Monuments, Ritual and Regionality: The Neolithic of Northern Somerset 9781841718804, 9781407320526

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
PREFACE
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Table of Contents
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF TABLES
ABBREVIATIONS
Chapter One: Introduction
Chapter Two: The Topography and Prehistoric Environment of Northern Somerset
Chapter Three: Mortuary Monuments of the Early Neolithic
Chapter Four: Analysis of the Mortuary Monuments
Chapter Five: Late Neolithic Monuments: Enclosures and Complexes
Chapter Six: Neolithic Pits and Postholes
Chapter Seven: Caves and Swallets
Chapter Eight: Domesticating the Landscape? The Evidence of Lithic Scatters
Chapter Nine: Conclusions
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Citation preview

BAR 401 2005 LEWIS MONUMENTS, RITUAL AND REGIONALITY: THE NEOLITHIC OF NORTHERN SOMERSET

B A R template bar blue.indd 1

Monuments, Ritual and Regionality: The Neolithic of Northern Somerset Jodie Lewis

BAR British Series 401 2005

11/11/2010 09:32:21

Monuments, Ritual and Regionality: The Neolithic of Northern Somerset Jodie Lewis

BAR British Series 401 2005

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR British Series 401 Monuments, Ritual and Regionality: The Neolithic of Northern Somerset © J Lewis and the Publisher 2005 The author's moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9781841718804 paperback ISBN 9781407320526 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781841718804 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Archaeopress in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd / Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2005. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR

PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from:

E MAIL P HONE F AX

BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310431 +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

PREFACE This book is based on my doctoral thesis, completed in 2001 at the University of Bristol. Since this date, ideas have changed and new information has emerged, requiring some revisions to the content and structure of the original work. A chapter on the development of landscape approaches within prehistoric archaeology is no longer included as it has been rather superseded by a rash of books and articles dealing with this topic. There is also a new chapter, on Neolithic pits and postholes, which was able to be worked up into a complete chapter largely because of the publication of work at Wells Cathedral and Abbey Quarry. Generally however, this book had to take 2001 as the “state of knowledge” cut-off point, lest it never be completed. There are some noticeable exceptions to this; the results of geophysical surveys at Stanton Drew, published in 2004 (David et al 2004), are discussed, and elsewhere footnotes indicate subsequent work at a site (including work by myself; see Priddy long barrow for example). Living and working in Bristol, North Wales, Mendip (Priddy and Binegar) and Herefordshire has been stimulating but five moves in five years have partially contributed to the delay in the publication of this book!

i

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my Ph.D. supervisor, Professor Richard Harrison, for informed discussion, lively debate and guidance in this research. Other members of the University of Bristol Archaeology Department have also provided help and support and I thank them all, especially Dr Mark Horton, Jenni Hamley and Sue Grice. Chris Hawkes has allowed me unlimited access to both Wells Museum and UBSS Museum and given me invaluable information and advice. Thank you also to all the other staff at Wells Museum. The University of Bristol Spelaeological Society have been tremendously supportive and introduced me to much new information; I am particularly grateful to Arthur ApSimon and Graham Mullan. Bob Williams has kindly shared his own detailed knowledge of the area and provided me with lots of data. Jim Hancock has kept me entertained with anecdotes and introduced me to his invaluable collection of aerial photographs. I am especially grateful to Willie Stanton for inviting me to study Brimble Pit Swallet, improving my knowledge of the geology of Mendip and answering numerous queries. I would also like to wholeheartedly thank Chris Webster, Bob Croft, Vince Russett and Bob Sydes for providing me with hundreds of SMR extracts and invaluable advice about the archaeology of Somerset. Chris Chandler and other staff of the NMR have also provided information and retrieved photographs on many occasions, invaluable to this research. David Bromwich of the Somerset Studies Library has helped in my studies of Skinner and Wicks and sent me much useful information. English Heritage very kindly shared unpublished data about Stanton Drew, which has proved extremely useful. Much of this research would not have been possible without the kindness of landowners and farmers in allowing me access to sites, permitting me to carry out fieldwork and showing a genuine enthusiasm for this research. I would particularly like to thank Catriona and Roy Forward (Rookham Project) and Richard and Helen Young (Stanton Drew). Many people have been roped into helping carry out fieldwork and I would like to say a big thank you to all those University of Bristol undergraduates and postgraduates who endured excavation in the snow, fieldwalking in the rain and remained cheerful and eager to be involved. I am particularly grateful to Shirley Everden and Nick Corcos for their continued support and willingness to embark upon projects (and provide tapes and canes!), whatever the conditions. Abigail Bryant and Marc Ellsley have proved themselves true friends, providing manpower, enthusiasm and wine. Abby’s help on that mysterious afternoon at Stanton Drew, identifying the stones, will not be forgotten (it is impossible to count them, just as the folklore says!). Magnus Alexander has given me lots of help with producing the digital elevation maps and been a good friend throughout. Lively debate was provided by Heinrich Hall and I would like to thank him for illuminating discussions of the continental evidence. Students from the Department of History and Welsh History, University of Wales Bangor drew endless flints willingly and cheerfully, for which they must be congratulated. A mention must also be made of the various local groups and societies who have invited me to speak to them (again and again!) about aspects of my research and shown enthusiasm and support for this book; thank you Mendip Society and archaeological and historical groups and societies at Axbridge, Banwell, Bridgwater, Bristol & Avon, Clevedon, Pensford, Somerset, Wells, West Harptree and Weston Super Mare. Professional help has been freely given and I would particularly like to thank Richard Bradley, Ros Cleal, Frances Lynch and Chris Scarre for their advice and opinions. Bristol and Avon Archaeological Society kindly provided me with a Grinsell grant to study the Stockwood Enclosure. This Ph.D. was funded by a University of Bristol scholarship, for which I am very grateful. Finally, I would like to thank my family for their continued support. My father, Steven Lewis, has helped with site visits and mountains of scanning, my mother, Natalie Lewis, has provided constant enthusiasm, my brother, Samuel Lewis and his partner Eli Dahl, have made me laugh and provided a suitable soundtrack to work to. Lastly, the biggest thank you must go to my partner, David Mullin. For four years he has provided help and advice, bulling and cajoling me into working when the data seemed incomprehensible and the effort too great, working tirelessly on fieldwork projects and helping in their organisation, listening to ideas and exploring their strengths and weaknesses, helping analyse enormous quantities of data, suggesting comparisons, providing financial support in times of need and remaining positive about the value of this research throughout. This work would not have been possible without his continued support.

This book is dedicated to the memory of my grandfather Walter Ronald Saunders (1916 – 1992)

iii

iv

CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1

1

Introduction CHAPTER 2

15

The Topography and Prehistoric Environment of Northern Somerset CHAPTER 3

23

Mortuary Monuments of the Early Neolithic CHAPTER 4

53

Analysis of the Mortuary Monuments CHAPTER 5

73

Late Neolithic Monuments: Enclosures and Complexes CHAPTER 6

103

Neolithic Pits and Postholes CHAPTER 7

115

Caves and Swallets CHAPTER 8

133

Domesticating the Landscape? The Evidence of Lithic Scatters CHAPTER 9

153

Conclusions BIBLIOGRAPHY

159

v

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1: Location of Northern Somerset Figure 1.2: Northern Somerset, showing major topographic features Figure 3.1 Long Barrow Distribution Figure 3.2: Earthwork Survey of Priddy Long Barrow Figure 3.3: Earthwork Survey of Pen Hill Long Barrow Figure 3.4: Earthwork Survey of Mountain Ground Long Barrow Figure 3.5: Earthwork Survey of Cheddar Mound Figure 3.6 Earthwork Survey of Hunters Lodge Mound Figure 3.7 Earthwork Survey of Long Wood Mound Figure 3.8: Geophysical plots and interpretations of Hunter’s Lodge and Long Wood Figure 3.9: Earthwork Survey of Priddy Hill Long Barrow Figure 3.10: Photograph of Priddy Hill Long Barrow, looking north Figure 3.11: The Three Shire Stones Figure 3.12: The entrance to Stoney Littleton Long Barrow Figure 3.13: Plan of Stoney Littleton Long Barrow Figure 3.14: Excavations at Orchardleigh Figure 3.15: Earthwork Survey of Orchardleigh Long Barrow Figure 3.16: Plan of Excavations at Orchardleigh Figure 3.17: Plans of Excavations at Fromefield Figure 3.18: Plan of Giant’s Grave Long Barrow Figure 3.19: Earthwork Survey of Brays Down Long Barrow Figure 3.20: Resistivity Survey of Brays Down Long Barrow Figure 3.21 Earthwork Survey of Devil’s Bed and Bolster Long Barrow Figure 3.22: Plan of the stones at Devil’s Bed and Bolster Figure 3.23: Earthwork Survey of Winsley Mound Figure 3.24: Earthwork Survey of Chicks Lane Lynchet Corner Figure 3.25: Earthwork Survey of the Dundry Mound Figure 3.26: Earthwork Survey of Hammerhill Wood Mound Figure 3.27: Felton Common Long Barrow Figure 3.28: Earthwork Survey of Redhill Mound Figure 3.29: The Waterstone Dolmen Figure 3.30: Hypothetical Reconstructions of Chamber Layout at Fairy’s Toot Figure 3.31: View of Fairy’s Toot by Skinner 1822 Figure 3.32: Earthwork Survey of the Pen Hill Long Mound Figure 4.1: Pottery from Fromefield Long Barrow Figure 4.2: Scraper and arrowhead from Giant’s Grave Long Barrow Figure 4.3: Flints from Giant’s Grave Figure 4.4 Orientation of Long Barrows in Study Area Figure 5.1: Distribution of Henges and Stone Circles Figure 5.2 Results of Resistivity Survey at Stockwood Figure 5.3: Earthwork Survey of Hunters Lodge “Henge” Figure 5.4: Hunters Lodge Gradiometer Survey Results Figure 5.5 Hunter’s Lodge Resistivity Survey Results Figure 5.6: Gorsey Bigbury Henge Figure 5.7: Arrowheads from Gorsey Bigbury Figure 5.8: Grave assemblage from cist at Gorsey Bigbury Figure 5.9: Plan of the Priddy Circles Figure 5.10: Section and Plan of Priddy Circle 1 bank and ditch Figure 5.11: Plan of the Entrance to Priddy Circle 1 Figure 5.12: Aubrey’s Plan of Stanton Drew Figure 5.13: Plan of Stanton Drew by Stukeley Figure 5.14: Stukeley’s view of the Cove at Stanton Drew Figure 5.15: Interpretation of Geophysics at Stanton Drew Figure 5.16: Plan of the megalithic elements of Stanton Drew Figure 6.1: Location of Neolithic Pits and Postholes Figure 6.2: Plan and sections of Pits F1162 and 1167, Wells Cathedral. Figure 6.3: Plan of Chew Valley House

vi

2 3 24 25 25 28 28 30 30 31 32 32 33 35 35 36 37 37 39 40 41 41 42 42 43 44 45 47 47 48 48 50 50 52 63 64 65 68 74 75 76 77 77 80 80 81 84 86 86 89 90 90 93 95 104 105 105

Figure 6.4: Finds from Chew Valley House Figure 6.5 Grooved Ware from Ben Bridge Figure 6.6: Abbey Quarry Grooved Ware pits 703 and 715 and associated features Figure 6.7: Plans and sections of Pit 703 and 715 Figure 6.8: Discoidal knife from Pit 703 Figure 6.9 Disc scraper from Pit 715 Figure 7.1: Distribution of caves with Neolithic deposits Figure 7.2: Plan and Sections of Chelmscombe Rock Shelter Figure 7.3: Plan and Sections of Haywood Cave Figure 7.4: Plan and Section of Rowberrow Cavern Figure 7.5: Section of Rowberrow Cavern Figure 7.6: Plan and Section of Sun Hole Figure 7.7: Early Neolithic Assemblage from Chelmscombe Figure 7.8: Pottery from Rowberrow Cavern Figure 7.9: Finds from Cockle’s Wood Lower Figure 7.10: Flints from Rowberrow Cavern Figure 7.11: Flints from Rowberrow Cavern Figure 7.12: East-West Section of Charterhouse Warren Farm Swallet Figure 7.13 North-South Section of Charterhouse Warren Farm Swallet Figure 7.14: Sketch Section of Brimble Pit Swallet Figure 7.15: Axehead from Brimble Pit Swallet Figure 7.16: Flint Dagger from Charterhouse Warren Farm Swallet Figure 8.1: Distribution of Axehead Finds Figure 8.2: Fieldwalking Results from Brays Down Long Barrow Figure 8.3: Fieldwalking Results from Devil’s Bed and Bolster Long Barrow Figure 8.4: Fieldwalking Results from Stanton Drew Figure 9.1: Distribution of Henges and Round Barrows

107 107 109 109 110 110 116 118 119 119 120 120 122 123 123 123 124 127 127 129 130 132 135 139 140 144 156

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Societies involved in archaeological work in northern Somerset Table 2: Neolithic Sites and Regions in northern Somerset with Environmental Data Table 3: Megalithic/Non-Megalithic Status of Early Neolithic Mortuary Monuments Table 4: Length:Breadth Ratio of Long Barrows Table 5: Orientations of Long Barrow Mounds Table 6: Mortuary Monuments: Position in the Landscape Table 7: Mortuary Monuments Altitude Table 8: Mortuary Monuments Nearest Neighbour Calculations Table 9: Distance of Stone Sources from Stanton Drew Table 10: Physical Characteristics of Henges in Northern Somerset Table 11: Henges - Altitude, Geology, Soils & Distance to Water Sources Table 12: Caves with visible secondary phases Table 13: Flint Artefacts from Caves Table 14: The Provenance of Flint Scatters from Northern Somerset Table 15: Dates of Flint Scatters (scatters with National Grid References) Table 16: Flints from Brays Down Table 17: Flints from the Devil's Bed & Bolster Table 18: Flints from Stanton Drew Table 19: References for Flint Scatters Table 20: Dates for Flint Scatters Table 21: Landscape Resources of Northern Somerset

ABBREVIATIONS SANHS: SCRO: UBSS:

Somerset Archaeology and Natural History Society Somerset County Record Office University of Bristol Spelaeological Society

vii

12 22 55 58 68 69 70 71 96 100 101 122 124 136 137 138 140 144 147 149 156

Chapter One: Introduction “The Mendips and adjacent hills of North Somerset form perhaps the most remarkable example existing in England of a very ancient landscape surviving to the present day.” (Dobson 1931:2) River Frome to the east and the Bristol Channel to the west (figure 1.1). Rather than viewing these as boundaries that would have been impassable, indeed rivers and the sea facilitate communications, they should perhaps be seen as features bounding a relatively homogenous area. That is to say, the regions within these boundaries are more similar to each other than to regions outside. Geologically, the region is dominated by limestone with the large marshy area of the North Somerset Levels to the west. There are four major areas of limestone upland – (from north to south) the Failand Ridge, Dundry, Broadfield Down and the Mendip Hills each stretching in a broad east-west direction and separated from each-other by shallow fertile valleys. These uplands become progressively higher, wider and more visually stunning as one travels south (figure 1.2). The highest summits of Mendip, the most southerly of these ridges, reach over 300m AOD. The combination of limestone upland, marshy lowland, river valley and, of course, the rich coastal belt, produces a landscape mosaic very different from the neighbouring regions of Wessex and the Cotswolds. It is a landscape of valleys and gorges, caves and swallets and springs and small waterfalls. Today the landscape has a very different 'feel' to the neighbouring areas and this would almost certainly have been understood in prehistory. It was only by chance that the author discovered that another researcher, the Rev. John Skinner (1772-1839),2 also recognised that the prehistoric monuments of northern Somerset fell within a naturally bounded landscape, even giving the same boundaries: the Avon, the Frome, the Axe and the Bristol Channel.

Dina Dobson's quote refers to the complex geological legacy that has shaped the landscape of northern Somerset but applies equally well to the archaeological legacy. Few other parts of Britain can claim an archaeological sequence stretching back almost half a million years, but this legacy has had its drawbacks, with certain sites and periods dominating interpretations of the region. The hills of northern Somerset are more famous for their Palaeolithic and Roman sites than those of Neolithic date. Whilst many British archaeologists are aware of the importance of Cheddar Gorge and Charterhouse, few know of the Neolithic deposits above the Palaeolithic levels in the caves or the extensive lithic scatters beneath the Roman mining at Charterhouse. The Neolithic of the region is recognised by a few sites, such as Stanton Drew and Stoney Littleton. Reading the archaeological literature, it quickly becomes apparent that the hills and valleys of northern Somerset are considered peripheral: peripheral in what they contribute to our understanding of the Neolithic and peripheral geographically to the neighbouring ‘heartlands’ of Wessex and the Cotswolds. It is not surprising that an indepth study of the Neolithic landscape of the region has not been attempted when archaeological guides and textbooks only give it a passing, perfunctory reference. Yet this modern image of marginality does not tally with the archaeological record. The region is rich in prehistoric monuments, such as the unique Priddy Circles, and also the largest timber circle arrangement in Britain at Stanton Drew. Stanton Drew itself has the second largest diameter of a stone circle in Britain. The Stoney Littleton long barrow has seven chambers, more than any other excavated Cotswold-Severn tomb, and the destroyed long barrow Fairy’s Toot was said to contain as many as sixteen.1 Yet these monuments form only a small percentage of the total number and are only one aspect of Neolithic activity in the region.

The Neolithic monuments cluster on the higher land within the study area, falling into three main groupings: Broadfield Down/Dundry, Mendip and the “tumble of hills” south of Bath. The Stanton Drew complex represents the only certain prehistoric monuments yet known in the valleys of northern Somerset. In common with other areas in Britain, these river valleys contain substantial deposits of alluvium, which may mask prehistoric features that will only be revealed as our techniques and methodologies improve. Without a research framework targeted explicitly at the lowlands, findings are generally accidental and piecemeal.

This work will critically assess the evidence for Neolithic activity in northern Somerset. It will include an analysis of the monuments, cave deposits and flint scatters, and present new data and new interpretations. The Neolithic archaeology from the region has not previously been considered as a whole; earlier analyses have been piecemeal and conclusions often unsatisfactory. Northern Somerset should not be confused with the modern administrative county 'North Somerset'; the latter only forms one small part of the district. Northern Somerset is a larger region with significant natural boundaries: the tidal River Avon to the north, the River Axe and marshy Somerset Levels to the south, the wooded clay belt of the

This study does not consider the Neolithic evidence from the (central) Somerset Levels, lying to the south of the region under consideration. This is deliberate, for this area has long been the focus of research and excavation

1

2

The likelihood of Fairy’s Toot actually having had sixteen chambers will be discussed in Chapter 3.

The Rev. John Skinner was a local antiquarian who held the living of Camerton, Somerset from 1800 until 1836.

1

0

50

100 km

Bounda ries revised to April 2001 Crown copyrigh t 2001

County map of Somerset, showing study area Location of Somerset

Topographical map of Northern Somerset, showing major towns and cities

Figure 1.1: Location of Northern Somerset © Crown Copyright/database Right 2005. An Ordnance Survey/ EDINA supplied service.

2

3

Figure 1.2: Northern Somerset, showing major topographic features © Crown Copyright/database Right 2005. An Ordnance Survey/ EDINA supplied service.

and our understanding of the Neolithic exploitation of this particular landscape is rather good. By contrast, our understanding of Neolithic activities in the hills and valleys north of the levels is fragmentary and unsatisfactory. By targeting this area specifically, it will prove possible in the future to develop a more holistic view of the upland/lowland relationship.

environmental record for the Neolithic of the region is highlighted and the consequences of this on this research. All sites of Neolithic date that have yielded environmental data are discussed and an interpretation of the Neolithic environment is offered. Chapter Three Chapter Three provides an overview of all certain and probable Early Neolithic mortuary monuments in the region. Each monument is considered in detail, including a summary of all previous excavations and reinterpretations based on the excavation archives. Antiquarian accounts are analysed and different accounts of the same monuments through time contrasted. This chapter also includes the results of new fieldwork, including earthwork and geophysical survey findings and aerial photographic analysis. The varied nature and survival of the mortuary monuments is stressed and the lack of modern excavations highlighted. The chapter finishes with a consideration of the Pen Hill long mound; both bank barrow and pillow mound interpretations are questioned on the grounds of new fieldwork results and the need for targeted excavation highlighted.

This then is to be a landscape study of a region with significant natural boundaries, a relatively homogenous region with rich and varied natural resources. The sites and monuments of this region will be investigated and a new interpretation of northern Somerset during the Neolithic offered. A contention central to this work is that this was not a marginal region during the Neolithic; indeed quite the opposite is suggested. By the end of the Late Neolithic the archaeological evidence points to an intensively exploited landscape, with some evidence for careful management of the varied resources (e.g. the late occurrence of auroch in the region might suggest woodland habitat management). Prior to this study, such ‘evidence’ has never been collated and critically examined in its entirety. Chapter Breakdown

Chapter Four This chapter provides an analysis and interpretation of the results drawn from Chapter Four. The physical characteristics of the mortuary monuments within northern Somerset are considered, including dimensions, orientations, shape, chamber types, construction materials, the nature of the funerary rituals and the landscape setting of the monuments. The possibility that the region contains both megalithic and non-megalithic long barrows, and the significance of this, is explored.

Chapter One This first chapter has suggested that the archaeology of northern Somerset has been neglected in studies of the British Neolithic, being seen as the 'poor neighbour' of Wessex with only a few sites worthy of interest. It is argued that, to the contrary, northern Somerset is a region rich in sites and finds dating to the Neolithic, the aim of this research being to present and interpret the data. It is suggested that northern Somerset is defined by significant natural boundaries and that these enclose an area with a certain degree of landscape homogeneity. This 'landscape unit' is taken as the basis for this study. Much information has been gathered, including the discovery of new sites and monuments and the re-discovery of old ones, all crucial to understanding the Neolithic of the region. It is proposed that intensive, small-scale studies, such as this one, are essential in furthering our understanding of the Neolithic and moving away from all-encompassing explanations. Finally, Chapter One considers the history of archaeological research into Neolithic sites in the region and sets out the landscape methodology used in this work.

Chapter Five Chapter Five examines the evidence for Late Neolithic monumental activity, in the form of henges and stone circles. Results of new fieldwork, including earthwork and geophysical surveys, are presented and old excavations re-interpreted. A new analysis of the enigmatic Priddy Circles is given, arguing strongly for a Neolithic date for these monuments. The Stanton Drew complex is considered and a sequence for monument construction on the site suggested. The variety of stone types used in the construction of the Stanton Drew stone circles is also examined and reasons for their selection discussed. Other sites previously suggested as henges and stone circles are considered and some are rejected. The henges are also analysed as a group and details of entrance orientation, altitude and diameter summarised. Lastly, the idea that large henges may have been sited for accessibility (Bradley 1998) is considered in relation to the Priddy Circles and Stanton Drew and argued to be distinctly possible.

Chapter Two Chapter Two provides an introduction to the physical landscape of northern Somerset. It describes the four main limestone upland ridges that dominate the region and the valleys and levels between them. The geology and soils of northern Somerset are outlined and some of the modern day land-use described. The region is wellwatered and it's main rivers are described and their navigability (in the past and the present) considered. The second half of the chapter is concerned with the Neolithic environment of northern Somerset. The dismal

Chapter Six This chapter is concerned with pits and postholes of Neolithic date. It considers each example known from the region and also discusses them chronologically. One

4

site, Abbey Quarry, is discussed in greater detail due to the more modern excavation of the site. Theories put forward to explain pit excavation and deposition are reviewed and Thomas’s idea of these activities commemorating events and creating meaning is followed (Thomas 1999).

Regional Neolithics Britain at around 4000BC was not a unified cultural province that decided en-masse to become 'Neolithic'. Different groups undoubtedly responded to new social, cultural, economic and ideological conditions in different ways and at slightly different times. Certainly, the evidence suggests that many communities created their own “Neolithic”, rather than adopting what has traditionally been viewed as the full “Neolithic Package”. As Thomas argues there was more than one Neolithic, just as there was more than one Mesolithic (Thomas 1988a). In many areas of Britain, pastoralism and a shifting settlement pattern were more common than permanent agricultural settlements. In other places natural features either took the place of or became incorporated into monuments. By the end of the Neolithic, most communities in Britain had adopted some of the Neolithic traits with which we are so familiar though this still changed from region to region. The supposed homogeneity of the surviving material record blinds us to these variations; monuments are forced into nation-wide categories, pots and lithics into typologies and the whole becomes the blueprint for the British Neolithic sequence. Local adaptations and cultural practices become lost in the quest for the bigger picture and superficial conformity more important. Regional studies go some way to rectifying these problems. Examining in detail localised responses to the Neolithic phenomenon allows contradictions, similarities and comparisons to be drawn out. These ultimately allow the 'big picture' to be modified and introduce a degree of caution, highlighting the danger of allowing the practices of one region to dominate interpretations of the whole period. The wealth of monuments and artefacts from Wessex may be the result of an extremely localised response to “being Neolithic” that is not representative of the rest of southern England, let alone Britain.

Chapter Seven After the previous considerations of monuments, Chapter Seven focuses on the use of natural places during the Neolithic of northern Somerset. Two forms of natural places are considered - caves and swallets. Caves are analysed first, each cave containing Neolithic deposits considered individually. The poor standard of cave excavation is highlighted and the limitations that this places on the data considered. A possible change from ritual centred activities to domestic centred activities in caves is argued to take place between the Early and Late Neolithic. Finally, the cave information is summarised and the different artefact associations discussed. Swallets, discussed next, contain materials indicating a climax of deposition in the Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age. Using the evidence from several sites it is argued that swallets were being used for deliberate ritual deposition during these periods. A link between swallets and monuments is also made, both in terms of the material placed within them and their spatial relationship in the landscape. The possibility of the chthonic 'cults' of the Iron Age and Roman periods having a much earlier origin is also considered. Chapter Eight Chapter Eight is the final consideration of data from the region, concentrating upon lithic scatters. Whilst it is acknowledged that lithic scatters are a notoriously complex class of 'site' to interpret, they offer one of the only ways of examining the wider landscape. The availability of raw materials, suitable for tool making, in northern Somerset is discussed and it is concluded that in the Neolithic most flint was imported, although it is possible to document small-scale utilisation of more local materials. Flint scatters in the region with a national grid reference and containing over 50 items are considered, and broad dates assigned on typological indicators. A number of case studies are then presented: six flint scatters found close to Neolithic monuments. These were chosen to test ideas of 'sacred space' around monuments and illustrated instead that a variety of activities were taking place. The division between ritual and domestic is suggested to be of a much more complex nature than simple opposition.

Whilst regional systems may be in evidence during the Neolithic, there is, however, little doubt that contact with the wider world was also fundamental to social and economic life. It would have been necessary to look beyond the local community for many resources – an exchange of marriage partners, new livestock, raw materials and prestige items to name but a few. Northern Somerset was no different in this respect, with archaeological evidence existing of contact and exchange with other regions. Most notable is the presence of flint for tools and suitable stone for axeheads, neither of which occur naturally within the study area. Products of northern Somerset origin are also found in other regions, for example oolite walling in many of the Avebury megalithic tombs, oolitic inclusions in pottery at the Windmill Hill and Hambledon Hill causewayed enclosures and Old Red Sandstone rubbers and querns at many Neolithic sites in Wessex. An awareness of natural boundaries may have encouraged regionality but certainly did not prohibit contact with the wider world.

Chapter Nine Chapter 9 summarises the interpretations that have been put forward in this work and recounts the main points from each chapter. It concludes that studying northern Somerset as a ‘natural’ region has been a useful way of analysing large amounts of detailed (similar) data, but highlights the many contacts between northern Somerset and ‘outside’ regions in the Neolithic.

5

barrows were surveyed at a scale of 1:200, using an Electronic Distance Measurer. The earthwork surveys provide a clearer insight into the physical form of the monuments than can be obtained by merely reading a description. Accurate measurements taken using the EDM make it possible, for the first time, to compare the monument forms within the study area with those from other parts of Britain. Surveying the sites has also enabled certain, site specific, questions to be addressed. A common problem with the identification of long barrows in northern Somerset is the possibility of confusing them with plough damaged, misshapen round barrows and a careful, detailed survey can help with the identification.

Methodology This study is concerned with the period 4000 – 2000 BC, corresponding to an ‘Age of Monumentality’ in British prehistory. Within this great time span, two distinct monumental episodes can be recognised, corresponding traditionally with the Early Neolithic and Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age. In brief, monuments that connect public ritual with human remains, perhaps a form of ‘ancestor cult’, represent the Early Neolithic tradition whilst a division between monuments with a public focus and monuments with a funerary focus represents the Later Neolithic/Early Bronze Age. Whilst it is suggested that monuments fall into ‘Earlier’ and ‘Later’ periods it is accepted that these are overlapping traditions, illustrated by the occurrence of late long barrows and early henges. Nonetheless, evidence from northern Somerset suggests a relatively straightforward linear sequence of monumental construction of long barrow - henge - stone circle - round barrow and this will provide the inspiration for the way this research is laid out. It will take a chronological approach, beginning with mortuary monuments and ending with stone circles. There is a need to appreciate the context in which each successive phase of monument building was carried out so it is deemed essential to this study to take a historical, linear approach to the data. If a thematic, rather than chronological, stance were adopted it would be harder to appreciate the effect existing monuments may have had on new monuments.

The earthwork surveys are also important as they provide a permanent record of the site. This is significant as some of the monuments are ploughed several times a year and are being systematically destroyed (see, for example, Brays Down, Big Tree and the Devil's Bed & Bolster long barrows). Likewise, cross-referencing the surveys with antiquarian accounts of the monuments allow an appreciation of the rate of destruction that has occurred at certain sites. • Geophysical Survey Two forms of geophysical survey have been undertaken, the first method using a resistivity meter, the second a fluxgate gradiometer. Geophysical survey has proved to be of immense value in researching prehistoric monuments in northern Somerset. Though only carried out at a small number of sites due to the time involved in obtaining permissions, licenses and actually doing the survey, the results illustrate the enormous potential of the method. Firstly, it can determine the status of a monument without recourse to excavation. This is especially useful when the potential exists for confusion between long barrows and misshapen round barrows (see above). Secondly, it can reveal structural details such as chambers, pits and ditches that help in the interpretation of a site. Many monuments have also been somewhat reduced in size, mainly due to stone robbing and ploughing, and geophysical survey can detect their original extent. Lastly, it can discover the level of interference at a monument and can, for example, allow an insight into the extent of antiquarian excavations. This is illustrated by the results from the Brays Down long barrow, where resistivity has detected the Rev. Skinner’s excavation ‘pit’ of 1815.

Monuments are important to this research as they often represent the best surviving data from the Neolithic. Taphonomic processes mean that interpretations of other classes of evidence from this period - artefact scatters, caves, environmental evidence – can be besought with problems. Yet whilst monuments will be pivotal to this consideration of Neolithic northern Somerset, the evidence from pits, caves and lithic scatters will be fundamental in broadening and deepening our understanding of the activities of Neolithic people. The methodologies adopted in this research had therefore to be appropriate to the different types of evidence investigated whilst the interpretations offered do attempt to be explicit in highlighting the limitations of the data. The starting point for this research was, unsurprisingly, the records of the various county SMR databases (Somerset, North Somerset, Bath and North East Somerset). Though by no means comprehensive, the information gathered from these sources provided the basic building blocks for much of the subsequent work.

• Fieldwalking Fieldwalking is notorious for generating as many questions as answers and the problems implicit in its use are much debated (Haselgrove et al 1985, Schofield 1991a). Nonetheless, it is one of the better methods for understanding the context of monuments. A fundamental question that must be asked when studying monuments is how they 'fitted in' with their contemporary landscape. It is difficult to believe that ritual and domestic activities occupied divorced physical spheres during the Neolithic.

Primary Fieldwork • Earthwork Survey An effort has been made to carry out earthwork surveys at all the extant long barrows in the study area.3 All of the 3

Despite repeated attempts, permission could not be obtained to include two long barrows that lie on the Waldegrave Estate, in the parish of Chewton Mendip.

6

Fieldwalking is one of the better ways of testing concepts of ritual exclusivity.

useful in identifying parallel ditches at several long barrows4 and confirming the extent of monuments, prior to modern plough damage. Aerial photographs can also reveal destroyed monuments, such as the two long barrows detected by Grinsell (1971), at Hillgrove and Haydon Drove. Once again, analysis of aerial photographs is best undertaken in conjunction with other methods, to confirm the results on the ground.

Fieldwalking has been a popular activity in the study area, especially on West Mendip, for at least the last one hundred years. However, little has been collected systematically and recorded accurately. Local museums are crammed with flints, labelled simply with the date of collection and the parish it was found in. Though huge collections of flint, seemingly suitable for in-depth study, do exist this lack of context for many collections limits their value. When systematically collected and recorded the data can be used to test landscape models, as will be done here when possible. Without such information its use is more confined but could potentially form the basis of studies where direst provenance is not so crucial. Such work might include research in to the source of raw materials, highly relevant to an area such as Somerset with no naturally occurring flint, and analysis of technological change through time. Such work lies beyond the confines of this study but highlights the potential for poorly recorded collections.

• Antiquarian Research Between the 17th and 19th centuries, many of the monuments in Somerset were subject to antiquarian description and investigation, detailed below in the section 'A History of Archaeological Research'. The corpus of information recorded by antiquarians has proved to be of immense value to this research. Many of the sites described have since been destroyed and are omitted from discussions of monuments in northern Somerset. A re-reading of antiquarian accounts has meant many supposed gaps in the distribution of monuments in northern Somerset have been filled in. The records made during the destruction of monuments also provide information on the structure of monuments and finds from them. This is illustrated by a quote from Strachey, describing the Orchardleigh long barrow:

Although better-catalogued flint collections do exist, they are in the minority. Where possible they have been consulted. Due to the lack of rigorously collected data, it was necessary to undertake a selective program of fieldwalking around a small number of sites in the study area. This information could then be used to answer questions about what the flints may represent and whether the concept of exclusivity is a valid one.

"Composed of small stones but turfed over. Some years ago viz 1724 or 1725, taking away several loads to mend ye highway the workmen discovered the bones of a large man by several smaller skulls, lying in a sort of chest having two great rude stones at head and feet, two side stones and a coverer. Some say a great number of bones. The barrow is overall, has a pit or hollow in ye top...and at ye east end are now remaining two upright stones about 3ft high which if opened might probably discover such another chest of skeletons." (Somerset County Record Office, John Strachey notes 1737 DD.SH 107-108)

• Geographical Information Systems (GIS) One of the problems with regional studies is how to spatially present the data. Northern Somerset has a high concentration of monuments within a relatively small total area and this data has been presented with the aid of GIS. The required information can then be shown on a digital elevation model of northern Somerset. As well as its use in showing landscape ‘trends’ it will also have the advantage of standardising the way visual information is presented.

Monuments wrongly interpreted by the antiquarian can be re-analysed, if the records are of sufficient detail. Bere’s assertion that Fairy’s Toot long barrow contained sixteen chambers is still reproduced in certain works today. A closer reading of the original account illustrates that Bere’s assertion was conjectural, based on how many chambers would fit into the entire length of the barrow, if they ran from end to end (my emphasis). He also confused parts of the passage of the long barrow with chambers, due to it containing skeletons.

Secondary Sources • Aerial Photographic Interpretation Collections of aerial photographs that cover the study area are held at the National Monuments Records Office in Swindon and also at the North Somerset, Bath and North East Somerset and Somerset SMR offices. Both oblique and vertical coverage exists, mainly dating between the 1940s and 1980s. The University of Bristol Spelaeological Society also has a run of 1946 vertical aerial photographs that totally cover the West Mendip plateau. Oblique aerial photographs in the private collection of Jim Hancock, taken during the 1960s and 1970s, have also been consulted.

The antiquarian account can sometimes give details on the treatment and history of a site. Aubrey’s description of how Stanton Drew stood in a field of ripe barley in 1664 (quoted in Long 1858) is of relevance here as it informs us that the site has been ploughed and cultivated in the past. Such information might prove useful in estimating the level of disturbance at the monument. It may also imply that the ditch surrounding the site,

Analysis of aerial photographs can result in the detection of features not visible on the ground. This has proved

4

7

For example, Felton Common and Pen Hill.

recently revealed by geophysics, was infilled by this date. None of the antiquarians who visited the site noted a ditch, and it might be possible that it was deliberately infilled in prehistory, perhaps during the ‘lithicisation’ phase.

apparently unknown excavations. For want of indexes, it has been necessary to read complete runs of certain journals to gather these ‘nuggets’ of information. The method has proved most useful in increasing the number of flint and stone axe-heads recorded for northern Somerset. Once more, it has proved possible to ‘fill in gaps’ using the information obtained from these resources.

Records of excavation, especially those made by Skinner, have proved very useful, due to the lack of modern excavations in northern Somerset. Skinner carried out most of the excavations in the region, mainly between 1805 and 1825. Although his excavation methods were suspect and his interpretations sometimes wild, his diaries contain descriptions and illustrations that are invaluable. Unfortunately, the vast majority of burials and artefacts discovered by Skinner have been lost, making his diaries of even greater significance. They are of inestimable value to scholars of prehistoric and Roman Somerset.

The above discussions have outlined the way the data necessary for this research has been compiled. The combination of primary fieldwork, secondary sources and a broader comparative framework has provided the ideal methodology for the landscape study undertaken. A regional study could not be attempted without possession of such information. It is impossible to expect that all the evidence for Neolithic activity in northern Somerset has been recovered as undoubtedly countless sites have been destroyed and many more still await discovery. Nonetheless, the author is convinced that the data presented in this work form an adequate representation of the period under question and that enough exists to attempt a regional study. The ‘landscape’ methodology that has been chosen here both informs and fits the landscape models that will be proposed. The vast quantities of data generated, of varying degrees of usefulness, allows for the first time the kind of in-depth investigation of Neolithic northern Somerset previously not possible.

• Museum and Private Collections Material relevant to this study is held in a number of local museums. The material consulted has mainly consisted of flint and stone artefacts, though pottery has also been studied. Some collections had not been previously catalogued: when it was considered important to this research new classifications were carried out by the author. Numerous collections are in private hands and it has proved possible to access some of these. However, unauthorised fieldwalking is a common activity, especially on West Mendip, and it is impossible to gauge just how much material exists in private ownership. Obviously, it is rare for such finds to be published or reported to relevant authorities. Distribution maps of flint finds should always consider this limitation. Nonetheless, information from museum and private collection can be used in conjunction with the fieldwalking results generated from fieldwork by the author. Plotting the distribution of provenanced scatters of suitable size allows an insight into how the prehistoric landscape was used and how this may relate to monuments in northern Somerset.

A History of Archaeological Research The Neolithic sites of northern Somerset have been subject to a variety of antiquarian, spelaeological and archaeological investigations during the past four hundred years. The investigations were of varying quality and in many ways more dependent on the individual than the age in which they were working. It is remarkable that this long history of research begins to peter out during the latter part of the 20th century and, with one or two notable exceptions, very few individuals have been actively engaged with Neolithic research since the 1950s. Indeed, the picture of prehistoric northern Somerset prevalent in archaeological literature today is still largely based upon work carried out in the 19th century. The impact of such investigations warrants a discussion of the major contributors to Somerset archaeology and an assessment of the value of their work.

• Literature Review (‘Local’ Books and Journals) An enormous number of local books and journals have been consulted during this research, dating from the 19th century to the present day. Contained within their pages lie excavation reports, fieldwalking details (generally not systematic collection), accounts of site visits with detailed descriptions, and discoveries of new monuments. This has proved a rich and unexpected resource resulting in a positive impact on the quantity and quality of field data. Much of the information in the earlier books and volumes, especially 19th and early 20th century publications, is not recorded elsewhere. The SMR extracts obtained from the various local councils generally do not include these early findings. It has been possible to compile a vast corpus of invaluable information from these publications, including details of

The Antiquarians • John Aubrey (1626-1697) Aubrey appears to have been the first antiquarian to take an interest into the archaeology of the region and to him goes the honour of ‘discovering’ the stone circles at Stanton Drew in 1664. Upon visiting his grandmother who lived in a nearby parish to Stanton Drew, he was told of the circles and records:

8

“Twas a strange chance, you may say that I should come to this old Monument, which lies so very obscure in a place far away from any great Roads”. (Aubrey 1665, quoted in Burl 1999: 50)

Pythagorean System of the Planetary World’ (Wood 1747, quoted in Burl 1999: 51). Interestingly, Wood surveyed Stanton Drew and appears to have based the layout of the Circus at Bath on its exact proportions (Mowl 1988). Wood’s obsession with antiquities also saw him attempt to include either a real or artificial monument within sight of the country houses he was responsible for designing around Bath (T. Mowl pers. comm).

Aubrey sketched the circles but his plans were not clear due to the effects of agricultural cultivation and rural destruction (Burl 1999: 50). His main contribution to the archaeology of the region was this ‘discovery’ of Stanton Drew, but he also visited and recorded some of the other antiquities of the region such as a dilapidated burial chamber at Bannerdown, near Bath, since destroyed (Fowles & Legg 1980).

The 19th Century The 19th century marks the end of the work of the antiquarians, predominantly concerned with observing and recording, and the beginning of archaeological investigation with an emphasis upon excavation. It is this period that saw an intensity of archaeological activity that has not since been matched in the county.

• John Strachey (1671-1743) Of all the early antiquarians working in northern Somerset John Strachey was undoubtedly the most prolific. However, the work of this ‘affable country gentleman’ (Williams 1987a: 39) is still relatively unknown, probably because so little of it has appeared in print. Much of what we know about Strachey’s work in the region is the result of research by Williams (1987a and 1987b) and it is his findings that are summarised here.

•

Sir Richard Colt-Hoare (1758-1838) and Philip Crocker (1780-1840) The work of these two men was intertwined, as Crocker was Colt-Hoare’s draughtsman. Both travelled quite extensively around Mendip, often by invitation of the Rev. John Skinner (see below). They recorded many barrows and antiquities in the region, as well as following the course of the Roman road to Charterhouse. ColtHoare’s most famous contribution to Mendip archaeology was his involvement with the chambered long barrow, Stoney Littleton. It was first visited by Colt-Hoare in 1807 who later described it as one of the most perfect specimens of the stone long barrow in Britain. ColtHoare returned to Stoney Littleton with Skinner in 1816 and it was decided that Skinner would 'explore' the barrow. Colt-Hoare was responsible for the publication of the excavation and his plans and accounts appeared in Archaeologia in 1817. He acted as Skinner’s mentor and variously encouraged and attempted to contain his archaeological activities.

Strachey held estates in the parishes of Chew Magna, Elm and Buckland Dinham and it was in these areas that his work was concentrated. He was a pioneer geologist and astute landscape observer, with an interest in antiquities (Williams 1987a: 39). Strachey was also a careful cartographer and produced the first large scale map of Somerset, as well as a detailed survey of Stanton Drew (ibid.). Indeed, it was Strachey who introduced William Stukeley to the site in 1723, who also sketched the ‘lunar, solar and planetary temples’ of Stanton Drew. Strachey’s records give details on the preservation, presentation and destruction of many Neolithic and Bronze Age sites in the early 18th century. This is exemplified by his discussion of the Orchardleigh chambered tomb, quoted in Chapter Two. He also commented upon many of the caves of Mendip, including Wookey Hole, Goatchurch Cavern and many caves at Cheddar (Williams 1987b: 57). The ambition of Strachey was to publish a complete physical and historical description of the county but this did not materialise due to his age and financial circumstances (ibid.).

Crocker, who lived in the town of Frome on East Mendip, was also involved in his own excavations in the region. It was he who first excavated the chambered long barrow on Murty Hill in 1803/4. However, his methods seem more in common with Skinner’s than with Colt-Hoare’s, as he spent a mere four hours investigating the site. The work of Crocker and Colt-Hoare in Somerset was much more limited than their work in Wessex but they represent probably the first archaeological excavators in the region.

• John Wood (1728-1781) Bath architect John Wood the younger was another who was drawn to the site of Stanton Drew. Wood believed that Stanton Drew was a University for Druids, with Wookey Hole as their initiation centre. He argued that the university had four outlying colleges: the round barrows at Harptree, an institution for poets and bards; the megaliths of Exmoor, the centre for priests practising human sacrifice to obtain prophecies; Stonehenge where druids conjured up spirits; and Avebury the college for philosophers (Burl 1999: 51). Wood concluded that ‘The Works of Stantondrue form a perfect Model of the

• Rev. John Skinner (1772-1839) The Rev. John Skinner held the living of Camerton, Somerset from 1800 until 1836. He was a great friend of many of the local antiquaries including Sir Richard ColtHoare by whom he was heavily influenced. Encouraged by Colt-Hoare and others, Skinner embarked upon a programme of archaeological investigation concentrated in the south of England, though Somerset, as his home

9

county, was his main focus. The investigations took the form of detailed descriptions of archaeological sites and excavations at many of them. All were recorded in his journals, along with records of tours and parochial matters. The journals are profusely illustrated with watercolour drawings, and in a few instances with engravings, of the places visited and antiquities discovered. Skinner bequeathed his journals to the British Museum, on the condition they were to remain unopened for fifty years. The 98 volumes of notes, sketches and diaries have never been published and are now held in the Department of Manuscripts at the British Library.

Scarth also wrote at length on the origins and functions of monuments, with special reference to Somerset. His preoccupation with the antiquity of monuments led to him concluding, in 1859, that long barrows were older than round barrows. The 20th Century The early half of the 20th century saw a continuation of excavation and fieldwork in the region, carried out by spelaeologists as well as archaeologists. The standard of work varied greatly: compare the rather haphazard barrow excavations carried out in the 1920s by the University of Bristol Spelaeological Society to the meticulous research of Wicks. Few excavations of sites of Neolithic date have taken place since the 1950s. Instead there has been a greater emphasis on nondestructive fieldwork and research, typified by the work of Leslie Grinsell.

It is difficult to underestimate the contribution Skinner made to Neolithic and Bronze Age archaeology in Somerset. It appears that he may have excavated between one-fifth and one- quarter of the round barrows on Mendip, as well as excavating many of the long barrows. His excavations began around 1803 and continued until shortly before his suicide in 1839. His archaeological work was not as good as that by ColtHoare: his excavations were usually carried out by miners who were told to halt once they found ashes, urns or bones; the excavations themselves often lasted only a few hours; he did not make adequate plans of his excavations and his operations seemed to be tinged with treasure hunting fervour. Indeed, this is often what they were as in later years Skinner was involved in collecting antiquities for Bishop Law who, around 1826, founded a private museum in the crypt of the Bishops Palace in Wells. He urged Skinner to collect material for him and thus many important sites such as the Ashen Hill/Priddy Nine Barrows and the Beacon Batch round barrows were plundered for artefacts and bones. Upon Law’s death the contents of the museum appear to have been dispersed and it has not proved possible to trace them.

H.E. Balch (1869-1958) The work of Balch spans the late 19th and early 20th centuries. His contribution to Mendip archaeology, geology and spelaeology was vast. Balch virtually formed Wells Museum and was its curator for sixty years, whilst holding down a job as postmaster at Wells. He was a founder member of the Wells Natural History and Archaeology Society as well as holding posts on the boards of the local societies, such as the Mendip Nature Research Committee and the Wessex Caving Club, of which he was President. His archaeological work encompassed a variety of activities: he was a flint collector, he studied barrows and earthworks and most famously, he dug for archaeological material in many caves, including Outlook Cave, Little Shelter, Kid’s Hole, Savory’s Hole, Soldier’s Hole, Bridged Pot, Badger Hole and Beaker Shelter (all Ebbor Gorge). He also dug extensively at Wookey Hole and Hyaena Den, and was involved in the Chelmscombe Cave (Cheddar Gorge) excavations.

The work of Skinner is somewhat of a mixed blessing to scholars of Somerset prehistory. His work may have been haphazard but his journals do at least contain much valuable information about the excavations and detailed accounts of the sites he visited. His interpretations were often wild – he attempted to prove that Camerton was Camulodunum and that Temple Cloud was named from a temple of the Emperor Claudius (Grinsell 1971: 30) – but Skinner’s remarkable journals and diaries are his redeeming grace.

One of the main problems with Balch’s work is that he did not appreciate the importance of stratification and thus generally failed to record layering in the caves (Barrington and Stanton 1976). He did however make many sketches and take photographs of the artefacts found. His accounts are summarised in his three books: ‘Mendip-The Great Cave of Wookey Hole’ 1929, ‘Mendip-Cheddar, its Gorge and Caves’ 1935 and ‘Mendip-its Swallets, Caves and Rock Shelters’ 1937. He also published copious notes and short reports in the journals of the Wells Natural History & Archaeological Society, Somerset Archaeology and Natural History Society and the University of Bristol Spelaeological Society.

Rev. H.M Scarth (1814-1890) The Rev. Scarth, Rector of Wrington, is not so important for his limited barrow excavations but for his detailing of old, unpublished excavations. Indeed, Scarth was responsible for describing in print much of Skinner’s work and constantly emphasising the importance of the unpublished manuscripts. To Scarth goes the honour of saving Stoney Littleton chambered tomb, which had fallen into severe disrepair after Skinner’s excavation. Scarth lobbied the landowner and eventually raised the money for the restoration of the tomb in 1858.

A.T. Wicks (1880-1960) Wicks was a contemporary and friend of Balch and shared his passion for the archaeology of Mendip. He was a master at Monkton Combe School and did an

10

enormous amount of fieldwork from 1910 onwards, much of it on behalf of the Wells Natural History & Archaeological Society and the Mendip Nature Research Committee (Grinsell 1971:77). Wicks was largely concerned with finding and recording barrows on Mendip. Of special significance is his work on the Skinner manuscripts: Wicks attempted to identify all the barrows previously found and excavated by Skinner. He worked his way through all hundred volumes of the Skinner manuscripts in the British Museum, laboriously copying all references to barrows on and around Mendip. He also researched Tithe and Estate Maps of Mendip for fieldnames indicating barrows. Between 1911 and 1924, Wicks increased the number of known barrows on central Mendip from 71 to 226 (ibid.). Grinsell’s 1971 barrow list is partly based on the work of Wicks, whom he fully acknowledges in the said work. Wicks’ manuscripts are now housed in Wells Museum.

E.K. Tratman (1899-1978) Tratman was almost a founding member of the University of Bristol Spelaeological Society. Like Balch, Tratman’s two loves were spelaeology and the archaeology of Mendip and these interests were sometimes combined in cave excavations (e.g. Read’s Cavern, Sun Hole). Tratman was also involved in the excavations at the henge monuments at Gorsey Bigbury and the Priddy Circles. However, perhaps even more important than his excavation contributions were his extensive fieldwork articles, published mainly in the Proceedings of the University of Bristol Spelaeological Society between 1922 and 1973. Tratman was responsible for discovering numerous archaeological sites, including many of Neolithic date. Precise national grid references were given for each site, along with a description, measurement and sometimes a plan. Tratman also compiled extensive barrow lists for northern Somerset, giving each barrow a T number as an identifier. Grinsell lists all the T numbers alongside his own in his 1971 barrow list. Tratman was involved in the excavation and discovery of sites other than Neolithic and Bronze Age, from the Palaeolithic to the Roman. At a more specialised level, as a Professor of Dentistry, he also undertook the identification and examination of teeth found during excavations.

H. St George Gray (1872-1963) St George Gray is perhaps more famous for his excavations at the Glastonbury Lake Villages and his curatorship of Taunton Museum in 1901 than his work on Mendip. However in 1920 he re-excavated the Murty Hill chambered tomb (St George Gray 1921). In common with his work elsewhere, the results were promptly and accurately published and are of a high enough standard to be re-interpreted. As well as Neolithic sites on Mendip, Gray was involved in the excavation of later sites, such as the Kingsdown Camp Iron Age enclosure and several round barrows. Gray was also Assistant Secretary of the Somerset Archaeology and Natural History Society and Director of Excavations of the Somerset Earthworks Committee.

L.V. Grinsell (1907-1995) Grinsell’s fame and success as a barrow recorder needs no introduction. His lists of long and round barrows cover fifteen counties in Southern England. Not only did he cover dimensions and classifications but also barrow names and folklore, early published references, details of finds, and the state of monuments at the time of visit (Bristol & Avon Archaeology 1994/95: 76). His comprehensive list of North Somerset barrows was published in 1971 and updated in 1987. Grinsell was responsible for the rediscovery of hundreds of round barrows in the region. He was present a few minutes after Atkinson’s remarkable finding of carvings on the sarsens at Stonehenge and was promptly inspired to discover Somerset’s only rock art, the carved feet on the slab from the Pool Farm cist (Grinsell: 1957(b)). Grinsell was the Curator of Archaeology and Ethnography at Bristol City Museum between 1952-1972, yet his barrow contributions were made in his own spare time. He was a founding member of the Bristol and Avon Archaeological Society, or the Bristol Archaeological Research Group as it was called when formed in 1962, and was the first editor of its newsletter.

A. Bulleid (1862-1951) Bulleid, like Gray, is more traditionally associated with his work at the Glastonbury Lake Villages than research on Mendip. Although he did undertake excavations in this region, often in partnership with Father Ethelbert Horne of Downside Abbey, he concentrated more on observing and recording sites in northern Somerset, particularly on surveying and photographing them. Bulleid published an important article in 1941, entitled ‘Notes on some Chambered Long Barrows in North Somerset’, essentially the first detailed publication of long barrows and their excavations in the region. He was damning of poor research and personally made plans of the excavation of the Giant’s Grave long barrow, Charmborough in 1909 as the excavator, Wickham, had no intention of doing so. Like Wicks, Bulleid also made lists of the round barrows in the region. He was a member of the Society of Antiquaries from 1896, secretary of the Somerset Earthworks Committee founded in 1914 and elected Vice-President of the Somerset Archaeological & Natural History Society in 1924.

As well as his love of field archaeology, Grinsell was a keen Egyptologist and numismatician. He was a prolific writer and is the author of many books, articles and pamphlets on a diversity of topics. It is only very recently that his 1956 guide to the stone circles at Stanton Drew has been replaced (Lewis 2002).

11

SOCIETY Axbridge Archaeological & Natural History Society Bath & Camerton Archaeological Society Bristol & Avon Archaeological Society Banwell Society of Archaeology Bristol & Gloucestershire Archaeological Society Clevedon & District Archaeological Society Folk House Archaeological Society Frome Society for Local Study Severn Estuary Levels Research Committee North Somerset Archaeological Research Group Somerset Archaeological & Natural History Society University of Bristol Spelaeological Society Wells Natural History & Archaeological Society Weston Super Mare Archaeological & Natural History Society

YEAR OF FOUNDATION 1950 1950 1963 1958 1876 1938 1951 1958 1990 1964 1849 1919 1887 1955

Table 1: Societies involved in archaeological work in northern Somerset

existence. The earliest guide to Somerset was Collinson’s ‘History and Antiquities of the County of Somerset’ published in 1791. Volume 2 included a discussion of prehistoric monuments including Stanton Drew. Four guides were published between 1821 and 1836. Greenwood’s ‘Somersetshire Delineated’ (1821) and Rutters’s ‘Delineations of the North West Division of the County of Somerset’ (1829) were both parish by parish lists and included information on antiquities. Seyer’s ‘Memoirs Historical and Topographical of Bristol and its Neighbourhood’ (1821) and Phelps’ ‘History and Antiquities of Somersetshire’ (1836) were both concerned with the history of the county and both contained long sections on prehistoric remains.

Local Archaeological Societies & Other Interested Groups Many groups and societies have undertaken excavation, fieldwork and other forms of research in northern Somerset. For sake of clarity, the active societies are summarised in table form (see table 1). Those societies that have been most active in northern Somerset are, perhaps unsurprisingly, the oldest: the Somerset Archaeological & Natural History Society (SANHS), the University of Bristol Spelaeological Society (UBSS) and the Wells Natural History & Archaeological Society (WNHAS). Members, indeed presidents, of these three societies have been mentioned but many others were involved in excavation and research. The archaeological work carried out by UBSS has generally included more excavation of Neolithic and Bronze Age sites and monuments than the other two societies. Important excavations include the round barrows above Burrington Coombe and at Tynings Farm, the henge monuments of Gorsey Bigbury and the Priddy Circles and many caves and rock shelters on Mendip. The 1920s to 1950s were when the society was most actively involved in archaeological excavations. The earliest excavations were not of a particularly high quality but by the 1950s they were much better. Nearly all of the excavations have been published in the society’s proceedings. County Guides

The Victoria County History for Somerset was published in 1906. Its account of the archaeology of the region is similar to the county guides of the 19th century, though there is a general overview to the prehistory of the region with more details in the parish entries. However, the VCH is still incomplete and the coverage is more extensive for southern Somerset than northern Somerset. Modern Guides There have been numerous guides to the archaeology of the region published in the twentieth century. The most famous is Dina Dobson’s ‘Archaeology of Somerset’ (1931), one of the series of county guides intended to cover the whole of England, published by Metheun & Co. These took a chronological approach to the antiquities of a county, beginning with the Palaeolithic and ending with the Norman Conquest. This is an admirable overview of the county, and includes distribution maps and plates. More recent are books such as ‘The Archaeology of Somerset’ (Aston & Burrow 1982) and ‘The Archaeology of Avon’ (Aston & Isles 1987) which stretch up to the post-medieval periods. There are also numerous field

In common with the rest of Britain, the fashion for county guides really took off in Somerset in the nineteenth century. All of the county guides mention antiquities to a greater or lesser extent. They can give an extremely valuable insight into issues such as the condition of the monuments, land-use around the sites and the then current interpretations and explanations for their 12

guides, complete with grid references and parking details, exemplified by Adkins & Adkins ‘A Field Guide to Somerset Archaeology’ (1992). In general the coverage given to the Neolithic and Bronze Age in these works is rather perfunctory, with the standard discussions of Stanton Drew and Stoney Littleton, at the expense of all else. Finally, there is one last work that should be mentioned. This is ‘Mendip Hills: An Archaeological Survey of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty’ written by Peter Ellis in 1992. This report details the archaeological survey of the Mendip Hills AONB, undertaken between 1986 and 1988, sponsored by English Heritage and Avon and Somerset County Councils. Ellis plotted archaeological features from vertical aerial photographs and most of these were then checked on the ground. Twenty-eight new probable Neolithic/Bronze Age sites were discovered as well as over four hundred later ones. The project also makes recommendations for the preservation of archaeology within the AONB and possible research objectives. Three questions were set out for the Neolithic and Bronze Age of the region (Ellis 1992:6): • • •

What was the nature of the early environment? What use was made of the Mendip plateau in the Neolithic? What was the relationship between barrows and settlements?

These are questions that this study, at least in part, attempts to answer.

13

14

Chapter Two: The Topography and Prehistoric Environment of Northern Somerset. meet at Clevedon, separated only by 100m at Swiss Valley. North of this they are separated by a broad sweep of estuarine alluvium and peat, with a few patches of higher land reaching up to 10m AOD. This area, termed the Gordano Valley, is geologically part of the Avonmouth Levels (Rippon, 1997: 35). It is enclosed on three sides by the limestone ridges described above and is open to the River Avon in the north (ibid.).

It is important that an understanding of the topography of the northern Somerset district be arrived at for a landscape study of this kind. This will illustrate not only how different northern Somerset is from its neighbouring regions but also be useful in assessing the relationship between sites and landscape during the Neolithic. As previously stated, in northern Somerset there are four main upland ridges (Failand Ridge, Dundry, Broadfield Down, Mendip) running in a broad east-west direction, separated by river valleys. There are also minor ridges running in different directions and quite extensive areas of low-lying foothills, fringing the uplands (figure 1.2). This discussion will begin with the most northerly of the major ridges.

The Land Yeo Valley Between the Failand Ridge and Broadfield Down is an area of low-lying hills and the valley of the Land Yeo River. Geologically the area is composed of Triassic Keuper Marl, Old Red Sandstone, an outcrop of Upper Coal Measures and, in the west, a large expanse of estuarine alluvium. Brown soils dominate elsewhere and most of the area is grassland, with some areas of horticulture.

The Failand Ridge The Failand Ridge runs from the Avon Gorge in the east to Court Hill, Clevedon in the west, for approximately 15 kilometres. It is narrowest at its western end, measuring only c.800 metres and widest at its eastern where it reaches almost 6 kilometres. The Failand Ridge reaches a height of 164m AOD but much of the plateau undulates between 100 and 150m AOD, becoming lower in the west. The ridge is predominantly Carboniferous Limestone (Black Rock Limestone, Lower Limestone Shale and Clifton Down Limestone) with Old Red Sandstone (Black Nore and Portishead Sandstone) along the northern edges. Between the sandstone and the River Avon is an area of Triassic Dolomitic Conglomerate and Marine Alluvium. The soils on the top of the Failand Ridge are dominated by lithomorphic soils (the common feature of lithomorphic soils is the presence of bedrock at a shallow depth), whereas brown soils have developed on the sandstones (brown soils are rich loess soils). The northern section of the ridge is better watered than the south, with a number of springs, brooks and waterfalls flowing in a northerly direction into the River Avon. Today, approximately one-third of the ridge is forested, a mixture of deciduous and non-deciduous woodland. Other than this, grassland dominates, with some arable farming on the slopes.

The North Somerset Levels The estuarine alluvium, mentioned above, extends westwards for over 5 kilometres before reaching the Bristol Channel. The alluvium is backed by a peat deposit, itself over 1 kilometre wide. This expanse of estuarine alluvium and peat form the beginning of the North Somerset Levels, comprising some c.100 square kilometres in total. The North Somerset Levels are smaller and more low-lying than the Central Somerset Levels, averaging around 5m AOD (Rippon 1997: 33). They stretch from the foot of the Failand Ridge in the north to Bleadon Hill, a western extremity of the Mendip plateau, in the south. They are partly separated from the Bristol Channel by a belt of sand dunes of postPleistocene origin. To the east the low-lying foothills of the limestone uplands border the Levels. Several islands rise from the North Somerset Levels, the most important lying along the coast (ibid.). Worlebury and Middlehope are eroded remnants of east-west Carboniferous Limestone ridges, with lesser Triassic and Jurassic deposits. Further inland are the islands of Nailsea and Kenn; the former composed of Upper Coal Measures and the latter an outcrop of glacial sand and gravel. To the south are some smaller islands, comprising bedrock outcrops at Banwell, Congresbury, Kewstoke and Yatton (ibid.: 34). Several rivers run in an east-west direction across the Levels, the most important being the Congresbury Yeo. The three other smaller rivers are the Land Yeo, mentioned above, the Banwell and the Kenn.

The Clevedon/Portishead Ridge This small ridge runs from Portishead in the north-east to Clevedon in the south-west. It is 8 kilometres long and at its widest point approximately 2 kilometres, though it averages 1 kilometre wide. Its western side makes up cliffs edging the Bristol Channel. Much of the ridge is Old Red Sandstone (Portishead Beds) with Carboniferous Limestone (Black Rock Limestone) forming its eastern edge. It is higher towards the north-east end where it reaches 113m AOD and averages 100m AOD and lowest at the south-west, where it averages 65-75m AOD. Brown soils and lithomorphic soils dominate. The Failand Ridge and the Clevedon/Portishead Ridge almost

Broadfield Down/Dundry Broadfield Down and Dundry though geologically different are almost conjoining, separated only by a narrow band of Lower Lias clay and limestone. Dundry is the furthest east and is a ridge of Inferior Oolite Limestone approximately 6 kilometres long and up to 1.5 kilometres wide. It is highest at the western end, 15

reaching 233m AOD. This is where there are many quarries, for ‘Dundry Stone’ was a prized building material throughout the Medieval and Post-Medieval periods. Lithomorphic soils dominate and today, mixed farming is practised. (Findlay et al 1984: 139). Many springs rise midway down the slopes of Dundry, feeding south into small tributaries of the River Chew and north towards Bristol into a variety of minor streams and brooks. The area between Broadfield Down and Dundry is very well watered, with at least five springs rising and flowing eastwards to join the River Chew.

i) West/ Central Mendip Geologically, the West Mendip plateau is mainly formed of Carboniferous Limestones (Goblin Coombe Oolite, Black Rock and Hotwells Limestones), though the plateau also cuts across Upper Old Red Sandstone (Portishead Beds), Mercia Mudstone (Dolomitic Conglomerate) and Lower Lias (White and Blue Limestone). The highest points are the rounded uplands of Old Red Sandstone, with Black Down reaching 325m AOD. The surface of the plateau is gently undulating with slopes of less than 5 degrees (Findlay 1965) and averages a height of 265 – 300m AOD and a width of 8 kilometres. Rock outcrops on the plateau are rare, except at its edges. Steep escarpments fall either side of the plateau, northwards into the valleys of the River Chew and Yeo and southwards into the valley of the River Axe. A series of coombes and gorges break the escarpments; the most famous are Cheddar and Ebbor Gorges to the south, and Burrington Coombe to the north. Surface water and springs only occur on outcrops of impervious rocks and disappear once the limestone is reached (ibid.). The presence of many dry valleys, running into the coombes and gorges, attest that once at least there was an abundance of water flowing over Mendip. Gravelly head deposits of sandstone and limestone rubble occur as extensive sloping sheets extending from these coombes and gorges and are also found surrounding sandstone hills and in the floors of dry valleys (Findlay 1965:16).

Broadfield Down is a wide ridge of Carboniferous Limestone (Goblin Coombe Oolite, Black Rock and Clifton Down Limestone) extending in an east-west direction. There are also areas of Lower Lias (White and Blue Limestone) between the Black Rock Limestone and Goblin Coombe Oolite. At its eastern end is an area known as Felton Common, geologically comprised of Lower Lias Harptree Beds. East to west the ridge extends for approximately 9 kilometres and north-south for 6 kilometres. The highest point on Broadfield Down is an un-named peak, north-east of Bristol Airport, at 206m AOD. The airport now dominates the summit of the ridge and levelling has taken place to facilitate the lengthening of runways. There is no natural water supply on the Down but the area to the south has many springs, streams and small waterfalls.

