.R., 1960, ‘Reflections on the ABC of the Iron Age’, Antiquity 34, 138-40. Hodson, F.R., 1964, ‘Cultural groupings within the British pre Roman Iron Age in Southern Britain, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 30, 99-110. Holbrook, N. & Bidwell, P.T., 1991, Roman Finds from Exeter, Exeter Archaeological Report 4. Hollinrake, C. & N., 1997, An Archaeological Excavation at Perrott Hill School, North Perrott, Report No. 221 unpublished fieldwork report. Horsey, I., & Jarvis, K., 1979, ‘Lake Gates Roman Fort’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 101, 139.
396
396
Howard, S., 1989, A Double Ring Ditched, Bronze Age Barrow at Barford Farm, Pamphill, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 111, 32-55. Hutchins, J., 1774, The History and Antiquities of the County of Dorset, 1st Edn. London. Hutchins, J., 1861, The History and Antiquities of the County of Dorset, 3rd Edn., W. Shipp and J.W. Hudson (eds.), Westminster. Hulka, S. & Hodgson, J., 2000, ‘Dorchester, Old County Hospital’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 122, 162. Ingold, T., 1993, ‘The temporality of the landscape’, World Archaeology 25, 152-174. Jarvis, K., 1993, ‘Excavations at Hamworthy in 1974’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 115, 101-09. Johnston, D.E., 1982, The Excavation of the Roman Crossroads at Batts Bed, Wimborne, interim report, unpublished report East Dorset Antiquarian Society. Jones, S., 1997, Archaeology and Ethnicity, Routledge. Keen, L., 1976, ‘Dorset Archaeology’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 98, 57-62. Keen, L., 1987, ‘Durotrigan coin finds’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 109, 124. Kimes, T., Haselgrove, C.C. and Hodder, I.R., 1982, A method for the identification of regional cultural boundaries, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1, 113-31. Ladle, L., 2004, ‘Bestwall’, CBA Wessex News, September Laycock, S., 2006, ‘Britannia, the threat within’, British Archaeology 87 Leach, P., 1982, Ilchester Volume 1, Excavations 1974-1975, Western Archaeological Trust Monograph 3. Leach, P., 1993, Ilchester Volume 2, Excavations and fieldwork to 1984, Sheffield. Leach, P. & Tabor, R., 1997, ‘The South Cadbury Environs Project’, Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeology and Natural History Society 139, 47-57. Leach, P. & Tabor, R., 1998, The South Cadbury Environs Project Field Report 1997, University of Birmingham. Leech, R.H., 1976, ‘Larger Agricultural Settlements in the West Country’, in K. Brannigan & P.J.Fowler The Roman West Country. Classical Culture and Celtic Society, Newton Abbot & London.
397
397
Leech, R., 1982, Excavations at Catsgore 1970-1973, Western Archaeological Trust. Leighton, O., 1955, ‘A Romano-British rubbish-pit near the Roman road at Shapwick’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 77, 138-9. Lester, M.J., 1990, Lambert’s Castle, Marshwood, W. Dorset, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 112, 115. Liddell, D.M., 1935, ‘Report on the excavations at Hembury Fort 1934-5’, Proceedings of the Devon Archaeological Exploration Society 4 , 135-70. Loney, H.L. & Hoaen, A.W., 2005, ‘Landscape, Memory and Material Culture: Interpreting Diversity in the Iron Age’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 71, 361-378. Longworth I. & Haith, C., 1992, Henry Durden and his Collection, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 114, 151-160 Lowe, C., 1997, ‘Talking About “Tribe” Moving from Stereotypes to Analysis’ Africa Policy Information Center, Boston University. Lucas, R.N., 1993, The Romano-British villa at Halstock, Dorset, Excavations 19671985, Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society Monograph 13. Mack, R.P., 1953, The Coinage of Ancient Britain, London. Mackreth, D.F., 1993, ‘The Brooches’ in R.N. Lucas The Romano-British Villa at Halstock, Dorset, Excavations 1967-1985, Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society Monograph 13, 75-79. Macready, S. & Thompson, F.H., 1984, Cross-Channel Trade between Gaul and Britain in the Pre-Roman Iron Age, Society of Antiquaries McKinley, J.I., 1999a, ‘Excavations at Tinney’s Lane, Sherborne, Dorset’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 121, 53-68. McKinley, J.I., 1999b, ‘Excavations at Ham Hill, Montacute, Somerset 1994 and 1998’, Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeological & Natural History Society 142, 77-137 McOmish, D., 1989, ‘Non-Hillfort Settlement and its Implications’, in Bowden, M., Mackay, D. & Topping, P. (Eds.) From Cornwall to Caithness, Some Aspects of British Field Archaeology, BAR Series 209 McOmish, D., Field, D. & Brown, G., 2002, The Field Archaeology of the Salisbury Plain Training Area, English Heritage.
398
398
Manley, V., 1927, Regional Survey of the Warminster District 2, unpublished manuscript, Warminster Museum. Markey, M., Wilkes, E. & Darvill, T., 2002, ‘Poole Harbour an Iron Age Port’, Current Archaeology 181, 7-11. Mattingly, H., 1977, Translation of Tacitus, The Agricola and the Germania, Penguin. Mays, M., 1987, ‘Durotrigan Coins’ in B. Cunliffe Hengistbury Head, Dorset, Volume 1: The Prehistoric and Roman Settlement 3500 BC-AD 500, Oxford University Committee for Archaeology Monograph 13 Mays, M., 2005, ‘Draft Introduction, Durotrigan Coinage’, unpublished manuscript. Mepham, L., Cooke, N., Knight, S. & Leivers, M., 2006a, ‘Badbury Rings, Shapwick, Dorset Finds Reports’ unpublished report for the National Trust. Mepham, L., Cooke, N., Knight, S. & Leivers, M., 2006b, ‘Crab Farm, Shapwick, Dorset Finds Reports’ unpublished report for the National Trust. Mercer, R., 1986, ‘Hambledon Hill Fieldwork and Excavation Project. The Hillfort Spur: 1986 interim report’, University of Edinburgh Department of Archaeology. Miles, H. & Miles, T.J., 1969, ‘Settlement sites of the Late pre-Roman Iron Age in the Somerset Levels’, Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeological & Natural History Society 113, 17-55. Minnitt, S. & Coles, J.M., 1996, The Lake Villages of Somerset, Glastonbury Antiquarian Society, Somerset Levels Project and Somerset County Council. Minnitt, S., 2000, ‘The Iron Age wetlands of central Somerset’ in C.J. Webster (ed.) Somerset Archaeology, Papers to mark 150 years of the Somerset Archaeological and Natural History Society, Somerset County Council. Moore, W.F. & Ross, M.S., 1989, ‘The Romano-British Settlement. Common Mead Lane, Gillingham, Dorset, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 111, 51-70. Morris, E.L., 1987, ‘Later Prehistoric Pottery from Ham Hill’, Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeological & Natural History Society 131, 27-47. Nan Kivell, R. de C., 1926a, ‘Cold Kitchen Hill’, Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society Magazine, 43, 327-332. Nan Kivell, R. de C., 1926b, ‘Objects found during excavations on the RomanoBritish site at Stockton Earthworks’, Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society Magazine 43, 389-94. Norcott, D., 2004, ‘Sixpenny Handley, Down Farm’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 126, 181.
399
399
Olivier, A., 2000, the Brooches in Barrett, J.C. et. al. Cadbury Castle, Somerset, 197202. Osborn, 1982, Exploring Ancient Wiltshire, Dorset Publishing Company. Papworth, M., 1980, ‘Waipoua River Valley’, Archaeological Site Surveys Auckland Conservancy. Papworth, M., 1990, Section drawing across Lambert’s Castle rampart, unpublished. Papworth, M., 1991, ‘Excavation of Romano-British Building Remains at Shapwick’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 113, 172-3. Papworth, M., 1992a, ‘Excavation and Survey of Bronze Age sites in the Badbury area, Kingston Lacy Estate, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 114, 47-75. Papworth, M., 1992b, Archaeological Survey: Middlebere, Corfe Castle Estate, Wessex Region, unpublished survey for the National Trust. Papworth, M., 1993a, Archaeological Survey: Corfe Village, Common and Vineyard Farm, Corfe Castle Estate, Wessex Region, unpublished survey for the National Trust. Papworth, M., 1993b, ‘Excavation of a Bronze Age Round Barrow and Napoleonic Signal Station at Golden Cap, Stanton St Gabriel’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 115, 51-62. Papworth, M., 1994a, ‘Shapwick Parish, Kingston Lacy Estate, Wessex Region’, National Trust Archaeological Survey unpublished report. Papworth, M., 1994b, ‘Lodge Farm, Kingston Lacy Estate’, Journal of the British Archaeological Association 147, 57-121. Papworth, M., 1995, ‘Excavation of a Romano-British Settlement at Shapwick’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 117, 133-5. Papworth, M., 1997a, ‘Water-pipe trench: Cross-ridge Dyke, Fontmell Down’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 119, 175. Papworth, M., 1997b, Pamphill Parish, Kingston Lacy Estate, Wessex Region’, National Trust Archaeological Survey unpublished report. Papworth, M., 1997c, ‘The Romano-British Settlement at Shapwick, Dorset’, Britannia 28, 354-8. Papworth, M., 1998, ‘The medieval manorial buildings of Kingston Lacy: survey and excavation results with an analysis of the medieval account rolls 1295-1462’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 120, 45-62.
400
400
Papworth, M., 2000a, Golden Cap Estate Archaeological & Historic Landscape Survey, unpublished report for the National Trust. Papworth, M., 2000b, ‘Pilsdon Pen, Resistivity Survey’, unpublished report for the National Trust. Papworth, M., 2000c, ‘Evaluation Excavation, Badbury Romano-Celtic Temple. Interim Report’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 122, 148-50. Papworth, M., 2001a, ‘Broom Cliff, Stanton St Gabriel’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 123, 132. Papworth, M., 2001b, ‘Hod Hill, Stourpaine’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 123, 125. Papworth, M., 2002, ‘Geophysical Survey Report, Crab Farm, Shapwick. Survey of Iron Age and Romano-British settlement features’ unpublished report for the National Trust. Papworth, M., 2002b, ‘Geophysical Survey Report, Badbury Rings, Shapwick’ unpublished report for the National Trust. Papworth M., 2002c, ‘Geophysical Survey Report, south-west of Hod Hill’ unpublished report for the National Trust. Papworth, M., 2004a, Excavation at Thorncombe Beacon, Symondsbury, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 126, 186-7. Papworth, M., 2004b, ‘Bradford Down Geophysical Survey and Fieldwalking on the Iron Age and Romano-British Settlement’, unpublished report for National Trust. Papworth, M., 2004c, ‘Shapwick, Excavations at Badbury and Crab Farm, Interim Report’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 126, 181-6. Papworth, M., 2005, ‘Badbury Rings Excavation, Interim Report’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 127, 143-5. Papworth, M., 2006a, ‘Sample Fluxgate Gradiometer and Resistivity Survey at the Bury, Warminster’, unpublished report. Papworth, M., 2006b, ‘Fluxgate Gradiometer survey Badbury Rings’, unpublished report. Papworth, M., 2008, ‘High Wood Enclosure, Pamphill’ Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society forthcoming. Payne, A., Corney, M. & Cunliffe, B., 2006, The Wessex Hillforts Survey, English Heritage.
401
401
Peacock, D.P.S., 1969, ‘A Contribution to the Study of Glastonbury Ware from South-Western Britain’, Antiquaries Journal 49, 41-61. Peacock D. & Rigby V., 1979, ‘The Amphorae & Gallo-Belgic Imports’ in Dr G.J. Wainwright, 1979a, Gussage All Saints: An Iron Age Settlement in Dorset, London, 72-3. Pearce, P. & Woodward, P.J., 1986, ‘Observations at Banbury Hill Camp, Okeford Fitzpaine’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 108, 175-7. Piggott, C.M., 1939, ‘An Iron Age ‘A’ Site on Harnham Hill’, Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society Magazine 48, 513-522. Pitt-Rivers, A., 1887, Excavations in Cranborne Chase near Rushmore on the borders of Dorset and Wiltshire. Volume I. Excavations in the Romano-British village on Woodcutts Common and Romano-British antiquities in Rushmore Park. London. Pitt-Rivers, A., 1888, Excavations in Cranborne Chase near Rushmore on the borders of Dorset and Wiltshire 1880-1888. Volume II. Excavations in barrows near Rushmore. Excavations in Romano-British village, Rotherley. Excavations in Winkelbury Camp. Excavations in British Barrows and Anglo-Saxon cemetery, Winkelbury Hill. London. Pitt-Rivers, A., 1892, Excavations in Bokerly and Wansdyke, Dorset and Wiltshire 1888-1891, with observations on the human remains. Volume III, London. Pitt-Rivers, A., 1898, Excavations in Cranborne Chase near Rushmore on the borders of Dorset and Wiltshire 1893-1896. Volume IV. With Address to the Archaeological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland by General Pitt-Rivers enlarged to serve as a guide to Bronze Age and Stone Age models in the Museum, Farnham, Dorset. London. Powell, A.B., 2004, ‘Valley of the South Winterbourne near West Stafford’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 126, 157-60. Powlesland, I, 2004, The Later Prehistoric Landscape of the Bristol Avon Region, unpublished dissertation, Bristol University. Putnam, W.G., 1976, ‘Dewlish Interim Report’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 98, 54-5. Putnam, W.G., 1998, ‘Dorchester Roman Aqueduct’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 120, 94-6. Pybus, B., 1975, ‘Badbury Temple a Very Approximate Outline’, Ordnance Survey Record Cards ST90SE57 NMR.
402
402
Radcliffe, F.M., 1995, ‘Archaeology and Historical Landscape in West Dorset from the Air’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society, 117, 51-66. Radley, J., 1964, ‘Occupation Remains at Buzbury Rings, Tarrant Keyneston’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 86, 112-4. Rahtz, P., 1961, ‘An Excavation on Bokerley Dyke, 1958’, Archaeological Journal 118, 65-99 Rahtz, P., 1962, ‘Excavations at Shearplace Hill, Sydling St Nicholas, Dorset, England’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 12, 289-328. Rahtz, P., 1969, ‘Cannington Hillfort 1963’, Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeological and Natural History Society 113, 53-68. Rahtz, P., Corney, M., Davies, S., Woodward, A., Hartley, B., Mackreth, D. and Peacock, D., 1990, ‘Bower Chalke 1959: Excavations at Great Ditch Banks and Middle Chase Ditch’, Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society Magazine 83, 1-49. Ralegh Radford, C.A., 1951, ‘The Roman Site at Catsgore, Somerton’, Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeological and Natural History Society 96, 41-77. Ralegh Radford, C.A., 1952, ‘Afternoon Excursion to Compton Dundon and Street’, Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeological & Natural History Society 97, 23. Rawlings, M., 1992, ‘Romano-British sites observed along the Codford-Ilchester water pipeline, Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeological & Natural History Society 136, 29-60. Rawlings, M., 1995, ‘Archaeological Sites Along the Wiltshire Section of the Codford-Ilchester Water Pipeline’, Proceedings of the Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Society 88, 26-49. Rawlings, M., 2004, ‘Investigation of the Whitesheet Down Environs 1989-90: Neolithic Causewayed Enclosure and Iron Age Settlement’, Proceedings of the Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Society 97, 144-196 Reece, R., 1993, ‘The Coins’ in R.N. Lucas The Romano-British Villa at Halstock, Dorset, Excavations 1967-1985, Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society Monograph 13, 75-76 Reed, A.W., 1974, Maori Life, Reed. Reynolds, P.J, 1979, Iron Age Farm, The Butser Experiment, London. Raymond, F., forthcoming, ‘The Prehistoric Pottery’’ to be included in John Valentin et al. Heron Grove, Sturminster Marshall Area C Archaeological Report.