The western boundaries of Mendip are marked by isolated hills – Bleadon Hill, Banwell Hill, Sandford Hill, Crook Peak, Wavering Down and Brean Down. Brean Down is geologically part of Mendip but separated from it by the estuary of the River Axe. However, in preRoman times the River Axe flowed south of Brean Down, not north as it does today.

The Chew Valley South of the Broadfield Down/Dundry ridges is the broad expanse of the Chew Valley. The River Chew rises on the Mendip Hills and flows northwards to eventually join the River Avon at Keynesham. The geology of the undulating valley is dominated by the Mercia Mudstone group, and includes a band of Dolomitic Conglomerate at the foot of Broadfield Down, and outcrops of Lower Lias (White and Blue Limestone). There are two main soil groups in the valley: ground and surface water gleys and brown soils. Gleys share in common that they are periodically or permanently saturated with water or that they formed under wet conditions (Avery 1990: 291) and these areas of the valley are used today for permanent grassland. The brown soils, which occur on the slopes, are used quite extensively for arable. A large area of the Chew Valley was flooded in the late 1950s to make a reservoir. The valley land rises and falls continuously and averages in height between 70 and 100m.

Brown soils cover much of West Mendip. The soils tend to be stoneless, permeable and well-drained but, as Findlay et al state: “Although the soils are well-drained, easily cultivated and have good reserves of water, few arable crops are grown. This is because the land is relatively high and rainfall, humidity and cloud-cover discourage crop-growing.” (Findlay et al 1984: 254) Grassland dominates though horticulture is important on the plateau footslopes, exemplified by the strawberry crops grown on the south-facing slopes around Cheddar.

The Mendip Hills The Mendip Hills are the most southerly of the uplands in northern Somerset and the highest and most visually impressive. The boundaries of Mendip are traditionally given as Brean Down in the west and Frome in the east, a distance of nearly 60 kilometres. However, Mendip can really be divided into two: the West (or Central) Mendip Plateau and East Mendip. This is essentially a topographical division, outlined below.

Podzols have developed on the summits of the Old Red Sandstone hills and brown soils a little way down the slopes. The leached acid podzols on the summits support heather and bracken moorland, whilst the slopes are usually grassland, with bracken and gorse (ibid.: 235). Around Chewton Mendip there is an expanse of lowerlying land averaging 200m AOD, known as the Chewton Plain. Geologically it is composed of Lower Lias (White

16

best-developed resurgence in Mendip, the changing water levels resulting in the famous “Noises of Wookey Hole”, first described by Clement of Alexandria in about 220AD (Barrington & Stanton 1977: 181). The Axe was navigable until fairly recently, with boats reaching as far as Clewer, near Wedmore (Atthill 1964: 135). The course of the Axe has changed, and would previously have joined the Bristol Channel south of Brean Down. A south-west flowing tributary of the Axe, the Loxton Yeo, is more important for the wide valley it has cut than for the river itself. The valley of the Loxton Yeo (or the Winscombe valley) is a pass from north to south, through the Mendip Hills. Today, both the A38 and the M5 pass through this valley. The setting is dramatic – at its narrowest the valley is only c.200m wide, overlooked to the east by Crooks Peak, and to the west by Bleadon Hill. Both are steep-sided hills, rising sharply from c.8m to c.175m AOD. Like the Yeo, the River Sheppey, rising on the lower southern slopes of Eastern Mendip, flows westwards to join the Axe and thus eventually the Bristol Channel. The River Chew also joins the Bristol Channel, flowing north-west to join the River Avon at Keynesham. The Chew drains a large area at the northern foot of the Mendip Hills and has been dammed to create the Chew Valley Lake reservoir.

and Blue Limestones) and has well-drained brown soils. Today, the land is used for mixed farming. ii) East Mendip The River Chew rises in Chewton Mendip and it is this village that is traditionally given as the boundary between West and East Mendip. West Mendip is a designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and its eastern boundary also roughly corresponds with a line drawn south from Chewton Mendip. East of the Chewton Plain, the landscape changes and becomes more of a ‘tumble of hills’ (Hall 1971:8). The limestone and sandstone plateau continue south of this however, before terminating at Frome. In contrast to West Mendip, the geology of the East Mendip plateau also has inclusions of Triassic Inferior Oolite, and a small area around Stoke St Michael of igneous rocks such as Andestic Lava. East of the valley of the River Frome is a wide band of Jurassic Oxford Clay, effectively separating the limestone from the chalk of Wessex. To the north of the East Mendip plateau is the ‘tumble of hills’ referred to above. The geology of this region is complex and much younger (geologically) than the sandstones and limestones of the plateau. It includes Carboniferous Lower Coal Series (Coking Coal), Triassic White and Blue Lias, Triassic Dolomitic Conglomerate, Triassic Clay, Triassic Inferior Oolite, Fullers Earth Rock and Jurassic Great Oolite Limestone. Lithomorphic soils and clayey pelosols are the dominant soil groups to occur on East Mendip and a mixed regime is in place over much of them.

The River Frome marks the eastern boundary of northern Somerset. The River Frome rises 7 kilometres southwest of the town of Frome and flows northwards, joining the Avon near Bradford-upon-Avon. The Frome Valley gap between East Mendip and Wessex is narrowest between Frome and the Chapmanslade/Corsely area. Here, the limestone and the Upper Greensand chert beds that fringe the chalk are separated by only two kilometres of Oxford Clay. The River Frome would have been navigable for much of its length, but today weirs and mills line the way.

Northern Somerset Rivers Within the study area there are a total of fourteen significant rivers. Marking the northern boundary is the second largest, the River Avon, tidal to Bristol. The River Severn, the largest river in northern Somerset and marking the western boundary, becomes the Bristol Channel south of Clevedon. The Severn is famous for its tidal range, having one of the largest variations between high and low water in the world. Flowing across the North Somerset Levels are a number of sluggish rivers that drain the Levels and feed into the Channel. These include the Land Yeo, the Kenn, the Banwell and the Congresbury Yeo. The latter is the largest, though it is probable that all were navigable from the Bristol Channel in the past, for at least a short stretch (Rippon 1997: 34).

East Mendip and the ‘tumble of hills’ have far better water supplies then the Carboniferous Limestone plateau. Many springs and streams feed into the four main water courses: the Cam Brook, the Wellow Brook, the Nunney Brook and the Mells River. These seem unlikely to have ever been navigable, judging by their shallowness and swiftness. However, they are deeper in sections and the largest river, the Mells, could potentially have been navigable for part of its length. The use of these rivers in historic times is well-attested by the many weirs and mills along them and indeed, East Mendip was the heartland of the important Somerset woollen industry. East and West Mendip are separated by a watershed, with the Axe, Yeo, Chew and Sheppey running west to the sea and the Cam, Wellow, Nunney and Mells flowing east into the Frome and the Avon.

The southern boundary of the study area of northern Somerset is the meeting of Mendip with the Central Somerset Levels. The rivers Axe, Lox Yeo and Sheppey mark this line, following the bottom of the southern edge of the Mendips. These three rivers, together with the River Chew, are traditionally known as the West Mendip rivers. The largest of these is the River Axe, draining a large area of Mendip and the southern marshes. The source of the Axe is Wookey Hole and the cave is the

These are the fourteen rivers of northern Somerset and it is on their banks that settlements of the historic period grew: the cities of Bristol and Bath, the small towns of Frome and Shepton Mallet, the villages of Banwell and Wellow, to name but a few. It seems highly probable that

17

Romano-British period (Everton 1972). The deposits had been disturbed by animals but the remains of 28 human individuals, together with bones of sheep, goat, ox, pig, dog and wolf, were recovered. One of the human skulls (Skull IV) was dated to 4860 + 65BP (Richards & Hedges 1999). Pollen analysis was undertaken but the pollen was severely eroded. Sheep and goat were the dominant animal species but the mixed nature of the deposits makes it uncertain exactly which context they are from.

these were also attractive areas for settlement and activity in prehistoric periods, though much of the evidence is likely sealed under metres of building foundations and alluvium. The Neolithic Environment The physical form of northern Somerset, as described above, has changed little since the Neolithic period. Rivers may have altered their courses and mining and quarrying will have altered small parts of the landscape but as Tilley says:

• Tom Tivey’s Hole The excavations at this cave were carried out between 1958-1961 (Barrett 1964) and the deposits covered the period from the Neolithic until the 17th Century. A Neolithic deposit containing a Windmill Hill bowl also included animal bones. Sheep bones and molluscs were identified, the latter suggesting damp conditions in limestone scrub vegetation.

“The skin of the land has gone for good... but the bones of the land – the mountains, hill, rocks and valleys, escarpments and ridges – have remained substantially the same... and can still be observed.” (Tilley 1994: 73). Prominent landscape features can “still be observed” and the clustering of prehistoric monuments on and around them suggests that many of them were of significance to past populations. Nonetheless, it is indubitable that many sites were aligned upon features that are no longer visible; trees, clearings, places with ancestral meaning; or still visible, but unimpressive to us today. Before discussions of monuments and sites in the landscape can proceed it is essential to have some understanding of what the prehistoric environment was like. Although the ‘bones’ of the landscape are the same, the ‘skin’ has changed. The spatial-temporal relationships between sites may often have depended upon just how visible these sites were. Analysing the available environmental evidence will also enable us to examine how the Neolithic landscape might have been used. This has special relevance, given the current arguments for smallscale arable farming, with greater emphasis on a pastoral economy, during the Neolithic (see Thomas 1999).

• Lox Yeo Valley Analysis of the chemical properties and palynology of alluvial sediments in the Lox Yeo valley by Macklin et al (1985) produced one of the few datable pollen sequences in northern Somerset. A sediment core was taken and cereal pollen appeared at a depth of 8.62m, accompanied by a decline of Ulnus. This has been locally dated to sometime after 5200bp, suggesting a date sometime in the Neolithic (ibid.). • Bath-Frome region The pottery from the Windmill Hill causewayed enclosure in Wiltshire has been subject to detailed analysis, including thin-sectioning and the identification of grain impressions. Approximately one-third of the pottery from the site contained oolitic inclusions and the source for this has been identified as the Bath-Frome region (Smith 1965). Analysis of these vessels indicate that the pots were almost certainly introduced to the site in their finished form (ibid.). Most of the remaining pottery was made locally (Devizes-Swindon) with a smaller group identified as coming from the Lizard Peninsula, Cornwall. Of these three groups, two – the oolitic gritted and locally produced pottery – had grain impressions upon some of the pieces. Helbaek (1955) and Dennell (1976) analysed these impressions and were able to identify differences in the types of impressions between the two regions. The pottery from the BathFrome district showed a much higher proportion of wheat than barley whereas the locally produced pottery showed less disparity between the two. Thus, it was suggested that in the Early Neolithic, wheat was grown in the BathFrome (East Mendip) region. This also fulfils Dennell’s expectation that the heavier more clayey soils of BathFrome were more suited to growing wheat, whilst the lighter calcareous soils around Windmill Hill favoured both wheat and barley (Dennell 1976: 16). Interestingly, this pattern also seems to remain true for the Iron Age in Somerset and Wessex (ibid.: 18).

Evidence pertaining to the Neolithic environment has been retrieved from fourteen sites. The types of analysis undertaken are summarised in Table 2. Due to changing land use regimes throughout the period in question, the evidence will be analysed in chronological order. Early Neolithic • Chelmscombe Cave Excavations in 1925-6 revealed a sequence stretching from the Late Pleistocene to the Romano-British period (Balch & Palmer 1927). A Windmill Hill bowl was found in Layer IV, together with teeth and bone fragments of young and old Bos longifrons and young and old teeth and bones from domesticated pigs. Molluscs were also recovered but not analysed. • Haywood Cave Excavations between 1957-1971 in this small cave recovered deposits dating from the Mesolithic to the

18

undertaking of an archaeological excavation, followed by a further caving excavation from 1983-86 (Everton 1974, Everton 1975, Everton & Everton 1977, Levitan et al 1988). Horizons 2 – 4 were of Later Neolithic date and contained large quantities of animal bone. Cattle and pig bones dominated all horizons, but Horizons 3 and 4 almost totally. Sheep/goat were in general poorly represented but comprised approximately 30% of the assemblage in Horizon 2. Bones of Bos primigenius, found in Horizon 1, were radiocarbon dated to 1295+37 BC (BM-731), making this one of the latest occurrences of auroch in the British Isles.

Late Neolithic • Bone Hole This cave has been subject to a series of unsystematic excavations, carried on throughout this century (Balch 1947, Cox 1976, Cook 1977). The remains of at least 12 human individuals, together with bones of bear, horse, wolf, boars and Bos primigenius, were recovered, the latter indicating a late period of deposition. A Wessex/Middle Rhine Beaker and “other pottery” were also found.

• Gorsey Bigbury Excavations at this Class 1 henge monument revealed a complex sequence of Beaker deposits in the ditch, thought to represent a secondary use of the site (ApSimon 1951, Tratman 1966a, ApSimon et al 1976). One of the Beaker sherds had impressed upon it the unmistakable outline of a barley grain. Butchered animal bones occurred in large quantities and included cattle, pig, sheep, red deer, roe deer and dog. Cattle and pig were the most common finds. 73mg of charcoal was also examined, indicating a forest canopy species of oak and hazel, with some hawthorn and sloe. This Beaker phase of activity has been dated to c.2000 calBC (ApSimon et al 1976).

• Bos Swallet First excavated in 1946 and later during the 1950s, the site of Bos Swallet has been recently reinterpreted by ApSimon (1997). Most of the activity at the site appears to be of Beaker date, the pottery being comparable to that from the nearby henge, Gorsey Bigbury. The environmental evidence is limited but hazelnut shell was identified. The animal bones were almost all unidentifiable apart from calcined teeth fragments of domesticated sheep and Bos primigenius. • Brean Down The excavations of the sandcliff at Brean Down revealed a long stratigraphic sequence, beginning with the Neolithic and ending with the Medieval period (Bell 1990).

• Priddy Circles Sections through the bank of Circle 1 revealed a buried soil horizon, from which pollen samples were taken (Tratman 1966b). The pollen record overwhelmingly points to an open grassland environment, with little evidence of agriculture. However, the presence of ribwort plaintain and devil’s-bit scabious points to the existence of some meadow land or pasture (ibid.). Although the tree and shrub pollen were too poorly represented for detailed statistical analysis, it was concluded that the assemblage would not be out of place in the sub-Boreal period. It should be noted that no datable material was recovered from the excavations at Priddy Circle 1.

Unit 8a, the earliest context, appears to have evidence for two periods of activity, earlier Neolithic, with flintwork, (4720+140BP [HAR-7023]) and later Neolithic, with Beaker sherds (3810+90BP [HAR-8990], 3460+80BP [HAR-8547] and 3390+90BP [HAR 8993]) (Bell 1990: 24-26). Macrofossils from this unit include a single wheat grain and fragments of hazelnut, sloe and hawthorn (Straker 1990: 216). There was also evidence of tillage and sediment analysis of the surrounding area suggests saltmarsh conditions closeby. There is also evidence from the Down itself, indicating that the steep sides were open whilst on the top there was some cultivation.

Later Neolithic/Early Bronze Age (up to c.1500BC)

• Brimble Pit Swallet This swallet was excavated for cave exploration by Stanton between 1991-93 and has not yet been published.1 The finds include a polished stone axehead, sherds from two Grooved Ware vessels, flints, a human skull and animal bones. Domesticated cattle, followed by pigs, dominate the latter assemblage, whilst sheep/goat are extremely rare (Lord pers. comm.). Also present are the bones of at least one adult Bos primigenius and two deer.

• Brean Down Units 7, 6b and 6a in the sandcliff at Brean Down span the Later Neolithic/Early Bronze Age period (Bell 1990). Macrofossil analysis of Unit 7 revealed a single wheat grain and fragment of haw, whilst Unit 6b revealed hazelnuts, emmer glume bases and a grain of barley (Straker 1990: 216-7). Unit 6a contained, amongst other macrofossils, a barley grain, two grains of wheat, weed seeds, seeds characteristic of damp area (rushes etc) and weeds suggesting disturbed conditions and grassland (ibid.). Cattle and sheep bones were also present.

• Charterhouse Warren Farm Swallet This swallet was initially explored by cavers in 1972-76 but the finding of archaeological material led to the

• Rowberrow Cavern Cavers from UBSS undertook the excavations at this site in the 1920s (Taylor 1921, 1922, 1923, 1924 & 1925).

1

The excavation will be published by Lewis & Stanton (in preparation )

19

Unit 8a at Brean Down shows evidence of some wheat cultivation, with the exploitation of natural resources such as hazelnut and sloe. Which of the two episodes of activity this may relate to is not clear however. By contrast, the evidence from the caves and swallets is dominated by faunal remains. All the caves and swallets show a dominance of domestic cattle, followed by pig and three of the four contained the bones of Bos primigenius. Sheep are rare. The suggestion is of a wooded landscape, corroborated by the presence of wolf and deer bones. The finding of Bos primigenius bones is extremely significant as they become increasingly rare in the rest of the British Isles, becoming extinct by the Middle Bronze Age. Their continued survival on Mendip might suggest careful woodland management to retain their natural habitat. The auroch could not survive in an open landscape so their presence at these three sites would indicate substantial woodland cover in this region. The animal bones from the Gorsey Bigbury henge monument again support this, with cattle and pig the most common find, and red and roe deer identified. The small number of sheep/goat bones also adds weight to this argument. Charcoal analysis indicates that oak, hazel, hawthorn and sloe were all present in this forest canopy.

The environmental evidence is to be found in the “second clay and stones layer and the cemented layer” (Taylor 1921). This is the Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age level, containing Beaker sherds and other flint and bone artefacts. The bones of sheep/deer, pig, a large dog and a wolf were found in these layers. Many of the bones are charred. Analysis of the land mollusc revealed a cave dwelling species. • Sun Hole A well-stratified sequence of deposits ranging from the Romano-British to the Pleistocene were found in a series of four excavations, carried out at varying dates during this century (Tratman & Henderson 1927). A Beaker horizon contained butchered animal bones including cattle, pig, sheep, horse, red deer, roe deer and goat. Interpretation The Early Neolithic Environment Five sites have provided us with information on the Early Neolithic environment. However, one of these – Haywood Cave – cannot be used, because of severe animal disturbance. The presence of domesticated cow and pig at Chelmscombe Cave hints at the existence of a wooded environment, whilst the sheep bones from Tom Tivey’s Hole indicate that there must have been at least some open ground for sheep grazing. The Lox Yeo Valley sediment core shows evidence of cereal cultivation. The evidence for the Bath-Frome region is indirect. The high ratio of wheat to barley grain impressions on the oolitic gritted pottery at Windmill Hill is evidence of cereal growing but it is impossible to pinpoint exactly where the wheat was growing. It does indicate however that there must have been cleared land under cultivation in this region.

The pollen record from the Priddy Circles suggests a totally different environment however – an open grassland landscape. The presence of sheep bones from other sites, though rare, also indicate that open land must have been available. A Beaker pot from Gorsey Bigbury showed a barley grain impression, suggesting some cultivated land. The picture of the Late Neolithic environment seems to be dominated by woodland, with some larger clearances on a different part of the plateau for monument construction, sheep grazing and cereal cultivation. Nonetheless, it must be emphasised that once again there is a West Mendip bias, with nearly all the sites with evidence for the Late Neolithic environment being in this region.

Taken together, the limited evidence from these sites does seem to indicate a mixed farming regime, with domesticated cow, pig and sheep and some cereal cultivation. It is impossible to estimate the scale of any of these undertakings but evidence from other parts of Southern England suggest the clearings necessary for cereals and sheep would be quite small and scattered in the Early Neolithic. It must be stressed, however, that the evidence is biased towards Western Mendip and this may not be representative of what is happening in northern Somerset as a whole.

Later Neolithic/Early Bronze Age Environment This interpretation will understandably overlap with the last. The Later Neolithic is included here as some of the sites seem to be of the transitional phase between the Neolithic and Bronze Age. The evidence from Units 7, 6b and 6a at Brean Down span this period and the environmental record shows that both barley and wheat were cultivated and that domesticated cow and sheep were kept (Bell 1990). The evidence from the two caves, Rowberrow Cavern and Sun Hole, indicate the presence of woodland animals (cow, deer, wolf) as well as those needing more open conditions (sheep, goat).

The Late Neolithic Environment Of the seven sites representing the Later Neolithic period, four are caves/swallets and two are henge monuments. As the deposits at these sites might be connected to ritual activities caution should be exercised as they may be specialised deposits rather than a simple reflection of the local faunal record. Brean Down is the only nonmonument/ cave site. Nonetheless, it is imperative that at least some attempt is made at reconstructing the environment so the analysis will go ahead with these caveats in mind.

Conclusions Whilst the environmental evidence for northern Somerset during the Neolithic is sparse and the sites not evenly distributed it may be possible to draw out a few trends.

20

In the Early Neolithic a mixed farming economy may have been practised, perhaps with small localised clearances for crop growing and open grazing animals. It is probable that much of the landscape was wooded, with the small clearances located close to temporary/permanent settlements. Clearances must also have existed for monuments, but it is impossible to say how extensive these would have been. By the Late Neolithic the suggestions are still of a wooded landscape, perhaps with some regeneration as evidenced at other regions at this time. It is possible that the division between open land and woodland was more obvious, with the open land being more clustered and less piecemeal than in the preceding period. It is important to stress once again that this picture is biased towards West Mendip. The finding of cereal pollen in the Lox Yeo Valley suggests that river valleys in the region would have been used for cultivation. However, our knowledge of the prehistoric environment of northern Somerset is incomplete and unsatisfactory, in desperate need of new research. For Mendip at least, the future for palaeoenvironmental studies looks hopeful. Work by Paul Davies and colleagues, as part of the Mendip Landscape Project at Bath Spa University, has revealed substantial Holocene tufa deposits within and adjacent to the Mendip area. Such deposits are known to contain biotic remains (molluscs, ostracods, plant macrofossils, charcoal and pollen) from which environmental histories can be reconstructed (Paul Davies pers. comm.). Davies highlights that past research on the Holocene landscape history of the region has been dominated by results from the Somerset Levels and Moors, due to the lack of extensive upland peats and poor biological preservation conditions at archaeological sites (ibid.). The tufa deposits thus offer an excellent opportunity for landscape reconstruction stretching back to the Holocene, and possibly even the Late Glacial period. Work on the deposits will shed much needed light on the prehistoric environment of the Mendip uplands2.

2

In 2004, Davies and the author began a research project, investigating tufa deposits associated with Late Mesolithic flint at the site of Langley’s Lane, Midsomer Norton on East Mendip.

21









 

csulloM

laocrahC /dooW desinobraC









 

nelloP

enoB laminA

    

  

 

etaD 41C





 





tellawS tellawS tnemeltteS tellawS tellawS )noigeR( A/N

noigeR /emaN etiS

yellaV oeY eloH s’yeviT moT eloH nuS worrebwoR 1 elcriC yddirP evaC doowyaH yrubgiB yesroG ebmocsmlehC nerraW esuohretrahC tiP elbmirB nwoD naerB tellawS soB eloH enoB emorF/htaB

evaC evaC evaC ?egneH evaC egneH evaC

etiS fo epyT

)noigeR( A/N

ataD latnemnorivnE htiw tesremoS nrehtron ni snoigeR dna setiS cihtiloeN :2 elbaT

snoisserpmI niarG lissoforcaM

22

Chapter Three: Mortuary Monuments of the Early Neolithic monuments. Only one, the Priddy long barrow (PRIDDY I), has been excavated albeit to a not very high standard1. Overall, Priddy is a very small monument, measuring only 26m by 12m: indeed, it has the smallest mound size of any such site in northern Somerset (figure 3.2). Another unusual feature about it is the orientation of the mound, south-south-west/north-north-east, a relatively rare alignment. It was first opened in 1816 by Skinner but "no cist was found as it was not properly opened" (BM Skinner MS 33648 folio 157). Subsequently, a partial excavation was carried out in 1928 by the University of Bristol Spelaeological Society (Phillips & Taylor 1972). The mound was found to be composed of earth and stone, with a possible rough revetment wall defining its outer margins. The only evidence of internal structure came from a crude stone cist, placed on top of a burnt area, hypothesised to contain a primary interment accompanied by a cremation. Adjacent to this was a small area of stone paving of Old Red Sandstone, the nearest source for which is 1.5 miles away. A pit was also discovered, placed centrally to both axes of the barrow and measuring 2 feet 6 inches in diameter. It contained fairly large stones in no particularly order, near to which were two unburnt human teeth and approximately 100 tiny fragments of burnt bone. Nearby was a flint knife/flake. A second burnt area was found, containing 'only charcoal' and a piece what might have been copper slag2. Over fifty flints were found but their exact locations not precisely recorded. All finds and photographic records were destroyed in WWII.

No longer can all Early Neolithic monuments containing human remains be simply thought of as funerary monuments. Recent publications emphasise the diverse nature of the activities carried out at these sites and suggest they fulfilled a much more complex role in society. Both Barrett (1994) and Bradley (1998) argue convincingly for a division between funerary rituals and ancestor rituals in the Early Neolithic. The former is concerned with the act of disposing of a body (burial) and allows no subsequent interference with the remains. The latter however, has very different connotations, for the human remains become 'the ancestors' and can be reaccessed and manipulated. Both funerary and ancestor rituals can be recognised in the Neolithic of north-west Europe, largely through the different locales involved. The (relative) ease of access, and the incomplete state of the skeletal remains within megalithic tombs, argue for their role in ancestral ritual, whereas articulated skeletons within closed cists and graves suggest an emphasis upon funerary rituals. The latter may also be placed within a monument which is inaccessible once the funerary rites are completed. As it is not always possible to ascertain from the outward appearance of a monument whether its role in society was purely funerary or ancestral, this chapter will follow Bradley by referring to these sites as mortuary monuments (1998:54). This, he argues, is a more neutral term, implying an association with the rites of passage of the dead rather than a specific monument type (ibid.). This chapter will provide an overview of these early monuments in northern Somerset and detail new findings this research has uncovered. Some of the following accounts will be short and others more extensive, depending on how much information has been recovered. The results will be analysed and a detailed discussion of the significance of the findings attempted in Chapter Four. To make this a coherent account of the data, the monuments will be considered in groups according to where in the northern Somerset landscape they are placed (figure 3.1). This can be broken down into: 1) West Mendip 2) East Mendip and the 'tumble of hills', and 3) the western ridges and valleys north of Mendip. (NB: The names in brackets given after the monument name are the classification name and number given to the site by Grinsell (1971)).

The excavation at Priddy was the first barrow excavation carried out by the Spelaeological Society; it was very much 'of its time' and does not compare to modern investigations. The excavation report, published some 50 years after the work was carried out (Phillips & Taylor 1972), is a brief and unsatisfactory account, confusing and sometimes contradictory. For these reasons it was deemed necessary to consult the archive material and reinterpret the monument using the primary data. Unfortunately, as mentioned above, all the finds, photographs and most of the plans have been destroyed, making the task difficult. Nonetheless, it is possible to make the following statements. •

West Mendip Within the confines of West Mendip (described in Chapter 2) are twelve possible Early Neolithic mortuary

The first phase at the long barrow is represented by a central pit, cut through the clay into the bedrock, and two burnt areas. The central pit contained stones but nothing else. It is possible that this pit may have held a substantial timber post, the stone

1 A more detailed consideration of this monument by the author is now published: Lewis, J. 2002. ‘Reinterpreting the Priddy Long Barrow, Mendip Hills, Somerset’ in Proceedings of the University of Bristol Spelaeological Society, 22 (3), 269-288. 2 The presence of ‘slag’ in a long barrow is confusing - explanations for its presence are explored in Chapter Four.

23

24

0

5

10 Kilometers

Priddy♦

Toot

Mountain Ground Barrow House Farm

♦ ♦

♦

♦

Tunley Farm ♦

Brays Down

Stoney Littleton

The Island♦

♦

S

N

10.1 - 25 25.1 - 50 50.1 - 100 100.1 - 150 150.1 - 200 200.1 - 250 250.1 - 300 300.1 - 350 No Data

E

♦

Small Down

Big♦Tree Devils Bed and Bolster ♦ Old Down♦ ♦ Orchardleigh Giants Grave ♦ Elevation (m) Green Ore ♦ ♦ Barrow Hill Whitnell Farm ♦ 0 ♦ ♦ Pen Hill Fromefield Haydon Drove 0.1 - 10

♦ Fairy's

♦ Felton Common Red Hill

Priddy Hill ♦

Beacon Batch♦

♦

The Waterstone Dolmen ♦

♦ Dundry

W

Figure 3.1 Long Barrow Distribution. © Crown Copyright/database Right 2005. An Ordnance Survey/ EDINA supplied service.

5

♦

Soldier's Grave

♦

Failand Hill

Figure 3.2: Earthwork Survey of Priddy Long Barrow

Figure 3.3: Earthwork Survey of Pen Hill Long Barrow

25

Pen Hill monument (ST CUTHBERT OUT I) may also indicate that this, too, has a non-megalithic status. Pen Hill is the second highest point on Mendip at 305m AOD and commands spectacular views of the Somerset Levels. The barrow is slightly downslope, set into the hill, giving a false cresting effect from below. It is 43 metres long and 20 metres wide and orientated east-west (figure 3.3). It is higher and wider at the east end. Severe damage caused by sheltering sheep along its steep southern side has exposed the barrow core and shown it to be made of earth and small stones. Although the ditches are not clearly visible on the ground today, they were in 1832 when Skinner visited the site; he thought it an unfinished hillfort. In 1928, Wicks described them as deep depressions (Grinsell 1971). There is a large television mast on the hill with substantial concrete and cable supports, one of which is placed immediately south of the monument; this is roughly where the southern ditch would be and explains its disappearance. The northern ditch is still just visible.

representing packing around it. Alternatively, it may have fulfilled another function. The two burnt areas lie to the north-west and south-east of the pit, both approximately 2.5m from it. To the north and south of the central pit were many bone fragments, mainly burnt but with a few unburnt pieces also present. •

The second or subsequent primary phase at the site involved constructing a stone cist over burnt area 2, adjacent to which was a small paved area, formed of Old Red Sandstone slabs. The field-notes state that bones were found 'above' the cist.

•

The next phase involved raising an oval stone cairn over the 'activity' areas, detailed above. It appears that burnt area 1 might not have been totally covered by the cairn. Evidence existed for sorting of cairn material, with bigger stones towards the south and centre and smaller stones in the north.

•

Next, a very rough outer stone wall might have been erected, though as the stones found were only one course high this is not a definite feature.

•

Finally, an earth and stone capping was raised over the stone core, increasing the size of the mound. From where this material derived is not known, as the excavators did not check for ditches.

The size, orientation and location, together with the parallel side ditches, indicate that Pen Hill is a classic Early Neolithic mortuary monument. The presence of these side ditches might suggest that it is non-megalithic, though in the Avebury district the megalithic barrows also have side ditches. Other than at Pen Hill, side ditches are not visible on any of the West Mendip monuments. This need neither confirm nor deny their status, as very few of the ditches surrounding round barrows are visible, even when proved to exist by excavation and geophysical survey. Without the evidence provided by excavation or ditches, what can we learn of the other ten monuments?

There are several factors that make the Priddy long barrow an interesting site. Firstly, it is largely on the evidence of this one site that the West Mendip group have been described as non-megalithic. The pit and 'hearths' are paralleled at other non-megalithic long barrows, though the small corbelled stone cist and the presence of burnt bone is much more rare. Kinnes likens Priddy to Cropton 2, a mound on the Tabular Hills (Kinnes 1992:86) though this is not a good analogy. At Cropton 2, stones defined a mortuary area containing 2 skeletons, whereas at Priddy the stone cist does not seem big enough to have contained inhumations. Priddy is not a 'classic' non-megalithic site, especially when compared to many of the Wessex monuments. However, as more research is carried out it becomes obvious that classifications such as 'non-megalithic long barrow' hide a multitude of differences and that uniformity is rare. Whilst the excavation of Priddy was far from satisfactory, enough evidence exists to indicate that it does seem to fall into the (very) broad category of non-megalithic long barrows. The unusual cist and the ceremonies involving both burnt and unburnt human remains provide a valuable insight into the complex and diverse nature of Early Neolithic ritual.

Echoing the landscape location of the Pen Hill barrow, the Beacon Batch barrow (BURRINGTON 17) is situated just below the summit of a hill looking south over the Mendip plateau, giving it a classic false crested appearance from below. The hill is Black Down, "the King of Mendip" (Knight 1915). Beacon Batch is actually the highest point on Mendip, at 325 metres OD. Black Down is an imposing Old Red Sandstone ridge, 5 kms long by 2 kms wide, on the northern edge of the West Mendip plateau. Views in all directions are wide ranging. The top of Black Down is open heather moorland, while the slopes are covered in dense bracken. There is also wet heath on the top of the hill, with purple moor-grass, cotton grass, rushes and mosses (Findlay, 1965:24). It has been suggested that the top of Black Down may never have been wooded in prehistory (ibid.). The monument is almost destroyed, with any remains now hidden under heather, bracken and gorse. Tratman (1926) recorded the monument as a long shaped, squareended mound, with no trace of a ditch. The mound was composed of old red sandstone blocks, with a regular outer margin and three large stones visible in the southwest corner (ibid.). It measured 32m long and 16m wide and was orientated east-west. Destruction seems to have

Priddy is the only excavated Early Neolithic mortuary monument on West Mendip and consequently, the only one proved to be non-megalithic. Knowing that megalithic and non-megalithic can appear very similar on the surface, it is difficult to classify all of the others. Nonetheless, the presence of flanking side ditches at the

26

been underway by 1819 when Skinner noted that the oval barrow named Beacon Barrow was being quarried to make walls. (BM Add Mss 33653 f43). Beacon Batch is included in neither Kinnes' account of non-megalithic barrows (1992) nor Powell et al's account of megalithic barrows (1969), highlighting its uncertain status. The presence of the three large stones, even visible from the air (Tratman 1926: 33), is intriguing. A 1947 aerial photograph of Black Down shows the monument orientated south-east/north-west, rather than east-west, with the mound wider at the south-east end (photograph too poor to reproduce). The stones in the south-west corner could thus be the remains of a simple terminal chamber, making Beacon Batch a possible megalithic mortuary monument.

The orientation of the monument, 30 degrees north of west to 30 degrees south of east, may have been determined by the positioning of the mound on a spur between dry valleys (Tratman 1948).

There are two other long barrows on West Mendip that seem to be megalithic: Mountain Ground and Barrow House Farm, both in the parish of Chewton Mendip and only 500m apart. Mountain Ground (CHEWTON MENDIP I) is a fine monument, noted by Skinner as an outstanding mound, and the subject of many sketches by him. At 60m long and 20m wide, and surviving to a height of at least 3m, it is certainly imposing (figure 3.4). There is no recorded excavation of the mound but the north side of the barrow is very disturbed. Wicks was able to recover some information about this:

The Bristol Barrow (CHEWTON MENDIP III) is known as such in 18th century perambulations. It stands in a narrow copse of fifty pine trees, planted in 1903 (Wicks 1928), and the parish boundary between East Harptree and Chewton Mendip passes through it. It is a much-disturbed monument, 23m long by 13m wide, orientated west-east, higher and wider at the west. There is an irregular sunken hollow at the east end and this has led to the suggestion that this is a collapsed megalithic chamber (Tratman 1949). Yet there are problems with this interpretation. Firstly, Wicks describes the western end of the mound as being honeycombed with rabbit holes but with hardly any at the east (Wicks 1928). Also, he tells that the eastern end is composed of blocks of Old Red Sandstone, up to 2ft long. It appears as if the western end is composed mainly of earth, judging by the rabbit holes, and the eastern end of stone. This seems to suggest that they are two separate mounds, one of earth, the other of stone. The sunken hollow at the east could thus represent stone robbing, a common activity on Mendip especially in the 18th century, rather than a collapsed chamber. Several sketches of the mound by Skinner in 1824 show this as a large round mound. These factors, together with the small size and anomalous orientation of the mound, suggest that the Bristol Barrow may in fact be two disturbed round barrows. Nonetheless, this is not a statement of fact and the possibility that it may be earlier should still be borne in mind. It should not be forgotten that Priddy is also a small mound with an uncommon orientation. The location of the Bristol Barrow is not particularly noteworthy today, being on a fairly level part of the plateau.

The classification of four other mounds as long barrows is questionable. These are the Bristol Barrow, the Cheddar long barrow, the Hunter's Lodge long barrow and the Long Wood long barrow. All have been suggested to be long barrows by investigators such as Wicks (1914), Crawford (1925) and Tratman (1926), yet questioned by Grinsell (1971) who thinks some may be misshapen round barrows. This research has investigated these monuments using a combination of earthwork and geophysical survey and a re-reading of primary accounts.

"...some of the oldest inhabitants can "mind when they were buoys" (c.1850-1860) that strangers came and found a quantity of bones in the barrow". (Wicks 1914: 46) The barrow is orientated east-west, with the east end being higher and wider. The east end is in fact symmetrical and neatly shaped and there are references to the upper parts of two orthostats being visible at this end (Wicks 1914, Grinsell 1971). The location of the monument is interesting, being on a small yet prominent ridge called Chew Down. Its visual impact is best when viewed from the flat Chewton Plain that lies before it to the north, as it appears to be set on the edge of a precipice, due to the Chew Ridge falling sharply behind it. Barrow House Farm (CHEWTON MENDIP II), c.500m west of Mountain Ground, is a rather more disturbed monument. Apparently, it is a long barrow 53m long and 28m wide, orientated south-east/north-west1. It is included in Kinnes' non-megalithic group; the reason for this classification are unknown. There is evidence of a stone outer revetment wall, similar to those found at Cotswold-Severn tombs (Wicks 1914). A large hollow at the northern end may also represent a collapsed or robbed chamber. Apparently, the mound was originally longer, but some of the northern end has been ploughed away (ibid.). The evidence of the outer revetment wall and possible collapsed chamber suggests that like its neighbour, this is also a megalithic barrow. 1

Cheddar (CHEDDAR i) is another curious monument. Both Grinsell (1971) and Kinnes (1992) include it as an earthen long barrow, though Grinsell does suggest it may be two round barrows (Grinsell ibid). The Somerset SMR extract also questions its status, suggesting it is a natural mound on which two round barrows have been placed. The site today consists of a low oval earthwork,

The author has been refused access to the site by the landowner.

27

Figure 3.4: Earthwork Survey of Mountain Ground Long Barrow

Figure 3.5: Earthwork Survey of Cheddar Mound

28

measuring 36m long by 18m wide and 1m high, and orientated broadly east-west (figure 3.5). There is a higher irregular mound towards the centre of the earthwork and adjacent to this, on the north side, is an area of disturbed ground, covered by nettles and brambles. The west end is higher and wider than the east. The site does have the appearance of a long mound, confirmed by an earthwork survey. However, Wicks noted that early this century there was a neck in the middle of the mound and argued it was in fact two round barrows ploughed into one. Indeed, he states if there were no neck between the two mounds and if the east was the higher end it could easily be mistaken to be a long barrow (Wicks 1928). He also notes the disturbance in the northwest area; this is probably the result of an unrecorded excavation. The situation of the mound would seem to fit better with it being two round barrows as it is on a slight prominence, close to the southern edge of the Mendip plateau, with spectacular views across the Somerset Levels. Like the Bristol Barrow it is suggested that this is in fact two round barrows, though the same caveats should be retained.

ridge is that to the south, on the other side of which lies the Haydon Drove monument. The final West Mendip Early Neolithic monument under consideration is the Priddy Hill long barrow (PRIDDY iii). It was only discovered in 1986 and its prehistoric status 'confirmed' by Russett who identified it as the 'Sgaldaberga' mentioned in a Charter granting the land to St Hugh's Monastery at Witham Friary in 1182 (Russett 1989). The long barrow stands within a narrow copse of trees and is covered in scrub vegetation. A field wall, the line of the old Rodney Stoke-Cheddar parish boundary follows its length and even changes direction to accommodate it. The mound is 63m long and 30m wide and up to 2.5m high2 and has a round mound a few metres from it’s eastern end. It is orientated east-northeast/west-south-west, the east end being higher and wider (figure 3.9). All of its length seems to have been preserved, due to its covering of trees and its position beneath the stone wall (figure 3.10). However, it seems likely that some of the width has been lost, as these are the parts that project into the fields. The field to the south is arable and that to the north, improved pasture. The plateau here is fairly level, with some gentle undulations. There is a slight suggestion of a ditch on the north side of the monument, perhaps evidence of its nonmegalithic status.

The other two barrows, Hunter's Lodge (PRIDDY 51) (figure 3.6) and Long Wood (CHEDDAR 17) (figure 3.7), have similarly questionable status. On the surface, both appear to be fairly convincing long mounds, with respective measurements of 35m x 20m and 29m x 15m and alignments of east-west and south-east/north-west. In order to gain a better understanding of their status, geophysical surveys were carried out. The results were conclusive - both proved to be twin round barrows (figure 3.8). Without the evidence from geophysics, Hunter's Lodge and Long Wood would continue to be cited as certain or probable non-megalithic long barrows. We are left with three long mounds yet to discuss. Two of these can be promptly dealt with as they no longer survive. The Haydon Drove monument (ST CUTHBERT OUT III) appears to have been discovered by Grinsell, who noted a much ploughed down long barrow just north-east of a sharp angle in Haydon Drove (1971:87). He gave the measurements as 25m long, 15 wide and 0.5m high and the orientation as east-west. It is not possible to locate the site today as in the last ten years a small factory has been constructed on the site1. The monument is not clearly visible on any aerial photographs consulted as part of this research. The barrow south-east of Green Ore (ST CUTHBERT OUT II) was noted by Tratman in 1938 and described as 32m long, 14m wide and orientated east-south-east/west-north-west. Wicks described a hollow to the south-east of the mound, but it is impossible to say if this is part of a ditch (Wicks 1926). The site was destroyed between 1946 and 1954, though is visible on aerial photographs (Grinsell 1971). It is still possible to visit the location of the barrow and this is interesting as it is in a valley bottom, enclosed on all four sides by localised ridges. The most prominent

2

Due to the vegetational cover, access to the monument is very difficult but an earthwork survey was carried out during the winter months, as part of this research.

1

The owners of which were reluctant to talk to archaeologists about anything that existed there prior to construction!

29

Figure 3.6 Earthwork Survey of Hunters Lodge Mound

Figure 3.7 Earthwork Survey of Long Wood Mound

30

Figure 3.8: Geophysical plots and interpretations of Hunter’s Lodge (left) and Long Wood (right)

31

Figure 3.9: Earthwork Survey of Priddy Hill Long Barrow

Figure 3.10: Priddy Hill Long Barrow, looking North

32

As Skinner compares it with Stoney Littleton, it appears that this was possibly a terminal transepted chambered tomb. The monument (BUCKLAND DINHAM III) no longer exists, though it is possible to ascertain that it would have been situated below the crest of the hill at approximately 100m AOD. Looking east, the confluence of the Mells River and River Frome, and the mass of the Wessex chalk are clearly visible.

East Mendip and the “Tumble of Hills” On and north of East Mendip are fifteen possible long barrows, most of which appear to be chambered. Of these, five have been excavated, four in the 18th and 19th centuries and three in the 20th (two of these were re-excavations). Several of the barrows no longer exist and are preserved only in antiquarian accounts and it is with these we will begin. At Batheaston, stands a 'sham megalith' (BATHEASTON i), erected in 1859 to mark the meeting of the counties of Gloucestershire, Somerset and Wiltshire (figure 3.11). There has been much speculation about this site as the stones were said to be derived from a chambered barrow in the area. However, it is now known that the stones were quarried for the purpose, as original accounts of the costing have come to light (Gunstone 1964). Nonetheless, Aubrey mentions a megalithic tomb in this area in the 17th century, though does not describe its form (Fowles & Legg 1980). It is likely that the inspiration for the 'sham megalith' came from this destroyed monument. As its precise location is unknown nothing can really be said about the landscape location of the original monument.

2kms north-west of Barrow Hill, there once existed another megalithic monument (BUCKLAND DINHAM II), now known as Big Tree1. This monument was also known as Modbury in the Middle Ages and Madbarrow in the eighteenth century (Grinsell 1971). The south end was destroyed during construction of the adjacent turnpike road in the late 18th/early 19th century: "On enquiring of the old man whether he remembered a tumulus or tump by the roadside on the left, which was removed some time ago; he told us perfectly well; as he was one of the workmen employed to level it; and he gave me a very exact description of it previous to that time as during the time it was opened. According to this account the tumulus was almost 6 feet in perpendicular height in the centre and forming a circumference of about 60; three very large stones were placed by the edge of the barrow as to form a triangle the barrow being placed within them. The stones were upwards of ten feet high, two or two and a half feet wide and when taken down were broken to mend the road: a number of skeletons apparently thrown in together promiscuously, were at the bottom of the tumulus, a hole being dug for the purpose below the surface of the earth: there was no cist or appearance of iron weapons; at least he did not remember seeing any." (Skinner BM Add Mss 33653, f 155, 12/7/1819). This description might indicate a chambered monument with a single terminal chamber close to the edge of the monument. A very low mound remains today, spread by yearly ploughing2. From the remaining evidence it would seem that the mound was orientated south-east/north-west and placed running along, but just below, the 175m contour line. To the north, the land falls away steeply and it seems the barrow would have formed a false crest from this direction.

Figure 3.11: The Three Shire Stones Further south at Barrow Hill in Buckland Dinham, Skinner recorded that there once existed:

1 The site is named after a wych elm that grew on the site until c.1960, when it blew down during a gale. Local people refused to remove the tree as it lay on a burial place.

"...a vaulted tumulus similar to that at Stoney Littleton, which has nearly been destroyed for the sake of procuring materials for the roads, and where quantities of human bone were found" (Skinner, 33682, ff 137-40, 3 May 1825).

2 Several fragments of unburnt human bone and flint have been found on top of the mound, during investigations as part of this research.

33

At Tunley Farm, Camerton, Skinner recorded the remains of a cromlech (CAMERTON i), consisting of a capstone and two supporters (Skinner BM Add Mss 33668, f107, 31 May 1821). It suffered the fate of so many of the megalithic monuments in this region and was being broken up for road material by 1812. By 1821, one orthostat remained, measuring 6ft by 2ft (ibid.), lying by the roadside. Nothing survives today. Wedlake (1966) tried to pinpoint the location of the cromlech, using the Skinner manuscripts and a 13th Century charter and identified that it must have stood on the boundary of Priston and Camerton parishes. Costen (1983) was able to find an even earlier reference to the site, in a charter for Priston dating to AD934-9. This mentions "from the stone to the hoar stone", hoar stone often being used to describe burial chambers (ibid.). The location of this "hoar stone" would appear to be on the eastern edge of Tunley Camp. It is possible to pinpoint its location more accurately than this, as Skinner tells us that:

The evidence might suggest that a Cotswold-Severn type monument once existed here, possibly containing a simple terminal chamber. The landscape around Whitnell Farm is undulating, averaging 220m AOD. Today, a very slight mound still exists, assigned EMBOROUGH I by Grinsell (1971). As previously stated, five monuments have been excavated on East Mendip. The most famous of these is the Stoney Littleton chambered monument and it is with this that we will begin. Stoney Littleton is undoubtedly the most famous long barrow in Somerset (WELLOW I). It was first visited by Colt-Hoare in 1807 who later described it as one of the most perfect specimens of the stone long barrow in Britain (figure 3.12). Hoare returned to Stoney Littleton with Skinner in 1816 and it was decided that Skinner would 'explore' the barrow (Colt Hoare 1821). As no entrance was visible, he dug his way in through the roof. Skinner found himself in a passage filled with debris, though whether this was original blocking material or material that had fallen in through his tunnelling activities is unclear. He then proceeded to locate the entrance from the inside of the tomb and it was subsequently opened.

"There was a cromlech on the spot on the highest point to the east of Tunley Camp..." (ibid., f162, my emphasis).1 Skinner does not mention whether a mound surrounded the 'cromlech'; by the time he saw it only three stones remained. Interestingly, the fact that it was referred to as the 'hoar stone' in the tenth century charter suggests the stones themselves were visible. This may indicate that the covering mound was already gone by this point or that it has always been a free-standing monument. Thus, Tunley could be either the remains of a Cotswold-Severn barrow, possibly with a simple terminal chamber, or perhaps a portal dolmen.

The long barrow was found to contain three pairs of transepts opening off a central passage, with an antechamber and an end chamber (figure 3.13). The chambers were apparently filled with 'stones and other rubbish' - it seems this was simply cleared out and thrown away. Colt-Hoare gave the following details of the finds from each chamber: •

In 1966, Tratman discovered a large stone of local Jurassic rock, measuring 2m long, 70cm wide and 50cm thick at Whitnell Farm, Emborough (Tratman 1968a). His investigations uncovered a local tradition that in 1866, a man had received permission to remove a large mound to fill in a quarry on the side of the road. In the course of removing the cairn a very long flat stone was found weighing about four tons. It was supported by four uprights, which "25 horses could not move". Underneath was a skeleton which "went to powder" (Tratman, 1968a, 243). The stone that Tratman found would seem to be either a capstone or orthostat. It was lying on a mound c. 18 m. in diameter and 60 cm high. Two other low mounds were nearby, each about 8m in diameter and 50cm high. Tratman provisionally catalogued them as three round barrows (T351 A, B and C) although he stated that:

• • • • •

Hoare thought that the contents of the barrow had previously been disturbed as 'fragments of bone etc' (1821: 46) were also discovered in the passage. Indeed, Skinner mentions that previously, the barrow was used as a quarry and an opening had been made in the side. "Country people from time to time entered by the same opening and took away many of the bones etc' (Skinner ms 1 December, 1815).

"They could be the remnants of a single long barrow, which would fit better to a chambered tomb than a round barrow" (Tratman, 1968a, 243).

1

Cell A - Leg and thighbones and smaller bone fragments. Cell B - Confused heaps of bone. Cell C- Four jawbones, the upper parts of two crania, leg and arm bones, and vertebrae. Cell D - Fragments of a pottery vessel with burnt bones and also bones from two or three unburnt skeletons. Cell E - No information on finds but at this point there was a step, 4 - 6" in depth. Cell G - The earth in this cell was found to contain fragments of burnt and unburnt human bone.

This would be at approximately ST 6825 5920.

34

Figure 3.12: The entrance to Stoney Littleton Long Barrow (after Colt Hoare 1821)

Figure 3.13: Plan of Stoney Littleton Long Barrow (after Colt-Hoare 1821) examined the long barrow and produced a plan that may to a certain extent have been based on Hoare's drawings (Bulleid, 1941, 58). Recently, archaeological work has been carried out by Cotswold Archaeological Trust on behalf of English Heritage, as part of a programme of repair and conservation at the monument. This involved the excavation of three trenches, geophysical and auger surveys and the drawing of several previously unrecorded elevations (Thomas 2003, 11). One of the trenches (Trench 3) was excavated through the passage floor, between the first and second set of chambers, and human bone fragments and 21 prehistoric pot sherds were

Colt-Hoare measured the barrow and a plan and his account of the excavations were published in 1821. He described Stoney Littleton as an oblong shaped barrow, 107 ft long, 54 ft wide and 13 ft high. The entrance was said to face north-west and the facade itself was composed of a 7ft long and 3.5ft wide capstone, with two supporters, 4 ft high. A large stone that has since disappeared closed the entrance. The passage was measured as 47 ft 6" long and of varying breadth. A stone was also found blocking the passage. Bulleid (1941) has noted that the barrow is in fact orientated south-east not north-west and that Hoare's measurements do not tally with those of today. However, several restorations have taken place and this may account for some of the discrepancies. At a later date Scarth1 also

original condition and obtained the funds to carry it out from SANHS. During this restoration the drystone walling around the barrow was discovered and the sections where it had been removed by quarrying were repaired.

1

When Scarth visited Stoney Littleton in 1855 he found that two chambers had collapsed, along with a central section of the mound. He received permission from the landowner to restore the barrow to its

35

lying in a sort of chest having two great rude stones at head and feet, two side stones and a coverer. Some say a great number of bones. The barrow is overall, has a pit or hollow in ye top...and at ye east end are now remaining two upright stones about 3ft high which if opened might probably discover such another chest of skeletons.." SCRO, John Strachey notes 1737 DD.SH 107-108.

recovered (ibid., 13). The two other trenches were excavated through the barrow mound, revealing the corbelled roof of the passage (ibid. 11). The geophysical survey revealed a possible pit alignment, of unknown date, extending from the eastern corner of the barrow. No certain evidence for quarry ditches/pits was found. Stoney Littleton is located 200m away from the Wellow Brook. Rather than following the contours of the hill, which rises steeply from the brook, the monument faces upslope. It is orientated so the entrance faces uphill and it may be relevant that a prominent notch in a ridge, approximately 700m south-east, is framed from the entrance. Whether this would have been visible in the Neolithic is unknown, as we know nothing of contemporary tree cover in the area. However, it may be of greater significance that the entrance and passage are aligned upon the midwinter sunrise (separate observations by the author, Meaden 1995 and Franco Vartuca pers. comm.)

It appears that stones might also have been removed from the site in 1791 and 1795, for repairing the road (St George Gray 1929). The first record of archaeological excavations at the site is from 1803/4 when Philip Crocker, draughtsman to Cunnington and Colt-Hoare, opened the barrow. After 'four hours careful examination and close search', he recorded a large number of human bones in great quantities around three stones, two standing and one recumbent (ibid.). Crocker also mentions finding many pieces of burnt pottery, although whether it was burnt or just extremely friable is debatable. His descriptions and sketches appear to suggest that the stones formed a chamber, around the bones and pottery. He also mentions discovering part of a wall of small stones running in the direction of the larger stones, perhaps representing the remains of a passage.

Ten kilometres south of Stoney Littleton stands Orchardleigh (BUCKLAND DINHAM I), a monument with a long history of excavation and antiquarian interest. Today, the site consists of two stones standing on a low mound with a bank to the south west (figure 3.15). The stones are at the east end of the mound, and measure 3 metres and 1 metre high respectively. The earliest reference to the site is by Stratchey, writing in the 18th century: "Composed of years ago viz loads to mend the bones of a

The early nineteenth century also saw the site visited by Colt-Hoare and Skinner. Colt-Hoare (1821) saw two upright stones of a 'cistvaen' and records that there was formerly a long-barrow there. Skinner, in 1825 described the site as an oval tumulus, with two stones remaining, the third 'recently broken up'. There are other nineteenth century references and descriptions of the stones.

small stones but turfed over. Some 1724 or 1725, taking away several ye highway the workmen discovered large man by several smaller skulls,

Figure 3.14: Excavations at Orchardleigh (after St George Grey 1921)

36

Figure 3.15: Earthwork Survey of Orchardleigh Long Barrow

Figure 3.16: Plan of Excavations at Orchardleigh (after St George Grey 1921)

37

ground that attains an average height of 112m AOD. The whole plateau in effect is an island, surrounding by streams and brooks to the north and west and the Mells River to the south and east. The barrow is located at the westerly end of this 'island', with fine views in this direction. The plateau is known as 'The Down' and the field in which the mound stands, Murtry Hill, a corruption of the former name, Mortuary Field.

One of the most mysterious of these is made by Barnwell (1875) who describes the mound and stones being encircled by an earthen bank, comparable, though smaller, to those at Avebury and Mayburgh. It appears, however, that this bank is in fact upcast from Crocker's excavation and is shown on the earthwork survey included here. In 1915, St George Gray carried out a contour survey of the barrow, followed by excavations in 1920 (St George Gray 1921 & 1929). He measured the mound as being 65m long and 42m wide, orientated east-west. Gray made four cuttings in the mound that revealed nearly forty blocks of glauconitic sandstone lying only 1.45 ft below the turf level, varying in length from 0.9 ft to 3 ft (figures 3.14 and 3.16). He also discovered blocks and slabs of ragstone, up to 2.1 ft in length, which he argued, were the remains of roofing slabs. A layer of red earth was found in all the cuttings and analysis revealed it to be composed of clayey material with small fragments of wood charcoal. It was suggested that this may have been deliberately laid to form a floor. No excavation was carried out off the mound to look at the natural stratigraphy and thus there is a possibility that this is a natural clay level found overlying the bedrock in this area. Other finds included the discovery of two areas of burning and a pit dug in to the bedrock to a depth of 0.7 ft. These are discussed in Chapter Four.

A megalithic monument at Fromefield (FROME I), two kilometres south-east of Orchardleigh, has also been subject to some excavation. This monument lay in the grounds of Fromefield House and was destroyed about 1819/20 during landscape gardening. A young girl, Miss Sheppard, wrote of the destruction in her diary, the extract being later published by Bulleid (1941). She recorded that during landscaping, a large mound was removed and was found to cover a large stone. This in turn covered five walled compartments, containing skeletons and pottery. Miss Sheppard retained a piece of pottery as a memento. The bones were allowed to remain apparently intact but the site was levelled in 1820 and the capstone erected upright on the site. In 1912, Somerset County Museum were presented with a fragment of prehistoric pottery by Mr H. Byard Sheppard which was apparently the piece retained by the Miss Sheppard. It was identified as being of Windmill Hill type (ibid.). The site was re-excavated by the Ministry of Works in 1965, prior to the building of a housing estate. A contour survey indicated the faint remains of a mound and two cuttings were laid out to bisect this (figure 3.17). A square was also cut around the remaining stone, referred to above. A 'considerable quantity' of human bone was found in its immediate vicinity (Vatcher & Vatcher, 1973, 21). Analysis of the human bones recovered showed that the remains of at least fifteen individuals were deposited at the site.

Gray discovered a large number of human remains at the north end of the mound, especially in the area to the west of the standing stones. He also suggested that the stones may not have been in their original position but the description of their location by Strachey does not support this. The excavations carried out at Orchardleigh have been piecemeal and unsatisfactory. There is enough evidence to suggest that the stones today represent the remains of an chambered barrow containing multiple burials. There appear to have been at least two chambers, suggesting these was either a terminal transepted or laterally chambered tomb. The suggestion that the stones at the east end formed a 'chamber' containing bones (see above) might indicate that a terminal transepted chambered barrow is more likely. The 'roofing slabs' described by Gray would suggest corbelled roofing. Precisely how many individuals were present at the site is impossible to say. The discoveries of the pit containing only stones and two areas of burning (hearths?) are reminiscent of the Priddy long barrow.

The excavations revealed that the ground was very disturbed as a result of the 19th century landscaping. The only evidence of any original mound material was in the northern cutting where the presence of small flat limestone slabs on the eastern side of the mound was taken by the excavators to indicate either a collapsed revetment wall or the remains of the mound itself. The small slabs were irregularly laid on the old land surface (red clay). In the southern cutting a scatter of slabs was also found. No evidence of quarry pits or ditches were recovered in any of the cuttings but several features were located in the northern and square cuttings that were interpreted as stoneholes, discussed in Chapter Four.

The Orchardleigh mound stands on a level plateau of

38

Figure 3.17: Plans of Excavations at Fromefield (after Vatcher & Vatcher 1973)

39

the monument suggests it would have been aligned along the contours of the valley, at the point where the valley levels off to a plateau averaging a height of 158m AOD.

The evidence from Fromefield suggests that the large stone covering five walled compartments was a terminal transepted chambered long barrow with two pairs of transepts and an end chamber. The remains of between fifteen and twenty individuals were placed in the monument, along with Windmill Hill type pottery. The mound was orientated south-east/north-west and situated between the 83m and 84m contours. The River Frome is 400m west of the site. It is impossible to say much more about its location, due to a large housing estate occupying the entire locality. At Charmborough in 1826, Skinner opened a megalithic monument known as the Giant's Grave (HOLCOMBE I). Skinner described it as similar in size and shape to Stoney Littleton, with three large stones protruding through the mound (Skinner BM Add Mss f4, 6 October 1826). He excavated to 'some depth' and found human and animal bone, including large teeth, probably of an ox. In 1909, Rev. Wickham 'explored' the site in a haphazard and destructive manner, measuring nothing and making no plans or drawings (Wickham 1912). Luckily, Bulleid visited the site after excavation and was able to make a very rough plan of what remained of the mound and marked on it the find spots from information given by the labourers who had 'excavated' the site. Bulleid (1941) measured the mound as approximately 40m long by 20m wide, orientated north-east/south-west (figure 3.18). Wickham recovered the skeletal remains of individuals of differing ages and sex; later analysis suggested that a minimum of five individuals were represented. The human remains were all from the north-east of the mound, very close to the stones. Bulleid (1941) recounts that the bones were all mixed together after excavation before removal it seems that four ?complete skeletons were identifiable along with three other groups of bones, including a skull. Wickham informed Bulleid that 'flint flakes abounded' and that arrow heads and scrapers were also discovered. Interestingly, these all appear to have been deposited in a 'deep channelled pit, probably once flanked with stone'. However, we do not know the size, shape, depth or even the position of this pit. A quern stone is also marked on the plan, near two stones, as is the finding of an antler. Bulleid also recorded that at the north end of the mound, dry stone walling running NE/SW had been excavated. It is possible that this represented either the remains of an outer revetment wall or part of the internal construction itself. It was found near the upright stones.

Figure 3.18: Plan of Giant’s Grave Long Barrow (after Bullied 1941) The last monument with any record of excavation is that at Bray's Down, Shoscombe (SHOSCOMBE I). Skinner and the Rev. James Douglas opened it in 1815 (Grinsell 1971). Skinner described a barrow some 60 feet long with a cruciform cist, eight feet long and six feet wide. They discovered human bones, both burnt and unburnt, two leaf-shaped arrowheads and coarse pottery. The bones represented the remains of a child as well as two or more adults. The drawings Skinner made of the site seem to indicate that this was a terminal transepted chambered long barrow consisting of a gallery and a pair of sidechambers. The barrow had also been opened previously: "The barrow had been opened and the covering stones of the grave taken away long before I had it again examined " (Skinner 1819, quoted in Grinsell 1971).

Corcoran suggests that the Giant's Grave probably contained a simple terminal chamber (1969, 291) and this seems quite likely, with the chamber at the north-east end of the mound. The monument seems to have existed in some form until the 1970s when Aston (1978: 118) noted that "...the last remains of the Neolithic long barrow and stone burial chamber were recently removed by the farmer". The monument would have been located to the east of a steep valley (Snail's Bottom). The orientation of

Doubt has been cast upon the interpretation of this monument as a long barrow, with some arguing that the site is more likely a round barrow. The monument today is visible as a low spread mound, measuring

40

approximately 30 metres north - south and 19 metres east – west (figure 3.19). A resistivity survey carried as part of this research achieved good results, showing an outer retaining wall enclosing an oval/rectangular area, orientated north-south (figure 3.20). Inside the barrow is a large pit, which may represent Skinner's excavation. Thus perhaps Skinner's drawings should be believed, as Bray's Down may indeed be a (terminal transepted?) chambered long barrow. The site is not scheduled and is being ploughed level1. The location of the Brays Down monument is strikingly reminiscent of Stoney Littleton, which is only 2 kms north-east of the site. The mound is 600m north of the Wellow Brook and faces uphill, rather than following the contours of the land. The north end appears to be the entrance and this also faces away from the Wellow Brook. From the other side of the valley, a fine view of the back of the mound would be available. The mound is on land that attains a height of 130m AOD but higher land exists to the north of the site. There are four remaining sites on East Mendip to be considered. The first is the Devil's Bed & Bolster at Beckington (BECKINGTON I), consisting of an irregular mound, containing many stones (figure 3.21). Skinner mentions it as an oval barrow in a ruinous state called Mount Pleasant (Skinner BM Add Mss 33654, f231 - 232). An account by the Bath Field club in 1889 records about 23 stones, five of these being upright (Bath Natural History and Antiquarian Field Club, 1889, vii, 88). When Bulleid (1941) visited the site in c.1941 he found only nine stones, six standing and three recumbent (figure 3.22). A recent survey by the author (& Patrick 1998) revealed over thirty stones, some standing and some recumbent. The stones follow the long axis of the mound, running east-west. The remains seem to comprise a section of passage at the east end, a chamber opening off to the south some way along the route of the passage and an end chamber. Around the end chamber are many stones that have the appearance of fallen capstones. The mound itself is now almost square and the outer margins are ploughed. There are four large horse chestnut trees on the mound itself and scrub vegetation (hawthorn, brambles etc) is colonising the edges. The barrow itself is irregular in height, with hollows and stony mounds. It is difficult to know whether the stony mounds are in fact original cairn material or if they are later, the result of field clearance or spoil from digging into the barrow. The positions of the stones suggest that this is a terminal transepted chambered long barrow of Cotswold-Severn type.

Figure 3.19: Earthwork Survey of Brays Down Long Barrow

Figure 3.20: Resistivity Survey of Brays Down Long Barrow

1 The farmer has informed the author that the mound contains "stones big enough to lift the plough off the ground" which he drags out and dumps.

41

Figure 3.21 Earthwork Survey of Devil’s Bed and Bolster Long Barrow

Figure 3.22: Plan of the stones at Devil’s Bed and Bolster (after Bullied 1941)

42

Tratman's description (figure 3.23). The west end is higher and wider than the east and this is where there is also evidence of a ‘horn’. The northern ‘horn’ is missing, not surprising as it is evident that the mound has been quarried in the past. Today, there is no sign of a ditch. Nonetheless, the site may well still be a chambered barrow, orientated north-west/south-east. It runs along the contours of a valley, above the 100m contour line. The land to the south drops away significantly and it is in this direction that views are most extensive, along the Avon valley. Viewed from below, the mound forms a false crest.

As the survey shows, the margin of the mound is much further east than the stones, perhaps suggesting that there were once 'horns' and a forecourt, as at Stoney Littleton. If this were the case then the stones at the east would be in approximately the right position to be at the set-back entrance to the barrow. The barrow overlooks a prominent valley to the north, where the village of Rode lies today. The barrow itself is slightly elevated, sitting on a natural platform that is an obvious landscape feature. However, the barrow is not centrally placed on this platform, sticking to the north where visibility down the valley is good. To the east, there are excellent views towards the chalk landscape of Wessex.