403
403
R.C.H.M., 1952, Historical Monuments in the County of Dorset I West, H.M.S.O. R.C.H.M., 1970a, Historical Monuments in the County of Dorset II South-East, H.M.S.O. R.C.H.M., 1970b, Historical Monuments in the County of Dorset III Central, H.M.S.O. R.C.H.M., 1972, Historical Monuments in the County of Dorset IV North, H.M.S.O. R.C.H.M., 1975, Historical Monuments in the County of Dorset V East, H.M.S.O. R.C.H.M.E., 1988, Whitesheet Hill and Park Hill Camp, unpublished survey reports NMR. R.C.H.M.E., 1995, Pilsdon Pen, Dorset, unpublished survey report, NMR. R.C.H.M.E., 1996, Hambledon Hill, Dorset, unpublished survey report, NMR. R.C.H.M.E., 1997, Ham Hill, Somerset, unpublished survey report, NMR. R.C.H.M.E., 1998, Badbury Rings, Dorset, unpublished survey report NMR. Richardson, K.M., 1940, ‘Excavations at Poundbury, Dorchester, Dorset, 1939’, Antiquaries Journal 20, 429-48. Richardson, K.M., 1951, ‘The excavation of the Iron Age villages of Boscombe Down West’, Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society Magazine 54, 123-168. Richmond, I., 1968, Hod Hill, Excavations Carried out between 1951 and 1958, II, Trustees of the British Museum, London. Riley, H. & Corney, M., 1992, ‘An Earthwork Survey in High Wood’ in Martin Papworth, ‘Excavation and Survey of Bronze Age sites in the Badbury area, Kingston Lacy Estate, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 114, 70-1. Rivet, A.L.F., & Smith, C., 1979, The Place Names of Roman Britain, London. Rolleston Prof. & Lane-Fox, A., 1878, ‘Report of a Twin Barrow and a Single Round Barrow, at Sigwell, Parish of Charlton Horethorne, Somerset’, Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeological & Natural History Society 24, 75-88. Roymans, N., 2005, Ethnic Identity and Imperial Power: The Batavians in the Early Roman Empire, Amsterdam University. Ross, M.S., 1985, ‘Kingston Magna: A Parish Survey’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 107, 34 & 164.
404
404
Rudd, C.G., 1953, ‘Excavation of Romano-British site west of Badbury Rings’ Manuscript Notes Shapwick Box File Dorset County Museum. Saegar-Smith, R. & Mepham, L., 2004, ‘The Pottery from Shapwick, Dorset’, Wessex Archaeology unpublished report for the National Trust. Salway, P., 1993, A History of Roman Britain, Oxford University Press. Sauer, E., 2005, ‘Alchester, In Search of Vespasian’, Current Archaeology 196, 168176. Saunders, G., 2001, ‘A Study of La Tene 1-2 Bow Fibulae of Wessex’ unpublished dissertation, Exeter University. Saunders, P.R., 1997, ‘The Excavation Settlement site at Stockton, Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society Magazine 90, 13-25. Sellwood, L., 1984, ‘Tribal Boundaries Viewed from the Perspective of Numismatic Evidence’ in B. Cunliffe & D. Miles (eds.), Aspects of the Iron Age in Central Southern Britain, Oxford OUCA 2, 191-204. Sellwood, L., 1987, ‘The non-Durotrigan Celtic coins’ in B.W. Cunliffe, Hengistbury Head, Dorset, Volume 1: The Prehistoric and Roman Settlement 3500 BC-AD 500, Oxford University Committee for Archaeology Monograph 13, 138-40. Sellwood, L., 1988, ‘The Celtic Coins’, in B.W. Cunliffe, Mount Batten, Plymouth, A Prehistoric and Roman Port, Oxford University Committee for Archaeology Monograph 26. Sharples, N., 1990a, ‘Whitcombe Excavations, Discussion’, in Aitken, G.M. & G.N., Excavations at Whitcombe, 1965-1967, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeol Society 112, 90-3. Sharples, N., 1990b, ‘Late Iron Age Society and Continental Trade in Dorset’ in A. Duval, J-P. Le Behan and Y. Minez (eds.) Les Gaulois d’Amorique. Actes du XIIe Colloque AFEAF Quimper Mai 1988, Revue Archeologique de l’Ouest Supplement 3 299-304. Sharples, N., 1991, Maiden Castle excavations and Field Survey 1985-6,English Heritage Archaeological Report 19, London. Sharples, N., 1991b, Maiden Castle, London. Shattock, M., 2006, An Archaeological Survey of a Possible Neolithic Monument at Buzbury Rings, Tarrant Keyneston, Dorset, unpublished undergraduate dissertation, Bournemouth University. Smith, H.P., 1943, ‘The Course of the Hamworthy-Badbury Roman Road’ Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 65, 53-9.
405
405
Smith, R.J.C., Healy, F., Allen, M.J., Morris, E.L., Barnes, I., Woodward, P.J., 1997, Excavations Along the Route of the Dorchester By-pass, Dorset, 1986-8, Wessex Archaeology Report No.11. Sparey-Green, C., 1986, ‘Earthworks of Prehistoric or Early Roman date in the Dorchester Area’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 108, 193-4. Sparey-Green, C., 1987, Excavations at Poundbury Vol I, DNHAS Monograph 7. Sparey-Green, C., 1997, ‘Sixpenny Handley: Mycen Farm 1997’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 119, 169-72. Sparey-Green, C., 2000, ‘Sixpenny Handley: Mycen Farm 2000’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 122, 153-7. Sparey-Green, C., 2002, ‘Gussage St Michael, Dorser: Roman Occupation near Drive Plantation’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 124, 127-8. Steele, E., 1965, ‘Bilbury Rings’, Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society Magazine 60, 135. Stevens, C.E., 1952, ‘The Roman Name of Ilchester’, Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeological & Natural History Society 96,188-82. Stevens, F., 1934, ‘The Highfield Pit Dwellings, Fisherton, Salisbury’, Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society Magazine 46, 579-624. Stewart, D., 2006, Assessing the Condition of Archaeological Remains: A MultiMethod Geophysical Study at Hod Hill, Dorset, Bournemouth University unpublished B Sc Archaeology dissertation. Stewart, D., 2007a, Fluxgate gradiometer survey of the Corfe Common temple site, unpublished survey for the National Trust. Stewart, D., 2007b, Fluxgate gradiometer, resistivity and GPR surveys of Hod Hill, unpublished survey for the National Trust. Stewart, D., 2007c, Fluxgate gradiometer survey of Badbury Rings and Crab Farm settlement sites, unpublished survey for the National Trust. Sumner, H., 1913, The Ancient Earthworks of Cranborne Chase [reprint of 1988] Gloucester, Alan Sutton and Wiltshire County Libraries. Sunter, N. & Woodward, P.J., 1987, Romano-British Industries in Purbeck, DNHAS Monograph 6. Tabor, R., 1999, ‘South Cadbury: Milsoms Corner’, Current Archaeology 163, 251255.