At Evercreech, the southern limit of East Mendip, there is a mound 31m long, 20m wide and just over 1m high (EVERCREECH I). This monument has been considered by Tratman, Wicks and Crawford to be a long barrow, but rejected by Grinsell, who argues it to be two bowl barrows (Grinsell 1971). The mound is aligned eastsouth-east/west-north-west. Tratman mentions a depression at the east end, which could be a collapsed chamber (Tratman 1948). Wicks described disturbance at both ends, the disturbance at the east end showing the mound to be composed of flaggy oolitic limestone blocks (Wicks 1928). The author has not been able to gain entrance to the site so cannot reach any conclusions other than it may be a long barrow. The site lies on a hilltop, to the east of Small Down Camp, and above the River Alham. It appears to point up the hill rather than

At Winsley, just over the modern county border in Wiltshire, is a large wedge-shaped mound, mainly composed of stones (Crook and Tratman, 1948). Crook and Tratman noted that the mound is higher and wider at the eastern end where there are also indications of an entrance (ibid.). They also described a 'horn' at the southeast angle but the north-east horn, if it existed, had been destroyed, and the traces of a stone revetment wall. A ditch was observed on the northern side of the mound. Crook and Tratman suggested this was a disturbed chambered tomb. However, the new earthwork survey carried out as part of this work disagrees with Crook &

Figure 3.23: Earthwork Survey of Winsley Mound

43

Figure 3.24: Earthwork Survey of Chicks Lane Lynchet Corner Crawford (1925) and Tratman (1938) to be an unchambered (non-megalithic) long barrow. However, Grinsell argued it to be two round barrows CHILCOMPTON 1a & 1b (1971). The mound measures 32m long by 16m wide, is higher and wider at the east end and survives to a height of 1m. The long barrow/twin round barrow confusion has arisen because of a constriction of the mound, about 20m from the east end. The notes of the Ordnance Survey Archaeology Division show that they believed it to be a long barrow, the narrowing a result of digging or quarrying. Enquiries to local residents, as part of this research, revealed that some remembered an excavation taking place at the site, possibly in the 1960s. One gentleman recalled that human remains were uncovered and a tent subsequently erected over the mound to shield the excavation activities. He also stated that that the Somerset and Dorset Railway (which passes through the same field) was still running at this time. This section of the Somerset and Dorset Railway closed in 1966 (Atthill 1967), thus giving a terminus ante quem for the excavation. No records of this investigation exist, the group responsible is unknown and details (and the location) of finds are also unknown, despite detailed research as part of this work.

run along the contours as many of the other long barrows in this region do. Nonetheless, Stoney Littleton and Brays Down also point up hill, so Evercreech cannot be discounted for this reason. Almost on the boundary between East and West Mendip are the final monuments on Mendip to be considered. The first is the Chicks Lane earthwork, first noted by Wicks in 1928. He described a mound, almost round at the east, continuing westwards into a long mound. Crawford thought it to be the remains of a Celtic field system (quoted in Grinsell 1971). Others have argued the mound variously to be a long barrow or a round barrow (Tratman 1948, Grinsell 1971, Williams pers. comm.). The new earthwork survey suggests that both the long barrow and round barrow interpretations should be rejected (figure 3.24). Instead, the mound at Chicks Lane appears to be a well-preserved lynchet corner, part of the extensive fieldsystem in the area, first mentioned by Crawford. Whether this is prehistoric or Medieval is uncertain. The second, and final, Mendip monument to be considered is the oval mound at Old Down, thought by

44

"Three stones supporting a fourth making a hollow six feet long and four and a half wide. This hath been made use of for a watch-house or look-out for those who attended the beacon in times of danger". (Williams 1987a).

North of Mendip: The Failand Ridge, Dundry, Broadfield Down and the Vale of Wrington. The area to the north of the Mendip Hills contains eight possible long barrows. The most northerly of these is on the Failand Ridge. Master (1900) describes how:

Skinner visited in 1826 and described a burial chamber or stone cist, formed of four upright stones on which rested flat covers each about eight feet in length and four feet in width (Tratman, 1958a, 124). The spaces between the uprights were filled with drystone walling and the cavity was described as c.7 ft long and c.6 ft wide. Skinner also saw a mound, 60ft in circumference, around it. There are many other early citations (Collinson, 1791, Phelps, 1836, Scarth, 1858) and some argue for a modern date for the structure as a beacon site and watch-house for the keeper, whilst others that it is an antiquity. Scarth even mentions its recent use as a tool shed (1890) but this need not preclude it as an antiquity. The descriptions given by the antiquarians, especially by Skinner, fit with the monument being of Neolithic date. Orthostats, capstones, drystone walling and a mound sound suspiciously like the remains of a chambered barrow. The most likely suggestion is that this took the form of a simple terminal chamber in a long mound. Interestingly, the site of this monument is the only patch of land on this part of Dundry Hill not to have been quarried - early eighteenth century workmen refused to destroy the 'grave' (Tratman, 1958a, 124). There is also an oral tradition of a number of human bones being found at the site (ibid.). The location of the monument is noteworthy, lying on the highest point of the Dundry ridge at 233m AOD, with stunning views down the Gordano Valley and to the Failand Ridge beyond.

"A megalithic monument is said to have stood upon the high ground on Failand Hill, above that known as 'the Bowling Green', and the small camp at no great distance towards the east...is probably of Celtic origin". According to Quinn (1997a) the monument was a dolmen (WRAXALL i) and stood on a slight eminence and when destroyed by road builders in 1815, produced a hoard of 150 Roman coins. The most likely location for the monument, using the above-mentioned sources, seems to be approximately ST510720. This is the highest point of the Failand Ridge at 164m AOD, though whether it was on the summit of the hill or slightly down slope is uncertain. The hill is almost equidistant from the northern and southern edges of the Failand Ridge. The form of the megalithic monument is unknown and there seems little evidence to substantiate that this was a portal dolmen (suggested by Quinn), as opposed to the remains of a chambered long barrow. Proceeding southerly, there is a small group of monuments on the Dundry ridge. The first of these to be considered is the Soldier's Grave, a destroyed megalithic monument (DUNDRY i). It is first mentioned by Strachey, c.1730:

Figure 3.25: Earthwork Survey of the Dundry Mound

45

highest point on Mendip, is visible 9km to the south, but otherwise views are fairly localised. 'Rock Cottage' at the edge of the Common has several large stones in its garden wall, and tradition in the village has it that they came from a barrow on the Common. The barrow is mentioned on an Anglo-Saxon charter for Wrington dating to AD 904 (Neale 1969: 2)

At the other, eastern end of the ridge is another monument, the Dundry long barrow (DUNDRY ii), discovered by Rahtz in 1950 (Grinsell 1971). This is a small earthen mound, 25m long and 15m wide, obviously lowered and spread by ploughing (figure 3.25). It does not appear to have been noted by the antiquarians and there is no surviving folklore about it. It is orientated west-north-west/east-south-east, the western end being higher and wider. The mound is not on the highest point of this part of the landscape but set on one side of a valley, which drops to the south-west. There are views to the Bristol Channel to the north, the Cotswolds to the east and Mendip to the south. To the west, it is overlooked by an area of higher ground. It is classified as a nonmegalithic monument, though other than its small size that makes it comparable with the Priddy long barrow, there is no evidence of this and it could well be megalithic.

Two kilometres south-west of Felton Common is the Redhill long mound (WRINGTON I), again first recorded by Tratman in 1923. The mound, measuring 48m long by 17m wide, is orientated east-west (figure 3.28). According to Dobson (1931), four lateral chambers were visible, but this must be conjecture as the monument has never been excavated and there is no evidence of chambering on the ground today. Indeed, Tratman thought that the monument to be earthen, that is nonmegalithic (1923). The mound has been used as a stone dump but none of these form an integral part of any structure. Interestingly, the site has been incorporated into a pre-medieval field system, discovered by Fowler (1978). In order to clarify the megalithic-non-megalithic status of the monument, geophysical surveys were carried out but produced no conclusive results. Like Felton Common, the only prominent landmark visible today from the Redhill mound is Black Down. Redhill lies below the highest point locally, parallel to a dry valley that runs to the south-west. From the south, the monument forms a false crest.

The easterly foothills of Dundry contain another monument that could be prehistoric. This is the possible long barrow at Hammerhill Wood, Norton Malreward, noted by Tratman, and later researched by Williams (1985b). Williams surveyed the mound and found it to be 35m long, 10m wide and 2m high, composed of slabs of local lias limestone (figure 3.26). The orientation is south-east/north-west. Several worked flints were found in a disturbed area of the mound. However, Williams concludes that it is in fact a field clearance mound or a spoil heap. This interpretation is backed up here; in the vicinity of the site are surface quarries and other mounds in the area that look very similar.

The Waterstone Dolmen (WRINGTON II) is the final monument on Broadfield Down to be considered. The site consists of three orthostats and a capstone (figure 3.29). One of the orthostats is upright but leaning at a 45degree angle, whilst the other stones have all fallen. It has been suggested to be a portal dolmen by Corcoran, who argues the size of the stones make this likely (1969:291). The orthostats measure 2.9m, 2.3m and 1.2m, though it seems that the latter is broken, judging by the pieces of stone around it. The capstone measures 3.3m by 2.5m and has been estimated to weigh between six and seven tons (Lloyd Morgan 1896). There is a slight suggestion of a much-denuded mound around the stones, which may or may not be circular. The monument is at a height of 180m AOD and lies above a dry valley that joins up with Goblin Coombe.

On Broadfield Down, to the west of Dundry, are a further three sites. On Felton Common there is an oval mound measuring 31m long by 19m wide, orientated northnorth-east/south-south-west (WINFORD I) (figure 3.27). It was first recorded by Tratman in 1923 and argued to be chambered, as large stones were visible protruding from the top of the mound. Corcoran (1969) suggested that there was enough stone for a terminal transepted chambered barrow. It is not possible to see these stones today as the monument is covered in brambles and gorse. A large 'U' shaped hollow in the top of the monument is recorded, though whether this is due to a collapsed/disturbed chamber or quarrying activities is unknown. The barrow was also used as a stone dump after WWII. Parallel side ditches are visible on aerial photographs from 1946 and 1971 (Grinsell 1971). this is significant as it suggests affinities with the Avebury region, where Cotswold-Severn barrows also have side ditches. Felton Common is the first chambered barrow within northern Somerset where ditches have been identified.

The sheer size of the stones at the Waterstone Dolmen makes it possible that it is in fact a portal dolmen: the measurements compare well with other established portal dolmens. There does appear to be a slight mound but surface observations alone are not enough to say whether it is long or round. Geophysical surveys were carried out as part of this research in the hope of obtaining more information on the status of the monument but, again, proved inconclusive.

The barrow is near to, but not on the highest part of the Common, and lies above a dry valley. Black Down, the

46

Figure 3.26: Earthwork Survey of Hammerhill Wood Mound (after Williams 1985b)

N

0

5m

Figure 3.27: Felton Common Long Barrow

47

Figure 3.28: Earthwork Survey of Redhill Mound

Figure 3.29: The Waterstone Dolmen

48

conjectural based on the length of the tomb and the maximum number of cells. Skinner, visiting in 1822, thought that it contained six pairs of side chambers (Grinsell 1971:84) (figure 3.31). He also retrieved part of a human cranium. The confusion over the number of chambers in this barrow must stem from it not being completely opened. The barrow was 50m long and 25m wide and it appears most of the estimates are conjectural and are based on how many could have been fitted, if they were regularly spaced along the passage. Chambers do seem to have been found close to the north and south ends of the barrow but this does not entail that the whole passage had regularly offset chambers - the chambers at Stoney Littleton are irregularly spaced, for example. It is more likely that this tomb contained three or perhaps four pairs of side chambers. Indeed, it is also possible that more than one episode of construction is represented and that an earlier monument could have been enclosed, adding to the confusion over chamber numbers and positions. The subsequent history of the barrow is rather sad, with a lime kiln erected on the site in 1835 and any remaining stones burnt for lime. The Rev. W. Cartwright recounted that "... the large stones which formed the roof and walls were carried away and used as covers for drains... " (Bullied 1941). The name 'Fairy's Toot' derives from a local belief, predating 1788, of this being the haunt of fairies and goblins (Grinsell 1971).

The final monument to be considered is one of the more famous Somerset examples, the Fairy's Toot long barrow (BUTCOMBE I). It is apt that perhaps the most complex and confusing monument should be considered last in this discussion. The documentation about the site is perplexing, and contradictory statements abound, but enough has been written to allow us a quite detailed insight in to its form. Destruction of Fairy's Toot began sometime in 1788, when a farmer and waywarden of the parish set men digging into the mound for road material. The work was watched and recorded by the Rev. Thomas Bere (1789, 1792). Although the records are confusing, it appears that they first began digging into the east side of the monument, where dry stone walling was encountered. Breaking through this, they discovered a passage with three chambers off it, two on the west side and one on the east. Human bones were found within these, though the details are sketchy. The work then ceased for several months but due to the 'uncommon severity of the season', the waywarden had the men resume to prevent their being discharged. It seems they then dug in to the south end of the mound, encountering an 'entrance stone'. To the north of this stone, 13ft away, was another stone this time perforated. The men worked to the east of this and discovered a 'chamber', 9 ft long, 2 ft 3" broad and 4 ft high. A complete skeleton was found lying north-south, accompanied by other bits of skull, vertebrae and arm bones. It is obvious that this was not a chamber but part of the passage, blocked to the north by roof collapse. Opening off this part of the passage were two chambers, one to the east, the other to the west. These were described as containing several skulls and other bones. In one, a thigh bone of an ox and a red deer tooth were found. Collinson (1791) mentions that the several skulls were actually seven in number and that the undifferentiated 'heap' of human bone and animal bone were found in the other cell. He goes on to describe the tomb as "undoubtedly one of the noblest sepulchres of the kind in Great Britain" (ibid.).

Several statements can be made about Fairy's Toot long barrow. The first is that it was a terminal transepted chambered barrow of Cotswold-Severn type. The entrance stone and the perforated stone are interesting: Bullied thinks that the so-called entrance stone was not in fact at the entrance, being too far south. He feels the perforated stone and its accompanying 'trilithon' mark the actual entrance, suggesting the barrow had the 'double horns' so characteristic of Cotswold-Severn tombs. The drystone walling that was broken through in 1788 was part of a retaining wall, similar to that at Stoney Littleton, enclosing the barrow and defining a forecourt. The entrance stone would thus seem to have been a blocking device, discussed in Chapter Four. A reason for the confusion surrounding the number of chambers may also be partly explained by the presence of an antechamber, immediately behind the perforated stone. There are several other interesting features about the site, such as the south-north orientation of the mound and the extreme height of the mound at over 3m. It is a pity that this complex monument was destroyed by 1856; the site is now rough ground in a pasture field, the most obvious feature being two large mounds of limestone, possibly the remains of limekilns on the north end of the mound. The remains of a building straddle the centre of the barrow, and all is overgrown with nettles. The barrow is on the side of a dry valley and the mound faces upslope. The land reaches a height here of 140m AOD, with higher land to the east. To the west, the land drops sharply into a valley containing springs and a stream.

The recorded number of chambers fluctuates between three, six, eight and ten pairs (figure 3.30). Bere tells of how the passage was blocked and of his intentions to clear and shore it, to carry on investigations. Yet it is unclear whether this happened, although Bulleid feels that it did as Bere talks of the 'grand avenue', stretching from the north to the south end of the monument. Bere, as far as we know, was the only person to record the monument on the ground and he shows eight pairs of chambers, leading off the 'grand avenue'. However, it seems this is conjectural and Bulleid suggests that he received this information from others working at the tomb. Indeed, Bere only positively illustrates the five chambers he entered; the others are dotted on his plan. Scarth (1858) records seven pairs of chambers on his plan and Rutter ten or eleven, although again, the latter is

49

Figure 3.30: Hypothetical Reconstructions of Chamber Layout at Fairy’s Toot (after Bullied 1941)

Figure 3.31: View of Fairy’s Toot by Skinner 1822

51

suggesting that the monument might be a pillow mound1. However, it is also possible that it is a local adaptation on the bank barrow idea, perhaps an amalgamation of cursus and bank barrow characteristics. The geophysical results also suggest that the mound is two-phase, with an eastern section approximately 120m long and a western section approximately 115m long. The break between the two is also marked by a slight change of orientation and a narrowing of the mound westwards. This is more indicative of a Neolithic date, as bank barrows/cursus monuments are known to exhibit these characteristics; the Dorset Cursus, for example, appears to have been built in at least two stages, albeit on a much larger scale. The alignment of the Pen Hill mound on the near-by long barrow (ST CUTHBERT OUT I), only 50m west, might also support a Neolithic date.

This chapter has set out the evidence for Early Neolithic mortuary monuments in northern Somerset. Chapter Four will look at the evidence as a whole and discuss the significance of the findings. Nevertheless, before this can proceed, there is still one monument to be discussed that is relevant to this chapter. This is the possible bank barrow on West Mendip (ST CUTHBERT OUT Ia). The Pen Hill Long Mound Near the summit of Pen Hill is an elongated linear earthwork, 235m long and c.10m wide, though only 0.6m high (figure 3.32). It is aligned north-east/south-west. The site was apparently not recorded until the second half of the 20th century and was suggested to be a bank barrow, a type of ritual monument of Early Neolithic date (Grinsell 1971). Bank barrows are still a poorly understood phenomenon with less than ten identified in England, though more can be found in Scotland. They consist of an elongated mound, flanked by two parallel side-ditches, often situated on hilltops or ridges. If the long mound on Pen Hill were a bank barrow, rarity alone would make it a site of national importance. However, Williamson and Loveday (1988) questioned the ‘bank barrow’ interpretation and argued that the long mound might in fact be a pillow mound, a type of earthwork associated with rabbit warrens. Pillow mounds, constructed in the late Medieval and Post-Medieval periods, provided a suitable habitat for rabbits and facilitated the trapping of the animals. They are usually rectangular with a sharply profiled ditch running around the mound. Pillow mounds are a common feature of uplands.

Not enough evidence exists to be definite in the interpretation of the Pen Hill mound. However, its relationship to the Pen Hill long barrow, the fact that it is multi-phase and the finding of a axehead flake lends credence to a Neolithic date. More research, including limited excavation, is planned for the future.

The confusion over whether the long mound is prehistoric or medieval/post-medieval is due to the many similarities between the two classes of monument. The measurements are within the range of both pillow mounds and bank barrows, both are known to cluster near existing earthworks (in this case, the Pen Hill long barrow) and both are found on high ground. An earthwork survey, map regression analysis, place name evidence and aerial photographic analysis were undertaken and though useful yielded no definite answer (Lewis 1996). However, a flake of a polished flint axehead was found on the edge of the mound in 1965 by H. S. Green (Grinsell 1971: 86), which might lend support to a Neolithic date though it could, of course, be residual. Ditches are visible on the ground on either side of the long mound but it is uncertain whether they enclose the mound or simply flank it. This is of significance as bank barrows generally have parallel side ditches and pillow mounds all enclosing ditches. A geophysical survey was undertaken to further investigate the nature of these ditches. Magnetometry was the preferred choice, but the large mast on Pen Hill prevented its use and so a resistivity survey was undertaken instead. The resistivity results show that the ditches do encircle the long mound,

1

The geophysical survey has not been reproduced here due to resolution issues.

51

52 52

Figure 3.32: Earthwork Survey of the Pen Hill Long Mound

Chapter Four: Analysis of the Mortuary Monuments as megalithic long mounds, only with wooden as opposed to stone chambers (Pitt-Rivers 1898, cited in Barrett et al 1991). He too was in favour of the idea that megalithic monuments were built only where suitable stone allowed. Crawford was only one of the proponents of this idea in the 20th century, arguing that non-megalithic monuments were "merely the reproduction in earth of a characteristic form of megalithic burial" (Crawford 1925), a view also shared by Childe (1925). Again, wooden chambers were viewed as being built in areas with no locally available stone; the form of a long barrow simply dependent on geology.

Chapter Three described all the known Early Neolithic mortuary monuments within northern Somerset, recounting their excavation history and other information. The aim of this chapter is to investigate in detail these data. It will take a micro and a macro approach, disseminating and analysing information from both the individual monuments and the monuments as a regional group. It will raise issues applicable not only to this dataset but to general studies of the British Neolithic, beginning by considering the types of mortuary monument. Megalithic & Non-Megalithic Long Barrows

Piggott, however, looked beyond the presence/absence of stone to explain megalithic/non-megalithic distribution and instead argued for a dual origin for the two types (Piggott 1954, 1962). Cotswold-Severn tombs were seen as evidence of contact between the Severn estuary and north-west France, where the burial chambers were of a similar form. Non-megalithic long barrows were part of the 'Windmill Hill' culture, an eastern extremity of contemporary cultures in Poland and Northern Germany, who built unchambered long mounds. Piggott argued that the feature uniting these two culturally diverse traditions was the presence of a trapezoidal mound (Piggott 1962: 63). The 'earthen ' long barrow was viewed by Daniel as being the source of the trapezoidal mound for the Clyde cairns, as well as the Cotswold-Severn group (Daniel 1950:315).

Long barrows are divided into two classes in southern England; megalithic long cairns (predominantly of the Cotswold-Severn family) and non-megalithic 'earthen' long mounds. Megalithic long barrows are characterised by the presence of a stone built chamber set within a long mound usually comprised of stone, whilst non-megalithic long barrows contain a variety of structures such as embanked chambers (of turf/rubble/boulders), framed structures (wooden chambers), paved areas and crematoria (Kinnes 1992, Ashbee 1970), within an 'earthen' (soil/turf/rubble) mound. Recognition of the distinction between these two types of monument dates back to at least the 19th century when Sir Richard ColtHoare stated: "A new species of tumulus now excites my attention, which I shall denominate the STONE BARROW, varying from the long barrow, not in its external but in its internal mode of construction. None of this kind occurred to me during my researches in south Wiltshire for the material of stone with which they were partly formed was wanting. But some I have found in North Wiltshire...some specimens both in Ireland and in Anglesey, but none corresponding in plan or more perfect in its construction than the one I have now the honour to submit to the consideration of my brother Antiquaries" (Colt-Hoare, 1821:44-45).

Corcoran also envisaged an ancestry for the monuments in northern or central Europe but like Daniel argued that compelling evidence existed showing that CotswoldSevern tombs were influenced by earthen long barrows (Corcoran 1969: 75-78). Post and panel constructions in stone, he argued, were a 'skeuomorph' of timber and wattle post and panel construction. Horizontal drystone walling could be compared to turf-built revetments and the trapezoidal mound of the Cotswold-Severn barrow was influenced and possibly derived from the earthen long barrow (ibid.). Diffusion and migration theories no longer exercise a strong hold on our interpretations of the origins of Early Neolithic mortuary monuments in Britain. It has been suggested that the monuments should instead be viewed as deriving from a 'coastal soup' of ideas (Barker 1985:36) prevalent at this time in the Atlantic seaboard. This allows for different monument forms to share specific architectural features and rituals in common, whilst exhibiting regionality in design. Non-megalithic long barrows and Cotswold-Severn tombs are similar in date and contents, thus need not be viewed as being 'successive' or 'influential' in nature but different regional expressions of the same idea. This brings us back to the argument of Colt-Hoare, that megalithic barrows were constructed in areas where suitable stone was available

This monument 'perfect in its construction' was none other than Stoney Littleton. Colt-Hoare was the first to argue that the availability of raw materials determined the type of monument constructed, an idea that still finds favour today. Later in the 19th century, the work of Thurnam was vital in classifying long barrows, though he was evasive on the relationship between megalithic and non-megalithic barrows (Kinnes 1992:56). Greenwell also noticed that the structures within long mounds were different and rationalised this by the presence, or not, of large blocks of stone (Greenwell 1887:479). The excavation of Wor Barrow at the end of the 19th century allowed Pitt-Rivers to 'prove' that 'earthen' long mounds were in fact the same

53

Avebury region 52% of the known long barrows are megalithic, 28% are non-megalithic and the status of a further 20% is unknown (Barker 1985). The possible non-megalithic figures in both of these regions are not dissimilar but it is essential to understand on exactly what criteria 18% of the sample in northern Somerset have been suggested to be non-megalithic. This involves looking more closely at the Pen Hill, Haydon Drove, Green Ore, Dundry and Priddy Hill long barrows.

and non-megalithic barrows in areas where stone was not. But is it really this simple? Non-Megalithic Northern Somerset? The 'spheres of influence' of megalithic and nonmegalithic barrows in southern England are largely exclusive, with megalithic monuments in the west the 'upland' zone and non-megalithic monuments in the central, south and east areas, the 'lowland' zone. Exceptions to this are the small group of megalithic barrows in Kent, the 'Medway Group'; a few megalithic barrows in Dorset and the Avebury and northern Somerset regions. The Medway and Dorset groups are viewed as small local aberrations in a non-megalithic landscape but Avebury has long been assigned more importance in contributing to an understanding of megalithic/non-megalithic relations. It is seen as a true 'frontier' zone, the only region lying between the two traditions, 'obviously' influenced by both as it contains both types of monument. Northern Somerset has been ignored in these discussions, yet is included in works detailing both megalithic long barrows (Powell et al 1969, Darvill 1982) and non-megalithic monuments (Kinnes 1992). If it is true that the region contains both megalithic and non-megalithic long barrows this makes it as important as the Avebury region in the understanding of the relationship between the two traditions.

Pen Hill has side ditches and the mound material, revealed through extensive animal damage on its southern side, is of reddish earth and small stones. Thus, its classification as non-megalithic is on these criteria alone as flanking side ditches are said to be indicative of nonmegalithic monuments (Ashbee 1960, Kinnes 1992). Yet there is a problem. Whilst the monuments in the Cotswold-Severn 'heartland' of Gloucestershire, Oxfordshire and south-east Wales do not have side ditches, with evidence of stone sometimes being obtained from quarry pits, the megalithic long barrows of the Avebury district do have side ditches. In northern Somerset there is one possible example of a megalithic long barrow with side ditches; the Felton Common long barrow. This has been argued to be megalithic by the presence of several large stones protruding through the mound and a hollow perhaps representing a collapsed chamber (Corcoran 1969, Grinsell 1971). It is also described as being composed of red earth and stone (Grinsell ibid.:87). If Felton Common is megalithic then there appears no reason why Pen Hill, with its side ditches and similar mound composition, might not also be megalithic. The Pen Hill monument is on Old Red Sandstone and the only other long barrow on this geology is the possible example at Beacon Batch, which appears to have been megalithic (see Chapter Three). Old Red Sandstone would have been a suitable material for a chambered tomb - its use from the Neolithic to the present day testifies to this fact.

The Avebury region contains non-megalithic and Cotswold-Severn long barrows. However, unlike the monuments of the Cotswold-Severn 'heartland' of Gloucestershire, Oxfordshire and south-east Wales, the Cotswold-Severn tombs of the Avebury district have flanking side ditches from which the mound material derived. Because of this they have 'earthen' mounds, of soil and chalk rubble, rather than the stone cairns of the Cotswold-Severn group. The cairn material for those barrows probably derived from quarry pits. The megalithic long barrows of the Avebury region thus seem to have 'borrowed' some of the elements of the CotswoldSevern architectural tradition - chamber design, trapezoidal mound - whilst also 'borrowing' from the nonmegalithic tradition - flanking side ditches, earthen mound.

Whilst it is not possible to substantiate the claim that Pen Hill is a non-megalithic long barrow, it is also impossible to claim that it is definitely megalithic. It must for now join the 'unclassifiable' category of long barrows as it could fall into either the megalithic or the non-megalithic group.

In northern Somerset, both megalithic and non-megalithic long barrows have also been identified, yet further investigations reveal these classifications to be problematic. Table 3 summarises the long barrows in the region and the reasons, if any, they have been suggested to be megalithic/non-megalithic. As can be seen, 71% of the known long barrows in northern Somerset are, or appear to be, of megalithic construction. It has been suggested that two of these monuments might be portal dolmens (see below) whilst the remaining examples fit into the Cotswold-Severn class of monument. 4% are definitely non-megalithic, 18% are suggested to be nonmegalithic long barrows and the megalithic/nonmegalithic status of a further 7% is unknown. In the

Both the Haydon Drove and Green Ore long barrows have been destroyed but were noted by Tratman (1938) and Grinsell (1971). Neither author indicates whether the monuments were megalithic or non-megalithic and thus it is puzzling that Kinnes included the sites as nonmegalithic (Kinnes 1992). The same can be said of Dundry, as Grinsell does not speculate whether it is megalithic or non-megalithic (Grinsell 1971). At this stage, there is no evidence to suggest that they did or did not contain stone chambers so it is sensible therefore to put Haydon Drove, Green Ore and Dundry into the same category as Old Down, Small Down and Pen Hill; status uncertain.

54

Name of Site Waterstone Whitnell Farm Orchardleigh Soldiers Grave Big Tree Fromefield Fairy's Toot Brays Down Stoney Littleton Tunley Giant's Grave Devil's Bed & Bolster Beacon Batch Failand Batheaston Felton Common Winsley Mountain Ground Redhill Barrow House Farm Priddy Pen Hill Priddy Hill Haydon Drove Green Ore Dundry Old Down Small Down

Megalithic (NM) M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M NM NM NM? NM? NM? NM? ? ?

(M)

/

Non-Megalithic

Evidence Megalithic chamber/s Megalithic chamber/s Megalithic chamber/s Megalithic chamber/s Megalithic chamber/s Megalithic chamber/s Megalithic chamber/s Megalithic chamber/s Megalithic chamber/s Megalithic chamber/s Megalithic chamber/s Megalithic chamber/s Megalithic chamber/s Megalithic chamber/s Megalithic chamber/s Orthostats supposedly visible Outer revetment and horns Top of orthostats visible at east end Orthostats supposedly visible Dry stone walling outer revetment Cist, paved area, postholes Ditches Ditches? ? ? ?

Table 3: Megalithic/Non-Megalithic Status of Early Neolithic Mortuary Monuments

This leaves us with Priddy Hill. As explained in Chapter Three, at Priddy Hill there is a suggestion of a flanking side ditch in the pasture field on the north side of the monument. The field to the south is levelled through cultivation and thus there is no sign of a ditch on this side. The dense vegetation covering the mound allows no examination of mound material. The same argument used for Pen Hill must be used here again; the presence of side ditches is not enough to determine megalithic/nonmegalithic status.

Haydon Drove, Green Ore, Priddy and Priddy Hill all lie on Carboniferous Limestone. Priddy is the only certain non-megalithic monument. Does this indicate that Carboniferous Limestone is not suitable for megalithic construction? The destroyed megalithic chamber at Failand was on Carboniferous Limestone and, it is likely that the stones would also have been from the local geology. The possible long barrow at Redhill is also on Carboniferous Limestone and has been said to be chambered, though any indication of chambers is not visible today (Dobson 1931, Grinsell 1971). The megalithic long barrow on Beacon Batch has already been mentioned, suggesting that the Old Red Sandstone was not an unsuitable material for megalithic construction.

To summarise then, we have only one definite nonmegalithic long barrow in northern Somerset and two others that 'might' be non-megalithic as they have side ditches. However, there is also at least one possible megalithic long barrow with side ditches. Megalithic monuments dominate in northern Somerset, yet the potential for some of the unclassifiable monuments to be non-megalithic long barrows is intriguing. The megalithic/non-megalithic barrows within the Avebury region have been explained by raw material availability is this argument supportable for northern Somerset? It seems clear that if megalithic monuments occur on the same geology as non-megalithic monuments, the reasoning behind it cannot be simply explained by opportunism and the suitability of geology.

Thus, it appears that there is some evidence for the construction of megalithic long barrows in areas where certain or possible non-megalithic long barrows are also found. This suggests that the choice whether to build a megalithic or non-megalithic long barrow was not simply dependent on geology but was a decision dependent on other, social factors. Such factors may have been in operation at the immediately local scale rather than the regional scale. Whether difference in megalithic/nonmegalithic construction implies any other differences (for

55

dolmen. The results were inconclusive. Next, a resistivity survey was carried out in the hope of detecting mound material. If the survey revealed a long mound, an interpretation as a long barrow would be in favour, rather than a portal dolmen. If a round mound or a kidneyshaped mound were revealed the opposite would be true. Unfortunately, once again, the results were inconclusive.

example, in ritual practice) is unclear, though evidence from other regions does not tend to substantiate this. Nonetheless, it is possible to contrast the 'open-ness' of a megalithic long barrow with the 'closed-ness' of a nonmegalithic long barrow, where the erection of the mound over the burial/ritual area sealed the site, preventing reaccess to these areas. It is possible that the rituals that took place at the sites may thus have altered slightly but there is not the space within this study to examine this idea in any greater detail.

Thus, a conclusion must be reached without geophysical survey results or excavation. Apart from Crawford's statement, which could be explained by the outcropping bedrock forming linear patterns, there is no evidence of a long mound, nor any cairn material or ditches/quarries. It is possible that this was a terminal chambered long barrow but, at present, there is no evidence to substantiate this. Indeed, Lloyd Morgan who first 'discovered' the site explicitly stated that there was no 'mound of earth' (Lloyd-Morgan 1896). Grinsell described a mound to the south-west that was 'nearly levelled' (Grinsell 1971) but again it is possible that he was seeing natural geology not an artificial mound. The sheer size of the monument makes it far more likely that it is a portal dolmen or portal dolmen variant. If a portal dolmen/portal dolmen variant it is on the margins of the general distribution of these sites, which occur predominantly in Cornwall, Wales and Ireland. However, other 'isolated' examples do occur more locally, such as the Whispering Knights in Oxfordshire and the Hoar Stone at Enstone, Gloucestershire.

Portal Dolmens There are two monuments within northern Somerset that have been suggested to be portal dolmens: the Waterstone Dolmen (Corcoran 1969) and Orchardleigh (Corcoran 1969, Lambrick 1988). At Orchardleigh, the taller orthostat measures 3m in height. The other surviving upright is 1m. Corcoran suggested that this might be the remains of a portal dolmen acting as a terminal chamber in a long cairn. However, the discussions below indicate that there was more than one terminal chamber at Orchardleigh; indeed all the evidence taken together indicates that this was a transepted Cotswold-Severn long barrow, with at least one pair of transepts. This does not, however, explain the anomalous size of one of the orthostats; at 3m much larger than is normally found in such monuments. Other explanations for these stones could be that they form a blocking or forecourt deposit such as those seen at Wayland's Smithy and West Kennet. Alternatively the stones may be "portal" stones flanking the entrance to the chamber of the monument, as seen at the Bridestones in Cheshire and amongst the Derbyshire group of chambered tombs (Adkins & Adkins 1952).

Physical Characteristics of Northern Somerset Long Barrows 1. Size & Shape The length and width of long barrows where such details are known is given in Table 4. Using these figures it is possible to calculate that the average length of a long barrow in the region is 40.5m and the average width 20.5m. Provisos of course need to be made; current length and breadth measurements are a product of four millennia of preservation and destruction, mound spread and mound loss. It has been argued that lengths are more approximate to the original than heights and widths (Kinnes 1992:66). Certainly, the Priddy Hill long barrow, one of the longest in the study area and preserved as a parish boundary in a narrow copse of vegetation, shows little evidence of having lost any length, at least not in the in the last c.1000 years (see Chapter Three for details). In terms of width, however, it seems certain that some has been lost by ploughing.

The Waterstone Dolmen is more complex. As discussed in Chapter Three, the three orthostats measure 2.9m, 2.3m and 1.2m, though the latter is probably broken. The capstone measures 3.3m x 2.5m, estimated to weigh between 6 and 7 tons. It is the size of the stones at the Waterstone Dolmen that suggest a portal dolmen classification and indeed the measurements compare well with other established portal dolmens (cf. Corcoran 1969, Lambrick 1988). There is a slight mound around the stones but surface observations alone are not enough to say whether it is long or round. Crawford recorded in 1924 that a long mound was visible from the air. However, bedrock naturally breaks the surface in the vicinity of the stones and these could superficially appear to be part of a mound, until examined on the ground. As part of this research geophysical surveys have been carried out in the hope of obtaining more information on the status of the monument. A fluxgate gradiometer survey was undertaken in the hope that this might detect ditches/quarry pits which can be indicative of CotswoldSevern barrows in contrast to portal dolmens which are often surrounded by small circular cairns, the material for which seems to have been collected rather than quarried (Lambrick 1988). Thus, if ditches/quarries were present it might suggest that the stones are the remains of a ruinous Cotswold-Severn monument, rather than a portal

It should also be stated that few length:breadth figures have been 'proved' by excavation. Only five - Priddy, Stoney Littleton, Giant's Grave, Fairy's Toot and Orchardleigh - are 'true' measurements, though care should be taken with some of these, as none represent modern excavations and reflect varying degrees of accuracy. It

56

is

possible

to

compare

the

average

length

Within northern Somerset it is only possible to be absolutely certain of the classification of three long barrows: Stoney Littleton, Fairy's Toot and Brays Down, all transepted chambered long barrows. Significantly, Stoney Littleton, with its three pairs of chambers, antechamber and end chamber, is the Cotswold-Severn monument with the most chambers yet known. Fairy's Toot reportedly had eight pairs of chambers (see Chapter Three for discussion of the evidence) though it is more likely that there existed three or four pairs. It may be that there existed a regional 'fashion' for lots of chambers within a long barrow, but is difficult to argue for this on so few cases. Nonetheless, it is surely significant that both monuments with the most chambers of any Cotswold-Severn barrow yet excavated are only 21 kms apart. Brays Down, by contrast, appears to have contained only one pair of side chambers and an end chamber.

measurements for long barrows in northern Somerset with the figures Kinnes quotes for non-megalithic long barrows; 47m, the extremes of length being 14m and 125m (ibid.:67). Our sample contains neither very short examples, nor very long and at 40.5m, tallies well with the average noted length. The lengths for CotswoldSevern long barrows is strikingly similar; in Gloucestershire the range is 25m to 100m, with most lying between 30m and 50m An analysis of length:breadth ratio can give an idea of the shape of the mound (Table 4). Kinnes classifies nonmegalithic long barrows as ovate (2:1), trapezoidal (5:2 to 4:1) and rectangular (4:1 to 6:2). Most Cotswold-Severn long barrows generally adhere to a trapezoidal plan, though this can be very difficult to distinguish before excavation. Otherwise they too appear as ovate and rectangular. Using and refining slightly Kinnes' classification, it is possible to calculate the shapes of the region's long barrows today, though this need not imply their original shape. 44% of the long barrows are ovate followed by 28% being intermediate ovate/trapezoidal. A further 17% are rectangular, whilst the remaining 11% are trapezoidal. It is interesting that this confirms Massingham's assertion that the Mendip barrows are a "short and squat" group (1926). 2.

Whilst it is not possible to be as definite of the chamber types within the remaining monuments, enough clues exist to make an informed judgement at some of the sites. It is likely that the Devil's Bed & Bolster is a transepted type, with one pair of side chambers and an end chamber. The destroyed Fromefield monument appears to have also been of this type, with two pairs of side chambers and an end chamber. Using antiquarian and 20th century accounts it is possible to categorise the Orchardleigh long barrow as being of transepted type, with at least two chambers. One of these probably opened off to the south, though the location of the other, as described by Strachey, is unknown. The final monument that might falls into the transepted class is the destroyed site at Barrow Hill, which Skinner described as being a "vaulted tumulus, similar to Stoney Littleton" (Skinner, 33682, ff. 137-40, 3 May 1825).

Chamber Types

As has been mentioned, most long barrows in northern Somerset are of megalithic construction, and with the possible exception of the Waterstone Dolmen, fit into the Cotswold-Severn classification. It is important to note that this all encompassing term hides significant diversity. As Darvill states: "... no single blueprint existed for their design... the variety of shapes, sizes and chamber plans suggests that each community adopted a few components from a much wider repertoire of constructional devices according to their own preferences, ideas and beliefs." (Darvill 1987b:56)

Most of the other chambered monuments seem to fit into the terminal class of chambers. Accounts suggest that Big Tree, the Giant's Grave and Whitnell Farm were almost certainly of this type. The evidence from the Soldier's Grave, Beacon Batch, Tunley and Failand long barrows might also suggest this classification. Thus, it is evident that only terminal and transepted chamber types have been identified so far within the northern Somerset region, with no evidence of laterally chambered types. Significantly, this is also the case at Avebury, where the available evidence indicates that only these types of chambers were constructed.

Nonetheless, it is possible to classify some of the chamber types that occur within the monuments. Traditionally, Cotswold-Severn long barrows have been divided into three main types, dependent on the chambers within. These are: • Lateral entranced barrows: chambers set laterally within the cairn, usually rectangular, with some form of structural division between chamber and passage (Lynch 1997). • Terminal chambered barrows: a single chamber, usually square or rectangular, entered from one end of the mound (mainly the broader end). • Transepted terminal chambered barrows: central passage entered from one end of the mound (mainly the broader end), with side chambers opening off the passage. Can also have ante chambers and end chambers.

3.

Construction Materials

It is generally accepted that Cotswold-Severn long barrows utilise local stone in their construction. Information on stone types exists for nine of the chambered long barrows in the region. The chambers and passage at Stoney Littleton are constructed of orthostats and drystone walling. Both have been examined by a geologist (Donovan 1977) and the materials identified. The orthostats are of Blue Lias, a

57

Name of Site Dundry Haydon Drove Priddy Felton Common Small Down Green Ore Beacon Batch Old Down Stoney Littleton Pen Hill Giant's Grave Winsley Redhill Fairy's Toot Barrow House Farm Mountain Ground Priddy Hill Orchardleigh

Length 25m 25m 26m 31m 31m 32m 32m 32m 36m 43m 40m 40m 48m 50m 53m 60m 63m 65m

Breadth 15m 15m 12m 19m 20m 14m 16m 16m 18m 20m 20m 22m 17m 25m 28m 20m 30m 42m

L:B Ratio 3:2 3:2 3:1 3:2 3:2 3:1 2:1 2:1 2:1 2:1 2:1 2:1 5:2 2:1 5:3 3:1 2:1 7:4

Mound Shape Ovate/Trapezoidal Ovate/Trapezoidal Rectangular Ovate/Trapezoidal Ovate/Trapezoidal Rectangular Ovate Ovate Ovate Ovate Ovate Ovate Trapezoidal Ovate Trapezoidal Rectangular Ovate Ovate/Trapezoidal

Table 4: Length:Breadth Ratio of Long Barrows

possibly more exotic), it was eminently suitable for orthostat material and it contained fossils that were attractive and perhaps of symbolic value. These, amongst other factors might suggest why the orthostats used in the construction of Stoney Littleton were transported 8 kms.

fine-grained, blue-grey limestone with numerous fossils (ibid.: 236). The drystone walling is of Forest Marble, a "buff, fissile limestone" (ibid.: 237). It has been suggested that the nearest outcrop of Blue Lias is 8kms north of the site, at Newton St Loe, whereas the Forest Marble outcrops much closer, c. 900m from the barrow (ibid.). 8kms is a substantial distance for the Blue Lias to have been transported and suggests that it was a desirable commodity. There might have been a functional reason for this - as Donovan states, it occurs naturally in beds up to 30 or 40cm thick and is therefore an attractive material for construction (ibid.). However, one should not discount the possibility that esoteric reasons might have been as or of more importance. An obvious feature of the Blue Lias is the large number of fossil inclusions it contains. These are visible at Stoney Littleton, the most impressive being the large ammonite (Arietities sp, c.0.31m in diameter) on the left hand stone, part of the trilithon entrance. Donovan also identified two further ammonites inside the monument; one on an orthostat in the second chamber on the left and one on an orthostat in the first chamber on the right (ibid.). He also noted that almost every orthostat contained fossils of different kinds, mainly the extinct oyster known as Devil's toe nails (Gryphae arcuata) and a few examples of the bivalve Plagiostoma giganteum (ibid.). It could be argued that the presence of the fossils was the main reason for choosing Blue Lias as the orthostat material; not only does it add interesting aesthetic qualities, the fossils themselves might have been viewed as highly symbolic (Tilley 1999). The positioning of the stone containing the large ammonite is deliberate, though whether this was for decorative or symbolic reasons is unknown. However, rather than divide the qualities of the stone into more important/less important it might be that all of these qualities acted together in making the stone 'desirable'; not only was it non-local (and hence

The upstanding orthostats at Orchardleigh have been identified as being of Inferior Oolite from either the valley of the Buckland Brook or of the Mells River (St George Gray 1921: 45). Both sources are local, being only 500 - 800m from the site of the long barrow. The stones are fine-grained and buff-coloured with occasional quartz grain inclusions (ibid.). However at least three other orthostats were uncovered during excavations and these proved to be of a different material; glauconitic sandstone, a yellowish-grey material, containing grains of quartz, (ibid.: 47). Eventually, over 30 blocks of this material were recovered, ranging in size from 0.30m to nearly 2m. The nearest source of this material was identified as the Upper Greensand of Corsley or Maiden Bradley, 8 -12kms to the south-east (ibid.). However, it is also known to occur within a few kilometres of the site, near Nunney (William Stanton pers. comm.). Slabs of Forest Marble, measuring up to 0.60m, were also recovered and interpreted as the remains of corbelled roofing and/or drystone walling. Indeed, lengths of drystone walling were noted by Crocker in 1803, as previously mentioned. This material is of local origin. It is likely that the cairn material, described by Strachey as being 'small stones', was also local to the site. The stones forming the remains of the Devil's Bed & Bolster are of sandstone. They have previously been identified as being sarsens brought from the Wiltshire Downs (Anon 1893: 99). It is true that the stones are sarsen but residual deposits of this material occur within a few kilometres of the site, so it is unlikely they were

58

imported from Wiltshire (William Stanton pers. comm.).

raise some interesting possibilities.

The remaining six examples all seem to have utilised local stone in parts of their construction. Fairy's Toot had drystone walls of White Lias and the cairn material of Mountain Ground is also composed of lias. The chamber of the Soldier's Grave was composed of orthostats and drystone walling of oolite, whilst the remnants of either mound or roofing material at Fromefield indicates the utilisation of Forest Marble. The capstone of the Whitnell Farm possible long barrow was of locally occurring Jurassic material. Finally, the composition of the mound of the Small Down barrow was described as being of "flaggy oolitic limestone blocks" (Wicks 1928).

The two burnt areas at Priddy were described as 'hearths predating the stone barrow' (Phillips & Taylor 1972: 33). Both were placed on the old ground surface. Burnt Area 1 (Hearth 1 in the published account) measured 5ft x 6ft, and is described as 'thick', with very sharp edges. Pieces of charcoal occurred in abundance, including pieces 'larger than a pen' (unpublished field-notes in UBSS museum). Burnt Area 2 (Hearth 2 in the published account) was described as a charcoal spread, c. half an inch or less thick (Phillips & Taylor 1972: 33). From the plan it is possible to estimate that it measured 0.9m x 1.1m. Neither hearth contained any human remains, though burnt human bone was scattered a few metres away. The piece of possible copper ‘slag’, described below, was found on the edge of Burnt Area 1. The cist, described below, was placed on top of Burnt Area 2. Burnt Area 2 must also predate the sandstone 'pavement', adjacent to it, as it was found to spread underneath this feature.

Thus it is only at Stoney Littleton that evidence exists for the use of a non-local stone source, in this case the transportation distance being perhaps 8kms. 4.

Burnt Areas

Burnt areas were recorded at two sites: Orchardleigh and Priddy. At Orchardleigh, two burnt areas were discovered. Burnt Area 1 was found at a depth of c.0.64m. and was comprised of pieces of reddened ragstone, some of which had wood charcoal and greywhite wood ashes adhering to them (St George Gray 1921: 49). The extent of the burnt area is not detailed but estimating from the plan, it seems to have been approximately circular, c.0.50m in diameter. Burnt Area 2 was approximately 0.80m to the south of this. This comprised an area c.0.85m by 0.30m, also at a depth of c.0.64m. This included charcoal and white ash, in which a flint flake was found (but no details exist as to whether this was burnt).

5.

Pits and Postholes

These features were recorded at five sites: Priddy, Fromefield, the Giant's Grave, Orchardleigh and Stoney Littleton. At Priddy, a roughly circular pit was cut through the clay into the bedrock. This was located centrally in the monument and measured 75cm across. It contained 'biggish stones, apparently in no orderly arrangement' (Phillips & Taylor ibid.: 33). It has already been suggested in Chapter Three that this might represent a pit dug to hold a large timber post, the stones representing packing. The published report states that the feature had a cremation scattered over it, but the original field-notes clearly indicate that burnt and unburnt bone was found to the north and south of this feature; certainly not over the top of it. The pit was sealed by the stone core of the mound. A large pit at the south end of the monument is almost certainly the result of Skinner's excavation - it was only cut an inch or two into the loam and the barrow material above it was extremely disturbed. Indeed, it was visible as a large hollow when the Spelaeological Society undertook their excavations in 1928 and they swiftly concluded also that this was Skinner's pit.

The report details that Burnt Area 2 was placed just above the layer of red earth, which is almost certainly the old ground surface. This would indicate that the burning either predates or was contemporary with the use of the monument. Burnt Area 1 is more problematic; it is at the same depth from the top of the mound as Burnt Area 2 but the report does not state that it also rested on the old ground surface. Thus, it is impossible to tell whether it is a feature contemporary with the other burnt area, or indeed the monument - it may relate to later activities at the site. The mound had been so disturbed over the two centuries prior to St George Gray's excavations - at least three recorded episodes of stone removal for road metalling - that we cannot assume that it had a level surface. However, this aside it is interesting that both areas of burning are located in what is probably a chamber, opening to the south of a central passage. This might imply that Burnt Area 2, and possibly also Burnt Area 1, were lit in the chamber after the construction of the monument, and are not features that predate it. Whether these episodes of burning are contemporary with the 'primary' use of the site or whether they represent later activities, such as closure rituals or perhaps Roman 'squatting', is once again not known. Nonetheless, they

At Fromefield, six pits were discovered. One was described as of modern appearance and probably represents the hole dug for the erection of a stone on the site in 1820 (Vatcher & Vatcher 1973:21). The five remaining pits were all shallow and in an area heavily disturbed in 1820; their fillings were mixed, their surrounding context lost and the shape of the pits not visible above their bases, making precise interpretation impossible (ibid.). One pit, cut into the limestone bedrock, measured 0.91m in diameter and 0.229m in depth (Stonehole 1 on published plan). Another pit was of a comparable size (Stonehole 2 on published plan) whilst the remaining three were smaller and shallower (4,

59

5 & 6 on plan). In one of the latter were two limestone slabs which could have been used for packing (ibid.). It is conceivable that all five could have contained orthostats.

6.

Blocking & Constricting Devices

Blocking devices fall into two categories: firstly those that are contemporary with the monument and act to constrain or guide movement within the barrow, and secondly those that are later than the monument and effectively 'close' the barrow, preventing re-access. The former are illustrated by devices such as perforated stones and septal stones, and the latter by the filling of the monument with cultural 'debris' and the blocking of the entrance. Within northern Somerset there is definite evidence for the former and circumstantial evidence for the latter, sometimes at the same monument.

At the Giant's Grave, a 'deep channelled pit' was recorded, though, as mentioned in Chapter Three, we do not know the size, shape, depth or even the precise position of this pit. All that we know is that it was described as containing 'many' flints (see discussion above). An arrowhead and several flint flakes are marked on the rough plan made by Bulleid, at the south-west end of the mound. As Wickham (1912:5) describes such finds as coming from the pit it thus seems likely that the pit itself was located at the south-west end of the mound. The pit is described as 'probably once flanked with stone', though there appears no justification for this statement. Bulleid later records that there were signs of quarrying and a limekiln in the vicinity of the south-west end of the mound (Bulleid 1941:66). This should make us cautious as it is possible that the pit is a relatively 'modern' feature; the site had been disturbed for at least 100 years before Wickham carried out his excavations. Indeed, Skinner records that digging had gone on at the site prior to his investigations (Skinner BM Add Mss 33695, f 4, 6/10/1826) and Skinner himself could also be responsible, as he sunk several 'holes' into the mound. This history of looting, excavation and quarrying, coupled with the poor recording of the site by Wickham, constrains any interpretation of the pit. We cannot allow the flint to provide a date for it, as it could represent accidental secondary deposition, the result of the many disturbances at the barrow. Nonetheless, the possibility that this it might be a Neolithic feature should be retained.

At Fairy's Toot, a perforated stone was found, placed between the trilithon entrance to the barrow (Scarth 1858). Of its form we know almost nothing, only that it was a single stone with a perforation in or near its centre; no drawings or plans were made, nor was the perforation described. 'Port-hole' entrances to megalithic monuments are known from Iberia, northern France, Sweden and parts of Britain, including the Cotswold-Severn region (Clifford & Daniel 1940). Darvill cites three examples from the latter area; Rodmarton, Avening Old Rectory and Fairy's Toot (Darvill 1982). At the laterally chambered barrow, Rodmarton, the port-hole constricted entry into the chamber, similar to Fairy's Toot. It is generally assumed that perforated stones were a constricting device, rather than a final closing device, though this does not mean that they could not also act as such. At Rodmarton, the perforation was carefully infilled with drystone walling after the passage had been filled with debris, preventing re-access. Such a filling is not recorded at Fairy's Toot but it is possible that it existed and subsequently collapsed. Alternatively, it might not have been necessary if the forecourt itself was blocked.

The pit recorded at Orchardleigh might also be the result of 'modern' excavations. It was located in the north-east segment of the mound and is marked on the plan as 'hole in the rock' (St George Gray 1921). It measured 2m long and c.1m wide. It was found to be dug into the bedrock to a depth of c.15cm. The pit was filled with loose ragstone and red earth and no 'finds' were recorded. Although this might be a feature that predates the monument it is also likely that it is the result of one of the many episodes of digging at the site, discussed in Chapter Three. Caveats discussed for the Giant's Grave should also be applied here.

Also at Fairy's Toot was another stone, 13ft south of the trilithon/perforated stone entrance. This stone was placed at the head of the forecourt, presumably to block access to the forecourt and the interior of the monument. It is described by Bere as being 6ft (2m) high, 5ft (1.7m) broad and 16" (0.45m) thick. It seems likely that it may have fulfilled a similar function to the blocking 'facade' of sarsen stones at West Kennet, albeit on a less monumental scale. At West Kennet, the cuspate forecourt behind the facade was filled with loose boulders (Darvill 1982). At Fairy's Toot it also appears that material was placed behind the facade, in the forecourt, though it was not described and we do not know whether this represents a deliberate fill or cairn slip. It can be argued that the former is more likely, as the single stone by itself could not have prevented re-access to the site as it could have been climbed over or around. Inside the monument, Bere records a roof-fall blocking the passage. Whilst it is possible that this material may represent deliberately introduced blocking material, Bere's assertion seems more probable, as elsewhere he was able to retrieve complete and disarticulated human remains,

Finally, a geophysical survey detected possible pits at Stoney Littleton, during archaeological investigations by Cotswold Archaeological Trust (Thomas 2003). These are described as “…a row of six pit-like anomalies extending from the eastern corner of the monument…” (ibid. 13). They were not excavated, so their date and function is unknown, but it is suggested that they may be the line of a former path or a boundary predating the barrow or associated with a forecourt structure (ibid. 15).

60

major part to play in the ceremonial of tomb-building and use" (Darvill 1982:59).

with no mention of material on top of them or blocking his way. Thus, at Fairy's Toot the closing of the monument might have been achieved by blocking of the entrance and forecourt, rather than the filling of the passage and chambers.

Contents of the Long Barrows 1. Human Remains Human remains have been recovered from 11 long barrows and both articulated and disarticulated remains are represented. Unfortunately most were recovered by antiquarians and the records are not of good quality. All of the information has been assembled here and is discussed below, site by site.

Such internal 'filling' material might have existed at Stoney Littleton however. Skinner described how he ordered the labourers to clean the passage and found many bones "among the rubbish" (Skinner BM Add Mss 33694, f 14). In the published report Hoare states that "in the long avenue we met with many fragments of bones etc, which had been displaced from the sepulchral recesses, many of which had been filled with stones and other rubbish" (Hoare 1817:46). There are several explanations regarding the origins of this material, it might represent any of the following: • • •

The Fromefield long barrow contained the remains of at least 15 individuals (Vatcher & Vatcher 1973:21). 5 skeletons were recovered during the 1819 exploration and as they were described as skeletons, it is possible that they may have represented articulated remains. These remains were apparently left intact, though the whole site was later levelled. The 1965 excavations revealed "a considerable quantity" of human remains. Analysis indicated that these represented the disarticulated remains of at least 15 individuals, presumably including the 5 recorded in 1819. The report also indicates that there were an insufficient number of skulls and long bones, a commonplace occurrence in long barrows. Of the 15 individuals, 2 were infants under eighteen months, 3 were children (possibly aged four, ten, and thirteen to nineteen years), 2 were sub-adults (one possibly female), 1 young adult (probably male) and 3 older adults (2 probably male, 1 possibly female) (ibid.: 30). No information on the spatial patterning of the bones within the barrow is available.

blocking material of prehistoric date roof collapse modern pillaging of the monument (pre-Skinner)

The second option does not seem very likely as Hoare described how the interior "had suffered little by the lapse of time", the roof only being 'fractured' in one position (ibid.:45). The third option might be more feasible in terms of disturbing the contents but it is highly unlikely that modern pillagers of the monument would have introduced material to the site (stone and other rubbish). Thus, it is probable that the 'rubbish' represented blocking material of prehistoric date. In this respect the presence of the pottery and burnt bone is interesting as it might relate to this blocking episode, rather than the primary use of the monument.

The Giant's Grave long barrow was first 'excavated' by Skinner in 1826 and he recorded a number of human bones, but with no details of the number of individuals (Skinner BM Add Mss 33695, f 4, 6/10/1826). It is not known what happened to the material he excavated but it may well have ended up in the private museum of his good friend, Bishop Law of Bath and Wells. Skinner also noted that the barrow had been previously dug into and human remains removed and (all?) later re-interred under one of the upright stones (ibid.). The site was reexcavated by Wickham early in the 20th century, and the remains of at least 5 individuals were recovered. Bulleid (1941) recounts that the bones were all mixed together after excavation; before removal however it seems that 4 skeletons (probably articulated) along with three other groups of bones, one of which included a skull, were found within the monument. However, the records by Skinner indicate that human material had been excavated, removed and sometimes returned, for at least 100 years before Wickham's excavations and thus it is impossible to know how much of the material he found was in-situ. Wickham commissioned Dr John Beddoe to analyse the bones and he stated that the remains were of several individuals, differing in age and sex, but were too badly fragmented to say anything else (ibid.:66).

'Blocking' stones were also found at the site. One of these was described as a large stone that 'closed' the entrance; it appears that this was placed directly in the trilithon entrance, closing the 4ft high square aperture (Hoare ibid.). Analogies for such practices exist elsewhere in the Cotswold-Severn region, a clear comparison being Tinkinswood. Here, a large slab was set against the entrance of a terminal chambered monument, effectively sealing the entrance. Such practices also bring to mind some of the false portals of laterally chambered tombs, where, as at Rodmarton, large slabs are placed against the portals (Darvill 1982). Another stone was found within Stoney Littleton, marked E on Hoare's plan. This stone separated the end chamber and the two pairs of chambers furthest from the entrance from the antechamber and pair of chambers closest to the entrance. The height of this stone was approximately 15cm and it would seem to have been a horizontal passageway constriction, rather than a blocking stone. Boundaries that demarcate ritual space need not be monumental; it is their symbolic role rather than physical size that is of importance. As Darvill states, "...sealing, restricting access and blocking had a

61

monument was first entered in 1788, but there are no descriptions of the material (Bullied 1941). Skinner also found a fragment of a human cranium when he visited the site in 1822. It is probable that this is the cranium on display in Bristol City Museum (Accession Number F 779). Once again the evidence suggests rituals involving articulated and disarticulated human remains were practised at this site. The sorting of human material is suggested by the presence of skulls in one chamber and 'heaps' of bone in another.

To summarise, at least 5 individuals were recovered from the Giant's Grave in 1912 but the evidence indicates that it once contained more human material, removed in the few centuries before this date. The account of the excavation at Brays Down by Skinner indicates that this monument contained at least 3 individuals. The remains were of a child as well as at least two adults. Skinner also recounts that he found burnt bone along with the unburnt material which he also identified as human (Skinner BM Add Mss 33653, f 23, 10/4/1819).

At least 12 individuals were interred at Stoney Littleton, possibly more: "...there must have been upwards of a dozen bodies interred whole, as we collect from the number of jawbones" (Skinner BM Add Mss 33694, f 9, 16/5/1816). There is some evidence of the sorting of human remains and fortunately, the records are slightly better than those of Fairy's Toot. As detailed in Chapter Three, Cell A contained leg and thighbones and smaller bone fragments; Cell B confused heaps of bone; Cell C four jawbones, the upper parts of two crania, leg and arm bones, and vertebrae; Cell D burnt bones and also bones from two or three unburnt skeletons and finally Cell G contained fragments of burnt and unburnt human bone. Fragments of human remains were also found in the passage, though this had been unceremoniously 'cleared' by the excavators. There is also evidence to suggest that human remains had been removed from the monument for some time before the excavation by Colt-Hoare and Skinner took place (Colt Hoare 1821).

Orchardleigh has had a long history of excavation and human bones have been recovered from the site on several occasions. Unfortunately, the number of individuals is not recorded, though there are indications of the burial rites practised. Strachey describes stone robbing from the barrow in 1725 and what may be an articulated skeleton - "the bones of a large man" accompanied by disarticulated remains - "...several smaller skulls..." and "...a great number of bones" (Strachey 1730). Excavations by Crocker in 1803/4, saw the recovery of a large number of human bones, which he described as "crowded together and mixed with the soil" (St George Gray 1929:59). St George Gray also recovered human remains during his 1920 excavations, though he assigned these a Roman date due to the presence of Roman pottery on and around the site. However, their position around the stones, where human material was previously recovered, suggest these are also prehistoric in date. The bones were fragmentary and the minimum number of individuals not calculated but Gray's records mention pieces of skull, long bones, ribs, vertebrae and bones of the hands and feet (ibid.: 55). Two pieces of burnt human bone were also found and although the records are not absolutely clear, it is implied that Crocker also recovered burnt remains. The accumulative evidence from Orchardleigh suggests that the funerary rituals practised at the site involved collective burial, perhaps of both articulated and disarticulated remains. The presence of burnt bone is interesting; the only other chambered long barrows where it has been found in the region are at Brays Down and Stoney Littleton. It may relate to a later phase of use of the monuments but unfortunately the data is not of good enough quality to substantiate this argument.

The two crania discovered in the Cell C were examined by Thurnam and later by Beddoe; both agreed that one was of a male, no older than middle-age, and one of an older female (Beddoe 1888). Three human skulls from Stoney Littleton (Bristol City Museum F778 a, b and c) were recorded as on display in Bristol Museum in the catalogue for 1968, donated by Skinner in 1839 (Grinsell 1968:32) but these are no longer on display. Human bone was recovered during the excavation of trenches through the mound and passage floor in 1999/2000. A minimum of four individuals were represented, one neonate, one infant and two adults (McKinley in Thomas 2003). At the non-megalithic long barrow, Priddy, both burnt and unburnt human remains were found, mixed together (Phillips & Taylor 1972). The unburnt material was represented by two molars, part of a shaft of a humerus, part of either a radius or an ulna and a fragment of a mandible, and the burnt material comprised nearly 100 fragments of bone. Only one quarter of the site was excavated and may thus contain more human material. It is impossible to further analyse the bone as all finds from the site were destroyed in 1940.

Human remains were recovered in great quantities from Fairy's Toot but the exact number of individuals was not recorded. It is possible to estimate that the barrow contained the remains of 8 individuals at the very least. A complete skeleton was recovered in the passage of the monument, lying north-south, and 7 skulls were recovered in one of the chambers (Collinson 1791). Besides this, pieces of skull, vertebrae and 'arm' bones were found in the passage, accompanying the articulated skeleton and an 'undifferentiated heap' of bones in another chamber (ibid.). We also know that human remains were found in other chambers when the

We are now left with four sites where antiquarian accounts and local traditions suggest human bone was recovered but with no further details. At Mountain

62

Stoney Littleton; however, care must be taken as both sites had been broken into prior to the main episodes of excavation and bone material removed. It would be foolhardy to argue strongly for spatial patterning of bones when not all the material originally deposited was present.

Ground, locals recounted that 'strangers' came and found a quantity of bones in the barrow, c.1850/60 (Wicks 1914: 46). Since the 19th century there has been a tradition that human bones were found at the Soldier's Grave (Tratman 1958a). At Whitnell Farm a skeleton apparently 'went to powder' when uncovered c.1866 (Tratman 1968a). Skinner records that at Big Tree, a number of skeletons were discovered 'thrown in together promiscuously' (Skinner BM Add Mss 33653, f 155, 12/7/1819). This may be a description of disarticulated rather than articulated remains.

2. Pottery Pottery was recovered at four sites, all megalithic. At Brays Down Skinner found 'coarse' pottery, though he does not illustrate it or describe it in any more detail (BM Add Mss 33653, f23, 10/4/1819). At Orchardleigh, Crocker excavated "a great deal of coarse, burnt pottery (evidently urns) without any ashes, beads or other ornaments" (Crocker 1803 in St George Gray 1929: 58). The 'urns' were apparently mixed indiscriminately with the human bone (ibid.: 59). St George Gray apparently did not recover any prehistoric pottery during his excavations at the same site, describing it all as Roman. However, in the appendices, there is a mention of at least one fragment being of prehistoric type (St George Gray 1921:54). At Stoney Littleton, fragments of a pottery vessel were described as being 'with' burnt bones in Cell D. The vessel was a 'coarsely wrought urn' (Skinner BM Add Mss 33694, f 9, 16/5/1816). The 1999/2000 excavations recovered 61 small, abraded potsherds. These have been divided into probable Neolithic (22 unfeatured sherds in a calcareous fabric), Mid-Late Iron Age (1 sherd), Romano-British (22 sherds) and Postmedieval-Modern (16 sherds) (Timby in Thomas 2003). Finally, pottery was recovered during the destruction of the Fromefield monument. One plain sherd survived and was described by Bulleid (Vatcher & Vatcher 1973:19). Vatcher and Vatcher also recovered "a few small fragments of Neolithic pottery", both rim and body pieces (ibid.:22). The sherds were of a hard paste, with shell and flint grits, buff-coloured and slightly burnished. Three rims sherds were found, two with a 'rolled outward' form and one with an expanded or reinforced form (ibid.) (figure 4.1). They appear to represent at least 3 vessels. All of the pottery from Fromefield is of Windmill Hill type.

The records that are available, detailing human remains found within the long barrows, are mostly unsatisfactory and fragmentary. However, enough data exists to demonstrate that at some of the monuments both articulated and disarticulated skeletons were deposited. This was certainly the case at Fairy's Toot and possibly also true for Fromefield, the Giant's Grave and Orchardleigh. Collective burial is demonstrable at eight sites, though the only site where we might have a 'true' indication of the minimum number of individuals is Fromefield, where at least 15 individuals were interred. Fromefield is also the only site where the human bone was scientifically analysed and the age and sex of individuals determined. Both male and female adults and sub-adults seem to have been present, as well as infants and children. Burnt human bone was recorded at Brays Down, Orchardleigh, Stoney Littleton and Priddy; it may or may not be contemporary with the unburnt material. At West Kennet, a deposit of cremated bone was found overlying the primary inhumations in the north-east chamber (Piggott 1962). This was obviously later than the primary inhumations but by exactly how much is not known. It is possible to argue that the cremation must have been in position before the blocking of West Kennet, so therefore is post-primary and pre-blocking in date c.3500 – 2500 cal BC. The burnt bone from Brays Down and Stoney Littleton might be representative of a similar period. An important distinction needs to be drawn between burnt bone and cremated bone at this point - burnt bones have been recorded in other Cotswold-Severn monuments and have been interpreted as representing part of the de-fleshing process or other rituals. Cremated bone is representative of a very different process. It is not known whether the bones from Brays Down, Orchardleigh and Stoney Littleton were 'burnt' or 'cremated'. However, at Stoney Littleton the burnt bones were found with a 'coarsely wrought urn' (see below) which might indicate a cremation deposit. The cremation deposit from Priddy definitely appears to be primary. This would indicate that Priddy is an unusual example of cremation and deposition in a long barrow. Indeed, the presence of burnt human material in all four monuments - Priddy, Stoney Littleton, Orchardleigh and Brays Down - might be indicative of a distinctive local practice.

Figure 4.1: Pottery from Fromefield Long Barrow (after Vatcher & Vatcher 1973) The pottery from Orchardleigh, Brays Down and Stoney Littleton might have been associated with burnt human bone and it is possible that this represents a later phase of use of the monuments (but see discussion below for

Evidence of the sorting of bones exists at Fairy's Toot and

63

but this need not imply there were none present.

Stoney Littleton). The only pottery which we can be certain is contemporary with the 'primary' phase of long barrow use is the Windmill Hill pottery from Fromefield.

At Orchardleigh, St George Gray recorded 33 pieces of flint. Of these only 2 appear to have been retouched: “a small round scraper and an "implement showing two periods of work" (St George Gray 1921:54). The remainder of the assemblage comprised 1 small chip, 3 cores and 26 flakes. Their exact location within each cutting is shown on the plan in the excavation report and their depth below the mound is recorded; this ranges from 0.23m to 0.82m. None of the pieces are illustrated. One flake was found in a burnt area, though it is not mentioned whether the flake was burnt. The flints in general cluster around the two upright standing stones and the recumbent blocks of glauconitic sandstone which might suggest a date for them contemporary with the primary use of the monument. However, it is also possible that they may represent residual material of an earlier or later date. The discovery of sherds of Roman pottery at similar depths to the flints indicate disturbance, probably by ploughing, and theories about the whether the flints are contemporary with the monument should remain provisional.

Windmill Hill pottery and associated undecorated plain bowl wares have been found at a significant number of Cotswold-Severn barrows - Corcoran quotes at least 18 sites (Corcoran 1969). Usually only a few sherds are found, though West Kennet is an exception. Kinnes, discussing non-megalithic sites, suggests that the specific incorporation of such sherds might be a deliberate aspect of communal ritual (Kinnes 1992:109) and certainly work by John Chapman on symbolism and fragmentation suggests that the symbolic value of an artefact need only be represented by a part of it (Chapman 2000). Stoney Littleton is the only example in northern Somerset where a complete (or nearly complete) vessel was recovered, though we do not know whether this was an Early Neolithic pot. The other pottery types that are found in long barrows are interpreted as belonging to a secondary context. These include Peterborough, Grooved Ware and Beaker types and, when found, usually relate to a later blocking episode. Generally these are represented by sherds rather than entire vessels, perhaps indicating that the Stoney Littleton example might be primary. Alternatively, it could relate to a later cremation deposit, discussed above.

At the Giant's Grave, Wickham recorded that flint flakes 'abounded' and that one or two had been made into arrowheads and scrapers (Wickham 1912: 5). The photographs show a convex short-end scraper and a leafshaped arrowhead (figure 4.2). The scraper was found near the stones, at the north-east end of the mound. 10 flakes were also photographed and it appears that 5 possible borers/piercers, 1 retouched triangular flake and 2 other scrapers are represented (figure 4.3). These, as well as the arrowhead, appear to have been found in the "deep channelled pit". Also recovered during excavations were a quantity of minute flint chippings, found near the arrowhead. The contextual information for these finds, indeed the whole site, is very poor and it is difficult to say more anything more than that they are probably of Neolithic date and contemporary, if not earlier, than the long barrow.

3. Animal Bone Animal bone has been recovered from two sites; Fairy's Toot and the Giant's Grave. At Fairy's Toot, the thigh bone of an ox was found along with a red deer tooth. At the Giant's Grave, Skinner found animal bone, including large teeth, probably of an ox (Skinner BM Add Mss f4, 6 October 1826). Wickham (1912) also found antler, though it is not known whether this represented an artefact (used for flint knapping or in the construction of the barrow, for example) or simply faunal remains. At both sites it appears the animal bone was present in the chambers and seemingly undifferentiated from the human material. A pig's tooth was found at Priddy, just south of the south end of the monument (Phillips & Taylor 1972). However, this was not in a secure context. 4. Flint Flint has been recorded from within long barrows, found during excavations, and also on ploughed mounds, found during fieldwalking. At present we are only concerned with the former, the latter being discussed in a later chapter on flint scatters. Brays Down, Giant's Grave, Orchardleigh and Stoney Littleton all contained flint artefacts. Skinner excavated and subsequently illustrated two arrowheads from Brays Down. These have been identified by Green as ogival and are atypically slender in shape (Green 1980:87). He suggests that this may be due to their status as special funerary items and notes a high frequency of ogival arrowheads from Cotswold-Severn tombs in particular. Skinner mentions no other flint finds from Brays Down,

Figure 4.2: Scraper and arrowhead from Giant’s Grave Long Barrow (after Wickham 1912)

64

report - the Gravette point, Aurignacian, Azilian - the only flint which is likely to be of an date earlier than the Neolithic is the Gravette point. This was discovered some 0.15m below the barrow and is undoubtedly a residual piece. All of the other flints were found sealed within the mound, on the Neolithic ground surface, or on top of/off the mound. For example, the 40 flint chips, the possible scraper, the 2 or 3 cores and the petit tranchet derivative arrowhead were found during excavations on the east side of the mound and their location described as being 'outside' the rough stone edge of the monument. 4 or 5 flint flakes were found to the south of the monument, in the hypothetical 'forecourt' area. 2 serrated flakes and 1 flake were found outside of the stone revetment wall but still seemingly sealed by the earth and stone cap. This is also true for one of the scrapers and the flint fragment. Sealed actually underneath the stone core of the monument were 7 flints (no description), 1 flake, 1 small scraper and a flint knife/?retouched flake. All of these were found north of the central pit.

Figure 4.3: Flints from Giant’s Grave (after Wickham 1912) At Priddy, using the original archive material as detailed in Chapter Three, it is possible to calculate that at least 67 pieces of flint were recovered from the monument1. The exact locations of these was said to be unknown but a careful reading of the to be calculated. The details of the flints in the published report is given below. It should be remembered that some of these might be misidentifications: • Angular Gravette point - incompletely retouched and patinated white, comparable with implements from the transitional phase at King Arthurs Cave in the Wye Valley • Retouched flake - patinated white • Flake approximating to a round scraper - patinated white • Steep end scraper • Keeled end scraper - patinated white, similar to Aurignacian • Tranchet • Retouched thumbnail flake - patinated white • Small round scraper - comparable with Azilian • Serrated broken flake - light grey patina

61 worked flints were found during the 1999-2000 investigations at Stoney Littleton, 37 from the ploughsoil and 24 from the monument itself. These are described as undiagnostic (apart from an unstratified fabricator) and it is not known if they are contemporary with the use of the monument (Tingle in Thomas 2003). 5. Other Artefacts There are three sites where 'other' artefacts were recorded. The first is Orchardleigh, where a pebble of Old Red Sandstone seems to have been used as a hammerstone (St George Gray 1921). Also found was a burnt waterworn pebble of fine-grained sandstone, probably Greenstone and derived from the gravels of the River Frome. Two pieces of haematite were the only other finds (ibid.), their closest origin being c.4.5kms to the south-west at Nunney. The latter might not be Neolithic imports.

The following are details of the flints, recovered during consultation of archive material: • 40 flint chips • 7 flint flakes • 2 serrated flakes • 2 scrapers and 1 possible scraper • 1 tranchet (description sounds to be of a petit tranchet derivative arrowhead) • 2 or 3 cores • 1 flint knife/flake (retouched?) • 1 flint fragment • 8 'flints', no description (probably waste flakes) • 1 'Gravette Point'

Another site where artefacts other than flint and pottery were found is the Giant's Grave (Wickham 1912). Here, part of a saddle quern and a perforated bone 'pendant' were excavated, though not illustrated nor described in any detail. The quern appears to have been found near two of the orthostats recorded on the plan in the northwest segment, though whether this was on the old ground surface or in the body of the mound is not known. The 'pendant' was described as being found on the same spot as the quern. Both these artefacts find parallels at other chambered long barrows, so it is likely that they are contemporary with the primary phases. Wickham also mentions 'Many pebbles, fossils of Ammonites and Belemites, curiously shaped stones, one like a heart, small pieces of quartz and rock crystal, and shells" all being found in profusion (Wickham 1912: 8). Some or all of these might represent natural inclusions; the Giant's Grave is on Lias, which is known to contain fossils such as ammonites (see the discussion above of Stoney Littleton). However, it is also possible that they

Whilst the excavators described some of the material as being of Palaeolithic/Mesolithic type in the original 1

A more detailed consideration of this monument and its finds is now published: Lewis, J. 2002. ‘Reinterpreting the Priddy Long Barrow, Mendip Hills, Somerset’ in Proceedings of the University of Bristol Spelaeological Society, 22 (3), 269-288.

65

fields surrounding the Orchardleigh monument have produced great numbers of Roman finds and it is thought that a Roman building (possibly a villa) might have existed in the locality (Jude Harris, pers. comm.). The finds from Orchardleigh seem to be a part of the general spread of Roman 'debris' in the area and perhaps not indicative of anything other than ploughing. Likewise, the finding of a single undecorated sherd of Roman pottery near the surface at the south end of the Priddy long barrow might fall into a similar category.

were deliberately included artefacts - the potential symbolism of quartz and its inclusion in Neolithic monuments being documented from other regions, especially Scotland. Moreover, there are even examples within northern Somerset of artefacts being made from rock crystal (Chris Hawkes pers. comm.). It has been argued that at Stoney Littleton the presence of fossil inclusions in the Lias may have influenced the selection of this material. The incorporation of smaller fossils into the Giant's Grave monument may have been a similar symbolic act, perhaps even making a link between these two monuments and the people they represent.

However, the '"fine Roman fibula" (Scarth 1858:54) discovered during investigations in the forecourt at Stoney Littleton might be suggestive of very different behaviour. This object did not get there through ploughing or other activities; it was placed there, by chance or choice, presumably whilst the forecourt area was still accessible. This is unequivocal evidence that Stoney Littleton was visited in the Roman period, though whether as a curiosity or as a 'special place', we cannot say. The recovery of 22 sherds of pottery from the backfill of the 18th-19th century excavations, including Dorset black-burnished ware, local greywares and samian, corroborate this activity. The pottery has been described as dating to the 2nd-3rd centuries AD (Timby in Thomas 2003).

At Priddy, a piece of possible copper ‘slag’ was found at the edge of Burnt Area 1, an unusual 'artefact' to find within an Early Neolithic monument (Phillips & Taylor 1972). However, there are several explanations that might explain its presence. Firstly, it is possible that it was misidentified, as the original report is extremely hesitant in classifying it; when mentioned it is always accompanied by a question mark. If not slag it might simply have been a piece of unmodified metal ore - such pieces are to be found all over Mendip, a mineral rich area. Its inclusion might be fortuitous or deliberate if the latter is the case. Alternatively, if really a piece of copper slag it almost certainly represents a later introduction into the monument, either by natural or cultural processes. Also found at Priddy, though described as being found outside of the eastern rough stone wall, was another piece of possible slag and a piece of possible haematite (ibid.). These finds might have been sealed by the earthen cap of the monument, though it might also be the case that they were sealed by mound slip. Thus, we do not know whether they are actually Early Neolithic inclusions. If Neolithic however, it is once again possible that the slag might actually be a piece of misidentified ore. The finding of the haemetite is also interesting as it was also present at the Orchardleigh monument. If these are deliberate Neolithic inclusions, it might be that 'raw' pieces of metal ore had a special significance to some Neolithic communities in northern Somerset. They might have been viewed as 'curiosities' in a similar way to the fossils, described above, and been included for their aesthetic and/or symbolic properties.

Wickham (1912) claimed that the Giant's Grave contained a subsequent Romano-British interment, though where in the monument this was placed he does not elaborate. Indeed, a closer reading shows that he did not actually find a Roman burial but considerable quantities of Roman pottery, interpreted by him as cremation urns. Accompanying the broken pottery were four Roman coins, described as follows: Postumus Claudius Gothicus Constantius Constantine the Great

AD 259-267 AD 269-270 AD 304-337 AD 306-337

Wickham implies that these Roman artefacts were found together, rather than scattered at random. This 'grouping' of the broken pottery and the coins suggests that this is a deliberate deposit. The material was not spread throughout the excavations as at Orchardleigh and the direct association of the pottery and coins is altogether indicative of a different practice. However, the coins fall into two groups, one dating to the mid-late 3rd century and one to the early mid-4th century. It is conceivable that they represent either two periods of deposition or that all were deposited in the 4th century. The portal dolmen or ruinous long barrow at Failand, destroyed in 1815, is also reported to have produced coins (a hoard of 150) and is again evidence for particular Roman depositional practices.

6. Subsequent Interest/Reuse Several of the long barrows contain evidence of postNeolithic 'interest' in the sites, mainly Roman in date. Describing the nature of these activities is not straightforward, complicated by the poor standards of excavation and often contradictory reports. They are usually represented by artefacts, and occasionally burials; the problem lies in differentiating between those that are chance inclusions, becoming incorporated into the area of the monument through ploughing etc, and those that are evidence of the deliberate visiting/re-use of the site. At Orchardleigh, Gray (1921) describes finding 86 very small fragments of Roman pottery at various levels in the excavation trenches, and also a "small, thin much defaced Roman coin of barbarous type" (Gray 1921:50). The

The recovery of Roman artefacts from Neolithic and Bronze Age monuments is a well-attested phenomenon.

66

possible to look at the orientation of twenty of the long barrows; this excludes doubtful sites and monuments which have been destroyed (see Table 5). Figure 4.4 shows the orientation of the long barrows. It can be seen that 75% lie between north-east and south-east. Interestingly, south-east is emphasised more than east 30% compared to 25%. Nonetheless, these figures generally compare well with those given for the rest of the British Isles. The only monuments that could be said to have a slightly unusual orientation are the Dundry long barrow (Dundry ii) lying west-north-west/east-southeast, Fairy's Toot (Butcombe I) south-north, Priddy (Priddy 1) south-south-west/north-north-east and Brays Down (Shoscombe I) north-south. This should not be considered portentous as there are examples of long barrows in every region in Britain which deviate from the 'norm' where orientation is concerned (Kinnes 1992).

At West Kennet, Piggott found six Roman coins in the top soil of the facade area; with the exception of one, all were of mid-late 4th century date (Piggott 1962). The one exception was a coin of Claudius Gothicus - such a coin was also found at the Giant's Grave. Coins of Claudius Gothicus have also been found at other barrows, such as Rodmarton in the Cotswolds and Minning Low in Derbyshire (ibid.). However, in common with West Kennet, most Roman coins and other finds at long (and round) barrows are of 4th century date. The deposition of Roman artefacts in prehistoric monuments is a fascinating practice but this is not the appropriate work in which to explore them further2. Piggott's statement can also be applied to the long barrows of northern Somerset and thus end this discussion: "At all events, the coins at West Kennet testify to Roman interest in the barrow, whatever the nature of that interest may have been" (ibid.:56)

The reasons behind the preference for general east/west orientations have been explained in many ways, though the explanations that remain in favour focus upon solar and lunar alignments (Burl 1981, Thorpe 1984). Such alignments may have marked significant events in the cosmological calendar and thus the social life of the group and may also have acted as an agricultural calendar (Kinnes: ibid.: 69). Certainly, it has been demonstrated that the midsummer and midwinter solstices were important events in the prehistoric calendar and monuments as geographically diverse as Newgrange in the Boyne Valley to Stonehenge on the Wessex Downs are 'flooded' by the rising/setting sun at this key times (Eogan 1986).

Finally, the Barrow Hill monument provides us with our only possible evidence of post-Roman deposition at a long barrow in northern Somerset. Here, two AngloSaxon skeletons were found in the area where the monuments is presumed to have existed, revealed during quarrying. It was thought that this might have been the site of an Anglo-Saxon cemetery, though subsequent quarrying revealed no more (Meaney 1964: 218). The burials were accompanied by "two silver rings of fine wire, possibly earrings, two long beads of amethystine quartz, two rounded glass beads, about 1 inch diameter, and two saddle-shaped beads of white shell" (Dobson 1931:180). The use of earlier monuments as a focus for Anglo-Saxon burial has recently been widely discussed and it is possible that this is what happened at Barrow Hill, with the long barrow acting as the focus for 'pagan' burials. The problem lies with the lack of detail regarding the location of the possible long barrow, quarried away since Skinner's time; not knowing exactly where it was makes it difficult to claim the monument was the focus for the Anglo-Saxon burials. Nonetheless, the possibility that this was the case should be maintained. Orientation

Stoney Littleton is the only monument in northern Somerset where the solstice alignment idea has been 'tested', with an apparent alignment on the winter solstice sunrise. This is of interest for although the orientation of the monument (south-east/north-west) is not unusual, its position is; it does not follow the contours of the hill but faces upslope. This might suggest that aligning the monument on the midwinter solstice sunrise was more important than other considerations, for example following the contours of the hill to give the false crest effect, noticed at many long barrows.

An east-west orientation is common for most of the Early Neolithic long mounds within Britain, both megalithic and non-megalithic. Kinnes (1992: 68) illustrates this in his discussion of non-megalithic long barrows in Britain: 77% of non-megalithic sites lie between north-east and south-east, with east emphasised (34%). The figures for megalithic long mounds compares very well: of the 126 Cotswold-Severn long mounds with known orientations detailed in Powell et al (1969), 79% lie between northeast and south-east, with east emphasised (37%).

Landscape Location It is possible to identify four physical landscape 'positionings' of the Early Neolithic mortuary monuments in northern Somerset: • monuments placed so their long axis runs parallel to a slope • monuments placed so their long axis is at right angles to a slope (thus with entrances pointing uphill/downhill) • monuments placed on the top of a hill • monuments placed on level ground Such information is available for 22 sites in the study area and the information is shown in Table 6. 45% of the long barrows with known locations run along the contours of the hill, a commonly recognised

Thus, it is expected that the monuments within northern Somerset should also fall into this general category. It is 2

An article detailing Romano-British activity at prehistoric monuments is currently in preparation by the author (2005).

67

7

6

4

3

2

1

Orientation Figure 4.4 Orientation of Long Barrows in Study Area Name of Site Beacon Batch Big Tree Barrow House Farm Fromefield Stoney Littleton Old Down Devil's Bed & Bolster Orchardleigh Mountain Ground Pen Hill Haydon Drove Small Down Green Ore Giant's Grave Felton Common Priddy Hill Dundry Brays Down Fairy's Toot Priddy

Orientation SE/NW SE/NW SE/NW SE/NW SE/NW SE/NW E/W E/W E/W E/W E/W ESE/WNW ESE/WNW NE/SW NNE/SSW ENE/WSW WNW/ESE or ESE/WNW N/S S/N SSW/NNE

Table 5: Orientations of Long Barrow Mounds

68

N S/

N /S

/E W N W

E/ N N

SE

W SW

SW E/ N

N W SS E/ N

N W W E/ ES

SE /N W

0 E/ W

Number of barrows

5

Parallel to Slope Giant’s Grave (HOLCOMBE I) Redhill (WRINGTON I) Beacon Batch (BURRINGTON 17) Mountain Ground (CHEWTON MENDIP I) Haydon Drove (ST CUTHBERT OUT III) Pen Hill (ST CUTHBERT OUT I) Dundry (DUNDRY ii) Devil’s Bed & Bolster (BECKINGTON I) Big Tree (BUCKLAND DINHAM II) Fromefield (FROME I)

Right Angle to Slope Felton Common (WINFORD I) Barrow House Farm (CHEWTON MENDIP II) Priddy (PRIDDY I) Small Down (EVERCREECH I) Brays Down (SHOSCOMBE I) Stoney Littleton (WELLOW I) Fairy's Toot (BUTCOMBE I)

Top of a Hill Tunley (CAMERTON i) Soldiers Grave (DUNDRY i)

Level Ground Green Ore (ST CUTHBERT OUT II) Priddy Hill (PRIDDY iii) Orchardleigh (BUCKLAND DINHAM I)

Table 6: Mortuary Monuments: Position in the Landscape

phenomenon in Britain. When approaching these monuments from below they form a 'false crest' effect, appearing on the skyline. Interestingly all of the monuments in this group have 'classic' orientations, falling between north-east and south-east, with east emphasised 3. Conversely, the next most common positioning (32%), are those barrows that lie facing upslope or downslope. When one looks at the orientations of these monuments an interesting fact becomes apparent; nearly half of these monuments have an atypical orientation. Fairy's Toot is aligned southnorth, Priddy is south-south-west/north-north-east and Brays Down is north-south. Indeed, if one were to also include Felton Common with its north-north-east/southsouth-west orientation as 'unusual' 4 (that is to say, lying outside of the north-east to south-east zone) then 71% of the monuments in this class have an atypical orientation. It should thus be noted that all of the long barrows with 'atypical' orientations also have fairly 'atypical' landscape positionings, facing uphill rather than following the contours of the hill. The significance of this is perhaps debatable but is certainly worthy of mention.

particularly impressive example. This brings us to our last group, those monuments that were placed on level ground (14% of the group). Again, this is not a particularly unusual landscape siting and the three sites all have standard easterly alignments. Myriad factors might have governed their location but it is tempting to suggest that these monuments might have been visible from some distance away, in these patches of 'level', though still elevated, landscape. However, without the environmental data needed to substantiate such a claim, little more can be said. Altitude Data was available for 26 monuments, detailed in Table 7. In order to investigate whether there is a significant clustering of monuments at certain heights, the range of heights have been divided into blocks of 50m (0-49, 5099 etc), from 0 to 349m AOD. The results are as follows: • • • • • • •

The two remaining classes, top of a hill and level ground, make up 9% and 14% of the total respectively. Megalithic barrows placed on top of hills are not particularly common but examples are known from other areas, Adam's Grave in the Avebury region being a

0-49m OD 50-99m OD 100-149m OD 150-199m OD 200-249m OD 250-299m OD 300-349m OD

0 long barrows (0%) 3 long barrows (12%) 4 long barrows (15%) 10 long barrows (38%) 5 long barrows (19%) 2 long barrows (8%) 2 long barrows (8%)

The greatest concentration in any one height 'block' is the 38% of the barrows that occur between 150-199m AOD. That 27% occur on land below 150m and 35% on land above 199m suggests that long barrows are to be found at most altitudes in northern Somerset with one notable exception; there are no long barrows occurring on land

3

Dundry may be the exception as it either has a west-northwest/east-south-east orientation or a east-south-east/ west-northwest orientation. 4 As previously mentioned, Powell et al (1969) argue that Felton Common is actually orientated south-north. An earthwork survey by Mullin and the author (1997) show that the monument is actually aligned very slightly east of north and west of south.

69

Name of Site Beacon Batch Pen Hill Priddy Hill Priddy Haydon Drove Soldiers Grave Green Ore Whitnell Farm Old Down Dundry Small Down Felton Common Big Tree Waterstone Mountain Ground Redhill Tunley Giant's Grave Barrow House Farm Failand Fairy's Toot Brays Down Orchardleigh Fromefield Devil's Bed & Bolster Stoney Littleton

Height AOD 320m 300m 270m 250m 245m 230m 225m 220m 200m 195m 190m 185m 175m 175m 170m 165m 165m 160m 155m 140m 135m 130m 110m 90m 80m 80m

Table 7: Mortuary Monuments Altitude

(ibid.:79). Unfortunately, it is not possibly to calculate how this compares with the spacing of megalithic tombs as such data is not readily available.

below 50m OD. Indeed, there are none on land below 80m AOD. However, the decision where to locate a long barrow was undoubtedly complex and cannot be understood by recourse to topographic data alone. The evidence of height, geology and soils together does illustrate an avoidance of low-lying land - the coastal plain and its low hills, the levels, the valleys - for the construction of long barrow but these factors may have been secondary to social considerations. The proviso has already been made however that monuments may have existed in such areas but have been rendered invisible by alluvial deposition and agricultural processes.

Following Kinnes' method of using 'best fit' rectangles to calculate the density of long barrows (1992), the total area containing long barrows in northern Somerset is 1024 sq. km. Dividing this by the 28 examples gives the figure of 37; thus the average density is c. 1 site per 37 sq. km. This compares with a density of c. 1 per 20 sq. km on the Cotswolds and c. 1 per 25 sq. km on the Wessex chalk (ibid.:79). The closest comparisons regarding density are the figures for Sussex and the Chilterns. Sussex has a density of c.1 long barrow per 30 sq. km and the Chilterns have a density of c. 1 per 31sq. km. However, the best fit rectangles covering Sussex and the Chilterns measure only 300 and 220 sq. km, with only 10 and 7 long barrows respectively. The regions that compare favourably with northern Somerset in terms of total area are Lincolnshire and the Yorkshire Wolds, occupying areas of 750 and 800 sq. kms respectively. Yet here we see a marked difference in density: Lincolnshire has 1 site per 53 sq. km whilst the Yorkshire Wolds have 1 per 50 sq. km. This suggests northern Somerset has an unusually dense concentration of long barrows over a large area. This density cannot be accounted for by the presence of groups or cemeteries of long barrows and may reflect other factors.

Spacing & Density It is possible to calculate the distance between long barrows - such data is available for 27 monuments (see Table 8). The average distance between long barrows in northern Somerset is 2.83 kms. The range of distances varies from 0.16 km to 11km; this compares well with the Cranborne Chase area where the distances range from 0.5 kms to 11 kms, with an average distance of 3.2 kms (Kinnes 1992). Taking the arbitrary figure of 500m as the maximum distance to classify a pair of long barrows (ibid.: 79), only Mountain Ground and Barrow House Farm qualify, though the Waterstone Dolmen and Redhill are only 0.64 kms apart. Kinnes calculates that just under 10% of non-megalithic long barrows occur as a pair/group and thus the figure of 7% for northern Somerset compares quite well with the 'national' average

70

It is impossible to know if the variables we are considering were important to prehistoric populations in siting long barrows. Nonetheless, work such as this has a value for it allows a regional group to be compared with

Name of Site Barrow House Farm Mountain Ground Waterstone Redhill Haydon Drove Green Ore Whitnell Farm Felton Common Orchardleigh Dundry Soldiers Grave Pen Hill Priddy Hill Priddy Big Tree Fromefield Fairy's Toot Brays Down Stoney Littleton Old Down Tunley Giant's Grave Devil's Bed & Bolster Beacon Batch Failand Winsley Small Down

other regional systems in operation during British prehistory.

Nearest Neighbour Mountain Ground Barrow House Farm Redhill Waterstone Green Ore Haydon Drove Green Ore Waterstone Barrow Hill Soldiers Grave Dundry Green Ore Priddy Priddy Hill Barrow Hill Orchardleigh Redhill Stoney Littleton Brays Down Whitnell Farm Brays Down Old Down Orchardleigh Priddy Hill Soldiers Grave Stoney Littleton Old Down

Distance (kms) 0.16 0.16 0.64 0.64 0.96 0.96 1.28 1.6 1.6 2.08 2.08 2.24 2.24 2.24 2.4 2.4 2.56 2.56 2.56 3.2 3.68 4.48 4.8 5 5.92 6.88 11

Table 8: Mortuary Monuments Nearest Neighbour Calculations

71

72

Chapter Five: Late Neolithic Monuments: Enclosures and Complexes contains the enclosure. This work was watched by Mrs P. Belsey who recovered a late Roman copper-alloy belt buckle at ST 6538 6919, lying on stony ground below the topsoil, c.2m west of the earthworks (Belsey & Ponsford: ibid.). This buckle was of Hawkes' and Dunnings Type IIA animal-ornamented buckles, a type commonly associated with late Roman military units (ibid.).

The aim of this chapter is to examine the evidence for later Neolithic monumental activity in northern Somerset. This will involve looking at the evidence for henges and timber and stone circles. This may appear to be a dramatic leap forward in time from the preceding two chapters but it is with good reason. There are no definite causewayed enclosures, bank barrows, cursi or any other type of monument that might 'span the gap' or overlap slightly between long barrows and henges in the region. This is not to say that they do not exist but simply that they have not yet been discovered. Indeed, it is unlikely that there are no causewayed enclosures in northern Somerset, especially when one considers the relatively high density of contemporary mortuary monuments. A causewayed enclosure or indeed, enclosures, might be hidden beneath a later monument such as a hillfort, or be simply ploughed away. The predominantly limestone pasture does not reveal cropmarks as clearly as the chalk of the Wessex downs and thus the discovery of causewayed enclosures, or related sites, might largely depend on chance.

The site was visited in 1998 and an earthwork survey undertaken. The earthwork only survives on the north side of the road in a field used for grazing horses, the south side now lying in a golf course. The survey showed the earthwork to be a gentle curve a maximum of 1m high and 9m wide at the widest point with an apparent gap at the north-east. The diameter of the enclosure, if complete, would be c.100m but there was no evidence of an internal ditch. It is also apparent from the earthwork survey that the feature did not appear to be convincingly circular. Indeed, analysis of aerial photographs shows a clear feature, astride the road but indistinct on the southern side. The feature appears to be sub-rectangular rather than round.

Henges

Subsequent to the earthwork survey, a resistivity survey was carried out at the site. The results were affected by the presence of the Bristol Water pipeline that runs through the field, but a square/rectangular high resistance feature was found to correspond with the area of the earthwork (see figure 5.2). Thus the 'henge', as described by Tratman, is in fact the remains of a square/rectangular enclosure or building, cut by the Whitchurch to Keynsham road. The date of this enclosure is uncertain but is probably Medieval or earlier due to its relationship with the road.

The northern Somerset landscape is not as densely packed with visible later Neolithic monumental activity as Wessex, though the monuments that exist appear to have been of great importance. Eight possible henges have been identified (figure 5.1): four comprising the Priddy Circles and one each at Stanton Drew, Gorsey Bigbury, Hunter's Lodge and a questionable example at Stockwood. These will be considered in reverse order as the latter can be dealt with more promptly than the former examples.

However, a further, unexpected, low resistance feature was also detected running across the northern part of the survey, cut by the pipe trench. This feature is circular, the geophysics detecting part of the arc of the circle. It appears to have a diameter of over 100m and lies c.3-4m north of the presumably later earthworks. The results indicate the presence of a large ditched circular enclosure, invisible above ground, with a break in the ditch to the south. The ditch itself is c.2 -3m wide and the break (entrance?) is c.2m wide. It is difficult to assign the site a date and function but its location on the end of a spur overlooking the Avon valley and the morphology of the ditch are suggestive of a prehistoric date.

Stockwood The Stockwood "enclosure" (ST 63706920) lies at c.75m AOD on the north-eastern spur of Durley Hill, between Bristol and Keynesham. The enclosure has been described as a wide, low bank with an internal ditch and this, combined with its apparent non-defensive location, has led to it being described as a possible henge (BANES SMR No.2404). It first appears to have been noticed by the Rev. John Skinner in the early nineteenth century (Bob Williams, pers. comm.). The site subsequently received little attention until recorded by Tratman in 1973 (Belsey & Ponsford 1982: 2). He described it as a circular earthwork, c.100m in diameter with some possible outworks, cut by the Whitchurch to Keynsham road. The earthwork was much ploughed down and the eastern half not traceable. Due to the presence of an internal ditch, he interpreted the site as being possibly the remnant of a henge monument.

There are also patches of higher resistance outside of the ditch and this might indicate the remains of a bank hence there might still be a henge on Durley Hill. However, until more research is carried out at the site it is unwise to draw any firm conclusions, though a henge status is possible.

During 1976, a Bristol Water Works pipeline was cut through Stockwood, passing through the field that

73

74

0

5

Lockinghead





• Hunters Lodge

• • •• Priddy Circles

Gorsey Bigbury

10 Kilometers

Cheddar Head

•

Chew Stoke

Hautville's Quoit   •Stanton Drew

•

74

E

 Stone Elevation (m) 0 0.1 - 10 10.1 - 25 25.1 - 50 50.1 - 100 100.1 - 150 150.1 - 200 200.1 - 250 250.1 - 300 300.1 - 350 No Data

Henges and stone circles.dbf • Henge

S

Figure 5.1: Distribution of Henges and Stone Circles. © Crown Copyright/database Right 2005. An Ordnance Survey/ EDINA supplied service.

5



 Tynings Stones

Leigh Down

Stockwood

W

N

Figure 5.2 Results of Resistivity Survey at Stockwood Hunter’s Lodge On the West Mendip plateau (ST5592 4982) is an earthwork that has been variously classified as either a Bronze Age disc barrow or a Neolithic henge (Grinsell 1971, Tratman 1958b). The monument consists of an outer bank, an inner ditch, a platform area inside the bank and ditch and, placed on this platform, a mound (figure 5.3). The total diameter of the site is c.60m. There are also traces of a causeway over the ditch on the northnorth-west side of the monument, with a corresponding break in the bank.

Indeed, flint and stone artefacts have been collected from the field on several occasions (by Ann Everton and Chris Hawkes: pers comm) and these will be discussed in a later chapter. The gradiometer (figure 5.4) and resistivity (figure 5.5) surveys produced complimentary results, revealing a range of previously undetected features. Working from the centre of the monument these are: 1.

The confusion over the status of the site is due to the presence of the mound, placed in the interior of the monument. However, the mound is placed off-centre and it has been argued that it looks recent, possibly a collection of stones placed there when the field was ploughed (Tratman 1958b: 124-125). No research has been carried out at the site but over the last decade or so it seems to have become generally accepted as a henge by researchers in Somerset and beyond. As part of this work, an earthwork survey and a gradiometer and a resistivity survey were undertaken in an attempt to ascertain the true status of the monument.

2. 3. 4.

5. 6.

The field in which the monument stands is currently used for pasture but the site has been ploughed in the past. 75

2 centrally placed circular pits, each c.4 -5m in diameter an oval ditched enclosure, surrounding the pits on at least 3 sides, measuring c.16m north-south and 11m east-west a mound over/around the pits and enclosure a ditch with a single-entrance to the north-northwest, enclosing the above features. This has an internal diameter of c. 21m. The ditch is c.5m wide. There are indications that the ditch may be discontinuous, perhaps dug as a series of pits. a bank running outside of the ditch, c,4 - 5m wide, with a break in the bank to the north-west. an external ditch, running outside of the bank, c.3m wide. This has an external diameter of c.50m and a possible break to the north-west.

Figure 5.3: Earthwork Survey of Hunters Lodge “Henge” 7.

Hunter's Lodge are not out-of-place (ibid.). However, a feature that finds little precedence in henge monuments is the small inner ditched enclosure. Triple-ditched enclosures are known: Fornham All Saints in Surrey is one such example, though its henge status has not been proved by excavation (ibid.). This site however, has a continuous inner ditch circuit, and several other features that are different from Hunter's Lodge. In terms of other Neolithic sites that Hunter's Lodge compares favourable with, two stand out. One is West Ashby in Lincolnshire and the other is Aldwincle Site 1 in Northamptonshire.

a causeway, crossing the external ditch, bank and internal ditch, and ending at the central ditched enclosure. The causeway has a similar highresistance signature as the bank, suggesting either compacted earth or a deliberately laid surface.

Hunter's Lodge is a complex monument and, unfortunately, the geophysical results by no means clearly determine the status of the monument. It is possible that this a multi-phase monument and has been both Late Neolithic henge and Early Bronze Age barrow. However, some comparisons can be drawn.

West Ashby is a multi-phase monument, with phase 1 represented by an oval penannular ditch, with pits and postholes inside. A charcoal spread and small pieces of cremated bone were recovered from this phase which was apparently sealed by the erection of a mound over the area (Harding & Lee 1987: 191). Later, the central mound was enlarged and two further circuits of ditches dug (ibid.). The primary phase (penannular ditch, pits, bone, pottery and flint) was dated to 1720+80 b.c (23001750 calBC, HAR-3290). Sherds of Beaker and Grooved Ware were recovered and, whilst later phases at the monument are Bronze Age, the penannular

There are many examples of henges with both inner and outer ditches: Arminghall in Norfolk, Big Rings in Oxfordshire and the Thornborough henges are all examples of classic henge monuments with these features (Harding & Lee 1987). However, at Hunter's Lodge, the inner and outer ditches are closely spaced, separated only by the bank whereas the ditches of some of the aforementioned sites tend to be quite widely spaced. This is not a hard and fast rule, as smaller monuments with less space between the ditches do exist. Centrally placed pits also frequently occur in henges and thus these features at

76

Figure 5.4: Hunters Lodge Gradiometer Survey Results

Figure 5.5 Hunter’s Lodge Resistivity Survey Results

77

59 and 70), measuring 2.4 x 1.5m and 2.1 x 1.7m across respectively. Pit 59 contained the disarticulated remains of an adult and a child and Pit 70, the disarticulated remains of two adults and a young or foetal infant (ibid.: 108-109). It appears that the bodies were interred in wooden structures within the pits, interpreted as mortuary structures (ibid.: 127). At some point, the pits were enclosed by a small interrupted ditch, defining a circular area c.10m across. Overlying this area was a chalk rubble mound, c 8m in diameter. Phase 2 saw the enlargement of the mound, using turves, and the erection of arcs of stakes, possibly forming four concentric circles, centred on the phase 1 mound. In Phase 3, the mound was enlarged to c.23m and surrounded by a ditch, with no berm between. In Phase 4, the mound was again enlarged and a new ditch dug. The ditch enclosed an area c.42m in diameter.

ditch and its features are Neolithic and perhaps related to henges. It measured approximately 12m by 10m, compared to 16m by 12m at Hunter’s Lodge. Aldwincle Site 1 (Harding & Lee 1987: 198) is comparable to West Ashby and has also been classified as a Neolithic penannular enclosure. Here, phase 1 was represented by a roughly rectangular area defined by three lengths of ditch. Inside this were postholes. In phase 2, the area was enclosed by the digging of a ditch with 2 causeways and finally, a continuous outer ditch was dug outside of this, representing phase 3. The enclosure ditch of phase 1 measured 13.7m x 10.7m, again not too dissimilar to Hunter’s Lodge. A radiocarbon date of 2610+70 bc (3390-3020 calBC HAR1411) was obtained from charcoal taken from the phase 3 ditch (ibid.).

Radiocarbon dates were obtained for human bone from Pit 59 and Pit 70 of Phase 1. Bone from Pit 59 yielded a calibrated date of 2286-2137BC, to 1 sigma. Bone from Pit 70 gave a calibrated date of 2199-2037BC, to 1 sigma. Bellamy suggests that this first phase recalls many features of Neolithic funerary practice (multiple disarticulated burials, mortuary structures, interrupted ditches) and it might thus have began life as a Late Neolithic round barrow (Bellamy 1991: 127). Later additions saw it take on the form first of a bowl barrow (Phase 3) and then of a bell barrow (Phase 4).

Both these sites share certain similarities with Hunter's Lodge, having similar sized internal ditched enclosures containing pits and post-holes, at least two further rings of ditches and, in the case of West Ashby, an internal mound. However, neither site has a causeway that crosses both ditches and bank, ending at the internal ditched enclosure. The presence of this causeway at Hunter's Lodge suggests that either all the features are one phase or that the central complex was still visible when the two ditches and bank were added. Whichever possibility, it implies that controlled access to the central area was important. There is nothing to suggest that Hunter's Lodge is not a henge and indeed it is a comparable size to Gorsey Bigbury (see below) and shares the same entrance orientation.

It can be seen that the Fordington Farm barrow shares many features in common with Hunter's Lodge; internal pits, central ditched enclosures, mounds and two further ditch circuits. However, the pits at Fordington Farm are half the size of the Hunter's examples, whilst the mound of Phase 4 covers the ditch of Phase 3; the mound at Hunter’s is small and would have covered neither ditch. There are other differences between the two monuments but it is undeniable that Fordington Farm is comparable in many ways to Hunter's Lodge. It is interesting that the former appears to begin life as a Neolithic monument, again suggesting a potential lengthy sequence for Hunter's Lodge.

But how does Hunter's Lodge compare with Bronze Age disc barrows? Disc barrows are composed of four main features - a centrally placed small mound, a wide berm, a ditch and an external bank. However, there is another, special type that has been identified and this is virtually confined to south-east Dorset - this type has all the above features but also an external ditch (RCHME 1970: 422). It is into this category that our Hunter’s Lodge monument could comfortably fit. Conversely, the presence of an off-centre mound should not eliminate it as a disc barrow as several are recorded with this feature; a disc barrow in the Came Down Group, Winterbourne Came, S.E. Dorset has a mound which is off-centre by 6m to the south (ibid.: 464). It is also a comparable size to Hunter's Lodge, with an overall diameter of 45-50m, a bank width of 7-8m and a slight external ditch. There are also examples of round barrows with small enclosures contained within the larger area, though these can prove to be indicative of multiphase monuments, as will be seen below.

In conclusion, evidence exists to support both the henge and disc barrow interpretation of the Hunter's Lodge monument. It is suggested here that it is might be more likely that it began life as a Neolithic monument, though whether this were a henge, a penannular enclosure or a mortuary monument is difficult to say without excavation. The proviso stated above that this might be a multi-phase monument should be kept in mind, straddling the Neolithic-Bronze Age periods. Alternatively, if Hunter's Lodge were constructed as a disc barrow it is significant, as this type of round barrow is rare upon Mendip. It is perhaps even more interesting that it appears to have an external ditch as this type of disc barrow was thought to be mainly confined to south-east Dorset. In 1991, Thomas postulated a link between Dorset and Mendip, based on the significant amounts of

A possible round barrow analogy for Hunter's Lodge is the Fordington Farm round barrow in Dorset. Rescue excavations in 1988 revealed this barrow had at least 5 major phases of construction and modification (Bellamy 1991). Those phases that are of interest here are phases 1 – 4. Phase 1 consisted of two large grave pits (numbered

78

by a number of 19th century enthusiasts such as Scarth, Phelps and Allcroft.

Portland chert that occur in the West Mendip region. Further evidence of such contact is provided by the presence of Old Red Sandstone artefacts and ooliticgritted pottery, originating in northern Somerset, at monuments within Dorset. A female from Mendip (denoted by the high lead content in her bones) was found buried in a pit complex in Dorset (Green 2000, Montgomery et al 2000). Evidence exists for direct contact between the two regions and it is feasible that localised customs and practices, including monument construction, could have provided inspiration for a visiting group.

Excavations in the 1930s revealed that the central area, covered by 0.15-0.25m of soil2, contained no features or finds apart from what are described as a few ‘surface’ flints (Jones 1935, 1938). This was in complete contrast to the ditch of the monument which contained over 1000 sherds of pottery, predominantly Beaker, and nearly 5000 flints (figure 5.7). This ditch was found to be cut irregularly through the limestone, utilising a natural rift in the northwest sector. The rift appears to have been 'excavated' by the henge constructors, as in places the natural clay fill had been dug out to a depth of c.3m. A charcoal band c.0.05m thick marked the point where excavation apparently ceased and one worked flint was found in this band. In the area above it, where the ditch widened, two Beaker sherds were recovered.

Gorsey Bigbury The only henge in northern Somerset to have been extensively excavated is Gorsey Bigbury in the parish of Cheddar, West Mendip (NGR 48445583). This is a Class I henge, with an entrance to the north and an overall diameter of c.46m (figure 5.6).1 The site consists of a flat central area, enclosed by a rock-cut ditch and an external bank of earth and stone. Excavations were carried out between 1931 – 35 and again in 1965 by the University of Bristol Spelaeological Society (Jones 1935, 1938). The original reason for the excavation was the belief that this site might be a disc-barrow. The 1931 – 35 season involved the total excavation of the central area and the ditch and two sections through the bank. The 1965 season focussed upon the entrance of the henge, in the light of discoveries at the entrance to Priddy Circle 1 (ApSimon 1951, Tratman 1966a).

The quarried ditch varied between 3 to 5m in width and 1.1 to 2.4m in depth below the rock surface (ApSimon et al 1976:155). The archaeological deposit in the ditch was found to be concentrated in the north-east, east, south and south-west sections. This comprised charcoal, earth, stones, Beaker sherds, flints, burnt daub, broken animal bone, human bone, a limestone 'axehead' and a needle grinder. At least 120 Beaker vessels seem to have been represented, predominantly late types (ibid.). In places, this material was found over a 'rubble platform' on the ditch bottom, interpreted as a laid floor, but likely to be bank slip (ibid.). Overlying this discontinuous rubble layer was a charcoal band, up to 0.075m thick, on top of which the deposit was placed3. The rubble layer did not cover the entire bottom of the ditch, but was placed against its outer edge, hence the bank slip interpretation. Overlying the ditch bottom and abutting the rubble was a yellow clay deposit. This has variously been described as 'sterile' and containing 'few finds' (Jones 1938, ApSimon et al 1976, Harding & Lee 1987).

There are no records of any excavations at the henge prior to those by the Spelaeological Society. The Rev. Skinner is known to have visited Gorsey Bigbury, though his activities appear to have been constrained to simply writing about the site. He was informed of its existence by a gentleman who had taken him to Circle 4 of the Priddy Circles. This man had helped level part of the bank at Gorsey Bigbury for the farmer but some (of the bank) still remained (Skinner BM Add Mss 33653, f 88, 22/5/1819). Skinner recalls that some of the locals called the site a bullpit, whilst others said a wooden church was built inside it. Skinner himself compared it to the amphitheatre at Charterhouse (ibid.: f144) and drew several sketches of both. Some indication of what the site had suffered is given when he describes how the banks were upwards of 6-8ft high before the farmer lowered them in 1818 for a potato crop (Skinner BM Add Mss 33653, f 181, 9/8/1819). It appears that Sir Richard Colt-Hoare may have been instrumental in preventing the total destruction of the site (ApSimon 1951). Subsequently, the site was visited and discussed

The remains of 3 human skeletons were recovered, comprising 2 adults and 1 child (Jones 1938, ApSimon et al 1976). Parts of one of the adult skeletons was found in a rough stone cist. This stone cist was placed on the ditch bottom, abutting its inner face, in the north-west segment of the ditch. This is the only part of the ditch with no 'occupation' material and the segment of the ditch is described in the original report as looking like a 'large pit' (Jones 1938). It was found to be filled with large stones, animal bones and some human bone. The cist was underneath this material.

2

It is likely that at least 0.30m of earth has been removed from the interior, if the depth of the soils above the bedrock outside of the henge can be used as an indicator. 3 This charcoal band also appears to have contained material similar to that found above it.

1

The diameter as shown on the published plan is 67m – ApSimon, based on the results of excavation calculated the figure of 46m.

79

Figure 5.6: Gorsey Bigbury Henge (based on ApSimon et al 1976)

Figure 5.7: Arrowheads from Gorsey Bigbury (after Jones 1938)

80

All of these deposits are interpreted as relating to a secondary phase, after the ‘abandonment’ of the henge, due to the thin layer of yellow clay between the bottom of the ditch and the first signs of Beaker activity (ibid.). Most of the finds and all of the catalogues and excavation notes for the site were destroyed during World War II.

cranial vault most likely ‘belongs’ to the female skeleton found to the west of the causeway, missing its skull. ApSimon et al also suggest that the bones of the child could also derive from the cist. Post-war, excavations carried out in the area north of the causeway in 1965 by Tratman (1966a) revealed two asymmetrically placed pits, interpreted as postholes. The west hole measured 0.20m in diameter at its base and was 0.425m deep. This was filled with a compact loamy brown earth and contained 3 blocks of Old Red Sandstone. The east hole also measured 0.20m in diameter at its base and was c.0.58m deep. A tiny piece of flint was found at the bottom. At the base of both postholes was a thin layer of darker soil. There was no evidence that the posts rotted in-situ and Tratman thus surmised that the posts were deliberately removed and the holes infilled. He argues that this activity would have been contemporary with the take-over of the site by the 'incoming' Beaker community (ibid.:28). It seems likely that the pieces of Old Red Sandstone were used as chock stones, an interesting choice as the site is on limestone. However, as Tratman states, Old Red Sandstone does occur as stream-borne detritus close-by, although this still implies deliberate selection of this particular material (ibid.:27).

The human bone was found in two discrete groups: west of the causeway and east of the causeway (ApSimon et al 1976:170). The western group relates to the stone cist placed on the bottom of the ditch. This measured 1.07m long by 0.75m wide and was of relatively crude construction, the southwest side and cover missing. It contained the remains of a crouched burial of a man, though only the skull, mandible and fragments of limb bones remained in the cist. A large part of this skeleton was found in the filling of the ditch in this area. Also found in the same area were the remains (though no skull) of another individual, this time an adult female. It has been suggested that both of these skeletons would have originally been placed inside the cist and became subsequently disturbed, with some of the bones being removed from the cist (ibid.). Artefacts were also recovered from the cist: a barbed and tanged arrowhead was found by the knee of the adult male and a flint knife, a beaker sherd and four bone needles and a bone scoop were found behind his skull (ibid.) (figure 5.8).

A total of 6 radiocarbon dates were taken from samples from Gorsey Bigbury and provide a date range of 25001650 cal BC (ApSimon et al 1976 and recalibrated here). These form two groups: CH9 and CH13 being the earliest centring on 2250 cal BC while the other four dates all cluster around 2000 cal BC. The main problem with these dates is the lack of stratigraphic information provided about them, CH13 for example merely being described as "ditch, hearth on west side of causeway, outer side". The dates do, however, compare well to those from the West Kennet Palisade enclosure (2459-2046 cal BC) and Woodhenge (2394-2039 cal BC) (data from Pitts 2000: Appendix 3). Interpretation Gorsey Bigbury henge was interpreted by the original excavators as a monument with two distinct phases of use: • Phase I – the original henge phase, pre-Beaker • Phase II – the Beaker phase, represented by a rubble platform on which lay charcoal bands, interspersed with the finds detailed above. This was argued to be the result of an occupation in the ditch by the ‘Beaker Folk' (Jones 1938). Figure 5.8: Grave assemblage from cist at Gorsey Bigbury (after Jones 1935)

The reassessment of the site by ApSimon et al (1976) rejected the ditch occupation hypothesis and argued instead that the ‘rubble living platform’ was more likely the result of bank slip. The bands of charcoal were argued not to be the result of in-situ burning but slipped hearths from the edges of the ditch, perhaps waterlaid

The eastern group of bones also represents two individuals, an adult female represented only by part of the cranial vault and a molar, and a child (c.5 years old), represented by cranial fragments. It is suggested that the

81

Atmospheric data from Stuiver et al. (1998); OxCal v3.5 Bronk Ramsey (2000); cub r:4 sd:12 prob usp[chron]

Gorsey CH2 3663±61BP CH7 3602±71BP CH9 3800±74BP CH13 3782±62BP B1 3666±117BP B2 3606±67BP 3500CalBC

3000CalBC

2500CalBC

2000CalBC

1500CalBC

1000CalBC

Calibrated date (ApSimon et al ibid.:169). The presence of daub suggested that a structure might well be close by (perhaps outside the bank on the north eastern side). The artefact assemblage was interpreted as rubbish dumping. This, it was argued, is substantiated by the wide horizontal and vertical dispersion of sherds from the same pots (ibid.: 170). Differential weathering of the material also led them to argue that this was random dumping of material over a long period of time. Ultimately, ApSimon et al also conceived a two phase use of the site, firstly as a henge and secondly as a settlement locale. This settlement might have included wattle and daub buildings outside of the henge, with the interior of the henge used as a stock enclosure and the ditch as a rubbish dump and the burial activities on the site might have taken place after the ‘henge’ phase and before the ‘settlement’ phase. These activities appear to date to c.2000 cal BC.

of Late Neolithic arrowheads would also seem to support this. A Beaker cist was added after the digging of the ditch but before primary silts accumulated. This was then disturbed at a later date but prior to the deposition of the main Beaker deposit. This is shown by the presence of human bone stratified in the primary ditch silts below the Beaker deposit. The human remains, which might all have originally been placed in the cist, were manipulated before being deposited in the ditch terminals. The next phase of the monument appears to have been the deposition of the so-called Beaker 'occupation' material; mainly pottery, flint and animal bone. Stratigraphically, this material was placed above the yellow clay and rubble, which is evidence of bank erosion. The pottery corpus included fragments from over 120 fine and coarse ware Beakers, some of which were weathered, others of which were not. Bradley (1998) has recently suggested that Beaker fragments could have been deliberately incorporated into existing monuments as fragments and as such the mixture of material at Gorsey Bigbury is not unusual. Another interpretation is possible for the weathered material, however. In a petrological analysis of the Beaker pottery from Gorsey Bigbury and Bos Swallet, Russell and Williams (1998) identified up to 87% of the pottery as having a grog temper. This appears to possibly have been a "technological recipe" handed down through the generations, the absence of other tempering materials being striking (ibid.). The weathered sherds may have thus been a supply of grog, ready for grinding into temper.

One of the major problems with studying Gorsey Bigbury is discerning the nature of the Beaker deposits at the site; it seems unlikely that this activity is simply domestic dumping and therefore might we be looking at secondary ritual activity? No detailed stratigraphical information is available for the site as most records were destroyed during WWII and reinterpretation is therefore difficult. However two strands of evidence enable a different interpretation than that offered by ApSimon et al. Firstly, human bone occurs on the site only in the ditch terminals. This suggests that this was not dumped and formed a deliberate deposit in this ritually significant place. Human burials and structured deposition in ditch terminals is known from many henge sites (Mount Pleasant [Wainwright 1989] is a classic example) and there are also analogues for double burials in Beaker cists (ApSimon 1976: 173). Secondly, the report indicates that the cist sits on the ditch bottom and had bank slip material over the top of it. This means that the cist must belong to an early phase of the monument, along with the skull fragments and Beaker sherd illustrated in the yellow clay (ie the primary ditch fill). It seems likely, therefore, that the initial phase at the site comprised the erection of a henge monument prior to 2250 cal BC. The fine array

However, the spatial relationships of the Beaker sherds is suggestive of a dumped deposit, as pieces of the same vessels were found horizontally and vertically displaced throughout the ditch fill. This is also supported by the presence of Mesolithic flints from a context higher up than a Beaker human skull. Mesolithic flints are known from the surrounding field and their location in the ditch fills supports the interpretation of the Beaker material being gathered from elsewhere, but possibly from the field, and placed in the ditch. As the material was 82

178m) might suggest this to be unlikely. There is also no evidence on the ground or from aerial photographs that another circle existed and it will be argued here that the large gap was a deliberate device on the part of the builders.

collected, residual Mesolithic flints were also 'swept-up' with it and thus became incorporated. Beaker flints were also recovered from the ditch and consisted of roughly equal amounts of waste and artefacts. Such a high ratio of waste is unusual and might be indicative of waste from the knapping process.

The classification of the Priddy Circles has been fiercely debated and they have variously been compared to Neolithic, Bronze Age and Medieval constructions (henges, defended enclosures and 'Highworth Circle' type stock enclosures respectively). There are two main features of the sites that have led to this confusion. Firstly, the Priddy Circles have external ditches and internal banks, not the usual henge arrangement of external banks and internal ditches (figure 5.10). This has led to the conclusion that they are "unlikely to belong to the henge class" (Harding & Lee 1987:267). Secondly, excavations at Circle 1 revealed an 'unusual' construction technique for the bank; the bank was enclosed by a post-framed revetment, a feature not observed in henge monuments. However, there are precedents for both these construction techniques in other Neolithic enclosures, an argument that will be returned to a little later.

The evidence indicates that the main Beaker deposit was unstratified, the material being deposited in the ditch in one episode. It is suggested that this material may have been gathered from a settlement in the vicinity of the site, perhaps even from the same field. This collection saw the inclusion of Mesolithic material that was also present as residual material at the settlement locale. This is a similar explanation for the deposit as offered by ApSimon et al. However, comparable evidence from other henge sites makes it difficult to see this was simply as an act of disposal of 'rubbish' . An alternative may be to see the material as a deliberate attempt to "close" the monument, echoing the (occasional) practice of blocking long barrows. The deposition of “everyday” material inside a "ritual" monument may have been a way of desanctifying the area and changing its significance. It may even be that such acts made this into a different type of ritual monument, changing beliefs reflected in these distinctive depositional practices.

Skinner described the Priddy Circles as 'Druidical Circles' and introduced them to Colt-Hoare. Together they measured the Circles 1 - 3 and described them as being formed of a single trench and agger, almost 6ft high by 10ft wide (Skinner BM Add Mss 33657, f 57, 11/6/1818). Skinner also noted the 4th Circle, which he described as being "about the same size as the former three" (ibid.). He makes no mention of its complete/incomplete state. The Circles were the subject of several of his drawings and sketches but there is no evidence that he carried out any excavations at the site.

The favoured interpretation of the sequence at Gorsey Bigbury is given below: • Phase I: construction of a "classic" Type I henge • Phase II: Beaker cist with adult male and female and a child burial constructed in W ditch terminal • Phase III: removal of bones from the cist and deposition in each of the ditch terminals • Phase IV: rapid deposition of Beaker date material in the ditches. New acts of sacred deposition, ritual closure or convenient dumping ground?

The University of Bristol Spelaeological Society carried out excavations at Circle 1 between 1956-9 (Taylor & Tratman 1956, Tratman 1967). Four cuttings were made through the bank and ditch, a section c.90m long and c.14m wide through the interior and finally, a cutting encompassing the entrance and causeway. The excavations revealed the following sequence of construction:

Priddy Circles Along with Stanton Drew, the Priddy Circles are undoubtedly the most famous and impressive of the Later Neolithic monuments in northern Somerset. There are three complete circles and one that might never have been finished (Tratman 1966b). The four stretch in a NNESSW line for a distance of c.1.2kms, though their centres are not on a single axis (figure 5.9). They are numbered from south to north, Circle 1 being the most southerly. Circles 1 and 2 have entrances to the NNE, Circle 3 to the SSW and Circle 4 possibly to the SW. Circle 1 has an external diameter of c.180m, Circle 2, 176.78m, Circle 3, 178m and Circle 4, 192m. Circle 2 is 60m NNE of Circle 1, Circle 3 is 60m NNE of Circle 2, whilst Circle 4 is c.360m NNE of Circle 3. It has long been suggested that the gap between Circles 3 and 4 is large enough to contain another circle (Tratman 1966b, Harding & Lee 1987). However, if equidistant spacing were retained, as suggested by the figure of 60m between Circles 1 - 3, the gap of 360m would in effect be too large unless the putative circle were to have a diameter of 240m. The overall uniformity of diameter of Circles 1 - 4 (averaging

1

83

A section of a shallow trench, c.0.15m, running concentrically with the ditch and 9.5m outside the core of the bank (Harding & Lee ibid.:263). This has been interpreted as a possible marking out trench.

84 84

Figure 5.9: Plan of the Priddy Circles (after Tratman 1966b)

2

3

4

5

6 7

were assigned a 'stone-hole' classification in the report, and others interpreted as features that predate the site (ibid.:107) (figure 5.11). These were described as:

2 concentric rings of postholes dug, occurring in radial pairs, c.2m apart. These averaged c.0.65m in depth and varied between 0.30 and 0.45m in diameter. Some of the spoil from these postholes was placed in discrete heaps underneath the bank structure opposite the postholes, the rest used to pack around the posts. Some of the postholes also contained chockstones. Dark central cores in the postholes were the remains of the posts, rotted in-situ. Smaller holes averaging 0.15m in diameter and 0.15 - 0.22m in depth were found between both inner and outer sets of postholes. These were interpreted as stakeholes, driven in alternatively between the postholes, except at the entrance where postholes were used alone. Holes of only c.0.05m in diameter and c.0.050.07m in depth were also found. These were interpreted as stakeholes of hurdles, set behind the rows of postholes and larger stakeholes but placed in front of the stone walls. It is possible the hurdles were attached to the posts and stakes. Drystone walls were then constructed behind the hurdles, with slight recesses showing that the postholes must have been erected before its construction. In the south-east quadrant of the Circle, the drystone walls were replaced by low walls of turves. It was noted that in places the drystone walling stood to c.0.65m high and that the inner face of the wall was in places better constructed than the outer face. Stones were placed within the drystone walls, all of which seem to have been collected locally (Tratman 1967:110). The ditch was then dug outside of the bank, apparently in a continuous trench (ibid.:111). The earth from the ditch was placed over the stones in between the drystone walling. A berm c.3m wide separated the bank and ditch. It is possible that supplementary earth and stones were brought from North Hill, just south of the site, to aid construction of the bank. This is also suggested by the pollen evidence (see below).

•

•

•

• •

Stone Hole 1 - ovoid area, measuring c.1.25m x 0.80m and 0.60m deep . Fill of dark earth and small stones, firmly embedded in top. Small holes near to it. Upon excavation this proved to be steep-sided, with a pear-shaped depression in the bottom (ibid.:109). Interpreted as a stone hole, dug into clay subsoil. Pit E4 - (c.0.10m east of Stone Hole 1) circular feature, 0.60m in diameter. First thought to be a posthole. Fill was of dark earth with 2 stones firmly embedded in the top. Excavation showed it to be 'basin-shaped'. Function unknown. Stone Hole 2 and Pit E7 - Stone Hole 2 measured c. 0.65m x 1m and 0.5m deep. Sharp edges, with a stakehole cutting its circumference. Adjacent to it was another basin-shaped depression, E7, this time actually cutting the edge of the stone hole. This measured c. 0.28m in diameter and was 0.3m deep. Both features were dug into the clay sub-soil. Large irregularly shaped pit - measuring c.2.2m x 1.6m and 0.6m deep. The fill was of stones packed into clay. Stone Hole 3 - measuring c.2m x 1.5m. Pile of stones, irregularly placed in deeper section of the pit, and amongst these were two pieces of marcasite, the only finds from the excavation. A patch of dark material over one of the stones was interpreted as a piece of turf (ibid.: 109). Interpreted as a stone hole, dug into clay subsoil. It is possible but not certain that postholes E18 and E19 cut the edge of this hole.

The relationship between these features and the enclosure is not straightforward. They are in the entrance area, suggesting that they might relate to an entrance structure. Alternatively, as the excavators suggested, they might predate the earthwork enclosure: excavations at the western ditch terminal did reveal 2 large and at least 16 smaller stones, some of the latter embedded in 'worked' clay. This clay was described as being similar to the clay fill of the entrance pits. The stones rested directly on the ditch floor, with only "the thinnest of primary films of primary filling below them" (ibid.: 109). Tratman interpreted this as evidence that two stoneholes were destroyed during the digging of the ditch, the larger stones being the stones themselves and the smaller stones and clay representing packing. This led him to argue that an earlier structure existed on the site, and was subsequently destroyed during construction of the site. However, an examination of the two stones showed that neither would have fitted stone hole 1 or 2, though it was possible that one of them could have stood in stonehole 3 (ibid.: 110). The evidence is confusing and it is not possible to be certain what features are contemporary with eachother. The two pieces of marcasite found in

The causeway was c.6.25m wide and the entrance defined by postholes, which were larger than those found elsewhere. Tratman describes the entrance as 'funnelshaped' (ibid.:117). The bank to the east of the entrance was found to be composed of turf walls, the space between filled only with earth, whilst to the west of the entrance the bank was of stone walls, the space between filled with stone. There was also some limited evidence for a cross-brace between two of the postholes to the east of the entrance. This was visible as a darker band running obliquely across the bank from E2 probably to E6. No stakeholes were found against the entrance causeway, only postholes, though the hole of a hurdle point was found adjacent to very large posthole, E1. Five pits were found in the entrance area, some of which

85

Figure 5.10: Section and Plan of Priddy Circle 1 bank and ditch (after Tratman 1966b)

Figure 5.11: Plan of the Entrance to Priddy Circle 1 (after Tratman 1966b)

86

Barclay (1987) in response to Clare's paper on henges (1986) argued strongly against forcing data into strictly defined subtypes as this acts to mask the many differences that exist. Bradley offers a similar argument (Bradley 1998). Classifications are useful as they allow us to order and compare our data yet the danger of oversimplification should always be emphasised. There are 'myriad hybrids' as Barclay suggests (1987: 261) and these can allow a greater insight into regional traditions than the 'norm'. As Bradley states, classifying henges only by their earthwork form is a radical oversimplification (Bradley 1998:120). Thus, a rejection of a Neolithic date for the Priddy Circles based on an outer ditch-inner bank arrangement can no longer be substantiated; diversity should not equal exclusion and proven Neolithic examples with this form do exist. But what of the other questionable feature of the Priddy Circles, the timber-revetted bank?