406
406
Tabor, R., 2000a, ‘Sigwells, Charlton Horethorne: The identification, interpretation and testing of Bronze Age to Early Medieval Landscapes by Geophysical Survey and Excavation’, Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeological and Natural History Society 144, 1-24. Tabor, R., 2000b, ‘Cadbury Castle: Focusing the Landscape’ in C.J. Webster (Ed.) Somerset Archaeology, Papers to mark 150 years of the Somerset Archaeological & Natural History Society, Somerset County Council. Tabor, R., 2002, The South Cadbury Environs Report 1998-2001, University of Bristol. Tabor, R., 2004a, ‘Cadbury Castle: Prehistoric Pottery Distribution in the Surrounding Landscape’, Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeological and Natural History Society 147, 29-40. Tabor, R., 2004b, South Cadbury Environs Project Interim Fieldwork Report, 20022003, University of Bristol. Tabor, R., 2005, ‘Charlton Horethorne, Sigwells’, Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeological and Natural History Society 148, 107. Tanner, R.M., 1974, ‘The Iron Age and Romano-British Settlement at Barton Field, Tarrant Hinton, Dorset 1974’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 96, 64-6. Thackray, D.W.R., 1979, Cley Hill, Wiltshire, National Trust information leaflet. Thackray, D.W.R., 1980, ‘Ringmoor Settlement, Turnworth’, unpublished plan National Trust. Thackray, D.W.R., 1983, ‘Excavations at Pilsdon Pen hillfort, 1982, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 104, 178-9. Tilley, C., 1996, ‘The powers of rocks: topography and monument construction on Bodmin Moor’, World Archaeology 28, 161-76. Timby, J., 2001, ‘A re-appraisal of Savernake Ware’ in Roman Wiltshire and After: Papers in Honour of Ken Annable, Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Society, Devizes. Todd, M., 1984, ‘Excavations at Hembury (Devon), 1980-83, A Summary Report’, The Antiquaries Journal 64, 251-268 Todd, M., 1987, The South-west to AD1000, Longman. Toms, G.S.G., 1964, ‘Third Interim Report of Excavations at Bagwood, Bere Regis’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 86, 110-112.
407
407
Toms, G.S.G, 1966, ‘Fifth Interim Report of Excavations at Bagwood, Bere Regis’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 88, 116-117. Turner, D., 1998, ‘Ruminations on Romanisation in the East: or the Metanarrative in History’, Assemblage 4, University of Sheffield. Valentin, J., 1993, ‘An Early Iron Age Hilltop Settlement at Heron Grove, Sturminster Marshall, Dorset: First Excavation Report’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 115, 63-70. Valentin, J., 1994, ‘Heron Grove, Sturminster Marshall-Area C’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 116, 126. Valentin, J., 2003, ‘Manor Farm, Portesham, Dorset: Excavations on a Multi-Period Religious and Settlement Site, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 125, 23-69. Van Arsdell, R.D., 1989a, ‘The Badbury Shapwick hoard and the date of the Maiden Castle coins from Mortimer Wheeler’s 1934-37 excavations, Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 8, 347-51. Van Arsdell, R.D., 1989b, Celtic Coinage of Britain, London. Van Arsdell, R.D., 1994, The Coinage of the Dobunni, Oxford University Committee for Archaeology Monograph 38. Vatcher, F. & H., 1965, ‘An Excavation of an Earthwork near Badbury Rings, Dorset’ Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 87, 101-2. Victoria County History, 1957, Wiltshire, Oxford University Press, Volume I. Victoria County History, 1973, Wiltshire, Oxford University Press, Volume II. Wainwright, G.J., 1968, The excavation of a Durotrigan farmstead near Tollard Royal in Cranborne Chase, southern England, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 34, 102-47. Wainwright, G.J. & Spratling, M., 1973, ‘The Iron Age Settlement of Gussage All Saints’, Antiquity 47, 109-30. Wainwright, G.J., 1979a, Gussage All Saints: An Iron Age Settlement in Dorset, London. Wainwright, G.J., 1979b, Mount Pleasant, Dorset, Excavations 1970-71, Report of the Research Committee 37, Society of Antiquaries, London. Wallace, W.G., 1932, ‘ A Romano-British occupation site at Badbury Rings, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 54, 87-90.
408
408
Walter, R., 1853, ‘Hamdon Hill’, Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeological & Natural History Society 4, 78-90. Warne, C., 1872, Ancient Dorset the Celtic, Roman, Saxon and Danish Antiquities of the County, D. Sydenham, Bournemouth. Webster, G., 1960, ‘The Discovery of a Roman Fort at Waddon Hill, Stoke Abbott, 1959’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 82, 88108. Webster, G., 1964, ‘Further Investigations on the Site of the Roman Fort at Waddon Hill, Stoke Abbott, 1960-62’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 86, 135-149. Webster, G., 1979, ‘Final Report on the Excavations of the Roman Fort at Waddon Hill, Stoke Abbott’, 1963-69, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 101, 51-90. Webster, G. & Dudley, R., 1973, The Roman Conquest of Britain, Pan. Wacher, J., 1976, The Roman Towns of Britain, Batsford, London. Wells, C., 1978, ‘Excavations by the Late George Rybot, FSA, on Eggardon Hillfort 1963-66’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 100, 53-72. Wessex Archaeology, 2000, ‘Warminster Battlesbury Bowl’, Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine 93, 262-263. Wheeler, R.E.M., 1943, Maiden Castle, Society of Antiquaries Report 12, Oxford. Wheeler, R.E.M., 1953, ‘An Early Iron Age ‘Beach Head’ at Lulworth, Dorset’, Antiquaries Journal 33, 1-15. Whimster, R., 1981, Burial Practices in Iron Age Britain, BAR British Series 90. White, D.A., 1970, ‘Excavation of an Iron Age barrow near Handley, Dorset’, Antiquaries Journal 70, 26-36. Whitley, M., 1943, ‘Excavations at Chalbury Camp, Dorset, Antiquaries Journal 23, 98-121. Williams, A., 1950, ‘Excavations at Allard’s Quarry, Marnhull, Dorset’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 72, 20-75. Williams, D.F., 1977, The Romano-British Black-Burnished industry; and essay on characterisation by heavy mineral analysis’, in Peacock, D.P.S. (Ed.), Pottery and Early Commerce, 163-220.
409
409
Williams, J.H.C., 2003, ‘Potential Find of Treasure at Beaminster, Dorset (2003 T242)’, Treasure Annual Report, DCMS, BMC2790. Woodward, A., 1993, ‘The Durotrigan Cemeteries’ in Farwell, D.E. & Molleson T.I., Poundbury Volume 2, The Cemeteries, DNHAS Monograph 11, 216-239. Woodward, A., 2000a, ‘Context, Chronology & History’ in Barrett et al, Cadbury Castle, Somerset, English Heritage Report 20. 115-6. Woodward, A., 2000b, ‘The Stratigraphic sequence of late Bronze Age, Iron Age and early Roman ceramics’ in Barrett et al, Cadbury Castle, Somerset, English Heritage Report 20. 24-43. Woodward, P.J., Bellamy, P. & Cox, P.W., 1987, ‘Field Survey of the Ancient Fields and Settlement Enclosures at Black Hill, Cerne Abbas, Dorset’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 109, 55-64. Woodward, P.J., Davies, S.M. & Graham, A.H.,1993, Excavations at the Old Methodist Chapel, Greyhound Yard, Dorchester, 1981-1984, Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society Monograph 12. Woodward, P.J., 2006, The Excavation and Survey at Norden Farm, Corfe Castle 2005, exploring the context of a Durotrigan stater coin hoard and a 1st-century AD patera unpublished report Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society. Woolner, D. & A., 1961, ‘The Antecedents of Whitchurch Canonicorum, Dorset’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 83, 83. Wright, D., 1997, ‘Shipton Hill, Dorset: An Enigmatic 1ron Age/Romano-British Enclosure’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 119, 103-108. Young, D., 1973, ‘An Iron Age and Romano-British Settlement at Broadmayne’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society 95, 44-49. Documents Caesar, Julius, The Conquest of Gaul, Translated by S.A. Handford 1951, Penguin Suetonius Tranquillus, Gaius, The Twelve Caesars, Translated by Robert Graves 1957, Penguin. Tacitus, Cornelius, The Annals of Imperial Rome, Translated by Michael Grant 1956, Penguin Tacitus, Cornelius, The Agricola and the Germania, Translated by H. Mattingly 1948, Penguin
410
410
Dorset County Record Office (DCRO) D1/11704 Map of the Manor of Abbots Wootton 1769 (Surveyor William Woodward) Bankes of Kingston Lacy family archive (D/BKL) CG3/1-CG3/3 Manor of Kingston Lacy accounts rolls 1380-1392. Map of Holt Forest by Richard Hardynge c.1600 Map to show disputed rights of way by John Bankes 1742 Survey of the manor of Kingston Lacy 1773-4 (Surveyor William Woodward) Public Record Office (PRO) E/101/460/27 Particulars of the works on Corfe Castle 23rd June 1280 – 30th November 1285
411
411
Appendix 1
The New Zealand Maori, an ethnographic parallel There are similarities between the Iron Age communities of southern Britain and the Maori peoples of New Zealand. These have been discussed by Sir Raymond Firth (1927) and Aileen Fox (1976). These similarities are remarkable given the distance in time and space between the two cultures. The Maori people possessed a Neolithic technology and settled in New Zealand 1,000 years after the Roman Conquest of Britain. They were quickly altered by contact with Europeans (for example, their rapid adoption of metal tools and wheeled transport by the early 19th century).
The Polynesian peoples were great navigators and gradually colonised the Pacific islands. Sailing south-east from Asia, they created new communities within each island group. These island communities became isolated from other groups and developed in different ways. Eventually Polynesian explorers from Taihiti, the Society and Cook Islands discovered Aotearoa (New Zealand) but by this time they had ceased to produce pottery.
204: Kaitote pa Taupiri, Waikato, drawn by G.F. Angas 1845 (Fox 1976, 8)
412
412
Contact
European knowledge of New Zealand began in 1642 when Abel Tasman first reported his discovery of the islands, but subsequent visits are not recorded in detail until the later 18th century. James Cook and Joseph Banks described the Maori communities they came into contact with. They mapped the coast in 1769-70 and kept journals describing the places and people that they met. Between this time and 1840, when the Treaty of Waitangi was signed, traders, missionaries and European adventurers increasingly influenced the Maori people. European documents describe the changes this contact had on Maori society.
Although Cook claimed New Zealand for the British Empire, a British official did not take up residence there until the 1830s. The colony of New South Wales was the closest outpost of British administration and the Bay of Islands in Northland became the principal contact area where a missionary station was established in 1814. The increasing trade in muskets meant that Northland became one of the most dangerous places in the Pacific.
In 1832 a British Resident, James Busby, was appointed “to protect British commerce and repress outrages that British subjects perpetrate against the Maori”. New Zealand was a place outside European jurisdiction and the proximity of the penal colonies of Australia tended to increase the lawlessness of the area. French and American traders were moving into New Zealand and increasing numbers of settlers were occupying Maori land. In 1835 Busby organised 35 chiefs to sign a declaration of independence but in 1837, troops from Australia had to suppress a serious armed clash between settlers and Maoris. The missionaries appealed to the British authorities to bring British law to New Zealand and on 5th February 1840, after debating the matter, 46 Northland chiefs signed the Treaty of Waitangi near Russell in the Bay of Islands. British officials and missionaries then took the treaty around New Zealand and a further 500 chiefs signed.
This gradual influence and then annexation of a land by a stronger and technologically superior people can be compared with the effect of Rome on
413
413
Britain. The mix of traders, deserters, settlers and missionaries within the coastal settlements around the Bay of Islands may provide an indication of the mix of individuals interacting with the indigenous occupants of the settlements around Poole Harbour and Hengistbury.
The inland Maori of the North Island were less affected by the Pakeha (Europeans) and were less willing to concede sovereignty and in the 1860s the Maori wars took place along the Waikato River. Garrison forts were constructed where the river was navigable at Hamilton and Cambridge.The British redoubt for 1000 soldiers at Cambridge was built on the site of Horotiu, an important Maori pa. This process of the army occupying an existing fortified settlement, which then developed into a town is a process that took place during the Romanisation of Britain. The street grid at Cambridge reflects the planned allocation of land to the settler soldiers of the 3rd Waikato Regiment inviting comparison with a colonia town like Colchester in Roman Britain.
In this example the coastal settlements of Northland had been softened by contact with the Europeans but the attitude of inland communities differed significantly and their relative isolation resulted in opposition to British sovereignty. Similar differences between coast and inland communities have been suggested for the Durotrigan zone (See area 5.1 and 5.7)
Tribes
Tribe is as difficult a word to use for the New Zealand Maori as it is for the British Iron Age communities. Maori itself is a word of convenience to define the preEuropean people. Until the arrival of the Pakeha, the Maori himself saw no need for a word to define his own people. Maori means ordinary, usual or normal.
In a similar way the word Durotriges may simply mean the people who live by the sea or the fort dwellers (see chapter 2) and may not have been a word to define the people of the Dorset environs before the Roman civitas was created.
414
414
The equivalent word for tribe in Aotearoa was iwi but it was a large group consisting of many smaller groups. The signing of the treaty of Waitangi by over 500 chiefs reveals the many community leaders that occupied the land.
An iwi usually began with the whanau or family, which, if some leader of good birth and mana (i.e. authority, influence, prestige, psychic power) arose, would become a recognised self supporting group. If everything prospered, in the course of time the whanau would grow into a hapu, and might eventually reach the strength and status of an iwi. The iwi would usually take the name of the ancestor who welded the original hapu into a cohesive unit.
Another recognised division was the waka (canoe). The Maori attach great importance to the canoes in which their ancestors first came to Aotearoa and the loyalty of each iwi to their “canoe” is paramount (Reed 1974, 192).
Therefore we should expect to recognise numerous communities within the Durotrigan zone. By the Roman period they were joining to create larger and larger groups but there would have been an underlying network of divisions and loyalties which the Maori hierarchy of communities may reflect.
Warfare
The European historical sources confirm the oral traditions of the Maori and the archaeological evidence. Communities were regularly at war with one another and this could be for a variety of reasons. A selection includes the defence or extension of territory, the chief’s desire for a woman from another community or from her husband’s resentment; from envy because of the differences of prosperity between groups, between families, and between relatives. Warfare arose over insults and slights, through suspicions alone, and because of sorcery. It could even arise because the omens were favourable and the young men were spoiling for a fight.
Maori warfare like medieval combat was governed by convention. A martial display or war dance haka might be followed by single combat between champions before skirmishes and a frontal assault on the defences of a fortification. 415
415
Hillforts
The physical evidence for warfare can be seen in the form of numerous fortified hill tops visible in the landscape, particularly in the North Island. Early explorers drew pictures of the terraced and palisaded enclosures containing huts, storage pits and raised storage structures.