'stone hole 3' are interesting; the nearest occurrence of marcasite is the Trowbridge area, 40kms east. Their 'exoticness' hints at deliberate deposition; it is possible that this and the other so-called 'stone holes' are not stone holes but pits for the deposition of special items, perhaps mainly of organic materials. Alternatively, they could still be pits dug to hold stones/timbers and the marcasite a special (foundation?) deposit. Regardless of the specific function of the pits, the marcasite nodules are surely indicative of a ritual deposit and might support a Neolithic date for Circle 1: the deposition of unusual items in pits is a well-documented feature of henges and other Late Neolithic enclosures. The Date and Function of the Priddy Circles. It is argued here that the best parallels for the Priddy Circles are not Late Bronze Age or Medieval in date but Neolithic. Traditionally, circular enclosures of Later Neolithic date have been forced into the category of 'henges'. According to most literature, henges conform to the following: • broadly circular/oval shape • continuous outer bank (except for entrances) • inner ditch • one or two entrances (sometimes more) • 'ritual' function Other features can include pits, concentric timber rings and standing stones. This classification has remained largely unchanged since Clark (1936), though others such as Atkinson (1951), Burl (1969) and Clare (1986) have suggested some alterations.

Tratman estimated that the average size of the posts to be between 0.15m and 0.20m in diameter, with a minimum length of between 1.6 - 2m (1967: 117). The calculated height of the bank was between 1.3 and 2m. It thus seems likely that the timbers would have been visible, protruding over the top of the bank, from both inside and outside the Circle. Tratman calculated that at least 320 posts would have been needed for Circle 1 alone, together with an equal number of stakes (ibid.). The pollen evidence indicates a grassland environs for the Circles so therefore the materials would need importing, though from how far away we do not know. If the other circles were also revetted, a total of 1280 posts, 1280 stakes and many lengths of hurdling would have been needed, a substantial requirement. It appears that split timbers were not used; posthole fillings, when visible were always round (ibid.:116). Tratman estimates that a minimum of 160 trees would need felling for Circle 1 alone and between 600 -700 for all four circles (ibid.:177). Even if this figure is over (or indeed under) exaggerated the implications are significant.

There is a fundamental problem with forcing monuments into categories; often they simply do not fit. This is the problem with the Priddy Circles, they deviate from the norm in having an internal bank and an external ditch. For many it is simple - they cannot be henges with these features and therefore they are not Neolithic. The possibility that they might still be enclosures of Neolithic date, only not 'typical' henges, is not usually considered. The first phase of Stonehenge, dated to 3015-2935 cal BC (Cleal et al 1995), has an outer ditch and internal bank, as does Llandegai A in Gwynedd, with a date of 3630-2766 cal BC (Houlder 1968). These two sites are happily accommodated into our 'henge' classification, though it has been suggested that Stonehenge might be a protohenge, bridging the gap between causewayed enclosures and henges (Cleal et al 1995). Other sites with outer ditches-inner banks, such as the Little Round Table in Cumbria, Tye Field in Essex, Waulud's Bank in Bedfordshire and Castell Bryn Gwyn, have been given 'questionable' status (Harding & Lee 1987). Un-excavated sites with outer ditches and inner banks are often assigned a domestic function on the basis that they do not conform to the standard henge layout.

Why revet the bank with timbers, stakes and hurdles? It is suggested here that the reasons were symbolic rather than functional. If the arrangement was simply to prevent bank collapse, less labour-intensive methods existed. Indeed, the double row of stone walls within the timbers already act as a form of revetment, stabilising the bank material. Ellis (1992) argues that the form of the timberrevetted bank is suggestive of Bronze Age enclosures such as Rams Hill and Norton Fitzwarren but agrees that the size of the timbers suggests a symbolic rather than functional role. Finding direct parallels for the revetment at Priddy with henges has proved problematic, though other prehistoric sites share some of the elements. Barford 83A in Warwickshire may have had a bank revetted by stakes and hurdles but Harding & Lee (1987: 277) suggest it to be a ring ditch/segmented ditch. At Waulud's Bank in Bedfordshire, the internal bank was fronted by a turf revetment, but the site was argued to be defensive/domestic.

We must either broaden our definition of 'henges' or accept that other forms of Later Neolithic enclosure exist and include them in our discussions. The latter is preferred in this study. This is not a new argument; 87

at 244m, 238m and 244m in diameter but exhibit a similar group unity in terms of size and layout. All three have both internal and external ditches and two entrances. The Knowlton group in Dorset (Fleming 1983) also comprises three enclosures; Knowlton North, Central and South. They are not on a direct alignment, though they do stretch in a general north-west/south-east direction. Knowlton North and Central are comparable in size, being just under 100m in diameter whilst Knowlton South is larger, with an external diameter of 240m. In Cumbria, King Arthur's Round Table, Little Round Table and Mayburgh form another group, though are not in alignment (Bersu 1940). They have external diameters of c.100m, c.48m and 124m respectively. Little Round Table is 150m south of King Arthur's Round Table and 300m south-east of Mayburgh. Stone circles also occur in groupings; the Hurlers on Bodmin Moor, Cornwall are three stone circles in a north-north-east/south-south-west line with comparable diameters (Burl 1995). Both Stanton Drew and Avebury have a great circle and two smaller circles, though these are not in alignment (ibid.). Stone circles will be returned to later in this chapter.

The best analogy for the timber arrangement at Priddy comes from the recently published site, Blackshouse Burn in Lanarkshire (Lelong & Pollard 1998). The site in question consists of a large subcircular enclosure, enclosed by a low stony bank. The internal diameter of the enclosure is 300m. Sections through the bank revealed a complex sequence of construction, comparable in its second phase to Priddy Circle 1. This consisted of the erection of two radial rings of timber posts, with the bank built between them. The bank was revetted on its outer face with flagstones. The postholes were not regularly spaced, standing between 0.8 and 1.4m apart at the inner face and 1.4 and 2.7m on outer face. The sizes of the postholes varied betweenc.0.28 – 0.8m in diameter and 0.35 – 0.82m in depth, the spoil from which appears to have been seemingly dumped into a nearby gully. The remains of substantial wooden posts were found in most of the postholes, packed with chockstones. The excavators were able to determine that the post were erected before the stony bank; the flagstone kerb/revetment respected the postholes and indeed one slab had a notch which curved around a post. There was some evidence for bay construction of the stone bank, with dumped stone placed inside the bays. The dumps of stone were then capped with a layer of slabs.

Thus, the cumulative evidence from the Priddy Circles suggests a Neolithic date and a ritual function. The regularity of spacing (excluding Circle 4), alignment and form might indicate that the Priddy Circles were planned as a coherent unit, rather than successive constructions. The setting out of Circle 1 appears to have been a carefully controlled operation; the marking out trench, the supply and erection of regularly spaced radial pairs of timbers and stakes, the placing of the spoil from the postholes in discrete heaps, importing soil and stones from North Hill. The timbers may have had a symbolic rather than practical function, perhaps reminiscent of the timber circles that were also constructed in the Late Neolithic. It is also possible that the timbers were another way of restricting access and vision to the interior of the monuments. The complex arrangement of timbers, stakes and screens, with possible cross-bracing and a lower stone bank in between, would not only have prevented glimpses of the interior from the circumference, it would also have prevented people from accessing the tops of the banks. Whilst the banks of some henges could have been 'viewing platforms', this was not the case at the Priddy Circles. This suggests an extremely strict division between those who could watch the rituals and those who could not. The presence of external ditches at the circles also amplifies this effect, as external ditches are a classic feature at sites designed to keep people out (c.f. defensive sites). These features - stone banks, timbers, screens, external ditches - suggest that the Priddy Circles exaggerated and manipulated principles of exclusion and unequal access to ritual knowledge in a manner that as yet has few precedents.

A radiocarbon date was taken from outer heartwood of the oak post stump standing in the easternmost posthole (140) on the bank’s inner edge. This gave a date for this phase of the site of 4035+55BP, calibrated to 28632404BC at the two-sigma level of confidence (Lelong & Pollard 1998: 41). The authors calculated a minimum height of 1.6m for the timbers, suggesting that they would have stood above the top of the bank. Lelong & Pollard suggest that the large size, circular plan and timber revetment/palisade at Blackshouse Burn lend themselves to comparison with henges such as Durrington Walls, Avebury and other large henge monuments of the Later Neolithic (ibid.). Yet the construction technique and landscape location also draw comparisons with other monuments, disparate in space and time, including funerary monuments and other prehistoric enclosures. Whether we force it into the henge category or not, it is undeniable that in terms of construction sequence and technique, phase 2 of Blackshouse Burn provides us with our closest analogy with Priddy Circle 1. The date of 2862-2402 calBC might be indicative of the timespan in which the Priddy Circles were also constructed. The Priddy Circles are an example of extreme monumentality, similar in scale to and organisation to other Later Neolithic monuments. That there are four circles is worthy of consideration as grouping of enclosures definitely appears to be a Late Neolithic phenomenon. The Thornborough complex in Yorkshire comprises three henges, each 750m apart (centre to centre), lying on a north-west/south-east alignment (Thomas 1955). They are larger than the Priddy Circles

Stanton Drew The prehistoric monuments at Stanton Drew cover a large area, though not as large as the Priddy Circles. Until recently it was known that the complex comprised only

88

"...in the pit (of a fallen stone)...were found the crumbs of a man's bones, and a round bell, like a large horse-bell, with a screw as the stem of it" (quoted in Legg 1986: 41)

three stone circles, two with avenues leading from them, the cove and several isolated standing stones. However, a caesium vapour magnetometer survey carried out by English Heritage in 1997 revealed additional phases to the site (English Heritage 1997, David et al 2004) (figure 5.15). Running outside of the great stone circle is a ditch, broken by a 50m wide entrance gap to the north-east, with another possibly to the south-west (David et al 2004, 345). This is presumably the ditch of a henge monument with a diameter of 135m and a width of c.7m, though there is no indication of a bank. Inside the ditched enclosure are 9 concentric rings of pits, each pit approximately 1.4m in diameter, with their centres c.2.5m apart and each ring between 3m and 5m apart (ibid.. 347). Presumably these pits would have held large timbers. The stones of the great circle run outside of the pits but inside of the enclosure ditch. Central, pit-like features were also revealed by geophysics at all three of the stone circles, though at the great circle their contemporaneity with the monument is uncertain. In common with monuments such as Avebury, the stone circles at Stanton Drew suffered in the Medieval period, with stones being broken up, burnt and buried. Others were removed for road metalling in the 18th century. That Stanton Drew survives in the impressive state it does might partly be due to strong folk traditions about the site, the stories subsequently recorded by the antiquarian visitors to the monument. Stanton Drew has long been the subject of antiquarian speculation and investigation. It was first surveyed and described by Aubrey in 1664, who mentioned that the stones stood in a field of corn and that villagers break the stones with sledges (quoted in Burl 1999: 50), (figure 5.12). Musgrave (1719) Strachey and Stukeley (1723), Wood (1749), Seyer (1821), Colt-Hoare and Crocker (1826) are just a few of the antiquarians who subsequently visited the site, often producing sketches and plans (figures 5.13 and 5.14). Aubrey was the first to note that the stones were locally called 'The Wedding', due to folklore that a bride, groom and rest of the wedding party were turned into stone for dancing on the Sabbath (Fowles & Legg 1980). A plan of the stone complex by Dymond (1877) was to remain the most accurate well into the second half of the twentieth century. During the twentieth century archaeologists and geologists visited and described the stones, and Stanton Drew gradually began to occupy an important place in discussions of British prehistory, though never as important as Avebury or Stonehenge. It is beyond the confines of this work to discuss all of the contributions by the numerous observers of Stanton Drew but any work that is directly relevant to the arguments put forward will be included.

Figure 5.12: Aubrey’s Plan of Stanton Drew The 'large horse bell' is peculiar and would seem to indicate a post-Neolithic date, but the brief description does not allow further speculation. It seems certain that the complex at Stanton Drew is multi-phase, the earliest phase either being the construction of the timber circle complex or of the henge. Alex Gibson has drawn attention to the difficulties of moving and erecting timbers when a henge bank and ditch is present; these features tend to act as a hindrance to erection (Gibson 1998: 37). At Arminghall, the post ramps used for positioning the timbers face south yet the entrance to the monument is to the south-west, suggesting the timbers were brought from this direction and thus across the bank and ditch (ibid.: 54). This seems an unlikely scenario and evidence in favour of the primacy of the timber circle is provided by radiocarbon dating of the timbers, which predate associations in the henge ditch (ibid.). Comparable data suggesting primacy of timber circles is further provided by evidence from Milfield North and North Mains (ibid.).

Stanton Drew is a complex monument and the lack of direct dating evidence means conclusions can only be hypothetical. The only record of any find at the site is that noted in Robert Gay's 1660 manuscript 'A Fool's Bolte soon shott at Stonage'. In this he mentions:

89

Figure 5.13: Plan of Stanton Drew by Stukeley

Figure 5.14: Stukeley’s view of the Cove at Stanton Drew

90

crossing the circle. If similar agricultural practices were in place prior to Aubrey's visit, these could account for the invisibility of the ditch and putative bank.

If the pits detected by geophysics at Stanton Drew are postholes, they form the largest timber circle monument, both in terms of diameter, number of pits and number of concentric rings, yet discovered in Britain. The phasing and lifespan of the monument is difficult to gauge. If we accept that the timbers were erected first, then the ditch and putative bank of the henge are either subsequent primary or secondary phases. Evidence for contemporary use of timber circles and henges is accepted for sites such as Site IV, Mount Pleasant, Arminghall and North Main (Gibson 1998). However, at Milfield North it appears that the henge bank sealed postholes of the timber circle phase, demonstrating that here at least the monuments were not in contemporary use (ibid.). At Stanton Drew the position and circularity of the henge and the timber circles respect each other, suggesting that both were visible at the same time. The two might also have been planned as part of a unified whole; arguments regarding contemporaneity and/or succession are difficult to substantiate using only a geophysical data plot, however.

Stanton Drew also comprises 3 stone circles (2 with avenues), a cove and several outlying stones. In the case of the great circle it is assumed that the stones post-date the construction of the timber circles and henge. However, as yet the only evidence to substantiate this claim comes from other sites. The stones of the great circle run outside of the timber circles but inside of the henge ditch, suggesting that these features were at least partly visible when the stones were erected, as the stones do not encroach over these features but respect them. Indeed, both the henge and the circle have entrances to the north-east, and the stone avenue also runs from the north-east entrance towards the River Chew. The great stone circle has a diameter of 112.2m (Burl 1995) and is comprised of 26 stones. The great avenue is 49m long and 10.4m wide. Lithicisation phases are visible at a number of monuments; Gibson quotes Croft Moraig, Moncreiffe, Balfarg, Temple Wood, Machrie Moor, Cairnpapple, the Sanctuary and Stonehenge as examples (ibid.: 57). Joshua Pollard has also considered the phasing of timber and stone monuments. He rejects the idea of the Sanctuary (Wiltshire) as a monument with many phases, arguing for only one or two (Pollard 1992). Pollard suggests that the close conformity of the inner circle with post ring C suggests that the two were either contemporary or that the stones were erected whilst the position of the post was still visible (ibid.: 217). By contrast, in ring A, the posts are definitely earlier than the stones, as some of the stoneholes seal earlier postholes (ibid.). Elsewhere in the monument there might be evidence to suggest that stones were placed between paired postholes, as might have happened at Woodhenge. At Mount Pleasant Site IV, Pollard argues that the timber and stone phases were contemporary or more successive than the original excavators suggested (ibid.: 219). This is based on the close relationship between the timber and stone settings, the latter always respecting the former.

Neither the ditch nor the hypothesised bank are visible today and there exists no antiquarian record of such features. Indeed John Aubrey, the first antiquary to describe the site, commented: "I could not perceive any trench about is as at Avebury, Stonehenge &c: It is in ploughed land and so easily worn out" (Aubrey 1664, quoted in Legg 1998: 16). It is possible that the ditch filled naturally over the millennia since its construction or that it has deliberately been infilled. If the enclosure were on the first flood plain of the River Chew the first alternative might be more likely but it is set higher than the river. The second option appears more plausible and might explain the lack of ditch and bank. Supposing that a bank existed, it is possible that the ditch of the enclosure was deliberately backfilled, using the bank material. It may be that this act signified the end of one phase of the monument’s life and the beginning of the next, perhaps between the henge/stone circle phase for example. Alternatively, it could be as a result of agricultural activities in the later prehistoric and/or historic period. The land in the environs of Stanton Drew is fertile and eminently suitable for cultivation, a fact noted by almost all of the antiquarian visitors. Collinson recounts that Stanton Drew existed in fine rich, wooded, well-cultivated country that was mainly pasture but with lots of elm (Collinson 1791). The land on which the monuments stand has apparently been used for arable, pasture and arboriculture; Aubrey noted in the 17th century that the great circle stood in a field of corn, Collinson in the 18th century described the cove standing in an orchard, Scarth in the 19th century mentions that the great circle and the north-east circle were standing in orchards. Aubrey also noted that the great circle was intersected by hedges and over 100 years later, Collinson refers to an old hedgerow

Thus, at Stanton Drew there exists the possibility that the timber, earth and stone phases were all contemporary. However, it is suggested here that whilst this possibility exists, it is more likely that the timber phase was replaced by stone. The geophysical evidence suggests that the stones respected the timber rings and the henge, indicating that these features were still visible when the stones were erected. It is possible that the timbers had rotted in situ by this time or were deliberately removed but traces of their presence still existed. The reason for arguing for a successive sequence is based on the principles governing access and use of the monuments. The contrast between the 'closed' nature of henges and timber circles and the 'open' nature of stone circles has long been noted (recently see Bradley 1998, Burl 1999).

91

• • •

Henges were accessed through one or two entrances, with the bank impeding physical and visual access to the interior of the monument and enclosing the activities taking place. It is thought that access to the inner 'sacred' area was restricted to certain members of society, depending on the nature of the rituals. Unless onlookers stood on the top of the bank or looked through the entrance(s) the activities within were hidden. Indeed, evidence exists for structures at entrances that might have been fences or gates; the postholes at Gorsey Bigbury and perhaps also Priddy Circle 1 might be examples of this.

Timber circles Henge Stone Circle (Avenue contemporary?)

Geophysics also traced five magnetic anomalies at the centre of the great circle. It is assumed that these represent five pits, contemporary with at least one phase of the site. Again, the inner circle of 'postholes' respects the five pits. Whilst central pits are a feature of timber circles, henges and stone circles a certain degree of caution in assigning them a prehistoric date must be exercised. In 1966, Tratman published a note explaining that a large elm tree that had stood in the centre of the great circle was felled and removed in 1963 (Tratman 1966c). Indeed, such an event seems to have happened more than once; John Wood noted that whilst making a plan of the great circle a storm arose and "blew down part of a great tree near the body of the work" (Wood 1740: 148). It is possible that episodes such as these could have result in the creation of one or more of the central geophysical anomalies. Even if not, it implies that the central area might be disturbed.

Timber circles exaggerate this effect even further. It is argued here that most timber circles, Stanton Drew included, were free-standing monuments rather than roofed buildings. As structures in their own right they organise and formalise movement; undoubtedly prescribed methods of entering, moving within and exiting the monuments existed. As with henges, access to the "inner sanctum" was probably restricted. Large posts alone restrict visual access enough to confuse interpretations of the activities taking place. However, this effect would be magnified if screens/fences/barriers were placed between some or all of the timbers. The discovery of planks at Machrie Moor and North Mains support such a possibility (Gibson 1998:89). Many henges and timber circles also appear to show entrances aligned upon cardinal orientations and the pattern of artefact deposition can reflect this (Harding & Lee1987, Pollard 1992, Bradley 1998, Gibson 1998). Significant events in the astral calendar appear to have been of some importance to prehistoric populations and monument alignments can reflect this.

So far we have concentrated on only the great circle, in its timber, earth and stone forms. There are other monuments within the complex that need exploring and these will be dealt with individually. The following measurements are taken from Burl (1995). The north-east circle lies 44.2m to the north-east of the great circle. It is comprised of 8 very large stones, standing up to 3m high, the largest to be found within the stone complex. The diameter of the circle is 29.6m. Leading from the circle in an easterly direction is the north-east avenue. This has 7 stones surviving and is 10.4m wide and 29.3m long. A geophysical survey within this circle revealed four magnetic anomalies at its centre (figure 5.15). These have been interpreted as four pits that, interestingly, share the same alignment as the four pairs stones that comprise the circle (David et al 2004, 352). Whilst their geometric alignment with the stones suggests that in all probability they were an integral part of the monument, it should be remembered that Scarth describes the north-east circle as standing in an orchard in the 19th century (Scarth 1867). The digging of tree-holes and the growth of the trees might result in geophysical anomalies, although if an orchard, one would expect many more anomalies to be visible. It should also be noted that the Cove stood in an orchard, noted by Collinson in 1791. The south-west circle appears to have suffered a worse fate however; in 1881, the site was described as follows:

Stone circles, whilst continuing the tradition of sacred enclosure, are by contrast open monuments. Mostly they comprise a single circle of stones which are not contiguous; it is generally easy to see into the centre of the monument from any point on the circumference. There are no banks to disguise activities and as yet no evidence of barriers between the stones. Formalised movement still seems to have existed, evidenced by the provision of entrances and sometimes avenues leading into the circle. Astral events were still of importance. The fundamental difference is that there is no evidence for visual restriction; the rituals taking place were observable. This need not imply that they were understood by everyone. Indeed, it might have been more awe-inspiring and strange to witness certain events/rituals/ceremonies than never to have seen them. Gibson argues that the replacement of timber monuments by stone must mark a fundamental change in the religious practices of the population (Gibson 1998: 42). If this is the most likely scenario, and it is supported here, the timber and stone phases of Stanton Drew cannot be contemporary as they are the product of two different belief systems.

"...here the stones lie prostrate, broken, and some of them so deeply buried as scarcely to be traceable; they have evidently been used for the fence of the orchard, the angles of which intersect the periphery of this circle." (Nichols 1873)

A simplified sequence for the great circle at Stanton Drew might thus be:

92

NORTH-EAST CIRCLE GREAT CIRCLE

N

90m

0 Central pits Stones Concentric rings of pits

Henge ditch

SOUTH-WEST CIRCLE

N

60M

0

Pits Stones Concentric rings of pits

Sections of bank or ditch?

93

Figure 5.15: Interpretation of Geophysics at Stanton Drew. Based on David et al 2004

it is possible to estimate that it would have been approximately 500m north-west of the great circle. It probably suffered a similar but more devastating fate to Hautville's Quoit, being broken up for road metalling.

The south-west circle lies 137.2m to the south-west of the great circle, on a small promontory. It has a diameter of 44.2m and is comprised of 12 stones. Stones lying near the centre of the circle are almost certainly not in their original position; the above quote might give some indication of this. Geophysical surveys were carried out here in 2000 (David et al 2004) and revealed that 3 concentric rings of pits lie within the circle. The pits themselves vary between 1m and 2m in diameter whilst the pit rings have diameters of 24.5m, 17m and 10.5m (ibid. 351) (figure 5.15). By analogy with the great circle and other monuments it seems possible that they these also are the remains of concentric timber circles. They are eccentrically placed in relation to the stones, suggesting that they may be earlier than the stone circle. However, it is known that some of the stones of this monument were moved in the historic period, making it difficult to sustain arguments about phasing. Geophysics also revealed intriguing evidence for either a bank or a ditch partially encircling the south-west circle (David et al 2004). The question of whether this is the remains of a bank or an infilled ditch is explored in some detail by David et al (2004, 353-35) but it is not unreasonable to suggest that the feature is part of a henge enclosure. The similarities between the south-west circle and the great circle - concentric rings of pits, “henge”, stone circle are striking, albeit on a very different scale.

The Origins of the Stones The stones that make up the Stanton Drew megalithic complex are varied in their composition and their origins have been postulated since the time of Aubrey. Most of the antiquarians who commented on the origins of the stones recognised that many were not local to the site. Stukeley poetically noted how the "...fluours and transparent crystallisations... shine eminently and reflects the sunbeams with great lustre." (Stukeley, quoted in Lloyd-Morgan 1887: 39). The most comprehensive analysis of the stones is that by Lloyd-Morgan, 1887. He noted that a variety of rock-types had been exploited but that none of the stones had been shaped (ibid.: 42). Lloyd-Morgan categorised the stone types as: The Great Circle: Silicious Breccia, Dolomitic Breccia, Oolitic Limestone, coarser Sandstone The North-East Circle: Silicious Breccia The South-West Circle: sandstone, Silicious Breccia, Dolomitic Breccia Hautville's Quoit: fine-grained cherty sandstone Tynings Stones: Oolitic Limestone The Cove: Dolomitic Breccia

As part of this research, an examination of the stones was carried out, including stones that were not visible when Lloyd-Morgan visited the site (figure 5.16). Silicious and Dolomitic Breccias are both better known as Dolomitic Conglomerates and, the Cove aside, it is difficult to distinguish between those that Lloyd-Morgan identified as Silicious and Dolomitic. The stones of the Cove are conglomerates but they are very different from the conglomerates of the circles. The conglomerates of the circles tend to be a strong red/orange colour; many contain substantial pieces of crystal (up to c.0.20m) and are pitted by hollows. The stones of the Cove, by contrast, are a pinkish-grey colour, with an un-pitted surface and very small inclusions. Lloyd-Morgan identified stone 12 of the south-west circle and stone 2 of the great circle as being of the same composition as the Cove, but this was difficult to verify due to lichen cover. The contrast between the types of conglomerate is best seen by looking at the cove and stone 14 of the great circle.

The cove is 300m south-west of the great circle and is comprised of 3 stones, 2 standing c.3m apart and 1 lying recumbent between them. Stukeley was the first to note both the cove and the south-west circle. He described the cove as still standing but "much diminished by age or violence" (Stukeley 1723). However, his sketches show the middle stone lying recumbent. 500m to the north-north-east of the great circle is a fallen standing stone, known as Hautville's Quoit. It has been reduced to its current length of c.2m by acts of vandalism over the last 300 years. Aubrey noted its location, describing it as 3.2m high and Stukeley described it as c.4m high, though in a recumbent position (Legg 1998). Collinson noted that the stone "of vast magnitude" was being broken up for road metalling when he visited the site (Collinson 1791). Other stones appear to have formed part of the monument complex. The Tynings Stones, c.700m west of the great circle are all but invisible today but noted by several antiquarians. These are 2 stones that have lain prostrate at least the last few hundred years. Tucker (1884) described them thus: Stone 1 - 5ft long by 3ft5" wide by 2ft3" thick Stone 2 - 5ft9" long by 5ft5" wide by 1ft8" thick Stukeley also noted an upright stone, christened here the Tollhouse Stone. Stukeley linked this stone with Hautville's Quoit, naming them both "Hautvil's Coyts" (Legg 1998: 27). This was shown on his plan as north of the present B3130 road and west of the tollhouse. It no longer exists today and its exact position is unknown but

Lloyd-Morgan identified Oolitic Limestone at the complex: stones 3 and 5 of the great circle and stone 7 of the north-east avenue. My research identified two further examples in the great circle: stones 20 and 3. This stone is easy to identify as it's unweathered surfaces are smooth and rich yellow in colour, with hardly any lichen growth. Lloyd-Morgan also drew attention to sandstones, identifying stones 1 and 26 of the great circle (the stones flanking the entrance) and stone 5 of the south-west circle. As well as these, stones 11, 22 and 23 of the great circle appear to be sandstone.

94

95 95

Figure 5.16: Plan of the megalithic elements of Stanton Drew, showing the types of stone used.

Type of Stone

Source

Dolomitic Conglomerate Oolitic Limestone Sandstones: Coarse (Old Red Sandstone?) Fine Grained

Harptree area of Mendip Leigh Down area of Broadfield Down Dundry Ridge

Minimum Distance from Stanton Drew (kms) 8kms south-west 5-6kms west 2.5kms north

Black Down area of Mendip ?

12kms south-west ?

Table 9: Distance of Stone Sources from Stanton Drew

Nonetheless, the conglomerates share in common the fact that they are easily distinguishable from the other types of stone. Indeed, each stone type used in the megalithic constructions is recognisably different from the others: the yellow oolite, the red conglomerates, the grey-pink of the sandstones. These stones have different physical and visual properties and these may have been of great importance in the selection of the stones. Recently, research has been carried out into the significance of the colour of the stones used in megalithic monuments (Jones 1997, Lynch 1998). A proviso should of course be made; it is possible that stones may have been painted or covered in some way, thus disguising their natural properties.

The sandstone is a grey-pink colour, with a characteristic horizontal banding effect visible on the sides of the stones. None of the stones that were used in the construction of the stone monuments at Stanton Drew appear to have been immediately local to the site. The upper basin of the Chew is predominantly formed of Keuper Marls and these are rarely exposed at the surface (ibid.: 45). As mentioned above, the new analysis being undertaken may refine or even change existing classifications, and so for this reason, the interpretations offered here are hypothetical in nature and largely based on LloydMorgan's research.

It is impossible to know why the various stones were chosen and why more than one source was exploited. The present appearance of the stones suggests that they have not been shaped and there are no quarrying marks visible. This might indicate that the stones occurred in blocks that could be 'released' from the ground without too much difficulty. The reasons for choosing the stones could thus be practical and/or aesthetic, cultural or religious. Whilst these factors may have been interlinked and inseparable in the minds of prehistoric populations, they may have encompassed some of the following properties:

The nature of the Dolomitic Conglomerate suggests an origin from either the southern slopes of Mendip, in the Harptree area, or the eastern fringes of Broadfield Down, in the Leigh Down area (ibid.:46). Lloyd-Morgan suggests that the distinctive stones of the north-east circle are from the Harptree area, as are three stones of the great circle (6, 10 & 21), one stone of the great avenue (5, 4? & 6?) and three stones of the south-west circle (6, 7 & 8). However, this should not be taken as proven; to quote Lloyd-Morgan "I speak with great diffidence." (LloydMorgan ibid: 47). The remainder of the conglomerates, he feels are from the Broadfield Down area, though the stones of the Cove may be from here or the flanks of southern Mendip (ibid). Stanton suggests that the stones of the Cove are a Jurassic conglomerate, of a type found on Broadfield Down (Stanton pers. comm.). The Oolitic Limestone occurs on Dundry ridge, visible from the megalithic complex. However, whilst Lloyd-Morgan could not positively identify the source of the sandstones, he suggests that the coarse-grained examples are probably palaeozoic, i.e. Old Red Sandstone. Using Lloyd-Morgan's analysis, it is possible to calculate the distance from the stone circles to these possible sources. This is summarised in Table 9.

Practical: availability of stone; appropriate sizes; ease of removal; ease of transport Aesthetic: colour/shape/texture of the stone; presence of inclusions (quartz, fossils) Cultural: stones taken from settlement locales of communities using the complex; permitted exploitation Symbolism &Ritual: existing monuments made out of the stone; monuments in areas where the sources occur; properties of the stone given symbolic meaning; natural outcrops of stone explained in terms of gods; ancestors; use of stones in artefact production

The stones used in the construction of the Stanton Drew monument complex are varied in type and origin. The most common stones are the conglomerates, though this type exhibits a great degree of variation. Some of the stones are very brightly coloured due to iron impregnation whilst others are muted; some have very 'shaggy' surfaces with large numbers of hollows, often filled with quartz, whilst others are relatively smooth.

These are not definite categories, nor the only possibilities; they are intended to provoke thought into the selection of the stones. They overlap significantly and are separated to aid clarity. To illustrate the various possibilities, the stone types will be considered one by one.

96

other than convenience were in operation. The conglomerates that are present in large quantities may have been transported by river. It is possible that the aesthetic/symbolic qualities of this stone, together with the way it occurs in advantageous surface slabs, may be responsible for its dominance. The last word on this matter must go to Lloyd-Morgan:

Conglomerates These have striking visual properties (colour, form, inclusions) and it is easy to imagine important symbolic values. Quartz, or rocks with a high concentration of quartz, often occur as deliberate inclusions in Neolithic monuments, suggesting that it had important qualities (symbolic? functional? visual?). Stones of Dolomitic Conglomerate occur in large natural blocks on the surface in the East Harptree area, an area not far from the River Chew which may have been used for transportation. There are no known monuments in the area. It has been postulated that this may have been a favoured settlement locale; plenty of springs and streams, sheltered vales, rich soils, easy access to upland and lowland resources. The Leigh Down area, another likely source for some of the stones, contains another possible stone circle (see below), whilst long barrows and round barrows are close-by.

"I have no doubt that superstition or religion supplied the motive force for the energy which displayed itself in the removal...of blocks of rock so huge; and I should suggest that the germ of this lay in the attribution of the occurrence of huge blocks of stone lying on the surface to superhuman or diabolic agency." (Lloyd-Morgan 1887:49) Other Possible Stone Circles

Oolitic Limestone The use of this stone is well documented in chambered long barrows, of which there are two probable examples on the Dundry ridge. It occurs in naturally bedded layers that are not difficult to prise free of the ground. It is a rich yellow colour, especially when newly exposed, and contains distinctive fossils. Oolite was used extensively as a tempering agent in Neolithic pottery and many vessels were transported to sites in Wessex. From the Dundry ridge there are commanding views of the Stanton Drew complex and its environs.

There are references to a further five possible stone circles within northern Somerset, mainly all destroyed (figure 5.1). Three formed the basis of an article by Tratman entitled "The Lost Stone Circles of North Somerset" (1958c). It has not been possible to substantiate the claims made for the existence of these putative circles, due to vague descriptions, problems in accessing some of the sites and time constrictions. However, an exhaustive search of historical records, combined with detailed fieldwork might yield further results and is planned for the future.

Old Red Sandstone A stone that appears to have been of some importance in the Neolithic and Bronze Age of the south-west region. It was used extensively for the production of querns, whetstones, rubbers and other items and there are even examples of Old Red Sandstone axeheads from the region (see Chapter Eight). Items of this material have been recovered in large quantities from sites such as Hambledon Hill and Windmill Hill. A distinctive pinkyred colour, the quartz inclusions sparkle in light. The largest and most visually impressive round barrow cemeteries in northern Somerset are all on Old Red Sandstone (Beacon Hill, North Hill, Beacon Hill, Stock Hill). Areas of Old Red Sandstone are not particularly conducive to settlement due to their height AOD, exposure to adverse weather conditions and the propensity to saturation, due to the impermeable nature of the rock.

Leigh Down Dymond's book on Stanton Drew includes a footnote about another stone circle in North Somerset (Dymond 1896: 18). Whilst discussing the lithology of the Stanton Drew stones and recounting the views of Professor Lloyd Morgan on the subject, he quotes from a letter dated 22 October 1895: "He (Lloyd Morgan) has found remains of a small circle 20 paces in diameter on Leigh Down" (Dymond: ibid.) The grid reference that Lloyd-Morgan gave for this site is ST 542 639. Tratman mentions that an old green road just to the north of this site is known as Great Stone Lane (1958c: 112). He further states that there is no reason to doubt that the circle existed: Lloyd-Morgan was an excellent geologist and observer and the size of the small promontory at the above NGR corresponds with the size he gives for the circle (ibid.). The Leigh Down area is described as one source for the stones at Stanton Drew and the existence of a stone circle here might indicate a link between this site and Stanton Drew, c.5kms to the east.

To conclude then, the stones used in the construction of Stanton Drew came from different sources and probably had different practical/symbolic/cultural connotations. All of the potential sources occur within 12 kilometres of the site and the type of stone furthest from the site (Old Red Sandstone) occurs in the smallest quantities4. The stone that occurs closest to the site (Inferior Oolite) is represented by only five stones, suggesting that factors

Chew Stoke A further possible stone circle was discovered by Philip Rahtz, prior to 1958. He described a group of stones in a hedge on the north side of the road, a few yards west of

4

This statement is only provisional; identifying a source for the fine-grained sandstone, and proving/disproving that the coarse sandstone is Old Red Sandstone may change it.

97

these stones is that they came from the folly complex which stood on Banwell Hill. An integral part of this complex was a "Druidical Circle" and although it is claimed the stones were destroyed for road building, it is possible that the resident of the Manor had them reerected in the grounds of the house. Tratman also recounts the possibility that the stones were taken from the moors near Glastonbury (ibid.).

the Methodist Chapel, NGR ST 560 616 (Tratman 1958: 112). The stones eventually disappeared when the new police house was built. There were said to be twelve stones, all of a similar size. The parts above ground measured about 3 - 4 feet and 3 feet wide and about 9 inches thick (ibid.). Rahtz identified variation in the weathering of the surface of the stones, leading him to conclude that they had formed at least a part of a stone circle. The site of the stones is on low ground near to the right bank of the River Chew. Unfortunately, no other records exist to substantiate Rahtz's discovery and the possibility that the stones were part of another structure (hedge-bank?) cannot be discounted.

Cheddar Head In "Cheddar, its Gorge and Caves", Balch describes: "…a very fascinating enclosure of great stones which existed till recently on the hill slope NE of Burton's cottage (some distance down the Priddy-Cheddar road, not far from the junction of the Priddy and Charterhouse roads) where at the foot of a low cliff there was a large semi-circle of rocks of some magnitude. These, sad to say, have in the last few years suffered the same fate of thousands of projecting stones of this hillside, and have gone to build rockeries far from their ancient site". (Balch 1935: 117-8)

Lockinghead In 1952 J. Hunt wrote that a small stone circle had been destroyed in road-making at Lockinghead. There is no other reference to this though Knight (1902) does mention that the Lord of Locking Manor, John Plumley, hid behind a large stone at Lockinghead whilst trying to evade capture by a party of soldiers. This event happened during the Monmouth Rebellion and the stone was said to be still in existence in 1902 (Knight 1902: 399). Indeed, a stone with a similar tradition can be found nearby at ST 3669 6125 (information from North Somerset SMR).

He speculates that this is the "Robbers Fold" of the 1181 bounds. This is possible, as is the option that the 'Robbers Fold' was a re-used prehistoric site. Interestingly, in what appears to be the same area, Hack recorded the discovery of sixteen stones (Hack 1986). These all lay recumbent and had apparently been disturbed by ploughing and/or land clearance; some had been moved to the field borders (ibid.: 4). Hack noted that the stones were of local limestone and conformed to the idea of prehistoric 'male' and 'female' types at stone circle sites; ten were broad and six were narrow. The smallest measured 0.71m high and the largest 2.5m high. It seems possible that these are the remains of the structure noted by Balch, though whether prehistoric, medieval or re-used, is difficult to say as the site is now destroyed. Its position aside a natural routeway (Cheddar Head is at the head of the gorge), suggesting the importance of accessibility, could favour either interpretation.

Locking Manor A persistent local tradition exists that there was once a stone circle on Mendip (Tratman 1958c: 115). Knight (1902) recounts that the Rev. Stivard Jenkins, c.1850, removed stones from a circle on Mendip and set them up in the garden of Locking Manor. When Tratman researched this in 1958, 21 stones still existed in the garden of the Manor, with another one in the pond and perhaps another broken up. The size of the stones as reerected varies from: Height - 1m - 2.4m Width - 0.60m - 1.2m Thickness - 0.5m - 0.8m Tratman mentions that some of the stones seem to have 'tooled surfaces', similar to those at Stonehenge (1958c: 115). A preliminary study of the stones by Professor Donovan suggested that nine of the stones are yellow Trias Limestone, 8 are Dolomitic Conglomerate and 4 are Carboniferous Limestone (ibid.). Tratman goes on to offer the hypothesis that the stones were removed from the Priddy Circles. His argument is based on the fact that the stones would have stood within a henge monument, though of course if it existed it could have been free standing. He discounts the Gorsey Bigbury henge because no stone holes were found during excavation and Hunter’s Lodge, as it is so similar to Gorsey Bigbury. There is of course no evidence that the Priddy Circles contained a stone circle, though possible stone holes were found in the entrance of Circle 1. As the other three Priddy Circles have not been excavated it is possible that one of them may have contained a stone circle but it is still by no means certain that the Locking Manor stones originated here. Another possibility for the origin of

Other Possible Henges Two further sites have been described as henges in published literature yet can be rejected here. The first is the amphitheatre at Charterhouse, adjacent to the Roman settlement. This has long been subject of speculation, stretching back to Skinner and Colt-Hoare (1821), and continuing into the 20th century. Excavations by St George Gray (1909) and the Spelaeological Society (Donovan 1949) revealed Roman pottery sealed under the bank and no evidence of a ditch, suggesting a Roman date for the site. The second site, at Stratton-on-theFosse, was discovered by the Downside Archaeological Society on aerial photographs (Jebb 1977). However, analysis of the photograph in question reveals this is in fact an Iron-Age banjo-type enclosure, thus not Neolithic in date.

98

Stanton Drew is another monument that appears to visually disregard an impressive landform, in this case the prominent ridge and site of a later monument; Maes Knoll hillfort. The north-east entrance to the henge instead looks towards the River Chew and the low ridge behind it, rather than north towards the Maes Knoll site. Both the henge and stone circle phase of Stanton Drew focus upon the river and in the latter case it appears a stone avenue linked the two. The relationship between henges and water has been studied by many (for example Richards, C 1996b) but space does not allow all the arguments to be reproduced. Rivers obviously provide a number of practical advantages (water for drinking and rituals, transport) as well as having a wealth of symbolism attached to them. In this respect it is worth noting that at certain times of the year, presumably after bad weather, the clay and soils of the region leach into the River Chew and turn the water red. This presumably would also have happened in the Neolithic and this rather dramatic occurrence may have been explained with recourse to the gods/ancestors. On a less esoteric level, Bradley suggests that the juxtaposition of henges and rivers might relate to accessibility from the surrounding area (Bradley 1998:121). This is a theme that will be returned to later.

Henges: Group Information Orientation Table 10 summarises the characteristics of the henges, certain and possible, within northern Somerset. From the available evidence, all the henges appear to be Class I (single-entrance) monuments. Using data from Harding & Lee (1987) it is apparent that the preferred entrance orientation for Class I henges lies between the north and north-east sector. 50% of the henges from northern Somerset conform to this preference: Gorsey Bigbury (north), Priddy Circles 1 & 2 (north-north-east), and Stanton Drew (north-east). The south-south-west and south-west orientation of Priddy Circles 3 & 4 respectively are more unusual; Harding notes only one example with a south-west orientation and none with south-south-west. Examples of southerly and northnorth-westerly orientations, apropos Stockwood and Hunter's Lodge, are documented at other Class I henge sites, but are not common. The orientation of henge entrances has recently taken on a new significance, as it has been suggested that not only might these be aligned upon astronomic events, they may also be drawing attention to significant features visible through the entrances (Harding & Lee 1987, Richards 1996b, Bradley 1998). Yet this is a model that the data from northern Somerset does not generally support. Looking first at the Priddy Circles this becomes obvious. Circle 1 has an entrance that looks directly on to the back of Circle 2, only 60m away. If all the Circles were constructed in a similar fashion to Circle 1, the view would have been of a double row of timbers, with a bank between. This would have shielded not only the surrounding landscape but also the activities taking place within Circle 2. Similarly, Circle 2 faces Circle 3, again 60m distant. However, rather than look at the back of the circle it looks towards the entrance but the two entrances are not directly aligned upon each other. Circle 3 thus faces the section of bank east of the entrance to the Circle 2. The exact entrance to Circle 4 is not known as there is no evidence of bank or ditch to the south-west, west and north-west but it was postulated to be in the south-west by Tratman et al (1967). Without any evidence to substantiate this it is unwise to speculate further about the orientation of Circle 4.

The remaining two sites where entrance orientations are known offer less clear-cut evidence. Hunter's Lodge, a possible site, has an entrance aligned towards the general area of Stock Hill and North Hill, both obvious landscape features today. It has been suggested that the summits of the Old Red Sandstone hills, of which these are two, may not have been wooded in prehistory, due to the impermeable nature of the geology and hence their wet soils (Findlay 1965). If this is true then both hills may have been visible from Hunter's Lodge, unless the site itself was surrounded by woodland. The northerly entrance alignment of Gorsey Bigbury looks towards the lower slopes of Black Down. A straight line projected northwards from the entrance crosses the highest point of Black Down, Beacon Batch (also the highest point on Mendip), at 325m AOD. This is 1.5kms north of Gorsey Bigbury and the site of a large round barrow cemetery, containing 10 round barrows. It is also the location of the Beacon Batch chambered long barrow, situated slightly downslope from the summit but still on a visual line with the henge. However, whilst the henge can be seen from the round barrow cemetery, it is not possible to see the cemetery, nor indeed the summit, from the henge. The northerly entrance thus does not appear to incorporate any significant landscape features that we can identify today but it is possible that the visual link from Black Down to the henge (not vice versa) could have been of significance.

The entrances to Circles 1 - 3 are not aligned upon any feature obvious in the landscape today. The view from each entrance is dominated by the bank of the next circle and it is extremely unlikely that activities taking place within each circle would have been visible from another (see argument above). It is possible that the entrances were aligned upon astronomical events and further research might reveal this. It is of interest that the most significant landscape feature in the immediate area, North Hill, is not visually acknowledged. However, turves and stones from the hill were intentionally included in Circle 1, which might indicate a symbolic as well as functional incorporation of the properties of North Hill.

As only part of the possible henge at Stockwood was detected by geophysics, a study of entrance orientation and landscape features is not advisable. It may be that, if a henge, it has more than one entrance. The gap in the

99

Name of Henge Stockwood? Hunter's Lodge?

Diameter c.100m c.60m

Entrance Orientation South? North-North-West

Excavations None None

Gorsey Bigbury

North

Priddy Circle 1

c.46m (67 before excavation) 180m

Priddy Circle 2 Priddy Circle 3 Priddy Circle 4 Stanton Drew

177m 178m 192m 135m

North-North-East South-South-West South-West? North-East

Jones 1931-34. Tratman 1965. Taylor 1956. Tratman 1967. None None None None

North-North-East

Internal Features Not Known 2 pits within small ditched enclosure None None Not Known Not Known Not Known 9 concentric rings of pits and 5 central 'anomalies'

Table 10: Physical Characteristics of Henges in Northern Somerset

Accessibility As mentioned earlier, Bradley (1998) has suggested how larger henges may have been sited for accessibility from surrounding areas. He draws attention to the occurrence of these monuments and major rivers and other topographical features that lend themselves to communication routes (ibid.:121). The only 'large' henges in northern Somerset are those at Stanton Drew and Priddy and it is possible to identify natural routes to both.

ditch detected by geophysics faced south, that is over the ridge on which it is placed rather than down into the valley of the River Avon. Further research is essential at this site. Altitude Harding & Lee (1987) state that the altitudinal range for henges is large, varying from 4m to 365m AOD. However, the mean figure is given as 80m AOD, with the proviso that this is slightly misleading as 90% of sites actually lie below 125m AOD (ibid.). Excluding Stockwood, due to its questionable status, the average height AOD for henges in northern Somerset is 233m (see Table 11). Only one site lies below 125m: Stanton Drew. The higher than average figure of 233m AOD is the result of 6 of the 7 henges being on the West Mendip plateau, which itself averages c.265m - 300m. Taking the group on West Mendip alone (Hunter’s Lodge, Gorsey Bigbury and the Priddy Circles) and calculating their average altitude gives a figure of 264m AOD. This suggests that the henges were located on those parts of the plateau that are slightly lower and slightly flatter than the undulations that rise to c.300m AOD. The significance of this is debatable but might demonstrate an avoidance of the more prominent parts of the plateau for henge building.

Stanton Drew is located on the banks of the River Chew, a mere 200m away. The Chew is a navigable river, flowing northwards into the larger River Avon c.15kms distant (following the river) from Stanton Drew. The Chew rises on the Mendip Hills but does not become navigable until it reaches the Chew Valley, south-west of Stanton Drew. Historically, its course and flow have been controlled by locks and weirs, and today it feeds the large Chew Valley reservoir. It is likely that the river was of importance to Neolithic populations and could certainly have been used to access the henge site. The continued importance of the river throughout the life of the monument is evidenced by the construction of two stone avenues that link the Great Circle and the NorthEast Circle with the river. It has also been suggested that at least some of the stones used in the construction of the monuments arrived at the site by water. The group at Stanton Drew are the only known monuments along the river, though it is possible that others are hidden by alluviation and colluviation processes, active in the Chew Valley.

Diameter The average diameter for northern Somerset henges (again excluding Stockwood) is 138m. Over 90% of henges quoted by Harding & Lee (1987) have a diameter of less than 100m. Over 50% have diameters of 10-50m. Gorsey Bigbury and Hunter's Lodge are thus in keeping with these figures but the Priddy Circles and Stanton Drew are large monuments that exceed these general averages. The Priddy Circles in particular, with an average group diameter of 182m, are much larger than most henges in Britain. However, they are still only about half the size of the 'giant henges' Avebury (427m), Durrington Walls (446-479m), Marden (392-537m) and Mount Pleasant (320-370m) (ibid.).

The Priddy Circles, located on the limestone plateau, do not lie close to any major rivers. However, there are indications that an overland route might have passed between them. As mentioned previously, a large gap exists between Circles 3 & 4. The regularity of spacing between Circles 1, 2 and 3 highlights the strangeness of the gap between Circles 3 and 4. It is possible that another feature occupied the gap between Circles 3 and 4, which prevented Circle 4 'joining' the other 3 circles. The possibility that another circle existed in this space has 100

east/north-west line, starting just north-west of Circle 4. They occur in linear grouping either side of the B3134; the layout suggesting that they might have lined an existing route. This idea was also independently arrived at by Ellis (1992), who points out that the circles are located at almost the furthest point from lowland access and are placed almost equidistant from the northern and southern edges of the plateau. This could indicate that the circles were located for ease of access from both the south and the north of the site. However, another potentially influential factor in their siting is explored in Chapter Seven – the extraordinarily high density of swallets in their vicinity.

already been rejected (see above). Indeed, there is no surface evidence to indicate that any type of monument occupied this spot. It might be that the area was forested, yet the pollen record from Circle 1 suggests no woodland in the immediate vicinity. This leaves us with another possibility, admittedly difficult to prove. Through the gap passes the Roman road to Charterhouse and the modern B3134, both running in a south-east/north-west direction, though not on exactly the same course. It is possible that an earlier route way also passed between the circles, which later routes might have utilised, at least in part. Supporting evidence might be provided by the groups of round barrows to the north-west of the circles. At least 20 round barrows stretch in a 1km long south-

Name of Henge ?Stockwood

Height AOD 75m

Geology At the junction of Lower Lias (White & Blue Lias) and Triassic clays & shales Carboniferous Limestone

Soils At the junction of Lithomorphic Soils & Pelosols Brown Soils

?Hunter's Lodge

255m

Gorsey Bigbury

245m

Carboniferous Limestone

Brown Soils

Priddy Circle 1

275m

Podzols

Priddy Circle 2

270m

Harptree Beds, Dolomitic Conglomerate & Carboniferous Limestone Harptree Beds

Priddy Circle 3

265m

Lower Lias and Harptree Beds

Podzols

Priddy Circle 4

275m

Mercia Mudstone & Dolomitic Conglomerate

Podzols

Stanton Drew

45m

Keuper Marl

Brown Soils

Podzols

Water Sources Stream 350m to the north River Avon 1.2kms to the north River Chew c.2kms to the east Spring 2kms to the north-west River Axe resurgence 3.5kms to the south-west Spring 200m to the east River Congresbury Yeo 4.5kms to the north Spring 500m to the south-east River Chew c.6kms to the east

Spring 650m to the south-east River Chew c.5.5kms to the east 5 artificial pools within circle and spring 900m to the southeast River Chew c.5.5kms to the east Spring 1.3kms to the northeast River Chew c.5.5kms to the east River Chew c.200m to the north

Table 11: Henges - Altitude, Geology, Soils & Distance to Water Sources

101

102

Chapter 6: Neolithic Pits and Postholes period artefacts, the horizon itself sealed below AngloSaxon graves (Rodwell 2001: 35). In association with the pits were a number of slight scoops, possibly postholes, and a third possible pit, though dimensions and descriptions of these are not given. The two definite pits were irregular in shape and apparently truncated, their original dimensions unknown (figure 6.2). From the published plans it appears after excavation the southern pit F1162, measured c.1.4m north-south by c.1.2m eastwest and was preserved at best to a depth of 0.6m. The fill was of red sandy clay, similar to adjacent natural (ibid.: 36), with charcoal flecks. The northern pit F1167, measured c. 1.7m north-south by c.1.6m east-west and was preserved to a depth of a maximum depth of c.0.4m. The fill was again of red sandy clay, though without charcoal flecks. The published discussion does not describe the artefacts from each pit separately; they are described together as containing “microliths, a piercer, retouched flakes, unretouched flakes, cores and burnt flints” (ibid.). F1167, however, is described as containing a heavily degraded sherd of pottery (unidentifiable)and crumbs of fired clay.

Pits are ubiquitous later prehistoric features, dug from the Mesolithic into the Iron Age, for a variety of purposes. The pits we are concerned with here are only those that date to the Neolithic period, though without excavation it can be difficult to recognise them by morphology alone. Whilst once construed as “rubbish-pits” and thus evidence of domestic activity, recent interpretations have stressed the non-utilitarian nature of pit digging (see Pollard 2001, Bradley 2000, Thomas 1999, Edmonds 1999). Most Neolithic pits suggest a condensed series of meaningful actions – the pits are excavated and deposits placed within them rapidly, in a highly structured manner; they do not appear to have been left open to silt and fill naturally. The deposits can include pottery, lithics, unusual stones, shells, animal bone and occasionally human bone. When excavations are of high enough quality, it is possible to see elaborate patterning or structuring within the pit fills and even the creation of surfaces on which artefacts were placed (Pollard 2001:327) Excavation has revealed that pit-digging became increasingly common as the Neolithic progressed, reaching a climax in the later Neolithic (Thomas 1999 and discussion, below). The pits can be found close to monuments but they can also exist in a areas apparently devoid of monumental (or other) Neolithic activity. Interpretations of pit excavation and deposition vary but many stress the ritual aspects of this behaviour and the role “pit rituals” played in commemorating special events and altering the experience of place at these locales.

The published report suggests that the pits are the remains of a temporary encampment of Mesolithic date. However, Saville argues that whilst both features contain flints acceptable as Mesolithic the wide variety of surface discolouration suggests that neither appears to be a single phase deposit of contemporary material (ibid.: 513-514). That a substantial number of mixed date struck lithics exist in the area is certain (nearly 2000 recovered during the Cathedral excavations), and many are later Mesolithic in date (ibid.). However, the presence of the pottery sherd in F1167 might indicate a later (i.e. Neolithic) date for at least one of the pits, the flints possibly residual. The pits and possible postholes might together represent the remains of structure of later Mesolithic or Neolithic date, though the latter may be more likely (see discussion, below).

Postholes, conversely, do tend to be seen as evidence for domestic activity either the remains of a temporary encampment or, more unusually, permanent structures. These have been variously interpreted as houses and/or ritual buildings, though recent works emphasise the danger of this dualistic approach (see Darvill and Thomas 1996). The rarity of these structures in England, Wales and the Isle of Man has long been noted (see Darvill 1996: 77 for a summary of arguments) though in 1996 Darvill gave a figure of c.109 certain and probable buildings (ibid.: 79). Many different forms are represented by this figure however and we should not expect a common functionality.

Camerton (ST6870 5650) Between 1926 and 1956, William Wedlake directed a series of excavations at Camerton on East Mendip (Wedlake 1958). Sites excavated included two round barrows, an Iron Age round house and series of ditches, a Romano-British settlement and an Anglo-Saxon cemetery. During the excavation of the Anglo-Saxon cemetery a small Neolithic pit was found (no measurements given). The fill of the pit is described as “black earth” and mixed with it were at least seven sherds of “Neolithic” pottery, a flint thumb scraper, rounded stones “undoubtedly used as “pounders or rubbing stones” and the lower stone of a saddle quern of Old Red Sandstone (ibid.: 19). The fabric of the pottery is described as brown paste with “closely intermixed fragments of crushed shell” (ibid.). No further information about the pit is given.

Surprisingly few Neolithic pits and postholes have been found in northern Somerset (figure 6.1) and reasons for this are suggested later in the chapter. The sites are detailed here in no particular order. Wells Cathedral (ST5520 4585) Excavations at Wells Cathedral between 1978 – 93 (Rodwell 2001), in the area around the cathedral springs, revealed at least two prehistoric pits and 1,773 pieces of struck flint and chert, mostly residual. The pits had been cut into the natural red clays and gravels and were sealed by a buried soil-horizon containing flints and Roman-

103

104

0

5

10 Kilometers

Abbey Quarry x

104

E

x Pits and postholes.dbf Elevation (m) 0 0.1 - 10 10.1 - 25 25.1 - 50 50.1 - 100 100.1 - 150 150.1 - 200 200.1 - 250 250.1 - 300 300.1 - 350 No Data

S

Figure 6.1: Location of Neolithic Pits and Postholes. © Crown Copyright/database Right 2005. An Ordnance Survey/ EDINA supplied service.

5

x

Camerton x

x Stowey Sutton

Wells Cathedral

Ben Bridge x

W

N

SECTION 125 F1162

F1167

F1167

SECTION 126

0

2m F1169

F1162 F1162 S.126 S.125

N

Figure 6.2: Plan and sections of Pits F1162 and 1167, Wells Cathedral. Based on Rodwell 2001

437 * Sherd * End scraper

436

373

372

ROMAN VILLA WALL TRENCH

Pebble *

348 371 374 * Arrowhead

Sherd Flint 369

370 0

N

1m

Figure 6.3: Plan of Chew Valley House. Based on Rahtz and Greenfield 1977

105

Chew Valley “…six sherds of Western Neolithic pottery, two dozen scraps of similar pottery, 30-40 chips of flint (mainly burnt), a piece of Pennant Sandstone (possibly from a grinding stone), a piece of limestone, ½ oz of calcined bone (evenly in the fill and not demonstrably human), fragmentary charcoal including twigs of ash, oak and hawthorn, and about 4oz of hazelnut shells” (ibid.: 27).

Between 1953 and 1955 Rahtz and Greenfield directed rescue excavations in advance of the flooding of over 1200 acres to form the Chew Valley Reservoir (Rahtz and Greenfield 1977). They recorded finds and structures spanning the Upper Palaeolithic to Post-Medieval period, including several features of Neolithic/Early Bronze Age date. These are considered individually below: Chew Park (Stowey Sutton parish ST5700 5930) An irregular arrangement of features, truncated in part by the wall-trenches of a Roman villa, were discovered when the pre-villa soil was scraped to subsoil (Rahtz and Greenfield 1977: 26-27). These were interpreted as the postholes of a Neolithic house measuring 3.6m x 3m, with an entrance gap to the south (figure 6.3). Whether the features actually represent a house structure is uncertain. The published plans reveal three small circular features (373, 436 and 437) in the north-west part of the site, measuring between c.0.2-0.3m in diameter and varying in depth between c.0.1-0.17m. In the south-west part of the site are two slightly larger features, an ovalshaped feature (370), measuring c.0.4m x c.0.25m, surviving to c.0.13m deep and an irregular shaped feature (369) measuring c.0.55m x c.0.6m , 0.3m deep. Together, these five features define the outline of the “house”. Contained within them are a small circular feature (374), measuring c.0.15m in diameter and c.0.15m deep and an elongated feature (348), c.0.5m long by c.0.15m wide. Truncated by the trench for the southwest wall of the villa are three further cut features (two of which are numbered: 371 and 372), their relationships with each other unclear. A leaf-shaped arrowhead, flints and a hammerstone were found contained within the area of the “house”, though apparently not stratified (figure 6.4).

Between 30 – 50 further features, some shown only on plan, some mentioned in the report, could also potentially date to the Neolithic. These features - pits, postholes, scoops and several ditch sections – proved difficult to date accurately and are described as dating between the Neolithic and Early Iron Age (ibid.: 26-27). The problem appears to have been the nature of the fills and the fabric of pottery (when present): Neolithic, Bronze Age and Early Iron Age features are described as having a similar fill whilst the pottery proved difficult to distinguish on fabric alone (ibid.). The nature of the published plans makes it difficult to identify individual features and match them to the few descriptions in the text but it appears that most of these features are within c.70m of the “house” and definite pit, described above. The final feature to be considered in the Chew Park area is a Beaker grave, considered here for its similarities to the feature found at Ben Bridge, described below. The grave took the form of a roughly circular pit, c.1m in diameter and 0.30m deep, containing about one-third of a cremated adult male (ibid: 29). Included in the pit were 80 sherds of pottery, of which 31 represented not less than 8 vessels that included: “…3 Bell-Beakers, a Beaker? Bowl, a small beaker or cup, a very large coarse beaker and another large beaker or store jar. The last named is the only vessel substantially represented; it had been broken some time before being put in the grave: the broken edges had perhaps been smoothed off (the upper sherds were much abraded)”. (ibid: 29)

It seems probable that these cut features are contemporary as they all contained the same type of fill, described as “…distinctive bluish-grey filling, yellow at the base, with charcoal flecking.” (ibid.: 26). A further two features (postholes 269 and 271) may also have been associated with this group, as they are described as having a similar fill (ibid.:27). However, see caveat about the date of the fills, below.

ApSimon (ibid.:29), commenting on the pottery, noted that all the vessels had been broken some time before burial, though the sherds were only moderately weathered.

The only diagnostic find from the features was a sherd of “Western Neolithic” pottery, identified by its fabric (see discussion of pit, below). This was found within feature 369; the plan also illustrates a flint within the feature.

The assemblage also included 47 finely made and 20 fragments of flint, the former including a barbed and tanged arrowhead. A total of 25 pieces of flint were burnt, representing both implements and the aforementioned scraps. ApSimon notes that some of the flints are so fresh they may have been intended as grave-goods (ibid.). Other stone items included a Pennant Sandstone quern rubber, a flint beach pebble, a fragment of polished

A Neolithic pit was also found during excavations, approximately 61m north-east of the afore-mentioned features. The pit (described as a rubbish pit) was an irregular oval measuring c.1.2m by 0.73m and 0.30m deep, the fill dark and charcoal-flecked. It contained:

106

Figure 6.4: Finds from Chew Valley House (after Rahtz and Greenfield 1977) axe of “local stone” (ibid.) and a fragment of a Great Langdale axe.

Another pit was found in the Ben Bridge excavations, this one unfortunately truncated by the scraping machinery used to reduce the site. This was an oval pit, measuring c.0.40m by 0.56m by 0.18m, its long axis orientated north-south. Most of the filling was comprised of burnt gravel and burnt clay but charcoal, flint flakes and 2 large and several smaller sherds of Grooved Ware (Durrington Walls style) were found in the fill (figure 6.5). The flints comprised 4 unburnt flakes and 1 burnt half of a scraper.

The fill of the pit is described as a “dark soil with much charcoal: oak, polar and willow in the top, including twigs, and hawthorn in the base, also black substance from base which may be charcoal, pottery, charred organic matter or concretion of unknown nature” (ibid: 29, footnote 1). Ben Bridge (ST5550 5910) Another site in the Chew Valley excavated by Rahtz, Ben Bridge, revealed further evidence of Neolithic activity. On feature, described as the ‘Beaker pit’ took the form of a circular pit, c.1m in diameter with vertical sides and a slightly concave bottom. It contained 136 flint flakes “of beaker type” of which 96 were burnt, 100 sherds of pottery, a wristguard, a broken hone, a pebble, a few lumps of burnt clay, several lumps of gravel, some ‘scraps’ of Pennant sandstone, in a dark-brown charcoal flecked soil. The 100 sherds of pottery included 3 sherds of “Western Neolithic” pottery, 1 sherd of Grooved Ware (Woodhenge style) and sherds representing at least 6 Beaker vessels. The pit was interpreted as a grave, though no human bone was found, and the burial rite postulated to be cremation as it was argued that the grave would not have been big enough to contain an inhumation. Poorly-preserved Roman cremated remains found close to the pit were used to support the interpretation of the pit as a grave, the ?Beaker date remains simply unable to survive an additional 2000 years in the ground.

Figure 6.5 Grooved Ware from Ben Bridge (after Rahtz and Greenfield 1977)

107

Abbey Quarry (centred on ST 651 436) Archaeological excavations carried out prior to the extension of Abbey Quarry, Doulting, (East Mendip) in 2000-2001, revealed a number of archaeological features cutting into the natural limestone brash (Hollinrake & Hollinrake 2002, 2001a, 2001b). These included two Late Neolithic pits, described below (figure 6.6). Due to the recent nature of the excavation and the fact that the author analysed the prehistoric material and compiled the original report on the prehistoric features for the archaeological contractors, C & N Hollinrake (Lewis in Hollinrake & Hollinrake 2001b), it is possible to look at this site in a little more detail than the previous examples. All faunal remains were studied by Lorraine Higbee and the results of her analyses are reproduced here (Higbee in Hollinrake & Hollinrake 2001b).

Worked Lithics 31 struck pieces of flint and chert were excavated from the pit. These can be broken down into the following categories.

The pits were approximately 45m apart and appear to be of comparable date. Pit 703 (Fill 702) was oval shaped in plan, measuring 1.3m E/W by 1.2m N/S and up to 0.45m deep (figure 6.7). It was filled with a red sandy clay with frequent inclusions of charcoal and small stones. Finds from the feature included flint, a variety of burnt local and non-local stones, sherds of Late Neolithic Grooved Ware pottery and a quantity of animal bone. An AMS radiocarbon date of 2700-2250 cal BC (2 sigma) (Wk 11579) was obtained from a piece of cattle rib bone, presumably from this pit (Hollinrake & Hollinrake 2002). Pit 715 (Fill 714) was sub-circular in plan and 0.9m in diameter and filled with a red/brown sandy clay (figure 6.7). Due to truncation by ploughing, the pit only survived to a depth of 0.15m. The fill included charcoal and struck flints, animal bone, local and non-local stone and Grooved Ware pottery sherds. Similarities between the form, fill and artefacts from this pit and pit 702 suggest that they are likely to be broadly contemporary.