The hillforts or pa are known to have had a variety of functions. Some were continuously occupied like the Auckland pa on extinct volcanoes at Mount Eden, One Tree Hill and Mount Wellington and were described by missionaries and travellers as containing many houses with populations of several hundred people. The chief of the surrounding countryside was usually in residence, unless he was visiting another of his pa or away with his war band (Fox 1976, 7).
Some fortified places were swamp or lake pa similar to crannogs. Like the hill top or ridge pa they varied in size, originating as simple enclosures with some developing to become an important settlement centre and residence of the chief. For example Ngaroto in the Waikato district was by Maori tradition the first settlement of the Ngati Apakura circa A.D. 1500. Other small fortifications were only occupied by an extended family group (Fox 1976, 24).
Many hillforts were places of refuge with the main settlement lying in the kainga or riverside settlement. A good example of this is found in the Waipoua valley, on the west coast of Northland. Here, the kainga is still the Maori village but the surrounding key vantage points on the hilltops around the valley are occupied by the earthworks of the now deserted pa sites (Papworth 1980, 9). Some hillforts were built specifically for a campaign or battle or were only occupied seasonally. Augustus Earle (17931838) on a return journey to Hokianga Harbour, Northland found a kainga to have become deserted. He was told that Chief Patuone had moved his people to a hill top pa because of a threat of attack (Fox 1976, 7).
416
416
between those attacking and defending the earthworks. In the light of this evidence it is difficult not to consider that one of the key functions of hillforts was defence.
Storage Pits
The Maori were gardeners and their principle crop was the kumera or sweet potato. These were stored in two ways, in pits and in platform buildings supported on one, four or six stilts. Pairs of post-holes were for drying racks, which are described by European commentators.
Kumera were susceptible to frost and damp, therefore the tubers needed to be stored in controlled humidity with an even temperature to survive the winter. The pits could be square, round or rectangular. Square and round pits tended to have lids but the rectangular pits had pitched thatched roofs. Those found at Waipoua were cut into spurs of land above the gardened flood plain but below the hilltop pa. In other areas the storage pits and buildings took up much of the area within the pa.
Raised Platforms
19th-century artists drew buildings on stilts. In 1842, Richard Taylor drew exterior and interior views of a building supported by four posts which was his bedroom for a week. It consisted of a rectangular platform surmounted by a hut with a pitched roof and a ladder for access. Inside the hut, the kumera were stacked in baskets against the walls (Fox 1976, 39)
Platforms were also used to expose the dead.
The importance of agriculture to the Maori compares with Iron Age Britain and the use of pit and granary like buildings for storage in safe and well drained places is another similarity. Maori pits became contaminated with mould and were either cleansed by burning fern within them or backfilled with rubbish and
418
418
new pits dug. This evidence for pit reuse and abandonment is also evident in Britain. No structured deposits within Maori pits have been recognised.
Burial
The Maori way of life was governed by ritual and everything was either tapu (under religious restriction) or noa (free from restriction). The construction of a house or canoe was sacred and women were excluded. The roof of a house was tapu and meal preparation was profane and took place outside. Collecting rain water runoff from a roof for drinking would not be countenanced even during a siege.
After death, bodies were placed in a sitting position and tied with cords before they became rigid. The body of a chief would be placed in the porch of the principal house clad in a valuable cloak before various rituals took place. It would then be carried in a litter and placed in a cave, in a hollow tree, in a rock crevice, the branches of a tree or on a raised platform. Those who touched the body or carried it to its resting place were extremely tapu and ceremonies were required to cleanse them.
When the body had decayed, the bones were exhumed or recovered and frequently painted with red ochre. This was a time of reunion and story telling together with wailing and feasting. The bones were then bundled up and wrapped in cloaks and hidden in suitable places. Heads were extremely tapu and sometimes formed the principal element of shrines within pa.
Desecration of the bones of enemies by using them as weapons, flutes and implements could be a primary cause of war. Great efforts were made to protect the bones of chiefs and these were often stored within small huts on top of poles within the settlement. The mana of a chief remained in his bones, which in certain seasons were taken to the cultivations as a fertilising agent, and at other times to the tuaahu to help in the performance of religious ceremonies (Reed 1974, 25).
The disposal of the dead and the attitude of the Maori people to the bones of significant people may provide evidence to explain the occurrence of human body parts within structured pit deposits and the general absence of graveyards 419
419
in and around Iron Age settlements. Single post, four post and six post structures within Iron Age settlements may have had a variety of functions including store houses, platforms for excarnation as well as secure places for the revered bones of community ancestors.
The Layout of Pa
Crozet, a member of Marion Du Fresne’s ill-fated expedition, drew a plan of Paeroa pa, Bay of Islands, in 1772, at a time before significant European influence. It shows the rectangular houses against one side of the promontory fort, the storage pits and platform stores on the other. The chief’s house and arms store was in the centre and an open area or marae in the front of the house. A similar assembly area was drawn in 1845 in the Taupiri pa beside the Waikato River (Fox 1976, 47).
The zoning of activities within British Iron Age settlements has been noted. Houses may be concentrated around the edges of hillforts and separated from storage areas as indicated at Danebury but not at Hod Hill. An assembly area near the centre of Hod has been suggested from the recent geophysical survey (see study area 5.5 p.120)
Concluding Remarks These selected comparisons between the Maori and British Iron Age societies demonstrate the potential complexity of settlement function and layout, particularly when these elements are combined with ritual and belief systems. There are remarkable archaeological similarities that have been demonstrated between these peoples. The evidence for the Maori devotion to agriculture and warfare supports the evidence for similar emphases amongst the peoples of the Durotrigan zone.
The documents describing the attitudes to alien cultures reported by the frontiersmen of Rome and from the British Empire seem very similar. They form a bridge that spans the gulf of time and distance between the peoples of New Zealand and Britannia.