A sandstone hammerstone was also recovered.

Complete Flakes Broken Flakes Edge Damaged Flakes (of which 3 are complete flakes) Cores & Core Fragments Waste Denticulate Flakes Miscellaneous Retouched Flakes Polished Discoidal Knives Chips Burnt Flint

8 6 5 3 3 2 1 1 1 1

The struck lithic assemblage from the pit suggests a Late Neolithic date, contemporary with the pottery. The high proportion of flakes and tools, forming 74% of the total pit assemblage, and the low amounts of debitage suggests that this is a specialised deposit. This is supported by the presence of the polished discoidal knife, a particularly fine piece, with battered edges evidencing intensive use (figure 6.8). Discoidal knives are rare finds in Somerset and those that have been found are not polished like the Abbey Quarry example. Stone A range of stones, both immediately local to the site (within several 100 metres) and non-local stones (at least 2.5 kilometres distant) were present in the pit. These can be broken down into the following types: Type of Stone

PIT 703: THE FINDS

Weight (kg)

Doulting Stone: Unburnt 5.07kg Burnt 3.52kg Doulting Brash 2.58kg Sandstone* 11.00kg (*various, including ORS) Lias limestone 4.86kg Quartz 1.93kg Burnt quartz 1.17kg Conglomerate 0.29kg Fossils 0.05kg "Other Stone" 0.39kg

Pottery The pit contained 12 sherds of Grooved Ware pottery, representing at least 2 vessels. Vessel 1 is represented by 4 decorated body sherds (3 of which are conjoining) and 6 undecorated body sherds. On the conjoining pieces, the decoration is formed of 3 parallel incised lines, unevenly spaced. On the other decorated piece the decoration comprises a single incised line. On all 12 sherds, the outer surfaces are oxidised and a buff-orange colour whilst the inner surfaces are grey-black. There is frequent shell and limestone temper and the sherds are extremely friable. The presence of small fossils within the limestone indicates that the shell derives from a fossilised shelly limestone rather than a marine source.

Local? Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No Possibly

No

A large piece of quartz with a limestone cortex was also recovered, and is not included in the above list. None of the stones appear to have been shaped or modified in any way, though some are burnt. The exact sources for the non-local stone have not been identified but it appears likely that all are from the Mendip district. The closest source for the Old Red Sandstone is Beacon Hill, 2.5km to the west of the site.

Vessel 2 is represented by 1 decorated body sherd and 1 undecorated body sherd. The decorated sherd has 5 parallel incised lines, unevenly spaced. On both sherds, the outer surfaces are mid-brown in colour and the inner surfaces are a slightly darker grey-brown. The tempering agents are identical to those noted for Vessel 1.

108

BUND 707 703

711 709

706 705

715

Unexcavated

708

BUND

OLD QUARRY EDGE

N

0

10M

Figure 6.6: Abbey Quarry Grooved Ware pits [703] and [715] and possible associated features. Based on Hollinrake and Hollinrake 2001b.

N

S

702

[703] [703]

50cm

0

N 0

1m

W

E

714 [715] [715]

0

50cm

N 0

1m

Figure 6.7: Plans and sections of Pit 703 (above) and 715 (below). Based on Hollinrake and Hollinrake 2001b.

109

Figure 6.8: Discoidal knife from Pit 703 (after Hollinrake and Hollinrake 2001b) Animal Bone 27 fragments of animal bone were present in the pit, most of which were identifiable to species. Domesticated animals are represented by the bones of cattle, sheep and pig (Higbee in Hollinrake & Hollinrake 2001b). The cattle assemblage is dominated by bones of the head and feet. The pig bones are again from the head of the animal, though part of a long bone is also present. Sheep are represented by fragments of long bones and scapula, one of which is calcined. Wild animal species are represented by a complete red deer antler and the tip of another (ibid).

surfaces and dark brown inner surfaces. Again, the outer surfaces are smoothed whilst the inner surfaces are globular. There are frequent grog inclusions and the sherds are relatively robust. Worked Lithics 23 struck pieces of flint and chert were excavated from the pit. These can be broken down into the following categories. Complete Flakes Broken Flakes Edge Damaged Flakes (of which 1 is a complete flake) Cores Rejuvenation Flake Waste Disc scraper Chips Burnt Flint

Whilst the assemblage is not large, it is possible to see that pig bones, sheep and sheep-sized bones and cattle and cattle-sized bones are each represented by four fragments. Red deer are represented by two fragments. None of the animal bone shows evidence of butchery (ibid). This is not unexpected due to the lack of "meaty" bones and general predominance of bones of the head (cranial pieces, teeth). The red deer antler shows no evidence of utilisation.

5 6 3 1 2 1 3 2

The struck lithic assemblage from the pit also suggests a Late Neolithic date, contemporary with the pottery. The high proportion of flakes and tools, forming 70% of the total pit assemblage, is striking and comparable to the figures for Pit 703. The inclusion of a singular “fine” piece - in this case the disc scraper (figure 6.9) - echoes the deposition of the discoidal knife in Pit 703.

PIT 715: THE FINDS The Pottery This pit contained 22 sherds of Grooved Ware pottery, probably representing at least 2 vessels. Vessel 1 is represented by 18 undecorated body sherds. The sherds are dark-brown-grey in colour and there is little colour differentiation between the outer and inner surfaces, apart from occasional localised patches of light buff-brown on the outer surfaces. The sherds are thick, with smoothed outer surfaces and uneven, globular inner surfaces. The tempering agent is exclusively grog. In contrast to the friable nature of the pottery from Pit 702, the sherds from this pit are relatively robust.

Figure 6.9 Disc scraper from Pit 715 (after Hollinrake and Hollinrake 2001b)

Vessel 2 is represented by 4 undecorated body-sherds. These have oxidised light brown-buff coloured outer 110

(areas where pits may typically be found), the lack of large development and hence commercial excavations and the lack of decent cropmarks in the predominately pastoral landscape of northern Somerset, rather than the reluctance of Neolithic populations to engage in pitdigging activities. It is worth noting that the pits described above were all discovered unexpectedly during rescue excavations and do not stand out as areas where pits might be expected (i.e., none are particularly near known Neolithic sites). Further discoveries will probably be on a similarly piecemeal basis.

Stone Once again, a range of local and non-local stones were present in the pit. These can be broken down into the following types: Type of Stone

Weight (kg)

Local?

Doulting Stone: Unburnt Burnt Doulting Brash Sandstone Lias limestone Quartz Burnt limestone

0.62kg 1.46kg 3.27kg 3.12kg 1.72kg 0.97kg 0.74kg

Yes Yes Yes No Yes No ?No

The pits and postholes found can be divided into three main chronological groups: Early Neolithic, Later Neolithic and Beaker. There are, of course, problems inherent in dividing the latter two periods when the artefacts from the pits may be contemporary or overlapping (Grooved Ware with Beaker etc). However, for the sake of clarity the divisions will be retained for this discussion. A final category - “Neolithic” - is included for those pits that cannot be more closely dated.

The stones from the pit are strikingly similar in type and range to those from Pit 703. None of the stones appear to have been shaped or modified in any way, though again some are burnt. Animal Bone 7 fragments of animal bone were present in the pit, most of which were identifiable to species. Domesticated animals are represented by the bones of cattle and pig (Higbee in Hollinrake & Hollinrake 2001b). The cattle assemblage is dominated by the bones of the head and feet, as with Pit 703. The pig bone assemblage is also comparable to Pit 703, in that fragments from the head and long bones are present. Wild animal species are represented by a small fragment of red deer antler.

“Neolithic” The pit at Camerton can be dated no more closely than this. From the, albeit brief, description in the published account the homogeneity of the fill suggests that the contents were deposited in a single episode. Photographs of the pottery show that several of the pieces are conjoining, perhaps lending support to this theory. It is possible that the “black earth” contained charcoal, in common with the other Neolithic pits from northern Somerset.

The animal bone assemblage from Pit 715 is smaller than that from Pit 703 and contains no sheep bones. Cattle and cattle sized bones are dominant (4 pieces), followed by pig bones (2). Red deer are represented by only a single, small fragment of antler.

The pits at Wells are of uncertain date but exist in an area with high levels of Mesolithic activity. However, whilst Mesolithic pits are known from elsewhere in southern England, Saville’s comment about the residuality of this material must be considered (Saville in Rodwell 2001: 513-514). The presence of the sherd of pottery is also indicative of a post-Mesolithic date. The evidence - the form and fill of the pits, the facts that they are earlier than the Roman horizon sealing them, the lack of Bronze and Iron Age activity on the site and the pot sherd itself – may lend support to a Neolithic date. That this site, near to the springs, was a favoured locale seems certain and it is possible that the pits (and other questionable, possibly associated, features) were marking and/or venerating this place.

None of the animal bone shows evidence of butchery or utilisation. As with pit 703, this may be explained by the predominance of bones of the head and feet (ibid.). Other features at the site It is possible that some of the other, undated cut features at Abbey Quarry also date to the Later Neolithic and are contemporary with the two certain Grooved Ware pits. The layout of postholes 705, 706, 707, 708, 709 and 711 suggest that they may have been connected with pit 703, perhaps forming a screen or an approach to the pit (figure 6.6). Indeed, more pits may exist, or have existed here (see figure 6.6 for location of old quarry face), and monitoring of the site continues.

Early Neolithic The only definite Early Neolithic pit is that from Chew Park, containing “Western Neolithic” pottery, flint, stone, charcoal and bone. The homogeneity of the fill and the even distribution of the calcined bone would suggest that this deposit was placed within the pit in a single episode. It was not possible to establish whether the bone was human or animal. The hazelnut shells are described as a probable modern intrusion, but with no explanation for this interpretation or evidence for disturbance, it seems best to assume them to relate to Neolithic deposition.

Pits and Postholes: Discussion The number of pits and postholes of Neolithic date yet discovered in northern Somerset is surprisingly small, especially considering the high level of Neolithic activity in the region. The reasons for this more likely relate to the lack of research projects around monument environs

111

commemorate an event at that location, in the Later Neolithic pit digging was the event (Thomas 1999:73). In plan, Grooved Ware pits are circular, oval or sub-oval The matrix is often charcoal-rich soil and but few pits show evidence of in-situ burning and the artefacts are rarely burnt. A “tool-kit” selection of flints is often found within the pits. Exotic items such as foreign stone axeheads, marine shells, fossils, non-local stones and pebbles, are also found, representing deliberate, nonutilitarian imports (Pollard 2001: 325). Another common feature of Grooved Ware pits are the unusual assemblages of wild and domesticated animal bone (ibid.). It is extremely rare to find complete pottery vessels within the pits; instead we see the deliberate selection of sherds of Grooved Ware pottery (Garwood 1999). The contents of Grooved Ware pits are often highly structured and the fills can be complex, frequently comprising layers of clean soil and charcoal rich matrixes. Surfaces can be created within fill sequences, on which deposits were placed and special items sometimes placed between layers (Pollard 2001).

Rahtz and Greenfield describe the feature as a “rubbish pit” (Rahtz and Greenfield 1977: 27) but recent thinking stresses the non-utilitarian nature of the activity and sees Early Neolithic pit digging as a means of commemorating an event, a way of creating a tangible memory of a meaningful episode (e.g. Thomas 1999). The pit at Chew Park was found in an area containing evidence for further Neolithic activity. The postholes, representing Rahtz’s timber-framed “house” (hereafter structure) are within c.60m of the pit, the dating for this structure provided by a single sherd of “Western Neolithic” pottery within one of the postholes. The function of this structure is unknown and, unfortunately, if any floor levels survived they were removed when the area was scraped to subsoil. The size and layout of the structure is in accordance with other Neolithic sites however and as the only example from the study area it is of some regional importance. Darvill classifies the Chew Park structure as “Type A” – a post-framed timber building (Darvill in Darvill & Thomas 1996: 84). These are described as rectangular arrangements of postholes, suggestive of a modular framed structure, probably with wattle and daub or turf walls (ibid.: 85). Interpreting the structure as a “house” is difficult however, not least because several authors have drawn attention to the problems in interpreting such sites as the permanent abode of a sedentary “family” group (for example Thomas 1995).

At Ben Bridge, the Grooved Ware pit contained the upper portions of a single vessel of a Durrington Walls type, flint and burnt material (clay, gravel and charcoal). There is no discussion of separate fills or patterning in the deposition of the artefacts and it should be remembered that the pit was truncated during the reduction of the site. No other features of Later Neolithic date are mentioned, though the Beaker pit (containing a sherd of ?residual Grooved Ware pottery) is c.80m to the east-south-east. It appears that little more can be said about the feature, other than it compares well with Grooved Ware pits from other regions.

Some, or indeed all, of the other cut features at Chew Park (perhaps as many as 50 in total) may have been contemporary with the structure and the pit, but are described only as Neolithic-Early Iron Age, for reasons already outlined. This is unfortunate as if contemporaneity were established the scale and nature of the activities at Chew Park could potentially transform our understanding of Early Neolithic activity outside of the monument arena in northern Somerset. The author intends to carry out a more detailed study of the Chew Valley excavation archive at a later date.

A consideration of the Abbey Quarry Grooved Ware pits offers more information. In Somerset as a whole, finds of Grooved Ware pottery are rare. Ten sites are known: the two from the Chew Valley; one at South Cadbury Camp; two from swallets on West Mendip (see Chapter 7); four from caves on West and East Mendip (see Chapter 7) and one from Cannards Grave, Shepton Mallet (residual, in an Iron Age context). Taken together, the meagre number of sherds found (less than 100) would represent no more than ten to fifteen vessels.

Later Neolithic The three Later Neolithic pits found within northern Somerset fall into the category of Grooved Ware pits. The placement of artefacts in small pits in a highly structured manner and the deliberate backfilling of the pits is a practice seen from the Earliest Neolithic until the Early Bronze Age (Thomas 1999). However, the practice of pit-digging reaches its zenith in the Later Neolithic with the construction of Grooved Ware pits (ibid.:69). The (relatively) large numbers of Grooved Ware pits that have been discovered in Britain suggests that the practice took on increased social significance in the Later Neolithic. It has been argued that Later Neolithic pit digging could have been a way of creating new "sacred" meaning in the landscape. In contrast to the Early Neolithic when pit digging may have acted to

However, the associations found with Grooved Ware pottery at the cave site Soldier's Hole, Cheddar Gorge (Balch 1928) offer a much closer comparison for the finds from the Abbey Quarry site. The flint assemblage described by Balch comprised a partially polished flint axe, two fine discoidal knives (oval shaped with bifacial retouch), a large knife, a curved knife, a large scraper and a saw (serrated/denticulate flake) (ibid.). At Abbey Quarry, an oval discoidal knife, a scraper and three serrated/denticulate flakes were found, echoing the lithic assemblage from Soldier's Hole.

112

Beaker The two Beaker pits found during the Chew Valley Lake excavations would appear to fall into the category of graves, though human remains survived only in the Chew Park pit. They are of a similar size and form and it is possible, though not inevitable, that mounds or other markers may have been erected over them. The small size of the pits may be related to the deposition of cremations rather than inhumations, which is itself of interest, as Beaker date cremations are relatively rare. The items found in the pits are of similar type to those found in Beaker graves elsewhere however - Beaker pottery, a barbed and tanged arrowhead, a wristguard and hone, unusual stones - interpreted as grave goods. There are no precise dates available for this material but it is possible to assign the pits to the broad period 2600-1800BC (Kinnes et al 1991). The “Western Neolithic” pottery found within the Ben Bridge pit is presumably residual and possibly also the Grooved Ware sherd. However, the juxtaposition of Beaker and Grooved Ware at Charterhouse Warren Farm Swallet (see Chapter Seven) should make us cautious of oversimplifying the relationship (social and chronological) between these two pottery types. It is also worth noting that the deposition of pottery sherds, from more than one vessel, and artefacts of flint and stone is reminiscent of the deposition of similar items within the ditch of the Gorsey Bigbury henge monument (see Chapter Five). The small number of Neolithic pits discussed here at least allow us to look at a different scale of ritual life in the region, a scale very different to monument construction and use. The size of pits, the relative ease of creating them, the close temporal link between excavation and deposition and the way that pits, unless marked, may have been consumed back into the land very quickly suggests a close sequence of events. Such actions may have been carried out or witnessed by relatively few individuals. However this should not be used to substantiate arguments about greater or lesser “importance” or “meaning” of these places. Making pit deposits was seemingly part of “being Neolithic”, as was monument construction and pottery use.

113

114

Chapter Seven: Caves and Swallets interrogation and thus the conclusions that shall be drawn will be of a hypothetical nature.

In common with other limestone regions of Britain, the northern Somerset landscape, Mendip in particular, contains many caves. These caves contain archaeological deposits dating from the Palaeolithic to the PostMedieval and analysis suggests their use for domestic settlement, industry, temporary shelter, storage, ritual and burial (Barrington & Stanton 1976). Caves lend themselves to opportunistic exploitation yet the inaccessibility of some, coupled with the nature of the deposits, suggests intentional ritual usage. This chapter will consider the Neolithic deposits found within caves in northern Somerset and attempt to interpret their nature. In addition to this, other 'cave-like' features also require consideration; geological features known locally as swallets, vertical ‘shafts’ in the limestone, usually formed by dissolutional activity. In recent years, excavations by cavers have revealed a range of archaeological material placed inside them. The materials are generally of prehistoric date, and seem to indicate a climax of deposition in the Later Neolithic. Using the evidence from two sites, Charterhouse Warren Farm Swallet and Brimble Pit Swallet, it will be argued that some swallets were being used for deliberate ritual deposition. A link between swallets and monuments will be made, both in terms of the material placed within them and their spatial relationship in the landscape.

Caves with Neolithic Deposits Axbridge Hill - also known as Flint Crevice (Barrington & Stanton 1972) This narrow crevice was excavated in 1954 by the Axbridge Caving Group and more than 20 Neolithic flints found. No further information is available. Beaker Shelter (Cullingford 1962, Barrington & Stanton 1972) This cave was excavated in 1931 and 1951. A 'perfect floor of small limestone flagstones' was found overlying a barren thermoclastic scree (Barrington & Stanton 1972: 37). Associated with this was a skeleton and the remains of 3 other individuals. Dating evidence was provided by a single sherd of Beaker pottery. Bone Hole (Balch 1947, Barrington & Stanton 1972, Cox 1976, Cook 1977) From 1967 to 1976 explorations were carried out by members of the Mendip Caving Group. In a series of unsystematic diggings, they found human and animal bones, a Wessex/Middle Rhine Beaker, and other pottery of various ages. Faunal remains included bear, horse, wolf, boar, and auroch. No other information is available. Human and animal bones, as well as stalagmite, were removed from the cave in the 19th century and sold as souvenirs (Barrington & Stanton 1972: 43).

Caves There are 16 caves within northern Somerset containing Neolithic deposits, all of which are on Mendip (figure 7.1). 3 of these are on East Mendip, the remaining 13 on West Mendip. There are fundamental problems in analysing these caves and this will limit the conclusions that can be drawn. The first problem is that most of the caves in question have been disturbed by burrowing animals, thus destroying much of the stratigraphy. The second problem is that many of the caves were excavated early in the 20th century, often by cavers without specialist knowledge of archaeological cave excavation. The standard of excavation ranges from very poor to quite good, considering the time in which they were carried out. However, good stratigraphical information is almost non-existent, partly because of animal disturbance and partly because of excavation technique. It should be emphasised that these comments are directed only towards those caves with Neolithic deposits and not those containing earlier deposits; caves with Palaeolithic deposits have been excavated in recent years to a much higher standard.

Bridged Pot Shelter (Balch 1927 & 1928a) This is a large rock shelter, immediately below Beaker Shelter, excavated in 1926-7 by Balch. It was found to contain deposits ranging from Solutrean to the Roman periods. At a depth of 3ft, a greenstone axe and a flint knife were recovered. Above this were some sherds of pottery that were probably Beaker. Chelmscombe Shelter (Balch & Palmer 1927) This shelter was excavated to a depth of 22ft by Balch, with Neolithic deposits being found at a depth of 4ft (figure 7.2). Animal disturbance was evidenced and the cave had also been used for as an Iron Age smelting furnace. Layers 3 and 4 were interpreted as Neolithic deposits, Layer 3 an episode dating to the Beaker period and Layer 4 the Early Neolithic, dated by ceramic associations. The remains of 4 individuals were recovered: 2 adults, 1 child and 1 specimen not aged. The remains were found scattered throughout layers 2 - 9 (Romano-British - Late Pleistocene) though most were concentrated in layers 3 & 4. Layer 4 overlaid a deposit containing Late Pleistocene fauna and also contained the remains of 2 round-bottomed bowls, which appear to be of Windmill Hill type and rim sherds

This leaves us in an unenviable position for, when properly excavated, caves can contain a wealth of detail that cannot be recovered from above-ground sites. It is apparent that much high-quality information has been lost, often for good, in cases where caves have subsequently been blasted away during quarrying. The data that does exist will not support a detailed 115

116 116

Figure 7.1: Distribution of caves with Neolithic deposits. © Crown Copyright/database Right 2005. An Ordnance Survey/ EDINA supplied service.

representing another 4 similar vessels. Also in this layer were 8 flint scrapers, 2 bone points and a fragment of a polished bone pin. Layer 3 comprised a 'trodden' floor and hearth. Embedded in this were fragments from 3 Beaker vessels and a sandstone rubber. Layers 3, 4 and 5 contained animal bones; Bos longifrons, sheep/goat and pig. The latter was confined to Layers 3 and 4 only.

which calibrates to 3790 - 3510 cal BC (calibrated using OxCal version 3.5). Isotope analysis of this skull was also undertaken by Mike Richards (Richards & Hedges 1999) and the results suggested that marine foods had not formed part of the diet of the individual, despite the proximity of the shelter to the sea. Little Shelter (Barrington & Stanton 1972) This shelter was excavated in 1907 and 1922 by Mendip Nature Research Committee. Apparently, Neolithic flints and human bone were found, but no other details are available.

Chelmscombe Cist (Balch & Palmer 1927) Excavations below Chelmscombe Cave revealed a fissure in the limestone that had been enlarged to make a small rock-cut tomb. This contained the remains of 4 or 5 individuals; at least 1 young person and 1 adult were represented and foetal bones were also recorded. The presence of small hand and feet bones suggests the deposition of articulated skeletons. Although Balch & Palmer date this structure to the Neolithic, there appears to be no artefactual evidence to substantiate this claim. The date of the tomb is thus uncertain.

Outlook Cave (Balch 1929) Excavations by Mendip Nature Research Committee in 1907 revealed Neolithic and earlier deposits. A leafshaped arrowhead was found at a depth of 1ft at the entrance, whilst in the inner cave, human bone lay on the surface, dug up by burrowing animals. Excavations revealed a fragment of fingernail decorated pottery (the rim of a cup or bowl), two fragments of undecorated black ware, an unpolished millstone grit axe and 2 polished axes. Animal bone, including bear and reindeer, were also recovered.

Cockles Wood Lower (Hickling & Seaby 1951) Excavated in 1947-50 by the Downside Archaeological Society, Cockles Wood Lower Rockshelter appears to have been witness to at least 2 separate episodes of use in the Neolithic/Bronze Age. The lower level contained sherds of Grooved Ware, sherds of Beaker and a 'patternised scraper' (Hickling & Seaby 1951:13). The Beaker sherds represented a Rusticated Beaker and an 'A' Beaker. The middle layer contained 'signs of a fire', a round scraper and a flake (ibid.). The fire was represented by charcoal and ashes and much burnt material, type not specified. Human bone and animal bone was found in both layers. In 1905 Cockles Wood Upper Rockshelter (located higher on the same slope) was excavated by Dom Hugo Hicks, who found 2 human skeletons and fingernail decorated pot sherds. No report was ever published and no further information is available.

Rowberrow Cavern (Taylor 1921, 1922, 1923, 1924, 1925) The University of Bristol Spelaeological Society excavated this large cave between 1920-24, and once more, severe animal disturbance was noted (figure 7.4). Iron Age industrial activities added to this disturbance. Neolithic material was recorded from the 'Second Clay and Stones Layer', and represents several episodes of deposition and was very mixed. The base of this layer was called the 'Cemented Floor' and Neolithic material was found from here, through the 'Second Clay and Stones Level' up to the base of Iron-Age and Roman deposits (figure 7.5). On the 'Cemented Floor', a finely scaled flint knife, a thin laminae of partly polished bone, charcoal, splintered bone and 2 pieces of possible Beaker pottery were found. These items might represent the remains of a Beaker burial. Elsewhere on the floor, a hearth was discovered. This was grey in colour, 1" thick and contained 2 Neolithic flints, charcoal and burnt fragments of animal bone. It only survived in two small areas, being separated by an intrusive Iron Age pit.

Hay Wood (Everton 1972) Hay Wood rock shelter was excavated between 1957-71 by the Axbridge Caving Group (figure 7.3). The archaeological deposits had suffered 'gross disturbance', due to animal burrowing. Layer 3, comprised of stones mixed with loam, contained human bone, animal bone, 58 flints and pot sherds. The excavators suggested that the pile of stones was not naturally formed. The pottery was Iron Age and Roman in date, 20 of the flints were Mesolithic and the remaining 38 were either Mesolithic or Neolithic. The remains of 28 individuals were recorded, of both sexes and all ages. One skull had a lump of ochre placed in the mouth. A further two skulls showed evidence of mutilation of the teeth, interpreted as 'ritual mutilation' (Tratman in Everton 1972: 27). The animal bone assemblage was interpreted as material brought to the cave by scavenging animals or washed in from above (Everton ibid.: 27-28).

In the 'Second Clay and Stones Layer', many flints were found, including a lozenge arrowhead, a barbed and tanged arrowhead, scrapers, knives, borers, piercers and flakes. Many flint chips were described as being found in the 'lightest and driest part of the cave' (Taylor 1923: 50). Fragments of an Ebbsfleet vessel1, 4 Beakers and possibly a Food Vessel also came from this layer2, as did animal bone, representing sheep or deer, pig and dog. Several hearths were also recorded.

A sample of human bone (skull IV) was submitted for radiocarbon dating and returned a date of 4860+65bp,

1 2

117

A replica of this vessel is on display in Bristol City Museum. It is possible that the Food Vessel is a misidentified Beaker.

Figure 7.2: Plan and Sections of Chelmscombe Rock Shelter (after Balch & Palmer 1927)

118

Figure 7.3: Plan and Sections of Haywood Cave (after Everton 1972)

Figure 7.4: Plan and Section of Rowberrow Cavern (after Taylor 1923) 119

Figure 7.5: Section of Rowberrow Cavern (after Taylor 1923)

Figure 7.6: Plan and Section of Sun Hole (after Tratman & Henderson 1927)

120

Age and Roman) and Layer 4 (Late Pleistocene). It contained sherds of a Windmill Hill vessel, the fragmentary remains of an adult female, a broken leaf shaped arrowhead, a few flints, a bone point broken in half and the tip of another, and a few sheep bones.

Soldier's Hole (Balch 1928b) Excavations were carried out between 1927-29, by Balch and Parry. The upper 2ft was found to contain Roman pottery, Iron Age material, Neolithic pottery sherds, flints and a partly polished flint axe. The flints comprised 2 fine oval implements, with bifacial working (probably discoidal knives), a large knife, a curved knife, a large scraper and a saw. The pottery was first thought to be a Globular Urn, but was later reinterpreted by Thomas as Grooved Ware (Thomas 1988). Beneath this layer were Pleistocene deposits, including flints and animal bone.

Totty Pot (Barrington & Stanton 1972) This cave was excavated from the 1960s onwards by the Wessex Caving Club and saw the recovery of human bones, which were handed over to the police and cremated. From 1963 the explorations were conducted jointly as a caving and archaeological project. The main bulk of the deposit appears to be Mesolithic, evidenced by the flint assemblage, but it appears that Windmill Hill type pottery, Later Neolithic vessels and Bronze Age pottery may also be present. Animal bone finds included Bos primigenius (Chris Hawkes pers comm). Little additional information is available at this stage.

Sun Hole (Tratman & Henderson 1927, Piggott 1936) The University of Bristol Spelaelogical Society excavated the cave between 1926-8 and 1951-4 (Figure 7.6). The cave had been disturbed by animals and earlier, unrecorded excavations. Underneath Roman and Iron Age deposits was a hearth, c.12" below the surface of the cave. According to the plan, this stretched from the platform at the mouth of the cave into the interior for c. 20ft, thinning out as it went back. Its was c.9ft wide and 9 - 12" thick. The hearth was described as compact, containing much wood ash. At the base of this feature was a sherd of possible Grooved Ware and 3 flint implements (not described). Stratified through the hearth were 100 sherds of pottery, representing at least 7 vessels, 3 of which were Beakers, the others unidentified. Also in the hearth were butchered animal bones, some partly calcined. Human bone was recovered, mainly grouped next to the east wall of the cave. 2 adults and 2 children were represented, mainly by teeth and skull fragments. It is not known whether the human bone is Neolithic or later in date, due to lack of direct associations and the mixed nature of the deposit. However, some of the bone was found in the hearth level, suggesting it might be Neolithic.

White Woman's Hole (Barrett & Boon 1972) The first excavations at this cave took place in the 1950s, when crude blackish pottery was discovered and handed into Wells Museum; however, a search in the 1970s was unable to trace it. The next excavations, from 1965-70, discovered a Roman coin counterfeiter's den. A small fragment of hand-made pottery, unstratified, was suggested to be possible Grooved Ware by Smith (Smith in Barrett & Boon 1972: 66). The cave had suffered badly from 'casual digging and animal disturbance', resulting in reverse stratigraphy in certain areas (Barrett & Boon 1972: 64). Summary Multiphase Caves (Early Neolithic - Beaker) 7 caves show evidence of more than one episode of deposition during the Neolithic - Beaker period (see Table 12). Rowberrow Cavern contains evidence of several episodes of use, evidenced by the Ebbsfleet Bowl, numerous hearths, Neolithic flints, the possible Beaker burial and Beaker pottery. However, the deposit is extremely disturbed and it is impossible to identify how many phases are present. The same is true for Totty Pot, which appears to have contained both Early and Late Neolithic pottery.

Much of the cultural material was found close to the entrance of the cave and, in some cases, just outside it. The bowl of a pottery spoon was found outside of the entrance, resting on the hearth (Piggott 1936). Associated with it were a 'fine' flint knife and a barbed and tanged arrowhead. The remainder of the flint assemblage found at the cave included 6 end scrapers, 3 side scrapers, 4 knives, 1 point, 1 borer, 2 barbed and tanged arrowheads, 1 leaf-shaped arrowhead, c.100 chips, 1 flint hammerstone and 1 limestone hammerstone. 2 bone points and 1 bone pin were also found. The hearth deposit was found to overlay a Pleistocene deposit comprised of faunal remains and Creswellian flint types.

Caves with Human Bone 12 caves contained human bone but 6 of these have to be excluded as it is not certain that the remains are Neolithic. Those excluded are: Bone Hole, Chelmscombe Cist, Little Shelter, Outlook Cave, Sun Hole and Totty Pot.

Tom Tivey's Hole (Barrett 1966) This site was excavated by the Mendip Nature Research Committee between 1958-61. Layer 3 was found to contain Neolithic deposits, at the top of which was a barbed and tanged arrowhead. This arrowhead was described as being on the same horizontal level, but in a different layer, to a perforated gold band. Layer 3 was described as clayey and very different from Layer 2 (Iron

Of the remaining 6 caves, 2 contain human remains dating to the Early Neolithic (Haywood Cave and Tom Tivey's Hole), 2 to the Beaker period (Beaker Shelter and Rowberrow Cavern) and 1 to a Late Neolithic phase, represented by Grooved Ware and Beaker (Cockles

121

Cave Bridged Pot Chelmscombe Cave Cockles Wood Lower Sun Hole Tom Tivey's Hole

1st Phase Early Neolithic? Early Neolithic Late Neolithic Early Neolithic Early Neolithic

2nd Phase Beaker Beaker Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age Beaker Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age

Table 12: Caves with visible secondary phases

Wood Lower). The human material from Chelmscombe is found in both the Early Neolithic and Beaker levels and the stratigraphy is disturbed, thus we cannot be sure whether it belongs to just one or both phases. Minimum Number of Individuals 28 individuals were interred at Haywood Cave but it is not known if they are all Early Neolithic, due to the disturbed nature of the deposit. Tom Tivey's Hole contained only 1 individual, an adult female. 4 individuals were represented at Beaker Shelter and the same number at Chelmscombe. The minimum number of individuals was not calculated for Rowberrow Cavern or Cockles Wood Lower. Grave Goods It is difficult to be certain whether those individuals interred in the above-mentioned caves were accompanied by grave goods, because of the mixed nature of the deposits and the general lack of stratigraphical information. Although not strictly a grave good in the common sense, a skull from Haywood Cave had a lump of ochre placed in its mouth. It is not certain that this is a Neolithic skull however. Tom Tivey's Hole, by contrast, is more straightforward to interpret. Here, the female burial was accompanied by a Windmill Hill vessel, a broken leaf-shaped arrowhead, several flints, a few sheep bones and a bone point (broken in half) and the tip of another. At Beaker Shelter, the 4 individuals were accompanied by a single sherd of Beaker pottery. At Rowberrow Cavern, the possible Beaker burial was associated with a fine flint knife, a polished bone laminae and 2 pieces of Beaker pottery. At Cockles Wood Lower, human bone was found in the same layers as Grooved Ware and Beaker pottery, animal bone and flints. It is difficult to say whether any of this represented a grave assemblage. Finally, at Chelmscombe, the human bone was again found over 2 layers, 1 Early Neolithic and 1 Beaker. The Early Neolithic phase contained 2 Windmill Hill vessels, flints, 2 bone points and a polished bone pin and animal bone (figure 7.7). The Beaker phase contained Beaker pottery and a sandstone rubber. There are similarities between the deposits from the early phase at Chelmscombe and Tom Tivey's Hole; human bone, Windmill Hill pottery, bone points, flints. It is thus possible that some of the items from Chelmscombe might have formed part of a grave assemblage.

Figure 7.7: Early Neolithic Assemblage from Chelmscombe (after Balch & Palmer 1927) Caves with Animal Bone Animal bone was recovered from known contexts in 5 caves: Chelmscombe (Layers 3 & 4), Cockles Wood Lower, Rowberrow Cavern, Sun Hole and Tom Tivey's Hole. In the latter case, a few sheep bones might have formed part of the Early Neolithic grave assemblage. At Rowberrow Cavern and Sun Hole, the bone was described as 'burnt', 'butchered' and 'calcined', seemingly representing food debris. The bone from Rowberrow included sheep or deer, pig and dog. At Chelmscombe, Bos longifrons, sheep/goat and pig are present, though there is no mention of bone being burnt (though these need not imply it was not). The bone from Cockles Wood was not described. Caves with Pottery The presence of pottery is our best way, albeit crude, of dating the deposits from caves in the absence of radiocarbon dates. 11 caves contained pottery, ranging from Windmill Hill ware to Beaker vessels: Cave Beaker Shelter Bone Hole Bridged Pot Chelmscombe

122

Type of pottery 1 sherd Beaker At least 1 'Wessex' Beaker (other pottery not identified) At least 1 Beaker 2 x complete Windmill Hill vessels (plus fragments of 4 others?) & 3 x Beaker pots

Cockles Wood Lower Tom Tivey's Hole Totty Pot Rowberrow Cavern Soldier's Hole Sun Hole White Woman's Hole

2 Beakers (rusticated and 'A' types) and at least 1 Grooved Ware vessel (figure 7.9) 1 x Windmill Hill vessel Early Neolithic? & Beaker? (numbers not known) 1 x Ebbsfleet Bowl (figure 7.8) & at least 5 Beakers At least 1 Grooved Ware vessel At least 1 Grooved Ware vessel and 3 Beakers Base of a pottery spoon 1 sherd of possible Grooved Ware

Caves with Hearths Hearths were recorded at 4 caves: Chelmscombe, Cockles Wood Lower, Rowberrow Cavern and Sun Hole. At Chelmscombe, the hearth was in Layer 3 and contained fragments of 3 Beakers and a sandstone rubber. Human bone and animal bone was also found at this level but might originally have derived from Layer 4. At Cockles Wood Lower, the middle layer contained the hearth. A round scraper and a flake were also found in this layer, along with human and animal bone. However, it is not stated in the report whether any of this material derived directly from the hearth, nor whether any of the bone was burnt. The Rowberrow Cavern report is a little more explicit, for it describes a hearth on the 'Cemented Floor' containing 2 Neolithic flints and burnt fragments of animal bone. Other hearths were also found at Rowberrow, but their contents not described. Finally, at Sun Hole a very large hearth deposit was encountered, stretching from the platform outside of the cave towards the back of the cave. This contained fragments of Grooved Ware and Beaker pottery3, calcined animal bone (showing evidence of butchery) and flint. Caves with Flint 11 caves contained flint items (excluding axe-heads that are dealt with below). Of the 11, further details are not available for 3 sites; Axbridge, Haywood and Little Shelter. Details for the remaining 8 are given below (Table 13).

Figure 7.8: Pottery from Rowberrow Cavern (after Taylor 1923)

Figure 7.10: Flints from Rowberrow Cavern (after Taylor 1925) Figure 7.9: Finds from Cockle’s Wood Lower (after Hickling & Seaby 1951)

3

As mentioned previously, the Grooved Ware was at the base of the hearth whilst the Beaker sherds were stratified throughout.

123

Figure 7.11: Flints from Rowberrow Cavern (after Taylor 1923) Cave

Arrowheads

Bridged Pot Chelmscombe - Layer 4 Cockles Wood - Lower Level - Middle Level Rowberrow Beaker burial? Neolithic hearth - 2nd Clay & Stones Soldier's Hole Sun Hole

Tom Hole

Tivey's

TOTALS

Scrapers

Knives

Disc. Knives

Borers/ Piercers

Flakes

Chips

Saws

Misc.

Yes (1) Yes (8) Yes (1) Yes (1)

Yes (1) Yes (1)

Yes (1 lozenge & 1 b & t)

Yes (1 leafshaped & 2 b & t) Yes (1 leafshaped & 1 b & t) 7

Yes (?)

Yes (?)

Yes (1)

Yes (2)

Yes (9)

Yes (5)

Yes (?)

Yes (2) Yes (?)

Yes (?)

Yes (2)

Yes (1) Yes (c. 100)

Yes (4) Yes (?)

20

9

2

?

3

100

1

5

Table 13: Flint Artefacts from Caves

Caves with Axe-Heads 3 caves contain axeheads: Bridged Pot, Outlook Cave and Soldier's Hole. 1 axehead was retrieved from Bridged Pot, made of greenstone. Outlook Cave contained 3; 1 of

millstone grit and 2 of polished stone, the type of stone not identified. The example from Soldier's Hole was of flint, partly polished.

124

and 'butchered'. Unfortunately, the condition of the bone was not described at Cockles Wood Lower and Chelmscombe. Animal bone is also commonly associated with pottery and flint.

Caves with Bone Artefacts Bone artefacts were recovered from Rowberrow Cavern, Chelmscombe, Sun Hole and Tom Tivey's Hole. The partly polished bone laminae from Rowberrow Cavern might have formed part of a Beaker grave assemblage, described above. The remaining 3 caves contain bone points and pins. At Tom Tivey's Hole, a (broken) bone point and the tip of another were recovered in association with the burial of an adult female, dating to the Early Neolithic. Chelmscombe and Sun Hole each contained 2 bone points and a bone pin. These might be part of a grave assemblage or alternatively, be an indication of the type of activities taking place within caves. Unfortunately, the stratigraphical information does not help substantiate either claim.

x

In five out of six cases, human bone was found with pottery. The next most common association was flint (four out of six).

x

It is rare for human bone to occur in the same levels as hearths; there are two exceptions to this but in both these cases the stratigraphy was mixed, suggesting that the two might not be contemporary.

x

The most common pottery type found in caves is Beaker (sherds representing at least 17 vessels from 8 caves), followed by Windmill Hill ware (sherds representing at least 8 vessels from 3 caves) Grooved Ware (sherds representing at least 4 vessels from 4 caves) and lastly, Ebbsfleet Ware (1 pot from 1 cave). Sometimes a complete, or nearly complete, pot is present and at other times only a single sherd. It is not possible to be any more specific than this because the excavation reports generally do not give any details beyond 'sherds'; only when a plate/figure is present is it possible to calculate whether a whole pot was found.

x

Scrapers are the most common tool type found in caves, followed by knives then arrowheads. Barbed and tanged are the most common form of arrowhead (4), followed by leaf (2) and lozenge (1). It is possible that both the leaf-shaped arrowheads formed part of Early Neolithic grave assemblages. The barbed and tanged arrowheads, by contrast, are not found with burials in caves, nor is the lozenge arrowhead.

Conclusions It is important to stress once again that nearly all of the caves had suffered disturbance by burrowing animals and occasional, illicit digging. This, combined with the generally poor standard of excavation, severely limits our interpretations; mixed stratigraphy and lack of contextual information does not allow for a detailed interrogation of the data, thus statistical testing is not possible. Nonetheless, using the seven categories of finds outlined above (human bone, animal bone, flints, pottery, axeheads, hearths, bone points), a few general statements can be made. x

All the finds occur in association with each other apart from axeheads. Axeheads have only been found in association with flint and pottery. The pottery with which they have been found is Later Neolithic (Grooved Ware at Soldier's Hole and Beaker at Bridged Pot) and the diagnostic flint work from Soldier's Hole (discoidal knives, knives and large scraper) also suggests a Late Neolithic date for deposition. It is interesting that at Brimble Pit Swallet (described below) an axehead was also found in possible association with Grooved Ware pottery.

x

Flint, pottery and animal bone are the most common finds from caves. Flint and pottery occur with everything and animal bone with everything but axeheads.

x

It is possible that bone points/pins and pottery might have formed part of Early Neolithic grave assemblages in caves. At Tom Tivey's Hole and Chelmscombe, bone points and pins were found with burials suggested to be Early Neolithic by the presence of Windmill Hill pottery. The bone points and pins from Sun Hole might also be part of an Early Neolithic burial assemblage, contemporary with the leaf-shaped arrowhead.

x

Caves and rockshelters on Mendip were used for a variety of purposes during the Neolithic, including burial, domestic activities and perhaps ritual. In the Early Neolithic, caves appear to have been used almost purely for burial, evidenced by Tom Tivey's Hole, Haywood Cave, Chelmscombe (Layer 4) and perhaps Sun Hole. Both single and group inhumations appear to have been practised and it seems that a limited range of goods were deposited with the dead. These goods included bone points and pins, Windmill Hill pottery, flints (including leaf-shaped arrowheads) and possibly animal bone. Hearths, indicative of 'domestic' activities, are never present. Some caves were thus suitable locales for burial and it is possible that they were viewed as alternatives to chambered tombs. In the Later Neolithic/Beaker period a change becomes apparent. Whilst some caves are used only for burial (Beaker Shelter), most become the focus for a greater range of activities. The evidence from Rowberrow Cavern and Sun Hole would appear to be indicative of domestic usage: hearths, burnt animal bone, a wide range

All of the caves containing hearths also had associated animal bones. At Rowberrow Cavern and Sun Hole the bone was described as 'burnt, 'calcined' 125

of flint tool types, flint chips (suggestive of tool preparation/maintenance), and pottery suggest occupation, either temporary or permanent. There is also possible evidence for special deposition and/or hoarding at Bridged Pot, Soldier' Hole and Outlook Cave. All 3 sites contained axeheads, the 2 former in conjunction with some very fine flintwork, including discoidal knives. Flint and stone suitable for these items had to be imported and generally, when no longer required, would be reworked into other tools. This, and their presence in caves containing no firm evidence of 'domestic' activities, suggests that these were not casual losses but deliberate deposits.

Swallets are formed by dissolutional activity and sometimes, very rarely, by ground collapse into an underlying cave system (Barrington & Stanton 1977: 222-223). Many swallets occur at the junction of the impermeable Old Red Sandstone and the free-draining limestone; water enters cracks & fissures in the limestone that become enlarged and form swallets. They also form in valley floors, dry valleys and where clay caps the limestone (ibid.). In the latter case, water will find leakage points in the clay, eventually causing a depression in the limestone into which the clay slumps. Swallets develop and deepen during warm interglacials but in ice ages they become filled and obliterated (ibid.). However, Mendip itself has never been overrun by ice. Swallets range in diameter from a few metres across to nearly 30 metres. It is difficult to gauge their true depth from surface observation as they become naturally infilled and can appear as shallow depressions, only a few metres or less in depth. Unfortunately, many have also been deliberately filled and levelled, a convenient dump for rusting farm machinery, cars, fridges and, undoubtedly, the ubiquitous shopping trolley. Castle Farm Swallet, near the Priddy Circles, has even been made into a garden feature. Nonetheless, excavation has shown that swallets can attain depths of at least 20 metres (Levitan et al. 1988).

Some of the caves also testament what appear to have been (repeated?) short-lived visits. Axbridge, Chelmscombe Layer 3 and White Woman's Hole might be of this type. Other caves seem to defy simple categorisation, such as Cockles Wood Lower, but this is probably due to the disturbed nature of the deposits. Caves are very special features in the northern Somerset landscape and were utilised throughout the Neolithic. It appears the nature of this usage changes through time and it is possible that they lost some of their 'sanctity' by the late Neolithic period. This is of interest as it might be linked to the increasing use of swallets for ritual activities in the same period, swallets becoming of similar or more importance than caves as 'sacred spaces' in the landscape. These ideas will be explored in more detail below. Swallets: Formation and Description4

It will be argued here that swallets were a distinctive feature of the Mendip landscape during the Neolithic and Bronze Ages and that some were used in very particular ways. Two sites will be discussed here: Charterhouse Warren Farm Swallet and Brimble Pit Swallet.

Swallets are a local name for the closed depressions that are one of the most common karstic features (Taylor 1998). These closed depressions are also known as dolines and sinkholes, though all of these terms have a genetic meaning. This chapter will refer to closed depressions as swallets, as this is the term by which all features of this type are locally known. However, it should be appreciated that the term "swallet" in this context does not imply uniformity of geological formation.

Charterhouse Warren Farm Swallet Charterhouse Warren Farm Swallet was excavated between 1972-6 and 1983-6, by the University of Bristol Spelaeological Society (Everton 1974, Everton 1975, Everton & Everton 1977, Levitan et al. 1988, Levitan et al 1989). Though originally excavated as part of cave exploration, the discovery of human bones led to archaeological advice being sought. The published report of the work considers exploration, geomorphology, taphonomy and archaeology (Levitan et al. 1988).

Swallets occur in their thousands over the Mendip plateau. Upon excavation, many have revealed themselves as vertical shafts in the limestone. It is important to distinguish those closed depressions that are man-made from those that are natural. The man-made examples are a result of mining and quarrying and are usually distinguishable by their irregular form and the presence of spoil around them. Once these are discounted, it is probable that the remaining examples are all natural.

The swallet is on the west side of a dry valley feeding into Velvet Bottom (ibid.:172). It was necessary to shore the swallet (known as the Entrance Shaft) as it eventually proved to be 21m deep. In the early Neolithic the shaft would have been open from top to bottom. A side passage was also encountered near the top of the shaft, opening into a series of chambers, though there is little evidence that these were accessed in prehistory. This whole complex was found to form part of a major system directing water from Black Down to the resurgences at Cheddar (ibid.: 199).

4

The stratigraphy of the Entrance Shaft was not recorded in great detail but the fill was divided into two main zones: the upper 6m (subdivided into three horizons) and

A more detailed version of this discussion about swallets is now published: Lewis, J. 2000. Upwards at 45 degrees: the use of vertical caves during the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age on Mendip, Somerset. Capra 2 available at – http://www.shef.ac.uk/~capra/2/upwards.html.

126

Figure 7.12: East-West Section of Charterhouse Warren Farm Swallet (after Levitan et al 1988)

Figure 7.13 North-South Section of Charterhouse Warren Farm Swallet (after Levitan et al 1988) 127

by c.5m of stony deposit (Horizon 3). If such materials were to accumulate naturally, a considerable timespan is implied. Stanton (1989) examined the stone boulders that make up the deposit and argued that these are not boulders that were derived from the sides of the swallet nor did they come from the surrounding field. Rather, he argued, the stones had been collected from elsewhere and deliberately placed in the swallet, sealing Horizon 4. This would also negate the need for a long period to have passed whilst the stones ‘naturally’ accumulated and explain the apparent similarity in age of the artefacts in Horizons 4 and 2. Dating of material from Horizons 4 and 2 confirmed Stanton’s argument showing them to be of similar dates: a human scapula from Horizon 2 produced a date in the range of 2460-2240 cal BC whilst a human femur from Horizon 4 produced a date in the range of 2460-1995 cal BC (Levitan & Smart 1989: 391). As Stanton argued, stones were being collected from elsewhere and used to separate the lower deposits in Zone 2 of the Entrance Shaft. Why this might have happened shall be returned to after discussion of a second site, Brimble Pit Swallet.

the lower 15m (subdivided into four horizons) (figures 7.12 & 7.13). Description of Archaeological Zones and Horizons at Charterhouse Warren Farm Swallet ZONE 1 Horizons a - c (0 to -6m): Poorly recorded but known to have contained pottery and the remains of at least 28 individuals of Iron Age and Romano-British date. It should be noted that these remains were recovered in the original area of excavation (to the north of the shoring line); it is uncertain whether the remains extended to the south of the shoring line as there are no records of the excavation of the top 6m (Levitan et al. 1988: 200). ZONE 2 Horizon 1 (-6 to -14.9m). Largely composed of cleanwashed boulders. Again, poorly recorded, although auroch bones at a depth of -11m were noted. These have been dated, providing a date in the range of 1620 - 1430 cal BC. The horncore shows evidence of butchery (Everton 1975).

Brimble Pit Swallet Brimble Pit Swallet lies in a closed basin, near the southern flank of Mendip. Such closed basins on Mendip represent former Pleistocene lakes (W.Stanton, pers. comm.). The swallet was excavated by William Stanton between 1991 & 1992 for spelaeological purposes (figure 7.14). However, archaeological material was discovered, leading Stanton to separate the deposits he was removing and examine them for archaeological material. As at Charterhouse Warren Farm Swallet, this was not an archaeological excavation so there are no exact details on stratigraphy and context. However, enough information was provided to know approximately from where in the sequence material was recovered and this data is currently being analysed by the author (Lewis et al. forthcoming).

Horizon 2 (-14.9 to -15.6m). A heavy clay layer, giving way to a stony layer, containing human and animal bone. The human bone was disarticulated and many bones had cut marks near their articulation points. A Beaker vessel, complete up to its neck, and 2 sherds of another Beaker were found at a depth of -15.47m. The upper part of the Beaker was destroyed by the shoring of the shaft. Horizon 3 (-15.6m to -20.05m). Composed of more clean washed stones and clay bands. At depths of -17.7m and -19.4m cattle bones were recovered. At -18.8m, two sherds of pottery, probably Grooved Ware, were found. Horizon 4 (-20.05m to -20.79m). Clean washed stones giving way to a clay layer. Juvenile human bones were recovered, along with animal bones, five ‘sponge finger’ stones, a highly polished black pebble, two hammer stones, a bone pin, an antler spatula, a flint dagger (figure 7.16) and eighteen other flint implements.

Brimble Pit Swallet was found to contain two entrance shafts: the northern and southern shafts (figure 7.14). The northern shaft had been previously excavated in 1957, but there are no records of the discovery of archaeological material. However, a re-exploration by Stanton saw the recovery of a polished greenstone axehead, in perfect condition (figure 7.15). There is little to suggest this object was ever used for practical purposes (Mullin 1998). The southern shaft was excavated by Stanton to a depth of -8 metres and found to contain over 200 pieces of flint, animal bones showing evidence of butchery, human bone and 42 sherds of Grooved Ware pottery. The analysis of the site is still underway (Lewis et al. forthcoming) but it would appear that this is another example of a swallet being used as a receptacle for deliberate deposition. It is possible to make preliminary statements about some of the material.

Comment on Charterhouse Warren Farm Swallet The archaeological material poses many interesting questions, the most obvious being how did it get there? If the material derived accidentally (e.g. by erosion or other taphonomic processes) the artefacts and bone would be abraded in some manner and they are not. If the swallet was used as a rubbish pit, the artefacts would show evidence of a 20m drop, most especially the complete Beaker vessel. Yet they do not. The conclusion reached by Levitan et al., supported here, is that the material represents deliberate human emplacement. Interestingly, the archaeological deposits in Horizon 2 and those in Horizon 4 are typologically of a similar age, yet separated

128

Neolithic - Early Bronze Age date. Breadth:length ratio analysis has also been carried out on the complete flakes and it has been found that 56% have ratios over 4:5, conforming quite well with the ratios found at the West Kennet Avenue (Smith 1965: 90) and the Late Neolithic Grimes Graves 1971 shaft (Saville 1981: 44).

Description of Archaeological Material from Brimble Pit Swallet The Pottery The 42 sherds of Grooved Ware pottery are extremely important to analyses of the Neolithic of Somerset as it is the largest assemblage yet recovered. It would appear two vessels are represented, with one showing a combination of Clacton and Durrington Walls substyles (Lewis and Stanton forthcoming). This is very rare and will be discussed in the forthcoming article on Brimble Pit Swallet (ibid.). Although the vessels are not complete the edges of the sherds are very fresh and the surfaces are unabraded. This suggests that they were actually deposited in the swallet, rather than arriving there by weathering or other natural processes. Grooved Ware is often found in special or ‘ritual’ contexts (Cleal & McSween 1999). Indeed, at Charterhouse Warren Farm Swallet, two sherds of Grooved Ware were found in Horizon 3.

The following species are represented by the animal bone assemblage: domestic dog, domestic pig, domestic sheep or goat, domestic cattle, aurochs and red deer (Tom Lord pers. comm.). Some of these bones show evidence of butchery and evidence of carnivore damage to the bones is slight. The animal bones are still in the process of being analysed by Tom Lord and the above represent the first preliminary comments.

The Human Bone The human bone is comprised of an adult skull, probably male, and several small fragments of rib and radius (K. Robson Brown pers. comm.). The skull is not complete, most obviously missing mandibular bone. Lord suggests that the skull was placed in the swallet after the decay of the tissue attaching the mandible to the cranium, implying prior curation and storage of the corpse (Tom Lord pers. comm.). This also suggests deliberate selection of body parts for deposition as no other human material was present in the swallet and recovery rates of even small fragments of material was very high. The Axehead The polished axehead (figure 7.15) is from the northern shaft, whereas the rest of the material is from the southern shaft. However, more material may have existed in the northern shaft but was not noticed or recorded during the 1957 excavation. The axehead appears to be of polished greenstone and is in perfect condition, showing no evidence of either being used or of damage resulting from being thrown down a 10m deep, narrow, rocky shaft. The Stones As at Charterhouse Warren Farm Swallet, Brimble Pit Swallet was found to contain non-local stones; stones not derived from the sides of the swallet or from the surrounding field (Lewis et al. forthcoming).

Figure 7.14: Sketch Section of Brimble Pit Swallet

The Flint and Animal Bone The flint and animal bone from the site are the subject of special reports, not yet complete. However, it is possible to make some preliminary comments.

Comment on Brimble Pit Swallet The combined evidence from Brimble Pit Swallet - the unabraded pottery sherds, the special nature of the pottery, the pristine axehead, the selection of human body parts and the presence of non-local stones - would once again indicate ‘special’ deposition in a ‘special’ place. It is uncertain at Brimble Pit Swallet if the stone boulders were dumped between artefact rich horizons, as at

Two hundred and ten pieces of flint were recovered. The retouched component comprised a barbed and tanged arrowhead, a petit tranchet derivative arrowhead and four retouched flakes, all of which might indicate a Late

129

Figure 7.15: Axehead from Brimble Pit Swallet pits. The inclusion of non-local stone boulders is also of interest. It is important to consider where the stone was coming from, as, on Mendip thin soils with readily available stones only occur in limited areas (Stanton 1989). If the stones were uncovered during agricultural activities (clearing land/ploughing) and regarded as 'rubbish', why go to the trouble of carrying them to a distant hole to dispose of them? Stanton (1989) argues it would have made more sense to place them in field corners or along their boundaries if disposal was the only intention. He sees their incorporation into swallets as connected with religious practices rather than agriculture (Stanton 1989: 397). Perhaps depositing these stones in swallets was a way of symbolically returning them to the earth from which they had been taken. There is no record of such stones being found in caves, suggesting that swallets were being utilised in rituals separate from those that might have taken place in caves. It is possible that all the materials placed within the swallets were ‘offerings’, acts of appeasement to mythical gods or ancestors to counteract the necessary removal of things from the earth (stones/crops/timber). In this way, swallets on Mendip could have been fulfilling a very specific function.

Charterhouse Warren Farm Swallet, but it is a distinct possibility. The similarities between the two sites are unavoidable: both contained human and animal bone, both contained Grooved Ware pottery sherds, both contained fine flint and stone artefacts and both contained non-local stones. It is necessary to explore what the significance of swallets might have been in the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age periods on Mendip. Discussion The geological make-up of Mendip has led to the formation of a landscape unique in southern England. It is a landscape very different from the neighbouring chalk, containing gorges and coombes, caves and swallets. This is a landscape full of special and somewhat mysterious places. Ritual activity is documented through monuments and also through deposition in some of these 'special places', caves and swallets. It is difficult to imagine how prehistoric populations would have explained swallets. Not only can they open virtually overnight but many make very strange noises due to water percolation - gurgling, rumbling and echoing. They could not be entered easily. Whereas caves tend to involve a horizontal descent into their depths, swallets have to be entered vertically, probably aided by ropes and ladders. Descending a swallet is truly an entering of the earth, undoubtedly a somewhat unusual experience. Some of the deposits in swallets represent a deliberate emplacement, deliberate intent on the part of prehistoric populations to access these places. The artefacts deposited show no sign of the damage that would have occurred if they had been simply thrown in.

Several interesting links may also be made between Mendip monuments and swallets. Stanton noted that a round barrow 1,100m east of Charterhouse Warren Farm Swallet appeared to be formed mainly of stones like those in the Entrance Shaft (Stanton 1989: 397). Research by the author shows that many of the round barrows on Mendip contain stone boulders in at least part of their makeup; barrows may be formed entirely of stone, or contain a primary cairn with a turf capping or be earthen mounds with simple stone kerbs. Excavations over the last two hundred years have yielded little evidence of ditches surrounding barrows, suggesting the mound material was derived from elsewhere. The similarities

The materials placed in the swallets are significant human bone, fine artefacts and animal bone. These are types of material that occur in differing combinations in other contexts, such as mortuary monuments, henges and

130

Mendip. Why would this be so if the swallets did not have some ‘special’ significance? It is suggested here that the Circles were located where they are precisely because of the high density of swallets, the artificial monuments drawing on the associations of a natural 'ritual' landscape. It seems very likely that the swallets would have been employed in rituals taking place within the circles, possibly used for ‘hidden’ ceremonies and/or deposition of artefacts. Certainly, the excavation of swallets within the Circles could well yield very interesting results.

between certain round barrows and certain swallets are intriguing, with both containing human remains and ‘collected’ stones. However, whilst most of the excavated round barrows seem to contain cremations or occasionally, complete inhumations, the human remains within swallets are disarticulated. In the case of Charterhouse Warren Farm Swallet, the human remains even showed cutmarks near their articulation points. Such practices seem more reminiscent of Early Neolithic burial practices than Early Bronze Age ones, a point also noted by Levitan et al. (1988: 233). Yet it may be that the same ranges of materials were being employed in different ways for different rituals; those in swallets concerned with appeasing gods/ancestors and those in round barrows concerned with living/dead individuals. Alternatively, we may be witnessing the exact time of the transition from one type of burial practice to another, with the manipulation of disarticulated remains gradually becoming obsolete as burial/cremation of complete individuals takes over.

Conclusion This discussion has shown that certain swallets were used for rituals involving the deposition of human remains during the Late Neolithic on Mendip. Other artefacts were also deposited, including animal bone, flint, stone and bone tools and deliberately incorporated stone boulders. The range of materials and the nature of deposition is best paralleled in Neolithic and Early Bronze Age monuments and links between swallets and monuments certainly seem likely. Significantly, it is argued that whilst caves and swallets are thought of as similar geological features today, in prehistory they may have been utilised in different ways. Swallets are natural monuments in the Mendip landscape and appear to have had a very special meaning to prehistoric populations.

Recently, Tilley has argued how the round barrows of the South Dorset Ridgeway may, in certain ways, be emulating the dolines that occur along the chalk ridgeway (Tilley 1999). In this light it is noteworthy that Mendip has one of the highest concentrations of round barrows in England, comparable to the large nucleations at Avebury, Stonehenge and the South Dorset Ridgeway (Grinsell 1971, Lewis 1996). Most of Mendip's round barrows are clustered on the West Mendip plateau and explanations for this have traditionally focused on the suitability of the area for transhumance; the barrows guarding and perhaps staking a claim to this territory. Yet it is the plateau that also has the highest concentration of swallets on Mendip. At present it appears almost impossible to speculate on the spatial relationship between the two, as swallets occur both accompanied and unaccompanied by round barrows and it is very difficult to be sure whether those close to barrows pre- or post-date the monuments. However, it may yet prove possible to establish links between the two, as this discussion hopefully demonstrates.

The evidence from Mendip may fit into a wider, national, picture of structured deposition within vertical shafts, as evidenced by material recovered from the Ryedale Windypits (Hayes 1987) and other sites. At Slip Gill Windypit a complete Handled Beaker was found on a ledge 20m down a vertical cave and appears to have been deliberately placed there (ibid.). The shaft also contained fragments of two human skulls and animal bones. Human skulls, Beaker pottery and flint tools have also recovered from Antofts, Buckland’s and Ashberry Windypits (Hayes 1987). On the chalk of Cranborne Chase, material appears to have been deliberately placed within natural shafts, as at Fir Tree Field, Down Farm (Green 1994). Here Beaker material was recovered from the upper layers of a natural shaft at least 7m deep. Peterborough Ware, polished flint axes and other lithic material was also recovered from lower down the shaft which appears to have been open since the Early Neolithic.

This discussion of monuments and swallets on Mendip must finish with the Priddy Circles. These are four large henge-type enclosures, located centrally on the West Mendip plateau. The land on which they sit is riddled with holes, long assumed to be mine workings. This assumption probably dates back to at least the early 19th century when the Circles were ‘re-discovered’ by the local antiquarian the Rev. John Skinner, accompanied by Sir Richard Colt-Hoare. Skinner described the hollows as mining and indeed explained all the Mendip swallets in such terms. However, a close examination and survey of the hollows by Stanton has shown that in fact nearly all are natural swallets and not mine workings (Stanton 1986). Stanton was also able to demonstrate that most of the swallets are of considerable antiquity, being older than the Circles. This has astounding implications as it suggests that the Priddy Circles were constructed in an area with one of the highest concentrations of swallets on

Indeed, it is tempting to link these natural shafts with the construction of artificial shafts. The sinking of artificial shafts is known throughout England and mainland Europe during the Iron Age and Roman periods and these have been interpreted as a means of access to the beings of the underworld (Ashbee et al. 1989: 150). The excavation of Wilsford Shaft, Normanton Down, Wiltshire revealed that the sinking of shafts may well originate in the Early Bronze Age. At Wilsford Shaft, a monument previously interpreted as a simple pond barrow was found to cover an artificial shaft, 30m deep

131

Neolithic and Early Bronze Age but has, until now, remained a relatively poorly understood and neglected area of study. The relationship between natural features such as swallets and monuments has also been relatively neglected (but see Tilley 1999, Bradley 2000) and is an area deserving further investigation. The evidence from Wilsford Shaft may well substantiate the claim made here for a link between round barrows and shafts, be they natural or artificial. The artificial shafts could also have been mimicking natural shafts and it is likely that they were used for similar practices. It appears then that there existed in Britain, from at least the Late Neolithic, a ritual practice that has gone almost unrecognised; the deposition of artefacts within vertical shafts. That this may be the beginnings of a chthonic cult, previously thought to be of Iron Age origin, is worthy of further consideration.

and 1.8m in diameter (ibid.: 133). A range of deposits were recovered, the earliest being Bronze Age in date, comprising a shale ring, amber beads and bone pins, along with animal bone and organic materials. Ashbee argued that the ring, beads and pins should be interpreted as votive deposits, of a type similar to those found as grave furniture in Wessex in the Early Bronze Age (ibid.: 137). He stresses that there is a very strong possibility that many shafts may exist adjacent to the major round barrow cemeteries of Wessex and that the chthonic 'cult' of the Iron Age and Roman periods may well have a much earlier origin (ibid.: 136-137). The comparisons that can be drawn between the use of natural shafts and the construction and use of artificial shafts is very strong indeed. The use of natural shafts as ‘natural monuments’ may have been a widespread phenomena in the British

Figure 7.16: Flint Dagger from Charterhouse Warren Farm Swallet (after Levitan et al 1988)

132

Chapter Eight: Domesticating the Landscape?The Evidence of Lithic Scatters "How and where did the Mendip folk obtain their flint?" (Wicks 1920: 24).