420
420
Index Abbotsbury Castle 130; 144 Alchester 30; 72 Alington Avenue 49; 83-4; 86; 128; 136 Allards Quarry 194 Allen River 1;98;242;275-6 Armorica 85;59 Ash Farm 205; 218 Ashley Wood 283 Avon River 63; 67; 91; 230; 237 Badbury Rings 1-4; 28; 33; 40; 51-2; 98; 100; 281-2; 286; 304-10; 328-9; 334. Badbury Romano-Celtic temple 52; 313-5 Badbury/Shapwick hoard 89; 310-13. Bagwood Copse 143; 328; 356. Banbury Camp 195; 204. BANJO ENCLOSURES 251; 264-5; 270-2; 342; 357. Barnsley Farm 283; 298; 327. Barton Field 47;116; 223; 277; 279. Bath 28; 63; 90. Battlesbury Bowl 229; 273; 367. Battlesbury Camp 65; 229; 232; 357-8 B each’s Barn 265. Beaminster 163. Beehive Chambers, Portland 123 Berwick Down 46; 79-80; 245-7; 259-61. Bilbury Rings 234. Bindon Hill 122 Bishops Court Down 283 Black Hill, Cerne 189-90. Blacklands Langton 109. Blackmore Vale 43; 189; 190-1; 197; 356 Blashenwell 108; 110. Bockerley Dyke 66-7; 239-41. Bonsley Common 205 Boscombe Down West 231. Boundaries Durotriges 31; 54-68. Bourne River 63; 231. Bowerchalke 66; 239. Bradford Down 2; 47; 51; 116; 282; 291-7; 322; 328. Bradford on Avon 265. Bramdean 265. Bratton Castle 62; 65; 229. Brearley Brook 169 Brenscombe 108; 117-8. Bridport 143-6; 162. Bristol Channel 61; 164; 186. Brit 145; 163. Broadmayne 128; 142. Broadwey 124. Brockington Down 246; 257-8. Brooches 74. Brookes Coppice 248. Broomcliff 146. Brue 61; 169; 186. Bryanston School 205; 220. Bucknowle 106; 108; 112; 117-8; 121. Bulbury 190; 336. BURIAL 76; 82-6; 92; 180-1; 183; 186-7; 217-8; 353-6; 367-8. Burton Bradstock 143 Bury Hill, Hants. 19. Bury, Bishopstrow 231-2; 357; 359. Bussey Stool Park 248; 251. Buxbury 237. Buzbury Rings 40; 282; 300-02. Byle Brook 118
Caerleon 27. Caerwent 27. Cam 173. Camel Hill 174-5. Camerton 62-3. Cannington 168. Carey River 164; 170. Castle Ditches 144; 361. Castle Ditches 235; 237. Castle Farm 175. Castle Hill, Corfe 108;118. Castle Rings 236. Castle Wood 192. Catsgore 164 Cerne Abbas 56; 58; 189. Chalbury Camp 42-3;124;127;130;140. Channel Islands 84; 92. Chapel Down 248;267;273;274. Charlton Hawthorne 174. Charlton Higher Down 127. Chesils 145;163. Chettle Down 246; 266. Chichester 27. Chickengrove Bottom 239. Chickerell 124. Chideock 146. Chilcombe 144. Chiselbury Camp 236-7. Chissel Farm 205; 228. Chissell’s Green 178. Chitterne 65. Cirencester 25; 57. Clearbury Ring 239. Cleaval Point 19;48;107;113-5;118. Cley Hill 62; 229. Cockey Down 231. Codford 65; 230. Cogdean East End 325 Cogdean Elms 325. COINS 64-7; 74;86-91;185-6;195; 350-1; 368-70. Colchester 20. Cold Kitchen Hill 62-3; 163; 193; 227; 229. Colebarrow 335. Compact Farm 109; 112. Coney’s Castle 3. 148-9; 158. Coombe Down Hill 163. Corfe Castle 3;51;83. Corfe Common 89; 100; 108; 114. Corfe Mullen 325. Corfe River East 107;109;116. Corfe River West 107. Cornwall 85;167; 185. Corton 173. Corton 232-3 Crab Farm 2;28; 52; 213; 224; 282; 315-23; 327-34. Cranborne Chase 10;42; 46; 51; 84; 89; 97; 202; 242-276; 335 Cranford Bridge 168. Crawford Bridge 283. Creech East 108; 117-8. Creech Grange 108. Creech West 108;112. Crichel River 244; 275. Crofts 128. ‘Currency Bars’ 218. Cursus 275.
421
421
Damerham 67. Danebury 8-9;13-14;17;19;49;92;177;184. Dean 248. Defended Sites 76. Devon 1; 85; 146; 160; 167; 185. Dewlish 47; 190. Dickly Hill , Cerne 189. Dinton 234. Ditchey Coppice 205. Divelish 195. Doghouse Cliff 146. Dorchester 27;29;49;86;89;125;129;139; 141;187. Dorchester First School (Maiden Castle School) 80; 82. Dorset 1;3;5;184;186. Down End Farm 205. Down Farm 249-50; 272-3. Down Farmhouse SW 247; 250. Downton 91. Drive Plantation 247; 270. Dudsbury, West Parley 102. Duncliffe Hill 192. Dundon 168-9. Dungeon Hill 190. Dunium 27; 226. Durnovaria 28; 29. Durotrigan Burial 82-6, 91. Durotrigan Coins 62; 86-90; 91. Durotrigan Conflict 71-3; 93. Durotrigan Culture 44;73-6; 91-3 Durotrigan Farmstead 79-82. Durotrigan Pottery 62; 76-9; 91. Durotriges Definition 73-5. Durweston 205.
East Castle 234. East End 283. East Knoyle 234;236;273. Eastcombe Farm 180. Ebble River 63; 228;235;237;273. Ebsbury Hill 40;234;275;359. Eggardon Camp 35;44;144-6;272;356. Eldon Seat 109; 111-2; 121. Encombe Obelisk 109. Englands 175. Ethnicity 68-70 Exeter 25;29;57.
Farmsteads 75-6; 79. Farnham 246; 266. Fifehead Neville 195; 223. Fifield Bavant 236-7; 273. Figsbury Rings 231. Fitzworth 107;112;115. Flagstones 86;128;136. Flower’s Barrow 121-2. Fordington Bottom 128-9; 136. Fordington Hill 128;137;139;141. Forest Hill 64; 360. Fosse Way 169. Frampton 128. Frome River Dorset 59;92;126; 190. Frome town, Somerset 62 Fursey Island 107;109;112;118.
Gallows Gore 109;111;121. Giant’s Hill, Cerne 189. Gillingham 192; 194. Glastonbury 39;61;68;92;168-9;171;185. Godlingston Heath 109. Golden Cap Estate 3;53;161. Goldfields Farm 248. Great Down Quarry 194. Great Woodbury 237. Green Island 107;113-5;118. Green Line Farm 205;220 Greenspecks 108;113. Grimstone 127. Grovely Castle 234;359. Gussage All Saints 19;47;51;80;82;225;245;254-57;268;2734. Gussage All Saints East 82;246;258-9. Gussage All Saints North 82; 246;258-9. Gussage All Saints South 246. Gussage All Saints West 82;246. Gussage Cow Down 35;40;98;245-6;267; 269-71; 275. Gussage Cow Down East 246. Gussage Hill North Slope 248. Gussage River 242;275. Gussage St Michael 247. Hadrian’s Wall 27;29 Halstock 42;164-5;186;188. Ham Hill 38;61;72;90;98;164;166-9; 183; 187;356-7. Hambledon Hill 38;199;201-8; 223-5; 276. Hambledon North 205. Hambledon South East. 205;357. Hampshire 1;66;239 Hamshill Ditches 233;275;359. Hamworthy 326. Handley Hill 248-9. Hanging Langford 40;233;275;359 Harlyn Bay 85. Hayling Island 90. Hembury 42;149;160;162. Hemsworth 283. Hengistbury 38-40;489;58;63;67;72;86;92. Heron Grove 282;289-91;334. Hicknoll Stait 174;178. High Lea Farm 283;298-300;327. High Wood 283;310-2;332. Highfield 67. Hinton St Mary 195; 223. Hod Hill 3;8;18;20;27;-8;35-8;3940;44;46; 489;51;53;58;63;67;72;86;92;97;98;115; 178;199; 202-4;208-20; 2236;274;276;357. Hogstock 277;283. Holwell 191 Home Ground 175. Hookswood Farm 246. Humby’s Stock Coppice 248;266;273. Ibberton 204;220. Ibernio 28;226. Ilchester 50;61;98;164;169-71;187. Iwerne Valley Settlement 97;218-20; 226.