Analyses of Neolithic settlement patterns appear to be destined for failure, judging by the current archaeological literature. Long-held notions of the Neolithic equating permanent settlement and rolling arable fields have been discarded in favour of approaches which focus on Neolithic societies as highly mobile and that do not expect to find traces of substantial domestic buildings (Thomas 1991, 1999, Barrett 1994, Edmonds 1999). It is undeniable that this has been of great benefit, advancing Neolithic 'settlement' studies dramatically and rightly questioning simplistic models. Yet it appears there is now a danger of replacing one basic model with another; the sedentary farmers of old have become wandering nomads, seemingly without any place to call home. When considering Neolithic settlement it must be appreciated that this was not a single unified period; patterns of settlement undoubtedly changed through time, influenced by issues of ownership and territoriality, food and resource availability, social relations and regional choices. Faced with such issues, to quote Pollard "...it is not surprising that so many narratives on the Neolithic are constructed around the archaeology of monuments..". (Pollard 1999: 77).

Whilst it would be overly simplistic to argue that northern Somerset contains no lithic resources, it is a fact that it is an area where there is very little naturally occurring flint. Beaches and river gravels are potential sources for this material but appear to have been utilised on only a very small, localised, scale in contrast to the preceding Mesolithic period. Most of the flint that was used in the Neolithic was imported into the region, and appears to have come from a variety of locations. This is suggested by the very diverse nature of the material, from black flint redolent of that from Beer in Devon, through to the blues, greys and honey coloured materials probably imported from Wessex and perhaps further afield. Cherts too were exploited, though never on the same scale as flint. This is interesting as the area contains its own supplies of chert; greensand chert in the Frome valley, chert exposed in the cliffs of Burrington Combe and once again, supplies from river gravels and beaches. Wicks noted the (limited) utilisation of these materials when he stated that "there is evidence that they endeavoured to find a substitute (for flint)" (Wicks 1920: 25). However, cherts from outside the region were also utilised such as Portland Chert and chert from the Blackdown Hills in south Somerset. Most of the imported materials were undoubtedly superior to the locally available supplies and this could explain their dominance. Moreover, the importation of non-local supplies may also be indicative of changing social practices and new social networks, a conscious break with 'old' practices and an affirmation of the importance of 'new' contacts. Flint from Wessex or Devon was not only of better quality than local supplies but also bespoke new ties and obligations.

It is not the intention of this work to analyse in detail the sedentary/mobility arguments surrounding Neolithic settlement. Elements of both arguments appear to have relevance and, as suggested above, settlement patterns could have changed from generation to generation. There is some evidence from northern Somerset for cereal cultivation in the Neolithic, noted in Chapter Two. As Whittle says "...one notes the obstinate recurrencedespite premature reports of its demise- of evidence for cereal cultivation in an Earlier Neolithic context" (Whittle 1992: 429). However, most evidence for 'nonritual' activity in northern Somerset takes the form of lithic scatters. Lithic scatters, representing permanent settlement, favoured locales or simply ploughed-out middens, dominate the domestic record, in common with the rest of Britain. It is these classes of evidence that form this final consideration of the Neolithic in northern Somerset.

Flint collection has been a popular pursuit in northern Somerset for at least the last 200 years. However, interest in the retrieval of lithics really took off in the early 20th century, especially in the Mendip region, when members of societies such as the Mendip Nature Research Committee (MNRC) took to the fields in search of interesting oddities. Balch noted this new obsession when he noted "Each season sees some notable addition... till we almost look upon the area [Mendip] as an inexhaustible mine" (Balch 1914: 31). Unfortunately, much of the material that was collected remained either in private possession and has subsequently disappeared or entered museums with details such as "from Mendip", "near Priddy" or "near Wells". From the records of local societies it is apparent that many thousand flints, if not hundreds of thousands, were collected and recorded in this way, with no way of knowing which fields they were taken from. Particularly frustrating are notes such as; "In the past four or five years that field has yielded thousands of flints of all kinds..." (Balch 1910: 39), when there is no record of which field is being discussed. Much of the

Lithic Scatters "To the student and collector of the so-called Neolithic flint implements, the Mendips offer certain disadvantages. His most favourable hunting-grounds lie South, East and North among the Wolds and Downs of Dorset, Wilts, Sussex, Yorkshire and elsewhere...Yet over these rivals the Mendips possess two great advantages... firstly, that among material of a different nature, flints, if present, are easy to find, and secondly, when found, their association with prehistoric man can scarcely be questioned." (Wicks 1920: 23).

133

collection that was done in the early part of the 20th century concentrated on the southern flanks of the Mendip Hills, especially those areas close to Wells which at the time was accessible by train. Balch noted that the Wells - Wookey - Priddy area formed a triangle which was particularly favoured for fieldwalking as it was known to yield thousands of implements (Balch 1914). He describes it as a small area "from which so many good things have come" (ibid.:31). Many of these finds are in local museums such as Wells, Axbridge, Taunton and Bristol but are of little use to the serious researcher due to lack of provenance.

published accounts from local journals, unpublished archives and the new fieldwalking results gathered as part of this study, it has proved possible to identify the main lithic scatters from northern Somerset. Details of actual numbers are often lacking and thus scatters recorded as 'large' and 'extensive' have been included but individual finds or finds of only a few items have been excluded. The latter undoubtedly form part of a background scatter of material which occurs in all areas that were exploited by lithic-using populations (Holgate 1985: 51) In total 65 scatters with grid references have been identified for northern Somerset, containing between 50 and 6000 items. A further 131 axeheads have been recorded as surface finds, 82 of stone and 49 of flint. Most of the axeheads were single finds and have a wider distribution than the flint scatters. Schofield suggests that extractive tool types, such as axe and arrowheads occur across a wider hunting and foraging domain than 'settlement' (Schofield 1994: 91): this could explain the wide distribution of these items within the region. The dominance of axeheads as 'spotfinds' means that they tell us less about settlement patterns and more about general landscape utilisation in the Neolithic. For this reason they will not be considered here but their distribution is plotted on figure 8.1, illustrating that they have been found almost everywhere in northern Somerset, with seeming concentrations on Mendip and in the west of the study area.

As the 20th century progressed, collection by archaeologists and amateurs continued to be of varying quality. Many never reported their findings, others did but with vague referencing whilst the very best noted the National Grid Reference. The work of Ann Everton, Brian Hack and Bob Williams is particularly noteworthy, as items were generally provenanced and some very highquality research was carried out. However, in some cases the plotting from where in the field items were found was not undertaken and thus the distribution of items and identification of concentrations is still largely unknown. The only systematic large-scale fieldwalking project to be undertaken within the study area (prior to this research) was the "Priddy Plateau Project", conducted from 19721977 by Taylor and Smart of Liverpool University. This project involved fieldwalking as much as possible of a 4 x 4 km area around Priddy on West Mendip, but unfortunately the results are still not fully published (Taylor & Smart 1983) and the finds unavailable for study.

Due to the sheer volume of material, it is impossible to consider each of the 65 flint scatters and therefore this chapter will be selective. Only those scatters found close to Neolithic monuments will be considered, for reasons that will be made clear below. Before these case studies are detailed, a few preliminary statements about the whole database can be made.

As part of this research, substantial amounts of material from Wells Museum has been studied, analysed and in some cases published (see Lewis 1998) but in general, it proved more useful to undertake new episodes of fieldwalking, all carried out in the same way: the gridding of entire fields into 20m squares, total collection in each square and then subsequent analysis and the drawing up of distributions. This way, a degree of standardisation was in operation and the results stood up to more detailed interrogation. The fieldwalking that has been carried out as part of this research is of great value as the materials form the largest, best provenanced collections from northern Somerset. Not all can be detailed here due to space restrictions; those that are not form the basis of several forthcoming articles. Whilst fieldwalking may be notorious for generating more questions than answers, it is undeniable that it is one of the only ways of examining Neolithic landscapes, without recourse to monuments. To attempt to interpret the Neolithic utilisation of landscape it is vital to examine all the evidence and thus after examining monuments, pits and caves, it is lithic scatters that remain to be considered in this study.

Retaining those landscape divisions outlined in Chapter Two it is possible to identify where collecting has dominated. Of the 65 scatters, 2 are from the Failand Ridge, 2 are from the northern Somerset lowlands, 3 are from the coastal belt, 4 are from the Chew Valley, 13 are from East Mendip and 41 are from West Mendip (Table 14). This highlights the dominance of collecting on West Mendip, to the detriment of the rest of the study area. The reasons for this have been touched on above. Mendip has been a favourite hunting ground for over a century and it is likely that this established a selffulfilling prophecy in which Mendip was known to be good for collecting, thus people interested in collecting went to Mendip. The most active groups and societies have been, and still are, linked to Mendip and more fieldwork has been carried out here. The question that is almost unanswerable is whether Mendip really is the hotspot it appears: are there really more flint scatters on Mendip than elsewhere in northern Somerset or is it simply a collection bias? The overwhelming emphasis on collecting on West Mendip suggests the latter.

Flint Scatters from Northern Somerset. Using information from three SMR databases (Somerset, North Somerset, Bath and North-East Somerset),

134

135 135

Figure 8.1: Distribution of Axehead Finds. © Crown Copyright/database Right 2005. An Ordnance Survey/ EDINA supplied service.

Area within northern Somerset Failand Ridge North Somerset Lowlands Coastal Belt Chew Valley East Mendip West Mendip TOTAL

Number of recorded scatters 2 2 3 4 13 41 65

Table 14: The Provenance of Flint Scatters from Northern Somerset

diagnostic items allow us to tie a scatter down to at best 'Mesolithic, 'Early Neolithic', 'Late Neolithic' and 'Bronze Age'. Such periods cover millennia and may also represent repeated episodes of deposition. The finding of one barbed and tanged arrowhead does not make a whole scatter Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age. Of the 65 scatters considered, 11 contain material representative of all three periods, 4 contain Mesolithic and Neolithic material and 29 contain Neolithic and Bronze Age material (Table 15). There are 17 instances of only Neolithic material being found and 1 of only Bronze Age material being recovered. Even those supposedly 'pure' sites often contain evidence of more than one episode of deposition, for example the finding of leaf-shaped arrowheads and petit-tranchet derivative arrowheads in Neolithic scatters. Such mixing of scatters creates difficulties, though the identification of concentrations within fields allows the possibility of contemporaneity to be addressed. However, the actions of post-depositional processes must also be taken into account as these can create artificial concentrations.

Also at work however are other factors. Firstly, the valleys of northern Somerset suffer from the effects of alluviation and colluviation and thus undoubtedly hide 'archaeology', including flint scatters. Work by Paul Davies on the environmental sequences at the junction of the uplands and lowlands in the vicinity of Cheddar has revealed that the prehistoric land surface can be buried under several metres of deposits (Paul Davies pers. comm.). This has serious implications for those studying the prehistoric landscape as much of the information required to understand lowland exploitation is hidden. Other factors include the availability of ploughed fields to walk; northern Somerset is predominantly used for pasture and there are not large areas available to study. Many of the ploughed fields in the river valleys suffer the effects of alluviation and colluviation, as already stated, and this too creates a self-fulfilling prophecy, for if people do not find flint in such areas they quickly gain a reputation for being empty of flint. The fields of West Mendip have another advantage too, in that the predominance of stone-free Brown Soils over the area make collecting easier as there is little other lithic material in which flint is disguised. The soils of the Dundry ridge, by contrast, are full of pieces of oolite which do not provide such an attractive prospect to the flint hunter. Similarly, the soils of East Mendip contain more stone than those of West Mendip and are not such an 'easy' target, though fieldwalking here has produced fruitful results. Much of the Failand Ridge is either treecovered or laid to pasture, thus hindering work in this area, though there is evidence for the exploitation of the lower southern slopes from at least the Mesolithic period onwards.

An analysis of the contents of the 65 scatters was carried out, using the available literature about the sites. This information is summarised in Tables 19 & 20, at the end of this chapter. A minimum number of categories was selected which covered all the finds referred to in the available literature. This literature included SMR file entries, published records and unpublished archive material. Using information available for 58 of the 65 sites, it is possible to calculate the most commonly identified components of flint scatters. 90% of the 58 scatters are described as containing scrapers, 67% contain arrowheads, 67% contain flakes, 52% contain blades, 52% contain flakes with miscellaneous retouch, 48% contain cores/core related pieces, 42% contain axehead fragments, 40% contain knives, 31% contain points (including awls, piercers, points and gravers), 31% contain burnt flint, 28% contain edge-damaged flakes, 29% contain chips, 22% contain denticulate flakes, 14% contain projectile points, 9% contain nodule pieces and 5% contain picks.

Thus it is apparent that there are natural and cultural reasons for the dominance of lithic collection on West Mendip. Unfortunately, as has been stressed, this dominance has not really resulted in a better level of understanding because of the lack of controlled projects, with most work undertaken by amateur collectors with varying levels of commitment to analysis, reporting and publication. It is for these reasons that new projects have been undertaken, which will be detailed in due course. The Dating of the Flint Scatters

Whilst these calculations provide some very raw statistics, caution must be exercised in using them. Due to time and space constrictions it has not been possible to

A fundamental problem with flint scatters is determining which periods are represented; only the presence of

136

physically examine each of these 58 scatters; instead information has been taken from the available records. These records do not detail every flint within a scatter; for example a typical SMR entry or published archaeological note might read "large scatter of Neolithic flint, including scrapers and arrowheads". Thus, it appears that only the most obvious flint types have been differentiated from the rest of the scatter. The remainder of the scatter might also contain burnt flints, flakes, blades, chips, cores etc, which have simply not been mentioned, as these are the 'uninteresting' or 'common' parts of a scatter that do not merit a mention. Unless the scatters have been carefully analysed and reported, it is unwise to read too much into results proclaiming that scrapers are the most common flint find in northern Somerset. Research carried out both inside and outside the study-area suggests that retouched items generally only constitute c.10% of an assemblage and therefore waste flakes, chips etc should in fact be the most commonly found items to occur within the study area. Date Mesolithic/Neolithic Neolithic Neolithic/Bronze Age Bronze Age All periods

(with some notable exceptions). Arrowheads, knives, axeheads, scrapers - these are all traditionally 'desirable' items that are actively searched for, to the detriment of less 'exciting' pieces. An example of this is shown in the following quote, referring to the work of the enthusiastic collector Alfred Selley, active in the early 20th century: "Selley's examination, however, tended to be selective. He used...to pick up everything he saw. At the end of his search he would look over each piece and put the best of his haul into a wooden box fixed to the handlebars of his cycle. The rest he would dump just inside the field." (Sykes 1976: 202). Beware concentrations along field boundaries! The above remarks illustrate that it is only controlled surveys that can be confidently used for assessing the composition of scatters, as total collection of all flint would have been in operation. However, the sixty-five scatters can be used in another way, for when looking at them at a macro-level, it is apparent that flints are found over most parts of the region. Although there are many more scatters in the uplands, for reasons outlined above, there are no major topographical parts of the landscape in which flints are not found. The blanks in the distribution that do exist are more likely to be the result of natural and cultural processes, than the lack of a Neolithic presence. Deposits of estuarine alluvium, for example, may mask the Neolithic land surfaces of the levels and moors but borehole samples can sometimes include cultural material from these surfaces. Conversely, the recovery of so much material from the uplands, including in the vicinity of monuments, suggests that the northern Somerset landscape was not separated into 'ritual' and 'secular' zones. The following consideration of several of the scatters should illustrate this.

Number of Scatters 4 17 29 1 11

Table 15: Dates of Flint Scatters (scatters with National Grid References)

Analysis undertaken as part of this research of previously published scatters has shown this to be true; in most cases the published note/SMR entry will only refer to a few of the diagnostic pieces within the assemblage, not referencing the 'waste', edge-damaged flakes, burnt items etc. There is another fundamental problem that must be addressed before we turn to a more in-depth analysis. The over-representation of scrapers, arrowheads and other diagnostic pieces is undoubtedly linked to the lack of controlled survey within the region. Gardiner identified a similar problem in Wessex, where larger and finer pieces dominate museum collections, at the expense of the more mundane (Gardiner 1984). To reiterate, much of the flint collection undertaken in the last two hundred years have not been 'total collection' exercises

Case Studies: Flint Scatters and Monuments Six scatters have been collected close to Neolithic monuments, three long barrows and three henges. Close is taken to mean within 200m, an arbitrary figure, but one which has the advantage of being within sighting distance; today at least, there is visual awareness of the monument. The monuments in question are detailed below:

Monument

Distance scatter from monument

Brays Down long barrow Devil's Bed & Bolster long barrow Priddy Hill long barrow Gorsey Bigbury henge Hunter's Lodge 'henge' Stanton Drew

on and immediately adjacent to monument area immediately adjacent to monument 50m south of monument in same field (concentration to the north) 75m west and 50m south of 'henge' 5m north of the most northerly stones of the great circle

137

Brays Down,Shoscombe. Flint Type Complete Flakes Broken Flakes Broken Blades Retouched Flakes Retouched Blades Edge Damaged Flakes Scrapers Borers Serrated Flakes Cores Core Maintenance Chips Chunks Burnt Flints Pebbles Total

Amount 11 48 13 6 2 6 10 1 3 5 8 37 17 31 3 201

% of Total Assemblage 5% 24% 6% 3% 1% 3% 5% 1% 2% 2% 4% 18% 9% 15% 2% 100%

Table 16 : Flints from Brays Down

was found to the east, south and west. Geophysics suggests that the monument was orientated north-south, in which case most of the material was found at the 'activity' end of the monument, in the forecourt and adjacent areas. Indeed, the grid square containing the most flints was the one immediately to the north of the monument, in or just outside of, a hypothetical forecourt area1. It is therefore possible that some of the assemblage might relate to activities contemporary with the monument. Certainly, the blades and serrated flakes might suggest an Early Neolithic date, though if the assemblage were earlier than the monument, it could indicate pre-existing significance of place.

The Brays Down long barrow stands within a cultivated field and is ploughed twice a year. An area measuring approximately 300m x 200m was gridded into 20m squares and each grid was walked. 201 flints were recovered from this exercise, though 130 had previously been collected from the field in an unsystematic fashion. Only the 201 will be considered here. A breakdown of the flints is given above (Table 16). 11% of the total assemblage contains retouched items, a figure in keeping with many prehistoric assemblages. Further investigation of this component suggests that the assemblage might date to the Early Neolithic. Of the 10 scrapers, 8 are broken and thus cannot be placed into a category, 1 is an end scraper and 1 a core scraper. End scrapers are common finds throughout the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age and are not particularly diagnostic of any one period. Core scrapers also occur in scatters of differing dates, but tend to be more common in the Early Neolithic, reflecting the intensive use of raw material characteristic of early assemblages. The borer could be of a similar date, as it is not the elongated, welldeveloped type that occurs in Late Neolithic assemblages. The 2 retouched blades and 13 broken blades are also indicative of an Early Neolithic date, as are the serrated flakes. The presence of chips, chunks, cores and core maintenance pieces is suggestive of core reduction and maintenance, though whether this represents in-situ activity or midden 'dumping' is not certain. That 15% of the assemblage is burnt might be interesting as this could be indicative of 'domestic' actions. It is not known whether the large number of broken pieces is the result of post-depositional processes or prehistoric damage.

The flints at Brays Down do not support a 'chance loss' interpretation; knapping debris and burnt material and a variety of tools are indicative of varied activities. There is also a possibility that these could be related to the construction of the monument and/or the subsequent rituals. Alternatively, the material may represent midden material from a nearby occupation site, which may predate, post-date or be contemporary with the monument. Nonetheless, the recovery of at least one quarter of the assemblage from a restricted area in front of the mound could indicate that part of the scatter relates to the monument.

Figure 8.2 shows the spatial distribution of the flints, in relation to the long barrow. It can be seen that the area to the north, north-east and north-west of the monument has the densest concentration of flint, whilst little material

1 This square (D5) contained 6 broken flakes, 1 long end scraper, 1 burnt core, 5 burnt flints and 2 flint chips.

138

FIELDWALKING RESULTS BRAYS DOWN, SHOSCOMBE DECEMBER 1998

1 - 3 flints 4 - 6 flints 7 - 10 flints 11 - 16 flints

N

0

40m

Area of barrow mound

Figure 8.2: Fieldwalking Results from Brays Down Long Barrow An area measuring 200m x 140m around the barrow was walked (figure 8.3). The monument itself is in the corner of the field, so it was predominantly the areas south and west that were surveyed. The barrow is orientated eastwest and unfortunately most of the area in front of the eastern end was in the next field, unploughed.

Devil's Bed & Bolster, Beckington. Like Brays Down, the Devil's Bed & Bolster chambered tomb stands in a cultivated field, ploughed yearly. The fieldwalking exercise was carried out in 1997 and the analysis undertaken by an undergraduate student, as part of a dissertation (Patrick 1998). The identifications offered here are slightly different than Patrick’s, as a reanalysis of the material indicated some subtle differences.

Nonetheless, 98 items of flint and chert were recovered from the field and a further 22 pieces of heavily weathered natural flint. A breakdown of the flints is given below, in Table 17:

139

Flint Type

Amount

Flakes Blades Retouched Flakes Edge Damaged Flakes Scrapers Cores Core Maintenance Chips Chunks Burnt Flints Pebbles Total

32 3 6 5 5 10 (4 blade) 6 4 10 13 4 98

% of Total Assemblage 33% 3% 6% 5% 5% 10% 6% 4% 10% 14% 4% 100%

Table 17: Flints from the Devil's Bed & Bolster

Figure 8.3: Fieldwalking Results from Devils Bed and Bolster Long Barrow (after Patrick 1998)

140

of the long barrow. The assemblage was described as containing over 600 worked flints, including scrapers, gravers, knives and retouched flakes as well as large numbers of waste flakes, chips and trimmings that were not collected (ibid.: 60). The 600 worked flints included 55 flake scrapers, 18 core scrapers, 8 gravers, 23 notched flakes, 21 worked points, 2 serrated flakes and 2 knives (Hack 1983: 18).

Although half the amount of flint was recovered at the Devil's Bed & Bolster, compared to Brays Down, the retouched: non-retouched ratio is identical: 11%. The retouched assemblage offers a few clues to the date of the assemblage. Of the 5 scrapers, 1 is a core scraper, 1 is an end scraper on a large, broad flake, and 3 are side scrapers. The size of the flake on which the end scraper was produced might be indicative of a Later Neolithic/Early Bronze Age date. The 3 side scrapers might also belong to the same period; side scrapers have proved to be more common in assemblages of Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age date from sites including Briar Hill (Bamford 1985), Grimes Grave (Saville 1981) and Durrington Walls (Wainwright and Longworth 1971). In contrast to this, the presence of 4 blade cores and 3 blades is indicative of an earlier date, perhaps Late Mesolithic or Early Neolithic. This suggests that there are a minimum of two episodes of deposition at the Devil's Bed & Bolster, one predating or contemporary with the monument and one dating to the Later Neolithic/Early Bronze Age.

As well as this, a more diverse range of material than is usually encountered was found and is detailed below: x x x x x x x

The remainder of the lithics could fit into either of these two putative episodes of deposition, or even fall between them. 14% of the assemblage was burnt, compared to 15% at Brays Down, and 33% of the assemblage was formed of flakes, compared to 29% at Brays Down. However, a notable difference between the two is the presence of cores and core maintenance pieces. At Brays Down, only 6% of the assemblage was comprised thus but the figure was 16% for the Devil's Bed & Bolster. By contrast, Brays Down contained 27% chips and chunks, yet only 14% at the Devil's Bed & Bolster. Both contain evidence of the knapping process but with differing proportions of associated debris. This could relate to there being more than one episode of deposition at the Devil's Bed & Bolster.

x x x x x x x x x x

2 complete saddle quern lower stones & 3 complete upper stones 1 quern rubber fragments of 5 further saddle quern lower stones parts of 2 greenstone axeheads and 1 flake from a possible polished flint axehead the tip of a ground flint chisel a polissoir of pink quartzite a miscellaneous sandstone slab, with a 'worked recess' on one face (ibid.: 59) 9 hones (8 sandstone and 1 schist) 1 large chert scraper/chopper 1 core scraper of Portland Chert 1 polished quartz pebble and a number of others 1 smooth nodule of haematite 2 'potato stones' 1 flint nodule 30 flint cores 40 burnt cores and flakes 2 leaf-shaped and 2 transverse arrowheads

In 1922, Malcolm also reported the discovery of a needle grinder from the same area (Malcolm 1922). This material is more suggestive of settlement than the two scatters previously considered, as it contains a wider variety of material. More than five types of tool are represented, the minimum number suggested by Holgate to be indicative of settlement (Holgate 1988). The quern stones (at least 7 are represented) suggest cereal processing, the hones indicate tool maintenance activities, the rare polissoir would have been used for polishing axeheads, whilst the quartz pebbles may have been used in hide preparation. The needle-grinder also represents the kind of activity associated with domestic settlement. In addition, there are the more common finds; scrapers, knives and other retouched flakes, used in production and preparation activities. The presence of over 50 flint cores, both burnt and unburnt, a flint nodule, waste flakes, chips and trimmings is indicative of the reduction process. The burnt flint may relate to domestic activities. The smooth nodule of haematite and the 2 potato stones may be natural to the field or might represent talismans; it is worth recalling here that haematite was also found at the Orchardleigh and Priddy long barrows (see Chapter Four). Lastly there are the axeheads, not unusual finds in Neolithic 'domestic' assemblages. It is not mentioned

In terms of the spatial distribution of the material, no real patterns are apparent. The densest concentrations are between 40m and 100m south-west of the monument but the material in this area is of early and late date. Burnt flint and a blade core were found in front of the monument whereas the back of the monument (west end) is remarkably empty. Speaking generally, it is possible to say that more material was found within 100m of the monument than within 200-100m of it; this might indicate that the immediate area around the barrow was a focus for human activity after it ceased to be used for its original purpose. The possibility that it was a focus for human activity before the monument was constructed should also be retained. Priddy Hill,Priddy. A large collection of lithic material was recovered from this site by Brian Hack, over a number of years in the 1980s (Hack 1987). The material was not collected in grids but the extent of the concentration was mapped. This concentration was found to cover 0.8ha, 50m south

141

separated by the Long Wood valley, which might have had a symbolic meaning attached to it; perhaps a liminal space between one sphere and another. However, this is to presume that the settlement and the henge are contemporary. The scatter is described as large and contains a diverse range of material, including tools, knapping debris and burnt flint; it is not unreasonable to suggest that these are the remnants of some kind of domestic activity. The presence of Mesolithic and Early Neolithic material could indicate a favoured locale, of temporary or a more permanent nature.

whether the breaks are ancient or modern; if ancient they could simply represent domestic refuse or alternatively the curation of 'exotic' items, even after their use-life as axeheads was over. The assemblage from Priddy Hill is one of the more interesting yet to be found in northern Somerset. The diversity of the material and its concentration in a restricted area indicates that this is more than a background scatter of material. A basic interpretation could be that it represents in-situ settlement or the midden area for one close-by. Tying it in with the long barrow, only 50m away, is more difficult. The material appears to be Neolithic in date but could be of more than one period. The finding of both leaf-shaped and transverse arrowheads does little to help determine one date and it is also possible that these are not related to the site, being firing losses. However, the recovery of a tip of a ground flint chisel suggests a Late Neolithic date, as do the notched flakes. The variety of flint tool types is also in keeping with a Later Neolithic date as Early Neolithic assemblages are usually of limited diversity, containing more 'multi-purpose' tools (Bradley 1987, Edmonds 1987, Thomas 1999). The paucity of blades and narrow flakes and the low numbers of serrated flakes also argues against an Early Neolithic date for the bulk of the assemblage.

Hunter's Lodge 'Henge'. 2 scatters have been found close to Hunter's Lodge 'henge', one 46m to the south-west and the other 75m to the west. Neither were collected as part of systematic surveys of the area but the grid references of the finds were recorded. The scatter 75m west comprised2: x 1 end scraper x 1 side scraper x 1 borer x 7 retouched flakes x 30 waste flakes x 1 sandstone rubber The scatter 46m south-west was found after the removal of topsoil. It included: x Fragment of polished flint axehead x Knives x Scrapers

Gorsey Bigbury Henge. Unfortunately, few details are known about the flint finds from around Gorsey Bigbury, as the information has not been fully published. It is known that many Mesolithic flints occur in the same field, and this explains their incorporation into the monument itself (see Chapter Five). A concentration of flints described as 'Late Neolithic' (Somerset SMR file 11424) were found c.200m south-west of the henge (the Long Wood entry on the flint table) and a scatter of the same have been found throughout this field. Limited information exists for this scatter found to the south-west. It is described as large, with a minor Mesolithic element, with most implements being Neolithic in date (Somerset SMR file 11445). The assemblage is obviously mixed, for as well as the Mesolithic material there are 2 leaf-shaped arrowheads. However, most of the flintwork appears to be of Beaker date, suggested by the presence of thumbnail scrapers, 4 scale flaked knives and 2 discoidal knives, as well as other flakes, scrapers, cores, chips and burnt material.

Some of the scrapers were described as "....in the Beaker tradition..." (Everton & Everton 1971: 16). Interestingly, the flints were found in an area of linear stone scatters, which might represent destroyed archaeology. Certain of the flints from these two scatters seem to be indicative of Later Neolithic/Early Bronze Age activity, such as the side scraper and the scrapers described as being Beaker types. However, little more can be said about this material. The lack of cores, chips and trimmings suggests these were not sites where knapping/tool production was carried out. Burnt material is not present, arguing against a 'domestic' explanation for the presence of the flints. Retouched items dominate more of the assemblages than is usual, perhaps suggesting specialist activities. It is difficult to tie the scatter in with the monument when the status of the monument is itself uncertain (see Chapter Five). If a henge or a disc barrow, the diagnostic flints might well be contemporary with it and could relate to the construction and/or use of the monument.

The location of this scatter to the henge itself is interesting as the two are divided by the Long Wood valley. The valley is c.100m wide and c.30m deep, at this point, with steep sides and a marshy bottom. Today the valley is thickly wooded and its lack of potential for cultivation might indicate that it was also wooded in the Neolithic. Whilst by no means an impenetrable boundary, steepness and vegetation impede easy access from the top of one side to top of the other. Thus, the flint scatter and the monument whilst only 200m apart are physically

2

142

Analysed as part of this study.

maintenance activities. The 8% of the assemblage that is burnt may be used to argue for 'domestic activities', although this may have been nothing more than a temporary hunting party. The presence of a very large flake scraper, an end & side scraper, a side scraper and a broken barbed and tanged arrowhead seems to indicate a Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age date for at least part of the assemblage however. The fact that most retouched items of this date were found within c.60m of the monument might be significant, although the proviso already stated regarding alluvial deposition should be retained.

Stanton Drew The opportunity to survey the field between the Great Circle and the River Chew arose in October 20003. The field was divided into 20m grids and total collection in each grid was carried out (figure 8.4). This was a unique chance to investigate the immediate environs of the Stanton Drew monument complex and the first recorded systematic collection exercise. The field in question is used for pasture and had not been ploughed for 20 years. 173 items were retrieved in total, the results shown in Table 18.

The lithics recovered from this field at Stanton Drew date from the Late Mesolithic through to the Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age. There are many possibilities as to what the material may represent, not all being exclusive. For example, we may be seeing the remnants of a number of different activities such as hunting, temporary/permanent settlement, tool maintenance/production, activities related to monument construction and/or ritual enactment. It is not known whether the deposition of some of the flints was an act contemporary with the use of the monument complex, though the diagnostic scrapers and arrowhead indicate that this might be the case. The scatter is an important one, for it provides the first evidence for Mesolithic activity in the Stanton Drew immediate environs and suggests that more may lie hidden beneath the alluvium. Caution should be exercised in great leaps of speculation but it is possible that this location had a long-held significance and the siting of the great monument complex may be associated with this. Conversely, the juxtaposition of the complex and earlier finds may be pure chance, or associated with the exploitation of the resources of the River Chew. Both options merit exploring in more detail; further research within the Stanton Drew hinterland is essential (see Footnote 3).

The dominance of flakes and chips from the site backs up a point made earlier; when total collection is in operation, these are the finds that will normally dominate. 17% of the assemblage is retouched, a figure higher than yet encountered. Yet this might be explained by several periods being represented. 7% of the assemblage appears to date to the Late Mesolithic and possibly the Early Neolithic. This is represented by the recovery of 2 microliths, 2 retouched blades and 8 other narrow blades. Half of these early finds, including the two microliths, were found stretched out over an east-west line, 80m north of the stones. Whilst a superficial analysis might suggest increased activity in this area, it is worth noting that this east-west line is the line of an old pipeline and the material here is disturbed. It seems likely that this concentration of early material has been thrown up by digging of the pipe trench, suggesting that archaeological deposits might lie buried beneath the current ground surface, covered by alluvium. The 2 retouched flakes and core scraper found along the same line might indicate an Early Neolithic date, suggesting that stratified sequences, from the Mesolithic onwards, might be preserved. South of the line of the pipe trench, the ground rises to the level of the fields containing the stone circles. Indeed, the line of the pipe trench can be taken to approximately signify the flood plain of the River Chew, as there is no evidence it has risen above this point. Thus, the general dominance of post-Mesolithic finds from the southern part of the field, nearest the monuments, might represent an artificial concentration due to finds from the northern part of the field being masked by alluvium. The items scattered to the north of the pipe trench might also have been thrown up during its excavation, and subsequently become spread by the plough. Although there is a relatively high proportion of retouched items from the field at Stanton Drew, waste dominates. Chips, chunks and flakes make up just over 60% of the assemblage and this rises to 66% if cores and core related objects are included. This may represent flint debitage from the knapping process, although the small number of cores may alternatively indicate tool 3

Since this date, much more fieldwork, including excavation, survey and fieldwalking, has been carried out by the author and will form the basis of a separate report.

143

Flint Type Flakes Blades Retouched Flakes Retouched Blades Edge Damaged Flakes Arrowheads Scrapers Microliths Cores Core Maintenance Chips Chunks Burnt Flints Nodule Utilised Pebbles Total

Amount 52 8 19 2 5 1 6 2 3 3 49 7 14 1 1 173

% of Total Assemblage 30% 5% 10% 1% 3% 1% 3% 1% 2% 2% 28% 4% 8% 1% 1% 100%

Table 18: Flints from Stanton Drew

.

Figure 8.4: Fieldwalking Results from Stanton Drew

144

still special site, or the brief stop of a hunting party. The lithic material from Priddy Hill, by contrast, is indicative of a very different form of activity. Much of the material appears to be the remains of Late Neolithic domestic activities, perhaps an in-situ settlement or the midden for a near-by site. The relationship to the long mound is of interest as it is only 50m north of the scatter. This could indicate that the environs of the mound were not considered 'sacred' by later populations; the juxtaposition of mound and midden/settlement does not imply respect of a ritual sanctuary. It could be that the long mound had lost significance by the Late Neolithic, making it difficult to substantiate notions of long-lived 'ritual landscapes'.

Discussion The six flint scatters that have been described here were chosen for their proximity to Neolithic monuments. Looking at the area around monuments is one way of testing ideas regarding notions of 'sacred space' around monuments, and, in turn, concepts of ritual landscapes. The evidence from the scatters indicate that this is not an easy task as the flints provide only a rough chronology for activities, making it difficult to assess whether they pre-date, post-date or are contemporary with the monuments. Nonetheless, some general statements can be made about what they might represent.

Some of the lithic material found at the monuments could be contemporary with their use. At Brays Down, the concentration of flints to the north of the barrow could represent the durable remnants of rituals associated with the monument, such as food preparation and feasting. At Stanton Drew, the lithics may represent a similar scenario or be related to the construction of the monuments. The dominance of 'finished' artefacts at Hunter's Lodge and the lack of cores, burnt material etc could represent specialised activities contemporary with the site. Yet it is also possible that the flint material may represent more mundane activity in the vicinity of monuments, the practices of secular life not being exclusive with the practices of ritual, the two in fact inextricably linked and this is what we may be witnessing at Gorsey Bigbury. The material placed in the ditch of this henge has traditionally been interpreted as domestic 'rubbish', the utilisation of a convenient disposal point. Indeed, the range of objects recovered accords with the type of activities we expect to be carried out at settlements: toolmaking and maintenance (flint tools, cores and waste), food preparation and consumption (butchered animal bones, barley grain impression on potsherd), hearth construction (burnt flint, charcoal), pot-making (pottery sherds) and structural maintenance (daub). With the exception of the flints, these materials would not survived had they not been protected by the ditch. A few hundred metres away is the flint scatter described above, which might be all that remains of a similar deposit. The 'domestic' deposits incorporated into the henge might have been brought from a near-by site, possibly even one represented by our flint scatter - the two are broadly of the same date. The domestic 'rubbish' could have been transformed by its association with the monument and not seen as out-of-place. Alternatively, as previously suggested, it could have been a decisive closure of the monument, maybe even an act to taint or change its previous significance. Whether either scenario comes close to what actually happened, it is likely that the presence of the large flint scatter at Long Wood was related to these activities, as the two scatters are stylistically contemporary. If the Long Wood scatter is the remains of the settlement from which the Gorsey Bigbury material originated, several hypotheses are plausible. The proximity of the two could be taken to support an interpretation which sees the monument as

The placing of monuments in the landscape was not a random act. As Barrett states, "the places elected for the location of monuments were never arbitrary, but were situated in a landscape redolent with social value and reference that was structured by routines of occupancy." (Barrett 1988: 32). With this in mind, the recovery of lithic material earlier than the monuments from at least two of the sites is of interest. Mesolithic material was found adjacent to both Gorsey Bigbury and Stanton Drew, both Late Neolithic sites. Several thousand years span these two episodes of activity and it is possible that the placing of the monuments was in no way directly related to the presence of Mesolithic material. However, it could be that traces of earlier exploitation existed at these sites, in a physical or a metaphysical sense. The monuments might thus have been placed in parts of the landscape that were considered 'humanised' but without specific knowledge of when this first took place. The lack of diagnostic Mesolithic material around the three long barrows is also noteworthy as far less time straddles the Mesolithic and Early Neolithic. It could be that 'new' sites were exploited for the location of mortuary monuments and that locales containing evidence of earlier (Mesolithic) activity were avoided. Yet, it is possible that some of the material at Brays Down and the Devil's Bed & Bolster is earlier than the monuments, but still of Neolithic date. Pollard notes that long barrows were frequently built over pre-exiting occupation sites, suggesting that they deliberately referenced earlier acts of settlement (Pollard 1999: 89). The presence of cores, waste flakes and chips, burnt flint and tools at both these long barrows could be the remnants of 'settlement' that predated the monuments. The higher density of material close to the barrows might substantiate this, if they were built directly over them. Alternatively, the greater concentrations around the monuments might relate to the monuments themselves; their construction and/or the activities carried out at the sites. Lithic material of a date later than the monuments can be clearly seen at the Devil's Bed & Bolster and Priddy Hill. At the former site, it is evidenced by several diagnostically late scrapers, though other (undiagnostic) parts of the assemblage could be of a similar age. These few finds may simply testament a single visit to the barrow, perhaps out of curiosity, or as a pilgrimage to a

145

having little effect on day-to-day activities around it; one that argues for the loss of its 'ritual' significance; or even one in which the division between "settlement" and "ritual" cannot be sustained. The evidence from the flint scatters considered in this chapter shows that the areas around monuments have long histories, some with origins in the Mesolithic, continuing into the Bronze Age. Pre-monument activity may have left an indelible scar on the land, or areas may have been "favoured locations" for generations, associated with good places to hunt or gather food. Activity contemporary with the monuments is difficult to gauge in some cases, but the evidence from Gorsey Bigbury is striking, suggesting that "settlement" and "ritual" were perhaps part of a larger conceptual whole, the divisions of which were blurred and overlapped. Evidence for later exploitation of monuments is equally difficult to be sure of, mainly due to the difficulties associated with flint typologies in the metal age. Both the Devil's Bed and Bolster and Priddy Hill long barrows do appear to have later material associated with them, however, suggesting that these places were ones in which it was permissible to carry out "domestic" activities. This chapter has illustrated that although there are many difficulties with interpreting surface lithic scatters, they can be used to assess the nature of activity around monuments and how this changed through time. Areas around monuments were the locus for many, varied activities and space does not appear to have been reserved for "ritual" only. The division between "ritual" and "settlement" can be questioned, yet again; the relationship between the two seemingly more complex and interwoven than simple opposition.

146

147

Hayes Wood Hutton Wood Nr Mells Village School Playing Fields S. of Hunters 'henge' W. of Hunters 'henge' Wright's Piece 1 Wright's Piece 2 Charterhouse Camp S. of Charterhouse Ubley Hill Farm SW of Priddy 1 SW of Priddy 2 Sandpit Hole Priddy Hill N. of Ebbor Gorge SE. of Priddy long barrow S. of Velvet Bottom

Name of Site Failand Farm Rudge Hill No 1 Dalleston Oldmixon Tynings Farm Middledown Drove 1 Middledown Drove 2 Piney Sleight Callow Hill Gorsey Bigbury Long Wood Pagans Hill Bendalls Farm Hill Cottage Rainbow Wood Blackstone Rocks The Warren Black Hill King Road Whitnell Corner Freshford Hutton Mells Monkton Combe Priddy Priddy Priddy Priddy Priddy Priddy Priddy Priddy Priddy Priddy Priddy Priddy Priddy Priddy

Parish Abbots Leigh Beckington Binegar Bleadon Cheddar Cheddar Cheddar Cheddar Cheddar Cheddar Cheddar Chew Stoke Chewton Mendip Churchill Claverton Clevedon Clevedon Clevedon Congresbury Emborough

147

7725 6085 3570 5810 7350 4810 7715 6266 5590 4960 5580 4980 5290 5490 5335 5450 5040 5570 5080 5470 5150 5740 5190 5040 5210 5080 5315 4980 5140 5340 5320 4950 5210 5070 4970 5460

3346 5775 4720 5650 4918 5275 4835 5265 4760 5480 4411 5580 4840 5580 4880 5570 5572 6260 5700 5120 4702 5858 7714 6345 3852 7020 4285 5720 4167 7353 4435 6108 5970 4910

NGR (all ST) 5309 7252 8220 5220

Bath & North East Somerset SMR file 1826 North Somerset SMR file 53 Vranch 1981 Bath & North East Somerset SMR file 1824 Everton, A & R 1971 Lewis unpublished work on archives in Wells Museum Somerset SMR file 24068 & Tratman 1957 Williams 1984 Somerset SMR file 24092 Wicks 1920 Somerset SMR file 24093 Somerset SMR file 24225, Hack 1983 Somerset SMR file 24226 Somerset SMR file 24229 & Hack 1980, Lewis to be published Somerset SMR file 25795 & Malcolm 1922, Hack 1982, Hack 1987 Hack 1983 J Lewis unpublished work on archives in Wells Museum Somerset SMR file 24164 & Russett 1985

Reference North Somerset SMR file 835 Prescott 1977 Tratman 1966? North Somerset SMR file 32 Sean Walsh pers. comm. Somerset SMR file 10424 & Williams 1981, 1983 Collected by Lewis, yet to be published Somerset SMR file 11582 & Russett 1988 Somerset SMR file 11412 & Everton 1969 Somerset SMR file 11424 Somerset SMR file 11445 Bath & North East Somerset SMR file 3187 Somerset SMR file 23211 Yorke 1954 Bath & North East Somerset SMR file 1820 North Somerset SMR file ? North Somerset SMR file 510 North Somerset SMR file 477 North Somerset SMR file 7220 Somerset SMR file 25695

Table 19: References for Flint Scatters

148

Rookham Chilcote Drove Brays Down Stanton Drew 1 Stanton Drew 2 Heron's Green College Wood Halcombe Wood Brimble Pit Weston Down Little Acre Farm E. of West Down Quarry Sandford Hill Jacklands Farm

Name of Site E. of Priddy long barrow Pelting Drove Cheddar Head Devil's Bed & Bolster long barrow New Road Forge Round Barrow Aerodrome Field Dursdon Drove Tower Hill N. of Pen Hill Oares Close Slab House Arthur's Point St Cuthbert Out St Cuthbert Out Shoscombe Stanton Drew Stanton Drew Stowey Sutton Stratton-on-the-Fosse Stratton-on-the-Fosse Westbury Weston in Gordano Whatley Whatley Winscombe Wraxall

Parish Priddy Priddy Priddy Rode Rodney Stoke Rodney Stoke Rodney Stoke St Cuthbert Out St Cuthbert Out St Cuthbert Out St Cuthbert Out St Cuthbert Out St Cuthbert Out 5500 4930 5970 4725 7090 5010 6000 6340 5970 6280 5680 5930 6450 4950 6630 5080 5050 5080 4326 7477 7200 4740 7200 4580 4303 5898 4750 7151

NGR (all ST) 5195 5080 5200 5020 5085 5245 8150 5330 4920 5140 4965 5150 4910 5170 5270 4930 5630 5050 5630 4980 5700 4920 5930 4820 5370 4720

Reference Lewis unpublished work on archives in Wells Museum Hack 1986 Hack 1986 Lewis yet to be published Russett 1988 Broomhead 1990 Broomhead 1990 Somerset SMR file 24224 & Lewis 1998 Somerset SMR file 25700 & Hack 1982, 1985 Somerset SMR file 25962 & Hack 1983 Lewis yet to be published Somerset SMR file 24387 Balch 1914, Tratman 1971 Lewis unpublished work on archives in Wells Museum Lewis yet to be published Wicks 1920 Lewis yet to be published Lewis yet to be published (but see Chapter 8) Lewis yet to be published Bath & North East Somerset SMR file 602 Somerset SMR file 24994 Maggs 1993 Somerset SMR file 24870 & Russett 1988 North Somerset SMR file 513 Ensom 1981 Ensom 1981 Clarke & Richards 1972 North Somerset SMR file 558

149

West Mendip

West Mendip West Mendip West Mendip West Mendip Chew Valley West Mendip

Abbots Leigh Beckington Binegar Bleadon Cheddar Cheddar

Cheddar

Cheddar Cheddar Cheddar Cheddar Chew Stoke Chewton Mendip Churchill Claverton Clevedon Clevedon Clevedon Congresbury

Emborough

Freshford Hutton Mells

Failand Farm Rudge Hill No 1 Dalleston Oldmixon Tynings Farm Middledown Drove 1 Middledown Drove 2 Piney Sleight Callow Hill Gorsey Bigbury Long Wood Pagans Hill Bendalls Farm

Hill Cottage Rainbow Wood Blackstone Rocks The Warren Black Hill King Road

Whitnell Corner

Hayes Wood Hutton Wood Nr Mells Village

School Playing Fields S. of Hunters 'henge' W. of Hunters 'henge'

5858 6345 7020 5720 7353 6108

5480 5580 5580 5570 6260 5120

5590 4960

West Mendip

West Mendip

Priddy

5580 4980

7715 6266

East Mendip

7725 6085 3570 5810 7350 4810

5970 4910

4702 7714 3852 4285 4167 4435

4760 4411 4840 4880 5572 5700

4835 5265

3346 5775 4720 5650 4918 5275

5309 7252 8220 5220

NGR (all ST and centred)

Monkton Combe Priddy

East Mendip West Mendip East Mendip

West Mendip East Mendip Coastal Strip Coastal Strip Coastal Strip North Somerset Lowlands East Mendip

Location in the Study Area Failand Ridge East Mendip East Mendip West Mendip West Mendip West Mendip

Parish

Name of Site

40

149

'large scatter'

100s

'large scatter' Over 50 870

'many'

'numerous' 100s 'many' 'many' 'many' 'many'

150 'large scatter' 'large scatter' 'large scatter' 72 'many flints'

300

Over 400 'large numbers' 'many' 'large numbers' Over 1000 399

Number of Flints

Yes

Yes

Yes Yes Yes

Yes

Mesolithic Diagnostic Material

Table 20: Dates for Flint Scatters

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes Yes Yes

Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes

Neolithic Diagnostic Material Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes Yes

Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes

Yes

Yes Yes Yes

Bronze Age Diagnostic Material

No Details

Linear stone scatters Sandstone rubber & 3 pot sherds

Complete nodule

Whetstone & slingstone

2 whetstones

Other

150

West Mendip West Mendip

Priddy

Priddy Priddy

Priddy Priddy Priddy

Priddy Priddy

SW of Priddy 2 Sandpit Hole Priddy Hill

N. of Ebbor Gorge E. of Priddy long barrow SE. of Priddy long barrow S. of Velvet Bottom Pelting Drove Cheddar Head Devil's Bed & Bolster long barrow New Road Forge Round Barrow Aerodrome Field Dursdon Drove

Tower Hill

West Mendip

Priddy Priddy Priddy

Wright's Piece 1 Wright's Piece 2 Charterhouse Camp S. of Charterhouse Ubley Hill Farm SW of Priddy 1

East Mendip East Mendip

St Cuthbert Out

West Mendip

East Mendip West Mendip

4920 5140 4965 5150

West Mendip West Mendip East Mendip

Priddy Priddy Rode (NB really Beckington) Rodney Stoke Rodney Stoke

Rodney Stoke St Cuthbert Out

5200 5020 5085 5245 8150 5330

West Mendip

Priddy

5630 5050

4910 5170 5270 4930

4970 5460

West Mendip

5210 5070

5320 4950 5195 5080

5210 5080 5315 4980 5140 5340

5150 5740 5190 5040

5080 5470

5290 5490 5335 5450 5040 5570

NGR (all ST and centred)

Priddy

West Mendip West Mendip

West Mendip West Mendip West Mendip

Location in the Study Area West Mendip West Mendip West Mendip

Parish

Name of Site

150

1.1kg 1460 catalogued items & 11kg of 'waste' 'large scatter'

70 7kg

61 over 300 87

544

686

160

50 100s over 600 picked up, many more left

Over 50 minimum of 87

1000s

'many flints' 400 'numerous'

Number of Flints

Yes

Yes

Yes Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Mesolithic Diagnostic Material Yes Yes

Yes

Yes Yes

Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes

Yes

Neolithic Diagnostic Material Yes Yes Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes Yes

Yes Yes

Bronze Age Diagnostic Material Yes Yes

No Details

Sandstone rubbers, saucer & saddle quern, worked clay, limestone slabs

Bronze Age pot sherds

Quern stones Hammerstone

Pebble pounder Hammerstone

Polissoir, quern & needlegrinder

Arrowhead engraving

Other

151

St Cuthbert Out St Cuthbert Out St Cuthbert Out St Cuthbert Out

N. of Pen Hill

West Mendip

Winscombe

Wraxall

Little Acre Farm E. of West Down Quarry Sandford Hill

Jacklands Farm

Failand Ridge

North Somerset Lowlands East Mendip East Mendip

West Mendip

East Mendip

Chew Valley East Mendip

East Mendip Chew Valley Chew Valley

West Mendip

West Mendip

West Mendip

West Mendip

West Mendip

Location in the Study Area West Mendip

Weston in Gordano Whatley Whatley

Weston Down

Brimble Pit

Halcombe Wood

Heron's Green College Wood

Stowey Sutton Stratton-onthe-Fosse Stratton-onthe-Fosse Westbury

St Cuthbert Out Shoscombe Stanton Drew Stanton Drew

Chilcote Drove

Brays Down Stanton Drew 1 Stanton Drew 2

St Cuthbert Out

Rookham

Arthur's Point

Slab House

Oares Close

Parish

Name of Site

4750 7151

4303 5898

7200 4740 7200 4580

4326 7477

5050 5080

6630 5080

5680 5930 6450 4950

7090 5010 6000 6345 5970 6280

5970 4725

5500 4930

5370 4720

5930 4820

5700 4920

5630 4980

NGR (all ST and centred)

70

151

'several 100'

899 71

145 catalogued items & 880g of 'flakes' 'many'

'extensive scatter'

1600 'large numbers'

331 173 No details

100s

5765

'many'

'large numbers'

323

62

Number of Flints

Yes

Yes

Yes

Mesolithic Diagnostic Material

Yes

Yes

Yes Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Neolithic Diagnostic Material Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Bronze Age Diagnostic Material

No Details

3 pot sherds & saddle quern

Human bone

Square flint 'core' 2x hut platforms nearby Hammerstones , perforated stone pendant

Part of saucer quern

Other

152

Chapter Nine: Conclusions megalithic monuments, dominated by human and animal bone, pottery and flint. However, of interest is the discovery of apparently 'burnt' human bones at Stoney Littleton, Orchardleigh, Priddy and Brays Down. If these are contemporary with the primary phase of use of these monuments, it might indicate a local Early Neolithic cremation practice. Also worthy of note is the occurrence of metal ore at several sites (haematite at Orchardleigh, copper? at Priddy), though neither was found in a secure context. Nonetheless, the finding of haematite at the Priddy Hill 'settlement' and marcasite nodules in a pit at the Priddy Circles may suggest an interest in unusual, naturally occurring, metals and minerals during the Neolithic.

This study has demonstrated that within the physical confines of northern Somerset there exists a wealth of Neolithic archaeology, of diverse type, period and function. Mostly it has been neglected in studies of the British Neolithic, with the exception of the 'honeypot sites' such as Stoney Littleton and Stanton Drew. Even these are given usually only a perfunctory reference, assumed to be outliers of the more extensive (and by inference, more important,) Wessex/Cotswolds 'cultural networks'. Whilst there are undeniable similarities between the regions, in terms of some monument types for example, there are also marked differences. The landscape of northern Somerset is topographically distinct from the Cotswolds and Wessex and, if landscapes can be cognitively experienced in different ways at different times, such differences may even have been magnified during the Neolithic. For example, caves and swallets are distinctive features of the upland landscape of northern Somerset but rare to non-existent in its neighbouring regions. Such physical features may have played an important role in the subjective interpretation of landscape in the Neolithic and consequently helped define a sense of regional 'belonging'. This is not to espouse geographical determinism nor the existence of unified cultural provinces but, simply, to emphasise that landscape (physical, cognitive) may have been both identifiable and identified with.

The long barrows demonstrate a preference for a southeasterly orientation and a false crest location. They are to be found at all altitudes with one notable exception; none are recorded below 50m AOD. It has been suggested that this could either be the result of post-monument taphonomic activities, masking the remains of such monuments, or it could indicate a deliberate avoidance of low-lying land. In terms of the density of mortuary monuments, it appears that the region contains an unusually dense concentration of barrows over a large area. Interpretations of the Later Neolithic archaeological record are dominated once again by monuments, in this case earthen, timber and stone enclosures. Of the henges, only two conform to a 'classic' layout: Stanton Drew and Gorsey Bigbury. It is argued that the so-called 'domestic dumping' of Beaker age material at Gorsey Bigbury may be much more complex and possibly related to a change of meaning/use or even the deliberate closure of the site. An extended sequence of activity is represented at Stanton Drew, with evidence of a Mesolithic presence now discovered in the immediate vicinity. The use of varied lithic resources for the megalithic elements of the site has been explored in some detail and it has been argued that the reasons behind this could range from the functional to the symbolic. Stanton Drew is a complex monument group, reminiscent of Avebury, both having a henge, 3 stone circles, a cove and outlying, related structures. However, unlike Avebury, Stanton Drew appears to sit in a very 'empty' landscape, with no earlier/later monuments close-by. This is in stark contrast also to the other large Neolithic site in the region - the Priddy Circles. Yet the Priddy Circles cannot be forced into rigid henge classifications, likewise Hunter's Lodge, though both are argued to be Later Neolithic ritual monuments.

This conclusion will not re-iterate all the details of each chapter, as these have been exhaustively covered. Rather, it intends to draw out some of the important points that have been raised, providing an overview of the Neolithic of northern Somerset Early Neolithic activity within the region is mainly documentable through the construction of mortuary monuments, in common with much of Britain. Twentyseven sites have been identified, a substantial increase when compared to previous calculations. Both megalithic and non-megalithic monuments were constructed, though the latter appear to be in the minority. The megalithic monuments are of Cotswold-Severn type and demonstrate a preference for transepted and terminal chamber types. It has been suggested that the construction of nonmegalithic monuments may not have been linked to a dearth of suitable stone but to social choice. The one proven non-megalithic long barrow (Priddy) is of unusual type, highlighting the dangers of forcing monuments into rigid categories. A possible portal dolmen has also been identified (the Waterstone), although this is not a proven classification.

The relationship between Stanton Drew and the Priddy Circles is intriguing. Both are of massive scale and would have represented a considerable undertaking on the part of the constructors. Yet whilst Stanton Drew almost

The minimum number of individuals present in the long barrows varies from 2 to 15. The contents of the barrows are comparable to those from other megalithic and non-

153

Neolithic, evidence exists for the use of caves for burial, for both individual and communal inhumation. By the Later Neolithic, caves appear to have been utilised for more diverse practices including domestic activities, perhaps temporary or permanent habitation, and ritual deposition. Throughout the Neolithic, caves may have been opportunistically exploited, perhaps on a day-to-day or even seasonal basis, these brief stopovers leaving few archaeological traces. Unfortunately, our understanding of cave use is hampered by animal disturbance and poor excavations, limiting the value of a potentially rich source of information. By contrast, the evidence from swallets can be of much better quality, having sometimes been offered a greater degree of protection. Intriguing evidence exists for the use of swallets for ritual deposition in the Later Neolithic, and a link between swallets and monuments has been made. The Priddy Circles were sited in a part of the Mendip landscape containing the highest concentration of swallets and this does not appear to have been accidental. Swallets, a distinctive feature of the Mendip landscape, have some unusual qualities; water disappears into them; they can gurgle and echo; they offer a vertical descent into the earth. It is not difficult to imagine that they may have been imbued with symbolic meaning; the nature of some of the Neolithic deposits evidences this.

appears to be a blueprint for a classic Late Neolithic monument complex, the Priddy Circles are to the contrary. Aspects of Stanton Drew, as suggested, are reminiscent of the great Wessex monuments - Avebury, Durrington Walls - yet the closest analogy for the Priddy Circles lies hundreds of miles to the north in Scotland. Even the number of the Priddy Circles - four - is unusual. That the Circles might deliberately have been constructed to be 'different' is worthy of consideration; perhaps the constructors chose to reject the wider regional 'fashions' for something slightly more exotic. The repercussions of this are interesting to contemplate, especially if Stanton Drew and the Priddy Circles were in contemporaneous use. Were they used by different communities or used for different ceremonial events? Alternatively, perhaps the differences between the monuments assume greater significance today than it did in the Neolithic. Some differences are suggested, however, by the nature of the contemporary/later monuments around them. As has been outlined already, there are no documented Neolithic/Early Bronze Age monuments close to Stanton Drew, whereas large numbers of round barrows (figure 9.1) surround the Priddy Circles. Does this indicate that the significance of Stanton Drew was not enduring whilst the Priddy Circles continued to have meaning into the Bronze Age? Or are we looking at other factors such as the locational preference for round barrows in the uplands? The Stanton Drew complex is placed within a 'lowland' landscape and the Circles in an 'upland' landscape; could this have had more of an impact on round barrow location than proximity to the monuments themselves?

The final class of evidence considered was lithic scatters. As part of this work, data on recorded scatters containing over 50 items and with a National Grid Reference were assembled. 65 scatters have been identified, the largest containing c.6000 flints (Rookham, collected as part of this research). It has been highlighted that more scatters are recorded on Mendip than anywhere else within the region: 57 of the 65 scatters are from Mendip and 42 of the 57 are, more specifically, from West Mendip. Such figures might be taken to suggest that Neolithic activity was concentrated in the uplands, but it is argued that there has been a bias towards collecting on Mendip to the detriment of the other regions.

Questions about the relationship (or not) between the Circles and Stanton Drew are interesting and yet unanswerable at the moment. Targeted excavation, to retrieve datable materials, would at least allow us to address issues of contemporaneity, from which theories could be woven. These are two vastly important sites, both on a regional and a national scale; these are the large 'ritual complexes' of northern Somerset and yet are still relatively un-researched. It is hoped that the information that has been presented in this work, and the conclusions drawn from it, will start to fill in some of the gaps in our knowledge.

Broad dates have been assigned to the lithic scatters, depending on the presence of diagnostic pieces. The problems with this have been explored in some detail, as have the consequences of over-representation of 'finer' items - arrowheads, scrapers, knives etc - due to unsystematic collection. Lithic scatters are a complex class of data, and it is difficult to confidently draw conclusions from them. Deciding whether a scatter represents habitation, midden material, specialised activities or simply part of background 'noise' is not easy and when only the 'finer' items have been collected, the task is even more difficult. As it would have proved impossible to analyse all of the flints from northern Somerset, six scatters were chosen as case studies. All of these were close to monuments, the idea being to look at the concept of ‘sacred space’ around monuments. As expected, this revealed there are fundamental difficulties in trying to establish or refute contemporaneity between flint scatters and monuments; the relative dating of flints

At the other end of the scale, the Neolithic pits known from the region appear to compare well with pits in other areas. The small number of pits is interesting and could suggest that pit-digging was not a widespread practice in northern Somerset, though it might be more likely that it relates to a lack of large scale, modern excavations (both commercial and research) and the poor cropmark record in this pastoral landscape. There is a possibility, however, that deposition within swallets acted as an alternative to pit digging in the Later Neolithic, on West Mendip at least. The utilisation of caves allows us another insight into Neolithic practices in northern Somerset. In the Earlier

154

is not tight enough to allow confident statements to be made. However, the flint scatters are testament to diverse activities taking place around monuments, some of which pre-date the monument construction. At present, there is little evidence from those monuments studied to support the notion of a landscape divided into 'ritual' and 'secular' areas. As Cleal argues for Stonehenge:

archaeology off the uplands? The problems of alluvial and colluvial deposition have been mentioned several times throughout this work and it is indubitable that archaeology of all periods lies hidden in the lower lying areas of northern Somerset. The whole region forms a complementary mosaic of resources and it seems likely that all parts of the landscape were used. Table 21 summarises some of the possible uses of different parts of the landscape.

"...it is mistaken to describe the landscape as an entirely ritual one. The monument and its surroundings show repeated use of the area over many generations (56 at 4 to a century), for a range of activities including those of ritual, but not excluding other more secular ones represented by, for instance, clear evidence for increasing dependence on farming and especially on the keeping of herds. To term the Stonehenge landscape a ritual one, as has sometimes been done, is to suggest that elsewhere there are 'secular' landscapes, which seems as unlikely as it would be difficult to prove." (Cleal 1995: 490-491)

The northern Somerset landscape is a region with significant natural boundaries and has proved an ideal unit of study, containing diverse landscape resources and a wide range of sites and monuments. It has not been suggested that these boundaries were impassable and it is a fact that they may also have acted to unify disparate geographical regions, as well as to divide them. Contact with other regions is certainly in evidence; flint and stone for tool making was mainly imported from outside areas, such as Wessex, whilst items of northern Somerset origin have been found at monuments in these 'outside' areas: at least 6 long barrows in the Avebury region contain pieces of oolite from the Bath-Frome region, oolitic gritted pottery has been found at the Hambledon Hill and Windmill Hill causewayed enclosures and querns and rubbers of Mendip Old Red Sandstone have also been found at the latter two sites. Yet, we are in danger of forgetting that these items did not move by themselves, that individuals moved around both the local and the wider landscape. An apt way to finish this study is to illustrate this point with a quote from Martin Green, with reference to the discovery of human bones at the Monkton Up Wimborne pit complex, Cranborne Chase:

This study has drawn together all the known evidence for Neolithic activity in northern Somerset. A massive amount of data has been collected, through primary fieldwork and secondary sources, and new interpretations offered. Northern Somerset can now be seen to have a rich Neolithic legacy, comprising monuments, pits, cave and swallet deposits and extensive lithic scatters. Much more undoubtedly awaits to be discovered; the geophysical survey carried out as part of this research at Hunter's Lodge indicates that monuments are not as easy to classify as they would first seem. The geophysical survey by English Heritage within the Stanton Drew complex has shown that all three of the stone circles contain (presumably) earlier structures. The northern Somerset landscape will undoubtedly produce more revelations that will impact on interpretations of the region. Perhaps a causewayed enclosure will next make an appearance, filling in yet another 'gap', in both distribution and knowledge.

"Isotope analysis of trace metals...produced remarkable results. The interpretation of these chemical 'signatures' suggested that the woman had originally lived on a high lead-level geology, the nearest match to which is found on the Mendips, some 60km to the north-west. She then travelled to Cranborne Chase where she stayed for some time before returning with the two older children whom she had 'acquired'. Back in the Mendips she gave birth to her daughter...and later still all came back to Cranborne Chase where they ended their lives." (Green 2000: 79)

Much of this study has focused on Mendip, for it is here that most evidence of Neolithic activities exists. This raises interesting questions: was Mendip really a preferred locale or are other factors masking equally rich

155

156 156

Figure 9.1: Distribution of Henges and Round Barrows in the Study Area. © Crown Copyright/database Right 2005. An Ordnance Survey/ EDINA supplied service.

Landscape 'Zone' Coastal

Levels and Moors

Valleys and Slopes

Uplands

Potential Resources Food Sand Beach Flint Shells/Pebbles Salt Marsh Salt? Sea Food Herbs Reeds

Comments Fish/shellfish/birds/eggs/seaweed Temper and grinding agent Poor quality but opportunistic use Decorative, talismans, tools Seasonal grazing Preservation/Food Flavouring/Medicinal Transport Fowl/eggs/herbs/fish Medicinal uses? Basketry Seasonal grazing Transport, settlement, food Settlement Cultivation Pottery Timber, firewood, plants & animals Year round grazing? (so far only Stanton Drew known) Food, skins, bones, antler, sinews Seasonal grazing? Timber, firewood, plants & animals Shelter, burial, ritual Monuments, caves, swallets ORS artefacts On and off the plateau

Rivers & Springs Shelter Light, well-drained soils Clays Woodlands Pasture Locus for monuments Wild animals Pasture Woodlands Caves Ritual Stone Visibility

Table 21: Landscape Resources of Northern Somerset

There is also a need for detailed studies of the flint scatters from the region. Most of the scatters languish in the basements of museums, some not even cleaned. Spatial analysis, at both the individual site and regional level, could indicate favoured locales and, possibly, differentiate between activities. An investigation of the many large scatters found along the southern scarp of Mendip would be of benefit, as there is a possibility that these may be related to access routes between the Levels and the uplands. Targeted fieldwalking off the Mendip plateau would also test whether Mendip really was a focus for activities in the Neolithic and Bronze Age.

Recommendations for Future Research Interpretations of the Neolithic of northern Somerset would benefit enormously from some good dating evidence, as only a handful of radiocarbon dates exist for the region. Those dates that do exist are almost exclusively Later Neolithic (Gorsey Bigbury, Charterhouse Warren Farm Swallet) and thus our understanding of Early Neolithic chronology is poor. The only ‘modern’ excavation of a long barrow was the rescue excavation by Vatcher & Vatcher at Fromefield (1973) and the mound was so degraded little information could be retrieved. Several long barrows are being ploughed into oblivion (Brays Down, Big Tree) and targeted excavation could retrieve material before they disappear totally. It has already been suggested that datable material from Stanton Drew and the Priddy Circles could help us to address issues of contemporaneity and, in turn, have an impact on understanding the relationship between the two sites. The Stanton Drew environs could also be subject to an intensive study (fieldwalking, aerial photographic analysis, shovel-pit testing, etc) to explore whether the monument complex really exists in an ‘empty’ landscape. The fieldwalking carried out as part of this research suggests that this might not be the case, but more evidence is crucial.

Finally, the excavated evidence from Charterhouse Warren Farm Swallet and Brimble Pit Swallet indicates that well-preserved archaeological deposits might exist in many more swallets. The use of swallets for deposition is a newly identified form of ritual activity and archaeological excavation could retrieve valuable data and advance our understanding of this peculiar practice. The largest Grooved Ware assemblage yet found in Somerset was found within Brimble Pit Swallet, illustrating the advantageous preservation conditions of these features. The excavation of swallets within the Priddy Circles could also test the possible relationship between the two, suggested here.

157

158

BIBLIOGRAPHY Adkins, L & Adkins, E 1952. 'Ringham Low: The Rediscovery of a Derbyshire Chambered Tomb' Antiquity 26, pp.41-43. Adkins, A & Adkins, R 1985. 'Neolithic Axes From Roman Sites in Britain' in The Oxford Journal of Archaeology 4(1), pp.69-75. Anon 1893. 'List of Excursions and Walks' in Proceedings of the Bath Natural History and Antiquarian Field Club VII(i), pp.96-99. Annabal, R 1987. The Later Prehistory of North England (part i), BAR British Series 160 (i) Oxford: BAR Publishing. ApSimon A.M. 1951. 'Gorsey Bigbury The Second Report' in Proceedings of the University of Bristol Spelaeological Society 6, pp.186-199. ApSimon, A.M. 1997. 'Bos Swallet, Burrington, Somerset; Boiling Site and Beaker Occupation Site' in Proceedings of the University of Bristol Spelaeological Society 21(1), pp.43-82. ApSimon, A.M, Musgrave, J.H, Sheldon J, Tratman E.K. & van Wijngaarden 1976. 'Gorsey Bigbury, Cheddar, Somerset: radiocarbon dating, human and animal bones, charcoals, archaeological reassessment' in Proceedings of the University of Bristol Spelaeological Society 14(2), pp.155-183. Ashbee, P 1970. The Earthen Long Barrow in Britain. J.M Dent and Sons Ltd. Ashbee, P, Bell, M & Proudfoot, E 1989. Wilsford Shaft :Excavations 1960-2. HBCME. Ashwin, T 1996. 'Neolithic and Bronze Age Norfolk' in Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 62, pp.41-62. Aston, M 1985. Interpreting the Landscape. Batsford. Aston, M 1997. ‘The Shapwick Project’ in Current Archaeology XIII (7) pp.244-254. Aston, M & Rowley, T 1974. Landscape Archaeology. Davis & Charles. Aston, M 1978. 'Somerset Archaeology 1977' in Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeology and Natural History Society Volume 122, p.118. Aston, M & Burrow, I (eds) 1982. The Archaeology of Somerset. Somerset County Council. Aston, M & Isles, R (eds) 1987. The Archaeology of Avon. Avon County Council. Aston, M & Rowley, T 1974. Landscape Archaeology. David & Charles Ltd. Atkinson, R 1951. ‘The Henge Monuments of Great Britain’ in Atkinson, R, Piggot, S & Sandars, N Excavations at Dorchester, Oxon, pp.81-107. Atkinson, R 1968. 'Old Mortality: Some Aspects of Burial and Population in Neolithic Britain' in Coles, J & Simpson D (eds), Studies in Ancient Europe, Leicester University Press, pp.83-94. Atthill, R 1964. Old Mendip. David and Charles. Atthill, R 1967. The Somerset and Dorset Railway. David and Charles (Publishers) Limited. Atthill, R 1976. Mendip, a New Study. David and Charles. Avery, B 1990. Soils of the British Isles. CAB International. Baker, A & Harley, J (eds) 1973. Man Made the Land: essays in English historical geography. David and Charles. Baker, L 1922. 'Fieldwork' in Proceedings of the University of Bristol Spelaeological Society 1(3), pp.151-154. Balch, H 1910. 'Report on Finds of Flint Implements etc' in 22nd Annual Report of Wells Natural History and Archaeological Society, pp.37-44. Balch, H 1914. 'Neolithic and Bronze Age Flints: Recent Finds' in 26th Annual Report of Wells Natural History and Archaeological Society, pp.31-34. Balch, H 1920. 'Some Prehistoric Finds from the Mendips' in Proceedings of the University of Bristol Spelaeological Society 1(1), pp.48-50. Balch, H 1926. 'Excavations at Chelms Combe Shelter' in Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeology and Natural History Society 72, pp.97-123. Balch, H 1927. 'Mendip Nature Research Committee Report For 1927' in 39th Annual Report of Wells Natural History and Archaeological Society, pp.26-29. Balch, H 1928(a). 'Excavations in the Mendips' in The Antiquaries Journal VIII, pp.204-210. Balch, H 1928 (b). 'Soldiers Hole, Chedar Gorge' in 40th Annual Report of Wells Natural History and Archaeological Society, pp.36-40. Balch, H 1929. Mendip-The Great Cave of Wookey Hole. Clare, Son & Company. Balch, H 1935. Mendip-Cheddar, its Gorge and Caves. Clare, Son & Company. Balch, H 1937. Mendip-its Swallets, Caves and Rock Shelters. Clare, Son & Company. Balch, H 1947. The Mendip Caves. Clare, Son & Company. Balch, H & Palmer 1927. 'Excavations at Chelm's Combe, Cheddar' in Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeology and Natural History Society LXXII, pp.93-124. Bamford, H 1985. Briar Hill Excavations 1974-1978. Northampton Development Corporation. Barclay, G 1987. ‘Henge Monuments: Reappraisal or Reductionism?’ in Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 53, pp.260-262.

159

Barker, C 1985. 'The Long Mounds of the Avebury Region' in Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine, 79, pp. 7-38. Barker, G (ed) 1981. Prehistoric Communities in Northern England. Department of Prehistory and Archaeology, University of Sheffield. Barker, G 1978. 'Causewayed Camps and Early Neolithic Economies in Central Southern England' in Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 44, pp.161-186. Barker, G 1995. A Mediterranean Valley: Landscape Archaeology and Annales History in the Biferno Valley. Leicester University Press. Barker, K & Darvill, T (eds) 1997. Making English Landscapes: Changing Perspectives. Bournemouth School of Conservation Sciences Occasional Paper 3. Oxbow Monograph 93. Barnes, E 1911. 'Barrows of the Neighbourhood' in 23rd Annual Report of Wells Natural History and Archaeological Society, pp.43-45. Barnes, E 1925. 'Half Day Excursion. July 18th, 1925' in 37th Annual Report of Wells Natural History and Archaeological Society, pp.39. Barnwell, E 1875. 'Orchardleigh Stones' in Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeology and Natural History Society XXI, pp.40-44. Barrett, J.H 1966. ‘Tom Tivey’s Hole Rock Shelter, near Leighton, Somerset’ Proceedings of the University of Bristol Spelaeological Society 11(1), pp.9-24. Barrett, J 1994. Fragments from Antiquity. Basil Blackwell Ltd. Barrett, J & Bradley, R 1991. Papers on the Prehistoric Archaeology of Cranborne Chase. Oxbow Monograph 11. Barrett, J, Bradley, R & Green, M 1991. Landscape, Monuments and Society, The Prehistory of Cranborne Chase. Cambridge University Press. Barrett, J & Kinnes, I (eds) 1988. The Archaeology of Context in the Neolithic and Bronze Age: Recent Trends. University of Sheffield. Barret, JH & Boon, G 1972. 'A Roman Counterfeiters' Den. Part 1, White Womans' Hole near Leighton, Mendip Hills, Somerset' in Proceedings of the University of Bristol Spelaeological Society 13(1), pp.61-69. Barrington, N & Stanton, W 1976. Mendip: The Complete Caves. Dawson & Goodall, Bath. Beddoe, J 1888. ‘The Human Remains from the Stoney Littleton Barrow’ in Proceedings of the Clifton Antiquarian Club I, pp.104-108. Bell, M 1990. Brean Down. Excavations 1983-1987. English Heritage Archaeological Report 15. Bellamy, P 1991. ‘The Excavation of Fordington Farm Round Barrow’ in Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society 113, pp.107-132. Bender, B 1992. 'Theorising Landscapes, and the Prehistoric Landscape of Stonehenge' in Man 27, pp.735-755. Bender, B (ed) 1993. Landscape Politics and Perspectives. Berg Publishers. Bender, B 1993. Landscape and Action, in Bender, B (ed) 1993. Landscape Politics and Perspectives. Berg Publishers, pp 1- 17. Bender, B, Hamilton, S & Tilley, C 1997. Leskernick: Stone Worlds; Alternative Narratives; Nested Landscapes in Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 63, pp. 147 - 178. Bender, B 1998. Stonehenge. Making Space. Berg. Bere, T 1789. ‘A Remarkable Barrow’ Gentleman’s Magazine 59, pp.392-3, 604-6. Bere, T 1792. ‘Remarks on the Fairy Toote’ Gentleman’s Magazine 62, pp.1082-4, 1181-3. Besley, P & Ponsford, M 1982. ‘A Late Roman Belt Buckle and Medieval Building at Stockwood, Bristol. Bristol and Avon Archaeology 1, pp.2-6. Bevan, L & Ellis, P 1995. 'Archaeological Fieldwork at Freeman's Farm, Felton' in Bristol and Avon Archaeology 12, pp.1-4. Bond, J 1987. Review of Coones, P & Patten, J 1986 The Penguin Guide to the Landscape of England and Wales in Landscape Research 12(2), pp. 29-30. Bowden, H & Fowler, P (eds) 1978 Early Land Allotment British Archaeological Reports 48. Bowden M, Ford S, Gaffney, V & Tingle M 1991. 'Skimming the Surface or Scraping the Barrel: a Few Observations on the Nature of Surface and Sub-surface Archaeology' in Schofield, A (ed) Interpreting Artefact Scatters. Oxbow Books. pp.107-113. Bowen, H & Smith, I 1977. 'Sarsen Stone in Wessex' in Antiquaries Journal, 57, pp185-196. Bradley, R 1978. The Prehistoric Settlement of Britain. Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd. Bradley, R 1984a. The Social Foundations of Prehistoric Britain. Longman Group UK Limited. Bradley, R 1984b. 'Studying Monuments' in Bradley, R & Gardiner, J Neolithic Studies, A Review of Some Current Research. Reading Studies in Archaeology, BAR British Series 133, Oxford: BAR Publishing; pp.61-66. Bradley, R 1990. The Passage of Arms. Cambridge University Press. Bradley, R 1991. 'Monuments and Places' in Garwood, P Sacred and Profane. Oxford University Committee for Archaeology Monograph No.32, pp. 135-140. Bradley, R 1993. Altering the Earth, The Origins of Monuments in Britain and Continental Europe (=Society of

160

Antiquaries of Scotland Monograph 8). Society of Antiquaries Scotland. Bradley, R 1998. The Significance of Monuments. Routledge. Bradley, R & Chambers, R 1988. 'A New Study of the Cursus Complex at Dorchester on Thames' in The Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 7(3), pp.271-289. Bradley, R & Cleal, R 1984. 'The Neolithic Sequence in Cranborne Chase' in Bradley, R & Gardiner, J Neolithic Studies, A Review of Some Current Research, Reading Studies in Archaeology, BAR British Series 133, pp. 87-106. Bradley, R & Gardiner, J 1984. Neolithic Studies, A Review of Some Current Research. Reading Studies in Archaeology, BAR British Series 133, Oxford: BAR Publishing. Bradley, R & Holgate, R 1984. 'The Neolithic Sequence in the Upper Thames Valley' in Bradley, R & Gardiner, J Neolithic Studies, A Review of Some Current Research. Reading Studies in Archaeology, BAR British Series 133, Oxford: BAR Publishing; pp.107-134. Briggs, C 1976. 'Notes on the Distribution of some Raw Materials in Later Prehistoric Britain' in Burgess, C & Miket, R (eds) Settlement & Economy in the Third and Second Millenia BC. BAR British Series 33, pp 267-282. Broomhead, R 1990. 'Rodney Stoke' in Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeology and Natural History Society 134, pp.214-216. Brown A & Edmonds, M 1987. Lithic Analysis and Later British Prehistory. BAR British Series 162. Brown, T 1997. 'Clearances and Clearings: Deforestation in Mesolithic/Neolithic Britain' Oxford Journal of Archaeology 16(2), pp.133-146. Bulleid, A 1941. 'Notes on some Chambered Long Barrows of North Somerset', in Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeology and Natural History Society LXXXVII, pp.56-71. Burgess, C & Miket, R (eds) 1976. Settlement & Economy in the Third and Second Millennia BC. BAR British 33. Burgess, C 1976. 'Meldon Bridge: A Neolithic Defended Promontory Complex near Peebles' in Burgess, C & Miket, R (eds). Settlement & Economy in the Third and Second Millenia BC. BAR British Series 33, pp 151-179. Burl, A 1969. 'Henges: Internal Features and Regional Groups' in The Archaeological Journal 126, pp.1-28. Burl, A 1981. Rites of the Gods. London. Burl, A 1988. 'Coves: Structural Enigmas of the Neolithic' in Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine, 82, pp. 1-18. Burl, A 1993. From Carnac to Callanish. Yale University Press. Burl, A 1995. A Guide to the Stone Circles of Britain, Ireland and Brittany. Yale University Press. Burl, A 1999. Great Stone Circles. Yale University Press. Burrow, I, Minnitt, S & Murless, B (eds) 1984. 'Somerset Archaeology 1983' in Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeology and Natural History Society 128, pp.1-13. Burton, J 1980. 'Making Sense of Waste Flakes: New Methods for Investigating the Technology and Economics Behind Chipped Stone Assemblages' in The Journal of Archaeological Science 7, pp.131-148. Carmichael, D, Hubert, J, Reeves, B & Schanche, A 1994. Sacred Sites, Sacred Places. Routledge. Case, H 1969. 'Neolithic Explanations' in Antiquity, 43, pp.176-86. Case, H & Whittle, A (eds) 1982. Settlement Patterns in the Oxford region; excavations at the Abingdon causewayed enclosure and other sites. CBA Research Report 44, Council for British Archaeology and Department of Antiquities, Ashmolean Museum. Catherall, P 1976. 'Henge Monuments: Monument or Myth?' in Burgess, C & Miket, R (eds) Settlement & Economy in the Third and Second Millennia BC, BAR British Series 33, Oxford: BAR Publishing; pp 1-9. Chapman, R 1981. 'The Emergence of Formal Disposal Areas and the 'Problem' of Megalithic Tombs in Prehistoric Europe' in Chapman et al (eds) The Archaeology of Death. Cambridge, pp.71-82. Chapman, R., Kinnes, I. and Randsborg, K. (eds) 1981. The Archaeology of Death. Cambridge. Chapman, J 2000. Fragmentation in Archaeology. Routledge. Childe, V. G. 1925. The Dawn of European Civilisation. London. Childe, V. G. 1929. The Danube in Prehistory. Oxford. Childe, V. G. 1940. Prehistoric Communities of the British Isles. W & R Chambers Ltd. Clare, T 1986. 'Towards a Reappraisal of Henge Monuments' in the Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 52, pp.281-316. Clare, T 1987. 'Towards a Reappraisal of Henge Monuments: Origins, Evolution and Hierarchies' in the Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 53, pp.457-477. Clark, J 1936. ‘The Timber Monument of Arminghall and its Affinities’ in Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 2, pp.1-51. Clark J 1960. 'Excavations at the Neolithic Site at Hurst Fen, Mildenhall, Suffolk' in Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 26, pp.214-245. Clarke, M & Richards, C 1972. 'Sandford Hill' in Council for British Archaeology Groups XII and XIII Archaeology Review for 1972, Number 7, p.16. Cleal, R, Walker, K & Montague, R 1995. Stonehenge in its Landscape. English Heritage Archaeological Report Number 10.

161

Cleal, R & McSween, A 1999. Grooved Ware in Britain and Ireland. Neolithic Studies Group Seminar Papers 3. Oxbow Books. Clifford, E & Daniel, G 1940. 'The Rodmarton and Avening Portholes' in Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 6, pp.149-165. Clifford, E 1950 'The Cotswolds Megalithic Cultures: the Grave Goods and their Background' in Fox, C & Dickens, B (eds) The Early Cultures of North-West Europe: H M Chadwick Memorial Studies, pp.23-40, Cambridge. Clough, T & Cumminns, W (eds) 1979. Stone Axe Studies. CBA Research Report No. 23. Clough, T & Cumminns, W (eds) 1988. Stone Axe Studies Volume 2. CBA Research Report No. 67. Collinson, J 1791. The History and Antiquities of Somerset Volume ii. Bristol. Colt-Hoare, R 1821. 'An Account of a Stone Barrow, in the Parish of Wellow, at Stoney Littleton in the County of Somerset, which was opened and investigated in the month of May 1816', in Archaeologica, XIX, pp.43-43. Colt- Hoare, R 1826. Modern Wiltshire Volume II. J.Nichols, London. Cosgrove, D 1984. Social Formation and Symbolic Landscape. Croom Helm. Cook, N 1977. 'Bone Hole, Cheddar Gorge' Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeology and Natural History Society 121, p.109. Coones, P 1985. 'One Landscape or Many? A Geographical Perspective' in Landscape History, 7, pp.5 - 12. Coones, P 1992. 'The Unity of Landscape' in Macinnes, L & Wickham-Jones, C All Natural Things: Archaeology and the Green Debate. Oxbow Monograph 21, Oxbow Books, pp.22 - 40. Cooney, G 1994. Sacred and Secular Neolithic Landscapes in Ireland, in Carmichael, D, Hubert, J, Reeves, B & Schanche, A Sacred Sites, Sacred Places. Routledge, pp 32 - 43. Corcoran, J 1969. ‘The Cotswold-Severn Group: Discussion’ in Powell, T, Corcoran, J, Lynch, F & Scott, J Megalithic Enquiries in the West of Britain. Liverpool University Press, pp.73-106. Costen, M 1983. 'Stantonbury and District in the Tenth Century' in Bristol and Avon Archaeology II, pp.25-34. Costen, M 1992. The Origins of Somerset. Manchester University Press. Cox, A 1976. 'An interim report...Bone Hole...from August 1967 to August 1976' in Mendip Caving Group Journal 6, pp.17-30. Coysh, A, Mason, E & Waite,V 1954. The Mendips. Robert Hale Ltd. Crawford, O G S 1925. The Long Barrows of the Cotswolds. Gloucester. Crook, T & Tratman, E. K. 1948. ‘Winsley’ Proceedings of the University of Bristol Spelaeological Society 6(1), pp. 47-48. Cullingford, C 1952. British Caving, an Introduction to Speleology. Routledge & Kegan Paul Limited. Cummins, W 1988. 'Neolithic Axes: Distribution In England and Wales' in Clough, T & Cummins, W (eds) Stone Axe Studies Volume 2, CBA Research Report No. 67, pp.5-13. Cunliffe, B 1993. Wessex to A.D. 1000. Addison Wesley Longman Ltd. Daniel, G 1950. The Prehistoric Chamber Tombs of England and Wales. Cambridge. Darvill, T 1982. The Megalithic Chambered Tombs of the Cotswold-Severn Region. Vorda. Darvill, T 1987(a). Prehistoric Britain. B T Batsford Ltd. Darvill, T 1987(b). Prehistoric Gloucestershire. Allan Sutton. Darvill, T 1996. ‘Neolithic Buildings in England, Wales and the Isle of Man’ in Darvill, T & Thomas, J (eds) 1995. Neolithic Houses in Northwest Europe and Beyond. Neolithic Studies Group Seminar Paper 1, Oxbow Monograph 57, Oxbow Books, pp.77-111. Darvill, T 1997. ‘Neolithic Landscapes: Identity and Definition’ in Topping, P (ed) Neolithic Landscapes. Neolithic Studies Group Seminar Papers 2, Oxbow Monograph 86, pp.1-14. Darvill, T & Thomas, J (eds) 1996. Neolithic Houses in Northwest Europe and Beyond. Neolithic Studies Group Seminar Paper 1, Oxbow Monograph 57, Oxbow Books. David, A, Cole, M, Horsley, T, Linford, N, Linford, P & Martin, L 2004. ‘A Rival to Stonehenge? Geophysical Survey at Stanton Drew, England’ ANTIQUITY 78 (300), pp.341-358. Davis, R, Howard, H & Smith, I 1988. 'The Petrological Identification of Stone Implements From South West England: Sixth Report' in Clough, T & Cumminns, W (eds) Stone Axe Studies Volume 2, CBA Research Report No. 67, pp.14-21. de Laet, S J (ed) 1976. 'Acculturation and Continuity in Atlantic Europe' in Dissertationes Archaeol Gandensa, 16, Bruges. Denell, R 1976. ‘Prehistoric Crop Cultivation in Southern England: A Reconsideration’ in The Antiquaries Journal LVI pp.11-23. Dennison, E 1985. 'Somerset Archaeology 1984-5' in Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeology and Natural History Society 129, pp.4. Dennison, E 1986. 'Somerset Archaeology 1986' in Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeology and Natural History Society 130, pp.145. Dobson, D.P 1931. The Archaeology of Somerset. Methuen & Co. Donovan, D 1949. 'A Revised Account of the Earthworks Between Shipham and Charterhouse-on-Mendip' in

162

Proceedings of the University of Bristol Spelaeological Society, 6(1), pp.76-84. Donovan, D 1950. 'Trial Excavations at Gorsey Bigbury' in Proceedings of the University of Bristol Spelaeological Society, 6(2), p.123. Donovan, D 1977. ‘Stoney Littleton Long Barrow’ in Antiquity LI, pp.236-7. Dymond, C 1877. 'Notes on the Megalithic Remains at Stanton Drew' in Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeology and Natural History Society XXIII, pp.30-37. Dymond, C 1896. The Ancient Remains at Stanton Drew. Bristol. Dymond, D 1961. 'The Henge Monument at Nunwick, Near Ripon 1961 Excavation' in Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 161, pp.98-107. Dymond, D 1966. 'Ritual Monuments at Rudston, East Yorkshire, England' in Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 32, pp.86-95. Edmonds, M 1987. 'Rocks and Risk: Problems with Lithic Procurement Strategies' in Brown, A & Edmonds, M (eds) Lithic Analysis and Later British Prehistory, British Archaeological Reports 162, pp.155-80. Edmonds, M 1999. Ancestral Geographies of the Neolithic. Landscapes, Monuments and Memory. Routledge. Ellis, P 1992. Mendip Hills: An Archaeological Survey of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Survey Funded by English Heritage & Somerset County Council. English Heritage 1995. Geophysical Survey in Archaeological Field Evaluation. Ancient Monuments Laboratory. English Heritage 1997. Stanton Drew, Somerset. Available at http://www.eng-h.gov.uk/archaeometry/Stanton English, P & Mayfield, R (eds) 1972. Man, Space and Environment Concepts in Contemporary Human Geography. Oxford University Press. Ensom, P 1981. 'Surface Finds of Neolithic-Bronze Age from the Stoke St. Michael to Frome Area, Somerset' in Proceedings of the University of Bristol Spelaeological Society 16(1) pp.68-9. Evans, C, Pollard, J & Knight, M 1999. 'Life in Woods: Tree Throws, 'Settlement' and Forest Cognition The Oxford Journal of Archaeology 18(3) pp.241-254. Evans, J 1984. 'Stonehenge- The Environment in the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age and A Beaker Age Burial' in The Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine 78, pp.7-30. Everton, A 1969. 'Cheddar' in Council for British Archaeology Groups XII and XIII Archaeology Review for 1969, Number 4, p.24. Everton, A & R 1971. 'Priddy' in Council for British Archaeology Groups XII and XIII Archaeology Review for 1971, Number 6, p.16. Everton, A & R 1972. 'Hay Wood Cave Burials, Mendip, Somerset' in Proceedings of the University of Bristol Spelaeological Society, 13(1), pp.5-29. Everton, A & R 1977. ‘Bos primigenius from Charterhouse Warren Farm Swallet, Blagdon. Comment on the radiocarbon date and archaeology’ in Proceedings of the University of Bristol Spelaeological Society 14 (3), pp. 259260. Everton, R 1974. ‘The bones from Charterhouse Warren Farm dig’ in Wessex Cave Club Journal 13 (153), pp. 61-64. Everton, R 1975. ‘A Bos primigenius from Charterhouse Warren Farm, Blagdon, Mendip’ in Proceedings of the University of Bristol Spelaeological Society 14(1), pp. 75-82. Fieller, N.R.J., Gilbertson, D.D. and Ralph, N. (eds.) 1985. Palaeoenvironmental Investigations: Research Design, Methods and Data Analysis. BAR International Series 258, Oxford: BAR Publishing. Findlay, D.C. 1965. The Soils of the Mendip District of Somerset. Harpenden. Findlay, D.C., Colborne, G.J.N., Cope, D.W., Harrod, T.R., DV Hogan, D.V., and Staines, S.V. 1984. Soils and their Use in South West Britain. Harpenden. Fleming, A 1972. 'Vision and Design: approaches to ceremonial monument typology' in Man, 7(1), pp. 57-73. Fleming, A 1973. 'Tombs for the Living' in Man, 8(2), pp.177-93. Fleming, A 1983. ‘Knowlton’ The Archaeological Journal 140, pp.31-33. Ford, S 1987. 'Chronological and Functional Aspects of Flint Assemblages' in Brown, A & Edmonds, M (eds) Lithic Analysis and Later British Prehistory, BAR British Series 162, Oxford: BAR Publishing; pp.67-83. Forde-Johnston, J 1976. Prehistoric Britain and Ireland. J.M Dent & Sons Ltd. Fowler, P (ed) 1972. Archaeology and the Landscape, Essays for L.V Grinsell. John Baker (Publishers) Ltd. Fowler, P 1978. ‘Pre Medieval Fields in the Bristol Region’ in Bowden, H & Fowler, P (eds) Early Land Allotment British Archaeological Reports 48. Fowles, J & Legg, R 1980. Monumenta Brittanica. Part I and II. Dorset Publishing Company. Fox, C 1923. The Archaeology of the Cambridge Region. Cambridge University Press. Fox, C 1925. The Personality of Britain. National Museum of Wales. Fox, C & Dickens, B (eds) 1950. The Early Cultures of North-West Europe (H M Chadwick Memorial Studies). Cambridge. Fulford, M & Nichols, E (eds) 1992. Developing Landscapes of Lowland Britain. The Archaeology of the British Gravels: A Review. Society of Antiquaries of London. Gardiner, J 1984. 'Lithic Distributions and Neolithic Settlement Patterns in Central Southern England' in Bradley, R

163

& Gardiner, J Neolithic Studies, A Review of Some Current Research, Reading Studies in Archaeology, BAR British Series 133, Oxford: BAR Publishing; pp.15-40. Garwood, P (ed) 1991. Sacred and Profane. Oxford University Committee for Archaeology Monograph No.32. Gibson, A 1986. Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Pottery. Shire Archaeology Series. Gibson, A 1994. 'Excavations at the Sarn-y-bryn-caled Cursus Complex, Welshpool, and the Timber Circles of Great Britain and Ireland' in Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 60, pp.143-223. Gibson, A 1998. Stonehenge and Timber Circles. Tempus Publishing Limited. Gilbertson, D & Hawkins, A 1983. ‘A Prehistoric Wooden Stake and the Alluvial Stratigraphy of Kenn Moor, Avon’ in Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeology and Natural History Society, 127, pp. 1-6. Gingell, C 1992. The Marlborough Downs. A Later Bronze Age Landscape and its Origins. Wiltshire Archaeology and Natural History Society in Cooperation with the Trust for Wessex Archaeology. Goudie, A 1987. 'Geography and Archaeology: The Growth of a Relationship' in Wagstaff, J (ed) Landscape and Culture. Basil Blackwell, pp.11-25. Gough, J 1930. The Mines of Mendip. Oxford University Press. Green, H S 1980. The Flint Arrowheads of the British Isles, Parts i & ii. BAR British Series 75, Oxford: BAR Publishing. Green, M 1994. ‘Down Farm’ in Current Archaeology 138, pp.216-225. Green, M 2000. A Landscape Revealed: 10,000 years on a chalkland farm. Tempus. Greenwell, T 1887. British Barrows. Grimes, W 1945. 'Early Man and the Soils of Anglesey' Antiquity XIX pp. 169-174. Grinsell, L 1938. ‘Hampshire Barrows’ in Proceedings of the Hampshire Field Club Archaeological Society 14, 9-40. Grinsell, L 1957(a). 'Long Barrows' in Victoria County History of Wiltshire Volume I Part i. Oxford University Press, pp.137-146. Grinsell, L 1957(b). 'A Decorated Cist Slab from Mendip' in Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 23, pp.231-232. Grinsell, L 1957(c). 'A Polished Edge Flint Knife and a Greenstone Axe from Priddy' in Proceedings of the University of Bristol Spelaeological Society 8(1), pp.44-46. Grinsell, L 1958. The Archaeology of Wessex. Methuen. Grinsell, L 1965. 'Somerset Archaeology 1931-65' in Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeology and Natural History Society 109 pp.47-77. Grinsell, L 1968. Guide Catalogue to the South Western British Prehistoric Collections. City Museum, Bristol. Grinsell, L 1971. 'Somerset Barrows, Part 2' in Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeology and Natural History Society, 115, pp. 44-137. Grinsell, L 1976. The Folklore of Prehistoric Sites in Britain. Newton Abbot. Grinsell, L 1979. Barrows in England and Wales. Shire Publications Ltd. Grinsell, L 1985. 'Carrying Flint Cores to Mendip' in Lithics 5, pp.15-17. Grinsell, L 1989. 'The UBSS and the Scheduling of Mendip Barrows' in Proceedings of the University of Bristol Spelaeological Society 18(3), pp.441-442. Grundy, G 1935. The Saxon Charters and Field Names of Somerset. Somerset Archaeology and Natural History Society, Taunton. Gunstone, A 1964. 'The Date of the Three Shire Stones, Near Batheaston' in Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucester Archaeological Society 82, pp.210-211. Hack, B 1982. 'Priddy Hill' in Proceedings of Somerset Archaeology and Natural History Society 126, pp.17-18. Hack, B 1983. ‘An Engraved Stone, a Beaker Site Above Cheddar Gorge and a Neolithic Site North of Pen Hill’ in Proceedings of Somerset Archaeology and Natural History Society 126, pp.7-13. Hack, B 1984. 'Compton Bishop' in Proceedings of Somerset Archaeology and Natural History Society 128, pp.1-2. Hack, B 1986. 'Field Notes of Local Interest (1) Sixteen Stones Above Cheddar Head' in SEARCH, The Journal of the Banwell Society of Archaeology 21, pp.4-7. Hack, B 1987(a). 'A Neolithic Habitation Site at Priddy Hill, Somerset' in SEARCH, The Journal of the Banwell Society of Archaeology 22, pp.58-62. Hack, B 1987(b). 'Some Stone Working Tools of Prehistoric Type from the Mendip Hills' in SEARCH, The Journal of the Banwell Society of Archaeology 22, pp.26-31. Hall, W 1971. Man and the Mendips. The Mendip Society. Harding, A 1981. 'Excavations in the Prehistoric Ritual Complex near Milfield, Northumberland.' in Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 47, pp.87-135. Harding, A (ed) 1982. Climatic Change in Later Prehistory. Edinburgh University Press. Harding, A & Lee, G 1987. Henge Monuments and Related Sites of Great Britain. BAR British Series 175. Harding, J 1997. 'Interpreting the Neolithic: The Monuments of North Yorkshire' in Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 16(3), pp. 279-295. Harding, J 1991. 'Using the Unique as the Typical: Monuments and the Ritual Landscape' in Garwood, P (ed) Sacred and Profane. Oxford University Committee for Archaeology, Monograph Number 32, pp.141-151. Haselgrove, C, Millet, M & Smith, I (eds) 1985. Archaeology From The Ploughsoil. Department of Prehistory and

164

Archaeology, University of Sheffield. Hawke-Smith, C 1981. 'Land Use, Burial Practise and Territories in the Peak District' in Barker, G Prehistoric Communities in Northern England. Department of Prehistory and Archaeology, University of Sheffield, pp.57-72. Hayes, R 1987. ‘Archaeological Finds in the Ryedale Windypits’ in Studies in Speleology VII, pp.31-74. Hayman, R 1997. Riddles in Stone. Hambledon Press. Hedges, J & Buckley, D 1978. 'Excavations at a Neolithic Causewayed Enclosure, Orsett, Essex, 1975' in Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 44, pp.219-308. Helbaek, H 1955. ‘Early Crops in southern England’ in Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 18 pp.194-233. Hickling, M & Seaby, W 1951. 'Finds From Cockles Wood Cave, Nettlebridge, Somerset' in Proceedings of Somerset Archaeology and Natural History Society XCVI, pp.193-202. Higbee, L 2001. “Faunal Remains” in Hollinrake, C and Hollinrake, N 2001a. An Archaeological Excavation of Neolithic Ritual Pits in the Northern Extension of Abbey Quarry, Doulting. Unpublished client report for Ham and Doulting Stone Company Ltd. Hingley, R 1996. 'Ancestors and Identity in the Later Prehistory of Atlantic Scotland: the reuse and reinvention of Neolithic monuments and material culture' in World Archaeology 28(2), pp.231-243. Hodder, I 1987. ‘Converging Traditions: The Search for Symbolic Meanings in Archaeology and Geography’ in Wagstaff, J (ed) Landscape and Culture. Basil Blackwell, pp.134-145. Hodder, I 1990. The Domestication of Europe. Basil Blackwell Ltd. Holgate, R 1984. 'Settlement and Monumentality in Neolithic Wessex' in The Oxford Journal of Archaeology 3(2), pp.235-238. Holgate, R 1985. 'Identifying Neolithic Settlements in Britain: the Role of Field Survey in the Interpretation of Lithic Scatters' in Haselgrove, C, Millet, M & Smith, I (eds) Archaeology From The Ploughsoil. Department of Prehistory and Archaeology, University of Sheffield, pp51-58. Holgate, R 1988. Neolithic Settlement of the Thames Basin. British Archaeological Reports 194. Hollinrake, C and Hollinrake, N 2001a. Doulting Abbey Quarry. Somerset Archaeology 2001. Proceedings of Somerset Archaeology and Natural History Society. 145, p.137. Hollinrake, C and Hollinrake, N 2001b. An Archaeological Excavation of Neolithic Ritual Pits in the Northern Extension of Abbey Quarry, Doulting. Unpublished client report for Ham and Doulting Stone Company Ltd. Hollinrake, C and Hollinrake, N 2002. Doulting Abbey Quarry. Somerset Archaeology 2002. Proceedings of Somerset Archaeology and Natural History Society. 146, p.138. Houlder, C 1968. ‘The Henge Monuments at Llandegai’ in Antiquity 42, pp.216-221. Hunt, J 1954. 'Ancient Banwell' in The Journal of Axebridge Caving Group and Archaeology Society 2(2), pp.25-30. Hylton, Lord 1910. History of Kilmersdon. The Wessex Press, pp.176-82. Ingold, T 1993. 'The Temporality of Landscape' in World Archaeology 25 (2), pp.152-174. Jebb, P 1977. ‘Stratton on the Fosse’ in Proceedings of Somerset Archaeology and Natural History Society 121, pp.110. Jebb, P 1984. 'Hemington' in Proceedings of Somerset Archaeology and Natural History Society 128, pp.3-4. Jensen, H 1994. Flint Tools and Plant Working Hidden Traces of Stone Age Technology. Aarhus University Press. Johnson, N & Rose, P 1994. Bodmin Moor, An Archaeological Survey, Volume 1. Cornwall Archaeological Unit, HBMCE & RCHME. Johnson, P 1967. The History of Mendip Caving. David and Charles. Jones, A 1997. ‘On the Earth Colours of Neolithic Death’ British Archaeology 22, p.6. Jones, M 1980. 'Carbonised Cereals from Grooved Ware Contexts' in Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 46, pp.61-63. Jones, M & Bond, D 1980. 'Later Bronze Age Settlement at Mucking, Essex' in Barrett, J & Bradley, R (eds) Settlement and Society in the British Later Bronze Age, BAR BS 83, pp 471-482. Jones, S 1935. 'Note on Excavations at Gorsey Bigbury, Charterhouse-on-Mendip' in Proceedings of the University of Bristol Spelaeological Society 4(3), pp.174-178. Jones, S 1938. 'The Excavation of Gorsey Bigbury' in Proceedings of the University of Bristol Spelaeological Society 5(1), pp.3-55. Kinnes, I 1976. 'Monumental Function in British Neolithic Burial Practices' in World Archaeology 7(1), pp.16-29. Kinnes, I 1992. Non-Megalithic Long Barrows and Allied Structures in the British Neolithic. British Museum Occasional Paper No 52. Kinnes, I 1998. ‘From Ritual to Romance: a new Western’ in Gibson, A & Simpson, D Prehistoric Ritual and Religion Alan Sutton, pp.183-189. Kinnes, I, Gibson, A, Ambers, J, Bowman, S, Leese, M, Boast, R 1991. Radiocarbon dating and the British Beakers: the BM programme. Scottish Archaeological Review 8, 35-68. Knight, F 1902. The Sea-Board of Mendip. Dent & Co. Knight, F 1915. The Heart of Mendip. Chatford House Press.

165

Lambrick, G 1988. The Rollright Stones. Megaliths, Monuments and Settlement in the Prehistoric Landscape. English Heritage Archaeological Report Number 6. Legg, R 1986. Stonehenge Antiquaries. Dorset Publishing Company. Legg, R 1998. Stanton Drew: Great Western Temple. Wincanton Press. Lelong, O & Pollard, T 1998. ‘The Excavation and Survey of Prehistoric Enclosures at Blackhouse Burn, Lanarkshire’ in Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 128, pp.13-53. Levitan, B Audsley, A, Hawkes, C, Moody, A, Moody, P, Smart, P & Thomas, J 1988. 'Charterhouse Warren Farm Swallet, Mendip, Somerset' in Proceedings of the University of Bristol Spelaeological Society 18 (2), pp.171-239. Levitan, B & Smart, P 1989. ‘Charterhouse Warren Farm Swallet, Mendip, Somerset. Radiocarbon Dating Evidence’ in Proceedings of the University of Bristol Spelaeological Society 18(3), pp. 390-394. Lewis, J 1996a. A Study of the Pen Hill Linear Earthwork. Unpublished MA project, University of Bristol. Lewis, J 1996b. A Study of the Ashen Hill, Beacon Batch and Priddy Nine Barrow Cemeteries, Somerset. Unpublished MA Dissertation, University of Bristol. Lewis, J 1998. ‘The Everton Flint Collection in Wells Museum’ in Proceedings of the University of Bristol Spelaeological Society 21(2), pp. 141-148. Lewis, J 2000. Upwards at 45 degrees: the use of vertical caves during the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age on Mendip, Somerset. Capra 2 available at – http://www.shef.ac.uk/~capra/2/upwards.html. Lewis, J 2001. “The Finds” and “Grooved Ware – a discussion” in Hollinrake, C and Hollinrake, N 2001a. An Archaeological Excavation of Neolithic Ritual Pits in the Northern Extension of Abbey Quarry, Doulting. Unpublished client report for Ham and Doulting Stone Company Ltd. Lewis, J 2002. Stanton Drew Circles & Stones Past and Present. Folder Guide No.4, Bristol and Avon Archaeological Society. Lewis, J 2002. ‘Reinterpreting the Priddy Long Barrow, Mendip Hills, Somerset’ in Proceedings of the University of Bristol Spelaeological Society, 22 (3), 269-288. Lewis, J 2003. ‘Results of Geophysical Surveys at Two Barrow Sites in Cheddar and Priddy Parishes, Mendip’ in Proceedings of the University of Bristol Spelaeological Society, 23 (1), 9-15. Lewis, J and Mullin, D 2000. The Middle Down Drove Project: Fieldwalking, Test Pitting and Excavation in the Mendip Hills, Somerset 1997-99. Proceedings of the University of Bristol Spelaeological Society, 22 (2), 203-223. Lewis, J, Stanton, W & Lord, T in preparation. ‘Brimble Pit Swallet, Westbury, Mendip: a focus for Later Neolithic deposition’. Lloyd-Morgan 1887. ‘The Stones of Stanton Drew: Their Source and Origin’ in Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeological Society 33, pp.37-50. Lloyd-Morgan, C 1896. 'The Waterstone Dolmen' in Proceedings of the Clifton Antiquarian Club 3, pp.192-194. Long, W 1858. The Druidical Temple at Stanton Drew. Archeological Journal 15, pp.199-215. Lynch, F 1997. Megalithic Tombs and Longbarrows in Britain. Shire Archaeology Series. Lynch, F 1988. ‘Colour in Prehistoric Architecture’ in Gibson, A (ed) Prehistoric Ritual and Religion Alan Sutton, pp.62-67. McGarvie 1983. 'John Strachey and the Antiquities of Wessex' in the Transactions of the Ancient Monuments Society 27, pp.107-114. Mc Innes, I 1964. 'A Class II Henge Monument In The East Riding Of Yorkshire' in Antiquity 38, pp.218-219. McKinley, J 2003. “The Human Bone” in ‘ Stoney Littleton Long Barrow: Archaeological Investigations and Observations 1999/2000’ Proceedings of Somerset Archaeology and Natural History Society. 146, pp. 11 – 16. Mac Innes, C.M & Whittared, W.F (eds) 1955. Bristol and its Adjoining Counties. British Association for the Advancement of Science, J.W Arrowsmith, Bristol. Macklin, M., Bradley, M, and Hunt, S. 1985. ‘Early Mining in Britain: the stratigraphic implications of heavy metals in alluvial sediments’ in Fieller, N et al (eds) Palaeoenvironmental Investigations: Research Design, Methods and Data Analysis, BAR International Series 258, Oxford: BAR Publishing; pp. 45-53. Macinnes, L & Wickham-Jones, C 1992. All Natural Things: Archaeology and the Green Debate. Oxbow Monograph 21, Oxbow Books. Maggs, R 1993. 'Halcombe Wood' in Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeology and Natural History Society 137, pp.167. Malcolm, L 1922. ‘Note on a Needle Grinder from Priddy Hill’ in Proceedings of the University of Bristol Spelaeological Society 1(3), pp.155. Malone, C 1990. The Prehistoric Monuments of Avebury. English Heritage. Manby, T (ed) 1988. Archaeology in Eastern Yorkshire, Essays in Honour of T.C.M. Brewster. Department of Archaeology and Prehistory, University of Sheffield. Marshall, A 1985. 'Neolithic and Earlier Bronze Age Settlement in the Northern Cotswolds: a preliminary outline based on the distribution of surface scatters and funerary areas' in Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society Transactions 103, pp.23-55. Massingham, H 1926. Downland Man. Batsford.

166

Master, G 1900. Collections for a Parochial History of Wraxall. Meaden, T 1995. ‘Womb, Tomb and Temple’ in Third Stone 21, pp.5-6. Meany, A 1964. Gazetteer of Early Anglo-Saxon Burial Sites. Allen and Unwin Ltd. Mercer, R 1990. Causewayed Enclosures. Shire Publications Ltd. Miket, R 1976. 'Evidence for Neolithic Activity in the Millfield Basin, Northumberland' in Burgess, C & Miket, R (eds) Settlement & Economy in the Third and Second Millennia BC, BAR 33, pp 113-142. Mitchell, J 1954. Historical Geography. The English Universities Press Ltd. Montgomery, J, Budd, P and Evans, J 2000. ‘Reconstructing the lifetime movements of ancient people: a neolithic case study from southern England’ in European Journal of Archaeology 3 (3), pp.370-385. Mowl, T 1988. John Wood. Redcliffe Press. Muir, R 1981. The Shell Guise to Reading the Landscape. Michael Joseph. Mullin, D 1998. A Polished Stone Axehead from Brimble Pit Swallet, Westbury, Somerset. Unpublished undergraduate project, University of Bristol. Murray, P 1980. 'Discard Location: the Ethnographic Evidence' in American Antiquity 45, pp.490-502. Musgrave, W 1719. Antiquitates Britanno-Belgicae: I, Belgium Britannicum. Neale, F 1969. Wrington Village Records. University of Bristol. Nichols, J 1873. Pleasant Walks Out of Bristol. Page, W (ed) 1906. The Victoria History of the Counties of England-Somerset, Volume II. A. Constable Ltd. Parker Pearson, M 1993. Bronze Age Britain. B T Batsford. Patrick, V 1998. ‘A Comparison of Four Long Barrows on the Mendip Hills’, unpublished undergraduate dissertation for the University of Bristol. Phillips, E & Taylor, H 1972. ‘The Priddy Long Barrow’ in Proceedings of the University of Bristol Spelaeological Society 13(1), pp.31-36. Phelps, W 1836. History of Somerset. Book III. Phythian-Adams, C (ed) 1993. Societies, Cultures and Kinship 1580-1859. Leicester University Press. Piggott, S 1936. 'A Pottery Spoon From the Mendips' in Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 2, p.143. Piggott, S 1954. The Neolithic Cultures of the British Isles. Cambridge. Piggott, S 1962. The West Kennett Long Barrow, Excavations 1955-56. HMSO. Pitts, M 1978a. 'Towards An Understanding of Flint Industries in Post Glacial England' in The Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology 15, pp.179-197. Pitts, M 1978b. 'On the Shape of Waste Flakes as an Index of Technological Change in Lithic Industries' in The Journal of Archaeological Science 5, pp.17-37. Pitts, M 1996. 'The Stone Axe in Neolithic Britain' in Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 61, pp.311-371. Pitts, M 2000. Hengeworld. Century. Pollard, J 1992. ‘The Sanctuary, Overton Hill, Wiltshire’ in Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 58, pp.213-226. Pollard, J 1999. 'These Places Have Their Moments: Thoughts on Settlement Practices in the British Neolithic' in Bruck, J & Goodman, M Making Places in the Prehistoric World, University College London Press, pp. 77-93. Pollard, J 2001. “The aesthetics of depositional practice” in World Archaeology, Vol 33 (2): 315 – 333. Pooley, C 1863. 'Notes and Queries' in The Geologist 6, p.331. Powell, T, Corcoran, J, Lynch, F & Scott, J 1969. Megalithic Enquiries in the West of Britain. Liverpool University Press. Prescott, J 1977. 'Rudge Hill' in Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeology and Natural History Society 121, pp.108. Quinn, P 1997(a). 'A Supernatural Highway' in 3rd Stone 23, pp.12-13. Quinn, P 1997(b). 'The Forgotten Stones of West Mendip' in 3rd Stone 25, pp.13-15. Quinnell, N 1970. 'Two New Class I Henges in South Wiltshire' in Wiltshire Archaeological Magazine, 65, pp.190191. Rahtz, P & Greenfield, E 1977. Excavations at Chew Valley Lake Somerset. Department of the Environment Archaeological Reports no. 8, HMSO. Rahtz, P & Watts, L 1989. 'Pagans Hill Revisited' in Archaeological Journal, 146, pp. 330-371. RCHME 1970. An Inventory of the Historical Monuments in the County of Dorset, Volume Two, South-East. HMSO. RCHME 1979. Stonehenge and its Environs. Edinburgh University Press. RCHME 1994. Bodmin Moor, An archaeological survey, Volume 1: the human landscape to c.1800. Cornwall Archaeological Unit, HBMCE & RCHME. RCHMW 1976. An Inventory of the Ancient Monuments in Glamorgan, Volume I, Pre-Norman. HMSO, Cardiff. Renfrew, C 1973. 'Monuments, Mobilisation and Social Organisation in Neolithic Wessex' in Renfrew, C (ed) The Explanation of Culture Change: Models in Prehistory. University of Southampton, pp.539-558. Renfrew, C (ed) 1973. The Explanation of Culture Change: Models in Prehistory. University of Southampton. Renfrew, C 1976. 'Megaliths, Territories and Populations' in Acculturation and Continuity in Atlantic Europe, de Laet, S J (ed) Dissertationes Archaeol Gandensa, 16, pp.198-220, Bruges. Richards, C 1988. 'Altered Images: A Re-examination of Neolithic Mortuary Practices in Orkney' in Barrett, J &

167

Kinnes I (eds), The Archaeology of Context, Sheffield, pp.42-56. Richards, C 1996(a). 'Monuments as Landscape: creating the centre of the world in late Neolithic Orkney' in World Archaeology 28 (2), pp.190-208. Richards, C 1996(b). 'Henges and Water' in The Journal of Material Culture 1(3), pp.313-336. Richards, J 1984. 'The Development of the Neolithic Landscape in the Environs of Stonehenge' in Bradley, R & Gardiner, J Neolithic Studies, A Review of Some Current Research. Reading Studies in Archaeology, BAR British Series 133, Oxford: BAR Publishing; pp. 177-188. Richards, J 1991. Stonehenge. Batsford. Richards, M & Hedges, R 1999. ‘A Neolithic Revolution? New evidence of diet in the British Neolithic’ in Antiquity 73, pp.891-897 Rippon, S 1997. The Severn Estuary Landscape Evolution and Wetland Reclaimation. Leicester University Press. Roberts, B 1987. 'Landscape Archaeology' in Wagstaff, J (ed) Landscape and Culture. Basil Blackwell, pp.77 - 95. Rodwell, W 2001. Wells Cathedral Excavations and Structural Studies, 1978-93. English Heritage Archaeological Report 21. Roese, H 1982. 'Some Aspects of Topographical Locations of Neolithic and Bronze Age Monuments in Wales' in The Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies XXIX, pp.763-775. Russell, M & Williams, D 1998. 'Petrological Examination and Comparison of Beaker Pottery from Bos Swallet and Gorsey Bigbury' in Proceedings of the University of Bristol Spelaeological Society 21(2), pp.133-140. Russett, V 1988. 'Flints from Piney Sleight; New Road, Rodney Stoke; Brimble Pit' in Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeology and Natural History Society 131, pp.210-211. Russett, V 1989. 'Priddy' in Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeology and Natural History Society 132, pp.215. St George Gray, H 1909. ‘Excavations at the “Amphitheatre”, Charterhouse on Mendip 1909’ in Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeology and Natural History Society 55(2), pp.118-137. St George Gray, H 1921. 'Excavations at Murtry Hill, Orchardleigh Park, 1920' in Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeology and Natural History Society LXVII, pp.39-55. St George Gray, H 1929. 'Excavations at Murtry Hill, Orchardleigh Park, Part II' in Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeology and Natural History Society, LXXV, pp.57-60. St George Gray, H 1930. Excavations at Kingsdown Camp, Mells, Somerset, 1927-9. Journal of Antiquaries, London. St Joseph, J 1964. 'Air Reconnaissance: Recent Results' in Antiquity 38, pp.217-218. Saville, A 1981. Grimes Graves, Norfolk: excavations 1971-72, Volume II: the flint assemblage. DoE Archaeological Report Number 11, London. Saville, A 1990. Hazelton North, Gloucestershire, 1979-82. English Heritage Archaeological Report No.13, HBMCE, London. Saville, A 1982. 'Carrying Cores to Gloucestershire: Some Thoughts on Lithic Resource Exploitation' in Lithics 3, pp.25-28. Scarth, H 1858. 'Remarks on Ancient Chambered Tumuli' in Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeology and Natural History Society 8, pp.35-62. Scarth, H 1867. ‘On the Megalithic Remains at Stanton Drew’ in Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeology and Natural History Society 14, pp.161-172. Schiffer, M 1987. Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. University of New Mexico Press. Schofield, A (ed) 1991(a). Interpreting Artefact Scatters. Oxbow Books. Schofield, A 1991(b). 'Artefact Distributions as Activity Areas: Examples from South East Hampshire' in Schofield, A (ed) Interpreting Artefact Scatters, Oxbow Books, pp.117-128. Schofield, A 1994. "Looking Back With Regret; Looking Forward With Optimism: Making More of Surface Lithic Scatters" in Ashton, N & David, A Studies in Stone, Lithic Studies Occasional Paper no 4, Lithic Studies Society, pp. 90- 98. Shanks, M & Tilley, C 1982. 'Ideology, Symbolic Power and Ritual Communication: A Reinterpretation of Neolithic Mortuary Practices' in Hodder, I (ed) Symbolic and Structural Archaeology, Cambridge pp. 129-54, Smith, A 1885. A Guide to the British and Roman Antiquities of the North Wiltshire Downs. Devizes. Smith, G 1989. 'Evaluation Work at the Druid Stoke Megalithic Monument' in Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society 107, pp.27-37. Smith, I 1965. Windmill Hill and Avebury. Excavations by Alexander Keiller 1925-1939. The Clarendon Press, Oxford. Smith, R 1984. 'The Ecology of Neolithic Farming Systems as Exemplified by the Avebury Region of Wiltshire' in Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 50, pp.99-120. Spratt, D 1981. 'Prehistoric boundaries on the North Yorkshire Moors' in Barker, G Prehistoric Communities in Northern England. Department of Prehistory and Archaeology, University of Sheffield, pp.87-104. Stanton, W 1986. 'Natural Sinkholes Affecting the Priddy Circles, Mendip' in Proceedings of the University of Bristol Spelaeological Society 17(3), pp.355-358. Stanton, W 1989. 'Beaker Age Deposits on Mendip at Charterhouse Warren Farm Swallet and Bos Swallet' in

168

Proceedings of the University of Bristol Spelaeological Society 18(3), pp.395-399. Strachey, J 1730. The History of Somerset (unpublished mss). Stukeley, W 1723. The History of the temples and religion of the ancient Celts’ MS4.253, Cardiff Public Library. Sykes, C 1976. 'Alfred Selley: A Mendip Flint Hunter' in Bristol Archaeological Research Group Bulletin 5(8), pp.202-203. Taylor, A 1998. ‘Flooding Can Be a Significant Problem in Some Types of Karst Areas’ Available at: http://www.brit.bris.ac.uk/ade/acadocs/karstflood/ Taylor, H 1921. 'Rowberrow Cavern' in Proceedings of the University of Bristol Spelaeological Society 1(2), pp.8386. Taylor, H 1922. 'Second Report on Rowberrow Cavern' in Proceedings of the University of Bristol Spelaeological Society 1(3), pp.130-134 Taylor, H 1923. 'Third Report on Rowberrow Cavern' in Proceedings of the University of Bristol Spelaeological Society 2(1), pp.40-50. Taylor, H 1924. 'Fourth Report on the Excavation of Rowberrow Cavern' in Proceedings of the University of Bristol Spelaeological Society 2(2), pp.122-124. Taylor, H 1925. 'Percy Sladen Memorial Fund Excavation at Rowberrow Cavern, 1925. Being the Fifth Report on the Cave' in Proceedings of the University of Bristol Spelaeological Society 2(3), pp.190-210. Taylor, J 1972. 'Kilmerson' in Council for British Archaeology Groups XII and XIII Archaeology Review for 1972, Number 7, pp.15. Taylor, J & Smart, R 1983. 'An Investigation of Surface Concentrations: Priddy 1977' in Bristol and Avon Archaeology 2, 1983, pp.2-11. Taylor, J & Tratman, E. K.. K., E 1956. 'The Priddy Circles- Preliminary Report' in Proceedings of the University of Bristol Spelaeological Society 8(1), pp.7-17. Thomas, A 2003. ‘Stoney Littleton Long Barrow: Archaeological Investigations and Observations 1999/2000’ in Proceedings of Somerset Archaeology and Natural History Society. 146, pp. 11 – 16. Thomas, J & Whittle, A 1986. 'Anatomy of a Tomb - West Kennet Revisited' in Oxford Journal of Archaeology 5(2), pp.129-56. Thomas, J 1984. 'A Tale of Two Polities: Kinship, authority and exchange in the Neolithic of South Dorset and North Wiltshire' in Bradley, R & Gardiner, J Neolithic Studies, A Review of Some Current Research. Reading Studies in Archaeology, BAR British Series 133, Oxford: BAR Publishing; pp. 161-176. Thomas, J 1988. 'The Social Significance of Cotswold-Severn Burial Practices' in Man 23, pp.540-559. Thomas, J 1988a. Neolithic explanations revisited: The Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in Britain and south Scandinavia. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 54, 59-66. Thomas, J 1991. Rethinking the Neolithic. Cambridge University Press. Thomas, J 1993. 'The Politics of Vision and the Archaeologies of Landscape' in Bender, B (ed) Landscape Politics and Perspectives. Berg Publishers, pp 19- 48. Thomas, J 1996. Time, Culture and Identity. Routledge. Thomas, J 1999. Understanding the Neolithic. Routledge. Thorpe, I 1984. 'Ritual, Power and Ideology' in Bradley, R & Gardiner, J Neolithic Studies, A Review of Some Current Research' Reading Studies in Archaeology, BAR British Series 133, Oxford: BAR Publishing; pp.41-60. Thurnam, J 1871. 'Ancient British Barrows' in Archaeologica 43(2), pp.285-544. Tilley, C 1993. 'Art, Architecture and Landscape' in Bender, B (ed) Landscape Politics and Perspectives. Berg Publishers, pp 49 – 84. Tilley, C 1994. A Phenomenology of Landscape. Berg. Tilley, C 1996. 'The Powers of Rocks: topography and monument construction on Bodmin Moor' in World Archaeology 28(2), pp.161-176. Tilley, C 1999. Metaphor and Material Culture. Oxford, Blackwell. Timby, J 2003. “Pottery” in ‘Stoney Littleton Long Barrow: Archaeological Investigations and Observations 1999/2000’ Proceedings of Somerset Archaeology and Natural History Society. 146, pp. 11 – 16. Tingle, M 2003. “Flint” in ‘Stoney Littleton Long Barrow: Archaeological Investigations and Observations 1999/2000’ Proceedings of Somerset Archaeology and Natural History Society. 146, pp. 11 – 16. Tongue, R.L 1965. Somerset Folklore. The Folk-Lore Society, London. Topping, P 1997. Neolithic Landscapes. Neolithic Studies Group Seminar Papers 2, Oxbow Monograph 86. Tratman, E. K. 1923. 'Fieldwork' in Proceedings of the University of Bristol Spelaeological Society 2, pp. 276-279. Tratman, E. K. 1925. 'Fieldwork' in Proceedings of the University of Bristol Spelaeological Society 2(3), pp.274-289. Tratman, E. K. 1926. 'Fieldwork' in Proceedings of the University of Bristol Spelaeological Society 3(1), pp.29-40. Tratman, E. K. 1935. 'Fieldwork, 1933' in Proceedings of the University of Bristol Spelaeological Society 4(3), pp.250-260. Tratman, E. K. 1938. 'Fieldwork’ Proceedings of the University of Bristol Spelaeological Society 5(1), pp.80-86. Tratman, E. K. 1948. 'Fieldwork' in Proceedings of the University of Bristol Spelaeological Society 6(1), pp.47-51.

169

Tratman, E. K. 1949. 'Fieldwork' in Proceedings of the University of Bristol Spelaeological Society 6(1), pp.48-51. Tratman, E. K. 1957. 'Flint Implements From Wright's Piece' in Proceedings of the University of Bristol Spelaeological Society 8(1), pp.46-47. Tratman, E. K. 1958(a). 'The Soldiers Grave, Dundry' in Proceedings of the University of Bristol Spelaeological Society 8(2), p.124. Tratman, E. K. 1958(b). 'Another Henge Monument on Mendip' in Proceedings of the University of Bristol Spelaeological Society 8(2), p.124-5. Tratman, E. K. 1958(c). 'The Lost Stone Circles of North Somerset' in Proceedings of the University of Bristol Spelaeological Society 8(2), pp.110-118. Tratman, E. K. 1966(a). 'Gorsey Bigbury, Charterhouse-on-Mendip, Somerset. The Third Report' in Proceedings of the University of Bristol Spelaeological Society 11(1), pp.25-30. Tratman, E. K. 1966(b). ‘Investigations at Stanton Drew Stone Circles, Somerset’ in Proceedings of the University of Bristol Spelaeological Society 11(1), pp.40-42. Tratman, E. K. 1967. 'The Priddy Circles, Mendip, Somerset - Henge Monuments' in Proceedings of the University of Bristol Spelaeological Society 11 (2), pp.97-125. Tratman, E. K. 1968(a). 'A Possible Chambered Tomb, West of Whitnell Farm, Mendip', in Proceedings of the University of Bristol Spelaeological Society 11(3), pp.243. Tratman, E. K. 1968(b). 'The Deer Leap Stones' in Proceedings of the University of Bristol Spelaeological Society 11(3), pp.243-244. Tratman, E. K. 1971(a). 'Chew Stoke' in Council for British Archaeology Groups XII and XIII Archaeology Review for 1971, Number 6, p.16. Tratman, E. K. 1971(b). 'Farrington Gurney' in Council for British Archaeology Groups XII and XIII Archaeology Review for 1971, Number 6, p.16. Tratman, E. K. 1971(c). 'Wrington' in Council for British Archaeology Groups XII and XIII Archaeology Review for 1971, Number 6, p.17. Tratman, E. K. 1971(d). 'St Cuthbert In' in Council for British Archaeology Groups XII and XIII Archaeology Review for 1971, Number 6, p.19. Tratman, E. K. & Henderson 1927. 'First Report on the Excavations at Sun Hole, Cheddar. Levels From Above The Pleistocene' in Proceedings of the University of Bristol Spelaeological Society 3(2), pp.84-97. Tucker, J. Allon 1884. ‘Stanton Drew’ in Proceedings of the Bath Natural History and Antiquarian Field Club 5, pp.257-264. Vatcher, H & Vatcher, F 1973. 'Trial Excavations on the Site of a Megalithic Tomb at Fromefield, Somerset' in Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeology and Natural History Society 117, pp.19-32. Vranch, R 1981. 'Surface Finds of Neolithic-Bronze Age from Mells, Somerset' in Proceedings of the University of Bristol Spelaeological Society 16(1), pp.65-67. Wagstaff, J (ed) 1987. Landscape and Culture. Basil Blackwell. Wagstaff, J 1987. The New Archaeology and Geography, in Wagstaff, J (ed) Landscape and Culture. Basil Blackwell, pp. 26-36. Wainwright G & Longworth, I 1971. Durrington Walls Excavations 1966-1968. Reports of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries No. XXIX, London. Wainwright, G 1989. The Henge Monuments. Thames & Hudson. Wedlake, W 1958. Excavations at Camerton, Somerset. Pitman Press. Wedlake, W 1964. 'Twinhoe, Wellow' in Proceedings of Somerset Archaeology and Natural History Society 108, pp.16-17. Wedlake, W 1966. 'A Resume of Work in the Bath Area' in A North Somerset Miscellany. Bath and Camerton Archaeological Society, pp.7-12. Whittle, A 1992. "The South Dorset Ridgeway Survey and Excavations" review in Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 58, pp.429. Wickham, J 1912. Records By Spade And Terrier. G. Gregory, Bath. Wicks, A 1914. 'Barrows on Mendip' in 26th Annual Report of Wells Natural History and Archaeological Society, pp.41-52. Wicks, A.T 1920. 'Two Prehistoric Mendip Sites' in 32nd Annual Report of Wells Natural History and Archaeological Society, pp.23-30. Wicks, A.T 1921. 'Barrows', in 33rd Annual Report of Wells Natural History and Archaeological Society, pp.31 Wicks, A.T 1923. 'Barrows', in 35th Annual Report of Wells Natural History and Archaeological Society, pp.37 Wicks, A.T 1924. 'Barrows', in 36th Annual Report of Wells Natural History and Archaeological Society, pp.39-40 Wicks, A.T 1926. 'Two Vanished Long Barrows', in Somerset and Dorset Notes and Queries, XVIII, pp.178-179. Wicks, A.T 1928. Unpublished field notes, Wells Museum. Wicks, A.T 1932. 'The First Museum at Wells and Some Barrow Diggings' in 44th Annual Report of Wells Natural History and Archaeological Society, pp.35-41

170

Williams, R 1982. 'Late Neolithic Settlement at Middle Down Drove, Cheddar' in Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeology and Natural History Society 126, pp.66-68 Williams, R 1984. 'Priddy' in Proceedings of Somerset Archaeology and Natural History Society 128, pp.4. Williams, R 1985a. 'Orchardleigh Stones' in Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeology and Natural History Society 125, p.4. Williams, R 1985b. 'Norton Malreward' in Bristol and Avon Archaeology 4, pp.56-8. Williams, R 1987a. ‘John Strachey FRS: A Review of Fieldwork by an Early Antiquary in South Avon’ in Bristol and Avon Archaeology 5, pp.39-44. Williams, R 1987b. ‘John Strachey on Some Mendip Caverns and Antiquities in the Early Eighteenth Century’ in Proceedings of the University of Bristol Spelaeological Society 18(1), pp.57-64. Williamson, T & Loveday, R 1988. ‘Rabbits or Ritual? Artificial warrens and the Neolithic long mound tradition’ in Archaeological Journal 145, pp.290-313. Wood, J 1740. A Description of Bath. Volume I. Wood, J 1978. Sun, Moon and Standing Stones. Merivale Books. Woodward, A 1993. 'The Cult of Relics in Prehistoric Britain' in Carver, M (ed) In Search of Cult, University of York Archaeological Papers, pp.1-8. Yorston, R, Gaffney, V & Reynolds, P 1990. 'Simulation of Artefact Movement Due to Cultivation' in The Journal of Archaeological Science 17, pp.67-83.

171