Kimmeridge Bay 109. Kimmeridge shale 92-3. King Barrow, Verne, Portland 123. King Down 283. King’s Moor 175. Kingston Barn 108;111. Kingston Lacy Estate 3;5;51. Kingston Lacy Park 283. Kingston Magna 194. Knighton Hill 239. Knook Camp 230. Knowle Hill 108;110. Lake Gates 46; 283;323-6; 355 Lambert’s Castle 3 Lambert’s Castle 53;148-50;157-8. Langton Long Blandford 282;327. Launceston Down 247;267-8. Launceston Down East 247. Lazerton Farm 205;218. Le Catillon 89. Lewesdon 148-9. Lindinis 27-8. Little Kingston Farm 194. Little Mayne Farm 128. Little Weston Farm 175. Little Woodbury 47;237. Littleton 168. Lodden 234. Lodge Farm 282;297. Long Crichel South East 247;257. Luton Farm 283. Lyme Regis 60. Maiden Castle 3;10;18-9;27;41-2;44;49; 51;72;79;83;89;90;97;125;127;129-30; 132-5;142;178;184;186-7;208;211;225; 272;274. Maiden Castle East 129 Maiden Castle Road 128;137. Mancombe Down 230. Manor House 283. Marlborough 64. Marleycombe Hill 239. Marnhull 43;194;274;277. Marshwood Vale 146. Max Gate 86;128;136. Meare Lake Villages 39;61;68;169;185. Mendips 61;167. Meriden Down 205;220-1;226. Metalwork 74-5. Metherhills 109. Micheldever Wood 265. Middle Farm 129. Middlebere 107;115. Mildenhall 64. Milsom’s Corner 174;177-80. Mistleberry Wood 242;251. Montacute 168. Moor Crichel 258. Mount Batton 85. Mount Pleasant 128;136. Muckleford 168. Mycen Farm 248;252;275.
Nadder 63;98;228;231;234;237;273. National Trust 3. Nettlecombe Tout 190; 356. New Town 246. Newquay 85. Newton Peverill 283. Norden 90; 117-9;121. Nyland 194. Oakley Down 249;252-3;273. Oakley Farm South West 248. Odstock Copse 239. Ogbury Camp 230 Okeford Fitzpaine 204. Old Sarum 230. Olga Road 128. Oppida 10;18;20-1;30;41;64;1389;170. Oxdrove Ridge 237-8;276. Park Hill Camp 192. Park Hill Camp 192. Park House Farm 205;220;226. Parrott River 168 Pen Hill 129;140-4;162. Pen Hill 173. Penbury Knoll 242;247;251. Perrott Hill School 84;164;183;187. Piddle River 189-90. Pilsdon Pen 3;44;52;79;97;14857;161;163; 186;272. Pimperne 200; 224-5;277. Pimperne Down 205-6;208;220. Pimperne West 206;220. Pinford Lane,Sherborne 166. Pins Knoll 84;129;143-4. Pits 12-13;19;217-8. Podimore 170. Portesham 84-5;142;144. Portland 83;123. Pottery All Cannings Cross 204;206;208. Deverel 208. East Devon Sandy 56. Maiden Castle-Marnhull 195;216;254-7. Poole Harbour 73-4;769;183;187;194; 216;254;256-7;277;349-50. Savernake 64. South Western Decorated Ware 156;167; 169-70;183-4;187;194;257;277;350. Yarnbury-Highfield 56;239;257. Poundbury 43;49;125;127;129;130-5; 138-9;142;207;224. Precombe Down 237 Ptolemy 1;25. Purbeck 3;16;43;53;79;834;89;92;97; 102-122. Puriton 168. Putlake Farm 109 Putton Brickworks 124. Quarry Lodden 129;140. Queen Camel 174;175. Queen Camel East 175.
Jordan Hill 83;124. Julius Caesar 31;41;70.
422
422
Radipole 124. Rawlesbury 191;356. Redcliff 108. Rempstone 108. Ridge 146. Ringmoor 204;220. Ringwood 67 Rockbourne 67. Rockbourne Down 240. Rope Lake Hole 109;111-2;121. Rotherley 35;79;84;247;261-3;274. Round houses 213-6 Rushmore Park 35;247;264;274;359. Rushmore Sunk Fence 248;264. Rushton Airfield 283. Salisbury 65;67;229-30;328. Sandyhills Copse 108. Scratchbury 229;232;357-8. Shaftesbury 192;236. Shapwick 286;328. Shapwick/Badbury hoard 282; 310-3. Shearplace Hill 189. Shepton Mallet 62. Sherborne 165-6. Shillingstone Hill 202;205;220;226. Shillingstone Village 205;220;223. Shipstal Point 115. Shipton Hill 144-5. Shrewton 66. Sigwells 173-4; 177-80. Silchester 20;25;57. Silver Knap 176. Smacam Down 189. Smedmore Hill 109. Soldier’s Ring 240. Somerset 1;86; 164-88; 86;97. Somerton 168. Sorviodunum 231;328. South Cadbury 3;34-5;51;61;71-3;79; 89-90;164-5; 167;169;17188;192;208;211; 225;357. South Lodge 249-50;272. Sparkford Bridge 175. Sparkford Hill 175. Spetisbury 72;82;187;282;302-4. Stalbridge 91. Stamford Hill 85. Stanbridge 283;327. Stanton St Gabriel 146. Stapleford Down 230. Steepleton Park West 205. Stinsford 128. Stockton 234;273;275;359. Stonehill 175. Stour River 2;63;97-8;1935;198;273;275; 277;327. Stourhead 192. Stratford 231. Swallowcliffe 236-7;273. Sweetbriar Drove,Pamphill 2;34;52;116; 176-9;287-9. Sydling St Nicholas 189. Symondsbury 146. Target Wood 283. Tarrant Crawford 277;283;327. Tarrant Hinton 47;84;277. Tarrant Hinton Down North 247 Tarrant Monkton 277. Tarrant Rawston 277;283. Tarrant River 2;277-9. Tarrant Rushton 277;283. Thickthorn Down 247;267. Thorncombe Beacon 146.
Till River 230. Tinny’s :Lane, Sherborne 84;165. Tisbury 230. Todber 194. Tollard Royal 79;81-2;84;247. Tolpuddle Ball 81;129;142. Townsend,Corfe 108. Trethellen Farm 85. Tribes 1;2;4;54-72. Turnworth 3;204;220;226. Verne Common,Portland 123. Verulamium 42. Vespasian 30. Vindocladia 28;328.
Waddon Hill 46;89-93;115;148-9;15960; 162-3; 186. Walls Field 128. Wardour Vale 144;235. Warminster 63;98;229. Weatherby Castle 142-3;190. Weaving comb 92. Wembly 173. Wessex 3; 378-9. West Hill, Corfe 111. West Bay 143;145. West Camel 174. West Huntspill 168. West Knighton 128. West on Bampfylde 175;179-80. West Orchard Farm 109;111. West Stafford 128. West Stour 194;197. West Wood 168. West Woodyates 247;249. Westbury 63;98;229. Westonzoyland 61;168. Westwoods Field 183. Weymouth 83;124. Whitchurch Canonicorum 146. Whitcombe Hill 84;128;137-8;142. Whitesheet Hill 192-3. Whitsbury Castle Ditches 66-7;239;361. Wickball Camp 234;359. Wicken Stream 118. Wilkswood Farm 109;111. Wilton 63;98;234. Wiltshire 1;229-256; 357-61. Wimborne Cemetery 283;327. Winchester 57. Winkebury Camp 35-6;238;251. Winterborne Herringston Dairy House 128. Witchampton 283;327. Wollaston Field 138. Woodbury 143;189;356. Woodcutts Common 35;79;248;263-4; 272;274. Woodminton Down 239. Woodyates 84;240. Woolsbarrow 190. Worgret 108. Wudu Burh 239. Wylye River 63;98; 227-34. Yarlington Mill 175. Yarnbury 63;67;230. Yeo River 164;169.
423
423
Please note that the full-size version of pages 425–434 is available to download from www.barpublishing.com/additional-downloads.html
424
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434